| By Author | [ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z | Other Symbols ] |
| By Title | [ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z | Other Symbols ] |
| By Language |
|
Download this book: [ ASCII | HTML | PDF ] Look for this book on Amazon Tweet |
Title: The Bābur-nāma in English - Memoirs of Bābur
Author: Babur, Emperor of Hindustan
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.
*** Start of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "The Bābur-nāma in English - Memoirs of Bābur" ***
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| Transcriber's note: |
| |
| Many Turki, Arabic and Persian names have various spellings |
| in the text. There are about 700 occurrences of hyphenated |
| unhyphenated and spaced words. Correcting those for the |
| sake of consistency would be risky in many cases and would |
| mean a major change in the printed text which already has |
| many typographical errors. |
| |
| Two wide tables have been split into narrower sections. |
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
THE BĀBUR-NĀMA IN ENGLISH
(MEMOIRS OF BĀBUR).
Translated from the original Turki Text of
Z̤ahiru'd-dīn Muḥammad Bābur Pādshāh _Ghāzī_
by
Annette Susannah Beveridge
First Printed 1922
[Illustration:
_This work
is dedicate to
Bābur's
fame._]
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PREFACE: Introductory.—Cap. I. Babur's exemplars in the
Arts of peace, p. xxvii.—Cap. II. Problems of the mutilated
Babur-nama, p. xxxi.—Cap. III. The Turki MSS. and
work connecting with them, p. xxxviii.—Cap. IV.
The Leyden and Erskine "Memoirs of Baber", p. lvii.—Postscript
of Thanks, p. lx.
SECTION I.—FARGHĀNA
899 AH.—Oct. 12th 1493 to Oct. 2nd 1494 AD.—Bābur's age at
the date of his accession—+Description of Farghāna+
(pp. 1 to 12)—Death and biography of `Umar Shaikh
(13 to 19 and 24 to 28)—Biography of Yūnas _Chaghatāī_
(18 to 24)—Bābur's uncles Aḥmad _Mīrān-shāhī_ and
Maḥmūd _Chaghatāī_ (The Khān) invade Farghāna—Death
and biography of Aḥmad—Misdoings of his successor, his
brother Maḥmūd 1-42
900 AH.—Oct. 2nd 1494 to Sep. 21st 1495 AD.—Invasion of
Farghāna continued—Bābur's adoption of orthodox
observance—Death and biography of Maḥmūd
_Mīrān-shāhī_—Samarkand affairs—revolt of Ibrāhīm _Sārū_
defeated—Bābur visits The Khān in Tāshkīnt—tribute collected
from the Jīgrak tribe—expedition into Aūrātīpā 43-56
901 AH.—Sep. 21st 1495 to Sep. 9th 1496 AD.—Ḥusain
_Bāī-qarā's_ campaign against Khusrau Shāh—Bābur receives
Aūzbeg sulṯāns—Revolt of the Tarkhāns in Samarkand—Bābur's
first move for Samarkand 57-64
902 AH.—Sep. 9th 1496 to Aug. 30th 1497 AD.—Bābur's second
move for Samarkand—Dissensions of Ḥusain _Bāī-qarā_ and
his sons—Dissensions between Khusrau Shāh and Mas`ūd
_Mīrān-shāhī_ 65-71
903 AH.—Aug. 30th 1497 to Aug. 19th 1498 AD.—Bābur's
second attempt on Samarkand is successful—+Description
of Samarkand+ (pp. 74 to 86)—his action there—Mughūls
demand and besiege Andijān for Bābur's half-brother
Jahāngīr—his mother and friends entreat his help—he
leaves Samarkand in his cousin `Alī's hands—has a relapse
of illness on the road and is believed dying—on the news
Andijān is surrendered by a Mughūl to the Mughūl faction—Having
lost Samarkand and Andijān, Bābur is hospitably
entertained by the Khujandīs—he is forced to dismiss
Khalīfa—The Khān (his uncle) moves to help him but is
persuaded to retire—many followers go to Andijān where
were their families—he is left with 200-300 men—his
mother and grandmother and the families of his men sent
to him in Khujand—he is distressed to tears—The Khān
gives help against Samarkand but his troops turn back on
news of Shaibānī—Bābur returns to Khujand—speaks of
his ambition to rule—goes in person to ask The Khān's
help to regain Andijān—his force being insufficient, he
goes back to Khujand—Affairs of Khusrau Shāh and the
Tīmūrid Mīrzās—Affairs of Ḥusain _Bāī-qarā_ and his
sons—Khusrau Shāh blinds Bābur's cousin Mas`ūd—Bābur
curses the criminal 72-96
904 AH.—Aug. 19th 1498 to Aug. 8th 1499 AD.—Bābur borrows
Pashāghar for the winter and leaves Khujand—rides 70-80
miles with fever—a winter's tug-of-war with Samarkand—his
force insufficient, he goes back to Khujand—unwilling
to burthen it longer, goes into the summer-pastures of
Aūrātīpā—invited to Marghīnān by his mother's uncle
`Alī-dost—a joyful rush over some 145 miles—near
Marghīnān prudent anxieties arise and are stilled—he is
admitted to Marghīnān on terms—is attacked vainly by
the Mughūl faction—accretions to his force—helped by
The Khān—the Mughūls defeated near Akhsī—Andijān
recovered—Mughūls renew revolt—Bābur's troops beaten
by Mughūls—Taṃbal attempts Andijān 97-107
905 AH.—Aug. 8th 1499 to July 28th 1500 AD.—Bābur's campaign
against Ahmad _Taṃbal_ and the Mughūl faction—he takes
Māzū—Khusrau Shāh murders Bāī-sunghar _Mīrānshāhī_—Biography
of the Mīrzā—Bābur wins his first ranged battle, from Taṃbal
supporting Jahāngīr, at Khūbān—winter-quarters—minor
successes—the winter-camp broken up by Qaṃbar-i-`alī's taking
leave—Bābur returns to Andijān—The Khān persuaded by Taṃbal's
kinsmen in his service to support Jahāngīr—his troops retire
before Bābur—Bābur and Taṃbal again opposed—Qaṃbar-i-`alī
again gives trouble—minor action and an accommodation made
without Bābur's wish—terms of the accommodation—The
self-aggrandizement of `Alī-dost _Mughūl_—Bābur's first
marriage—a personal episode—Samarkand affairs—`Alī quarrels
with the Tarkhāns—The Khān sends troops against
Samarkand—Mīrzā Khān invited there by a Tarkhān—`Alī defeats
The Khān's Mughūls—Bābur invited to Samarkand—prepares to
start and gives Jahāngīr rendezvous for the attempt—Taṃbal's
brother takes Aūsh—Bābur leaves this lesser matter aside and
marches for Samarkand—Qaṃbar-i-`alī punishes himself—Shaibānī
reported to be moving on Bukhārā—Samarkand begs wait on
Bābur—the end of `Alī-dost—Bābur has news of Shaibānī's
approach to Samarkand and goes to Kesh—hears there that `Alī's
Aūzbeg mother had given Samarkand to Shaibānī on
condition of his marriage with herself 108-126
906 AH.—July 28th 1500 to July 17th 1501 AD.—Shaibānī murders
`Alī—a son and two grandsons of Aḥrārī's murdered—Bābur leaves
Kesh with a number of the Samarkand begs—is landless and
isolated—takes a perilous mountain journey back into
Aūrātīpā—comments on the stinginess shewn to himself by
Khusrau Shāh and another—consultation and resolve to attempt
Samarkand—Bābur's dream-vision of success—he takes the town by
a surprise attack—compares this capture with Ḥusain
_Bāī-qarā's_ of Herī—his affairs in good position—birth of his
first child—his summons for help to keep the Aūzbeg
down—literary matters—his force of 240 grows to allow him to
face Shaibānī at Sar-i-pul—the battle and his defeat—Mughūls
help his losses—he is besieged in Samarkand—a long
blockade—great privation—no help from any quarter—Futile
proceedings of Taṃbal and The Khān 127-145
907 AH.—July 17th 1501 to July 7th 1502 AD.—Bābur surrenders
Samarkand—his sister Khān-zāda is married by Shaibānī—incidents
of his escape to Dīzak—his 4 or 5 escapes from
peril to safety and ease—goes to Dikh-kat in Aūrātīpā—incidents
of his stay there—his wanderings bare-head, bare-foot—sends
gifts to Jahāngīr, and to Taṃbal a sword which
later wounds himself—arrival from Samarkand of the
families and a few hungry followers—Shaibānī Khān raids
in The Khān's country—Bābur rides after him fruitlessly—Death
of Nuyān Kūkūldāsh—Bābur's grief for his friend—he
retires to the Zar-afshān valley before Shaibānī—reflects
on the futility of his wanderings and goes to The Khān in
Tāshkīnt—Mughūl conspiracy against Taṃbal _Mughūl_—Bābur
submits verses to The Khān and comments on his
uncle's scant study of poetic idiom—The Khān rides out
against Taṃbal—his standards acclaimed and his army
numbered—of the _Chīngīz-tūrā_—quarrel of Chīrās and
Begchīk chiefs for the post of danger—Hunting—Khujand-river
reached 146-156
908 AH.—July 7th 1502 to June 26th 1503 AD.—Bābur comments on
The Khān's unprofitable move—his poverty and despair in
Tāshkīnt—his resolve to go to Khitāī and ruse for getting
away—his thought for his mother—his plan not accepted by The
Khān and Shāh Begīm—The Younger Khān (Aḥmad) arrives from
Kāshghar—is met by Bābur—a half-night's family talk—gifts to
Bābur—the meeting of the two Khāns—Aḥmad's characteristics and
his opinion of various weapons—The Khāns march into Farghāna
against Jahāngīr's supporter Taṃbal—they number their
force—Bābur detached against Aūsh, takes it and has great
accretions of following—An attempt to take Andijān frustrated
by mistake in a pass-word—Author's Note on pass-words—a second
attempt foiled by the over-caution of experienced begs—is
surprised in his bivouac by Taṃbal—face to face with
Taṃbal—his new _gosha-gīr_—his dwindling company—wounded—left
alone, is struck by his gift-sword—escapes to Aūsh—The Khān
moves from Kāsān against Andijān—his disposition of Bābur's
lands—Qaṃbar-i-`alī's counsel to Bābur rejected—Bābur is
treated by the Younger Khān's surgeon—tales of Mughūl
surgery—Qaṃbar-i-`alī flees to Taṃbal in fear through his
unacceptable counsel—Bābur moves for Akhsī—a lost chance—minor
actions—an episode of Pāp—The Khāns do not take Andijān—Bābur
invited into Akhsī—Taṃbal's brother Bāyazīd joins him with
Nāṣir _Mīrān-shāhī_—Taṃbal asks help from Shaibānī—On news of
Shaibānī's consent the Khāns retire from Andijān—Bābur's
affairs in Akhsī—he attempts to defend it—incidents of the
defence—Bābur wounded—unequal strength of the opponents—he
flees with 20-30 men—incidents of the flight—Bābur left
alone—is overtaken by two foes—his perilous position—a
messenger arrives from Taṃbal's brother Bāyazīd—Bābur
expecting death, quotes Niz̤āmī—(the narrative breaks off in
the middle of the verse) 157-182
+Translator's Note.+—908 to 909 AH.—1503 to 1504 AD.—Bābur
will have been rescued—is with The Khāns in
the battle and defeat by Shaibānī at Archīān—takes refuge
in the Asfara hills—there spends a year in misery and
poverty—events in Farghāna and Tāshkīnt—Shaibānī
sends the Mughūl horde back to Kāshghar—his disposition
of the women of The Khān's family—Bābur plans to go to
Ḥusain _Bāī-qarā_ in Khurāsān—changes his aim for Kābul 182-185
[+End of Translator's Note.+]
SECTION II.—KĀBUL
910 AH.—June 14th 1504 to June 4th 1505 AD.—Bābur halts on an
alp of Ḥiṣār—enters his 22nd (lunar) year—delays his march in
hope of adherents—writes a second time of the stinginess of
Khusrau Shāh to himself—recalls Sherīm̤ T̤aghāī _Mughūl's_
earlier waverings in support—is joined by Khusrau Shāh's
brother Bāqī Beg—they start for Kābul—Accretions of
force—their families left in Fort Ajar (Kāhmard)—Jahāngīr
marries a cousin—Bāqī advises his dismissal to Khurāsān—Bābur
is loyal to his half-brother—Jahāngīr is seduced, later, by
disloyal Begchīk chiefs—Ḥusain _Bāī-qarā_ summons help against
Shaibānī—Despair in Bābur's party at Ḥusain's plan of
"defence, not attack"—Qaṃbar-i-`alī dismissed to please
Bāqī—Khusrau makes abject submission to Bābur—Mīrzā Khān
demands vengeance on him—Khusrau's submission having been on
terms, he is let go free—Bābur resumes his march—first sees
Canopus—is joined by tribesmen—Khusrau's brother Walī flees to
the Aūzbegs and is executed—Risks run by the families now
fetched from Kāhmard—Kābul surrendered to Bābur by Muqīm
_Arghūn_—Muqīm's family protected—+Description of Kābul+ (pp.
199 to 277)—Muqīm leaves for Qandahār—Allotment of
fiefs—Excess levy in grain—Foray on the Sulṯān Mas`ūdī
Hazāra—Bābur's first move for Hindūstān—Khaibar
traversed—Bīgrām visited—Bāqī Beg prevents crossing the
Sind—and persuades for Kohāt—A plan for Bangash, Bannū and
thence return to Kābul—Yār-i-ḥusain _Daryā-khānī_ asks for
permission to raise a force for Bābur, east of the Sind—Move
to Thāl, Bannū, and the Dasht—return route varied without
consulting Bābur—Pīr Kānū's tomb visited—through the
Pawat-pass into Dūkī—horse-food fails—baggage left behind—men
of all conditions walk to Ghaznī—spectacle of the
Āb-istāda—mirage and birds—Jahāngīr is Bābur's host in
Ghaznī—heavy floods—Kābul reached after a disastrous
expedition of four months—Nāṣir's misconduct abetted by two
Begchīk chiefs—he and they flee into Badakhshān—Khusrau Shāh's
schemes fail in Herāt—imbroglio between him and Nāṣir—Shaibānī
attempts Ḥiṣār but abandons the siege on his brother's
death—Khusrau attempts Ḥiṣār and is there killed—his followers
revolt against Bābur—his death quenches the fire of sedition 188-245
911 AH.—June 4th 1505 to May 24th 1506 AD.—Death of
Bābur's mother—Bābur's illness stops a move for Qandahār—an
earth-quake—campaign against and capture of Qalāt-i-ghilzāī—Bāqī
Beg dismissed towards Hindūstān—murdered
in the Khaibar—Turkmān Hazāra raided—Nijr-aū
tribute collected—Jahāngīr misbehaves and runs
away—Bābur summoned by Ḥusain _Bāī-qarā_ against
Shaibānī—Shaibānī takes Khwārizm and Chīn Ṣūfī is
killed—Death and biography of Ḥusain _Bāī-qarā_ (256 to
292)—his burial and joint-successors 246-293
912 AH.—May 24th 1506 to May 13th 1507 AD.—Bābur, without news
of Ḥusain _Bāī-qarā's_ death, obeys his summons and leaves
Kābul—Jahāngīr flees from Bābur's route—Nāṣir defeats
Shaibānī's men in Badakhshān—Bābur, while in Kāhmard, hears of
Ḥusain's death—continues his march with anxious thought for
the Tīmūrid dynasty—Jahāngīr waits on him and accompanies him
to Herāt—Co-alition of Khurāsān Mīrzās against Shaibānī—their
meeting with Bābur—etiquette of Bābur's reception—an
entertainment to him—of the _Chīngīz-tūrā_—Bābur claims the
ceremonial observance due to his military
achievements—entertainments and Bābur's obedience to
Muḥammadan Law against wine—his reflections on the
Mīrzās—difficulties of winter-plans (300, 307)—he sees the
sights of Herī—visits the Begīms—the ceremonies observed—tells
of his hitherto abstention from wine and of his present
inclination to drink it—Qasīm Beg's interference with those
pressing Bābur to break the Law—Bābur's poor carving—engages
Ma`ṣūma in marriage—leaves for Kābul—certain retainers stay
behind—a perilous journey through snow to a wrong pass out of
the Herīrud valley—arrival of the party in Yakaaūlāng—joy in
their safety and comfort—Shibr-tū traversed into
Ghūr-bunḍ—Turkmān Hazāra raided—News reaches Bābur of
conspiracy in Kābul to put Mīrzā Khān in his place—Bābur
concerts plans with the loyal Kābul garrison—moves on through
snow and in terrible cold—attacks and defeats the
rebels—narrowly escaped death—attributes his safety to
prayer—-deals mercifully, from family considerations, with the
rebel chiefs—reflects on their behaviour to him who has
protected them—asserts that his only aim is to write the
truth—letters-of-victory sent out—Muḥ. Ḥusain _Dūghlāt_ and
Mīrzā Khān banished—Spring excursion to Koh-dāman—Nāṣir,
driven from Badakhshān, takes refuge with Bābur 294-322
913 AH.—May 13th 1507 to May 2nd 1508 AD.—Raid on the Ghiljī
Afghāns—separation of the Fifth (_Khams_)—wild-ass,
hunting—Shaibānī moves against Khurāsān—Irresolution of the
Tīmūrid Mīrzās—Infatuation of Ẕū'n-nūn _Arghūn_—Shaibānī takes
Herī—his doings there—Defeat and death of two _Bāī-qarās_—The
Arghūns in Qandahār make overtures to Bābur—he starts to join
them against Shaibānī—meets Ma`ṣūma in Ghaznī on her way to
Kābul—spares Hindūstān traders—meets Jahāngīr's widow and
infant-son coming from Herāt—The Arghūn chiefs provoke attack
on Qandahār—Bābur's army—organization and terminology—wins the
battle of Qandahār and enters the fort—its spoils—Nāṣir put in
command—Bābur returns to Kābul rich in goods and fame—marries
Ma`ṣūma—Shaibānī lays siege to Qandahār—Alarm in Kābul at his
approach—Mīrzā Khān and Shāh Begīm betake themselves to
Badakhshān—Bābur sets out for Hindūstān leaving `Abdu'r-razzāq
in Kābul—Afghān highwaymen—A raid for food—Māhchuchak's
marriage—Hindūstān plan abandoned—Nūr-gal and Kūnār
visited—News of Shaibānī's withdrawal from Qandahār—Bābur
returns to Kābul—gives Ghaznī to Nāṣir—assumes the title of
Pādshāh—Birth of Humāyūn, feast and chronogram 323-344
914 AH.—May 2nd 1508 to April 21st 1509 AD.—Raid on the
Mahmand Afghāns—Seditious offenders reprieved—Khusrau Shāh's
former retainers march off from Kābul—`Abdu'r-razzāq comes
from his district to near Kābul—not known to have joined the
rebels—earlier hints to Bābur of this "incredible"
rebellion—later warnings of an immediate rising 345-346
+Translator's Note.+—914 to 925 AH.—1508 to 1519 AD.—Date of
composition of preceding narrative—Loss of matter here seems
partly or wholly due to Bābur's death—Sources helping to fill
the Gap—Events of the remainder of 914 AH.—The mutiny swiftly
quelled—Bābur's five-fold victory over hostile champions—Sa`īd
_Chaghatāī_ takes refuge with him in a quiet Kābul—Shaibānī's
murders of Chaghatāī and Dūghlāt chiefs 347-366
915 AH.—April 21st 1509 to April 11th 1510 AD.—Beginning of
hostilities between Ismā`īl _Ṣafawī_ and Shaibānī—Ḥaidar
_Dūghlāt_ takes refuge with Bābur.
916 AH.—April 11th 1510 to March 31st 1511 AD.—Ismā`īl defeats
the Aūzbegs near Merv—Shaibānī is killed—20,000 Mughūls he
had migrated to Khurāsān, return to near Qūndūz—Mīrzā Khān
invites Bābur to join him against the Aūzbegs—Bābur goes to
Qūndūz—The 20,000 Mughūls proffer allegiance to their
hereditary Khān Sa`īd—they propose to set Bābur aside—Sa`īd's
worthy rejection of the proposal—Bābur makes Sa`īd The Khān of
the Mughūls and sends him and his Mughūls into
Farghāna—significance of Bābur's words, "I made him
Khān"—Bābur's first attempt on Ḥiṣār where were Ḥamza and
Mahdī _Aūzbeg_—beginning of his disastrous intercourse with
Ismā`īl _Ṣafawī_—Ismā`īl sends Khān-zāda Begīm back to
him—with thanks for the courtesy, Bābur asks help against the
Aūzbeg—it is promised under dangerous conditions.
917 AH.—March 31st 1511 to March 19th 1512 AD.—Bābur's
second attempt on Ḥiṣār—wins the Battle of Pul-i-sangīn—puts
Ḥamza and Mahdī to death—his Persian reinforcement
and its perilous cost—The Aūzbegs are swept across the
Zar-afshān—The Persians are dismissed from Bukhārā—Bābur
occupies Samarkand after a nine-year's absence—he
gives Kābul to Nāṣir—his difficult position in relation to
the Shī`a Ismā`īl—Ismā`īl sends Najm S̤ānī to bring him
to order.
918 AH.—March 19th 1512 to March 9th 1513 AD.—The Aūzbegs
return to the attack—`Ubaid's vow—his defeat of Bābur at
Kūl-i-malik—Bābur flees from Samarkand to Ḥiṣār—his
pursuers retire—Najm S̤ānī from Balkh gives him rendezvous
at Tīrmīẕ—the two move for Bukhārā—Najm perpetrates
the massacre of Qarshī—Bābur is helpless to prevent
it—Najm crosses the Zar-afshān to a disadvantageous
position—is defeated and slain—Bābur, his reserve, does
not fight—his abstention made a reproach at the Persian
Court against his son Humāyūn (1544 AD.?)—his arrow-sped
message to the Aūzbeg camp—in Ḥiṣār, he is attacked
suddenly by Mughūls—he escapes to Qūndūz—the retributive
misfortunes of Ḥiṣār—Ḥaidar on Mughūls—Ayūb _Begchīk's_
death-bed repentance for his treachery to Bābur—Ḥaidar returns
to his kinsfolk in Kāshghar.
919 AH.—March 9th 1513 to Feb. 26th 1514 AD.—Bābur may
have spent the year in Khishm—Ismā`īl takes Balkh from
the Aūzbegs—surmised bearing of the capture on his later
action.
920 AH.—Feb. 26th 1514 to Feb. 15th 1515 AD.—Ḥaidar's
account of Bābur's misery, patience and courtesy this year
in Qūndūz—Bābur returns to Kābul—his daughter Gulrang
is born in Khwāst—he is welcomed by Nāṣir who
goes back to Ghaznī.
921 AH.—Feb. 15th 1515 to Feb. 5th 1516 AD.—Death of
Nāṣir—Riot in Ghaznī led by Sherīm T̤aghāī _Mughūl_—quiet
restored—many rebels flee to Kāshghar—Sherīm
refused harbourage by Sa`īd Khān and seeks Bābur's
protection—Ḥaidar's comment on Bābur's benevolence.
922 AH.—Feb. 5th 1516 to Jan. 24th 1517 AD.—A quiet year
in Kābul apparently—Birth of `Askarī.
923 AH.—Jan. 24th 1517 to Jan. 13th 1518 AD.—Bābur visits
Balkh—Khwānd-amīr's account of the affairs of Muhammad-i-zamān
Mīrza _Bāī-qarā_—Bābur pursues the Mīrzā—has him brought to
Kābul—gives him his daughter Ma`ṣūma in marriage—An expedition
to Qandahār returns fruitless, on account of his illness—Shāh
Beg's views on Bābur's persistent attempts on Qandahār—Shāh
Beg's imprisonment and release by his slave Saṃbal's means.
924 AH.—Jan. 13th 1518 to Jan. 3rd 1519 AD.—Shāh Beg's son
Ḥasan flees to Bābur—stays two years—date of his return
to his father—Bābur begins a campaign in Bajaur against
Ḥaidar-i-`alī _Bajaurī_—takes two forts.
[+End of Translator's Note.+]
925 AH.—Jan. 3rd to Dec. 23rd 1519 AD.—Bābur takes the Fort of
Bajaur—massacres its people as false to Islām—Khwāja Kalān
made its Commandant—an excessive impost in grain—a raid for
corn—Māhīm's adoption of Dil-dār's unborn child—Bābur marries
Bībī Mubārika—Repopulation of the Fort of Bajaur—Expedition
against Afghān tribesmen—Destruction of the tomb of a heretic
qalandar—Bābur first crosses the Sind—his long-cherished
desire for Hindūstān—the ford of the Sind—the Koh-i-jūd
(Salt-range)—his regard for Bhīra, Khūsh-āb, Chīn-ab and
Chīnīūt as earlier possessions of the Turk, now therefore his
own—the Kalda-kahār lake and subsequent location on it of the
Bāgh-i-ṣafā—Assurance of safety sent to Bhīra as a Turk
possession—History of Bhīra _etc._ as Turk
possessions—Author's Note on Tātār Khān _Yūsuf-khail_—envoys
sent to Balūchīs in Bhīra—heavy floods in camp—Offenders
against Bhīra people punished—Agreed tribute collected—Envoy
sent to ask from Ibrāhīm _Lūdī_ the lands once dependent on
the Turk—Daulat Khān arrests and keeps the envoy who goes
back later to Bābur _re infectâ_—news of Hind-āl's birth and
cause of his name—description of a drinking-party—Tātār Khān
_Kakar_ compels Minūchihr Khān _Turk_, going to wait on Bābur,
to become his son-in-law—Account of the Kakars—excursions and
drinking-parties—Bhīra appointments—action taken against Hātī
Khān _Kakar_—Description and capture of Parhāla—Bābur sees the
saṃbal plant—a tiger killed—Gūr-khattrī visited—Loss of a
clever hawk—Khaibar traversed—mid-day halt in the
Bāgh-i-wafā—Qarā-tū garden visited—News of Shāh Beg's capture
of Kāhān—Bābur's boys carried out in haste to meet
him—wine-parties—Death and biography of Dost Beg—Arrival of
Sulṯānīm _Bāī-qarā_ and ceremonies observed on meeting her—A
long-imprisoned traitor released—Excursion to Koh-dāman—Hindū
Beg abandons Bhīra—Bābur has (intermittent) fever—Visitors
from Khwāst—Yūsuf-zāī chiefs wait on Bābur—Khalīfa's son sends
a wedding-gift—Bābur's amusement when illness keeps him from
an entertainment—treatment of his illness—A Thursday reading
of theology (_see_ Add. Note p. 401)—Swimming—Envoy from Mīrzā
Khān—Tribesmen allowed to leave Kābul for wider
grazing-grounds—Bābur sends his first _Dīwān_ to Pūlād
_Aūzbeg_ in Samarkand—Arrivals and departures—Punitive
expedition against the `Abdu'r-rahman Afghāns—punishment
threatened and inflicted (p. 405) on defaulters in help to an
out-matched man—Description of the Rustam-maidān—return to
Kābul—Excursion to Koh-dāman—snake incident—Tramontane begs
warned for service—fish-drugging—Bābur's non-pressure to
drink, on an abstainer—wine-party—misadventure on a
raft—toothpicks gathered—A new retainer—Bābur shaves his
head—Hind-āl's guardian appointed—Aūzbeg raiders defeated in
Badakhshān—Various arrivals—Yūsuf-zāī campaign—Bābur
dislocates his wrist—_Varia_—Dilah-zāk chiefs wait on him—Plan
to store corn in Hash-nagar—Incidents of the road—Khaibar
traversed—Bārā urged on Bābur as a place for corn—Kābul river
forded at Bārā—little corn found and the Hash-nagar plan
foiled—Plan to store Pashāwar Fort—return to `Alī-masjid—News
of an invasion of Badakhshān hurries Bābur back through the
Khaibar—The Khiẓr-khail Afghāns punished—Bābur first writes
since dislocating his wrist—The beauty and fruits of the
Bāgh-i-wafā—incidents of the return march to Kābul—Excursion
to the Koh-dāman—beauty of its harvest crops and autumnal
trees—a line offensive to Khalīfa (_see_ Add. Note p.
416)—Humāyūn makes a good shot—Beauty of the harvest near
Istālīf and in the Bāgh-i-pādshāhī—Return to Kābul—Bābur
receives a white falcon in gift—pays a visit of consolation to
an ashamed drinker—Arrivals various—he finishes copying
`Alī-sher's four _Dīwāns_—An order to exclude from future
parties those who become drunk—Bābur starts for Lāmghān 367-419
926 AH.—Dec. 23rd 1519 to Dec. 12th 1520 AD.—Excursion to
Koh-dāman and Kohistān—incidents of the road—Bābur shoots with
an easy bow, for the first time after the dislocation of his
wrist—Nijr-aū tribute fixed—Excursions in Lāmghān—Kāfir
head-men bring goat-skins of wine—Halt in the Bāgh-i-wafā—its
oranges, beauty and charm—Bābur records his wish and intention
to return to obedience in his 40th year and his consequent
excess in wine as the end approached—composes an air—visits
Nūr-valley—relieves Kwāja Kalān in Bajaur—teaches a talisman
to stop rain—his opinion of the ill-taste and disgusting
intoxication of beer—his reason for summoning Khwāja Kalān,
and trenchant words to Shāh Hasan relieving him—an old beggar
loaded with gifts—the raft strikes a rock—Description of the
Kīndīr spring—Fish taken from fish-ponds—Hunting—Accident to a
tooth—Fishing with a net—A murderer made over to the avengers
of blood—A Qoran chapter read and start made for Kābul—(here
the diary breaks off) 420-425
+Translator's Note.+—926 to 932 AH.—1520 to 1525 AD.—Bābur's
activities in the Gap—missing matter less interesting than
that lost in the previous one—its distinctive mark is
biographical—_Dramatis personæ_—Sources of information 426-444
926 AH.—Dec. 23rd 1519 to Dec. 12th 1520 AD.—Bābur's five
expeditions into Hindūstān—this year's cut short by menace
from Qandahār—Shāh Beg's position—particulars of his menace
not ascertained—+Description of Qandahār-fort+—Bābur's various
sieges—this year's raised because of pestilence within the
walls—Shāh Beg pushes out into Sind.
927 AH.—Dec. 12th 1520 to Dec. 1st 1521 AD.—Two accounts of
this year's siege of Qandahār—(i) that of the
_Ḥabību's-siyar_—(ii) that of the _Tārīkh-i-sind_—concerning
the dates involved—Mīrzā Khān's death.
928 AH.—Dec. 1st 1521 to Nov. 20th 1522 AD.—Bābur and Māhīm
visit Humāyūn in Badakhshān—Expedition to Qandahār—of the duel
between Bābur and Shāh Beg—the Chihil-zīna monument of
victory—Death of Shāh Beg and its date—Bābur's literary work
down to this year.
929 AH.—Nov. 20th 1522 to Nov. 10th 1523 AD.—Hindūstān
affairs—Daulat Khān _Lūdī_, Ibrāhīm _Lūdī_ and Bābur—Dilawār
(son of Daulat Khān) goes to Kābul and asks help against
Ibrāhīm—Bābur prays for a sign of victory—prepares for the
expedition—`Ālam Khān _Lūdī_ (apparently in this year) goes to
Kābul and asks Bābur's help against his nephew Ibrāhīm—Birth
of Gul-badan.
930 AH.—Nov. 10th 1523 to Oct. 27th 1524 AD.—Bābur's fourth
expedition into Hindūstān—differs from earlier ones by its
concert with malcontents in the country—Bābur defeats Bihār
Khān _Lūdī_ near Lāhor—Lāhor occupied—Dībalpūr stormed,
plundered and its people massacred—Bābur moves onward from
Sihrind but returns on news of Daulat Khān's doings—there may
have been also news of Aūzbeg threat to Balkh—The Panj-āb
garrison—Death of Ismā`īl _Ṣafawī_ and of Shāh Beg—Bābur turns
for Kābul—plants bananas in the Bāgh-i-wafā.
931 AH.—Oct. 29th 1524 to Oct. 18th 1525 AD.—Daulat Khān's
large resources—he defeats `Ālam Khān at Dībalpūr—`Ālam Khān
flees to Kābul and again asks help—Bābur's conditions of
reinforcement—`Ālam Khān's subsequent proceedings detailed
_s.a._ 932 AH.—Bābur promises to follow him speedily—is
summoned to Balkh by its Aūzbeg menace—his arrival raises the
siege—he returns to Kābul in time for his start to Hindūstān
in 932 426-444
[+End of Translator's Note.+]
SECTION III—HINDŪSTĀN
932 AH.—Oct. 18th 1525 to Oct. 8th 1526 AD.—Bābur starts on
his fifth expedition into Hindūstān—is attacked by illness at
Gandamak—Humāyūn is late in coming in from
Badakh-shān—Verse-making on the Kābul-river—Bābur makes a
satirical verse such as he had forsworn when writing the
_Mubīn_—attributes a relapse of illness to his breach of
vow—renews his oath—Fine spectacle of the lighted camp at
Alī-masjid—Hunting near Bīgrām—Preparations for ferrying the
Sind—Order to make a list of all with the army, and to count
them up—continuation of illness—Orders sent to the Lāhor begs
to delay engagement till Bābur arrived—The Sind ferried (for
the first time) and the army tale declared as 12,000 good and
bad—The eastward march—unexpected ice—Rendezvous made with the
Lāhor begs—Jat and Gūjūr thieves—a courier sent again to the
begs—News that `Ālam Khān had let Ibrāhīm _Lūdī_ defeat him
near Dihlī—particulars of the engagement—he takes refuge with
Bābur—The Lāhor begs announce their arrival close at
hand—Ibrāhīm's troops retire before Bābur's march—Daulat Khān
_Lūdī_ surrenders Milwat (Malot)—waits on Bābur and is
reproached—Ghāzī Khān's abandonment of his family
censured—Jaswān-valley—Ghāzī Khān pursued—Bābur advances
against Ibrāhīm _Lūdī_—his estimate of his adversary's
strength—`Ālam Khān's return destitute to Bābur—Bābur's march
leads towards Pānīpat—Humāyūn's first affair
succeeds—reiterated news of Ibrāhīm's approach—Bābur's success
in a minor encounter—he arrays and counts his effective
force—finds it under the estimate—orders that every man in the
army shall collect carts towards Rūmī defence—700 carts
brought in—account of the defences of the camp close to the
village of Pānīpat—Bābur on the futility of fear; his excuses
for the fearful in his army—his estimate of Ibrāhīm's army and
of its higher possible numbers—Author's Note on the Aūzbeg
chiefs in Ḥiṣār (918 AH. 1512 AD.)—Preliminary
encounters—Battle and victory of Pānīpat—Ibrāhīm's body
found—Dihlī and Āgra occupied by Bābur—he makes the circuit of
a Farghāna-born ruler in Dihlī—visits other tombs and sees
sights—halts opposite Tūghlūqābād—the _khuṯba_ read for him in
Dihlī—he goes to Āgra—Author's Note on rulers in Gūālīār—The
(Koh-i-nūr) diamond given by the Gūālīār family to
Humāyūn—Bābur's dealings with Ibrāhīm's mother and her
entourage—+Description of Hindūstān+ (pp. 478 to 521)—Revenues
of Hind (p. 521)—Āgra treasure distributed—local disaffection
to Bābur—discontent in his army at remaining in Hindūstān—he
sets the position forth to his Council—Khwāja Kalān decides to
leave—his and Bābur's verses on his desertion—Bābur's force
grows locally—action begun against rebels to Ibrāhīm in the
East—Gifts made to officers, and postings various—Bīban
_Jalwānī_ revolts and is beaten—The Mīr of Bīāna
warned—Mention of Rānā Sangā's failure in his promise to act
with Bābur—Sangā's present action—Decision in Council to leave
Sangā aside and to march to the East—Humāyūn leads out the
army—Bābur makes garden, well and mosque near Āgra—Progress of
Humāyūn's campaign—News of the Aūzbegs in Balkh and
Khurāsān—Affairs of Gujrāt 445-535
933 AH.—Oct. 8th 1526 to Sep. 27th 1527 AD.—Birth announced of
Bābur's son Fārūq—incomplete success in casting a large
mortar—_Varia_—Humāyūn summoned from the East to act against
Sangā—Plundering expedition towards Bīāna—Tahangar, Gūālīār
and Dūlpūr obtained—Ḥamīd Khān _Sārang-khānī_ defeated—Arrival
of a Persian embassy—Ibrāhīm's mother tries to poison
Bābur—+Copy of Bābur's letter detailing the affair+—his
dealings with the poisoner and her agents—Humāyūn's return to
Āgra—Khw. Dost-i-khawānd's arrival from Kābul—Reiterated news
of the approach of Rānā Sangā—Bābur sends an advance force to
Bīāna—Ḥasan Khān _Miwātī_—Tramontane matters disloyal to
Bābur—Trial-test of the large mortar (p. 536)—Bābur leaves
Āgra to oppose Sangā—adverse encounter with Sangā by Bīāna
garrison—Alarming reports of Rājpūt prowess—Spadesmen sent
ahead to dig wells in Madhākūr _pargana_—Bābur halts
there—arrays and moves to Sīkrī—various joinings and
scoutings—discomfiture of a party reconnoitring from Sīkrī—the
reinforcement also overcome—The enemy retires at sight of a
larger troop from Bābur—defence of the Sīkrī camp Rūmī
fashion, with ditch besides—Continued praise of Rājpūt
prowess—Further defence of the camp made to hearten Bābur's
men—20-25 days spent in the above preparations—arrival of 500
men from Kābul—also of Muḥ. Sharīf an astrologer who augurs
ill for Bābur's success—Archers collected and Mīwāt
over-run—Bābur reflects that he had always wished to cease
from the sin of wine—verses about his then position—resolves
to renounce wine—details of the destruction of wine and
precious vessels, and of the building of a commemorative well
and alms-house—his oath to remit a tax if victorious is
recalled to him—he remits the _tamghā_—Shaikh Zain writes the
_farmān_ announcing the two acts—Copy of the _farmān_—Great
fear in Bābur's army—he adjures the Ghāzī spirit in his men
who vow to stand fast—his perilous position—he moves forward
in considerable array—his camp is laid out and protected by
ditch and carts—An omen is taken and gives hope—Khalīfa
advising, the camp is moved—While tents were being set up, the
enemy appears—The battle and victory of Kānwa—described in a
copy of the Letter-of-victory—Bābur inserts this because of
its full particulars (pp. 559 to 574)—assumes the title of
Ghāzī—Chronograms of the victory and also of that in Dībalpūr
(930 AH.)—pursuit of the fugitive foe—escape of Sangā—the
falsely-auguring astrologer banished with a gift—a small
revolt crushed—a pillar of heads set up—Bābur visits
Bīāna—Little water and much heat set aside plan to invade
Sangā's territory—Bābur visits Mīwāt—give some historical
account of it—Commanders rewarded—Alwār visited—Humāyūn and
others allowed to leave Hindūstān—Despatch of the
Letter-of-victory—Various excursions—Humāyūn bidden
farewell—Chandwār and Rāprī recovered—Apportionment of
fiefs—Bīban flees before Bābur's men—Dispersion of troops for
the Rains—Misconduct of Humāyūn and Bābur's grief—Embassy to
`Irāq—Tardī Beg _khāksār_ allowed to return to the
darwesh-life—Bābur's lines to departing friends—The
Ramẓān-feast—Playing-cards—Bābur ill (seemingly with
fever)—visits Dūlpūr and orders a house excavated—visits Bārī
and sees the ebony-tree—has doubt of Bāyazīd _Farmūlī's_
loyalty—his remedial and metrical exercises—his Treatise on
Prosody composed—a relapse of illness—starts on an excursion
to Kūl and Saṃbal 536-586
934 AH.—Sep. 27th 1527 to Sep. 15th 1528 AD.—Bābur visits Kūl
and Saṃbal and returns to Āgra—has fever and ague
intermittently for 20-25 days—goes out to welcome kinswomen—a
large mortar bursts with fatal result—he visits Sīkrī—starts
for Holy War against Chandīrī—sends troops against Bāyazīd
_Farmūlī_—incidents of the march to Chandīrī—account of
Kachwa—account of Chandīrī—its siege—Meantime bad news arrives
from the East—Bābur keeping this quiet, accomplishes the work
in hand—Chandīrī taken—change of plans enforced by defeat in
the East—return northwards—Further losses in the East—Rebels
take post to dispute Bābur's passage of the Ganges—he orders a
pontoon-bridge—his artillery is used with effect, the bridge
finished and crossed and the Afghāns worsted—Tukhta-būghā
_Chaghatāī_ arrives from Kāshgar—Bābur visits Lakhnau—suffers
from ear-ache—reinforces Chīn-tīmūr against the
rebels—Chīn-tīmūr gets the better of Bāyazīd _Farmūlī_—Bābur
settles the affairs of Aūd (Oude) and plans to hunt near 587-602
+Translator's Note.+ (part of 934 AH.)—On the _cir._
half-year's missing matter—known events of the Gap:—Continued
campaign against Bīban and Bāyazīd—Bābur at Jūnpūr, Chausa and
Baksara—swims the Ganges—bestows Sarūn on a Farmūlī—orders a
Chār-bāgh made—is ill for 40 days—is inferred to have visited
Dūlpūr, recalled `Askarī from Multān, sent Khw. Dost-i-khāwand
to Kābul on family affairs which were causing him much
concern—Remarks on the Gap and, incidentally, on the Rāmpūr
Dīwān and verses in it suiting Bābur's illnesses of 934 AH.
[+End of Translator's Note.+]
935 AH. Sep. 15th 1528 to Sep. 5th 1529 AD.—`Askarī reaches
Āgra from Multān—Khwānd-amīr and others arrive from
Khurāsān—Bābur prepares to visit Gūālīār—bids farewell to
kinswomen who are returning to Kābul—marches out—is given an
unsavoury medicament—inspects construction-work in
Dūlpūr—reaches Gūālīār—+Description of Gūālīār+ (p. 607 to p.
614)—returns to Dūlpūr—suffers from ear-ache—inspects work in
Sīkrī and reaches Āgra—visit and welcomes to kinswomen—sends
an envoy to take charge of Rantanbhūr—makes a levy on
stipendiaries—sends letters to kinsfolk in Khurāsān—News
arrives of Kāmrān and Dost-i-khāwand in Kābul—of T̤ahmāsp
_Safawī's_ defeat at Jām of `Ubaidu'l-lāh _Aūzbeg_—of the
birth of a son to Humāyūn, and of a marriage by Kāmrān—he
rewards an artificer—is strongly attacked by fever—for his
healing translates Aḥrārī's _Wālidiyyah-risāla_—account of the
task—Troops warned for service—A long-detained messenger
returns from Humāyūn—Accredited messengers-of-good-tidings
bring the news of Humāyūn's son's birth—an instance of rapid
travel—Further particulars of the Battle of Jām—Letters
written and summarized—+Copy of one to Humāyūn inserted
here+—Plans for an eastern campaign under `Askarī—royal
insignia given to him—Orders for the measurement, stations and
up-keep of the Āgra-Kābul road—the _Mubīn_ quoted—A feast
described—`Askarī bids his Father farewell—Bābur visits Dūlpūr
and inspects his constructions—Persian account of the Battle
of Jām—Bābur decides contingently to go to the East—Balūchī
incursions—News reaches Dūlpūr of the loss of Bihār (town) and
decides Bābur to go East—News of Humāyūn's action in
Badakhshān—Bābur starts from Āgra—honoured arrivals in the
assembly-camp—incidents of the march—congratulations and
gifts sent to Kāmrān, Humāyūn and others—also specimens of the
Bāburī-script, and copies of the translation of the
_Wālidiyyah-risāla_ and the Hindūstān Poems—commends his
building-work to his workmen—makes a new ruler for the better
copying of the _Wālidiyyah-risāla_ translation—letters
written—+Copy of one to Khwāja Kalān inserted here+—Complaints
from Kītīn-qarā _Aūzbeg_ of Bābur's begs on the Balkh
frontier—Bābur shaves his head—Māhīm using his style, orders
her own escort from Kābul to Āgra—Bābur watches
wrestling—leaves the Jumna, disembarks his guns, and goes
across country to Dugdugī on the Ganges—travels by
litter—`Askarī and other Commanders meet him—News of Bīban,
Bāyazīd and other Afghāns—Letters despatched to meet Māhīm on
her road—Bābur sends a copy of his writings to
Samarkand—watches wrestling—hears news of the Afghāns—(here a
surmised survival of record displaced from 934 AH.)—fall of a
river-bank under his horse—swims the Ganges—crosses the Jumna
at Allahābād (Piag) and re-embarks his guns—wrestling
watched—the evil Tons—he is attacked by boils—a Rūmī remedy
applied—a futile attempt to hunt—he sends money-drafts to the
travellers from Kābul—visits places on the Ganges he had seen
last year—receives various letters below Ghāzīpūr—has news
that the Ladies are actually on their way from Kābul—last
year's eclipse recalled—Hindu dread of the Karmā-nāśā
river—wrestling watched—Rūmī remedy for boils used again with
much discomfort—fall of last year's landing-steps at
Baksara—wrestling—Negociations with an envoy of Naṣrat Shāh of
Bengal—Examination into Muḥammad-i-zāman's objections to a
Bihār appointment—despatch of troops to Bihār
(town)—Muḥammad-i-zamān submits requests which are granted—a
small success against Afghāns—Royal insignia given to
Muḥammad-i-zamān, with leave to start for Bihār—Bābur's
boats—News of the Bengal army—Muḥammad-i-zāman recalled
because fighting was probable—Dūdū Bībī and her son Jalāl
escape from Bengal to come to Bābur—Further discussions with
the Bengal envoy—Favourable news from Bihār—Bābur in
Arrah—Position of the Bengal army near the confluence of Gang
and Sārū (Ganges and Gogrā)—Bābur making further effort for
peace, sends an envoy to Naṣrat Shāh—gives Naṣrat's envoy
leave to go conveying an ultimatum—Arrival of a servant from
Māhīm west of the Bāgh-i-ṣafā—Bābur visits lotus-beds near
Arrah—also Munīr and the Son—Distance measured by counting a
horse's paces—care for tired horses—Bābur angered by Junaid
_Barlās'_ belated arrival—Consultation and plans made for the
coming battle—the Ganges crossed (by the Burh-ganga channel)
and move made to near the confluence—Bābur watches `Alī-qulī's
stone-discharge—his boat entered by night—Battle and victory
of the Gogrā—Bābur praises and thanks his Chaghatāī cousins
for their great services—crosses into the Nirhun _pargana_—his
favours to a Farmūlī—News of Bīban and Bāyazīd—and of the
strange deaths in Saṃbal—Chīn-tīmūr sends news from the west
of inconveniences caused by the Ladies' delay to leave
Kābul—and of success against the Balūchī—he is ordered to
Āgra—Settlement made with the Nuḥānī Afghāns—Peace made with
Naṣrat Shāh—Submissions and various guerdon—Bīban and Bāyazīd
pursued—Bābur's papers damaged in a storm—News of the rebel
pair as taking Luknūr(?)—Disposition of Bābur's boats—move
along the Sārū—(a surmised survival of the record of 934
AH.)—Account of the capture of Luknūr(?)—Dispositions against
the rebel pair—fish caught by help of a lamp—incidents of the
march to Adampūr on the Jumna—Bīban and Bāyazīd flee to
Mahūba—Eastern Campaign wound up—Bābur's rapid ride to Āgra
(p. 686)—visits kinswomen—is pleased with Indian-grown
fruits—Māhīm arrives—her gifts and Humāyūn's set before
Bābur—porters sent off for Kābul to fetch fruits—Account of
the deaths in Saṃbal brought in—sedition in Lāhor—wrestling
watched—sedition of Raḥīm-dād in Gūālīār—Mahdī Khwāja comes to
Āgra 605-689
936 AH.—Sep. 5th 1529 to Aug. 25th 1530 AD.—Shaikh Ghaus comes
from Gūālīār to intercede for Raḥīm-dād—Gūālīār taken over 690
+Translator's Note.+—936 and 937 AH.—1529 and 1530 AD.—Sources
from which to fill the Gap down to Bābur's death (December
26th 1530)—Humāyūn's proceedings in Badakhshān—Ḥaidar
_Dūghlāt's_ narrative of them—Humāyūn deserts his post, goes
to Kābul, and, arranging with Kāmrān, sends Hind-āl to
Badakhshān—goes on to Āgra and there arrives unexpected by his
Father—as he is unwilling to return, Sulaimān _Mīrān-shāhī_ is
appointed under Bābur's suzerainty—Sa`īd Khān is warned to
leave Sulaimān in possession—Bābur moves westward to support
him and visits Lāhor—waited on in Sihrind by the Rāja of
Kahlūr—received in Lāhor by Kāmrān and there visited from
Kābul by Hind-āl—leaves Lāhor (March 4th 1530 AD.)—from
Sihrind sends a punitive force against Mundāhir Rājpūts—hunts
near Dihlī—appears to have started off an expedition to
Kashmīr—family matters fill the rest of the year—Humāyūn falls
ill in Saṃbal and is brought to Āgra—his disease not yielding
to treatment, Bābur resolves to practise the rite of
intercession and self-surrender to save his life—is urged
rather to devote the great diamond (Koh-i-nūr) to pious
uses—refuses the substitution of the jewel for his own
life—performs the rite—Humāyūn recovers—Bābur falls ill and is
bedridden till death—his faith in the rite unquestionable,
belief in its efficacy general in the East—Plan to set Bābur's
sons aside from the succession—The _T̤abaqāt-i-akbarī_ story
discussed (p. 702 to 708)—suggested basis of the story (p.
705)—Bābur's death (Jūmāda I. 5th 937 AH.—Dec. 26th 1530 AD.)
and burial first, near Āgra, later near Kābul—Shāh-jahān's
epitaph inscribed on a tablet near the grave—Bābur's wives and
children—Mr. Erskine's estimate of his character 691-716
[+End of Translator's Note.+]
APPENDICES
A. Site and disappearance of old Akhsī.
B. The birds Qīl-qūyīrūgh and Bāghrī-qarā.
C. On the _gosha-gīr_.
D. The Rescue-passage.
E. Nagarahār and Nīng-nahār.
F. The name Dara-i-nūr.
G. On the names of two Dara-i-nūr wines.
H. On the counter-mark Bih-būd of coins.
I. The weeping-willows of f. 190_b_.
J. Bābur's excavated chamber at Qandahār.
K. An Afghān Legend.
L. Māhīm's adoption of Hind-āl.
M. On the term Bahrī-quṯās.
N. Notes on a few birds.
O. Notes by Humāyūn on some Hindūstān fruits.
P. Remarks on Bābur's Revenue List.
Q. On the Rāmpūr Dīwān.
R. Plans of Chandīrī and Gūālīār.
S. The Bābur-nāma dating of 935 AH.
T. On L:knū (Lakhnau) and L:knūr (Lakhnur _i.e._ Shahābād
in Rāmpūr).
U. The Inscriptions in Bābur's Mosque at Ajodhya (Oude).
V. Bābur's Gardens in and near Kābul.
Indices:—I. Personal, II. Geographical, III. General, p. 717
_et seq._
Omissions, Corrigenda, Additional Notes.
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS.
Plane-tree Avenue in Babur's (later)
Burial-garden[1] _facing_ p. xxvii
View from above his grave and Shah-jahan's
Mosque[1] _facing_ p. 367
His Grave[2] _facing_ p. 445
Babur in Prayer[3] _facing_ p. 702
His Signature App. Q, lxi
Plans of Chandiri and Gualiar App. R, lxvii
[Illustration: Plane-tree Avenue in Babur's (later)
Burial-garden.]
PREFACE.
O Spring of work! O Source of power to Be!
Each line, each thought I dedicate to Thee;
Each time I fail, the failure is my own,
But each success, a jewel in Thy Throne.
JESSIE E. CADELL.
INTRODUCTORY.
This book is a translation of Babur Padshah's Autobiography, made from
the original Turki text. It was undertaken after a purely-Turki
manuscript had become accessible in England, the Haidarabad Codex (1915)
which, being in Babur's _ipsissima verba_, left to him the control of
his translator's diction—a control that had been impracticable from the
time when, under Akbar (1589), his book was translated into Persian.
What has come down to us of pure text is, in its shrunken amount, what
was translated in 1589. It is difficult, here and there, to interpret
owing to its numerous and in some places extensive _lacunae_, and
presents more problems than one the solution of which has real
importance because they have favoured suggestions of malfeasance by
Babur.
My translation has been produced under considerable drawback, having
been issued in four _fasciculi_, at long intervals, respectively in June
1912, May 1914, October 1917, and September 1921. I have put with it of
supplementary matter what may be of service to those readers whom
Babur's personality attracts and to those who study Turki as a
linguistic entertainment, but owing to delays in production am unable to
include the _desiderata_ of maps.
CHAPTER I.
BABUR'S EXEMPLARS IN THE ARTS OF PEACE.
Babur's civilian aptitudes, whether of the author and penman, the maker
of gardens, the artist, craftsman or sportsman, were nourished in a
fertile soil of family tradition and example. Little about his teaching
and training is now with his mutilated book, little indeed of any kind
about his præ-accession years, not the date of his birth even, having
escaped destruction.[4] Happily Haidar Mirza (_q.v._) possessed a more
complete Codex than has come down to us through the Timurid libraries,
and from it he translated many episodes of Baburiana that help to bridge
gaps and are of special service here where the personalities of Bābur's
early environment are being named.
Babur's home-milieu favoured excellence in the quiet Arts and set before
its children high standard and example of proficiency. Moreover, by
schooling him in obedience to the Law, it planted in him some of Art's
essentials, self-restraint and close attention. Amongst primal
influences on him, his mother Qut-luq-nigar's ranked high; she,
well-born and a scholar's daughter, would certainly be educated in Turki
and Persian and in the home-accomplishments her governess possessed
_(ātūn_ q.v.). From her and her mother Aisan-daulat, the child would
learn respect for the attainments of his wise old grandfather Yunas
Khan. Aisan-daulat herself brought to her grandson much that goes to the
making of a man; nomad-born and sternly-bred, she was brave to obey her
opinion of right, and was practically the boy's ruling counsellor
through his early struggle to hold Farghana. With these two in fine
influence must be counted Khan-zada, his five-years elder sister who
from his birth to his death proved her devotion to him. Her life-story
tempts, but is too long to tell; her girlish promise is seen fulfilled
in Gul-badan's pages. `Umar Shaikh's own mother Shah Sultan Begim
brought in a type of merit widely differing from that of Aisan-daulat
Begim; as a town-lady of high Tarkhan birth, used to the amenities of
life in a wealthy house of Samarkand, she was, doubtless, an
accomplished and cultured woman.
`Umar Shaikh's environment was dominated for many years by two great
men, the scholar and lover of town-life Yunas Khan and the saintly
Ahrari (_i.e._ Khwaja `Ubaidu'l-lah) who were frequently with him in
company, came at Babur's birth and assisted at his naming. Ahrari died
in 895-1491 when the child was about seven years old but his influence
was life-long; in 935-1529 he was invoked as a spiritual helper by the
fever-stricken Babur and his mediation believed efficacious for recovery
(pp. 619, 648). For the babe or boy to be where the three friends held
social session in high converse, would be thought to draw blessing on
him; his hushed silence in the presence would sow the seed of reverence
for wisdom and virtue, such, for example, as he felt for Jami (_q.v._).
It is worth while to tell some part at least of Yunas' attainments in
the gentler Arts, because the biography from which they are quoted may
well have been written on the information of his wife Aisan-daulat, and
it indicates the breadth of his exemplary influence. Yunas was many
things—penman, painter, singer, instrumentalist, and a past master in
the crafts. He was an expert in good companionship, having even temper
and perfect manners, quick perception and conversational charm. His
intellectual distinction was attributed to his twelve years of wardship
under the learned and highly honoured Yazdi (Sharafu'd-din 'Ali), the
author of the _Zafar-nama_ [Timur's Book of Victory]. That book was in
hand during four years of Yunas' education; he will thus have known it
and its main basis Timur's Turki _Malfūzāt_ (annals). What he learned of
either book he would carry with him into `Umar Shaikh's environment,
thus magnifying the family stock of Timuriya influence. He lived to be
some 74 years old, a length of days which fairly bridged the gap between
Timur's death [807-1404] and Babur's birth (888-1483). It is said that
no previous Khan of his (Chaghatai) line had survived his 40th year; his
exceptional age earned him great respect and would deepen his influence
on his restless young son-in-law `Umar Shaikh. It appears to have been
in `Umar's 20th year (_cir._) that Yunas Khan began the friendly
association with him that lasted till Yunas' death (892-1483), a
friendship which, as disparate ages would dictate, was rather that of
father and son than of equal companionship. One matter mentioned in the
Khan's biography would come to Babur's remembrance in the future days
when he, like Yunas, broke the Law against intoxicants and, like him,
repented and returned.
That two men of the calibre and high repute of Ahrari and Yunas
maintained friendly guidance so long over `Umar cannot but be held an
accreditment and give fragrance of goodness to his name. Apart from the
high justice and generosity his son ascribes to him, he could set other
example, for he was a reader of great books, the Qoran and the _Masnawi_
being amongst his favourites. This choice, it may be, led Abu'l-faẓl to
say he had the darwesh-mind. Babur was old enough before `Umar's death
to profit by the sight of his father enjoying the perusal of such books.
As with other parents and other children, there would follow the happy
stilling to a quiet mood, the piquing of curiosity as to what was in the
book, the sight of refuge taken as in a haven from self and care, and
perhaps, Babur being intelligent and of inquiring mind and `Umar a
skilled reciter, the boy would marvel at the perennial miracle that a
lifeless page can become eloquent—gentle hints all, pointers of the way
to literary creation.
Few who are at home in Baburiana but will take Timur as Babur's great
exemplar not only as a soldier but as a chronicler. Timur cannot have
seemed remote from that group of people so well-informed about him and
his civilian doings; his Shahrukhi grandchildren in Samarkand had
carried on his author-tradition; the 74 years of Yunas Khan's life had
bridged the gap between Timur's death in 807-1405 and Babur's birth in
888-1483. To Babur Timur will have been exemplary through his grandson
Aulugh Beg who has two productions to his credit, the _Char-ulus_ (Four
Hordes) and the Kurkani Astronomical Tables. His sons, again, Babur
(_qalandar_) and Ibrahim carried on the family torch of letters, the
first in verse and the second by initiating and fostering Yazdi's
labours on the _Zafar-nama_. Wide-radiating and potent influence for the
Arts of Peace came forth from Herat during the reign of that Sultan
Husain Mirza whose Court Babur describes in one of the best supplements
to his autobiography. Husain was a Timurid of the elder branch of
Bai-qara, an author himself but far more effective as a Macænas; one man
of the shining galaxy of competence that gave him fame, set pertinent
example for Babur the author, namely, the Andijani of noble Chaghatai
family, 'Ali-sher _Nawa'i_ who, in classic Turki verse was the master
Babur was to become in its prose. That the standard of effort was high
in Herat is clear from Babur's dictum (p. 233) that whatever work a man
took up, he aspired to bring it to perfection. Elphinstone varies the
same theme to the tune of equality of excellence apart from social
status, writing to Erskine (August, 1826), that "it gives a high notion
of the time to find" (in Babur's account of Husain's Court) "artists,
musicians and others, described along with the learned and great of the
Age".
My meagre summary of Babur's exemplars would be noticeably incomplete if
it omitted mention of two of his life-long helpers in the gentler Arts,
his love of Nature and his admiration for great architectural creations.
The first makes joyous accompaniment throughout his book; the second is
specially called forth by Timur's ennoblement of Samarkand. Timur had
built magnificently and laid out stately gardens; Babur made many a
fruitful pleasaunce and gladdened many an arid halting-place; he built a
little, but had small chance to test his capacity for building greatly;
never rich, he was poor in Kabul and several times destitute in his
home-lands. But his sword won what gave wealth to his Indian Dynasty,
and he passed on to it the builder's unused dower, so that Samarkand was
surpassed in Hindustan and the spiritual conception Timur's creations
embodied took perfect form at Sikandra where Akbar lies entombed.
CHAPTER II.
PROBLEMS OF THE MUTILATED BABUR-NAMA.
Losses from the text of Babur's book are the more disastrous because it
truly embodies his career. For it has the rare distinction of being
contemporary with the events it describes, is boyish in his boyhood,
grows with his growth, matures as he matured. Undulled by retrospect, it
is a fresh and spontaneous recital of things just seen, heard or done.
It has the further rare distinction of shewing a boy who, setting a
future task before him—in his case the revival of Timurid power,—began
to chronicle his adventure in the book which through some 37 years was
his twinned comrade, which by its special distinctions has attracted
readers for nearly a half-millennium, still attracts and still is a
thing apart from autobiographies which look back to recall dead years.
Much circumstance makes for the opinion that Babur left his life-record
complete, perhaps repaired in places and recently supplemented, but
continuous, orderly and lucid; this it is not now, nor has been since it
was translated into Persian in 1589, for it is fissured by _lacunæ_, has
neither Preface nor Epilogue,[5] opens in an oddly abrupt and
incongruous fashion, and consists of a series of fragments so
disconnected as to demand considerable preliminary explanation. Needless
to say, its dwindled condition notwithstanding, it has place amongst
great autobiographies, still revealing its author playing a man's part
in a drama of much historic and personal interest. Its revelation is
however now like a portrait out of drawing, because it has not kept the
record of certain years of his manhood in which he took momentous
decisions,(1) those of 1511-12 (918) in which he accepted
reinforcement—at a great price—from Isma`il the Shi`a Shah of Persia,
and in which, if my reading be correct, he first (1512) broke the Law
against the use of wine,[6] (2) those of 1519-1525 [926-932], in which
his literary occupations with orthodox Law (_see Mubin_) associated with
cognate matters of 932 AH. indicate that his return to obedience had
begun, in which too was taken the decision that worked out for his fifth
expedition across the Indus with its sequel of the conquest of Hind.—The
loss of matter so weighty cannot but destroy the balance of his record
and falsify the drawing of his portrait.
a. _Problem of Titles._
As nothing survives to decide what was Babur's chosen title for his
autobiography, a modern assignment of names to distinguish it from its
various descendants is desirable, particularly so since the revival of
interest in it towards which the Facsimile of its Haidarabad Codex has
contributed.[7]
_Babur-nama_ (History of Babur) is a well-warranted name by which to
distinguish the original Turki text, because long associated with this
and rarely if ever applied to its Persian translation.[8] It is not
comprehensive because not covering supplementary matter of biography
and description but it has use for modern readers of classing
Babur's with other Timuriya and Timurid histories such as the
_Zafar-Humayun-Akbar-namas_.
_Waqi`āt-i-baburi_ (Babur's Acts), being descriptive of the book and in
common use for naming both the Turki and Persian texts, might usefully
be reserved as a title for the latter alone.
Amongst European versions of the book _Memoirs of Baber_ is Erskine's
peculium for the Leyden and Erskine Perso-English translation—_Mémoires
de Baber_ is Pavet de Courteille's title for his French version of the
Bukhara [Persified-Turki] compilation—_Babur-nama in English_ links the
translation these volumes contain with its purely-Turki source.
b. _Problems of the Constituents of the Books._
Intact or mutilated, Babur's material falls naturally into three
territorial divisions, those of the lands of his successive rule,
Farghana (with Samarkand), Kabul and Hindustan. With these are distinct
sub-sections of description of places and of obituaries of kinsmen.
The book might be described as consisting of annals and diary, which
once met within what is now the gap of 1508-19 (914-925). Round this
gap, amongst others, bristle problems of which this change of literary
style is one; some are small and concern the mutilation alone, others
are larger, but all are too intricate for terse statement and all might
be resolved by the help of a second MS. _e.g._ one of the same strain as
Haidar's.
Without fantasy another constituent might be counted in with the three
territorial divisions, namely, the grouped _lacunæ_ which by their
engulfment of text are an untoward factor in an estimate either of Babur
or of his book. They are actually the cardinal difficulty of the book as
it now is; they foreshorten purview of his career and character and
detract from its merits; they lose it perspective and distort its
proportions. That this must be so is clear both from the value and the
preponderating amount of the lost text. It is no exaggeration to say
that while working on what survives, what is lost becomes like a
haunting presence warning that it must be remembered always as an
integral and the dominant part of the book.
The relative proportions of saved and lost text are highly
significant:—Babur's commemorable years are about 47 and 10 months,
_i.e._ from his birth on Feb. 14th 1483 to near his death on Dec. 26th
1530; but the aggregate of surviving text records some 18 years only,
and this not continuously but broken through by numerous gaps. That
these gaps result from loss of pages is frequently shewn by a broken
sentence, an unfinished episode. The fragments—as they truly may be
called—are divided by gaps sometimes seeming to remove a few pages only
(cf. _s.a._ 935 AH.), sometimes losing the record of 6 and _cir._ 18
months, sometimes of 6 and 11 years; besides these actual clefts in the
narrative there are losses of some 12 years from its beginning and some
16 months from its end. Briefly put we now have the record of _cir._ 18
years where that of over 47 could have been.[9]
c. _Causes of the gaps._
Various causes have been surmised to explain the _lacunæ_; on the plea
of long intimacy with Babur's and Haidar's writings, I venture to say
that one and all appear to me the result of accident. This opinion rests
on observed correlations between the surviving and the lost record,
which demand complement—on the testimony of Haidar's extracts, and
firmly on Babur's orderly and persistent bias of mind and on the
prideful character of much of the lost record. Moreover occasions of
risk to Babur's papers are known.
Of these occasions the first was the destruction of his camp near Hisar
in 1512 (918; p. 357) but no information about his papers survives; they
may not have been in his tent but in the fort. The second was a case of
recorded damage to "book and sections" (p. 679) occurring in 1529 (935).
From signs of work done to the Farghana section in Hindustan, the damage
may be understood made good at the later date. To the third exposure to
damage, namely, the attrition of hard travel and unsettled life during
Humayun's 14 years of exile from rule in Hindustan (1441-1555) it is
reasonable to attribute even the whole loss of text. For, assuming—as
may well be done—that Babur left (1530) a complete autobiography, its
volume would be safe so long as Humayun was in power but after the
Timurid exodus (1441) his library would be exposed to the risks detailed
in the admirable chronicles of Gul-badan, Jauhar and Bayazid (_q.v._).
He is known to have annotated his father's book in 1555 (p. 466 n. 1)
just before marching from Kabul to attempt the re-conquest of Hindustan.
His Codex would return to Dihli which he entered in July 1555, and there
would be safe from risk of further mutilation. Its condition in 1555 is
likely to have remained what it was found when `Abdu'r-rahim translated
it into Persian by Akbar's orders (1589) for Abu'l-faẓl's use in the
_Akbar-nama_. That Persian translation with its descendant the _Memoirs
of Baber_, and the purely-Turki Haidarabad Codex with its descendant the
_Babur-nama in English_, contain identical contents and, so doing, carry
the date of the mutilation of Babur's Turki text back through its years
of safety, 1589 to 1555, to the period of Humayun's exile and its
dangers for camel-borne or deserted libraries.
d. _Two misinterpretations of lacunæ._
Not unnaturally the frequent interruptions of narrative caused by
_lacunæ_ have been misinterpreted occasionally, and sometimes
detractory comment has followed on Babur, ranking him below the
accomplished and lettered, steadfast and honest man he was. I select two
examples of this comment neither of which has a casual origin.
The first is from the _B.M. Cat. of Coins of the Shahs of Persia_ p.
xxiv, where after identifying a certain gold coin as shewing vassalage
by Babur to Isma`il _Safawi_, the compiler of the Catalogue notes, "We
can now understand the omission from Babar's 'Memoirs' of the
occurrences between 914 H. and 925 H." Can these words imply other than
that Babur suppressed mention of minting of the coins shewing
acknowledgment of Shi`a suzerainty? Leaving aside the delicate topic of
the detraction the quoted words imply, much negatives the surmise that
the gap is a deliberate "omission" of text:—(1) the duration of the
Shi`a alliance was 19-20 months of 917-918 AH. (p. 355), why omit the
peaceful or prideful and victorious record of some 9-10 years on its
either verge? (2) Babur's Transoxus campaign was an episode in the
struggle between Shaibaq Khan (Shaibani) _Auzbeg_ and Shah
Isma`il—between Sunni and Shi`a; how could "omission" from his book,
always a rare one, hide what multitudes knew already? "Omission" would
have proved a fiasco in another region than Central Asia, because the
Babur-Haidar story of the campaign, vassal-coinage included,[10] has
been brought into English literature by the English translation of the
_Tarikh-i rashidi_. Babur's frank and self-judging habit of mind would,
I think, lead him to write fully of the difficulties which compelled the
hated alliance and certainly he would tell of his own anger at the
conduct of the campaign by Isma`il's Commanders. The alliance was a
tactical mistake; it would have served Babur better to narrate its
failure.
The second misinterpretation, perhaps a mere surmising gloss, is
Erskine's (_Memoirs_ Supp. p. 289) who, in connection with `Alam Khan's
request to Babur for reinforcement in order to oust his nephew Ibrahim,
observes that "Babur probably flattered `Alam Khan with the hope of
succession to the empire of Hindustan." This idea does not fit the
record of either man. Elphinstone was angered by Erskine's remark which,
he wrote (Aug. 26th 1826) "had a bad effect on the narrative by
weakening the implicit confidence in Babur's candour and veracity which
his frank way of writing is so well-calculated to command."
Elphinstone's opinion of Babur is not that of a reader but of a student
of his book; he was also one of Erskine's staunchest helpers in its
production. From Erskine's surmise others have advanced on the
detractor's path saying that Babur used and threw over `Alam Khan
(_q.v._).
e. _Reconstruction._
Amongst the problems mutilation has created an important one is that of
the condition of the beginning of the book (p. 1 to p. 30) with its
plunge into Babur's doings in his 12th year without previous mention of
even his day and place of birth, the names and status of his parents, or
any occurrences of his præ-accession years. Within those years should be
entered the death of Yunas Khan (1487) with its sequent obituary notice,
and the death of [Khwaja `Ubaidu'l-lah] Ahrari (1491). Not only are
these customary entries absent but the very introductions of the two
great men are wanting, probably with the also missing account of their
naming of the babe Babur. That these routine matters are a part of an
autobiography planned as Babur's was, makes for assured opinion that the
record of more than his first decade of life has been lost, perhaps by
the attrition to which its position in the volume exposed it.
Useful reconstruction if merely in tabulated form, might be effected in
a future edition. It would save at least two surprises for readers, one
the oddly abrupt first sentence telling of Babur's age when he became
ruler in Farghana (p. 1), which is a misfit in time and order, another
that of the sudden interruption of `Umar Shaikh's obituary by a fragment
of Yunas Khan's (p. 19) which there hangs on a mere name-peg, whereas
its place according to Babur's elsewhere unbroken practice is directly
following the death. The record of the missing præ-accession years will
have included at the least as follows:—Day of birth and its place—names
and status of parents—naming and the ceremonial observances proper for
Muhammadan children—visits to kinsfolk in Tashkint, and to Samarkand
(æt. 5, p. 35) where he was betrothed—his initiation in school
subjects, in sport, the use of arms—names of teachers—education in the
rules of his Faith (p. 44), appointment to the Andijan Command _etc._,
_etc._
There is now no fit beginning to the book; the present first sentence
and its pendent description of Farghana should be removed to the
position Babur's practice dictates of entering the description of a
territory at once on obtaining it (cf. Samarkand, Kabul, Hindustan). It
might come in on p. 30 at the end of the topic (partly omitted on p. 29
where no ground is given for the manifest anxiety about Babur's safety)
of the disputed succession (Haidar, trs. p. 135) Babur's partisan begs
having the better of Jahangir's (_q.v._), and having testified
obeisance, he became ruler in Farghana; his statement of age (12 years),
comes in naturally and the description of his newly acquired territory
follows according to rule. This removal of text to a later position has
the advantage of allowing the accession to follow and not precede
Babur's father's death.
By the removal there is left to consider the historical matter of pp.
12-13. The first paragraph concerns matter of much earlier date than
`Umar's death in 1494 (p. 13); it may be part of an obituary notice,
perhaps that of Yunas Khan. What follows of the advance of displeased
kinsmen against `Umar Shaikh would fall into place as part of Babur's
record of his boyhood, and lead on to that of his father's death.
The above is a bald sketch of what might be effected in the interests of
the book and to facilitate its pleasant perusal.
CHAPTER III.
THE TURKI MSS. AND WORK CONNECTING WITH THEM.
This chapter is a literary counterpart of "Babur Padshah's Stone-heap,"
the roadside cairn tradition says was piled by his army, each man laying
his stone when passing down from Kabul for Hindustan in the year of
victory 1525 (932).[11]
For a title suiting its contents is "Babur Padshah's Book-pile," because
it is fashioned of item after item of pen-work done by many men in
obedience to the dictates given by his book. Unlike the cairn, however,
the pile of books is not of a single occasion but of many, not of a
single year but of many, irregularly spacing the 500 years through which
he and his autobiography have had Earth's immortality.
Part I. The MSS. themselves.
_Preliminary._—Much of the information given below was published in the
Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society from 1900 onwards, as it came into
my possession during a search for reliable Turki text of the
_Babur-nama_. My notes were progressive; some MSS. were in distant
places, some not traceable, but in the end I was able to examine in
England all of whose continued existence I had become aware. It was
inevitable that some of my earlier statements should be superseded
later; my Notes (_see s.n._ JRAS.) need clearing of transitory matter
and summarizing, in particular those on the Elphinstone Codex and
Klaproth's articles. Neither they nor what is placed here makes claim to
be complete. Other workers will supplement them when the World has
renewed opportunity to stroll in the bye-paths of literature.
Few copies of the _Babur-nama_ seem to have been made; of the few I have
traced as existing, not one contains the complete autobiography, and one
alone has the maximum of dwindled text shewn in the Persian translation
(1589). Two books have been reputed to contain Babur's authentic text,
one preserved in Hindustan by his descendants, the other issuing from
Bukhara. They differ in total contents, arrangement and textual worth;
moreover the Bukhara book compiles items of divers diction and origin
and date, manifestly not from one pen.
The Hindustan book is a record—now mutilated—of the Acts of Babur alone;
the Bukhara book as exhibited in its fullest accessible example, Kehr's
Codex, is in two parts, each having its preface, the first reciting
Babur's Acts, the second Humayun's.
The Bukhara book is a compilation of oddments, mostly translated from
compositions written after Babur's death. Textual and circumstantial
grounds warrant the opinion that it is a distinct work mistakenly
believed to be Babur's own; to these grounds was added in 1903 the
authoritative verdict of collation with the Haidarabad Codex, and in
1921 of the colophon of its original MS. in which its author gives his
name, with the title and date of his compilation (JRAS. 1900, p. 474).
What it is and what are its contents and history are told in Part III of
this chapter.
Part II. Work on the Hindustan MSS.
BABUR'S ORIGINAL CODEX.
My latest definite information about Babur's autograph MS. comes from
the _Padshah-nama_ (Bib. Ind. ed. ii, 4), whose author saw it in
Shah-i-jahan's private library between 1628 and 1638. Inference is
justified, however, that it was the archetype of the Haidarabad Codex
which has been estimated from the quality of its paper as dating _cir._
1700 (JRAS. 1906, p. 97). But two subsequent historic disasters
complicate all questions of MSS. missing from Indian libraries, namely,
Nadir Shah's vengeance on Dihli in 1739 and the dispersions and fires of
the Mutiny. Faint hope is kept alive that the original Codex may have
drifted into private hands, by what has occurred with the Rampur MS. of
Babur's Hindustan verses (App. J), which also appears once to have
belonged to Shah-i-jahan.
I
Amongst items of work done during Babur's life are copies of his book
(or of the Hindustan section of it) he mentions sending to sons and
friends.
II
The _Tabaqat-i-baburi_ was written during Babur's life by his Persian
secretary Shaikh Zainu'd-din of Khawaf; it paraphrases in rhetorical
Persian the record of a few months of Hindustan campaigning, including
the battle of Panipat.
TABLE OF THE HINDUSTAN MSS. OF THE BABUR-NAMA.[12]
----------------------+---------------+--------------------+-----------+
| Date of | Folio-standard | |
Names. | completion. | 382.[13] |Archetype. |
----------------------+---------------+--------------------+-----------+
1. Babur's Codex. |1530. |Originally much | -- |
| |over 382. | |
| | | |
2. Khwaja Kalan |1529. |Undefined 363(?), |No. 1. |
_Ahraris_ Codex. | |p. 652. | |
| | | |
| | | |
3. Humayun's Codex |1531(?). |Originally = No. 1 |No. 1. |
= (commanded | |(unmutilated). | |
and annotate?).[14]| | | |
| | | |
4. Muhammad Haidar |Between 1536 |No. 1 (unmutilated).|No. 1 or |
_Dughlat's_ Codex. |and 40(?). | |No. 2. |
| | | |
5. Elphinstone Codex. |Between 1556 |In 1816 and 1907, |No. 3. |
|and 1567. |286 ff. | |
| | | |
6. British Museum MS. |1629. |97 (fragments). |Unknown. |
| | | |
| | | |
7. Bib. Lindesiana MS.|Scribe living |71 (an extract). |Unknown. |
[now John Rylands] |in 1625. | | |
| | | |
| | | |
8. Haidarabad Codex. |Paper indicates|382. |(No. 1) |
|_cir._ 1700. | |mutilated. |
| | | |
----------------------+---------------+--------------------+-----------+
----------------------+-------------+------------------+----------------
| | Latest known |
Names. | Scribe. | location. | Remarks.
----------------------+-------------+------------------+----------------
1. Babur's Codex. |Babur. |Royal Library |Has disappeared.
| |between 1628-38. |
| | |
2. Khwaja Kalan |Unknown. |Sent to Samarkand |Possibly still
_Ahraris_ Codex. | |1529. |in Khwaja
| | |Kalan's family.
| | |
3. Humayun's Codex |`Ali'u-'l- |Royal Library |Seems the
= (commanded | katib(?). |between 1556-1567.|archetype of
and annotate?).[14]| | |No. 5.
| | |
4. Muhammad Haidar |Haidar(?) |Kashmir 1540-47. |Possibly now in
_Dughlat's_ Codex. | | |Kashghar.
| | |
5. Elphinstone Codex. |Unknown. |Advocates' Library|Bought in
| |(1816 to 1921). |Peshawar 1810.
| | |
6. British Museum MS. |`Ali'u'l- |British Museum. | --
| _kashmiri_.| |
| | |
7. Bib. Lindesiana MS.|Nur-muhammad |John Rylands | --
[now John Rylands] |(nephew of |Library. |
|`Abu'l-fazl).| |
| | |
8. Haidarabad Codex. |No colophon. |The late Sir |Centupled in
| |Salar-jang's |facsimile, 1905.
| |Library. |
----------------------+-------------+------------------+----------------
III
During the first decade of Humayun's reign (1530-40) at least
two important codices seem to have been copied.
The earlier (_see_ Table, No. 2) has varied circumstantial
warrant. It meets the need of an archetype, one marginally
annotated by Humayun, for the Elphinstone Codex in which a few
notes are marginal and signed, others are pell-mell,
interpolated in the text but attested by a scrutineer as having
been marginal in its archetype and mistakenly copied into its
text. This second set has been ineffectually sponged over. Thus
double collation is indicated (i) with Babur's autograph MS. to
clear out extra Babur matter, and (ii) with its archetype, to
justify the statement that in this the interpolations were
marginal.—No colophon survives with the much dwindled Elph.
Codex, but one, suiting the situation, has been observed, where
it is a complete misfit, appended to the Alwar Codex of the
second Persian translation, (estimated as copied in 1589). Into
the incongruities of that colophon it is not necessary to
examine here, they are too obvious to aim at deceit; it appears
fitly to be an imperfect translation from a Turki original,
this especially through its odd fashion of entitling "Humayun
Padshah." It can be explained as translating the colophon of
the Codex (No. 2) which, as his possession, Humayun allowably
annotated and which makes it known that he had ordered
`Ali'u-'l-katib to copy his father's Turki book, and that it
was finished in February, 1531, some six weeks after Babur's
death.[15]
The later copy made in Humayun's first decade is Haidar Mirza's
(_infra_).
IV
Muhammad Haidar Mirza _Dughlat's_ possession of a copy of the
Autobiography is known both from his mention of it and through
numerous extracts translated from it in his _Tarikh-i-rashidi_.
As a good boy-penman (p. 22) he may have copied down to 1512
(918) while with Babur (p. 350), but for obtaining a transcript
of it his opportunity was while with Humayun before the
Timurid exodus of 1541. He died in 1551; his Codex is likely to
have found its way back from Kashmir to his ancestral home in
the Kashghar region and there it may still be. (_See_ T.R. trs.
Ney Elias' biography of him).
V
The Elphinstone Codex[16] has had an adventurous career. The
enigma of its archetype is posed above; it may have been copied
during Akbar's first decade (1556-67); its, perhaps first,
owner was a Bai-qara rebel (d. 1567) from amongst whose
possessions it passed into the Royal Library, where it was
cleared of foreign matter by the expunction of Humayun's
marginal notes which its scribe had interpolated into its text.
At a date I do not know, it must have left the Royal Library
for its fly-leaves bear entries of prices and in 1810 it was
found and purchased in Peshawar by Elphinstone. It went with
him to Calcutta, and there may have been seen by Leyden during
the short time between its arrival and the autumn month of the
same year (1810) when he sailed for Java. In 1813 Elphinstone
in Poona sent it to Erskine in Bombay, saying that he had
fancied it gone to Java and had been writing to `Izzatu'l-lah
to procure another MS. for Erskine in Bukhara, but that all the
time it was on his own shelves. Received after Erskine had
dolefully compared his finished work with Leyden's (tentative)
translation, Erskine sadly recommenced the review of his own
work. The Codex had suffered much defacement down to 908 (1502)
at the hands of "a Persian Turk of Ganj" who had interlined it
with explanations. It came to Scotland (with Erskine?) who in
1826 sent it with a covering letter (Dec. 12th, 1826), at its
owner's desire, to the Advocates' Library where it now is. In
1907 it was fully described by me in the JRAS.
VI
Of two _Waqi'at-i-baburi_ (Pers. trs.) made in Akbar's reign,
the earlier was begun in 1583, at private instance, by two
Mughuls Payanda-hasan of Ghazni and Muhammad-quli of Hisar.
The Bodleian and British Museum Libraries have copies of it,
very fragmentary unfortunately, for it is careful, likeable,
and helpful by its small explanatory glosses. It has the great
defect of not preserving autobiographic quality in its diction.
VII
The later _Waqi'at-i-baburi_ translated by `Abdu'r-rahim Mirza
is one of the most important items in Baburiana, both by its
special characteristics as the work of a Turkman and not of a
Persian, and by the great service it has done. Its origin is
well-known; it was made at Akbar's order to help Abu'l-faẓl in
the Akbar-nāma account of Babur and also to facilitate perusal
of the _Babur-nama_ in Hindustan. It was presented to Akbar, by
its translator who had come up from Gujrat, in the last week of
November, 1589, on an occasion and at a place of admirable
fitness. For Akbar had gone to Kabul to visit Babur's tomb, and
was halting on his return journey at Barik-ab where Babur had
halted on his march down to Hindustan in the year of victory
1525, at no great distance from "Babur Padshah's Stone-heap".
Abu'l-faẓl's account of the presentation will rest on
`Abdu'r-rahim's information (A.N. trs. cap. ci). The diction of
this translation is noticeable; it gave much trouble to Erskine
who thus writes of it (_Memoirs_ Preface, lx), "Though simple
and precise, a close adherence to the idioms and forms of
expression of the Turki original joined to a want of
distinctness in the use of the relatives, often renders the
meaning extremely obscure, and makes it difficult to discover
the connexion of the different members of the sentence.[17] The
style is frequently not Persian.... Many of the Turki words are
untranslated."
Difficult as these characteristics made Erskine's
interpretation, it appears to me likely that they indirectly
were useful to him by restraining his diction to some extent in
their Turki fettering.—This Turki fettering has another aspect,
apart from Erskine's difficulties, _viz_. it would greatly
facilitate re-translation into Turki, such as has been
effected, I think, in the Farghana section of the Bukhara
compilation.[18]
VIII
This item of work, a harmless attempt of Salim (_i.e_. Jahangir
Padshah; 1605-28) to provide the ancestral autobiography with
certain stop-gaps, has caused much needless trouble and
discussion without effecting any useful result. It is this:—In
his own autobiography, the _Tuzuk-i-jahangiri s.a_. 1607, he
writes of a Babur-nama Codex he examined, that it was all in
Babur's "blessed handwriting" except four portions which were
in his own and each of which he attested in Turki as so being.
Unfortunately he did not specify his topics; unfortunately also
no attestation has been found to passages reasonably enough
attributable to his activities. His portions may consist of the
"Rescue-passage" (App. D) and a length of translation from the
_Akbar-nāma_, a continuous part of its Babur chapter but broken
up where only I have seen it, _i.e._ the Bukhara compilation,
into (1) a plain tale of Kanwa (1527), (2) episodes of Babur's
latter months (1529)—both transferred to the first person—and
(3) an account of Babur's death (December 26th, 1530) and
Court.
Jahangir's occupation, harmless in itself, led to an imbroglio
of Langlés with Erskine, for the former stating in the
_Biographie Universelle_ art. Babour, that Babour's
Commentaries "_augmentés par Jahangir_" were translated into
Persian by `Abdu'r-rahim. Erskine made answer, "I know not on
what authority the learned Langlés hazarded this assertion,
which is certainly incorrect" (_Memoirs_, Preface, p. ix). Had
Langlés somewhere met with Jahangir's attestations? He had
authority if he had seen merely the statement of 1607, but
Erskine was right also, because the Persian translation
contains no more than the unaugmented Turki text. The royal
stop-gaps are in Kehr's MS. and through Ilminski reached De
Courteille, whence the biting and thorough analysis of the
three "Fragments" by Teufel. Both episodes—the Langlés and the
Teufel ones—are time-wasters but they are comprehensible in
the circumstances that Jahangir could not foresee the
consequences of his doubtless good intentions.
If the question arise of how writings that had had place in
Jahangir's library reached Bukhara, their open road is through
the Padshah's correspondence (App. Q and references), with a
descendant of Ahrari in whose hands they were close to
Bukhara.[19]
It groups scattered information to recall that Salim (Jahangir)
was `Abdu'r-rahim's ward, that then, as now, Babur's
Autobiography was the best example of classic Turki, and that
it would appeal on grounds of piety—as it did appeal on some
sufficient ground—to have its broken story made good. Also that
for three of the four "portions" Abu'l-fazl's concise matter
was to hand.
IX
My information concerning Baburiana under Shah-i-jahan Padshah
(1628-58) is very meagre. It consists of (1) his attestation of
a signature of Babur (App. Q and photo), (2) his possession of
Babur's autograph Codex (_Padshah-nama_, Bib. Ind. ed., ii, 4),
and (3) his acceptance, and that by his literary entourage, of
Mir Abu-talib _Husaini's_ Persian translation of Timur's
Annals, the _Malfuzat_ whose preparation the _Zafar-nama_
describes and whose link with Babur's writings is that of the
exemplar to the emulator.[20]
X
The Haidarabad Codex may have been inscribed under Aurang-zib
Padshah (1655-1707). So many particulars about it have been
given already that little needs saying here.[21] It was the
_grande trouvaille_ of my search for Turki text wherewith to
revive Babur's autobiography both in Turki and English. My
husband in 1900 saw it in Haidarabad; through the kind offices
of the late Sayyid Ali _Bilgrami_ it was lent to me; it proved
to surpass, both in volume and quality, all other Babur-nama
MSS. I had traced; I made its merits known to Professor Edward
Granville Browne, just when the E. J. Wilkinson Gibb Trust was
in formation, with the happy and accordant result that the best
prose book in classic Turki became the first item in the
Memorial—_matris ad filium_—of literary work done in the name
of the Turkish scholar, and Babur's very words were safeguarded
in hundred-fold facsimile. An event so important for
autobiography and for Turki literature may claim more than the
bald mention of its occurrence, because sincere autobiography,
however ancient, is human and social and undying, so that this
was no mere case of multiplying copies of a book, but was one
of preserving a man's life in his words. There were, therefore,
joyful red-letter days in the English story of the
Codex—outstanding from others being those on which its merits
revealed themselves (on Surrey uplands)—the one which brought
Professor Browne's acceptance of it for reproduction by the
Trust—and the day of pause from work marked by the accomplished
fact of the safety of the _Babur-nama._
XI
The period from _cir._ 1700, the date of the Haidarabad Codex,
and 1810, when the Elphinstone Codex was purchased by its
sponsor at Peshawar, appears to have been unfruitful in work on
the Hindustan MSS. Causes for this may connect with historic
events, _e.g._ Nadir Shah's desolation of Dihli and the rise of
the East India Company, and, in Baburiana, with the
disappearance of Babur's autograph Codex (it was unknown to the
Scots of 1800-26), and the transfer of the Elphinstone Codex
from royal possession—this, possibly however, an accident of
royal travel to and from Kabul at earlier dates.
The first quarter of the nineteenth century was, on the
contrary, most fruitful in valuable work, useful impulse to
which was given by Dr. John Leyden who in about 1805 began to
look into Turki. Like his contemporary Julius Klaproth
(_q.v._), he was avid of tongues and attracted by Turki and by
Babur's writings of which he had some knowledge through the
`Abdu'r-rahim (Persian) translation. His Turki text-book would
be the MS. of the Asiatic Society of Bengal,[22] a part-copy of
the Bukhara compilation, from which he had the India Office MS.
copied. He took up Turki again in 1810, after his return from
Malay and whilst awaiting orders in Calcutta for departure to
Java. He sailed in the autumn of the year and died in August
1811. Much can be learned about him and his Turki occupations
from letters (_infra_ xiii) written to Erskine by him and by
others of the Scottish band which now achieved such fine
results for Babur's Autobiography.
It is necessary to say something of Leyden's part in producing
the _Memoirs_, because Erskine, desiring to "lose nothing that
might add to Leyden's reputation", has assigned to him an undue
position of collaboration in it both by giving him premier
place on its title-page and by attributing to him the beginning
the translation. What one gleans of Leyden's character makes an
impression of unassumption that would forbid his acceptance of
the posthumous position given to him, and, as his translation
shews the tyro in Turki, there can be no ground for supposing
he would wish his competence in it over-estimated. He had, as
dates show, nothing to do with the actual work of the _Memoirs_
which was finished before Erskine had seen in 1813 what Leyden
had set down before he died in 1811. As the _Memoirs_ is now a
rare book, I quote from it what Erskine says (Preface, p. ix)
of Leyden's rough translation:—"This acquisition (_i.e_. of
Leyden's trs.) reduced me to rather an awkward dilemma. The two
translations (his own and Leyden's) differed in many important
particulars; but as Dr. Leyden had the advantage of translating
from the original, I resolved to adopt his translation as far
as it went, changing only such expressions in it as seemed
evidently to be inconsistent with the context, or with other
parts of the _Memoirs_, or such as seemed evidently to
originate in the oversights that are unavoidable in an
unfinished work.[23] This labour I had completed with some
difficulty, when Mr. Elphinstone sent me the copy of the
_Memoirs of Baber_ in the original Tūrkī (_i.e._ The
Elphinstone Codex) which he had procured when he went to
Peshawar on his embassy to Kabul. This copy, which he had
supposed to have been sent with Dr. Leyden's manuscripts from
Calcutta, he was now fortunate enough to recover (in his own
library at Poona). The discovery of this valuable manuscript
reduced me, though heartily sick of the task, to the necessity
of commencing my work once more."
Erskine's Preface (pp. x, xi) contains various other references
to Leyden's work which indicate its quality as tentative and
unrevised. It is now in the British Museum Library.
XII
Little need be said here about the _Memoirs of Baber_.[24]
Erskine worked on a basis of considerable earlier acquaintance
with his Persian original, for, as his Preface tells, he had
(after Leyden's death) begun to translate this some years
before he definitely accepted the counsel of Elphinstone and
Malcolm to undertake the _Memoirs_. He finished his translation
in 1813, and by 1816 was able to dedicate his complete volume
to Elphinstone, but publication was delayed till 1826. His was
difficult pioneer-work, and carried through with the drawback
of working on a secondary source. It has done yeoman service,
of which the crowning merit is its introduction of Babur's
autobiography to the Western world.
XIII
Amongst Erskine's literary remains are several bound volumes of
letters from Elphinstone, Malcolm, Leyden, and others of that
distinguished group of Scots who promoted the revival of
Babur's writings. Erskine's grandson, the late Mr. Lestocq
Erskine, placed these, with other papers, at our disposal, and
they are now located where they have been welcomed as
appropriate additions:—Elphinstone's are in the Advocates'
Library, where already (1826) he, through Erskine, had
deposited his own Codex—and with his letters are those of
Malcolm and more occasional correspondents; Leyden's letters
(and various papers) are in the Memorial Cottage maintained in
his birthplace Denholm (Hawick) by the Edinburgh Border
Counties Association; something fitting went to the Bombay
Asiatic Society and a volume of diary to the British Museum.
Leyden's papers will help his fuller biography; Elphinstone's
letters have special value as recording his co-operation with
Erskine by much friendly criticism, remonstrance against delay,
counsels and encouragement. They, moreover, shew the estimate
an accomplished man of modern affairs formed of Babur Padshah's
character and conduct; some have been quoted in Colebrooke's
_Life of Elphinstone_, but there they suffer by detachment from
the rest of his Baburiana letters; bound together as they now
are, and with brief explanatory interpolations, they would make
a welcome item for "Babur Padshah's Book-pile".
XIV
In May 1921 the contents of these volumes were completed,
namely, the _Babur-nama in English_ and its supplements, the
aims of which are to make Babur known in English diction
answering to his _ipsissima verba_, and to be serviceable to
readers and students of his book and of classic Turki.
XV
Of writings based upon or relating to Babur's the following
have appeared:—
Denkwurdigkeiten des Zahir-uddin Muhammad Babar—A. Kaiser
(Leipzig, 1828). This consists of extracts translated from the
Memoirs.
An abridgement of the Memoirs—R. M. Caldecott (London, 1844).
History of India—Baber and Humayun—W. Erskine (Longmans,
1854).
Babar—Rulers of India series—Stanley Lane-Poole (Oxford,
1899).
Tuzuk-i-babari or Waqi`at-i-babari (_i.e._ the Persian
trs.)—Elliot and Dowson's History of India, 1872, vol. iv.
Babur Padshah _Ghazi_—H. Beveridge (Calcutta Review, 1899).
Babur's diamond, was it the Koh-i-nur?—H. Beveridge, Asiatic
Quarterly Review, April, 1899.
Was `Abdu'r-rahim the translator of Babur's Memoirs? (_i.e._
the _Babur-nama_)—H. Beveridge, AQR., July and October, 1900.
An Empire-builder of the 16th century, Babur—Laurence F. L.
Williams (Allahabad, 1918).
Notes on the MSS. of the Turki text (_Babur-nāma_)—A. S.
Beveridge, JRAS. 1900, 1902, 1921, 1905, and Part II 1906,
1907, 1908, p. 52 and p. 828, 1909 p. 452 (_see_ Index, _s.n._
A. S. B. for topics).
[For other articles and notes by H. B. _see_ Index _s.n._]
Part III. The "Bukhara Babur-nama".
This is a singular book and has had a career as singular as its
characteristics, a very comedy of (blameless) errors and mischance. For
it is a compilation of items diverse in origin, diction, and age,
planned to be a record of the Acts of Babur and Humayun, dependent
through its Babur portion on the `Abdu'r-rahim Persian translation for
re-translation, or verbatim quotation, or dove-tailing effected on the
tattered fragments of what had once been Kamran's Codex of the
Babur-nama proper, the whole interspersed by stop-gaps attributable to
Jahangir. These and other specialities notwithstanding, it ranked for
nearly 200 years as a reproduction of Babur's authentic text, as such
was sent abroad, as such was reconstructed and printed in Kasan (1857),
translated in Paris (1871), catalogued for the Petrograd Oriental School
(1894), and for the India Office (1903).[25]
Manifest causes for the confusion of identity are, (1) lack of the
guidance in Bukhara and Petrograd of collation with the true text, (2)
want of information, in the Petrograd of 1700-25, about Babur's career,
coupled with the difficulties of communication with Bukhara, (3) the
misleading feature in the compiled book of its author's retention of the
autobiographic form of his sources, without explanation as to whether he
entered surviving fragments of Kamran's Codex, patchings or extracts
from `Abdu'r-rahim's Persian translation, or quotations of Jahangir's
stop-gaps. Of these three causes for error the first is dominant,
entailing as it does the drawbacks besetting work on an inadequate
basis.
It is necessary to enumerate the items of the Compilation here as they
are arranged in Kehr's autograph Codex, because that codex (still in
London) may not always be accessible,[26] and because the imprint does
not obey its model, but aims at closer agreement of the Bukhara
Compilation with Ilminski's gratefully acknowledged guide—_The Memoirs
of Baber_. Distinction in commenting on the Bukhara and the Kasan
versions is necessary; their discrepancy is a scene in the comedy of
errors.[27][28][29][30]
OUTLINE OF THE HISTORY OF THE COMPILATION.
An impelling cause for the production of the Bukhara compilation is
suggested by the date 1709 at which was finished the earliest example
known to me. For in the first decade of the eighteenth century Peter the
Great gave attention to Russian relations with foreign states of Central
Asia and negociated with the Khan of Bukhara for the reception of a
Russian mission.[31] Political aims would be forwarded if envoys were
familiar with Turki; books in that tongue for use in the School of
Oriental Languages would be desired; thus the Compilation may have been
prompted and, as will be shown later, it appears to have been produced,
and not merely copied, in 1709. The Mission's despatch was delayed till
1719;[32] it arrived in Bukhara in 1721; during its stay a member of its
secretariat bought a Compilation MS. noted as finished in 1714 and on a
fly-leaf of it made the following note:—
"_I, Timur-pulad son of Mirza Rajab son of Pay-chin, bought this book
Babur-nama after coming to Bukhara with [the] Russian Florio Beg
Beneveni, envoy of the Padshah ... whose army is numerous as the
stars.... May it be well received! Amen! O Lord of both Worlds!_"
Timur-pulad's hope for a good reception indicates a definite recipient,
perhaps a commissioned purchase. The vendor may have been asked for a
history of Babur; he sold one, but "Babur-nama" is not necessarily a
title, and is not suitable for the Compilation; by conversational
mischance it may have seemed so to the purchaser and thus have initiated
the mistake of confusing the "Bukhara Babur-nama" with the true one.
Thus endorsed, the book in 1725 reached the Foreign Office; there in
1737 it was obtained by George Jacob Kehr, a teacher of Turki, amongst
other languages, in the Oriental School, who copied it with meticulous
care, understanding its meaning imperfectly, in order to produce a Latin
version of it. His Latin rendering was a fiasco, but his reproduction of
the Arabic forms of his archetype was so obedient that on its sole basis
Ilminski edited the Kasan Imprint (1857). A collateral copy of the
Timur-pulad Codex was made in 1742 (as has been said).
In 1824 Klaproth (who in 1810 had made a less valuable extract perhaps
from Kehr's Codex) copied from the Timur-pulad MS. its purchaser's note,
the Auzbeg?(?) endorsement as to the transfer of the "Kamran-docket" and
Babur's letter to Kamran (_Mémoires relatifs à l'Asie_ Paris).
In 1857 Ilminski, working in Kasan, produced his imprint, which became
de Courteille's source for _Les Mémoires de Baber_ in 1871. No worker in
the above series shews doubt about accepting the Compilation as
containing Babur's authentic text. Ilminski was in the difficult
position of not having entire reliance on Kehr's transcription, a
natural apprehension in face of the quality of the Latin version, his
doubts sum up into his words that a reliable text could not be made from
his source (Kehr's MS.), but that a Turki reading-book could—and was. As
has been said, he did not obey the dual plan of the Compilation Kehr's
transcript reveals, this, perhaps, because of the misnomer Babur-nama
under which Timur-pulad's Codex had come to Petrograd; this, certainly,
because he thought a better history of Babur could be produced by
following Erskine than by obeying Kehr—a series of errors following the
verbal mischance of 1725. Ilminski's transformation of the items of his
source had the ill result of misleading Pavet de Courteille to
over-estimate his Turki source at the expense of Erskine's Persian one
which, as has been said, was Ilminski's guide—another scene in the
comedy. A mischance hampering the French work was its falling to be done
at a time when, in Paris 1871, there can have been no opportunity
available for learning the contents of Ilminski's Russian Preface or for
quiet research and the examination of collateral aids from abroad.[33]
THE AUTHOR OF THE COMPILATION.
The Haidarabad Codex having destroyed acquiescence in the phantasmal
view of the Bukhara book, the question may be considered, who was its
author?
This question a convergence of details about the Turki MSS. reputed to
contain the _Babur-nama_, now allows me to answer with some semblance of
truth. Those details have thrown new light upon a colophon which I
received in 1900 from Mr. C. Salemann with other particulars concerning
the "_Senkovski Babur-nama_," this being an extract from the
Compilation; its archetype reached Petrograd from Bukhara a century
after Kehr's [_viz._ the Timur-pulad Codex]; it can be taken as a direct
copy of the Mulla's original because it bears his colophon.[34] In 1900
I accepted it as merely that of a scribe who had copied Senkovski's
archetype, but in 1921 reviewing the colophon for this Preface, it seems
to me to be that of the original autograph MS. of the Compilation and to
tell its author's name, his title for his book, and the year (1709) in
which he completed it.
TABLE OF BUKHARA REPUTED-BABUR-NAMA MSS. (_Waqi`nama-i-padshahi?_).
--------------------+-----------------+-------------------+
Names. | Date of | Scribe. |
| completion. | |
--------------------+-----------------+-------------------+
| | |
1. Waqi`nama-i- | 1121-1709. Date |`Abdu'l-wahhab |
padshahi _alias_ | of colophon of | _q.v._ |
Babur-nama. | earliest known | Taken to be also |
| example. | the author. |
| | |
2. Nazar Bai | Unknown. | Unknown. |
Turkistani's MS. | | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
3. F. O. Codex | 1126-1714. | Unknown. |
(Timurpulad's | | |
MS.). | | |
| | |
| | |
4. Kehr's Autograph | 1737. | George Jacob |
Codex. | | Kehr. |
| | |
| | |
5. Name not learned.| 1155-1742. | Unknown. |
| | |
| | |
6. (Mysore) A.S.B. | Unknown. JRAS. | Unknown. |
Codex. | 1900, Nos. vii | |
| and viii. | |
| | |
7. India Office | Cir. 1810. | Unknown. |
Codex (Bib. | | |
Leydeniana). | | |
| | |
8. "The Senkovski | 1824. | J. Senkovski. |
Babur-nama." | | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
9. Pet. University | 1839? | Mulla Faizkhanov? |
Codex. | | |
--------------------+-----------------+-------------------+
--------------------+-------------------+-------------+--------------
Names. | Last known | Archetype. | Remarks.
| location. | |
--------------------+-------------------+-------------+--------------
| | |
1. Waqi`nama-i- | Bukhara. | Believed to | _See_
padshahi _alias_ | | be the | Part III.
Babur-nama. | | original |
| | compilation.|
| | |
2. Nazar Bai | In owner's | No. 1, the | Senkovski's
Turkistani's MS. | charge in | colophon of | archetype who
| Petrograd, 1824. | which it | copied its
| | reproduces. | (transferred)
| | | colophon.
| | |
3. F. O. Codex | F.O. Petrograd, | Not stated, | Bought in
(Timurpulad's | where copied in | an indirect | Bukhara,
MS.). | 1742. | copy of | brought to
| | No. 1. | Petro. 1725.
| | |
4. Kehr's Autograph | Pet. Or. School, | No. 3. | _See_
Codex. | 1894. | | Part III.
| London T.O. 1921. | |
| | |
5. Name not learned.| Unknown. | No. 3. | Archetype
| | | of 9.
| | |
6. (Mysore) A.S.B. | Asiatic Society | Unknown. | --
Codex. | of Bengal. | |
| | |
| | |
7. India Office | India Office, | No. 6. | Copied for
Codex (Bib. | 1921. | | Leyden.
Leydeniana). | | |
| | |
8. "The Senkovski | Pet. Asiatic | No. 2. | Bears a copy
Babur-nama." | Museum, 1900. | | of the
| | | colophon of
| | | No. 1.
| | |
9. Pet. University | Pet. Univ. | No. 5 (?). | --
Codex. | Library. | |
--------------------+-------------------+-------------+--------------
Senkovski brought it over from his archetype; Mr. Salemann sent it to me
in its original Turki form. (JRAS. 1900, p. 474). Senkovski's own
colophon is as follows:—
"_J'ai achevé cette copie le 4 Mai, 1824, à St. Petersburg; elle a éte
faite d'àpres un exemplaire appartenant à Nazar Bai Turkistani,
négociant Boukhari, qui etait venu cette année à St. Petersburg. J.
Senkovski._"
The colophon Senkovski copied from his archetype is to the following
purport:—
"_Known and entitled Waqi`nama-i-padshahi (Record of Royal Acts), [this]
autograph and composition (bayad u navisht) of Mulla `Abdu'l-wahhāb the
Teacher, of Ghaj-davan in Bukhara—God pardon his mistakes and the
weakness of his endeavour!—was finished on Monday, Rajab 5, 1121 (Aug.
31st, 1709).—Thank God!_"
It will be observed that the title Waqi`nama-i-padshahi suits the plan
of dual histories (of Babur and Humayun) better than does the
"Babur-nama" of Timur-pulad's note, that the colophon does not claim for
the Mulla to have copied the elder book (1494-1530) but to have written
down and composed one under a differing title suiting its varied
contents; that the Mulla's deprecation and thanks tone better with
perplexing work, such as his was, than with the steadfast patience of a
good scribe; and that it exonerates the Mulla from suspicion of having
caused his compilation to be accepted as Babur's authentic text. Taken
with its circumstanding matters, it may be the dénoument of the play.
CHAPTER IV.
THE LEYDEN AND ERSKINE MEMOIRS OF BABER.
The fame and long literary services of the _Memoirs of Baber_ compel me
to explain why these volumes of mine contain a verbally new English
translation of the _Babur-nama_ instead of a second edition of the
_Memoirs_. My explanation is the simple one of textual values, of the
advantage a primary source has over its derivative, Babur's original
text over its Persian translation which alone was accessible to Erskine.
If the _Babur-nama_ owed its perennial interest to its valuable
multifarious matter, the _Memoirs_ could suffice to represent it, but
this it does not; what has kept interest in it alive through some four
centuries is the autobiographic presentment of an arresting personality
its whole manner, style and diction produce. It is characteristic
throughout, from first to last making known the personal quality of its
author. Obviously that quality has the better chance of surviving a
transfer of Babur's words to a foreign tongue when this can be effected
by imitation of them. To effect this was impracticable to Erskine who
did not see any example of the Turki text during the progress of his
translation work and had little acquaintance with Turki. No blame
attaches to his results; they have been the one introduction of Babur's
writings to English readers for almost a century; but it would be as
sensible to expect a potter to shape a vessel for a specific purpose
without a model as a translator of autobiography to shape the new verbal
container for Babur's quality without seeing his own. Erskine was the
pioneer amongst European workers on Baburiana—Leyden's fragment of
unrevised attempt to translate the Bukhara Compilation being a
negligible matter, notwithstanding friendship's deference to it; he had
ready to his hand no such valuable collateral help as he bequeathed to
his successors in the Memoirs volume. To have been able to help in the
renewal of his book by preparing a second edition of it, revised under
the authority of the Haidarabad Codex, would have been to me an act of
literary piety to an old book-friend; I experimented and failed in the
attempt; the wording of the Memoirs would not press back into the Turki
mould. Being what it is, sound in its matter and partly representative
of Babur himself, the all-round safer plan, one doing it the greater
honour, was to leave it unshorn of its redundance and unchanged in its
wording, in the place of worth and dignity it has held so long.
Brought to this point by experiment and failure, the way lay open to
make bee-line over intermediaries back to the fountain-head of
re-discovered Turki text preserved in the Haidarabad Codex. Thus I have
enjoyed an advantage no translator has had since `Abdu'r-rahim in 1589.
Concerning matters of style and diction, I may mention that three
distinct impressions of Babur's personality are set by his own,
Erskine's and de Courteille's words and manner. These divergencies,
while partly due to differing textual bases, may result mainly from the
use by the two Europeans of unsifted, current English and French. Their
portrayal might have been truer, there can be no doubt, if each had
restricted himself to such under-lying component of his mother-tongue as
approximates in linguistic stature to classic Turki. This probability
Erskine could not foresee for, having no access during his work to a
Turki source and no familiarity with Turki, he missed their lessoning.
Turki, as Babur writes it—terse, word-thrifty, restrained and
lucid,—comes over neatly into Anglo-Saxon English, perhaps through
primal affinities. Studying Babur's writings in verbal detail taught me
that its structure, idiom and vocabulary dictate a certain mechanism for
a translator's imitation. Such are the simple sentence, devoid of
relative phrasing, copied in the form found, whether abrupt and brief
or, ranging higher with the topic, gracious and dignified—the retention
of Babur's use of "we" and "I" and of his frequent impersonal
statement—the matching of words by their root-notion—the strict
observance of Babur's limits of vocabulary, effected by allotting to one
Turki word one English equivalent, thus excluding synonyms for which
Turki has little use because not shrinking from the repeated word;
lastly, as preserving relations of diction, the replacing of Babur's
Arabic and Persian aliens by Greek and Latin ones naturalized in
English. Some of these aids towards shaping a counterpart of Turki may
be thought small, but they obey a model and their aggregate has power to
make or mar a portrait.
(1) Of the uses of pronouns it may be said that Babur's "we" is neither
regal nor self-magnifying but is co-operative, as beseems the chief
whose volunteer and nomad following makes or unmakes his power, and who
can lead and command only by remittent consent accorded to him. His "I"
is individual. The _Memoirs_ varies much from these uses.
(2) The value of reproducing impersonal statements is seen by the
following example, one of many similar:—When Babur and a body of men,
making a long saddle-journey, halted for rest and refreshment by the
road-side; "There was drinking," he writes, but Erskine, "I drank"; what
is likely being that all or all but a few shared the local _vin du
pays_.
(3) The importance of observing Babur's limits of vocabulary needs no
stress, since any man of few words differs from any man of many.
Measured by the Babur-nama standard, the diction of the _Memoirs_ is
redundant throughout, and frequently over-coloured. Of this a pertinent
example is provided by a statement of which a minimum of seven
occurrences forms my example, namely, that such or such a man whose life
Babur sketches was vicious or a vicious person (_fisq_, _fāsiq_).
Erskine once renders the word by "vicious" but elsewhere enlarges to
"debauched, excess of sensual enjoyment, lascivious, libidinous,
profligate, voluptuous". The instances are scattered and certainly
Erskine could not feel their collective effect, but even scattered, each
does its ill-part in distorting the Memoirs portraiture of the man of
the one word.[35]
POSTSCRIPT OF THANKS.
I take with gratitude the long-delayed opportunity of finishing my book
to express the obligation I feel to the Council of the Royal Asiatic
Society for allowing me to record in the Journal my Notes on the Turki
Codices of the _Babur-nama_ begun in 1900 and occasionally appearing
till 1921. In minor convenience of work, to be able to gather those
progressive notes together and review them, has been of value to me in
noticeable matters, two of which are the finding and multiplying of the
Haidarabad Codex, and the definite clearance of the confusion which had
made the Bukhara (reputed) _Babur-nama_ be mistaken for a reproduction
of Babur's true text.
Immeasurable indeed is the obligation laid on me by the happy community
of interests which brought under our roof the translation of the
biographies of Babur, Humayun, and Akbar. What this has meant to my own
work may be surmised by those who know my husband's wide reading in many
tongues of East and West, his retentive memory and his generous
communism in knowledge. One signal cause for gratitude to him from those
caring for Baburiana, is that it was he made known the presence of the
Haidarabad Codex in its home library (1899) and thus led to its
preservation in facsimile.
It would be impracticable to enumerate all whose help I keep in grateful
memory and realize as the fruit of the genial camaraderie of letters.
ANNETTE S. BEVERIDGE.
PITFOLD, SHOTTERMILL, HASLEMERE.
_August, 1921._
THE MEMOIRS OF BABUR
SECTION I. FARGHĀNA.
In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate.
In[36] the month of Ramẓān of the year 899 (June 1494) and [Sidenote:
Ḥaidarābād MS. fol. 1b.] in the twelfth year of my age,[37] I became
ruler[38] in the country of Farghāna.
(_a. Description of Farghāna._)
Farghāna is situated in the fifth climate[39] and at the limit of
settled habitation. On the east it has Kāshghar; on the west, Samarkand;
on the south, the mountains of the Badakhshān border; on the north,
though in former times there must have been towns such as Ālmālīgh,
Ālmātū and Yāngī which in books they write Tarāz,[40] at the present
time all is desolate, no settled population whatever remaining, because
of the Mughūls and the Aūzbegs.[41]
Farghāna is a small country,[42] abounding in grain and fruits. It is
girt round by mountains except on the west, _i.e._ towards Khujand and
Samarkand, and in winter[43] an enemy can enter only on that side.
[Sidenote: Fol. 2.] The Saiḥūn River (_daryā_) commonly known as the
Water of Khujand, comes into the country from the north-east, flows
westward through it and after passing along the north of Khujand and the
south of Fanākat,[44] now known as Shāhrukhiya, turns directly north and
goes to Turkistān. It does not join any sea[45] but sinks into the
sands, a considerable distance below [the town of] Turkistān.
Farghāna has seven separate townships,[46] five on the south and two on
the north of the Saiḥūn.
Of those on the south, one is Andijān. It has a central position and is
the capital of the Farghāna country. It produces much grain, fruits in
abundance, excellent grapes and melons. In the melon season, it is not
customary to sell them out at the beds.[47] Better than the Andijān
_nāshpātī_,[48] there is none. After Samarkand and Kesh, the fort[49] of
Andijān is the largest in Mawārā'u'n-nahr (Transoxiana). It has three
gates. Its citadel (_ark_) is on its south side. Into it water goes by
nine channels; out of it, it is strange that none comes at even a single
place.[50] Round the outer edge of the ditch[51] runs a gravelled
highway; the width of this highway divides the fort from the suburbs
surrounding it.
Andijān has good hunting and fowling; its pheasants grow [Sidenote: Fol.
2b.] so surprisingly fat that rumour has it four people could not
finish one they were eating with its stew.[52]
Andijānīs are all Turks, not a man in town or bāzār but knows Turkī. The
speech of the people is correct for the pen; hence the writings of Mīr
`Alī-shīr _Nawā'ī_,[53] though he was bred and grew up in Hīrī (Harāt),
are one with their dialect. Good looks are common amongst them. The
famous musician, Khwāja Yūsuf, was an Andijānī.[54] The climate is
malarious; in autumn people generally get fever.[55]
Again, there is Aūsh (Ūsh), to the south-east, inclining to east, of
Andijān and distant from it four _yīghāch_ by road.[56] It has a fine
climate, an abundance of running waters[57] and a most beautiful spring
season. Many traditions have their rise in its excellencies.[58] To the
south-east of the walled town (_qūrghān_) lies a symmetrical mountain,
known as the Barā Koh;[59] on the top of this, Sl. Maḥmūd Khān built a
retreat (_ḥajra_) and lower down, on its shoulder, I, in 902AH.
(1496AD.) built another, having a porch. Though his lies the higher,
mine is the better placed, the whole of the town and the suburbs being
at its foot.
The Andijān torrent[60] goes to Andijān after having traversed
[Sidenote: Fol. 3.] the suburbs of Aūsh. Orchards (_bāghāt_)[61] lie
along both its banks; all the Aūsh gardens (_bāghlār_) overlook it;
their violets are very fine; they have running waters and in spring are
most beautiful with the blossoming of many tulips and roses.
On the skirt of the Barā-koh is a mosque called the Jauza Masjid (Twin
Mosque).[62] Between this mosque and the town, a great main canal flows
from the direction of the hill. Below the outer court of the mosque lies
a shady and delightful clover-meadow where every passing traveller takes
a rest. It is the joke of the ragamuffins of Aūsh to let out water from
the canal[63] on anyone happening to fall asleep in the meadow. A very
beautiful stone, waved red and white[64] was found in the Barā Koh in
`Umar Shaikh Mīrzā's latter days; of it are made knife handles, and
clasps for belts and many other things. For climate and for
pleasantness, no township in all Farghāna equals Aūsh.
Again there is Marghīnān; seven _yīghāch_[65] by road to the west of
Andijān,—a fine township full of good things. Its apricots (_aūrūk_) and
pomegranates are most excellent. One sort of pomegranate, they call the
Great Seed (_Dāna-i-kalān_); its sweetness has a little of the pleasant
flavour of the small apricot (_zard-alū_) and it may be thought better
than the Semnān pomegranate. [Sidenote: Fol. 3b.] Another kind of
apricot (_aūrūk_) they dry after stoning it and putting back the
kernel;[66] they then call it _subḥānī_; it is very palatable. The
hunting and fowling of Marghīnān are good; _āq kīyīk_[67] are had close
by. Its people are Sārts,[68] boxers, noisy and turbulent. Most of the
noted bullies (_jangralār_) of Samarkand and Bukhārā are Marghīnānīs.
The author of the Hidāyat[69] was from Rashdān, one of the villages of
Marghīnān.
Again there is Asfara, in the hill-country and nine _yīghāch_[70] by
road south-west of Marghīnān. It has running waters, beautiful little
gardens (_bāghcha_) and many fruit-trees but almonds for the most part
in its orchards. Its people are all Persian-speaking[71] Sārts. In the
hills some two miles (_bīrshar`ī_) to the south of the town, is a piece
of rock, known as the Mirror Stone.[72] It is some 10 arm-lengths
(_qārī_) long, as high as a man in parts, up to his waist in others.
Everything is reflected by it as by a mirror. The Asfara district
(_wilāyat_) is in four subdivisions (_balūk_) in the hill-country, one
Asfara, one Warūkh, one Sūkh and one Hushyār. When Muḥammad _Shaibānī_
Khān defeated Sl. Maḥmūd Khān and Alacha Khān and took Tāshkīnt and
Shāhrukhiya,[73] I went into the Sūkh and Hushyār [Sidenote: Fol. 4.]
hill-country and from there, after about a year spent in great misery, I
set out _(`azīmat_) for Kābul.[74]
Again there is Khujand,[75] twenty-five _yīghāch_ by road to the west
of Andijān and twenty-five _yīghāch_ east of Samarkand.[76] Khujand is
one of the ancient towns; of it were Shaikh Maṣlaḥat and Khwāja
Kamāl.[77] Fruit grows well there; its pomegranates are renowned for
their excellence; people talk of a Khujand pomegranate as they do of a
Samarkand apple; just now however, Marghīnān pomegranates are much met
with.[78] The walled town (_qūrghān_) of Khujand stands on high ground;
the Saiḥūn River flows past it on the north at the distance, may be, of
an arrow's flight.[79] To the north of both the town and the river lies
a mountain range called Munūghul;[80] people say there are turquoise and
other mines in it and there are many snakes. The hunting and
fowling-grounds of Khujand are first-rate; _āq kīyīk_,[81]
_būghū-marāl_,[82] pheasant and hare are all had in great plenty. The
climate is very malarious; in autumn there is much fever;[83] people
rumour it about that the very sparrows get fever and say that the cause
of the malaria is the mountain range on the north (_i.e._ Munūghul).
Kand-i-badām (Village of the Almond) is a dependency of Khujand; though
it is not a township (_qaṣba_) it is rather a good approach to one
(_qaṣbacha_). Its almonds are excellent, hence its name; they all go to
Hormuz or to Hindūstān. It is five or [Sidenote: Fol. 4b.] six
_yīghāch_[84] east of Khujand.
Between Kand-i-badām and Khujand lies the waste known as Hā Darwesh. In
this there is always (_hamesha_) wind; from it wind goes always
(_hameshā_) to Marghīnān on its east; from it wind comes continually
(_dā'im_) to Khujand on its west.[85] It has violent, whirling winds.
People say that some darweshes, encountering a whirlwind in this
desert,[86] lost one another and kept crying, "Hāy Darwesh! Hāy
Darwesh!" till all had perished, and that the waste has been called Hā
Darwesh ever since.
Of the townships on the north of the Saiḥūn River one is Akhsī. In books
they write it Akhsīkīt[87] and for this reason the poet As̤iru-d-dīn is
known as _Akhsīkītī_. After Andijān no township in Farghāna is larger
than Akhsī. It is nine _yīghāch_[88] by road to the west of Andijān.
`Umar Shaikh Mīrzā made it his capital.[89] The Saiḥūn River flows below
its walled town (_qūrghān_). This stands above a great ravine (_buland
jar_) and it has deep ravines (_`uṃiq jarlār_) in place of a moat. When
`Umar Shaikh Mīrzā made it his capital, he once or twice cut other
ravines from the outer ones. In all Farghāna no fort is so strong as
Akhsī. *Its suburbs extend some two miles further [Sidenote: Fol. 5.]
than the walled town.* People seem to have made of Akhsī the saying
(_mis̤al_), "Where is the village? Where are the trees?" (_Dih kujā?
Dirakhtān kujā?_) Its melons are excellent; they call one kind Mīr
Tīmūrī; whether in the world there is another to equal it is not known.
The melons of Bukhārā are famous; when I took Samarkand, I had some
brought from there and some from Akhsī; they were cut up at an
entertainment and nothing from Bukhārā compared with those from Akhsī.
The fowling and hunting of Akhsī are very good indeed; _āq kīyīk_ abound
in the waste on the Akhsī side of the Saihūn; in the jungle on the
Andijān side _būghū-marāl_,[90] pheasant and hare are had, all in very
good condition.
Again there is Kāsān, rather a small township to the north of Akhsī.
From Kāsān the Akhsī water comes in the same way as the Andijān water
comes from Aūsh. Kāsān has excellent air and beautiful little gardens
(_bāghcha_). As these gardens all lie along the bed of the torrent
(_sā'ī_) people call them the "fine front of the coat."[91] Between
Kāsānīs and Aūshīs there is rivalry about the beauty and climate of
their townships.
In the mountains round Farghāna are excellent summer-pastures (_yīlāq_).
There, and nowhere else, the _tabalghū_[92]grows, a tree (_yīghāch_)
with red bark; they make staves of it; they [Sidenote: Fol. 5b.] make
bird-cages of it; they scrape it into arrows;[93] it is an excellent
wood (_yīghāch_) and is carried as a rarity[94] to distant places. Some
books write that the mandrake[95] is found in these mountains but for
this long time past nothing has been heard of it. A plant called _Āyīq
aūtī_[96] and having the qualities of the mandrake (_mihr-giyāh_), is
heard of in Yītī-kīnt;[97] it seems to be the mandrake (_mihr-giyāh_)
the people there call by this name (_i.e._ _āyīq aūtī_). There are
turquoise and iron mines in these mountains.
If people do justly, three or four thousand men[98] may be maintained by
the revenues of Farghāna.
(_b. Historical narrative resumed._)[99]
As `Umar Shaikh Mīrzā was a ruler of high ambition and great pretension,
he was always bent on conquest. On several occasions he led an army
against Samarkand; sometimes he was beaten, sometimes retired against
his will.[100] More than once he asked his father-in-law into the
country, that is to say, my grandfather, Yūnas Khān, the then Khān of
the Mughūls in the camping ground (_yūrt_) of his ancestor, Chaghatāī
Khān, the second son of Chīngīz Khān. Each time the Mīrzā brought The
Khān into the Farghāna country he gave him lands, but, partly owing to
his misconduct, partly to the thwarting of the [Sidenote: Fol. 6.]
Mughūls,[101] things did not go as he wished and Yūnas Khān, not being
able to remain, went out again into Mughūlistān. When the Mīrzā last
brought The Khān in, he was in possession of Tāshkīnt, which in books
they write Shash, and sometimes Chāch, whence the term, a Chāchī,
bow.[102] He gave it to The Khān, and from that date (890AH.-1485AD.)
down to 908AH. (1503AD.) it and the Shāhrukhiya country were held by the
Chaghatāī Khāns.
At this date (_i.e._, 899AH.-1494AD.) the Mughūl Khānship was in Sl.
Maḥ=mūd Khān, Yūnas Khān's younger son and a half-brother of my mother.
As he and `Umar Shaikh Mīrzā's elder brother, the then ruler of
Samarkand, Sl. Aḥmad Mīrzā were offended by the Mīrzā's behaviour, they
came to an agreement together; Sl. Aḥmad Mīrzā had already given a
daughter to Sl. Maḥmūd Khān;[103] both now led their armies against
`Umar Shaikh Mīrzā, the first advancing along the south of the Khujand
Water, the second along its north.
Meantime a strange event occurred. It has been mentioned [Sidenote: Fol.
6b] that the fort of Akhsī is situated above a deep ravine;[104] along
this ravine stand the palace buildings, and from it, on Monday, Ramẓān
4, (June 8th.) `Umar Shaikh Mīrzā flew, with his pigeons and their
house, and became a falcon.[105]
He was 39 (lunar) years old, having been born in Samarkand, in 860AH.
(1456AD.) He was Sl. Abū-sa`īd Mīrzā's fourth son,[106] being younger
than Sl. Aḥmad M. and Sl. Muḥammad M. and Sl. Maḥmūd Mīrzā. His father,
Sl. Abū-sa`īd Mīrzā, was the son of Sl. Muḥammad Mīrzā, son of Tīmūr
Beg's third son, Mīrān-shāh M. and was younger than `Umar Shaikh Mīrzā,
(the elder) and Jahāngīr M. but older than Shāhrukh Mīrzā.
_c. `Umar Shaikh Mīrzā's country._
His father first gave him Kābul and, with Bābā-i-Kābulī[107] for his
guardian, had allowed him to set out, but recalled him from the Tamarisk
Valley[108] to Samarkand, on account of the Mīrzās' Circumcision Feast.
When the Feast was over, he gave him Andijān with the appropriateness
that Tīmūr Beg had given Farghāna (Andijān) to his son, the elder `Umar
Shaikh Mīrzā. This done, he sent him off with Khudāī-bīrdī _Tūghchī
Tīmūr-tāsh_[109] for his guardian.
_d. His appearance and characteristics._
He was a short and stout, round-bearded and fleshy-faced [Sidenote: Fol.
7.] person.[110] He used to wear his tunic so very tight that to fasten
the strings he had to draw his belly in and, if he let himself out after
tying them, they often tore away. He was not choice in dress or food. He
wound his turban in a fold (_dastar-pech_); all turbans were in four
folds (_chār-pech_) in those days; people wore them without twisting
and let the ends hang down.[111] In the heats and except in his Court,
he generally wore the Mughūl cap.
_e. His qualities and habits._
He was a true believer (_Ḥanafī maẕhablīk_) and pure in the Faith, not
neglecting the Five Prayers and, his life through, making up his
Omissions.[112] He read the Qur'ān very frequently and was a disciple of
his Highness Khwāja `Ubaidu'l-lāh (_Aḥrārī_) who honoured him by visits
and even called him son. His current readings[113] were the two Quintets
and the _Mas̤nawī_;[114] of histories he read chiefly the _Shāh-nāma_.
He had a poetic nature, but no taste for composing verses. He was so
just that when he heard of a caravan returning from Khitāī as
overwhelmed by snow in the mountains of Eastern Andijān,[115] and that
of its thousand heads of houses (_awīlūq_) two only had escaped, he sent
his overseers to take charge of all goods and, though no heirs were
[Sidenote: Fol. 7b.] near and though he was in want himself, summoned
the heirs from Khurāsān and Samarkand, and in the course of a year or
two had made over to them all their property safe and sound.
He was very generous; in truth, his character rose altogether to the
height of generosity. He was affable, eloquent and sweet-spoken, daring
and bold. Twice out-distancing all his braves,[116] he got to work with
his own sword, once at the Gate of Akhsī, once at the Gate of
Shāhrukhiya. A middling archer, he was strong in the fist,—not a man but
fell to his blow. Through his ambition, peace was exchanged often for
war, friendliness for hostility.
In his early days he was a great drinker, later on used to have a party
once or twice a week. He was good company, on occasions reciting verses
admirably. Towards the last he rather preferred intoxicating
confects[117] and, under their sway, used to lose his head. His
disposition[118] was amorous, and he bore many a lover's mark.[119] He
played draughts a good deal, sometimes even threw the dice.
_f. His battles and encounters._
He fought three ranged battles, the first with Yūnas Khān, [Sidenote:
Fol. 8.] on the Saiḥūn, north of Andijān, at the Goat-leap,[120] a
village so-called because near it the foot-hills so narrow the flow of
the water that people say goats leap across.[121] There he was beaten
and made prisoner. Yūnas Khān for his part did well by him and gave him
leave to go to his own district (Andijān). This fight having been at
that place, the Battle of the Goat-leap became a date in those parts.
His second battle was fought on the Urūs,[122] in Turkistān, with
Aūzbegs returning from a raid near Samarkand. He crossed the river on
the ice, gave them a good beating, separated off all their prisoners and
booty and, without coveting a single thing for himself, gave everything
back to its owners.
His third battle he fought with (his brother) Sl. Aḥmad Mīrzā at a
place between Shāhrukhiya and Aūrā-tīpā, named Khwāṣ.[123] Here he was
beaten.
_g. His country._
The Farghāna country his father had given him; Tāshkīnt and Sairām, his
elder brother, Sl. Aḥmad Mīrzā gave, and they were in his possession for
a time; Shāhrukhiya he took by a ruse and held awhile. Later on,
Tāshkīnt and Shāhrukhiya passed out of his hands; there then remained
the Farghāna country and Khujand,—some do not include Khujand in
[Sidenote: Fol. 8b.] Farghāna,—and Aūrā-tīpā, of which the original name
was Aūrūshnā and which some call Aūrūsh. In Aūrā-tīpā, at the time Sl.
Aḥmad Mīrzā went to Tāshkīnt against the Mughūls, and was beaten on the
Chīr[124] (893AH.-1488AD.) was Ḥafiẓ Beg _Dūldāī_; he made it over to
`Umar Shaikh M. and the Mīrzā held it from that time forth.
_h. His children._
Three of his sons and five of his daughters grew up. I, Z̤ahīru'd-dīn
Muḥammad Bābur,[125] was his eldest son; my mother was Qūtlūq-nigār
Khānīm. Jahāngīr Mīrzā was his second son, two years younger than I; his
mother, Fāṯima-sulṯān by name, was of the Mughūl _tūmān_-begs.[126]
Nāṣir Mīrzā was his third son; his mother was an Andijānī, a
mistress,[127] named Umīd. He was four years younger than I.
`Umar Shaikh Mīrzā's eldest daughter was Khān-zāda Begīm,[128] my full
sister, five years older than I. The second time I took Samarkand
(905AH.-1500AD.), spite of defeat at Sar-i-pul,[129] I went back and
held it through a five months' siege, but as no sort of help or
reinforcement came from any beg or ruler thereabouts, I left it in
despair and got away; in that throneless time (_fatrat_) Khān-zāda Begīm
fell[130] to Muḥammad _Shaibānī_ Khān. She had one child by him, a
pleasant boy,[131] [Sidenote: Fol. 9.] named Khurram Shāh. The Balkh
country was given to him; he went to God's mercy a few years after the
death of his father (916AH.-1510AD.). Khān-zāda Begīm was in Merv when
Shāh Ismā`īl (_Ṣafawī_) defeated the Aūzbegs near that town
(916AH.-1510AD.); for my sake he treated her well, giving her a
sufficient escort to Qūndūz where she rejoined me. We had been apart for
some ten years; when Muḥammadī _kūkūldāsh_ and I went to see her,
neither she nor those about her knew us, although I spoke. They
recognized us after a time.
Mihr-bānū Begīm was another daughter, Nāṣir Mīrzā's full-sister, two
years younger than I. Shahr-bānū Begīm was another, also Nāṣir Mīrzā's
full-sister, eight years younger than I. Yādgār-sulṯān Begīm was
another, her mother was a mistress, called Āghā-sulṯān. Ruqaiya-sulṯān
Begīm was another; her mother, Makhdūm-sulṯān Begīm, people used to call
the Dark-eyed Begīm. The last-named two were born after the Mīrzā's
death. Yādgār-sulṯān Begīm was brought up by my grandmother,
Aīsān-daulat Begīm; she fell to `Abdu'l-laṯīf Sl., a son of Ḥamza Sl.
when Shaibānī Khān took Andijān and Akhsī (908AH.-1503AD.). She rejoined
me when (917AH.-1511AD.) in Khutlān I defeated Ḥamza Sl. and other
sulṯāns and took Ḥiṣār. Ruqaiya-sulṯān Begīm fell in that [Sidenote:
Fol. 9b.] same throneless time (_fatrat_) to Jānī Beg Sl. (_Aūzbeg_). By
him she had one or two children who did not live. In these days of our
leisure (_furṣatlār_)[132] has come news that she has gone to God's
mercy.
_i. His ladies and mistresses._
Qūtlūq-nigār Khānīm was the second daughter of Yūnas Khān and the eldest
(half-) sister of Sl. Maḥmūd Khān and Sl. Aḥmad Khān.
(_j. Interpolated account of Bābur's mother's family._)
Yūnas Khān descended from Chaghatāī Khān, the second son of Chīngīz Khān
(as follows,) Yūnas Khān, son of Wais Khān, son of Sher-`alī _Aūghlān_,
son of Muḥammad Khān, son of Khiẓr Khwāja Khān, son of Tūghlūq-tīmūr
Khān, son of Aīsān-būghā Khān, son of Dāwā Khān, son of Barāq Khān, son
of Yīsūntawā Khān, son of Mūātūkān, son of Chaghatāī Khān, son of
Chīngīz Khān.
Since such a chance has come, set thou down[133] now a summary of the
history of the Khāns.
Yūnas Khān (d. 892 AH.-1487 AD.) and Aīsān-būghā Khān (d. 866 AH.-1462
AD.) were sons of Wais Khān (d. 832 AH.-1428 AD.).[134] Yūnas Khān's
mother was either a daughter or a grand-daughter of Shaikh Nūru'd-dīn
Beg, a Turkistānī Qīpchāq favoured by Tīmūr Beg. When Wais Khān died,
the Mughūl horde split in two, one portion being for Yūnas Khān, the
greater for Aīsān-būghā Khān. For help in getting the upper hand in the
horde, Aīrzīn (var. Aīrāzān) one of the Bārīn _tūmān_-begs and Beg Mīrik
_Turkmān_, one of the Chīrās _tūmān_-begs, took Yūnas Khān (aet. 13) and
with him [Sidenote: Fol. 10.] three or four thousand Mughūl heads of
houses (_awīlūq_), to Aūlūgh Beg Mīrzā (_Shāhrukhī_) with the
fittingness that Aūlūgh Beg M. had taken Yūnas Khān's elder sister for
his son, `Abdu'l-`azīz Mīrzā. Aūlūgh Beg Mīrzā did not do well by them;
some he imprisoned, some scattered over the country[135] one by one. The
Dispersion of Aīrzīn became a date in the Mughūl horde.
Yūnas Khān himself was made to go towards `Irāq; one year he spent in
Tabrīz where Jahān Shāh _Barānī_ of the Black Sheep Turkmāns was ruling.
From Tabrīz he went to Shīrāz where was Shāhrukh Mīrzā's second son,
Ibrāhīm Sulṯān Mīrzā.[136] He having died five or six months later
(Shawwal 4, 838 AH.-May 3rd, 1435 AD.), his son, `Abdu'l-lāh Mīrzā sat
in his place. Of this `Abdu'l-lāh Mīrzā Yūnas Khān became a retainer and
to him used to pay his respects. The Khān was in those parts for 17 or
18 years.
In the disturbances between Aūlūgh Beg Mīrzā and his sons, Aīsān-būghā
Khān found a chance to invade Farghāna; he plundered as far as
Kand-i-badām, came on and, having plundered Andijān, led all its people
into captivity.[137] Sl. Abū-sa`īd Mīrzā, after seizing the throne of
Samarkand, led an army out to beyond Yāngī (Tarāz) to Aspara in
Mughūlistān, [Sidenote: Fol. 10b.] there gave Aīsān-būghā a good beating
and then, to spare himself further trouble from him and with the
fittingness that he had just taken to wife[138] Yūnas Khān's elder
sister, the former wife of `Abdu'l-`azīz Mīrzā (_Shāhrukhī_), he invited
Yūnas Khān from Khurāsān and `Irāq, made a feast, became friends and
proclaimed him Khān of the Mughūls. Just when he was speeding him forth,
the Sāghārīchī _tūmān_-begs had all come into Mughūlistān, in anger with
Aīsān-būghā Khān.[139] Yūnas Khān went amongst them and took to wife
Aīsān-daulat Begīm, the daughter of their chief, `Alī-shīr Beg. They
then seated him and her on one and the same white felt and raised him to
the Khānship.[140]
By this Aīsān-daulat Begīm, Yūnas Khān had three daughters. Mihr-nigār
Khānīm was the eldest; Sl. Abū-sa`īd Mīrzā set her aside[141] for his
eldest son, Sl. Aḥmad Mīrzā; she had no child. In a throneless time (905
AH.) she fell to Shaibānī Khān; she left Samarkand[142] with Shāh Begīm
for Khurāsān (907 AH.) and both came on to me in Kābul (911 AH.). At the
time Shaibānī Khān was besieging Nāṣir Mīrzā in Qandahār and I set out
for Lamghān[143] (913 AH.) they went to Badakhshān with Khān Mīrzā
(Wais).[144] When Mubārak Shāh invited Khān Mīrzā into Fort
Victory,[145] they were [Sidenote: Fol. 11.] captured, together with the
wives and families of all their people, by marauders of Ābā-bikr
_Kāshgharī_ and, as captives to that ill-doing miscreant, bade farewell
to this transitory world (_circa_ 913 AH.-1507 AD.).
Qūtlūq-nigār Khānīm, my mother, was Yūnas Khān's second daughter. She
was with me in most of my guerilla expeditions and throneless times. She
went to God's mercy in Muḥarram 911 AH. (June 1505 AD.) five or six
months after the capture of Kābul.
Khūb-nigār Khānīm was his third daughter. Her they gave to Muḥammad
Ḥusain _Kūrkān Dūghlāt_ (899 AH.). She had one son and one daughter by
him. `Ubaid Khān (_Aūzbeg_) took the daughter (Ḥabība).[146] When I
captured Samarkand and Bukhārā (917 AH.-1511 AD.), she stayed
behind,[147] and when her paternal uncle, Sayyid Muḥammad _Dūghlāt_ came
as Sl. Sa`īd Khān's envoy to me in Samarkand, she joined him and with
him went to Kāshghar where (her cousin), Sl. Sa`īd Khān took her.
Khūb-nigār's son was Ḥaidar Mīrzā.[148] He was in my service for three
or four years after the Aūzbegs slew his father, then (918 AH.-1512 AD.)
asked leave to go to Kāshghar to the presence of Sl. Sa`īd Khān.
"Everything goes back to its source.
Pure gold, or silver or tin."[149]
People say he now lives lawfully (_tā'ib_) and has found the right way
(_ṯarīqā_).[150] He has a hand deft in everything, penmanship and
painting, and in making arrows and arrow-barbs [Sidenote: Fol. 11b.] and
string-grips; moreover he is a born poet and in a petition written to
me, even his style is not bad.[151]
Shāh Begīm was another of Yūnas Khān's ladies. Though he had more, she
and Aīsān-daulat Begīm were the mothers of his children. She was one of
the (six) daughters of Shāh Sulṯān Muḥammad, Shāh of Badakhshān.[152]
His line, they say, runs back to Iskandar Fīlkūs.[153] Sl. Abū-sa`īd
Mīrzā took another daughter and by her had Ābā-bikr Mīrzā.[154] By this
Shāh Begīm Yūnas Khān had two sons and two daughters. Her first-born
but younger than all Aīsān-daulat Begīm's daughters, was Sl. Maḥmūd
Khān, called Khānika Khān[155] by many in and about Samarkand. Next
younger than he was Sl. Aḥmad Khān, known as Alacha Khān. People say he
was called this because he killed many Qālmāqs on the several occasions
he beat them. In the Mughūl and Qālmāq tongues, one who will kill
(_aūltūrgūchī_) is called _ālāchī_; Alāchī they called him therefore and
this by repetition, became Alacha.[156] As occasion arises, the acts and
circumstances of these two Khāns will find mention in this history
(_tārīkh_).
Sulṯān-nigār Khānīm was the youngest but one of Yūnas Khān's children.
Her they made go forth (_chīqārīb īdīlār_) [Sidenote: Fol. 12.] to Sl.
Maḥmūd Mīrzā; by him she had one child, Sl. Wais (Khān Mīrzā), mention
of whom will come into this history. When Sl. Maḥmūd Mīrzā died (900
AH.-1495 AD.), she took her son off to her brothers in Tāshkīnt without
a word to any single person. They, a few years later, gave her to Adik
(Aūng) Sulṯān,[157] a Qāzāq sulṯān of the line of Jūjī Khān, Chīngīz
Khān's eldest son. When Shaibānī Khān defeated the Khāns (her brothers),
and took Tāshkīnt and Shāhrukhiya (908 AH.), she got away with 10 or 12
of her Mughūl servants, to (her husband), Adik Sulṯān. She had two
daughters by Adik Sulṯān; one she gave to a Shaibān sulṯān, the other to
Rashīd Sulṯān, the son of (her cousin) Sl. Sa`īd Khān. After Adik
Sulṯān's death, (his brother), Qāsim Khān, Khān of the Qāzāq horde, took
her.[158] Of all the Qāzāq khāns and sulṯāns, no one, they say, ever
kept the horde in such good order as he; his army was reckoned at
300,000 men. On his death the Khānīm went to Sl. Sa`īd Khān's presence
in Kāshghar. Daulat-sulṯān Khānīm was Yūnas Khān's youngest child.
[Sidenote: Fol. 12b.] In the Tāshkīnt disaster (908 AH.) she fell to
Tīmūr Sulṯān, the son of Shaibānī Khān. By him she had one daughter;
they got out of Samarkand with me (918 AH.-1512 AD.), spent three or
four years in the Badakhshān country, then went (923 AH.-1420 AD.) to
Sl. Sa`īd Khān's presence in Kāshghar.[159]
(_k. Account resumed of Bābur's father's family._)
In `Umar Shaikh Mīrzā's _ḥaram_ was also Aūlūs Āghā, a daughter of
Khwāja Ḥusain Beg; her one daughter died in infancy and they sent her
out of the _ḥaram_ a year or eighteen months later. Fāṯima-sulṯān Āghā
was another; she was of the Mughūl _tūmān_-begs and the first taken of
his wives. Qarāgūz (Makhdūm sulṯān) Begīm was another; the Mīrzā took
her towards the end of his life; she was much beloved, so to please him,
they made her out descended from (his uncle) Minūchihr Mīrzā, the elder
brother of Sl. Abū-sa`īd Mīrzā. He had many mistresses and concubines;
one, Umīd Āghāchā died before him. Latterly there were also Tūn-sulṯān
(var. Yun) of the Mughūls and Āghā Sulṯān.
_l. `Umar Shaikh Mīrzā's Amīrs._
There was Khudāī-bīrdī _Tūghchī Tīmūr-tāsh_, a descendant of the brother
of Āq-būghā Beg, the Governor of Hīrī (Herāt, for Timūr Beg.) When Sl.
Abū-sa`īd Mīrzā, after besieging Jūkī Mīrzā (_Shāhrukhī_) in Shāhrukhiya
(868AH.-1464AD.) gave the Farghāna country to `Umar Shaikh Mīrzā, he put
this Khudāī-bīrdī [Sidenote: Fol. 13.] Beg at the head of the Mīrzā's
Gate.[160] Khudāī-bīrdī was then 25 but youth notwithstanding, his
rules and management were very good indeed. A few years later when
Ibrāhīm _Begchīk_ was plundering near Aūsh, he followed him up, fought
him, was beaten and became a martyr. At the time, Sl. Aḥmad Mīrzā was in
the summer pastures of Āq Qāchghāī, in Aūrā-tīpā, 18 _yīghāch_ east of
Samarkand, and Sl. Abū-sa`īd Mīrzā was at Bābā Khākī, 12 _yīghāch_ east
of Hīrī. People sent the news post-haste to the Mīrzā(s),[161] having
humbly represented it through `Abdu'l-wahhāb _Shaghāwal_. In four days
it was carried those 120 _yīghāch_ of road.[162]
Ḥāfiẓ Muḥammad Beg _Dūldāī_ was another, Sl. Malik _Kāshgharī's_ son and
a younger brother of Aḥmad Ḥājī Beg. After the death of Khudāī-bīrdī
Beg, they sent him to control `Umar Shaikh Mīrzā's Gate, but he did not
get on well with the Andijān begs and therefore, when Sl. Abū-sa`īd
Mīrzā died, went to Samarkand and took service with Sl. Aḥmad Mīrzā. At
the time of the disaster on the Chīr, he was in Aūrā-tīpā and made it
over to `Umar Shaikh Mīrzā when the Mīrzā passed through on his way to
Samarkand, himself taking [Sidenote: Fol. 13b.] service with him. The
Mīrzā, for his part, gave him the Andijān Command. Later on he went to
Sl. Maḥmūd Khān in Tāshkīnt and was there entrusted with the
guardianship of Khān Mīrzā (Wais) and given Dīzak. He had started for
Makka by way of Hind before I took Kābul (910AH. Oct. 1504AD.), but he
went to God's mercy on the road. He was a simple person, of few words
and not clever.
Khwāja Ḥusain Beg was another, a good-natured and simple person. It is
said that, after the fashion of those days, he used to improvise very
well at drinking parties.[163]
Shaikh Mazīd Beg was another, my first guardian, excellent in rule and
method. He must have served (_khidmat qīlghān dūr_) under Bābur Mīrzā
(_Shāhrukhī_). There was no greater beg in `Umar Shaikh Mīrzā's
presence. He was a vicious person and kept catamites.
`Alī-mazīd _Qūchīn_ was another;[164] he rebelled twice, once at Akhsī,
once at Tāshkīnt. He was disloyal, untrue to his salt, vicious and
good-for-nothing.
Ḥasan (son of) Yaq`ūb was another, a small-minded, good-tempered, smart
and active man. This verse is his:—
"Return, O Huma, for without the parrot-down of thy lip,
The crow will assuredly soon carry off my bones."[165]
[Sidenote: Fol. 14.] He was brave, a good archer, played polo
(_chaughān_) well and leapt well at leap-frog.[166] He had the control
of my Gate after `Umar Shaikh Mīrzā's accident. He had not much sense,
was narrow-minded and somewhat of a strife-stirrer.
Qāsim Beg _Qūchīn_, of the ancient army-begs of Andijān, was another. He
had the control of my Gate after Ḥasan Yaq`ūb Beg. His life through, his
authority and consequence waxed without decline. He was a brave man;
once he gave some Aūzbegs a good beating when he overtook them raiding
near Kāsān; his sword hewed away in `Umar Shaikh Mīrzā's presence; and
in the fight at the Broad Ford (Yāsī-kījīt _circa_ 904AH.-July, 1499AD.)
he hewed away with the rest. In the guerilla days he went to Khusrau
Shāh (907AH.) at the time I was planning to go from the Macha
hill-country[167] to Sl. Maḥmūd Khān, but he came back to me in 910AH.
(1504AD.) and I shewed him all my old favour and affection. When I
attacked the Turkmān Hazāra raiders in Dara-i-khwush (911AH.) he made
better advance, spite of his age, than the younger men; I gave him
Bangash as a reward and later on, after returning to Kābul, made him
Humāyūn's guardian. He went to God's mercy [Sidenote: Fol. 14b.] about
the time Zamīn-dāwar was taken (_circa_ 928AH.-1522AD.). He was a pious,
God-fearing Musalmān, an abstainer from doubtful aliments; excellent in
judgment and counsel, very facetious and, though he could neither read
nor write (_ummiy_), used to make entertaining jokes.
Bābā Beg's Bābā Qulī (`Alī) was another, a descendant of Shaikh `Alī
_Bahādur_.[168] They made him my guardian when Shaikh Mazīd Beg died. He
went over to Sl. Aḥmad Mīrzā when the Mīrzā led his army against Andijān
(899AH.), and gave him Aūrā-tīpā. After Sl. Maḥmūd Mīrzā's death, he
left Samarkand and was on his way to join me (900AH.) when Sl. `Alī
Mīrzā, issuing out of Aūrā-tīpā, fought, defeated and slew him. His
management and equipment were excellent and he took good care of his
men. He prayed not; he kept no fasts; he was like a heathen and he was a
tyrant.
`Alī-dost T̤aghāī[169] was another, one of the Sāghārīchī _tumān_-begs
and a relation of my mother's mother, Aīsān-daulat Begīm. I favoured him
more than he had been favoured in `Umar Shaikh Mīrzā's time. People
said, "Work will come from his hand." But in the many years he was
in my presence, no work to speak of[170] came to sight. He must have
served Sl. [Sidenote: Fol. 15.] Abū-sa`īd Mīrzā. He claimed to have
power to bring on rain with the jade-stone. He was the Falconer
(_qūshchī_),worthless by nature and habit, a stingy, severe,
strife-stirring person, false, self-pleasing, rough of tongue and
cold-of-face.
Wais _Lāgharī_,[171] one of the Samarkand _Tūghchī_ people, was another.
Latterly he was much in `Umar Shaikh Mīrzā's confidence; in the guerilla
times he was with me. Though somewhat factious, he was a man of good
judgment and counsel.
Mīr Ghiyās̤ T̤aghāi was another, a younger brother of `Ali-dost T̤aghāī.
No man amongst the leaders in Sl. Abū-sa`īd Mīrzā's Gate was more to the
front than he; he had charge of the Mīrzā's square seal[172] and was
much in his confidence latterly. He was a friend of Wais _Lāgharī_. When
Kāsān had been given to Sl. Maḥmūd Khān (899AH.-1494AD. ), he was
continuously in The Khān's service and was in high favour. He was a
laugher, a joker and fearless in vice.
`Ali-darwesh _Khurāsānī_ was another. He had served in the Khurāsān
Cadet Corps, one of two special corps of serviceable young men formed by
Sl. Abū-sa`īd Mīrzā when he first began [Sidenote: Fol. 15b.] to arrange
the government of Khurāsān and Samarkand, and, presumably, called by him
the Khurāsān Corps and the Samarkand Corps. `Alī-darwesh was a brave
man; he did well in my presence at the Gate of Bīshkārān.[173] He wrote
the _naskh ta`līq_ hand clearly.[174] His was the flatterer's tongue and
in his character avarice was supreme.
Qaṃbar-`alī _Mughūl_ of the Equerries (_akhtachī_) was another. People
called him The Skinner because his father, on first coming into the
(Farghāna) country, worked as a skinner. Qaṃbar-`alī had been Yūnas
Khān's water-bottle bearer,[175] later on he became a beg. Till he was a
made man, his conduct was excellent; once arrived, he was slack. He was
full of talk and of foolish talk,—a great talker is sure to be a foolish
one,—his capacity was limited and his brain muddy.
(_l. Historical narrative._)
At the time of `Umar Shaikh Mīrzā's accident, I was in the Four Gardens
(_Chār-bāgh_) of Andijān.[176] The news reached Andijān on Tuesday,
Ramẓan 5 (June 9th); I mounted at once, with my followers and retainers,
intending to go into the fort but, on our getting near the Mīrzā's Gate,
Shīrīm T̤aghāī[177] took hold of my bridle and moved off towards the
Praying Place.[178] It had crossed his mind that if a great ruler like
Sl. Aḥmad Mīrzā came in force, the Andijān begs would make over to him
[Sidenote: Fol. 16.] me and the country,[179] but that if he took me to
Aūzkīnt and the foothills thereabouts, I, at any rate, should not be
made over and could go to one of my mother's (half-) brothers, Sl.
Maḥmūd Khān or Sl. Aḥmad Khān.[180] When Khwāja Maulānā-i-qāẓī[181] and
the begs in the fort heard of (the intended departure), they sent after
us Khwāja Muḥammad, the tailor,[184] an old servant (_bāyrī_) of my
father and the foster-father of one of his daughters. He dispelled our
fears and, turning back from near the Praying [Sidenote: Fol. 16b.]
Place, took me with him into the citadel (_ark_) where I dismounted.
Khwāja Maulānā-i-qāẓī and the begs came to my presence there and after
bringing their counsels to a head,[185] busied themselves in making good
the towers and ramparts of the fort.[186] A few days later, Ḥasan, son
of Yaq`ūb, and Qāsim _Qūchīn_, arrived, together with other begs who had
been sent to reconnoitre in Marghīnān and those parts.[187] They also,
after waiting on me, set themselves with one heart and mind and with
zeal and energy, to hold the fort.
(_Author's note on Khwāja Maulānā-i-qāẓī._) He was the son of
Sl. Aḥmad Qāẓī, of the line of Burhānu'd-dīn `Alī
_Qīlīch_[182] and through his mother, traced back to Sl. Aīlīk
_Māẓī_.[183] By hereditary right (_yūsūnlūq_) his high family
(_khānwādalār_) must have come to be the Refuge (_marji`_) and
Pontiffs (_Shaikhu'l-islām_) of the (Farghāna) country.
Meantime Sl. Aḥmad Mīrzā took Aūrā-tīpā, Khujand and Marghīnān, came on
to Qabā,[188] 4 _yīghāch_ from Andijān and there made halt. At this
crisis, Darwesh Gau, one of the Andijān notables, was put to death on
account of his improper proposals; his punishment crushed the rest.
Khwāja Qāẓī and Aūzūn (Long) Ḥasan,[189] (brother) of Khwāja Ḥusain,
were then sent to Sl. Aḥmad Mīrzā to say in effect that, as he himself
would place one of his servants in the country and as I was myself both
a servant and (as) a son, he would attain his end most readily and
easily if he entrusted the service to me. He was a mild, weak man, of
few words who, without his begs, decided no opinion or compact (_aun_),
action or move; they paid attention to our proposal, gave it a harsh
answer and moved forward.
But the Almighty God, who, of His perfect power and without mortal aid,
has ever brought my affairs to their right issue, made such things
happen here that they became disgusted at having advanced (_i.e._ from
Qabā), repented indeed that they had ever set out on this expedition and
turned back with nothing done.
One of those things was this: Qabā has a stagnant, morass-like
Water,[190] passable only by the bridge. As they were many, there was
crowding on the bridge and numbers of horses and [Sidenote: Fol. 17.]
camels were pushed off to perish in the water. This disaster recalling
the one they had had three or four years earlier when they were badly
beaten at the passage of the Chīr, they gave way to fear. Another thing
was that such a murrain broke out amongst their horses that, massed
together, they began to die off in bands.[191] Another was that they
found in our soldiers and peasants a resolution and single-mindedness
such as would not let them flinch from making offering of their
lives[192] so long as there was breath and power in their bodies. Need
being therefore, when one _yīghāch_ from Andijān, they sent Darwesh
Muḥammad Tarkhān[193] to us; Ḥasan of Yaq'ūb went out from those in the
fort; the two had an interview near the Praying Place and a sort of
peace was made. This done, Sl. Aḥmad Mīrzā's force retired.
Meantime Sl. Maḥmūd Khān had come along the north of the Khujand Water
and laid siege to Akhsī.[194] In Akhsī was Jahāngīr Mīrzā (aet. 9) and
of begs, `Alī-darwesh Beg, Mīrzā Qulī _Kūkūldāsh_, Muḥ. Bāqir Beg and
Shaikh `Abdu'l-lāh, Lord of the Gate. Wais _Lāgharī_ and Mīr Ghiyās̤
T̤aghāī had been there too, but being afraid of the (Akhsī) begs had
gone off to Kāsān, Wais _Lāgharī's_ district, where, he being Nāṣir
Mīrzā's guardian, the Mīrzā was.[195] They went over to Sl. Maḥmūd Khān
when he got near Akhsī; Mīr Ghiyās̤ entered his service; [Sidenote: Fol.
17b.] Wais _Lāgharī_ took Nāṣir Mīrzā to Sl. Aḥmad Mīrzā, who entrusted
him to Muh. Mazīd Tarkhān's charge. The Khān, though he fought several
times near Akhsī, could not effect anything because the Akhsī begs and
braves made such splendid offering of their lives. Falling sick, being
tired of fighting too, he returned to his own country (_i.e._ Tāshkīnt).
For some years, Ābā-bikr _Kāshgharī Dūghlāt_,[196] bowing the head to
none, had been supreme in Kāshgar and Khutan. He now, moved like the
rest by desire for my country, came to the neighbourhood of Aūzkīnt,
built a fort and began to lay the land waste. Khwāja Qāzī and several
begs were appointed to drive him out. When they came near, he saw
himself no match for such a force, made the Khwāja his mediator and, by
a hundred wiles and tricks, got himself safely free.
Throughout these great events, `Umar Shaikh Mīrzā's former begs and
braves had held resolutely together and made daring offer of their
lives. The Mīrzā's mother, Shāh Sulṯān Begīm,[197] and Jaḥāngīr Mīrzā
and the _ḥaram_ household and the begs came from Akhsī to Andijān; the
customary mourning was fulfilled and food and victuals spread for the
poor and destitute.[198]
[Sidenote: Fol. 18.] In the leisure from these important matters,
attention was given to the administration of the country and the
ordering of the army. The Andijān Government and control of my Gate were
settled (_mukarrar_) for Ḥasan (son) of Yaq'ūb; Aūsh was decided on
(_qarār_) for Qāsim _Qūchīn_; Akhsī and Marghīnān assigned (_ta'īn_) to
Aūzun Ḥasan and `Alī-dost T̤aghāī. For the rest of `Umar Shaikh Mīrzā's
begs and braves, to each according to his circumstances, were settled
and assigned district (_wilāyat_) or land (_yīr_) or office (_mauja_) or
charge (_jīrga_) or stipend (_wajh_).
When Sl. Aḥmad Mīrzā had gone two or three stages on his return-march,
his health changed for the worse and high fever appeared. On his
reaching the Āq Sū near Aūrā-tīpā, he bade farewell to this transitory
world, in the middle of Shawwāl of the date 899 (mid July 1494 AD.)
being then 44 (lunar) years old.
_m. Sl. Aḥmad Mīrzā's birth and descent._
He was born in 855 AH. (1451 AD.) the year in which his father took the
throne (_i.e._ Samarkand). He was Sl. Abū-sa`īd Mīrzā's eldest son; his
mother was a daughter of Aūrdū-būghā Tarkhān (_Arghūn_), the elder
sister of Darwesh Muḥammad Tarkhān, and the most honoured of the Mīrzā's
wives.
_n. His appearance and habits._
He was a tall, stout, brown-bearded and red-faced man. He had beard on
his chin but none on his cheeks. He had very [Sidenote: Fol. 18b.]
pleasing manners. As was the fashion in those days, he wound his turban
in four folds and brought the end forward over his brows.
_o. His characteristics and manners._
He was a True Believer, pure in the Faith; five times daily, without
fail, he recited the Prayers, not omitting them even on drinking-days.
He was a disciple of his Highness Khwāja `Ubaidu'l-lāh (_Aḥrārī_), his
instructor in religion and the strengthener of his Faith. He was very
ceremonious, particularly when sitting with the Khwāja. People say he
never drew one knee over the other[199] at any entertainment of the
Khwāja. On one occasion contrary to his custom, he sat with his feet
together. When he had risen, the Khwāja ordered the place he had sat in
to be searched; there they found, it may have been, a bone.[200] He had
read nothing whatever and was ignorant (_`amī_), and though town-bred,
unmannered and homely. Of genius he had no share. He was just and as his
Highness the Khwāja was there, accompanying him step by step,[201] most
of his affairs found lawful settlement. He was true and faithful to his
vow and word; nothing was ever seen to the contrary. He had courage, and
though he never happened to get in his own hand to work, gave sign of
it, they say, in some of his encounters. [Sidenote: Fol. 19.] He drew a
good bow, generally hitting the duck[202] both with his arrows (_aūq_)
and his forked-arrows (_tīr-giz_), and, as a rule, hit the gourd[203] in
riding across the lists (_maidān_). Latterly, when he had grown stout,
he used to take quail and pheasant with the goshawks,[204] rarely
failing. A sportsman he was, hawking mostly and hawking well; since
Aūlūgh Beg Mīrzā, such a sporting _pādshāh_ had not been seen. He was
extremely decorous; people say he used to hide his feet even in the
privacy of his family and amongst his intimates. Once settled down to
drink, he would drink for 20 or 30 days at a stretch; once risen, would
not drink again for another 20 or 30 days. He was a good drinker;[205]
on non-drinking days he ate without conviviality (_basīṯ_). Avarice was
dominant in his character. He was kindly, a man of few words whose will
was in the hands of his begs.
_p. His battles._
He fought four battles. The first was with Ni'mat _Arghūn_, Shaikh Jamāl
_Arghūn's_ younger brother, at Āqār-tūzī, near Zamīn. This he won. The
second was with `Umar Shaikh Mīrzā at Khwaṣ; this also he won. The third
affair was when he encountered Sl. Maḥmūd Khān on the Chīr, near
Tāshkīnt [Sidenote: Fol. 19b.](895 AH.-1469 AD.). There was no real
fighting, but some Mughūl plunderers coming up, by ones and twos, in his
rear and laying hands on his baggage, his great army, spite of its
numbers, broke up without a blow struck, without an effort made,
without a coming face to face, and its main body was drowned in the
Chīr.[206] His fourth affair was with Ḥaidar _Kūkūldāsh_ (_Mughūl_),
near Yār-yīlāq; here he won.
_q. His country._
Samarkand and Bukhārā his father gave him; Tāshkīnt and Sairām he took
and held for a time but gave them to his younger brother, `Umar Shaikh
Mīrzā, after `Abdu'l-qadūs (_Dūghlāt_) slew Shaikh Jamāl (_Arghūn_);
Khujand and Aūrātīpā were also for a time in his possession.
_r. His children._
His two sons did not live beyond infancy. He had five daughters, four by
Qātāq Begīm.[207]
Rābi`a-sulṯān Begīm, known as the Dark-eyed Begīm, was his eldest. The
Mīrzā himself made her go forth to Sl. Maḥmūd Khān;[208] she had one
child, a nice little boy, called Bābā Khān. The Aūzbegs killed him and
several others of age as unripe as his when they martyred (his father)
The Khān, in Khujand, (914 AH.-1508 AD.). At that time she fell to Jānī
Beg Sulṯān (_Aūzbeg_). [Sidenote: Fol. 20.]
Ṣāliḥa-sulṯān (Ṣalīqa) Begīm was his second daughter; people called her
the Fair Begīm. Sl. Maḥmūd Mīrzā, after her father's death, took her for
his eldest son, Sl. Mas`ūd Mīrzā and made the wedding feast (900 AH.).
Later on she fell to the Kāshgharī with Shāh Begīm and Mihr-nigār
Khānim.
`Āyisha-sulṯān Begīm was the third. When I was five and went to
Samarkand, they set her aside for me; in the guerilla times[209] she
came to Khujand and I took her (905 AH.); her one little daughter, born
after the second taking of Samarkand, went in a few days to God's mercy
and she herself left me at the instigation of an older sister.
Sulṯānīm Begīm was the fourth daughter; Sl. `Alī Mīrzā took her; then
Tīmūr Sulṯān (_Aūzbeg_) took her and after him, Mahdī Sulṯān (_Aūzbeg_).
Ma`sūma-sulṯān Begīm was the youngest of Sl. Aḥmad Mīrzā's daughters.
Her mother, Ḥabība-sulṯān Begīm, was of the Arghūns, a daughter of Sl.
Ḥusain _Arghūn's_ brother. I saw her when I went to Khurāsān (912
AH.-1506 AD.), liked her, asked for her, had her brought to Kābul and
took her (913 AH.-1507 AD.). She had one daughter and there and then,
went to God's mercy, through the pains of the birth. Her name was at
once given to her child.
_s. His ladies and mistresses._
Mihr-nigār Khānīm was his first wife, set aside for him by his father,
Sl. Abū-sa`īd Mīrzā. She was Yūnas Khān's eldest [Sidenote: Fol. 20b.]
daughter and my mother's full-sister.
Tarkhān Begīm of the Tarkhāns was another of his wives.
Qātāq Begīm was another, the foster-sister of the Tarkhān Begīm just
mentioned. Sl. Aḥmad Mīrzā took her _par amours_ (_`āshiqlār bīlā_): she
was loved with passion and was very dominant. She drank wine. During the
days of her ascendancy (_tīrīklīk_), he went to no other of his _ḥaram_;
at last he took up a proper position (_aūlnūrdī_) and freed himself from
his reproach.[210]
Khān-zāda Begīm, of the Tīrmīẕ Khāns, was another. He had just taken her
when I went, at five years old, to Samarkand; her face was still veiled
and, as is the Turkī custom, they told me to uncover it.[211]
Laṯīf Begīm was another, a daughter's child of Aḥmad Ḥājī Beg _Dūldāī_
(_Barlās_). After the Mīrzā's death, Ḥamza Sl. took her and she had
three sons by him. They with other sulṯāns' children, fell into my hands
when I took Ḥiṣār (916 AH.-1510 AD.) after defeating Ḥamza Sulṯān and
Tīmūr Sulṯān. I set all free.
Ḥabība-sulṯān Begīm was another, a daughter of the brother of Sl. Ḥusain
_Arghūn_.
_t. His amīrs._
Jānī Beg _Dūldāī_ (_Barlās_) was a younger brother of Sl. Malik
_Kāshgharī_. Sl. Abū-sa`īd Mīrzā gave him the Government of Samarkand
and Sl. Aḥmad Mīrzā gave him the control of his own Gate.[212] He must
have had singular habits and [Sidenote: Fol. 21.] manners;[213] many
strange stories are told about him. One is this:—While he was Governor
in Samarkand, an envoy came to him from the Aūzbegs renowned, as it
would seem, for his strength. An Aūzbeg, is said to call a strong man a
bull (_būkuh_). "Are you a _būkuh_?" said Jānī Beg to the envoy, "If you
are, come, let's have a friendly wrestle together (_kūrāshālīng_)."
Whatever objections the envoy raised, he refused to accept. They
wrestled and Jānī Beg gave the fall. He was a brave man.
Aḥmad Ḥājī (_Dūldāī Barlās_) was another, a son of Sl. Malik
_Kāshgharī_. Sl. Abū-sa`īd Mīrzā gave him the Government of Hīrī (Harāt)
for a time but sent him when his uncle, Jānī Beg died, to Samarkand
with his uncle's appointments. He was pleasant-natured and brave. Wafā'ī
was his pen-name and he put together a dīwān in verse not bad. This
couplet is his:
"I am drunk, Inspector, to-day keep your hand off me,
"Inspect me on the day you catch me sober."
Mīr `Alī-sher Nāwā'ī when he went from Hīrī to Samarkand, was with Aḥmad
Ḥājī Beg but he went back to Hīrī when Sl. Ḥusain Mīrzā (Bāī-qarā)
became supreme (873 AH.-1460 AD.) and he there received exceeding
favour.
[Sidenote: Fol. 21b.] Aḥmad Ḥājī Beg kept and rode excellent
_tīpūchāqs_,[214] mostly of his own breeding. Brave he was but his power
to command did not match his courage; he was careless and what was
necessary in his affairs, his retainers and followers put through. He
fell into Sl. `Alī Mīrzā's hands when the Mīrzā defeated Bāī-sunghar
Mīrzā in Bukhārā (901 AH.), and was then put to a dishonourable death on
the charge of the blood of Darwesh Muḥammad Tarkhān.[215]
Darwesh Muḥammad Tarkhān (_Arghūn_) was another, the son of Aūrdū-būghā
Tarkhān and full-brother of the mother of Sl. Aḥmad Mīrzā and Sl. Maḥmūd
Mīrzā.[216] Of all begs in Sl. Aḥmad Mīrzā's presence, he was the
greatest and most honoured. He was an orthodox Believer, kindly and
darwesh-like, and was a constant transcriber of the Qu'rān.[217] He
played chess often and well, thoroughly understood the science of
fowling and flew his birds admirably. He died in the height of his
greatness, with a bad name, during the troubles between Sl. `Alī Mīrzā
and Bāī-sunghar Mīrzā.[218]
`Abdu'l-`alī Tarkhān was another, a near relation of Darwesh Muḥammad
Tarkhān, possessor also of his younger sister,[219] that is to say, Bāqī
Tarkhān's mother. Though both by the Mughūl rule (_tūrā_) and by his
rank, Darwesh Muḥammad Tarkhān was the superior of `Abdu'l-`alī
Tarkhān, this Pharoah regarded him not at all. For some years he had the
Government of Bukhārā. His retainers were reckoned at [Sidenote: Fol.
22.] 3,000 and he kept them well and handsomely. His gifts
(_bakhshīsh_), his visits of enquiry (_purshīsh_), his public audience
(_dīwān_), his work-shops (_dast-gāh_), his open-table (_shīlān_) and
his assemblies (_majlis_) were all like a king's. He was a strict
disciplinarian, a tyrannical, vicious, self-infatuated person. Shaibānī
Khān, though not his retainer, was with him for a time; most of the
lesser (Shaibān) sulṯāns did themselves take service with him. This same
`Abdu'l-`alī Tarkhān was the cause of Shaibānī Khān's rise to such a
height and of the downfall of such ancient dynasties.[220]
Sayyid Yūsuf, the Grey Wolfer[221] was another; his grandfather will
have come from the Mughūl horde; his father was favoured by Aūlūgh Beg
Mīrzā (_Shāhrukhī_). His judgment and counsel were excellent; he had
courage too. He played well on the guitar (_qūbuz_). He was with me when
I first went to Kābul; I shewed him great favour and in truth he was
worthy of favour. I left him in Kābul the first year the army rode out
for Hindūstān; at that time he went to God's mercy.[222]
Darwesh Beg was another; he was of the line of Aīku-tīmūr Beg,[223] a
favourite of Tīmūr Beg. He was a disciple of his Highness Khwāja
`Ubaidu'l-lāh (_Aḥrārī_), had knowledge of the science of music, played
several instruments and was naturally [Sidenote: Fol. 22b.] disposed to
poetry. He was drowned in the Chīr at the time of Sl. Aḥmad Mīrzā's
discomfiture.
Muḥammad Mazīd Tarkhān was another, a younger full-brother of Darwesh
Muḥ. Tarkhān. He was Governor in Turkistān for some years till Shaibānī
Khān took it from him. His judgment and counsel were excellent; he was
an unscrupulous and vicious person. The second and third times I took
Samarkand, he came to my presence and each time I shewed him very great
favour. He died in the fight at Kūl-i-malik (918 AH.-1512 AD.).
Bāqī Tarkhān was another, the son of `Abdu'l-`alī Tarkhān and Sl. Aḥmad
Mīrzā's aunt. When his father died, they gave him Bukhārā. He grew in
greatness under Sl. `Alī Mīrzā, his retainers numbering 5 or 6,000. He
was neither obedient nor very submissive to Sl. `Alī Mīrzā. He fought
Shaibānī Khān at Dabūsī (905 AH.) and was crushed; by the help of this
defeat, Shaibānī Khān went and took Bukhārā. He was very fond of
hawking; they say he kept 700 birds. His manners and habits were not
such as may be told;[224] he grew up with a Mīrzā's state and splendour.
Because his father had shewn favour to Shaibānī Khān, he went to the
Khān's presence, but that inhuman ingrate made him no sort of return in
favour and kindness. [Sidenote: Fol. 23.] He left the world at Akhsī, in
misery and wretchedness.
Sl. Ḥusain _Arghūn_ was another. He was known as Qarā-kūlī because he
had held the Qarā-kūl government for a time. His judgment and counsel
were excellent; he was long in my presence also.
Qulī Muḥammad _Būghdā_[225] was another, a _qūchīn_; he must have been a
brave man.
`Abdu'l-karīm _Ishrit_[226] was another; he was an Aūīghūr, Sl. Aḥmad
Mīrzā's Lord of the Gate, a brave and generous man.
(_u. Historical narrative resumed._)
After Sl. Aḥmad Mīrzā's death, his begs in agreement, sent a courier by
the mountain-road to invite Sl. Maḥmūd Mīrzā.[227]
Malik-i-Muḥammad Mīrzā, the son of Minūchihr Mīrzā, Sl. Abū-sa`īd
Mīrzā's eldest brother, aspired for his own part to rule. Having drawn a
few adventurers and desperadoes to himself, they dribbled away[228] from
(Sl. Aḥmad Mīrzā's) camp and went to Samarkand. He was not able to
effect anything, but he brought about his own death and that of several
innocent persons of the ruling House.
At once on hearing of his brother's death, Sl. Maḥmūd Mīrzā went off to
Samarkand and there seated himself on the throne, without difficulty.
Some of his doings soon disgusted and alienated high and low, soldier
and peasant. The first of these was that he sent the above-named
Malik-i-Muḥammad to the [Sidenote: Fol. 23b.] Kūk-sarāī,[229] although
he was his father's brother's son and his own son-in-law.[230] With him
he sent others, four Mīrzās in all. Two of these he set aside;
Malik-i-Muḥammad and one other he martyred. Some of the four were not
even of ruling rank and had not the smallest aspiration to rule; though
Malik-i-Muḥammad Mīrzā was a little in fault, in the rest there was no
blame whatever. A second thing was that though his methods and
regulations were excellent, and though he was expert in revenue matters
and in the art of administration, his nature inclined to tyranny and
vice. Directly he reached Samarkand, he began to make new regulations
and arrangements and to rate and tax on a new basis. Moreover the
dependants of his (late) Highness Khwāja `Ubaid'l-lāh, under whose
protection formerly many poor and destitute persons had lived free from
the burden of dues and imposts, were now themselves treated with
harshness and oppression. On what ground should hardship have touched
them? Nevertheless oppressive exactions were made from them, indeed from
the Khwāja's very children. Yet another thing was that just as he was
vicious and tyrannical, so were his begs, small and great, and his
retainers and followers. The Ḥiṣārīs and in particular the followers of
Khusrau Shāh engaged themselves unceasingly with wine and fornication.
Once one of them enticed and took away a certain man's wife. [Sidenote:
Fol. 24.]When her husband went to Khusrau Shāh and asked for justice, he
received for answer: "She has been with you for several years; let her
be a few days with him." Another thing was that the young sons of the
townsmen and shopkeepers, nay! even of Turks and soldiers could not go
out from their houses from fear of being taken for catamites. The
Samarakandīs, having passed 20 or 25 years under Sl. Aḥmad Mīrzā in ease
and tranquillity, most matters carried through lawfully and with justice
by his Highness the Khwāja, were wounded and troubled in heart and soul,
by this oppression and this vice. Low and high, the poor, the destitute,
all opened the mouth to curse, all lifted the hand for redress.
"Beware the steaming up of inward wounds,
For an inward wound at the last makes head;
Avoid while thou canst, distress to one heart,
For a single sigh will convulse a world."[231]
By reason of his infamous violence and vice Sl. Maḥmud Mīrzā did not
rule in Samarkand more than five or six months.
900 AH.-OCT. 2ND. 1494 TO SEP. 21ST. 1495 AD.[232]
This year Sl. Maḥmūd Mīrzā sent an envoy, named `Abdu'l-qadūs Beg,[233]
to bring me a gift from the wedding he had made with splendid festivity
for his eldest son, Mas`ūd Mīrzā with (Ṣāliḥa-sulṯān), the Fair Begīm,
the second daughter of his elder brother, Sl. Aḥmad Mīrzā. They had sent
gold and silver almonds and pistachios.
There must have been relationship between this envoy and Ḥasan-i-yaq`ūb,
and on its account he will have been the man sent to make
Ḥasan-i-yaq`ūb, by fair promises, look towards Sl. Maḥmūd Mīrzā.
Ḥasan-i-yaq`ūb returned him a smooth answer, made indeed as though won
over to his side, and gave him leave to go. Five or six months later,
his manners changed entirely; he began to behave ill to those about me
and to others, and he carried matters so far that he would have
dismissed me in order to put Jahāngīr Mīrzā in my place. Moreover his
conversation with the whole body of begs and soldiers was not what
should be; every-one came to know what was in his mind. Khwāja-i-Qāzī
and (Sayyid) Qāsim _Qūchīn_ and `Alī-dost T̤aghāī met other well-wishers
of mine in the presence of my grandmother, Āīsān-daulat Begīm and
decided to give quietus to Ḥasan-i-yaq`ūb's disloyalty by his
deposition.
Few amongst women will have been my grandmother's equals for judgment
and counsel; she was very wise and far-sighted and most affairs of mine
were carried through under her advice. She and my mother were (living)
in the Gate-house of the outer fort;[234] Ḥasan-i-yaq`ūb was in the
citadel.
When I went to the citadel, in pursuance of our decision, he had ridden
out, presumably for hawking, and as soon as he had [Sidenote: Fol. 25.]
our news, went off from where he was towards Samarkand. The begs and
others in sympathy with him,[235] were arrested; one was Muḥammad Bāqir
Beg; Sl. Maḥmud _Dūldāī_, Sl. Muḥammad _Dūldāī's_ father, was another;
there were several more; to some leave was given to go for Samarkand.
The Andijān Government and control of my Gate were settled on (Sayyid)
Qāsim _Qūchīn_.
A few days after Ḥasan-i-yaq`ūb reached Kand-i-badām on the Samarkand
road, he went to near the Khūqān sub-division (_aūrchīn_) with
ill-intent on Akhsī. Hearing of it, we sent several begs and braves to
oppose him; they, as they went, detached a scouting party ahead; he,
hearing this, moved against the detachment, surrounded it in its
night-quarters[236] and poured flights of arrows (_shība_) in on it. In
the darkness of the night an arrow (_aūq_), shot by one of his own men,
hit him just (_aūq_) in the vent (_qāchār_) and before he could take
vent (_qāchār_),[237] he became the captive of his own act.
"If you have done ill, keep not an easy mind,
For retribution is Nature's law."[238]
This year I began to abstain from all doubtful food, my obedience
extended even to the knife, the spoon and the table-cloth;[239] also the
after-midnight Prayer (_taḥajjud_) was [Sidenote: Fol. 25b.] less
neglected.
(_a. Death of Sl. Maḥmūd Mīrzā._)
In the month of the latter Rabī` (January 1495 AD.), Sl. Maḥmūd Mīrzā
was confronted by violent illness and in six days, passed from the
world. He was 43 (lunar) years old.
_b. His birth and lineage._
He was born in 857 AH. (1453 AD.), was Sl. Abū-sa`īd Mīrzā's third son
and the full-brother of Sl. Aḥmad Mīrzā.[240]
_c. His appearance and characteristics._
He was a short, stout, sparse-bearded and somewhat ill-shaped person.
His manners and his qualities were good, his rules and methods of
business excellent; he was well-versed in accounts, not a _dinār_ or a
_dirhām_[241] of revenue was spent without his knowledge. The pay of his
servants was never disallowed. His assemblies, his gifts, his open
table, were all good. Everything of his was orderly and
well-arranged;[242] no soldier or peasant could deviate in the slightest
from any plan of his. Formerly he must have been hard set (_qātīrār_) on
hawking but latterly he very frequently hunted driven game.[243] He
carried violence and vice to frantic excess, was a constant wine-bibber
and kept many catamites. If anywhere in his territory, there was a
handsome boy, he used, by whatever means, to have him brought for a
catamite; of his begs' sons and of his sons' begs' sons he made
catamites; and laid command for this service on [Sidenote: Fol. 26.] his
very foster brothers and on their own brothers. So common in his day was
that vile practice, that no person was without his catamite; to keep one
was thought a merit, not to keep one, a defect. Through his infamous
violence and vice, his sons died in the day of their strength (_tamām
juwān_).
He had a taste for poetry and put a _dīwān_[244] together but his verse
is flat and insipid,—not to compose is better than to compose verse such
as his. He was not firm in the Faith and held his Highness Khwāja
`Ubaidu'l-lāh (_Aḥrārī_) in slight esteem. He had no heart (_yūruk_) and
was somewhat scant in modesty,—several of his impudent buffoons used to
do their filthy and abominable acts in his full Court, in all men's
sight. He spoke badly, there was no understanding him at first.
_d. His battles._
He fought two battles, both with Sl. Ḥusain Mīrzā (_Bāīqarā_). The first
was in Astarābād; here he was defeated. The second was at Chīkman
(Sarāī),[245] near Andikhūd; here also he was defeated. He went twice to
Kāfiristān, on the [Sidenote: Fol. 26b.] south of Badakhshān, and made
Holy War; for this reason they wrote him Sl. Maḥmūd _Ghāzī_ in the
headings of his public papers.
_e. His countries._
Sl. Abū-sa`īd Mīrzā gave him Astarābād.[246] After the `Irāq disaster
(_i.e._, his father's death,) he went into Khurāsān. At that time,
Qaṃbar-`alī Beg, the governor of Ḥiṣār, by Sl. Abū-sa`īd Mīrzā's orders,
had mobilized the Hindūstān[247] army and was following him into `Irāq;
he joined Sl. Maḥmūd Mīrzā in Khurāsān but the Khurāsānīs, hearing of
Sl. Ḥusain Mīrzā's approach, rose suddenly and drove them out of the
country. On this Sl. Maḥmūd Mīrzā went to his elder brother, Sl. Aḥmad
Mīrzā in Samarkand. A few months later Sayyid Badr and Khusrau Shāh and
some braves under Aḥmad _Mushtāq_[248] took him and fled to Qaṃbar-`alī
in Ḥiṣār. From that time forth, Sl. Maḥmūd Mīrzā possessed the countries
lying south of Quhqa (Quhlugha) and the Kohtin Range as far as the
Hindū-kush Mountains, such as Tīrmīẕ, Chaghānīān, Ḥiṣār, Khutlān, Qūndūz
and Badakhshān. He also held Sl. Aḥmad Mīrzā's lands, after his
brother's death.
_f. His children._
He had five sons and eleven daughters.
Sl. Mas`ūd Mīrzā was his eldest son; his mother was Khān-zāda [Sidenote:
Fol 27.] Begīm, a daughter of the Great Mīr of Tīrmīẕ. Bāī-sunghar Mīrzā
was another; his mother was Pasha (or Pāshā) Begīm. Sl. `Alī Mīrzā was
another; his mother was an Aūzbeg, a concubine called Zuhra Begī Āghā.
Sl. Ḥusain Mīrzā was another; his mother was Khān-zāda Begīm, a
grand-daughter of the Great Mīr of Tīrmīẕ; he went to God's mercy in his
father's life-time, at the age of 13. Sl. Wais Mīrzā (Mīrzā Khān) was
another; his mother, Sulṯān-nigār Khānīm was a daughter of Yūnas Khān
and was a younger (half-) sister of my mother. The affairs of these four
Mīrzās will be written of in this history under the years of their
occurrence.
Of Sl. Maḥmūd Mīrzā's daughters, three were by the same mother as
Bāī-sunghar Mīrzā. One of these, Bāī-sunghar Mīrzā's senior, Sl. Maḥmūd
Mīrzā made to go out to Malik-i-muḥammad Mīrzā, the son of his paternal
uncle, Minūchihr Mīrzā.[249]
* * * * *
Five other daughters were by Khān-zāda Begīm, the grand-daughter of the
Great Mīr of Tīrmīẕ. The oldest of these, (Khān-zāda Begīm)[250] was
given, after her father's death, to Abā-bikr [Sidenote: Fol. 27b.]
(_Dūghlāt_) _Kāshgharī_. The second was Bega Begīm. When Sl. Ḥusain
Mīrzā besieged Ḥiṣār (901 AH.), he took her for Ḥaidar Mīrzā, his son by
Pāyanda Begīm, Sl. Abū-sa`īd Mīrzā's daughter, and having done so, rose
from before the place.[251] The third daughter was Āq (Fair) Begīm; the
fourth[252]—,was betrothed to Jahāngīr Mīrzā (_aet._ 5, _circa_ 895 AH.)
at the time his father, `Umar Shaikh Mīrzā sent him to help Sl. Maḥmūd
Mīrzā with the Andijān army, against Sl. Ḥusain Mīrzā, then attacking
Qūndūz.[253] In 910 AH. (1504 AD.) when Bāqī _Chaghānīānī_[254] waited
on me on the bank of the Amū (Oxus), these (last-named two) Begīms were
with their mothers in Tīrmīẕ and joined me then with Bāqī's family. When
we reached Kahmard, Jahāngīr Mīrzā took —-- Begīm; one little daughter
was born; she now[255] is in the Badakhshān country with her
grandmother. The fifth daughter was Zainab-sulṯān Begīm; under my
mother's insistence, I took her at the time of the capture of Kābul (910
AH.-Oct. 1504 AD.). She did not become very congenial; two or three
years later, she left the world, through small-pox. Another daughter was
Makhdūm-sulṯān Begīm, Sl. `Alī Mīrzā's full-sister; she is now in the
Badakhshān country. Two others of his daughters, Rajab-sulṯān and
Muḥibb-sulṯān, were by mistresses (_ghūnchachī_).
_g. His ladies_ (_khwātīnlār_) _and concubines_ (_sarārī_).
His chief wife, Khān-zāda Begīm, was a daughter of the [Sidenote: Fol.
28.] Great Mīr of Tirmīẕ; he had great affection for her and must have
mourned her bitterly; she was the mother of Sl. Mas`ūd Mīrzā. Later on,
he took her brother's daughter, also called Khān-zāda Begīm, a
grand-daughter of the Great Mīr of Tīrmīẕ. She became the mother of
five of his daughters and one of his sons. Pasha (or Pāshā) Begīm was
another wife, a daughter of `Alī-shukr Beg, a Turkmān Beg of the Black
Sheep Bahārlū Aīmāq.[256] She had been the wife of Jahān-shāh (_Barānī_)
of the Black Sheep Turkmāns. After Aūzūn (Long) Ḥasan Beg of the White
Sheep had taken Āẕar-bāījān and `Irāq from the sons of this Jahān-shāh
Mīrzā (872 AH.-1467 AD.), `Alī-shukr Beg's sons went with four or five
thousand heads-of-houses of the Black Sheep Turkmāns to serve Sl.
Abū-sa`īd Mīrzā and after the Mīrzā's defeat (873 AH. by Aūzūn Ḥasan),
came down to these countries and took service with Sl. Maḥmūd Mīrzā.
This happened after Sl. Maḥmūd Mīrzā came to Ḥiṣār from Samarkand, and
then it was he took Pasha Begīm. She became the mother of one of his
sons and three of his daughters. Sulṯān-nigār Khānīm was another of his
ladies; her descent has been mentioned already in the account of the
(Chaghatāī) Khāns. [Sidenote: Fol. 28b.]
He had many concubines and mistresses. His most honoured concubine
(_mu`atabar ghūma_) was Zuhra Begī Āghā; she was taken in his father's
life-time and became the mother of one son and one daughter. He had many
mistresses and, as has been said, two of his daughters were by two of
them.
_h. His amirs._
Khusrau Shāh was of the Turkistānī Qīpchāqs. He had been in the intimate
service of the Tarkhān begs, indeed had been a catamite. Later on he
became a retainer of Mazīd Beg (Tarkhān) _Arghūn_ who favoured him in
all things. He was favoured by Sl. Maḥmūd Mīrzā on account of services
done by him when, after the `Irāq disaster, he joined the Mīrzā on his
way to Khurāsān. He waxed very great in his latter days; his retainers,
under Sl. Maḥmūd Mīrzā, were a clear five or six thousand. Not only
Badakhshān but the whole country from the Amū to the Hindū-kush
Mountains depended on him and he devoured its whole revenue (_darobast
yīr īdī_). His open table was good, so too his open hand; though he was
a rough getter,[257] what he got, he spent liberally. He waxed
exceeding great after Sl. Maḥmūd Mīrzā's death, in whose sons' time his
retainers approached 20,000. Although he prayed and abstained from
forbidden aliments, yet was he black-souled and vicious, [Sidenote: Fol.
29.] dunder-headed and senseless, disloyal and a traitor to his salt.
For the sake of this fleeting, five-days world,[258] he blinded one of
his benefactor's sons and murdered another. A sinner before God,
reprobate to His creatures, he has earned curse and execration till the
very verge of Resurrection. For this world's sake he did his evil deeds
and yet, with lands so broad and with such hosts of armed retainers, he
had not pluck to stand up to a hen. An account of him will come into
this history.
Pīr-i-muḥammad _Aīlchī-būghā[259] Qūchīn_ was another. In Hazārāspī's
fight[260] he got in one challenge with his fists in Sl. Abū-sa`īd
Mīrzā's presence at the Gate of Balkh. He was a brave man, continuously
serving the Mīrzā (Maḥmūd) and guiding him by his counsel. Out of
rivalry to Khusrau Shāh, he made a night-attack when the Mīrzā was
besieging Qūndūz, on Sl. Ḥusain Mīrzā, with few men, without arming[261]
and without plan; he could do nothing; what was there he could do
against such and so large a force? He was pursued, threw himself into
the river and was drowned.
Ayūb (_Begchīk Mughūl_)[262] was another. He had served in Sl. Abū-sa`īd
Mīrzā's Khurāsān Cadet Corps, a brave man, Bāīsunghar Mīrzā's guardian.
He was choice in dress and food; a jester and talkative, nicknamed
Impudence, perhaps because the Mīrzā called him so. [Sidenote: Fol.
29b.]
Walī was another, the younger, full-brother of Khusrau Shāh. He kept his
retainers well. He it was brought about the blinding of Sl. Mas`ūd Mīrzā
and the murder of Bāī-sunghar Mīrzā. He had an ill-word for every-one
and was an evil-tongued, foul-mouthed, self-pleasing and dull-witted
mannikin. He approved of no-one but himself. When I went from the Qūndūz
country to near Dūshī (910 AH.-1503 AD.), separated Khusrau Shāh from
his following and dismissed him, this person (_i.e._, Walī) had come to
Andar-āb and Sīr-āb, also in fear of the Aūzbegs. The Aīmāqs of those
parts beat and robbed him[263] then, having let me know, came on to
Kābul. Walī went to Shaibānī Khān who had his head struck off in the
town of Samarkand.
Shaikh `Abdu'l-lāh _Barlās_[264] was another; he had to wife one of the
daughters of Shāh Sulṯān Muḥammad (_Badakhshī_) _i.e._, the maternal
aunt of Abā-bikr Mīrzā (_Mīrān-shāhī_) and of Sl. Maḥmūd Khān. He wore
his tunic narrow and _pur shaqq_[265]; he was a kindly well-bred man.
Maḥmūd _Barlās_ of the Barlāses of Nūndāk (Badakhshān) was another. He
had been a beg also of Sl. Abū-sa`īd Mīrzā and had surrendered Karmān to
him when the Mīrzā took the `Irāq countries. When Abā-bikr Mīrzā
(_Mīrān-shāhī_) came [Sidenote: Fol. 30.] against Ḥiṣār with Mazīd Beg
Tarkhān and the Black Sheep Turkmāns, and Sl. Maḥmūd Mīrzā went off to
his elder brother, Sl. Aḥmad Mīrzā in Samarkand, Maḥmūd _Barlās_ did not
surrender Ḥiṣār but held out manfully.[266] He was a poet and put a
_dīwān_ together.
(_i. Historical narrative resumed_).
When Sl. Maḥmūd Mīrzā died, Khusrau Shāh kept the event concealed and
laid a long hand on the treasure. But how could such news be hidden? It
spread through the town at once. That was a festive day for the
Samarkand families; soldier and peasant, they uprose in tumult against
Khusrau Shāh. Aḥmad Ḥājī Beg and the Tarkhānī begs put the rising down
and turned Khusrau Shāh out of the town with an escort for Ḥiṣār.
As Sl. Maḥmūd Mīrzā himself after giving Ḥiṣār to Sl. Mas`ūd Mīrzā and
Bukhārā to Bāī-sunghar Mīrzā, had dismissed both to their governments,
neither was present when he died. The Ḥiṣār and Samarkand begs, after
turning Khusrau Shāh out, agreed to send for Bāī-sunghar Mīrzā from
Bukhārā, brought him to Samarkand and seated him on the throne. When he
thus became supreme (_pādshāh_), he was 18 (lunar) years old.
At this crisis, Sl. Maḥmūd Khān (_Chaghatāī_), acting on the [Sidenote:
Fol. 30b.] word of Junaid _Barlās_ and of some of the notables of
Samarkand, led his army out to near Kān-bāī with desire to take that
town. Bāī-sunghar Mīrzā, on his side, marched out in force. They fought
near Kān-bāī. Ḥaidar _Kūkūldāsh_, the main pillar of the Mughūl army,
led the Mughūl van. He and all his men dismounted and were pouring in
flights of arrows (_shība_) when a large body of the mailed braves of
Ḥiṣār and Samarkand made an impetuous charge and straightway laid them
under their horses' feet. Their leader taken, the Mughūl army was put to
rout without more fighting. Masses (_qālīn_) of Mughūls were wiped out;
so many were beheaded in Bāī-sunghar Mīrzā's presence that his tent was
three times shifted because of the number of the dead.
At this same crisis, Ibrāhīm _Sārū_ entered the fort of Asfara, there
read Bāī-sunghar Mīrzā's name in the _Khuṯba_ and took up a position of
hostility to me.
(_Author's note._) Ibrāhīm _Sārū_ is of the Mīnglīgh
people;[267] he had served my father in various ways from his
childhood but later on had been dismissed for some fault.
[Sidenote: Fol. 31.] The army rode out to crush this rebellion in the
month of Sha'bān (May) and by the end of it, had dismounted round
Asfara. Our braves in the wantonness of enterprise, on the very day of
arrival, took the new wall[268] that was in building outside the fort.
That day Sayyid Qāsim, Lord of my Gate, out-stripped the rest and got in
with his sword; Sl. Aḥmad _Taṃbal_ and Muḥammad-dost T̤aghāī got theirs
in also but Sayyid Qāsim won the Champion's Portion. He took it in
Shāhrukhiya when I went to see my mother's brother, Sl. Maḥmūd Khān.
(_Author's note._) The Championship Portion[269] is an ancient
usage of the Mughūl horde. Whoever outdistanced his tribe and
got in with his own sword, took the portion at every feast and
entertainment.
My guardian, Khudāī-bīrdī Beg died in that first day's fighting, struck
by a cross-bow arrow. As the assault was made without armour, several
bare braves (_yīkīt yīlāng_)[270] perished and many were wounded. One of
Ibrāhīm _Sārū's_ cross-bowmen was an excellent shot; his equal had never
been seen; he it was hit most of those wounded. When Asfara had been
taken, he entered my service.
As the siege drew on, orders were given to construct head-strikes[271]
in two or three places, to run mines and to make every [Sidenote: Fol.
31b.] effort to prepare appliances for taking the fort. The siege lasted
40 days; at last Ibrāhīm _Sārū_ had no resource but, through the
mediation of Khwāja Moulānā-i-qāẓī, to elect to serve me. In the month
of Shawwāl (June 1495 A.D.) he came out, with his sword and quiver
hanging from his neck, waited on me and surrendered the fort.
Khujand for a considerable time had been dependent on `Umar Shaikh
Mīrzā's Court (_dīwān_) but of late had looked towards Sl. Aḥmad Mīrzā
on account of the disturbance in the Farghāna government during the
interregnum.[272] As the opportunity offered, a move against it also
was now made. Mīr Mughūl's father, `Abdu'l-wahhāb _Shaghāwal_[273] was
in it; he surrendered without making any difficulty at once on our
arrival.
Just then Sl. Maḥmūd Khān was in Shāhrukhiya. It has been said already
that when Sl. Aḥmad Mīrzā came into Andijān (899 AH.), he also came and
that he laid siege to Akhsī. It occurred to me that if since I was so
close, I went and waited on him, he being, as it were, my father and my
elder brother, and if bye-gone resentments were laid aside, it would be
good hearing and seeing for far and near. So said, I went.
I waited on The Khān in the garden Ḥaidar _Kūkūldāsh_ had made outside
Shāhrukhiya. He was seated in a large four-doored [Sidenote: Fol. 32.]
tent set up in the middle of it. Having entered the tent, I knelt three
times,[274] he for his part, rising to do me honour. We looked one
another in the eyes;[275] and he returned to his seat. After I had
kneeled, he called me to his side and shewed me much affection and
friendliness. Two or three days later, I set off for Akhsī and Andijān
by the Kīndīrlīk Pass.[276] At Akhsī I made the circuit of my Father's
tomb. I left at the hour of the Friday Prayer (_i.e._, about midday)
and reached Andijān, by the Band-i-sālār Road between the Evening and
Bedtime Prayers. This road _i.e._ the Band-i-sālār, people call a nine
_yīghāch_ road.[277]
One of the tribes of the wilds of Andijān is the Jīgrāk[278] a numerous
people of five or six thousand households, dwelling in the mountains
between Kāshghar and Farghāna. They have many horses and sheep and also
numbers of yāks (_qūtās_), these hill-people keeping yāks instead of
common cattle. As their mountains are border-fastnesses, they have a
fashion of not paying tribute. An army was now sent against them under
(Sayyid) Qāsim Beg in order that out of the tribute taken from them
something might reach the soldiers. He took about 20,000 of their sheep
and between 1000 and 1500 of their horses and shared all out to the men.
After its return from the Jīgrāk, the army set out for Aūrā-tīpā.
[Sidenote: Fol. 34.] Formerly this was held by `Umar Shaikh Mīrzā but it
had gone out of hand in the year of his death and Sl. `Alī Mīrzā was now
in it on behalf of his elder brother, Bāīsunghar Mīrzā. When Sl. `Alī
Mīrzā heard of our coming, he went off himself to the Macha
hill-country, leaving his guardian, Shaikh Ẕū'n-nūn _Arghūn_ behind.
From half-way between Khujand and Aūrā-tīpā, Khalīfa[279] was sent as
envoy to Shaikh Ẕū'n-nūn but that senseless mannikin, instead of giving
him a plain answer, laid hands on him and ordered him to death. For
Khalīfa to die cannot have been the Divine will; he escaped and came to
me two or three days later, stripped bare and having suffered a hundred
_tūmāns_ (1,000,000) of hardships and fatigues. We went almost to
Aūrā-tīpā but as, winter being near, people had carried away their corn
and forage, after a few days we turned back for Andijān. After our
retirement, The Khān's men moved on the place when the Aūrā-tīpā
person[280] unable to make a stand, surrendered and came out. The Khān
then gave it to Muḥammad Ḥusain _Kūrkān Dūghlāt_ and in his hands it
remained till 908 AH. (1503).[281]
901 AH.—SEP. 21ST. 1495 TO SEP. 9TH. 1496 AD.[282]
(_a. Sulṯān Ḥusain Mīrzā's campaign against Khusrau Shāh_).
In the winter of this year, Sl. Ḥusain Mīrzā led his army out of
Khurāsān against Ḥiṣār and went to opposite Tīrmīẕ. Sl. Mas`ūd Mīrzā,
for his part, brought an army (from Ḥiṣār) and sat down over against him
in Tīrmīẕ. Khusrau Shāh strengthened himself in Qūndūz and to help Sl.
Mas`ūd Mīrzā sent his younger brother, Walī. They (_i.e._, the opposed
forces) spent most of that winter on the river's banks, no crossing
being effected. Sl. Ḥusain Mīrzā was a shrewd and experienced commander;
he marched up the river,[283] his face set for Qūndūz and by this having
put Sl. Mas`ūd Mīrzā off his guard, sent `Abdu'l-laṯīf _Bakhshī_
(pay-master) with 5 or 600 serviceable men, down the river to the Kilīf
ferry. These crossed and had entrenched themselves on the other bank
before Sl. Mas`ūd Mīrzā had heard of their movement. When he did hear of
it, whether because of pressure put upon him by Bāqī _Chaghānīānī_ to
spite (his half-brother) Walī, or whether from his own want of heart, he
did not march against those who had crossed but disregarding Walī's
urgency, at once broke up his camp and turned for Ḥiṣār.[284]
Sl. Ḥusain Mīrzā crossed the river and then sent, (1) against Khusrau
Shāh, Badī`u'z-zamān Mīrzā and Ibrāhīm Ḥusain Mīrzā with Muḥammad Walī
Beg and Ẕū'n-nūn _Arghūn_, and [Sidenote: Fol. 33b.] (2) against
Khutlān, Muz̤affar Ḥusain Mīrzā with Muḥammad _Barandūq Barlās_. He
himself moved for Ḥiṣār.
When those in Ḥiṣār heard of his approach, they took their precautions;
Sl. Mas`ūd Mīrzā did not judge it well to stay in the fort but went off
up the Kām Rūd valley[285] and by way of Sara-tāq to his younger
brother, Bāī-sunghar Mīrzā in Samarkand. Walī, for his part drew off to
(his own district) Khutlān. Bāqī _Chaghānīānī_, Maḥmūd _Barlās_ and Qūch
Beg's father, Sl. Aḥmad strengthened the fort of Ḥiṣār. Ḥamza Sl. and
Mahdī Sl. (_Aūzbeg_) who some years earlier had left Shaibānī Khān for
(the late) Sl. Maḥmūd Mīrzā's service, now, in this dispersion, drew off
with all their Aūzbegs, for Qarā-tīgīn. With them went Muḥammad
_Dūghlāt_[286] and Sl. Ḥusain _Dūghlāt_ and all the Mughūls located in
the Ḥiṣār country.
Upon this Sl. Ḥusain Mīrzā sent Abū'l-muḥsin Mīrzā after Sl. Mas`ūd
Mīrzā up the Kām Rūd valley. They were not strong enough for such work
when they reached the defile.[287] There Mīrzā Beg _Fīringī-bāz_[288]
got in his sword. In pursuit of Ḥamza Sl. into Qarā-tīgīn, Sl. Ḥusain
Mīrzā sent Ibrāhīm Tarkhān and Yaq`ūb-i-ayūb. They overtook the sulṯāns
and [Sidenote: Fol. 33.] fought. The Mīrzā's detachment was defeated;
most of his begs were unhorsed but all were allowed to go free.
(_b. Bābur's reception of the Aūzbeg sulṯāns._)
As a result of this exodus, Ḥamza Sl. with his son, Mamāq Sl., and Mahdī
Sl. and Muḥammad _Dūghlāt_, later known as _Ḥiṣārī_ and his brother, Sl.
Ḥusain _Dūghlāt_ with the Aūzbegs dependent on the sulṯāns and the
Mughūls who had been located in Ḥiṣār as (the late) Sl. Maḥmūd Mīrzā's
retainers, came, after letting me know (their intention), and waited
upon me in Ramẓān (May-June) at Andijān. According to the custom of
Tīmūriya sulṯāns on such occasions, I had seated myself on a raised seat
(_tūshāk_); when Ḥamza Sl. and Mamāq Sl. and Mahdī Sl. entered, I rose
and went down to do them honour; we looked one another in the eyes and I
placed them on my right, _bāghīsh dā_.[289] A number of Mughūls also
came, under Muḥammad _Ḥiṣārī_; all elected for my service.
(_c. Sl. Ḥusain Mīrzā's affairs resumed_).
Sl. Ḥusain Mīrzā, on reaching Ḥiṣār, settled down at once to besiege it.
There was no rest, day nor night, from the labours of mining and attack,
of working catapults and mortars. Mines were run in four or five places.
When one had gone well forward towards the Gate, the townsmen,
countermining, struck it and forced smoke down on the Mīrzā's men; they,
in turn, [Sidenote: Fol. 34b.] closed the hole, thus sent the smoke
straight back and made the townsmen flee as from the very maw of death.
In the end, the townsmen drove the besiegers out by pouring jar after
jar of water in on them. Another day, a party dashed out from the town
and drove off the Mīrzā's men from their own mine's mouth. Once the
discharges from catapults and mortars in the Mīrzā's quarters on the
north cracked a tower of the fort; it fell at the Bed-time Prayer; some
of the Mīrzā's braves begged to assault at once but he refused, saying,
"It is night." Before the shoot of the next day's dawn, the besieged had
rebuilt the whole tower. That day too there was no assault; in fact, for
the two to two and a half months of the siege, no attack was made except
by keeping up the blockade,[290] by mining, rearing head-strikes,[291]
and discharging stones.
When Badī`u'z-zamān Mīrzā and whatever (_nī kīm_) troops had been sent
with him against Khusrau Shāh, dismounted some 16 m. (3 to 4 _yīghāch_)
below Qūndūz,[292] Khusrau Shāh arrayed whatever men (_nī kīm_) he had,
marched out, halted one night on the way, formed up to fight and came
down upon the Mīrzā and his men. The Khurāsānīs may not have been twice
as many as his men but what question is there they were half [Sidenote:
Fol. 35.] as many more? None the less did such Mīrzās and such
Commander-begs elect for prudence and remain in their entrenchments!
Good and bad, small and great, Khusrau Shāh's force may have been of 4
or 5,000 men!
This was the one exploit of his life,—of this man who for the sake of
this fleeting and unstable world and for the sake of shifting and
faithless followers, chose such evil and such ill-repute, practised such
tyranny and injustice, seized such wide lands, kept such hosts of
retainers and followers,—latterly he led out between 20 and 30,000 and
his countries and his districts (_parganāt_) exceeded those of his own
ruler and that ruler's sons,[293]—for an exploit such as this his name
and the names of his adherents were noised abroad for generalship and
for this they were counted brave, while those timorous laggards, in the
trenches, won the resounding fame of cowards.
Badī`u'z-zamān Mīrzā marched out from that camp and after a few stages
reached the Alghū Mountain of Tāliqān[294] and there made halt. Khusrau
Shāh, in Qūndūz, sent his brother, Walī, with serviceable men, to
Ishkīmīsh, Fulūl and the hill-skirts thereabouts to annoy and harass the
Mīrzā from outside also. Muḥibb-`alī, the armourer, (_qūrchī_) for his
part, came down [Sidenote: Fol. 35b.] (from Walī's Khutlān) to the bank
of the Khutlān Water, met in with some of the Mīrzā's men there,
unhorsed some, cut off a few heads and got away. In emulation of this,
Sayyidīm `Alī[295] the door-keeper, and his younger brother, Qulī Beg
and Bihlūl-i-ayūb and a body of their men got to grips with the
Khurāsānīs on the skirt of `Aṃbar Koh, near Khwāja Changāl but, many
Khurāsānīs coming up, Sayyidīm `Alī and Bābā Beg's (son) Qulī Beg and
others were unhorsed.
At the time these various news reached Sl. Ḥusain Mīrzā, his army was
not without distress through the spring rains of Ḥiṣār; he therefore
brought about a peace; Maḥmūd _Barlās_ came out from those in the fort;
Ḥājī Pīr the Taster went from those outside; the great commanders and
what there was (_nī kīm_) of musicians and singers assembled and the
Mīrzā took (Bega Begīm), the eldest[296] daughter of Sl. Maḥmūd Mīrzā by
Khān-zāda Begīm, for Ḥaidar Mīrzā, his son by Pāyanda Begīm and through
her the grandson of Sl. Abū-sa`īd Mīrzā. This done, he rose from before
Ḥiṣār and set his face for Qūndūz.
At Qūndūz also Sl. Ḥusain Mīrzā made a few trenches and took up the
besieger's position but by Badī`u'z-zamān Mīrzā's intervention peace at
length was made, prisoners were exchanged and the Khurāsānīs retired.
The twice-repeated[297] attacks made by Sl. Ḥusain Mīrzā on Khusrau Shāh
and his unsuccessful retirements were the cause of Khusrau Shāh's
[Sidenote: Fol. 36.] great rise and of action of his so much beyond his
province.
When the Mīrzā reached Balkh, he, in the interests of [M.]ā
warā'u'n-nahr gave it to Badī`u'z-zamān Mīrzā, gave Badī`u'z-zamān
Mīrzā's district of Astarābād to (a younger son), Muz̤affar Ḥusain Mīrzā
and made both kneel at the same assembly, one for Balkh, the other for
Astarābād. This offended Badī`u'z-zamān Mīrzā and led to years of
rebellion and disturbance.[298]
(_d. Revolt of the Tarkhānīs in Samarkand_).
In Ramẓān of this same year, the Tarkhānīs revolted in Samarkand. Here
is the story:—Bāī-sunghar Mīrzā was not so friendly and familiar with
the begs and soldiers of Samarkand as he was with those of Ḥiṣār.[299]
His favourite beg was Shaikh `Abdu'l-lāh _Barlās_[300] whose sons were
so intimate with the Mīrzā that it made a relation as of Lover and
Beloved. These things displeased the Tarkhāns and the Samarkandī begs;
Darwesh Muḥammad Tarkhān went from Bukhārā to Qarshī, brought Sl. `Alī
Mīrzā to Samarkand and raised him to be supreme. People then went to the
New Garden where Bāī-sunghar [Sidenote: Fol. 36b.] Mīrzā was, treated
him like a prisoner, parted him from his following and took him to the
citadel. There they seated both mīrzās in one place, thinking to send
Bāī-sunghar Mīrzā to the Gūk Sarāī close to the Other Prayer. The Mīrzā,
however, on plea of necessity, went into one of the palace-buildings on
the east side of the Bū-stān Sarāī. Tarkhānīs stood outside the door and
with him went in Muḥammad Qulī _Qūchīn_ and Ḥasan, the sherbet-server.
To be brief:—A gateway, leading out to the back, must have been bricked
up for they broke down the obstacle at once. The Mīrzā got out of the
citadel on the Kafshīr side, through the water-conduit (_āb-mūrī_),
dropped himself from the rampart of the water-way (_dū-tahī_), and went
to Khwājakī Khwāja's[301] house in Khwāja Kafshīr. When the Tarkhānīs,
in waiting at the door, took the precaution of looking in, they found
him gone. Next day the Tarkhānīs went in a large body to Khwājakī
Khwāja's gate but the Khwāja said, "No!"[302] and did not give him up.
Even they could not take him by force, the Khwāja's dignity was too
great for them to be able to use force. A few days later, Khwāja
Abu'l-makāram[303] and Aḥmad Ḥājī Beg and other begs, great and
[Sidenote: Fol. 37.] small, and soldiers and townsmen rose in a mass,
fetched the Mīrzā away from the Khwāja's house and besieged Sl. `Ali
Mīrzā and the Tarkhāns in the citadel. They could not hold out for even
a day; Muḥ. Mazīd Tarkhān went off through the Gate of the Four Roads
for Bukhārā; Sl. `Alī Mīrzā and Darwesh Muḥ. Tarkhān were made
prisoner.
Bāī-sunghar Mīrzā was in Aḥmad Ḥājī Beg's house when people brought
Darwesh Muḥammad Tarkhān in. He put him a few questions but got no good
answer. In truth Darwesh Muḥammad's was a deed for which good answer
could not be made. He was ordered to death. In his helplessness he clung
to a pillar[304] of the house; would they let him go because he clung to
a pillar? They made him reach his doom (_siyāsat_) and ordered Sl. `Alī
Mīrzā to the Gūk Sarāī there to have the fire-pencil drawn across his
eyes.
(_Author's note._) The Gūk Sarāī is one of Tīmūr Beg's great
buildings in the citadel of Samarkand. It has this singular
and special characteristic, if a Tīmūrid is to be seated on
the throne, here he takes his seat; if one lose his head,
coveting the throne, here he loses it; therefore the name Gūk
Sarāī has a metaphorical sense (_kināyat_) and to say of any
ruler's son, "They have taken him to the Gūk Sarāī," means, to
death.[305]
To the Gūk Sarāī accordingly Sl. `Alī Mīrzā was taken but when the
fire-pencil was drawn across his eyes, whether by the surgeon's choice
or by his inadvertence, no harm was done. [Sidenote: Fol. 37b.] This the
Mīrzā did not reveal at once but went to Khwāja Yahya's house and a few
days later, to the Tarkhāns in Bukhārā.
Through these occurrences, the sons of his Highness Khwāja `Ubaidu'l-lāh
became settled partisans, the elder (Muḥammad `Ubaidu'l-lāh, Khwājakī
Khwāja) becoming the spiritual guide of the elder prince, the younger
(Yahya) of the younger. In a few days, Khwāja Yahya followed Sl. `Alī
Mīrzā to Bukhārā.
Bāī-sunghar Mīrzā led out his army against Bukhārā. On his approach, Sl.
`Alī Mīrzā came out of the town, arrayed for battle. There was little
fighting; Victory being on the side of Sl. `Alī Mīrzā, Bāī-sunghar Mīrzā
sustained defeat. Aḥmad Ḥājī Beg and a number of good soldiers were
taken; most of the men were put to death. Aḥmad Ḥājī Beg himself the
slaves and slave-women of Darwesh Muḥammad Tarkhān, issuing out of
Bukhārā, put to a dishonourable death on the charge of their master's
blood.
(_e. Bābur moves against Samarkand._)
These news reached us in Andijān in the month of Shawwāl (mid-June to
mid-July) and as we (_act._ 14) coveted Samarkand, we got our men to
horse. Moved by a like desire, Sl. Mas'ūd Mīrzā, his mind and Khusrau
Shāh's mind set at ease by Sl. [Sidenote: Fol. 38.] Ḥusain Mīrzā's
retirement, came over by way of Shahr-i-sabz.[306] To reinforce him,
Khusrau Shāh laid hands (_qāptī_) on his younger brother, Walī. We
(three mīrzās) beleaguered the town from three sides during three or
four months; then Khwāja Yahya came to me from Sl. `Alī Mīrzā to mediate
an agreement with a common aim. The matter was left at an interview
arranged (_kūrūshmak_); I moved my force from Soghd to some 8m. below
the town; Sl. `Alī Mīrzā from his side, brought his own; from one bank,
he, from the other, I crossed to the middle of[307] the Kohik water,
each with four or five men; we just saw one another (_kūrūshūb_), asked
each the other's welfare and went, he his way, I mine.
I there saw, in Khwāja Yahya's service, Mullā _Binā'ī_ and Muḥammad
Ṣāliḥ;[308] the latter I saw this once, the former was long in my
service later on. After the interview (_kūrūshkān_) with Sl. `Alī Mīrzā,
as winter was near and as there was no great scarcity amongst the
Samarkandīs, we retired, he to Bukhārā, I to Andijān.
Sl. Mas`ūd Mīrzā had a penchant for a daughter of Shaikh `Abdu'l-lāh
_Barlās_, she indeed was his object in coming to Samarkand. He took her,
laid world-gripping ambition aside [Sidenote: Fol. 38b.] and went back
to Ḥiṣār.
When I was near Shīrāz and Kān-bāī, Mahdī Sl. deserted to Samarkand;
Ḥamza Sl. went also from near Zamīn but with leave granted.
902 AH.—SEP. 9TH. 1496 TO AUG. 30TH. 1497 AD.[309]
(_a. Bābur's second attempt on Samarkand._)
This winter, Bāī-sunghar Mīrzā's affairs were altogether in a good way.
When `Abdu'l-karīm _Ushrit_ came on Sl. `Alī Mīrzā's part to near Kūfīn,
Mahdī Sl. led out a body of Bāī-sunghar Mīrzā's troops against him. The
two commanders meeting exactly face to face, Mahdī Sl. pricked
`Abdu'l-karīm's horse with his Chirkas[310] sword so that it fell, and
as `Abdu'l-karīm was getting to his feet, struck off his hand at the
wrist. Having taken him, they gave his men a good beating.
These (Aūzbeg) sulṯāns, seeing the affairs of Samarkand and the Gates of
the (Tīmūrid) Mīrzās tottering to their fall, went off in good time
(_āīrtā_) into the open country (?)[311] for Shaibānī.
Pleased[312] with their small success (over `Abdu'l-karīm), the
Samarkandīs drew an army out against Sl. `Alī Mīrzā; Bāī-sunghar Mīrzā
went to Sar-i-pul (Bridge-head), Sl. `Alī Mīrzā to Khwāja Kārzūn.
Meantime, Khwāja Abū'l-makāram, at the instigation of Khwāja Munīr of
Aūsh, rode light against [Sidenote: Fol. 39.] Bukhārā with Wais
_Lāgharī_ and Muḥammad Bāqir of the Andijān begs, and Qāsim _Dūldāī_ and
some of the Mīrzā's household. As the Bukhāriots took precautions when
the invaders got near the town, they could make no progress. They
therefore retired.
At the time when (last year) Sl. `Alī Mīrzā and I had our interview, it
had been settled[313] that this summer he should come from Bukhārā and I
from Andijān to beleaguer Samarkand. To keep this tryst, I rode out in
Ramẓān (May) from Andijān. Hearing when close to Yār Yīlāq, that the
(two) Mīrzās were lying front to front, we sent Tūlūn Khwāja
_Mūghūl_[314] ahead, with 2 or 300 scouting braves (_qāzāq yīkītlār_).
Their approach giving Bāī-sunghar Mīrzā news of our advance, he at once
broke up and retired in confusion. That same night our detachment
overtook his rear, shot a mass (_qālīn_) of his men and brought in
masses of spoil.
Two days later we reached Shīrāz. It belonged to Qāsim Beg _Dūldāī_; his
_dārogha_ (Sub-governor) could not hold it and surrendered.[315] It was
given into Ibrāhīm _Sārū's_ charge. After making there, next day, the
Prayer of the Breaking of the Fast (_`Īdu'l-fiṯr_), we moved for
Samarkand and dismounted in the reserve (_qūrūgh_) of Āb-i-yār (Water of
Might). That day waited on me with 3 or 400 men, Qāsim _Dūldāī_,
[Sidenote: Fol. 39b.] Wais _Lāgharī_, Muḥammad Sīghal's grandson,
Ḥasan,[316] and Sl. Muḥammad Wais. What they said was this: 'Bāī-sunghar
Mīrzā came out and has gone back; we have left him therefore and are
here for the _pādshāh's_ service,' but it was known later that they must
have left the Mīrzā at his request to defend Shīrāz, and that the Shīrāz
affair having become what it was, they had nothing for it but to come to
us.
When we dismounted at Qarā-būlāq, they brought in several Mughūls
arrested because of senseless conduct to humble village elders coming in
to us.[317] Qāsim Beg _Qūchīn_ for discipline's sake (_siyāsat_) had
two or three of them cut to pieces. It was on this account he left me
and went to Ḥiṣār four or five years later, in the guerilla times, (907
AH.) when I was going from the Macha country to The Khān.[318]
Marching from Qarā-būlāq, we crossed the river (_i.e._ the Zar-afshān)
and dismounted near Yām.[319] On that same day, our men got to grips
with Bāī-sunghar Mīrzā's at the head of the Avenue. Sl. Aḥmad _Taṃbal_
was struck in the neck by a spear but not unhorsed. Khwājakī
Mullā-i-ṣadr, Khwāja-i-kalān's eldest brother, was pierced in the nape
of the neck[320] by an arrow and went straightway to God's mercy. An
excellent soldier, my father before me had favoured him, making him
Keeper of the Seal; he was a student of theology, had great [Sidenote:
Fol. 40.] acquaintance with words and a good style; moreover he
undertook hawking and rain-making with the jade-stone.
While we were at Yām, people, dealers and other, came out in crowds so
that the camp became a bazar for buying and selling. One day, at the
Other Prayer, suddenly, a general hubbub arose and all those Musalmān
(traders) were plundered. Such however was the discipline of our army
that an order to restore everything having been given, the first watch
(_pahār_) of the next day had not passed before nothing, not a tag of
cotton, not a broken needle's point, remained in the possession of any
man of the force, all was back with its owners.
Marching from Yām, it was dismounted in Khān Yūrtī (The Khān's Camping
Ground),[321] some 6 m. (3 _kuroh_) east of Samarkand. We lay there for
40 or 50 days. During the time, men from their side and from ours
chopped at one another (_chāpqū-lāshtīlār_) several times in the Avenue.
One day when Ibrāhīm _Begchīk_ was chopping away there, he was cut on
the face; thereafter people called him _Chāpūk_ (_Balafré_). Another
time, this also in the Avenue, at the Maghāk (Fosse) Bridge[322]
Abū'l-qāsim (_Kohbur Chaghatāī_) got in with his mace. Once, again
[Sidenote: Fol. 40b.] in the Avenue, near the Mill-sluice, when Mīr Shāh
_Qūchīn_ also got in with his mace, they cut his neck almost
half-through; most fortunately the great artery was not severed.
While we were in Khān Yūrtī, some in the fort sent the deceiving
message,[323] 'Come you to-night to the Lovers' Cave side and we will
give you the fort.' Under this idea, we went that night to the Maghāk
Bridge and from there sent a party of good horse and foot to the
rendezvous. Four or five of the household foot-soldiers had gone forward
when the matter got wind. They were very active men; one, known as Ḥājī,
had served me from my childhood; another people called Maḥmūd
_Kūndūr-sangak_.[324] They were all killed.
While we lay in Khān Yūrtī, so many Samarkandīs came out that the camp
became a town where everything looked for in a town was to be had.
Meantime all the forts, Samarkand excepted, and the Highlands and the
Lowlands were coming in to us. As in Aūrgūt, however, a fort on the
skirt of the Shavdār (var. Shādwār) range, a party of men held
fast[325], of necessity we moved out from Khān Yūrtī against them. They
could not maintain themselves, and surrendered, making [Sidenote: Fol.
41.] Khwāja-i-qāẓī their mediator. Having pardoned their offences
against ourselves, we went back to beleaguer Samarkand.
(_b. Affairs of Sl. Ḥusain Mīrzā and his son, Badī`u'z-zamān
Mīrzā._)[326]
This year the mutual recriminations of Sl. Ḥusain Mīrzā and
Badī`u'z-zamān Mīrzā led on to fighting; here are the particulars:—Last
year, as has been mentioned, Badī`u'z-zamān Mīrzā and Muz̤affar Ḥusain
Mīrzā had been made to kneel for Balkh and Astarābād. From that time
till this, many envoys had come and gone, at last even `Alī-sher Beg had
gone but urge it as all did, Badī`u'z-zamān Mīrzā would not consent to
give up Astarābād. 'The Mīrzā,' he said, 'assigned[327] it to my son,
Muḥammad Mū`min Mīrzā at the time of his circumcision.' A conversation
had one day between him and `Alī-sher Beg testifies to his acuteness and
to the sensibility of `Alī-sher Beg's feelings. After saying many things
of a private nature in the Mīrzā's ear, `Alī-sher Beg added, 'Forget
these matters.'[328] 'What matters?' rejoined the Mīrzā instantly.
`Alī-sher Beg was much affected and cried a good deal.
At length the jarring words of this fatherly and filial discussion went
so far that _his_ father against his father, and _his_ son against his
son drew armies out for Balkh and Astarābād.[329]
Up (from Harāt) to the Pul-i-chirāgh meadow, below Garzawān,[330] went
Sl. Ḥusain Mīrzā; down (from Balkh) came [Sidenote: Fol. 41b.]
Badī`u'z-zamān Mīrzā. On the first day of Ramẓān (May 2nd.) Abū'l-muḥsin
Mīrzā advanced, leading some of his father's light troops. There was
nothing to call a battle; Badī`u'z-zamān Mīrzā was routed and of his
braves masses were made prisoner. Sl. Ḥusain Mīrzā ordered that all
prisoners should be beheaded; this not here only but wherever he
defeated a rebel son, he ordered the heads of all prisoners to be struck
off. And why not? Right was with him. The (rebel) Mīrzās were so given
over to vice and social pleasure that even when a general so skilful and
experienced as their father was within half-a-day's journey of them, and
when before the blessed month of Ramẓān, one night only remained, they
busied themselves with wine and pleasure, without fear of their father,
without dread of God. Certain it is that those so lost (_yūtkān_) will
perish and that any hand can deal a blow at those thus going to
perdition (_aūtkān_). During the several years of Badī`u'z-zamān Mīrzā's
rule in Astarābād, his coterie and his following, his bare (_yālāng_)
braves even, were in full splendour[4] and adornment. He had many gold
and silver drinking cups [Sidenote: Fol. 42.] and utensils, much silken
plenishing and countless tīpūchāq horses. He now lost everything. He
hurled himself in his flight down a mountain track, leading to a
precipitous fall. He himself got down the fall, with great difficulty,
but many of his men perished there.[331]
After defeating Badī`u'z-zamān Mīrzā, Sl. Ḥusain Mīrzā moved on to
Balkh. It was in charge of Shaikh `Alī T̤aghāī; he, not able to defend
it, surrendered and made his submission. The Mīrzā gave Balkh to Ibrāhīm
Ḥusain Mīrzā, left Muḥammad Walī Beg and Shāh Ḥusain, the page, with him
and went back to Khurāsān.
Defeated and destitute, with his braves bare and his bare
foot-soldiers[332], Badī`u'z-zamān Mīrzā drew off to Khusrau Shāh in
Qūndūz. Khusrau Shāh, for his part, did him good service, such service
indeed, such kindness with horses and camels, tents and pavilions and
warlike equipment of all sorts, both for himself and those with him,
that eye-witnesses said between this and his former equipment the only
difference might be in the gold and silver vessels.
(_c. Dissension between Sl. Mas`ūd Mīrzā and Khusrau Shāh._)
Ill-feeling and squabbles had arisen between Sl. Mas`ūd Mīrzā and
Khusrau Shāh because of the injustices of the one and the
self-magnifyings of the other. Now therefore Khusrau Shāh joined his
brothers, Walī and Bāqī to Badī`u'z-zamān Mīrzā and sent the three
against Ḥiṣār. They could not even [Sidenote: Fol. 42b.] get near the
fort, in the outskirts swords were crossed once or twice; one day at the
Bird-house[333] on the north of Ḥiṣār, Muḥibb-`alī, the armourer
(_qūrchī_), outstripped his people and struck in well; he fell from his
horse but at the moment of his capture, his men attacked and freed him.
A few days later a somewhat compulsory peace was made and Khusrau Shāh's
army retired.
Shortly after this, Badī`u'z-zamān Mīrzā drew off by the mountain-road
to Ẕū'n-nūn _Arghūn_ and his son, Shujā` _Arghūn_ in Qandahār and
Zamīn-dāwar. Stingy and miserly as Ẕū'n-nūn was, he served the Mīrzā
well, in one single present offering 40,000 sheep.
Amongst curious happenings of the time one was this: Wednesday was the
day Sl. Ḥusain Mīrzā beat Badī`u'z-zamān Mīrzā; Wednesday was the day
Muz̤affar Ḥusain Mīrzā beat Muḥammad Mū`min Mīrzā; Wednesday, more
curious still, was the name of the man who unhorsed and took prisoner,
Muḥammad Mū`min Mīrzā.[334]
903 AH.—AUG. 30TH. 1497 TO AUG. 19TH. 1498 AD.[335]
(_a. Resumed account of Bābur's second attempt on Samarkand._)
When we had dismounted in the Qulba (Plough) meadow,[336] behind the
Bāgh-i-maidān (Garden of the plain), the Samarkandīs came out in great
numbers to near Muḥammad Chap's [Sidenote: Fol. 43.] Bridge. Our men
were unprepared; and before they were ready, Bābā `Alī's (son) Bābā Qulī
had been unhorsed and taken into the fort. A few days later we moved to
the top of Qulba, at the back of Kohik.[337] That day Sayyid Yūsuf,[338]
having been sent out of the town, came to our camp and did me obeisance.
The Samarkandīs, fancying that our move from the one ground to the other
meant, 'He has given it up,' came out, soldiers and townsmen in alliance
(through the Turquoise Gate), as far as the Mīrzā's Bridge and, through
the Shaikh-zāda's Gate, as far as Muḥammad Chap's. We ordered our braves
to arm and ride out; they were strongly attacked from both sides, from
Muḥammad Chap's Bridge and from the Mīrzā's, but God brought it right!
our foes were beaten. Begs of the best and the boldest of braves our men
unhorsed and brought in. Amongst them Ḥāfiẓ _Dūldāī's_ (son) Muḥammad
_Mīskin_[339] was taken, after his index-finger had been struck off;
Muḥammad Qāsim _Nabīra_ also was unhorsed and brought in by his own
younger brother, Ḥasan _Nabīra_.[340] There were many other such
soldiers and known men. Of the town-rabble, were brought in Diwāna, the
tunic-weaver and _Kālqāshūq_,[341] headlong leaders both, in brawl and
tumult; they [Sidenote: Fol. 43b.] were ordered to death with torture in
blood-retaliation for our foot-soldiers, killed at the Lovers'
Cave.[342] This was a complete reverse for the Samarkandīs; they came
out no more even when our men used to go to the very edge of the ditch
and bring back their slaves and slave-women.
The Sun entered the Balance and cold descended on us.[343] I therefore
summoned the begs admitted to counsel and it was decided, after
discussion, that although the towns-people were so enfeebled that, by
God's grace, we should take Samarkand, it might be to-day, it might be
to-morrow, still, rather than suffer from cold in the open, we ought to
rise from near it and go for winter-quarters into some fort, and that,
even if we had to leave those quarters later on, this would be done
without further trouble. As Khwāja Dīdār seemed a suitable fort, we
marched there and having dismounted in the meadow lying before it, went
in, fixed on sites for the winter-houses and covered shelters,[344] left
overseers and inspectors of the work and returned to our camp in the
meadow. There we lay during the few days before the winter-houses were
finished.
Meantime Bāī-sunghar Mīrzā had sent again and again to ask help from
Shaibānī Khān. On the morning of the very day on which, our quarters
being ready, we had moved into Khwāja Dīdār, the Khān, having ridden
light from Turkistān, [Sidenote: Fol. 44.] stood over against our
camping-ground. Our men were not all at hand; some, for winter-quarters,
had gone to Khwāja Rabāṯī, some to Kabud, some to Shīrāz. None-the-less,
we formed up those there were and rode out. Shaibānī Khān made no stand
but drew off towards Samarkand. He went right up to the fort but because
the affair had not gone as Bāī-sunghar Mīrzā wished, did not get a good
reception. He therefore turned back for Turkistān a few days later, in
disappointment, with nothing done.
Bāī-sunghar Mīrzā had sustained a seven months' siege; his one hope had
been in Shaibānī Khān; this he had lost and he now with 2 or 300 of his
hungry suite, drew off from Samarkand, for Khusrau Shāh in Qūndūz.
When he was near Tīrmīẕ, at the Amū ferry, the Governor of Tīrmīẕ,
Sayyid Ḥusain Akbar, kinsman and confidant both of Sl. Mas`ūd Mīrzā,
heard of him and went out against him. The Mīrzā himself got across the
river but Mīrīm Tarkhān was drowned and all the rest of his people were
captured, together with his baggage and the camels loaded with his
personal effects; even his page, Muḥammad T̤āhir, falling into Sayyid
Ḥusain Akbar's hands. Khusrau Shāh, for his part, looked kindly on the
Mīrzā.
[Sidenote: Fol. 44b.] When the news of his departure reached us, we got
to horse and started from Khwāja Dīdār for Samarkand. To give us
honourable meeting on the road, were nobles and braves, one after
another. It was on one of the last ten days of the first Rabī` (end of
November 1497 AD.), that we entered the citadel and dismounted at the
Bū-stān Sarāī. Thus, by God's favour, were the town and the country of
Samarkand taken and occupied.
(_b. Description of Samarkand._)[345]
Few towns in the whole habitable world are so pleasant as Samarkand. It
is of the Fifth Climate and situated in lat. 40° 6' and long. 99°.[346]
The name of the town is Samarkand; its country people used to call Mā
warā'u'n-nahr (Transoxania).
They used to call it _Baldat-i-maḥfūẓa_ because no foe laid hands on it
with storm and sack.[347] It must have become[348] Musalmān in the time
of the Commander of the Faithful, his Highness `Usmān. Qus̤am ibn
`Abbās, one of the Companions[349] must have gone there; his
burial-place, known as the Tomb of Shāh-i-zinda (The Living Shāh,
_i.e._, Fāqīr) is outside the Iron Gate. Iskandar must have founded
Samarkand. The Turk and Mughūl hordes call it Sīmīz-kīnt.[350] Tīmūr Beg
made it his capital; no ruler so great will ever have made it a capital
before (_qīlghān aīmās dūr_). I ordered people to pace round the
ramparts of the walled-town; it came out at 10,000 steps.[351]
Samarkandīs are all orthodox (_sunnī_), pure-in-the Faith, law-abiding
and religious. The number of Leaders [Sidenote: Fol. 45.] of Islām said
to have arisen in Mā warā'u'n-nahr, since the days of his Highness the
Prophet, are not known to have arisen in any other country.[352] From
the Mātarīd suburb of Samarkand came Shaikh Abū'l-manṣūr, one of the
Expositors of the Word.[353] Of the two sects of Expositors, the
Mātarīdiyah and the Ash`ariyah,[354] the first is named from this
Shaikh Abū'l-manṣūr. Of Mā warā'u'n-nahr also was Khwāja Ismā`īl
_Khartank_, the author of the _Ṣāḥiḥ-i-bukhārī_.[355] From the Farghāna
district, Marghīnān—Farghāna, though at the limit of settled habitation,
is included in Mā warā'u'n-nahr,—came the author of the _Hidāyat_,[356]
a book than which few on Jurisprudence are more honoured in the sect of
Abū Ḥanīfa.
On the east of Samarkand are Farghāna and Kāshghar; on the west, Bukhārā
and Khwārizm; on the north, Tāshkīnt and Shāhrukhiya,—in books written
Shāsh and Banākat; and on the south, Balkh and Tīrmīẕ.
The Kohik Water flows along the north of Samarkand, at the distance of
some 4 miles (2 _kuroh_); it is so-called because it comes out from
under the upland of the Little Hill (_Kohik_)[357] lying between it and
the town. The Dar-i-gham Water (canal) flows along the south, at the
distance of some two miles (1 _sharī`_). This is a large and swift
torrent,[358] indeed it is like a large river, cut off from the Kohik
Water. All the gardens and suburbs and some of the _tūmāns_ of Samarkand
are cultivated by it. By the Kohik Water a stretch of from 30 to 40
_yīghāch_,[359] by road, is made habitable and cultivated, as far as
Bukhārā and Qarā-kūl. Large as the river is, it is not too large for
its dwellings and its culture; during three or four months of the
[Sidenote: Fol. 45b.] year, indeed, its waters do not reach
Bukhārā.[360] Grapes, melons, apples and pomegranates, all fruits
indeed, are good in Samarkand; two are famous, its apple and its
_ṣāḥibī_ (grape).[361] Its winter is mightily cold; snow falls but not
so much as in Kābul; in the heats its climate is good but not so good as
Kābul's.
In the town and suburbs of Samarkand are many fine buildings and gardens
of Tīmur Beg and Aūlūgh Beg Mīrzā.[362]
In the citadel,[363] Tīmūr Beg erected a very fine building, the great
four-storeyed kiosque, known as the Gūk Sarāī.[364] In the walled-town,
again, near the Iron Gate, he built a Friday Mosque[365] of stone
(_sangīn_); on this worked many stone-cutters, brought from Hindūstān.
Round its frontal arch is inscribed in letters large enough to be read
two miles away, the Qu'rān verse, _Wa az yerfa` Ibrāhīm al Qawā`id alī
akhara_.[366] This also is a very fine building. Again, he laid out two
gardens, on the east of the town, one, the more distant, the
Bāgh-i-bulandī,[367] the other and nearer, the Bāgh-i-dilkushā.[368]
From Dilkushā to the Turquoise Gate, he planted an Avenue of White
Poplar,[369] and in the garden itself erected a great kiosque, painted
inside [Sidenote: Fol. 46.] with pictures of his battles in Hindūstān.
He made another garden, known as the Naqsh-i-jahān (World's Picture), on
the skirt of Kohik, above the Qarā-sū or, as people also call it, the
Āb-i-raḥmat (Water-of-mercy) of Kān-i-gil.[370] It had gone to ruin when
I saw it, nothing remaining of it except its name. His also are the
Bāgh-i-chanār,[371] near the walls and below the town on the south,[372]
also the Bāgh-i-shamāl (North Garden) and the Bāgh-i-bihisht (Garden of
Paradise). His own tomb and those of his descendants who have ruled in
Samarkand, are in a College, built at the exit (_chāqār_) of the
walled-town, by Muḥammad Sulṯān Mīrzā, the son of Tīmūr Beg's son,
Jahāngīr Mīrzā.[373]
Amongst Aūlūgh Beg Mīrzā's buildings inside the town are a College and a
monastery (_Khānqāh_). The dome of the monastery is very large, few so
large are shown in the world. Near these two buildings, he constructed
an excellent Hot Bath (_ḥammām_) known as the Mīrzā's Bath; he had the
pavements in this made of all sorts of stone (? mosaic); such another
bath is not known in Khurāsān or in Samarkand.[374] [Sidenote: Fol.
46b.] Again;—to the south of the College is his mosque, known as the
Masjid-i-maqaṯa` (Carved Mosque) because its ceiling and its walls are
all covered with _islīmī_[375] and Chinese pictures formed of segments
of wood.[376] There is great discrepancy between the _qibla_ of this
mosque and that of the College; that of the mosque seems to have been
fixed by astronomical observation.
Another of Aūlūgh Beg Mīrzā's fine buildings is an observatory, that is,
an instrument for writing Astronomical Tables.[377] This stands three
storeys high, on the skirt of the Kohik upland. By its means the Mīrzā
worked out the Kūrkānī Tables, now used all over the world. Less work is
done with any others. Before these were made, people used the Aīl-khānī
Tables, put together at Marāgha, by Khwāja Naṣīr _Tūsī_,[378] in the
time of Hulākū Khān. Hulākū Khān it is, people call _Aīl-khānī_.[379]
(_Author's note._) Not more than seven or eight observatories
seem to have been constructed in the world. Māmūm Khalīfa[380]
(Caliph) made one with which the _Mamūmī_ Tables were written.
Batalmūs (Ptolemy) constructed another. Another was made, in
Hindūstān, in the time of Rājā Vikramāditya _Hīndū_, in Ujjain
and Dhar, that is, the Mālwa country, now known as Māndū. The
Hindūs of Hindūstān use the Tables of this Observatory. They
were put together 1,584 years ago.[381] [Sidenote: Fol. 47.]
Compared with others, they are somewhat defective.
Aūlūgh Beg Mīrzā again, made the garden known as the Bāgh-i-maidān
(Garden of the Plain), on the skirt of the Kohik upland. In the middle
of it he erected a fine building they call Chihil Sitūn (Forty Pillars).
On both storeys are pillars, all of stone (_tāshdīn_).[382] Four
turrets, like minarets, stand on its four corner-towers, the way up into
them being through the towers. Everywhere there are stone pillars, some
fluted, some twisted, some many-sided. On the four sides of the upper
storey are open galleries enclosing a four-doored hall (_chār-dara_);
their pillars also are all of stone. The raised floor of the building is
all paved with stone.
He made a smaller garden, out beyond Chihil Sitūn and towards Kohik,
also having a building in it. In the open gallery of this building he
placed a great stone throne, some 14 or 15 yards (_qārī_) long, some 8
yards wide and perhaps 1 yard high. They brought a stone so large by a
very long road.[383] There is a crack in the middle of it which people
say must have come after it was brought here. In the same [Sidenote:
Fol. 47b.] garden he also built a four-doored hall, know as the
Chīnī-khāna (Porcelain House) because its _īzāra_[384] are all of
porcelain; he sent to China for the porcelain used in it. Inside the
walls again, is an old building of his, known as the Masjid-i-laqlaqa
(Mosque of the Echo). If anyone stamps on the ground under the middle of
the dome of this mosque, the sound echoes back from the whole dome; it
is a curious matter of which none know the secret.
In the time also of Sl. Aḥmad Mīrzā the great and lesser begs laid out
many gardens, large and small.[385] For beauty, and air, and view, few
will have equalled Darwesh Muḥammad Tarkhān's Chār-bāgh (Four
Gardens).[386] It lies overlooking the whole of Qulba Meadow, on the
slope below the Bāgh-i-maidān. Moreover it is arranged symmetrically,
terrace above terrace, and is planted with beautiful _nārwān_[387] and
cypresses and white poplar. A most agreeable sojourning place, its one
defect is the want of a large stream.
Samarkand is a wonderfully beautified town. One of its specialities,
perhaps found in few other places,[388] is that the different trades are
not mixed up together in it but each has its own _bāzār_, a good sort of
plan. Its bakers and its cooks are good. The best paper in the world is
made there; the water for the paper-mortars[389] all comes from
Kān-i-gil,[390] a meadow on the banks of the Qarā-sū (Blackwater) or
Āb-i-raḥmat (Water of Mercy). [Sidenote: Fol. 48.] Another article of
Samarkand trade, carried to all sides and quarters, is cramoisy velvet.
Excellent meadows lie round Samarkand. One is the famous Kān-i-gil, some
2 miles east and a little north of the town. The Qarā-sū or Āb-i-raḥmat
flows through it, a stream (with driving power) for perhaps seven or
eight mills. Some say the original name of the meadow must have been
Kān-i-ābgīr (Mine of Quagmire) because the river is bordered by
quagmire, but the histories all write Kān-i-gil (Mine of clay). It is an
excellent meadow. The Samarkand sulṯans always made it their
reserve,[391] going out to camp in it each year for a month or two.
Higher up (on the river) than Kān-i-gil and to the s.e. of it is a
meadow some 4 miles east of the town, known as Khān Yūrtī (Khān's
Camping-ground). The Qarā-sū flows through this meadow before entering
Kān-i-gil. When it comes to Khān Yūrtī it curves back so far that it
encloses, with a very narrow outlet, enough ground for a camp. Having
noticed these advantages, we camped there for a time during [Sidenote:
Fol. 48b.] the siege of Samarkand.[392]
Another meadow is the Būdana Qūrūgh (Quail Reserve), lying between
Dil-kushā and the town. Another is the Kūl-i-maghāk (Meadow of the deep
pool) at some 4 miles from the town. This also is a round[393] meadow.
People call it Kul-i-maghāk meadow because there is a large pool on one
side of it. Sl. `Alī Mīrzā lay here during the siege, when I was in Khān
Yūrtī. Another and smaller meadow is Qulba (Plough); it has Qulba
Village and the Kohik Water on the north, the Bāgh-i-maidān and Darwesh
Muḥammad Tarkhān's Chār-bāgh on the south, and the Kohik upland on the
west.
Samarkand has good districts and _tūmāns_. Its largest district, and one
that is its equal, is Bukhārā, 25 _yīghāch_[394] to the west. Bukhārā in
its turn, has several _tūmāns_; it is a fine town; its fruits are many
and good, its melons excellent; none in Mā warā'u'n-nahr matching them
for quality and quantity. Although the Mīr Tīmūrī melon of Akhsī[395] is
sweeter and more delicate than any Bukhārā melon, still in Bukhārā many
kinds of melon are good and plentiful. The Bukhārā plum is famous; no
other equals it. They skin it,[396] dry it and [Sidenote: Fol. 49.]
carry it from land to land with rarities (_tabarrūklār bīla_); it is an
excellent laxative medicine. Fowls and geese are much looked after
(_parwārī_) in Bukhārā. Bukhārā wine is the strongest made in Mā
warā'u'n-nahr; it was what I drank when drinking in those countries at
Samarkand.[397]
Kesh is another district of Samarkand, 9 _yīghāch_[398] by road to the
south of the town. A range called the Aītmāk Pass (_Dābān_)[399] lies
between Samarkand and Kesh; from this are taken all the stones for
building. Kesh is called also Shahr-i-sabz (Green-town) because its
barren waste (_ṣahr_) and roofs and walls become beautifully green in
spring. As it was Tīmūr Beg's birth-place, he tried hard to make it his
capital. He erected noble buildings in it. To seat his own Court, he
built a great arched hall and in this seated his Commander-begs and his
Dīwān-begs, on his right and on his left. For those attending the Court,
he built two smaller halls, and to seat petitioners to his Court, built
quite small recesses on the four sides of the Court-house.[400] Few
arches so fine can be shown in the world. It is said to be higher than
the Kisrī Arch.[401] Tīmūr Beg also built in Kesh a college and a
mausoleum, in which are the tombs of Jahāngīr Mīrzā and others of his
descendants.[402] As Kesh did not offer the same facilities as
[Sidenote: Fol. 49b.] Samarkand for becoming a town and a capital, he
at last made clear choice of Samarkand.
Another district is Qarshī, known also as Nashaf and Nakhshab.[403]
Qarshī is a Mughūl name. In the Mughūl tongue they call a _kūr-khāna_
Qarshī.[404] The name must have come in after the rule of Chīngīz Khān.
Qarshī is somewhat scantily supplied with water; in spring it is very
beautiful and its grain and melons are good. It lies 18 _yīghāch_[405]
by road south and a little inclined to west of Samarkand. In the
district a small bird, known as the _qīl-qūyīrūgh_ and resembling the
_bāghrī qarā_, is found in such countless numbers that it goes by the
name of the Qarshī birdie (_murghak_).[406]
Khozār is another district; Karmīna another, lying between Samarkand and
Bukhārā; Qarā-kūl another, 7 _yīghāch_[407] n.w. of Bukhārā and at the
furthest limit of the water.
Samarkand has good _tūmāns_. One is Soghd with its dependencies. Its
head Yār-yīlāq, its foot Bukhārā, there may be not one single _yīghāch_
of earth without its village and its cultivated lands. So famous is it
that the saying attributed to Tīmūr Beg, 'I have a garden 30 _yīghāch_
long,[408] must have been spoken of Soghd. Another _tūmān_ is Shāvdār
(var. Shādwār), an excellent one adjoining the town-suburbs. On one side
it has the range (Aītmāk Dābān), lying between Samarkand and [Sidenote:
Fol. 50.] Shahr-i-sabz, on the skirts of which are many of its villages.
On the other side is the Kohik Water (_i.e._ the Dar-i-gham canal).
There it lies! an excellent _tūmān_, with fine air, full of beauty,
abounding in waters, its good things cheap. Observers of Egypt and Syria
have not pointed out its match.
Though Samarkand has other _tūmāns_, none rank with those enumerated;
with so much, enough has been said.
Tīmūr Beg gave the government of Samarkand to his eldest son, Jahāngīr
Mīrzā (in 776 AH.-1375 AD.); when Jahāngīr Mīrzā died (805 AH.-1403
AD.), he gave it to the Mīrzā's eldest son, Muḥammad Sulṯān-i-jahāngīr;
when Muḥammad Sulṯān Mīrzā died, it went to Shāh-rukh Mīrzā, Tīmūr Beg's
youngest son. Shāh-rukh Mīrzā gave the whole of Mā warā'u'n-nahr (in 872
AH.-1467 AD.) to his eldest son, Aūlūgh Beg Mīrzā. From him his own son,
`Abdu'l-laṯīf Mīrzā took it, (853 AH.-1449 AD.), for the sake of this
five days' fleeting world martyring a father so full of years and
knowledge.
The following chronogram gives the date of Aūlūgh Beg Mīrzā's death:—
Aūlūgh Beg, an ocean of wisdom and science,
The pillar of realm and religion,
Sipped from the hand of `Abbās, the mead of martyrdom,
And the date of the death is _`Abbās kasht_ (`Abbās slew).[409]
Though `Abdu'l-laṯīf Mīrzā did not rule more than five or six months,
the following couplet was current about him:—
Ill does sovereignty befit the parricide;
Should he rule, be it for no more than six months.[410]
This chronogram of the death of `Abdu'l-laṯīf Mīrzā is also well done:—
`Abdu'l-laṯīf, in glory a Khusrau and Jamshīd, [Sidenote: Fol. 50b.]
In his train a Farīdūn and Zardusht,
Bābā Ḥusain slew on the Friday Eve,
With an arrow. Write as its date, _Bābā Ḥusain kasht_ (Bābā
Ḥusain slew).[411]
After `Abdu'l-laṯīf Mīrzā's death, (Jumāda I, 22, 855 AH.-June 22nd.
1450 AD.), (his cousin) `Abdu'l-lāh Mīrzā, the grandson of Shāh-rukh
Mīrzā through Ibrāhīm Mīrzā, seated himself on the throne and ruled for
18 months to two years.[412] From him Sl. Abū-sa`īd Mīrzā took it (855
AH.-1451 AD.). He in his life-time gave it to his eldest son, Sl. Aḥmad
Mīrzā; Sl. Aḥmad Mīrzā continued to rule it after his father's death
(873 AH.-1469 AD.). On his death (899 AH.-1494 AD.) Sl. Maḥmūd Mīrzā was
seated on the throne and on his death (900 AH.-1495 AD.) Bāī-sunghar
Mīrzā. Bāī-sunghar Mīrzā was made prisoner for a few days, during the
Tarkhān rebellion (901 AH.-1496 AD.), and his younger brother, Sl. `Alī
Mīrzā was seated on the throne, but Bāī-sunghar Mīrzā, as has been
related in this history, took it again directly. From Bāī-sunghar Mīrzā
I took it (903 AH.-1497 AD.). Further details will be learned from the
ensuing history.
(_c. Bābur's rule in Samarkand._)
When I was seated on the throne, I shewed the Samarkand begs precisely
the same favour and kindness they had had before. I bestowed rank and
favour also on the begs with me, [Sidenote: Fol. 51.] to each according
to his circumstances, the largest share falling to Sl. Aḥmad _Taṃbal_;
he had been in the household begs' circle; I now raised him to that of
the great begs.
We had taken the town after a seven months' hard siege. Things of one
sort or other fell to our men when we got in. The whole country, with
exception of Samarkand itself, had come in earlier either to me or to
Sl. `Alī Mīrzā and consequently had not been over-run. In any case
however, what could have been taken from districts so long subjected to
raid and rapine? The booty our men had taken, such as it was, came to an
end. When we entered the town, it was in such distress that it needed
seed-corn and money-advances; what place was this to take anything from?
On these accounts our men suffered great privation. We ourselves could
give them nothing. Moreover they yearned for their homes and, by ones
and twos, set their faces for flight. The first to go was Bayān Qulī's
(son) Khān Qulī; Ibrāhīm _Begchīk_ was another; all the Mughūls went off
and, a little later, Sl. Aḥmad _Taṃbal_.
Aūzūn Ḥasan counted himself a very sincere and faithful friend of
Khwāja-i-qāẓī; we therefore, to put a stop to these desertions, sent the
Khwāja to him (in Andijān) so that they, [Sidenote: Fol. 51b.] in
agreement, might punish some of the deserters and send others back to
us. But that very Aūzūn Ḥasan, that traitor to his salt, may have been
the stirrer-up of the whole trouble and the spur-to-evil of the
deserters from Samarkand. Directly Sl. Aḥmad _Taṃbal_ had gone, all the
rest took up a wrong position.
(_d. Andijān demanded of Bābur by The Khān, and also for Jahāngīr
Mīrzā._)
Although, during the years in which, coveting Samarkand, I had
persistently led my army out, Sl. Maḥmūd Khān[413] had provided me with
no help whatever, yet, now it had been taken, he wanted Andijān.
Moreover, Aūzūn Ḥasan and Sl. Aḥmad _Taṃbal_, just when soldiers of ours
and all the Mughūls had deserted to Andijān and Akhsī, wanted those two
districts for Jahāngīr Mīrzā. For several reasons, those districts could
not be given to them. One was, that though not promised to The Khān, yet
he had asked for them and, as he persisted in asking, an agreement with
him was necessary, if they were to be given to Jahāngīr Mīrzā. A further
reason was that to ask for them just when deserters from us had fled to
them, was very like a command. If the matter had been brought forward
earlier, some way of tolerating a command might have been found. At
[Sidenote: Fol. 52.] the moment, as the Mughūls and the Andijān army and
several even of my household had gone to Andijān, I had with me in
Samarkand, beg for beg, good and bad, somewhere about 1000 men.
When Aūzūn Ḥasan and Sl. Aḥmad _Taṃbal_ did not get what they wanted,
they invited all those timid fugitives to join them. Just such a
happening, those timid people, for their own sakes, had been asking of
God in their terror. Hereupon, Aūzūn Ḥasan and Sl. Aḥmad _Taṃbal_,
becoming openly hostile and rebellious, led their army from Akhsī
against Andijān.
Tūlūn Khwāja was a bold, dashing, eager brave of the Bārīn (Mughūls). My
father had favoured him and he was still in favour, I myself having
raised him to the rank of beg. In truth he deserved favour, a
wonderfully bold and dashing brave! He, as being the man I favoured
amongst the Mughūls, was sent (after them) when they began to desert
from Samarkand, to counsel the clans and to chase fear from their hearts
so that [Sidenote: Fol. 52b.] they might not turn their heads to the
wind.[414] Those two traitors however, those false guides, had so
wrought on the clans that nothing availed, promise or entreaty, counsel
or threat. Tūlūn Khwāja's march lay through Aīkī-sū-ārāsī,[415] known
also as Rabāṯik-aūrchīnī. Aūzūn Ḥasan sent a skirmishing party against
him; it found him off his guard, seized and killed him. This done, they
took Jahāngīr Mīrzā and went to besiege Andijān.
(_e. Bābur loses Andijān._)
In Andijān when my army rode out for Samarkand, I had left Aūzūn Ḥasan
and `Alī-dost T̤aghāī (Ramẓān 902 AH.-May 1497 AD.). Khwāja-i-qāẓī had
gone there later on, and there too were many of my men from Samarkand.
During the siege, the Khwāja, out of good-will to me, apportioned 18,000
of his own sheep to the garrison and to the families of the men still
with me. While the siege was going on, letters kept coming to me from my
mothers[416] and from the Khwāja, saying in effect, 'They are besieging
us in this way; if at our cry of distress you do not come, things will
go all to ruin. Samarkand was taken [Sidenote: Fol. 53.] by the strength
of Andijān; if Andijān is in your hands, God willing, Samarkand can be
had again.' One after another came letters to this purport. Just then I
was recovering from illness but, not having been able to take due care
in the days of convalescence, I went all to pieces again and this time,
became so very ill that for four days my speech was impeded and they
used to drop water into my mouth with cotton. Those with me, begs and
bare braves alike, despairing of my life, began each to take thought for
himself. While I was in this condition, the begs, by an error of
judgment, shewed me to a servant of Aūzūn Ḥasan's, a messenger come with
wild proposals, and then dismissed him. In four or five days, I became
somewhat better but still could not speak, in another few days, was
myself again.
Such letters! so anxious, so beseeching, coming from my mothers, that is
from my own and hers, Aīsān-daulat Begīm, and from my teacher and
spiritual guide, that is, Khwāja-i-maulānā-i-qāẓī, with what heart would
a man not move? We left Samarkand for Andijān on a Saturday in Rajab
(Feb.-March), when I had ruled 100 days in the town. It was [Sidenote:
Fol. 53b.] Saturday again when we reached Khujand and on that day a
person brought news from Andijān, that seven days before, that is on the
very day we had left Samarkand, `Alī-dost T̤aghāī had surrendered
Andijān.
These are the particulars;—The servant of Aūzūn Ḥasan who, after seeing
me, was allowed to leave, had gone to Andijān and there said, 'The
_pādshāh_ cannot speak and they are dropping water into his mouth with
cotton.' Having gone and made these assertions in the ordinary way, he
took oath in `Alī-dost T̤aghāī's presence. `Alī-dost T̤aghāī was in the
Khākān Gate. Becoming without footing through this matter, he invited
the opposite party into the fort, made covenant and treaty with them,
and surrendered Andijān. Of provisions and of fighting men, there was no
lack whatever; the starting point of the surrender was the cowardice of
that false and faithless manikin; what was told him, he made a pretext
to put himself in the right.
When the enemy, after taking possession of Andijān, heard of my arrival
in Khujand, they martyred Khwāja-i-maulānā-i-qāẓī by hanging him, with
dishonour, in the Gate of the citadel. [Sidenote: Fol. 54.] He had come
to be known as Khwāja-maulānā-i-qāẓī but his own name was `Abdu'l-lāh.
On his father's side, his line went back to Shaikh Burhānu'd-dīn `Alī
_Qīlīch_, on his mother's to Sl. Aīlīk _Māẓī_. This family had come to
be the Religious Guides (_muqtadā_) and pontiff (_Shaikhu'l-islām_) and
Judge (_qāẓī_) in the Farghāna country.[417] He was a disciple of his
Highness `Ubaidu'l-lāh (_Aḥrārī_) and from him had his upbringing. I
have no doubt he was a saint (_walī_); what better witnesses to his
sanctity than the fact that within a short time, no sign or trace
remained of those active for his death? He was a wonderful man; it was
not in him to be afraid; in no other man was seen such courage as his.
This quality is a further witness to his sanctity. Other men, however
bold, have anxieties and tremours; he had none. When they had killed
him, they seized and plundered those connected with him, retainers and
servants, tribesmen and followers.
In anxiety for Andijān, we had given Samarkand out of our hands; then
heard we had lost Andijān. It was like the saying, 'In ignorance, made
to leave this place, shut out from that' (_Ghafil az īn jā rānda, az ān
jā mānda_). It was very hard and vexing to me; for why? never since I
had ruled, had I been cut [Sidenote: Fol. 54b.] off like this from my
retainers and my country; never since I had known myself, had I known
such annoyance and such hardship.
(_f. Bābur's action from Khujand as his base._)
On our arrival in Khujand, certain hypocrites, not enduring to see
Khalīfa in my Gate, had so wrought on Muḥammad Ḥusain Mīrzā _Dūghlāt_
and others that he was dismissed towards Tāshkīnt. To Tāshkīnt also
Qāsim Beg _Qūchīn_ had been sent earlier, in order to ask The Khān's
help for a move on Andijān. The Khān consented to give it and came
himself by way of the Ahangarān Dale,[418] to the foot of the Kīndīrlīk
Pass.[419] There I went also, from Khujand, and saw my Khān dādā.[420]
We then crossed the pass and halted on the Akhsī side. The enemy for
their part, gathered their men and went to Akhsī.
Just at that time, the people in Pāp[421] sent me word they had made
fast the fort but, owing to something misleading in The Khān's advance,
the enemy stormed and took it. Though The Khān had other good qualities
and was in other ways businesslike, he was much without merit as a
soldier and commander. Just when matters were at the point that if he
made one more march, it was most probable the country would be had
without fighting, at such a time! he gave ear to what the enemy said
with alloy of deceit, spoke of peace and, as his messengers, sent them
Khwāja Abū'l-makāram and his own [Sidenote: Fol. 55.] Lord of the Gate,
Beg _Tilba_ (Fool), _Taṃbal's_ elder brother. To save themselves those
others (_i.e._ Ḥasan and Taṃbal) mixed something true with what they
fabled and agreed to give gifts and bribes either to The Khān or to his
intermediaries. With this, The Khān retired.
As the families of most of my begs and household and braves were in
Andijān, 7 or 800 of the great and lesser begs and bare braves, left us
in despair of our taking the place. Of the begs were `Alī-darwesh Beg,
`Alī-mazīd _Qūchīn_, Muḥammad Bāqir Beg, Shaikh `Abdu'l-lāh, Lord of the
Gate and Mīrīm _Lāgharī_. Of men choosing exile and hardship with me,
there may have been, of good and bad, between 200 and 300. Of begs there
were Qāsim _Qūchīn_ Beg, Wais _Lāgharī_ Beg, Ibrāhīm _Sārū Mīnglīgh_
Beg, Shīrīm T̤aghāī, Sayyidī Qarā Beg; and of my household, Mīr Shāh
_Qūchīn_, Sayyid Qāsim _Jalāīr_, Lord of the Gate, Qāsim-`ajab,
`Alī-dost T̤aghāī's (son) Muḥammad-dost, Muḥammad-`alī _Mubashir_,[422]
Khudāī-bīrdī _Tūghchī Mughūl_, Yārīk T̤aghāī, Bābā `Alī's (son) Bābā
Qulī, Pīr Wais, Shaikh Wais, [Sidenote: Fol. 55b.] Yār-`alī
_Balāl_,[423] Qāsim _Mīr Akhwūr_ (Chief Equerry) and Ḥaidar _Rikābdār_
(stirrup-holder).
It came very hard on me; I could not help crying a good deal. Back I
went to Khujand and thither they sent me my mother and my grandmother
and the families of some of the men with me.
That Ramẓān (April-May) we spent in Khujand, then mounted for Samarkand.
We had already sent to ask The Khān's help; he assigned, to act with us
against Samarkand, his son, Sl. Muḥammad (Sulṯānīm) Khānika and (his
son's guardian) Aḥmad Beg with 4 or 5000 men and rode himself as far as
Aūrā-tīpā. There I saw him and from there went on by way of Yār-yīlāq,
past the Būrka-yīlāq Fort, the head-quarters of the sub-governor
(_dārogha_) of the district. Sl. Muḥammad Sulṯān and Aḥmad Beg, riding
light and by another road, got to Yār-yīlāq first but on their hearing
that Shaibānī Khān was raiding Shīrāz and thereabouts, turned back.
There was no help for it! Back I too had to go. Again I went to Khujand!
As there was in me ambition for rule and desire of conquest, I did not
sit at gaze when once or twice an affair had made no progress. Now I
myself, thinking to make another move for [Sidenote: Fol. 56.] Andijān,
went to ask The Khān's help. Over and above this, it was seven or eight
years since I had seen Shāh Begīm[424] and other relations; they also
were seen under the same pretext. After a few days, The Khān appointed
Sayyid Muḥammad Ḥusain (_Dūghlāt_) and Ayūb _Begchīk_ and Jān-ḥasan
_Bārīn_ with 7 or 8000 men to help us. With this help we started, rode
light, through Khujand without a halt, left Kand-i-badām on the left and
so to Nasūkh, 9 or 10 _yīghāch_ of road beyond Khujand and 3 _yīghāch_
(12-18 m.) from Kand-i-badām, there set our ladders up and took the
fort. It was the melon season; one kind grown here, known as Ismā`īl
Shaikhī, has a yellow rind, feels like shagreen leather, has seeds like
an apple's and flesh four fingers thick. It is a wonderfully delicate
melon; no other such grows thereabout. Next day the Mughūl begs
represented to me, 'Our fighting men are few; to what would holding this
one fort lead on?' In truth they were right; of what use was it to make
that fort fast and stay there? Back once more to Khujand!
(_f. Affairs of Khusrau Shāh and the Tīmūrid Mīrzās_.)[425]
This year Khusrau Shāh, taking Bāī-sunghar Mīrzā with him, led his army
(from Qūndūz) to Chaghānīān and with false and treacherous intent, sent
this message to Ḥiṣār for Sl. Mas`ūd Mīrzā, 'Come, betake yourself to
Samarkand; if [Sidenote: Fol. 56b.] Samarkand is taken, one Mīrzā may
seat himself there, the other in Ḥiṣār.' Just at the time, the Mīrzā's
begs and household were displeased with him, because he had shewn
excessive favour to his father-in-law, Shaikh `Abdu'l-lāh _Barlās_ who
from Bāī-sunghar Mīrzā had gone to him. Small district though Ḥiṣār is,
the Mīrzā had made the Shaikh's allowance 1,000 _tūmāns_ of _fulūs_[426]
and had given him the whole of Khutlān in which were the holdings of
many of the Mīrzā's begs and household. All this Shaikh `Abdu'l-lāh had;
he and his sons took also in whole and in part, the control of the
Mīrzā's gate. Those angered began, one after the other, to desert to
Bāī-sunghar Mīrzā.
By those words of false alloy, having put Sl. Mas`ūd Mīrzā off his
guard, Khusrau Shāh and Bāī-sunghar Mīrzā moved light out of Chaghānīān,
surrounded Ḥiṣār and, at beat of morning-drum, took possession of it.
Sl. Mas`ūd Mīrzā was in Daulat Sarāī, a house his father had built in
the suburbs. Not being able to get into the fort, he drew off towards
Khutlān with Shaikh `Abu'l-lāh _Barlās_, parted from him half-way,
crossed the river at the Aūbāj ferry and betook himself to Sl. Ḥusain
Mīrzā. Khusrau Shāh, having taken Ḥiṣār, set Bāī-sunghar [Sidenote: Fol.
57.] Mīrzā on the throne, gave Khutlān to his own younger brother, Walī
and rode a few days later, to lay siege to Balkh where, with many of his
father's begs, was Ibrāhīm Ḥusain Mīrzā (_Bāī-qarā_). He sent Naẕar
_Bahādur_, his chief retainer, on in advance with 3 or 400 men to near
Balkh, and himself taking Bāī-sunghar Mīrzā with him, followed and laid
the siege.
Walī he sent off with a large force to besiege Shabarghān and raid and
ravage thereabouts. Walī, for his part, not being able to lay close
siege, sent his men off to plunder the clans and hordes of the Zardak
Chūl, and they took him back over 100,000 sheep and some 3000 camels. He
then came, plundering the Sān-chīrīk country on his way, and raiding and
making captive the clans fortified in the hills, to join Khusrau Shāh
before Balkh.
One day during the siege, Khusrau Shāh sent the Naẕar _Bahādur_ already
mentioned, to destroy the water-channels[427] of [Sidenote: Fol. 57b.]
Balkh. Out on him sallied Tīngrī-bīrdī _Samānchī_,[428] Sl. Ḥusain
Mīrzā's favourite beg, with 70 or 80 men, struck him down, cut off his
head, carried it off, and went back into the fort. A very bold sally,
and he did a striking deed.
(_g. Affairs of Sl. Ḥusain Mīrzā and Badī`u'z-zamān Mīrzā._)
This same year, Sl. Ḥusain Mīrzā led his army out to Bast and there
encamped,[429] for the purpose of putting down Ẕū'n-nūn _Arghūn_ and his
son, Shāh Shujā`, because they had become Badī`u'z-zamān Mīrzā's
retainers, had given him a daughter of Ẕū'n-nūn in marriage and taken up
a position hostile to himself. No corn for his army coming in from any
quarter, it had begun to be distressed with hunger when the sub-governor
of Bast surrendered. By help of the stores of Bast, the Mīrzā got back
to Khurāsān.
Since such a great ruler as Sl. Ḥusain Mīrzā had twice led a splendid
and well-appointed army out and twice retired, without taking Qūndūz, or
Ḥiṣār or Qandahār, his sons and his begs waxed bold in revolt and
rebellion. In the spring of this year, he sent a large army under
Muḥammad Walī Beg to put down (his son) Muḥammad Ḥusain Mīrzā who,
supreme in Astarābād, had taken up a position hostile to himself. While
Sl. Ḥusain Mīrzā was still lying in the Nīshīn meadow (near Harāt), he
was surprised by Badī`u'z-zamān Mīrzā and Shāh Shujā` Beg (_Arghūn_). By
unexpected good-fortune, he had been [Sidenote: Fol. 58.] joined that
very day by Sl. Mas`ūd Mīrzā, a refugee after bringing about the loss of
Ḥiṣār,[430] and also rejoined by a force of his own returning from
Astarābād. There was no question of fighting. Badī`u'z-zamān Mīrzā and
Shāh Beg, brought face to face with these armies, took to flight.
Sl. Ḥusain Mīrzā looked kindly on Sl. Mas`ūd Mīrzā, made him kneel as a
son-in-law and gave him a place in his favour and affection.
None-the-less Sl. Mas`ūd Mīrzā, at the instigation of Bāqī
_Chaghānīānī_, who had come earlier into Sl. Ḥusain Mīrzā's service,
started off on some pretext, without asking leave, and went from the
presence of Sl. Ḥusain Mīrzā to that of Khusrau Shāh!
Khusrau Shāh had already invited and brought from Ḥiṣār, Bāī-sunghar
Mīrzā; to him had gone Aūlūgh Beg Mīrzā's son,[431] Mīrān-shāh Mīrzā
who, having gone amongst the Hazāra in rebellion against his father, had
been unable to remain amongst them because of his own immoderate acts.
Some short-sighted persons were themselves ready to kill these three
(Tīmūrid) Mīrzās and to read Khusrau Shāh's name in the _khuṯba_ but he
himself did not think this combination desirable. The ungrateful
[Sidenote: Fol. 58b.] manikin however, for the sake of gain in this five
days' fleeting world,—it was not true to him nor will it be true to any
man soever,—seized that Sl. Mas`ūd Mīrzā whom he had seen grow up in his
charge from childhood, whose guardian he had been, and blinded him with
the lancet.
Some of the Mīrzā's foster-brethren and friends of affection and old
servants took him to Kesh intending to convey him to his (half)-brother
Sl. `Alī Mīrzā in Samarkand but as that party also (_i.e._ `Alī's)
became threatening, they fled with him, crossed the river at the Aūbāj
ferry and went to Sl. Ḥusain Mīrzā.
A hundred thousand curses light on him who planned and did a deed so
horrible! Up to the very verge of Resurrection, let him who hears of
this act of Khusrau Shāh, curse him; and may he who hearing, curses not,
know cursing equally deserved!
This horrid deed done, Khusrau Shāh made Bāī-sunghar Mīrzā ruler in
Ḥiṣār and dismissed him; Mīrān-shāh Mīrzā he despatched for Bāmīān with
Sayyid Qāsim to help him.
904 AH.—AUG. 19TH. 1498 TO AUG. 8TH. 1499 AD.[432]
(_a. Bābur borrows Pashāghar and leaves Khujand._)
Twice we had moved out of Khujand, once for Andijān, once for Samarkand,
and twice we had gone back to it because our work was not opened
out.[433] Khujand is a poor place; a man with 2 or 300 followers would
have a hard time there; with [Sidenote: Fol. 59.] what outlook would an
ambitious man set himself down in it?
As it was our wish to return to Samarkand, we sent people to confer with
Muḥammad Ḥusain _Kūrkān Dūghlāt_ in Aūrā-tīpā and to ask of him the loan
for the winter of Pashāghar where we might sit till it was practicable
to make a move on Samarkand. He consenting, I rode out from Khujand for
Pashāghar.
(_Author's note on Pashāghar._) Pashāghar is one of the
villages of Yār-yīlāq; it had belonged to his Highness the
Khwāja,[434] but during recent interregna,[435] it had become
dependent on Muḥammad Ḥusain Mīrzā.
I had fever when we reached Zamīn, but spite of my fever we hurried off
by the mountain road till we came over against Rabāṯ-i-khwāja, the
head-quarters of the sub-governor of the Shavdār _tūmān_, where we hoped
to take the garrison at unawares, set our ladders up and so get into the
fort. We reached it at dawn, found its men on guard, turned back and
rode without halt to Pashāghar. The pains and misery of fever
notwithstanding, I had ridden 14 or 15 _yīghāch_ (70 to 80 miles).
After a few days in Pashāghar, we appointed Ibrāhīm _Sārū_, [Sidenote:
Fol. 59b.] Wais _Lāgharī_, Sherīm T̤aghāī and some of the household and
braves to make an expedition amongst the Yār-yīlāq forts and get them
into our hands. Yār-yīlāq, at that time was Sayyid Yūsuf Beg's,[436] he
having remained in Samarkand at the exodus and been much favoured by Sl.
`Ali Mīrzā. To manage the forts, Sayyid Yūsuf had sent his younger
brother's son, Aḥmad-i-yūsuf, now[437] Governor of Sialkot, and
Aḥmad-i-yūsuf was then in occupation. In the course of that winter, our
begs and braves made the round, got possession of some of the forts
peacefully, fought and took others, gained some by ruse and craft. In
the whole of that district there is perhaps not a single village without
its defences because of the Mughūls and the Aūzbegs. Meantime Sl. `Alī
Mīrzā became suspicious of Sayyid Yūsuf and his nephew on my account and
dismissed both towards Khurāsān.
The winter passed in this sort of tug-of-war; with the oncoming
heats,[438] they sent Khwāja Yaḥya to treat with me, while they, urged
on by the (Samarkand) army, marched out to near Shīrāz and Kabud. I may
have had 200 or 300 soldiers (_sipāhī_); powerful foes were on my every
side; Fortune had [Sidenote: Fol. 60.] not favoured me when I turned to
Andijān; when I put a hand out for Samarkand, no work was opened out. Of
necessity, some sort of terms were made and I went back from Pashāghar.
Khujand is a poor place; one beg would have a hard time in it; there we
and our families and following had been for half a year[439] and during
the time the Musalmāns of the place had not been backward in bearing our
charges and serving us to the best of their power. With what face could
we go there again? and what, for his own part, could a man do there? 'To
what home to go? For what gain to stay?'[440]
In the end and with the same anxieties and uncertainty, we went to the
summer-pastures in the south of Aūrā-tīpā. There we spent some days in
amazement at our position, not knowing where to go or where to stay, our
heads in a whirl. On one of those days, Khwāja Abū'l-makāram came to see
me, he like me, a wanderer, driven from his home.[441] He questioned us
about our goings and stayings, about what had or had not been done and
about our whole position. He was touched with compassion for our state
and recited the _fātiḥa_ for me before he left. I also was much touched;
I pitied him.
(_b. Bābur recovers Marghīnān._)
Near the Afternoon Prayer of that same day, a horseman appeared at the
foot of the valley. He was a man named Yūl-chūq, presumably `Ali-dost
T̤aghāī's own servant, and had been sent with this written message,
'Although many great misdeeds have had their rise in me, yet, if you
will do me the [Sidenote: Fol. 60b.] favour and kindness of coming to
me, I hope to purge my offences and remove my reproach, by giving you
Marghīnān and by my future submission and single-minded service.'
Such news! coming on such despair and whirl-of-mind! Off we hurried,
that very hour,—it was sun-set,—without reflecting, without a moment's
delay, just as if for a sudden raid, straight for Marghīnān. From where
we were to Marghīnān may have been 24 or 25 _yīghāch_ of road.[442]
Through that night it was rushed without delaying anywhere, and on next
day till at the Mid-day Prayer, halt was made at Tang-āb (Narrow-water),
one of the villages of Khujand. There we cooled down our horses and gave
them corn. We rode out again at beat of (twilight-) drum[443] and on
through that night till shoot of dawn, and through the next day till
sunset, and on through that night till, just before dawn, we were one
_yīghāch_ from Marghīnān. Here Wais Beg and others represented to me
with some anxiety what sort of an evil-doer `Ali-dost was. 'No-one,'
they said, 'has come and gone, time and again, between him and us; no
terms and compact have been made; trusting to what are we going?' In
truth their fears were just! After waiting awhile to consult, we at last
agreed that [Sidenote: Fol. 61.] reasonable as anxiety was, it ought to
have been earlier; that there we were after coming three nights and two
days without rest or halt; in what horse or in what man was any strength
left?—from where we were, how could return be made? and, if made, where
were we to go?—that, having come so far, on we must, and that nothing
happens without God's will. At this we left the matter and moved on, our
trust set on Him.
At the Sunnat Prayer[444] we reached Fort Marghīnān. `Alī-dost T̤aghāī
kept himself behind (_arqa_) the closed gate and asked for terms; these
granted, he opened it. He did me obeisance between the (two) gates.[445]
After seeing him, we dismounted at a suitable house in the walled-town.
With me, great and small, were 240 men.
As Aūzūn Ḥasan and Taṃbal had been tyrannical and oppressive, all the
clans of the country were asking for me. We therefore, after two or
three days spent in Marghīnān, joined to Qāsim Beg over a hundred men of
the Pashāgharīs, the new retainers of Marghīnān and of `Alī-dost's
following, and sent them to bring over to me, by force or fair words,
such hill-people of the south of Andijān as the Ashpārī, Tūrūqshār,
[Sidenote: Fol. 61b.] Chīkrāk and others roundabout. Ibrāhīm Sārū and
Wais _Lāgharī_ and Sayyidī Qarā were also sent out, to cross the
Khujand-water and, by whatever means, to induce the people on that side
to turn their eyes to me.
Aūzūn Ḥasan and Taṃbal, for their parts, gathered together what soldiers
and Mughūls they had and called up the men accustomed to serve in the
Andijān and Akhsī armies. Then, bringing Jahāngīr Mīrzā with them, they
came to Sapān, a village 2 m. east of Marghīnān, a few days after our
arrival, and dismounted there with the intention of besieging Marghīnān.
They advanced a day or two later, formed up to fight, as far as the
suburbs. Though after the departure of the Commanders, Qāsim Beg,
Ibrāhīm _Sārū_ and Wais _Lāgharī_, few men were left with me, those
there were formed up, sallied out and prevented the enemy from advancing
beyond the suburbs. On that day, Page Khalīl, the turban-twister, went
well forward and got his hand into the work. They had come; they could
do nothing; on two other days they failed to get near the fort.
[Sidenote: Fol. 62.]
