164 H. G. Raverfcy —The Mihrdn of Sind and its Tributaries . [No. 3, 
344 , the same expedition is referred to, but there it is merely stated that 
when Sultan ’Alau-d-din arrived on the banks of the Biyah, the infidels 
raised the siege of Uch.” 
From the correct version of this identical passage, as it occurs in 
the Persian text of the “ Tabakat-i-Nasiri,” given at page 812 of my 
“ Translation,” it will be noticed, that, as usual with its author, he has 
not mentioned the details therein, but retained them for his account of 
the invasion of the Mughals, which I have given at the beginning of this 
article. 26 
What are the facts respecting this investment of Uchchh? The 
Dihli forces having first crossed the Biah, coming from Dihli in the 
direction of Labor by the direct route between the two places, Malik 
Gliiyas-ud-Din, Balban, afterwards raised to the title of Ulugh Khan-i- 
A’zam, 27 who was the Sultan’s chief of the staff, so to speak, or rather, the 
real commander, conducted the army of Hind towards the Rawah, as it 
is called, as well as Rawi, of Labor. We also learn from the passage 
in the account of Ulugh Khan-i-A’zam, which has just been discussed, 
what determined the Mughal commander to raise the investment of 
Uchchh. It was not only that one of the most famous of the Mu gh al 
leaders had perished in the recent assault, and that the invaders had 
been repulsed in making it, as stated in the detailed account, but, on 
reaching the banks of the Biah on the way from Dihli to Labor—I 
am referring to it as it flowed in its old bed, not as it and the Sutlaj 
flow now under the names of Hariari and Gharah—Malik Gliiyas-ud- 
Din, Balban, despatched couriers to Uchchh 23 with letters foe the 
defenders, some of which were purposely allowed to fall into the ene- 
26 At page 1150 of my “Translation.” 
27 Sultan Nasir-ud-Din, Mahmud Shah, who was set up as ruler of Dihli in the 
following year, after Sultan ’Ala-ud-Din, Mas’ud Shah had been imprisoned, married 
the daughter of the Ulugh Khan-i-A’zam. After the decease of his son-in-law, who 
died childless, he succeeded to the throne under the title of Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Din, 
Balban. He was a Turk of the Ilbari tribe, but compilers of Indian Histories and 
Gazetteers, and archaeological experts, turn him, like many other Turks, Tajziks, 
Jats, and Sayyids, into “ Pathdns,” which is synonymous with Afghan, it being the 
vitiated Hindi equivalent of Pushtun, the name by which the people generally 
known as Afghans call themselves, in their own language. 
A specimen of this “Pathan” fallacy appears in the “Transactions” of the 
Society for November, 1889, page 226. Referring to a find of coins from the Koh-i- 
Jud or Salt Range, they are described as “all of one kind, viz., coins of the Pathan 
Sultan of Dehli, Ghaiasu-d-Din Balban.” Now this very personage is no other than 
the Ulugh Kli an-i-A’zam mentioned above, who was an Ilbari Turk, not an Afghan or 
“ Pathan.” If the “ Tabakat-i-Nasiri ” were more studied, such great errors would 
not occur. It is quite time to give up Dow and Briggs’ “ Ferishta.” 
23 See note 13, page 160. 
