332 H. G. Havei^y— Reply to' Histy. and Geogr. of Bengal, No. Ill: [No. 3, 



To this my reply is that the text (page 549), says not one word about 

 " Muhammad Bakhtyar" presenting himself before " the Sultan at Lahor" 

 [" the Sultan" in this instance was a slave, continued a slave during his 

 master's lifetime, and did no.t obtain his freedom and the title of Sultan 

 until 605 H. — only about fifteen years after this time I See page 389 of 

 Translation, and corresponding place in the original] . The words in my 

 Translation are, that " Muhammad-i-Bakht-yar presented himself before 

 the Muster-Master at DihU," and so, the probability is, that Malik Kutb- 

 ud-Din was at Lahor, as I have stated in note 6, page 550, on the authority 

 of another writer, and Muhammad, bin Bakht-yar, straightway went to 

 Husam-ud-Din, Ughul-Bak. 



If looked at in a different light, although the time seems very short, 

 it is not so utterly impossible for Muhammad, bin Bakht-yar, to have waited 

 on Kutb-ud-Din at Labor, or gone to Ughul-Bak, as the case may be, pro- 

 ceeded to Awadh, have been sent to Bhiuli and Bhagwat, have taken Bihar 

 which only required a party of 200 horsemen (in fact, it may be said Mu- 

 hammad, bin Bakht-yar, took it alone) and might have occupied him a 

 couple of weeks, or even say a month from his fiefs, a distance of under 

 200 miles as the crow flies, have gone to Dihli to Kutb-ud-Din in 589 h. 

 or to Mahobah, as the case may be, and have invaded Bengal the following 

 year, for the second year after means the following year — I quote my au- 

 thors as I find them. That in ihe following year after 589 h., he took 

 Niidiah, agrees with the statement of Shiam Parshad, whose work Mr. 

 Blochmann, of course, has referred to ; but he appears not to have noticed 

 the statement of Minhaj-ud-Din at page 556 of my Translation [page 150 

 of the printed text], that when Muhammad, bin Bakht-yar, returned from 

 the presence of Kutb-ud-Din, he suddued Bihar, thus contradicting his 

 previous statement. 



The only thing I can blame myself for in this matter is, that I did not 

 mention in a note, that the printed text, which at one time is so utterly 

 untrustworthy, and then so trustworthy, contained the words " matters 

 went on in this way for one or two years" after the words " and ravaged 

 that territory," at page 551 of my Translation. The reason why I did not 

 do so is, that, in all probability, I did not look at the printed text here, or 

 that it escaped my attention, otherwise I certainly should have done so : 

 I think I have noticed the printed text pretty often, when right as well as 

 when wrong. I had no object not to do so : I had built up no theory or 

 made statements anywhere else that I wished to support. I might also 

 have added that the two MSS. on which that printed text is based, two of 

 the three worst of those collated, contain the same words, and that all the 

 other collated MSS. had no such words. 



