1876.] H. G. Baverty— Beply to « Histy. and Geogr. of Bengal, JSTo. Ill: 331 



At page 523 of my Translation [note, para. 2] I have noticed that " it 

 is astonishing that the Musalmans remained quiet for six years" assuming 

 that 599 H. was the correct year in which Kalinjar was taken, which, I add, 

 " was the same year in which Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Din died," but, from the 

 examination of these four MS8. of the Taj-ul-Ma'asir again, I am in doubt 

 whether 597 H. is not the most correct according to that work. Minhaj- 

 ud-Din says the Sultan died in 599 h., but, as I have noticed in note 4, 

 page 383, some authors give 597 h., and some 598 h. as the date of his 

 death. 



Those who suppose that Bengal was " conquered" [the surprise and 

 capture of Nudiah I refer to] in 599 H., do not consider how Muhammad, 

 bin Bakht-yar, could have " reigned," as he is said to have done, " twelve 

 years" seeing that he was assassinated in 602 h. 



I am told that I am mistaken, according to my own authorities, in 

 connexion with the very doubtful date in the Taj-ul-Ma'asir above referred 

 to. Mr. Blochmann says, page 276, Part III. of his " Contributions" : — 



" (1) That Muhammad Bakhtyar appeared before Qutbuddin in Dihli, 

 and was rejected by reason of his humble condition. 



" According to Major Baverty, Dihli was occupied in 589 h. # ; hence 

 Muhammad Bakhtyar must have been rejected in or after 589 H. 



" (2) After his rejection, Muhammad Bakhtyar goes to Badaon, where 

 Hizabr gives him a fixed salary. 



" (3) After some time Muhammad Bakhtyar goes to Audh, where he 

 obtains certain fiefs near the Bihar frontier. He now undertakes plunder- 

 ing expeditions, which continue, according to the printed text, for one or 

 two years. 



In a foot-note is added, " Major Baverty has left this out." 

 " (4) He invades Southern Biharf and takes the town of Bihar. He 

 then goes to Dihli, where he remains for some time at Qutb's court. 



" (5) The second year after his conquest of Bihar, he sets out for Ben- 

 gal, and takes Nadiya. 



" Now how is it possible, with these five chronological particulars, that 

 " Muhammad Bakhtyar could have left Bihar, as Major Baverty says, in 589 

 " H. to invade Lakhnauti, if Qutb occupied Dihli in 589 ?" [A foot-note has, 

 Major Baverty says that Muhammad Bakhtyar presented himself to the 

 Sultan at Lahor, but the text has Dihli (page 549).] " It would, indeed, 

 " be a close computation if we allowed but five years for the above events, 

 "i. e. if we fixed the conquest of Bengal as having taken place in 594 h., 

 "or a. n. 1198." 



* Early in 589 h. 



f It should have been stated above that his fiefs were close to the frontier of 

 South Bihar, as in my translation, 





M 



