History of the Qaraunah Turks in India c11.244

c11.244

Reverse. بهمني حسن مكمل mani. The title of Bahman Shah was adopted by him not out of gratefulness to his former benefactor and patron, but to show to the world which might have levelled against him the charge of being an upstart rebel that he could claim a lofty pedigree. The genealogy to which the author of the *Burhān-i-Ma'sir* refers represents an attempt on the part of contemporary writers to find a high lineage for one who had established a kingdom in the teeth of the opposition of the mighty empire of Dihli. The persecutions of Hasan and his relentless wars against the Hindus militate against the theory that he owed his rise to a Brahman. Assuming for the sake of argument Firishta's statement that Hasan employed the Brahman as his minister¹²⁹ in fulfilment of his promise we fail to see why this Brahman minister never exerted himself to stay the hand of oppression which was raised against his co-religionists by one who owed so much to his favour. The author of the *Burhan* dwells at length upon the battles and sieges of 'Ala-al-Din Hasan Bahman Shah, which resulted in the destruction and spoliation of the Hindus. Soon after the preliminary political organisation of his newly founded kingdom, he sent 'Imād-al-Mulk and Mubārak Khan on a plundering expedition as far as the river Tapti, devastating the country of the Hindus and striking off the heads of idol-worshippers whom he found.¹³⁰ It is incredible that a Muhammadan in the 14th century when hatred of the idolators was common should name his dynasty after a Brahman, however deep his gratitude to him for his kindness and patronage. No Musalman will adopt a title in this age which will indicate his obligations to a Brahman, one of that very class whose members were described by a contemporary of his, a bigot and a mediocrity at Dihli a few years later as the "very keys of the chamber of idolatry." Besides, if the name is derived from Brahman why does it not occur in its uncorrupted Sanskritic form. It is extremely strange in view of the fact that Gangu or Kāngu, the Dihli astrologer, whom Firishta has immortalised, was a Sanskrit scholar acquainted with the language. There is nowhere even an accidental slip in the historical works and the coin legends and inscriptions of the Bahmani Kings. The word Bahman for Brahman cannot be a mistake of scribes or calligraphists, for Persian writers of the 14th century in the Deccan were too well-acquainted with the word and the class which it denoted to make such a mistake. In Persian Brahman is always written as برهمن and it is unlikely that through frequency of use Brahmani should have become Bahmani. In an age of calligraphy, when professional experts showed astonishing skill in correct writing, it is difficult to believe that the Deccan calligraphists, who wrote inscriptions, and who had seen the exquisite coins of Muhammad Tughluq, issued from the mint of Devagiri in their own country, should have been so careless as to persist in the erroneous spelling of a very important word which related to the patron of the founder of the dynasty. Hasan never called himself Bahmani, but even if we assume for the sake of argument that Bahman Shah was derived from Brahman, it is strange that Gangū who was employed as minister in the financial department, and who knew the correct form of the word should have allowed its perversion. The conduct of the successors of ‘Ala-al-Din Hasan Bahman Shah, the ruthless wars they waged against the Hindus, the wholesale massacres of the Hindu population, which they brought about, though not conclusive evidence of the non-Brahmanical origin of the dynasty, lend support to the view expressed by Nizam-al-Din Ahmad, ‘Alī Tabātabā and Hājji-ad-Dabīr whose authority is in several respects higher than that of Firishta.