When Qāsim Beg went into the hills on the south of Andijān, all the
Ashpārī, Tūrūqshār, Chīkrāk, and the peasants and highland and lowland
clans came in for us. When the Commanders, Ibrāhīm _Sārū_ and Wais
_Lāgharī_, crossed the river to the Akhsī side, Pāp and several other
forts came in.
Aūzūn Ḥasan and Taṃbal being the heathenish and vicious tyrants they
were, had inflicted great misery on the peasantry and clansmen.
One of the chief men of Akhsī, Ḥasan-dīkcha by name,[446] gathered
together his own following and a body of the Akhsī mob and rabble,
black-bludgeoned[447] Aūzūn Ḥasan's and Taṃbal's men in the outer fort
and drubbed them into the citadel. They then invited the Commanders,
Ibrāhīm _Sārū_, Wais _Lāgharī_ and Sayyidī Qarā and admitted them into
the fort.
Sl. Maḥmūd Khān had appointed to help us, Ḥaidar _Kūkūldāsh's_ (son)
Banda-`alī and Ḥājī Ghāzī _Manghīt_,[448] the latter just then a
fugitive from Shaibānī Khān, and also the Bārīn _tūmān_ with its begs.
They arrived precisely at this time.
[Sidenote: Fol. 62b.] These news were altogether upsetting to Aūzūn
Ḥasan; he at once started off his most favoured retainers and most
serviceable braves to help his men in the citadel of Akhsī. His force
reached the brow of the river at dawn. Our Commanders and the (Tāshkīnt)
Mughūls had heard of its approach and had made some of their men strip
their horses and cross the river (to the Andijān side). Aūzūn Ḥasan's
men, in their haste, did not draw the ferry-boat up-stream;[449] they
consequently went right away from the landing-place, could not cross for
the fort and went down stream.[450] Here-upon, our men and the
(Tāshkīnt) Mughūls began to ride bare-back into the water from both
banks. Those in the boat could make no fight at all. Qārlūghāch (var.
Qārbūghāch) _Bakhshī_ (Pay-master) called one of Mughūl Beg's sons to
him, took him by the hand, chopped at him and killed him. Of what use
was it? The affair was past that! His act was the cause why most of
those in the boat went to their death. Instantly our men seized them all
(_arīq_) and killed all (but a few).[451] Of Aūzūn Ḥasan's confidants
escaped Qārlūghāch _Bakhshī_ and Khalīl _Dīwān_ and Qāẓī _Ghulām_, the
last getting off by pretending to be a slave (_ghulām_); and of his
trusted braves, Sayyid `Alī, now in trust in my own service,[452] and
Ḥaidar-i-qulī and Qilka _Kāshgharī_ escaped. Of his 70 or 80 men, no
more than this [Sidenote: Fol. 63.] same poor five or six got free.
On hearing of this affair, Aūzūn Ḥasan and Taṃbal, not being able to
remain near Marghīnān, marched in haste and disorder for Andijān. There
they had left Nāṣir Beg, the husband of Aūzūn Ḥasan's sister. He, if not
Aūzūn Ḥasan's second, what question is there he was his third?[453] He
was an experienced man, brave too; when he heard particulars, he knew
their ground was lost, made Andijān fast and sent a man to me. They
broke up in disaccord when they found the fort made fast against them;
Aūzūn Ḥasan drew off to his wife in Akhsī, Taṃbal to his district of
Aūsh. A few of Jahāngīr Mīrzā's household and braves fled with him from
Aūzūn Ḥasan and joined Taṃbal before he had reached Aūsh.
(_c. Bābur recovers Andijān._)
Directly we heard that Andijān had been made fast against them, I rode
out, at sun-rise, from Marghīnān and by mid-day was in Andijān.[454]
There I saw Nāṣir Beg and his two sons, that is to say, Dost Beg and
Mīrīm Beg, questioned them and uplifted their heads with hope of favour
and kindness. In this way, by God's grace, my father's country, lost to
me for two years, was regained and re-possessed, in the month Ẕū'l-qa`da
of [Sidenote: Fol. 63b.] the date 904 (June 1498).[455]
Sl. Aḥmad Taṃbal, after being joined by Jahāngīr Mīrzā, drew away for
Aūsh. On his entering the town, the red rabble (_qīzīl ayāq_) there, as
in Akhsī, black-bludgeoned (_qarā tīyāq qīlīb_) and drubbed his men out,
blow upon blow, then kept the fort for me and sent me a man. Jahāngīr
and Taṃbal went off confounded, with a few followers only, and entered
Aūzkīnt Fort.
Of Aūzūn Ḥasan news came that after failing to get into Andijān, he had
gone to Akhsī and, it was understood, had entered the citadel. He had
been head and chief in the rebellion; we therefore, on getting this
news, without more than four or five days' delay in Andijān, set out for
Akhsī. On our arrival, there was nothing for him to do but ask for peace
and terms, and surrender the fort.
We stayed in Akhsī[456] a few days in order to settle its affairs and
those of Kāsān and that country-side. We gave the Mughūls who had come
in to help us, leave for return (to Tāshkīnt), then went back to
Andijān, taking with us Aūzūn Ḥasan and his family and dependants. In
Akhsī was left, for a time, Qāsim-i-`ajab (Wonderful Qāsim), formerly
one of the household circle, now arrived at beg's rank.
(_d. Renewed rebellion of the Mughūls._)
As terms had been made, Aūzūn Ḥasan, without hurt to life [Sidenote:
Fol. 64.] or goods, was allowed to go by the Qarā-tīgīn road for Ḥiṣār.
A few of his retainers went with him, the rest parted from him and
stayed behind. These were the men who in the throneless times had
captured and plundered various Musalmān dependants of my own and of the
Khwāja. In agreement with several begs, their affair was left at
this;—'This very band have been the captors and plunderers of our
faithful Musalmān dependants;[457] what loyalty have they shown to their
own (Mughūl) begs that they should be loyal to us? If we had them seized
and stripped bare, where would be the wrong? and this especially because
they might be going about, before our very eyes, riding our horses,
wearing our coats, eating our sheep. Who could put up with that? If, out
of humanity, they are not imprisoned and not plundered, they certainly
ought to take it as a favour if they get off with the order to give back
to our companions of the hard guerilla times, whatever goods of theirs
are known to be here.'
In truth this seemed reasonable; our men were ordered to take what they
knew to be theirs. Reasonable and just though the order was, (I now)
understand that it was a little hasty. [Sidenote: Fol. 64b.] With a
worry like Jahāngīr seated at my side, there was no sense in frightening
people in this way. In conquest and government, though many things may
have an outside appearance of reason and justice, yet 100,000
reflections are right and necessary as to the bearings of each one of
them. From this single incautious order of ours,[458] what troubles!
what rebellions arose! In the end this same ill-considered order was
the cause of our second exile from Andijān. Now, through it, the Mughūls
gave way to anxiety and fear, marched through Rabāṯik-aūrchīnī, that is,
Aīkī-sū-ārāsī, for Aūzkīnt and sent a man to Taṃbal.
In my mother's service were 1500 to 2000 Mughūls from the horde; as many
more had come from Ḥiṣār with Ḥamza Sl. and Mahdī Sl. and Muḥammad
_Dūghlāt Ḥiṣārī_.[459] Mischief and devastation must always be expected
from the Mughūl horde. Up to now[460] they have rebelled five times
against me. It must not be understood that they rebelled through not
getting on with me; they have done the same thing with their own Khāns,
again and again. Sl. Qulī _Chūnāq_[461] brought me the news. His late
father, Khudāī-bīrdī _Būqāq_[462] I had favoured amongst the Mughūls; he
was himself with the (rebel) Mughūls [Sidenote: Fol. 65.] and he did
well in thus leaving the horde and his own family to bring me the news.
Well as he did then however, he, as will be told,[463] did a thing so
shameful later on that it would hide a hundred such good deeds as this,
if he had done them. His later action was the clear product of his
Mughūl nature. When this news came, the begs, gathered for counsel,
represented to me, 'This is a trifling matter; what need for the pādshāh
to ride out? Let Qāsim Beg go with the begs and men assembled here.' So
it was settled; they took it lightly; to do so must have been an error
of judgment. Qāsim Beg led his force out that same day; Taṃbal meantime
must have joined the Mughūls. Our men crossed the Aīlāīsh river[464]
early next morning by the Yāsī-kījīt (Broad-crossing) and at once came
face to face with the rebels. Well did they chop at one another
(_chāpqūlāshūrlār_)! Qāsim Beg himself came face to face with Muḥammad
_Arghūn_ and did not desist from chopping at him in order to cut off his
head.[465] Most of our braves exchanged [Sidenote: Fol. 65b.] good blows
but in the end were beaten. Qāsim Beg, `Alī-dost T̤aghāī, Ibrāhīm
_Sārū_, Wais _Lāgharī_, Sayyidī Qarā and three or four more of our begs
and household got away but most of the rest fell into the hands of the
rebels. Amongst them were `Alī-darwesh Beg and Mīrīm _Lāgharī_ and
(Sherīm?) T̤aghāī Beg's (son) Tūqā[466] and `Alī-dost's son,
Muḥammad-dost and Mīr Shāh _Qūchīn_ and Mīrīm Dīwān.
Two braves chopped very well at one another; on our side, Samad, Ibrāhīm
_Sārū's_ younger brother, and on their side, Shāh-suwār, one of the
Ḥiṣārī Mughūls. Shāh-suwār struck so that his sword drove through
Samad's helm and seated itself well in his head; Samad, spite of his
wound, struck so that his sword cut off Shāh-suwār's head a piece of
bone as large as the palm of a hand. Shāh-suwār must have worn no helm;
they trepanned his head and it healed; there was no one to trepan
Samad's and in a few days, he departed simply through the wound.[467]
Amazingly unseasonable was this defeat, coming as it did just in the
respite from guerilla fighting and just when we had regained the
country. One of our great props, Qaṃbar-`alī _Mughūl_ (the Skinner) had
gone to his district when Andijān [Sidenote: Fol. 66.] was occupied and
therefore was not with us.
(_e. Taṃbal attempts to take Andijān._)
Having effected so much, Taṃbal, bringing Jahāngīr Mīrzā with him, came
to the east of Andijān and dismounted 2 miles off, in the meadow lying
in front of the Hill of Pleasure (`Aīsh).[468]
Once or twice he advanced in battle-array, past Chihil-dukhterān[469]
to the town side of the hill but, as our braves went out arrayed to
fight, beyond the gardens and suburbs, he could not advance further and
returned to the other side of the hill. On his first coming to those
parts, he killed two of the begs he had captured, Mīrīm _Lāgharī_ and
Tūqā Beg. For nearly a month he lay round-about without effecting
anything; after that he retired, his face set for Aūsh. Aūsh had been
given to Ibrāhīm _Sārū_ and his man in it now made it fast.
905 AH. AUG. 8TH. 1499 TO JULY 28TH. 1500 AD.[470]
(_a. Bābur's campaign against Aḥmad Taṃbal Mughūl._)
Commissaries were sent gallopping off at once, some to call up the horse
and foot of the district-armies, others to urge return on Qaṃbar-`alī
and whoever else was away in his own district, while energetic people
were told off to get together mantelets (_tūra_), shovels, axes and the
what-not of war-material and stores for the men already with us.
As soon as the horse and foot, called up from the various districts to
join the army, and the soldiers and retainers who had been scattered to
this and that side on their own affairs, were gathered together, I went
out, on Muḥarram 18th. (August 25th.), putting my trust in God, to Ḥāfiẓ
Beg's Four-gardens [Sidenote: Fol. 66b.] and there stayed a few days in
order to complete our equipment. This done, we formed up in array of
right and left, centre and van, horse and foot, and started direct for
Aūsh against our foe.
On approaching Aūsh, news was had that Taṃbal, unable to make stand in
that neighbourhood, had drawn off to the north, to the Rabāṯ-i-sarhang
sub-district, it was understood. That night we dismounted in Lāt-kīnt.
Next day as we were passing through Aūsh, news came that Taṃbal was
understood to have gone to Andijān. We, for our part, marched on as for
Aūzkīnt, detaching raiders ahead to over-run those parts.[471] Our
opponents went to Andijān and at night got into the ditch but being
discovered by the garrison when they set their ladders up against the
ramparts, could effect no more and retired. Our raiders retired also
after over-running round about Aūzkīnt without getting into their hands
anything worth their trouble.
Taṃbal had stationed his younger brother, Khalīl, with 200 or 300 men,
in Māḏū,[472] one of the forts of Aūsh, renowned in that centre (_ārā_)
for its strength. We turned back (on the [Sidenote: Fol. 67.] Aūzkīnt
road) to assault it. It is exceedingly strong. Its northern face stands
very high above the bed of a torrent; arrows shot from the bed might
perhaps reach the ramparts. On this side is the water-thief,[473] made
like a lane, with ramparts on both sides carried from the fort to the
water. Towards the rising ground, on the other sides of the fort, there
is a ditch. The torrent being so near, those occupying the fort had
carried stones in from it as large as those for large mortars.[474] From
no fort of its class we have ever attacked, have stones been thrown so
large as those taken into Māḏū. They dropped such a large one on
`Abdu'l-qāsim _Kohbur_, Kitta (Little) Beg's elder brother,[475] when he
went up under the ramparts, that he spun head over heels and came
rolling and rolling, without once getting to his feet, from that great
height down to the foot of the glacis (_khāk-rez_). He did not trouble
himself about it at all but just got on his horse and rode off. Again, a
stone flung from the double water-way, hit Yār-`alī _Balāl_ so hard on
the head that in the end it had to be trepanned.[476] Many of our men
perished by their stones. The assault began at dawn; the water-thief
[Sidenote: Fol. 67b.] had been taken before breakfast-time;[477]
fighting went on till evening; next morning, as they could not hold out
after losing the water-thief, they asked for terms and came out. We took
60 or 70 or 80 men of Khalīl's command and sent them to Andijān for
safe-keeping; as some of our begs and household were prisoners in their
hands, the Māḏū affair fell out very well.[478]
From there we went to Unjū-tūpa, one of the villages of Aūsh, and there
dismounted. When Taṃbal retired from Andijān and went into the
Rabāṯ-i-sarhang sub-district, he dismounted in a village called
Āb-i-khān. Between him and me may have been one _yīghāch_ (5 m.?). At
such a time as this, Qaṃbar-`alī (the Skinner) on account of some
sickness, went into Aūsh.
It was lain in Unjū-tūpa a month or forty days without a battle, but day
after day our foragers and theirs got to grips. All through the time our
camp was mightily well watched at night; a ditch was dug; where no ditch
was, branches were set close together;[479] we also made our soldiers go
out in their mail [Sidenote: Fol. 68.] along the ditch. Spite of such
watchfulness, a night-alarm was given every two or three days, and the
cry to arms went up. One day when Sayyidī Beg T̤aghāī had gone out with
the foragers, the enemy came up suddenly in greater strength and took
him prisoner right out of the middle of the fight.
(_b. Bāī-sunghar Mīrzā murdered by Khusrau Shāh._)
Khusrau Shāh, having planned to lead an army against Balkh, in this same
year invited Bāī-sunghar Mīrzā to go with him, brought him[480] to
Qūndūz and rode out with him for Balkh. But when they reached the Aubāj
ferry, that ungrateful infidel, Khusrau Shāh, in his aspiration to
sovereignty,—and to what sort of sovereignty, pray, could such a no-body
attain? a person of no merit, no birth, no lineage, no judgment, no
magnanimity, no justice, no legal-mindedness,—laid hands on Bāī-sunghar
Mīrzā with his begs, and bowstrung the Mīrzā. It was upon the 10th. of
the month of Muḥarram (August 17th.) that he martyred that scion of
sovereignty, so accomplished, so sweet-natured and so adorned by birth
and lineage. He killed also a few of the Mīrzā's begs and household.
(_c. Bāī-sunghar Mīrzā's birth and descent._)
He was born in 882 (1477 AD.), in the Ḥiṣār district. He was Sl. Maḥmūd
Mīrzā's second son, younger than Sl. Mas`ud M. and older than Sl. `Alī
M. and Sl. Ḥusain M. and Sl. Wais M. known as Khān Mīrzā. His mother was
Pasha Begīm. [Sidenote: Fol. 68b.]
(_d. His appearance and characteristics._)
He had large eyes, a fleshy face[481] and Turkmān features, was of
middle height and altogether an elegant young man (_aet._ 22).
(_e. His qualities and manners._)
He was just, humane, pleasant-natured and a most accomplished scion of
sovereignty. His tutor, Sayyid Maḥmūd,[482] presumably was a Shī`a;
through this he himself became infected by that heresy. People said that
latterly, in Samarkand, he reverted from that evil belief to the pure
Faith. He was much addicted to wine but on his non-drinking days, used
to go through the Prayers.[483] He was moderate in gifts and liberality.
He wrote the _naskh-ta`līq_ character very well; in painting also his
hand was not bad. He made `Ādilī his pen-name and composed good verses
but not sufficient to form a _dīwān_. Here is the opening couplet
(_maṯla`_) of one of them[484];—
Like a wavering shadow I fall here and there;
If not propped by a wall, I drop flat on the ground.
In such repute are his odes held in Samarkand, that they are to be found
in most houses.
(_f. His battles._)
He fought two ranged battles. One, fought when he was first seated on
the throne (900 AH.-1495 AD.), was with Sl. Maḥmūd Khān[485] who,
incited and stirred up by Sl. Junaid _Barlās_ and others to desire
Samarkand, drew an army out, [Sidenote: Fol. 69.] crossed the Āq-kutal
and went to Rabāṯ-i-soghd and Kān-bāī. Bāī-sunghar Mīrzā went out from
Samarkand, fought him near Kān-bāī, beat him and beheaded 3 or 4000
Mughūls. In this fight died Ḥaidar _Kūkūldāsh_, the Khān's looser and
binder (_ḥall u`aqdī_). His second battle was fought near Bukhārā with
Sl. `Alī Mīrzā (901 AH.-1496 AD.); in this he was beaten.[486]
(_g. His countries._)
His father, Sl. Maḥmūd Mīrzā, gave him Bukhārā; when Sl. Maḥmūd M. died,
his begs assembled and in agreement made Bāī-sunghar M. ruler in
Samarkand. For a time, Bukhārā was included with Samarkand in his
jurisdiction but it went out of his hands after the Tarkhān rebellion
(901 AH.-1496 AD.). When he left Samarkand to go to Khusrau Shāh and I
got possession of it (903 AH.-1497 AD.), Khusrau Shāh took Ḥiṣār and
gave it to him.
(_h. Other details concerning him._)
He left no child. He took a daughter of his paternal uncle, Sl. Khalīl
Mīrzā, when he went to Khusrau Shāh; he had no other wife or concubine.
He never ruled with authority so independent that any beg was heard of
as promoted by him to be his confidant; his begs [Sidenote: Fol. 69b.]
were just those of his father and his paternal uncle (Aḥmad).
(_i. Resumed account of Bābur's campaign against Taṃbal._)
After Bāī-sunghar Mīrzā's death, Sl. Aḥmad _Qarāwal_,[487] the father of
Qūch (Qūj) Beg, sent us word (of his intention) and came to us from
Ḥiṣār through the Qarā-tīgīn country, together with his brethren, elder
and younger, and their families and dependants. From Aūsh too came
Qaṃbar-`alī, risen from his sickness. Arriving, as it did, at such a
moment, we took the providential help of Sl. Aḥmad and his party for a
happy omen. Next day we formed up at dawn and moved direct upon our foe.
He made no stand at Āb-i-khān but marched from his ground, leaving many
tents and blankets and things of the baggage for our men. We dismounted
in his camp.
That evening Taṃbal, having Jahāngīr with him, turned our left and went
to a village called Khūbān (var. Khūnān), some 3 _yīghāch_ from us (15
m.?) and between us and Andijān. Next day we moved out against him,
formed up with right and left, centre and van, our horses in their mail,
our men in theirs, and with foot-soldiers, bearing mantelets, flung to
the front. Our right was `Alī-dost and his dependants, our left Ibrāhīm
_Sārū_, Wais _Lāgharī_, Sayyidī Qarā, Muḥammad-`alī _Mubashir_, and
Khwāja-i-kalān's elder brother, Kīchīk Beg, with several of [Sidenote:
Fol. 70.] the household. In the left were inscribed[488] also Sl. Aḥmad
_Qarāwal_ and Qūch Beg with their brethren. With me in the centre was
Qāsim Beg _Qūchīn_; in the van were Qaṃbar-`alī (the Skinner) and some
of the household. When we reached Sāqā, a village two miles east of
Khūbān, the enemy came out of Khūbān, arrayed to fight. We, for our
part, moved on the faster. At the time of engaging, our foot-soldiers,
provided how laboriously with the mantelets! were quite in the rear! By
God's grace, there was no need of them; our left had got hands in with
their right before they came up. Kīchīk Beg chopped away very well; next
to him ranked Muḥammad `Alī _Mubashir_. Not being able to bring equal
zeal to oppose us, the enemy took to flight. The fighting did not reach
the front of our van or right. Our men brought in many of their braves;
we ordered the heads of all to be struck off. Favouring caution and good
generalship, our begs, Qāsim Beg and, especially, `Alī-dost did not
think it advisable to send far in pursuit; for [Sidenote: Fol. 70b.]
this reason, many of their men did not fall into our hands. We
dismounted right in Khūbān village. This was my first ranged battle; the
Most High God, of His own favour and mercy, made it a day of victory and
triumph. We accepted the omen.
On the next following day, my father's mother, my grandmother, Shāh
Sulṯān Begīm[489] arrived from Andijān, thinking to beg off Jahāngīr
Mīrzā if he had been taken.
(_j. Bābur goes into winter-quarters in Between-the-two-rivers._)
As it was now almost winter and no grain or fruits[490] remained in the
open country, it was not thought desirable to move against (Taṃbal in)
Aūzkīnt but return was made to Andijān. A few days later, it was settled
after consultation, that for us to winter in the town would in no way
hurt or hamper the enemy, rather that he would wax the stronger by it
through raids and guerilla fighting; moreover on our own account, it was
necessary that we should winter where our men would not become enfeebled
through want of grain and where we could straiten the enemy by some sort
of blockade. For these desirable [Sidenote: Fol. 71.] ends we marched
out of Andijān, meaning to winter near Armiyān and Nūsh-āb in the
Rabāṯik-aūrchīnī, known also as Between-the-two-rivers. On arriving in
the two villages above-mentioned, we prepared winter-quarters.
The hunting-grounds are good in that neighbourhood; in the jungle near
the Aīlāīsh river is much _būghū-marāl_[491] and pig; the small
scattered clumps of jungle are thick with hare and pheasant; and on the
near rising-ground, are many foxes[492] of fine colour and swifter than
those of any other place. While we were in those quarters, I used to
ride hunting every two or three days; we would beat through the great
jungle and hunt _būghū-marāl_, or we would wander about, making a circle
round scattered clumps and flying our hawks at the pheasants. The
pheasants are unlimited[493] there; pheasant-meat was abundant as long
as we were in those quarters.
While we were there, Khudāī-bīrdī _Tūghchī_, then newly-favoured with
beg's rank, fell on some of Taṃbal's raiders and brought in a few heads.
Our braves went out also from Aūsh and Andijān and raided untiringly on
the enemy, driving in his herds of horses and much enfeebling him. If
the whole winter had been passed in those quarters, the more probable
thing is [Sidenote: Fol. 71b.] that he would have broken up simply
without a fight.
(_k. Qaṃbar-`alī again asks leave._)
It was at such a time, just when our foe was growing weak and helpless,
that Qaṃbar-`alī asked leave to go to his district. The more he was
dissuaded by reminder of the probabilities of the position, the more
stupidity he shewed. An amazingly fickle and veering manikin he was! It
had to be! Leave for his district was given him. That district had been
Khujand formerly but when Andijān was taken this last time, Asfara and
Kand-i-badām were given him in addition. Amongst our begs, he was the
one with large districts and many followers; no-one's land or following
equalled his. We had been 40 or 50 days in those winter-quarters. At his
recommendation, leave was given also to some of the clans in the army.
We, for our part, went into Andijān.
(_l. Sl. Maḥmūd Khān sends Mughūls to help Taṃbal._)
Both while we were in our winter-quarters and later on in Andijān,
Taṃbal's people came and went unceasingly between him and The Khān in
Tāshkīnt. His paternal uncle of the full-blood, Aḥmad Beg, was guardian
of The Khān's son, Sl. Muḥammad Sl. and high in favour; his elder
brother of the full-blood, Beg Tīlba (Fool), was The Khān's Lord of the
Gate. After all the comings and goings, these two brought The Khān to
the point of reinforcing Taṃbal. Beg Tīlba, leaving his wife and
domestics and family in Tāshkīnt, came on ahead of the [Sidenote: Fol.
72.] reinforcement and joined his younger brother, Taṃbal,—Beg Tīlba!
who from his birth up had been in Mughūlistān, had grown up amongst
Mughūls, had never entered a cultivated country or served the rulers of
one, but from first to last had served The Khāns!
Just then a wonderful (_`ajab_) thing happened;[494] Qāsim-i-`ajab
(wonderful Qāsim) when he had been left for a time in Akhsī, went out
one day after a few marauders, crossed the Khujand-water by Bachrātā,
met in with a few of Taṃbal's men and was made prisoner.
When Taṃbal heard that our army was disbanded and was assured of The
Khān's help by the arrival of his brother, Beg Tīlba, who had talked
with The Khān, he rode from Aūzkīnt into Between-the-two-rivers.
Meantime safe news had come to us from Kāsān that The Khān had appointed
his son, Sl. Muḥ. Khānika, commonly known as Sulṯānīm,[495] and Aḥmad
Beg, with 5 or 6000 men, to help Taṃbal, that they had crossed by the
Archa-kīnt road[496] and were laying siege to Kāsān. Hereupon we,
without delay, without a glance at our absent men, just with those there
were, in the hard cold of winter, put our [Sidenote: Fol. 72b.] trust in
God and rode off by the Band-i-sālār road to oppose them. That night we
stopped no-where; on we went through the darkness till, at dawn, we
dismounted in Akhsī.[497] So mightily bitter was the cold that night
that it bit the hands and feet of several men and swelled up the ears of
many, each ear like an apple. We made no stay in Akhsī but leaving there
Yārak T̤aghāī, temporarily also, in Qāsim-i-`ajab's place, passed on for
Kāsān. Two miles from Kāsān news came that on hearing of our approach,
Aḥmad Beg and Sulṯānīm had hurried off in disorder.
(_m. Bābur and Taṃbal again opposed._)
Taṃbal must have had news of our getting to horse for he had hurried to
help his elder brother.[498] Somewhere between the two Prayers of the
day,[499] his blackness[500] became visible towards Nū-kīnt. Astonished
and perplexed by his elder brother's light departure and by our quick
arrival, he stopped short. Said we, 'It is God has brought them in this
fashion! here they have come with their horses' necks at full
stretch;[501] if we join hands[502] and go out, and if God bring it
right, not a man of them will get off.' But Wais _Lāgharī_ and some
others said, 'It is late in the day; even if we do not go out today,
where can they go tomorrow? Wherever it is, we will meet [Sidenote: Fol.
73.] them at dawn.' So they said, not thinking it well to make the joint
effort there and then; so too the enemy, come so opportunely, broke up
and got away without any hurt whatever. The (Turkī) proverb is, 'Who
does not snatch at a chance, will worry himself about it till old age.'
_(Persian) couplet._ Work must be snatched at betimes,
Vain is the slacker's mistimed work.
Seizing the advantage of a respite till the morrow, the enemy slipped
away in the night, and without dismounting on the road, went into Fort
Archīān. When a morrow's move against a foe was made, we found
no foe; after him we went and, not thinking it well to lay close
siege to Archīān, dismounted two miles off (one _shar`ī_) in
Ghazna-namangān.[503] We were in camp there for 30 or 40 days, Taṃbal
being in Fort Archīān. Every now and then a very few would go from our
side and come from theirs, fling themselves on one another midway and
return. They made one night-attack, rained arrows in on us and retired.
As the camp was encircled by a ditch or by branches close-set, and as
watch was kept, they could effect no more.
(_n. Qaṃbar-`alī, the Skinner, again gives trouble._)
Two or three times while we lay in that camp, Qaṃbar-`alī, [Sidenote:
Fol. 73b.] in ill-temper, was for going to his district; once he even
had got to horse and started in a fume, but we sent several begs after
him who, with much trouble, got him to turn back.
(_o. Further action against Taṃbal and an accommodation made._)
Meantime Sayyid Yūsuf of Macham had sent a man to Taṃbal and was looking
towards him. He was the head-man of one of the two foot-hills of
Andijān, Macham and Awīghūr. Latterly he had become known in my Gate,
having outgrown the head-man and put on the beg, though no-one ever had
made him a beg. He was a singularly hypocritical manikin, of no standing
whatever. From our last taking of Andijān (June 1499) till then (Feb.
1500), he had revolted two or three times from Taṃbal and come to me,
and two or three times had revolted from me and gone to Taṃbal. This was
his last change of side. With him were many from the (Mughūl) horde and
tribesmen and clansmen. 'Don't let him join Taṃbal,' we said and rode in
between them. We got to Bīshkhārān with one night's halt. Taṃbal's men
must have come earlier and entered the fort. A party of our begs,
`Alī-darwesh Beg and Qūch Beg, with his brothers, went close up to the
Gate of [Sidenote: Fol. 74.] Bīshkhārān and exchanged good blows with
the enemy. Qūch Beg and his brothers did very well there, their hands
getting in for most of the work. We dismounted on a height some two
miles from Bīshkhārān; Taṃbal, having Jahāngīr with him, dismounted with
the fort behind him.
Three or four days later, begs unfriendly to us, that is to say,
`Alī-dost and Qaṃbar-`alī, the Skinner, with their followers and
dependants, began to interpose with talk of peace. I and my well-wishers
had no knowledge of a peace and we all[504] were utterly averse from the
project. Those two manikins however were our two great begs; if we gave
no ear to their words and if we did not make peace, other things from
them were probable! It had to be! Peace was made in this fashion;—the
districts on the Akhsī side of the Khujand-water were to depend on
Jahāngīr, those on the Andijān side, on me; Aūzkīnt was to be left in my
jurisdiction after they had removed their families from it; when the
districts were settled and I and Jahāngīr had made our agreement, we
(_bīz_) should march together against Samarkand; and when I was in
possession of Samarkand, Andijān was to be given to Jahāngīr. So the
affair was settled. [Sidenote: Fol. 74b.] Next day,—it was one of the
last of Rajab, (end of Feb. 1500) Jahāngīr Mīrzā and Taṃbal came and did
me obeisance; the terms and conditions were ratified as stated above;
leave for Akhsī was given to Jahāngīr and I betook myself to Andijān.
On our arrival, Khalīl-of-Taṃbal and our whole band of prisoners were
released; robes of honour were put on them and leave to go was given.
They, in their turn, set free our begs and household, _viz._ the
commanders[505] (Sherīm?) T̤aghāī Beg, Muḥammad-dost, Mīr Shāh _Qūchīn_,
Sayyidī Qarā Beg, Qāsim-i-`ajab, Mīr Wais, Mīrīm _Dīwān_, and those
under them.
(_p. The self-aggrandizement of `Alī-dost T̤aghāī._)
After our return to Andijān, `Alī-dost's manners and behaviour changed
entirely. He began to live ill with my companions of the guerilla days
and times of hardship. First, he dismissed Khalīfa; next seized and
plundered Ibrāhīm _Sārū_ and Wais _Lāgharī_, and for no fault or cause
deprived them of their districts and dismissed them. He entangled
himself with Qāsim Beg and _he_ was made to go; he openly declared,
'Khalīfa and Ibrāhīm are in sympathy about Khwāja-i-qāẓī; they will
avenge him on me.'[506] His son, Muḥammad-dost set himself up on a regal
footing, starting receptions and a public table and a [Sidenote: Fol.
75.] Court and workshops, after the fashion of sulṯāns. Like father,
like son, they set themselves up in this improper way because they had
Taṃbal at their backs. No authority to restrain their unreasonable
misdeeds was left to me; for why? Whatever their hearts desired, that
they did because such a foe of mine as Taṃbal was their backer. The
position was singularly delicate; not a word was said but many
humiliations were endured from that father and that son alike.
(_q. Bābur's first marriage._)
`Āyisha-sulṯān Begīm whom my father and hers, _i.e._ my uncle, Sl. Aḥmad
Mīrzā had betrothed to me, came (this year) to Khujand[507] and I took
her in the month of Sha`bān. Though I was not ill-disposed towards her,
yet, this being my first marriage, out of modesty and bashfulness, I
used to see her once in 10, 15 or 20 days. Later on when even my first
inclination did not last, my bashfulness increased. Then my mother
Khānīm used to send me, once a month or every 40 [Sidenote: Fol. 75b.]
days, with driving and driving, dunnings and worryings.
(_r. A personal episode and some verses by Bābur._)
In those leisurely days I discovered in myself a strange inclination,
nay! as the verse says, 'I maddened and afflicted myself' for a boy in
the camp-bazar, his very name, Bāburī, fitting in. Up till then I had
had no inclination for any-one, indeed of love and desire, either by
hear-say or experience, I had not heard, I had not talked. At that time
I composed Persian couplets, one or two at a time; this is one of the
them:—
May none be as I, humbled and wretched and love-sick;
No beloved as thou art to me, cruel and careless.
From time to time Bāburī used to come to my presence but out of modesty
and bashfulness, I could never look straight at him; how then could I
make conversation (_ikhtilāṯ_) and recital (_hikāyat_)? In my joy and
agitation I could not thank him (for coming); how was it possible for me
to reproach him with going away? What power had I to command the duty of
service to myself?[508] One day, during that time of desire and passion
when I was going with companions along a lane and suddenly met him face
to face, I got into such a state of confusion that I almost went right
off. To look straight at him [Sidenote: Fol. 76.] or to put words
together was impossible. With a hundred torments and shames, I went on.
A (Persian) couplet of Muḥammad Ṣāliḥ's[509] came into my mind:—
I am abashed with shame when I see my friend;
My companions look at me, I look the other way.
That couplet suited the case wonderfully well. In that frothing-up of
desire and passion, and under that stress of youthful folly, I used to
wander, bare-head, bare-foot, through street and lane, orchard and
vineyard. I shewed civility neither to friend nor stranger, took no care
for myself or others.
(_Turkī_) Out of myself desire rushed me, unknowing
That this is so with the lover of a fairy-face.
Sometimes like the madmen, I used to wander alone over hill and plain;
sometimes I betook myself to gardens and the suburbs, lane by lane. My
wandering was not of my choice, not I decided whether to go or stay.
(_Turkī_) Nor power to go was mine, nor power to stay;
I was just what you made me, o thief of my heart.
(_s. Sl. `Alī Mīrzā's quarrels with the Tarkhāns._)
In this same year, Sl. `Alī Mīrzā fell out with Muḥammad Mazīd Tarkhān
for the following reasons;—The Tarkhāns had risen to over-much
predominance and honour; Bāqī had taken the whole revenue of the Bukhārā
Government and gave not a [Sidenote: Fol. 76b.] half-penny (_dāng_)[510]
to any-one else; Muḥammad Mazīd, for his part, had control in Samarkand
and took all its districts for his sons and dependants; a small sum only
excepted, fixed by them, not a farthing (_fils_) from the town reached
the Mīrzā by any channel. Sl. `Alī Mīrzā was a grown man; how was he to
tolerate such conduct as theirs? He and some of his household formed a
design against Muḥ. Mazīd Tarkhān; the latter came to know of it and
left the town with all his following and with whatever begs and other
persons were in sympathy with him,[511] such as Sl. Ḥusain _Arghūn_, Pīr
Aḥmad, Aūzūn Ḥasan's younger brother, Khwāja Ḥusain, Qarā _Barlās_,
Ṣāliḥ Muḥammad[512] and some other begs and braves.
At the time The Khān had joined to Khān Mīrzā a number of Mughūl begs
with Muḥ. Ḥusain _Dūghlāt_ and Aḥmad Beg, and had appointed them to act
against Samarkand.[513] Khān Mīrzā's guardians were Ḥāfiẓ Beg _Dūldāī_
and his son, T̤āhir Beg; because of relationship to them, (Muḥ.
Sīghal's) grandson, Ḥasan and Hindū Beg fled with several braves from
Sl. `Alī [Sidenote: Fol. 77.] Mīrzā's presence to Khān Mīrzā's.
Muḥammad Mazīd Tarkhān invited Khān Mīrzā and the Mughūl army, moved to
near Shavdār, there saw the Mīrzā and met the begs of the Mughūls. No
small useful friendlinesses however, came out of the meeting between his
begs and the Mughūls; the latter indeed seem to have thought of making
him a prisoner. Of this he and his begs coming to know, separated
themselves from the Mughūl army. As without him the Mughūls could make
no stand, they retired. Here-upon, Sl. `Alī Mīrzā hurried light out of
Samarkand with a few men and caught them up where they had dismounted in
Yār-yīlāq. They could not even fight but were routed and put to flight.
This deed, done in his last days, was Sl. `Alī Mīrzā's one good little
affair.
Muḥ. Mazīd Tarkhān and his people, despairing both of the Mughūls and of
these Mīrzās, sent Mīr Mughūl, son of `Abdu'l-wahhāb _Shaghāwal_[514] to
invite me (to Samarkand). Mīr Mughūl had already been in my service; he
had risked his life in good accord with Khwāja-i-qāẓī during the siege
of Andijān (903 AH.-1498 AD.).
This business hurt us also[515] and, as it was for that purpose we had
made peace (with Jahāngīr), we resolved to move on Samarkand. We sent
Mīr Mughūl off at once to give rendezvous[516] [Sidenote: Fol. 77b.] to
Jahāngīr Mīrzā and prepared to get to horse. We rode out in the month
of Ẕū'l-qa`da (June) and with two halts on the way, came to Qabā and
there dismounted.[517] At the mid-afternoon Prayer of that day, news
came that Taṃbal's brother, Khalīl had taken Aūsh by surprise.
The particulars are as follows;—As has been mentioned, Khalīl and those
under him were set free when peace was made. Taṃbal then sent Khalīl to
fetch away their wives and families from Aūzkīnt. He had gone and he
went into the fort on this pretext. He kept saying untruthfully, 'We
will go out today,' or 'We will go out tomorrow,' but he did not go.
When we got to horse, he seized the chance of the emptiness of Aūsh to
go by night and surprise it. For several reasons it was of no advantage
for us to stay and entangle ourselves with him; we went straight on
therefore. One reason was that as, for the purpose of making ready
military equipment, all my men of name had scattered, heads of houses to
their homes, we had no news of them because we had relied on the peace
and were by this off our guard against the treachery and falsity of the
other party. Another reason was that for some time, as has been
[Sidenote: Fol. 78.] said, the misconduct of our great begs, `Alī-dost
and Qaṃbar-`alī had been such that no confidence in them was left. A
further reason was that the Samarkand begs, under Muḥ. Mazīd Tarkhān had
sent Mīr Mughūl to invite us and, so long as a capital such as Samarkand
stood there, what would incline a man to waste his days for a place like
Andijān?
From Qabā we moved on to Marghīnān (20 m.). Marghīnān had been given to
Qūch Beg's father, Sl. Aḥmad _Qarāwal_, and he was then in it. As he,
owing to various ties and attachments, could not attach himself to
me,[518] he stayed behind while his son, Qūch Beg and one or two of his
brethren, older and younger, went with me.
Taking the road for Asfara, we dismounted in one of its villages, called
Mahan. That night there came and joined us in Mahan, by splendid chance,
just as if to a rendezvous, Qāsim Beg _Qūchīn_ with his company,
`Alī-dost with his, and Sayyid Qāsim with a large body of braves. We
rode from Mahan by the Khasbān (var. Yasān) plain, crossed the Chūpān
(Shepherd)-bridge and so to Aūrā-tīpā.[519]
(_t. Qaṃbar-`alī punishes himself._)
Trusting to Taṃbal, Qaṃbar-`alī went from his own district (Khujand) to
Akhsī in order to discuss army-matters with him. [Sidenote: Fol. 78b.]
Such an event happening,[520] Taṃbal laid hands on Qaṃbar-`alī, marched
against his district and carried him along. Here the (Turkī) proverb
fits, 'Distrust your friend! he'll stuff your hide with straw.' While
Qaṃbar-`alī was being made to go to Khujand, he escaped on foot and
after a hundred difficulties reached Aūrā-tīpā.
News came to us there that Shaibānī Khān had beaten Bāqī Tarkhān in
Dabūsī and was moving on Bukhārā. We went on from Aūrā-tīpā, by way of
Burka-yīlāq, to Sangzār[521] which the sub-governor surrendered. There
we placed Qaṃbar-`alī, as, after effecting his own capture and betrayal,
he had come to us. We then passed on.
(_u. Affairs of Samarkand and the end of `Alī-dost._)
On our arrival in Khān-yūrtī, the Samarkand begs under Muḥ. Mazīd
Tarkhān came and did me obeisance. Conference was held with them as to
details for taking the town; they said, 'Khwāja Yaḥya also is wishing
for the _pādshāh_;[522] with his consent the town may be had easily
without fighting or disturbance.' The Khwāja did not say decidedly to
our messengers that he had resolved to admit us to the town but at the
same time, he said nothing likely to lead us to despair.
Leaving Khān-yūrtī, we moved to the bank of the Dar-i-gham (canal) and
from there sent our librarian, Khwāja Muḥammad [Sidenote: Fol. 79.] `Alī
to Khwāja Yaḥya. He brought word back, 'Let them come; we will give them
the town.' Accordingly we rode from the Dar-i-gham straight for the
town, at night-fall, but our plan came to nothing because Sl. Muḥammad
_Dūldāī's_ father, Sl. Maḥmūd had fled from our camp and given such
information to (Sl. `Alī's party) as put them on their guard. Back we
went to the Dar-i-gham bank.
While I had been in Yār-yīlāq, one of my favoured begs, Ibrāhīm _Sārū_
who had been plundered and driven off by `Alī-dost,[523] came and did me
obeisance, together with Muḥ. Yūsuf, the elder son of Sayyid Yūsuf
(_Aūghlāqchī_). Coming in by ones and twos, old family servants and begs
and some of the household gathered back to me there. All were enemies of
`Alī-dost; some he had driven away; others he had plundered; others
again he had imprisoned. He became afraid. For why? Because with
Taṃbal's backing, he had harassed and persecuted me and my well-wishers.
As for me, my very nature sorted ill with the manikin's! From shame and
fear, he could stay no longer with us; he asked leave; I took it as a
personal favour; I gave it. On this leave, he and his son, Muḥammad-dost
went to Taṃbal's presence. They became his intimates, [Sidenote: Fol.
79b.] and from father and son alike, much evil and sedition issued.
`Alī-dost died a few years later from ulceration of the hand.
Muḥammad-dost went amongst the Aūzbegs; that was not altogether bad but,
after some treachery to his salt, he fled from them and went into the
Andijān foot-hills.[524] There he stirred up much revolt and trouble. In
the end he fell into the hands of Aūzbeg people and they blinded him.
The meaning of 'The salt took his eyes,' is clear in his case.[525]
After giving this pair their leave, we sent Ghūrī _Barlās_ toward
Bukhārā for news. He brought word that Shaibānī Khān had taken Bukhārā
and was on his way to Samarkand. Here-upon, seeing no advantage in
staying in that neighbourhood, we set out for Kesh where, moreover, were
the families of most of the Samarkand begs.
When we had been a few weeks there, news came that Sl. `Alī Mīrzā had
given Samarkand to Shaibānī Khān. The particulars are these;—The Mīrzā's
mother, Zuhra Begī Āghā (_Aūzbeg_), in her ignorance and folly, had
secretly written to [Sidenote: Fol. 80.] Shaibānī Khān that if he would
take her (to wife) her son should give him Samarkand and that when
Shaibānī had taken (her son's) father's country, he should give her son
a country.[526] Sayyid Yūsuf _Arghūn_ must have known of this plan,
indeed will have been the traitor inventing it.
906 AH.—JULY 28TH. 1500 TO JULY 17TH. 1501 AD.[527]
(_a. Samarkand in the hands of the Aūzbegs._)
When, acting on that woman's promise, Shaibānī Khān went to Samarkand,
he dismounted in the Garden of the Plain. About mid-day Sl. `Alī Mīrzā
went out to him through the Four-roads Gate, without a word to any of
his begs or unmailed braves, without taking counsel with any-one soever
and accompanied only by a few men of little consideration from his own
close circle. The Khān, for his part, did not receive him very
favourably; when they had seen one another, he seated him on his less
honourable hand.[528] Khwāja Yaḥya, on hearing of the Mīrzā's departure,
became very anxious but as he could find no remedy,[529] went out also.
The Khān looked at him without rising and said a few words in which
blame had part, but when the Khwāja rose to leave, showed him the
respect of rising.
As soon as Khwāja `Alī[530] Bāy's[531] son, Jān-`alī heard in
Rabāṯ-i-khwāja of the Mīrzā's going to Shaibānī Khān, he also went. As
for that calamitous woman who, in her folly, gave her son's [Sidenote:
Fol. 80b.] house and possessions to the winds in order to get herself a
husband, Shaibānī Khān cared not one atom for her, indeed did not regard
her as the equal of a mistress or a concubine.[532]
Confounded by his own act, Sl. `Alī Mīrzā's repentance was extreme. Some
of his close circle, after hearing particulars, planned for him to
escape with them but to this he would not agree; his hour had come; he
was not to be freed. He had dismounted in Tīmūr Sulṯān's quarters; three
or four days later they killed him in Plough-meadow.[533] For a matter
of this five-days' mortal life, he died with a bad name; having entered
into a woman's affairs, he withdrew himself from the circle of men of
good repute. Of such people's doings no more should be written; of acts
so shameful, no more should be heard.
The Mīrzā having been killed, Shaibānī Khān sent Jān-`alī after his
Mīrzā. He had apprehensions also about Khwāja Yaḥya and therefore
dismissed him, with his two sons, Khwāja Muḥ. Zakarīya and Khwāja Bāqī,
towards Khurāsān.[534] A few Aūzbegs followed them and near Khwāja
Kārdzan martyred both the Khwāja and his two young sons. Though
Shaibānī's [Sidenote: Fol. 81.] words were, 'Not through me the Khwāja's
affair! Qaṃbar Bī and Kūpuk Bī did it,' this is worse than that! There
is a proverb,[535] 'His excuse is worse than his fault,' for if begs,
out of their own heads, start such deeds, unknown to their Khāns or
Pādshāhs, what becomes of the authority of khānship and sovereignty?
(_b. Bābur leaves Kesh and crosses the Mūra pass._)
Since the Aūzbegs were in possession of Samarkand, we left Kesh and went
in the direction of Ḥiṣār. With us started off Muḥ. Mazīd Tārkhān and
the Samarkand begs under his command, together with their wives and
families and people, but when we dismounted in the Chultū meadow of
Chaghānīān, they parted from us, went to Khusrau Shāh and became his
retainers.
Cut off from our own abiding-town and country,[536] not knowing where
(else) to go or where to stay, we were obliged to traverse the very
heart of Khusrau Shāh's districts, spite of what measure of misery he
had inflicted on the men of our dynasty!
One of our plans had been to go to my younger Khān dādā, _i.e._ Alacha
Khān, by way of Qarā-tīgīn and the Alāī,[537] but this was not managed.
Next we were for going up the valley of the Kām torrent and over the
Sara-tāq pass (_dābān_). When we were near Nūnḍāk, a servant of Khusrau
Shāh brought me one set of nine horses[538] and one of nine pieces of
cloth. When we dismounted at the mouth of the Kām valley, Sher-`alī.
[Sidenote: Fol. 81b.] the page, deserted to Khusrau Shāh's brother, Walī
and, next day, Qūch Beg parted from us and went to Ḥiṣār.[539]
We entered the valley and made our way up it. On its steep and narrow
roads and at its sharp and precipitous saddles[540] many horses and
camels were left. Before we reached the Sara-tāq pass we had (in 25 m.)
to make three or four night-halts. A pass! and what a pass! Never was
such a steep and narrow pass seen; never were traversed such ravines and
precipices. Those dangerous narrows and sudden falls, those perilous
heights and knife-edge saddles, we got through with much difficulty and
suffering, with countless hardships and miseries. Amongst the Fān
mountains is a large lake (Iskandar); it is 2 miles in circumference, a
beautiful lake and not devoid of marvels.[541]
News came that Ibrāhīm Tarkhān had strengthened Fort Shīrāz and was
seated in it; also that Qaṃbar-`alī (the Skinner) and Abū'l-qāsim
_Kohbur_, the latter not being able to stay in Khwāja Dīdār with the
Aūzbegs in Samarkand,—had both come into Yār-yīlāq, strengthened its
lower forts and occupied them.
Leaving Fān on our right, we moved on for Keshtūd. The head-man of Fān
had a reputation for hospitality, generosity, [Sidenote: Fol. 82.]
serviceableness and kindness. He had given tribute of 70 or 80 horses to
Sl. Mas`ūd Mīrzā at the time the Mīrzā, when Sl. Ḥusain Mīrzā made
attack on Ḥiṣār, went through Fān on his way to his younger brother,
Bāī-sunghar Mīrzā in Samarkand. He did like service to others. To me he
sent one second-rate horse; moreover he did not wait on me himself. So
it was! Those renowned for liberality became misers when they had to do
with me, and the politeness of the polite was forgotten. Khusrau Shāh
was celebrated for liberality and kindness; what service he did
Badī`u'z-zamān Mīrzā has been mentioned; to Bāqī Tarkhān and other begs
he shewed great generosity also. Twice I happened to pass through his
country;[542] not to speak of courtesy shewn to my peers, what he shewed
to my lowest servants he did not shew to me, indeed he shewed less
regard for us than for them.
(_Turkī_) Who, o my heart! has seen goodness from worldlings?
Look not for goodness from him who has none.
Under the impression that the Aūzbegs were in Keshtūd, we made an
excursion to it, after passing Fān. Of itself it seemed [Sidenote: Fol.
82b.] to have gone to ruin; no-one seemed to be occupying it. We went on
to the bank of the Kohik-water (Zar-afshān) and there dismounted. From
that place we sent a few begs under Qāsim _Qūchīn_ to surprise
Rabāṯ-i-khwāja; that done, we crossed the river by a bridge from
opposite Yārī, went through Yārī and over the Shunqār-khāna
(Falcons'-home) range into Yār-yīlāq. Our begs went to Rabāṯ-i-khwāja
and had set up ladders when the men within came to know about them and
forced them to retire. As they could not take the fort, they rejoined
us.
(_c. Bābur renews attack on Samarkand._)
Qaṃbar-`alī (the Skinner) was (still) holding Sangzār; he came and saw
us; Abū'l-qāsim _Kohbur_ and Ibrāhīm Tarkhān showed loyalty and
attachment by sending efficient men for our service. We went into
Asfīdik (var. Asfīndik), one of the Yār-yīlāq villages. At that time
Shaibāq Khān lay near Khwāja Dīdār with 3 or 4000 Aūzbegs and as many
more soldiers gathered in locally. He had given the Government of
Samarkand to Jān-wafā, and Jān-wafā was then in the fort with 500 or 600
men. Ḥamza Sl. and Mahdī Sl. were lying near the fort, in the
Quail-reserve. Our men, good and bad were 240. [Sidenote: Fol. 83.]
Having discussed the position with all my begs and unmailed braves, we
left it at this;—that as Shaibānī Khān had taken possession of Samarkand
so recently, the Samarkandīs would not be attached to him nor he to
them; that if we made an effort at once, we might do the thing; that if
we set ladders up and took the fort by surprise, the Samarkandīs would
be for us; how should they not be? even if they gave us no help, they
would not fight us for the Aūzbegs; and that Samarkand once in our
hands, whatever was God's will, would happen.
Acting on this decision, we rode out of Yār-yīlāq after the Mid-day
Prayer, and on through the dark till mid-night when we reached
Khān-yūrtī. Here we had word that the Samarkandīs knew of our coming;
for this reason we went no nearer to the town but made straight back
from Khān-yūrtī. It was dawn when, after crossing the Kohik-water below
Rabāṯ-i-khwāja, we were once more in Yār-yīlāq.
One day in Fort Asfīdik a household party was sitting in my presence;
Dost-i-nāṣir and Nuyān[543] _Kūkūldāsh_ and Khān-qulī-i-Karīm-dād and
Shaikh Darwesh and Mīrīm-i-nāṣir were all there. Words were crossing
from all sides when (I said), 'Come now! say when, if God bring it
right, we shall take [Sidenote: Fol. 83b.] Samarkand.' Some said, 'We
shall take it in the heats.' It was then late in autumn. Others said,
'In a month,' 'Forty days,' 'Twenty days.' Nuyān _Kūkūldāsh_ said, 'We
shall take it in 14.' God shewed him right! we did take it in exactly 14
days.
Just at that time I had a wonderful dream;—His Highness Khwāja
`Ubaid'l-lāh (_Aḥrārī_) seemed to come; I seemed to go out to give him
honourable meeting; he came in and seated himself; people seemed to lay
a table-cloth before him, apparently without sufficient care and, on
account of this, something seemed to come into his Highness Khwāja's
mind. Mullā Bābā (? _Pashāgharī_) made me a sign; I signed back, 'Not
through me! the table-layer is in fault!' The Khwāja understood and
accepted the excuse.[544] When he rose, I escorted him out. In the hall
of that house he took hold of either my right or left arm and lifted me
up till one of my feet was off the ground, saying, in Turkī, 'Shaikh
Maṣlaḥat has given (Samarkand).'[545] I really took Samarkand a few days
later.
(_d. Bābur takes Samarkand by surprise._)
In two or three days move was made from Fort Asfīdik to Fort Wasmand.
Although by our first approach, we had let [Sidenote: Fol. 84.] our plan
be known, we put our trust in God and made another expedition to
Samarkand. It was after the Mid-day Prayer that we rode out of Fort
Wasmand, Khwāja Abū'l-makāram accompanying us. By mid-night we reached
the Deep-fosse-bridge in the Avenue. From there we sent forward a
detachment of 70 or 80 good men who were to set up ladders opposite the
Lovers'-cave, mount them and get inside, stand up to those in the
Turquoise Gate, get possession of it and send a man to me. Those braves
went, set their ladders up opposite the Lovers'-cave, got in without
making anyone aware, went to the Gate, attacked Fāẓil Tarkhān, chopped
at him and his few retainers, killed them, broke the lock with an axe
and opened the Gate. At that moment I came up and went in.
(_Author's note on Fāẓil Tarkhān._) He was not one of those
(Samarkand) Tarkhāns; he was a merchant-tarkhān of Turkistān.
He had served Shaibānī Khān in Turkistān and had found favour
with him.[546]
Abū'l-qāsim _Kohbur_ himself had not come with us but had sent 30 or 40
of his retainers under his younger brother, Aḥmad-i-qāsim. No man of
Ibrāhīm Tarkhān's was with us; his younger brother, Aḥmad Tarkhān came
with a few retainers after I had entered the town and taken post in the
Monastery. [Sidenote: Fol. 84b.]
The towns-people were still slumbering; a few traders peeped out of
their shops, recognized me and put up prayers. When, a little later, the
news spread through the town, there was rare delight and satisfaction
for our men and the towns-folk. They killed the Aūzbegs in the lanes and
gullies with clubs and stones like mad dogs; four or five hundred were
killed in this fashion. Jān-wafā, the then governor, was living in
Khwāja Yaḥya's house; he fled and got away to Shaibāq Khān.[547]
On entering the Turquoise Gate I went straight to the College and took
post over the arch of the Monastery. There was a hubbub and shouting of
'Down! down!' till day-break. Some of the notables and traders, hearing
what was happening, came joyfully to see me, bringing what food was
ready and putting up prayers for me. At day-light we had news that the
Aūzbegs were fighting in the Iron Gate where they had made themselves
fast between the (outer and inner) doors. With 10, 15 or 20 men, I at
once set off for the Gate but before I came up, the town-rabble, busy
ransacking every corner of the newly-taken town for loot, had driven the
Aūzbegs out through [Sidenote: Fol. 85.] it. Shaibāq Khān, on hearing
what was happening, hurried at sun-rise to the Iron Gate with 100 or 140
men. His coming was a wonderful chance but, as has been said, my men
were very few. Seeing that he could do nothing, he rode off at once.
From the Iron Gate I went to the citadel and there dismounted, at the
Bū-stān palace. Men of rank and consequence and various head-men came to
me there, saw me and invoked blessings on me.
Samarkand for nearly 140 years had been the capital of our dynasty. An
alien, and of what stamp! an Aūzbeg foe, had taken possession of it! It
had slipped from our hands; God gave it again! plundered and ravaged,
our own returned to us.
Sl. Ḥusain Mīrzā took Harāt[548] as we took Samarkand, by surprise, but
to the experienced, and discerning, and just, it will be clear that
between his affair and mine there are distinctions and differences, and
that his capture and mine are things apart.
Firstly there is this;—He had ruled many years, passed through much
experience and seen many affairs.
Secondly;—He had for opponent, Yādgār Muḥ. Nāṣir Mīrzā, [Sidenote: Fol.
85b.] an inexperienced boy of 17 or 18.
Thirdly;—(Yādgār Mīrzā's) Head-equerry, Mīr `Alī, a person
well-acquainted with the particulars of the whole position, sent a man
out from amongst Sl. Ḥusain Mīrzā's opponents to bring him to surprise
them.
Fourthly;—His opponent was not in the fort but was in the
Ravens'-garden. Moreover Yādgār Muḥ. Nāṣir Mīrzā and his followers are
said to have been so prostrate with drink that three men only were in
the Gate, they also drunk.
Fifthly;—he surprised and captured Harāt the first time he approached
it.
On the other hand: firstly;—I was 19 when I took Samarkand.
Secondly;—I had as my opponent, such a man as Shaibāq Khān, of mature
age and an eye-witness of many affairs.
Thirdly;—No-one came out of Samarkand to me; though the heart of its
people was towards me, no-one could dream of coming, from dread of
Shaibāq Khān.
Fourthly;—My foe was in the fort; not only was the fort taken but he was
driven off.
Fifthly;—I had come once already; my opponent was on his guard about me.
The second time we came, God brought it right! Samarkand was won.
In saying these things there is no desire to be-little the reputation of
any man; the facts were as here stated. In [Sidenote: Fol. 86.] writing
these things, there is no desire to magnify myself; the truth is set
down.
The poets composed chronograms on the victory; this one remains in my
memory;—Wisdom answered, 'Know that its date is the _Victory_ (_Fatḥ_)
_of Bābur Bahādur_.'
Samarkand being taken, Shavdār and Soghd and the _tūmāns_ and nearer
forts began, one after another, to return to us. From some their Aūzbeg
commandants fled in fear and escaped; from others the inhabitants drove
them and came in to us; in some they made them prisoner, and held the
forts for us.
Just then the wives and families of Shaibāq Khān and his Aūzbegs arrived
from Turkistān;[549] he was lying near Khwāja Dīdār and `Alī-ābād but
when he saw the forts and people returning to me, marched off towards
Bukhārā. By God's grace, all the forts of Soghd and Miyān-kāl returned
to me within three or four months. Over and above this, Bāqī Tarkhān
seized this opportunity to occupy Qarshī; Khuzār and Qarshī (? Kesh)
both went out of Aūzbeg hands; Qarā-kūl [Sidenote: Fol. 86b.] also was
taken from them by people of Abū'l-muḥsin Mīrzā (_Bāī-qarā_), coming up
from Merv. My affairs were in a very good way.
(_e. Birth of Bābur's first child._)
After our departure (last year) from Andijān, my mothers and my wife and
relations came, with a hundred difficulties and hardships, to Aūrātīpā.
We now sent for them to Samarkand. Within a few days after their
arrival, a daughter was born to me by `Āyisha-sulṯān Begīm, my first
wife, the daughter of Sl. Aḥmad Mīrzā. They named the child
Fakhru'n-nisā' (Ornament of women); she was my first-born, I was 19. In
a month or 40 days, she went to God's mercy.
(_f. Bābur in Samarkand._)
On taking Samarkand, envoys and summoners were sent off at once, and
sent again and again, with reiterated request for aid and reinforcement,
to the khāns and sulṯāns and begs and marchers on every side. Some,
though experienced men, made foolish refusal; others whose relations
towards our family had been discourteous and unpleasant, were afraid for
themselves and took no notice; others again, though they sent help, sent
it insufficient. Each such case will be duly mentioned.
When Samarkand was taken the second time, `Alī-sher Beg [Sidenote: Fol.
87.] was alive. We exchanged letters once; on the back of mine to him I
wrote one of my Turkī couplets. Before his reply reached me, separations
(_tafarqa_) and disturbances (_ghūghā_) had happened.[550] Mullā Binā'ī
had been taken into Shaibāq Khān's service when the latter took
possession of Samarkand; he stayed with him until a few days after I
took the place, when he came into the town to me. Qāsim Beg had his
suspicions about him and consequently dismissed him towards Shahr-i-sabz
but, as he was a man of parts, and as no fault of his came to light, I
had him fetched back. He constantly presented me with odes (_qaṣīda u
ghazal_). He brought me a song in the Nawā mode composed to my name and
at the same time the following quatrain;—[551]
No grain (_ghala_) have I by which I can be fed (_noshīd_);
No rhyme of grain (_mallah_, nankeen) wherewith I can be
clad (_poshīd_);
The man who lacks both food and clothes,
In art or science where can he compete (_koshīd_)?
In those days of respite, I had written one or two couplets but had not
completed an ode. As an answer to Mullā Binā'ī I made up and set this
poor little Turkī quatrain;—[552]
As is the wish of your heart, so shall it be (_būlghūsīdūr_);
For gift and stipend both an order shall be made (_buyurūlghūsīdūr_);
I know the grain and its rhyme you write of;
The garments, you, your house, the corn shall fill (_tūlghūsīdūr_).
The Mullā in return wrote and presented a quatrain to me in [Sidenote:
Fol. 87b.] which for his refrain, he took a rhyme to (the _tūlghūsīdūr_
of) my last line and chose another rhyme;—
Mīrzā-of-mine, the Lord of sea and land shall be (_yīr būlghūsīdūr_);
His art and skill, world o'er, the evening tale shall be
(_samar būlghūsīdūr_);
If gifts like these reward one rhyming (_or_ pointless) word;
For words of sense, what guerdon will there be (_nilār būlghūsīdūr_)?
Abū'l-barka, known as _Farāqi_ (Parted), who just then had come to
Samarkand from Shahr-i-sabz, said Binā'ī ought to have rhymed. He made
this verse;—
Into Time's wrong to you quest shall be made (_sūrūlghūsīdūr_);
Your wish the Sulṯān's grace from Time shall ask (_qūlghūsīdūr_);
O Ganymede! our cups, ne'er filled as yet,
In this new Age, brimmed-up, filled full shall be (_tūlghūsīdūr_).
Though this winter our affairs were in a very good way and Shaibāq
Khān's were on the wane, one or two occurrences were somewhat of a
disservice; (1) the Merv men who had taken Qarā-kūl, could not be
persuaded to stay there and it went back into the hands of the Aūzbegs;
(2) Shaibāq Khān besieged Ibrāhīm Tarkhān's younger brother, Aḥmad in
Dabūsī, stormed the place and made a general massacre of its inhabitants
before the army we were collecting was ready to march.
With 240 proved men I had taken Samarkand; in the next [Sidenote: Fol.
88.] five or six months, things so fell out by the favour of the Most
High God, that, as will be told, we fought the arrayed battle of
Sar-i-pul with a man like Shaibāq Khān. The help those round-about gave
us was as follows;—From The Khān had come, with 4 or 5000 Bārīns, Ayūb
_Begchīk_ and Qashka Maḥmūd; from Jahāngīr Mīrzā had come Khalīl,
Taṃbal's younger brother, with 100 or 200 men; not a man had come from
Sl. Ḥusain Mīrzā, that experienced ruler, than whom none knew better the
deeds and dealings of Shaibāq Khān; none came from Badī`u'z-zamān Mīrzā;
none from Khusrau Shāh because he, the author of what evil done,—as has
been told,—to our dynasty! feared us more than he feared Shaibāq Khān.
(_g. Bābur defeated at Sar-i-pul._)
I marched out of Samarkand, with the wish of fighting Shaibāq Khān, in
the month of Shawwāl[553] and went to the New-garden where we lay four
or five days for the convenience of gathering our men and completing our
equipment. We took the precaution of fortifying our camp with ditch and
branch. From the New-garden we advanced, march by march, to beyond
Sar-i-pul (Bridge-head) and there dismounted. [Sidenote: Fol. 88b.]
Shaibāq Khān came from the opposite direction and dismounted at Khwāja
Kārdzan, perhaps one _yīghāch_ away (? 5 m.). We lay there for four or
five days. Every day our people went from our side and his came from
theirs and fell on one another. One day when they were in unusual force,
there was much fighting but neither side had the advantage. Out of that
engagement one of our men went rather hastily back into the
entrenchments; he was using a standard; some said it was Sayyidī Qarā
Beg's standard who really was a man of strong words but weak sword.
Shaibāq Khān made one night-attack on us but could do nothing because
the camp was protected by ditch and close-set branches. His men raised
their war-cry, rained in arrows from outside the ditch and then retired.
In the work for the coming battle I exerted myself greatly and took all
precautions; Qaṃbar-`alī also did much. In Kesh lay Bāqī Tarkhān with
1000 to 2000 men, in a position to join us after a couple of days. In
Diyūl, 4 _yīghāch_ off (? 20 m.), lay Sayyid Muḥ. Mīrzā _Dūghlāt_,
bringing me 1000 to 2000 men from my Khān dādā; he would have joined me
at [Sidenote: Fol. 89.] dawn. With matters in this position, we hurried
on the fight!
Who lays with haste his hand on the sword,
Shall lift to his teeth the back-hand of regret.[554]
The reason I was so eager to engage was that on the day of battle, the
Eight stars[555] were between the two armies; they would have been in
the enemy's rear for 13 or 14 days if the fight had been deferred. I now
understand that these considerations are worth nothing and that our
haste was without reason.
As we wished to fight, we marched from our camp at dawn, we in our mail,
our horses in theirs, formed up in array of right and left, centre and
van. Our right was Ibrāhīm _Sārū_, Ibrāhīm Jānī, Abū'l-qāsim _Kohbur_
and other begs. Our left was Muḥ. Mazīd Tarkhān, Ibrāhīm Tarkhān and
other Samarkandī begs, also Sl. Ḥusain _Arghūn_, Qarā (Black) _Barlās_,
Pīr Aḥmad and Khwāja Ḥusain. Qāsim Beg was (with me) in the centre and
also several of my close circle and household. In the van were inscribed
Qaṃbar-`alī the Skinner, Banda-`alī, Khwāja `Alī, Mīr Shāh _Qūchīn_,
Sayyid Qāsim, Lord of the Gate,—Banda-`alī's younger brother Khaldar
(mole-marked) and Ḥaidar-i-qāsim's son Qūch, together with all the good
braves there were, and the rest of the household.
Thus arrayed, we marched from our camp; the enemy, also in array,
marched out from his. His right was Maḥmūd and Jānī and Tīmūr Sulṯāns;
his left, Ḥamza and Mahdī and some [Sidenote: Fol. 89b.] other sulṯāns.
When our two armies approached one another, he wheeled his right towards
our rear. To meet this, I turned; this left our van,—in which had been
inscribed what not of our best braves and tried swordsmen!—to our right
and bared our front (_i.e._ the front of the centre). None-the-less we
fought those who made the front-attack on us, turned them and forced
them back on their own centre. So far did we carry it that some of
Shaibāq Khān's old chiefs said to him, 'We must move off! It is past a
stand.' He however held fast. His right beat our left, then wheeled
(again) to our rear.
(As has been said), the front of our centre was bare through our van's
being left to the right. The enemy attacked us front and rear, raining
in arrows on us. (Ayūb _Begchīk's_) Mughūl army, come for our help! was
of no use in fighting; it set to work forthwith to unhorse and plunder
our men. Not this [Sidenote: Fol. 90.] once only! This is always the way
with those ill-omened Mughūls! If they win, they grab at booty; if they
lose, they unhorse and pilfer their own side! We drove back the Aūzbegs
who attacked our front by several vigorous assaults, but those who had
wheeled to our rear came up and rained arrows on our standard. Falling
on us in this way, from the front and from the rear, they made our men
hurry off.
This same turning-movement is one of the great merits of Aūzbeg
fighting; no battle of theirs is ever without it. Another merit of
theirs is that they all, begs and retainers, from their front to their
rear, ride, loose-rein at the gallop, shouting as they come and, in
retiring, do not scatter but ride off, at the gallop, in a body.
Ten or fifteen men were left with me. The Kohik-water was close by,—the
point of our right had rested on it. We made straight for it. It was the
season when it comes down in flood. We rode right into it, man and horse
in mail. It was just fordable for half-way over; after that it had to be
swum. For more than an arrow's flight[556] we, man and mount in mail!
made our horses swim and so got across. Once out of the water, we cut
off the horse-armour and let it lie. By thus [Sidenote: Fol. 90b.]
passing to the north bank of the river, we were free of our foes, but at
once Mughūl wretches were the captors and pillagers of one after another
of my friends. Ibrāhīm Tarkhān and some others, excellent braves all,
were unhorsed and killed by Mughūls.[557] We moved along the north bank
of the Kohik-river, recrossed it near Qulba, entered the town by the
Shaikh-zāda's Gate and reached the citadel in the middle of the
afternoon.
Begs of our greatest, braves of our best and many men perished in that
fight. There died Ibrāhīm Tarkhān, Ibrāhīm _Sārū_ and Ibrāhīm Jānī;
oddly enough three great begs named Ibrāhīm perished. There died also
Ḥaidar-i-qāsim's eldest son, Abū'l-qāsim _Kohbur_, and Khudāī-bīrdī
_Tūghchī_ and Khalīl, Taṃbal's younger brother, spoken of already
several times. Many of our men fled in different directions;
Muḥ. Mazīd Tarkhān went towards Qūndūz and Ḥiṣār for Khusrau Shāh.
[Sidenote: Fol. 91.] Some of the household and of the braves, such as
Karīm-dad-i-Khudāī-bīrdī _Turkmān_ and Jānaka _Kūkūldāsh_ and Mullā Bābā
of Pashāghar got away to Aūrā-tīpā. Mullā Bābā at that time was not in
my service but had gone out with me in a guest's fashion. Others again,
did what Sherīm T̤aghāī and his band did;—though he had come back with
me into the town and though when consultation was had, he had agreed
with the rest to make the fort fast, looking for life or death within
it, yet spite of this, and although my mothers and sisters, elder and
younger, stayed on in Samarkand, he sent off their wives and families to
Aūrā-tīpā and remained himself with just a few men, all unencumbered.
Not this once only! Whenever hard work had to be done, low and
double-minded action was the thing to expect from him!
(_h. Bābur besieged in Samarkand._)
Next day, I summoned Khwāja Abū'l-makāram, Qāsim and the other begs, the
household and such of the braves as were admitted to our counsels, when
after consultation, we resolved to make the fort fast and to look for
life or death within it. I and Qāsim Beg with my close circle and
household were the reserve. For convenience in this I took up quarters
in the middle of the town, in tents pitched on the roof of Aūlūgh Beg
[Sidenote: Fol. 91b.] Mīrzā's College. To other begs and braves posts
were assigned in the Gates or on the ramparts of the walled-town.
Two or three days later, Shaibāq Khān dismounted at some distance from
the fort. On this, the town-rabble came out of lanes and wards, in
crowds, to the College gate, shouted good wishes for me and went out to
fight in mob-fashion. Shaibāq Khān had got to horse but could not so
much as approach the town. Several days went by in this fashion. The mob
and rabble, knowing nothing of sword and arrow-wounds, never witnesses
of the press and carnage of a stricken field, through these incidents,
became bold and began to sally further and further out. If warned by the
braves against going out so incautiously, they broke into reproach.
One day when Shaibāq Khān had directed his attack towards the Iron Gate,
the mob, grown bold, went out, as usual, daringly and far. To cover
their retreat, we sent several braves towards the Camel's-neck,[558]
foster-brethren and some of the close household-circle, such as Nuyān
_Kūkūldāsh_, Qul-naẕar (son of Sherīm?) T̤aghāī Beg, and Mazīd. An
Aūzbeg or two [Sidenote: Fol. 92.] put their horses at them and with
Qul-naẕar swords were crossed. The rest of the Aūzbegs dismounted and
brought their strength to bear on the rabble, hustled them off and
rammed them in through the Iron Gate. Qūch Beg and Mīr Shāh _Qūchīn_ had
dismounted at the side of Khwāja Khiẓr's Mosque and were making a stand
there. While the townsmen were being moved off by those on foot, a party
of mounted Aūzbegs rode towards the Mosque. Qūch Beg came out when they
drew near and exchanged good blows with them. He did distinguished work;
all stood to watch. Our fugitives below were occupied only with their
own escape; for them the time to shoot arrows and make a stand had gone
by. I was shooting with a slur-bow[559] from above the Gate and some of
my circle were shooting arrows (_aūq_). Our attack from above kept the
enemy from advancing beyond the Mosque; from there he retired.
During the siege, the round of the ramparts was made each night;
sometimes I went, sometimes Qāsim Beg, sometimes one of the household
Begs. Though from the Turquoise to the Shaikh-zāda's Gate may be ridden,
the rest of the way must be [Sidenote: Fol. 92b.] walked. When some men
went the whole round on foot, it was dawn before they had finished.[560]
One day Shaibāq Khān attacked between the Iron Gate and the
Shaikh-zāda's. I, as the reserve, went to the spot, without anxiety
about the Bleaching-ground and Needle-makers' Gates. That day, (?) in a
shooting wager (_aūq aūchīdā_), I made a good shot with a slur-bow, at a
Centurion's horse.[561] It died at once (_aūq bārdī_) with the arrow
(_aūq bīla_). They made such a vigorous attack this time that they got
close under the ramparts. Busy with the fighting and the stress near the
Iron Gate, we were entirely off our guard about the other side of the
town. There, opposite the space between the Needle-makers' and
Bleaching-ground Gates, the enemy had posted 7 or 800 good men in
ambush, having with them 24 or 25 ladders so wide that two or three
could mount abreast. These men came from their ambush when the attack
near the Iron Gate, by occupying all our men, had left those other posts
empty, and quickly set up their ladders between the two Gates,
[Sidenote: Fol. 93.] just where a road leads from the ramparts to Muḥ.
Mazīd Tarkhān's houses. That post was Qūch Beg's and Muḥammad-qulī
_Qūchīn's_, with their detachment of braves, and they had their quarters
in Muḥ. Mazīd's houses. In the Needle-makers' Gate was posted Qarā
(Black) _Barlās_, in the Bleaching-ground Gate, Qūtlūq Khwāja
_Kūkūldāsh_ with Sherīm T̤aghāī and his brethren, older and younger. As
attack was being made on the other side of the town, the men attached to
these posts were not on guard but had scattered to their quarters or to
the bazar for necessary matters of service and servants' work. Only the
begs were at their posts, with one or two of the populace. Qūch Beg and
Mūhammad-qulī and Shāh Ṣufī and one other brave did very well and
boldly. Some Aūzbegs were on the ramparts, some were coming up, when
these four men arrived at a run, dealt them blow upon blow, and, by
energetic drubbing, forced them all down and put them to flight. Qūch
Beg did best; this was his out-standing and approved good deed; twice
during this siege he got his hand into the work. Qarā _Barlās_ had been
left alone in the Needle-makers' Gate; he also held out well to the end.
Qūtlūq Khwāja and Qul-naẕar Mīrzā were also at their posts in the
Bleaching-ground Gate; they held out well too, and charged the foe in
his rear.
Another time Qāsim Beg led his braves out through the [Sidenote: Fol.
93b.] Needle-makers' Gate, pursued the Aūzbegs as far as Khwāja Kafsher,
unhorsed some and returned with a few heads.
It was now the time of ripening rain but no-one brought new corn
into the town. The long siege caused great privation to the
towns-people;[562] it went so far that the poor and destitute began to
eat the flesh of dogs and asses and, as there was little grain for the
horses, people fed them on leaves. Experience shewed that the leaves
best suiting were those of the mulberry and elm (_qarā-yīghāch_). Some
people scraped dry wood and gave the shavings, damped, to their horses.
For three or four months Shaibāq Khān did not come near the fort but had
it invested at some distance and himself moved round it from post to
post. Once when our men were off their guard, at mid-night, the enemy
came near to the Turquoise [Sidenote: Fol. 94.] Gate, beat his drums and
flung his war-cry out. I was in the College, undressed. There was great
trepidation and anxiety. After that they came night after night,
disturbing us by drumming and shouting their war-cry.
Although envoys and messengers had been sent repeatedly to all sides and
quarters, no help and reinforcement arrived from any-one. No-one had
helped or reinforced me when I was in strength and power and had
suffered no sort of defeat or loss; on what score would any-one help me
now? No hope in any-one whatever recommended us to prolong the siege.
The old saying was that to hold a fort there must be a head, two hands
and two legs, that is to say, the Commandant is the head; help and
reinforcement coming from two quarters are the two arms and the food and
water in the fort are the two legs. While we looked for help from those
round about, their thoughts were elsewhere. That brave and experienced
ruler, Sl. Ḥusain Mīrzā, gave us not even the help of an encouraging
message, but none-the-less he sent Kamālu'd-dīn Ḥusain _Gāzur-gāhī_[563]
as an envoy to Shaibāq Khān.
(_i. Taṃbal's proceedings in Farghāna._)[564]
(This year) Taṃbal marched from Andijān to near Bīsh-kīnt.[565] Aḥmad
Beg and his party, thereupon, made The Khān move out against him. The
two armies came face to face near [Sidenote: Fol. 94b.] Lak-lakān and
the Tūrāk Four-gardens but separated without engaging. Sl. Maḥmūd was
not a fighting man; now when opposed to Taṃbal, he shewed want of
courage in word and deed. Aḥmad Beg was unpolished[566] but brave and
well-meaning. In his very rough way, he said, 'What's the measure of
this person, Taṃbal? that you are so tormented with fear and fright
about him. If you are afraid to look at him, bandage your eyes before
you go out to face him.'
907 AH.—JULY 17TH. 1501 TO JULY 7TH. 1502 AD.[567]
(_a. Surrender of Samarkand to Shaibānī._)
The siege drew on to great length; no provisions and supplies came in
from any quarter, no succour and reinforcement from any side. The
soldiers and peasantry became hopeless and, by ones and twos, began to
let themselves down outside[568] the walls and flee. On Shaibāq Khān's
hearing of the distress in the town, he came and dismounted near the
Lovers'-cave. I, in turn, went to Malik-muḥammad Mīrzā's dwellings in
Low-lane, over against him. On one of those days, Khwāja Ḥusain's
brother, Aūzūn Ḥasan[569] came into the town with 10 or 15 of his
men,—he who, as has been told, had been the cause of Jahāngīr Mīrzā's
rebellion, of my exodus from Samarkand (903 AH.—March 1498 AD.) and,
again! of what an amount of sedition and [Sidenote: Fol. 95.]
disloyalty! That entry of his was a very bold act.[570]
The soldiery and townspeople became more and more distressed. Trusted
men of my close circle began to let themselves down from the ramparts
and get away; begs of known name and old family servants were amongst
them, such as Pīr Wais, Shaikh Wais and Wais _Lāgharī_.[571] Of help
from any side we utterly despaired; no hope was left in any quarter; our
supplies and provisions were wretched, what there was was coming to an
end; no more came in. Meantime Shaibāq Khān interjected talk of
peace.[572] Little ear would have been given to his talk of peace, if
there had been hope or food from any side. It had to be! a sort of peace
was made and we took our departure from the town, by the Shaikh-zāda's
Gate, somewhere about midnight.
(_b. Bābur leaves Samarkand._)
I took my mother Khānīm out with me; two other women-folk went too, one
was Bīshka (var. Peshka)-i-Khalīfa, the other, Mīnglīk _Kūkūldāsh_.[573]
At this exodus, my elder sister, Khān-zāda Begīm fell into Shaibāq
Khān's hands.[574] In the darkness of that night we lost our way[575]
and wandered about amongst the main irrigation channels of Soghd. At
shoot of dawn, after a hundred difficulties, we got past Khwāja Dīdār.
At the Sunnat Prayer we scrambled up the rising-ground of Qarā-būgh.
[Sidenote: Fol. 95b.] From the north slope of Qarā-būgh we hurried on
past the foot of Judūk village and dropped down into Yīlān-aūtī. On the
road I raced with Qāsim Beg and Qaṃbar-`alī (the Skinner); my horse was
leading when I, thinking to look at theirs behind, twisted myself round;
the girth may have slackened, for my saddle turned and I was thrown on
my head to the ground. Although I at once got up and remounted, my brain
did not steady till the evening; till then this world and what went on
appeared to me like things felt and seen in a dream or fancy. Towards
afternoon we dismounted in Yīlān-aūtī, there killed a horse, spitted
and roasted its flesh, rested our horses awhile and rode on. Very weary,
we reached Khalīla-village before the dawn and dismounted. From there it
was gone on to Dīzak.
In Dīzak just then was Ḥāfiẓ Muḥ. _Dūldāī's_ son, T̤āhir. There, in
Dīzak, were fat meats, loaves of fine flour, plenty of sweet melons and
abundance of excellent grapes. From what privation we came to such
plenty! From what stress to what repose!
From fear and hunger rest we won (_amānī tāptūq_);
A fresh world's new-born life we won (_jahānī tāptūq_).
From out our minds, death's dread was chased [Sidenote: Fol. 96.]
(_rafa` būldī_);
From our men the hunger-pang kept back (_dafa` būldī_).[576]
Never in all our lives had we felt such relief! never in the whole
course of them have we appreciated security and plenty so highly. Joy is
best and more delightful when it follows sorrow, ease after toil. I have
been transported four or five times from toil to rest and from hardship
to ease.[577] This was the first. We were set free from the affliction
of such a foe and from the pangs of hunger and had reached the repose of
security and the relief of abundance.
(_c. Bābur in Dikh-kat._)
After three or four days of rest in Dīzak, we set out for Aūrā-tīpā.
Pashāghar is a little[578] off the road but, as we had occupied it for
some time (904 AH.), we made an excursion to it in passing by. In
Pashāghar we chanced on one of Khānīm's old servants, a teacher[579] who
had been left behind in Samarkand from want of a mount. We saw one
another and on questioning her, I found she had come there on foot.
Khūb-nigār Khānīm, my mother Khānīm's younger sister[580] already must
have bidden this transitory world farewell; for they let Khānīm and me
know of it in Aūrā-tīpā. My father's mother also must have died in
Andijān; this too they let us [Sidenote: Fol. 96b.] know in
Aūrā-tīpā.[581] Since the death of my grandfather, Yūnas Khān (892 AH.),
Khānīm had not seen her (step-)mother or her younger brother and
sisters, that is to say, Shāh Begīm, Sl. Maḥmūd Khān, Sulṯān-nīgār
Khānīm and Daulat-sulṯān Khānīm. The separation had lasted 13 or 14
years. To see these relations she now started for Tāshkīnt.
After consulting with Muḥ. Ḥusain Mīrzā, it was settled for us to winter
in a place called Dikh-kat[582] one of the Aūrā-tīpā villages. There I
deposited my impedimenta (_aūrūq_); then set out myself in order to
visit Shāh Begīm and my Khān dādā and various relatives. I spent a few
days in Tāshkīnt and waited on Shāh Begīm and my Khān dādā. My mother's
elder full-sister, Mihr-nigār Khānīm[583] had come from Samarkand and
was in Tāshkīnt. There my mother Khānīm fell very ill; it was a very bad
illness; she passed through mighty risks.
His Highness Khwājaka Khwāja, having managed to get out of Samarkand,
had settled down in Far-kat; there I visited him. I had hoped my Khān
dādā would shew me affection and kindness and would give me a country or
a district (_pargana_). He did promise me Aūrā-tīpā but Muḥ. Ḥusain
Mīrzā. did not make it over, whether acting on his own account
[Sidenote: Fol. 97.] or whether upon a hint from above, is not known.
After spending a few days with him (in Aūrā-tīpā), I went on to
Dikh-kat.
Dikh-kat is in the Aūrā-tīpā hill-tracts, below the range on the other
side of which is the Macha[584] country. Its people, though Sārt,
settled in a village, are, like Turks, herdsmen and shepherds. Their
sheep are reckoned at 40,000. We dismounted at the houses of the
peasants in the village; I stayed in a head-man's house. He was old, 70
or 80, but his mother was still alive. She was a woman on whom much life
had been bestowed for she was 111 years old. Some relation of hers may
have gone, (as was said), with Tīmūr Beg's army to Hindūstān;[585] she
had this in her mind and used to tell the tale. In Dikh-kat alone were
96 of her descendants, hers and her grandchildren, great-grandchildren
and grandchildren's grandchildren. Counting in the dead, 200 of her
descendants were reckoned up. Her grandchild's grandson was a strong
young man of 25 or 26, with full black beard. While in Dikh-kat, I
constantly made excursions amongst the mountains round [Sidenote: Fol.
97b.] about. Generally I went bare-foot and, from doing this so much, my
feet became so that rock and stone made no difference to them.[586] Once
in one of these wanderings, a cow was seen, between the Afternoon and
Evening prayers, going down by a narrow, ill-defined road. Said I, 'I
wonder which way that road will be going; keep your eye on that cow;
don't lose the cow till you know where the road comes out.' Khwāja
Asadu'l-lāh made his joke, 'If the cow loses her way,' he said, 'what
becomes of us?'
In the winter several of our soldiers asked for leave to Andijān because
they could make no raids with us.[587] Qāsim Beg said, with much
insistance, 'As these men are going, send something special of your own
wear by them to Jahāngīr Mīrzā.' I sent my ermine cap. Again he urged,
'What harm would there be if you sent something for Taṃbal also?' Though
I was very unwilling, yet as he urged it, I sent Taṃbal a large
broad-sword which Nuyān _Kūkūldāsh_ had had made for himself in
Samarkand. This very sword it was which, as will be told with the
events of next year, came down on my own head![588]
A few days later, my grandmother, Aīsān-daulat Begīm, who, when I left
Samarkand, had stayed behind, arrived in Dikh-kat [Sidenote: Fol. 98.]
with our families and baggage (_aūrūq_) and a few lean and hungry
followers.
(_d. Shaibāq Khān raids in The Khān's country._)
That winter Shaibāq Khān crossed the Khujand river on the ice and
plundered near Shāhrukhiya and Bīsh-kīnt. On hearing news of this, we
gallopped off, not regarding the smallness of our numbers, and made for
the villages below Khujand, opposite Hasht-yak (One-eighth). The cold
was mightily bitter,[589] a wind not less than the Hā-darwesh[590]
raging violently the whole time. So cold it was that during the two or
three days we were in those parts, several men died of it. When, needing
to make ablution, I went into an irrigation-channel, frozen along both
banks but because of its swift current, not ice-bound in the middle, and
bathed, dipping under 16 times, the cold of the water went quite through
me. Next day we crossed the river on the ice from opposite Khaṣlār and
went on through the dark to Bīsh-kīnt.[591] Shaibāq Khān, however, must
have gone straight back after plundering the neighbourhood of
Shāhrukhiya.
(_e. Death of Nuyān Kūkūldāsh._)
Bīsh-kīnt, at that time, was held by Mullā Ḥaidar's son, `Abdu'l-minān.
A younger son, named Mūmin, a worthless and dissipated person, had come
to my presence in Samarkand and had received all kindness from me. This
sodomite, Mūmin, for what sort of quarrel between them is not known,
cherished [Sidenote: Fol. 98b.] rancour against Nuyān _Kūkūldāsh_. At
the time when we, having heard of the retirement of the Aūzbegs, sent a
man to The Khān and marched from Bīsh-kīnt to spend two or three days
amongst the villages in the Blacksmith's-dale,[592] Mullā Ḥaidar's son,
Mūmin invited Nuyān _Kūkūldāsh_ and Aḥmad-i-qāsim and some others in
order to return them hospitality received in Samarkand. When I left
Bīsh-kīnt, therefore they stayed behind. Mūmin's entertainment to this
party was given on the edge of a ravine (_jar_). Next day news was
brought to us in Sām-sīrak, a village in the Blacksmith's-dale, that
Nuyān was dead through falling when drunk into the ravine. We sent his
own mother's brother, Ḥaq-naẕar and others, who searched out where he
had fallen. They committed Nuyān to the earth in Bīsh-kīnt, and came
back to me. They had found the body at the bottom of the ravine an
arrow's flight from the place of the entertainment. Some suspected that
Mūmin, nursing his trumpery rancour, had taken Nuyān's life. None knew
the truth. His death made me strangely sad; for few men have I felt such
grief; I wept unceasingly for a week or [Sidenote: Fol. 99.] ten days.
The chronogram of his death was found in _Nuyān is dead_.[593]
With the heats came the news that Shaibāq Khān was coming up into
Aūrā-tīpā. Hereupon, as the land is level about Dikh-kat, we crossed the
Āb-burdan pass into the Macha hill-country.[594] Āb-burdan is the last
village of Macha; just below it a spring sends its water down (to the
Zar-afshān); above the stream is included in Macha, below it depends on
Palghar. There is a tomb at the spring-head. I had a rock at the side of
the spring-head shaped (_qātīrīb_) and these three couplets inscribed on
it;—
I have heard that Jamshīd, the magnificent,
Inscribed on a rock at a fountain-head[595]
'Many men like us have taken breath at this fountain,
And have passed away in the twinkling of an eye;
We took the world by courage and might,
But we took it not with us to the tomb.'
There is a custom in that hill-country of cutting verses and things[596]
on the rocks.
While we were in Macha, Mullā Hijrī,[597] the poet, came from Ḥiṣār and
waited on me. At that time I composed the following opening lines;—
Let your portrait flatter you never so much, than it you are more
(_āndīn artūqsīn_);
Men call you their Life (_Jān_), than Life, without doubt, you are
more (_jāndīn artūqsīn_).[598]
After plundering round about in Aūrā-tīpā, Shaibāq Khān retired.[599]
While he was up there, we, disregarding the fewness [Sidenote: Fol.
99b.] of our men and their lack of arms, left our impedimenta (_aūrūq_)
in Macha, crossed the Āb-burdan pass and went to Dikh-kat so that,
gathered together close at hand, we might miss no chance on one of the
next nights. He, however, retired straightway; we went back to Macha.
It passed through my mind that to wander from mountain to mountain,
homeless and houseless, without country or abiding-place, had nothing to
recommend it. 'Go you right off to The Khān,' I said to myself. Qāsim
Beg was not willing for this move, apparently being uneasy because, as
has been told, he had put Mughūls to death at Qarā-būlāq, by way of
example. However much we urged it, it was not to be! He drew off for
Ḥiṣār with all his brothers and his whole following. We for our part,
crossed the Āb-burdan pass and set forward for The Khān's presence in
Tāshkīnt.
(_f. Bābur with The Khān._)
In the days when Taṃbal had drawn his army out and gone into the
Blacksmith's-dale,[600] men at the top of his army, such as Muḥ.
_Dūghlāt_, known as _Ḥiṣārī_, and his younger brother Ḥusain, and also
Qaṃbar-`alī, the Skinner, conspired to attempt his life. When he
discovered this weighty matter, they, unable to remain with him, had
gone to The Khān.
The Feast of Sacrifices (`Īd-i-qurbān) fell for us in Shāh-rukhiya
(Ẕū'l-ḥijja 10th.-June 16th. 1502).
I had written a quatrain in an ordinary measure but was in some doubt
about it, because at that time I had not studied [Sidenote: Fol. 100.]
poetic idiom so much as I have now done. The Khān was good-natured and
also he wrote verses, though ones somewhat deficient in the requisites
for odes. I presented my quatrain and I laid my doubts before him but
got no reply so clear as to remove them. His study of poetic idiom
appeared to have been somewhat scant. Here is the verse;—
One hears no man recall another in trouble (_miḥnat-ta kīshī_);
None speak of a man as glad in his exile (_ghurbat-ta kīshī_);
My own heart has no joy in this exile;
Called glad is no exile, man though he be (_albatta kīshī_).
Later on I came to know that in Turkī verse, for the purpose of rhyme,
_ta_ and _da_ are interchangeable and also _ghain_, _qāf_ and
_kāf_.[601]
(_g. The acclaiming of the standards._)
When, a few days later, The Khān heard that Taṃbal had gone up into
Aūrā-tīpā, he got his army to horse and rode out from Tāshkīnt. Between
Bīsh-kīnt and Sām-sīrak he formed up into array of right and left and
saw the count[602] of his men. This done, the standards were acclaimed
in Mughūl fashion.[603] The Khān dismounted and nine standards were set
up in front of him. A Mughūl tied a long strip of white cloth to the
thigh-bone (_aūrta aīlīk_) of a cow and took the other end in his hand.
Three other long strips of white cloth were tied to the staves of three
of the (nine) standards, just below the yak-tails, and their other ends
were brought for The Khān to stand on one and for me and Sl. Muḥ.
Khānika to stand each on one of the two others. The Mughūl who had hold
of the strip of cloth [Sidenote: Fol. 100b.] fastened to the cow's leg,
then said something in Mughūl while he looked at the standards and made
signs towards them. The Khān and those present sprinkled _qumīz_[604] in
the direction of the standards; hautbois and drums were sounded towards
them;[605] the army flung the war-cry out three times towards them,
mounted, cried it again and rode at the gallop round them.
Precisely as Chīngīz Khān laid down his rules, so the Mughūls still
observe them. Each man has his place, just where his ancestors had it;
right, right,—left, left,—centre, centre. The most reliable men go to
the extreme points of the right and left. The Chīrās and Begchīk clans
always demand to go to the point in the right.[606] At that time the Beg
of the Chīrās tūmān was a very bold brave, Qāshka (Mole-marked) Maḥmud
and the beg of the renowned Begchīk tūmān was Ayūb _Begchīk_. These two,
disputing which should go out to the point, drew swords on one another.
At last it seems to have been settled that one should take the highest
place in the hunting-circle, the other, in the battle-array.
Next day after making the circle, it was hunted near Sāmsīrak;
[Sidenote: Fol. 101.] thence move was made to the Tūrāk Four-gardens.
On that day and in that camp, I finished the first ode I ever finished.
Its opening couplet is as follows;—
Except my soul, no friend worth trust found I (_wafādār tāpmādīm_);
Except my heart, no confidant found I (_asrār tāpmādīm_).
There were six couplets; every ode I finished later was written just on
this plan.
The Khān moved, march by march, from Sām-sīrak to the bank of the
Khujand-river. One day we crossed the water by way of an excursion,
cooked food and made merry with the braves and pages. That day some-one
stole the gold clasp of my girdle. Next day Bayān-qulī's Khān-qulī and
Sl. Muḥ. Wais fled to Taṃbal. Every-one suspected them of that bad deed.
Though this was not ascertained, Aḥmad-i-qāsim _Kohbur_ asked leave and
went away to Aūrā-tīpā. From that leave he did not return; he too went
to Taṃbal.
908 AH.—JULY 7TH. 1502 TO JUNE 26TH. 1503 AD.[607]
(_a. Bābur's poverty in Tāshkīnt._)
This move of The Khān's was rather unprofitable; to take no fort, to
beat no foe, he went out and went back.
During my stay in Tāshkīnt, I endured much poverty and humiliation. No
country or hope of one! Most of my retainers dispersed, those left,
unable to move about with me because of their destitution! If I went to
my Khān dādā's Gate,[608] I went sometimes with one man, sometimes with
two. It was well he was no stranger but one of my own blood. [Sidenote:
Fol. 101b.] After showing myself[609] in his presence, I used to go to
Shāh Begīm's, entering her house, bareheaded and barefoot, just as if it
were my own.
This uncertainty and want of house and home drove me at last to despair.
Said I, 'It would be better to take my head[610] and go off than live in
such misery; better to go as far as my feet can carry me than be seen of
men in such poverty and humiliation.' Having settled on China to go to,
I resolved to take my head and get away. From my childhood up I had
wished to visit China but had not been able to manage it because of
ruling and attachments. Now sovereignty itself was gone! and my mother,
for her part, was re-united to her (step)-mother and her younger
brother. The hindrances to my journey had been removed; my anxiety for
my mother was dispelled. I represented (to Shāh Begīm and The Khān)
through Khwāja Abū'l-makāram that now such a foe as Shaibāq Khān had
made his appearance, Mughūl and Turk[611] alike must guard against him;
that thought about him must be taken while he had not well-mastered the
(Aūzbeg) horde or grown very strong, for as they have said;—[612]
To-day, while thou canst, quench the fire,
Once ablaze it will burn up the world;
Let thy foe not fix string to his bow,
While an arrow of thine can pierce him;
that it was 20 or 25 years[613] since they had seen the Younger Khān
(Aḥmad _Alacha_) and that I had never seen him; should I be able, if I
went to him, not only to see him myself, but to bring about the meeting
between him and them?
[Sidenote: Fol. 102.] Under this pretext I proposed to get out of those
surroundings;[614] once in Mughūlistān and Turfān, my reins would be in
my own hands, without check or anxiety. I put no-one in possession of my
scheme. Why not? Because it was impossible for me to mention such a
scheme to my mother, and also because it was with other expectations
that the few of all ranks who had been my companions in exile and
privation, had cut themselves off with me and with me suffered change of
fortune. To speak to them also of such a scheme would be no pleasure.
The Khwāja, having laid my plan before Shāh Begīm and The Khān,
understood them to consent to it but, later, it occurred to them that I
might be asking leave a second time,[615] because of not receiving
kindness. That touching their reputation, they delayed a little to give
the leave.
(_b. The Younger Khān comes to Tāshkīnt._)
At this crisis a man came from the Younger Khān to say that he was
actually on his way. This brought my scheme to naught. When a second
man announced his near approach, we all went out to give him honourable
meeting, Shāh Begīm and his younger sisters, Sulṯān-nigār Khānīm and
Daulat-sulṯān Khānīm, and I and Sl. Muḥ. Khānika and Khān Mīrzā (Wais).
Between Tāshkīnt and Sairām is a village called Yagha (var. Yaghma),
with some smaller ones, where are the tombs of Father Abraham and Father
Isaac. So far we went out. Knowing nothing exact about his coming,[616]
I rode out for an [Sidenote: Fol. 102b.] excursion, with an easy mind.
All at once, he descended on me, face to face. I went forward; when I
stopped, he stopped. He was a good deal perturbed; perhaps he was
thinking of dismounting in some fixed spot and there seated, of
receiving me ceremoniously. There was no time for this; when we were
near each other, I dismounted. He had not time even to dismount;[617] I
bent the knee, went forward and saw him. Hurriedly and with agitation,
he told Sl. Sa`īd Khān and Bābā Khān Sl. to dismount, bend the knee with
(_bīla_) me and make my acquaintance.[618] Just these two of his sons
had come with him; they may have been 13 or 14 years old. When I had
seen them, we all mounted and went to Shāh Begīm's presence. After he
had seen her and his sisters, and had renewed acquaintance, they all sat
down and for half the night told one another particulars of their past
and gone affairs.
Next day, my Younger Khān dādā bestowed on me arms of his own and one of
his own special horses saddled, and a Mughūl head-to-foot dress,—a
Mughūl cap,[619] a long coat of Chinese satin, with broidering of
stitchery,[620] and Chinese armour; in the old fashion, they had hung,
on the left side, a haversack (_chantāī_) and an outer bag,[621] and
three or four things such as women usually hang on their collars,
perfume-holders and various receptacles;[622] in the same way, three or
four things hung on the right side also.
[Sidenote: Fol. 103.] From there we went to Tāshkīnt. My Elder Khān dādā
also had come out for the meeting, some 3 or 4 _yīghāch_ (12 to 15 m.)
along the road. He had had an awning set up in a chosen spot and was
seated there. The Younger Khān went up directly in front of him; on
getting near, fetched a circle, from right to left, round him; then
dismounted before him. After advancing to the place of interview
(_kūrūshūr yīr_), he nine times bent the knee; that done, went close and
saw (his brother). The Elder Khān, in his turn, had risen when the
Younger Khān drew near. They looked long at one another (_kūrūshtīlār_)
and long stood in close embrace (_qūchūshūb_). The Younger Khān again
bent the knee nine times when retiring, many times also on offering his
gift; after that, he went and sat down.
All his men had adorned themselves in Mughūl fashion. There they were in
Mughūl caps (_būrk_); long coats of Chinese satin, broidered with
stitchery, Mughūl quivers and saddles of green shagreen-leather, and
Mughūl horses adorned in a unique fashion. He had brought rather few
men, over 1000 and under 2000 may-be. He was a man of singular manners,
a mighty master of the sword, and brave. Amongst arms he preferred to
trust to the sword. He used to say that of arms there are, the
_shash-par_[623] (six-flanged mace), the _piyāzī_ (rugged mace), the
_kīstin_,[624] the _tabar-zīn_ (saddle-hatchet) and the _bāltū_
(battle-axe), all, if they strike, work only with what of them first
touches, but the sword, if it touch, works from point to hilt. He never
parted with his keen-edged sword; it was either at his waist or to his
hand. He was a little rustic and rough-of-speech, [Sidenote: Fol. 103b.]
through having grown up in an out-of-the-way place.
When, adorned in the way described, I went with him to The Khān, Khwāja
Abū'l-makāram asked, 'Who is this honoured sulṯān?' and till I spoke,
did not recognize me.
(_c. The Khāns march into Farghāna against Taṃbal._)
Soon after returning to Tāshkīnt, The Khān led out an army for Andikān
(Andijān) direct against Sl. Aḥmad _Taṃbal_.[625] He took the road over
the Kīndīrlīk-pass and from Blacksmiths'-dale (Āhangarān-julgasī) sent
the Younger Khān and me on in advance. After the pass had been crossed,
we all met again near Zarqān (var. Zabarqān) of Karnān.
One day, near Karnān, they numbered their men[626] and reckoned them up
to be 30,000. From ahead news began to come that Taṃbal also was
collecting a force and going to Akhsī. After having consulted together,
The Khāns decided to join some of their men to me, in order that I might
cross the Khujand-water, and, marching by way of Aūsh and Aūzkīnt, turn
Taṃbal's rear. Having so settled, they joined to me Ayūb _Begchīk_ with
his _tūmān_, Jān-ḥasan Bārīn (var. Nārīn) with his Bārīns, Muḥ. _Ḥiṣārī
Dūghlāt_, Sl. Ḥusain _Dūghlāt_ and Sl. Aḥmad Mīrzā _Dūghlāt_, not in
command of the Dūghlāt _tūmān_,—and Qaṃbar-`alī Beg (the Skinner). The
commandant (_darogha_) of their force was Sārīgh-bāsh (Yellow-head)
Mīrza _Itārchī_.[627]
Leaving The Khāns in Karnān, we crossed the river on rafts near Sakan,
traversed the Khūqān sub-district (_aūrchīn_), crushed [Sidenote: Fol.
104.] Qabā and by way of the Alāī sub-districts[628] descended suddenly
on Aūsh. We reached it at dawn, unexpected; those in it could but
surrender. Naturally the country-folk were wishing much for us, but they
had not been able to find their means, both through dread of Taṃbal and
through our remoteness. After we entered Aūsh, the hordes and the
highland and lowland tribes of southern and eastern Andijān came in to
us. The Aūzkīnt people also, willing to serve us, sent me a man and came
in.
(_Author's note on Aūzkīnt._) Aūzkīnt formerly must have been
a capital of Farghāna;[629] it has an excellent fort and is
situated on the boundary (of Farghāna).
The Marghīnānīs also came in after two or three days, having beaten and
chased their commandant (_darogha_). Except Andijān, every fort south of
the Khujand-water had now come in to us. Spite of the return in those
days of so many forts, and spite of risings and revolt against him,
Taṃbal did not yet come to his senses but sat down with an army of horse
and foot, fortified with ditch and branch, to face The Khāns, between
Karnān and Akhsī. Several times over there was a little fighting and
pell-mell but without decided success to either side.
In the Andijān country (_wilāyat_), most of the tribes and [Sidenote:
Fol. 104b.] hordes and the forts and all the districts had come in to
me; naturally the Andijānīs also were wishing for me. They however could
not find their means.
(_d. Bābur's attempt to enter Andijān frustrated by a mistake._)
It occurred to me that if we went one night close to the town and sent a
man in to discuss with the Khwāja[630] and notables, they might perhaps
let us in somewhere. With this idea we rode out from Aūsh. By midnight
we were opposite Forty-daughters (Chihil-dukhterān) 2 miles (one
_kuroh_) from Andijān. From that place we sent Qaṃbar-`alī Beg forward,
with some other begs, who were to discuss matters with the Khwāja after
by some means or other getting a man into the fort. While waiting for
their return, we sat on our horses, some of us patiently humped up, some
wrapt away in dream, when suddenly, at about the third watch, there rose
a war-cry[631] and a sound of drums. Sleepy and startled, ignorant
whether the foe was many or few, my men, without looking to one another,
took each his own road and turned for flight. There was no time for me
to get at them; I went straight for the enemy. Only Mīr Shāh _Qūchīn_
and Bābā Sher-zād (Tiger-whelp) and Nāṣir's Dost sprang forward; we four
excepted, every man set his face for flight. I had gone a little way
forward, when the enemy rode rapidly up, flung out his war-cry and
poured arrows on us. One man, on a horse with a starred forehead,[632]
came close to me; I shot at it; it rolled over and died. They made a
little as if to retire. The three [Sidenote: Fol. 105.] with me said,
'In this darkness it is not certain whether they are many or few; all
our men have gone off; what harm could we four do them? Fighting must be
when we have overtaken our run-aways and rallied them.' Off we hurried,
got up with our men and beat and horse-whipped some of them, but, do
what we would, they would not make a stand. Back the four of us went to
shoot arrows at the foe. They drew a little back but when, after a
discharge or two, they saw we were not more than three or four, they
busied themselves in chasing and unhorsing my men. I went three or four
times to try to rally my men but all in vain! They were not to be
brought to order. Back I went with my three and kept the foe in check
with our arrows. They pursued us two or three _kuroh_ (4-6 m.), as far
as the rising ground opposite Kharābūk and Pashāmūn. There we met Muḥ.
`Alī _Mubashir_. Said I, 'They are only few; let us stop and put our
horses at them.' So we did. When we got up to them, they stood
still.[633]
Our scattered braves gathered in from this side and that, but several
very serviceable men, scattering in this attack, went right away to
Aūsh.
The explanation of the affair seemed to be that some of Ayūb _Begchīk's_
Mughūls had slipped away from Aūsh to raid near Andijān and, hearing the
noise of our troop, came somewhat stealthily towards us; then there
seems to have been confusion about the pass-word. The pass-words settled
on for use during this movement of ours were Tāshkīnt and Sairām. If
Tāshkīnt were said, Sairām would be answered; if Sairām, Tāshkīnt. In
this muddled affair, Khwāja Muḥ. `Ali seems to have been somewhat in
advance of our party and to have got bewildered,—he was a Sārt
person,[635]—when the Mughūls came up saying, 'Tāshkīnt, Tāshkīnt,' for
he gave them 'Tāshkīnt, Tāshkīnt,' as the counter-sign. Through this
they took him for an enemy, raised their war-cry, beat their
saddle-drums and poured arrows on us. It was through this we gave way,
and through this false alarm were scattered! We went back to Aūsh.
[Sidenote: Fol. 105b.] (_Author's note on pass-words._)
Pass-words are of two kinds;—in each tribe there is one for
use in the tribe, such as _Darwāna_ or _Tūqqāī_ or
_Lūlū_;[634] and there is one for the use of the whole army.
For a battle, two words are settled on as pass-words so that
of two men meeting in the fight, one may give the one, the
other give back the second, in order to distinguish friends
from foes, own men from strangers.
(_e. Bābur again attempts Andijān._)
Through the return to me of the forts and the highland and lowland
clans, Taṃbal and his adherents lost heart and footing. His army and
people in the next five or six days began to desert him and to flee to
retired places and the open country.[636] Of his household some came and
said, 'His affairs are nearly ruined; he will break up in three or four
days, utterly ruined.' On hearing this, we rode for Andijān.
Sl. Muḥ. _Galpuk_[637] was in Andijān,—the younger of Taṃbal's cadet
brothers. We took the Mulberry-road and at the Mid-day Prayer came to
the Khākān (canal), south of the town. A [Sidenote: Fol. 106.]
foraging-party was arranged; I followed it along Khākān to the skirt of
`Aīsh-hill. When our scouts brought word that Sl. Muḥ. _Galpuk_ had come
out, with what men he had, beyond the suburbs and gardens to the skirt
of `Aīsh, I hurried to meet him, although our foragers were still
scattered. He may have had over 500 men; we had more but many had
scattered to forage. When we were face to face, his men and ours may
have been in equal number. Without caring about order or array, down we
rode on them, loose rein, at the gallop. When we got near, they could
not stand; there was not so much fighting as the crossing of a few
swords. My men followed them almost to the Khākān Gate, unhorsing one
after another.
It was at the Evening Prayer that, our foe outmastered, we reached
Khwāja Kitta, on the outskirts of the suburbs. My idea was to go quickly
right up to the Gate but Dost Beg's father, Nāṣir Beg and Qaṃbar-`alī
Beg, old and experienced begs both, represented to me, 'It is almost
night; it would be ill-judged to go in a body into the fort in the dark;
let us withdraw a little and dismount. What can they do to-morrow but
surrender the place?' Yielding at once to the opinion of these
experienced persons, we forthwith retired to the outskirts of the
suburbs. If we had gone to the Gate, undoubtedly, Andijān [Sidenote:
Fol. 106b.] would have come into our hands.
(_f. Bābur surprised by Taṃbal._)
After crossing the Khākān-canal, we dismounted, near the Bed-time
prayer, at the side of the village of Rabāṯ-i-zauraq (var. rūzaq).
Although we knew that Taṃbal had broken camp and was on his way to
Andijān, yet, with the negligence of inexperience, we dismounted on
level ground close to the village, instead of where the defensive canal
would have protected us.[638] There we lay down carelessly, without
scouts or rear-ward.
At the top (_bāsh_) of the morning, just when men are in sweet sleep,
Qaṃbar-`alī Beg hurried past, shouting, 'Up with you! the enemy is
here!' So much he said and went off without a moment's stay. It was my
habit to lie down, even in times of peace, in my tunic; up I got
instanter, put on sword and quiver and mounted. My standard-bearer had
no time to adjust my standard,[639] he just mounted with it in his hand.
There were ten or fifteen men with me when we started toward the enemy;
after riding an arrow's flight, when we came up with his scouts, there
may have been ten. Going rapidly forward, we overtook him, poured in
arrows on him, over-mastered his foremost men and hurried them off. We
followed them for another arrow's flight and came up with his centre
where Sl. Aḥmad _Taṃbal_ himself was, with as many as [Sidenote: Fol.
107.] 100 men. He and another were standing in front of his array, as if
keeping a Gate,[640] and were shouting, 'Strike, strike!' but his men,
mostly, were sidling, as if asking themselves, 'Shall we run away? Shall
we not?' By this time three were left with me; one was Nāṣir's Dost,
another, Mīrzā Qulī _Kūkūldāsh_, the third, Khudāī-bīrdī _Turkmān's_
Karīm-dād.[641] I shot off the arrow on my thumb,[642] aiming at
Taṃbal's helm. When I put my hand into my quiver, there came out a quite
new _gosha-gīr_[643] given me by my Younger Khān dādā. It would have
been vexing to throw it away but before I got it back into the quiver,
there had been time to shoot, maybe, two or three arrows. When once more
I had an arrow on the string, I went forward, my three men even holding
back. One of those two in advance, Taṃbal seemingly,[644] moved forward
also. The high-road was between us; I from my side, he, from his, got
upon it and came face to face, in such a way that his right hand was
towards me, mine towards him. His horse's mail excepted, he was fully
accoutred; but for sword and quiver, I was unprotected. I shot off the
arrow in my hand, adjusting for the attachment of his shield. With
matters in this position, they shot my right leg through. I had on the
cap of my helm;[645] Taṃbal chopped [Sidenote: Fol. 107b.] so violently
at my head that it lost all feeling under the blow. A large wound was
made on my head, though not a thread of the cap was cut.[646] I had not
bared[647] my sword; it was in the scabbard and I had no chance to draw
it. Single-handed, I was alone amongst many foes. It was not a time to
stand still; I turned rein. Down came a sword again; this time on my
arrows. When I had gone 7 or 8 paces, those same three men rejoined
me.[648] After using his sword on me, Taṃbal seems to have used it on
Nāṣir's Dost. As far as an arrrow flies to the butt, the enemy followed
us.
The Khākān-canal is a great main-channel, flowing in a deep cutting, not
everywhere to be crossed. God brought it right! we came exactly opposite
a low place where there was a passage over. Directly we had crossed, the
horse Nāṣir's Dost was on, being somewhat weakly, fell down. We stopped
and remounted him, then drew off for Aūsh, over the rising-ground
between Farāghīna and Khirābūk. Out on the rise, Mazīd T̤aghāī came up
and joined us. An arrow had pierced his right leg also and though it had
not gone through and come out again, he got to Aūsh with difficulty. The
enemy unhorsed (_tūshūrdīlār_) good men of mine; Nāṣir Beg, Muḥ. `Alī
_Mubashir_, Khwāja Muḥ. `Alī, Khusrau _Kūkūldāsh_, Na`man the page, all
fell (to them, _tūshtīlār_), and also many unmailed braves.[649]
(_g. The Khāns move from Kāsān to Andijān._)
The Khāns, closely following on Taṃbal, dismounted near Andijān,—the
Elder at the side of the Reserve (_qūrūq_) in the [Sidenote: Fol. 108.]
garden, known as Birds'-mill (_Qūsh-tīgīrmān_), belonging to my
grandmother, Aīsān-daulat Begīm,—the Younger, near Bābā Tawakkul's
Alms-house. Two days later I went from Aūsh and saw the Elder Khān in
Birds'-mill. At that interview, he simply gave over to the Younger Khān
the places which had come in to me. He made some such excuse as that for
our advantage, he had brought the Younger Khān, how far! because such a
foe as Shaibāq Khān had taken Samarkand and was waxing greater; that the
Younger Khān had there no lands whatever, his own being far away; and
that the country under Andijān, on the south of the Khujand-water, must
be given him to encamp in. He promised me the country under Akhsī, on
the north of the Khujand-water. He said that after taking a firm grip of
that country (Farghāna), they would move, take Samarkand, give it to me
and then the whole of the Farghāna country was to be the Younger Khan's.
These words seem to have been meant to deceive me, since there is no
knowing what they would have done when they had attained their object.
It had to be however! willy-nilly, I agreed.
When, leaving him, I was on my way to the Younger Khān's presence,
Qaṃbar-`alī, known as the Skinner, joined me in a friendly way and said,
'Do you see? They have taken the whole of the country just become yours.
There is no opening for you through them. You have in your hands Aūsh,
Marghīnān, [Sidenote: Fol. 108b.] Aūzkīnt and the cultivated land and
the tribes and the hordes; go you to Aūsh; make that fort fast; send a
man to Taṃbal, make peace with him, then strike at the Mughūl and drive
him out. After that, divide the districts into an elder and a younger
brother's shares.' 'Would that be right?' said I. 'The Khāns are my
blood relations; better serve them than rule for Taṃbal.' He saw that
his words had made no impression, so turned back, sorry he had spoken. I
went on to see my Younger Khān Dādā. At our first interview, I had come
upon him without announcement and he had no time to dismount, so it was
all rather unceremonious. This time I got even nearer perhaps, and he
ran out as far as the end of the tent-ropes. I was walking with some
difficulty because of the wound in my leg. We met and renewed
acquaintance; then he said, 'You are talked about as a hero, my young
brother!' took my arm and led me into his tent. The tents pitched were
rather small and through his having grown up in an out-of-the-way place,
he let the one he sat in be neglected; it was like a raider's, melons,
grapes, saddlery, every sort of thing, in his sitting-tent. I went from
his presence straight back to my own camp and there he sent his Mughūl
surgeon to examine my wound. Mughūls call a surgeon also a _bakhshī_;
this one was called Ātākā Bakhshī.[650]
He was a very skilful surgeon; if a man's brains had come [Sidenote:
Fol. 109.] out, he would cure it, and any sort of wound in an artery he
easily healed. For some wounds his remedy was in form of a plaister, for
some medicines had to be taken. He ordered a bandage tied on[651] the
wound in my leg and put no seton in; once he made me eat something like
a fibrous root (_yīldīz_). He told me himself, 'A certain man had his
leg broken in the slender part and the bone was shattered for the
breadth of the hand. I cut the flesh open and took the bits of bone out.
Where they had been, I put a remedy in powder-form. That remedy simply
became bone where there had been bone before.' He told many strange and
marvellous things such as surgeons in cultivated lands cannot match.
Three or four days later, Qaṃbar-`alī, afraid on account of what he had
said to me, fled (to Taṃbal) in Andijān. A few days later, The Khāns
joined to me Ayūb _Begchīk_ with his _tūmān_, and Jān-ḥasan _Bārīn_ with
the Bārīn _tūmān_ and, as their army-beg, Sārīgh-bāsh Mīrzā,—1000 to
2000 men in all, and sent us towards Akhsī.
(_h. Bābur's expedition to Akhsī._)
Shaikh Bāyazīd, a younger brother of Taṃbal, was in Akhsī; Shahbāz
_Qārlūq_ was in Kāsān. At the time, Shahbāz was lying before Nū-kīnt
fort; crossing the Khujand-water opposite Bīkhrātā, we hurried to fall
upon him there. When, a little [Sidenote: Fol. 109b.] before dawn, we
were nearing the place, the begs represented to me that as the man would
have had news of us, it was advisable not to go on in broken array. We
moved on therefore with less speed. Shahbāz may have been really unaware
of us until we were quite close; then getting to know of it, he fled
into the fort. It often happens so! Once having said, 'The enemy is on
guard!' it is easily fancied true and the chance of action is lost. In
short, the experience of such things is that no effort or exertion must
be omitted, once the chance for action comes. After-repentance is
useless. There was a little fighting round the fort at dawn but we
delivered no serious attack.
For the convenience of foraging, we moved from Nū-kīnt towards the hills
in the direction of Bīshkhārān. Seizing his opportunity, Shahbāz
_Qārlūq_ abandoned Nū-kīnt and returned to Kāsān. We went back and
occupied Nū-kīnt. During those days, the army several times went out and
over-ran all sides and quarters. Once they over-ran the villages of
Akhsī, once those of Kāsān. Shahbāz and Long Ḥasan's adopted son, Mīrīm
came out of Kāsān to fight; they fought, were beaten, and there Mīrīm
died.
(_i. The affairs of Pāp._)
Pāp is a strong fort belonging to Akhsī. The Pāpīs made it fast and sent
a man to me. We accordingly sent Sayyid Qāsim with a few braves to
occupy it. They crossed the river [Sidenote: Fol. 110.] (_daryā_)
opposite the upper villages of Akhsī and went into Pāp.[652] A few days
later, Sayyid Qāsim did an astonishing thing. There were at the time
with Shaikh Bāyazīd in Akhsī, Ibrāhīm _Chāpūk_ (Slash-face)
T̤aghāī,[653] Aḥmad-of-qāsim _Kohbur_, and Qāsim Khitika (?) _Arghūn_.
To these Shaikh Bāyazīd joins 200 serviceable braves and one night sends
them to surprise Pāp. Sayyid Qāsim must have lain down carelessly to
sleep, without setting a watch. They reach the fort, set ladders up, get
up on the Gate, let the drawbridge down and, when 70 or 80 good men in
mail are inside, goes the news to Sayyid Qāsim! Drowsy with sleep, he
gets into his vest (_kūnglāk_), goes out, with five or six of his men,
charges the enemy and drives them out with blow upon blow. He cut off a
few heads and sent to me. Though such a careless lying down was bad
leadership, yet, with so few, just by force of drubbing, to chase off
such a mass of men in mail was very brave indeed.
Meantime The Khāns were busy with the siege of Andijān but the garrison
would not let them get near it. The Andijān braves used to make sallies
and blows would be exchanged.
(_j. Bābur invited into Akhsī._)
Shaikh Bāyazīd now began to send persons to us from Akhsī to testify to
well-wishing and pressingly invite us to Akhsī. His object was to
separate me from The Khāns, by any artifice, because without me, they
had no standing-ground. [Sidenote: Fol. 110b] His invitation may have
been given after agreeing with his elder brother, Taṃbal that if I were
separated from The Khāns, it might be possible, in my presence, to come
to some arrangement with them. We gave The Khāns a hint of the
invitation. They said, 'Go! and by whatever means, lay hands on Shaikh
Bāyazīd.' It was not my habit to cheat and play false; here above all
places, when promises would have been made, how was I to break them? It
occurred to me however, that if we could get into Akhsī, we might be
able, by using all available means, to detach Shaikh Bāyazīd from
Taṃbal, when he might take my side or something might turn up to favour
my fortunes. We, in our turn, sent a man to him; compact was made, he
invited us into Akhsī and when we went, came out to meet us, bringing my
younger brother, Nāṣir Mīrzā with him. Then he took us into the town,
gave us ground to camp in (_yūrt_) and to me one of my father's houses
in the outer fort[654] where I dismounted.
(_k. Taṃbal asks help of Shaibāq Khān._)
Taṃbal had sent his elder brother, Beg Tīlba, to Shaibāq Khān with
proffer of service and invitation to enter Farghāna. At this very time
Shaibāq Khān's answer arrived; 'I will come,' he wrote. On hearing this,
The Khāns were all upset; they could sit no longer before Andijān and
rose from before it.
The Younger Khān himself had a reputation for justice and orthodoxy, but
his Mughūls, stationed, contrary to the expectations of the
towns-people, in Aūsh, Marghīnān and other places,—places that had come
in to me,—began to behave ill [Sidenote: Fol. 111.] and oppressively.
When The Khāns had broken up from before Andijān, the Aūshīs and
Marghīnānīs, rising in tumult, seized the Mughūls in their forts,
plundered and beat them, drove them out and pursued them.
The Khāns did not cross the Khujand-water (for the Kīndīrlīk-pass) but
left the country by way of Marghīnān and Kand-i-badām and crossed it at
Khujand, Taṃbal pursuing them as far as Marghīnān. We had had much
uncertainty; we had not had much confidence in their making any stand,
yet for us to go away, without clear reason, and leave them, would not
have looked well.
(_l. Bābur attempts to defend Akhsī._)
Early one morning, when I was in the Hot-bath, Jahāngīr Mīrzā came into
Akhsī, from Marghīnān, a fugitive from Taṃbal. We saw one another,
Shaikh Bāyazīd also being present, agitated and afraid. The Mīrzā and
Ibrāhīm Beg said, 'Shaikh Bāyazīd must be made prisoner and we must get
the citadel into our hands.' In good sooth, the proposal was wise. Said
I, 'Promise has been made; how can we break it?' Shaikh Bāyazīd went
into the citadel. Men ought to have been posted on the bridge; not even
there did we post any-one! These blunders were the fruit of
inexperience. At the top of the morning came Taṃbal himself with 2 or
3000 men in mail, crossed the bridge and went into the citadel. To begin
with I had had rather few men; when I first went into Akhsī some had
been sent to other forts and some had been made commandants and
summoners all round. Left with me in Akhsī may have been something over
100 men. We [Sidenote: Fol. 111b.] had got to horse with these and were
posting braves at the top of one lane after another and making ready for
the fight, when Shaikh Bāyazīd and Qaṃbar-`alī (the Skinner), and
Muḥammad-dost[655] came gallopping from Taṃbal with talk of peace.
After posting those told off for the fight, each in his appointed place,
I dismounted at my father's tomb for a conference, in which I invited
Jahāngīr Mīrzā to join. Muḥammad-dost went back to Taṃbal but
Qaṃbar-`alī and Shaikh Bāyazīd were present. We sat in the south porch
of the tomb and were in consultation when the Mīrzā, who must have
settled beforehand with Ibrāhīm _Chāpūk_ to lay hands on those other
two, said in my ear, 'They must be made prisoner.' Said I, 'Don't hurry!
matters are past making prisoners. See here! with terms made, the affair
might be coaxed into something. For why? Not only are they many and we
few, but they with their strength are in the citadel, we with our
weakness, in the outer fort.' Shaikh Bāyazīd and Qaṃbar-`alī both being
present, Jahāngīr Mīrzā looked at Ibrāhīm Beg and made him a sign to
refrain. Whether he misunderstood to the contrary or whether he
pretended to misunderstand, is not known; suddenly he did the ill-deed
of seizing Shaikh Bāyazīd. Braves [Sidenote: Fol. 112.] closing in from
all sides, flung those two to the ground. Through this the affair was
taken past adjustment; we gave them into charge and got to horse for the
coming fight.
One side of the town was put into Jahāngīr Mīrzā's charge; as his men
were few, I told off some of mine to reinforce him. I went first to his
side and posted men for the fight, then to other parts of the town.
There is a somewhat level, open space in the middle of Akhsī; I had
posted a party of braves there and gone on when a large body of the
enemy, mounted and on foot, bore down upon them, drove them from their
post and forced them into a narrow lane. Just then I came up (the lane),
gallopped my horse at them, and scattered them in flight. While I was
thus driving them out from the lane into the flat, and had got my sword
to work, they shot my horse in the leg; it stumbled and threw me there
amongst them. I got up quickly and shot one arrow off. My squire, Kahil
(lazy) had a weakly pony; he got off and led it to me. Mounting this, I
started for another lane-head. Sl. Muḥ. Wais noticed the weakness of my
mount, dismounted and led me his own. I mounted that horse. Just then,
Qāsim Beg's son, Qaṃbar-`alī came, wounded, from Jahāngīr Mīrzā and said
the Mīrzā had [Sidenote: Fol. 112b.] been attacked some time before,
driven off in panic, and had gone right away. We were thunderstruck! At
the same moment arrived Sayyid Qāsim, the commandant of Pāp! His was a
most unseasonable visit, since at such a crisis it was well to have such
a strong fort in our hands. Said I to Ibrāhīm Beg, 'What's to be done
now?' He was slightly wounded; whether because of this or because of
stupefaction, he could give no useful answer. My idea was to get across
the bridge, destroy it and make for Andijān. Bābā Sher-zād did very well
here. 'We will storm out at the gate and get away at once,' he said. At
his word, we set off for the Gate. Khwāja Mīr Mīrān also spoke boldly at
that crisis. In one of the lanes, Sayyid Qāsim and Nāṣir's Dost chopped
away at Bāqī Khīz,[656] I being in front with Ibrāhīm Beg and Mīrzā Qulī
_Kūkūldāsh_.
As we came opposite the Gate, we saw Shaikh Bāyazīd, wearing his
pull-over shirt[657] above his vest, coming in with three or four
horsemen. He must have been put into the charge of Jahāngīr's men in the
morning when, against my will, he was made prisoner, and they must have
carried him off when they got away. They had thought it would be well to
kill him; they set him free alive. He had been released just when I
chanced upon him in the Gate. I drew and shot off the arrow on my thumb;
it grazed his neck, a good shot! He came confusedly in at the Gate,
turned to the right and fled down a lane. We followed him instantly.
Mīrzā Qulī _Kūkūldāsh_ got at one man with his rugged-mace and went on.
Another man took [Sidenote: Fol. 113.] aim at Ibrāhīm Beg, but when the
Beg shouted 'Hāī! Hāī!' let him pass and shot me in the arm-pit, from as
near as a man on guard at a Gate. Two plates of my Qālmāq mail were cut;
he took to flight and I shot after him. Next I shot at a man running
away along the ramparts, adjusting for his cap against the battlements;
he left his cap nailed on the wall and went off, gathering his
turban-sash together in his hand. Then again,—a man was in flight
alongside me in the lane down which Shaikh Bāyazīd had gone. I pricked
the back of his head with my sword; he bent over from his horse till he
leaned against the wall of the lane, but he kept his seat and with some
trouble, made good his flight. When we had driven all the enemy's men
from the Gate, we took possession of it but the affair was past
discussion because they, in the citadel, were 2000 or 3000, we, in the
outer fort, 100 or 200. Moreover they had chased off Jahāngīr Mīrzā, as
long before as it takes milk to boil, and with him had gone half my men.
This notwithstanding, we sent a man, while we were in the Gate, to say
to him, 'If you are near at hand, come, let us attack again.' But the
matter had gone past that! Ibrāhīm Beg, either because his horse was
really weak or because of his wound, said, 'My horse is done.' On this,
Sulaimān, one of Muḥ. `Alī's _Mubashir's_ servants, did a plucky thing,
for with matters [Sidenote: Fol. 113b.] as they were and none
constraining him, while we were waiting in the Gate, he dismounted and
gave his horse to Ibrāhīm Beg. Kīchīk (little) `Alī, now the Governor of
Koel,[658] also shewed courage while we were in the Gate; he was a
retainer of Sl. Muḥ. Wais and twice did well, here and in Aūsh. We
delayed in the Gate till those sent to Jahāngīr Mīrzā came back and said
he had gone off long before. It was too late to stay there; off we
flung; it was ill-judged to have stayed as long as we did. Twenty or
thirty men were with me. Just as we hustled out of the Gate, a number of
armed men[659] came right down upon us, reaching the town-side of the
drawbridge just as we had crossed. Banda-`alī, the maternal grandfather
of Qāsim Beg's son, Ḥamza, called out to Ibrāhīm Beg, 'You are always
boasting of your zeal! Let's take to our swords!' 'What hinders? Come
along!' said Ibrāhīm Beg, from beside me. The senseless fellows were for
displaying their zeal at a time of such disaster! Ill-timed zeal! That
was no time to make stand or delay! We went off quickly, the enemy
following and unhorsing our men.
(_m. Bābur a fugitive before Taṃbal's men._)
When we were passing Meadow-dome (Guṃbaz-i-chaman), two miles out of
Akhsī, Ibrāhīm Beg called out to me. Looking [Sidenote: Fol. 114.] back,
I saw a page of Shaikh Bāyazīd's striking at him and turned rein, but
Bayān-qulī's Khān-qulī, said at my side, 'This is a bad time for going
back,' seized my rein and pushed ahead. Many of our men had been
unhorsed before we reached Sang, 4 miles (2 _shar`ī_) out of Akhsī.[660]
Seeing no pursuers at Sang, we passed it by and turned straight up its
water. In this position of our affairs there were eight men of
us;—Nāṣir's Dost, Qāsim Beg's Qaṃbar-`alī, Bayān-qulī's Khān-qulī, Mīrzā
Qulī _Kūkūldāsh_, Nāṣir's Shāham, Sayyidī Qarā's `Abdu'l-qadūs, Khwāja
Ḥusainī and myself, the eighth. Turning up the stream, we found, in the
broad valley, a good little road, far from the beaten track. We made
straight up the valley, leaving the stream on the right, reached its
waterless part and, near the Afternoon Prayer, got up out of it to level
land. When we looked across the plain, we saw a blackness on it, far
away. I made my party take cover and myself had gone to look out from
higher ground, when a number of men came at a gallop up the hill behind
us. Without waiting to know whether they were many or few, we mounted
and rode off. There were 20 or 25; we, as has been said, were eight. If
we had known their number at first, we should have made a good stand
against them but we thought they would not be pursuing us, unless they
had good support behind. A [Sidenote: Fol. 114b.] fleeing foe, even if
he be many, cannot face a few pursuers, for as the saying is, '_Hāī_ is
enough for the beaten ranks.'[661]
Khān-qulī said, 'This will never do! They will take us all. From amongst
the horses there are, you take two good ones and go quickly on with
Mīrzā Qulī _Kūkūldāsh_, each with a led horse. May-be you will get
away.' He did not speak ill; as there was no fighting to hand, there was
a chance of safety in doing as he said, but it really would not have
looked well to leave any man alone, without a horse, amongst his foes.
In the end they all dropped off, one by one, of themselves. My horse was
a little tired; Khān-qulī dismounted and gave me his; I jumped off at
once and mounted his, he mine. Just then they unhorsed Sayyidī Qarā's
`Abdu'l-qadūs and Nāṣir's Shāham who had fallen behind. Khān-qulī also
was left. It was no time to profer help or defence; on it was gone, at
the full speed of our mounts. The horses began to flag; Dost Beg's
failed and stopped. Mine began to tire; Qaṃbar-`alī got off and gave me
his; I mounted his, he mine. He was left. Khwāja Ḥusainī was a lame man;
he turned aside to the higher ground. I was left with Mīrzā Qulī
_Kūkūldāsh_. Our [Sidenote: Fol. 115.] horses could not possibly gallop,
they trotted. His began to flag. Said I, 'What will become of me, if you
fall behind? Come along! let's live or die together.' Several times I
looked back at him; at last he said, 'My horse is done! It can't go on.
Never mind me! You go on, perhaps you will get away.' It was a miserable
position for me; he remained behind, I was alone.
Two of the enemy were in sight, one Bābā of Sairām, the other
Banda-`alī. They gained on me; my horse was done; the mountains were
still 2 miles (1 _kuroh_) off. A pile of rock was in my path. Thought I
to myself, 'My horse is worn out and the hills are still somewhat far
away; which way should I go? In my quiver are at least 20 arrows; should
I dismount and shoot them off from this pile of rock?' Then again, I
thought I might reach the hills and once there, stick a few arrows in my
belt and scramble up. I had a good deal of confidence in my feet and
went on, with this plan in mind. My horse could not possibly trot; the
two men came within arrow's reach. [Sidenote: Fol. 115b.] For my own
sake sparing my arrows, I did not shoot; they, out of caution, came no
nearer. By sunset I was near the hills. Suddenly they called out, 'Where
are you going in this fashion? Jahāngīr Mīrzā has been brought in a
prisoner; Nāṣir Mīrzā also is in their hands.' I made no reply and went
on towards the hills. When a good distance further had been gone, they
spoke again, this time more respectfully, dismounting to speak. I gave
no ear to them but went on up a glen till, at the Bed-time prayer, I
reached a rock as big as a house. Going behind it, I saw there were
places to be jumped, where no horse could go. They dismounted again and
began to speak like servants and courteously. Said they, 'Where are you
going in this fashion, without a road and in the dark? Sl. Aḥmad Taṃbal
will make you _pādshāh_.' They swore this. Said I, 'My mind is not easy
as to that. I cannot go to him. [Sidenote: Fol. 116.] If you think to do
me timely service, years may pass before you have such another chance.
Guide me to a road by which I can go to The Khān's presence. If you
will do this, I will shew you favour and kindness greater than your
heart's-desire. If you will not do it, go back the way you came; that
also would be to serve me well.' Said they, 'Would to God we had never
come! But since we are here, after following you in the way we have
done, how can we go back from you? If you will not go with us, we are at
your service, wherever you go.' Said I, 'Swear that you speak the
truth.' They, for their part, made solemn oath upon the Holy Book.
I at once confided in them and said, 'People have shewn me a road
through a broad valley, somewhere near this glen; take me to it.' Spite
of their oath, my trust in them was not so complete but that I gave them
the lead and followed. After 2 to 4 miles (1-2 _kuroh_), we came to the
bed of a torrent. 'This will not be the road for the broad valley,' I
said. They drew back, saying, 'That road is a long way ahead,' but it
really must have been the one we were on and they have been concealing
the fact, in order to deceive me. About half through the night, we
reached another stream. This time they said, 'We have been negligent; it
now seems to us that the road through the broad valley is behind.' Said
I, 'What is to be done?' Said they, 'The Ghawā road is certainly in
front; by it people cross for Far-kat.[662] They guided me for that and
we went on till in [Sidenote: Fol. 116b.] the third watch of the night
we reached the Karnān gully which comes down from Ghawā. Here Bābā
Sairāmī said, 'Stay here a little while I look along the Ghawā road.' He
came back after a time and said, 'Some men have gone along that road,
led by one wearing a Mughūl cap; there is no going that way.' I took
alarm at these words. There I was, at dawn, in the middle of the
cultivated land, far from the road I wanted to take. Said I, 'Guide me
to where I can hide today, and tonight when you will have laid hands on
something for the horses, lead me to cross the Khujand-water and along
its further bank.' Said they, 'Over there, on the upland, there might be
hiding.'
Banda-`alī was Commandant in Karnān. 'There is no doing without food for
ourselves or our horses;' he said, 'let me go into Karnān and bring
what I can find.' We stopped 2 miles (1 _kuroh_) out of Karnān; he went
on. He was a long time away; near dawn there was no sign of him. The day
had shot when he hurried up, bringing three loaves of bread but no corn
for the horses. Each of us putting a loaf into the breast of his tunic,
we went quickly up the rise, tethered our horses there in the open
valley and went to higher ground, each to keep watch.
[Sidenote: Fol. 117.] Near mid-day, Aḥmad the Falconer went along the
Ghawā road for Akhsī. I thought of calling to him and of saying, with
promise and fair word, 'You take those horses,' for they had had a day
and a night's strain and struggle, without corn, and were utterly done.
But then again, we were a little uneasy as we did not entirely trust
him. We decided that, as the men Bābā Sairāmī had seen on the road would
be in Karnān that night, the two with me should fetch one of their
horses for each of us, and that then we should go each his own way.
At mid-day, a something glittering was seen on a horse, as far away as
eye can reach. We were not able to make out at all what it was. It must
have been Muḥ. Bāqir Beg himself; he had been with us in Akhsī and when
we got out and scattered, he must have come this way and have been
moving then to a hiding-place.[663]
Banda-`alī and Bābā Sairāmī said, 'The horses have had no corn for two
days and two nights; let us go down into the dale and put them there to
graze.' Accordingly we rode down and put them to the grass. At the
Afternoon Prayer, a horseman passed along the rising-ground where we had
been. We recognized him for Qādīr-bīrdī, the head-man of Ghawā. 'Call
him,' I said. They called; he came. After questioning him, and speaking
to him of favour and kindness, and giving him promise and fair word, I
sent him to bring rope, and a grass-hook, and an axe, and material for
crossing water,[664] and corn [Sidenote: Fol. 117b.] for the horses, and
food and, if it were possible, other horses. We made tryst with him for
that same spot at the Bed-time Prayer.
Near the Evening Prayer, a horseman passed from the direction of Karnān
for Ghawā. 'Who are you?' we asked. He made some reply. He must have
been Muḥ. Bāqir Beg himself, on his way from where we had seen him
earlier, going at night-fall to some other hiding-place, but he so
changed his voice that, though he had been years with me, I did not know
it. It would have been well if I had recognized him and he had joined
me. His passing caused much anxiety and alarm; tryst could not be kept
with Qādīr-bīrdī of Ghawā. Banda-`alī said, 'There are retired gardens
in the suburbs of Karnān where no one will suspect us of being; let us
go there and send to Qādīr-bīrdī and have him brought there.' With this
idea, we mounted and went to the Karnān suburbs. It was winter and very
cold. They found a worn, coarse sheepskin coat and brought it to me; I
put it on. They brought me a bowl of millet-porridge; I ate it and was
wonderfully refreshed. 'Have you sent off the man to Qādīr-bīrdī?' said
I to Banda-`alī. 'I have sent,' he said. But those luckless, clownish
mannikins seem to have agreed together to send the man to Taṃbal in
Akhsī!
We went into a house and for awhile my eyes closed in sleep. Those
mannikins artfully said to me, 'You must not bestir yourself to leave
Karnān till there is news of Qādīr-bīrdī but this house is right amongst
the suburbs; on the outskirts the orchards are empty; no-one will
suspect if we go [Sidenote: Fol. 118.] there.' Accordingly we mounted at
mid-night and went to a distant orchard. Bābā Sairāmī kept watch from
the roof of a house. Near mid-day he came down and said, 'Commandant
Yūsuf is coming.' Great fear fell upon me! 'Find out,' I said, 'whether
he comes because he knows about me.' He went and after some exchange of
words, came back and said, 'He says he met a foot-soldier in the Gate of
Akhsī who said to him, "The pādshāh is in such a place," that he told
no-one, put the man with Walī the Treasurer whom he had made prisoner in
the fight, and then gallopped off here.' Said I, 'How does it strike
you?' 'They are all your servants,' he said, 'you must go. What else can
you do? They will make you their ruler.' Said I, 'After such rebellion
and fighting, with what confidence could I go?' We were saying this,
when Yūsuf knelt before me, saying, 'Why should it be hidden? Sl. Aḥmad
Taṃbal has no news of you, but Shaikh Bāyazīd has and he sent me here.'
On hearing this, my state of mind was miserable indeed, for well is it
understood that nothing in the world is worse than fear for one's life.
'Tell the truth!' I said, 'if the affair is likely to go on to worse, I
will make [Sidenote: Fol. 118b.] ablution.' Yūsuf swore oaths, but who
would trust them? I knew the helplessness of my position. I rose and
went to a corner of the garden, saying to myself, 'If a man live a
hundred years or a thousand years, at the last nothing ...'[665]
TRANSLATOR'S NOTE.
Friends are likely to have rescued Bābur from his dangerous isolation.
His presence in Karnān was known both in Ghawā and in Akhsī; Muḥ. Bāqir
Beg was at hand (f. 117); some of those he had dropped in his flight
would follow him when their horses had had rest; Jahāngīr was somewhere
north of the river with the half of Bābur's former force (f. 112); The
Khāns, with their long-extended line of march, may have been on the main
road through or near Karnān. If Yūsuf took Bābur as a prisoner along the
Akhsī road, there were these various chances of his meeting friends.
His danger was evaded; he joined his uncles and was with them, leading
1000 men (Sh. N. p. 268), when they were defeated at Archīān just before
or in the season of Cancer, _i.e._ _circa_ June (T. R. p. 164). What he
was doing between the winter cold of Karnān (f. 117b) and June might
have been known from his lost pages. Muḥ. Ṣāliḥ writes at length of one
affair falling within the time,—Jahāngīr's occupation of Khujand, its
siege and its capture by Shaibānī. This capture will have occurred
considerably more than a month before the defeat of The Khāns (Sh. N. p.
230).
It is not easy to decide in what month of 908 AH. they went into
Farghāna or how long their campaign lasted. Bābur chronicles a series of
occurrences, previous to the march of the army, which must have filled
some time. The road over the Kīndīrlīk-pass was taken, one closed in
Bābur's time (f. 1b) though now open through the winter. Looking at the
rapidity of his own movements in Farghāna, it seems likely that the pass
was crossed after and not before its closed time. If so, the campaign
may have covered 4 or 5 months. Muḥ. Ṣāliḥ's account of Shaibāq's
operations strengthens this view. News that Aḥmad had joined Maḥmūd in
Tāshkīnt (f. 102) went to Shaibānī in Khusrau Shāh's territories; he saw
his interests in Samarkand threatened by this combination of the
Chaghatāī brothers to restore Bābur in Farghāna, came north therefore in
order to help Taṃbal. He then waited a month in Samarkand (Sh. N. p.
230), besieged Jahāngīr, went back and stayed in Samarkand long enough
to give his retainers time to equip for a year's campaigning (l. c. p.
244) then went to Akhsī and so to Archīān.
Bābur's statement (f. 110b) that The Khāns went from Andijān to the
Khujand-crossing over the Sīr attracts attention because this they might
have done if they had meant to leave Farghāna by Mīrzā-rabāṯ but they
are next heard of as at Akhsī. Why did they make that great détour? Why
not have crossed opposite Akhsī or at Sang? Or if they had thought of
retiring, what turned them east again? Did they place Jahāngīr in
Khujand? Bābur's missing pages would have answered these questions no
doubt. It was useful for them to encamp where they did, east of Akhsī,
because they there had near them a road by which reinforcement could
come from Kāshghar or retreat be made. The Akhsī people told Shaibānī
that he could easily overcome The Khāns if he went without warning, and
if they had not withdrawn by the Kulja road (Sh. N. p. 262). By that
road the few men who went with Aḥmad to Tāshkīnt (f. 103) may have been
augmented to the force, enumerated as his in the battle by Muḥ. Ṣāliḥ
(Sh. N. cap. LIII.).
When The Khāns were captured, Bābur escaped and made 'for Mughūlistān,'
a vague direction seeming here to mean Tāshkīnt, but, finding his road
blocked, in obedience to orders from Shaibāq that he and Abū'l-makāram
were to be captured, he turned back and, by unfrequented ways, went into
the hill-country of Sūkh and Hushīār. There he spent about a year in
great misery (f. 14 and Ḥ. S. ii, 318). Of the wretchedness of the time
Ḥaidar also writes. If anything was attempted in Farghāna in the course
of those months, record of it has been lost with Bābur's missing pages.
He was not only homeless and poor, but shut in by enemies. Only the
loyalty or kindness of the hill-tribes can have saved him and his few
followers. His mother was with him; so also were the families of his
men. How Qūtlūq-nigār contrived to join him from Tāshkīnt, though
historically a small matter, is one he would chronicle. What had
happened there after the Mughūl defeat, was that the horde had marched
away for Kāshghar while Shāh Begīm remained in charge of her daughters
with whom the Aūzbeg chiefs intended to contract alliance. Shaibānī's
orders for her stay and for the general exodus were communicated to her
by her son, The Khān, in what Muḥ. Ṣāliḥ, quoting its purport, describes
as a right beautiful letter (p. 296).
By some means Qūtlūq-nigār joined Bābur, perhaps helped by the
circumstance that her daughter, Khān-zāda was Shaibāq's wife. She spent
at least some part of those hard months with him, when his fortunes were
at their lowest ebb. A move becoming imperative, the ragged and
destitute company started in mid-June 1504 (Muḥ. 910 AH.) on that
perilous mountain journey to which Ḥaidar applies the Prophet's dictum,
'Travel is a foretaste of Hell,' but of which the end was the
establishment of a Tīmūrid dynasty in Hindūstān. To look down the years
from the destitute Bābur to Akbar, Shāh-jahān and Aurangzīb is to see a
great stream of human life flow from its source in his resolve to win
upward, his quenchless courage and his abounding vitality. Not yet 22,
the sport of older men's intrigues, he had been tempered by failure,
privation and dangers.
He left Sūkh intending to go to Sl. Ḥusain Mīrzā in Khurāsān but he
changed this plan for one taking him to Kābul where a Tīmūrid might
claim to dispossess the Arghūns, then holding it since the death, in 907
AH. of his uncle, Aūlūgh Beg Mīrzā _Kābulī_.
THE MEMOIRS OF BABUR
SECTION II. KĀBUL[666]
910 AH.-JUNE 14TH 1504 TO JUNE 4TH 1505 AD.[667]
(_a. Bābur leaves Farghāna._)
In the month of Muḥarram, after leaving the Farghāna country [Sidenote:
Ḥaidarābād MS. Fol. 120.] intending to go to Khurāsān, I dismounted at
Aīlāk-yīlāq,[668] one of the summer pastures of Ḥiṣār. In this camp I
entered my 23rd year, and applied the razor to my face.[669] Those who,
hoping in me, went with me into exile, were, small and great, between 2
and 300; they were almost all on foot, had walking-staves in their
hands, brogues[670] on their feet, and long coats[671] on their
shoulders. So destitute were we that we had but two tents (_chādar_)
amongst us; my own used to be pitched for my mother, and they set an
_ālāchūq_ at each stage for me to sit in.[672]
Though we had started with the intention of going into Khurāsān, yet
with things as they were[673] something was hoped for from the Ḥiṣār
country and Khusrau Shāh's retainers. Every few days some-one would come
in from the country or a tribe or the (Mughūl) horde, whose words made
it probable that we had growing ground for hope. Just then Mullā Bābā of
Pashāghar came back, who had been our envoy to Khusrau Shāh; from
Khusrau Shāh he brought nothing likely to please, but he did from the
tribes and the horde.
[Sidenote: Fol. 120b.] Three or four marches beyond Aīlāk, when halt was
made at a place near Ḥiṣār called Khwāja `Imād, Muḥibb-`alī, the
Armourer, came to me from Khusrau Shāh. Through Khusrau Shāh's
territories I have twice happened to pass;[674] renowned though he was
for kindness and liberality, he neither time showed me the humanity he
had shown to the meanest of men.
As we were hoping something from the country and the tribes, we made
delay at every stage. At this critical point Sherīm T̤aghāī, than whom
no man of mine was greater, thought of leaving me because he was not
keen to go into Khurāsān. He had sent all his family off and stayed
himself unencumbered, when after the defeat at Sar-i-pul (906 AH.) I
went back to defend Samarkand; he was a bit of a coward and he did this
sort of thing several times over.
(_b. Bābur joined by one of Khusrau Shāh's kinsmen._)
After we reached Qabādīān, a younger brother of Khusrau Shāh, Bāqī
_Chaghānīānī_, whose holdings were Chaghānīān,[675] Shahr-i-ṣafā and
Tīrmīẕ, sent the _khatīb_[676] of Qarshī to me to express his good
wishes and his desire for alliance, and, after we had crossed the Amū at
the Aūbāj-ferry, he came himself to wait on me. By his wish we moved
down the river to opposite Tīrmīẕ, where, without fear [or, without
going over himself],[677] he had their families[678] and their goods
brought across to join us. This done, we set out together for Kāhmard
and Bāmīān, then held by his son[679] Aḥmad-i-qāsim, the son of Khusrau
Shāh's sister. Our plan was to leave the households (_awī-aīl_) safe in
Fort Ajar of the Kāhmard-valley and to take action wherever [Sidenote:
Fol. 121.] action might seem well. At Aībak, Yār-`alī Balāl,[680] who
had fled from Khusrau Shāh, joined us with several braves; he had been
with me before, and had made good use of his sword several times in my
presence, but was parted from me in the recent throneless times[681] and
had gone to Khusrau Shāh. He represented to me that the Mughūls in
Khusrau Shāh's service wished me well. Moreover, Qaṃbar-`alī Beg, known
also as Qaṃbar-`alī _Silākh_ (Skinner), fled to me after we reached the
Zindān-valley.[682]
(_c. Occurrences in Kākmard._)
We reached Kāhmard with three or four marches and deposited our
households and families in Ajar. While we stayed there, Jahāngīr Mīrzā
married (Aī Begīm) the daughter of Sl. Maḥmūd Mīrzā and Khān-zāda Begīm,
who had been set aside for him during the lifetime of the Mīrzās.[683]
Meantime Bāqī Beg urged it upon me, again and again, that two rulers in
one country, or two chiefs in one army are a source of faction and
disorder—a foundation of dissension and ruin. "For they have said, 'Ten
darwīshes can sleep under one blanket, but two kings cannot find room in
one clime.'
If a man of God eat half a loaf,
He gives the other to a darwīsh;
Let a king grip the rule of a clime,
He dreams of another to grip."[684]
Bāqī Beg urged further that Khusrau Shāah's retainers and followers
would be coming in that day or the next to take service with the Pādshāh
(_i.e._ Bābur); that there were such [Sidenote: Fol. 121b.]
sedition-mongers with them as the sons of Ayūb _Begchīk_, besides other
who had been the stirrers and spurs to disloyalty amongst their
Mīrzās,[685] and that if, at this point, Jahāngīr Mīrzā were dismissed,
on good and friendly terms, for Khurāsān, it would remove a source of
later repentance. Urge it as he would, however, I did not accept his
suggestion, because it is against my nature to do an injury to my
brethren, older or younger,[686] or to any kinsman soever, even when
something untoward has happened. Though formerly between Jahāngīr Mīrzā
and me, resentments and recriminations had occurred about our rule and
retainers, yet there was nothing whatever then to arouse anger against
him; he had come out of that country (_i.e._ Farghāna) with me and was
behaving like a blood-relation and a servant. But in the end it was just
as Bāqī Beg predicted;—those tempters to disloyalty, that is to say,
Ayūb's Yūsuf and Ayūb's Bihlūl, left me for Jahāngīr Mīrzā, took up a
hostile and mutinous position, parted him from me, and conveyed him into
Khurāsān.
(_d. Co-operation invited against Shaibāq Khān._)
In those days came letters from Sl. Ḥusain Mīrzā, long and far-fetched
letters which are still in my possession and in that [Sidenote: Fol.
122.] of others, written to Badī`u'z-zamān Mīrzā, myself, Khusrau Shāh
and Ẕū'n-nūn Beg, all to the same purport, as follows:—"When the three
brothers, Sl. Maḥmūd Mīrzā, Sl. Aḥmad Mīrzā, and Aūlūgh Beg Mīrzā,
joined together and advanced against me, I defended the bank of the
Murgh-āb[687] in such a way that they retired without being able to
effect anything. Now if the Aūzbegs advance, I might myself guard the
bank of the Murgh-āb again; let Badī`u'z-zamān Mīrzā leave men to defend
the forts of Balkh, Shibarghān, and Andikhūd while he himself guards
Girzawān, the Zang-valley, and the hill-country thereabouts." As he had
heard of my being in those parts, he wrote to me also, "Do you make fast
Kāhmard, Ajar, and that hill-tract; let Khusrau Shāh place trusty men in
Ḥiṣār and Qūndūz; let his younger brother Walī make fast Badakhshān and
the Khutlān hills; then the Aūzbeg will retire, able to do nothing."
These letters threw us into despair;—for why? Because at that time there
was in Tīmūr Beg's territory (_yūrt_) no ruler so great as Sl. Ḥusain
Mīrzā, whether by his years, armed strength, or dominions; it was to be
expected, therefore, that envoys would go, treading on each other's
heels, with clear and sharp orders, such as, "Arrange for so many boats
at the Tīrmīz, [Sidenote: Fol. 122b.] Kilīf, and Kīrkī ferries," "Get
any quantity of bridge material together," and "Well watch the ferries
above Tūqūz-aūlūm,"[688] so that men whose spirit years of Aūzbeg
oppression had broken, might be cheered to hope again.[689] But how
could hope live in tribe or horde when a great ruler like Sl. Ḥusain
Mīrzā, sitting in the place of Tīmūr Beg, spoke, not of marching forth
to meet the enemy, but only of defence against his attack?
When we had deposited in Ajar what had come with us of hungry train (_aj
aūrūq_) and household (_awī-aīl_), together with the families of Bāqī
Beg, his son, Muḥ. Qāsim, his soldiers and his tribesmen, with all their
goods, we moved out with our men.
(_e. Increase of Bābur's following._)
One man after another came in from Khusrau Shāh's Mughūls and said, "We
of the Mughūl horde, desiring the royal welfare, have drawn off from
T̤āīkhān (T̤ālīkān) towards Ishkīmīsh and Fūlūl. Let the Pādshāh advance
as fast as possible, for the greater part of Khusrau Shāh's force has
broken up and is ready to take service with him." Just then news arrived
that Shaibāq Khān, after taking Andijān,[690] was getting to horse again
against Ḥiṣār and Qūndūz. On hearing [Sidenote: Fol. 123.] this, Khusrau
Shāh, unable to stay in Qūndūz, marched out with all the men he had, and
took the road for Kābul. No sooner had he left than his old servant, the
able and trusted Mullā Muḥammad _Turkistānī_ made Qūndūz fast for
Shaibāq Khān.
Three or four thousand heads-of-houses in the Mughūl horde, former
dependants of Khusrau Shāh, brought their families and joined us when,
going by way of Sham-tū, we were near the Qīzīl-sū.[691]
(_f. Qaṃbar-`alī, the Skinner, dismissed._)
Qaṃbar-`alī Beg's foolish talk has been mentioned several times already;
his manners were displeasing to Bāqī Beg; to gratify Bāqī Beg, he was
dismissed. Thereafter his son, `Abdu'l-shukūr, was in Jahāngīr Mīrzā's
service.
(_g. Khusrau Shāh waits on Bābur._)
Khusrau Shāh was much upset when he heard that the Mughūl horde had
joined me; seeing nothing better to do for himself, he sent his
son-in-law, Ayūb's Yaq`ūb, to make profession of well-wishing and
submission to me, and respectfully to represent that he would enter my
service if I would make terms and compact with him. His offer was
accepted, because Bāqī _Chaghānīānī_ was a man of weight, and, however
steady in his favourable disposition to me, did not overlook his
brother's side in this matter. Compact was made that Khusrau Shāh's
life should be safe, and that whatever amount of his goods he selected,
should not be refused him. After giving Yaq`ūb leave to go, we marched
down the Qīzīl-sū and dismounted near to where it joins the water of
Andar-āb. [Sidenote: Fol. 123b.]
Next day, one in the middle of the First Rabī` (end of August, 1504
AD.), riding light, I crossed the Andar-āb water and took my seat under
a large plane-tree near Dūshī, and thither came Khusrau Shāh, in pomp
and splendour, with a great company of men. According to rule and
custom, he dismounted some way off and then made his approach. Three
times he knelt when we saw one another, three times also on taking
leave; he knelt once when asking after my welfare, once again when he
offered his tribute, and he did the same with Jahāngīr Mīrzā and with
Mīrzā Khān (Wais). That sluggish old mannikin who through so many years
had just pleased himself, lacking of sovereignty one thing only, namely,
to read the _Khuṯba_ in his own name, now knelt 25 or 26 times in
succession, and came and went till he was so wearied out that he
tottered forward. His many years of begship and authority vanished from
his view. When we had seen one another and he had offered his gift, I
desired him to be seated. We stayed in that place for one or two
_garīs_,[692] exchanging tale and talk. His conversation was vapid and
empty, presumably because he was a coward and false to his salt. Two
things he said were extraordinary for the time when, under his eyes, his
trusty and trusted retainers were becoming mine, and when his affairs
had reached the point that he, the sovereign-aping mannikin, had had to
come, willy-nilly, abased and unhonoured, to what sort [Sidenote: Fol.
124.] of an interview! One of the things he said was this:—When condoled
with for the desertion of his men, he replied, "Those very servants have
four times left me and returned." The other was said when I had asked
him where his brother Walī would cross the Amū and when he would arrive.
"If he find a ford, he will soon be here, but when waters rise, fords
change; the (Persian) proverb has it, 'The waters have carried down the
fords.'" These words God brought to his tongue in that hour of the
flowing away of his own authority and following!
After sitting a _garī_ or two, I mounted and rode back to camp, he for
his part returning to his halting-place. On that day his begs, with
their servants, great and small, good and bad, and tribe after tribe
began to desert him and come, with their families, to me. Between the
two Prayers of the next afternoon not a man remained in his presence.
"Say,—O God! who possessest the kingdom! Thou givest it to whom Thou
wilt and Thou takest it from whom Thou wilt! In Thy hand is good, for
Thou art almighty."[693]
Wonderful is His power! This man, once master of 20 or 30,000 retainers,
once owning Sl. Maḥmūd's dominions from Qaḥlūgha,—known also as the
Iron-gate,—to the range of [Sidenote: Fol. 124b.] Hindū-kush, whose old
mannikin of a tax-gatherer, Ḥasan _Barlās_ by name, had made us march,
had made us halt, with all the tax-gatherer's roughness, from Aīlāk to
Aūbāj,[694] that man He so abased and so bereft of power that, with no
blow struck, no sound made, he stood, without command over servants,
goods, or life, in the presence of a band of 200 or 300 men, defeated
and destitute as we were.
In the evening of the day on which we had seen Khusrau Shāh and gone
back to camp, Mīrzā Khān came to my presence and demanded vengeance on
him for the blood of his brothers.[695] Many of us were at one with him,
for truly it is right, both by Law and common justice, that such men
should get their desserts, but, as terms had been made, Khusrau Shāh was
let go free. An order was given that he should be allowed to take
whatever of his goods he could convey; accordingly he loaded up, on
three or four strings of mules and camels, all jewels, gold, silver, and
precious things he had, and took them with him.[696] Sherīm T̤aghāī was
told off to escort him, who after setting Khusrau Shāh on his road for
Khurāsān, by way of Ghūrī and Dahānah, was to go to Kāhmard and bring
the families after us to Kābul.
(_h. Bābur marches for Kābul._)
Marching from that camp for Kābul, we dismounted in Khwāja Zaid.
On that day, Ḥamza Bī _Mangfīt_,[697] at the head of Aūzbeg raiders, was
over-running round about Dūshī. Sayyid Qāsim, the Lord of the Gate, and
Aḥmad-i-qāsim _Kohbur_ were sent [Sidenote: Fol. 125.] with several
braves against him; they got up with him, beat his Aūzbegs well, cut off
and brought in a few heads.
In this camp all the armour (_jība_) of Khusrau Shāh's armoury was
shared out. There may have been as many as 7 or 800 coats-of-mail
(_joshan_) and horse accoutrements (_kūhah_);[698] these were the one
thing he left behind; many pieces of porcelain also fell into our hands,
but, these excepted, there was nothing worth looking at.
With four or five marches we reached Ghūr-bund, and there dismounted in
Ushtur-shahr. We got news there that Muqīm's chief beg, Sherak (var.
Sherka) _Arghūn_, was lying along the Bārān, having led an army out, not
through hearing of me, but to hinder `Abdu'r-razzāq Mīrzā from passing
along the Panjhīr-road, he having fled from Kābul[699] and being then
amongst the Tarkalānī Afghāns towards Lamghān. On hearing this we
marched forward, starting in the afternoon and pressing on through the
dark till, with the dawn, we surmounted the Hūpīān-pass.[700]
I had never seen Suhail;[701] when I came out of the pass I saw a star,
bright and low. "May not that be Suhail?" said I. Said they, "It is
Suhail." Bāqī _Chaghānīānī_ recited this couplet;—[702]
"How far dost thou shine, O Suhail, and where dost thou rise?
A sign of good luck is thine eye to the man on whom it may light."
The Sun was a spear's-length high[703] when we reached the foot of the
Sanjid (Jujube)-valley and dismounted. Our scouting [Sidenote: Fol.
125b.] braves fell in with Sherak below the Qarā-bāgh,[704] near
Aīkarī-yār, and straightway got to grips with him. After a little of
some sort of fighting, our men took the upper hand, hurried their
adversaries off, unhorsed 70-80 serviceable braves and brought them in.
We gave Sherak his life and he took service with us.
(_i. Death of Walī of Khusrau._)
The various clans and tribes whom Khusrau Shāh, without troubling
himself about them, had left in Qūndūz, and also the Mughūl horde, were
in five or six bodies (_būlāk_). One of those belonging to
Badakhshān,—it was the Rūstā-hazāra,:—came, with Sayyidīm `Alī
_darbān_,[705] across the Panjhīr-pass to this camp, did me obeisance
and took service with me. Another body came under Ayūb's Yūsuf and
Ayūb's Bihlūl; it also took service with me. Another came from Khutlān,
under Khusrau Shāh's younger brother, Walī; another, consisting of the
(Mughūl) tribesmen (_aīmāq_) who had been located in Yīlānchaq, Nikdiri
(?), and the Qūndūz country, came also. The last-named two came by
Andar-āb and Sar-i-āb,[706] meaning to cross by the Panjhīr-pass; at
Sar-i-āb the tribesmen were ahead; Walī came up behind; they held the
road, fought and beat him. He himself fled to the Aūzbegs,[707] and
Shaibāq Khān had his head struck off in the Square (_Chār-sū_) of
Samarkand; his followers, beaten and plundered, came on with the
tribesmen, and like these, took service with me. With them came Sayyid
[Sidenote: Fol. 126.] Yūsuf Beg (the Grey-wolfer).
(_j. Kābul gained._)
From that camp we marched to the Āq-sarāī meadow of the Qarā-bāgh and
there dismounted. Khusrau Shāh's people were well practised in
oppression and violence; they tyrannized over one after another till at
last I had up one of Sayyidīm `Alī's good braves to my Gate[708] and
there beaten for forcibly taking a jar of oil. There and then he just
died under the blows; his example kept the rest down.
We took counsel in that camp whether or not to go at once against Kābul.
Sayyid Yūsuf and some others thought that, as winter was near, our first
move should be into Lamghān, from which place action could be taken as
advantage offered. Bāqī Beg and some others saw it good to move on Kābul
at once; this plan was adopted; we marched forward and dismounted in
Ābā-qūrūq.
My mother and the belongings left behind in Kāhmard rejoined us at
Ābā-qūrūq. They had been in great danger, the particulars of which are
these:—Sherīm T̤aghāī had gone to set Khusrau Shāh on his way for
Khurāsān, and this done, was to fetch the families from Kāhmard. When he
reached Dahānah, he found he was not his own master; Khusrau Shāh went
on with him into Kāhmard, where was his sister's son, Aḥmad-i-qāsim.
These two took up an altogether wrong [Sidenote: Fol. 126b.] position
towards the families in Kāhmard. Hereupon a number of Bāqī Beg's
Mughūls, who were with the families, arranged secretly with Sherīm
T̤aghāī to lay hands on Khusrau Shāh and Aḥmad-i-qāsim. The two heard of
it, fled along the Kāhmard-valley on the Ajar side[709] and made for
Khurāsān. To bring this about was really what Sherīm T̤aghāī and the
Mughūls wanted. Set free from their fear of Khusrau Shāh by his flight,
those in charge of the families got them out of Ajar, but when they
reached Kāhmard, the Sāqānchī (var. Asīqanchī) tribe blocked the road,
like an enemy, and plundered the families of most of Bāqī Beg's
men.[710] They made prisoner Qul-i-bāyazīd's little son, Tīzak; he came
into Kābul three or four years later. The plundered and unhappy families
crossed by the Qībchāq-pass, as we had done, and they rejoined us in
Ābā-qūrūq.
Leaving that camp we went, with one night's halt, to the Chālāk-meadow,
and there dismounted. After counsel taken, it was decided to lay siege
to Kābul, and we marched forward. With what men of the centre there
were, I dismounted between Ḥaidar _Tāqī's_[711] garden and the tomb of
Qul-i-bāyazīd, the Taster (_bakāwal_);[712] Jahāngīr Mīrzā, with the men
of the right, [Sidenote: Fol. 127.] dismounted in my great Four-gardens
(_Chār-bāgh_), Nāṣir Mīrzā, with the left, in the meadow of
Qūtlūq-qadam's tomb. People of ours went repeatedly to confer with
Muqīm; they sometimes brought excuses back, sometimes words making for
agreement. His tactics were the sequel of his dispatch, directly after
Sherak's defeat, of a courier to his father and elder brother (in
Qandahār); he made delays because he was hoping in them.
One day our centre, right, and left were ordered to put on their mail
and their horses' mail, to go close to the town, and to display their
equipment so as to strike terror on those within. Jahāngīr Mīrzā and the
right went straight forward by the Kūcha-bāgh;[713] I, with the centre,
because there was water, went along the side of Qūtlūq-qadam's tomb to a
mound facing the rising-ground;[714] the van collected above
Qūtlūq-qadam's bridge,—at that time, however, there was no bridge. When
the braves, showing themselves off, galloped close up to the
Curriers'-gate,[715] a few who had come out through it fled in again
without making any stand. A crowd of Kābulīs who had come out to see the
sight raised a great dust when they ran away from the high slope of the
glacis of the citadel (_i.e._ Bālā-ḥiṣār). A number of pits had been dug
up the rise [Sidenote: Fol. 127b.] between the bridge and the gate, and
hidden under sticks and rubbish; Sl. Qulī _Chūnāq_ and several others
were thrown as they galloped over them. A few braves of the right
exchanged sword-cuts with those who came out of the town, in amongst
the lanes and gardens, but as there was no order to engage, having done
so much, they retired.
Those in the fort becoming much perturbed, Muqīm made offer through the
begs, to submit and surrender the town. Bāqī Beg his mediator, he came
and waited on me, when all fear was chased from his mind by our entire
kindness and favour. It was settled that next day he should march out
with retainers and following, goods and effects, and should make the
town over to us. Having in mind the good practice Khusrau Shāh's
retainers had had in indiscipline and longhandedness, we appointed
Jahāngīr Mīrzā and Nāṣir Mīrzā with the great and household begs, to
escort Muqīm's family out of Kābul[716] and to bring out Muqīm himself
with his various dependants, goods and effects. Camping-ground was
assigned to him at Tīpa.[717] When the Mīrzās and the Begs went at dawn
to the Gate, they saw much mobbing and tumult of the common people, so
they sent me a man to say, "Unless you come yourself, there will be no
holding these people in." In the end I got to horse, had two or three
persons shot, two or three cut in pieces, and so stamped the rising
down. Muqīm and his belongings then got out, safe and sound, [Sidenote:
Fol. 128.] and they betook themselves to Tīpa.
It was in the last ten days of the Second Rabī` (Oct. 1504 AD.)[718]
that without a fight, without an effort, by Almighty God's bounty and
mercy, I obtained and made subject to me Kābul and Ghaznī and their
dependent districts.
DESCRIPTION OF KĀBUL[719]
The Kābul country is situated in the Fourth climate and in the midst of
cultivated lands.[720] On the east it has the Lamghānāt,[721]
Parashāwar (Pashāwar), Hash(t)-nagar and some of the countries of
Hindūstān. On the west it has the mountain region in which are Karnūd
(?) and Ghūr, now the refuge and dwelling-places of the Hazāra and
Nikdīrī (var. Nikudārī) tribes. On the north, separated from it by the
range of Hindū-kush, it has the Qūndūz and Andar-āb countries. On the
south, it has Farmūl, Naghr (var. Naghz), Bannū and Afghānistān.[722]
(_a. Town and environs of Kābul._)
The Kābul district itself is of small extent, has its greatest length
from east to west, and is girt round by mountains. Its walled-town
connects with one of these, rather a low one known as Shāh-of-Kābul
because at some time a (Hindū) Shāh of Kābul built a residence on its
summit.[723] Shāh-of-Kābul begins at the Dūrrīn narrows and ends at
those of Dih-i-yaq`ūb[724]; it may be 4 miles (2 _shar`ī_) round; its
skirt is covered with gardens fertilized from a canal which was brought
along the hill-slope in the time of my paternal uncle, Aūlūgh Beg Mīrzā
by his guardian, Wais Atāka.[725] The water of this canal comes to an
end in a retired corner, a quarter known as Kul-kīna[726] where much
debauchery has gone on. About this place it [Sidenote: Fol. 128b.]
sometimes used to be said, in jesting parody of Khwāja Ḥāfiẓ[727],—"Ah!
the happy, thoughtless time when, with our names in ill-repute, we lived
days of days at Kul-kīna!"
East of Shāh-of-Kabūl and south of the walled-town lies a large
pool[728] about a 2 miles [_shar`ī_] round. From the town side of the
mountain three smallish springs issue, two near Kul-kīna; Khwāja
Shamū's[729] tomb is at the head of one; Khwāja Khiẓr's Qadam-gāh[730]
at the head of another, and the third is at a place known as Khwāja
Raushānāī, over against Khwāja `Abdu'ṣ-ṣamad. On a detached rock of a
spur of Shāh-of-Kābul, known as `Uqābain,[731] stands the citadel of
Kābul with the great walled-town at its north end, lying high in
excellent air, and overlooking the large pool already mentioned, and
also three meadows, namely, Siyāh-sang (Black-rock), Sūng-qūrghān
(Fort-back), and Chālāk (Highwayman?),—a most beautiful outlook when the
meadows are green. The north-wind does not fail Kābul in the heats;
people call it the Parwān-wind[732]; it makes a delightful temperature
in the windowed houses on the northern part of the citadel. In praise of
the citadel of Kābul, Mullā Muḥammad _T̤ālib Mu`ammāī_ (the
Riddler)[733]
[Sidenote: Fol. 129.] used to recite this couplet, composed on
Badī`u'z-zamān Mīrzā's name:—
Drink wine in the castle of Kābul and send the cup round
without pause;
For Kābul is mountain, is river, is city, is lowland in one.[734]
(_b. Kābul as a trading-town._)
Just as `Arabs call every place outside `Arab (Arabia), `Ajam, so
Hindūstānīs call every place outside Hindūstān, Khurāsān. There are two
trade-marts on the land-route between Hindūstān and Khurāsān; one is
Kābul, the other, Qandahār. To Kābul caravans come from Kāshghar,[735]
Farghāna,Turkistān, Samarkand, Bukhārā, Balkh, Ḥiṣār and Badakhshān. To
Qandahār they come from Khurāsān. Kābul is an excellent trading-centre;
if merchants went to Khīta or to Rūm,[736] they might make no higher
profit. Down to Kābul every year come 7, 8, or 10,000 horses and up to
it, from Hindūstān, come every year caravans of 10, 15 or 20,000
heads-of-houses, bringing slaves (_barda_), white cloth, sugar-candy,
refined and common sugars, and aromatic roots. Many a trader is not
content with a profit of 30 or 40 on 10.[737] In Kābul can be had the
products of Khurāsān, Rūm, `Irāq and Chīn (China); while it is
Hindūstān's own market.
(_c. Products and climate of Kābul._)
In the country of Kābul, there are hot and cold districts close to one
another. In one day, a man may go out of the town of Kābul to where snow
never falls, or he may go, in two sidereal [Sidenote: Fol. 129b.] hours,
to where it never thaws, unless when the heats are such that it cannot
possibly lie.
Fruits of hot and cold climates are to be had in the districts near the
town. Amongst those of the cold climate, there are had in the town the
grape, pomegranate, apricot, apple, quince, pear, peach, plum,
_sinjid_, almond and walnut.[738] I had cuttings of the _ālū-bālū_[739]
brought there and planted; they grew and have done well. Of fruits of
the hot climate people bring into the town;—from the Lamghānāt, the
orange, citron, _amlūk_ (_diospyrus lotus_), and sugar-cane; this last I
had had brought and planted there;[740]—from Nijr-au (Nijr-water), they
bring the _jīl-ghūza,[741] and, from the hill-tracts, much honey.
Bee-hives are in use; it_ is only from towards Ghaznī, that no honey
comes.
The rhubarb[742] of the Kābul district is good, its quinces and plums
very good, so too its _badrang_;[743] it grows an excellent grape, known
as the water-grape.[744] Kābul wines are heady, those of the Khwāja
Khāwand Sa`īd hill-skirt being famous for their strength; at this time
however I can only repeat the praise of others about them:—[745]
The flavour of the wine a drinker knows;
What chance have sober men to know it?
Kābul is not fertile in grain, a four or five-fold return is reckoned
good there; nor are its melons first-rate, but they are not altogether
bad when grown from Khurāsān seed.
It has a very pleasant climate; if the world has another so pleasant, it
is not known. Even in the heats, one cannot sleep at night without a
fur-coat.[746] Although the snow in most places lies deep in winter, the
cold is not excessive; whereas in [Sidenote: Fol. 130.] Samarkand and
Tabrīz, both, like Kābul, noted for their pleasant climate, the cold is
extreme.
(_d. Meadows of Kābul._)
There are good meadows on the four sides of Kābul. An excellent one,
Sūng-qūrghān, is some 4 miles (2 _kuroh_) to the north-east; it has
grass fit for horses and few mosquitos. To the north-west is the Chālāk
meadow, some 2 miles (1 _shar`ī_) away, a large one but in it mosquitos
greatly trouble the horses. On the west is the Dūrrīn, in fact there are
two, Tīpa and Qūsh-nādir (var. nāwar),—if two are counted here, there
would be five in all. Each of these is about 2 miles from the town; both
are small, have grass good for horses, and no mosquitos; Kābul has no
others so good. On the east is the Siyāh-sang meadow with Qūtlūq-qadam's
tomb[747] between it and the Currier's-gate; it is not worth much
because, in the heats, it swarms with mosquitos. Kamarī[748] meadow
adjoins it; counting this in, the meadows of Kābul would be six, but
they are always spoken of as four.
(_e. Mountain-passes into Kābul._)
The country of Kābul is a fastness hard for a foreign foe to make his
way into.
The Hindū-kush mountains, which separate Kābul from Balkh, Qūndūz and
Badakhshān, are crossed by seven roads.[749] Three of these lead out of
Panjhīr (Panj-sher), _viz._ Khawāk, the uppermost, T̤ūl, the next lower,
and Bāzārak.[750] Of the passes on them, the one on the T̤ūl road is the
best, but the road itself is rather [Sidenote: Fol. 130b.] the longest
whence, seemingly, it is called T̤ūl. Bāzārak is the most direct; like
T̤ūl, it leads over into Sar-i-āb; as it passes through Pārandī, local
people call its main pass, the Pārandī. Another road leads up
through Parwān; it has seven minor passes, known as Haft-bacha
(Seven-younglings), between Parwān and its main pass (Bāj-gāh). It is
joined at its main pass by two roads from Andar-āb, which go on to
Parwān by it. This is a road full of difficulties. Out of Ghūr-bund,
again, three roads lead over. The one next to Parwān, known as the
Yāngī-yūl pass (New-road), goes through Wālīān to Khinjan; next above
this is the Qīpchāq road, crossing to where the water of Andar-āb meets
the Sūrkh-āb (Qīzīl-sū); this also is an excellent road; and the third
leads over the Shibr-tū pass;[751] those crossing by this in the heats
take their way by Bāmīān and Saighān, but those crossing by it in
winter, go on by Āb-dara (Water-valley).[752] Shibr-tū excepted, all the
Hindū-kush roads are closed for three or four months in winter,[753]
because no road through a valley-bottom is passable when the waters are
high. If any-one thinks to cross the Hindū-kush at that time, over the
mountains instead of through a valley-bottom, his journey is hard
indeed. The time to cross is during the three or four autumn months when
the snow is less and the waters are low. [Sidenote: Fol. 131.] Whether
on the mountains or in the valley-bottoms, Kāfir highwaymen are not few.
The road from Kābul into Khurāsān passes through Qandahār; it is quite
level, without a pass.
Four roads lead into Kābul from the Hindūstān side; one by rather a low
pass through the Khaibar mountains, another by way of Bangash, another
by way of Naghr (var. Naghz),[754] and another through Farmūl;[755] the
passes being low also in the three last-named. These roads are all
reached from three ferries over the Sind. Those who take the Nīl-āb[756]
ferry, come on through the Lamghānāt.[757] In winter, however, people
ford the Sind-water (at Hāru) above its junction with the
Kābul-water,[758] and ford this also. In most of my expeditions into
Hindūstān, I crossed those fords, but this last time (932 AH.-1525 AD.),
when I came, defeated Sl. Ibrāhīm and conquered the country, I crossed
by boat at Nīl-āb. Except at the one place mentioned above, the
Sind-water can be crossed only by boat. Those again, who cross at
Dīn-kot[759] go on through Bangash. Those crossing at Chaupāra, if they
take the Farmūl road, go on to Ghaznī, or, if they go by the Dasht, go
on to Qandahār.[760]
(_f. Inhabitants of Kābul._)
There are many differing tribes in the Kābul country; in its dales and
plains are Turks and clansmen[761] and `Arabs; in its town and in many
villages, Sārts; out in the districts and also [Sidenote: Fol. 131b.] in
villages are the Pashāī, Parājī, Tājīk, Bīrkī and Afghān tribes. In the
western mountains are the Hazāra and Nikdīrī tribes, some of whom speak
the Mughūlī tongue. In the north-eastern mountains are the places of the
Kāfirs, such as Kitūr (Gawār?) and Gibrik. To the south are the places
of the Afghān tribes.
Eleven or twelve tongues are spoken in Kābul,—`Arabī, Persian, Turkī,
Mughūlī, Hindī, Afghānī, Pashāī, Parājī, Gibrī, Bīrkī and Lamghānī. If
there be another country with so many differing tribes and such a
diversity of tongues, it is not known.
(_e. Sub-divisions of the Kābul country._)
The [Kābul] country has fourteen _tūmāns_.[762]
Bajaur, Sawād and Hash-nagar may at one time have been dependencies of
Kābul, but they now have no resemblance to cultivated countries
(_wilāyāt_), some lying desolate because of the Afghāns, others being
now subject to them.
In the east of the country of Kābul is the Lamghānāt, 5 _tūmāns_ and 2
_bulūks_ of cultivated lands.[763] The largest of these is Nīngnahār,
sometimes written Nagarahār in the histories.[764] Its _dārogha's_
residence is in Adīnapūr,[765] some 13 _yīghāch_ east of Kābul by a very
bad and tiresome road, going in three or four places over small
hill-passes, and in three or four others, through [Sidenote: Fol. 132.]
narrows.[766] So long as there was no cultivation along it, the
Khirilchī and other Afghān thieves used to make it their beat, but it
has become safe[767] since I had it peopled at Qarā-tū,[768] below
Qūrūq-sāī. The hot and cold climates are separated on this road by the
pass of Bādām-chashma (Almond-spring); on its Kābul side snow falls,
none at Qūrūq-sāī, towards the Lamghānāt.[769] After descending this
pass, another world comes into view, other trees, other plants (or
grasses), other animals, and other manners and customs of men. Nīngnahār
is nine torrents (_tūqūz-rūd_).[770] It grows good crops of rice and
corn, excellent and abundant oranges, citrons and pomegranates. In 914
AH. (1508-9 AD.) I laid out the Four-gardens, known as the Bāgh-i-wafā
(Garden-of-fidelity), on a rising-ground, facing south and having the
Sūrkh-rūd between it and Fort Adīnapūr.[771] There oranges, citrons and
pomegranates grow in abundance. The year I defeated Pahār Khān and took
Lāhor and Dipālpūr,[772] I had plantains (bananas) brought and planted
there; they did very well. The year before I had had sugar-cane planted
there; it also did well; some of it was sent to Bukhārā and
Badakhshān.[773] The garden lies high, has running-water close at hand,
and a mild winter [Sidenote: Fol. 132b.] climate. In the middle of it, a
one-mill stream flows constantly past the little hill on which are the
four garden-plots. In the south-west part of it there is a reservoir, 10
by 10,[774] round which are orange-trees and a few pomegranates, the
whole encircled by a trefoil-meadow. This is the best part of the
garden, a most beautiful sight when the oranges take colour. Truly that
garden is admirably situated!
The Safed-koh runs along the south of Nīngnahār, dividing it from
Bangash; no riding-road crosses it; nine torrents (_tūqūz-rūd_) issue
from it.[775] It is called Safed-koh[776] because its snow never
lessens; none falls in the lower parts of its valleys, a half-day's
journey from the snow-line. Many places along it have an excellent
climate; its waters are cold and need no ice.
The Sūrkh-rūd flows along the south of Adīnapūr. The fort stands on a
height having a straight fall to the river of some 130 ft. (40-50
_qārī_) and isolated from the mountain behind it on the north; it is
very strongly placed. That mountain runs between Nīngnahār and
Lamghān[777]; on its head snow falls when it snows [Sidenote: Fol. 133.]
in Kābul, so Lamghānīs know when it has snowed in the town.
In going from Kābul into the Lamghānāt,[778]—if people come by
Qūrūq-sāī, one road goes on through the Dīrī-pass, crosses the
Bārān-water at Būlān, and so on into the Lamghānāt,—another goes through
Qarā-tū, below Qūrūq-sāī, crosses the Bārān-water at Aūlūgh-nūr
(Great-rock?), and goes into Lamghān by the pass of Bād-i-pīch.[779] If
however people come by Nijr-aū, they traverse Badr-aū (Tag-aū), and
Qarā-nakariq (?), and go on through the pass of Bād-i-pīch.
Although Nīngnahār is one of the five _tūmāns_ of the Lamghān _tūmān_
the name Lamghānāt applies strictly only to the three (mentioned below).
One of the three is the `Alī-shang _tūmān_, to the north of which are
fastness-mountains, connecting with Hindū-kush and inhabited by Kāfirs
only. What of Kāfiristān lies nearest to `Alī-shang, is Mīl out of which
its torrent issues. The tomb of Lord Lām,[780] father of his Reverence
the prophet Nuḥ (Noah), is in this _tūmān_. In some histories he is
called Lamak and Lamakān. Some people are observed often to change _kāf_
for _ghain_ (_k_ for _gh_); it would seem to be on this account that the
country is called Lamghān.
The second is Alangār. The part of Kāfiristān nearest to it is Gawār
(Kawār), out of which its torrent issues (the Gau or Kau). This torrent
joins that of `Alī-shang and flows with it [Sidenote: Fol. 133b.] into
the Bārān-water, below Mandrāwar, which is the third _tūmān_ of the
Lamghānāt.
Of the two _bulūks_ of Lamghān one is the Nūr-valley.[781] This is a
place (_yīr_) without a second[782]; its fort is on a beak (_tūmshūq_)
of rock in the mouth of the valley, and has a torrent on each side; its
rice is grown on steep terraces, and it can be traversed by one road
only.[783] It has the orange, citron and other fruits of hot climates in
abundance, a few dates even. Trees cover the banks of both the torrents
below the fort; many are _amlūk_, the fruit of which some Turks call
_qarā-yīmīsh_;[784] here they are many, but none have been seen
elsewhere. The valley grows grapes also, all trained on trees.[785] Its
wines are those of Lamghān that have reputation. Two sorts of grapes are
grown, the _arah-tāshī_ and the _sūhān-tāshī_;[786] the first are
yellowish, the second, full-red of fine colour. The first make the more
cheering wine, but it must be said that neither wine equals its
reputation for cheer. High up in one of its glens, apes (_maimūn_) are
found, none below. Those people (_i.e._ Nūrīs) used to keep swine but
they have given it up in our time.[787]
Another _tūmān_ of Lamghān is Kūnār-with-Nūr-gal. It lies somewhat
out-of-the-way, remote from the Lamghānāt, with its borders in amongst
the Kāfir lands; on these accounts its people give in tribute rather
little of what they have. The Chaghān-sarāī [Sidenote: Fol. 134.] water
enters it from the north-east, passes on into the _bulūk_ of Kāma, there
joins the Bārān-water and with that flows east.
Mīr Sayyid `Alī _Hamadānī_,[788]—God's mercy on him!—coming here as he
journeyed, died 2 miles (1 _shar`ī_) above Kūnār. His disciples carried
his body to Khutlān. A shrine was erected at the honoured place of his
death, of which I made the circuit when I came and took Chaghān-sarāī in
920 AH.[789]
The orange, citron and coriander[790] abound in this _tūmān_. Strong
wines are brought down into it from Kāfiristān.
A strange thing is told there, one seeming impossible, but one told to
us again and again. All through the hill-country above Multa-kundī,
_viz._ in Kūnār, Nūr-gal, Bajaur, Sawād and thereabouts, it is commonly
said that when a woman dies and has been laid on a bier, she, if she has
not been an ill-doer, gives the bearers such a shake when they lift the
bier by its four sides, that against their will and hindrance, her
corpse falls to the ground; but, if she has done ill, no movement
occurs. This was heard not only from Kūnārīs but, again and again, in
Bajaur, [Sidenote: Fol. 134b.] Sawād and the whole hill-tract.
Ḥaidar-`alī _Bajaurī_,—a sulṯān who governed Bajaur well,—when his
mother died, did not weep, or betake himself to lamentation, or put on
black, but said, "Go! lay her on the bier! if she move not, I will have
her burned."[792] They laid her on the bier; the desired movement
followed; when he heard that this was so, he put on black and betook
himself to lamentation.
(_Authors note to Multa-kundī._) As Multa-kundī is known the
lower part of the _tūmān_ of Kūnār-with-Nūr-gal; what is below
(_i.e._ on the river) belongs to the valley of Nūr and to
Atar.[791]
Another _bulūk_ is Chaghān-sarāī,[793] a single village with little
land, in the mouth of Kāfiristān; its people, though Muṣalmān, mix with
the Kāfirs and, consequently, follow their customs.[794] A great torrent
(the Kūnār) comes down to it from the north-east from behind Bajaur, and
a smaller one, called Pīch, comes down out of Kāfiristān. Strong
yellowish wines are had there, not in any way resembling those of the
Nūr-valley, however. The village has no grapes or vineyards of its own;
its wines are all brought from up the Kāfiristān-water and from
Pīch-i-kāfiristānī.
The Pīch Kāfirs came to help the villagers when I took the place. Wine
is so commonly used there that every Kāfir has his leathern wine-bag
(_khīg_) at his neck, and drinks wine instead of water.[795]
Kāma, again, though not a separate district but dependent on Nīngnahār,
is also called a _bulūk_.[796] [Sidenote: Fol. 135.]
Nijr-aū[797] is another _tūmān_. It lies north of Kābul, in the
Kohistān, with mountains behind it inhabited solely by Kāfirs; it is a
quite sequestered place. It grows grapes and fruits in abundance. Its
people make much wine but, they boil it. They fatten many fowls in
winter, are wine-bibbers, do not pray, have no scruples and are
Kāfir-like.[798]
In the Nijr-aū mountains is an abundance of _archa_, _jīlghūza_, _bīlūt_
and _khanjak_.[799] The first-named three do not grow above Nigr-aū but
they grow lower, and are amongst the trees of Hindūstān. _Jīlghūza_-wood
is all the lamp the people have; it burns like a candle and is very
remarkable. The flying-squirrel[800] is found in these mountains, an
animal larger than a bat and having a curtain (_parda_), like a bat's
wing, between its arms and legs. People often brought one in; it is said
to fly, downward from one tree to another, as far as a _giz_ flies;[801]
I myself have never seen one fly. Once we put one to a tree; it
clambered up directly and got away, but, when people went after it, it
spread its wings and came down, without hurt, as if it had flown.
Another of the curiosities of the Nijr-aū mountains is the _lūkha_
(var. _lūja_) bird, called also _bū-qalamūn_ (chameleon) because,
between head and tail, it has four or five changing colours,
resplendent like a pigeon's throat.[802] It is about as large as the
_kabg-i-darī_ and seems to be the _kabg-i-darī_ of Hindūstān.[803]
People tell this wonderful thing about it:—When the birds, at [Sidenote:
Fol. 135b.] the on-set of winter, descend to the hill-skirts, if they
come over a vineyard, they can fly no further and are taken.[804] There
is a kind of rat in Nijr-aū, known as the musk-rat, which smells of
musk; I however have never seen it.[805]
Panjhīr (Panj-sher) is another _tūmān_; it lies close to Kāfiristān,
along the Panjhīr road, and is the thoroughfare of Kāfir highwaymen who
also, being so near, take tax of it. They have gone through it, killing
a mass of persons, and doing very evil deeds, since I came this last
time and conquered Hindūstān (932 AH.-1526 AD.).[806]
Another is the _tūmān_ of Ghūr-bund. In those countries they call a
_kūtal_ (_koh_?) a _bund_;[807] they go towards Ghūr by this pass
(_kūtal_); apparently it is for this reason that they have called (the
_tūmān_?) Ghūr-bund. The Hazāra hold the heads of its valleys.[808] It
has few villages and little revenue can be raised from it. There are
said to be mines of silver and lapis lazuli in its mountains.
Again, there are the villages on the skirts of the (Hindū-kush)
mountains,[809] with Mīta-kacha and Parwān at their head, and
Dūr-nāma[810] at their foot, 12 or 13 in all. They are fruit-bearing
villages, and they grow cheering wines, those of Khwāja Khāwand Sa`īd
being reputed the strongest roundabouts. The villages all lie on the
foot-hills; some pay taxes but not all are taxable because they lie so
far back in the mountains.
Between the foot-hills and the Bārān-water are two detached stretches of
level land, one known as _Kurrat-tāziyān_,[811] the other as
_Dasht-i-shaikh_ (Shaikh's-plain). As the green grass of the millet[812]
grows well there, they are the resort of Turks and [Sidenote: Fol. 136.]
(Mughūl) clans (_aīmāq_).
Tulips of many colours cover these foot-hills; I once counted them up;
it came out at 32 or 33 different sorts. We named one the Rose-scented,
because its perfume was a little like that of the red rose; it grows by
itself on Shaikh's-plain, here and nowhere else. The Hundred-leaved
tulip is another; this grows, also by itself, at the outlet of the
Ghūr-bund narrows, on the hill-skirt below Parwān. A low hill known as
Khwāja Reg-i-rawān (Khwāja-of-the-running-sand), divides the afore-named
two pieces of level land; it has, from top to foot, a strip of sand from
which people say the sound of nagarets and tambours issues in the
heats.[813]
Again, there are the villages depending on Kābul itself. South-west from
the town are great snow mountains[814] where snow falls on snow, and
where few may be the years when, falling, it does not light on last
year's snow. It is fetched, 12 miles may-be, from these mountains, to
cool the drinking water when ice-houses in Kābul are empty. Like the
Bāmiān mountains, these are fastnesses. Out of them issue the Harmand
(Halmand), Sind, Dūghāba of Qūndūz, and Balkh-āb,[815] so that in a
single day, a man might drink of the water of each of these four rivers.
It is on the skirt of one of these ranges (Pamghān) that most of the
villages dependent on Kābul lie.[816] Masses of grapes ripen in their
vineyards and they grow every sort of fruit in abundance. No-one of them
equals Istālīf or Astar-ghach; these must be the [Sidenote: Fol. 136b.]
two which Aūlūgh Beg Mīrzā used to call his Khurāsān and Samarkand.
Pamghān is another of the best, not ranking in fruit and grapes with
those two others, but beyond comparison with them in climate. The
Pamghān mountains are a snowy range. Few villages match Istālīf, with
vineyards and fine orchards on both sides of its great torrent, with
waters needing no ice, cold and, mostly, pure. Of its Great garden
Aūlūgh Beg Mīrzā had taken forcible possession; I took it over, after
paying its price to the owners. There is a pleasant halting-place
outside it, under great planes, green, shady and beautiful. A one-mill
stream, having trees on both banks, flows constantly through the middle
of the garden; formerly its course was zig-zag and irregular; I had it
made straight and orderly; so the place became very beautiful. Between
the village and the valley-bottom, from 4 to 6 miles down the slope, is
a spring, known as Khwāja Sih-yārān (Three-friends), round which three
sorts of tree grow. A group of planes gives pleasant shade above it;
holm-oak [Sidenote: Fol. 137.] (_quercus bīlūt_) grows in masses on the
slope at its sides,—these two oaklands (_bīlūtistān_) excepted, no
holm-oak grows in the mountains of western Kābul,—and the Judas-tree
(_arghwān_)[817] is much cultivated in front of it, that is towards the
level ground,—cultivated there and nowhere else. People say the three
different sorts of tree were a gift made by three saints,[818] whence
its name. I ordered that the spring should be enclosed in mortared
stone-work, 10 by 10, and that a symmetrical, right-angled platform
should be built on each of its sides, so as to overlook the whole field
of Judas-trees. If, the world over, there is a place to match this when
the _arghwāns_ are in full bloom, I do not know it. The yellow _arghwān_
grows plentifully there also, the red and the yellow flowering at the
same time.[819]
In order to bring water to a large round seat which I had built on the
hillside and planted round with willows, I had a channel dug across the
slope from a half-mill stream, constantly flowing in a valley to the
south-west of Sih-yārān. The date of cutting this channel was found in
_jūī-khūsh_ (kindly channel).[820]
Another of the _tūmāns_ of Kābul is Luhūgur (mod. Logar). Its one large
village is Chīrkh from which were his Reverence Maulānā Ya`qūb and
Mullā-zāda `Us̤mān.[821] Khwāja Aḥmad [Sidenote: Fol. 137b.] and Khwāja
Yūnas were from Sajāwand, another of its villages. Chīrkh has many
gardens, but there are none in any other village of Luhūgur. Its people
are Aūghān-shāl, a term common in Kābul, seeming to be a
mispronouncement of Aūghān-sha`ār.[822]
Again, there is the _wilāyat_, or, as some say, _tūmān_ of Ghaznī, said
to have been[823] the capital of Sabuk-tīgīn, Sl. Maḥmūd and their
descendants. Many write it Ghaznīn. It is said also to have been the
seat of government of Shihābu'd-dīn _Ghūrī_,[824] styled Mu`iz̤z̤u'd-dīn
in the _T̤abaqāt-i-nāṣirī_ and also some of the histories of Hind.
Ghaznī is known also as _Zābulistān_; it belongs to the Third climate.
Some hold that Qandahār is a part of it. It lies 14 _yīghāch_ (south-)
west of Kābul; those leaving it at dawn, may reach Kābul between the Two
Prayers (_i.e._ in the afternoon); whereas the 13 _yīghāch_ between
Adīnapūr and Kābul can never be done in one day, because of the
difficulties of the road.
Ghaznī has little cultivated land. Its torrent, a four-mill or five-mill
stream may-be, makes the town habitable and fertilizes four or five
villages; three or four others are cultivated from under-ground
water-courses (_kārez_). Ghaznī grapes are better than those of Kābul;
its melons are more abundant; its apples [Sidenote: Fol. 138.] are very
good, and are carried to Hindūstān. Agriculture is very laborious in
Ghaznī because, whatever the quality of the soil, it must be newly
top-dressed every year; it gives a better return, however, than Kābul.
Ghaznī grows madder; the entire crop goes to Hindūstān and yields
excellent profit to the growers. In the open-country of Ghaznī dwell
Hazāra and Afghāns. Compared with Kābul, it is always a cheap place. Its
people hold to the Ḥanafī faith, are good, orthodox Muṣalmāns, many keep
a three months' fast,[825] and their wives and children live modestly
secluded.
One of the eminent men of Ghaznī was Mullā `Abdu'r-raḥmān, a learned man
and always a learner (_dars_), a most orthodox, pious and virtuous
person; he left this world the same year as Nāṣir Mīrzā (921 AH.-1515
AD.). Sl. Maḥmūd's tomb is in the suburb called Rauẓa,[826] from which
the best grapes come; there also are the tombs of his descendants, Sl.
Mas`ūd and Sl. Ibrāhīm. Ghaznī has many blessed tombs. The year[827] I
took Kābul and Ghaznī, over-ran Kohāt, the plain of Bannū and lands of
the Afghāns, and went on to Ghaznī by way of Dūkī (Dūgī) and Āb-istāda,
people told me there was a tomb, in a village of Ghaznī, which moved
when a benediction on the Prophet was [Sidenote: Fol. 138b.] pronounced
over it. We went to see it. In the end I discovered that the movement
was a trick, presumably of the servants at the tomb, who had put a sort
of platform above it which moved when pushed, so that, to those on it,
the tomb seemed to move, just as the shore does to those passing in a
boat. I ordered the scaffold destroyed and a dome built over the tomb;
also I forbad the servants, with threats, ever to bring about the
movement again.
Ghaznī is a very humble place; strange indeed it is that rulers in whose
hands were Hindūstān and Khurāsānāt,[828] should have chosen it for
their capital. In the Sulṯān's (Maḥmūd's) time there may have been three
or four dams in the country; one he made, some three _yīghāch_ (18 m.?)
up the Ghaznī-water to the north; it was about 40-50 _qārī_ (yards) high
and some 300 long; through it the stored waters were let out as
required.[829] It was destroyed by `Alāu'u'd-dīn _Jahān-soz Ghūrī_ when
he conquered the country (550 AH.-1152 AD.), burned and ruined the tombs
of several descendants of Sl. Maḥmūd, sacked and burned the town, in
short, left undone no tittle of murder and rapine. Since [Sidenote: Fol.
139.] that time, the Sulṯān's dam has lain in ruins, but, through God's
favour, there is hope that it may become of use again, by means of the
money which was sent, in Khwāja Kalān's hand, in the year Hindūstān was
conquered (932 AH.-1526 AD.).[830] The Sakhandam is another, 2 or 3
_yīghāch_ (12-18 m.), may-be, on the east of the town; it has long been
in ruins, indeed is past repair. There is a dam in working order at
Sar-i-dih (Village-head).
In books it is written that there is in Ghaznī a spring such that, if
dirt and foul matter be thrown into it, a tempest gets up instantly,
with a blizzard of rain and wind. It has been seen said also in one of
the histories that Sabuk-tīgīn, when besieged by the Rāī (Jāī-pāl) of
Hind, ordered dirt and foulness to be thrown into the spring, by this
aroused, in an instant, a tempest with blizzard of rain and snow, and,
by this device, drove off his foe.[831] Though we made many enquiries,
no intimation of the spring's existence was given us.
In these countries Ghaznī and Khwārizm are noted for cold, in the same
way that Sulṯānīā and Tabrīz are in the two `Irāqs and Aẕarbāījān.
Zurmut is another _tūmān_, some 12-13 _yīghāch_ south of Kābul and 7-8
south-east of Ghaznī.[832] Its _dārogha's_ head-quarters are [Sidenote:
Fol. 139b.] in Gīrdīz; there most houses are three or four storeys high.
It does not want for strength, and gave Nāṣir Mīrzā trouble when it went
into hostility to him. Its people are Aūghān-shāl; they grow corn but
have neither vineyards nor orchards. The tomb of Shaikh Muḥammad
_Muṣalmān_ is at a spring, high on the skirt of a mountain, known as
Barakistān, in the south of the _tūmān_.
Farmūl is another _tūmān_,[833] a humble place, growing not bad apples
which are carried into Hindūstān. Of Farmūl were the Shaikh-zādas,
descendants of Shaikh Muḥammad _Muṣalmān_, who were so much in favour
during the Afghān period in Hindūstān.
Bangash is another _tūmān_.[834] All round about it are Afghān
highwaymen, such as the Khūgīānī, Khirilchī, Tūrī and Landar. Lying
out-of-the-way, as it does, its people do not pay taxes willingly. There
has been no time to bring it to obedience; greater tasks have fallen to
me,—the conquests of Qandahār, Balkh, Badakhshān and Hindūstān! But, God
willing! when I get the chance, I most assuredly will take order with
those Bangash thieves.
One of the _bulūks_ of Kābul is Ālā-sāī,[835] 4 to 6 miles (2-3
_shar`ī_) east of Nijr-aū. The direct road into it from Nijr-aū leads,
at a place called Kūra, through the quite small pass which in that
locality separates the hot and cold climates. Through this pass the
birds migrate at the change of the seasons, and at those times many are
taken by the people of Pīchghān, one of the dependencies of Nijr-aū, in
the following manner:—From [Sidenote: Fol. 140.] distance to distance
near the mouth of the pass, they make hiding-places for the
bird-catchers. They fasten one corner of a net five or six yards away,
and weight the lower side to the ground with stones. Along the other
side of the net, for half its width, they fasten a stick some 3 to 4
yards long. The hidden bird-catcher holds this stick and by it, when the
birds approach, lifts up the net to its full height. The birds then go
into the net of themselves. Sometimes so many are taken by this
contrivance that there is not time to cut their throats.[836]
Though the Ālā-sāī pomegranates are not first-rate, they have local
reputation because none are better there-abouts; they are carried into
Hindūstān. Grapes also do not grow badly, and the wines of Ālā-sāī are
better and stronger than those of Nijr-aū.
Badr-aū (Tag-aū) is another _bulūk_; it runs with Ālā-sāī, grows no
fruit, and for cultivators has corn-growing Kāfirs.[837]
(_f. Tribesmen of Kābul._)
Just as Turks and (Mughūl) clans (_aīmāq_) dwell in the open country of
Khurāsān and Samarkand, so in Kābul do the Hazāra and Afghāns. Of the
Hazāra, the most widely-scattered are the Sulṯān-mas`ūdi Hazāra, of
Afghāns, the Mahmand.
(_g. Revenue of Kābul._)
The revenues of Kābul, whether from the cultivated lands or from tolls
(_tamghā_) or from dwellers in the open country, amount to 8 _laks_ of
_shāhrukhīs_.[838] [Sidenote: Fol. 140b.]
(_h. The mountain-tracts of Kābul._)
Where the mountains of Andar-āb, Khwāst,[839] and the Badakh-shānāt have
conifers (_archa_), many springs and gentle slopes, those of eastern
Kābul have grass (_aūt_), grass like a beautiful floor, on hill, slope
and dale. For the most part it is _būta-kāh_ grass (_aūt_), very
suitable for horses. In the Andijān country they talk of _būta-kāh_, but
why they do so was not known (to me?); in Kābul it was heard-say to be
because the grass comes up in tufts (_būta, būta_).[840] The alps of
these mountains are like those of Ḥiṣār, Khutlān, Farghāna, Samarkand
and Mughūlistān,—all these being alike in mountain and alp, though the
alps of Farghāna and Mughūlistān are beyond comparison with the rest.
From all these the mountains of Nijr-aū, the Lamghānāt and Sawād differ
in having masses of cypresses,[841] holm-oak, olive and mastic
(_khanjak_); their grass also is different,—it is dense, it is tall, it
is good neither for horse nor sheep. Although these mountains are not so
high as those already described, indeed they look to be low,
none-the-less, they are strongholds; what to the eye is even slope,
really is hard rock on which it is impossible to ride. Many of the
beasts and birds of Hindūstān [Sidenote: Fol. 141.] are found amongst
them, such as the parrot, _mīna_, peacock and _lūja_ (_lūkha_), the ape,
_nīl-gāu_ and hog-deer (_kūta-pāī_);[842] some found there are not found
even in Hindūstān.
The mountains to the west of Kābul are also all of one sort, those of
the Zindān-valley, the Ṣūf-valley, Garzawān and Gharjistān
(Gharchastān).[843] Their meadows are mostly in the dales; they have not
the same sweep of grass on slope and top as some of those described
have; nor have they masses of trees; they have, however, grass suiting
horses. On their flat tops, where all the crops are grown, there is
ground where a horse can gallop. They have masses of _kīyik_.[844] Their
valley-bottoms are strongholds, mostly precipitous and inaccessible from
above. It is remarkable that, whereas other mountains have their
fastnesses in their high places, these have theirs below.
Of one sort again are the mountains of Ghūr, Karnūd (var. Kuzūd) and
Hazāra; their meadows are in their dales; their trees are few, not even
the _archa_ being there;[845] their grass is fit for horses and for the
masses of sheep they keep. They differ from those last described in
this, their strong places are not below.
The mountains (south-east of Kābul) of Khwāja Ismā`īl, Dasht, Dūgī
(Dūkī)[846] and Afghānistān are all alike; all low, scant of vegetation,
short of water, treeless, ugly and good-for-nothing. Their people take
after them, just as has been said, _Tīng būlmā-ghūncha_ [Sidenote: Fol
141b.] _tūsh būlmās_.[847] Likely enough the world has few mountains so
useless and disgusting.
(_h. Fire-wood of Kabul._)
The snow-fall being so heavy in Kābul, it is fortunate that excellent
fire-wood is had near by. Given one day to fetch it, wood can be had of
the _khanjak_ (mastic), _bīlūt_ (holm-oak), _bādāmcha_ (small-almond)
and _qarqand_.[848] Of these _khanjak_ wood is the best; it burns with
flame and nice smell, makes plenty of hot ashes and does well even if
sappy. Holm-oak is also first-rate fire-wood, blazing less than mastic
but, like it, making a hot fire with plenty of hot ashes, and nice
smell. It has the peculiarity in burning that when its leafy branches
are set alight, they fire up with amazing sound, blazing and crackling
from bottom to top. It is good fun to burn it. The wood of the
small-almond is the most plentiful and commonly-used, but it does not
make a lasting fire. The _qarqand_ is quite a low shrub, thorny, and
burning sappy or dry; it is the fuel of the Ghaznī people.
(_i. Fauna of Kābul._)
The cultivated lands of Kābul lie between mountains which are like great
dams[849] to the flat valley-bottoms in which most villages and peopled
places are. On these mountains _kīyik_ and _āhū_[850] are scarce.
Across them, between its summer and winter quarters, the dun sheep,[851]
the _arqārghalcha_, have their regular track,[852] to which braves go
out with dogs and birds[853] to take them. [Sidenote: Fol. 142.] Towards
Khūrd-kābul and the Sūrkh-rūd there is wild-ass, but there are no white
_kīyik_ at all; Ghaznī has both and in few other places are white
_kīyik_ found in such good condition.[854]
In the heats the fowling-grounds of Kābul are crowded. The birds take
their way along the Bārān-water. For why? It is because the river has
mountains along it, east and west, and a great Hindū-kush pass in a line
with it, by which the birds must cross since there is no other
near.[855] They cannot cross when the north wind blows, or if there is
even a little cloud on Hindū-kush; at such times they alight on the
level lands of the Bārān-water and are taken in great numbers by the
local people. Towards the end of winter, dense flocks of mallards
(_aūrdūq_) reach the banks of the Bārān in very good condition. Follow
these the cranes and herons,[856] great birds, in large flocks and
countless numbers.
(_j. Bird-catching._)
Along the Bārān people take masses of cranes (_tūrna_) with the cord;
masses of _aūqār_, _qarqara_ and _qūṯān_ also.[857] This method of
bird-catching is unique. They twist a cord as long as the arrow's[858]
flight, tie the arrow at one end and a _bīldūrga_[859] at the other, and
wind it up, from the arrow-end, on a piece of wood, span-long and
wrist-thick, right up to the _bīldūrga_. They [Sidenote: Fol. 142b.]
then pull out the piece of wood, leaving just the hole it was in. The
_bīldūrga_ being held fast in the hand, the arrow is shot off[860]
towards the coming flock. If the cord twists round a neck or wing, it
brings the bird down. On the Bārān everyone takes birds in this way; it
is difficult; it must be done on rainy nights, because on such nights
the birds do not alight, but fly continually and fly low till dawn, in
fear of ravening beasts of prey. Through the night the flowing river is
their road, its moving water showing through the dark; then it is, while
they come and go, up and down the river, that the cord is shot. One
night I shot it; it broke in drawing in; both bird and cord were brought
in to me next day. By this device Bārān people catch the many herons
from which they take the turban-aigrettes sent from Kābul for sale in
Khurāsān.
Of bird-catchers there is also the band of slave-fowlers, two or three
hundred households, whom some descendant of Tīmūr Beg made migrate from
near Multān to the Bārān.[861] Bird-catching [Sidenote: Fol. 143.] is
their trade; they dig tanks, set decoy-birds[862] on them, put a net
over the middle, and in this way take all sorts of birds. Not fowlers
only catch birds, but every dweller on the Bārān does it, whether by
shooting the cord, setting the springe, or in various other ways.
(_k. Fishing._)
The fish of the Bārān migrate at the same seasons as birds. At those
times many are netted, and many are taken on wattles (_chīgh_) fixed in
the water. In autumn when the plant known as _wild-ass-tail_[863] has
come to maturity, flowered and seeded, people take 10-20 loads (of
seed?) and 20-30 of green branches (_gūk-shībāk_) to some head of water,
break it up small and cast it in. Then going into the water, they can at
once pick up drugged fish. At some convenient place lower down, in a
hole below a fall, they will have fixed beforehand a wattle of
finger-thick willow-withes, making it firm by piling stones on its
sides. The water goes rushing and dashing through the wattle, but leaves
on it any fish that may have come floating down. This way of catching
fish is practised in Gul-bahār, Parwān and Istālīf.
[Sidenote: Fol. 143b.] Fish are had in winter in the Lamghānāt by this
curious device:—People dig a pit to the depth of a house, in the bed of
a stream, below a fall, line it with stones like a cooking-place, and
build up stones round it above, leaving one opening only, under water.
Except by this one opening, the fish have no inlet or outlet, but the
water finds its way through the stones. This makes a sort of fish-pond
from which, when wanted in winter, fish can be taken, 30-40 together.
Except at the opening, left where convenient, the sides of the fish-pond
are made fast with rice-straw, kept in place by stones. A piece of
wicker-work is pulled into the said opening by its edges, gathered
together, and into this a second piece, (a tube,) is inserted, fitting
it at the mouth but reaching half-way into it only.[864] The fish go
through the smaller piece into the larger one, out from which they
cannot get. The second narrows towards its inner mouth, its pointed ends
being drawn so close that the fish, once entered, cannot [Sidenote: Fol.
144.] turn, but must go on, one by one, into the larger piece. Out of
that they cannot return because of the pointed ends of the inner, narrow
mouth. The wicker-work fixed and the rice-straw making the pond fast,
whatever fish are inside can be taken out;[865] any also which, trying
to escape may have gone into the wicker-work, are taken in it, because
they have no way out. This method of catching fish we have seen nowhere
else.[866]
HISTORICAL NARRATIVE RESUMED.[867]
(_a. Departure of Muqīm and allotment of lands._)
A few days after the taking of Kābul, Muqīm asked leave to set off for
Qandahār. As he had come out of the town on terms and conditions, he was
allowed to go to his father (Ẕu'n-nūn) and his elder brother (Shāh Beg),
with all his various people, his goods and his valuables, safe and
sound.
Directly he had gone, the Kābul-country was shared out to the Mīrzās and
the guest-begs.[868] To Jahāngīr Mīrzā was given Ghaznī with its
dependencies and appurtenancies; to Nāṣir Mīrzā, the Nīngnahār _tūmān_,
Mandrāwar, Nūr-valley, Kūnār, Nūr-gal (Rock-village?) and Chīghān-sarāī.
To some of the begs who had been with us in the guerilla-times and had
come to Kābul with us, were given villages, fief-fashion.[869] _Wilāyat_
[Sidenote: Fol. 144b.] itself was not given at all.[870] It was not only
then that I looked with more favour on guest-begs and stranger-begs than
I did on old servants and Andijānīs; this I have always done whenever
the Most High God has shown me His favour; yet it is remarkable that,
spite of this, people have blamed me constantly as though I had favoured
none but old servants and Andijānīs. There is a proverb, (Turkī) "What
will a foe not say? what enters not into dream?" and (Persian) "A
town-gate can be shut, a foe's mouth never."
(_b. A levy in grain._)
Many clans and hordes had come from Samarkand, Ḥiṣār and Qūndūz into the
Kābul-country. Kābul is a small country; it is also of the sword, not of
the pen;[871] to take in money from it for all these tribesmen was
impossible. It therefore seemed advisable to take in grain, provision
for the families of these clans so that their men could ride on forays
with the army. Accordingly it was decided to levy 30,000 ass-loads[872]
of grain on Kābul, Ghaznī and their dependencies; we knew nothing at
that time about the harvests and incomings; the impost was excessive,
and under it the country suffered very grievously.
In those days I devised the Bāburī script.[873]
(_c. Foray on the Hazāra._)
A large tribute in horses and sheep had been laid on the Sulṯān Mas`ūdī
Hazāras;[874] word came a few days after collectors [Sidenote: Fol.
145.] had gone to receive it, that the Hazāras were refractory and would
not give their goods. As these same tribesmen had before that come down
on the Ghaznī and Gīrdīz roads, we got to horse, meaning to take them by
surprise. Riding by the Maidān-road, we crossed the Nirkh-pass[875] by
night and at the Morning-prayer fell upon them near Jāl-tū (var.
Chā-tū). The incursion was not what was wished.[876] We came back by the
Tunnel-rock (Sang-i-sūrākh); Jahāngīr Mīrzā (there?) took leave for
Ghaznī. On our reaching Kābul, Yār-i-ḥusain, son of Daryā Khān, coming
in from Bhīra, waited on me.[877]
(_d. Bābur's first start for Hindūstān._)
When, a few days later, the army had been mustered, persons acquainted
with the country were summoned and questioned about its every side and
quarter. Some advised a march to the Plain (Dasht);[878] some approved
of Bangash; some wished to go into Hindūstān. The discussion found
settlement in a move on Hindūstān.
It was in the month of Sha`bān (910 AH.-Jan. 1505 AD.), the Sun being in
Aquarius, that we rode out of Kābul for Hindūstān. We took the road
by Bādām-chashma and Jagdālīk and reached Adīnapūr in six marches. Till
that time I had never seen a hot country or the Hindūstān border-land.
In Nīngnahār[879] another world came to view,—other grasses, other
trees, other animals, other birds, and other manners and customs of clan
and horde. We were amazed, and truly there was ground for amaze.
[Sidenote: Fol. 145b.]
Nāṣir Mīrzā, who had gone earlier to his district, waited on me in
Adīnapūr. We made some delay in Adīnapūr in order to let the men from
behind join us, also a contingent from the clans which had come with us
into Kābul and were wintering in the Lamghānāt.[880] All having joined
us, we marched to below Jūī-shāhī and dismounted at Qūsh-guṃbaz.[881]
There Nāṣir Mīrzā asked for leave to stay behind, saying he would follow
in a few days after making some sort of provision for his dependants and
followers. Marching on from Qūsh-guṃbaz, when we dismounted at
Hot-spring (Garm-chashma), a head-man of the Gāgīānī was brought in, a
_Fajjī_[882] presumably with his caravan. We took him with us to point
out the roads. Crossing Khaibar in a march or two, we dismounted at
Jām.[883]
Tales had been told us about Gūr-khattrī;[884] it was said to be a holy
place of the Jogīs and Hindūs who come from long distances to shave
their heads and beards there. I rode out at once from Jām to visit
Bīgrām,[885] saw its great tree,[886] and all the country round, but,
much as we enquired about Gūr-khattrī, our guide, one Malik Bū-sa`īd
_Kamarī_,[887] would say nothing [Sidenote: Fol. 146.] about it. When we
were almost back in camp, however, he told Khwāja Muḥammad-amīn that it
was in Bīgrām and that he had said nothing about it because of its
confined cells and narrow passages. The Khwāja, having there and then
abused him, repeated to us what he had said, but we could not go back
because the road was long and the day far spent.
(_e. Move against Kohāt._)
Whether to cross the water of Sind, or where else to go, was discussed
in that camp.[888] Bāqī _Chaghānīānī_ represented that it seemed we
might go, without crossing the river and with one night's halt, to a
place called Kohāt where were many rich tribesmen; moreover he brought
Kābulīs forward who represented the matter just as he had done. We had
never heard of the place, but, as he, my man in great authority, saw it
good to go to Kohāt and had brought forward support of his
recommendation,—this being so! we broke up our plan of crossing the
Sind-water into Hindūstān, marched from Jām, forded the Bāra-water, and
dismounted not far from the pass (_dābān_) through the Muḥammad-mountain
(_fajj_). At the time the Gāgīānī Afghāns were located in Parashawār
but, in dread of our army, had drawn off to the skirt-hills. One of
their headmen, coming into this camp, did me obeisance; we took him, as
well as the Fajjī, with us, so that, between them, they might
[Sidenote: Fol. 146b.] point out the roads. We left that camp at
midnight, crossed Muḥammad-fajj at day-rise[889] and by breakfast-time
descended on Kohāt. Much cattle and buffalo fell to our men; many
Afghāns were taken but I had them all collected and set them free. In
the Kohāt houses corn was found without limit. Our foragers raided as
far as the Sind-river (_daryā_), rejoining us after one night's halt. As
what Bāqī _Chaghānīānī_ had led us to expect did not come to hand, he
grew rather ashamed of his scheme.
When our foragers were back and after two nights in Kohāt, we took
counsel together as to what would be our next good move, and we decided
to over-run the Afghāns of Bangash and the Bannū neighbourhood, then to
go back to Kābul, either through Naghr (Bāghzān?), or by the Farmūl-road
(Tochī-valley?).
In Kohāt, Daryā Khān's son, Yār-i-ḥusain, who had waited on me in Kābul
made petition, saying, "If royal orders were given me for the
Dilazāk,[890] the Yūsuf-zāī, and the Gāgīānī, these would not go far
from my orders if I called up the Pādshāh's swords on the other side of
the water of Sind."[891] The farmān he petitioned for being given, he
was allowed to go from Kohāt.
(_f. March to Thāl._)
Marching out of Kohāt, we took the Hangū-road for Bangash. [Sidenote:
Fol. 147.] Between Kohāt and Hangū that road runs through a valley shut
in on either hand by the mountains. When we entered this valley, the
Afghāns of Kohāt and thereabouts who were gathered on both hill-skirts,
raised their war-cry with great clamour. Our then guide, Malik Bū-sa`īd
_Kamarī_ was well-acquainted with the Afghān locations; he represented
that further on there was a detached hill on our right, where, if the
Afghāns came down to it from the hill-skirt, we might surround and take
them. God brought it right! The Afghāns, on reaching the place, did come
down. We ordered one party of braves to seize the neck of land between
that hill and the mountains, others to move along its sides, so that
under attack made from all sides at once, the Afghāns might be made to
reach their doom. Against the allround assault, they could not even
fight; a hundred or two were taken, some were brought in alive but of
most, the heads only were brought. We had been told that when Afghāns
are powerless to resist, they go before their foe with grass between
their teeth, this being as much as to say, "I am your cow."[892] Here
[Sidenote: Fol. 147b.] we saw this custom; Afghāns unable to make
resistance, came before us with grass between their teeth. Those our men
had brought in as prisoners were ordered to be beheaded and a pillar of
their heads was set up in our camp.[893]
Next day we marched forward and dismounted at Hangū, where local Afghāns
had made a _sangur_ on a hill. I first heard the word _sangur_ after
coming to Kābul where people describe fortifying themselves on a hill as
making a _sangur_. Our men went straight up, broke into it and cut off a
hundred or two of insolent Afghān heads. There also a pillar of heads
was set up.
From Hangū we marched, with one night's halt, to Tīl (Thāl),[894] below
Bangash; there also our men went out and raided the Afghāns near-by;
some of them however turned back rather lightly from a _sangur_.[895]
(_g. Across country into Bannū._)
On leaving Tīl (Thāl) we went, without a road, right down a steep
descent, on through out-of-the-way narrows, halted one night, and next
day came down into Bannū,[896] man, horse and camel all worn out with
fatigue and with most of the booty in cattle left on the way. The
frequented road must have been a few miles to our right; the one we came
by did not seem a riding-road at all; it was understood to be called
the Gosfandliyār [Sidenote: Fol. 148.] (Sheep-road),—_liyār_ being
Afghānī for a road,—because sometimes shepherds and herdsmen take their
flocks and herds by it through those narrows. Most of our men regarded
our being brought down by that left-hand road as an ill-design of Malik
Bū-sa`īd _Kamarī_.[897]
(_h. Bannū and the `Īsa-khail country._)
The Bannū lands lie, a dead level, immediately outside the Bangash and
Naghr hills, these being to their north. The Bangash torrent (the Kūrām)
comes down into Bannū and fertilizes its lands. South(-east) of them are
Chaupāra and the water of Sind; to their east is Dīn-kot; (south-)west
is the Plain (Dasht), known also as Bāzār and Tāq.[898] The Bannū lands
are cultivated by the Kurānī, Kīwī, Sūr, `Īsa-khail and Nīā-zāī of the
Afghān tribesmen.
After dismounting in Bannū, we heard that the tribesmen in the Plain
(Dasht) were for resisting and were entrenching themselves on a hill to
the north. A force headed by Jahāngīr Mīrzā, went against what seemed to
be the Kīwī _sangur_, took it at once, made general slaughter, cut off
and brought in many heads. Much white cloth fell into (their) hands. In
Bannū also a pillar of heads was set up. After the _sangur_ had been
taken, the Kīwī head-man, Shādī Khān, came to my presence, with grass
between his teeth, and did me obeisance. I pardoned all the prisoners.
After we had over-run Kohāt, it had been decided that Bangash and Bannū
should be over-run, and return to Kābul [Sidenote: Fol. 148b.] made
through Naghr or through Farmūl. But when Bannū had been over-run,
persons knowing the country represented that the Plain was close by,
with its good roads and many people; so it was settled to over-run the
Plain and to return to Kābul afterwards by way of Farmūl.[899]
Marching next day, we dismounted at an `Īsa-khail village on that same
water (the Kūrām) but, as the villagers had gone into the Chaupāra hills
on hearing of us, we left it and dismounted on the skirt of Chaupāra.
Our foragers went from there into the hills, destroyed the `Īsa-khail
_sangur_ and came back with sheep, herds and cloth. That night the
`Īsa-khail made an attack on us but, as good watch was kept all through
these operations, they could do nothing. So cautious were we that at
night our right and left, centre and van were just in the way they had
dismounted, each according to its place in battle, each prepared for its
own post, with men on foot all round the camp, at an arrow's distance
from the tents. Every night the army was posted in this way and every
night three or four of my household [Sidenote: Fol. 149.] made the
rounds with torches, each in his turn. I for my part made the round once
each night. Those not at their posts had their noses slit and were led
round through the army. Jahāngīr Mīrzā was the right wing, with Bāqī
_Chaghānīānī_, Sherīm T̤aghāī, Sayyid Ḥusain Akbar, and other begs.
Mīrzā Khān was the left wing, with `Abdu'r-razzāq Mīrzā, Qāsīm Beg and
other begs. In the centre there were no great begs, all were
household-begs. Sayyid Qāsim Lord-of-the-gate, was the van, with Bābā
Aūghūlī, Allāh-bīrdī (var. Allāh-qulī Purān), and some other begs. The
army was in six divisions, each of which had its day and night on guard.
Marching from that hill-skirt, our faces set west, we dismounted on a
waterless plain (_qūl_) between Bannū and the Plain. The soldiers got
water here for themselves, their herds and so on, by digging down, from
one to one-and-a-half yards, into the dry water-course, when water came.
Not here only did this happen for all the rivers of Hindūstān have the
peculiarity that water is safe to be found by digging down from one to
one-and-a-half yards in their beds. It is a wonderful provision
of God that where, except for the great rivers, there are no
running-waters,[900] water should be so placed within reach in dry
water-courses.
We left that dry channel next morning. Some of our men, riding light,
reached villages of the Plain in the afternoon, raided a few, and
brought back flocks, cloth and horses bred for trade.[901] Pack-animals
and camels and also the braves we had outdistanced, kept coming into
camp all through that night till dawn and on till that morrow's noon.
During our stay there, the foragers [Sidenote: Fol. 149b.] brought in
from villages in the Plain, masses of sheep and cattle, and, from Afghān
traders met on the roads, white cloths, aromatic roots, sugars,
_tīpūchāqs_, and horses bred for trade. Hindī (var. Mindī) _Mughūl_
unhorsed Khwāja Khiẓr _Lūhānī_, a well-known and respected Afghān
merchant, cutting off and bringing in his head. Once when Sherīm T̤aghāī
went in the rear of the foragers, an Afghān faced him on the road and
struck off his index-finger.
(_i. Return made for Kābul._)
Two roads were heard of as leading from where we were to Ghaznī; one was
the Tunnel-rock (Sang-i-sūrākh) road, passing Birk (Barak) and going on
to Farmūl; the other was one along the Gūmāl, which also comes out at
Farmūl but without touching Birk (Barak).[902] As during our stay in the
Plain rain had fallen incessantly, the Gūmāl was so swollen that it
would have been difficult to cross at the ford we came to; moreover
persons well-acquainted with the roads, represented that going by the
Gūmāl road, this torrent must be crossed several times, that this was
always difficult when the waters were so high and that there was always
uncertainty on the Gūmāl road. Nothing was settled then as to which of
these two roads to take; I expected it to be settled next day when,
after the drum of departure had sounded, [Sidenote: Fol. 150.] we talked
it over as we went.[903] It was the `Īd-i-fitr (March 7th 1505 AD.);
while I was engaged in the ablutions due for the breaking of the fast,
Jahāngīr Mīrzā and the begs discussed the question of the roads.
Some-one said that if we were to turn the bill[904] of the Mehtar
Sulaimān range, this lying between the Plain and the Hill-country
(_desht u dūkī_),[905] we should get a level road though it might make
the difference of a few marches. For this they decided and moved off;
before my ablutions were finished the whole army had taken the road and
most of it was across the Gūmāl. Not a man of us had ever seen the road;
no-one knew whether it was long or short; we started off just on a
rumoured word!
The Prayer of the `Id was made on the bank of the Gūmāl. That year
New-year's Day[906] fell close to the `Id-i-fitr, there being only a few
days between; on their approximation I composed the following (Turkī)
ode:—
Glad is the Bairām-moon for him who sees both the face of the Moon and
the Moon-face of his friend;
Sad is the Bairām-moon for me, far away from thy face and from
thee.[907]
O Bābur! dream of your luck when your Feast is the meeting,
your New-year the face;
For better than that could not be with a hundred New-years
and Bairāms.
After crossing the Gūmāl torrent, we took our way along the skirt of the
hills, our faces set south. A mile or two further on, [Sidenote: Fol.
150b.] some death-devoted Afghāns shewed themselves on the lower edge of
the hill-slope. Loose rein, off we went for them; most of them fled but
some made foolish stand on rocky-piles[908] of the foot-hills. One took
post on a single rock seeming to have a precipice on the further side of
it, so that he had not even a way of escape. Sl. Qulī _Chūnāq_
(One-eared), all in his mail as he was, got up, slashed at, and took
him. This was one of Sl. Qulī's deeds done under my own eyes, which led
to his favour and promotion.[909] At another pile of rock, when
Qūtlūq-qadam exchanged blows with an Afghān, they grappled and came down
together, a straight fall of 10 to 12 yards; in the end Qūtlūq-qadam
cut off and brought in his man's head. Kūpūk Beg got hand-on-collar with
an Afghān at another hill; both rolled down to the bottom; that head
also was brought in. All Afghāns taken prisoner were set free.
Marching south through the Plain, and closely skirting Mehtar Sulaimān,
we came, with three nights' halt, to a small township, called Bīlah, on
the Sind-water and dependent on Multān.[910] The villagers crossed the
water, mostly taking to their boats, but some flung themselves in to
cross. Some were seen standing on an island in front of Bīlah. Most of
our men, man and horse in [Sidenote: Fol. 151.] mail, plunged in and
crossed to the island; some were carried down, one being Qul-i-arūk
(thin slave), one of my servants, another the head tent-pitcher, another
Jahāngīr Mīrzā's servant, Qāītmās _Turkmān_.[911] Cloth and things of
the baggage (_partaldīk nīma_) fell to our men. The villagers all
crossed by boat to the further side of the river; once there, some of
them, trusting to the broad water, began to make play with their swords.
Qul-i-bāyazīd, the taster, one of our men who had crossed to the island,
stripped himself and his horse and, right in front of them, plunged by
himself into the river. The water on that side of the island may have
been twice or thrice as wide as on ours. He swum his horse straight for
them till, an arrow's-flight away, he came to a shallow where his weight
must have been up-borne, the water being as high as the saddle-flap.
There he stayed for as long as milk takes to boil; no-one supported him
from behind; he had not a chance of support. He made a dash at them;
they shot a few arrows at him but, this not checking him, they took to
flight. To swim such a river as the Sind, alone, bare on a bare-backed
horse, no-one behind him, and to chase off a foe and occupy his ground,
was a mightily bold deed! He having driven the enemy off, other soldiers
went over who [Sidenote: Fol. 151b.] returned with cloth and droves of
various sorts. Qul-i-bāyazīd had already his place in my favour and
kindness on account of his good service, and of courage several times
shewn; from the cook's office I had raised him to the royal taster's;
this time, as will be told, I took up a position full of bounty, favour
and promotion,—in truth he was worthy of honour and advancement.
Two other marches were made down the Sind-water. Our men, by perpetually
gallopping off on raids, had knocked up their horses; usually what they
took, cattle mostly, was not worth the gallop; sometimes indeed in the
Plain there had been sheep, sometimes one sort of cloth or other, but,
the Plain left behind, nothing was had but cattle. A mere servant would
bring in 3 or 400 head during our marches along the Sind-water, but
every march many more would be left on the road than they brought in.
(_j. The westward march._)
Having made three more marches[912] close along the Sind, we left it
when we came opposite Pīr Kānū's tomb.[913] Going to the tomb, we there
dismounted. Some of our soldiers having injured [Sidenote: Fol. 152.]
several of those in attendance on it, I had them cut to pieces. It is a
tomb on the skirt of one of the Mehtar Sulaimān mountains and held in
much honour in Hindūstān.
Marching on from Pīr Kānū, we dismounted in the (Pawat) pass; next again
in the bed of a torrent in Dūkī.[914] After we left this camp there were
brought in as many as 20 to 30 followers of a retainer of Shāh Beg,
Fāẓil _Kūkūldāsh_, the dārogha of Sīwī. They had been sent to
reconnoitre us but, as at that time, we were not on bad terms with Shāh
Beg, we let them go, with horse and arms. After one night's halt, we
reached Chūtīālī, a village of Dūkī.
Although our men had constantly gallopped off to raid, both before we
reached the Sind-water and all along its bank, they had not left horses
behind, because there had been plenty of green food and corn. When,
however, we left the river and set our faces for Pīr Kānū, not even
green food was to be had; a little land under green crop might be found
every two or three marches, but of horse-corn, none. So, beyond the
camps mentioned, there began the leaving of horses behind. After passing
Chūtīālī, my own felt-tent[915] had to be left from want of
baggage-beasts. One night at that time, it rained so much, that water
stood knee-deep in my tent (_chādār_); I watched the night out till
dawn, uncomfortably sitting on a pile of blankets.
(_k. Bāqī Chaghānīānī's treachery._)
A few marches further on came Jahāngīr Mīrzā, saying, "I [Sidenote: Fol.
152b.] have a private word for you." When we were in private, he said,
"Bāqī _Chaghānīānī_ came and said to me, 'You make the Pādshāh cross the
water of Sind with 7, 8, 10 persons, then make yourself Pādshāh.'" Said
I, "What others are heard of as consulting with him?" Said he, "It was
but a moment ago Bāqī Beg spoke to me; I know no more." Said I, "Find
out who the others are; likely enough Sayyid Ḥusain Akbar and Sl. `Alī
the page are in it, as well as Khusrau Shāh's begs and braves." Here the
Mīrzā really behaved very well and like a blood-relation; what he now
did was the counterpart of what I had done in Kāhmard,[916] in this same
ill-fated mannikin's other scheme of treachery.[917]
On dismounting after the next march, I made Jahāngīr Mīrzā lead a body
of well-mounted men to raid the Aūghāns (Afghāns) of that neighbourhood.
Many men's horses were now left behind in each camping-ground, the day
coming when as many as 2 or 300 were left. Braves of the first rank went
on foot; Sayyid Maḥmūd _Aūghlāqchī_, one of the best of the
household-braves, left his horses behind and walked. In this state as to
horses we went all the rest of the way to Ghaznī.
Three or four marches further on, Jahāngīr Mīrzā plundered [Sidenote:
Fol. 153.] some Afghāns and brought in a few sheep.
(_l. The Āb-i-istāda._)
When, with a few more marches, we reached the Standing-water
(_Āb-i-istāda_) a wonderfully large sheet of water presented itself to
view; the level lands on its further side could not be seen at all; its
water seemed to join the sky; the higher land and the mountains of that
further side looked to hang between Heaven and Earth, as in a mirage.
The waters there gathered are said to be those of the spring-rain floods
of the Kattawāz-plain, the Zurmut-valley, and the Qarā-bāgh meadow of
the Ghaznī-torrent,—floods of the spring-rains, and the over-plus[918]
of the summer-rise of streams.
When within two miles of the Āb-i-istāda, we saw a wonderful
thing,—something as red as the rose of the dawn kept shewing and
vanishing between the sky and the water. It kept coming and going. When
we got quite close we learned that what seemed the cause were flocks of
geese,[919] not 10,000, not 20,000 in a flock, but geese innumerable
which, when the mass of birds flapped their wings in flight, sometimes
shewed red feathers, sometimes not. Not only was this bird there in
countless numbers, but birds of every sort. Eggs lay in masses on the
shore. When two Afghāns, come there to collect eggs, saw us, [Sidenote:
Fol. 153b.] they went into the water half a _kuroh_ (a mile). Some of
our men following, brought them back. As far as they went the water was
of one depth, up to a horse's belly; it seemed not to lie in a hollow,
the country being flat.
We dismounted at the torrent coming down to the Āb-i-istāda from the
plain of Kattawāz. The several other times we have passed it, we have
found a dry channel with no water whatever,[920] but this time, there
was so much water, from the spring-rains, that no ford could be found.
The water was not very broad but very deep. Horses and camels were made
to swim it; some of the baggage was hauled over with ropes. Having got
across, we went on through Old Nānī and Sar-i-dih to Ghaznī where for a
few days Jahāngīr Mīrzā was our host, setting food before us and
offering his tribute.
(_m. Return to Kābul._)
That year most waters came down in flood. No ford was found through the
water of Dih-i-yaq`ūb.[921] For this reason we went straight on to
Kamarī, through the Sajāwand-pass. At Kamarī I had a boat fashioned in a
pool, brought and set on the Dih-i-yaq`ūb-water in front of Kamarī. In
this all our people were put over.
We reached Kābul in the month of Ẕū'l-ḥijja (May 1505 AD.).[922] A few
days earlier Sayyid Yūsuf _Aūghlāqchī_ had gone to God's [Sidenote: Fol.
154.] mercy through the pains of colic.
(_n. Misconduct of Nāṣīr Mīrzā._)
It has been mentioned that at Qūsh-guṃbaz, Nāṣir Mīrzā asked leave to
stay behind, saying that he would follow in a few days after taking
something from his district for his retainers and followers.[923] But
having left us, he sent a force against the people of Nūr-valley, they
having done something a little refractory. The difficulty of moving in
that valley owing to the strong position of its fort and the
rice-cultivation of its lands, has already been described.[924] The
Mīrzā's commander, Faẓlī, in ground so impracticable and in that
one-road tract, instead of safe-guarding his men, scattered them to
forage. Out came the valesmen, drove the foragers off, made it
impossible to the rest to keep their ground, killed some, captured a
mass of others and of horses,—precisely what would happen to any army
chancing to be under such a person as Faẓlī! Whether because of this
affair, or whether from want of heart, the Mīrzā did not follow us at
all; he stayed behind.
Moreover Ayūb's sons, Yūsuf and Bahlūl (Begchīk), more seditious, silly
and arrogant persons than whom there may not exist,—to whom I had given,
to Yūsuf Alangār, to Bahlūl `Alī-shang, they like Nāṣir Mīrzā, were to
have taken something from [Sidenote: Fol. 154b.] their districts and to
have come on with him, but, he not coming, neither did they. All that
winter they were the companions of his cups and social pleasures. They
also over-ran the Tarkalānī Afghāns in it.[925] With the on-coming
heats, the Mīrzā made march off the families of the clans,
outside-tribes and hordes who had wintered in Nīngnahār and the
Lamghānāt, driving them like sheep before him, with all their goods, as
far as the Bārān-water.[926]
(_o. Affairs of Badakhshān._)
While Nāṣir Mīrzā was in camp on the Bārān-water, he heard that the
Badakhshīs were united against the Aūzbegs and had killed some of them.
Here are the particulars:—When Shaibāq Khān had given Qūndūz to Qaṃbar
Bī and gone himself to Khwārizm[927]; Qaṃbar Bī, in order to conciliate
the Badakhshīs, sent them a son of Muḥammad-i-makhdūmī, Maḥmūd by name,
but Mubārak Shāh,—whose ancestors are heard of as begs of the Badakhshān
Shāhs,—having uplifted his own head, and cut off Maḥmūd's and those of
some Aūzbegs, made himself fast in the fort once known as Shāf-tiwār but
re-named by him Qila`-i-ẕafar. Moreover, in Rustāq Muḥammad _qūrchī_, an
armourer of Khusrau Shāh, then occupying Khamalangān, slew Shaibāq
Khān's _ṣadr_ and some Aūzbegs and made that place fast. Zubair of Rāgh,
again, [Sidenote: Fol. 155.] whose forefathers also will have been begs
of the Badakhshān Shāhs, uprose in Rāgh.[928] Jahāngīr _Turkmān_, again,
a servant of Khusrau Shāh's Walī, collected some of the fugitive
soldiers and tribesmen Walī had left behind, and with them withdrew into
a fastness.[929]
Nāṣir Mīrzā, hearing these various items of news and spurred on by the
instigation of a few silly, short-sighted persons to covet Badakhshān,
marched along the Shibr-tū and Āb-dara road, driving like sheep before
him the families of the men who had come into Kābul from the other side
of the Amū.[930]
(_p. Affairs of Khusrau Shāh._)
At the time Khusrau Shāh and Aḥmad-i-qāsim were in flight from Ājar for
Khurāsān,[931] they meeting in with Badī`u'z-zamān Mīrzā and Ẕū'n-nūn
Beg, all went on together to the presence of Sl. Ḥusain Mīrzā in Herī.
All had long been foes of his; all had behaved unmannerly to him; what
brands had they not set on his heart! Yet all now went to him in their
distress, and all went through me. For it is not likely they would have
seen him if I had not made Khusrau Shāh helpless by parting him from his
following, and if I had not taken Kābul from Ẕū'n'nūn's son, Muqīm.
Badī`u'z-zamān Mīrzā himself was as dough in the [Sidenote: Fol. 155b.]
hands of the rest; beyond their word he could not go. Sl. Ḥusain Mīrzā
took up a gracious attitude towards one and all, mentioned no-one's
misdeeds, even made them gifts.
Shortly after their arrival Khusrau Shāh asked for leave to go to his
own country, saying, "If I go, I shall get it all into my hands." As he
had reached Herī without equipment and without resources, they finessed
a little about his leave. He became importunate. Muḥammad Barandūq
retorted roundly on him with, "When you had 30,000 men behind you and
the whole country in your hands, what did you effect against the Aūzbeg?
What will you do now with your 500 men and the Aūzbegs in possession?"
He added a little good advice in a few sensible words, but all was in
vain because the fated hour of Khusrau Shāh's death was near. Leave was
at last given because of his importunity; Khusrau Shāh with his 3 or 400
followers, went straight into the borders of Dahānah. There as Nāṣir
Mīrzā had just gone across, these two met.
Now the Badakhshī chiefs had invited only the Mīrzā; they had not
invited Khusrau Shāh. Try as the Mīrzā did to persuade Khusrau Shāh to
go into the hill-country,[932] the latter, quite understanding the whole
time, would not consent to go, his own idea being that if he marched
under the Mīrzā, he would get the [Sidenote: Fol. 156.] country into his
own hands. In the end, unable to agree, each of them, near Ishkīmīsh,
arrayed his following, put on mail, drew out to fight, and—departed.
Nāṣir Mīrzā went on for Badakhshān; Khusrau Shāh after collecting a
disorderly rabble, good and bad of some 1,000 persons, went, with the
intention of laying siege to Qūndūz, to Khwāja Chār-tāq, one or two
_yīghāch_ outside it.
(_q. Death of Khusrau Shāh._)
At the time Shaibāq Khān, after overcoming Sulṯān Aḥmad _Taṃbal_ and
Andijān, made a move on Ḥiṣār, his Honour Khusrau Shāh[933] flung away
his country (Qūndūz and Ḥiṣār) without a blow struck, and saved himself.
Thereupon Shaibāq Khān went to Ḥiṣār in which were Sherīm the page and a
few good braves. _They_ did not surrender Ḥiṣār, though their honourable
beg had flung _his_ country away and gone off; they made Ḥiṣār fast. The
siege of Ḥiṣār Shaibāq Khān entrusted to Ḥamza Sl. and Mahdī
Sulṯān,[934] went to Qūndūz, gave Qūndūz to his younger brother, Maḥmūd
Sulṯān and betook himself without delay to Khwārizm against Chīn Ṣūfī.
But as, before he reached Samarkand on his way to Khwārizm, he heard of
the death in Qūndūz of his brother, Maḥmūd Sulṯān, he gave that place to
Qaṃbar Bī of Marv.[935]
Qaṃbar Bī was in Qūndūz when Khusrau Shāh went against it; he at once
sent off galloppers to summon Ḥamza Sl. and the [Sidenote: Fol. 156b.]
others Shaibāq Khān had left behind. Ḥamza Sl. came himself as far as
the _sarāī_ on the Amū bank where he put his sons and begs in command of
a force which went direct against Khusrau Shāh. There was neither fight
nor flight for that fat, little man; Ḥamza Sulṯān's men unhorsed him,
killed his sister's son, Aḥmad-i-qāsim, Sherīm the page and several good
braves. Him they took into Qūndūz, there struck his head off and from
there sent it to Shaibāq Khān in Khwārizm.[936]
(_r. Conduct in Kābul of Khusrau Shāh's retainers._)
Just as Khusrau Shāh had said they would do, his former retainers and
followers, no sooner than he marched against Qūndūz, changed in their
demeanour to me,[937] most of them marching off to near
Khwāja-i-riwāj.[938] The greater number of the men in my service had
been in his. The Mughūls behaved well, taking up a position of adherence
to me.[939] On all this the news of Khusrau Shāh's death fell like water
on fire; it put his men out.
911 AH.—JUNE 4TH 1505 TO MAY 24TH 1506 AD.[940]
(_a. Death of Qūtlūq-nigār Khānīm._)
In the month of Muḥarram my mother had fever. Blood was let without
effect and a Khurāsānī doctor, known as Sayyid T̤abīb, in accordance
with the Khurāsān practice, gave her water-melon, but her time to die
must have come, for on the [Sidenote: Fol. 157.] Saturday after six days
of illness, she went to God's mercy.
On Sunday I and Qāsim Kūkūldāsh conveyed her to the New-year's Garden on
the mountain-skirt[941] where Aūlūgh Beg Mīrzā had built a house, and
there, with the permission of his heirs,[942] we committed her to the
earth. While we were mourning for her, people let me know about (the
death of) my younger Khān _dādā_ Alacha Khān, and my grandmother
Aīsān-daulat Begīm.[943] Close upon Khānīm's Fortieth[944] arrived from
Khurāsān Shāh Begīm the mother of the Khāns, together with my
maternal-aunt Mihr-nigār Khānīm, formerly of Sl. Aḥmad Mīrzā's _ḥaram_,
and Muḥammad Ḥusain _Kūrkān Dūghlāt_.[945] Lament broke out afresh; the
bitterness of these partings was extreme. When the mourning-rites had
been observed, food and victuals set out for the poor and destitute, the
Qorān recited, and prayers offered for the departed souls, we steadied
ourselves and all took heart again.
(_b. A futile start for Qandahār._)
When set free from these momentous duties, we got an army to horse for
Qandahār under the strong insistance of Bāqī _Chaghānīānī_. At the
start I went to Qūsh-nādir (var. nāwar) where on dismounting I got
fever. It was a strange sort of illness for whenever with much trouble I
had been awakened, my eyes closed again in sleep. In four or five days I
got quite well.
(_c. An earthquake._)
At that time there was a great earthquake[946] such that most of the
ramparts of forts and the walls of gardens fell down; houses were
levelled to the ground in towns and villages and many persons lay dead
beneath them. Every house fell in Paghmān-village, [Sidenote: Fol.
157b.] and 70 to 80 strong heads-of-houses lay dead under their walls.
Between Pagh-mān and Beg-tūt[947] a piece of ground, a good
stone-throw[948] wide may-be, slid down as far as an arrow's-flight;
where it had slid springs appeared. On the road between Istarghach and
Maidān the ground was so broken up for 6 to 8 _yīghāch_ (36-48 m.) that
in some places it rose as high as an elephant, in others sank as deep;
here and there people were sucked in. When the Earth quaked, dust rose
from the tops of the mountains. Nūru'l-lāh the _ṯambourchī_[949] had
been playing before me; he had two instruments with him and at the
moment of the quake had both in his hands; so out of his own control was
he that the two knocked against each other. Jahāngīr Mīrzā was in the
porch of an upper-room at a house built by Aūlūgh Beg Mīrzā in Tīpa;
when the Earth quaked, he let himself down and was not hurt, but the
roof fell on some-one with him in that upper-room, presumably one of his
own circle; that this person was not hurt in the least must have been
solely through God's mercy. In Tīpa most of the houses were levelled to
the ground. The Earth quaked 33 times on the first day, and for a month
afterwards used to quake two or three times in the 24 hours. The begs
and soldiers having been ordered to repair the breaches made in the
towers and ramparts [Sidenote: Fol. 158.] of the fort (Kābul),
everything was made good again in 20 days or a month by their industry
and energy.
(_d. Campaign against Qalāt-i-ghilzāī._)
Owing to my illness and to the earthquake, our plan of going to Qandahār
had fallen somewhat into the background. The illness left behind and the
fort repaired, it was taken up again. We were undecided at the time we
dismounted below Shniz[950] whether to go to Qandahār, or to over-run
the hills and plains. Jahāngīr Mīrzā and the begs having assembled,
counsel was taken and the matter found settlement in a move on Qalāt. On
this move Jahāngīr Mīrzā and Bāqī _Chaghānīānī_ insisted strongly.
At Tāzī[951] there was word that Sher-i-`alī the page with Kīchīk Bāqī
_Diwāna_ and others had thoughts of desertion; all were arrested;
Sher-i-`alī was put to death because he had given clear signs of
disloyalty and misdoing both while in my service and not in mine, in
this country and in that country.[952] The others were let go with loss
of horse and arms.
On arriving at Qalāt we attacked at once and from all sides, without our
mail and without siege-appliances. As has been mentioned in this
History, Kīchīk Khwāja, the elder brother of Khwāja Kalān, was a most
daring brave; he had used his sword [Sidenote: Fol. 158b.] in my
presence several times; he now clambered up the south-west tower of
Qalāt, was pricked in the eye with a spear when almost up, and died of
the wound two or three days after the place was taken. Here that Kīchīk
Bāqī _Dīwāna_ who had been arrested when about to desert with
Sher-i-`alī the page, expiated his baseness by being killed with a stone
when he went under the ramparts. One or two other men died also.
Fighting of this sort went on till the Afternoon Prayer when, just as
our men were worn-out with the struggle and labour, those in the fort
asked for peace and made surrender. Qalāt had been given by Ẕū'n-nūn
_Arghūn_ to Muqīm, and in it now were Muqīm's retainers, Farrukh
_Arghūn_ and Qarā _Bīlūt_ (Afghān). When they came out with their swords
and quivers hanging round their necks, we forgave their offences.[953]
It was not my wish to reduce this high family[954] to great straits; for
why? Because if we did so when such a foe as the Aūzbeg was at our side,
what would be said by those of far and near, who saw and heard?
As the move on Qalāt had been made under the insistance of Jahāngīr
Mīrzā and Bāqī _Chaghānīānī_, it was now made over to the Mīrzā's
charge. He would not accept it; Bāqī also could give no good answer in
the matter. So, after such a storming and assaulting of Qalāt, its
capture was useless.
We went back to Kābul after over-running the Afghāns of Sawā-sang and
Ālā-tāgh on the south of Qalāt. [Sidenote: Fol. 159.]
The night we dismounted at Kābul I went into the fort; my tent and
stable being in the Chār-bāgh, a Khirilchī thief going into the garden,
fetched out and took away a bay horse of mine with its accoutrements,
and my _khachar_.[955]
(_e. Death of Bāqī Chaghānīānī._)
From the time Bāqī _Chaghānīanī_ joined me on the Amū-bank, no man of
mine had had more trust and authority.[956] If a word were said, if an
act were done, that word was his word, that act, his act. Spite of this,
he had not done me fitting service, nor had he shewn me due civility.
Quite the contrary! he had done things bad and unmannerly. Mean he was,
miserly and malicious, ill-tongued, envious and cross-natured. So
miserly was he that although when he left Tīrmīẕ, with his family and
possessions, he may have owned 30 to 40,000 sheep, and although those
masses of sheep used to pass in front of us at every camping-ground, he
did not give a single one to our bare braves, tortured as they were by
the pangs of hunger; at last in Kāh-mard, he gave 50!
Spite of acknowledging me for his chief (_pādshāh_), he had nagarets
beaten at his own Gate. He was sincere to none, had regard for none.
What revenue there is from Kābul (town) comes from the _ṯamghā_[957];
the whole of this he had, together [Sidenote: Fol. 159b.] with the
_dārogha_-ship in Kābul and Panjhīr, the Gadai (var. Kidī) Hazāra, and
_kūshlūk_[958] and control of the Gate.[959] With all this favour and
finding, he was not in the least content; quite the reverse! What medley
of mischief he planned has been told; we had taken not the smallest
notice of any of it, nor had we cast it in his face. He was always
asking for leave, affecting scruple at making the request. We used to
acknowledge the scruple and excuse ourselves from giving the leave. This
would put him down for a few days; then he would ask again. He went too
far with his affected scruple and his takings of leave! Sick were we too
of his conduct and his character. We gave the leave; he repented asking
for it and began to agitate against it, but all in vain! He got written
down and sent to me, "His Highness made compact not to call me to
account till nine[960] misdeeds had issued from me." I answered with a
reminder of eleven successive faults and sent this to him through Mullā
Bābā of Pashāghar. He submitted and was allowed to go towards Hindūstān,
taking his family and possessions. A few of his retainers escorted him
through Khaibar and returned; he joined Bāqī _Gāgīānī's_ caravan and
crossed at Nīl-āb.
Daryā Khān's son, Yār-i-ḥusain was then in Kacha-kot,[961] having drawn
into his service, on the warrant of the _farmān_ taken from me in Kohāt,
a few Afghāns of the Dilazāk (var. Dilah-zāk) and Yūsuf-zāī and also a
few Jats and Gujūrs.[962] With these he beat the roads, taking toll with
might and main. Hearing about Bāqī, he blocked the road, made the whole
party [Sidenote: Fol. 160.] prisoner, killed Bāqī and took his wife.
We ourselves had let Bāqī go without injuring him, but his own misdeeds
rose up against him; his own acts defeated him.
Leave thou to Fate the man who does thee wrong;
For Fate is an avenging servitor.
(_f. Attack on the Turkmān Hazāras._)
That winter we just sat in the Chār-bāgh till snow had fallen once or
twice.
The Turkmān Hazāras, since we came into Kābul, had done a variety of
insolent things and had robbed on the roads. We thought therefore of
over-running them, went into the town to Aūlūgh Beg Mīrzā's house at the
Būstān-sarāī, and thence rode out in the month of Sha`bān (Feb. 1506
AD.).
We raided a few Hazāras at Janglīk, at the mouth of the Dara-i-khūsh
(Happy-valley).[963] Some were in a cave near the valley-mouth, hiding
perhaps. Shaikh Darwīsh Kūkūldāsh went incautiously right (_auq_) up to
the cave-mouth, was shot (_aūqlāb_) in the nipple by a Hazāra inside and
died there and then (_aūq_).[964]
(_Author's note on Shaikh Darwīsh._) He had been with me in
the guerilla-times, was Master-armourer (_qūr-begī_), drew a
strong bow and shot a good shaft.
As most of the Turkmān Hazāras seemed to be wintering inside the
Dara-i-khūsh, we marched against them.
The valley is shut in,[965] by a mile-long gully stretching inwards from
its mouth. The road engirdles the mountain, having [Sidenote: Fol.
160b.] a straight fall of some 50 to 60 yards below it and above it a
precipice. Horsemen go along it in single-file. We passed the gully and
went on through the day till between the Two Prayers (3 p.m.) without
meeting a single person. Having spent the night somewhere, we found a
fat camel[966] belonging to the Hazāras, had it killed, made part of its
flesh into _kabābs_[967] and cooked part in a ewer (_aftāb_). Such good
camel-flesh had never been tasted; some could not tell it from mutton.
Next day we marched on for the Hazāra winter-camp. At the first watch (9
a.m.) a man came from ahead, saying that the Hazāras had blocked a ford
in front with branches, checked our men and were fighting. That winter
the snow lay very deep; to move was difficult except on the road. The
swampy meadows (_tuk-āb_) along the stream were all frozen; the stream
could only be crossed from the road because of snow and ice. The Hazāras
had cut many branches, put them at the exit from the water and were
fighting in the valley-bottom with horse and foot or raining [Sidenote:
Fol. 161.] arrows down from either side.
Muḥammad `Alī _Mubashshir_[968] Beg, one of our most daring braves,
newly promoted to the rank of beg and well worthy of favour, went along
the branch-blocked road without his mail, was shot in the belly and
instantly surrendered his life. As we had gone forward in haste, most of
us were not in mail. Shaft after shaft flew by and fell; with each one
Yūsuf's Aḥmad said anxiously, "Bare[969] like this you go into it! I
have seen two arrows go close to your head!" Said I, "Don't fear! Many
as good arrows as these have flown past my head!" So much said, Qāsim
Beg, his men in full accoutrement,[970] found a ford on our right and
crossed. Before their charge the Hazāras could make no stand; they fled,
swiftly pursued and unhorsed one after the other by those just up with
them.
In guerdon for this feat Bangash was given to Qāsim Beg. Ḥātim the
armourer having been not bad in the affair, was promoted to Shaikh
Darwīsh's office of _qūr-begī_. Bābā Qulī's Kīpik (_sic_) also went well
forward in it, so we entrusted Muḥ. `Alī _Mubashshir's_ office to him.
Sl. Qulī _Chūnāq_ (one-eared) started in pursuit of the Hazāras but
there was no getting out of the hollow because of the snow. [Sidenote:
Fol. 161b.] For my own part I just went with these braves.
Near the Hazāra winter-camp we found many sheep and herds of horses. I
myself collected as many as 4 to 500 sheep and from 20 to 25 horses.
Sl. Qulī _Chūnāq_ and two or three of my personal servants were with me.
I have ridden in a raid twice[971]; this was the first time; the other
was when, coming in from Khurāsān (912 AH.), we raided these same
Turkmān Hazāras. Our foragers brought in masses of sheep and horses. The
Hazāra wives and their little children had gone off up the snowy slopes
and stayed there; we were rather idle and it was getting late in the
day; so we turned back and dismounted in their very dwellings. Deep
indeed was the snow that winter! Off the road it was up to a horse's
_qāptāl_,[972] so deep that the night-watch was in the saddle all
through till shoot of dawn.
Going out of the valley, we spent the next night just inside the mouth,
in the Hazāra winter-quarters. Marching from there, we dismounted at
Janglīk. At Janglīk Yārak T̤aghāī and other late-comers were ordered to
take the Hazāras who had killed Shaikh Darwīsh and who, luckless and
death-doomed, seemed still to be in the cave. Yārak T̤aghāī and his band
by sending smoke into the cave, took 70 to 80 Hazāras who mostly died by
the sword.
(_g. Collection of the Nijr-aū tribute._)
On the way back from the Hazāra expedition we went to the Āī-tūghdī
neighbourhood below Bārān[973] in order to collect the revenue of
Nijr-aū. Jahāngīr Mīrzā, come up from Ghaznī, [Sidenote: Fol. 162.]
waited on me there. At that time, on Ramẓān 13th (Feb. 7th) such
sciatic-pain attacked me that for 40 days some-one had to turn me over
from one side to the other.
Of the (seven) valleys of the Nijr-water the Pīchkān-valley,—and of the
villages in the Pīchkān-valley Ghain,—and of Ghain its head-man Ḥusain
_Ghainī_ in particular, together with his elder and younger brethren,
were known and notorious for obstinacy and daring. On this account a
force was sent under Jahāngīr Mīrzā, Qāsim Beg going too, which went to
Sar-i-tūp (Hill-top), stormed and took a _sangur_ and made a few meet
their doom.
Because of the sciatic pain, people made a sort of litter for me in
which they carried me along the bank of the Bārān and into the town to
the Būstān-sarāī. There I stayed for a few days; before that trouble was
over a boil came out on my left cheek; this was lanced and for it I also
took a purge. When relieved, I went out into the Chār-bāgh.
(_h. Misconduct of Jahāngīr Mīrzā._)
At the time Jahāngīr Mīrzā waited on me, Ayūb's sons Yūsuf and Buhlūl,
who were in his service, had taken up a strifeful and seditious attitude
towards me; so the Mīrzā was not found to be what he had been earlier.
In a few days he marched out of Tīpa in his mail,[974] hurried back to
Ghaznī, there took Nānī, killed some of its people and plundered all.
[Sidenote: Fol. 162b.] After that he marched off with whatever men he
had, through the Hazāras,[975] his face set for Bāmīān. God knows that
nothing had been done by me or my dependants to give him ground for
anger or reproach! What was heard of later on as perhaps explaining his
going off in the way he did, was this;—When Qāsim Beg went with other
begs, to give him honouring meeting as he came up from Ghaznī, the Mīrzā
threw a falcon off at a quail. Just as the falcon, getting close, put
out its pounce to seize the quail, the quail dropped to the ground.
Hereupon shouts and cries, "Taken! is it taken?" Said Qāsim Beg, "Who
looses the foe in his grip?" Their misunderstanding of this was their
sole reason for going off, but they backed themselves on one or two
other worse and weaker old cronish matters.[976] After doing in Ghaznī
what has been mentioned, they drew off through the Hazāras to the Mughūl
clans.[977] These clans at that time had left Nāṣir Mīrzā but had not
joined the Aūzbeg, and were in Yāī, Astar-āb and the summer-pastures
thereabouts.
(_i. Sl. Ḥusain Mīrzā calls up help against Shaibāq Khān._)
Sl. Ḥusain Mīrzā, having resolved to repel Shaibāq Khān, summoned all
his sons; me too he summoned, sending to me Sayyid Afẓal, son of Sayyid
`Alī _Khwāb-bīn_ (Seer-of-dreams). It was right on several grounds for
us to start for Khurāsān. One ground was that when a great ruler,
sitting, as Sl. Ḥusain Mīrzā sat, in Tīmūr Beg's place, had resolved to
act against [Sidenote: Fol. 163.] such a foe as Shaibāq Khān and had
called up many men and had summoned his sons and his begs, if there were
some who went on foot it was for us to go if on our heads! if some took
the bludgeon, we would take the stone! A second ground was that, since
Jahāngīr Mīrzā had gone to such lengths and had behaved so badly,[978]
we had either to dispel his resentment or to repel his attack.
(_j. Chīn Ṣūfī's death._)
This year Shaibāq Khān took Khwārizm after besieging Chīn Sūfī in it for
ten months. There had been a mass of fighting during the siege; many
were the bold deeds done by the Khwārizmī braves; nothing soever did
they leave undone. Again and again their shooting was such that their
arrows pierced shield and cuirass, sometimes the two cuirasses.[979] For
ten months they sustained that siege without hope in any quarter. A few
bare braves then lost heart, entered into talk with the Aūzbeg and were
in the act of letting him up into the fort when Chīn Ṣūfī had the news
and went to the spot. Just as he was beating and forcing down the
Aūzbegs, his own page, in a discharge of arrows, shot him from behind.
No man was left to fight; the Aūzbegs took Khwārizm. God's mercy on
Chīn Ṣūfī, who never for one moment ceased to stake his life [Sidenote:
Fol. 163b.] for his chief![980]
Shaibāq Khān entrusted Khwārizm to Kūpuk (_sic_) Bī and went back to
Samarkand.
(_k. Death of Sultān Ḥusain Mīrzā._)
Sl. Ḥusain Mīrzā having led his army out against Shaibāq Khān as far as
Bābā Ilāhī[981] went to God's mercy, in the month of Ẕū'l-ḥijja
(Ẕū'l-ḥijja 11th 911 AH.-May 5th 1506 AD.).
SULT̤ĀN ḤUSAIN MĪRZĀ AND HIS COURT.[982]
(_a._) _His birth and descent._
He was born in Herī (Harāt), in (Muḥarram) 842 (AH.-June-July, 1438 AD.)
in Shāhrukh Mīrzā's time[983] and was the son of Manṣūr Mīrzā, son of
Bāī-qarā Mīrzā, son of `Umar Shaikh Mīrzā, son of Amīr Tīmūr. Manṣūr
Mīrzā and Bāī-qarā Mīrzā never reigned.
His mother was Fīrūza Begīm, a (great-)grandchild (_nabīra_) of Tīmūr
Beg; through her he became a grandchild of Mīrān-shāh also.[984] He was
of high birth on both sides, a ruler of royal lineage.[985] Of the
marriage (of Manṣūr with Fīrūza) were born two sons and two daughters,
namely, Bāī-qarā Mīrzā and Sl. Ḥusain Mīrzā, Ākā Begīm and another
daughter, Badka Begīm whom Aḥmad Khān took.[986]
Bāī-qarā Mīrzā was older than Sl. Ḥusain Mīrzā; he was his younger
brother's retainer but used not to be present as head of the Court;[987]
except in Court, he used to share his brother's divan (_tūshak_). He was
given Balkh by his younger brother and was its Commandant for several
years. He had three sons, Sl. Muḥammad Mīrzā, Sl. Wais Mīrzā and Sl.
Iskandar Mīrzā.[988]
Ākā Begīm was older than the Mīrzā; she was taken by [Sidenote: Fol.
164.] Sl. Aḥmad Mīrzā,[989] a grandson (_nabīra_) of Mīrān-shāh; by him
she had a son (Muḥammad Sulṯān Mīrzā), known as Kīchīk (Little) Mīrzā,
who at first was in his maternal-uncle's service, but later on gave up
soldiering to occupy himself with letters. He is said to have become
very learned and also to have taste in verse.[990] Here is a Persian
quatrain of his:—
For long on a life of devotion I plumed me,
As one of the band of the abstinent ranged me;
Where when Love came was devotion? denial?
By the mercy of God it is I have proved me!
This quatrain recalls one by the Mullā.[991] Kīchīk Mīrzā made the
circuit of the _ka'ba_ towards the end of his life.
Badka (Badī`u'l-jamāl) Begīm also was older[992] than the Mīrzā. She was
given in the guerilla times to Aḥmad Khān of Ḥājī-tarkhān;[993] by him
she had two sons (Sl. Maḥmūd Khān and Bahādur Sl.) who went to Herī and
were in the Mīrzā's service.
(_b._) _His appearance and habits._
He was slant-eyed (_qīyik gūzlūq_) and lion-bodied, being slender from
the waist downwards. Even when old and white-bearded, he wore silken
garments of fine red and green. He used to wear either the black
lambskin cap (_būrk_) or the _qālpāq_,[994] but on a Feast-day would
sometimes set up a little three-fold turban, wound broad and badly,[995]
stick a heron's plume in it and so go to Prayers.
When he first took Herī, he thought of reciting the names of [Sidenote:
Fol. 164b.] the Twelve Imāms in the _khuṯba_,[996] but `Alī-sher Beg and
others prevented it; thereafter all his important acts were done in
accordance with orthodox law. He could not perform the Prayers on
account of a trouble in the joints,[997] and he kept no fasts. He was
lively and pleasant, rather immoderate in temper, and with words that
matched his temper. He shewed great respect for the law in several
weighty matters; he once surrendered to the Avengers of blood a son of
his own who had killed a man, and had him taken to the Judgment-gate
(_Dāru'l-qaẓā_). He was abstinent for six or seven years after he took
the throne; later on he degraded himself to drink. During the almost 40
years of his rule[998] in Khurāsān, there may not have been one single
day on which he did not drink after the Mid-day prayer; earlier than
that however he did not drink. What happened with his sons, the soldiers
and the town was that every-one pursued vice and pleasure to excess.
Bold and daring he was! Time and again he got to work with his own
sword, getting his own hand in wherever he arrayed to fight; no man of
Tīmūr Beg's line has been known to match him in the slashing of swords.
He had a leaning to poetry and even put a _dīwān_ together, writing in
Turkī with Ḥusainī for his pen-name.[999] Many couplets in his _dīwān_
are not bad; it is however in one and the same metre throughout. Great
ruler though he was, [Sidenote: Fol. 165.] both by the length of his
reign (_yāsh_) and the breadth of his dominions, he yet, like little
people kept fighting-rams, flew pigeons and fought cocks.
(_c._) _His wars and encounters._[1000]
He swam the Gurgān-water[1001] in his guerilla days and gave a party of
Aūzbegs a good beating.
Again,—with 60 men he fell on 3000 under Pay-master Muḥammad `Alī, sent
ahead by Sl. Abū-sa`īd Mīrzā, and gave them a downright good beating
(868 AH.). This was his one fine, out-standing feat-of-arms.[1002]
Again,—he fought and beat Sl. Maḥmūd Mīrzā near Astarābād (865
AH.).[1003]
Again,—this also in Astarābād, he fought and beat Sa`īdlīq Sa`īd, son of
Ḥusain _Turkmān_ (873 AH.?).
Again,—after taking the throne (of Herī in Ramẓān 873 AH.-March 1469
AD.), he fought and beat Yādgār-i-muḥammad Mīrzā at Chanārān (874
AH.).[1004]
Again,—coming swiftly[1005] from the Murgh-āb bridge-head (Sar-i-pul),
he fell suddenly on Yādgār-i-muḥammad Mīrzā where he lay drunk in the
Ravens'-garden (875 AH.), a victory which kept all Khurāsān quiet.
Again,—he fought and beat Sl. Maḥmūd Mīrzā at Chīkmān-sarāī in the
neighbourhood of Andikhūd and Shibrghān (876 AH.).[1006]
Again,—he fell suddenly on Abā-bikr Mīrzā[1007] after that Mīrzā, joined
by the Black-sheep Turkmāns, had come out of `Irāq, beaten Aūlūgh Beg
Mīrzā (_Kābulī_) in Takāna and Khimār (var. Ḥimār), taken Kābul, left it
because of turmoil in `Irāq, crossed Khaibar, gone on to Khūsh-āb and
Multān, on again to [Sidenote: Fol. 165b.] Sīwī,[1008] thence to Karmān
and, unable to stay there, had entered the Khurāsān country (884
AH.).[1009]
Again,—he defeated his son Badī`u'z-zamān Mīrzā at Pul-i-chirāgh (902
AH.); he also defeated his sons Abū'l-muḥsin Mīrzā and Kūpuk
(Round-shouldered) Mīrzā at Ḥalwā-spring (904 AH.).[1010]
Again,—he went to Qūndūz, laid siege to it, could not take it, and
retired; he laid siege to Ḥiṣār, could not take that either, and rose
from before it (901 AH.); he went into Ẕū'n-nūn's country, was given
Bast by its _dārogha_, did no more and retired (903 AH.).[1011] A ruler
so great and so brave, after resolving royally on these three movements,
just retired with nothing done!
Again,—he fought his son Badī`u'z-zamān Mīrzā in the Nīshīn-meadow, who
had come there with Ẕū'n-nūn's son, Shāh Beg (903 AH.). In that affair
were these curious coincidences:—The Mīrzā's force will have been small,
most of his men being in Astarābād; on the very day of the fight, one
force rejoined him coming back from Astarābād, and Sl. Mas`ūd Mīrzā
arrived to join Sl. Ḥusain Mīrzā after letting Bāī-sunghar Mīrzā take
Ḥiṣār, and Ḥaidar Mīrzā came back from reconnoitring Badī`u'z-zamān
Mīrzā at Sabzawār.
(_d._) _His countries._
His country was Khurāsān, with Balkh to the east, Bistām and Damghān to
the west, Khwārizm to the north, Qandahār [Sidenote: Fol. 166.] and
Sīstān to the south. When he once had in his hands such a town as Herī,
his only affair, by day and by night, was with comfort and pleasure; nor
was there a man of his either who did not take his ease. It followed of
course that, as he no longer tolerated the hardships and fatigue of
conquest and soldiering, his retainers and his territories dwindled
instead of increasing right down to the time of his departure.[1012]
(_e._) _His children._
Fourteen sons and eleven daughters were born to him.[1013] The oldest of
all his children was Badī`u'z-zamān Mīrzā; (Bega Begīm) a daughter of
Sl. Sanjar of Marv, was his mother.
Shāh-i-gharīb Mīrzā was another; he had a stoop (_būkūrī_); though ill
to the eye, he was of good character; though weak of body, he was
powerful of pen. He even put a _dīwān_ together, using Gharbatī
(Lowliness) for his pen-name and writing both Turkī and Persian verse.
Here is a couplet of his:—
Seeing a peri-face as I passed, I became its fool;
Not knowing what was its name, where was its home.
For a time he was his father's Governor in Herī. He died before his
father, leaving no child.
Muz̤affar-i-ḥusain Mīrzā was another; he was his father's favourite son,
but though this favourite, had neither accomplishments nor character. It
was Sl. Ḥusain Mīrzā's over-fondness for this son that led his other
sons into rebellion. The mother of Shāh-i-gharīb Mīrzā and of
Muz̤affar-i-ḥusain Mīrzā was [Sidenote: Fol. 166b.] Khadīja Begīm, a
former mistress of Sl. Abū-sa`īd Mīrzā by whom she had had a daughter
also, known as Āq (Fair) Begīm.
Two other sons were Abū'l-ḥusain Mīrzā and Kūpuk (var. Kīpik) Mīrzā
whose name was Muḥammad Muḥsin Mīrzā; their mother was Laṯīf-sulṯān
Āghācha.
Abū-turāb Mīrzā was another. From his early years he had an excellent
reputation. When the news of his father's increased illness[1014]
reached him and other news of other kinds also, he fled with his younger
brother Muḥammad-i-ḥusain Mīrzā into `Irāq,[1015] and there abandoned
soldiering to lead the darwish-life; nothing further has been heard
about him.[1016] His son Sohrāb was in my service when I took Ḥiṣār
after having beaten the sulṯāns led by Ḥamza Sl. and Mahdī Sl. (917
AH.-1511 AD.); he was blind of one eye and of wretchedly bad aspect; his
disposition matched even his ill-looks. Owing to some immoderate act
(_bī i`tidāl_), he could not stay with me, so went off. For some of his
immoderate doings, Nijm S̤ānī put him to death near Astarābād.[1017]
Muḥammad-i-ḥusain Mīrzā was another. He must have been shut up (_bund_)
with Shāh Ismā`īl at some place in `Irāq and have become his
disciple;[1018] he became a rank heretic later on and became this
although his father and brethren, older and younger, were all orthodox.
He died in Astarābād, still on the same wrong road, still with the same
absurd opinions. A good deal is heard about his courage and heroism, but
no deed of his stands out as worthy of record. He may have been
poetically-disposed; here is a couplet of his:—
Grimed with dust, from tracking what game dost thou come?
Steeped in sweat, from whose heart of flame dost thou come?
Farīdūn-i-ḥusain Mīrzā was another. He drew a very strong [Sidenote:
Fol. 167.] bow and shot a first-rate shaft; people say his cross-bow
(_kamān-i-guroha_) may have been 40 _bātmāns_.[1019] He himself was very
brave but he had no luck in war; he was beaten wherever he fought. He
and his younger brother Ibn-i-ḥusain Mīrzā were defeated at Rabāṯ-i-dūzd
(var. Dudūr) by Tīmūr Sl. and `Ubaid Sl. leading Shaibāq Khān's advance
(913 AH.?), but he had done good things there.[1020] In Dāmghān he and
Muḥammad-i-zamān Mīrzā[1021] fell into the hands of Shaibāq Khān who,
killing neither, let both go free. Farīdūn-i-ḥusain Mīrzā went later on
to Qalāt[1022] where Shāh Muḥammad _Diwāna_ had made himself fast; there
when the Aūzbegs took the place, he was captured and killed. The three
sons last-named were by Mīnglī Bībī Āghācha, Sl. Ḥusain Mīrzā's Aūzbeg
mistress.
Ḥaidar Mīrzā was another; his mother Payānda-sulṯān Begīm was a daughter
of Sl. Abū-sa`īd Mīrzā. Ḥaidar Mīrzā was Governor of Balkh and Mashhad
for some time during his father's life. For him his father, when
besieging Ḥiṣār (901 AH.) took (Bega Begīm) a daughter of Sl. Maḥmūd
Mīrzā and Khān-zāda Begīm; this done, he rose from before Ḥiṣār. One
daughter only[1023] was born of that marriage; she was named Shād (Joy)
Begīm and given to `Ādil Sl.[1024] when she came to Kābul later on.
Ḥaidar Mīrzā departed from the world in his father's [Sidenote: Fol.
167b.] life-time.
Muḥammad Ma`ṣūm Mīrzā was another. He had Qandahār given to him and, as
was fitting with this, a daughter of Aūlūgh Beg Mīrzā, (Bega Begīm), was
set aside for him; when she went to Herī (902 AH.), Sl. Ḥusain Mīrzā
made a splendid feast, setting up a great _chār-ṯāq_ for it.[1025]
Though Qandahār was given to Muḥ. Ma`ṣūm Mīrzā, he had neither power nor
influence there, since, if black were done, or if white were done, the
act was Shāh Beg _Arghūn's_. On this account the Mīrzā left Qandahār and
went into Khurāsān. He died before his father.
Farrukh-i-ḥusain Mīrzā was another. Brief life was granted to him; he
bade farewell to the world before his younger brother Ibrāhīm-i-ḥusain
Mīrzā.
Ibrāhīm-i-ḥusain Mīrzā was another. They say his disposition was not
bad; he died before his father from bibbing and bibbing Herī wines.
Ibn-i-ḥusain Mīrzā and Muḥ. Qāsim Mīrzā were others;[1026] their story
will follow. Pāpā Āghācha was the mother of the five sons last-named.
Of all the Mīrzā's daughters, Sulṯānīm Begīm was the oldest. She had no
brother or sister of the full-blood. Her mother, known as Chūlī (Desert)
Begīm, was a daughter of one of the Aẕāq begs. Sulṯānīm Begīm had great
acquaintance with words (_soz bīlūr aīdī_); she was never at fault for a
word. Her father sent her out[1027] to Sl. Wais Mīrzā, the middle son of
his own elder brother Bāī-qarā Mīrzā; she had a son and a daughter by
him; the daughter was sent out to Aīsān-qulī Sl. younger brother of
Yīlī-bārs of the Shabān sulṯāns;[1028] the son is that Muḥammad Sl.
