1875.] H. Bloehmann — History and Geography of Bengal— No. III. 281 



therefore, no reason to change the name of the conqueror of Bengal, as pro- 

 posed hy Major Eaverty. 



A point of some importance is the fact prominently noticed by Major 

 Eaverty that the establishment of Muhammadan rule in Bihar and Bengal 

 has nothing to do with the Muhammadan kingdom established at Dihli. 

 Muhammad Bakhtyar is an independent conqueror, though he acknowledged 

 the suzerainty of Ghaznin, of which he was a subject. The presents 

 which he occasionally sent to Dihli, do not alter the case : a similar 

 interchange took place between the kings of the Dak'hin and the later 

 kings of Dihli. Bihar and Bengal were conquered without help from 

 Qutbuddin, and in all probability without his instigation or knowledge. 

 This view entirely agrees with the way which Minhaj-i-Siraj speaks of the 

 Mu'izzi Sultans and their co-ordinate position. 



Major Eaverty's identification of Muhammad Bakhtyar's jagir lands 

 with the parganahs of Bhagwat and B h o i 1 i, south of Banaras and east 

 of Chanargarh, is very satisfactory. B h o i 1 i, (<^*£?#) I find, is mentioned 

 in the A'in i Akbari, where it is spelt ' Bholi' (cs-^O- -^ belonged to Sirkar 

 Chanar (Chanadh), the cbieftown of which was the well known fort of 

 Chanar. Under Akbar, Bhoili measured 18,975 bighahs 10 biswas, and was 

 assessed at 1,112,656 dams, of which 33,605 dams were sayuryhdl or rent- 

 free land. Eegarding Bhagwat, Elliot says — " This parganah, previous 

 to the conquest effected by the Gautams, was held by Jami'at Khan Gaharwar, 

 whose defence of the fort of Patitah is a favorite theme with the people. 

 The old name of this parganah is H a n o a, which was extinct before the 

 time of Jami'at Khan, when it was known only as Bhagwat."* 



mad-i-Surf, on whose name Major Eaverty has huilt a hypothesis (Journal, A. S. 

 Bengal, for 1875, p. 31) is doubtful for this Izdfat. On p. 573, two brothers 

 are mentioned, Muhammad Sheran and Ahmad Sheran, and Major Eaverty looks 

 upon this as a proof that the Izdfat must be read, " as two brothers would not 

 be so entitled." A glance at a Muhammadan school register would show that " 

 Major Eaverty's opinion is against facts. Supposing a father's name is 'Ali Sheran, 

 he would call his son Muhammad Sheran, Ahmad Sheran, Mahmud Sheran ; or if Bazl 

 i Haq, the sons would be called Fazl i Haq, Lutf i Haq, &c. 



Of course, it is different with the takhallug, or nom-de-plume, of Persian writers. 

 Thus we may say Minhaj-i-Siraj, just as we say Muclihuddin-i-Sa'di. But even in such 

 instances the izdfat is not de rigeur. But " Minhaj-i-Siraj" does not mean in prose 

 ' Minhaj, the son of Siraj', but ' Minhaj, who writes under the name of Siraj'. That the 

 father's name was Siraj has nothing to do with it : many poets chose the name of the 

 father as takhallug. 



How ill-placed some of Major Eaverty's Izdfats are may be seen from the name of 

 the Bengal Sultan Firuz Shah (II) in note 6, on p. 582, where besides Shah-i-Jahan is 

 a wrong reading. Nor has he ever been called a ' Pathan '. 



* Beames, Elliot's Eaces of the N. W. P., II, p. 119. The name of Bhagwat, 

 therefore, occurs already in the Tabaqdt i Ndgiri. Neither Bhagwat nor Hanoa is giv* a 



