<!-- Pramāṇa, a library of Indian primary sources · https://indike.org/pramana/in.darkages.sultanate.tabaqat-i-nasiri~en-raverty.237.12 -->

[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Dark Ages](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darkages) › [Delhi Sultanate (1206–1526)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darkages.sultanate) › [Ṭabaqāt-i Nāṣirī](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darkages.sultanate.tabaqat-i-nasiri) › [Tabakat-i-Nasiri](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darkages.sultanate.tabaqat-i-nasiri~en-raverty) › 237.12

# The Nāṣirī Generations 237.12

Tabakat-i-Nasiri 237.12

- **Language:** English

### [237.12](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darkages.sultanate.tabaqat-i-nasiri~en-raverty.237.12)

Malik Nasir-ud-Din, Mahmud Shah, died, or was killed, for there is some mystery about it, seemingly, some time in the month of Rabi'-us-Sani probably, since the news reached Dihli in the following month, or it may have happened in that same month. How or where he died our author, “the sole authority for this period,” does not say, but he repeatedly styles him “the martyred Malik” \[See note 1, page 630\]. Firishtah’s assertion that he died at Lakhanawati is like a good many of his assertions, without any proof whatever, and his own invention probably. Immediately after the death of Ghiyas-ud-Din, ’Iwaz, it appears, another Khalj chief succeeded in acquiring power, but how, is not clear, and, I fear can never be thoroughly made so. He is styled, by our author, at page 617, Balka Malik-i-Husam-ud-Din, ’Iwaz—that is to say, the son of Husam, &c., the izafat standing for son of \[See Appendix D.\], which is sufficiently proved, I imagine, from the fact that he was not at all likely to have been called by the precise title of his predecessor—Husam-ud-Din, ’Iwaz—as well; at page 626 tans, Nasir-ud-Dunya wa ud-Din, in sovereignty and prosperity! in the List of I-yal-timish's Maliks, Daulat Shah-i-Balka, son \[the izafat understood\] of Husam-ud-Din, 'Iwaz, Malik of Lakhanawati, thus showing beyond a doubt that he had been acknowledged by I-yal-timish as dependent ruler, otherwise why put him in the List of Maliks? \[See Thomas, “Initial Coinage,” page 366\];

- [Previous: 237.11](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darkages.sultanate.tabaqat-i-nasiri~en-raverty.237.11)
- [Next: 237.13](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darkages.sultanate.tabaqat-i-nasiri~en-raverty.237.13)
- [Up: 237](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darkages.sultanate.tabaqat-i-nasiri~en-raverty.237)

---
Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.darkages.sultanate.tabaqat-i-nasiri~en-raverty.237.12](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darkages.sultanate.tabaqat-i-nasiri~en-raverty.237.12) · Pramāṇa
