1892.] 
119 
H. Beveridge —Rajah Kdns. 
MSS. The old name for Rajmahal is written indifferently Akmahal 
and Agmahal, and in the Qandahar inscription published by M. Dar- 
mesteter in the Journal Asiatique for 1890, page 205, we find that Ghora 
Ghat, Gaur, and Bangalah, were engraved on the rock as Kora Kat, 
Kaur, and Bankalah. M. Darmesteter remarks on this peculiarity in 
a note at page 219. It seems therefore quite possible that the name in 
the MSS. was written Gans, or Ganes. This is very nearly Ganesh, or 
Ganesa. Sometimes the approximation is even closer, for at page 115 of 
the Asiatic Society s edition of the Riyaz, we have, in a foot note, the 
various reading Kons, or Kans, i. e., I submit, Ganes.* Besides, 
it does not seem correct to say that all MSS. give Kans. At least one 
MS. must apparently have given the letter as a g, for Buchanan pre¬ 
sumably got the name Gones from his Pandua manuscript.fi The fact 
that the name Ganesh still lives in the memories of the people of 
Dinajpur is a strong argument in favour of the identification and of 
Ganesh being the real name.fi If the name was Kans, and if Kans 
was a different man from Ganesh, we have the improbability that a 
Hindu chief of great celebrity has been forgotten by men of his own 
country and religion, and remembered only by Muhammadans. Then 
too it seems very unlikely that a Hindu should have borne the name of 
Kans in the beginning of the 15th century. On the other hand Ganesh 
is a very likely name, and we find that Ganesh was a good deal 
worshipped in Dinajpur, for Buchanan § gives an engraving of a re¬ 
markable image of Ganesh, which had been originally at Bannao’ar. I 
submit that the evidence is sufficiently strong to justify us in writing 
the name as Ganesh. 
But, however that may be, it is clear, as I have already observed, 
that the Gones of Buchanan is the same person as the Kans of the 
Riyaz. The two accounts perfectly agree. Buchanan tells us that Gones 
put Shaikh Badar-al-Islam to death for not doing homage to him, and 
the Riyaz, page 111, tells us the same thing. Both tell us that the Rajah 
had a son called Jadu, who afterwards turned Muhammadan, and reigned 
as Jalalluddin, and both tell us of the interposition of Qutb Alam and 
the invasion of Ibrahim of Jaunpur. Indeed it is clear that either 
Buchanan’s manuscript was simply the Riyaz, or some work which the 
author of the Riyaz has made use of. It is interesting to find that the 
Riyaz represents Qutb Alam as applying the title of Hakim to Rajah 
# Stewart, p. 93 spells the name Kanis. This seems nothing but Ganes. In 
the Ain I, 413 and 415, he is called Kansi Bumi. 
fi See Eastern India, II, 616. 
fi I got this fact from Babu Hari Mohan Singh, Manager of the Dinajpur Raj. 
§ Eastern India , II, 625. 