Mīrzā to whom I have given the Qanauj district.[1029] At that same date
Sulṯānīm Begīm, when on her way with her grandson [Sidenote: Fol. 168.]
from Kābul to Hindūstān, went to God's mercy at Nīl-āb. Her various
people turned back, taking her bones; her grandson came on.[1030]
Four daughters were by Payānda-sulṯān Begīm. Āq Begīm, the oldest, was
sent out to Muḥammad Qāsim _Arlāt_, a grandson of Bega Begīm the younger
sister of Bābur Mīrzā;[1031] there was one daughter (_bīr gīna qīz_),
known as Qarā-gūz (Dark-eyed) Begīm, whom Nāṣir Mīrzā (_Mīrān-shāhī_)
took. Kīchīk Begīm was the second; for her Sl. Mas`ūd Mīrzā had great
desire but, try as he would, Payānda-sulṯān Begīm, having an aversion
for him, would not give her to him;[1032] she sent Kīchīk Begīm out
afterwards to Mullā Khwāja of the line of Sayyid Ātā.[1033] Her third
and fourth daughters Bega Begīm and Āghā Begīm, she gave to Bābur Mīrzā
and Murād Mīrzā the sons of her younger sister, Rābī`a-sulṯān
Begīm.[1034]
Two other daughters of the Mīrzā were by Mīnglī Bībī Āghācha. They gave
the elder one, Bairam-sulṯān Begīm to Sayyid `Abdu'l-lāh, one of the
sayyids of Andikhūd who was a grandson of Bāī-qarā Mīrzā[1035] through a
daughter. A son of this marriage, Sayyid Barka[1036] was in my service
when Samarkand was taken (917 AH.-1511 AD.); he went to Aūrganj later
and there made claim to rule; the Red-heads[1037] killed him in
Astarābād. Mīnglī Bībī's second daughter was Fāṯima-sulṯān Begīm; her
they gave to Yādgār(-i-farrukh) Mīrzā of Tīmūr Beg's line.[1038]
Three daughters[1039] were by Pāpā Āghācha. Of these the oldest,
Sulṯān-nizhād Begīm was made to go out to Iskandar Mīrzā, youngest son
of Sl. Ḥusain Mīrzā's elder brother Bāī-qarā Mīrzā. The second,
(Sa`ādat-bakht, known as) Begīm Sulṯān, [Sidenote: Fol. 168b.] was given
to Sl. Mas`ūd Mīrzā after his blinding.[1040] By Sl. Mas`ūd Mīrzā she
had one daughter and one son. The daughter was brought up by Apāq Begīm
of Sl. Ḥusain Mīrzā's _ḥaram_; from Herī she came to Kābul and was there
given to Sayyid Mīrzā Apāq.[1041] (Sa`ādat-bakht) Begīm Sulṯān after the
Aūzbeg killed her husband, set out for the _ka`ba_ with her son.[1042]
News has just come (_circa_ 934 AH.) that they have been heard of as in
Makka and that the boy is becoming a bit of a great personage.[1043]
Pāpā Āghācha's third daughter was given to a sayyid of Andikhūd,
generally known as Sayyid Mīrzā.[1044]
Another of the Mīrzā's daughters, `Āyisha-sulṯān Begīm, was by a
mistress, Zubaida Āghācha the grand-daughter of Ḥusain-i-Shaikh
Tīmūr.[1045] They gave her to Qāsim Sl. of the Shabān sulṯāns; she had
by him a son, named Qāsim-i-ḥusain Sl. who came to serve me in
Hindūstān, was in the Holy Battle with Rānā Sangā, and was given
Badāyūn.[1046] When Qāsim Sl. died, (his widow) `Āyisha-sulṯān Begīm was
taken by Būrān Sl. one of his relations,[1047] by whom she had a son,
named `Abdu'l-lāh Sl. now serving me and though young, not doing badly.
(_f. His wives and concubines._)
The wife he first took was Bega Sulṯān Begīm, a daughter of Sl. Sanjar
of Marv. She was the mother of Badī`u'z-zamān Mīrzā. She was very
cross-tempered and made the Mīrzā endure much wretchedness, until
driven at last to despair, he set himself [Sidenote: Fol. 169.] free by
divorcing her. What was he to do? Right was with him.[1048]
A bad wife in a good man's house
Makes this world already his hell.[1049]
God preserve every Musalmān from this misfortune! Would that not a
single cross or ill-tempered wife were left in the world!
Chūlī Begīm was another; she was a daughter of the Aẕāq begs and was the
mother of Sulṯānīm Begīm.
Shahr-bānū Begīm was another; she was Sl. Abū-sa`īd Mīrzā's daughter,
taken after Sl. Ḥusain Mīrzā took the throne (873 AH.). When the Mīrzā's
other ladies got out of their litters and mounted horses, at the battle
of Chīkmān, Shahr-bānū Begīm, putting her trust in her younger brother
(Sl. Maḥmūd M.), did not leave her litter, did not mount a horse;[1050]
people told the Mīrzā of this, so he divorced her and took her younger
sister Payānda-sulṯān Begīm. When the Aūzbegs took Khurāsān (913 AH.),
Payānda-sulṯān Begīm went into `Irāq, and in `Irāq she died in great
misery.
Khadīja Begīm was another.[1051] She had been a mistress of Sl.
Abū-sa`īd Mīrzā and by him had had a daughter, Āq Begīm; after his
defeat (873 AH.-1468 AD.) she betook herself to Herī where Sl. Ḥusain
Mīrzā took her, made her a great favourite, and promoted her to the rank
of Begīm. Very dominant indeed she became later on; she it was wrought
Muḥ. Mūmin Mīrzā's death;[1052] she in chief it was caused Sl. Ḥusain
Mīrzā's sons to rebel against him. She took herself for a sensible woman
but was a silly chatterer, may also have been a heretic. Of her were
[Sidenote: Fol. 169b.] born Shāh-i-gharīb Mīrzā and Muz̤affar-i-ḥusain
Mīrzā.
Apāq Begīm was another;[1053] she had no children; that Pāpā Āghācha the
Mīrzā made such a favourite of was her foster-sister. Being childless,
Apāq Begīm brought up as her own the children of Pāpā Āghācha. She
nursed the Mīrzā admirably when he was ill; none of his other wives
could nurse as she did. The year I came into Hindūstān (932 AH.)[1054]
she came into Kābul from Herī and I shewed her all the honour and
respect I could. While I was besieging Chandīrī (934 AH.) news came that
in Kābul she had fulfilled God's will.[1055]
One of the Mīrzā's mistresses was Laṯīf-sulṯān Āghācha of the
Chār-shamba people[1056]; she became the mother of Abū'l-muḥsin Mīrzā
and Kūpuk (or Kīpik) Mīrzā (_i.e._ Muḥammad Muḥsin).
Another mistress was Mīnglī Bībī Āghācha,[1057] an Aūzbeg and one of
Shahr-bānū Begīm's various people. She became the mother of Abū-turāb
Mīrzā, Muḥammad-i-ḥusain Mīrzā, Farīdūn-i-ḥusain Mīrzā and of two
daughters.
Pāpā Āghācha, the foster-sister of Apāq Begīm was another mistress. The
Mīrzā saw her, looked on her with favour, took her and, as has been
mentioned, she became the mother of five of his sons and four of his
daughters.[1058]
Begī Sulṯān Āghācha was another mistress; she had no child. There were
also many concubines and mistresses held in little respect; those
enumerated were the respected wives and mistresses of Sl. Ḥusain Mīrzā.
Strange indeed it is that of the 14 sons born to a ruler so great as Sl.
Ḥusain Mīrzā, one governing too in such a town as Herī, three only were
born in legal marriage.[1059] In him, in his sons, and in his tribes and
hordes vice and debauchery were [Sidenote: Fol. 170.] extremely
prevalent. What shews this point precisely is that of the many sons born
to his dynasty not a sign or trace was left in seven or eight years,
excepting only Muḥammad-i-zamān Mīrzā.[1060]
(_g. His amīrs._)
There was Muḥammad Barandūq _Barlās_, descending from Chākū _Barlās_ as
follows,—Muḥammad Barandūq, son of `Alī, son of Barandūq, son of
Jahān-shāh, son of Chākū _Barlās_.[1061] He had been a beg of Bābur
Mīrzā's presence; later on Sl. Abū-sa`īd Mīrzā favoured him, gave him
Kābul conjointly with Jahāngīr _Barlās_, and made him Aūlūgh Beg Mīrzā's
guardian. After the death of Sl. Abū-sa`īd Mīrzā, Aūlūgh Beg Mīrzā
formed designs against the two Barlās; they got to know this, kept tight
hold of him, made the tribes and hordes march,[1062] moved as for
Qūndūz, and when up on Hindū-kush, courteously compelled Aūlūgh Beg
Mīrzā to start back for Kābul, they themselves going on to Sl. Ḥusain
Mīrzā in Khurāsān, who, in his turn, shewed them great favour. Muḥammad
Barandūq was remarkably intelligent, a very leaderlike man indeed! He
was extravagantly fond of a hawk; so much so, they say, that if a hawk
of his had strayed or had died, he would ask, taking the names of his
sons on his lips, what it would have mattered if such or such a son had
died or had broken his neck, rather than this or that bird had died or
had strayed.
Muz̤affar _Barlās_ was another.[1063] He had been with the Mīrzā in the
guerilla fighting and, for some cause unknown, had received extreme
favour. In such honour was he in those guerilla days that the compact
was for the Mīrzā to take four _dāng_ (sixths) [Sidenote: Fol. 170b.] of
any country conquered, and for him to take two _dāng_. A strange compact
indeed! How could it be right to make even a faithful servant a
co-partner in rule? Not even a younger brother or a son obtains such a
pact; how then should a beg?[1064] When the Mīrzā had possession of the
throne, he repented the compact, but his repentance was of no avail;
that muddy-minded mannikin, favoured so much already, made growing
assumption to rule. The Mīrzā acted without judgment; people say
Muz̤affar _Barlās_ was poisoned in the end.[1065] God knows the truth!
`Alī-sher _Nawā'ī_ was another, the Mīrzā's friend rather than his beg.
They had been learners together in childhood and even then are said to
have been close friends. It is not known for what offence Sl. Abū-sa`īd
Mīrzā drove `Alī-sher Beg from Herī; he then went to Samarkand where he
was protected and supported by Aḥmad Ḥājī Beg during the several years
of his stay.[1066] He was noted for refinement of manner; people fancied
this due to the pride of high fortune but it may not have been so, it
may have been innate, since it was equally noticeable also in
Samarkand.[1067] `Alī-sher Beg had no match. For as long as verse has
been written in the Turkī tongue, no-one has written so much or so well
as he. He wrote six books of poems (mas̤nawī), five of them answering to
the Quintet (_Khamsah_),[1068] the sixth, entitled the _Lisānu'ṯ-ṯair_
(Tongue of the birds), was in the same metre as the _Manṯiqu'ṯ-ṯair_
(Speech of the birds).[1069] He put together four _dīwāns_ (collections)
of odes, bearing the names, _Curiosities of Childhood_, _Marvels of
Youth_, _Wonders of Manhood_ and _Advantages of Age_.[1070] There are
good quatrains of his also. Some others of his compositions rank below
those [Sidenote: Fol. 171.] mentioned; amongst them is a collection of
his letters, imitating that of Maulānā `Abdu'r-raḥmān _Jāmī_ and aiming
at gathering together every letter on any topic he had ever written to
any person. He wrote also the _Mīzānu'l-aūzān_ (Measure of measures) on
prosody; it is very worthless; he has made mistake in it about the
metres of four out of twenty-four quatrains, while about other measures
he has made mistake such as any-one who has given attention to prosody,
will understand. He put a Persian _dīwān_ together also, Fānī
(transitory) being his pen-name for Persian verse.[1071] Some couplets
in it are not bad but for the most part it is flat and poor. In music
also he composed good things (_nīma_), some excellent airs and preludes
(_nakhsh u peshrau_). No such patron and protector of men of parts and
accomplishments is known, nor has one such been heard of as ever
appearing. It was through his instruction and support that Master
(Ustād) Qul-i-muḥammad the lutanist, Shaikhī the flautist, and Ḥusain
the lutanist, famous performers all, rose to eminence and renown. It was
through his effort and supervision that Master Bih-zād and Shāh
Muz̤affar became so distinguished in painting. Few are heard of as
having helped to lay the good foundation for future excellence he helped
to lay. He had neither son nor daughter, wife or family; he let the
world pass by, alone and unencumbered. At first he was Keeper of the
Seal; in middle-life he became a beg and for a time was Commandant in
Astarābād; later on he forsook soldiering. He took nothing from the
Mīrzā, on the contrary, he each year [Sidenote: Fol. 171b.] offered
considerable gifts. When the Mīrzā was returning from the Astarābād
campaign, `Alī-sher Beg went out to give him meeting; they saw one
another but before `Alī-sher Beg should have risen to leave, his
condition became such that he could not rise. He was lifted up and
carried away; the doctors could not tell what was wrong; he went to
God's mercy next day,[1072] one of his own couplets suiting his case:—
I was felled by a stroke out of their ken and mine;
What, in such evils, can doctors avail?
Aḥmad the son of Tawakkal _Barlās_ was another;[1073] for a time he held
Qandahār.
Walī Beg was another; he was of Ḥājī Saifu'd-dīn Beg's line,[1074] and
had been one of the Mīrzā's father's (Manṣūr's) great begs.[1075] Short
life was granted to him after the Mīrzā took the throne (973 AH.); he
died directly afterwards. He was orthodox and made the Prayers, was
rough (_turk_) and sincere.
Ḥusain of Shaikh Tīmūr was another; he had been favoured and raised to
the rank of beg[1076] by Bābur Mīrzā.
Nuyān Beg was another. He was a Sayyid of Tīrmīẕ on his father's side;
on his mother's he was related both to Sl. Abū-sa`īd Mīrzā and to Sl.
Ḥusain Mīrzā.[1077] Sl. Abū-sa`īd Mīrzā had favoured him; he was the beg
honoured in Sl. Aḥmad Mīrzā's presence and he met with very great favour
when he went to Sl. Ḥusain Mīrzā's. He was a bragging, easy-going,
wine-bibbing, jolly person. Through being in his father's service,[1078]
Ḥasan of Ya`qūb used to be called also Nuyān's Ḥasan.
Jahāngīr _Barlās_ was another.[1079] For a time he shared the Kābul
command with Muḥammad Barandūq _Barlās_, later on [Sidenote: Fol. 172.]
went to Sl. Ḥusain Mīrzā's presence and received very great favour. His
movements and poses (_ḥarakāt u sakanāt_) were graceful and charming; he
was also a man of pleasant temper. As he knew the rules of hunting and
hawking, in those matters the Mīrzā gave him chief charge. He was a
favourite of Badī`u'z-zamān Mīrzā and, bearing that Mīrzā's friendliness
in mind, used to praise him.
Mīrzā Aḥmad of `Alī _Farsī Barlās_ was another. Though he wrote no
verse, he knew what was poetry. He was a gay-hearted, elegant person,
one by himself.
`Abdu'l-khalīq Beg was another. Fīrūz Shāh, Shāhrukh Mīrzā's greatly
favoured beg, was his grandfather;[1080] hence people called him Fīrūz
Shāh's `Abdu'l-khalīq. He held Khwārizm for a time.
Ibrāhīm _Dūldāī_ was another. He had good knowledge of revenue matters
and the conduct of public business; his work was that of a second Muḥ.
Barandūq.
Ẕū'n-nūn _Arghūn_ was another.[1081] He was a brave man, using his sword
well in Sl. Abū-sa`īd Mīrzā's presence and later on getting his hand
into the work whatever the fight. As to his courage there was no
question at all, but he was a bit of a fool. After he left our
(_Mīrān-shāhī_) Mīrzās to go to Sl. Ḥusain Mīrzā, the Mīrzā gave him
Ghūr and the Nikdīrīs. He did [Sidenote: Fol. 172b.] excellent work in
those parts with 70 to 80 men, with so few beating masses and masses of
Hazāras and Nikdīrīs; he had not his match for keeping those tribes in
order. After a while Zamīn-dāwar was given to him. His son Shāh-i-shujā`
_Arghūn_ used to move about with him and even in childhood used to chop
away with his sword. The Mīrzā favoured Shāh-i-shujā` and, somewhat
against Ẕū'n-nūn Beg's wishes, joined him with his father in the
government of Qandahār. Later on this father and son made dissension
between that father and that son,[1082] and stirred up much commotion.
After I had overcome Khusrau Shāh and parted his retainers from him, and
after I had taken Kābul from Ẕū'n-nūn _Arghūn_'s son Muqīm, Ẕū'n-nūn Beg
and Khusrau Shāh both went, in their helplessness, to see Sl. Ḥusain
Mīrzā. Ẕū'n-nūn _Arghūn_ grew greater after the Mīrzā's death when they
gave him the districts of the Herī Koh-dāman, such as Aūba (Ubeh) and
Chachcharān.[1083] He was made Lord of Badī`u'z-zamān Mīrzā's Gate[1084]
and Muḥammad Barandūq _Barlās_ Lord of Muz̤affar-i-ḥusain Mīrzā's, when
the two Mīrzās became joint-rulers in Herī. Brave though he was, he was
a little crazed and shallow-pated; if he had not been so, would he have
accepted flattery as he did? would he have made himself so contemptible?
Here are the details of the matter:—While he was so dominant and so
trusted in Herī, a few shaikhs and mullās went to him and said, "The
Spheres are holding commerce with us; you are to be styled
_Hizabru'l-lāh_ (Lion of God); you will overcome the Aūzbeg." Fully
accepting this flattery, he put his _fūṯa_ (bathing-cloth) round his
neck[1085] and gave thanks. Then, after Shaibāq Khān, coming against the
Mīrzās, had beaten them one [Sidenote: Fol. 173.] by one near Bādghīs,
Ẕū'n-nūn _Arghūn_ met him face to face near Qarā-rabāṯ and, relying on
that promise, stood up against him with 100 to 150 men. A mass of
Aūzbegs came up, overcame them and hustled them off; he himself was
taken and put to death.[1086] He was orthodox and no neglecter of the
Prayers, indeed made the extra ones. He was mad for chess; he played it
according to his own fancy and, if others play with one hand, he played
with both.[1087] Avarice and stinginess ruled in his character.
Darwīsh-i-`alī Beg was another,[1088] the younger full-brother of
`Alī-sher Beg. He had the Balkh Command for a time and there did good
beg-like things, but he was a muddle-head and somewhat wanting in merit.
He was dismissed from the Balkh Command because his muddle-headedness
had hampered the Mīrzā in his first campaign against Qūndūz and Ḥiṣār.
He came to my presence when I went to Qūndūz in 916 AH. (1510 AD.),
brutalized and stupefied, far from capable begship and out-side peaceful
home-life. Such favour as he had had, he appears to have had for
`Alī-sher Beg's sake.
Mughūl Beg was another. He was Governor of Herī for a time, later on was
given Astarābād, and from there fled to Ya`qūb Beg in `Irāq. He was of
amorous disposition[1089] and an incessant dicer.
Sayyid Badr (Full-moon) was another, a very strong man, [Sidenote: Fol.
173b.] graceful in his movements and singularly well-mannered. He danced
wonderfully well, doing one dance quite unique and seeming to be his own
invention.[1090] His whole service was with the Mīrzā whose comrade he
was in wine and social pleasure.
Islīm _Barlās_ was another, a plain (_turk_) person who understood
hawking well and did some things to perfection. Drawing a bow of 30 to
40 _bātmāns_ strength,[1091] he would make his shaft pass right through
the target (_takhta_). In the gallop from the head of the
_qabaq-maidān_,[1092] he would loosen his bow, string it again, and then
hit the gourd (_qabaq_). He would tie his string-grip (_zih-gīr_) to the
one end of a string from 1 to 1-1/2 yards long, fasten the other end to
a tree, let his shaft fly, and shoot through the string-grip while it
revolved.[1093] Many such remarkable feats he did. He served the Mīrzā
continuously and was at every social gathering.
Sl. Junaid _Barlās_ was another;[1094] in his latter days he went to Sl.
Aḥmad Mīrzā's presence.[1095] He is the father of the Sl. Junaid
_Barlās_ on whom at the present time[1096] the joint-government of
Jaunpūr depends.
Shaikh Abū-sa`īd Khān _Dar-miyān_ (In-between) was another. It is not
known whether he got the name of Dar-miyān because he took a horse to
the Mīrzā _in the middle_ of a fight, or whether because he put himself
_in between_ the Mīrzā and some-one designing on his life.[1097]
Bih-būd Beg was another. He had served in the pages' circle (_chuhra
jīrgasī_) during the guerilla times and gave such [Sidenote: Fol. 174.]
satisfaction by his service that the Mīrzā did him the favour of putting
his name on the stamp (_tamghā_) and the coin (_sikka_).[1098]
Shaikhīm Beg was another.[1099] People used to call him Shaikhīm
_Suhailī_ because Suhailī was his pen-name. He wrote all sorts of verse,
bringing in terrifying words and mental images. Here is a couplet of
his:—
In the anguish of my nights, the whirlpool of my sighs engulphs
the firmament;
Like a dragon, the torrent of my tears swallows the quarters of
the world.
Well-known it is that when he once recited that couplet in Maulānā
`Abdu'r-raḥmān _Jāmī's_ presence, the honoured Mullā asked him whether
he was reciting verse or frightening people. He put a _dīwān_ together;
_mas̤nawīs_ of his are also in existence.
Muḥammad-i-walī Beg was another, the son of the Walī Beg already
mentioned. Latterly he became one of the Mīrzā's great begs but, great
beg though he was, he never neglected his service and used to recline
(_yāstānīb_) day and night in the Gate. Through doing this, his free
meals and open table were always set just outside the Gate. Quite
certainly a man who was so constantly in waiting, _would_ receive the
favour he received! It is an evil noticeable today that effort must be
made before the man, dubbed Beg because he has five or six of the bald
and blind at his back, can be got into the Gate at all! Where this sort
of service is, it must be to their own misfortune! Muḥammad-i-walī Beg's
public table and free meals were good; he kept his servants neat and
well-dressed and with his own hands gave [Sidenote: Fol. 174b.] ample
portion to the poor and destitute, but he was foul-mouthed and
evil-spoken. He and also Darwīsh-i-`alī the librarian were in my service
when I took Samarkand in 917 AH. (Oct. 1511 AD.); he was palsied then;
his talk lacked salt; his former claim to favour was gone. His assiduous
waiting appears to have been the cause of his promotion.
Bābā `Alī the Lord of the Gate was another. First, `Alī-sher Beg showed
him favour; next, because of his courage, the Mīrzā took him into
service, made him Lord of the Gate, and promoted him to be a beg. One of
his sons is serving me now (_circa_ 934 AH.), that Yūnas of `Alī who is
a beg, a confidant, and of my household. He will often be
mentioned.[1100]
Badru'd-dīn (Full-moon of the Faith) was another. He had been in the
service of Sl. Abū-sa`īd Mīrzā's Chief Justice Mīrak `Abdu'r-raḥīm; it
is said he was very nimble and sure-footed, a man who could leap over
seven horses at once. He and Bābā `Alī were close companions.
Ḥasan of `Alī _Jalāīr_ was another. His original name was Ḥusain
_Jalāīr_ but he came to be called `Alī's Ḥasan.[1101] His father `Alī
_Jalāīr_ must have been favoured and made a beg by Bābur Mīrzā; no man
was greater later on when Yādgār-i-muḥammad M. took Herī. Ḥasan-i-`alī
was Sl. Ḥusain Mīrzā's _Qūsh-begī_.[1102] He made T̤ufailī
(Uninvited-guest) his pen-name; wrote good odes and was the Master of
this art in his day. He wrote odes on my name when he came to my
presence at the time I took Samarkand in 917 AH. (1511 AD.). Impudent
(_bī bāk_) and [Sidenote: Fol. 175.] prodigal he was, a keeper of
catamites, a constant dicer and draught-player.
Khwāja `Abdu'l-lāh _Marwārīd_ (Pearl)[1103] was another; he was at first
Chief Justice but later on became one of the Mīrzā's favourite
household-begs. He was full of accomplishments; on the dulcimer he had
no equal, and he invented the shake on the dulcimer; he wrote in several
scripts, most beautifully in the _ta`līq_; he composed admirable
letters, wrote good verse, with Bayānī for his pen-name, and was a
pleasant companion. Compared with his other accomplishments, his verse
ranks low, but he knew what was poetry. Vicious and shameless, he became
the captive of a sinful disease through his vicious excesses, outlived
his hands and feet, tasted the agonies of varied torture for several
years, and departed from the world under that affliction.[1104]
Sayyid Muḥammad-i-aūrūs was another; he was the son of that Aūrūs
(Russian?) _Arghūn_ who, when Sl. Abū-sa`īd Mīrzā took the throne, was
his beg in chief authority. At that time there were excellent
archer-braves; one of the most distinguished was Sayyid
Muḥammad-i-aūrūs. His bow strong, his shaft long, he must have been a
bold (_yūrak_) shot and a good one. He was Commandant in Andikhūd for
some time.
Mir (Qaṃbar-i-)`alī the Master of the Horse was another. He it was who,
by sending a man to Sl. Ḥusain Mīrzā, brought him down on the
defenceless Yādgār-i-muḥammad Mīrzā.
Sayyid Ḥasan _Aūghlāqchī_ was another, a son of Sayyid _Aūghlāqchī_ and
a younger brother of Sayyid Yūsuf Beg.[1105] He was the father of a
capable and accomplished son, named Mīrzā Farrukh. He had come to my
presence before I took Samarkand [Sidenote: Fol. 175b.] in 917 AH. (1511
AD.). Though he had written little verse, he wrote fairly; he understood
the astrolabe and astronomy well, was excellent company, his talk good
too, but he was rather a bad drinker (_bad shrāb_). He died in the fight
at Ghaj-dawān.[1106]
Tīngrī-bīrdī the storekeeper (_sāmānchī_) was another; he was a plain
(_turk_), bold, sword-slashing brave. As has been said, he charged out
of the Gate of Balkh on Khusrau Shāh's great retainer Naẕar Bahādur and
overcame him (903 AH.).
There were a few Turkmān braves also who were received with great favour
when they came to the Mīrzā's presence. One of the first to come was
`Alī Khān _Bāyandar_.[1107] Asad Beg and Taham-tan (Strong-bodied) Beg
were others, an elder and younger brother these; Badī`u'z-zamān Mīrzā
took Taham-tan Beg's daughter and by her had Muḥammad-i-zamān Mīrzā. Mīr
`Umar Beg was another; later on he was in Badī`u'z-zamān Mīrzā's
service; he was a brave, plain, excellent person. His son, Abū'l-fatḥ
by name, came from `Irāq to my presence, a very soft, unsteady and
feeble person; such a son from such a father!
Of those who came into Khurāsān after Shāh Ismā`īl took `Irāq and
Aẕarbāījān (_circa_ 906 AH.-1500 AD.), one was `Abdu'l-bāqī Mīrzā of
Tīmūr Beg's line. He was a Mīrān-shāhī[1108] whose ancestors will have
gone long before into those parts, put thought [Sidenote: Fol. 176.] of
sovereignty out of their heads, served those ruling there, and from them
have received favour. That Tīmūr `Us̤mān who was the great, trusted beg
of Ya`qūb Beg (_White-sheep Turkmān_) and who had once even thought of
sending against Khurāsān the mass of men he had gathered to himself,
must have been this `Abdu'l-bāqī Mīrzā's paternal-uncle. Sl. Ḥusain
Mīrzā took `Abdu'l-bāqī Mīrzā at once into favour, making him a
son-in-law by giving him Sulṯānīm Begīm, the mother of Muḥammad Sl.
Mīrzā.[1109] Another late-comer was Murād Beg _Bāyandarī_.
(_h. His Chief Justices_ (_ṣadūr_).)
One was Mīr Sar-i-barahna (Bare-head)[1110]; he was from a village in
Andijān and appears to have made claim to be a sayyid (_mutasayyid_). He
was a very agreeable companion, pleasant of temper and speech. His were
the judgment and rulings that carried weight amongst men of letters and
poets of Khurāsān. He wasted his time by composing, in imitation of the
story of Amīr Ḥamza,[1111] a work which is one long, far-fetched lie,
opposed to sense and nature.
Kamālu'd-dīn Ḥusain _Gāzur-gāhī_[1112] was another. Though not a Ṣūfī,
he was mystical.[1113] Such mystics as he will have gathered in
`Alī-sher Beg's presence and there have gone into their raptures and
ecstacies. Kamālu'd-dīn will have been better-born than most of them;
his promotion will have been due to his good birth, since he had no
other merit to speak of.[1114] A production of his exists, under the
name _Majālisu'l-`ushshāq_ (Assemblies of lovers), the authorship of
which he ascribes (in its preface) to Sl. Ḥusain Mīrzā.[1115] It is
mostly a lie and a tasteless lie. He has written such irreverent things
in it that some [Sidenote: Fol. 176b.] of them cast doubt upon his
orthodoxy; for example, he represents the Prophets,—Peace be on
them,—and Saints as subject to earthly passion, and gives to each a
minion and a mistress. Another and singularly absurd thing is that,
although in his preface he says, "This is Sl. Ḥusain Mīrzā's own written
word and literary composition," he, never-the-less, enters, in the body
of the book, "All by the sub-signed author", at the head of odes and
verses well-known to be his own. It was his flattery gave Ẕū'n-nūn
_Arghūn_ the title Lion of God.
(_i. His wazīrs._)
One was Majdu'd-dīn Muḥammad, son of Khwāja Pīr Aḥmad of Khwāf, the one
man (_yak-qalam_) of Shāhrukh Mīrzā's Finance-office.[1116] In Sl.
Ḥusain Mīrzā's Finance-office there was not at first proper order or
method; waste and extravagance resulted; the peasant did not prosper,
and the soldier was not satisfied. Once while Majdu'd-dīn Muḥammad was
still _parwānchī_[1117] and styled Mīrak (Little Mīr), it became a
matter of importance to the Mīrzā to have some money; when he asked the
Finance-officials for it, they said none had been collected and that
there was none. Majdu'd-dīn Muḥammad must have heard this and have
smiled, for the Mīrzā asked him why he smiled; privacy was made and he
told Mīrzā what was in his mind. Said he, "If the honoured Mīrzā will
pledge himself to strengthen [Sidenote: Fol. 177.] my hands by not
opposing my orders, it shall so be before long that the country shall
prosper, the peasant be content, the soldier well-off, and the Treasury
full." The Mīrzā for his part gave the pledge desired, put Majdu'd-dīn
Muḥammad in authority throughout Khurāsān, and entrusted all public
business to him. He in his turn by using all possible diligence and
effort, before long had made soldier and peasant grateful and content,
filled the Treasury to abundance, and made the districts habitable and
cultivated. He did all this however in face of opposition from the begs
and men high in place, all being led by `Alī-sher Beg, all out of temper
with what Majdu'd-dīn Muḥammad had effected. By their effort and evil
suggestion he was arrested and dismissed.[1118] In succession to him
Niẕāmu'l-mulk of Khwāf was made Dīwān but in a short time they got him
arrested also, and him they got put to death.[1119] They then brought
Khwāja Afẓal out of `Irāq and made him Dīwān; he had just been made a
beg when I came to Kābul (910 AH.), and he also impressed the Seal in
Dīwān.
Khwāja `Atā[1120] was another; although, unlike those already mentioned,
he was not in high office or Finance-minister (_dīwān_), nothing was
settled without his concurrence the whole Khura-sānāt over. He was a
pious, praying, upright (_mutadaiyin_) person; he must have been
diligent in business also.
(_j. Others of the Court._)
Those enumerated were Sl. Ḥusain Mīrzā's retainers and followers.[1121]
His was a wonderful Age; in it Khurāsān, and [Sidenote: Fol. 177b.] Herī
above all, was full of learned and matchless men. Whatever the work a
man took up, he aimed and aspired at bringing that work to perfection.
One such man was Maulānā `Abdu'r-raḥmān _Jāmī_, who was unrivalled in
his day for esoteric and exoteric knowledge. Famous indeed are his
poems! The Mullā's dignity it is out of my power to describe; it has
occurred to me merely to mention his honoured name and one atom of his
excellence, as a benediction and good omen for this part of my humble
book.
Shaikhu'l-islām Saifu'd-dīn Aḥmad was another. He was of the line of
that Mullā Sa`du'd-dīn (Mas`ūd) _Taftazānī_[1122] whose descendants from
his time downwards have given the Shaikhu'l-islām to Khurāsān. He was a
very learned man, admirably versed in the Arabian sciences[1123] and the
Traditions, most God-fearing and orthodox. Himself a Shafi`ī,[1124] he
was tolerant of all the sects. People say he never once in 70 years
omitted the Congregational Prayer. He was martyred when Shāh Ismā`īl
took Herī (916 AH.); there now remains no man of his honoured
line.[1125]
Maulānā Shaikh Ḥusain was another; he is mentioned here, although his
first appearance and his promotion were under Sl. Abū-sa`īd Mīrzā,
because he was living still under Sl. Ḥusain [Sidenote: Fol. 178.]
Mīrzā. Being well-versed in the sciences of philosophy, logic and
rhetoric, he was able to find much meaning in a few words and to bring
it out opportunely in conversation. Being very intimate and influential
with Sl. Abū-sa`īd Mīrzā, he took part in all momentous affairs of the
Mīrzā's dominions; there was no better _muḥtasib_[1126]; this will have
been why he was so much trusted. Because he had been an intimate of that
Mīrzā, the incomparable man was treated with insult in Sl. Ḥusain
Mīrzā's time.
Mullā-zāda Mullā `Us̤mān was another. He was a native of Chīrkh, in the
Luhūgur _tūmān_ of the _tūmān_ of Kābul[1127] and was called the Born
Mullā (_Mullā-zāda_) because in Aūlūgh Beg Mīrzā's time he used to give
lessons when 14 years old. He went to Herī on his way from Samarkand to
make the circuit of the _ka`ba_, was there stopped, and made to remain
by Sl. Ḥusain Mīrzā. He was very learned, the most so of his time.
People say he was nearing the rank of Ijtihād[1128] but he did not reach
it. It is said of him that he once asked, "How should a person forget a
thing heard?" A strong memory he must have had!
Mīr Jamālu'd-dīn the Traditionalist[1129] was another. He had no equal
in Khurāsān for knowledge of the Muḥammadan Traditions. He was advanced
in years and is still alive (934 to 937 AH.).
Mīr Murtāẓ was another. He was well-versed in the sciences [Sidenote:
Fol. 178b.] of philosophy and metaphysics; he was called _murtāẓ_
(ascetic) because he fasted a great deal. He was madly fond of chess, so
much so that if he had met two players, he would hold one by the skirt
while he played his game out with the other, as much as to say, "Don't
go!"
Mīr Mas`ūd of Sherwān was another.[1130]
Mīr `Abdu'l-ghafūr of Lār was another. Disciple and pupil both of
Maulānā `Abdu'r-raḥmān _Jāmī_, he had read aloud most of the Mullā's
poems (_mas̤nawī_) in his presence, and wrote a plain exposition of the
_Nafaḥāt_.[1131] He had good acquaintance with the exoteric sciences,
and in the esoteric ones also was very successful. He was a curiously
casual and unceremonious person; no person styled Mullā by any-one
soever was debarred from submitting a (Qorān) chapter to him for
exposition; moreover whatever the place in which he heard there was a
darwīsh, he had no rest till he had reached that darwīsh's presence. He
was ill when I was in Khurāsān (912 AH.); I went to enquire for him
where he lay in the Mullā's College,[1132] after I had made the circuit
of the Mullā's tomb. He died a few days later, of that same illness.
Mīr `Atā'u'l-lāh of Mashhad was another.[1133] He knew the Arabian
sciences well and also wrote a Persian treatise on rhyme. That treatise
is well-done but it has the defect that he brings into it, as his
examples, couplets of his own and, assuming them [Sidenote: Fol. 179.]
to be correct, prefixes to each, "As must be observed in the following
couplet by your slave" (_banda_). Several rivals of his find deserved
comment in this treatise. He wrote another on the curiosities of verse,
entitled _Badāi`u's-sanāi_; a very well-written treatise. He may have
swerved from the Faith.
Qāẓī Ikhtiyār was another. He was an excellent Qāẓī and wrote a treatise
in Persian on Jurisprudence, an admirable treatise; he also, in order to
give elucidation (_iqtibās_), made a collection of homonymous verses
from the Qorān. He came with Muḥammad-i-yūsuf to see me at the time I
met the Mīrzās on the Murgh-āb (912 AH.). Talk turning on the Bāburī
script,[1134] he asked me about it, letter by letter; I wrote it out,
letter by letter; he went through it, letter by letter, and having
learned its plan, wrote something in it there and then.
Mīr Muḥammad-i-yūsuf was another; he was a pupil of the
Shaikhu'l-islām[1135] and afterwards was advanced to his place. In some
assemblies he, in others, Qāẓī Ikhtiyār took the higher place. Towards
the end of his life he was so infatuated with soldiering and military
command, that except of those two tasks, what could be learned from his
conversation? what known from his pen? Though he failed in both, those
two ambitions ended by giving to the winds his goods and his life, his
house and his home. He may have been a Shī`a.
(_k. The Poets._)
[Sidenote: Fol. 179b.] The all-surpassing head of the poet-band was
Maulānā `Abdu'r-raḥmān _Jāmī_. Others were Shaikhīm Suhailī and Ḥasan of
`Alī _Jalāīr_[1136] whose names have been mentioned already as in the
circle of the Mīrzā's begs and household.
Āṣafī was another,[1137] he taking Āṣafī for his pen-name because he was
a wazīr's son. His verse does not want for grace or sentiment, but has
no merit through passion and ecstacy. He himself made the claim, "I have
never packed up (_būlmādī_) my odes to make the oasis (_wādī_) of a
collection."[1138] This was affectation, his younger brothers and his
intimates having collected his odes. He wrote little else but odes. He
waited on me when I went into Khurāsān (912 AH.).
Banā'i was another; he was a native of Herī and took such a pen-name
(Banā'i) on account of his father Ustād Muḥammad _Sabz-banā_.[1139] His
odes have grace and ecstacy. One poem (_mas̤nawī_) of his on the topic
of fruits, is in the _mutaqārib_ measure;[1140] it is random and not
worked up. Another short poem is in the _khafīf_ measure, so also is a
longer one finished towards the end of his life. He will have known
nothing of music in his young days and `Alī-sher Beg seems to have
taunted him about it, so one winter when the Mīrzā, taking `Alī-sher Beg
with him, went to winter in Merv, Banā'i stayed behind in Herī and so
applied himself to study music that before the heats he had composed
several works. These he played and sang, airs with variations, when the
Mīrzā came back to Herī in the heats. [Sidenote: Fol. 180.] All amazed,
`Alī-sher Beg praised him. His musical compositions are perfect; one was
an air known as _Nuh-rang_ (Nine modulations), and having both the theme
(_tūkānash_) and the variation (_yīla_) on the note called _rāst_(?).
Banā'i was `Alī-sher Beg's rival; it will have been on this account he
was so much ill-treated. When at last he could bear it no longer, he
went into Aẕarbāījān and `Irāq to the presence of Ya'qūb Beg; he did not
remain however in those parts after Ya`qūb Beg's death (896 AH.-1491
AD.) but went back to Herī, just the same with his jokes and retorts.
Here is one of them:—`Alī-sher at a chess-party in stretching his leg
touched Banā'i on the hinder-parts and said jestingly, "It is the sad
nuisance of Herī that a man can't stretch his leg without its touching a
poet's backside." "Nor draw it up again," retorted Banā'i.[1141] In the
end the upshot of his jesting was that he had to leave Herī again; he
went then to Samarkand.[1142] A great many good new things used to be
made for `Alī-sher Beg, so whenever any-one produced a novelty, he
called it `Alī-sher's in order to give it credit and vogue.[1143] Some
things were called after him in compliment _e.g._ because when he had
ear-ache, he wrapped his head up in one of the blue triangular kerchiefs
women tie over their heads in winter, that kerchief was called
`Alī-sher's comforter. Then again, Banā'i when he had decided to leave
Herī, ordered a quite new kind of pad for his ass and [Sidenote: Fol.
180b.] dubbed it `Alī-sher's.
Maulānā Saifī of Bukhārā was another;[1144] he was a Mullā
complete[1145] who in proof of his mullā-ship used to give a list of the
books he had read. He put two _dīwāns_ together, one being for the use
of tradesmen (_ḥarfa-kar_), and he also wrote many fables. That he wrote
no _mas̤nawī_ is shewn by the following quatrain:—
Though the _mas̤nawī_ be the orthodox verse,
_I_ know the ode has Divine command;
Five couplets that charm the heart
_I_ know to outmatch the Two Quintets.[1146]
A Persian prosody he wrote is at once brief and prolix, brief in the
sense of omitting things that should be included, and prolix in the
sense that plain and simple matters are detailed down to the diacritical
points, down even to their Arabic points.[1147] He is said to have been
a great drinker, a bad drinker, and a mightily strong-fisted man.
`Abdu'l-lāh the _mas̤nawī_-writer was another.[1148] He was from Jām and
was the Mullā's sister's son. Hātifī was his pen-name. He wrote poems
(_mas̤nawī_) in emulation of the Two Quintets,[1149] and called them
_Haft-manẕar_ (Seven-faces) in imitation of the _Haft-paikar_
(Seven-faces). In emulation of the _Sikandar-nāma_ he composed the
_Tīmūr-nāma_. His most renowned _mas̤nawī_ is _Laila and Majnūn_, but
its reputation is greater than its charm.
Mīr Ḥusain the Enigmatist[1150] was another. He seems to have had no
equal in making riddles, to have given his whole time to it, and to have
been a curiously humble, disconsolate (_nā-murād_) [Sidenote: Fol. 181.]
and harmless (_bī-bad_) person.
Mīr Muḥammad _Badakhshī_ of Ishkīmīsh was another. As Ishkīmīsh is not
in Badakhshān, it is odd he should have made it his pen-name. His verse
does not rank with that of the poets previously mentioned,[1151] and
though he wrote a treatise on riddles, his riddles are not first-rate.
He was a very pleasant companion; he waited on me in Samarkand (917
AH.).
Yūsuf the wonderful (_badī_)[1152] was another. He was from the Farghāna
country; his odes are said not to be bad.
Āhī was another, a good ode-writer, latterly in Ibn-i-ḥusain Mīrzā's
service, and _ṣāḥib-i-dīwān_.[1153]
Muḥammad _Ṣāliḥ_ was another.[1154] His odes are tasty but
better-flavoured than correct. There is Turkī verse of his also, not
badly written. He went to Shaibāq Khān later on and found complete
favour. He wrote a Turkī poem (_mas̤nawī_), named from Shaibāq Khān, in
the _raml masaddas majnūn_ measure, that is to say the metre of the
_Subḥat_.[1155] It is feeble and flat; Muḥammad _Ṣāliḥ_'s reader soon
ceases to believe in him.[1156] Here is one of his good couplets:—
A fat man (Taṃbal) has gained the land of Farghāna,
Making Farghāna the house of the fat-man (Taṃbal-khāna).
Farghāna is known also as Taṃbal-khāna.[1157] I do not know whether the
above couplet is found in the _mas̤nawī_ mentioned.
Muḥammad _Ṣāliḥ_ was a very wicked, tyrannical and heartless
person.[1158]
Maulānā Shāh Ḥusain _Kāmī_[1159] was another. There are not-bad verses
of his; he wrote odes, and also seems to have put a _dīwān_ together.
Hilālī (New-moon) was another; he is still alive.[1160] Correct and
graceful though his odes are, they make little impression. There is a
_dīwān_ of his;[1161] and there is also the poem (_mas̤nawī_) in the
[Sidenote: Fol. 181b.] _khafīf_ measure, entitled _Shāh and Darwīsh_ of
which, fair though many couplets are, the basis and purport are hollow
and bad. Ancient poets when writing of love and the lover, have
represented the lover as a man and the beloved as a woman; but Hilālī
has made the lover a darwīsh, the beloved a king, with the result that
the couplets containing the king's acts and words, set him forth as
shameless and abominable. It is an extreme effrontery in Hilālī that for
a poem's sake he should describe a young man and that young man a king,
as resembling the shameless and immoral.[1162] It is heard-said that
Hilālī had a very retentive memory, and that he had by heart 30 or
40,000 couplets, and the greater part of the Two Quintets,—all most
useful for the minutiae of prosody and the art of verse.
Ahlī[1163] was another; he was of the common people (_`āmī_), wrote
verse not bad, even produced a _dīwān_.
(_l. Artists._)
Of fine pen-men there were many; the one standing-out in _nakhsh ta`līq_
was Sl. `Alī of Mashhad[1164] who copied many books for the Mīrzā and
for `Alī-sher Beg, writing daily 30 couplets for the first, 20 for the
second.
Of the painters, one was Bih-zād.[1165] His work was very dainty but he
did not draw beardless faces well; he used greatly to lengthen the
double chin (_ghab-ghab_); bearded faces he drew admirably.
Shāh Muz̤affar was another; he painted dainty portraits, [Sidenote: Fol.
182.] representing the hair very daintily.[1166] Short life was granted
him; he left the world when on his upward way to fame.
Of musicians, as has been said, no-one played the dulcimer so well as
Khwāja `Abdu'l-lāh _Marwārīd_.
Qul-i-muḥammad the lutanist (_`aūdī_) was another; he also played the
guitar (_ghichak_) beautifully and added three strings to it. For many
and good preludes (_peshrau_) he had not his equal amongst composers or
performers, but this is only true of his preludes.
Shaikhī the flautist (_nāyī_) was another; it is said he played also the
lute and the guitar, and that he had played the flute from his 12th or
13th year. He once produced a wonderful air on the flute, at one of
Badī`u'z-zamān Mīrzā's assemblies; Qul-i-muḥammad could not reproduce it
on the guitar, so declared this a worthless instrument; Shaikhī _Nāyī_
at once took the guitar from Qul-i-muḥammad's hands and played the air
on it, well and in perfect tune. They say he was so expert in music that
having once heard an air, he was able to say, "This or that is the tune
of so-and-so's or so-and-so's flute."[1167] He composed few works; one
or two airs are heard of.
Shāh Qulī the guitar-player was another; he was of `Irāq, came into
Khurāsān, practised playing, and succeeded. He composed many airs,
preludes and works (_nakhsh, peshrau u aīshlār_).
Ḥusain the lutanist was another; he composed and played with taste; he
would twist the strings of his lute into one and play on that. His fault
was affectation about playing. He [Sidenote: Fol. 182b.] made a fuss
once when Shaibāq Khān ordered him to play, and not only played badly
but on a worthless instrument he had brought in place of his own. The
Khān saw through him at once and ordered him to be well beaten on the
neck, there and then. This was the one good action Shaibāq Khān did in
the world; it was well-done truly! a worse chastisement is the due of
such affected mannikins!
Ghulām-i-shādī (Slave of Festivity), the son of Shādī the reciter, was
another of the musicians. Though he performed, he did it less well than
those of the circle just described. There are excellent themes (_ṣūt_)
and beautiful airs (_nakhsh_) of his; no-one in his day composed such
airs and themes. In the end Shaibāq Khān sent him to the Qāzān Khān,
Muḥammad Amīn; no further news has been heard of him.
Mīr Azū was another composer, not a performer; he produced few works but
those few were in good taste.
Banā'i was also a musical composer; there are excellent airs and themes
of his.
An unrivalled man was the wrestler Muḥammad Bū-sa`īd; he was foremost
amongst the wrestlers, wrote verse too, composed themes and airs, one
excellent air of his being in _chār-gāh_ (four-time),—and he was
pleasant company. It is extraordinary that such accomplishments as his
should be combined with wrestling.[1168]
HISTORICAL NARRATIVE RESUMED.
(_a. Burial of Sl. Ḥusain Mīrzā._)
At the time Sl. Ḥusain Mīrzā took his departure from the world, there
were present of the Mīrzās only Badī'u'z-zamān Mīrzā and
Muz̤affar-i-ḥusain Mīrzā. The latter had been his father's favourite
son; his leading beg was Muḥammad Barandūq _Barlās_; his mother Khadīja
Begīm had been the Mīrzā's most influential wife; and to him the
Mīrzā's people had gathered. [Sidenote: Fol. 183.] For these reasons
Badī`u'z-zamān Mīrzā had anxieties and thought of not coming,[1169] but
Muz̤affar-i-ḥusain Mīrzā and Muḥammad Barandūq Beg themselves rode out,
dispelled his fears and brought him in.
Sl. Ḥusain Mīrzā was carried into Herī and there buried in his own
College with royal rites and ceremonies.
(_b. A dual succession._)
At this crisis Ẕū'n-nūn Beg was also present. He, Muḥ. Barandūq Beg, the
late Mīrzā's begs and those of the two (young) Mīrzās having assembled,
decided to make the two Mīrzās joint-rulers in Herī. Ẕū'n-nūn Beg was to
have control in Badī`u'z-zamān Mīrzā's Gate, Muḥ. Barandūq Beg, in
Muz̤affar-i-ḥusain Mīrzā's. Shaikh `Alī T̤aghāī was to be _dārogha_ in
Herī for the first, Yūsuf-i-`alī for the second. Theirs was a strange
plan! Partnership in rule is a thing unheard of; against it stand Shaikh
Sa'dī's words in the Gulistān:—"Ten darwishes sleep under a blanket
(_gilīm_); two kings find no room in a clime" (_aqlīm_).[1170]
912 AH.-MAY 24TH 1506 TO MAY 13TH 1507 AD.[1171]
(_a. Bābur starts to join Sl. Ḥusain Mīrzā._)
In the month of Muḥarram we set out by way of Ghūr-bund [Sidenote: Fol.
183b.] and Shibr-tū to oppose the Aūzbeg.
As Jahāngīr Mīrzā had gone out of the country in some sort of
displeasure, we said, "There might come much mischief and trouble if he
drew the clans (_aīmāq_) to himself;" and "What trouble might come of
it!" and, "First let's get the clans in hand!" So said, we hurried
forward, riding light and leaving the baggage (_aūrūq_) at Ushtur-shahr
in charge of Walī the treasurer and Daulat-qadam of the scouts. That day
we reached Fort [Z.]aḥāq; from there we crossed the pass of the
Little-dome (Guṃbazak-kūtal), trampled through Sāīghān, went over the
Dandān-shikan pass and dismounted in the meadow of Kāhmard. From Kāhmard
we sent Sayyid Afẓal the Seer-of-dreams (_Khwāb-bīn_) and Sl. Muḥammad
_Dūldāī_ to Sl. Ḥusain Mīrzā with a letter giving the particulars of our
start from Kābul.[1172]
Jahāngīr Mīrzā must have lagged on the road, for when he got opposite
Bāmīān and went with 20 or 30 persons to visit it, he saw near it the
tents of our people left with the baggage. Thinking we were there, he
and his party hurried back to their camp and, without an eye to
anything, without regard for their own people marching in the rear, made
off for Yaka-aūlāng.[1173]
(_b. Action of Shaibāq Khān._)
When Shaibāq Khān had laid siege to Balkh, in which was Sl.
Qul-i-nachāq,[1174] he sent two or three sulṯāns with 3 or 4000 men to
overrun Badakhshān. At the time Mubārak Shāh and Zubair had again
joined Nāṣir Mīrzā, spite of former resentments and bickerings, and they
all were lying at Shakdān, below Kishm [Sidenote: Fol. 184.] and east of
the Kishm-water. Moving through the night, one body of Aūzbegs crossed
that water at the top of the morning and advanced on the Mīrzā; he at
once drew off to rising-ground, mustered his force, sounded trumpets,
met and overcame them. Behind the Aūzbegs was the Kishm-water in flood,
many were drowned in it, a mass of them died by arrow and sword, more
were made prisoner. Another body of Aūzbegs, sent against Mubārak Shāh
and Zubair where they lay, higher up the water and nearer Kishm, made
them retire to the rising-ground. Of this the Mīrzā heard; when he had
beaten off his own assailants, he moved against theirs. So did the
Kohistān begs, gathered with horse and foot, still higher up the river.
Unable to make stand against this attack, the Aūzbegs fled, but of this
body also a mass died by sword, arrow, and water. In all some 1000 to
1500 may have died. This was Nāṣir Mīrzā's one good success; a man of
his brought us news about it while we were in the dale of Kāhmard.
(_c. Bābur moves on into Khurāsān._)
While we were in Kāhmard, our army fetched corn from Ghūrī and Dahāna.
There too we had letters from Sayyid [Sidenote: Fol. 184b.] Afẓal and
Sl. Muḥammad _Dūldāī_ whom we had sent into Khurāsān; their news was of
Sl. Ḥusain Mīrzā's death.
This news notwithstanding, we set forward for Khurāsān; though there
were other grounds for doing this, what decided us was anxious thought
for the reputation of this (Tīmūrid) dynasty. We went up the trough
(_aīchī_) of the Ājar-valley, on over Tūp and Mandaghān, crossed the
Balkh-water and came out on Ṣāf-hill. Hearing there that Aūzbegs were
overrunning Sān and Chār-yak,[1175] we sent a force under Qāsim Beg
against them; he got up with them, beat them well, cut many heads off,
and returned.
We lay a few days in the meadow of Ṣāf-hill, waiting for news of
Jahāngīr Mīrzā and the clans (_aīmāq_) to whom persons had been sent.
We hunted once, those hills being very full of wild sheep and goats
(_kiyīk_). All the clans came in and waited on me within a few days; it
was to me they came; they had not gone to Jahāngīr Mīrzā though he had
sent men often enough to them, once sending even `Imādu'd-dīn Mas`ūd. He
himself was forced to come at last; he saw me at the foot of the valley
when I came down off Ṣāf-hill. Being anxious about Khurāsān, we neither
paid him attention nor took thought for the clans, but went right on
through Gurzwān, Almār, Qaiṣār, Chīchīk-tū, and Fakhru'd-dīn's-death
(_aūlūm_) into the Bām-valley, [Sidenote: Fol. 185.] one of the
dependencies of Bādghīs.
The world being full of divisions,[1176] things were being taken from
country and people with the long arm; we ourselves began to take
something, by laying an impost on the Turks and clans of those parts, in
two or three months taking perhaps 300 _tūmāns_ of _kipkī_.[1177]
(_d. Coalition of the Khurāsān Mīrzās._)
A few days before our arrival (in Bām-valley?) some of the Khurāsān
light troops and of Ẕū'n-nūn Beg's men had well beaten Aūzbeg raiders in
Pand-dih (Panj-dih?) and Marūchāq, killing a mass of men.[1178]
Badī`u'z-zamān Mīrzā and Muz̤affar-i-ḥusain Mīrzā with Muḥammad Barandūq
_Barlās_, Ẕū'n-nūn _Arghūn_ and his son Shāh Beg resolved to move on
Shaibāq Khān, then besieging Sl. Qul-i-nachāq (?) in Balkh. Accordingly
they summoned all Sl. Ḥusain Mīrzā's sons, and got out of Herī to effect
their purpose. At Chihil-dukhtarān Abū'l-muḥsin M. joined them from
Marv; Ibn-i-ḥusain M. followed, coming up from Tūn and Qāīn. Kūpuk
(Kīpik) M. was in Mashhad; often though they sent to him, he behaved
unmanly, spoke senseless words, and did not come. Between him and
Muz̤affar Mīrzā, there was jealousy; when Muz̤affar M. was made
(joint-)ruler, he said, "How should _I_ go to _his_ presence?" Through
this disgusting jealousy he did not come now, even at this crisis when
all his brethren, older and younger, were assembling in concord,
resolute against such a foe [Sidenote: Fol. 185b.] as Shaibāq Khān.
Kūpuk M. laid his own absence to rivalry, but everybody else laid it to
his cowardice. One word! In this world acts such as his outlive the man;
if a man have any share of intelligence, why try to be ill-spoken of
after death? if he be ambitious, why not try so to act that, he gone,
men will praise him? In the honourable mention of their names, wise men
find a second life!
Envoys from the Mīrzās came to me also, Mūh. Barandūq _Barlās_ himself
following them. As for me, what was to hinder my going? It was for that
very purpose I had travelled one or two hundred _yīghāch_ (500-600
miles)! I at once started with Muḥ. Barandūq Beg for Murgh-āb[1179]
where the Mīrzās were lying.
(_e. Bābur meets the Mīrzās._)
The meeting with the Mīrzās was on Monday the 8th of the latter Jumāda
(Oct. 26th 1506 AH.). Abū'l-muḥsin Mīrzā came out a mile to meet me; we
approached one another; on my side, I dismounted, on his side, he; we
advanced, saw one another and remounted. Near the camp Muz̤affar Mīrzā
and Ibn-i-ḥusain Mīrzā met us; they, being younger than Abū'l-muḥsin
Mīrzā ought to have come out further than he to meet me.[1180] Their
dilatoriness may not have been due to pride, but to heaviness [Sidenote:
Fol. 186.] after wine; their negligence may have been no slight on me,
but due to their own social pleasures. On this Muz̤affar Mīrzā laid
stress;[1181] we two saw one another without dismounting, so did
Ibn-i-ḥusain Mīrzā and I. We rode on together and, in an amazing crowd
and press, dismounted at Badī`u'z-zamān Mīrzā's Gate. Such was the
throng that some were lifted off the ground for three or four steps
together, while others, wishing for some reason to get out, were
carried, willy-nilly, four or five steps the other way.
We reached Badī`u'z-zamān Mīrzā's Audience-tent. It had been agreed that
I, on entering, should bend the knee (_yūkūnghāī_) once, that the Mīrzā
should rise and advance to the edge of the estrade,[1182] and that we
should see one another there. I went in, bent the knee once, and was
going right forward; the Mīrzā rose rather languidly and advanced rather
slowly; Qāsim Beg, as he was my well-wisher and held my reputation as
his own, gave my girdle a tug; I understood, moved more slowly, and so
the meeting was on the appointed spot.
Four divans (_tūshuk_) had been placed in the tent. Always in the
Mīrzā's tents one side was like a gate-way[1183] and at the edge of this
gate-way he always sat. A divan was set there now [Sidenote: Fol. 186b.]
on which he and Muz̤affar Mīrzā sat together. Abū'l-muḥsin, Mīrzā and I
sat on another, set in the right-hand place of honour (_tūr_). On
another, to Badī`u'z-zamān Mīrzā's left, sat Ibn-i-ḥusain Mīrzā with
Qāsim Sl. _Aūzbeg_, a son-in-law of the late Mīrzā and father of
Qāsim-i-ḥusain Sulṯān. To my right and below my divan was one on which
sat Jahāngīr Mīrzā and `Abdu'r-razzāq Mīrzā. To the left of Qāsim Sl.
and Ibn-i-ḥusain Mīrzā, but a good deal lower, were Muḥ. Barandūq Beg,
Ẕū'n-nūn Beg and Qāsim Beg.
Although this was not a social gathering, cooked viands were brought in,
drinkables[1184] were set with the food, and near them gold and silver
cups. Our forefathers through a long space of time, had respected the
Chīngīz-tūrā (ordinance), doing nothing opposed to it, whether in
assembly or Court, in sittings-down or risings-up. Though it has not
Divine authority so that a man obeys it of necessity, still good rules
of conduct must be obeyed by whom-soever they are left; just in the same
way that, if a forefather have done ill, his ill must be changed for
good.
After the meal I rode from the Mīrzā's camp some 2 miles to [Sidenote:
Fol. 187.] our own dismounting-place.
(_f. Bābur claims due respect._)
At my second visit Badī`u'z-zamān Mīrzā shewed me less respect than at
my first. I therefore had it said to Muḥ. Barandūq Beg and to Ẕū'n-nūn
Beg that, small though my age was (_aet._ 24), my place of honour was
large; that I had seated myself twice on the throne of our forefathers
in Samarkand by blow straight-dealt; and that to be laggard in shewing
me respect was unreasonable, since it was for this (Tīmūrid) dynasty's
sake I had thus fought and striven with that alien foe. This said, and
as it was reasonable, they admitted their mistake at once and shewed the
respect claimed.
(_g. Bābur's temperance._)
There was a wine-party (_chāghīr-majlisī_) once when I went after the
Mid-day Prayer to Badī`u'z-zamān Mīrzā's presence. At that time I drank
no wine. The party was altogether elegant; every sort of relish to wine
(_gazak_) was set out on the napery, with brochettes of fowl and goose,
and all sorts of viands. The Mīrzā's entertainments were much renowned;
truly was this one free from the pang of thirst (_bī ghall_), reposeful
and tranquil. I was at two or three of his wine-parties while we were on
the bank of the Murgh-āb; once it was known I did not drink, no pressure
to do so was put on me.
I went to one wine-party of Muz̤affar Mīrzā's. Ḥusain of `Alī _Jalāīr_
and Mīr Badr were both there, they being in his service. When Mīr Badr
had had enough (_kaifīyat_), he danced, [Sidenote: Fol. 187b.] and
danced well what seemed to be his own invention.
(_h. Comments on the Mīrzās._)
Three months it took the Mīrzās to get out of Herī, agree amongst
themselves, collect troops, and reach Murgh-āb. Meantime Sl.
Qul-i-nachāq (?), reduced to extremity, had surrendered Balkh to the
Aūzbeg but that Aūzbeg, hearing of our alliance against him, had hurried
back to Samarkand. The Mīrzās were good enough as company and in social
matters, in conversation and parties, but they were strangers to war,
strategy, equipment, bold fight and encounter.
(_i. Winter plans._)
While we were on the Murgh-āb, news came that Ḥaq-naẕīr _Chapā_ (var.
Ḥiān) was over-running the neighbourhood of Chīchīk-tū with 4 or 500
men. All the Mīrzās there present, do what they would, could not manage
to send a light troop against those raiders! It is 10 _yīghāch_ (50-55
m.) from Murgh-āb to Chīchīk-tū. I asked the work; they, with a thought
for their own reputation, would not give it to me.
The year being almost at an end when Shaibāq Khān retired, the Mīrzās
decided to winter where it was convenient and to reassemble next summer
in order to repel their foe.
They pressed me to winter in Khurāsān, but this not one of my
well-wishers saw it good for me to do because, while Kābul and Ghaznī
were full of a turbulent and ill-conducted medley of [Sidenote: Fol.
188.] people and hordes, Turks, Mughūls, clans and nomads (_aīmāq u
aḥsham_), Afghāns and Hazāra, the roads between us and that not yet
desirably subjected country of Kābul were, one, the mountain-road, a
month's journey even without delay through snow or other cause,—the
other, the low-country road, a journey of 40 or 50 days.
Consequently we excused ourselves to the Mīrzās, but they would accept
no excuse and, for all our pleas, only urged the more. In the end
Badī`u'z-zamān Mīrzā, Abū'l-muḥsin Mīrzā and Muz̤affar Mīrzā themselves
rode to my tent and urged me to stay the winter. It was impossible to
refuse men of such ruling position, come in person to press us to stay
on. Besides this, the whole habitable world has not such a town as Herī
had become under Sl. Ḥusain Mīrzā, whose orders and efforts had
increased its splendour and beauty as ten to one, rather, as twenty to
one. As I greatly wished to stay, I consented to do so.
Abū'l-muḥsin M. went to Marv, his own district; Ibn-i-ḥusain M. went to
his, Tūn and Qāīn; Badī`u'z-zamān M. and Muz̤affar M. set off for Herī;
I followed them a few days later, taking the road by Chihil-dukhtarān
and Tāsh-rabāṯ.[1185]
(_j. Bābur visits the Begīms in Herī._)
All the Begīms, _i.e._ my paternal-aunt Pāyanda-sulṯān Begīm, Khadīja
Begīm, Apāq Begīm, and my other paternal-aunt Begīms, daughters of Sl.
Abū-sa`īd Mīrzā,[1186] were gathered together, at the time I went to see
them, in Sl. Ḥusain Mīrzā's College at his [Sidenote: Fol. 188b.]
Mausoleum. Having bent the knee with (_yūkūnūb bīla_) Pāyanda-sulṯān
Begīm first of all, I had an interview with her; next, not bending the
knee,[1187] I had an interview with Apāq Begīm; next, having bent the
knee with Khadīja Begīm, I had an interview with her. After sitting
there for some time during recitation of the Qorān,[1188] we went to the
South College where Khadīja Begīm's tents had been set up and where food
was placed before us. After partaking of this, we went to Pāyanda-sulṯān
Begīm's tents and there spent the night.
The New-year's Garden was given us first for a camping-ground; there our
camp was arranged; and there I spent the night of the day following my
visit to the Begīms, but as I did not find it a convenient place,
`Alī-sher Beg's residence was assigned to me, where I was as long as I
stayed in Herī, every few days shewing myself in Badī`u'z-zamān Mīrzā's
presence in the World-adorning Garden.
(_k. The Mīrzās entertain Bābur in Herī._)
A few days after Muz̤affar Mīrzā had settled down in the White-garden,
he invited me to his quarters; Khadīja Begīm was also there, and with me
went Jahāngīr Mīrzā. When we had eaten a meal in the Begīm's
presence,[1189] Muz̤affar Mīrzā took me to where there was a wine-party,
in the T̤arab-khāna (Joy-house) built by Bābur Mīrzā, a sweet little
abode, a smallish, two-storeyed house in the middle of a smallish
garden. Great pains have been taken with its upper storey; this has a
retreat (_ḥujra_) in each of its four corners, the space between each
two retreats being like a _shāh-nīshīn_[1190]; in between these retreats
and [Sidenote: Fol. 189.] _shāh-nīshīns_ is one large room on all sides
of which are pictures which, although Bābur Mīrzā built the house, were
commanded by Abū-sa`īd Mīrzā and depict his own wars and encounters.
Two divans had been set in the north _shāh-nīshīn_, facing each other,
and with their sides turned to the north. On one Muz̤affar Mīrzā and I
sat, on the other Sl. Mas`ūd Mīrzā[1191] and Jahāngīr Mīrzā. We being
guests, Muz̤affar Mīrzā gave me place above himself. The social cups
were filled, the cup-bearers ordered to carry them to the guests; the
guests drank down the mere wine as if it were water-of-life; when it
mounted to their heads, the party waxed warm.
They thought to make me also drink and to draw me into their own circle.
Though up till then I had not committed the sin of wine-drinking[1192]
and known the cheering sensation of comfortable drunkenness, I was
inclined to drink wine and my heart was drawn to cross that stream
(_wāda_). I had had no inclination for wine in my childhood; I knew
nothing of its cheer and pleasure. If, as sometimes, my father pressed
wine on me, I excused myself; I did not commit the sin. After he
[Sidenote: Fol. 189b.] died, Khwāja Qāẓī's right guidance kept me
guiltless; as at that time I abstained from forbidden viands, what room
was there for the sin of wine? Later on when, with the young man's lusts
and at the prompting of sensual passion, desire for wine arose, there
was no-one to press it on me, no-one indeed aware of my leaning towards
it; so that, inclined for it though my heart was, it was difficult of
myself to do such a thing, one thitherto undone. It crossed my mind now,
when the Mīrzās were so pressing and when too we were in a town so
refined as Herī, "Where should I drink if not here? here where all the
chattels and utensils of luxury and comfort are gathered and in use." So
saying to myself, I resolved to drink wine; I determined to cross that
stream; but it occurred to me that as I had not taken wine in
Badī`u'z-zamān Mīrzā's house or from his hand, who was to me as an elder
brother, things might find way into his mind if I took wine in his
younger brother's house and from his hand. Having so said to myself, I
mentioned my doubt and difficulty. Said they, "Both the excuse and the
obstacle are reasonable," pressed me no more to drink then but settled
that when I was in company with both Mīrzās, I should drink under the
insistance of both.
Amongst the musicians present at this party were Ḥāfiẓ Ḥājī, [Sidenote:
Fol. 190.] Jalālu'd-dīn Maḥmūd the flautist, and Ghulām _shādī_'s
younger brother, Ghulām _bacha_ the Jews'-harpist. Ḥāfiẓ Ḥājī sang well,
as Herī people sing, quietly, delicately, and in tune. With Jahāngīr
Mīrzā was a Samarkandī singer Mīr Jān whose singing was always loud,
harsh and out-of-tune. The Mīrzā, having had enough, ordered him to
sing; he did so, loudly, harshly and without taste. Khurāsānīs have
quite refined manners; if, under this singing, one did stop his ears,
the face of another put question, not one could stop the singer, out of
consideration for the Mīrzā.
After the Evening Prayer we left the T̤arab-khāna for a new house in
Muz̤affar Mīrzā's winter-quarters. There Yūsuf-i-`alī danced in the
drunken time, and being, as he was, a master in music, danced well. The
party waxed very warm there. Muz̤affar Mīrzā gave me a sword-belt, a
lambskin surtout, and a grey _tīpūchāq_ (horse). Jānak recited in
Turkī. Two slaves of the Mīrzā's, known as Big-moon and Little-moon, did
offensive, drunken tricks in the drunken time. The party was warm till
night when those assembled scattered, I, however, staying the night in
that house.
Qāsim Beg getting to hear that I had been pressed to drink wine, sent
some-one to Ẕū'n-nūn Beg with advice for him and for Muz̤affar Mīrzā,
given in very plain words; the result was [Sidenote: Fol. 190b.] that
the Mīrzās entirely ceased to press wine upon me.
Badī`u'z-zamān Mīrzā, hearing that Muz̤affar M. had entertained me,
asked me to a party arranged in the Maqauwī-khāna of the World-adorning
Garden. He asked also some of my close circle[1193] and some of our
braves. Those about me could never drink (openly) on my own account; if
they ever did drink, they did it perhaps once in 40 days, with doorstrap
fast and under a hundred fears. Such as these were now invited; here too
they drank with a hundred precautions, sometimes calling off my
attention, sometimes making a screen of their hands, notwithstanding
that I had given them permission to follow common custom, because this
party was given by one standing to me as a father or elder brother.
People brought in weeping-willows....[1194]
At this party they set a roast goose before me but as I was no carver or
disjointer of birds, I left it alone. "Do you not like it?" inquired the
Mīrzā. Said I, "I am a poor carver." On this he at once disjointed the
bird and set it again before [Sidenote: Fol. 191.] me. In such matters
he had no match. At the end of the party he gave me an enamelled
waist-dagger, a _chār-qāb_,[1195] and a _tīpūchāq_.
(_l. Bābur sees the sights of Herī._)
Every day of the time I was in Herī I rode out to see a new sight; my
guide in these excursions was Yūsuf-i-`alī Kūkūldāsh; wherever we
dismounted, he set food before me. Except Sl. Ḥusain Mīrzā's Almshouse,
not one famous spot, maybe, was left unseen in those 40 days.
I saw the Gāzur-gāh,[1196] `Alī-sher's Bāghcha (Little-garden), the
Paper-mortars,[1197] Takht-astāna (Royal-residence), Pul-i-gāh,
Kahad-stān,[1198] Naẕar-gāh-garden, Ni`matābād (Pleasure-place),
Gāzur-gāh Avenue, Sl. Aḥmad Mīrzā's Ḥaẕirat,[1199] Takht-i-safar,[1200]
Takht-i-nawā'ī, Takht-i-barkar, Takht-i-Ḥājī Beg, Takht-i-Bahā'u'd-dīn
`Umar, Takht-i-Shaikh Zainu'd-dīn, Maulānā `Abdu'r-raḥmān _Jāmī_'s
honoured shrine and tomb,[1201] Namāz-gāh-i-mukhtār,[1202] the
Fish-pond,[1203] Sāq-i-sulaimān,[1204] Bulūrī (Crystal) which
originally may have been Abū'l-walīd,[1205] Imām Fakhr,[1206]
Avenue-garden, Mīrzā's Colleges and tomb, Guhār-shād Begīm's College,
tomb,[1207] and Congregational Mosque, the Ravens'-garden, New-garden,
Zubaida-garden,[1208] Sl. Abū-sa`īd Mīrzā's White-house [Sidenote: Fol.
191b.] outside the `Iraq-gate, Pūrān,[1209] the Archer's-seat, Chargh
(hawk)-meadow, Amīr Wāḥid,[1210] Mālān-bridge,[1211] Khwāja-tāq,[1212]
White-garden, T̤arab-khāna, Bāgh-i-jahān-ārā, Kūshk,[1213]
Maqauwī-khāna, Lily-house, Twelve-towers, the great tank to the north of
Jahān-ārā and the four dwellings on its four sides, the five Fort-gates,
_viz._ the Malik, `Irāq, Fīrūzābād, Khūsh[1214] and Qībchāq Gates,
Chārsū, Shaikhu'l-islām's College, Maliks' Congregational Mosque,
Town-garden, Badī`u'z-zamān Mīrzā's College on the bank of the
Anjīl-canal, `Alī-sher Beg's dwellings where we resided and which people
call Unsīya (Ease), his tomb and mosque which they call Qudsīya (Holy),
his College and Almshouse which they call Khalāṣīya and Akhlāṣīya
(Freedom and Sincerity), his Hot-bath and Hospital which they call
Ṣafā'īya and Shafā'īya. All these I visited in that space of time.
(_m. Bābur engages Ma`ṣūma-sulṯān in marriage._)
It must have been before those throneless times[1215] that Ḥabība-sulṯān
Begīm, the mother of Sl. Aḥmad Mīrzā's youngest daughter Ma`ṣūma-sulṯān
Begīm, brought her daughter into Herī. One day when I was visiting my
Ākā, Ma`ṣūma-sulṯān Begīm came there with her mother and at once felt
arise in her a great inclination towards me. Private messengers having
been sent, my Ākā and my Yīnkā, as I used to call Pāyanda-sulṯān Begīm
[Sidenote: Fol. 192.] and Habība-sulṯān Begīm, settled between them that
the latter should bring her daughter after me to Kābul.[1216]
(_n. Bābur leaves Khurāsān._)
Very pressingly had Muḥ Barandūq Beg and Ẕū'n-nūn _Arghūn_ said, "Winter
here!" but they had given me no winter-quarters nor had they made any
winter-arrangements for me. Winter came on; snow fell on the mountains
between us and Kābul; anxiety grew about Kābul; no winter-quarters were
offered, no arrangements made! As we could not speak out, of necessity
we left Herī!
On the pretext of finding winter-quarters, we got out of the town on the
7th day of the month of Sha`bān (Dec. 24th 1506 AD.), and went to near
Bādghīs. Such were our slowness and our tarryings that the Ramẓān-moon
was seen a few marches only beyond the Langar of Mir Ghiyāṣ.[1217] Of
our braves who were absent on various affairs, some joined us, some
followed us into Kābul 20 days or a month later, some stayed in Herī and
took service with the Mīrzās. One of these last was Sayyidīm `Alī the
gate-ward, who became Badī`u'z-zamān Mīrzā's retainer. To no servant of
Khusrau Shāh had I shewn so much favour as to him; he had been given
Ghaznī when Jahāngīr Mīrzā abandoned it, and in it when he came away
with the army, had left his younger brother Dost-i-anjū (?) Shaikh.
There were in truth [Sidenote: Fol. 192b.] no better men amongst Khusrau
Shāh's retainers than this man Sayyidīm `Alī the gate-ward and
Muḥibb-i-`alī the armourer. Sayyidīm was of excellent nature and
manners, a bold swordsman, a singularly competent and methodical man.
His house was never without company and assembly; he was greatly
generous, had wit and charm, a variety of talk and story, and was a
sweet-natured, good-humoured, ingenious, fun-loving person. His fault
was that he practised vice and pederasty. He may have swerved from the
Faith; may also have been a hypocrite in his dealings; some of what
seemed double-dealing people attributed to his jokes, but, still, there
must have been a something![1218] When Badī`u'z-zamān Mīrzā had let
Shaibāq Khān take Herī and had gone to Shāh Beg (_Arghūn_), he had
Sayyidīm `Alī thrown into the Harmand because of his double-dealing
words spoken between the Mīrzā and Shāh Beg. Muḥibb-i-`alī's story will
come into the narrative of events hereafter to be written.
(_o. A perilous mountain-journey._)
From the Langar of Mīr Ghiyās̤ we had ourselves guided past the
border-villages of Gharjistān to Chach-charān.[1219] From the almshouse
to Gharjistān was an unbroken sheet of snow; it was deeper further on;
near Chach-charān itself it was above the horses' knees. Chach-charān
depended on Ẕū'n-nūn _Arghūn_; his retainer Mīr Jān-aīrdī was in it now;
from him we took, on payment, the whole of Ẕū'n-nūn Beg's store of
provisions. A march or two further on, the snow was very deep, being
above [Sidenote: Fol. 193.] the stirrup, indeed in many places the
horses' feet did not touch the ground.
We had consulted at the Langar of Mīr Ghiyās̤ which road to take for
return to Kābul; most of us agreed in saying, "It is winter, the
mountain-road is difficult and dangerous; the Qandahār road, though a
little longer, is safe and easy." Qāsim Beg said, "That road is long;
you will go by this one." As he made much dispute, we took the
mountain-road.
Our guide was a Pashāī named Pīr Sulṯān (Old sultan?). Whether it was
through old age, whether from want of heart, whether because of the deep
snow, he lost the road and could not guide us. As we were on this route
under the insistance of Qāsim Beg, he and his sons, for his name's sake,
dismounted, trampled the snow down, found the road again and took the
lead. One day the snow was so deep and the way so uncertain that we
could not go on; there being no help for it, back we turned, dismounted
where there was fuel, picked out 60 or 70 good men and sent them down
the valley in our tracks to fetch any one soever of the Hazāra,
wintering in the valley-bottom, who might shew us the road. That place
could not be left till our men returned three or four days later. They
brought no [Sidenote: Fol. 193b.] guide; once more we sent Sulṯān
_Pashāī_ ahead and, putting our trust in God, again took the road by
which we had come back from where it was lost. Much misery and hardship
were endured in those few days, more than at any time of my life. In
that stress I composed the following opening couplet:—
Is there one cruel turn of Fortune's wheel unseen of me?
Is there a pang, a grief my wounded heart has missed?
We went on for nearly a week, trampling down the snow and not getting
forward more than two or three miles a day. I was one of the
snow-stampers, with 10 or 15 of my household, Qāsim Beg, his sons
Tīngrī-bīrdī and Qaṃbar-i-`alī and two or three of their retainers.
These mentioned used to go forward for 7 or 8 yards, stamping the snow
down and at each step sinking to the waist or the breast. After a few
steps the leading man would stand still, exhausted by the labour, and
another would go forward. By the time 10, 15, 20, men on foot had
stamped the snow down, it became so that a horse might be led over it. A
horse would be led, would sink to the stirrups, could do no more than 10
or 12 steps, and would be drawn aside to let another go on. After we,
10, 15, 20, men had stamped down the snow and had led horses forward in
this fashion, very serviceable [Sidenote: Fol. 194.] braves and men of
renowned name would enter the beaten track, hanging their heads. It was
not a time to urge or compel! the man with will and hardihood for such
tasks does them by his own request! Stamping the snow down in this way,
we got out of that afflicting place (_ānjūkān yīr_) in three or four
days to a cave known as the Khawāl-i-qūtī (Blessed-cave), below the
Zirrīn-pass.
That night the snow fell in such an amazing blizzard of cutting wind
that every man feared for his life. The storm had become extremely
violent by the time we reached the _khawāl_, as people in those parts
call a mountain-cave (_ghar_) or hollow (_khāwāk_). We dismounted at its
mouth. Deep snow! a one-man road! and even on that stamped-down and
trampled road, pitfalls for horses! the days at their shortest! The
first arrivals reached the cave by daylight; others kept coming in from
the Evening Prayer till the Bed-time one; later than that people
dismounted wherever they happened to be; dawn shot with many still in
the saddle.
The cave seeming to be rather small, I took a shovel and shovelled out a
place near its mouth, the size of a sitting-mat [Sidenote: Fol. 194b.]
(_takiya-namad_), digging it out breast-high but even then not reaching
the ground. This made me a little shelter from the wind when I sat right
down in it. I did not go into the cave though people kept saying, "Come
inside," because this was in my mind, "Some of my men in snow and storm,
I in the comfort of a warm house! the whole horde (_aūlūs_) outside in
misery and pain, I inside sleeping at ease! That would be far from a
man's act, quite another matter than comradeship! Whatever hardship and
wretchedness there is, I will face; what strong men stand, I will stand;
for, as the Persian proverb says, to die with friends is a nuptial."
Till the Bed-time Prayer I sat through that blizzard of snow and wind in
the dug-out, the snow-fall being such that my head, back, and ears were
overlaid four hands thick. The cold of that night affected my ears. At
the Bed-time Prayer some-one, looking more carefully at the cave,
shouted out, "It is a very roomy cave with place for every-body." On
hearing this I shook off my roofing of snow and, asking the braves near
to come also, went inside. There was room for 50 or 60! People brought
out their rations, cold meat, parched grain, whatever they had. From
such cold and tumult to a place so warm, cosy and quiet![1220]
Next day the snow and wind having ceased, we made an early start and we
got to the pass by again stamping down [Sidenote: Fol. 195.] a road in
the snow. The proper road seems to make a détour up the flank of the
mountain and to go over higher up, by what is understood to be called
the Zirrīn-pass. Instead of taking that road, we went straight up the
valley-bottom (_qūl_).[1221] It was night before we reached the further
side of the (Bakkak-)pass; we spent the night there in the mouth of the
valley, a night of mighty cold, got through with great distress and
suffering. Many a man had his hands and feet frost-bitten; that night's
cold took both Kīpa's feet, both Sīūndūk _Turkmān_'s hands, both Āhī's
feet. Early next morning we moved down the valley; putting our trust in
God, we went straight down, by bad slopes and sudden falls, knowing and
seeing it could not be the right way. It was the Evening Prayer when we
got out of that valley. No long-memoried old man knew that any-one had
been heard of as crossing that pass with the snow so deep, or indeed
that it had ever entered the heart of man to cross it at that time of
year. Though for a few days we had suffered greatly through the depth of
the snow, yet its depth, in the end, enabled us to reach our
destination. For why? How otherwise should we have traversed those
pathless slopes and sudden falls? [Sidenote: Fol. 195b.]
All ill, all good in the count, is gain if looked at aright!
The Yaka-aūlāng people at once heard of our arrival and our dismounting;
followed, warm houses, fat sheep, grass and horse-corn, water without
stint, ample wood and dried dung for fires! To escape from such snow and
cold to such a village, to such warm dwellings, was comfort those will
understand who have had our trials, relief known to those who have felt
our hardships. We tarried one day in Yaka-aūlāng, happy-of-heart and
easy-of-mind; marched 2 _yīghāch_ (10-12 m.) next day and dismounted.
The day following was the Ramẓān Feast[1222]; we went on through Bāmīān,
crossed by Shibr-tū and dismounted before reaching Janglīk.
(_p. Second raid on the Turkmān Hazāras._)
The Turkmān Hazāras with their wives and little children must have made
their winter-quarters just upon our road[1223]; they had no word about
us; when we got in amongst their cattle-pens and tents (_alāchūq_) two
or three groups of these went to ruin and plunder, the people themselves
drawing off with their little children and abandoning houses and goods.
News was [Sidenote: Fol. 196.] brought from ahead that, at a place where
there were narrows, a body of Hazāras was shooting arrows, holding up
part of the army, and letting no-one pass. We, hurrying on, arrived to
find no narrows at all; a few Hazāras were shooting from a naze,
standing in a body on the hill[1224] like very good soldiers.[1225]
They saw the blackness of the foe;
Stood idle-handed and amazed;
I arriving, went swift that way,
Pressed on with shout, "Move on! move on!"
I wanted to hurry my men on,
To make them stand up to the foe.
With a "Hurry up!" to my men,
I went on to the front.
Not a man gave ear to my words.
I had no armour nor horse-mail nor arms,
I had but my arrows and quiver.
I went, the rest, maybe all of them, stood,
Stood still as if slain by the foe!
Your servant you take that you may have use
Of his arms, of his life, the whole time;
Not that the servant stand still
While the beg makes advance to the front;
Not that the servant take rest
While his beg is making the rounds.
From no such a servant will come
Speed, or use in your Gate, or zest for your food.
At last I charged forward myself,
[Sidenote: Fol. 196b.] Herding the foe up the hill;
Seeing me go, my men also moved,
Leaving their terrors behind.
With me they swift spread over the slope,
Moving on without heed to the shaft;
Sometimes on foot, mounted sometimes,
Boldly we ever moved on,
Still from the hill poured the shafts.
Our strength seen, the foe took to flight.
We got out on the hill; we drove the Hazāras,
Drove them like deer by valley and ridge;
We shot those wretches like deer;
We shared out the booty in goods and in sheep;
The Turkmān Hazāras' kinsfolk we took;
We made captive their people of sorts (_qarā_);
We laid hands on their men of renown;
Their wives and their children we took.
I myself collected a few of the Hazāras' sheep, gave them into Yārak
T̤aghāī's charge, and went to the front. By ridge and valley, driving
horses and sheep before us, we went to Tīmūr Beg's Langar and there
dismounted. Fourteen or fifteen Hazāra thieves had fallen into our
hands; I had thought of having them put to death when we next
dismounted, with various torture, as a warning to all highwaymen and
robbers, but Qāsim Beg came across them on the road and, with mistimed
[Sidenote: Fol. 197.] compassion, set them free.
To do good to the bad is one and the same
As the doing of ill to the good;
On brackish soil no spikenard grows,
Waste no seed of toil upon it.[1226]
Out of compassion the rest of the prisoners were released also.
(_j. Disloyalty in Kābul._)
News came while we were raiding the Turkmān Hazāras, that Muḥammad
Ḥusain Mīrzā _Dūghlāt_ and Sl. Sanjar _Barlās_ had drawn over to
themselves the Mughūls left in Kābul, declared Mīrzā Khān (Wais) supreme
(_pādshāh_), laid siege to the fort and spread a _report_ that
Badī`u'z-zamān Mīrzā and Muz̤affar Mīrzā had sent me, a prisoner, to
Fort Ikhtiyāru'd-dīn, now known as Ālā-qūrghān.
In command of the Kābul-fort there had been left Mullā Bābā of
Pashāghar, Khalīfa, Muḥibb-i-`alī the armourer, Aḥmad-i-yūsuf and
Aḥmad-i-qāsim. They did well, made the fort fast, strengthened it, and
kept watch.
(_k. Bābur's advance to Kābul._)
From Tīmūr Beg's Langar we sent Qāsim Beg's servant, Muḥ. of Andijān, a
_Tūqbāī_, to the Kābul begs, with written details of our arrival and of
the following arrangements:—"When we are out of the Ghūr-bund
narrows,[1227] we will fall on them suddenly; let our signal to you be
the fire we will light directly we have passed Minār-hill; do you in
reply light one in the citadel, on [Sidenote: Fol. 197b.] the old Kūshk
(kiosk)," now the Treasury, "so that we may be sure you know of our
coming. We will come up from our side; you come out from yours; neglect
nothing your hands can find to do!" This having been put into writing,
Muḥammad _Andijānī_ was sent off.
Riding next dawn from the Langar, we dismounted over against
Ushtur-shahr. Early next morning we passed the Ghūr-bund narrows,
dismounted at Bridge-head, there watered and rested our horses, and at
the Mid-day Prayer set forward again. Till we reached the
_tūtqāwal_,[1228] there was no snow, beyond that, the further we went
the deeper the snow. The cold between Ẕamma-yakhshī and Minār was such
as we had rarely felt in our lives.
We sent on Aḥmad the messenger (_yāsāwal_) and Qarā Aḥmad
_yūrūnchī_[1229] to say to the begs, "Here we are at the time promised;
be ready! be bold! "After crossing Minār-hill[1230] and dismounting on
its skirt, helpless with cold, we lit fires to warm ourselves. It was
not time to light the signal-fire; we just lit these because we were
helpless in that mighty cold. Near shoot of dawn we rode on from
Minār-hill; between it and Kābul the snow was up to the horses' knees
and had hardened, so off the road to move was difficult. Riding
single-file the whole way, we got to Kābul [Sidenote: Fol. 198.] in good
time undiscovered.[1231] Before we were at Bībī Māh-rūī (Lady
Moon-face), the blaze of fire on the citadel let us know that the begs
were looking out.
(_l. Attack made on the rebels._)
On reaching Sayyid Qāsim's bridge, Sherīm T̤aghāī and the men of the
right were sent towards Mullā Bābā's bridge, while we of the left and
centre took the Bābā Lūlī road. Where Khalīfa's garden now is, there was
then a smallish garden made by Aūlūgh Beg Mīrzā for a Langar
(almshouse); none of its trees or shrubs were left but its enclosing
wall was there. In this garden Mīrzā Khān was seated, Muḥ. Ḥusain Mīrzā
being in Aūlūgh Beg Mīrzā's great Bāgh-i-bihisht. I had gone as far
along the lane of Mullā Bābā's garden as the burial-ground when four men
met us who had hurried forward into Mīrzā Khān's quarters, been beaten,
and forced to turn back. One of the four was Sayyid Qāsim Lord of the
Gate, another was Qāsim Beg's son Qaṃbar-i-`alī, another was Sher-qulī
the scout, another was Sl. Aḥmad _Mughūl_ one of Sher-qulī's band. These
four, without a "God forbid!" (_taḥāshī_) had gone right into Mīrzā
Khān's quarters; thereupon he, hearing an uproar, had mounted and got
away. Abū'l-ḥasan the armourer's younger brother even, Muḥ. Ḥusain by
name, had taken service with Mīrzā Khān; he had slashed at Sher-qulī,
[Sidenote: Fol. 198b.] one of those four, thrown him down, and was just
striking his head off, when Sher-qulī freed himself. Those four, tasters
of the sword, tasters of the arrow, wounded one and all, came pelting
back on us to the place mentioned.
Our horsemen, jammed in the narrow lane, were standing still, unable to
move forward or back. Said I to the braves near, "Get off and force a
road". Off got Nāṣir's Dost, Khwāja Muḥammad `Alī the librarian, Bābā
Sher-zād (Tiger-whelp), Shāh Maḥmūd and others, pushed forward and at
once cleared the way. The enemy took to flight.
We had looked for the begs to come out from the Fort but they could not
come in time for the work; they only dropped in, by ones and twos, after
we had made the enemy scurry off. Aḥmad-i-yūsuf had come from them
before I went into the Chār-bāgh where Mīrzā Khān had been; he went in
with me, but we both turned back when we saw the Mīrzā had gone off.
Coming in at the garden-gate was Dost of Sar-i-pul, a foot-soldier I had
promoted for his boldness to be Kotwāl and had left in Kābul; he made
straight for me, sword in hand. I had my cuirass on but had not fastened
the _gharīcha_[1232] nor had I put on [Sidenote: Fol. 199.] my helm.
Whether he did not recognize me because of change wrought by cold and
snow, or whether because of the flurry of the fight, though I shouted
"Hāī Dost! hāī Dost!" and though Aḥmad-i-yūsuf also shouted, he, without
a "God forbid!" brought down his sword on my unprotected arm. Only by
God's grace can it have been that not a hairbreadth of harm was done to
me.
If a sword shook the Earth from her place,
Not a vein would it cut till God wills.
It was through the virtue of a prayer I had repeated that the Great God
averted this danger and turned this evil aside. That prayer was as
follows:—
"O my God! Thou art my Creator; except Thee there is no God.
On Thee do I repose my trust; Thou art the Lord of the mighty
throne. What God wills comes to pass; and what he does not
will comes not to pass; and there is no power or strength but
through the high and exalted God; and, of a truth, in all
things God is almighty; and verily He comprehends all things
by his knowledge, and has taken account of everything. O my
Creator! as I sincerely trust in Thee, do Thou seize by the
forelock all evil proceeding from within myself, and all evil
coming from without, and all evil proceeding from every man
who can be the occasion of evil, and all such evil as can
proceed from any living thing, and remove them far from me;
since, of a truth, Thou art the Lord of the exalted
throne!"[1233]
On leaving that garden we went to Muḥ. Ḥusain Mīrzā's quarters in the
Bāgh-i-bihisht, but he had fled and gone off to hide himself. Seven or
eight men stood in a breach of the [Sidenote: Fol. 199b.] garden-wall; I
spurred at them; they could not stand; they fled; I got up with them and
cut at one with my sword; he rolled over in such a way that I fancied
his head was off, passed on and went away; it seems he was Mīrzā Khān's
foster-brother, Tūlik Kūkūldāsh and that my sword fell on his shoulder.
At the gate of Muḥ. Ḥusain Mīrzā's quarters, a Mughūl I recognized for
one of my own servants, drew his bow and aimed at my face from a place
on the roof as near me as a gate-ward stands to a Gate. People on all
sides shouted, "Hāi! hāi! it is the Pādshāh." He changed his aim, shot
off his arrow and ran away. The affair was beyond the shooting of
arrows! His Mīrzā, his leaders, had run away or been taken; why was he
shooting?
There they brought Sl. Sanjar _Barlās_, led in by a rope round his neck;
he even, to whom I had given the Nīngnahār _tūmān_, had had his part in
the mutiny! Greatly agitated, he kept crying out, "Hāi! what fault is in
me?" Said I, "Can there be one clearer than that you are higher than the
purpose and counsels of this crew?"[1234] But as he was the sister's son
of my Khān _dādā's_ mother, Shāh Begīm, I gave the order, "Do not lead
him with such dishonour; it is not death."
On leaving that place, I sent Aḥmad-i-qasim _Kohbur_, one of the begs of
the Fort, with a few braves, in pursuit of [Sidenote: Fol. 200.] Mīrzā
Khān.
(_m. Bābur's dealings with disloyal women._)
When I left the Bāgh-i-bihisht, I went to visit Shāh Begīm and
(Mihr-nigār) Khānīm who had settled themselves in tents by the side of
the garden.
As townspeople and black-bludgeoners had raised a riot, and were putting
hands out to pillage property and to catch persons in corners and
outside places, I sent men, to beat the rabble off, and had it herded
right away.[1235]
Shāh Begīm and Khānīm were seated in one tent. I dismounted at the usual
distance, approached with my former deference and courtesy, and had an
interview with them. They were extremely agitated, upset, and ashamed;
could neither excuse themselves reasonably[1236] nor make the enquiries
of affection. I had not expected this (disloyalty) of them; it was not
as though that party, evil as was the position it had taken up,
consisted of persons who would not give ear to the words of Shāh Begīm
and Khānīm; Mīrzā Khān was the begīm's grandson, in her presence night
and day; if she had not fallen in with the affair, she could have kept
him with her.
Twice over when fickle Fortune and discordant Fate had parted
[Sidenote: Fol. 200b.] me from throne and country, retainer and
following, I, and my mother with me, had taken refuge with them and had
had no kindness soever from them. At that time my younger brother
(_i.e._ cousin) Mīrzā Khān and his mother Sulṯān-nigār Khānīm held
valuable cultivated districts; yet my mother and I,—to leave all
question of a district aside,—were not made possessors of a single
village or a few yoke of plough-oxen.[1237] Was my mother not Yūnas
Khān's daughter? was I not his grandson?
In my days of plenty I have given from my hand what matched the
blood-relationship and the position of whatsoever member of that
(Chaghatāī) dynasty chanced down upon me. For example, when the honoured
Shāh Begīm came to me, I gave her Pamghān, one of the best places in
Kābul, and failed in no sort of filial duty and service towards her.
Again, when Sl. Sa`īd Khān, Khān in Kāshghar, came [914 _AH._] with five
or six naked followers on foot, I looked upon him as an honoured guest
and gave him Mandrāwar of the Lamghān _tūmāns_. Beyond this also, when
Shāh Ismā`īl had killed Shaibāq Khān in Marv and I crossed over to
Qūndūz (916 _AH._-1511 _AD._), the Andijānīs, some driving their
(Aūzbeg) _dāroghas_ out, some making their places fast, turned their
eyes to me and sent me a man; at that time I trusted those old family
servants to that same Sl. Sa`īd Khān, gave him a force, made him Khān
and sped him forth. Again, down to the present time (_circa_ 934 _AH._)
I have not looked upon any member of that family who has come to me, in
any other light than as a blood-relation. For example, there [Sidenote:
Fol. 201.] are now in my service Chīn-tīmūr Sulṯān; Aīsān-tīmūr Sulṯān,
Tūkhtā-būghā Sulṯān, and Bābā Sulṯān;[1238] on one and all of these I
have looked with more favour than on blood-relations of my own.
I do not write this in order to make complaint; I have written the plain
truth. I do not set these matters down in order to make known my own
deserts; I have set down exactly what has happened. In this History I
have held firmly to it that the truth should be reached in every matter,
and that every act should be recorded precisely as it occurred. From
this it follows of necessity that I have set down of good and bad
whatever is known, concerning father and elder brother, kinsman and
stranger; of them all I have set down carefully the known virtues and
defects. Let the reader accept my excuse; let the reader pass on from
the place of severity!
(_n. Letters of victory._)
Rising from that place and going to the Chār-bāgh where Mīrzā Khān had
been, we sent letters of victory to all the countries, clans, and
retainers. This done, I rode to the citadel.
(_o. Arrest of rebel leaders._)
Muḥammad Ḥusain Mīrzā in his terror having run away into Khānīm's
bedding-room and got himself fastened up in a bundle of bedding, we
appointed Mīrīm _Dīwān_ with other begs of the fort, to take control in
those dwellings, capture, and bring him in. Mīrīm _Dīwān_ said some
plain rough words at Khānīm's [Sidenote: Fol. 201b.] gate, by some means
or other found the Mīrzā, and brought him before me in the citadel. I
rose at once to receive the Mīrzā with my usual deference, not even
shewing too harsh a face. If I had had that Muḥ. Ḥusain M. cut in
pieces, there was the ground for it that he had had part in base and
shameful action, started and spurred on mutiny and treason. Death he
deserved with one after another of varied pain and torture, but because
there had come to be various connexion between us, his very sons and
daughters being by my own mother's sister Khūb-nigār Khānīm, I kept this
just claim in mind, let him go free, and permitted him to set out
towards Khurāsān. The cowardly ingrate then forgot altogether the good I
did him by the gift of his life; he blamed and slandered me to Shaibāq
Khān. Little time passed, however, before the Khān gave him his deserts
by death.
Leave thou to Fate the man who does thee wrong,
For Fate is an avenging servitor.[1239]
Aḥmad-i-qāsim _Kohbur_ and the party of braves sent in pursuit of Mīrzā
Khān, overtook him in the low hills of Qargha-yīlāq, not able even to
run away, without heart or force to stir a finger! [Sidenote: Fol. 202.]
They took him, and brought him to where I sat in the northeast porch of
the old Court-house. Said I to him, "Come! let's have a look at one
another" (_kūrūshālīng_), but twice before he could bend the knee and
come forward, he fell down through agitation. When we had looked at one
another, I placed him by my side to give him heart, and I drank first of
the sherbet brought in, in order to remove his fears.[1240]
As those who had joined him, soldiers, peasants, Mughūls and
Chaghatāīs,[1241] were in suspense, we simply ordered him to remain for
a few days in his elder sister's house; but a few days later he was
allowed to set out for Khurāsān[1242] because those mentioned above were
somewhat uncertain and it did not seem well for him to stay in Kābul.
(_p. Excursion to Koh-dāman._)
After letting those two go, we made an excursion to Bārān, Chāsh-tūpa,
and the skirt of Gul-i-bahār.[1243] More beautiful in Spring than any
part even of Kābul are the open-lands of Bārān, the plain of Chāsh-tūpa,
and the skirt of Gul-i-bahār. Many sorts of tulip bloom there; when I
had them counted once, it came out at 34 different kinds as [has been
said].[1244] This couplet has been written in praise of these places,—
Kābul in Spring is an Eden of verdure and blossom;
Matchless in Kābul the Spring of Gul-i-bahār and Bārān.
On this excursion I finished the ode,—
_My heart, like the bud of the red, red rose,
Lies fold within fold aflame; [Sidenote: Fol. 202b.]
Would the breath of even a myriad Springs
Blow my heart's bud to a rose?_
In truth, few places are quite equal to these for spring-excursions, for
hawking (_qūsh sālmāq_) or bird-shooting (_qūsh ātmāq_), as has been
briefly mentioned in the praise and description of the Kābul and Ghaznī
country.
(_q. Nāṣir Mīrzā expelled from Badakhshān._)
This year the begs of Badakhshān _i.e._ Muḥammad the armourer, Mubārak
Shāh, Zubair and Jahāngīr, grew angry and mutinous because of the
misconduct of Nāṣir Mīrzā and some of those he cherished. Coming to an
agreement together, they drew out an army of horse and foot, arrayed it
on the level lands by the Kūkcha-water, and moved towards Yaftal and
Rāgh, to near Khamchān, by way of the lower hills. The Mīrzā and his
inexperienced begs, in their thoughtless and unobservant fashion, came
out to fight them just in those lower hills. The battle-field was uneven
ground; the Badakhshīs had a dense mass of men on foot who stood firm
under repeated charges by the Mīrzā's horse, and returned such attack
that the horsemen fled, unable to keep their ground. Having beaten the
Mīrzā, the Badakhshīs plundered his dependants and connexions.
Beaten and stripped bare, he and his close circle took the road through
Ishkīmīsh and Nārīn to Kīlā-gāhī, from there followed the Qīzīl-sū up,
got out on the Āb-dara road, crossed at Shibr-tū, and so came to Kābul,
he with 70 or 80 followers, worn-out, naked and famished.
That was a marvellous sign of the Divine might! Two or three years
earlier the Mīrzā had left the Kābul country like a [Sidenote: Fol.
203.] foe, driving tribes and hordes like sheep before him, reached
Badakhshān and made fast its forts and valley-strongholds. With what
fancy in his mind had he marched out?[1245] Now he was back, hanging the
head of shame for those earlier misdeeds, humbled and distraught about
that breach with me!
My face shewed him no sort of displeasure; I made kind enquiry about
himself, and brought him out of his confusion.
913 AH.-MAY 13TH 1507 TO MAY 2ND 1508 AD.[1246]
(_a. Raid on the Ghiljī Afghāns._)
We had ridden out of Kābul with the intention of over-running the
Ghiljī;[1247] when we dismounted at Sar-i-dih news was brought that a
mass of Mahmands (Afghāns) was lying in Masht and Sih-kāna one _yīghāch_
(_circa_ 5 m.) away from us.[1248] Our begs and braves agreed in saying,
"The Mahmands must be over-run", but I said, "Would it be right to turn
aside and raid our own peasants instead of doing what we set out to do?
It cannot be."
Riding at night from Sar-i-dih, we crossed the plain of Kattawāz in the
dark, a quite black night, one level stretch of land, no mountain or
rising-ground in sight, no known road or track, not a man able to lead
us! In the end I took the lead. I had been in those parts several times
before; drawing inferences from those times, I took the Pole-star on my
right shoulder-blade[1249] and, with some anxiety, moved on. God brought
it right! We went straight to the Qīāq-tū and the Aūlābā-tū torrent,
that is to say, straight for Khwāja Ismā`īl _Sirītī_ where the Ghiljīs
were lying, the road to which crosses the torrent named. Dismounting
near the torrent, we let ourselves and our horses sleep a little,
[Sidenote: Fol. 203b.] took breath, and bestirred ourselves at shoot of
dawn. The Sun was up before we got out of those low hills and
valley-bottoms to the plain on which the Ghiljī lay with a good
_yīghāch_[1250] of road between them and us; once out on the plain we
could see their blackness, either their own or from the smoke of their
fires.
Whether bitten by their own whim,[1251] or whether wanting to hurry, the
whole army streamed off at the gallop (_chāpqūn qūīdīlār_); off galloped
I after them and, by shooting an arrow now at a man, now at a horse,
checked them after a _kuroh_ or two (3 m.?). It is very difficult indeed
to check 5 or 6000 braves galloping loose-rein! God brought it right!
They were checked! When we had gone about one _shar`ī_ (2 m.) further,
always with the Afghān blackness in sight, the raid[1252] was allowed.
Masses of sheep fell to us, more than in any other raid.
After we had dismounted and made the spoils turn back,[1253] one body of
Afghāns after another came down into the plain, provoking a fight. Some
of the begs and of the household went against one body and killed every
man; Nāṣir Mīrzā did the same with another, and a pillar of Afghān heads
was set up. An arrow pierced the foot of that foot-soldier Dost the
Kotwāl who has been mentioned already;[1254] when we reached Kābul, he
died.
Marching from Khwāja Ismā`īl, we dismounted once more at Aūlābā-tū. Some
of the begs and of my own household were ordered to go forward and
carefully separate off the Fifth (_Khums_) of the enemy's spoils. By way
of favour, we did not [Sidenote: Fol. 204.] take the Fifth from Qāsim
Beg and some others.[1255] From what was written down,[1256] the Fifth
came out at 16,000, that is to say, this 16,000 was the fifth of 80,000
sheep; no question however but that with those lost and those not asked
for, a _lak_ (100,000) of sheep had been taken.
(_b. A hunting-circle._)
Next day when we had ridden from that camp, a hunting-circle was formed
on the plain of Kattawāz where deer (_kiyīk_)[1257] and wild-ass are
always plentiful and always fat. Masses went into the ring; masses were
killed. During the hunt I galloped after a wild-ass, on getting near
shot one arrow, shot another, but did not bring it down, it only running
more slowly for the two wounds. Spurring forwards and getting into
position[1258] quite close to it, I chopped at the nape of its neck
behind the ears, and cut through the wind-pipe; it stopped, turned over
and died. My sword cut well! The wild-ass was surprisingly fat. Its rib
may have been a little under one yard in length. Sherīm T̤aghāī and
other observers of _kiyīk_ in Mughūlistān said with surprise, "Even in
Mughūlistān we have seen few _kiyīk_ so fat!" I shot another wild-ass;
most of the wild-asses and deer brought down in that hunt were fat, but
not one of them was so fat as the one I first killed.
Turning back from that raid, we went to Kābul and there dismounted.
(_c. Shaibāq Khān moves against Khurāsān._)
Shaibāq Khān had got an army to horse at the end of last year, meaning
to go from Samarkand against Khurāsān, his [Sidenote: Fol. 204b.] march
out being somewhat hastened by the coming to him of a servant of that
vile traitor to his salt, Shāh Manṣūr the Paymaster, then in Andikhūd.
When the Khān was approaching Andikhūd, that vile wretch said, "I have
sent a man to the Aūzbeg," relied on this, adorned himself, stuck up an
aigrette on his head, and went out, bearing gift and tribute. On this
the leaderless[1259] Aūzbegs poured down on him from all sides, and
turned upside down (_tart-part_) the blockhead, his offering and his
people of all sorts.
(_d. Irresolution of the Khurāsān Mīrzās._)
Badī`u´z-zamān Mīrzā, Muz̤affar Mīrzā, Muḥ. Barandūq _Barlās_ and
Ẕū´n-nūn _Arghūn_ were all lying with their army in Bābā Khākī,[1260]
not decided to fight, not settled to make (Herī) fort fast, there they
sat, confounded, vague, uncertain what to do. Muḥammad Barandūq _Barlās_
was a knowledgeable man; he kept saying, "You let Muz̤affar Mīrzā and me
make the fort fast; let Badī`u´z-zamān Mīrzā and Ẕū´n-nūn Beg go into
the mountains near Herī and gather in Sl. `Alī _Arghūn_ from Sīstān and
Zamīn-dāwar, Shāh Beg and Muqīm from Qandahār with all their armies, and
let them collect also what there is of Nikdīrī and Hazāra force; this
done, let them make a swift and telling move. The enemy would find it
difficult to go into the mountains, and could not come against the
(Herī) fort because [Sidenote: Fol. 205.] he would be afraid of the army
outside." He said well, his plan was practical.
Brave though Ẕū´n-nūn _Arghūn_ was, he was mean, a lover-of-goods, far
from businesslike or judicious, rather shallow-pated, and a bit of a
fool. As has been mentioned,[1261] when that elder and that younger
brother became joint-rulers in Herī, he had chief authority in
Badī`u´z-zamān Mīrzā's presence. He was not willing now for Muḥ.
Barandūq Beg to remain inside Herī town; being the lover-of-goods he
was, he wanted to be there himself. But he could not make this seem one
and the same thing![1262] Is there a better sign of his shallow-pate and
craze than that he degraded himself and became contemptible by accepting
the lies and flattery of rogues and sycophants? Here are the
particulars[1263]:—While he was so dominant and trusted in Herī, certain
Shaikhs and Mullās went to him and said, "The Spheres are holding
commerce with us; you are styled _Hizabru´l-lāh_ (Lion of God); you will
overcome the Aūzbeg." Believing these words, he put his bathing-cloth
round his neck and gave thanks. It was through this he did not accept
Muḥammad Barandūq Beg's sensible counsel, did not strengthen the works
(_aīsh_) of the fort, get ready fighting equipment, set scout or
rearward to warn of the foe's approach, or plan out such method of array
that, should the foe appear, his men would fight with ready heart.
(_e. Shaibāq Khān takes Herī._)
Shaibāq Khān passed through Murgh-āb to near Sīr-kāī[1264] in [Sidenote:
Fol. 205b.] the month of Muḥarram (913 AH. May-June 1507 AD.). When the
Mīrzās heard of it, they were altogether upset, could not act, collect
troops, array those they had. Dreamers, they moved through a
dream![1265] Ẕū'n-nūn _Arghūn_, made glorious by that flattery, went out
to Qarā-rabāṯ, with 100 to 150 men, to face 40,000 to 50,000 Aūzbegs: a
mass of these coming up, hustled his off, took him, killed him and cut
off his head.[1266]
In Fort Ikhtiyāru'd-dīn, it is known as Ālā-qūrghān,[1267] were the
Mīrzās' mothers, elder and younger sisters, wives and treasure. The
Mīrzās reached the town at night, let their horses rest till midnight,
slept, and at dawn flung forth again. They could not think about
strengthening the fort; in the respite and crack of time there was, they
just ran away,[1268] leaving mother, sister, wife and little child to
Aūzbeg captivity.
What there was of Sl. Ḥusain Mīrzā's _ḥaram_, Pāyanda-sulṯān Begīm and
Khadīja Begīm at the head of it, was inside Ālā-qūrghān; there too were
the _ḥarams_ of Badī`u'z-zamān Mīrzā[1269] and Muz̤affar Mīrzā with
their little children, treasure, and households (_biyutāt_). What was
desirable for making the fort fast had not been done; even braves to
reinforce it had not arrived. `Āshiq-i-muḥammad _Arghūn_, the younger
brother of Mazīd Beg, had fled from the army on foot and gone into it;
[Sidenote: Fol. 206.] in it was also Amīr `Umar Beg's son `Alī Khān
(_Turkmān_); Shaikh `Abdu'l-lāh the taster was there; Mīrzā Beg
_Kāī-khusraūī_ was there; and Mīrak _Gūr_ (or _Kūr_) the Dīwān was
there.
When Shaibāq Khān arrived two or three days later; the Shaikhu'l-islām
and notables went out to him with the keys of the outer-fort. That same
`Āshiq-i-muḥammad held Ālā-qūrghān for 16 or 17 days; then a mine, run
from the horse-market outside, was fired and brought a tower down; the
garrison lost heart, could hold out no longer, so let the fort be taken.
(_f. Shaibāq Khān in Herī._)
Shaibāq Khān, after taking Herī,[1270] behaved badly not only to the
wives and children of its rulers but to every person soever. For the
sake of this five-days' fleeting world, he earned himself a bad name.
His first improper act and deed in Herī was that, for the sake of this
rotten world (_chirk dunyā_), he caused Khadīja Begīm various miseries,
through letting the vile wretch Pay-master Shāh Manṣūr get hold of her
to loot. Then he let `Abdu'l-wahhāb _Mughūl_ take to loot a person so
saintly and so revered as Shaikh Pūrān, and each one of Shaikh Pūrān's
children be taken by a separate person. He let the band of poets be
seized by Mullā Banā'ī, a matter about which this verse is well-known in
Khurāsān:—
Except `Abdu'l-lāh the stupid fool (_kīr-khar_),
Not a poet to-day sees the colour of gold;
From the poets' band Banā'ī would get gold,
All he will get is _kīr-khar_.[1271] [Sidenote: Fol. 206b.]
Directly he had possession of Herī, Shaibāq Khān married and took
Muz̤affar Mīrzā's wife, Khān-zāda Khānīm, without regard to the
running-out of the legal term.[1272] His own illiteracy not forbidding,
he instructed in the exposition of the Qoran, Qāẓī Ikhtiyār and Muḥammad
Mīr Yūsuf, two of the celebrated and highly-skilled mullās of Herī; he
took a pen and corrected the hand-writing of Mullā Sl. `Alī of Mashhad
and the drawing of Bih-zād; and every few days, when he had composed
some tasteless couplet, he would have it read from the pulpit, hung in
the Chār-sū [Square], and for it accept the offerings of the
towns-people![1273] Spite of his early-rising, his not neglecting the
Five Prayers, and his fair knowledge of the art of reciting the Qorān,
there issued from him many an act and deed as absurd, as impudent, and
as heathenish as those just named.
(_g. Death of two Mīrzās._)
Ten or fifteen days after he had possession of Herī, Shaibāq Khān came
from Kahd-stān[1274] to Pul-i-sālār. From that place he sent Tīmūr Sl.
and `Ubaid Sl. with the army there present, against Abū'l-muḥsin Mīrzā
and Kūpuk (Kīpik) Mīrzā then seated carelessly in Mashhad. The two
Mīrzās had thought at one time of making Qalāt[1275] fast; at another,
this after they had had news of the approach of the Aūzbeg, they were
for moving on Shaibāq Khān himself, by forced marches and along a
different road,[1276]—which might have turned out an amazingly good
idea! But while they sit still there in Mashhad with nothing decided,
the Sulṯāns arrive by forced marches. The Mīrzās for their part
[Sidenote: Fol. 207.] array and go out; Abū'l-muḥsin Mīrzā is quickly
overcome and routed; Kūpuk Mīrzā charges his brother's assailants with
somewhat few men; him too they carry off; both brothers are dismounted
and seated in one place; after an embrace (_qūchūsh_), they kiss
farewell; Abū'l-muḥsin shews some want of courage; in Kūpuk Mirza it all
makes no change at all. The heads of both are sent to Shaibāq Khān in
Pul-i-sālār.
(_h. Bābur marches for Qandahār._)
In those days Shāh Beg and his younger brother Muḥammad Muqīm, being
afraid of Shaibāq Khān, sent one envoy after another to me with dutiful
letters (_`arz-dāsht_), giving sign of amity and good-wishes. Muqīm, in
a letter of his own, explicitly invited me. For us to look on at the
Aūzbeg over-running the whole country, was not seemly; and as by letters
and envoys, Shāh Beg and Muqīm had given me invitation, there remained
little doubt they would wait upon me.[1277] When all begs and
counsellors had been consulted, the matter was left at this:—We were to
get an army to horse, join the Arghūn begs and decide in accord and
agreement with them, whether to move into Khurāsān or elsewhere as might
seem good.
(_i. In Ghasnī and Qalāt-i-ghilzāī._)
Ḥabība-sulṯān Begīm, my aunt (_yīnkā_) as I used to call her, met us in
Ghaznī, having come from Herī, according to arrangement, in order to
bring her daughter Maṣ`ūma-sulṯān Begīm. [Sidenote: Fol. 207b.] With the
honoured Begīm came Khusrau Kūkūldāsh, Sl. Qulī _Chūnāq_ (One-eared) and
Gadāī _Balāl_ who had returned to me after flight from Herī, first to
Ibn-i-ḥusain Mīrzā then to Abū'l-muḥsin Mīrzā,[1278] with neither of
whom they could remain.
In Qalāt the army came upon a mass of Hindūstān traders, come there to
traffic and, as it seemed, unable to go on. The general opinion about
them was that people who, at a time of such hostilities, are coming into
an enemy's country[1279] must be plundered. With this however I did not
agree; said I, "What is the traders' offence? If we, looking to God's
pleasure, leave such scrapings of gain aside, the Most High God will
apportion our reward. It is now just as it was a short time back when we
rode out to raid the Ghiljī; many of you then were of one mind to raid
the Mahmand Afghāns, their sheep and goods, their wives and families,
just because they were within five miles of you! Then as now I did not
agree with you. On the very next day the Most High God apportioned you
more sheep belonging to Afghān enemies, than had ever before fallen to
the share of the army." Something by way of _peshkash_ (offering) was
taken from each trader when we dismounted on the other side of Qalāt.
(_j. Further march south._)
Beyond Qalāt two Mīrzās joined us, fleeing from Qandahār. One was Mīrzā
Khān (Wais) who had been allowed to go into Khurāsān after his defeat at
Kābul. The other was `Abdu'r-razzāq [Sidenote: Fol. 208.] Mīrzā who had
stayed on in Khurāsān when I left. With them came and waited on me the
mother of Jahāngīr Mīrzā's son Pīr-i-muḥammad, a grandson of Pahār
Mīrzā.[1280]
(_k. Behaviour of the Arghūn chiefs._)
When we sent persons and letters to Shāh Beg and Muqīm, saying, "Here we
are at your word; a stranger-foe like the Aūzbeg has taken Khurāsān;
come! let us settle, in concert and amity, what will be for the general
good," they returned a rude and ill-mannered answer, going back from the
dutiful letters they had written and from the invitations they had
given. One of their incivilities was that Shāh Beg stamped his letter to
me in the middle of its reverse, where begs seal if writing to begs,
where indeed a great beg seals if writing to one of the lower
circle.[1281] But for such ill-manners and his rude answers, his affair
would never have gone so far as it did, for, as they say,—
A strife-stirring word will accomplish the downfall of
an ancient line.
By these their headstrong acts they gave to the winds house, family, and
the hoards of 30 to 40 years.
One day while we were near Shahr-i-ṣafā[1282] a false alarm being given
in the very heart of the camp, the whole army was made to arm and mount.
At the time I was occupied with a bath [Sidenote: Fol. 208b.] and
purification; the begs were much flurried; I mounted when I was ready;
as the alarm was false, it died away after a time.
March by march we moved on to Guzar.[1283] There we tried again to
discuss with the Arghūns but, paying no attention to us, they maintained
the same obstinate and perverse attitude. Certain well-wishers who knew
the local land and water, represented to me, that the head of the
torrents (_rūdlār_) which come down to Qandahār, being towards Bābā
Ḥasan Abdāl and Khalishak,[1284] a move ought to be made in that
direction, in order to cut off (_yīqmāq_) all those torrents.[1285]
Leaving the matter there, we next day made our men put on their mail,
arrayed in right and left, and marched for Qandahār.
(_l. Battle of Qandahār._)
Shāh Beg and Muqīm had seated themselves under an awning which was set
in front of the naze of the Qandahār-hill where I am now having a
rock-residence cut out.[1286] Muqīm's men pushed forward amongst the
trees to rather near us. T̤ūfān _Arghūn_ had fled to us when we were
near Shahr-i-ṣafā; he now betook himself alone close up to the Arghūn
array to where one named `Ashaqu'l-lāh was advancing rather fast leading
7 or 8 men. Alone, T̤ūfān _Arghūn_ faced him, slashed swords with him,
unhorsed him, cut off his head and brought it to me as we were passing
Sang-i-lakhshak;[1287] an omen we accepted! Not thinking it well to
fight where we were, amongst suburbs and trees, we went on along the
skirt of the hill. Just as we had settled on ground for the camp, in a
meadow on the Qandahār side of the [Sidenote: Fol. 209.] torrent,[1288]
opposite Khalishak, and were dismounting, Sher Qulī the scout hurried up
and represented that the enemy was arrayed to fight and on the move
towards us.
As on our march from Qalāt the army had suffered much from hunger and
thirst, most of the soldiers on getting near Khalishak scattered up and
down for sheep and cattle, grain and eatables. Without looking to
collect them, we galloped off. Our force may have been 2000 in all, but
perhaps not over 1000 were in the battle because those mentioned as
scattering up and down could not rejoin in time to fight.
Though our men were few I had them organized and posted on a first-rate
plan and method; I had never arrayed them before by such a good one. For
my immediate command (_khāṣa tābīn_) I had selected braves from whose
hands comes work[1289] and had inscribed them by tens and fifties, each
ten and each fifty under a leader who knew the post in the right or left
of the centre for his ten or his fifty, knew the work of each in the
battle, and was there on the observant watch; so that, after mounting,
the right and left, right and left hands, right and left sides, charged
right and left without the trouble of arraying them or the need of a
_tawāchī_.[1290]
(_Author's note on his terminology._) [Sidenote: Fol. 209b.]
Although _barānghār_, _aūng qūl_, _aūng yān_ and _aūng_ (right
wing, right hand, right side and right) all have the same
meaning, I have applied them in different senses in order to
vary terms and mark distinctions. As, in the battle-array, the
(Ar.) _maimana_ and _maisara_ _i.e._ what people call (Turkī)
_barānghār_ and _jawānghār_ (r. and l. wings) are not included
in the (Ar.) _qalb_, _i.e._ what people call (T.) _ghūl_
(centre), so it is in arraying the centre itself. Taking the
array of the centre only, its (Ar.) _yamīn_ and _yasār_ (r.
and l.) are called (by me) _aūng qūl_ and _sūl qūl_ (r. and l.
hands). Again,—the (Ar.) _khāṣa tābīn_ (royal troop) in the
centre has its _yamīn_ and _yasār_ which are called (by me)
_aūng yān_ and _sūl yān_ (r. and l. sides, T. _yān_).
Again,—in the _khāṣa tābīn_ there is the (T.) _būī_ (_nīng_)
_tīkīnī_ (close circle); its _yamīn_ and _yasār_ are called
_sūng_ and _sūl_. In the Turkī tongue they call one single
thing a _būī_,[1291] but that is not the _būī_ meant here;
what is meant here is close (_yāqīn_).
The right wing (_barānghār_) was Mīrzā Khān (Wais), Sherīm T̤aghāī,
Yārak T̤aghāī with his elder and younger brethren, Chilma _Mughūl_, Ayūb
Beg, Muḥammad Beg, Ibrāhīm Beg, `Alī Sayyid _Mughūl_ with his Mughūls,
Sl. Qulī _chuhra_, Khudā-bakhsh and Abū'l-ḥasan with his elder and
younger brethren.
The left (_jawānghār_) was `Abdu'r-razzāq Mīrzā, Qāsim Beg,
Tīngrī-bīrdī, Qaṃbar-i-`alī, Aḥmad _Aīlchī-būghā_, Ghūrī _Barlās_,
Sayyid Ḥusain Akbar, and Mīr Shāh _Qūchin_.
The advance (_aīrāwal_) was Nāṣir Mīrzā, Sayyid Qāsim Lord of the Gate,
Muḥibb-i-`alī the armourer, Pāpā Aūghulī (Pāpā's son?), Allāh-wairan
_Turkmān_, Sher Qulī _Mughūl_ the scout with his elder and younger
brethren, and Muḥammad `Alī.
In the centre (_ghūl_), on my right hand, were Qāsim Kūkūldāsh, Khusrau
Kūkūldāsh, Sl. Muḥammad _Dūldāī_, Shāh Maḥmūd the secretary,
Qūl-i-bāyazīd the taster, and Kamāl the sherbet-server [Sidenote: Fol.
210.] server; on my left were Khwāja Muḥammad `Alī, Nāṣir's Dost,
Nāṣir's Mīrīm, Bābā Sher-zād, Khān-qulī, Walī the treasurer,
Qūtlūq-qadam the scout, Maqsūd the water-bearer (_sū-chī_), and Bābā
Shaikh. Those in the centre were all of my household; there were no
great begs; not one of those enumerated had reached the rank of beg.
Those inscribed in this _būī_[1292] were Sher Beg, Ḥātim the
Armoury-master, Kūpuk, Qulī Bābā, Abū'l-ḥasan the armourer;—of the
Mughūls, Aūrūs (Russian) `Alī Sayyid,[1293] Darwīsh-i-`alī Sayyid,
Khūsh-kīldī, Chilma, Dost-kīldī, Chilma _Tāghchī_, Dāmāchī, Mindī;—of
the Turkmāns, Manṣūr, Rustam-i-`alī with his elder and younger brother,
and Shāh Nāẕir and Sīūndūk.
The enemy was in two divisions, one under Shāh Shujā' _Arghūn_, known as
Shāh Beg and hereafter to be written of simply as Shāh Beg, the other
under his younger brother Muqīm.
Some estimated the dark mass of Arghūns[1294] at 6 or 7000 men; no
question whatever but that Shāh Beg's own men in mail were 4 or 5000. He
faced our right, Muqīm with a force smaller may-be than his brother's,
faced our left. Muqīm made a mightily strong attack on our left, that is
on Qāsim Beg from whom two or three persons came before fighting began,
to ask for reinforcement; we however could not detach a man because in
front of us also the enemy was very strong. We made our onset without
any delay; the enemy fell suddenly on our van, [Sidenote: Fol. 210b.]
turned it back and rammed it on our centre. When we, after a discharge
of arrows, advanced, they, who also had been shooting for a time,
seemed likely to make a stand (_tūkhtaghāndīk_). Some-one, shouting to
his men, came forward towards me, dismounted and was for adjusting his
arrow, but he could do nothing because we moved on without stay. He
remounted and rode off; it may have been Shāh Beg himself. During the
fight Pīrī Beg _Turkmān_ and 4 or 5 of his brethren turned their faces
from the foe and, turban in hand,[1295] came over to us.
(_Author's note on Pīrī Beg._) This Pīrī Beg was one of those
Turkmāns who came [into Herī] with the Turkmān Begs led by
`Abdu'l-bāqī Mīrzā and Murād Beg, after Shāh Ismā`īl
vanquished the Bāyandar sulṯāns and seized the `Irāq
countries.[1296]
Our right was the first to overcome the foe; it made him hurry off. Its
extreme point had gone pricking (_sānjīlīb_)[1297] as far as where I
have now laid out a garden. Our left extended as far as the great
tree-tangled[1298] irrigation-channels, a good way below Bābā Ḥasan
Abdāl. Muqīm was opposite it, its numbers very small compared with his.
God brought it right! Between it and Muqīm were three or four of the
tree-tangled water-channels going on to Qandahār;[1299] it held the
crossing-place and allowed no passage; small body though it was, it made
splendid stand [Sidenote: Fol. 211.] and kept its ground. Ḥalwāchī
Tarkhān[1300] slashed away in the water with Tīngrī-bīrdī and
Qaṃbar-i-`alī. Qaṃbar-i-`alī was wounded; an arrow stuck in Qāsim Beg's
forehead; another struck Ghūrī _Barlās_ above the eyebrow and came out
above his cheek.[1301]
We meantime, after putting our adversary to flight, had crossed those
same channels towards the naze of Murghān-koh (Birds'-hill). Some-one on
a grey _tīpūchāq_ was going backwards and forwards irresolutely along
the hill-skirt, while we were getting across; I likened him to Shāh
Beg; seemingly it was he.
Our men having beaten their opponents, all went off to pursue and
unhorse them. Remained with me eleven to count, `Abdu'l-lāh the
librarian being one. Muqīm was still keeping his ground and fighting.
Without a glance at the fewness of our men, we had the nagarets sounded
and, putting our trust in God, moved with face set for Muqīm.
(Turkī) For few or for many God is full strength;
No man has might in His Court.
(Arabic) How often, God willing it, a small force has vanquished
a large one!
Learning from the nagarets that we were approaching, Muqīm forgot his
fixed plan and took the road of flight. God brought it right!
After putting our foe to flight, we moved for Qandahār and dismounted in
Farrukh-zād Beg's Chār-bāgh, of which at this time not a trace remains!
(_m. Bābur enters Qandahār._) [Sidenote: Fol. 211b.]
Shāh Beg and Muqīm could not get into Qandahār when they took to flight;
Shāh Beg went towards Shāl and Mastūng (Quetta), Muqīm towards
Zamīn-dāwar. They left no-one able to make the fort fast. Aḥmad `Alī
Tarkhān was in it together with other elder and younger brethren of Qulī
Beg _Arghūn_ whose attachment and good-feeling for me were known. After
parley they asked protection for the families of their elder and younger
brethren; their request was granted and all mentioned were encompassed
with favour. They then opened the Māshūr-gate of the town; with
leaderless men in mind, no other was opened. At that gate were posted
Sherīm T̤aghāī and Yārīm Beg. I went in with a few of the household,
charged the leaderless men and had two or three put to death by way of
example.[1302]
(_n. The spoils of Qandahār._)
I got to Muqīm's treasury first, that being in the outer-fort;
`Abdu'r-razzāq Mīrzā must have been quicker than I, for he was just
dismounting there when I arrived; I gave him a few things from it. I put
Dost-i-nāṣir Beg, Qul-i-bāyazīd the taster and, of pay-masters, Muḥammad
_bakhshī_ in charge of it, then passed on into the citadel and posted
Khwāja Muḥammad `Alī, Shāh Maḥmūd and, of the pay-masters, T̤aghāī Shāh
_bakhshī_ in charge of Shāh Beg's treasury.
Nāṣir's Mīrīm and Maqṣūd the sherbet-server were sent to keep the house
of Ẕū'n-nūn's _Dīwān_ Mīr Jān for Nāṣir Mīrzā; for Mīrzā Khān was kept
Shaikh Abū-sa`īd _Tarkhānī's_; for `Abdu'r-razzāq Mīrzā ... 's.[1303]
[Sidenote: Fol. 212.] Such masses of white money had never been seen in
those countries; no-one indeed was to be heard of who had seen so much.
That night, when we ourselves stayed in the citadel, Shāh Beg's slave
Saṃbhal was captured and brought in. Though he was then Shāh Beg's
intimate, he had not yet received his later favour.[1304] I had him
given into someone's charge but as good watch was not kept, he was
allowed to escape. Next day I went back to my camp in Farrukh-zād Beg's
Chār-bāgh.
I gave the Qandahār country to Nāṣir Mīrzā. After the treasure had been
got into order, loaded up and started off, he took the loads of white
_tankas_ off a string of camels (_i.e._ _7_ beasts) at the
citadel-treasury, and kept them. I did not demand them back; I just gave
them to him.
On leaving Qandahār, we dismounted in the Qūsh-khāna meadow. After
setting the army forward, I had gone for an excursion, so I got into
camp rather late. It was another camp! not to be recognized! Excellent
_tīpūchāqs_, strings and strings of he-camels, she-camels, and mules,
bearing saddle-bags (_khurzīn_) of silken stuffs and cloth,—tents of
scarlet (cloth) and velvet, all sorts of awnings, every kind of
work-shop, ass-load after ass-load of chests! The goods of the elder and
younger (Arghūn) brethren had been kept in separate treasuries; out of
each had come chest upon chest, bale upon bale of stuffs and
clothes-in-wear (_artmāq artmāq_), sack upon sack of white _tankas_. In
_aūtāgh_ and _chādar_ (lattice-tent and pole-tent) was much spoil for
every man soever; many sheep also had been taken but sheep were less
cared about!
I made over to Qāsim Beg Muqīm's retainers in Qalāt, under [Sidenote:
Fol. 212b.] Qūj _Arghūn_ and Tāju'd-dīn Maḥmūd, with their goods and
effects. Qāsim Beg was a knowing person; he saw it unadvisable for us to
stay long near Qandahār, so, by talking and talking, worrying and
worrying, he got us to march off. As has been said, I had bestowed
Qandahār on Nāṣir Mīrzā; he was given leave to go there; we started for
Kābul.
There had been no chance of portioning out the spoils while we were near
Qandahār; it was done at Qarā-bāgh where we delayed two or three days.
To count the coins being difficult, they were apportioned by weighing
them in scales. Begs of all ranks, retainers and household (_tābīn_)
loaded up ass-load after ass-load of sacks full of white _tankas_, and
took them away for their own subsistence and the pay of their soldiers.
We went back to Kābul with masses of goods and treasure, great honour
and reputation.
(_o. Bābur's marriage with Ma`ṣūma-sulṯān._)
After this return to Kābul I concluded alliance (_`aqd qīldīm_) with Sl.
Aḥmad Mīrzā's daughter Ma`ṣūma-sulṯān Begīm whom I had asked in marriage
at Khurāsān, and had had brought from there.
(_p. Shaibāq Khān before Qandahār._)
A few days later a servant of Nāṣir Mīrzā brought the news that Shaibāq
Khān had come and laid siege to Qandahār. That Muqīm had fled to
Zamīn-dāwar has been said already; from there he went on and saw Shaibāq
Khān. From Shāh Beg also one person after another had gone to Shaibāq
Khān. At the instigation and petition of these two, the Khān came
[Sidenote: Fol. 213.] swiftly down on Qandahār by the mountain
road,[1305] thinking to find me there. This was the very thing that
experienced person Qāsim Beg had in his mind when he worried us into
marching off from near Qandahār.
(Persian) What a mirror shews to the young man,
A baked brick shews to the old one!
Shaibāq Khān arriving, besieged Nāṣir Mīrzā in Qandahār.
(_q. Alarm in Kābul._)
When this news came, the begs were summoned for counsel. The matters for
discussion were these:—Strangers and ancient foes, such as are Shaibāq
Khān and the Aūzbegs, are in possession of all the countries once held
by Tīmūr Beg's descendants; even where Turks and Chaghatāīs[1306]
survive in corners and border-lands, they have all joined the Aūzbeg,
willingly or with aversion; one remains, I myself, in Kābul, the foe
mightily strong, I very weak, with no means of making terms, no strength
to oppose; that, in the presence of such power and potency, we had to
think of some place for ourselves and, at this crisis and in the crack
of time there was, to put a wider space between us and the strong
foeman; that choice lay between Badakhshān and Hindūstān and that
decision must now be made.
Qāsim Beg and Sherīm T̤aghāī were agreed for Badakhshān;
(_Author's note on Badakhshān._) Those holding their heads up
in Badakhshān at this crisis were, of Badakhshīs, Mubārak Shāh
and Zubair, Jahāngīr _Turkmān_ and Muḥammad the armourer. They
had driven Nāṣir Mīrzā out but had not joined the Aūzbeg.
[Sidenote: Fol. 213b.] I and several household-begs preferred going
towards Hindūstān and were for making a start to Lamghān.[1307]
(_r. Movements of some Mīrzās._)
After taking Qandahār, I had bestowed Qalāt and the Turnūk (Tarnak)
country on `Abdu'r-razzāq Mīrzā and had left him in Qalāt, but with the
Aūzbeg besieging Qandahār, he could not stay in Qalāt, so left it and
came to Kābul. He arriving just as we were marching out, was there left
in charge.[1308]
There being in Badakhshān no ruler or ruler's son, Mīrzā Khān inclined
to go in that direction, both because of his relationship to Shāh
Begīm[1309] and with her approval. He was allowed to go and the honoured
Begīm herself started off with him. My honoured maternal-aunt Mihr-nigār
Khānīm also wished to go to Badakhshān, notwithstanding that it was more
seemly for her to be with me, a blood-relation; but whatever objection
was made, she was not to be dissuaded; she also betook[1310] herself to
Badakhshān.
(_s. Bābur's second start for Hindūstān._)
Under our plan of going to Hindūstān, we marched out of Kābul in the
month of the first Jumāda (September 1507 AD.), taking the road through
Little Kābul and going down by Sūrkh-rabāṯ to Qūrūq-sāī.
The Afghāns belonging between Kābul and Lamghān (Ningnahār) are thieves
and abettors of thieves even in quiet times; for just such a happening
as this they had prayed in vain. Said they, "He has abandoned Kābul",
and multiplied their misdeeds by ten, changing their very merits for
faults. To such [Sidenote: Fol. 214.] lengths did things go that on the
morning we marched from Jagdālīk, the Afghāns located between it and
Lamghān, such as the Khiẓr-khail, Shimū-khail, Khirilchī and Khūgīanī,
thought of blocking the pass, arrayed on the mountain to the north, and
advancing with sound of tambour and flourish of sword, began to shew
themselves off. On our mounting I ordered our men to move along the
mountain-side, each man from where he had dismounted;[1311] off they set
at the gallop up every ridge and every valley of the saddle.[1312] The
Afghāns stood awhile, but could not let even one arrow fly,[1313] and
betook themselves to flight. While I was on the mountain during the
pursuit, I shot one in the hand as he was running back below me. That
arrow-stricken man and a few others were brought in; some were put to
death by impalement, as an example.
We dismounted over against the Adīnapūr-fort in the Nīngnahār _tūmān_.
(_t. A raid for winter stores._)
Up till then we had taken no thought where to camp, where to go, where
to stay; we had just marched up and down, camping in fresh places, while
waiting for news.[1314] It was late in the autumn; most lowlanders had
carried in their rice. People knowing the local land and water
represented that the Mīl Kāfirs up the water of the `Alīshang _tūmān_
grow great quantities of rice, so that we might be able to collect
winter supplies from them for the army. Accordingly we rode out of the
Nīngnahār dale (_julga_), crossed (the Bārān-water) at Sāīkal, and went
swiftly as far as the Pūr-amīn (easeful) valley. [Sidenote: Fol. 214b.]
There the soldiers took a mass of rice. The rice-fields were all at the
bottom of the hills. The people fled but some Kāfirs went to their
death. A few of our braves had been sent to a look-out (_sar-kūb_)[1315]
on a naze of the Pūr-anīm valley; when they were returning to us, the
Kāfirs rushed from the hill above, shooting at them. They overtook Qāsim
Beg's son-in-law Pūrān, chopped at him with an axe, and were just taking
him when some of the braves went back, brought strength to bear, drove
them off and got Pūrān away. After one night spent in the Kāfirs'
rice-fields, we returned to camp with a mass of provisions collected.
(_u. Marriage of Muqīm's daughter._)
While we were near Mandrāwar in those days, an alliance was concluded
between Muqīm's daughter Māh-chūchūk, now married to Shāh Ḥasan
_Arghūn_, and Qāsim Kūkūldāsh.[1316]
(_v. Abandonment of the Hindūstān project._)
As it was not found desirable to go on into Hindūstān, I sent Mullā Bābā
of Pashāghar back to Kābul with a few braves. Meantime I marched from
near Mandrāwar to Atar and Shīwa and lay there for a few days. From Atar
I visited Kūnār and Nūr-gal; from Kūnār I went back to camp on a raft;
it was the first time I had sat on one; it pleased me much, and the raft
came into common use thereafter.
(_w. Shaibāq Khān retires from Qandahār._)
In those same days Mullā Bābā of Farkat came from Nāṣir Mīrzā with news
in detail that Shaibāq Khān, after taking the outer-fort of Qandahār,
had not been able to take the citadel but had retired; also that the
Mīrzā, on various accounts, had left Qandahār and gone to Ghaznī.
Shaibāq Khān's arrival before Qandahār, within a few days [Sidenote:
Fol. 215.] of our own departure, had taken the garrison by surprise, and
they had not been able to make fast the outer-fort. He ran mines several
times round about the citadel and made several assaults. The place was
about to be lost. At that anxious time Khwāja Muḥ. Amīn, Khwāja Dost
Khāwand, Muḥ. `Alī, a foot-soldier, and Shāmī (Syrian?) let themselves
down from the walls and got away. Just as those in the citadel were
about to surrender in despair, Shaibāq Khān interposed words of peace
and uprose from before the place. Why he rose was this:—It appears that
before he went there, he had sent his _ḥaram_ to Nīrah-tū,[1317] and
that in Nīrah-tū some-one lifted up his head and got command in the
fort; the Khān therefore made a sort of peace and retired from Qandahār.
(_x. Bābur returns to Kābul._)
Mid-winter though it was we went back to Kābul by the Bād-i-pīch road. I
ordered the date of that transit and that crossing of the pass to be cut
on a stone above Bād-i-pīch;[1318] Ḥāfiẓ Mīrak wrote the inscription,
Ustād Shāh Muḥammad did the cutting, not well though, through haste.
I bestowed Ghaznī on Nāṣir Mīrzā and gave `Abdu'r-razzāq Mīrzā the
Nīngnahār _tūmān_ with Mandrāwar, Nūr-valley, Kūnār and Nūr-gal.[1319]
(_y. Bābur styles himself Pādshāh._)
Up to that date people had styled Tīmūr Beg's descendants _Mīrzā_, even
when they were ruling; now I ordered that people should style me
_Pādshāh_.[1320]
(_z. Birth of Bābur's first son._)
At the end of this year, on Tuesday the 4th day of the month of
Ẕū'l-qa`da (March 6th 1506 AD.), the Sun being in Pisces [Sidenote: Fol.
215b.] (_Ḥūt_), Humāyūn was born in the citadel of Kābul. The date of
his birth was found by the poet Maulānā Masnadī in the words _Sulṯān
Humāyūn Khān_,[1321] and a minor poet of Kābul found it in
_Shāh-i-fīrūs-qadr_ (Shāh of victorious might). A few days later he
received the name Humāyūn; when he was five or six days old, I went out
to the Chār-bāgh where was had the feast of his nativity. All the begs,
small and great, brought gifts; such a mass of white _tankas_ was heaped
up as had never been seen before. It was a first-rate feast!
914 AH.—MAY 2ND 1508 TO APRIL 21ST 1509 AD.[1322]
This spring a body of Mahmand Afghāns was over-run near Muqur.[1323]
(_a. A Mughūl rebellion._)
A few days after our return from that raid, Qūj Beg, Faqīr-i-`alī,
Karīm-dād and Bābā _chuhra_ were thinking about deserting, but their
design becoming known, people were sent who took them below Astar-ghach.
As good-for-nothing words of theirs had been reported to me, even during
Jahāngīr M.'s life-time,[1324] I ordered that they should be put to
death at the top of the _bāzār_. They had been taken to the place; the
ropes had been fixed; and they were about to be hanged when Qāsim Beg
sent Khalīfa to me with an urgent entreaty that I would pardon their
offences. To please him I gave them their lives, but I ordered them kept
in custody.
What there was of Khusrau Shāh's retainers from Ḥiṣār and Qūndūz,
together with the head-men of the Mughūls, Chilma, [Sidenote: Fol. 216.]
`Alī Sayyid,[1325] Sakma (?), Sher-qulī and Aīkū-sālam (?), and also
Khusrau Shāh's favourite Chaghatāī retainers under Sl. `Alī _chuhra_ and
Khudabakhsh, with also 2 or 3000 serviceable Turkmān braves led by
Sīūndūk and Shāh Naẕar,[1326] the whole of these, after consultation,
took up a bad position towards me. They were all seated in front of
Khwāja Riwāj, from the Sūng-qūrghān meadow to the Chālāk; `Abdu'r-razzāq
Mīrzā, come in from Nīng-nahār, being in Dih-i-afghān.[1327]
Earlier on Muḥibb-i-`alī the armourer had told Khalīfa and Mullā Bābā
once or twice of their assemblies, and both had given me a hint, but the
thing seeming incredible, it had had no attention. One night, towards
the Bed-time Prayer, when I was sitting in the Audience-hall of the
Chār-bāgh, Mūsa Khwāja, coming swiftly up with another man, said in my
ear, "The Mughūls are really rebelling! We do not know for certain
whether they have got `Abdu'r-razzāq M. to join them. They have
not settled to rise to-night." I feigned disregard and a little
later went towards the _ḥarams_ which at the time were in the
Yūrūnchqa-garden[1328] and the Bāgh-i-khilwat, but after page, servitor
and messenger (_yasāwal_) had turned back on getting [Sidenote: Fol.
216b.] near them, I went with the chief-slave towards the town, and on
along the ditch. I had gone as far as the Iron-gate when Khwāja Muḥ.
`Alī[1329] met me, he coming by the _bāzār_ road from the opposite
direction. He joined me ... of the porch of the Hot-bath
(_ḥammām_)....[1330]
TRANSLATOR'S NOTE ON 914 TO 925 AH.—1508 TO 1519 AD.
From several references made in the _Bābur-nāma_ and from a passage in
Gul-badan's _Humāyūn-nāma_ (f. 15), it is inferrible that Bābur was
composing the annals of 914 AH. not long before his last illness and
death.[1331]
Before the diary of 925 AH. (1519 AD.) takes up the broken thread of his
autobiography, there is a _lacuna_ of narrative extending over nearly
eleven years. The break was not intended, several references in the
_Bābur-nāma_ shewing Bābur's purpose to describe events of the
unchronicled years.[1332] Mr. Erskine, in the Leyden and Erskine
_Memoirs_, carried Bābur's biography through the major _lacunæ_, but
without firsthand help from the best sources, the _Habību's-siyar_ and
_Tārīkh-i-rashīdī_. He had not the help of the first even in his
_History of India_. M. de Courteille working as a translator only, made
no attempt to fill the gaps.
Bābur's biography has yet to be completed; much time is demanded by the
task, not only in order to exhaust known sources and seek others further
afield, but to weigh and balance the contradictory statements of writers
deep-sundered in sympathy and outlook. To strike such a balance is
essential when dealing with the events of 914 to 920 AH. because in
those years Bābur had part in an embittered conflict between Sunni and
Shī`a. What I offer below, as a stop-gap, is a mere summary of events,
mainly based on material not used by Mr. Erskine, with a few comments
prompted by acquaintance with Bāburiana.
_USEFUL SOURCES_
Compared with what Bābur could have told of this most interesting period
of his life, the yield of the sources is scant, a natural sequel from
the fact that no one of them had his biography for its main theme, still
less had his own action in crises of enforced ambiguity.
Of all known sources the best are Khwānd-amīr's _Ḥabību's-siyar_ and
Ḥaidar Mīrzā _Dūghlāt's Tārīkh-i-rashīdī_. The first was finished
nominally in 930 AH. (1524-5 AD.), seven years therefore before Bābur's
death, but it received much addition of matter concerning Bābur after
its author went to Hindūstān in 934 AH. (f. 339). Its fourth part, a
life of Shāh Ismā`īl _Ṣafawī_ is especially valuable for the years of
this _lacuna_. Ḥaidar's book was finished under Humāyūn in 953 AH. (1547
AD.), when its author had reigned five years in Kashmīr. It is the most
valuable of all the sources for those interested in Bābur himself, both
because of Ḥaidar's excellence as a biographer, and through his close
acquaintance with Bābur's family. From his eleventh to his thirteenth
year he lived under Bābur's protection, followed this by 19 years
service under Sa`īd Khān, the cousin of both, in Kāshghar, and after
that Khān's death, went to Bābur's sons Kāmrān and Humāyūn in Hindūstān.
A work issuing from a Sunnī Aūzbeg centre, Faẓl bin Ruzbahān _Isfahānī's
Sūlūku'l-mulūk_, has a Preface of special value, as shewing one view of
what it writes of as the spread of heresy in Māwarā'u'n-nahr through
Bābur's invasions. The book itself is a Treatise on Musalmān Law, and
was prepared by order of `Ubaidu'l-lāh Khān _Aūzbeg_ for his help in
fulfilling a vow he had made, before attacking Bābur in 918 AH., at the
shrine of Khwāja Aḥmad _Yasawī_ [in Haẓrat Turkistān], that, if he were
victorious, he would conform exactly with the divine Law and uphold it
in Māwarā'u'n-nahr (Rieu's Pers. Cat. ii, 448).
The _Tārīkh-i Ḥājī Muḥammad `Ārif Qandahārī_ appears, from the frequent
use Firishta made of it, to be a useful source, both because its author
was a native of Qandahār, a place much occupying Bābur's activities, and
because he was a servant of Bairām Khān-i-khānān, whose assassination
under Akbar he witnessed.[1333] Unfortunately, though his life of Akbar
survives no copy is now known of the section of his General History
which deals with Bābur's.
An early source is Yahya _Kazwīnī's Lubbu't-tawārīkh_, written in 948
AH. (1541 AD.), but brief only in the Bābur period. It issued from a
Shī`a source, being commanded by Shāh Ismā`īl _Ṣafawī_'s son Bahrām.
Another work issuing also from a _Ṣafawī_ centre is Mīr Sikandar's
_Tārīkh-i-`ālam-arāī_, a history of Shāh `Abbas I, with an introduction
treating of his predecessors which was completed in 1025 AH. (1616 AD.).
Its interest lies in its outlook on Bābur's dealings with Shāh Ismā`īl.
A later source, brief only, is Firishta's _Tārīkh-i-firishta_, finished
under Jahāngīr in the first quarter of the 17th century.
Mr. Erskine makes frequent reference to Kh(w)āfī Khān's _Tārīkh_, a
secondary authority however, written under Aurangzīb, mainly based on
Firishta's work, and merely summarizing Bābur's period. References to
detached incidents of the period are found in Shaikh `Abdu'l-qādir's
_Tārīkh-i-badāyūnī_ and Mīr Ma`ṣūm's _Tārīkh-i-sind_.
_EVENTS OF THE UNCHRONICLED YEARS_
914 AH.-MAY 2ND 1508 TO APRIL 21ST 1509 AD.
The mutiny, of which an account begins in the text, was crushed by the
victory of 500 loyalists over 3,000 rebels, one factor of success being
Bābur's defeat in single combat of five champions of his
adversaries.[1334] The disturbance was not of long duration; Kābul was
tranquil in Sha`bān (November) when Sl. Sa`īd Khān _Chaghatāī_, then 21,
arrived there seeking his cousin's protection, after defeat by his
brother Manṣūr at Almātū, escape from death, commanded by Shaibānī, in
Farghāna, a winter journey through Qarā-tīgīn to Mīrzā Khān in
Qilā'-i-ẓafar, refusal of an offer to put him in that feeble Mīrzā's
place, and so on to Kābul, where he came a destitute fugitive and
enjoyed a freedom from care never known by him before (f. 200_b_; T.R.
p. 226). The year was fatal to his family and to Ḥaidar's; in it
Shaibānī murdered Sl. Maḥmūd Khān and his six sons, Muḥammad Ḥusain
Mīrzā and other Dūghlāt sulṯāns.
915 AH.-APRIL 21ST 1509 TO APRIL 11TH 1510 AD.
In this year hostilities began between Shāh Ismā`īl _Ṣafawī_ and Muḥ.
Shaibānī Khān _Aūzbeg_, news of which must have excited keen interest in
Kābul.
In it occurred also what was in itself a minor matter of a child's
safety, but became of historical importance, namely, the beginning of
personal acquaintance between Bābur and his sympathetic biographer
Ḥaidar Mīrzā _Dūghlāt_. Ḥaidar, like Sa`īd, came a fugitive to the
protection of a kinsman; he was then eleven, had been saved by servants
from the death commanded by Shaibānī, conveyed to Mīrzā Khān in
Badakhshān, thence sent for by Bābur to the greater security of Kābul
(f. 11; Index _s.n._; T.R. p. 227).
916 AH.-APRIL 11TH 1510 TO MARCH 31ST 1510 AD.
_a. News of the battle of Merv._
Over half of this year passed quietly in Kābul; Ramẓān (December)
brought from Mīrzā Khān (Wāis) the stirring news that Ismā`īl had
defeated Shaibānī near Merv.[1335] "It is not known," wrote the Mīrzā,
"whether Shāhī Beg Khān has been killed or not. All the Aūzbegs have
crossed the Amū. Amīr Aūrūs, who was in Qūndūz, has fled. About 20,000
Mughūls, who left the Aūzbeg at Merv, have come to Qūndūz. I have come
there." He then invited Bābur to join him and with him to try for the
recovery of their ancestral territories (T.R. p. 237).
_b. Bābur's campaign in Transoxiana begun._
The Mīrzā's letter was brought over passes blocked by snow; Bābur, with
all possible speed, took the one winter-route through Āb-dara, kept the
Ramẓān Feast in Bāmīān, and reached Qūndūz in Shawwāl (Jan. 1511 AD.).
Ḥaidar's detail about the Feast seems likely to have been recorded
because he had read Bābur's own remark, made in Ramẓān 933 AH. (June
1527) that up to that date, when he kept it in Sīkrī, he had not since
his eleventh year kept it twice in the same place (f. 330).
_c. Mughūl affairs._
Outside Qūndūz lay the Mughūls mentioned by Mīrzā Khān as come from Merv
and so mentioned, presumably, as a possible reinforcement. They had been
servants of Bābur's uncles Maḥmūd and Aḥmad, and when Shaibānī defeated
those Khāns at Akhsī in 908 AH., had been compelled by him to migrate
into Khurāsān to places remote from Mughūlistān. Many of them had served
in Kāshghar; none had served a Tīmūrid Mīrzā. Set free by Shaibānī's
death, they had come east, a Khān-less 20,000 of armed and fully
equipped men and they were there, as Ḥaidar says, in their strength
while of Chaghatāīs there were not more than 5,000. They now, and with
them the Mughūls from Kābul, used the opportunity offering for return to
a more congenial location and leadership, by the presence in Qūndūz of a
legitimate Khāqān and the clearance in Andijān, a threshold of
Mughūlistān, of its Aūzbeg governors (f. 200_b_). The chiefs of both
bodies of Mughūls, Sherīm Taghāī at the head of one, Ayūb _Begchīk_ of
the other, proffered the Mughūl Khānship to Sa`īd with offer to set
Bābur aside, perhaps to kill him. It is improbable that in making their
offer they contemplated locating themselves in the confined country of
Kābul; what they seem to have wished was what Bābur gave, Sa`īd for
their Khāqān and permission to go north with him.
Sa`īd, in words worth reading, rejected their offer to injure Bābur,
doing so on the grounds of right and gratitude, but, the two men
agreeing that it was now expedient for them to part, asked to be sent to
act for Bābur where their friendship could be maintained for their
common welfare. The matter was settled by Bābur's sending him into
Andijān in response to an urgent petition for help there just arrived
from Ḥaidar's uncle. He "was made Khān" and started forth in the
following year, on Ṣafar 14th 917 AH. (May 13th 1511 AD.); with him went
most of the Mughūls but not all, since even of those from Merv, Ayūb
_Begchīk_ and others are found mentioned on several later occasions as
being with Bābur.
Bābur's phrase "I made him Khān" (f. 200_b_) recalls his earlier mention
of what seems to be the same appointment (f. 10_b_), made by Abū-sa`īd
of Yūnas as Khān of the Mughūls; in each case the meaning seems to be
that the Tīmūrid Mīrzā made the Chaghatāī Khān Khāqān of the Mughūls.
_d. First attempt on Ḥiṣār._
After spending a short time in Qūndūz, Bābur moved for Ḥiṣār in which
were the Aūzbeg sulṯāns Mahdī and Ḥamza. They came out into Wakhsh to
meet him but, owing to an imbroglio, there was no encounter and each
side retired (T.R. p. 238).
_e. Intercourse between Bābur and Ismā`īl Ṣafawī._
While Bābur was now in Qūndūz his sister Khān-zāda arrived there,
safe-returned under escort of the Shāh's troops, after the death in the
battle of Merv of her successive husbands Shaibānī and Sayyid Hādī, and
with her came an envoy from Ismā`īl proffering friendship, civilities
calculated to arouse a hope of Persian help in Bābur. To acknowledge his
courtesies, Bābur sent Mīrzā Khān with thanks and gifts; Ḥaidar says
that the Mīrzā also conveyed protestations of good faith and a request
for military assistance. He was well received and his request for help
was granted; that it was granted under hard conditions then stated later
occurrences shew.
917 AH.-MARCH 31ST 1511 TO MARCH 19TH 1512 AD.
_a. Second attempt on Ḥiṣār._
In this year Bābur moved again on Ḥiṣār. He took post, where once his
forbear Tīmūr had wrought out success against great odds, at the
Pul-i-sangīn (Stone-bridge) on the Sūrkh-āb, and lay there a month
awaiting reinforcement. The Aūzbeg sulṯāns faced him on the other side
of the river, they too, presumably, awaiting reinforcement. They moved
when they felt themselves strong enough to attack, whether by addition
to their own numbers, whether by learning that Bābur had not largely
increased his own. Concerning the second alternative it is open to
surmise that he hoped for larger reinforcement than he obtained; he
appears to have left Qūndūz before the return of Mīrzā Khān from his
embassy to Ismā`īl, to have expected Persian reinforcement with the
Mīrzā, and at Pul-i-sangīn, where the Mīrzā joined him in time to fight,
to have been strengthened by the Mīrzā's own following, and few, if any,
foreign auxiliaries. These surmises are supported by what Khwānd-amīr
relates of the conditions [specified later] on which the Shāh's main
contingent was despatched and by his shewing that it did not start until
after the Shāh had had news of the battle at Pul-i-sangīn.
At the end of the month of waiting, the Aūzbegs one morning swam the
Sūrkh-āb below the bridge; in the afternoon of the same day, Bābur
retired to better ground amongst the mountain fastnesses of a local
Āb-dara. In the desperate encounter which followed the Aūzbegs were
utterly routed with great loss in men; they were pursued to
Darband-i-ahanīn (Iron-gate) on the Ḥiṣār border, on their way to join a
great force assembled at Qarshī under Kūchūm Khān, Shaibānī's successor
as Aūzbeg Khāqān. The battle is admirably described by Ḥaidar, who was
then a boy of 12 with keen eye watching his own first fight, and that
fight with foes who had made him the last male survivor of his line. In
the evening of the victory Mahdī, Ḥamza and Ḥamza's son Mamak were
brought before Bābur who, says Ḥaidar, did to them what they had done to
the Mughūl Khāqāns and Chaghatāī Sulṯāns, that is, he retaliated in
blood for the blood of many kinsmen.
_b. Persian reinforcement._
After the battle Bābur went to near Ḥiṣār, was there joined by many
local tribesmen, and, some time later, by a large body of Ismā`īl's
troops under Aḥmad Beg _Ṣafawī_, `Alī Khān _Istiljū_ and Shāhrukh Sl.
_Afshār_, Ismā`īl's seal-keeper. The following particulars, given by
Khwānd-amīr, about the despatch of this contingent help to fix the order
of occurrences, and throw light on the price paid by Bābur for his
auxiliaries. He announced his victory over Mahdī and Ḥamza to the Shāh,
and at the same time promised that if he reconquered the rest of
Transoxiana by the Shāh's help, he would read his name in the _khuṯba_,
stamp it on coins together with those of the Twelve Imāms, and work to
destroy the power of the Aūzbegs. These undertakings look like a
response to a demand; such conditions cannot have been proffered; their
acceptance must have been compelled. Khwānd-amīr says that when Ismā`īl
fully understood the purport of Bābur's letter, [by which would seem to
be meant, when he knew that his conditions of help were accepted,] he
despatched the troops under the three Commanders named above.
The Persian chiefs advised a move direct on Bukhārā and Samarkand; and
with this Bābur's councillors concurred, they saying, according to
Ḥaidar, that Bukhārā was then empty of troops and full of fools. `Ubaid
Khān had thrown himself into Qarshī; it was settled not to attack him
but to pass on and encamp a stage beyond the town. This was done; then
scout followed scout, bringing news that he had come out of Qarshī and
was hurrying to Bukhārā, his own fief. Instant and swift pursuit
followed him up the 100 miles of caravan-road, into Bukhārā, and on
beyond, sweeping him and his garrison, plundered as they fled, into the
open land of Turkistān. Many sulṯāns had collected in Samarkand, some no
doubt being, like Tīmūr its governor, fugitives escaped from
Pul-i-sangīn. Dismayed by Bābur's second success, they scattered into
Turkistān, thus leaving him an open road.
_c. Samarkand re-occupied and relations with Ismā`īl Ṣafawī._
He must now have hoped to be able to dispense with his dangerous
colleagues, for he dismissed them when he reached Bukhārā, with gifts
and thanks for their services. It is Ḥaidar, himself present, who fixes
Bukhārā as the place of the dismissal (T.R. p. 246).
From Bukhārā Bābur went to Samarkand. It was mid-Rajab 917 AH. (October
1511 AD.), some ten months after leaving Kābul, and after 9 years of
absence, that he re-entered the town, itself gay with decoration for his
welcome, amidst the acclaim of its people.[1336]
Eight months were to prove his impotence to keep it against the forces
ranged against him,—Aūzbeg strength in arms compacted by Sunnī zeal,
Sunnī hatred of a Shī`a's suzerainty intensified by dread lest that
potent Shī`a should resolve to perpetuate his dominance. Both as a Sunnī
and as one who had not owned a suzerain, the position was unpleasant for
Bābur. That his alliance with Ismā`īl was dangerous he will have known,
as also that his risks grew as Transoxiana was over-spread by news of
Ismā`īl's fanatical barbarism to pious and learned Sunnīs, notably in
Herī. He manifested desire for release both now and later,—now when he
not only dismissed his Persian helpers but so behaved to the Shāh's
envoy Muḥammad Jān,—he was Najm S̤ānī's Lord of the Gate,—that the envoy
felt neglect and made report of Bābur as arrogant, in opposition, and
unwilling to fulfil his compact,—later when he eagerly attempted success
unaided against `Ubaid Khān, and was then worsted. It illustrates the
Shāh's view of his suzerain relation to Bābur that on hearing Muḥammad
Jān's report, he ordered Najm S̤ānī to bring the offender to order.
Meantime the Shāh's conditions seem to have been carried out in
Samarkand and Bābur's subservience clearly shewn.[1337] Of this there
are the indications,—that Bābur had promised and was a man of his word;
that Sunnī irritation against him waxed and did not wane as it might
have done without food to nourish it; that Bābur knew himself impotent
against the Aūzbegs unless he had foreign aid, expected attack, knew it
was preparing; that he would hear of Muḥammad Jān's report and of Najm
S̤ānī's commission against himself. Honesty, policy and necessity
combined to enforce the fulfilment of his agreement. What were the
precise terms of that agreement beyond the two as to the _khuṯba_ and
the coins, it needs close study of the wording of the sources to decide,
lest metaphor be taken for fact. Great passions,—ambition, religious
fervour, sectarian bigotry and fear confronted him. His problem was
greater than that of Henry of Navarre and of Napoleon in Egypt; they had
but to seem what secured their acceptance; he had to put on a guise that
brought him hate.
Khān-zāda was not the only member of Bābur's family who now rejoined him
after marriage with an Aūzbeg. His half-sister Yādgār-sulṯān had fallen
to the share of Ḥamza Sulṯān's son `Abdu'l-laṯīf in 908 AH. when
Shaibānī defeated the Khāns near Akhsī. Now that her half-brother had
defeated her husband's family, she returned to her own people (f. 9).
918 AH.-MARCH 19TH 1512 TO MARCH 9TH 1513 AD.
_a. Return of the Aūzbegs._
Emboldened by the departure of the Persian troops, the Aūzbegs, in the
spring of the year, came out of Turkistān, their main attack being
directed on Tāshkīnt, then held for Bābur.[1338] `Ubaid Khān moved for
Bukhārā. He had prefaced his march by vowing that, if successful, he
would thenceforth strictly observe Musalmān Law. The vow was made in
Ḥaẓrat Turkistān at the shrine of Khwāja Aḥmad _Yasawī_, a saint revered
in Central Asia through many centuries; he had died about 1120 AD.;
Tīmūr had made pilgrimage to his tomb, in 1397 AD., and then had founded
the mosque still dominating the town, still the pilgrim's
land-mark.[1339] `Ubaid's vow, like Bābur's of 933 AH., was one of
return to obedience. Both men took oath in the Ghāzī's mood, Bābur's set
against the Hindū whom he saw as a heathen, `Ubaid's set against Bābur
whom he saw as a heretic.
_b. Bābur's defeat at Kul-i-malik._
In Ṣafar (April-May) `Ubaid moved swiftly down and attacked the Bukhārā
neighbourhood. Bābur went from Samarkand to meet him. Several details of
what followed, not given by Ḥaidar and, in one particular, contradicting
him, are given by Khwānd-amīr. The statement in which the two historians
contradict one another is Ḥaidar's that `Ubaid had 3000 men only, Bābur
40,000. Several considerations give to Khwānd-amīr's opposed statement
that Bābur's force was small, the semblance of being nearer the fact.
Ḥaidar, it may be said, did not go out on this campaign; he was ill in
Samarkand and continued ill there for some time; Khwānd-amīr's details
have the well-informed air of things learned at first-hand, perhaps from
some-one in Hindūstān after 934 AH.
Matters which make against Bābur's having a large effective force at
Kul-i-malik, and favour Khwānd-amīr's statement about the affair are
these:—`Ubaid must have formed some estimate of what he had to meet, and
he brought 3000 men. Where could Bābur have obtained 40,000 men worth
reckoning in a fight? In several times of crisis his own immediate and
ever-faithful troop is put at 500; as his cause was now unpopular, local
accretions may have been few. Some Mughūls from Merv and from Kābul were
near Samarkand (T.R. pp. 263, 265); most were with Sa`īd in Andijān; but
however many Mughūls may have been in his neighbourhood, none could be
counted on as resolute for his success. If too, he had had more than a
small effective force, would he not have tried to hold Samarkand with
the remnant of defeat until Persian help arrived? All things considered,
there is ground for accepting Khwānd-amīr's statement that Bābur met
`Ubaid with a small force.
Following his account therefore:—Bābur in his excess of daring, marched
to put the Aūzbeg down with a small force only, against the advice of
the prudent, of whom Muḥammad Mazīd Tarkhān was one, who all said it was
wrong to go out unprepared and without reinforcement. Paying them no
attention, Bābur marched for Bukhārā, was rendered still more daring by
news had when he neared it, that the enemy had retired some stages, and
followed him up almost to his camp. `Ubaid was in great force; many
Aūzbegs perished but, in the end, they were victors and Bābur was
compelled to take refuge in Bukhārā. The encounter took place near
Kul-i-malik (King's-lake) in Ṣafar 918 AH. (April-May 1512 AD.).
_c. Bābur leaves Samarkand._
It was not possible to maintain a footing in Samarkand; Bābur therefore
collected his family and train[1340] and betook himself to Ḥiṣār. There
went with him on this expedition Māhīm and her children Humāyūn,
Mihr-jahān and Bārbūl,—the motherless Ma`ṣūma,—Gul-rukh with her son
Kāmrān (Gulbadan f. 7). I have not found any account of his route;
Ḥaidar gives no details about the journey; he did not travel with Bābur,
being still invalided in Samarkand. Perhaps the absence of information
is a sign that the Aūzbegs had not yet appeared on the direct road for
Ḥiṣār. A local tradition however would make Bābur go round through
Farghāna. He certainly might have gone into Farghāna hoping to
co-operate with Sa`īd Khān; Tāshkīnt was still holding out under
Aḥmad-i-qāsim _Kohbur_ and it is clear that all activity in Bābur's
force had not been quenched because during the Tāshkīnt siege, Dost Beg
broke through the enemy's ranks and made his way into the town. Sairām
held out longer than Tāshkīnt. Of any such move by Bābur into Andijān
the only hint received is given by what may be a mere legend.[1341]
_d. Bābur in Ḥiṣār._
After experiencing such gains and such losses, Bābur was still under 30
years of age.
The Aūzbegs, after his departure, re-occupied Bukhārā and Samarkand
without harm done to the towns-people, and a few weeks later, in Jumāda
I (July-August) followed him to Ḥiṣār. Meantime he with Mīrzā Khān's
help, had so closed the streets of the town by massive earth-works that
the sulṯāns were convinced its defenders were ready to spend the last
drop of their blood in holding it, and therefore retired without
attack.[1342] Some sources give as their reason for retirement that
Bābur had been reinforced from Balkh; Bairām Beg, it is true, had sent a
force but one of 300 men only; so few cannot have alarmed except as the
harbinger of more. Greater precision as to dates would shew whether they
can have heard of Najm S̤ānī's army advancing by way of Balkh.
_e. Qarshī and Ghaj-davān._
Meantime Najm S̤ānī, having with him some 11,000 men, had started on his
corrective mission against Bābur. When he reached the Khurāsān frontier,
he heard of the defeat at Kul-i-malik and the flight to Ḥiṣār, gathered
other troops from Harāt and elsewhere, and advanced to Balkh. He stayed
there for 20 days with Bairām Beg, perhaps occupied, in part, by
communications with the Shāh and Bābur. From the latter repeated request
for help is said to have come; help was given, some sources say without
the Shāh's permission. A rendezvous was fixed, Najm S̤ānī marched to
Tīrmīẕ, there crossed the Amū and in Rajab (Sep.-Oct.) encamped near the
Darband-i-ahanīn. On Bābur's approach through the Chak-chaq pass, he
paid him the civility of going several miles out from his camp to give
him honouring reception.
Advancing thence for Bukhārā, the combined armies took Khuzār and moved
on to Qarshī. This town Bābur wished to pass by, as it had been passed
by on his previous march for Bukhārā; each time perhaps he wished to
spare its people, formerly his subjects, whom he desired to rule again,
and who are reputed to have been mostly his fellow Turks. Najm S̤ānī
refused to pass on; he said Qarshī must be taken because it was
`Ubaidu'l-lāh Khān's nest; in it was `Ubaid's uncle Shaikhīm Mīrzā; it
was captured; the Aūzbeg garrison was put to the sword and, spite of
Bābur's earnest entreaties, all the towns-people, 15,000 persons it is
said, down to the "suckling and decrepit", were massacred. Amongst the
victims was Banā'ī who happened to be within it. This action roused the
utmost anger against Najm S̤ānī; it disgusted Bābur, not only through
its merciless slaughter but because it made clear the disregard in which
he was held by his magnificent fellow-general.
From murdered Qarshī Najm S̤ānī advanced for Bukhārā. On getting within
a few miles of it, he heard that an Aūzbeg force was approaching under
Tīmūr and Abū-sa`īd, presumably from Samarkand therefore. He sent Bairām
Beg to attack them; they drew off to the north and threw themselves into
Ghaj-davān, the combined armies following them. This move placed Najm
S̤ānī across the Zar-afshān, on the border of the desert with which the
Aūzbegs were familiar, and with `Ubaid on his flank in Bukhārā.
As to what followed the sources vary; they are brief; they differ less
in statement of the same occurrence than in their choice of details to
record; as Mr. Erskine observes their varying stories are not
incompatible. Their widest difference is a statement of time but the two
periods named, one a few days, the other four months, may not be meant
to apply to the same event. Four months the siege is said to have
lasted; this could not have been said if it had been a few days only.
The siege seems to have been of some duration.
At first there were minor engagements, ending with varying success;
provisions and provender became scarce; Najm S̤ānī's officers urged
retirement, so too did Bābur. He would listen to none of them. At length
`Ubaid Khān rode out from Bukhārā at the head of excellent troops; he
joined the Ghaj-davān garrison and the united Aūzbegs posted themselves
in the suburbs where walled lanes and gardens narrowed the field and
lessened Najm S̤ānī's advantage in numbers. On Tuesday Ramẓān 3rd (Nov.
12th)[1343] a battle was fought in which his army was routed and he
himself slain.
_f. Bābur and Yār-i-aḥmad Najm Sānī._
Some writers say that Najm S̤ānī's men did not fight well; it must be
remembered that they may have been weakened by privation and that they
had wished to retire. Of Bābur it is said that he, who was the reserve,
did not fight at all; it is difficult to see good cause why, under all
the circumstances, he should risk the loss of his men. It seems likely
that Ḥaidar's strong language about this defeat would suit Bābur's
temper also. "The victorious breezes of Islām overturned the banners of
the schismatics.... Most of them perished on the field; the rents made
by the sword at Qarshī were sewn up at Ghaj-davān by the arrow-stitches
of vengeance. Najm S̤ānī and all the Turkmān amīrs were sent to hell."
The belief that Bābur had failed Najm S̤ānī persisted at the Persian
Court, for his inaction was made a reproach to his son Humāyūn in 951
AH. (1544 AD.), when Humāyūn was a refugee with Ismā`īl's son T̤ahmāsp.
Badāyūnī tells a story which, with great inaccuracy of name and place,
represents the view taken at that time. The part of the anecdote
pertinent here is that Bābur on the eve of the battle at Ghaj-davān,
shot an arrow into the Aūzbeg camp which carried the following couplet,
expressive of his ill-will to the Shāh and perhaps also of his rejection
of the Shī`a guise he himself had worn.
I made the Shāh's Najm road-stuff for the Aūzbegs;
If fault has been mine, I have now cleansed the road.[1344]
_g. The Mughūls attack Bābur._
On his second return to Ḥiṣār Bābur was subjected to great danger by a
sudden attack made upon him by the Mughūls where he lay at night in his
camp outside the town. Firishta says, but without particulars of their
offence, that Bābur had reproached them for their misconduct; the
absence of detail connecting the affair with the defeat just sustained,
leads to the supposition that their misdeeds were a part of the tyranny
over the country-people punished later by `Ubaidu'l-lāh Khān. Roused
from his sleep by the noise of his guards' resistance to the Mughūl
attack, Bābur escaped with difficulty and without a single
attendant[1345] into the fort. The conspirators plundered his camp and
withdrew to Qarā-tīgīn. He was in no position to oppose them, left a few
men in Ḥiṣār and went to Mīrzā Khān in Qūndūz.
After he left, Ḥiṣār endured a desolating famine, a phenomenal snowfall
and the ravages of the Mughūls. `Ubaid Khān avenged Bābur on the horde;
hearing of their excesses, he encamped outside the position they had
taken up in Wakhsh defended by river, hills and snow, waited till a road
thawed, then fell upon them and avenged the year's misery they had
inflicted on the Ḥiṣārīs. Ḥaidar says of them that it was their villainy
lost Ḥiṣār to Bābur and gained it for the Aūzbeg.[1346]
These Mughūls had for chiefs men who when Sa`īd went to Andijān, elected
to stay with Bābur. One of the three named by Ḥaidar was Ayūb _Begchīk_.
He repented his disloyalty; when he lay dying some two years later (920
AH.) in Yāngī-ḥiṣār, he told Sa`īd Khān who visited him, that what was
"lacerating his bowels and killing him with remorse", was his
faithlessness to Bābur in Ḥiṣār, the oath he had broken at the
instigation of those "hogs and bears", the Mughūl chiefs (T.R. p. 315).
In this year but before the Mughūl treachery to Bābur, Ḥaidar left him,
starting in Rajab (Sep.-Oct.) to Sa`id in Andijān and thus making a
beginning of his 19 years spell of service.
919 AH.-MARCH 9TH 1513 TO FEB. 26TH 1514 AD.
Bābur may have spent this year in Khishm (Ḥ.S. iii, 372). During two or
three months of it, he had one of the Shāh's retainers in his service,
Khwāja Kamālu'd-dīn Maḥmūd, who had fled from Ghaj-davān to Balkh, heard
there that the Balkhīs favoured an Aūzbeg chief whose coming was
announced, and therefore went to Bābur. In Jumāda 11 (August), hearing
that the Aūzbeg sultan had left Balkh, he returned there but was not
admitted because the Balkhīs feared reprisals for their welcome to the
Aūzbeg, a fear which may indicate that he had taken some considerable
reinforcement to Bābur. He went on into Khurāsān and was there killed;
Balkh was recaptured for the Shāh by Deo Sulṯān, a removal from Aūzbeg
possession which helps to explain how Bābur came to be there in 923 AH.
920 AH.—FEB. 26TH 1514 TO FEB. 15TH 1515 AD.
Ḥaidar writes of Bābur as though he were in Qūndūz this year (TR. p.
263), says that he suffered the greatest misery and want, bore it with
his accustomed courtesy and patience but, at last, despairing of success
in recovering Ḥiṣār, went back to Kābul. Now it seems to be that he made
the stay in Khwāst to which he refers later (f. 241_b_) and during which
his daughter Gul-rang was born, as Gul-badan's chronicle allows known.
It was at the end of the year, after the privation of winter therefore,
that he reached Kābul. When he re-occupied Samarkand in 917 AH., he had
given Kābul to his half-brother Nāṣir Mīrzā; the Mīrzā received him now
with warm welcome and protestations of devotion and respect, spoke of
having guarded Kābul for him and asked permission to return to his own
old fief Ghaznī. His behaviour made a deep impression on Bābur; it would
be felt as a humane touch on the sore of failure.
921 AH.—FEB. 15TH 1515 TO FEB. 5TH 1516 AD.
_a. Rebellion of chiefs in Ghaznī._
Nāṣir Mīrzā died shortly after (_dar hamān ayyām_) his return to Ghaznī.
Disputes then arose amongst the various commanders who were in Ghaznī;
Sherīm T̤aghāī was one of them and the main strength of the tumult was
given by the Mughūls. Many others were however involved in it, even such
an old servant as Bābā of Pashāghar taking part (f. 234_b_; T.R. p.
356). Ḥaidar did not know precisely the cause of the dispute, or shew
why it should have turned against Bābur, since he attributes it to
possession taken by Satan of the brains of the chiefs and a consequent
access of vain-glory and wickedness. Possibly some question of
succession to Nāṣir arose. Dost Beg distinguished himself in the regular
battle which ensued; Qāsim Beg's son Qaṃbar-i-`alī hurried down from
Qūndūz and also did his good part to win it for Bābur. Many of the
rioters were killed, others fled to Kāshghar. Sherīm T̤aghāī was one of
the latter; as Sa`īd Khān gave him no welcome, he could not stay there;
he fell back on the much injured Bābur who, says Ḥaidar, showed him his
usual benevolence, turned his eyes from his offences and looked only at
his past services until he died shortly afterwards (T.R. p. 357).[1347]
922 AH.—FEB. 5TH 1516 TO JAN. 24TH 1517 AD.
This year may have been spent in and near Kābul in the quiet promoted by
the dispersion of the Mughūls.
In this year was born Bābur's son Muḥammad known as _`Askarī_from his
being born in camp. He was the son of Gulrukh _Begchīk_ and full-brother
of Kāmrān.
923 AH.—JAN. 24TH 1517 TO JAN. 13TH 1518 AD.
_a. Bābur visits Balkh._
Khwānd-amīr is the authority for the little that is known of Bābur's
action in this year (Ḥ.S. iii, 367 _et seq._). It is connected with the
doings of Badī`u'z-zamān _Bāī-qarā's_ son Muḥammad-i-zamān. This Mīrzā
had had great wanderings, during a part of which Khwānd-amīr was with
him. In 920 AH. he was in Shāh Ismā`īl's service and in Balkh, but was
not able to keep it. Bābur invited him to Kābul,—the date of invitation
will have been later therefore than Bābur's return there at the end of
920 AH. The Mīrzā was on his way but was dissuaded from going into Kābul
by Mahdī Khwāja and went instead into Ghurjistān. Bābur was angered by
his non-arrival and pursued him in order to punish him but did not
succeed in reaching Ghurjistān and went back to Kābul by way of
Fīrūz-koh and Ghūr. The Mīrzā was captured eventually and sent to Kābul.
Bābur treated him with kindness, after a few months gave him his
daughter Ma`ṣūma in marriage, and sent him to Balkh. He appears to have
been still in Balkh when Khwānd-amīr was writing of the above
occurrences in 929 AH. The marriage took place either at the end of 923
or beginning of 924 AH. The Mīrzā was then 21, Ma`ṣūma 9; she almost
certainly did not then go to Balkh. At some time in 923 AH. Bābur is
said by Khwānd-amīr to have visited that town.[1348]
_b. Attempt on Qandahār._
In this year Bābur marched for Qandahār but the move ended peacefully,
because a way was opened for gifts and terms by an illness which befell
him when he was near the town.
The _Tārīkh-i-sind_ gives what purports to be Shāh Beg's explanation of
Bābur's repeated attempts on Qandahār. He said these had been made and
would be made because Bābur had not forgiven Muqīm for taking Kābul 14
years earlier from the Tīmūrid `Abdu'r-razzāq; that this had brought him
to Qandahār in 913 AH., this had made him then take away Māhchuchak,
Muqīm's daughter; that there were now (923 AH.) many unemployed Mīrzās
in Kābul for whom posts could not be found in regions where the Persians
and Aūzbegs were dominant; that an outlet for their ambitions and for
Bābur's own would be sought against the weaker opponent he himself was.
Bābur's decision to attack in this year is said to have been taken while
Shāh Beg was still a prisoner of Shāh Ismā`īl in the Harāt country; he
must have been released meantime by the admirable patience of his slave
Saṃbhal.
924 AH.—JAN. 13TH 1518 TO JAN. 3RD 1519 AD.
In this year Shāh Beg's son Shāh Ḥasan came to Bābur after quarrel with
his father. He stayed some two years, and during that time was married
to Khalīfa's daughter Gul-barg (Rose-leaf). His return to Qandahār will
have taken place shortly before Bābur's campaign of 926 A.H. against it,
a renewed effort which resulted in possession on Shawwāl 13th 928 AH.
(Sep. 6th 1522 AD.).[1349]
In this year began the campaign in the north-east territories of Kābul,
an account of which is carried on in the diary of 925 AH. It would seem
that in the present year Chaghān-sarāī was captured, and also the
fortress at the head of the valley of Bābā-qarā, belonging to
Ḥaidar-i-`alī _Bajaurī_ (f. 216_b_).[1350]
[Illustration: View from above Babur's Grave and Shah-jahan's
Mosque.]
925 AH.-JAN. 3RD TO DEC. 23RD 1519 AD.[1351]
(_a. Bābur takes the fort of Bajaur._)
(_Jan. 3rd_) On Monday[1352] the first day of the month of Muḥarram,
there was a violent earthquake in the lower part of the dale (_julga_)
of Chandāwal,[1353] which lasted nearly half an astronomical hour.
(_Jan. 4th_) Marching at dawn from that camp with the intention of
attacking the fort of Bajaur,[1354] we dismounted near it and sent a
trusty man of the Dilazāk[1355] Afghāns to advise its sulṯān[1356] and
people to take up a position of service (_qullūq_) and surrender the
fort. Not accepting this counsel, that stupid and ill-fated band sent
back a wild answer, where-upon the army was ordered to make ready
mantelets, ladders and other appliances for taking a fort. For this
purpose a day's (_Jan. 5th_) halt was made on that same ground.
(_Jan. 6th_) On Thursday the 4th of Muḥarram, orders were given that the
army should put on mail, arm and get to horse;[1357] that the left wing
should move swiftly to the upper side of the fort, cross the water at
the water-entry,[1358] and dismount on the [Sidenote: Fol. 217.] north
side of the fort; that the centre, not taking the way across the water,
should dismount in the rough, up-and-down land to the north-west of the
fort; and that the right should dismount to the west of the lower gate.
While the begs of the left under Dost Beg were dismounting, after
crossing the water, a hundred to a hundred and fifty men on foot came
out of the fort, shooting arrows. The begs, shooting in their turn,
advanced till they had forced those men back to the foot of the
ramparts, Mullā `Abdu'l-malūk of Khwāst, like a madman,[1359] going up
right under them on his horse. There and then the fort would have been
taken if the ladders and mantelets had been ready, and if it had not
been so late in the day. Mullā Tirik-i-`alī[1360] and a servant of
Tīngrī-bīrdī crossed swords with the enemy; each overcame his man, cut
off and brought in his head; for this each was promised a reward.
As the Bajaurīs had never before seen matchlocks (_tufang_) they at
first took no care about them, indeed they made fun when they heard the
report and answered it by unseemly gestures. On that day[1361] Ustād
`Alī-qulī shot at and brought down five men with his matchlock; Walī the
Treasurer, for his part, brought down two; other matchlockmen were also
very active in firing and did well, shooting through shield, through
cuirass, through _kusarū_,[1362] and bringing down one man after
another. Perhaps 7, 8, or 10 Bajaurīs had fallen to the matchlock-fire
(_ẓarb_) before night. After that it so became that not a head could be
put out because of the fire. The order [Sidenote: Fol. 217b.] was given,
"It is night; let the army retire, and at dawn, if the appliances are
ready, let them swarm up into the fort."
(_Jan. 7th_) At the first dawn of light (_farẓ waqt_) on Friday the 5th
of Muḥarram, orders were given that, when the battle-nagarets had
sounded, the army should advance, each man from his place to his
appointed post (_yīrlīk yīrdīn_) and should swarm up. The left and
centre advanced from their ground with mantelets in place all along
their lines, fixed their ladders, and swarmed up them. The whole left
hand of the centre, under Khalīfa, Shāh Ḥasan _Arghūn_ and Yūsuf's
Aḥmad, was ordered to reinforce the left wing. Dost Beg's men went
forward to the foot of the north-eastern tower of the fort, and busied
themselves in undermining and bringing it down. Ustād `Alī-qulī was
there also; he shot very well on that day with his matchlock, and he
twice fired off the _firingī_.[1363] Walī the Treasurer also brought
down a man with his matchlock. Malik `Alī _quṯnī_[1364] was first up a
ladder of all the men from the left hand of the centre, and there was
busy with fight and blow. At the post of the centre, Muḥ. `Alī
_Jang-jang_[1365] and his younger brother Nau-roz got up, each by a
different ladder, and made lance and sword to touch. Bābā the waiting
man (_yasāwal_), getting up by another ladder, occupied himself in
breaking down the fort-wall with his [Sidenote: Fol. 218.] axe. Most of
our braves went well forward, shooting off dense flights of arrows and
not letting the enemy put out a head; others made themselves desperately
busy in breaching and pulling down the fort, caring naught for the
enemy's fight and blow, giving no eye to his arrows and stones. By
breakfast-time Dost Beg's men had undermined and breached the
north-eastern tower, got in and put the foe to flight. The men of the
centre got in up the ladders by the same time, but those (_aūl_) others
were first (_awwal_?) in.[1366] By the favour and pleasure of the High
God, this strong and mighty fort was taken in two or three astronomical
hours! Matching the fort were the utter struggle and effort of our
braves; distinguish themselves they did, and won the name and fame of
heroes.
As the Bajaurīs were rebels and at enmity with the people of Islām, and
as, by reason of the heathenish and hostile customs prevailing in their
midst, the very name of Islām was rooted out from their tribe, they were
put to general massacre and their wives and children were made captive.
At a guess more than 3000 men went to their death; as the fight did not
reach to the eastern side of the fort, a few got away there.
The fort taken, we entered and inspected it. On the walls, in houses,
streets and alleys, the dead lay, in what numbers! Comers and goers to
and fro were passing over the bodies. [Sidenote: Fol. 218b.] Returning
from our inspection, we sat down in the Bajaur sulṯān's residence. The
country of Bajaur we bestowed on Khwāja Kalān,[1367] assigning a large
number of braves to reinforce him. At the Evening Prayer we went back to
camp.
(_b. Movements in Bajaur._)
(_Jan. 8th_) Marching at dawn (Muḥ. 6th), we dismounted by the
spring[1368] of Bābā Qarā in the dale of Bajaur. At Khwāja Kalān's
request the prisoners remaining were pardoned their offences, reunited
to their wives and children, and given leave to go, but several sulṯāns
and of the most stubborn were made to reach their doom of death. Some
heads of sulṯāns and of others were sent to Kābul with the news of
success; some also to Badakhshān, Qūndūz and Balkh with the
letters-of-victory.
Shāh Manṣūr _Yūsuf-zāī_,—he was with us as an envoy from his
tribe,—[1369] was an eye-witness of the victory and general massacre. We
allowed him to leave after putting a coat (_tūn_) on him and after
writing orders with threats to the Yūsuf-zāī.
(_Jan. 11th_) With mind easy about the important affairs of the Bajaur
fort, we marched, on Tuesday the 9th of Muḥarram, one _kuroh_ (2 m.)
down the dale of Bajaur and ordered that a tower of heads should be set
up on the rising-ground.
(_Jan. 12th_) On Wednesday the 10th of Muḥarram, we rode out to visit
the Bajaur fort. There was a wine-party in Khwāja Kalān's house,[1370]
several goat-skins of wine having been brought down by Kāfirs
neighbouring on Bajaur. All wine and fruit [Sidenote: Fol. 219.] had in
Bajaur comes from adjacent parts of Kāfiristān.
(_Jan. 13th_) We spent the night there and after inspecting the towers
and ramparts of the fort early in the morning (Muḥ. 11th), I mounted and
went back to camp.
(_Jan. 14th_) Marching at dawn (Muḥ. 12th), we dismounted on the bank of
the Khwāja Khiẓr torrent.[1371]
(_Jan. 15th_) Marching thence, we dismounted (Muḥ. 13th) on the bank of
the Chandāwal torrent. Here all those inscribed in the Bajaur
reinforcement, were ordered to leave.
(_Jan. 16th_) On Sunday the 14th of Muḥarram, a standard was bestowed on
Khwāja Kalān and leave given him for Bajaur. A few days after I had let
him go, the following little verse having come into my head, it was
written down and sent to him:—[1372]
Not such the pact and bargain betwixt my friend and me,
At length the tooth of parting, unpacted grief for me!
Against caprice of Fortune, what weapons (_chāra_) arm the man?
At length by force of arms (_ba jaur_) my friend is snatched from me!
(_Jan. 19th_) On Wednesday the 17th of Muḥarram, Sl. `Alā'u'd-dīn of
Sawād, the rival (_mu`āriẓ_) of Sl. Wais of Sawād,[1373] came and waited
on me.
(_Jan. 20th_) On Thursday the 18th of the month, we hunted the hill
between Bajaur and Chandāwal.[1374] There the _būghū-marāl_[1375] have
become quite black, except for the tail which is of another colour;
lower down, in Hindūstān, they seem to become black all over.[1376]
Today a _sārīq-qūsh_[1377] was taken; that was black all over, its very
eyes being black! Today an eagle (_būrkūt_)[1378] took a deer (_kīyīk_).
Corn being somewhat scarce in the army, we went into the Kahrāj-valley,
and took some. [Sidenote: Fol. 219b.]
(_Jan. 21st_) On Friday (Muḥ. 19th) we marched for Sawād, with the
intention of attacking the Yūsuf-zāī Afghāns, and dismounted in
between[1379] the water of Panj-kūra and the united waters of Chandāwal
and Bajaur. Shāh Manṣūr _Yūsuf-zāī_ had brought a few well-flavoured and
quite intoxicating confections (_kamālī_); making one of them into
three, I ate one portion, Gadāī T̤aghāī another, `Abdu'l-lāh the
librarian another. It produced remarkable intoxication; so much so that
at the Evening Prayer when the begs gathered for counsel, I was not able
to go out. A strange thing it was! If in these days[1380] I ate the
whole of such a confection, I doubt if it would produce half as much
intoxication.
(_c. An impost laid on Kahrāj._)
(_Jan. 22nd_) Marching from that ground, (Muḥ. 20th), we dismounted over
against Kahrāj, at the mouth of the valleys of Kahrāj and
Peshgrām.[1381] Snow fell ankle-deep while we were on that ground; it
would seem to be rare for snow to fall thereabouts, for people were much
surprised. In agreement with Sl. Wais of Sawād there was laid on the
Kahrāj people an impost of 4000 ass-loads of rice for the use of the
army, and he himself was sent to collect it. Never before had those rude
mountaineers borne such a burden; they could not give (all) the grain
and were brought to ruin.
(_cc. Raid on Panj-kūra._)
(_Jan. 25th_) On Tuesday the 23rd of Muḥarram an army was [Sidenote:
Fol. 220.] sent under Hindū Beg to raid Panj-kūra. Panj-kūra lies more
than half-way up the mountain;[1382] to reach its villages a person must
go for nearly a _kuroh_ (2 m.) through a pass. The people had fled and
got away; our men brought a few beasts of sorts, and masses of corn from
their houses.
(_Jan. 26th_) Next day (Muḥ. 24th) Qūj Beg was put at the head of a
force and sent out to raid.
(_Jan. 27th_) On Thursday the 25th of the month, we dismounted at the
village of Māndīsh, in the trough of the Kahrāj-valley, for the purpose
of getting corn for the army.
(_d. Māhīm's adoption of Dil-dār's unborn child._)
(_Jan. 28th_) Several children born of Humāyūn's mother had not lived.
Hind-āl was not yet born.[1383] While we were in those parts, came a
letter from Māhīm in which she wrote, "Whether it be a boy, whether it
be a girl, is my luck and chance; give it to me; I will declare it my
child and will take charge of it." On Friday the 26th of the month, we
being still on that ground, Yūsuf-i-`alī the stirrup-holder was sent off
to Kābul with letters[1384] bestowing Hind-āl, not yet born, on Māhīm.
(_dd. Construction of a stone platform._)
While we were still on that same ground in the Māndīsh-country, I had a
platform made with stones (_tāsh bīla_) on a height in the middle of the
valley, so large that it held the tents of the advance-camp. All the
household and soldiers carried the stones for it, one by one like ants.
(_e. Bābur's marriage with his Afghān wife, Bībī Mubāraka._)
In order to conciliate the Yūsuf-zāī horde, I had asked for a daughter
of one of my well-wishers, Malik Sulaimān Shāh's son Malik Shāh Manṣūr,
at the time he came to me as envoy [Sidenote: Fol. 220b.] from the
Yūsuf-zāī Afghāns.[1385]
While we were on this ground news came that his daughter[1386] was on
her way with the Yūsuf-zāī tribute. At the Evening Prayer there was a
wine-party to which Sl. `Alā'u'd-dīn (of Sawād) was invited and at which
he was given a seat and special dress of honour (_khilcat-i-khāṣa_).
(_Jan. 30th_) On Sunday the 28th, we marched from that valley. Shāh
Manṣūr's younger brother T̤āūs (Handsome) Khān brought the
above-mentioned daughter of his brother to our ground after we had
dismounted.
(_f. Repopulation of the fort of Bajaur._)
For the convenience of having the Bī-sūt people in Bajaur-fort,[1387]
Yūsuf'i-`alī the taster was sent from this camp to get them on the march
and take them to that fort. Also, written orders were despatched to
Kābul that the army there left should join us.
(_Feb. 4th_) On Friday the 3rd of the month of Ṣafar, we dismounted at
the confluence of the waters of Bajaur and Panj-kūra.
(_Feb. 6th_) On Sunday the 5th of the month, we went from that ground to
Bajaur where there was a drinking-party in Khwāja Kalān's house.
(_g. Expedition against the Afghān clans._)
(_Feb. 8th_) On Tuesday the 7th of the month the begs and the Dilazāk
Afghān headmen were summoned, and, after consultation, matters were left
at this:—"The year is at its end,[1388] only a few days of the Fish are
left; the plainsmen have carried in all their corn; if we went now into
Sawād, the army would [Sidenote: Fol. 221.] dwindle through getting no
corn. The thing to do is to march along the Aṃbahar and Pānī-mānī road,
cross the Sawād-water above Hash-nagar, and surprise the Yūsuf-zāī and
Muḥammadī Afghāns who are located in the plain over against the
Yūsuf-zāī _sangur_ of Māhūrā. Another year, coming earlier in the
harvest-time, the Afghāns of this place must be our first thought." So
the matter was left.
(_Feb. 9th_) Next day, Wednesday, we bestowed horses and robes on Sl.
Wais and Sl. `Alā'u'u-dīn of Sawād, gave them leave to go, marched off
ourselves and dismounted over against Bajaur.
(_Feb. 10th_) We marched next day, leaving Shāh Manṣūr's daughter in
Bajaur-fort until the return of the army. We dismounted after passing
Khwāja Khiẓr, and from that camp leave was given to Khwāja Kalān; and
the heavy baggage, the worn-out horses and superfluous effects of the
army were started off into Lamghān by the Kūnār road.
(_Feb. 11th_) Next morning Khwāja Mīr-i-mīrān was put in charge of the
camel baggage-train and started off by the Qūrghā-tū and Darwāza road,
through the Qarā-kūpa-pass. Riding light for the raid, we ourselves
crossed the Ambahar-pass, and yet another great pass, and dismounted at
Pānī-mālī nearer[1389] the Afternoon Prayer. Aūghān-bīrdī was sent
forward with a few others to learn[1390] how things were.
(_Feb. 12th_) The distance between us and the Afghāns being
short, we did not make an early start. Aūghān-bīrdī came back at
breakfast-time.[1391] He had got the better of an Afghān and had cut
his head off, but had dropped it on the road. He [Sidenote: Fol. 221b.]
brought no news so sure as the heart asks (_kūnkūl-tīladīk_). Midday
come, we marched on, crossed the Sawād-water, and dismounted
nearer[1392] the Afternoon Prayer. At the Bed-time Prayer, we remounted
and rode swiftly on.
(_Feb. 13th_) Rustam _Turkmān_ had been sent scouting; when the Sun was
spear-high he brought word that the Afghāns had heard about us and were
shifting about, one body of them making off by the mountain-road. On
this we moved the faster, sending raiders on ahead who killed a few, cut
off their heads and brought a band of prisoners, some cattle and flocks.
The Dilazāk Afghāns also cut off and brought in a few heads. Turning
back, we dismounted near Kātlāng and from there sent a guide to meet the
baggage-train under Khwāja Mīr-i-mīrān and bring it to join us in
Maqām.[1393]
(_Feb. 14th_) Marching on next day, we dismounted between Kātlāng and
Maqām. A man of Shāh Manṣūr's arrived. Khusrau Kūkūldāsh and Aḥmadī the
secretary were sent with a few more to meet the baggage-train.
(_Feb. 15th_) On Wednesday the 14th of the month, the baggage-train
rejoined us while we were dismounting at Maqām.
It will have been within the previous 30 or 40 years that a heretic
qalandar named Shahbāz perverted a body of Yūsuf-zāī and another of
Dilazāk. His tomb was on a free and dominating height of the lower hill
at the bill (_tūmshūq_) of the [Sidenote: Fol. 222.] Maqām mountain.
Thought I, "What is there to recommend the tomb of a heretic qalandar
for a place in air so free?" and ordered the tomb destroyed and levelled
with the ground. The place was so charming and open that we elected to
sit there some time and to eat a confection (_ma'jūn_).
(_h. Bābur crosses the Indus for the first time._)
We had turned off from Bajaur with Bhīra in our thoughts.[1394] Ever
since we came into Kābul it had been in my mind to move on Hindūstān,
but this had not been done for a variety of reasons. Nothing to count
had fallen into the soldiers' hands during the three or four months we
had been leading this army. Now that Bhīra, the borderland of Hindūstān,
was so near, I thought a something might fall into our men's hands if,
riding light, we went suddenly into it. To this thought I clung, but
some of my well-wishers, after we had raided the Afghāns and dismounted
at Maqām, set the matter in this way before me:—"If we are to go into
Hindūstān, it should be on a proper basis; one part of the army stayed
behind in Kābul; a body of effective braves was left behind in Bajaur; a
good part of this army has gone into Lamghān because its horses were
worn-out; and the horses of those who have come this far, are so poor
that they have not a day's hard riding in them." Reasonable as these
considerations were, yet, having made the start, we paid no [Sidenote:
Fol. 222b.] attention to them but set off next day for the ford through
the water of Sind.[1395] Mīr Muḥammad the raftsman and his elder and
younger brethren were sent with a few braves to examine the Sind-river
(_daryā_), above and below the ford.
(_Feb. 16th_) After starting off the camp for the river, I went to hunt
rhinoceros on the Sawātī side which place people call also Karg-khāna
(Rhino-home).[1396] A few were discovered but the jungle was dense and
they did not come out of it. When one with a calf came into the open and
betook itself to flight, many arrows were shot at it and it rushed into
the near jungle; the jungle was fired but that same rhino was not had.
Another calf was killed as it lay, scorched by the fire, writhing and
palpitating. Each person took a share of the spoil. After leaving
Sawātī, we wandered about a good deal; it was the Bed-time Prayer when
we got to camp.
Those sent to examine the ford came back after doing it.
(_Feb. 17th_) Next day, Thursday the 16th,[1397] the horses and
baggage-camels crossed through the ford and the camp-bazar and
foot-soldiers were put over on rafts. Some Nīl-ābīs came and saw me at
the ford-head (_guẕar-bāshī_), bringing a horse in mail and 300
_shāhrukhīs_ as an offering. At the Mid-day Prayer of this same day,
when every-one had crossed the river, we marched on; we went on until
one watch of the night had passed (_circa_ 9 p.m.) when we dismounted
near the water of Kacha-kot.[1398]
(_Feb. 18th_) Marching on next day, we crossed the Kacha-kot-water; noon
returning, went through the Sangdakī-pass and dismounted. While Sayyid
Qāsim Lord of the Gate was [Sidenote: Fol. 223.] in charge of the rear
(_chāghdāwal_) he overcame a few Gujūrs who had got up with the rear
march, cut off and brought in 4 or 5 of their heads.
(_Feb. 19th_) Marching thence at dawn and crossing the Sūhān-water, we
dismounted at the Mid-day Prayer. Those behind kept coming in till
midnight; the march had been mightily long, and, as many horses were
weak and out-of-condition, a great number were left on the road.
(_i. The Salt-range._)
Fourteen miles (_7 kos_) north of Bhīra lies the mountain-range written
of in the _Z̤afar-nāma_ and other books as the Koh-i-jūd.[1399] I had
not known why it was called this; I now knew. On it dwell two tribes,
descendants from one parent-source, one is called Jūd, the other
Janjūha. These two from of old have been the rulers and lawful
commanders of the peoples and hordes (_aūlūs_) of the range and of the
country between Bhīra and Nīl-āb. Their rule is friendly and brotherly
however; they cannot take what their hearts might desire; the portion
ancient custom has fixed is given and taken, no less and no more. The
agreement is to give one _shāhrukhī_[1400] for each yoke of oxen and
seven for headship in a household; there is also service in the army.
The Jūd and Janjūha both are divided into several clans. The Koh-i-jūd
runs for 14 miles along the Bhīra country, taking off from those Kashmīr
mountains that are one with [Sidenote: Fol. 223b.] Hindū-kūsh, and it
draws out to the south-west as far as the foot of Dīn-kot on the
Sind-river.[1401] On one half of it are the Jūd, the Janjūha on the
other. People call it Koh-i-jūd through connecting it with the Jūd
tribe.[1402] The principal headman gets the title of Rāī; others, his
younger brothers and sons, are styled Malik. The Janjūha headmen are
maternal uncles of Langar Khan. The ruler of the people and horde near
the Sūhān-water was named Malik Hast. The name originally was Asad but
as Hindūstānīs sometimes drop a vowel _e.g._ they say _khabr_ for
_khabar_ (news), they had said Asd for Asad, and this went on to Hast.
Langar Khān was sent off to Malik Hast at once when we dismounted. He
galloped off, made Malik Hast hopeful of our favour and kindness, and at
the Bed-time Prayer, returned with him. Malik Hast brought an offering
of a horse in mail and waited on me. He may have been 22 or 23 years
old.[1403]
The various flocks and herds belonging to the country-people were close
round our camp. As it was always in my heart to possess Hindūstān, and
as these several countries, Bhīra, Khūsh-āb, Chīn-āb and Chīnīūt[1404]
had once been held by the Turk, I pictured them as my own and was
resolved to get them into my hands, whether peacefully or by force. For
these reasons it being imperative to treat these hillmen well, this
following [Sidenote: Fol. 224.] order was given:—"Do no hurt or harm to
the flocks and herds of these people, nor even to their cotton-ends and
broken needles!"
(_j. The Kalda-kahār lake_.)
(_Feb. 20th_) Marching thence next day, we dismounted at the Mid-day
Prayer amongst fields of densely-growing corn in Kalda-kahār.
Kalda-kahār is some 20 miles north of Bhīra, a level land shut in[1405]
amongst the Jūd mountains. In the middle of it is a lake some six miles
round, the in-gatherings of rain from all sides. On the north of this
lake lies an excellent meadow; on the hill-skirt to the west of it there
is a spring[1406] having its source in the heights overlooking the lake.
The place being suitable I have made a garden there, called the
Bāgh-i-ṣafā,[1407] as will be told later; it is a very charming place
with good air.
(_Feb. 21st_) We rode from Kalda-kahār at dawn next day. When we reached
the top of the Hamtātū-pass a few local people waited on me, bringing a
humble gift. They were joined with `Abdu'r-raḥīm the chief-scribe
(_shaghāwal_) and sent with him to speak the Bhīra people fair and say,
"The possession of this country by a Turk has come down from of old;
beware not to bring ruin on its people by giving way to fear and
anxiety; our eye is on this land and on this people; raid and rapine
shall not be."
We dismounted near the foot of the pass at breakfast-time, [Sidenote:
Fol. 224b.] and thence sent seven or eight men ahead, under Qurbān of
Chīrkh and `Abdu'l-malūk of Khwāst. Of those sent one Mīr Muḥammad (a
servant ?) of Mahdī Khwāja[1408] brought in a man. A few Afghān headmen,
who had come meantime with offerings and done obeisance, were joined
with Langar Khān to go and speak the Bhīra people fair.
After crossing the pass and getting out of the jungle, we arrayed in
right and left and centre, and moved forward for Bhīra. As we got near
it there came in, of the servants of Daulat Khān _Yūsuf-khail's_ son
`Alī Khān, Sīktū's son Dīwa _Hindū_; with them came several of the
notables of Bhīra who brought a horse and camel as an offering and did
me obeisance. At the Mid-day Prayer we dismounted on the east of Bhīra,
on the bank of the Bahat (Jehlam), in a sown-field, without hurt or harm
being allowed to touch the people of Bhīra.
(_k. History of Bhīra._)
Tīmūr Beg had gone into Hindūstān; from the time he went out again these
several countries _viz._ Bhīra, Khūsh-āb, Chīn-āb and Chīnīūt, had been
held by his descendants and the dependants and adherents of those
descendants. After the death of Sl. Mas`ūd Mīrzā and his son `Alī
_Asghar_ Mīrzā, the sons of Mīr `Alī Beg [Sidenote: Fol. 225.] _viz._
Bābā-i-kābulī, Daryā Khān and Apāq Khān, known later as Ghāzī Khān, all
of whom Sl. Mas`ūd M. had cherished, through their dominant position,
got possession of Kābul, Zābul and the afore-named countries and
_parganas_ of Hindūstān. In Sl. Abū-sa`īd Mīrzā's time, Kābul and Zābul
went from their hands, the Hindūstān countries remaining. In 910 AH.
(1504 AD.) the year I first came into Kābul, the government of Bhīra,
Khūsh-āb and Chīn-āb depended on Sayyid `Alī Khān, son of Ghāzī Khān and
grandson of Mīr `Alī Beg, who read the _khuṯba_ for Sikandar son of
Buhlūl (_Lūdī Afghān_) and was subject to him. When I led that army out
(910 AH.) Sayyid `Alī Khān left Bhīra in terror, crossed the
Bahat-water, and seated himself in Sher-kot, one of the villages of
Bhīra. A few years later the Afghāns became suspicious about him on my
account; he, giving way to his own fears and anxieties, made these
countries over to the then governor [Sidenote: Fol. 225b.] in Lāhūr,
Daulat Khān, son of Tātār Khān _Yūsuf-khail_, who gave them to his own
eldest son `Alī Khān, and in `Alī Khān's possession they now were.
(_Author's note on Sl. Mas`ūd Mīrzā._) He was the son of
Sūyūrghatmīsh Mīrzā, son of Shāhrukh Mīrzā, (son of Tīmūr),
and was known as Sl. Mas`ūd _Kābulī_ because the government
and administration of Kābul and Zābul were then dependent on
him (deposed 843 AH.-1440 AD.)
(_Author's note to 910 AH._) That year, with the wish to enter
Hindūstān, Khaibar had been crossed and Parashāwūr (_sic_) had
been reached, when Bāqī _Chaghānīānī_ insisted on a move
against Lower Bangash _i.e._ Kohāt, a mass of Afghāns were
raided and scraped clean (_qīrīb_), the Bannū plain was raided
and plundered, and return was made through Dūkī (Dūgī).
(_Author's note on Daulat Khān Yūsuf-khail._) This Tātār Khān,
the father of Daulat Khān, was one of six or seven _sardārs_
who, sallying out and becoming dominant in Hindūstān, made
Buhlūl Pādshāh. He held the country north of the Satluj
(_sic_) and Sahrind,[1409] the revenues of which exceeded 3
_krūrs_.[1410] On Tātār Khān's death, Sl. Sikandar (_Lūdī_),
as over-lord, took those countries from Tātār Khān's sons and
gave Lāhūr only to Daulat Khān. That happened a year or two
before I came into the country of Kābul (910 AH.).
(_l. Bābur's journey resumed._)
(_Feb. 22nd_) Next morning foragers were sent to several convenient
places; on the same day I visited Bhīra; and on the same day Sangur Khān
_Janjūha_ came, made offering of a horse, and did me obeisance.
(_Feb. 23rd_) On Wednesday the 22nd of the month, the headmen and
_chauderis_[1411] of Bhīra were summoned, a sum of 400,000
_shāhrukhīs_[1412] was agreed on as the price of peace _(māl-i-amān)_,
and collectors were appointed. We also made an excursion, going in a
boat and there eating a confection.
(_Feb. 24th_) Ḥaidar the standard-bearer had been sent to the Bilūchīs
located in Bhīra and Khūsh-āb; on Thursday morning they made an offering
of an almond-coloured _tīpūchāq_ [horse], and did obeisance. As it was
represented to me that some of the soldiery were behaving without sense
and were laying-hands on Bhīra people, persons were sent who caused some
of those [Sidenote: Fol. 226.] senseless people to meet their
death-doom, of others slit the noses and so led them round the camp.
(_Feb. 25th_) On Friday came a dutiful letter from the Khūshābīs; on
this Shāh Shujā` _Arghūn's_ son Shāh Ḥasan was appointed to go to
Khūsh-āb.
(_Feb. 26th_) On Saturday the 25th of the month,[1413] Shāh Ḥasan was
started for Khūsh-āb.
(_Feb. 27th_) On Sunday so much rain fell[1414] that water covered all
the plain. A small brackish stream[1415] flowing between Bhīra and the
gardens in which the army lay, had become like a great river before the
Mid-day Prayer; while at the ford near Bhīra there was no footing for
more than an arrow's flight; people crossing had to swim. In the
afternoon I rode out to watch the water coming down (_kīrkān sū_); the
rain and storm were such that on the way back there was some fear about
getting in to camp. I crossed that same water (_kīrkān sū_) with my
horse swimming. The army-people were much alarmed; most of them
abandoned tents and heavy baggage, shouldered armour, horse-mail and
arms, made their horses swim and crossed bare-back. Most streams flooded
the plain.
(_Feb. 28th_) Next day boats were brought from the river (Jehlam), and
in these most of the army brought their tents and baggage over. Towards
mid-day, Qūj Beg's men went 2 miles up the water and there found a ford
by which the rest crossed.
[Sidenote: Fol. 226b.] (_March 1st_) After a night spent in Bhīra-fort,
Jahān-nūma they call it, we marched early on the Tuesday morning out of
the worry of the rain-flood to the higher ground north of Bhīra.
As there was some delay about the moneys asked for and agreed to
(_taqabbul_), the country was divided into four districts and the begs
were ordered to try to make an end of the matter. Khalīfa was appointed
to one district, Qūj Beg to another, Nāṣir's Dost to another, Sayyid
Qāsim and Muḥibb-i-`alī to another. Picturing as our own the countries
once occupied by the Turk, there was to be no over-running or
plundering.
(_m. Envoys sent to the court in Dihlī._)
(_March 3rd_) People were always saying, "It could do no harm to send an
envoy, for peace' sake, to countries that once depended on the Turk."
Accordingly on Thursday the 1st of Rabī`u'l-awwal, Mullā Murshid was
appointed to go to Sl. Ibrāhīm who through the death of his father Sl.
Iskandar had attained to rule in Hindūstān some 5 or 6 months
earlier(?). I sent him a goshawk (_qārchīgha_) and asked for the
countries which from of old had depended on the Turk. Mullā Murshid was
given charge of writings (_khāṯt̤lār_) for Daulat Khān (_Yūsuf-khail_)
and writings for Sl. Ibrāhīm; matters were sent also by word-of-mouth;
and he was given leave to go. Far from sense and wisdom, shut off from
judgment and counsel must people in Hindūstān be, the Afghāns above all;
for they could not move and make stand like a foe, nor did they know
ways and rules of friendliness. [Sidenote: Fol. 227.] Daulat Khān kept
my man several days in Lāhūr without seeing him himself or speeding him
on to Sl. Ibrāhīm; and he came back to Kābul a few months later without
bringing a reply.
(_n. Birth of Hind-āl._)
(_March 4th_) On Friday the 2nd of the month, the foot-soldiers Shaibak
and Darwesh-i-`alī,—he is now a matchlockman,—bringing dutiful letters
from Kābul, brought news also of Hind-āl's birth. As the news came
during the expedition into Hindūstān, I took it as an omen, and gave the
name Hind-āl (Taking of Hind). Dutiful letters came also from
Muḥammad-i-zamān M. in Balkh, by the hand of Qaṃbar Beg.
(_March 5th_) Next morning when the Court rose, we rode out for an
excursion, entered a boat and there drank _`araq_.[1416] The people of
the party were Khwāja Dost-khāwand, Khusrau, Mīrīm, Mīrzā Qulī,
Muḥammadī, Aḥmadī, Gadāī, Na`man, Langar Khān, Rauh-dam,[1417]
Qāsim-i-`alī the opium-eater (_tariyākī_), Yūsuf-i-`alī and Tīngrī-qulī.
Towards the head of the boat there was a _tālār_[1418] on the flat top
of which I sat with a few people, a few others sitting below. There was
a sitting-place also at the tail of the boat; there Muḥammadī, Gadāī and
Na`man sat. _`Araq_ was drunk till the Other Prayer when, disgusted by
its bad flavour, by consent of those at the head of the boat, _ma'jūn_
was preferred. [Sidenote: Fol. 227b.] Those at the other end, knowing
nothing about our _ma'jūn_ drank _`araq_ right through. At the Bed-time
Prayer we rode from the boat and got into camp late. Thinking I had been
drinking _`araq_ Muḥammadī and Gadāī had said to one another, "Let's do
befitting service," lifted a pitcher of _`araq_ up to one another in
turn on their horses, and came in saying with wonderful joviality and
heartiness and speaking together, "Through this dark night have we come
carrying this pitcher in turns!" Later on when they knew that the party
was (now) meant to be otherwise and the hilarity to differ, that is to
say, that [there would be that] of the _ma'jūn_ band and that of the
drinkers, they were much disturbed because never does a _ma'jūn_ party
go well with a drinking-party. Said I, "Don't upset the party! Let those
who wish to drink _`araq_, drink _`araq_; let those who wish to eat
_ma'jūn_, eat _ma'jūn_. Let no-one on either side make talk or allusion
to the other." Some drank _`araq_, some ate _ma'jūn_, and for a time the
party went on quite politely. Bābā Jān the _qabūz_-player had not been
of our party (in the boat); we invited him when we reached the tents. He
asked to drink _`araq_. We invited Tardī Muḥammad _Qībchāq_ also and
made him a comrade of the drinkers. A _ma'jūn_ party never goes well
with an _`araq_ or a wine-party; the drinkers began to make wild talk
and chatter from all sides, mostly in allusion to _ma'jūn_ and
_ma'jūnīs_. Bābā Jān even, when drunk, said many wild things. The
drinkers soon made Tardī Khān mad-drunk, by giving him one full bowl
after another. Try as we did [Sidenote: Fol. 228.] to keep things
straight, nothing went well; there was much disgusting uproar; the party
became intolerable and was broken up.
(_March 7th_) On Monday the 5th of the month, the country of Bhīra was
given to Hindū Beg.
(_March 8th_) On Tuesday the Chīn-āb country was bestowed on Ḥusain
_Aīkrak_(?) and leave was given to him and the Chīn-āb people to set
out. At this time Sayyid `Alī Khān's son Minūchihr Khān, having let us
know (his intention), came and waited on me. He had started from
Hindūstān by the upper road, had met in with Tātār Khān _Kakar_;[1419]
Tātār Khān had not let him pass on, but had kept him, made him a
son-in-law by giving him his own daughter, and had detained him for some
time.
(_o. The Kakars._)
In amongst the mountains of Nīl-āb and Bhīra which connect with those of
Kashmīr, there are, besides the Jūd and Janjūha tribes, many Jats,
Gujūrs, and others akin to them, seated in villages everywhere on every
rising-ground. These are governed by headmen of the Kakar tribes, a
headship like that over the Jūd and Janjūha. At this time (925 AH.) the
headmen of the people of those hill-skirts were Tātār _Kakar_ and Hātī
_Kakar_, two descendants of one forefather; being paternal-uncles'
sons.[1420] Torrent-beds and ravines are their strongholds. Tātār's
place, named Parhāla,[1421] is a good deal below the snow-mountains;
Hātī's country connects with the mountains and also he had made Bābū
Khān's fief Kālanjar,[1422] look towards himself. Tātār [Sidenote: Fol.
228b.] _Kakar_ had seen Daulat Khān (_Yūsuf-khail_) and looked to him
with complete obedience. Hātī had not seen Daulat Khān; his attitude
towards him was bad and turbulent. At the word of the Hindūstān begs and
in agreement with them, Tātār had so posted himself as to blockade Hātī
from a distance. Just when we were in Bhīra, Hātī moved on pretext of
hunting, fell unexpectedly on Tātār, killed him, and took his country,
his wives and his having (_būlghāni_).[1423]
(_p. Bābur's journey resumed._)
Having ridden out at the Mid-day Prayer for an excursion, we got on a
boat and _`araq_ was drunk. The people of the party were Dost Beg, Mīrzā
Qulī, Aḥmadī, Gadāī, Muḥammad `Alī _Jang-jang_, `Asas,[1424] and
Aūghān-bīrdī _Mughūl_. The musicians were Rauḥ-dam, Bābā Jān,
Qāsim-i-`alī, Yūsuf-i-`alī, Tīngrī-qulī, Abū'l-qāsim, Rāmẓān _Lūlī_. We
drank in the boat till the Bed-time Prayer; then getting off it, full of
drink, we mounted, took torches in our hands, and went to camp from the
river's bank, leaning over from our horses on this side, leaning over
from that, at one loose-rein gallop! Very drunk I must have been for,
when they told me next day that we had galloped loose-rein into camp,
carrying torches, I could not recall it in the very least. After
reaching my quarters, I vomited a good deal.
(_March 11th_) On Friday we rode out on an excursion, crossed the water
(Jehlam) by boat and went about amongst the orchards (_bāghāt_) of
blossoming trees and the lands of the sugar-cultivation. We saw the
wheel with buckets, had water drawn, and asked [Sidenote: Fol. 229.]
particulars about getting it out; indeed we made them draw it again and
again. During this excursion a confection was preferred. In returning we
went on board a boat. A confection (_ma'jūn_) was given also to
Minūchihr Khān, such a one that, to keep him standing, two people had to
give him their arms. For a time the boat remained at anchor in
mid-stream; we then went down-stream; after a while had it drawn
up-stream again, slept in it that night and went back to camp near dawn.
(_March 12th_) On Saturday the 10th of the first Rabī`, the Sun entered
the Ram. Today we rode out before mid-day and got into a boat where
_`araq_ was drunk. The people of the party were Khwāja Dost-khāwand,
Dost Beg, Mīrīm, Mīrzā Qulī, Muḥammadī, Aḥmadī, Yūnas-i-`alī, Muḥ. `Alī
_Jang-jang_, Gadāī T̤aghāī, Mīr Khurd (and ?) `Asas. The musicians were
Rauḥdam, Bābā Jān, Qāsim, Yūsuf-i-`alī, Tīngrī-qulī and Ramẓān. We got
into a branch-water (_shakh-i-āb_), for some time went down-stream,
landed a good deal below Bhīra and on its opposite bank, and went late
into camp.
This same day Shāh Ḥasan returned from Khūsh-āb whither he had been sent
as envoy to demand the countries which from of old had depended on the
Turk; he had settled peaceably with them and had in his hands a part of
the money assessed on them.
The heats were near at hand. To reinforce Hindū Beg (in Bhīra) were
appointed Shāh Muḥammad Keeper of the Seal and his younger brother Dost
Beg Keeper of the Seal, together with several suitable braves; an
accepted (_yārāsha_) stipend [Sidenote: Fol. 229b.] was fixed and
settled in accordance with each man's position. Khūsh-āb was bestowed,
with a standard, on Langar Khān, the prime cause and mover of this
expedition; we settled also that he was to help Hindū Beg. We appointed
also to help Hindū Beg, the Turk and local soldiery of Bhīra, increasing
the allowances and pay of both. Amongst them was the afore-named
Minūchihr Khān whose name has been mentioned; there was also
Naẕar-i-`alī _Turk_, one of Minūchihr Khān's relations; there were also
Sangar Khān _Janjūha_ and Malik Hast _Janjūha_.
(_pp. Return for Kābul._)
(_March 13th_) Having settled the country in every way making for hope
of peace, we marched for Kābul from Bhīra on Sunday the 11th of the
first Rabī`. We dismounted in Kaldah-kahār. That day too it rained
amazingly; people with rain-cloaks[1425] were in the same case as those
who had none! The rear of the camp kept coming in till the Bed-time
Prayer.
(_q. Action taken against Hātī Kakar._)
(_March 14th_) People acquainted with the honour and glory (_āb u tāb_)
of this land and government, especially the Janjūhas, old foes of these
Kakars, represented, "Hātī is the bad man round-about; he it is robs on
the roads; he it is brings men to ruin; he ought either to be driven out
from these parts, or to be severely punished." Agreeing with this, we
left Khwāja Mīr-i-mīrān and Nāṣir's Mīrīm next day with the camp,
parting from them at big breakfast,[1426] and moved on Hātī _Kakar_. As
has been said, he had killed Tātār a few days earlier, and having taken
possession of Parhāla, was in it now. Dismounting at the Other
[Sidenote: Fol. 230.] Prayer, we gave the horses corn; at the Bed-time
Prayer we rode on again, our guide being a Gujūr servant of Malik Hast,
named Sar-u-pā. We rode the night through and dismounted at dawn, when
Beg Muḥammad _Mughūl_ was sent back to the camp, and we remounted when
it was growing light. At breakfast-time (9 a.m.) we put our mail on and
moved forward faster. The blackness of Parhāla shewed itself from 2
miles off; the gallop was then allowed (_chāpqūn qūīūldī_); the right
went east of Parhāla, Qūj Beg, who was also of the right, following as
its reserve; the men of the left and centre went straight for the fort,
Dost Beg being their rear-reserve.
Parhāla stands amongst ravines. It has two roads; one, by which we came,
leads to it from the south-east, goes along the top of ravines and on
either hand has hollows worn out by the torrents. A mile from Parhāla
this road, in four or five places before it reaches the Gate, becomes a
one-man road with a ravine falling from its either side; there for more
than an arrow's flight men must ride in single file. The other road
comes from the north-west; it gets up to Parhāla by the trough of a
valley and it also is a one-man road. There is no other road on any
side. Parhāla though without breast-work or battlement, has no
assailable place, its sides shooting perpendicularly [Sidenote: Fol.
230b.] down for 7, 8, 10 yards.
When the van of our left, having passed the narrow place, went in a body
to the Gate, Hātī, with whom were 30 to 40 men in armour, their horses
in mail, and a mass of foot-soldiers, forced his assailants to retire.
Dost Beg led his reserve forward, made a strong attack, dismounted a
number of Hātī's men, and beat him. All the country-round, Hātī was
celebrated for his daring, but try as he did, he could effect nothing;
he took to flight; he could not make a stand in those narrow places; he
could not make the fort fast when he got back into it. His assailants
went in just behind him and ran on through the ravine and narrows of the
north-west side of the fort, but he rode light and made his flight good.
Here again, Dost Beg did very well and recompense was added to
renown.[1427]
Meantime I had gone into the fort and dismounted at Tātār _Kakar's_
dwelling. Several men had joined in the attack for whom to stay with me
had been arranged; amongst them were Amīn-i-muḥammad Tarkhān _Argkūn_
and Qarācha.[1428] For this fault they were sent to meet the camp,
without _sar-u-pā_, into the wilds and open country with Sar-u-pā[1429]
for their guide, the Gujūr mentioned already.
(_March 16th_) Next day we went out by the north-west ravine and
dismounted in a sown field. A few serviceable braves under Wālī the
treasurer were sent out to meet the camp.[1430]
(_March 17th_) Marching on Thursday the 15th, we dismounted at Andarāba
on the Sūhān, a fort said to have depended from [Sidenote: Fol. 231.] of
old on ancestors of Malik Hast. Hātī _Kakar_ had killed Malik Hast's
father and destroyed the fort; there it now lay in ruins.
At the Bed-time Prayer of this same day, those left at Kalda-kahār with
the camp rejoined us.
(_r. Submissions to Bābur._)
It must have been after Hātī overcame Tātār that he started his kinsman
Parbat to me with tribute and an accoutred horse. Parbat did not light
upon us but, meeting in with the camp we had left behind, came on in the
company of the train. With it came also Langar Khān up from Bhīra on
matters of business. His affairs were put right and he, together with
several local people, was allowed to leave.
(_March 18th_) Marching on and crossing the Sūhān-water, we dismounted
on the rising-ground. Here Hātī's kinsman (Parbat) was robed in an
honorary dress (_khil`at_), given letters of encouragement for Hātī, and
despatched with a servant of Muḥammad `Alī _Jang-jang_. Nīl-āb and the
Qārlūq (Himalayan?) Hazāra had been given to Humāyūn (_aet._ 12); some
of his servants under Bābā Dost and Halāhil came now for their
darogha-ship.[1431]
(_March 19th_) Marching early next morning, we dismounted after riding 2
miles, went to view the camp from a height and ordered that the
camp-camels should be counted; it came out at 570. [Sidenote: Fol.
231b.]
We had heard of the qualities of the saṃbhal plant[1432]; we saw it on
this ground; along this hill-skirt it grows sparsely, a plant here, a
plant there; it grows abundantly and to a large size further along the
skirt-hills of Hindūstān. It will be described when an account is given
of the animals and plants of Hindūstān.[1433]
(_March 20th_) Marching from that camp at beat of drum (_i.e._ one hour
before day), we dismounted at breakfast-time (9 a.m.) below the
Sangdakī-pass, at mid-day marched on, crossed the pass, crossed the
torrent, and dismounted on the rising-ground.
(_March 21st_) Marching thence at midnight, we made an excursion to the
ford[1434] we had crossed when on our way to Bhīra. A great raft of
grain had stuck in the mud of that same ford and, do what its owners
would, could not be made to move. The corn was seized and shared out to
those with us. Timely indeed was that corn!
Near noon we were a little below the meeting of the waters of Kābul and
Sind, rather above old Nīl-āb; we dismounted there between two
waters.[1435] From Nīl-āb six boats were brought, and were apportioned
to the right, left and centre, who busied themselves energetically in
crossing the river (Indus). We got there on a Monday; they kept on
crossing the water through the night preceding Tuesday (_March 22nd_),
through Tuesday and up to Wednesday (_March 23rd_) and on Thursday
(_24th_) also a few crossed.
Hātl's kinsman Parbat, he who from Andarāba was sent to [Sidenote: Fol.
232.] Hātī with a servant of Muḥ. `Alī _Jang-jang_, came to the bank of
the river with Hātī's offering of an accoutred horse. Nīlābīs also came,
brought an accoutred horse and did obeisance.
(_s. Various postings._)
Muḥammad `Alī _Jang-jang_ had wished to stay in Bhīra but Bhīra being
bestowed on Hindū Beg, he was given the countries between it and the
Sind-river, such as the Qārlūq Hazāra, Hātī, Ghiyāṣ-wāl and Kīb
(Kitib):—
Where one is who submits like a _ra`iyat_, so treat him;
But him who submits not, strike, strip, crush and force to obey.
He also received a special head-wear in black velvet, a special Qīlmāq
corselet, and a standard. When Hātī's kinsman was given leave to go he
took for Hātī a sword and head-to-foot (_bāsh-ayāq_) with a royal letter
of encouragement.
(_March 24th_) On Thursday at sunrise we marched from the river's bank.
That day confection was eaten. While under its influence[1436] wonderful
fields of flowers were enjoyed. In some places sheets of yellow flowers
bloomed in plots; in others sheets of red (_arghwānī_) flowers in plots,
in some red and yellow bloomed together. We sat on a mound near the camp
to enjoy the sight. There were flowers on all sides of the mound, yellow
[Sidenote: Fol. 232b.] here, red there, as if arranged regularly to form
a sextuple. On two sides there were fewer flowers but as far as the eye
reached, flowers were in bloom. In spring near Parashāwar the fields of
flowers are very beautiful indeed.
(_March 25th_) We marched from that ground at dawn. At one place on the
road a tiger came out and roared. On hearing it, the horses,
willy-nilly, flung off in terror, carrying their riders in all
directions, and dashing into ravines and hollows. The tiger went again
into the jungle. To bring it out, we ordered a buffalo brought and put
on the edge of the jungle. The tiger again came out roaring. Arrows were
shot at it from all sides[1437]; I shot with the rest. Khalwī (var.
Khalwā) a foot-soldier, pricked it with a spear; it bit the spear and
broke off the spearhead. After tasting of those arrows, it went into the
bushes (_būta_) and stayed there. Bābā the waiting-man [_yasāwal_] went
with drawn sword close up to it; it sprang; he chopped at its head; `Alī
_Sīstānī_[1438] chopped at its loins; it plunged into the river and was
killed right in the water. It was got out and ordered to be skinned.
(_March 26th_) Marching on next day, we reached Bīgrām and went to see
Gūr-khattrī. This is a smallish abode, after the fashion of a hermitage
(_ṣauma`at_), rather confined and dark. After entering at the door and
going down a few steps, one must lie full length to get beyond. There is
no getting in without a lamp. All round near the building there is let
lie an enormous quantity of hair of the head and beard which men have
shaved off there. There are a great many retreats (_ḥujra_) near
Gūr-khattrī [Sidenote: Fol. 233.] like those of a rest-house or a
college. In the year we came into Kābul (910 AH.) and over-ran Kohāt,
Bannū and the plain, we made an excursion to Bīgrām, saw its great tree
and were consumed with regret at not seeing Gūr-khattrī, but it does not
seem a place to regret not-seeing.[1439]
On this same day an excellent hawk of mine went astray out of Shaikhīm
the head-falconer's charge; it had taken many cranes and storks and had
moulted (_tūlāb_) two or three times. So many things did it take that it
made a fowler of a person so little keen as I!
At this place were bestowed 100 mis̤qāls of silver, clothing (_tūnlūq_),
three bullocks and one buffalo, out of the offerings of Hindūstān, on
each of six persons, the chiefs of the Dilazāk Afghāns under Malik Bū
Khān and Malik Mūsa; to others, in their degree, were given money,
pieces of cloth, a bullock and a buffalo.
(_March 27th_) When we dismounted at `Alī-masjid, a Dilazāk Afghān of
the Yaq`ūb-khail, named Ma`rūf, brought an offering of 10 sheep, two
ass-loads of rice and eight large cheeses.
(_March 28th_) Marching on from `Alī-masjid, we dismounted at Yada-bīr;
from Yada-bīr Jūī-shāhī was reached by the Midday Prayer and we there
dismounted. Today Dost Beg was attacked by burning fever.
(_March 29th_) Marching from Jūī-shāhī at dawn, we ate our mid-day meal
in the Bāgh-i-wafā. At the Mid-day Prayer we betook ourselves out of the
garden, close to the Evening Prayer forded the Siyāh-āb at Gandamak,
satisfied our horses' hunger in a field of green corn, and rode on in a
_garī_ or two (24-48 min.).
After crossing the Sūrkh-āb, we dismounted at Kark and took [Sidenote:
Fol. 233b.] a sleep.
(_March 30th_) Riding before shoot of day from Kark, I went with 5 or 6
others by the road taking off for Qarā-tū in order to enjoy the sight of
a garden there made. Khalīfa and Shāh Ḥasan Beg and the rest went by the
other road to await me at Qūrūq-sāī.
When we reached Qarā-tū, Shāh Beg _Arghūn's_ commissary (_tawāchī_)
Qīzīl (Rufus) brought word that Shāh Beg had taken Kāhān, plundered it
and retired.
An order had been given that no-one soever should take news of us ahead.
We reached Kābul at the Mid-day Prayer, no person in it knowing about us
till we got to Qūtlūq-qadam's bridge. As Humāyūn and Kāmrān heard about
us only after that, there was not time to put them on horseback; they
made their pages carry them, came, and did obeisance between the gates
of the town and the citadel.[1440] At the Other Prayer there waited on
me Qāsim Beg, the town Qāẓī, the retainers left in Kābul and the
notables of the place.
(_April 2nd_) At the Other Prayer of Friday the 1st of the second Rabī`
there was a wine-party at which a special head-to-foot (_bāsh-ayāq_) was
bestowed on Shāh Ḥasan.
(_April 3rd_) At dawn on Saturday we went on board a boat and took our
morning.[1441] Nūr Beg, then not obedient (_tā'īb_), played the lute at
this gathering. At the Mid-day Prayer we left the boat to visit the
garden made between Kul-kīna[1442] and the mountain (Shāh-i-kābul). At
the Evening Prayer we went to the Violet-garden where there was drinking
again. From Kul-kīna I got in by the rampart and went into the citadel.
(_u. Dost Beg's death._)
(_April 6th_) On the night of Tuesday the 5th of the month,[1443] Dost
Beg, who on the road had had fever, went to God's mercy. [Sidenote: Fol.
234.]
Sad and grieved enough we were! His bier and corpse were carried to
Ghaznī where they laid him in front of the gate of the Sulṯān's garden
(_rauza_).
Dost Beg had been a very good brave (_yīkīt_) and he was still rising in
rank as a beg. Before he was made a beg, he did excellent things several
times as one of the household. One time was at Rabāṯ-i-zauraq,[1444] one
_yīghāch_ from Andijān when Sl. Aḥmad _Taṃbal_ attacked me at night (908
AH.). I, with 10 to 15 men, by making a stand, had forced his gallopers
back; when we reached his centre, he made a stand with as many as 100
men; there were then three men with me, _i.e._ there were four counting
myself. Nāṣir's Dost (_i.e._ Dost Beg) was one of the three; another was
Mīrzā Qulī _Kūkūldāsh_; Karīm-dād _Turkmān_ was the other. I was just in
my _jība_[1445]; Taṃbal and another were standing like gate-wards in
front of his array; I came face to face with Taṃbal, shot an arrow
striking his helm; shot another aiming at the attachment of his
shield;[1446] they shot one through my leg (_būtūm_); Taṃbal chopped at
my head. It was wonderful! The (under)-cap of my helm was on my head;
not a thread of it was cut, but on the head itself was a very bad wound.
Of other help came none; no-one was left with me; of necessity I brought
myself to gallop back. Dost Beg had been a little in my rear; (Taṃbal)
on leaving me alone, chopped at him.[1447]
[Sidenote: Fol. 234b.] Again, when we were getting out of Akhsī [908
AH.],[1448] Dost Beg chopped away at Bāqī _Ḥīz_[1449] who, although
people called him _Ḥīz_, was a mighty master of the sword. Dost Beg was
one of the eight left with me after we were out of Akhsī; he was the
third they unhorsed.
Again, after he had become a beg, when Sīūnjuk Khān (_Aūzbeg_), arriving
with the (Aūzbeg) sulṯāns before Tāshkīnt, besieged Aḥmad-i-qāsim
[_Kohbur_] in it [918 AH.],[1450] Dost Beg passed through them and
entered the town. During the siege he risked his honoured life
splendidly, but Aḥmad-i-qāsim, without a word to this honoured
man,[1451] flung out of the town and got away. Dost Beg for his own part
got the better of the Khān and sulṯāns and made his way well out of
Tāshkīnt.
Later on when Sherīm T̤aghāī, Mazīd and their adherents were in
rebellion,[1452] he came swiftly up from Ghaznī with two or three
hundred men, met three or four hundred effective braves sent out by
those same Mughūls to meet him, unhorsed a mass of them near
Sherūkān(?), cut off and brought in a number of heads.
Again, his men were first over the ramparts at the fort of Bajaur (925
AH.). At Parhāla, again, he advanced, beat Hātī, put him to flight, and
won Parhāla.
After Dost Beg's death, I bestowed his district on his younger brother
Nāṣir's Mīrīm.[1453]
(_v. Various incidents._)
(_April 9th_) On Friday the 8th of the second Rabī`, the walled-town was
left for the Chār-bāgh.
(_April 13th_) On Tuesday the 12th there arrived in Kābul the honoured
Sulṯānīm Begīm, Sl. Ḥusain Mīrzā's eldest daughter, the mother of
Muḥammad Sulṯān Mīrzā. During those throneless times,[1454] she had
settled down in Khwārizm where Yīlī-pārs [Sidenote: Fol. 235.] Sulṯān's
younger brother Aīsān-qulī Sl. took her daughter. The Bāgh-i-khilwat was
assigned her for her seat. When she had settled down and I went to see
her in that garden, out of respect and courtesy to her, she being as my
honoured elder sister, I bent the knee. She also bent the knee. We both
advancing, saw one another mid-way. We always observed the same ceremony
afterwards.
(_April 18th_) On Sunday the 17th, that traitor to his salt, Bābā
Shaikh[1455] was released from his long imprisonment, forgiven his
offences and given an honorary dress.
(_w. Visit to the Koh-dāman._)
(_April 20th_) On Tuesday the 19th of the month, we rode out at the
return of noon for Khwāja Sih-yārān. This day I was fasting. All
astonished, Yūnas-i-`alī and the rest said, "A Tuesday! a journey! and a
fast! This is amazing!" At Bīhzādī we dismounted at the Qāẓī's house. In
the evening when a stir was made for a social gathering, the Qāẓī set
this before me, "In my house such things never are; it is for the
honoured Pādshāh to command!" For his heart's content, drink was left
out, though all the material for a party was ready.
(_April 21st_) On Wednesday we went to Khwāja Sih-yārān.
(_April 22nd_) On Thursday the 22nd of the month, we had a large round
seat made in the garden under construction on the mountain-naze.[1456]
(_April 23rd_) On Friday we got on a raft from the bridge. On our coming
opposite the fowlers' houses, they brought a _dang_ [Sidenote: Fol.
235b.] (or _ding_)[1457] they had caught. I had never seen one before;
it is an odd-looking bird. It will come into the account of the birds of
Hindustan.[1458]
(_April 24th_) On Saturday the 23rd of the month cuttings were planted,
partly of plane, partly of _tāl_,[1459] above the round seat. At the
Mid-day Prayer there was a wine-party at the place.
(_April 25th_) At dawn we took our morning on the new seat. At noon we
mounted and started for Kābul, reached Khwāja Ḥasan quite drunk and
slept awhile, rode on and by midnight got to the Chār-bāgh. At Khwāja
Ḥasan, `Abdu'l-lāh, in his drunkenness, threw himself into water just as
he was in his _tūn aūfrāghī_.[1460] He was frozen with cold and could
not go on with us when we mounted after a little of the night had
passed. He stayed on Qūtlūq Khwāja's estate that night. Next day,
awakened to his past intemperance, he came on repentant. Said I, "At
once! will this sort of repentance answer or not? Would to God you would
repent now at once in such a way that you would drink nowhere except at
my parties!" He agreed to this and kept the rule for a few months, but
could not keep it longer.
(_x. Hindū Beg abandons Bhīra._)
(_April 26th_) On Monday the 25th came Hindū Beg. There having been hope
of peace, he had been left in those countries with somewhat scant
support. No sooner was our back turned than a mass of Hindūstānīs and
Afghāns gathered, disregarded us and, not listening to our words, moved
against Hindū Beg in Bhīra. The local peoples also went over to the
Afghāns. Hindū Beg could make no stand in Bhīra, came to Khūsh-āb, came
through the Dīn-kot country, came to Nīl-āb, came on to Kābul.
[Sidenote: Fol. 236.] Sīktū's son Dīwa _Hindū_ and another Hindū had
been brought prisoner from Bhīra. Each now giving a considerable ransom,
they were released. Horses and head-to-foot dresses having been given
them, leave to go was granted.
(_April 30th_) On Friday the 29th of the month, burning fever appeared
in my body. I got myself let blood. I had fever with sometimes two,
sometimes three days between the attacks. In no attack did it cease till
there had been sweat after sweat. After 10 or 12 days of illness, Mullā
Khwāja gave me narcissus mixed with wine; I drank it once or twice; even
that did no good.
(_May 15th_) On Sunday the 15th of the first Jumāda[1461] Khwāja
Muḥammad `Alī came from Khwāst, bringing a saddled horse as an offering
and also _taṣadduq_ money.[1462] Muḥ. Sharīf the astrologer and the
Mīr-zādas of Khwāst came with him and waited on me.
(_May 16th_) Next day, Monday, Mullā Kabīr came from Kāshghar; he had
gone round by Kāshghar on his way from Andijān to Kābul.
(_May 23rd_) On Monday the 23rd of the month, Malik Shāh Manṣūr
_Yūsuf-zāī_ arrived from Sawād with 6 or 7 Yūsuf-zāī chiefs, and did
obeisance.
(_May 31st_) On Monday the 1st of the second Jumāda, the chiefs of the
Yūsuf-zāī Afghāns led by Malik Shāh Manṣūr were dressed in robes of
honour (_khil`at_). To Malik Shāh Manṣūr was given a long silk coat and
an under-coat (? _jība_) with its buttons; to one of the other chiefs
was given a coat with silk sleeves, and to six others silk coats. To all
leave to go was granted. Agreement was made with them that they were not
[Sidenote: Fol. 236b.] to reckon as in the country of Sawād what was
above Abuha (?), that they should make all the peasants belonging to it
go out from amongst themselves, and also that the Afghān cultivators of
Bajaur and Sawād should cast into the revenue 6000 ass-loads of rice.
(_June 2nd_) On Wednesday the 3rd, I drank _jul-āb_.[1463]
(_June 5th_) On Saturday the 6th, I drank a working-draught
(_dārū-i-kār_).
(_June 7th_) On Monday the 8th, arrived the wedding-gift for the
marriage of Qāsim Beg's youngest son Ḥamza with Khalīfa's eldest
daughter. It was of 1000 _shāhrukhī_; they offered also a saddled horse.
(_June 8th_) On Tuesday Shāh Beg's Shāh Ḥasan asked for permission to go
away for a wine-party. He carried off to his house Khwāja Muḥ. `Alī and
some of the household-begs. In my presence were Yūnas-i-`alī and Gadāī
T̤aghāī. I was still abstaining from wine. Said I, "Not at all in this
way is it (_hech andāq būlmāī dūr_) that I will sit sober and the party
drink wine, I stay sane, full of water, and that set (_būlāk_) of people
get drunk; come you and drink in my presence! I will amuse myself a
little by watching what intercourse between the sober and the drunk is
like."[1464] The party was held in a smallish tent in which I sometimes
sat, in the Plane-tree garden south-east of the Picture-hall. Later on
Ghiyāṣ the house-buffoon (_kīdī_) arrived; several times for fun he was
ordered kept out, but at last he made a great disturbance and his
buffooneries found him a way in. We invited Tardī Muḥammad _Qībchāq_
also and Mullā _kitāb-dār_ (librarian). The following quatrain, written
impromptu, was sent to Shāh Ḥasan and those gathered in his [Sidenote:
Fol. 237.] house:—
In your beautiful flower-bed of banquetting friends,
Our fashion it is not to be;
If there be ease (_ḥuzūr_) in that gathering of yours,
Thank God! there is here no un-ease [_bī ḥuzūr_].[1465]
It was sent by Ibrāhīm _chuhra_. Between the two Prayers (_i.e._
afternoon) the party broke up drunk.
I used to go about in a litter while I was ill. The wine-mixture was
drunk on several of the earlier days, then, as it did no good I left it
off, but I drank it again at the end of my convalescence, at a party had
under an apple-tree on the south-west side of the Tālār-garden.
(_June 11th_) On Friday the 12th came Aḥmad Beg and Sl. Muḥammad
_Dūldāī_ who had been left to help in Bajaur.
(_June 16th_) On Wednesday the 17th of the month, Tīngrī-bīrdī and other
braves gave a party in Ḥaidar _Tāqi's_ garden; I also went and there
drank. We rose from it at the Bed-time Prayer when a move was made to
the great tent where again there was drinking.
(_June 23rd_) On Thursday the 25th of the month, Mullā Maḥmūd was
appointed to read extracts from the Qorān[1466] in my presence.
(_June 28th_) On Tuesday the last day of the month, Abū'l-muslim
Kūkūldāsh arrived as envoy from Shāh Shujā` _Arghūn_ bringing a
_tīpūchāq_. After bargain made about swimming the reservoir in the
Plane-tree garden, Yūsuf-i-`alī the stirrup-holder swam round it today
100 times and received a gift of a head-to-foot (dress), a saddled horse
and some money.
(_July 6th_) On Wednesday the 8th of Rajab, I went to Shāh Ḥasan's house
and drank there; most of the household and of [Sidenote: Fol. 237b.] the
begs were present.
(_July 9th_) On Saturday the 11th, there was drinking on the
terrace-roof of the pigeon-house between the Afternoon and Evening
Prayers. Rather late a few horsemen were observed, going from
Dih-i-afghān towards the town. It was made out to be Darwīsh-i-muḥammad
_Sārbān_, on his way to me as the envoy of Mīrzā Khān (Wais). We shouted
to him from the roof, "Drop the envoy's forms and ceremonies! Come! come
without formality!" He came and sat down in the company. He was then
obedient and did not drink. Drinking went on till the end of the
evening. Next day he came into the Court Session with due form and
ceremony, and presented Mīrzā Khān's gifts.
(_y. Various incidents._)
Last year[1467] with 100 efforts, much promise and threats, we had got
the clans to march into Kābul from the other side (of Hindū-kush). Kābul
is a confined country, not easily giving summer and winter quarters to
the various flocks and herds of the Turks and (Mughūl?) clans. If the
dwellers in the wilds follow their own hearts, they do not wish for
Kābul! They now waited (_khidmat qīlīb_) on Qāsim Beg and made him their
mediator with me for permission to re-cross to that other side. He tried
very hard, so in the end, they were allowed to cross over to the Qūndūz
and Bāghlān side.
Ḥāfiẕ the news-writer's elder brother had come from Samarkand; when I
now gave him leave to return, I sent my _Dīwān_ by him to Pūlād
Sulṯān.[1468] On the back of it I wrote the following [Sidenote: Fol.
238.] verse:—
O breeze! if thou enter that cypress' chamber (_ḥarīm_)
Remind her of me, my heart reft by absence;
She yearns not for Bābur; he fosters a hope
That her heart of steel God one day may melt.[1469]
(_July 15th_) On Friday the 17th of the month, Shaikh Mazīd Kūkūldāsh
waited on me from Muḥammad-i-zamān Mīrzā, bringing _taṣadduq_ tribute
and a horse.[1470] Today Shāh Beg's envoy Abū'l-muslim Kūkūldāsh was
robed in an honorary dress and given leave to go. Today also leave was
given for their own districts of Khwāst and Andar-āb to Khwāja Muḥammad
`Alī and Tīngrī-bīrdī.
(_July 21st_) On Thursday the 23rd came Muḥ. `Alī _Jang-jang_ who had
been left in charge of the countries near Kacha-kot and the Qārlūq. With
him came one of Hātī's people and Mīrzā-i-malū-i-qārlūq's son Shāh
Ḥasan. Today Mullā `Alī-jān waited on me, returned from fetching his
wife from Samarkand.
(_z. The `Abdu'r-raḥman Afghāns and Rustam-maidān._)
(_July 27th_) The `Abdu'r-raḥman Afghāns on the Gīrdīz border were
satisfactory neither in their tribute nor their behaviour; they were
hurtful also to the caravans which came and went. On Wednesday the 29th
of Rajab we rode out to over-run them. We dismounted and ate food near
Tang-i-waghchān,[1471] and rode on again at the Mid-day Prayer. In the
night we lost the road and got much bewildered in the ups and downs of
the land to the south-east of Pātakh-i-āb-i-shakna.[1472] After a time
we lit on [Sidenote: Fol. 238b.] a road and by it crossed the
Chashma-i-tūra[1473] pass.
(_July 28th_) At the first prayer (_farẓ-waqt_) we got out from the
valley-bottom adjacent[1474] to the level land, and the raid was
allowed. One detachment galloped towards the Kar-māsh[1475] mountain,
south-east of Gīrdīz, the left-hand of the centre led by Khusrau, Mīrzā
Qulī and Sayyid `Alī in their rear. Most of the army galloped up the
dale to the east of Gīrdīz, having in their rear men under Sayyid Qāsim
Lord of the Gate, Mīr Shāh _Qūchīn_, Qayyām (Aūrdū-shāh Beg?), Hindū
Beg, Qūtlūq-qadam and Ḥusain [Ḥasan?]. Most of the army having gone up
the dale, I followed at some distance. The dalesmen must have been a
good way up; those who went after them wore their horses out and nothing
to make up for this fell into their hands.
Some Afghāns on foot, some 40 or 50 of them, having appeared on the
plain, the rear-reserve went towards them. A courier was sent to me and
I hastened on at once. Before I got up with them, Ḥusain Ḥāsan, all
alone, foolishly and thoughtlessly, put his horse at those Afghāns, got
in amongst them and began to lay on with his sword. They shot his horse,
thus made him fall, slashed at him as he was getting up, flung him down,
knifed him from all sides and cut him to pieces, while the other braves
looked on, standing still and reaching him no helping hand! On hearing
news of it, I hurried still faster forward, and sent some of the
household and braves galloping loose-rein ahead [Sidenote: Fol. 239.]
under Gadāī T̤aghāī, Payānda-i-muḥammad _Qīplān_, Abū'l-ḥasan the
armourer and Mūmin Ātāka. Mūmin Ātāka was the first of them to bring an
Afghān down; he speared one, cut off his head and brought it in.
Abū'l-ḥasan the armourer, without mail as he was, went admirably
forward, stopped in front of the Afghāns, laid his horse at them,
chopped at one, got him down, cut off and brought in his head. Known
though both were for bravelike deeds done earlier, their action in this
affair added to their fame. Every one of those 40 or 50 Afghāns, falling
to the arrow, falling to the sword, was cut in pieces. After making a
clean sweep of them, we dismounted in a field of growing corn and
ordered a tower of their heads to be set up. As we went along the road I
said, with anger and scorn, to the begs who had been with Ḥusain, "You!
what men! there you stood on quite flat ground, and looked on while a
few Afghāns on foot overcame such a brave in the way they did! Your rank
and station must be taken from you; you must lose _pargana_ and country;
your beards must be shaved off and you must be exhibited in towns; for
there shall be punishment assuredly for him who looks on while such a
brave is beaten by such a foe [Sidenote: Fol. 239b.] on dead-level land,
and reaches out no hand to help!" The troop which went to Kar-māsh
brought back sheep and other spoil. One of them was Bābā Qashqa[1476]
_Mughūl_; an Afghān had made at him with a sword; he had stood still to
adjust an arrow, shot it off and brought his man down.
(_July 29th_) Next day at dawn we marched for Kābul. Pay-aster Muḥammad,
`Abdu'l-`azīz Master of the Horse, and Mīr Khūrd the taster were ordered
to stop at Chashma-tūra, and get pheasants from the people there.
As I had never been along the Rustam-maidān road,[1477] I went with a
few men to see it. Rustam-plain (_maidān_) lies amongst mountains and
towards their head is not a very charming place. The dale spreads rather
broad between its two ranges. To the south, on the skirt of the
rising-ground is a smallish spring, having very large poplars near it.
There are many trees also, but not so large, at the source on the way
out of Rustam-maidān for Gīrdīz. This is a narrower dale, but still
there is a plot of green meadow below the smaller trees mentioned, and
the little dale is charming. From the summit of the range, looking
south, the Karmāsh and Bangash mountains are seen at one's feet; and
beyond the Karmāsh show pile upon pile of the rain-clouds of Hindūstān.
Towards those other lands where no rain falls, not [Sidenote: Fol. 240.]
a cloud is seen.
We reached Hūnī at the Mid-day Prayer and there dismounted.
(_July 30th_) Dismounting next day at Muḥammad Āghā's village,[1478] we
perpetrated (_irtqāb_) a _ma'jūn_. There we had a drug thrown into water
for the fish; a few were taken.[1479]
(_July 31st_) On Sunday the 3rd of Sha`bān, we reached Kābul.
(_August 2nd_) On Tuesday the 5th of the month, Darwīsh-i-muḥammad
_Faẓlī_ and Khusrau's servants were summoned and, after enquiry made
into what short-comings of theirs there may have been when Ḥusain was
overcome, they were deprived of place and rank. At the Mid-day Prayer
there was a wine-party under a plane-tree, at which an honorary dress
was given to Bābā Qashqa _Mughūl_.
(_August 5th_) On Friday the 8th Kīpa returned from the presence of
Mīrzā Khān.
(_aa. Excursion to the Koh-dāman._)
(_August 11th_) On Thursday at the Other Prayer, I mounted for an
excursion to the Koh-dāman, Bārān and Khwāja Sih-yārān.[1480] At the
Bed-time Prayer, we dismounted at Māmā Khātūn.[1481]
(_August 12th_) Next day we dismounted at Istālīf; a confection was
eaten on that day.
(_August 13th_) On Saturday there was a wine-party at Istālīf.
(_August 14th_) Riding at dawn from Istālīf, we crossed the space
between it and the Sinjid-valley. Near Khwāja Sih-yārān a great snake
was killed as thick, it may be, as the fore-arm and as long as a
_qūlāch_.[1482] From its inside came out a slenderer snake, that seemed
to have been just swallowed, every part of it being [Sidenote: Fol.
240b.] whole; it may have been a little shorter than the larger one.
From inside this slenderer snake came out a little mouse; it too was
whole, broken nowhere.[1483]
On reaching Khwāja Sih-yārān there was a wine-party. Today orders were
written and despatched by Kīch-kīna the night-watch (_tūnqṯār_) to the
begs on that side (_i.e._ north of Hindū-kush), giving them a rendezvous
and saying, "An army is being got to horse, take thought, and come to
the rendezvous fixed."
(_August 15th_) We rode out at dawn and ate a confection. At the infall
of the Parwān-water many fish were taken in the local way of casting a
fish-drug into the water.[1484] Mīr Shāh Beg set food and water (_āsh u
āb_) before us; we then rode on to Gul-bahār. At a wine-party held after
the Evening Prayer, Darwīsh-i-muḥammad (_Sārbān_) was present. Though a
young man and a soldier, he had not yet committed the sin (_irtqāb_) of
wine, but was in obedience (_tā'ib_). Qūtlūq Khwāja _Kūkūldāsh_ had long
before abandoned soldiering to become a darwīsh; moreover he was very
old, his very beard was quite white; nevertheless he took his share of
wine at these parties. Said I to Darwīsh-i-muḥammad, "Qūtlūq Khwāja's
beard shames you! He, a darwīsh and an old man, always drinks wine; you,
a soldier, a young man, your beard quite black, never drink! What does
it mean?" My custom being not to press wine on a non-drinker, with so
much said, it all passed off as a joke; he was not pressed to drink.
(_August 16th_) At dawn we made our morning (_ṣubāḥī ṣubūḥī qīldūk_).
(_August 17th_) Riding on Wednesday from Gul-i-bahār, we [Sidenote: Fol.
241.] dismounted in Abūn-village[1485], ate food, remounted, went to a
summer-house in the orchards (_bāghāt-i-kham_) and there dismounted.
There was a wine-party after the Mid-day Prayer.
(_August 18th_) Riding on next day, we made the circuit of Khwāja
Khāwand Sa`īd's tomb, went to China-fort and there got on a raft. Just
where the Panjhīr-water comes in, the raft struck the naze of a hill and
began to sink. Rauḥ-dam, Tīngrī-qulī and Mīr Muḥammad the raftsman were
thrown into the water by the shock; Rauḥ-dam and Tīngrī-qulī were got on
the raft again; a China cup and a spoon and a ṯambour went into the
water. Lower down, the raft struck again opposite the Sang-i-barīda (the
cut-stone), either on a branch in mid-stream or on a stake stuck in as a
stop-water (_qāqghān qāzūq_). Right over on his back went Shāh Beg's
Shāh Ḥasan, clutching at Mīrzā Qulī Kūkūldāsh and making him fall too.
Darwīsh-i-muḥammad _Sārbān_ was also thrown into the water. Mīrzā Qulī
went over in his own fashion! Just when he fell, he was cutting a melon
which he had in his hand; as he went over, he stuck his knife into the
mat of the raft. He swam in his _tūn aūfrāghī_[1486] and got out of the
water without coming on the raft again. Leaving it that night, we slept
at raftsmen's houses. Darwīsh-i-muḥammad _Sārbān_ presented me with a
seven-coloured cup exactly like the one lost in the water.
(_August 19th_) On Friday we rode away from the river's bank and
dismounted below Aīndīkī on the skirt of Koh-i-bacha where, with our own
hands, we gathered plenty of tooth-picks.[1487] [Sidenote: Fol. 241b.]
Passing on, food was eaten at the houses of the Khwāja Khiẓr people. We
rode on and at the Mid-day Prayer, dismounted in a village of Qūtlūq
Khwāja's fief in Lamghān where he made ready a hasty meal (_mā ḥaẓirī_);
after partaking of this, we mounted and went to Kābul.
(_bb. Various incidents._)
(_August 22nd_) On Monday the 25th, a special honorary dress and a
saddled horse were bestowed on Darwīsh-i-muḥammad _Sārbān_ and he was
made to kneel as a retainer (_naukar_).
(_August 24th_) For 4 or 5 months I had not had my head shaved; on
Wednesday the 27th, I had it done. Today there was a wine-party.
(_August 26th_) On Friday the 29th, Mīr Khūrd was made to kneel as
Hind-āl's guardian.[1488] He made an offering of 1000 _shāhrukhīs_
(_circa_ £50).
(_August 31st_) On Wednesday the 5th of Ramẓān, a dutiful letter was
brought by Tūlik Kūkūldāsh's servant Barlās Jūkī(?). Aūzbeg raiders had
gone into those parts (Badakhshān); Tūlik had gone out, fought and
beaten them. Barlās Jūkī brought one live Aūzbeg and one head.
(_Sep. 2nd_) In the night of Saturday the 8th, we broke our fast[1489]
in Qāsim Beg's house; he led out a saddled horse for me.
(_Sep. 3rd_) On Sunday night the fast was broken in Khalīfa's house; he
offered me a saddled horse.
(_Sep. 4th_) Next day came Khwāja Muḥ. `Alī and Jān-i-nāṣir who had been
summoned from their districts for the good of the army.[1490]
(_Sep. 7th_) On Wednesday the 12th, Kāmrān's maternal uncle [Sidenote:
Fol. 242.] Sl. `Alī Mīrzā arrived.[1491] As has been mentioned,[1492] he
had gone to Kāshghar in the year I came from Khwāst into Kābul.
(_cc. A Yūsuf-zāī campaign._)
(_Sep. 8th_) We rode out on Thursday the 13th of the month of Ramẓān,
resolved and determined to check and ward off the Yūsuf-zāī, and we
dismounted in the meadow on the Dih-i-yaq`ūb side of Kābul. When we were
mounting, the equerry Bābā Jān led forward a rather good-for-nothing
horse; in my anger I struck him in the face a blow which dislocated my
fist below the ring-finger.[1493] The pain was not much at the time, but
was rather bad when we reached our encampment-ground. For some time I
suffered a good deal and could not write. It got well at last.
To this same assembly-ground were brought letters and presents (_bīlāk_)
from my maternal-aunt Daulat-sulṯān Khānīm[1494] in Kāshghar, by her
foster-brother Daulat-i-muḥammad. On the same day Bū Khān and Mūsa,
chiefs of the Dilazāk, came, bringing tribute, and did obeisance.
(_Sep. 11th_) On Sunday the 16th Qūj Beg came.
(_Sep. 14th_) Marching on Wednesday the 19th we passed through Būt-khāk
and, as usual, dismounted on the Būt-khāk water.[1495]
As Qūj Beg's districts, Bāmīān, Kāh-mard and Ghūrī, are close to the
Aūzbeg, he was excused from going with this army and given leave to
return to them from this ground. I bestowed on him a turban twisted for
myself, and also a head-to-foot (_bāsh-ayāq_).
(_Sep. 16th_) On Friday the 21st, we dismounted at Badām-chashma.
[Sidenote: Fol. 242b.]
(_Sep. 17th_) Next day we dismounted on the Bārīk-āb, I reaching the
camp after a visit to Qarā-tū. On this ground honey was obtained from a
tree.
(_Sep. 20th_) We went on march by march till Wednesday the 26th, and
dismounted in the Bāgh-i-wafā.
(_Sep. 21st_) Thursday we just stayed in the garden.
(_Sep. 22nd_) On Friday we marched out and dismounted beyond Sulṯānpūr.
Today Shāh Mīr Ḥusain came from his country. Today came also Dilazāk
chiefs under Bū Khān and Mūsa. My plan had been to put down the
Yūsuf-zāī in Sawād, but these chiefs set forth to me that there was a
large horde (_aūlūs_) in Hash-naghar and that much corn was to be had
there. They were very urgent for us to go to Hash-naghar. After
consultation the matter was left in this way:—As it is said there is
much corn in Hash-naghar, the Afghāns there shall be overrun; the forts
of Hash-naghar and Parashāwar shall be put into order; part of the corn
shall be stored in them and they be left in charge of Shāh Mīr Ḥusain
and a body of braves. To suit Shāh Mīr Ḥusain's convenience in this, he
was given 15 days leave, with a rendezvous named for him to come to
after going to his country and preparing his equipment.
(_Sep. 23rd_) Marching on next day, we reached Jūī-shāhī and there
dismounted. On this ground Tīngrī-bīrdī and Sl. Muḥammad _Dūldāī_
overtook us. Today came also Ḥamza from Qūndūz.[1496]
(_Sep. 25th_) On Sunday the last day of the month (Ramẓān), we marched
from Jūī-shāhī and dismounted at Qīrīq-arīq (forty-conduits), [Sidenote:
Fol. 243.] I going by raft, with a special few. The new moon of the
Feast was seen at that station.[1497] People had brought a few
beast-loads of wine from Nūr-valley;[1498] after the Evening Prayer
there was a wine-party, those present being Muḥibb-i-`alī the armourer,
Khwāja Muḥ. `Alī the librarian, Shāh Beg's Shāh Ḥasan, Sl. Muḥ. _Dūldāī_
and Darwīsh-i-muḥ. _Sārbān,_ then obedient (_tā'ib_). From my childhood
up it had been my rule not to press wine on a non-drinker;
Darwīsh-i-muḥammad was at every party and no pressure was put on him (by
me), but Khwāja Muḥ. `Alī left him no choice; he pressed him and pressed
him till he made him drink.
(_Sep. 26th_) On Monday we marched with the dawn of the Feast-day,[1499]
eating a confection on the road to dispel crop-sickness. While under its
composing influence (_nāklīk_), we were brought a colocynth-apple
(_khunṯul_). Darwīsh-i-muḥammad had never seen one; said I, "It is a
melon of Hindūstān," sliced it and gave him a piece. He bit into it at
once; it was night before the bitter taste went out of his mouth. At
Garm-chashma we dismounted on rising-ground where cold meat was being
set out for us when Langar Khān arrived to wait on me after being for a
time at his own place (Koh-i-jūd). He brought an offering of a horse and
a few confections. Passing on, we dismounted at Yada-bīr, at the Other
Prayer got on a raft there, went for as much as two miles on it, then
left it.
(_Sep. 27th_) Riding on next morning, we dismounted below the
Khaibar-pass. Today arrived Sl. Bāyazīd, come up by the [Sidenote: Fol.
243b.] Bāra-road after hearing of us; he set forth that the Afrīdī
Afghāns were seated in Bāra with their goods and families and that they
had grown a mass of corn which was still standing (lit. on foot). Our
plan being for the Yūsuf-zāī Afghāns of Hash-naghar, we paid him no
attention. At the Mid-day Prayer there was a wine-party in Khwāja
Muḥammad `Alī's tent. During the party details about our coming in this
direction were written and sent off by the hand of a sulṯān of Tīrah to
Khwāja Kalān in Bajaur. I wrote this couplet on the margin of the letter
(_farmān_):—
Say sweetly o breeze, to that beautiful fawn,
Thou hast given my head to the hills and the wild.[1500]
(_Sep. 28th_) Marching on at dawn across the pass, we got through the
Khaibar-narrows and dismounted at `Alī-masjid. At the Mid-day Prayer we
rode on, leaving the baggage behind, reached the Kābul-water at the
second watch (midnight) and there slept awhile.
(_Sep. 29th_) A ford[1501] was found at daylight; we had forded the
water (_sū-dīn kīchīldī_), when news came from our scout that the
Afghāns had heard of us and were in flight. We went on, passed through
the Sawād-water and dismounted amongst the Afghān corn-fields. Not a
half, not a fourth indeed of the promised corn was had. The plan of
fitting-up Hash-naghar, made under the hope of getting corn here, came
to nothing. [Sidenote: Fol. 244.] The Dilazāk Afghāns, who had urged it
on us, were ashamed. We next dismounted after fording the water of Sawād
to its Kābul side.
(_Sep. 30th_) Marching next morning from the Sawād-water, we crossed the
Kābul-water and dismounted. The Begs admitted to counsel were summoned
and a consultation having been had, the matter was left at this:—that
the Afrīdī Afghāns spoken of by Sl. Bāyazīd should be over-run,
Pūrshāwūr-fort be fitted up on the strength of their goods and corn, and
some-one left there in charge.
At this station Hindū Beg _Qūchīn_ and the Mīr-zādas of Khwāst overtook
us. Today _ma'jūn_ was eaten, the party being Darwesh-i-muḥammad
_Sārbān_, Muḥammad Kūkūldāsh, Gadāī T̤aghāī and `Asas; later on we
invited Shāh Ḥasan also. After food had been placed before us, we went
on a raft, at the Other Prayer. We called Langar Khān _Nīa-zāī_ on also.
At the Evening Prayer we got off the raft and went to camp.
(_Oct. 1st_) Marching at dawn, in accordance with the arrangement made
on the Kābul-water, we passed Jām and dismounted at the outfall of the
`Alī-masjid water.[1502]
(_dd. Badakhshān affairs._)
Sl. `Alī (T̤aghāī's servant ?) Abū'l-hāshim overtaking us, said, "On the
night of `Arafa,[1503] I was in Jūī-shāhī with a person from Badakhshān;
he told me that Sl. Sa`īd Khān had come with designs on Badakhshān, so I
came on from Jūī-shāhī along the Jām-rūd, to give the news to the
Pādshāh." On this the begs were summoned and advice was taken. In
consequence of this [Sidenote: Fol. 244b.] news, it seemed inadvisable
to victual the fort (Pūrshāwūr), and we started back intending to go to
Badakhshān.[1504] Langar Khān was appointed to help Muḥ. `Alī
_Jang-jang_; he was given an honorary dress and allowed to go.
That night a wine-party was held in Khwāja Muḥ. `Alī's tent. We marched
on next day, crossed Khaibar and dismounted below the pass.
(_ee. The Khiẓr-khail Afghāns._)
(_Oct. 3rd_) Many improper things the Khiẓr-khail had done! When the
army went to and fro, they used to shoot at the laggards and at those
dismounted apart, in order to get their horses. It seemed lawful
therefore and right to punish them. With this plan we marched from below
the pass at daybreak, ate our mid-day meal in Dih-i-ghulāmān
(Basaul),[1505] and after feeding our horses, rode on again at the
Mid-day Prayer.
Muḥ Ḥusain the armourer was made to gallop off to Kābul with orders to
keep prisoner all Khiẓr-khailīs there, and to submit to me an account of
their possessions; also, to write a detailed account of whatever news
there was from Badakhshān and to send a man off with it quickly from
Kābul to me.
That night we moved on till the second watch (midnight), got a little
beyond Sulṯānpūr, there slept awhile, then rode on again. The
Khiẓr-khail were understood to have their seat from Bahār (Vihāra?) and
Mīch-grām to Karā-sū (_sic_). Arriving before dawn, (_Oct. 4th_) the
raid was allowed. Most of the goods of the Khiẓr-khailīs and their small
children fell into the army's hands; a few tribesmen, being near the
mountains, drew off to [Sidenote: Fol. 245.] them and were left.
(_Oct. 5th_) We dismounted next day at Qīlaghū where pheasants were
taken on our ground. Today the baggage came up from the rear and was
unloaded here. Owing to this punitive raid, the Wazīrī Afghāns who never
had given in their tribute well, brought 300 sheep.
(_Oct. 9th_) I had written nothing since my hand was dislocated; here I
wrote a little, on Sunday the 14th of the month.[1506]
(_Oct. 10th_) Next day came Afghān chiefs leading the Khirilchī [and]
Samū-khail. The Dilazāk Afghāns entreated pardon for them; we gave it
and set the captured free, fixed their tribute at 4000 sheep, gave coats
(_tūn_) to their chiefs, appointed and sent out collectors.
(_Oct. 13th_) These matters settled, we marched on Thursday the 18th,
and dismounted at Bahār (Vihāra?) and Mīch-grām.
(_Oct. 14th_) Next day I went to the Bāgh-i-wafā. Those were the days of
the garden's beauty; its lawns were one sheet of trefoil; its
pomegranate-trees yellowed to autumn splendour,[1507] their fruit full
red; fruit on the orange-trees green and glad (_khurram_), countless
oranges but not yet as yellow as our hearts desired! The pomegranates
were excellent, not equal, however, to the best ones of Wilāyat.[1508]
The one excellent and blessed content we have had from the Bāgh-i-wafā
was had at this time. [Sidenote: Fol. 245b.] We were there three or four
days; during the time the whole camp had pomegranates in abundance.
(_Oct. 17th_) We marched from the garden on Monday. I stayed in it till
the first watch (9 a.m.) and gave away oranges; I bestowed the fruit of
two trees on Shāh Ḥasan; to several begs I gave the fruit of one tree
each; to some gave one tree for two persons. As we were thinking of
visiting Lamghān in the winter, I ordered that they should reserve
(_qūrūghlāīlār_) at least 20 of the trees growing round the reservoir.
That day we dismounted at Gandamak.
(_Oct. 18th_) Next day we dismounted at Jagdālīk. Near the Evening
Prayer there was a wine-party at which most of the household were
present. After a time Qāsim Beg's sister's son Gadāī _bihjat_[1509] used
very disturbing words and, being drunk, slid down on the cushion by my
side, so Gadāī T̤aghāī picked him up and carried him out from the party.
(_Oct. 19th_) Marching next day from that ground, I made an excursion up
the valley-bottom of the Bārīk-āb towards Qūrūq-sāī. A few purslain
trees were in the utmost autumn beauty. On dismounting, seasonable[1510]
food was set out. The vintage was the cause! wine was drunk! A sheep
was ordered brought from the road and made into _kabābs_ (_brochettes_).
We amused ourselves by setting fire to branches of holm-oak.[1511]
Mullā `Abdu'l-malik _dīwāna_[1512] having begged to take the news of our
coming into Kābul, was sent ahead. To this place came Ḥasan Nabīra from
Mīrzā Khān's presence; he must have come after letting me know [his
intention of coming].[1513] There was [Sidenote: Fol. 246.] drinking
till the Sun's decline; we then rode off. People in our party had become
very drunk, Sayyid Qāsim so much so, that two of his servants mounted
him and got him into camp with difficulty. Muḥ. Bāqir's Dost was so
drunk that people, headed by Amīn-i-muḥammad Tarkhān and Mastī _chuhra_,
could not get him on his horse; even when they poured water on his head,
nothing was effected. At that moment a body of Afghāns appeared.
Amīn-i-muḥammad, who had had enough himself, had this idea, "Rather than
leave him here, as he is, to be taken, let us cut his head off and carry
it with us." At last after 100 efforts, they mounted him and brought him
with them. We reached Kābul at midnight.
(_ff. Incidents in Kābul._)
In Court next morning Qulī Beg waited on me. He had been to Sl. Sa'īd
Khān's presence in Kāshghar as my envoy. To him as envoy to me had been
added Bīshka Mīrzā _Itārchī_[1514] who brought me gifts of the goods of
that country.
(_Oct. 25th_) On Wednesday the 1st of Ẕū'l-qa`da, I went by myself to
Qābil's tomb[1515] and there took my morning. The people of the party
came later by ones and twos. When the Sun waxed hot, we went to the
Violet-garden and drank there, by the side of the reservoir. Mid-day
coming on, we slept. At the Mid-day Prayer we drank again. At this
mid-day party I gave wine to Tīngrī-qulī Beg and to Mahndī (?) to whom
at any earlier party, wine had not been given. At the Bed-time
[Sidenote: Fol. 246b.] Prayer, I went to the Hot-bath where I stayed the
night.
(_Oct. 26th_) On Thursday honorary dresses were bestowed on the
Hindūstānī traders, headed by Yaḥya _Nūḥānī_, and they were allowed to
go.
(_Oct. 28th_) On Saturday the 4th, a dress and gifts were bestowed on
Bīshka Mīrzā, who had come from Kāshghar, and he was given leave to go.
(_Oct. 29th_) On Sunday there was a party in the little Picture-hall
over the (Chār-bāgh) gate; small retreat though it is, 16 persons were
present.
(_gg. Excursion to the Koh-dāman._)
(_Oct. 30th_) Today we went to Istālīf to see the harvest (_khizān_).
Today was done the sin (? _irtikāb qīlīb aīdī_) of _ma'jūn_. Much rain
fell; most of the begs and the household came into my tent, outside the
Bāgh-i-kalān.
(_Oct. 31st_) Next day there was a wine-party in the same garden,
lasting till night.
(_November 1st_) At dawn we took our morning (_ṣubāḥī ṣubūḥī qīldūk_)
and got drunk, took a sleep, and at the Mid-day Prayer rode from
Istālīf. On the road a confection was eaten. We reached Bih-zādī at the
Other Prayer. The harvest-crops were very beautiful; while we were
viewing them those disposed for wine began to agitate about it. The
harvest-colour was extremely beautiful; wine was drunk, though _ma'jūn_
had been eaten, sitting under autumnal trees. The party lasted till the
Bed-time Prayer. Khalīfa's Mullā Maḥmūd arriving, we had him summoned to
join the party. `Abdu'l-lāh was very drunk [Sidenote: Fol. 247.] indeed;
a word affecting Khalīfa (_ṯarfidīn_) being said, `Abdu'l-lāh forgot
Mullā Maḥmūd and recited this line:—
Regard whom thou wilt, he suffers from the same wound.[1516]
Mullā Maḥmūd was sober; he blamed `Abdu'l-lāh for repeating that line in
jest; `Abdu'l-lāh came to his senses, was troubled in mind, and after
this talked and chatted very sweetly.
Our excursion to view the harvest was over; we dismounted, close to the
Evening Prayer, in the Chār-bāgh.
(_Nov. 12th_) On Friday the 16th, after eating a confection
with a few special people in the Violet-garden, we went on a boat.
Humāyūn and Kāmrān were with us later; Humāyūn made a very good shot at
a duck.
(_hh. A Bohemian episode._)
(_Nov. 14th_) On Saturday the 18th, I rode out of the Chār-bāgh at
midnight, sent night-watch and groom back, crossed Mullā Bābā's bridge,
got out by the Dīūrīn-narrows, round by the bāzārs and _kārez_ of
Qūsh-nādur (var.), along the back of the Bear-house (_khirs-khāna_), and
near sunrise reached Tardī Beg _Khāk-sār's[1517] kārez_. He ran out
quickly on hearing of me. His shortness (_qālāshlīghī_) was known; I had
taken 100 _shāhrukhīs_ (£5) with me; I gave him these and told him to
get wine and other things ready as I had a fancy for a private and
unrestrained party. He went for wine towards Bih-zādī[1518]; I sent my
horse by his slave to the valley-bottom and sat down on the slope behind
the _kārez_. At the first watch (9 a.m.) Tardī Beg brought [Sidenote:
Fol. 247b.] a pitcher of wine which we drank by turns. After him came
Muḥammad-i-qāsim _Barlās_ and Shāh-zāda who had got to know of his
fetching the wine, and had followed him, their minds quite empty of any
thought about me. We invited them to the party. Said Tardī Beg, "Hul-hul
Anīga wishes to drink wine with you." Said I, "For my part, I never saw
a woman drink wine; invite her." We also invited Shāhī a qalandar, and
one of the _kārez_-men who played the rebeck. There was drinking till
the Evening Prayer on the rising-ground behind the _kārez_; we then went
into Tardī Beg's house and drank by lamp-light almost till the Bed-time
Prayer. The party was quite free and unpretending. I lay down, the
others went to another house and drank there till beat of drum
(midnight). Hul-hul Anīga came in and made me much disturbance; I got
rid of her at last by flinging myself down as if drunk. It was in my
mind to put people off their guard, and ride off alone to Astar-ghach,
but it did not come off because they got to know. In the end, I rode
away at beat of drum, after letting Tardī Beg and Shāh-zāda know. We
three mounted and made for Astar-ghach.
(_Nov. 15th_) We reached Khwāja Ḥasan below Istālīf by the first prayer
(_farẓ waqt_); dismounted for a while, ate a confection, [Sidenote: Fol.
