18G7.] Tlie Initial Coinage of Bengal 33 



Mahinud, the son of the Emperor Balban, who subsequently came 

 to prefer the easy dignity of Viceroy, in the more even climate of the 

 south, in derogation of his birth-right's higher honours, and the 

 attendant dangers of Imperialism at Dehli. One of the most touch- 

 ing chapters of Indian history is contributed by the incidents of this 

 monarch's meeting with his own arrogant son, Muiz-ud-din Kaiku- 

 bad, who had succeeded to the superior dignities abjured by the 

 father.* They then met as nominal Vassal and Suzerain, but little 

 unequal in power, and each occupying independent and preparedly 

 hostile camps, on the ordinary route between their respective capitals. 

 Oriental etiquette, and more reasonable distrust, for a time delayed 

 the interview, in which, at last, nature was destined to re-assert its 

 laws, and to reconcile even conflicting royal interests, by subduing, 

 for the moment, the coarse vices of the son in the presence of the 

 tempered virtues of the father. Repeated amicable conferences, how- 

 ever, merely resulted in each returning on his way, with but little 

 change in the relative political position of either ; and the compara- 

 tively obscure repose of Nasir-ud-din Mahinud remained undisturbed, 

 while other successors filled his son's throne at Dehli. The more 

 immediate question bearing upon the attribution of the earliest coins 

 in the Kooch Bahar treasure, is exactly how long did Nasir-ud-din 

 continue to live and reign. Zia-i-Barni,f and those who follow his 

 ill-digested history, affirm that he retained his provincial kingship 

 till 699 a.h., when he divested himself of all symbols of royalty in 

 the mere dread of the confessedly overwhelming power of Ala-ud- 

 din Muhammad Shah, to be, however, reinstated by that Sultan ; 

 and, finally, it is asserted that Nasir-ud-din was still in existence, 

 and once again reinvested with the full insignia of a king, by Tughlak 

 Shah, in a.h. 724. 



Ibn Batutah, a higher authority in proximity of time, and obvi- 

 ously more intimate with the purely indigenous history, states that 

 Nasir-ud-din, on his ruturn from his interview with his son, reigned 

 some years (^J^) ,$ an expression which is scarcely compatible with 



* Zia-i-Barni, p. 142 ; Ibn Batutah, iii., p. 178; Lee's Translation, p. 117 ; 

 and ui±x~)\&\j3 f Amir Khusru, Dehli vi. 



f Printed edition, p. 451; Budauni MS. ; Ferishtah (Briggs, i. p. 406). 



% French edition, iii., p. 179, and xiii. Dr. Lee's &&**» "two years," p. 118, 

 is an error. 



5 



