[1684] and on the same side of the river.
[1685] d. 1235 AD. He was a native of Aūsh [Ush] in Farghāna.
[1686] d. 1286 AD. He was a Slave ruler of Dihlī.
[1687] ‘Alāu’u’d-dīn Muḥ. Shāh Khiljī Turk d. 1316 AD. It is curious that Bābur should specify visiting his Minār (minārī, Pers. trs. I.O. 217 f. 185b, minār-i-au) and not mention the Qut̤b Minār. Possibly he confused the two. The ‘Alāī Minār remains unfinished; the Qut̤b is judged by Cunningham to have been founded by Qut̤bu’d-dīn Aībak Turk, circa 1200 AD. and to have been completed by Sl. Shamsu’d-dīn Altamsh (Aīltimīsh?) Turk, circa 1220 AD. Of the two tanks Bābur visited, the Royal-tank (ḥauẓ-i-khāẓ) was made by ‘Alāu’u’d-dīn in 1293 AD.
[1688] The familiar Turkī word Tūghlūq would reinforce much else met with in Dihlī to strengthen Bābur’s opinion that, as a Turk, he had a right to rule there. Many, if not all, of the Slave dynasty were Turks; these were followed by the Khiljī Turks, these again by the Tūghlūqs. Moreover the Panj-āb he had himself taken, and lands on both sides of the Indus further south had been ruled by Ghaznawid Turks. His latest conquests were “where the Turk had ruled” (f. 226b) long, wide, and with interludes only of non-Turkī sway.
[1689] Perhaps this charity was the Khams (Fifth) due from a victor.
[1690] Bikramājīt was a Tūnūr Rājpūt. Bābur’s unhesitating statement of the Hindu’s destination at death may be called a fruit of conviction, rather than of what modern opinion calls intolerance.
[1691] 120 years (Cunningham’s Report of the Archæological Survey ii, 330 et seq.).
[1692] The Tārīkh-i-sher-shāhī tells a good deal about the man who bore this title, and also about others who found themselves now in difficulty between Ibrāhīm’s tyranny and Bābur’s advance (E. & D. iv, 301).
[1693] Gūālīār was taken from Bikramājīt in 1518 AD.