248.] and went to view the harvest. When the Sun was up, we dismounted
at a garden in Istālīf and ate grapes. We slept at Khwāja Shahāb, a
dependency of Astar-ghach. Ātā, the Master of the Horse, must have had a
house somewhere near, for before we were awake he had brought food and a
pitcher of wine. The vintage was very fine. After drinking a few cups,
we rode on. We next dismounted in a garden beautiful with autumn; there
a party was held at which Khwāja Muḥammad Amīn joined us. Drinking went
on till the Bed-time Prayer. During that day and night `Abdu'l-lāh,
`Asas, Nūr Beg and Yūsuf-i-`alī all arrived from Kābul.
(_Nov. 16th_) After food at dawn, we rode out and visited the
Bāgh-i-pādshāhī below Astar-ghach. One young apple-tree in it had turned
an admirable autumn-colour; on each branch were left 5 or 6 leaves in
regular array; it was such that no painter trying to depict it could
have equalled. After riding from Astar-ghach we ate at Khwāja Ḥasan, and
reached Bih-zādī at the Evening Prayer. There we drank in the house of
Khwāja Muḥ. Amīn's servant Imām-i-muḥammad.
(_Nov. 17th_) Next day, Tuesday, we went into the Chār-bāgh of Kābul.
(_Nov. 18th_) On Thursday the 23rd, having marched (_kūchūb_), the fort
was entered.
(_Nov. 19th_) On Friday Muḥammad `Alī (son of ?) Ḥaidar the
stirrup-holder brought, as an offering, a _tūīgūn_[1519] he had caught.
(_Nov. 20th_) On Saturday the 25th, there was a party in the Plane-tree
garden from which I rose and mounted at the Bed-time Prayer. Sayyid
Qāsim being in shame at past occurrences,[1520] we dismounted at his
house and drank a few cups.
[Sidenote: Fol. 248b.] (_Nov. 24th_) On Thursday the 1st of Ẕū'l-ḥijja,
Tāju'd-dīn Maḥmūd, come from Qandahār, waited on me.
(_Dec. 12th_) On Monday the 19th, Muḥ. `Alī _Jang-jang_ came from
Nīl-āb.
(_Dec. 13th_) On Tuesday the ... of the month, Sangar Khān _Janjūha_,
come from Bhīra, waited on me.
(_Dec. 16th_) On Friday the 23rd, I finished (copying?) the odes and
couplets selected according to their measure from `Alī-sher Beg's four
Dīwāns.[1521]
(_Dec. 20th_) On Tuesday the 27th there was a social-gathering in the
citadel, at which it was ordered that if any-one went out from it drunk,
that person should not be invited to a party again.
(_Dec. 23rd_) On Friday the 30th of Ẕū'l-ḥijja it was ridden out with
the intention of making an excursion to Lamghān.
926 AH.-DEC. 23RD 1519 TO DEC. 12TH 1520 AD.[1522]
(_a. Excursion to the Koh-dāman and Kohistān._)
(_Dec. 23rd_) On Saturday Muḥarram 1st Khwāja Sih-yārān was reached. A
wine-party was had on the bank of the conduit, where this comes out on
the hill.[1523]
(_Dec. 24th_) Riding on next morning (2nd), we visited the moving sands
(_reg-i-rawān_). A party was held in Sayyid Qāsim's _Bulbul's_
house.[1524]
(_Dec. 25th_) Riding on from there, we ate a confection (_ma'jūn_), went
further and dismounted at Bilkir (?).
(_Dec. 26th_) At dawn (4th) we made our morning [_ṣubāḥī ṣubūḥī
qīldūk_], although there might be drinking at night. We rode on at the
Mid-day Prayer, dismounted at Dūr-nāma[1525] and there had a wine party.
(_Dec. 27th_) We took our morning early. Ḥaq-dād, the headman of
Dūr-namā made me an offering (_pesh-kash_) of his garden.
(_Dec. 28th_) Riding thence on Thursday (6th), we dismounted at the
villages of the Tājiks in Nijr-aū.
(_Dec. 29th_) On Friday (7th) we hunted the hill between Forty-ploughs
(_Chihil-qulba_) and the water of Bārān; many deer fell. [Sidenote: Fol.
249.] I had not shot an arrow since my hand was hurt; now, with an
easy[1526] bow, I shot a deer in the shoulder, the arrow going in to
half up the feather. Returning from hunting, we went on at the Other
Prayer in Nijr-aū.
(_Dec. 30th_) Next day (Saturday 8th) the tribute of the Nijr-aū people
was fixed at 60 gold mis̤qāls.[1527]
(_Jan. 1st_) On Monday (10th) we rode on intending to visit
Lamghān.[1528] I had expected Humāyūn to go with us, but as he inclined
to stay behind, leave was given him from Kūra-pass. We went on and
dismounted in Badr-aū (Tag-aū).
(_b. Excursions in Lamghān._)
(_Jan. ..._) Riding on, we dismounted at Aūlūgh-nūr.[1529] The fishermen
there took fish at one draught[1530] from the water of Bārān. At the
Other Prayer (afternoon) there was drinking on the raft; and there was
drinking in a tent after we left the raft at the Evening Prayer.
Ḥaidar the standard-bearer had been sent from Dāwar[1531] to the Kāfirs;
several Kāfir headmen came now to the foot of Bād-i-pīch (pass), brought
a few goat-skins of wine, and did obeisance. In descending that pass a
surprising number of ...[1532] was seen.
(_Jan. ..._) Next day getting on a raft, we ate a confection, got off
below Būlān and went to camp. There were two rafts.
(_Jan. 5th_) Marching on Friday (14th), we dismounted below Mandrāwar on
the hill-skirt. There was a late wine-party.
(_Jan. 6th_) On Saturday (15th), we passed through the Darūta narrows by
raft, got off a little above Jahān-namā'ī (Jalālābād) and went to the
Bāgh-i-wafā in front of Adīnapūr. When we were leaving the raft the
governor of Nīngnahār Qayyām Aūrdū Shāh came and did obeisance. Langar
Khān _Nīā-zāī_,—he had [Sidenote: Fol. 249b.] been in Nīl-āb for a
time,—waited upon me on the road. We dismounted in the Bāgh-i-wafā; its
oranges had yellowed beautifully; its spring-bloom was well-advanced,
and it was very charming. We stayed in it five or six days.
As it was my wish and inclination (_jū dagh-dagha_)to return to
obedience (_tā'ib_) in my 40th year, I was drinking to excess now that
less than a year was left.
(_Jan. 7th_) On Sunday the 16th, having made my morning (_ṣubūḥī_) and
became sober. Mullā Yārak played an air he had composed in five-time and
in the five-line measure (_makhammas_), while I chose to eat a
confection (_ma'jūn_). He had composed an excellent air. I had not
occupied myself with such things for some time; a wish to compose came
over me now, so I composed an air in four-time, as will be mentioned in
time.[1533]
(_Jan. 10th_) On Wednesday (19th) it was said for fun, while we
were making our morning (_ṣubūḥī_), "Let whoever speaks like a
Sārt (_i.e._ in Persian) drink a cup." Through this many drank. At
_sunnat-waqt_[1534] again, when we were sitting under the willows in the
middle of the meadow, it was said, "Let whoever speaks like a Turk,
drink a cup!" Through this also numbers drank. After the sun got up, we
drank under the orange-trees on the reservoir-bank.
(_Jan. 11th_) Next day (20th) we got on a raft from Darūta; got off
again below Jūī-shāhī and went to Atar.
(_Jan...._) We rode from there to visit Nūr-valley, went as far as Sūsān
(lily)-village, then turned back and dismounted in Amla.
[Sidenote: Fol. 250.] (_Jan. 14th_) As Khwāja Kalān had brought Bajaur
into good order, and as he was a friend of mine, I had sent for him and
had made Bajaur over to Shāh Mīr Ḥusain's charge. On Saturday the 22nd
of the month (Muḥarram), Shāh Mīr Ḥusain was given leave to go. That day
in Amla we drank.
(_Jan. 15th_) It rained (_yāmghūr yāghdūrūb_) next day (23rd).
When we reached Kula-grām in Kūnār[1535] where Malik `Alī's house is,
we dismounted at his middle son's house, overlooking an orange-orchard.
We did not go into the orchard because of the rain but just drank where
we were. The rain was very heavy. I taught Mullā `Alī Khān a ṯalisman I
knew; he wrote it on four pieces of paper and hung them on four sides;
as he did it, the rain stopped and the air began to clear.
(_Jan. 16th_) At dawn (24th) we got on a raft; on another several braves
went. People in Bajaur, Sawād, Kūnār and thereabouts make a beer (_bīr
būza_)[1536] the ferment of which is a thing they call _kīm_.[1537] This
_kīm_ they make of the roots of herbs and several simples, shaped like a
loaf, dried and kept by them. Some sorts of beer are surprisingly
exhilarating, but bitter and distasteful. We had thought of drinking
beer but, because of its bitter taste, preferred a confection. `Asas,
Ḥasan _Aīkirik_,[1538] and Mastī, on the other raft, were ordered to
drink some; they did so and became quite drunk. Ḥasan _Aīkirik_ set up a
disgusting disturbance; `Asas, very drunk, did such [Sidenote: Fol.
250b.] unpleasant things that we were most uncomfortable (_ba tang_). I
thought of having them put off on the far side of the water, but some of
the others begged them off.
I had sent for Khwāja Kalān at this time and had bestowed Bajaur on Shāh
Mīr Ḥusain. For why? Khwāja Kalān was a friend; his stay in Bajaur had
been long; moreover the Bajaur appointment appeared an easy one.
At the ford of the Kūnār-water Shāh Mīr Ḥusain met me on his way to
Bajaur. I sent for him and said a few trenchant words, gave him some
special armour, and let him go.
Opposite Nūr-gal (Rock-village) an old man begged from those on the
rafts; every-one gave him something, coat (_tūn_), turban, bathing-cloth
and so on, so he took a good deal away.
At a bad place in mid-stream the raft struck with a great shock; there
was much alarm; it did not sink but Mīr Muḥammad the raftsman was thrown
into the water. We were near Atar that night.
(_Jan. 17th_) On Tuesday (25th) we reached Mandrāwar.[1539] Qūtlūq-qadam
and his father had arranged a party inside the fort; though the place
had no charm, a few cups were drunk there to please them. We went to
camp at the Other Prayer.
(_Jan. 18th_) On Wednesday (26th) an excursion was made to
Kind-kir[1540] spring. Kind-kir is a dependent village of the Mandrāwar
_tūmān_, the one and only village of the Lamghānāt [Sidenote: Fol. 251.]
where dates are grown. It lies rather high on the mountain-skirt, its
date lands on its east side. At one edge of the date lands is the
spring, in a place aside (_yān yīr_). Six or seven yards below the
spring-head people have heaped up stones to make a shelter[1541] for
bathing and by so-doing have raised the water in the reservoir high
enough for it to pour over the heads of the bathers. The water is very
soft; it is felt a little cold in wintry days but is pleasant if one
stays in it.
(_Jan. 19th_) On Thursday (27th) Sher Khān _Tarkalānī_ got us to
dismount at his house and there gave us a feast (_ẓiyāfat_). Having
ridden on at the Mid-day Prayer, fish were taken out of the fish-ponds
of which particulars have been given.[1542]
(_Jan. 20th_) On Friday (28th) we dismounted near Khwāja Mīr-i-mīrān's
village. A party was held there at the Evening Prayer.
(_Jan. 21st_) On Saturday (29th) we hunted the hill between `Alī-shang
and Alangār. One hunting-circle having been made on the `Alī-shang side,
another on the Alangār, the deer were driven down off the hill and many
were killed. Returning from hunting, we dismounted in a garden belonging
to the Maliks of Alangār and there had a party.
Half of one of my front-teeth had broken off, the other half remaining;
this half broke off today while I was eating food.
(_Jan. 22nd_) At dawn (Ṣafar 1st) we rode out and had a fishing-net
cast, at mid-day went into `Alī-shang and drank in a garden.
(_Jan. 23rd_) Next day (Ṣafar 2nd) Ḥamza Khān, Malik of `Alī-shang was
made over to the avengers-of-blood[1543] for his evil deeds in shedding
innocent blood, and retaliation was made.
(_Jan. 24th_) On Tuesday, after reading a chapter of the Qorān
[Sidenote: Fol. 251b.] (_wird_), we turned for Kābul by the Yān-būlāgh
road. At the Other Prayer, we passed the [Bārān]-water from Aūlūgh-nūr
(Great-rock); reached Qarā-tū by the Evening Prayer, there gave our
horses corn and had a hasty meal prepared, rode on again as soon as they
had finished their barley.[1544]
TRANSLATOR'S NOTE ON 926 TO 932 AH.-1520 TO 1525 AD.
Bābur's diary breaks off here for five years and ten months.[1545] His
activities during the unrecorded period may well have left no time in
which to keep one up, for in it he went thrice to Qandahār, thrice into
India, once to Badakhshān, once to Balkh; twice at least he punished
refractory tribesmen; he received embassies from Hindūstān, and must
have had much to oversee in muster and equipment for his numerous
expeditions. Over and above this, he produced the _Mubīn_, a Turkī poem
of 2000 lines.
That the gap in his autobiography is not intentional several passages in
his writings show;[1546] he meant to fill it; there is no evidence that
he ever did so; the reasonable explanation of his failure is that he
died before he had reached this part of his book.
The events of these unrecorded years are less interesting than those of
the preceding gap, inasmuch as their drama of human passion is simpler;
it is one mainly of cross-currents of ambition, nothing in it matching
the maelstrom of sectarian hate, tribal antipathy, and racial struggle
which engulphed Bābur's fortunes beyond the Oxus.
None-the-less the period has its distinctive mark, the biographical one
set by his personality as his long-sustained effort works out towards
rule in Hindūstān. He becomes felt; his surroundings bend to his
purpose; his composite following accepts his goal; he gains the southern
key of Kābul and Hindūstān and presses the Arghūns out from his rear; in
the Panj-āb he becomes a power; the Rājpūt Rānā of Chitor proffers him
alliance against Ibrāhīm; and his intervention is sought in those
warrings of the Afghāns which were the matrix of his own success.
_a. Dramatis personae._
The following men played principal parts in the events of the
unchronicled years:—
Bābur in Kābul, Badakhshān and Balkh,[1547] his earlier following purged
of Mughūl rebellion, and augmented by the various Mīrzās-in-exile in
whose need of employment Shāh Beg saw Bābur's need of wider
territory.[1548]
Sulṯān Ibrāhīm _Lūdī_ who had succeeded after his father Sikandar's
death (Sunday Ẕū'l-qa`da 7th 923 _AH._-Nov. 21st 1517 AD.)[1549], was
now embroiled in civil war, and hated for his tyranny and cruelty.
Shāh Ismā`īl _Ṣafawī_, ruling down to Rajab 19th 930 AH. (May 24th 1524
AD.) and then succeeded by his son T̤ahmāsp _aet._ 10.
Kūchūm (Kūchkūnjī) Khān, Khāqān of the Aūzbegs, Shaibānī's successor,
now in possession of Transoxiana.
Sulṯān Sa`īd Khān _Chaghatāī_, with head-quarters in Kāshghar, a ruler
amongst the Mughūls but not their Khāqān, the supreme Khānship being his
elder brother Manṣūr's.
Shāh Shujā' Beg _Arghūn_, who, during the period, at various times held
Qandahār, Shāl, Mustang, Sīwīstān, and part of Sind. He died in 930 AH.
(1524 AD.) and was succeeded by his son Ḥasan who read the _khuṯba_ for
Bābur.
Khān Mīrzā _Mīrānshāhī_, who held Badakhshān from Bābur, with
head-quarters in Qūndūz; he died in 927 AH. (1520 AD.) and was succeeded
in his appointment by Humāyūn _aet._ 13.
Muḥammad-i-zamān _Bāī-qarā_ who held Balkh perhaps direct from Bābur,
perhaps from Ismā`īl through Bābur.
`Alā'u'd-dīn `Ālam Khān _Lūdī_, brother of the late Sulṯān Sikandar
_Lūdī_ and now desiring to supersede his nephew Ibrāhīm.
Daulat Khān _Yūsuf-khail_ (as Bābur uniformly describes him), or _Lūdī_
(as other writers do), holding Lāhor for Ibrāhīm _Lūdī_ at the beginning
of the period.
_SOURCES FOR THE EVENTS OF THIS GAP_
A complete history of the events the _Bābur-nāma_ leaves unrecorded has
yet to be written. The best existing one, whether Oriental or European,
is Erskine's _History of India_, but this does not exhaust the
sources—notably not using the _Ḥabību's-siyar_—and could be revised here
and there with advantage.
Most of the sources enumerated as useful for filling the previous gap
are so here; to them must be added, for the affairs of Qandahār,
Khwānd-amīr's _Ḥabību's-siyar_. This Mīr Ma`ṣūm's _Tārīkh-i-sind_
supplements usefully, but its brevity and its discrepant dates make it
demand adjustment; in some details it is expanded by Sayyid Jamāl's
_Tarkhān-_ or _Arghūn-nāma_.
For the affairs of Hindūstān the main sources are enumerated in Elliot
and Dowson's _History of India_ and in Nassau Lees' _Materials for the
history of India_. Doubtless all will be exhausted for the coming
_Cambridge History of India_.
_EVENTS OF THE UNCHRONICLED YEARS_
926 AH.-DEC. 23RD 1519 TO DEC. 12TH 1520 AD.
The question of which were Bābur's "Five expeditions" into Hindūstān has
been often discussed; it is useful therefore to establish the dates of
those known as made. I have entered one as made in this year for the
following reasons;—it broke short because Shāh Beg made incursion into
Bābur's territories, and that incursion was followed by a siege of
Qandahār which several matters mentioned below show to have taken place
in 926 AH.
_a. Expedition into Hindūstān._
The march out from Kābul may have been as soon as muster and equipment
allowed after the return from Lamghān chronicled in the diary. It was
made through Bajaur where refractory tribesmen were brought to order.
The Indus will have been forded at the usual place where, until the last
one of 932 AH. (1525 AD.), all expeditions crossed on the outward march.
Bhīra was traversed in which were Bābur's own Commanders, and advance
was made, beyond lands yet occupied, to Sīālkot, 72 miles north of Lāhor
and in the Rechna _dū-āb_. It was occupied without resistance; and a
further move made to what the MSS. call Sayyidpūr; this attempted
defence, was taken by assault and put to the sword. No place named
Sayyidpūr is given in the Gazetteer of India, but the _Āyīn-i-akbarī_
mentions a Sidhpūr which from its neighbourhood to Sīālkot may be what
Bābur took.
Nothing indicates an intention in Bābur to join battle with Ibrāhīm at
this time; Lāhor may have been his objective, after he had made a
demonstration in force to strengthen his footing in Bhīra. Whatever he
may have planned to do beyond Sidhpūr(?) was frustrated by the news
which took him back to Kābul and thence to Qandahār, that an incursion
into his territory had been made by Shāh Beg.
_b. Shāh Shujā` Beg's position._
Shāh Beg was now holding Qandahār, Shāl, Mustang and Sīwīstān.[1550] He
knew that he held Qandahār by uncertain tenure, in face of its
desirability for Bābur and his own lesser power. His ground was further
weakened by its usefulness for operations on Harāt and the presence with
Bābur of Bāī-qarā refugees, ready to seize a chance, if offered by
Ismā`īl's waning fortunes, for recovery of their former seat. Knowing
his weakness, he for several years had been pushing his way out into
Sind by way of the Bolān-pass.
His relations with Bābur were ostensibly good; he had sent him envoys
twice last year, the first time to announce a success at Kāhān had in
the end of 924 AH. (Nov. 1519 AD.). His son Ḥasan however, with whom he
was unreconciled, had been for more than a year in Bābur's company,—a
matter not unlikely to stir under-currents of unfriendliness on either
side.
His relations with Shāh Ismā`īl were deferential, in appearance even
vassal-like, as is shewn by Khwānd-amīr's account of his appeal for
intervention against Bābur to the Shāh's officers in Harāt. Whether he
read the _khuṯba_ for any suzerain is doubtful; his son Ḥasan, it may be
said, read it later on for Bābur.
_c. The impelling cause of this siege of Qandahār._
Precisely what Shāh Beg did to bring Bābur back from the Panj-āb and
down upon Qandahār is not found mentioned by any source. It seems likely
to have been an affair of subordinates instigated by or for him. Its
immediate agents may have been the Nīkdīrī (Nūkdīrī) and Hazāra tribes
Bābur punished on his way south. Their location was the western
border-land; they may have descended on the Great North Road or have
raided for food in that famine year. It seems certain that Shāh Beg made
no serious attempt on Kābul; he was too much occupied in Sind to allow
him to do so. Some unused source may throw light on the matter
incidentally; the offence may have been small in itself and yet
sufficient to determine Bābur to remove risk from his rear.[1551]
_d. Qandahār._
The Qandahār of Bābur's sieges was difficult of capture; he had not
taken it in 913 AH. (f. 208_b_) by siege or assault, but by default
after one day's fight in the open. The strength of its position can be
judged from the following account of its ruins as they were seen in 1879
AD., the military details of which supplement Bellew's description
quoted in Appendix J.
The fortifications are of great extent with a treble line of bastioned
walls and a high citadel in the centre. The place is in complete ruin
and its locality now useful only as a grazing ground.... "The town is in
three parts, each on a separate eminence, and capable of mutual
defence. The mountain had been covered with towers united by curtains,
and the one on the culminating point may be called impregnable. It
commanded the citadel which stood lower down on the second eminence, and
this in turn commanded the town which was on a table-land elevated above
the plain. The triple walls surrounding the city were at a considerable
distance from it. After exploring the citadel and ruins, we mounted by
the gorge to the summit of the hill with the impregnable fort. In this
gorge are the ruins of two tanks, some 80 feet square, all destroyed,
with the pillars fallen; the work is _pukka_ in brick and _chunām_
(cement) and each tank had been domed in; they would have held about
400,000 gallons each." (Le Messurier's _Kandahar in 1879 AD._ pp. 223,
245.)
_e. Bābur's sieges of Qandahār._
The term of five years is found associated with Bābur's sieges of
Qandahār, sometimes suggesting a single attempt of five years' duration.
This it is easy to show incorrect; its root may be Mīr Ma`ṣūm's
erroneous chronology.
The day on which the keys of Qandahār were made over to Bābur is known,
from the famous inscription which commemorates the event (Appendix J),
as Shawwāl 13th 928 AH. Working backwards from this, it is known that in
927 AH. terms of surrender were made and that Bābur went back to Kābul;
he is besieging it in 926 AH.—the year under description; his annals of
925 AH. are complete and contain no siege; the year 924 AH. appears to
have had no siege, Shāh Beg was on the Indus and his son was for at
least part of it with Bābur; 923 AH. was a year of intended siege,
frustrated by Bābur's own illness; of any siege in 922 AH. there is as
yet no record known. So that it is certain there was no unremitted
beleaguerment through five years.
_f. The siege of 926 AH. (1520 AD.)._
When Bābur sat down to lay regular siege to Qandahār, with mining and
battering of the walls,[1552] famine was desolating the country round.
The garrison was reduced to great distress; "pestilence," ever an ally
of Qandahār, broke out within the walls, spread to Bābur's camp, and in
the month of Tīr (June) led him to return to Kābul.
In the succeeding months of respite, Shāh Beg pushed on in Sind and his
former slave, now commander, Mehtar Saṃbhal revictualled the town.
927 AH.—DEC. 12TH 1520 TO DEC. 1ST 1521 AD.
_a. The manuscript sources._
Two accounts of the sieges of Qandahār in this and next year are
available, one in Khwānd-amīr's _Ḥabību's-siyar_, the other in Ma`ṣūm
_Bhakkarī's Tārīkh-i-sind_. As they have important differences, it is
necessary to consider the opportunities of their authors for
information.
Khwānd-amīr finished his history in 1524-29 AD. His account of these
affairs of Qandahār is contemporary; he was in close touch with several
of the actors in them and may have been in Harāt through their course;
one of his patrons, Amīr Ghiyāṣu'd-dīn, was put to death in this year in
Harāt because of suspicion that he was an ally of Bābur; his nephew,
another Ghiyāṣu'd-dīn was in Qandahār, the bearer next year of its keys
to Bābur; moreover he was with Bābur himself a few years later in
Hindūstān.
Mīr Ma`ṣūm wrote in 1600 AD. 70 to 75 years after Khwānd-amīr. Of these
sieges he tells what may have been traditional and mentions no
manuscript authorities. Blochmann's biography of him (_Āyīn-i-akbarī_ p.
514) shews his ample opportunity of learning orally what had happened in
the Arghūn invasion of Sind, but does not mention the opportunity for
hearing traditions about Qandahār which his term of office there allowed
him. During that term it was that he added an inscription, commemorative
of Akbar's dominion, to Bābur's own at Chihil-zīna, which records the
date of the capture of Qandahār (928 AH.-1522 AD.).
_b. The Ḥabību's-siyar account_ (lith. ed. iii, part 4, p. 97).
Khwānd-amīr's contemporary narrative allows Ma`ṣūm's to dovetail into it
as to some matters, but contradicts it in the important ones of date,
and mode of surrender by Shāh Beg to Bābur. It states that Bābur was
resolved in 926 AH. (1520 AD.) to uproot Shāh Shujā` Beg from Qandahār,
led an army against the place, and "opened the Gates of war". It gives
no account of the siege of 926 AH. but passes on to the occurrences of
927 AH. (1521 AD.) when Shāh Beg, unable to meet Bābur in the field,
shut himself up in the town and strengthened the defences. Bābur put his
utmost pressure on the besieged, "often riding his piebald horse close
to the moat and urging his men to fiery onset." The garrison resisted
manfully, breaching the "life-fortresses" of the Kābulīs with sword,
arrow, spear and death-dealing stone, but Bābur's heroes were most often
victorious, and drove their assailants back through the Gates.
_c. Death of Khān Mīrzā reported to Bābur._
Meantime, continues Khwānd-amīr, Khān Mīrzā had died in Badakhshān; the
news was brought to Bābur and caused him great grief; he appointed
Humāyūn to succeed the Mīrzā while he himself prosecuted the siege of
Qandahār and the conquest of the Garm-sīr.[1553]
_d. Negociations with Bābur._
The Governor of Harāt at this time was Shāh Ismā`īl's son T̤ahmāsp,
between six and seven years old. His guardian Amīr Khān took chief part
in the diplomatic intervention with Bābur, but associated with him was
Amīr Ghiyāṣu'd-dīn—the patron of Khwānd-amīr already mentioned—until put
to death as an ally of Bābur. The discussion had with Bābur reveals a
complexity of motives demanding attention. Nominally undertaken though
intervention was on behalf of Shāh Beg, and certainly so at his request,
the Persian officers seem to have been less anxious on his account than
for their own position in Khurāsān, their master's position at the time
being weakened by ill-success against the Sulṯān of Rūm. To Bābur, Shāh
Beg is written of as though he were an insubordinate vassal whom Bābur
was reducing to order for the Shāh, but when Amīr Khān heard that Shāh
Beg was hard pressed, he was much distressed because he feared a
victorious Bābur might move on Khurāsān. Nothing indicates however that
Bābur had Khurāsān in his thoughts; Hindūstān was his objective, and
Qandahār a help on the way; but as Amīr Khān had this fear about him, a
probable ground for it is provided by the presence with Bābur of
Bāī-qarā exiles whose ambition it must have been to recover their former
seat. Whether for Harāt, Kābul, or Hindūstān, Qandahār was strength.
Another matter not fitting the avowed purpose of the diplomatic
intervention is the death of Ghiyāṣu'd-dīn because an ally of Bābur;
this makes Amīr Khān seem to count Bābur as Ismā`īl's enemy.
Shāh Beg's requests for intervention began in 926 AH. (1520 AD.), as
also did the remonstrance of the Persian officers with Bābur; his
couriers followed one another with entreaty that the Amīrs would
contrive for Bābur to retire, with promise of obeisance and of yearly
tribute. The Amīrs set forth to Bābur that though Shāh Shujā` Beg had
offended and had been deserving of wrath and chastisement, yet, as he
was penitent and had promised loyalty and tribute, it was now proper for
Bābur to raise the siege (of 926 AH.) and go back to Kābul. To this
Bābur answered that Shāh Beg's promise was a vain thing, on which no
reliance could be placed; please God!, said he, he himself would take
Qandahār and send Shāh Beg a prisoner to Harāt; and that he should be
ready then to give the keys of the town and the possession of the
Garm-sīr to any-one appointed to receive them.
This correspondence suits an assumption that Bābur acted for Shāh
Ismā`īl, a diplomatic assumption merely, the verbal veil, on one side,
for anxiety lest Bābur or those with him should attack Harāt,—on the
other, for Bābur's resolve to hold Qandahār himself.
Amīr Khān was not satisfied with Bābur's answer, but had his attention
distracted by another matter, presumably `Ubaidu'l-lāh Khān's attack on
Harāt in the spring of the year (March-April 1521 AD.). Negociations
appear to have been resumed later, since Khwānd-amīr claims it as their
result that Bābur left Qandahār this year.
_e. The Tārīkh-i-sind account._
Mīr Ma`ṣūm is very brief; he says that in this year (his 922 AH.), Bābur
went down to Qandahār before the year's tribute in grain had been
collected, destroyed the standing crops, encompassed the town, and
reduced it to extremity; that Shāh Beg, wearied under reiterated attack
and pre-occupied by operations in Sind, proposed terms, and that these
were made with stipulation for the town to be his during one year more
and then to be given over to Bābur. These terms settled, Bābur went to
Kābul, Shāh Beg to Sīwī.
The Arghūn families were removed to Shāl and Sīwī, so that the year's
delay may have been an accommodation allowed for this purpose.
_f. Concerning dates._
There is much discrepancy between the dates of the two historians.
Khwānd-amīr's agree with the few fixed ones of the period and with the
course of events; several of Ma`ṣūm's, on the contrary, are _seriatim_
five (lunar) years earlier. For instance, events Khwānd-amīr places
under 927 AH. Ma`ṣūm places under 922 AH. Again, while Ma`ṣūm correctly
gives 913 AH. (1507 AD.) as the year of Bābur's first capture of
Qandahār, he sets up a discrepant series later, from the success Shāh
Beg had at Kāhān; this he allots to 921 AH. (1515 AD.) whereas Bābur
received news of it (f. 233_b_) in the beginning of 925 AH. (1519 AD.).
Again, Ma`ṣūm makes Shāh Ḥasan go to Bābur in 921 AH. and stay two
years; but Ḥasan spent the whole of 925 AH. with Bābur and is not
mentioned as having left before the second month of 926 AH. Again,
Ma`ṣūm makes Shāh Beg surrender the keys of Qandahār in 923 AH. (1517
AD.), but 928 AH. (1522 AD.) is shewn by Khwānd-amīr's dates and
narrative, and is inscribed at Chihil-zīna.[1554]
928 AH.-DEC. 1ST 1521 TO NOV. 20TH 1522 AD.
_a. Bābur visits Badakhshān._
Either early in this year or late in the previous one, Bābur and Māhīm
went to visit Humāyūn in his government, probably to Faizābād, and
stayed with him what Gul-badan calls a few days.
_b. Expedition to Qandahār._
This year saw the end of the duel for possession of Qandahār.
Khwānd-amīr's account of its surrender differs widely from Ma`ṣūm's. It
claims that Bābur's retirement in 927 AH. was due to the remonstrances
from Harāt, and that Shāh Beg, worn out by the siege, relied on the
arrangement the Amīrs had made with Bābur and went to Sīwī, leaving one
`Abdu'l-bāqī in charge of the place. This man, says Khwānd-amīr, drew
the line of obliteration over his duty to his master, sent to Bābur,
brought him down to Qandahār, and gave him the keys of the town—by the
hand of Khwānd-amīr's nephew Ghiyāṣu'd-dīn, specifies the
_Tarkhān-nāma_. In this year messengers had come and gone between Bābur
and Harāt; two men employed by Amīr Khān are mentioned by name; of them
the last had not returned to Harāt when a courier of Bābur's, bringing a
tributary gift, announced there that the town was in his master's hands.
Khwānd-amīr thus fixes the year 928 AH. as that in which the town passed
into Bābur's hands; this date is confirmed by the one inscribed in the
monument of victory at Chihil-zīna which Bābur ordered excavated on the
naze of the limestone ridge behind the town. The date there given is
Shawwāl 13th 928 AH. (Sep. 6th 1522 AD.).
Ma`ṣūm's account, dated 923 AH. (1517 AD.), is of the briefest:—Shāh Beg
fulfilled his promise, much to Bābur's approval, by sending him the keys
of the town and royal residence.
Although Khwānd-amīr's account has good claim to be accepted, it must be
admitted that several circumstances can be taken to show that Shāh Beg
had abandoned Qandahār, _e.g._ the removal of the families after Bābur's
retirement last year, and his own absence in a remote part of Sind this
year.
_c. The year of Shāh Beg's death._
Of several variant years assigned for the death of Shāh Beg in the
sources, two only need consideration.[1555] There is consensus of
opinion about the month and close agreement about the day, Sha`bān 22nd
or 23rd. Ma`ṣūm gives a chronogram, _Shahr-Sha`bān_, (month of Sha`bān)
which yields 928, but he does not mention where he obtained it, nor does
anything in his narrative shew what has fixed the day of the month.
Two objections to 928 are patent: (1) the doubt engendered by Ma`ṣūm's
earlier ante-dating; (2) that if 928 be right, Shāh Beg was already dead
over two months when Qandahār was surrendered. This he might have been
according to Khwānd-amīr's narrative, but if he died on Sha`bān 22nd 928
(July 26th 1522), there was time for the news to have reached Qandahār,
and to have gone on to Harāt before the surrender. Shāh Beg's death at
that time could not have failed to be associated in Khwānd-amīr's
narrative with the fate of Qandahār; it might have pleaded some excuse
with him for `Abdu'l-bāqī, who might even have had orders from Shāh
Ḥasan to make the town over to Bābur whose suzerainty he had
acknowledged at once on succession by reading the _khuṯba_ in his name.
Khwānd-amīr however does not mention what would have been a salient
point in the events of the siege; his silence cannot but weigh against
the 928 AH.
The year 930 AH. is given by Niẕāmu'd-dīn Aḥmad's _T̤abaqāt-i-akbarī_
(lith. ed. p. 637), and this year has been adopted by Erskine, Beale,
and Ney Elias, perhaps by others. Some light on the matter may be
obtained incidentally as the sources are examined for a complete history
of India, perhaps coming from the affairs of Multān, which was attacked
by Shāh Ḥasan after communication with Bābur.
_d. Bābur's literary work in 928 AH. and earlier._
1. The _Mubīn_. This year, as is known from a chronogram within the
work, Bābur wrote the Turkī poem of 2000 lines to which Abū'l-faẓl and
Badāyūnī give the name _Mubīn_ (The Exposition), but of which the true
title is said by the _Nafā'isu'l-ma`āsir_ to be _Dar fiqa mubaiyan_ (The
Law expounded). Sprenger found it called also _Fiqa-i-bāburī_ (Bābur's
Law). It is a versified and highly orthodox treatise on Muḥammadan Law,
written for the instruction of Kāmrān. A Commentary on it, called also
_Mubīn_, was written by Shaikh Zain. Bābur quotes from it (f. 351_b_)
when writing of linear measures. Berézine found and published a large
portion of it as part of his _Chrestomathie Turque_ (Kazan 1857); the
same fragment may be what was published by Ilminsky. Teufel remarks that
the MS. used by Berézine may have descended direct from one sent by
Bābur to a distinguished legist of Transoxiana, because the last words
of Berézine's imprint are Bābur's _Begleitschreiben_ (_envoi_); he adds
the expectation that the legist's name might be learned. Perhaps this
recipient was the Khwāja Kalān, son of Khwāja Yaḥya, a Samarkandī to
whom Bābur sent a copy of his Memoirs on March 7th 1520 (935 AH. f.
363).[1556]
2. The _Bābur-nāma_ diary of 925-6 AH. (1519-20 AD.). This is almost
contemporary with the _Mubīn_ and is the earliest part of the
_Bābur-nāma_ writings now known. It was written about a decade earlier
than the narrative of 899 to 914 AH. (1494 to 1507 AD.), carries later
annotations, and has now the character of a draft awaiting revision.
3. A _Dīwān_ (Collection of poems). By dovetailing a few fragments of
information, it becomes clear that by 925 AH. (1519 AD.) Bābur had made
a Collection of poetical compositions distinct from the Rāmpūr _Dīwān_;
it is what he sent to Pūlād Sulṯan in 925 AH. (f. 238). Its date
excludes the greater part of the Rāmpūr one. It may have contained those
verses to which my husband drew attention in the Asiatic Quarterly
Review of 1911, as quoted in the _Abūshqa_; and it may have contained,
in agreement with its earlier date, the verses Bābur quotes as written
in his earlier years. None of the quatrains found in the _Abūshqa_ and
there attributed to "Bābur Mīrzā", are in the Rāmpūr _Dīwān_; nor are
several of those early ones of the _Bābur-nāma_. So that the Dīwān sent
to Pūlād Sulṯān may be the source from which the _Abūshqa_ drew its
examples.
On first examining these verses, doubt arose as to whether they were
really by Bābur _Mīrānshāhī_; or whether they were by "Bābur Mīrzā"
_Shāhrukhī_. Fortunately my husband lighted on one of them quoted in the
_Sanglakh_ and there attributed to Bābur Pādshāh. The _Abūshqa_
quatrains are used as examples in de Courteille's _Dictionary_, but
without an author's name; they can be traced there through my husband's
articles.[1557]
929 AH.—NOV. 20TH 1522 TO NOV. 10TH 1523 AD.
_a. Affairs of Hindūstān._
The centre of interest in Bābur's affairs now moves from Qandahār to a
Hindūstān torn by faction, of which faction one result was an appeal
made at this time to Bābur by Daulat Khān _Lūdī_ (_Yūsuf-khail_) and
`Alāu'd-dīn `Ālam Khān _Lūdī_ for help against Ibrāhīm.[1558]
The following details are taken mostly from Aḥmad Yādgār's
_Tārīkh-i-salāṯīn-i-afāghana_[1559]:—Daulat Khān had been summoned to
Ibrāhīm's presence; he had been afraid to go and had sent his son
Dilāwar in his place; his disobedience angering Ibrāhīm, Dilāwar had a
bad reception and was shewn a ghastly exhibit of disobedient commanders.
Fearing a like fate for himself, he made escape and hastened to report
matters to his father in Lāhor. His information strengthening Daulat
Khān's previous apprehensions, decided the latter to proffer allegiance
to Bābur and to ask his help against Ibrāhīm. Apparently `Ālam Khān's
interests were a part of this request. Accordingly Dilāwar (or Apāq)
Khān went to Kābul, charged with his father's message, and with intent
to make known to Bābur Ibrāhīm's evil disposition, his cruelty and
tyranny, with their fruit of discontent amongst his Commanders and
soldiery.
_b. Reception of Dilāwar Khān in Kābul._
Wedding festivities were in progress[1560] when Dilāwar Khān reached
Kābul. He presented himself, at the Chār-bāgh may be inferred, and had
word taken to Bābur that an Afghān was at his Gate with a petition. When
admitted, he demeaned himself as a suppliant and proceeded to set forth
the distress of Hindūstān. Bābur asked why he, whose family had so long
eaten the salt of the Lūdīs, had so suddenly deserted them for himself.
Dilāwar answered that his family through 40 years had upheld the Lūdī
throne, but that Ibrāhīm maltreated Sikandar's amīrs, had killed 25 of
them without cause, some by hanging some burned alive, and that there
was no hope of safety in him. Therefore, he said, he had been sent by
many amīrs to Bābur whom they were ready to obey and for whose coming
they were on the anxious watch.
_c. Bābur asks a sign._
At the dawn of the day following the feast, Bābur prayed in the garden
for a sign of victory in Hindūstān, asking that it should be a gift to
himself of mango or betel, fruits of that land. It so happened that
Daulat Khān had sent him, as a present, half-ripened mangoes preserved
in honey; when these were set before him, he accepted them as the sign,
and from that time forth, says the chronicler, made preparation for a
move on Hindūstān.
_d. `Ālam Khān._
Although `Ālam Khān seems to have had some amount of support for his
attempt against his nephew, events show he had none valid for his
purpose. That he had not Daulat Khān's, later occurrences make clear.
Moreover he seems not to have been a man to win adherence or to be
accepted as a trustworthy and sensible leader.[1561] Dates are uncertain
in the absence of Bābur's narrative, but it may have been in this year
that `Ālam Khān went in person to Kābul and there was promised help
against Ibrāhīm.
_e. Birth of Gul-badan._
Either in this year or the next was born Dil-dār's third daughter
Gul-badan, the later author of an _Humāyūn-nāma_ written at her nephew
Akbar's command in order to provide information for the _Akbar-nāma_.
930 AH.—NOV. 10TH 1523 TO OCT. 29TH 1524 AD.
_a. Bābur's fourth expedition to Hindūstān._
This expedition differs from all earlier ones by its co-operation with
Afghān malcontents against Ibrāhīm _Lūdī_, and by having for its
declared purpose direct attack on him through reinforcement of `Ālam
Khān.
Exactly when the start from Kābul was made is not found stated; the
route taken after fording the Indus, was by the sub-montane road through
the Kakar country; the Jīhlam and Chīn-āb were crossed and a move was
made to within 10 miles of Lāhor.
Lāhor was Daulat Khān's head-quarters but he was not in it now; he had
fled for refuge to a colony of Bilūchīs, perhaps towards Multān, on the
approach against him of an army of Ibrāhīm's under Bihār Khān _Lūdī_. A
battle ensued between Bābur and Bihār Khān; the latter was defeated with
great slaughter; Bābur's troops followed his fugitive men into Lāhor,
plundered the town and burned some of the _bāzārs_.
Four days were spent near Lāhor, then move south was made to Dībālpūr
which was stormed, plundered and put to the sword. The date of this
capture is known from an incidental remark of Bābur about chronograms
(f. 325), to be mid-Rabī`u'l-awwal 930 AH. (_circa_ Jan. 22nd 1524
AD.).[1562] From Dībālpūr a start was made for Sihrind but before this
could be reached news arrived which dictated return to Lāhor.
_b. The cause of return._
Daulat Khān's action is the obvious cause of the retirement. He and his
sons had not joined Bābur until the latter was at Dībālpūr; he was not
restored to his former place in charge of the important Lāhor, but was
given Jalandhar and Sulṯānpūr, a town of his own foundation. This
angered him extremely but he seems to have concealed his feelings for
the time and to have given Bābur counsel as if he were content. His son
Dilāwar, however, represented to Bābur that his father's advice was
treacherous; it concerned a move to Multān, from which place Daulat Khān
may have come up to Dībālpūr and connected with which at this time,
something is recorded of co-operation by Bābur and Shāh Ḥasan _Arghūn_.
But the incident is not yet found clearly described by a source. Dilāwar
Khān told Bābur that his father's object was to divide and thus weaken
the invading force, and as this would have been the result of taking
Daulat Khān's advice, Bābur arrested him and Apāq on suspicion of
treacherous intent. They were soon released, and Sulṯānpūr was given
them, but they fled to the hills, there to await a chance to swoop on
the Panj-āb. Daulat Khān's hostility and his non-fulfilment of his
engagement with Bābur placing danger in the rear of an eastward advance,
the Panj-āb was garrisoned by Bābur's own followers and he himself went
back to Kābul.
It is evident from what followed that Daulat Khān commanded much
strength in the Panj-āb; evident also that something counselled delay in
the attack on Ibrāhīm, perhaps closer cohesion in favour of `Ālam Khān,
certainly removal of the menace of Daulat Khān in the rear; there may
have been news already of the approach of the Aūzbegs on Balkh which
took Bābur next year across Hindū-kush.
_c. The Panj-āb garrison._
The expedition had extended Bābur's command considerably, notably by
obtaining possession of Lāhor. He now posted in it Mīr `Abdu'l-`azīz his
Master of the Horse; in Dībālpūr he posted, with `Ālam Khān, Bābā Qashqa
_Mughūl_; in Sīālkot, Khusrau Kūkūldāsh, in Kalanūr, Muḥammad `Alī
_Tājik_.
_d. Two deaths._
This year, on Rajab 19th (May 23rd) died Ismā`īl _Ṣafawī_ at the age of
38, broken by defeat from Sulṯān Salīm of Rūm.[1563] He was succeeded by
his son T̤ahmāsp, a child of ten.
This year may be that of the death of Shāh Shujā` _Arghūn_,[1564] on
Sha`bān 22nd (July 18th), the last grief of his burden being the death
of his foster-brother Fāẓil concerning which, as well as Shāh Beg's own
death, Mīr Ma`ṣūm's account is worthy of full reproduction. Shāh Beg was
succeeded in Sind by his son Ḥasan, who read the _khuṯba_ for Bābur and
drew closer links with Bābur's circle by marrying, either this year or
the next, Khalīfa's daughter Gul-barg, with whom betrothal had been made
during Ḥasan's visit to Bābur in Kābul. Moreover Khalīfa's son
Muḥibb-i-`alī married Nāhīd the daughter of Qāsim Kūkūldāsh and
Māh-chūchūk _Arghūn_ (f. 214_b_). These alliances were made, says
Ma`ṣūm, to strengthen Ḥasan's position at Bābur's Court.
_e. A garden detail._
In this year and presumably on his return from the Panj-āb, Bābur, as he
himself chronicles (f. 132), had plantains (bananas) brought from
Hindūstān for the Bāgh-i-wafā at Adīnapūr.
931 AH.—OCT. 29TH 1524 TO OCT. 18TH 1525 AD.
_a. Daulat Khān._
Daulat Khān's power in the Panj-āb is shewn by what he effected after
dispossessed of Lāhor. On Bābur's return to Kābul, he came down from the
hills with a small body of his immediate followers, seized his son
Dilāwar, took Sulṯānpūr, gathered a large force and defeated `Ālam Khān
in Dībālpūr. He detached 5000 men against Sīālkot but Bābur's begs of
Lāhor attacked and overcame them. Ibrāhīm sent an army to reconquer the
Panj-āb; Daulat Khān, profiting by its dissensions and discontents, won
over a part to himself and saw the rest break up.
_b. `Ālam Khān._
From his reverse at Dībālpūr, `Ālam Khān fled straight to Kābul. The
further help he asked was promised under the condition that while he
should take Ibrāhīm's place on the throne of Dihlī, Bābur in full
suzerainty should hold Lāhor and all to the west of it. This arranged,
`Ālam Khān was furnished with a body of troops, given a royal letter to
the Lāhor begs ordering them to assist him, and started off, Bābur
promising to follow swiftly.
`Ālam Khān's subsequent proceedings are told by Bābur in the annals of
932 AH. (1525 AD.) at the time he received details about them (f.
255_b_).
_c. Bābur called to Balkh._
All we have yet found about this affair is what Bābur says in
explanation of his failure to follow `Ālam Khān as promised (f. 256),
namely, that he had to go to Balkh because all the Aūzbeg Sulṯāns and
Khāns had laid siege to it. Light on the affair may come from some
Persian or Aūzbeg chronicle; Bābur's arrival raised the siege; and risk
must have been removed, for Bābur returned to Kābul in time to set out
for his fifth and last expedition to Hindūstān on the first day of the
second month of next year (932 AH. 1525). A considerable body of troops
was in Badakhshān with Humāyūn; their non-arrival next year delaying his
father's progress, brought blame on himself.
[Illustration: Babur's Grave.
_To face p. 445._]
THE MEMOIRS OF BĀBUR
SECTION III. HINDŪSTĀN
932 AH.-OCT. 18TH 1525 TO OCT. 8TH 1526 AD.[1565]
(_a. Fifth expedition into Hindūstān._)
(_Nov. 17th_) On Friday the 1st of the month of Ṣafar at the [Sidenote:
Ḥaidarābād MS. Fol. 251b.] date 932, the Sun being in the Sign of the
Archer, we set out for Hindūstān, crossed the small rise of Yak-langa,
and dismounted in the meadow to the west of the water of
Dih-i-ya`qūb.[1566] `Abdu'l-malūk the armourer came into this camp; he
had gone seven or eight months earlier as my envoy to Sulṯān Sa`īd Khān
(in Kāshghar), and now brought one of the Khān's men, styled Yāngī Beg
(new beg) Kūkūldāsh who conveyed letters, and small presents, and
verbal messages[1567] from the Khānīms and the Khān.[1568]
(_Nov. 18th to 21st_) After staying two days in that camp for the
convenience of the army,[1569] we marched on, halted one night,[1570]
and next dismounted at Bādām-chashma. There we ate a confection
(_ma`jūn_).
(_Nov. 22nd_) On Wednesday (Ṣafar 6th), when we had dismounted at
Bārīk-āb, the younger brethren of Nūr Beg—he himself remaining in
Hindūstān—brought gold _ashrafīs_ and _tankas_[1571] to the value of
20,000 _shāhrukhīs_, sent from the Lāhor revenues by Khwāja Ḥusain. The
greater part of these moneys was despatched by Mullā Aḥmad, one of the
chief men of Balkh, for the benefit of Balkh.[1572]
(_Nov. 24th_) On Friday the 8th of the month (Ṣafar), after [Sidenote:
Fol. 252.] dismounting at Gandamak, I had a violent discharge;[1573] by
God's mercy, it passed off easily.
(_Nov. 25th_) On Saturday we dismounted in the Bāgh-i-wafā. We delayed
there a few days, waiting for Humāyūn and the army from that side.[1574]
More than once in this history the bounds and extent, charm and delight
of that garden have been described; it is most beautifully placed; who
sees it with the buyer's eye will know the sort of place it is. During
the short time we were there, most people drank on drinking-days[1575]
and took their morning; on non-drinking days there were parties for
_ma`jūn_.
I wrote harsh letters to Humāyūn, lecturing him severely because of his
long delay beyond the time fixed for him to join me.[1576]
(_Dec. 3rd_) On Sunday the 17th of Ṣafar, after the morning had been
taken, Humāyūn arrived. I spoke very severely to him at once. Khwāja
Kalān also arrived to-day, coming up from Ghaznī. We marched in the
evening of that same Sunday, and dismounted in a new garden between
Sulṯānpur and Khwāja Rustam.
(_Dec. 6th_) Marching on Wednesday (Ṣafar 20th), we got on a raft, and,
drinking as we went reached Qūsh-guṃbaz,[1577] there landed and joined
the camp.
(_Dec. 7th_) Starting off the camp at dawn, we ourselves went on a raft,
and there ate confection (_ma`jūn_). Our encamping-ground was always
Qīrīq-ārīq, but not a sign or trace of the camp could [Sidenote: Fol.
252b.] be seen when we got opposite it, nor any appearance of our
horses. Thought I, "Garm-chashma (Hot-spring) is close by; they may have
dismounted there." So saying, we went on from Qīrīq-ārīq. By the time we
reached Garm-chashma, the very day was late;[1578] we did not stop
there, but going on in its lateness (_kīchīsī_), had the raft tied up
somewhere, and slept awhile.
(_Dec. 8th_) At day-break we landed at Yada-bīr where, as the day wore
on, the army-folks began to come in. The camp must have been at
Qīrīq-ārīq, but out of our sight.
There were several verse-makers on the raft, such as Shaikh
Abū'l-wajd,[1579] Shaikh Zain, Mullā `Alī-jān, Tardī Beg _Khāksār_ and
others. In this company was quoted the following couplet of Muḥammad
Ṣāliḥ:—[1580]
(Persian) With thee, arch coquette, for a sweetheart, what can man do?
With another than thou where thou art, what can man do?
Said I, "Compose on these lines";[1581] whereupon those given to
versifying, did so. As jokes were always being made at the expense of
Mullā `Alī-jān, this couplet came off-hand into my head:—
(Persian) With one all bewildered as thou, what can man do?
. . . . . . , what can man do?[1582]
(_b. Mention of the Mubīn._[1583])
From time to time before it,[1584] whatever came into my head, of good
or bad, grave or jest, used to be strung into verse and written down,
however empty and harsh the verse might be, but while I was composing
the _Mubīn_, this thought pierced through my dull wits and made way into
my troubled heart, "A pity it [Sidenote: Fol. 253.] will be if the
tongue which has treasure of utterances so lofty as these are, waste
itself again on low words; sad will it be if again vile imaginings find
way into the mind that has made exposition of these sublime
realities."[1585] Since that time I had refrained from satirical and
jesting verse; I was repentant (_ta'īb_); but these matters were totally
out of mind and remembrance when I made that couplet (on Mullā
`Alī-jān).[1586] A few days later in Bīgrām when I had fever and
discharge, followed by cough, and I began to spit blood each time I
coughed, I knew whence my reproof came; I knew what act of mine had
brought this affliction on me.
"Whoever shall violate his oath, will violate it to the hurt of his own
soul; but whoever shall perform that which he hath covenanted with God,
to that man surely will He give great reward" (_Qorān_ cap. 48 v. 10).
(_Turkī_) What is it I do with thee, ah! my tongue?
My entrails bleed as a reckoning for thee.
Good once[1587] as thy words were, has followed
this verse
Jesting, empty,[1588] obscene, has followed a lie.
If thou say, "Burn will I not!" by keeping this vow
Thou turnest thy rein from this field of strife.[1589]
"O Lord! we have dealt unjustly with our own souls; if Thou forgive us
not, and be not merciful unto us, we shall surely be of those that
perish"[1590] (_Qorān_ cap. 7 v. 22).
Taking anew the place of the penitent pleading for pardon, I gave my
mind rest[1591] from such empty thinking and such unlawful occupation. I
broke my pen. Made by that Court, such reproof of sinful slaves is for
their felicity; happy are the highest and the slave when such reproof
brings warning and its profitable fruit.
(_c. Narrative resumed._)
(_Dec. 8th continued_) Marching on that evening, we dismounted at
`Alī-masjid. The ground here being very confined, I always [Sidenote:
Fol. 253b.] used to dismount on a rise overlooking the camp in the
valley-bottom.[1592] The camp-fires made a wonderful illumination there
at night; assuredly it was because of this that there had always been
drinking there, and was so now.
(_Dec. 9th and 10th_) To-day I rode out before dawn; I preferred a
confection (_ma`jūn_)[1593] and also kept this day a fast. We dismounted
near Bīgrām (Peshāwar); and next morning, the camp remaining on that
same ground, rode to Karg-awī.[1594] We crossed the Siyāh-āb in front of
Bīgrām, and formed our hunting-circle looking down-stream. After a
little, a person brought word that there was a rhino in a bit of jungle
near Bīgrām, and that people had been stationed near-about it. We betook
ourselves, loose rein, to the place, formed a ring round the jungle,
made a noise, and brought the rhino out, when it took its way across the
plain. Humāyūn and those come with him from that side (Tramontana), who
had never seen one before, were much entertained. It was pursued for two
miles; many arrows were shot at it; it was brought down without having
made a good set at man or horse. Two others were killed. I had often
wondered how a rhino and an elephant would behave if brought face to
face; this time one came out right in front of some elephants the
mahauts were bringing along; it did not face them [Sidenote: Fol. 254.]
when the mahauts drove them towards it, but got off in another
direction.
(_d. Preparations for ferrying the Indus._[1595])
On the day we were in Bīgrām, several of the begs and household were
appointed, with pay-masters and dīwāns, six or seven being put in
command, to take charge of the boats at the Nīl-āb crossing, to make a
list of all who were with the army, name by name, and to count them up.
That evening I had fever and discharge[1596] which led on to cough and
every time I coughed, I spat blood. Anxiety was great but, by God's
mercy, it passed off in two or three days.
(_Dec. 11th_) It rained when we left Bīgrām; we dismounted on the
Kābul-water.
(_e. News from Lāhor._)
News came that Daulat Khān[1597] and (Apāq) Ghāzī Khān, having collected
an army of from 20 to 30,000, had taken Kilānūr, and intended to move on
Lāhor. At once Mumin-i-`alī the commissary was sent galloping off to
say, "We are advancing march by march;[1598] do not fight till we
arrive."
(_Dec. 14th_) With two night-halts on the way, we reached the water of
Sind (Indus), and there dismounted on Thursday the 28th (of Ṣafar).
(_f. Ferrying the Indus._)
(_Dec. 16th_) On Saturday the 1st of the first Rabī`, we crossed the
Sind-water, crossed the water of Kacha-kot (Hārū), and dismounted on the
bank of the river.[1599] The begs, pay-masters and dīwāns who had been
put in charge of the boats, reported that the number of those come with
the army, great and small, good and bad, retainer and non-retainer, was
written down as 12,000.
(_g. The eastward march._)
The rainfall had been somewhat scant in the plains, but [Sidenote: Fol.
254b.] seemed to have been good in the cultivated lands along the
hill-skirts; for these reasons we took the road for Sīālkot along the
skirt-hills. Opposite Hātī _Kakar's_ country[1600] we came upon a
torrent[1601] the waters of which were standing in pools. Those pools
were all frozen over. The ice was not very thick, as thick as the hand
may-be. Such ice is unusual in Hindūstān; not a sign or trace of any was
seen in the years we were (_aīdūk_) in the country.[1602]
We had made five marches from the Sind-water; after the sixth (_Dec.
22nd_—Rabī` I. 7th) we dismounted on a torrent in the camping-ground
(_yūrt_) of the Bugīāls[1603] below Balnāth Jogī's hill which connects
with the Hill of Jūd.
(_Dec. 23rd_) In order to let people get provisions, we stayed the next
day in that camp. _`Araq_ was drunk on that day. Mullā Muḥ. _Pargharī_
told many stories; never had he been so talkative. Mullā Shams himself
was very riotous; once he began, he did not finish till night.
The slaves and servants, good and bad, who had gone out after
provisions, went further than this[1604] and heedlessly scattered over
jungle and plain, hill and broken ground. Owing to this, a few were
overcome; Kīchkīna _tūnqiṯār_ died there.
(_Dec. 24th_) Marching on, we crossed the Bihat-water at a ford below
Jīlam (Jīhlam) and there dismounted. Walī _Qīzīl_ (Rufus) came there to
see me. He was the Sīālkot reserve, and held the parganas of Bīmrūkī and
Akrīāda. Thinking about Sīālkot, [Sidenote: Fol. 255.] I took towards
him the position of censure and reproach. He excused himself, saying "I
had come to my _pargana_ before Khusrau Kūkūldāsh left Sīālkot; he did
not even send me word." After listening to his excuse, I said, "Since
thou hast paid no attention to Sīālkot, why didst thou not join the begs
in Lāhor?" He was convicted, but as work was at hand, I did not trouble
about his fault.
(_h. Scouts sent with orders to Lāhor._)
(_Dec. 25th_) Sayyid T̤ūfān and Sayyid Lāchīn were sent galloping off,
each with a pair-horse,[1605] to say in Lāhor, "Do not join battle; meet
us at Sīālkot or Parsrūr" (mod. Pasrūr). It was in everyone's mouth that
Ghāzī Khān had collected 30 to 40,000 men, that Daulat Khān, old as he
was, had girt two swords to his waist, and that they were resolved to
fight. Thought I, "The proverb says that ten friends are better than
nine; do you not make a mistake: when the Lāhor begs have joined you,
fight there and then!"
(_Dec. 26th and 27th_) After starting off the two men to the begs, we
moved forward, halted one night, and next dismounted on the bank of the
Chīn-āb (Chan-āb).
As Buhlūlpūr was _khalṣa_,[1606] we left the road to visit it. Its fort
is situated above a deep ravine, on the bank of the Chīn-āb. It pleased
us much. We thought of bringing Sīālkot to it. Please God! the chance
coming, it shall be done straightway! [Sidenote: Fol. 255b.] From
Buhlūlpūr we went to camp by boat.
(_i. Jats and Gujūrs._[1607])
(_Dec. 29th_) On Friday the 14th of the first Rabī` we dismounted at
Sīālkot. If one go into Hindūstān the Jats and Gujūrs always pour down
in countless hordes from hill and plain for loot in bullock and buffalo.
These ill-omened peoples are just senseless oppressors! Formerly their
doings did not concern us much because the country was an enemy's, but
they began the same senseless work after we had taken it. When we
reached Sīālkot, they fell in tumult on poor and needy folks who were
coming out of the town to our camp, and stripped them bare. I had the
silly thieves sought for, and ordered two or three of them cut to
pieces.
From Sīālkot Nūr Beg's brother Shāham also was made to gallop off to the
begs in Lāhor to say, "Make sure where the enemy is; find out from some
well-informed person where he may be met, and send us word."
A trader, coming into this camp, represented that `Ālam Khān had let Sl.
Ibrāhīm defeat him.
(_j. `Ālam Khān's action and failure._[1608])
Here are the particulars:—`Ālam Khān, after taking leave of me (in
Kābul, 931 AH.), went off in that heat by double marches, regardless of
those with him.[1609] As at the time I gave him leave to go, all the
Aūzbeg khāns and sulṯāns had laid siege to Balkh, [Sidenote: Fol. 256.]
I rode for Balkh as soon as I had given him his leave. On his reaching
Lāhor, he insisted to the begs, "You reinforce me; the Pādshāh said so;
march along with me; let us get (Apāq) Ghāzī Khān to join us; let us
move on Dihlī and Āgra." Said they, "Trusting to what, will you join
Ghāzī Khān? Moreover the royal orders to us were, 'If at any time Ghāzī
Khān has sent his younger brother Ḥājī Khān with his son to Court, join
him; or do so, if he has sent them, by way of pledge, to Lāhor; if he
has done neither, do not join him.' You yourself only yesterday fought
him and let him beat you! Trusting to what, will you join him now?
Besides all this, it is not for your advantage to join him!" Having said
what-not of this sort, they refused `Ālam Khān. He did not fall in with
their views, but sent his son Sher Khān to speak with Daulat Khān and
with Ghāzī Khān, and afterwards all saw one another.
`Ālam Khān took with him Dilāwar Khān, who had come into Lāhor two or
three months earlier after his escape from prison; he took also Maḥmūd
Khān (son of) Khān-i-jahān,[1610] to whom a _pargana_ in the Lāhor
district had been given. They seem to have left matters at this:—Daulat
Khān with Ghāzī Khān was to take all the begs posted in Hindūstān to
himself, indeed he was to take everything on that side;[1611] while
`Ālam [Sidenote: Fol. 256b.] Khān was to take Dilāwar Khān and Ḥājī Khān
and, reinforced by them, was to capture Dihlī and Āgra. Ismā`īl
_Jilwānī_ and other amīrs came and saw `Ālam Khān; all then betook
themselves, march by march, straight for Dihlī. Near Indrī came also
Sulaimān Shaikh-zāda.[1612] Their total touched 30 to 40,000 men.
They laid siege to Dihlī but could neither take it by assault nor do
hurt to the garrison.[1613] When Sl. Ibrāhīm heard of their assembly, he
got an army to horse against them; when they heard of his approach, they
rose from before the place and moved to meet him. They had left matters
at this:—"If we attack by day-light, the Afghāns will not desert (to
us), for the sake of their reputations with one another; but if we
attack at night when one man cannot see another, each man will obey his
own orders." Twice over they started at fall of day from a distance of
12 miles (6 _kurohs_), and, unable to bring matters to a point, neither
advanced nor retired; but just sat on horseback for two or three
watches. On a third occasion they delivered an attack when one watch of
night remained—their purpose seeming to be the burning of tents and
huts! They went; they set fire from every end; they made a disturbance.
Jalāl Khān _Jig-hat_[1614] came with other amīrs and saw `Ālam Khān.
Sl. Ibrāhīm did not bestir himself till shoot of dawn from where he was
with a few of his own family[1615] within his own enclosure (_sarācha_).
Meantime `Ālam Khān's people were busy [Sidenote: Fol. 257.] with
plunder and booty. Seeing the smallness of their number, Sl. Ibrāhīm's
people moved out against them in rather small force with one elephant.
`Ālam Khān's party, not able to make stand against the elephant, ran
away. He in his flight crossed over into the Mīān-dū-āb and crossed back
again when he reached the Pānīpat neighbourhood. In Indrī he contrived
on some pretext to get 4 _laks_ from Mīān Sulaimān.[1616] He was
deserted by Ismā`īl _Jilwānī_, by Biban[1617] and by his own oldest son
Jalāl, who all withdrew into the Mīān-dū-āb; and he had been deserted
just before the fighting, by part of his troops, namely, by Daryā Khān
(_Nūḥānī_)'s son Saif Khān, by Khān-i-jahān (_Nūḥānī_)'s son Maḥmūd
Khān, and by Shaikh Jamāl _Farmulī_. When he was passing through Sihrind
with Dilāwar Khān, he heard of our advance and of our capture of Milwat
(Malot).[1618] On this Dilāwar Khān—who always had been my well-wisher
and on my account had dragged out three or four months in prison,—left
`Ālam Khān and the rest and went to his family in Sulṯānpūr. He waited
on me three or four days after we took Milwat. `Ālam Khān and Ḥājī Khān
crossed the Shatlut (_sic_)-water and went into Gingūta,[1619] one of
the strongholds in the range that lies between the valley and the
plain.[1620] There our Afghān and Hazāra[1621] troops besieged them, and
had [Sidenote: Fol. 257b] almost taken that strong fort when night came
on. Those inside were thinking of escape but could not get out because
of the press of horses in the Gate. There must have been elephants also;
when these were urged forward, they trod down and killed many horses.
`Ālam Khān, unable to escape mounted, got out on foot in the darkness.
After a _lak_ of difficulties, he joined Ghāzī Khān, who had not gone
into Milwat but had fled into the hills. Not being received with even a
little friendliness by Ghāzī Khān; needs must! he came and waited on me
at the foot of the dale[1622] near Pehlūr.
(_k. Diary resumed._)
A person came to Sīālkot from the Lāhor begs to say they would arrive
early next morning to wait on me.
(_Dec. 30th_) Marching early next day (Rabī` I. 15th), we dismounted at
Parsrūr. There Muḥ. `Alī _Jang-jang_, Khwāja Ḥusain and several braves
waited on me. As the enemy's camp seemed to be on the Lāhor side of the
Rāvī, we sent men out under Būjka for news. Near the third watch of the
night they brought word that the enemy, on hearing of us, had fled, no
man looking to another.
(_Dec. 31st_) Getting early to horse and leaving baggage and train in
the charge of Shāh Mīr Ḥusain and Jān Beg, we bestirred ourselves. We
reached Kalānūr in the afternoon, and there dismounted. Muḥammad Sl.
Mīrzā and `Ādil Sl.[1623] came [Sidenote: Fol. 258.] to wait on me
there, together with some of the begs.
(_Jan. 1st 1526 AD._) We marched early from Kalānūr. On the road people
gave us almost certain news of Ghāzī Khān and other fugitives.
Accordingly we sent, flying after those fliers, the commanders
Muḥammadī, Aḥmadī, Qūtlūq-qadam, Treasurer Walī and most of those begs
who, in Kābul, had recently bent the knee for their begship. So far it
was settled:—That it would be good indeed if they could overtake and
capture the fugitives; and that, if they were not able to do this, they
were to keep careful watch round Milwat (Malot), so as to prevent those
inside from getting out and away. Ghāzī Khān was the object of this
watch.
(_l. Capture of Milwat._)
(_Jan. 2nd and 3rd_) After starting those begs ahead, we crossed the
Bīāh-water (Beas) opposite Kanwāhīn[1624] and dismounted. From there we
marched to the foot of the valley of Fort Milwat, making two night-halts
on the way. The begs who had arrived before us, and also those of
Hindūstān were ordered to dismount in such a way as to besiege the place
closely.
A grandson of Daulat Khān, son of his eldest son `Alī Khān, Ismā`īl Khān
by name, came out of Milwat to see me; he took back promise mingled with
threat, kindness with menace.
(_Jan. 5th_) On Friday (Rabī` I. 21st) I moved camp forward to within a
mile of the fort, went myself to examine the place, posted right, left
and centre, then returned to camp.
Daulat Khān sent to represent to me that Ghāzī Khān had [Sidenote: Fol.
258b.] fled into the hills, and that, if his own faults were pardoned,
he would take service with me and surrender Milwat. Khwāja Mīr-i-mīrān
was sent to chase fear from his heart and to escort him out; he came,
and with him his son `Alī Khān. I had ordered that the two swords he had
girt to his waist to fight me with, should be hung from his neck. Was
such a rustic blockhead possible! With things as they were, he still
made pretensions! When he was brought a little forward, I ordered the
swords to be removed from his neck. At the time of our seeing one
another[1625] he hesitated to kneel; I ordered them to pull his leg and
make him do so. I had him seated quite in front, and ordered a person
well acquainted with Hindūstānī to interpret my words to him, one after
another. Said I, "Thus speak:—I called thee Father. I shewed thee more
honour and respect than thou couldst have asked. Thee and thy sons I
saved from door-to-door life amongst the Balūchīs.[1626] Thy family and
thy _ḥaram_ I freed from Ibrāhīm's prison-house.[1627] Three _krors_ I
gave thee on Tātār Khān's lands.[1628] What ill sayest thou I have done
thee, that thus thou shouldst hang a sword on thy either side,[1629]
lead an army out, fall on lands of ours,[1630] and stir strife and
trouble?" Dumbfounded, the old man [Sidenote: Fol. 259.] stuttered a
few words, but, he gave no answer, nor indeed could answer be given to
words so silencing. He was ordered to remain with Khwāja Mīr-i-mīrān.
(_Jan. 6th_) On Saturday the 22nd of the first Rabī`, I went myself to
safeguard the exit of the families and _ḥarams_[1631] from the fort,
dismounting on a rise opposite the Gate. To me there came `Alī Khān and
made offering of a few _ashrafīs_. People began to bring out the
families just before the Other Prayer. Though Ghāzī Khān was reported to
have got away, there were some who said they had seen him in the fort.
For this reason several of the household and braves[1632] were posted at
the Gate, in order to prevent his escape by a ruse, for to get away was
his full intention.[1633] Moreover if jewels and other valuables were
being taken away by stealth, they were to be confiscated. I spent that
night in a tent pitched on the rise in front of the Gate.
(_Jan. 7th_) Early next morning, Muḥammadī, Aḥmadī, Sl. Junaid,
`Abdu'l-`azīz, Muḥammad `Alī _Jang-jang_ and Qūtlūq-qadam were ordered
to enter the fort and take possession of all [Sidenote: Fol. 259b.]
effects. As there was much disturbance at the Gate, I shot off a few
arrows by way of chastisement. Humāyūn's story-teller (_qiṣṣa-khẉān_)
was struck by the arrow of his destiny and at once surrendered his life.
(_Jan. 7th and 8th_) After spending two nights[1634] on the rise, I
inspected the fort. I went into Ghāzī Khān's book-room;[1635] some of
the precious things found in it, I gave to Humāyūn, some sent to Kāmrān
(in Qandahār). There were many books of learned contents,[1636] but not
so many valuable ones as had at first appeared. I passed that night in
the fort; next morning I went back to camp.
(_Jan. 9th_) It had been in our minds that Ghāzī Khān was in the fort,
but he, a man devoid of nice sense of honour, had escaped to the hills,
abandoning father, brethren and sisters in Milwat.
See that man without honour who never
The face of good luck shall behold;
Bodily ease he chose for himself,
In hardship he left wife and child (_Gulistān_ cap. i, story 17).
(_Jan. 10th_) Leaving that camp on Wednesday, we moved towards the hills
to which Ghāzī Khān had fled. When we dismounted in the valley-bottom
two miles from the camp in the mouth of Milwat,[1637] Dilāwar Khān came
and waited on me. Daulat Khān, `Alī Khān and Ismā`īl Khān, with other
chiefs, were given into Kitta Beg's charge who was to convey them to the
Bhīra fort of Milwat (Malot),[1638] and there keep guard over [Sidenote:
Fol. 260.] them. In agreement with Dilāwar Khān, blood-ransom was fixed
for some who had been made over each to one man; some gave security,
some were kept prisoner. Daulat Khān died when Kitta Beg reached
Sulṯānpūr with the prisoners.[1639]
Milwat was given into the charge of Muḥ. `Alī _Jang-jang_ who, pledging
his own life for it, left his elder brother Arghūn and a party of braves
in it. A body of from 200 to 250 Afghāns were told off to reinforce him.
Khwāja Kalān had loaded several camels with Ghaznī wines. A party was
held in his quarters overlooking the fort and the whole camp, some
drinking _`araq_, some wine. It was a varied party.
(_m. Jaswān-valley._)
Marching on, we crossed a low hill of the grazing-grounds
(_arghā-dāl-līq_) of Milwat and went into the _dūn_, as Hindūstānīs
are understood to call a dale (_julga_).[1640] In this dale is a
running-water[1641] of Hindūstān; along its sides are many villages; and
it is said to be the pargana of the Jaswāl, that is to say, of Dilāwar
Khān's maternal uncles. It lies there shut-in, with meadows along its
torrent, rice cultivated here and there, a three or four mill-stream
flowing in its trough, its width from two to [Sidenote: Fol. 260b.] four
miles, six even in places, villages on the skirts of its hills—hillocks
they are rather—where there are no villages, peacocks, monkeys, and many
fowls which, except that they are mostly of one colour, are exactly like
house-fowls.
As no reliable news was had of Ghāzī Khān, we arranged for Tardīka to go
with Bīrīm Deo _Malinhās_ and capture him wherever he might be found.
In the hills of this dale stand thoroughly strong forts; one on the
north-east, named Kūtila, has sides 70 to 80 yards (_qārī_) of straight
fall, the side where the great gate is being perhaps 7 or 8 yards.[1642]
The width of the place where the draw-bridge is made, may be 10 to 12
yards. Across this they have made a bridge of two tall trees[1643] by
which horses and herds are taken over. This was one of the local forts
Ghāzī Khān had strengthened; his man will have been in it now. Our
raiders (_chāpqūnchī_) assaulted it and had almost taken it when night
came on. The garrison abandoned this difficult place and went off. Near
this dale is also the stronghold of Ginguta; it is girt round by
precipices as Kūtila is, but is not so strong as Kūtila. As has been
mentioned `Ālam Khān went into it.[1644] [Sidenote: Fol. 261.]
(_n. Bābur advances against Ibrāhīm._)
After despatching the light troop against Ghāzī Khān, I put my foot in
the stirrup of resolution, set my hand on the rein of trust in God, and
moved forward against Sulṯān Ibrāhīm, son of Sulṯān Sikandar, son of
Buhlūl _Lūdī Afghān_, in possession of whose throne at that time were
the Dihlī capital and the dominions of Hindūstān, whose standing-army
was called a _lak_ (100,000), whose elephants and whose begs' elephants
were about 1,000.
At the end of our first stage, I bestowed Dībālpūr on Bāqī
_shaghāwal_[1645] and sent him to help Balkh[1646]; sent also gifts,
taken in the success of Milwat, for (my) younger children and various
train in Kābul.
When we had made one or two marches down the (Jaswān) _dūn_, Shāh `Imād
_Shīrāzī_ arrived from Araish Khān and Mullā Muḥammad _Maẕhab_,[1647]
bringing letters that conveyed their good wishes for the complete
success of our campaign and indicated their effort and endeavour towards
this. In response, we sent, by a foot-man, royal letters expressing our
favour. We then marched on.
(_o. `Ālam Khān takes refuge with Bābur._)
The light troop we had sent out from Milwat (Malot), took Hurūr, Kahlūr
and all the hill-forts of the neighbourhood—places to which because of
their strength, no-one seemed to have gone for a long time—and came back
to me after plundering a little. Came also `Ālam Khān, on foot, ruined,
stripped bare. We sent some of the begs to give him honourable meeting,
sent horses too, and he waited (_malāẓamat qīldī_) in that [Sidenote:
Fol. 261b.] neighbourhood.[1648]
Raiders of ours went into the hills and valleys round-about, but after a
few nights' absence, came back without anything to count. Shāh Mīr
Ḥusain, Jān Beg and a few of the braves asked leave and went off for a
raid.
(_p. Incidents of the march for Pānī-pat._)
While we were in the (Jaswān) _dūn_, dutiful letters had come more than
once from Ismā`īl _Jilwānī_ and Biban; we replied to them from this
place by royal letters such as their hearts desired. After we got out of
the dale to Rūpar, it rained very much and became so cold that a mass of
starved and naked Hindūstānīs died.
When we had left Rūpar and were dismounted at Karal,[1649] opposite
Sihrind, a Hindūstānī coming said, "I am Sl. Ibrāhīm's envoy," and
though he had no letter or credentials, asked for an envoy from us. We
responded at once by sending one or two Sawādī night-guards
(_tunqiṯār_).[1650] These humble persons Ibrāhīm put in prison; they
made their escape and came back to us on the very day we beat him.
After having halted one night on the way, we dismounted on the bank of
the torrent[1651] of Banūr and Sanūr. Great rivers apart, one running
water there is in Hindūstān, is this[1652]; they call it the water of
Kakar (Ghaggar). Chitr also is on its bank. We rode up it for an
excursion. The rising-place (_zih_) of the water of this torrent (_rūd_)
is 3 or 4 _kurohs_ (6-8 m.) above Chitr. Going up the (Kakar) torrent,
we came to where a 4 or 5 millstream issues from a broad (side-)valley
(_dara_), up which there [Sidenote: Fol. 262.] are very pleasant places,
healthy and convenient. I ordered a Chār-bāgh to be made at the mouth of
the broad valley of this (tributary) water, which falls into the
(Kakar-) torrent after flowing for one or two _kurohs_ through level
ground. From its infall to the springs of the Kakar the distance may be
3 to 4 _kurohs_ (6-8 m.). When it comes down in flood during the rains
and joins the Kakar, they go together to Sāmāna and Sanām.[1653]
In this camp we heard that Sl. Ibrāhīm had been on our side of
Dihlī and had moved on from that station, also that Ḥamīd Khān
_khāṣa-khail_,[1654] the military-collector (_shiqdār_) of Ḥiṣār-fīrūza,
had left that place with its army and with the army of its
neighbourhood, and had advanced 10 or 15 _kurohs_ (20-30 m.). Kitta Beg
was sent for news to Ibrāhīm's camp, and Mumin Ātaka to the Ḥiṣār-fīrūza
camp.
(_q. Humāyūn moves against Ḥamīd Khān._)
(_Feb. 25th_) Marching from Aṃbāla, we dismounted by the side of a lake.
There Mumin Ātāka and Kitta Beg rejoined us, both on the same day,
Sunday the 13th of the first Jumāda.
We appointed Humāyūn to act against Ḥamīd Khān, and joined the whole of
the right (wing) to him, that is to say, Khwāja Kalān, Sl. Muḥammad
_Dūldāī_, Treasurer Walī, and also some of the begs whose posts were in
Hindūstān, namely, Khusrau, Hindū Beg,`Abdu'l-'azīz and Muḥammad `Alī
_Jang-jang_, with also, from the household and braves of the centre,
Shāh Manṣūr _Barlās_, Kitta Beg and Muḥibb-i `alī. [Sidenote: Fol.
262b.]
Biban waited on me in this camp. These Afghāns remain very rustic and
tactless! This person asked to sit although Dilāwar Khān, his superior
in following and in rank, did not sit, and although the sons of `Ālam
Khān, who are of royal birth, did not sit. Little ear was lent to his
unreason!
(_Feb. 26th_) At dawn on Monday the 14th Humāyūn moved out against Ḥamīd
Khān. After advancing for some distance, he sent between 100 and 150
braves scouting ahead, who went close up to the enemy and at once got to
grips. But when after a few encounters, the dark mass of Humāyūn's
troops shewed in the rear, the enemy ran right away. Humāyūn's men
unhorsed from 100 to 200, struck the heads off one half and brought the
other half in, together with 7 or 8 elephants.
(_March 2nd_) On Friday the 18th of the month, Beg Mīrak _Mughūl_
brought news of Humāyūn's victory to the camp. He (Humāyūn?) was there
and then given a special head-to-foot and a special horse from the royal
stable, besides promise of guerdon (_juldū_).
(_March 5th_) On Monday the 25th of the month, Humāyūn arrived to wait
on me, bringing with him as many as 100 prisoners and 7 or 8 elephants.
Ustād `Alī-qulī and the [Sidenote: Fol. 263.] matchlockmen were ordered
to shoot all the prisoners, by way of example. This had been Humāyūn's
first affair, his first experience of battle; it was an excellent omen!
Our men who had gone in pursuit of the fugitives, took Ḥiṣār-fīrūza at
once on arrival, plundered it, and returned to us. It was given in
guerdon to Humāyūn, with all its dependencies and appurtenances, with it
also a _kror_ of money.
We marched from that camp to Shāhābād. After we had despatched a
news-gatherer (_tīl-tūtār kīshī_) to Sl. Ibrāhīm's camp, we stayed a few
days on that ground. Raḥmat the foot-man was sent with the letters of
victory to Kābul.
(_r. News of Ibrāhīm._)
(_March 13th_) On Monday the 28th of the first Jumāda,[1655] we being in
that same camp, the Sun entered the Sign of the Ram. News had come
again and again from Ibrāhīm's camp, "He is coming, marching two miles"
or "four miles", "stopping in each camp two days," or "three days". We
for our part advanced from Shāhābād and after halting on two nights,
reached the bank of the Jūn-river (Jumna) and encamped opposite Sarsāwa.
From that ground Khwāja Kalān's servant Ḥaidar-qulī was sent to get news
(_tīl tūtā_).
Having crossed the Jūn-river at a ford, I visited Sarsāwa. That day also
we ate _ma`jūn_. Sarsāwa[1656] has a source (_chashma_) from which a
smallish stream issues, not a bad place! Tardī Beg _khāksār_ praising
it, I said, "Let it be thine!" so just [Sidenote: Fol. 263b.] because he
praised it, Sarsāwa was given to him!
I had a platform fixed in a boat and used to go for excursions on the
river, sometimes too made the marches down it. Two marches along its
bank had been made when, of those sent to gather news, Ḥaidar-qulī
brought word that Ibrāhīm had sent Daud Khān (_Lūdī_) and Ḥātīm Khān
(_Lūdī_) across the river into the Mīān-dū-āb (Tween-waters) with 5 or
6000 men, and that these lay encamped some 6 or 7 miles from his own.
(_s. A successful encounter._)
(_April 1st_) On Sunday the 18th of the second Jumāda, we sent, to ride
light against this force, Chīn-tīmūr Sulṯān,[1657] Mahdī Khwāja,
Muḥammad Sl. Mīrzā, `Ādil Sulṯān, and the whole of the left, namely, Sl.
Junaid, Shāh Mīr Ḥusain, Qūtlūq-qadam, and with them also sent
`Abdu'l-lāh and Kitta Beg (of the centre). They crossed from our side of
the water at the Mid-day Prayer, and between the Afternoon and the
Evening Prayers bestirred themselves from the other bank. Biban having
crossed the water on pretext of this movement, ran away.
(_April 2nd_) At day-break they came upon the enemy;[1658] he made as if
coming out in a sort of array, but our men closed with his at once,
overcame them, hustled them off, pursued and unhorsed them till they
were opposite Ibrāhīm's own camp. Ḥātim Khān was one of those unhorsed,
who was Daud Khān (_Lūdī_)'s elder brother and one of his commanders.
Our men brought him in when they waited on me. They brought also
[Sidenote: Fol. 264.] 60-70 prisoners and 6 or 7 elephants. Most of the
prisoners, by way of warning, were made to reach their death-doom.
(_t. Preparations for battle._)
While we were marching on in array of right, left and centre, the army
was numbered;[1659] it did not count up to what had been estimated.
At our next camp it was ordered that every man in the army should
collect carts, each one according to his circumstances. Seven hundred
carts (_arāba_) were brought[1660] in. The order given to Ustād
`Alī-qulī was that these carts should be joined together in
Ottoman[1661] fashion, but using ropes of raw hide instead of chains,
and that between every two carts 5 or 6 mantelets should be fixed,
behind which the matchlockmen were to stand to fire. To allow of
collecting all appliances, we delayed 5 or 6 days in that camp. When
everything was ready, all the begs with such braves as had had
experience in military affairs were summoned to a General Council where
opinion found decision at this:—Pānī-pat[1662] is there with its crowded
houses and suburbs. It would be on one side of us; our other sides must
be protected by carts and mantelets behind which our foot and
matchlockmen would stand. With so much settled we marched forward,
halted one night on the way, and reached Pānī-pat on Thursday the last
day (29th) of the second Jumāda (April 12th).
(_u. The opposed forces._)
On our right was the town of Pānī-pat with its suburbs; in front of us
were the carts and mantelets we had prepared; on our left and elsewhere
were ditch and branch. At distances of [Sidenote: Fol. 264b.] an arrow's
flight[1663] sally-places were left for from 100 to 200 horsemen.
Some in the army were very anxious and full of fear. Nothing recommends
anxiety and fear. For why? Because what God has fixed in eternity cannot
be changed. But though this is so, it was no reproach to be afraid and
anxious. For why? Because those thus anxious and afraid were there with
a two or three months' journey between them and their homes; our affair
was with a foreign tribe and people; none knew their tongue, nor did
they know ours:—
A wandering band, with mind awander;
In the grip of a tribe, a tribe unfamiliar.[1664]
People estimated the army opposing us at 100,000 men; Ibrāhīm's
elephants and those of his amīrs were said to be about 1000. In his
hands was the treasure of two forbears.[1665] In Hindūstān, when work
such as this has to be done, it is customary to pay out money to hired
retainers who are known as _b:d-hindī_.[1666] If it had occurred to
Ibrāhīm to do this, he might have had another _lak_ or two of troops.
God brought it right! Ibrāhīm could neither content his braves, nor
share out his treasure. How should he content his braves when he was
ruled by avarice and had a craving insatiable to pile coin on coin? He
was an unproved brave[1667]; he provided nothing for his [Sidenote: Fol.
265.] military operations, he perfected nothing, nor stand, nor move,
nor fight.
In the interval at Pānī-pat during which the army was preparing defence
on our every side with cart, ditch and branch, Darwīsh-i-muḥammad
_Sārbān_ had once said to me, "With such precautions taken, how is it
possible for him to come?" Said I, "Are you likening him to the Aūzbeg
khāns and sulṯāns? In what of movement under arms or of planned
operations is he to be compared with them?" God brought it right! Things
fell out just as I said!
(_Author's note on the Aūzbeg chiefs._) When I reached Ḥiṣār
in the year I left Samarkand (918 AH.-1512 AD.), and all the
Aūzbeg khāns and sulṯāns gathered and came against us, we
brought the families and the goods of the Mughūls and soldiers
into the Ḥiṣār suburbs and fortified these by closing the
lanes. As those khāns and sulṯāns were experienced in
equipment, in planned operations, and in resolute resistance,
they saw from our fortification of Ḥiṣār that we were
determined on life or death within it, saw they could not
count on taking it by assault and, therefore, retired at once
from near Nūndāk of Chaghānīān.
(_v. Preliminary encounters._)
During the 7 or 8 days we lay in Pānī-pat, our men used to go, a few
together, close up to Ibrāhīm's camp, rain arrows down on his massed
troops, cut off and bring in heads. Still he made [Sidenote: Fol. 265b.]
no move; nor did his troops sally out. At length, we acted on the advice
of several Hindūstānī well-wishers and sent out 4 or 5000 men to deliver
a night-attack on his camp, the leaders of it being Mahdī Khwāja,
Muḥammad Sl. Mīrzā, `Ādil Sulṯān, Khusrau, Shāh Mīr Ḥusain, Sl. Junaid
_Barlās_, `Abdu'l-`azīz the Master of the Horse, Muḥ. `Alī _Jang-jang_,
Qūtlūq-qadam, Treasurer Walī, Khalīfa's Muḥibb-i-`alī, Pay-master
Muḥammad, Jān Beg and Qarā-qūzī. It being dark, they were not able to
act together well, and, having scattered, could effect nothing on
arrival. They stayed near Ibrāhīm's camp till dawn, when the nagarets
sounded and troops of his came out in array with elephants. Though our
men did not do their work, they got off safe and sound; not a man of
them was killed, though they were in touch with such a mass of foes. One
arrow pierced Muḥ. `Alī _Jang-jang_'s leg; though the wound was not
mortal, he was good-for-nothing on the day of battle.
On hearing of this affair, I sent off Humāyūn and his troops to go 2 or
3 miles to meet them, and followed him myself with the rest of the army
in battle-array. The party of the night-attack joined him and came back
with him. The enemy making no further advance, we returned to camp and
dismounted. That night a false alarm fell on the camp; for some 20
minutes (one _garī_) there were uproar and call-to-arms; the disturbance
died down after a time. [Sidenote: Fol. 266.]
(_w. Battle of Pānī-pat._[1668])
(_April 20th_) On Friday the 8th of Rajab,[1669] news came, when it was
light enough to distinguish one thing from another (_farẓ-waqtī_) that
the enemy was advancing in fighting-array. We at once put on mail,[1670]
armed and mounted.[1671] Our right was Humāyūn, Khwāja Kalān, Sulṯān
Muḥammad _Dūldāī_, Hindū Beg, Treasurer Walī and Pīr-qulī _Sīstānī_; our
left was Muḥammad Sl. Mīrzā, Mahdī Khwāja, `Ādil Sulṯān, Shāh Mīr
Ḥusain, Sl. Junaid _Barlās_, Qūtlūq-qadam, Jān Beg, Pay-master Muḥammad,
and Shāh Ḥusain (of) Yāragī _Mughūl Ghānchī_(?).[1672] The right hand of
the centre[1673] was Chīn-tīmūr Sulṯān, Sulaimān Mīrzā,[1674] Muḥammadī
Kūkūldāsh, Shāh Manṣūr _Barlās_, Yūnas-i-`alī, Darwīsh-i-muḥammad
_Sārbān_ and `Abdu'l-lāh the librarian. The left of the centre was
Khalīfa, Khwāja Mīr-i-mīrān, Secretary Aḥmadī, Tardī Beg (brother) of
Qūj Beg, Khalīfa's Muḥibb-i-`alī and Mīrzā Beg Tarkhān. The advance was
Khusrau Kūkūldāsh and Muḥ. `Alī _Jang-jang_. `Abdu'l-'azīz the Master
of the Horse was posted as the reserve. For the turning-party
(_tūlghuma_) at the point of the right wing,[1675] we fixed on Red Walī
and Malik Qāsim (brother) of Bābā _Qashqa_, with their Mughūls; for the
turning-party at the point of the left wing, we arrayed Qarā-qūzī,
Abū'l-muḥammad the lance-player, Shaikh Jamāl _Bārīn's_ Shaikh `Alī,
Mahndī(?) and Tīngrī-bīrdī _Bashaghī_(?) _Mughūl_; these two parties,
directly the enemy got near, were to turn his rear, one from the right,
the other from the left. [Sidenote: Fol. 266b.]
When the dark mass of the enemy first came in sight, he seemed to
incline towards our right; `Abdu'l-`azīz, who was the right-reserve, was
sent therefore to reinforce the right. From the time that Sl. Ibrāhīm's
blackness first appeared, he moved swiftly, straight for us, without a
check, until he saw the dark mass of our men, when his pulled up and,
observing our formation and array,[1676] made as if asking, "To stand or
not? To advance or not?" They could not stand; nor could they make their
former swift advance.
Our orders were for the turning-parties to wheel from right and left to
the enemy's rear, to discharge arrows and to engage in the fight; and
for the right and left (wings) to advance and join battle with him. The
turning-parties wheeled round and began to rain arrows down. Mahdī
Khwāja was the first of the left to engage; he was faced by a troop
having an elephant with it; his men's flights of arrows forced it to
retire. To reinforce the left I sent Secretary Aḥmadī and also Qūj Beg's
Tardī Beg and Khalīfa's Muḥibb-i-'alī. On the right also there was some
stubborn fighting. Orders were given for Muḥammadī Kūkūldāsh, Shāh
Manṣūr _Barlās_, Yūnas-i-`alī and `Abdu'l-lāh to engage those facing
them in front of the centre. From that same position Ustād `Alī-qulī
made good discharge of _firingī_ shots;[1677]
Musṯafa the commissary for his part made excellent discharge [Sidenote:
Fol. 267.] of _zarb-zan_ shots from the left hand of the centre. Our
right, left, centre and turning-parties having surrounded the enemy,
rained arrows down on him and fought ungrudgingly. He made one or two
small charges on our right and left but under our men's arrows, fell
back on his own centre. His right and left hands (_qūl_) were massed in
such a crowd that they could neither move forward against us nor force a
way for flight.
When the incitement to battle had come, the Sun was spear-high; till
mid-day fighting had been in full force; noon passed, the foe was
crushed in defeat, our friends rejoicing and gay. By God's mercy and
kindness, this difficult affair was made easy for us! In one half-day,
that armed mass was laid upon the earth. Five or six thousand men were
killed in one place close to Ibrāhīm. Our estimate of the other dead,
lying all over the field, was 15 to 16,000, but it came to be known,
later in Āgra from the statements of Hindūstānīs, that 40 or 50,000 may
have died in that battle.[1678]
The foe defeated, pursuit and unhorsing of fugitives began. Our men
brought in amīrs of all ranks and the chiefs they captured; _mahauts_
made offering of herd after herd of elephants.
Ibrāhīm was thought to have fled; therefore, while pursuing [Sidenote:
Fol. 267b.] the enemy, we told off Qismatāī Mīrzā, Bābā _chuhra_ and
Būjka of the _khaṣa-tābīn_[1679] to lead swift pursuit to Āgra and try
to take him. We passed through his camp, looked into his own enclosure
(_sarācha_) and quarters, and dismounted on the bank of standing-water
(_qarā-sū_).
It was the Afternoon Prayer when Khalīfa's younger brother-in-law T̤āhir
Tībrī[1680] who had found Ibrāhīm's body in a heap of dead, brought in
his head.
(_x. Detachments sent to occupy Dihlī and Āgra._)
On that very same day we appointed Humāyūn Mīrzā[1681] to ride fast and
light to Āgra with Khwāja Kalān, Muḥammadī, Shāh Manṣūr _Barlās_,
Yūnas-i-`alī, `Abdu'l-lah and Treasurer Walī, to get the place into
their hands and to mount guard over the treasure. We fixed on Mahdī
Khwāja, with Muḥammad Sl. Mīrza, `Ādil Sulṯān, Sl. Junaid _Barlās_ and
Qūtlūq-qadam to leave their baggage, make sudden incursion on Dihlī, and
keep watch on the treasuries.[1682]
(_April 21st_) We marched on next day and when we had gone 2 miles,
dismounted, for the sake of the horses, on the bank of the Jūn (Jumna).
(_April 24th_) On Tuesday (Rajab 12th), after we had halted on two
nights and had made the circuit of Shaikh Niẓāmu'd-dīn _Auliyā_'s
tomb[1683] we dismounted on the bank of the Jūn over against
Dihlī.[1684] That same night, being Wednesday-eve, we made an excursion
into the fort of Dihlī and there spent the night.
(_April 25th_) Next day (Wednesday Rajab 13th) I made the circuit of
Khwāja Quṯbu'd-dīn's[1685] tomb and visited the tombs and residences of
Sl. Ghiyāṣu'd-dīn _Balban_[1686] and Sl. `Alāu'u'd-dīn [Sidenote: Fol.
268.] _Khiljī_,[1687] his Minār, and the Ḥauẓ-shamsī, Ḥauẓ-i-khaṣ and
the tombs and gardens of Sl. Buhlūl and Sl. Sikandar (_Lūdī_). Having
done this, we dismounted at the camp, went on a boat, and there _`araq_
was drunk.
We bestowed the Military Collectorate (_shiqdārlīghī_) of Dihlī on Red
Walī, made Dost Dīwān in the Dihlī district, sealed the treasuries, and
made them over to their charge.
(_April 26th_) On Thursday we dismounted on the bank of the Jūn, over
against Tūghlūqābād.[1688]
(_y. The khuṯba read for Bābur in Dihlī._)
(_April 27th_) On Friday (Rajab 15th) while we remained on the same
ground, Maulānā Maḥmūd and Shaikh Zain went with a few others into Dihlī
for the Congregational Prayer, read the _khuṯba_ in my name, distributed
a portion of money to the poor and needy,[1689] and returned to camp.
(_April 28th_) Leaving that ground on Saturday (Rajab 16th), we advanced
march by march for Āgra. I made an excursion to Tūghlūqābād and rejoined
the camp.
(_May 4th_) On Friday (Rajab 22nd), we dismounted at the mansion
(_manzil_) of Sulaimān _Farmulī_ in a suburb of Āgra, but as the place
was far from the fort, moved on the following day to Jalāl Khān
_Jig:hat's_ house.
On Humāyūn's arrival at Āgra, ahead of us, the garrison had made excuses
and false pretexts (about surrender). He and his noticing the want of
discipline there was, said, "The long hand may be laid on the Treasury"!
and so sat down to watch the roads out of Āgra till we should come.
(_z. The great diamond._)
In Sultan Ibrāhīm's defeat the Rāja of Gūālīār Bikramājīt the Hindū had
gone to hell.[1690] [Sidenote: Fol. 268b.]
(_Author's note on Bikramājīt._) The ancestors of Bikramājīt
had ruled in Gūālīār for more than a hundred years.[1691]
Sikandar (_Lūdī_) had sat down in Āgra for several years in
order to take the fort; later on, in Ibrāhīm's time, `Aẕim
Humāyūn _Sarwānī_[1692] had completely invested it for some
while; following this, it was taken on terms under which
Shamsābād was given in exchange for it.[1693]
Bikramājīt's children and family were in Āgra at the time of Ibrāhīm's
defeat. When Humāyūn reached Āgra, they must have been planning to flee,
but his postings of men (to watch the roads) prevented this and guard
was kept over them. Humāyūn himself did not let them go (_bārghālī
qūīmās_). They made him a voluntary offering of a mass of jewels and
valuables amongst which was the famous diamond which `Alāu'u'd-dīn must
have brought.[1694] Its reputation is that every appraiser has estimated
its value at two and a half days' food for the whole world. Apparently
it weighs 8 _mis̤qāls_.[1695] Humāyūn offered it to me when I arrived at
Āgra; I just gave it him back.
(_aa. Ibrāhīm's mother and entourage._)
Amongst men of mark who were in the fort, there were Malik Dād _Karānī_,
Millī _Sūrdūk_ and Fīrūz Khān _Mīwātī_. They, being convicted of false
dealing, were ordered out for capital punishment. Several persons
interceded for Malik Dād _Karānī_ and four or five days passed in
comings and goings before the matter was arranged. We then shewed to
them (all?) kindness and favour in agreement with the petition made for
them, and we restored them all their goods.[1696] A _pargana_ worth 7
_laks_[1697] was bestowed on Ibrāhīm's mother; _parganas_ were given
also to these begs of his.[1698] She was sent out of the fort with her
old servants and given encamping-ground (_yūrt_) two miles below
[Sidenote: Fol. 269.] Āgra.
(_May 10th_) I entered Āgra at the Afternoon Prayer of Thursday (Rajab
28th) and dismounted at the mansion (_manzil_) of Sl. Ibrāhīm.
EXPEDITIONS OF TRAMONTANE MUḤAMMADANS INTO HIND.
(_a. Bābur's five attempts on Hindūstān._)
From the date 910 at which the country of Kābul was conquered, down to
now (932 AH.) (my) desire for Hindūstān had been constant, but owing
sometimes to the feeble counsels of begs, sometimes to the
non-accompaniment of elder and younger brethren,[1699] a move on
Hindūstān had not been practicable and its territories had remained
unsubdued. At length no such obstacles were left; no beg, great or small
(_beg begāt_) of lower birth,[1700] could speak an opposing word. In 925
AH. (1519 AD.) we led an army out and, after taking Bajaur by storm in
2-3 _garī_ (44-66 minutes), and making a general massacre of its people,
went on into Bhīra. Bhīra we neither over-ran nor plundered; we imposed
a ransom on its people, taking from them in money and goods to the value
of 4 _laks_ of _shāhrukhīs_ and having shared this out to the army and
auxiliaries, returned to Kābul. From then till now we laboriously held
tight[1701] to Hindūstān, five times leading an army into it.[1702] The
fifth time, God the Most High, by his own mercy and favour, made such a
foe as Sl. Ibrāhīm the vanquished and loser, such a realm as Hindūstān
our conquest and possession.
(_b. Three invaders from Tramontana._)
From the time of the revered Prophet down till now[1703] three men from
that side[1704] have conquered and ruled Hindūstān. Sl. Maḥmūd
_Ghāzī_[1705] was the first, who and whose descendants sat long on the
seat of government in Hindūstān. Sl. Shihābu'd-dīn [Sidenote: Fol.
269b.] of Ghūr was the second,[1706] whose slaves and dependants royally
shepherded[1707] this realm for many years. I am the third.
But my task was not like the task of those other rulers. For why?
Because Sl. Maḥmūd, when he conquered Hindūstān, had the throne of
Khurāsān subject to his rule, vassal and obedient to him were the
sulṯāns of Khwārizm and the Marches (_Dāru'l-marz_), and under his hand
was the ruler of Samarkand. Though his army may not have numbered 2
_laks_, what question is there that it[1708] was one. Then again, rājas
were his opponents; all Hindūstān was not under one supreme head
(_pādshāh_), but each rāja ruled independently in his own country. Sl.
Shihābu'd-dīn again,—though he himself had no rule in Khurāsān, his
elder brother Ghiyās̱u'd-dīn had it. The _T̤abaqāt-i-nāṣirī_[1709]
brings it forward that he once led into Hindūstān an army of 120,000
men and horse in mail.[1710] His opponents also were rāīs and rājas; one
man did not hold all Hindūstān.
That time we came to Bhīra, we had at most some 1500 to 2000 men. We had
made no previous move on Hindūstān with an army equal to that which came
the fifth time, when we beat Sl. Ibrāhīm and conquered the realm of
Hindūstān, the total written down for which, taking one retainer with
another, and [Sidenote: Fol. 270.] with traders and servants, was
12,000. Dependent on me were the countries of Badakhshān, Qūndūz, Kābul
and Qandahār, but no reckonable profit came from them, rather it was
necessary to reinforce them fully because several lie close to an enemy.
Then again, all Māwarā'u'n-nahr was in the power of the Aūzbeg khāns and
sulṯāns, an ancient foe whose armies counted up to 100,000. Moreover
Hindūstān, from Bhīra to Bihār, was in the power of the Afghāns and in
it Sl. Ibrāhīm was supreme. In proportion to his territory his army
ought to have been 5 _laks_, but at that time the Eastern amīrs were in
hostility to him. His army was estimated at 100,000 and people said his
elephants and those of his amīrs were 1000.
Under such conditions, in this strength, and having in my rear 100,000
old enemies such as are the Aūzbegs, we put trust in God and faced the
ruler of such a dense army and of domains so wide. As our trust was in
Him, the most high God did not make our labour and hardships vain, but
defeated that powerful foe and conquered that broad realm. Not as due to
strength and effort of our own do we look upon this good fortune, but as
had solely through God's pleasure and kindness. We know that this
happiness was not the fruit of our own ambition and resolve, but that it
was purely from His mercy and favour.
DESCRIPTION OF HINDŪSTĀN.
(_a. Hindūstān._)
The country of Hindūstān is extensive, full of men, and full [Sidenote:
Fol. 270b.] of produce. On the east, south, and even on the west, it
ends at its great enclosing ocean (_muḥiṯ daryā-sī-gha_). On the north
it has mountains which connect with those of Hindū-kush, Kāfiristān and
Kashmīr. North-west of it lie Kābul, Ghaznī and Qandahār. Dihlī is held
(_aīrīmīsh_) to be the capital of the whole of Hindūstān. From the death
of Shihābu'd-dīn _Ghūrī_ (d. 602 AH.-1206 AD.) to the latter part of the
reign of Sl. Fīrūz Shāh (_Tūghlūq Turk_ d. 790 AH.-1388 AD.), the
greater part of Hindūstān must have been under the rule of the sulṯāns
of Dihlī.
(_b. Rulers contemporary with Bābur's conquest._)
At the date of my conquest of Hindūstān it was governed by five Musalmān
rulers (_pādshāh_)[1711] and two Pagans (_kāfir_). These were the
respected and independent rulers, but there were also, in the hills and
jungles, many rāīs and rājas, held in little esteem (_kīchīk karīm_).
First, there were the Afghāns who had possession of Dihlī, the capital,
and held the country from Bhīra to Bihār. Jūnpūr, before their time, had
been in possession of Sl. Ḥusain _Sharqī_ (Eastern)[1712] whose dynasty
Hindūstānīs call Pūrabī (Eastern). His ancestors will have been
cup-bearers in the presence of Sl. Fīrūz Shāh and those (Tūghlūq)
sulṯāns; they became supreme in Jūnpūr after his death.[1713] At that
time Dihlī was in the hands of Sl. `Alāu'u'd-dīn (`Ālam Khān) of the
Sayyid dynasty to whose ancestor Tīmūr Beg had given it when, after
having captured it, he went away.[1714] Sl. Buhlūl _Lūdī_ and his son
(Sikandar) got possession of the capital Jūnpūr and the capital Dihlī,
and brought both under one government (881 AH.-1476 AD.).
Secondly, there was Sl. Muḥammad Muz̤affer in Gujrāt; he departed from
the world a few days before the defeat of Sl. Ibrāhīm. He was skilled in
the Law, a ruler (_pādshāh_) seeking [Sidenote: Fol. 271.] after
knowledge, and a constant copyist of the Holy Book. His dynasty people
call Tānk.[1715] His ancestors also will have been wine-servers to Sl.
Fīrūz Shāh and those (Tūghlūq) sulṯāns; they became possessed of Gujrāt
after his death.
Thirdly, there were the Bāhmanīs of the Dakkan (Deccan, _i.e._ South),
but at the present time no independent authority is left them; their
great begs have laid hands on the whole country, and must be asked for
whatever is needed.[1716]
Fourthly, there was Sl. Maḥmūd in the country of Malwā, which people
call also Mandāū.[1717] His dynasty they call Khilīj (_Turk_). Rānā
Sangā had defeated Sl. Maḥmūd and taken possession of most of his
country. This dynasty also has become feeble. Sl. Maḥmūd's ancestors
also must have been cherished by Sl. Fīrūz Shāh; they became possessed
of the Malwā country after his death.[1718]
Fifthly, there was Naṣrat Shāh[1719] in the country of Bengal. His
father (Ḥusain Shāh), a sayyid styled `Alāu'u'd-dīn, had ruled in Bengal
and Naṣrat Shāh attained to rule by inheritance. A surprising custom in
Bengal is that hereditary succession is rare. The royal office is
permanent and there are permanent offices of amīrs, wazīrs and
manṣab-dārs (officials). It is the office that Bengalis regard with
respect. Attached to each office is a body of obedient, subordinate
retainers and servants. If the royal heart demand that a person should
be dismissed [Sidenote: Fol. 271b.] and another be appointed to sit in
his place, the whole body of subordinates attached to that office become
the (new) office-holder's. There is indeed this peculiarity of the royal
office itself that any person who kills the ruler (_pādshāh_) and seats
himself on the throne, becomes ruler himself; amīrs, wazīrs, soldiers
and peasants submit to him at once, obey him, and recognize him for the
rightful ruler his predecessor in office had been.[1720] Bengalis say,
"We are faithful to the throne; we loyally obey whoever occupies it."
As for instance, before the reign of Naṣrat Shāh's father `Alāu'u'd-dīn,
an Abyssinian (_Ḥabshī_, named Muz̤affar Shāh) had killed his sovereign
(Maḥmūd Shāh _Ilyās_), mounted the throne and ruled for some time.
`Alāu'u'd-dīn killed that Abyssinian, seated himself on the throne and
became ruler. When he died, his son (Naṣrat) became ruler by
inheritance. Another Bengali custom is to regard it as a disgraceful
fault in a new ruler if he expend and consume the treasure of his
predecessors. On coming to rule he must gather treasure of his own. To
amass treasure Bengalis regard as a glorious distinction. Another custom
in Bengal is that from ancient times _parganas_ have been assigned to
meet the charges of the treasury, stables, and all royal expenditure and
to defray these charges no impost is laid on other lands.
These five, mentioned above, were the great Musalmān rulers, honoured in
Hindūstān, many-legioned, and broad-landed. Of the Pagans the greater
both in territory and army, is the Rāja of Bījānagar.[1721] [Sidenote:
Fol. 272.]
The second is Rānā Sangā who in these latter days had grown great by his
own valour and sword. His original country was Chitūr; in the downfall
from power of the Mandāū sulṯāns, he became possessed of many of their
dependencies such as Rantanbūr, Sārangpūr, Bhīlsān and Chandīrī.
Chandīrī I stormed in 934 AH. (1528 A.D.)[1722] and, by God's pleasure,
took it in a few hours; in it was Rānā Sangā's great and trusted man
Midnī Rāo; we made general massacre of the Pagans in it and, as will be
narrated, converted what for many years had been a mansion of hostility,
into a mansion of Islām.
There are very many rāīs and rājas on all sides and quarters of
Hindūstān, some obedient to Islām, some, because of their remoteness or
because their places are fastnesses, not subject to Musalmān rule.
(_c. Of Hindūstān._)
Hindūstān is of the first climate, the second climate, and the third
climate; of the fourth climate it has none. It is a wonderful country.
Compared with our countries it is a different world; its mountains,
rivers, jungles and deserts, its towns, its cultivated lands, its
animals and plants, its peoples and their tongues, its rains, and its
winds, are all different. In some respects the hot-country (_garm-sīl_)
that depends on Kābul, is like Hindūstān, but in others, it is
different. Once the water of Sind is crossed, everything is in the
Hindūstān way (_ṯāriq_) [Sidenote: Fol. 272b.] land, water, tree, rock,
people and horde, opinion and custom.
(_d. Of the northern mountains._)
After crossing the Sind-river (eastwards), there are countries, in the
northern mountains mentioned above, appertaining to Kashmīr and once
included in it, although most of them, as for example, Paklī and
Shahmang (?), do not now obey it. Beyond Kashmīr there are countless
peoples and hordes, _parganas_ and cultivated lands, in the mountains.
As far as Bengal, as far indeed as the shore of the great ocean, the
peoples are without break. About this procession of men no-one has been
able to give authentic information in reply to our enquiries and
investigations. So far people have been saying that they call these
hill-men Kas.[1723] It has struck me that as a Hindūstānī pronounces
_shīn_ as _sīn_ (_i.e._ _sh_ as _s_), and as Kashmīr is the one
respectable town in these mountains, no other indeed being heard of,
Hindūstānīs might pronounce it Kasmīr.[1724] These people trade in
musk-bags, _b:ḥrī-qūṯās_,[1725] saffron, lead and copper.
Hindīs call these mountains Sawālak-parbat. In the Hindī tongue
_sawāī-lak_ means one lak and a quarter, that is, 125,000, and _parbat_
means a hill, which makes 125,000 hills.[1726] The snow on these
mountains never lessens; it is seen white from many districts of Hind,
as, for example, Lāhor, Sihrind and Saṃbal. The range, which in Kābul is
known as Hindū-kush, comes from Kābul eastwards into Hindūstān, with
slight inclination to the south. The Hindūstānāt[1727] are to the south
of it. Tībet lies to the north of it and of that unknown horde called
Kas. [Sidenote: Fol. 273.]
(_e. Of rivers._)
Many rivers rise in these mountains and flow through Hindūstān. Six rise
north of Sihrind, namely Sind, Bahat (Jīlam), Chān-āb [_sic_], Rāwī,
Bīāh, and Sutluj[1728]; all meet near Multān, flow westwards under the
name of Sind, pass through the Tatta country and fall into the
`Umān(-sea).
Besides these six there are others, such as Jūn (Jumna), Gang (Ganges),
Rahap (Raptī?), Gūmtī, Gagar (Ghaggar), Sirū, Gandak, and many more; all
unite with the Gang-daryā, flow east under its name, pass through the
Bengal country, and are poured into the great ocean. They all rise in
the Sawālak-parbat.
Many rivers rise in the Hindūstān hills, as, for instance, Chaṃbal,
Banās, Bītwī, and Sūn (Son). There is no snow whatever on these
mountains. Their waters also join the Gang-daryā.
(_f. Of the Arāvallī._)
Another Hindūstān range runs north and south. It begins in the Dihlī
country at a small rocky hill on which is Fīrūz Shāh's residence, called
Jahān-nāma,[1729] and, going on from there, appears near Dihlī in
detached, very low, scattered here and there, rocky [Sidenote: Fol.
273b.] little hills.[1730] Beyond Mīwāt, it enters the Bīāna country.
The hills of Sīkrī, Bārī and Dūlpūr are also part of this same including
(tūtā) range. The hills of Gūālīār—they write it Gālīūr—although they do
not connect with it, are off-sets of this range; so are the hills of
Rantanbūr, Chitūr, Chandīrī, and Mandāū. They are cut off from it in
some places by 7 to 8 _kurohs_ (14 to 16 m.). These hills are very low,
rough, rocky and jungly. No snow whatever falls on them. They are the
makers, in Hindūstān, of several rivers.
(_g. Irrigation._)
The greater part of the Hindūstān country is situated on level land.
Many though its towns and cultivated lands are, it nowhere has running
waters.[1731] Rivers and, in some places, standing-waters are its
"running-waters" (_āqār-sūlār_). Even where, as for some towns, it is
practicable to convey water by digging channels (_ārīq_), this is not
done. For not doing it there may be several reasons, one being that
water is not at all a necessity in cultivating crops and orchards.
Autumn crops grow by the downpour of the rains themselves; and strange
it is that spring crops grow even when no rain falls. To young trees
water is made to flow by means of buckets or a wheel. They are given
water constantly during two or three years; after which they need no
more. Some vegetables are watered constantly.
In Lāhor, Dībālpūr and those parts, people water by means of a wheel.
They make two circles of ropes long enough to suit the depth of the
well, fix strips of wood between them, and on these fasten pitchers. The
ropes with the wood and attached [Sidenote: Fol. 274.] pitchers are put
over the well-wheel. At one end of the wheel-axle a second wheel is
fixed, and close (_qāsh_) to it another on an upright axle. This last
wheel the bullock turns; its teeth catch in the teeth of the second, and
thus the wheel with the pitchers is turned. A trough is set where the
water empties from the pitchers and from this the water is conveyed
everywhere.
In Āgra, Chandwār, Bīāna and those parts, again, people water with a
bucket; this is a laborious and filthy way. At the well-edge they set up
a fork of wood, having a roller adjusted between the forks, tie a rope
to a large bucket, put the rope over the roller, and tie its other end
to the bullock. One person must drive the bullock, another empty the
bucket. Every time the bullock turns after having drawn the bucket out
of the well, that rope lies on the bullock-track, in pollution of urine
and dung, before it descends again into the well. To some crops needing
water, men and women carry it by repeated efforts in pitchers.[1732]
(_h. Other particulars about Hindūstān._)
The towns and country of Hindūstān are greatly wanting in charm. Its
towns and lands are all of one sort; there are no walls to the orchards
(_bāghāt_), and most places are on the dead level plain. Under the
monsoon-rains the banks of some of its rivers and torrents are worn into
deep channels, difficult and [Sidenote: Fol. 274b.] troublesome to pass
through anywhere. In many parts of the plains thorny jungle grows,
behind the good defence of which the people of the _pargana_ become
stubbornly rebellious and pay no taxes.
Except for the rivers and here and there standing-waters, there is
little "running-water". So much so is this that towns and countries
subsist on the water of wells or on such as collects in tanks during the
rains.
In Hindūstān hamlets and villages, towns indeed, are depopulated and set
up in a moment! If the people of a large town, one inhabited for years
even, flee from it, they do it in such a way that not a sign or trace of
them remains in a day or a day and a half.[1733] On the other hand, if
they fix their eyes on a place in which to settle, they need not dig
water-courses or construct dams because their crops are all
rain-grown,[1734] and as the population of Hindūstān is unlimited, it
swarms in. They make a tank or dig a well; they need not build houses or
set up walls—_khas_-grass (_Andropogon muricatum_) abounds, wood is
unlimited, huts are made, and straightway there is a village or a town!
(_i. Fauna of Hindūstān:—Mammals._)
The elephant, which Hindūstānīs call _hāt(h)ī_, is one of the wild
animals peculiar to Hindūstān. It inhabits the (western?) borders of the
Kālpī country, and becomes more numerous in its wild state the further
east one goes (in Kālpī?). From this tract it is that captured elephants
are brought; in Karrah and [Sidenote: Fol. 275.] Mānikpūr
elephant-catching is the work of 30 or 40 villages.[1735] People answer
(_jawāb bīrūrlār_) for them direct to the exchequer.[1736] The elephant
is an immense animal and very sagacious. If people speak to it, it
understands; if they command anything from it, it does it. Its value is
according to its size; it is sold by measure (_qārīlāb_); the larger it
is, the higher its price. People rumour that it is heard of in some
islands as 10 _qārī_[1737] high, but in this tract it[1738] is not seen
above 4 or 5. It eats and drinks entirely with its trunk; if it lose the
trunk, it cannot live. It has two great teeth (tusks) in its upper jaw,
one on each side of its trunk; by setting these against walls and trees,
it brings them down; with these it fights and does whatever hard tasks
fall to it. People call these ivory (_`āj_, var. _ghāj_); they are
highly valued by Hindūstānīs. The elephant has no hair.[1739] It is much
relied on by Hindūstānīs, accompanying every troop of their armies. It
has some useful qualities:—it crosses great rivers with ease, carrying a
mass of baggage, and three or four have gone dragging without trouble
the cart of the mortar (_qazān_) it takes four or five hundred men to
haul.[1740] But its stomach is large; one elephant eats the corn
(_būghūz_) of two strings (_qiṯār_) of camels.[1741]
The rhinoceros is another. This also is a large animal, equal [Sidenote:
Fol. 275b.] in bulk to perhaps three buffaloes. The opinion current in
those countries (Tramontana) that it can lift an elephant on its horn,
seems mistaken. It has a single horn on its nose, more than nine inches
(_qārīsh_) long; one of two _qārīsh_ is not seen.[1742] Out of one large
horn were made a drinking-vessel[1743] and a dice-box, leaving over [the
thickness of] 3 or 4 hands.[1744] The rhinoceros' hide is very thick;
an arrow shot from a stiff bow, drawn with full strength right up to the
arm-pit, if it pierce at all, might penetrate 4 inches (_aīlīk_, hands).
From the sides (_qāsh_) of its fore and hind legs,[1745] folds hang
which from a distance look like housings thrown over it. It resembles
the horse more than it does any other animal.[1746] As the horse has a
small stomach (appetite?), so has the rhinoceros; as in the horse a
piece of bone (pastern?) grows in place of small bones (T. _āshūq_, Fr.
_osselets_ (Zenker), knuckles), so one grows in the rhinoceros; as in
the horse's hand (_aīlīk_, Pers. _dast_) there is _kūmūk_ (or _gūmūk_, a
_tibia_, or marrow), so there is in the rhinoceros.[1747] It is more
ferocious than the elephant and cannot be made obedient and submissive.
There are masses of it in the Parashāwar and Hashnagar jungles, so too
between the Sind-river and the jungles of the Bhīra country. Masses
there are also on the banks of [Sidenote: Fol. 276.] the Sārū-river in
Hindūstān. Some were killed in the Parashāwar and Hashnagar jungles in
our moves on Hindūstān. It strikes powerfully with its horn; men and
horses enough have been horned in those hunts.[1748] In one of them the
horse of a _chuhra_ (brave) named Maqṣūd was tossed a spear's-length,
for which reason the man was nick-named the rhino's aim
(_maqṣūd-i-karg_).
The wild-buffalo[1749] is another. It is much larger than the (domestic)
buffalo and its horns do not turn back in the same way.[1750] It is a
mightily destructive and ferocious animal.
The _nīla-gāū_ (blue-bull)[1751] is another. It may stand as high as a
horse but is somewhat lighter in build. The male is bluish-gray, hence,
seemingly, people call it nīla-gāū. It has two rather small horns. On
its throat is a tuft of hair, nine inches long; (in this) it resembles
the yak.[1752] Its hoof is cleft (_aīrī_) like the hoof of cattle. The
doe is of the colour of the _būghū-marāl_[1753]; she, for her part, has
no horns and is plumper than the male.
The hog-deer (_kotah-pāīcha_) is another.[1754] It may be of the size of
the white deer (_āq kiyīk_). It has short legs, hence its name,
little-legged. Its horns are like a _būghū_'s but smaller; like the
_būghū_ it casts them every year. Being rather a poor runner, it does
not leave the jungle.
Another is a deer (_kiyīk_) after the fashion of the male deer (_aīrkākī
hūna_) of the _jīrān_.[1755] Its back is black, its belly white, its
horns longer than the _hūna's_, but more crooked. A Hindūstānī
[Sidenote: Fol. 276b.] calls it _kalahara_,[1756] a word which may have
been originally _kālā-haran_, black-buck, and which has been softened in
pronunciation to _kalahara_. The doe is light-coloured. By means of this
_kalahara_ people catch deer; they fasten a noose (_ḥalqa_) on its
horns, hang a stone as large as a ball[1757] on one of its feet, so as
to keep it from getting far away after it has brought about the capture
of a deer, and set it opposite wild deer when these are seen. As these
(_kalahara_) deer are singularly combative, advance to fight is made at
once. The two deer strike with their horns and push one another
backwards and forwards, during which the wild one's horns become
entangled in the net that is fast to the tame one's. If the wild one
would run away, the tame one does not go; it is impeded also by the
stone on its foot. People take many deer in this way; after capture they
tame them and use them in their turn to take others;[1758] they also set
them to fight at home; the deer fight very well.
There is a smaller deer (_kiyīk_) on the Hindūstān hill-skirts, as large
may-be as the one year's lamb of the _arqārghalcha_ (_Ovis poli_).
The _gīnī-cow_[1759] is another, a very small one, perhaps as large as
the _qūchqār_ (ram) of those countries (Tramontana). Its flesh is very
tender and savoury.
The monkey (_maimūn_) is another—a Hindūstānī calls it _bandar_. Of this
too there are many kinds, one being what people [Sidenote: Fol. 277.]
take to those countries. The jugglers (_lūlī_) teach them tricks. This
kind is in the mountains of Nūr-dara, in the skirt-hills of Safīd-koh
neighbouring on Khaibar, and from there downwards all through Hindūstān.
It is not found higher up. Its hair is yellow, its face white, its tail
not very long.—Another kind, not found in Bajaur, Sawād and those parts,
is much larger than the one taken to those countries (Tramontana). Its
tail is very long, its hair whitish, its face quite black. It is in the
mountains and jungles of Hindūstān.[1760]—Yet another kind is
distinguished (_būlā dūr_), quite black in hair, face and limbs.[1761]
The _nawal_ (_nūl_)[1762] is another. It may be somewhat smaller than
the _kīsh_. It climbs trees. Some call it the _mūsh-i-khūrma_
(palm-rat). It is thought lucky.
A mouse (T. _sīchqān_) people call _galāhrī_ (squirrel) is another. It
is just always in trees, running up and down with amazing alertness and
speed.[1763]
(_j. Fauna of Hindūstān:—Birds._)[1764]
The peacock (Ar. _ṯāūs_) is one. It is a beautifully coloured and
splendid animal. Its form (_andām_) is not equal to its colouring and
beauty. Its body may be as large as the crane's (_tūrna_) but it is not
so tall. On the head of both cock and hen are 20 to 30 feathers rising
some 2 or 3 inches high. The hen has neither colour nor beauty. The head
of the cock has an iridescent collar (_ṯauq sūsanī_); its neck is of a
beautiful blue; [Sidenote: Fol. 277b.] below the neck, its back is
painted in yellow, parrot-green, blue and violet colours. The
flowers[1765] on its back are much the smaller; below the back as far as
the tail-tips are [larger] flowers painted in the same colours. The tail
of some peacocks grows to the length of a man's extended arms.[1766] It
has a small tail under its flowered feathers, like the tail of other
birds; this ordinary tail and its primaries[1767] are red. It is in
Bajaur and Sawād and below them; it is not in Kunur [Kūnūr] and the
Lamghānāt or any place above them. Its flight is feebler than the
pheasant's (_qīrghāwal_); it cannot do more than make one or two short
flights.[1768] On account of its feeble flight, it frequents the hills
or jungles, which is curious, since jackals abound in the jungles it
frequents. What damage might these jackals not do to birds that trail
from jungle to jungle, tails as long as a man's stretch (_qūlāch_)!
Hindūstānīs call the peacock _mor_. Its flesh is lawful food, according
to the doctrine of Imām Abū Ḥanīfa; it is like that of the partridge and
not unsavoury, but is eaten with instinctive aversion, in the way
camel-flesh is.
The parrot (H. _ṯūṯī_) is another. This also is in Bajaur and countries
lower down. It comes into Nīngnahār and the Lamghānāt in the heats when
mulberries ripen; it is not there at other times. It is of many, many
kinds. One sort is that which people carry into those (Tramontane)
countries. They [Sidenote: Fol. 278.] make it speak words.—Another sort
is smaller; this also they make speak words. They call it the
jungle-parrot. It is numerous in Bajaur, Sawād and that neighbourhood,
so much so that 5 or 6000 fly in one flock (_khail_). Between it and the
one first-named the difference is in bulk; in colouring they are just
one and the same.—Another sort is still smaller than the jungle-parrot.
Its head is quite red, the top of its wings (_i.e._ the primaries) is
red also; the tip of its tail for two hands'-thickness is
lustrous.[1769] The head of some parrots of this kind is iridescent
(_sūsanī_). It does not become a talker. People call it the Kashmīr
parrot.—Another sort is rather smaller than the jungle-parrot; its beak
is black; round its neck is a wide black collar; its primaries are red.
It is an excellent learner of words.—We used to think that whatever a
parrot or a _shārak_ (_mīna_) might say of words people had taught it,
it could not speak of any matter out of its own head. At this
juncture[1770] one of my immediate servants Abū'l-qāsim _Jalāīr_,
reported a singular thing to me. A parrot of this sort whose cage must
have been covered up, said, "Uncover my face; I am stifling." And
another time when palkī bearers sat down to take breath, this parrot,
presumably on hearing wayfarers pass by, said, "Men are going past, are
you not going on?" Let credit rest with the narrator,[1771] but
never-the-less, so long as a person has not heard with his own ears, he
may not believe!—Another kind is of a beautiful [Sidenote: Fol. 278b.]
full red; it has other colours also, but, as nothing is distinctly
remembered about them, no description is made. It is a very beautiful
bird, both in colour and form. People are understood to make this also
speak words.[1772] Its defect is a most unpleasant, sharp voice, like
the drawing of broken china on a copper plate.[1773]
The (P.) _shārak_[1774] is another. It is numerous in the Lamghānāt and
abounds lower down, all over Hindūstān. Like the parrot, it is of many
kinds.—The kind that is numerous in the Lamghānāt has a black head; its
primaries (_qānāt_) are spotted, its body rather larger and
thicker[1775] than that of the (T.) _chūghūr-chūq_.[1776] People teach
it to speak words.—Another kind they call _p:ndāwalī_[1777]; they bring
it from Bengal; it is black all over and of much greater bulk than the
_shārak_ (here, house-_mīna_). Its bill and foot are yellow and on each
ear are yellow wattles which hang down and have a bad appearance.[1778]
It learns to speak well and clearly.—Another kind of _shārak_ is
slenderer than the last and is red round the eyes. It does not learn to
speak. People call it the wood-_shārak_.[1779] Again, at the time when
(934 AH.) I had made a bridge over Gang (Ganges), crossed it, and put my
adversaries to flight, a kind of _shārak_ was seen, in the neighbourhood
of Laknau and Aūd (Oude), for the first time, which had a white breast,
piebald head, and black back. This kind does not learn to speak.[1780]
The _lūja_[1781] is another. This bird they call (Ar.) _bū-qalamūn_
(chameleon) because, between head and tail, it has five or six changing
colours, resplendent (_barrāq_) like a pigeon's throat. [Sidenote: Fol.
279.] It is about as large as the _kabg-i-darī_[1782] and seems to be
the _kabg-i-darī_ of Hindūstān. As the _kabg-i-darī_ moves (_yūrūr_) on
the heads (_kulah_) of mountains, so does this. It is in the Nijr-aū
mountains of the countries of Kābul, and in the mountains lower down but
it is not found higher up. People tell this wonderful thing about
it:—When the birds, at the onset of winter, descend to the hill-skirts,
if they come over a vineyard, they can fly no further and are taken. God
knows the truth! The flesh of this bird is very savoury.
The partridge (_durrāj_)[1783] is another. This is not peculiar to
Hindūstān but is also in the _Garm-sīr_ countries[1784]; as however some
kinds are only in Hindūstān, particulars of them are given here. The
_durrāj_ (_Francolinus vulgaris_) may be of the same bulk as the
_kīklīk_[1785]; the cock's back is the colour of the hen-pheasant
(_qīrghāwal-ning māda-sī_); its throat and breast are black, with quite
white spots.[1786] A red line comes down on both sides of both
eyes.[1787] It is named from its cry[1788] which is something like _Shir
dāram shakrak_.[1789] It pronounces _shir_ short; _dāram shakrak_ it
says distinctly. Astarābād partridges are said to cry _Bāt mīnī tūtīlār_
(Quick! they have caught me). The partridge of Arabia and those parts is
understood to cry, _Bi'l_ _shakar tadawm al ni`am_ (with sugar pleasure
endures)! The hen-bird has the colour of the young pheasant. These birds
are found below Nijr-aū.—Another kind is called _kanjāl_. Its bulk may
be that of the one already described. Its voice is very like that of the
_kīklīk_ but much shriller. There is little [Sidenote: Fol. 279b.]
difference in colour between the cock and hen. It is found in
Parashāwar, Hashnagar and countries lower down, but not higher up.
The _p(h)ūl-paikār_[1790] is another. Its size may be that of the
_kabg-i-darī_; its shape is that of the house-cock, its colour that of
the hen. From forehead (_tūmāgh_) to throat it is of a beautiful colour,
quite red. It is in the Hindūstān mountains.
The wild-fowl (_ṣaḥrāī-tāūgh_)[1791] is another. It flies like a
pheasant, and is not of all colours as house-fowl are. It is in the
mountains of Bajaur and lower down, but not higher up.
The _chīlsī_ (or _jīlsī_)[1792] is another. In bulk it equals the
_p(h)ūl-paikār_ but the latter has the finer colouring. It is in the
mountains of Bajaur.
The _shām_[1793] is another. It is about as large as a house-fowl; its
colour is unique (_ghair mukarrar_).[1794] It also is in the mountains
of Bajaur.
The quail (P. _būdana_) is another. It is not peculiar to Hindūstān but
four or five kinds are so.—One is that which goes to our countries
(Tramontana), larger and more spreading than the (Hindūstān)
quail.[1795]—Another kind[1796] is smaller than the one first named. Its
primaries and tail are reddish. It flies in flocks like the _chīr_
(_Phasianus Wallichii_).—Another kind is smaller than that which goes to
our countries and is darker on throat [Sidenote: Fol. 280.] and
breast.[1797]—Another kind goes in small numbers to Kābul; it is very
small, perhaps a little larger than the yellow wag-tail
(_qārcha_)[1798]; they call it _qūrātū_ in Kābul.
The Indian bustard (P. _kharchāl_)[1799] is another. It is about as
large as the (T.) _tūghdāq_ (_Otis tarda_, the great bustard), and seems
to be the _tūghdāq_ of Hindūstān.[1800] Its flesh is delicious; of some
birds the leg is good, of others, the wing; of the bustard all the meat
is delicious and excellent.
The florican (P. _charz_)[1801] is another. It is rather less than the
_tūghdīrī_ (_houbara_)[1802]; the cock's back is like the _tūghdīrī's_,
and its breast is black. The hen is of one colour.
The Hindūstān sand-grouse (T. _bāghrī-qarā_)[1803] is another. It is
smaller and slenderer than the _bāghrī-qarā_ [_Pterocles arenarius_] of
those countries (Tramontana). Also its cry is sharper.
Of the birds that frequent water and the banks of rivers, one is the
_dīng_,[1804] an animal of great bulk, each wing measuring a _qūlāch_
(fathom). It has no plumage (_tūqī_) on head or neck; a thing like a bag
hangs from its neck; its back is black; its breast is white. It goes
sometimes to Kābul; one year people brought one they had caught. It
became very tame; if meat were thrown to it, it never failed to catch
it in its bill. Once it swallowed a six-nailed shoe, another time a
whole fowl, wings [Sidenote: Fol. 280b.] and feathers, all right down.
The _sāras_ (_Grus antigone_) is another. Turks in Hindūstān call it
_tīwa-tūrnā_ (camel-crane). It may be smaller than the _dīng_ but its
neck is rather longer. Its head is quite red.[1805] People keep this
bird at their houses; it becomes very tame.
The _mānek_[1806] is another. In stature it approaches the _sāras_, but
its bulk is less. It resembles the _lag-lag_ (_Ciconia alba_, the white
stork) but is much larger; its bill is larger and is black. Its head is
iridescent, its neck white, its wings partly-coloured; the tips and
border-feathers and under parts of the wings are white, their middle
black.
Another stork (_lag-lag_) has a white neck and all other parts black. It
goes to those countries (Tramontana). It is rather smaller than the
_lag-lag_ (_Ciconia alba_). A Hindūstānī calls it _yak-rang_ (one
colour?).
Another stork in colour and shape is exactly like the storks that go to
those countries. Its bill is blacker and its bulk much less than the
_lag-lag_'s (_Ciconia alba_).[1807]
Another bird resembles the grey heron (_aūqār_) and the _lag-lag_; but
its bill is longer than the heron's and its body smaller than the white
stork's (_lag-lag_).
Another is the large _buzak_[1808] (black ibis). In bulk it may equal
the buzzard (Turkī, _sār_). The back of its wings is white. It has a
loud cry.
The white _buzak_[1809] is another. Its head and bill are black.
[Sidenote: Fol. 281.] It is much larger than the one that goes to those
countries,[1810] but smaller than the Hindūstān _buzak_.[1811]
The _gharm-pāī_[1812] (spotted-billed duck) is another. It is larger
than the _sūna būrchīn_[1813] (mallard). The drake and duck are of one
colour. It is in Hashnagar at all seasons, sometimes it goes into the
Lamghānāt. Its flesh is very savoury.
The _shāh-murgh_ (_Sarcidiornis melanonotus_, comb duck or _nukta_) is
another. It may be a little smaller than a goose. It has a swelling on
its bill; its back is black; its flesh is excellent eating.
The _zummaj_ is another. It is about as large as the _būrgūt_ (_Aquila
chrysaetus_, the golden eagle).
The (T.) _ālā-qārgha_ of Hindūstān is another (_Corvus cornix_, the pied
crow). This is slenderer and smaller than the _ālā-qārgha_ of those
countries (Tramontana). Its neck is partly white.
Another Hindūstān bird resembles the crow (T. _qārcha_, _C. splendens_)
and the magpie (Ar. _`aqqa_). In the Lamghānāt people call it the
jungle-bird (P. _murgh-i-jangal_).[1814] Its head and breast are black;
its wings and tail reddish; its eye quite red. Having a feeble flight,
it does not come out of the jungle, whence its name.
The great bat (P. _shapara_)[1815] is another. People call it (Hindī)
_chumgādur_. It is about as large as the owl (T. _yāpālāq_, _Otus
brachyotus_), and has a head like a puppy's. When it is thinking of
lodging for the night on a tree, it takes hold of a branch, turns
head-downwards, and so remains. It has much singularity.
The magpie (Ar. _`aqqa_) is another. People call it (H.?) _matā_
(_Dendrocitta rufa_, the Indian tree-pie). It may be somewhat less than
the _`aqqa_ (_Pica rustica_), which moreover is pied black and white,
while the _matā_ is pied brown and black.[1816]
Another is a small bird, perhaps of the size of the (T.)
_sāndūlāch_.[1817] [Sidenote: Fol. 281b.] It is of a beautiful red with
a little black on its wings.
The _karcha_[1818] is another; it is after the fashion of a swallow (T.
_qārlūghāch_), but much larger and quite black.
The _kūīl_[1819] (_Eudynamys orientalis_, the koel) is another. It may
be as large as the crow (P. _zāg_) but is much slenderer. It has a kind
of song and is understood to be the bulbul of Hindūstān. Its honour with
Hindūstānīs is as great as is the bulbul's. It always stays in
closely-wooded gardens.
Another bird is after the fashion of the (Ar.) _shiqarrāk_ (_Cissa
chinensis_, the green-magpie). It clings to trees, is perhaps as large
as the green-magpie, and is parrot-green (_Gecinus striolatus_, the
little green-woodpecker?).
(_k. Fauna of Hindūstān:—Aquatic animals._)
One is the water-tiger (P. _shīr-ābī_, _Crocodilus palustris_).[1820]
This is in the standing-waters. It is like a lizard (T. _gīlās_).[1821]
People say it carries off men and even buffaloes.
The (P.) _siyāh-sār_ (black-head) is another. This also is like a
lizard. It is in all rivers of Hindūstān. One that was taken and brought
in was about 4-5 _qārī_ (_cir._ 13 feet) long and as thick perhaps as a
sheep. It is said to grow still larger. Its snout is over half a yard
long. It has rows of small teeth in its upper and lower jaws. It comes
out of the water and sinks into the mud (_bātā_).
The (Sans.) _g[h]aṛīāl_ (_Gavialus gangeticus_) is another.[1822] It is
said to grow large; many in the army saw it in the Sarū (Gogra) river.
It is said to take people; while we were on that river's banks (934-935
A.H.), it took one or two slave-women (_dādūk_), and it took three or
four camp-followers between Ghāzīpūr and Banāras. In that neighbourhood
I saw one but from a distance only and not quite clearly.
The water-hog (P. _khūk-ābī_, _Platanista gangetica_, the porpoise) is
another. This also is in all Hindūstān rivers. It comes up suddenly out
of the water; its head appears and disappears; it [Sidenote: Fol. 282.]
dives again and stays below, shewing its tail. Its snout is as long as
the _siyāh-sār's_ and it has the same rows of small teeth. Its head and
the rest of its body are fish-like. When at play in the water, it looks
like a water-carrier's bag (_mashak_). Water-hogs, playing in the Sarū,
leap right out of the water; like fish, they never leave it.
Again there is the _kalah_ (or _galah_)-fish [_bāligh_].[1823] Two bones
each about 3 inches (_aīlīk_) long, come out in a line with its ears;
these it shakes when taken, producing an extraordinary noise, whence,
seemingly, people have called it _kalah_ [or _galah_].
The flesh of Hindūstān fishes is very savoury; they have no odour
(_aīd_) or tiresomeness.[1824] They are surprisingly active. On one
occasion when people coming, had flung a net across a stream, leaving
its two edges half a yard above the water, most fish passed by leaping a
yard above it. In many rivers are little fish which fling themselves a
yard or more out of the water if there be harsh [Sidenote: Fol. 282b.]
noise or sound of feet.
The frogs of Hindūstān, though otherwise like those others (Tramontane),
run 6 or 7 yards on the face of the water.[1825]
(_l. Vegetable products of Hindūstān: Fruits._)
The mango (P. _anbah_) is one of the fruits peculiar to Hindūstān.
Hindūstānīs pronounce the _b_ in its name as though no vowel followed it
(_i.e._ Sans. _anb_);[1826] this being awkward to utter, some people
call the fruit [P.] _naghzak_[1827] as Khwāja Khusrau does:—
_Naghzak-i mā_ [var. _khẉash_] _naghz-kun-i būstān,
Naghztarīn mewa_ [var. _na`mat_]_-i-Hindūstān_.[1828]
Mangoes when good, are very good, but, many as are eaten, few are
first-rate. They are usually plucked unripe and ripened in the house.
Unripe, they make excellent condiments (_qātīq_), are good also
preserved in syrup.[1829] Taking it altogether, the mango is the best
fruit of Hindūstān. Some so praise it as to give it preference over all
fruits except the musk-melon (T. _qāwūn_), but such praise outmatches
it. It resembles the _kārdī_ peach.[1830] It ripens in the rains. It is
eaten in two ways: one is to squeeze it to a pulp, make a hole in it,
and suck out the juice,—the other, to peel and eat it like the _kārdī_
peach. Its tree grows very large[1831] and has a leaf somewhat
resembling the peach-tree's. The trunk is ill-looking and ill-shaped,
but in Bengāl and Gujrāt is heard of as growing handsome (_khūb_).[1832]
The plantain (Sans. _kelā_, _Musa sapientum_) is another.[1833] An
[Sidenote: Fol. 283.] `Arab calls it _mauz_.[1834] Its tree is not very
tall, indeed is not to be called a tree, since it is something between a
grass and a tree. Its leaf is a little like that of the
_amān-qarā_[1835] but grows about 2 yards (_qārī_) long and nearly
one broad. Out of the middle of its leaves rises, heart-like, a bud
which resembles a sheep's heart. As each leaf (petal) of this bud
expands, there grows at its base a row of 6 or 7 flowers which become
the plantains. These flowers become visible with the lengthening of the
heart-like shoot and the opening of the petals of the bud. The tree is
understood to flower once only.[1836] The fruit has two pleasant
qualities, one that it peels easily, the other that it has neither stone
nor fibre.[1837] It is rather longer and thinner than the egg-plant (P.
_bādanjān_; _Solanum melongena_). It is not very sweet; the Bengāl
plantain (_i.e._ _chīnī-champa_) is, however, said to be very sweet.
The plantain is a very good-looking tree, its broad, broad, leaves of
beautiful green having an excellent appearance.
The _anblī_ (H. _imlī_, _Tamarindus indica_, the tamarind) is another.
By this name (_anblī_) people call the _khurmā-i-hind_ (Indian
date-tree).[1838] It has finely-cut leaves (leaflets), precisely like
those of the (T.) _būīā_, except that they are not so finely-cut.[1839]
It is a very good-looking tree, giving dense shade. It grows wild in
masses too.
The (Beng.) _mahuwā_ (_Bassia latifolia_) is another.[1840] People call
it also (P.) _gul-chikān_ (or _chigān_, distilling-flower). This also is
a very large tree. Most of the wood in the houses of Hindūstānīs
[Sidenote: Fol. 283b.] is from it. Spirit (_`araq_) is distilled from
its flowers,[1841] not only so, but they are dried and eaten like
raisins, and from them thus dried, spirit is also extracted. The dried
flowers taste just like _kishmish_;[1842] they have an ill-flavour. The
flowers are not bad in their natural state[1843]; they are eatable. The
_mahuwā_ grows wild also. Its fruit is tasteless, has rather a large
seed with a thin husk, and from this seed, again,[1844] oil is
extracted.
The mimusops (Sans. _khirnī_, _Mimusops kauki_) is another. Its tree,
though not very large, is not small. The fruit is yellow and thinner
than the red jujube (T. _chīkdā_, _Elæagnus angustifolia_). It has just
the grape's flavour, but a rather bad after-taste; it is not bad,
however, and is eatable. The husk of its stone is thin.
The (Sans.) _jāman_ (_Eugenia jambolana_)[1845] is another. Its leaf,
except for being thicker and greener, is quite like the willow's (T.
_tāl_). The tree does not want for beauty. Its fruit is like a black
grape, is sourish, and not very good.
The (H.) _kamrak_ (Beng. _kamrunga_, _Averrhoa carambola_) is another.
Its fruit is five-sided, about as large as the _`ain-ālū_[1846] and some
3 inches long. It ripens to yellow; gathered unripe, it is very bitter;
gathered ripe, its bitterness has become sub-acid, not bad, not wanting
in pleasantness.[1847]
The jack-fruit (H. _kadhil_, B. _kanthal_, _Artocarpus integrifolia_) is
another.[1848] This is a fruit of singular form and flavour; it looks
[Sidenote: Fol. 284.] like a sheep's stomach stuffed and made into a
haggis (_gīpa_);[1849] and it is sickeningly-sweet. Inside it are
filbert-like stones[1850] which, on the whole, resemble dates, but are
round, not long, and have softer substance; these are eaten. The
jack-fruit is very adhesive; for this reason people are said to oil
mouth and hands before eating of it. It is heard of also as growing, not
only on the branches of its tree, but on trunk and root too.[1851] One
would say that the tree was all hung round with haggises.[1852]
The monkey-jack (H. _badhal_, B. _burhul_, _Artocarpus lacoocha_) is
another. The fruit may be of the size of a quince (var. apple). Its
smell is not bad.[1853] Unripe it is a singularly tasteless and
empty[1854] thing; when ripe, it is not so bad. It ripens soft, can be
pulled to pieces and eaten anywhere, tastes very much like a rotten
quince, and has an excellent little austere flavour.
The lote-fruit (Sans. _ber_, _Zizyphus jujuba_) is another. Its Persian
name is understood to be _kanār_.[1855] It is of several kinds: of one
the fruit is larger than the plum (_ālūcha_)[1856]; another is shaped
like the Ḥusainī grape. Most of them are not very good; we saw one in
Bāndīr (Gūālīār) that was really good. The lote-tree sheds its leaves
under the Signs _S̤aur_ and _Jauzā_ (Bull and Twins), burgeons under
_Saraṯān_ and _Asad_ (Crab and Lion) which are the true
rainy-season,—then becoming fresh and green, and it ripens its fruit
under _Dalū_ and _Ḥaut_ (Bucket _i.e._ Aquarius, and Fish).
The (Sans.) _karaūndā_ (_Carissa carandas_, the corinda) is another. It
grows in bushes after the fashion of the (T.) _chīka_ of our
country.[1857] but the _chīka_ grows on mountains, the _karaūndā_ on the
[Sidenote: Fol. 284b.] plains. In flavour it is like the rhubarb
itself,[1858] but is sweeter and less juicy.
The (Sans.) _pānīyālā_ (_Flacourtia cataphracta_)[1859] is another. It
is larger than the plum (_ālūcha_) and like the red-apple unripe.[1860]
It is a little austere and is good. The tree is taller than the
pomegranate's; its leaf is like that of the almond-tree but smaller.
The (H.) _gūlar_ (_Ficus glomerata_, the clustered fig)[1861] is
another. The fruit grows out of the tree-trunk, resembles the fig (P.
_anjīr_), but is singularly tasteless.
The (Sans.) _āmlā_ (_Phyllanthus emblica_, the myrobalan-tree) is
another. This also is a five-sided fruit.[1862] It looks like the
unblown cotton-pod. It is an astringent and ill-flavoured thing, but
confiture made of it is not bad. It is a wholesome fruit. Its tree is of
excellent form and has very minute leaves.
The (H.) _chirūnjī_ (_Buchanania latifolia_)[1863] is another. This tree
had been understood to grow in the hills, but I knew later about it,
because there were three or four clumps of it in our gardens. It is much
like the _mahuwā_. Its kernel is not bad, a thing between the walnut and
the almond, not bad! rather smaller than the pistachio and round; people
put it in custards (P. _pālūda_) and sweetmeats (Ar. _ḥalwa_).
The date-palm (P. _khurmā_, _Phœnix dactylifera_) is another. This is
not peculiar to Hindūstān, but is here described because it is not in
those countries (Tramontana). It grows in Lamghān also.[1864] Its
branches (_i.e._ leaves) grow from just one place at its top; its leaves
(_i.e._ leaflets) grow on both sides of the branches (midribs) from neck
(_būīn_) to tip; its trunk is rough and ill-coloured; [Sidenote: Fol.
285.] its fruit is like a bunch of grapes, but much larger. People say
that the date-palm amongst vegetables resembles an animal in two
respects: one is that, as, if an animal's head be cut off, its life is
taken, so it is with the date-palm, if its head is cut off, it dries
off; the other is that, as the offspring of animals is not produced
without the male, so too with the date-palm, it gives no good fruit
unless a branch of the male-tree be brought into touch with the
female-tree. The truth of this last matter is not known (to me). The
above-mentioned head of the date-palm is called its cheese. The tree so
grows that where its leaves come out is cheese-white, the leaves
becoming green as they lengthen. This white part, the so-called cheese,
is tolerable eating, not bad, much like the walnut. People make a wound
in the cheese, and into this wound insert a leaf(let), in such a way
that all liquid flowing from the wound runs down it.[1865] The tip of
the leaflet is set over the mouth of a pot suspended to the tree in such
a way that it collects whatever liquor is yielded by the wound. This
liquor is rather pleasant if drunk at once; if drunk after two or three
days, people say it is quite exhilarating (_kaifīyat_). Once when I had
gone to visit Bārī,[1866] and made an [Sidenote: Fol. 285b.] excursion
to the villages on the bank of the Chaṃbal-river, we met in with people
collecting this date-liquor in the valley-bottom. A good deal was drunk;
no hilarity was felt; much must be drunk, seemingly, to produce a little
cheer.
The coco-nut palm (P. _nārgīl_, _Cocos nucifera_) is another. An `Arab
gives it Arabic form[1867] and says _nārjīl_; Hindūstān people say
_nālīr_, seemingly by popular error.[1868] Its fruit is the Hindī-nut
from which black spoons (_qarā qāshūq_) are made and the larger ones of
which serve for guitar-bodies. The coco-palm has general resemblance to
the date-palm, but has more, and more glistening leaves. Like the
walnut, the coco-nut has a green outer husk; but its husk is of fibre on
fibre. All ropes for ships and boats and also cord for sewing boat-seams
are heard of as made from these husks. The nut, when stripped of its
husk, near one end shews a triangle of hollows, two of which are solid,
the third a nothing (_būsh_), easily pierced. Before the kernel forms,
there is fluid inside; people pierce the soft hollow and drink this; it
tastes like date-palm cheese in solution, and is not bad.
The (Sans.) _tāṛ_ (_Borassus flabelliformis_, the Palmyra-palm) is
another. Its branches (_i.e._ leaves) also are quite at its top. Just as
[Sidenote: Fol. 286.] with the date-palm, people hang a pot on it, take
its juice and drink it. They call this liquor _tāṛī_;[1869] it is said
to be more exhilarating than date liquor. For about a yard along its
branches (_i.e._ leaf-stems)[1870] there are no leaves; above this, at
the tip of the branch (stem), 30 or 40 open out like the spread palm of
the hand, all from one place. These leaves approach a yard in length.
People often write Hindī characters on them after the fashion of account
rolls (_daftar yūsūnlūq_).
The orange (Ar. _nāranj_, _Citrus aurantium_) and orange-like fruits are
others of Hindūstān.[1871] Oranges grow well in the Lamghānāt, Bajaur
and Sawād. The Lamghānāt one is smallish, has a navel,[1872] is very
agreeable, fragile and juicy. It is not at all like the orange of
Khurāsān and those parts, being so fragile that many spoil before
reaching Kābul from the Lamghānāt which may be 13-14 _yīghāch_ (65-70
miles), while the Astarābād orange, by reason of its thick skin and
scant juice, carries with [Sidenote: Fol. 286b.] less damage from there
to Samarkand, some 270-280 _yīghāch_.[1873] The Bajaur orange is about
as large as a quince, very juicy and more acid than other oranges.
Khwāja Kalān once said to me, "We counted the oranges gathered from a
single tree of this sort in Bajaur and it mounted up to 7,000." It had
been always in my mind that the word _nāranj_ was an Arabic form;[1874]
it would seem to be really so, since every-one in Bajaur and Sawād says
(P.) _nārang_.[1875]
The lime (B. _līmū_, _C. acida_) is another. It is very plentiful, about
the size of a hen's egg, and of the same shape. If a person poisoned
drink the water in which its fibres have been boiled, danger is
averted.[1876]
The citron (P. _turunj_,[1877] _C. medica_) is another of the fruits
resembling the orange. Bajaurīs and Sawādīs call it _bālang_ and hence
give the name _bālang-marabbā_ to its marmalade (_marabbā_) confiture.
In Hindūstān people call the _turunj bajaurī_.[1878] There are two kinds
of _turunj_: one is sweet, flavourless and nauseating, of no use for
eating but with peel that may be good for marmalade; it has the same
sickening sweetness as the Lamghānāt _turunj_; the other, that of
Hindūstān and Bajaur, is acid, quite deliciously acid, and makes
excellent sherbet, well-flavoured, and wholesome drinking. Its size may
be that of the Khusrawī melon; it has a thick skin, wrinkled and uneven,
with one end thinner and beaked. It is of a deeper yellow than the
orange (_nāranj_). Its tree has no trunk, is rather low, grows in
bushes, and has a larger [Sidenote: Fol. 287.] leaf than the orange.
The _sangtāra_[1879] is another fruit resembling the orange (_nāranj_).
It is like the citron (_turunj_) in colour and form, but has both ends
of its skin level;[1880] also it is not rough and is somewhat the
smaller fruit. Its tree is large, as large as the apricot (_aūrūq_),
with a leaf like the orange's. It is a deliciously acid fruit, making a
very pleasant and wholesome sherbet. Like the lime it is a powerful
stomachic, but not weakening like the orange (_nāranj_).
The large lime which they call (H.) _gal-gal_[1881] in Hindūstān is
another fruit resembling the orange. It has the shape of a goose's egg,
but unlike that egg, does not taper to the ends. Its skin is smooth like
the _sangtāra's_; it is remarkably juicy.
The (H.) _jānbīrī_ lime[1882] is another orange-like fruit. It is
orange-shaped and, though yellow, not orange-yellow. It smells like the
citron (_turunj_); it too is deliciously acid.
The (Sans.) _sadā-fal_ (_phal_)[1883] is another orange-like fruit. This
is pear-shaped, colours like the quince, ripens sweet, but not to the
sickly-sweetness of the orange (_nāranj_).
The _amrd-fal_ (sic. Ḥai. MS.—Sans. _amrit-phal_)[1884] is another
orange-like fruit.
The lemon (H. _karnā_, _C. limonum_) is another fruit resembling the
orange (_nāranj_); it may be as large as the _gal-gal_ and is also acid.
The (Sans.) _amal-bīd_[1885] is another fruit resembling the orange.
After three years (in Hindūstān), it was first seen to-day.[1886] They
say a needle melts away if put inside it,[1887] either from its acidity
[Sidenote: Fol. 287b.] or some other property. It is as acid, perhaps,
as the citron and lemon (_turunj_ and _līmū_).[1888]
(_m. Vegetable products of Hindūstān:—Flowers._)
In Hindūstān there is great variety of flowers. One is the (D.) _jāsūn_
(_Hibiscus rosa sinensis_), which some Hindūstānīs call (Hindī)
_gaẕhal_.[1889] *It is not a grass (_giyāh_); its tree (is in stems like
the bush of the red-rose; it) is rather taller than the bush of the
red-rose.[1890]* The flower of the _jāsūn_ is fuller in colour than that
of the pomegranate, and may be of the size of the red-rose, but, the
red-rose, when its bud has grown, opens simply, whereas, when the
_jāsūn_-bud opens, a stem on which other petals grow, is seen like a
heart amongst its expanded petals. Though the two are parts of the one
flower, yet the outcome of the lengthening and thinning of that
stem-like heart of the first-opened petals gives the semblance of two
flowers.[1891] It is not a common matter. The beautifully coloured
flowers look very well on the tree, but they do not last long; they
fade in just one day. The _jāsūn_ blossoms very well through the four
months of the rains; it seems indeed to flower all through the year;
with this profusion, however, it gives no perfume.
The (H.) _kanīr_ (_Nerium odorum_, the oleander)[1892] is another. It
grows both red and white. Like the peach-flower, it is five petalled. It
is like the peach-bloom (in colour?), but opens 14 or 15 flowers from
one place, so that seen from a distance, they look like one great
flower. The oleander-bush is taller than the rose-bush. The red oleander
has a sort of scent, faint and agreeable. (Like the _jāsūn_,) it also
blooms well and profusely in the [Sidenote: Fol. 288.] rains, and it
also is had through most of the year.
The (H.) (_kīūrā_) (_Pandanus odoratissimus_, the screw-pine) is
another.[1893] It has a very agreeable perfume.[1894] Musk has the
defect of being dry; this may be called moist musk—a very agreeable
perfume. The tree's singular appearance notwithstanding, it has flowers
perhaps 1-1/2 to 2 _qārīsh_ (13-1/2 to 18 inches) long. It has long
leaves having the character of the reed (P.) _gharau_[1895] and having
spines. Of these leaves, while pressed together bud-like, the outer ones
are the greener and more spiny; the inner ones are soft and white. In
amongst these inner leaves grow things like what belongs to the middle
of a flower, and from these things comes the excellent perfume. When the
tree first comes up not yet shewing any trunk, it is like the bush
(_būta_) of the male-reed,[1896] but with wider and more spiny leaves.
What serves it for a trunk is very shapeless, its roots remaining shewn.
The (P.) _yāsman_ (jasmine) is another; the white they call (B.)
_champa_.[1897] It is larger and more strongly scented than our
_yāsman_-flower.
(_n. Seasons of the year._)
Again:—whereas there are four seasons in those countries,[1898] there
are three in Hindūstān, namely, four months are summer; four are the
rains; four are winter. The beginning of their months is from the
welcome of the crescent-moons.[1899] Every three years they add a month
to the year; if one had been added to the rainy season, the next is
added, three years later, to the winter months, the next, in the same
way, to the hot months. This is their mode of intercalation.[1900]
(_Chait_, _Baisākh_, _Jeṭh_ and [Sidenote: Fol. 288b.] _Asāṛh_) are the
hot months, corresponding with the Fish, (Ram, Bull and Twins; _Sāwan_,
_Bhādoṅ_, _Kū,ār_ and _Kātik_) are the rainy months, corresponding with
the Crab, (Lion, Virgin and Balance; _Aghan_, _Pūs_, _Māgh_ and
_Phālgun_) are the cold months, corresponding with the Scorpion,
(Archer, Capricorn, and Bucket or Aquarius).
The people of Hind, having thus divided the year into three seasons of
four months each, divide each of those seasons by taking from each, the
two months of the force of the heat, rain,[1901] and cold. Of the hot
months the last two, _i.e. Jeṭh_ and _Asāṛh_ are the force of the heat;
of the rainy months, the first two, _i.e. Sāwan_ and _Bhādoṅ_ are the
force of the rains; of the cold season, the middle two, _i.e. Pūs_ and
_Māgh_ are the force of the cold. By this classification there are six
seasons in Hindūstān.
(_o. Days of the week._)
To the days also they have given names:—[1902] (_Sanīchar_ is Saturday;
_Rabī-bār_ is Sunday; _Som-wār_ is Monday; _Mangal-wār_ is Tuesday;
_Budh-bār_ is Wednesday; _Brihaspat-bār_ is Thursday; _Shukr-bār_ is
Friday).
(_p. Divisions of time._)
[Sidenote: Fol. 289.] (_Author's note on the daqīqa._) The
_daqīqa_ is about as long as six repetitions of the _Fātiḥa_
with the _Bismillāh_, so that a day-and-night is as long as
8640 repetitions of the _Fātiḥa_ with the _Bismillāh._
As in our countries what is known by the (Turkī) term _kīcha-gūndūz_ (a
day-and-night, nycthemeron) is divided into 24 parts, each called an
hour (Ar. _sā`at_), and the hour is divided into 60 parts, each called a
minute (Ar. _daqīqa_), so that a day-and-night consists of 1440
minutes,—so the people of Hind divide the night-and-day into 60 parts,
each called a (S.) _g'harī_.[1903] They also divide the night into four
and the day into four, calling each part a (S.) _pahr_ (watch) which in
Persian is a _pās_. A watch and watchman (_pās u pāsbān_) had been heard
about (by us) in those countries (Transoxania), but without these
particulars. Agreeing with the division into watches, a body of
_g'harīālīs_[1904] is chosen and appointed in all considerable towns of
Hindūstān. They cast a broad brass (plate-) thing,[1905] perhaps as
large as a tray (_ṯabaq_) and about two hands'-thickness; this they call
a _g'harīāl_ and hang up in a high place (_bīr buland yīr-dā_). Also
they have a vessel perforated at the bottom like an hour-cup[1906] and
filling in one _g'harī_ (_i.e._ 24 minutes). The _g'harīālīs_ put this
into water and wait till it fills. For example, they will put the
perforated [Sidenote: Fol. 289b.] cup into water at day-birth; when it
fills the first time, they strike the gong once with their mallets; when
a second time, twice, and so on till the end of the watch. They announce
the end of a watch by several rapid blows of their mallets. After these
they pause; then strike once more, if the first day-watch has ended,
twice if the second, three times if the third, and four times if the
fourth. After the fourth day-watch, when the night-watches begin, these
are gone through in the same way. It used to be the rule to beat the
sign of a watch only when the watch ended; so that sleepers chancing to
wake in the night and hear the sound of a third or fourth _g'harī_,
would not know whether it was of the second or third night-watch. I
therefore ordered that at night or on a cloudy day the sign of the watch
should be struck after that of the _g'harī_, for example, that after
striking the third _g'harī_ of the first night-watch, the _g'harīālīs_
were to pause and then strike the sign of the watch, in order to make it
known that this third _g'harī_ was of the first night-watch,—and that
after striking four _g'harīs_ of the third night-watch, they should
pause and then strike the sign of the third watch, in order to make it
known that this fourth _g'harī_ was of the third night-watch. It did
very well; anyone happening to wake in the night and hear the gong,
would know what _g'harī_ of what watch of night it was.
Again, they divide the _g'harī_ into 60 parts, each part being called a
_pal_;[1907] by this each night-and-day will consist of 3,500 _pals_.
[Sidenote: Fol. 290.]
(_Author's note on the pal._) They say the length of a _pal_
is the shutting and opening of the eyelids 60 times, which in
a night-and-day would be 216,000 shuttings and openings of the
eyes. Experiment shews that a _pal_ is about equal to 8
repetitions of the _Qul-huwa-allāh_[1908] and _Bismillāh_;
this would be 28,000 repetitions in a night-and-day.
(_q. Measures._)
The people of Hind have also well-arranged measures:—[1909] 8 _ratīs_ =
1 _māsha_; 4 _māsha_ = 1 _tānk_ = 32 _ratīs_; 5 _māsha_ = 1 _miṣqāl_ =
40 _ratīs_; 12 _māsha_ = 1 _tūla_ = 96 _ratīs_; 14 _tūla_ = 1 _ser_.
This is everywhere fixed:—40 _ser_ = 1 _mānbān_; 12 _mānbān_ = 1
_mānī_; 100 _mānī_ they call a _mīnāsa_.[1910]
Pearls and jewels they weigh by the _tānk_.
(_r. Modes of reckoning._)
The people of Hind have also an excellent mode of reckoning: 100,000
they call a _lak_; 100 _laks_, a _krūr_; 100 _krūrs_, an _arb_; 100
_arbs_, 1 _karb_; 100 _karb's_, 1 _nīl_; 100 _nīls_, 1 _padam_; 100
_padams_, 1 _sāng_. The fixing of such high reckonings as these is proof
of the great amount of wealth in Hindūstān.
(_s. Hindū inhabitants of Hindūstān._)
Most of the inhabitants of Hindūstān are pagans; they call a pagan a
Hindū. Most Hindūs believe in the transmigration of souls. All artisans,
wage-earners, and officials are Hindūs. In our countries dwellers in the
wilds (_i.e._ nomads) get tribal names; [Sidenote: Fol. 290b.] here the
settled people of the cultivated lands and villages get tribal
names.[1911] Again:—every artisan there is follows the trade that has
come down to him from forefather to forefather.
(_t. Defects of Hindūstān._)
Hindūstān is a country of few charms. Its people have no good looks; of
social intercourse, paying and receiving visits there is none; of genius
and capacity none; of manners none; in handicraft and work there is no
form or symmetry, method or quality; there are no good horses, no good
dogs, no grapes, musk-melons or first-rate fruits, no ice or cold water,
no good bread or cooked food in the _bāzārs_, no Hot-baths, no Colleges,
no candles, torches or candlesticks.
In place of candle and torch they have a great dirty gang they call
lamp-men (_diwatī_), who in the left hand hold a smallish wooden tripod
to one corner of which a thing like the top of a candlestick is fixed,
having a wick in it about as thick as the thumb. In the right hand they
hold a gourd, through a narrow slit made in which, oil is let trickle in
a thin thread when the wick needs it. Great people keep a hundred or two
of these lamp-men. This is the Hindūstān substitute for lamps and
candlesticks! If their rulers and begs have work at night needing
candles, these dirty lamp-men bring these lamps, go close up and
[Sidenote: Fol. 291.] there stand.
Except their large rivers and their standing-waters which flow in
ravines or hollows (there are no waters). There are no running-waters in
their gardens or residences (_`imāratlār_).[1912] These residences have
no charm, air (_hawā_), regularity or symmetry.
Peasants and people of low standing go about naked. They tie on a thing
called _lungūtā_,[1913] a decency-clout which hangs two spans below the
navel. From the tie of this pendant decency-clout, another clout is
passed between the thighs and made fast behind. Women also tie on a
cloth (_lung_), one-half of which goes round the waist, the other is
thrown over the head.
(_u. Advantages of Hindūstān._)
Pleasant things of Hindūstān are that it is a large country and has
masses of gold and silver. Its air in the Rains is very fine. Sometimes
it rains 10, 15 or 20 times a day; torrents pour down all at once and
rivers flow where no water had been. While it rains and through the
Rains, the air is remarkably fine, not to be surpassed for healthiness
and charm. The fault is that the air becomes very soft and damp. A bow
of those (Transoxanian) countries after going through the Rains in
Hindūstān, may not be drawn even; it is ruined; not only the bow,
everything is [Sidenote: Fol. 291b.] affected, armour, book, cloth, and
utensils all; a house even does not last long. Not only in the Rains
but also in the cold and the hot seasons, the airs are excellent; at
these times, however, the north-west wind constantly gets up laden with
dust and earth. It gets up in great strength every year in the heats,
under the Bull and Twins when the Rains are near; so strong and carrying
so much dust and earth that there is no seeing one another. People call
this wind Darkener of the Sky (H. _āndhī_). The weather is hot under the
Bull and Twins, but not intolerably so, not so hot as in Balkh and
Qandahār and not for half so long.
Another good thing in Hindūstān is that it has unnumbered and endless
workmen of every kind. There is a fixed caste (_jam`ī_) for every sort
of work and for every thing, which has done that work or that thing from
father to son till now. Mullā Sharaf, writing in the _Z̤afar-nāma_ about
the building of Tīmūr Beg's Stone Mosque, lays stress on the fact that
on it 200 stone-cutters worked, from Āẕarbāījān, Fars, Hindūstān and
other countries. But 680 men worked daily on my buildings in Āgra and of
Āgra stone-cutters only; while 1491 stone-cutters worked daily on my
buildings in Āgra, Sīkrī, Bīāna, Dūlpūr, Gūālīār and Kūīl. In [Sidenote:
Fol. 292.] the same way there are numberless artisans and workmen of
every sort in Hindūstān.
(_v. Revenues of Hindūstān._)
The revenue of the countries now held by me (935 AH.-1528 AD.) from
Bhīra to Bihār is 52 _krūrs_,[1914] as will be known in detail from the
following summary.[1915] Eight or nine _krūrs_ of this are from
parganas of rāīs and rājas who, as obedient from of old, receive
allowance and maintenance.
REVENUES OF HINDŪSTĀN FROM WHAT HAS SO FAR COME UNDER THE VICTORIOUS
STANDARDS
--------------------------------+---------+-----+----------
Sarkārs. | Krūrs. |Laks.| Tankas.
--------------------------------+---------+-----+----------
Trans-sutluj:--Bhīra, | | |
Lāhūr, Sīālkūt, | | |
Dībālpūr, etc. | 3 | 33 |15,989
Sihrind | 1 | 29 |31,985
Ḥiṣār-fīrūza | 1 | 30 |75,174
The capital Dihlī and | | |
Mīān-dū-āb | 3 | 69 |50,254
Mīwāt, not included in | | |
Sikandar's time | 1 | 69 |81,000
Bīāna | 1 | 44 |14,930 [Sidenote:
Āgra | | 29 |76,919 Fol. 292b.]
Mīān-wilāyat (Midlands) | 2 | 91 | 19
Gūālīār | 2 | 23 |57,450
Kālpī and Seho[n.]da | | |
(Seondhā) | 4 | 28 |55,950
Qanauj | 1 | 36 |63,358
Saṃbhal | 1 | 38 |44,000
Laknūr and Baksar | 1 | 39 |82,433
Khairābād | | 12 |65,000
Aūd (Oude) and Bahraj | | |
(Baraich) | 1 | 17 | 1,369 [Sidenote:
Jūnpūr | 4 | ·0 |88,333 Fol. 293.]
Karra and Mānikpūr | 1 | 63 |27,282
Bihār | 4 | 5 |60,000
Sarwār | 1 | 55 |17,506-1/2
Sāran | 1 | 10 |18,373
Champāran | 1 | 90 |86,060
Kandla | | 43 |30,300
Tirhut from Rāja | | |
Rup-narāīn's tribute, | | |
silver | | 2 |55,000
black (i.e. copper) | | 27 |50,000
Rantanbhūr from Būlī, | | |
Chātsū, and Malarna | | 20 |?00,000
Nagūr | -- | -- | --
Rāja Bikrāmajīt in | | |
Rantanbhūr | -- | -- | --
Kalanjarī | -- | -- | --
Rāja Bīr-sang-deo (or, | | |
Sang only) | -- | -- | --
Rāja Bikam-deo | -- | -- | --
Rāja Bikam-chand | -- | -- | --
--------------------------------+---------+-----+----------
[1916] So far as particulars and details about the land and people of
the country of Hindūstān have become definitely known, they have been
narrated and described; whatever matters worthy of record may come to
view hereafter, I shall write down.
HISTORICAL NARRATIVE RESUMED.
(_a. Distribution of treasure in Āgra._)[1917]
(_May 12th_) On Saturday the 29th[1918] of Rajab the examination and
distribution of the treasure were begun. To Humāyūn were given 70 laks
from the Treasury, and, over and above this, a treasure house was
bestowed on him just as it was, without ascertaining and writing down
its contents. To some begs 10 laks were given, 8, 7, or 6 to
others.[1919] Suitable money-gifts were bestowed from the Treasury on
the whole army, to every tribe there was, Afghān, Hazāra, `Arab, Bīlūch
_etc._ to each according to its position. Every trader and student,
indeed every man who had come with the army, took ample portion and
share of bounteous gift and largess. To those not with the army went a
mass of treasure in gift and largess, as for instance, 17 laks to
Kāmran, 15 laks to Muḥammad-i-zamān Mīrzā, while to `Askarī, Hindāl and
indeed to the whole various train of relations and younger
children[1920] went masses of red and white (gold and silver), of
plenishing, jewels and slaves.[1921] Many gifts went to the begs and
soldiery on that side (Tramontana). Valuable gifts (_saughāt_)
[Sidenote: Fol. 294.] were sent for the various relations in Samarkand,
Khurāsān, Kāshghar and `Irāq. To holy men belonging to Samarkand and
Khurāsān went offerings vowed to God (_nuẕūr_); so too to Makka and
Madīna. We gave one _shāhrukhi_ for every soul in the country of Kābul
and the valley-side[1922] of Varsak, man and woman, bond and free, of
age or non-age.[1923]
(_b. Disaffection to Bābur._)
On our first coming to Āgra, there was remarkable dislike and hostility
between its people and mine, the peasantry and soldiers running away in
fear of our men. Dilhī and Āgra excepted, not a fortified town but
strengthened its defences and neither was in obedience nor submitted.
Qāsim Saṃbhalī was in Saṃbhal; Niẕām Khān was in Bīāna; in Mīwāt was
Ḥasan Khān Mīwātī himself, impious mannikin! who was the sole leader of
the trouble and mischief.[1924] Muḥammad _Zaitun_ was in Dūlpūr; Tātār
Khān _Sārang-khānī_[1925] was in Gūālīār; Ḥusain Khān _Nuḥānī_ was in
Rāprī; Quṯb Khān was in Itāwa (Etāwa); `Ālam Khān (_Kālpī_) was in
Kālpī. Qanauj and the other side of Gang (Ganges) was all held by
Afghāns in independent hostility,[1926] such as Naṣīr Khān _Nuḥānī_,
Ma`rūf _Farmūlī_ and a crowd of other amīrs. These had been in rebellion
for three or four years before Ibrāhīm's death and when I defeated him,
were holding Qanauj and the whole country beyond it. At the present time
they were lying two or three marches on our side of Qanauj and had made
Bihār Khān the son of Daryā Khān _Nuḥānī_ their _pādshāh_, under the
style Sulṯān Muḥammad. [Sidenote: Fol. 294b.] Marghūb the slave was in
Mahāwīn (_Muttra_?); he remained there, thus close, for some time but
came no nearer.
(_c. Discontent in Bābur's army._)
It was the hot-season when we came to Āgra. All the inhabitants
(_khalāīq_) had run away in terror. Neither grain for ourselves nor corn
for our horses was to be had. The villages, out of hostility and hatred
to us had taken to thieving and highway-robbery; there was no moving on
the roads. There had been no chance since the treasure was distributed
to send men in strength into the parganas and elsewhere. Moreover the
year was a very hot one; violent pestilential winds struck people down
in heaps together; masses began to die off.
On these accounts the greater part of the begs and best braves became
unwilling to stay in Hindūstān, indeed set their faces for leaving it.
It is no reproach to old and experienced begs if they speak of such
matters; even if they do so, this man (Bābur) has enough sense and
reason to get at what is honest or what is mutinous in their
representations, to distinguish between loss and gain. But as this man
had seen his task whole, for himself, when he resolved on it, what taste
was there in their reiterating that things should be done differently?
What recommends the expression of distasteful opinions by men of little
standing [Sidenote: Fol. 295.] (_kīchīk karīm_)? Here is a curious
thing:—This last time of our riding out from Kābul, a few men of little
standing had just been made begs; what I looked for from them was that
if I went through fire and water and came out again, they would have
gone in with me unhesitatingly, and with me have come out, that wherever
I went, there at my side would they be,—not that they would speak
against my fixed purpose, not that they would turn back from any task or
great affair on which, all counselling, all consenting, we had resolved,
so long as that counsel was not abandoned. Badly as these new begs
behaved, Secretary Aḥmadī and Treasurer Walī behaved still worse. Khwāja
Kalān had done well in the march out from Kābul, in Ibrāhīm's defeat and
until Āgra was occupied; he had spoken bold words and shewn ambitious
views. But a few days after the capture of Āgra, all his views
changed,—the one zealous for departure at any price was Khwāja
Kalān.[1927]
(_d. Bābur calls a council._)
When I knew of this unsteadiness amongst (my) people, I summoned all the
begs and took counsel. Said I, "There is no supremacy and grip on the
world without means and resources; without lands and retainers
sovereignty and command (_pādshāhlīq u amīrlīq_) are impossible. By the
labours of several years, by encountering hardship, by long travel, by
flinging myself and the army into battle, and by deadly slaughter, we,
through God's [Sidenote: Fol. 295b.] grace, beat these masses of enemies
in order that we might take their broad lands. And now what force
compels us, what necessity has arisen that we should, without cause,
abandon countries taken at such risk of life? Was it for us to remain in
Kābul, the sport of harsh poverty? Henceforth, let no well-wisher of
mine speak of such things! But let not those turn back from going who,
weak in strong persistence, have set their faces to depart!" By these
words, which recalled just and reasonable views to their minds, I made
them, willy-nilly, quit their fears.
(_e. Khwāja Kalān decides to leave Hindūstān._)
As Khwāja Kalān had no heart to stay in Hindūstān, matters were settled
in this way:—As he had many retainers, he was to convoy the gifts, and,
as there were few men in Kābul and Ghaznī, was to keep these places
guarded and victualled. I bestowed on him Ghaznī, Girdīz and the Sulṯān
Mas`ūdī Hazāra, gave also the Hindūstān _pargana_ of G'hūram,[1928]
worth 3 or 4 _laks_. It was settled for Khwāja Mīr-i-mīrān also to go to
Kābul; the gifts were put into his immediate charge, under the custody
of Mullā Ḥasan the banker (_ṣarrāf_) and Tūka[1929] _Hindū_.
Loathing Hindūstān, Khwāja Kalān, when on his way, had the following
couplet inscribed on the wall of his residence [Sidenote: Fol. 296.]
(_`imāratī_) in Dihlī:—
If safe and sound I cross the Sind,
Blacken my face ere I wish for Hind!
It was ill-mannered in him to compose and write up this partly-jesting
verse while I still stayed in Hind. If his departure
caused me one vexation, such a jest doubled it.[1930] I composed the
following off-hand verse, wrote it down and sent it to him:—
Give a hundred thanks, Bābur, that the generous Pardoner
Has given thee Sind and Hind and many a kingdom.
If thou (_i.e._ the Khwāja) have not the strength for their heats,
If thou say, "Let me see the cold side (_yūz_)," Ghaznī is there.[1931]
(_f. Accretions to Bābur's force._)
At this juncture, Mullā Apāq was sent into Kūl with royal letters of
favour for the soldiers and quiver-wearers (_tarkash-band_) of that
neighbourhood. Shaikh Gūran (G'hūran)[1932] came trustfully and loyally
to do obeisance, bringing with him from 2 to 3,000 soldiers and
quiver-wearers from Between-two-waters (_Mīān-dū-āb_).
(_Author's note on Mullā Apāq._) Formerly he had been in a
very low position indeed, but two or three years before this
time, had gathered his elder and younger brethren into a
compact body and had brought them in (to me), together with
the Aūrūq-zāī and other Afghāns of the banks of the Sind.
Yūnas-i-`alī when on his way from Dihlī to Āgra[1933] had lost his way a
little and got separated from Humāyūn; he then met in with `Alī Khān
_Farmūlī's_ sons and train,[1934] had a small affair with them, took
them prisoners and brought them in. Taking advantage of this, one of the
sons thus captured was sent to his [Sidenote: Fol. 296b.] father in
company with Daulat-qadam _Turk's_ son Mīrzā _Mughūl_ who conveyed royal
letters of favour to `Alī Khān. At this time of break-up, `Alī Khān had
gone to Mīwāt; he came to me when Mīrzā _Mughūl_ returned, was
promoted, and given valid(?) _parganas_[1935] worth 25 laks.
(_g. Action against the rebels of the East._)
Sl. Ibrāhīm had appointed several amīrs under Muṣṯafa _Farmūlī_ and
Fīrūz Khān _Sārang-khānī_, to act against the rebel amīrs of the East
(_Pūrab_). Muṣṯafa had fought them and thoroughly drubbed them, giving
them more than one good beating. He dying before Ibrāhīm's defeat, his
younger brother Shaikh Bāyazīd—Ibrāhīm being occupied with a momentous
matter[1936]—had led and watched over his elder brother's men. He now
came to serve me, together with Fīrūz Khān, Maḥmūd Khān _Nuḥānī_ and
Qāẓī Jīā. I shewed them greater kindness and favour than was their
claim; giving to Fīrūz Khān 1 _krūr_, 46 _laks_ and 5000 _tankas_ from
Jūnpūr, to Shaikh Bāyazīd 1 _krūr_, 48 _laks_ and 50,000 _tankas_ from
Aūd (Oude), to Maḥmūd Khān 90 _laks_ and 35,000 _tankas_ from Ghāzīpūr,
and to Qāẓī Jīā 20 _laks_.[1937]
(_h. Gifts made to various officers._)
It was a few days after the `Īd of Shawwāl[1938] that a large party was
held in the pillared-porch of the domed building standing in the middle
of Sl. Ibrāhīm's private apartments. At this party there were bestowed
on Humāyūn a _chār-qab_,[1939] a sword-belt,[1940] a _tīpūchāq_ horse
with saddle mounted in gold; on Chīn-tīmūr Sulṯān, Mahdī Khwāja and
Muḥammad Sl. Mīrzā _chār-qabs_, sword-belts and dagger-belts; and to the
begs and [Sidenote: Fol. 297.] braves, to each according to his rank,
were given sword-belts, dagger-belts, and dresses of honour, in all to
the number specified below:—
2 items (_rā's_) of _tīpūchāq_ horses with saddles.
16 items (_qabẓa_) of poinards, set with jewels, etc.
8 items (_qabẓa_) of purpet over-garments.
2 items (_tob_) of jewelled sword-belts.
—— items (_qabẓa_) of broad daggers (_jamd'kar_) set with jewels.
25 items of jewelled hangers (_khanjar_).
—— items of gold-hilted Hindī knives (_kārd_).
51 pieces of purpet.
On the day of this party it rained amazingly, rain falling thirteen
times. As outside places had been assigned to a good many people, they
were drowned out (_gharaq_).
(_i. Of various forts and postings._)
Samāna (in Patīāla) had been given to Muḥammadī Kūkūldāsh and it had
been arranged for him to make swift descent on Saṃbal (Saṃbhal), but
Saṃbal was now bestowed on Humāyūn, in addition to his guerdon of
Ḥiṣār-fīrūza, and in his service was Hindū Beg. To suit this, therefore,
Hindū Beg was sent to make the incursion in Muḥammadī's place, and with
him Kitta Beg, Bābā _Qashqa's_ (brother) Malik Qāsim and his elder and
younger brethren, Mullā Apāq and Shaikh Gūran (G'hūran) with the
quiver-wearers from Between-two-waters (_Mīān-dū-āb_). [Sidenote: Fol.
297b.] Three or four times a person had come from Qāsim _Saṃbalī_,
saying, "The renegade Bīban is besieging Saṃbal and has brought it to
extremity; come quickly." Bīban, with the array and the preparation
(_hayāt_) with which he had deserted us,[1941] had gone skirting the
hills and gathering up Afghān and Hindūstānī deserters, until, finding
Saṃbal at this juncture ill-garrisoned, he laid siege to it. Hindū Beg
and Kitta Beg and the rest of those appointed to make the incursion, got
to the Ahār-passage[1942] and from there sent ahead Bābā _Qashqa's_
Malik Qāsim with his elder and younger brethren, while they themselves
were getting over the water. Malik Qāsim crossed, advanced swiftly with
from 100 to 150 men—his own and his brethren's—and reached Saṃbal by the
Mid-day Prayer. Bīban for his part came out of his camp in array. Malik
Qāsim and his troop moved rapidly forward, got the fort in their rear,
and came to grips. Bīban could make no stand; he fled. Malik Qāsim cut
off the heads of part of his force, took many horses, a few elephants
and a mass of booty. Next day when the other begs arrived, Qāsim
_Saṃbalī_ came out and saw them, but not liking to surrender the fort,
made them false pretences. One day Shaikh Gūran (G'hūran) and Hindū Beg
having talked the matter over with them, got Qāsim _Saṃbalī_ out to the
presence of the begs, and took men of ours into the fort. They brought
Qāsim's wife and dependents safely out, and sent Qāsim (to Court).[1943]
Qalandar the foot-man was sent to Niẕām Khān in Bīāna with royal letters
of promise and threat; with these was sent [Sidenote: Fol. 298.] also
the following little off-hand (Persian) verse:—[1944]
Strive not with the Turk, o Mīr of Bīāna!
His skill and his courage are obvious.
If thou come not soon, nor give ear to counsel,—
What need to detail (_bayān_) what is obvious?
Bīāna being one of the famous forts of Hindūstān, the senseless
mannikin, relying on its strength, demanded what not even its strength
could enforce. Not giving him a good answer, we ordered siege apparatus
to be looked to.
Bābā Qulī Beg was sent with royal letters of promise and threat to
Muḥammad _Zaitūn_ (in Dūlpūr); Muḥammad _Zaitūn_ also made false
excuses.
While we were still in Kābul, Rānā Sangā had sent an envoy to testify to
his good wishes and to propose this plan: "If the honoured Pādshāh will
come to near Dihlī from that side, I from this will move on Āgra." But I
beat Ibrāhīm, I took Dihlī and Āgra, and up to now that Pagan has given
no sign soever of moving. After a while he went and laid siege to
Kandār[1945] a fort in which was Makan's son, Ḥasan by name. This
Ḥasan-of-Makan had sent a person to me several times, but had not shewn
himself. We had not been able to detach [Sidenote: Fol. 298b.]
reinforcement for him because, as the forts round-about—Atāwa (Etāwa),
Dūlpūr, and Bīāna—had not yet surrendered, and the Eastern Afghāns were
seated with their army in obstinate rebellion two or three marches on
the Āgra side of Qanūj, my mind was not quite free from the whirl and
strain of things close at hand. Makan's Ḥasan therefore, becoming
helpless, had surrendered Kandār two or three months ago.
Ḥusain Khān (_Nuḥānī_) became afraid in Rāprī, and he abandoning it, it
was given to Muḥammad `Alī _Jang-jang_.
To Quṯb Khān in Etāwa royal letters of promise and threat had been sent
several times, but as he neither came and saw me, nor abandoned Etāwa
and got away, it was given to Mahdī Khwāja and he was sent against it
with a strong reinforcement of begs and household troops under the
command of Muḥammad Sl. Mīrzā, Sl. Muḥammad _Dūldāī_, Muḥammad `Alī
_Jang-jang_ and `Abdu'l-`azīz the Master of the Horse. Qanūj was given
to Sl. Muḥammad _Dūldāī_; he was also (as mentioned) appointed against
Etāwa; so too were Fīrūz Khān, Maḥmūd Khān, Shaikh Bāyazīd and Qāẓī Jīā,
highly favoured commanders to whom Eastern _parganas_ had been given.
[Sidenote: Fol. 299.] Muḥammad _Zaitūn_, who was seated in Dūlpūr,
deceived us and did not come. We gave Dūlpūr to Sl. Junaid _Barlās_ and
reinforced him by appointing `Ādil Sulṯān, Muḥammadī Kūkūldāsh, Shāh
Manṣūr _Barlās_, Qūtlūq-qadam, Treasurer Walī, Jān Beg, `Abdu'l-lāh,
Pīr-qulī, and Shāh Ḥasan _Yāragī_ (or _Bāragī_), who were to attack
Dūlpūr, take it, make it over to Sl. Junaid _Barlās_ and advance on
Bīāna.
(_j. Plan of operations adopted._)
These armies appointed, we summoned the Turk amīrs[1946] and the
Hindūstān amīrs, and tossed the following matters in amongst them:—The
various rebel amīrs of the East, that is to say, those under Nāṣir Khān
_Nuḥānī_ and Ma`rūf _Farmūlī_, have crossed Gang (Ganges) with 40 to
50,000 men, taken Qanūj, and now lie some three miles on our side of the
river. The Pagan Rānā Sangā has captured Kandār and is in a hostile and
mischievous attitude. The end of the Rains is near. It seems expedient
to move either against the rebels or the Pagan, since the task of the
forts near-by is easy; when the great foes are got rid of, what road
will remain open for the rest? Rānā Sangā is thought not to be the equal
of the rebels.
To this all replied unanimously, "Rānā Sangā is the most distant, and it
is not known that he will come nearer; the enemy who is closest at hand
must first be got rid of. We are for riding against the rebels." Humāyūn
then represented, [Sidenote: Fol. 299b.] "What need is there for the
Pādshāh to ride out? This service I will do." This came as a pleasure to
every-one; the Turk and Hind amīrs gladly accepted his views; he was
appointed for the East. A Kābulī of Aḥmad-i-qāsim's was sent galloping
off to tell the armies that had been despatched against Dūlpūr to join
Humāyūn at Chandwār;[1947] also those sent against Etāwa under Mahdī
Khwāja and Muḥammad Sl. M. were ordered to join him.
(_August 21st_) Humāyūn set out on Thursday the 13th of Ẕū'l-qa´da,
dismounted at a little village called Jilīsīr (Jalesar) some 3 _kurohs_
from Āgra, there stayed one night, then moved forward march by march.
(_k. Khwāja Kalān's departure._)
(_August 28th_) On Thursday the 20th of this same month, Khwāja Kalān
started for Kābul.
(_l. Of gardens and pleasaunces._)
One of the great defects of Hindūstān being its lack of
running-waters,[1948] it kept coming to my mind that waters should be
made to flow by means of wheels erected wherever I might settle down,
also that grounds should be laid out in an orderly and symmetrical way.
With this object in view, we crossed the Jūn-water to look at
garden-grounds a few days after entering Āgra. Those grounds were so bad
and unattractive that we traversed them with a hundred disgusts and
repulsions. So ugly and displeasing were they, that the idea of making a
[Sidenote: Fol. 300.] Chār-bāgh in them passed from my mind, but needs
must! as there was no other land near Āgra, that same ground was taken
in hand a few days later.
The beginning was made with the large well from which water comes for
the Hot-bath, and also with the piece of ground where the
tamarind-trees and the octagonal tank now are. After that came the large
tank with its enclosure; after that the tank and _tālār_[1949] in front
of the outer(?) residence[1950]; after that the private-house
(_khilwat-khāna_) with its garden and various dwellings; after that the
Hot-bath. Then in that charmless and disorderly Hind, plots of
garden[1951] were seen laid out with order and symmetry, with suitable
borders and parterres in every corner, and in every border rose and
narcissus in perfect arrangement.
(_m. Construction of a chambered-well._)
Three things oppressed us in Hindūstān, its heat, its violent winds, its
dust. Against all three the Bath is a protection, for in it, what is
known of dust and wind? and in the heats it is so chilly that one is
almost cold. The bath-room in which the heated tank is, is altogether of
stone, the whole, except for the _īzāra_ (dado?) of white stone, being,
pavement and roofing, of red Bīāna stone.
Khalīfa also and Shaikh Zain, Yūnas-i-`alī and whoever got [Sidenote:
Fol. 300b.] land on that other bank of the river laid out regular and
orderly gardens with tanks, made running-waters also by setting up
wheels like those in Dīpālpūr and Lāhor. The people of Hind who had
never seen grounds planned so symmetrically and thus laid out, called
the side of the Jūn where (our) residences were, Kābul.
In an empty space inside the fort, which was between Ibrāhīm's residence
and the ramparts, I ordered a large chambered-well (_wāīn_) to be made,
measuring 10 by 10,[1952] a large well with a flight of steps, which in
Hindūstān is called a _wāīn_.[1953] This well was begun before the
Chār-bāgh[1954]; they were busy digging it in the true Rains (_`aīn
bīshkāl_, Sāwan and Bhadon); it fell in several times and buried the
hired workmen; it was finished after the Holy Battle with Rānā Sangā, as
is stated in the inscription on the stone that bears the chronogram of
its completion. It is a complete _wāīn_, having a three-storeyed house
in it. The lowest storey consists of three rooms, each of which opens on
the descending steps, at intervals of three steps from one another. When
the water is at its lowest, it is one step below the bottom chamber;
when it rises in the Rains, it sometimes goes into the top storey. In
the middle storey an inner chamber has been excavated which connects
with the domed building in which the bullock turns the well-wheel. The
[Sidenote: Fol. 301.] top storey is a single room, reached from two
sides by 5 or 6 steps which lead down to it from the enclosure
overlooked from the well-head. Facing the right-hand way down, is the
stone inscribed with the date of completion. At the side of this well is
another the bottom of which may be at half the depth of the first, and
into which water comes from that first one when the bullock turns the
wheel in the domed building afore-mentioned. This second well also is
fitted with a wheel, by means of which water is carried along the
ramparts to the high-garden. A stone building (_tāshdīn `imārat_) stands
at the mouth of the well and there is an outer(?) mosque[1955] outside
(_tāshqārī_) the enclosure in which the well is. The mosque is not well
done; it is in the Hindūstānī fashion.
(_n. Humāyūn's campaign._)
At the time Humāyūn got to horse, the rebel amīrs under Naṣīr Khān
_Nuḥānī_ and Ma`rūf _Farmūlī_ were assembled at Jājmāū.[1956] Arrived
within 20 to 30 miles of them, he sent out Mūmin Ātāka for news; it
became a raid for loot; Mūmin Ātāka was not able to bring even the least
useful information. The rebels heard about him however, made no stay but
fled and got away. After Mūmin Ātāka, Qusm-nāī(?) was sent for news,
with Bābā Chuhra[1957] and Būjka; they brought it of the breaking-up and
flight of the rebels. Humāyūn advancing, took Jājmāū [Sidenote: Fol.
301b.] and passed on. Near Dilmāū[1958] Fatḥ Khān _Sarwānī_ came and saw
him, and was sent to me with Mahdī Khwāja and Muḥammad Sl. Mīrzā.
(_o. News of the Aūzbegs._)
This year 'Ubaidu'l-lāh Khān (_Aūzbeg_) led an army out of Bukhārā
against Marv. In the citadel of Marv were perhaps 10 to 15 peasants whom
he overcame and killed; then having taken the revenues of Marv in 40 or
50 days,[1959] he went on to Sarakhs. In Sarakhs were some 30 to 40
Red-heads (_Qīzīl-bāsh_) who did not surrender, but shut the Gate; the
peasantry however scattered them and opened the Gate to the Aūzbeg who
entering, killed the Red-heads. Sarakhs taken, he went against T̤ūs and
Mashhad. The inhabitants of Mashhad being helpless, let him in. T̤ūs he
besieged for 8 months, took possession of on terms, did not keep those
terms, but killed every man of name and made their women captive.
(_p. Affairs of Gujrāt._)
In this year Bahādur Khān,—he who now rules in Gujrāt in the place of
his father Sl. Muz̤affar _Gujrātī_—having gone to Sl. Ibrāhīm after
quarrel with his father, had been received without honour. He had sent
dutiful letters to me while I was near Pānī-pat; I had replied by royal
letters of favour and kindness summoning him to me. He had thought of
coming, but changing his mind, drew off from Ibrāhīm's army towards
Gujrāt. Meantime his father Sl. Muz̤affar had died (Friday Jumāda II.
2nd AH.-March 16th 1526 AD.); his elder brother Sikandar Shāh who was
Sl. Muz̤affar's eldest son, had become ruler in their father's place
and, owing to his evil disposition, [Sidenote: Fol. 302.] had been
strangled by his slave `Imādu'l-mulk, acting with others (Sha`ban
14th—May 25th). Bahādur Khān, while he was on his road for Gujrāt, was
invited and escorted to sit in his father's place under the style
Bahādur Shāh (Ramẓān 26th—July 6th). He for his part did well; he
retaliated by death on `Imādu'l-mulk for his treachery to his salt, and
killed some others of his father's begs.[1960] People point at him as a
dreadnaught (_bī bāk_) youth and a shedder of much blood.
933 AH.-OCT. 8TH 1526 TO SEP. 27TH 1527 AD.[1961]
(_a. Announcement of the birth of a son._)
In Muḥarram Beg Wais brought the news of Fārūq's birth; though a
foot-man had brought it already, he came this month for the gift to the
messenger of good tidings.[1962] The birth must have been on Friday eve,
Shawwāl 23rd (932 AH.-August 2nd 1526 AD.); the name given was Fārūq.
(_b. Casting of a mortar._)
(_October 22nd-Muḥarram 15th_) Ustād `Alī-qulī had been ordered to cast
a large mortar for use against Bīāna and other forts which had not yet
submitted. When all the furnaces and materials were ready, he sent a
person to me and, on Monday the 15th of the month, we went to see the
mortar cast. Round the mortar-mould he had had eight furnaces made in
which [Sidenote: Fol. 302b.] were the molten materials. From below each
furnace a channel went direct to the mould. When he opened the
furnace-holes on our arrival, the molten metal poured like water through
all these channels into the mould. After awhile and before the mould was
full, the flow stopped from one furnace after another. Ustād `Alī-qulī
must have made some miscalculation either as to the furnaces or the
materials. In his great distress, he was for throwing himself into the
mould of molten metal, but we comforted him, put a robe of honour on
him, and so brought him out of his shame. The mould was left a day or
two to cool; when it was opened, Ustād `Alī-qulī with great delight sent
to say, "The stone-chamber (_tāsh-awī_) is without defect; to cast the
powder-compartment (_dārū-khāna_) is easy." He got the stone-chamber
out and told off a body of men to accoutre[1963] it, while he busied
himself with casting the powder-compartment.
(_c. Varia._)
Mahdī Khwāja arrived bringing Fatḥ Khān _Sarwānī_ from Humāyūn's
presence, they having parted from him in Dilmāū. I looked with favour on
Fatḥ Khān, gave him the _parganas_ that had been his father
`Aẕam-humāyūn's, and other lands also, one _pargana_ given being worth a
_krūr_ and 60 _laks_.[1964]
In Hindūstān they give permanent titles [_muqarrarī khiṯāblār_] to
highly-favoured amīrs, one such being `Aẕam-humāyūn (_August Might_),
one Khān-i-jahān (Khan-of-the-world), another [Sidenote: Fol. 303.]
Khān-i-khānān (Khān-of-khāns). Fatḥ Khān's father's title was
`Aẕam-humāyūn but I set this aside because on account of Humāyūn it was
not seemly for any person to bear it, and I gave Fatḥ Khān _Sarwānī_ the
title of Khān-i-jahān.
(_November 14th_) On Wednesday the 8th of Ṣafar[1965] awnings were set
up (in the Chār-bāgh) at the edge of the large tank beyond the
tamarind-trees, and an entertainment was prepared there. We invited Fatḥ
Khān _Sarwānī_ to a wine-party, gave him wine, bestowed on him a turban
and head-to-foot of my own wearing, uplifted his head with kindness and
favour[1966] and allowed him to go to his own districts. It was arranged
for his son Maḥmūd to remain always in waiting.
(_d. Various military matters._)
(_November 30th_) On Wednesday the 24th of Muḥarram[1967] Muḥammad `Alī
(son of Mihtar) Ḥaidar the stirrup-holder was sent (to Humāyūn) with
this injunction, "As—thanks be to God!—the rebels have fled, do you, as
soon as this messenger arrives, appoint a few suitable begs to Jūnpūr,
and come quickly to us yourself, for Rānā Sangā the Pagan is
conveniently close; let us think first of him!"
After (Humāyūn's) army had gone to the East, we appointed, to make a
plundering excursion into the Bīāna neighbourhood, Tardī Beg (brother)
of Qūj Beg with his elder brother Sher-afgan, Muḥammad Khalīl the
master-gelder (_akhta-begī_) with his brethren and the gelders
(_akhtachīlār_),[1968] Rustam _Turkmān_ with his brethren, and also, of
the Hindūstānī people, Daud _Sarwānī_. [Sidenote: Fol. 303b.] If they,
by promise and persuasion, could make the Bīāna garrison look towards
us, they were to do so; if not, they were to weaken the enemy by raid
and plunder.
In the fort of Tahangar[1969] was `Ālam Khān the elder brother of that
same Niẕām Khān of Bīāna. People of his had come again and again to set
forth his obedience and well-wishing; he now took it on himself to say,
"If the Pādshāh appoint an army, it will be my part by promise and
persuasion to bring in the quiver-weavers of Bīāna and to effect the
capture of that fort." This being so, the following orders were given to
the braves of Tardī Beg's expedition, "As `Ālam Khān, a local man, has
taken it on himself to serve and submit in this manner, act you with him
and in the way he approves in this matter of Bīāna." Swordsmen though
some Hindūstānīs may be, most of them are ignorant and unskilled in
military move and stand (_yūrūsh u tūrūsh_), in soldierly counsel and
procedure. When our expedition joined `Ālam Khān, he paid no attention
to what any-one else said, did not consider whether his action was good
or bad, but went close up to Bīāna, taking our men with him. Our
expedition numbered from 250 to 300 Turks with somewhat over 2000
Hindūstānīs and local people, while Niẕām Khān of Bīāna's Afghāns and
_sipāhīs[1970]_ were an army of over 4000 horse and of [Sidenote: Fol.
304.] foot-men themselves again, more than 10,000. Niẕām Khān looked
his opponents over, sallied suddenly out and, his massed horse charging
down, put our expeditionary force to flight. His men unhorsed his elder
brother `Ālam Khān, took 5 or 6 others prisoner and contrived to capture
part of the baggage. As we had already made encouraging promises to
Niẕām Khān, we now, spite of this last impropriety, pardoned all earlier
and this later fault, and sent him royal letters. As he heard of Rānā
Sangā's rapid advance, he had no resource but to call on Sayyid
Rafī`[1971] for mediation, surrender the fort to our men, and come in
with Sayyid Rafī`, when he was exalted to the felicity of an
interview.[1972] I bestowed on him a pargana in Mīān-dū-āb worth 20
_laks_.[1973] Dost, Lord-of-the-gate was sent for a time to Bīāna, but a
few days later it was bestowed on Madhī Khwāja with a fixed allowance of
70 _laks_,[1974] and he was given leave to go there.
Tātār Khān _Sārang-khānī_, who was in Gūālīār, had been sending
constantly to assure us of his obedience and good-wishes. After the
pagan took Kandār and was close to Bīāna, Dharmankat, one of the Gūālīār
rājas, and another pagan styled Khān-i-jahān, went into the Gūālīār
neighbourhood and, coveting the fort, began to stir trouble and tumult.
Tātār Khān, thus placed in difficulty, was for surrendering Gūālīār (to
us). Most of our begs, household and best braves being away with
(Humāyūn's) army or on various raids, we joined to Raḥīm-dād [Sidenote:
Fol. 304b.] a few Bhīra men and Lāhorīs with Hastachī[1975] _tūnqiṯār_
and his brethren. We assigned _parganas_ in Gūālīār itself to all those
mentioned above. Mullā Apāq and Shaikh Gurān (G'hurān) went also with
them, they to return after Raḥīm-dād was established in Gūālīār. By the
time they were near Gūālīār however, Tātār Khān's views had changed, and
he did not invite them into the fort. Meantime Shaikh Muḥammad _Ghaus̤_
(Helper), a darwīsh-like man, not only very learned but with a large
following of students and disciples, sent from inside the fort to say to
Raḥīm-dād, "Get yourselves into the fort somehow, for the views of this
person (Tātār Khān) have changed, and he has evil in his mind." Hearing
this, Raḥīm-dād sent to say to Tātār Khān, "There is danger from the
Pagan to those outside; let me bring a few men into the fort and let the
rest stay outside." Under insistence, Tātār Khān agreed to this, and
Raḥīm-dād went in with rather few men. Said he, "Let our people stay
near this Gate," posted them near the Hātī-pul (Elephant-gate) and
through that Gate during that same night brought in the whole of his
troop. Next day, Tātār Khān, reduced to helplessness, willy-nilly, made
over the fort, and set out to come and wait on me in Āgra. A subsistence
allowance of 20 _laks_ was assigned to him on Bīānwān _pargana_.[1976]
[Sidenote: Fol. 305.] Muḥammad _Zaitūn_ also took the only course open
to him by surrendering Dūlpūr and coming to wait on me. A _pargana_
worth a few _laks_ was bestowed on him. Dūlpūr was made a royal domain
(_khālṣa_) with Abū'l-fatḥ _Turkmān_[1977] as its military-collector
(_shiqdār_).
In the Ḥiṣār-fīrūza neighbourhood Ḥamīd Khān _Sārang-khānī_ with a body
of his own Afghāns and of the Panī Afghāns he had collected—from 3 to
4,000 in all—was in a hostile and troublesome attitude. On Wednesday the
15th Ṣafar (Nov. 21st) we appointed against him Chīn-tīmūr Sl.
(_Chaghatāī_) with the commanders Secretary Aḥmadī, Abū'l-fatḥ
_Turkmān_, Malik Dād _Kararānī_[1978] and Mujāhid Khān of Multān. These
going, fell suddenly on him from a distance, beat his Afghāns well,
killed a mass of them and sent in many heads.
(_e. Embassy from Persia._)
In the last days of Ṣafar, Khwājagī Asad who had been sent to Shāh-zāda
T̤ahmāsp[1979] in `Irāq, returned with a Turkmān named Sulaimān who
amongst other gifts brought two Circassian girls (_qīzlār_).
(_f. Attempt to poison Bābur._)
(_Dec. 21st_) On Friday the 16th of the first Rabī` a strange event
occurred which was detailed in a letter written to Kābul. That letter is
inserted here just as it was written, without addition or taking-away,
and is as follows:—[1980]
"The details of the momentous event of Friday the 16th of the first
Rabī` in the date 933 [Dec. 21st 1526 AD.] are as follows:—The
ill-omened old woman[1981] Ibrāhim's mother heard [Sidenote: Fol. 305b.]
that I ate things from the hands of Hindūstānīs—the thing being that
three or four months earlier, as I had not seen Hindūstānī dishes, I had
ordered Ibrāhīm's cooks to be brought and out of 50 or 60 had kept four.
Of this she heard, sent to Atāwa (Etāwa) for Aḥmad the _chāshnīgīr_—in
Hindūstān they call a taster (_bakāwal_) a _chāshnīgīr_—and, having got
him,[1982] gave a _tūla_ of poison, wrapped in a square of paper,—as has
been mentioned a _tūla_ is rather more than 2 _mis̤qāls_[1983]—into the
hand of a slave-woman who was to give it to him. That poison Aḥmad gave
to the Hindūstānī cooks in our kitchen, promising them four _parganas_
if they would get it somehow into the food. Following the first
slave-woman that ill-omened old woman sent a second to see if the first
did or did not give the poison she had received to Aḥmad. Well was it
that Aḥmad put the poison not into the cooking-pot but on a dish! He did
not put it into the pot because I had strictly ordered the tasters to
compel any Hindūstānīs who were present while food was cooking in the
pots, to taste that food.[1984] Our graceless tasters were neglectful
when the food _(āsh_) was being dished up. Thin slices of bread were put
on a porcelain dish; on these less than half of the paper packet of
poison was sprinkled, and over this buttered [Sidenote: Fol. 306.]
fritters were laid. It would have been bad if the poison had been strewn
on the fritters or thrown into the pot. In his confusion, the man threw
the larger half into the fire-place."
"On Friday, late after the Afternoon Prayer, when the cooked meats were
set out, I ate a good deal of a dish of hare and also much fried carrot,
took a few mouthfuls of the poisoned Hindūstānī food without noticing
any unpleasant flavour, took also a mouthful or two of dried-meat
(_qāq_). Then I felt sick. As some dried meat eaten on the previous day
had had an unpleasant taste, I thought my nausea due to the dried-meat.
Again and again my heart rose; after retching two or three times I was
near vomiting on the table-cloth. At last I saw it would not do, got up,
went retching every moment of the way to the water-closet (_āb-khāna_)
and on reaching it vomited much. Never had I vomited after food, used
not to do so indeed while drinking. I became suspicious; I had the cooks
put in ward and ordered some of the vomit given to a dog and the dog to
be watched. It was somewhat out-of-sorts near the first watch of the
next day; its belly was swollen and however much people threw stones at
it and turned it over, it did not get up. In that state it remained till
mid-day; it then got up; it did not die. [Sidenote: Fol. 306b.] One or
two of the braves who also had eaten of that dish, vomited a good deal
next day; one was in a very bad state. In the end all escaped.
(_Persian_) 'An evil arrived but happily passed on!' God gave me
new-birth! I am coming from that other world; I am born today of my
mother; I was sick; I live; through God, I know today the worth of
life!"[1985]
"I ordered Pay-master Sl. Muḥammad to watch the cook; when he was taken
for torture (_qīn_), he related the above particulars one after
another."
"Monday being Court-day, I ordered the grandees and notables, amīrs and
wazīrs to be present and that those two men and two women should be
brought and questioned. They there related the particulars of the
affair. That taster I had cut in pieces, that cook skinned alive; one of
those women I had thrown under an elephant, the other shot with a
match-lock. The old woman (_būā_) I had kept under guard; she will meet
her doom, the captive of her own act."[1986]
"On Saturday I drank a bowl of milk, on Sunday _`araq_ in which
stamped-clay was dissolved.[1987] On Monday I drank milk in which were
dissolved stamped-clay and the best theriac,[1988] a strong purge. As on
the first day, Saturday, something very dark like parched bile was
voided."
"Thanks be to God! no harm has been done. Till now I had not known so
well how sweet a thing life can seem! As the line has it, 'He who has
been near to death knows the worth of life.' Spite of myself, I am all
upset whenever the dreadful [Sidenote: Fol. 307.] occurrence comes back
to my mind. It must have been God's favour gave me life anew; with what
words can I thank him?"
"Although the terror of the occurrence was too great for words, I have
written all that happened, with detail and circumstance, because I said
to myself, 'Don't let their hearts be kept in anxiety!' Thanks be to
God! there may be other days yet to see! All has passed off well and for
good; have no fear or anxiety in your minds."
"This was written on Tuesday the 20th of the first Rabī`, I being then
in the Chār-bāgh."
When we were free from the anxiety of these occurrences, the above
letter was written and sent to Kābul.
(_g. Dealings with Ibrāhīm's family._)
As this great crime had raised its head through that ill-omened old
woman (_būā-i-bad-bakht_), she was given over to Yūnas-i-`alī and
Khwājagī Asad who after taking her money and goods, slaves and
slave-women (_dādūk_), made her over for careful watch to `Abdu'r-raḥīm
_shaghāwal_.[1989] Her grandson, Ibrāhīm's son had been cared for with
much respect and delicacy, but as the attempt on my life had been made,
clearly, by that family, it did not seem advisable to keep him in Agra;
he was joined therefore to Mullā Sarsān—who had come from Kāmrān on
important business—and was started off with the Mullā to Kāmrān on
Thursday Rabī` I. 29th (Jan. 3rd 1527 AD.).[1990]
(_h. Humāyūn's campaign._)
[Sidenote: Fol. 307b.] Humāyūn, acting against the Eastern rebels[1991]
took Jūna-pūr (_sic_), went swiftly against Naṣīr Khān (_Nūḥānī_) in
Ghāzī-pūr and found that he had gone across the Gang-river, presumably
on news* of Humāyūn's approach. From Ghāzī-pūr Humāyūn went against
Kharīd[1992] but the Afghāns of the place had crossed the Sārū-water
(Gogra) presumably on the news* of his coming. Kharīd was plundered and
the army turned back.
Humāyūn, in accordance with my arrangements, left Shāh Mīr Ḥusain and
Sl. Junaid with a body of effective braves in Jūna-pūr, posted Qāẓī Jīā
with them, and placed Shaikh Bāyazīd [_Farmūlī_] in Aude (Oude). These
important matters settled, he crossed Gang from near Karrah-Mānikpūr and
took the Kālpī road. When he came opposite Kālpī, in which was Jalāl
Khān _Jik-hat's_ (son) `Ālam Khān who had sent me dutiful letters but
had not waited on me himself, he sent some-one to chase fear from `Ālam
Khān's heart and so brought him along (to Āgra).
Humāyūn arrived and waited on me in the Garden of Eight-paradises[1993]
on Sunday the 3rd of the 2nd Rabī` (Jan. 6th 1527 AD.). On the same day
Khwāja Dost-i-khāwand arrived from Kābul.
(_i. Rānā Sangā's approach._)[1994]
Meantime Mahdī Khwāja's people began to come in, treading on one
another's heels and saying, "The Rānā's advance is certain. Ḥasan Khān
_Mīwātī_ is heard of also as likely to join him. They must be thought
about above all else. It would favour our fortune, if a troop came ahead
of the army to reinforce Bīāna." [Sidenote: Fol. 308.]
Deciding to get to horse, we sent on, to ride light to Bīāna, the
commanders Muḥammad Sl. Mīrzā, Yūnas-i-`alī, Shāh Manṣūr _Barlās_, Kitta
Beg, Qismatī[1995] and Būjka.
In the fight with Ibrāhīm, Ḥasan Khān _Mīwātī's_ son Nāhar Khān had
fallen into our hands; we had kept him as an hostage and, ostensibly on
his account, his father had been making comings-and-goings with us,
constantly asking for him. It now occurred to several people that if
Ḥasan Khān were conciliated by sending him his son, he would thereby be
the more favourably disposed and his waiting on me might be the better
brought about. Accordingly Nāhar Khān was dressed in a robe of honour;
promises were made to him for his father, and he was given leave to go.
That hypocritical mannikin [Ḥasan Khān] must have waited just till his
son had leave from me to go, for on hearing of this and while his son as
yet had not joined him, he came out of Alūr (Alwar) and at once joined
Rānā Sangā in Toda(bhīm, Āgra District). It must have been ill-judged to
let his son go just then.
Meantime much rain was falling; parties were frequent; even Humāyūn was
present at them and, abhorrent though it was to him, sinned[1996] every
few days.
(_j. Tramontane affairs._)
One of the strange events in these days of respite[1997] was this:—When
Humāyūn was coming from Fort Victory. (Qila`-i-ẕafar) to join the
Hindūstān army, (Muḥ. 932 AH.-Oct. 1525 AD.) [Sidenote: Fol. 308b.]
Mullā Bābā of Pashāghar (_Chaghatāī_) and his younger brother Bābā
Shaikh deserted on the way, and went to Kītīn-qarā Sl. (_Aūzbeg_), into
whose hands Balkh had fallen through the enfeeblement of its
garrison.[1998] This hollow mannikin and his younger brother having
taken the labours of this side (Cis-Balkh?) on their own necks, come
into the neighbourhood of Aībak, Khurram and Sār-bāgh.[1999]
Shāh Sikandar—his footing in Ghūrī lost through the surrender of
Balkh—is about to make over that fort to the Aūzbeg, when Mullā Bābā and
Bābā Shaikh, coming with a few Aūzbegs, take possession of it. Mīr
Hamah, as his fort is close by, has no help for it; he is for submitting
to the Aūzbeg, but a few days later Mullā Bābā and Bābā Shaikh come with
a few Aūzbegs to Mīr Hamah's fort, purposing to make the Mīr and his
troop march out and to take them towards Balkh. Mīr Hamah makes Bābā
Shaikh dismount inside the fort, and gives the rest felt huts (_aūtāq_)
here and there. He slashes at Bābā Shaikh, puts him and some others in
bonds, and sends a man galloping off to Tīngrī-bīrdī (_Qūchīn_, in
Qūndūz). Tīngrī-bīrdī sends off Yār-i-`alī and `Abdu'l-laṯīf with a few
effective braves, but before they reach Mīr Hamah's fort, Mullā Bābā has
arrived there with his Aūzbegs; he had thought of a hand-to-hand fight
(_aūrūsh-mūrūsh_), but he can do nothing. Mīr Hamah and his men joined
Tīngrī-bīrdī's and came to Qūndūz. Bābā Shaikh's wound must have been
severe; they cut his head off and Mīr Hamah brought [Sidenote: Fol.
309.] it (to Āgra) in these same days of respite. I uplifted his head
with favour and kindness, distinguishing him amongst his fellows and
equals. When Bāqī _shaghāwal_ went [to Balkh][2000] I promised him a
_ser_ of gold for the head of each of the ill-conditioned old couple;
one _ser_ of gold was now given to Mīr Hamah for Bābā Shaikh's head,
over and above the favours referred to above.[2001]
(_k. Action of part of the Bīāna reinforcement._)
Qismatī who had ridden light for Bīāna, brought back several heads he
had cut off; when he and Būjka had gone with a few braves to get news,
they had beaten two of the Pagan's scouting-parties and had made 70 to
80 prisoners. Qismatī brought news that Ḥasan Khān _Mīwātī_ really had
joined Rānā Sangā.
(_l. Trial-test of the large mortar of f. 302._)
(_Feb. 10th_) On Sunday the 8th of the month (Jumāda I.), I went to see
Ustād `Alī-qulī discharge stones from that large mortar of his in
casting which the stone-chamber was without defect and which he had
completed afterwards by casting the powder-compartment. It was
discharged at the Afternoon Prayer; the throw of the stone was 1600
paces. A gift was made to the Master of a sword-belt, robe of honour,
and _tīpūchāq_ (horse).
(_m. Bābur leaves Āgra against Rānā Sangā._)
(_Feb. 11th_) On Monday the 9th of the first Jumāda, we got out of the
suburbs of Āgra, on our journey (_safar_) for the Holy War, and
dismounted in the open country, where we remained three or four days to
collect our army and be its rallying-point.[2002] As little confidence
was placed in Hindūstānī people, the Hindūstān amīrs were inscribed for
expeditions to this or to that side:—`Ālam Khān (_Tahangarī_) was sent
hastily to Gūālīār to [Sidenote: Fol. 309b.] reinforce Raḥīm-dād; Makan,
Qāsim Beg _Sanbalī_ (_Saṃbhalī_), Ḥamīd with his elder and younger
brethren and Muḥammad _Zaitūn_ were inscribed to go swiftly to Sanbal.
(_n. Defeat of the advance-force._)
Into this same camp came the news that owing to Rānā Sangā's swift
advance with all his army,[2003] our scouts were able neither to get
into the fort (Bīāna) themselves nor to send news into it. The Bīāna
garrison made a rather incautious sally too far out; the enemy fell on
them in some force and put them to rout.[2004] There Sangur Khān
_Janjūha_ became a martyr. Kitta Beg had galloped into the pell-mell
without his cuirass; he got one pagan afoot (_yāyāglātīb_) and was
overcoming him, when the pagan snatched a sword from one of Kitta Beg's
own servants and slashed the Beg across the shoulder. Kitta Beg suffered
great pain; he could not come into the Holy-battle with Rānā Sangā, was
long in recovering and always remained blemished.
Whether because they were themselves afraid, or whether to frighten
others is not known but Qismatī, Shāh Manṣūr _Barlās_ and all from Bīāna
praised and lauded the fierceness and valour of the pagan army.
Qāsim Master-of-the-horse was sent from the starting-ground (_safar
qīlghān yūrt_) with his spadesmen, to dig many wells where the army was
next to dismount in the Madhākūr _pargana_.
(_Feb. 16th_) Marching out of Āgra on Saturday the 14th of the first
Jumāda, dismount was made where the wells had been [Sidenote: Fol. 310.]
dug. We marched on next day. It crossed my mind that the well-watered
ground for a large camp was at Sīkrī.[2005] It being possible that the
Pagan was encamped there and in possession of the water, we arrayed
precisely, in right, left and centre. As Qismatī and Darwīsh-i-muḥammad
_Sārbān_ in their comings and goings had seen and got to know all sides
of Bīāna, they were sent ahead to look for camping-ground on the bank of
the Sīkrī-lake (_kūl_). When we reached the (Madhākūr) camp, persons
were sent galloping off to tell Mahdī Khwāja and the Bīāna garrison to
join me without delay. Humāyūn's servant Beg Mīrak _Mughūl_ was sent out
with a few braves to get news of the Pagan. They started that night, and
next morning brought word that he was heard of as having arrived and
dismounted at a place one _kuroh_ (2 miles) on our side (_aīlkārāk_) of
Basāwar.[2006] On this same day Mahdī Khwāja and Muḥammad Sl. Mīrzā
rejoined us with the troops that had ridden light to Bīāna.
(_o. Discomfiture of a reconnoitring party._)
The begs were appointed in turns for scouting-duty. When it was
`Abdu'l-`azīz's turn, he went out of Sīkrī, looking neither before nor
behind, right out along the road to Kanwā which is 5 _kuroh_ (10 m.)
away. The Rānā must have been marching forward; he heard of our men's
moving out in their reinless (_jalāū-sīz_) way, and made 4 or 5,000 of
his own fall suddenly on them. With `Abdu'l-`azīz and Mullā Apāq may
have been 1000 to 1500 men; they took no stock of their opponents but
just [Sidenote: Fol. 310b.] got to grips; they were hurried off at once,
many of them being made prisoner.
On news of this, we despatched Khalīfa's Muḥibb-i-`alī with Khalīfa's
retainers. Mullā Ḥusain and some others _aūbrūqsūbrūq_[2007]* were sent
to support them,[2008] and Muḥammad `Alī _Jang-jang_ also. Presumably it
was before the arrival of this first, Muḥibb-i-`alī's, reinforcement
that the Pagan had hurried off `Abdu'l-`azīz and his men, taken his
standard, martyred Mullā Ni`mat, Mullā Dāūd and the younger brother
of Mullā Apāq, with several more. Directly the reinforcement
arrived the pagans overcame T̤āhir-tibrī, the maternal uncle of
Khalīfa's Muḥibb-i-`alī, who had not got up with the hurrying
reinforcement[?].[2009] Meantime Muḥibb-i-`alī even had been thrown
down, but Bāltū getting in from the rear, brought him out. The enemy
pursued for over a _kuroh_ (2 m.), stopped however at the sight of the
black mass of Muḥ. `Alī _Jang-jang's_ troops.
Foot upon foot news came that the foe had come near and nearer. We put
on our armour and our horses' mail, took our arms and, ordering the
carts to be dragged after us, rode out at the gallop. We advanced one
_kuroh_. The foe must have turned aside.
(_p. Bābur fortifies his camp._)
For the sake of water, we dismounted with a large lake (_kūl_) on one
side of us. Our front was defended by carts chained together*, the space
between each two, across which the chains stretched, being 7 or 8 _qārī_
(_circa_ yards). Musṯafa _Rūmī_ had [Sidenote: Fol. 311.] had the carts
made in the Rūmī way, excellent carts, very strong and suitable.[2010]
As Ustād `Alī-qulī was jealous of him, Musṯafa was posted to the right,
in front of Humāyūn. Where the carts did not reach to, Khurāsānī and
Hindūstānī spadesmen and miners were made to dig a ditch.
Owing to the Pagan's rapid advance, to the fighting-work in Bīāna and to
the praise and laud of the pagans made by Shāh Manṣūr, Qismatī and the
rest from Bīāna, people in the army shewed sign of want of heart. On the
top of all this came the defeat of `Abdu'l-`azīz. In order to hearten
our men, and give a look of strength to the army, the camp was defended
and shut in where there were no carts, by stretching ropes of raw hide
on wooden tripods, set 7 or 8 _qārī_ apart. Time had drawn out to 20 or
25 days before these appliances and materials were fully ready.[2011]
(_q. A reinforcement from Kābul._)
Just at this time there arrived from Kābul Qāsim-i-ḥusain Sl. (_Aūzbeg
Shaibān_) who is the son of a daughter of Sl. Ḥusain M. (_Bāī-qarā_),
and with him Aḥmad-i-yūsuf (_Aūghlāqchī_), Qawwām-i-aūrdū Shāh and also
several single friends of mine, counting up in all to 500 men. Muḥammad
Sharīf, the astrologer of ill-augury, came with them too, so did Bābā
Dost the water-bearer (_sūchī_) who, having gone to Kābul for wine, had
there [Sidenote: Fol. 311b.] loaded three strings of camels with
acceptable Ghaznī wines.
At a time such as this, when, as has been mentioned, the army was
anxious and afraid by reason of past occurrences and vicissitudes, wild
words and opinions, this Muḥammad Sharīf, the ill-augurer, though he had
not a helpful word to say to me, kept insisting to all he met, "Mars is
in the west in these days;[2012] who comes into the fight from this
(east) side will be defeated." Timid people who questioned the
ill-augurer, became the more shattered in heart. We gave no ear to his
wild words, made no change in our operations, but got ready in earnest
for the fight.
(_Feb. 24th_) On Sunday the 22nd (of Jumāda 1.) Shaikh Jamāl was sent to
collect all available quiver-wearers from between the two waters (Ganges
and Jumna) and from Dihlī, so that with this force he might over-run and
plunder the Mīwāt villages, leaving nothing undone which could awaken
the enemy's anxiety for that side. Mullā Tark-i-`alī, then on his way
from Kābul, was ordered to join Shaikh Jamāl and to neglect nothing of
ruin and plunder in Mīwāt; orders to the same purport were given also to
Maghfūr the Dīwān. They went; they over-ran and raided a few villages in
lonely corners (_būjqāq_); they took some prisoners; but their passage
through did not arouse much anxiety!
(_r. Bābur renounces wine._)
On Monday the 23rd of the first Jumāda (Feb. 25th), when [Sidenote: Fol.
312.] I went out riding, I reflected, as I rode, that the wish to cease
from sin had been always in my mind, and that my forbidden acts had set
lasting stain upon my heart. Said I, "Oh! my soul!"
(_Persian_) "How long wilt thou draw savour from sin?
Repentance is not without savour, taste it!"[2013]
(_Turkī_) Through years how many has sin defiled thee?
How much of peace has transgression given thee?
How much hast thou been thy passions' slave?
How much of thy life flung away?
With the Ghāzī's resolve since now thou hast marched,
Thou hast looked thine own death in the face!
Who resolves to hold stubbornly fast to the death,
Thou knowest what change he attains,
That far he removes him from all things forbidden,
That from all his offences he cleanses himself.
With my own gain before me, I vowed to obey,
In this my transgression,[2014] the drinking
of wine.[2015]
The flagons and cups of silver and gold, the vessels
of feasting,
I had them all brought;
I had them all broken up[2016] then and there.
Thus eased I my heart by renouncement of wine.
The fragments of the gold and silver vessels were shared out to
deserving persons and to darwīshes. The first to agree in renouncing
wine was `Asas;[2017] he had already agreed also about leaving his beard
untrimmed.[2018] That night and next day some [Sidenote: Fol. 312b.] 300
begs and persons of the household, soldiers and not soldiers, renounced
wine. What wine we had with us was poured on the ground; what Bābā Dost
had brought was ordered salted to make vinegar. At the place where the
wine was poured upon the ground, a well was ordered to be dug, built up
with stone and having an almshouse beside it. It was already finished in
Muḥarram 935 (AH.-Sep. 1528 AD.) at the time I went to Sīkrī from Dūlpūr
on my way back from visiting Gūālīār.
(_s. Remission of a due._)
I had vowed already that, if I gained the victory over Sangā the pagan,
I would remit the _tamghā_[2019] to all Musalmāns. Of this vow
Darwīsh-i-muḥammad _Sārbān_ and Shaikh Zain reminded me at the time I
renounced wine. Said I, "You do well to remind me."
*_The tamghā_ was remitted to all Musalmāns of the dominions I
held.[2020] I sent for the clerks (_munshīlār_), and ordered them to
write for their news-letters (_akhbar_) the _farmān_ concerning the two
important acts that had been done. Shaikh Zain wrote the _farmān_ with
his own elegance (_inshāsī bīla_) and his fine letter (_inshā_) was sent
to all my dominions. It is as follows:—[2021]
FARMĀN ANNOUNCING BĀBUR'S RENUNCIATION OF WINE.[2022]
[2023] _Let us praise the Long-suffering One who loveth the penitent and
who loveth the cleansers of themselves; and let thanks be rendered to
the Gracious One who absolveth His debtors, and forgiveth those who seek
forgiveness. Blessings be upon Muḥammad the Crown of Creatures, on the
Holy family, on the pure Companions_, and on the mirrors of the glorious
congregation, to wit, the Masters of Wisdom who are treasure-houses of
the pearls of purity and who bear the impress of the sparkling jewels of
this purport:—that the nature of man is prone to evil, and that the
abandonment of sinful appetites is only feasible by Divine aid
[Sidenote: Fol. 313.] and the help that cometh from on high. "_Every
soul is prone unto evil_,"[2024] (and again) "_This is the bounty of
God_; _He will give the same unto whom He pleaseth_; _and God is endued
with great bounty_."[2025]
Our motive for these remarks and for repeating these statements is that,
by reason of human frailty, of the customs of kings and of the great,
all of us, from the Shāh to the sipāhī, in the heyday of our youth, have
transgressed and done what we ought not to have done. After some days of
sorrow and repentance, we abandoned evil practices one by one, and the
gates of retrogression became closed. But the renunciation of wine, the
greatest and most indispensable of renunciations, remained under a veil
in the chamber of deeds _pledged to appear in due season_, and did not
show its countenance until the glorious hour when we had put on the garb
of the holy warrior and had encamped with the army of Islām over against
the infidels in order to slay them. On this occasion I received a secret
inspiration and heard an infallible voice say "_Is not the time yet come
unto those who believe, that their hearts should humbly submit to the
admonition of God, and that truth which hath been revealed?_"[2026]
Thereupon we set ourselves to extirpate the things of wickedness, and we
earnestly knocked at the gates of repentance. The Guide of Help assisted
us, according to the saying "_Whoever knocks and re-knocks, to him it
will be opened_", and an order was given that with the Holy War there
should [Sidenote: Fol. 313b.] begin the still greater war which has to
be waged against sensuality. In short, we declared with sincerity that
_we would subjugate our passions_, and I engraved on the tablet of my
heart "_I turn unto Thee with repentance, and I am the first of true
believers_".[2027] And I made public the resolution to abstain from
wine, which had been hidden in the treasury of my breast. The victorious
servants, in accordance with the illustrious order, dashed upon the
earth of contempt and destruction the flagons and the cups, and the
other utensils in gold and silver, which in their number and their
brilliance were like the stars of the firmament. They dashed them in
pieces, as, God willing! soon will be dashed the gods of the
idolaters,—and they distributed the fragments among the poor and needy.
By the blessing of this acceptable repentance, many of the courtiers, by
virtue of the saying that _men follow the religion of their kings_,
embraced abstinence at the same assemblage, and entirely renounced the
use of wine, and up till now crowds of our subjects hourly attain this
auspicious happiness. I hope that in accordance with the saying "_He who
incites to good deeds has the same reward as he who does them_" the
benefit of this action will react on the royal fortune and increase it
day by day by victories.
After carrying out this design an universal decree was issued that in
the imperial dominions—May God protect them from [Sidenote: Fol. 314.]
every danger and calamity—no-one shall partake of strong drink, or
engage in its manufacture, nor sell it, nor buy it or possess it, nor
convey it or fetch it. "_Beware of touching it._" "_Perchance this will
give you prosperity._"[2028]
In thanks for these great victories,[2029] and as a thank-offering for
God's acceptance of repentance and sorrow, the ocean of the royal
munificence became commoved, and those waves of kindness, which are the
cause of the civilization of the world and of the glory of the sons of
Adam, were displayed,—and throughout all the territories the tax
(_tamghā_) on Musalmāns was abolished,—though its yield was more than
the dreams of avarice, and though it had been established and maintained
by former rulers,—for it is a practice outside of the edicts of the
Prince of Apostles (Muḥammad). So a decree was passed that in no city,
town, road, ferry, pass, or port, should the tax be levied or exacted.
No alteration whatsoever of this order is to be permitted. "_Whoever
after hearing it makes any change therein, the sin of such change will
be upon him._"[2030]
The proper course (_sabīl_) for all who shelter under the shade of the
royal benevolence, whether they be Turk, Tājik, `Arab, Hindī, or Fārsī
(Persian), peasants or soldiers, of every nation or tribe of the sons
of Adam, is to strengthen themselves by the tenets of religion, and to
be full of hope and prayer for the dynasty which is linked with
eternity, and to adhere to these ordinances, and not in any way to
transgress them. It behoves all to act according to this _farmān_; they
are to accept it as authentic when it comes attested by the Sign-Manual.
Written by order of the Exalted one,—May his excellence endure for ever!
on the 24th of Jumāda I. 933 (February 26th 1527).
(_t. Alarm in Bābur's camp._)
[Sidenote: Fol. 314b.] In these days, as has been mentioned, (our
people) great and small, had been made very anxious and timid by past
occurrences. No manly word or brave counsel was heard from any one
soever. What bold speech was there from the wazīrs who are to speak out
(_dīgūchī_), or from the amīrs who will devour the land
(_wilāyat-yīghūchī_)?[2031] None had advice to give, none a bold plan of
his own to expound. Khalīfa (however) did well in this campaign,
neglecting nothing of control and supervision, painstaking and
diligence.
At length after I had made enquiry concerning people's want of heart and
had seen their slackness for myself, a plan occurred to me; I summoned
all the begs and braves and said to them, "Begs and braves!
(_Persian_) Who comes into the world will die;
What lasts and lives will be God.
(_Turkī_) He who hath entered the assembly of life,
Drinketh at last of the cup of death.
He who hath come to the inn of life,
Passeth at last from Earth's house of woe.
"Better than life with a bad name, is death with a good one.
(_Persian_) Well is it with me, if I die with good name!
A good name must I have, since the body is death's.[2032]
"God the Most High has allotted to us such happiness and has created for
us such good-fortune that we die as martyrs, we kill as avengers of His
cause. Therefore must each of you take oath [Sidenote: Fol. 315.] upon
His Holy Word that he will not think of turning his face from this foe,
or withdraw from this deadly encounter so long as life is not rent from
his body." All those present, beg and retainer, great and small, took
the Holy Book joyfully into their hands and made vow and compact to this
purport. The plan was perfect; it worked admirably for those near and
afar, for seërs and hearers, for friend and foe.
(_u. Bābur's perilous position._)
In those same days trouble and disturbance arose on every side:—Ḥusain
Khān _Nuḥānī_ went and took Rāprī; Quṯb Khān's man took Chandwār[2033];
a mannikin called Rustam Khān who had collected quiver-wearers from
Between-the-two-waters (Ganges and Jamna), took Kūl (Koel) and made
Kīchīk 'Alī prisoner; Khwāja Zāhid abandoned Saṃbal and went off; Sl.
Muḥammad _Dūldāī_ came from Qanūj to me; the Gūālīār pagans laid siege
to that fort; 'Ālam Khān when sent to reinforce it, did not go to
Gūālīār but to his own district. Every day bad news came from every
side. Desertion of many Hindūstānīs set in; Haibat Khān
_Karg-andāz_[2034] deserted and went to Saṃbal; Ḥasan Khān of Bārī
deserted and joined the Pagan. We gave attention to none of them but
went straight on with our own affair.
(_v. Bābur advances to fight._)
The apparatus and appliances, the carts and wheeled tripods being ready,
we arrayed in right, left and centre, and marched forward on New Year's
Day,[2035] Tuesday, the 9th of the second [Sidenote: Fol. 315b.] Jumāda
(March 13th), having the carts[2036] and wheeled tripods moving in
front of us, with Ustād `Alī-qulī and all the matchlock-men ranged
behind them in order that these men, being on foot, should not be left
behind the array but should advance with it.
When the various divisions, right, left and centre, had gone each to its
place, I galloped from one to another to give encouragement to begs,
braves, and _sipāhīs_. After each man had had assigned to him his post
and usual work with his company, we advanced, marshalled on the plan
determined, for as much as one _kuroh_ (2 m.)[2037] and then dismounted.
The Pagan's men, for their part, were on the alert; they came from their
side, one company after another.
The camp was laid out and strongly protected by ditch and carts. As we
did not intend to fight that day, we sent a few unmailed braves ahead,
who were to get to grips with the enemy and thus take an omen. They made
a few pagans prisoner, cut off and brought in their heads. Malik Qāsim
also cut off and brought in a few heads; he did well. By these successes
the hearts of our men became very strong.
When we marched on next day, I had it in my mind to fight, but Khalīfa
and other well-wishers represented that the camping-ground previously
decided on was near and that it would favour our fortunes if we had a
ditch and defences made there and went there direct. Khalīfa accordingly
rode off to get [Sidenote: Fol. 316.] the ditch dug; he settled its
position with the spades-men, appointed overseers of the work and
returned to us. (_w. The battle of Kānwa._)[2038]
On Saturday the 13th of the second Jumāda (March 17th, 1527 AD.) we had
the carts dragged in front of us (as before), made a _kuroh_ (2 m.) of
road, arrayed in right, left and centre, and dismounted on the ground
selected.
A few tents had been set up; a few were in setting up when news of the
appearance of the enemy was brought. Mounting instantly, I ordered every
man to his post and that our array should be protected with the
carts.[2039]
*As the following Letter-of-victory (_Fatḥ-nāma_) which is what Shaikh
Zain had indited, makes known particulars about the army of Islām, the
great host of the pagans with the position of their arrayed ranks, and
the encounters had between them and the army of Islām, it is inserted
here without addition or deduction.[2040]
SHAIKH ZAIN'S LETTER-OF-VICTORY.
(_a. Introduction._)
_Praise be to God the Faithful Promiser, the Helper of His servants, the
Supporter of His armies, the Scatterer of hostile hosts, the One alone
without whom there is nothing._ [Sidenote: Fol. 316b.]
_O Thou the Exalter of the pillars of Islām, Helper of thy faithful
minister, Overthrower of the pedestals of idols, Overcomer of rebellious
foes, Exterminator to the uttermost of the followers of darkness!_
_Lauds be to God the Lord of the worlds, and may the blessing of God be
upon the best of His creatures Muḥammad, Lord of ghāzīs and champions of
the Faith, and upon his companions, the pointers of the way, until the
Day of judgment._
The successive gifts of the Almighty are the cause of frequent praises
and thanksgivings, and the number of these praises and thanksgivings is,
in its turn, the cause of the constant succession of God's mercies. For
every mercy a thanksgiving is due, and every thanksgiving is followed by
a mercy. To render full thanks is beyond men's power; the mightiest are
helpless to discharge their obligations. Above all, adequate thanks
cannot be rendered for a benefit than which none is greater in the world
and nothing is more blessed, in the world to come, to wit, victory over
most powerful infidels and dominion over wealthiest heretics, "_these
are the unbelievers_, _the wicked_."[2041] In the eyes of the judicious,
no blessing can be greater than this. Thanks be to God! that this great
blessing and mighty boon, which from the cradle until now has been the
real object of this right-thinking mind (Bābur's), has now manifested
itself by the graciousness of the King of the worlds; the Opener who
dispenses his treasures without awaiting solicitation, hath opened them
with a master-key before our victorious Nawāb (Bābur),[2042] so that the
names of our[2043] conquering heroes have been emblazoned in the records
of glorious _ghāzīs_. By the help of our victorious soldiers the
[Sidenote: Fol. 317.] standards of Islām have been raised to the highest
pinnacles. The account of this auspicious fortune is as follows:—
(_b. Rānā Sangā and his forces._)
When the flashing-swords of our Islām-guarded soldiers had illuminated
the land of Hindūstān with rays of victory and conquest, as has been
recorded in former letters-of-victory,[2044] the Divine favour caused
our standards to be upreared in the territories of Dihlī, Āgra, Jūn-pūr,
Kharīd,[2045] Bihār, _etc._, when many chiefs, both pagans and
Muḥammadans submitted to our generals and shewed sincere obedience to
our fortunate Nawāb. But Rānā Sangā the pagan who in earlier times
breathed submissive to the Nawāb,[2046] now _was puffed up with pride
and became of the number of unbelievers_.[2047] Satan-like he threw back
his head and collected an army of accursed heretics, thus gathering a
rabble-rout of whom some wore the accursed torque (_ṯauq_), the
_zīnār_,[2048] on the neck, some had in the skirt the calamitous thorn
of apostacy.[2049] Previous to the rising in Hindūstān of the Sun of
dominion and the emergence there of the light of the Shāhanshāh's
Khalīfate [_i.e._ Bābur's] the authority of that execrated pagan
(Sangā)—_at the Judgment Day he shall have no friend_,[2050] was such
that not one of all the exalted sovereigns of this wide realm, such as
the Sulṯān of Dihlī, the [Sidenote: Fol. 317b.] Sulṯān of Gujrāt and the
Sulṯān of Mandū, could cope with this evil-dispositioned one, without
the help of other pagans; one and all they cajoled him and temporized
with him; and he had this authority although the rājas and rāīs of high
degree, who obeyed him in this battle, and the governors and commanders
who were amongst his followers in this conflict, had not obeyed him in
any earlier fight or, out of regard to their own dignity, been friendly
with him. Infidel standards dominated some 200 towns in the territories
of Islām; in them mosques and shrines fell into ruin; from them the
wives and children of the Faithful were carried away captive. So greatly
had his forces grown that, according to the Hindū calculation by which
one _lak_ of revenue should yield 100 horsemen, and one _krūr_ of
revenue, 10,000 horsemen, the territories subject to the Pagan (Sangā)
yielding 10 _krūrs_, should yield him 100,000 horse. Many noted pagans
who hitherto had not helped him in battle, now swelled his ranks out of
hostility to the people of Islām. Ten powerful chiefs, each the leader
of a pagan host, uprose in rebellion, as smoke rises, and linked
themselves, as though [Sidenote: Fol. 318.] enchained, to that perverse
one (Sangā); and this infidel decade who, unlike the blessed ten,[2051]
uplifted misery-freighted standards which _denounce unto them
excruciating punishment_,[2052] had many dependants, and troops, and
wide-extended lands. As, for instance, Ṣalāḥu'd-dīn[2053] had territory
yielding 30,000 horse, Rāwal Ūdai Sīngh of Bāgar had 12,000, Medinī Rāī
had 12,000, Ḥasan Khān of Mīwāt had 12,000, Bār-mal of Īdr had 4,000,
Narpat Hāra had 7,000, Satrvī of Kach (Cutch) had 6,000, Dharm-deo had
4,000, Bīr-sing-deo had 4,000, and Maḥmūd Khān, son of Sl. Sikandar, to
whom, though he possessed neither district nor _pargana_, 10,000 horse
had gathered in hope of his attaining supremacy. Thus, according to the
calculation of Hind, 201,000 was the total of those sundered from
salvation. In brief, that haughty pagan, inwardly blind, and hardened of
heart, having joined with other pagans, dark-fated and doomed to
perdition, advanced to contend with the followers of Islām and to
destroy the foundations of the law of the Prince of Men (Muḥammad), on
whom be God's blessing! The protagonists of the royal forces fell, like
divine destiny, on that one-eyed Dajjāl[2054] who, to understanding men,
shewed the truth of the saying, _When Fate arrives, the eye becomes
blind_, and, setting before their eyes the scripture which saith,
_Whosoever striveth to promote the true religion, striveth for the good
of his own soul_,[2055] [Sidenote: Fol. 318b.] they acted on the precept
to which obedience is due, _Fight against infidels and hypocrites_.
(_c. Military movements._)
(_March 17th, 1527_) On Saturday the 13th day of the second Jumāda of
the date 933, a day blessed by the words, _God hath blessed your
Saturday_, the army of Islām was encamped near the village of Kānwa, a
dependency of Bīāna, hard by a hill which was 2 _kurohs_ (4 m.) from the
enemies of the Faith. When those accursed infidel foes of Muḥammad's
religion heard the reverberation of the armies of Islām, they arrayed
their ill-starred forces and moved forward with one heart, relying on
their mountain-like, demon-shaped elephants, as had relied the Lords of
the Elephant[2056] who went to overthrow the sanctuary (_ka`ba_) of
Islām.
"Having these elephants, the wretched Hindus
Became proud, like the Lords of the Elephant;
Yet were they odious and vile as is the evening of death,
Blacker[2057] than night, outnumbering the stars,
All such as fire is[2058] but their heads upraised
In hate, as rises its smoke in the azure sky,
Ant-like they come from right and from left,
Thousands and thousands of horse and foot."
They advanced towards the victorious encampment, intending [Sidenote:
Fol. 319.] to give battle. The holy warriors of Islām, trees in the
garden of valour, moved forward in ranks straight as serried pines and,
like pines uplift their crests to heaven, uplifting their helmet-crests
which shone even as shine the hearts of those _that strive in the way of
the Lord_; their array was like Alexander's iron-wall,[2059] and, as is
the way of the Prophet's Law, straight and firm and strong, _as though
they were a well-compacted building_;[2060] and they became fortunate
and successful in accordance with the saying, _They are directed by
their Lord, and they shall prosper_.[2061]
In that array no rent was frayed by timid souls;
Firm was it as the Shāhanshāh's resolve, strong as the Faith;
Their standards brushed against the sky;
_Verily we have granted thee certain victory_.[2062]
Obeying the cautions of prudence, we imitated the _ghāzīs_ of Rūm[2063]
by posting matchlockmen (_tufanchīān_) and cannoneers (_ra`d-andāzān_)
along the line of carts which were chained to one another in front of
us; in fact, Islām's army was so arrayed and so steadfast that primal
Intelligence[2064] and the firmament (_`aql-i-pīr u charkh-i-as̤īr_)
applauded the marshalling thereof. To effect this arrangement and
organization, Niẕāmu'd-dīn `Alī Khalīfa, the pillar of the Imperial
fortune, exerted himself strenuously; his efforts were in accord with
Destiny, and were approved by his sovereign's luminous judgment.
(_d. Commanders of the centre._)
His Majesty's post was in the centre. In the right-hand of the centre
were stationed the illustrious and most upright [Sidenote: Fol. 319b.]
brother, the beloved friend of Destiny, the favoured of Him whose aid is
entreated (_i.e._ God), Chīn-tīmūr Sulṯān,[2065]—the illustrious son,
accepted in the sight of the revered Allāh, Sulaimān Shāh,[2066]—the
reservoir of sanctity, the way-shower, Khwāja Kamālu'd-dīn
(Perfect-in-the Faith) Dost-i-khāwand,—the trusted of the sulṯānate, the
abider near the sublime threshold, the close companion, the cream of
associates, Kamālu'd-dīn Yūnas-i-`alī,—the pillar of royal retainers,
the perfect in friendship, Jalālu'd-dīn (Glory-of-the-Faith) Shāh Manṣūr
_Barlās_,—the pillar of royal retainers, most excellent of servants,
Niẕāmu'd-dīn (Upholder-of-the-Faith) Darwīsh-i-muḥammad _Sārbān_,—the
pillars of royal retainers, the sincere in fidelity, Shihābu'd-dīn
(Meteor-of-the-Faith) `Abdu'l-lāh the librarian and Nīẕāmu'd-dīn Dost
Lord-of-the-Gate.
In the left-hand of the centre took each his post, the reservoir of
sovereignty, ally of the Khalīfate, object of royal favour, Sulṯān
`Alā'u'd-dīn `Ālam Khān son of Sl. Bahlūl _Lūdī_,—the intimate of
illustrious Majesty, the high priest (_dastūr_) of _ṣadrs_ amongst men,
the refuge of all people, the pillar of Islām, Shaikh Zain of
Khawāf,[2067]—the pillar of the nobility, Kamālu'd-dīn Muḥibb-i-`alī,
son of the intimate counsellor named above (_i.e._ Khalīfa),—the pillar
of royal retainers, Niẕāmu'd-dīn Tardī Beg brother of Qūj (son of)
Aḥmad, whom God hath taken into His mercy,—Shīrafgan [Sidenote: Fol.
320.] son of the above-named Qūj Beg deceased,—the pillar of great ones,
the mighty khān, Ārāīsh Khān,[2068]—the wazīr, greatest of wazīrs
amongst men, Khwāja Kamālu'd-dīn Ḥusain,—and a number of other
attendants at Court (_dīwanīān_).
(_e. Commanders of the right wing._)
In the right wing was the exalted son, honourable and fortunate, the
befriended of Destiny, the Star of the Sign of sovereignty and success,
Sun of the sphere of the Khalīfate, lauded of slave and free, Muḥammad
Humāyūn Bahādur. On that exalted prince's right hand there were, one
whose rank approximates to royalty and who is distinguished by the
favour of the royal giver of gifts, Qāsim-i-ḥusain Sulṯān,—the pillar of
the nobility Niẕāmu'd-dīn Aḥmad-ī-yūsuf _Aūghlāqchī_,[2069]—the trusted
of royalty, most excellent of servants, Jalālu'd-dīn Hindū Beg
_qūchīn_,[2070]—the trusted of royalty, perfect in loyalty, Jalālu'd-dīn
Khusrau Kūkūldāsh,—the trusted of royalty, Qawām (var. Qiyām) Beg
_Aūrdū-shāh_,—the pillar of royal retainers, of perfect sincerity, Walī
_Qarā-qūzī_ the treasurer,[2071]—the pillar of royal retainers,
Niẕāmu'd-dīn Pīr-qulī of Sīstān,—the pillar of wazīrs, Khwāja
Kamālu'd-dīn _pahlawān_ (champion) of Badakhshān,—the pillar of royal
retainers, `Abdu'l-sḥakūr,—the pillar of the nobility, most excellent of
servants, the envoy from `Irāq Sulaimān Āqā,—and Ḥusain Āqā the envoy
from Sīstān. On [Sidenote: Fol. 320b.] the victory-crowned left of the
fortunate son already named there were, the sayyid of lofty birth, of
the family of Murtiẓā (`Alī), Mīr Hama (or Hāma),—the pillar of royal
retainers, the perfect in sincerity, Shamsu'd-dīn Muḥammadī Kūkūldāsh
and Niẕāmu'd-dīn Khwājagī Asad _jān-dār_.[2072] In the right wing there
were, of the amīrs of Hind,—the pillar of the State, the Khān-of-Khāns,
Dilāwar Khān,[2073]—the pillar of the nobility, Malik Dād
_Kararānī_,—and the pillar of the nobility, the Shaikh-of-shaikhs,
Shaikh Gūran, each standing in his appointed place.
(_f. Commanders of the left wing._)
In the left wing of the armies of Islām there extended their ranks,—the
lord of lofty lineage, the refuge of those in authority, the ornament of
the family of _T̤a Ha_ and _Ya Sin_,[2074] the model for the descendants
of the prince of ambassadors (Muḥammad), Sayyid Mahdī Khwāja,—the
exalted and fortunate brother, the well-regarded of his Majesty,
Muḥammad Sl. Mīrzā,[2075]—the personage approximating to royalty, the
descended of monarchs, `Ādil Sulṯān son of Mahdī Sulṯān,[2076]—the
trusted in the State, perfect in attachment, `Abdu'l-'azīz Master of the
Horse,—the trusted in the State, the pure in friendship, Shamsu'd-dīn
Muḥammad `Ali _Jang-jang_,[2077]—the pillar of royal retainers,
Jalālu'd-dīn Qūtlūq-qadam _qarāwal_ (scout),—the pillar of royal
retainers, the perfect in sincerity, Jalālu'd-dīn Shāh Ḥusain _yārāgī
Mughūl Ghānchī_(?),[2078]—and Niẕāmu'd-dīn Jān-i-muḥammad _Beg Ātāka_.
Of amīrs of Hind there were in this division, the scions of sulṯāns,
Kamāl Khān and Jamāl Khān sons of the Sl. `Alā'u'd-dīn [Sidenote: Fol.
321.] above-mentioned,—the most excellent officer `Alī Khān Shaikh-zāda
of Farmūl,—and the pillar of the nobility, Niẕām Khān of Bīāna.
(_g. The flanking parties._)
For the flank-movement (_tūlghāma_) of the right wing there were posted
two of the most trusted of the household retainers, Tardīka[2079] and
Malik Qāsim the brother of Bābā Qashqa, with a body of Mughūls; for the
flank-movement of the left wing were the two trusted chiefs Mūmin Ātāka
and Rustam _Turkmān_, leading a body of special troops.
(_h. The Chief of the Staff._)
The pillar of royal retainers, the perfect in loyalty, the cream of
privy-counsellors, Niẕāmu'd-dīn Sulṯān Muḥammad _Bakhshī_, after posting
the _ghāzīs_ of Islām, came to receive the royal commands. He despatched
adjutants (_tawāchī_) and messengers (_yasāwal_) in various directions
to convey imperative orders concerning the marshalling of the troops to
the great sulṯāns and amīrs. And when the Commanders had taken up their
positions, an imperative order was given that none should quit his post
or, uncommanded, stretch forth his arm to fight.
(_i. The battle._)
One watch[2080] of the afore-mentioned day had elapsed when the opposing
forces approached each other and the battle began. As Light opposes
Darkness, so did the centres of the two [Sidenote: Fol. 321b.] armies
oppose one another. Fighting began on the right and left wings, such
fighting as shook the Earth and filled highest Heaven with clangour.
The left wing of the ill-fated pagans advanced against the right wing of
the Faith-garbed troops of Islām and charged down on Khusrau Kūkūldāsh
and Bābā Qashqa's brother Malik Qāsim. The most glorious and most
upright brother Chīn-tīmūr Sulṯān, obeying orders, went to reinforce
them and, engaging in the conflict with bold attack, bore the pagans
back almost to the rear of their centre. Guerdon was made for the
brother's glorious fame.[2081] The marvel of the Age, Muṣṯafa of Rūm,
had his post in the centre (of the right wing) where was the exalted
son, upright and fortunate, the object of the favourable regard of
Creative Majesty (_i.e._ God), the one _distinguished by the particular
grace of the mighty Sovereign who commands to do and not to do_ (_i.e._
Bābur), Muḥammad Humāyūn Bahādur. This Muṣṯafa of Rūm had the carts
(_arābahā_)[2082] brought forward and broke the ranks of pagans with
matchlock and culverin dark like their hearts(?).[2083] In the thick of
the fight, the most glorious brother Qāsim-i-ḥusain Sulṯān and the
pillars of royal retainers, Niẕāmu'd-dīn Aḥmad-i-yūsuf and Qawām Beg,
obeying orders, hastened to their help. And since band after band of
pagan troops followed each other to help their men, so we, in our turn,
sent the trusted in the State, the glory of the Faith, Hindū Beg, and,
after him, the pillars of the nobility, Muhammadī Kūkūldāsh and Khwājagī
Asad _jān-dār_, and, after them, the trusted in [Sidenote: Fol. 322.]
the State, the trustworthy in the resplendent Court, the most
confided-in of nobles, the elect of confidential servants, Yūnas-i-'alī,
together with the pillar of the nobility, the perfect in friendship,
Shāh Manṣūr _Barlās_ and the pillar of the grandees, the pure in
fidelity, `Abdu'l-lāh the librarian, and after these, the pillar of the
nobles, Dost the Lord-of-the-Gate, and Muḥammad Khalil the master-gelder
(_akhta-begī_).[2084]
The pagan right wing made repeated and desperate attack on the left wing
of the army of Islām, falling furiously on the holy warriors, possessors
of salvation, but each time was made to turn back or, smitten with the
arrows of victory, was _made to descend into Hell, the house of
perdition; they shall be thrown to burn therein, and an unhappy dwelling
shall it be_.[2085] Then the trusty amongst the nobles, Mūmin Ātāka and
Rustam _Turkmān_ betook themselves to the rear[2086] of the host of
darkened pagans; and to help them were sent the Commanders Khwāja Maḥmūd
and `Alī Ātāka, servants of him who amongst the royal retainers is near
the throne, the trusted of the Sulṯānate, Niẕāmu'd-din `Alī Khalīfa.
Our high-born brother[2087] Muḥammad Sl. Mīrzā, and the representative
of royal dignity, `Ādil Sulṯān, and the trusted in the State, the
strengthener of the Faith, `Abdu'l-`azīz, the Master of the Horse, and
the glory of the Faith, Qūtlūq-qadam _qarāwal_, and the meteor of the
Faith, Muḥammad `Alī _Jang-jang_, and the pillar of royal retainers,
Shāh Ḥusain _yāragī Mughūl Ghānchī_(?) stretched out the arm to fight
and stood firm. To support them we sent the _Dastūr_, the highest of
wazīrs, Khwāja [Sidenote: Fol. 322b.] Kamālu'd-dīn Ḥusain with a body of
_dīwānīs_.[2088] Every holy warrior was eager to show his zeal, entering
the fight with desperate joy as if approving the verse, _Say, Do you
expect any other should befall us than one of the two most excellent
things, victory or martyrdom?_[2089] and, with display of life-devotion,
uplifted the standard of life-sacrifice.
As the conflict and battle lasted long, an imperative order was issued
that the special royal corps (_tābīnān-i-khāṣa-i-pādshāhī_)[2090] who,
heroes of one hue,[2091] were standing, like tigers enchained, behind
the carts,[2092] should go out on the right and the left of the
centre,[2093] leaving the matchlockmen's post in-between, and join
battle on both sides. As the True Dawn emerges from its cleft in the
horizon, so they emerged from behind the carts; they poured a ruddy
crepuscule of the blood of those ill-fated pagans on the nadir of the
Heavens, that battle-field; they made fall from the firmament of
existence many heads of the headstrong, as stars fall from the firmament
of heaven. The marvel of the Age, Ustād `Alī-qulī, who with his own
appurtenances stood in front of the centre, did deeds of valour,
discharging against the iron-mantled forts of the infidels[2094] stones
of such size that were (one) put into a scale of the Balance in which
actions are weighed, that _scale shall be heavy with good works and he_
(_i.e._ its owner) _shall lead a pleasing life_[2095]; and were such
stones discharged against a hill, broad of base and high of summit, it
would _become like carded wool_.[2096] Such stones Ustād `Alī-qulī
discharged at the iron-clad fortress of the pagan ranks and by this
discharge of stones, and abundance of culverins and matchlocks(?)[2097]
destroyed many of the builded bodies of the [Sidenote: Fol. 323.]
pagans. The matchlockmen of the royal centre, in obedience to orders,
going from behind the carts into the midst of the battle, each one of
them made many a pagan taste of the poison of death. The foot-soldiers,
going into a most dangerous place, made their names to be blazoned
amongst those of the forest-tigers (_i.e._ heroes) of valour and the
champions in the field of manly deeds. Just at this time came an order
from his Majesty the Khāqān that the carts of the centre should be
advanced; and the gracious royal soul (_i.e._ Bābur) moved towards the
pagan soldiers, Victory and Fortune on his right, Prestige and Conquest
on his left. On witnessing this event, the victorious troops followed
from all sides; the whole surging ocean of the army rose in mighty
waves; the courage of all the crocodiles[2098] of that ocean was
manifested by the strength of their deeds; an obscuring cloud of dust
o'erspread the sky(?). The dust that gathered over the battle-field was
traversed by the lightning-flashes of the sword; the Sun's face was
shorn of light as is a mirror's back; the striker and the struck, the
victor and the vanquished were commingled, all distinction between them
lost. The Wizard of Time produced such a night that its only planets
were arrows,[2099] its only constellations of fixed stars were the
steadfast squadrons.
Upon that day of battle sank and rose
Blood to the Fish and dust-clouds to the Moon,
While through the horse-hoofs on that spacious plain,
[Sidenote: Fol. 323b.]
One Earth flew up to make another Heaven.[2100]
At the moment when the holy warriors were heedlessly flinging away
their lives, they heard a secret voice say, _Be not dismayed, neither be
grieved, for, if ye believe, ye shall be exalted above the
unbelievers_,[2101] and from the infallible Informer heard the joyful
words, _Assistance is from God, and a speedy victory! And do thou bear
glad tidings to true believers._[2102] Then they fought with such
delight that the plaudits of the saints of the Holy Assembly reached
them and the angels from near the Throne, fluttered round their heads
like moths. Between the first and second Prayers, there was such blaze
of combat that the flames thereof raised standards above the heavens,
and the right and left of the army of Islām rolled back the left and
right of the doomed infidels in one mass upon their centre.
When signs were manifest of the victory of the Strivers and of the
up-rearing of the standards of Islām, those accursed infidels and wicked
unbelievers remained for one hour confounded. At length, their hearts
abandoning life, they fell upon the right and left of our centre. Their
attack on the left was the more vigorous and there they approached
furthest, but the holy warriors, their minds set on the reward, planted
shoots (_nihāl_) of arrows in the field of the breast of each one of
them, and, such being their gloomy fate, overthrew them. In this state
of affairs, the breezes of victory and fortune blew over the meadow of
our [Sidenote: Fol. 324.] happy Nawāb, and brought the good news,
_Verily we have granted thee a manifest victory_.[2103] And Victory the
beautiful woman (_shāhid_) whose world-adornment of waving tresses was
embellished by _God will aid you with a mighty aid_,[2104] bestowed on
us the good fortune that had been hidden behind a veil, and made it a
reality. The absurd (_bāṯil_) Hindūs, knowing their position perilous,
_dispersed like carded wool before the wind_, and _like moths scattered
abroad_.[2105] Many fell dead on the field of battle; others, desisting
from fighting, fled to the desert of exile and became the food of crows
and kites. Mounds were made of the bodies of the slain, pillars of their
heads.
(_j. Hindū chiefs killed in the battle._)
Ḥasan Khān of Mīwāt was enrolled in the list of the dead by the force of
a matchlock (_ẓarb-i-tufak_); most of those headstrong chiefs of tribes
were slain likewise, and ended their days by arrow and matchlock (_tīr u
tufak_). Of their number was Rāwal Ūdī Sīngh of Bāgar,[2106] ruler
(_wālī_) of the Dungarpūr country, who had 12,000 horse, Rāī Chandrabān
_Chūhān_ who had 4,000 horse, Bhūpat Rāo son of that Ṣalāḥu'd-dīn
already mentioned, who was lord of Chandīrī and had 6,000 horse,
Mānik-chand _Chūhān_ and Dilpat Rāo who had each 4,000 horse, Kankū (or
Gangū) and Karm Sīngh and Dankūsī(?)[2107] who had each 3,000 horse, and
a number of others, each one of whom was leader of a great [Sidenote:
Fol. 324b.] command, a splendid and magnificent chieftain. All these
trod the road to Hell, removing from this house of clay to the pit of
perdition. The enemy's country (_dāru'l-ḥarb_) was full, as Hell is
full, of wounded who had died on the road. The lowest pit was gorged
with miscreants who had surrendered their souls to the lord of Hell. In
whatever direction one from the army of Islām hastened, he found
everywhere a self-willed one dead; whatever march the illustrious camp
made in the wake of the fugitives, it found no foot-space without its
prostrate foe.
All the Hindūs slain, abject (_khwār_, var. _zār_) and mean,
By matchlock-stones, like the Elephants' lords,[2108]
Many hills of their bodies were seen,
And from each hill a fount of running blood.
Dreading the arrows of (our) splendid ranks,
Passed[2109] they in flight to each waste and hill.
They turn their backs. The command of God is to be performed. Now praise
be to God, All-hearing and All-wise, for victory is from God alone, the
Mighty, the Wise.[2110] Written Jumāda II. 25th 933 (AH.-March 29th 1527
A.D.).[2111]
MINOR SEQUELS OF VICTORY.
(_a. Bābur assumes the title of Ghāzī._)
After this success _Ghāzī_ (Victor in a Holy-war) was written amongst
the royal titles.
Below the titles (_ṯughrā_)[2112] entered on the _Fatḥ-nāma_, I wrote
the following quatrain:—[2113]
For Islām's sake, I wandered in the wilds,
Prepared for war with pagans and Hindūs,
Resolved myself to meet the martyr's death. [Sidenote: Fol. 325.]
Thanks be to God! a _ghāzī_ I became.
(_b. Chronograms of the victory._)
Shaikh Zain had found (_tāpīb aīdī_) the words
_Fatḥ-i-pādshāḥ-i-islām_[2114] (Victory of the Pādshāh of the Faith) to
be a chronogram of the victory. Mīr Gesū, one of the people come from
Kābul, had also found these same words to be a chronogram, had composed
them in a quatrain and sent this to me. It was a coincidence that Shaikh
Zain and Mīr Gesū should bring forward precisely the same words in the
quatrains they composed to embellish their discoveries.[2115] Once
before when Shaikh Zain found the date of the victory at Dībālpūr in the
words _Wasaṯ-i-shahr Rabī`u'l-awwal_[2116] (Middle of the month Rabī`
I.), Mīr Gesū had found it in the very same words.
HISTORICAL NARRATIVE RESUMED.
(_a. After the victory._)
The foes beaten, we hurried them off, dismounting one after another. The
Pagan's encirclement[2117] may have been 2 _kurohs_ from our camp
(_aūrdū_); when we reached his camp (_aūrdū_), we sent Muḥammadī,
`Abdu'l-`azīz, `Alī Khān and some others in pursuit of him. There was a
little slackness;[2118] I ought to have gone myself, and not have left
the matter to what I expected from other people. When I had gone as much
as a _kuroh_ (2 m.) beyond the Pagan's camp, I turned back because it
was late in the day; I came to our camp at the Bed-time Prayer.
With what ill-omened words Muḥammad Sharīf the astrologer had fretted
me! Yet he came at once to congratulate me! I emptied my inwards[2119]
in abuse of him, but, spite of his being heathenish, ill-omened of
speech, extremely self-satisfied, and a most disagreeable person, I
bestowed a _lak_ upon him because there had been deserving service from
him in former times, and, [Sidenote: Fol. 325b.] after saying he was not
to stay in my dominions, I gave him leave to go.
(_b. Suppression of a rebellion._)
(_March 17th_) We remained next day (_Jumāda II. 14th_) on that
same ground. Muḥammad `Alī _Jang-jang_ and Shaikh Gūran and
`Abdu'l-malik[2120] the armourer were sent off with a dense (_qālīn_)
army against Ilīās Khān who, having rebelled in Between-the-two-waters
(Ganges and Jumna), had taken Kūl (Koel) and made Kīchīk `Alī
prisoner.[2121] He could not fight when they came up; his force
scattered in all directions; he himself was taken a few days later and
brought into Āgra where I had him flayed alive.
(_c. A trophy of victory._)
An order was given to set up a pillar of pagan heads on the infant-hill
(_koh-bacha_) between which and our camp the battle had been fought.
(_d. Bīāna visited._)
(_March 20th_) Marching on from that ground, and after halting on two
nights, we reached Bīāna (_Sunday_, _Jumāda II. 17th_). Countless
numbers of the bodies of pagans and apostates[2122] who had fallen in
their flight, lay on the road as far as Bīāna, indeed as far as Alūr and
Mīwāt.[2123]
(_e. Discussion of plans._)
On our return to camp, I summoned the Turk amīrs and the amīrs of Hind
to a consultation about moving into the Pagan (Sangā)'s country; the
plan was given up because of the little water and much heat on the road.
(_f. Mīwāt._)
Near Dihlī lies the Mīwāt country which yields revenue of 3 or 4
_krūrs_.[2124] Ḥasan Khān _Mīwātī_[2125] and his ancestors one after
another had ruled it with absolute sway for a hundred years or two. They
must have made[2126] imperfect submission to the Dihlī Sulṯāns; the
Sulṯāns of Hind,[2127] whether because their [Sidenote: Fol. 326.] own
dominions were wide, or because their opportunity was narrow, or because
of the Mīwāt hill-country,[2128] did not turn in the Mīwāt direction,
did not establish order in it, but just put up with this amount of
(imperfect) submission. For our own part, we did after the fashion of
earlier Sulṯāns; having conquered Hind, we shewed favour to Ḥasan Khān,
but that thankless and heathenish apostate disregarded our kindness and
benefits, was not grateful for favour and promotion, but became the
mover of all disturbance and the cause of all misdoing.
When, as has been mentioned, we abandoned the plan (against Rānā Sangā),
we moved to subdue Mīwāt. Having made 4 night-halts on the way, we
dismounted on the bank of the Mānas-nī[2129] 6 _kurohs_ (12 m.) from
Alūr, the present seat of government in Mīwāt. Ḥasan Khān and his
forefathers must have had their seat[2130] in Tijāra, but when I turned
towards Hindūstan, beat Pahār (or Bihār) Khān and took Lāhor and
Dībālpūr (930 AH.-1524 AD.), he bethought himself betimes and busied
himself for a residence (_`imārat_) in Fort Alūr (Alwar).
His trusted man, Karm-chand by name, who had come from him to me in Āgra
when his son (Nāhar _i.e._ Tiger) was with me there,[2131] came now from
that son's presence in Alūr and asked [Sidenote: Fol. 326b.] for peace.
`Abdu'r-raḥīm _shaghāwal_ went with him to Alūr, conveying letters of
royal favour, and returned bringing Nāhar Khān who was restored to
favour and received _parganas_ worth several _laks_ for his support.
(_g. Rewards to officers._)
Thinking, "What good work Khusrau did in the battle!" I named him for
Alūr and gave him 50 _laks_ for his support, but unluckily for himself,
he put on airs and did not accept this. Later on it [_khẉud_, itself]
came to be known that Chīn-tīmūr must have done[2132] that work; guerdon
was made him for his renown(?);[2133] Tijāra-town, the seat of
government in Mīwāt, was bestowed on him together with an allowance of
50 _laks_ for his support.
Alūr and an allowance of 15 _laks_ was bestowed on Tardīka (or, Tardī
_yakka_) who in the flanking-party of the right-hand (_qūl_) had done
better than the rest. The contents of the Alūr treasury were bestowed on
Humāyūn.
(_h. Alwar visited._)
(_April 13th_) Marching from that camp on Wednesday the 1st of the month
of Rajab, we came to within 2 _kurohs_ (4 m.) of Alūr. I went to see the
fort, there spent the night, and next day went back to camp.
(_i. Leave given to various followers._)
When the oath before-mentioned[2134] was given to great and small before
the Holy-battle with Rānā Sangā, it had been mentioned[2135] that there
would be nothing to hinder leave after [Sidenote: Fol. 327.] this
victory, and that leave would be given to anyone wishing to go away
(from Hindūstān). Most of Humāyūn's men were from Badakhshān or
elsewhere on that side (of Hindū-kūsh); they had never before been of an
army led out for even a month or two; there had been weakness amongst
them before the fight; on these accounts and also because Kābul was
empty of troops, it was now decided to give Humāyūn leave for Kābul.
(_April 11th_) Leaving the matter at this, we marched from Alūr on
Thursday the 9th of Rajab, did 4 or 5 _kurohs_ (8-10 m.) and dismounted
on the bank of the Mānas-water.
Mahdī Khwāja also had many discomforts; he too was given leave for
Kābul. The military-collectorate of Bīāna [he held] was bestowed on Dost
Lord-of-the-gate, and, as previously Etāwa had been named for Mahdī
Khwāja,[2136] Mahdī Khwāja's son Ja`far Khwāja was sent there in his
father's place when (later) Quṯb Khān abandoned it and went off.[2137]
(_j. Despatch of the Letter-of-victory._)
Because of the leave given to Humāyūn, two or three days were spent on
this ground. From it Mūmin-i-`alī the messenger (_tawāchī_) was sent off
for Kābul with the _Fatḥ-nāma_.
(_k. Excursions and return to Āgra._)
Praise had been heard of the Fīrūzpūr-spring and of the great lake of
Kūtila.[2138] Leaving the camp on that same ground, I rode out on Sunday
(_Rajab 12th-April 14th_) both to visit [Sidenote: Fol. 327b.] these
places and to set Humāyūn on his way. After visiting Fīrūzpūr and its
spring on that same day, _ma'jūn_ was eaten. In the valley where the
spring rises, oleanders (_kanīr_) were in bloom; the place is not
without charm but is over-praised. I ordered a reservoir of hewn stone,
10 by 10[2139] to be made where the water widened, spent the night in
that valley, next day rode on and visited the Kūtila lake. It is
surrounded by mountain-skirts. The Mānas-nī is heard-say to go into
it.[2140] It is a very large lake, from its one side the other side is
not well seen. In the middle of it is rising ground. At its sides are
many small boats, by going off in which the villagers living near it are
said to escape from any tumult or disturbance. Even on our arrival a few
people went in them to the middle of the lake.
On our way back from the lake, we dismounted in Humāyūn's camp. There we
rested and ate food, and after having put robes of honour on him and his
begs, bade him farewell at the Bed-time Prayer, and rode on. We slept
for a little at some place on the road, at shoot of day passed through
the _pargana_ of Kharī, again slept a little, and at length got to our
camp which had dismounted at Toda-(bhim).[2141] After leaving Toda, we
dismounted at Sūnkār; there Ḥasan Khān _Mīwātī's_ son [Sidenote: Fol.
328.] Nāhar Khān escaped from `Abdu'r-raḥīm's charge.
Going on from that place, we halted one night, then dismounted at a
spring situated on the bill of a mountain between Busāwar and
Chausa[2142] (or Jūsa); there awnings were set up and we committed the
sin of _ma'jūn_. When the army had passed by this spring, Tardī Beg
_khāksār_ had praised it; he (or we) had come and seen it from on
horse-back (_sar-asbgi_) and passed on. It is a perfect spring. In
Hindūstān where there are never running-waters,[2143] people seek out
the springs themselves. The rare springs that are found, come oozing
drop by drop (_āb-zih_) out of the ground, not bubbling up like springs
of those lands.[2144] From this spring comes about a half-mill-water. It
bubbles up on the hill-skirt; meadows lie round it; it is very
beautiful. I ordered an octagonal reservoir of hewn stone made
above[2145] it. While we were at the border of the spring, under the
soothing influence of _ma'jūn_, Tardī Beg, contending for its surpassing
beauty, said again and again, (_Persian_) "Since I am celebrating the
beauty of the place,[2146] a name ought to be settled for it".
`Abdu'l-lāh said, "It must be called the Royal-spring approved of by
Tardī Beg." This saying caused much joke and laughter.
Dost Lord-of-the-gate coming up from Bīāna, waited on me at this
spring-head. Leaving this place, we visited Bīāna again, [Sidenote: Fol.
328b.] went on to Sīkrī, dismounted there at the side of a garden which
had been ordered made, stayed two days supervising the garden, and on
Thursday the 23rd of Rajab (_April 25th_), reached Āgra.
(_l. Chandwār and Rāprī regained._)
During recent disturbances, the enemy, as has been mentioned,[2147] had
possessed themselves of Chandwār[2148] and Rāprī. Against those places
we now sent Muḥammad `Alī _Jang-jang_, Qūj Beg's (brother) Tardī Beg,
`Abdu'l-malik the armourer, and Ḥasan Khān with his Daryā-khānīs. When
they were near Chandwār, Quṯb Khān's people in it got out and away. Our
men laid hands on it, and passed on to Rāprī. Here Ḥusain Khān
_Nūḥānī's_ people came to the lane-end[2149] thinking to fight a little,
could not stand the attack of our men, and took to flight. Ḥusain Khān
himself with a few followers went into the Jūn-river (Jumna) on an
elephant and was drowned. Quṯb Khān, for his part, abandoned Etāwa on
hearing these news, fled with a few and got away. Etāwa having been
named for Mahdī Khwāja, his son Ja`far Khwāja was sent there in his
place.[2150]
(_m. Apportionment of fiefs._)
When Rānā Sangā sallied out against us, most Hindūstānīs and Afghāns, as
has been mentioned,[2151] turned round against us and took possession of
their _parganas_ and districts.[2152]
Sl. Muḥammad _Dūldāī_ who had abandoned Qanūj and come [Sidenote: Fol.
329.] to me, would not agree to go there again, whether from fear or for
his reputation's sake; he therefore exchanged the 30 _laks_ of Qanūj for
the 15 of Sihrind, and Qanūj was bestowed with an allowance of 30 _laks_
on Muḥammad Sl. Mīrzā. Badāūn[2153] was given to Qāsim-i-ḥusain Sulṯān
and he was sent against Bīban who had laid siege to Luknūr[2154] during
the disturbance with Rānā Sangā, together with Muḥammad Sl. Mīrzā, and,
of Turk amīrs, Bābā Qashqa's Malik Qāsim with his elder and younger
brethren and his Mughūls, and Abū'l-muḥammad the lance-player, and
Mu'yad with his father's Daryā-khānīs and those of Ḥusain Khān
_Daryā-khānī_ and the retainers of Sl. Muḥammad _Dūldāī_, and again, of
amīrs of Hind, `Alī Khān _Farmūlī_ and Malik Dād _Kararānī_ and Shaikh
Muḥammad of Shaikh _Bhakhārī_(?) and Tātār Khān Khān-i-jahān.
At the time this army was crossing the Gang-river (Ganges), Bīban,
hearing about it, fled, abandoning his baggage. Our army followed him to
Khairābād,[2155] stayed there a few days and then turned back.
(_n. Appointments and dispersion for the Rains._)
After the treasure had been shared out,[2156] Rānā Sangā's great affair
intervened before districts and _parganas_ were apportioned. During the
respite now from Holy-war against the Pagan (Sangā), this apportionment
was made. As the Rains were near, it was settled for every-one to go to
his _pargana_, get equipment [Sidenote: Fol. 329b.] ready, and be
present when the Rains were over.
(_o. Misconduct of Humāyūn._)
Meantime news came that Humāyūn had gone into Dihlī, there opened
several treasure-houses and, without permission, taken possession of
their contents. I had never looked for such a thing from him; it grieved
me very much; I wrote and sent off to him very severe reproaches.[2157]
(_p. An embassy to `Irāq._)
Khwājagī Asad who had already gone as envoy to `Irāq and returned with
Sulaimān _Turkmān_,[2158] was again joined with him and on the 15th of
Sha`bān (_May 17th_) sent with befitting gifts to Shāh-zāda T̤ahmāsp.
(_q. Tardī Beg khāksār resigns service._)
I had brought Tardī Beg out from the darwīsh-life and made a soldier of
him; for how many years had he served me! Now his desire for the
darwīsh-life was overmastering and he asked for leave. It was given and
he was sent as an envoy to Kāmrān conveying 3 _laks_ from the Treasury
for him.[2159]
(_r. Lines addressed to deserting friends._)
A little fragment[2160] had been composed suiting the state of those who
had gone away during the past year; I now addressed it to Mullā `Alī
Khān and sent it to him by Tardī Beg. It is as follows:—[2161]
Ah you who have gone from this country of Hind,
[Sidenote: Fol. 330.] Aware for yourselves of its woe and its pain,
With longing desire for Kābul's fine air,
You went hot-foot forth out of Hind.
The pleasure you looked for you will have found there
With sociable ease and charm and delight;
As for us, God be thanked! we still are alive,
In spite of much pain and unending distress;
Pleasures of sense and bodily toil
Have been passed-by by you, passed-by too by us.
