Twilight of the Sultanate c14.s7.18

c14.s7.18

¹⁷³ Most of the MSS. and the text of T.A. have Lakhnauti while one MS. has لکھنو (*T.A.*, *De*, 379, n. 2). Ferishta I, 185, also has Lakhnauti. Ni'āmatulla, *Makhzan*, 64 (a), has Lucknow. I think that Lakhnauti is out of the question since Bengal was not a part of the Sultanate. Lucknow too is doubtful. We, however, know that Lakhnor (which a MS. of T.A. has, if the *Wau* may be a mistake for *Rē* ) is situated near Sambhal. Sambhal was held by Dariyā Khan Lodī when Bahlūl Lodī ascended the throne (T.A., I, 296) and after his death was conferred on his son, Mubārak Khan Lodī. In the list of the barons of Sultan Sikandar, Ahmad Khan and Sa'id Khan are mentioned as sons of Mubārak Khan Lodī (T.A., I, 314). In all probability Ahmad Khan succeeded Mubārak Khān Lodī to his fief, and when Sambhal was bestowed upon Āzam Humayūn, Ahmad Khan became a sort of deputy governor at Lakhnor. Sultan Sikandar was staying at Lakhnor when Bodhan Brahman was sent for trial by Āzam Humayūn from Sambhal. T.A., I, 323; Ferishta, I, 182-83; T.D., 67-68. Therefore, the place of Ahmad Khan was Lakhnor, now Shāhābād in Rampur. Lakhnor, Lakhnau and Lakhnauti are frequently confused in Persian chronicles. (see Mrs. Beveridge's note in B.N. (B), II, Appendix T). Also see note by Prof. Hodivala, 471-72.