84 
[No. 2> 
G. H. Raverty —Memoir of the Author 
complete blank in Indian History, which, I fear, cannot be filled up. 
Ziya-ud-Din Barani, in his Tarikh-i-Firuz-Shahi, which is not much to be 
depended on, says he takes up the relation of events from the time our 
author left oft, but this is not correct, for he begins with the reign of 
Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Din Balban. 
Our author died in his reign, but when cannot be discovered, neither 
can the place of his burial. Possibly some inscription may hereafter turn 
up which may tell us, but there is no record available in any of the works 
I have waded through in search of the information. Whether his health 
failed him ; whether he grew out of favour with his old patron, the new 
Sultan; or whether circumstances arose which, as regards the Ulugh 
Khan’s conduct towards the weak-minded, but amiable, Sultan Nasir-ud- 
Din Mahmud Shah, would not bear the light of day—for there are vague 
statements of foul play on the part of the Ulugh Khan, but no proofs— 
who shall say ? Some writers state that the Sultan died a natural death, 
which is most probable, and some further add that he, having neither off¬ 
spring nor heir, nominated his father-in-law, the Ulugh Khan-i-A’zam, his 
successor, which was but natural, seeing that, for nearly twenty years, he 
had virtually ruled the state. That the Ulugh Khan-i-A.’zam poisoned 
him appears unworthy of credence, since, had he desired to supplant him, 
or get rid of him, he might have effected either object many years before. 
See “ Translation,” note 5 , page 716. 
The only mention I can find, after much search, respecting these 
years, between the closing of our author’s History and the accession of the 
new Sultan, is the following from Fasih-i. “ Sultan Nasir-ud-Din Mah¬ 
mud Shah died in this year 662 H., and great anarchy and disorder 
arose throughout the territory of Hindustan. At last, since among the 
great Amirs of Hind, for prudence, counsel, wisdom, munificence, dignity, 
magnificence, and power, the Amir Ghiyas-ud-Din [the Ulugh Khan-i- 
A’zam] was preeminently distinguished, and as he had obtained his free¬ 
dom previously—a matter never alluded to by our author—he, with the 
unanimous accord of the great nobles and grandees of the kingdom, ascen¬ 
ded the throne of Dihli in the beginning of this year, 662 H.” 
The Daghistani, previously referred to, in his Tazkirah under the 
letter s has the following:—“ Saraj-ud-Din-i-Minhaj is the author 
of the Tabakat-i-Nasiri, which he completed in the name of the Malik 
of Hind, Nasir-ud-Din. His birthplace was Labor, and his origin was 
from Samr-kand.” 
This last sentence of the Daghistani’s is sufficient to show that he is 
not entirely to be depended upon, in this instance at least. Our author’s 
family was not from Samr-kand. The Daghistani also gives the following 
as a quatrain of our author’s ;— 