(_s. Of the Ramẓān Feast._)
Ramẓān was spent this year with ablution and _tarāwiḥ_[2162] in the
Garden-of-eight-paradises. Since my 11th year I had not kept the Ramẓān
Feast for two successive years in the same place; last year I had kept
it in Āgra; this year, saying, "Don't break the rule!" I went on the
last day of the month to keep it in Sīkrī. Tents were set up on a stone
platform made on the n.e. side of the Garden-of-victory which is now
being laid out at Sīkrī, and in them the Feast was held.[2163]
(_t. Playing cards._)
The night we left Āgra Mīr `Alī the armourer was sent to Shāh Ḥasan
(_Arghūn_) in Tatta to take him playing-cards [_ganjīfa_] he much liked
and had asked for.[2164]
(_u. Illness and a tour._)
(_August 3rd_) On Sunday the 5th of Ẕū'l-qa`da I fell ill; the illness
lasted 17 days.
(_August 24th_) On Friday the 24th of the same month we set out to visit
Dūlpūr. That night I slept at a place half-way; [Sidenote: Fol. 330b.]
reached Sikandar's dam[2165] at dawn, and dismounted there.
At the end of the hill below the dam the rock is of building-stone. I
had Ustād Shāh Muḥammad the stone-cutter brought and gave him an order
that if a house could be cut all in one piece in that rock, it was to be
done, but that if the rock were too low for a residence (_`imārat_), it
was to be levelled and have a reservoir, all in one piece, cut out of
it.
From Dūlpūr we went on to visit Bārī. Next morning (_August 26th_) I
rode out from Bārī through the hills between it and the Chaṃbal-river in
order to view the river. This done I went back to Bārī. In these hills
we saw the ebony-tree, the fruit of which people call _tindū_. It is
said that there are white ebony-trees also and that most ebony-trees in
these hills are of this kind.[2166] On leaving Bārī we went to Sīkrī; we
reached Āgra on the 29th of the same month (_August 28th_).
(_v. Doubts about Shaikh Bāyazīd Farmūlī._)
As in these days people were telling wild news about Shaikh Bāyazīd, Sl.
Qulī _Turk_ was sent to him to give him tryst[2167] in 20 days.
(_w. Religious and metrical exercises._)
(_August 28th_) On Friday the 2nd of Ẕū'l-ḥijja I began what one is made
to read 41 times.[2168]
In these same days I cut up [_taqṯi`_] the following couplet of mine
into 504 measures[2169]:—
"Shall I tell of her eye or her brow, her fire or her speech?
Shall I tell of her stature or cheek, of her hair or her waist?"
On this account a treatise[2170] was arranged.
(_x. Return of illness._)
[Sidenote: Fol. 331.] On this day (_i.e._ 2nd Ẕū'l-ḥijja) I fell ill
again; the illness lasted nine days.
(_y. Start for Saṃbal._)
(_Sep. 24th_) On Thursday the 29th of Ẕū'l-ḥijja we rode out for an
excursion to Kūl and Saṃbal.
934 AH.-SEP. 27TH 1527 TO SEP. 15TH 1528 AD.[2171]
(_a. Visit to Kūl (Aligarh) and Saṃbal._)
(_Sep. 27th_) On Saturday the 1st of Muḥarram we dismounted in Kūl
(Koel). Humāyūn had left Darwīsh(-i-`alī) and Yūsuf-i-`alī[2172] in
Saṃbal; they crossed one river,[2173] fought Quṯb _Sīrwānī_[2174] and a
party of rājas, beat them well and killed a mass of men. They sent a few
heads and an elephant into Kūl while we were there. After we had gone
about Kūl for two days, we dismounted at Shaikh Gūran's house by his
invitation, where he entertained us hospitably and laid an offering
before us.
(_Sep. 30th-Muḥ. 4th_) Riding on from that place, we dismounted at
Aūtrūlī (Atrauli).[2175]
(_Oct. 1st-Muḥ. 5th_) On Wednesday we crossed the river Gang (Ganges)
and spent the night in villages of Saṃbal.
(_Oct. 2nd-Muḥ. 6th_) On Thursday we dismounted in Saṃbal. After going
about in it for two days, we left on Saturday.
(_Oct. 5th-Muḥ. 9th_) On Sunday we dismounted in Sikandara[2176]
at the house of Rāo _Sīrwānī_ who set food before us and served us.
When we rode out at dawn, I made some pretext to leave the rest, and
galloped on alone to within a _kuroh_ of Āgra where they overtook me. At
the Mid-day Prayer we dismounted in Āgra.
(_b. Illness of Bābur._)
(_Oct. 12th_) On Sunday the 16th of Muḥarram I had fever and ague. This
returned again and again during the next 25 or 26 days. I drank
operative medicine and at last relief came. I suffered much from thirst
and want of sleep.
[Sidenote: Fol. 331b.] While I was ill, I composed a quatrain or two;
here is one of them:—[2177]
Fever grows strong in my body by day,
Sleep quits my eyes as night comes on;
Like to my pain and my patience the pair,
For while that goes waxing, this wanes.
(_c. Arrival of kinswomen._)
(_Nov. 23rd_) On Saturday the 28th of Ṣafar there arrived two of the
paternal-aunt begīms, Fakhr-i-jahān Begīm and Khadīja-sulṯān
Begīm.[2178] I went to above Sikandarābād to wait on them.[2179]
(_d. Concerning a mortar._)
(_Nov. 24th-Ṣafar 29th_) On Sunday Ustād `Alī-qulī discharged a stone
from a large mortar; the stone went far but the mortar broke in pieces,
one of which, knocking down a party of men, killed eight.
(_e. Visit to Sīkrī._)
(_Dec. 1st_) On Monday the 7th of the first Rabī` I rode out to visit
Sīkrī. The octagonal platform ordered made in the middle of the lake was
ready; we went over by boat, had an awning set up on it and elected for
_ma'jūn_.
(_f. Holy-war against Chandīrī._)
(_Dec. 9th_) After returning from Sīkrī we started on Monday night the
14th of the first Rabī`,[2180] with the intention of making Holy-war
against Chandīrī, did as much as 3 _kurohs_ (6 m.) and dismounted in
Jalīsīr.[2181] After staying there two days for people to equip and
array, we marched on Thursday (_Dec. 12th-Rabī` I. 17th_) and dismounted
at Anwār. I left Anwār by boat, and disembarked beyond Chandwār.[2182]
(_Dec. 23rd_) Advancing march by march, we dismounted at the
Kanār-passage[2183] on Monday the 28th.
(_Dec. 26th_) On Thursday the 2nd of the latter Rabī` I crossed the
river; there was 4 or 5 days delay on one bank or the other before the
army got across. On those days we went more than [Sidenote: Fol. 332.]
once on board a boat and ate _ma'jūn_. The junction of the river Chaṃbal
is between one and two _kurohs_ (2-4 m.) above the Kanār-passage; on
Friday I went into a boat on the Chaṃbal, passed the junction and so to
camp.
(_g. Troops sent against Shaikh Bāyazīd Farmūlī._)
Though there had been no clear proof of Shaikh Bāyazīd's hostility, yet
his misconduct and action made it certain that he had hostile
intentions. On account of this Muḥammad `Alī _Jang-jang_ was detached
from the army and sent to bring together from Qanūj Muḥammad Sl. Mīrzā
and the sulṯāns and amīrs of that neighbourhood, such as Qāsim-i-ḥusain
Sulṯān, Bī-khūb (or, Nī-khūb) Sulṯān, Malik Qāsim, Kūkī, Abū'l-muḥammad
the lancer, and Minūchihr Khān with his elder and younger brethren and
Daryā-khānīs, so that they might move against the hostile Afghāns. They
were to invite Shaikh Bāyazīd to go with them; if he came frankly, they
were to take him along; if not, were to drive him off. Muḥammad `Alī
asking for a few elephants, ten were given him. After he had leave to
set off, Bābā Chuhra (the Brave) was sent to and ordered to join him.
(_h. Incidents of the journey to Chandīrī._)
From Kanār one _kuroh_ (2 m.) was done by boat.
(_Jan. 1st 1528 AD._) On Wednesday the 8th of the latter Rabī` we
dismounted within a _kuroh_ of Kālpī. Bābā Sl. came to wait on me in
this camp; he is a son of Khalīl Sl. who is a younger brother of the
full-blood of Sl. Sa`īd Khān. Last [Sidenote: Fol. 332b.] year he fled
from his elder brother[2184] but, repenting himself, went back from the
Andar-āb border; when he neared Kāshghar, The Khān (Sa`īd) sent Ḥaidar
M. to meet him and take him back.
(_Jan. 2nd-Rabī` II. 9th_) Next day we dismounted at `Ālam Khān's house
in Kālpī where he set Hindūstānī food before us and made an offering.
(_Jan. 6th_) On Monday the 13th of the month we marched from Kālpī.
(_Jan. 10th-Rabī` II. 17th_) On Friday we dismounted at Īrij.[2185]
(_Jan. 11th_) On Saturday we dismounted at Bāndīr.[2186]
(_Jan. 12th_) On Sunday the 19th of the month Chīn-tīmūr Sl. was put at
the head of 6 or 7000 men and sent ahead against Chandīrī. With him went
the begs Bāqī _mīng-bāshī_ (head of a thousand), Qūj Beg's (brother)
Tardī Beg, `Āshiq the taster, Mullā Apāq, Muḥsin[2187] _Dūldāī_ and, of
the Hindūstānī begs, Shaikh Gūran.
(_Jan 17th_) On Friday the 24th of the month we dismounted near Kachwa.
After encouraging its people, it was bestowed on the son of
Badru'd-dīn.[2188]
Kachwa[2189] is a shut-in place, having lowish hills all round it. A
dam has been thrown across between hills on the south-east of it, and
thus a large lake made, perhaps 5 or 6 _kurohs_ (10-12 m.) round. This
lake encloses Kachwa on three sides; on the north-west a space of ground
is kept dry;[2190] here, therefore is its Gate. On the lake are a great
many very small boats, able to hold 3 or 4 persons; in these the
inhabitants go out on the lake, if they have to flee. There are two
other lakes before Kachwa is [Sidenote: Fol. 333.] reached, smaller than
its own and, like that, made by throwing a dam across between hills.
(_Jan. 18th_) We waited a day in Kachwa in order to appoint active
overseers and a mass of spadesmen to level the road and cut jungle down,
so that the carts and mortar[2191] might pass along it easily. Between
Kachwa and Chandīrī the country is jungly.
(_Jan. 19th-Rabī` II. 26th_) After leaving Kachwa we halted one night,
passed the Burhānpūr-water (Bhurānpūr)[2192] and dismounted within 3
_kurohs_ (6 m.) of Chandīrī.
(_i. Chandīrī and its capture._)
The citadel of Chandīrī stands on a hill; below it are the town
(_shahr_) and outer-fort (_tāsh-qūrghān_), and below these is the level
road along which carts pass.[2193] When we left Burhānpūr (_Jan. 10th_)
we marched for a _kuroh_ below Chandīrī for the convenience of the
carts.[2194]
(_Jan. 21st_) After one night's halt we dismounted beside Bahjat Khān's
tank[2195] on the top of its dam, on Tuesday the 28th of the month.
(_Jan. 22nd-Rabī` II. 29th_) Riding out at dawn, we assigned post after
post (_būljār_, _būljār_),[2196] round the walled town (_qūrghān_) to
centre, right, and left. Ustād `Alī-qulī chose, for his stone-discharge,
ground that had no fall[2197]; overseers and spadesmen were told off to
raise a place (_m:ljār_) for the mortar to rest on, and the whole army
was ordered to get ready appliances for taking a fort, mantelets,
ladders[2198] and ... -mantelets (_tūra_).[2199]
Formerly Chandīrī will have belonged to the Sulṯāns of Mandāū (Mandū).
When Sl. Nāṣiru'd-dīn passed away,[2200] one [Sidenote: Fol. 333b.] of
his sons Sl. Maḥmūd who is now holding Mandū, took possession of it and
its neighbouring parts, and another son called Muḥammad Shāh laid hands
on Chandīrī and put it under Sl. Sikandar _(Lūdī)'s_ protection, who, in
his turn, took Muḥammad Shāh's side and sent him large forces. Muḥammad
Shāh survived Sl. Sikandar and died in Sl. Ibrāhīm's time, leaving a
very young son called Aḥmad Shāh whom Sl. Ibrāhīm drove out and replaced
by a man of his own. At the time Rānā Sangā led out an army against Sl.
Ibrāhīm and Ibrāhīm's begs turned against him at Dūlpūr, Chandīrī fell
into the Rānā's hands and by him was given to Medinī [Mindnī] Rāo[2201]
the greatly-trusted pagan who was now in it with 4 or 5000 other pagans.
As it was understood there was friendship between Medinī Rāo and Ārāīsh
Khān, the latter was sent with Shaikh Gūran to speak to Medinī Rāo with
favour and kindness, and promise Shamsābād[2202] in exchange for
Chandīrī. One or two of his trusted men got out(?).[2203] No adjustment
of matters was reached, it is not known whether because Medinī Rāo did
not trust what was said, or whether because he was buoyed up by delusion
about the strength of the fort.
(_Jan. 28th_) At dawn on Tuesday the 6th of the first Jumāda we marched
from Bahjat Khān's tank intending to assault Chandīrī. We dismounted at
the side of the middle-tank near [Sidenote: Fol. 334.] the fort.
(_j. Bad news._)
On this same morning after reaching that ground, Khalīfa brought a
letter or two of which the purport was that the troops appointed for the
East[2204] had fought without consideration, been beaten, abandoned
Laknau, and gone to Qanūj. Seeing that Khalīfa was much perturbed and
alarmed by these news, I said,[2205] (_Persian_) "There is no ground for
perturbation or alarm; nothing comes to pass but what is predestined of
God. As this task (Chandīrī) is ahead of us, not a breath must be drawn
about what has been told us. Tomorrow we will assault the fort; that
done, we shall see what comes."
(_k. Siege of Chandīrī, resumed._)
The enemy must have strengthened just the citadel, and have posted men
by twos and threes in the outer-fort for prudence' sake. That night our
men went up from all round; those few in the outer-fort did not fight;
they fled into the citadel.
(_Jan. 29th_) At dawn on Wednesday the 7th of the first Jumāda, we
ordered our men to arm, go to their posts, provoke to fight, and attack
each from his place when I rode out with drum and standard.
I myself, dismissing drum and standard till the fighting should grow
hot, went to amuse myself by watching Ustād `Alī-qulī's
stone-discharge.[2206] Nothing was effected by it because his ground had
no fall (_yāghdā_) and because the fort-walls, being entirely [Sidenote:
Fol. 334b.] of stone, were extremely strong.
That the citadel of Chandīrī stands on a hill has been said already.
Down one side of this hill runs a double-walled road (_dū-tahī_) to
water.[2207] This is the one place for attack; it had been assigned as
the post of the right and left hands and royal corps of the
centre.[2208] Hurled though assault was from every side, the greatest
force was here brought to bear. Our braves did not turn back, however
much the pagans threw down stones and flung flaming fire upon them. At
length Shāhīm the centurion[2209] got up where the _dū-tahī_ wall
touches the wall of the outer fort; braves swarmed up in other places;
the _dū-tahī_ was taken.
Not even as much as this did the pagans fight in the citadel; when a
number of our men swarmed up, they fled in haste.[2210] In a little
while they came out again, quite naked, and renewed the fight; they put
many of our men to flight; they made them fly (_āuchūrdīlār_) over the
ramparts; some they cut down and killed. Why they had gone so suddenly
off the walls seems to have been that they had taken the resolve of
those who give up a place as lost; they put all their ladies and
beauties (_ṣūratīlār_) to death, then, looking themselves to die, came
naked out to fight. Our men attacking, each one from his post, drove
[Sidenote: Fol. 335.] them from the walls whereupon 2 or 300 of them
entered Medinī Rāo's house and there almost all killed one another in
this way:—one having taken stand with a sword, the rest eagerly
stretched out the neck for his blow.[2211] Thus went the greater number
to hell.
By God's grace this renowned fort was captured in 2 or 3 _garīs_[2212]
(_cir._ an hour), without drum and standard,[2213] with no hard fighting
done. A pillar of pagan-heads was ordered set up on a hill north-west of
Chandīrī. A chronogram of this victory having been found in the words
_Fatḥ-i-dāru'l-ḥarb_[2214] (Conquest of a hostile seat), I thus composed
them:—
Was for awhile the station Chandīrī
Pagan-full, the seat of hostile force;
By fighting, I vanquished its fort,
The date was _Fatḥ-i-dāru'l-ḥarb_.
(_l. Further description of Chandīrī._)
Chandīrī is situated (in) rather good country,[2215] having much
running-water round about it. Its citadel is on a hill and inside it
has a tank cut out of the solid rock. There is another large tank[2216]
at the end of the _dū-tahī_ by assaulting which the fort was taken. All
houses in Chandīrī, whether of high or low, are built of stone, those of
chiefs being laboriously carved;[2217] those of the lower classes are
also of stone but are not carved. They are covered in [Sidenote: Fol.
335b.] with stone-slabs instead of with earthen tiles. In front of the
fort are three large tanks made by former governors who threw dams
across and made tanks round about it; their ground lies high.[2218] It
has a small river (_daryācha_), Betwa[2219] by name, which may be some 3
_kurohs_ (6 m.) from Chandīrī itself; its water is noted in Hindūstān as
excellent and pleasant drinking. It is a perfect little river
(_daryā-ghīna_). In its bed lie piece after piece of sloping rock
(_qīālār_)[2220] fit for making houses.[2221] Chandīrī is 90 _kurohs_
(180 m.) by road to the south of Āgra. In Chandīrī the altitude of the
Pole-star (?) is 25 degrees.[2222]
(_m. Enforced change of campaign._)
(_Jan. 30th-Jumāda I. 8th_) At dawn on Thursday we went round the fort
and dismounted beside Mallū Khān's tank.[2223]
We had come to Chandīrī meaning, after taking it, to move against
Rāīsīng, Bhīlsān, and Sārangpūr, pagan lands dependent on the pagan
Ṣalāḥu'd-dīn, and, these taken, to move on Rānā Sangā in Chītūr. But as
that bad news had come, the begs were summoned, matters were discussed,
and decision made that the proper course was first to see to the
rebellion of those malignants. Chandīrī was given to the Aḥmad Shāh
already mentioned, a grandson of Sl. Nāṣiru'd-dīn; 50 _laks_ from it
were made _khalṣa_;[2224] Mullā Apāq was entrusted with its
military-collectorate, and left to reinforce Aḥmad Shāh with from 2 to
3000 Turks and Hindūstānīs.
[Sidenote: Fol. 336.] (_Feb. 2nd_) This work finished, we marched from
Mallū Khān's tank on Sunday the 11th of the first Jumāda, with the
intention of return (north), and dismounted on the bank of the
Burhānpūr-water.
(_Feb. 9th_) On Sunday again, Yakka Khwāja and Ja`far Khwāja were sent
from Bāndīr to fetch boats from Kālpī to the Kanār-passage.
(_Feb. 22nd_) On Saturday the 24th of the month we dismounted at the
Kanār-passage, and ordered the army to begin to cross.
(_n. News of the rebels._)
News came in these days that the expeditionary force[2225] had abandoned
Qanūj also and come to Rāprī, and that a strong body of the enemy had
assaulted and taken Shamsābād although Abū'l-muḥammad the lancer must
have strengthened it.[2226] There was delay of 3 or 4 days on one side
or other of the river before the army got across. Once over, we moved
march by march towards Qanūj, sending scouting braves (_qāzāq yīgītlār_)
ahead to get news of our opponents. Two or three marches from Qanūj,
news was brought that Ma`rūf's son had fled on seeing the dark mass of
the news-gatherers, and got away. Bīban, Bāyazīd and Ma`rūf, on hearing
news of us, crossed Gang (Ganges) and seated themselves on its eastern
bank opposite Qanūj, thinking to prevent our passage.
(_o. A bridge made over the Ganges._)
(_Feb. 27th_) On Thursday the 6th of the latter Jumāda we passed Qanūj
and dismounted on the western bank of Gang. Some of the braves went up
and down the river and took boats [Sidenote: Fol. 336b.] by force,[2227]
bringing in 30 or 40, large or small. Mīr Muḥammad the raftsman was sent
to find a place convenient for making a bridge and to collect requisites
for making it. He came back approving of a place about a _kuroh_ (2 m.)
below the camp. Energetic overseers were told off for the work. Ustād
`Alī-qulī placed the mortar for his stone-discharge near where the
bridge was to be and shewed himself active in discharging it. Muṣṯafa
_Rūmī_ had the culverin-carts crossed over to an island below the place
for the bridge, and from that island began a culverin-discharge.
Excellent matchlock fire was made from a post[2228] raised above the
bridge. Malik Qāsim _Mughūl_ and a very few men went across the river
once or twice and fought excellently (_yakhshīlār aūrūshtīlār_). With
equal boldness Bābā Sl. and Darwīsh Sl. also crossed, but went with the
insufficient number of from 10 to 15 men; they went after the Evening
Prayer and came back without fighting, with nothing done; they were much
blamed for this crossing of theirs. At last Malik Qāsim, grown bold,
attacked the enemy's camp and, by shooting arrows into it, drew him out
(?);[2229] he came with a mass of men and an elephant, fell on Malik
Qāsim and hurried him off. Malik Qāsim got into a boat, but before it
could put off, the elephant [Sidenote: Fol. 337.] came up and swamped
it. In that encounter Malik Qāsim died.
In the days before the bridge was finished Ustād `Alī-qulī did good
things in stone-discharge (_yakhshīlār tāsh aītī_), on the first day
discharging 8 stones, on the second 16, and going on equally well for 3
or 4 days. These stones he discharged from the Ghāzī-mortar which is
so-called because it was used in the battle with Rānā Sangā the pagan.
There had been another and larger mortar which burst after discharging
one stone.[2230] The matchlockmen made a mass (_qālīn_) of discharges,
bringing down many men and horses; they shot also slave-workmen running
scared away (?) and men and horses passing-by.[2231]
(_March 11th_) On Wednesday the 19th of the latter Jumāda the bridge
being almost finished, we marched to its head. The Afghāns must have
ridiculed the bridge-making as being far from completion.[2232]
(_March 12th_) The bridge being ready on Thursday, a small body of
foot-soldiers and Lāhorīs went over. Fighting as small followed.
(_p. Encounter with the Afghāns._)
(_March 13th_) On Friday the royal corps, and the right and left hands
of the centre crossed on foot. The whole body of Afghāns, armed,
mounted, and having elephants with them, attacked us. They hurried off
our men of the left hand, but our centre itself (_i.e._ the royal corps)
and the right hand stood [Sidenote: Fol. 337b.] firm, fought, and forced
the enemy to retire. Two men from these divisions had galloped ahead of
the rest; one was dismounted and taken; the horse of the other was
struck again and again, had had enough,[2233] turned round and when
amongst our men, fell down. On that day 7 or 8 heads were brought in;
many of the enemy had arrow or matchlock wounds. Fighting went on till
the Other Prayer. That night all who had gone across were made to
return; if (more) had gone over on that Saturday's eve,[2234] most of
the enemy would probably have fallen into our hands, but this was in my
mind:—Last year we marched out of Sīkrī to fight Rānā Sangā on Tuesday,
New-year's-day, and crushed that rebel on Saturday; this year we had
marched to crush these rebels on Wednesday, New-year's-day,[2235] and it
would be one of singular things, if we beat them on Sunday. So thinking,
we did not make the rest of the army cross. The enemy did not come to
fight on Saturday, but stood arrayed a long way off.
(_Sunday March 15th-Jumāda II. 23rd_) On this day the carts were taken
over, and at this same dawn the army was ordered to cross. At beat of
drum news came from our scouts that the enemy had fled. Chīn-tīmūr Sl.
was ordered to lead his army in pursuit and the following leaders also
were made pursuers who should move with the Sulṯān and not go beyond his
word:—Muḥammad `Alī _Jang-jang_, Ḥusamu'd-dīn `Alī (son) of Khalīfa,
Muḥibb-i-`alī (son) of Khalīfa, Kūkī (son) of Bābā Qashqa,
Dost-i-muḥammad (son) of Bābā Qashqa, Bāqī of [Sidenote: Fol. 338.]
Tāshkīnt, and Red Walī. I crossed at the Sunnat Prayer. The camels were
ordered to be taken over at a passage seen lower down. That Sunday we
dismounted on the bank of standing-water within a _kuroh_ of
Bangarmāwū.[2236] Those appointed to pursue the Afghāns were not doing
it well; they had dismounted in Bangarmāwū and were scurrying off at the
Mid-day Prayer of this same Sunday.
(_March 16th-Jumāda II. 24th_) At dawn we dismounted on the bank of a
lake belonging to Bangarmāwū.
(_q. Arrival of a Chaghatāī cousin._)
On this same day (_March 16th_) Tūkhtā-būghā Sl. a son of my mother's
brother (_dādā_) the Younger Khān (_Aḥmad Chaghatāī_) came and waited on
me.
(_March 21st_) On Saturday the 29th of the latter Jumāda I visited
Laknau, crossed the Gūī-water[2237] and dismounted. This day I bathed in
the Gūī-water. Whether it was from water getting into my ear, or whether
it was from the effect of the climate, is not known, but my right ear
was obstructed and for a few days there was much pain.[2238]
(_r. The campaign continued._)
One or two marches from Aūd (Oudh) some-one came from Chīn-tīmūr Sl. to
say, "The enemy is seated on the far side of the river Sīrd[a?];[2239]
let His Majesty send help." We detached a reinforcement of 1000 braves
under Qarācha.
(_March 28th_) On Saturday the 7th of Rajab we dismounted [Sidenote:
Fol. 338b.] 2 or 3 _kurohs_ from Aūd above the junction of the Gagar
(Gogra) and Sīrd[a]. Till today Shaikh Bāyazīd will have been on the
other side of the Sīrd[a] opposite Aūd, sending letters to the Sulṯān
and discussing with him, but the Sulṯān getting to know his
deceitfulness, sent word to Qarācha at the Mid-day Prayer and made ready
to cross the river. On Qarācha's joining him, they crossed at once to
where were some 50 horsemen with 3 or 4 elephants. These men could make
no stand; they fled; a few having been dismounted, the heads cut off
were sent in.
Following the Sulṯān there crossed over Bī-khūb (var. Nī-khūb) Sl. and
Tardī Beg (the brother) of Qūj Beg, and Bābā Chuhra (the Brave), and
Bāqī _shaghāwal_. Those who had crossed first and gone on, pursued
Shaikh Bāyazīd till the Evening Prayer, but he flung himself into the
jungle and escaped. Chīn-tīmūr dismounted late on the bank of
standing-water, rode on at midnight after the rebel, went as much as 40
_kurohs_ (80 m.), and came to where Shaikh Bāyazīd's family and
relations (_nisba_?) had been; they however must have fled. He sent
gallopers off in all directions from that place; Bāqī _shaghāwal_ and a
few braves drove the enemy like sheep before them, overtook the family
and brought in some Afghān prisoners.
We stayed a few days on that ground (near Aūd) in order to settle the
affairs of Aūd. People praised the land lying along the Sīrd[a] 7 or 8
_kurohs_ (14-16 m.) above Aūd, saying it was hunting-ground. Mīr
Muḥammad the raftsman was sent out and returned after looking at the
crossings over the Gagar-water (Gogra) and the Sīrd[a]-water (Chauka?).
[Sidenote: Fol. 339.] (_April 2nd_) On Thursday the 12th of the month I
rode out intending to hunt.[2240]
TRANSLATOR'S NOTE.
Here, in all known texts of the _Bābur-nāma_ there is a break of the
narrative between April 2nd and Sep. 18th 1528 AD.-Jumāda II. 12th 934
AH. and Muḥarram 3rd 935 AH., which, whether intentional or accidental,
is unexplained by Bābur's personal circumstances. It is likely to be due
to a loss of pages from Bābur's autograph manuscript, happening at some
time preceding the making of either of the Persian translations of his
writings and of the Elphinstone and Ḥaidarābād transcripts. Though such
a loss might have occurred easily during the storm chronicled on f.
376_b_, it seems likely that Bābur would then have become aware of it
and have made it good. A more probable explanation of the loss is the
danger run by Humāyūn's library during his exile from rule in Hindūstān,
at which same time may well have occurred the seeming loss of the record
of 936 and 937 AH.
(_a. Transactions of the period of the lacuna._)
Mr. Erskine notes (_Mems._ p. 381 n.) that he found the gap in all MSS.
he saw and that historians of Hindūstān throw no light upon the
transactions of the period. Much can be gleaned however as to Bābur's
occupations during the 5-1/2 months of the _lacuna_ from his chronicle
of 935 AH. which makes several references to occurrences of "last year"
and also allows several inferences to be drawn. From this source it
becomes known that the Afghān campaign the record of which is broken by
the gap, was carried on and that in its course Bābur was at Jūn-pūr (f.
365), Chausa (f. 365_b_) and Baksara (f. 366-366_b_); that he swam the
Ganges (f. 366_b_), bestowed Sarūn on a Farmūlī Shaikh-zāda (f. 374_b_
and f. 377), negociated with Rānā Sangā's son Bikramājīt (f. 342_b_),
ordered a Chār-bāgh laid out (f. 340), and was ill for 40 days (f.
346_b_). It may be inferred too that he visited Dūlpūr (f. 353_b_)
recalled `Askarī (f. 339), sent Khwāja Dost-i-khāwand on family affairs
to Kābul (f. 345_b_), and was much pre-occupied by the disturbed state
of Kābul (_see_ his letters to Humāyūn and Khwāja Kālan written in 935
AH.).[2241]
It is not easy to follow the dates of events in 935 AH. because in many
instances only the day of the week or a "next day" is entered. I am far
from sure that one passage at least now found _s.a._ 935 AH. does not
belong to 934 AH. It is not in the Ḥai. Codex (where its place would
have been on f. 363_b_), and, so far as I can see, does not fit with the
dates of 935 AH. It will be considered with least trouble with its
context and my notes (_q.v._ f. 363_b_ and ff. 366-366_b_).
(_b. Remarks on the lacuna._)
One interesting biographical topic is likely to have found mention in
the missing record, _viz._ the family difficulties which led to
`Askarī's supersession by Kāmrān in the government of Multān (f. 359).
Another is the light an account of the second illness of 934 AH. might
have thrown on a considerable part of the Collection of verses already
written in Hindūstān and now known to us as the _Rāmpūr Dīwān_. The
_Bābur-nāma_ allows the dates of much of its contents to be known, but
there remain poems which seem prompted by the self-examination of some
illness not found in the _B.N._ It contains the metrical version of
Khwāja `Ubaidu'l-lāh's _Wālidiyyah_ of which Bābur writes on f. 346 and
it is dated Monday Rabī` II. 15th 935 AH. (Dec. 29th 1528 AD.). I
surmise that the reflective verses following the _Wālidiyyah_ belong to
the 40 days' illness of 934 AH. _i.e._ were composed in the period of
the _lacuna_. The Collection, as it is in the "Rāmpūr Dīwān", went to a
friend who was probably Khwāja Kalān; it may have been the only such
collection made by Bābur. No other copy of it has so far been found. It
has the character of an individual gift with verses specially addressed
to its recipient. Any light upon it which may have vanished with pages
of 934 AH. is an appreciable loss.
935 AH.-SEP. 15TH 1528 TO SEP. 5TH 1529 AD.[2242]
(_a. Arrivals at Court._)
(_Sep. 18th_) On Friday the 3rd[2243] of Muḥarram, `Askarī whom I had
summoned for the good of Multān[2244] before I moved out for Chandīrī,
waited on me in the private-house.[2245]
(_Sep. 19th_) Next day waited on me the historian Khwānd-amīr, Maulānā
Shihāb[2246] the enigmatist, and Mīr Ibrāhīm the harper a relation of
Yūnas-i-`alī, who had all come out of Herī long before, wishing to wait
on me.[2247]
(_b. Bābur starts for Gūālīār._)[2248]
(_Sep. 20th_) With the intention of visiting Gūālīār which in books they
write Gālīūr,[2249] I crossed the Jūn at the Other Prayer of Sunday the
5th of the month, went into the fort of Āgra to bid farewell to
Fakhr-i-jahān Begīm and Khadīja-sulṯān Begīm who were to start for Kābul
in a few days, and got to horse. Muḥammad-i-zamān Mīrzā asked for leave
and stayed behind in Āgra. That night we did 3 or 4 _kurohs_ (6-8 m.) of
the road, dismounted near a large lake (_kūl_) and there slept.
(_Sep. 21st_) We got through the Prayer somewhat before time
(_Muḥ. 6th_) and rode on, nooned[2250] on the bank of the
Gamb[h]īr-water[2251], and went on shortly after the Mid-day Prayer. On
the way we ate[2252] powders mixed with the flour of parched [Sidenote:
Fol. 339b.] grain,[2253] Mullā Rafī` having prepared them for raising
the spirits. They were found very distasteful and unsavoury. Near the
Other Prayer we dismounted a _kuroh_ (2 m.) west of Dūlpūr, at a place
where a garden and house had been ordered made.[2254]
(_c. Work in Dūlpūr (Dhūlpūr)._)
That place is at the end of a beaked hill,[2255] its beak being of solid
red building-stone (_`imārat-tāsh_). I had ordered the (beak of the)
hill cut down (dressed down?) to the ground-level and that if there
remained a sufficient height, a house was to be cut out in it, if not,
it was to be levelled and a tank (_ḥauẓ_) cut out in its top. As it was
not found high enough for a house, Ūstād Shāh Muḥammad the stone-cutter
was ordered to level it and cut out an octagonal, roofed tank. North of
this tank the ground is thick with trees, mangoes, _jāman_ (_Eugenia
jambolana_), all sorts of trees; amongst them I had ordered a well made,
10 by 10; it was almost ready; its water goes to the afore-named tank.
To the north of this tank Sl. Sikandar's dam is flung across (the
valley); on it houses have been built, and above it the waters of the
Rains gather into a great lake. On the east of this lake is a garden; I
ordered a seat and four-pillared platform (_tālār_) to be cut out in
the solid rock on that same side, and a mosque [Sidenote: Fol. 340.]
built on the western one.
(_Sept. 22nd and 23rd—Muḥ. 7th and 8th_) On account of these various
works, we stayed in Dūlpūr on Tuesday and Wednesday.
(_d. Journey to Gūālīār resumed._)
(_Sep. 24th_) On Thursday we rode on, crossed the Chaṃbal-river and made
the Mid-day Prayer on its bank, between the two Prayers (the Mid-day and
the Afternoon) bestirred ourselves to leave that place, passed the
Kawārī and dismounted. The Kawārī-water being high through rain, we
crossed it by boat, making the horses swim over.
(_Sep. 25th_) Next day, Friday which was 'Āshūr (_Muḥ. 10th_), we rode
on, took our nooning at a village on the road, and at the Bed-time
Prayer dismounted a _kuroh_ north of Gūālīār, in a Chār-bāgh ordered
made last year.[2256]
(_Sep. 26th_) Riding on next day after the Mid-day Prayer, we visited
the low hills to the north of Gūālīār, and the Praying-place, went into
the fort[2257] through the Gate called Hātī-pūl which joins Mān-sing's
buildings (_`imārāt_[2258]), and dismounted, close to the Other Prayer,
at those (_`imāratlār_)[2259] of Rāja Bikramājīt in which
Raḥīm-dād[2260] had settled himself.
To-night I elected to take opium because of ear-ache; another reason was
the shining of the moon.[2261]
(_e. Visit to the Rājas' palaces._)
(_Sep. 27th_) Opium sickness gave me much discomfort next day (_Muḥ.
12th_); I vomited a good deal. Sickness notwithstanding, I visited the
buildings (_`imāratlār_) of Mān-sing and [Sidenote: Fol. 340b.]
Bikramājīt thoroughly. They are wonderful buildings, entirely of hewn
stone, in heavy and unsymmetrical blocks however.[2262] Of all the
Rājas' buildings Mān-sing's is the best and loftiest.[2263] It is more
elaborately worked on its eastern face than on the others. This face may
be 40 to 50 _qārī_ (yards) high,[2264] and is entirely of hewn stone,
whitened with plaster.[2265] In parts it is four storeys high; the lower
two are very dark; we went through them with candles.[2266] On one (or,
every) side of this building are five cupolas[2267] having between each
two of them a smaller one, square after the fashion of Hindūstān. On the
larger ones are fastened sheets of gilded copper. On the outside of the
walls is painted-tile work, the semblance of plantain-trees being shewn
all round with green tiles. In a bastion of the eastern front is the
Hātī-pūl,[2268] _hātī_ being what these people call an elephant, _pūl_,
a gate. A sculptured image of an elephant with two drivers
(_fīl-bān_)[2269] stands at the out-going (_chīqīsh_) of this Gate; it
is exactly like an elephant; from it the gate is called Hātī-pūl. A
window in the [Sidenote: Fol. 341.] lowest storey where the building has
four, looks towards this elephant and gives a near view of it.[2270] The
cupolas which have been mentioned above are themselves the topmost stage
(_murtaba_) of the building;[2271] the sitting-rooms are on the second
storey (_ṯabaqat_), in a hollow even;[2272] they are rather airless
places although Hindūstānī pains have been taken with them.[2273] The
buildings of Mān-sing's son Bikramājīt are in a central position (_aūrta
dā_) on the north side of the fort.[2274] The son's buildings do not
match the father's. He has made a great dome, very dark but growing
lighter if one stays awhile in it.[2275] Under it is a smaller building
into which no light comes from any side. When Raḥīm-dād settled down in
Bikramājīt's buildings, he made a rather small hall [_kīchīkrāq
tālārghīna_] on the top of this dome.[2276] From Bikramājīt's buildings
a road has been made to his father's, a road such that nothing is seen
of it from outside and nothing known of it inside, a quite enclosed
road.[2277]
After visiting these buildings, we rode to a college Raḥīm-dād
[Sidenote: Fol. 341b.] had made by the side of a large tank, there
enjoyed a flower-garden[2278] he had laid out, and went late to where
the camp was in the Chārbāgh.
(_f. Raḥīm-dād's flower-garden._)
Raḥīm-dād has planted a great numbers of flowers in his garden
(_bāghcha_), many being beautiful red oleanders. In these places the
oleander-flower is peach,[2279] those of Gūālīār are beautiful, deep
red. I took some of them to Āgra and had them planted in gardens there.
On the south of the garden is a large lake[2280] where the waters of the
Rains gather; on the west of it is a lofty idol-house,[2281] side by
side with which Sl. Shihābu'd-dīn Aīltmīsh (Altamsh) made a Friday
mosque; this is a very lofty building (_`imārat_), the highest in the
fort; it is seen, with the fort, from the Dūlpūr-hill (_cir._ 30 m.
away). People say the stone for it was cut out and brought from the
large lake above-mentioned. Raḥīm-dād has made a wooden (_yīghāch_)
_tālār_ in his garden, and porches at the gates, which, after the
Hindūstānī fashion, are somewhat low and shapeless.
(_g. The Urwāh-valley._)
(_Sep. 28th_) Next day (_Muḥ. 13th_) at the Mid-day Prayer we rode out
to visit places in Gūālīār we had not yet seen. We saw the _`imārat_
called Bādalgar[2282] which is part of Mān-sing's fort (_qila`_), went
through the Hātī-pūl and across the fort to a place called Urwā (Urwāh),
which is a valley-bottom (_qūl_) on its western side. Though Urwā is
outside the fort-wall running along the top of the hill, it has two
stages (_murtaba_) of high wall at its mouth. The higher of these walls
is some 30 or 40 _qārī_ (yards) high; this is the longer one; at each
end it joins [Sidenote: Fol. 342.] the wall of the fort. The second wall
curves in and joins the middle part of the first; it is the lower and
shorter of the two. This curve of wall will have been made for a
water-thief;[2283] within it is a stepped well (_wā'īn_) in which water
is reached by 10 or 15 steps. Above the Gate leading from the valley to
this walled-well the name of Sl. Shihābu'd-dīn Aīltmīsh (Altamsh) is
inscribed, with the date 630 (AH.-1233 AD.). Below this outer wall and
outside the fort there is a large lake which seems to dwindle (at times)
till no lake remains; from it water goes to the water-thief. There are
two other lakes inside Urwā the water of which those who live in the
fort prefer to all other.
Three sides of Urwā are solid rock, not the red rock of Bīāna but one
paler in colour. On these sides people have cut out idol-statues, large
and small, one large statue on the south side being perhaps 20 _qārī_
(yds.) high.[2284] These idols are shewn quite naked without covering
for the privities. Along the sides of [Sidenote: Fol. 342b.] the two
Urwā lakes 20 or 30 wells have been dug, with water from which useful
vegetables (_sabzī kārlīklār_), flowers and trees are grown. Urwā is not
a bad place; it is shut in (T. _tūr_); the idols are its defect; I, for
my part, ordered them destroyed.[2285]
Going out of Urwā into the fort again, we enjoyed the window[2286] of
the Sultānī-pūl which must have been closed through the pagan time till
now, went to Raḥīm-dād's flower-garden at the Evening Prayer, there
dismounted and there slept.
(_h. A son of Rānā Sangā negociates with Bābur._)
(_Sep. 29th_) On Tuesday the 14th of the month came people from Rānā
Sangā's second son, Bikramājīt by name, who with his mother Padmāwatī
was in the fort of Rantanbūr. Before I rode out for Gūālīār,[2287]
others had come from his great and trusted Hindū, Asūk by name, to
indicate Bikramājīt's submission and obeisance and ask a
subsistence-allowance of 70 _laks_ for him; it had been settled at that
time that _parganas_ to the amount he asked should be bestowed on him,
his men were given leave to go, with tryst for Gūālīār which we were
about to visit. They came into Gūālīār somewhat after the trysting-day.
The Hindū Asūk[2288] is said to be a near relation of Bikramājīt's
mother Padmāwatī; he, for his part, set these particulars forth
father-like [Sidenote: Fol. 343.] and son-like;[2289] they, for theirs,
concurring with him, agreed to wish me well and serve me. At the time
when Sl. Maḥmūd (_Khīljī_) was beaten by Rānā Sangā and fell into pagan
captivity (925 AH.-1519 AD.) he possessed a famous crown-cap
(_tāj-kula_) and golden belt, accepting which Sangā let him go free.
That crown-cap and golden belt must have become Bikramājīt's; his elder
brother Ratan-sī, now Rānā of Chītūr in his father's place, had asked
for them but Bikramājīt had not given them up,[2290] and now made the
men he sent to me, speak to me about them, and ask for Bīāna in place of
Rantanbūr. We led them away from the Bīāna question and promised
Shamsābād in exchange for Rantanbūr. To-day (_Muḥ. 14th_) they were
given a nine days' tryst for Bīāna, were dressed in robes of honour, and
allowed to go.
(_i. Hindū temples visited._)
We rode from the flower-garden to visit the idol-houses of Gūālīār. Some
are two, and some are three storeys high, each storey rather low, in the
ancient fashion. On their stone plinths (_izāra_) are sculptured images.
Some idol-houses, College-fashion, have a portico, large high
cupolas[2291] and _madrāsa_-like cells, each topped by a slender stone
cupola.[2292] In the lower cells are idols carved in the rock.
[Sidenote: Fol. 343b.]
After enjoying the sight of these buildings (_`imāratlār_) we left the
fort by the south Gate,[2293] made an excursion to the south, and went
(north) to the Chār-bāgh Raḥim-dād had made over-against the
Hātī-pūl.[2294] He had prepared a feast of cooked-meat (_āsh_) for us
and, after setting excellent food before us, made offering of a mass of
goods and coin worth 4 _laks._ From his Chār-bāgh I rode to my own.
(_j. Excursion to a waterfall._)
(_Sep. 30th._) On Wednesday the 15th of the month I went to see a
waterfall 6 _kurohs_ (12 m.) to the south-east of Gūālīār. Less than
that must have been ridden;[2295] close to the Mid-day Prayer we reached
a fall where sufficient water for one mill was coming down a slope
(_qīā_) an _arghamchī_[2296] high. Below the fall there is a large lake;
above it the water comes flowing through solid rock; there is solid rock
also below the fall. A lake forms wherever the water falls. On the banks
of the water lie piece after piece of rock as if for seats, but the
water is said not always to be there. We sat down above the fall and ate
_ma`jūn_, went up-stream to visit its source (_badayat_), returned, got
out on higher ground, and stayed while musicians played and reciters
[Sidenote: Fol. 344.] repeated things (_nīma aītīlār_). The Ebony-tree
which Hindīs call _tindū_, was pointed out to those who had not seen it
before. We went down the hill and, between the Evening and Bed-time
Prayers, rode away, slept at a place reached near the second watch
(midnight), and with the on-coming of the first watch of day (6 a.m.
_Muḥ. 16th-Oct. 1st_) reached the Chār-bāgh and dismounted.
(_k. Ṣalāḥu'd-dīn's birth-place._)[2297]
(_Oct. 2nd_) On Friday the 17th of the month, I visited the garden of
lemons and pumeloes (_sadā-fal_) in a valley-bottom amongst the hills
above a village called Sūkhjana (?)[2298] which is Ṣalāḥu'd-dīn's
birth-place. Returning to the Chār-bāgh, I dismounted there in the first
watch.[2299]
(_l. Incidents of the march from Gūālīār._)
(_Oct. 4th_) On Sunday the 19th of the month, we rode before dawn from
the Chār-bāgh, crossed the Kawārī-water and took our nooning
(_tūshlāndūk_). After the Mid-day Prayer we rode on, at sunset passed
the Chaṃbal-water, between the Evening and Bed-time Prayers entered
Dulpūr-fort, there, by lamp-light, visited a Hot-bath which Abū'l-fatḥ
had made, rode on, and dismounted at the dam-head where the new
Chār-bāgh is in making.
(_Oct. 5th_) Having stayed the night there, at dawn (_Monday 20th_) I
visited what places had been ordered made.[2300] The face (_yūz_) of the
roofed-tank, ordered cut in the solid rock, was not being got up quite
straight; more stone-cutters were sent for who were to make the
tank-bottom level, pour in water, and, by help of the water, to get the
sides to one height. They got the face up straight just before the Other
Prayer, were then ordered to fill the tank with water, by help of the
water made the sides [Sidenote: Fol. 344b.] match, then busied
themselves to smooth them. I ordered a water-chamber (_āb-khāna_) made
at a place where it would be cut in the solid rock; inside it was to be
a small tank also cut in the solid rock.
(_Here the record of 6 days is wanting._)[2301]
(_Oct. 12th_?) To-day, Monday (_27th_?), there was a _ma`jūn_ party.
(_Oct. 13th_) On Tuesday I was still in that same place. (_Oct. 14th_)
On the night of Wednesday,[2302] after opening the mouth and eating
something[2303] we rode for Sīkrī. Near the second watch (midnight), we
dismounted somewhere and slept; I myself could not sleep on account of
pain in my ear, whether caused by cold, as is likely, I do not know. At
the top of the dawn, we bestirred ourselves from that place, and in the
first watch dismounted at the garden now in making at Sīkrī. The
garden-wall and well-buildings were not getting on to my satisfaction;
the overseers therefore were threatened and punished. We rode on from
Sīkrī between the Other and Evening Prayers, passed through Marhākūr,
dismounted somewhere and slept.
(_Oct. 15th_) Riding on (_Thursday 30th_), we got into Āgra during the
first watch (6-9 a.m.). In the fort I saw the honoured Khadīja-sulṯān
Begīm who had stayed behind for several reasons when Fakhr-i-jahān Begīm
started for Kābul. Crossing Jūn (Jumna), I went to the Garden-of-eight
paradises.[2304]
(_m. Arrival of kinswomen._)
(_Oct. 17th_) On Saturday the 3rd of Ṣafar, between the Other and
Evening Prayers, I went to see three of the great-aunt begīms,[2305]
Gauhar-shād Begīm, Badī`u'l-jamāl Begīm, and Āq Begīm, with also, of
lesser begīms,[2306] Sl. Maṣ`ūd Mīrzā's daughter Khān-zāda Begīm, and
Sulṯān-bakht Begīm's daughter, and my _yīnkā chīcha's_ grand-daughter,
that is to say, Zaināb-sulṯān Begīm.[2307] They had come past Tūta and
dismounted at a small [Sidenote: Fol. 345.] standing-water (_qarā sū_)
on the edge of the suburbs. I came back direct by boat.
(_n. Despatch of an envoy to receive charge of Ranthaṃbhor._)
(_Oct. 19th_) On Monday the 5th of the month of Ṣafar, Hāmūsī son of
Dīwa, an old Hindū servant from Bhīra, was joined with Bikramājīt's
former[2308] and later envoys in order that pact and agreement for the
surrender of Ranthanbūr and for the conditions of Bikramājīt's service
might be made in their own (hindū) way and custom. Before our man
returned, he was to see, and learn, and make sure of matters; this done,
if that person (_i.e._ Bikramājīt) stood fast to his spoken word, I,
for my part, promised that, God bringing it aright, I would set him in
his father's place as Rānā of Chitūr.[2309]
(_Here the record of 3 days is wanting._)
(_o. A levy on stipendiaries._)
(_Oct. 22nd_) By this time the treasure of Iskandar and Ibrāhīm in Dihlī
and Āgra was at an end. Royal orders were given therefore, on Thursday
the 8th of Ṣafar, that each stipendiary (_wajhdār_) should drop into the
Dīwān, 30 in every 100 of his allowance, to be used for war-material and
appliances, for equipment, for powder, and for the pay of gunners and
matchlockmen.
(_p. Royal letters sent into Khurāsān._)
(_Oct. 24th_) On Saturday the 10th of the month, Pay-master Sl.
Muḥammad's foot-man Shāh Qāsim who once before had taken letters of
encouragement to kinsfolk in Khurāsān,[2310] was sent to Herī with other
letters to the purport that, through God's grace, our hearts were at
ease in Hindūstān about the rebels and [Sidenote: Fol. 345b.] pagans of
east and west; and that, God bringing it aright, we should use every
means and assuredly in the coming spring should touch the goal of our
desire.[2311] On the margin of a royal letter sent to Ahmad _Afshār_
(_Turk_) a summons to Farīdūn the _qabūz_-player was written with my own
hand.
(_Here the record of 11 days is wanting._)
In today's forenoon (_Tuesday 20th_?) I made a beginning of eating
quicksilver.[2312]
(_q. News from Kābul and Khurāsān._)[2313]
(_Nov. 4th_) On Wednesday the 21st of the month (_Ṣafar_) a Hindūstānī
foot-man (_pīāda_) brought dutiful letters (_`arẓ-dāshtlār_) from Kāmrān
and Khwāja Dost-i-khāwand. The Khwāja had reached Kābul on the 10th of
Ẕū'l-ḥijja[2314] and will have been anxious to go on[2315] to Humāyūn's
presence, but there comes to him a man from Kāmrān, saying, "Let the
honoured Khwāja come (to see me); let him deliver whatever royal orders
there may be; let him go on to Humāyūn when matters have been talked
over."[2316] Kāmrān will have gone into Kābul on the 17th of Ẕū'l-ḥijja
(_Sep. 2nd_), will have talked with the Khwāja and, on the 28th of the
same month, will have let him go on for Fort Victory (_Qila'-i-ẕafar_).
There was this excellent news in the dutiful letters received:—that
Shāh-zāda T̤ahmāsp, resolute to put down the Aūzbeg,[2317] had overcome
and killed Rīnīsh (var. Zīnīsh) _Aūzbeg_ in Dāmghān and made a general
massacre of his people; that 'Ubaid Khān, getting sure news about the
_Qīzīl-bāsh_ (Red-head) had risen from round Herī, gone to Merv, called
up to him there all the sulṯāns of Samarkand and those parts, and that
all the sulṯāns of Mā warā'u'n-nahr had gone to help him.[2318]
[Sidenote: Fol. 346.] This same foot-man brought the further news that
Humāyūn was said to have had a son by the daughter of Yādgār T̤aghāī,
and that Kāmrān was said to be marrying in Kābul, taking the daughter
of his mother's brother Sl. `Alī Mīrzā (_Begchīk_).[2319]
(_r. Honours for an artificer._)[2320]
On this same day Sayyid Daknī of Shīrāz the diviner (_ghaiba-gar_?) was
made to wear a dress of honour, given presents, and ordered to finish
the arched(?) well (_khwāralīq-chāh_) as he best knew how.
(_s. The Wālidiyyah-risāla (Parental-tract)._)
(_Nov. 6th_) On Friday the 23rd of the month[2321] such heat[2322]
appeared in my body that with difficulty I got through the
Congregational Prayer in the Mosque, and with much trouble through the
Mid-day Prayer, in the book-room, after due time, and little by little.
Thereafter[2323] having had fever, I trembled less on Sunday (_Nov.
28th_). During the night of Tuesday[2324] the 27th of the month Ṣafar,
it occurred to me to versify (_naẕm qīlmāq_)
the _Wālidiyyah-risāla_ of his Reverence Khwāja 'Ubaidu'l-lāh.[2325] I
laid it to heart that if I, going to the soul of his Reverence[2326] for
protection, were freed from this disease, it would be a sign that my
poem was accepted, just as the author of the _Qaṣīdatu'l-būrda_[2327]
was freed from the affliction of paralysis when his poem [Sidenote: Fol.
346b.] had been accepted. To this end I began to versify the tract,
using the metre[2328] of Maulānā 'Abdu´r-raḥīm _Jāmī's Subḥatu'l-abrār_
(Rosary of the Righteous). Thirteen couplets were made in that same
night. I tasked myself not to make fewer than 10 a day; in the end one
day had been omitted. While last year every time such illness had
happened, it had persisted at least a month or 40 days,[2329] this year,
by God's grace and his Reverence's favour, I was free, except for a
little depression (_afsurda_), on Thursday the 29th of the month (_Nov.
12th_). The end of versifying the contents of the tract was reached on
Saturday the 8th of the first Rabī' (_Nov. 20th_). One day 52 couplets
had been made.[2330]
(_t. Troops warned for service._)
(_Nov. 11th_) On Wednesday the 28th of the month royal orders were sent
on all sides for the armies, saying, "God bringing it about, at an
early opportunity my army will be got to horse. Let all come soon,
equipped for service."
(_Here the record of 9 days is wanting._)[2331]
(_u. Messengers from Humāyūn._)
(_Nov. 21st_) On Sunday the 9th of the first Rabī`, Beg Muḥammad
_ta`alluqchī_[2332] came, who had been sent last year (934 AH.) at the
end of Muḥarram to take a dress of honour and a horse to Humāyūn.[2333]
(_Nov. 22nd_) On Monday the 10th of the month there came from Humāyūn's
presence Wais _Lāgharī's_ (son) Beg-gīna (Little Beg) and Bīān Shaikh,
one of Humāyūn's servants who had come as the messenger of the good
tidings of the birth of Humāyūn's son whose name he gave as Al-amān.
Shaikh Abū'l-wajd found _Shăh sa`ādatmand_[2334] to be the date of his
birth. [Sidenote: Fol. 347.]
(_v. Rapid travel._)
Bīān Shaikh set out long after Beg-gīna. He parted from Humāyūn on
Friday the 9th of Ṣafar (_Oct. 23rd_) at a place below Kishm called
Dū-shaṃba (Monday); he came into Āgra on Monday the 10th of the first
Rabī` (_Nov. 23rd_). He came very quickly! Another time he actually came
from Qila`-i-ẕafar to Qandahār in 11 days.[2335]
(_w. News of T̤ahmāsp's victory over the Aūzbegs._)
Bīān Shaikh brought news about Shāh-zāda T̤ahmāsp's advancing
out of `Irāq and defeating the Aūzbeg.[2336] Here are his
particulars:—Shāh-zāda T̤ahmāsp, having come out of `Irāq with 40,000
men arrayed in Rūmī fashion of matchlock and cart,[2337] advances with
great speed, takes Basṯām, slaughters Rīnīsh (var. Zīnīsh) _Aūzbeg_ and
his men in Dāmghān, and from there passes right swiftly on.[2338] Kīpīk
Bī's son Qaṃbar-i-`alī Beg is beaten by one of the _Qīzīl-bāsh_
(Red-head)'s men, and with his few followers goes to `Ubaid Khān's
presence. `Ubaid Khān finds it undesirable to stay near Herī, hurriedly
sends off gallopers to all the sulṯāns of Balkh, Ḥiṣār, Samarkand, and
Tāshkend (Tāshkīnt) and goes himself to Merv. Sīūnjak Sl.'s younger son
Bārāq Sl. from Tāshkend, Kūchūm Khān, with (his sons) Abū-sa`īd Sl. and
Pūlad Sl., and Jānī Beg Sl. with his sons, from [Sidenote: Fol. 347b.]
Samarkand and Mīān-kāl, Mahdī Sl.'s and Ḥamza Sl.'s sons from Ḥiṣār,
Kītīn-qarā Sl. from Balkh, all these sulṯāns assemble right swiftly in
Merv. To them their informers (_tīl-chī_) take news that Shāh-zāda,
after saying, "`Ubaid Khān is seated near Herī with few men only," had
been advancing swiftly with his 40,000 men, but that when he heard of
this assembly (_i.e._ in Merv), he made a ditch in the meadow of
Rādagān[2339] and seated himself there.[2340] Here-upon the Aūzbegs,
with entire disregard of their opponents,[2341] left their counsels at
this:—"Let all of us sulṯāns and khāns seat ourselves in Mashhad;[2342]
let a few of us be told off with 20,000 men to go close to the
Qīzīl-bāsh camp[2343] and not let them put head out; let us order
magicians[2344] to work their magic directly Scorpio appears;[2345] by
this stratagem the enemy will be enfeebled, and we shall overcome." So
said, they march from Merv. Shāh-zāda gets out of Mashhad.[2346] He
confronts them near Jām-and-Khirgird.[2347] There defeat befalls the
Aūzbeg side.[2348] A mass of sulṯāns are overcome and slaughtered.
In one letter it (_khūd_) was written, "It is not known for certain
[Sidenote: Fol. 348.] that any sulṯān except Kūchūm Khān has escaped;
not a man who went with the army has come back up to now." The sulṯāns
who were in Ḥiṣār abandoned it. Ibrāhīm _Jānī's_ son Chalma, whose real
name is Ismā`īl, must be in the fort.[2349]
(_x. Letters written by Bābur._)
(_Nov. 27th and 28th_) This same Bīān Shaikh was sent quite quickly back
with letters. for Humāyūn and Kāmrān. These and other writings being
ready by Friday the 14th of the month (_Nov. 27th_) were entrusted to
him, his leave was given, and on Saturday the 15th he got well out of
Āgra.
COPY OF A LETTER TO HUMĀYŪN.[2350]
"The first matter, after saying, 'Salutation' to Humāyūn whom I am
longing to see, is this:—
"Exact particulars of the state of affairs on that side and on this[2351]
have been made known by the letters and dutiful representations brought
on Monday the 10th of the first Rabī` by Beg-gīna and Bīān Shaikh.
(_Turkī_) Thank God! a son is born to thee!
A son to thee, to me a heart-enslaver (_dil-bandī_).
"May the Most High ever allot to thee and to me tidings as joyful! So may
it be, O Lord of the two worlds!"
"Thou sayest thou hast called him Al-amān; God bless and prosper this!
Thou writest it so thyself (_i.e._ Al-amān), but hast over-looked that
common people mostly say _alāmā_ or _aīlāmān_.[2352] [Sidenote: Fol.
348b.] Besides that, this _Al_ is rare in names.[2353] May God bless and
prosper him in name and person; may He grant us to keep Al-amān (peace)
for many years and many decades of years![2354] May He now order our
affairs by His own mercy and favour; not in many decades comes such a
chance as this!"[2355]
"Again:—On Tuesday the 11th of the month (_Nov. 23rd_) came the false
rumour that the Balkhīs had invited and were fetching Qurbān[2356] into
Balkh."
"Again:—Kāmrān and the Kābul begs have orders to join thee; this done,
move on Ḥiṣār, Samarkand, Herī or to whatever side favours fortune.
Mayst thou, by God's grace, crush foes and take lands to the joy of
friends and the down-casting of adversaries! Thank God! now is your time
to risk life and slash swords.[2357] Neglect not the work chance has
brought; slothful life in retirement befits not sovereign rule:—
(_Persian_) He grips the world who hastens;
Empire yokes not with delay;
All else, confronting marriage, stops,
Save only sovereignty.[2358]
"If through God's grace, the Balkh and Ḥiṣār countries be won and held,
put men of thine in Ḥiṣār, Kāmrān's men in Balkh. Should Samarkand also
be won, there make thy seat. Ḥiṣār, [Sidenote: Fol. 349.] God willing, I
shall make a crown-domain. Should Kāmrān regard Balkh as small,
represent the matter to me; please God! I will make its defects good at
once out of those other countries."
"Again:—As thou knowest, the rule has always been that when thou hadst
six parts, Kāmrān had five; this having been constant, make no change."
"Again:—Live well with thy younger brother. Elders must bear the
burden![2359] I have the hope that thou, for thy part, wilt keep on good
terms with him; he, who has grown up an active and excellent youth,
should not fail, for his part, in loyal duty to thee."[2360]
"Again:—Words from thee are somewhat few; no person has [Sidenote: Fol.
349b.] come from thee for two or three years past; the man I sent to
thee (Beg Muḥammad _ta`alluqchī_) came back in something over a year; is
this not so?"
"Again:—As for the "retirement", "retirement", spoken of in thy
letters,—retirement is a fault for sovereignty; as the honoured (Sa`dī)
says:—[2361]
(_Persian_) If thy foot be fettered, choose to be resigned;
If thou ride alone, take thou thine own head.
"No bondage equals that of sovereignty; retirement matches not with
rule."
"Again:—Thou hast written me a letter, as I ordered thee to do; but why
not have read it over? If thou hadst thought of reading it, thou couldst
not have done it, and, unable thyself to read it, wouldst certainly have
made alteration in it. Though by taking trouble it can be read, it is
very puzzling, and who ever saw an enigma in prose?[2362] Thy spelling,
though not bad, is not quite correct; thou writest _iltafāt_ with _ṯā_
(_iltafāṯ_) and _qūlinj_ with _yā_ (_qīlinj_?).[2363] Although thy
letter can be read if every sort of pains be taken, yet it cannot be
quite understood because of that obscure wording of thine. Thy
remissness in letter-writing seems to be due to the thing which makes
thee obscure, that is to say, to elaboration. In future write without
elaboration; use plain, clear words. So will thy trouble and thy
reader's be less."
"Again:—Thou art now to go on a great business;[2364] take counsel with
prudent and experienced begs, and act as they say. If thou seek to
pleasure me, give up sitting alone and avoiding society. Summon thy
younger brother and the begs twice daily to thy presence, not leaving
their coming to choice; be the business what it may, take counsel and
settle every word and act in agreement with those well-wishers."
"Again:—Khwāja Kalān has long had with me the house-friend's intimacy;
have thou as much and even more with him. [Sidenote: Fol. 350.] If, God
willing, the work becomes less in those parts, so that thou wilt not
need Kāmrān, let him leave disciplined men in Balkh and come to my
presence."
"Again:—Seeing that there have been such victories, and such conquests,
since Kābul has been held, I take it to be well-omened; I have made it a
crown-domain; let no one of you covet it."
"Again:—Thou hast done well (_yakhshī qīlīb sīn_); thou hast won the
heart of Sl. Wais;[2365] get him to thy presence; act by his counsel,
for he knows business."
"Until there is a good muster of the army, do not move out."
"Bīān Shaikh is well-apprized of word-of-mouth matters, and will inform
thee of them. These things said, I salute thee and am longing to see
thee."—
The above was written on Thursday the 13th of the first Rabi` (_Nov.
26th_). To the same purport and with my own hand, I wrote also to Kāmrān
and Khwāja Kalān, and sent off the letters (by Bīān Shaikh).
(_Here the record fails from Rabī` 15th to 19th._)
(_y. Plans of campaign._)
(_Dec. 2nd_) On Wednesday the 19th of the month (_Rabī` I._) the mīrzās,
sulṯāns, Turk and Hind amīrs were summoned for counsel, and left the
matter at this:—That this year the army must move in some direction;
that `Askarī should go in advance towards the East, be joined by the
sulṯāns and amīrs from beyond Gang (Ganges), and march in whatever
direction favoured fortune. These particulars having been written down,
Ghīāṣu'd-dīn the [Sidenote: Fol. 350b.] armourer was given rendezvous
for 16 days,[2366] and sent galloping off, on Saturday the 22nd of the
month, to the amīrs of the East headed by Sl. Junaid _Barlās_. His
word-of-mouth message was, that `Askarī was being sent on before the
fighting apparatus, culverin, cart and matchlock, was ready; that it was
the royal order for the sulṯāns and amīrs of the far side of Gang to
muster in `Askarī's presence, and, after consultation with well-wishers
on that side, to move in whatever direction, God willing! might favour
fortune; that if there should be work needing me, please God! I would
get to horse as soon as the person gone with the (16 days) tryst
(_mī`ād_) had returned; that explicit representation should be made as
to whether the Bengali (Nas̤rat Shāh) were friendly and single-minded;
that, if nothing needed my presence in those parts, I should not make
stay, but should move elsewhere at once;[2367] and that after consulting
with well-wishers, they were to take `Askarī with them, and, God
willing! settle matters on that side.
(_Here the record of 5 days is wanting._)
(_z. `Askarī receives the insignia and rank of a royal commander._)
(_Dec. 12th_) On Saturday the 29th of the first Rabī`, `Askarī was made
to put on a jewelled dagger and belt, and a royal dress of honour, was
presented with flag, horse-tail standard, [Sidenote: Fol. 351.] drum, a
set (6-8) of _tīpūchāq_ (horses), 10 elephants, a string of camels, one
of mules, royal plenishing, and royal utensils. Moreover he was ordered
to take his seat at the head of a _Dīwān_. On his mullā and two
guardians were bestowed jackets having buttons[2368]; on his other
servants, three sets of nine coats.
(_aa. Bābur visits one of his officers._)
(_Dec. 13th_) On Sunday the last day of the month (_Rabī` I.
30th_)[2369] I went to Sl. Muḥammad _Bakhshī's_ house. After spreading a
carpet, he brought gifts. His offering in money and goods was more than
2 _laks_.[2370] When food and offering had been set out, we went into
another room where sitting, we ate _ma`jūn_. We came away at the 3rd
watch (midnight?), crossed the water, and went to the private house.
(_bb. The Āgra-Kābul road measured._)
(_Dec. 17th_) On Thursday the 4th of the latter Rabī`, it was settled
that Chīqmāq Beg with Shāhī _ṯamghāchī's_[2371] clerkship, should
measure the road between Āgra and Kābul. At every 9th _kuroh_ (_cir._
18m.), a tower was to be erected 12 _qārīs_ high[2372] and having a
_chār-dara_[2373] on the top; at every 18th _kuroh_ (_cir._ 36m.),[2374]
6 post-horses were to be kept fastened; and arrangement was to be made
for the payment of post-masters and grooms, and for horse-corn. The
order was, "If the place where the horses are fastened up,[2375] be near
a crown-domain, let those there provide for the matters mentioned; if
not, let the cost be charged on the beg in whose _pargana_ the
post-house may be." Chīqmāq Beg got out of Āgra with Shāhī on that same
day.
[Sidenote: Fol. 351b.] (_Author's note on the kuroh._) These
_kurohs_ were established in relation to the _mīl_, in the way
mentioned in the _Mubīn_:—[2376]
(_Turkī_) Four thousand paces (_qadam_) are one _mīl_;
Know that Hind people call this a _kuroh_;
The pace (_qadam_) they say is a _qārī_ and a half (36 in.);
Know that each _qārī_ (24 in.) is six hand-breadths
(_tūtām_)
That each _tūtām_ is four fingers (_aīlīk_),
Each _aīlīk_, six barley-corns. Know this
knowledge.[2377]
The measuring-cord (_ṯanāb_)[2378] was fixed at 40 _qārī_,
each being the one-and-a-half _qārī_ mentioned above, that is
to say, each is 9 hand-breadths.
(_cc. A feast._)
(_Dec. 18th_) On Saturday the 6th of the month (Rabī` II.) there was a
feast[2379] at which were present Qīzīl-bāsh (Red-head), and Aūzbeg, and
Hindū envoys.[2380] The Qīzīl-bāsh envoys sat under an awning placed
some 70-80 _qārīs_[2381] on my right, of the begs Yūnas-i-`alī being
ordered to sit with them. On my left the Aūzbeg envoys sat in the same
way, of the begs `Abdu'l-lāh being ordered to sit with them. I sat on
the north side of a newly-erected octagonal pavilion (_tālār_) covered
in with _khas_[2382]. Five or six _qārīs_ on my right sat Tūkhtā-būgha
Sl. and `Askarī, with Khwāja `Abdu'sh-shahīd and Khwāja Kalān,
descendants of his Reverence the Khwāja,[2383] and Khwāja Chishtī (var.
Ḥusainī), and Khalīfa, together with the _ḥāfiẕes_ and _mullās_
dependent on the Khwājas who had come from Samarkand. Five or six
_qārīs_ on my left sat Muḥammad-i-zamān M. and Tāng-ātmīsh Sl.[2384]
[Sidenote: Fol. 352.] and Sayyid Rafī`, Sayyid Rūmī, Shaikh Abū'l-fatḥ,
Shaikh Jamālī, Shaikh Shihābu'd-dīn _`Arab_ and Sayyid Daknī (var.Zaknī,
Ruknī). Before food all the sulṯāns, khāns, grandees, and amīrs brought
gifts[2385] of red, of white, of black,[2386] of cloth and various other
goods. They poured the red and white on a carpet I had ordered spread,
and side by side with the gold and silver piled plenishing, white cotton
piece-cloth and purses (_badra_) of money. While the gifts were being
brought and before food, fierce camels and fierce elephants[2387] were
set to fight on an island opposite,[2388] so too a few rams; thereafter
wrestlers grappled. After the chief of the food had been set out,
Khwāja `Abdu'sh-shahīd and Khwāja Kalān were made to put on surtouts
(_jabbah_) of fine muslin,[2389] spotted with gold-embroidery, and
suitable dresses of honour, and those headed by Mullā Farrūkh and
_Ḥāfiẕ_[2390] had jackets put on them. On Kūchūm Khān's envoy[2391] and
on Ḥasan _Chalabi's_ younger brother[2392] were bestowed silken
head-wear (_bāshlīq_) and gold-embroidered surtouts of fine muslin, with
suitable dresses of honour. Gold-embroidered jackets and silk coats were
presented to the envoys of Abū-sa`īd Sl. (_Aūzbeg_), of Mihr-bān Khānīm
and her son Pulād Sl., and of Shāh Ḥasan [Sidenote: Fol. 352b.]
(_Arghūn_). The two Khwājas and the two chief envoys, that is to say
Kūchūm Khān's retainer and Ḥasan _Chalabī's_ younger brother, were
presented with a silver stone's weight of gold and a gold stone's weight
of silver.
(_Author's note on the Turkī stone-weight._) The gold stone
(_tāsh_) is 500 _mis̤qāls_, that is to say, one Kābul _sīr_;
the silver stone is 250 _mis̤qāls_, that is to say, half a
Kābul _sīr_.[2393]
To Khwāja Mīr Sulṯān and his sons, to Ḥāfiẕ of Tāshkīnt, to Mullā
Farrūkh at the head of the Khwājas' servants, and also to other envoys,
silver and gold were given with a quiver.[2394] Yādgār-i-nāṣir[2395] was
presented with a dagger and belt. On Mīr Muḥammad the raftsman who was
deserving of reward for the excellent bridge he had made over the river
Gang (Ganges),[2396] a dagger was bestowed, so too on the matchlockmen
Champion [_pahlawān_] Ḥājī Muḥammad and Champion Buhlūl and on Walī the
cheeta-keeper (_pārschī_); one was given to Ustād `Alī's son also. Gold
and silver were presented to Sayyid Daud _Garmsīrī_. Jackets having
buttons,[2397] and silk dresses of honour were presented to the servants
of my daughter Ma`ṣūma[2398] and my son Hind-āl. Again:—presents of
jackets and silk dresses of honour, of gold and silver, of plenishing
and various goods were given to those from Andijān, and to those who had
come from Sūkh and Hushīār, the places whither we had gone landless and
homeless.[2399] Gifts of the same kind were given to the servants of
Qurbān and Shaikhī and the peasants of Kāhmard.[2400] [Sidenote: Fol.
353.]
After food had been sent out, Hindūstānī players were ordered to come
and show their tricks. Lūlīs came.[2401] Hindūstānī performers shew
several feats not shewn by (Tramontane) ones. One is this:—They arrange
seven rings, one on the forehead, two on the knees, two of the remaining
four on fingers, two on toes, and in an instant set them turning
rapidly. Another is this:—Imitating the port of the peacock, they place
one hand on the ground, raise up the other and both legs, and then in an
instant make rings on the uplifted hand and feet revolve rapidly.
Another is this:—In those (Tramontane) countries two people grip one
another and turn two somersaults, but Hindūstānī _lūlīs_, clinging
together, go turning over three or four times. Another is this:—a _lūlī_
sets the end of a 12 or 14 foot pole on his middle and holds it upright
while another climbs up it and does his [Sidenote: Fol. 353b.] tricks up
there. Another is this:—A small _lūlī_ gets upon a big one's head, and
stands there upright while the big one moves quickly from side to side
shewing his tricks, the little one shewing his on the big one's head,
quite upright and without tottering. Many dancing-girls came also and
danced.
A mass of red, white, and black was scattered (_sāchīldī_) on which
followed amazing noise and pushing. Between the Evening and Bed-time
Prayers I made five or six special people sit in my presence for over
one watch. At the second watch of the day (9 a.m., _Sunday, Rabi` II.
7th_) having sat in a boat, I went to the Eight-Paradises.
(_dd. `Askarī starts eastwards._)
(_Dec. 20th_) On Monday (_8th_) `Askarī who had got (his army) out (of
Āgra) for the expedition, came to the Hot-bath, took leave of me and
marched for the East.
(_ee. A visit to Dhūlpūr._)
(_Dec. 21st_) On Tuesday (_Rabī` II. 9th_) I went to see the buildings
for a reservoir and well at Dūlpūr.[2402] I rode from the (Āgra) garden
at one watch (_pahr_) and one _garī_ (9.22 a.m.), and I entered the
Dūlpūr garden when 5 _garīs_ of the 1st night-watch (_pās_)[2403] had
gone (7.40 p.m.).[2404]
(_Dec. 23rd_) On Thursday the 11th day of the month the stone-well
(_sangīn-chāh_), the 26 rock-spouts (_tāsh-tār-nau_) and rock-pillars
(_tāsh-sitūn_), and the water-courses (_ārīqlār_) cut on the solid slope
(_yak pāra qīā_) were all ready.[2405] At the 3rd watch (_pahr_) of this
same day preparation for drawing water from the well was made. On
account of a smell (_aīd_) in the water, it was ordered, for prudence'
sake, that they should turn the well-wheel without rest for 15
days-and-nights, and so draw off the water. Gifts were made to the
stone-cutters, and labourers, [Sidenote: Fol. 354.] and the whole body
of workmen in the way customary for master-workmen and wage-earners of
Āgra.
(_Dec. 24th_) We rode from Dūlpūr while one _garī_ of the 1st watch
(_pahr_) of Friday remained (_cir._ 8.40 a.m.), and we crossed the river
(Jumna) before the Sun had set.
(_Here the record of 3 days is wanting._)[2406]
(_ff. A Persian account of the battle of Jām._)
(_Dec. 28th_) On Tuesday the 16th of the month (_Rabī` II._) came one of
Dīv Sl.'s[2407] servants, a man who had been in the fight between the
Qīzīl-bāsh and Aūzbeg, and who thus described it:—The battle between the
Aūzbegs and Turkmāns[2408] took place on `Āshūr-day (_Muḥ. 10th_) near
Jām-and-Khirgird.[2409] They fought from the first dawn till the Mid-day
Prayer. The Aūzbegs were 300,000; the Turkmāns may have been (as is
said?) 40 to 50,000; he said that he himself estimated their dark mass
at 100,000; on the other hand, the Aūzbegs said they themselves were
100,000. The Qīzīl-bāsh leader (_ādam_) fought after arraying cart,
culverin and matchlockmen in the Rūmī fashion, and after protecting
himself.[2410] Shāh-zāda[2411] and Jūha Sl. stood behind the carts with
20,000 good braves. The rest of the begs were posted right and left
beyond the carts. [Sidenote: Fol. 354b.] These the Aūzbeg beat at once
on coming up, dismounted and overcame many, making all scurry off. He
then wheeled to the (Qīzīl-bāsh) rear and took loot in camel and
baggage. At length those behind the carts loosed the chains and came
out. Here also the fight was hard. Thrice they flung the Aūzbeg back; by
God's grace they beat him. Nine sulṯāns, with Kūchūm Khān, `Ubaid Khān
and Abū-sa`īd Sl. at their head, were captured; one, Abū-sa`īd Sl. is
said to be alive; the rest have gone to death.[2412] `Ubaid Khān's body
was found, but not his head. Of Aūzbegs 50,000, and of Turkmāns 20,000
were slain.[2413]
(_Here matter seems to have been lost._)[2414]
(_gg. Plan of campaign._)
(_Dec. 30th_) On this same day (Thursday _Rabī` II. 18th_) came
Ghīāṣu'd-dīn the armourer[2415] who had gone to Jūna-pūr (Jūnpūr) with
tryst of 16 days,[2416] but, as Sl. Junaid and the rest had led out
their army for Kharīd,[2417] he (Ghīāṣu'd-dīn) was not able to be back
at the time fixed.[2418] Sl. Junaid said, by word-of-mouth, "Thank God!
through His grace, no work worth the Pādshāh's attention has shewn
itself in these parts; if the honoured Mīrzā (`Askarī) come, and if the
sulṯāns, khāns and amīrs here-abouts be ordered to move in his steps,
there is hope that everything in these parts will be arranged with
ease." Though such was Sl. [Sidenote: Fol. 355.] Junaid's answer,yet, as
people were saying that Mullā Muḥammad Maẕhab, who had been sent as
envoy to Bengal after the Holy-battle with Sangā the Pagan,[2419] would
arrive today or tomorrow, his news also was awaited.
(_Dec. 31st_) On Friday the 19th of the month I had eaten ma`jūn and was
sitting with a special few in the private house, when Mullā Maẕhab who
had arrived late, that is to say, in the night of Saturday,[2420] came
and waited on me. By asking one particular after another, we got to know
that the attitude of the Bengalī[2421] was understood to be loyal and
single-minded.
(_Jan. 2nd_) On Sunday (_Rabī` II. 21st_), I summoned the Turk and Hind
amīrs to the private house, when counsel was taken and the following
matters were brought forward:—As the Bengalī (Naṣrat Shāh) has sent us
an envoy[2422] and is said to be loyal and single-minded, to go to
Bengal itself would be improper; if the move be not on Bengal, no other
place on that side has treasure helpful for the army; several places to
the west are both rich and near,
(_Turkī_) Abounding wealth, a pagan people, a short road;
Far though the East lie, this is near.
At length the matter found settlement at this:—As our westward road is
short, it will be all one if we delay a few days, so that our minds may
be at ease about the East. Again Ghīāṣu'd-dīn [Sidenote: Fol. 355b.] the
armourer was made to gallop off, with tryst of 20 days,[2423] to convey
written orders to the eastern amīrs for all the sulṯāns, khāns, and
amīrs who had assembled in `Askarī's presence, to move against those
rebels.[2424] The orders delivered, he was to return by the trysted day
with what ever news there might be.
(_hh. Balūchī incursions._)
In these days Muḥammadī Kūkūldāsh made dutiful representation that again
Balūchīs had come and overrun several places. Chīn-tīmūr Sl. was
appointed for the business; he was to gather to his presence the amīrs
from beyond Sihrind and Samāna and with them, equipped for 6 months, to
proceed against the Balūchīs; namely, such amīrs as `Ādil Sulṯān, Sl.
Muḥ. _Dūldāī_, Khusrau Kūkūldāsh, Muḥammad `Alī _Jang-jang_,
`Abdu'l-`azīz the Master-of-the-horse, Sayyid `Alī, Walī Qīzil, Qarācha,
Halāhil, `Āshiq the House-steward, Shaikh `Alī, Kitta (_Beg Kuhbur_),
Gujūr Khān, Ḥasan `Alī _Sīwādī_. These were to present themselves at the
Sulṯān's call and muster and not to transgress his word by road or in
halt.[2425] The messenger[2426] appointed to carry these orders was
`Abdu'l-ghaffār; he was to deliver them first to Chīn-tīmūr Sl.,
[Sidenote: Fol. 356.] then to go on and shew them to the afore-named
begs who were to present themselves with their troops at whatever place
the Sulṯān gave rendezvous (_būljār_);[2427] `Abdu'l-ghaffār himself was
to remain with the army and was to make dutiful representation of
slackness or carelessness if shewn by any person soever; this done, we
should remove the offender from the circle of the approved
(_muwajjah-jīrgāsī_) and from his country or _pargana_. These orders
having been entrusted to `Abdu'l-ghaffār, words-of-mouth were made known
to him and he was given leave to go.
(_The last explicit date is a week back._)
(_ii. News of the loss of Bihār reaches Dhūlpūr._)
(_Jan. 9th_) On the eve of Sunday the 28th of the month (_Rabi` II._) we
crossed the Jūn (Jumna) at the 6th _garī_ of the 3rd watch (2.15 a.m.)
and started for the Lotus-garden of Dūlpūr. The 3rd watch was near[2428]
(Sunday mid-day) when we reached it. Places were assigned on the border
of the garden, where begs and the household might build or make
camping-grounds for themselves.
(_Jan. 13th_) On Thursday the 3rd of the first Jumāda, a place was fixed
in the s.e. of the garden for a Hot-bath; the ground was to be levelled;
I ordered a plinth(?) (_kursī_) erected on the levelled ground, and a
Bath to be arranged, in one room of which was to be a reservoir 10 X 10.
On this same day Khalīfa sent from Āgra dutiful letters of Qāẓī Jīā and
Bīr-sing Deo, saying it had been heard said that Iskandar's son Maḥmūd
(_Lūdī_) had taken Bihār (town). This news decided for getting the army
to horse.
(_Jan. 14th_) On Friday (_Jumāda I. 4th_), we rode out from the
Lotus-garden at the 6th _garī_ (8.15 a.m.); at the Evening Prayer we
reached Āgra. We met Muḥammad-i-zamān Mīrzā on the road who would have
gone to Dūlpūr, Chīn-tīmūr also who must have been coming into
Agra.[2429]
(_Jan. 15th_) On Saturday (_5th_) the counselling begs having been
summoned, it was settled to ride eastwards on Thursday the 10th of the
month (_Jan. 21st_).
(_jj. News of Badakhshān._)
On this same Saturday letters came from Kābul with news [Sidenote: Fol.
356b.] that Humāyūn, having mustered the army on that side (Tramontana),
and joined Sl. Wais to himself, had set out with 40,000 men for
Samarkand;[2430] on this Sl. Wais' younger brother Shāh-qūlī goes and
enters Ḥiṣār, Tarsūn Muḥammad leaves Tirmiẕ, takes Qabādīān and asks for
help; Humāyūn sends Tūlik Kūkūldāsh and Mīr Khẉurd[2431] with many of
his men and what Mughūls there were, then follows himself.[2432]
(_Here 4 days record is wanting._)
(_kk. Bābur starts for the East._)
(_Jan. 20th_) On Thursday the 10th of the first Jumāda, I set [Sidenote:
Fol. 357.] out for the East after the 3rd _garī_ (_cir._ 7.10 a.m.),
crossed Jūn by boat a little above Jalīsīr, and went to the
Gold-scattering-garden.[2433] It was ordered that the standard (_tūgh_),
drum, stable and all the army-folk should remain on the other side of
the water, opposite to the garden, and that persons coming for an
interview[2434] should cross by boat.
(_ll. Arrivals._)
(_Jan. 22nd_) On Saturday (_12th_) Ismā`īl Mītā, the Bengal envoy
brought the Bengalī's offering (Naṣrat Shāh's), and waited on me in
Hindūstān fashion, advancing to within an arrow's flight, making his
reverence, and retiring. They then put on him the due dress of honour
(_khi`lat_) which people call * * * *[2435], and brought him before me.
He knelt thrice in our fashion, advanced, handed Naṣrat Shāh's letter,
set before me the offering he had brought, and retired.
(_Jan. 24th_) On Monday (_14th_) the honoured Khwāja `Abdu'l-ḥaqq having
arrived, I crossed the water by boat, went to his tents and waited on
him.[2436]
(_Jan. 25th_) On Tuesday (_15th_) Ḥasan _Chalabī_ arrived and waited on
me.[2437]
(_mm. Incidents of the eastward march._)
On account of our aims (_chāpdūq_) for the army,[2438] some days were
spent in the Chār-bāgh.
(_Jan. 27th_) On Thursday the 17th of the month, that ground was left
after the 3rd _garī_ (7.10 a.m.), I going by boat. It was dismounted 7
_kurohs_ (14 m.) from Āgra, at the village of Anwār.[2439]
(_Jan. 30th_) On Sunday (_Jumāda I. 20th_), the Aūzbeg envoys were given
their leave. To Kūchūm Khān's envoy Amīn Mīrzā were presented a dagger
with belt, cloth of gold,[2440] and 70,000 _tankas_.[2441] Abū-sa`īd's
servant Mullā T̤aghāī and the servants of [Sidenote: Fol. 357b.]
Mihr-bān Khānim and her son Pūlād Sl. were made to put on dresses of
honour with gold-embroidered jackets, and were presented also with money
in accordance with their station.
(_Jan. 31st_?) Next morning[2442] (_Monday 21st_?) leave was given to
Khwāja `Abdu'l-ḥaqq for stay in Āgra and to Khwāja Yaḥyā's grandson
Khwāja Kalān for Samarkand, who had come by way of a mission from Aūzbeg
khāns and sulṯāns.[2443]
In congratulation on the birth of Humāyūn's son and Kāmrān's marriage,
Mullā Tabrīzī and Mīrzā Beg T̤aghāī[2444] were sent with gifts
(_sāchāq_) to each Mīrzā of 10,000 _shāhrukhīs_, a coat I had worn, and
a belt with clasps. Through Mullā Bihishtī were sent to Hind-āl an
inlaid dagger with belt, an inlaid ink-stand, a stool worked in
mother-o'pearl, a tunic and a girdle,[2445] together with the alphabet
of the Bāburī script and fragments (_qiṯa`lār_) written in that script.
To Humāyūn were sent the translation (_tarjuma_) and verses made in
Hindūstān.[2446] To Hind-āl and Khwāja Kalān also the translation and
verses were sent. They were sent too to Kāmrān, through Mīrzā Beg
T̤aghāī, together with head-lines (_sar-khaṯ_) in the Bāburī
script.[2447]
(_Feb. 1st_) On Tuesday, after writing letters to be taken by those
going to Kābul, the buildings in hand at Āgra and Dūlpūr [Sidenote: Fol.
358.] were recalled to mind, and entrusted to the charge of Mullā Qāsim,
Ustād Shāh Muḥammad the stone-cutter, Mīrak, Mīr Ghīāṣ, Mīr Sang-tarāsh
(stone-cutter) and Shāh Bābā the spadesman. Their leave was then given
them.
(_Feb. 2nd_) The first watch (6 a.m.) was near[2448] when we rode out
from Anwār (_Wednesday, Jumāda I. 23rd_); in the end,[2449] we
dismounted, at the Mid-day Prayer, in the village of Ābāpūr, one _kuroh_
(2 m.) from Chandawār.[2450]
(_Feb. 3rd_) On the eve of Thursday (_24th_)[2451] `Abdu'l-malūk the
armourer[2452] was joined with Ḥasan _Chalabī_ and sent as envoy to the
Shāh[2453]; and Chāpūq[2454] was joined with the Aūzbeg envoys and sent
to the Aūzbeg khāns and sulṯāns.
We moved from Ābāpūr while 4 _garīs_ of the night remained (4.30 a.m.).
After passing Chandawār at the top of the dawn, I got into a boat. I
landed in front of Rāprī and at the Bed-time Prayer got to the camp
which was at Fatḥpūr.[2455]
(_Feb. 4th and 5th_) Having stayed one day (_Friday_) at Fatḥpūr, we got
to horse on Saturday (_26th_) after making ablution (_waẓū_) at dawn. We
went through the Morning Prayer in assembly near Rāprī, Maulānā Muḥammad
of Fārāb being the leader (_imām_). At sun-rise I got into a boat below
the great crook[2456] of Rāprī.
Today I put together a line-marker (_misṯar_) of eleven lines[2457] in
order to write the mixed hands of the translation.[2458] Today the
words of the honoured man-of-God admonished my heart.[2459]
(_Feb. 6th_) Opposite Jākīn,[2460] one of the Rāprī _parganas_, we
[Sidenote: Fol. 358b.] had the boats drawn to the bank and just spent
the night in them. We had them moved on from that place before the dawn
(_Sunday 27th_), after having gone through the Morning Prayer. When I
was again on board, Pay-master Sl. Muḥammad came, bringing a servant of
Khwāja Kalān, Shamsu'd-dīn Muḥammad, from whose letters and information
particulars about the affairs of Kābul became known.[2461] Mahdī Khwāja
also came when I was in the boat.[2462] At the Mid-day Prayer I landed
in a garden opposite Etāwa, there bathed (_ghusl_) in the Jūn, and
fulfilled the duty of prayer. Moving nearer towards Etāwa, we sat down
in that same garden under trees on a height over-looking the river, and
there set the braves to amuse us.[2463] Food ordered by Mahdī Khwāja,
was set before us. At the Evening Prayer we crossed the river; at the
bed-time one we reached camp.
There was a two or three days' delay on that ground both to collect the
army, and to write letters in answer to those brought by Shamsu'd-dīn
Muḥammad.
(_nn. Letters various._)
(_Feb. 9th_) On Wednesday the last day (_30th_) of the 1st Jumāda, we
marched from Etāwa, and after doing 8 _kurohs_ (16m.), dismounted at
Mūrī-and-Adūsa.[2464]
Several remaining letters for Kābul were written on this same ground.
One to Humāyūn was to this purport:—If the work have not yet been done
satisfactorily, stop the raiders and thieves thyself; do not let them
embroil the peace now descending amongst the peoples.[2465] Again, there
was this:—I have made [Sidenote: Fol. 359.] Kābul a crown-domain, let no
son of mine covet it. Again:—that I had summoned Hind-āl.
Kāmrān, for his part, was written to about taking the best of care in
intercourse with the Shāh-zāda,[2466] about my bestowal on himself of
Multān, making Kābul a crown-domain, and the coming of my family and
train.[2467]
As my letter to Khwāja Kalān makes several particulars known, it is
copied in here without alteration:—[2468]
[COPY OF A LETTER TO KHWĀJA KALĀN.]
"After saying 'Salutation to Khwāja Kalān', the first matter is that
Shamsu'd-dīn Muḥammad has reached Etāwa, and that the particulars about
Kābul are known."
"Boundless and infinite is my desire to go to those parts.[2469] Matters
are coming to some sort of settlement in Hindūstān; there is hope,
through the Most High, that the work here will soon be arranged. This
work brought to order, God willing! my start will be made at once."
"How should a person forget the pleasant things of those countries,
especially one who has repented and vowed to sin no more? How should he
banish from his mind the permitted flavours of melons and grapes? Taking
this opportunity,[2470] a melon was brought to me; to cut and eat it
affected me strangely; I was all tears!"
"The unsettled state[2471] of Kābul had already been written of
[Sidenote: Fol. 359b.] to me. After thinking matters over, my choice
fell on this:—How should a country hold together and be strong (_marbūṯ
u maẓbūṯ_), if it have seven or eight Governors? Under this aspect of
the affair, I have summoned my elder sister (Khān-zāda) and my wives to
Hindūstān, have made Kābul and its neighbouring countries a
crown-domain, and have written in this sense to both Humāyūn and Kāmrān.
Let a capable person take those letters to the Mīrzās. As you may know
already, I had written earlier to them with the same purport. About the
safe-guarding and prosperity of the country, there will now be no
excuse, and not a word to say. Henceforth, if the town-wall[2472] be not
solid or subjects not thriving, if provisions be not in store or the
Treasury not full, it will all be laid on the back of the inefficiency
of the Pillar-of-the State."[2473]
"The things that must be done are specified below; for some of them
orders have gone already, one of these being, 'Let treasure accumulate.'
The things which must be done are these:—First, the repair of the fort;
again:—the provision of stores; again:—the daily allowance and
lodging[2474] of envoys going backwards and forwards[2475]; again:—let
money, taken legally from revenue,[2476] be spent for building the
Congregational Mosque; again:—the repairs of the Kārwan-sarā
(Caravan-sarai) and the Hot-baths; again:—the completion of the
unfinished building [Sidenote: Fol. 360.] made of burnt-brick which
Ūstād Ḥasan `Alī was constructing in the citadel. Let this work be
ordered after taking counsel with Ūstād Sl. Muḥammad; if a design exist,
drawn earlier by Ūstād Ḥasan `Alī, let Ūstād Sl. Muḥammad finish the
building precisely according to it; if not, let him do so, after making
a gracious and harmonious design, and in such a way that its floor shall
be level with that of the Audience-hall; again:—the Khẉurd-Kābul dam
which is to hold up the But-khāk-water at its exit from the Khẉurd-Kābul
narrows; again:—the repair of the Ghaznī dam[2477]; again:—the
Avenue-garden in which water is short and for which a one-mill stream
must be diverted[2478]; again:—I had water brought from Tūtūm-dara to
rising ground south-west of Khwāja Basta, there made a reservoir and
planted young trees. The place got the name of Belvedere,[2479] because
it faces the ford and gives a first-rate view. The best of young trees
must be planted there, lawns arranged, and borders set with sweet-herbs
and with flowers of beautiful colour and scent; again:—Sayyid Qāsim has
been named to reinforce thee; again:—do not neglect the condition of
matchlockmen and of Ūstād Muḥammad Amīn the armourer[2480];
again:—directly this letter arrives, thou must get my elder sister
(Khān-zāda Begīm) and my wives right out of Kābul, and escort them to
Nīl-āb. However averse they may still be, they most certainly must start
within a week of the arrival of [Sidenote: Fol. 360b.] this letter. For
why? Both because the armies which have gone from Hindūstān to escort
them are suffering hardship in a cramped place (_tār yīrdā_), and also
because they[2481] are ruining the country."
"Again:—I made it clear in a letter written to `Abdu'l-lāh (_`asas_),
that there had been very great confusion in my mind (_dúghdugha_), to
counterbalance being in the oasis (_wādī_) of penitence. This quatrain
was somewhat dissuading (_mānī`_):—[2482]
Through renouncement of wine bewildered am I;
How to work know I not, so distracted am I;
While others repent and make vow to abstain,
I have vowed to abstain, and repentant am I.
"A witticism of Banāī's came back to my mind:—One day when he had been
joking in `Alī-sher Beg's presence, who must have been wearing a jacket
with buttons,[2483] `Alī-sher Beg said, 'Thou makest charming jokes; but
for the buttons, I would give thee the jacket; they are the hindrance
(_māni`_).' Said Banāī, 'What hindrance are buttons? It is button-holes
(_mādagī_) that hinder.'[2484] Let responsibility for this story lie on
the teller! hold me excused for it; for God's sake do not be offended by
it.[2485] Again:—that quatrain was made before last year, and in truth
the longing and craving for a wine-party has been infinite and endless
for two years past, so much so that sometimes the craving for wine
brought me to the verge of tears. Thank God! this year that trouble has
passed from my mind, perhaps by virtue of the [Sidenote: Fol. 361.]
blessing and sustainment of versifying the translation.[2486] Do thou
also renounce wine! If had with equal associates and boon-companions,
wine and company are pleasant things; but with whom canst thou now
associate? with whom drink wine? If thy boon-companions are Sher-i-aḥmad
and Ḥaidar-qulī, it should not be hard for thee to forswear wine. So
much said, I salute thee and long to see thee."[2487]
The above letter was written on Thursday the 1st of the latter Jumāda
(_Feb. 10th_). It affected me greatly to write concerning those
matters, with their mingling of counsel. The letters were entrusted to
Shamsu'd-dīn Muḥammad on Friday night,[2488] he was apprized of
word-of-mouth messages and given leave to go.
(_oo. Complaints from Balkh._)
(_Feb. 11th_) On Friday (_Jumāda II. 2nd_) we did 8 _kurohs_ (16m.) and
dismounted at Jumandnā.[2489] Today a servant of Kītīn-qarā Sl. arrived
whom the Sulṯān had sent to his retainer and envoy Kamālu'd-din
_Qīāq_,[2490] with things written concerning the behaviour of the begs
of the (Balkh) border, their intercourse with himself, and complaints of
theft and raid. Leave to go was given to _Qīāq_, and orders were issued
to the begs of the border to put an end to raiding and thieving, to
behave well and to maintain intercourse with Balkh. These orders were
entrusted to Kītīn-qarā Sl.'s servant and he was dismissed from this
ground.
A letter, accepting excuse for the belated arrival of Ḥasan
_Chalabī_,[2491] was sent to the Shāh today by one Shāh-qulī who had
[Sidenote: Fol. 361b.] come to me from Ḥasan _Chalabī_ and reported the
details of the battle (of Jām).[2492] Shāh-qulī was given his leave on
this same day, the 2nd of the month.
(_pp. Incidents of the eastward march resumed._)
(_Feb. 12th_) On Saturday (_3rd_) we did 8 _kurohs_ (16m.) and
dismounted in the Kakūra and Chachāwalī[2493] _parganas_ of Kālpī.
(_Feb. 13th_) On Sunday the 4th of the month, we did 9 _kurohs_ (18m.)
and dismounted in Dīrapūr[2494] a _pargana_ of Kālpī. Here I shaved my
head,[2495] which I had not done for the past two months, and bathed in
the Sīngar-water (Sengar).
(_Feb. 14th_) On Monday (_5th_) we did 14 _kurohs_ (28m.), and
dismounted in Chaparkada[2496] one of the _parganas_ of Kālpī.
(_Feb. 15th_) At the dawn of Tuesday (_6th_), a Hindūstānī servant of
Qarācha's arrived who had taken a command (_farmān_) from Māhīm to
Qarācha from which it was understood that she was on the road. She had
summoned escort from people in Lāhor, Bhīra and those parts in the
fashion I formerly wrote orders (_parwānas_) with my own hand. Her
command had been written in Kābul on the 7th of the 1st Jumāda (_Jan.
17th_).[2497]
(_Feb. 16th_) On Wednesday (_7th_) we did 7 _kurohs_ (14m.), and
dismounted in the Ādampūr _pargana_.[2498] Today I mounted before dawn,
took the road[2499] alone, reached the Jūn (Jumna), and went on along
its bank. When I came opposite to Ādampūr, I had awnings set up on an
island (_ārāl_) near the camp and seated there, ate _ma`jūn_.
Today we set Ṣādiq to wrestle with Kalāl who had come to [Sidenote: Fol.
362.] Āgra with a challenge.[2500] In Āgra he had asked respite for 20
days on the plea of fatigue from his journey; as now 40-50 days had
passed since the end of his respite, he was obliged to wrestle. Ṣādiq
did very well, throwing him easily. Ṣādiq was given 10,000 _tankas_, a
saddled horse, a head-to-foot, and a jacket with buttons; while Kalāl,
to save him from despair, was given 3000 _tankas_, spite of his fall.
The carts and mortar were ordered landed from the boats, and we spent 3
or 4 days on this same ground while the road was made ready, the ground
levelled and the landing effected.
(_Feb. 21st_) On Monday the 12th of the month (_Jumāda II._), we did 12
_kurohs_ (24 m.) and dismounted at Kūrarah.[2501] Today I travelled by
litter.
(_Feb. 22nd-25th_) After marching 12 _kurohs_ (24 m.) from Kūrarah
(_13th_), we dismounted in Kūrīa[2502] a _pargana_ of Karrah. From Kūrīa
we marched 8 _kurohs_ (16m.) and dismounted (_14th_) in
Fatḥpūr-Aswa.[2503] After 8 _kurohs_ (16m.) done from Fatḥpūr, we
dismounted (_15th_) at Sarāī Munda.[2504]... Today at the Bedtime Prayer
(_Friday 16th_, _after dark_), Sl. Jalālu'd-dīn (_Sharqī_)[2505] came
with his two young sons to wait on me.
(_Feb. 26th_) Next day, Saturday the 17th of the month, we did 8
_kurohs_ (16m.), and dismounted at Dugdugī a Karrah _pargana_ on the
bank of the Gang.[2506]
(_Feb. 27th_) On Sunday (_18th_) came to this ground Muḥammad Sl. M.,
Nī-khūb (or, Bī-khūb) Sl. and Tardīka (or, Tardī _yakka_, [Sidenote:
Fol. 362b.] champion).
(_Feb. 28th_) On Monday (_19th_) `Askarī also waited on me. They all
came from the other side of Gang (Ganges). `Askarī and his various
forces were ordered to march along the other bank of the river keeping
opposite the army on this side, and wherever our camp might be, to
dismount just opposite it.
(_qq. News of the Afghāns._)
While we were in these parts news came again and again that Sl. Maḥmūd
(_Lūdī_) had collected 10,000 Afghāns; that he had detached Shaikh
Bāyazīd and Bīban with a mass of men towards Sarwār [Gorakhpūr];
that he himself with Fatḥ Khān _Sarwānī_ was on his way along the
river for Chunār; that Sher Khān _Sūr_ whom I had favoured last year
with the gift of several _parganas_ and had left in charge of this
neighbourhood,[2507] had joined these Afghāns who thereupon had made him
and a few other amīrs cross the water; that Sl. Jalālu'd-dīn's man in
Benares had not been able to hold that place, had fled, and got away;
what he was understood to have said being, that he had left soldiers
(_sipahīlār_) in Benares-fort and gone along the river to fight Sl.
Maḥmūd.[2508]
(_rr. Incidents of the march resumed._)
(_March 1st_) Marching from Dugdugī (_Tuesday, Jumāda II. 20th_) the
army did 6 _kurohs_ (12m.) and dismounted at Kusār,[2509] 3 or 4
_kurohs_ from Karrah. I went by boat. We stayed here 3 or 4 [Sidenote:
Fol. 363.] days because of hospitality offered by Sl. Jalālu'd-dīn.
(_March 4th_) On Friday (_23rd_), I dismounted at Sl. Jalālu'd-dīn's
house inside Karrah-fort where, host-like, he served me a portion of
cooked meat and other viands.[2510] After the meal, he and his sons were
dressed in unlined coats (_yaktāī jāmah_) and short tunics
(_nīmcha_).[2511] At his request his elder son was given the style Sl.
Maḥmūd.[2512] On leaving Karrah, I rode about one _kuroh_ (2m.) and
dismounted on the bank of Gang.
Here letters were written and leave was given to Shahrak Beg who had
come from Māhīm to our first camp on Gang (_i.e._ Dugdugī). As Khwāja
Yaḥyā's grandson Khwāja Kalān had been asking for the records I was
writing,[2513] I sent him by Shahrak a copy I had had made.
(_March 5th_) On Saturday move was made at dawn (_24th_), I going by
boat direct, and after 4 _kurohs_ done (8m.), halt was made at
Koh.[2514] Our ground, being so near, was reached quite early. After
awhile, we seated ourselves inside[2515] a boat where we ate _ma`jūn_.
We invited the honoured Khwāja `Abdu'sh-shahīd[2516] who was said to be
in Nūr Beg's quarters (_awī_), invited also Mullā Maḥmūd (_Farābī_?),
bringing him from Mullā `Alī Khān's. After staying for some time on that
spot, we crossed the river, and on the other side, set wrestlers to
wrestle. In opposition to the rule of gripping the strongest first,
Dost-i-yāsīn-khair [Sidenote: Fol. 363b.] was told not to grapple with
Champion Ṣādiq, but with others; he did so very well with eight.
(_ss. News of the Afghān enemy._)
At the Afternoon Prayer, Sl. Muḥammad the Pay-master came by boat from
the other side of the river, bringing news that the army of Sl.
Iskandar's son Maḥmūd Khān whom rebels style Sl. Maḥmūd,[2517] had
broken up. The same news was brought in by a spy who had gone out at the
Mid-day Prayer from where we were; and a dutiful letter, agreeing with
what the spy had reported, came from Tāj Khān _Sārang-khānī_ between the
Afternoon and Evening Prayers. Sl. Muḥammad gave the following
particulars:—that the rebels on reaching Chunār seemed to have laid
siege to it and to have done a little fighting, but had risen in
disorderly fashion when they heard of our approach; that Afghāns who had
crossed the river for Benares, had turned back in like disorder; that
two of their boats had sunk in crossing and a body of their men been
drowned.
(_tt. Incidents of the eastward march resumed._)
(_March 6th_) After marching at Sunday's dawn (_25th_) and doing 6
_kurohs_ (12m.), Sīr-auliya,[2518] a _pargana_ of Pīāg*[2519] was
reached. I went direct by boat.
Aīsan-tīmūr Sl. and Tūkhta-būghā Sl. had dismounted half-way, and were
waiting to see me.[2520] I, for my part, invited them into the boat.
Tūkhta-būghā Sl. must have wrought magic, for a bitter wind rose and
rain began to fall. It became quite windy(?)[2521] on which account I
ate _ma`jūn_, although I had done so on the previous day. Having come to
the encamping-ground....[2522]
(_March 7th_?) Next day (_Monday 26th_?) we remained on the same ground.
(_March 8th_?) On Tuesday (_27th_?) we marched on.
Opposite the camp was what may be an island,[2523] large and verdant. I
went over by boat to visit it, returning to the boat during the 1st
watch (6-9 a.m.). While I rode carelessly along the ravine (_jar_) of
the river, my horse got to where it was fissured and had begun to give
way. I leapt off at once and flung myself on the bank; even the horse
did not go down; probably, however, if I had stayed on its back, it and
I would have gone down together.
On this same day, I swam the Gang-river (Ganges), counting every
stroke;[2524] I crossed with 33, then, without resting, swam back. I had
swum the other rivers, Gang had remained to do.[2525]
We reached the meeting of the waters of Gang and Jūn at the Evening
Prayer, had the boat drawn to the Pīāg side, and got to camp at 1 watch,
4 _garīs_ (10.30 p.m.).
(_March 9th_) On Wednesday (_Jumāda II. 28th_) from the 1st watch
onwards, the army began to cross the river Jūn; there were 420
boats.[2526]
(_March 11th_) On Friday, the 1st of the month of Rajab, I crossed the
river.
(_March 14th_) On Monday, the 4th of the month, the march for Bihār
began along the bank of Jūn. After 5 _kurohs_ (10m.) done, halt was made
at Lawāīn.[2527] I went by boat. The people of the army were crossing
the Jūn up to today. They were ordered to put the culverin-carts[2528]
which had been landed at Ādampūr, into boats again and to bring them on
by water from Pīāg.
On this ground we set wrestlers to wrestle. Dost-i-yāsīn-khair gripped
the boatman Champion of Lāhor; the contest was stubborn; it was with
great difficulty that Dost gave the throw. A head-to-foot was bestowed
on each.
(_March 15th and 16th_) People said that ahead of us was a swampy,
muddy, evil river called Tūs.[2529] In order to examine the ford*[2530]
and repair the road, we waited two days (_Tuesday Ramzān 5th and
Wednesday 6th_) on this ground. For the horses and camels a ford was
found higher up, but people said laden carts could not get through it
because of its uneven, stony bottom. [Sidenote: Fol. 364.] They were
just ordered to get them through.
(_March 17th_) On Thursday (_7th_) we marched on. I myself went by boat
down to where the Tūs meets the Gang (Ganges), there landed, thence rode
up the Tūs, and, at the Other Prayer, reached where the army had
encamped after crossing the ford. Today 6 _kurohs_ (12 m.) were done.
(_March 18th_) Next day (_Friday 8th_), we stayed on that ground.
(_March 19th_) On Saturday (_9th_), we marched 12 _kurohs_ and got to
the bank of Gang again at Nulibā.[2531]
(_March 20th_) Marching on (_Sunday 10th_), we did 6 _kurohs_ of road,
and dismounted at Kintit.[2532]
(_March 21st_) Marching on (_Monday 11th_), we dismounted at
Nānāpur.[2533] Tāj Khān _Sārang-khānī_ came from Chunār to this ground
with his two young sons, and waited on me.
In these days a dutiful letter came from Pay-master Sl. Muḥammad, saying
that my family and train were understood to be really on their way from
Kābul.[2534]
(_March 23rd_) On Wednesday (_13th_) we marched from that ground. I
visited the fort of Chunār, and dismounted about one _kuroh_ beyond it.
During the days we were marching from Pīāg, painful boils had come out
on my body. While we were on this ground, an Ottoman Turk (Rūmī) used a
remedy which had been recently discovered in Rūm. He boiled pepper in a
pipkin; I held the sores in the steam and, after steaming ceased, laved
them with the hot water. The treatment lasted 2 sidereal hours.
While we were on this ground, a person said he had seen tiger and
rhinoceros on an _ārāl_[2535] by the side of the camp.
(_March 24th_?) In the morning (_14th_?), we made the
hunting-circle[2536] [Sidenote: Fol. 364b.] on that _ārāl_, elephants
also being brought. Neither tiger nor rhino appeared; one wild buffalo
came out at the end of the line. A bitter wind rising and the whirling
dust being very troublesome, I went back to the boat and in it to the
camp which was 2 _kurohs_ (4m.) above Banāras.
(_uu. News of the Afghāns._)
(_March 25th_ (?) _and 26th_) Having heard there were many elephants in
the Chunār jungles, I had left (Thursday's) ground thinking to hunt
them, but Tāj Khān bringing the news (_Friday 15th_(?)) that Maḥmūd Khān
(_Lūdi_) was near the Son-water, I summoned the begs and took counsel as
to whether to fall upon him suddenly. In the end it was settled to march
on continuously, fast[2537] and far.
(_March 27th_) Marching on (_Sunday 17th_), we did 9 _kurohs_ (18m.),
and dismounted at the Bilwah-ferry.[2538]
(_March 28th_) On Monday night[2539] the 18th of the month, T̤āhir was
started for Āgra from this camp (Bilwah-ferry), taking money-drafts for
the customary gifts of allowance and lodging[2540] to those on their way
from Kābul.
Before dawn next morning (Monday) I went on by boat. When we came to
where the Gūī-water (Gūmtī) which is the water of Jūnpūr, meets the
Gang-water (Ganges), I went a little [Sidenote: Fol. 365.] way up it and
back. Narrower[2541] though it is, it has no ford; the army-folk crossed
it (last year) by boat, by raft, or by swimming their horses.
To look at our ground of a year ago,[2542] from which we had started for
Jūnpūr,[2543] I went to about a _kuroh_ lower than the mouth of the
Jūnpūr-water (Gūmtī). A favourable wind getting up behind, our larger
boat was tied to a smaller Bengalī one which, spreading its sail, made
very quick going. Two _garīs_ of day remained (5.15 p.m.) when we had
reached that ground (Sayyidpur?), we went on without waiting there, and
by the Bed-time Prayer had got to camp, which was a _kuroh_ above
Madan-Benāres,[2544] long before the boats following us. Mughūl Beg had
been ordered to measure all marches from Chunār on the direct road,
Luṯfī Beg to measure the river's bank whenever I went by boat. The
direct road today was said to be 11 _kurohs_ (22m.), the distance along
the river, 18 (36m.).
(_March 29th_) Next day (_Tuesday 19th_), we stayed on that ground.
(_March 30th_) On Wednesday (_20th_), we dismounted a _kuroh_ (2m.)
below Ghāzīpūr, I going by boat.
(_March 31st_) On Thursday (_21st_) Maḥmūd Khān _Nuḥānī_[2545] waited
on me on that ground. On this same day dutiful letters[2546] came
from Bihār Khān _Bihārī's_ son Jalāl Khān (_Nuḥānī_),[2547] from
Naṣīr Khān (_Nūḥānī_)'s son Farīd Khān,[2548] from Sher Khān _Sūr_,
from `Alāūl Khān _Sūr_ also, and from other Afghān amīrs. Today
[Sidenote: Fol. 365b.] came also a dutiful letter from `Abdu'l-`azīz
_Master-of-the-horse_, which had been written in Lāhor on the 20th of
the latter Jumāda (_Feb. 29th_), the very day on which Qarācha's
Hindūstānī servant whom we had started off from near Kālpī,[2549]
reached Lāhor. `Abdu'l-`azīz wrote that he had gone with the others
assigned to meet my family at Nīl-āb, had met them there on the 9th of
the latter Jumāda (_Feb. 18th_), had accompanied them to Chīn-āb
(Chan-āb), left them there, and come ahead to Lāhor where he was writing
his letter.
(_April 1st_) We moved on, I going by boat, on Friday (_Rajab 22nd_). I
landed opposite Chausā to look at the ground of a year ago[2550] where
the Sun had been eclipsed and a fast kept.[2551] After I got back to the
boat, Muḥammad-i-zamān Mīrzā, coming up behind by boat, overtook me; at
his suggestion _ma`jūn_ was eaten.
The army had dismounted on the bank of the Karmā-nā['s]ā-river, about
the water of which Hindūs are understood to be extremely scrupulous.
They do not cross it, but go past its mouth by boat along the Gang
(Ganges). They firmly believe that, if its water touch a person, the
merit of his works is destroyed; with this belief its name
accords.[2552] I went some way up it by [Sidenote: Fol. 366.] boat,
turned back, went over to the north bank of Gang, and tied up. There the
braves made a little fun, some wrestling. Muḥsin the cup-bearer
challenged, saying, "I will grapple with four or five." The first he
gripped, he threw; the second, who was Shādmān (Joyous), threw him, to
Muḥsin's shame and vexation. The (professional) wrestlers came also and
set to.
(_April 2nd_) Next morning, Saturday (_23rd_) we moved, close to the 1st
watch (6 a.m.), in order to get people off to look at the ford through
the Karmā-nā['s]ā-water. I rode up it for not less than a _kuroh_ (2
m.), but the ford being still far on,[2553] took boat and went to the
camp below Chausā.
Today I used the pepper remedy again; it must have been somewhat hotter
than before, for it blistered (_qāpārdī_) my body, giving me much pain.
(_April 3rd_) We waited a day for a road to be managed across a
smallish, swampy rivulet heard to be ahead.[2554]
(_April 4th_) On the eve of Monday (_25th_),[2555] letters were written
and sent off in answer to those brought by the Hindūstānī footman of
`Abdu'l-`azīz.
The boat I got into at Monday's dawn, had to be towed because of the
wind. On reaching the ground opposite Baksara (Buxar) [Sidenote: Fol.
366b.] where the army had been seated many days last year,[2556] we went
over to look at it. Between 40 and 50 landing-steps had been then made
on the bank; of them the upper two only were left, the river having
destroyed the rest. _Ma`jūn_ was eaten after return to the boat. We tied
up at an _ārāl_[2557] above the camp, set the champions to wrestle, and
went on at the Bed-time Prayer. A year ago (_yīl-tūr_), an excursion had
been made to look at the ground on which the camp now was, I passing
through Gang swimming (? _dastak bīla_),[2558] some coming mounted on
horses, some on camels. That day I had eaten opium.
(_vv. Incidents of the military operations._)
(_April 5th_) At Tuesday's dawn (_26th_), we sent out for news not under
200 effective braves led by Karīm-bīrdī and Ḥaidar the stirrup-holder's
son Muḥammad `Alī and Bābā Shaikh.
While we were on this ground, the Bengal envoy was commanded to set
forth these three articles:—[2559]
(_April 6th_) On Wednesday (_27th_) Yūnas-i-`alī who had been sent to
gather Muḥammad-i-zamān Mīrzā's objections to Bihār, brought back rather
a weak answer.
Dutiful letters from the (Farmūlī) Shaikh-zādas of Bihār gave news that
the enemy had abandoned the place and gone off.
(_April 7th_) On Thursday (_28th_) as many as 2000 men of the Turk and
Hind amīrs and quiver-wearers were joined to Muḥammad `Alī _Jang-jang's_
son Tardī-muḥammad, and he was [Sidenote: Fol. 367.] given leave to go,
taking letters of royal encouragement to people in Bihār. He was joined
also by Khwāja Murshid _`Irāqī_ who had been made Dīwān of Bihār.
(_April 8th_ (?)) Muḥammad-i-zamān M. who had consented to go to Bihār,
made representation of several matters through Shaikh Zain and
Yūnas-i-`alī. He asked for reinforcement; for this several braves were
inscribed and several others were made his own retainers.
(_April 9th_)[2560] On Saturday the 1st of the month of Sha`bān, we left
that ground where we had been for 3 or 4 days. I rode to visit Bhūjpūr
and Bihiya,[2561] thence went to camp.
Muḥammad `Alī and the others, who had been sent out for news, after
beating a body of pagans as they went along, reached the place where Sl.
Maḥmūd (_Lūdī_) had been with perhaps 2000 men. He had heard of our
reconnaissance, had broken up, killed two elephants of his, and marched
off. He seemed to have left braves and an elephant[2562] scout-fashion;
they made no stand when our men came up but took to flight. Ours
unhorsed a few of his, cut one head off, brought in a few good men
alive.
(_ww. Incidents of the eastward march resumed._)
(_April 10th_) We moved on next day (_Sunday 2nd_), I going by boat.
From our today's ground Muḥammad-i-zamān M. crossed (his army) over the
river (Son), leaving none behind. We spent 2 or 3 days on this ground in
order to put his work through and [Sidenote: Fol. 367b.] get him off.
(_April 13th_) On Wednesday the 4th[2563] of the month, Muḥammad-i-zamān
M. was presented with a royal head-to-foot, a sword and belt, a
_tīpūchāq_ horse and an umbrella.[2564] He also was made to kneel
(_yūkūndūrūldī_) for the Bihār country. Of the Bihār revenues one _krūr_
and 25 _laks_ were reserved for the Royal Treasury; its Dīwānī was
entrusted to Murshid _`Irāqī_.
(_April 14th_) I left that ground by boat on Thursday (_6th_). I had
already ordered the boats to wait, and on getting up with them, I had
them fastened together abreast in line.[2565] Though all were not
collected there, those there were greatly exceeded the breadth of the
river. They could not move on, however, so-arranged, because the water
was here shallow, there deep, here swift, there still. A crocodile
(_gharīāl_) shewing itself, a terrified fish leaped so high as to fall
into a boat; it was caught and brought to me.
When we were nearing our ground, we gave the boats names:—a [Sidenote:
Fol. 368.] large[2566] one, formerly the Bāburī,[2567] which had been
built in Āgra before the Holy-battle with Sangā, was named Asāīsh
(Repose).[2568] Another, which Arāīsh Khān had built and presented to me
this year before our army got to horse, one in which I had had a
platform set up on our way to this ground, was named Arāīsh (Ornament).
Another, a good-sized one presented to me by Jalālu'd-dīn _Sharqī_, was
named the Gunjāīsh (Capacious); in it I had ordered a second platform
set up, on the top of the one already in it. To a little skiff, having a
_chaukandī_,[2569] one used for every task (_har āīsh_) and duty, was
given the name Farmāīsh (Commissioned).
(_April 15th_) Next day, Friday (_7th_), no move was made.
Muḥammad-i-zamān M. who, his preparations for Bihār complete, had
dismounted one or two _kurohs_ from the camp, came today to take leave
of me.[2570]
(_xx. News of the army of Bengal._)
Two spies, returned from the Bengal army, said that Bengalīs[2571] under
Makhdūm-i-`ālam were posted in 24 places on the Gandak and there raising
defences; that they had hindered the Afghāns from carrying out their
intention to get their families across the river (Ganges?), and had
joined them to themselves.[2572] This news making fighting probable, we
detained Muḥammad-i-zamān Mīrzā, and sent Shāh Iskandar to Bihār with 3
or 400 men.
(_yy. Incidents of the eastward march resumed._)
[Sidenote: Fol. 368b.] (_April 16th_) On Saturday (_8th_) a person came
in from Dūdū and her son Jalāl Khān (son) of Bihār Khān[2573] whom the
Bengalī (Naṣrat Shāh) must have held as if eye-bewitched.[2574] After
letting me know they were coming,[2575] they had done some straight
fighting to get away from the Bengalīs, had crossed the river,[2576]
reached Bihār, and were said now to be on their way to me.
This command was given today for the Bengal envoy Ismā`īl
Mītā:—Concerning those three articles, about which letters have already
been written and despatched, let him write that an answer is long in
coming, and that if the honoured (Naṣrat Shāh) be loyal and of
single-mind towards us, it ought to come soon.
(_April 17th_) In the night of Sunday (_9th_)[2577] a man came in from
Tardī-muḥammad _Jang-jang_ to say that when, on Wednesday the 5th of the
month Sha`bān, his scouts reached Bihār from this side, the Shiqdār of
the place went off by a gate on the other side.
On Sunday morning we marched on and dismounted in the _pargana_ of Ārī
(Ārrah).[2578]
(_zz. News and negotiations._)
To this ground came the news that the Kharīd[2579] army, with 100-150
boats, was said to be on the far side of the Sarū near the meeting of
Sarū and Gang (Ghogrā and Ganges). As a sort of peace existed between us
and the Bengalī (Naṣrat Shāh _Afghān_), and as, for the sake of a
benediction, peace was our first endeavour whenever such work was toward
as we were now on, we kept to our rule, notwithstanding his unmannerly
conduct in setting himself on our road;[2580] we associated Mullā Maẕhab
with his envoy Ismā`īl Mītā, spoke once more about those three articles
[Sidenote: Fol. 369.] (_faṣl soz_), and decided to let the envoy go.
(_April 18th_) On Monday (_10th_) when the Bengal envoy came to wait on
me, he was let know that he had his leave, and what follows was
mentioned:[2581]—"We shall be going to this side and that side, in
pursuit of our foe, but no hurt or harm will be done to any dependency
of yours. As one of those three articles said,[2582] when you have told
the army of Kharīd to rise off our road and to go back to Kharīd, let a
few Turks be joined with it to reassure these Kharīd people and to
escort them to their own place.[2583] If they quit not the ferry-head,
if they cease not their unbecoming words, they must regard as their own
act any ill that befalls them, must count any misfortune they confront
as the fruit of their own words."
(_April 20th_) On Wednesday (_12th_) the usual dress of honour was put
on the Bengal envoy, gifts were bestowed on him and his leave to go was
given.
(_April 21st_) On Thursday (_13th_) Shaikh Jamālī was sent with royal
letters of encouragement to Dūdū and her son Jalāl Khān.
Today a servant of Māhīm's came, who will have parted from the
Wālī(?)[2584] on the other side of the Bāgh-i-ṣafā.
(_April 23rd_) On Saturday (_15th_) an envoy from `Irāq, Murād
_Qajar_[2585] the life-guardsman, was seen.
(_April 24th_) On Sunday (_16th_) Mullā Maẕhab received his usual
keepsakes (_yādgārlār_) and was given leave to go.
[Sidenote: Fol. 369b.] (_April 25th_) On Monday (_17th_) Khalīfa was
sent, with several begs, to see where the river (Ganges) could be
crossed.
(_April 27th_) On Wednesday, (_19th_) Khalīfa again was sent out, to
look at the ground between the two rivers (Ganges and Ghogrā).
On this same day I rode southward in the Ārī (Ārrah) _pargana_ to visit
the sheets of lotus[2586] near Ārī. During the excursion Shaikh Gūran
brought me fresh-set lotus-seeds, first-rate little things just like
pistachios. The flower, that is to say, the _nīlūfar_ (lotus),
Hindūstānīs call _kuwul-kikrī_ (lotus-pistachio), and its seed _dūdah_
(soot).
As people said, "The Son is near," we went to refresh ourselves on it.
Masses of trees could be seen down-stream; "Munīr is there," said they,
"where the tomb is of Shaikh Yaḥyā the father of Shaikh Sharafu'd-dīn
_Munīrī_."[2587] It being so close, I crossed the Son, went 2 or 3
_kurohs_ down it, traversed the Munīr orchards, made the circuit of the
tomb, returned to the Son-bank, made ablution, went through the Mid-day
Prayer before time, and made for camp. Some of our horses, being
fat,[2588] had fallen behind; some were worn out; a few people were left
to gather them together, water them, rest them, and bring them on
without pressure; but for this many would have been ruined.
When we turned back from Munīr, I ordered that some-one [Sidenote: Fol.
370.] should count a horse's steps between the Son-bank and the camp.
They amounted to 23,100, which is 46,200 paces, which is 11-1/2
_kurohs_ (23m.).[2589] It is about half a _kuroh_ from Munīr to the
Son; the return journey from Munīr to the camp was therefore 12 _kurohs_
(24m.). In addition to this were some 15-16 _kurohs_ done in visiting
this and that place; so that the whole excursion was one of some 30
_kurohs_ (60m.). Six _garīs_ of the 1st night-watch had passed [8.15
p.m.] when we reached the camp.
(_April 28th_) At the dawn of Thursday (_Sha`bān 19th_) Sl. Junaid
_Barlās_ came in with the Jūnpūr braves from Jūnpūr. I let him know my
blame and displeasure on account of his delay; I did not see him. Qāẓī
Jīā I sent for and saw.
(_aaa. Plan of the approaching battle with the Bengal army._)
On the same day the Turk and Hind amīrs were summoned for a consultation
about crossing Gang (Ganges), and matters found settlement at
this[2590]:—that Ūstād `Alī-qulī should collect mortar, _firingī_,[2591]
and culverin[2592] to the point of rising ground between the rivers Sarū
and Gang, and, having many matchlockmen with him, should incite to
battle from that place;[2593] that Muṣṯafa, he also having many
matchlockmen, should get his material and implements ready on the Bihār
side of Gang, a little below the meeting of the waters and opposite to
where on an island the Bengalīs had an elephant and a mass of boats tied
up, and that he should engage battle from this place;[2594] that
Muḥammad-i-zamān Mīrzā and the others inscribed for the work should take
post behind Muṣṯafa as his reserve; that both for Ūstād `Alī-qulī and
Muṣṯafa shelters (_muljār_) for the culverin-firers should be raised by
a mass of spadesmen and coolies (_kahār_) [Sidenote: Fol. 370b.] under
appointed overseers; that as soon as these shelters were ready, `Askarī
and the sulṯāns inscribed for the work should cross quickly at the
Haldī-passage[2595] and come down on the enemy; that meantime, as Sl.
Junaid and Qāẓī Jīā had given information about a crossing-place[2596] 8
_kurohs_ (16 m.) higher up,[2597] Zard-rūī(Pale-face?) should go with a
few raftsmen and some of the people of the Sulṯān, Maḥmūd Khān _Nūḥānī_
and Qāẓī Jīā to look at that crossing; and that, if crossing there were,
they should go over at once, because it was rumoured that the Bengalīs
were planning to post men at the Haldī-passage.
A dutiful letter from Maḥmūd Khān the Military-collector (_shiqdār_) of
Sikandarpūr now came, saying that he had collected as many as 50 boats
at the Haldī-passage and had given wages to the boatmen, but that these
were much alarmed at the rumoured approach of the Bengalīs.
(_April 30th_) As time pressed[2598] for crossing the Sarū, I did not
wait for the return of those who had gone to look at the passage, but
on Saturday (_21st_) summoned the begs for consultation and said, "As it
has been reported that there are (no?) crossing-places (fords?) along
the whole of the ground from Chatur-mūk in Sikandarpūr to Barāīch and
Aūd,[2599] let us, while seated here, assign the large force to cross at
the Haldī-passage by boat and from there [Sidenote: Fol. 371.] to come
down on the enemy; let Ūstād `Alī-qulī and Muṣṯafa engage battle with
gun (_top_), matchlock, culverin and _firingī_, and by this draw the
enemy out before `Askarī comes up.[2600] Let us after crossing the river
(Ganges) and assigning reinforcement to Ūstād `Alī-qulī, take our stand
ready for whatever comes; if `Askarī's troops get near, let us fling
attack from where we are, cross over and assault; let Muḥammad-i-zamān
Mīrzā and those appointed to act with him, engage battle from near
Muṣṯafa on the other side of Gang."
The matter having been left at this, the force for the north of the Gang
was formed into four divisions to start under `Askarī's command for the
Haldī-passage. One division was of `Askarī and his retainers; another
was Sl. Jalālu'd-dīn _Sharqī_; another was of the Aūzbeg sulṯāns
Qāsim-i-ḥusain Sulṯān, Bī-khūb Sulṯān and Tāng-aītmīsh Sulṯān, together
with Maḥmūd Khān _Nūḥānī_ of Ghāzīpūr, Bābā Qashqa's Kūkī, Tūlmīsh
_Aūzbeg_, Qurbān of Chīrkh, and the Daryā-khānīs led by Ḥasan Khān;
another was of Mūsā Sl. (_Farmūlī_) and Sl. Junaid with what-not of the
Jūnpūr army, some 20,000 men. Officers were appointed to oversee the
getting of the force to horse that very night, that is to say, the
[Sidenote: Fol. 371b.] night of Sunday.[2601]
(_May 1st_) The army began to cross Gang at the dawn of Sunday (_Sha`bān
22nd_); I went over by boat at the 1st watch (6a.m.). Zard-rūī and his
party came in at mid-day; the ford itself they had not found but they
brought news of boats and of having met on the road the army getting
near them.[2602]
(_May 3rd_) On Tuesday (_Sha`bān 24th_) we marched from where the river
had been crossed, went on for nearly one _kuroh_ (2 m.) and dismounted
on the fighting-ground at the confluence.[2603] I myself went to enjoy
Ūstād `Alī-qulī's firing of culverin and _firingī_; he hit two boats
today with _firingī_-stones, broke them and sank them. Muṣṯafa did the
same from his side. I had the large mortar[2604] taken to the
fighting-ground, left Mullā Ghulām to superintend the making of its
position, appointed a body of _vasāwals_[2605] and active braves to help
him, went to an island facing the camp and there ate _ma`jūn_.
Whilst still under the influence of the confection[2606] I had the boat
taken to near the tents and there slept. A strange thing happened in the
night, a noise and disturbance arising about the 3rd watch (midnight)
and the pages and others snatching up pieces of wood from the boat, and
shouting "Strike! strike!" [Sidenote: Fol. 372.] What was said to have
led to the disturbance was that a night-guard who was in the Farmāīsh
along-side the Asāīsh in which I was sleeping,[2607] opening his eyes
from slumber, sees a man with his hand on the Asāīsh as if meaning to
climb into her. They fall on him;[2608] he dives, comes up again, cuts
at the night-guard's head, wounding it a little, then runs off at once
towards the river.[2609] Once before, on the night we returned from
Munīr, one or two night-guards had chased several Hindūstānīs from near
the boats, and had brought in two swords and a dagger of theirs. The
Most High had me in His Keeping!
(_Persian_) Were the sword of the world to leap forth,
It would cut not a vein till God will.[2610]
(_May 4th_) At the dawn of Wednesday (_25th_), I went in the boat
Gunjāīsh to near the stone-firing ground (_tāsh-ātār-yīr_) and there
posted each soever to his work.
(_bbb. Details of the engagement._)
Aūghān-bīrdī _Mughūl_, leading not less than 1,000 men, had been sent to
get, in some way or other, across the river (Sarū) one, two, three
_kurohs_ (2, 4, 6m.) higher up. A mass of foot-soldiers, crossing from
opposite `Askarī's camp,[2611] landed from 20-30 boats on his road,
presumably thinking to show their superiority, but Aūghān-bīrdī and his
men charged them, put them to flight, took a few and cut their heads
off, shot many with arrows, and got possession of 7 or 8 boats. Today
also Bengalīs crossed in a few boats to Muḥammad-i-zamān Mīrzā's side,
there landed and [Sidenote: Fol. 372b.] provoked to fight. When attacked
they fled, and three boat-loads of them were drowned. One boat was
captured and brought to me. In this affair Bābā the Brave went forward
and exerted himself excellently.
Orders were given that in the darkness of night the boats Aūghān-bīrdī
had captured should be drawn[2612] up-stream, and that in them there
should cross Muḥammad Sl. Mīrzā, Yakka Khwāja, Yūnas-i-`alī,
Aūghān-bīrdī and those previously assigned to go with them.
Today came a man from `Askarī to say that he had crossed the
[Sarū]-water, leaving none behind, and that he would come down on the
enemy at next day's dawn, that is to say, on Thursday's. Here-upon those
already ordered to cross over were told to join `Askarī and to advance
upon the enemy with him.
At the Mid-day Prayer a person came from Ūstā, saying "The stone is
ready; what is the order?" The order was, "Fire this stone off; keep the
next till I come." Going at the Other Prayer in a very small Bengalī
skiff to where shelter (_muljār_) had been raised, I saw Ūstā fire off
one large stone and several small _firingī_ ones. Bengalīs have a
reputation for fire-working;[2613] we tested it now; they do not fire
counting to hit a particular spot, but fire at random.
At this same Other Prayer orders were given to draw a few boats
up-stream along the enemy's front. A few were got past without a "God
forbid!"[2614] from those who, all unprotected, drew [Sidenote: Fol.
373.] them up. Aīsān-tīmūr Sl. and Tūkhta-būghā Sl. were ordered to stay
at the place those boats reached, and to keep watch over them. I got
back to camp in the 1st night-watch of Thursday.[2615]
Near midnight came news from (Aūghān-bīrdī's) boats which were being
drawn up-stream, "The force appointed had gone somewhat ahead; we were
following, drawing the boats, when the Bengalīs got to know where we
were drawing them and attacked. A stone hit a boatman in the leg and
broke it, we could not pass on."
(_May 5th_) At dawn on Thursday (_Sha`bān 26th_) came the news from
those at the shelter, "All the boats have come from above.[2616] The
enemy's horse has ridden to meet our approaching army." On this, I got
our men mounted quickly and rode out to above those boats[2617] that had
been drawn up in the night. A galloper was sent off with an order for
Muḥammad Sl. M. and those appointed to cross with him, to do it at once
and join `Askarī. The order for Aīsān-tīmūr Sl. and Tūkhta-būghā Sl. who
were above these boats,[2618] was that they should busy themselves to
cross. Bābā Sl. was not at his post.[2619]
Aīsān-tīmūr Sl. at once crosses, in one boat with 30-40 of his retainers
who hold their horses by the mane at the boat-side. [Sidenote: Fol.
373b.] A second boat follows. The Bengalīs see them crossing and start
off a mass of foot-soldiers for them. To meet these go 7 or 8 of
Aīsān-tīmūr Sl.'s retainers, keeping together, shooting off arrows,
drawing those foot-soldiers towards the Sulṯān who meantime is getting
his men mounted; meantime also the second boat is moving (_rawān_). When
his 30-35 horsemen charge those foot-soldiers, they put them well to
flight. Aīsān-tīmūr did distinguished work, first in crossing before the
rest, swift, steady, and without a "God forbid!", secondly in his
excellent advance, with so few men, on such a mass of foot, and by
putting these to flight. Tūkhta-būghā Sl. also crossed. Then boats
followed one after another. Lāhorīs and Hindūstānīs began to cross from
their usual posts[2620] by swimming or on bundles of reeds.[2621] Seeing
how matters were going, the Bengalīs of the boats opposite the shelter
(Muṣṯafa's), set their faces for flight down-stream.
Darwīsh-i-muḥammad _Sārbān_, Dost Lord-of-the-gate, Nūr Beg and several
braves also went across the river. I made a man gallop off to the
Sulṯāns to say, "Gather well together those who [Sidenote: Fol. 374.]
cross, go close to the opposing army, take it in the flank, and get to
grips." Accordingly the Sulṯāns collected those who crossed, formed up
into 3 or 4 divisions, and started for the foe. As they draw near, the
enemy-commander, without breaking his array, flings his foot-soldiers to
the front and so comes on. Kūkī comes up with a troop from `Askarī's
force and gets to grips on his side; the Sulṯāns get to grips on theirs;
they get the upper hand, unhorse man after man, and make the enemy
scurry off. Kūkī's men bring down a Pagan of repute named Basant Rāō
and cut off his head; 10 or 15 of his people fall on Kūkī's, and are
instantly cut to pieces. Tūkhta-būghā Sl. gallops along the enemy's
front and gets his sword well in. Mughūl `Abdu'l-wahhāb and his younger
brother gets theirs in well too. Mughūl though he did not know how to
swim, had crossed the river holding to his horse's mane.
I sent for my own boats which were behind;[2622] the Farmāīsh coming up
first, I went over in it to visit the Bengalīs' encamping-grounds. I
then went into the Gunjāīsh. "Is there a crossing-place higher up?" I
asked. Mīr Muḥammad the raftsman represented that the Sarū was better to
cross higher up;[2623] accordingly the army-folk[2624] were ordered to
cross at the higher place he named.
While those led by Muḥammad Sl. Mīrzā were crossing the [Sidenote: Fol.
374b.] river,[2625] the boat in which Yakka Khwāja was, sank and he went
to God's mercy. His retainers and lands were bestowed on his younger
brother Qāsim Khwāja.
The Sulṯāns arrived while I was making ablution for the Mid-day Prayer;
I praised and thanked them and led them to expect guerdon and kindness.
`Askarī also came; this was the first affair he had seen; one
well-omened for him!
As the camp had not yet crossed the river, I took my rest in the boat
Gunjāīsh, near an island.
(_ccc. Various incidents of the days following the battle._)
(_May 6th_) During the day of Friday (_Sha`bān 27th_) we landed at a
village named Kūndīh[2626] in the Nirhun _pargana_ of Kharīd on the
north side of the Sarū.[2627]
(_May 8th_) On Sunday (_29th_) Kūkī was sent to Ḥājīpūr for news.
Shāh Muḥammad (son) of Ma`rūf to whom in last year's campaign (934 AH.)
I had shown great favour and had given the Sāran-country, had done well
on several occasions, twice fighting and overcoming his father
Ma`rūf.[2628] At the time when Sl. Maḥmūd _Lūdī_ perfidiously took
possession of Bihār and was opposed by Shaikh Bāyazīd and Bīban, Shāh
Muḥammad had no help for it, he had to join them; but even then, when
people were saying wild words about him, he had written dutifully to me.
When `Askarī crossed at the Haldī-passage, Shāh [Sidenote: Fol. 375.]
Muḥammad had come at once with a troop, seen him and with him gone
against the Bengalīs. He now came to this ground and waited on me.
During these days news came repeatedly that Bīban and Shaikh Bāyazīd
were meaning to cross the Sarū-river.
In these days of respite came the surprising news from Sanbal (Saṃbhal)
where `Alī-i-yūsuf had stayed in order to bring the place into some sort
of order, that he and a physician who was by way of being a friend of
his, had gone to God's mercy on one and the same day. `Abdu'l-lāh
(_kitābdār_) was ordered to go and maintain order in Sanbal.
(_May 13th_) On Friday the 5th of the month Ramẓān, `Abdu'l-lāh was
given leave for Sanbal.[2629]
(_ddd. News from the westward._)
In these same days came a dutiful letter from Chīn-tīmūr Sl. saying that
on account of the journey of the family from Kābul, several of the begs
who had been appointed to reinforce him, had not been able to join
him;[2630] also that he had gone out with Muḥammadī and other begs and
braves, not less than 100 _kurohs_ (200m.), attacked the Balūchīs and
given them a good beating.[2631] Orders were sent through `Abdu'l-lāh
(_kitābdār_) for the Sulṯān that he and Sl. Muḥammad _Dūldāī_,
Muḥammadī, and some of the begs and braves of that country-side should
assemble in Āgra and there remain ready to move to wherever an enemy
appeared.
(_eee. Settlement with the Nūḥānī Afghāns._)
(_May 16th_) On Monday the 8th of the month, Daryā Khān's [Sidenote:
Fol. 375b.] grandson Jalāl Khān to whom Shaikh Jamālī had gone, came in
with his chief amīrs and waited on me.[2632] Yaḥyā _Nūḥānī_ also came,
who had already sent his younger brother in sign of submission and had
received a royal letter accepting his service. Not to make vain the hope
with which some 7 or 8,000 _Nūḥānī_ Afghāns had come in to me, I
bestowed 50 _laks_ from Bīhār on Maḥmūd Khān _Nūḥānī_, after reserving
one _krūr_ for Government uses (_khalṣa_), and gave the remainder of the
Bihār revenues in trust for the above-mentioned Jalāl Khān who for his
part agreed to pay one _krūr_ of tribute. Mullā Ghulām _yasāwal_ was
sent to collect this tribute.[2633] Muḥammad-i-zamān Mīrzā received the
Jūnapūr-country.[2634]
(_fff. Peace made with Naṣrat Shāh._)
(_May 19th_) On the eve of Thursday (_11th_) that retainer of Khalīfa's,
Ghulām-i-`alī by name, who in company with a retainer of the Shāh-zāda
of Mungīr named Abū'l-fatḥ,[2635] had gone earlier than Ismā`īl Mītā, to
convey those three articles (_faṣl soz_), now returned, again in company
with Abū'l-fatḥ, bringing letters for Khalīfa written by the Shāh-zāda
and by Ḥusain Khān _Laskar_(?) _Wazīr_, who, in these letters, gave
assent to those three conditions, took upon themselves to act for Naṣrat
Shāh and interjected a word for peace. As the object of this campaign
was to put down the rebel Afghāns of whom some had taken their heads
and gone off, some had come in submissive and accepting my service, and
the remaining few were in the hands of the Bengalī [Sidenote: Fol. 376.]
(Naṣrat Shāh) who had taken them in charge, and as, moreover, the Rains
were near, we in our turn wrote and despatched words for peace on the
conditions mentioned.
(_ggg_. _Submissions and guerdon._)
(_May 21st_) On Saturday (_13th_) Ismā`īl _Jālwānī_, `Alāūl Khān
_Nūḥānī_, Auliya Khān _Ashrāqī_(?) and 5 and 6 amīrs came in and waited
on me.
Today guerdon was bestowed on Aīsān-tīmūr Sl. and Tūkhta-būghā Sl., of
swords and daggers with belts, cuirasses, dresses of honour, and
_tīpūchāq_ horses; also they were made to kneel, Aīsān-tīmūr Sl. for the
grant of 36 _laks_ from the Nārnūl _pargana_, Tūkhta-bughā Sl. for 30
_laks_ from that of Shamsābād.
(_hhh_. _Pursuit of Bāyazīd and Bīban._)
(_May 23rd_) On Monday the 15th of the month (_Ramẓān_), we marched from
our ground belonging to Kūndbah (or Kūndīh) on the Sarū-river, with easy
mind about Bihār and Bengal, and resolute to crush the traitors Bīban
and Shaikh Bāyazīd.
(_May 25th_) On Wednesday (_17th_) after making two night-halts by the
way, we dismounted at a passage across the Sarū, called
Chaupāra-Chaturmūk of Sikandarpūr.[2636] From today people were busy in
crossing the river.
As news began to come again and again that the traitors, after crossing
Sarū and Gogar,[2637] were going toward Luknū,[2638] the following
leaders were appointed to bar (their) crossing[2639]:—The Turk and Hind
amīrs Jalālu'd-dīn _Sharqī_, `Alī Khān _Farmūlī_; Tardīka (or, Tardī
_yakka_), Nizām Khān of Bīāna, together with Tūlmīsh _Aūzbeg_, Qurbān of
Chīrk and Daryā Khān (of Bhīra's [Sidenote: Fol. 376b.] son) Ḥasan Khān.
They were given leave to go on the night of Thursday.[2640]
(_iii. Damage done to the Bābur-nāma writings._)
That same night when 1 watch (_pās_), 5 _garīs_ had passed (_cir._ 10.55
p.m.) and the _tarāwīḥ_-prayers were over,[2641] such a storm burst, in
the inside of a moment, from the up-piled clouds of the Rainy-season,
and such a stiff gale rose, that few tents were left standing. I was in
the Audience-tent, about to write (_kitābat qīlā dūr aīdīm_); before I
could collect papers and sections,[2642] the tent came down, with its
porch, right on my head. The _tūnglūq_ went to pieces.[2643] God
preserved me! no harm befell me! Sections and book[2644] were drenched
under water and gathered together with much difficulty. We laid them in
the folds of a woollen throne-carpet,[2645] put this on the throne and
on it piled blankets. The storm quieted down in about 2 _garīs_ (45m.);
the bedding-tent was set up, a lamp lighted, and, after much trouble, a
fire kindled. We, without sleep, were busy till shoot of day drying
folios and sections.
(_jjj. Pursuit of Bīban and Bāyazīd resumed._)
(_May 26th_) I crossed the water on Thursday morning (_Ramān 18th_).
(_May 27th_) On Friday (_19th_) I rode out to visit Sikandarpūr and
Kharīd.[2646] Today came matters written by `Abdu`l-lāh (_kitābdār_) and
Bāqī about the taking of Luknūr.[2647]
(_May 28th_) On Saturday (_20th_) Kūkī was sent ahead, with a troop, to
join Bāqī.[2648]
(_May 29th_) That nothing falling to be done before my arrival might be
neglected, leave to join Bāqī was given on Sunday (_21st_) to Sl. Junaid
_Barlās_, Khalīfa's (son) Ḥasan, Mullā Apāq's [Sidenote: Fol. 377.]
retainers, and the elder and younger brethren of Mumin Ātāka.
Today at the Other Prayer a special dress of honour and a _tīpūchāq_
horse were bestowed on Shāh Muḥammad (son) of Ma`rūf _Farmūlī_, and
leave to go was given. As had been done last year (934 AH.), an
allowance from Sāran and Kūndla[2649] was bestowed on him for the
maintenance of quiver-wearers. Today too an allowance of 72 _laks_[2650]
from Sarwār and a _tīpūchāq_ horse were bestowed on Ismā`īl _Jalwānī_,
and his leave was given.
About the boats Gunjāīsh and Arāīsh it was settled with Bengalīs that
they should take them to Ghāzīpūr by way of Tīr-mūhānī.[2651] The boats
Asāīsh and Farmāīsh were ordered taken up the Sarū with the camp.
(_May 30th_) On Monday (_Ramẓān 22nd_) we marched from the
Chaupāra-Chaturmūk passage along the Sarū, with mind at ease about Bihār
and Sarwār,[2652] and after doing as much as 10 _kurohs_
[Sidenote: Fol. 377b.] (20m.) dismounted on the Sarū in a village
called Kilirah (?) dependent on Fatḥpūr.[2653]
(_kkk. A surmised survival of the record of 934. A.H._[2654])
*After spending several days pleasantly in that place where there are
gardens, running-waters, well-designed buildings, trees, particularly
mango-trees, and various birds of coloured plumage, I ordered the march
to be towards Ghāzīpūr.
Ismā`īl Khān _Jalwānī_ and `Alāūl Khān _Nūḥānī_ had it represented to me
that they would come to Āgra after seeing their native land (_watn_). On
this the command was, "I will give an order in a month."*[2655]
(_lll. The westward march resumed._)
(_May 31st_) Those who marched early (_Tuesday, Ramẓān 23rd_), having
lost their way, went to the great lake of Fatḥpūr (?).[2656] People were
sent galloping off to fetch back such as were near and Kīchīk Khwāja was
ordered to spend the night on the lakeshore and to bring the rest on
next morning to join the camp. We marched at dawn; I got into the Asāīsh
half-way and had it towed to our ground higher up.
(_mmm. Details of the capture of a fort by Bīban and Bāyazīd._)
On the way up, Khalīfa brought Shāh Muḥammad _dīwāna's_ son who had come
from Bāqī bringing this reliable news about Luknūr[2657]:—They (_i.e._
Bīban and Bāyazīd) hurled their assault on Saturday the 13th of the
month Ramẓān (_May 21st_) but could do nothing by fighting; while the
fighting was going on, a collection of wood-chips, hay, and thorns in
the fort took fire, so that inside the walls it became as hot as an oven
(_tanūrdīk tafsān_); the garrison could not move round the rampart; the
fort was lost. When the enemy heard, two or three days later, of our
return (westwards), he fled towards Dalmau.[2658]
Today after doing as much as 10 _kurohs_ (20m.), we dismounted beside a
village called Jalisir,[2659] on the Sarū-bank, in the Sagrī _pargāna_.
(_June 1st_) We stayed on the same ground through Wednesday (_24th_), in
order to rest our cattle.
(_nnn. Dispositions against Bīban and Bāyazīd._)
Some said they had heard that Bīban and Bāyazīd had crossed Gang, and
thought of withdrawing themselves to their kinsfolk [Sidenote: Fol.
378.]
(_nisbahsīlār_) by way of....[2660] Here-upon the begs were summoned
for a consultation and it was settled that Muḥammad-i-zamān Mīrzā and
Sl. Junaid _Barlās_ who in place of Jūnpūr had been given Chunār with
several _parganas_, Maḥmud Khān _Nūḥānī_, Qāẓī Jīā, and Tāj Khān
_Sarāng-khānī_ should block the enemy's road at Chunār.[2661]
(_June 2nd_) Marching early in the morning of Thursday (_25th_), we left
the Sarū-river, did 11 _kurohs_ (22 m.), crossed the Parsarū (Sarjū) and
dismounted on its bank.
Here the begs were summoned, discussion was had, and the leaders named
below were appointed to go detached from the army, in rapid pursuit of
Bīban and Bāyazīd towards Dalmūṯ (Dalmau):—Aīsān-tīmūr Sl., Muḥammad Sl.
M., Tūkhta-būghā Sl., Qāsim-i-ḥusain Sl., Bī-khūb (Nī-khūb) Sl.,
Muz̤affar-i-ḥusain Sl., Qāsim Khwāja, Ja`far Khwāja, Zahid Khwāja, Jānī
Beg, `Askarī's retainer Kīchīk Khwāja, and, of Hind amīrs, `Ālam Khān of
Kālpī, Malik-dād _Kararānī_, and Rāo (Rāwūī) _Sarwāni_.
(_ooo. The march continued._)
When I went at night to make ablution in the Parsarū, people were
catching a mass of fish that had gathered round a lamp on the surface of
the water. I like others took fish in my hands.[2662]
(_June 3rd_) On Friday (_26th_) we dismounted on a very slender stream,
the head-water of a branch of the Parsarū. In order not to be disturbed
by the comings and goings of the army-folk, [Sidenote: Fol. 378b.] I had
it dammed higher up and had a place, 10 by 10, made for ablution. The
night of the 27th[2663] was spent on this ground.
(_June 4th_) At the dawn of the same day (_Saturday 27th_) we left that
water, crossed the Tūs and dismounted on its bank.[2664]
(_June 5th_) On Sunday (_28th_) we dismounted on the bank of the same
water.
(_June 6th_) On Monday the 29th of the month (_Ramẓān_), our station was
on the bank of the same Tūs-water. Though tonight the sky was not quite
clear, a few people saw the Moon, and so testifying to the Qāẓī, fixed
the end of the month (_Ramẓān_).
(_June 7th_) On Tuesday (_Shawwāl 1st_) we made the Prayer of the
Festival, at dawn rode on, did 10 _kurohs_ (20 m.), and dismounted on
the bank of the Gūī (Gūmtī), a _kuroh_ (2 m.) from Māīng.[2665] The sin
of _ma`jūn_ was committed (_irtikāb qīlīldī_) near the Mid-day Prayer; I
had sent this little couplet of invitation to Shaikh Zain, Mullā Shihāb
and Khwānd-amīr:—
(_Turkī_) Shaikh and Mullā Shihāb and Khwānd-amir,
Come all three, or two, or one.
Darwīsh-i-muḥammad (_Sārbān_), Yūnas-i-`alī and `Abdu'l-lāh
(_`asas_)[2666] were also there. At the Other Prayer the wrestlers set
to.
(_June 8th_) On Wednesday (_2nd_) we stayed on the same ground. Near
breakfast-time _ma`jūn_ was eaten. Today Malik Sharq came in who had
been to get Tāj Khān out of Chunār.[2667] When the wrestlers set to
today, the Champion of Aūd who had come earlier, grappled with and threw
a Hindūstānī wrestler who had [Sidenote: Fol. 379.] come in the
interval.
Today Yaḥyā _Nuḥāni_ was granted an allowance of 15 _laks_ from
Parsarūr,[2668] made to put on a dress of honour, and given his leave.
(_June 9th_) Next day (_Thursday 3rd_) we did 11 _kurohs_ (22 m.),
crossed the Gūī-water (Gūmtī), and dismounted on its bank.
(_ppp. Concerning the pursuit of Bīban and Bāyazīd._)
News came in about the sulṯāns and begs of the advance that they had
reached Dalmūd (Dalmau), but were said not yet to have crossed the water
(Ganges). Angered by this (delay), I sent orders, "Cross the water at
once; follow the track of the rebels; cross Jūn (Jumna) also; join `Ālam
Khān to yourselves; be energetic and get to grips with the adversary."
(_qqq. The march continued._)
(_June 10th_) After leaving this water (_Gūmtī_, _Friday 4th_) we made
two night-halts and reached Dalmūd (Dalmau), where most of the army-folk
crossed Gang, there and then, by a ford. While the camp was being got
over, _ma`jūn_ was eaten on an island (_ārāl_) below the ford.
(_June 13th_) After crossing, we waited one day (_Monday 7th_) for all
the army-folk to get across. Today Bāqī _Tāshkīndī_ came in with the
army of Aūd (Ajodhya) and waited on me.
(_June 14th_) Leaving the Gang-water (Ganges, _Tuesday 8th_), we made
one night-halt, then dismounted (_June 15th-Shawwāl 9th_) beside Kūrarah
(Kūra Khāṣ) on the Arind-water. The distance from Dalmūd (Dalmau) to
Kūrarah came out at 22 _kurohs_ (44 m.).[2669]
(_June 16th_) On Thursday (_10th_) we marched early from that ground and
dismounted opposite the Ādampūr _pargana_.[2670]
To enable us to cross (Jūn) in pursuit of our adversaries, a few
[Sidenote: Fol. 379b.] raftsmen had been sent forward to collect at
Kālpī what boats were to be had; some boats arrived the night we
dismounted, moreover a ford was found through the Jūn-river.
As the encamping-place was full of dust, we settled ourselves on an
island and there stayed the several days we were on that ground.
(_rrr. Concerning Bīban and Bāyazīd._)
Not getting reliable news about the enemy, we sent Bāqī _shaghāwal_ with
a few braves of the interior[2671] to get information about him.
(_June 17th_) Next day (_Friday 11th_) at the Other Prayer, one of Bāqī
Beg's retainers came in. Bāqī had beaten scouts of Bīban and Bāyazīd,
killed one of their good men, Mubārak Khān _Jalwānī_, and some others,
sent in several heads, and one man alive.
(_June 18th_) At dawn (_Saturday 12th_) Paymaster Shāh Ḥusain came in,
told the story of the beating of the scouts, and gave various news.
Tonight, that is to say, the night of Sunday the 13th of the
month,[2672] the river Jūn came down in flood, so that by the dawn, the
whole of the island on which I was settled, was under water. I moved to
another an arrow's-flight down-stream, there had a tent set up and
settled down.
(_June 20th_) On Monday (_14th_) Jalāl _Tāshkīndī_ came from the begs
and sulṯāns of the advance. Shaikh Bāyazīd and Bīban, on hearing of
their expedition, had fled to the _pargana_ of Mahūba.[2673] [Sidenote:
Fol. 380.]
As the Rains had set in and as after 5 or 6 months of active service,
horses and cattle in the army were worn out, the sulṯāns and begs of the
expedition were ordered to remain where they were till they received
fresh supplies from Āgra and those parts. At the Other Prayer of the
same day, leave was given to Bāqī and the army of Aūd (Ajodhya). Also an
allowance of 30 _lāks_[2674] from Amrohā was assigned to Mūsa (son) of
Ma`rūf _Farmūlī_, who had waited on me at the time the returning army
was crossing the Sarū-water,[2675] a special head-to-foot and saddled
horse were bestowed on him, and he was given his leave.
(_sss. Bābur returns to Āgra._)
(_June 21st_) With an easy mind about these parts, we set out for Āgra,
raid-fashion,[2676] when 3 _pās_ 1 _garī_ of Tuesday night were
past.[2677] In the morning (_Tuesday 15th_) we did 16 _kurohs_ (32 m.),
near mid-day made our nooning in the _pargana_ of Balādar, one of the
dependencies of Kālpī, there gave our horses barley, at the Evening
Prayer rode on, did 13 _kurohs_ (26 m.) in the night, at the 3rd
night-watch (_mid-night_, _Shawwāl 15-16th_) dismounted at Bahādur Khān
_Sarwānī's_ tomb at Sūgandpūr, a _pargana_ of Kālpī, slept a little,
went through the Morning Prayer and hurried on. After doing 16 _kurohs_
(32 m.), we reached Etāwa at the fall of day, where Mahdī Khwāja came
out to meet us.[2678] Riding [Sidenote: Fol. 380b.] on after the 1st
night-watch (9 p.m.), we slept a little on the way, did 16 _kurohs_ (32
m.), took our nooning at Fatḥpūr of Rāprī, rode on soon after the
Mid-day Prayer (_Thursday Shawwāl 17th_), did 17 _kurohs_ (34 m.), and
in the 2nd night-watch[2679] dismounted in the Garden-of-eight-paradises
at Āgra.
(_June 24th_) At the dawn of Friday (_18th_) Pay-master Sl. Muḥammad
came with several more to wait on me. Towards the Mid-day Prayer, having
crossed Jūn, I waited on Khwāja `Abdu'l-ḥaqq, went into the Fort and saw
the begīms my paternal-aunts.
(_ttt. Indian-grown fruits._)
A Balkhī melon-grower had been set to raise melons; he now brought a few
first-rate small ones; on one or two bush-vines (_būta-tāk_) I had had
planted in the Garden-of-eight-paradises very good grapes had grown;
Shaikh Gūran sent me a basket of grapes which too were not bad. To have
grapes and melons grown in this way in Hindūstān filled my measure of
content.
(_uuu. Arrival of Māhīm Begīm._)
(_June 26th_) Māhīm arrived while yet two watches of Sunday night
(_Shawwāl 20th_)[2680] remained. By a singular agreement of things they
had left Kābul on the very day, the 10th of the 1st Jumāda (_Jan. 21st
1529_) on which I rode out to the army.[2681]
(_Here the record of 11 days is wanting._)
(_July 7th_) On Thursday the 1st of Ẕū'l-qa`da the offerings made by
Humāyūn and Māhīm were set out while I sat in the large Hall of
Audience.
Today also wages were given to 150 porters (_kahār_) and they were
started off under a servant of Faghfūr _Dīwān_ to fetch melons, grapes,
and other fruits from Kabul. [Sidenote: Fol. 381.]
(_vvv. Concerning Saṃbhal._)
(_July 9th_) On Saturday the 3rd of the month, Hindū Beg who had come as
escort from Kābul and must have been sent to Saṃbhal on account of the
death of `Alī-i-yūsuf, came and waited on me.[2682] Khalīfa's (son)
Ḥusāmu'd-dīn came also today from Alwār and waited on me.
(_July 10th_) On Sunday morning (_4th_) came `Abdu'l-lāh (_kitābdār_),
who from Tīr-mūhānī[2683] had been sent to Saṃbhal on account of the
death of `Alī-i-yūsuf.
(_Here the record of 7 days is wanting._)
(_www. Sedition in Lāhor._)
People from Kābul were saying that Shaikh Sharaf of Qarā-bāgh, either
incited by `Abdu'l-`azīz or out of liking for him, had written an
attestation which attributed to me oppression I had not done, and
outrage that had not happened; that he had extorted the signatures of
the Prayer-leaders (_imāmlār_) of Lāhor to this accusation, and had sent
copies of it to the various towns; that `Abdu'l-`azīz himself had failed
to give ear to several royal orders, had spoken unseemly words, and done
acts which ought to have been left undone. On account of these matters
Qaṃbar-i-`alī _Arghūn_ was started off on Sunday the 11th of the month
(_Ẕū'l-qa`da_), to arrest Shaikh Sharaf, the Lāhor _imāms_ with their
associates, and `Abdu'l-`azīz, and to bring them all to Court.
(_xxx. Varia._)
(_July 22nd_) On Thursday the 15th of the month Chīn-tīmūr Sl. came in
from Tijāra and waited on me. Today Champion [Sidenote: Fol. 381b.]
Ṣādiq and the great champion-wrestler of Aūd wrestled. Ṣādiq gave a
half-throw[2684]; he was much vexed.
(_July 28th_) On Monday the 19th of the month (_Ẕū'l-qa`da_) the
Qīzīl-bāsh envoy Murād the life-guardsman was made to put on an inlaid
dagger with belt, and a befitting dress of honour, was presented with 2
_laks_ of _tankas_ and given leave to go.
(_Here the record of 15 days is wanting._)
(_yyy. Sedition in Gūālīār._)
(_August 11th_) Sayyid Mashhadī who had come from Gūālīār in these days,
represented that Raḥīm-dād was stirring up sedition.[2685] On account of
this, Khalīfa's servant Shāh Muḥammad the seal-bearer was sent to convey
to Raḥīm-dād matters written with commingling of good counsel. He went;
and in a few days came back bringing Raḥīm-dād's son, but, though the
son came, Raḥīm-dād himself had no thought of coming. On Wednesday the
5th of _Ẕū'l-ḥijja_, Nūr Beg was sent to Gūālīār to allay Raḥīm-dād's
fears, came back in a few days, and laid requests from Raḥīm-dād before
us. Orders in accordance with those requests had been written and were
on the point of despatch when one of Raḥīm-dād's servants arriving,
represented that he had come to effect the escape of the son and that
Raḥīm-dād himself had no thought of coming in. I was for riding out at
once to Gūālīār, but Khalīfa set it forth to me, "Let me write one more
letter commingled with good counsel; he may even yet come peacefully."
On this mission Khusrau's (son?) Shihābu'd-dīn was despatched.
(_August 12th_) On Thursday the 6th of the month mentioned
(_Ẕū'l-ḥijja_) Mahdī Khwāja came in from Etāwa.[2686] [Sidenote: Fol.
382.]
(_August 16th_) On the Festival-day[2687] (_Monday 10th_) Hindū Beg was
presented with a special head-to-foot, an inlaid dagger with belt; also
a _pargana_ worth 7 _laks_[2688] was bestowed on Ḥasan-i-`alī,
well-known among the Turkmāns[2689] for a Chaghatāī.[2690]
936 AH.-SEP. 5TH 1529 TO AUGUST 25TH 1530 AD.
(_a. Raḥīm-dād's affairs._)
(_Sep. 7th_) On Wednesday the 3rd of Muḥarram, Shaikh Muḥammad
_Ghaus̤_[2691] came in from Gūālīār with Khusrau's (son) Shihābu'd-dīn
to plead for Raḥīm-dād. As Shaikh Muḥammad _Ghaūṣ_ was a pious and
excellent person, Raḥīm-dād's faults were forgiven for his sake. Shaikh
Gūran and Nūr Beg were sent off for Gūālīār, so that the place having
been made over to their charge....[2692]
TRANSLATOR'S NOTE ON 936 TO 937 AH.-1529 TO 1530 AD.
It is difficult to find material for filling the _lacuna_ of some 15
months, which occurs in Bābur's diary after the broken passage of
Muḥarram 3rd 936 AH. (Sept. 7th 1529 AD.) and down to the date of his
death on Jumāda 1. 6th 937 AH. (Dec. 26th 153O AD.). The known original
sources are few, their historical matter scant, their contents mainly
biographical. Gleanings may yet be made, however, in unexpected places,
such gleanings as are provided by Aḥmad-i-yādgār's interpolation of
Tīmūrid history amongst his lives of Afghān Sulṯāns.
The earliest original source which helps to fill the gap of 936 AH. is
Ḥaidar Mīrzā's _Tārīkh-i-rashīdī_, finished as to its Second Part which
contains Bābur's biography, in 948 AH. (1541 AD.), 12 years therefore
after the year of the gap 936 AH. It gives valuable information about
the affairs of Badakhshān, based on its author's personal experience at
30 years of age, and was Abū'l-faẓl's authority for the _Akbar-nāma_.
The next in date of the original sources is Gul-badan Begīm's
_Humāyūn-nāma_, a chronicle of family affairs, which she wrote in
obedience to her nephew Akbar's command, given in about 995 AH. (1587
AD.), some 57 years after her Father's death, that whatever any person
knew of his father (Humāyūn) and grandfather (Bābur) should be written
down for Abū'l-faẓl's use. It embodies family memories and traditions,
and presumably gives the recollections of several ladies of the royal
circle.[2693]
The _Akbar-nāma_ derives much of its narrative for 936-937 AH. from
Ḥaidar Mīrzā and Gul-badan Begīm, but its accounts of Bābur's
self-surrender and of his dying address to his chiefs presuppose the
help of information from a contemporary witness. It is noticeable that
the _Akbar-nāma_ records no public events as occurring in Hindūstān
during 936-937 AH., nothing of the sequel of rebellion by
Raḥīm-dād[2694] and `Abdu'l-`azīz, nothing of the untiring Bīban and
Bāyazīd. That something could have been told is shown by what
Aḥmad-i-yādgār has preserved (_vide post_); but 50 years had passed
since Bābur's death and, manifestly, interest in filling the _lacunæ_ in
his diary was then less keen than it is over 300 years later. What in
the _Akbar-nāma_ concerns Bābur is likely to have been written somewhat
early in the _cir._ 15 years of its author's labours on it,[2695] but,
even so, the elder women of the royal circle had had rest after the
miseries Humāyūn had wrought, the forgiveness of family affection would
veil his past, and certainly has provided Abū'l-faẓl with an
over-mellowed estimate of him, one ill-assorting with what is justified
by his Bābur-nāma record.
The contribution made towards filling the gap of 936-937 AH. in the body
of Niẕāmu-'d-dīn Aḥmad's _T̤abaqāt-i-akbarī_ is limited to a curious and
doubtfully acceptable anecdote about a plan for the supersession of
Humāyūn as Pādshāh, and about the part played by Khwāja Muqīm _Harāwī_
in its abandonment. A further contribution is made, however, in Book VII
which contains the history of the Muḥammadan Kings of Kashmīr, namely,
that Bābur despatched an expedition into that country. As no such
expedition is recorded or referred to in surviving Bābur-nāma writings,
it is likely to have been sent in 936 AH. during Bābur's tour to and
from Lāhor. If it were made with the aim of extending Tīmūrid authority
in the Himālayan borderlands, a hint of similar policy elsewhere may be
given by the ceremonious visit of the Rāja of Kahlūr to Bābur,
mentioned by Aḥmad-i-yādgār (_vide post_).[2696] The T̤.-i-A. was
written within the term of Abū'l-faẓl's work on the _Akbar-nāma_, being
begun later, and ended about 9 years earlier, in 1002 AH.-1593 AD. It
appears to have been Abū'-l-faẓl's authority for his account of the
campaign carried on in Kashmīr by Bābur's chiefs (_Āyīn-i-akbarī_ vol.
ii, part i, Jarrett's trs. p. 389).
An important contribution, seeming to be authentic, is found
interpolated in Aḥmad-i-yādgār's _Tārīkh-i-salāṯīn-i-afāghana_, one
which outlines a journey made by Bābur to Lāhor in 936 AH. and gives
circumstantial details of a punitive expedition sent by him from Sihrind
at the complaint of the Qāẓī of Samāna against a certain Mundāhir
Rājpūt. The whole contribution dovetails into matters found elsewhere.
Its precision of detail bespeaks a closely-contemporary written
source.[2697] As its fullest passage concerns the Samāna Qāẓī's affair,
its basis of record may have been found in Samāna. Some considerations
about the date of Aḥmad-i-yādgār's own book and what Niamatu'l-lāh says
of Haibat Khān of Samāna, his own generous helper in the
_Tārīkhi-Khan-i-jahān Lūdī_, point towards Haibat Khān as providing the
details of the Qāẓī's wrongs and avenging. The indication is
strengthened by the circumstance that what precedes and what follows the
account of the punitive expedition is outlined only.[2698]
Aḥmad-i-yādgār interpolates an account of Humāyūn also, which is a frank
plagiarism from the _T̤abaqāt-i-akbarī_. He tells too a story purporting
to explain why Bābur "selected" Humāyūn to succeed him, one parallel
with Niẕāmu'd-dīn Aḥmad's about what led Khalīfa to abandon his plan of
setting the Mīrzā aside. Its sole value lies in its testimony to a
belief, held by its first narrator whoever he was, that choice was
exercised in the matter by Bābur. Reasons for thinking Niẕāmu'd-dīn's
story, as it stands, highly improbable, will be found later in this
note.
Muḥammad Qāsim Hindū Shāh _Firishta's Tārīkh-i-firishta_ contains an
interesting account of Bābur but contributes towards filling the gap in
the events of 936-937 AH. little that is not in the earlier sources. In
M. Jules Mohl's opinion it was under revision as late as 1623 AD.
(1032-3 AH.).
(_a. Humāyūn and Badakhshān._)
An occurrence which had important results, was the arrival of Humāyūn in
Āgra, unsummoned by his Father, from the outpost station of Badakhshān.
It will have occurred early in 936 AH. (autumn 1529 AD.), because he was
in Kābul in the first ten days of the last month of 935 AH. (_vide
post_). Curiously enough his half-sister Gul-badan does not mention his
coming, whether through avoidance of the topic or from inadvertence; the
omission may be due however to the loss of a folio from the only known
MS. of her book (that now owned by the British Museum), and this is the
more likely that Abū'l-faẓl writes, at some length, about the arrival
and its motive, what the Begīm might have provided, this especially by
his attribution of filial affection as Humāyūn's reason for coming to
Āgra.
Ḥaidar Mīrzā is the authority for the Akbar-nāma account of Humāyūn's
departure from Qila`-i-ẕafar and its political and military sequel. He
explains the departure by saying that when Bābur had subdued Hindūstān,
his sons Humāyūn and Kāmrān were grown-up; and that wishing to have one
of them at hand in case of his own death, he summoned Humāyūn, leaving
Kāmrān in Qandahār. No doubt these were the contemporary impressions
conveyed to Ḥaidar, and strengthened by the accomplished fact before he
wrote some 12 years later; nevertheless there are two clear indications
that there was no royal order for Humāyūn to leave Qila`-i-ẕafar, _viz._
that no-one had been appointed to relieve him even when he reached Āgra,
and that Abū'l-faẓl mentions no summons but attributes the Mīrzā's
departure from his post to an overwhelming desire to see his Father.
What appears probable is that Māhīm wrote to her son urging his coming
to Āgra, and that this was represented as Bābur's wish. However little
weight may be due to the rumour, preserved in anecdotes recorded long
after 935 AH., that any-one, Bābur or Khalīfa, inclined against
Humāyūn's succession, that rumour she would set herself to falsify by
reconciliation.[2699]
When the Mīrzā's intention to leave Qila`-i-ẕafar became known there,
the chiefs represented that they should not be able to withstand the
Aūzbeg on their frontier without him (his troops implied).[2700] With
this he agreed, said that still he must go, and that he would send a
Mīrzā in his place as soon as possible. He then rode, in one day, to
Kābul, an item of rapid travel preserved by Abū'l-faẓl.
Humāyūn's departure caused such anxiety in Qila`-i-ẕafar that some (if
not all) of the Badakhshī chiefs hurried off an invitation to Sa`īd Khān
_Chaghatāī_, the then ruler in Kāshghar in whose service Ḥaidar Mīrzā
was, to come at once and occupy the fort. They said that Faqīr-i-`alī
who had been left in charge, was not strong enough to cope with the
Aūzbeg, begged Sa`īd to come, and strengthened their petition by
reminding him of his hereditary right to Badakhshān, derived from Shāh
Begīm _Badakhshī_. Their urgency convincing the Khān that risk
threatened the country, he started from Kāshghar in Muḥarram 936 AH.
(Sept-Oct. 1529 AD.). On reaching Sārīgh-chūpān which by the annexation
of Abā-bakr Mīrzā _Dūghlāt_ was now his own most western territory[2701]
but which formerly was one of the upper districts of Badakhshān, he
waited while Ḥaidar went on towards Qila`-i-ẕafar only to learn on his
road, that Hind-āl (_æt._ 10) had been sent from Kābul by Humāyūn and
had entered the fort 12 days before.
The Kāshgharīs were thus placed in the difficulty that the fort was
occupied by Bābur's representative, and that the snows would prevent
their return home across the mountains till winter was past.
Winter-quarters were needed and asked for by Ḥaidar, certain districts
being specified in which to await the re-opening of the Pāmīr routes. He
failed in his request, "They did not trust us," he writes, "indeed
suspected us of deceit." His own account of Sa`īd's earlier invasion of
Badakhshān (925 AH.-1519 AD.) during Khān Mīrzā's rule, serves to
explain Badakhshī distrust of Kāshgharīs. Failing in his negotiations,
he scoured and pillaged the country round the fort, and when a few days
later the Khān arrived, his men took what Ḥaidar's had left.
Sa`īd Khān is recorded to have besieged the fort for three months, but
nothing serious seems to have been attempted since no mention of
fighting is made, none of assault or sally, and towards the end of the
winter he was waited on by those who had invited his presence, with
apology for not having admitted him into the fort, which they said they
would have done but for the arrival of Hind-āl Mīrzā. To this the Khān
replied that for him to oppose Bābur Pādshāh was impossible; he reminded
the chiefs that he was there by request, that it would be as hurtful for
the Pādshāh as for himself to have the Aūzbeg in Badakhshān and,
finally, he gave it as his opinion that, as matters stood, every man
should go home. His view of the general duty may include that of
Badakhshī auxiliaries such as Sulṯān Wais of Kūl-āb who had reinforced
the garrison. So saying, he himself set out for Kāshghar, and at the
beginning of Spring reached Yārkand.
_b. Humāyūn's further action._
Humāyūn will have reached Kābul before Ẕū'l-ḥijja 10th 935 AH. (Aug.
26th 1529 AD.) because it is on record that he met Kāmrān on the Kābul
'Īd-gāh, and both will have been there to keep the `Īdu'l-kabīr, the
Great Festival of Gifts, which is held on that day. Kāmrān had come from
Qandahār, whether to keep the Feast, or because he had heard of
Humāyūn's intended movement from Badakhshān, or because changes were
foreseen and he coveted Kābul, as the _Bābur-nāma_ and later records
allow to be inferred. He asked Humāyūn, says Abū'l-faẓl, why he was
there and was told of his brother's impending journey to Āgra under
overwhelming desire to see their Father.[2702] Presumably the two Mīrzās
discussed the position in which Badakhshān had been left; in the end
Hind-āl was sent to Qila'-i-ẕafar, notwithstanding that he was under
orders for Hindūstān.
Humāyūn may have stayed some weeks in Kābul, how many those familiar
with the seasons and the routes between Yārkand and Qila`-i-ẕafar,
might be able to surmise if the date of Hind-āl's start northward for
which Humāyūn is likely to have waited, were found by dovetailing the
Muḥarram of Sa`īd's start, the approximate length of his journey to
Sārīgh-chūpān, and Ḥaidar's reception of news that Hind-āl had been 12
days in the fort.
Humāyūn's arrival in Āgra is said by Abū'l-faẓl to have been cheering to
the royal family in their sadness for the death of Alwar (end of 935
AH.) and to have given pleasure to his Father. But the time is all too
near the date of Bābur's letter (f.348) to Humāyūn, that of a
dissatisfied parent, to allow the supposition that his desertion of his
post would fail to displease.
That it was a desertion and not an act of obedience seems clear from the
circumstance that the post had yet to be filled. Khalīfa is said to have
been asked to take it and to have refused;[2703] Humāyūn to have been
sounded as to return and to have expressed unwillingness. Bābur then did
what was an honourable sequel to his acceptance in 926 AH. of the charge
of the fatherless child Sulaimān, by sending him, now about 16, to take
charge where his father Khān Mīrzā had ruled, and by still keeping him
under his own protection.
Sulaimān's start from Āgra will not have been delayed, and (accepting
Aḥmad-i-yādgār's record,) Bābur himself will have gone as far as Lāhor
either with him or shortly after him, an expedition supporting Sulaimān,
and menacing Sa`īd in his winter leaguer round Qila`-i-ẕafar. Meantime
Humāyūn was ordered to his fief of Saṃbhal.
After Sulaimān's appointment Bābur wrote to Sa`īd a letter of which
Ḥaidar gives the gist:—It expresses surprise at Sa`īd's doings in
Badakhshān, says that Hind-āl has been recalled and Sulaimān sent, that
if Sa`īd regard hereditary right, he will leave "Sulaimān Shāh
Mīrzā"[2704] in possession, who is as a son to them both,[2705] that
this would be well, that otherwise he (Bābur) will make over
responsibility to the heir (Sulaimān);[2706] and, "The rest you
know."[2707]
_c. Bābur visits Lāhor._
If Aḥmad-i-yādgār's account of a journey made by Bābur to Lāhor and the
Panj-āb be accepted, the _lacuna_ of 936 AH. is appropriately filled. He
places the expedition in the 3rd year of Bābur's rule in Hindūstān,
which, counting from the first reading of the _khuṯba_ for Bābur in
Dihlī (f. 286), began on Rajab 15th 935 AH. (March 26th 1529 AD.). But
as Bābur's diary-record for 935 AH. is complete down to end of the year,
(minor _lacunæ_ excepted), the time of his leaving Āgra for Lāhor is
relegated to 936 AH. He must have left early in the year, (1) to allow
time, before the occurrence of the known events preceding his own death,
for the long expedition Aḥmad-i-yādgār calls one of a year, and (2)
because an early start after Humāyūn's arrival and Sulaimān's departure
would suit the position of affairs and the dates mentioned or implied by
Ḥaidar's and by Aḥmad-i-yādgār's narratives.
Two reasons of policy are discernible, in the known events of the time,
to recommend a journey in force towards the North-west; first, the
sedition of `Abdu'l-`azīz in Lāhor (f. 381), and secondly, the invasion
of Badakhshān by Sa`īd Khān with its resulting need of supporting
Sulaimān by a menace of armed intervention.[2708]
In Sihrind the Rāja of Kahlūr, a place which may be one of the Simla
hill-states, waited on Bābur, made offering of 7 falcons and 3
_mans_[2709] of gold, and was confirmed in his fief.[2710]
In Lāhor Kāmrān is said to have received his Father, in a garden of his
own creation, and to have introduced the local chiefs as though he were
the Governor of Lāhor some writers describe him as then being. The best
sources, however, leave him still posted in Qandahār. He had been
appointed to Multān (f. 359) when `Askarī was summoned to Āgra (f. 339),
but whether he actually went there is not assured; some months later
(Ẕū'l-ḥijja 10th 935 AH.) he is described by Abū'l-faẓl as coming to
Kābul from Qandahār. He took both Multān[2711] and Lāhor by force from
his (half-)brother Humāyūn in 935 AH. (1531 AD.) the year after their
Father's death. That he should wait upon his Father in Lāhor would be
natural, Hind-āl did so, coming from Kābul. Hind-āl will have come to
Lāhor after making over charge of Qila`-i-ẕafar to Sulaimān, and he went
back at the end of the cold season, going perhaps just before his Father
started from Lāhor on his return journey, the gifts he received before
leaving being 2 elephants, 4 horses, belts and jewelled daggers.[2712]
Bābur is said to have left Lāhor on Rajab 4th (936 AH.)-(March 4th, 1530
AD.). From Aḥmad-i-yādgār's outline of Bābur's doings in Lāhor, he, or
his original, must be taken as ill-informed or indifferent about them.
His interest becomes greater when he writes of Samāna.
_d. Punishment of the Mundāhirs._
When Bābur, on his return journey, reached Sihrind, he received a
complaint from the Qāẓī of Samāna against one Mohan _Mundāhir_ (or
_Mundhār_)[2713] _Rājpūt_ who had attacked his estates, burning and
plundering, and killed his son. Here-upon `Alī-qulī of Hamadān[2714] was
sent with 3000 horse to avenge the Qāzī's wrongs, and reached Mohan's
village, in the Kaithal _pargana_, early in the morning when the cold
was such that the archers "could not pull their bows."[2715] A marriage
had been celebrated over-night; the villagers, issuing from warm houses,
shot such flights of arrows that the royal troops could make no stand;
many were killed and nothing was effected; they retired into the jungle,
lit fires, warmed themselves(?), renewed the attack and were again
repulsed. On hearing of their failure, Bābur sent off, perhaps again
from Sihrind, Tarsam Bahādur and Naurang Beg with 6000 horse and many
elephants. This force reached the village at night and when marriage
festivities were in progress. Towards morning it was formed into three
divisions,[2716] one of which was ordered to go to the west of the
village and show itself. This having been done, the villagers advanced
towards it, in the pride of their recent success. The royal troops, as
ordered beforehand, turned their backs and fled, the Mundāhirs pursuing
them some two miles. Meantime Tarsam Bahādur had attacked and fired the
village, killing many of its inhabitants. The pursuers on the west saw
the flames of their burning homes, ran back and were intercepted on
their way. About 1000 men, women and children were made prisoner; there
was also great slaughter, and a pillar of heads was raised. Mohan was
captured and later on was buried to the waist and shot to death with
arrows.[2717] News of the affair was sent to the Pādshāh.[2718]
As after being in Sihrind, Bābur is said to have spent two months
hunting near Dihlī, it may be that he followed up the punitive
expedition sent into the Kaithal _pargana_ of the Karnāl District, by
hunting in Nardak, a favourite ground of the Tīmūrids, which lies in
that district.
Thus the gap of 936 AH. with also perhaps a month of 937 AH. is filled
by the "year's" travel west of Dihlī. The record is a mere outline and
in it are periods of months without mention of where Bābur was or what
affairs of government were brought before him. At some time, on his
return journey presumably, he will have despatched to Kashmīr the
expedition referred to in the opening section of this appendix.
Something further may yet be gleaned from local chronicles, from
unwritten tradition, or from the witness of place-names commemorating
his visit.
_e. Bābur's self-surrender to save Humāyūn._
The few months, perhaps 4 to 5, between Bābur's return to Āgra from his
expedition towards the North-west, and the time of his death are filled
by Gul-badan and Abū'l-faẓl with matters concerning family interests
only.
The first such matter these authors mention is an illness of Humāyūn
during which Bābur devoted his own life to save his son's.[2719] Of this
the particulars are, briefly:—That Humāyūn, while still in Saṃbhal, had
had a violent attack of fever; that he was brought by water to Āgra, his
mother meeting him in Muttra; and that when the disease baffled medical
skill, Bābur resolved to practise the rite believed then and now in the
East to be valid, of intercession and devotion of a suppliant's most
valued possession in exchange for a sick man's life. Rejecting counsel
to offer the Koh-i-nūr for pious uses, he resolved to supplicate for the
acceptance of his life. He made intercession through a saint his
daughter names, and moved thrice round Humāyūn's bed, praying, in
effect, "O God! if a life may be exchanged for a life, I, who am Bābur,
give my life and my being for Humāyūn." During the rite fever surged
over him, and, convinced that his prayer and offering had prevailed, he
cried out, "I have borne it away! I have borne it away!"[2720] Gul-badan
says that he himself fell ill on that very day, while Humāyūn poured
water on his head, came out and gave audience; and that they carried her
Father within on account of his illness, where he kept his bed for 2 or
3 months.
There can be no doubt as to Bābur's faith in the rite he had practised,
or as to his belief that his offering of life was accepted; moreover
actual facts would sustain his faith and belief. Onlookers also must
have believed his prayer and offering to have prevailed, since Humāyūn
went back to Saṃbhal,[2721] while Bābur fell ill at once and died in a
few weeks.[2722]
_f. A plan to set Bābur's sons aside from the succession._
Reading the _Akbar-nāma_ alone, there would seem to be no question about
whether Bābur ever intended to give Hindūstān, at any rate, to Humāyūn,
but, by piecing together various contributory matters, an opposite
opinion is reached, _viz._ that not Khalīfa only whom Abū'l-faẓl names
perhaps on Niẕāmu'd-dīn Aḥmad's warrant, but Bābur also, with some
considerable number of chiefs, wished another ruler for Hindūstān. The
starting-point of this opinion is a story in the _T̤abaqāt-i-akbarī_
and, with less detail, in the _Akbar-nāma_, of which the gist is that
Khalīfa planned to supersede Humāyūn and his three brothers in their
Father's succession.[2723]
[Illustration: BĀBUR IN PRAYER, DEVOTING HIMSELF FOR HIS SON.
_To face p. 702._]
The story, in brief, is as follows:—At the time of Bābur's death
Niẕāmu'd-dīn Aḥmad's father Khwāja Muḥammad Muqīm _Harāwī_ was in the
service of the Office of Works.[2724] Amīr Niẕāmu'd-dīn `Alī Khalīfa,
the Chief of the Administration, had dread and suspicion about Humāyūn
and did not favour his succession as Pādshāh. Nor did he favour that of
Bābur's other sons. He promised "Bābur Pādshāh's son-in-law (_dāmād_)"
Mahdī Khwāja who was a generous young man, very friendly to himself,
that he would make him Pādshāh. This promise becoming known, others made
their _salām_ to the Khwāja who put on airs and accepted the position.
One day when Khalīfa, accompanied by Muqīm, went to see Mahdī Khwāja in
his tent, no-one else being present, Bābur, in the pangs of his disease,
sent for him[2725] when he had been seated a few minutes only. When
Khalīfa had gone out, Mahdī Khwāja remained standing in such a way that
Muqīm could not follow but, the Khwāja unaware, waited respectfully
behind him. The Khwāja, who was noted for the wildness of youth, said,
stroking his beard, "Please God! first, I will flay thee!" turned round
and saw Muqīm, took him by the ear, repeated a proverb of menace, "The
red tongue gives the green head to the wind," and let him go. Muqīm
hurried to Khalīfa, repeated the Khwāja's threat against him, and
remonstrated about the plan to set all Bābur's sons aside in favour of a
stranger-house.[2726] Here-upon Khalīfa sent for Humāyūn,[2727] and
despatched an officer with orders to the Khwāja to retire to his house,
who found him about to dine and hurried him off without ceremony.
Khalīfa also issued a proclamation forbidding intercourse with him,
excluded him from Court, and when Bābur died, supported Humāyūn.
As Niẕāmu'd-dīn Aḥmad was not born till 20 years after Bābur died, the
story will have been old before he could appreciate it, and it was some
60 years old when it found way into the _T̤abaqāt-i-akbarī_ and, with
less detail, into the _Akbar-nāma_.
Taken as it stands, it is incredible, because it represents Khalīfa, and
him alone, planning to subject the four sons of Bābur to the suzerainty
of Mahdī Khwāja who was not a Tīmūrid, who, so far as well-known sources
show, was not of a ruling dynasty or personally illustrious,[2728] and
who had been associated, so lately as the autumn of 1529 AD., with his
nephew Raḥīm-dād in seditious action which had so angered Bābur that,
whatever the punishment actually ordered, rumour had it both men were to
die.[2729] In two particulars the only Mahdī Khwāja then of Bābur's
following, does not suit the story; he was not a young man in 1530
AD.,[2730] and was not a _dāmād_ of Bābur, if that word be taken in its
usual sense of son-in-law, but he was a _yazna_, husband of a Pādshāh's
sister, in his case, of Khān-zāda Begīm.[2731] Some writers style him
Sayyid Mahdī Khwāja, a double title which may indicate descent on both
sides from religious houses; one is suggested to be that of Tirmiẕ by
the circumstance that in his and Khān-zāda Begīm's mausoleum was buried
a Tirmiẕ sayyid of later date, Shāh Abū'l-ma`ālī. But though he were of
Tirmiẕ, it is doubtful if that religious house would be described by the
word _khānwāda_ which so frequently denotes a ruling dynasty.
His name may have found its way into Niẕāmu'd-dīn Aḥmad's story as a
gloss mistakenly amplifying the word _dāmād_, taken in its less usual
sense of brother-in-law. To Bābur's contemporaries the expression "Bābur
Pādshāh's _dāmād_" (son-in-law) would be explicit, because for some 11
years before he lay on his death-bed, he had one son-in-law only, _viz._
Muḥammad-i-zamān Mīrzā _Bāī-qarā_,[2732] the husband of Ma`ṣūma Sulṯān
Begīm. If that Mīrzā's name were where Mahdī Khwāja's is entered, the
story of an exclusion of Bābur's sons from rule might have a core of
truth.
It is incredible however that Khālīfa, with or without Bābur's
concurrence, made the plan attributed to him of placing any man not a
Tīmūrid in the position of Pādshāh over all Bābur's territory. I suggest
that the plan concerned Hindūstān only and was one considered in
connection with Bābur's intended return to Kābul, when he must have left
that difficult country, hardly yet a possession, in charge of some man
giving promise of power to hold it. Such a man Humāyūn was not. My
suggestion rests on the following considerations:—
(1) Bābur's outlook was not that of those in Āgra in 1587 AD. who gave
Abū'l-faẓl his Bāburiana material, because at that date Dihlī had become
the pivot of Tīmūrid power, so that not to hold Hindūstān would imply
not to be Pādshāh. Bābur's outlook on his smaller Hindūstān was
different; his position in it was precarious, Kābul, not Dihlī, was his
chosen centre, and from Kābul his eyes looked northwards as well as to
the East. If he had lost the Hindūstān which was approximately the
modern United Provinces, he might still have held what lay west of it to
the Indus, as well as Qandahār.
(2) For several years before his death he had wished to return to Kābul.
Ample evidence of this wish is given by his diary, his letters, and some
poems in his second _Dīwān_ (that found in the Rāmpūr MS.). As he told
his sons more than once, he kept Kābul for himself.[2733] If, instead
of dying in Āgra, he had returned to Kābul, had pushed his way on from
Badakhshān, whether as far as Samarkand or less, had given Humāyūn a
seat in those parts,—action foreshadowed by the records—a reasonable
interpretation of the story that Humāyūn and his brothers were not to
govern Hindūstān, is that he had considered with Khalīfa the
apportionment of his territories according to the example of his
ancestors Chīngīz Khān, Tīmūr and Abū-sa`īd; that by his plan of
apportionment Humāyūn was not to have Hindūstān but something
Tramontane; Kāmrān had already Qandahār; Sulaimān, if Humāyūn had moved
beyond the out-post of Badakhshān, would have replaced him there; and
Hindūstān would have gone to "Bābur Pādshāh's _dāmād_".
(3) Muḥammad-i-zamān had much to recommend him for
Hindūstān:—Tīmūrid-born, grandson and heir of Sl. Ḥusain Mīrzā, husband
of Ma`ṣūma who was a Tīmūrid by double descent,[2734] protected by Bābur
after the Bāī-qarā _débacle_ in Herāt, a landless man leading such other
exiles as Muḥammad Sulṯān Mīrzā,[2735] `Ādil Sulṯān, and Qāsim-i-ḥusain
Sulṯān, half-Tīmūrids all, who with their Khurāsānī following, had been
Bābur's guests in Kābul, had pressed on its poor resources, and thus had
helped in 932 AH. (1525 AD.) to drive him across the Indus. This
Bāī-qarā group needed a location; Muḥammad-i-zamān's future had to be
cared for and with his, Ma`ṣūma's.
(4) It is significant of intention to give Muḥammad-i-zamān ruling
status that in April 1529 AD. (Sha`bān 935 AH.) Bābur bestowed on him
royal insignia, including the umbrella-symbol of sovereignty.[2736] This
was done after the Mīrzā had raised objections, unspecified now in the
_Bābur-nāma_ against Bihār; they were overcome, the insignia were given
and, though for military reasons he was withheld from taking up that
appointment, the recognition of his royal rank had been made. His next
appointment was to Jūnpūr, the capital of the fallen Sharqī dynasty. No
other chief is mentioned by Bābur as receiving the insignia of royalty.
(5) It appears to have been within a Pādshāh's competence to select his
successor; and it may be inferred that choice was made between Humāyūn
and another from the wording of more than one writer that Khalīfa
"supported" Humāyūn, and from the word "selected" used in
Aḥmad-i-yādgār's anecdote.[2737] Much more would there be freedom of
choice in a division of territory such as there is a good deal to
suggest was the basis of Niẕāmu'd-dīn Aḥmad's story. Whatever the extent
of power proposed for the _dāmād_, whether, as it is difficult to
believe, the Pādshāh's whole supremacy, or whether the limited
sovereignty of Hindūstān, it must have been known to Bābur as well as to
Khalīfa. Whatever their earlier plan however, it was changed by the
sequel of Humāyūn's illness which led to his becoming Pādshāh. The
_dāmād_ was dropped, on grounds it is safe to believe more impressive
than his threat to flay Khalīfa or than the remonstrance of that high
official's subordinate Muqīm of Herāt.
Humāyūn's arrival and continued stay in Hindūstān modified earlier
dispositions which included his remaining in Badakhshān. His actions may
explain why Bābur, when in 936 AH. he went as far as Lāhor, did not go
on to Kābul. Nothing in the sources excludes the surmise that Māhīm knew
of the bestowal of royal insignia on the Bāī-qarā Mīrzā, that she
summoned her son to Āgra and there kept him, that she would do this the
more resolutely if the _dāmād_ of the plan she must have heard of, were
that Bāī-qarā, and that but for Humāyūn's presence in Āgra and its
attendant difficulties, Bābur would have gone to Kābul, leaving his
_dāmād_ in charge of Hindūstān.
Bābur, however, turned back from Lāhor for Āgra, and there he made the
self-surrender which, resulting in Humāyūn's "selection" as Pādshāh,
became a turning point in history.
Humāyūn's recovery and Bābur's immediate illness will have made the
son's life seem Divinely preserved, the father's as a debt to be paid.
Bābur's impressive personal experience will have dignified Humāyūn as
one whom God willed should live. Such distinction would dictate the
bestowal on him of all that fatherly generosity had yet to give. The
imminence of death defeating all plans made for life, Humāyūn was
nominated to supreme power as Pādshāh.
_g. Bābur's death._
Amongst other family matters mentioned by Gul-badan as occurring shortly
before her Father's death, was his arrangement of marriages for Gul-rang
with Aīsān-tīmūr and for Gul-chihra with Tūkhta-būghā _Chaghatāī_. She
also writes of his anxiety to see Hind-āl who had been sent for from
Kābul but did not arrive till the day after the death.
When no remedies availed, Humāyūn was summoned from Saṃbhal. He reached
Āgra four days before the death; on the morrow Bābur gathered his chiefs
together for the last of many times, addressed them, nominated Humāyūn
his successor and bespoke their allegiance for him. Abū'l-faẓl thus
summarizes his words, "Lofty counsels and weighty mandates were
imparted. Advice was given (to Humāyūn) to be munificent and just, to
acquire God's favour, to cherish and protect subjects, to accept
apologies from such as had failed in duty, and to pardon transgressors.
And, he (Bābur) exclaimed, the cream of my testamentary dispositions is
this, 'Do naught against your brothers, even though they may deserve
it.' In truth," continues the historian, "it was through obedience to
this mandate that his Majesty Jannat-ashiyānī suffered so many injuries
from his brothers without avenging himself." Gul-badan's account of her
Father's last address is simple:—"He spoke in this wise, 'For years it
has been in my heart to make over the throne to Humāyūn and to retire to
the Gold-scattering Garden. By the Divine grace I have obtained in
health of body everything but the fulfilment of this wish. Now that
illness has laid me low, I charge you all to acknowledge Humāyūn in my
stead. Fail not in loyalty towards him. Be of one heart and mind towards
him. I hope to God that he, for his part, will bear himself well towards
men. Moreover, Humāyūn, I commit you and your brothers and all my
kinsfolk and your people and my people to God's keeping, and entrust
them all to you.'"
It was on Monday Jumāda 1. 5th 937 AH. (Dec. 26th 153O AD.) that Bābur
made answer to his summons with the _Adsum_ of the Musalmān, "Lord! I am
here for Thee."
"Black fell the day for children and kinsfolk and all," writes his
daughter;
"Alas! that time and the changeful heaven should exist without thee;
Alas! and Alas! that time should remain and thou shouldst be gone;"
mourns Khwāja Kalān in the funeral ode from which Badāyūnī quoted these
lines.[2738]
The body was laid in the Garden-of-rest (_Ārām-bāgh_) which is opposite
to where the Tāj-i-maḥāll now stands. Khwāja Muḥammad `Alī _`asas_[2739]
was made the guardian of the tomb, and many well-voiced readers and
reciters were appointed to conduct the five daily Prayers and to offer
supplication for the soul of the dead. The revenues of Sīkrī and 5
_laks_ from Bīāna were set aside for the endowment of the tomb, and
Māhīm Begīm, during the two and a half years of her remaining life, sent
twice daily from her own estate, an allowance of food towards the
support of its attendants.
In accordance with the directions of his will, Bābur's body was to be
conveyed to Kābul and there to be laid in the garden of his choice, in a
grave open to the sky, with no building over it, no need of a
door-keeper.
Precisely when it was removed from Āgra we have not found stated. It is
known from Gul-badan that Kāmrān visited his Father's tomb in Āgra in
1539 AD. (946 AH.) after the battle of Chausa; and it is known from
Jauhar that the body had been brought to Kābul before 1544 AD. (952
AH.), at which date Humāyūn, in Kābul, spoke with displeasure of
Kāmrān's incivility to "Bega Begīm", the "Bībī" who had conveyed their
Father's body to that place.[2740] That the widow who performed this
duty was the Afghān Lady, Bībī Mubārika[2741] is made probable by
Gul-badan's details of the movements of the royal ladies. Bābur's family
left Āgra under Hind-āl's escort, after the defeat at Chausa (June 7th,
1539 AD.); whoever took charge of the body on its journey to Kābul must
have returned at some later date to fetch it. It would be in harmony
with Sher Shāh's generous character if he safe-guarded her in her task.
The terraced garden Bābur chose for his burial-place lies on the slope
of the hill Shāh-i-Kābul, the Sher-darwāza of European writers.[2742] It
has been described as perhaps the most beautiful of the Kābul gardens,
and as looking towards an unsurpassable view over the Chār-dih plain
towards the snows of Paghmān and the barren, rocky hills which have been
the hunting-grounds of rulers in Kābul. Several of Bābur's descendants
coming to Kābul from Āgra have visited and embellished his
burial-garden. Shāh-i-jahān built the beautiful mosque which stands near
the grave; Jahāngīr seems to have been, if not the author, at least the
prompter of the well-cut inscription adorning the upright slab of white
marble of Māīdān, which now stands at the grave-head. The tomb-stone
itself is a low grave-covering, not less simple than those of relations
and kin whose remains have been placed near Bābur's. In the thirties of
the last century [the later Sir] Alexander Burnes visited and admirably
described the garden and the tomb. With him was Munshī Mohan Lāl who
added to his own account of the beauties of the spot, copies of the
inscriptions on the monumental slab and on the portal of the
Mosque.[2743] As is shown by the descriptions these two visitors give,
and by Daniel's drawings of the garden and the tomb, there were in their
time two upright slabs, one behind the other, near the head of the
grave. Mr. H. H. Hayden who visited the garden in the first decade of
the present century, shows in his photograph of the grave, one upright
stone only, the place of one of the former two having been taken by a
white-washed lamp holder (_chirāghdān_).
The purport of the verses inscribed on the standing-slab is as follows:—
A ruler from whose brow shone the Light of God was that[2744]
Back-bone of the Faith (_ẕahīru'd-dīn_) Muḥammad Bābur
Pādshāh. Together with majesty, dominion, fortune, rectitude,
the open-hand and the firm Faith, he had share in prosperity,
abundance and the triumph of victorious arms. He won the
material world and became a moving light; for his every
conquest he looked, as for Light, towards the world of souls.
When Paradise became his dwelling and Ruẓwān[2745] asked me
the date, I gave him for answer, "Paradise is forever Bābur
Pādshāh's abode."
_h. Bābur's wives and children._[2746]
Bābur himself mentions several of his wives by name, but Gul-badan is
the authority for complete lists of them and their children.
1. `Āyisha Sulṯān Begīm, daughter of Sl. Aḥmad Mīrzā _Mīrān-shāhī_ was
betrothed, when Bābur was _cir._ 5 years old, in 894 AH. (1488-89 AD.),
bore Fakhru'n-nisa' in 906 AH. [who died in about one month], left Bābur
before 909 AH. (1503 AD.).
2. Zainab Sl. Begīm, daughter of Sl. Maḥmūd Mīrzā _Mīrān-shāhī_, was
married in 910 AH. (1504-5 AD.), died childless two or three years
later.
3. Māhīm Begīm, whose parentage is not found stated, was married in 912
AH. (1506 AD.), bore Bār-būd, Mihr-jān, Āīsān-daulat, Farūq [who all
died in infancy], and Humāyūn.
4. Ma`ṣūma Sl. Begīm, daughter of Sl. Aḥmad Mīrzā _Mīrān-shāhī_, was
married in 913 AH. (1507 AD.), bore Ma`ṣūma and died at her birth,
presumably early in the _lacuna_ of 914-925 AH. (1508-19 AD.).
5. Gul-rukh Begīm, whose parentage is not found stated, was perhaps a
Begchīk Mughūl, was married between 914 AH. and 925 AH. (1508-19 AD.),
probably early in the period, bore Shāh-rukh, Aḥmad [who both died
young], Gul`iẕār [who also may have died young], Kamrān and `Askarī.
6. Dil-dār Begīm, whose parentage is not found stated, was married in
the same period as Gul-rukh, bore Gul-rang, Gul-chihra, Hind-āl,
Gul-badan and Alwar, [who died in childhood].
7. The Afghān Lady (Afghānī Āghācha), Bībī Mubārika _Yūsufzāī_, was
married in 925 AH. (1519 AD.), and died childless.
The two Circassian slaves Gul-nār Āghācha and Nār-gul Āghācha of whom
T̤ahmāsp made gift to Bābur in 933 AH. (f. 305), became recognized
ladies of the royal household. They are mentioned several times by
Gul-badan as taking part in festivities and in family conferences under
Humāyūn. Gul-nār is said by Abū'l-faẓl to have been one of Gul-badan's
pilgrim band in 983 AH. (1575 AD.).
The above list contains the names of three wives whose parentage is not
given or is vaguely given by the well-known sources,—namely, Māhīm,
Gul-rukh and Dil-dār. What would sufficiently explain the absence of
mention by Bābur of the parentage of Gul-rukh and Dil-dār is that his
record of the years within which the two Begīms were married is not now
with the _Bābur-nāma_. Presumably it has been lost, whether in diary or
narrative form, in the _lacuna_ of 914-25 AH. (1508-19 AD.). Gul-rukh
appears to have belonged to the family of Begchīk Mughūls described by
Ḥaidar Mīrzā[2747]; her brothers are styled Mīrzā; she was of good but
not royal birth. Dil-dār's case is less simple. Nothing in her daughter
Gul-badan's book suggests that she and her children were other than of
the highest rank; numerous details and shades of expression show their
ease of equality with royal personages. It is consistent with
Gul-badan's method of enumerating her father's wives that she should not
state her own mother's descent; she states it of none of her "mothers".
There is this interest in trying to trace Dil-dār's parentage, that she
may have been the third daughter of Sl. Maḥmūd Mīrzā and Pasha Begīm,
and a daughter of hers may have been the mother of Salīma Sulṯān Begīm
who was given in marriage by Humāyūn to Bairām Khān, later was married
by Akbar, and was a woman of charm and literary accomplishments. Later
historians, Abū'l-faẓl amongst their number, say that Salīma's mother
was a daughter of Bābur's wife Sālḥa Sulṯān Begīm, and vary that
daughter's name as Gul-rang-rukh-barg or -`iẕār (the last form being an
equivalent of _chihra_, face). As there cannot have been a wife with her
daughter growing up in Bābur's household, who does not appear in some
way in Gul-badan's chronicle, and as Salīma's descent from Bābur need
not be questioned, the knot is most readily loosened by surmising that
"Sālḥa" is the real name of Gul-badan's "Dildār". Instances of double
names are frequent, _e.g._ Māhīm, Māh-chīchām, Qarā-gūz, Āq, (My Moon,
My Moon sister, Black-eyed, Fair). "Heart-holding" (Dil-dār) sounds like
a home-name of affection. It is the _Ma`āsir-ī-raḥīmī_ which gives Sālḥa
as the name of Bābur's wife, Pasha's third daughter. Its author may be
wrong, writing so late as he did (1025 AH.-1616 AD.), or may have been
unaware that Sālḥa was (if she were) known as Dil-dār. It would not war
against seeming facts to take Pasha's third daughter to be Bābur's wife
Dil-dār, and Dil-dār's daughter Gul-chihra to be Salīma's mother.
Gul-chihra was born in about 1516 AD., married to Tūkhta-būghā in 1530
AD., widowed in cir. 1533 AD., might have remarried with Nūru'd-dīn
_Chaqānīānī_ (Sayyid Amīr), and in 945 AH. might have borne him Salīma;
she was married in 1547 AD. (954 AH.) to `Abbās Sulṯān _Aūzbeg_.[2748]
Two matters, neither having much weight, make against taking Dil-dār to
be a _Mīrān-shāhī_; the first being that the anonymous annotator who
added to the archetype of Kehr's Codex what is entered in Appendix
L.—_On Māhīm's adoption of Hind-āl_, styles her Dil-dār Āghācha; he,
however, may have known no more than others knew of her descent; the
second, that Māhīm forcibly took Dil-dār's child Hind-āl to rear; she
was the older wife and the mother of the heir, but could she have taken
the upper hand over a Mīrān-shāhī? A circumstance complicating the
question of Salīma's maternal descent is, that historians searching the
_Bābur-nāma_ or its Persian translation the _Wāqi`āt-i-bāburī_ for
information about the three daughters of Maḥmūd _Mīrān-shāhī_ and Pasha
_Bahārlū Turkmān_, would find an incomplete record, one in which the
husbands of the first and second daughters are mentioned and nothing is
said about the third who was Bābur's wife and the grandmother of Salīma.
Bābur himself appears to have left the record as it is, meaning to fill
it in later; presumably he waited for the names of the elder two sisters
to complete his details of the three. In the Ḥaidarabad Codex, which
there is good ground for supposing a copy of his original manuscript,
about three lines are left blank (f. 27) as if awaiting information; in
most manuscripts, however, this indication of intention is destroyed by
running the defective passage on to join the next sentence. Some chance
remark of a less well-known writer, may clear up the obscurity and show
that Sālḥa was Dil-dār.
Māhīm's case seems one having a different cause for silence about her
parentage. When she was married in Herāt, shortly after the death of Sl.
Ḥusain Mīrzā, Bābur had neither wife nor child. What Abū'l-faẓl tells
about her is vague; her father's name is not told; she is said to have
belonged to a noble Khurāsān family, to have been related
(_nisbat-i-khwesh_) to Sl. Ḥusain Mīrzā and to have traced her descent
to Shaikh Aḥmad of Jām. If her birth had been high, even though not
royal, it is strange that it is not stated by Bābur when he records the
birth of her son Humāyūn, incidentally by Gul-badan, or more precisely
by Abū'l-faẓl. Her brothers belonged to Khost, and to judge from a
considerable number of small records, seem to have been quiet, unwarlike
Khwājas. Her marriage took place in a year of which a full record
survives; it is one in the composed narrative, not in the diary. In the
following year, this also being one included in the composed narrative,
Bābur writes of his meeting with Ma`ṣūma _Mīrān-shāhī_ in Herāt, of
their mutual attraction, and of their marriage. If the marriage with
Humāyūn's mother had been an equal alliance, it would agree with Bābur's
custom to mention its occurrence, and to give particulars about Māhīm's
descent.[2749]
_i. Mr. William Erskine's estimate of Bābur._
"Z̤ahīru'd-dīn Muḥammad Bābur was undoubtedly one of the most
illustrious men of his age, and one of the most eminent and accomplished
princes that ever adorned an Asiatic throne. He is represented as having
been above the middle size, of great vigour of body, fond of all field
and warlike sports, an excellent swordsman, and a skilful archer. As a
proof of his bodily strength, it is mentioned, that he used to leap from
one pinnacle to another of the pinnacled ramparts used in the East, in
his double-soled boots; and that he even frequently took a man under
each arm and went leaping along the rampart from one of the pointed
pinnacles to another. Having been early trained to the conduct of
business, and tutored in the school of adversity, the powers of his mind
received full development. He ascended the throne at the age of twelve,
and before he had attained his twentieth year, had shared every variety
of fortune; he had not only been the ruler of subject provinces but had
been in thraldom to his own ambitious nobles, and obliged to conceal
every sentiment of his heart; he had been alternately hailed and obeyed
as a conqueror and deliverer by rich and extensive kingdoms, and forced
to lurk in the deserts and mountains of Farghāna as a houseless
wanderer. Down to the last dregs of life, we perceive in him strong
feelings of affection for his early friends and early enjoyments. * * *
He had been taught betimes, by the voice of events that cannot lie, that
he was a man dependent on the kindness and fidelity of other men; and,
in his dangers and escapes with his followers, had learned that he was
only one of an association. * * * The native benevolence and gaiety of
his disposition seems ever to overflow on all around him; * * * of his
companions in arms he speaks with the frank gaiety of a soldier. * * *
Ambitious he was and fond of conquest and glory in all its shapes; the
enterprise in which he was for a season engaged, seems to have absorbed
his whole soul, and all his faculties were exerted to bring it to a
fortunate issue. His elastic mind was not broken by discomfiture, and
few who have achieved such glorious conquests, have suffered more
numerous or more decisive defeats. His personal courage was conspicuous
during his whole life. Upon the whole, if we review with impartiality
the history of Asia, we find few princes entitled to rank higher than
Bābur in genius and accomplishments. * * * In activity of mind, in the
gay equanimity and unbroken spirit with which he bore the extremes of
good and bad fortune, in the possession of the manly and social virtues,
in his love of letters and his success in the cultivation of them, we
shall probably find no other Asiatic prince who can justly be placed
beside him."
THE END.
APPENDICES.
A.—THE SITE AND DISAPPEARANCE OF OLD AKHSĪ.
Some modern writers, amongst whom are Dr. Schuyler, General Nalivkine
and Mr. Pumpelly, have inferred from the Bābur-nāma account of Akhsī,
(in its translations?) that the landslip through which Bābur's father
died and the disappearance of old Akhsī were brought about by erosion.
Seen by the light of modern information, this erosion theory does not
seem to cover the whole ground and some other cause seems necessary in
explanation of both events.
For convenience of reference, the Bābur-nāma passages required, are
quoted here, with their translations.
Ḥai. MS. f. 4b. _Saiḥūn daryā-sī qūrghānī astīdīn āqār.
Qūrghānī baland jar austīdā wāqī' būlūb tūr. Khandaqī-nīng
aūrunīgha `umīq jārlār dūr. `Umar Shaikh M. kīm mūnī pāy-takht
qīldī, bīr īkī martaba tāshrāq-dīn yana jarlār sāldī._
Of this the translations are as follows:—
(_a_) Pers. trans. (I.O. 217, f. 3_b_): _Daryā-i Saiḥūn az
pāyhā qila`-i o mīrezad u qila`-i o bar jar balandī wāqi`
shuda ba jāy khandaq jarhā-i `umīq uftāda. `U. Sh. M. kah ānrā
pāy-takht sākhta, yak du martaba az bīrūn ham bāz jarhā
andākht._
(_b_) Erskine (p. 5, translating from the Persian): 'The river
Saiḥūn flows under the walls of the castle. The castle is
situated on a high precipice, and the steep ravines around
serve instead of a moat. When U. Sh. M. made it his capital
he, in one or two instances, scarped the ravines outside the
fort.'
(_c_) De Courteille (i, 8, translating from Ilminsky's
imprint, p. 6): 'Le Seihoun coule au pied de la fortresse qui
se dresse sur le sommet d'un ravin, dont les profondeurs lui
tiennent lieu d'un fossé. `U. Sh. M. à l'époque où il en avait
fait son capitale, avait augmenté à une ou deux réprises, les
escarpements qui la ceignent naturellement.'
Concerning `Umar Shaikh's death, the words needed are (f. 6_b_);—
_Maẕkūr būlūb aīdī kīm Akhsī qūrghānī buland jar austīdā wāqi`
būlūb tūr. `Imāratlār jar yāqāsīdā aīrdī.... Mīrzā jardīn
kabūtar u kabūtar-khāna bīla aūchūb shunqār būldī_;—'It has been
mentioned that the walled-town of Akhsī is situated above
ravine(s). The royal dwellings are along a ravine. The Mīrzā,
having flown with his pigeons and their house from the ravine,
became a falcon (_i.e._ died).'
A few particulars about Akhsī will shew that, in the translations just
quoted, certain small changes of wording are dictated by what, amongst
other writers, Kostenko and von Schwarz have written about the oases of
Turkistān.
The name Akhsī, as used by Ibn Haukal, Yāqūt and Bābur, describes an
oasis township, _i.e._ a walled-town with its adjacent cultivated lands.
In Yāqūt's time Akhsī had a second circumvallation, presumably less for
defence than for the protection of crops against wild animals. The oasis
was created by the Kāsān-water,[2750] upon the riverain loess of the
right and higher bank of the Saiḥūn (Sīr), on level ground west of the
junction of the Nārīn and the Qarā-daryā, west too of spurs from the
northern hills which now abut upon the river. Yāqūt locates it in the
12th century, at one _farsākh_ (_circa_ 4 m.) north of the river.[2751]
Depending as it did solely on the Kāsān-water, nothing dictated its
location close to the Sīr, along which there is now, and there seems to
have been in the 12th century, a strip of waste land. Bābur says of
Akhsī what Kostenko says (i, 321) of modern Tāshkīnt, that it stood
above ravines (_jarlār_). These were natural or artificial channels of
the Kāsān-water.[2752]
To turn now to the translations;—Mr. Erskine imaged Akhsī as a castle,
high on a precipice in process of erosion by the Sīr. But Bābur's word,
_qūrghān_ means the walled-town; his word for a castle is _ark_,
citadel; and his _jar_, a cleft, is not rendered by 'precipice.'
Again;—it is no more necessary to understand that the Sīr flowed close
to the walls than it is to understand, when one says the Thames flows
past below Richmond, that it washes the houses on the hill.
The key to the difficulties in the Turkī passage is provided by a
special use of the word _jar_ for not only natural ravines but
artificial water-cuts for irrigation. This use of it makes clear that
what `Umar Shaikh did at Akhsī was not to make escarpments but to cut
new water-channels. Presumably he joined those 'further out' on the
deltaic fan, on the east and west of the town, so as to secure a
continuous defensive cleft round the town[2753] or it may be, in order
to bring it more water.
Concerning the historic pigeon-house (f. 6_b_), it can be said safely
that it did not fall into the Sīr; it fell from a _jar_, and in this
part of its course, the river flows in a broad bed, with a low left
bank. Moreover the Mīrzā's residence was in the walled-town (f. 110_b_)
and there his son stayed 9 years after the accident. The slip did not
affect the safety of the residence therefore; it may have been local to
the birds' house. It will have been due to some ordinary circumstance
since no cause for it is mentioned by Bābur, Ḥaidar or Abū'l-faẓl. If it
had marked the crisis of the Sīr's approach, Akhsī could hardly have
been described, 25 years later, as a strong fort.
Something is known of Akhsī, in the 10th, the 12th, the 15th and the
19th centuries, which testifies to sæcular decadence. Ibn Haukal and
Yāqūt give the township an extent of 3 _farsākh_ (12 miles), which may
mean from one side to an opposite one. Yāqūt's description of it
mentions four gates, each opening into well-watered lands extending a
whole _farsākh_, in other words it had a ring of garden-suburb four
miles wide.
Two meanings have been given to Bābur's words indicating the status of
the oasis in the 15th century. They are, _maḥallātī qūrghān-dīn bīr
shar`ī yurāqrāq tūshūb tūr_. They have been understood as saying that
the suburbs were two miles from their _urbs_. This may be right but I
hesitate to accept it without pointing out that the words may mean, 'Its
suburbs extend two miles farther than the walled-town.' Whichever verbal
reading is correct, reveals a decayed oasis.
In the 19th century, Nalivkine and Ujfalvy describe the place then
bearing the name Akhsī, as a small village, a mere winter-station, at
some distance from the river's bank, that bank then protected from
denudation by a sand-bank.
Three distinctly-marked stages of decadence in the oasis township are
thus indicated by Yāqūt, Bābur and the two modern travellers.
It is necessary to say something further about the position of the
suburbs in the 15th century. Bābur quotes as especially suitable to
Akhsī, the proverbial questions, 'Where is the village?'[2754] (qy.
Akhsī-kīnt.) 'Where are the trees?' and these might be asked by some-one
in the suburbs unable to see Akhsī or _vice versâ_. But granting that
there were no suburbs within two miles of the town, why had the whole
inner circle, two miles of Yāqūt's four, gone out of cultivation?
Erosion would have affected only land between the river and the town.
Again;—if the Sīr only were working in the 15th century to destroy a
town standing on the Kāsān-water, how is it that this stream does not
yet reach the Sīr?
Various ingatherings of information create the impression that failure
of Kāsān-water has been the dominant factor in the loss of the Akhsī
township. Such failure might be due to the general desiccation of
Central Asia and also to increase of cultivation in the Kāsān-valley
itself. There may have been erosion, and social and military change may
have had its part, but for the loss of the oasis lands and for, as a
sequel, the decay of the town, desiccation seems a sufficient cause.
The Kāsān-water still supports an oasis on its riverain slope, the large
Aūzbeg town of Tūpa-qūrghān (Town-of-the-hill), from the modern castle
of which a superb view is had up the Kāsān-valley, now thickly studded
with villages.[2755]
B.—THE BIRDS, QĪL QŪYIRŪGH AND BĀGHRĪ QARĀ.
Describing a small bird (_qūsh-qīna_), abundant in the Qarshī district
(f. 49_b_), Bābur names it the _qīl-qūyirūgh_, horse-tail, and says it
resembles the _bāghrī qarā_.
Later on he writes (f. 280) that the _bāghrī qarā_ of India is smaller
and more slender than 'those' _i.e._ of Transoxiana (f. 49_b_, n. 1),
the blackness of its breast less deep, and its cry less piercing.
We have had difficulty in identifying the birds but at length conclude
that the _bāghrī qarā_ of Transoxiana is _Pterocles arenarius_, Pallas's
black-bellied sand-grouse and that the Indian one is a smaller
sand-grouse, perhaps a _Syrrhaptes_. As the _qīl qūyirūgh_ resembles the
other two, it may be a yet smaller _Syrrhaptes_.
Muḥ. Ṣāliḥ, writing of sport Shaibāq Khān had in Qarshī
(_Shaibānī-nāma_, Vambéry, p. 192) mentions the 'Little bird (_murghak_)
of Qarshī,' as on all sides making lament. The Sang-lākh[2756] gives its
Persian name as _khar-pala_, ass-hair, says it flies in large flocks
and resembles the _bāghrī qarā_. Of the latter he writes as abundant in
the open country and as making noise (_bāghīr_).
The Sang-lākh (f. 119) gives the earliest and most informing account we
have found of the _bāghrī qarā_. Its says the bird is larger than a
pigeon, marked with various colours, yellow especially, black-breasted
and a dweller in the stony and waterless desert. These details are
followed by a quotation from `Alī-sher _Nawā'ī_, in which he likens his
own heart to that of the bird of the desert, presumably referring to the
gloom of the bird's plumage. Three synonyms are then given; Ar. _qiṯā_,
one due to its cry (Meninsky); Pers. _sang-shikan_, stone-eating,
(Steingass, _sang-khwāra_, stone-eating); and Turkī _bāghīr-tīlāq_ which
refers, I think, to its cry.
Morier (Ḥājī Bābā) in his _Second journey through Persia_ (Lond. 1818,
p. 181), mentions that a bird he calls the black-breasted partridge,
(_i.e._ _Francolinus vulgaris_) is known in Turkish as _bokara kara_ and
in Persian as _siyāh-sīna_, both names, (he says), meaning black-breast;
that it has a horse-shoe of black feathers round the forepart of the
trunk, more strongly marked in the female than in the male; that they
fly in flocks of which he saw immense numbers near Tabrīz (p. 283), have
a soft note, inhabit the plains, and, once settled, do not run. Cock and
hen alike have a small spur,—a characteristic, it may be said,
identifying rather with _Francolinus vulgaris_ than with _Pterocles
arenarius_. Against this identification, however, is Mr. Blandford's
statement that _siyāh-sīna_ (Morier's _bokara kara_) is _Pterocles
arenarius_ (Report of the Persian Boundary Commission, ii, 271).
In Afghānistān and Bikanir, the sand-grouse is called _tūtūrak_ and
_boora kurra_ (Jerdon, ii, 498). Scully explains _baghītāq_ as
_Pterocles arenarius_.
Perhaps I may mention something making me doubt whether it is correct to
translate _bāghrī qarā_ by _black-liver_ and _gorge-noir_ or other names
in which the same meaning is expressed. To translate thus, is to
understand a Turkī noun and adjective in Persian construction, and to
make exception to the rule, amply exemplified in lists of birds, that
Turkī names of birds are commonly in Turkī construction, _e.g._ _qarā
bāsh_ (black-head), _āq-bāsh_ (white-head), _sārīgh-sūndūk_
(yellow-headed wagtail). _Bāghīr_ may refer to the cry of the bird. We
learn from Mr. Ogilvie Grant that the Mongol name for the sand-grouse
_njūpterjūn_, is derived from its cry in flight, _truck_, _truck_, and
its Arabic name _qiṯā_ is said by Meninsky to be derived from its cry
_kaetha_, _kaetha_. Though the dissimilarity of the two cries is against
taking the _njūpterjūn_ and the _qiṯā_ to be of one class of
sand-grouse, the significance of the derivation of the names remains,
and shows that there are examples in support of thinking that when a
sand-grouse is known as _bāghrī qarā_, it may be so known because of its
cry (_bāghir_).
The word _qarā_ finds suggestive interpretation in a B. N. phrase (f.
72_b_) _Taṃbal-nīng qarā-sī_, Taṃbal's blackness, _i.e._ the dark mass
of his moving men, seen at a distance. It is used also for an indefinite
number, _e.g._ 'family, servants, retainers, followers, _qarā_,' and I
think it may imply a massed flock.
Bābur's words (f. 280) _bāghrī-nīng qarā-sī ham kam dūr_, [its belly
(lit. liver) also is less black], do not necessarily contradict the view
that the word _bāghrī_ in the bird's name means crying. The root _bāgh_
has many and pliable derivatives; I suspect both Bābur (here) and Muḥ.
Ṣāliḥ (l. c.) of ringing changes on words.
We are indebted for kind reply to our questions to Mr. Douglas
Carruthers, Mr. Ogilvie Grant and to our friend, Mr. R. S. Whiteway.
C.—ON THE GOSHA-GĪR.
I am indebted to my husband's examination of two Persian MSS. on
archery for an explanation of the word _gosha-gīr_, in its technical
sense in archery. The works consulted are the Cyclopædia of
Archery (_Kulliyatu'r-rāmī_ I. O. 2771) and the Archer's Guide
(_Hidāyatu'r-rāmī_ I. O. 2768).
It should be premised that in archery, the word _gosha_ describes, in
the arrow, the notch by which it grips and can be carried on the string,
and, in the bow, both the tip (horn) and the notch near the tip in which
the string catches. It is explained by Vullers as _cornu et crena arcûs
cui immititur nervus_.
Two passages in the Cyclopædia of Archery (f. 9 and f. 36_b_) shew
_gosha_ as the bow-tip. One says that to bend the bow, two men must
grasp the two _gosha_; the other reports a tradition that the Archangel
Gabriel brought a bow having its two _gosha_ (tips) made of ruby. The
same book directs that the _gosha_ be made of seasoned ivory, the
Archer's Guide prescribing seasoned mulberry wood.
The C. of A. (f. 125_b_) says that a bowman should never be without two
things, his arrows and his _gosha-gīr_. The _gosha-gīr_ may be called an
item of the repairing kit; it is an implement (f. 53) for making good a
warped bow-tip and for holding the string into a displaced notch. It is
known also as the _chaprās_, brooch or buckle, and the _kardāng_; and is
said to bear these names because it fastens in the string. Its shape is
that of the upper part of the Ar. letter _jīm_, two converging lines of
which the lower curves slightly outward. It serves to make good a warped
bow, without the use of fire and it should be kept upon the bow-tip till
this has reverted to its original state. Until the warp has been
straightened by the _gosha-gīr_, the bow must be kept from the action of
fire because it, (composite of sinew and glutinous substance,) is of the
nature of wax.
The same implement can be used to straighten the middle of the bow, the
_kamān khāna_. It is then called _kar-dāng_. It can be used there on
condition that there are not two _daur_ (curves) in the bow. If there
are two the bow cannot be repaired without fire. The _halāl daur_ is
said to be characteristic of the Turkish bow. There are three _daur_. I
am indebted to Mr. Inigo Simon for the suggestions that _daur_ in this
connection means _warp_ and that the three twists (_daur_) may be those
of one horn (_gosha_), of the whole bow warped in one curve, and of the
two horns warped in opposite directions.
Of repair to the _kamān-khāna_ it is said further that if no _kardāng_
be available, its work can be done by means of a stick and string, and
if the damage be slight only, the bow and the string can be tightly tied
together till the bow comes straight. 'And the cure is with God!'
Both manuscripts named contain much technical information. Some parts of
this are included in my husband's article, _Oriental Crossbows_ (A. Q.
R. 1911, p. 1). Sir Ralph Payne-Gallwey's interesting book on the
Cross-bow allows insight into the fine handicraft of Turkish bow-making.
D.—ON THE RESCUE PASSAGE.
I have omitted from my translation an account of Bābur's rescue from
expected death, although it is with the Ḥaidarābād Codex, because closer
acquaintance with its details has led both my husband and myself to
judge it spurious. We had welcomed it because, being with the true
Bābur-nāma text, it accredited the same account found in the
Kehr-Ilminsky text, and also because, however inefficiently, it did
something towards filling the gap found elsewhere within 908 AH.
It is in the Ḥaidarābād MS. (f. 118_b_), in Kehr's MS. (p. 385), in
Ilminsky's imprint (p. 144), in _Les Mémoires de Bābour_ (i, 255) and
with the St. P. University Codex, which is a copy of Kehr's.
On the other hand, it is not with the Elphinstone Codex (f. 89_b_); that
it was not with the archetype of that codex the scribe's note shews (f.
90); it is with neither of the _Wāqi`āt-i-bāburī_ (Pers. translations)
nor with Leyden and Erskine's _Memoirs_ (p. 122).[2757]
Before giving our grounds for rejecting what has been offered to fill
the gap of 908 AH. a few words must be said about the lacuna itself.
Nothing indicates that Bābur left it and, since both in the Elphinstone
Codex and its archetype, the sentence preceding it lacks the terminal
verb, it seems due merely to loss of pages. That the loss, if any, was
of early date is clear,—the Elph. MS. itself being copied not later than
1567 AD. (JRAS. 1907, p. 137).
Two known circumstances, both of earlier date than that of the
Elphinstone Codex, might have led to the loss,—the first is the storm
which in 935 AH. scattered Bābur's papers (f. 376_b_), the second, the
vicissitudes to which Humāyūn's library was exposed in his exile.[2758]
Of the two the first seems the more probable cause.
The rupture of a story at a point so critical as that of Bābur's danger
in Karnān would tempt to its completion; so too would wish to make good
the composed part of the Bābur-nāma. Humāyūn annotated the archetype of
the Elphinstone Codex a good deal but he cannot have written the Rescue
passage if only because he was in a position to avoid some of its
inaccuracies.
CONTEXT AND TRANSLATION OF THE RESCUE PASSAGE.
To facilitate reference, I quote the last words preceding the gap
purported to be filled by the Rescue passage, from several texts;—
(_a_) Elphinstone MS. f. 89_b_,—_Qūptūm. Bāgh gosha-sī-gha bārdīm. Aūzūm
bīla andesha qīldīm. Dīdīm kīm kīshī agar yūz u agar mīng yāshāsā, ākhir
hech...._
(_b_) The Ḥai. MS. (f. 118_b_) varies from the Elphinstone by omitting
the word _hech_ and adding _aūlmāk kīrāk_, he must die.
(_c_) Pāyanda-ḥasan's _Wāqi`āt-i-bāburī_ (I. O. 215, f.
96_b_),—_Barkhwāstam u dar gosha-i bāgh raftam. Ba khūd andesha karda,
guftam kah agar kase ṣad sāl yā hazār sāl `umr dāshta bāshad, ākhir hech
ast._ (It will be seen that this text has the _hech_ of the Elph. MS.)
(_d_) `Abdu'r-raḥīm's _Wāqi`āt-i-bāburī_ (I. O. 217, f.
79),—_Barkhwāstam u ba gosha-i-bāgh raftam. Ba khūd andeshīdam u guftam
kah agar kase ṣad sāl u agar hazār sāl `umr bayābad ākhir...._
(_e_) Muḥ. _Shīrāzī's_ lith. ed. (p. 75) finishes the sentence with
_ākhir khūd bāyad murd_, at last one must die,—varying as it frequently
does, from both of the _Wāqi`āt_.
(_f_) Kehr's MS. (p. 383-454), Ilminsky, p. 144,—_Qūpūb bāghnīng bīr
būrjī-ghā bārīb, khāṯirīm-ghā kīltūrdīm kīm agar adam yūz yīl u agar
mīng yīl tīrīk būlsā, ākhir aūlmāk dīn aūzkā chāra yūq tūr._ (I rose.
Having gone to a tower of the garden, I brought it to my mind that if a
person be alive 100 years or a thousand years, at last he has no help
other than to die.)
The Rescue passage is introduced by a Persian couplet, identified by my
husband as from Niẕāmī's _Khusrau u Shīrīn_, which is as follows;—
If you stay a hundred years, and if one year,
Forth you must go from this heart-delighting palace.
I steadied myself for death (_qarār bīrdīm_). In that garden a stream
came flowing;[2759] I made ablution; I recited the prayer of two
inclinations (_ra`kat_); having raised my head for silent prayer, I
was making earnest petition when my eyes closed in sleep.[2760] I am
seeing[2761] that Khwāja Yaq`ūb, the son of Khwāja Yaḥyā and
grandson of His Highness Khwāja `Ubaidu'l-lāh, came facing me,
mounted on a piebald horse, with a large company of piebald horsemen
(_sic_).[2762] He said: 'Lay sorrow aside! Khwāja _Aḥrār_ (_i.e._
`Ubaidu'l-lāh) has sent me to you; he said, "We, having asked help
for him (_i.e._ Bābur), will seat him on the royal throne;[2763]
wherever difficulty befalls him, let him look towards us (lit. bring
us to sight) and call us to mind; there will we be present." Now, in
this hour, victory and success are on your side; lift up your head!
awake!'
At that time I awoke happy, when Yūsuf and those with him[2764] were
giving one another advice. 'We will make a pretext to deceive; to
seize and bind[2765] is necessary.' Hearing these words, I said,
'Your words are of this sort, but I will see which of you will come
to my presence to take me.' I was saying this when outside the garden
wall[2766] came the noise of approaching horsemen. Yūsuf _darogha_
said, 'If we had taken you to Taṃbal our affairs would have gone
forward. Now he has sent again many persons to seize you.' He was
certain that this noise might be the footfall of the horses of those
sent by Taṃbal. On hearing those words anxiety grew upon me; what to
do I did not know. At this time those horsemen, not happening to find
the garden gate, broke down the wall where it was old (and) came in.
I saw (_kūrsām_, lit. might see) that Qutluq Muḥ. _Barlās_ and Bābā-i
_Pargharī_, my life-devoted servants, having arrived [with], it may
be, ten, fifteen, twenty persons, were approaching. Having flung
themselves from their horses,[2767] bent the knee from afar and
showed respect, they fell at my feet. In that state (_ḥal_) such
ecstasy (_ḥāl_) came over me that you might say (_goyā_) God gave me
life from a new source (_bāsh_). I said, 'Seize and bind that Yūsuf
_darogha_ and these here (_tūrghān_) hireling mannikins.' These same
mannikins had taken to flight. They (_i.e._ the rescuers), having
taken them, one by one, here and there, brought them bound. I said,
'Where do you come from? How did you get news?' Qutluq Muḥ. _Barlās_
said: 'When, having fled from Akhsī, we were separated from you in
the flight, we went to Andijān when the Khāns also came to Andijān. I
saw a vision that Khwāja `Ubaidu'l-lāh said, "Bābur _pādshāh_[2768]
is in a village called Karnān; go and bring him, since the royal seat
(_masnad_) has become his possession (_ta`alluq_)." I having seen
this vision and become happy, represented (the matter) to the Elder
Khān (and) the Younger Khān. I said to the Khāns, "I have five or six
younger brothers (and) sons; do you add a few soldiers. I will go
through the Karnān side and bring news." The Khāns said, "It occurs
to our minds also that (he) may have gone that same road (?)." They
appointed ten persons; they said, "Having gone in that direction
(_sārī_) and made very sure, bring news. Would to God you might get
true news!" We were saying this when Bābā-i _Parghārī_ said, "I too
will go and seek." He also having agreed with two young men, (his)
younger brothers, we rode out. It is three days to-day that we are
on the road. Thank God! we have found you.' They said (_dīdīlār_, for
_dīb_). They spoke (_aītīlār_), 'Make a move! Ride off! Take these
bound ones with you! To stay here is not well; Taṃbal has had news of
your coming here; go, in whatever way, and join yourself to the
Khāns!' At that time we having ridden out, moved towards Andijān. It
was two days that we had eaten no food; the evening prayer had come
when we found a sheep, went on, dismounted, killed, and roasted. Of
that same roast we ate as much as a feast. After that we rode on,
hurried forward, made a five days' journey in a day and two nights,
came and entered Andijān. I saluted my uncle the Elder Khān (and) my
uncle the Younger Khān, and made recital of past days. With the Khāns
I spent four months. My servants, who had gone looking in every
place, gathered themselves together; there were more than 300
persons. It came to my mind (_kīm_), 'How long must I wander, a
vagabond (_sar-gardān_),[2769] in this Farghāna country? I will make
search (_ṯalab_) on every side (_dīb_).' Having said, I rode out in
the month of Muḥarram to seek Khurāsān, and I went out from the
country of Farghāna.[2770]
REASONS AGAINST THE REJECTION OF THE RESCUE PASSAGE.
Two circumstances have weight against rejecting the passage, its
presence with the Ḥaidarābād Codex and its acceptance by Dr. Ilminsky
and M. de Courteille.
That it is with the Codex is a matter needing consideration and this the
more that it is the only extra matter there found. Not being with the
Persian translations, it cannot be of early date. It seems likely to owe
its place of honour to distinguished authorship and may well be one of
the four portions (_juzwe_) mentioned by Jahāngīr in the
Tuzūk-i-jahāngīrī,[2771] as added by himself to his ancestor's book. If
so, it may be mentioned, it will have been with Bābur's autograph MS.
[now not to be found], from which the Ḥaidarābād Codex shews signs of
being a direct copy.[2772]
[The incongruity of the Rescue passage with the true text has been
indicated by foot-notes to the translation of it already given. What
condemns it on historic and other grounds will follow.]
On linguistic grounds it is a strong argument in its favour that Dr.
Ilminsky and M. de Courteille should have accepted it but the argument
loses weight when some of the circumstances of their work are taken into
account.
In the first place, it is not strictly accurate to regard Dr. Ilminsky
as accepting it unquestioned, because it is covered by his depreciatory
remarks, made in his preface, on Kehr's text. He, like M. de Courteille,
worked with a single Turkī MS. and neither of the two ever saw a
complete true text. When their source (the Kehr-Ilminsky) was able to be
collated with the Elph. and Ḥai. MSS. much and singular divergence was
discovered.
I venture to suggest what appears to me to explain M. de Courteille's
acceptance of the Rescue passage. Down to its insertion, the
Kehr-Ilminsky text is so continuously and so curiously corrupt that it
seems necessary to regard it as being a re-translation into Turkī from
one of the Persian translations of the _Bābur-nāma_. There being these
textual defects in it, it would create on the mind of a reader initiated
through it, only, in the book, an incorrect impression of Bābur's style
and vocabulary, and such a reader would feel no transition when passing
on from it to the Rescue passage.
In opposition to this explanation, it might be said that a wrong
standard set up by the corrupt text, would or could be changed by the
excellence of later parts of the Kehr-Ilminsky one. In words, this is
sound, no doubt, and such reflex criticism is now easy, but more than
the one defective MS. was wanted even to suggest the need of such reflex
criticism. The _Bābur-nāma_ is lengthy, ponderous to poise and grasp,
and work on it is still tentative, even with the literary gains since
the Seventies.
Few of the grounds which weigh with us for the rejection of the Rescue
passage were known to Dr. Ilminsky or M. de Courteille;—the two good
Codices bring each its own and varied help; Teufel's critique on the
'Fragments,' though made without acquaintance with those adjuncts as
they stand in Kehr's own volume, is of much collateral value; several
useful oriental histories seem not to have been available for M. de
Courteille's use. I may add, for my own part, that I have the great
advantage of my husband's companionship and the guidance of his wide
acquaintance with related oriental books. In truth, looking at the
drawbacks now removed, an earlier acceptance of the passage appears as
natural as does today's rejection.
GROUNDS FOR REJECTING THE RESCUE PASSAGE.
The grounds for rejecting the passage need here little more than
recapitulation from my husband's article in the JASB. 1910, p. 221, and
are as follows;—
i. The passage is in neither of the _Wāqi`āt-i-bāburī_.
ii. The dreams detailed are too à propos and marvellous for
credence.
iii. Khwāja Yaḥyā is not known to have had a son, named
Ya`qūb.
iv. The _Bābur-nāma_ does not contain the names assigned to
the rescuers.
v. The Khāns were not in Andijān and Bābur did not go there.
vi. He did not set out for Khurāsān after spending 4 months
with The Khāns but after Aḥmad's death (end of 909 AH.), while
Maḥmud was still in Eastern Turkistān and after about a year's
stay in Sūkh.
vii. The followers who gathered to him were not 'more than
300' but between 2 and 300.
viii. The '3 days,' and the 'day and two nights,' and the '5
days' journey was one of some 70 miles, and one recorded as
made in far less time.
ix. The passage is singularly inadequate to fill a gap of 14
to 16 months, during which events of the first importance
occurred to Bābur and to the Chaghatāī dynasty.
x. Khwāja _Aḥrārī's_ promises did nothing to fulfil Bābur's
wishes for 908 AH. while those of Ya`qūb for immediate victory
were closely followed by defeat and exile. Bābur knew the
facts; the passage cannot be his. It looks as though the
writer saw Bābur in Karnān across Tīmūrid success in
Hindūstān.
xi. The style and wording of the passage are not in harmony
with those of the true text.
Other reasons for rejection are marked change in choice of the details
chosen for commemoration, _e.g._ when Bābur mentions prayer, he does so
simply; when he tells a dream, it seems a real one. The passage leaves
the impression that the writer did not think in Turkī, composed in it
with difficulty, and looked at life from another view-point than
Bābur's.
On these various grounds, we have come to the conclusion that it is no
part of the _Bābur-nāma_.
[APPENDICES TO THE KĀBUL SECTION.]
E.—NAGARAHĀR, AND NĪNG-NAHĀR
Those who consult books and maps about the riverain tract between the
Safed-koh (Spīn-ghur) and (Anglicé) the Kābul-river find its name in
several forms, the most common being Nangrahār and Nangnahār (with
variant vowels). It would be useful to establish a European book-name
for the district. As European opinion differs about the origin and
meaning of the names now in use, and as a good deal of interesting
circumstance gathers round the small problem of a correct form (there
may be two), I offer about the matter what has come into the restricted
field of my own work, premising that I do this merely as one who drops a
casual pebble on the cairn of observation already long rising for
scholarly examination.
_a. The origin and meaning of the names._
I have met with three opinions about the origin and meaning of the names
found now and earlier. To each one of them obvious objection can be
made. They are:—
1. That all forms now in use are corruptions of the Sanscrit
word Nagarahāra, the name of the Town-of-towns which in the
_dū-āb_ of the Bārān-sū and Sūrkh-rūd left the ruins Masson
describes in Wilson's _Ariana Antigua_. But if this is so, why
is the Town-of-towns multiplied into the nine of Na-nagrahār
(Nangrahār)?[2773]
2. That the names found represent Sanscrit _nawā vihāra_, nine
monasteries, an opinion the Gazetteer of India of 1907 has
adopted from Bellew. But why precisely nine monasteries? Nine
appears an understatement.
3. That Nang (Ning or Nung) -nahār verbally means nine
streams, (Bābur's Tūqūz-rūd,) an interpretation of long
standing (Section _b infra_). But whence _nang_, _ning_,
_nung_, for nine? Such forms are not in Persian, Turkī or
Pushtu dictionaries, and, as Sir G. A. Grierson assures me, do
not come into the Linguistic Survey.
_b. On nang, ning, nung for nine._
Spite of their absence from the natural homes of words, however, the
above sounds have been heard and recorded as symbols of the number nine
by careful men through a long space of time.
The following instances of the use of "Nangnahār" show this, and also
show that behind the variant forms there may be not a single word but
two of distinct origin and sense.
1. In Chinese annals two names appear as those of the district
and town (I am not able to allocate their application with
certainty). The first is Na-kie-lo-ho-lo, the second
Nang-g-lo-ho-lo and these, I understand to represent
Nagara-hāra and Nang-nahār, due allowance being made for
Chinese idiosyncrasy.[2774]
2. Some 900 years later (1527-30 AD.) Bābur also gives two
names, Nagarahār (as the book-name of his _tūmān_) and
Nīng-nahār.[2775] He says the first is found in several
histories (B.N. f. 131_b_); the second will have been what he
heard and also presumably what appeared in revenue accounts;
of it he says, "it is nine torrents" (_tūqūz-rūd_).
3. Some 300 years after Bābur, Elphinstone gives two names
for the district, neither of them being Bābur's book-name,
"Nangrahaur[2776] or Nungnahaur, from the nine streams which
issue from the Safed-koh, _nung_ in Pushtoo signifying _nine_,
and _nahaura_, a stream" (_Caubul_, i, 160).
4. In 1881 Colonel H. S. Tanner had heard, in Nūr-valley on
the north side of the Kābul-water, that the name of the
opposite district was Nīng-nahār and its meaning Nine-streams.
He did not get a list of the nine and all he heard named do
not flow from Safed-koh.
5. In 1884 Colonel H. G. McGregor gives two names with their
explanation, "Ningrahar and Nungnihar; the former is a
corruption of the latter word[2777] which in the Afghān
language signifies nine rivers or rivulets." He names nine,
but of them six only issue from Safed-koh.
6. I have come across the following instances in which the
number nine is represented by other words than _na_ (_ni_ or
_nu_); _viz._ the _nenhan_ of the Chitrālī Kāfir and the
_noun_ of the Panjābi, recorded by Leech,—the _nyon_ of the
Khowārī and the _huncha_ of the Boorishki, recorded by Colonel
Biddulph.
The above instances allow opinion that in the region concerned and
through a long period of time, nine has been expressed by _nang_ (_ning_
or _nung_) and other nasal or high palatal sounds, side by side with
_na_ (_ni_ or _nu_). The whole matter may be one of nasal
utterance,[2778] but since a large number of tribesmen express nine by a
word containing a nasal sound, should that word not find place in lists
of recognized symbols of sounds?
_c. Are there two names of distinct origin?_
1. Certainly it makes a well-connected story of decay in the Sanscrit
word Nagarahāra to suppose that tribesmen, prone by their organism to
nasal utterance, pronounced that word Nangrahār, and by force of their
numbers made this corruption current,—that this was recognized as the
name of the town while the Town-of-towns was great or in men's memory,
and that when through the decay of the town its name became a
meaningless husk, the wrong meaning of the Nine-streams should enter
into possession.
But as another and better one can be put together, this fair-seeming
story may be baseless. Its substitute has the advantage of explaining
the double sequence of names shown in Section _b_.
The second story makes all the variant names represent one or other of
two distinct originals. It leaves Nagrahār to represent Nagarahāra, the
dead town; it makes the nine torrents of Safed-koh the primeval sponsors
of Nīng-nahār, the name of the riverain tract. Both names, it makes
contemporary in the relatively brief interlude of the life of the town.
For the fertilizing streams will have been the dominant factors of
settlement and of revenue from the earliest times of population and
government. They arrest the eye where they and their ribbons of
cultivation space the riverain waste; they are obvious units for
grouping into a sub-government. Their name has a counterpart in adjacent
Panj-āb; the two may have been given by one dominant power, how long
ago, in what tongue matters not. The riverain tract, by virtue of its
place on a highway of transit, must have been inhabited long before the
town Nagarahāra was built, and must have been known by a name. What
better one than Nine-streams can be thought of?
2. Bellew is quoted by the Gazetteer of India (ed. 1907) as saying, in
his argument in favour of _nawā vihāra_, that no nine streams are found
to stand sponsor, but modern maps shew nine outflows from Safed-koh to
the Kābul-river between the Sūrkh-rūd and Daka, while if affluents to
the former stream be reckoned, more than nine issue from the
range.[2779]
Against Bellew's view that there are not nine streams, is the long
persistence of the number nine in the popular name (Sect. _b_).
It is also against his view that he supposes there were nine
monasteries, because each of the nine must have had its fertilizing
water.
Bābur says there were nine; there must have been nine of significance;
he knew his _tūmān_ not only by frequent transit but by his revenue
accounts. A supporting point in those accounts is likely to have been
that the individual names of the villages on the nine streams would
appear, with each its payment of revenue.
3. In this also is some weight of circumstance against taking Nagarahāra
to be the parent of Nīng-nahār:—An earlier name of the town is said to
be Udyānapūra, Garden town.[2780] Of this Bābur's Adīnapūr is held to be
a corruption; the same meaning of garden has survived on approximately
the same ground in Bālā-bāgh and Roẓābād.
Nagarahāra is seen, therefore, to be a parenthetical name between others
which are all derived from gardens. It may shew the promotion of a
"Garden-town" to a "Chief-town". If it did this, there was relapse of
name when the Chief-town lost status. Was it ever applied beyond the
delta? If it were, would it, when dead in the delta, persist along the
riverain tract? If it were not, _cadit quæstio_; the suggestion of two
names distinct in origin, is upheld.
Certainly the riverain tract would fall naturally under the government
of any town flourishing in the delta, the richest and most populous part
of the region. But for this very reason it must have had a name older
than parenthetical Nagarahāra. That inevitable name would be
appropriately Nīng-nahār (or Na-nahār) Nine-streams; and for a period
Nagarahāra would be the Chief-town of the district of Na-nahār
(Nine-streams).[2781]
_d. Bābur's statements about the name._
What the cautious Bābur says of his _tūmān_ of Nīng-nahār has weight:—
1. That some histories write it Nagarahār (Ḥaidarābād Codex,
f. 131_b_);
2. That Nīng-nahār is nine torrents, _i.e._ mountain streams,
_tūquz-rud_;
3. That (the) nine torrents issue from Safed-koh (f. 132_b_).
Of his first statement can be said, that he will have seen the book-name
in histories he read, but will have heard Nīng-nahār, probably also have
seen it in current letters and accounts.
Of his second,—that it bears and may be meant to bear two senses, (_a_)
that the _tūmān_ consisted of nine torrents,—their lands implied; just
as he says "Asfara is four _būlūks_" (sub-divisions f. 3_b_)—(_b_) that
_tūqūz rūd_ translates _nīng-nahār_.
Of his third,—that in English its sense varies as it is read with or
without the definite article Turkī rarely writes, but that either sense
helps out his first and second, to mean that verbally and by its
constituent units Nīng-nahār is nine-torrents; as verbally and by its
constituents Panj-āb is five-waters.
_e. Last words._
Detailed work on the Kābul section of the _Bābur-nāma_ has stamped two
impressions so deeply on me, that they claim mention, not as novel or as
special to myself, but as set by the work.
The first is of extreme risk in swift decision on any problem of words
arising in North Afghānistān, because of its local concourse of tongues,
the varied utterance of its unlettered tribes resident or nomad, and the
frequent translation of proper names in obedience to their verbal
meanings. Names lie there too in _strata_, relics of successive
occupation—Greek, Turkī, Hindī, Pushtū and tribes _galore_.
The second is that the region is an exceptionally fruitful field for
first-hand observation of speech, the movent ocean of the uttered word,
free of the desiccated symbolism of alphabets and books.
The following books, amongst others, have prompted the above note:—
Ghoswāra Inscription, Kittoe, JASB., 1848, and Kielhorn,
_Indian Antiquary_, 1888, p. 311.
H. Sastrī's _Rāmacārita_, Introduction, p. 7 (ASB. Memoirs).
Cunningham's _Ancient India_, vol. i.
Beal's _Buddhist Records_, i, xxxiv, and cii, 91.
Leech's Vocabularies, JASB., 1838.
The writings of Masson (_Travels_ and _Ariana Antiqua_), Wood,
Vigne, etc.
Raverty's _T̤abaqāt-i-nāsirī_.
Jarrett's _Āyīn-i-akbarī_.
P.R.G.S. for maps, 1879; Macnair on the Kafirs, 1884; Tanner's
_On the Chugānī and neighbouring tribes of Kāfiristān_, 1881.
Simpson's _Nagarahāra_, JASB., xiii.
Biddulph's _Dialects of the Hindū-kush_, JRAS.
Gazette of India, 1907, art. Jalalābād.
Bellew's _Races of Afghānistān_.
F.—ON THE NAME DARA-I-NŪR
Some European writers have understood the name Dara-i-nūr to mean Valley
of Light, but natural features and also the artificial one mentioned by
Colonel H. G. Tanner (_infra_), make it better to read the component
_nūr_, not as Persian _nūr_, light, but as Pushtū _nūr_, rock. Hence it
translates as Valley of Rocks, or Rock-valley. The region in which the
valley lies is rocky and boulder-strewn; its own waters flow to the
Kābul-river east of the water of Chitrāl. It shews other names composed
with _nūr_, in which _nūr_ suits if it means rock, but is inexplicable
if it means light, _e.g._ Nūr-lām (Nūr-fort), the master-fort in the
mouth of Nūr-valley, standing high on a rock between two streams, as
Bābur and Tanner have both described it from eye-witness,—Nūr-gal
(village), a little to the north-west of the valley,—Aūlūgh-nūr (great
rock), at a crossing mentioned by Bābur, higher up the Bārān-water,—and
Koh-i-nūr (Rocky-mountains), which there is ground for taking as the
correct form of the familiar "Kunar" of some European writers (Raverty's
_Notes_, p. 106). The dominant feature in these places dictates reading
_nūr_ as rock; so too the work done in Nūr-valley with boulders, of
which Colonel H. G. Tanner's interesting account is subjoined (P.R.G.S.
1881, p. 284).
"Some 10 miles from the source of the main stream of the Nur-valley the
Dameneh stream enters, but the waters of the two never meet; they flow
side by side about three-quarters of a mile apart for about 12 miles and
empty themselves into the Kunar river by different mouths, each torrent
hugging closely the foot of the hills at its own side of the valley.
Now, except in countries where terracing has been practised continuously
for thousands of years, such unnatural topography as exists in the
valley of Nur is next to impossible. The forces which were sufficient to
scoop out the valley in the first instance, would have kept a water-way
at the lowest part, into which would have poured the drainage of the
surrounding mountains; but in the Nur-valley long-continued terracing
has gradually raised the centre of the valley high above the edges. The
population has increased to its maximum limit and every available inch
of ground is required for cultivation; the people, by means of
terrace-walls built of ponderous boulders in the bed of the original
single stream, have little by little pushed the waters out of their true
course, until they run, where now found, in deep rocky cuttings at the
foot of the hills on either side" (p. 280).
"I should like to go on and say a good deal more about boulders; and
while I am about it I may as well mention one that lies back from a
hamlet in Shulut, which is so big that a house is built in a fault or
crack running across its face. Another pebble lies athwart the village
and covers the whole of the houses from that side."
G.—ON THE NAMES OF TWO DARA-I-NŪR WINES.
From the two names, Arat-tāshī and Sūhān (Suhār) -tāshī, which Bābur
gives as those of two wines of the Dara-i-nūr, it can be inferred that
he read _nūr_ to mean rock. For if in them Turkī _tāsh_, rock, be
replaced by Pushtū _nūr_, rock, two place-names emerge, Arat (-nūrī) and
Sūhān (-nūrī), known in the Nūr-valley.
These may be villages where the wines were grown, but it would be quite
exceptional for Bābur to say that wines are called from their villages,
or indeed by any name. He says here not where they grow but what they
are called.
I surmise that he is repeating a joke, perhaps his own, perhaps a
standing local one, made on the quality of the wines. For whether with
_tāsh_ or with _nūr_ (rock), the names can be translated as Rock-saw and
Rock-file, and may refer to the rough and acid quality of the wines,
rasping and setting the teeth on edge as does iron on stone.
The villages themselves may owe their names to a serrated edge or
splintered pinnacle of weathered granite, in which local people, known
as good craftsmen, have seen resemblance to tools of their trade.
H.—ON THE COUNTERMARK BIH BŪD ON COINS.
As coins of Sl. Ḥusain Mīrzā _Bāī-qarā_ and other rulers do actually
bear the words _Bih būd_, Bābur's statement that the name of Bihbūd Beg
was on the Mīrzā's coins acquires a numismatic interest which may make
serviceable the following particulars concerning the passage and the
beg.[2782]
_a. The Turkī passage_ (Elph. MS. f. 135_b_; Ḥaidarābād Codex
f. 173_b_; Ilminsky p. 217).
For ease of reference the Turkī, Persian and English version are
subjoined:—
(1) _Yana Bihbūd Beg aīdī. Būrūnlār chuhra-jīrga-sī-dā khidmat qīlūr
aīdī. Mīrzā-nīng qāzāqlīqlārīdā khidmatī bāqīb Bihbūd Beg-kā bū
`ināyatnī qīlīb aīdī kīm tamghā u sikka-dā ānīng ātī aīdī._
(2) The Persian translation of `Abdu'r-raḥīm (Muḥ. Shīrāzī's lith. ed.
p. 110):—
_Dīgar Bihbūd Beg būd. Auwalhā dar jīrga-i-chuhrahā khidmat mikard. Chūn
dar qāzāqīhā Mīrzārā khidmat karda būd u ānrā mulāḥaẓa namūda, aīnrā
`ināyat karda būd kah dar tamghānāt sikka_[2783] _nām-i-au būd._
(3) A literal English translation of the Turkī:—
Another was Bihbūd Beg. He served formerly in the _chuhra-jīrga-sī_
(corps of braves). Looking to his service in the Mīrzā's guerilla-times,
the favour had been done to Bihbūd Beg that his name was on the stamp
and coin.[2784]
_b. Of Bihbūd Beg._
We have found little so far to add to what Bābur tells of Bihbūd Beg and
what he tells we have not found elsewhere. The likely sources of his
information are Daulat Shāh and Khwānd-amīr who have written at length
of Ḥusain _Bāī-qarā_. Considerable search in the books of both men has
failed to discover mention of signal service or public honour connected
with the beg. Bābur may have heard what he tells in Harāt in 912 AH.
(1506 AD.) when he would see Ḥusain's coins presumably; but later
opportunity to see them must have been frequent during his campaigns and
visits north of Hindū-kush, notably in Balkh.
The sole mention we have found of Bihbūd Beg in the _Ḥabību's-siyar_ is
that he was one of Ḥusain's commanders at the battle of Chīkmān-sarāī
which was fought with Sl. Maḥmūd Mīrzā _Mīrānshāhī_ in Muḥarram 876 AH.
(June-July 1471 AD.).[2785] His place in the list shews him to have had
importance. "Amīr Niẕāmu'd-dīn `Alī-sher's brother Darwesh-i-`alī the
librarian (_q.v._ Ḥai. Codex Index), and Amīr Bihbūd, and Muḥ. `Alī
_ātāka_, and Bakhshīka and Shāh Walī _Qīpchāq_, and Dost-i-muḥammad
_chuhra_, and Amīr Qul-i-`alī, and" (another).
The total of our information about the man is therefore:—
(1) That when Ḥusain[2786] from 861 to 873 AH. (1457 to 1469 AD.) was
fighting his way up to the throne of Harāt, Bihbūd served him well in
the corps of braves, (as many others will have done).
(2) That he was a beg and one of Ḥusain's commanders in 876 AH. (1471
AD.).
(3) That Bābur includes him amongst Ḥusain's begs and says of him what
has been quoted, doing this _circa_ 934 AH. (1528 AD.), some 56 years
after Khwānd-amīr's mention of him _s.a._ 876 AH. (1471 AD.).
_c. Of the term chuhra-jīrga-sī used by Bābur._
Of this term Bābur supplies an explicit explanation which I have not
found in European writings. His own book amply exemplifies his
explanation, as do also Khwānd-amīr's and Ḥaidar's.
He gives the explanation (f. 15_b_) when describing a retainer of his
father's who afterwards became one of his own begs. It is as follows:—
"`Alī-darwesh of Khurāsān served in the Khurāsān _chuhra-jīrga-sī_, one
of two special corps (_khāṣa tābīn_) of serviceable braves (_yārār
yīgītlār_) formed by Sl. Abū-sa`īd Mīrzā when he first began to arrange
the government of Khurāsān and Samarkand and, presumably, called by him
the Khurāsān corps and the Samarkand corps."
This shews the circle to have consisted of fighting-men, such
serviceable braves as are frequently mentioned by Bābur; and his words
"_yārār yīgīt_" make it safe to say that if instead of using a Persian
phrase, he had used a Turkī one, _yīgīt_, brave would have replaced
_chuhra_, "young soldier" (Erskine). A considerable number of men on
active service are styled _chuhra_, one at least is styled _yīgīt_, in
the same way as others are styled _beg_.[2787]
Three military circles are mentioned in the _Bābur-nāma_, consisting
respectively of braves, household begs (under Bābur's own command), and
great begs. Some men are mentioned who never rose from the rank of brave
(_yīgīt_), some who became household-begs, some who went through the
three grades.
Of the corps of braves Bābur conveys the information that Abū-sa`īd
founded it at a date which will have lain between 1451 and 1457 AD.;
that `Umar Shaikh's man `Alī-darwesh belonged to it; and that Ḥusain's
man Bihbūd did so also. Both men, `Ali-darwesh and Bihbūd, when in its
circle, would appropriately be styled _chuhra_ as men of the beg-circle
were styled beg; the Dost-i-muḥammad _chuhra_ who was a commander, (he
will have had a brave's command,) at Chīkmān-sarāī (_see_ list _supra_)
will also have been of this circle. Instances of the use by Bābur of the
name _khaṣa-tābīn_ and its equivalent _būītīkīnī_ are shewn on f. 209
and f. 210_b_. A considerable number of Bābur's fighting men, the braves
he so frequently mentions as sent on service, are styled _chuhra_ and
inferentially belong to the same circle.[2788]
_d. Of Bih būd on Ḥusain Bāī-qarā's coins._
So far it does not seem safe to accept Bābur's statement literally. He
may tell a half-truth and obscure the rest by his brevity.
Nothing in the sources shows ground for signal and public honour to
Bihbūd Beg, but a good deal would allow surmise that jesting allusion to
his name might decide for _Bih būd_ as a coin mark when choice had to be
made of one, in the flush of success, in an assembly of the begs, and,
amongst those begs, lovers of word-play and enigma.
The personal name is found written Bihbūd, as one word and with medial
_h_; the mark is _Bih būd_ with the terminal _h_ in the _Bih_. There
have been discussions moreover as to whether to read on the coins _Bih
būd_, it was good, or _Bih buvad_, let it be, or become, good (valid for
currency?).
The question presents itself; would the beg's name have appeared on the
coins, if it had not coincided in form with a suitable coin-mark?
Against literal acceptance of Bābur's statement there is also doubt of a
thing at once so _ben trovato_ and so unsupported by evidence.
Another doubt arises from finding _Bih būd_ on coins of other rulers,
one of Iskandar Khan's being of a later date,[2789] others, of Tīmūr,
Shāhrukh and Abū-sa`īd, with nothing to shew who counterstruck it on
them.
On some of Ḥusain's coins the sentence _Bih būd_ appears as part of the
legend and not as a counterstrike. This is a good basis for finding a
half-truth in Bābur's statement. It does not allow of a whole-truth in
his statement because, as it is written, it is a coin-mark, not a name.
An interesting matter as bearing on Ḥusain's use of _Bih būd_ is that in
865 AH. (1461 AD.) he had an incomparable horse named Bihbūd, one he
gave in return for a falcon on making peace with Mustapha Khān.[2790]
_e. Of Bābur's vassal-coinage._
The following historical details narrow the field of numismatic
observation on coins believed struck by Bābur as a vassal of Ismā`īl
_Ṣafawī_. They are offered because not readily accessible.
The length of Bābur's second term of rule in Transoxiana was not the
three solar years of the B.M. Coin Catalogues but did not exceed eight
months. He entered Samarkand in the middle of Rajab 917 AH. (_c._ Oct.
1st, 1511 AD.). He returned to it defeated and fled at once, after the
battle of Kūl-i-malik which was fought in Ṣafar 918 AH. (mid-April to
mid-May 1512 AD.). Previous to the entry he was in the field, without a
fixed base; after his flight he was landless till at the end both of 920
AH. and of 1514 AD. he had returned to Kābul.
He would not find a full Treasury in Samarkand because the Aūzbegs
evacuated the fort at their own time; eight months would not give him
large tribute in kind. He failed in Transoxiana because he was the ally
of a Shī`a; would coins bearing the Shī`a legend have passed current
from a Samarkand mint? These various circumstances suggest that he could
not have struck many coins of any kind in Samarkand.
The coins classed in the B.M. Catalogues as of Bābur's vassalage, offer
a point of difficulty to readers of his own writings, inasmuch as
neither the "Sulṯān Muḥammad" of No. 652 (gold), nor the "Sulṯān Bābur
Bahādur" of the silver coins enables confident acceptance of them as
names he himself would use.
I.—ON THE WEEPING-WILLOWS OF f. 190_b_.
The passage omitted from f. 190_b_, which seems to describe something
decorative done with weeping willows, (_bed-i-mawallah_) has been
difficult to all translators. This may be due to inaccurate pointing in
Bābur's original MS. or may be what a traveller seeing other willows at
another feast could explain.
The first Persian translation omits the passage (I.O. 215 f. 154_b_);
the second varies from the Turkī, notably by changing _sāch_ and _sāj_
to _shākh_ throughout (I.O. 217 f. 150_b_). The English and French
translations differ much (_Memoirs_ p. 206, _Mémoires_ i, 414), the
latter taking the _mawallah_ to be _mūla_, a hut, against which much is
clear in the various MSS.
Three Turkī sources[2791] agree in reading as follows:—
_Mawallahlār-nī_ (or _muwallah_ Ḥai. MS.) _kīltūrdīlār. Bīlmān
sāchlārī-nīng yā `amlī sāchlārī-nīng ārālārīgha k:msān-nī_ (Ilminsky,
_kamān_) _shākh-nīng_ (Ḥai. MS. _șākh_) _aūzūnlūghī bīla aīnjīga aīnjīga
kīsīb, qūīūb tūrlār._
The English and French translations differ from the Turkī and from one
another:—
(_Memoirs_, p. 206) They brought in branching willow-trees. I do not
know if they were in the natural state of the tree, or if the branches
were formed artificially, but they had small twigs cut the length of the
ears of a bow and inserted between them.
(_Mémoires_ i, 434) On façonna des huttes (_mouleh_). Ils les
établissent en taillant des baguettes minces, de la longeur du bout
recourbé de l'arc, qu'on place entre des branches naturelles ou
façonnées artificiellement, je l'ignore.
The construction of the sentence appears to be thus:—_Mawal-lahlār-nī
kīltūrdīlār_, they brought weeping-willows; _k:msān-nī_ _qūīūbtūrlār_,
they had put _k:msān-nī_; _aīnjīga aīnjīga kīsīb_, cut very fine (or
slender); _shākh_ (or _șākh_)_-nīng aūzūnlūghī_, of the length of a
_shākh_, bow, or _șākh_ ...; _bīlmān sāchlārī-nīng yā `amlī
sāchlārī-nīng ārālārīgha_, to (or at) the spaces of the _sāchlār_
whether their (_i.e._ the willows') own or artificial _sāchlār_.
These translations clearly indicate felt difficulty. Mr. Erskine does
not seem to have understood that the trees were _Salix babylonica_. The
crux of the passage is the word _k:msān-nī_, which tells what was placed
in the spaces. It has been read as _kamān_, bow, by all but the scribes
of the two good Turkī MSS. and as in a phrase _horn of a bow_. This
however is not allowed by the Turkī, for the reason that _k:msān-nī_ is
not in the genitive but in the accusative case. (I may say that Bābur
does not use _nī_ for _nīng_; he keeps strictly to the prime uses of
each enclitic, _nī_ accusative, _nīng_ genitive.) Moreover, if
_k:msān-nī_ be taken as a genitive, the verbs _qūīūb-tūrlār_ and _kīsīb_
have no object, no other accusative appearing in the sentence than
_k:msān-nī_.
A weighty reason against changing _sāch_ into _shākh_ is that Dr.
Ilminsky has not done so. He must have attached meaning to _sāch_ since
he uses it throughout the passage. He was nearer the region wherein the
original willows were seen at a feast. Unfortunately nothing shows how
he interpreted the word.
_Sāchmāq_ is a tassel; is it also a catkin and were there decorations,
_kimsān-nī_ (things _kimsa_, or flowers Ar. _kim_, or something shining,
_kimcha_, gold brocade) hung in between the catkins?
Ilminsky writes _mu'lah_ (with _ḥamza_) and this de Courteille
translates by hut. The Ḥai. MS. writes _muwallah_ (marking the _ẓamma_).
In favour of reading _mawallah_ (_mulah_) as a tree and that tree _Salix
babylonica_ the weeping-willow, there are annotations in the Second
Persian translation and, perhaps following it, in the Elphinstone MS. of
_nām-i-dirakht_, name of a tree, _dīdān-i-bed_, sight of the willow,
_bed-i-mawallah_, mournful-willow. Standing alone _mawallah_ means
weeping-willow, in this use answering to _majnūn_ the name Panj-ābīs
give the tree, from Leila's lover the distracted _i.e._ Majnūn
(Brandis).
The whole question may be solved by a chance remark from a traveller
witnessing similar festive decoration at another feast in that
conservative region.
J.—ON BĀBUR'S EXCAVATED CHAMBER AT QANDAHĀR (f. 208_b_).
Since making my note (f. 208_b_) on the wording of the passage in which
Bābur mentions excavation done by him at Qandahār, I have learned that
he must be speaking of the vaulted chamber containing the celebrated
inscriptions about which much has been written.[2792]
The primary inscription, the one commemorating Bābur's final possession
of Qandahār, gives the chamber the character of a Temple of Victory and
speaks of it as _Rawāq-i-jahān namāī_, World-shewing-portal,[2793]
doubtless because of its conspicuous position and its extensive view,
probably also in allusion to its declaration of victory. Mīr Ma`ṣūm
writes of it as a Pesh-ṯāq, frontal arch, which, coupled with Mohan
Lall's word arch (_ṯāq_) suggests that the chamber was entered through
an arch pierced in a parallelogram smoothed on the rock and having
resemblance to the _pesh-tāq_ of buildings, a suggestion seeming the
more probable that some inscriptions are on the "wings" of the arch. But
by neither of the above-mentioned names do Mohan Lall and later
travellers call the chamber or write of the place; all describe it by
its approach of forty steps, Chihil-zīna.[3]
The excavation has been chipped out of the white-veined limestone of the
bare ridge on and below which stood Old Qandahār.[2794] It does not
appear from the descriptions to have been on the summit of the ridge;
Bellew says that the forty steps start half-way up the height. I have
found no estimate of the height of the ridge, or statement that the
steps end at the chamber. The ridge however seems to have been of
noticeably dominating height. It rises steeply to the north and there
ends in the naze of which Bābur writes. The foot of the steps is guarded
by two towers. Mohan Lall, unaccustomed to mountains, found their ascent
steep and dizzy. The excavated chamber of the inscriptions, which Bellew
describes as "bow-shaped and dome-roofed", he estimated as 12 feet at
the highest point, 12 feet deep and 8 feet wide. Two sculptured beasts
guard the entrance; Bellew calls them leopards but tigers would better
symbolize the watch and ward of the Tiger Bābur. In truth the whole
work, weary steps of approach, tiger guardians, commemorative chamber,
laboriously incised words, are admirably symbolic of his long-sustained
resolve and action, taken always with Hindūstān as the goal.
There are several inscriptions of varying date, within and without the
chamber. Mohan Lall saw and copied them; Darmesteter worked on a copy;
the two English observers Lumsden and Bellew made no attempt at correct
interpretation. In the versions all give there are inaccuracies, arising
from obvious causes, especially from want of historical _data_. The last
word has not been said; revision awaits photography and the leisured
expert. A part of the needed revision has been done by Beames, who deals
with the geography of what Mīr Ma`ṣūm himself added under Akbar after he
had gone as Governor to Qandahār in 1007 AH. (1598 AD.). This
commemorates not Bābur's but Akbar's century of cities.
It is the primary inscription only which concerns this Appendix. This is
one in relief in the dome of the chamber, recording in florid Persian
that Abū'l-ghāzī Bābur took possession of Qandahār on Shawwāl 13th 928
AH. (Sep. 1st 1522 AD.), that in the same year he commanded the
construction of this _Rawāq-i-jahān-namāī_, and that the work had been
completed by his son Kāmrān at the time he made over charge of Qandahār
to his brother `Askarī in 9 ... (mutilated). After this the gravure
changes in character.
In the above, Bābur's title Abū'l-ghāzī fixes the date of the
inscription as later than the battle of Kanwāha (f. 324_b_), because it
was assumed in consequence of this victory over a Hindū, in March 1527
(Jumāda II 933 AH.).
The mutilated date 9 ... is given by Mohan Lall as 952 AH. but this does
not suit several circumstances, _e.g._ it puts completion too far beyond
the time mentioned as consumed by the work, nine years,—and it was not
that at which Kāmrān made over charge to `Askarī, but followed the
expulsion of both full-brothers from Qandahār by their half-brother
Humāyūn.
The mutilated date 9 ... is given by Darmesteter as 933 AH. but this
again does not fit the historical circumstance that Kāmrān was in
Qandahār after that date and till 937 AH. This date (937 AH.) we suggest
as fitting to replace the lost figures, (1) because in that year and
after his father's death, Kāmrān gave the town to `Askarī and went
himself to Hindūstān, and (2) because work begun in 928 AH. and recorded
as occupying 70-80 men for nine years would be complete in 937 AH.[2795]
The inscription would be one of the last items of the work.
The following matters are added here because indirectly connected with
what has been said and because not readily accessible.
_a. Birth of Kāmrān._
Kāmrān's birth falling in a year of one of the _Bābur-nāma_ gaps, is
nowhere mentioned. It can be closely inferred as 914 or 915 AH. from the
circumstances that he was younger than Humāyūn born late in 913 AH.,
that it is not mentioned in the fragment of the annals of 914 AH., and
that he was one of the children enumerated by Gul-badan as going with
her father to Samarkand in 916 AH. (Probably the children did not start
with their father in the depth of winter across the mountains.) Possibly
the joyful name Kāmrān is linked to the happy issue of the Mughūl
rebellion of 914 AH. Kāmrān would thus be about 18 when left in charge
of Kābul and Qandahār by Bābur in 932 AH. before the start for the fifth
expedition to Hindūstān.
A letter from Bābur to Kāmrān in Qandahār is with Kehr's Latin version
of the _Bābur-nāma_, in Latin and entered on the lining of the cover. It
is shewn by its main topic _viz._ the despatch of Ibrāhīm _Lūdī_'s son
to Kāmrān's charge, to date somewhere close to Jan. 3rd 1527
(Rabī`u'l-awwal 29th 933 AH.) because on that day Bābur writes of the
despatch (Ḥai. Codex f. 306_b_ foot).
Presumably the letter was with Kāmrān's own copy of the _Bābur-nāma_.
That copy may have reached Humāyūn's hands (JRAS 1908 p. 828 _et
seq._). The next known indication of the letter is given in St.
Petersburg by Dr. Kehr. He will have seen it or a copy of it with the
B.N. Codex he copied (one of unequaled correctness), and he, no doubt,
copied it in its place on the fly-leaf or board of his own transcript,
but if so, it has disappeared.
Fuller particulars of it and of other items accompanying it are given in
JRAS 1908 p. 828 _et seq._
K.—AN AFGHĀN LEGEND.
My husband's article in the Asiatic Quarterly Review of April 1901
begins with an account of the two MSS. from which it is drawn, _viz._
I.O. 581 in Pushtū, I.O. 582 in Persian. Both are mainly occupied with
an account of the Yūsuf-zāī. The second opens by telling of the power of
the tribe in Afghānistān and of the kindness of Malik Shāh Sulaimān, one
of their chiefs, to Aūlūgh Beg Mīrzā _Kābulī_, (Bābur's paternal uncle,)
when he was young and in trouble, presumably as a boy ruler.
It relates that one day a wise man of the tribe, Shaikh `Us̤mān saw
Sulaimān sitting with the young Mīrzā on his knee and warned him that
the boy had the eyes of Yazīd and would destroy him and his family as
Yazīd had destroyed that of the Prophet. Sulaimān paid him no attention
and gave the Mīrzā his daughter in marriage. Subsequently the Mīrzā
having invited the Yūsuf-zāī to Kābul, treacherously killed Sulaimān and
700 of his followers. They were killed at the place called Siyāh-sang
near Kābul; it is still known, writes the chronicler in about 1770 AD.
(1184 AH.), as the Grave of the Martyrs. Their tombs are revered and
that of Shaikh `Us̤mān in particular.
Shāh Sulaimān was the eldest of the seven sons of Malik Tāju'd-dīn; the
second was Sulṯān Shāh, the father of Malik Aḥmad. Before Sulaimān was
killed he made three requests of Aūlūgh Beg; one of them was that his
nephew Aḥmad's life might be spared. This was granted.
Aūlūgh Beg died (after ruling from 865 to 907 AH.), and Bābur defeated
his son-in-law and successor M. Muqīm (_Arghūn_, 910 AH.). Meantime the
Yūsuf-zāī had migrated to Pashāwar but later on took Sawād from Sl. Wais
(Ḥai. Codex ff. 219, 220_b_, 221).
When Bābur came to rule in Kābul, he at first professed friendship for
the Yūsuf-zāī but became prejudiced against them through their enemies
the Dilazāk[2796] who gave force to their charges by a promised subsidy
of 70,000 _shāhrukhī_. Bābur therefore determined, says the Yūsuf-zāī
chronicler, to kill Malik[2797] Aḥmad and so wrote him a friendly
invitation to Kābul. Aḥmad agreed to go, and set out with four brothers
who were famous musicians. Meanwhile the Dilazāk had persuaded Bābur to
put Aḥmad to death at once, for they said Aḥmad was so clever and
eloquent that if allowed to speak, he would induce the Pādshāh to pardon
him.
On Aḥmad's arrival in Kābul, he is said to have learned that Bābur's
real object was his death. His companions wanted to tie their turbans
together and let him down over the wall of the fort, but he rejected
their proposal as too dangerous for him and them, and resolved to await
his fate. He told his companions however, except one of the musicians,
to go into hiding in the town.
Next morning there was a great assembly and Bābur sat on the
daïs-throne. Aḥmad made his reverence on entering but Bābur's only
acknowledgment was to make bow and arrow ready to shoot him. When Aḥmad
saw that Bābur's intention was to shoot him down without allowing him to
speak, he unbuttoned his jerkin and stood still before the Pādshāh.
Bābur, astonished, relaxed the tension of his bow and asked Aḥmad what
he meant. Aḥmad's only reply was to tell the Pādshāh not to question him
but to do what he intended. Bābur again asked his meaning and again got
the same reply.
Bābur put the same question a third time, adding that he could not
dispose of the matter without knowing more. Then Aḥmad opened the mouth
of praise, expatiated on Bābur's excellencies and said that in this
great assemblage many of his subjects were looking on to see the
shooting; that his jerkin being very thick, the arrow might not pierce
it; the shot might fail and the spectators blame the Pādshāh for missing
his mark; for these reasons he had thought it best to bare his breast.
Bābur was so pleased by this reply that he resolved to pardon Aḥmad at
once, and laid down his bow.
Said he to Aḥmad, "What sort of man is Buhlūl _Lūdī_?" "A giver of
horses," said Aḥmad.
"And of what sort his son Sikandar?" "A giver of robes."
"And of what sort is Bābur?" "He," said Aḥmad, "is a giver of heads."
"Then," rejoined Bābur, "I give you yours."
The Pādshāh now became quite friendly with Aḥmad, came down from his
throne, took him by the hand and led him into another room where they
drank together. Three times did Bābur have his cup filled, and after
drinking a portion, give the rest to Aḥmad. At length the wine mounted
to Bābur's head; he grew merry and began to dance. Meantime Aḥmad's
musician played and Aḥmad who knew Persian well, poured out an eloquent
harangue. When Bābur had danced for some time, he held out his hands to
Aḥmad for a reward (_bakhshīsh_), saying, "I am your performer." Three
times did he open his hands, and thrice did Aḥmad, with a profound
reverence, drop a gold coin into them. Bābur took the coins, each time
placing his hand on his head. He then took off his robe and gave it to
Aḥmad; Aḥmad took off his own coat, gave it to Adu the musician, and put
on what the Pādshāh had given.
Aḥmad returned safe to his tribe. He declined a second invitation to
Kābul, and sent in his stead his brother Shāh Manṣūr. Manṣūr received
speedy dismissal as Bābur was displeased at Aḥmad's not coming. On his
return to his tribe Manṣūr advised them to retire to the mountains and
make a strong _sangur_. This they did; as foretold, Bābur came into
their country with a large army. He devastated their lands but could
make no impression on their fort. In order the better to judge of its
character, he, as was his wont, disguised himself as a Qalandar, and
went with friends one dark night to the Mahūra hill where the stronghold
was, a day's journey from the Pādshāh's camp at Dīārūn.
It was the `Īd-i-qurbān and there was a great assembly and feasting at
Shāh Manṣūr's house, at the back of the Mahūra-mountain, still known as
Shāh Manṣūr's throne. Bābur went in his disguise to the back of the
house and stood among the crowd in the courtyard. He asked servants as
they went to and fro about Shāh Manṣūr's family and whether he had a
daughter. They gave him straightforward answers.
At the time Musammat Bībī Mubāraka, Shāh Manṣur's daughter was sitting
with other women in a tent. Her eye fell on the qalandars and she sent a
servant to Bābur with some cooked meat folded between two loaves. Bābur
asked who had sent it; the servant said it was Shāh Manṣūr's daughter
Bībī Mubāraka. "Where is she?" "That is she, sitting in front of you in
the tent." Bābur Pādshāh became entranced with her beauty and asked the
woman-servant, what was her disposition and her age and whether she was
betrothed. The servant replied by extolling her mistress, saying that
her virtue equalled her beauty, that she was pious and brimful of
rectitude and placidity; also that she was not betrothed. Bābur then
left with his friends, and behind the house hid between two stones the
food that had been sent to him.
He returned to camp in perplexity as to what to do; he saw he could not
take the fort; he was ashamed to return to Kābul with nothing effected;
moreover he was in the fetters of love. He therefore wrote in friendly
fashion to Malik Aḥmad and asked for the daughter of Shāh Manṣūr, son of
Shāh Sulaimān. Great objection was made and earlier misfortunes accruing
to Yūsuf-zāī chiefs who had given daughters to Aūlūgh Beg and Sl. Wais
(Khān Mīrzā?) were quoted. They even said they had no daughter to give.
Bābur replied with a "beautiful" royal letter, told of his visit
disguised to Shāh Manṣūr's house, of his seeing Bībī Mubāraka and as
token of the truth of his story, asked them to search for the food he
had hidden. They searched and found. Aḥmad and Manṣūr were still
averse, but the tribesmen urged that as before they had always made
sacrifice for the tribe so should they do now, for by giving the
daughter in marriage, they would save the tribe from Bābur's anger. The
Maliks then said that it should be done "for the good of the tribe".
When their consent was made known to Bābur, the drums of joy were beaten
and preparations were made for the marriage; presents were sent to the
bride, a sword of his also, and the two Maliks started out to escort
her. They are said to have come from Thana by M`amūra (?), crossed the
river at Chakdara, taken a narrow road between two hills and past
Talāsh-village to the back of Tīrī (?) where the Pādshāh's escort met
them. The Maliks returned, spent one night at Chakdara and next morning
reached their homes at the Mahūra _sangur_.
Meanwhile Runa the nurse who had control of Malik Manṣūr's household,
with two other nurses and many male and female servants, went on with
Bībī Mubāraka to the royal camp. The bride was set down with all honour
at a large tent in the middle of the camp.
That night and on the following day the wives of the officers came to
visit her but she paid them no attention. So, they said to one another
as they were returning to their tents, "Her beauty is beyond question,
but she has shewn us no kindness, and has not spoken to us; we do not
know what mystery there is about her."
Now Bībī Mubāraka had charged her servants to let her know when the
Pādshāh was approaching in order that she might receive him according to
Malik Aḥmad's instructions. They said to her, "That was the pomp just
now of the Pādshāh's going to prayers at the general mosque." That same
day after the Mid-day Prayer, the Pādshāh went towards her tent. Her
servants informed her, she immediately left her divan and advancing,
lighted up the carpet by her presence, and stood respectfully with
folded hands. When the Pādshāh entered, she bowed herself before him.
But her face remained entirely covered. At length the Pādshāh seated
himself on the divan and said to her, "Come Afghāniya, be seated." Again
she bowed before him, and stood as before. A second time he said,
"Afghāniya, be seated." Again she prostrated herself before him and came
a little nearer, but still stood. Then the Pādshāh pulled the veil from
her face and beheld incomparable beauty. He was entranced, he said
again, "O, Afghāniya, sit down." Then she bowed herself again, and said,
"I have a petition to make. If an order be given, I will make it." The
Pādshāh said kindly, "Speak." Whereupon she with both hands took up her
dress and said, "Think that the whole Yūsuf-zāī tribe is enfolded in my
skirt, and pardon their offences for my sake." Said the Pādshāh, "I
forgive the Yūsuf-zāī all their offences in thy presence, and cast them
all into thy skirt. Hereafter I shall have no ill-feeling to the
Yūsuf-zāī." Again she bowed before him; the Pādshāh took her hand and
led her to the divan.
When the Afternoon Prayer time came and the Pādshāh rose from the divan
to go to prayers, Bībī Mubāraka jumped up and fetched him his
shoes.[2798] He put them on and said very pleasantly, "I am extremely
pleased with you and your tribe and I have pardoned them all for your
sake." Then he said with a smile, "We know it was Malik Aḥmad taught you
all these ways." He then went to prayers and the Bībī remained to say
hers in the tent.
After some days the camp moved from Dīārūn and proceeded by Bajaur and
Tankī to Kābul.[2799]...
Bībī Mubāraka, the Blessed Lady, is often mentioned by Gul-badan; she
had no children; and lived an honoured life, as her chronicler says,
until the beginning of Akbar's reign, when she died. Her brother Mīr
Jamāl rose to honour under Bābur, Humāyūn and Akbar.
L.—ON MĀHĪM'S ADOPTION OF HIND-ĀL.
The passage quoted below about Māhīm's adoption of the unborn Hind-āl we
have found so far only in Kehr's transcript of the _Bābur-nāma_ (_i.e._
the St. Petersburg Foreign Office Codex). Ilminsky reproduced it (Kāsān
imprint p. 281) and de Courteille translated it (ii, 45), both with
endeavour at emendation. It is interpolated in Kehr's MS. at the wrong
place, thus indicating that it was once marginal or apart from the text.
I incline to suppose the whole a note made by Humāyūn, although part of
it might be an explanation made by Bābur, at a later date, of an
over-brief passage in his diary. Of such passages there are several
instances. What is strongly against its being Bābur's where otherwise it
might be his, is that Māhīm, as he always calls her simply, is there
written of as Ḥaẓrat Wālida, Royal Mother and with the honorific plural.
That plural Bābur uses for his own mother (dead 14 years before 925 AH.)
and never for Māhīm. The note is as follows:—
"The explanation is this:—As up to that time those of one birth
(_tūqqān_, womb) with him (Humāyūn), that is to say a son Bār-būl, who
was younger than he but older than the rest, and three daughters,
Mihr-jān and two others, died in childhood, he had a great wish for one
of the same birth with him.[2800] I had said 'What it would have been if
there had been one of the same birth with him!' (Humāyūn). Said the
Royal Mother, 'If Dil-dār Āghācha bear a son, how is it if I take him
and rear him?' 'It is very good' said I."
So far doubtfully _might_ be Bābur's but it may be Humāyūn's written as
a note for Bābur. What follows appears to be by some-one who knew the
details of Māhīm's household talk and was in Kābul when Dil-dār's child
was taken from her.
"Seemingly women have the custom of taking omens in the following
way:—When they have said, 'Is it to be a boy? is it to be a girl?' they
write `Alī or Ḥasan on one of two pieces of paper and Fāṯima on the
other, put each paper into a ball of clay and throw both into a bowl of
water. Whichever opens first is taken as an omen; if the man's, they say
a man-child will be born; if the woman's, a girl will be born. They took
the omen; it came out a man."
"On this glad tidings we at once sent letters off.[2801] A few days
later God's mercy bestowed a son. Three days before the news[2802] and
three days after the birth, they[2803] took the child from its mother,
(she) willy-nilly, brought it to our house[2804] and took it in their
charge. When we sent the news of the birth, Bhīra was being taken. They
named him Hind-āl for a good omen and benediction."[2805]
The whole may be Humāyūn's, and prompted by a wish to remove an
obscurity his father had left and by sentiment stirred through
reminiscence of a cherished childhood.
Whether Humāyūn wrote the whole or not, how is it that the passage
appears only in the Russian group of Bāburiana?
An apparent answer to this lies in the following little mosaic of
circumstances:—The St. Petersburg group of Bāburiana[2806] is linked to
Kāmrān's own copy of the _Bābur-nāma_ by having with it a letter of
Bābur to Kāmrān and also what _may be_ a note indicating its passage
into Humāyūn's hands (JRAS 1908 p. 830). If it did so pass, a note by
Humāyūn may have become associated with it, in one of several obvious
ways. This would be at a date earlier than that of the Elphinstone MS.
and would explain why it is found in Russia and not in Indian MSS.[2807]
[APPENDICES TO THE HINDŪSTĀN SECTION.]
M.—ON THE TERM _BAḤRĪ QŪT̤ĀS_.
That the term _baḥrī qūṯās_ is interpreted by Meninski, Erskine, and de
Courteille in senses so widely differing as _equus maritimus_,
mountain-cow, and _bœuf vert de mer_ is due, no doubt, to their writing
when the _qūṯās_, the yāk, was less well known than it now is.
The word _qūṯās_ represents both the yāk itself and its neck-tassel and
tail. Hence Meninski explains it by _nodus fimbriatus ex cauda seu
crinibus equi maritimi_. His "sea-horse" appears to render _baḥrī
qūṯās_, and is explicable by the circumstance that the same purposes are
served by horse-tails and by yāk-tails and tassels, namely, with both,
standards are fashioned, horse-equipage is ornamented or perhaps
furnished with fly-flappers, and the ordinary hand-fly-flappers are
made, _i.e._ the _chowries_ of Anglo-India.
Erskine's "mountain-cow" (_Memoirs_ p. 317) may well be due to his
_munshī's_ giving the yāk an alternative name, _viz._ _Kosh-gau_ (Vigne)
or _Khāsh-gau_ (Ney Elias), which appears to mean mountain-cow (cattle,
oxen).[2808]
De Courteille's _Dictionary_ p. 422, explains _qūtās_ (_qūṯās_) as _bœuf
marin_ (_baḥrī qūṯās_) and his _Mémoires_ ii, 191, renders Bābur's
_baḥrī qūṯās_ by _bœuf vert de mer_ (f. 276, p. 490 and n. 8).
The term _baḥrī qūṯās_ could be interpreted with more confidence if one
knew where the seemingly Arabic-Turkī compound originated.[2809] Bābur
uses it in Hindūstān where the neck-tassel and the tail of the domestic
yāk are articles of commerce, and where, as also probably in Kābul, he
will have known of the same class of yāk as a saddle-animal and as a
beast of burden into Kashmīr and other border-lands of sufficient
altitude to allow its survival. A part of its wide Central Asian habitat
abutting on Kashmīr is Little Tibet, through which flows the upper Indus
and in which tame yāk are largely bred, Skardo being a place specially
mentioned by travellers as having them plentifully. This suggests that
the term _baḥrī qūṯās_ is due to the great river (_baḥr_) and that those
of which Bābur wrote in Hindūstān were from Little Tibet and its great
river. But _baḥrī_ may apply to another region where also the domestic
yāk abounds, that of the great lakes, inland seas such as Pangong,
whence the yāk comes and goes between _e.g._ Yārkand and the Hindūstān
border.
The second suggestion, _viz._ that "_baḥrī qūṯās_" refers to the habitat
of the domestic yāk in lake and marsh lands of high altitude (the wild
yāk also but, as Tibetan, it is less likely to be concerned here) has
support in Dozy's account of the _baḥrī_ falcon, a bird mentioned also
by Abū'l-faẓl amongst sporting birds (_Āyīn-i-akbarī_, Blochmann's trs.
p. 295):—"_Baḥrī, espèce de faucon le meilleur pour les oiseaux de
marais. Ce renseignment explique peut-être l'origine du mot. Marguerite
en donne la même etymologie que Tashmend et le Père Guagix. Selon lui ce
faucon aurait été appelé ainsi parce qu'il vient de l'autre côté de la
mer, mais peut-être dériva-t-il de baḥrī dans le sens de marais, flaque,
étang._"
Dr. E. Denison Ross' _Polyglot List of Birds_ (_Memoirs of the Asiatic
Society of Bengal_ ii, 289) gives to the _Qarā Qīrghāwal_ (Black
pheasant) the synonym "Sea-pheasant", this being the literal translation
of its Chinese name, and quotes from the Manchū-Chinese "Mirror" the
remark that this is a black pheasant but called "sea-pheasant" to
distinguish it from other black ones.
It may be observed that Bābur writes of the yāk once only and then of
the _baḥrī qūṯās_ so that there is no warrant from him for taking the
term to apply to the wild yāk. His cousin and contemporary Ḥaidar
Mīrzā, however, mentions the wild yāk twice and simply as the wild
_qūṯās_.
The following are random gleanings about "_baḥrī_" and the yāk:—
(1) An instance of the use of the Persian equivalent _daryā'ī_ of
_baḥrī_, sea-borne or over-sea, is found in the _Akbar-nāma_ (Bib. Ind.
ed. ii, 216) where the African elephant is described as _fīl-i-daryā'ī_.
(2) In Egypt the word _baḥrī_ has acquired the sense of northern,
presumably referring to what lies or is borne across its northern sea,
the Mediterranean.
(3) Vigne (_Travels in Kashmīr_ ii, 277-8) warns against confounding the
_qūch-qār_ _i.e._ the gigantic _moufflon_, Pallas' _Ovis ammon_, with
the _Kosh-gau_, the cow of the Kaucasus, _i.e._ the yāk. He says,
"Kaucasus (_hodie_ Hindū-kush) was originally from Kosh, and Kosh is
applied occasionally as a prefix, _e.g._ _Kosh-gau_, the yāk or ox of
the mountain or Kaucasus." He wrote from Skardo in Little Tibet and on
the upper Indus. He gives the name of the female yāk as _yāk-mo_ and of
the half-breeds with common cows as _bzch_, which class he says is
common and of "all colours".
(4) Mr. Ney Elias' notes (_Tārīkh-i-rashīdī_ trs. pp. 302 and 466) on
the _qūṯās_ are of great interest. He gives the following synonymous
names for the wild yāk, _Bos Poëphagus_, _Khāsh-gau_, the Tibetan yāk or
Dong.
(5) Hume and Henderson (_Lāhor to Yārkand_ p. 59) write of the numerous
black yāk-hair tents seen round the Pangong Lake, of fine saddle yāks,
and of the tame ones as being some white or brown but mostly black.
(6) Olufsen's _Through the Unknown Pamirs_ (p. 118) speaks of the large
numbers of _Bos grunniens_ (yāk) domesticated by the Kirghiz in the
Pamirs.
(7) Cf. Gazetteer of India _s.n._ yāk.
(8) Shaikh Zain applies the word _baḥrī_ to the porpoise, when
paraphrasing the _Bābur-nāma_ f. 281_b_.
N.—NOTES ON A FEW BIRDS.
In attempting to identify some of the birds of Bābur's lists difficulty
arises from the variety of names provided by the different tongues of
the region concerned, and also in some cases by the application of one
name to differing birds. The following random gleanings enlarge and, in
part, revise some earlier notes and translations of Mr. Erskine's and my
own. They are offered as material for the use of those better acquainted
with bird-lore and with Himālayan dialects.
_a._ _Concerning the lūkha_, _lūja_, _lūcha_, _kūja_ (f.135 and
f.278_b_).
The nearest word I have found to _lūkha_ and its similars is _likkh_, a
florican (Jerdon, ii, 615), but the florican has not the chameleon
colours of the _lūkha_ (var.). As Bābur when writing in Hindūstān, uses
such "book-words" as Ar. _baḥrī_ (_qūṯās_) and Ar. _bū-qalamūn_
(chameleon), it would not be strange if his name for the "_lūkha_" bird
represented Ar. _awja_, very beautiful, or connected with Ar. _loḥ_,
shining splendour.
The form _kūja_ is found in Ilminsky's imprint p.361 (_Mémoires_ ii,
198, _koudjeh_).
What is confusing to translators is that (as it now seems to me) Bābur
appears to use the name _kabg-i-darī_ in both passages (f.135 and
f.278_b_) to represent two birds; (1) he compares the _lūkha_ as to size
with the _kabg-i-darī_ of the Kābul region, and (2) for size and colour
with that of Hindūstān. But the bird, of the Western Himālayas known by
the name _kabg-i-darī_ is the Himālayan snow-cock, _Tetraogallus
himālayensis_, Turkī, _aūlār_ and in the Kābul region, _chīūrtika_
(f.249, Jerdon, ii, 549-50); while the _kabg-i-darī_ (syn. _chikor_) of
Hindūstān, whether of hill or plain, is one or more of much smaller
birds.
The snow-cock being 28 inches in length, the _lūkha_ bird must be of
this size. Such birds as to size and plumage of changing colour are the
_Lophophori_ and _Trapagons_, varieties of which are found in places
suiting Bābur's account of the _lūkha_.
It may be noted that the Himālayan snow-cock is still called
_kabg-i-darī_ in Afghānistān (Jerdon, ii, 550) and in Kashmīr (Vigne's
_Travels in Kashmīr_ ii, 18). As its range is up to 18,000 feet, its
Persian name describes it correctly whether read as "of the mountains"
(_dari_), or as "royal" (_darī_) through its splendour.
I add here the following notes of Mr. Erskine's, which I have not quoted
already where they occur (cf. f. 135 and f. 278_b_):—
On f. 135, "_lokheh_" is said to mean _hill-chikor_.
On f. 278_b_, to "_lūjeh_", "The Persian has _lūkheh_."
" to "_kepki durrī_", "The _kepkī deri_, or _durri_ is
much larger than the common _kepk_ of Persia
and is peculiar to Khorāsān. It is said to be
a beautiful bird. The common _kepk_ of Persia
and Khorāsān is the _hill-chikor_ of India."
" to "higher up", "The _lujeh_ may be the _chikor_
of the plains which Hunter calls bartavelle or
Greek partridge."
The following corrections are needed about my own notes:—(1) on f. 135
(p. 213) n. 7 is wrongly referred; it belongs to the first word, _viz._
_kabg-i-darī_, of p. 214; (2) on f. 279 (p. 496) n. 2 should refer to
the second _kabg-i-darī_.
_b. Birds called mūnāl (var. monāl and moonaul)._
Yule writing in _Hobson Jobson_ (p. 580) of the "_moonaul_" which he
identifies as _Lophophorus Impeyanus_, queries whether, on grounds he
gives, the word _moonaul_ is connected etymologically with Sanscrit
_muni_, an "eremite". In continuation of his topic, I give here the
names of other birds called _mūnāl_, which I have noticed in various
ornithological works while turning their pages for other information.
Besides _L. Impeyanus_ and _Trapagon Ceriornis satyra_ which Yule
mentions as called "_moonaul_", there are _L. refulgens_, _mūnāl_ and
_Ghūr_ (mountain)-_mūnāl_; _Trapagon Ceriornis satyra_, called _mūnāl_
in Nipāl; _T. C. melanocephalus_, called _sing_ (horned)-_mūnāl_ in the
N.W. Himālayas; _T. himālayensis_, the _jer_- or _cher-mūnāl_ of the
same region, known also as _chikor_; and _Lerwa nevicola_, the
snow-partridge known in Garhwal as _Quoir_- or _Qūr-mūnāl_. Do all these
birds behave in such a way as to suggest that _mūnāl_ may imply the
individual isolation related by Jerdon of _L. Impeyanus_, "In the
autumnal and winter months numbers are generally collected in the same
quarter of the forest, though often so widely scattered that each bird
appears to be alone?" My own search amongst vocabularies of
hill-dialects for the meaning of the word has been unsuccessful, spite
of the long range _mūnāls_ in the Himālayas.
_c. Concerning the word chīūrtika, chourtka._
Jerdon's entry (ii, 549, 554) of the name _chourtka_ as a synonym of
_Tetraogallus himālayensis_ enables me to fill a gap I have left on f.
249 (p. 491 and n. 6),[2810] with the name Himālayan snow-cock, and to
allow Bābur's statement to be that he, in January 1520 AD. when coming
down from the _Bād-i-pīch_ pass, saw many snow-cocks. The _Memoirs_
(p.282) has "_chikors_", which in India is a synonym for _kabg-i-darī_;
the _Mémoires_ (ii, 122) has _sauterelles_, but this meaning of
_chīūrtika_ does not suit wintry January. That month would suit for the
descent from higher altitudes of snow-cocks. Griffith, a botanist who
travelled in Afghānistān _cir._ 1838 AD., saw myriads of _cicadæ_
between Qilat-i-ghilzai and Ghazni, but the month was July.
_d._ _On the qūṯān_ (f. 142, p. 224; _Memoirs_, p. 153; _Mémoires_ ii,
313).
Mr. Erskine for _qūṯān_ enters _khawāṣil_ [gold-finch] which he will
have seen interlined in the Elphinstone Codex (f. 109_b_) in explanation
of _qūṯān_.
Shaikh Effendi (Kunos' ed., p. 139) explains _qūṯān_ to be the
gold-finch, _Steiglitz_.
Ilminsky's _qūtān_ (p. 175) is translated by M. de Courteille as
_pélicane_ and certainly some copies of the 2nd Persian translation
[Muḥ. _Shīrāzi's_ p. 90] have _ḥawāṣil_, pelican.
The pelican would class better than the small finch with the
herons and egrets of Bābur's trio; it also would appear a more likely
bird to be caught "with the cord".
That Bābur's _qūṯān_ (_ḥawāṣil_) migrated in great numbers is however
against supposing it to be _Pelicanus onocrotatus_ which is seen in
India during the winter, because it appears there in moderate numbers
only, and Blanford with other ornithologists states that no western
pelican migrates largely into India.
Perhaps the _qūṯān_ was Linnæus' _Pelicanus carbo_ of which one synonym
is _Carbo comoranus_, the cormorant, a bird seen in India in large
numbers of both the large and small varieties. As cormorants are not
known to breed in that country, they will have migrated in the masses
Bābur mentions.
A translation matter falls to mention here:—After saying that the
_aūqār_ (grey heron), _qarqara_ (egret), and _qūtān_ (cormorant) are
taken with the cord, Bābur says that this method of bird-catching is
unique (_bū nūḥ qūsh tūtmāq ghair muqarrar dūr_) and describes it. The
Persian text omits to translate the _tūtmāq_ (by _P. giriftan_); hence
Erskine (_Mems._ p. 153) writes, "The last mentioned fowl" (_i.e._ the
_qūṯān_) "is rare," notwithstanding Bābur's statement that all three of
the birds he names are caught in masses. De Courteille (p. 313) writes,
as though only of the _qūtān_, "_ces derniers toutefois ne se prennent
qu'accidentelment_," perhaps led to do so by knowledge of the
circumstance that _Pelicanus onocrotatus_ is rare in India.
O.—NOTES BY HUMĀYŪN ON SOME HINDŪSTĀN FRUITS.
The following notes, which may be accepted as made by Humāyūn and in the
margin of the archetype of the Elphinstone Codex, are composed in Turkī
which differs in diction from his father's but is far closer to that
classic model than is that of the producer [Jahāngīr?] of the
"Fragments" (Index _s.n._). Various circumstances make the notes
difficult to decipher _verbatim_ and, unfortunately, when writing in
Jan. 1917, I am unable to collate with its original in the Advocates
Library, the copy I made of them in 1910.
_a._ _On the kadhil_, _jack-fruit_, _Artocarpus integrifolia_ (f.
283_b_, p. 506; Elphinstone MS. f. 235_b_).[2811]
The contents of the note are that the strange-looking pumpkin (_qar`_,
which is also Ibn Batuta's word for the fruit), yields excellent white
juice, that the best fruit grows from the roots of the tree,[2812] that
many such grow in Bengal, and that in Bengal and Dihli there grows a
_kadhil_-tree covered with hairs (_Artocarpus hirsuta_?).
_b._ _On the amrit-phal_, _mandarin-orange_, _Citrus aurantium_ (f. 287,
p. 512; Elphinstone Codex, f. 238_b_, l. 12).
The interest of this note lies in its reference to Bābur.
A Persian version of it is entered, without indication of what it is or
of who was its translator, in one of the volumes of Mr. Erskine's
manuscript remains, now in the British Museum (Add. 26,605, p. 88).
Presumably it was made by his Turkish _munshi_ for his note in the
Memoirs (p. 329).
Various difficulties oppose the translation of the Turkī note; it is
written into the text of the Elphinstone Codex in two instalments,
neither of them in place, the first being interpolated in the account of
the _amil-bīd_ fruit, the second in that of the _jāsūn_ flower; and
there are verbal difficulties also. The Persian translation is not
literal and in some particulars Mr. Erskine's rendering of this differs
from what the Turkī appears to state.
The note is, tentatively, as follows:[2813]—"His honoured Majesty
Firdaus-makān[2814]—may God make his proof clear!—did not
favour the _amrit-phal_;[2815] as he considered it insipid,[2816] he
likened it to the mild-flavoured[2817] orange and did not make choice of
it. So much was the mild-flavoured orange despised that if any person
had disgusted (him) by insipid flattery(?) he used to say, 'He is like
orange-juice.'"[2818]
"The _amrit-phal_ is one of the very good fruits. Though its juice is
not relishing (? _chūchūq_), it is extremely pleasant-drinking. Later
on, in my own time, its real merit became known. Its tartness may be
that of the orange (_nāranj_)and _lemu_."[2819]
The above passage is followed, in the text of the Elphinstone Codex, by
Bābur's account of the _jāsūn_ flower, and into this a further
instalment of Humāyūn's notes is interpolated, having opposite its first
line the marginal remark, "This extra note, seemingly made by Humāyūn
Pādshāh, the scribe has mistakenly written into the text." Whether its
first sentence refer to the _amrit-phal_ or to the _amil-bīd_ must be
left for decision to those well acquainted with the orange-tribe. It is
obscure in my copy and abbreviated in its Persian translation;
summarized it may state that when the fruit is unripe, its acidity is
harmful to the digestion, but that it is very good when ripe.—The note
then continues as below:—
_c. The kāmila, H. kauṅlā, the orange._[2820]
"There are in Bengal two other fruits of the acid kind. Though the
_amrit-phal_ be not agreeable, they have resemblance to it (?)."
"One is the _kāmila_ which may be as large as an orange (_nāranj_); some
took it to be a large _nārangī_ (orange) but it is much pleasanter
eating than the _nārangī_ and is understood not to have the skin of that
(fruit)."
_d. The samṯara._[2821]
"The other is the _samṯara_ which is larger than the orange (_nāranj_)
but is not tart; unlike the _amrit-phal_ it is not of poor flavour (_kam
maza_) or little relish (_chūchūk_). In short a better fruit is not
seen. It is good to see, good to eat, good to digest. One does not
forget it. If it be there, no other fruit is chosen. Its peel may be
taken off by the hand. However much of the fruit be eaten, the heart
craves for it again. Its juice does not soil the hand at all. Its skin
separates easily from its flesh. It may be taken during and after food.
In Bengal the _samṯara_ is rare (_ghārib_) (or excellent, _`asīz_). It
is understood to grow in one village Sanārgām (Sonargaon) and even
therein a special quarter. There seems to be no fruit so entirely good
as the _samṯara_ amongst fruits of its class or, rather, amongst fruits
of all kinds."
_Corrigendum_:—In my note on the _turunj bajāurī_ (p. 511, n. 3) for
_bijaurā_ read _bījaurā_; and on p. 510, l. 2, for _palm_ read
_fingers_.
_Addendum_:—p. 510, l. 5. After _yūsūnlūk_ add:—"The natives of
Hindūstān when not wearing their ear-rings, put into the large ear-ring
holes, slips of the palm-leaf bought in the bāzārs, ready for the
purpose. The trunk of this tree is handsomer and more stately than that
of the date."
P.—REMARKS ON BĀBUR'S REVENUE LIST (fol. 292).
_a. Concerning the date of the List._
The Revenue List is the last item of Bābur's account of Hindūstān and,
with that account, is found _s.a._ 932 AH., manifestly too early, (1)
because it includes districts and their revenues which did not come
under Bābur's authority until subdued in his Eastern campaigns of 934
and 935 AH., (2) because Bābur's statement is that the "countries" of
the List "are _now_ in my possession" (_in loco_ p. 520).
The List appears to be one of revenues realized in 936 or 937 AH. and
not one of assessment or estimated revenue, (1) because Bābur's wording
states as a fact that the revenue was 52 _krūrs_; (2) because the
Persian heading of the (Persian) List is translatable as "Revenue
(_jama`_)[2822] of Hindūstān from what has so far come under the
victorious standards".
_b. The entry of the List into European Literature._
Readers of the L. and E. _Memoirs of Bābur_ are aware that it does not
contain the Revenue List (p. 334). The omission is due to the absence of
the List from the Elphinstone Codex and from the `Abdu'r-raḥīm Persian
translation. Since the _Memoirs of Bābur_ was published in 1826 AD., the
List has come from the _Bābur-nāma_ into European literature by three
channels.
Of the three the one used earliest is Shaikh Zain's _T̤abaqāt-i-bāburī_
which is a Persian paraphrase of part of Bābur's Hindūstān section. This
work provided Mr. Erskine with what he placed in his _History of India_
(London 1854, i, 540, Appendix D), but his manuscript, now B.M. Add.
26,202, is not the best copy of Shaikh Zain's book, being of far less
importance than B.M. Or. 1999, [as to which more will be said.][2823]
The second channel is Dr. Ilminsky's imprint of the Turkī text (Kāsān
1857, p. 379), which is translated by the _Mémoires de Bāber_ (Paris
1871, ii, 230).
The third channel is the Ḥaidarābād Codex, in the English translation of
which [_in loco_] the List is on p. 521.
Shaikh Zain may have used Bābur's autograph manuscript for his
paraphrase and with it the Revenue List. His own autograph manuscript
was copied in 998 AH. (1589-90 AD.) by Khwānd-amīr's grandson
`Abdu'l-lāh who may be the scribe "Mīr `Abdu'l-lāh" of the
_Āyīn-i-akbarī_ (Blochmann's trs. p. 109). `Abdu'l-lāh's transcript
(from which a portion is now absent,) after having been in Sir Henry
Elliot's possession, has become B.M. Or. 1999. It is noticed briefly by
Professor Dowson (_l.c._ iv, 288), but he cannot have observed that the
"old, worm-eaten" little volume contains Bābur's Revenue List, since he
does not refer to it.
_c. Agreement and variation in copies of the List._
The figures in the two copies (Or. 1999 and Add. 26,202) of the
_T̤abaqāt-i-bāburī_ are in close agreement. They differ, however, from
those in the Ḥaidarābād Codex, not only in a negligible unit and a ten
of _tankas_ but in having 20,000 more _tankas_ from Oudh and Baraich and
30 _laks_ of _tankas_ more from Trans-sutlej.
The figures in the two copies of the _Bābur-nāma_, _viz._ the Ḥaidarābād
Codex and the Kehr-Ilminsky imprint are not in agreement throughout, but
are identical in opposition to the variants (20,000 _t._ and 30 _l._)
mentioned above. As the two are independent, being collateral
descendants of Bābur's original papers, the authority of the Ḥaidarābād
Codex in the matter of the List is still further enhanced.
_d. Varia._
(1) The place-names of the List are all traceable, whatever their varied
forms. About the entry L:knū [or L:knūr] and B:ks:r [or M:ks:r] a
difficulty has been created by its variation in manuscripts, not only in
the List but where the first name occurs _s.a._ 934 and 935 AH. In the
Ḥaidarābād List and in that of Or. 1999 L:knūr is clearly written and
may represent (approximately) modern Shahābād in Rāmpūr. Erskine and de
Courteille, however, have taken it to be Lakhnau in Oudh. [The
distinction of Lakhnaur from Lakhnau in the historical narrative is
discussed in Appendix T.]
(2) It may be noted, as of interest, that the name Sarwār is an
abbreviation of Sarjūpār which means "other side of Sarjū" (Sarū,
Goghrā; E. and D.'s H. of I. i, 56, n.4).
(3) Rūp-narā[:i]n (Deo or Dev) is mentioned in Ajodhya Prasad's short
history of Tirhut and Darbhanga, the _Gulzār-i-Bihār_ (Calcutta 1869,
Cap. v, 88) as the 9th of the Brahman rulers of Tirhut and as having
reigned for 25 years, from 917 to 942 _Faslī_(?). If the years were
Ḥijrī, 917-42 AH. would be 1511-1535.[2824]
(4) Concerning the _tanka_ the following modern description is quoted
from Mr. R. Shaw's _High Tartary_ (London 1871, p. 464) "The _tanga_"
(or _tanka_) "is a nominal coin, being composed of 25 little copper
cash, with holes pierced in them and called _dahcheen_. These are strung
together and the quantity of them required to make up the value of one
of these silver ingots" ("_kooroos_ or _yamboo_, value nearly _£_17")
"weighs a considerable amount. I once sent to get change for a
_kooroos_, and my servants were obliged to charter a donkey to bring it
home."
(5) The following interesting feature of Shaikh Zain's
_T̤abaqāt-i-bāburī_ has been mentioned to me by my husband:—Its author
occasionally reproduces Bābur's Turkī words instead of paraphrasing them
in Persian, and does this for the noticeable passage in which Bābur
records his dissatisfied view of Hindūstān (f. 290_b_, _in loco_ p.
518), prefacing his quotation with the remark that it is best and will
be nearest to accuracy not to attempt translation but to reproduce the
Pādshāh's own words. The main interest of the matter lies in the motive
for reproducing the _ipsissima verba_. Was that motive deferential? Did
the revelation of feeling and opinion made in the quoted passage clothe
it with privacy so that Shaikh Zain reserved its perusal from the larger
public of Hindūstān who might read Persian but not Turkī? Some such
motive would explain the insertion untranslated of Bābur's letters to
Humāyūn and to Khwāja Kalān which are left in Turkī by `Abdu'r-raḥīm
Mīrzā.[2825]
Q.—CONCERNING THE "RĀMPŪR DĪWĀN".
Pending the wide research work necessary to interpret Bābur's Hindūstān
poems which the Rāmpūr manuscript preserves, the following comments,
some tentative and open to correction, may carry further in making the
poems publicly known, what Dr. E. Denison Ross has effected by
publishing his Facsimile of the manuscript.[2826] It is legitimate to
associate comment on the poems with the _Bābur-nāma_ because many of
them are in it with their context of narrative; most, if not all,
connect with it; some without it, would be dull and vapid.
_a. An authorized English title._
The contents of the Rāmpūr MS. are precisely what Bābur describes
sending to four persons some three weeks after the date attached to the
manuscript,[2827] _viz._ "the Translation and whatnot of poems made on
coming to Hindūstān";[2828] and a similar description may be meant in
the curiously phrased first clause of the colophon, but without mention
of the Translation (of the _Wālidiyyah-risāla_).[2829] Hence, if the
poems, including the Translation, became known as the _Hindūstān Poems_
or _Poems made in Hindūstān_, such title would be justified by their
author's words. Bābur does not call the Hindūstān poems a _dīwān_ even
when, as in the above quotation, he speaks of them apart from his
versified translation of the Tract. In what has come down to us of his
autobiography, he applies the name _Dīwān_ to poems of his own once
only, this in 925 AH. (f. 237_b_) when he records sending "my _dīwān_"
to Pūlād Sl. _Aūzbeg_.
_b. The contents of the Rāmpūr MS._
There are three separate items of composition in the manuscript, marked
as distinct from one another by having each its ornamented frontispiece,
each its scribe's sign (_mīm_) of Finis, each its division from its
neighbour by a space without entry. The first and second sections bear
also the official sign [_ṣaḥ[h.]_] that the copy has been inspected and
found correct.
(1) The first section consists of Bābur's metrical translation of Khwāja
`Ubaidu'l-lāh _Aḥrārī's Parental Tract_ (_Wālidiyyah-risāla_), his
prologue in which are his reasons for versifying the Tract and his
epilogue which gives thanks for accomplishing the task. It ends with the
date 935 (Ḥai. MS. f. 346). Below this are _mīm_ and _ṣaḥ[h.]_, the
latter twice; they are in the scribe's handwriting, and thus make
against supposing that Bābur wrote down this copy of the Tract or its
archetype from which the official _ṣaḥ[h.]_ will have been copied.
Moreover, spite of bearing two vouchers of being a correct copy, the
Translation is emended, in a larger script which may be that of the
writer of the marginal quatrain on the last page of the [Rāmpūr] MS. and
there attested by Shāh-i-jahān as Bābur's autograph entry. His also may
have been the now expunged writing on the half-page left empty of text
at the end of the Tract. Expunged though it be, fragments of words are
visible.[2830]
(2) The second section has in its frontispiece an inscription illegible
(to me) in the Facsimile. It opens with a _masnawī_ of 41 couplets which
is followed by a _ghazel_ and numerous poems in several measures, down
to a triad of rhymed couplets (_matla`_?), the whole answering to
descriptions of a _Dīwān_ without formal arrangement. After the last
couplet are _mīm_ and _ṣaḥ[h.]_ in the scribe's hand-writing, and a
blank quarter-page. Mistakes in this section have been left uncorrected,
which supports the view that its _ṣaḥ[h.]_ avouches the accuracy of its
archetype and not its own.[2831]
(3) The third section shows no inscription on its frontispiece. It opens
with the _masnawī_ of eight couplets, found also in the _Bābur-nāma_ (f.
312), one of earlier date than many of the poems in the second section.
It is followed by three _rubā`ī_ which complete the collection of poems
made in Hindūstān. A prose passage comes next, describing the
composition and transposition-in-metre of a couplet of 16 feet, with
examples in three measures, the last of which ends in l. 4 of the
photograph.—While fixing the date of this metrical game, Bābur
incidentally allows that of his _Treatise on Prosody_ to be inferred
from the following allusive words:—"When going to Saṃbhal (f. 330_b_) in
the year (933 AH.) after the conquest of Hindūstān (932 AH.), two years
after writing the _`Arūẓ_, I composed a couplet of 16 feet."—From this
the date of the Treatise is seen to be 931 AH., some two years later
than that of the _Mubīn_. The above metrical exercise was done about the
same time as another concerning which a Treatise was written, viz. that
mentioned on f. 330_b_, when a couplet was transposed into 504 measures
(Section _f_, p. lxv).—The Facsimile, it will be noticed, shows
something unusual in the last line of the prose passage on Plate XVIII
B, where the scattering of the words suggests that the scribe was trying
to copy page _per_ page.
The colophon (which begins on l. 5 of the photograph) is curiously
worded, as though the frequent fate of last pages had befallen its
archetype, that of being mutilated and difficult for a scribe to make
good; it suggests too that the archetype was verse.[2832] Its first
clause, even if read as _Hind-stān jānibī `azīmat qīlghānī_ (i.e. not
_qīlghālī_, as it can be read), has an indirectness unlike Bābur's
corresponding "after coming to Hindūstān" (f. 357_b_), and is not
definite; (2) _bū aīrdī_ (these were) is not the complement suiting _aūl
dūrūr_ (those are); (3) Bābur does not use the form _dūrūr_ in prose;
(4) the undue space after _dūrūr_ suggests connection with verse; (5)
there is no final verb such as prose needs. The meaning, however, may be
as follows:—The poems made after resolving on (the)
[Illustration]
Hindūstān parts (_jānibī_?) were these I have written down (_taḥrīr
qīldīm_), and past events are those I have narrated (_taqrīr_) in the
way that (_nī-chūk kīm_) (has been) written in these folios (_aūrāq_)
and recorded in those sections (_ajzā'_).—From this it would appear that
sections of the _Bābur-nāma_ (f. 376_b_, p. 678) accompanied the
Hindūstān poems to the recipient of the message conveyed by the
colophon.
Close under the colophon stands _Ḥarara-hu Bābur_ and the date Monday,
Rabī` II. 15th 935 (Monday, December 27th 1528 AD.), the whole
presumably brought over from the archetype. To the question whether a
signature in the above form would be copied by a scribe, the Elphinstone
Codex gives an affirmative answer by providing several examples of
notes, made by Humāyūn in its archetype, so-signed and brought over
either into its margin or interpolated in its text. Some others of
Humāyūn's notes are not so-signed, the scribe merely saying they are
Humāyūn Pādshāh's.—It makes against taking the above entry of Bābur's
name to be an autograph signature, (1) that it is enclosed in an
ornamented border, as indeed is the case wherever it occurs throughout
the manuscript; (2) that it is followed by the scribe's _mīm_. [See end
of following section.]
_c. The marginal entries shown in the photograph._
The marginal note written length-wise by the side of the text is signed
by Shāh-i-jahān and attests that the _rubā`ī_ and the signature to which
it makes reference are in Bābur's autograph hand-writing. His note
translates as follows:—This quatrain and blessed name are in the actual
hand-writing of that Majesty (_ān ḥaẓrat_) _Firdaus-makānī_ Bābur
Pādshāh _Ghāzī_—May God make his proof clear!—Signed (_Ḥararā-hu_),
Shāh-i-jahān son of Jahāngīr Pādshāh son of Akbar Pādshāh son of Humāyūn
Pādshāh son of Bābur Pādshāh.[2833]
The second marginal entry is the curiously placed _rubā`ī_, which is now
the only one on the page, and now has no signature attaching to it. It
has the character of a personal message to the recipient of one of more
books having identical contents. That these two entries are there while
the text seems so clearly to be written by a scribe, is open to the
explanation that when (as said about the colophon, p. lx) the rectangle
of text was made good from a mutilated archetype, the original margin
was placed round the _rifacimento_? This superposition would explain the
entries and seal-like circles, discernible against a strong light, on
the reverse of the margin only, through the _rifacimento_ page. The
upper edge of the rectangle shows sign that the margin has been adjusted
to it [so far as one can judge from a photograph]. Nothing on the face
of the margin hints that the text itself is autograph; the words of the
colophon, _taḥrīr qīldīm_ (_i.e._ I have written down) cannot hold good
against the cumulative testimony that a scribe copied the whole
manuscript.—The position of the last syllable [_nī_] of the _rubā`ī_
shows that the signature below the colophon was on the margin before the
diagonal couplet of the _rubā`ī_ was written,—therefore when the margin
was fitted, as it looks to have been fitted, to the _rifacimento_. If
this be the order of the two entries [_i.e._ the small-hand signature
and the diagonal couplet], Shāh-i-jahān's "blessed name" may represent
the small-hand signature which certainly shows minute differences from
the writing of the text of the MS. in the name Bābur (_q.v. passim_ in
the Rāmpūr MS.).
_d. The Bāburī-khat̤t̤_ (_Bābūr's script_).
So early as 910 AH. the year of his conquest of Kābul, Bābur devised
what was probably a variety of _nakhsh_, and called it the
_Bāburī-khat̤t̤_ (f. 144_b_), a name used later by Ḥaidar Mīrzā,
Niẕāmu'd-dīn Aḥmad and `Abdu'l-qādir _Badāyūnī_. He writes of it again
(f. 179) _s.a._ 911 AH. when describing an interview had in 912 AH. with
one of the Harāt Qāẓīs, at which the script was discussed, its
specialities (_mufradāt_) exhibited to, and read by the Qāẓī who there
and then wrote in it.[2834] In what remains to us of the _Bābur-nāma_
it is not mentioned again till 935 AH. (fol. 357_b_) but at some
intermediate date Bābur made in it a copy of the Qorān which he sent to
Makka.[2835] In 935 AH. (f. 357_b_) it is mentioned in significant
association with the despatch to each of four persons of a copy of the
Translation (of the _Wālidiyyah-risāla_) and the Hindūstān poems, the
significance of the association being that the simultaneous despatch
with these copies of specimens of the _Bāburī-khat̤t̤_ points to its use
in the manuscripts, and at least in Hind-āl's case, to help given for
reading novel forms in their text. The above are the only instances now
found in the _Bābur-nāma_ of mention of the script.
The little we have met with—we have made no search—about the character
of the script comes from the _Abūshqa_, _s.n._ _sīghnāq_, in the
following entry:—
_Sīghnāq ber nū`ah khat̤t̤ der Chaghatāīda khat̤t̤ Bāburī u ghairī kibī
ki Bābur Mīrzā ash`ār'nda kīlūr bait_
_Khūblār khat̤t̤ī naṣīb'ng būlmāsā Bābur nī tāng?_
_Bāburī khat̤t̤ī aīmās dūr khat̤t̤ sīghnāqī mū dūr?_[2836]
The old Osmanli-Turkish prose part of this appears to mean:—"_Sīghnāq_
is a sort of hand-writing, in Chaghatāī the _Bāburī-khat̤t̤_ and others
resembling it, as appears in Bābur Mīrzā's poems. Couplet":—
Without knowing the context of the couplet I make no attempt
to translate it because its words _khat̤t̤_ or _khaṭ_ and _sīghnāq_
lend themselves to the kind of pun (_īhām_) "which consists
in the employment of a word or phrase having more than one appropriate
meaning, whereby the reader is often left in doubt as to the real
significance of the passage."[2837] The rest of the _rubā`ī_ may be
given [together with the six other quotations of Bābur's verse now known
only through the _Abūshqa_], in early _Taẕkirātu 'sh-shu`āra_ of date
earlier than 967 AH.
The root of the word _sīghnāq_ will be _sīq_, pressed together, crowded,
included, _etc._; taking with this notion of compression, the
explanations _feine Schrift_ of Shaikh Effendi (Kunos) and Vambéry's
_pétite écriture_, the Sīghnāqī and Bāburī Scripts are allowed to have
been what that of the Rāmpūr MS. is, a small, compact, elegant
hand-writing.—A town in the Caucasus named Sīghnākh, "_située à peu près
à 800 mètres d'altitude, commença par être une forteresse et un lieu de
refuge, car telle est la signification de son nom tartare_."[2838]
_Sīghnāqī_ is given by de Courteille (Dict. p. 368) as meaning a place
of refuge or shelter.
The _Bāburī-khat̤t̤_ will be only one of the several hands Bābur is
reputed to have practised; its description matches it with other
niceties he took pleasure in, fine distinctions of eye and ear in
measure and music.
_e. Is the Rāmpūr MS. an example of the Bāburī-khat̤t̤?_
Though only those well-acquainted with Oriental manuscripts dating
before 910 AH. (1504 AD.) can judge whether novelties appear in the
script of the Rāmpūr MS. and this particularly in its head-lines, there
are certain grounds for thinking that though the manuscript be not
Bābur's autograph, it may be in his script and the work of a specially
trained scribe.
I set these grounds down because although the signs of a scribe's work
on the manuscript seem clear, it is "locally" held to be Bābur's
autograph. Has a tradition of its being in the _Bāburī-khat̤t̤_ glided
into its being in the _khat̤t̤-i-Bābur_? Several circumstances suggest
that it may be written in the _Bāburī-khat̤t̤:_—(1) the script is
specially associated with the four transcripts of the Hindūstān poems
(f. 357_b_), for though many letters must have gone to his sons, some
indeed are mentioned in the _Bābur-nāma_, it is only with the poems that
specimens of it are recorded as sent; (2) another matter shows his
personal interest in the arrangement of manuscripts, namely, that as he
himself about a month after the four books had gone off, made a new
ruler, particularly on account of the head-lines of the Translation, it
may be inferred that he had made or had adopted the one he superseded,
and that his plan of arranging the poems was the model for copyists; the
Rāmpūr MS. bearing, in the Translation section, corrections which may be
his own, bears also a date earlier than that at which the four gifts
started; it has its headlines ill-arranged and has throughout 13 lines
to the page; his new ruler had 11; (3) perhaps the words _taḥrīr qīldīm_
used in the colophon of the Rāmpūr MS. should be read with their full
connotation of careful and elegant writing, or, put modestly, as saying,
"I wrote down in my best manner," which for poems is likely to be in the
_Bāburī-khat̤t̤_.[2839]
Perhaps an example of Bābur's script exists in the colophon, if not in
the whole of the _Mubīn_ manuscript once owned by Berézine, by him used
for his _Chréstomathie Turque_, and described by him as "unique". If
this be the actual manuscript Bābur sent into Mā warā'u'n-nahr
(presumably to Khwāja Aḥrārī's family), its colophon which is a personal
message addressed to the recipients, is likely to be autograph.
_f. Metrical amusements._
(1) Of two instances of metrical amusements belonging to the end of 933
AH. and seeming to have been the distractions of illness, one is a
simple transposition "in the fashion of the circles" (_dawā'ir_) into
three measures (Rāmpūr MS. Facsimile, Plate XVIII and p. 22); the other
is difficult because of the high number of 504 into which Bābur says (f.
330_b_) he cut up the following couplet:—
_Gūz u qāsh u soz u tīlīnī mū dī?
Qad u khadd u saj u bīlīnī mū dī?_
All manuscripts agree in having 504, and Bābur wrote a tract (_risāla_)
upon the transpositions.[2840] None of the modern treatises on Oriental
Prosody allow a number so high to be practicable, but Maulānā Saifī of
Bukhārā, of Bābur's own time (f. 180_b_) makes 504 seem even moderate,
since after giving much detail about _rubā`ī_ measures, he observes,
"Some say there are 10,000" (_Arūẓ-i-Saifī_, Ranking's trs. p. 122).
Presumably similar possibilities were open for the couplet in question.
It looks like one made for the game, asks two foolish questions and
gives no reply, lends itself to poetic license, and, if permutation of
words have part in such a game, allows much without change of sense. Was
Bābur's cessation of effort at 504 capricious or enforced by the
exhaustion of possible changes? Is the arithmetical statement 9 × 8 × 7
= 504 the formula of the practicable permutations?
(2) To improvise verse having a given rhyme and topic must have demanded
quick wits and much practice. Bābur gives at least one example of it (f.
252_b_) but Jahāngīr gives a fuller and more interesting one, not only
because a _rubā`ī_ of Bābur's was the model but from the circumstances
of the game:[2841]—It was in 1024 AH. (1615 AD.) that a letter reached
him from Māwarā'u'n-nahr written by Khwāja Hāshim _Naqsh-bandī_ [who by
the story is shown to have been of Aḥrārī's line], and recounting the
long devotion of his family to Jahāngīr's ancestors. He sent gifts and
enclosed in his letter a copy of one of Bābur's quatrains which he said
Ḥaẓrat Firdaus-makānī had written for Ḥaẓrat Khwājagī (Aḥrārī's eldest
son; f. 36_b_, p. 62 n. 2). Jahāngīr quotes a final hemistich only,
"_Khwājagīra mānda'īm, Khwājagīrā banda'īm_" and thereafter made an
impromptu verse upon the one sent to him.
A curious thing is that the line he quotes is not part of the quatrain
he answered, but belongs to another not appropriate for a message
between _darwesh_ and _pādshāh_, though likely to have been sent by
Bābur to Khwājagī. I will quote both because the matter will come up
again for who works on the Hindūstān poems.[2842]
(1) The quatrain from the _Hindūstān Poems_ is:—
_Dar hawā'ī nafs gumrah `umr ẓāi` karda'īm_ [_kanda'īm_?];
_Pesh ahl-i-allāh az af`āl-i-khūd sharmanda'īm;
Yak naẕr bā mukhlaṣān-i-khasta-dil farmā ki mā
Khwājagīrā mānda'īm u Khwājagīrā banda'īm._
(2) That from the _Akbar-nāma_ is:—
_Darweshānrā agarcha nah as khweshānīm,
Lek az dil u jān mu`taqid eshānīm;
Dūr ast magū`ī shāhī az darweshī,
Shāhīm walī banda-i-darweshānīm._
The greater suitability of the second is seen from Jahāngīr's answering
impromptu for which by sense and rhyme it sets the model; the meaning,
however, of the fourth line in each may be identical, namely, "I remain
the ruler but am the servant of the _darwesh_." Jahāngīr's impromptu is
as follows:—
_Āī ānki marā mihr-i-tū besh az besh ast,
Az daulat yād-i-būdat āī darwesh ast;
Chandānki'z muẕẖ dahāt dilam shād shavad
Shadīm az ānki laṯif az ḥadd besh ast._
He then called on those who had a turn for verse to "speak one" _i.e._
to improvise on his own; it was done as follows:—
_Dārīm agarcha shaghal-i-shāhī dar pesh,
Har laḥẕa kunīm yād-i-darweshān besh;
Gar shād shavad'z mā dil-i-yak darwesh,
Ānra shumarīm ḥaṣil-i-shāhī khwesh._
R.—CHANDĪRĪ AND GŪĀLĪĀR.
The courtesy of the Government of India enables me to reproduce from the
_Archæological Survey Reports_ of 1871, Sir Alexander Cunningham's plans
of Chandīrī and Gūālīār, which illustrate Bābur's narrative on f. 333,
p. 592, and f. 340, p. 607.
[Illustration: MAP of the FORT and CITY of CHÂNDERI]
[Illustration: MAP of the FORT and CITY of CHÂNDERI]
[Illustration: FORTRESS OF GWALIOR]
S.—CONCERNING THE BĀBUR-NĀMA DATING OF 935 AH.
The dating of the diary of 935 AH. (f. 339 _et seq._) is several times
in opposition to what may be distinguished as the "book-rule" that the
12 lunar months of the Ḥijra year alternate in length between 30 and 29
days (intercalary years excepted), and that Muḥarram starts the
alternation with 30 days. An early book stating the rule is Gladwin's
_Bengal Revenue Accounts_; a recent one, Ranking's ed. of Platts'
_Persian Grammar_.
As to what day of the week was the initial day of some of the months in
935 AH. Bābur's days differ from Wüstenfeld's who gives the full list of
twelve, and from Cunningham's single one of Muḥarram 1st.
It seems worth while to draw attention to the flexibility, within
limits, of Bābur's dating, [not with the object of adversely criticizing
a rigid and convenient rule for common use, but as supplementary to that
rule from a somewhat special source], because he was careful and
observant, his dating was contemporary, his record, as being _de die in
diem_, provides a check of consecutive narrative on his dates, which,
moreover, are all held together by the external fixtures of Feasts and
by the marked recurrence of Fridays observed. Few such writings as the
Bābur-nāma diaries appear to be available for showing variation within a
year's limit.
In 935 AH. Bābur enters few full dates, _i.e._ days of the week and
month. Often he gives only the day of the week, the safest, however, in
a diary. He is precise in saying at what time of the night or the day an
action was done; this is useful not only as helping to get over
difficulties caused by minor losses of text, but in the more general
matter of the transference of a Ḥijra night-and-day which begins after
sunset, to its Julian equivalent, of a day-and-night which begins at 12
a.m. This sometimes difficult transference affords a probable
explanation of a good number of the discrepant dates found in
Oriental-Occidental books.
Two matters of difference between the Bābur-nāma dating and that of some
European calendars are as follows:—
_a. Discrepancy as to the day of the week on which Muḥ 935_ AH. _began._
This discrepancy is not a trivial matter when a year's diary is
concerned. The record of Muḥ. 1st and 2nd is missing from the
_Bābur-nāma_; Friday the 3rd day of Muḥarram is the first day specified;
the 1st was a Wednesday therefore. Erskine accepted this day; Cunningham
and Wüstenfeld give Tuesday. On three grounds Wednesday seems right—at
any rate at that period and place:—(1) The second Friday in Muḥarram was
`Āshūr, the 10th (f. 240); (2) Wednesday is in serial order if reckoning
be made from the last surviving date of 934 AH. with due allowance of an
intercalary day to Ẕū'l-ḥijja (Gladwin), _i.e._ from Thursday Rajab 12th
(April 2nd 1528 AD. f. 339, p. 602); (3) Wednesday is supported by the
daily record of far into the year.
_b. Variation in the length of the months of 935_ AH.
There is singular variation between the _Bābur-nāma_ and Wüstenfeld's
_Tables_, both as to the day of the week on which months began, and as
to the length of some months. This variation is shown in the following
table, where asterisks mark agreement as to the days of the week, and
the capital letters, quoted from W.'s _Tables_, denote A, Sunday;
B, Tuesday, _etc._ (the bracketed names being of my entry).
_Bābur-nāma._ _Wüstenfeld_
Days. Days.
Muḥarram 29 Wednesday 30 C (Tuesday)
Ṣafar 30 Thursday* 29 E (Thursday)*
Rabī` I. 30 Saturday 30 F (Friday)
" II. 29 Monday 29 A (Sunday)
Jumadā I. 30 Tuesday 30 B (Monday)
" II. 29 Thursday 29 D (Wednesday)
Rajab 29 Friday 30 E (Thursday)
Sha`bān 30 Saturday* 29 G (Saturday)*
Ramẓān 29 Monday 30 A (Sunday)
Shawwal 30 Tuesday* 29 C (Tuesday)*
Ẕū'l-qa`da 29 Thursday 30 D (Wednesday)
Ẕū'l-ḥijja 30 Friday* 29 T (Friday)*
The table shows that notwithstanding the discrepancy discussed in
section _a_, of Bābur's making 935 AH. begin on a Wednesday, and
Wüstenfeld on a Tuesday, the two authorities agree as to the initial
week-day of four months out of twelve, _viz._ Ṣafar, Sha`bān, Shawwal
and Ẕū'l-ḥijja.
Again:—In eight of the months the _Bābur-nāma_ reverses the "book-rule"
of alternative Muḥarram 30 days, Ṣafar 29 days _et seq._ by giving
Muḥarram 29, Ṣafar 30. (This is seen readily by following the initial
days of the week.) Again:—these eight months are in pairs having
respectively 29 and 30 days, and the year's total is 364.—Four months
follow the fixed rule, _i.e._ as though the year had begun Muḥ. 30 days,
Ṣafar 29 days—namely, the two months of Rabī` and the two of
Jumāda.—Ramẓān to which under "book-rule" 30 days are due, had 29 days,
because, as Bābur records, the Moon was seen on the 29th.—In the other
three instances of the reversed 30 and 29, one thing is common, _viz._
Muḥarram, Rajab, Ẕū'l-qa`da (as also Ẕū'l-ḥijja) are "honoured"
months.—It would be interesting if some expert in this Musalmān matter
would give the reasons dictating the changes from rule noted above as
occurring in 935 AH.
_c. Varia._
(1) On f. 367 Saturday is entered as the 1st day of Sha`bān and
Wednesday as the 4th, but on f. 368_b_ stands Wednesday 5th, as suits
the serial dating. If the mistake be not a mere slip, it may be due to
confusion of hours, the ceremony chronicled being accomplished on the
eve of the 5th, Anglicé, after sunset on the 4th.
(2) A fragment only survives of the record of Ẕū'l-ḥijja 935 AH. It
contains a date, Thursday 7th, and mentions a Feast which will be that
of the _`Īdu'l-kabīr_ on the 10th (Sunday). Working on from this to the
first-mentioned day of 936 AH. _viz._ Tuesday, Muḥarram 3rd, the month
(which is the second of a pair having 29 and 30 days) is seen to have 30
days and so to fit on to 936 AH. The series is Sunday 10th, 17th, 24th
(Sat. 30th) Sunday 1st, Tuesday 3rd.
Two clerical errors of mine in dates connecting with this Appendix are
corrected here:—(1) On p. 614 n. 5, for Oct. 2nd read Oct. 3rd; (2) on
p. 619 penultimate line of the text, for Nov. 28th read Nov. 8th.
T.—ON L:KNŪ (LAKHNAU) AND L:KNŪR (LAKHNŪR, NOW SHĀHĀBĀD IN RĀMPŪR).
One or other of the above-mentioned names occurs eight times in the
_Bābur-nāma_ (_s.a._ 932, 934, 935 AH.), some instances being shown by
their context to represent Lakhnau in Oudh, others inferentially and by
the verbal agreement of the Ḥaidarābād Codex and Kehr's Codex to stand
for Lakhnūr (now Shāhābād in Rāmpūr). It is necessary to reconsider the
identification of those not decided by their context, both because there
is so much variation in the copies of the `Abdu'r-raḥīm Persian
translation that they give no verbal help, and because Mr. Erskine and
M. de Courteille are in agreement about them and took the whole eight to
represent Lakhnau. This they did on different grounds, but in each case
their agreement has behind it a defective textual basis.—Mr. Erskine, as
is well known, translated the `Abdu'r-raḥīm Persian text without access
to the original Turkī but, if he had had the Elphinstone Codex when
translating, it would have given him no help because all the eight
instances occur on folios not preserved by that codex. His only sources
were not-first-rate Persian MSS. in which he found casual variation from
terminal _nū_ to _nūr_, which latter form may have been read by him as
_nūū_ (whence perhaps the old Anglo-Indian transliteration he uses,
Luknow).[2843]—M. de Courteille's position is different; his uniform
_Lakhnau_ obeyed the same uniformity in his source the Kāsān Imprint,
and would appear to him the more assured for the concurrence of the
_Memoirs_. His textual basis, however, for these words is Dr. Ilminsky's
and not Kehr's. No doubt the uniform _Lakhnū_ of the Kāsān Imprint is
the result of Dr. Ilminsky's uncertainty as to the accuracy of his
single Turkī archetype [Kehr's MS.], and also of his acceptance of Mr.
Erskine's uniform _Luknow_.[2844]—Since the Ḥaidarābād Codex became
available and its collation with Kehr's Codex has been made, a better
basis for distinguishing between the L:knū and L:knūr of the Persian
MSS. has been obtained.[2845] The results of the collation are entered
in the following table, together with what is found in the Kāsān Imprint
and the _Memoirs_. [N.B. The two sets of bracketed instances refer each
to one place; the asterisks show where Ilminsky varies from Kehr.]
_Ḥai. MS._ _Kehr's MS._ _Kāsān Imprint._ _Memoirs._
1. {f. 278_b_ L:knūr L:knū L:knū, p. 361 Luknow.
2. {f. 338 L:knū " " p. 437 "
3. f. 292_b_ L:knūr L:knūr " p. 379* not entered.
4. f. 329 L:knūr L:knūr " p. 362* Luknow.
5. f. 334 L:knū L:knū " p. 432* "
6. {f. 376 L:knū L:knūr " p. 486* "
7. {f. 376_b_ L:knūr " " p. 487* "
8. {f. 377_b_ L:knū " " p. 488* "
The following notes give some grounds for accepting the names as the two
Turkī codices agree in giving them:—
The first and second instances of the above table, those of the Ḥai.
Codex f. 278_b_ and f. 338, are shown by their context to represent
Lakhnau.
The third (f. 292_b_) is an item of Bābur's Revenue List. The Turkī
codices are supported by B.M. Or. 1999, which is a direct copy of Shaikh
Zain's autograph _T̤ābaqāt-i-bāburī_, all three having L:knūr. Kehr's
MS. and Or. 1999 are descendants of the second degree from the original
List; that the Ḥai. Codex is a direct copy is suggested by its
pseudo-tabular arrangement of the various items.—An important
consideration supporting _L:knūr_, is that the List is in Persian and
may reasonably be accepted as the one furnished officially for the
Pādshāh's information when he was writing his account of Hindūstān (cf.
Appendix P, p. liv). This official character disassociates it from any
such doubtful spelling by the foreign Pādshāh as cannot but suggest
itself when the variants of _e.g._ Dalmau and Bangarmau are considered.
L:knūr is what three persons copying independently read in the official
List, and so set down that careful scribes _i.e._ Kehr and `Abdu'l-lāh
(App. P) again wrote L:knūr.[2846]—Another circumstance favouring L:knūr
(Lakhnūr) is that the place assigned to it in the List is its
geographical one between Saṃbhal and Khairābād.—Something for [or
perhaps against] accepting Lakhnūr as the _sarkār_ of the List may be
known in local records or traditions. It had been an important place,
and later on it paid a large revenue to Akbar [as part of Saṃbhal].—It
appears to have been worth the attention of Bīban _Jalwānī_ (f.
329).—Another place is associated with L:knūr in the Revenue List, the
forms of which are open to a considerable number of interpretations
besides that of Baksar shown _in loco_ on p. 521. Only those well
acquainted with the United Provinces or their bye-gone history can offer
useful suggestion about it. Maps show a "Madkar" 6 m. south of old
Lakhnūr; there are in the United Provinces two Baksars and as many other
Lakhnūrs (none however being so suitable as what is now Shāhābād).
Perhaps in the archives of some old families there may be help found to
interpret the entry _L:knūr u B:ks:r_ (var.), a conjecture the less
improbable that the _Gazetteer of the Province of Oude_ (ii, 58)
mentions a _farmān_ of Bābur Pādshāh's dated 1527 AD. and upholding a
grant to Shaikh Qāẓī of Bīlgrām.
The fourth instance (f. 329) is fairly confirmed as Lakhnūr by its
context, _viz._ an officer received the district of Badāyūn from the
Pādshāh and was sent against Bīban who had laid siege to L:knūr on which
Badāyūn bordered.—At the time Lakhnau may have been held from Bābur by
Shaikh Bāyazīd _Farmūlī_ in conjunction with Aūd. Its estates are
recorded as still in Farmūlī possession, that of the widow of "Kala
Pahār" _Farmūlī_.—(_See infra._)
The fifth instance (f. 334) connects with Aūd (Oudh) because royal
troops abandoning the place L:knū were those who had been sent against
Shaikh Bāyazīd in Aūd.
The remaining three instances (f. 376, f. 376_b_, f. 377_b_) appear to
concern one place, to which Bīban and Bāyazīd were rumoured to intend
going, which they captured and abandoned. As the table of variants
shows, Kehr's MS. reads Lakhnūr in all three places, the Ḥai. MS. once
only, varying from itself as it does in Nos. 1 and 2.—A circumstance
supporting _Lakhnūr_ is that one of the messengers sent to Bābur with
details of the capture was the son of Shāh Muḥ. _Dīwāna_ whose record
associates him rather with Badakhshān, and with Humāyūn and Saṃbhal
[perhaps with Lakhnūr itself] than with Bābur's own army.—Supplementing
my notes on these three instances, much could be said in favour of
reading Lakhnūr, about time and distance done by the messengers and by
`Abdu'l-lah _kitābdār_, on his way to Saṃbhal and passing near Lakhnūr;
much too about the various rumours and Bābur's immediate counter-action.
But to go into it fully would need lengthy treatment which the
historical unimportance of the little problem appears not to
demand.—Against taking the place to be Lakhnau there are the
considerations (_a_) that Lakhnūr was the safer harbourage for the Rains
and less near the westward march of the royal troops returning from the
battle of the Goghrā; (_b_) that the fort of Lakhnau was the renowned
old Machchi-bawan (cf. _Gazetteer of the Province of Oude_, 3 vols.,
1877, ii, 366).—So far as I have been able to fit dates and transactions
together, there seems no reason why the two Afghāns should not have gone
to Lakhnūr, have crossed the Ganges near it, dropped down south [perhaps
even intending to recross at Dalmau] with the intention of getting back
to the Farmūlīs and Jalwānīs perhaps in Sārwār, perhaps elsewhere to
Bāyazīd's brother Ma`rūf.
U.—THE INSCRIPTIONS ON BĀBUR'S MOSQUE IN AJODHYA (OUDH).
Thanks to the kind response made by the Deputy-Commissioner of Fyzābād
to my husband's enquiry about two inscriptions mentioned by several
Gazetteers as still existing on "Bābur's Mosque" in Oudh, I am able to
quote copies of both.[2847]
_a._ The inscription inside the Mosque is as follows:—
[Illustration: 3 lines of Arabic script]
1. _Ba farmūda-i-Shāh Bābur ki `ādilash
Banā'īst tā kākh-i-gardūn mulāqī_,
2. _Banā kard īn muhbiṯ-i-qudsiyān
Amīr-i-sa`ādat-nishān Mīr Bāqī_
3. _Bavad khair bāqī! chū sāl-i-banā'īsh
`Iyān shud ki guftam_,—_Buvad khair bāqī_ (935).
The translation and explanation of the above, manifestly made by a
Musalmān and as such having special value, are as follows:—[2848]
1. By the command of the Emperor Bābur whose justice is an edifice
reaching up to the very height of the heavens,
2. The good-hearted Mīr Bāqī built this alighting-place of angels;[2849]
3. _Bavad khāir bāqī!_ (May this goodness last for ever!)[2850]
The year of building it was made clear likewise when I said, _Buvad
khair bāqī_ ( = 935).[2851]
The explanation of this is:—
1st couplet:—The poet begins by praising the Emperor Bābur under whose
orders the mosque was erected. As justice is the (chief) virtue of
kings, he naturally compares his (Bābur's) justice to a palace reaching
up to the very heavens, signifying thereby that the fame of that justice
had not only spread in the wide world but had gone up to the heavens.
2nd couplet:—In the second couplet, the poet tells who was entrusted
with the work of construction. Mīr Bāqī was evidently some nobleman of
distinction at Bābur's Court.—The noble height, the pure religious
atmosphere, and the scrupulous cleanliness and neatness of the mosque
are beautifully suggested by saying that it was to be the abode of
angels.
3rd couplet:—The third couplet begins and ends with the expression
_Buvad khair bāqī_. The letters forming it by their numerical values
represent the number 935, thus:—
_B_ = 2, _v_ = 6, _d_ = 4 total 12
_Kh_ = 600, _ai_ = 10, _r_ = 200 " 810
_B_ = 2, _ā_ = 1, _q_ = 100, _r_ = 10 " 113
___
Total 935
The poet indirectly refers to a religious commandment (_dictum_?) of the
Qorān that a man's good deeds live after his death, and signifies that
this noble mosque is verily such a one.
_b._ The inscription outside the Mosque is as follows:—
[Illustration: 3 lines of Arabic script]
1. _Ba nām-i-anki dānā hast akbar
Ki khāliq-i-jamla `ālam lā-makānī_
2. _Durūd Muṣṯafá ba`d az sitāyish
Ki sarwar-i-aṃbiyā' dū jahānī_
3. _Fasāna dar jahān Bābur qalandar
Ki shud dar daur gītī kāmrānī._[2852]
The explanation of the above is as follows:—
In the first couplet the poet praises God, in the second Muḥammad, in
the third Bābur.—There is a peculiar literary beauty in the use of the
word _lā-makānī_ in the 1st couplet. The author hints that the mosque is
meant to be the abode of God, although He has no fixed abiding-place.—In
the first hemistich of the 3rd couplet the poet gives Bābur the
appellation of _qalandar_, which means a perfect devotee, indifferent to
all worldly pleasures. In the second hemistich he gives as the reason
for his being so, that Bābur became and was known all the world over as
a _qalandar_, because having become Emperor of India and having thus
reached the summit of worldly success, he had nothing to wish for on
this earth.[2853]
The inscription is incomplete and the above is the plain interpretation
which can be given to the couplets that are to hand. Attempts may be
made to read further meaning into them but the language would not
warrant it.
V.—BĀBUR'S GARDENS IN AND NEAR KĀBUL.
The following particulars about gardens made by Bābur in or near Kābul,
are given in Muḥammad Amīr of Kazwīn's _Pādshāh-nāma_ (Bib. Ind. ed. p.
585, p. 588).
Ten gardens are mentioned as made:—the Shahr-ārā (Town-adorning) which
when Shāh-i-jahān first visited Kābul in the 12th year of his reign
(1048 AH.-1638 AD.) contained very fine plane-trees Bābur had planted,
beautiful trees having magnificent trunks,[2854]—the Chār-bāgh,—the
Bāgh-i-jalau-khāna,[2855]—the Aūrta-bāgh (Middle-garden),—the
Ṣaurat-bāgh,—the Bāgh-i-mahtāb (Moonlight-garden),—the Bāgh-i-āhū-khāna
(Garden-of-the-deer-house),—and three smaller ones. Round these gardens
rough-cast walls were made (renewed?) by Jahāngīr (1016 AH.).
The above list does not specify the garden Bābur made and selected for
his burial; this is described apart (_l.c._ p. 588) with details of its
restoration and embellishment by Shāh-i-jahān the master-builder of his
time, as follows:—
The burial-garden was 500 yards (_gaz_) long; its ground was in 15
terraces, 30 yards apart(?). On the 15th terrace is the tomb of Ruqaiya
Sulṯān Begam[2856]; as a small marble platform (_chabūṭra_) had been
made near it by Jahāngīr's command, Shāh-i-jahān ordered (both) to be
enclosed by a marble screen three yards high.—Bābur's tomb is on the
14th terrace. In accordance with his will, no building was erected over
it, but Shāh-i-jahān built a small marble mosque on the terrace
below.[2857] It was begun in the 17th year (of Shāh-i-jahān's reign) and
was finished in the 19th, after the conquest of Balkh and Badakhshān, at
a cost of 30,000 _rūpīs_. It is admirably constructed.—From the 12th
terrace running-water flows along the line (_rasta_) of the
avenue;[2858] but its 12 water-falls, because not constructed with
cemented stone, had crumbled away and their charm was lost; orders were
given therefore to renew them entirely and lastingly, to make a small
reservoir below each fall, and to finish with Kābul marble the edges of
the channel and the waterfalls, and the borders of the reservoirs.—And
on the 9th terrace there was to be a reservoir 11 x 11 yards, bordered
with Kābul marble, and on the 10th terrace one 15 x 15, and at the
entrance to the garden another 15 x 15, also with a marble border.—And
there was to be a gateway adorned with gilded cupolas befitting that
place, and beyond (_pesh_) the gateway a square station,[2859] one side
of which should be the garden-wall and the other three filled with
cells; that running-water should pass through the middle of it, so that
the destitute and poor people who might gather there should eat their
food in those cells, sheltered from the hardship of snow and rain.[2860]
FOOTNOTES
[1] From Atkinson's _Sketches in Afghanistan_ (I.O. Lib. &
B.M.).
[2] _See_ p. 710 (where for "Daniels" read Atkinson).
[3] _See_ Gul-badan Begim's _Humayun-nama_ Index III, _in
loco_.
[4] Cf. Cap. II, PROBLEMS OF THE MUTILATED BABUR-NAMA and
_Tarīkh-i-rashīdi_, trs. p. 174.
[5] The suggestion, implied by my use of this word, that Babur
may have definitely closed his autobiography (as Timur did
under other circumstances) is due to the existence of a
compelling cause _viz._ that he would be expectant of death as
the price of Humayun's restored life (p. 701).
[6] Cf. p. 83 and n. and Add. Note, P. 83 for further
emendation of a contradiction effected by some malign
influence in the note (p. 83) between parts of that note, and
between it and Babur's account of his not-drinking in Herat.
[7] Teufel held its title to be _waqi`_ (this I adopted in
1908), but it has no definite support and in numerous
instances of its occurrence to describe the acts or doings of
Babur, it could be read as a common noun.
[8] It stands on the reverse of the frontal page of the
Haidarabad Codex; it is Timur-pulad's name for the Codex he
purchased in Bukhara, and it is thence brought on by Kehr
(with Ilminski), and Klaproth (Cap. III); it is used by Khwafi
Khan (d. _cir._ 1732), _etc._
[9] That Babur left a complete record much indicates beyond
his own persistence and literary bias, _e.g._ cross-reference
with and needed complements from what is lost; mention by
other writers of Babur's information, notably by Haidar.
[10] App. H, xxx.
[11] p. 446, n. 6. Babur's order for the cairn would fit into
the lost record of the first month of the year (p. 445).
[12] Parts of the Babur-nama sent to Babur's sons are not
included here.
[13] The standard of comparison is the 382 fols. of the
Haidarabad Codex.
[14] This MS. is not to be confused with one Erskine
misunderstood Humayun to have copied (_Memoirs_, p. 303 and
JRAS. 1900, p. 443).
[15] For precise limits of the original annotation _see_ p.
446 n.—For details about the E. Codex _see_ JRAS. 1907, art.
_The Elph. Codex_, and for the colophon AQR. 1900, July, Oct.
and JRAS. 1905, pp. 752, 761.
[16] _See_ Index _s.n._ and III _ante_ and JRAS. 1900-3-5-6-7.
[17] Here speaks the man reared in touch with European
classics; (pure) Turki though it uses no relatives (Radloff)
is lucid. Cf. Cap. IV The Memoirs of Babur.
[18] For analysis of a retranslated passage _see_ JRAS. 1908,
p. 85.
[19] _Tuzuk-i-jahangiri_, Rogers & Beveridge's trs. i, 110;
JRAS. 1900, p. 756, for the Persian passage, 1908, p. 76 for
the "Fragments", 1900, p. 476 for Ilminski's Preface (a second
translation is accessible at the B.M. and I.O. Library and
R.A.S.), _Memoirs_ Preface, p. ix, Index _s.nn._ de
Courteille, Teufel, Bukhara MSS. and Part iii _eo cap._
[20] For Shah-i-jahan's interest in Timur _see_ sign given in
a copy of his note published in my translation volume of
Gul-badan Begim's _Humayun-nama_, p. xiii.
[21] JRAS. 1900 p. 466, 1902 p. 655, 1905 art. _s.n._, 1908
pp. 78, 98; Index _in loco s.n._
[22] Cf. JRAS. 1900, Nos. VI, VII, VIII.
[23] Ilminski's difficulties are foreshadowed here by the same
confusion of identity between the _Babur-nama_ proper and the
Bukhara compilation (Preface, Part iii, p. li).
[24] Cf. Erskine's Preface _passim_, and _in loco_ item XI,
cap. iv. _The Memoirs of Baber_, and Index _s.n._
[25] The last blow was given to the phantasmal reputation of
the book by the authoritative Haidarabad Codex which now can
be seen in facsimile in many Libraries.
[26] But for present difficulties of intercourse with
Petrograd, I would have re-examined with Kehr's the collateral
Codex of 1742 (copied in 1839 and now owned by the Petrograd
University). It might be useful; as Kehr's volume has lost
pages and may be disarranged here and there.
The list of Kehr's items is as follows:—
1 (_not in the Imprint_). A letter from Babur to Kamran the
date of which is fixed as 1527 by its committing Ibrahim
_Ludi's_ son to Kamran's charge (p. 544). It is heard of again
in the Bukhara Compilation, is lost from Kehr's Codex, and
preserved from his archetype by Klaproth who translated it.
Being thus found in Bukhara in the first decade of the
eighteenth century (our earliest knowledge of the Compilation
is 1709), the inference is allowed that it went to Bukhara as
loot from the defeated Kamran's camp and that an endorsement
its companion Babur-nama (proper) bears was made by the Auzbeg
of two victors over Kamran, both of 1550, both in
Tramontana.(1)
2 (_not in Imp._). Timur-pulad's memo. about the purchase of
his Codex in cir. 1521 (_eo cap. post_).
3 (_Imp. 1_). Compiler's Preface of Praise (JRAS. 1900, p.
474).
4 (_Imp. 2_). Babur's Acts in Farghana, in diction such as to
seem a re-translation of the Persian translation of 1589. How
much of Kamran's MS. was serviceable is not easy to decide,
because the Turki fettering of `Abdu'r-rahim's Persian lends
itself admirably to re-translation.(2)
5 (_Imp. 3_). The "Rescue-passage" (App. D) attributable to
Jahangir.
6 (_Imp. 4_). Babur's Acts in Kabul, seeming (like No. 4) a
re-translation or patching of tattered pages. There are also
passages taken verbatim from the Persian.
7 (_Imp. omits_). A short length of Babur's Hindustan Section,
carefully shewn damaged by dots and dashes.
8 (_Imp. 5_). Within 7, the spurious passage of App. L and
also scattered passages about a feast, perhaps part of 7.
9 (_Imp. separates off at end of vol._). Translated passage
from the _Akbar-nāma_, attributable to Jahangir, briefly
telling of Kanwa (1527), Babur's latter years (both changed to
first person), death and court.(3)
[Babur's history has been thus brought to an end, incomplete
in the balance needed of 7. In Kehr's volume a few pages are
left blank except for what shews a Russian librarian's opinion
of the plan of the book, "Here end the writings of Shah
Babur."]
10 (_Imp. omits_). Preface to the history of Humayun,
beginning at the Creation and descending by giant strides
through notices of Khans and Sultans to "Babur Mirza who was
the father of Humayun Padshah". Of Babur what further is said
connects with the battle of Ghaj-davan (918-1512 _q.v._). It
is ill-informed, laying blame on him as if he and not Najm
Sani had commanded—speaks of his preference for the counsel of
young men and of the numbers of combatants. It is noticeable
for more than its inadequacy however; its selection of the
Ghaj-davan episode from all others in Babur's career supports
circumstantially what is dealt with later, the Ghaj-davani
authorship of the Compilation.
11 (_Imp. omits_). Under a heading "Humayun Padshah" is a
fragment about (his? Accession) Feast, whether broken off by
loss of his pages or of those of his archetype examination of
the P. Univ. Codex may show.
12 (_Imp. 6_). An excellent copy of Babur's Hindustan Section,
perhaps obtained from the Ahrari house. [This Ilminski places
(I think) where Kehr has No. 7.] From its position and from
its bearing a scribe's date of completion (which Kehr brings
over), _viz._ _Tamt shud 1126_ (Finished 1714), the compiler
may have taken it for Humayun's, perhaps for the account of
his reconquest of Hind in 1555.
[The remaining entries in Kehr's volume are a quatrain which
may make jesting reference to his finished task, a librarian's
Russian entry of the number of pages (831), and the words
_Etablissement Orientale, Fr. v. Adelung_, 1825 (the Director
of the School from 1793).(4)]
[27] That Babur-nama of the "Kamran-docket" is the mutilated
and tattered basis, allowed by circumstance, of the compiled
history of Babur, filled out and mended by the help of the
Persian translation of 1589. Cf. Kehr's Latin Trs. fly-leaf
entry; Klaproth _s.n._; A.N. trs. H.B., p. 260; JRAS. 1908,
1909, on the "Kamran-docket" where are defects needing
Klaproth's second article (1824).
[28] For an analysis of an illustrative passage _see_ JRAS.
1906; for facilities of re-translation _see_ _eo cap._ p.
xviii, where Erskine is quoted.
[29] _See_ A.N. trans., p. 260; Prefaces of Ilminski and de
Courteille; ZDMG. xxxvii, Teufel's art.; JRAS. 1906.
[30] For particulars about Kehr's Codex see Smirnov's
Catalogue of the School Library and JRAS. 1900, 1906. Like
others who have made statements resting on the mistaken
identity of the Bukhara Compilation, many of mine are now
given to the winds.
[31] _See_ Gregorief's "Russian policy regarding Central
Asia", quoted in Schuyler's Turkistan, App. IV.
[32] The Mission was well received, started to return to
Petrograd, was attacked by Turkmans, went back to Bukhara, and
there stayed until it could attempt the devious route which
brought it to the capital in 1725.
[33] One might say jestingly that the spirit in the book had
rebelled since 1725 against enforced and changing masquerade
as a phantasm of two other books!
[34] Neither Ilminski nor Smirnov mentions another
"Babur-nama" Codex than Kehr's.
[35] A Correspondent combatting my objection to publishing a
second edition of the _Memoirs_, backed his favouring opinion
by reference to `Umar Khayyam and Fitzgerald. Obviously no
analogy exists; Erskine's redundance is not the flower of a
deft alchemy, but is the prosaic consequence of a secondary
source.
[36] The manuscripts relied on for revising the first section
of the Memoirs, (_i.e._ 899 to 908 AH.-1494 to 1502 AD.) are
the Elphinstone and the Ḥaidarābād Codices. To variants from
them occurring in Dr. Kehr's own transcript no authority can
be allowed because throughout this section, his text appears
to be a compilation and in parts a retranslation from one or
other of the two Persian translations (_Wāqi`āt-i-bāburī_) of
the _Bābur-nāma_. Moreover Dr. Ilminsky's imprint of Kehr's
text has the further defect in authority that it was helped
out from the Memoirs, itself not a direct issue from the Turkī
original.
Information about the manuscripts of the _Bābur-nāma_ can be
found in the JRAS for 1900, 1902, 1905, 1906, 1907 and 1908.
The foliation marked in the margin of this book is that of the
Ḥaidarābād Codex and of its facsimile, published in 1905 by
the Gibb Memorial Trust.
[37] Bābur, born on Friday, Feb. 14th. 1483 (Muḥarram 6, 888
AH.), succeeded his father, `Umar Shaikh who died on June 8th.
1494 (Ramẓān 4, 899 AH.).
[38] _pād-shāh_, protecting lord, supreme. It would be an
anachronism to translate _pādshāh_ by King or Emperor,
previous to 913 AH. (1507 AD.) because until that date it was
not part of the style of any Tīmūrid, even ruling members of
the house being styled Mīrzā. Up to 1507 therefore Bābur's
correct style is Bābur Mīrzā. (_Cf._ f. 215 and note.)
[39] See _Āyīn-i-akbarī_, Jarrett, p. 44.
[40] The Ḥai. MS. and a good many of the W.-i-B. MSS. here
write Aūtrār. [Aūtrār like Tarāz was at some time of its
existence known as Yāngī (New).] Tarāz seems to have stood
near the modern Auliya-ātā; Ālmālīgh,—a Metropolitan see of
the Nestorian Church in the 14th. century,—to have been the
old capital of Kuldja, and Ālmātū (var. Ālmātī) to have been
where Vernoe (Vierny) now is. Ālmālīgh and Ālmātū owed their
names to the apple (_ālmā_). _Cf._ Bretschneider's Mediæval
Geography p. 140 and T.R. (Elias and Ross) _s.nn._
[41] _Mughūl u Aūzbeg jihatdīn._ I take this, the first
offered opportunity of mentioning (1) that in transliterating
Turkī words I follow Turkī lettering because I am not
competent to choose amongst systems which _e.g._ here,
reproduce Aūzbeg as Ūzbeg, Özbeg and Euzbeg; and (2) that
style being part of an autobiography, I am compelled, in
pressing back the Memoirs on Bābur's Turkī mould, to retract
from the wording of the western scholars, Erskine and de
Courteille. Of this compulsion Bābur's bald phrase _Mughūl u
Aūzbeg jihatdīn_ provides an illustration. Each earlier
translator has expressed his meaning with more finish than he
himself; `Abdu'r-raḥīm, by _az jihat `ubūr-i_ (_Mughūl u_)
_Aūzbeg_, improves on Bābur, since the three towns lay in the
tideway of nomad passage (_`ubūr_) east and west; Erskine
writes "in consequence of the incursions" etc. and de C.
"_grace aux ravages commis_" etc.
[42] Schuyler (ii, 54) gives the extreme length of the valley
as about 160 miles and its width, at its widest, as 65 miles.
[43] Following a manifestly clerical error in the Second
W.-i-B. the _Akbar-nāma_ and the Mems. are without the
seasonal limitation, "in winter." Bābur here excludes from
winter routes one he knew well, the Kīndīrlīk Pass; on the
other hand Kostenko says that this is open all the year round.
Does this contradiction indicate climatic change? (_Cf._ f.
54b and note; A.N. Bib. Ind. ed. i, 85 (H. Beveridge i, 221)
and, for an account of the passes round Farghāna, Kostenko's
_Turkistān Region_, Tables of Contents.)
[44] Var. Banākat, Banākas̤, Fīākat, Fanākand. Of this place
Dr. Rieu writes (Pers. cat. i, 79) that it was also called
Shāsh and, in modern times, Tāshkīnt. Bābur does not identify
Fanākat with the Tāshkīnt of his day but he identifies it with
Shāhrukhiya (_cf._ Index _s.nn._) and distinguishes between
Tāshkīnt-Shāsh and Fanākat-Shāhrukhiya. It may be therefore
that Dr. Rieu's Tāshkīnt-Fanākat was Old Tāshkīnt,—(Does
Fanā-kīnt mean Old Village?) some 14 miles nearer to the
Saiḥūn than the Tāshkīnt of Bābur's day or our own.
[45] _ hech daryā qātīlmās._ A gloss of _dīgar_ (other) in the
Second W.-i-B. has led Mr. Erskine to understand "meeting with
no other river in its course." I understand Bābur to contrast
the destination of the Saiḥūn which he [erroneously] says
sinks into the sands, with the outfall of _e.g._ the Amū into
the Sea of Aral.
_Cf._ First W.-i-B. I.O. MS. 215 f. 2; Second W.-i-B. I.O. MS.
217 f. 1b and Ouseley's Ibn Haukal p. 232-244; also Schuyler
and Kostenko _l.c._
[46] Bābur's geographical unit in Central Asia is the township
or, with more verbal accuracy, the village _i.e._ the
fortified, inhabited and cultivated oasis. Of frontiers he
says nothing.
[47] _i.e._ they are given away or taken. Bābur's interest in
fruits was not a matter of taste or amusement but of food.
Melons, for instance, fresh or stored, form during some months
the staple food of Turkistānīs. _Cf._ T.R. p. 303 and (in
Kāshmīr) 425; Timkowski's _Travels of the Russian Mission_ i,
419 and Th. Radloff's _Réceuils d'Itinéraires_ p. 343.
N.B. At this point two folios of the Elphinstone Codex are
missing.
[48] Either a kind of melon or the pear. For local abundance
of pears _see_ _Āyīn-i-akbarī_, Blochmann p. 6; Kostenko and
Von Schwarz.
[49] _qūrghān_, _i.e._ the walled town within which was the
citadel (_ark_).
[50] _Tūqūz tarnau sū kīrār, bū `ajab tūr kīm bīr yīrdīn ham
chīqmās._ Second W.-i-B. I.O. 217 f. 2, _nuh jū'ī āb dar qila`
dar mī āyid u īn `ajab ast kah hama az yak jā ham na mī bar
āyid_. (_Cf._ Mems. p. 2 and _Méms._ i, 2.) I understand Bābur
to mean that all the water entering was consumed in the town.
The supply of Andijān, in the present day, is taken both from
the Āq Būrā (_i.e._ the Aūsh Water) and, by canal, from the
Qarā Daryā.
[51] _khandaqnīng tāsh yānī._ Second W.-i-B. I.O. 217 f. 2
_dar kīnār sang bast khandaq_. Here as in several other
places, this Persian translation has rendered Turkī _tāsh_,
outside, as if it were Turkī _tāsh_, stone. Bābur's adjective
_stone_ is _sangīn_ (f. 45b l. 8). His point here is the
unusual circumstance of a high-road running round the outer
edge of the ditch. Moreover Andijān is built on and of loess.
Here, obeying his Persian source, Mr. Erskine writes
"stone-faced ditch"; M. de C. obeying his Turkī one, "_bord
extérieur_."
[52] _qīrghāwal āsh-kīnasī bīla. Āsh-kīna_, a diminutive of
_āsh_, food, is the rice and vegetables commonly served with
the bird. Kostenko i, 287 gives a recipe for what seems
_āsh-kīna_.
[53] b. 1440; d. 1500 AD.
[54] Yūsuf was in the service of Bāī-sunghar Mīrzā _Shāhrukhī_
(d. 837 AH.-1434 AD.). _Cf._ Daulat Shāh's _Memoirs of the
Poets_ (Browne) pp. 340 and 350-1. (H.B.)
[55] _gūzlār aīl bīzkāk kūb būlūr._ Second W.-i-B. (I.O. 217
f. 2) here and on f. 4 has read Turkī _gūz_, eye, for Turkī
_gūz_ or _goz_, autumn. It has here a gloss not in the
Ḥaidarābād or Kehr's MSS. (_Cf_. Mems. p. 4 note.) This gloss
may be one of Humāyūn's numerous notes and may have been
preserved in the Elphinstone Codex, but the fact cannot now be
known because of the loss of the two folios already noted.
(_See_ Von Schwarz and Kostenko concerning the autumn fever of
Transoxiana.)
[56] The Pers. trss. render _yīghāch_ by _farsang_; Ujfalvy
also takes the _yīghāch_ and the _farsang_ as having a common
equivalent of about 6 _kilomètres_. Bābur's statements in
_yīghāch_ however, when tested by ascertained distances, do
not work out into the _farsang_ of four miles or the
_kilomètre_ of 8 _kil._ to 5 miles. The _yīghāch_ appears to
be a variable estimate of distance, sometimes indicating the
time occupied on a given journey, at others the distance to
which a man's voice will carry. (_Cf._ Ujfalvy _Expédition
scientifique_ ii, 179; Von Schwarz p. 124 and de C.'s Dict.
_s.n._ _yīghāch_. In the present instance, if Bābur's 4 y.
equalled 4 f. the distance from Aūsh to Andijān should be
about 16 m.; but it is 33 m. 1-3/4 fur. _i.e._ 50 _versts_.
Kostenko ii, 33.) I find Bābur's _yīghāch_ to vary from about
4 m. to nearly 8 m.
[57] _āqār sū_, the irrigation channels on which in Turkistān
all cultivation depends. Major-General Gérard writes, (Report
of the Pamir Boundary Commission, p. 6,) "Osh is a charming
little town, resembling Islāmābād in Kāshmīr,—everywhere the
same mass of running water, in small canals, bordered with
willow, poplar and mulberry." He saw the Āq Būrā, the _White
wolf_, mother of all these running waters, as a "bright,
stony, trout-stream;" Dr. Stein saw it as a "broad, tossing
river." (Buried Cities of Khotan, p. 45.) _Cf_. Réclus vi,
cap. Farghāna; Kostenko i, 104; Von Schwarz _s.nn._
[58] _Aūshnīng faẓīlatīdā khailī aḥādis̤ wārid dūr._ Second
W.-i-B. (I.O. 217 f. 2) _Faẓīlat-i-Aūsh aḥadis̤ wārid ast._
Mems. (p. 3) "The excellencies of Ush are celebrated even in
the sacred traditions." _Méms._ (i, 2) "_On cite beaucoup de
traditions qui célèbrent l'excellence de ce climat._" Aūsh may
be mentioned in the traditions on account of places of
pilgrimage near it; Bābur's meaning may be merely that its
excellencies are traditional. _Cf._ Ujfalvy ii, 172.
[59] Most travellers into Farghāna comment on Bābur's account
of it. One much discussed point is the position of the Barā
Koh. The personal observations of Ujfalvy and Schuyler led
them to accept its identification with the rocky ridge known
as the Takht-i-sulaimān. I venture to supplement this by the
suggestion that Bābur, by Barā Koh, did not mean the whole of
the rocky ridge, the name of which, Takht-i-sulaimān, an
ancient name, must have been known to him, but one only of its
four marked summits. Writing of the ridge Madame Ujfalvy says,
"_Il y a quatre sommets dont le plus élevé est le troisième
comptant par le nord_." Which summit in her sketch (p. 327) is
the third and highest is not certain, but one is so shewn that
it may be the third, may be the highest and, as being a peak,
can be described as symmetrical _i.e._ Bābur's _mauzūn_. For
this peak an appropriate name would be Barā Koh.
If the name Barā Koh could be restricted to a single peak of
the Takht-i-sulaimān ridge, a good deal of earlier confusion
would be cleared away, concerning which have written, amongst
others, Ritter (v, 432 and 732); Réclus (vi. 54); Schuyler
(ii, 43) and those to whom these three refer. For an excellent
account, graphic with pen and pencil, of Farghāna and of Aūsh
_see_ Madame Ujfalvy's _De Paris à Samarcande_ cap. v.
[60] _rūd._ This is a precise word since the Āq Būrā (the
White Wolf), in a relatively short distance, falls from the
Kūrdūn Pass, 13,400 ft. to Aūsh, 3040 ft. and thence to
Andijān, 1380 ft. _Cf._ Kostenko i, 104; Huntingdon in
Pumpelly's _Explorations in Turkistān_ p. 179 and the French
military map of 1904.
[61] Whether Bābur's words, _bāghāt_, _bāghlār_ and _bāghcha_
had separate significations, such as orchard, vineyard and
ordinary garden _i.e._ garden-plots of small size, I am not
able to say but what appears fairly clear is that when he
writes _bāghāt u bāghlār_ he means _all sorts of gardens_,
just as when he writes _begāt u beglār_, he means _begs of all
ranks_.
[62] Madame Ujfalvy has sketched a possible successor.
Schuyler found two mosques at the foot of Takht-i-sulaimān,
perhaps Bābur's Jauza Masjid.
[63] _aūl shāh-jū'īdīn sū qūyārlār._
[64] Ribbon Jasper, presumably.
[65] Kostenko (ii, 30), 71-3/4 versts _i.e._ 47 m. 4-1/2 fur.
by the Postal Road.
[66] Instead of their own kernels, the Second W.-i-B. stuffs
the apricots, in a fashion well known in India by _khūbānī_,
with almonds (_maghz-i badām_). The Turkī wording however
allows the return to the apricots of their own kernels and Mr.
Rickmers tells me that apricots so stuffed were often seen by
him in the Zar-afshān Valley. My husband has shewn me that
Niẕāmī in his Haft Paikar appears to refer to the other
fashion, that of inserting almonds:—
"I gave thee fruits from the garden of my heart,
Plump and sweet as honey in milk;
Their substance gave the lusciousness of figs,
In their hearts were the kernels of almonds."
[67] What this name represents is one of a considerable number
of points in the _Bābur-nāma_ I am unable to decide. _Kīyīk_
is a comprehensive name (_cf._ Shaw's Vocabulary); _āq kīyīk_
might mean _white sheep_ or _white deer_. It is rendered in
the Second W.-i-B., here, by _ahū-i-wāriq_ and on f. 4, by
_ahū-i-safed_. Both these names Mr. Erskine has translated by
"white deer," but he mentions that the first is said to mean
_argālī_ _i.e._ _ovis poli_, and refers to _Voyages de Pallas_
iv, 325.
[68] Concerning this much discussed word, Bābur's testimony is
of service. It seems to me that he uses it merely of those
settled in towns (villages) and without any reference to tribe
or nationality. I am not sure that he uses it always as a
noun; he writes of a _Sārt kīshī_, a Sārt person. His Asfara
Sārts may have been Turkī-speaking settled Turks and his
Marghīnānī ones Persian-speaking Tājiks. _Cf._ Shaw's
Vocabulary; _s.n._ Sārt; Schuyler i, 104 and note; Nalivkine's
_Histoire du Khanat de Khokand_ p. 45 n. Von Schwarz _s.n._;
Kostenko i, 287; Petzbold's _Turkistan_ p. 32.
[69] Shaikh Burhānu'd-dīn `Alī _Qīlīch_: b. _circa_ 530 AH.
(1135 AD.) d. 593 AH. (1197 AD.). _See_ Hamilton's _Hidāyat_.
[70] The direct distance, measured on the map, appears to be
about 65 m. but the road makes _détour_ round mountain spurs.
Mr. Erskine appended here, to the "_farsang_" of his Persian
source, a note concerning the reduction of Tatar and Indian
measures to English ones. It is rendered the less applicable
by the variability of the _yīghāch_, the equivalent for a
_farsang_ presumed by the Persian translator.
[71] Ḥai. MS. _Farsī-gū'ī_. The Elph. MS. and all those
examined of the W.-i-B. omit the word _Farsī_; some writing
_kohī_ (mountaineer) for _gū'ī_. I judge that Bābur at first
omitted the word _Farsī_, since it is entered in the Ḥai. MS.
above the word _gū'ī_. It would have been useful to Ritter
(vii, 733) and to Ujfalvy (ii, 176). _Cf._ Kostenko i, 287 on
the variety of languages spoken by Sārts.
[72] Of the Mirror Stone neither Fedtschenko nor Ujfalvy could
get news.
[73] Bābur distinguishes here between Tāshkīnt and
Shāhrukhiya. _Cf._ f. 2 and note to Fanākat.
[74] He left the hill-country above Sūkh in Muḥarram 910 AH.
(mid-June 1504 AD.).
[75] For a good account of Khujand _see_ Kostenko i, 346.
[76] Khujand to Andijān 187 m. 2 fur. (Kostenko ii, 29-31)
and, helped out by the time-table of the Transcaspian Railway,
from Khujand to Samarkand appears to be some 154 m. 5-1/4 fur.
[77] Both men are still honoured in Khujand (Kostenko i, 348).
For Khwāja Kamāl's Life and _Dīwān_, _see_ Rieu ii, 632 and
Ouseley's Persian Poets p. 192. _Cf._ f. 83b and note.
[78] _kūb artūq dūr_, perhaps brought to Hindūstān where Bābur
wrote the statement.
[79] Turkish arrow-flight, London, 1791, 482 yards.
[80] I have found the following forms of this name,—Ḥai. MS.,
M:nūgh:l; Pers. trans. and Mems., Myoghil; Ilminsky, M:tugh:l;
_Méms._ Mtoughuil; Réclus, Schuyler and Kostenko, Mogul Tau;
Nalivkine, "d'apres Fedtschenko," Mont Mogol; Fr. Map of 1904,
M. Muzbek. It is the western end of the Kurāma Range (Kīndīr
Tau), which comes out to the bed of the Sīr, is 26-2/3 miles
long and rises to 4000 ft. (Kostenko, i, 101). Von Schwarz
describes it as being quite bare; various writers ascribe
climatic evil to it.
[81] Pers. trans. _ahū-i-safed_. _Cf._ f. 3b note.
[82] These words translate into _Cervus marāl_, the Asiatic
Wapiti, and to this Bābur may apply them. Dictionaries explain
_marāl_ as meaning _hind_ or _doe_ but numerous books of
travel and Natural History show that it has wider application
as a generic name, _i.e._ deer. The two words _būghū_ and
_marāl_ appear to me to be used as _e.g._ drake and duck are
used. _Marāl_ and duck can both imply the female sex, but also
both are generic, perhaps primarily so. _Cf._ for further
mention of _būghū-marāl_ f. 219 and f. 276. For uses of the
word _marāl_, _see_ the writings _e.g._ of Atkinson, Kostenko
(iii, 69), Lyddeker, Littledale, Selous, Ronaldshay, Church
(Chinese Turkistan), Biddulph (Forsyth's Mission).
[83] _Cf._ f. 2 and note.
[84] Schuyler (ii, 3), 18 m.
[85] Ḥai. MS. _Hamesha bū deshttā yīl bār dūr. Marghīnānghā
kīm sharqī dūr, hamesha mūndīn yīl bārūr; Khujandghā kīm
gharībī dūr, dā'im mūndīn yīl kīlūr._
This is a puzzling passage. It seems to say that wind always
goes east and west from the steppe as from a generating
centre. E. and de C. have given it alternative directions,
east or west, but there is little point in saying this of wind
in a valley hemmed in on the north and the south. Bābur limits
his statement to the steppe lying in the contracted mouth of
the Farghāna valley (_pace_ Schuyler ii, 51) where special
climatic conditions exist such as (_a_) difference in
temperature on the two sides of the Khujand narrows and
currents resulting from this difference,—(_b_) the heating of
the narrows by sun-heat reflected from the Mogol-tau,—and
(_c_) the inrush of westerly wind over Mīrzā Rabāṯ. Local
knowledge only can guide a translator safely but Bābur's
directness of speech compels belief in the significance of his
words and this particularly when what he says is unexpected.
He calls the Hā Darwesh a whirling wind and this it still is.
Thinkable at least it is that a strong westerly current (the
prevailing wind of Farghāna) entering over Mīrzā Rabāṯ and
becoming, as it does become, the whirlwind of Hā Darwesh on
the hemmed-in steppe,—becoming so perhaps by conflict with the
hotter indraught through the Gates of Khujand—might force that
indraught back into the Khujand Narrows (in the way _e.g._
that one Nile in flood forces back the other), and at Khujand
create an easterly current. All the manuscripts agree in
writing to (_ghā_) Marghīnān and to (_ghā_) Khujand. It may be
observed that, looking at the map, it appears somewhat strange
that Bābur should take, for his wind objective, a place so
distant from his (defined) Hā Darwesh and seemingly so
screened by its near hills as is Marghīnān. But that westerly
winds are prevalent in Marghīnān is seen _e.g._ in
Middendorff's _Einblikke in den Farghāna Thal_ (p. 112). _Cf._
Réclus vi, 547; Schuyler ii, 51; Cahun's _Histoire du Khanat
de Khokand_ p. 28 and Sven Hedin's _Durch Asien's Wüsten s.n.
būrān_.
[86] _bādiy__a_; a word perhaps selected as punning on _bād_,
wind.
[87] _i.e._ Akhsī Village. This word is sometimes spelled
Akhsīkīs̤ but as the old name of the place was Akhsī-kīnt, it
may be conjectured at least that the _s̤ā'ī mas̤allas̤a_ of
Akhsīkīs̤ represents the three points due for the _nūn_ and
_tā_ of _kīnt_. Of those writing Akhsīkīt may be mentioned the
Ḥai. and Kehr's MSS. (the Elph. MS. here has a lacuna) the
_Z̤afar-nāma_ (Bib. Ind. i, 44) and Ibn Haukal (Ouseley p.
270); and of those writing the word with the _s̤ā'ī
muṣallas̤a_ (_i.e._ as Akhsīkīs̤), Yāqūt's Dict, i, 162,
Reinaud's Abū'l-feda I. ii, 225-6, Ilminsky (p. 5) departing
from his source, and I.O. Cat. (Ethé) No. 1029. It may be
observed that Ibn Haukal (Ouseley p. 280) writes Banākaṣ for
Banākat. For As̤īru'd-dīn _Akhsīkītī_, _see_ Rieu ii, 563;
Daulat Shāh (Browne) p. 121 and Ethé I.O. Cat. No. 1029.
[88] Measured on the French military map of 1904, this may be
80 kil. _i.e._ 50 miles.
[89] Concerning several difficult passages in the rest of
Bābur's account of Akhsī, _see_ Appendix A.
[90] The W.-i-B. here translates _būghū-marāl_ by _gazawn_ and
the same word is entered, under-line, in the Ḥai. MS. _Cf._ f.
3b and note and f. 4 and note.
[91] _postīn pesh b:r:h._ This obscure Persian phrase has been
taken in the following ways:—
(_a_) W.-i-B. I.O. 215 and 217 (_i.e._ both versions) reproduce
the phrase.
(_b_) W.-i-B. MS., quoted by Erskine, p. 6 note,
(_postīn-i mīsh burra_).
(_c_) Leyden's MS. Trs., a sheepskin mantle of five lambskins.
(_d_) Mems., Erskine, p. 6, a mantle of five lambskins.
(_e_) The Persian annotator of the Elph. MS., underlining _pesh_,
writes, _panj_, five.
(_f_) Klaproth (Archives, p. 109), _pustini pisch breh, d.h. gieb
den vorderen Pelz_.
(_g_) Kehr, p. 12 (Ilminsky p. 6) _postin bīsh b:r:h_.
(_h_) De. C, i, 9, _fourrure d'agneau de la première qualité_.
The "lambskins" of L. and E. carry on a notion of comfort
started by their having read _sayāh_, shelter, for Turkī
_sā'ī_, torrent-bed; de C. also lays stress on fur and warmth,
but would not the flowery border of a mountain stream prompt
rather a phrase bespeaking ornament and beauty than one
expressing warmth and textile softness? If the phrase might be
read as _postīn pesh perā_, what adorns the front of a coat,
or as _postīn pesh bar rah_, the fine front of the coat, the
phrase would recall the gay embroidered front of some leathern
postins.
[92] Var. _tabarkhūn_. The explanation best suiting its uses,
enumerated here, is Redhouse's second, the Red Willow. My
husband thinks it may be the Hyrcanian Willow.
[93] Steingass describes this as "an arrow without wing or
point" (barb?) and tapering at both ends; it may be the
practising arrow, _t`alīm aūqī_, often headless.
[94] _tabarraklūq._ Cf. f. 48b foot, for the same use of the
word.
[95] _yabrūju'ṣ-ṣannam._ The books referred to by Bābur may
well be the _Rauzatu'ṣ-ṣafā_ and the _Ḥabību's-siyār_, as
both mention the plant.
[96] The Turkī word _āyīq_ is explained by Redhouse as _awake_
and _alert_; and by Meninski and de Meynard as _sobered_ and
as _a return to right senses_. It may be used here as a
equivalent of _mihr_ in _mihr-giyāh_, the plant of love.
[97] Mr. Ney Elias has discussed the position of this group of
seven villages. (_Cf._ T. R. p. 180 n.) Arrowsmith's map
places it (as Iti-kint) approximately where Mr. Th. Radloff
describes seeing it _i.e._ on the Farghāna slope of the Kurāma
range. (_Cf. Réceuil d'Itinéraires_ p. 188.) Mr. Th. Radloff
came into Yītī-kīnt after crossing the Kīndīrlīk Pass from
Tāshkīnt and he enumerates the seven villages as traversed by
him before reaching the Sīr. It is hardly necessary to say
that the actual villages he names may not be those of Bābur's
Yītī-kint. Wherever the word is used in the _Bābur-nāma_ and
the _Tārīkh-i-rashīdī_, it appears from the context allowable
to accept Mr. Radloff's location but it should be borne in
mind that the name Yītī-kīnt (Seven villages or towns) might
be found as an occasional name of Altī-shahr (Six towns).
_See_ T.R. _s.n._ Altī-shahr.
[98] _kīshī_, person, here manifestly fighting men.
[99] Elph. MS. f. 2b; First W.-i-B. I.O. 215 f. 4b; Second
W.-i-B. I.O. 217 f. 4; Mems. p. 6; Ilminsky p. 7; _Méms._ i.
10.
The rulers whose affairs are chronicled at length in the
Farghāna Section of the B.N. are, (I) of Timūrid Turks,
(always styled Mīrzā), (_a_) the three Mīrān-shāhī brothers,
Aḥmad, Maḥmūd and `Umar Shaikh with their successors,
Bāī-sunghar, `Alī and Bābur; (_b_) the Bāī-qarā, Ḥusain of
Harāt: (II) of Chīngīz Khānīds, (always styled Khān,) (_a_)
the two Chaghatāī Mughūl brothers, Maḥmūd and Aḥmad; (_b_) the
Shaibānid Aūzbeg, Muḥammad Shaibānī (Shāh-i-bakht or Shaibāq
or Shāhī Beg).
In electing to use the name _Shaibānī_, I follow not only the
Ḥai. Codex but also Shaibānī's Boswell, Muḥammad Ṣāliḥ Mīrzā.
The Elph. MS. frequently uses _Shaibāq_ but its authority down
to f. 198 (Ḥai. MS. f. 243b) is not so great as it is after
that folio, because not till f. 198 is it a direct copy of
Bābur's own. It may be more correct to write "the Shaibānī
Khān" and perhaps even "the Shaibānī."
[100] _bī murād_, so translated because retirement was caused
once by the overruling of Khwāja `Ubaidu'l-lāh _Aḥrārī_. (T.R.
p. 113.)
[101] Once the Mīrzā did not wish Yūnas to winter in Akhsī;
once did not expect him to yield to the demand of his Mughūls
to be led out of the cultivated country (_wilāyat_). His own
misconduct included his attack in Yūnas on account of Akhsī
and much falling-out with kinsmen. (T.R. _s.nn._)
[102] _i.e._ one made of non-warping wood (Steingass), perhaps
that of the White Poplar. The _Shāh-nāma_ (Turner, Maçon ed.
i, 71) writes of a Chāchī bow and arrows of _khadang_, _i.e._
white poplar. (H.B.)
[103] _i.e._ Rābī`a-sulṯān, married _circa_ 893 AH.-1488 AD.
For particulars about her and all women mentioned in the B.N.
and the T.R. see Gulbadan Begīm's _Humāyūn-nāma_, Or. Trs.
Series.
[104] _jar_, either that of the Kāsān Water or of a
deeply-excavated canal. The palace buildings are mentioned
again on f. 110b. _Cf._ Appendix A.
[105] _i.e._ soared from earth, died. For some details of the
accident _see_ A.N. (H. Beveridge, i, 220.)
[106] Ḥ.S. ii,-192, Firishta, lith. ed. p. 191 and D'Herbélot,
sixth.
It would have accorded with Bābur's custom if here he had
mentioned the parentage of his father's mother. Three times
(fs. 17b, 70b, 96b) he writes of "Shāh Sulṯan Begīm" in a way
allowing her to be taken as `Umar Shaikh's own mother.
Nowhere, however, does he mention her parentage. One even
cognate statement only have we discovered, _viz._
Khwānd-amīr's (Ḥ.S. ii, 192) that `Umar Shaikh was the own
younger brother (_barādar khurdtar khūd_) of Aḥmad and Maḥmūd.
If his words mean that the three were full-brothers, `Umar
Shaikh's own mother was Ābū-sa`īd's Tarkhān wife. Bābur's
omission (f. 21b) to mention his father with A. and M. as a
nephew of Darwesh Muḥammad Tarkhān would be negative testimony
against taking Khwānd-amīr's statement to mean "full-brother,"
if clerical slips were not easy and if Khwānd-amir's means of
information were less good. He however both was the son of
Maḥmūd's wāzir (Ḥ.S. ii, 194) and supplemented his book in
Bābur's presence.
To a statement made by the writer of the biographies included
in Kehr's B.N. volume, that `U.S.'s family (_aūmāgh_) is not
known, no weight can be attached, spite of the co-incidence
that the Mongol form of _aūmāgh_, _i.e._ _aūmāk_ means
_Mutter-leib_. The biographies contain too many known mistakes
for their compiler to outweigh Khwānd-amīr in authority.
[107] _Cf._ _Rauzatu'ṣ-ṣafā_ vi, 266. (H.B.)
[108] Dara-i-gaz, south of Balkh. This historic feast took
place at Merv in 870 AH. (1465 AD.). As `Umar Shaikh was then
under ten, he may have been one of the Mīrzās concerned.
[109] Khudāī-bīrdī is a Pers.-Turkī hybrid equivalent of
Theodore; _tūghchī_ implies the right to use or (as hereditary
standard-bearer,) to guard the _tūgh_; Timūr-tāsh may mean
_i.a._ Friend of Tīmūr (a title not excluded here as borne by
inheritance. _Cf._ f. 12b and note), Sword-friend (_i.e._
Companion-in-arms), and Iron-friend (_i.e._ stanch). _Cf._
Dict. _s.n._ Tīmūr-bāsh, a sobriquet of Charles XII.
[110] Elph. and Ḥai. MSS. _qūbā yūzlūq_; this is under-lined
in the Elph. MS. by _ya`nī pur ghosht_. _Cf._ f. 68b for the
same phrase. The four earlier trss. _viz._ the two W.-i-B.,
the English and the French, have variants in this passage.
[111] The apposition may be between placing the turban-sash
round the turban-cap in a single flat fold and winding it four
times round after twisting it on itself. _Cf._ f. 18 and
Hughes _Dict. of Islām s.n._ turban.
[112] _qaẓālār_, the prayers and fasts omitted when due,
through war, travel sickness, etc.
[113] _rawān sawādī bār īdī_; perhaps, wrote a running hand.
De C. i, 13, _ses lectures courantes étaient...._
[114] The dates of `Umar Shaikh's limits of perusal allow the
Quintets (_Khamsatīn_) here referred to to be those of Niẕāmī
and Amīr Khusrau of Dihlī. The _Maṣnawī_ must be that of
Jalālu'd-dīn _Rūmī_. (H.B.)
[115] Probably below the Tīrāk (Poplar) Pass, the caravan
route much exposed to avalanches.
Mr. Erskine notes that this anecdote is erroneously told as of
Bābur by Firishta and others. Perhaps it has been confused
with the episode on f. 207b. Firishta makes another mistaken
attribution to Bābur, that of Ḥasan of Yaq`ūb's couplet.
(H.B.) _Cf._ f. 13b and Dow's _Hindustan_ ii, 218.
[116] _yīgītlār_, young men, the modern _jighit_. Bābur uses
the word for men on the effective fighting strength. It
answers to the "brave" of North. American Indian story; here
de C. translates it by _braves_.
[117] _ma`jūn._ _Cf._ Von Schwarz p. 286 for a recipe.
[118] _mutaiyam._ This word, not clearly written in all MSS.,
has been mistaken for _yītīm_. _Cf._ JRAS 1910 p. 882 for a
note upon it by my husband to whom I owe the emendation.
[119] _na'l u dāghī bisyār īdī_, that is, he had inflicted on
himself many of the brands made by lovers and enthusiasts.
_Cf._ Chardin's _Voyages_ ii, 253 and Lady M. Montague's
_Letters_ p. 200.
[120] _tīka sīkrītkū_, lit. likely to make goats leap, from
_sīkrīmāk_ to jump close-footed (Shaw).
[121] _sīkrīkān dūr._ Both _sīkrītkū_ and _sīkrīkān dūr_,
appear to dictate translation in general terms and not by
reference to a single traditional leap by one goat.
[122] _i.e._ Russian; it is the Arys tributary of the Sīr.
[123] The Fr. map of 1904 shows Kas, in the elbow of the Sīr,
which seems to represent Khwāṣ.
[124] _i.e._ the Chīr-chīk tributary of the Sīr.
[125] Concerning his name, _see_ T.R. p. 173.
[126] _i.e._ he was a head-man of a horde sub-division,
nominally numbering 10,000, and paying their dues direct to
the supreme Khān. (T.R. p. 301.)
[127] _ghūnchachī i.e._ one ranking next to the four legal
wives, in Turkī _aūdālīq_, whence odalisque. Bābur and
Gul-badan mention the promotion of several to Begīm's rank by
virtue of their motherhood.
[128] One of Bābur's quatrains, quoted in the _Abūshqa_, is
almost certainly addressed to Khān-zāda. _Cf._ A.Q. Review,
Jan. 1911, p. 4; H. Beveridge's _Some verses of Bābur_. For an
account of her marriage _see Shaibānī-nāma_ (Vambéry) cap.
xxxix.
[129] Kehr's MS. has a passage here not found elsewhere and
seeming to be an adaptation of what is at the top of Ḥai. MS.
f. 88. (Ilminsky, p. 10, _ba wujūd ... tāpīb_.)
[130] _tūshtī_, which here seems to mean that she fell to his
share on division of captives. Muḥ. Ṣaliḥ makes it a
love-match and places the marriage before Bābur's departure.
_Cf._ f. 95 and notes.
[131] _aūgāhlān._ Khurram would be about five when given Balkh
in _circa_ 911 AH. (1505 AD.). He died when about 12. _Cf._
Ḥ.S. ii, 364.
[132] This _fatrat_ (interregnum) was between Bābur's loss of
Farghāna and his gain of Kābul; the _furṣatlār_ were his days
of ease following success in Hindūstān and allowing his book
to be written.
[133] _qīlālīng_, lit. do thou be (setting down), a verbal
form recurring on f. 227b l. 2. With the same form
(_aīt_)_ālīng_, lit. do thou be saying, the compiler of the
_Abūshqa_ introduces his quotations. Shaw's paradigm, _qīlīng_
only. _Cf._ A.Q.R. Jan. 1911, p. 2.
[134] Kehr's MS. (Ilminsky p. 12) and its derivatives here
interpolate the erroneous statement that the sons of Yūnas
were Afāq and Bābā Khāns.
[135] _i.e._ broke up the horde. _Cf._ T.R. p. 74.
[136] _See_ f. 50b for his descent.
[137] Descendants of these captives were in Kāshghar when
Ḥaidar was writing the T.R. It was completed in 953 AH. (1547
AD.). _Cf._ T.R. pp. 81 and 149.
[138] An omission from his Persian source misled Mr. Erskine
here into making Abū-sa`īd celebrate the Khānīm's marriage,
not with himself but with his defeated foe, `Abdu'l-`azīz who
had married her 28 years earlier.
[139] Aīsān-būghā was at Āq Sū in Eastern Turkistān; Yūnas
Khān's head-quarters were in Yītī-kīnt. The Sāghārīchī _tūmān_
was a subdivision of the Kūnchī Mughūls.
[140] _Khān kūtārdīlār._ The primitive custom was to lift the
Khān-designate off the ground; the phrase became metaphorical
and would seem to be so here, since there were two upon the
felt. _Cf._, however, Th. Radloff's _Récueil d'Itinéraires_ p.
326.
[141] _qūyūb īdī_, probably in childhood.
[142] She was divorced by Shaibānī Khān in 907 AH. in order to
allow him to make lawful marriage with her niece, Khān-zāda.
[143] This was a prudential retreat before Shaibānī Khān.
_Cf._ f. 213.
[144] The "Khān" of his title bespeaks his Chaghatāī-Mughūl
descent through his mother, the "Mīrzā," his Tīmūrid-Turkī,
through his father. The capture of the women was facilitated
by the weakening of their travelling escort through his
departure. _Cf._ T.R. p. 203.
[145] Qila`-i-ẕafar. Its ruins are still to be seen on the
left bank of the Kukcha. _Cf._ T.R. p. 220 and Kostenko i,
140. For Mubārak Shāh _Muẓaffarī_ _see_ f. 213 and T.R. _s.n._
[146] Ḥabība, a child when captured, was reared by Shaibānī
and by him given in marriage to his nephew. _Cf._ T.R. p. 207
for an account of this marriage as saving Ḥaidar's life.
[147] _i.e._ she did not take to flight with her husband's
defeated force, but, relying on the victor, her cousin Bābur,
remained in the town. _Cf._ T.R. p. 268. Her case receives
light from Shahr-bānū's (f. 169).
[148] Muḥammad Ḥaidar Mīrzā _Kūrkān Dūghlāt Chaghatāī Mūghūl_,
the author of the _Tārīkh-i-rashīdī_; b. 905 AH. d. 958 AH.
(b. 1499 d. 1551 AD.). Of his clan, the "Oghlāt" (Dūghlāt)
Muḥ. ṣāliḥ says that it was called "Oghlāt" by Mughūls but
Qūngūr-āt (Brown Horse) by Aūzbegs.
[149] _Baz garadad ba aṣl-i-khūd hama chīz,
Zar-i-ṣāfī u naqra u airzīn._
These lines are in Arabic in the introduction to the
_Anwār-i-suhailī_. (H.B.) The first is quoted by Ḥaidar (T.R.
p. 354) and in Field's _Dict. of Oriental Quotations_ (p.
160). I understand them to refer here to Ḥaidar's return to
his ancestral home and nearest kin as being a natural act.
[150] _tā'ib_ and _ṯarīqā_ suggest that Ḥaidar had become an
orthodox Musalmān in or about 933 AH. (1527 AD.).
[151] Abū'l-faẓl adds music to Ḥaidar's accomplishments and
Ḥaidar's own Prologue mentions yet others.
[152] _Cf._ T.R. _s.n._ and Gul-badan's H.N. _s.n._ Ḥaram
Begīm.
[153] _i.e._ Alexander of Macedon. For modern mention of
Central Asian claims to Greek descent _see i.a._ Kostenko, Von
Schwarz, Holdich and A. Durand. _Cf._ Burnes' _Kābul_ p. 203
for an illustration of a silver _patera_ (now in the V. and A.
Museum), once owned by ancestors of this Shāh Sulṯān Muḥammad.
[154] _Cf._ f. 6b note.
[155] _i.e._ Khān's child.
[156] The careful pointing of the Ḥai. MS. clears up earlier
confusion by showing the narrowing of the vowels from _ālāchī_
to _alacha_.
[157] The Elph. MS. (f. 7) writes _Aūng_, Khān's son, Prester
John's title, where other MSS. have Adik. Bābur's brevity has
confused his account of Sulṯān-nigār. Widowed of Maḥmūd in 900
AH. she married Adik; Adik, later, joined Shaibānī Khān but
left him in 908 AH. perhaps secretly, to join his own Qāzāq
horde. He was followed by his wife, apparently also making a
private departure. As Adik died shortly after 908 AH. his
daughters were born before that date and not after it as has
been understood. _Cf._ T.R. and G.B.'s H.N. _s.nn._; also
Mems. p. 14 and _Méms._ i, 24.
[158] Presumably by tribal custom, _yīnkālīk_, marriage with a
brother's widow. Such marriages seem to have been made
frequently for the protection of women left defenceless.
[159] Sa`īd's power to protect made him the refuge of several
kinswomen mentioned in the B.N. and the T.R. This mother and
child reached Kāshghar in 932 AH. (1526 AD.).
Here Bābur ends his [interpolated] account of his mother's
family and resumes that of his father's.
[160] Bābur uses a variety of phrases to express Lordship in
the Gate. Here he writes _aīshīknī bāshlātīb_; elsewhere,
_aīshīk ikhtiyārī qīlmāq_ and _mīnīng aīshīkīmdā ṣāḥib
ikhtiyārī qīlmāq_. Von Schwarz (p. 159) throws light on the
duties of the Lord of the Gate (_Aīshīk Āghāsī_). "Das Thür
... führt in eine grosse, vier-eckige, höhe Halle, deren Boden
etwa 2 m. über den Weg erhoben ist. In dieser Halle, welche
alle passieren muss, der durch das Thor eingeht, reitet oder
fahrt, ist die Thorwache placiert. Tagsüber sind die Thore
beständig öffen, nach Eintritt der Dunkelheit aber werden
dieselben geschlossen und die Schlüssel dem zuständigen
Polizeichef abgeliefert.... In den erwähnten Thorhallen nehmen
in den hoch unabhängigen Gebieten an Bazar-tagen haufig die
Richter Platz, um jedem der irgend ein Anliegen hat, so fort
Recht zu sprechen. Die zudiktierten Strafen werden auch gleich
in diesem selben locale vollzogen und eventuell die zum Hangen
verurteilten Verbrecher an den Deckbalken aufgehängt, so dass
die Besucher des Bazars unter den gehenkten durchpassieren
müssen."
[161] _bu khabarnī `Abdu'l-wahhāb shaghāwaldīn `arẓa-dāsht
qīlīb Mīrzāghā chāptūrdīlār._ This passage has been taken to
mean that the _shaghāwal_, _i.e._ chief scribe, was the
courier, but I think Bābur's words shew that the _shaghāwal's_
act preceded the despatch of the news. Moreover the only
accusative of the participle and of the verb is _khabarnī_.
`Abdu'l-wahhāb had been `Umar Shaikh's and was now Aḥmad's
officer in Khujand, on the main road for Aūrā-tīpā whence the
courier started on the rapid ride. The news may have gone
verbally to `Abdu'l-wahhāb and he have written it on to Aḥmad
and Abū-sa`īd.
[162] Measured from point to point even, the distance appears
to be over 500 miles. Concerning Bābā Khākī _see_ Ḥ.S. ii.
224; for rapid riding _i.a._ Kostenko iii, cap. Studs.
[163] _qūshūqlārnī yakhshī aītūrā īkān dūr._ Elph. MS. for
_qūshūq_, _tūyūk_. _Qūshūq_ is allowed, both by its root and
by usage, to describe improvisations of combined dance and
song. I understand from Bābur's tense, that his information
was hearsay only.
[164] _i.e._ of the military class. _Cf._ Vullers _s.n._ and
T.R. p. 301.
[165] The Hūma is a fabulous bird, overshadowing by whose
wings brings good-fortune. The couplet appears to be addressed
to some man, under the name Hūma, from whom Ḥasan of Yaq`ūb
hoped for benefit.
[166] _khāk-bīla_; the _Sanglākh_, (quoting this passage)
gives _khāk-p:l:k_ as the correct form of the word.
[167] _Cf._ f. 99b.
[168] One of Tīmūr's begs.
[169] _i.e._ uncle on the mother's side, of any degree, here a
grandmother's brother. The title appears to have been given
for life to men related to the ruling House. Parallel with it
are Madame Mère, Royal Uncle, Sulṯān Wālida.
[170] _kīm dīsā būlghāī_, perhaps meaning, "Nothing of service
to me."
[171] Wais the Thin.
[172] _Cf._ Chardin ed. Langlès v, 461 and ed. 1723 AD. v,
183.
[173] n.e. of Kāsān. _Cf._ f. 74. Ḥai MS., erroneously,
Samarkand.
[174] An occasional doubt arises as to whether a _ṯaurī_ of
the text is Arabic and dispraises or Turkī and laudatory.
_Cf._ Mems. p. 17 and _Méms._ i, 3.
[175] Elph. and Ḥai. MSS. _aftābachī_, water-bottle bearer on
journeys; Kehr (p. 82) _aftābchī_, ewer-bearer; Ilminsky (p.
19) _akhtachi_, squire or groom. Circumstances support
_aftābachī_. Yūnas was town-bred, his ewer-bearer would hardly
be the rough Mughūl, Qaṃbar-`alī, useful as an _aftābachī_.
[176] Bābur was Governor of Andijān and the month being June,
would be living out-of-doors. _Cf._ Ḥ.S. ii. 272 and Schuyler
ii, 37.
[177] To the word Sherīm applies Abū'l-ghāzī's explanation of
Nurūm and Ḥājīm, namely, that they are abbreviations of Nūr
and Ḥājī Muḥammad. It explains Sulṯānīm also when used (f. 72)
of Sl. Muḥammad Khānika but of Sulṯānīm as the name is common
with Bābur, Ḥaidar and Gul-badan, _i.e._ as a woman's,
Busbecq's explanation is the better, namely, that it means My
Sulṯān and is applied to a person of rank and means. This
explains other women's titles _e.g._ Khānīm, my Khān and Ākām
(Ākīm), My Lady. A third group of names formed like the last
by enclitic _'m_ (my), may be called names of affection,
_e.g._ Māhīm, My Moon, Jānīm, My Life. (_Cf._ Persian
equivalents.) Cf. Abū'l-ghāzī's _Shajarat-i-Turkī_ (Désmaisons
p. 272); and Ogier Ghiselin de Busbecq's _Life and Letters_
(Forster and Daniel i, 38.)
[178] _Namāz-gāh_; generally an open terrace, with a wall
towards the Qibla and outside the town, whither on festival
days the people go out in crowds to pray. (Erskine.)
[179] _Bēglār (nīng) mīnī u wilāyatnī tāpshūrghūlārī dūr_;
a noticeably idiomatic sentence. _Cf._ f. 16b 1. 6 and 1. 7
for a repetition.
[180] Maḥmūd was in Tāshkīnt, Aḥmad in Kāshghār or on the
Āq-sū.
[181] The B.N. contains a considerable number of what are
virtually footnotes. They are sometimes, as here, entered in
the middle of a sentence and confuse the narrative; they are
introduced by _kīm_, a mere sign of parenthetical matter to
follow, and some certainly, known not to be Bābur's own, must
have stood first on the margin of his text. It seems best to
enter them as Author's notes.
[182] _i.e._ the author of the Hidāyat. _Cf._ f. 3b and note;
Blochmann _Āyīn-i-akbarī s.n. qulij_ and note; Bellew's
_Afghan Tribes_ p. 100, _Khilich_.
[183] Ar. dead, gone. The precision of Bābur's words
_khānwādalār_ and _yūsūnlūq_ is illustrated by the existence
in the days of Tīmūr, in Marghīnān, (Burhānu'd-dīn's township)
of a ruler named Aīlīk Khān, apparently a descendant of
Sātūq-būghrā Khān (b. 384 AH.-994 AD.) so that in Khwāja Qāẓī
were united two dynasties, (_khānwādalār_), one priestly,
perhaps also regal, the other of bye-gone ruling Khāns. Cf.
D'Herbélot p. 433; _Yarkand Mission_, Bellew p. 121;
_Taẕkirat-i Sulṯān Sātūq-būghrā Khān Ghāzī Pādshāh_ and
_Tārīkh-i-nāṣirī_ (Raverty _s.n._)
[184] _darzī_; Ḥ.S. _khaiyāṯ_.
[185] _bīr yīrgā_ (_qūyūb_), lit. to one place.
[186] _i.e._ reconstructed the earthern defences. _Cf._ Von
Schwarz _s.n._ loess.
[187] They had been sent, presumably, before `Umar Shaikh's
death, to observe Sl. Aḥmad M.'s advance. _Cf._ f. 6.
[188] The time-table of the Andijān Railway has a station,
Kouwa (Qabā).
[189] Bābur, always I think, calls this man Long Ḥasan;
Khwānd-amīr styles him Khwāja Ḥasan; he seems to be the
brother of one of `Umar Shaikh's fathers-in-law, Khwāja
Ḥusain.
[190] _bātqāq._ This word is underlined in the Elph. MS. by
_dil-dil_ and in the Ḥai. MS. by _jam-jama_. It is translated
in the W.-i-B. by _āb pur hīla_, water full of deceit; it is
our Slough of Despond. It may be remarked that neither Zenker
nor Steingass gives to _dil-dil_ or _jam-jama_ the meaning of
morass; the _Akbar-nāma_ does so. (H.B. ii, 112.)
[191] _ṯawīla ṯawīla ātlār yīghīlīb aūlā kīrīshtī_. I
understand the word _yīghīlīb_ to convey that the massing led
to the spread of the murrain.
[192] _jān tārātmāqlār_ _i.e._ as a gift to their over-lord.
[193] Perhaps, Bābur's maternal great-uncle. It would suit the
privileges bestowed on Tarkhāns if their title meant _Khān of
the Gifts_ (Turkī _tar_, gift). In the _Bāburnāma_, it
excludes all others. Most of Aḥmad's begs were Tarkhāns,
Arghūns and Chīngīz Khānids, some of them ancestors of later
rulers in Tatta and Sind. Concerning the Tarkhāns _see_ T.R.
p. 55 and note; A.N. (H.B. _s.n._) Elliot and Dowson's
_History of India_, 498.
[194] _Cf._ f. 6.
[195] _beg ātākā_, lit. beg for father.
[196] T.R. _s.n._ Ābā-bikr.
[197] _Cf._ f. 6b and note.
[198] _faqra u masākin_, _i.e._ those who have food for one
day and those who have none in hand. (Steingass.)
[199] For fashions of sitting, _see_ _Tawārīkh-i-guzīda
Naṣrat-nāma_ B.M. Or. 3222. Aḥmad would appear to have
maintained the deferential attitude by kneeling and sitting
back upon his heels.
[200] _bīr sūnkāk bār īkān dūr._ I understand that something
defiling must have been there, perhaps a bone.
[201] _Khwājanīng ham āyāghlārī ārādā īdī._
[202] _īlbāsūn_, a kind of mallard (_Abūshqa_), here perhaps a
popinjay. _Cf._ Ḥ.S. ii, 193 for Aḥmad's skill as an archer,
and Payne-Gallwey's _Cross-bow_ p. 225.
[203] _qabāq_, an archer's mark. Abū'l-ghāzī (Kāsān ed. p.
181. 5) mentions a hen (_tūqūq_) as a mark. _Cf._
Payne-Gallwey _l.c._ p. 231.
[204] _qīrghīcha, astar palumbarius._ (Shaw's Voc. Scully.)
[205] Perhaps, not quarrelsome.
[206] The T.R. (p. 116) attributes the rout to Shaibānī's
defection. The Ḥ.S. (ii, 192) has a varied and confused
account. An error in the T.R. trs. making Shaibānī plunder the
Mughūls, is manifestly clerical.
[207] _i.e._ condiment, _ce qu'on ajoute au pain_.
[208] _Cf._ f. 6.
[209] _qāzāqlār_; here, if Bābur's, meaning his conflicts with
Taṃbal, but as the Begīm may have been some time in Khujand,
the _qāzāqlār_ may be of Samarkand.
[210] All the (Turkī) Bābur-nāma MSS. and those examined of
the W.-i-B. by writing _aūltūrdī_ (killed) where I suggest to
read _aūlnūrdī_ (_devenir comme il faut_) state that Aḥmad
killed Qātāq. I hesitate to accept this (1) because the only
evidence of the murder is one diacritical point, the removal
of which lifts Aḥmad's reproach from him by his return to the
accepted rules of a polygamous household; (2) because no
murder of Qātāq is chronicled by Khwānd-amīr or other writers;
and (3) because it is incredible that a mild, weak man living
in a family atmosphere such as Bābur, Ḥaidar and Gul-badan
reproduce for us, should, while possessing facility for
divorce, kill the mother of four out of his five children.
Reprieve must wait however until the word _tīrīklīk_ is
considered. This Erskine and de C. have read, with
consistency, to mean _life-time_, but if _aūlnūrdī_ be read in
place of _aūltūrdī_ (killed), _tīrīklīk_ may be read,
especially in conjunction with Bābur's _`āshīqlīklār_, as
meaning _living power_ or _ascendancy_. Again, if read as from
_tīrik_, a small arrow and a consuming pain, _tīrīklīk_ may
represent Cupid's darts and wounds. Again it might be taken as
from _tīrāmāk_, to hinder, or forbid.
Under these considerations, it is legitimate to reserve
judgment on Aḥmad.
[211] It is customary amongst Turks for a bride, even amongst
her own family, to remain veiled for some time after marriage;
a child is then told to pluck off the veil and run away, this
tending, it is fancied, to the child's own success in
marriage. (Erskine.)
[212] Bābur's anecdote about Jānī Beg well illustrates his
caution as a narrator. He appears to tell it as one who
knowing the point of a story, leads up to it. He does not
affirm that Jānī Beg's habits were strange or that the envoy
was an athlete but that both things must have been (_īkān
dūr_) from what he had heard or to suit the point of the
anecdote. Nor does he affirm as of his own knowledge that
Aūzbegs calls a strong man (his _zor kīshī_) a _būkuh_ (bull)
but says it is so understood (_dīr īmīsh_).
[213] _Cf._ f. 170.
[214] The points of a _tīpūchāq_ are variously stated. If the
root notion of the name be movement (_tīp_), Erskine's
observation, that these horses are taught special paces, is to
the point. To the verb _tīprāmāq_ dictionaries assign the
meaning of _movement with agitation of mind_, an explanation
fully illustrated in the B.N. The verb describes fittingly the
dainty, nervous action of some trained horses. Other meanings
assigned to _tūpūchāq_ are roadster, round-bodied and swift.
[215] _Cf._ f. 37b.
[216] _Cf._ f. 6b and note.
[217] _mashaf kitābat qīlūr īdī._
[218] _Cf._ f. 36 and Ḥ.S. ii. 271.
[219] _sīnkīlīsī ham mūndā īdī._
[220] _khāna-wādalār_, _viz._ the Chaghatāī, the Tīmūrid in
two Mīrān-shāhī branches, `Alī's and Bābur's and the Bāī-qarā
in Harāt.
[221] _aūghlāqchī_ _i.e._ player at _kūk-būrā_. Concerning the
game, _see_ Shaw's Vocabulary; Schuyler i, 268; Kostenko iii,
82; Von Schwarz _s.n. baiga_.
[222] Ẕū'l-ḥijja 910 AH.-May 1505 AD. _Cf._ f. 154. This
statement helps to define what Bābur reckoned his expeditions
into Hindūstān.
[223] Aīkū (Ayāgū)-tīmūr _Tarkhān Arghūn_ d. _circa_ 793
AH.-1391 AD. He was a friend of Tīmūr. _See_ Z̤.N. i, 525 etc.
[224] _āndāq ikhlāq u aṯawārī yūq īdī kīm dīsā būlghāī._ The
_Shāh-nāma_ cap. xviii, describes him as a spoiled child and
man of pleasure, caring only for eating, drinking and hunting.
The _Shaibānī-nāma_ narrates his various affairs.
[225] _i.e._, _cutlass_, a parallel sobriquet to _qīlīch_,
sword. If it be correct to translate by "cutlass," the
nickname may have prompted Bābur's brief following comment,
_mardāna īkān dūr_, _i.e._ Qulī Muḥ. must have been brave
because known as the Cutlass. A common variant in MSS. from
_Būghdā_ is Bāghdād; Bāghdād was first written in the Ḥai. MS.
but is corrected by the scribe to _būghdā_.
[226] So pointed in the Ḥai. MS. I surmise it a clan-name.
[227] _i.e._ to offer him the succession. The mountain road
taken from Aūrā-tīpā would be by Āb-burdan, Sara-tāq and the
Kām Rūd defile.
[228] _īrīldī._ The departure can hardly have been open
because Aḥmad's begs favoured Maḥmūd; Malik-i-Muḥammad's party
would be likely to slip away in small companies.
[229] This well-known Green, Grey or Blue palace or
halting-place was within the citadel of Samarkand. _Cf._ f.
37. It served as a prison from which return was not expected.
[230] _Cf._ f. 27. He married a full-sister of Bāī-sunghar.
[231] _Gulistān_ Part I. Story 27. For "steaming up," _see_
Tennyson's Lotus-eaters Choric song, canto 8 (H.B.).
[232] Elph. MS. f. 16b; First W.-i-B. I.O. 215 f. 19; Second
W.-i-B. I.O. 217 f. 15b; Memoirs p. 27.
[233] He was a _Dūghlāt_, uncle by marriage of Ḥaidar Mīrzā
and now holding Khost for Maḥmūd. _See_ T.R. s.n. for his
claim on Aīsān-daulat's gratitude.
[234] _tāsh qūrghān dā chīqār dā._ Here (as _e.g._ f. 110b l.
9) the Second W.-i-B. translates _tāsh_ as though it meant
_stone_ instead of outer. _Cf._ f. 47 for an adjectival use of
_tāsh_, stone, with the preposition (_tāsh_) _din_. The places
contrasted here are the citadel (_ark_) and the walled-town
(_qūrghān_). The _chīqār_ (exit) is the fortified Gate-house
of the mud circumvallation. _Cf._ f. 46 for another example of
_chīqār_.
[235] Elph. Ḥai. Kehr's MSS., _ānīng bīla bār kīshi bār
beglārnī tūtūrūldī_. This idiom recurs on f. 76b l. 8. A
palimpsest entry in the Elph. MS. produces the statement that
when Ḥasan fled, his begs returned to Andijān.
[236] Ḥai. MS. _awī mūnkūzī_, underlined by _sāgh-i-gāū_,
cows' thatched house. [_T. mūnkūz_, lit. horn, means also
cattle.] Elph. MS., _awī mūnkūsh_, underlined by _dar jā'ī
khwāb alfakhta_, sleeping place. [T. _mūnkūsh_, retired.]
[237] The first _qāchār_ of this pun has been explained as
_gurez-gāh_, _sharm-gāh_, hinder parts, _fuite_ and _vertèbre
inférieur_. The Ḥ.S. (ii, 273 l. 3 fr. ft.) says the wound was
in a vital (_maqattal_) part.
[238] From Niẕāmī's _Khusrau u Shirīn_, Lahore lith. ed. p.
137 l. 8. It is quoted also in the A.N. Bib. Ind. ed. ii, 207
(H.B. ii, 321). (H.B.).
[239] _See_ Hughes _Dictionary of Islām s.nn._ Eating and
Food.
[240] _Cf._ f. 6b and note. If `Umar Shaikh were Maḥmūd's
full-brother, his name might well appear here.
[241] _i.e._ "Not a farthing, not a half-penny."
[242] Here the Mems. enters a statement, not found in the
Turkī text, that Maḥmūd's dress was elegant and fashionable.
[243] _n:h:l:m._ My husband has cleared up a mistake (Mems. p.
28 and _Méms._ i, 54) of supposing this to be the name of an
animal. It is explained in the A.N. (i, 255. H.B. i, 496) as a
Badakhshī equivalent of _tasqāwal_; _tasqāwal_ var.
_tāshqāwal_, is explained by the _Farhang-i-aẕfarī_, a
Turkī-Persian Dict. seen in the Mullā Fīroz Library of Bombay,
to mean _rāh band kunanda_, the stopping of the road. _Cf._
J.R.A.S. 1900 p. 137.
[244] _i.e._ "a collection of poems in the alphabetical order
of the various end rhymes." (Steingass.)
[245] At this battle Daulat-shāh was present. _Cf._ Browne's
D.S. for Astarābād p. 523 and for Andikhūd p. 532. For this
and all other references to D.S. and Ḥ.S. I am indebted to my
husband.
[246] The following dates will help out Bābur's brief
narrative. Maḥmūd _æt._ 7, was given Astarābād in 864 AH.
(1459-60 AD.); it was lost to Ḥusain at Jauz-wilāyat and
Maḥmūd went into Khurāsān in 865 AH.; he was restored by his
father in 866 AH.; on his father's death (873 AH.-1469 AD.) he
fled to Harāt, thence to Samarkand and from there was taken to
Ḥiṣār _æt._ 16. _Cf._ D'Herbélot _s.n._ Abū-sa`ad; Ḥ.S. i,
209; Browne's D.S. p. 522.
[247] Presumably the "Hindūstān the Less" of Clavijo (Markham
p. 3 and p. 113), approx. Qaṃbar-`alī's districts. Clavijo
includes Tīrmīẕ under the name.
[248] Perhaps a Ṣufī term,—longing for the absent friend. For
particulars about this man _see_ Ḥ.S. ii, 235 and Browne's
D.S. p. 533.
[249] Here in the Ḥai. MS. is one of several blank spaces,
waiting for information presumably not known to Bābur when
writing. The space will have been in the archetype of the Ḥai.
MS. and it makes for the opinion that the Ḥai. MS. is a direct
copy of Bābur's own. This space is not left in the Elph. MS.
but that MS. is known from its scribe's note (f. 198) down to
f. 198 (Ḥai. MS. f. 243b) to have been copied from "other
writings" and only subsequent to its f. 198 from Bābur's own.
_Cf._ JRAS 1906 p. 88 and 1907 p. 143.
[250] The T.R. (p. 330) supplies this name.
[251] _Cf._ f. 35b. This was a betrothal only, the marriage
being made in 903 AH. _Cf._ Ḥ.S. ii, 260 and Gul-badan's H.N.
f. 24b.
[252] Kehr's MS. supplies Aī (Moon) as her name but it has no
authority. The Elph. MS. has what may be _lā nām_, no name, on
its margin and over _tūrūtūnchī_ (4th.) its usual sign of what
is problematical.
[253] _See_ Ḥ.S. ii, 250. Here Pīr-i-Muḥammad _Aīlchī-būghā_
was drowned. _Cf._ f. 29.
[254] Chaghānīān is marked in Erskine's (Mems.) map as
somewhere about the head of (Fr. map 1904) the Ilyak Water, a
tributary of the Kāfir-nighān.
[255] _i.e._ when Bābur was writing in Hindūstān.
[256] For his family _see_ f. 55b note to Yār-`alī _Balāl_.
[257] _bā wujūd turklūk muhkam paidā kunanda īdī._
[258] Roebuck's _Oriental Proverbs_ (p. 232) explains the
_five_ of this phrase where _seven_ might be expected, by
saying that of this Seven days' world (qy. days of Creation)
one is for birth, another for death, and that thus five only
are left for man's brief life.
[259] The cognomen _Aīlchī-būghā_, taken with the bearer's
recorded strength of fist, may mean Strong man of Aīlchī (the
capital of Khutan). One of Tīmūr's commanders bore the name.
_Cf._ f. 21b for _būghū_ as _athlete_.
[260] Hazārāspī seems to be Mīr Pīr Darwesh Hazārāspī. With
his brother, Mīr `Alī, he had charge of Balkh. _See
Rauzatu'ṣ-ṣafā_ B.M. Add. 23506, f. 242b; Browne's D.S. p.
432. It may be right to understand a hand-to-hand fight
between Hazārāspī and Aīlchī-būghā. The affair was in 857 AH.
(1453 AD.).
[261] _yārāq sīz_, perhaps trusting to fisticuffs, perhaps
without mail. Bābur's summary has confused the facts. Muḥ.
Aīlchī-būghā was sent by Sl. Maḥmūd Mīrzā from Ḥiṣār with
1,000 men and did not issue out of Qūndūz. (Ḥ.S. ii, 251.) His
death occurred not before 895 AH.
[262] _See_ T.R. _s.nn._ Mīr Ayūb and Ayūb.
[263] This passage is made more clear by f. 120b and f. 125b.
[264] He is mentioned in _`Alī-sher Nawā'ī's
Majālis-i-nafā'is_; _see_ B.M. Add. 7875, f. 278 and Rieu's
Turkish Catalogue.
[265] ? full of splits or full handsome.
[266] This may have occurred after Abū-sa`īd Mīrzā's death
whose son Abā-bikr was. _Cf._ f. 28. If so, over-brevity has
obscured the statement.
[267] _mīnglīgh aīldīn dūr_, perhaps of those whose hereditary
Command was a Thousand, the head of a Mīng (Pers. Hazāra),
_i.e._ of the tenth of a _tūmān_.
[268] _qūrghān-nīng tāshīdā yāngī tām qūpārīb sālā dūr._ I
understand, that what was taken was a new circumvallation in
whole or in part. Such double walls are on record. _Cf._
Appendix A.
[269] _bahādurlūq aūlūsh_, an actual portion of food.
[270] _i.e._ either unmailed or actually naked.
[271] The old English noun _strike_ expresses the purpose of
the _sar-kob_. It is "an instrument for scraping off what
rises above the top" (Webster, whose example is grain in a
measure). The _sar-kob_ is an erection of earth or wood, as
high as the attacked walls, and it enabled besiegers to strike
off heads appearing above the ramparts.
[272] _i.e._ the dislocation due to `Umar Shaikh's death.
[273] _Cf._ f. 13. The Ḥ.S. (ii, 274) places his son, Mīr
Mughūl, in charge, but otherwise agrees with the B.N.
[274] _Cf._ Clavijo, Markham p. 132. Sir Charles Grandison
bent the knee on occasions but illustrated MSS. _e.g._ the
B.M. _Tawārīkh-i-guzīda Naṣrat-nāma_ show that Bābur would
kneel down on both knees. _Cf._ f. 123b for the fatigue of the
genuflection.
[275] I have translated _kūrūshūb_ thus because it appears to
me that here and in other places, stress is laid by Bābur upon
the mutual gaze as an episode of a ceremonious interview. The
verb _kūrūshmak_ is often rendered by the Persian translators
as _daryāftan_ and by the L. and E. Memoirs as _to embrace_. I
have not found in the B.N. warrant for translating it as _to
embrace_; _qūchūshmāq_ is Bābur's word for this (f. 103).
_Daryāftan_, taken as to grasp or see with the mind, to
understand, well expresses mutual gaze and its sequel of
mutual understanding. Sometimes of course, _kūrūsh_, the
interview does not imply _kūrūsh_, the silent looking in the
eyes with mutual understanding; it simply means _se voyer_
_e.g._ f. 17. The point is thus dwelt upon because the
frequent mention of an embrace gives a different impression of
manners from that made by "interview" or words expressing
mutual gaze.
[276] _dābān._ This word Réclus (vi, 171) quoting from
Fedschenko, explains as a difficult rocky defile; _art_,
again, as a dangerous gap at a high elevation; _bel_, as an
easy low pass; and _kūtal_, as a broad opening between low
hills. The explanation of _kūtal_ does not hold good for
Bābur's application of the word (f. 81b) to the Sara-tāq.
[277] _Cf._ f. 4b and note. From Bābur's special mention of
it, it would seem not to be the usual road.
[278] The spelling of this name is uncertain. Variants are
many. Concerning the tribe _see_ T.R. p. 165 n.
[279] Niẕāmu'd-dīn `Alī _Barlās_: _see_ Gul-badan's H.N.
_s.n._ He served Bābur till the latter's death.
[280] _i.e._ Ẕū'n-nūn or perhaps the garrison.
[281] _i.e._ down to Shaibānī's destruction of Chaghatāī rule
in Tāshkīnt in 1503 AD.
[282] Elph. MS. f. 23; W.-i-B. I.O. 215 f. 26 and 217 f. 21;
Mems. p. 35.
Bābur's own affairs form a small part of this year's record;
the rest is drawn from the Ḥ.S. which in its turn, uses
Bābur's f. 34 and f. 37b. Each author words the shared
material in his own style; one adding magniloquence, the other
retracting to plain statement, indeed summarizing at times to
obscurity. Each passes his own judgment on events, _e.g._ here
Khwānd-amīr's is more favourable to Ḥusain Bāī-qarā's conduct
of the Ḥiṣār campaign than Bābur's. _Cf._ Ḥ.S. ii, 256-60 and
274.
[283] This feint would take him from the Oxus.
[284] Tīrmīẕ to Ḥiṣār, 96m. (Réclus vi, 255).
[285] Ḥ.S. Wazr-āb valley. The usual route is up the Kām Rūd
and over the Mūra pass to Sara-tāq. _Cf._ f. 81b.
[286] _i.e._ the Ḥiṣārī mentioned a few lines lower and on f.
99b. Nothing on f. 99b explains his cognomen.
[287] The road is difficult. _Cf._ f. 81b.
[288] Khwānd-amīr also singles out one man for praise, Sl.
Maḥmūd _Mīr-i-ākhwur_; the two names probably represent one
person. The sobriquet may refer to skill with a matchlock, to
top-spinning (_firnagī-bāz_) or to some lost joke. (Ḥ.S. ii,
257.)
[289] This pregnant phrase has been found difficult. It may
express that Bābur assigned the sulṯāns places in their due
precedence; that he seated them in a row; and that they sat
cross-legged, as men of rank, and were not made, as inferiors,
to kneel and sit back on their heels. Out of this last
meaning, I infer comes the one given by dictionaries, "to sit
at ease," since the cross-legged posture is less irksome than
the genuflection, not to speak of the ease of mind produced by
honour received. _Cf._ f. 18b and note on Aḥmad's posture;
Redhouse _s.nn. bāghīsh_ and _bāghdāsh_; and B.M.
Tawārīkh-i-guzīda naṣrat-nāma, in the illustrations of which
the chief personage, only, sits cross-legged.
[290] _siyāsat._ My translation is conjectural only.
[291] _sar-kob._ The old English noun _strike_, "an instrument
for scraping off what appears above the top," expresses the
purpose of the wall-high erections of wood or earth (_L.
agger_) raised to reach what shewed above ramparts. _Cf._
Webster.
[292] Presumably lower down the Qūndūz Water.
[293] _aūz pādshāhī u mīrzālārīdīn artīb._
[294] _sic._ Ḥai. MS.; Elph. MS. "near Tāliqān"; some W.-i-B.
MSS. "Great Garden." Gul-badan mentions a Tāliqān Garden.
Perhaps the Mīrzā went so far east because, Ẕū'n-nūn being
with him, he had Qandahār in mind. _Cf._ f. 42b.
[295] _i.e._ Sayyid Muḥammad `Alī. _See_ f. 15 n. to Sherīm.
Khwāja Changāl lies 14 m. below Tāliqān on the Tāliqān Water.
(Erskine.)
[296] f. 27b, second.
[297] The first was _circa_ 895 AH.-1490 AD. _Cf._ f. 27b.
[298] Bābur's wording suggests that their common homage was
the cause of Badī`u'z-zamān's displeasure but _see_ f. 41.
[299] The Mīrzā had grown up with Ḥiṣārīs. _Cf._ Ḥ.S. ii, 270.
[300] As the husband of one of the six Badakhshī Begīms, he
was closely connected with local ruling houses. _See_ T.R. p.
107.
[301] _i.e._ Muḥammad `Ubaidu'l-lāh the elder of _Aḥrārī's_
two sons. d. 911 AH. _See Rashaḥāt-i-`ain-alḥayāt_ (I.O. 633)
f. 269-75; and _Khizīnatu'l-aṣfīya_ lith. ed. i, 597.
[302] _Bū yūq tūr_, _i.e._ This is not to be.
[303] d. 908 AH. He was not, it would seem, of the _Aḥrārī_
family. His own had provided Pontiffs (_Shaikhu'l-islām_) for
Samarkand through 400 years. _Cf._ _Shaibānī-nāma_, Vambéry,
p. 106; also, for his character, p. 96.
[304] _i.e._ he claimed sanctuary.
[305] _Cf._ f. 45b and Pétis de la Croix's _Histoire de
Chīngīz Khān_ pp. 171 and 227. What Tīmūr's work on the Gūk
Sarāī was is a question for archæologists.
[306] _i.e._ over the Aītmak Pass. _Cf._ f. 49.
[307] Ḥai. MS. _ārālighīgha_. Elph. MS. _ārāl_, island.
[308] _See_ f. 179b for _Binā'ī_. Muḥammad Ṣāliḥ Mīrzā
_Khwārizmī_ is the author of the _Shaibānī-nāma_.
[309] Elph. MS. f. 27; W.-i-B. I.O. 215 f. 30b and 217 f. 25;
Mems. p. 42.
[310] _i.e._ Circassian. Muḥammad Ṣāliḥ (Sh.N. Vambéry p. 276
l. 58) speaks of other Aūzbegs using Chirkas swords.
[311] _aīrtā yāzīghā._ My translation is conjectural. _Aīrtā_
implies _i.a._ foresight. _Yāzīghā_ allows a pun at the
expense of the sulṯāns; since it can be read both as _to the
open country_ and as _for their_ (_next_, _aīrtā_) _misdeeds_.
My impression is that they took the opportunity of being
outside Samarkand with their men, to leave Bāī-sunghar and
make for Shaibānī, then in Turkistān. Muḥammad Ṣāliḥ also
marking the tottering Gate of Sl. `Alī Mīrzā, left him now,
also for Shaibānī. (Vambéry cap. xv.)
[312] _aūmāq_, to amuse a child in order to keep it from
crying.
[313] _i.e._ with Khwāja Yahya presumably. _See_ f. 38.
[314] This man is mentioned also in the _Tawārikh-i-guzīda
Naṣratnāma_ B.M. Or. 3222 f. 124b.
[315] Ḥ.S., on the last day of Ramẓān (June 28th. 1497 AD.).
[316] Muḥammad _Sīghal_ appears to have been a marked man. I
quote from the T.G.N.N. (_see supra_), f. 123b foot, the
information that he was the grandson of Ya`qūb Beg. Zenker
explains _Sīghalī_ as the name of a Chaghatāī family. An
_Ayūb-i-Ya`qūb Begchīk Mughūl_ may be an uncle. See f. 43 for
another grandson.
[317] _baẓ'ī kīrkān-kīnt-kīsākkā bāsh-sīz-qīlghān Mughūllārnī
tūtūb._ I take the word _kīsāk_ in this highly idiomatic
sentence to be a diminutive of _kīs_, old person, on the
analogy of _mīr_, _mīrāk_, _mard_, _mardak_. [The Ḥ.S. uses
_Kīsāk_ (ii, 261) as a proper noun.] The alliteration in _kāf_
and the mighty adjective here are noticeable.
[318] Qāsim feared to go amongst the Mughūls lest he should
meet retaliatory death. _Cf._ f. 99b.
[319] This appears from the context to be Yām (Jām) -bāī and
not the Djouma (Jām) of the Fr. map of 1904, lying farther
south. The Avenue named seems likely to be Tīmūr's of f. 45b
and to be on the direct road for Khujand. _See_ Schuyler i,
232.
[320] _būghān buyīnī._ W.-i-B. 215, _yān_, thigh, and 217
_gardan_, throat. I am in doubt as to the meaning of _būghān_;
perhaps the two words stand for joint at the nape of the neck.
Khwāja-i-kalān was one of seven brothers, six died in Bābur's
service, he himself served till Bābur's death.
[321] _Cf._ f. 48.
[322] Khorochkine (Radlov's _Réceuil d'Itinéraires_ p. 241)
mentions Pul-i-mougak, a great stone bridge thrown across a
deep ravine, east of Samarkand. _For_ Kūl-i-maghāk, deep pool,
or pool of the fosse, _see_ f. 48b.
[323] From Khwānd-amīr's differing account of this affair, it
may be surmised that those sending the message were not
treacherous; but the message itself was deceiving inasmuch as
it did not lead Bābur to expect opposition. _Cf._ f. 43 and
note.
[324] Of this nick-name several interpretations are allowed by
the dictionaries.
[325] _See_ Schuyler i, 268 for an account of this beautiful
Highland village.
[326] Here Bābur takes up the thread, dropped on f. 36, of the
affairs of the Khurāsānī mīrzās. He draws on other sources
than the Ḥ.S.; perhaps on his own memory, perhaps on
information given by Khurāsānīs with him in Hindūstān _e.g._
Ḥusain's grandson. _See_ f. 167b. _Cf._ Ḥ.S. ii, 261.
[327] _bāghīshlāb tūr._ _Cf._ f. 34 note to _bāghīsh dā_.
[328] _Bū sozlār aūnūlūng._ Some W.-i-B. MSS., _Farāmosh
bakunīd_ for _nakunīd_, thus making the Mīrzā not acute but
rude, and destroying the point of the story _i.e._ that the
Mīrzā pretended so to have forgotten as to have an empty mind.
Khwānd-amīr states that `Alī-sher prevailed at first; his
tears therefore may have been of joy at the success of his
pacifying mission.
[329] _i.e._ B.Z.'s father, Ḥusain, against Mū`min's father,
B.Z. and Ḥusain's son, Muz̤affar Ḥusain against B.Z.'s son
Mū`min;—a veritable conundrum.
[330] Garzawān lies west of Balkh. Concerning Pul-i-chirāgh
Col. Grodekoff's _Ride to Harāt_ (Marvin p. 103 ff.) gives
pertinent information. It has also a map showing the
Pul-i-chirāgh meadow. The place stands at the mouth of a
triply-bridged defile, but the name appears to mean Gate of
the Lamp (_cf._ Gate of Tīmūr), and not Bridge of the Lamp,
because the Ḥ.S. and also modern maps write _bīl_ (_bel_),
pass, where the Turkī text writes _pul_, bridge, narrows,
pass.
The lamp of the name is one at the shrine of a saint, just at
the mouth of the defile. It was alight when Col. Grodekoff
passed in 1879 and to it, he says, the name is due now—as it
presumably was 400 years ago and earlier.
[331] Khwānd-amīr heard from the Mīrzā on the spot, when later
in his service, that he was let down the precipice by help of
turban-sashes tied together.
[332] _yīkīt yīlāng u yāyāq yālīng_; a jingle made by due
phonetic change of vowels; a play too on _yālāng_, which first
means stripped _i.e._ robbed and next unmailed, perhaps
sometimes bare-bodied in fight.
[333] _qūsh-khāna._ As the place was outside the walls, it may
be a good hawking ground and not a falconry.
[334] The Ḥ.S. mentions (ii, 222) a Sl. Aḥmad of Chār-shaṃba,
a town mentioned _e.g._ by Grodekoff p. 123. It also spoils
Bābur's coincidence by fixing Tuesday, Shab`ān 29th. for the
battle. Perhaps the commencement of the Muḥammadan day at
sunset, allows of both statements.
[335] Elph. MS. f. 30b; W.-i-B. I.O. 215 f. 34 and 217 f. 26b;
Mems. p. 46.
The abruptness of this opening is due to the interposition of
Sl. Ḥusain M.'s affairs between Bābur's statement on f. 41
that he returned from Aūrgūt and this first of 903 AH. that on
return he encamped in Qulba.
[336] _See_ f. 48b.
[337] _i.e._ Chūpān-ātā; _see_ f. 45 and note.
[338] _Aūghlāqchī_, the Grey Wolfer of f. 22.
[339] A sobriquet, the _suppliant_ or perhaps something having
connection with musk. Ḥ.S. ii, 278, son of Ḥ.D.
[340] _i.e._ grandson (of Muḥammad Sīghal). _Cf._ f. 39.
[341] This seeming sobriquet may show the man's trade. _Kāl_
is a sort of biscuit; _qāshūq_ may mean a spoon.
[342] The Ḥ.S. does not ascribe treachery to those inviting
Bābur into Samarkand but attributes the murder of his men to
others who fell on them when the plan of his admission became
known. The choice here of "town-rabble" for retaliatory death
supports the account of Ḥ.S. ii.
[343] "It was the end of September or beginning of October"
(Erskine).
[344] _awī u kīpa yīrlār._ _Awī_ is likely to represent
_kibitkas_. For _kīpa yīr_, _see_ Zenker p. 782.
[345] Interesting reference may be made, amongst the many
books on Samarkand, to Sharafu'd-dīn `Alī _Yazdī's
Z̤afar-nāma_ Bib. Ind. ed. i, 300, 781, 799, 800 and ii, 6,
194, 596 etc.; to Ruy Gonzalves di Clavijo's _Embassy to
Tīmūr_ (Markham) cap. vi and vii; to Ujfalvy's _Turkistan_ ii,
79 and Madame Ujfalvy's _De Paris à Samarcande_ p. 161,—these
two containing a plan of the town; to Schuyler's _Turkistan_;
to Kostenko's _Turkistan Gazetteer_ i, 345; to Réclus, vi, 270
and plan; and to a beautiful work of the St. Petersburg
Archæological Society, _Les Mosquées de Samarcande_, of which
the B.M. has a copy.
[346] This statement is confused in the Elp. and Ḥai. MSS. The
second appears to give, by abjad, lat. 40° 6" and long. 99'.
Mr. Erskine (p. 48) gives lat. 39' 57" and long. 99' 16",
noting that this is according to Ūlūgh Beg's Tables and that
the long. is calculated from Ferro. The Ency. Br. of 1910-11
gives lat. 39' 39" and long. 66' 45".
[347] The enigmatical cognomen, Protected Town, is of early
date; it is used _i.a._ by Ibn Batūta in the 14th. century.
Bābur's tense refers it to the past. The town had frequently
changed hands in historic times before he wrote. The name may
be due to immunity from damage to the buildings in the town.
Even Chīngīz Khān's capture (1222 AD.) left the place
well-preserved and its lands cultivated, but it inflicted
great loss of men. _Cf._ Schuyler i, 236 and his authorities,
especially Bretschneider.
[348] Here is a good example of Bābur's caution in narrative.
He does not affirm that Samarkand became Musalmān, or
(_infra_) that Quṣam ibn `Abbās went, or that Alexander
founded but in each case uses the presumptive past tense,
resp. _būlghān dūr_, _bārghān dūr_, _bīnā qīlghān dūr_, thus
showing that he repeats what may be inferred or presumed and
not what he himself asserts.
[349] _i.e._ of Muḥammad. See Z̤.N. ii, 193.
[350] _i.e._ Fat Village. His text misleading him, Mr. Erskine
makes here the useful irrelevant note that Persians and Arabs
call the place Samar-qand and Turks, Samar-kand, the former
using _qaf_ (q), the latter _kaf_ (k). Both the Elph. and the
Ḥai. MSS. write Samarqand.
For use of the name Fat Village, _see_ Clavijo (Markham p.
170), Simesquinte, and Bretschneider's _Mediæval Geography_
pp. 61, 64, 66 and 163.
[351] _qadam._ Kostenko (i, 344) gives 9 m. as the
circumference of the old walls and 1-2/3m. as that of the
citadel. _See_ Mde. Ujfalvy p. 175 for a picture of the walls.
[352] _Ma`lūm aīmās kīm mūncha paidā būlmīsh būlghāī_; an
idiomatic phrase.
[353] d. 333 AH. (944 AD.). _See_ D'Herbélot art. Mātridī p.
572.
[354] _See_ D'Herbélot art. Aschair p. 124.
[355] Abū `Abdu'l-lāh bin Ismā`īlu'l-jausī b. 194 AH. d. 256
AH. (810-870 AD.). _See_ D'Herbélot art. Bokhārī p. 191, art.
Giorag p. 373, and art. Ṣāḥiḥu'l-bokhārī p. 722. He passed a
short period, only, of his life in Khartank, a suburb of
Samarkand.
[356] _Cf._ f. 3b and n. 1.
[357] This though 2475 ft. above the sea is only some 300 ft.
above Samarkand. It is the Chūpān-ātā (Father of Shepherds) of
maps and on it Tīmūr built a shrine to the local patron of
shepherds. The Zar-afshān, or rather, its Qarā-sū arm, flows
from the east of the Little Hill and turns round it to flow
west. Bābur uses the name _Kohik Water_ loosely; _e.g._ for
the whole Zar-afshān when he speaks (_infra_) of cutting off
the Dar-i-gham canal but for its southern arm only, the
Qarā-sū in several places, and once, for the Dar-i-gham canal.
_See_ f. 49b and Kostenko i. 192.
[358] _rūd._ The Zar-afshān has a very rapid current. _See_
Kostenko i, 196, and for the canal, i, 174. The name
Dar-i-gham is used also for a musical note having charm to
witch away grief; and also for a town noted for its wines.
[359] What this represents can only be guessed; perhaps 150 to
200 miles. Abū'l-fidā (Reinaud ii, 213) quotes Ibn Haukal as
saying that from Bukhārā up to "Bottam" (this seems to be
where the Zar-afshān emerges into the open land) is eight
days' journey through an unbroken tangle of verdure and
gardens.
[360] _See_ Schuyler i, 286 on the apportionment of water to
Samarkand and Bukhārā.
[361] It is still grown in the Samarkand region, and in Mr.
Erskine's time a grape of the same name was cultivated in
Aurangābād of the Deccan.
[362] _i.e._ _Shāhrukhī_, Tīmūr's grandson, through Shāhrukh.
It may be noted here that Bābur never gives Tīmūr any other
title than Beg and that he styles all Tīmūrids, Mīrzā
(Mīr-born).
[363] Mr. Erskine here points out the contradiction between
the statements (i) of Ibn Haukal, writing, in 367 AH. (977
AD.), of Samarkand as having a citadel (_ark_), an outer-fort
(_qūrghān_) and Gates in both circumvallations; and (2) of
Sharafu'd-dīn _Yazdī_ (Z̤.N.) who mentions that when, in
Tīmūr's day, the Getes besieged Samarkand, it had neither
walls nor gates. _See_ Ouseley's Ibn Haukal p. 253; Z̤.N. Bib.
Ind. ed. i, 109 and Pétis de la Croix's Z̤.N. (_Histoire de
Tīmūr Beg_) i, 91.
[364] Here still lies the Ascension Stone, the _Gūk-tāsh_, a
block of greyish white marble. Concerning the date of the
erection of the building and meaning of its name, _see_ _e.g._
Pétis de la Croix's _Histoire de Chīngīz Khān_ p. 171; Mems.
p. 40 note; and Schuyler _s.n._
[365] This seems to be the Bībī Khānīm Mosque. The author of
_Les Mosquées de Samarcande_ states that Tīmūr built Bībī
Khānīm and the Gūr-i-amīr (Amīr's tomb); decorated
Shāh-i-zinda and set up the Chūpān-ātā shrine. _Cf._ f. 46 and
note to Jahāngīr Mīrzā, as to the Gūr-i-amīr.
[366] Cap. II. Quoting from Sale's _Qur'ān_ (i, 24) the verse
is, "And Ibrāhīm and Ismā`īl raised the foundations of the
house, saying, 'Lord! accept it from us, for Thou art he who
hearest and knowest; Lord! make us also resigned to Thee, and
show us Thy holy ceremonies, and be turned to us, for Thou art
easy to be reconciled, and merciful.'"
[367] or, _buland_, Garden of the Height or High Garden. The
Turkī texts have what can be read as _buldī_ but the Z̤.N.
both when describing it (ii, 194) and elsewhere (_e.g._ ii,
596) writes _buland_. _Buldī_ may be a clerical error for
_bulandī_, the height, a name agreeing with the position of
the garden.
[368] In the Heart-expanding Garden, the Spanish Ambassadors
had their first interview with Tīmūr. _See_ Clavijo (Markham
p. 130). Also the Z̤.N. ii, 6 for an account of its
construction.
[369] Judging from the location of the gardens and of Bābur's
camps, this appears to be the Avenue mentioned on f. 39b and
f. 40.
[370] _See_ _infra_ f. 48 and note.
[371] The Plane-tree Garden. This seems to be Clavijo's
_Bayginar_, laid out shortly before he saw it (Markham p.
136).
[372] The citadel of Samarkand stands high; from it the ground
slopes west and south; on these sides therefore gardens
outside the walls would lie markedly below the outer-fort
(_tāsh-qūrghān_). Here as elsewhere the second W.-i-B. reads
_stone_ for _outer_ (_Cf._ index _s.n._ _tāsh_). For the
making of the North garden _see_ Z̤.N. i, 799.
[373] Tīmūr's eldest son, d. 805 AH. (1402 AD.), before his
father, therefore. Bābur's wording suggests that in his day,
the Gūr-i-amīr was known as the Madrāsa. _See_ as to the
buildings Z̤.N. i, 713 and ii, 492, 595, 597, 705; Clavijo
(Markham p. 164 and p. 166); and _Les Mosquées de Samarcande_.
[374] Hindūstān would make a better climax here than Samarkand
does.
[375] These appear to be pictures or ornamentations of carved
wood. Redhouse describes _islīmī_ as a special kind of
ornamentation in curved lines, similar to Chinese methods.
[376] _i.e._ the Black Stone (_ka'ba_) at Makkah to which
Musalmāns turn in prayer.
[377] As ancient observatories were themselves the instruments
of astronomical observation, Bābur's wording is correct.
Aūlūgh Beg's great quadrant was 180 ft. high; Abū-muḥammad
_Khujandī's_ sextant had a radius of 58 ft. Jā'ī Singh made
similar great instruments in Jā'īpūr, Dihlī has others. _Cf._
Greaves Misc. Works i, 50; Mems. p. 51 note; _Āiyīn-i-akbarī_
(Jarrett) ii, 5 and note; Murray's Hand-book to Bengal p. 331;
Indian Gazetteer xiii, 400.
[378] b. 597 AH. d. 672 AH. (1201-1274 AD.). _See_
D'Herbélot's art. Naṣīr-i-dīn p. 662; Abū'l-fidā (Reinaud,
Introduction i, cxxxviii) and Beale's Biographical Dict.
_s.n._
[379] a grandson of Chīngīz Khān, d. 663 AH. (1265 AD.). The
cognomen _Aīl-khānī_ (_Īl-khānī_) may mean Khān of the Tribe.
[380] Ḥarūnu'r-rashīd's second son; d. 218 AH. (833 AD.).
[381] Mr. Erskine notes that this remark would seem to fix the
date at which Bābur wrote it as 934 AH. (1527 AD.), that being
the 1584th. year of the era of Vikramāditya, and therefore at
three years before Bābur's death. (The Vikramāditya era began
57 BC.)
[382] _Cf._ index _s.n._ _tāsh_.
[383] This remark may refer to the 34 miles between the town
and the quarries of its building stone. _See_ f. 49 and note
to Aītmāk Pass.
[384] Steingass, any support for the back in sitting, a low
wall in front of a house. _See_ Vullers p. 148 and
_Burhān-i-qāṯi`_; p. 119. Perhaps a _dado_.
[385] _beg u begāt, bāgh u bāghcha._
[386] Four Gardens, a quadrilateral garden, laid out in four
plots. The use of the name has now been extended for any
well-arranged, large garden, especially one belonging to a
ruler (Erskine).
[387] As two of the trees mentioned here are large, it may be
right to translate _nārwān_, not by pomegranate, but as the
hard-wood elm, Madame Ujfalvy's '_karagatche_' (p. 168 and p.
222). The name _qarā-yīghāch_ (_karagatch_), dark tree, is
given to trees other than this elm on account of their deep
shadow.
[388] Now a common plan indeed! _See_ Schuyler i, 173.
[389] _juwāz-i-kaghazlār_ (_nīng_) _sū'ī_, _i.e._ the water of
the paper-(pulping)-mortars. Owing to the omission from some
MSS. of the word _sū_, water, _juwāz_ has been mistaken for a
kind of paper. _See_ Mems. p. 52 and _Méms_. i, 102; A.Q.R.
July 1910, p. 2, art. Paper-mills of Samarkand (H.B.); and
Madame Ujfalvy p. 188. Kostenko, it is to be noted, does not
include paper in his list (i, 346) of modern manufactures of
Samarkand.
[390] Mine of mud or clay. My husband has given me support for
reading _gil_, and not _gul_, rose;—(1) In two good MSS. of
the W.-i-B. the word is pointed with _kasra_, _i.e._ as for
_gil_, clay; and (2) when describing a feast held in the
garden by Tīmūr, the Z̤.N. says the mud-mine became a
rose-mine, _shuda Kān-i-gil Kān-i-gul_. [Mr. Erskine refers
here to Pétis de la Croix's _Histoire de Tīmūr Beg_ (_i.e._
Z̤.N.) i, 96 and ii, 133 and 421.]
[391] _qūrūgh._ Vullers, classing the word as Arabic, Zenker,
classing it as Eastern Turkī, and Erskine (p. 42 n.) explain
this as land reserved for the summer encampment of princes.
Shaw (Voc. p. 155), deriving it from _qūrūmāq_, to frighten,
explains it as a fenced field of growing grain.
[392] _Cf._ f. 40. There it is located at one _yīghāch_ and
here at 3 _kurohs_ from the town.
[393] _ṯaur._ _Cf._ Zenker _s.n._ I understand it to lie, as
Khān Yūrtī did, in a curve of the river.
[394] 162 m. by rail.
[395] _Cf._ f. 3.
[396] _tīrīsīnī sūīūb._ The verb _sūīmāk_, to despoil, seems
to exclude the common plan of stoning the fruit. _Cf._ f. 3b,
_dānasīnī alīp_, taking out the stones.
[397] _Mīn Samarkandtā aūl (or auwal) aīchkāndā Bukhārā
chāghīrlār nī aīchār aīdīm._ These words have been understood
to refer to Bābur's initial drinking of wine but this reading
is negatived by his statement (f. 189) that he first drank
wine in Harāt in 912 AH. I understand his meaning to be that
the wine he drank in Samarkand was Bukhārā wine. The time
cannot have been earlier than 917 AH. The two words _aūl
aīchkāndā_, I read as parallel to _aūl_ (_bāghrī qarā_) (f.
280) 'that drinking,' 'that bird,' _i.e._ of those other
countries, not of Hindūstān where he wrote.
It may be noted that Bābur's word for wine, _chāghīr_, may not
always represent wine of the grape but may include wine of the
apple and pear (cider and perry), and other fruits. Cider, its
name seeming to be a descendant of _chāghīr_, was introduced
into England by Crusaders, its manufacture having been learned
from Turks in Palestine.
[398] 48 m. 3 fur. by way of the Aītmāk Pass (mod. Takhta
Qarachi), and, Réclus (vi, 256) Buz-gala-khāna, Goat-house.
[399] The name Aītmāk, to build, appears to be due to the
stone quarries on the range. The pass-head is 34 m. from
Samarkand and 3000 ft. above it. _See_ Kostenko ii, 115 and
Schuyler ii, 61 for details of the route.
[400] The description of this hall is difficult to translate.
Clavijo (Markham 124) throws light on the small recesses.
_Cf._ Z̤.N. i, 781 and 300 and Schuyler ii, 68.
[401] The Tāq-i-kisrī, below Bāghdād, is 105 ft. high, 84 ft.
span and 150 ft. in depth (Erskine).
[402] _Cf._ f. 46. Bābur does not mention that Tīmūr's father
was buried at Kesh. Clavijo (Markham p. 123) says it was
Tīmūr's first intention to be buried near his father, in Kesh.
[403] Abū'l-fidā (Reinaud II, ii, 21) says that Nasaf is the
Arabic and Nakhshab the local name for Qarshī. Ibn Haukal
(Ouseley p. 260) writes Nakhshab.
[404] This word has been translated _burial-place_ and
_cimetière_ but Qarshī means castle, or royal-residence. The
Z̤.N. (i, 111) says that Qarshī is an equivalent for Ar.
_qaṣr_, palace, and was so called, from one built there by
Qublāī Khān (d. 1294 AD.). Perhaps Bābur's word is connected
with Gūrkhān, the title of sovereigns in Khutan, and means
great or royal-house, _i.e._ palace.
[405] 94 m. 6-1/2 fur. via Jām (Kostenko i, 115.)
[406] See Appendix B.
[407] some 34 m. (Kostenko i, 196). Schuyler mentions that he
heard in Qarā-kūl a tradition that the district, in bye-gone
days, was fertilized from the Sīr.
[408] _Cf._ f. 45.
[409] By _abjad_ the words _`Abbās kasht_ yield 853. The date
of the murder was Ramẓān 9, 853 AH. (Oct. 27th. 1449 AD.).
[410] This couplet is quoted in the _Rauẓatu'ṣ-ṣafā_ (lith.
ed. vi, f. 234 foot) and in the Ḥ.S. ii, 44. It is said, in
the R.Ṣ. to be by Niẕāmī and to refer to the killing by
Shīrūya of his father, Khusrau Parwīz in 7 AH. (628 AD.). The
Ḥ.S. says that `Abdu'l-laṯīf constantly repeated the couplet,
after he had murdered his father. [See also Daulat Shāh
(Browne p. 356 and p. 366.) H.B.]
[411] By _abjad_, _Bābā Ḥusain kasht_ yields 854. The death
was on Rabi` I, 26, 854 AH. (May 9th. 1450 AD.). See R.Ṣ. vi,
235 for an account of this death.
[412] This overstates the time; dates shew 1 yr. 1 mth. and a
few days.
[413] _i.e._ The Khān of the Mughūls, Bābur's uncle.
[414] Elph. MS. _aūrmaghāīlār_, might not turn; Ḥai. and
Kehr's MSS. (_sar bā bād_) _bīrmāghāīlār_, might not give.
Both metaphors seem drawn from the protective habit of man and
beast of turning the back to a storm-wind.
[415] _i.e._ betwixt two waters, the Miyān-i-dū-āb of India.
Here, it is the most fertile triangle of land in Turkistān
(Réclus, vi, 199), enclosed by the eastern mountains, the
Nārīn and the Qarā-sū; Rabāṯik-aūrchīnī, its alternative name,
means Small Station sub-district. From the uses of _aūrchīn_ I
infer that it describes a district in which there is no
considerable head-quarters fort.
[416] _i.e._ his own, Qūtlūq-nigār Khānīm and hers,
Aīsān-daulat Begīm, with perhaps other widows of his father,
probably Shāh Sulṯān Begīm.
[417] _Cf._ f. 16 for almost verbatim statements.
[418] Blacksmith's Dale. _Ahangarān_ appears corrupted in
modern maps to _Angren_. _See_ Ḥ.S. ii, 293 for Khwānd-amīr's
wording of this episode.
[419] _Cf._ f. 1b and Kostenko i, 101.
[420] _i.e._ Khān Uncle (Mother's brother).
[421] n.w. of the Sang ferry over the Sīr.
[422] perhaps, messenger of good tidings.
[423] This man's family connections are interesting. He was
`Alī-shukr Beg _Bahārlū's_ grandson, nephew therefore of Pāshā
Begīm; through his son, Saif-`alī Beg, he was the grandfather
of Bairām Khān-i-khānān and thus the g.g.f. of `Abdu'r-raḥīm
Mīrzā, the translator of the Second _Wāqi`āt-i-bāburī_. _See_
Firishta lith. ed. p. 250.
[424] Bābur's (step-)grandmother, co-widow with Aīsān-daulat
of Yūnas Khān and mother of Aḥmad and Maḥmud _Chaghatāī_.
[425] Here the narrative picks up the thread of Khusrau Shāh's
affairs, dropped on f. 44.
[426] _mīng tūmān fulūs_, _i.e._ a thousand
sets-of-ten-thousand small copper coins. Mr. Erskine (Mems. p.
61) here has a note on coins. As here the _tūmān_ does not
seem to be a coin but a number, I do not reproduce it,
valuable as it is _per se_.
[427] _ārīqlār_; this the annotator of the Elph. MS. has
changed to _āshlīq_, provisions, corn.
[428] _Samān-chī_ may mean Keeper of the Goods. Tīngrī-bīrdī,
Theodore, is the purely Turkī form of the Khudāī-bīrdī,
already met with several times in the B.N.
[429] Bast (Bost) is on the left bank of the Halmand.
[430] _Cf._ f. 56b.
[431] known as _Kābulī_. He was a son of Abū-sa`īd and thus an
uncle of Bābur. He ruled Kābul and Ghaznī from a date previous
to his father's death in 873 AH. (perhaps from the time `Umar
Shaikh was _not_ sent there, in 870 AH. _See_ f. 6b) to his
death in 907 AH. Bābur was his virtual successor in Kābul, in
910 AH.
[432] Elph. MS. f. 42; W.-i-B. I.O. 215 f. 47b and 217 f. 38;
Mems. p. 63. Bābur here resumes his own story, interrupted on
f. 56.
[433] _aīsh achīlmādī_, a phrase recurring on f. 59b foot. It
appears to imply, of trust in Providence, what the English
"The way was not opened," does. _Cf._ f. 60b for another
example of trust, there clinching discussion whether to go or
not to go to Marghīnān.
[434] _i.e._ _Aḥrārī_. He had been dead some 10 years. The
despoilment of his family is mentioned on f. 23b.
[435] _fatratlār_, here those due to the deaths of Aḥmad and
Maḥmūd with their sequel of unstable government in Samarkand.
[436] _Aūghlāqchī_, the player of the kid-game, the
gray-wolfer. Yār-yīlāq will have gone with the rest of
Samarkand into `Alī's hands in Rajab 903 AH. (March 1498).
Contingent terms between him and Bābur will have been made;
Yūsuf may have recognized some show of right under them, for
allowing Bābur to occupy Yār-yīlāq.
[437] _i.e._ after 933 AH. _Cf._ f. 46b and note concerning
the Bikramāditya era. See index _s.n._ Aḥmad-i-yūsuf and Ḥ.S.
ii, 293.
[438] This plural, unless ironical, cannot be read as
honouring `Alī; Bābur uses the honorific plural most rarely
and specially, _e.g._ for saintly persons, for The Khān and
for elder women-kinsfolk.
[439] _bīr yārīm yīl._ Dates shew this to mean six months. It
appears a parallel expression to Pers. _hasht-yak_,
one-eighth.
[440] Ḥ.S. ii, 293, in place of these two quotations, has a
_misra`_,—_Na rāy ṣafar kardan u na rūy iqāmat_, (Nor resolve
to march, nor face to stay).
[441] _i.e._ in Samarkand.
[442] Point to point, some 145 m. but much further by the
road. Tang-āb seems likely to be one of the head-waters of
Khwāja Bikargān-water. Thence the route would be by
unfrequented hill-tracks, each man leading his second horse.
[443] _tūn yārīmī naqāra waqtīdā._ _Tūn yārīmī_ seems to mean
half-dark, twilight. Here it cannot mean mid-night since this
would imply a halt of twelve hours and Bābur says no halt was
made. The drum next following mid-day is the one beaten at
sunset.
[444] The voluntary prayer, offered when the sun has well
risen, fits the context.
[445] I understand that the obeisance was made in the
Gate-house, between the inner and outer doors.
[446] This seeming sobriquet may be due to eloquence or to
good looks.
[447] _qarā tīyāq._ _Cf._ f. 63 where black bludgeons are used
by a red rabble.
[448] He was head-man of his clan and again with Shaibānī in
909 AH. (Sh. N. Vambéry, p. 272). Erskine (p. 67) notes that
the Manghīts are the modern Nogais.
[449] _i.e._ in order to allow for the here very swift
current. The Ḥ.S. varying a good deal in details from the B.N.
gives the useful information that Aūzūn Ḥasan's men knew
nothing of the coming of the Tāshkīnt Mughūls.
[450] _Cf._ f. 4b and App. A. as to the position of Akhsī.
[451] _bārīnī qīrdīlār._ After this statement the five
exceptions are unexpected; Bābur's wording is somewhat
confused here.
[452] _i.e._ in Hindūstān.
[453] Taṃbal would be the competitor for the second place.
[454] 47 m. 4-1/2 fur.
[455] Bābur had been about two lunar years absent from Andijān
but his loss of rule was of under 16 months.
[456] A scribe's note entered here on the margin of the Ḥai.
MS. is to the effect that certain words are not in the noble
archetype (_nashka sharīf_); this supports other circumstances
which make for the opinion that this Codex is a direct copy of
Bābur's own MS. _See_ Index s.n. Ḥai. MS. and JRAS 1906, p.
87.
[457] _Musalmān_ here seems to indicate mental contrast with
Pagan practices or neglect of Musalmān observances amongst
Mughūls.
[458] _i.e._ of his advisors and himself.
[459] _Cf._ f. 34.
[460] _circa_ 933 AH. All the revolts chronicled by Bābur as
made against himself were under Mughūl leadership. Long Ḥasan,
Taṃbal and `Alī-dost were all Mughūls. The worst was that of
914 AH. (1518 AD.) in which Qulī _Chūnāq_ disgraced himself
(T.R. p. 357).
[461] _Chūnāq_ may indicate the loss of one ear.
[462] _Būqāq_, amongst other meanings, has that of _one who
lies in ambush_.
[463] This remark has interest because it shews that (as Bābur
planned to write more than is now with the B.N. MSS.) the
first gap in the book (914 AH. to 925 AH.) is accidental. His
own last illness is the probable cause of this gap. _Cf._ JRAS
1905, p. 744. Two other passages referring to unchronicled
matters are one about the Bāgh-i-ṣafā (f. 224), and one about
Sl. `Alī T̤aghāī (f. 242).
[464] I surmise Aīlāīsh to be a local name of the Qarā-daryā
affluent of the Sīr.
[465] _aīkī aūch naubat chāpqūlāb bāsh chīqārghalī qūīmās._ I
cannot feel so sure as Mr. E. and M. de C. were that the man's
head held fast, especially as for it to fall would make the
better story.
[466] Tūqā appears to have been the son of a T̤aghāī, perhaps
of Sherīm; his name may imply blood-relationship.
[467] For the verb _awīmāq_, to trepan, _see_ f. 67 note 5.
[468] The Fr. map of 1904 shews a hill suiting Bābur's
location of this Hill of Pleasure.
[469] A place near Kābul bears the same name; in both the name
is explained by a legend that there Earth opened a refuge for
forty menaced daughters.
[470] Elph. MS. f. 47b; W.-i-B. I.O. 215 f. 53 and 217 f. 43;
Mems. p. 70.
[471] From Andijān to Aūsh is a little over 33 miles. Taṃbal's
road was east of Bābur's and placed him between Andijān and
Aūzkīnt where was the force protecting his family.
[472] mod. Mazy, on the main Aūsh-Kāshghar road.
[473] _āb-duzd_; de C. i, 144, _prise d'eau_.
[474] This simile seems the fruit of experience in Hindūstān.
_See_ f. 333, concerning Chānderi.
[475] These two Mughūls rebelled in 914 AH. with Sl. Qulī
_Chūnāq_ (T.R. _s.n._).
[476] _awīdī._ The head of Captain Dow, fractured at Chunār by
a stone flung at it, was trepanned (_Saiyār-i-muta`akhirīn_,
p. 577 and Irvine l .c. p. 283). Yār-`alī was alive in 910 AH.
He seems to be the father of the great Bairām Khān-i-khānān of
Akbar's reign.
[477] _chasht-gāh_; midway between sunrise and noon.
[478] _ṯaurī_; because providing prisoners for exchange.
[479] _shakh tūtūlūr īdī_, perhaps a palisade.
[480] _i.e._ from Ḥiṣār where he had placed him in 903 AH.
[481] _qūba yūzlūq_ (f. 6b and note 4). The Turkmān features
would be a maternal inheritance.
[482] He is "Saifī Maulānā `Arūzī" of Rieu's Pers. Cat. p.
525. _Cf._ Ḥ.S. ii, 341. His book, _`Arūz-i-saifī_ has been
translated by Blochmann and by Ranking.
[483] _namāz aūtār īdī._ I understand some irony from this (de
Meynard's Dict. _s.n._ _aūtmāq_).
[484] The _maṯla`_ of poems serve as an index of first lines.
[485] _Cf._ f. 30.
[486] _Cf._ f. 37b.
[487] _i.e._ scout and in times of peace, huntsman. On the
margin of the Elph. Codex here stands a note, mutilated in
rebinding;—_Sl. Aḥmad pidr-i-Qūch Beg ast * * *
pidr-i-Sher-afgan u Sher-afgan * * * u Sl. Ḥusain Khān * * *
Qūch Beg ast. Hamesha * * * dar khāna Shaham Khān * * *_.
[488] _pītīldī_; W.-i-B. _navishta shud_, words indicating the
use by Bābur of a written record.
[489] _Cf._ f. 6b and note and f. 17 and note.
[490] _tūlūk_; _i.e._ other food than grain. Fruit, fresh or
preserved, being a principal constituent of food in Central
Asia, _tūlūk_ will include several, but chiefly melons. "Les
melons constituent presque seuls vers le fin d'été, la
nourriture des classes pauvres" (Th. Radloff. l.c. p. 343).
[491] _Cf._ f. 6b and note.
[492] _tūlkī_ var. _tūlkū_, the yellow fox. Following this
word the Ḥai. MS. has _u dar kamīn dūr_ instead of _u rangīn
dūr_.
[493] _bī ḥadd_; with which I.O. 215 agrees but I.O. 217 adds
_farbih_, fat, which is right in fact (f. 2b) but less
pertinent here than an unlimited quantity.
[494] Here a pun on _`ajab_ may be read.
[495] _Cf._ f. 15, note to T̤aghāī.
[496] Apparently not the usual Kīndīr-līk pass but one n.w. of
Kāsān.
[497] A ride of at least 40 miles, followed by one of 20 to
Kāsān.
[498] _Cf._ f. 72 and f. 72b. Tīlba would seem to have left
Taṃbal.
[499] _Taṃbalnīng qarāsī._
[500] _i.e._ the Other (Mid-afternoon) Prayer.
[501] _ātīnīng būīnīnī qātīb._ _Qātmāq_ has also the
here-appropriate meaning of _to stiffen_.
[502] _aīlīk qūshmāq_, _i.e._ Bābur's men with the Kāsān
garrison. But the two W.-i-B. write merely _dast burd_ and
_dast kardan_.
[503] The meaning of _Ghazna_ here is uncertain. The Second
W.-i-B. renders it by ar. _qaryat_ but up to this point Bābur
has not used _qaryat_ for _village_. Ghazna-namangān cannot be
modern Namangān. It was 2 m. from Archīān where Taṃbal was,
and Bābur went to Bīshkhārān to be between Taṃbal and Machamī,
coming from the south. Archīān and Ghazna-namangān seem both
to have been n. or n.w. of Bīshkārān (see maps).
It may be mentioned that at Archīān, in 909 AH. the two
Chaghatāī Khāns and Bābur were defeated by Shaibānī.
[504] _bīzlār._ The double plural is rare with Bābur; he
writes _bīz_, we, when action is taken in common; he rarely
uses _mīn_, I, with autocratic force; his phrasing is largely
impersonal, _e.g._ with rare exceptions, he writes the
impersonal passive verb.
[505] _bāshlīghlār._ Teufel was of opinion that this word is
not used as a noun in the B.N. In this he is mistaken; it is
so used frequently, as here, in apposition. _See_ ZDMG,
xxxvii, art. Bābur und Abū`l-faẓl.
[506] _Cf._ f. 54 foot.
[507] _Cf._ f. 20. She may have come from Samarkand and `Alī's
household or from Kesh and the Tarkhān households.
[508] _Cf._ f. 26 l. 2 for the same phrase.
[509] He is the author of the _Shaibānī-nāma_.
[510] _dāng_ and _fils_ (_infra_) are small copper coins.
[511] _Cf._ f. 25 l. 1 and note 1.
[512] Probably the poet again; he had left Harāt and was in
Samarkand (Sh. N. Vambéry, p. 34 l. 14).
[513] From what follows, this Mughūl advance seems a sequel to
a Tarkhān invitation.
[514] By omitting the word _Mīr_ the Turkī text has caused
confusion between this father and son (Index _s.nn._).
[515] _bīz khūd kharāb bū mu`āmla aīdūk._ These words have
been understood earlier, as referring to the abnormal state of
Bābur's mind described under Sec. _r_. They better suit the
affairs of Samarkand because Bābur is able to resolve on
action and also because he here writes _bīz_, we, and not
_mīn_, I, as in Sec. _r_.
[516] For _būlghār_, rendezvous, _see_ also f. 78 l. 2 fr. ft.
[517] 25 m. only; the halts were due probably to belated
arrivals.
[518] Some of his ties would be those of old acquaintance in
Ḥiṣār with `Alī's father's begs, now with him in Samarkand.
[519] Point to point, some 90 m. but further by road.
[520] _Bū waqi` būlghāch_, manifestly ironical.
[521] Sangzār to Aūrā-tīpā, by way of the hills, some 50
miles.
[522] The Sh. N. Vambéry, p. 60, confirms this.
[523] _Cf._ f. 74b.
[524] Macham and Awīghūr, presumably.
[525] _gūzlār tūz tūtī_, _i.e._ he was blinded for some
treachery to his hosts.
[526] Muḥ. Ṣāliḥ's well-informed account of this episode has
much interest, filling out and, as by Shaibānī's Boswell,
balancing Bābur's. Bābur is obscure about what country was to
be given to `Alī. Pāyanda-ḥasan paraphrases his brief
words;—Shaibānī was to be as a father to `Alī and when he had
taken `Alī's father's _wilāyāt_, he was to give a country to
`Alī. It has been thought that the gift to `Alī was to follow
Shaibānī's recovery of his own ancestral camping-ground
(_yūrt_) but this is negatived, I think, by the word,
_wilāyāt_, cultivated land.
[527] Elp. MS. f. 57b; W.-i-B. I.O. 215 f. 63b and I.O. 217 f.
52; Mems. p. 82.
Two contemporary works here supplement the B.N.; (1) the
(_Tawārikh-i-guzīda_) _Naṣrat-nāma_, dated 908 AH. (B.M. Turkī
Or. 3222) of which Berezin's _Shaibāni-nāma_ is an abridgment;
(2) Muḥ. Ṣāliḥ Mīrzā's _Shaibānī-nāma_ (Vambéry trs. cap. xix
_et seq._). The Ḥ.S. (Bomb. ed. p. 302, and Tehran ed. p. 384)
is also useful.
[528] _i.e._ on his right. The Ḥ.S. ii, 302 represents that
`Alī was well-received. After Shaibāq had had Zuhra's
overtures, he sent an envoy to `Alī and Yaḥya; the first was
not won over but the second fell in with his mother's scheme.
This difference of view explains why `Alī slipped away while
Yaḥya was engaged in the Friday Mosque. It seems likely that
mother and son alike expected their Aūzbeg blood to stand them
in good stead with Shaibāq.
[529] He tried vainly to get the town defended. "Would to God
Bābur Mīrzā were here!" he is reported as saying, by Muḥ.
Ṣāliḥ.
[530] Perhaps it is for the play of words on `Alī and `Alī's
life (_jān_) that this man makes his sole appearance here.
[531] _i.e._ rich man or merchant, but _Bī_ (_infra_) is an
equivalent of Beg.
[532] Muḥ. Ṣāliḥ, invoking curses on such a mother, mentions
that Zuhra was given to a person of her own sort.
[533] The Sh. N. and _Naṣrat-nāma_ attempt to lift the blame
of `Alī's death from Shaibāq; the second saying that he fell
into the Kohik-water when drunk.
[534] Harāt might be his destination but the Ḥ.S. names Makka.
Some dismissals towards Khurāsān may imply pilgrimage to
Meshhed.
[535] Used also by Bābur's daughter, Gul-badan (l.c. f. 31).
[536] Cut off by alien lands and weary travel.
[537] The Pers. annotator of the Elph. Codex has changed Alāī
to _wīlāyat_, and _dābān_ (pass) to _yān_, side. For the
difficult route _see_ Schuyler, i, 275, Kostenko, i, 129 and
Rickmers, JRGS. 1907, art. Fan Valley.
[538] Amongst Turks and Mughūls, gifts were made by nines.
[539] Ḥiṣār was his earlier home.
[540] Many of these will have been climbed in order to get
over places impassable at the river's level.
[541] Schuyler quotes a legend of the lake. He and Kostenko
make it larger.
[542] The second occasion was when he crossed from Sūkh for
Kābul in 910 AH. (fol. 120).
[543] This name appears to indicate a Command of 10,000
(Bretschneider's _Mediæval Researches_, i, 112).
[544] It seems likely that the cloth was soiled. _Cf._ f. 25
and Hughes Dict. of Islām _s.n._ Eating.
[545] As, of the quoted speech, one word only, of three, is
Turkī, others may have been dreamed. Shaikh Maṣlaḥat's tomb is
in Khujand where Bābur had found refuge in 903 AH.; it had
been circumambulated by Tīmūr in 790 AH. (1390 AD.) and is
still honoured.
This account of a dream compares well for naturalness with
that in the seemingly-spurious passage, entered with the Ḥai.
MS. on f. 118. For examination of the passage _see_ JRAS, Jan.
1911, and App. D.
[546] He was made a Tarkhān by diploma of Shaibānī (Ḥ.S. ii,
306, l. 2).
[547] Here the Ḥai. MS. begins to use the word _Shaibāq_ in
place of its previously uniform _Shaibānī_. As has been noted
(f. 5b n. 2), the Elph. MS. writes _Shaibāq_. It may be
therefore that a scribe has changed the earlier part of the
Ḥai. MS. and that Bābur wrote _Shaibāq_. From this point my
text will follow the double authority of the Elph. and Ḥai.
MSS.
[548] In 875 AH. (1470 AD.). Ḥusain was then 32 years old.
Bābur might have compared his taking of Samarkand with Tīmūr's
capture of Qarshī, also with 240 followers (Z̤.N. i, 127).
Firishta (lith. ed. p. 196) ascribes his omission to do so to
reluctance to rank himself with his great ancestor.
[549] This arrival shews that Shaibānī expected to stay in
Samarkand. He had been occupying Turkistān under The Chaghatāī
Khān.
[550] `Alī-sher died Jan. 3rd. 1501. It is not clear to what
disturbances Bābur refers. He himself was at ease till after
April 20th. 1502 and his defeat at Sar-i-pul. Possibly the
reference is to the quarrels between Binā'ī and `Alī-sher.
_Cf._ Sām Mīrzā's Anthology, trs. S. de Saçy, _Notices et
Extraits_ iv, 287 _et seq._
[551] I surmise a double play-of-words in this verse. One is
on two rhyming words, _ghala_ and _mallah_ and is illustrated
by rendering them as _oat_ and _coat_. The other is on pointed
and unpointed letters, _i.e._ _ghala_ and _`ala_. We cannot
find however a Persian word _`ala_, meaning garment.
[552] Bābur's refrain is _ghūsīdūr_, his rhymes _būl_,
_(buyur)ūl_ and _tūl_. Binā'ī makes _būlghūsīdūr_ his refrain
but his rhymes are not true _viz._ _yīr_, _(sa)mar_ and _lār_.
[553] Shawwāl 906 AH. began April 20th. 1501.
[554] From the _Bū-stān_, Graf ed. p. 55, l. 246.
[555] Sīkīz Yīldūz. _See_ Chardin's _Voyages_, v, 136 and
Table; also Stanley Lane Poole's _Bābur_, p. 56.
[556] In 1791 AD. Muḥ. Effendi shot 482 yards from a Turkish
bow, before the R. Tox. S.; not a good shot, he declared.
Longer ones are on record. _See_ Payne-Gallwey's _Cross-bow_
and AQR. 1911, H. Beveridge's _Oriental Cross-bows_.
[557] In the margin of the Elph. Codex, here, stands a Persian
verse which appears more likely to be Humāyūn's than Bābur's.
It is as follows:
Were the Mughūl race angels, they would be bad;
Written in gold, the name Mughūl would be bad;
Pluck not an ear from the Mughūl's corn-land,
What is sown with Mughūl seed will be bad.
This verse is written into the text of the First W.-i-B. (I.O.
215 f. 72) and is introduced by a scribe's statement that it
is by _ān Ḥaẓrat_, much as notes known to be Humāyūn's are
elsewhere attested in the Elph. Codex. It is not in the Ḥai.
and Kehr's MSS. nor with, at least many, good copies of the
Second W.-i-B.
[558] This subterranean water-course, issuing in a flowing
well (Erskine) gave its name to a bastion (Ḥ.S. ii, 300).
[559] _nāwak_, a diminutive of _nāo_, a tube. It is described,
in a MS. of Bābur's time, by Muḥ. Budhā'ī, and, in a second of
later date, by Amīnu'd-dīn (AQR 1911, H.B.'s _Oriental
Cross-bows_).
[560] Kostenko, i, 344, would make the rounds 9 m.
[561] _bīr yūz ātliqnīng ātinī nāwak aūqī bila yakhshī atīm._
This has been read by Erskine as though _būz āt_, pale horse,
and not _yūz ātlīq_, Centurion, were written. De. C.
translates by Centurion and a marginal note of the Elph. Codex
explains _yūz ātlīq_ by _ṣad aspagī_.
[562] The Sh. N. gives the reverse side of the picture, the
plenty enjoyed by the besiegers.
[563] He may have been attached to the tomb of Khwāja
`Abdu'l-lāh _Anṣārī_ in Harāt.
[564] The brusque entry here and elsewhere of _e.g._ Taṃbal's
affairs, allows the inference that Bābur was quoting from
perhaps a news-writer's, contemporary records. For a different
view of Taṃbal, the Sh. N. cap. xxxiii should be read.
[565] Five-villages, on the main Khujand-Tāshkīnt road.
[566] _turk_, as on f. 28 of Khusrau Shāh.
[567] Elph. MS. f. 68b; W.-i-B. I.O. 215 f. 78 and 217 f. 61b;
Mems. p. 97.
The Kehr-Ilminsky text shews, in this year, a good example of
its Persification and of Dr. Ilminsky's dealings with his
difficult archetype by the help of the Memoirs.
[568] _tāshlāb._ The Sh. N. places these desertions as after
four months of siege.
[569] It strikes one as strange to find Long Ḥasan described,
as here, in terms of his younger brother. The singularity may
be due to the fact that Ḥusain was with Bābur and may have
invited Ḥasan. It may be noted here that Ḥusain seems likely
to be that father-in-law of `Umar Shaikh mentioned on f. 12b
and 13b.
[570] This laudatory comment I find nowhere but in the Ḥai.
Codex.
[571] There is some uncertainty about the names of those who
left.
[572] The Sh. N. is interesting here as giving an eye-witness'
account of the surrender of the town and of the part played in
the surrender by Khān-zāda's marriage (cap. xxxix).
[573] The first seems likely to be a relation of Niẕāmu'd-dīn
`Alī Khalīfa; the second was Mole-marked, a foster-sister. The
party numbered some 100 persons of whom Abū'l-makāram was one
(Ḥ.S. ii, 310).
[574] Bābur's brevity is misleading; his sister was not
captured but married with her own and her mother's consent
before attempt to leave the town was made. _Cf._ Gul-badan's
H.N. f. 3b and Sh. N. Vambéry, p. 145.
[575] The route taken avoided the main road for Dīzak; it can
be traced by the physical features, mentioned by Bābur, on the
Fr. map of 1904. The Sh. N. says the night was extraordinarily
dark. Departure in blinding darkness and by unusual ways shews
distrust of Shaibāq's safe-conduct suggesting that Yaḥyā's
fate was in the minds of the fugitives.
[576] The texts differ as to whether the last two lines are
prose or verse. All four are in Turkī, but I surmise a
clerical error in the refrain of the third, where _būlūb_ is
written for _būldī_.
[577] The second was in 908 AH. (f. 18_b_); the third in 914
AH. (f. 216 _b_); the fourth is not described in the B.N.; it
followed Bābur's defeat at Ghaj-diwān in 918 AH. (Erskine's
_History of India_, i, 325). He had a fifth, but of a
different kind, when he survived poison in 933 AH. (f. 305).
[578] Ḥai. MS. _qāqāsrāq_; Elph. MS. _yānasrāq_.
[579] _ātūn_, one who instructs in reading, writing and
embroidery. _Cf._ Gulbadan's H.N. f. 26. The distance walked
may have been 70 or 80 m.
[580] She was the wife of the then Governor of Aūrā-tīpā, Muḥ.
Ḥusain _Dūghlāt_.
[581] It may be noted here that in speaking of these elder
women Bābur uses the honorific plural, a form of rare
occurrence except for such women, for saintly persons and
exceptionally for The supreme Khān. For his father he has
never used it.
[582] This name has several variants. The village lies, in a
valley-bottom, on the Aq-sū and on a road. _See_ Kostenko, i,
119.
[583] She had been divorced from Shaibānī in order to allow
him to make legal marriage with her niece, Khān-zāda.
[584] Amongst the variants of this name, I select the modern
one. Macha is the upper valley of the Zar-afshān.
[585] Tīmūr took Dihlī in 801 AH. (Dec. 1398), _i.e._ 103
solar and 106 lunar years earlier. The ancient dame would then
have been under 5 years old. It is not surprising therefore
that in repeating her story Bābur should use a tense
betokening hear-say matter (_bārib īkān dūr_).
[586] The anecdote here following, has been analysed in JRAS
1908, p. 87, in order to show warrant for the opinion that
parts of the Kehr-Ilminsky text are retranslations from the
Persian W.-i-B.
[587] Amongst those thus leaving seem to have been Qaṃbar-`alī
(f. 99b).
[588] _Cf._ f. 107 foot.
[589] The Sh. N. speaks of the cold in that winter (Vambéry,
p. 160). It was unusual for the Sīr to freeze in this part of
its course (Sh. N. p. 172) where it is extremely rapid
(Kostenko, i, 213).
[590] _Cf._ f. 4b.
[591] Point to point, some 50 miles.
[592] _Āhangarān-julgasī_, a name narrowed on maps to Angren
(valley).
[593] _Faut shūd Nuyān._ The numerical value of these words is
907. Bābur when writing, looks back 26 years to the death of
this friend.
[594] Āb-burdan village is on the Zar-afshān; the pass is
11,200 ft. above the sea. Bābur's boundaries still hold good
and the spring still flows. _See_ Ujfalvy _l.c._ i. 14;
Kostenko, i, 119 and 193; Rickmers, JRGS 1907, p. 358.
[595] From the _Bū-stān_ (Graf's ed. Vienna 1858, p. 561). The
last couplet is also in the _Gulistān_ (Platts' ed. p. 72).
The Bombay lith. ed. of the _Bū-stān_ explains (p. 39) that
the "We" of the third couplet means Jamshīd and his
predecessors who have rested by his fountain.
[596] _nīma._ The First W.-i-B. (I.O. 215 f. 81 l. 8) writes
_tawārīkh_, annals.
[597] This may be the Khwāja Hijrī of the A.N. (index _s.n._);
and Badāyūnī's Ḥasan _Hijrī_, Bib. Ind. iii, 385; and Ethé's
Pers. Cat. No. 793; and Bod. Cat. No. 189.
[598] The Ḥai. MS. points in the last line as though punning
on Khān and Jān, but appears to be wrong.
[599] For an account of the waste of crops, the Sh. N. should
be seen (p. 162 and 180).
[600] I think this refers to last year's move (f. 94 foot).
[601] In other words, the T. preposition, meaning E. in, at,
_etc._ may be written with t or d, as _ta(tā)_ or as _da(dā)_.
Also the one meaning E. towards, may be _gha_, _qa_, or _ka_
(with long or short vowel).
[602] _dīm_, a word found difficult. It may be a derivative of
root _de_, tell, and a noun with the meaning of English tale
(number). The First W.-i-B. renders it by _san_, and by _san_,
Abū'l-ghāzī expresses what Bābur's _dīm_ expresses, the
numbering of troops. It occurs thrice in the B.N. (here, on f.
183b and on f. 264b). In the Elphinstone Codex it has been
written-over into _Ivīm_, once resembles _vīm_ more than _dīm_
and once is omitted. The L. and E. _Memoirs_ (p. 303) inserts
what seems a gloss, saying that a whip or bow is used in the
count, presumably held by the teller to 'keep his place' in
the march past. The _Siyāsat-nāma_ (Schefer, trs. p. 22) names
the whip as used in numbering an army.
[603] The acclamation of the standards is depicted in B.M.
W.-i-B. Or. 3714 f. 128b. One cloth is shewn tied to the off
fore-leg of a live cow, above the knee, Bābur's word being
_aūrtā aīlīk_ (middle-hand).
[604] The libation was of fermented mares'-milk.
[605] _lit._ their one way.
[606] _Cf._ T.R. p. 308.
[607] Elph. MS. f. 74; W.-i-B. I.O. 215 f. 83 and 217 f. 66;
Mems. p. 104.
[608] It may be noted that Bābur calls his mother's brothers,
not _ṯaghāī_ but _dādā_ father. I have not met with an
instance of his saying 'My ṯaghāī' as he says 'My dādā.' _Cf._
index _s.n._ _taghāī_.
[609] _kūrūnūsh qīlīb_, reflective from _kūrmak_, to see.
[610] A rider's metaphor.
[611] As touching the misnomer, 'Mughūl dynasty' for the
Tīmūrid rulers in Hindūstān, it may be noted that here, as
Bābur is speaking to a Chaghatāī Mughūl, his 'Turk' is left to
apply to himself.
[612] Gulistān, cap. viii, Maxim 12 (Platts' ed. p. 147).
[613] This backward count is to 890 AH. when Aḥmad fled from
cultivated lands (T.R. p. 113).
[614] It becomes clear that Aḥmad had already been asked to
come to Tāshkīnt.
[615] _Cf._ f. 96b for his first departure without help.
[616] Yagha (Yaghma) is not on the Fr. map of 1904, but
suitably located is Turbat (Tomb) to which roads converge.
[617] Elph. MS. _tūshkūcha_; Ḥai. MS. _yūkūnchā_. The
importance Aḥmad attached to ceremony can be inferred by the
details given (f. 103) of his meeting with Maḥmūd.
[618] _kūrūshkāīlār._ _Cf._ Redhouse who gives no support for
reading the verb _kūrmak_ as meaning _to embrace_.
[619] _būrk_, a tall felt cap (Redhouse). In the adjective
applied to the cap there are several variants. The Ḥai. MS.
writes _muftūl_, solid or twisted. The Elph. MS. has
_muftūn-lūq_ which has been understood by Mr. Erskine to mean,
gold-embroidered.
[620] The wording suggests that the decoration is in
chain-stitch, pricked up and down through the stuff.
[621] _tāsh chantāī._ These words have been taken to mean
whet-stone (_bilgū-tāsh_). I have found no authority for
reading _tāsh_ as whet-stone. Moreover to allow 'bag of the
stone' to be read would require _tāsh (nīng) chantāī-sī_ in
the text.
[622] lit. bag-like things. Some will have held spare
bow-strings and archers' rings, and other articles of
'repairing kit.' With the gifts, it seems probable that the
_gosha-gīr_ (f. 107) was given.
[623] Vullers, _clava sex foliis_.
[624] Zenker, _casse-tête_. _Kīstin_ would seem to be formed
from the root, _kīs_, cutting, but M. de C. describes it as a
ball attached by a strap or chain to a handle. _Sanglākh_, a
sort of mace (_gurz_).
[625] The _Rauzatu'ṣ-ṣafā_ states that The Khāns left Tāshkīnt
on Muḥarram 15th (July 21st. 1502), in order to restore Bābur
and expel Taṃbal (Erskine).
[626] lit. saw the count (_dīm_). _Cf._ f. 100 and note
concerning the count. Using a Persian substitute, the
Kehr-Ilminsky text writes _san_ (_kūrdīlār_).
[627] Elph. MS. _aṃbārchī_, steward, for Itārchī, a
tribal-name. The 'Mīrzā' and the rank of the army-begs are
against supposing a steward in command. Here and just above,
the texts write Mīrzā-i-Itārchī and Mīrzā-i-Dūghlāt, thus
suggesting that in names not ending with a vowel, the _iẓāfat_
is required for exact transliteration, _e.g._
Muḥammad-i-dūghlāt.
[628] _Alāī-līq aūrchīnī._ I understand the march to have been
along the northern slope of the Little Alāī, south of Aūsh.
[629] As of Ālmālīgh and Ālmātū (fol. 2b) Bābur reports a
tradition with caution. The name Aūz-kīnt may be read to mean
'Own village,' independent, as _Aūz-beg_, Own-beg.
[630] He would be one of the hereditary Khwājas of Andijān (f.
16).
[631] For several battle-cries _see_ Th. Radloff's _Réceuils_
etc. p. 322.
[632] _qāshqa ātlīq kīshī._ For a parallel phrase _see_ f.
92b.
[633] Bābur does not explain how the imbroglio was cleared up;
there must have been a dramatic moment when this happened.
[634] _Darwāna_ (a trap-door in a roof) has the variant
_dur-dāna_, a single pearl; _tūqqāī_ perhaps implies
relationship; _lūlū_ is a pearl, a wild cow etc.
[635] Ḥai. MS. _sāīrt kīshī_. Muḥ. `Alī is likely to be the
librarian (_cf._ index _s.n._).
[636] Elph. MS. _ramāqgha u tūr-gā_; Ḥai. MS. _tārtātgha u
tūr-gā_. Ilminsky gives no help, varying much here from the
true text. The archetype of both MSS. must have been difficult
to read.
[637] The Ḥai. MS.'s pointing allows the sobriquet to mean
'Butterfly.' His family lent itself to nick-names; in it three
brothers were known respectively as Fat or Lubberly, Fool and,
perhaps, Butterfly.
[638] _bīrk ārīgh_, doubly strong by its trench and its
current.
[639] I understand that time failed to set the standard in its
usual rest. E. and de C. have understood that the yak-tail
(_qūtās tūghī_ f. 100) was apart from the staff and that time
failed to adjust the two parts. The _tūgh_ however is the
whole standard; moreover if the tail were ever taken off at
night from the staff, it would hardly be so treated in a mere
bivouac.
[640] _aīshīklīk tūrlūq_, as on f. 113. I understand this to
mean that the two men were as far from their followers as
sentries at a Gate are posted outside the Gate.
[641] So too 'Piero of Cosimo' and 'Lorenzo of Piero of the
Medici.' _Cf._ the names of five men on f. 114.
[642] _shashtīm._ The _shasht_ (thumb) in archery is the
thumb-shield used on the left hand, as the _zih-gīr_
(string-grip), the archer's ring, is on the right-hand thumb.
It is useful to remember, when reading accounts of shooting
with the Turkī (Turkish) bow, that the arrows (_aūq_) had
notches so gripping the string that they kept in place until
released with the string.
[643] _sar-i-sabz gosha gīr._ The _gosha-gīr_ is an implement
for remedying the warp of a bow-tip and string-notch. For
further particulars _see_ Appendix C.
The term _sar-i-sabz_, lit. green-head, occurs in the sense of
'quite young' or 'new,' in the proverb, 'The red tongue loses
the green head,' quoted in the _T̤abaqāt-i-akbarī_ account of
Bābur's death. Applied here, it points to the _gosha-gīr_ as
part of the recent gift made by Aḥmad to Bābur.
[644] _Taṃbal aīkāndūr._ By this tense I understand that Bābur
was not at first sure of the identity of the pseudo-sentries,
partly because of their distance, partly, it may be presumed,
because of concealment of identity by armour.
[645] _dūwulgha būrkī_; _i.e._ the soft cap worn under the
iron helm.
[646] Nūyān's sword dealt the blow (f. 97b). Gul-badan also
tells the story (f. 77) à propos of a similar incident in
Humāyūn's career. Bābur repeats the story on f. 234.
[647] _yāldāghlāmāī dūr aīdīm._ The Second W.-i-B. has taken
this as from _yāltūrmāq_, to cause to glisten, and adds the
gloss that the sword was rusty (I.O. 217 f. 70b).
[648] The text here seems to say that the three men were on
foot, but this is negatived by the context.
[649] Amongst the various uses of the verb _tūshmak_, to
descend in any way, the B.N. does not allow of 'falling
(death) in battle.' When I made the index of the Ḥai. MS.
facsimile, this was not known to me; I therefore erroneously
entered the men enumerated here as killed at this time.
[650] Elph. MS. _yakhshī_. Zenker explains _bakhshī_
(pay-master) as meaning also a Court-physician.
[651] The Ḥai. Elph. and Kehr's MS. all have _pūchqāq tāqmāq_
or it may be _pūḥqāq tāqmāq_. T. _būkhāq_ means bandage,
_pūchāq_, rind of fruit, but the word clear in the three Turkī
MSS. means, skin of a fox's leg.
[652] The _daryā_ here mentioned seems to be the Kāsān-water;
the route taken from Bīshkhārān to Pāp is shewn on the Fr. map
to lead past modern Tūpa-qūrghān. Pāp is not marked, but was,
I think, at the cross-roads east of Touss (Karnān).
[653] Presumably Jahāngīr's.
[654] Here his father was killed (f. 6b). _Cf._ App. A.
[655] `Alī-dost's son (f. 79b).
[656] The sobriquet _Khīz_ may mean Leaper, or Impetuous.
[657] _kūīlāk_, syn. _kūnglāk_, a shirt not opening at the
breast. It will have been a short garment since the under-vest
was visible.
[658] _i.e._ when Bābur was writing in Hindūstān. Exactly at
what date he made this entry is not sure. `Alī was in Koel in
933 AH. (f. 315) and then taken prisoner, but Bābur does not
say he was killed,—as he well might say of a marked man, and,
as the captor was himself taken shortly after, `Alī may have
been released, and may have been in Koel again. So that the
statement 'now in Koel' may refer to a time later than his
capture. The interest of the point is in its relation to the
date of composition of the _Bābur-nāma_.
No record of `Alī's bravery in Aūsh has been preserved. The
reference here made to it may indicate something attempted in
908 AH. after Bābur's adventure in Karnān (f. 118b) or in 909
AH. from Sūkh. _Cf._ Translator's note f. 118b.
[659] _aūpchīnlīk._ Vambéry, _gepanzert_; Shaw, four
horse-shoes and their nails; Steingass, _aūpcha-khāna_, a
guard-house.
[660] Sang is a ferry-station (Kostenko, i, 213). Pāp may well
have been regretted (f. 109b and f. 112b)! The well-marked
features of the French map of 1904 allows Bābur's flight to be
followed.
[661] In the Turkī text this saying is in Persian; in the
Kehr-Ilminsky, in Turkī, as though it had gone over with its
Persian context of the W.-i-B. from which the K.-I. text here
is believed to be a translation.
[662] _Cf._ f. 96b and Fr. Map for route over the Kīndīr-tau.
[663] This account of Muḥ. Bāqir reads like one given later to
Bābur; he may have had some part in Bābur's rescue (_cf._
Translator's Note to f. 118b).
[664] Perhaps reeds for a raft. Sh. N. p. 258, _Sāl aūchūn bār
qāmīsh_, reeds are there also for rafts.
[665] Here the Turkī text breaks off, as it might through loss
of pages, causing a blank of narrative extending over some 16
months. _Cf._ App. D. for a passage, supposedly spurious,
found with the Ḥaidarābād Codex and the Kehr-Ilminsky text,
purporting to tell how Bābur was rescued from the risk in
which the lacuna here leaves him.
[666] As in the Farghāna Section, so here, reliance is on the
Elphinstone and Ḥaidarābād MSS. The Kehr-Ilminsky text still
appears to be a retranslation from the _Wāqi`āt-i-bāburī_ and
verbally departs much from the true text; moreover, in this
Section it has been helped out, where its archetype was
illegible or has lost fragmentary passages, from the Leyden
and Erskine _Memoirs_. It may be mentioned, as between the
First and the Second _Wāqi`āt-i-bāburī_, that several obscure
passages in this Section are more explicit in the First
(Pāyanda-ḥasan's) than in its successor (`Abdu-r-raḥīm's).
[667] Elph. MS. f. 90b; W.-i-B. I.O. 215, f. 96b and 217, f.
79; Mems. p. 127. "In 1504 AD. Ferdinand the Catholic drove
the French out of Naples" (Erskine). In England, Henry VII was
pushing forward a commercial treaty, the _Intercursus malus_,
with the Flemings and growing in wealth by the exactions of
Empson and Dudley.
[668] presumably the pastures of the "Ilak" Valley. The route
from Sūkh would be over the `Alā`u'd-dīn-pass, into the
Qīzīl-sū valley, down to Āb-i-garm and on to the Aīlāq-valley,
Khwāja `Imād, the Kāfirnigān, Qabādīān, and Aūbāj on the Amū.
See T.R. p. 175 and Farghāna Section, p. 184, as to the
character of the journey.
[669] Amongst the Turkī tribes, the time of first applying the
razor to the face is celebrated by a great entertainment.
Bābur's miserable circumstances would not admit of this
(Erskine).
The text is ambiguous here, reading either that Sūkh was left
or that Aīlāq-yīlāq was reached in Muḥarram. As the birthday
was on the 8th, the journey very arduous and, for a party
mostly on foot, slow, it seems safest to suppose that the
start was made from Sūkh at the end of 909 AH. and not in
Muḥarram, 910 AH.
[670] _chārūq_, rough boots of untanned leather, formed like a
moccasin with the lower leather drawn up round the foot; they
are worn by Khīrghīz mountaineers and caravan-men on journeys
(Shaw).
[671] _chāpān_, the ordinary garment of Central Asia (Shaw).
[672] The _ālāchūq_, a tent of flexible poles, covered with
felt, may be the _khargāh_ (kibitka); Persian _chādar_ seems
to represent Turkī _āq awī_, white house.
[673] _i.e._ with Khusrau's power shaken by Aūzbeg attack,
made in the winter of 909 AH. (_Shaibānī-nāma_ cap. lviii).
[674] Cf. ff. 81 and 81b. The armourer's station was low for
an envoy to Bābur, the superior in birth of the armourer's
master.
[675] var. Chaqānīān and Saghānīān. The name formerly
described the whole of the Ḥiṣār territory (Erskine).
[676] the preacher by whom the _Khuṯba_ is read (Erskine).
[677] _bī bāqī_ or _bī Bāqī_; perhaps a play of words with the
double meaning expressed in the above translation.
[678] Amongst these were widows and children of Bābur's uncle,
Maḥmūd (f. 27b).
[679] _aūghūl._ As being the son of Khusrau's sister, Aḥmad
was nephew to Bāqī; there may be in the text a scribe's slip
from one _aūghūl_ to another, and the real statement be that
Aḥmad was the son of Bāqī's son, Muḥ. Qāsim, which would
account for his name Aḥmad-i-qāsim.
[680] Cf. f. 67.
[681] Bābur's loss of rule in Farghāna and Samarkand.
[682] about 7 miles south of Aībak, on the road to Sar-i-tāgh
(mountain-head, Erskine).
[683] _viz._ the respective fathers, Maḥmūd and `Umar Shaikh.
The arrangement was made in 895 AH. (1490 AD.).
[684] _Gulistān_ cap. i, story 3. Part of this quotation is
used again on f. 183.
[685] Maḥmūd's sons under whom Bāqī had served.
[686] Uncles of all degrees are included as elder brethren,
cousins of all degrees, as younger ones.
[687] Presumably the ferries; perhaps the one on the main road
from the north-east which crosses the river at Fort Murgh-āb.
[688] Nine deaths, perhaps where the Amū is split into nine
channels at the place where Mīrzā Khān's son Sulaimān later
met his rebel grandson Shāh-rukh (_T̤abaqāt-i-akbarī_, Elliot
& Dowson, v, 392, and A.N. Bib. Ind., 3rd ed., 441).
Tūqūz-aūlūm is too far up the river to be Arnold's "shorn and
parcelled Oxus".
[689] Shaibāq himself had gone down from Samarkand in 908 AH.
and in 909 AH. and so permanently located his troops as to
have sent their families to them. In 909 AH. he drove Khusrau
into the mountains of Badakhshān, but did not occupy Qūndūz;
thither Khusrau returned and there stayed till now, when
Shaibāq again came south (fol. 123). See Sh. N. cap. lviii _et
seq._
[690] From Taṃbal, to put down whom he had quitted his army
near Balkh (Sh. N. cap. lix).
[691] This, one of the many Red-rivers, flows from near
Kāhmard and joins the Andar-āb water near Dūshī.
[692] A _garī_ is twenty-four minutes.
[693] Qorān, _Surat_ iii, verse 25; Sale's Qorān, ed. 1825, i,
56.
[694] Cf. f. 82.
[695] _viz._ Bāī-sanghar, bowstrung, and Mas`ūd, blinded.
[696] Muḥ. Ṣāliḥ is florid over the rubies of Badakhshān he
says Bābur took from Khusrau, but Ḥaidar says Bābur not only
had Khusrau's property, treasure, and horses returned to him,
but refused all gifts Khusrau offered. "This is one trait out
of a thousand in the Emperor's character." Ḥaidar mentions,
too, the then lack of necessaries under which Bābur suffered
(Sh. N., cap. lxiii, and T.R. p. 176).
[697] Cf. T. R. p. 134 n. and 374 n.
[698] _Jība_, so often used to describe the quilted corselet,
seems to have here a wider meaning, since the _jība-khāna_
contained both _joshan_ and _kūhah_, _i.e._ coats-of-mail and
horse-mail with accoutrements. It can have been only from this
source that Bābur's men obtained the horse-mail of f. 127.
[699] He succeeded his father, Aūlūgh Beg _Kābulī_, in 907
AH.; his youth led to the usurpation of his authority by
Sherīm Ẕikr, one of his begs; but the other begs put Sherīm to
death. During the subsequent confusions Muḥ. Muqīm _Arghūn_,
in 908 AH., got possession of Kābul and married a sister of
`Abdu'r-razzāq. Things were in this state when Bābur entered
the country in 910 AH. (Erskine).
[700] var. Ūpīān, a few miles north of Chārikār.
[701] Suhail (Canopus) is a most conspicuous star in
Afghānistān; it gives its name to the south, which is never
called Janūb but Suhail; the rising of Suhail marks one of
their seasons (Erskine). The honour attaching to this star is
due to its seeming to rise out of Arabia Felix.
[702] The lines are in the Preface to the _Anwār-i-suhailī_
(Lights of Canopus).
[703] "Die Kirghis-qazzāq drücken die Sonnen-höhe in Pikenaus"
(von Schwarz, p. 124).
[704] Presumably, dark with shade, as in _qarā-yīghāch_, the
hard-wood elm (f. 47b and note to _narwān_).
[705] _i.e._ Sayyid Muḥammad `Alī, the door-ward. These
_būlāks_ seem likely to have been groups of 1,000 fighting-men
(Turki _Mīng_).
[706] In-the-water and Water-head.
[707] Walī went from his defeat to Khwāst; wrote to Maḥmūd
_Aūzbeg_ in Qūndūz to ask protection; was fetched to Qūndūz by
Muḥ. Ṣāliḥ, the author of the _Shaibānī-nāma_, and forwarded
from Qūndūz to Samarkand (Sh. N. cap. lxiii). Cf. f. 29b.
[708] _i.e._ where justice was administered, at this time,
outside Bābur's tent.
[709] They would pass Ajar and make for the main road over the
Dandān-shikan Pass.
[710] The clansmen may have obeyed Aḥmad's orders in thus
holding up the families.
[711] The name may be from Turkī _tāq_, a horse-shoe, but I.O.
215 f. 102 writes Persian _naqīb_, the servant who announces
arriving guests.
[712] Here, as immediately below, when mentioning the
Chār-bāgh and the tomb of Qūtlūq-qadam, Bābur uses names
acquired by the places at a subsequent date. In 910 AH. the
Taster was alive; the Chār-bāgh was bought by Bābur in 911
AH., and Qūtlūq-qadam fought at Kānwāha in 933 AH.
[713] The Kūcha-bāgh is still a garden about 4 miles from
Kābul on the north-west and divided from it by a low
hill-pass. There is still a bridge on the way (Erskine).
[714] Presumably that on which the Bālā-ḥiṣār stood, the
glacis of a few lines further.
[715] Cf. f. 130.
[716] One of Muqīm's wives was a Tīmūrid, Bābur's
first-cousin, the daughter of Aūlūgh Beg _Kābulī_; another was
Bībī Zarīf Khātūn, the mother of that Māh-chūchūq, whose anger
at her marriage to Bābur's faithful Qāsim Kūkūldāsh has filled
some pages of history (Gulbadan's H.N. _s.n._ Māh-chūchūq and
Erskine's B. and H. i, 348).
[717] Some 9 m. north of Kābul on the road to Āq-sarāī.
[718] The Ḥai. MS. (only) writes First Rabī but the Second
better suits the near approach of winter.
[719] Elph. MS. fol. 97; W.-i-B. I.O. 215 f. 102b and 217 f.
85; Mems. p. 136. Useful books of the early 19th century, many
of them referring to the _Bābur-nāma_, are Conolly's
_Travels_, Wood's _Journey_, Elphinstone's _Caubul_, Burnes'
_Cabool_, Masson's _Narrative_, Lord's and Leech's articles in
JASB 1838 and in Burnes' _Reports_ (India Office Library),
Broadfoot's _Report_ in RGS Supp. Papers vol. I.
[720] f. 1b where Farghāna is said to be on the limit of
cultivation.
[721] f. 131b. To find these _tūmāns_ here classed with what
was not part of Kābul suggest a clerical omission of "beyond"
or "east of" (Lamghānāt). It may be more correct to write
Lāmghānāt, since the first syllable may be _lām_, fort. The
modern form Laghmān is not used in the _Bābur-nāma_, nor, it
may be added is Paghmān for Pamghān.
[722] It will be observed that Bābur limits the name
Afghānistān to the countries inhabited by Afghān tribesmen;
they are chiefly those south of the road from Kābul to
Pashāwar (Erskine). See Vigne, p. 102, for a boundary between
the Afghāns and Khurāsān.
[723] Al-birūnī's _Indika_ writes of both Turk and Hindū-shāhī
Kings of Kābul. See Raverty's _Notes_ p. 62 and Stein's _Shāhī
Kings of Kābul_. The mountain is 7592 ft. above the sea, some
1800 ft. therefore above the town.
[724] The Kābul-river enters the Chār-dih plain by the
Dih-i-yaq`ūb narrows, and leaves it by those of Dūrrīn. Cf.
_S.A. War_, Plan p. 288 and Plan of action at Chār-āsiyā
(Four-mills), the second shewing an off-take which may be Wais
Ātāka's canal. See Vigne, p. 163 and Raverty's _Notes_ pp. 69
and 689.
[725] This, the Bālā-jūī (upper-canal) was a four-mill stream
and in Masson's time, as now, supplied water to the gardens
round Bābur's tomb. Masson found in Kābul honoured descendants
of Wais Ātāka (ii, 240).
[726] But for a, perhaps negligible, shortening of its first
vowel, this form of the name would describe the normal end of
an irrigation canal, a little pool, but other forms with other
meanings are open to choice, _e.g._ small hamlet (Pers.
_kul_), or some compound containing Pers. _gul_, a rose, in
its plain or metaphorical senses. Jarrett's _Āyīn-i-akbarī_
writes Gul-kīnah, little rose (?). Masson (ii, 236) mentions a
similar pleasure-resort, Sanjī-tāq.
[727] The original ode, with which the parody agrees in rhyme
and refrain, is in the _Dīwān, s.l. Dāl_ (Brockhaus ed. 1854,
i, 62 and lith. ed. p. 96). See Wilberforce Clarke's literal
translation i, 286 (H. B.). A marginal note to the Ḥaidarābād
Codex gives what appears to be a variant of one of the rhymes
of the parody.
[728] _aūlūgh kūl_; some 3 m. round in Erskine's time; mapped
as a swamp in _S.A. War_ p. 288.
[729] A marginal note to the Ḥai. Codex explains this name to
be an abbreviation of Khwāja Shamsū'd-dīn _Jān-bāz_ (or
_Jahān-bāz_; Masson, ii, 279 and iii, 93).
[730] _i.e_. the place made holy by an impress of saintly
foot-steps.
[731] Two eagles or, Two poles, used for punishment. Vigne's
illustration (p. 161) clearly shows the spur and the detached
rock. Erskine (p. 137 n.) says that `Uqābain seems to be the
hill, known in his day as `Āshiqān-i-`ārifān, which connects
with Bābur Bādshāh. See Raverty's _Notes_ p. 68.
[732] During most of the year this wind rushes through the
Hindū-kush (Parwān)-pass; it checks the migration of the birds
(f. 142), and it may be the cause of the deposit of the
Running-sands (Burnes, p. 158). Cf. Wood, p. 124.
[733] He was Badī`u'z-zamān's _Ṣadr_ before serving Bābur; he
died in 918 AH. (1512 AD.), in the battle of Kūl-i-malik where
`Ubaidu'l-lāh _Aūzbeg_ defeated Bābur. He may be identical
with Mīr Ḥusain the Riddler of f. 181, but seems not to be
Mullā Muḥ. _Badakhshī_, also a Riddler, because the
_Ḥabību's-siyār_ (ii, 343 and 344) gives this man a separate
notice. Those interested in enigmas can find one made by
T̤ālib on the name Yaḥya (Ḥ.S. ii, 344). Sharafu'd-dīn `Alī
_Yazdī_, the author of the _Z̤afar-nāma_, wrote a book about a
novel kind of these puzzles (T.R. p. 84).
[734] The original couplet is as follows:—
_Bakhūr dar arg-i Kābul mai, bagardān kāsa pāy dar pāy,
Kah ham koh ast, u ham daryā, u ham shahr ast, u ham ṣaḥrā'._
What T̤ālib's words may be inferred to conceal is the opinion
that like Badī`u'z-zamān and like the meaning of his name,
Kābul is the Wonder-of-the-world. (Cf. M. Garçin de Tassy's
_Rhétorique_ [p. 165], for _ces combinaisons énigmatiques_.)
[735] All MSS. do not mention Kāshghar.
[736] Khīta (Cathay) is Northern China; Chīn (_infra_) is
China; Rūm is Turkey and particularly the provinces near
Trebizond (Erskine).
[737] 300% to 400% (Erskine).
[738] Persian _sinjid_, Brandis, _elæagnus hortensis_; Erskine
(Mems. p. 138) jujube, presumably the _zizyphus jujuba_ of
Speede, Supplement p. 86. Turkī _yāngāq_, walnut, has several
variants, of which the most marked is _yānghkāq_. For a good
account of Kābul fruits _see_ Masson, ii, 230.
[739] a kind of plum (?). It seems unlikely to be a cherry
since Bābur does not mention cherries as good in his old
dominions, and Firminger (p. 244) makes against it as
introduced from India. Steingass explains _alū-bālū_ by
"sour-cherry, an armarylla"; if sour, is it the Morello
cherry?
[740] The sugar-cane was seen in abundance in Lan-po (Lamghān)
by a Chinese pilgrim (Beale, p. 90); Bābur's introduction of
it may have been into his own garden only in Nīngnahār (f.
132b).
[741] _i.e._ the seeds of _pinus Gerardiana_.
[742] _rawāshlār._ The green leaf-stalks (_chūkrī_) of _ribes
rheum_ are taken into Kābul in mid-April from the
Pamghān-hills; a week later they are followed by the blanched
and tended _rawāsh_ (Masson, ii, 7). _See_ Gul-badan's H.N.
trs. p. 188, Vigne, p. 100 and 107, Masson, ii, 230, Conolly,
i, 213.
[743] a large green fruit, shaped something like a citron;
also a large sort of cucumber (Erskine).
[744] The _ṣāḥibī_, a grape praised by Bābur amongst
Samarkandī fruits, grows in Koh-dāman; another well-known
grape of Kābul is the long stoneless _ḥusainī_, brought by
Afghān traders into Hindūstān in round, flat boxes of poplar
wood (Vigne, p. 172).
[745] An allusion, presumably, to the renouncement of wine
made by Bābur and some of his followers in 933 AH. (1527 AD.
f. 312). He may have had `Umar _Khayyām's_ quatrain in mind,
"Wine's power is known to wine-bibbers alone" (Whinfield's 2nd
ed. 1901, No. 164).
[746] _pūstīn_, usually of sheep-skin. For the wide range of
temperature at Kābul in 24 hours, _see_ Ency. Brtt. art.
Afghānistān. The winters also vary much in severity (Burnes,
p. 273).
[747] Index _s.n._ As he fought at Kānwāha, he will have been
buried after March 1527 AD.; this entry therefore will have
been made later. The Curriers'-gate is the later Lahor-gate
(Masson, ii, 259).
[748] Index _s.n._
[749] For lists of the Hindū-kush passes _see_ Leech's Report
VII; Yule's _Introductory Essay_ to Wood's _Journey_ 2nd ed.;
PRGS 1879, Markham's art. p. 121.
The highest _cols_ on the passes here enumerated by Bābur
are,—Khawāk 11,640 ft.—T̤ūl, height not known,—Pārandī 15,984
ft.—Bāj-gāh (Toll-place) 12,000 ft.—Walīān (Saints) 15,100
ft.—Chahār-dār (Four-doors) 18,900 ft. and Shibr-tū 9800 ft.
In considering the labour of their ascent and descent, the
general high level, north and south of them, should be borne
in mind; _e.g._ Chārikār (Chār-yak-kār) stands 5200 ft. and
Kābul itself at 5780 ft. above the sea.
[750] _i.e._ the hollow, long, and small-bāzār roads
respectively. Panjhīr is explained by Hindūs to be Panj-sher,
the five lion-sons of Pandu (Masson, iii, 168).
[751] Shibr is a Hazāra district between the head of the
Ghūr-bund valley and Bāmīān. It does not seem to be correct to
omit the _tū_ from the name of the pass. Persian _tū_, turn,
twist (syn. _pīch_) occurs in other names of local passes; to
read it here as a _turn_ agrees with what is said of Shibr-tū
pass as not crossing but turning the Hindū-kush (Cunningham).
Lord uses the same wording about the Ḥājī-ghāt (var. -kāk
etc.) traverse of the same spur, which "turns the extremity of
the Hindū-kush". _See_ Cunningham's _Ancient Geography_, i,
25; Lord's _Ghūr-bund_ (JASB 1838 p. 528), Masson, iii, 169
and Leech's _Report_ VII.
[752] Perhaps through Jālmīsh into Saighān.
[753] _i.e._ they are closed.
[754] It was unknown in Mr. Erskine's day (Mems. p. 140).
Several of the routes in Raverty's _Notes_ (p. 92 etc.) allow
it to be located as on the Īrī-āb, near to or identical with
Bāghzān, 35 _kurohs_ (70 m.) s.s.e. of Kābul.
[755] Farmūl, about the situation of which Mr. Erskine was in
doubt, is now marked in maps, Ūrghūn being its principal
village.
[756] 15 miles below Atak (Erskine). Mr. Erskine notes that he
found no warrant, previous to Abū'l-faẓl's, for calling the
Indus the Nīl-āb, and that to find one would solve an ancient
geographical difficulty. This difficulty, my husband suggests,
was Alexander's supposition that the Indus was the Nile. In
books grouping round the _Bābur-nāma_, the name Nīl-āb is not
applied to the Indus, but to the ferry-station on that river,
said to owe its name to a spring of azure water on its eastern
side. (Cf. Afẓal Khān _Khattak_, R.'s _Notes_ p. 447.)
I find the name Nīl-āb applied to the Kābul-river:—1. to its
Arghandī affluent (Cunningham, p. 17, Map); 2. through its
boatman class, the Nīl-ābīs of Lālpūra, Jalālābād and Kūnār
(G. of I. 1907, art. Kābul); 3. inferentially to it as a
tributary of the Indus (D'Herbélot); 4. to it near its
confluence with the grey, silt-laden Indus, as blue by
contrast (Sayyid Ghulām-i-muḥammad, R.'s _Notes_ p. 34). (For
Nīl-āb (Naulibis?) in Ghūr-bund _see_ Cunningham, p. 32 and
Masson, iii, 169.)
[757] By one of two routes perhaps,—either by the
Khaibar-Nīngnahār-Jagdālīk road, or along the north bank of
the Kābul-river, through Goshṭa to the crossing where, in
1879, the 10th Hussars met with disaster. _See_ _S.A. War_,
Map 2 and p. 63; Leech's _Reports_ II and IV (Fords of the
Indus); and R.'s _Notes_ p. 44.
[758] Hāru, Leech's Harroon, apparently, 10 m. above Atak. The
text might be read to mean that both rivers were forded near
their confluence, but, finding no warrant for supposing the
Kābul-river fordable below Jalālābād, I have guided the
translation accordingly; this may be wrong and may conceal a
change in the river.
[759] Known also as Dhān-kot and as Mu`az̤z̤am-nagar
(_Ma`āṣiru'l-`umrā_ i, 249 and A.N. trs. H.B. index _s.n._
Dhān-kot). It was on the east bank of the Indus, probably near
modern Kālā-bāgh, and was washed away not before 956 AH. (1549
AD. H. Beveridge).
[760] Chaupāra seems, from f. 148b, to be the Chapari of
Survey Map 1889. Bābur's _Dasht_ is modern Dāman.
[761] _aīmāq_, used usually of Mughūls, I think. It may be
noted that Lieutenant Leech compiled a vocabulary of the
tongue of the Mughūl Aīmāq in Qandahār and Harāt (JASB 1838,
p. 785).
[762] The _Āyīn-i-akbarī_ account of Kābul both uses and
supplements the _Bābur-nāma_.
[763] _viz._ `Alī-shang, Alangār and Mandrāwar (the Lamghānāt
proper), Nīngnahār (with its _bulūk_, Kāma),
Kūnār-with-Nūr-gal, (and the two _bulūks_ of Nūr-valley and
Chaghān-sarāī).
[764] _See_ Appendix E, _On Nagarahāra_.
[765] The name Adīnapūr is held to be descended from ancient
Udyānapūra (Garden-town); its ancestral form however was
applied to Nagarahāra, apparently, in the Bārān-Sūrkh-rūd
_dū-āb_, and not to Bābur's _dārogha's_ seat. The Sūrkh-rūd's
deltaic mouth was a land of gardens; when Masson visited
Adīnapūr he went from Bālā-bāgh (High-garden); this appears to
stand where Bābur locates his Bāgh-i-wafā, but he was shown a
garden he took to be this one of Bābur's, a mile higher up the
Sūrkh-rūd. A later ruler made the Chār-bāgh of maps. It may be
mentioned that Bālā-bāgh has become in some maps Rozābād
(Garden-town). _See_ Masson, i, 182 and iii, 186; R.'s
_Notes_; and Wilson's _Ariana Antiqua_, Masson's art.
[766] One of these _tangī_ is now a literary asset in Mr.
Kipling's _My Lord the Elephant_. Bābur's 13 y. represent some
82 miles; on f. 137b the Kābul-Ghaznī road of 14 y. represents
some 85; in each case the _yīghāch_ works out at over six
miles (Index _s.n._ _yīghāch_ and Vigne, p. 454). Sayyid
Ghulām-i-muḥammad traces this route minutely (R.'s _Notes_ pp.
57, 59).
[767] Masson was shewn "Chaghatai castles", attributed to
Bābur (iii, 174).
[768] Dark-turn, perhaps, as in Shibr-tū, Jāl-tū, _etc._ (f.
130b and note to Shibr-tū).
[769] f. 145 where the change is described in identical words,
as seen south of the Jagdālīk-pass. The Bādām-chashma pass
appears to be a traverse of the eastern rampart of the
Tīzīn-valley.
[770] Appendix E, _On Nagarahāra_.
[771] No record exists of the actual laying-out of the garden;
the work may have been put in hand during the Mahmand
expedition of 914 AH. (f. 216); the name given to it suggests
a gathering there of loyalists when the stress was over of the
bad Mughūl rebellion of that year (f. 216b where the narrative
breaks off abruptly in 914 AH. and is followed by a gap down
to 925 AH.-1519 AD.).
[772] No annals of 930 AH. are known to exist; from Ṣafar 926
AH. to 932 AH. (Jan. 1520-Nov. 1525 AD.) there is a lacuna.
Accounts of the expedition are given by Khāfī Khān, i, 47 and
Firishta, lith. ed. p. 202.
[773] Presumably to his son, Humāyūn, then governor in
Badakhshān; Bukhārā also was under Bābur's rule.
[774] Here, _qārī_, yards. The dimensions 10 by 10, are those
enjoined for places of ablution.
[775] Presumably those of the _tūqūz-rūd_, _supra_. Cf.
Appendix E, _On Nagarahāra_.
[776] White-mountain; Pushtū, Spīn-ghur (or ghar).
[777] _i.e._ the Lamghānāt proper. The range is variously
named; in (Persian) Siyāh-koh (Black-mountain), which like
Turkī Qarā-tāgh may mean non-snowy; by Tājīks, Bāgh-i-ātāka
(Foster-father's garden); by Afghāns, Kanda-ghur, and by
Lamghānīs Koh-i-būlān,—Kanda and Būlān both being
ferry-stations below it (Masson, iii, 189; also the Times Nov.
20th 1912 for a cognate illustration of diverse naming).
[778] A comment made here by Mr. Erskine on changes of name is
still appropriate, but some seeming changes may well be due to
varied selection of land-marks. Of the three routes next
described in the text, one crosses as for Mandrāwar; the
second, as for `Alī-shang, a little below the outfall of the
Tīzīn-water; the third may take off from the route, between
Kābul and Tag-aū, marked in Col. Tanner's map (PRGS 1881 p.
180). Cf. R's Route 11; and for Aūlūgh-nūr, Appendix F, _On
the name Nūr_.
[779] The name of this pass has several variants. Its second
component, whatever its form, is usually taken to mean _pass_,
but to read it here as pass would be redundant, since Bābur
writes "pass (_kūtal_) of Bād-i-pīch". Pich occurs as a place
name both east (Pīch) and west (Pīchghān) of the _kūtal_, but
what would suit the bitter and even fatal winds of the pass
would be to read the name as Whirling-wind (_bād-i-pīch_).
Another explanation suggests itself from finding a
considerable number of pass-names such as Shibr-tū, Jāi-tū,
Qarā-tū, in which _tū_ is a synonym of _pīch_, turn, twist;
thus Bād-i-pīch may be the local form of Bād-tū, Windy-turn.
[780] _See_ Masson, iii, 197 and 289. Both in Pashāī and
Lamghānī, _lām_ means fort.
[781] _See_ Appendix F, _On the name Dara-i-nūr_.
[782] _ghair mukarrar._ Bābur may allude to the remarkable
change men have wrought in the valley-bottom (Appendix F, for
Col. Tanner's account of the valley).
[783] f. 154.
[784] _diospyrus lotus_, the European date-plum, supposed to
be one of the fruits eaten by the Lotophagi. It is purple, has
bloom and is of the size of a pigeon's egg or a cherry. See
Watts' _Economic Products of India_; Brandis' _Forest Trees_,
Illustrations; and Speede's _Indian Hand-book_.
[785] As in Lombardy, perhaps; in Luhūgur vines are clipped
into standards; in most other places in Afghānistān they are
planted in deep trenches and allowed to run over the
intervening ridges or over wooden framework. In the narrow
Khūlm-valley they are trained up poplars so as to secure them
the maximum of sun. _See_ Wood's _Report_ VI p. 27; Bellew's
_Afghānistān_ p. I75 and _Mems_. p. 142 note.
[786] Appendix G, _On the names of two Nūrī wines_.
[787] This practice Bābur viewed with disgust, the hog being
an impure animal according to Muḥammadan Law (Erskine).
[788] The _Khazīnatu'l-asfiyā_ (ii, 293) explains how it came
about that this saint, one honoured in Kashmīr, was buried in
Khutlān. He died in Hazāra (Paklī) and there the Paklī Sulṯān
wished to have him buried, but his disciples, for some
unspecified reason, wished to bury him in Khutlān. In order to
decide the matter they invited the Sultān to remove the bier
with the corpse upon it. It could not be stirred from its
place. When, however, a single one of the disciples tried to
move it, he alone was able to lift it, and to bear it away on
his head. Hence the burial in Khutlān. The death occurred in
786 AH. (1384 AD.). A point of interest in this legend is
that, like the one to follow, concerning dead women, it shews
belief in the living activities of the dead.
[789] The MSS. vary between 920 and 925 AH.—neither date seems
correct. As the annals of 925 AH. begin in Muḥarram, with
Bābur to the east of Bājaur, we surmise that the Chaghān-sarāī
affair may have occurred on his way thither, and at the end of
924 AH.
[790] _karanj_, _coriandrum sativum_.
[791] Some 20-24 m. north of Jalālābād. The name Multa-kundī
may refer to the Rām-kundī range, or mean Lower district, or
mean Below Kundī. _See_ Biddulph's _Khowārī Dialect s.n_
under; R.'s _Notes_ p. 108 and _Dict. s.n. kund_; Masson, i,
209.
[792] _i.e._ treat her corpse as that of an infidel (Erskine).
[793] It would suit the position of this village if its name
were found to link to the Turkī verb _chaqmāq_, to go out,
because it lies in the mouth of a defile (Dahānah-i-koh,
Mountain-mouth) through which the road for Kāfiristān goes out
past the village. A not-infrequent explanation of the name to
mean White-house, Āq-sarāī, may well be questioned. _Chaghān_,
white, is Mughūlī and it would be less probable for a Mughūlī
than for a Turkī name to establish itself. Another explanation
may lie in the tribe name Chugānī. The two forms _chaghān_ and
_chaghār_ may well be due to the common local interchange in
speech of _n_ with _r_. (For Dahānah-i-koh _see_ [some] maps
and Raverty's Bājaur routes.)
[794] Nīmchas, presumably,—half-bred in custom, perhaps in
blood—; and not improbably, converted Kāfirs. It is useful to
remember that Kāfiristān was once bounded, west and south, by
the Bārān-water.
[795] Kāfir wine is mostly poor, thin and, even so, usually
diluted with water. When kept two or three years, however, it
becomes clear and sometimes strong. Sir G. S. Robertson never
saw a Kāfir drunk (_Kāfirs of the Hindū-kush_, p. 591).
[796] Kāma might have classed better under Nīngnahār of which
it was a dependency.
[797] _i.e._ water-of-Nijr; so too, Badr-aū and Tag-aū.
Nijr-aū has seven-valleys (JASB 1838 p. 329 and Burnes'
_Report X_). Sayyid Ghulām-i-muḥammad mentions that Bābur
established a frontier-post between Nijr-aū and Kāfiristān
which in his own day was still maintained. He was an envoy of
Warren Hastings to Tīmūr Shāh _Sadozī_ (R.'s _Notes_ p. 36 and
p. 142).
[798] _Kāfirwash_; they were Kafirs converted to
Muḥammadanism.
[799] _Archa_, if not inclusive, meaning conifer, may
represent _juniperus excelsa_, this being the common local
conifer. The other trees of the list are _pinus Gerardiana_
(Brandis, p. 690), _quercus bīlūt_, the holm-oak, and
_pistacia mutica_ or _khanjak_, a tree yielding mastic.
[800] _rūba-i-parwān_, _pteromys inornatus_, the large, red
flying-squirrel (Blandford's _Fauna of British India_,
_Mammalia_, p. 363).
[801] The _giz_ is a short-flight arrow used for shooting
small birds _etc._ Descending flights of squirrels have been
ascertained as 60 yards, one, a record, of 80 (Blandford).
[802] Apparently _tetrogallus himalayensis_, the Himalayan
snow-cock (Blandford, iv, 143).Burnes (_Cabool_ p. 163)
describes the _kabg-i-darī_ as the _rara avis_ of the Kābul
Kohistān, somewhat less than a turkey, and of the _chikor_
(partridge) species. It was procured for him first in
Ghūr-bund, but, when snow has fallen, it could be had nearer
Kābul. Bābur's _bū-qalamūn_ may have come into his vocabulary,
either as a survival direct from Greek occupation of Kābul and
Panj-āb, or through Arabic writings. PRGS 1879 p. 251, Kaye's
art. and JASB 1838 p. 863, Hodgson's art.
[803] Bartavelle's _Greek-partridge_, _tetrao-_ or
_perdrix-rufus_ [f. 279 and Mems. p. 320 n.].
[804] A similar story is told of some fields near
Whitby:—"These wild geese, which in winter fly in great flocks
to the lakes and rivers unfrozen in the southern parts, to the
great amazement of every-one, fall suddenly down upon the
ground when they are in flight over certain neighbouring
fields thereabouts; a relation I should not have made, if I
had not received it from several credible men." See _Notes to
Marmion_ p. xlvi (Erskine); Scott's _Poems_, Black's ed. 1880,
vii, 104.
[805] Are we to infer from this that the musk-rat (_Crocidura
cœrulea_, Lydekker, p. 626) was not so common in Hindūstān in
the age of Bābur as it has now become? He was not a careless
observer (Erskine).
[806] Index _s.n._ _Bābur-nāma_, date of composition; also f.
131.
[807] In the absence of examples of _bund_ to mean _kūtal_,
and the presence "in those countries" of many in which _bund_
means _koh_, it looks as though a clerical error had here
written _kūtal_ for _koh_. But on the other hand, the wording
of the next passage shows just the confusion an author's
unrevised draft might shew if a place were, as this is, both a
_tūmān_ and a _kūtal_ (_i.e._ a steady rise to a traverse). My
impression is that the name Ghūr-bund applies to the embanking
spur at the head of the valley-_tūmān_, across which roads
lead to Ghūrī and Ghūr (PRGS 1879, Maps; Leech's Report VII;
and Wood's VI).
[808] So too when, because of them, Leech and Lord turned
back, _re infectâ_.
[809] It will be noticed that these villages are not classed
in any _tūmān_; they include places "rich without parallel" in
agricultural products, and level lands on which towns have
risen and fallen, one being Alexandria ad Caucasum. They
cannot have been part of the unremunerative Ghūr-bund _tūmān_;
from their place of mention in Bābur's list of _tūmāns_, they
may have been part of the Kābul _tūmān_ (f. 178), as was
Koh-dāman (Burnes' _Cabool_ p. 154; Haughton's _Charikar_ p.
73; and Cunningham's _Ancient History_, i, 18).
[810] Dūr-namāī, seen from afar (Masson, iii, 152) is not
marked on the Survey Maps; Masson, Vigne and Haughton locate
it. Bābur's "head" and "foot" here indicate status and not
location.
[811] Mems. p. 146 and _Méms_, i, 297, Arabs' encampment and
_Cellule des Arabes_. Perhaps the name may refer to uses of
the level land and good pasture by horse _qāfilas_, since
_Kurra_ is written with _tashdīd_ in the Ḥaidarābād Codex, as
in _kurra-tāz_, a horse-breaker. Or the _tāziyān_ may be the
fruit of a legend, commonly told, that the saint of the
neighbouring Running-sands was an Arabian.
[812] Presumably this is the grass of the millet, the growth
before the ear, on which grazing is allowed (Elphinstone, i,
400; Burnes, p. 237).
[813] Wood, p. 115; Masson, iii, 167; Burnes, p. 157 and JASB
1838 p. 324 with illustration; Vigne, pp. 219, 223; Lord, JASB
1838 p. 537; _Cathay and the way thither_, Hakluyt Society
vol. I. p. xx, para. 49; _History of Musical Sands_, C.
Carus-Wilson.
[814] _West_ might be more exact, since some of the group are
a little north, others a little south of the latitude of
Kābul.
[815] Affluents and not true sources in some cases (Col.
Holdich's _Gates of India_, _s.n._ Koh-i-bābā; and PRGS 1879,
maps pp. 80 and 160).
[816] The Pamghān range. These are the villages every
traveller celebrates. Masson's and Vigne's illustrations
depict them well.
[817] _Cercis siliquastrum_, the Judas-tree. Even in 1842 it
was sparingly found near Kābul, adorning a few tombs, one
Bābur's own. It had been brought from Sih-yārān where, as also
at Chārikār, (Chār-yak-kār) it was still abundant and still a
gorgeous sight. It is there a tree, as at Kew, and not a bush,
as in most English gardens (Masson, ii, 9; Elphinstone, i,
194; and for the tree near Harāt, f. 191 n. to Ṣafar).
[818] Khwāja Maudūd of Chisht, Khwāja Khāwand Sa`īd and the
Khwāja of the Running-sands (Elph. MS. f. 104b, marginal
note).
[819] The yellow-flowered plant is not _cercis siliquastrum_
but one called _mahaka_(?) in Persian, a shrubby plant with
pea-like blossoms, common in the plains of Persia, Bilūchistān
and Kābul (Masson, iii, 9 and Vigne, p. 216).
[820] The numerical value of these words gives 925 (Erskine).
F. 246b _et seq._ for the expedition.
[821] f. 178. I.O. MS. No. 724, _Haft-iqlīm_ f. 135 (Ethé, p.
402); Rieu, pp. 21_a_, 1058_b_.
[822] of Afghan habit. The same term is applied (f. 139b) to
the Zurmutīs; it may be explained in both places by Bābur's
statement that Zurmutīs grow corn, but do not cultivate
gardens or orchards.
[823] _aīkān dūr._ Sabuk-tīgīn, d. 387 AH.-997 AD., was the
father of Sl. Maḥmūd _Ghaznawī_, d. 421 AH.-1030 AD.
[824] d. 602 AH.-1206 AD.
[825] Some Musalmāns fast through the months of Rajab, Sha`bān
and Ramẓān; Muḥammadans fast only by day; the night is often
given to feasting (Erskine).
[826] The Garden; the tombs of more eminent Muṣalmāns are
generally in gardens (Erskine). See Vigne's illustrations, pp.
133, 266.
[827] _i.e._ the year now in writing. The account of the
expedition, Bābur's first into Hindūstān, begins on f. 145.
[828] _i.e._ the countries groupable as Khurāsān.
[829] For picture and account of the dam, _see_ Vigne, pp.
138, 202.
[830] f. 295b.
[831] The legend is told in numerous books with varying
location of the spring. One narrator, Zakarīyā _Qazwīnī_,
reverses the parts, making Jāī-pāl employ the ruse; hence
Leyden's note (Mems. p. 150; E. and D.'s _History of India_
ii, 20, 182 and iv, 162; for historical information, R.'s
_Notes_ p. 320). The date of the events is shortly after 378
AH.-988 AD.
[832] R.'s _Notes_ _s.n._ Zurmut.
[833] The question of the origin of the Farmūlī has been
written of by several writers; perhaps they were Turks of
Persia, Turks and Tājīks.
[834] This completes the list of the 14 _tūmāns_ of Kābul,
_viz._ Nīngnahār, `Alī-shang, Alangār, Mandrāwar,
Kūnār-with-Nūr-gal, Nijr-aū, Panjhīr, Ghūr-bund, Koh-dāman
(with Kohistān?), Luhūgur (of the Kābul _tūmān_), Ghaznī,
Zurmut, Farmūl and Bangash.
[835] Between Nijr-aū and Tag-aū (Masson, iii, 165). Mr.
Erskine notes that Bābur reckoned it in the hot climate but
that the change of climate takes place further east, between
`Alī-shang and Aūzbīn (_i.e._ the valley next eastwards from
Tag-aū).
[836] _būghūzlārīghā furṣat būlmās_; _i.e._ to kill them in
the lawful manner, while pronouncing the _Bi'smi'llāh_.
[837] This completes the _bulūks_ of Kābul _viz._ Badr-aū
(Tag-aū), Nūr-valley, Chaghān-sarāī, Kāma and Ālā-sāī.
[838] The _rūpī_ being equal to 2-1/2 _shāhrukhīs_, the
_shāhrukhī_ may be taken at 10_d._ thus making the total
revenue only £33,333 6_s._ 8_d._ See _Āyīn-i-akbarī_ ii, 169
(Erskine).
[839] _sic_ in all B. N. MSS. Most maps print Khost. Muḥ.
Ṣāliḥ says of Khwāst, "Who sees it, would call it a Hell"
(Vambéry, p. 361).
[840] Bābur's statement about this fodder is not easy to
translate; he must have seen grass grow in tufts, and must
have known the Persian word _būta_ (bush). Perhaps _kāh_
should be read to mean plant, not grass. Would Wood's _bootr_
fit in, a small furze bush, very plentiful near Bāmiān?
(Wood's Report VI, p. 23; and for regional grasses,
Aitchison's _Botany of the Afghān Delimitation Commission_, p.
122.)
[841] _nāzū_, perhaps _cupressus torulosa_ (Brandis, p.693).
[842] f. 276.
[843] A laborious geographical note of Mr. Erskine's is here
regretfully left behind, as now needless (Mems. p. 152).
[844] Here, mainly wild-sheep and wild-goats, including
_mār-khẉār_.
[845] Perhaps, no conifers; perhaps none of those of the
contrasted hill-tract.
[846] While here _dasht_ (plain) represents the eastern skirt
of the Mehtar Sulaimān range, _dūkī_ or _dūgī_ (desert) seems
to stand for the hill tracts on the west of it, and not, as on
f. 152, for the place there specified.
[847] Mems. p. 152, "A narrow place is large to the
narrow-minded"; _Méms._ i, 311, "Ce qui n'est pas trop large,
ne reste pas vide." Literally, "So long as heights are not
equal, there is no vis-a-vis," or, if _tāng_ be read for
_tīng_, "No dawn, no noon," _i.e._ no effect without a cause.
[848] I have not lighted on this name in botanical books or
explained by dictionaries. Perhaps it is a Cis-oxanian name
for the _sax-aol_ of Transoxania. As its uses are enumerated
by some travellers, it might be _Haloxylon ammodendron_,
_ta-ghas etc._ and _sax-aol_ (Aitchison, p. 102).
[849] f. 135b note to Ghūr-bund.
[850] I understand that wild-goats, wild-sheep and deer
(_āhū_) were not localized, but that the dun-sheep migrated
through. Antelope (_āhū_) was scarce in Elphinstone's time.
[851] _qīzīl kīyik_ which, taken with its alternative name,
_arqārghalcha_, allows it to be the dun-sheep of Wood's
_Journey_ p. 241. From its second name it may be _Ovis amnon_
(_Raos_), or _O. argalī_.
[852] _tusqāwal_, var. _tutqāwal_, _tus̱aqāwal_ and
_tūshqāwal_, a word which has given trouble to scribes and
translators. As a sporting-term it is equivalent to
_shikār-i-nihilam_; in one or other of its forms I find it
explained as _Weg-hüter_, _Fahnen-hüter_, _Zahl-meister_,
_Schlucht_, _Gefahrlicher-weg_ and _Schmaler-weg_. It recurs
in the B.N. on f. 197b l. 5 and l. 6 and there might mean
either a narrow road or a _Weg-hüter_. If its Turkī root be
_tūs_, the act of stopping, all the above meanings can follow,
but there may be two separate roots, the second, _tūsh_, the
act of descent (JRAS 1900 p. 137, H. Beveridge's art. _On the
word nihilam_).
[853] _qūshlīk_, _aītlīk_. Elphinstone writes (i, 191) of the
excellent greyhounds and hawking birds of the region; here the
bird may be the _charkh_, which works with the dogs, fastening
on the head of the game (Von Schwarz, p. 117, for the same use
of eagles).
[854] An antelope resembling the usual one of Hindūstān is
common south of Ghaznī (Vigne, p. 110); what is not found may
be some classes of wild-sheep, frequent further north, at
higher elevation, and in places more familiar to Bābur.
[855] The Parwān or Hindū-kush pass, concerning the winds of
which _see_ f. 128.
[856] _tūrnā u qarqara_; the second of which is the Hindī
_būglā_, heron, _egret ardea gazetta_, the furnisher of the
aigrette of commerce.
[857] The _aūqār_ is _ardea cinerea_, the grey heron; the
_qarqara_ is _ardea gazetta_, the egret. _Qūṯān_ is explained
in the Elph. Codex (f. 110) by _khawāsil_, goldfinch, but the
context concerns large birds; Scully (Shaw's Voc.) has
_qodan_, water-hen, which suits better.
[858] _giz_, the short-flight arrow.
[859] a small, round-headed nail with which a whip-handle is
decorated (Vambéry). Such a stud would keep the cord from
slipping through the fingers and would not check the
arrow-release.
[860] It has been understood (Mems. p. 158 and _Méms._ i, 313)
that the arrow was flung by hand but if this were so,
something heavier than the _giz_ would carry the cord better,
since it certainly would be difficult to direct a missile so
light as an arrow without the added energy of the bow. The
arrow itself will often have found its billet in the
closely-flying flock; the cord would retrieve the bird. The
verb used in the text is _aītmāq_, the one common to express
the discharge of arrows _etc._
[861] For Tīmūrids who may have immigrated the fowlers _see_
Raverty's _Notes_ p. 579 and his Appendix p. 22.
[862] _milwāh_; this has been read by all earlier translators,
and also by the Persian annotator of the Elph. Codex, to mean
_shākh_, bough. For decoy-ducks _see_ Bellew's _Notes on
Afghānistān_ p. 404.
[863] _qūlān qūyirūghī._ Amongst the many plants used to drug
fish I have not found this one mentioned. _Khār-zāhra_ and
_khār-fāq_ approach it in verbal meaning; the first describes
colocynth, the second, wild rue. See Watts' _Economic Products
of India_ iii, 366 and Bellew's _Notes_ pp. 182, 471 and 478.
[864] Much trouble would have been spared to himself and his
translators, if Bābur had known a lobster-pot.
[865] The fish, it is to be inferred, came down the fall into
the pond.
[866] Burnes and Vigne describe a fall 20 miles from Kābul, at
"Tangī Gharoi", [below where the Tag-aū joins the
Bārān-water,] to which in their day, Kābulīs went out for the
amusement of catching fish as they try to leap up the fall.
Were these migrants seeking upper waters or were they captives
in a fish-pond?
[867] Elph. MS. f. 111; W.-i-B. I.O. 215 f. 116b and 217 f.
97b; Mems. p. 155; _Méms._ i, 318.
[868] _mihmān-beglār_, an expression first used by Bābur here,
and due, presumably, to accessions from Khusrau Shāh's
following. A parallel case is given in Max Müller's _Science
of Language_ i, 348 ed. 1871, "Turkmān tribes ... call
themselves, not subjects, but guests of the Uzbeg Khāns."
[869] _tiyūl-dīk_ in all the Turkī MSS. Ilminsky, de
Courteille and Zenker, _yitūl-dīk_, Turkī, a fief.
[870] _Wilāyat khūd hech bīrīlmādī_; W.-i-B. 215 f. 116b,
_Wilāyat dāda na shuda_ and 217 f. 97b, _Wilāyat khūd hech
dāda na shud_. By this I understand that he kept the lands of
Kābul itself in his own hands. He mentions (f. 350) and
Gul-badan mentions (H.N. f. 40b) his resolve so to keep Kābul.
I think he kept not only the fort but all lands constituting
the Kābul _tūmān_ (f. 135b and note).
[871] _Saifī dūr, qalamī aīmās_, _i.e._ tax is taken by force,
not paid on a written assessment.
[872] _khar-wār_, about 700 lbs Averdupois (Erskine). Cf.
_Āyīn-i-akbarī_ (Jarrett, ii, 394).
[873] Niẕāmu'd-dīn Aḥmad and Badāyūnī both mention this script
and say that in it Bābur transcribed a copy of the Qorān for
presentation to Makka. Badāyūnī says it was unknown in his
day, the reign of Akbar (_T̤abaqāt-i-akbarī_, lith. ed. p.
193, and _Muntakhabu't-tawārīkh_ Bib. Ind. ed. iii, 273).
[874] Bābur's route, taken with one given by Raverty (_Notes_
p. 691), allows these Hazāras, about whose location Mr.
Erskine was uncertain, to be located between the Takht-pass
(Arghandī-Maidān-Unai road), on their east, and the Sang-lākh
mountains, on their west.
[875] The Takht-pass, one on which from times immemorial, toll
(_nirkh_) has been taken.
[876] _khāṯir-khwāh chāpīlmādī_, which perhaps implies mutual
discontent, Bābur's with his gains, the Hazāras' with their
losses. As the second Persian translation omits the negative,
the Memoirs does the same.
[877] Bhīra being in Shāhpūr, this Khān's _daryā_ will be the
Jehlam.
[878] Bābur uses Persian _dasht_ and Hindī _dūkī_, plain and
hill, for the tracts east and west of Mehtar Sulaimān. The
first, _dasht_, stands for Dāman (skirt) and Dara-i-jāt, the
second, _dūkī_, indefinitely for the broken lands west of the
main range, but also, in one instance for the Dūkī [Dūgī]
district of Qandahār, as will be noted.
[879] f. 132. The Jagdālīk-pass for centuries has separated
the districts of Kābul and Nīngnahār. Forster (_Travels_ ii,
68), making the journey the reverse way, was sensible of the
climatic change some 3m. east of Gandamak. Cf. Wood's _Report_
I. p. 6.
[880] These are they whose families Nāṣir Mīrzā shepherded out
of Kābul later (f. 154, f. 155).
[881] Bird's-dome, opposite the mouth of the Kūnār-water
(_S.A. War_, Map p. 64).
[882] This word is variously pointed and is uncertain. Mr.
Erskine adopted "Pekhi", but, on the whole, it may be best to
read, here and on f. 146, Ar. _fajj_ or pers. _paj_, mountain
or pass. To do so shews the guide to be one located in the
Khaibar-pass, a _Fajjī_ or _Pajī_.
[883] mod. Jām-rūd (Jām-torrent), presumably.
[884] G. of I. xx, 125 and Cunningham's _Ancient History_ i,
80. Bābur saw the place in 925 AH. (f. 232b).
[885] Cunningham, p. 29. Four ancient sites, not far removed
from one another, bear this name, Bīgrām, _viz._ those near
Hūpīān, Kābul, Jalālābād and Pashāwar.
[886] Cunningham, i, 79.
[887] Perhaps a native of Kamarī on the Indus, but _kamarī_ is
a word of diverse application (index _s.n._).
[888] The annals of this campaign to the eastward shew that
Bābur was little of a free agent; that many acts of his own
were merciful; that he sets down the barbarity of others as it
was, according to his plan of writing (f. 86); and that he had
with him undisciplined robbers of Khusrau Shāh's former
following. He cannot be taken as having power to command or
control the acts of those, his guest-begs and their following,
who dictated his movements in this disastrous journey, one
worse than a defeat, says Ḥaidar Mīrzā.
[889] For the route here _see_ Masson, i, 117 and Colquhoun's
_With the Kuram Field-force_ p. 48.
[890] The Ḥai. MS. writes this Dilah-zāk.
[891] _i.e._ raised a force in Bābur's name. He took advantage
of this _farmān_ in 911 AH. to kill Bāqī _Chagkānīānī_ (f.
159b-160).
[892] Of the Yūsuf-zāī and Ranjīt-sīngh, Masson says, (i, 141)
"The miserable, hunted wretches threw themselves on the
ground, and placing a blade or tuft of grass in their mouths,
cried out, "I am your cow." This act and explanation, which
would have saved them from an orthodox Hindū, had no effect
with the infuriated Sikhs." This form of supplication is at
least as old as the days of Firdausī (Erskine, p. 159 n.). The
_Bahār-i-`ajam_ is quoted by Vullers as saying that in India,
suppliants take straw in the mouth to indicate that they are
blanched and yellow from fear.
[893] This barbarous custom has always prevailed amongst the
Tartar conquerors of Asia (Erskine). For examples under Timūr
_see_ Raverty's _Notes_ p. 137.
[894] For a good description of the road from Kohāt to Thāl
_see_ Bellew's _Mission_ p. 104.
[895] F. 88b has the same phrase about the doubtful courage of
one Sayyidī Qarā.
[896] Not to the mod. town of Bannū, [that having been begun
only in 1848 AD.] but wherever their wrong road brought them
out into the Bannū amphitheatre. The Survey Map of 1868, No.
15, shews the physical features of the wrong route.
[897] Perhaps he connived at recovery of cattle by those
raided already.
[898] Tāq is the Tank of Maps; Bāzār was s.w. of it. Tank for
Tāq looks to be a variant due to nasal utterance (Vigne, p.
77, p. 203 and Map; and, as bearing on the nasal, _in loco_,
Appendix E).
[899] If return had been made after over-running Bannū, it
would have been made by the Tochī-valley and so through
Farmūl; if after over-running the Plain, Bābur's details shew
that the westward turn was meant to be by the Gūmāl-valley and
one of two routes out of it, still to Farmūl; but the extended
march southward to near Dara-i-Ghazī Khān made the westward
turn be taken through the valley opening at Sakhī-sawār.
[900] This will mean, none of the artificial runlets familiar
where Bābur had lived before getting to know Hindūstān.
[901] _sauda-āt_, perhaps, pack-ponies, perhaps, bred for sale
and not for own use. Burnes observes that in 1837 Lūhānī
merchants carried precisely the same articles of trade as in
Bābur's day, 332 years earlier (_Report_ IX p. 99).
[902] Mr. Erskine thought it probable that the first of these
routes went through Kanigūram, and the second through the
Ghwālirī-pass and along the Gūmāl. _Birk_, fastness, would
seem an appropriate name for Kanigūram, but, if Bābur meant to
go to Ghaznī, he would be off the ordinary Gūmāl-Ghaznī route
in going through Farmūl (Aūrgūn). Raverty's _Notes_ give much
useful detail about these routes, drawn from native sources.
For Barak (Birk) _see_ _Notes_ pp. 88, 89; Vigne, p. 102.
[903] From this it would seem that the alternative roads were
approached by one in common.
[904] _tūmshūq_, a bird's bill, used here, as in Selsey-bill,
for the naze (nose), or snout, the last spur, of a range.
[905] Here these words may be common nouns.
[906] Nū-roz, the feast of the old Persian New-year (Erskine);
it is the day on which the Sun enters Aries.
[907] In the [Turkī] Elph. and Ḥai. MSS. and in some Persian
ones, there is a space left here as though to indicate a known
omission.
[908] _kamarī_, sometimes a cattle-enclosure, which may serve
as a _sangur_. The word may stand in one place of its
_Bābur-nāma_ uses for Gum-rāhī (R.'s _Notes_ _s.n._
Gum-rāhān).
[909] Index _s.n._
[910] Vigne, p. 241.
[911] This name can be translated "He turns not back" or "He
stops not".
[912] _i.e._ five from Bīlah.
[913] Raverty gives the saint's name as Pīr Kānūn (Ar.
_kānūn_, listened to). It is the well-known Sakhī-sarwār,
honoured hy Hindūs and Muḥammadans. (G. of I., xxi, 390; R.'s
_Notes_ p. 11 and p. 12 and JASB 1855; Calcutta Review 1875,
Macauliffe's art. _On the fair at Sakhi-sarwar_; Leech's
_Report_ VII, for the route; _Khazīnatu 'l-asfiyā_ iv, 245.)
[914] This seems to be the sub-district of Qandahār, Dūkī or
Dūgī.
[915] _khar-gāh_, a folding tent on lattice frame-work,
perhaps a _khibitka_.
[916] It may be more correct to write Kāh-mard, as the Ḥai.
MS. does and to understand in the name a reference to the
grass(_kāh_)-yielding capacity of the place.
[917] f. 121.
[918] This may mean, what irrigation has not used.
[919] Mr. Erskine notes that the description would lead us to
imagine a flock of flamingoes. Masson found the lake filled
with red-legged, white fowl (i, 262); these and also what
Bābur saw, may have been the China-goose which has body and
neck white, head and tail russet (Bellew's _Mission_ p. 402).
Broadfoot seems to have visited the lake when migrants were
few, and through this to have been led to adverse comment on
Bābur's accuracy (p. 350).
[920] The usual dryness of the bed may have resulted from the
irrigation of much land some 12 miles from Ghaznī.
[921] This is the Luhūgur (Logar) water, knee-deep in winter
at the ford but spreading in flood with the spring-rains.
Bābur, not being able to cross it for the direct roads into
Kābul, kept on along its left bank, crossing it eventually at
the Kamarī of maps, s.e. of Kābul.
[922] This disastrous expedition, full of privation and loss,
had occupied some four months (T.R. p. 201).
[923] f. 145b.
[924] f. 133b and Appendix F.
[925] They were located in Mandrāwar in 926 AH. (f. 251).
[926] This was done, manifestly, with the design of drawing
after the families their fighting men, then away with Bābur.
[927] f. 163. Shaibāq Khān besieged Chīn Ṣufī, Sl. Ḥusain
Mīrzā's man in Khwārizm (T. R. p. 204; _Shaibānī-nāma_,
Vambéry, Table of Contents and note 89).
[928] Survey Map 1889, Sadda. The Rāgh-water flows n.w. into
the Oxus (Amū).
[929] _birk_, a mountain stronghold; cf. f. 149b note to Birk
(Barak).
[930] They were thus driven on from the Bārān-water (f. 154b).
[931] f. 126b.
[932] Ḥiṣār, presumably.
[933] Here "His Honour" translates Bābur's clearly ironical
honorific plural.
[934] These two sulṯāns, almost always mentioned in alliance,
may be Tīmūrids by maternal descent (Index _s.nn._). So far I
have found no direct statement of their parentage. My husband
has shewn me what may be one indication of it, _viz._ that two
of the uncles of Shaibāq Khān (whose kinsmen the sulṯāns seem
to be), Qūj-kūnjī and Sīūnjak, were sons of a daughter of the
Tīmūrid Aūlūgh Beg _Samarkandī_ (Ḥ.S. ii, 318). _See_
Vambéry's _Bukhārā_ p. 248 note.
[935] For the deaths of Taṃbal and Maḥmūd, mentioned in the
above summary of Shaibāq Khān's actions, _see_ the
_Shaibānī-nāma_, Vambéry, p. 323.
[936] Ḥ.S. ii, 323, for Khusrau Shāh's character and death.
[937] f. 124.
[938] Khwāja-of-the-rhubarb, presumably a shrine near
rhubarb-grounds (f. 129b).
[939] _yakshī bārdīlār_, lit. went well, a common expression
in the _Bābur-nāma_, of which the reverse statement is
_yamānlīk bīla bārdī_ (f. 163). Some Persian MSS. make the
Mughūls disloyal but this is not only in opposition to the
Turkī text, it is a redundant statement since if disloyal,
they are included in Bābur's previous statement, as being
Khusrau Shāh's retainers. What might call for comment in
Mughūls would be loyalty to Bābur.
[940] Elph. MS. f. 121b: W.-i-B. I.O. 215 f. 126 and 217 f.
106b; Mems. p. 169.
[941] _tāgh-dāmanasī_, presumably the Koh-dāman, and the
garden will thus be the one of f. 136b.
[942] If these heirs were descendants of Aūlūgh Beg M. one
would be at hand in `Abdu'r-razzāq, then a boy, and another, a
daughter, was the wife of Muqīm _Arghūn_. As Mr. Erskine
notes, Musalmāns are most scrupulous not to bury their dead in
ground gained by violence or wrong.
[943] The news of Aḥmad's death was belated; he died some 13
months earlier, in the end of 909 AH. and in Eastern
Turkistān. Perhaps details now arrived.
[944] _i.e._ the fortieth day of mourning, when alms are
given.
[945] Of those arriving, the first would find her
step-daughter dead, the second her sister, the third, his late
wife's sister (T. R. p. 196).
[946] This will be the earthquake felt in Agra on Ṣafar 3rd
911 AH. (July 5th 1505 AD. Erskine's _History of India_ i, 229
note). Cf. Elliot and Dowson, iv, 465 and v, 99.
[947] Raverty's _Notes_ p. 690.
[948] _bīr kitta tāsh ātīmī_; var. _bāsh ātīmī_. If _tāsh_ be
right, the reference will probably be to the throw of a
catapult.
[949] Here almost certainly, a drummer, because there were two
tambours and because also Bābur uses _`aūdī_ & _ghachakī_ for
the other meanings of _ṯambourchi_, lutanist and guitarist.
The word has found its way, as _tambourgi_, into Childe
Harold's Pilgrimage (Canto ii, lxxii. H. B.).
[950] Kābul-Ghaznī road (R.'s _Notes_ index _s.n._).
[951] var. Yārī. Tāzī is on the Ghaznī-Qalāt-i-ghilzāī road
(R.'s _Notes_, Appendix p. 46).
[952] _i.e._ in Kābul and in the Trans-Himalayan country.
[953] These will be those against Bābur's suzerainty done by
their defence of Qalāt for Muqīm.
[954] _tabaqa_, dynasty. By using this word Bābur shews
recognition of high birth. It is noticeable that he usually
writes of an Arghūn chief either simply as "Beg" or without a
title. This does not appear to imply admission of equality,
since he styles even his brothers and sisters Mīrzā and Begīm;
nor does it shew familiarity of intercourse, since none seems
to have existed between him and Ẕū'n-nūn or Muqīm. That he did
not admit equality is shewn on f. 208. The T.R. styles
Ẕū'n-nūn "Mīrzā", a title by which, as also by Shāh, his
descendants are found styled (A.-i-a. Blochmann, _s.n._).
[955] Turkī _khachar_ is a camel or mule used for carrying
personal effects. The word has been read by some scribes as
_khanjar_, dagger.
[956] In 910 AH. he had induced Bābur to come to Kābul instead
of going into Khurāsān (Ḥ.S. iii, 319); in the same year he
dictated the march to Kohāt, and the rest of that disastrous
travel. His real name was not Bāqī but Muḥammad Bāqir (Ḥ.S.
iii, 311).
[957] These transit or custom duties are so called because the
dutiable articles are stamped with a _ṯamghā_, a wooden stamp.
[958] Perhaps this word is an equivalent of Persian _goshī_, a
tax on cattle and beasts of burden.
[959] Bāqī was one only and not the head of the Lords of the
Gate.
[960] The choice of the number nine, links on presumably to
the mystic value attached to it _e.g._ Tarkhāns had nine
privileges; gifts were made by nines.
[961] It is near Ḥasan-abdāl (A.-i-A. Jarrett, ii, 324).
[962] For the _farmān_, f. 146b; for Gujūrs, G. of I.
[963] var. Khwesh. Its water flows into the Ghūr-bund stream;
it seems to be the Dara-i-Turkmān of Stanford and the Survey
Maps both of which mark Janglīk. For Hazāra turbulence, f.
135b and note.
[964] The repetition of _aūq_ in this sentence can hardly be
accidental.
[965] _ṯaur_ [_dara_], which I take to be Turkī, round,
complete.
[966] Three MSS. of the Turkī text write _bīr sīmīzlūq tīwah_;
but the two Persian translations have _yak shuturlūq farbīh_,
a _shuturlūq_ being a baggage-camel with little hair
(Erskine).
[967] _brochettes_, meat cut into large mouthfuls, spitted and
roasted.
[968] Perhaps he was officially an announcer; the word means
also bearer of good news.
[969] _yīlāng_, without mail, as in the common phrase _yīgīt
yīlāng_, a bare brave.
[970] _aūpchīn_, of horse and man (f. 113b and note).
[971] Manifestly Bābur means that he twice actually helped to
collect the booty.
[972] This is that part of a horse covered by the two
side-pieces of a Turkī saddle, from which the side-arch
springs on either side (Shaw).
[973] _Bārān-nīng ayāghī._ Except the river I have found
nothing called Bārān; the village marked Baian on the French
Map would suit the position; it is n.e. of Chār-yak-kār (f.
184b note).
[974] _i.e._ prepared to fight.
[975] For the Hazāra (Turkī, Mīng) on the Mīrzā's road _see_
Raverty's routes from Ghaznī to the north. An account given by
the _Tārīkh-i-rashīdī_ (p. 196) of Jahāngīr's doings is
confused; its parenthetical "(at the same time)" can hardly be
correct. Jahāngīr left Ghaznī now, (911 AH.), as Bābur left
Kābul in 912 AH. without knowledge of Ḥusain's death (911
AH.). Bābur had heard it (f. 183b) before Jahāngīr joined him
(912 AH.); after their meeting they went on together to Herī.
The petition of which the T. R. speaks as made by Jahāngīr to
Bābur, that he might go into Khurāsān and help the Bāī-qarā
Mīrzās must have been made after the meeting of the two at
Ṣaf-hill (f. 184b).
[976] The plurals _they_ and _their_ of the preceding sentence
stand no doubt for the Mīrzā, Yūsuf and Buhlūl who all had
such punishment due as would lead them to hear threat in
Qāsim's words now when all were within Bābur's pounce.
[977] These are the _aīmāqs_ from which the fighting-men went
east with Bābur in 910 AH. and the families in which Nāṣir
shepherded across Hindu-kush (f. 154 and f. 155).
[978] _yamānlīk bīla bārdī_; cf. f. 156b and n. for its
opposite, _yakhshī bārdīlār_; and T. R. p. 196.
[979] One might be of mail, the other of wadded cloth.
[980] Chīn Ṣūfī was Ḥusain _Bāī-qarā's_ man (T.R. p. 204). His
arduous defence, faithfulness and abandonment recall the
instance of a later time when also a long road stretched
between the man and the help that failed him. But the Mīrzā
was old, his military strength was, admittedly, sapped by
ease; hence his elder Khartum, his neglect of his Gordon.
It should be noted that no mention of the page's fatal arrow
is made by the _Shaibānī-nāma_ (Vambéry, p. 442), or by the
_Tārīkh-i-rashīdī_ (p. 204). Chīn Ṣūfī's death was on the 21st
of the Second Rabī 911 AH. (Aug. 22nd 1505 AD.).
[981] This may be the "Baboulei" of the French Map of 1904, on
the Herī-Kushk-Marūchāq road.
[982] Elph. MS. f. 127; W.-i-B. I.O. 215 f. 132 and 217 f.
111b; Mems. p. 175; _Méms._ i, 364.
That Bābur should have given his laborious account of the
Court of Herī seems due both to loyalty to a great Tīmūrid,
seated in Tīmūr Beg's place (f. 122b), and to his own
interest, as a man-of-letters and connoisseur in excellence,
in that ruler's galaxy of talent. His account here opening is
not complete; its sources are various; they include the
_Ḥabību's-siyār_ and what he will have learned himself in Herī
or from members of the Bāī-qarā family, knowledgeable women
some of them, who were with him in Hindūstān. The narrow scope
of my notes shews that they attempt no more than to indicate
further sources of information and to clear up a few
obscurities.
[983] Tīmūr's youngest son, d. 850 AH. (1446 AD.). Cf. Ḥ.S.
iii, 203. The use in this sentence of Amīr and not Beg as
Tīmūr's title is, up to this point, unique in the
_Bābur-nāma_; it may be a scribe's error.
[984] Fīrūza's paternal line of descent was as
follows:—Fīrūza, daughter of Sl. Ḥusain _Qānjūt_, son of Ākā
Begīm, daughter of Tīmūr. Her maternal descent was:—Fīrūza, d.
of Qūtlūq-sulṯān Begīm, d. of Mīrān-shāh, s. of Tīmūr. She
died Muḥ. 24th 874 AH. (July 25th 1489 AD. Ḥ.S. iii, 218).
[985] "No-one in the world had such parentage", writes
Khwānd-amīr, after detailing the Tīmūrid, Chīngīz-khānid, and
other noted strains meeting in Ḥusain _Bāī-qarā_ (Ḥ.S. iii,
204).
[986] The Elph. MS. gives the Begīm no name; Badī`u'l-jamāl is
correct (Ḥ.S. iii, 242). The curious "Badka" needs
explanation. It seems probable that Bābur left one of his
blanks for later filling-in; the natural run of his sentence
here is "Ākā B. and Badī`u'l-jamāl B." and not the detail,
which follows in its due place, about the marriage with Aḥmad.
[987] _Dīwān bāshīdā ḥāṣir būlmās aīdī_; the sense of which
may be that Bāī-qarā did not sit where the premier retainer
usually sat at the head of the Court (Pers. trs.
_sar-i-dīwān_).
[988] From this Wais and Sl. Ḥusain M.'s daughter Sulṯānīm (f.
167b) were descended the Bāī-qarā Mīrzās who gave Akbar so
much trouble.
[989] As this man might be mistaken for Bābur's uncle (_q.v._)
of the same name, it may be well to set down his parentage. He
was a s. of Mīrzā Sayyidī Aḥmad, s. of Mīrān-shāh, s. of Tīmūr
(Ḥ.S. iii, 217, 241). I have not found mention elsewhere of
"Aḥmad s. of Mīrān-shāh"; the _sayyidī_ in his style points to
a sayyida mother. He was Governor of Herī for a time, for Sl.
H.M.; `Alī-sher has notices of him and of his son, Kīchīk
Mīrzā (_Journal Asiatique_ xvii, 293, M. Belin's art. where
may be seen notices of many other men mentioned by Bābur).
[990] He collected and thus preserved `Alī-sher's earlier
poems (Rieu's Pers. Cat. p. 294). Mu'inu'd-dīn al Zamji writes
respectfully of his being worthy of credence in some Egyptian
matters with which he became acquainted in twice passing
through that country on his Pilgrimage (_Journal Asiatique_
xvi, 476, de Meynard's article).
[991] Kīchīk M.'s quatrain is a mere plagiarism of Jāmī's
which I am indebted to my husband for locating as in the
_Dīwān_ I.O. MS. 47 p. 47; B.M. Add. 7774 p. 290; and Add.
7775 p. 285. M. Belin interprets the verse as an expression of
the rise of the average good man to mystical rapture, not as
his lapse from abstinence to indulgence (l.c. xvii, 296 and
notes).
[992] Elph. MS. _younger_ but Ḥai. MS. _older_ in which it is
supported by the "also" (_ham_) of the sentence.
[993] modern Astrakhan. Ḥusain's guerilla wars were those
through which he cut his way to the throne of Herī. This begīm
was married first to Pīr Budāgh Sl. (Ḥ.S. iii, 242); he dying,
she was married by Aḥmad, presumably by levirate custom
(_yīnkālīk_; f. 12 and note). By Aḥmad she had a daughter,
styled Khān-zāda Begīm whose affairs find comment on f. 206
and Ḥ.S. iii, 359. (The details of this note negative a
suggestion of mine that Badka was the Rābī`a-sulṯān of f. 168
(Gul-badan, App. _s. nn._).)
[994] This is a felt wide-awake worn by travellers in hot
weather (Shaw); the Turkmān bonnet (Erskine).
[995] Ḥai. MS. _yamānlīk_, badly, but Elph. MS. _namāyan_,
whence Erskine's _showy_.
[996] This was a proof that he was then a Shī`a (Erskine).
[997] The word _perform_ may be excused in speaking of
Musalmān prayers because they involve ceremonial bendings and
prostrations (Erskine).
[998] If Bābur's 40 include rule in Herī only, it over-states,
since Yādgār died in 875 AH. and Ḥusain in 911 AH. while the
intervening 36 years include the 5 or 6 temperate ones. If the
40 count from 861 AH. when Ḥusain began to rule in Merv, it
under-states. It is a round number, apparently.
[999] Relying on the Ilminsky text, Dr. Rieu was led into the
mistake of writing that Bābur gave Ḥusain the wrong pen-name,
_i.e._ Ḥusain, and not Ḥusainī (Turk. Cat. p. 256).
[1000] Daulat-shāh says that as he is not able to enumerate
all Ḥusain's feats-of-arms, he, Turkmān fashion, offers a gift
of Nine. The Nine differ from those of Bābur's list in some
dates; they are also records of victory only (Browne, p. 521;
_Not. et Extr._ iv, 262, de Saçy's article).
[1001] Wolves'-water, a river and its town at the s.e. corner
of the Caspian, the ancient boundary between Russia and
Persia. The name varies a good deal in MSS.
[1002] The battle was at Tarshīz; Abū-sa`īd was ruling in
Herī; Daulat-shāh (l.c. p. 523) gives 90 and 10,000 as the
numbers of the opposed forces!
[1003] f. 26b and note; Ḥ.S. iii, 209; Daulat-shāh p. 523.
[1004] The loser was the last Shāhrukhī ruler. Chanārān
(variants) is near Abīward, Anwārī's birth-place (Ḥ.S. iii,
218; D.S. p. 527).
[1005] f. 85. D.S. (p. 540) and the Ḥ.S. (iii, 223) dwell on
Ḥusain's speed through three continuous days and nights.
[1006] f. 26; Ḥ.S. iii, 227; D.S. p. 532.
[1007] Abū-sa`īd's son by a Badakhshī Begīm (T.R. p. 108); he
became his father's Governor in Badakhshān and married Ḥusain
_Bāī-qarā's_ daughter Begīm Sultān at a date after 873 AH. (f.
168 and note; Ḥ.S. iii, 196, 229, 234-37; D.S. p. 535).
[1008] f. 152.
[1009] Abā-bikr was defeated and put to death at the end of
Rajah 884 AH.-Oct. 1479 AD. after flight before Ḥusain across
the Gurgān-water (Ḥ.S. iii, 196 and 237 but D.S. p. 539, Ṣafar
885 AH.).
[1010] f. 41, Pul-i-chirāgh; for Halwā-spring, Ḥ.S. iii, 283
and Rieu's Pers. Cat. p. 443.
[1011] f. 33 (p. 57) and f. 57b.
[1012] In commenting thus Bābur will have had in mind what he
best knew, Ḥusain's futile movements at Qūndūz and Ḥiṣār.
[1013] _qālīb aīdī_; if _qālīb_ be taken as Turkī, survived or
remained, it would not apply here since many of Ḥusain's
children predeceased him; Ar. _qālab_ would suit, meaning
_begotten_, _born_.
There are discrepancies between Bābur's details here and
Khwānd-amīr's scattered through the _Ḥabību's-siyār_,
concerning Ḥusain's family.
[1014] _bī ḥuẓūrī_, which may mean aversion due to Khadīja
Begīm's malevolence.
[1015] Some of the several goings into `Irāq chronicled by
Bābur point to refuge taken with Tīmūrids, descendants of
Khalīl and `Umar, sons of Mirān-shāh (Lane-Poole's _Muhammadan
Dynasties_, Table of the Timūrids).
[1016] He died before his father (Ḥ.S. iii, 327).
[1017] He will have been killed previous to Ramẓān 3rd 918 AH.
(Nov. 12th, 1512 AD.), the date of the battle of Ghaj-dawān
when Nijm S̱ānī died.
[1018] The _bund_ here may not imply that both were in prison,
but that they were bound in close company, allowing Ismā`īl, a
fervent Shī`a, to convert the Mīrzā.
[1019] The _bātmān_ is a Turkish weight of 13lbs (Meninsky) or
15lbs (Wollaston). The weight seems likely to refer to the
strength demanded for rounding the bow (_kamān guroha-sī_)
_i.e._ as much strength as to lift 40 _bātmāns_. Rounding or
bending might stand for stringing or drawing. The meaning can
hardly be one of the weight of the cross-bow itself. Erskine
read _gūrdehieh_ for _guroha_ (p. 180) and translated by
"double-stringed bow"; de Courteille (i, 373) read
_guirdhiyeh, arrondi, circulaire_, in this following Ilminsky
who may have followed Erskine. The Elph. and Ḥai. MSS. and the
first W.-i-B. (I.O. 215 f. 113b) have _kamān guroha-sī_; the
second W.-i-B. omits the passage, in the MSS. I have seen.
[1020] _yakhshīlār bārīb tūr_; lit. good things went (on); cf.
f. 156b and note.
[1021] Badī`u'z-zamān's son, drowned at Chausa in 946 AH.
(1539 AD.) A.N. (H. Beveridge, i, 344).
[1022] Qalāt-i-nādirī, in Khurāsān, the birth-place of Nādir
Shāh (T.R. p. 209).
[1023] _bīr gīna qīz_, which on f. 86b can fitly be read to
mean daughterling, _Töchterchen, fillette_, but here and
_i.a._ f. 168, must have another meaning than diminutive and
may be an equivalent of German _Stück_ and mean _one only_.
Gul-badan gives an account of Shād's manly pursuits (H.N. f.
25b).
[1024] He was the son of Mahdī Sl. (f. 320b) and the father of
`Āqil Sl. _Aūzbeg_ (A.N. index _s.n._). Several matters
suggest that these men were of the Shabān Aūzbegs who
intermarried with Ḥusain _Bāī-qarā's_ family and some of whom
went to Bābur in Hindūstān. One such matter is that Kābul was
the refuge of dispossessed Harātīs, after the Aūzbeg conquest;
that there `Āqil married Shād _Bāī-qarā_ and that `Ādil went
on to Bābur. Moreover Khāfī Khān makes a statement which (if
correct) would allow `Ādil's father Mahdī to be a grandson of
Ḥusain _Bāī-qarā_; this statement is that when Bābur defeated
the Aūzbegs in 916 AH. (1510 AD.), he freed from their
captivity two sons (descendants) of his paternal uncle, named
Mahdī Sl. and Sulṯān Mīrzā. [Leaving the authenticity of the
statement aside for a moment, it will be observed that this
incident is of the same date and place as another well-vouched
for, namely that Bābur then and there killed Mahdī Sl.
_Aūzbeg_ and Ḥamza Sl. _Aūzbeg_ after defeating them.] What
makes in favour of Khāfī Khān's correctness is, not only that
Bābur's foe Mahdī is not known to have had a son `Ādil, but
also that his "Sulṯān Mīrzā" is not a style so certainly
suiting Ḥamza as it does a Shabān sulṯān, one whose father was
a Shabān sulṯān, and whose mother was a Mīrzā's daughter.
Moreover this point of identification is pressed by the
correctness, according to oriental statement of relationship,
of Khāfī Khān's "paternal uncle" (of Bābur), because this
precisely suits Sl. Ḥusain Mīrzā with whose family these
Shabān sulṯāns allied themselves. On the other hand it must be
said that Khāfī Khān's statement is not in the English text of
the _Tārīkh-i-rashīdī_, the book on which he mostly relies at
this period, nor is it in my husband's MS. [a copy from the
Rampūr Codex]; and to this must be added the verbal objection
that a modicum of rhetoric allows a death to be described both
in Turkī and Persian, as a release from the captivity of a
sinner's own acts (f. 160). Still Khāfī Khān may be right; his
statement may yet be found in some other MS. of the T. R. or
some different source; it is one a scribe copying the T. R.
might be led to omit by reason of its coincidences. The
killing and the release may both be right; `Ādil's Mahdī may
be the Shabān sulṯān inference makes him seem. This little
_crux_ presses home the need of much attention to the
_lacunae_ in the _Bābur-nāma_, since in them are lost some
exits and some entries of Bābur's _dramatis personae_,
pertinently, mention of the death of Mahdī with Ḥamza in 916
AH., and possibly also that of `Ādil's Mahdī's release.
[1025] A _chār-ṯāq_ may be a large tent rising into four domes
or having four porches.
[1026] Ḥ.S. iii, 367.
[1027] This phrase, common but not always selected, suggests
unwillingness to leave the paternal roof.
[1028] Abū'l-ghāzī's _History of the Mughūls_, Désmaisons, p.
207.
[1029] The appointment was made in 933 AH. (1527 AD.) and
seems to have been held still in 934 AH. (ff. 329, 332).
[1030] This grandson may have been a child travelling with his
father's household, perhaps Aūlūgh Mīrzā, the oldest son of
Muḥammad Sulṯān Mīrzā (A. A. Blochmann, p. 461). No mention is
made here of Sulṯānīm Begīm's marriage with `Abdu'l-bāqī Mīrzā
(f. 175).
[1031] Abū'l-qāsim Bābur _Shāhrukhī_ presumably.
[1032] The time may have been 902 AH. when Mas`ūd took his
sister Bega Begīm to Herī for her marriage with Ḥaidar (Ḥ.S.
iii, 260).
[1033] Khwāja Aḥmad _Yāsawī_, known as Khwāja Ātā, founder of
the Yāsawī religious order.
[1034] Not finding mention of a daughter of Abū-sa`id named
Rābī`a-sulṯān, I think she may be the daughter styled Āq Begīm
who is No. 3 in Gul-badan's guest-list for the Mystic Feast.
[1035] This man I take to be Ḥusain's grandfather and not
brother, both because `Abdu'l-lāh was of Ḥusain's and his
brother's generation, and also because of the absence here of
Bābur's usual defining words "elder brother" (of Sl. Ḥusain
Mīrzā). In this I have to differ from Dr. Rieu (Pers. Cat. p.
152).
[1036] So-named after his ancestor Sayyid Barka whose body was
exhumed from Andikhūd for reburial in Samarkand, by Tīmūr's
wish and there laid in such a position that Tīmūr's body was
at its feet (_Z̤afar-nāma_ ii, 719; Ḥ.S. iii, 82). (For the
above interesting detail I am indebted to my husband.)
[1037] _Qīzīl-bāsh_, Persians wearing red badges or caps to
distinguish them as Persians.
[1038] Yādgār-i-farrukh _Mīrān-shāhī_ (Ḥ.S. iii, 327). He may
have been one of those Mīrān-shāhīs of `Irāq from whom came
Ākā's and Sulṯānīm's husbands, Aḥmad and `Abdu'l-bāqī (ff.
164, 175_b_).
[1039] This should be four (f. 169_b_). The Ḥ.S. (iii, 327)
also names three only when giving Pāpā Āghācha's daughters
(the omission linking it with the B.N.), but elsewhere (iii,
229) it gives an account of a fourth girl's marriage; this
fourth is needed to make up the total of 11 daughters. Bābur's
and Khwānd-amīr's details of Pāpā Āghācha's quartette are
defective; the following may be a more correct list:—(1) Begīm
Sulṯān (a frequent title), married to Abā-bikr _Mīrān-shāhī_
(who died 884 AH.) and seeming too old to be the one [No. 3]
who married Mas`ūd (Ḥ.S. iii, 229); (2) Sulṯān-nizhād, married
to Iskandar _Bāī-qarā_; (3) Sa`ādat-bakht also known as Begīm
Sulṯān, married to Mas'ūd _Mīrān-shāhī_ (Ḥ.S. iii, 327); (4)
Manauwar-sulṯān, married to a son of Aūlūgh Beg _Kābulī_ (Ḥ.S.
iii, 327).
[1040] This "after" seems to contradict the statement (f. 58)
that Mas`ūd was made to kneel as a son-in-law (_kūyādlīk-kā
yūkūndūrūb_) at a date previous to his blinding, but the
seeming contradiction may be explained by considering the
following details; he left Herī hastily (f. 58), went to
Khusrau Shāh and was blinded by him,—all in the last two
months of 903 AH. (1498 AD.), after the kneeling on Ẕū'l-qa`da
3rd, (June 23rd) in the Ravens'-garden. Here what Bābur says
is that the Begīm was given (_bīrīb_) after the blinding, the
inference allowed being that though Mas`ūd had kneeled before
the blinding, she had remained in her father's house till his
return after the blinding.
[1041] The first W.-i-B. writes "Apāq Begīm" (I.O. 215 f. 136)
which would allow Sayyid Mīrzā to be a kinsman of Apāq Begīm,
wife of Ḥusain _Bāī-qarā_.
[1042] This brief summary conveys the impression that the
Begīm went on her pilgrimage shortly after Mas`ūd's death (913
AH. ?), but may be wrong:—After Mas`ūd's murder, by one Bīmāsh
Mīrzā, _dārogha_ of Sarakhs, at Shaibāq Khān's order, she was
married by Bīmāsh M. (Ḥ.S. iii, 278). How long after this she
went to Makka is not said; it was about 934 AH. when Bābur
heard of her as there.
[1043] This clause is in the Ḥai. MS. but not in the Elph. MS.
(f. 131), or Kehr's (Ilminsky, p. 210), or in either Persian
translation. The boy may have been 17 or 18.
[1044] This appears a mistake (f. 168 foot, and note on Pāpā's
daughters).
[1045] f. 171b.
[1046] 933 AH.-1527 AD. (f. 329).
[1047] Presumably this was a _yīnkālīk_ marriage; it differs
from some of those chronicled and also from a levirate
marriage in not being made with a childless wife. (Cf. index
_s.n._ _yīnkālīk_.)
[1048] Khwānd-amīr says that Bega Begīm was jealous, died of
grief at her divorce, and was buried in a College, of her own
erection, in 893 AH. (1488 AD. ḤS. iii, 245).
[1049] _Gulistān_ Cap. II, Story 31 (Platts, p. 114).
[1050] _i.e._ did not get ready to ride off if her husband
were beaten by her brother (f. 11 and note to Ḥabība).
[1051] Khadīja Begī Āghā (Ḥ.S. ii, 230 and iii, 327); she
would be promoted probably after Shāh-i-gharīb's birth.
[1052] He was a son of Badī`u'z-zamān.
[1053] It is singular that this honoured woman's parentage is
not mentioned; if it be right on f. 168b (_q.v._ with note) to
read Sayyid Mīrzā of Apāq Begīm, she may be a sayyida of
Andikhūd.
[1054] As Bābur left Kābul on Ṣafar 1st (Nov. 17th 1525 AD.),
the Begīm must have arrived in Muḥarram 932 AH. (Oct. 18th to
Nov. 17th).
[1055] f. 333. As Chandīrī was besieged in Rabī`u'l-ākhar 934
AH. this passage shews that, as a minimum estimate, what
remains of Bābur's composed narrative (_i.e._ down to f. 216b)
was written after that date (Jan. 1528).
[1056] _Chār-shambalār._ Mention of another inhabitant of this
place with the odd name, Wednesday (Chār-shamba), is made on
f. 42b.
[1057] Mole-marked Lady; most MSS. style her Bī but Ḥ.S. iii,
327, writes Bībī; it varies also by calling her a Turk. She
was a purchased slave of Shahr-bānū's and was given to the
Mīrzā by Shahr-bānū at the time of her own marriage with him.
[1058] As noted already, f. 168b enumerates three only.
[1059] The three were almost certainly Badī`u'z-zamān, Ḥaidar,
son of a Tīmūrid mother, and Muz̤affar-i-ḥusain, born after
his mother had been legally married.
[1060] Seven sons predeceased him:—Farrukh, Shāh-i-gharīb,
Muḥ. Ma`ṣūm, Ḥaidar, Ibrāhīm-i-ḥusain, Muḥ. Ḥusain and
Abū-turāb. So too five daughters:—Āq, Bega, Āghā, Kīchīk and
Fāṯima-sulṯān Begīms. So too four wives:—Bega-sulṯān and Chūlī
Begīms, Zubaida and Laṯīf-sulṯān Āghāchas (Ḥ.S. iii, 327).
[1061] Chākū, a Barlās, as was Tīmūr, was one of Tīmūr's noted
men.
At this point some hand not the scribe's has entered on the
margin of the Ḥai. MS. the descendants of Muḥ. Barandūq down
into Akbar's reign:—Muḥ. Farīdūn, bin Muḥ. Qulī Khān, bin
Mīrzā `Alī, bin Muḥ. Barandūq _Barlās_. Of these Farīdūn and
Muḥ. Qulī are amīrs of the _Āyīn-i-akbarī_ list (Blochmann,
pp. 341, 342; Ḥ.S. iii, 233).
[1062] Enforced marches of Mughūls and other nomads are
mentioned also on f. 154b and f. 155.
[1063] Ḥ.S. iii, 228, 233, 235.
[1064] _beg kīshī_, beg-person.
[1065] Khwānd-amīr says he died a natural death (Ḥ.S. iii,
235).
[1066] f. 21. For a fuller account of Nawā'i, _J. Asiatique_
xvii, 175, M. Belin's article.
[1067] _i.e._ when he was poor and a beg's dependant. He went
back to Herī at Sl. Ḥusain M.'s request in 873 AH.
[1068] Niẕāmī's (Rieu's Pers. Cat. s.n.).
[1069] Farīdu'd-dīn-`at̤t̤ar's (Rieu l.c. and Ency. Br.).
[1070] _Gharā'ibu'ṣ-ṣighar_, _Nawādiru'sh-shahāb_,
_Badā'i`u'l-wasaṯ_ and _Fawā'idu'l-kibr_.
[1071] Every Persian poet has a _takhalluṣ_ (pen-name) which
he introduces into the last couplet of each ode (Erskine).
[1072] The death occurred in the First Jumāda 906 AH. (Dec.
1500 AD.).
[1073] Niẕāmu'd-dīn Aḥmad bin Tawakkal _Barlās_ (Ḥ.S. iii,
229).
[1074] This may be that uncle of Tīmūr who made the Ḥaj (T. R.
p. 48, quoting the _Z̤afar-nāma_).
[1075] Some MSS. omit the word "father" here but to read it
obviates the difficulty of calling Walī a great beg of Sl.
Ḥusain Mīrzā although he died when that mīrzā took the throne
(973 AH.) and although no leading place is allotted to him in
Bābur's list of Herī begs. Here as in other parts of Bābur's
account of Herī, the texts vary much whether Turkī or Persian,
_e.g._ the Elph. MS. appears to call Walī a blockhead (_dūnkūz
dūr_), the Ḥai. MS. writing _n:kūz dūr_(?).
[1076] He had been Bābur _Shāhrukhī's yasāwal_
(Court-attendant), had fought against Ḥusain for
Yādgār-i-muḥammad and had given a daughter to Ḥusain (Ḥ.S.
iii, 206, 228, 230-32; D.S. in _Not. et Ex._ de Saçy p. 265).
[1077] f. 29b.
[1078] _Sic_, Elph. MS. and both Pers. trss. but the Ḥai. MS.
omits "father". To read it, however, suits the circumstance
that Ḥasan of Ya`qūb was not with Ḥusain and in Harāt but was
connected with Maḥmūd _Mīrānshāhī_ and Tīrmīẕ (f. 24). Nuyān
is not a personal name but is a title; it implies good-birth;
all uses of it I have seen are for members of the religious
family of Tīrmīẕ.
[1079] He was the son of Ibrāhīm _Barlās_ and a Badakhshī
begīm (T.R. p. 108).
[1080] He will have been therefore a collateral of Daulat-shāh
whose relation to Fīrūz-shāh is thus expressed by Nawā'i:—_Mīr
Daulat-shāh Fīrūz-shāh Beg-nīng `amm-zāda-sī Amīr
`Alā'u'd-daula Isfārayīnī-nīng aūghūlī dur_, _i.e._ Mīr
Daulat-shāh was the son of Fīrūz-shāh Beg's paternal uncle's
son, Amir `Alā'u'd-daula _Isfārayīnī_. Thus, Fīrūz-shāh and
Isfārayīnī were first cousins; Daulat-shāh and
`Abdu'l-khalīq's father were second cousins; while Daulat-shāh
and Fīrūz-shāh were first cousins, once removed (Rieu's Pers.
Cat. p. 534; Browne's D.S. English preface p. 14 and its
reference to the Pers. preface).
[1081] _Tarkhān-nāma_, E. & D.'s _History of India_ i, 303;
Ḥ.S. iii, 227.
[1082] f. 41 and note.
[1083] Both places are in the valley of the Herī-rūd.
[1084] Badī`u'z-zamān married a daughter of Ẕū'n-nūn; she died
in 911 AH. (E. & D. i, 305; Ḥ.S. iii, 324).
[1085] This indicates, both amongst Musalmāns and Hindūs,
obedience and submission. Several instances occur in
Macculloch's _Bengali Household Stories_.
[1086] T.R. p. 205.
[1087] This is an idiom expressive of great keenness
(Erskine).
[1088] Ḥ.S. iii, 250, _kitābdār_, librarian; so too Ḥai. MS.
f. 174b.
[1089] _mutaiyam_ (f. 7b and note). Mīr Mughūl Beg was put to
death for treachery in `Irāq (Ḥ.S. iii, 227, 248).
[1090] Bābur speaks as an eye-witness (f. 187b). For a single
combat of Sayyid Badr, Ḥ. S. iii, 233.
[1091] f. 157 and note to _bātmān_.
[1092] A level field in which a gourd (_qabaq_) is set on a
pole for an archer's mark to be hit in passing at the gallop
(f. 18b and note).
[1093] Or possibly during the gallop the archer turned in the
saddle and shot backwards.
[1094] Junaid was the father of Niẕāmu'd-dīn `Alī, Bābur's
Khalīfa (Vice-gerent). That Khalīfa was of a religious house
on his mother's side may be inferred from his being styled
both Sayyid and Khwāja neither of which titles could have come
from his Turkī father. His mother may have been a sayyida of
one of the religious families of Marghīnān (f. 18 and note),
since Khalīfa's son Muḥibb-i-`alī writes his father's name
"Niẕāmu'd-din `Alī _Marghīlānī_" (_Marghīnānī_) in the Preface
of his _Book on Sport_ (Rieu's Pers. Cat. p. 485).
[1095] This northward migration would take the family into
touch with Bābur's in Samarkand and Farghāna.
[1096] He was left in charge of Jaunpūr in Rabī` I, 933 AH.
(Jan. 1527 AD.) but exchanged for Chunār in Ramẓān 935 AH.
(June 1529 AD.); so that for the writing of this part of the
_Bābur-nāma_ we have the major and minor limits of Jan. 1527
and June 1529.
[1097] Ḥ.S. iii, 227.
[1098] _See_ Appendix H, _On the counter-mark Bih-būd on
coins_.
[1099] Niẕāmu'd-dīn Amīr Shaikh Aḥmadu's-suhailī was surnamed
Suhailī through a _fāl_ (augury) taken by his spiritual guide,
Kamālu'd-dīn Ḥusain _Gāzur-gāhī_; it was he induced Ḥusain
_Kashīfī_ to produce his _Anwār-i-suhailī_ (Lights of Canopus)
(f. 125 and note; Rieu's Pers. Cat. p. 756; and for a couplet
of his, Ḥ.S. iii, 242 l. 10).
[1100] Index _s.n._
[1101] Did the change complete an analogy between `Alī
_Jalāīr_ and his (perhaps) elder son with `Alī Khalīfa and his
elder son Ḥasan?
[1102] The Qūsh-begī is, in Central Asia, a high official who
acts for an absent ruler (Shaw); he does not appear to be the
Falconer, for whom Bābur's name is Qūshchī (f. 15 n.).
[1103] He received this sobriquet because when he returned
from an embassy to the Persian Gulf, he brought, from Bahrein,
to his Tīmūrid master a gift of royal pearls (Sām Mīrzā). For
an account of Marwārīd _see_ Rieu's Pers. Cat. p. 1094 and
(_re_ portrait) p. 787.
[1104] Sām Mīrzā specifies this affliction as _ābla-i-farang_,
thus making what may be one of the earliest Oriental
references to _morbus gallicus_ [as de Saçy here translates
the name], the foreign or European pox, the "French disease of
Shakespeare" (H.B.).
[1105] Index _s.n._ Yūsuf.
[1106] Ramẓān 3rd 918 AH.-Nov. 12th 1512.
[1107] _i.e._ of the White-sheep Turkmāns.
[1108] His paternal line was, `Abdu'l-bāqī, son of `Us̤mān,
son of Sayyidī Aḥmad, son of Mīrān-shāh. His mother's people
were begs of the White-sheep (Ḥ.S. iii, 290).
[1109] Sulṯānīm had married Wais (f. 157) not later than 895
or 896 AH. (Ḥ. S. iii, 253); she married `Abdu'l-bāqī in 908
AH. (1502-3 AD.).
[1110] Sayyid Shamsu'd-dīn Muḥammad, Mīr Sayyid
_Sar-i-barahna_ owed his sobriquet of Bare-head to love-sick
wanderings of his youth (Ḥ.S. iii, 328). The Ḥ.S. it is clear,
recognizes him as a sayyid.
[1111] Rieu's Pers. Cat. p. 760; it is immensely long and
"filled with tales that shock all probability" (Erskine).
[1112] f. 94 and note. Sl. Ḥusain M. made him curator of
Anṣārī's shrine, an officer represented, presumably, by Col.
Yate's "Mīr of Gāzur-gāh", and he became Chief Justice in 904
AH. (1498-99 AD.). _See_ Ḥ.S. iii, 330 and 340; JASB 1887,
art. _On the city of Harāt_ (C. E. Yate) p. 85.
[1113] _mutasauwif_, perhaps meaning not a professed Ṣūfī.
[1114] He was of high birth on both sides, of religious houses
of T̤abas and Nishāpūr (D.S. pp. 161, 163).
[1115] In agreement with its preface, Dr. Rieu entered the
book as written by Sl. Ḥusain Mīrzā; in his Addenda, however,
he quotes Bābur as the authority for its being by Gāzur-gāhī;
Khwānd-amīr's authority can be added to Bābur's (Ḥ.S. 340;
Pers. Cat. pp. 351, 1085).
[1116] _Dīwān._ The Wazīr is a sort of Minister of Finance;
the Dīwān is the office of revenue receipts and issues
(Erskine).
[1117] a secretary who writes out royal orders (Ḥ.S. iii,
244).
[1118] Count von Noer's words about a cognate reform of later
date suit this man's work, it also was "a bar to the
defraudment of the Crown, a stumbling-block in the path of
avaricious chiefs" (_Emperor Akbar_ trs. i, 11). The
opposition made by `Alī-sher to reform so clearly to Ḥusain's
gain and to Ḥusain's begs' loss, stirs the question, "What was
the source of his own income?" Up to 873 AH. he was for some
years the dependant of Aḥmad Ḥājī Beg; he took nothing from
the Mīrzā, but gave to him; he must have spent much in
benefactions. The question may have presented itself to M.
Belin for he observes, "`Alī-sher qui sans doute, à son retour
de l'exil, recouvra l'héritage de ses pères, et depuis occupa
de hautes positions dans le gouvernement de son pays, avait
acquis une grande fortune" (_J. Asiatique_ xvii, 227). While
not contradicting M. Belin's view that vested property such as
can be described as "paternal inheritance", may have passed
from father to son, even in those days of fugitive prosperity
and changing appointments, one cannot but infer, from Nawā'i's
opposition to Majdu'd-dīn, that he, like the rest, took a
partial view of the "rights" of the cultivator.
[1119] This was in 903 AH. after some 20 years of service
(Ḥ.S. iii, 231; Ethé I.O. Cat. p. 252).
[1120] Amīr Jamālu'd-dīn `Atā'u'l-lāh, known also as
Jamālu'd-dīn Ḥusain, wrote a _History of Muhammad_ (Ḥ.S. iii,
345; Rieu's Pers. Cat. p. 147 & (a correction) p. 1081).
[1121] Amongst noticeable omissions from Bābur's list of Herī
celebrities are Mīr Khwānd Shāh ("Mirkhond"), his grandson
Khwānd-amīr, Ḥusain _Kashifī_ and Muinu'd-dīn al Zamjī, author
of a _History of Harāt_ which was finished in 897 AH.
[1122] Sa'du`d-dīn Mas`ūd, son of `Umar, was a native of Taft
in Yazd, whence his cognomen (Bahār-i-`ajam); he died in 792
AH.-1390 AD. (Ḥ.S. iii, 59, 343; T.R. p. 236; Rieu's Pers.
Cat. pp. 352, 453).
[1123] These are those connected with grammar and rhetoric
(Erskine).
[1124] This is one of the four principal sects of
Muḥammadanism (Erskine).
[1125] T.R. p. 235, for Shāh Ismā`īl's murders in Herī.
[1126] Superintendent of Police, who examines weights,
measures and provisions, also prevents gambling, drinking and
so on.
[1127] f. 137.
[1128] The rank of Mujtahid, which is not bestowed by any
individual or class of men but which is the result of slow and
imperceptible opinion, finally prevailing and universally
acknowledged, is one of the greatest peculiarities of the
religion of Persia. The Mujtahid is supposed to be elevated
above human fears and human enjoyments, and to have a certain
degree of infallibility and inspiration. He is consulted with
reverence and awe. There is not always a Mujtahid necessarily
existing. _See_ Kaempfer, _Amoenitates Exoticae_ (Erskine).
[1129] _muḥaddas̤_, one versed in the traditional sayings and
actions of Muḥammad.
[1130] Ḥ.S. iii, 340.
[1131] B.M. Or. 218 (Rieu's Pers. Cat. p. 350). The Commentary
was made in order to explain the _Nafaḥāt_ to Jāmī's son.
[1132] He was buried by the Mullā's side.
[1133] Amīr Burhānu'd-dīn `Atā'u'l-lāh bin Maḥmūdu'l-ḥusainī
was born in Nishāpūr but known as Mashhadī because he retired
to that holy spot after becoming blind.
[1134] f. 144_b_ and note. Qāẓī Ikhtiyāru'd-dīn Ḥasan (Ḥ.S.
iii, 347) appears to be the Khwāja Ikhtiyār of the
_Āyīn-i-akbarī_, and, if so, will have taken professional
interest in the script, since Abū'l-faẓl describes him as a
distinguished calligrapher in Sl. Ḥusain M.'s presence
(Blochmann, p. 101).
[1135] Saifu'd-dīn (Sword of the Faith) Aḥmad, presumably.
[1136] A sister of his, Apāq Bega, the wife of `Alī-sher's
brother Darwīsh-i-`alī _kitābdār_, is included as a poet in
the _Biography of Ladies_ (Sprenger's Cat. p. 11). Amongst the
20 women named one is a wife of Shaibāq Khān, another a
daughter of Hilālī.
[1137] He was the son of Khw. Ni`amatu'l-lāh, one of Sl.
Abū-sa`īd M.'s wazīrs. When dying _aet._ 70 (923 AH.), he made
this chronogram on his own death, "With 70 steps he measured
the road to eternity." The name Āsaf, so frequent amongst
wazīrs, is that of Solomon's wazīr.
[1138] Other interpretations are open; _wādī_, taken as
_river_, might refer to the going on from one poem to another,
the stream of verse; or it might be taken as _desert_, with
disparagement of collections.
[1139] Maulānā Jamālu'd-dīn _Banā'i_ was the son of a
_sabz-banā_, an architect, a good builder.
[1140] Steingass's Dictionary allows convenient reference for
examples of metres.
[1141] Other jokes made by _Banā'i_ at the expense of Nawā'i
are recorded in the various sources.
[1142] Bābur saw Banā'i in Samarkand at the end of 901 AH.
(1496 AD. f. 38).
Here Dr. Leyden's translation ends; one other fragment which
he translated will be found under the year 925 AH. (Erskine).
This statement allows attention to be drawn to the inequality
of the shares of the work done for the Memoirs of 1826 by
Leyden and by Erskine. It is just to Mr. Erskine, but a
justice he did not claim, to point out that Dr. Leyden's share
is slight both in amount and in quality; his essential
contribution was the initial stimulus he gave to the great
labours of his collaborator.
[1143] So of Lope de Vega (b. 1562; d. 1635 AD.), "It became a
common proverb to praise a good thing by calling it _a Lope_,
so that jewels, diamonds, pictures, _etc._ were raised into
esteem by calling them his" (Montalvan in Ticknor's _Spanish
Literature_ ii, 270).
[1144] Maulānā Saifī, known as 'Arūẓī from his mastery in
prosody (Rieu's Pers. Cat. p. 525).
[1145] Here pedantry will be implied in the mullahood.
[1146] _Khamsatīn_ (_infra_ f. 180_b_ and note).
[1147] This appears to mean that not only the sparse
diacritical pointing common in writing Persian was dealt with
but also the fuller Arabic.
[1148] He is best known by his pen-name Hātifī. The B.M. and
I.O. have several of his books.
[1149] _Khamsatīn._ Hātifī regarded himself as the successor
of Niẕāmī and Khusrau; this, taken with Bābur's use of the
word _Khamsatīn_ on f. 7 and here, and Saifī's just above,
leads to the opinion that the _Khamsatīn_ of the _Bābur-nāma_
are always those of Niẕāmī and Khusrau, _the_ Two Quintets
(Rieu's Pers. Cat. p. 653).
[1150] Maulānā Mīr Kamālu'd-dīn Ḥusain of Nishāpūr (Rieu l.c.
index s.n.; Ethé's I.O. Cat. pp. 433 and 1134).
[1151] One of his couplets on good and bad fortune is
striking; "The fortune of men is like a sand-glass; one hour
up, the next down." _See_ D'Herbélot in his article (Erskine).
[1152] Ḥ.S. iii, 336; Rieu's Pers. Cat. p. 1089.
[1153] Āhī (sighing) was with Shāh-i-gharīb before
Ibn-i-ḥusain and to him dedicated his _dīwān_. The words
_sāḥib-i-dīwān_ seem likely to be used here with double
meaning _i.e._ to express authorship and finance office.
Though Bābur has made frequent mention of authorship of a
_dīwān_ and of office in the _Dīwān_, he has not used these
words hitherto in either sense; there may be a play of words
here.
[1154] Muḥammad _Ṣāliḥ_ Mīrzā _Khwārizmī_, author of the
_Shaibānī-nāma_ which manifestly is the poem (_mas̤nawī_)
mentioned below. This has been published with a German
translation by Professor Vambéry and has been edited with
Russian notes by Mr. Platon Melioransky (Rieu's Turkish Cat.
p. 74; Ḥ.S. iii, 301).
[1155] Jāmī's _Subḥatu'l-abrār_ (Rosary of the righteous).
[1156] The reference may be to things said by Muḥ. _Ṣāliḥ_ the
untruth of which was known to Bābur through his own part in
the events. A crying instance of misrepresentation is Ṣāliḥ's
assertion, in rhetorical phrase, that Bābur took booty in
jewels from Khusrau Shāh; other instances concern the affairs
of The Khāns and of Bābur in Transoxiana (f. 124b and index
_s.nn._ Aḥmad and Maḥmūd _Chaghatāī_ _etc._; T.R. index
_s.nn._)
[1157] The name Fat-land (Taṃbal-khāna) has its parallel in
Fat-village (Sīmīz-kīnt) a name of Samarkand; in both cases
the nick-name is accounted for by the fertility of irrigated
lands. We have not been able to find the above-quoted couplet
in the _Shaibānī-nāma_ (Vambéry); needless to say, the pun is
on the nick-name (_taṃbal_, fat) of Sl. Aḥmad _Taṃbal_.
[1158] Muḥ. Ṣāliḥ does not show well in his book; he is
sometimes coarse, gloats over spoil whether in human captives
or goods, and, his good-birth not-forbidding, is a servile
flatterer. Bābur's word "heartless" is just; it must have had
sharp prompting from Ṣāliḥ's rejoicing in the downfall of The
Khāns, Bābur's uncles.
[1159] the Longer (Ḥ.S. iii, 349).
[1160] Maulānā Badru'd-dīn (Full-moon of the Faith) whose
pen-name was Hilālī, was of Astarābād. It may be noted that
two dates of his death are found, 936 and 939 AH. the first
given by de Saçy, the second by Rieu, and that the second
seems to be correct (_Not. et Extr._ p. 285; Pers. Cat. p.
656; Hammer's _Geschichte_ p. 368).
[1161] B.M. Add. 7783.
[1162] Opinions differ as to the character of this
work:—Bābur's is uncompromising; von Hammer (p. 369) describes
it as "_ein romantisches Gedicht, welches eine sentimentale
Männerliebe behandelt_"; Sprenger (p. 427), as a mystical
_mas̤nawī_ (poem); Rieu finds no spiritual symbolism in it and
condemns it (Pers. Cat. p. 656 and, quoting the above passage
of Bābur, p. 1090); Ethé, who has translated it, takes it to
be mystical and symbolic (I.O. Cat. p. 783).
[1163] Of four writers using the pen-name Ahlī
(Of-the-people), _viz._ those of Turān, Shīrāz, Tarshīz (in
Khurāsān), and 'Irāq, the one noticed here seems to be he of
Tarshīz. Ahlī of Tarshīz was the son of a locally-known pious
father and became a Superintendent of the Mint; Bābur's `_āmī_
may refer to Ahlī's first patrons, tanners and shoe-makers by
writing for whom he earned his living (Sprenger, p. 319).
Erskine read _'ummī_, meaning that Ahlī could neither read nor
write; de Courteille that he was _un homme du commun_.
[1164] He was an occasional poet (Ḥ.S. iii, 350 and iv, 118;
Rieu's Pers. Cat. p. 531; Ethé's I.O. Cat. p. 428).
[1165] Ustād Kamālu'd-dīn Bih-zād (well-born; Ḥ.S. iii, 350).
Work of his is reproduced in Dr. Martin's _Painting and
Painters of Persia_ of 1913 AD.
[1166] This sentence is not in the Elph. MS.
[1167] Perhaps he could reproduce tunes heard and say where
heard.
[1168] M. Belin quotes quatrains exchanged by `Alī-sher and
this man (_J. Asiatique_ xvii, 199).
[1169] _i.e._ from his own camp to Bābā Ilāhī.
[1170] f. 121 has a fuller quotation. On the dual succession,
_see_ T.R. p. 196.
[1171] Elph. MS. f. 144; W.-i-B. I.O. 215 f. 148_b_ and 217 f.
125_b_; Mems. p. 199.
[1172] News of Ḥusain's death in 911 AH. (f. 163b) did not
reach Bābur till 912 AH. (f. 184_b_).
[1173] Lone-meadow (f. 195_b_). Jahāngīr will have come over
the `Irāq-pass, Bābur's baggage-convoy, by Shibr-tū. Cf. T. R.
p. 199 for Bābur and Jahāngīr at this time.
[1174] Servant-of-the-mace; but perhaps, Qilinj-chāq,
swords-man.
[1175] One of four, a fourth. Chār-yak may be a component of
the name of the well-known place, n. of Kābul, "Chārikār"; but
also the _Chār_ in it may be Hindūstānī and refer to the
permits-to-pass after tolls paid, given to caravans halted
there for taxation. Raverty writes it Chārlākār.
[1176] Amongst the disruptions of the time was that of the
Khānate of Qībchāq (Erskine).
[1177] The nearest approach to _kipkī_ we have found in
Dictionaries is _kupaki_, which comes close to the Russian
_copeck_. Erskine notes that the _casbeké_ is an oval copper
coin (Tavernier, p. 121); and that a _tūmān_ is a myriad
(10,000). _Cf._ Manucci (Irvine), i, 78 and iv, 417 note;
Chardin iv, 278.
[1178] Muḥarram 912 AH.-June 1506 AD. (Ḥ.S. iii, 353).
[1179] I take Murgh-āb here to be the fortified place at the
crossing of the river by the main n.e. road; Bābur when in
Dara-i-bām was on a tributary of the Murgh-āb. Khwānd-amīr
records that the information of his approach was hailed in the
Mīrzās' camp as good news (Ḥ.S. iii, 354).
[1180] Bābur gives the Mīrzās precedence by age, ignoring
Muz̤affar's position as joint-ruler.
[1181] _mubālgha qīldī_; perhaps he laid stress on their
excuse; perhaps did more than was ceremonially incumbent on
him.
[1182] _`irq_, to which estrade answers in its sense of a
carpet on which stands a raised seat.
[1183] Perhaps it was a recess, resembling a gate-way (W.-i-B.
I.O. 215 f. 151 and 217 f. 127_b_). The impression conveyed by
Bābur's words here to the artist who in B.M. Or. 3714, has
depicted the scene, is that there was a vestibule opening into
the tent by a door and that the Mīrzā sat near that door. It
must be said however that the illustration does not closely
follow the text, in some known details.
[1184] _shīra_, fruit-syrups, sherbets. Bābur's word for wine
is _chāghīr_ (_q.v._ index) and this reception being public,
wine could hardly have been offered in Sunnī Herī. Bābur's
strictures can apply to the vessels of precious metal he
mentions, these being forbidden to Musalmāns; from his
reference to the Tūra it would appear to repeat the same
injunctions. Bābur broke up such vessels before the battle of
Kanwāha (f. 315). Shāh-i-jahān did the same; when sent by his
father Jahāngīr to reconquer the Deccan (1030 AH.-1621 AD.) he
asked permission to follow the example of his ancestor Bābur,
renounced wine, poured his stock into the Chaṃbal, broke up
his cups and gave the fragments to the poor (_`Amal-i-ṣāliḥ_,
Hughes' _Dict. of Islām_ quoting the _Hidāyah_ and _Mishkāt_,
_s.nn._ Drinkables, Drinking-vessels, and Gold; Lane's _Modern
Egyptians_ p. 125 n.).
[1185] This may be the Rabāṯ-i-sanghī of some maps, on a near
road between the "Forty-daughters" and Harāt; or Bābur may
have gone out of his direct way to visit Rabāṯ-i-sang-bast, a
renowned halting place at the Carfax of the Herī-T̤ūs and
Nishāpūr-Mashhad roads, built by one Arslān _Jazāla_ who lies
buried near, and rebuilt with great magnificence by `Alī-sher
_Nawā'i_ (Daulat-shāh, Browne, p. 176).
[1186] The wording here is confusing to those lacking family
details. The paternal-aunt begīms can be Pāyanda-sulṯān
(named), Khadīja-sulṯān, Apāq-sulṯān, and Fakhr-jahān Begīms,
all daughters of Abū-sa`īd. The Apāq Begīm named above (also
on f. 168_b_ _q.v._) does not now seem to me to be Abū-sa`īd's
daughter (Gul-badan, trs. Bio. App.).
[1187] _yūkūnmāī._ Unless all copies I have seen reproduce a
primary clerical mistake of Bābur's, the change of salutation
indicated by there being no kneeling with Apāq Begīm, points
to a _nuance_ of etiquette. Of the verb _yūkūnmāk_ it may be
noted that it both describes the ceremonious attitude of
intercourse, _i.e._ kneeling and sitting back on both heels
(Shaw), and also the kneeling on meeting. From Bābur's phrase
_Begīm bīla yūkūnūb_ [having kneeled with], it appears that
each of those meeting made the genuflection; I have not found
the phrase used of other meetings; it is not the one used when
a junior or a man of less degree meets a senior or superior in
rank (_e.g._ Khusrau and Bābur f. 123, or Bābur and
Badī`u'z-zamān f. 186).
[1188] Musalmāns employ a set of readers who succeed one
another in reading (reciting) the Qorān at the tombs of their
men of eminence. This reading is sometimes continued day and
night. The readers are paid by the rent of lands or other
funds assigned for the purpose (Erskine).
[1189] A suspicion that Khadīja put poison in Jahāngīr's wine
may refer to this occasion (T.R. p. 199).
[1190] These are _jharokha-i-darsān_, windows or balconies
from which a ruler shews himself to the people.
[1191] Mas`ūd was then blind.
[1192] Bābur first drank wine not earlier than 917 AH. (f. 49
and note), therefore when nearing 30.
[1193] _aīchkīlār_, French, _intérieur_.
[1194] The obscure passage following here is discussed in
Appendix I, _On the weeping-willows of_ f. 190_b_.
[1195] Here this may well be a gold-embroidered garment.
[1196] This, the tomb of Khwāja `Abdu'l-lāh _Anṣari_ (d. 481
AH.) stands some 2m. north of Herī. Bābur mentions one of its
numerous attendants of his day, Kamālu'd-dīn Ḥusain
_Gāzur-gāhī_. Mohan Lall describes it as he saw it in 1831;
says the original name of the locality was Kār-zār-gāh,
place-of-battle; and, as perhaps his most interesting detail,
mentions that Jalālu'd-dīn _Rūmī's Maṣnawī_ was recited every
morning near the tomb and that people fainted during the
invocation (_Travels in the Panj-āb_ etc. p. 252). Colonel
Yate has described the tomb as he saw it some 50 years later
(JASB 1887); and explains the name Gāzur-gāh (lit.
bleaching-place) by the following words of an inscription
there found; "His tomb (Anṣarī's) is a washing-place
(_gāzur-gāh_) wherein the cloud of the Divine forgiveness
washes white the black records of men" (p. 88 and p. 102).
[1197] _juāz-i-kaghazlār_ (f. 47_b_ and note).
[1198] The _Ḥabību's-siyār_ and Ḥai. MS. write this name with
medial "round _hā_"; this allows it to be Kahad-stān, a
running-place, race-course. Khwānd-amīr and Daulat-shāh call
it a meadow (_aūlāng_); the latter speaks of a feast as held
there; it was Shaibānī's head-quarters when he took Harāt.
[1199] _var._ Khatīra; either an enclosure (_qūrūq_?) or a
fine and lofty building.
[1200] This may have been a usual halting-place on a journey
(_safar_) north. It was built by Ḥusain _Bāī-qarā_, overlooked
hills and fields covered with _arghwān_ (f. 137_b_) and seems
once to have been a Paradise (Mohan Lall, p. 256).
[1201] Jāmī's tomb was in the `Īd-gah of Herī (Ḥ.S. ii, 337),
which appears to be the Muṣalla (Praying-place) demolished by
Amīr `Abdu'r-raḥmān in the 19th century. Col. Yate was shewn a
tomb in the Muṣalla said to be Jāmī's and agreeing in the age,
81, given on it, with Jāmī's at death, but he found a _crux_
in the inscription (pp. 99, 106).
[1202] This may be the Muṣalla (Yate, p. 98).
[1203] This place is located by the Ḥ.S. at 5 _farsakh_ from
Herī (de Meynard at 25 _kilomètres_). It appears to be rather
an abyss or fissure than a pond, a crack from the sides of
which water trickles into a small bason in which dwells a
mysterious fish, the beholding of which allows the attainment
of desires. The story recalls Wordsworth's undying fish of
Bow-scale Tarn. (_Cf._ Ḥ.S. Bomb. ed. ii, _Khatmat_ p. 20 and
de Meynard, _Journal Asiatique_ xvi, 480 and note.)
[1204] This is on maps to the north of Herī.
[1205] d. 232 AH. (847 AD.). _See_ Yate, p. 93.
[1206] Imām Fakhru'd-dīn _Raẓī_ (de Meynard, _Journal
Asiatique_ xvi, 481).
[1207] d. 861 AH.-1457 AD. Guhār-shād was the wife of Tīmūr's
son Shāhrukh. _See_ Mohan Lall, p. 257 and Yate, p. 98.
[1208] This Marigold-garden may be named after
Hārūnu'r-rashīd's wife Zubaida.
[1209] This will be the place n. of Herī from which Maulānā
Jalālu'd-dīn _Pūrānī_ (d. 862 AH.) took his cognomen, as also
Shaikh Jamālu'd-dīn Abū-sa`īd _Pūrān_ (f. 206) who was visited
there by Sl. Ḥusain Mīrzā, ill-treated by Shaibānī (f. 206),
left Herī for Qandahār, and there died, through the fall of a
roof, in 921 AH. (Ḥ.S. iii, 345; _Khazīnatu'l-asfiya_ ii,
321).
[1210] His tomb is dated 35 or 37 AH. (656 or 658 AD.; Yate,
p. 94).
[1211] Mālān was a name of the Herī-rūd (_Journal Asiatique_
xvi, 476, 511; Mohan Lall, p. 279; Ferrier, p. 261; _etc._).
[1212] Yate, p. 94.
[1213] The position of this building between the Khūsh and
Qībchāq Gates (de Meynard, l.c. p. 475) is the probable
explanation of the variant, noted just below, of Kushk for
Khūsh as the name of the Gate. The _Tārīkh-i-rashīdī_ (p.
429), mentions this kiosk in its list of the noted ones of the
world.
[1214] var. Kushk (de Meynard, l.c. p. 472).
[1215] The reference here is, presumably, to Bābur's own
losses of Samarkand and Andijān.
[1216] Ākā or Āgā is used of elder relations; a _yīnkā_ or
_yīngā_ is the wife of an uncle or elder brother; here it
represents the widow of Bābur's uncle Aḥmad _Mīrān-shāhī_.
From it is formed the word _yīnkālīk_, levirate.
[1217] The almshouse or convent was founded here in Tīmūr's
reign (de Meynard, l.c. p. 500).
[1218] _i.e._ No smoke without fire.
[1219] This name may be due to the splashing of water. A
Langar which may be that of Mīr Ghiyās̤, is shewn in maps in
the Bām valley; from it into the Herī-rūd valley Bābur's route
may well have been the track from that Langar which, passing
the villages on the southern border of Gharjistān, goes to
Ahangarān.
[1220] This escape ought to have been included in the list of
Bābur's transportations from risk to safety given in my note
to f. 96.
[1221] The right and wrong roads are shewn by the Indian
Survey and French Military maps. The right road turns off from
the wrong one, at Daulat-yār, to the right, and mounts
diagonally along the south rampart of the Herī-rūd valley, to
the Zirrīn-pass, which lies above the Bakkak-pass and carries
the regular road for Yaka-aūlāng. It must be said, however,
that we are not told whether Yaka-aūlāng was Qāsim Beg's
objective; the direct road for Kābul from the Herī-rūd valley
is not over the Zirrīn-pass but goes from Daulat-yār by
"Āq-zarat", and the southern flank of Koh-i-bābā (bābār) to
the Unai-pass (Holdich's _Gates of India_ p. 262).
[1222] _circa_ Feb. 14th 1507, Bābur's 24th birthday.
[1223] The Hazāras appear to have been wintering outside their
own valley, on the Ghūr-bund road, in wait for travellers
[_cf._ T.R. p. 197]. They have been perennial highwaymen on
the only pass to the north not closed entirely in winter.
[1224] The Ghūr-bund valley is open in this part; the Hazāras
may have been posted on the naze near the narrows leading into
the Janglīk and their own side valleys.
[1225] Although the verses following here in the text are with
the Turkī Codices, doubt cannot but be felt as to their
authenticity. They do not fit verbally to the sentence they
follow; they are a unique departure from Bābur's plain prose
narrative and nothing in the small Hazāra affair shews cause
for such departure; they differ from his usual topics in their
bombast and comment on his men (_cf._ f. 194 for comment on
shirking begs). They appear in the 2nd Persian translation
(217 f. 134) in Turkī followed by a prose Persian rendering
(_khalāṣa_). They are not with the 1st Pers. trs. (215 f.
159), the text of which runs on with a plain prose account
suiting the size of the affair, as follows:—"The braves,
seeing their (the Hazāras) good soldiering, had stopped
surprised; wishing to hurry them I went swiftly past them,
shouting 'Move on! move on!' They paid me no attention. When,
in order to help, I myself attacked, dismounting and going up
the hill, they shewed courage and emulation in following.
Getting to the top of the pass, we drove that band off,
killing many, capturing others, making their families prisoner
and plundering their goods." This is followed by "I myself
collected" _etc._ as in the Turkī text after the verse. It
will be seen that the above extract is not a translation of
the verse; no translator or even summariser would be likely to
omit so much of his original. It is just a suitably plain
account of a trivial matter.
[1226] _Gulistān_ Cap. I. Story 4.
[1227] Bābur seems to have left the Ghūr-bund valley, perhaps
pursuing the Hazāras towards Janglīk, and to have come "by
ridge and valley" back into it for Ushtur-shahr. I have not
located Tīmūr Beg's Langar. As has been noted already (_q.v._
index) the Ghūr-bund narrows are at the lower end of the
valley; they have been surmised to be the fissured rampart of
an ancient lake.
[1228] Here this may represent a guard- or toll-house (Index
_s.n._).
[1229] As _yūrūn_ is a patch, the bearer of the sobriquet
might be Black Aḥmad the repairing-tailor.
[1230] _Second Afghān War_, Map of Kābul and its environs.
[1231] I understand that the arrival undiscovered was a result
of riding in single-file and thus shewing no black mass.
[1232] or _gharbīcha_, which Mr. Erskine explains to be the
four plates of mail, made to cover the back, front and sides;
the _jība_ would thus be the wadded under-coat to which they
are attached.
[1233] This prayer is composed of extracts from the Qorān
(_Méms_, i, 454 note); it is reproduced as it stands in Mr.
Erskine's wording (p. 216).
[1234] Bābur's reference may well be to Sanjar's birth as well
as to his being the holder of Nīngnahār. Sanjar's father had
been thought worthy to mate with one of the six Badakhshī
begīms whose line traced back to Alexander (T. R. p. 107); and
his father was a Barlās, seemingly of high family.
[1235] It may be inferred that what was done was for the
protection of the two women.
[1236] Not a bad case could have been made out for now putting
a Tīmūrid in Bābur's place in Kābul; _viz._ that he was
believed captive in Herī and that Mīrzā Khān was an effective
_locum tenens_ against the Arghūns. Haidar sets down what in
his eyes pleaded excuse for his father Muḥ. Ḥusain (T.R. p.
198).
[1237] _qūsh_, not even a little plough-land being given
(_chand qulba dihya_, 215 f. 162).
[1238] They were sons of Sl. Aḥmad Khān _Chaghatāī_.
[1239] f. 160.
[1240] Ḥaidar's opinion of Bābur at this crisis is of the more
account that his own father was one of the rebels let go to
the mercy of the "avenging servitor". When he writes of Bābur,
as being, at a time so provoking, gay, generous, affectionate,
simple and gentle, he sets before us insight and temper in
tune with Kipling's "If...."
[1241] Bābur's distinction, made here and elsewhere, between
Chaghatāī and Mughūl touches the old topic of the right or
wrong of the term "Mughūl dynasty". What he, as also Ḥaidar,
allows said is that if Bābur were to describe his mother in
tribal terms, he would say she was half-Chaghatāī,
half-Mughūl; and that if he so described himself, he would say
he was half-Tīmūrid-Turk, half-Chaghatāī. He might have called
the dynasty he founded in India Turkī, might have called it
Tīmūriya; he would never have called it Mughūl, after his
maternal grandmother.
Ḥaidar, with imperfect classification, divides Chīngīz Khān's
"Mughūl horde" into Mughūls and Chaghatāīs and of this
Chaghatāī offtake says that none remained in 953 _AH._ (1547
_AD._) except the rulers, _i.e._ sons of Sl. Aḥmad Khan (T.R.
148). Manifestly there was a body of Chaghatāīs with Bābur and
there appear to have been many near his day in the Herī
region,—`Alī-sher _Nawā`i_ the best known.
Bābur supplies directions for naming his dynasty when, as
several times, he claims to rule in Hindūstān where the "Turk"
had ruled (f. 233_b_, f. 224_b_, f. 225). To call his dynasty
Mughūl seems to blot out the centuries, something as we should
do by calling the English Teutons. If there is to be such
blotting-out, Abū'l-ghāzī would allow us, by his tables of
Turk descent, to go further, to the primal source of all the
tribes concerned, to Turk, son of Japhet. This traditional
descent is another argument against "Mughūl dynasty."
[1242] They went to Qandahār and there suffered great
privation.
[1243] Bārān seems likely to be the Baian of some maps.
Gul-i-bahār is higher up on the Panjhīr road. Chāsh-tūpa will
have been near-by; its name might mean _Hill of the heap of
winnowed-corn_.
[1244] f. 136.
[1245] Answer; Visions of his father's sway.
[1246] Elph. MS. f. 161; W.-i-B. I.O. 215 f. 164 and 217 f.
139_b_; Mems. p. 220.
[1247] The narrative indicates the location of the tribe, the
modern Ghilzāī or Ghilzī.
[1248] Sih-kāna lies s.e. of Shorkach, and near Kharbīn.
Sar-i-dih is about 25 or 30 miles s. of Ghaznī (Erskine). A
name suiting the pastoral wealth of the tribe _viz._
Mesh-khail, Sheep-tribe, is shewn on maps somewhat s. from
Kharbīn. _Cf._ Steingass _s.n._ Masht.
[1249] _yāghrūn_, whence _yāghrūnchī_, a diviner by help of
the shoulder-blades of sheep. The defacer of the Elphinstone
Codex has changed _yāghrūn_ to _yān_, side, thus making Bābur
turn his side and not his half-back to the north, altering his
direction, and missing what looks like a jesting reference to
his own divination of the road. The Pole Star was seen,
presumably, before the night became quite black.
[1250] From the subsequent details of distance done, this must
have been one of those good _yīghāch_ of perhaps 5-6 miles,
that are estimated by the ease of travel on level lands (Index
_s.v._ _yīghāch_).
[1251] I am uncertain about the form of the word translated by
"whim". The Elph. and Ḥai. Codices read _khūd d:lma_ (altered
in the first to _y:lma_); Ilminsky (p. 257) reads _khūd l:ma_
(de C. ii, 2 and note); Erskine has been misled by the Persian
translation (215 f. 164_b_ and 217 f. 139_b_). Whether
_khūd-dilma_ should be read, with the sense of "out of their
own hearts" (spontaneously), or whether _khūd-yalma_, own pace
(Turkī, _yalma_, pace) the contrast made by Bābur appears to
be between an unpremeditated gallop and one premeditated for
haste. Persian _dalama_, tarantula, also suggests itself.
[1252] _chāpqūn_, which is the word translated by gallop
throughout the previous passage. The Turkī verb _chāpmāq_ is
one of those words-of-all-work for which it is difficult to
find a single English equivalent. The verb _qūīmāq_ is
another; in its two occurrences here the first may be a
metaphor from the pouring of molten metal; the second
expresses that permission to gallop off for the raid without
which to raid was forbidden. The root-notion of _qūīmāq_ seems
to be letting-go, that of _chāpmāq_, rapid motion.
[1253] _i.e._ on the raiders' own road for Kābul.
[1254] f. 198_b_.
[1255] The Fifth taken was manifestly at the ruler's
disposition. In at least two places when dependants send gifts
to Bābur the word [_tassaduq_] used might be rendered as
"gifts for the poor". Does this mean that the _pādshāh_ in
receiving this stands in the place of the Imām of the Qorān
injunction which orders one-fifth of spoil to be given to the
Imām for the poor, orphans, and travellers,—four-fifths being
reserved for the troops? (Qorān, Sale's ed. 1825, i, 212 and
Hidāyat, Book ix).
[1256] This may be the sum of the separate items of sheep
entered in account-books by the commissaries.
[1257] Here this comprehensive word will stand for deer, these
being plentiful in the region.
[1258] Three Turkī MSS. write _ṣīghīnīb_, but the Elph. MS.
has had this changed to _yītīb_, having reached.
[1259] _bāsh-sīz_, lit. without head, doubtless a pun on
Aūz-beg (own beg, leaderless). B.M. Or. 3714 shows an artist's
conception of this _tart-part_.
[1260] Bābā Khākī is a fine valley, some 13 _yīghāch_ e. of
Herī (f. 13) where the Herī sulṯāns reside in the heats (_J.
Asiatique_ xvi, 501, de Meynard's article; Ḥ.S. iii, 356).
[1261] f. 172_b_.
[1262] _aūkhshātā almādī._ This is one of many passages which
Ilminsky indicates he has made good by help of the Memoirs (p.
261; _Mémoires_ ii, 6).
[1263] They are given also on f. 172.
[1264] This may be Sirakhs or Sirakhsh (Erskine).
[1265] _Tūshlīq tūshdīn yūrdī bīrūrlār._ At least two meanings
can be given to these words. Circumstances seem to exclude the
one in which the Memoirs (p. 222) and _Mémoires_ (ii, 7) have
taken them here, _viz._ "each man went off to shift for
himself", and "chacun s'en alla de son côté et s'enfuit comme
il put", because Ẕū'n-nūn did not go off, and the Mīrzās broke
up after his defeat. I therefore suggest another reading, one
prompted by the Mīrzās' vague fancies and dreams of what they
might do, but did not.
[1266] The encounter was between "Belāq-i-marāl and
Rabāṯ-i-`alī-sher, near Bādghīs" (Raverty's _Notes_ p. 580).
For particulars of the taking of Herī _see_ Ḥ.S. iii, 353.
[1267] One may be the book-name, the second the name in common
use, and due to the colour of the buildings. But Bābur may be
making an ironical jest, and nickname the fort by a word
referring to the defilement (_ālā_) of Aūzbeg possession. (Cf.
Ḥ.S. iii, 359.)
[1268] Mr. Erskine notes that Badī`u'z-zamān took refuge with
Shāh Ismā`īl _Ṣafawī_ who gave him Tabrīz. When the Turkish
Emperor Sālim took Tabrīz in 920 AH. (1514 AD.), he was taken
prisoner and carried to Constantinople, where he died in 923
AH. (1517 AD.).
[1269] In the fort were his wife Kābulī Begīm, d. of Aūlūgh
Beg M. _Kābulī_ and Ruqaiya Āghā, known as the Nightingale. A
young daughter of the Mīrzā, named the Rose-bud (Chūchak), had
died just before the siege. After the surrender of the fort,
Kābulī Begīm was married by Mīrzā Kūkūldāsh (perhaps
`Āshiq-i-muḥammad _Arghūn_); Ruqaiya by Tīmūr Sl. _Aūzbeg_
(Ḥ.S. iii, 359).
[1270] The _Khuṯba_ was first read for Shaibāq Khān in Herī on
Friday Muḥarram 15th 913 AH. (May 27th 1507 AD.).
[1271] There is a Persian phrase used when a man engages in an
unprofitable undertaking _Kīr-i-khar gerift_, _i.e._ _Asini
nervum deprehendet_ (Erskine). The Ḥ.S. does not mention
Banā'i as fleecing the poets but has much to say about one
Maulānā `Abdu'r-raḥīm a Turkistānī favoured by Shaibānī, whose
victim Khwānd-amīr was, amongst many others. Not infrequently
where Bābur and Khwānd-amīr state the same fact, they
accompany it by varied details, as here (Ḥ.S. iii, 358, 360).
[1272] _`adat._ Muḥammadan Law fixes a term after widowhood or
divorce within which re-marriage is unlawful. Light is thrown
upon this re-marriage by Ḥ.S. iii, 359. The passage, a
somewhat rhetorical one, gives the following details:—"On
coming into Her[i.] on Muḥarram 11th, Shaibānī at once set
about gathering in the property of the Tīmūrids. He had the
wives and daughters of the former rulers brought before him.
The great lady Khān-zāda Begīm (f. 163_b_) who was daughter of
Aḥmad Khān, niece of Sl. Ḥusain Mīrzā, and wife of Muz̤affar
Mīrzā, shewed herself pleased in his presence. Desiring to
marry him, she said Muz̤affar M. had divorced her two years
before. Trustworthy persons gave evidence to the same effect,
so she was united to Shaibānī in accordance with the glorious
Law. Mihr-angez Begīm, Muẓaffar M.'s daughter, was married to
`Ubaidu'llāh Sl. (_Aūzbeg_); the rest of the chaste ladies
having been sent back into the city, Shaibānī resumed his
search for property." Manifestly Bābur did not believe in the
divorce Khwānd-amīr thus records.
[1273] A sarcasm this on the acceptance of literary honour
from the illiterate.
[1274] f. 191 and note; Pul-i-sālār may be an irrigation-dam.
[1275] Qalāt-i-nādirī, the birth-place of Nādir Shāh, n. of
Mashhad and standing on very strong ground (Erskine).
[1276] This is likely to be the road passing through the
Carfax of Rabāṯ-i-sangbast, described by Daulat-shāh (Browne,
p. 176).
[1277] This will mean that the Arghūns would acknowledge his
suzerainty; Ḥaidar Mīrzā however says that Shāh Beg had higher
views (T. R. p. 202). There had been earlier negotiations
between Ẕū'n-nūn with Badī`u'z-zamān and Bābur which may have
led to the abandonment of Bābur's expedition in 911 AD. (f.
158; Ḥ.S. iii, 323; Raverty's account (_Notes_ p. 581-2) of
Bābur's dealings with the Arghūn chiefs needs revision).
[1278] They will have gone first to Tūn or Qāīn, thence to
Mashhad, and seem likely to have joined the Begīm after
cross-cutting to avoid Herī.
[1279] _yāghī wilāyatī-ghā kīlādūrghān._ There may have been
an accumulation of caravans on their way to Herāt, checked in
Qalāt by news of the Aūzbeg conquest.
[1280] Jahāngīr's son, thus brought by his mother, will have
been an infant; his father had gone back last year with Bābur
by the mountain road and had been left, sick and travelling in
a litter, with the baggage when Bābur hurried on to Kābul at
the news of the mutiny against him (f. 197); he must have died
shortly afterwards, seemingly between the departure of the two
rebels from Kābul (f. 201_b_-202) and the march out for
Qandahār. Doubtless his widow now brought her child to claim
his uncle Bābur's protection.
[1281] Persians pay great attention in their correspondence
not only to the style but to the kind of paper on which a
letter is written, the place of signature, the place of the
seal, and the situation of the address. Chardin gives some
curious information on the subject (Erskine). Bābur marks the
distinction of rank he drew between the Arghūn chiefs and
himself when he calls their letter to him, _`arẓ-dāsht_, his
to them _khat̤t̤_. His claim to suzerainty over those chiefs
is shewn by Ḥaidar Mīrzā to be based on his accession to
Tīmūrid headship through the downfall of the Bāī-qarās, who
had been the acknowledged suzerains of the Arghūns now
repudiating Bābur's claim. Cf. Erskine's _History of India_ i,
cap. 3.
[1282] on the main road, some 40 miles east of Qandahār.
[1283] var. Kūr or Kawar. If the word mean _ford_, this might
well be the one across the Tarnak carrying the road to Qarā
(maps). Here Bābur seems to have left the main road along the
Tarnak, by which the British approach was made in 1880 AD.,
for one crossing west into the valley of the Argand-āb.
[1284] Bābā Ḥasan _Abdāl_ is the Bābā Walī of maps. The same
saint has given his name here, and also to his shrine east of
Atak where he is known as Bābā Walī of Qandahār. The torrents
mentioned are irrigation off-takes from the Argand-āb, which
river flows between Bābā Walī and Khalishak. Shāh Beg's force
was south of the torrents (cf. Murghān-koh on S.A.W. map).
[1285] The narrative and plans of _Second Afghan War_ (Murray
1908) illustrate Bābur's movements and show most of the places
he names. The end of the 280 mile march, from Kābul to within
sight of Qandahār, will have stirred in the General of 1507
what it stirred in the General of 1880. Lord Roberts speaking
in May 1913 in Glasgow on the rapid progress of the movement
for National Service thus spoke:—"A memory comes over me which
turns misgiving into hope and apprehension into confidence. It
is the memory of the morning when, accompanied by two of
Scotland's most famous regiments, the Seaforths and the
Gordons, at the end of a long and arduous march, _I saw in the
distance the walls and minarets of Qandahar, and knew that the
end of a great resolve and a great task was near._"
[1286] _mīn tāsh `imārat qāzdūrghān tūmshūghī-nīng alīdā_; 215
f. l68_b_, _`imarātī kah az sang yak pāra farmūda būdīm_; 217
f. 143_b_, _jāy kah man `imāratī sākhtam_; Mems. p. 226, where
I have built a palace; _Méms._ ii, 15, _l'endroit même où j'ai
bâti un palais_. All the above translations lose the sense of
_qāzdūrghān_, am causing to dig out, to quarry stone. Perhaps
for coolness' sake the dwelling was cut out in the living
rock. That the place is south-west of the main _ạrīqs_, near
Murghān-koh or on it, Bābur's narrative allows. Cf. Appendix
J.
[1287] _sic_, Ḥai. MS. There are two Lakhshas, Little Lakhsha,
a mile west of Qandahār, and Great Lakhsha, about a mile s.w.
of Old Qandahār, 5 or 6 m. from the modern one (Erskine).
[1288] This will be the main irrigation channel taken off from
the Argand-āb (Maps).
[1289] _tamām aīlīkīdīn—aīsh-kīlūr yīkītlār_, an idiomatic
phrase used of `Alī-dost (f. 14_b_ and n.), not easy to
express by a single English adjective.
[1290] The _tawāchī_ was a sort of adjutant who attended to
the order of the troops and carried orders from the general
(Erskine). The difficult passage following gives the Turkī
terms Bābur selected to represent Arabic military ones.
[1291] Ar. _aḥad_ (_Āyīn-i-akbarī_, Blochmann, index _s.n._).
The word _būī_ recurs in the text on f. 210.
[1292] _i.e._ the _būī tīkīnī_ of f. 209_b_, the _khāṣa
tābīn_, close circle.
[1293] As Mughūls seem unlikely to be descendants of Muḥammad,
perhaps the title Sayyid in some Mughūl names here, may be a
translation of a Mughūl one meaning Chief.
[1294] _Arghūn-nīng qarāsī_, a frequent phrase.
[1295] in sign of submission.
[1296] f. 176. It was in 908 AH. [1502 AD.].
[1297] This word seems to be from _sānjmāq_, to prick or stab;
and here to have the military sense of _prick_, _viz._ riding
forth. The Second Pers. trs. (217 f. 144_b_) translates it by
_ghauta khūrda raft_, went tasting a plunge under water (215
f. 170; Muḥ. _Shīrāzī_'s lith. ed. p. 133). Erskine (p. 228),
as his Persian source dictates, makes the men sink into the
soft ground; de Courteille varies much (ii, 21).
[1298] Ar. _akhmail_, so translated under the known presence
of trees; it may also imply soft ground (Lane p. 813 col. b)
but soft ground does not suit the purpose of _arīqs_
(channels), the carrying on of water to the town.
[1299] The S.A.W. map is useful here.
[1300] That he had a following may be inferred.
[1301] Ḥai. MS. _qāchār_; Ilminsky, p. 268; and both Pers.
trss. _rukhsār_ or _rukhsāra_ (f. 25 and note to _qāchār_).
[1302] So in the Turkī MSS. and the first Pers. trs. (215 f.
170_b_). The second Pers. trs. (217 f. 145_b_) has a gloss of
_ātqū u tika_; this consequently Erskine follows (p. 229) and
adds a note explaining the punishment. Ilminsky has the gloss
also (p. 269), thus indicating Persian and English influence.
[1303] No MS. gives the missing name.
[1304] The later favour mentioned was due to Saṃbhal's
laborious release of his master from Aūzbeg captivity in 917
AH. (1511 AD.) of which Erskine quotes a full account from the
_Tārīkh-i-sind_ (History of India i, 345).
[1305] Presumably he went by Sabzār, Daulatābād, and Washīr.
[1306] f. 202 and note to _Chaghatāī_.
[1307] This will be for the Nīngnahār _tūmān_ of Lamghān.
[1308] He was thus dangerously raised in his father's place of
rule.
[1309] ff. 10_b_, 11_b_. Ḥaidar M. writes, "Shāh Begīm laid
claim to Badakhshān, saying, "It has been our hereditary
kingdom for 3000 years; though I, being a woman, cannot myself
attain sovereignty, yet my grandson Mīrzā Khān can hold it"
(T. R. p. 203).
[1310] _tībrādīlār._ The agitation of mind connoted, with
movement, by this verb may well have been, here, doubt of
Bābur's power to protect.
[1311] _tūshlūq tūshdīn tāghghā yūrūkāīlār._ Cf. 205_b_ for
the same phrase, with supposedly different meaning.
[1312] _qāngshār_ lit. ridge of the nose.
[1313] _bīr aūq ham qūīā-ālmādīlār_ (f. 203_b_ note to
_chāpqūn_).
[1314] This will have been news both of Shaibāq Khān and of
Mīrzā Khān. The Pers. trss. vary here (215 f. 173 and 217 f.
148).
[1315] Index _s.n._
[1316] Māh-chūchūk can hardly have been married against her
will to Qāsim. Her mother regarded the alliance as a family
indignity; appealed to Shāh Beg and compassed a rescue from
Kābul while Bābur and Qāsim were north of the Oxus [_circa_
916 AH.]. Māh-chūchūk quitted Kābul after much hesitation, due
partly to reluctance to leave her husband and her infant of 18
months, [Nāhīd Begīm,] partly to dread less family honour
might require her death (Erskine's _History_, i, 348 and
Gul-badan's _Humāyūn-nāma_).
[1317] Erskine gives the fort the alternative name "Kaliūn",
locates it in the Bādghīs district east of Herī, and quotes
from Abū'l-ghāzī in describing its strong position (_History_
i, 282). Ḥ.S. Tīrah-tū.
[1318] f. 133 and note. Abū'l-faẓl mentions that the
inscription was to be seen in his time.
[1319] This fief ranks in value next to the Kābul _tūmān_.
[1320] Various gleanings suggest motives for Bābur's assertion
of supremacy at this particular time. He was the only Tīmūrid
ruler and man of achievement; he filled Ḥusain _Bāī-qarā_'s
place of Tīmūrid headship; his actions through a long period
show that he aimed at filling Tīmūr Beg's. There were those
who did not admit his suzerainty,—Tīmūrids who had rebelled,
Mughūls who had helped them, and who would also have helped
Sa`īd Khān _Chaghatāī_, if he had not refused to be
treacherous to a benefactor; there were also the Arghūns,
Chīngīz-khānids of high pretensions. In old times the Mughūl
Khāqāns were _pādshāh_ (supreme); Pādshāh is recorded in
history as the style of at least Sātūq-būghra Khān Pādshāh
Ghāzī; no Tīmūrid had been lifted by his style above all
Mīrzās. When however Tīmūrids had the upper hand, Bābur's
Tīmūrid grandfather Abū-sa`īd asserted his _de facto_
supremacy over Bābur's Chaghatāī grandfather Yūnas (T. R. p.
83). For Bābur to re-assert that supremacy by assuming the
Khāqān's style was highly opportune at this moment. To be
Bābur Supreme was to declare over-lordship above Chaghatāī and
Mughūl, as well as over all Mīrzās. It was done when his sky
had cleared; Mīrzā Khān's rebellion was scotched; the Arghūns
were defeated; he was the stronger for their lost possessions;
his Aūzbeg foe had removed to a less ominous distance; and
Kābul was once more his own.
Gul-badan writes as if the birth of his first-born son Humāyūn
were a part of the uplift in her father's style, but his
narrative does not support her in this, since the order of
events forbids.
[1321] The "Khān" in Humāyūn's title may be drawn from his
mother's family, since it does not come from Bābur. To whose
family Māhīm belonged we have not been able to discover. It is
one of the remarkable omissions of Bābur, Gul-badan and
Abū'l-faẓl that they do not give her father's name. The topic
of her family is discussed in my Biographical Appendix to
Gul-badan's _Humāyūn-nāma_ and will be taken up again, here,
in a final Appendix on Bābur's family.
[1322] Elph. MS. f. 172_b_; W.-i-B. I.O. 215 f. 174_b_ and 217
f. 148_b_; Mems. p. 234.
[1323] on the head-waters of the Tarnak (R.'s _Notes_ App. p.
34).
[1324] Bābur has made no direct mention of his half-brother's
death (f. 208 and n. to Mīrzā).
[1325] This may be Darwesh-i-`alī of f. 210; the Sayyid in his
title may merely mean chief, since he was a Mughūl.
[1326] Several of these mutineers had fought for Bābur at
Qandahār.
[1327] It may be useful to recapitulate this Mīrzā's
position:—In the previous year he had been left in charge of
Kābul when Bābur went eastward in dread of Shaibānī, and, so
left, occupied his hereditary place. He cannot have hoped to
hold Kābul if the Aūzbeg attacked it; for its safety and his
own he may have relied, and Bābur also in appointing him, upon
influence his Arghūn connections could use. For these, one was
Muqim his brother-in-law, had accepted Shaibānī's suzerainty
after being defeated in Qandahār by Bābur. It suited them
better no doubt to have the younger Mīrzā rather than Bābur in
Kābul; the latter's return thither will have disappointed them
and the Mīrzā; they, as will be instanced later, stood ready
to invade his lands when he moved East; they seem likely to
have promoted the present Mughūl uprising. In the battle which
put this down, the Mīrzā was captured; Bābur pardoned him; but
he having rebelled again, was then put to death.
[1328] Bāgh-i-yūrūnchqā may be an equivalent of Bāgh-i-safar,
and the place be one of waiting "up to" (_ūnchqā_) the journey
(_yūr_). _Yūrūnchqā_ also means _clover_ (De Courteille).
[1329] He seems to have been a brother or uncle of Humāyūn's
mother Māhīm (Index; A. N. trs. i, 492 and note).
[1330] In all MSS. the text breaks off abruptly here, as it
does on f. 118_b_ as though through loss of pages, and a blank
of narrative follows. Before the later gap of f. 251_b_
however the last sentence is complete.
[1331] Index _s. n. Bābur-nāma_, date of composition and gaps.
[1332] _ibid._
[1333] Jumāda I, 14th 968 AH.-Jan. 31st 1561 AD. Concerning
the book _see_ Elliot and Dowson's _History of India_ vi, 572
and JRAS 1901 p. 76, H. Beveridge's art. _On Persian MSS. in
Indian Libraries_.
[1334] The T. R. gives the names of two only of the champions
but Firishta, writing much later gives all five; we surmise
that he found his five in the book of which copies are not now
known, the _Tārīkh-i Muḥ. `Ārif Qandahārī_. Firishta's five
are `Ali _shab-kūr_ (night-blind), `Alī _Sīstānī_, Naẕar
Bahādur _Aūzbeg_, Ya`qūb _tez-jang_ (swift in fight), and
Aūzbeg Bahādur. Ḥaidar's two names vary in the MSS. of the T.
R. but represent the first two of Firishta's list.
[1335] There are curious differences of statement about the
date of Shaibānī's death, possibly through confusion between
this and the day on which preliminary fighting began near
Merv. Ḥaidar's way of expressing the date carries weight by
its precision, he giving _roz-i-shakk_ of Ramẓān, _i.e._ a day
of which there was doubt whether it was the last of Sha`bān or
the first of Ramẓān (Lane, _yauma'u'l-shakk_). As the sources
support Friday for the day of the week and on a Friday in the
year 915 AH. fell the 29th of Sha`bān, the date of Shaibānī's
death seems to be Friday Sha`bān 29th 915 AH. (Friday December
2nd 1510 AD.).
[1336] If my reading be correct of the Turkī passage
concerning wines drunk by Bābur which I have noted on f. 49
(_in loco_ p. 83 n. 1), it was during this occupation of Kābul
that Bābur first broke the Law against stimulants.
[1337] Mr. R. S. Poole found a coin which he took to be one
struck in obedience to Bābur's compact with the Shāh (B.M.Cat.
of the coins of Persian Shāhs 1887, pp. xxiv _et seq._; T.R.
p. 246 n.).
[1338] It was held by Aḥmad-i-qāsim _Kohbur_ and is referred
to on f. 234_b_, as one occasion of those in which Dost Beg
distinguished himself.
[1339] Schuyler's _Turkistān_ has a good account and picture
of the mosque. `Ubaid's vow is referred to in my earlier
mention of the _Sūlūku'l-mulūk_. It may be noted here that
this MS. supports the spelling _Bābur_ by making the second
syllable rhyme to _pūr_, as against the form _Bābar_.
[1340] _aūrūq._ Bābur refers to this exodus on f. 12_b_ when
writing of Daulat-sulṯān Khānīm.
[1341] It is one recorded with some variation, in Niyāz
Muḥammad _Khukandī's Tārīkh-i-shāhrukhī_ (Kazan, 1885) and
Nalivkine's _Khānate of Khokand_ (p. 63). It says that when
Bābur in 918 AH. (1512 AD.) left Samarkand after defeat by the
Aūzbegs, one of his wives, Sayyida Āfāq who accompanied him in
his flight, gave birth to a son in the desert which lies
between Khujand and Kand-i-badām; that Bābur, not daring to
tarry and the infant being too young to make the impending
journey, left it under some bushes with his own girdle round
it in which were things of price; that the child was found by
local people and in allusion to the valuables amongst which it
lay, called Altūn bīshik (golden cradle); that it received
other names and was best known in later life as Kḥudāyān
Sulṯān. He is said to have spent most of his life in Akhsī; to
have had a son Tīngrī-yār; and to have died in 952 AH. (1545
AD.). His grandson Yār-i-muḥammad is said to have gone to
India to relations who was descendants of Bābur (JASB 1905 p.
137 H. Beveridge's art. _The Emperor Bābur_). What is against
the truth of this tradition is that Gul-badan mentions no such
wife as Sayyida Āfāq. Māhīm however seems to have belonged to
a religious family, might therefore be styled Sayyida, and, as
Bābur mentions (f. 220), had several children who did not live
(a child left as this infant was, might if not heard of, be
supposed dead). There is this opening allowed for considering
the tradition.
[1342] Bābur refers to this on f. 265.
[1343] The _Lubbu't-tawārīkh_ would fix Ramẓān 7th.
[1344] Mr. Erskine's quotation of the Persian original of the
couplet differs from that which I have translated (_History of
India_ ii, 326; _Tārīkh-i-badāyūnī_ Bib. Ind. ed. f. 444).
Perhaps in the latter a pun is made on Najm as the leader's
name and as meaning _fortune_; if so it points the more
directly at the Shāh. The second line is quoted by Badāyūnī on
his f. 362 also.
[1345] Some translators make Bābur go "naked" into the fort
but, on his own authority (f. 106_b_), it seems safer to
understand what others say, that he went stripped of
attendance, because it was always his habit even in times of
peace to lie down in his tunic; much more would he have done
so at such a crisis of his affairs as this of his flight to
Ḥiṣār.
[1346] Ḥaidar gives a graphic account of the misconduct of the
horde and of their punishment (T.R. p. 261-3).
[1347] One of the mutineers named as in this affair (T.R. p.
257) was Sl. Qulī _chūnāq_, a circumstance attracting
attention by its bearing on the cause of the _lacunae_ in the
_Bābur-nāma_, inasmuch as Bābur, writing at the end of his
life, expresses (f. 65) his intention to tell of this man's
future misdeeds. These misdeeds may have been also at Ḥiṣār
and in the attack there made on Bābur; they are known from
Ḥaidar to have been done at Ghaznī; both times fall within
this present gap. Hence it is clear that Bābur meant to write
of the events falling in the gap of 914 AH. onwards.
[1348] In 925 AH. (ff. 227 and 238) mention is made of
courtesies exchanged between Bābur and Muḥammad-i-zamān in
Balkh. The Mīrzā was with Bābur later on in Hindūstān.
[1349] Mīr Ma`ṣūm's _Tārīkh-i-sind_ is the chief authority for
Bābur's action after 913 AH. against Shāh Beg in Qandahār; its
translation, made in 1846 by Major Malet, shews some
manifestly wrong dates; they appear also in the B. M. MS. of
the work.
[1350] f. 216_b_ and note to "Monday".
[1351] Elph. MS. f. 173_b_; W.-i-B. I.O. 215 f. 178 and 217 f.
149; Mems. p. 246. The whole of the Ḥijra year is included in
1519 AD. (Erskine). What follows here and completes the Kābul
section of the _Bābur-nāma_ is a diary of a little over 13
months' length, supplemented by matter of later entry. The
product has the character of a draft, awaiting revision to
harmonize it in style and, partly, in topic with the composed
narrative that breaks off under 914 AH.; for the diary,
written some 11 years earlier than that composed narrative,
varies, as it would be expected _à priori_ to vary, in style
and topic from the terse, lucid and idiomatic output of
Bābur's literary maturity. A good many obscure words and
phrases in it, several new from Bābur's pen, have opposed
difficulty to scribes and translators. Interesting as such
_minutiae_ are to a close observer of Turkī and of Bābur's
diction, comment on all would be tedious; a few will be found
noted, as also will such details as fix the date of entry for
supplementary matter.
[1352] Here Mr. Erskine notes that Dr. Leyden's translation
begins again; it broke off on f. 180_b_, and finally ends on
f. 223_b_.
[1353] This name is often found transliterated as Chandul or
[mod.] Jandul but the Ḥai. MS. supports Raverty's opinion that
Chandāwal is correct.
The year 925 AH. opens with Bābur far from Kābul and east of
the Khahr (fort) he is about to attack. Afghān and other
sources allow surmise of his route to that position; he may
have come down into the Chandāwal-valley, first, from taking
Chaghān-sarāī (f. 124, f. 134 and n.), and, secondly, from
taking the Gibrī stronghold of Ḥaidar-i-`alī _Bajaurī_ which
stood at the head of the Bābā Qarā-valley. The latter surmise
is supported by the romantic tales of Afghān chroniclers which
at this date bring into history Bābur's Afghān wife, Bībī
Mubāraka (f. 220_b_ and note; Mems. p. 250 n.; and Appendix K,
_An Afghān legend_). (It must be observed here that R.'s
_Notes_ (pp. 117, 128) confuse the two sieges, _viz._ of the
Gibrī fort in 924 AH. and of the Khahr of Bajaur in 925 AH.)
[1354] Raverty lays stress on the circumstance that the fort
Bābur now attacks has never been known as Bajaur, but always
simply as Khahr, the fort (the Arabic name for the place
being, he says, plain _Shahr_); just as the main stream is
called simply Rūd (the torrent). The name Khahr is still used,
as modern maps shew. There are indeed two neighbouring places
known simply as Khahr (Fort), _i.e._ one at the mouth of the
"Mahmand-valley" of modern campaigns, the other near the
Malakand (Fincastle's map).
[1355] This word the Ḥai. MS. writes, _passim_, Dilah-zāk.
[1356] Either Ḥaidar-i-`alī himself or his nephew, the latter
more probably, since no name is mentioned.
[1357] Looking at the position assigned by maps to Khahr, in
the _dū-āb_ of the Charmanga-water and the Rūd of Bajaur, it
may be that Bābur's left moved along the east bank of the
first-named stream and crossed it into the _dū-āb_, while his
centre went direct to its post, along the west side of the
fort.
[1358] _sū-kīrīshī_; to interpret which needs local knowledge;
it might mean where water entered the fort, or where water
disembogued from narrows, or, perhaps, where water is entered
for a ford. (The verb _kīrmāk_ occurs on f. 154_b_ and f. 227
to describe water coming down in spate.)
[1359] _dīwānawār_, perhaps a jest on a sobriquet earned
before this exploit, perhaps the cause of the man's later
sobriquet _dīwāna_ (f. 245_b_).
[1360] Text, t:r:k, read by Erskine and de Courteille as Turk;
it might however be a Turkī component in Jān-i-`alī or
Muḥibb-i-`alī. (Cf. Zenker _s.n. tirik_.)
[1361] _aūshūl gūnī_, which contrasts with the frequent
_aūshbū gūnī_ (this same day, today) of manifestly diary
entries; it may indicate that the full account of the siege is
a later supplement.
[1362] This puzzling word might mean cow-horn (_kau-sarū_) and
stand for the common horn trumpet. Erskine and de Courteille
have read it as _gau-sar_, the first explaining it as
_cow-head_, surmised to be a protection for matchlockmen when
loading; the second, as _justaucorps de cuir_. That the word
is baffling is shewn by its omission in I.O. 215 (f. 178_b_),
in 217 (f. 149_b_) and in Muḥ. _Shīrāzī_'s lith. ed. (p. 137).
[1363] or _farangī._ Much has been written concerning the
early use of gun-powder in the East. There is, however, no
well-authenticated fact to prove the existence of anything
like artillery there, till it was introduced from Europe.
Bābur here, and in other places (f. 267) calls his larger
ordnance Firingī, a proof that they were then regarded as
owing their origin to Europe. The Turks, in consequence of
their constant intercourse with the nations of the West, have
always excelled all the other Orientals in the use of
artillery; and, when heavy cannon were first used in India,
Europeans or Turks were engaged to serve them (Erskine). It is
owing no doubt to the preceding gap in his writings that we
are deprived of Bābur's account of his own introduction to
fire-arms. _See_ E. & D.'s _History of India_, vi, Appendix
_On the early use of gunpowder in India_.
[1364] var. _quṯbī_, _qūchīnī_.
[1365] This sobriquet might mean "ever a fighter", or an
"argle-bargler", or a brass shilling (Zenker), or (if written
_jing-jing_) that the man was visaged like the bearded reeding
(Scully in Shaw's Vocabulary). The _T̤abaqāt-i-akbarī_
includes a Mīrak Khān _Jang-jang_ in its list of Akbar's
Commanders.
[1366] _ghūl-dīn (awwal) aūl qūrghān-gha chīqtī._ I suggest to
supply _awwal_, first, on the warrant of Bābur's later
statement (f. 234_b_) that Dost was first in.
[1367] He was a son of Maulānā Muḥ. _Ṣadr_, one of the chief
men of `Umar-shaikh M.'s Court; he had six brothers, all of
whom spent their lives in Bābur's service, to whom, if we may
believe Abū'l-faẓl, they were distantly related (Erskine).
[1368] Bābur now returns towards the east, down the Rūd. The
_chashma_ by which he encamped, would seem to be near the
mouth of the valley of Bābā Qarā, one 30 miles long; it may
have been, anglicé, a spring [not that of the main stream of
the long valley], but the word may be used as it seems to be
of the water supplying the Bāgh-i-ṣafā (f. 224), _i.e._ to
denote the first considerable gathering-place of small
head-waters. It will be observed a few lines further on that
this same valley seems to be meant by "Khwāja Khiẓr".
[1369] He will have joined Bābur previous to Muḥarram 925 AH.
[1370] This statement, the first we have, that Bābur has
broken Musalmān Law against stimulants (f. 49 and n.), is
followed by many others more explicit, jotting down where and
what and sometimes why he drank, in a way which arrests
attention and asks some other explanation than that it is an
unabashed record of conviviality such conceivably as a
non-Musalmān might write. Bābur is now 37 years old; he had
obeyed the Law till past early manhood; he wished to return to
obedience at 40; he frequently mentions his lapses by a word
which can be translated as "commitment of sin" (_irtqāb_); one
gathers that he did not at any time disobey with easy
conscience. Does it explain his singular record,—one made in
what amongst ourselves would be regarded as a private
diary,—that his sins were created by Law? Had he a balance of
reparation in his thoughts?
Detaching into their separate class as excesses, all his
instances of confessed drunkenness, there remains much in his
record which, seen from a non-Musalmān point of view, is
venial; _e.g._ his _ṣubūhī_ appears to be the "morning" of the
Scot, the _Morgen-trank_ of the Teuton; his afternoon cup, in
the open air usually, may have been no worse than the sober
glass of beer or local wine of modern Continental Europe. Many
of these legal sins of his record were interludes in the day's
long ride, stirrup-cups some of them, all in a period of
strenuous physical activity. Many of his records are
collective and are phrased impersonally; they mention that
there was drinking, drunkenness even, but they give details
sometimes such as only a sober observer could include.
Bābur names a few men as drunkards, a few as entirely
obedient; most of his men seem not to have obeyed the Law and
may have been "temperate drinkers"; they effected work, Bābur
amongst them, which habitual drunkards could not have
compassed. Spite of all he writes of his worst excesses, it
must be just to remember his Musalmān conscience, and also the
distorting power of a fictitious sin. Though he broke the law
binding all men against excess, and this on several confessed
occasions, his rule may have been no worse than that of the
ordinarily temperate Western. It cannot but lighten judgment
that his recorded lapses from Law were often prompted by the
bounty and splendour of Nature; were committed amidst the
falling petals of fruit-blossom, the flaming fire of autumn
leaves, where the eye rested on the _arghwān_ or the orange
grove, the coloured harvest of corn or vine.
[1371] As Mr. Erskine observes, there seems to be no valley
except that of Bābā Qarā, between the Khahr and the
Chandāwal-valley; "Khwāja Khiẓr" and "Bābā Qarā" may be one
and the same valley.
[1372] Time and ingenuity would be needed to bring over into
English all the quips of this verse. The most obvious pun is,
of course, that on Bajaur as the compelling cause (_ba jaur_)
of the parting; others may be meant on _guzīd_ and _gazīd_, on
_sazīd_ and _chāra_. The verse would provide the holiday
amusement of extracting from it two justifiable translations.
[1373] His possessions extended from the river of Sawād to
Bāramūla; he was expelled from them by the Yūsuf-zāī
(Erskine).
[1374] This will be the naze of the n.e. rampart of the Bābā
Qarā valley.
[1375] f. 4 and note; f. 276. Bābur seems to use the name for
several varieties of deer.
[1376] There is here, perhaps, a jesting allusion to the
darkening of complexion amongst the inhabitants of countries
from west to east, from Highlands to Indian plains.
[1377] In Dr. E. D. Ross' _Polyglot list of birds_ the
_sārigh(sārīq)-qūsh_ is said to frequent fields of ripening
grain; this suggests to translate its name as Thief-bird.
[1378] _Aquila chrysaetus_, the hunting eagle.
[1379] This _ārālīgh_ might be identified with the "Miankalai"
of maps (since Soghd, lying between two arms of the Zar-afshān
is known also as Mīānkal), but Raverty explains the Bajaur
Miankalai to mean Village of the holy men (_mīān_).
[1380] After 933 AH. presumably, when final work on the B.N.
was in progress.
[1381] Mr. Erskine notes that Pesh-grām lies north of Mahyar
(on the Chandāwal-water), and that he has not found Kahrāj (or
Kohrāj). Judging from Bābur's next movements, the two valleys
he names may be those in succession east of Chandāwal.
[1382] There is hardly any level ground in the cleft of the
Panj-kūra (R.'s _Notes_ p. 193); the villages are perched high
on the sides of the valley. The pass leading to them may be
Katgola (Fincastle's Map).
[1383] This account of Hind-āl's adoption is sufficiently
confused to explain why a note, made apparently by Humāyūn,
should have been appended to it (Appendix L, _On Hind-āl's
adoption_). The confusion reminds the reader that he has
before him a sort of memorandum only, diary jottings, apt to
be allusive and abbreviated. The expected child was Dil-dār's;
Māhīm, using her right as principal wife, asked for it to be
given to her. That the babe in question is here called Hind-āl
shews that at least part of this account of his adoption was
added after the birth and naming (f. 227).
[1384] One would be, no doubt, for Dil-dār's own information.
She then had no son but had two daughters, Gul-rang and
Gul-chihra. News of Hind-āl's birth reached Bābur in Bhīra,
some six weeks later (f. 227).
[1385] f. 218_b_.
[1386] Bībī Mubāraka, the Afghānī Aghācha of Gul-badan. An
attractive picture of her is drawn by the
_Tāwārikh-i-ḥāfi-i-raḥmat-khānī_. As this gives not only one
of Bābur's romantic adventures but historical matter, I append
it in my husband's translation [(A.Q.R. April 1901)] as
Appendix K, _An Afghān Legend_.
[1387] _Bī-sūt aīlī-nīng Bajaur-qūrghānī-dā manāsabatī-bār
jīhatī_; a characteristic phrase.
[1388] Perhaps the end of the early spring-harvest and the
spring harvesting-year. It is not the end of the campaigning
year, manifestly; and it is at the beginning of both the solar
and lunar years.
[1389] Perhaps, more than half-way between the Mid-day and
Afternoon Prayers. So too in the annals of Feb. 12th.
[1390] _tīl ālghālī_ (Pers. _zabān-gīrī_), a new phrase in the
B.N.
[1391] _chāsht_, which, being half-way between sunrise and the
meridian, is a variable hour.
[1392] See n. 2, f. 221.
[1393] Perhaps Maqām is the Mardān of maps.
[1394] Bhīra, on the Jehlam, is now in the Shāhpūr district of
the Panj-āb.
[1395] This will be the ford on the direct road from Mardān
for the eastward (Elphin-stone's _Caubul_ ii, 416).
[1396] The position of Sawātī is represented by the Suābī of
the G. of I. map (1909 AD.). Writing in about 1813 AD. Mr.
Erskine notes as worthy of record that the rhinoceros was at
that date no longer found west of the Indus.
[1397] Elph. MS. _ghura_, the 1st, but this is corrected to
16th by a marginal note. The Ḥai. MS. here, as in some other
places, has the context for a number, but omits the figures.
So does also the Elph. MS. in a good many places.
[1398] This is the Harru. Mr. Erskine observes that Bābur
appears to have turned sharp south after crossing it, since he
ascended a pass so soon after leaving the Indus and reached
the Sūhān so soon.
[1399] _i.e._ the Salt-range.
[1400] Mr. Erskine notes that (in his day) a _shāhrukhī_ may
be taken at a shilling or eleven pence sterling.
[1401] It is somewhat difficult not to forget that a man who,
like Bābur, records so many observations of geographical
position, had no guidance from Surveys, Gazetteers and Books
of Travel. Most of his records are those of personal
observation.
[1402] In this sentence Mr. Erskine read a reference to the
Musalmān Ararat, the Koh-i-jūd on the left bank of the Tigris.
What I have set down translates the Turkī words but, taking
account of Bābur's eye for the double use of a word, and
Erskine's careful work, done too in India, the Turkī may imply
reference to the Ararat-like summit of Sakeswar.
[1403] Here Dr. Leyden's version finally ends (Erskine).
[1404] Bhīra, as has been noted, is on the Jehlam; Khūsh-āb is
40 m. lower down the same river; Chīnīūt (Chīnī-wat?) is 50
miles south of Bhīra; Chīn-āb (China-water?) seems the name of
a tract only and not of a residential centre; it will be in
the Bar of Kipling's border-thief. Concerning Chīnīūt _see_ D.
G. Barkley's letter, JRAS 1899 p. 132.
[1405] _ṯaur yīrī waqī` būlūb tūr._ As on f. 160 of the valley
of Khwesh, I have taken _ṯaur_ to be Turkī, complete, shut in.
[1406] _chashma_ (f. 218_b_ and note).
[1407] The promised description is not found; there follows a
mere mention only of the garden [f. 369]. This entry can be
taken therefore as shewing an intention to write what is still
wanting from Ṣafar 926 AH. to Ṣafar 932 AH.
[1408] Mīr Muḥ. may have been a kinsman or follower of Mahdī
Khwāja. The entry on the scene, unannounced by introduction as
to parentage, of the Khwāja who played a part later in Bābur's
family affairs is due, no doubt, to the last gap of annals. He
is mentioned in the Translator's Note, _s.a._ 923 AH. (_See_
Gul-badan's H.N. Biographical Appendix _s.n._)
[1409] or Sihrind, mod. Sirhind or Sar-i-hind (Head of Hind).
It may be noted here, for what it may be found worth, that
Kh(w)āfī Khān [i, 402] calls Sar-i-hind the old name, says
that the place was once held by the Ghaznī dynasty and was its
Indian frontier, and that Shāh-jahān changed it to Sahrind.
The W.-i-B. I.O. 217 f. 155 writes Shahrind.
[1410] Three krores or crores of dāms, at 40 to the rupee,
would make this 750,000 rupees, or about £75,000 sterling
(Erskine); a statement from the ancient history of the rupī!
[1411] This Hindustānī word in some districts signifies the
head man of a trade, in others a landholder (Erskine).
[1412] In Mr. Erskine's time this sum was reckoned to be
nearly £20,000.
[1413] Here originally neither the Elph. MS. nor the Ḥai. MS.
had a date; it has been added to the former.
[1414] This rain is too early for the s.w. monsoon; it was
probably a severe fall of spring rain, which prevails at this
season or rather earlier, and extends over all the west of
Asia (Erskine).
[1415] _az ghīna shor sū._ Streams rising in the Salt-range
become brackish on reaching its skirts (G. of I.).
[1416] Here this will be the fermented juice of rice or of the
date-palm.
[1417] _Rauḥ_ is sometimes the name of a musical note.
[1418] a platform, with or without a chamber above it, and
supported on four posts.
[1419] so-written in the MSS. Cf. Raverty's _Notes_ and G. of
I.
[1420] Anglicé, cousins on the father's side.
[1421] The G. of I. describes it.
[1422] Elph. MS. f. 183b, _manṣūb_; Ḥai. MS. and 2nd W.-i-B.
_bīsūt_. The holder might be Bābā-i-kābulī of f. 225.
[1423] The 1st Pers. trs. (I.O. 215 f. 188b) and Kehr's MS.
[Ilminsky p. 293] attribute Hātī's last-recorded acts to Bābur
himself. The two mistaken sources err together elsewhere. M.
de Courteille corrects the defect (ii, 67).
[1424] night-guard. He is the old servant to whom Bābur sent a
giant _ashrafī_ of the spoils of India (Gul-badan's H.N.
_s.n._).
[1425] The _kīping_ or _kīpik_ is a kind of mantle covered
with wool (Erskine); the root of the word is _kīp_, dry.
[1426] _aūlūgh chāsht_, a term suggesting that Bābur knew the
_chota ḥāẓirī_, little breakfast, of Anglo-India. It may be
inferred, from several passages, that the big breakfast was
taken after 9 a.m. and before 12 p.m. Just below men are said
to put on their mail at _chāsht_ in the same way as, _passim_,
things other than prayer are said to be done at this or that
Prayer; this, I think, always implies that they are done after
the Prayer mentioned; a thing done shortly before a Prayer is
done "close to" or "near" or when done over half-way to the
following Prayer, the act is said to be done "nearer" to the
second (as was noted on f. 221).
[1427] _Juldū Dost Beg-nīng ātī-gha būldī._
[1428] The disarray of these names in the MSS. reveals
confusion in their source. Similar verbal disarray occurs in
the latter part of f. 229.
[1429] Manifestly a pun is made on the guide's name and on the
_cap-à-pié_ robe of honour the offenders did not receive.
[1430] _aūrdū-nīng aldī-gha_, a novel phrase.
[1431] I understand that the servants had come to do their
equivalent for "kissing hands" on an appointment _viz._ to
kneel.
[1432] spikenard. Speede's _Indian Handbook on Gardening_
identifies _saṃbhal_ with _Valeriana jatmansi_ (Sir W. Jones &
Roxburgh); "it is the real spikenard of the ancients, highly
esteemed alike as a perfume and as a stimulant medicine;
native practitioners esteeming it valuable in hysteria and
epilepsy." Bābur's word _dirakht_ is somewhat large for the
plant.
[1433] It is not given, however.
[1434] _i.e._ through the Indus.
[1435] Perhaps this _aīkī-sū-ārāsī_ (_miyān-dū-āb_) was the
angle made by the Indus itself below Atak; perhaps one made by
the Indus and an affluent.
[1436] _ma'jūnī nāklīkī_, presumably under the tranquillity
induced by the drug.
[1437] _massadus_, the six sides of the world, _i.e._ all
sides.
[1438] This is the name of one of the five champions defeated
by Bābur in single combat in 914 AH. (Translator's Note _s.a._
914 AH.).
[1439] f. 145_b_.
[1440] Humāyūn was 12, Kāmrān younger; one surmises that Bābur
would have walked under the same circumstances.
[1441] _ṣabuḥī_, the morning-draught. In 1623 AD. Pietro della
Vallé took a _ṣabuḥī_ with Mr. Thomas Rastel, the head of the
merchants of Surat, which was of hot spiced wine and sipped in
the mornings to comfort the stomach (Hakluyt ed. p. 20).
[1442] f. 128 and note.
[1443] Anglicé, in the night preceding Tuesday.
[1444] f. 106b.
[1445] This would be the under-corselet to which the four
plates of mail were attached when mail was worn. Bābur in this
adventure wore no mail, not even his helm; on his head was the
under cap of the metal helm.
[1446] Index s.n. _gharīcha_.
[1447] The earlier account helps to make this one clearer (f.
106b).
[1448] f. 112 _et seq._
[1449] Catamite, mistakenly read as _khīz_ on f. 112b
(_Mémoires_ ii, 82).
[1450] He was acting for Bābur (Translator's Note _s.a._; Ḥ.S.
iii, 318; T.R. pp. 260, 270).
[1451] "Honoured," in this sentence, represents Bābur's
honorific plural.
[1452] in 921 AH. (Translator's Note _s.a._; T.R. p. 356).
[1453] _i.e._ Mīr Muḥammad son of Nāṣir.
[1454] _i.e._ after the dethronement of the Bāī-qarā family by
Shaibānī.
[1455] He had been one of rebels of 921 AH. (Translator's Note
_s.a._; T.R. p. 356).
[1456] f. 137.
[1457] This is the Adjutant-bird, Pīr-i-dang and Hargila
(Bone-swallower) of Hindūstān, a migrant through Kābul. The
fowlers who brought it would be the Multänīs of f. 142_b_.
[1458] f. 280.
[1459] _Memoirs_, p. 267, sycamore; _Mémoires_ ii, 84,
_saules_; f. 137.
[1460] Perhaps with his long coat out-spread.
[1461] The fortnight's gap of record, here ended, will be due
to illness.
[1462] f. 203_b_ and n. to _Khams_, the Fifth. _Taṣadduq_
occurs also on f. 238 denoting money sent to Bābur. Was it
sent to him as Pādshāh, as the Qorān commands the _Khams_ to
be sent to the Imām, for the poor, the traveller and the
orphan?
[1463] Rose-water, sherbet, a purgative; English, jalap,
julep.
[1464] Mr. Erskine understood Bābur to say that he never had
sat sober while others drank; but this does not agree with the
account of Harāt entertainments [912 AH.], or with the tenses
of the passage here. My impression is that he said in effect
"Every-one here shall not be deprived of their wine".
[1465] This verse, a difficult one to translate, may refer to
the unease removed from his attendants by Bābur's permission
to drink; the pun in it might also refer to _well_ and _not
well_.
[1466] Presumably to aid his recovery.
[1467] _aūtkān yīl_, perhaps in the last and unchronicled
year; perhaps in earlier ones. There are several references in
the B.N. to the enforced migrations and emigrations of tribes
into Kābul.
[1468] Pūlād (Steel) was a son of Kūchūm, the then Khāqān of
the Aūzbegs, and Mihr-bānū who may be Bābur's half-sister.
[Index _s.n._]
[1469] This may be written for Mihr-bānū, Pūlād's mother and
Bābur's half-sister (?) and a jest made on her heart as
Pūlād's and as steel to her brother. She had not left husband
and son when Bābur got the upper hand, as his half-sister
Yādgār-sulṯān did and other wives of capture _e.g._ Ḥaidar's
sister _Ḥabība_. Bābur's rhymes in this verse are not of his
later standard, _āī ṣubāḥ, kūnkūīkā, kūnkūlī-kā_.
[1470] _Taṣadduq_ sent to Bābur would seem an acknowledgment
of his suzerainty in Balkh [Index _s.n._].
[1471] This is the Gīrdīz-pass [Raverty's _Notes_, Route 101].
[1472] Raverty (p. 677) suggests that Pātakh stands for
_bātqāq_, a quagmire (f. 16 and n.).
[1473] the dark, or cloudy spring.
[1474] _yāqīsh-līq qūl_, an unusual phrase.
[1475] var. Karmān, Kurmāh, Karmās. M. de C. read Kīr-mās, the
impenetrable. The forms would give Garm-ās, hot embers.
[1476] _balafré_; marked on the face; of a horse, starred.
[1477] Raverty's _Notes_ (p. 457) give a full account of this
valley; in it are the head-waters of the Tochī and the Zurmut
stream; and in it R. locates Rustam's ancient Zābul.
[1478] It is on the Kābul side of the Gīrdīz-pass and stands
on the Luhugūr-water (Logar).
[1479] f. 143.
[1480] At this point of the text there occurs in the Elph. MS.
(f. 195_b_) a note, manifestly copied from one marginal in an
archetype, which states that what follows is copied from
Bābur's own MS. The note (and others) can be seen in JRAS 1905
p. 754 _et seq._
[1481] Masson, iii, 145.
[1482] A _qūlāch_ is from finger-tip to finger-tip of the
outstretched arms (Zenker p. 720 and _Méms._ ii, 98).
[1483] Neither _interne_ is said to have died!
[1484] f. 143.
[1485] or Atūn's-village, one granted to Bābur's mother's old
governess (f. 96); Gul-badan's guest-list has also an Atūn
Māmā.
[1486] f. 235_b_ and note.
[1487] _miswāk_; _On les tire principalement de l'arbuste
épineux appelé capparis-sodata_ (de C. ii, 101 n.).
[1488] Gul-badan's H.N. Index s.n.
[1489] This being Ramẓān, Bābur did not break his fast till
sun-set. In like manner, during Ramẓān they eat in the morning
before sun-rise (Erskine).
[1490] A result, doubtless, of the order mentioned on f.
240_b_.
[1491] Bābur's wife Gul-rukh appears to have been his sister
or niece; he was a Begchīk. Cf. Gul-badan's H.N. trs. p. 233,
p. 234; T.R. p. 264-5.
[1492] This remark bears on the question of whether we now
have all Bābur wrote of Autobiography. It refers to a date
falling within the previous gap, because the man went to
Kāshghar while Bābur was ruling in Samarkand (T.R. p. 265).
The last time Bābur came from Khwāst to Kābul was probably in
920 AH.; if later, it was still in the gap. But an alternative
explanation is that looking over and annotating the diary
section, Bābur made this reference to what he fully meant to
write but died before being able to do so.
[1493] Anglicé, the right thumb, on which the archer's ring
(_zih-gīr_) is worn.
[1494] a daughter of Yūnas Khān, Ḥaidar's account of whom is
worth seeing.
[1495] _i.e._ the water of Luhugūr (Logar). Tradition says
that Būt-khāk (Idol-dust) was so named because there Sl.
Maḥmūd of Ghaznī had idols, brought by him out of Hindūstān,
pounded to dust. Raverty says the place is probably the site
of an ancient temple (_vahāra_).
[1496] Qāsim Beg's son, come, no doubt, in obedience to the
order of f. 240_b_.
[1497] The `Īd-i-fitr is the festival at the conclusion of the
feast of Ramẓān, celebrated on seeing the new moon of Shawwāl
(Erskine).
[1498] f. 133_b_ and Appendix G, _On the names of the wines of
Nūr-valley_.
[1499] _i.e._ of the new moon of Shawwāl. The new moon having
been seen the evening before, which to Musalmāns was Monday
evening, they had celebrated the `Īd-i-fitr on Monday eve
(Erskine).
[1500] Dīwān of Hāfiẕ lith. ed. p. 22. The couplet seems to be
another message to a woman (f. 238); here it might be to Bībī
Mubāraka, still under Khwāja Kalān's charge in Bajaur (f.
221).
[1501] Here and under date Sep. 30th the wording allows a
ford.
[1502] This may be what Masson writes of (i, 149) "We reached
a spot where the water supplying the rivulet (of `Alī-masjid)
gushes in a large volume from the rocks to the left. I slaked
my thirst in the living spring and drank to repletion of the
delightfully cool and transparent water."
[1503] Mr. Erskine here notes, "This appears to be a mistake
or oversight of Bābur. The eve of `Arafa" (9th of Ẕū'l-ḥijja)
"was not till the evening of Dec. 2nd 1519. He probably meant
to say the `Id-i-fitr which had occurred only five days
before, on Sep. 26th."
[1504] This was an affair of frontiers (T.R. p. 354).
[1505] Manucci gives an account of the place (Irvine iv, 439
and ii, 447).
[1506] Sep. 8th to Oct. 9th.
[1507] _khūsh rang-i khizān._ Sometimes Bābur's praise of
autumn allows the word _khizān_ to mean the harvest-crops
themselves, sometimes the autumnal colouring.
[1508] This I have taken to mean the Kābul _tūmān_. The Ḥai.
MS. writes _wilāyatlār_ (plural) thus suggesting that _aūl_
(those) may be omitted, and those countries (Transoxiana) be
meant; but the second Pers. trs. (I.O. 217 f. 169) supports
_wilāyat_, Kābul.
[1509] joyous, happy.
[1510] _y:lk:rān._ This word has proved a difficulty to all
translators. I suggest that it stands for _aīlīkarān_, what
came to hand (_aīlīk see_ de C.'s Dict.); also that it
contains puns referring to the sheep taken from the road
(_yūlkarān_) and to the wine of the year's yield (_yīlkarān_).
The way-side meal was of what came to hand, mutton and wine,
probably local.
[1511] f. 141_b_.
[1512] f. 217 and n.
[1513] I think Bābur means that the customary announcement of
an envoy or guest must have reached Kābul in his absence.
[1514] He is in the T.R. list of the tribe (p. 307); to it
belonged Sl. Aḥmad _Taṃbal_ (_ib._ p. 316).
[1515] _Qābil-nīng kūrī-nīng qāshī-ka_, lit. to the presence
of the tomb of Qābil, _i.e._ Cain the eponymous hero of Kābul.
The Elph. MS. has been altered to "Qābil Beg"!
[1516] Mr. Erskine surmised that the line was from some
religious poem of mystical meaning and that its profane
application gave offence.
[1517] His sobriquet _khāksār_, one who sits in the dust,
suits the excavator of a _kārez_. Bābur's route can be
followed in Masson's (iii, 110), apparently to the very
_kārez_.
[1518] In Masson's time this place was celebrated for vinegar.
To reach it and return must have occupied several hours.
[1519] Kunos, _āq tūīgūn_, white falcon; _`Amal-i-ṣāliḥ_ (I.O.
MS. No. 857, f. 45_b_), _taus tūīghūn_.
[1520] f. 246.
[1521] Nawā'ī himself arranged them according to the periods
of his life (Rieu's Pers. Cat. p. 294).
[1522] Elph. MS. f. 202_b_; W.-i-B. I.O. 215 f. 175
(misplaced) and 217 f. 172; Mems. p. 281.
[1523] _pushta aūstīda_; the Jūī-khwūsh of f. 137.
[1524] The Ḥai. MS. omits a passage here; the Elph. MS. reads
_Qāsim Bulbulī nīng awī_, thus making "nightingale" a
sobriquet of Qāsim's own. Erskine (p. 281) has "Bulbulī-hall";
Ilminsky's words translate as, the house of Sayyid Qāsim's
nightingale (p. 321).
[1525] or Dūr-namā'ī, seen from afar.
[1526] _narm-dīk_, the opposite of a _qātīq yāī_, a stiff bow.
Some MSS. write _lāzim-dīk_ which might be read to mean such a
bow as his disablement allowed to be used.
[1527] Mr. Erskine, writing early in the 19th century, notes
that this seems an easy tribute, about 400 _rupīs_ _i.e._ £40.
[1528] This is one of the three routes into Lamghān of f. 133.
[1529] f. 251_b_ and Appendix F, _On the name Dara-i-nūr_.
[1530] This passage will be the basis of the account on f.
143_b_ of the winter-supply of fish in Lamghān.
[1531] This word or name is puzzling. Avoiding extreme detail
as to variants, I suggest that it is Dāūr-bīn for Dūr-namā'ī
if a place-name; or, if not, _dūr-bīn_, foresight (in either
case the preposition requires to be supplied), and it may
refer to foreseen need of and curiosity about Kāfir wines.
[1532] _chīūrtika_ or _chīūr-i-tika_, whether _sauterelle_ as
M. de Courteille understood, or _jānwār-i-ranga_ and _chīkūr_,
partridge as the 1st Persian trs. and as Mr. Erskine
(explaining _chūr-i-tīka_) thought, must be left open. Two
points arise however, (1) the time is January, the place the
deadly Bād-i-pīch pass; would these suit locusts? (2) If
Bābur's account of a splendid bird (f. 135) were based on this
experience, this would be one of several occurrences in which
what is entered in the Description of Kābul of 910 AH. is
found as an experience in the diary of 925-6 AH.
[1533] Ḥai. MS. _maḥali-da maẕkūr būlghūsīdūr_, but W.-i-B.
I.O. 215 f. 176 for _maḥali-da_, in its place, has _dar
majlis_ [in the collection], which may point to an intended
collection of Bābur's musical compositions. Either reading
indicates intention to write what we now have not.
[1534] Perhaps an equivalent for _farẓ-waqt_, the time of the
first obligatory prayer. Much seems to happen before the sun
got up high!
[1535] Koh-i-nūr, Rocky-mountains (?). _See_ Appendix F, _On
the name Dara-i-nūr_.
[1536] Steingass gives _būza_ as made of rice, millet, or
barley.
[1537] Is this connected with Arabic _kīmiyā'_, alchemy,
chemistry?
[1538] Turkī, a whirlpool; but perhaps the name of an office
from _aīgar_, a saddle.
[1539] The river on which the rafts were used was the Kūnār,
from Chītrāl.
[1540] An uncertain name. I have an impression that these
waters are medicinal, but I cannot trace where I found the
information. The visit paid to them, and the arrangement made
for bathing set them apart. The name of the place may convey
this speciality.
[1541] _panāhī_, the word used for the hiding-places of
bird-catchers on f. 140.
[1542] This will be the basis of the details about fishing
given on f. 143 and f. 143_b_. The statement that particulars
have been given allows the inference that the diary was
annotated after the _Description of Kābul_, in which the
particulars are, was written.
[1543] _qānlīqlār._ This right of private revenge which forms
part of the law of most rude nations, exists in a mitigated
form under the Muhammadan law. The criminal is condemned by
the judge, but is delivered up to the relations of the person
murdered, to be ransomed or put to death as they think fit
(Erskine).
[1544] Here the text breaks off and a _lacuna_ separates the
diary of 11 months length which ends the Kābul section of the
_Bābur-nāma_ writings, from the annals of 932 AH. which begin
the Hindūstān section. There seems no reason why the diary
should have been discontinued.
[1545] Jan. 2nd 1520 to Nov. 17th 1525 AD. (Ṣafar 926 to Ṣafar
1st 932 AH.).
[1546] Index _s.nn._ Bāgh-i-ṣafā and B.N. _lacunae_.
[1547] Nominally Balkh seems to have been a Ṣafawī possession;
but it is made to seem closely dependent on Bābur by his
receipt from Muḥammad-i-zamān in it of _taṣadduq_ (money for
alms), and by his action connected with it (_q.v._).
[1548] _Tārīkh-i-sind_, Malet's trs. p. 77 and _in loco_, p.
365.
[1549] A chronogram given by Badāyūnī decides the vexed
question of the date of Sikandar _Lūdī's_
death—_Jannātu'l-firdūs nazlā_ = 923 (Bib. Ind. ed. i, 322,
Ranking trs. p. 425 n. 6). Erskine supported 924 AH. (i, 407),
partly relying on an entry in Bābur's diary (f. 226_b_) _s.d._
Rabī`u'l-awwal 1st 925 AH. (March 3rd 1519 AD.) which states
that on that day Mullā Murshid was sent to Ibrāhīm whose
father _Sikandar had died five or six months before_.
Against this is the circumstance that the entry about Mullā
Murshid is, perhaps entirely, certainly partly, of later entry
than what precedes and what follows it in the diary. This can
be seen on examination; it is a passage such as the diary
section shews in other places, added to the daily record and
giving this the character of a draft waiting for revision and
rewriting (fol. 216_b_ n.).
(To save difficulty to those who may refer to the L. & E.
_Memoirs_ on the point, I mention that the whole passage about
Mullā Murshid is displaced in that book and that the date
March 3rd is omitted.)
[1550] Shāl (the local name of English Quetta) was taken by
Ẕū'l-nūn in 884 AH. (1479 AD.); Sīwīstān Shāh Beg took, in
second capture, about 917 AH. (1511 AD.), from a colony of
Barlās Turks under Pīr Walī _Barlās_.
[1551] Was the attack made in reprisal for Shāh Beg's further
aggression on the Barlās lands and Bābur's hereditary
subjects? Had these appealed to the head of their tribe?
[1552] Le Messurier writes (_l.c._ p. 224) that at Old
Qandahār "many stone balls lay about, some with a diameter of
18 inches, others of 4 or 5, chiselled out of limestone. These
were said to have been used in sieges in the times of the
Arabs and propelled from a machine called _manjanic_ a sort of
balista or catapult." Meantime perhaps they served Bābur!
[1553] "Just then came a letter from Badakhshān saying, 'Mīrzā
Khān is dead; Mīrzā Sulaimān (his son) is young; the Aūzbegs
are near; take thought for this kingdom lest (which God
forbid) Badakhshān should be lost.' Mīrzā Sulaimān's mother
(Sulṯān-nigār Khānīm) had brought him to Kābul" (Gul-badan's
H. N. f. 8).
[1554] _infra_ and Appendix J.
[1555] E. & D.'s _History of India_, i. 312.
[1556] For accounts of the _Mubīn_, _Akbar-nāma_ Bib. Ind. ed.
i. 118, trs. H. Beveridge i. 278 note, Badāyūnī _ib._ i, 343,
trs. Ranking p. 450, Sprenger ZDMG. 1862, Teufel _ib._ 1883.
The _Akbar-nāma_ account appears in Turkī in the "Fragments"
associated with Kehr's transcript of the B.N. (JRAS. 1908, p.
76, A. S. B.'s art. _Bābur-nāma_). Bābur mentions the _Mubīn_
(f. 252_b_, f. 351_b_).
[1557] JRAS. 1901, _Persian MSS. in Indian Libraries_
(description of the Rāmpūr _Dīwān_); AQR. 1911, _Bābur's
Dīwān_ (_i.e._ the Rāmpūr _Dīwān_); and _Some verses of the
Emperor Bābur_ (the _Abūshqa_ quotations).
For Dr. E. D. Ross' Reproduction and account of the Rāmpūr
_Dīwān_, JASB. 1910.
[1558] "After him (Ibrāhīm) was Bābur King of Dihlī, who owed
his place to the Pathāns," writes the Afghān poet Khūsh-ḥāl
_Khattak_ (Afghān Poets of the XVII century, C. E. Biddulph,
p. 58).
[1559] The translation only has been available (E. & D.'s H.
of I., vol. 1).
[1560] The marriage is said to have been Kāmrān's (E. & D.'s
trs.).
[1561] Erskine calculated that `Ālam Khān was now well over 70
years of age (H. of I. i, 421 n.).
[1562] A. N. trs. H. Beveridge, i, 239.
[1563] The following old English reference to Isma`il's
appearance may be quoted as found in a corner somewhat
out-of-the-way from Oriental matters. In his essay on beauty
Lord Bacon writes when arguing against the theory that beauty
is usually not associated with highmindedness, "But this holds
not always; for Augustus Cæsar, Titus Vespasianus, Philip le
Bel of France, Edward the Fourth of England, Alcibiades of
Athens, Isma`il the Sophy (Ṣafawī) of Persia, were all high
and great spirits, and yet the most beautiful men of their
times."
[1564] Cf. _s.a._ 928 AH. for discussion of the year of death.
[1565] Elph. MS. f. 205_b_; W.-i-B. I.O. 215 f. 199_b_ omits
the year's events on the ground that Shaikh Zain has
translated them; I.O. 217 f. 174; Mems. p. 290; Kehr's Codex
p. 1084.
A considerable amount of reliable textual material for
revising the Hindūstān section of the English translation of
the _Bābur-nāma_ is wanting through loss of pages from the
Elphinstone Codex; in one instance no less than an equivalent
of 36 folios of the Ḥaidarābād Codex are missing (f. 356 _et
seq._), but to set against this loss there is the valuable
_per contra_ that Kehr's manuscript throughout the section
becomes of substantial value, losing its Persified character
and approximating closely to the true text of the Elphinstone
and Ḥaidarābād Codices. Collateral help in revision is given
by the works specified (_in loco_ p. 428) as serving to fill
the gap existing in Bābur's narrative previous to 932 AH. and
this notably by those described by Elliot and Dowson. Of these
last, special help in supplementary details is given for 932
AH. and part of 933 AH. by Shaikh Zain [_Khawāfi_]'s
_T̤abaqāt-i-bāburī_, which is a highly rhetorical paraphrase
of Bābur's narrative, requiring familiarity with ornate
Persian to understand. For all my references to it, I am
indebted to my husband. It may be mentioned as an interesting
circumstance that the B.M. possesses in Or. 1999 a copy of
this work which was transcribed in 998 AH. by one of
Khwānd-amīr's grandsons and, judging from its date, presumably
for Abū'l-faẓl's use in the _Akbar-nāma_.
Like part of the Kābul section, the Hindūstān one is in
diary-form, but it is still more heavily surcharged with
matter entered at a date later than the diary. It departs from
the style of the preceding diary by an occasional lapse into
courtly phrase and by exchange of some Turkī words for Arabic
and Persian ones, doubtless found current in Hind, _e.g._
_fauj_, _dīra_, _manzil_, _khail-khāna_.
[1566] This is the Logar affluent of the Bārān-water
(Kābul-river). Masson describes this haltingplace (iii, 174).
[1567] _muḥaqqar saughāt u bīlāk or tīlāk._ A small verbal
point arises about _bīlāk_ (or _tīlāk_). _Bīlāk_ is said by
Quatremère to mean a gift (N. et E. xiv, 119 n.) but here
_muḥaqqar saughāt_ expresses gift. Another meaning can be
assigned to _bīlāk_ here, [one had also by _tīlāk_,] _viz._
that of word-of-mouth news or communication, sometimes
supplementing written communication, possibly secret
instructions, possibly small domestic details. In _bīlāk_, a
gift, the root may be _bīl_, the act of knowing, in _tīlāk_ it
is _tīl_, the act of speaking [whence _tīl_, the tongue, and
_tīl tūtmāk_, to get news]. In the sentence noted, either word
would suit for a verbal communication. Returning to _bīlāk_ as
a gift, it may express the _nuance_ of English _token_, the
maker-known of friendship, affection and so-on. This
differentiates _bīlāk_ from _saughāt_, used in its frequent
sense of ceremonial and diplomatic presents of value and
importance.
[1568] With Sa`īd at this time were two Khānīms Sulṯān-nigār
and Daulat-sulṯān who were Bābur's maternal-aunts. Erskine
suggested Khūb-nigār, but she had died in 907 AH. (f. 96).
[1569] Humāyūn's non-arrival would be the main cause of delay.
Apparently he should have joined before the Kābul force left
that town.
[1570] The halt would be at Būt-khāk, the last station before
the Adīnapūr road takes to the hills.
[1571] Discussing the value of coins mentioned by Bābur,
Erskine says in his _History of India_ (vol. i, Appendix E.)
which was published in 1854 AD. that he had come to think his
estimates of the value of the coins was set too low in the
_Memoirs_ (published in 1826 AD.). This sum of 20,000
_shāhrukhīs_ he put at £1000. Cf. E. Thomas' _Pathan Kings of
Dihli and Resources of the Mughal Empire_.
[1572] One of Masson's interesting details seems to fit the
next stage of Bābur's march (iii, 179). It is that after
leaving Būt-khāk, the road passes what in the thirties of the
19th Century, was locally known as Bābur Pādshāh's Stone-heap
(cairn) and believed piled in obedience to Bābur's order that
each man in his army should drop a stone on it in passing. No
time for raising such a monument could be fitter than that of
the fifth expedition into Hindūstān when a climax of
opportunity allowed hope of success.
[1573] _rezāndalīk._ This Erskine translates, both here and on
ff. 253, 254, by _defluxion_, but de Courteille by _rhume de
cerveau_. Shaikh Zain supports de Courteille by writing, not
_rezāndalīk_, but _nuzla_, catarrh. De Courteille, in
illustration of his reading of the word, quotes Burnes'
account of an affection common in the Panj-āb and there called
_nuzla_, which is a running at the nostrils, that wastes the
brain and stamina of the body and ends fatally (_Travels in
Bukhara_ ed. 1839, ii, 41).
[1574] Tramontana, north of Hindū-kush.
[1575] Shaikh Zain says that the drinking days were Saturday,
Sunday, Tuesday and Wednesday.
[1576] The Elph. Codex (f. 208_b_) contains the following note
of Humāyūn's about his delay; it has been expunged from the
text but is still fairly legible:—"The time fixed was after
`Āshūrā (10th Muḥarram, a voluntary fast); although we arrived
after the next-following 10th (_`āshūr_, _i.e._ of Ṣafar), the
delay had been necessary. The purpose of the letters (Bābur's)
was to get information; (in reply) it was represented that the
equipment of the army of Badakhshān caused delay. If this
slave (Humāyūn), trusting to his [father's] kindness, caused
further delay, he has been sorry."
Bābur's march from the Bāgh-i-wafā was delayed about a month;
Humāyūn started late from Badakhshān; his force may have
needed some stay in Kābul for completion of equipment; his
personal share of blame for which he counted on his father's
forgiveness, is likely to have been connected with his
mother's presence in Kābul.
Humāyūn's note is quoted in Turkī by one MS. of the Persian
text (B.M. W.-i-B. 16,623 f. 128); and from certain
indications in Muḥammad _Shīrāzī_'s lithograph (p. 163),
appears to be in his archetype the Udaipūr Codex; but it is
not with all MSS. of the Persian text _e.g._ not with I.O. 217
and 218. A portion of it is in Kehr's MS. (p. 1086).
[1577] Bird's-dome [f. 145_b_, n.] or The pair (_qūsh_) of
domes.
[1578] _gūn khūd kīch būlūb aīdī_; a little joke perhaps at
the lateness both of the day and the army.
[1579] Shaikh Zain's maternal-uncle.
[1580] Shaikh Zain's useful detail that this man's pen-name
was Sharaf distinguishes him from Muḥammad Ṣāliḥ the author of
the _Shaibānī-nāma_.
[1581] _gosha_, angle (_cf._ _gosha-i-kār_, limits of work).
Parodies were to be made, having the same metre, rhyme, and
refrain as the model couplet.
[1582] I am unable to attach sense to Bābur's second line;
what is wanted is an illustration of two incompatible things.
Bābur's reflections [_infra_] condemned his verse. Shaikh Zain
describes the whole episode of the verse-making on the raft,
and goes on with, "He (Bābur) excised this choice couplet from
the pages of his Acts (_Wāqi`āt_) with the knife of censure,
and scratched it out from the tablets of his noble heart with
the finger-nails of repentance. I shall now give an account of
this spiritual matter" (_i.e._ the repentance), "by presenting
the recantations of his Solomon-like Majesty in his very own
words, which are weightier than any from the lips of Aesop."
Shaikh Zain next quotes the Turkī passage here translated in
_b. Mention of the Mubīn_.
[1583] The _Mubīn_ (_q.v._ Index) is mentioned again and
quoted on f. 351_b_. In both places its name escaped the
notice of Erskine and de Courteille, who here took it for
_mīn_, I, and on f. 351_b_ omitted it, matters of which the
obvious cause is that both translators were less familiar with
the poem than it is now easy to be. There is amplest textual
warrant for reading _Mubīn_ in both the places indicated
above; its reinstatement gives to the English and French
translations what they have needed, namely, the clinch of a
definite stimulus and date of repentance, which was the
influence of the Mubīn in 928 AH. (1521-2 AD.). The whole
passage about the peccant verse and its fruit of contrition
should be read with others that express the same regret for
broken law and may all have been added to the diary at the
same time, probably in 935 AH. (1529 AD.). They will be found
grouped in the Index _s.n._ Bābur.
[1584] _mūndīn būrūn_, by which I understand, as the
grammatical construction will warrant, _before writing the
Mubīn_. To read the words as referring to the peccant verse,
is to take the clinch off the whole passage.
[1585] _i.e._ of the _Qorān_ on which the _Mubīn_ is based.
[1586] Dropping down-stream, with wine and good company, he
entirely forgot his good resolutions.
[1587] This appears to refer to the good thoughts embodied in
the _Mubīn_.
[1588] This appears to contrast with the "sublime realities"
of the _Qorān_.
[1589] In view of the interest of the passage, and because
this verse is not in the Rāmpūr _Dīwān_, as are many contained
in the Hindūstān section, the Turkī original is quoted. My
translation differs from those of Mr. Erskine and M. de
Courteille; all three are tentative of a somewhat difficult
verse.
_Nī qīlā mīn sīnīng bīla āī tīl?
Jihatīng dīn mīnīng aīchīm qān dūr.
Nīcha yakhshī dīsāng bū hazl aīla shi`r
Bīrī-sī faḥash ū bīrī yālghān dūr.
Gar dīsāng kūīmā mīn, bū jazm bīla
Jalāu'īngnī bū `arṣa dīn yān dūr._
[1590] The Qorān puts these sayings into the mouths of Adam
and Eve.
[1591] Ḥai. MS. _tīndūrūb_; Ilminsky, p. 327, _yāndūrūb_;
W.-i-B. I.O. 217, f. 175, _sard sākhta_.
[1592] Of `Alī-masjid the _Second Afghān War_ (official
account) has a picture which might be taken from Bābur's camp.
[1593] Shaikh Zain's list of the drinking-days (f. 252 note)
explains why sometimes Bābur says he preferred _ma`jūn_. In
the instances I have noticed, he does this on a drinking-day;
the preference will be therefore for a confection over wine.
December 9th was a Saturday and drinking-day; on it he
mentions the preference; Tuesday Nov. 21st was a drinking day,
and he states that he ate _ma`jūn_.
[1594] presumably the _karg-khāna_ of f. 222_b_,
rhinoceros-home in both places. A similar name applies to a
tract in the Rawalpindi District,—Bābur-khāna, Tiger-home,
which is linked to the tradition of Buddha's self-sacrifice to
appease the hunger of seven tiger-cubs. [In this Bābur-khāna
is the town Kacha-kot from which Bābur always names the river
Hārū.]
[1595] This is the first time on an outward march that Bābur
has crossed the Indus by boat; hitherto he has used the ford
above Attock, once however specifying that men on foot were
put over on rafts.
[1596] f. 253.
[1597] In my Translator's Note (p. 428), attention was drawn
to the circumstance that Bābur always writes Daulat Khān
_Yūsuf-khail_, and not Daulat Khān _Lūdī_. In doing this, he
uses the family- or clan-name instead of the tribal one,
_Lūdī_.
[1598] _i.e._ day by day.
[1599] _daryā_, which Bābur's precise use of words _e.g._ of
_daryā_, _rūd_, and _sū_, allows to apply here to the Indus
only.
[1600] Presumably this was near Parhāla, which stands, where
the Sūhān river quits the hills, at the eastern entrance of a
wild and rocky gorge a mile in length. It will have been up
this gorge that Bābur approached Parhāla in 925 AH.
(Rawalpindi Gazetteer p. 11).
[1601] _i.e._ here, bed of a mountain-stream.
[1602] The Elphinstone Codex here preserves the following
note, the authorship of which is attested by the scribe's
remark that it is copied from the handwriting of Humāyūn
Pādshāh:—As my honoured father writes, we did not know until
we occupied Hindūstān (932 AH.), but afterwards did know, that
ice does form here and there if there come a colder year. This
was markedly so in the year I conquered Gujrāt (942 AH.-1535
AD.) when it was so cold for two or three days between Bhūlpūr
and Guālīār that the waters were frozen over a hand's
thickness.
[1603] This is a Kakar (Gakkhar) clan, known also as
Baragowah, of which the location in Jahāngīr Pādshāh's time
was from Rohtās to Hātya, _i.e._ about where Bābur encamped
(_Memoirs of Jahāngīr_, Rogers and Beveridge, p. 97; E. and D.
vi, 309; Provincial Gazetteers of Rawalpindi and Jihlam, p. 64
and p. 97 respectively).
[1604] _āndīn aūtūb_, a reference perhaps to going out beyond
the corn-lands, perhaps to attempt for more than provisions.
[1605] _qūsh-āt_, a led horse to ride in change.
[1606] According to Shaikh Zain it was in this year that Bābur
made Buhlūlpūr a royal domain (B.M. Add. 26,202 f. 16), but
this does not agree with Bābur's explanation that he visited
the place because it was _khalṣa_. Its name suggests that it
had belonged to Buhlūl _Lūdī_; Bābur may have taken it in 930
AH. when he captured Sīālkot. It never received the population
of Sīālkot, as Bābur had planned it should do because
pond-water was drunk in the latter town and was a source of
disease. The words in which Bābur describes its situation are
those he uses of Akhsī (f. 4_b_); not improbably a resemblance
inclined his liking towards Buhlūlpūr. (It may be noted that
this Buhlūlpūr is mentioned in the _Āyīn-i-akbarī_ and marked
on large maps, but is not found in the G. of I. 1907.)
[1607] Both names are thus spelled in the _Bābur-nāma_. In
view of the inclination of Turkī to long vowels, Bābur's short
one in Jat may be worth consideration since modern usage of
Jat and Jāt varies. Mr. Crooke writes the full vowel, and
mentions that Jāts are Hindūs, Sikhs, and Muḥammadans (_Tribes
and Castes of the North-western Provinces and Oude_, iii, 38).
On this point and on the orthography of the name, Erskine's
note (_Memoirs_ p. 294) is as follows: "The Jets or Jats are
the Muḥammadan peasantry of the Panj-āb, the bank of the
Indus, Sīwīstān _etc._ and must not be confounded with the
Jāts, a powerful Hindū tribe to the west of the Jamna, about
Agra _etc._ and which occupies a subordinate position in the
country of the Rājpūts."
[1608] The following section contains a later addition to the
diary summarizing the action of `Ālam Khān before and after
Bābur heard of the defeat from the trader he mentions. It
refutes an opinion found here and there in European writings
that Bābur used and threw over `Ālam Khān. It and Bābur's
further narrative shew that `Ālam Khān had little valid
backing in Hindūstān, that he contributed nothing to Bābur's
success, and that no abstention by Bābur from attack on
Ibrāhīm would have set `Ālam Khān on the throne of Dihlī. It
and other records, Bābur's and those of Afghān chroniclers,
allow it to be said that if `Ālam Khān had been strong enough
to accomplish his share of the compact that he should take and
should rule Dihlī, Bābur would have kept to his share, namely,
would have maintained supremacy in the Panj-āb. He advanced
against Ibrāhīm only when `Ālam Khān had totally failed in
arms and in securing adherence.
[1609] This objurgation on over-rapid marching looks like the
echo of complaint made to Bābur by men of his own whom he had
given to `Ālam Khān in Kābul.
[1610] Maḥmūd himself may have inherited his father's title
Khān-i-jahān but a little further on he is specifically
mentioned as the son of Khān-i-jahān, presumably because his
father had been a more notable man than he was. Of his tribe
it may be noted that the Ḥaidarābād MS. uniformly writes
Nuḥānī and not Luḥānī as is usual in European writings, and
that it does so even when, as on f. 149_b_, the word is
applied to a trader. Concerning the tribe, family, or caste
_vide_ G. of I. _s.n._ Lohānas and Crooke _l.c._ _s.n._
Pathān, para. 21.
[1611] _i.e._ west of Dihlī territory, the Panj-āb.
[1612] He was of the Farmul family of which Bābur says (f.
139_b_) that it was in high favour in Hindūstān under the
Afghāns and of which the author of the _Wāqi`āt-i-mushtāqī_
says that it held half the lands of Dihlī in _jāgīr_ (E. and
D. iv, 547).
[1613] Presumably he could not cut off supplies.
[1614] The only word similar to this that I have found is one
"Jaghat" said to mean serpent and to be the name of a Hindū
sub-caste of Nats (Crooke, iv, 72 & 73). The word here might
be a nick-name. Bābur writes it as two words.
[1615] _khaṣa-khail_, presumably members of the Sāhū-khail
(family) of the Lūdī tribe of the Afghān race.
[1616] Erskine suggested that this man was a rich banker, but
he might well be the Farmulī Shaikh-zāda of f. 256_b_, in view
of the exchange Afghān historians make of the Farmulī title
Shaikh for Mīān (_Tārīkh-i-sher-shāhī_, E. & D. iv, 347 and
_Tārīkh-i-daudī_ ib. 457).
[1617] This Biban, or Bīban, as Bābur always calls him without
title, is Malik Biban _Jilwānī_. He was associated with Shaikh
Bāyazīd _Farmulī_ or, as Afghān writers style him, Mīān
Bāyazīd _Farmulī_. (Another of his names was Mīān Biban, son
of Mīān Āṭā _Sāhū-khail_ (E. & D. iv, 347).)
[1618] This name occurs so frequently in and about the Panj-āb
as to suggest that it means a fort (Ar. _maluẕat_?). This one
in the Siwāliks was founded by Tātār Khān _Yūsuf-khail_
(_Lūdī_) in the time of Buhlūl _Lūdī_ (E. and D. iv, 415).
[1619] In the Beth Jalandhar _dū-āb_.
[1620] _i.e._ on the Siwāliks, here locally known as Katār
Dhār.
[1621] Presumably they were from the Hazāra district east of
the Indus. The _T̤abaqāt-i-akbarī_ mentions that this
detachment was acting under Khalīfa apart from Bābur and
marching through the skirt-hills (lith. ed. p. 182).
[1622] _dūn_, f. 260 and note.
[1623] These were both refugees from Harāt.
[1624] Sarkār of Baṭāla, in the Bārī _dū-āb_ (A.-i-A. Jarrett,
p. 110).
[1625] _kūrūshūr waqt_ (Index _s.n._ _kūrūsh_).
[1626] Bābur's phrasing suggests beggary.
[1627] This might refer to the time when Ibrāhīm's commander
Bihār (Bahādur) Khān _Nūḥānī_ took Lāhor (Translator's Note
_in loco_ p. 441).
[1628] They were his father's. Erskine estimated the 3 _krors_
at £75,000.
[1629] _shiqq_, what hangs on either side, perhaps a satirical
reference to the ass' burden.
[1630] As illustrating Bābur's claim to rule as a Tīmūrid in
Hindūstān, it may be noted that in 814 AH. (1411 AD.), Khiẓr
Khān who is allowed by the date to have been a Sayyid ruler in
Dihlī, sent an embassy to Shāhrukh Mīrzā the then Tīmūrid
ruler of Samarkand to acknowledge his suzerainty
(_Maṯla`u's-sa`dain_, Quatremère, N. et Ex. xiv, 196).
[1631] Firishta says that Bābur mounted for the purpose of
preserving the honour of the Afghāns and by so doing enabled
the families in the fort to get out of it safely (lith. ed. p.
204).
[1632] _chuhra_; they will have been of the Corps of braves
(_yīgīt_; Appendix H. section _c._).
[1633] _kīm kullī gharẓ aul aīdī_; Pers. trs. _ka
gharẓ-i-kullī-i-au būd_.
[1634] Persice, the eves of Sunday and Monday; Anglice,
Saturday and Sunday nights.
[1635] Ghāzī Khān was learned and a poet (Firishta ii, 42).
[1636] _mullayāna khūd_, perhaps books of learned topic but
not in choice copies.
[1637] f. 257. It stands in 31° 50' N. and 76° E. (G. of I.).
[1638] This is on the Salt-range, in 32° 42' N. and 72° 50' E.
(_Āyīn-i-akbarī_ trs. Jarrett, i, 325; Provincial Gazetteer,
Jīhlam District).
[1639] He died therefore in the town he himself built. Kitta
Beg probably escorted the Afghān families from Milwat also;
Dilāwar Khān's own seems to have been there already (f. 257).
The _Bābur-nāma_ makes no mention of Daulat Khān's relations
with Nānak, the founder of the Sikh religion, nor does it
mention Nānak himself. A tradition exists that Nānak, when on
his travels, made exposition of his doctrines to an attentive
Bābur and that he was partly instrumental in bringing Bābur
against the Afghāns. He was 12 years older than Bābur and
survived him nine. (Cf. _Dabistān_ lith. ed. p. 270; and, for
Jahāngīr Pādshāh's notice of Daulat Khān, _Tūzūk-i-jahāngīrī_,
Rogers and Beveridge, p. 87).
[1640] I translate _dūn_ by _dale_ because, as its equivalent,
Bābur uses _julga_ by which he describes a more pastoral
valley than one he calls a _dara_.
[1641] _bīr āqār-sū._ Bābur's earlier uses of this term
[_q.v._ index] connect it with the swift flow of water in
irrigation channels; this may be so here but also the term may
make distinction between the rapid mountain-stream and the
slow movement of rivers across plains.
[1642] There are two readings of this sentence; Erskine's
implies that the neck of land connecting the fort-rock with
its adjacent hill measures 7-8 _qārī_ (yards) from side to
side; de Courteille's that where the great gate was, the
perpendicular fall surrounding the fort shallowed to 7-8
yards. The Turkī might be read, I think, to mean whichever
alternative was the fact. Erskine's reading best bears out
Bābur's account of the strength of the fort, since it allows
of a cleft between the hill and the fort some 140-160 feet
deep, as against the 21-24 of de Courteille's. Erskine may
have been in possession of information [in 1826] by which he
guided his translation (p. 300), "At its chief gate, for the
space of 7 or 8 _gez_ (_qārī_), there is a place that admits
of a draw-bridge being thrown across; it may be 10 or 12 _gez_
wide." If de Courteille's reading be correct in taking 7-8
_qārī_ only to be the depth of the cleft, that cleft may be
artificial.
[1643] _yīghāch_, which also means wood.
[1644] f. 257.
[1645] Chief scribe (f. 13 n. to `Abdu'l-wahhāb). Shaw's
Vocabulary explains the word as meaning also a "high official
of Central Asian sovereigns, who is supreme over all _qāzīs_
and _mullās_."
[1646] Bābur's persistent interest in Balkh attracts
attention, especially at this time so shortly before he does
not include it as part of his own territories (f. 270).
Since I wrote of Balkh _s.a._ 923 AH. (1517 AD.), I have
obtained the following particulars about it in that year; they
are summarized from the _Ḥabību's-siyar_ (lith. ed. iii, 371).
In 923 AH. Khwānd-amīr was in retirement at Pasht in
Ghūrjistān where also was Muḥammad-i-zamān Mīrzā. The two went
in company to Balkh where the Mīrzā besieged Bābur's man
Ibrāhīm _chāpūk_ (Slash-face), and treacherously murdered one
Aūrdū-shāh, an envoy sent out to parley with him. Information
of what was happening was sent to Bābur in Kābul. Bābur
reached Balkh when it had been besieged a month. His presence
caused the Mīrzā to retire and led him to go into the
Darā-i-gaz (Tamarind-valley). Bābur, placing in Balkh
Faqīr-i-`alī, one of those just come up with him, followed the
Mīrzā but turned back at Āq-guṃbaz (White-dome) which lies
between Chāch-charān in the Herī-rūd valley and the Ghūrjistān
border, going no further because the Ghūrjistānīs favoured the
Mīrzā. Bābur went back to Kābul by the Fīrūz-koh, Yaka-aūlāng
(cf. f. 195) and Ghūr; the Mīrzā was followed up by others,
captured and conveyed to Kābul.
[1647] Both were amīrs of Hind. I understand the cognomen
Maẕhab to imply that its bearer occupied himself with the
Muḥammadan Faith in its exposition by divines of Islām
(_Hughes' Dictionary of Islām_).
[1648] These incidents are included in the summary of `Ālam
Khān's affairs in section _i_ (f. 255_b_). It will be observed
that Bābur's wording implies the "waiting" by one of lower
rank on a superior.
[1649] Elph. MS. Karnāl, obviously a clerical error.
[1650] Shaikh Sulaimān Effendi (Kunos) describes a _tunqiṯār_
as the guardian in war of a prince's tent; a night-guard; and
as one who repeats a prayer aloud while a prince is mounting.
[1651] _rūd_, which, inappropriate for the lower course of the
Ghaggar, may be due to Bābur's visit to its upper course
described immediately below. As has been noted, however, he
uses the word _rūd_ to describe the empty bed of a
mountain-stream as well as the swift water sometimes filling
that bed. The account, here-following, of his visit to the
upper course of the Ghaggar is somewhat difficult to
translate.
[1652] _Hindūstāndā daryālārdīn bāshqa, bīr āqār-sū kīm bār_
(_dūr_, is added by the Elph. MS.), _bū dūr_. Perhaps the
meaning is that the one (chief?) irrigation stream, apart from
great rivers, is the Ghaggar. The bed of the Ghaggar is
undefined and the water is consumed for irrigation (G. of I.
xx, 33; Index _s.n._ _āqār-sū_).
[1653] in Patiāla. Maps show what may be Bābur's strong
millstream joining the Ghaggar.
[1654] Presumably he was of Ibrāhīm's own family, the
Sāhū-khail. His defeat was opportune because he was on his way
to join the main army.
[1655] At this place the Elphinstone Codex has preserved,
interpolated in its text, a note of Humāyūn's on his first use
of the razor. Part of it is written as by Bābur:—"Today in
this same camp the razor or scissors was applied to Humāyūn's
face." Part is signed by Humāyūn:—"As the honoured dead,
earlier in these Acts (_wāqi`āt_) mentions the first
application of the razor to his own face (f. 120), so in
imitation of him I mention this. I was then at the age of 18;
now I am at the age of 48, I who am the sub-signed Muḥammad
Humāyūn." A scribe's note attests that this is "copied from
the hand-writing of that honoured one". As Humāyūn's 48th
(lunar) birthday occurred a month before he left Kābul, to
attempt the re-conquest of Hindūstān, in November 1554 AD. (in
the last month of 961 AH.), he was still 48 (lunar) years old
on the day he re-entered Dihlī on July 23rd 1555 AD. (Ramẓān
1st 962 AH.), so that this "shaving passage" will have been
entered within those dates. That he should study his Father's
book at that time is natural; his grandson Jahāngīr did the
same when going to Kābul; so doubtless would do its author's
more remote descendants, the sons of Shāh-jahān who
reconquered Transoxiana.
(Concerning the "shaving passage" _vide_ the notes on the
Elphinstone Codex in JRAS. 1900 p. 443, 451; 1902 p. 653; 1905
p. 754; and 1907 p. 131.)
[1656] This ancient town of the Sahāranpūr district is
associated with a saint revered by Hindūs and Muḥammadans. Cf.
W. Crooke's _Popular Religion of Northern India_ p. 133. Its
_chashma_ may be inferred (from Bābur's uses of the word
_q.v._ Index) as a water-head, a pool, a gathering place of
springs.
[1657] He was the eighth son of Bābur's maternal-uncle Sl.
Aḥmad Khān _Chaghatāī_ and had fled to Bābur, other brothers
following him, from the service of their eldest brother
Manṣūr, Khāqān of the Mughūls (_Tārīkh-i-rashīdī_ trs. p.
161).
[1658] _fars̱-waqtī_, when there is light enough to
distinguish one object from another.
[1659] _dīm kūrūldī_ (Index _s.n._ _dīm_). Here the L. & E.
_Memoirs_ inserts an explanatory passage in Persian about the
_dīm_. It will have been in one of the _Wāqi`āt-i-bāburī MSS._
Erskine used; it is in Muḥ. _Shīrāzī_'s lithograph copy of the
Udaipūr Codex (p. 173). It is not in the Turkī text or in all
the MSS. of the Persian translation. Manifestly, it was
entered at a time when Bābur's term _dīm kūrūldī_ requires
explanation in Hindustan. The writer of it himself does not
make details clear; he says only, "It is manifest that people
declare (the number) after counting the mounted army in the
way agreed upon amongst them, with a whip or a bow held in the
hand." This explanation suggests that in the march-past the
troops were measured off as so many bow- or whip-lengths
(Index _s.n._ _dīm_).
[1660] These _arāba_ may have been the baggage-carts of the
army and also carts procured on the spot. Erskine omits
(_Memoirs_ p. 304) the words which show how many carts were
collected and from whom. Doubtless it would be through not
having these circumstances in his mind that he took the
_arāba_ for gun-carriages. His incomplete translation, again,
led Stanley Lane-Poole to write an interesting note in his
_Bābur_ (p. 161) to support Erskine against de Courteille
(with whose rendering mine agrees) by quoting the circumstance
that Humāyūn had 700 guns at Qanauj in 1540 AD. It must be
said in opposition to his support of Erskine's "gun-carriages"
that there is no textual or circumstantial warrant for
supposing Bābur to have had guns, even if made in parts, in
such number as to demand 700 gun-carriages for their
transport. What guns Bābur had at Pānī-pat will have been
brought from his Kābul base; if he had acquired any, say from
Lāhor, he would hardly omit to mention such an important
reinforcement of his armament; if he had brought many guns on
carts from Kābul, he must have met with transit-difficulties
harassing enough to chronicle, while he was making that long
journey from Kābul to Pānī-pat, over passes, through
skirt-hills and many fords. The elephants he had in Bīgrām may
have been his transport for what guns he had; he does not
mention his number at Pānī-pat; he makes his victory a
bow-man's success; he can be read as indicating that he had
two guns only.
[1661] These Ottoman (text, _Rūmī_, Roman) defences Ustād
`Alī-qulī may have seen at the battle of Chāldirān fought some
40 leagues from Tābrīz between Sl. Salīm _Rūmī_ and Shāh
Ismā`īl _Ṣafawī_ on Rajab 1st 920 AH. (Aug. 22nd 1514 AD.). Of
this battle Khwānd-amīr gives a long account, dwelling on the
effective use made in it of chained carts and palisades
(_Ḥabību's-siyar_ iii, part 4, p. 78; _Akbar-nāma_ trs. i,
241).
[1662] Is this the village of the Pānī Afghāns?
[1663] Index _s.n._ arrow.
[1664] _Pareshān jam`ī u jam`ī pareshān;
Giriftār qaumī u qaumī `ajā'ib._
These two lines do not translate easily without the context of
their original place of occurrence. I have not found their
source.
[1665] _i.e._ of his father and grandfather, Sikandar and
Buhlūl.
[1666] As to the form of this word the authoritative MSS. of
the Turkī text agree and with them also numerous good ones of
the Persian translation. I have made careful examination of
the word because it is replaced or explained here and there in
MSS. by _s:hb:ndī_, the origin of which is said to be obscure.
The sense of _b:d-hindī_ and of _s:hb:ndī_ is the same, _i.e._
irregular levy. The word as Bābur wrote it must have been
understood by earlier Indian scribes of both the Turkī and
Persian texts of the _Bābur-nāma_. Some light on its
correctness may be thought given by Hobson Jobson (Crooke's
ed. p. 136) _s.n._ Byde or Bede Horse, where the word Byde is
said to be an equivalent of _pindārī_, _lūtī_, and _qāzzāq_,
raider, plunderer, so that Bābur's word _b:d-hindī_ may mean
_qāzzāq_ of Hind. Wherever I have referred to the word in many
MSS. it is pointed to read _b:d_, and not _p:d_, thus
affording no warrant for understanding _pad_, foot, foot-man,
infantry, and also negativing the spelling _bīd_, _i.e._ with
a long vowel as in _Byde_.
It may be noted here that Muḥ. _Shīrāzī_ (p. 174) substituted
_s:hb:ndī_ for Bābur's word and that this led our friend the
late William Irvine to attribute mistake to de Courteille who
follows the Turkī text (_Army of the Mughūls_ p. 66 and
_Mémoires_ ii, 163).
[1667] _bī tajarba yīgīt aīdī_ of which the sense may be that
Bābur ranked Ibrāhīm, as a soldier, with a brave who has not
yet proved himself deserving of the rank of beg. It cannot
mean that he was a youth (_yīgīt_) without experience of
battle.
[1668] Well-known are the three decisive historical battles
fought near the town of Pānī-pat, _viz._ those of Bābur and
Ibrāhīm in 1526, of Akbar and Hīmū in 1556, and of Aḥmad
_Abdālī_ with the Mahratta Confederacy in 1761. The following
lesser particulars about the battle-field are not so
frequently mentioned:—(_i_) that the scene of Bābur's victory
was long held to be haunted, Badāyūnī himself, passing it at
dawn some 62 years later, heard with dismay the din of
conflict and the shouts of the combatants; (_ii_) that Bābur
built a (perhaps commemorative) mosque one mile to the n.e. of
the town; (_iii_) that one of the unaccomplished desires of
Sher Shāh _Sūr_, the conqueror of Bābur's son Humāyūn, was to
raise two monuments on the battle-field of Pānī-pat, one to
Ibrāhīm, the other to those Chaghatāī sulṯāns whose martyrdom
he himself had brought about; (_iv_) that in 1910 AD. the
British Government placed a monument to mark the scene of Shāh
_Abdālī's_ victory of 1761 AD. This monument would appear,
from Sayyid Ghulām-i-`alī's _Nigār-nāma-i-hind_, to stand
close to the scene of Bābur's victory also, since the
Mahrattas were entrenched as he was outside the town of
Pānī-pat. (Cf. E. & D. viii, 401.)
[1669] This important date is omitted from the L. & E.
_Memoirs_.
[1670] This wording will cover armour of man and horse.
[1671] _ātlāndūk_, Pers. trs. _sūwār shudīm_. Some later
oriental writers locate Bābur's battle at two or more miles
from the town of Pānī-pat, and Bābur's word _ātlāndūk_ might
imply that his cavalry rode forth and arrayed outside his
defences, but his narrative allows of his delivering attack,
through the wide sally-ports, after arraying behind the carts
and mantelets which checked his adversary's swift advance. The
Mahrattas, who may have occupied the same ground as Bābur,
fortified themselves more strongly than he did, as having
powerful artillery against them. Aḥmad Shāh _Abdālī's_ defence
against them was an ordinary ditch and _abbattis_, [Bābur's
ditch and branch,] mostly of _dhāk_ trees (_Butea frondosa_),
a local product Bābur also is likely to have used.
[1672] The preceding three words seem to distinguish this Shāh
Ḥusain from several others of his name and may imply that he
was the son of _Yāragī Mughūl Ghānchī_ (Index and I.O. 217 f.
184b l. 7).
[1673] For Bābur's terms _vide_ f. 209_b_
[1674] This is Mīrzā Khān's son, _i.e._ Wais _Mīrān-shāhī's_.
[1675] A dispute for this right-hand post of honour is
recorded on f. 100_b_, as also in accounts of Culloden.
[1676] _tartīb u yāsāl_, which may include, as Erskine took it
to do, the carts and mantelets; of these however, Ibrāhīm can
hardly have failed to hear before he rode out of camp.
[1677] f. 217_b_ and note; Irvine's _Army of the Indian
Mughuls_ p. 133. Here Erskine notes (_Mems._ p. 306) "The size
of these artillery at this time is very uncertain. The word
_firingī_ is now (1826 AD.) used in the Deccan for a swivel.
At the present day, _zarb-zan_ in common usage is a small
species of swivel. Both words in Bābur's time appear to have
been used for field-cannon." (For an account of guns,
intermediate in date between Bābur and Erskine, _see_ the
_Āyīn-i-akbarī_. Cf. f. 264 n. on the carts (_arāba_).)
[1678] Although the authority of the
_Tārīkh-i-salāṯīn-i-afaghāna_ is not weighty its reproduction
of Afghān opinion is worth consideration. It says that
astrologers foretold Ibrāhīm's defeat; that his men, though
greatly outnumbering Bābur's, were out-of-heart through his
ill-treatment of them, and his amīrs in displeasure against
him, but that never-the-less, the conflict at Pānī-pat was
more desperate than had ever been seen. It states that Ibrāhīm
fell where his tomb now is (_i.e._ in _circa_ 1002 AH.-1594
AD.); that Bābur went to the spot and, prompted by his tender
heart, lifted up the head of his dead adversary, and said,
"Honour to your courage!", ordered brocade and sweetmeats made
ready, enjoined Dilāwar Khān and Khalīfa to bathe the corpse
and to bury it where it lay (E. & D. v, 2). Naturally, part of
the reverence shewn to the dead would be the burial together
of head and trunk.
[1679] f. 209_b_ and App. H. section _c._ Bābā _chuhra_ would
be one of the corps of braves.
[1680] He was a brother of Muḥibb-i-`alī's mother.
[1681] To give Humāyūn the title Mīrzā may be a scribe's
lapse, but might also be a _nuance_ of Bābur's, made to shew,
with other _minutiae_, that Humāyūn was in chief command. The
other minute matters are that instead of Humāyūn's name being
the first of a simple series of commanders' names with the
enclitic accusative appended to the last one (here Walī), as
is usual, Humāyūn's name has its own enclitic _nī_; and,
again, the phrase is "_Humāyūn with_" such and such begs, a
turn of expression differentiating him from the rest. The same
unusual variations occur again, just below, perhaps with the
same intention of shewing chief command, there of Mahdī
Khwāja.
[1682] A small matter of wording attracts attention in the
preceding two sentences. Bābur, who does not always avoid
verbal repetition, here constructs two sentences which, except
for the place-names Dihlī and Āgra, convey information of
precisely the same action in entirely different words.
[1683] d. 1325 AD. The places Bābur visited near Dihlī are
described in the _Reports of the Indian Archaeological
Survey_, in Sayyid Aḥmad's _As̤ār Sanādīd_ pp. 74-85, in
Keene's _Hand-book to Dihlī_ and Murray's _Hand-book to Bengal
etc._ The last two quote much from the writings of Cunningham
and Fergusson.
[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. 185_b_, _minār-i-au_) and
not mention the Quṯb Minār. Possibly he confused the two. The
`Alāī Minār remains unfinished; the Quṯb is judged by
Cunningham to have been founded by Quṯbu'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. 226_b_) 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 Archaeological
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.
[1694] _i.e._ from the Deccan of which `Alāu'u'd-dīn is said
to have been the first Muḥammadan invader. An account of this
diamond, identified as the Koh-i-nūr, is given in _Hobson
Jobson_ but its full history is not told by Yule or by
Streeter's _Great Diamonds of the World_, neither mentioning
the presentation of the diamond by Humāyūn to Taḥmāsp of which
Abū'l-faẓl writes, dwelling on its overplus of payment for all
that Humāyūn in exile received from his Persian host
(_Akbar-nāma_ trs. i, 349 and note; _Asiatic Quarterly
Review_, April 1899 H. Beveridge's art. _Bābur's diamond_;
_was it the Koh-i-nūr?_).
[1695] 320 _ratīs_ (Erskine). The _ratī_ is 2.171 Troy grains,
or in picturesque primitive equivalents, is 8 grains of rice,
or 64 mustard seeds, or 512 poppy-seeds,—uncertain weights
which Akbar fixed in cat's-eye stones.
[1696] Bābur's plurals allow the supposition that the three
men's lives were spared. Malik Dād served him thenceforth.
[1697] Erskine estimated these as _dams_ and worth about
£1750, but this may be an underestimate (_H. of I._ i, App.
E.).
[1698] "These begs of his" (or hers) may be the three written
of above.
[1699] These will include cousins and his half-brothers
Jahāngīr and Nāṣir as opposing before he took action in 925
AH. (1519 AD.). The time between 910 AH. and 925 AH. at which
he would most desire Hindūstān is after 920 AH. in which year
he returned defeated from Transoxiana.
[1700] _kīchīk karīm_, which here seems to make contrast
between the ruling birth of members of his own family and the
lower birth of even great begs still with him. Where the
phrase occurs on f. 295, Erskine renders it by "down to the
dregs", and de Courteille (ii, 235) by "_de toutes les
bouches_" but neither translation appears to me to suit
Bābur's uses of the term, inasmuch as both seem to go too low
(cf. f. 270_b_).
[1701] _aīūrūshūb_, Pers. trs. _chaspīda_, stuck to.
[1702] The first expedition is fixed by the preceding passage
as in 925 AH. which was indeed the first time a passage of the
Indus is recorded. Three others are found recorded, those of
926, 930 and 932 AH. Perhaps the fifth was not led by Bābur in
person, and may be that of his troops accompanying `Ālam Khān
in 931 AH. But he may count into the set of five, the one made
in 910 AH. which he himself meant to cross the Indus. Various
opinions are found expressed by European writers as to the
dates of the five.
[1703] Muḥammad died 632 AD. (11 AH.).
[1704] Tramontana, n. of Hindū-kush. For particulars about the
dynasties mentioned by Bābur see Stanley Lane-Poole's
_Muḥammadan Dynasties_.
[1705] Maḥmūd of Ghaznī, a Turk by race, d. 1030 AD. (421
AH.).
[1706] known as Muḥ. _Ghūrī_, d. 1206 AD. (602 AH.).
[1707] _sūrūbtūrlār_, lit. drove them like sheep (cf. f.
154b).
[1708] _khūd_, itself, not Bābur's only Hibernianism.
[1709] "This is an excellent history of the Musalmān world
down to the time of Sl. Nāṣir of Dihlī A.D. 1252. It was
written by Abū `Umar Minḥāj al Jūrjānī. See Stewart's
catalogue of Tipoo's Library, p. 7" (Erskine). It has been
translated by Raverty.
[1710] _bargustwān-wār_; Erskine, cataphract horse.
[1711] The numerous instances of the word _pādshāh_ in this
part of the _Bābur-nāma_ imply no such distinction as attaches
to the title Emperor by which it is frequently translated
(Index _s.n._ _pādshāh_).
[1712] d. 1500 AD. (905 AH.).
[1713] d. 1388 AD. (790 AH.).
[1714] The ancestor mentioned appears to be Naṣrat Shāh, a
grandson of Fīrūz Shāh _Tūghlūq_ (S. L. Poole p. 300 and
Beale, 298).
[1715] His family belonged to the Rājpūt sept of Tānk, and had
become Muḥammadan in the person of Sadharān the first ruler of
Gujrāt (Crooke's _Tribes and Castes; Mirāt-i-sikandarī_,
Bayley p. 67 and n.).
[1716] S. L.-Poole p. 316-7.
[1717] Mandāū (Mandū) was the capital of Malwā.
[1718] Stanley Lane-Poole shews (p. 311) a dynasty of three
Ghūrīs interposed between the death of Fīrūz Shāh in 790 AH.
and the accession in 839 AH. of the first Khiljī ruler of
Gujrāt Maḥmūd Shāh.
[1719] He reigned from 1518 to 1532 AD. (925 to 939 AH.
S.L.-P. p. 308) and had to wife a daughter of Ibrāhīm _Lūdī_
(_Riyaẓu's-salāṯīn_). His dynasty was known as the
Ḥusain-shāhī, after his father.
[1720] "Strange as this custom may seem, a similar one
prevailed down to a very late period in Malabar. There was a
jubilee every 12 years in the Samorin's country, and any-one
who succeeded in forcing his way through the Samorin's guards
and slew him, reigned in his stead. 'A jubilee is proclaimed
throughout his dominions at the end of 12 years, and a tent is
pitched for him in a spacious plain, and a great feast is
celebrated for 10 or 12 days with mirth and jollity, guns
firing night and day, so, at the end of the feast, any four of
the guests that have a mind to gain a throne by a desperate
action in fighting their way through 30 or 40,000 of his
guards, and kill the Samorin in his tent, he that kills him,
succeeds him in his empire.' See Hamilton's _New Account of
the East Indies_ vol. i. p. 309. The attempt was made in 1695,
and again a very few years ago, but without success" (Erskine
p. 311).
The custom Bābur writes of—it is one dealt with at length in
Frazer's _Golden Bough_—would appear from Blochmann's
_Geography and History of Bengal_ (JASB 1873 p. 286) to have
been practised by the Habshī rulers of Bengal of whom he
quotes Faria y Souza as saying, "They observe no rule of
inheritance from father to son, but even slaves sometimes
obtain it by killing their master, and whoever holds it three
days, they look upon as established by divine providence. Thus
it fell out that in 40 years space they had 13 kings
successively."
[1721] No doubt this represents Vijāyanagar in the Deccan.
[1722] This date places the composition of the _Description of
Hindustan_ in agreement with Shaikh Zain's statement that it
was in writing in 935 AH.
[1723] Are they the Khas of Nepal and Sikkim? (G. of I.).
[1724] Here Erskine notes that the Persian (trs.) adds, "_mīr_
signifying a hill, and _kas_ being the name of the natives of
the hill-country." This may not support the name _kas_ as
correct but may be merely an explanation of Bābur's meaning.
It is not in I.O. 217 f. 189 or in Muḥ. _Shīrāzī_'s
lithographed _Wāqi`āt-i-bāburī_ p. 190.
[1725] Either yak or the tassels of the yak. See Appendix M.
[1726] My husband tells me that Bābur's authority for this
interpretation of Sawālak may be the _Z̤afar-nāma_ (Bib. Ind.
ed. ii, 149).
[1727] _i.e._ the countries of Hindūstān.
[1728] so pointed, carefully, in the Ḥai. MS. Mr. Erskine
notes of these rivers that they are the Indus, Hydaspes,
Ascesines, Hydraotes, Hesudrus and Hyphasis.
[1729] _Āyīn-i-akbarī_, Jarrett 279.
[1730] _pārcha pārcha_, _kīchīkrāk kīchīkrāk_, _āndā mūndā_,
_tāshlīq tāqghīna_. The Gazetteer of India (1907 i, 1) puts
into scientific words, what Bābur here describes, the ruin of
a great former range.
[1731] Here _āqār-sūlār_ might safely be replaced by
"irrigation channels" (Index _s.n._).
[1732] The verb here is _tāshmāq_; it also expresses to carry
like ants (f. 220), presumably from each person's carrying a
pitcher or a stone at a time, and repeatedly.
[1733] "This" notes Erskine (p. 315) "is the _wulsa_ or
_walsa_, so well described by Colonel Wilks in his Historical
Sketches vol. i. p. 309, note 'On the approach of an hostile
army, the unfortunate inhabitants of India bury under ground
their most cumbrous effects, and each individual, man, woman,
and child above six years of age (the infant children being
carried by their mothers), with a load of grain proportioned
to their strength, issue from their beloved homes, and take
the direction of a country (if such can be found,) exempt from
the miseries of war; sometimes of a strong fortress, but more
generally of the most unfrequented hills and woods, where they
prolong a miserable existence until the departure of the
enemy, and if this should be protracted beyond the time for
which they have provided food, a large portion necessarily
dies of hunger.' See the note itself. The Historical Sketches
should be read by every-one who desires to have an accurate
idea of the South of India. It is to be regretted that we do
not possess the history of any other part of India, written
with the same knowledge or research."
"The word _wulsa_ or _walsa_ is Dravidian. Telugu has
_valasa_, 'emigration, flight, or removing from home for fear
of a hostile army.' Kanarese has _valasĕ_, _ŏlasĕ_, and
_ŏlisĕ_, 'flight, a removing from home for fear of a hostile
army.' Tamil has _valasei_, 'flying for fear, removing
hastily.' The word is an interesting one. I feel pretty sure
it is not Aryan, but Dravidian; and yet it stands alone in
Dravidian, with nothing that I can find in the way of a root
or affinities to explain its etymology. Possibly it may be a
borrowed word in Dravidian. Malayalam has no corresponding
word. Can it have been borrowed from Kolarian or other
primitive Indian speech?" (Letter to H. Beveridge from Mr. F.
E. Pargiter, 8th August, 1914.)
_Wulsa_ seems to be a derivative from Sanscrit _ūlvash_, and
to answer to Persian _wairānī_ and Turkī _būzūghlūghī_.
[1734] _lalmī_, which in Afghānī (Pushtū) signifies grown
without irrigation.
[1735] "The improvement of Hindūstān since Bābur's time must
be prodigious. The wild elephant is now confined to the
forests under Hemāla, and to the Ghats of Malabar. A wild
elephant near Karrah, Mānikpūr, or Kālpī, is a thing, at the
present day (1826 AD.), totally unknown. May not their
familiar existence in these countries down to Bābur's days, be
considered rather hostile to the accounts given of the
superabundant population of Hindūstān in remote times?"
(Erskine).
[1736] _dīwān._ I.O. 217 f. 190b, _dar dīwān fīl jawāb
mīgūīnd_; Mems. p. 316. They account to the government for the
elephants they take; _Méms._ ii, 188, _Les habitants payent
l'impôt avec le produit de leur chasse_. Though de
Courteille's reading probably states the fact, Erskine's
includes de C.'s and more, inasmuch as it covers all captures
and these might reach to a surplusage over the imposts.
[1737] Pers. trs. _gaz_=24 inches. _Il est bon de rappeler que
le mot turk qārī, que la version persane rend par gaz, désigne
proprement l'espace compris entre le haut de l'épaule jusqu'au
bout des doigts_ (de Courteille, ii, 189 note). The _qārī_
like one of its equivalents, the ell (Zenker), is a variable
measure; it seems to approach more nearly to a yard than to a
_gaz_ of 24 inches. See _Memoirs of Jahāngīr_ (R. & B. pp. 18,
141 and notes) for the heights of elephants, and for
discussion of some measures.
[1738] _khūd_, itself.
[1739] _i.e._ pelt; as Erskine notes, its skin is scattered
with small hairs. Details such as this one stir the question,
for whom was Bābur writing? Not for Hindūstān where what he
writes is patent; hardly for Kābul; perhaps for Transoxiana.
[1740] Shaikh Zain's wording shows this reference to be to a
special piece of artillery, perhaps that of f. 302.
[1741] A string of camels contains from five to seven, or, in
poetry, even more (Vullers, ii, 728, _sermone poetico series
decem camelorum_). The item of food compared is corn only
(_būghūz_) and takes no account therefore of the elephant's
green food.
[1742] The Ency. Br. states that the horn seldom exceeds a
foot in length; there is one in the B.M. measuring 18 inches.
[1743] āb-khẉura kishtī, water-drinker's boat, in which name
kishtī may be used with reference to shape as boat is in
_sauce-boat_. Erskine notes that rhinoceros-horn is supposed
to sweat on approach of poison.
[1744] _aīlīk_, Pers. trs. _angusht_, finger, each seemingly
representing about one inch, a hand's thickness, a finger's
breadth.
[1745] lit. hand (_qūl_) and leg (_būt_).
[1746] The anatomical details by which Bābur supports this
statement are difficult to translate, but his grouping of the
two animals is in agreement with the modern classification of
them as two of the three _Ungulata vera_, the third being the
tapir (Fauna of British India:—Mammals, Blanford 467 and,
illustration, 468).
[1747] De Courteille (ii, 190) reads _kūmūk_, osseuse; Erskine
reads _gūmūk_, marrow.
[1748] Index _s.n._ rhinoceros.
[1749] _Bos bubalus._
[1750] "so as to grow into the flesh" (Erskine, p. 317).
[1751] _sic_ in text. It may be noted that the name _nīl-gāī_,
common in general European writings, is that of the cow;
_nīl-gāū_, that of the bull (Blanford).
[1752] _b:ḥ:rī qūṯās_; _see_ Appendix M.
[1753] The doe is brown (Blanford, p. 518). The word _būghū_
(stag) is used alone just below and seems likely to represent
the bull of the Asiatic wapiti (f. 4 n. on _būghū-marāl_.)
[1754] _Axis porcinus_ (Jerdon, _Cervus porcinus_).
[1755] _Saiga tartarica_ (Shaw). Turkī _hūna_ is used, like
English deer, for male, female, and both. Here it seems
defined by _aīrkākī_ to mean stag or buck.
[1756] _Antelope cervicapra_, black-buck, so called from the
dark hue of its back (Yule's H.J. _s.n._ Black-buck).
[1757] _tūyūq_, underlined in the Elph. MS. by _kura_,
cannon-ball; Erskine, foot-ball, de Courteille, _pierre plus
grosse que la cheville_ (_tūyāq_).
[1758] This mode of catching antelopes is described in the
_Āyīn-i-akbarī_, and is noted by Erskine as common in his day.
[1759] _H. gainā._ It is 3 feet high (Yule's H.J. _s.n._
Gynee). Cf. A. A. Blochmann, p. 149. The ram with which it is
compared may be that of _Ovis ammon_ (Vigné's _Kashmīr etc._
ii, 278).
[1760] Here the Pers. trs. adds:—They call this kind of monkey
_langūr_ (baboon, I.O. 217 f. 192).
[1761] Here the Pers. trs. adds what Erskine mistakenly
attributes to Bābur:—People bring it from several
islands.—They bring yet another kind from several islands,
yellowish-grey in colour like a _pūstīn tīn_ (leather coat of
?; Erskine, skin of the fig, _tīn_). Its head is broader and
its body much larger than those of other monkeys. It is very
fierce and destructive. It is singular _quod penis ejus semper
sit erectus, et nunquam non ad coitum idoneus_ [Erskine].
[1762] This name is explained on the margin of the Elph. MS.
as "_rāsū_, which is the weasel of Tartary" (Erskine). _Rāsū_
is an Indian name for the squirrel _Sciurus indicus_. The
_kīsh_, with which Bābur's _nūl_ is compared, is explained by
de C. as _belette_, weasel, and by Steingass as a fur-bearing
animal; the fur-bearing weasel is (_Mustelidae_) _putorius
ermina_, the ermine-weasel (Blanford, p. 165), which thus
seems to be Bābur's _kīsh_. The alternative name Bābur gives
for his _nūl_, _i.e._ _mūsh-i-khūrma_, is, in India, that of
_Sciurus palmarum_, the palm-squirrel (G. of I. i, 227); this
then, it seems that Bābur's _nūl_ is. Erskine took _nūl_ here
to be the mongoose (_Herpestes mūngūs_) (p. 318); and
Blanford, perhaps partly on Erskine's warrant, gives
_mūsh-i-khūrma_ as a name of the lesser _mungūs_ of Bengal. I
gather that the name _nawal_ is not exclusively confined even
now to the (_mungūs_.)
[1763] If this be a tree-mouse and not a squirrel, it may be
_Vandeleuria oleracea_ (G. of I. i, 228).
[1764] The notes to this section are restricted to what serves
to identify the birds Bābur mentions, though temptation is
great to add something to this from the mass of interesting
circumstance scattered in the many writings of observers and
lovers of birds. I have thought it useful to indicate to what
language a bird's name belongs.
[1765] Persian, _gul_; English, eyes.
[1766] _qūlāch_ (Zenker, p. 720); Pers. trs. (217 f. 192_b_)
_yak qad-i-adm_; de Courteille, _brasse_ (fathom). These three
are expressions of the measure from finger-tip to finger-tip
of a man's extended arms, which should be his height, a fathom
(6 feet).
[1767] _qānāt_, of which here "primaries" appears to be the
correct rendering, since Jerdon says (ii, 506) of the bird
that its "wings are striated black and white, primaries and
tail deep chestnut".
[1768] The _qīrghāwal_, which is of the pheasant species, when
pursued, will take several flights immediately after each
other, though none long; peacocks, it seems, soon get tired
and take to running (Erskine).
[1769] Ar. _barrāq_, as on f. 278_b_ last line where the Elph.
MS. has _barrāq_, marked with the _tashdīd_.
[1770] This was, presumably, just when Bābur was writing the
passage.
[1771] This sentence is in Arabic.
[1772] A Persian note, partially expunged from the text of the
Elph. MS. is to the effect that 4 or 5 other kinds of parrot
are heard of which the revered author did not see.
[1773] Erskine suggests that this may be the _loory_
(_Loriculus vernalis_, Indian loriquet).
[1774] The birds Bābur classes under the name _shārak_ seem to
include what Oates and Blanford (whom I follow as they give
the results of earlier workers) class under _Sturnus_,
_Eulabes_ and _Calornis_, starling, grackle and mīna, and
tree-stare (_Fauna of British India_, Oates, vols. i and ii,
Blanford, vols. iii and iv).
[1775] Turkī, _qabā_; Ilminsky, p. 361, _tang_ (_tund_?).
[1776] E. D. Ross's _Polyglot List of Birds_, p. 314,
_Chighīr-chīq_, Northern swallow; Elph. MS. f. 230_b_
interlined _jil_ (Steingass lark). The description of the bird
allows it to be _Sturnus humii_, the Himālayan starling
(Oates, i, 520).
[1777] Elph. and Ḥai. MSS. (Sans. and Bengālī) _p:ndūī_; two
good MSS. of the Pers. trs. (I.O. 217 and 218) _p:ndāwalī_;
Ilminsky (p. 361) _mīnā_; Erskine (_Mems._ p. 319)
_pindāwelī_, but without his customary translation of an
Indian name. The three forms shewn above can all mean "having
protuberance or lump" (_pinḍā_) and refer to the bird's
wattle. But the word of the presumably well-informed scribes
of I.O. 217 and 218 can refer to the bird's sagacity in speech
and be _panḍāwalī_, possessed of wisdom. With the same
spelling, the word can translate into the epithet _religiosa_,
given to the wattled _mīnā_ by Linnæus. This epithet Mr.
Leonard Wray informs me has been explained to him as due to
the frequenting of temples by the birds; and that in Malāya
they are found living in cotes near Chinese temples.—An
alternative name (one also connecting with _religiosa_)
allowed by the form of the word is _bīnḍā-walī_. H. _bīnḍā_ is
a mark on the forehead, made as a preparative to devotion by
Hindus, or in Sans. and _Bengālī_, is the spot of paint made
on an elephant's trunk; the meaning would thus be "having a
mark". Cf. Jerdon and Oates _s.n._ _Eulabes religiosa_.
[1778] _Eulabes intermedia_, the Indian grackle or hill-mīna.
Here the Pers. trs. adds that people call it _mīna_.
[1779] _Calornis chalybeius_, the glossy starling or
tree-stare, which never descends to the ground.
[1780] _Sturnopastor contra_, the pied mīna.
[1781] Part of the following passage about the _lūja_ (var.
_lūkha_, _lūcha_) is _verbatim_ with part of that on f. 135;
both were written about 934-5 AH. as is shewn by Shaikh Zain
(Index _s.n._) and by inference from references in the text
(Index _s.n._ B.N. date of composition). _See_ Appendix N.
[1782] Lit. mountain-partridge. There is ground for
understanding that one of the birds known in the region as
_monals_ is meant. _See_ Appendix N.
[1783] Sans. _chakora_; Ar. _durrāj_; P. _kabg_; T. _kīklīk_.
[1784] Here, probably, southern Afghānistān.
[1785] _Caccabis chukūr_ (Scully, Shaw's Vocabulary) or _C.
pallescens_ (Hume, quoted under No. 126 E. D. Ross' _Polyglot
List_).
[1786] "In some parts of the country (_i.e._ India before 1841
AD.), tippets used to be made of the beautiful black,
white-spotted feathers of the lower plumage (of the _durrāj_),
and were in much request, but they are rarely procurable now"
(_Bengal Sporting Magazine_ for 1841, quoted by Jerdon, ii,
561).
[1787] A broad collar of red passes round the whole neck
(Jerdon, ii, 558).
[1788] Ar. _durrāj_ means one who repeats what he hears, a
tell-tale.
[1789] Various translations have been made of this passage, "I
have milk and sugar" (Erskine), "_J'ai du lait, un peu de
sucre_" (de Courteille), but with short _sh:r_, it might be
read in more than one way ignoring milk and sugar. See Jerdon,
ii, 558 and Hobson Jobson _s.n._ Black-partridge.
[1790] Flower-faced, _Trapogon melanocephala_, the horned
(_sing_)-monal. It is described by Jahāngīr (_Memoirs_, R. and
B., ii, 220) under the names [H. and P.] _phūl-paikār_ and
Kashmīrī, _sonlū_.
[1791] _Gallus sonneratii_, the grey jungle-fowl.
[1792] Perhaps _Bambusicola fytchii_, the western
bambu-partridge. For _chīl_ see E. D. Ross, _l.c._ No. 127.
[1793] Jahāngīr (_l.c._) describes, under the Kashmīrī name
_pūṯ_, what may be this bird. It seems to be _Gallus
ferrugineus_, the red jungle-fowl (Blanford, iv, 75).
[1794] Jahāngīr helps to identify the bird by mentioning its
elongated tail-feathers,—seasonal only.
[1795] The migrant quail will be _Coturnix communis_, the grey
quail, 8 inches long; what it is compared with seems likely to
be the bush-quail, which is non-migrant and shorter.
[1796] Perhaps _Perdicula argunda_, the rock bush-quail, which
flies in small coveys.
[1797] Perhaps _Coturnix coromandelica_, the black-breasted or
rain quail, 7 inches long.
[1798] Perhaps _Motacilla citreola_, a yellow wag-tail which
summers in Central Asia (Oates, ii, 298). If so, its Kābul
name may refer to its flashing colour. Cf. E. D. Ross, _l.c._
No. 301; de Courteille's _Dictionary_ which gives _qārcha_,
wag-tail, and Zenker's which fixes the colour.
[1799] _Eupodotis edwardsii_; Turkī, _tūghdār_ or _tūghdīrī_.
[1800] Erskine noting (Mems. p. 321), that the bustard is
common in the Dakkan where it is bigger than a turkey, says it
is called _tūghdār_ and suggests that this is a corruption of
_tūghdāq_. The uses of both words are shewn by Bābur, here,
and in the next following, account of the _charz_. Cf. G. of
I. i, 260 and E. D. Ross _l.c._ Nos. 36, 40.
[1801] _Sypheotis bengalensis_ and _S. aurita_, which are both
smaller than _Otis houbara_ (_tūghdīrī_). In Hindustan _S.
aurita_ is known as _līkh_ which name is the nearest approach
I have found to Bābur's [_lūja_] _lūkha_.
[1802] Jerdon mentions (ii, 615) that this bird is common in
Afghānistān and there called _dugdaor_ (_tūghdār_,
_tūghdīrī_).
[1803] _Cf._ Appendix B, since I wrote which, further
information has made it fairly safe to say that the Hindūstān
_bāghrī-qarā_ is _Pterocles exustus_, the common sand-grouse
and that the one of f. 49b is _Pterocles arenarius_, the
larger or black-bellied sand-grouse. _P. exustus_ is said by
Yule (H. J. _s.n._ Rock-pigeon) to have been miscalled
rock-pigeon by Anglo-Indians, perhaps because its flight
resembles the pigeon's. This accounts for Erskine's rendering
(p. 321) _bāghrī-qarā_ here by rock-pigeon.
[1804] _Leptoptilus dubius_, Hind. _hargīlā_. Hindūstānīs call
it _pīr-i-dīng_ (Erskine) and _peda dhauk_ (Blanford), both
names referring, perhaps, to its pouch. It is the adjutant of
Anglo-India. Cf. f. 235.
[1805] only when young (Blanford, ii, 188).
[1806] Elph. MS. _mank:sā_ or _mankīā_; Ḥai. MS. _m:nk_.
Haughton's _Bengali Dictionary_ gives two forms of the name
_mānek-jur_ and _mānak-yoī_. It is _Dissura episcopus_, the
white-necked stork (Blanford iv, 370, who gives _manik-jor_
amongst its Indian names). Jerdon classes it (ii, 737) as
_Ciconia leucocephala_. It is the beefsteak bird of
Anglo-India.
[1807] _Ciconia nigra_ (Blanford, iv, 369).
[1808] Under the Hindūstānī form, _būza_, of Persian _buzak_
the birds Bābur mentions as _buzak_ can be identified. The
large one is _Inocotis papillosus_, _būza_, _kāla būza_, black
curlew, king-curlew. The bird it equals in size is a buzzard,
Turkī _sār_ (not Persian _sār_, starling). The king-curlew has
a large white patch on the inner lesser and marginal coverts
of its wings (Blanford, iv, 303). This agrees with Bābur's
statement about the wings of the large _buzak_. Its length is
27 inches, while the starling's is 9-1/2 inches.
[1809] _Ibis melanocephala_, the white ibis, Pers. _safed
buzak_, Bengali _sabut būza_. It is 30 inches long.
[1810] Perhaps, _Plegadis falcinellus_, the glossy ibis, which
in most parts of India is a winter visitor. Its length is 25
inches.
[1811] Erskine suggests that this is _Platalea leucorodia_,
the _chamach-būza_, spoon-bill. It is 33 inches long.
[1812] _Anas poecilorhyncha._ The Ḥai. MS. writes _gharm-pāī_,
and this is the Indian name given by Blanford (iv, 437).
[1813] _Anas boschas._ Dr. Ross notes (No. 147), from the
_Sanglākh_, that _sūna_ is the drake, _būrchīn_, the duck and
that it is common in China to call a certain variety of bird
by the combined sex-names. Something like this is shewn by the
uses of _būghā_ and _marāl_ _q.v._ Index.
[1814] _Centropus rufipennis_, the common coucal (Yule's H.J.
_s.n._ Crow-pheasant); H. _makokhā_, _Cuculus castaneus_
(Buchanan, quoted by Forbes).
[1815] _Pteropus edwardsii_, the flying-fox. The inclusion of
the bat here amongst birds, may be a clerical accident, since
on f. 136 a flying-fox is not written of as a bird.
[1816] Bābur here uses what is both the Kābul and Andijān name
for the magpie, Ar. _`aqqa_ (Oates, i, 31 and Scully's Voc),
instead of T. _sāghizghān_ or P. _dam-sīcha_ (tail-wagger).
[1817] The Pers. trs. writes _sāndūlāch mamūlā_, _mamūlā_
being Arabic for wag-tail. De Courteille's Dictionary
describes the _sāndūlāch_ as small and having a long tail, the
cock-bird green, the hen, yellow. The wag-tail suiting this in
colouring is _Motacilla borealis_ (Oates, ii, 294; syn.
_Budytes viridis_, the green wag-tail); this, as a migrant,
serves to compare with the Indian "little bird", which seems
likely to be a red-start.
[1818] This word may represent Scully's _kirich_ and be the
Turkī name for a swift, perhaps _Cypselus affinis_.
[1819] This name is taken from its cry during the breeding
season (Yule's H.J. _s.n._ Koel).
[1820] Bābur's distinction between the three crocodiles he
mentions seems to be that of names he heard, _shīr-ābī_,
_siyāh-sār_, and _ghaṛīāl_.
[1821] In this passage my husband finds the explanation of two
somewhat vague statements of later date, one made by
Abū'l-faẓl (A. A. Blochmann, p. 65) that Akbar called the
_kīlās_ (cherry) the _shāh-ālū_ (king-plum), the other by
Jahāngīr that this change was made because _kīlās_ means
lizard (_Jahāngīr's Memoirs_, R. & B. i, 116). What Akbar did
is shewn by Bābur; it was to reject the _Persian_ name
_kīlās_, cherry, because it closely resembled _Turkī gīlās_,
lizard. There is a lizard _Stellio Lehmanni_ of Transoxiana
with which Bābur may well have compared the crocodile's
appearance (Schuyler's _Turkistān_, i, 383). Akbar in
Hindūstān may have had _Varanus salvator_ (6 ft. long) in
mind, if indeed he had not the great lizard, _al lagarto_, the
alligator itself in his thought. The name _kīlās_ evidently
was banished only from the Court circle, since it is still
current in Kashmīr (Blochmann _l.c._ p. 616); and Speede (p.
201) gives _keeras_, cherry, as used in India.
[1822] This name as now used, is that of the purely
fish-eating crocodile. [In the Turkī text Bābur's account of
the _ghaṛīāl_ follows that of the porpoise; but it is grouped
here with those of the two other crocodiles.]
[1823] As the Ḥai. MS. and also I.O. 216 f. 137 (Pers. trs.)
write _kalah_ (_galah_)-fish, this may be a large cray-fish.
One called by a name approximating to _galah_-fish is found in
Malāyan waters, _viz._ the _galah_-prawn (_hūdang_) (cf.
Bengālī _gūla-chingrī_, _gūla_-prawn, Haughton). _Galah_ and
_gūla_ may express lament made when the fish is caught
(Haughton pp. 931, 933, 952); or if _kalah_ be read, this may
express scolding. Two good MSS. of the _Wāqi`āt-i-bāburī_
(Pers. trs.) write _kaka_; and their word cannot but have
weight. Erskine reproduces _kaka_ but offers no explanation of
it, a failure betokening difficulty in his obtaining one. My
husband suggests that _kaka_ may represent a stuttering sound,
doing so on the analogy of Vullers' explanation of the
word,—_Vir ridiculus et facetus qui simul balbutiat_; and also
he inclines to take the fish to be a crab (_kakra_). Possibly
_kaka_ is a popular or vulgar name for a cray-fish or a crab.
Whether the sound is lament, scolding, or stuttering the
fisherman knows! Shaikh Zain enlarges Bābur's notice of this
fish; he says the bones are prolonged (_bar āwarda_) from the
ears, that these it agitates at time of capture, making a
noise like the word _kaka_ by which it is known, that it is
two _wajab_ (18 in.) long, its flesh surprisingly tasty, and
that it is very active, leaping a _gaz_ (_cir._ a yard) out of
the water when the fisherman's net is set to take it. For
information about the Malāyan fish, I am indebted to Mr. Cecil
Wray.
[1824] T. _qiyünlīghī_, presumably referring to spines or
difficult bones; T. _qīn_, however, means a scabbard [Shaw].
[1825] One of the common frogs is a small one which, when
alarmed, jumps along the surface of the water (G. of I. i,
273).
[1826] _Anb_ and _anbah_ (pronounced _aṃb_ and _aṃbah_) are
now less commonly used names than _ām_. It is an interesting
comment on Bābur's words that Abū'l-faẓl spells _anb_, letter
by letter, and says that the _b_ is quiescent (_Āyīn_ 28; for
the origin of the word mango, _vide_ Yule's H.J. _s.n._).
[1827] A corresponding diminutive would be fairling.
[1828] The variants, entered in parenthesis, are found in the
Bib. Ind. ed. of the _Āyīn-i-akbarī_ p. 75 and in a (bazar)
copy of the _Qurānu's-sā`dain_ in my husband's possession. As
Amīr Khusrau was a poet of Hindūstān, either _khẉash_
(_khẉesh_) [our own] or _mā_ [our] would suit his meaning. The
couplet is, literally:—
Our fairling, [_i.e._ mango] beauty-maker of the garden,
Fairest fruit of Hindūstān.
[1829] Daulat Khān _Yūsuf-khail Lūdī_ in 929 AH. sent Bābur a
gift of mangoes preserved in honey (_in loco_ p. 440).
[1830] I have learned nothing more definite about the word
_kārdī_ than that it is the name of a superior kind of peach
(_Ghiyās̤u'l-lughat_).
[1831] The preceding sentence is out of place in the Turkī
text; it may therefore be a marginal note, perhaps not made by
Bābur.
[1832] This sentence suggests that Bābur, writing in Āgra or
Fatḥpūr did not there see fine mango-trees.
[1833] See Yule's H.J. on the plantain, the banana of the
West.
[1834] This word is a descendant of Sanscrit _mocha_, and
parent of _musa_ the botanical name of the fruit (Yule).
[1835] Shaikh Effendī (Kunos), Zenker and de Courteille say of
this only that it is the name of a tree. Shaw gives a name
that approaches it, _ārman_, a grass, a weed; Scully explains
this as _Artemisia vulgaris_, wormwood, but Roxburgh gives no
_Artemisia_ having a leaf resembling the plantain's. Scully
has _arāmadān_, unexplained, which, like _amān-qarā_, may
refer to comfort in shade. Bābur's comparison will be with
something known in Transoxiana. Maize has general resemblance
with the plantain. So too have the names of the plants, since
_mocha_ and _mauz_ stand for the plantain and (Hindī) _mukā'ī_
for maize. These incidental resemblances bear, however
lightly, on the question considered in the Ency. Br. (art.
maize) whether maize was early in Asia or not; some writers
hold that it was; if Bābur's _amān-qarā_ were maize, maize
will have been familiar in Transoxiana in his day.
[1836] Abū'l-faẓl mentions that the plantain-tree bears no
second crop unless cut down to the stump.
[1837] Bābur was fortunate not to have met with a seed-bearing
plantain.
[1838] The ripe "dates" are called P. _tamar-i Hind_, whence
our tamarind, and _Tamarindus Indica_.
[1839] _Sophora alopecuroides_, a leguminous plant (Scully).
[1840] Abū'l-faẓl gives _galaundā_ as the name of the "fruit"
[_mewa_],—Forbes, as that of the fallen flower. Cf. Brandis p.
426 and Yule's H.J. _s.n._ Mohwa.
[1841] Bābur seems to say that spirit is extracted from both
the fresh and the dried flowers. The fresh ones are favourite
food with deer and jackals; they have a sweet spirituous
taste. Erskine notes that the spirit made from them was
well-known in Bombay by the name of Moura, or of Parsi-brandy,
and that the farm of it was a considerable article of revenue
(p. 325 n.). Roxburgh describes it as strong and intoxicating
(p. 411).
[1842] This is the name of a green, stoneless grape which when
dried, results in a raisin resembling the sultanas of Europe
(_Jahāngīr's Memoirs_ and Yule's H.J. _s.n._; Griffiths'
_Journal of Travel_ pp. 359, 388).
[1843] _Aūl_, lit. the _aūl_ of the flower. The Persian
translation renders _aūl_ by _bū_ which may allow both words
to be understood in their (root) sense of _being_, _i.e._
natural state. De Courteille translates by _quand la fleur est
fraîche_ (ii, 210); Erskine took _bū_ to mean smell (_Memoirs_
p. 325), but the _aūl_ it translates, does not seem to have
this meaning. For reading _aūl_ as "the natural state", there
is circumstantial support in the flower's being eaten raw
(Roxburgh). The annotator of the Elphinstone MS. [whose
defacement of that Codex has been often mentioned], has added
points and _tashdīd_ to the _aūl-ī_ (_i.e._ its _aūl_), so as
to produce _awwalī_ (first, f. 235). Against this there are
the obvious objections that the Persian translation does not
reproduce, and that its _bū_ does not render _awwalī_; also
that _aūl-ī_ is a noun with its enclitic genitive _yā_ (_i_).
[1844] This word seems to be meant to draw attention to the
various merits of the _mahuwā_ tree.
[1845] Erskine notes that this is not to be confounded with E.
_jāmbū_, the rose-apple (_Memoirs_ p. 325 n.). Cf. Yule's H.J.
_s.n. Jambu_.
[1846] var. _ghat-ālū_, _ghab-ālū_, _ghain-ālū_, _shafl-ālū_.
Scully enters _`ain-ālū_ (true-plum?) unexplained. The
_kamrak_ fruit is 3 in. long (Brandis) and of the size of a
lemon (Firminger); dimensions which make Bābur's 4 _aīlīk_
(hand's-thickness) a slight excess only, and which thus allow
_aīlīk_, with its Persion translation, _angusht_, to be
approximately an inch.
[1847] Speede, giving the fruit its Sanscrit name _kamarunga_,
says it is acid, rather pleasant, something like an insipid
apple; also that its pretty pink blossoms grow on the trunk
and main branches (i, 211).
[1848] Cf. Yule's H.J. _s.n._ jack-fruit. In a Calcutta
nurseryman's catalogue of 1914 AD. three kinds of jack-tree
are offered for sale, viz. "Crispy or Khaja, Soft or Neo,
Rose-scented" (Seth, Feronia Nursery).
[1849] The _gīpa_ is a sheep's stomach stuffed with rice,
minced meat, and spices, and boiled as a pudding. The
resemblance of the jack, as it hangs on the tree, to the
haggis, is wonderfully complete (Erskine).
[1850] These when roasted have the taste of chestnuts.
[1851] Firminger (p. 186) describes an ingenious method of
training.
[1852] For a note of Humāyūn's on the jack-fruit _see_
Appendix O.
[1853] _aīd-ī-yamān aīmās._ It is somewhat curious that Bābur
makes no comment on the odour of the jack itself.
[1854] _būsh_, English bosh (Shaw). The Persian translation
inserts no more about this fruit.
[1855] Steingass applies this name to the plantain.
[1856] Erskine notes that "this is the bullace-plum, small,
not more than twice as large as the sloe and not so
high-flavoured; it is generally yellow, sometimes red." Like
Bābur, Brandis enumerates several varieties and mentions the
seasonal changes of the tree (p. 170).
[1857] This will be Kābul, probably, because Transoxiana is
written of by Bābur usually, if not invariably, as "that
country", and because he mentions the _chīkda_ (_i.e.
chīka?_), under its Persian name _sinjid_, in his _Description
of Kābul_ (f. 129_b_).
[1858] P. _mar manjān_, which I take to refer to the
_rīwājlār_ of Kābul. (Cf. f. 129_b_, where, however, (note 5)
are _corrigenda_ of Masson's _rawash_ for _rīwāj_, and his
third to second volume.) Kehr's Codex contains an extra
passage about the _karaūn dā_, _viz._ that from it is made a
tasty fritter-like dish, resembling a rhubarb-fritter
(Ilminsky, p. 369).
[1859] People call it (P.) _pālasa_ also (Elph. MS. f. 236,
marginal note).
[1860] Perhaps the red-apple of Kābul, where two sorts are
common, both rosy, one very much so, but much inferior to the
other (Griffith's _Journal of Travel_ p. 388).
[1861] Its downy fruit grows in bundles from the trunk and
large branches (Roxburgh).
[1862] The reference by "also" (_ham_) will be to the _kamrak_
(f. 283_b_), but both Roxburgh and Brandis say the _amla_ is
six striated.
[1863] The Sanscrit and Bengālī name for the chirūnjī-tree is
_pīyala_ (Roxburgh p. 363).
[1864] Cf. f. 250_b_.
[1865] The leaflet is rigid enough to serve as a runlet, but
soon wears out; for this reason, the usual practice is to use
one of split bamboo.
[1866] This is a famous hunting-ground between Bīāna and
Dhūlpūr, Rājpūtāna, visited in 933 AH. (f. 33O_b_). Bābur's
great-great-grandson Shāh-jahān built a hunting-lodge there
(G. of I.).
[1867] Ḥai. MS. _mu`arrab_, but the Elph. MS. _maghrib_,
[occidentalizing]. The Ḥai. MS. when writing of the orange
(_infra_) also has _maghrib_. A distinction of locality may be
drawn by _maghrib_.
[1868] Bābur's "Hindūstān people" (_aīl_) are those neither
Turks nor Afghāns.
[1869] This name, with its usual form _tāḍī_ (toddy), is used
for the fermented sap of the date, coco, and _mhār_ palms also
(cf. Yule's H.J. _s.n._ toddy).
[1870] Bābur writes of the long leaf-stalk as a branch
(_shākh_); he also seems to have taken each spike of the
fan-leaf to represent a separate leaf. [For two omissions from
my trs. _see_ Appendix O.]
[1871] Most of the fruits Bābur describes as orange-like are
named in the following classified list, taken from Watts'
_Economic Products of India_:—"+Citrus aurantium+, _narangi_,
_sangtara_, _amrit-phal_; +C. decumana+, _pumelo_, shaddock,
forbidden-fruit, _sada-phal_; +C. medica+ proper, _turunj_,
_limu_; +C. medica limonum+, _jambhira_, _karna-nebu_." Under
_C. aurantium_ Brandis enters both the sweet and the Seville
oranges (_nārangī_); this Bābur appears to do also.
[1872] _kīndīklīk_, explained in the Elph. Codex by _nāfwār_
(f. 238). This detail is omitted by the Persian translation.
Firminger's description (p. 221) of Aurangābād oranges
suggests that they also are navel-oranges. At the present time
one of the best oranges had in England is the navel one of
California.
[1873] Useful addition is made to earlier notes on the
variability of the _yīghāch_, a variability depending on time
taken to cover the ground, by the following passage from
Henderson and Hume's _Lahor to Yarkand_ (p. 120), which shews
that even in the last century the _farsang_ (the P. word used
in the Persian translation of the _Bābur-nāma_ for T.
_yīghāch_) was computed by time. "All the way from Kargallik
(Qārghalīq) to Yarkand, there were tall wooden mile-posts
along the roads, at intervals of about 5 miles, or rather one
hour's journey, apart. On a board at the top of each post, or
_farsang_ as it is called, the distances were very legibly
written in Turki."
[1874] _ma`rib_, Elph. MS. _magharrib_; (cf. f. 285_b_ note).
[1875] _i.e. nārang_ (Sans. _nārangā_) has been changed to
_nāranj_ in the `Arab mouth. What is probably one of Humāyūn's
notes preserved by the Elph. Codex (f. 238), appears to say—it
is mutilated—that _nārang_ has been corrupted into _nāranj_.
[1876] The Elph. Codex has a note—mutilated in early
binding—which is attested by its scribe as copied from
Humāyūn's hand-writing, and is to the effect that once on his
way from the Hot-bath, he saw people who had taken poison and
restored them by giving lime-juice.
Erskine here notes that the same antidotal quality is ascribed
to the citron by Virgil:—
Media fert tristes succos. tardumque saporem
Felicis mali, quo non praesentius ullum,
Pocula si quando saevae infecere novercae,
Miscueruntque herbas et non innoxia verba,
Auxilium venit, ac membris agit atra venena.
Georgics II. v. 126.
_Vide_ Heyne's note i, 438.
[1877] P. _turunj_, wrinkled, puckered; Sans. _vījāpūra_ and
H. _bijaurā_ (_Āyīn_ 28), seed-filled.
[1878] Bābur may have confused this with H. _bijaurā_; so too
appears to have done the writer (Humāyūn?) of a [now
mutilated] note in the Elph. Codex (f. 238), which seems to
say that the fruit or its name went from Bajaur to Hindūstān.
Is the country of Bajaur so-named from its indigenous orange
(_vījāpūra_, whence _bijaurā_)? The name occurs also north of
Kangra.
[1879] Of this name variants are numerous, _santra_,
_santhara_, _samtara_, etc. Watts classes it as a _C.
aurantium_; Erskine makes it the common sweet orange;
Firminger, quoting Ross (p. 221) writes that, as grown in the
Nagpur gardens it is one of the finest Indian oranges, with
rind thin, smooth and close. The Emperor Muḥammad Shāh is said
to have altered its name to _rang-tāra_ because of its fine
colour (_rang_) (Forbes). Speede (ii, 109) gives both names.
As to the meaning and origin of the name _santara_ or
_santra_, so suggestive of Cintra, the Portuguese home of a
similar orange, it may be said that it looks like a hill-name
used in N. E. India, for there is a village in the Bhutan
Hills, (Western Duars) known from its orange groves as
Santra-bārī, Abode of the orange. To this (mentioned already
as my husband's suggestion in Mr. Crooke's ed. of Yule's H.J.)
support is given by the item "Suntura, famous Nipal variety",
entered in Seth's Nursery-list of 1914 (Feronia Nurseries,
Calcutta). Light on the question of origin could be thrown, no
doubt, by those acquainted with the dialects of the hill-tract
concerned.
[1880] This refers, presumably, to the absence of the beak
characteristic of all citrons.
[1881] melter, from the Sans. root _gal_, which provides the
names of several lemons by reason of their solvent quality,
specified by Bābur (_infra_) of the _amal-bīd_. Erskine notes
that in his day the _gal-gal_ was known as _kilmek_
(_galmak_?).
[1882] Sans. _jambīrā_, H. _jambīr_, classed by Abū'l-faẓl as
one of the somewhat sour fruits and by Watts as _Citrus medica
limonum_.
[1883] Watts, _C. decumana_, the shaddock or pumelo; Firminger
(p. 223) has _C. decumana pyriformis_ suiting Bābur's
"pear-shaped". What Bābur compared it with will be the
Transoxanian pear and quince (_P. amrūd_ and _bihī_) and not
the Indian guava and Bengal quince (_P. amrūd_ and _H. bael_).
[1884] The Turkī text writes _amrd_. Watts classes the
_amrit-phal_ as a _C. aurantium_. This supports Erskine's
suggestion that it is the mandarin-orange. Humāyūn describes
it in a note which is written pell-mell in the text of the
Elph. Codex and contains also descriptions of the _kāmila_ and
_santara_ oranges; it can be seen translated in Appendix O.
[1885] So spelled in the Turkī text and also in two good MSS.
of the Pers. trs. I.O. 217 and 218, but by Abū'l-faẓl
_amal-bīt_. Both P. _bīd_ and P. _bīt_ mean willow and cane
(ratan), so that _amal-bīd_ (_bīt_) can mean acid-willow and
acid-cane. But as Bābur is writing of a fruit like an orange,
the cane that bears an acid fruit, _Calamus rotang_, can be
left aside in favour of _Citrus medica acidissima_. Of this
fruit the solvent property Bābur mentions, as well as the
commonly-known service in cleansing metal, link it, by these
uses, with the willow and suggest a ground for understanding,
as Erskine did, that _amal-bīd_ meant acid-willow; for
willow-wood is used to rub rust off metal.
[1886] This statement shows that Bābur was writing the
_Description of Hindūstān_ in 935 AH. (1528-9 AD.), which is
the date given for it by Shaikh Zain.
[1887] This story of the needle is believed in India of all
the citron kind, which are hence called _sūī-gal_
(needle-melter) in the Dakhin (Erskine). Cf. Forbes, p. 489
_s.n. sūī-gal_.
[1888] Erskine here quotes information from Abū'l-faẓl (_Āyīn_
28) about Akbar's encouragement of the cultivation of fruits.
[1889] Hindustani (Urdu) _gaṛhal_. Many varieties of Hibiscus
(syn. Althea) grow in India; some thrive in Surrey gardens;
the _jāsūn_ by name and colour can be taken as what is known
in Malayan, Tamil, etc., as the shoe-flower, from its use in
darkening leather (Yule's H.J.).
[1890] I surmise that what I have placed between asterisks
here belongs to the next-following plant, the oleander. For
though the branches of the _jāsūn_ grow vertically, the bush
is a dense mass upon one stout trunk, or stout short stem. The
words placed in parenthesis above are not with the Ḥaidarabad
but are with the Elphinstone Codex. There would seem to have
been a scribe's skip from one "rose" to the other. As has been
shewn repeatedly, this part of the Bābur-nāma has been much
annotated; in the Elph. Codex, where only most of the notes
are preserved, some are entered by the scribe pell-mell into
Bābur's text. The present instance may be a case of a marginal
note, added to the text in a wrong place.
[1891] The peduncle supporting the plume of medial petals is
clearly seen only when the flower opens first. The plumed
Hibiscus is found in florists' catalogues described as
"double".
[1892] This Anglo-Indians call also rose-bay. A Persian name
appears to be _zahr-giyāh_, poison-grass, which makes it the
more probable that the doubtful passage in the previous
description of the _jāsūn_ belongs to the rod-like oleander,
known as the poison-grass. The oleander is common in
river-beds over much country known to Bābur, outside India.
[1893] Roxburgh gives a full and interesting account of this
tree.
[1894] Here the Elph. Codex, only, has the (seeming) note, "An
'Arab calls it _kāẕī_" (or _kāwī_). This fills out Steingass'
part-explanation of _kāwī_, "the blossom of the fragrant
palm-tree, _armāṯ_" (p. 1010), and of _armāṯ_, "a kind of
date-tree with a fragrant blossom" (p. 39), by making _armāṯ_
and _kāwī_ seem to be the _Pandanus_ and its flower.
[1895] _Calamus scriptorius_ (Vullers ii, 607. H. B.).
Abū'l-faẓl compares the leaves to _jawārī_, the great millet
(Forbes); Blochmann (A. A. p. 83) translates _jawārī_ by
_maize_ (_juwārā_, Forbes).
[1896] T. _aīrkāk-qūmūsh_, a name Scully enters unexplained.
Under _qūmūsh_ (reed) he enters _Arundo madagascarensis_;
Bābur's comparison will be with some Transoxanian _Arundo_ or
_Calamus_, presumably.
[1897] _Champa_ seems to have been Bābur's word (Elph. and
Ḥai. MSS.), but is the (B.) name for _Michelia champaka_; the
Pers. translation corrects it by (B.) _chambelī_, (_yāsman_,
jasmine).
[1898] Here, "outside India" will be meant, where Hindū rules
do not prevail.
[1899] _Hind aīlārī-nīng ibtidā-sī hilāl aīlār-nīng
istiqbāl-dīn dūr._ The use here of _istiqbāl_, welcome,
attracts attention; does it allude to the universal welcome of
lighter nights? or is it reminiscent of Muḥammadan welcome to
the Moon's crescent in Shawwāl?
[1900] For an exact statement of the intercalary months _vide_
Cunningham's _Indian Eras_, p. 91. In my next sentence
(_supra_) the parenthesis-marks indicate blanks left on the
page of the Ḥai. MS. as though waiting for information. These
and other similar blanks make for the opinion that the Ḥai.
Codex is a direct copy of Bābur's draft manuscript.
[1901] The sextuple division (_r̤itu_) of the year is referred
to on f. 284, where the Signs Crab and Lion are called the
season of the true Rains.
[1902] Bābur appears not to have entered either the Hindī or
the Persian names of the week:—the Ḥai. MS. has a blank space;
the Elph. MS. had the Persian names only, and Hindī ones have
been written in above these; Kehr has the Persian ones only;
Ilminsky has added the Hindī ones. (The spelling of the Hindī
names, in my translation, is copied from Forbes' Dictionary.)
[1903] The Ḥai. MS. writes _garī_ and _garīāl_. The word now
stands for the hour of 60 minutes.
[1904] _i.e._ gong-men. The name is applied also to an
alligator _Lacertus gangeticus_ (Forbes).
[1905] There is some confusion in the text here, the Ḥai. MS.
reading _birinj-dīn tīshī_(?) _nīma qūīūbtūrlār_—the Elph. MS.
(f. 240_b_) _biring-dīn bīr yāssī nīma qūīūbtūrlār_. The
Persian translation, being based on the text of the
Elphinstone Codex reads _az biring yak chīz pahnī rekhta and_.
The word _tīshī_ of the Ḥai. MS. may represent _tasht_ plate
or _yāssī_, broad; against the latter however there is the
sentence that follows and gives the size.
[1906] Here again the wording of the Ḥai. MS. is not clear;
the sense however is obvious. Concerning the clepsydra _vide_
A. A. Jarrett, ii, 15 and notes; Smith's _Dictionary of
Antiquities_; Yule's H.J. _s.n._ Ghurry.
[1907] The table is:—60 _bipals_ = 1 _pal_; 60 _pals_ = 1
_g'harī_ (24 m.); 60 _g'harī_ or 8 _pahr_ = one _dīn-rāt_
(nycthemeron).
[1908] Qorān, cap. CXII, which is a declaration of God's
unity.
[1909] The (S.) _ratī_ = 8 rice-grains (Eng. 8 barley-corns);
the (S.) _māsha_ is a kidney-bean; the (P.) _tānk_ is about 2
oz.; the (Ar.) _miṣqāl_ is equal to 40 _ratīs_; the (S.)
_tūla_ is about 145 oz.; the (S.) _ser_ is of various values
(Wilson's _Glossary_ and Yule's H. J.).
[1910] There being 40 Bengāl _sers_ to the _man_, Bābur's word
_mānbān_ seems to be another name for the _man_ or _maund_. I
have not found _mānbān_ or _mīnāsā_. At first sight _mānbān_
might be taken, in the Ḥai. MS. for (T.) _bātmān_, a weight of
13 or 15 lbs., but this does not suit. Cf. f. 167 note to
_bātmān_ and f. 173_b_ (where, however, in the note f. 157
requires correction to f. 167). For Bābur's table of measures
the Pers. trs. has 40 _sers_ = 1 _man_; 12 _mans_ = 1 _mānī_;
100 _mānī_ they call _mīnāsa_ (217, f. 201_b_, l. 8).
[1911] Presumably these are caste-names.
[1912] The words in parenthesis appear to be omitted from the
text; to add them brings Bābur's remark into agreement with
others on what he several times makes note of, _viz._ the
absence not only of irrigation-channels but of those which
convey "running-waters" to houses and gardens. Such he writes
of in Farghāna; such are a well-known charm _e.g._ in Madeira,
where the swift current of clear water flowing through the
streets, turns into private precincts by side-runlets.
[1913] The Ḥai. MS. writes _lungūtā-dīk_, like a lungūtā,
which better agrees with Bābur's usual phrasing. _Lung_ is
Persian for a cloth passed between the loins, is an equivalent
of S. _dhoti_. Bābur's use of it (_infra_) for the woman's
(P.) _chaddar_ or (S.) _sārī_ does not suit the Dictionary
definition of its meaning.
[1914] When Erskine published the Memoirs in 1826 AD. he
estimated this sum at 1-1/2 millions Sterling, but when he
published his _History of India_ in 1854, he had made further
research into the problem of Indian money values, and judged
then that Bābur's revenue was £4,212,000.
[1915] Erskine here notes that the promised details had not
been preserved, but in 1854 AD. he had found them in a
"paraphrase of part of Bābur", manifestly in Shaikh Zain's
work. He entered and discussed them and some matters of
money-values in Appendices D. and E. of his _History of
India_, vol. I. Ilminsky found them in Kehr's Codex (C. ii,
230). The scribe of the Elph. MS. has entered the revenues of
three _sarkārs_ only, with his usual quotation marks
indicating something extraneous or doubtful. The Ḥai. MS. has
them in contents precisely as I have entered them above, but
with a scattered mode of setting down. They are in Persian,
presumably as they were rendered to Bābur by some Indian
official. This official statement will have been with Bābur's
own papers; it will have been copied by Shaikh Zain into his
own paraphrase. It differs slightly in Erskine's and again, in
de Courteille's versions. I regret that I am incompetent to
throw any light upon the question of its values and that I
must leave some uncertain names to those more expert than
myself. Cf. Erskine's Appendices _l.c._ and Thomas' _Revenue
resources of the Mughal Empire_. For a few comments _see_ App.
P.
[1916] Here the Turkī text resumes in the Ḥai. MS.
[1917] Elph. MS. f. 243_b_; W. i. B. I.O. 215 has not the
events of this year (as to which omission _vide_ note at the
beginning of 932 AH. f. 251_b_) and 217 f. 203; Mems. p. 334;
Ilminsky's imprint p. 380; _Méms._ ii, 232.
[1918] This should be 30th if Saturday was the day of the week
(Gladwin, Cunningham and Bābur's narrative of f. 269).
Saturday appears likely to be right; Bābur entered Āgra on
Thursday 28th; Friday would be used for the Congregational
Prayer and preliminaries inevitable before the distribution of
the treasure. The last day of Bābur's narrative 932 AH. is
Thursday Rajab 28th; he would not be likely to mistake between
Friday, the day of his first Congregational prayer in Āgra,
and Saturday. It must be kept in mind that the _Description of
Hindūstān_ is an interpolation here, and that it was written
in 935 AH., three years later than the incidents here
recorded. The date Rajab 29th may not be Bābur's own entry; or
if it be, may have been made after the interpolation of the
dividing mass of the _Description_ and made wrongly.
[1919] Erskine estimated these sums as "probably £56,700 to
Humāyūn; and the smaller ones as £8,100, £6,480, £5,670 and
£4,860 respectively; very large sums for the age". (_History
of India_, i. 440 n. and App. E.)
[1920] These will be his daughters. Gul-badan gives precise
details of the gifts to the family circle (_Humāyūn-nāma_ f.
10).
[1921] Some of these slaves were Sl. Ibrāhīm's dancing-girls
(Gul-badan, _ib._).
[1922] Ar. _ṣada_. Perhaps it was a station of a hundred men.
Varsak is in Badakhshān, on the water flowing to T̤āliqān from
the Khwāja Muḥammad range. Erskine read (p. 335) _ṣada Varsak_
as _ṣadūr rashk_, incentive to emulation; de C. (ii, 233)
translates _ṣada_ conjecturally by _circonscription_. Shaikh
Zain has Varsak and to the recipients of the gifts adds the
"Khwāstīs, people noted for their piety" (A. N. trs. H. B. i,
248 n.). The gift to Varsak may well have been made in
gratitude for hospitality received by Bābur in the time of
adversity after his loss of Samarkand and before his return to
Kābul in 920 AH.
[1923] _circa_ 10d. or 11d. Bābur left himself stripped so
bare by his far-flung largess that he was nick-named Qalandar
(Firishta).
[1924] Badāyūnī says of him (Bib. Ind. ed. i, 340) that he was
_kāfir kalīma-gū_, a pagan making the Muḥammadan Confession of
Faith, and that he had heard of him, in Akbar's time from
Bairām Khān-i-khānan, as kingly in appearance and poetic in
temperament. He was killed fighting for Rānā Sangā at Kānwaha.
[1925] This is his family name.
[1926] _i.e._ not acting with Ḥasan _Mīwātī_.
[1927] Gul-badan says that the Khwāja several times asked
leave on the ground that his constitution was not fitted for
the climate of Hindūstān; that His Majesty was not at all, at
all, willing for him to go, but gave way at length to his
importunity.
[1928] in Patiāla, about 25 miles s.w. of Aṃbāla.
[1929] Shaikh Zain, Gul-badan and Erskine write Nau-kār. It
was now that Khwāja Kalān conveyed money for the repair of the
great dam at Ghaznī (f. 139).
[1930] The friends did not meet again; that their friendship
weathered this storm is shewn by Bābur's letter of f. 359. The
_Abūshqa_ says the couplet was inscribed on a marble tablet
near the _Ḥauẓ-i-khāṣ_ at the time the Khwāja was in Dihlī
after bidding Bābur farewell in Āgra.
[1931] This quatrain is in the Rāmpūr _Dīwān_ (_q.v._ index).
The _Abūshqa_ quotes the following as Khwāja Kalān's reply,
but without mentioning where the original was found. Cf. de
Courteille, Dict. _s.n._ _taskarī_. An English version is
given in my husband's article _Some verses by the Emperor
Bābur_ (A. Q. R. January, 1911).
You shew your gaiety and your wit,
In each word there lie acres of charm.
Were not all things of Hind upside-down,
How could you in the heat be so pleasant on cold?
It is an old remark of travellers that everything in India is
the opposite of what one sees elsewhere. Tīmūr is said to have
remarked it and to have told his soldiers not to be afraid of
the elephants of India, "For," said he, "their trunks are
empty sleeves, and they carry their tails in front; in
Hindustan everything is reversed" (H. Beveridge _ibid._). Cf.
App. Q.
[1932] Badāyūnī i, 337 speaks of him as unrivalled in music.
[1933] f. 267_b_.
[1934] _aūrūq_, which here no doubt represents the women of
the family.
[1935] _`ain parganalār._
[1936] Bābur's advance, presumably.
[1937] The full amounts here given are not in all MSS., some
scribes contenting themselves with the largest item of each
gift (_Memoirs_ p. 337).
[1938] The `Id of Shawwāl, it will be remembered, is
celebrated at the conclusion of the Ramẓān fast, on seeing the
first new moon of Shawwāl. In A.H. 932 it must have fallen
about July 11th 1526 (Erskine).
[1939] A square shawl, or napkin, of cloth of gold, bestowed
as a mark of rank and distinction (_Memoirs_ p. 338 n.); _une
tunique enrichie de broderies_ (_Mémoires_, ii, 240 n.).
[1940] _kamar-shamshīr._ This Steingass explains as
sword-belt, Erskine by "sword with a belt". The summary
following shews that many weapons were given and not belts
alone. There is a good deal of variation in the MSS. The Ḥai.
MS. has not a complete list. The most all the lists show is
that gifts were many.
[1941] f. 263_b_.
[1942] over the Ganges, a little above Anūp-shahr in the
Buland-shahr district.
[1943] A seeming omission in the text is made good in my
translation by Shaikh Zain's help, who says Qāsim was sent to
Court.
[1944] This quatrain is in the Rāmpūr _Dīwān_. It appears to
pun on Bīāna and _bī(y)ān_.
[1945] Kandār is in Rājpūtāna; Abū'l-faẓl writes Kuhan-dār,
old habitation.
[1946] This is the first time Bābur's begs are called amīrs in
his book; it may be by a scribe's slip.
[1947] Chandwār is on the Jumna, between Āgra and Etāwah.
[1948] Here _āqār-sūlār_ will stand for the waters which
flow—sometimes in marble channels—to nourish plants and charm
the eye, such for example as beautify the Tāj-maḥal
pleasaunce.
[1949] Index _s.n._ The _tālār_ is raised on pillars and open
in front; it serves often for an Audience-hall (Erskine).
[1950] _tāsh `imārat_, which may refer to the extra-mural
location of the house, or contrast it with the inner
_khilwat-khāna_, the women's quarters, of the next sentence.
The point is noted as one concerning the use of the word
_tāsh_ (Index _s.n._). I have found no instance in which it is
certain that Bābur uses _tāsh_, a stone or rock, as an
adjective. On f. 301 he writes _tāshdīn `imārat_,
house-of-stone, which the Persian text renders by
_`imārat-i-sangīn_. Wherever _tāsh_ can be translated as
meaning outer, this accords with Bābur's usual diction.
[1951] _bāghcha_ (Index _s.n._). That Bābur was the admitted
pioneer of orderly gardens in India is shewn by the 30th
_Āyīn_, On Perfumes:—"After the foot-prints of Firdaus-makānī
(Bābur) had added to the glory of Hindūstān, embellishment by
avenues and landscape-gardening was seen, while
heart-expanding buildings and the sound of falling-waters
widened the eyes of beholders."
[1952] Perhaps _gaz_, each somewhat less than 36 inches.
[1953] The more familiar Indian name is _baoli_. Such wells
attracted Peter Mundy's attention; Yule gives an account of
their names and plan (Mundy's _Travels in Asia_, Hakluyt
Society, ed. R. C. Temple, and Yule's _Hobson Jobson_ _s.n._
Bowly). Bābur's account of his great _wāīn_ is not easy to
translate; his interpreters vary from one another; probably no
one of them has felt assured of translating correctly.
[1954] _i.e._ the one across the river.
[1955] _tāsh masjid_; this, unless some adjectival affix
(_e.g._ _dīn_) has been omitted by the scribe, I incline to
read as meaning extra, supplementary, or outer, not as
"mosque-of-stone".
[1956] or Jājmāwa, the old name for the sub-district of
Kānhpūr (Cawnpur).
[1957] _i.e._ of the Corps of Braves.
[1958] Dilmāū is on the left bank of the Ganges, s.e. from
Bareilly (Erskine).
[1959] _Marv-nīng bundī-nī bāghlāb_, which Erskine renders by
"Having settled the revenue of Merv", and de Courteille by,
"_Aprés avoir occupé Merv_." Were the year's revenues
compressed into a 40 to 50 days collection?
[1960] _i.e._ those who had part in his brother's murder. Cf.
Niẕāmu'd-dīn Aḥmad's _T̤abaqāt-i-akbarī_ and the
_Mīrat-i-sikandarī_ (trs. _History of Gujrat_ E. C. Bayley).
[1961] Elph. MS. f. 252; W.-i-B. I.O. 215 f. 199b and 217 f.
208_b_; Mems. p. 343.
[1962] _sīūnchī_ (Zenker). Fārūq was Māhīm's son; he died in
934 A.H. before his father had seen him.
[1963] _ṣalaḥ._ It is clear from the "_tāsh-awī"_ (Pers. trs.
_khāna-i-sang_) of this mortar (_qāzān_) that stones were its
missiles. Erskine notes that from Bābur's account cannon would
seem sometimes to have been made in parts and clamped
together, and that they were frequently formed of iron bars
strongly compacted into a circular shape. The accoutrement
(_ṣalaḥ_) presumably was the addition of fittings.
[1964] About £40,000 sterling (Erskine).
[1965] The MSS. write Ṣafar but it seems probable that
Muḥarram should be substituted for this; one ground for not
accepting Ṣafar being that it breaks the consecutive order of
dates, another that Ṣafar allows what seems a long time for
the journey from near Dilmāū to Āgra. All MSS. I have seen
give the 8th as the day of the month but Erskine has 20th. In
this part of Bābur's writings dates are sparse; it is a
narrative and not a diary.
[1966] This phrase, foreign to Bābur's diction, smacks of a
Court-Persian milieu.
[1967] Here the Elph. MS. has Ṣafar Muḥarram (f. 253), as has
also I.O. 215 f. 200b, but it seems unsafe to take this as an
_al Ṣafarānī_ extension of Muḥarram because Muḥ.-Ṣafar 24th
was not a Wednesday. As in the passage noted just above, it
seems likely that Muḥarram is right.
[1968] Cf. f. 15_b_ note to Qaṃbar-i-`alī. The title
_Akhta-begī_ is to be found translated by "Master of the
Horse", but this would not suit both uses of _akhta_ in the
above sentence. Cf. Shaw's Vocabulary.
[1969] _i.e._ Tahangaṛh in Karauli, Rājpūtāna.
[1970] Perhaps _sipāhī_ represents Hindūstānī foot-soldiers.
[1971] Rafī`u-d-dīn _Ṣafawī_, a native of Īj near the Persian
Gulf, teacher of Abū'l-faẓl's father and buried near Āgra
(_Āyīn-i-akbarī_).
[1972] This phrase, again, departs from Bābur's simplicity of
statement.
[1973] About £5,000 (Erskine).
[1974] About £17,500 (Erskine).
[1975] Ḥai. MS. and 215 f. 201b, Hastī; Elph. MS. f. 254, and
Ilminsky, p. 394, Aīmīshchī; _Memoirs_, p. 346, Imshiji, so
too _Mémoires_, ii, 257.
[1976] About £5000 (Erskine). Bīānwān lies in the _sūbah_ of
Āgra.
[1977] Cf. f. 175 for Bābur's estimate of his service.
[1978] Cf. f. 268_b_ for Bābur's clemency to him.
[1979] Firishta. (Briggs ii, 53) mentions that Asad had gone
to T̤ahmāsp from Kābul to congratulate him on his accession.
Shāh Ismā`īl had died in 930 AH. (1524 AD.); the title
Shāh-zāda is a misnomer therefore in 933 AH.—one possibly
prompted by T̤ahmāsp's youth.
[1980] The letter is likely to have been written to Māhīm and
to have been brought back to India by her in 935 AH. (f.
380_b_). Some MSS. of the Pers. trs. reproduce it in Turkī and
follow this by a Persian version; others omit the Turkī.
[1981] Turkī, _būā_. Hindī _bawā_ means sister or
paternal-aunt but this would not suit from Bābur's mouth, the
more clearly not that his epithet for the offender is
_bad-bakht_. Gul-badan (H.N. f. 19) calls her "ill-omened
demon".
[1982] She may have been still in the place assigned to her
near Āgra when Bābur occupied it (f. 269).
[1983] f. 290. Erskine notes that the _tūla_ is about equal in
weight to the silver _rūpī_.
[1984] It appears from the kitchen-arrangements detailed by
Abū'l-faẓl, that before food was dished up, it was tasted from
the pot by a cook and a subordinate taster, and next by the
Head-taster.
[1985] The Turkī sentences which here follow the well-known
Persian proverb, _Rasīda būd balāī walī ba khair guẕasht_, are
entered as verse in some MSS.; they may be a prose quotation.
[1986] She, after being put under contribution by two of
Bābur's officers (f. 307_b_) was started off for Kābul, but,
perhaps dreading her reception there, threw herself into the
Indus in crossing and was drowned. (Cf. A.N. trs. H. Beveridge
_Errata_ and _addenda_ p. xi for the authorities.)
[1987] _gil makhtūm_, Lemnian earth, _terra sigillata_, each
piece of which was impressed, when taken from the quarry, with
a guarantee-stamp (Cf. Ency. Br. _s.n._ Lemnos).
[1988] _tirīāq-i-fārūq_, an antidote.
[1989] Index _s.n._
[1990] Kāmrān was in Qandahār (Index _s.n._). Erskine observes
here that Bābur's omission to give the name of Ibrāhīm's son,
is noteworthy; the son may however have been a child and his
name not known to or recalled by Bābur when writing some years
later.
[1991] f. 299_b_.
[1992] The _Āyīn-i-akbarī_ locates this in the _sarkār_ of
Jūn-pūr, a location suiting the context. The second Persian
translation (`Abdu'r-raḥīm's) has here a scribe's skip from
one "news" to another (both asterisked in my text); hence
Erskine has an omission.
[1993] This is the Chār-bāgh of f. 300, known later as the Rām
(Arām)-bāgh (Garden-of-rest).
[1994] Presumably he was coming up from Marwār.
[1995] This name varies; the Ḥai. MS. in most cases writes
Qismatī, but on f. 267_b_, Qismatāī; the Elph. MS. on f. 220
has Q:s:mnāī; De Courteille writes Qismī.
[1996] _artkāb qīldī_, perhaps drank wine, perhaps ate
opium-confections to the use of which he became addicted later
on (Gulbadan's _Humāyūn-nāma_ f. 30_b_ and 73_b_).
[1997] _furṣatlār_, _i.e._ between the occupation of Āgra and
the campaign against Rānā Sangā.
[1998] Apparently the siege Bābur broke up in 931 AH. had been
renewed by the Aūzbegs (f. 255_b_ and Trs. Note _s.a._ 931 AH.
section _c_).
[1999] These places are on the Khulm-river between Khulm and
Kāhmard. The present tense of this and the following sentences
is Babur's.
[2000] f. 261.
[2001] Erskine here notes that if the _ser_ Bābur mentions be
one of 14 _tūlas_, the value is about £27; if of 24 _tūlas_,
about £45.
[2002] T. _chāpdūq_. Cf. the two Persian translations 215 f.
205_b_ and 217 f. 215; also Ilminsky, p. 401.
[2003] _būlghān chīrīkī._ The Rānā's forces are thus stated by
Tod (_Rājastān; Annals of Marwār_ Cap. ix):—"Eighty thousand
horse, 7 Rajas of the highest rank, 9 Raos, and 104 chieftains
bearing the titles of Rawul and Rawut, with 500 war-elephants,
followed him into the field." Bābur's army, all told, was
12,000 when he crossed the Indus from Kābul; it will have had
accretions from his own officers in the Panj-āb and some also
from other quarters, and will have had losses at Pānipat; his
reliable kernel of fighting-strength cannot but have been
numerically insignificant, compared with the Rājpūt host. Tod
says that almost all the princes of Rājastān followed the Rānā
at Kanwā.
[2004] _dūrbātūr._ This is the first use of the word in the
_Bābur-nāma_; the defacer of the Elph. Codex has altered it to
_aūrātūr_.
[2005] Shaikh Zain records [Abū'l-faẓl also, perhaps quoting
from him] that Bābur, by varying diacritical points, changed
the name Sīkrī to Shukrī in sign of gratitude for his victory
over the Rānā. The place became the Fatḥpūr-sīkrī of Akbar.
[2006] Erskine locates this as 10 to 12 miles n.w. of Bīāna.
[2007] This phrase has not occurred in the B.N. before;
presumably it expresses what has not yet been expressed; this
Erskine's rendering, "each according to the speed of his
horse," does also. The first Persian translation, which in
this portion is by Muḥammad-qulī _Mughūl Ḥiṣārī_, translates
by _az daṃbal yak dīgar_ (I.O. 215, f. 205_b_); the second,
`Abdu'r-rāḥīm's, merely reproduces the phrase; De Courteille
(ii, 272) appears to render it by (amirs) _que je ne nomme
pas_. If my reading of T̤āhir-tibrī's failure be correct
(_infra_), Erskine's translation suits the context.
[2008] The passage cut off by my asterisks has this outside
interest that it forms the introduction to the so-called
"Fragments", that is, to certain Turkī matter not included in
the standard _Bābur-nāma_, but preserved with the
Kehr—Ilminsky—de Courteille text. As is well-known in
Bāburiana, opinion has varied as to the genesis of this
matter; there is now no doubt that it is a translation into
Turkī from the (_Persian_) _Akbar-nāma_, prefaced by the
above-asterisked passage of the _Bābur-nāma_ and continuous
(with slight omissions) from Bib. Ind. ed. i, 106 to 120 (trs.
H. Beveridge i, 260 to 282). It covers the time from before
the battle of Kanwā to the end of Abū'l-faẓl's description of
Bābur's death, attainments and Court; it has been made to seem
Bābur's own, down to his death-bed, by changing the third
person of A.F.'s narrative into the autobiographical first
person. (Cf. Ilminsky, p. 403 l. 4 and p. 494; _Mémoires_ ii,
272 and 443 to 464; JRAS. 1908, p. 76.)
A minute point in the history of the B.N. manuscripts may be
placed on record here; _viz._ that the variants from the true
_Bābur-nāma_ text which occur in the Kehr-Ilminsky one, occur
also in the corrupt Turkī text of I.O. No. 214 (JRAS 1900, p.
455).
[2009] _chāpār kūmak yītmās_, perhaps implying that the speed
of his horses was not equal to that of Muḥibb-i-'alī's.
Translators vary as to the meaning of the phrase.
[2010] Erskine and de Courteille both give Musṯafa the
commendation the Turkī and Persian texts give to the carts.
[2011] According to Tod's _Rājastān_, negotiations went on
during the interval, having for their object the fixing of a
frontier between the Rānā and Bābur. They were conducted by a
"traitor" Ṣalaḥ'd-dīn _Tūār_ the chief of Raisin, who moreover
is said to have deserted to Bābur during the battle.
[2012] Cf. f. 89 for Bābur's disastrous obedience to
astrological warning.
[2013] For the reading of this second line, given by the good
MSS. _viz._ _Tauba ham bī maza nīst, bachash_, Ilminsky (p.
405) has _Tauba ham bī maza, mast bakhis_, which de Courteille
[II, 276] renders by, "_O ivrogne insensé! que ne goûtes-tu
aussi à la pénitence?_" The Persian couplet seems likely to
be a quotation and may yet be found elsewhere. It is not in
the Rāmpūr Dīwān which contains the Turkī verses following it
(E. D. Ross p. 21).
[2014] _kīchmāklīk_, to pass over (to exceed?), to ford or go
through a river, whence to transgress. The same metaphor of
crossing a stream occurs, in connection with drinking, on f.
189_b_.
[2015] This line shews that Bābur's renouncement was of wine
only; he continued to eat confections (_ma`jūn_).
[2016] Cf. f. 186_b_. Bābur would announce his renunciation in
Dīwān; there too the forbidden vessels of precious metals
would be broken. His few words leave it to his readers to
picture the memorable scene.
[2017] This night-guard (_`asas_) cannot be the one concerning
whom Gul-badan records that he was the victim of a little joke
made at his expense by Bābur (H. N. Index _s.n._). He seems
likely to be the Ḥājī Muḥ. _`asas_ whom Abū'l-faẓl mentions in
connection with Kāmrān in 953 AH. (1547 AD.). He may be the
_`asas_ who took charge of Bābur's tomb at Āgra (cf.
Gul-badan's H. N. _s.n._ Muḥ. `Alī _`asas ṯaghāī_, and
_Akbar-nāma_ trs. i, 502).
[2018] _saqālī qīrqmāqta u qūīmāqta._ Erskine here notes that
"a vow to leave the beard untrimmed was made sometimes by
persons who set out against the infidels. They did not trim
the beard till they returned victorious. Some vows of similar
nature may be found in Scripture", _e.g._ II Samuel, cap. 19
v. 24.
[2019] Index _s.n._ The _tamghā_ was not really abolished
until Jahāngīr's time—if then (H. Beveridge). See Thomas'
_Revenue Resources of the Mughal Empire_.
[2020] There is this to notice here:—Bābur's narrative has
made the remission of the _tamghā_ contingent on his success,
but the _farmān_ which announced that remission is dated some
three weeks before his victory over Rānā Sangā (Jumāda II,
13th-March 16th). Manifestly Bābur's remission was absolute
and made at the date given by Shaikh Zain as that of the
_farmān_. The _farmān_ seems to have been despatched as soon
as it was ready, but may have been inserted in Bābur's
narrative at a later date, together with the preceding
paragraph which I have asterisked.
[2021] "There is a lacuna in the Turkī copy" (_i.e._ the
Elphinstone Codex) "from this place to the beginning of the
year 935. Till then I therefore follow only Mr. Metcalfe's and
my own Persian copies" (Erskine).
[2022] I am indebted to my husband for this revised version of
the _farmān_. He is indebted to M. de Courteille for help
generally, and specially for the references to the Qorān
(_q.v. infra_).
[2023] The passages in italics are Arabic in the original, and
where traced to the Qorān, are in Sale's words.
[2024] _Qorān, Sūrah_ XII, v. 53.
[2025] _Sūrah_ LVII, v. 21.
[2026] _Sūrah_ LVII, v. 15.
[2027] _Sūrah_ VII, v. 140.
[2028] _Sūrah_ II, v. 185.
[2029] These may be self-conquests as has been understood by
Erskine (p. 356) and de Courteille (ii. 281) but as the Divine
"acceptance" would seem to Bābur vouched for by his military
success, "victories" may stand for his success at Kanwā.
[2030] _Sūrah_ II, 177 where, in Sale's translation, the
change referred to is the special one of altering a legacy.
[2031] The words _dīgūchī_ and _yīgūchī_ are translated in the
second _Wāqi`āt-i-bāburī_ by _sukhan-gūī_ and
[_wīlāyat_]_-khwār_. This ignores in them the future element
supplied by their component _gū_ which would allow them to
apply to conditions dependent on Bābur's success. The Ḥai. MS.
and Ilminsky read _tīgūchī_, supporter- or helper-to-be, in
place of the _yīgūchī_, eater-to-be I have inferred from the
_khwār_ of the Pers. translation; hence de Courteille writes
"_amīrs auxquels incombait l'obligation de raffermir le
gouvernement_". But Erskine, using the Pers. text alone, and
thus having _khwār_ before him, translates by, "amīrs who
enjoyed the wealth of kingdoms." The two Turkī words make a
depreciatory "jingle", but the first one, _dīgūchī_, may imply
serious reference to the duty, declared by Muḥammad to be
incumbent upon a wazīr, of reminding his sovereign "when he
forgetteth his duty". Both may be taken as alluding to
dignities to be attained by success in the encounter from
which wazīrs and amīrs were shrinking.
[2032] Firdausī's _Shāh-nāma_ [Erskine].
[2033] Also Chand-wāl; it is 25 m. east of Āgra and on the
Jamna [_T̤abaqāṭ-i-nāṣirī_, Raverty, p. 742 n.9]
[2034] Probably, Overthrower of the rhinoceros, but if
_Gurg-andāz_ be read, of the wolf.
[2035] According to the Persian calendar this is the day the
Sun enters Aries.
[2036] The practical purpose of this order of march is shewn
in the account of the battle of Pānīpat, and in the Letter of
Victory, f. 319.
[2037] _kurohcha_, perhaps a short _kuroh_, but I have not
found Bābur using _cha_ as a diminutive in such a case as
_kurohcha_.
[2038] or Kānūa, in the Bīānā district and three marches from
Bīāna-town. "It had been determined on by Rānā Sangrām Sīngh
(_i.e._ Sangā) for the northern limit of his dominions, and he
had here built a small palace." Tod thus describes Bābur's
foe, "Sangā Rānā was of the middle stature, and of great
muscular strength, fair in complexion, with unusually large
eyes which appear to be peculiar to his descendants. He
exhibited at his death but the fragments of a warrior: one eye
was lost in the broil with his brother, an arm in action with
the Lodī kings of Dehlī, and he was a cripple owing to a limb
being broken by a cannon-ball in another; while he counted 80
wounds from the sword or the lance on various parts of his
body" (Tod's _Rājastān_, cap. Annals of Mewār).
[2039] Here M. de C. has the following note (ii, 273 n.); it
supplements my own of f. 264 [n. 3]. "_Le mot arāba, que j'ai
traduit par chariot est pris par M. Leyden_" (this should be
Erskine) "_dans le sens de 'gun', ce que je ne crois pas
exact; tout au plus signifierait-il affût_" (gun-carriage).
"_Il me parait impossible d'admettre que Bāber eût à sa
disposition une artillerie attelée aussi considérable. Ces
arāba pouvaient servir en partie à transporter des pièces de
campagne, mais ils avaient aussi une autre destination, comme
on le voit par la suite du récit._" It does not appear to me
that Erskine _translates_ the word _arāba_ by the word _gun_,
but that the _arābas_ (all of which he took to be
gun-carriages) being there, he supposed the guns. This was not
correct as the various passages about carts as defences show
(cf. Index _s.nn._ _arāba_ and carts).
[2040] It is characteristic of Bābur that he reproduces Shaikh
Zain's _Fatḥ-nāma_, not because of its eloquence but because
of its useful details. Erskine and de Courteille have the
following notes concerning Shaikh Zain's _farmān_:—"Nothing
can form a more striking contrast to the simple, manly and
intelligent style of Baber himself, than the pompous, laboured
periods of his secretary. Yet I have never read this Firmān to
any native of India who did not bestow unlimited admiration on
the official bombast of Zeineddin, while I have met with none
but Turks who paid due praise to the calm simplicity of Baber"
[Mems. p. 359]. "_Comme la précédente (farmān), cette pièce
est rédigée en langue persane et offre un modèle des plus
accomplis du style en usage dans les chancelleries orientales.
La traduction d'un semblable morceau d'éloquence est de la
plus grande difficulté, si on veut être clair, tout en restant
fidèle à l'original._"
Like the Renunciation _farmān_, the Letter-of-victory with its
preceding sentence which I have asterisked, was probably
inserted into Bābur's narrative somewhat later than the battle
of Kānwa. Hence Bābur's pluperfect-tense "had indited". I am
indebted to my husband for help in revising the difficult
_Fatḥ-nāma_; he has done it with consideration of the variants
between the earlier English and the French translations. No
doubt it could be dealt with more searchingly still by one
well-versed in the Qorān and the Traditions, and thus able to
explain others of its allusions. The italics denote Arabic
passages in the original; many of these are from the Qorān,
and in tracing them M. de Courteille's notes have been most
useful to us.
[2041] Qorān, cap. 80, last sentence.
[2042] Shaikh Zain, in his version of the _Bābur-nāma_, styles
Bābur Nawāb where there can be no doubt of the application of
the title, _viz._ in describing Shāh T̤ahmāsp's gifts to him
(mentioned by Bābur on f. 305). He uses the title also in the
_farmān_ of renunciation (f. 313_b_), but it does not appear
in my text, "royal" (fortune) standing for it (_in loco_ p.
555, l. 10).
[2043] The possessive pronoun occurs several times in the
Letter-of-victory. As there is no semblance of putting forward
that letter as being Bābur's, the pronoun seems to imply "on
our side".
[2044] The _Bābur-nāma_ includes no other than Shaikh Zain's
about Kanwā. Those here alluded to will be the announcements
of success at Milwat, Pānīpat, Dībālpūr and perhaps elsewhere
in Hindūstān.
[2045] In Jūn-pūr (_Āyīn-i-akbarī_); Elliot & Dowson note (iv,
283-4) that it appears to have included, near Sikandarpūr, the
country on both sides of the Gogra, and thence on that river's
left bank down to the Ganges.
[2046] That the word Nawāb here refers to Bābur and not to his
lieutenants, is shewn by his mention (f. 278) of Sangā's
messages to himself.
[2047] Qorān, cap. 2, v. 32. The passage quoted is part of a
description of Satan, hence mention of Satan in Shaikh Zain's
next sentence.
[2048] The brahminical thread.
[2049] _khār-i-miḥnat-i-irtidād dar dāman._ This Erskine
renders by "who fixed thorns from the pangs of apostacy in the
hem of their garments" (p. 360). Several good MSS. have
_khār_, thorn, but Ilminsky has Ar. _khimār_, cymar, instead
(p. 411). De Courteille renders the passage by "_portent au
pan de leurs habits la marque douloureuse de l'apostasie_"
(ii, 290). To read _khimār_, cymar (scarf), would serve, as a
scarf is part of some Hindū costumes.
[2050] Qorān, cap. 69, v. 35.
[2051] M. Defrémery, when reviewing the French translation of
the B.N. (_Journal des Savans_ 1873), points out (p. 18) that
it makes no mention of the "blessed ten". Erskine mentions
them but without explanation. They are the _'asharah
mubash-sharah_, the decade of followers of Muḥammad who
"received good tidings", and whose certain entry into Paradise
he foretold.
[2052] Qorān, cap. 3, v. 20. M. Defrémery reads Shaikh Zain to
mean that these words of the Qorān were on the infidel
standards, but it would be simpler to read Shaikh Zain as
meaning that the infidel insignia on the standards "denounce
punishment" on their users.
[2053] He seems to have been a Rājpūt convert to Muḥammadanism
who changed his Hindī name Silhādī for what Bābur writes. His
son married Sangā's daughter; his fiefs were Raisin and
Sārangpūr; he deserted to Bābur in the battle of Kānwa. (Cf.
Erskine's _History of India_ i, 471 note; _Mirāt-i-sikandarī_,
Bayley's trs. _s.n._; _Akbar-nāma_, H.B.'s trs. i, 261; Tod's
_Rājastān_ cap. Mewār.)
[2054] "Dejāl or al Masih al Dajjal, the false or lying
Messiah, is the Muhammadan Anti-christ. He is to be one-eyed,
and marked on the forehead with the letters K.F.R. signifying
Kafer, or Infidel. He is to appear in the latter days riding
on an ass, and will be followed by 70,000 Jews of Ispahān, and
will continue on the Earth 40 days, of which one will be equal
to a year, another to a month, another to a week, and the rest
will be common days. He is to lay waste all places, but will
not enter Mekka or Medina, which are to be guarded by angels.
He is finally to be slain at the gate of Lud by Jesus, for
whom the Musalmans profess great veneration, calling him the
breath or spirit of God.—See Sale's _Introductory Discourse to
the Koran_" [Erskine].
[2055] Qorān, cap. 29, v. 5.
[2056] "This alludes to the defeat of [an Abyssinian
Christian] Abraha the prince of Yemen who [in the year of
Muḥammad's birth] marched his army and some elephants to
destroy the _ka`ba_ of Makka. 'The Meccans,' says Sale, 'at
the appearance of so considerable a host, retired to the
neighbouring mountains, being unable to defend their city or
temple. But God himself undertook the defence of both. For
when Abraha drew near to Mecca, and would have entered it, the
elephant on which he rode, which was a very large one and
named Maḥmūd, refused to advance any nigher to the town, but
knelt down whenever they endeavoured to force him that way,
though he would rise and march briskly enough if they turned
him towards any other quarter; and while matters were in this
posture, on a sudden a large flock of birds, like swallows,
came flying from the sea-coast, every-one of which carried
three stones, one in each foot and one in its bill; and these
stones they threw down upon the heads of Abraha's men,
certainly killing every one they struck.' The rest were swept
away by a flood or perished by a plague, Abraha alone reaching
Senaa, where he also died" [Erskine]. The above is taken from
Sale's note to the 105 chapter of the Qorān, entitled "the
Elephant".
[2057] Presumably black by reason of their dark large mass.
[2058] Presumably, devouring as fire.
[2059] This is 50 m. long and blocked the narrow pass of the
Caspian Iron-gates. It ends south of the Russian town of
Dar-band, on the west shore of the Caspian. Erskine states
that it was erected to repress the invasions of Yajuj and
Mujuj (Gog and Magog).
[2060] Qorān, cap. lxi, v. 4.
[2061] Qorān, cap. ii, v. 4. Erskine appears to quote another
verse.
[2062] Qorān, cap. xlviii, v. 1.
[2063] Index _s.n._
[2064] _Khirad_, Intelligence or the first Intelligence, was
supposed to be the guardian of the empyreal heaven (Erskine).
[2065] Chīn-tīmūr _Chīngīz-khānid Chaghatāī_ is called Bābur's
brother because a (maternal-) cousin of Bābur's own
generation, their last common ancestor being Yūnas Khān.
[2066] Sulaimān _Tīmūrid Mīrān-shāhī_ is called Bābur's son
because his father was of Bābur's generation, their last
common ancestor being Sl. Abū-sa`id Mīrzā. He was 13 years old
and, through Shāh Begīm, hereditary shāh of Badakhshān.
[2067] The Shaikh was able, it would appear, to see himself as
others saw him, since the above description of him is his own.
It is confirmed by Abū'l-faẓl and Badāyūnī's accounts of his
attainments.
[2068] The honourable post given to this amīr of Hind is
likely to be due to his loyalty to Bābur.
[2069] Aḥmad may be a nephew of Yūsuf of the same agnomen
(Index _s.nn._).
[2070] I have not discovered the name of this old servant or
the meaning of his seeming-sobriquet, Hindū. As a _qūchīn_ he
will have been a Mughūl or Turk. The circumstance of his
service with a son of Maḥmūd _Mīrān-shāhī_ (down to 905 AH.)
makes it possible that he drew his name in his youth from the
tract s.e. of Maḥmūd's Ḥiṣār territory which has been known as
Little Hind (Index _s.n._ Hind). This is however conjecture
merely. Another suggestion is that as _hindū_ can mean
_black_, it may stand for the common _qarā_ of the Turks,
_e.g._ Qarā Barlās, Black Barlās.
[2071] I am uncertain whether Qarā-qūzī is the name of a
place, or the jesting sobriquet of more than one meaning it
can be.
[2072] Soul-full, animated; var. Ḥai. MS. _khān-dār_. No
agnomen is used for Asad by Bābur. The _Akbar-nāma_ varies to
_jāmadār_, wardrobe-keeper, cup-holder (_Bib. Ind._ ed. i,
107), and Firishta to _sar-jāmadar_, head wardrobe-keeper
(lith. ed. p. 209 top). It would be surprising to find such an
official sent as envoy to `Irāq, as Asad was both before and
after he fought at Kānwa.
[2073] son of Daulat Khān _Yūsuf-khail Lūdī_.
[2074] These are the titles of the 20th and 36th chapters of
the Qorān; Sale offers conjectural explanations of them. The
"family" is Muḥammad's.
[2075] a Bāī-qarā Tīmūrid of Bābur's generation, their last
common ancestor being Tīmūr himself.
[2076] an Aūzbeg who married a daughter of Sl. Ḥusain M.
_Bāī-qarā_.
[2077] It has been pointed out to me that there is a Chinese
title of nobility _Yūn-wāng_, and that it may be behind the
words _jang-jang_. Though the suggestion appears to me
improbable, looking to the record of Bābur's officer, to the
prevalence of sobriquets amongst his people, and to what would
be the sporadic appearance of a Chinese title or even
class-name borne by a single man amongst them. I add this
suggestion to those of my note on the meaning of the words
(Index _s.n._ Muḥ. `Alī). The title _Jūn-wāng_ occurs in Dr.
Denison Ross' _Three MSS. from Kāshghar_, p. 5, v. 5 and
translator's preface, p. 14.
[2078] Cf. f. 266 and f. 299. _Yārāgī_ may be the name of his
office, (from _yārāq_) and mean provisioner of arms or food or
other military requirements.
[2079] or, Tardī _yakka_, the champion, Gr. _monomachus_ (A.
N. trs. i, 107 n.).
[2080] var. 1 watch and 2 _g'harīs_; the time will have been
between 9 and 10 a.m.
[2081] _jūldū ba nām al `azīz-i-barādar shud_, a phrase not
easy to translate.
[2082] _viz._ those chained together as a defence and probably
also those conveying the culverins.
[2083] The comparison may be between the darkening smoke of
the fire-arms and the heresy darkening pagan hearts.
[2084] There appears to be a distinction of title between the
_akhta-begī_ and the _mīr-akhẉūr_ (master of the horse).
[2085] Qorān, cap. 14, v. 33.
[2086] These two men were in one of the flanking-parties.
[2087] This phrase "our brother" would support the view that
Shaikh Zain wrote as for Bābur, if there were not, on the
other hand, mention of Bābur as His Majesty, and the precious
royal soul.
[2088] _dīwānīān_ here may mean those associated with the
wazīr in his duties: and not those attending at Court.
[2089] Qorān, cap. 14, v. 52.
[2090] Index _s.n. chuhra_ (a brave).
[2091] _hizabrān-i-besha yakrangī_, literally, forest-tigers
(or, lions) of one hue.
[2092] There may be reference here to the chains used to
connect the carts into a defence.
[2093] The braves of the _khāṣa tābīn_ were part of Bābur's
own centre.
[2094] perhaps the cataphract elephants; perhaps the men in
mail.
[2095] Qorān, cap. 101, v. 54.
[2096] Qorān, cap. 101, v. 4.
[2097] _bā andākhtan-i-sang u ẓarb-zan tufak bisyārī._ As
Bābur does not in any place mention metal missiles, it seems
safest to translate _sang_ by its plain meaning of _stone_.
[2098] Also, metaphorically, swords.
[2099] _tīr._ My husband thinks there is a play upon the two
meanings of this word, arrow and the planet Mercury; so too in
the next sentence, that there may be allusion in the _kuākib
s̤awābit_ to the constellation Pegasus, opposed to Bābur's
squadrons of horse.
[2100] The Fish mentioned in this verse is the one pictured by
Muḥammadan cosmogony as supporting the Earth. The violence of
the fray is illustrated by supposing that of Earth's seven
climes one rose to Heaven in dust, thus giving Heaven eight.
The verse is from Firdausī's _Shāh-nāma_, [Turner-Macan's ed.
i, 222]. The translation of it is Warner's, [ii, 15 and n.]. I
am indebted for the information given in this note to my
husband's long search in the _Shāh-nāmā_.
[2101] Qorān, cap. 3, v. 133.
[2102] Qorān, cap. 61, v. 13.
[2103] Qorān, cap. 48, v. 1.
[2104] Qorān, cap. 48, v. 3.
[2105] [see p. 572] _farāsh_. De Courteille, reading _firāsh_,
translates this metaphor by _comme un lit lorsqu'il est
défait_. He refers to Qorān, cap. 101, v. 3. A better metaphor
for the breaking up of an army than that of moths scattering,
one allowed by the word _farāsh_, but possibly not by
Muḥammad, is _vanished like bubbles on wine_.
[2106] Bāgar is an old name for Dungarpūr and Bānswāra [_G. of
I._ vi, 408 _s.n._ Bānṣwāra].
[2107] _sic_, Ḥai. MS. and may be so read in I.O. 217 f.
220_b___; Erskine writes Bikersi (p. 367) and notes the
variant Nagersi; Ilminsky (p. 421) N:krsī; de Courteille (ii.
307) Niguersi.
[2108] Cf. f. 318_b_, and note, where it is seen that the
stones which killed the lords of the Elephants were so small
as to be carried in the bill of a bird like a swallow. Were
such stones used in matchlocks in Bābur's day?
[2109] _guzāran_, var. _gurazān_, caused to flee and hogs
(Erskine notes the double-meaning).
[2110] This passage, entered in some MSS. as if verse, is made
up of Qorān, cap. 17, v. 49, cap. 33, v. 38, and cap. 3, v.
122.
[2111] As the day of battle was Jumāda II. 13th (March 16th),
the _Fatḥ-nāma_ was ready and dated twelve days after that
battle. It was started for Kābul on Rajab 9th (April 11th).
Something may be said here appropriately about the surmise
contained in Dr. Ilminsky's Preface and M. de Courteille's
note to _Mémoires_ ii, 443 and 450, to the effect that Bābur
wrote a plain account of the battle of Kanwā and for this in
his narrative substituted Shaikh Zain's _Fatḥ-nāma_, and that
the plain account has been preserved in Kehr's _Bābur-nāma_
volume [whence Ilminsky reproduced it, it was translated by M.
de Courteille and became known as a "Fragment" of Bāburiana].
Almost certainly both scholars would have judged adversely of
their suggestion by the light of to-day's easier research. The
following considerations making against its value, may be set
down:—
(1) There is no sign that Bābur ever wrote a plain account of
the battle or any account of it. There is against his doing so
his statement that he inserts Shaikh Zain's _Fatḥ-nāma_
because it gives particulars. If he had written any account,
it would be found preceding the _Fatḥ-nāma_, as his account of
his renunciation of wine precedes Shaikh Zain's _Farmān_
announcing the act.
(2) Moreover, the "Fragment" cannot be described as a plain
account such as would harmonize with Bābur's style; it is in
truth highly rhetorical, though less so as Shaikh Zain's.
(3) The "Fragment" begins with a quotation from the
_Bābur-nāma_ (f.310_b_ and n.), skips a good deal of Bābur's
matter preliminary to the battle, and passes on with what
there can be no doubt is a translation in inferior Turkī of
the _Akbar-nāma_ account.
(4) The whole of the extra matter is seen to be continuous and
not fragmentary, if it is collated with the chapter in which
Abū'l-faẓl describes the battle, its sequel of events, the
death, character, attainments, and Court of Bābur. Down to the
death, it is changed to the first person so as to make Bābur
seem to write it. The probable concocter of it is Jahāngīr.
(5) If the Fragment were Bābur's composition, where was it
when `Abdu-r-raḥīm translated the _Bābur-nāma_ in 998 AH.-1590
AD.; where too did Abū'l-faẓl find it to reproduce in the
_Akbar-nāma_?
(6) The source of Abū'l-faẓl's information seems without doubt
to be Bābur's own narrative and Shaikh Zain's _Fatḥ-nāma_.
There are many significant resemblances between the two
rhetoricians' metaphors and details selected.
(7) A good deal might be said of the dissimilarities between
Bābur's diction and that of the "Fragment". But this is
needless in face of the larger and more circumstantial
objections already mentioned.
(For a fuller account of the "Fragment" see JRAS. Jan. 1906
pp. 81, 85 and 1908 p. 75 ff.)
[2112] _T̤ughrā_ means an imperial signature also, but would
Bābur sign Shaikh Zain's _Fatḥ-i-nāma_? His autograph verse at
the end of the _Rāmpūr Dīwān_ has his signature following it.
He is likely to have signed this verse. Cf. App. Q. [Erskine
notes that titles were written on the back of despatches, an
unlikely place for the quatrain, one surmises.]
[2113] This is in the _Rāmpūr dīwān_ (E.D.R. Plate 17). Dr. E.
Denison Ross points out (p. 17 n.) that in the 2nd line the
Ḥai. Codex varies from the _Dīwān_. The MS. is wrong; it
contains many inaccuracies in the latter part of the Hindūstān
section, perhaps due to a change of scribe.
[2114] These words by _abjad_ yield 933. From Bābur's use of
the pluperfect tense, I think it may be inferred that (my)
Sections _a_ and _b_ are an attachment to the _Fatḥ-nāma_,
entered with it at a somewhat later date.
[2115] My translation of this puzzling sentence is tentative
only.
[2116] This statement shews that the Dībālpūr affair occurred
in one of the B.N. gaps, and in 930 AH. The words make 330 by
_abjad_. It may be noted here that on f. 312_b_ and notes
there are remarks concerning whether Bābur's remission of the
_tamghā_ was contingent on his winning at Kānwa. If the
remission had been delayed until his victory was won, it would
have found fitting mention with the other sequels of victory
chronicled above; as it is not with these sequels, it may be
accepted as an absolute remission, proclaimed before the
fight. The point was a little uncertain owing to the seemingly
somewhat deferred insertion in Bābur's narrative of Shaikh
Zain's _Farmān_.
[2117] _dā'ira_, presumably a defended circle. As the word
_aūrdū_ [bracketed in the text] shows, Bābur used it both for
his own and for Sangā's camps.
[2118] Hence the Rānā escaped. He died in this year, not
without suspicion of poison.
[2119] _aīchīmnī khālī qīldīm_, a seeming equivalent for
English, "I poured out my spleen."
[2120] var. _malūk_ as _e.g._ in I.O. 217 f.225_b_, and also
elsewhere in the _Bābur-nāma_.
[2121] On f. 315 the acts attributed to Ilīās Khān are said to
have been done by a "mannikin called Rustam Khān". Neither
name appears elsewhere in the B.N.; the hero's name seems a
sarcasm on the small man.
[2122] Bābur so-calls both Ḥasan and his followers, presumably
because they followed their race sympathies, as of Rājpūt
origin, and fought against co-religionists. Though Ḥasan's
subjects, Meos, were nominally Muḥammadans, it appears that
they practised some Hindu customs. For an account of Mīwāt,
see _Gazetteer of Ulwur_ (Alwar, Alūr) by Major P. W. Powlett.
[2123] Alwar being in Mīwāt, Bābur may mean that bodies were
found beyond that town in the main portion of the Mīwāt
country which lies north of Alwar towards Dihlī.
[2124] Major Powlett speaking (p. 9) of the revenue Mīwāt paid
to Bābur, quotes Thomas as saying that the coins stated in
Bābur's Revenue Accounts, _viz._ 169,810,00 _tankas_ were
probably Sikandarī _tankas_, or Rs. 8,490,50.
[2125] This word appears to have been restricted in its use to
the Khān-zādas of the ruling house in Mīwāt, and was not used
for their subjects, the Meos (Powlett _l.c._ Cap. I.). The
uses of "Mīwātī" and "Meo" suggest something analogous with
those of "Chaghatāī" and "Mughūl" in Bābur's time. The
resemblance includes mutual dislike and distrust (Powlett
_l.c._).
[2126] _qīlūrlār aīkān dūr._ This presumptive past tense is
frequently used by the cautious Bābur. I quote it here and in
a few places near-following because it supports Shaw's
statement that in it the use of _aīkān_ (_īkān_) reduces the
positive affirmation of the perfect to presumption or rumour.
With this statement all grammarians are not agreed; it is
fully supported by the _Bābur-nāma_.
[2127] Contrast here is suggested between Sulṯāns of Dihlī &
Hind; is it between the greater Turks with whom Bābur classes
himself immediately below as a conqueror of Hind, and the Lūdī
Sulṯāns of Dihlī?
[2128] The strength of the Tijāra hills towards Dihlī is
historical (Powlett _l.c._ p. 132).
[2129] This is one of the names of the principal river which
flows eastwards to the south of Alwar town; other names are
Bārah and Rūparel. Powlett notes that it appears in Thorn's
Map of the battle of Laswarree (1803 AD.), which he reproduces
on p. 146. But it is still current in Gurgaon, with also a
variant Mānas-le, man-killer (_G. of Gurgaon_ 1910 AD. ivA,
p.6).
[2130] _aūltūrūrlār aīkān dūr_, the presumptive past tense.
[2131] f.308.
[2132] _qīlghān aīkān dūr_, the presumptive past tense.
[2133] _Sulṯān ātīghā juldū būlūb_; Pers. trs. _Juldū ba nām-i
Sulṯān shud_. The _juldū_ guerdon seems to be apart from the
fief and allowance.
[2134] f. 315.
[2135] Bābur does not record this detail (f. 315).
[2136] f. 298_b_ and f. 328_b_. Ja`far is mentioned as Mahdī's
son by Gul-badan and in the _Ḥabību's-siyar_ iii, 311, 312.
[2137] f. 388_b_.
[2138] The town of Fīrūzpūr is commonly known as
Fīrūzpūr-jhirka (Fīrūzpūr of the spring), from a small
perennial stream which issues from a number of fissures in the
rocks bordering the road through a pass in the Mīwāt hills
which leads from the town _viâ_ Tijāra to Rewārī (_G. of
Gurgaon_, p. 249). In Abū'l-faẓl's day there was a Hindū
shrine of Mahadeo near the spring, which is still a place of
annual pilgrimage. The Kūtila lake is called Kotla-_jhil_ in
the _G. of G._ (p. 7). It extends now 3 m. by 2-1/2 m. varying
in size with the season; in Abū'l-faẓl's day it was 4 _kos_ (8
m.) round. It lies partly in the district of Nūh, partly in
Gurgaon, where the two tracts join at the foot of the Alwar
hills.
[2139] This is the frequently mentioned size for reservoirs;
the measure here is probably the _qārī_, _cir._ a yard.
[2140] Bābur does not state it as a fact known to himself that
the Mānas-nī falls into the Kūtila lake; it did so formerly,
but now does not, tradition assigning a cause for the change
(_G. of G._ p. 6). He uses the hear-say tense, _kīrār aīmīsh_.
[2141] Kharī and Toda were in Akbar's _sarkār_ of Rantaṃbhor.
[2142] Bhosāwar is in Bhurtpūr, and Chausa (or Jūsa) may be
the Chausath of the _Āyīn-i-akbarī_, ii, 183.
[2143] As has been noted frequently, this phrase stands for
artificial water-courses.
[2144] Certainly Trans-Hindū-kush lands; presumably also those
of Trans-Indus, Kābul in chief.
[2145] _aūstī_; perhaps the reservoir was so built as to
contain the bubbling spring.
[2146] _Chūn jā'ī khẉush karda ām._
[2147] f. 315.
[2148] var. Janwār (Jarrett). It is 25 m. east of Āgra on the
Muttra-Etāwa road (_G. of I._).
[2149] _kūcha-band_, perhaps a barricade at the limit of a
suburban lane.
[2150] This has been mentioned already (f. 327).
[2151] f. 315.
[2152] _i.e._ those professedly held for Bābur.
[2153] Or, according to local pronunciation, Badāyūn.
[2154] This is the old name of Shāhābād in Rāmpūr (_G. of I._
xxii, 197). The _A.-i-A._ locates it in Saṃbal. Cf. E. and
D.'s _History of India_, iv, 384 n. and v. 215 n.
[2155] Perhaps the one in Sītapūr.
[2156] f. 305_b_.
[2157] As the Elphinstone Codex which is the treasure-house of
Humāyūn's notes, has a long _lacuna_ into which this episode
falls, it is not known if the culprit entered in his copy of
the _Bābur-nāma_ a marginal excuse for his misconduct (cf. f.
252 and n.); such excuse was likely to be that he knew he
would be forgiven by his clement father.
[2158] f. 305_b_.
[2159] Kāmrān would be in Qandahār. Erskine notes that the sum
sent to him would be about £750, but that if the coins were
rūpīs, it would be £30,000.
[2160] _qiṯa`_, for account of which form of poem _see_
Blochmann's translations of Saifī's and Jāmī's _Prosody_, p.
86.
[2161] _Rāmpūr Dīwān_ (E. D. Ross' ed. p. 16 and Plate 14_a_).
I am uncertain as to the meaning of ll. 4 and 10. I am not
sure that what in most MSS. ends line 4, _viz._ _aūl dam_,
should not be read as _aūlūm_, death; this is allowed by Plate
14a where for space the word is divided and may be _aūlūm_. To
read _aūlūm_ and that the deserters fled from the death in
Hind they were anxious about, has an answering phrase in "we
still are alive". Ll. 9 and 10 perhaps mean that in the things
named all have done alike. [Ilminsky reads _khāir nafsī_ for
the elsewhere _ḥaz̤z̤-nafsī_.]
[2162] These are 20 attitudes (_rak`ah_) assumed in prayer
during Ramẓān after the Bed-time Prayer. The ablution
(_ghusl_) is the bathing of the whole body for ceremonial
purification.
[2163] This Feast is the `Id-i-fiṯṛ, held at the breaking of
the Ramẓān Fast on the 1st of Shawwāl.
[2164] Erskine notes that this is the earliest mention of
playing-cards he can recall in oriental literature.
[2165] f. 339_b_.
[2166] The two varieties mentioned by Bābur seem to be
_Diospyrus melanoxylon_, the wood of which is called _tindu
abnūs_ in Hindūstānī, and _D. tomentosa_, Hindi, _tindu_
(Brandis _s.nn._). Bārī is 19 m. west of Dūlpūr.
[2167] _mī`ād_, perhaps the time at which the Shaikh was to
appear before Bābur.
[2168] The Pers. trs. makes the more definite statement that
what had to be read was a Section of the Qoran (_wird_). This
was done with remedial aim for the illness.
[2169] As this statement needs comment, and as it is linked to
matters mentioned in the _Rāmpūr Dīwān_, it seems better to
remit remarks upon it to Appendix Q, _Some matters concerning
the Rāmpūr Dīwān_.
[2170] _risāla._ _See_ Appendix Q.
[2171] Elph. MS. _lacuna_; I.O. 215 _lacuna_ and 217 f. 229;
Mems. p. 373. This year's narrative resumes the diary form.
[2172] There is some uncertainty about these names and also as
to which adversary crossed the river. The sentence which, I
think, shews, by its plural verb, that Humāyūn left two men
and, by its co-ordinate participles, that it was they crossed
the river, is as follows:—(Darwīsh and Yūsuf, understood)
_Quṯb Sīrwānī-nī u bīr pāra rājalār-nī bīr daryā aūtūb
aūrūshūb yakshī bāsīb tūrlār_. _Aūtūb_, _aūrūshūb_ and _bāsīb_
are grammatically referable to the same subject, [whatever was
the fact about the crossing].
[2173] _bīr daryā_; W.-i-B. 217 f. 229, _yak daryā_, one
river, but many MSS. _har daryā_, every river. If it did not
seem pretty certain that the rebels were not in the
Miyān-dū-āb one would surmise the river to be "one river" of
the two enclosing the tract "between the waters", and that one
to be the Ganges. It may be one near Saṃbhal, east of the
Ganges.
[2174] var. Shīrwānī. The place giving the cognomen may be
Sarwān, a _thakurāt_ of the Mālwā Agency (_G. of I._). Quṯb of
Sīrwān may be the Quṯb Khān of earlier mention without the
cognomen.
[2175] n.w. of Aligarh (Kūl). It may be noted here, where
instances begin to be frequent, that my translation "we
marched" is an evasion of the Turkī impersonal "it was
marched". Most rarely does Bābur write "we marched", never, "I
marched."
[2176] in the Aligarh (Kūl) district; it is the Sikandara Rao
of the _A.-i-A._ and the _G. of I._
[2177] _Rāmpūr Dīwān_ (E. D. Ross' ed., p. 19, Plate 16_b_).
This _Dīwān_ contains other quatrains which, judging from
their contents, may well be those Bābur speaks of as also
composed in Saṃbal. _See_ Appendix Q, _Some matters concerning
the Rāmpūr Dīwān_.
[2178] These are aunts of Bābur, daughters of Sl. Abū-sa`īd
_Mīrān-shāhī_.
[2179] Sikandarābād is in the Buland-shahr district of the
United Provinces.
[2180] It is not clear whether Bābur returned from Sīkrī on
the day he started for Jalīsīr; no question of distance would
prevent him from making the two journeys on the Monday.
[2181] As this was the rendezvous for the army, it would be
convenient if it lay between Āgra and Anwār; as it was 6 m.
from Āgra, the only mapped place having approximately the name
Jalīsīr, _viz._ Jalesar, in Etah, seems too far away.
[2182] Anwār would be suitably the Unwāra of the _Indian
Atlas_, which is on the first important southward dip of the
Jumna below Āgra. Chandwār is 25 m. east of Āgra, on the
Muttra-Etāwah road (_G. of I._); Jarrett notes that
Tiefenthaler identifies it with Fīrūzābād (_A.-i-A._ ii, 183
n.).
[2183] In the district of Kālpī. The name does not appear in
maps I have seen.
[2184] _āghā_, Anglicé, uncle. He was Sa`īd Khān of Kāshghar.
Ḥaidar M. says Bābā Sl. was a spoiled child and died without
mending his ways.
[2185] From Kālpī Bābur will have taken the road to the s.w.
near which now runs the Cawnpur (Kānhpūr) branch of the Indian
Midland Railway, and he must have crossed the Betwa to reach
Īrij (Irich, _Indian Atlas_, Sheet 69 N.W.).
[2186] Leaving Īrij, Bābur will have recrossed the Betwa and
have left its valley to go west to Bāndīr (Bhander) on the
Pahūj (_Indian Atlas_, Sheet 69 S.W.).
[2187] beneficent, or Muḥassan, comely.
[2188] The one man of this name mentioned in the _B.N._ is an
amīr of Sl. Ḥusain _Bāī-qarā_.
[2189] It seems safe to take Kachwa [Kajwa] as the Kajwarra of
Ibn Batūta, and the Kadwāha (Kadwaia) of the _Indian Atlas_,
Sheet 52 N.E. and of Luard's _Gazetteer_ _of Gwalior_ (i,
247), which is situated in 24° 58' N. and 77° 57' E. Each of
the three names is of a place standing on a lake; Ibn Batūta's
lake was a league (4 m.) long, Bābur's about 11 miles round;
Luard mentions no lake, but the _Indian Atlas_ marks one quite
close to Kadwāha of such form as to seem to have a tongue of
land jutting into it from the north-west, and thus suiting
Bābur's description of the site of Kachwa. Again,—Ibn Batūta
writes of Kajwarra as having, round its lake, idol-temples;
Luard says of Kadwāha that it has four idol-temples standing
and nine in ruins; there may be hinted something special about
Bābur's Kachwa by his remark that he encouraged its people,
and this speciality may be interaction between Muḥammadanism
and Hindūism serving here for the purpose of identification.
For Ibn Batūta writes of the people of Kajwarra that they were
_jogīs_, yellowed by asceticism, wearing their hair long and
matted, and having Muḥammadan followers who desired to learn
their (occult?) secrets. If the same interaction existed in
Bābur's day, the Muḥammadan following of the Hindū ascetics
may well have been the special circumstance which led him to
promise protection to those Hindūs, even when he was out for
Holy-war. It has to be remembered of Chandīrī, the nearest
powerful neighbour of Kadwāha, that though Bābur's capture
makes a vivid picture of Hindūism in it, it had been under
Muḥammadan rulers down to a relatively short time before his
conquest. The _jogīs_ of Kachwa could point to long-standing
relations of tolerance by the Chandīrī Governors; this, with
their Muḥammadan following, explains the encouragement Bābur
gave them, and helps to identify Kachwa with Kajarra. It may
be observed that Bābur was familiar with the interaction of
the two creeds, witness his "apostates", mostly Muḥammadans
following Hindū customs, witness too, for the persistent fact,
the reports of District-officers under the British _Rāj_.
Again,—a further circumstance helping to identify Kajwarra,
Kachwa and Kadwāha is that these are names of the last
important station the traveller and the soldier, as well
perhaps as the modern wayfarer, stays in before reaching
Chandīrī. The importance of Kajwarra is shewn by Ibn Batūta,
and of Kadwāha by its being a _maḥāll_ in Akbar's _sarkār_ of
Bāyawān of the _ṣūba_ of Āgra. Again,—Kadwāha is the place
nearest to Chandīrī about which Bābur's difficulties as to
intermediate road and jungle would arise. That intermediate
road takes off the main one a little south of Kadwāha and runs
through what looks like a narrow valley and broken country
down to Bhamor, Bhurānpūr and Chandīrī. Again,—no bar to
identification of the three names is placed by their
differences of form, in consideration of the vicissitudes they
have weathered in tongue, script, and transliteration. There
is some ground, I believe, for surmising that their common
source is _kajūr_, the date-fruit. [I am indebted to my
husband for the help derived from Ibn Batūta, traced by him in
Sanguinetti's trs. iv, 33, and S. Lee's trs. p. 162.]
(Two places similar in name to Kachwa, and situated on Bābur's
route _viz._ Kocha near Jhansi, and Kuchoowa north of Kadwāha
(Sheet 69 S.W.) are unsuitable for his "Kachwa", the first
because too near Bandīr to suit his itinerary, the second
because too far from the turn off the main-road mentioned
above, because it has no lake, and has not the help in
identification detailed above of Kadwāha.)
[2190] _qūrūghīr_ which could mean also _reserved_ (from the
water?).
[2191] _qāzān._ There seems to have been one only; how few
Bābur had is shewn again on f. 337.
[2192] _Indian Atlas_, Sheet 52 N.E. near a tributary of the
Betwa, the Or, which appears to be Bābur's Burhānpūr-water.
[2193] The bed of the Betwa opposite Chandīrī is 1050 ft.
above the sea; the walled-town (_qūrghān_) of Chandīrī is on a
table-land 250 ft. higher, and its citadel is 230 ft. higher
again (Cunningham's _Archeological Survey Report_, 1871 A.D.
ii, 404).
[2194] The plan of Chandīrī illustrating Cunningham's Report
(_see_ last note) allows surmise about the road taken by
Bābur, surmise which could become knowledge if the names of
tanks he gives were still known. The courtesy of the
Government of India allows me to reproduce that plan [Appendix
R, _Chandīrī_ and _Gwālīāwar]_.
[2195] He is said to have been Governor of Chandīrī in 1513
AD.
[2196] Here and in similar passages the word _m:ljār_ or
_m:lchār_ is found in MSS. where the meaning is that of T.
_būljār_. It is not in any dictionary I have seen; Mr. Irvine
found it "obscure" and surmised it to mean "approach by
trenches", but this does not suit its uses in the _Bābur-nāma_
of a military post, and a rendezvous. This surmise,
containing, as it does, a notion of protection, links _m:ljār_
in sense with Ar. _malja'_. The word needs expert
consideration, in order to decide whether it is to be received
into dictionaries, or to be rejected because explicable as the
outcome of unfamiliarity in Persian scribes with T. _būljār_
or, _more Persico_ with narrowed vowels, _bŭljăr_. Shaw in his
Vocabulary enters _būljāq_ (_būljār_?), "a station for troops,
a rendezvous, see _malja'_," thus indicating, it would seem,
that he was aware of difficulty about _m:ljār_ and _būljāq_
(_būljār_?). There appears no doubt of the existence of a
Turkī word _būljār_ with the meanings Shaw gives to _būljāq_;
it could well be formed from the root _būl_, being, whence
follows, being in a place, posted. _Maljā_ has the meaning of
a standing-place, as well as those of a refuge and an asylum;
both meanings seem combined in the _m:ljār_ of f. 336_b_,
where for matchlockmen a _m:ljār_ was ordered "raised". (Cf.
Irvine's _Army of the Indian Moghuls_ p. 278.)
[2197] _yāghdā_; Pers. trs. _sar-āshīb_. Bābur's remark seems
to show that for effect his mortar needed to be higher than
its object. Presumably it stood on the table-land north of the
citadel.
[2198] _shātū._ It may be noted that this word, common in
accounts of Bābur's sieges, may explain one our friend the
late Mr. William Irvine left undecided (_l.c._ p. 278), _viz._
_shāṯūr_. On p. 281 he states that _nardubān_ is the name of a
scaling-ladder and that Bābur mentions scaling ladders more
than once. Bābur mentions them however always as _shātū_.
Perhaps _shāṯūr_ which, as Mr. Irvine says, seems to be made
of the trunks of trees and to be a siege appliance, is really
_shātū u_ ... (ladder and ...) as in the passage under note
and on f. 216_b_, some other name of an appliance following.
[2199] The word here preceding _tūra_ has puzzled scribes and
translators. I have seen the following variants in
MSS.;—_nūkrī_ or _tūkrī_, _b:krī_ or _y:krī_, _būkrī_ or
_yūkrī_, _būkrāī_ or _yūkrāī_, in each of which the _k_ may
stand for _g_. Various suggestions might be made as to what
the word is, but all involve reading the Persian enclitic _ī_
(forming the adjective) instead of Turkī _līk_. Two roots,
_tīg_ and _yūg_, afford plausible explanations of the unknown
word; appliances suiting the case and able to bear names
formed from one or other of these roots are _wheeled
mantelet_, and _head-strike_ (P. _sar-kob_). That the word is
difficult is shewn not only by the variants I have quoted, but
by Erskine's reading _naukarī tūra_, "to serve the _tūras_," a
requisite not specified earlier by Bābur, and by de
Courteille's paraphrase, _tout ce qui est nécessaire aux
touras_.
[2200] Sl. Nāṣiru'd-dīn was the Khīljī ruler of Mālwā from 906
to 916 A.H. (1500-1510 AD.).
[2201] He was a Rājpūt who had been prime-minister of Sl.
Maḥmūd II. _Khīljī_ (son of Nāṣīru'd-dīn) and had rebelled.
Bābur (like some other writers) spells his name Mindnī,
perhaps as he heard it spoken.
[2202] Presumably the one in the United Provinces. For
Shamsābād in Gūālīār _see_ Luard _l.c._ i, 286.
[2203] _chīqtī_; Pers. trs. _bar āmad_ and, also in some MSS.
_namī bar āmad_; Mems. p. 376, "averse to conciliation";
_Méms._ ii, 329, "_s'élevèrent contre cette proposition_." So
far I have not found Bābur using the verb _chīqmāq_
metaphorically. It is his frequent verb to express "getting
away", "going out of a fort". It would be a short step in
metaphor to understand here that Medinī's men "got out of it",
_i.e._ what Bābur offered. They may have left the fort also;
if so, it would be through dissent.
[2204] f. 332.
[2205] I.O. 217, f. 231, inserts here what seems a gloss, "_Tā
īn jā Farsī farmūda_" (_gufta_, said). As Bābur enters his
speech in Persian, it is manifest that he used Persian to
conceal the bad news.
[2206] The _Illustrated London News_ of July 10th, 1915 (on
which day this note is written), has an àpropos picture of an
ancient fortress-gun, with its stone-ammunition, taken by the
Allies in a Dardanelles fort.
[2207] The _dū-tahī_ is the _āb-duzd_, water-thief, of f. 67.
Its position can be surmised from Cunningham's Plan [Appendix
R].
[2208] For Bābur's use of hand (_qūl_) as a military term
_see_ f. 209.
[2209] His full designation would be Shāh Muḥammad _yūz-begī_.
[2210] This will be flight from the ramparts to other places
in the fort.
[2211] Bābur's account of the siege of Chandīrī is incomplete,
inasmuch as it says nothing of the general massacre of pagans
he has mentioned on f. 272. Khẉāfī Khān records the massacre,
saying, that after the fort was surrendered, as was done on
condition of safety for the garrison, from 3 to 4000 pagans
were put to death by Bābur's troops on account of hostility
shewn during the evacuation of the fort. The time assigned to
the massacre is previous to the _jūhar_ of 1000 women and
children and the self-slaughter of men in Medinī Rāo's house,
in which he himself died. It is not easy to fit the two
accounts in; this might be done, however, by supposing that a
folio of Bābur's MS. was lost, as others seem lost at the end
of the narrative of this year's events (_q.v._). The lost
folio would tell of the surrender, one clearly affecting the
mass of Rājpūt followers and not the chiefs who stood for
victory or death and who may have made sacrifice to honour
after hearing of the surrender. Bābur's narrative in this part
certainly reads less consecutive than is usual with him;
something preceding his account of the _jūhar_ would improve
it, and would serve another purpose also, since mention of the
surrender would fix a term ending the now too short time of
under one hour he assigns as the duration of the fighting. If
a surrender had been mentioned, it would be clear that his "2
or 3 _garīs_" included the attacking and taking of the
_dū-tahī_ and down to the retreat of the Rājpūts from the
walls. On this Bābur's narrative of the unavailing sacrifice
of the chiefs would follow in due order. Khẉāfī Khān is more
circumstantial than Firishta who says nothing of surrender or
massacre, but states that 6000 men were killed fighting.
Khẉāfī Khān's authorities may throw light on the matter, which
so far does not hang well together in any narrative, Bābur's,
Firishta's, or Khẉāfī Khān's. One would like to know what led
such a large body of Rājpūts to surrender so quickly; had they
been all through in favour of accepting terms? One wonders,
again, why from 3 to 4000 Rājpūts did not put up a better
resistance to massacre. Perhaps their assailants were Turks,
stubborn fighters down to 1915 AD.
[2212] For suggestion about the brevity of this period, _see_
last note.
[2213] Clearly, without Bābur's taking part in the fighting.
[2214] These words by _abjad_ make 934. The Ḥai. MS.
mistakenly writes _Būd Chandīrī_ in the first line of the
quatrain instead of _Būd chandī_. Khẉāfī Khān quotes the
quatrain with slight variants.
[2215] _Chandīrī ṯaurī wilāyat_ (_dā_?) _wāqī` būlūb tūr_,
which seems to need _dā_, in, because the fort, and not the
country, is described. Or there may be an omission _e.g._ of a
second sentence about the walled-town (fort).
[2216] This is the "Kirat-sagar" of Cunningham's Plan of
Chandīrī; it is mentioned under this name by Luard (_l.c._ i,
210). "Kirat" represents Kirtī or Kirit Sīngh who ruled in
Gūālīār from 1455 to 1479 AD., there also making a tank
(Luard, _l.c._ i, 232).
[2217] For illustrative photographs _see_ Luard, _l.c._ vol.
i, part iv.
[2218] I have taken this sentence to apply to the location of
the tanks, but with some doubt; they are on the table-land.
[2219] Bābur appears to have written Betwī, this form being in
MSS. I have read the name to be that of the river Betwa which
is at a considerable distance from the fort. But some writers
dispraise its waters where Bābur praises.
[2220] T. _qīā_ means a slope or slant; here it may describe
tilted _strata_, such as would provide slabs for roofing and
split easily for building purposes. (_See_ next note.)
[2221] _`imārat qīlmāq munāsib_. This has been read to mean
that the _qīālar_ provide good sites (Mems. & _Méms._), but
position, distance from the protection of the fort, and the
merit of local stone for building incline me to read the words
quoted above as referring to the convenient lie of the stone
for building purposes. (_See_ preceding note.)
[2222] _Chandīrī-dā judai (jady)-nīng irtiqā`ī yīgīrma-bīsh
darja dūr_; Erskine, p. 378, Chanderi is situated in the 25th
degree of N. latitude; de Courteille, ii, 334, _La hauteur du
Capricorne à Tchanderi est de 25 degrées_. The latitude of
Chandīrī, it may be noted, is 24° 43'. It does not appear to
me indisputable that what Bābur says here is a statement of
latitude. The word _judai_ (or _jady_) means both Pole-star
and the Sign Capricorn. M. de Courteille translates the quoted
sentence as I have done, but with Capricorn for Pole-star. My
acquaintance with such expressions in French does not allow me
to know whether his words are a statement of latitude. It
occurs to me against this being so, that Bābur uses other
words when he gives the latitude of Samarkand (f. 44_b_); and
also that he has shewn attention to the Pole-star as a guide
on a journey (f. 203, where he uses the more common word
_Quṯb_). Perhaps he notes its lower altitude when he is far
south, in the way he noted the first rise of Canopus to his
view (f. 125).
[2223] Mallū Khān was a noble of Mālwā, who became ruler of
Mālwā in 1532 or 1533 AD. [?], under the style of Qādir Shāh.
[2224] _i.e._ paid direct to the royal treasury.
[2225] This is the one concerning which bad news reached Bābur
just before Chandīrī was taken.
[2226] This presumably is the place offered to Medinī Rāo (f.
333_b_), and Bikramājīt (f. 343).
[2227] Obviously for the bridge.
[2228] _m:ljār_ (_see_ f. 333 n.). Here the word would mean
befittingly a protected standing-place, a refuge, such as
matchlockmen used (f. 217 and Index _s.n._ _arāba_).
[2229] _sīghīrūrdī_, a vowel-variant, perhaps, of
_sūghūrūrdī_.
[2230] f. 331_b_. This passage shews that Bābur's mortars were
few.
[2231] _nufūr qūl-lār-dīn ham karka bīla rah rawā kīshī u āt
aītīlār_, a difficult sentence.
[2232] _Afghānlār kūprūk bāghlāmāq-nī istib`ād qīlīb tamaskhur
qīlūrlār aīkāndūr._ The ridicule will have been at slow
progress, not at the bridge-making itself, since
pontoon-bridges were common (Irvine's _Army of the Indian
Moghuls_).
[2233] _tūīlāb_; Pers. trs. _uftān u khezān_, limping, or
falling and rising, a translation raising doubt, because such
a mode of progression could hardly have allowed escape from
pursuers.
[2234] Anglicé, on Friday night.
[2235] According to the Persian calendar, New-year's-day is
that on which the Sun enters Aries.
[2236] so-spelled in the Ḥai. MS.; by de Courteille
Banguermādū; the two forms may represent the same one of the
Arabic script.
[2237] or Gūī, from the context clearly the Gumti. Jarrett
gives Godi as a name of the Gumti; Gūī and Godī may be the
same word in the Arabic script.
[2238] Some MSS. read that there was not much pain.
[2239] I take this to be the Kali-Sarda-Chauka affluent of the
Gogra and not its Sarju or Saru one. To so take it seems
warranted by the context; there could be no need for the fords
on the Sarju to be examined, and its position is not suitable.
[2240] Unfortunately no record of the hunting-expedition
survives.
[2241] One historian, Aḥmad-i-yādgār states in his
_Tārīkh-i-salāṯīn-i-afāghina_ that Bābur went to Lāhor
immediately after his capture of Chandīrī, and on his return
journey to Āgra suppressed in the Panj-āb a rising of the
Mundāhar (or, Mandhar) Rājpūts. His date is discredited by
Bābur's existing narrative of 934 AH. as also by the absence
in 935 AH. of allusion to either episode. My husband who has
considered the matter, advises me that the Lāhor visit may
have been made in 936 or early in 937 AH. [These are a period
of which the record is lost or, less probably, was not
written.]
[2242] Elph. MS. f. 262; I. O. 215 f. 207b and 217 f. 234_b_;
_Mems._ p. 382. Here the Elphinstone MS. recommences after a
_lacuna_ extending from Ḥai. MS. f. 312_b_.
[2243] _See_ Appendix S:—_Concerning the dating of_ 935 AH.
[2244] `Askarī was now about 12 years old. He was succeeded in
Multān by his elder brother Kāmrān, transferred from Qandahār
[Index; JRAS. 1908 p. 829 para. (1)]. This transfer, it is
safe to say, was due to Bābur's resolve to keep Kābul in his
own hands, a resolve which his letters to Humāyūn (f. 348), to
Kāmrān (f. 359), and to Khwāja Kalān (f. 359) attest, as well
as do the movements of his family at this time. What would
make the stronger government of Kāmrān seem now more "for the
good of Multān" than that of the child `Askarī are the Bīlūchī
incursions, mentioned somewhat later (f. 355_b_) as having
then occurred more than once.
[2245] This will be his own house in the
Garden-of-eight-paradises, the Chār-bāgh begun in 932 AH.
(August 1526 AD.).
[2246] To this name Khwānd-amīr adds Aḥmadu'l-ḥaqīrī, perhaps
a pen-name; he also quotes verses of Shihāb's
(_Ḥabību's-siyar_ lith. ed. iii, 350).
[2247] Khwānd-amīr's account of his going into Hindūstān is
that he left his "dear home" (Herāt) for Qandahār in
mid-Shawwāl 933 AH. (mid-July 1527 AD.); that on Jumāda I.
10th 934 AH. (Feb. 1st 1528 AD.) he set out from Qandahār on
the hazardous journey into Hindūstān; and that owing to the
distance, heat, setting-in of the Rains, and breadth of rapid
rivers, he was seven months on the way. He mentions no
fellow-travellers, but he gives as the day of his arrival in
Āgra the one on which Bābur says he presented himself at
Court. (For an account of annoyances and misfortunes to which
he was subjected under Aūzbeg rule in Herāt _see Journal des
Savans_, July 1843, pp. 389, 393, Quatremère's art.)
[2248] Concerning Gūālīār _see_ Cunningham's _Archeological
Survey Reports_ vol. ii; Louis Rousselet's _L'Inde des Rajas_;
Lepel Griffin's _Famous Monuments of Central India_,
especially for its photographs; _Gazetteer of India_; Luard's
_Gazetteer of Gwalior_, text and photographs; _Travels of
Peter Mundy_, Hakluyt Society ed. R. C. Temple, ii, 61,
especially for its picture of the fort and note (p. 62)
enumerating early writers on Gūālīār. Of Persian books there
is Jalāl _Ḥiṣārī's Tārīkh-i-Gwālīāwar_ (B.M. Add. 16,859) and
Hirāman's (B.M. Add. 16,709) unacknowledged version of it,
which is of the B.M. MSS. the more legible.
[2249] Perhaps this stands for Gwālīāwar, the form seeming to
be used by Jalāl _Ḥiṣārī_, and having good traditional support
(Cunningham p. 373 and Luard p. 228).
[2250] _tūshlānīb_, _i.e._ they took rest and food together at
mid-day.
[2251] This seems to be the conjoined Gambhīr and Bāngānga
which is crossed by the Āgra-Dhūlpūr road (_G. of I._ Atlas,
Sheet 34).
[2252] _aīchtūq_, the plural of which shews that more than one
partook of the powders (_safūf_).
[2253] T. _tālqān_, Hindī _sattu_ (Shaw). M. de Courteille's
variant translation may be due to his reading for _tālqān_,
_tālghāq_, _flot_, _agitation_ (his Dict. _s.n._) and _yīl_,
wind, for _bīla_, with.
[2254] in 933 AH. f. 330_b_.
[2255] "Each beaked promontory" (Lycidas). Our name
"Selsey-bill" is an English instance of Bābur's (not
infrequent) _tūmshūq_, beak, bill of a bird.
[2256] No order about this Chār-bāgh is in existing annals of
934 AH. Such order is likely to have been given after Bābur's
return from his operations against the Afghāns, in his account
of which the annals of 934 AH. break off.
[2257] The fort-hill at the northern end is 300 ft. high, at
the southern end, 274 ft.; its length from north to south is
1-3/4 m.; its breadth varies from 600 ft. opposite the main
entrance (Hātī-pūl) to 2,800 ft. in the middle opposite the
great temple (Sās-bhao). Cf. Cunningham p. 330 and Appendix R,
_in loco_, for his Plan of Gūālīār.
[2258] This Arabic plural may have been prompted by the
greatness and distinction of Mān-sing's constructions. Cf.
Index _s.nn._ _begāt_ and _bāghāt_.
[2259] A translation point concerning the (Arabic) word
_`imārat_ is that the words "palace", "_palais_", and
"residence" used for it respectively by Erskine, de
Courteille, and, previous to the Hindūstān Section, by myself,
are too limited in meaning to serve for Bābur's uses of it in
Hindūstān; and this (1) because he uses it throughout his
writings for buildings under palatial rank (_e.g._ those of
high and low in Chandīrī); (2) because he uses it in Hindūstān
for non-residential buildings (_e.g._ for the Bādalgarh
outwork, f. 341_b_, and a Hindū temple _ib._); and (3) because
he uses it for the word "building" in the term building-stone,
f. 335_b_ and f. 339_b_. _Building_ is the comprehensive word
under which all his uses of it group. For labouring this point
a truism pleads my excuse, namely, that a man's vocabulary
being characteristic of himself, for a translator to increase
or diminish it is to intrude on his personality, and this the
more when an autobiography is concerned. Hence my search here
(as elsewhere) for an English grouping word is part of an
endeavour to restrict the vocabulary of my translation to the
limits of my author's.
[2260] Jalāl _Ḥiṣārī_ describes "Khwāja Raḥīm-dād" as a
paternal-nephew of Mahdī Khwāja. Neither man has been
introduced by Bābur, as it is his rule to introduce when he
first mentions a person of importance, by particulars of
family, _etc._ Both men became disloyal in 935 AH. (1529 AD.)
as will be found referred to by Bābur. Jalāl _Ḥiṣārī_
supplements Bābur's brief account of their misconduct and
Shaikh Muḥammad _Ghaus̤'_ mediation in 936 AH. For knowledge
of his contribution I am indebted to my husband's perusal of
the _Tārīkh-i-Gwālīāwar_.
[2261] Erskine notes that Indians and Persians regard
moonshine as cold but this only faintly expresses the
wide-spread fear of moon-stroke expressed in the Psalm (121 v.
6), "The Sun shall not smite thee by day, nor the Moon by
night."
[2262] _Agarcha lūk balūk u bī sīyāq._ Ilminsky [p. 441] has
_balūk balūk_ but without textual warrant and perhaps
following Erskine, as he says, speaking generally, that he has
done in case of need (Ilminsky's Preface). Both Erskine and de
Courteille, working, it must be remembered, without the help
of detailed modern descriptions and pictures, took the above
words to say that the buildings were scattered and without
symmetry, but they are not scattered and certainly Mān-sing's
has symmetry. I surmise that the words quoted above do not
refer to the buildings themselves but to the stones of which
they are made. T. _lūk_ means heavy, and T. _balūk_ [? block]
means a thing divided off, here a block of stone. Such blocks
might be _bī sīyāq_, _i.e._ irregular in size. To take the
words in this way does not contradict known circumstances, and
is verbally correct.
[2263] The Rājas' buildings Bābur could compare were Rāja
Karna (or Kirtī)'s [who ruled from 1454 to 1479 AD.], Rāja
Mān-sing's [1486 to 1516 AD.], and Rāja Bikramājīt's [1516 to
1526 AD. when he was killed at Panīpat].
[2264] The height of the eastern face is 100 ft. and of the
western 60 ft. The total length from north to south of the
outside wall is 300 ft.; the breadth of the residence from
east to west 160 ft. The 300 ft. of length appears to be that
of the residence and service-courtyard (Cunningham p. 347 and
Plate lxxxvii).
[2265] _kaj bīla āqārītīb._ There can be little doubt that a
white pediment would show up the coloured tiles of the upper
part of the palace-walls more than would pale red sandstone.
These tiles were so profuse as to name the building Chīt
Mandīr (Painted Mandīr). Guided by Bābur's statement,
Cunningham sought for and found plaster in crevices of carved
work; from which one surmises that the white coating approved
itself to successors of Mān-sing. [It may be noted that the
word Mandīr is in the same case for a translator as is
_`imārat_ (f. 339_b_ n.) since it requires a grouping word to
cover its uses for temple, palace, and less exalted
buildings.]
[2266] The lower two storeys are not only backed by solid
ground but, except near the Hātī-pūl, have the rise of ground
in front of them which led Bābur to say they were "even in a
pit" (_chūqūr_).
[2267] MSS. vary between _har_ and _bīr_, every and one, in
this sentence. It may be right to read _bīr_, and apply it
only to the eastern façade as that on which there were most
cupolas. There are fewer on the south side, which still stands
(Luard's photo. No. 37).
[2268] The ground rises steeply from this Gate to an inner
one, called Hawā-pūl from the rush of air (_hawā_) through it.
[2269] Cunningham says the riders were the Rāja and a driver.
Perhaps they were a mahout and his mate. The statue stood to
the left on exit (_chīqīsh_).
[2270] This window will have been close to the Gate where no
mound interferes with outlook.
[2271] Rooms opening on inner and open courts appear to form
the third story of the residence.
[2272] T. _chūqūr_, hollow, pit. This storey is dark and
unventilated, a condition due to small windows, absence of
through draught, and the adjacent mound. Cunningham comments
on its disadvantages.
[2273] _Agarcha Hindūstānī takalluflār qīlīb tūrlār walī bī
hawālīk-rāq yīrlār dūr._ Perhaps amongst the pains taken were
those demanded for _punkhas_. I regret that Erskine's
translation of this passage, so superior to my own in literary
merit, does not suit the Turkī original. He worked from the
Persian translation, and not only so, but with a less rigid
rule of translation than binds me when working on Bābur's
_ipsissima verba_ (_Mems._ p. 384; Cunningham p. 349; Luard p.
226).
[2274] The words _aūrtā dā_ make apt contrast between the
outside position of Mān-sing's buildings which helped to form
the fort-wall, and Bikramājīt's which were further in except
perhaps one wall of his courtyard (see Cunningham's Plate
lxxxiii).
[2275] Cunningham (p. 350) says this was originally a
_bāra-dūrī_, a twelve-doored open hall, and must have been
light. His "originally" points to the view that the hall had
been altered before Bābur saw it but as it was only about 10
years old at that time, it was in its first form, presumably.
Perhaps Bābur saw it in a bad light. The dimensions Cunningham
gives of it suggest that the high dome must have been
frequently ill-lighted.
[2276] The word _tālār_, having various applications, is not
easy to match with a single English word, nor can one be sure
in all cases what it means, a platform, a hall, or _etc._ To
find an equivalent for its diminutive _tālār-ghina_ is still
more difficult. Raḥīm-dād's _tālār_-ette will have stood on
the flat centre of the dome, raised on four pillars or perhaps
with its roof only so-raised; one is sure there would be a
roof as protection against sun or moon. It may be noted that
the dome is not visible outside from below, but is hidden by
the continuation upwards of walls which form a mean-looking
parallelogram of masonry.
[2277] _T. tūr yūl._ Concerning this hidden road _see_
Cunningham p. 350 and Plate lxxxvii.
[2278] _bāghcha._ The context shews that the garden was for
flowers. For Bābur's distinctions between _bāghcha_, _bāgh_
and _baghāt_, _see_ Index _s.nn._
[2279] _shaft-ālū_ _i.e._ the rosy colour of peach-flowers,
perhaps lip-red (Steingass). Bābur's contrast seems to be
between those red oleanders of Hindūstān that are rosy-red,
and the deep red ones he found in Gūālīār.
[2280] _kul_, any large sheet of water, natural or artificial
(Bābur). This one will be the Sūraj-kund (Sun-tank).
[2281] This is the Telī Mandīr, or Telingana Mandīr (Luard).
Cf. Cunningham, p. 356 and Luard p. 227 for accounts of it;
and _G. of I._ _s.n._ Telīagarhi for Telī Rājas.
[2282] This is a large outwork reached from the Gate of the
same name. Bābur may have gone there specially to see the
Gūjarī Mandīr said by Cunningham to have been built by
Mān-sing's Gūjar wife Mṛiga-nayāna (fawn-eyed). Cf. Cunningham
p. 351 and, for other work done by the same Queen, in the s.
e. corner of the fort, p. 344; Luard p. 226. In this place
"construction" would serve to translate _`imārat_ (f. 340 n.).
[2283] _āb-duzd_, a word conveying the notion of a stealthy
taking of the water. The walls at the mouth of Urwā were built
by Altamsh for the protection of its water for the fort. The
date Bābur mentions (a few lines further) is presumably that
of their erection.
[2284] Cunningham, who gives 57 ft. as the height of this
statue, says Bābur estimated it at 20 _gaz_, or 40 ft., but
this is not so. Bābur's word is not _gaz_ a measure of 24
fingers-breadth, but _qārī_, the length from the tip of the
shoulder to the fingers-ends; it is about 33 inches, not less,
I understand. Thus stated in _qārīs_ Bābur's estimate of the
height comes very near Cunningham's, being a good 55 ft. to 57
ft. (I may note that I have usually translated _qārī_ by
"yard", as the yard is its nearest English equivalent. The
Pers. trs. of the B. N. translates by _gaz_, possibly a larger
_gaz_ than that of 24 fingers-breadth _i.e._ inches.)
[2285] The statues were not broken up by Bābur's agents; they
were mutilated; their heads were restored with coloured
plaster by the Jains (Cunningham p. 365; Luard p. 228).
[2286] _rozan_ [or, _aūz:n_] ... _tafarruj qīlīb_. Neither
Cunningham nor Luard mentions this window, perhaps because
Erskine does not; nor is this name of a Gate found. It might
be that of the Dhonda-paur (Cunningham, p. 339). The 1st Pers.
trs. [I.O. 215 f. 210] omits the word _rozan_ (or, _auz:n_);
the 2nd [I.O. 217 f. 236b] renders it by _jā'ī_, place.
Manifestly the Gate was opened by Bābur, but, presumably, not
precisely at the time of his visit. I am inclined to
understand that _rozan_ ... _tafarruj karda_ means enjoying
the window formerly used by Muḥammadan rulers. If _aūz:n_ be
the right reading, its sense is obscure.
[2287] This will have occurred in the latter half of 934 AH.
of which no record is now known.
[2288] He is mentioned under the name Asūk Mal _Rājpūt_, as a
servant of Rānā Sangā by the _Mirāt-i-sikandarī_, lith. ed. p.
161. In Bayley's Translation p. 273 he is called Awāsūk,
manifestly by clerical error, the sentence being _az
jānib-i-au Asūk Mal Rājpūt dar ān (qila`) būda_....
[2289] _ātā-līk, aūghūl-līk_, _i.e._ he spoke to the son as a
father, to the mother as a son.
[2290] The _Mirāt-i-sikandarī_ (lith. ed. p. 234, Bayley's
trs. p. 372) confirms Bābur's statement that the precious
things were at Bikramājīt's disposition. Perhaps they had been
in his mother's charge during her husband's life. They were
given later to Bahādur Shāh of Gujrāt.
[2291] The Telī Mandīr has not a cupola but a waggon-roof of
South Indian style, whence it may be that it has the southern
name Telingana, suggested by Col. Luard.
[2292] See Luard's Photo. No. 139 and P. Mundy's sketch of the
fort p. 62.
[2293] This will be the Ghargarāj-gate which looks south
though it is not at the south end of the fort-hill where there
is only a postern approached by a flight of stone steps
(Cunningham p. 332).
[2294] The garden will have been on the lower ground at the
foot of the ramp and not near the Hātī-pūl itself where the
scarp is precipitous.
[2295] _Mūndīn kīchīkrāq ātlānīlghān aīkāndūr._ This may imply
that the distance mentioned to Bābur was found by him an
over-estimate. Perhaps the fall was on the Mūrar-river.
[2296] Rope (Shaw); _corde qui sert à attacher le bagage sur
les chameaux_ (de Courteille); a thread of 20 cubits long for
weaving (Steingass); I have the impression that an _arghamchī_
is a horse's tether.
[2297] For information about this opponent of Bābur in the
battle of Kānwa, _see_ the _Asiatic Review_, Nov. 1915, II.
Beveridge's art. _Silhadī, and the Mirāt-i-sikandarī_.
[2298] Colonel Luard has suggested to us that the Bābur-nāma
word Sūkhjana may stand for Salwai or Sukhalhari, the names of
two villages near Gūālīār.
[2299] Presumably of night, 6-9 p.m., of Saturday Muḥ.
18th-Oct. 2nd.
[2300] f. 330_b_ and f. 339_b_.
[2301] Between the last explicit date in the text, _viz._
Sunday, Muḥ. 19th, and the one next following, _viz._
Saturday, Ṣafar 3rd, the diary of six days is wanting. The gap
seems to be between the unfinished account of doings in
Dhūlpūr and the incomplete one of those of the Monday of the
party. For one of the intermediate days Bābur had made an
appointment, when in Gūālīār (f. 343), with the envoys of
Bikramājīt, the trysting-day being Muḥ. 23rd (_i.e._ 9 days
after Muḥ. 14th). Bābur is likely to have gone to Bīāna as
planned; that envoys met him there may be surmised from the
circumstance that when negociations with Bikramājīt were
renewed in Āgra (f. 345), two sets of envoys were present, a
"former" one and a "later" one, and this although all envoys
had been dismissed from Gūālīār. The "former" ones will have
been those who went to Bīāna, were not given leave there, but
were brought on to Āgra; the "later" ones may have come to
Āgra direct from Ranthaṃbhor. It suits all round to take it
that pages have been lost on which was the record of the end
of the Dhūlpūr visit, of the journey to the, as yet unseen,
fort of Bīāna, of tryst kept by the envoys, of other doings in
Bīāna where, judging from the time taken to reach Sīkrī, it
may be that the _ma`jūn_ party was held.
[2302] Anglicé, Tuesday after 6 p.m.
[2303] _aghaz aīchīb nīma yīb_, which words seem to imply the
breaking of a fast.
[2304] Doubtless the garden owes its name to the eight heavens
or paradises mentioned in the Qurān (Hughes' _Dictionary of
Islām_ _s.n._ Paradise). Bābur appears to have reached Āgra on
the 1st of Ṣafar; the 2nd may well have been spent on the home
affairs of a returned traveller.
[2305] The great, or elder trio were daughters of Sl.
Abū-sa`īd Mīrzā, Bābur's paternal-aunts therefore, of his
dutiful attendance on whom, Gul-badan writes.
[2306] "Lesser," _i.e._ younger in age, lower in rank as not
being the daughters of a sovereign Mīrzā, and held in less
honour because of a younger generation.
[2307] Gul-badan mentions the arrival in Hindūstān of a khānīm
of this name, who was a daughter of Sl. Maḥmūd Khān
_Chaghatāī_, Bābur's maternal-uncle; to this maternal
relationship the word _chīcha_ (mother) may refer. _Yīnkā_,
uncle's or elder brother's wife, has occurred before (ff. 192,
207), _chīcha_ not till now.
[2308] Cf. f. 344_b_ and n.5 concerning the surmised movements
of this set of envoys.
[2309] This promise was first proffered in Gūālīār (f.343).
[2310] These may be Bāī-qarā kinsfolk or Mīrān-shāhīs married
to them. No record of Shāh Qāsim's earlier mission is
preserved; presumably he was sent in 934 AH. and the record
will have been lost with much more of that year's. Khwānd-amīr
may well have had to do with this second mission, since he
could inform Bābur of the discomfort caused in Herī by the
near leaguer of `Ubaidu'l-lāh _Aūzbeg_.
[2311] _Albatta aūzūmīznī har nu` qīlīb tīgūrkūmīz dūr._ The
following versions of this sentence attest its
difficulty:—_Wāqi`āt-i-bāburī_, 1st trs. I.O. 215 f. 212,
_albatta khūdrā ba har nū`ī ka bāshad dar ān khūb khẉāhīm
rasānad_; and 2nd trs. I.O. 217 f. 238_b_, _albatta dar har
nu` karda khūdrā mī rasānīm_; _Memoirs_ p. 388, "I would make
an effort and return in person to Kābul"; _Mémoires_ ii, 356,
_je ferais tous mes efforts pour pousser en avant_. I surmise,
as Pāyanda-i-ḥasan seems to have done (1st Pers. trs.
_supra_), that the passage alludes to Bābur's aims in
Hindūstān which he expects to touch in the coming spring. What
seems likely to be implied is what Erskine says and more,
_viz._ return to Kābul, renewal of conflict with the Aūzbeg
and release of Khurāsān kin through success. As is said by
Bābur immediately after this, T̤ahmāsp of Persia had defeated
`Ubaidu'l-lah _Aūzbeg_ before Bābur's letter was written.
[2312] _Sīmāb yīmāknī bunyād qīldīm_, a statement which would
be less abrupt if it followed a record of illness. Such a
record may have been made and lost.
[2313] The preliminaries to this now somewhat obscure section
will have been lost in the gap of 934 AH. They will have given
Bābur's instructions to Khwāja Dost-i-khāwand and have thrown
light on the unsatisfactory state of Kābul, concerning which a
good deal comes out later, particularly in Bābur's letter to
its Governor Khwāja Kalān. It may be right to suppose that
Kāmrān wanted Kābul and that he expected the Khwāja to bring
him an answer to his request for it, whether made by himself
or for him, through some-one, his mother perhaps, whom Bābur
now sent for to Hindūstān.
[2314] 934 AH.-August 26th 1528 AD.
[2315] The useful verb _tībrāmāk_ which connotes agitation of
mind with physical movement, will here indicate anxiety on the
Khwāja's part to fulfil his mission to Humāyūn.
[2316] Kāmrān's messenger seems to repeat his master's words,
using the courteous imperative of the 3rd person plural.
[2317] Though Bābur not infrequently writes of _e.g._ Bengalīs
and Aūzbegs and Turks in the singular, the Bengalī, the
Aūzbeg, the Turk, he seems here to mean `Ubaidu'l-lāh, the
then dominant Aūzbeg, although Kūchūm was Khāqān.
[2318] This muster preceded defeat near Jām of which Bābur
heard some 19 days later.
[2319] Humāyūn's wife was Bega Begīm, the later Ḥājī Begīm;
Kāmrān's bride was her cousin perhaps named Māh-afrūz
(Gul-badan's _Humāyūn-nāma_ f. 64_b_). The hear-say tense used
by the messenger allows the inference that he was not
accredited to give the news but merely repeated the rumour of
Kābul. The accredited bearer-of-good-tidings came later (f.
346_b_).
[2320] There are three enigmatic words in this section. The
first is the Sayyid's cognomen; was he _daknī_, rather dark of
hue, or _zaknī_, one who knows, or _ruknī_, one who props,
erects scaffolding, _etc._? The second mentions his
occupation; was he a _ghaiba-gar_, diviner (Erskine,
water-finder), a _jība-gar_, cuirass-maker, or a _jibā-gar_,
cistern-maker, which last suits with well-making? The third
describes the kind of well he had in hand, perhaps the stone
one of f. 353_b_; had it scaffolding, or was it for
drinking-water only (_khwāralīq_); had it an arch, or was it
chambered (_khwāzalīq_)? If Bābur's orders for the work had
been preserved,—they may be lost from f. 344_b_, trouble would
have been saved to scribes and translators, as an example of
whose uncertainty it may be mentioned that from the third word
(_khwāralīq_?) Erskine extracted "jets d'eau and artificial
water-works", and de Courteille "_taillé dans le roc vif_".
[2321] All Bābur's datings in Ṣafar are inconsistent with his
of Muḥarram, if a Muḥarram of 30 days [as given by Gladwin and
others].
[2322] _ḥarārat._ This Erskine renders by "so violent an
illness" (p. 388), de Courteille by "_une inflammation
d'entrailles_" (ii, 357), both swayed perhaps by the earlier
mention, on Muh. 10th, of Bābur's medicinal quick-silver, a
drug long in use in India for internal affections (Erskine).
Some such ailment may have been recorded and the record lost
(f. 345_b_ and n. 8), but the heat, fever, and trembling in
the illness of Ṣafar 23rd, taken with the reference to last's
year's attack of fever, all point to climatic fever.
[2323] _aīndīnī_ (or, _āndīnī_). Consistently with the
readings quoted in the preceding note, E. and de C. date the
onset of the fever as Sunday and translate _aīndīnī_ to mean
"two days after". It cannot be necessary however to specify
the interval between Friday and Sunday; the text is not
explicit; it seems safe to surmise only that the cold fit was
less severe on Sunday; the fever had ceased on the following
Thursday.
[2324] Anglicé, Monday after 6 p.m.
[2325] The _Rashaḥāt-i-´aīnu'l-ḥayāt_ (Tricklings from the
fountain of life) contains an interesting and almost
contemporary account of the Khwāja and of his
_Wālidiyyah-risāla_. A summary of what in it concerns the
Khwāja can be read in the JRAS. Jan. 1916, H. Beveridge's art.
The tract, so far as we have searched, is now known in
European literature only through Bābur's metrical translation
of it; and this, again, is known only through the _Rāmpūr
Dīwān_. [It may be noted here, though the topic belongs to the
beginning of the _Bābur-nāma_ (f. 2), that the _Rashaḥāt_
contains particulars about Aḥrārī's interventions for peace
between Bābur's father ´Umar Shaikh and those with whom he
quarrelled.]
[2326] "Here unfortunately, Mr. Elphinstone's Turki copy
finally ends" (Erskine), that is to say, the Elphinstone Codex
belonging to the Faculty of Advocates of Edinburgh.
[2327] This work, Al-buṣīrī's famous poem in praise of the
Prophet, has its most recent notice in M. René Basset's
article of the _Encyclopædia of Islām_ (Leyden and London).
[2328] Bābur's technical terms to describe the metre he used
are, _ramal musaddas makhbūn ´arūẓ_ and _ẓarb gāh abtar gāh
makhbūn muhẕūf wazn_.
[2329] _aūtkān yīl (u) har maḥal mūndāq ´āriẓat kīm būldī_,
from which it seems correct to omit the _u_ (and), thus
allowing the reference to be to last year's illnesses only;
because no record, of any date, survives of illness lasting
even one full month, and no other year has a _lacuna_ of
sufficient length unless one goes improbably far back: for
these attacks seem to be of Indian climatic fever. One in last
year (934 AH.) lasting 25-26 days (f. 331) might be called a
month's illness; another or others may have happened in the
second half of the year and their record be lost, as several
have been lost, to the detriment of connected narrative.
[2330] Mr. Erskine's rendering (_Memoirs_ p. 388) of the above
section shows something of what is gained by acquaintance
which he had not, with the _Rashaḥāt-i-´āinu'l-ḥayāt_ and with
Bābur's versified _Wālidiyyah-risāla_.
[2331] This gap, like some others in the diary of 935 AH. can
be attributed safely to loss of pages, because preliminaries
are now wanting to several matters which Bābur records shortly
after it. Such are (1) the specification of the three articles
sent to Naṣrat Shāh, (2) the motive for the feast of f.
351_b_, (3) the announcement of the approach of the surprising
group of envoys, who appear without introduction at that
entertainment, in a manner opposed to Bābur's custom of
writing, (4) an account of their arrival and reception.
[2332] Land-holder (_see_ _Hobson-Jobson_ _s.n._ talookdar).
[2333] The long detention of this messenger is mentioned in
Bābur's letter to Humāyūn (f. 349).
[2334] These words, if short _a_ be read in Shăh, make 934 by
_abjad_. The child died in infancy; no son of Humāyūn's had
survived childhood before Akbar was born, some 14 years later.
Concerning Abū'l-wajd _Fārighī_, _see_ _Ḥabību's-siyar_, lith.
ed. ii, 347; _Muntakhabu't-tawārikh_, Bib. Ind. ed. i, 3; and
Index _s.n._
[2335] I am indebted to Mr. A. E. Hinks, Secretary of the
Royal Geographical Society, for the following approximate
estimate of the distances travelled by Bīān Shaikh:—(_a_) From
Kishm to Kābul 240m.—from Kābul to Peshāwar 175m.—from
Peshāwar to Āgra (railroad distance) 759 m.—total 1174 m.;
daily average _cir._ 38 miles; (_b_) Qila`-i-ẕafar to Kābul
264m.—Kābul to Qandahār 316m.—total 580m.; daily average
_cir._ 53 miles. The second journey was made probably in 913
AH. and to inform Bābur of the death of the Shāh of Badakhshān
(f. 213_b_).
[2336] On Muḥ. 10th 934 AH.-Sep. 26th 1528 AD. For accounts of
the campaign _see_ Rieu's Suppl. Persian Cat. under _Histories
of T̤ahmāsp_ (Churchill Collection); the _Ḥabību's-siyar_ and
the _`Ālam-ārāī-`abbāsī_, the last a highly rhetorical work,
Bābur's accounts (Index _s.n._ Jām) are merely repetitions of
news given to him; he is not responsible for mistakes he
records, such as those of f. 354. It must be mentioned that
Mr. Erskine has gone wrong in his description of the battle,
the starting-point of error being his reversal of two events,
the encampment of T̤ahmāsp at Rādagān and his passage through
Mashhad. A century ago less help, through maps and travel, was
available than now.
[2337] _tufak u arāba_, the method of array Bābur adopted from
the Rūmī-Persian model.
[2338] T̤ahmāsp's main objective, aimed at earlier than the
Aūzbeg muster in Merv, was Herāt, near which `Ubaid Khān had
been for 7 months. He did not take the shortest route for
Mashhad, _viz._ the Dāmghān-Sabzawār-Nīshāpūr road, but went
from Dāmghān for Mashhad by way of Kālpūsh (_`Ālam-ārāī_ lith.
ed. p. 45) and Rādagān. Two military advantages are obvious on
this route; (1) it approaches Mashhad by the descending road
of the Kechef-valley, thus avoiding the climb into that valley
by a pass beyond Nīshāpūr on the alternative route; and (2) it
passes through the fertile lands of Rādagān. [For Kālpūsh and
the route _see_ Fr. military map, Sheets Astarābād and Merv,
n.e. of Basṯām.]
[2339] 7 m. from Kushan and 86 m. from Mashhad. As Lord Curzon
reports (_Persia_, ii, 120) that his interlocutors on the spot
were not able to explain the word "Radkan," it may be useful
to note here that the town seems to borrow its name from the
ancient tower standing near it, the _Mīl-i-rādagān_, or, as
Réclus gives it, _Tour de méimandan_, both names meaning,
Tower of the bounteous (or, beneficent, highly-distinguished,
_etc._). (Cf. Vullers Dict. _s.n._ _rād_; Réclus' _L'Asie
Antérieure_ p. 219; and O'Donovan's _Merv Oasis_.) Perhaps
light on the distinguished people (_rādagān_) is given by the
_Dābistān's_ notice of an ancient sect, the Rādīyān, seeming
to be fire-worshippers whose chief was Rād-gūna, an eminently
brave hero of the latter part of Jāmshīd's reign (800 B.C.?).
Of the town Rādagān Daulat Shāh makes frequent mention. A
second town so-called and having a tower lies north of
Ispahān.
[2340] In these days of trench-warfare it would give a wrong
impression to say that T̤ahmāsp entrenched himself; he did
what Bābur did before his battles at Panīpat and Kānwa
(_q.v._).
[2341] The Aūzbegs will have omitted from their purview of
affairs that T̤ahmāsp's men were veterans.
[2342] The holy city had been captured by `Ubaid Khān in 933
AH. (1525 AD.), but nothing in Bīān Shaikh's narrative
indicates that they were now there in force.
[2343] Presumably the one in the Rādagān-meadow.
[2344] using the _yada-tāsh_ to ensure victory (Index _s.n._).
[2345] If then, as now, Scorpio's appearance were expected in
Oct.-Nov., the Aūzbegs had greatly over-estimated their power
to check T̤ahmāsp's movements; but it seems fairly clear that
they expected Scorpio to follow Virgo in Sept.-Oct. according
to the ancient view of the Zodiacal Signs which allotted two
houses to the large Scorpio and, if it admitted Libra at all,
placed it between Scorpio's claws (Virgil's _Georgics_ i, 32
and Ovid's _Metamorphoses_, ii, 195.—H. B.).
[2346] It would appear that the Aūzbegs, after hearing that
T̤ahmāsp was encamped at Rādagān, expected to interpose
themselves in his way at Mashhad and to get their 20,000 to
Rādagān before he broke camp. T̤āhmāsp's swiftness spoiled
their plan; he will have stayed at Rādagān a short time only,
perhaps till he had further news of the Aūzbegs, perhaps also
for commissariat purposes and to rest his force. He visited
the shrine of Imām Reza, and had reached Jām in time to
confront his adversaries as they came down to it from
Zawarābād (Pilgrims'-town).
[2347] or, Khirjard, as many MSS. have it. It seems to be a
hamlet or suburb of Jām. The _`Ālam-ārāī_ (lith. ed. p. 40)
writes Khusrau-jard-i-Jām (the Khusrau-throne of Jām), perhaps
rhetorically. The hamlet is Maulānā `Abdu'r-raḥmān _Jāmī's_
birthplace (Daulat Shāh's _Taẕkirat_, E. G. Browne's ed. p.
483). Jām now appears on maps as Turbat-i-Shaikh Jāmī, the
tomb (_turbat_) being that of the saintly ancestor of Akbar's
mother Ḥamīda-bānū.
[2348] The _`Ālam-ārāī_ (lith. ed. p. 31) says, but in
grandiose language, that `Ubaid Khān placed at the foot of his
standard 40 of the most eminent men of Transoxania who prayed
for his success, but that as his cause was not good, their
supplications were turned backwards, and that all were slain
where they had prayed.
[2349] Here the 1st Pers. trs. (I.O. 215 f. 214) mentions that
it was Chalma who wrote and despatched the exact particulars
of the defeat of the Aūzbegs. This information explains the
presumption Bābur expresses. It shows that Chalma was in Ḥiṣār
where he may have written his letter to give news to Humāyūn.
At the time Bīān Shaikh left, the Mīrzā was near Kishm; if he
had been the enterprising man he was not, one would surmise
that he had moved to seize the chance of the sulṯāns'
abandonment of Ḥiṣār, without waiting for his father's urgency
(f. 348_b_). Whether he had done so and was the cause of the
sulṯāns' flight, is not known from any chronicle yet come to
our hands. Chalma's father Ibrāhīm _Jānī_ died fighting for
Bābur against Shaibāq Khān in 906 AH. (f. 90_b_).
As the sense of the name-of-office Chalma is still in doubt, I
suggest that it may be an equivalent of _aftābachī_, bearer of
the water-bottle on journeys. _T. chalma_ can mean a
water-vessel carried on the saddle-bow; one Chalma on record
was a _safarchī_; if, in this word, _safar_ be read to mean
journey, an approach is made to _aftābachī_ (fol. 15_b_ and
note; Blochmann's A.-i-A. p. 378 and n. 3).
[2350] The copies of Bābur's Turkī letter to Humāyūn and the
later one to Khwāja Kalān (f. 359) are in some MSS. of the
Persian text translated only (I.O. 215 f. 214); in others
appear in Turkī only (I.O. 217 f. 240); in others appear in
Turkī and Persian (B. M. Add. 26,000 and I.O. 2989); while in
Muḥ. Shīrāzī's lith. ed. they are omitted altogether (p. 228).
[2351] Trans- and Cis-Hindukush. Pāyanda-ḥasan (in one of his
useful glosses to the 1st Pers. trs.) amplifies here by
"Khurāsān, Mā warā'u'n-nahr and Kābul".
[2352] The words Bābur gives as mispronunciations are somewhat
uncertain in sense; manifestly both are of ill-omen:—Al-amān
itself [of which the _alāmā_ of the Ḥai. MS. and Ilminsky
maybe an abbreviation,] is the cry of the vanquished,
"Quarter! mercy!"; _Aīlāmān_ and also _ālāman_ can represent a
Turkmān raider.
[2353] Presumably amongst Tīmūrids.
[2354] Perhaps Bābur here makes a placatory little joke.
[2355] _i.e._ that offered by T̤ahmāsp's rout of the Aūzbegs
at Jām.
[2356] He was an adherent of Bābur. Cf. f. 353.
[2357] The plural "your" will include Humāyūn and Kāmrān.
Neither had yet shewn himself the heritor of his father's
personal dash and valour; they had lacked the stress which
shaped his heroism.
[2358] My husband has traced these lines to Niẕāmī's _Khusrau_
and _Shīrīn_. [They occur on f. 256_b_ in his MS. of 317
folios.] Bābur may have quoted from memory, since his version
varies. The lines need their context to be understood; they
are part of Shīrīn's address to Khusrau when she refuses to
marry him because at the time he is fighting for his sovereign
position; and they say, in effect, that while all other work
stops for marriage (_kadkhudāī_), kingly rule does not.
[2359] _Aūlūghlār kūtārīmlīk kīrāk_; 2nd Pers. trs. _buzurgān
bardāsht mī bāīd kardand_. This dictum may be a quotation. I
have translated it to agree with Bābur's reference to the ages
of the brothers, but _aūlūghlār_ expresses greatness of
position as well as seniority in age, and the dictum may be
taken as a Turkī version of "_Noblesse oblige_", and may also
mean "The great must be magnanimous". (Cf. de C.'s Dict.
_s.n._ _kūtārīmlīk_.) [It may be said of the verb _bardāshlan_
used in the Pers. trs., that Abū'l-faẓl, perhaps translating
_kūtārīmlīk_ reported to him, puts it into Bābur's mouth when,
after praying to take Humāyūn's illness upon himself, he cried
with conviction, "I have borne it away" (A.N. trs. H.B. i,
276).]
[2360] If Bābur had foreseen that his hard-won rule in
Hindūstān was to be given to the winds of one son's
frivolities and the other's disloyalty, his words of scant
content with what the Hindūstān of his desires had brought
him, would have expressed a yet keener pain (_Rāmpūr Dīwān_
E.D.R.'s ed. p. 15 l. 5 fr. ft.).
[2361] _Bostān_, cap. _Advice of Noshirwān to Hurmuz_ (H.B.).
[2362] A little joke at the expense of the mystifying letter.
[2363] For _yā_, Mr. Erskine writes _be_. What the mistake was
is an open question; I have guessed an exchange of _ī_ for
_ū_, because such an exchange is not infrequent amongst Turkī
long vowels.
[2364] That of reconquering Tīmūrid lands.
[2365] of _Kūlāb_; he was the father of Ḥaram Begīm, one of
Gul-badan's personages.
[2366] _aūn altī gūnlūk m:ljār bīla_, as on f. 354_b_, and
with exchange of T. _m:ljār_ for P. _mī`ād_, f. 355_b_.
[2367] Probably into Rājpūt lands, notably into those of
Ṣalāḥu'd-dīn.
[2368] _tukhmalīq chakmānlār_; as _tukhma_ means both button
and gold-embroidery, it may be right, especially of Hindūstān
articles, to translate sometimes in the second sense.
[2369] These statements of date are consistent with Bābur's
earlier explicit entries and with Erskine's equivalents of the
Christian Era, but at variance with Gladwin's and with
Wüstenfeldt's calculation that Rabī` II. 1st was Dec. 13th.
Yet Gladwin (_Revenue Accounts_, ed. 1790 AD. p. 22) gives
Rabī` I. 30 days. Without in the smallest degree questioning
the two European calculations, I follow Bābur, because in his
day there may have been allowed variation which finds no entry
in methodical calendars. Erskine followed Bābur's statements;
he is likely nevertheless to have seen Gladwin's book.
[2370] Erskine estimated this at £500, but later cast doubts
on such estimates as being too low (_History of India_, vol.
i, App. D.).
[2371] The bearer of the stamp (_ṯamghā_) who by impressing it
gave quittance for the payment of tolls and other dues.
[2372] Either 24ft. or 36ft. according to whether the short or
long _qārī_ be meant (_infra_). These towers would provide
resting-place, and some protection against ill-doers. They
recall the two _mīl-i-rādagān_ of Persia (f. 347 _n._ 9), the
purpose of which is uncertain. Bābur's towers were not "_kos
mīnārs_", nor is it said that he ordered each _kuroh_ to be
marked on the road. Some of the _kos mīnārs_ on the "old
Mughal roads" were over 30ft. high; a considerable number are
entered and depicted in the _Annual Progress Report_ of the
Archæological Survey for 1914 (Northern Circle, p. 45 and
Plates 44, 45). Some at least have a _lower_ chamber.
[2373] Four-doored, open-on-all-sides. We have not found the
word with this meaning in Dictionaries. It may translate H.
_chaukandī_.
[2374] Erskine makes 9 _kos_ (_kurohs_) to be 13-14 miles,
perhaps on the basis of the smaller _gaz_ of 24 inches.
[2375] _altī yām-ātī bāghlāghāīlār_ which, says one of
Erskine's manuscripts, is called a _dāk-choki_.
[2376] Neither Erskine (_Mems._ p. 394), nor de Courteille
(_Méms._ ii, 370) recognized the word _Mubīn_ here, although
each mentions the poem later (p. 431 and ii, 461), deriving
his information about it from the _Akbar-nāma_, Erskine
direct, de Courteille by way of the Turkī translation of the
same _Akbar-nāma_ passage, which Ilminsky found in Kehr's
volume and which is one of the much discussed "Fragments", at
first taken to be extra writings of Bābur's (cf. Index _in
loco_ _s.n._ Fragments). Ilminsky (p. 455) prints the word
clearly, as one who knows it; he may have seen that part of
the poem itself which is included in Berésine's _Chrestomathie
Turque_ (p. 226 to p. 272), under the title _Fragment d'un
poème inconnu de Bābour_, and have observed that Bābur himself
shews his title to be _Mubīn_, in the lines of his colophon
(p. 271),
_Chū bīān qīldīm āndā shar`īyāt,
Nī `ajab gar Mubīn dīdīm āt?_
(Since in it I have made exposition of Laws, what wonder if I
named it _Mubīn_ (exposition)?) Cf. _Translator's Note_, p.
437. [Berésine says (Ch. T.) that he prints half of his
"_unique manuscrit_" of the poem.]
[2377] The passage Bābur quotes comes from the _Mubīn_ section
on _tayammum masā'la_ (purification with sand), where he tells
his son sand may be used, _Sū yurāq būlsā sīndīn aīr bīr mīl_
(if from thee water be one _mīl_ distant), and then interjects
the above explanation of what the _mīl_ is. Two lines of his
original are not with the _Bābur-nāma_.
[2378] The _ṯanāb_ was thus 120 ft. long. Cf. A.-i-A. Jarrett
i, 414; Wilson's _Glossary of Indian Terms_ and Gladwin's
_Revenue Accounts_, p. 14.
[2379] Bābur's customary method of writing allows the
inference that he recorded, in due place, the coming and
reception of the somewhat surprising group of guests now
mentioned as at this entertainment. That preliminary record
will have been lost in one or more of the small gaps in his
diary of 935 AH. The envoys from the Samarkand Aūzbegs and
from the Persian Court may have come in acknowledgment of the
_Fātḥ-nāma_ which announced victory over Rānā Sangā; the
guests from Farghāna will have accepted the invitation sent,
says Gul-badan, "in all directions," after Bābur's defeat of
Sl. Ibrāhīm _Lūdī_, to urge hereditary servants and Tīmūrid
and Chīngīz-khānid kinsfolk to come and see prosperity with
him now when "the Most High has bestowed sovereignty" (f.
293a; Gul-badan's H.N. f. 11).
[2380] Hindū here will represent Rājpūt. D'Herbélot's
explanation of the name Qīzīl-bāsh (Red-head) comes in
usefully here:—"KEZEL BASCH or KIZIL BASCH. Mot Turc qui
signifie _Tête rouge_. Les Turcs appellent les Persans de ce
nom, depuis qu'Ismaël Sofi, fondateur de la Dynastie des
princes qui regnent aujourd'hui en Perse, commanda à ses
soldats de porter un bonnet rouge autour duquel il y a une
écharpe ou Turban à douze plis, en mémoire et à l'honneur des
12 Imams, successeurs d'Ali, desquels il prétendoit descendre.
Ce bonnet s'appelle en Persan, _Tāj_, et fut institué l'an
907^e de l'Hég." T̤ahmāsp himself uses the name Qīzīl-bāsh;
Bābur does so too. Other explanations of it are found
(Steingass), but the one quoted above suits its use without
contempt. (Cf. f. 354 n. 3).
[2381] _cir._ 140-150ft. or more if the 36in. _qārī_ be the
unit.
[2382] _Andropogon muricatus_, the scented grass of which the
roots are fitted into window spaces and moistened to mitigate
dry, hot winds. Cf. _Hobson-Jobson_ _s.n._ _Cuscuss_.
[2383] A nephew and a grandson of Aḥrāri's second son Yahya
(f. 347_b_) who had stood staunch to Bābur till murdered in
906 AH.-1500 AD. (80_b_). They are likely to be those to whom
went a copy of the _Mubīn_ under cover of a letter addressed
to lawyers of Mā warā'u'n-nahr (f. 351 n. 1). The Khwājas were
in Āgra three weeks after Bābur finished his metrical version
of their ancestor's _Wālidiyyah-risāla_; whether their coming
(which must have been announced some time before their
arrival), had part in directing his attention to the tract can
only be surmised (f. 346).
[2384] He was an Aūzbeg (f. 371) and from his association here
with a Bāī-qarā, and, later with Qāsim-i-ḥusain who was half
Bāī-qarā, half Aūzbeg, seems likely to be of the latter's
family (Index _s.nn._).
[2385] _sāchāq kīūrdī_ (_kīltūrdī_?) No record survives to
tell the motive for this feast; perhaps the gifts made to
Bābur were congratulatory on the birth of a grandson, the
marriage of a son, and on the generally-prosperous state of
his affairs.
[2386] Gold, silver and copper coins.
[2387] Made so by _bhang_ or other exciting drug.
[2388] _ārāl_, presumably one left by the winter-fall of the
Jumna; or, a peninsula.
[2389] Scribes and translators have been puzzled here. My
guess at the Turkī clause is _aūrang aīralīk kīsh jabbah_. In
reading _muslin_, I follow Erskine who worked in India and
could take local opinion; moreover gifts made in Āgra probably
would be Indian.
[2390] For one Ḥāfiẕ of Samarkand see f.237_b_.
[2391] Kūchūm was Khāqān of the Aūzbegs and had his seat in
Samarkand. One of his sons, Abū-sa`īd, mentioned below, had
sent envoys. With Abū-sa`īd is named Mihr-bān who was one of
Kūchūm's wives; Pulād was their son. Mihr-bān was, I think, a
half-sister of Bābur, a daughter of `Umar Shaikh and Umīd of
Andijān (f. 9), and a full-sister of Nāṣir. No doubt she had
been captured on one of the occasions when Bābur lost to the
Aūzbegs. In 925 AH.-1519 AD. (f. 237_b_) when he sent his
earlier _Dīwān_ to Pulād Sl. (_Translator's Note_, p. 438) he
wrote a verse on its back which looks to be addressed to his
half-sister through her son.
[2392] T̤ahmāsp's envoy; the title Chalabī shews high birth.
[2393] This statement seems to imply that the weight made of
silver and the weight made of gold were of the same size and
that the differing specific gravity of the two metals,—that of
silver being _cir._ 10 and that of gold _cir._ 20—gave their
equivalents the proportion Bābur states. Persian Dictionaries
give _sang_ (_tāsh_), a weight, but without further
information. We have not found mention of the _tāsh_ as a
recognized Turkī weight; perhaps the word _tāsh_ stands for an
ingot of unworked metal of standard size. (Cf. _inter alios
libros_, A.-i-A. Blochmann p. 36, Codrington's _Musalman
Numismatics_ p. 117, concerning the _miṣqāl, dīnār, etc._)
[2394] _tarkāsh bīla._ These words are clear in the Ḥai. MS.
but uncertain in some others. E. and de C. have no equivalent
of them. Perhaps the coins were given by the quiverful; that a
quiver of arrows was given is not expressed.
[2395] Bābur's half-nephew; he seems from his name
Keepsake-of-nāṣir to have been posthumous.
[2396] 934 AH.-1528 AD. (f. 336).
[2397] Or, gold-embroidered.
[2398] Wife of Muḥammad-i-zamān Mīrzā.
[2399] These Highlanders of Asfara will have come by
invitation sent after the victory at Panīpat; their welcome
shows remembrance of and gratitude for kindness received a
quarter of a century earlier. Perhaps villagers from Dikh-kat
will have come too, who had seen the Pādshāh run barefoot on
their hills (_Index s.nn._).
[2400] Here gratitude is shewn for protection given in 910
AH.-1504 AD. to the families of Bābur and his men when on the
way to Kābul. Qurbān and Shaikhī were perhaps in Fort Ajar (f.
122_b_, f. 126).
[2401] Perhaps these acrobats were gipsies.
[2402] This may be the one with which Sayyid Daknī was
concerned (f. 346).
[2403] Bābur obviously made the distinction between _pahr_ and
_pās_ that he uses the first for day-watches, the second for
those of the night.
[2404] Anglicé, Tuesday, Dec. 21st; by Muḥammadan plan,
Wednesday 22nd. Dhūlpūr is 34 m. s. of Āgra; the journey of
10hrs. 20m. would include the nooning and the time taken in
crossing rivers.
[2405] The well was to fill a cistern; the 26 spouts with
their 26 supports were to take water into (26?) conduits.
Perhaps _tāsh_ means that they were hewn in the solid rock;
perhaps that they were on the outer side of the reservoir.
They will not have been built of hewn stone, or the word would
have been _sangīn_ or _tāshdīn_.
[2406] One occupation of these now blank days is indicated by
the date of the "_Rāmpūr Dīwān_", Thursday Rabī` II. 15th
(Dec. 27th).
[2407] The demon (or, athlete) sulṯān of Rumelia (_Rūmlū_);
once T̤ahmāsp's guardian (_Taẕkirat-i-T̤ahmāsp_, Bib. Ind. ed.
Phillott, p. 2). Some writers say he was put to death by
T̤ahmāsp (_æt._ 12) in 933 AH.; if this were so, it is strange
to find a servant described as his in 935 AH. (An account of
the battle is given in the _Sharaf-nāma_, written in 1005 AH.
by Sharaf Khān who was reared in T̤ahmāsp's house. The book
has been edited by Veliaminof-Zernof and translated into
French by Charmoy; cf. Trs. vol. ii, part i, p. 555.—_H.
Beveridge._)
[2408] This name, used by one who was with the Shāh's troops,
attracts attention; it may show the composition of the Persian
army; it may differentiate between the troops and their
"Qīzīl-bāsh leader".
[2409] Several writers give Sārū-qamsh (Charmoy, _roseau
jaune_) as the name of the village where the battle was
fought; Sharaf Khān gives `Umarābād and mentions that after
the fight T̤ahmāsp spent some time in the meadow of
Sārū-qamsh.
[2410] The number of T̤ahmāsp's guns being a matter of
interest, reference should be made to Bābur's accounts of his
own battles in which he arrayed in Rūmī (Ottoman) fashion; it
will then be seen that the number of carts does not imply the
number of guns (Index _s.n._ _arāba_, cart).
[2411] This cannot but represent T̤ahmāsp who was on the
battle-field (_see_ his own story _infra_). He was 14 years
old; perhaps he was called Shāh-zāda, and not Shāh, on account
of his youth, or because under guardianship (?). Readers of
the Persian histories of his reign may know the reason. Bābur
hitherto has always called the boy Shāh-zāda; after the
victory at Jām, he styles him Shāh. Jūha Sl. (_Taklū_) who was
with him on the field, was Governor of Ispahān.
[2412] If this Persian account of the battle be in its right
place in Bābur's diary, it is singular that the narrator
should be so ill-informed at a date allowing facts to be
known; the three sulṯāns he names as killed escaped to die,
Kūchūm in 937 AH.-1530 AD., Abū-sa`īd in 940 AH.-1533 AD.,
`Ubaid in 946 AH.-1539 AD. (Lane-Poole's _Muḥammadan
Dynasties_). It would be natural for Bābur to comment on the
mistake, since envoys from two of the sulṯāns reported killed,
were in Āgra. There had been time for the facts to be known:
the battle was fought on Sep. 26th; the news of it was in Āgra
on Nov. 23rd; envoys from both adversaries were at Bābur's
entertainment on Dec. 19th. From this absence of comment and
for the reasons indicated in note 3 (_infra_), it appears that
matter has been lost from the text.
[2413] T̤ahmāsp's account of the battle is as follows
(_T.-i-T̤._ p. 11):—"I marched against the Aūzbegs. The battle
took place outside Jām. At the first onset, Aūzbeg prevailed
over Qīzīl-bāsh. Ya`qūb Sl. fled and Sl. Wālāma _Taklū_ and
other officers of the right wing were defeated and put to
flight. Putting my trust in God, I prayed and advanced some
paces.... One of my body-guard getting up with `Ubaid struck
him with a sword, passed on, and occupied himself with
another. Qūlīj Bahādur and other Aūzbegs carried off the
wounded `Ubaid; Kūchkūnjī (Kūchūm) Khān and Jānī Khān Beg,
when they became aware of this state of affairs, fled to Merv.
Men who had fled from our army rejoined us that day. That
night I spent on the barren plain (_ṣaḥra'_). I did not know
what had happened to `Ubaid. I thought perhaps they were
devising some stratagem against me." The `A.-`A. says that
`Ubaid's assailant, on seeing his low stature and contemptible
appearance, left him for a more worthy foe.
[2414] Not only does some comment from Bābur seem needed on an
account of deaths he knew had not occurred, but loss of matter
may be traced by working backward from his next explicit date
(_Friday 19th_), to do which shows fairly well that the "same
day" will be not Tuesday the 16th but Thursday the 18th.
Ghīāṣu'd-dīn's reception was on the day preceding Friday 19th,
so that part of Thursday's record (as shewn by "on this same
day"), the whole of Wednesday's, and (to suit an expected
comment by Bābur on the discrepant story of the Aūzbeg deaths)
part of Tuesday's are missing. The gap may well have contained
mention of Ḥasan _Chalabī's_ coming (f. 357), or explain why
he had not been at the feast with his younger brother.
[2415] _qūrchī_, perhaps body-guard, life-guardsman.
[2416] As on f. 350_b_ (_q.v._ p. 628 n. 1) _aūn altī gūnlūk
bŭljār_ (or, _m:ljār_) _bīla_.
[2417] A sub-division of the Ballia district of the United
Provinces, on the right bank of the Ghogrā.
[2418] _i.e._ in 16 days; he was 24 or 25 days away.
[2419] The envoy had been long in returning; Kanwā was fought
in March, 1527; it is now the end of 1528 AD.
[2420] Rabī` II. 20th—January 1st 1529 AD.; Anglicé, Friday,
after 6p.m.
[2421] This "Bengalī" is territorial only; Naṣrat Shāh was a
Sayyid's son (f.271).
[2422] Ismā`īl Mītā (f. 357) who will have come with Mullā
Maẕhab.
[2423] _mī`ād_, cf. f. 350_b_ and f. 354_b_. Ghīāṣu'd-dīn may
have been a body-guard.
[2424] Lūdī Afghāns and their friends, including Bīban and
Bāyazīd.
[2425] _yūllūq tūrālīk_; _Memoirs_, p. 398, "should act in
every respect in perfect conformity to his commands";
_Mémoires_ ii, 379, "_chacun suivant son rang et sa dignité_."
[2426] _tawāchī._ Bābur's uses of this word support Erskine in
saying that "the _tawāchī_ is an officer who corresponds very
nearly to the Turkish _chāwush_, or special messenger"
(Zenker, p. 346, col. iii) "but he was also often employed to
act as a commissary for providing men and stores, as a
commissioner in superintending important affairs, as an
aide-de-camp in carrying orders, _etc._"
[2427] Here the Ḥai. MS. has the full-vowelled form, _būljār_.
Judging from what that Codex writes, _būljār_ may be used for
a rendezvous of troops, _m:ljār_ or _b:ljār_ for any other
kind of tryst (f. 350, p. 628 n. 1; Index _s.nn._), also for a
shelter.
[2428] _yāwūshūb aīdī_, which I translate in accordance with
other uses of the verb, as meaning approach, but is taken by
some other workers to mean "near its end".
[2429] Though it is not explicitly said, Chīn-tīmūr may have
been met with on the road; as the "also" (_ham_) suggests.
[2430] To the above news the _Akbar-nāma_ adds the important
item reported by Humāyūn, that there was talk of peace. Bābur
replied that, if the time for negotiation were not past,
Humāyūn was to make peace until such time as the affairs of
Hindūstān were cleared off. This is followed in the A. N. by a
seeming quotation from Bābur's letter, saying in effect that
he was about to leave Hindūstān, and that his followers in
Kābul and Tramontana must prepare for the expedition against
Samarkand which would be made on his own arrival. None of the
above matter is now with the _Bābur-nāma_; either it was there
once, was used by Abū'l-faẓl and lost before the Persian trss.
were made; or Abū'l-faẓl used Bābur's original, or copied,
letter itself. That desire for peace prevailed is shewn by
several matters:—T̤ahmāsp, the victor, asked and obtained the
hand of an Aūzbeg in marriage; Aūzbeg envoys came to Āgra, and
with them Turk Khwājas having a mission likely to have been
towards peace (f. 357_b_); Bābur's wish for peace is shewn
above and on f. 359 in a summarized letter to Humāyūn. (Cf.
Abū'l-ghāzī's _Shajarat-i-Turk_ [_Histoire des Mongols_,
Désmaisons' trs. p. 216]; _Akbar-nāma_, H. B.'s trs. i, 270.)
A here-useful slip of reference is made by the translator of
the _Akbar-nāma_ (_l.c._ n. 3) to the Fragment (_Mémoires_ ii,
456) instead of to the _Bābur-nāma_ translation (_Mémoires_
ii, 381). The utility of the slip lies in its accompanying
comment that de C.'s translation is in closer agreement with
the _Akbar-nāma_ than with Bābur's words. Thus the
_Akbar-nāma_ passage is brought into comparison with what it
is now safe to regard as its off-shoot, through Turkī and
French, in the Fragment. When the above comment on their
resemblance was made, we were less assured than now as to the
genesis of the Fragment (Index _s.n._ Fragment).
[2431] Hind-āl's guardian (G. B.'s _Humāyūn-nāma_ trs. p. 106,
n. 1).
[2432] Nothing more about Humāyūn's expedition is found in the
B. N.; he left Badakhshān a few months later and arrived in
Āgra, after his mother (f. 380_b_), at a date in August of
which the record is wanting.
[2433] under 6 m. from Āgra. Gul-badan (f. 16) records a visit
to the garden, during which her father said he was weary of
sovereignty. Cf. f. 331_b_, p. 589 n. 2.
[2434] _kūrnīsh kīlkān kīshīlār._
[2435] MSS. vary or are indecisive as to the omitted word. I
am unable to fill the gap. Erskine has "_Sir Māwineh_ (or
hair-twist)" (p. 399), De Courteille, _Sir-mouïneh_ (ii, 382).
_Mūīna_ means ermine, sable and other fine fur
(_Shamsu'l-lūghāt_, p 274, col. 1).
[2436] His brother Ḥaẓrat Makhdūmī Nūrā (Khwāja Khāwand
Maḥmūd) is much celebrated by Ḥaidar Mīrzā, and Bābur
describes his own visit in the words he uses of the visit of
an inferior to himself. Cf. _Tārīkh-i-rashīdī_ trs. pp. 395,
478; _Akbar-nāma_ trs., i, 356, 360.
[2437] No record survives of the arrival of this envoy or of
why he was later in coming than his brother who was at Bābur's
entertainment. Cf. f. 361_b_.
[2438] Presumably this refers to the appliances mentioned on
f. 350_b_.
[2439] f. 332, n. 3.
[2440] _zarbaft m:l:k._ Amongst gold stuffs imported into
Hindūstān, Abū'l-faẓl mentions _mīlak_ which may be Bābur's
cloth. It came from Turkistān (A.-i-A. Blochmann, p. 92 and
n.).
[2441] A _tang_ is a small silver coin of the value of about a
penny (Erskine).
[2442] _tānglāsī_, lit. at its dawning. It is not always clear
whether _tānglāsī_ means, Anglicé, next dawn or day, which
here would be Monday, or whether it stands for the dawn
(daylight) of the Muḥammadan day which had begun at 6 p. m. on
the previous evening, here Sunday. When Bābur records, _e.g._
a late audience, _tānglāsī_, following, will stand for the
daylight of the day of audience. The point is of some
importance as bearing on discrepancies of days, as these are
stated in MSS., with European calendars; it is conspicuously
so in Bābur's diary sections.
[2443] _risālat ṯarīqī bīla_; their special mission may have
been to work for peace (f. 359_b_, n. 1).
[2444] He may well be Kāmrān's father-in-law Sl. `Alī Mīrzā
T̤aghāī _Begchīk_.
[2445] _nīmcha u takband._ The _tak-band_ is a silk or woollen
girdle fastening with a "hook and eye" (Steingass), perhaps
with a buckle.
[2446] This description is that of the contents of the
"_Rāmpūr Dīwān_"; the _tarjuma_ being the _Wālidiyyah-risāla_
(f. 361 and n.). What is said here shows that four copies went
to Kābul or further north. Cf. Appendix Q.
[2447] _Sar-khaṯ_ may mean "copies" set for Kāmrān to imitate.
[2448] _bīr pahr yāwūshūb aīdī_; I.O. 215 f. 221, _qarīb yak
pās roz būd_.
[2449] _ākhar_, a word which may reveal a bad start and
uncertainty as to when and where to halt.
[2450] This, and not Chandwār (f. 331_b_), appears the correct
form. Neither this place nor Ābāpūr is mentioned in the G. of
I.'s Index or shewn in the I.S. Map of 1900 (cf. f. 331_b_ n.
3). Chandawār lies s.w. of Fīrūzābād, and near a village
called Ṣufīpūr.
[2451] Anglicé, Wednesday after 6 p.m.
[2452] or life-guardsman, body-guard.
[2453] This higher title for T̤ahmāsp, which first appears
here in the B.N., may be an early slip in the Turkī text,
since it occurs in many MSS. and also because "Shāh-zāda"
reappears on f. 359.
[2454] Slash-face, _balafré_; perhaps Ibrāhīm _Begchīk_ (Index
_s.n._), but it is long since he was mentioned by Bābur, at
least by name. He may however have come, at this time of
reunion in Āgra, with Mīrzā Beg T̤aghāī (his uncle or
brother?), father-in-law of Kāmrān.
[2455] The army will have kept to the main road connecting the
larger towns mentioned and avoiding the ravine district of the
Jumna. What the boat-journey will have been between high banks
and round remarkable bends can be learned from the G. of I.
and Neave's _District Gazetteer of Mainpūrī_. Rāprī is on the
road from Fīrūzābād to the ferry for Bateswar, where a large
fair is held annually. (It is misplaced further east in the
I.S. Map of 1900.) There are two Fatḥpūrs, n. e. of Rāprī.
[2456] _aūlūgh tūghāīnīng tūbī._ Here it suits to take the
Turkī word _tūghāī_ to mean bend of a river, and as referring
to the one shaped (on the map) like a soda-water bottle, its
neck close to Rāprī. Bābur avoided it by taking boat below its
mouth.—In neither Persian translation has _tūghāī_ been read
to mean a bend of a river; the first has _az pāyān rūīa
Rāprī_, perhaps referring to the important ford (_pāyān_); the
second has _az zīr bulandī kalān Rāprī_, perhaps referring to
a height at the meeting of the bank of the ravine down which
the road to the ford comes, with the high bank of the river.
Three examples of _tūghāī_ or _tūqāī_ [a synonym given by
Dictionaries], can be seen in Abū'l-ghāzī's _Shajrat-i-Turk_,
Fraehn's imprint, pp. 106, 107, 119 (Désmaisons' trs. pp. 204,
205, 230). In each instance Désmaisons renders it by _coude_,
elbow, but one of the examples may need reconsideration, since
the word has the further meanings of wood, dense forest by the
side of a river (Vambéry), prairie (Zenker), and reedy plain
(Shaw).
[2457] Blochmann describes the apparatus for marking lines to
guide writing (A.-i-A. trs. p. 52 n. 5):—On a card of the size
of the page to be written on, two vertical lines are drawn
within an inch of the edges; along these lines small holes are
pierced at regular intervals, and through these a string is
laced backwards and forwards, care being taken that the
horizontal strings are parallel. Over the lines of string the
pages are placed and pressed down; the strings then mark the
paper sufficiently to guide the writing.
[2458] _tarkīb (nīng) khaṯī bīla tarjuma bīlīr aūchūn._ The
_Rāmpūr Dīwān_ may supply the explanation of the uncertain
words _tarkīb khaṯī_. The "translation" (_tarjuma_), mentioned
in the passage quoted above, is the _Wālidiyyah-risāla_, the
first item of the _Dīwān_, in which it is entered on crowded
pages, specially insufficient for the larger hand of the
chapter-headings. The number of lines per page is 13; Bābur
now fashions a line-marker for 11. He has already despatched 4
copies of the translation (f. 357_b_); he will have judged
them unsatisfactory; hence to give space for the mixture of
hands (_tarkīb khaṯī_), _i.e._ the smaller hand of the poem
and the larger of the headings, he makes an 11 line marker.
[2459] Perhaps Aḥrārī's in the _Wālidiyyah-risāla_, perhaps
those of Muḥammad. A quatrain in the _Rāmpūr Dīwān_ connects
with this admonishment [Plate xiv_a_, 2nd quatrain].
[2460] Jākhān (_G. of Mainpūrī_). The _G. of Etāwa_
(Drake-Brockman) p. 213, gives this as some 18 m. n.w. of
Etāwa and as lying amongst the ravines of the Jumna.
[2461] f. 359_b_ allows some of the particulars to be known.
[2462] Mahdī may have come to invite Bābur to the luncheon he
served shortly afterwards. The Ḥai. MS. gives him the
honorific plural; either a second caller was with him or an
early scribe has made a slip, since Bābur never so-honours
Mahdī. This small point touches the larger one of how Bābur
regarded him, and this in connection with the singular story
Niẕāmu'd-dīn Aḥmad tells in his _T̤abaqāt-i-akbarī_ about
Khalīfa's wish to supplant Humāyūn by Mahdī Khwāja (Index
_s.nn._).
[2463] _yīgītlārnī shokhlūqgha sāldūq_, perhaps set them to
make fun. Cf. f. 366, _yīgītlār bīr pāra shokhlūq qīldīlār_.
Muḥ. _Shīrāzī_ (p. 323 _foot_) makes the startling addition of
_dar āb_ (_andākhtīm_), _i.e._ he says that the royal party
flung the braves into the river.
[2464] The _Gazetteer of Etāwa_ (Drake-Brockman) p. 186,
_s.n._ Bāburpūr, writes of two village sites [which from their
position are Mūrī-and-Adūsa], as known by the name Sarāī
Bāburpūr from having been Bābur's halting-place. They are 24m.
to the s.e. of Etāwa, on the old road for Kālpī. Near the name
Bāburpūr in the Gazetteer Map there is Muhuri (Mūrī?); there
is little or no doubt that Sarāī Bāburpūr represents the
camping-ground Mūrī-and-Adūsa.
[2465] This connects with Kītīn-qarā's complaints of the
frontier-begs (f. 361), and with the talk of peace (f.
356_b_).
[2466] This injunction may connect with the desired peace; it
will have been prompted by at least a doubt in Bābur's mind as
to Kāmrān's behaviour perhaps _e.g._ in manifested dislike for
a Shīa`. Concerning the style Shāh-zāda _see_ f. 358, p. 643,
n. 1.
[2467] Kāmrān's mother Gul-rukh _Begchīk_ will have been of
the party who will have tried in Kābul to forward her son's
interests.
[2468] f. 348, p. 624, n. 2.
[2469] Kābul and Tramontana.
[2470] Presumably that of Shamsu'd-dīn Muḥammad's mission. One
of Bābur's couplets expresses longing for the fruits, and also
for the "running waters", of lands other than Hindūstān, with
conceits recalling those of his English contemporaries in
verse, as indeed do several others of his short poems (_Rāmpūr
Dīwān_ Plate xvii A.).
[2471] Ḥai. MS. _nā marbūṯlīghī_; so too the 2nd Pers. trs.
but the 1st writes _wairānī u karābī_ which suits the matter
of defence.
[2472] _qūrghān_, walled-town; from the _maẓbūt_ following,
the defences are meant.
[2473] _viz._ Governor Khwāja Kalān, on whose want of
dominance his sovereign makes good-natured reflection.
[2474] _`alūfa u qūnāl_; cf. 364_b_.
[2475] Following _aīlchī_ (envoys) there is in the Ḥai. MS.
and in I.O. 217 a doubtful word, _būmla_, _yūmla_; I.O. 215
(which contains a Persian trs. of the letter) is obscure,
Ilminsky changes the wording slightly; Erskine has a free
translation. Perhaps it is _yaumī_, daily, misplaced (_see_
above).
[2476] Perhaps, endow the Mosque so as to leave no right of
property in its revenues to their donor, here Bābur. Cf.
Hughes' _Dict. of Islām_ s.nn. _sharī`_, _masjid_ and _waqf_.
[2477] f. 139. Khwāja Kalān himself had taken from Hindūstān
the money for repairing this dam.
[2478] _sāpqūn ālīp_; the 2nd Pers. trs. as if from _sātqūn
ālīp_, _kharīda_, purchasing.
[2479] _naẕar-gāh_, perhaps, theatre, as showing the play
enacted at the ford. Cf. ff. 137, 236, 248_b_. Tūtūn-dara will
be Masson's Tūtām-dara. Erskine locates Tūtūn-dara some 8
_kos_ (16 m.) n. w. of Hūpīān (Ūpīān). Masson shews that it
was a charming place (_Journeys in Biluchistan, Afghanistan
and the Panj-āb_, vol. iii, cap. vi and vii).
[2480] _jībachī._ Bābur's injunction seems to refer to the
maintaining of the corps and the manufacture of armour rather
than to care for the individual men involved.
[2481] Either the armies in Nīl-āb, or the women in the
Kābul-country (f. 375).
[2482] Perhaps what Bābur means is, that both what he had said
to `Abdu'l-lāh and what the quatrain expresses, are dissuasive
from repentance. Erskine writes (_Mems._ p. 403) but without
textual warrant, "I had resolution enough to persevere"; de
Courteille (_Mems._ ii, 390), "_Voici un quatrain qui exprime
au juste les difficultés de ma position._"
[2483] The surface retort seems connected with the jacket,
perhaps with a request for the gift of it.
[2484] Clearly what recalled this joke of Banāī's long-silent,
caustic tongue was that its point lay ostensibly in a baffled
wish—in `Alī-sher's professed desire to be generous and a
professed impediment, which linked in thought with Bābur's
desire for wine, baffled by his abjuration. So much Banāī's
smart verbal retort shows, but beneath this is the
_double-entendre_ which cuts at the Beg as miserly and as
physically impotent, a defect which gave point to another jeer
at his expense, one chronicled by Sām Mīrzā and translated in
Hammer-Purgstall's _Geschichte von schönen Redekünste
Persiens_, art. CLV. (Cf. f. 179-80.)—The word _mādagī_ is
used metaphorically for a button-hole; like _nā-mardī_, it
carries secondary meanings, miserliness, impotence, _etc._
(Cf. Wollaston's _English-Persian Dictionary_ _s.n._
button-hole, where only we have found _mādagī_ with this
sense.)
[2485] The 1st Pers. trs. expresses "all these jokes", thus
including with the double-meanings of _mādagī_, the jests of
the quatrain.
[2486] The 1st Pers. trs. fills out Bābur's allusive phrase
here with "of the _Wālidiyyah_". His wording allows the
inference that what he versified was a prose Turkī translation
of a probably Arabic original.
[2487] Erskine comments here on the non-translation into
Persian of Bābur's letters. Many MSS., however, contain a
translation (f. 348, p. 624, n. 2 and E.'s n. f. 377_b_).
[2488] Anglicé, Thursday after 6 p.m.
[2489] What would suit measurement on maps and also Bābur's
route is "Jumoheen" which is marked where the Sarāī
Bāburpūr-Atsu-Phaphand road turns south, east of Phaphand
(I.S. Map of 1900, Sheet 68).
[2490] var. _Qabāq_, _Qatāk_, _Qanāk_, to each of which a
meaning might be attached. Bābur had written to Humāyūn about
the frontier affair, as one touching the desired peace (f.
359).
[2491] This will refer to the late arrival in Āgra of the
envoy named, who was not with his younger brother at the feast
of f. 351_b_ (f. 357, p. 641, n. 2).—As to T̤ahmāsp's style,
see f. 354, f. 358.
[2492] Shāh-qulī may be the ill-informed narrator of f. 354.
[2493] Both are marked on the southward road from Jumoheen
(Jumandnā?) for Auraiya.
[2494] The old Kālpī _pargana_ having been sub-divided,
Dīrapūr is now in the district of Cawnpore (Kānhpūr).
[2495] That this operation was not hair-cutting but
head-shaving is shewn by the verbs T. _qīrmāq_ and its Pers.
trs. _tarāsh kardan_. To shave the head frequently is common
in Central Asia.
[2496] This will be Chaparghatta on the
Dīrapūr-Bhognīpūr-Chaparghatta-Mūsanagar road, the affixes
_kada_ and _ghatta_ both meaning house, temple, _etc._
[2497] Māhīm, and with her the child Gul-badan, came in
advance of the main body of women. Bābur seems to refer again
to her assumption of royal style by calling her Walī, Governor
(f. 369 and n.). It is unusual that no march or halt is
recorded on this day.
[2498] or, Ārampūr. We have not succeeded in finding this
place; it seems to have been on the west bank of the Jumna,
since twice Bābur when on the east bank, writes of coming
opposite to it (_supra_ and f. 379). If no move was made on
Tuesday, Jumāda II. 6th (cf. last note), the distance entered
as done on Wednesday would locate the halting-place somewhere
near the Akbarpūr of later name, which stands on a road and at
a ferry. But if the army did a stage on Tuesday, of which
Bābur omits mention, Wednesday's march might well bring him
opposite to Hamirpūr and to the "Rampur"-ferry. The verbal
approximation of Ārampūr and "Rampur" arrests attention.—Local
encroachment by the river, which is recorded in the District
Gazetteers, may have something to do with the disappearance
from these most useful books and from maps, of _pargana_
Ādampūr (or, Ārampūr).
[2499] _tūshlāb._ It suits best here, since solitude is the
speciality of the excursion, to read _tūshmāk_ as meaning to
take the road, Fr. _cheminer_.
[2500] _da`wī bīla_; _Mems._ p. 404, challenge; _Méms._ ii,
391, _il avait fait des façons_, a truth probably, but one
inferred only.
[2501] This will be more to the south than Kūra Khas, the
headquarters of the large district; perhaps it is "Koora
Khera" (? Kūra-khirāj) which suits the route (I.S. Map, Sheet
88).
[2502] Perhaps Kunda Kanak, known also as "Kuria, Koria, Kura
and Kunra Kanak" (_D.G. of Fatḥpūr_).
[2503] Haswa or Hanswa. The conjoint name represents two
villages some 6m. apart, and is today that of their
railway-station.
[2504] almost due east of Fatḥpūr, on the old King's Highway
(_Bādshāhī Sar-rāh_).
[2505] His ancestors had ruled in Jūnpūr from 1394 to 1476
AD., his father Ḥusain Shāh having been conquered by Sl.
Sikandar _Lūdī_ at the latter date. He was one of three rivals
for supremacy in the East (_Sharq_), the others being
Jalālu'd-dīn _Nūhānī_ and Maḥmūd _Lūdī_,—Afghāns all three.
Cf. Erskine's _History of India, Bābur_, i, 501.
[2506] This name appears on the I.S. Map, Sheet 88, but too
far north to suit Bābur's distances, and also off the Sarāī
Munda-Kusār-Karrah road. The position of Naubasta suits
better.
[2507] Sher Khān was associated with Dūdū Bībī in the charge
of her son's affairs. Bābur's favours to him, his son
Humāyūn's future conqueror, will have been done during the
Eastern campaign in 934 AH., of which so much record is
missing. Cf. _Tārīkh-i-sher-shāhī_, E. & D.'s _History of
India_, iv, 301 _et seq._ for particulars of Sher Khān (Farīd
Khān _Sūr Afghān_).
[2508] In writing "Sl. Maḥmūd", Bābur is reporting his
informant's style, he himself calling Maḥmūd "Khān" only (f.
363 and f. 363_b_).
[2509] This will be the more northerly of two Kusārs marked as
in Karrah; even so, it is a very long 6 _kurohs_ (12m.) from
the Dugdugī of the I.S. Map (cf. n. _supra_).
[2510] _bīr pāra āsh u ta`ām_, words which suggest one of
those complete meals served, each item on its separate small
dish, and all dishes fitting like mosaic into one tray. T.
_āsh_ is cooked meat (f. 2 n. 1 and f. 343_b_); Ar. _ta`ām_
will be sweets, fruit, bread, perhaps rice also.
[2511] The _yaktāī_, one-fold coat, contrasts with the
_dū-tāhī_, two-fold (A.-i-A. Bib. Ind. ed., p. 101, and
Blochmann's trs. p. 88).
[2512] This acknowledgement of right to the style Sulṯān
recognized also supremacy of the Sharqī claim to rule over
that of the Nūḥānī and _Lūdī_ competitors.
[2513] _mīndīn bītī tūrgān waqāī'._ This passage Teufel used
to support his view that Bābur's title for his book was
_Waqāī`_, and not _Bābur-nāma_ which, indeed, Teufel describes
as the _Kazaner Ausgabe adoptirte Titel_. _Bābur-nāma_,
however, is the title [or perhaps, merely scribe's name]
associated both with Kehr's text and with the Ḥaidarābād
Codex.—I have found no indication of the selection by Bābur of
any title; he makes no mention of the matter and where he uses
the word _waqāī`_ or its congeners, it can be read as a common
noun. In his colophon to the _Rāmpūr Dīwān_, it is a parallel
of _ash`ār_, poems. Judging from what is found in the _Mubīn_,
it may be right to infer that, if he had lived to complete his
book—now broken off _s.a._ 914 AH. (f. 216_b_)—he would have
been explicit as to its title, perhaps also as to his grounds
for choosing it. Such grounds would have found fitting mention
in a preface to the now abrupt opening of the _Bābur-nāma_ (f.
1_b_), and if the _Malfūzāt-i-tīmūrī_ be Tīmūr's authentic
autobiography, this book might have been named as an ancestral
example influencing Bābur to write his own. Nothing against
the authenticity of the _Malfūzāt_ can be inferred from the
circumstance that Bābur does not name it, because the preface
in which such mention would be in harmony with _e.g._ his
_Walidiyyah_ preface, was never written. It might accredit the
_Malfūzāt_ to collate passages having common topics, as they
appear in the _Bābur-nāma_, _Malfūzāt-i-tīmūrī_ and
_Z̤afar-nāma_ (cf. E. & D.'s H. of I. iv, 559 for a discussion
by Dr. Sachau and Prof. Dowson on the _Malfūzāt_). (Cf. Z.D.M.
xxxvii, p. 184, Teufel's art. _Bābur und Abū'l-faẓl_;
Smirnow's Cat. of _Manuscrits Turcs_, p. 142; Index _in loco_
_s.nn._ _Mubīn_ and Title.)
[2514] Koh-khirāj, Revenue-paying Koh (H. G. Nevill's _D. G.
of Allāhābād_, p. 261).
[2515] _kīma aīchīdā_, which suggests a boat with a cabin, a
_bajrā_ (_Hobson-Jobson_ _s.n._ budgerow).
[2516] He had stayed behind his kinsman Khwāja Kalān. Both, as
Bābur has said, were descendants of Khwāja `Ubaidu'l-lāh
_Aḥrārī_. Khwāja Kalān was a grandson of Aḥrārī's second son
Yahyā; Khwāja `Abdu'sh-shahīd was the son of his fifth, Khwāja
`Abdu'l-lāh (Khwājagān-khwāja). `Abdu'sh-shahīd returned to
India under Akbar, received a fief, maintained 2,000 poor
persons, left after 20 years, and died in Samarkand in 982
AH.-1574-5 AD. (A.-i-A., Blochmann's trs. and notes, pp. 423,
539).
[2517] f. 363, f. 363_b_.
[2518] Not found on maps; OOjani or Ujahni about suits the
measured distance.
[2519] Prayāg, Ilāhābād, Allāhābād. Between the asterisk in my
text (_supra_) and the one following "ford" before the
foliation mark f. 364, the Ḥai. MS. has a _lacuna_ which, as
being preceded and followed by broken sentences, can hardly be
due to a scribe's skip, but may result from the loss of a
folio. What I have entered above between the asterisks is
translated from the Kehr-Ilminsky text; it is in the two
Persian translations also. Close scrutiny of it suggests that
down to the end of the swimming episode it is not in order and
that the account of the swim across the Ganges may be a
survival of the now missing record of 934 AH. (f. 339). It is
singular that the Pers. trss. make no mention of Pīāg or of
Sīr-auliya; their omission arouses speculation, as to in which
text, the Turkī or Persian, it was first tried to fill what
remains a gap in the Ḥai. Codex. A second seeming sign of
disorder is the incomplete sentence _yūrtgha kīlīb_, which is
noted below. A third is the crowd of incidents now standing
under "Tuesday". A fourth, and an important matter, is that on
grounds noted at the end of the swimming passage (p. 655 n. 3)
it is doubtful whether that passage is in its right place.—It
may be that some-one, at an early date after Bābur's death,
tried to fill the _lacuna_ discovered in his manuscript, with
help from loose folios or parts of them. Cf. Index _s.n._
swimming, and f. 377_b_, p. 680 n. 2.
[2520] The Chaghatāī sulṯāns will have been with `Askarī east
of the Ganges.
[2521] _tūr hawālīk_; _Mems._ p. 406, violence of the wind;
_Méms_. ii, 398, _une température très agréable_.
[2522] _yūrtgha kīlīb_, an incomplete sentence.
[2523] _ārāl bār aīkāndūr_, phrasing implying uncertainty;
there may have been an island, or such a peninsula as a
narrow-mouthed bend of a river forms, or a spit or bluff
projecting into the river. The word _ārāl_ represents
_Aīkī-sū-ārāsī_, _Miyān-dū-āb_, _Entre-eaux_,
Twixt-two-streams, Mesopotamia.
[2524] _qūl_; Pers. trss. _dast andākhtan_ and _dast_.
Presumably the 33 strokes carried the swimmer across the deep
channel, or the Ganges was crossed higher than Pīāg.
[2525] The above account of Bābur's first swim across the
Ganges which is entered under date Jumāda II. 27th, 935 AH.
(March 8th, 1529 AD.), appears misplaced, since he mentions
under date Rajab 25th, 935 AH. (April 4th, 1529 AD. f.
366_b_), that he had swum the Ganges at Baksara (Buxar) a year
before, _i.e._ on or close to Rajab 25th, 934 AH. (April 15th,
1528 AD.). Nothing in his writings shews that he was near Pīāg
(Allāhābād) in 934 AH.; nothing indisputably connects the
swimming episode with the "Tuesday" below which it now stands;
there is no help given by dates. One supposes Bābur would take
his first chance to swim the Ganges; this was offered at
Qanauj (f. 336), but nothing in the short record of that time
touches the topic. The next chance would be after he was in
Aūd, when, by an unascertained route, perhaps down the Ghogrā,
he made his way to Baksara where he says (f. 366_b_) he swam
the river. Taking into consideration the various testimony
noted, [Index _s.n._ swimming] there seems warrant for
supposing that this swimming passage is a survival of the
missing record of 934 AH. (f. 339). Cf. f. 377_b_, p. 680 and
n. 2 for another surmised survival of 934 AH.
[2526] "Friday" here stands for Anglicé, Thursday after 6
p.m.; this, only, suiting Bābur's next explicit date Sha`bān
1st, Saturday.
[2527] The march, beginning on the Jumna, is now along the
united rivers.
[2528] _ẓarb-zanlīk arābalār._ Here the carts are those
carrying the guns.
[2529] From the particulars Bābur gives about the Tūs (Tons)
and Karmā-nāśā, it would seem that he had not passed them
last year, an inference supported by what is known of his
route in that year:—He came from Gūālīār to the Kanār-passage
(f. 336), there crossed the Jumna and went direct to Qanauj
(f. 335), above Qanauj bridged the Ganges, went on to
Bangarmāu (f. 338), crossed the Gūmtī and went to near the
junction of the Ghogrā and Sardā (f. 338_b_). The next
indication of his route is that he is at Baksara, but whether
he reached it by water down the Ghogrā, as his meeting with
Muḥ. Ma`rūf _Farmūlī_ suggests (f. 377), or by land, nothing
shews. From Baksara (f. 366) he went up-stream to Chausa (f.
365_b_), on perhaps to Sayyidpūr, 2m. from the mouth of the
Gūmtī, and there left the Ganges for Jūnpūr (f. 365). I have
found nothing about his return route to Āgra; it seems
improbable that he would go so far south as to near Pīāg; a
more northerly and direct road to Fatḥpūr and Sarāī Bāburpūr
may have been taken.—Concerning Bābur's acts in 934 AH. the
following item, (met with since I was working on 934 AH.),
continues his statement (f. 338_b_) that he spent a few days
near Aūd (Ajōdhya) to settle its affairs. The _D.G. of
Fyzābāa_ (H. E. Nevill) p. 173 says "In 1528 AD. Bābur came to
Ajōdhya (Aūd) and halted a week. He destroyed the ancient
temple" (marking the birth-place of Rāma) "and on its site
built a mosque, still known as Bābur's Mosque.... It has two
inscriptions, one on the outside, one on the pulpit; both are
in Persian; and bear the date 935 _AH._" This date may be that
of the completion of the building.—(_Corrigendum_:—On f. 339
n. 1, I have too narrowly restricted the use of the name
Sarjū. Bābur used it to describe what the maps of Arrowsmith
and Johnson shew, and not only what the _Gazetteer of India_
map of the United Provinces does. It applies to the Sardā (f.
339) as Bābur uses it when writing of the fords.)
[2530] Here the lacuna of the Ḥai. Codex ends.
[2531] Perhaps, where there is now the railway station of
"Nulibai" (I.S. Map). The direct road on which the army moved,
avoids the windings of the river.
[2532] This has been read as T. _kīnt_, P. _dih_, Eng. village
and Fr. _village_.
[2533] "Nankunpur" lying to the north of Puhari
railway-station suits the distance measured on maps.
[2534] These will be the women-travellers.
[2535] Perhaps jungle tracts lying in the curves of the river.
[2536] _jīrga_, which here stands for the beaters' incurving
line, witness the exit of the buffalo at the end. Cf. f.
367_b_ for a _jīrga_ of boats.
[2537] _aūzūn aūzāgh_, many miles and many hours?
[2538] Bulloa? (I.S. Map).
[2539] Anglicé, Sunday after 6 p.m.
[2540] _`alufa u qunal_ (f. 359_b_).
[2541] than the Ganges perhaps; or narrowish compared with
other rivers, _e.g._ Ganges, Ghogrā, and Jūn.
[2542] _yīl-tūrgī yūrt_, by which is meant, I think, close to
the same day a year back, and not an indefinite reference to
some time in the past year.
[2543] Maps make the starting-place likely to be Sayyidpūr.
[2544] re-named Zamānīa, after Akbar's officer `Alī-qulī Khān
Khān-i-zamān, and now the head-quarters of the Zamānīa
_pargana_ of Ghāzīpūr. Madan-Benāres was in Akbar's _sarkār_
of Ghāzīpūr. (It was not identified by E. or by de C.) Cf.
_D.G. of Ghāzīpūr_.
[2545] In the earlier part of the Ḥai. Codex this Afghān
tribal-name is written Nūḥānī, but in this latter portion a
different scribe occasionally writes it Lūḥānī (Index _s.n._).
[2546] _`arza-dāsht_, _i.e._ phrased as from one of lower
station to a superior.
[2547] His letter may have announced his and his mother Dūdū
Bībī's approach (f. 368-9).
[2548] Naṣīr Khān had been an amīr of Sl. Sikandar _Lūdī_.
Sher Khān _Sūr_ married his widow "Guhar Kusāīn", bringing him
a large dowry (A.N. trs. p. 327; and _Tārīkh-i-sher-shāhi_, E.
& D.'s _History of India_ iv, 346).
[2549] He started from Chaparghatta (f. 361_b_, p. 650 n. 1).
[2550] _yīl-tūrgī yūrt._
[2551] "This must have been the Eclipse of the 10th of May
1528 AD.; a fast is enjoined on the day of an eclipse"
(Erskine).
[2552] Karmā-nā['s]ā means loss of the merit acquired by good
works.
[2553] The I.S. Map marks a main road leading to the mouth of
the Karmā-nā['s]ā and no other leading to the river for a
considerable distance up-stream.
[2554] Perhaps "Thora-nadee" (I.S. Map).
[2555] Anglicé, Sunday after 6 p.m.
[2556] _aūtkān yīl._
[2557] Perhaps the _dū-āba_ between the Ganges and
"Thora-nadee".
[2558] _yīl-tūr ... Gang-sūī-dīn mīn dastak bīla aūtūb, ba`ẓī
āt, ba`ẓī tīwah mīnīb, kīlīb, sair qīlīlīb aīdī._ Some
uncertainty as to the meaning of the phrase _dastak bīla
aūtūb_ is caused by finding that while here de Courteille
agrees with Erskine in taking it to mean swimming, he varies
later (f. 373_b_) to _appuyés sur une pièce de bois_. Taking
the Persian translations of three passages about crossing
water into consideration (p. 655 after f. 363_b_, f. 366_b_
(here), f. 373_b_), and also the circumstances that E. and de
C. are once in agreement and that Erskine worked with the help
of Oriental _munshīs_, I incline to think that _dastak bīla_
does express swimming.—The question of its precise meaning
bears on one concerning Bābur's first swim across the Ganges
(p. 655, n. 3).—Perhaps I should say, however, that if the
sentence quoted at the head of this note stood alone, without
the extraneous circumstances supporting the reading of _dastak
bīla_ to mean swimming, I should incline to read it as stating
that Bābur went on foot through the water, feeling his footing
with a pole (_dastak_), and that his followers rode through
the ford after him. Nothing in the quoted passage suggests
that the horses and camels swam. But whether the Ganges was
fordable at Baksara in Bābur's time, is beyond surmise.
[2559] _faṣl soz_, which, manifestly, were to be laid before
the envoy's master. The articles are nowhere specified; one is
summarized merely on f. 365. The incomplete sentence of the
Turkī text (_supra_) needs their specification at this place,
and an explicit statement of them would have made clearer the
political relations of Bābur with Naṣrat Shāh.—A folio may
have been lost from Bābur's manuscript; it might have
specified the articles, and also have said something leading
to the next topic of the diary, now needing preliminaries,
_viz._ that of the Mīrzā's discontent with his new
appointment, a matter not mentioned earlier.
[2560] This suits Bābur's series, but Gladwin and Wüstenfeld
have 10th.
[2561] The first is near, the second on the direct road from
Buxar for Ārrah.
[2562] The Ḥai. MS. makes an elephant be posted as the sole
scout; others post a _sardār_, or post braves; none post man
and beast.
[2563] This should be 5th; perhaps the statement is confused
through the gifts being given late, Anglicé, on Tuesday 4th,
Islamicé on Wednesday night.
[2564] The Mīrzā's Tīmūrid birth and a desire in Bābur to give
high status to a representative he will have wished to leave
in Bihār when he himself went to his western dominions,
sufficiently explain the bestowal of this sign of sovereignty.
[2565] _jīrgā._ This instance of its use shews that Bābur had
in mind not a completed circle, but a line, or in sporting
parlance, not a hunting-circle but a beaters'-line. [Cf. f.
251, f. 364_b_ and _infra_ of the crocodile.] The word is used
also for a governing-circle, a tribal-council.
[2566] _aūlūgh_ (_kīma_). Does _aūlūgh_ (_aūlūq_, _ūlūq_)
connect with the "bulky Oolak or baggage-boat of Bengal"?
(_Hobson-Jobson_ _s.n._ Woolock, oolock).
[2567] De Courteille's reading of Ilminsky's "Bāburī" (p. 476)
as Bāīrī, old servant, hardly suits the age of the boat.
[2568] Bābur anticipated the custom followed _e.g._ by the
White Star and Cunard lines, when he gave his boats names
having the same terminal syllable; his is _āīsh_; on it he
makes the quip of the har _āīsh_ of the Farmāīsh.
[2569] As Vullers makes Ar. _ghurfat_ a synonym of
_chaukandī_, the Farmāīsh seems likely to have had a cabin,
open at the sides. De Courteille understood it to have a
rounded stern. [Cf. E. & D.'s _History of India_ v, 347, 503
n.; and Gul-badan's H. N. trs. p. 98, n. 2.]
[2570] _mīndīn rukhṣat āldī_; phrasing which bespeaks admitted
equality, that of Tīmūrid birth.
[2571] _i.e._ subjects of the Afghān ruler of Bengal; many
will have been Bihārīs and Pūrbiyas. Makhdūm-i-`ālam was
Naṣrat Shāh's Governor in Ḥājīpūr.
[2572] This might imply that the Afghāns had been prevented
from joining Maḥmūd Khān _Lūdī_ near the Son.
[2573] Sl. Muḥammad Shāh _Nūḥānī Afghān_, the former ruler of
Bihār, dead within a year. He had trained Farīd Khān _Sūr_ in
the management of government affairs; had given him, for
gallant encounter with a tiger, the title Sher Khān by which,
or its higher form Sher Shāh, history knows him, and had made
him his young son's "deputy", an office Sher Khān held after
the father's death in conjunction with the boy's mother Dūdū
Bībī (_Tārīkh-i-sher-shāhī_, E. & D.'s _History of India_ iv,
325 _et seq._).
[2574] _gūz bāghī yūsūnlūq_; by which I understand they were
held fast from departure, as _e.g._ a mouse by the fascination
of a snake.
[2575] f. 365 mentions a letter which may have announced their
intention.
[2576] Ganges; they thus evaded the restriction made good on
other Afghāns.
[2577] Anglicé, Saturday 8th after 6 p.m.
[2578] The _D. G. of Shāhābād_ (pp. 20 and 127) mentions that
"it is said Bābur marched to Ārrah after his victory over
Maḥmūd _Lūdī_", and that "local tradition still points to a
place near the Judge's Court as that on which he pitched his
camp".
[2579] Kharīd which is now a _pargana_ of the Ballia district,
lay formerly on both sides of the Ghogrā. When the army of
Kharīd opposed Bābur's progress, it acted for Naṣrat Shāh, but
this Bābur diplomatically ignored in assuming that there was
peace between Bengal and himself.—At this time Naṣrat Shāh
held the riverain on the left bank of the Ghogrā but had lost
Kharīd of the right bank, which had been taken from him by
Jūnaid _Barlās_. A record of his occupation still survives in
Kharīd-town, an inscription dated by his deputy as for 1529
AD. (_District Gazetteer of Ballia_ H. R. Nevill), and _D. G.
of Sāran_ (L. L. S. O'Malley), Historical Chapters.
[2580] Bābur's opinion of Naṣrat Shāh's hostility is more
clearly shewn here than in the verbal message of f. 369.
[2581] This will be an unceremonious summary of a
word-of-mouth message.
[2582] Cf. f. 366_b_, p. 661 n. 2.
[2583] This shews that Bābur did not recognize the Sāran
riverain down to the Ganges as belonging to Kharīd. His
offered escort of Turks would safe-guard the Kharīdīs if they
returned to the right bank of the Ghogrā which was in Turk
possession.
[2584] The Ḥai. MS. has _wālī_, clearly written; which, as a
word representing Māhīm would suit the sentence best, may make
playful reference to her royal commands (f. 361_b_), by
styling her the Governor (_wālī_). Erskine read the word as a
place-name Dipālī, which I have not found; De Courteille omits
Ilminsky's _w:ras_ (p. 478). The MSS. vary and are uncertain.
[2585] This is the "Kadjar" of Réclus' _L'Asie antérieure_ and
is the name of the Turkmān tribe to which the present ruling
house of Persia belongs. "Turkmān" might be taken as applied
to Shāh T̤aḥmāsp by Dīv Sulṯān's servant on f. 354.
[2586] _Nelumbium speciosum_, a water-bean of great beauty.
[2587] Shaikh Yaḥyā had been the head of the Chishtī Order.
His son (d. 782 AH.-1380-1 AD.) was the author of works named
by Abū'l-faẓl as read aloud to Akbar, a discursive detail
which pleads in my excuse that those who know Bābur well
cannot but see in his grandson's character and success the
fruition of his mental characteristics and of his labours in
Hindūstān. (For Sharafu'd-dīn _Munīrī_, cf.
_Khazīnatu'l-asfiyā_ ii, 390-92; and _Āyīn-i-akbarī_ _s.n._)
[2588] Kostenko's _Turkistān Region_ describes a regimen for
horses which Bābur will have seen in practice in his native
land, one which prevented the defect that hindered his at
Munīr from accomplishing more than some 30 miles before
mid-day.
[2589] The distance from Munīr to the bank of the Ganges will
have been considerably longer in Bābur's day than now because
of the change of the river's course through its desertion of
the Burh-gangā channel (cf. next note).
[2590] In trying to locate the site of Bābur's coming battle
with the forces of Naṣrat Shāh, it should be kept in mind that
previous to the 18th century, and therefore, presumably, in
his day, the Ganges flowed in the "Burh-ganga" (Old Ganges)
channel which now is closely followed by the western boundary
of the Ballia _pargana_ of Dū-āba; that the Ganges and Ghogrā
will have met where this old channel entered the bed of the
latter river; and also, as is seen from Bābur's narrative,
that above the confluence the Ghogrā will have been confined
to a narrowed channel. When the Ganges flowed in the
Burh-ganga channel, the now Ballia _pargana_ of Dū-āba was a
sub-division of Bihiya and continuous with Shāhābād. From it
in Bihiya Bābur crossed the Ganges into Kharīd, doing this at
a place his narrative locates as some 2 miles from the
confluence. Cf. _D. G. of Ballia_, pp. 9, 192-3, 206, 213. It
may be observed that the former northward extension of Bihiya
to the Burh-ganga channel explains Bābur's estimate (f. 370)
of the distance from Munīr to his camp on the Ganges; his
12_k._ (24m.) may then have been correct; it is now too high.
[2591] De Courteille, _pierrier_, which may be a balista.
Bābur's writings give no indication of other than
stone-ammunition for any projectile-engine or fire-arm. Cf. R.
W. F. Payne-Gallwey's _Projectile-throwing engines of the
ancients_.
[2592] Sir R. W. F. Payne-Gallwey writes in _The Cross-bow_
(p. 40 and p. 41) what may apply to Bābur's _ẓarb-zan_
(culverin?) and _tufang_ (matchlock), when he describes the
larger culverin as a heavy hand-gun of from 16-18lb., as used
by the foot-soldier and requiring the assistance of an
attendant to work it; also when he says that it became the
portable arquebus which was in extensive use in Europe by the
Swiss in 1476 AD.; and that between 1510 and 1520 the arquebus
described was superseded by what is still seen amongst remote
tribes in India, a matchlock arquebus.
[2593] The two positions Bābur selected for his guns would
seem to have been opposite two ferry-heads, those, presumably,
which were blocked against his pursuit of Bīban and Bāyazīd.
`Alī-qulī's emplacement will have been on the high bank of old
alluvium of south-eastern Kharīd, overlooking the narrowed
channel demanded by Bābur's narrative, one pent in presumably
by _kankar_ reefs such as there are in the region. As
illustrating what the channel might have been, the varying
breadth of the Ghogrā along the `Azamgarh District may be
quoted, _viz._ from 10 miles to 2/5m., the latter being where,
as in Kharīd, there is old alluvium with _kankar_ reefs
preserving the banks. Cf. Reid's _Report of Settlement
Operations in `Azamgarh, Sikandarpur, and Bhadaon_.—Firishta
gives Badrū as the name of one ferry (lith. ed. i. 210).
[2594] Muṣṯafa, like `Alī-qulī, was to take the offensive by
gun-fire directed on the opposite bank. Judging from maps and
also from the course taken by the Ganges through the
Burh-ganga channel and from Bābur's narrative, there seems to
have been a narrow reach of the Ghogrā just below the
confluence, as well as above.
[2595] This ferry, bearing the common name Haldī (turmeric),
is located by the course of events as at no great distance
above the enemy's encampment above the confluence. It cannot
be the one of Sikandarpūr West.
[2596] _guẕr_, which here may mean a casual ford through water
low just before the Rains. As it was not found, it will have
been temporary.
[2597] _i.e._ above Bābur's positions.
[2598] _sarwar_ (or _dar_) _waqt_.
[2599] The preceding sentence is imperfect and varies in the
MSS. The 1st Pers. trs., the wording of which is often
explanatory, says that there were _no_ passages, which, as
there were many ferries, will mean fords. The Haldī-guẕr where
`Askarī was to cross, will have been far below the lowest
Bābur mentions, _viz._ Chatur-mūk (Chaupāra).
[2600] This passage presupposes that guns in Kharīd could hit
the hostile camp in Sāran. If the river narrowed here as it
does further north, the Ghāzī mortar, which seems to have been
the only one Bābur had with him, would have carried across,
since it threw a stone 1,600 paces (_qadam_, f. 309). Cf.
Reid's _Report_ quoted above.
[2601] Anglicé, Saturday after 6p.m.
[2602] _yaqīn būlghān fauj_, var. _ta`īn būlghān fauj_, the
army appointed (to cross). The boats will be those collected
at the Haldī-ferry, and the army `Askarī's.
[2603] _i.e._ near `Alī-qulī's emplacement.
[2604] Cf. f. 303, f. 309, f. 337 and n. 4.
[2605] "The _yasāwal_ is an officer who carries the commands
of the prince, and sees them enforced" (Erskine). Here he will
have been the superintendent of coolies moving earth.
[2606] _ma`jūn-nāk_ which, in these days of Bābur's return to
obedience, it may be right to translate in harmony with his
psychical outlook of self-reproach, by _ma`jūn_-polluted.
Though he had long ceased to drink wine, he still sought cheer
and comfort, in his laborious days, from inspiriting and
forbidden confections.
[2607] Probably owing to the less precise phrasing of his
Persian archetype, Erskine here has reversed the statement,
made in the Turkī, that Bābur slept in the Asāīsh (not the
Farmāīsh).
[2608] _aūstīdā tāshlār._ An earlier reading of this, _viz._
that stones were thrown on the intruder is negatived by
Bābur's mention of wood as the weapon used.
[2609] _sū sārī_ which, as the boats were between an island
and the river's bank, seems likely to mean that the man went
off towards the main stream. _Mems._ p. 415, "made his escape
in the river"; _Méms._ ii, 418, _dans la direction du large_.
[2610] This couplet is quoted by Jahāngīr also (_Tūzūk_, trs.
Rogers & Beveridge, i, 348).
[2611] This, taken with the positions of other
crossing-parties, serves to locate `Askarī's "Haldī-passage"
at no great distance above `Alī-qulī's emplacement at the
confluence, and above the main Bengal force.
[2612] perhaps, towed from the land. I have not found Bābur
using any word which clearly means to row, unless indeed a
later _rawān_ does so. The force meant to cross in the boats
taken up under cover of night was part of Bābur's own, no
doubt.
[2613] _ātīsh-bāzī_ lit. fire-playing, if a purely Persian
compound; if _ātīsh_ be Turkī, it means discharge, shooting.
The word "fire-working" is used above under the nearest to
contemporary guidance known to me, _viz._ that of the list of
persons who suffered in the Patna massacre "during the
troubles of October 1763 AD.", in which list are the names of
four Lieutenants fire-workers (_Calcutta Review_, Oct. 1884,
and Jan. 1885, art. _The Patna Massacre_, H. Beveridge).
[2614] _bī tahāshī_, without protest or demur.
[2615] Anglicé, Wednesday after 6 p.m.
[2616] Perhaps those which had failed to pass in the darkness;
perhaps those from Haldī-guẕr, which had been used by
`Askarī's troops. There appear to be obvious reasons for their
keeping abreast on the river with the troops in Sāran, in
order to convey reinforcements or to provide retreat.
[2617] _kīmalār aūstīdā_, which may mean that he came, on the
high bank, to where the boats lay below.
[2618] as in the previous note, _kīmalār aūstīdā_. These will
have been the few drawn up-stream along the enemy's front.
[2619] The reproach conveyed by Bābur's statement is borne out
by the strictures of Ḥaidar Mīrzā _Dūghlāt_ on Bābā Sulṯān's
neglect of duty (_Tārīkh-ī-rashīdī_ trs. cap. lxxvii).
[2620] _yūsūnlūq tūshī_, Pers. trss. _ṯarf khūd_, i.e. their
place in the array, a frequent phrase.
[2621] _dastak bīla dosta-i-qāmīsh bīla._ Cf. f. 363_b_ and f.
366_b_, for passages and notes connected with swimming and
_dastak_. Erskine twice translates _dastak bīla_ by swimming;
but here de Courteille changes from his earlier _à la nage_
(f. 366_b_) to _appuyés sur une pièce de bois_. Perhaps the
swift current was crossed by swimming with the support of a
bundle of reeds, perhaps on rafts made of such bundles (cf.
_Illustrated London News_, Sep. 16th, 1916, for a picture of
Indian soldiers so crossing on rafts).
[2622] perhaps they were in the Burh-ganga channel, out of
gun-fire.
[2623] If the Ghogrā flowed at this point in a narrow channel,
it would be the swifter, and less easy to cross than where in
an open bed.
[2624] _chīrīk-aīlī_, a frequent compound, but one of which
the use is better defined in the latter than the earlier part
of Bābur's writings to represent what then answered to an Army
Service Corps. This corps now crosses into Sāran and joins the
fighting force.
[2625] This appears to refer to the crossing effected before
the fight.
[2626] or Kūndbah. I have not succeeded in finding this name
in the Nirhun _pargana_; it may have been at the southern end,
near the "Domaigarh" of maps. In it was Tīr-mūhānī, perhaps a
village (f. 377, f. 381).
[2627] This passage justifies Erskine's surmise (_Memoirs_, p.
411, n. 4) that the Kharīd-country lay on both banks of the
Ghogrā. His further surmise that, on the east bank of the
Ghogrā, it extended to the Ganges would be correct also, since
the Ganges flowed, in Bābur's day, through the Burh-ganga (Old
Ganges) channel along the southern edge of the present Kharīd,
and thus joined the Ghogrā higher than it now does.
[2628] Bāyazīd and Ma`rūf _Farmūlī_ were brothers. Bāyazīd had
taken service with Bābur in 932 AH. (1526 AD.), left him in
934 AH. (end of 1527 AD.) and opposed him near Qanūj. Ma`rūf,
long a rebel against Ibrāhīm _Lūdī_, had never joined Bābur;
two of his sons did so; of the two, Muḥammad and Mūsa, the
latter may be the one mentioned as at Qanūj, "Ma`rūf's son"
(f. 336).—For an interesting sketch of Ma`rūf's character and
for the location in Hindūstān of the Farmūlī clan, _see_ the
_Wāqi`āt-i-mushtāqī_, E. & D.'s _History of India_, iv,
584.—In connection with Qanūj, the discursive remark may be
allowable, that Bābur's halt during the construction of the
bridge of boats across the Ganges in 934 AH. is still
commemorated by the name Bādshāh-nagar of a village between
Bangarmau and Nānāmau (Elliot's _Onau_, p. 45).
[2629] On f. 381 `Abdu'l-lāh's starting-place is mentioned as
Tīr-mūhānī.
[2630] The failure to join would be one of the evils predicted
by the dilatory start of the ladies from Kābul (f. 360_b_).
[2631] The order for these operations is given on f. 355_b_.
[2632] f. 369. The former Nūḥānī chiefs are now restored to
Bihār as tributaries of Bābur.
[2633] Erskine estimated the _krūr_ at about £25,000, and the
50 _laks_ at about £12,500.
[2634] The Mīrzā thus supersedes Junaid _Barlās_ in
Jūnpūr.—The form Jūnapūr used above and elsewhere by Bābur and
his Persian translators, supports the _Gazetteer of India_
xlv, 74 as to the origin of the name Jūnpūr.
[2635] a son of Naṣrat Shāh. No record of this earlier
legation is with the _Bābur-nāma_ manuscripts; probably it has
been lost. The only article found specified is the one asking
for the removal of the Kharīd army from a ferry-head Bābur
wished to use; Naṣrat Shāh's assent to this is an anti-climax
to Bābur's victory on the Ghogrā.
[2636] Chaupāra is at the Sāran end of the ferry, at the
Sikandarpūr one is Chatur-mūk (Four-faces, an epithet of
Brahma and Vishnu).
[2637] It may be inferred from the earlier use of the phrase
Gogar (or Gagar) and Sarū (Sīrū or Sīrd), on f. 338-8_b_, that
whereas the rebels were, earlier, for crossing Sarū only,
_i.e._ the Ghogrā below its confluence with the Sarda, they
had now changed for crossing above the confluence and further
north. Such a change is explicable by desire to avoid
encounter with Bābur's following, here perhaps the army of
Aūd, and the same desire is manifested by their abandonment of
a fort captured (f. 377_b_) some days before the rumour
reached Bābur of their crossing Sarū and Gogar.—Since
translating the passage on f. 338, I have been led, by
enforced attention to the movement of the confluence of Ghogrā
with Ganges (Sarū with Gang) to see that that translation,
eased in obedience to distances shewn in maps, may be wrong
and that Bābur's statement that he dismounted 2-3 _kurohs_
(4-6 m.) above Aūd at the confluence of Gogar with Sarū, may
have some geographical interest and indicate movement of the
two affluents such _e.g._ as is indicated of the Ganges and
Ghogrā by tradition and by the name Burh-ganga (cf. f. 370, p.
667, n. 2).
[2638] or L:knūr, perhaps Liknū or Liknūr. The capricious
variation in the MSS. between L:knū and L:knūr makes the
movements of the rebels difficult to follow. Comment on these
variants, tending to identify the places behind the words, is
grouped in Appendix T, _On L:knū_ (_Lakhnau_) and _L:knūr_
(_Lakhnār_).
[2639] Taking _guẕr_ in the sense it has had hitherto in the
_Bābur-nāma_ of ferry or ford, the detachment may have been
intended to block the river-crossings of "Sarū and Gogar". If
so, however, the time for this was past, the rebels having
taken a fort west of those rivers on Ramẓān 13th. Nothing
further is heard of the detachment.—That news of the
rebel-crossing of the rivers did not reach Bābur before the
18th and news of their capture of L:knū or L:knūr before the
19th may indicate that they had crossed a good deal to the
north of the confluence, and that the fort taken was one more
remote than Lakhnau (Oude). Cf. Appendix T.
[2640] Anglicé, Wednesday after 6 p.m.
[2641] These are recited late in the night during Ramẓān.
[2642] _kaghaẕ u ajzā'_, perhaps writing-paper and the various
sections of the _Bābur-nāma_ writings, _viz._ biographical
notices, descriptions of places, detached lengths of diary,
_farmāns_ of Shaikh Zain. The _lacunae_ of 934 AH., 935 AH.,
and perhaps earlier ones also may be attributed reasonably to
this storm. It is easy to understand the loss of _e.g._ the
conclusion of the Farghāna section, and the diary one of 934
AH., if they lay partly under water. The accident would be
better realized in its disastrous results to the writings, if
one knew whether Bābur wrote in a bound or unbound volume.
From the minor losses of 935 AH., one guesses that the current
diary at least had not reached the stage of binding.
[2643] The _tūnglūq_ is a flap in a tent-roof, allowing light
and air to enter, or smoke to come out.
[2644] _ajzā' u kitāb._ _See_ last note but one. The _kitāb_
(book) might well be Bābur's composed narrative on which he
was now working, as far as it had then gone towards its
untimely end (Ḥai. MS. f. 216_b_).
[2645] _saqarlāṯ kut-zīlūcha_, where _saqarlāṯ_ will mean warm
and woollen.
[2646] Kharīd-town is some 4 m. s.e. of the town of
Sikandarpūr.
[2647] or L:knū. Cf. Appendix T. It is now 14 days since
`Abdu'l-lāh _kitābdār_ had left Tīr-mūhānī (f. 380) for
Saṃbhal; as he was in haste, there had been time for him to go
beyond Aūd (where Bāqī was) and yet get the news to Bābur on
the 19th.
[2648] In a way not usual with him, Bābur seems to apply three
epithets to this follower, _viz._ _mīng-begī_, _shaghāwal_,
_Tāshkīndī_ (Index _s.n._).
[2649] or Kandla; cf. Revenue list f. 293; is it now Sāran
Khāṣ?
[2650] £18,000 (Erskine). For the total yield of Kundla (or
Kandla) and Sarwār, _see_ Revenue list (f. 293).
[2651] f. 375. P. 675 n. 2 and f. 381, p. 687 n. 3.
[2652] A little earlier Bābur has recorded his ease of mind
about Bihār and Bengal, the fruit doubtless of his victory
over Maḥmūd _Lūdī_ and Naṣrat Shāh; he now does the same about
Bihār and Sarwār, no doubt because he has replaced in Bihār,
as his tributaries, the Nūḥānī chiefs and has settled other
Afghāns, Jalwānīs and Farmūlīs in a Sarwār cleared of the
Jalwānī (?) rebel Bīban and the Farmūlī opponents Bāyazīd and
Ma`rūf. The Farmūlī Shaikh-zādas, it may be recalled, belonged
by descent to Bābur's Kābul district of Farmūl.—The
_Wāqi`āt-i-mushtāqī_ (E. & D.'s _H. of I._ iv, 548) details
the position of the clan under Sikandar _Lūdī_.
[2653] The MSS. write Fatḥpūr but Natḥpūr suits the context, a
_pargana_ mentioned in the _Āyīn-i-akbarī_ and now in the
`Azamgarh district. There seems to be no Fatḥpūr within
Bābur's limit of distance. The _D. G. of `Azamgarh_ mentions
two now insignificant Fatḥpūrs, one as having a school, the
other a market. The name G:l:r:h (K:l:r:h) I have not found.
[2654] The passage contained in this section seems to be a
survival of the lost record of 934 AH. (f. 339). I have found
it only in the _Memoirs_ p. 420, and in Mr. Erskine's own
Codex of the _Wāqi`āt-i-bāburī_ (now B.M. Add. 26,200), f. 371
where however several circumstances isolate it from the
context. It may be a Persian translation of an authentic Turkī
fragment, found, perhaps with other such fragments, in the
Royal Library. Its wording disassociates it from the
`Abdu'r-raḥīm text. The Codex (No. 26,200) breaks off at the
foot of a page (_supra_, Fatḥpūr) with a completed sentence.
The supposedly-misplaced passage is entered on the next folio
as a sort of ending of the _Bābur-nāma_ writings; in a rough
script, inferior to that of the Codex, and is followed by
_Tam, tam_ (Finis), and an incomplete date 98-, in words.
Beneath this a line is drawn, on which is subtended the
triangle frequent with scribes; within this is what seems to
be a completion of the date to 980 AH. and a pious wish,
scrawled in an even rougher hand than the rest.—Not only in
diction and in script but in contents also the passage is a
misfit where it now stands; it can hardly describe a village
on the Sarū; Bābur in 935 AH. did not march for Ghāzīpūr but
may have done so in 934 AH. (p. 656, n. 3); Ismā`īl _Jalwānī_
had had leave given already in 935 AH. (f. 377) under other
conditions, ones bespeaking more trust and tried
allegiance.—Possibly the place described as having fine
buildings, gardens _etc._ is Aūd (Ajodhya) where Bābur spent
some days in 934 AH. (cf. f. 363_b_, p. 655 n. 3).
[2655] "Here my Persian manuscript closes" (This is B.M. Add.
26,200). "The two additional fragments are given from Mr.
Metcalfe's manuscript alone" (now B.M. Add. 26,202) "and
unluckily, it is extremely incorrect" (Erskine). This note
will have been written perhaps a decade before 1826, in which
year the _Memoirs of Bābur_ was published, after long delay.
Mr. Erskine's own Codex (No. 26,200) was made good at a later
date, perhaps when he was working on his History of India
(pub. 1854), by a well-written supplement which carries the
diary to its usual end _s.a._ 936 AH. and also gives Persian
translations of Bābur's letters to Humāyūn and Khwāja Kalān.
[2656] Here, as earlier, Natḥpūr suits the context better than
Fatḥpūr. In the Natḥpūr _pargana_, at a distance from Chaupāra
approximately suiting Bābur's statement of distance, is the
lake "Tal Ratoi", formerly larger and deeper than now. There
is a second further west and now larger than Tal Ratoi;
through this the Ghogrā once flowed, and through it has tried
within the last half-century to break back. These changes in
Tal Ratoi and in the course of the Ghogrā dictate caution in
attempting to locate places which were on it in Bābur's day
_e.g._ K:l:r:h (_supra_).
[2657] Appendix T.
[2658] This name has the following variants in the Ḥai. MS.
and in Kehr's:—Dalm-ū-ūū-ūr-ūd-ūṯ. The place was in Akbar's
_sarkār_ of Mānikpūr and is now in the Rai Bareilly district.
[2659] Perhaps Chaksar, which was in Akbar's _sarkār_ of
Jūnpūr, and is now in the `Azamgarh district.
[2660] Ḥai. MS. _J:nāra khūnd tawābī sī bīla_ (perhaps
_tawābī`sī_ but not so written). The obscurity of these words
is indicated by their variation in the manuscripts. Most
scribes have them as Chunār and Jūnpūr, guided presumably by
the despatch of a force to Chunār on receipt of the news, but
another force was sent to Dalmau at the same time. The rebels
were defeated s.w. of Dalmau and thence went to Mahūba; it is
not certain that they had crossed the Ganges at Dalmau; there
are difficulties in supposing the fort they captured and
abandoned was Lakhnau (Oude); they might have gone south to
near Kālpī and Ādampūr, which are at no great distance from
where they were defeated by Bāqī _shaghāwal_, if Lakhnūr (now
Shahābād in Rāmpūr) were the fort. (Cf. Appendix T.)—To take
up the interpretation of the words quoted above, at another
point, that of the kinsfolk or fellow-Afghāns the rebels
planned to join:—these kinsfolk may have been, of Bāyazīd, the
Farmūlīs in Sarwār, and of Bīban, the Jalwānīs of the same
place. The two may have trusted to relationship for harbourage
during the Rains, disloyal though they were to their kinsmen's
accepted suzerain. Therefore if they were once across Ganges
and Jumna, as they were in Mahūba, they may have thought of
working eastwards south of the Ganges and of getting north
into Sarwār through territory belonging to the Chunār and
Jūnpūr governments. This however is not expressed by the words
quoted above; perhaps Bābur's record was hastily and
incompletely written.—Another reading may be Chunār and Jaund
(in Akbar's _sarkār_ of Rohtās).
[2661] _yūlīinī tūshqāīlār._ It may be observed concerning the
despatch of Muḥammad-i-zamān M. and of Junaid _Barlās_ that
they went to their new appointments Jūnpūr and Chunār
respectively; that their doing so was an orderly part of the
winding-up of Bābur's Eastern operations; that they remained
as part of the Eastern garrison, on duty apart from that of
blocking the road of Bīban and Bāyazīd.
[2662] This mode of fishing is still practised in India
(Erskine).
[2663] Islāmicé, Saturday night; Anglicé, Friday after 6 p.m.
[2664] This Tūs, "Tousin, or Tons, is a branch from the Ghogrā
coming off above Faizābād and joining the Sarju or Parsarū
below `Azamgarh" (Erskine).
[2665] Kehr's MS. p. 1132, Māng (or Mānk); Ḥai. MS. Tāīk; I.O.
218 f. 328 Bā:k; I.O. 217 f. 236_b_, Bīāk. Māīng in the
Sulṯānpūr district seems suitably located (_D.G. of
Sulṯānpūr_, p. 162).
[2666] This will be the night-guard (_`asas_); the librarian
(_kitābdār_) is in Saṃbhal. I.O. 218 f. 325 inserts _kitābdār_
after `Abdu'l-lāh's name where he is recorded as sent to
Saṃbhal (f. 375).
[2667] He will have announced to Tāj Khān the transfer of the
fort to Junaid _Barlās_.
[2668] £3750. Parsarūr was in Akbar's _ṣūbah_ of Lāhor; G. of
I. xx, 23, Pasrūr.
[2669] The estimate may have been made by measurement (f. 356)
or by counting a horse's steps (f. 370). Here the Ḥai. MS. and
Kehr's have D:lmūd, but I.O. 218 f. 328_b_ (D:lmūū).
[2670] As on f. 361_b_, so here, Bābur's wording tends to
locate Ādampūr on the right (west) bank of the Jumna.
[2671] Ḥai. MS. _aūta_, presumably for _aūrta_; Kehr's p.
1133, Aūd-dāghī, which, as Bāqī led the Aūd army, is _ben
trovato_; both Persian translations, _mīāngānī_, central,
inner, _i.e._ _aūrta_, perhaps household troops of the Centre.
[2672] Anglicé, Saturday 12th after 6 p.m.
[2673] In Akbar's _sarkār_ of Kālanjar, now in the Hamirpūr
district.
[2674] £7500 (Erskine). Amrohā is in the Morādābād district.
[2675] At the Chaupāra-Chaturmūk ferry (f.
376).—_Corrigendum_:—In the Index of the _Bābur-nāma
Facsimile_, Mūsa _Farmūlī_ and Mūsa Sl. are erroneously
entered as if one man.
[2676] _i.e._ riding light and fast. The distance done between
Ādampūr and Āgra was some 157 miles, the time was from 12 a.m.
on Tuesday morning to about 9 p.m. of Thursday. This exploit
serves to show that three years of continuous activity in the
plains of Hindūstān had not destroyed Bābur's capacity for
sustained effort, spite of several attacks of (malarial?)
fever.
[2677] Anglicé, Tuesday 12.25 a.m.
[2678] He was governor of Etāwa.
[2679] Islamicé, Friday, Shawwāl 18th, Anglicé, Thursday, June
24th, soon after 9 p.m.
[2680] Anglicé, she arrived at mid-night of
Saturday.—Gul-badan writes of Māhīm's arrival as unexpected
and of Bābur's hurrying off on foot to meet her
(_Humāyūn-nāma_ f. 14, trs. p. 100).
[2681] Māhīm's journey from Kābul to Āgra had occupied over 5
months.
[2682] Hindū Beg _qūchīn_ had been made Humāyūn's retainer in
932 AH. (f. 297), and had taken possession of Saṃbhal for him.
Hence, as it seems, he was ordered, while escorting the ladies
from Kābul, to go to Saṃbhal. He seems to have gone before
waiting on Bābur, probably not coming into Āgra till now.—It
may be noted here that in 933 AH. he transformed a Hindū
temple into a Mosque in Saṃbhal; it was done by Bābur's orders
and is commemorated by an inscription still existing on the
Mosque, one seeming not to be of his own composition, judging
by its praise of himself. (JASB. _Proceedings_, May 1873, p.
98, Blochmann's art. where the inscription is given and
translated; and _Archæological Survey Reports_, xii, p. 24-27,
with Plates showing the Mosque).
[2683] Cf. f. 375, f. 377, with notes concerning `Abdu'l-lāh
and Tīr-mūhānī. I have not found the name Tīr-mūhānī on maps;
its position can be inferred from Bābur's statement (f. 375)
that he had sent `Abdu'l-lāh to Saṃbhal, he being then at
Kunba or Kunīa in the Nurhun _pargana_.—The name Tīr-mūhānī
occurs also in Gorakhpūr.—It was at Tīr-mūhānī (Three-mouths)
that Khwānd-amīr completed the _Ḥabībū's-siyar_ (lith. ed. i,
83; Rieu's _Pers. Cat._ p. 1079). If the name imply three
water-mouths, they might be those of Ganges, Ghogrā and Dāhā.
[2684] _nīm-kāra._ E. and de C. however reverse the _rôles_.
[2685] The _Tārīkh-i-gūālīārī_ (B.M. Add. 16, 709, p. 18)
supplements the fragmentary accounts which, above and _s.a._
936 AH., are all that the _Bābur-nāma_ now preserves
concerning Khwāja Rāḥīm-dād's misconduct. It has several
mistakes but the gist of its information is useful. It
mentions that the Khwāja and his paternal-uncle Mahdī Khwāja
had displeased Bābur; that Raḥīm-dād resolved to take refuge
with the ruler of Mālwā (Muḥammad _Khīljī_) and to make over
Gūālīār to a Rājpūt landholder of that country; that upon this
Shaikh Muḥammad _Ghaus̤_ went to Āgra and interceded with
Bābur and obtained his forgiveness for Raḥīm-dād. Gūālīār was
given back to Raḥīm-dād but after a time he was superseded by
Abū'l-fatḥ [Shaikh Gūran]. For particulars about Mahdī Khwāja
and a singular story told about him by Niẕāmu'd-dīn Aḥmad in
the _T̤abaqāt-i-akbarī_, _vide_ Gul-badan's _Ḥumāyūn-nāma_,
Appendix B, and _Translator's Note_ p. 702, Section _f_.
[2686] He may have come about the misconduct of his nephew
Raḥīm-dād.
[2687] The `Īdu'l-kabīr, the Great Festival of 10th
Ẕū'l-ḥijja.
[2688] About £1750 (Erskine).
[2689] Perhaps he was from the tract in Persia still called
Chaghatāī Mountains. One Ibrāhīm _Chaghatāī_ is mentioned by
Bābur (f. 175b) with Turkmān begs who joined Ḥusain
_Bāī-qarā_. This Ḥasan-i-`alī _Chaghatāī_ may have come in
like manner, with Murād the Turkmān envoy from `Irāq (f. 369
and n. 1).
[2690] Several incidents recorded by Gul-badan (writing half a
century later) as following Māhīm's arrival in Āgra, will
belong to the record of 935 AH. because they preceded
Humāyūn's arrival from Badakhshān. Their omission from Bābur's
diary is explicable by its minor _lacunæ_. Such are:—(1) a
visit to Dhūlpūr and Sīkrī the interest of which lies in its
showing that Bībī Mubārika had accompanied Māhīm Begīm to Āgra
from Kābul, and that there was in Sīkrī a quiet retreat, a
_chaukandī_, where Bābur "used to write his book";—(2) the
arrival of the main caravan of ladies from Kābul, which led
Bābur to go four miles out, to Naugrām, in order to give
honouring reception to his sister Khān-ẓāda Begīm;—(3) an
excursion to the Gold-scattering garden (_Bāgh-i-zar-afshān_),
where seated among his own people, Bābur said he was "bowed
down by ruling and reigning", longed to retire to that garden
with a single attendant, and wished to make over his
sovereignty to Humāyūn;—(4) the death of Dil-dār's son Alwār
(var. Anwār) whose birth may be assigned to the gap preceding
932 AH. because not chronicled later by Bābur, as is Farūq's.
As a distraction from the sorrow for this loss, a journey was
"pleasantly made by water" to Dhūlpūr.
[2691] Cf. f. 381b n. 2. For his earlier help to Raḥīm-dād
_see_ f. 304. For Biographies of him _see_ Blochmann's A.-i-A.
trs. p. 446, and Badāyūnī's _Muntakhabu-'t-tawārīkh_
(Ranking's and Lowe's trss.).
[2692] Beyond this broken passage, one presumably at the foot
of a page in Bābur's own manuscript, nothing of his diary is
now known to survive. What is missing seems likely to have
been written and lost. It is known from a remark of
Gul-badan's (H.N. p. 103) that he "used to write his book"
after Māhīm's arrival in Āgra, the place coming into her
anecdote being Sīkrī.
[2693] Jauhar's _Humāyūn-nāma_ and Bāyazīd _Bīyāt's_ work of
the same title were written under the same royal command as
the Begīm's. They contribute nothing towards filling the gap
of 936 AH.; their authors, being Humāyūn's servants, write
about him. It may be observed that criticism of these books,
as recording trivialities, is disarmed if they were commanded
because they would obey an order to set down whatever was
known, selection amongst their contents resting with
Abū'l-faẓl. Even more completely must they be excluded from a
verdict on the literary standard of their day.—Abū'l-faẓl must
have had a source of Bāburiana which has not found its way
into European libraries. A man likely to have contributed his
recollections, directly or transmitted, is Khwāja Muqīm
_Harāwī_. The date of Muqīm's death is conjectural only, but
he lived long enough to impress the worth of historical
writing on his son Niẕāmu'-d-dīn Aḥmad. (Cf. E. and D.'s H. of
I. art. _T̤abaqāt-i-akbarī_ v, 177 and 187; T̤.-i-A. lith. ed.
p. 193; and for Bāyazīd _Bīyāt's_ work, JASB. 1898, p. 296.)
[2694] Ibn Batuta (Lee's trs. p. 133) mentions that after his
appointment to Gūālīār, Raḥīm-dād fell from favour ... but was
restored later, on the representation of Muḥammad Ghaus̤; held
Gūālīār again for a short time, (he went to Bahādur Shāh in
Gujrāt) and was succeeded by Abū'l-fatḥ (_i.e._ Shaikh Gūran)
who held it till Bābur's death.
[2695] Its translation and explanatory noting have filled two
decades of hard-working years. _Tanti labores auctoris et
traductoris!_
[2696] I am indebted to my husband for acquaintance with
Niẕāmu'-d-dīn Aḥmad's record about Bābur and Kashmīr.
[2697] In view of the vicissitudes to which under Humāyūn the
royal library was subjected, it would be difficult to assert
that this source was not the missing continuation of Bābur's
diary.
[2698] E. and D.'s H. of I. art. _Tārīkh-i Khān-i-jahān Lūdī_
v, 67. For Aḥmad-i-yādgār's book and its special features
_vide_ _l.c._ v, 2, 24, with notes; Rieu's _Persian Catalogue_
iii, 922_a_; JASB. 1916, H. Beveridge's art. _Note on the
Tārīkh-i-salāṯīn-i-afāghana._
[2699] Humāyūn's last recorded act in Hindūstān was that of
933 AH. (f. 329_b_) when he took unauthorized possession of
treasure in Dihlī.
[2700] _Tārīkh-i-rashīdī_ trs. p. 387.
[2701] T.-i-R. trs. p. 353 _et seq._ and Mr. Ney Elias' notes.
[2702] Abū'l-faẓl's record of Humāyūn's sayings and minor
doings at this early date in his career, can hardly be
anything more accurate than family-tradition.
[2703] The statement that Khalīfa was asked to go so far from
where he was of the first importance as an administrator,
leads to consideration of why it was done. So little is known
explicitly of Bābur's intentions about his territories after
his death that it is possible only to put that little together
and read between its lines. It may be that he was now planning
an immediate retirement to Kābul and an apportionment during
life of his dominions, such as Abū-sa`īd had made of his own.
If so, it would be desirable to have Badakhshān held in
strength such as Khalīfa's family could command, and
especially desirable because as Barlās Turks, that family
would be one with Bābur in desire to regain Transoxiana. Such
a political motive would worthily explain the offer of the
appointment.
[2704] The "Shāh" of this style is derived from Sulaimān's
Badakhshī descent through Shāh Begīm; the "Mīrzā" from his
Mīrān-shāhī descent through his father Wais Khān Mīrzā. The
title Khān Mīrzā or Mīrzā Khān, presumably according to the
outlook of the speaker, was similarly derived from forbears,
as would be also Shāh Begīm's; (her personal name is not
mentioned in the sources).
[2705] Sa`īd, on the father's, and Bābur, on the mother's
side, were of the same generation in descent from Yūnas Khān;
Sulaimān was of a younger one, hence his pseudo-filial
relation to the men of the elder one.
[2706] Sa`īd was Shāh Begīm's grandson through her son Aḥmad,
Sulaimān her great-grandson through her daughter Sulṯān-Nigār,
but Sulaimān could claim also as the heir of his father who
was nominated to rule by Shāh Begīm; moreover, he could claim
by right of conquest on the father's side, through Abū-sa`īd
the conqueror, his son Maḥmūd long the ruler, and so through
Maḥmūd's son Wais Khān Mīrzā.
[2707] The menace conveyed by these words would be made the
more forceful by Bābur's move to Lāhor, narrated by
Aḥmad-i-yādgār. Some ill-result to Sa`īd of independent rule
by Sulaimān seems foreshadowed; was it that if Bābur's
restraining hand were withdrawn, the Badakhshīs would try to
regain their lost districts and would have help in so-doing
from Bābur?
[2708] It is open to conjecture that if affairs in Hindūstān
had allowed it, Bābur would now have returned to Kābul.
Aḥmad-i-yādgār makes the expedition to be one for pleasure
only, and describes Bābur as hunting and sight-seeing for a
year in Lāhor, the Panj-āb and near Dihlī. This appears a mere
flourish of words, in view of the purposes the expedition
served, and of the difficulties which had arisen in Lāhor
itself and with Sa`īd Khān. Part of the work effected may have
been the despatch of an expedition to Kashmīr.
[2709] This appears a large amount.
[2710] The precision with which the Rāja's gifts are stated,
points to a closely-contemporary and written source. A second
such indication occurs later where gifts made to Hind-āl are
mentioned.
[2711] An account of the events in Multān after its occupation
by Shāh Ḥasan _Arghūn_ is found in the latter part of the
_T̤abaqāt-i-akbarī_ and in Erskine's H. of I. i, 393 _et
seq._—It may be noted here that several instances of confusion
amongst Bābur's sons occur in the extracts made by Sir H.
Elliot and Professor Dowson in their _History of India_ from
the less authoritative sources [_e.g._ v, 35 Kāmrān for
Humāyūn, `Askarī said to be in Kābul (pp. 36 and 37); Hind-āl
for Humāyūn _etc._] and that these errors have slipped into
several of the District Gazetteers of the United Provinces.
[2712] As was said of the offering made by the Rāja of Kahlūr,
the precision of statement as to what was given to Hind-āl,
bespeaks a closely-contemporary written source. So too does
the mention (text, _infra_) of the day on which Bābur began
his return journey from Lāhor.
[2713] Cf. _G. of I._ xvi, 55; Ibbetson's _Report on Karnāl_.
[2714] It is noticeable that no one of the three royal
officers named as sent against Mohan _Mundāhir_, is
recognizable as mentioned in the _Bābur-nāma_. They may all
have had local commands, and not have served further east.
Perhaps this, their first appearance, points to the origin of
the information as independent of Bābur, but he might have
been found to name them, if his diary were complete for 936
AH.
[2715] The E. and D. translation writes twice as though the
inability to "pull" the bows were due to feebleness in the
men, but an appropriate reading would refer the difficulty to
the hardening of sinews in the composite Turkish bows, which
prevented the archers from bending the bows for stringing.
[2716] One infers that fires were burned all night in the
bivouac.
[2717] At this point the A.S.B. copy (No. 137) of the
_Tārīkh-i-salāṯin-i-afāghana_ has a remark which may have been
a marginal note originally, and which cannot be supposed made
by Aḥmad-i-yādgār himself because this would allot him too
long a spell of life. It may show however that the
interpolations about the two Tīmūrids were not inserted in his
book by him. Its purport is that the Mundāhir village
destroyed by Bābur's troops in 936 AH.-1530 AD. was still in
ruins at the time it was written 160 (lunar) years later
(_i.e._ in 1096 AH.-1684-85 AD.). The better Codex (No. 3887)
of the Imperial Library of Calcutta has the same passage.—Both
that remark and its context show acquaintance with Samāna and
Kaithal.—The writings now grouped under the title
_Tārīkh-i-salāṯīn-i-afāghana_ present difficulties both as to
date and contents (cf. Rieu's _Persian Catalogue_ _s. n._).
[2718] Presumably in Tihrind.
[2719] Cf. G. B.'s H. N. trs. and the _Akbar-nāma_ Bib. Ind.
ed. and trs., Index _s.nn._; Hughes' _Dictionary of Islām_
_s.n._ Intercession.
[2720] A closer translation would be, "I have taken up the
burden." The verb is _bardāshtan_ (cf. f. 349, p. 626 n. 1).
[2721] _See_ Erskine's _History of India_ ii, 9.
[2722] At this point attention is asked to the value of the
Aḥmad-i-yādgār interpolation which allows Bābur a year of
active life before Humāyūn's illness and his own which
followed. With no chronicle known of 936 AH. Bābur had been
supposed ill all through the year, a supposition which
destroys the worth of his self-sacrifice. Moreover several
inferences have been drawn from the supposed year of illness
which are disproved by the activities recorded in that
interpolation.
[2723] E. and D.'s _History of India_ v, 187; G. B.'s
_Humāyūn-nāma_ trs. p. 28.
[2724] _dar khidmat-i-dīwānī-i-buyūtāt_; perhaps he was a
Barrack-officer. His appointment explains his attendance on
Khalīfa.
[2725] Khalīfa prescribed for the sick Bābur.
[2726] _khānwāda-i-bīgānah_, perhaps, foreign dynasty.
[2727] From Saṃbhal; Gul-badan, by an anachronism made some 60
years later, writes Kālanjar, to which place Humāyūn moved 5
months after his accession.
[2728] I am indebted to my husband's perusal of Sayyid Aḥmad
Khān's _As̤ār-i-ṣanādīd_ (Dihlī ed. 1854 p. 37, and Lakhnau
ed. 1895 pp. 40, 41) for information that, perhaps in 935 AH.,
Mahdī Khwāja set up a tall slab of white marble near Amīr
Khusrau's tomb in Dihlī, which bears an inscription in praise
of the poet, composed by that Shihābu'd-dīn the Enigmatist who
reached Āgra with Khwānd-amīr in Muḥarram 935 AH. (f. 339_b_).
The inscription gives two chronograms of Khusrau's death (725
AH.), mentions that Mahdī Khwāja was the creator of the
memorial, and gives its date in the words, "The beautiful
effort of Mahdī Khwāja."—The Dihlī ed. of the
_As̤ār-i-ṣanādīd_ depicts the slab with its inscription; the
Lakhnau ed. depicts the tomb, may show the slab _in sitû_, and
contains interesting matter by Sayyid Aḥmad Khān. The slab is
mentioned without particulars in Murray's _Hand-book to
Bengal_, p. 329.
[2729] Lee's _Ibn Batuta_ p. 133 and Hirāman's
_Tārīkh-i-gūālīārī_. Cf. G. B.'s _Humāyūn-nāma_ trs. (1902
AD.), Appendix B.—_Mahdī Khwāja._
[2730] In an anonymous _Life of Shāh Ismā`īl Ṣafawī_, Mahdī
Khwāja [who may be a son of the Mūsa Khwāja mentioned by Bābur
on f. 216] is described as being, in what will be 916-7 AH.,
Bābur's _Dīwān-begī_ and as sent towards Bukhārā with 10,000
men. This was 29 years before the story calls him a young man.
Even if the word _jawān_ (young man) be read, as T. _yīgīt_ is
frequently to be read, in the sense of "efficient fighting
man", Mahdī was over-age. Other details of the story, besides
the word _jawān_, bespeak a younger man.
[2731] G. B.'s H. N. trs. p. 126; _Ḥabību's-siyar_, B. M. Add.
16,679 f. 370, l. 16, lith. ed. Sec. III. iii, 372 (where a
clerical error makes Bābur give Māhdī _two_ of his
full-sisters in marriage).—Another _yazna_ of Bābur was
Khalīfā's brother Junaid _Barlās_, the husband of Shahr-bānū,
a half-sister of Bābur.
[2732] Bābur, shortly before his death, married Gul-rang to
Aīsān-tīmūr and Gul-chihra to Tūkhta-būghā _Chaghatāī_. Cf.
_post_, Section _h_, _Bābur's wives and children_; and G. B.'s
H. N. trs. Biographical Appendix _s.nn._ Dil-dār Begīm and
Salīma Sulṯān Begīm _Mirān-shāhi_.
[2733] Cf. G. B.'s H. N. trs. p. 147.
[2734] She is the only adult daughter of a Tīmūrid mother
named as being such by Bābur or Gul-badan, but various
considerations incline to the opinion that Dil-dār Begīm also
was a Tīmūrid, hence her three daughters, all named from the
Rose, were so too. Cf. references of penultimate note.
[2735] It attaches interest to the Mīrzā that he can be taken
reasonably as once the owner of the Elphinstone Codex (cf.
JRAS. 1907, pp. 136 and 137).
[2736] Death did not threaten when this gift was made; life in
Kābul was planned for.—Here attention is asked again to the
value of Aḥmad-i-yādgār's Bāburiana for removing the
impression set on many writers by the blank year 936 AH. that
it was one of illness, instead of being one of travel, hunting
and sight-seeing. The details of the activities of that year
have the further value that they enhance the worth of Bābur's
sacrifice of life.—Ḥaidar Mīrzā also fixes the date of the
beginning of illness as 937 AH.
[2737] The author, or embroiderer, of that anonymous story did
not know the _Bābur-nāma_ well, or he would not have described
Bābur as a wine-drinker after 933 AH. The anecdote is parallel
with Niẕāmu'd-dīn Aḥmad's, the one explaining why the Mīrzā
was selected, the other why the _dāmād_ was dropped.
[2738] _Bib. Ind._ i, 341; Ranking's trs. p. 448.
[2739] The night-guard; perhaps Māhīm Begīm's brother (G. B.'s
H. N. trs. pp. 27-8).
[2740] G. B.'s H. N. trs. f. 34_b_, p. 138; Jauhar's _Memoirs
of Humāyūn_, Stewart's trs. p. 82.
[2741] Cf. G. B.'s H. N. trs. p. 216, Bio. App. _s.n._ Bega
Begam.
[2742] f. 128, p. 200 n. 3. Cf. Appendix U.—_Bābur's Gardens
in and near Kābul_.
[2743] Cf. H. H. Hayden's _Notes on some monuments in
Afghānistān_, [_Memoirs of the Asiatic Society of Bengal_ ii,
344]; and _Journal asiatique_ 1888, M. J. Darmesteter's art.
_Inscriptions de Caboul_.
[2744] _ān_, a demonstrative suggesting that it refers to an
original inscription on the second, but now absent, upright
slab, which presumably would bear Bābur's name.
[2745] Ruẓwān is the door-keeper of Paradise.
[2746] Particulars of the women mentioned by Bābur, Ḥaidar,
Gul-badan and other writers of their time, can be seen in my
Biographical Appendix to the Begīm's _Humāyūn-nāma_. As the
Appendix was published in 1902, variants from it occurring in
this work are corrections superseding earlier and
less-informed statements.
[2747] _Tārīkh-i-rashīdī_ trs. Ney Elias and Ross p. 308.
[2748] Bio. App. _s.n._ Gul-chihra.
[2749] The story of the later uprisings against Māhīm's son
Humāyūn by his brothers, by Muḥammad-i-zamān _Bāī-qarā_ and
others of the same royal blood, and this in spite of Humāyūn's
being his father's nominated successor, stirs surmise as to
whether the rebels were not tempted by more than his defects
of character to disregard his claim to supremacy; perhaps
pride of higher maternal descent, this particularly amongst
the Bāī-qarā group, may have deepened a disregard created by
antagonisms of temperament.
[2750] Until the Yāngī-ārīq was taken off the Sīr, late in the
last century, for Namangān, the oasis land of Farghāna was
fertilized, not from the river but by its intercepted
tributaries.
[2751] Ujfalvy's translation of Yāqūt (ii, 179) reads one
_farsākh_ from the mountains instead of 'north of the river.'
[2752] Kostenko describes a division of Tāshkīnt, one in which
is Ravine-lane (_jar-kucha_), as divided by a deep ravine; of
another he says that it is cut by deep ravines (Bābur's _`umīq
jarlār_).
[2753] Bābur writes as though Akhsī had one Gate only (f.
112_b_). It is unlikely that the town had come down to having
a single exit; the Gate by which he got out of Akhsī was the
one of military importance because served by a draw-bridge,
presumably over the ravine-moat, and perhaps not close to that
bridge.
[2754] For mention of upper villages _see_ f. 110 and note 1.
[2755] _Cf._ f. 114 for distances which would be useful in
locating Akhsī if Bābur's _yīghāch_ were not variable; Ritter,
vii, 3 and 733; Réclus, vi, index _s.n._ Farghāna; Ujfalvy ii,
168, his quotation from Yāqūt and his authorities; Nalivkine's
_Histoire du Khanat de Kokand_, p. 14 and p. 53; Schuyler, i,
324; Kostenko, Tables of Contents for cognate general
information and i, 320, for Tāshkīnt; von Schwarz, index under
related names, and especially p. 345 and plates; Pumpelly, p.
18 and p. 115.
[2756] This Turkī-Persian Dictionary was compiled by Mīrzā
Mahdī Khān. Nādir Shāh's secretary and historian, whose life
of his master Sir William Jones translated into French (Rieu's
Turkī Cat. p. 264_b_).
[2757] The _Pādshāh-nāma_ whose author, `Abdu'l-ḥamīd, the
biographer of Shāh-jahān, died in 1065 AH. (1655 AD.) mentions
the existence of lacunæ in a copy of the Bābur-nāma, in the
Imperial Library and allowed by his wording to be Bābur's
autograph MS. (i, 42 and ii, 703).
[2758] _Akbar-nāma_, Bib. Ind. ed. i, 305; H. B. i, 571.
[2759] Ḥai. MS. f. 118_b_; _aūshāl bāghdā sū āqīb kīlā dūr
aīdī_. _Bābur-nāma_, _sū āqīb_, water flowed and _aūshal_ is
rare, but in the R.P. occurs 7 times.
[2760] _gūzūm āwīqī-ghā bārīb tūr._ B.N. f. 117_b_, _gūzūm
āwīqū-ghā bārdī_.
[2761] _kūrā dūr mīn_, B.N. f. 83, _tūsh kūrdūm_ and _tūsh
kūrār mīn_.
[2762] _ablaq suwār bīlān_; P. _suwār_ for T. _ātlīq_ or
_ātlīq kīshī_; _bīlān_ for B.N. _bīla_, and an odd use of
piebald (_ablaq_).
[2763] _masnad_, B.N. _takht_, throne. _Masnad_ betrays
Hindūstān.
[2764] _Hamrā`īlārī (sic) bir bir gā (sic) maṣlaḥat qīlā
dūrlār._ _Maṣlaḥat for B.N. kīngāsh_ or _kīngāīsh_; _hamrāh_,
companion, for _mīnīng bīla bār_, etc.
[2765] _bāghlāmāq_ and f. 119_b_ _bāghlāghānlār_; B.N. _ālmāk_
or _tūtmāq_ to seize or take prisoner.
[2766] _dīwār_ for _tām_.
[2767] f. 119, _āt-tīn aūzlār-nī tāshlāb_; B.N. _tūshmāk_,
dismount. _Tāshlāmaq_ is not used in the sense of dismount by
B.
[2768] _pādshāh_ so used is an anachronism (f. 215); Bābur
Mīrzā would be correct.
[2769] _ẕāhirān_; B.N. _yāqīn_.
[2770] Ilminsky's imprint stops at _dīb_; he may have taken
_kīm-dīb_ for signs of quotation merely. (This I did earlier,
JRAS 1902, p. 749.)
[2771] Aligarh ed. p. 52; Rogers' trs. i, 109.
[2772] _Cf._ f. 63_b_, n. 3.
[2773] Another but less obvious objection will be mentioned
later.
[2774] Julien notes (_Voyages des pélerins Bouddhistes_, ii,
96), "Dans les annales des Song on trouve Nang-go-lo-ho, qui
répond exactement à l'orthographe indienne Nangarahāra, que
fournit l'inscription découvert par le capitaine Kittoe"
(JASB. 1848). The reference is to the Ghoswāra inscription, of
which Professor Kielhorn has also written (_Indian Antiquary_,
1888), but with departure from Nangarahāra to Nagarahāra.
[2775] The scribe of the Ḥaidarābād Codex appears to have been
somewhat uncertain as to the spelling of the name. What is
found in histories is plain, N:g:r:hār. The other name varies;
on first appearance (fol. 131_b_) and also on fols. 144 and
154_b_, there is a vagrant dot below the word, which if it
were above would make Nīng-nahār. In all other cases the word
reads N:g:nahār. Nahār is a constant component, as is also the
letter _g_(or _k_).
[2776] Some writers express the view that the medial _r_ in
this word indicates descent from Nagarahāra, and that the
medial _n_ of Elphinstone's second form is a corruption of it.
Though this might be, it is true also that in local speech _r_
and _n_ often interchange, _e.g._ Chighār- and Chighān-sarāī,
Sūhār and Sūhān (in Nūr-valley).
[2777] This asserts _n_ to be the correct consonant, and
connects with the interchange of _n_ and _r_ already noted.
[2778] Since writing the above I have seen Laidlaw's almost
identical suggestion of a nasal interpolated in Nagarahāra
(JASB. 1848, art. on Kittoe). The change is of course found
elsewhere; is not Tānk for Tāq an instance?
[2779] These affluents I omit from main consideration as
sponsors because they are less obvious units of taxable land
than the direct affluents of the Kābul-river, but they remain
a reserve force of argument and may or may not have counted in
Bābur's nine.
[2780] Cunningham, i, 42. My topic does not reach across the
Kābul-river to the greater Udyānapūra of Beal's _Buddhist
Records_ (p. 119) nor raise the question of the extent of that
place.
[2781] The strong form Nīng-nahār is due to euphonic impulse.
[2782] Some discussion about these coins has already appeared
in JRAS. 1913 and 1914 from Dr. Codrington, Mr. M. Longworth
Dames and my husband.
[2783] This variant from the Turkī may be significant. Should
_tamghānat(-i-)sikka_ be read and does this describe
countermarking?
[2784] It will be observed that Bābur does not explicitly say
that Ḥusain put the beg's name on the coin.
[2785] _Ḥabību's-siyar_ lith. ed. iii, 228; _Ḥaidarābād_ Codex
text and trs. f. 26_b_ and f. 169; Browne's Daulat Shāh p.
533.
[2786] Ḥusain born 842 AH. (1438 AD.); d. 911 AH. (1506 AD.).
[2787] Cf. f. 7_b_ note to braves (_yīgītlār_). There may be
instances, in the earlier Farghāna section where I have
translated _chuhra_ wrongly by _page_. My attention had not
then been fixed on the passage about the coins, nor had I the
same familiarity with the Kābul section. For a household page
to be clearly recognizable as such from the context, is
rare—other uses of the word are translated as their context
dictates.
[2788] They can be traced through my Index and in some cases
their careers followed. Since I translated _chuhra-jīrga-si_
on f. 15_b_ by cadet-corps, I have found in the Kābul section
instances of long service in the corps which make the word
cadet, as it is used in English, too young a name.
[2789] This Mr. M. Longworth Dames pointed out in JRAS. 1913.
[2790] _Habību's-siyar_ lith. ed. iii, 219; Ferté trs. p. 28.
For the information about Ḥusain's coins given in this
appendix I am indebted to Dr. Codrington and Mr. M. Longworth
Dames.
[2791] Elphinstone MS. f. 150_b_; Ḥaidarābād MS. f. 190_b_;
Ilminsky, imprint p. 241.
[2792] Muḥ. Ma`ṣūm _Bhakkarí's Tārīkh-i-sind_ 1600, Malet's
Trs. 1855, p. 89; Mohan Lall's _Journal_ 1834, p. 279 and
_Travels_ 1846, p. 311; Bellew's _Political Mission to
Afghānistān_ 1857, p. 232; _Journal Asiatique_ 1890,
Darmesteter's _La grande inscription de Qandahār_; JRAS. 1898,
Beames' _Geography of the Qandahār inscription_. Murray's
_Hand-book of the Panjab etc._ 1883 has an account which as to
the Inscriptions shares in the inaccuracies of its sources
(Bellew & Lumsden).
[2793] The plan of Qandahār given in the official account of
the Second Afghān War, makes Chihil-zīna appear on the wrong
side of the ridge, n.w. instead of n.e.
[2794] destroyed in 1714 AD. It lay 3 m. west of the present
Qandahār (not its immediate successor). It must be observed
that Darmesteter's insufficient help in plans and maps led him
to identify Chihil-zīna with Chihil-dukhtarān
(Forty-daughters).
[2795] _Tārīkh-i-rashīdī_ trs. p. 387; _Akbar-nāma_ trs. i,
290.
[2796] Ḥai. Codex, Index _sn.n._
[2797] It is needless to say that a good deal in this story
may be merely fear and supposition accepted as occurrence.
[2798] Always left beyond the carpet on which a reception is
held.
[2799] This is not in agreement with Bābur's movements.
[2800] _i.e._ Humāyūn wished for a full-brother or sister,
another child in the house with him. The above names of his
brother and sister are given elsewhere only by Gulbadan (f.
6_b_).
[2801] The "we" might be Māhīm and Humāyūn, to Bābur in camp.
[2802] Perhaps before announcing the birth anywhere.
[2803] Presumably this plural is honorific for the Honoured
Mother Māhīm.
[2804] Māhīm's and Humāyūn's quarters.
[2805] Gul-badan's _Humāyūn-nāma_, f. 8.
[2806] JRAS. A. S. Beveridge's Notes on _Bābur-nāma_ MSS.
1900, [1902,] 1905, 1906, [1907,] 1908 (Kehr's transcript, p.
76, and Latin translation with new letter of Bābur p. 828).
[2807] In all such matters of the _Bābur-nāma_ Codices, it has
to be remembered that their number has been small.
[2808] Vigne's _Travels in Kāshmīr_ ii, 277-8;
_Tārīkh-i-rashīdī_ trs., p. 302 and n. and p. 466 and note.
[2809] It is not likely to be one heard current in Hindūstān,
any more than is Bābur's Ar. _bū-qalamūn_ as a name of a bird
(Index _s.n._); both seem to be "book-words" and may be traced
or known as he uses them in some ancient dictionary or book of
travels originating outside Hindūstān.
[2810] My note 6 on p. 421 shows my earlier difficulties, due
to not knowing (when writing it) that _kabg-ī-darī_ represents
the snow-cock in the Western Himālayas.
[2811] By over-sight mention of this note was omitted from my
article on the Elphinstone Codex (JRAS. 1907, p. 131).
[2812] Speede's _Indian Hand-book_ (i, 212) published in 1841
AD. thus writes, "It is a curious circumstance that the finest
and most esteemed fruit are produced from the roots below the
surface of the ground, and are betrayed by the cracking of the
earth above them, and the effluvia issuing from the fissure; a
high price is given by rich natives for fruit so produced."
[2813] In the margin of the Elphinstone Codex opposite the
beginning of the note are the words, "This is a marginal note
of Humāyūn Pādshāh's."
[2814] Every Emperor of Hindūstān has an epithet given him
after his death to distinguish him, and prevent the necessity
of repeating his name too familiarly. Thus _Firdaus-makān_
(dweller-in-paradise) is Bābur's; Humāyūn's is
_Jannat-ashi-yānī_, he whose nest is in Heaven; Muḥammad
Shāh's _Firdaus-āramgāh_, he whose place of rest is Paradise;
_etc._ (Erskine).
[2815] Here Mr. Erskine notes, "Literally, _nectar-fruit_,
probably the mandarin orange, by the natives called _nāringī_.
The name _amrat_, or pear, in India is applied to the guava or
_Psidium pyriferum_—(_Spondias mangifera_, Hort. Ben.—D.
Wallich)."... Mr. E. notes also that the note on the
_amrit-phal_ "is not found in either of the Persian
translations".
[2816] _chūchūmān_, Pers. trs. _shīrīni bī maza_, perhaps
flat, sweet without relish. Bābur does not use the word, nor
have I traced it in a dictionary.
[2817] _chūchūk_, savoury, nice-tasting, not acid (Shaw).
[2818] _chūchūk nāranj āndāq (?) maṯ`ūn aīdī kīm har kīm-nī
shīrīn-kārlīghī bī masa qīlkāndī, nāranj-sū'ī dīk tūr dīrlār
aīdī._
[2819] The _lemu_ may be _Citrus limona_, which has abundant
juice of a mild acid flavour.
[2820] The _kāmila_ and _samṯara_ are the real oranges
(_kauṅlā_ and _sangtāra_), which are now (_cir._ 1816 AD.)
common all over India. Dr. Hunter conjectures that the
_sangtāra_ may take its name from Cintra, in Portugal. This
early mention of it by Bābur and Humāyūn may be considered as
subversive of that supposition. (This description of the
_samṯara_, vague as it is, applies closer to the _Citrus
decumana_ or _pampelmus_, than to any other.—D.
Wallich.)—Erskine.
[2821] Humāyūn writes of this fruit as though it were not the
_sang-tara_ described by his father on f. 287 (p. 511 and
note).
[2822] M. de Courteille translated _jama`_ in a general sense
by _totalit.'_ instead of in its Indian technical one of
revenue (as here) or of assessment. Hence Professor Dowson's
"totality" (iv, 262 n.).
[2823] The B.M. has a third copy, Or. 5879, which my husband
estimates as of little importance.
[2824] Sir G. A. Grierson, writing in the _Indian Antiquary_
(July 1885, p. 187), makes certain changes in Ajodhya Prasad's
list of the Brahman rulers of Tirhut, on grounds he states.
[2825] Index _s.n._ Bābur's letters. The passage Shaikh Zain
quotes is found in Or. 1999, f. 65_b_, Add. 26,202, f. 66_b_,
Or. 5879, f. 79_b_.
[2826] Cf. Index _in loco_ for references to Bābur's metrical
work, and for the Facsimile, JASB. 1910, Extra Number.
[2827] Monday, Rabi` II. 15th 935 AH.—Dec. 27th 1528 AD. At
this date Bābur had just returned from Dhūlpūr to Āgra (f.
354, p. 635, where in note 1 for Thursday read Monday).
[2828] Owing to a scribe's "skip" from one _yībārīldī_ (was
sent) to another at the end of the next sentence, the passage
is not in the Ḥai. MS. It is not well given in my translation
(f. 357_b_, p. 642); what stands above is a closer rendering
of the full Turkī, _Humāyūngha tarjuma_ [_u_?] _nī-kīm
Hindūstāngha kīlkānī aītqān ash'ārnī yībārīldī_ (Ilminsky p.
462, 1. 4 fr. ft., where however there appears a slight
clerical error).
[2829] Hesitation about accepting the colophon as
unquestionably applying to the whole contents of the
manuscript is due to its position of close association with
one section only of the three in the manuscript (cf. _post_ p.
lx).
[2830] Plate XI, and p. 15 (mid-page) of the Facsimile
booklet.—The Facsimile does not show the whole of the marginal
quatrain, obviously because for the last page of the
manuscript a larger photographic plate was needed than for the
rest. With Dr. Ross' concurrence a photograph in which the
defect is made good, accompanies this Appendix.
[2831] The second section ends on Plate XVII, and p. 21 of the
Facsimile booklet.
[2832] Needless to say that whatever the history of the
manuscript, its value as preserving poems of which no other
copy is known publicly, is untouched. This value would be
great without the marginal entries on the last page; it finds
confirmation in the identity of many of the shorter poems with
counterparts in the _Bābur-nāma_.
[2833] Another autograph of Shāh-i-jahān's is included in the
translation volume (p. xiii) of Gul-badan Begam's
_Humāyūn-nāma_. It surprises one who works habitually on
historical writings more nearly contemporary with Bābur, in
which he is spoken of as _Firdaus-makānī_ or as _Gītī-sitānī
Firdaus-makānī_ and not by the name used during his life, to
find Shāh-i-jahān giving him the two styles (cf. _Jahāngīr's
Memoirs_ trs. ii, 5). Those familiar with the writings of
Shāh-i-jahān's biographers will know whether this is usual at
that date. There would seem no doubt as to the identity of _ān
Ḥaẓrat._—The words _ān ḥaẓrat_ by which Shāh-i-jahān refers to
Bābur are used also in the epitaph placed by Jahāngīr at
Bābur's tomb (Trs. Note p. 710-711).
[2834] The Qāẓī's rapid acquirement of the _mufradāt_ of the
script allows the inference that few letters only and those of
a well-known script were varied.—_Mufradāt_ was translated by
Erskine, de Courteille and myself (f. 357_b_) as alphabet but
reconsideration by the light of more recent information about
the _Bāburī-khat̤t̤_ leads me to think this is wrong because
"alphabet" includes every letter.—On f. 357b three items of
the _Bāburī-khat̤t̤_ are specified as despatched with the
Hindūstān poems, _viz._ _mufradāt_, _qita`lār_ and
_sar-i-khat̤t̤_. Of these the first went to Hind-āl, the third
to Kāmrān, and no recipient is named for the second; all
translators have sent the _qita`lār_ to Hind-āl but I now
think this wrong and that a name has been omitted, probably
Humāyūn's.
[2835] f. 144_b_, p. 228, n. 3. Another interesting matter
missing from the _Bābur-nāma_ by the gap between 914 and 925
AH. is the despatch of an embassy to Czar Vassili III. in
Moscow, mentioned in Schuyler's _Turkistan_ ii, 394, Appendix
IV, Grigorief's _Russian Policy in Central Asia._ The mission
went after "Sulṯān Bābur" had established himself in Kābul; as
Bābur does not write of it before his narrative breaks off
abruptly in 914 AH. it will have gone after that date.
[2836] I quote from the Véliaminof-Zernov edition (p. 287)
from which de Courteille's plan of work involved extract only;
he translates the couplet, giving to _khat̤t̤_ the
double-meanings of script and down of youth (_Dictionnaire
Turque_ _s.n._ _sīghnāqī_). The _Sanglākh_ (p. 252) _s.n._
_sīghnāq_ has the following as Bābur's:—
_Chū balai khat̤t̤ī naṣīb'ng būlmāsa Bābur nī tang?
Bare khat̤t̤ almanṣūr khat̤t̤ sighnāqī mū dūr?_
[2837] Gibb's _History of Ottoman Poetry_ i, 113 and ii, 137.
[2838] Réclus' _L'Asie Russe_ p. 238.
[2839] On this same _taḥrīr qīldīm_ may perhaps rest the
opinion that the Rāmpūr MS. is autograph.
[2840] I have found no further mention of the tract; it may be
noted however that whereas Bābur calls his _Treatise on
Prosody_ (written in 931 AH.) the _`Arūẓ_, Abū'l-faẓl writes
of a _Mufaṣṣal_, a suitable name for 504 details of
transposition.
[2841] _Tūzūk-i-jahāngīr_ lith. ed. p. 149; and _Memoirs of
jahāngīr_ trs. i, 304. [In both books the passage requires
amending.]
[2842] Rāmpūr MS. Facsimile Plate XIV and p. 16, verse 3;
_Akbar-nāma_ trs. i, 279, and lith. ed. p. 91.
[2843] Cf. Index _s.n._ Dalmau and Bangarmau for the
termination in double _ū_.
[2844] Dr. Ilminsky says of the Leyden & Erskine _Memoirs of
Bābur_ that it was a constant and indispensable help.
[2845] My examination of Kehr's Codex has been made
practicable by the courtesy of the Russian Foreign Office in
lending it for my use, under the charge of the Librarian of
the India Office, Dr. F. W. Thomas.—It should be observed that
in this Codex the Hindūstān Section contains the purely Turkī
text found in the Ḥaidarābād Codex (cf. JRAS. 1908, p. 78).
[2846] It may indicate that the List was not copied by Bābur
but lay loose with his papers, that it is not with the
Elphinstone Codex, and is not with the `Abdu'r-raḥīm Persian
translation made from a manuscript of that same annotated
line.
[2847] Cf. _in loco_ p. 656, n. 3.
[2848] A few slight changes in the turn of expressions have
been made for clearness sake.
[2849] Index _s.n._ Mīr Bāqī of Tāshkīnt. Perhaps a better
epithet for _sa`ādạt-nishān_ than "good-hearted" would be one
implying his good fortune in being designated to build a
mosque on the site of the ancient Hindū temple.
[2850] There is a play here on Bāqī's name; perhaps a good
wish is expressed for his prosperity together with one for the
long permanence of the sacred building _khair_ (_khairat_).
[2851] Presumably the order for building the mosque was given
during Bābur's stay in Aūd (Ajodhya) in 934 AH. at which time
he would be impressed by the dignity and sanctity of the
ancient Hindū shrine it (at least in part) displaced, and like
the obedient follower of Muḥammad he was in intolerance of
another Faith, would regard the substitution of a temple by a
mosque as dutiful and worthy.—The mosque was finished in 935
AH. but no mention of its completion is in the _Bābur-nāma_.
The diary for 935 AH. has many minor _lacunæ_; that of the
year 934 AH. has lost much matter, breaking off before where
the account of Aūd might be looked for.
[2852] The meaning of this couplet is incomplete without the
couplet that followed it and is (now) not legible.
[2853] Firishta gives a different reason for Bābur's sobriquet
of _qalandar_, namely, that he kept for himself none of the
treasure he acquired in Hindūstān (Lith. ed. p. 206).
[2854] Jahāngīr who encamped in the Shahr-ārā-garden in Ṣafar
1016 AH. (May 1607 AD.) says it was made by Bābur's aunt,
Abū-sa`īd's daughter Shahr-bānū (Rogers and Beveridge's
_Memoirs of Jahāngīr_ i, 106).
[2855] A _jalau-khāna_ might be where horse-head-gear, bridles
and reins are kept, but _Āyīn_ 60 (A.-i-A.) suggests there may
be another interpretation.
[2856] She was a daughter of Hind-āl, was a grand-daughter
therefore of Bābur, was Akbar's first wife, and brought up
Shāh-i-jahān. Jahāngīr mentions that she made her first
pilgrimage to her father's tomb on the day he made his to
Bābur's, Friday Ṣafar 26th 1016 AH. (June 12th 1607 AD.). She
died _æt._ 84 on Jumāda I. 7th 1035 AH. (Jan. 25th 1626 AD.).
Cf. _Tūzūk-i-jahāngīrī_, Muḥ. Hādī's Supplement lith. ed. p.
401.
[2857] Mr. H. H. Hayden's photograph of the mosque shows
pinnacles and thus enables its corner to be identified in his
second of the tomb itself.
[2858] One of Daniel's drawings (which I hope to reproduce)
illuminates this otherwise somewhat obscure passage, by
showing the avenue, the borders of running-water and the
little water-falls,—all reminding of Madeira.
[2859] _chokī_, perhaps "shelter"; see Hobson-Jobson _s.n._
[2860] If told with leisurely context, the story of the visits
of Bābur's descendants to Kābul and of their pilgrimages to
his tomb, could hardly fail to interest its readers.
THE HISTORY OF BABUR OR BABUR-NAMA
Index I. Personal
+Abā-bikr Mīrzā+ _Mīrān-shāhī Tīmūrid_, _Barlās Turk_, son
of Abū-sa`īd and a Badakhshī begīm—particulars 22, 26;
his attack on Ḥiṣār 51;
defeated by Ḥusain _Bāī-qarā_ and his death (884) 260;
his Bāī-qarā marriage 266;
a Badakhshī connection 51;
[♰884 AH.-1479 AD.].
+Abā-bikr Mīrzā+ _Dūghlāt Kāshgharī_, son of Sāniz and a Chīrās
(var. Jarās) begīm—invades Farghāna (899) 32;
his annexations in Badakhshān 695;
his Mīrānshāhī wife 48;
[♰920 AH.-1514 AD.].
+`Abbās+, a slave—murderer of Aūlūgh (Ūlūgh) Beg _Shāh-rukhī_ (853) 85.
+`Abbās Sulṯān+ _Aūzbeg_—marries Gul-chihra _Mīrān-shāhi_, Bābur's
daughter (954) 713.
+`Abdu'l-`alī Tarkhān+ _Arghūn Chīngīz-Khānid_—particulars 38, 39;
[♰cir. 899 AH.-1494 AD.].
+`Abdu'l-`azīz+ _mīr-akhẉur_—ordered to catch pheasants (925) 404;
☛[2861] posted in Lāhor (930) 442;
sent into Milwat (932) 460;
on service 465-6, 471, 530;
the reserve at Pānīpat 472-3;
reinforces the right 473;
surprised and defeated by Sangā (933) 549, 550;
in the left wing at Kānwā 567, 570;
pursues Sangā 576;
ordered against Balūchīs (935) 638;
writes from Lāhor about the journey of Bābur's family 659, 660;
arrested 688;
☛ sequel to his sedition not given in the _Akbar-nāma_ 692;
☛ reference to his sedition 698.
+`Abdu'l-`azīz Mīrzā+ _Shāh-rukhī Tīmūrid_, _Barlās Turk_, son of
Aūlūgh Beg—his Chaghatāī wife 19-20.
+`Abdu'l-bāqī+—surrenders Qandahār to Bābur (928) 436, 437.
+`Abdu'l-bāqī Mīrzā+ _Mīrān-shāhī Tīmūrid_, _Barlās Turk_, son of
`Us̤mān—particulars 280;
referred to 266 n. 6;
goes to Herī (908) 336;
his wife Sulṯānīm _Bāī-qarā_ 265 n. 5, 280.
+`Abdu'l-ghaffār+ _tawāchī_—conveys military orders (935) 638.
Mīr +`Abdu'l-ghafūr+ _Lārī_, of Ḥusain _Bāī-qarā's_ Court—particulars
284, 285;
[♰912 AH.-1506-7 AD.].
Khwāja +`Abdu'l-ḥaqq+, brother of Khwāja Makhdūmī Nūrā—waited upon
by Bābur (935) 641, 686;
has leave to stay in Āgra 641.
+`Abdu'l-karīm+ _Ushrit_ (var.) _Aūīghūr_[2862] (var.)—serving Aḥmad
_Mīrān-shāhī_ 40;
captured by an Aūzbeg (902) 65.
+`Abdu'l-khalīq Beg+ _Isfarāyini_—particulars 273-4 (where read
_Isfarāyinī_ for "_Isfārayinī_").
Shaikh +`Abdu'l-lāh+ _aīshīk-āghā_—with Jahāngīr (899) 32;
leaves Bābur for home (902) 191.
Sayyid +`Abdu'l-lāh+ _Andikhūdī_—his Bāī-qarā wife Bairām-sulṯān
and their son Barka _q.v._
Khwāja +`Abdu'l-lāh+ _Anṣārī_—his tomb visited by Bābur (912) 305;
a surmised attendant on it 145 n. 1;
[♰, 481 AH.-1088 AD.].
Shaikh +`Abdu'l-lāh+ _bakāwal_—with the Bāī-qarā families (913) 328.
Shaikh +`Abdu'l-lāh+ _Barlās_—particulars 51;
excites the Tarkhān rebellion (901) 61-2;
his daughter a cause of attempt on Samarkand 64;
with his son-in-law Mas`ūd _Mīrān-shāhī_ (903) 93.
Khwāja +`Abdu'l-lāh Khwājagān Khwāja+—fifth son of `Ubaidu'l-lāh
_Aḥrārī_—his son `Abdu'sh-shahīd, _q.v._
Mullā +`Abdu'l-lāh+ _kitābdār_—one of eleven left with Bābur (913) 337;
given the third of a potent confection (925) 373;
a drunken lapse 398;
induced by Bābur to restrict his drinking 399;
at a party where Bābur, abstaining, watches the drinkers 400-1;
rebuked for an offending verse 416;
joins Bābur in an autumn garden 418;
on service (932) 468, 530;
in the right centre at Pānīpat (932) 472, 473;
and at Kānwa (933) 565, 569;
sent to take possession of Āgra 475;
is sarcastic 581;
in attendance on Aūzbeg envoys (935) 631;
sent to take charge of Saṃbhal (935) 675, 687;
conveys orders 676;
sends news of Bīban and Bāyazīd 679;
arrives in Āgra, 687.
Khwāja +`Abdu'l-lāh+ _Marwārīd_—particulars 278-9;
preeminent on the dulcimer 291;
[♰922 AH.-1516 AD.].
+`Abdu'l-lāh Mīrzā+ _Shāh-rukhī Tīmūrid_, _Barlās Turk_—succeeds his
father, Ibrāhīm, in Shīrāz (838) 20, and his
cousin `Abdu'l-laṯīf in Transoxiana (854) 85-6;
Yūnas Khān his retainer _q.v._;
[♰ Jumāda I. 22, 855 AH.-1450 AD.].[2863]
Khwāja +`Abdu'l-lāh Qāẓī+, see Khwāja Maulānā-i-qāẓī.
+`Abdu'l-lāh Sulṯān+ _Aūzbeg-Shaibān_—particulars 267;
serving Bābur in Hindūstān (after 933?) 267.
+`Abdu'l-laṯīf+ _bakhshī_—serving Ḥusain _Bāī-qarā_ (901) 57;
acts for Bābur from Qūndūz (932-3) 546.
+`Abdu'l-laṯīf Mīrzā+ _Shāh-rukhī Tīmūrid, Barlās Turk_—murders and
succeeds his father Aūlūgh Beg (853) 15;
a couplet on his parricide 85[2864];
[♰ Rabī` l .26, 854 AH.-1450 AD.[2865]].
+`Abdu'l-laṯīf Sulṯān+ _Aūzbeg_, _Shaibānī Chīngīz-khānid_, son of
Ḥamza— Bābur's half-sister Yādgār (_æt. cir._ 8) his share of
spoil (908) 18.
Mullā +`Abdu'l-malūk+ _Khwāstī_ (var. malik)—at Bajaur (925) 368;
sent ahead into Bhīra 381;
and to Kābul 415;
returns from an embassy to `Iraq (932) 446 (here _qūrchī_);
sent again (935) 642;
on service (933) 576, 582.
+`Abdu'l-minān+, son of Mullā Ḥaidar—holding Bīsh-kīnt (907) 151.
Amīr +`Abdu'l-qadūs Beg+ _Dūghlāt_—slays Jamāl _Khar Arghūn_ (877) 35;
conveys wedding gifts to Bābur and arouses suspicion (900) 43;
[for his death see T.R. trs. pp. 94, 103].
+`Abdu'l-qadūs Beg+ _Kohbur Chaghatāī_—with Bābur at Māḏū (Māẕū) (905)
109 (where for "qāsim" read qadūs);
one of the eight fugitives from Akhsī (908) 177.
Mīrak +`Abdu'r-raḥīm+ _Ṣadr_—his servant Badru'd-dīn _q.v._
+`Abdu'r-raḥīm+ _shaghāwal_—sent to speak the Bhīra people fair for
Bābur (925) 381;
given charge of Ibrāhīm _Lūdī's_ mother (933) 543;
fetches a hostage to Court 578;
who escapes 581.
Maulānā +`Abdu'r-raḥīm+_ Turkistānī_—fleeces Khwānd-amīr 328.
Mulla +`Abdu'r-raḥmān+ _Ghaznawī_—particulars 218; [♰921 AH.-1515 AD.].
Maulānā +`Abdu'r-raḥmān+ _Jāmī_—his letters imitated by Nawā'ī 271;
his sarcasm on Shaikhīm's Verse 277;
his tomb visited by Bābur (912) 285, 305;
Bābur's reverential mention of him 283, 286;
his example followed by production of the _Wālidiyyah-risāla_ (935)
620;
his birth-place 623 n. 8;
his disciple `Abdu'l-ghafūr 284;
[898 AH.-1492 AD.].
+`Abdu'r-raḥmān Khān+ _Barak-zāī Afghān_, Amīr of Afghānistān—mentioned
in connection with Jāmī's tomb 305 n. 6;
[♰1319 AH.-1901 AD.].
+`Abdu'r-razzāq Mīrzā+ _Mīrān-shāhī Tīmūrid_, _Barlās Turk_, son of
Aūlūgh Beg _Kābulī_—loses Kābul (910) 195, 365;
out with Bābur 234;
surmised part-vendor of Bābur's mother's burial-ground 246 n. 2;
in Herāt (912) 298;
escapes Shaibānī and joins Bābur (913) 331;
in the left wing at Qandahār 334;
his loot 337-8;
deserts Qalāt in fear of Shaibānī 340;
left in charge of Kābul _ib._;
given Nīngnahār 344;
rebels (914) 345;
his position stated 345 n. 6;
[♰915 AH.-1509 AD.?].
Khwāja +`Abdu'sh-shahīd+, son of Aḥrārī's fifth son Khwājagān-khwāja
(`Abdu'l-lāh)—placed on Bābur's right-hand (935) 631;
gifts made to him 632;
invited to a _ma`jūn_-party 653;
particulars 653 n. 4;
☛ a likely recipient of the _Mubīn_ 438, 631 n. 3;
[♰982 AH.-1574 AD.].
+`Abdu'sh-shukūr+ _Mughūl_, son of Qaṃbar-i-`alī _Silākh_—serving
Jahāngīr _Mīrān-shāhī_ (after 910) 192;
in the right wing at Kānwa (933) 566.
+`Abdu'l-wahhāb+ _Mughūl_—given Shaikh Pūrān to loot (913) 328.
+`Abdu'l-wahhāb+ _shaghāwal_, servant of `Umar-shaikh and Aḥmad
_Mīrān-shāhī_—forwards news (899) 25;
gives Khujand to Bābur 54;
his son Mīr Mughūl _q.v._
+Abraha+ _Yemenī_, an _Abyssinian Christian_—his defeat (571 AD.)
563 n. 3.
Imām +Abū Ḥanīfa+—his followers' respect for the _Hidāyat_ 76;
his ruling that peacock-meat is lawful food 493.
Khwāja +Abū'l-barka+ _Farāqī_—criticizes Banā'ī's verse (906) 137.
Shaikh +Abū'l-fatḥ+, servant of the Shāh-zāda of Mungīr—envoy from
Bengal to Bābur (934, 935) 676;
placed on Bābur's right-hand (935) 631.
+Abū'l-fatḥ Sa`īd Khān+, see Sa`īd Khān _Chaghatāī_.
+Abū'l-fatḥ+ _Turkmān_, son of `Umar—his joining Bābur from `Iraq 280;
made military-collector of Dhūlpūr (933) 540;
Bābur visits his _hammām_ (935) 615.
+Abū'l-faẓl+, see _Akbar-nāma_.
+Abū'l-ḥasan+ _qūr-begī_—in the right wing at Qandahār (913) 334;
does well (925) 404;
his brother Muḥammad Ḥusain _q.v._
+Abū'l-ḥasan+ _qūrchī_—in the centre at Qandahār (913) 335.
+Abū'l-hāshim+, servant of Sl. `Alī [T̤aghāī _Begchīk_]—overtakes Bābur
with ill news (925) 412.
+Abū'l-ma`ālī+ _Tīrmīẕī_—☛ his burial-place has significance as
to Mahdī Khwāja's family 705;
[♰971 AH.-1564 AD.].
Khwāja +Abū'l-makāram+—supports Bāī-sunghar _Mīrān-shāhī_ (901) 62,
(902) 65;
acts for peace (903) 91;
meets Bābur, both exiles (904) 99;
at Bābur's capture of Samarkand (906) 132, 141;
leaves it with him 147 n. 2;
speaks for him (908) 157-8;
fails to recognize him 161;
☛ at Archīān 184;
[♰908 AH.-1502 AD.].
Shaikh +Abū'l-manṣūr+ _Mātarīdī_—his birthplace Samarkand 75, 76;
[♰333 AH.-944 AD.].
+Abū'l-muḥammad+ _neza-bāz_—in the _tūlghuma_ of the left wing, at
Pānīpat (932) 473;
on service (933) 582, (934) 589, 598.
+Abū'l-muḥammad+ _Khujandī_—his sextant 74 n. 4.
+Abū'l-muḥsin Mīrzā+ _Bāī-qarā Tīmūrid_, _Barlās Turk_, son of Ḥusain
and Laṯīf—particulars 262 (where for "ḥusain" read muḥsin), 269;
serving his father (901) 58;
defeats his brother Badī`u'z-zamān (902) 69, 70;
defeated by his father at Halwā-spring (904) 260;
his men take Qarākūl from Aūzbegs (906) 135;
co-operates against Shaibānī (912) 296;
rides out to meet Bābur 297;
they share a divan 298;
presses him to winter in Herī 300;
returns to his district (Merv) 301;
his later action and death 329-30, 331;
[♰913 AH.-1507 AD.].
+Abū'l-muslim Kūkūldāsh+—brings an Arghūn gift to Bābur (925) 401, 402.
+Abū'l-qāsim+ _Jalāīr_—tells Bābur a parrot story. (935)[2866] 494.
+Abū'l-qāsim+—a musician (923) 387, 388 (here Qāsim only).
+Abū'l-qāsim+, _Kohbur Chaghatāī_, son of Ḥaidar-i-qāsim—on
service with Bābur (902) 68, (906) 130, 131, 133;
in the right wing at Sar-i-pul (Khwāja Kārdzan) 139;
killed 141;
[♰906 AH.-1501 AD.].
Shaikh +Abū'l-wajd+ _Fārighī_, maternal-uncle of Zain
_Khawāfī_—makes verse on the Kābul-river (932) 448;
his chronogram on Al-amān's birth (935) 621;
[♰940 AH.-1533 AD.[2867]].
Shaikh +Abū-sa`īd Khān+ _Dar-miyān_[2868]—particulars 276.
Sulṯān +Abū-sa`īd Mīrzā+ _Mīrān-shāhī Tīmūrid_, _Barlās
Turk_—his descent 14;
asserts Tīmūrid supremacy over Chaghatāī Khāqāns (855) 20, 344, 352;
takes Māwarā'u'n-nahr (855) 86;
forms his Corps of Braves 28, 50;
a single combat in his presence (857) 50;
defeats Ḥusain _Bāī-qarā_ (868) 259;
a swift courier to him 25;
joined by the Black-sheep Turkmāns (872) 49;
orders the Hindūstān army mobilized 46;
defeated and killed by the White-sheep Turkmāns (873) 25, 46, 49;
appointments named 24, 37;
his banishment of Nawā'ī 271;
reserves a Chaghatāī wife for a son 21, 36;
his Badakhshī wife and their son 22,[2869] 260;
his Tarkhān _Arghūn_ wife and their sons, 33, 45;
his mistress Khadīja _q.v._;
his daughters Pāyanda-sulṯān, Shahr-bānū, Rābi`a-sulṯān,
Khadīja-sulṯān, Fakhr-i-jahān, Apāq-sulṯān, Āq Begīm _q.v._;
retainers named as his `Alī-dost _Sāghārīchī_, Muḥammad Barandūq,
Aūrūs, and Ẕū'n-nūn _Arghūn_ _q.v._;
his marriage connection Nūyān _Tīrmīẕī_ _q.v._;
[♰873 AH.-1469 AD.].
+Abū-sa`īd Pūrān+, see Jamālu'd-dīn.
+Abū-sa`īd Sulṯān+ _Auzbeg-Shaibān_, _Chīngīz-khānid_, son of
Kūchūm—☛ at Ghaj-davān (918) 360;
at Jām (935) 622, 636;
sends an envoy to Bābur 631, 632, 641;
[♰940 AH.-1533-4 AD.].
Shaikh +Abū-sa`īd Tarkhān+ (var. Bū-sa`īd)—his house Mīrzā Khān's
loot in Qandahār (913) 338.
+Abū-turāb Mīrzā+ _Bāī-qarā Tīmūrid_, _Barlās Turk_, son of Ḥusain
and Mīnglī—particulars 262, 269;
his son Sohrab _q.v._;
[♰ before 911 AH.-1505-6 AD.].
+Adīk Sulṯān+ _Qazzāq_, _Jūjī Chīngīz-khānid_ (var. Aūng Sulṯān),
son of Jānī Beg Khān (T.R. trs. 373)—husband of Sulṯān-nigār
_Chaghatāī_ _q.v._
+`Ādil Sulṯān+ _Auzbeg-Shaibān_(?), _Chingīz-khānid_(?),
son of Mahdī and a Bāī-qarā begīm—marries Shād _Bāī-qarā_ 263;
suggestions as to his descent 264 n. 1;
waits on Bābur at Kalānūr (932) 458;
on Bābur's service 468, 471, 475, 530;
in the left wing at Pānīpat 472;
and at Kānwa (933) 567, 570;
ordered against Balūchīs (935) 638;
☛ mentioned as a landless man 706.
Sayyida +Afāq+, a legendary wife of Bābūr 358 n. 2;
her son and grandson _ib._
+Afghānī Āghāchā+, see Mubārika.
Sayyid +Afẓal Beg+, son of `Alī _Khwāb-bīn_—conveys Ḥusain
_Bāī-qarā's_ summons to Bābur for help against Shaibānī (911) 255;
particulars 282;
takes news to Herāt of Bābur's start from Kābul (912) 294;
sends him news of Ḥusain's death 295;
[♰921 AH.-1516 AD.].
+Āghā Begīm+ _Bāī-qarā Tīmūrid_, _Barlās Turk_, daughter
of Ḥusain and Pāyanda-sulṯān—parentage and marriage (or betrothal,
Ḥ.S. iii, 327) 266;
[♰ died in childhood].
+Āghā-sulṯān+, _ghūnchachi_ of `Umar Shaikh—her daughter
Yādgār-i-sulṯān _q.v._
+Āhī+—his feet frost-bitten (912) 311.
+Āhī+, a poet—particulars 289;
[♰ 907 AH.-1501-2].
+Ahlī+, a poet—particulars 290;
(for 4 writers using _Āhlī_ as their pen-name see 290 n. 6).
Sulṯān +Aḥmad+ _Aīlchī-būghā_, _Mughūl_—one of four daring much
(912) 315;
in the left wing at Qandahār (913) 334.
Pīr +Aḥmad+—leaves Samarkand with the Tarkhāns (905) 121;
fights for Bābur at Sar-i-pul (Khwāja Kārdzan) (906) 139.
+Aḥmad+ _Afshār Turk_—a letter to him endorsed by Bābur (935) 617.
Mīrzā +Aḥmad `Alī+ _Farsī_, _Barlās_—particulars 273.
+Aḥmad `Alī Tarkhān+ _Arghūn_, brother of Qulī Beg—favours Bābur and
admits him to Qandahār (913) 337.
Mullā +Aḥmad+ _Balkhī_— conveys treasure to Balkh (932) 446.
Mirzā Sayyidī +Aḥmad+ _Mīrān-shāhī Tīmūrid_, _Barlās Turk_, son of
Mīrān-shāh—particulars 257 n. 5;
named in a line of descent 280 n. 1;
his son Aḥmad and grandson `Abdu'l-bāqī _q.v._
Mīr +Aḥmad Beg+ _Itārajī Mughūl_, paternal-uncle of Taṃbal—guardian
of a son of The Khān (Maḥmūd) 115;
reinforces Bābur (903) 92;
acts against him (905) 115, 116;
acts against `Alī _Mīrān-shāhī_ 112;
makes a contemptuous speech about Taṃbal (906) 145.
+Aḥmad Beg+ _Ṣafawī_—☛ leads a reinforcement to help Bābur
(917) 353.
Sulṯān +Aḥmad+ _Chār-shaṃba'ī_, see Chār-shaṃba.
+Aḥmad+ _chāshnīgīr_—helps in poisoning Bābur (933) 541;
[♰933 AH.-1526 AD.].
+Aḥmad Ḥājī Beg+ _Dūldāī_, _Barlās Turk_—particulars 25, 37, 38;
his pen-name Wafā'ī and a couplet of his 38;
his hospitality to `Alī-sher _Nawāī_ 38, 271;
drives Khusrau Shāh from Samarkand (900) 51;
supports Bāī-sunghar _Mīrān-shāhī_ in the Tarkhān rebellion (901)
62, 63;
his death at the hands of slaves and slave-women 63-4;
[♰901 AH.-1496 AD.].
+Aḥmadī+ _parwānchī_—on service (925) 377, (932) 458, 460, (933) 540;
sent to surprise Ibrāhīm _Lūdī_ (932) 468 (his name is omitted in
my text);
in the left centre at Pānīpat 472, 473;
his ill-behaviour in the heats 524.
Sulṯan +Aḥmad Khān+—+Alacha Khān+—_Chaghatāī Chīngīz-khānid_, son of
Yūnas and Shāh Begīm—particulars 23, 160;
meaning of his sobriquet Alacha Khān 23;
younger Khān-dādā, Bābur's name for him 129;
considered as a refuge for Bābur (899) 29, (903) 92, (906) 129,
(908) 158;
visits Tāshkīnt (908) 159;
ceremonies of meeting 160-1, 171-2;
moves with his elder brother Maḥmūd against Taṃbal 161, 168, 171;
his kindness to Bābur 159, 166-7, 169, 171;
is given Bābur's lands and why 168;
retires from Andijān in fear of Shaibānī 172;
defeated by Shaibānī at Archīān (908 or 909) 7, 23, ☛ 182-3;
his death (909) reported to Bābur (911) 246 and n. 4;
his sons Manṣūr, Sa'īd, Bābā (T.R. trs. 160, Bābājāk), Chīn-tīmūr,
Tūkhtā-būghā, and Aīsan-tīmūr q.v.;
his grandson Bābā _q.v._;
☛ followers of his return from forced migration (908) when
Shaibānī is killed (916) 351;
[♰end of 909 AH.-1504 AD.].
+Aḥmad Khān+ _Ḥājī-tarkhānī_ (_Astrakhānī_)—marries Badī`u'l-jamāl
(Badka) _Bāī-qarā_ (899?) 257, 258;
their sons (Maḥmūd and Bahādur) 258;
their daughter Khān-zāda _q.v._
Sulṯān +Aḥmad Mīrzā+ _Dūghlāt_—sent by The Khān (Māḥmūd) to help Bābur
(908) 161.
Sulṯān +Aḥmad Mīrzā+ _Mīrān-shāhī Tīmūrid_, _Barlās Turk_, son of
Abū-sa`īd—the lands his father gave him 35, 86;
his brother Maḥmūd taken to his care (873 or 4) 46;
his disaster on the Chīr (895) 17, 25, 31, 34;
a swift courier to him 25;
defeats `Umar Shaikh 17, 34; 12 n. 2; 53;
invades Farghāna (899) 13, 30;
given Aūrā-tīpā 27;
dreaded for Bābur 29;
retires and dies 31, 33;
particulars 33, 40;
referred to by Ḥusain _Bāī-qarā_ (910) 190;
his wives and children 35-6;
an honoured Beg Nūyān _Tīrmīẕī_ _q.v._;
[♰899 AH.-1494 AD.].
Sulṯān +Aḥmād Mīrzā+, _Mīrān-shāhī Tīmūrid_, _Barlās Turk_, son of
Mīrzā Sayyidī Aḥmad—particulars 257 n. 5;
his wife Ākā Begīm _Bāī-qarā_ and their son Kīchīk Mīrzā _q.v._; 266
n. 6;
a building of his at Herī 305.
+Aḥmād+ _mushtāq_, _Turkmān_—takes Maḥmūd _Mīrān-shāhī_ to Ḥiṣār
(873 or 4) 46-7.
Sulṯān +Aḥmad+ _qarāwal_, father of Qūch (Qūj) Beg, Tardī Beg and
Sher-afgān Beg _q.v._—defends Ḥiṣār (901) 58;
enters Bābur's service (905) 112;
in the left Wing at Khūbān (905) 113;
holds Marghīnān 123.
+Aḥmad-i-qāsim+ _Kohbur Chaghatāī_, son of Ḥaidar-i-qāsim—with Bābur
(906) 133;
invited to a disastrous entertainment (907) 152;
joins Jahāngīr and Taṃbal 156;
in Akhsī (908) 171;
defeats an Aūzbeg raider (910) 195;
helps to hold Kābul for Bābur (912) 313;
pursues Mīrzā Khān 317, 320;
holding Tāshkīnt against Aūzbegs (918) 356, 358, 396, 397;
a Kābulī servant of his 351.
+Aḥmad-i-qāsim+ _Qībchāq Turk_, (grand-?) son of Bāqī _Chaghānīānī_
and a sister of Khusrau Shāh, perhaps son of Bāqī's son
Muḥammad-i-qāsim (189 n. 3)—holding Kāhmard and Bāmīān (910) 189;
given charge of the families of Bābur's expeditionary force 189;
ill-treats them and is forced to flee 197, 243;
goes to Ḥusain _Bāī-qarā_ _ib._;
killed at Qūndūz 244;
[♰910 AH.-1505 AD.].
Sulṯān +Aḥmad Qāẓī+ _Qīlīch_—particulars 29;
his son Khwāja Maulānā-i-qaẓī _q.v._
+Aḥmad+ _qūshchī_—seen by the fugitive Bābur (908) 180.
Khwāja +Aḥmad+ _Sajāwandī_—his birthplace 217.
+Aḥmad Shāh+ _Khīljī Turk_—dispossessed of Chandīrī by Ibrāhīm
_Lūdī_ 593;
restored by Bābur (934) 598.
+Aḥmad Shāh+ _Durrānī_, _Abdālī Afghān_—his victory at Pānīpat (1174)
472;
[♰1182 AH.-1772 AD.].
+Aḥmad Tarkhān+ _Arghūn Chīngīz-khānid_ (?)—joins Bābur in Samarkand
(906) 133;
loses Dabūsī to Shaibānī 137;
[♰906 AH.-1500 AD.].
+Aḥmad (son of) Tawakkal+ _Barlās_, amir of Ḥusain
_Bāī-qarā_—particulars 272.
+Aḥmad+ _yāsāwal_—conveys a message from Bābur to the begs of Kābul
Fort (912) 314.
Khwāja +Aḥmad+ _Yasawī_—+Sayyid Ātā+—Shaibānī's vow at his shrine
348, 356;
[♰514 AH.-1120-1 AD.].[2870]
+Aḥmad-i-yūsuf Beg+ _Aūghlāqchī_, son of Ḥasan, nephew of
Yūsuf—managing Yār-yīlāq for `Alī _Mīrān-shāhī_ (904) 98;
dismissed on suspicion of favouring Bābur 98;
probably joins Bābur with his uncle (910) 196;
remonstrated with him for fighting unmailed (911) 252;
helping loyalists in Kābul (912) 313;
saves Bābur a blow 315, 316;
at Bājaur (925) 369, 401 (here Aḥmad Beg);
joins Bābur in Hindūstān (933) 550;
in the right wing at Kānwa 566 (where in n. 1 for "may" read is),
569;
governor of Sīālkot 98.
Malik +Aḥmad+ _Yūsuf-zāī Afghān_, nephew of Sulaimān
_q.v._—particulars App. K.
+Aī Begīm+ _Mīrān-shāhī Tīmūrid_, _Barlās Turk_, daughter of Maḥmūd
and Khān-zāda II.—betrothed to Jahāngīr. (_cir._ 895) 48;
married (910) 189;
their daughter 48.
+Aīkū-sālam+ _Mughūl_—rebels against Bābur (914) 345.
+Aīkū[2871]-tīmūr Beg Tarkhān+ _Arghūn_—his descendant Darwesh Beg
_q.v._;
[♰793 AH.-1391 AD.].
Sulṯān? +Aīlīk+ _Māẓī Aūīghūr_ (_Ūīghūr_)—his descendant Khwāja
Maulānā-i-qāẓī _q.v._
+Aīrzīn Beg+ (var. Aīrāzān) _Bārīn Mughūl_—supports Yūnas _Chaghatāī_
(_cir._ 830), takes him to Aūlūgh Beg _Shāh-rukhī_
(_cir._ 832) 19;
ill-received and his followers scattered 20;
[♰832 AH.-1428 AD.].
+Aīsān-būghā Khān+ _Chaghatāī Chīngīz-khānīd_, son of Dāwā—named in
Yūnas Khān's genealogy 19;
[♰_cir._ 718 AH.-1318 AD.].
+Aīsān-būghā Khān II.+ _Chaghatāī Chīngīz-khānid_, son of
Wais—particulars 19;
invades Farghāna and defeated at Aspara (_cir._ 855) 20;
quarrels with the begs of the Sāghārīchī _tūmān_ and leads to the
elevation of Yūnas _ib._;
[♰866 AH.-1462 AD.].
+Aīsān-daulat Begīm+ _Kūnjī_ (or _Kūnchī_) _Mughūl_, wife of Yūnas
_Chaghatāī_—particulars 20, 21;
her good judgment (900) 43;
entreats Bābur's help for Andijān (903) 88-9;
joins him in Khujand after the loss of Andijān 92;
and in Dikh-kat after that of Samarkand (907) 151;
news of her death reaches Kābul (911) 246;
rears one of `Umar Shaikh's daughters 18;
her kinsmen `Alī-dost, Sherīm, Ghiyās̤ _q.v._;
[♰910 AH.-1505 AD.].
+Aīsān-qulī Sulṯān _Aūzbeg-Shaibān_, _Chīngīz-khānid_—his Bāī-qarā
marriage, 265, 397.
+Aīsān-tīmūr Sulṯān+ _Chaghatāī Chīngīz-khānid_, son of Aḥmad
(Alacha Khān)—on Bābur's service 318, 682;
meets Bābur (935) 654;
in the battle of the Ghogrā 672, 673;
thanked 677;
angers Bābur 684.
+Ākā Begīm+, _Barlās Turk_, daughter of Tīmūr—an ancestress of Ḥusain
_Bāī-qarā_ 256.
+Ākā Begīm+ _Bāī-qarā Tīmūrid_, daughter of Manṣūr and
Fīrūza—particulars 257;
her husband Aḥmad and their son Kīchīk Mīrzā _q.v._
Abū'l-fatḥ Jalālu'd-dīn Muḥammad +Akbar+ _Mīrān-shāhī Tīmūrid_,
_Barlās Turk_, grandson of Bābur and Māhīm—☛ 184;
☛ an addition about him made to the Chihil-zīna inscription 432;
☛ his visit to Pānīpat (963) 472;
his change in the name of the cherry explained by Bābur's words 501,
n. 6;
[♰1014 AH.-1605 AD.].
+Alacha Khān+, see Aḥmad _Chaghatāī_.
+Al-amān+, son of Humāyūn—his birth and name (935) 621, 624, 642;
[♰ in infancy].
+`Ālam Khān+ _Kālpī_, son of Jalāl Khān _Jik-hat_ (or
_Jig-hat_)—holding Kālpī and not submissive to Bābur (932) 523;
goes to Court (933) 544;
disobeys orders 557;
is Bābur's host in Kālpī (934) 590;
on service (935) 682;
an order about him 684.
`Alāu'u'd-dīn +`Ālam Khān+ _Lūdī Afghān_, son of Buhlūl—☛ a principal
actor between 926-32 AH. 428;
☛ asks and obtains Bābur's help against his nephew Ibrāhīm (929)
439-441;
placed by Bābur in charge of Dībālpūr (930) 442;
☛ defeated by Daulat Khān _Yūsuf-khail_ (931) 444;
flees to Kābul and is again set forth 444, 455;
defeated by Ibrāhīm and returns to Bābur (932) 454-8;
his relations with Bābur reviewed 455, n. 1;
in Fort Ginguta 457, 463;
in the left centre at Kānwa (933) 565;
his sons Jalāl, Kamāl, and Sher Khān (_Lūdī_) _q.v._
Sulṯān `Alāu'u'd-dīn +`Ālam Khān+ _Sayyidī_—holding Dihlī 481;
[♰855 AH.-1451 AD.].
+`Ālam Khān+ _Tahangarī_, brother of Niẕām Khān of Bīāna—works badly
with Bābur's force (933) 538;
defeated by his brother 539;
sent out of the way before Kānwa 547.
+`Alāu'u'd-dīn Ḥusain Shāh+, ruler in Bengal—the circumstances of his
succession 483;
his son Naṣrat _q.v._;
[♰925 AH.-1518 AD.?].
+`Alāu'u'd-dīn Ḥusain+ _Jahān-soz Ghūrī_—his destruction in Ghazni
(550) 219;
[♰556 AH.-1161 AD.?].
Sulṯān +`Alāu'u'd-dīn Muḥammad Shāh+ _Khīljī Turk_—Bābur visits his
tomb and minār (932) 476;
his bringing of the Koh-i-nūr from the Dakkhin 477;
[♰715 AH.-1315 AD.].
Sulṯān +`Alāu'u'd-dīn+ _Sawādī_—waits on Bābur (925) 372, 375-6.
+`Alāūl Khān+ _Sūr Afghān_—writes dutifully to Bābur (935) 659.
+`Alāūl Khān+ _Nūḥānī Afghān_—his waitings on Bābur (934, 935) 677,
680.
Sharafu'd-dīn Muḥammad +al Buṣīrī+—his _Qaṣīdatu'l-būrda_ an example
for the _Wālidiyyah-risāla_ 620;
[♰_cir._ 693 AH.-1294 AD.].
+Alexander of Macedon+, see Iskandar _Fīlqūs_ (_Failaqūs_).
Sayyid +`Alī+—escapes from a defeat (909) 102;
out with Bābur (925) 403;
sent against Balūchīs (935) 638.
Sulṯān +`Alī+ _aṣghar_ Mīrzā _Shāh-rukhī Tīmūrid_, _Barlās Turk_,
son of Mas`ūd _Kābulī_—particulars 382.
+`Alī Ātāka+, servant of Khalīfa—reinforces the right wing
(_tūlghuma_) at Kānwa (933) 569.
Shaikh +`Alī Bahādur+, one of Tīmūr's chiefs—his descendant Bābā
`Alī 27.
Khwāja +`Alī Bāī+—mentioned (906) 127;
fights for Bābur at Sar-i-pul (Khwāja Kārdzan) 139;
his son Jān-i-`alī _q.v._
Shaikh +`Alī+ _Bārīn Mughūl_, son of Shaikh Jamāl—in the left wing
(_tūlghuma_) at Pānīpat (932) 473;
sent against Balūchīs (935) 638.
+`Alī+ _Barlās Turk_—his son Muḥammad Barandūq _q.v._
+`Alī Beg+ _Jalāīr Chaghatāī_, father of Ḥasan-i-`Alī and Apāq
Bega—his Shāh-rukhī service 278.[2872]
Mīr (Shaikh) +`Alī Beg+ _Turk_ (inferred 389), governor of Kābul for
Shāh-rukh _Tīmūrīd_—his sons Bābā Kābulī, Daryā Khān, and Ghāzī
(Apāq) Khān (_q.v._) cherished by Mas`ūd _Shāh-rukhī_ 382;
(see his son Ghāzī's grandson Minūchihr for a Turk relation 386).
Sulṯān +`Alī+ _chuhra_, _Chaghatāī_—his loyalty to Bābur doubted
(910) 239;
rebels (914) 345.
Sayyid +`Alī-darwesh Beg+ _Khurāsānī_—particulars 28;
with Jahāngīr (_æt._ 8), in Akhsī (899) 32, leaves Bābur for home
(903) 91;
on Bābur's service (904) 106, (905) 28, 118.
Mīr +`Alī-dost T̤aghāī+ _Kūnjī Mughūl_, a Sāghārīchī-_tūmān_
beg—particulars 27-8;
his appointment on Bābur's accession (899) 32;
has part in a conference (900) 43;
surrenders Andijān (903) 88-9;
asks Bābur's pardon (904) 99;
gives him Marghīnān 100;
defeated by Taṃbal 106;
in the right wing at Khūbān (905) 113;
his ill-timed pacifism 118;
his self-aggrandizement 119, 123;
joins Bābur against Samarkand 123;
in fear of his victims, goes to Taṃbal 125;
his death _ib._;
his brother Ghiyās̤, his son Muḥammad-dost, and his servant Yūl-chūq
_q.v._;
[♰a few years after 905 AH.-1500 AD.].
Mīr Sayyid +`Alī+ _Hamadānī_—his death and burial 211;
[♰786 AH.-1384 AD.].
Mullā +`Alī-jān+ (var. Khān)—fetches his wife from Samarkand (925) 403;
is taught a rain-spell (926) 423;
makes verse on the Kābul-river (932) 448;
a satirical couplet on him made and repented by Bābur 448;
host of Mullā Maḥmūd _Farābī_ (935) 653.
+`Alī Khān+ _Bāyandar_, _Āq-qūīlūq Turkmān_—joins Ḥusain _Bāī-qarā_
(873) 279.
Shaikh-zāda +`Alī Khān+ _Farmūlī Afghān_—his family-train captured
(932) 526;
waits on Bābur 526-7;
in the left wing at Kānwa (933) 567;
on service 576, 582, 678.
+`Alī Khān+ _Istiljū_—leads Ismā`īl _Ṣafawī's_ reinforcement to Bābur
(917) 353.
Sayyid +`Alī Khān+ _Turk_, son of Ghāzī (Apāq) Khān and grandson of
Mīr (Shaikh) `Alī Beg—one of Sikandar _Lūdī's_ Governors in the
Panjāb (910) 382;
leaves Bhīra on Bābur's approach _ib._;
his lands made over by him to Daulat Khān _Yūsuf-khail_ 382-3;
his son Minūchihr and their Turk relation (389) _q.v._
+`Alī Khān+ _Turkmān_, son of `Umar Beg—defends the Bāī-qarā families
against Shaibānī (913) 328.
+`Alī Khān+ _Yūsuf-khail Lūdī Afghān_—eldest son of Daulat Khān—his
servants wait on Bābur (925) 382;
comes out of Milwat (Malot) to Bābur (932) 459-60;
sent under guard to Bhīra 461;
his son Ismā`īl _q.v._
Sayyid +`Alī+ _Khwāb-bīn_, father of Sayyid Afẓal _q.v._ (cf. Ḥ.S.
lith. ed. iii, 346).
Mullā Sulṯān +`Alī+ _khẉush-nawīs_, calligrapher of Ḥusain
_Bāī-qarā_—particulars 291;
given lessons in penmanship by Shaibānī (913) 329;
[♰919 AH.-1513 AD.].
+`Alī-mazīd Beg+ _qūchīn_—particulars 26;
leaves Bābur for home (903) 91.
Mīr +`Alī+ _mīr-akhẉur_[2873]—particulars 279;
helps Ḥusain _Bāī-qarā_ to surprise Yādgār-i-muḥammad _Shāh-rukhī_
in Herī (875) 134, 279.
Sulṯān +`Alī Mīrzā+ _Mīrān-shāhī Tīmūrid_, _Barlās Turk_, son of Maḥmūd
and Zuḥra—particulars 47;
serving his half-brother Bāī-sunghar (900) 27, 55;
made _pādshāh_ in Samarkand by the Tarkhāns (901) 62-3, 86;
meets Bābur 64;
their arrangement 66,(902) 65, 82, 86;
gives no protection to his blind half-brother Mas`ūd (903) 95;
suspects a favoured beg (904) 98;
quarrels with the Tarkhāns (905) 121;
desertions from him 122;
defeats Mīrzā Khān's Mughūls _ib._;
is warned of Bābur's approach 125;
gives Samarkand to Shaibānī and by him is murdered (906) 125-7;
his wife Sulṯānīm _Mīrān-shāhī_ and sister Makhdūm-sulṯān _q.v._;
[♰906 AH.-1500 AD.].
Sulṯān +`Alī Mīrzā T̤aghāī+ _Begchīk_ (Mīrzā Beg T̤aghāī), brother(?)
of Bābur's wife Gul-rukh—movements of his which bear on the
_lacuna_ of 914-924 AH. 408;
arrives in Kābul (925) _ib._;
Kāmrān marries his daughter (934) 619;
conveys Bābur's wedding gifts to Kāmrān (935) 642;
takes also a copy of the _Wālidiyyah-risāla_ and of the Hindūstān
poems, with writings (_sar-khat̤t̤_) in the Bāburī script 642.
Ustād +`Alī-qulī+—his match-lock shooting at Bajaur (925) 369;
shoots prisoners (932) 466;
ordered to make Rūmī defences at Pānīpat 469;
fires _firingīs_ from the front of the centre 473;
casts a large mortar (933) 536, 547;
his jealousy of Muṣṯafa _Rūmī_ 550;
his post previous to Kānwa 558;
his valiant deeds in the battle 570-1;
a new mortar bursts (934) 588;
his choice of ground at Chandīrī 593;
his stone-discharge interests Bābur 595, 670-1-2;
uses the Ghāzī mortar while the Ganges bridge is in building 599;
a gift to his son (935) 633;
his post in the battle of the Ghogrā 667, 668, 669.
+`Alī-qulī+ _Hamadānī_—☛ sent by Bābur to punish the Mundāhirs,
and fails (936) 700.
Mīr +`Alī+ _qūrchī_—conveys playing-cards to Shāh Ḥasan _Arghūn_
(933) 584.
Malik +`Alī+ _quṯnī_(?)—in the left centre at Bajaur (925) 369.
+`Alī Sayyid+ _Mughūl_—in the right wing at Qandahār (913) 334;
rebels (914) 345[2874];
his connection Aūrūs-i `Alī Sayyid 335.
+`Alī+ _shab-kūr_ (night-blind)—one of five champions defeated in
single combat by Bābur (914) 349.
Mīr +`Alī-sher Beg+ _Chaghatāī_, pen-names Nawā'ī and Fanā'ī—his
obligations to Aḥmad Ḥājī Beg and return to Herāt 38;
fails in a mission of Ḥusain _Bāī-qarā's_ (902) 69[2875];
his Turkī that of Andijān 4;
checks Ḥusain in Shī`a action 258;
opposes administrative reform 282;
particulars 271-2;
his relations with Banā'ī 286-7, 648;
corresponds with Bābur (906) 106;
exchanges quatrains with Pahlawān Bū-sa`īd 292;
some of his poems transcribed by Bābur (925) 419;
his restoration of the Rabāṯ-i-sang-bast 301 n. 1;
his flower-garden (_bāghcha_) and buildings visited or occupied by
Bābur (912) 301, 305, 306;
his brother Darwesh-i-`alī _q.v._;
a favoured person 278;
a mystic of his circle 280-1;
his scribe 271;
[♰906 AH.-Dec. 1500 AD.].
+`Alī-shukr Beg+, of the Bahārlū-aīmāq of the Āq-qūīlūq[2876]
Turkmāns—his daughter Pasha, grandson Yār-i-`alī _Balāl_,
and descendant Bairām Khān-i-khānān _q.v._
Sulṯān +`Alī Sīstānī+ _Arghūn_—his help against Shaibānī counselled
(913) 326;
☛ one of five champions worsted by Bābur in single combat (914) 349;
with Bābur and chops at a tiger (925) 393.
Shaikh +`Alī T̤aghāī+ _Mervī_(?)—holding Balkh for Badī`u'z-zamān
_Bāī-qarā_ (902) 70;
joint-dārogha in Herī (911) 293.
+Allāh-bīrdī+ (var. qūlī)—serving Bābur (910) 234.
+Allāh-wairān+ _Turkmān_—in the van at Qandahār (913) 335.
+Alūr+ or Alwar,[2877] son of Bābur and Dil-dār—mentioned 689 n. 5.
☛ 712;
[♰died an infant].
+Amīn Mīrzā+—an Aūzbeg envoy to Bābur (935) 631;
receives gifts 632, 641.
+Amīn-i-muḥammad Tarkhān+ _Arghūn_—punished for disobedience (925)
390-1;
deals with a drunken companion 415.
+Amīr Khān+, chief guardian of T̤ahmāsp _Ṣafawī_—☛ negociates with
Bābur (927) 433.
Mullā +Apāq+—particulars 526;
on Bābur's service (932) 526, 528, (933) 539, (934) 590;
surprised by Sangā (933) 549;
made _shíqdār_ of Chandīrī 598;
his retainers on service (935) 679.
+Apāq Bega+ _Jalāīr Chaghatāī_, sister of Ḥusan-i-`alī—a poet 286.
Sayyida +Apāq Begīm+ _Andikhūdī_—particulars 267, 268, 269;
visited in Herāt by Bābur (912) 301.
+Apāq Khān+, see Ghāzī Khān.
+Apāq Khān+ _Yūsuf-khail_, see Ghāzī Khān.
+Apāq-sulṯān Begīm+ _Mīrān-shāhī Tīmūrid_, _Barlās Turk_, daughter of
Abū-sa`īd—one of the paternal aunts visited by Bābur (912)
301 n. 3.
+Āq Begīm+ (1), _Bāī-qarā Tīmūrid_, _Barlāṣ Turk_, daughter of Ḥusain
and Pāyanda-sulṯān—particulars 265;
[pre-deceased her husband who died ♰911 AH.-1504 AD.].
+Āq Begīm+ (2), _Mīrān-shāhī Tīmūrid_, _Barlās Turk_—daughter of
Abū-sa`īd and Khadīja—particulars 262, 268;
waited on by Bābur (935) 606.
+Āq Begīm+ (3), _ut supra_, daughter of Maḥmūd
and Khān-zāda II.—brought to join Bābur's march (910) 48.
+Āq Begīm+ (4), see Ṣāliḥa-sulṯān.
+Āq-būghā Beg+, one of Tīmūr's chiefs—collateral ancestor of
Khudāī-bīrdī _Tīmūr-tāsh_ 24.
+`Āqil Sulṯān+ _Aūzbeg-Shaibān_, son of `Ādil and Shād _Bāī-qarā_—his
conjectured descent 264 n. 1 (where in l. 4 for "`āqil"
read `ādil).
+Arāīsh Khān+—proffers support to Bābur against Ibrāhīm _Lūdī_
(932) 463;
in the left centre at Kānwa (933) 565;
negociates about surrendering Chandīrī (934) 594;
his gift of a boat to Bābur 663.
+Arghūn Sulṯān+, elder brother of Muḥammad `Alī _Jang-jang_—deputed to
hold Milwat (Malot., 932) 461.
Shaikh +`Ārif+ _Āẕarī_, nephew of Tīmūr's story-teller, see Index
_s.n._ Aūlūgh Beg _Shāh-rukhī_;
[♰866 AH.-1461-2 AD. _æt._ 82, Beale].
+Arslān+ _Jazāla_—his building of the Rabāṯ-i-sang-bast 301 n. 1.
+Asad Beg+ _Turkmān_—joins Ḥusain _Bāī-qarā_ 279;
his brother Taham-tan _q.v._
Khwāja and Khwājagī +Asadu'l-lāh+ _Jān-dār_, _Khawāfī_—with Bābur in
Dikh-kat (907) 150;
envoy to T̤ahmāsp _Ṣafawī_ (933) 540, 583;
has charge of Ibrāhīm _Lūdī's_ mother 543;
in the right wing at Kānwa 566, 569.
Khwāja +Āṣafi+—particulars 286;
waits on Bābur (912) 286;
[♰920 or 926 AH.-1514 or 1520 AD.].
+`Asas+, see Khwāja Muḥammad `Alī _`asas_.
+`Āshiq+ _bakāwal_—with advance-troops for Chandīrī (934) 590;
ordered on service (935) 638.
+`Āshiq-i-muḥammad Kūkūldāsh+ _Arghūn_, son of "Amīr Tarkhān Junaid"
(Ḥ.S. lith. ed. iii, 359)—defends Ālā-qūrghān against Shaibānī
(913) 328;
his brother Mazīd Beg _q.v._
+`Āshiqu'l-lāh+ _Arghūn_—killed fighting against Bābur at Qandahār
(913) 333 (where for "`Ashaq" read `Āshiq).
+Asīru'd-dīn+ _Akhsīkītī_, a poet—his birthplace Akhsī-village
(kīt-kīnt) 9-10;
[♰608 AH.-1211-2 AD.].
Muhammad +`Askarī+ _Mīrān-shāhī Tīmūrīd_, _Barlās Turk_, son of Bābur
and Gul-rukh—☛ his birth (922) 364;
gifts to him (932) 523, (933) 628;
☛ his recall from Multān (934) 603-4-5, 699[2878];
waits on his father (935) 605;
made Commander (_æt. cir._ 12) of the army of the East 628, 637;
at a feast 631;
takes leave 634;
waits on his father at Dugdugī 651;
east of the Ganges 654;
in the battle of the Ghogrā 668-9, 671-3;
waits on Bābur after the victory 674;
[♰965 AH.-1557-8 AD.].
+Asūk Mal+ _Rājpūt_—negociates with Bābur for Sangā's son (934-5)
612-3.
Sayyid +`Atā+, see Khwāja Aḥmad _Yasawī_.
Khwāja Jamālu'd-īn +`Aṯā+—particulars 282 (where in n. 3 for
(Ḥ.S. iii), "345" read 348-9).
+Atākā+ _bakhshī_ (var. Ātīkā, Pers. Atka)—a surgeon who dresses
a wound of Bābur's (908) 169.
+Atā+ _mīr-ākhẉur_—gives Bābur a meal (925) 418.
Mīr Burhānu'd-dīn +`Aṯā'u'l-lāh+ _Mashhadī_—particulars 285
(Ḥ.S. iii, 345);
[♰926 AH.-1520 AD.].
+Atūn Māmā+, a governess—walks from Samarkand to Pashāghar (907) 148;
mentioned? (925) 407 l. 4.
+Aūghān-bīrdī+ _Mughūl_ (var. Afghān-bīrdī and -tardī)—on service
(925) 376, 377;
of a boat-party 387;
in the battle of the Ghogrā (935) 671, 672.
Sayyid _Āūghlāqchī_, see Murād.
+Auliya Khān+ _Ishrāqī_—waits on Bābur (935) 677.
+Aūlūgh Beg Mīrzā+ _Bāī-qarā Tīmūrid_, _Barlās Turk_, son of Muḥammad
Sulṯān Mīrzā—his (?) journey to Hindustan (933) 265.
+Aūlūgh Beg Mīrzā+ _Kābulī_, _Mīrān-shāhī_, _ut supra_,
son of Abū-sa`īd—particulars 95;
his earliest guardians amusingly frustrate his designs against
them 270;
his dealings with the Yūsuf-zāī App. K. xxxvi;
his co-operation with Ḥusain _Bāī-qarā_ against the Aūzbegs 190;
his praise of Istālīf 216;
his death (907) 185;
gardens of his bought by Bābur (perhaps one only) 216, (911) 246;
another garden 315;
houses of his 247, 251;
his Almshouse 315;
referred to 284;
his joint-guardians Muḥammad Barandūq and Jahāngīr _Barlās_, his
later one Wais Ātāka _q.v._;
his sons `Abdu'r-razzāq and Mīrān-shāh, his daughter Bega Begīm
and daughter-in-law Manauwar _q.v._;
[♰907 AH.-1501-2 AD.].
+Aūlūgh Beg Mīrzā+ _Shāh-rukhī_, _ut supra_ (Ūlūgh), son
of Shāh-rukh—his Trans-oxus rule 85[2879];
receives Yūnas _Chaghatāī_ badly (832-3?) 19-20;
defeated by Abā-bikr _Mīrān-shāhī_ 260;
his family dissensions 20;
his constructions, Astronomical and other 74, 77, 78-9[2880];
his sportsmanship 34[2881];
his murder and its chronograms 85;
Bābur resides in his College (906) 142;
his sons `Abdu'l-laṯīf and `Abdu'l-`azīz _q.v._;
a favoured beg Yūsuf _Aūghlāqchī_ _q.v._;
Preface, _q.v._ _On the misnomer "Mughūl Dynasty"._
[♰853 AH.-1449 AD.].
+Aūlūs Āghā+ (Ūlūs), daughter of Khwāja Ḥusain _q.v._—particulars 24.
+Aūrdū-būghā Tarkhān+ _Arghūn_ (Ūrdū)—his son-in-law Abū-sa`īd
_Mīrān-shāhī_ and son Darwesh-i-muḥammad _q.v._
+Aūrdū-shāh+—murdered as an envoy (923) 463 n. 3.
+Aurangzīb Pādshāh+ _Mīrān-shāhī Tīmūrid_, _Barlās Turk_—☛ referred
to as of Bābur's line 184;
[♰1118 AH.-O.S. 1707 AD.].
Amīr +Aūrūs+—☛ flees from his post on Shaibānī's death (916) 350.
+Aūrūs-i `Alī Sayyid+ _Mughūl_, son? of `Alī Sayyid—in the centre at
Qandahār (913) 335.
+Aūrūs+ _Arghūn_—his son Muḥammad-i-aūrūs _q.v._
+Aūzbeg Bahādur+ (Ūzbeg)—☛ one of five champions worsted in single
combat by Bābur (914) 349 n. 1.
+Aūzūn Ḥasan Beg+ _Āq-qūīlūq Turkmān_—his defeat of the Qarā-qūīlūq
Turkmāns and of Abū-sa`īd _Mīrān-shāhī_ 49;
[♰883 AH.-1478 AD.].
Khwāja +Aūzūn Ḥasan+ (Ūzūn)[2882]—negociates for Bābur (899) 30;
his appointment 32;
confers in Bābur's interests (900) 43 (where add his name after
`Alī-dost's);
acts for Jahāngīr against Bābur (903) 87, 88, 91, (904) 100, 101,
102;
his servant's mischievous report of Bābur's illness (903) 89;
his men defeated by Bābur's allies 102;
loses Akhsī and Andijān 102-3;
captured and released by Bābur 104;
goes into Samarkand to help Bābur (907) 146;
his brother Ḥusain and adopted son Mīrīm _q.v._
+`Ayisha-sulṯān Begīm+ _Bāī-qarā Tīmūrid_, _Barlās Turk_, daughter of
Ḥusain—particulars 267;
her husbands Qāsim _Aūzbeg-Shaibān_ and Būrān, her sons
Qāsim-i-ḥusain and `Abdu'l-lāh _q.v._
+`Ayisha-sulṯān Begīm+ _Mīrān-shāhī_, _ut supra_, daughter of Aḥmad
(Alacha Khān) and first wife of Bābur—particulars 35, 36;
married (905) 35, 120, 711;
joins Bābur in Samarkand (906) 135-6;
her child 136;
leaves Bābur 36.
Mīr +Ayūb Beg+ _Begchīk_—particulars 50;
sent by The Khān (Maḥmūd) to help Bābur (903) 92, (906) 138, 161,
170;
his Mughūls misbehave at Sar-i-pul (Khwāja Kārdzan) 140;
claims post in the right wing (_tūlghuma_) 155;
his Mughūls confuse pass-words 164;
in the right wing at Qandahār (913) 334;
☛ vainly tempts Sa`id _Chaghatāī_ to betray Bābur (916) 351;
☛ does not then desert 352, 362;
☛ rebels in Ḥiṣār (918) 362;
☛ dying, repents his disloyalty (920) 362;
his sons Buhlūl-i-ayūb, Ya`qūb-i-ayūb and Yūsuf-i-ayūb _q.v._;
[♰920 AH.-1514 AD.].
+`Aẕim Humāyūn+ _Sarwānī_—invests Gūāliār 477;
his title changed and why (933) 537;
his son Fatḥ Khān _q.v._
Mīr +`Azū+, a musical composer—particulars 292.
+Bābā `Alī+ _aīshīk-āghā_ (_īshīk_), a Lord-of-the-Gate of Ḥusain
_Bāī-qarā_—particulars 278;
his son Yūnas-i-`alī and friend Badru'd-dīn _q.v._
Bābā-qulī's Sulṯān +Bābā `Alī Beg+[2883]—particulars 27;
his sons Bābā-qulī, Sayyidīm `Alī and Dost-i-anjū (?) Shaikh _q.v._;
[♰900 AH.-1495 AD.].
+Bābā-aūghūlī+, see Pāpā-aūghūlī.
+Bābā Chuhra+, a household brave—reprieved from death (914) 344;
on Bābur's service (932) 474, 534, (934) 590, 602;
does well in the battle of the Ghogrā (935) 671.
+Bābā Ḥusain+, see Ḥusain.
+Bābā Jān+ _akhtachī_, a groom or squire—Bābur dislocates his own
thumb in striking him (925) 409.
+Bābā Jān+ _qābūzī_—musician at entertainments (925) 386-7, 388.
+Bābā Kābulī+ _Turk_, son of Mīr `Alī, Shāh-rukh _(Tīmūrid)'s_
Governor of Kābul—nominated `Umar Shaikh's guardian when Kābul was
allotted to the boy 14;
particulars 382;
his brothers Daryā Khān and Ghāzī (Apāq) Khān _q.v._
+Bābā Khān Sulṯān+ _Chaghatāī Chīngīz-khānīd_, (Bābājāk), son of Aḥmad
(Alacha Khān)—his ceremonious meeting with Bābur (908) 159;
[living in 948 AH.-1542—T.R.].
+Bābā Khān+ _Chaghatāī_, son of The Khān (Maḥmūd)—murdered with his
father and brothers by Shaibānī (914) 35.
+Bābā Qashqa+ _Mughūl_ (perhaps identical with Qashqa Maḥmūd _Chīrās_
_q.v._)—out with Bābur (925) 404, 405;
in charge of Dībālpūr (930) 442;
his brothers Malik Qāsim and Kūkī;
his sons Shāh Muḥammad, Dost-i-muḥammad and Ḥājī Muḥammad Khān
_Kūkī_ _q.v._;
[♰_cir._ 940 AH.-1553 AD.].[2884]
Sulṯān +Bābā-qulī Beg+, son of Sulṯān Bābā `Alī Beg—serving under
Khusrau Shāh (901) 60, 61;
with Bābur and captured (903) 72;
staunch to him 91;
in the centre at Qandahār (913) 335;
conveys royal letters (932) 529.[2885]
+Bābā Sairāmī+—pursues Bābur in his flight from Akhsī (908) 178;
promised fidelity but seems to have been false 179-182.
+Bābā Shaikh+ _Chaghatāī_, brother of Mullā Bābā _Pashāgharī_—in the
left centre at Qandahār (913) 335;
☛ rebels at Ghaznī (921) 363;
forgiven (925) 397;
deserts Humāyūn (932) 546;
his capture and death 545;
a reward given for his head _id._;
[♰932 or 933 AH.-1526 AD.].
+Bābā Shaikh+—sent out for news (935) 661.
+Bābā Sher-zād+—one of three with Bābur against Taṃbal (908) 163;
does well at Akhsī 174;
fights against rebels at Kābul (912) 315;
at Qandahār (913) 335.
+Bābā Sulṯān+ _Chaghatāī Chīngīz-khānid_, son of Khalīl son of Aḥmad
(Alacha Khān)—waits on Bābur near Kālpī (934) 590;
particulars 590;
on service 318, (934) 599;
not at his post (935) 672.
+Bābā Yāsāwal+—at the siege of Bajaur (925) 370;
chops at a tiger's head 393.
+Bābū Khān+—holding Kalanjar and looking towards Hātī _Kākar_ (925)
387.
Ẓahīru'd-dīn Muḥammad _Bābur Pādshāh_ _Mīrān-shāhī Tīmūrid_, Barlās
Turk—b. Muḥarram 6th 888 AH.-Feb. 14th 1483 AD. p. 1;
♰Jumāda I, 6th 937 AH.-Dec. 26th 1530 A.D. 708;
+Parentage+:—paternal 13;
maternal 19, 21;
+Titles+:—Mīrzā (inherited) Pādshāh (taken) 344;
Ghāzī (won) 574;
Firdaus-makānī (Dweller-in-paradise, posthumous) see Gladwin's
Revenue Accounts;
+Religion+:—[2886]belief in God's guidance 31, 72-3, 103-13-37-94-99;
in His intervention 73, 247, 316, 446-51-74-79, 525-96, 620;
that His will was done 55, 100-16-32-34-35-67, 269,
316-22-23-36-37-70, 454-70-71-80, 542-94, 627-28-70;
that He has pleasure in good 331;
that to die is to go to His mercy 67;
reliance on Him 100-08-16-32, 311, 463, 678;
God called to witness 254
and invoked to bless 624;
His punishment of sin 42-5, 449-77 (Hell),
and of breach of Law 449;
His visitation of a father's sins on children 45;
His predestination of events 128, 243-46-53, 469, 594;
—prayer to Him for a sign of victory 440,
for the dead 246,
against a bad wife 258;
a life-saving prayer 316;
+Characteristics+:—ambition 92-7;
admiration of high character 27, 67, 89, 90;
bitterness and depression (in youth)
91, 130-52-57-78;
consideration for dependants 91-9, 158-78-96, 469;
distrust of the world 95, 144-56;
silent humiliation 119;
fairness 15, 24, 91, 105, 469;
fearlessness 163-5-73;
fidelity:—to word 104, 129 (see 118-9), 172-3, 194,
to salt 125,
to family-relation,—filial 88-9, 135-49-57-58-88,
—fraternal see Jahāngīr and Nāṣir,—Tīmūrid 41, 149-57-68,
Chaghatāī 54, 169-72,
Mughūl 27, 119-25,
Aūzbeg 37;
friendship see Nūyān and Khw. Kalān;
good judgment 43, 87, 91, 134-37-55;
gratitude 99, 633;
insouciance 150;
joy at release from stress 99, 134-35-48-81;
bashfulness and passion 120;
persistence 92-7 and _passim_;
promptitude 117, 170;
reprobation of vice, tyranny and cruelty 42-5-6, 50, 66, 70, 90-6,
102-10-25-97, 290
and of an unmotherly woman 125-28;
self-reproach 147;
self-comment on inexperienced action 165-67-73;
dislike of talkativeness 28, 97, 143-92-93;
vexation at loss of rule (_æt._ 14) 90-1-9, 129-30-57;
truth for truth sake 135, 318;
seeking and weighing counsel 73, 100-14-31-41-65-70-73-97-98,
229-30-31-48, 340-76-78, 410-12-69, 524-30-77, 628-39-67-69-82;
enjoins Humāyūn to take counsel 627;
+Occupations+ (non-military):—archery _i.a._ 175;
calligraphy see _infra_;
literary composition see _infra_;
metrical amusements see verse;
Natural History _passim_;
travel, excursions, sight-seeing, social intercourse _passim_;
building 5, 217-9, 375-98,
in Dūlpūr 585, 606-07-42,
in Āgra 642,
in Kābul 646-7,
in Sīkrī 588,
Ajodhyā mosque 656 n. 3, App. U,
Pānīpat mosque 472 n. 1;
gardening and garden-making _passim_;
—Bābur's script (_Bāburī-khat̤t̤_) devised 910 AH. 228,
Qorān transcribed by him in it 228 n. 4;
studied by an enquirer 285;
alphabet and specimens sent to Bābur's sons 642;
_Abūshqa_ account of, App. Q, lxii to lxv;
+Observance and breaches of Muḥ. Law+:—signs of his Sunnī mind
_e.g._ 25, 44, 111, 262, 370-7, 483, 547-51-74-89-96,
in the _Mubīn_ and _Wālidiyyah-risāla q.v._;
his orthodox reputation 711;
his heterodox seeming 354,
and arrow-sped disclaimer 361;
—his boyish obedience as to wine 302,
up to his 23rd year 299, 302-3-4;
for breach see Law and Wine;
+Writings+:—_a._ Verses in the B.N. down to 926 AH. see _infra_;
_b._ First Dīwān 402;*
perhaps containing the _Abūshqa_ quotations 438;
_c._ Diary of 925 and 926 _q.v._ AH. (probably a survival of more)
*438;
_d._ The _Mubīn_ (928 AH.) 426-37-38-49;
quoted 630-31 n. 3;
_e._ Treatise on Prosody (931 AH.)
586, App. Q, lx, lxvi;
_f._ The _Wālidiyyah-risāla_ (935 AH.) 619-20-31 n. 3, (_tarjuma_)
642-3, App. Q, lix;
_g._ The _Hindūstān Poems_ 642, App. Q;
_h._ _Rāmpūr MS._ of 6 and 7. App. Q, referred to *438, 620 n. 6,
642 n. 3;
_i._ Diary of 932 to 936 _q.v._;
_j._ Narrative of 899 to within 914 AH. _q.v._;
+Bābur's verse quoted in the Bābur-nāma+:—(Turkī,) love-sickness
120-1;
the worldling 130;
granting a request 137;
respite from stress 148;
praise of a beloved 153;
the neglected exile 154;
isolation 156;
the New Years 236;
Fortune's cruelty 309;
? Turkmān Hazāra raid 312;
Spring 321;
God only is strength 337;
dealing with tribesmen 393;
greeting to absent convives 401;
message to a kinswoman 402;
his broken vow 449, 450 n.;
reply to Khw. Kalān 526;
disobedience to Law (T. & P.) 556;
Death inevitable (T. & P.) 556 (?);
the Ghāzī's task 575;
to those who have left him 584;
couplet used in metrical amusement 586, App. 2, sect. 2;
fever 588;
Chandīrī 596;
on his first grandson's birth 624;
_Mūbīn_ quoted 637;
Pagan lands 637;
pain in renunciation 648;
an invitation 683;
[Persian,] good in everything 311;
insight of Age 340;
on casting off his Shī`a seeming 361;
parting from Khw. Kalān 372;
a message 411;
satirical couplet 448;
before Pānīpat 470;
Bīāna warned 529.
See Table of Contents, _On Bābur's Naming_.
+Bābur Mīrzā+ _Arlāt_, son of Muḥammad-i-qāsim and Rābi`a-sulṯān
_Mīrān-shāhī_—his Bāī-qarā marriage 266.
`Abdu'l-qāsim +Bābur Mīrzā+ _Shāh-rukhī Tīmūrid_, _Barlās Turk_, son
of Bāī-sunghar—his sister 265;
his retainers Muḥammad Barandūq and Mazīd _q.v._;
his pleasure-house 302;
[♰861 AH.-1457 AD.].
Bāburī—a bāzār-boy (905) 120.
+Badī`u'l-jamāl Begīm+ _Mīrān-shāhī Tīmūrid_, _Barlās Turk_, daughter
of Abū-sa`īd—waited on by Bābur near Āgra (935) 616.
Badī`u'l-jamāl +Badka Begīm+ _Bāī-qarā_, _ut supra_, daughter of
Manṣūr and Fīrūza—particulars 257, 258;
her husband Aḥmad _Ḥājī-tarkhānī_, their sons Maḥmūd and Bahādur
and daughter Khān-zāda _q.v._
+Badī`u'z-zamān Mīrzā+ _Bāī-qarā_, _ut supra_, son of Ḥusain and Bega
_Mervī_—serving his father against Khusrau Shāh (901) 57;
defeated 61;
takes offence with his father 61, 69;
in arms and defeated by his father 69, 70;
his retort on Nawā'ī (_q.v._);
goes destitute to Khusrau Shāh and is well-treated 70, 130;
on Khusrau Shāh's service 71;
moves with Arghūn chiefs against his father (903) 95, 261;
gives Bābur no help against Shaibānī (906) 138;
his co-operation sought by his father (910) 190, 191;
takes refuge with his father 243;
has fear for himself (911) 292-3;
joint-ruler in Herī 293;
concerts and abandons action against Shaibānī (912) 296-7, 301;
his social relations with Bābur 297, 8, 9, 300, 2, 4;
courteous to Bābur as a non-drinker 303;
a false report of him in Kābul (912) 313;
irresolute against Shaibānī (913) 326;
his army defeated 275, 327;
abandons his family and flees (1) to Shāh Beg _Arghūn_,
(2) to Ismā`īl _Ṣafawī_ 327;
captured in Tabrīz by Sulṯān Sālim _Rūmī_ (920) and dies
in Constantinople (923) 327 n. 5;
a couplet on his name 201-2;
musicians compete in his presence 291;
his host-facility 304;
his son Muḥammad-i-zamān, his begs Jahāngīr _Barlās_ and Ẕū'n-nūn
_Arghūn q.v._.; joined by Sayyidīm _Dārbān_ _q.v_;
his College in Herī 306; [♰923 AH.-1517 AD.].
Sayyid +Badr+—particulars 276;
safe-guards Maḥmūd _Mīrān-shāhī_ 46-7;
seen by Bābur in Herāt (912) 299;
(see Ḥ.S. lith. ed. iii, 233).
+Badru'd-dīn+—particulars 278;
his friend Bābā `Alī _q.v._;
his son (?) receives Kachwa (934) 590.
Maulānā +Badru'd-dīn+ _Hilālī_, _Chaghatāī_—particulars 290;
his poet-daughter 286 n. 1;
[♰939 AH.-1532-3 AD.].
+Bahādur Khān+ _Sarwānī_—Bābur halts at his tomb (935) 686.
+Bahādur Khān+ _Gujrātī_, _Tānk Rājpūt_—ill-received by Ibrāhīm
_Lūdī_ (932);
exchanges friendly letters with Bābur 534;
becomes Shāh in Gujrāt 535;
is given the Khīljī jewels 613 n. 1;
[♰943 AH.-1547 AD.].
+Bahjat Khān+ (or Bihjat), a Governor of Chandīrī—Bābur halts near his
tank (934) 592, 594.
+Bāī-qarā Mīrzā+ _`Umar-shaikhī Tīmūrid_, _Barlās Turk_, grandson of
Tīmūr—mentioned in a genealogy 256;
a grandson `Abdu'l-lāh _Andikhūdī_ _q.v._
+Bāī-qarā Mīrzā+ _`Umar-shaikhī_, _ut supra_, son of Manṣūr and
Fīrūza—particulars 257;
his brother Ḥusain, and sons Wais and Iskandar _q.v._
+Bairām Beg+[2887]—☛ reinforces Bābur from Balkh (918) 359;
serving Najm _S̤ānī_ 360.
+Bairām Khān+ _Bahārlū-Qarā-qūīlūq Turkmān_ (Akbar's Khān-i-khānān),
son of Saif-`alī—his ancestry 91 n. 3, 109 n. 5 (where for
"father" read "grandfather");
☛ mention of a witness of his assassination 348;
quotation of his remarks on Ḥasan Khān _Mewātī_ 523 n. 3;
[♰968 AH.-1561 AD.].
+Bairām-sulṯān Begīm+ _Bāī-qarā Tīmūrid_, _Barlās Turk_, daughter of
Ḥusain and Mīnglī—particulars 266;
her husband `Abdu'l-lāh _Andikhūdī_, their son Barka _q.v._
+Bāī-sunghar Mīrzā+ _Mīrān-shāhī_, _ut supra_, son of Maḥmūd
and Pasha—particulars 47, 110-112;
succeeds in Samarkand (900) 52, 86;
withstands The Khān (Maḥmūd) 52;
the _khuṯba_ read for him in Bābur's lands 52;
his man surrenders Aūrā-tīpā 55-6;
his favouritism incites the Tarkhān rebellion (901) 38, 61;
escapes from Tarkhān imprisonment 62, 86;
defeated by his half-brother `Alī 38, 63;
prosperous (902) 65;
moves against `Alī 65;
retires before Bābur 66;
at grips with him 67;
asks Shaibānī's help (903) 73;
goes to Khusrau Shāh 74;
made ruler in Ḥiṣār 93, 5, 6, 261;
murdered (905) 110;
his death referred to 50, 112;
his pen-name `Ādilī 111;
his sister's marriage 41;
his brother Mas`ūd, his guardian Ayūb _q.v._;
[♰905 AH.-1499 AD.].
+Bāī-sunghar Mīrzā+ _Shāh-rukhī Tīmūrid_, son of Shāh-rukh—his servant
Yūsuf _Andijānī_ 4;
[♰837 AH.-1433-4 AD.].
+Balkhī+ _falīz-kārī_—grows melons in Āgra (935) 686.
+Bāltū+—rescues Khalīfa's son Muḥibb-i-`alī (933) 550.
Mullā +Banā'ī+—Maulānā Jamālu'd-dīn _Bana'ī_—in Khwāja Yaḥyā's service
and seen by Bābur (901) 64,
in Shaibānī's (906) 136,
in Bābur's 64, 136;
particulars 286-7;
given the Herī's authors to loot (913) 328;
Bābur recalls a joke of his (935) 648;
two of his quatrains quoted 137;
his musical composition 286, 292;
[murdered 918 AH. -1512 AD.].
+Banda-i-`alī+, _dāroghā_ of Karnān—pursues Bābur from Akhsī (908)
178-9, 180, 181.
+Banda-i-`alī+ _Yāragī Mughūl_, son of Ḥaidar Kūkūldāsh—sent
to reinforce Bābur (904) 101;
in the van at Sar-i-pul (906) 139;
his mistimed zeal (908) 176;
his son-in-law Qāsim Beg qūchīn _q.v._
+Bāqī Beg+ _Chaghānīānī_, _Qībchāq Turk_—his influence on Mas`ūd
_Mīrān-shāhī_ (901) 57, (903) 95;
defends Ḥiṣār for him (901) 58;
acts against him (902) 71;
joins Bābur (910) 48, 188-9;
advises sensibly 190, 197;
leaves his family with Bābur's 191;
dislikes Qaṃbar-i-`alī _Silākh_ 192;
helps his brother Khusrau to make favourable terms with Bābur 192-3;
quotes a couplet on seeing Suhail 195;
his Mughūls oppose Khusrau 197;
mediates for Muqīm _Arghūn_ (910) 199;
Bābur acts on his advice 230-1, 239, (911) 246, 249;
particulars 249-50;
dismissed towards Hindūstān 250;
killed on his road 231, 251;
his son Muḥammad-i-qāsim and grandson(?) Aḥmad-i-qāsim _q.v._;
[♰911 AH.-1505-6 AD.].
+Bāqī+ _Gāgīānī Afghān_—his caravan through the Khaibar (911) 250.
+Bāqī+ (_khīz_)_ḥīz_—opposes Bābur (908) 174, 396.
Khwāja +Bāqī+, son of Yaḥyā son of Aḥrārī—murdered 128;
[♰906 AH.-1500 AD.].[2888]
+Bāqī Beg+ _Tāshkindī_, _shaghāwal_ and (later) _mīng-bāshī_
(= _hazārī_)—sent to Balkh with promise of head-money (932) 463,
546;
on service (934) 590, 601, 2;
reports from Aūd (Oudh) (935) 679;
on service with the Aūd (Oudh) army 684, 5;
leave given him for home 685.
+Bāqī Tarkhān+, _Arghūn Chīngīz-khānid_, son of `Abdu'l-`alī and
a daughter of Aūrdū-būghā—particulars 38, 40;
consumes the Bukhārā revenues (905) 121;
defeated by Shaibānī 124;
occupies Qarshī (qy. Kesh) (906) 135;
plans to join Bābur 138;
goes to Shaibānī and dies in misery 40.
+Bārāq Khān+, _Chaghatāī Chīngīz-khānid_—mentioned in the genealogy
of Yūnas 19.
+Bārāq Sulṯān+ _Aūzbeg-Shaibān Chīngīz-khānid_, son of Sīūnjuk—at Jām
(934) 622.
Sayyid +Barka+ _Andikhūdī_, Tīmūr's exhumation of his body 266 n. 4.
Sayyid +Barka+ _Andikhūdī_, descendant of the last-entered, son of
`Abdu'l-lāh—particulars 266;
serving Bābur (917) 266.
+Bār-mal+ _Īdrī_—his force at Kānwa (933) 562.
+Bā-sa`īd+ _Tarkhānī_, see Abū-sa`īd _Tarkhānī_.
+Basant Rāo+—killed by (Bābā Qashqa's brother?) Kūkī in the battle of
the Ghogrā 673;
[♰935 AH.-1529 AD.].
+Baṯalmīūs+ (Ptolemy)—mentioned as constructor of an observatory 79.
Sulṯān +Bāyazīd+[2889]—urges attack on the Afrīdī (925) 411, 412.
Shaikh +Bāyazīd+, _Farmūlī Afghān_—acts for his dead brother
Muṣṯafa[2890] (932) 527;
waits on Bābur and receives Aūd (Oudh) 527;
on service 530;
in Aūd (933) 544;
his loyalty tested (934) 589;
with Bīban, opposing Bābur 594, 598-601, 2, (935) 638;
serving Maḥmūd _Lūdī_ against Bābur 652, 673;
Bābur resolves to crush him and Bīban 677-8;
mentioned 679, 692;
takes Luknūr(?) 681, App. T;
action continued against him 681, 2, 5;
his comrade Bīban _q.v._;
[♰937 AH.-1531 AD.].
Shaikh +Bāyazīd+ _Itārachī Mughūl_, brother of Aḥmad Taṃbal—holding
Akhsī for Jahāngīr (908) 170;
sends a force against Pāp 171;
receives Bābur in Akhsī 171-2;
made prisoner against Bābur's wish 173;
escapes 175;
reported as sending Yūsuf _dāroghā_ to Bābur's hiding-place 182.
+Bega Begīm (1)+, _Bāī-qarā Tīmūrid_, _Barlās Turk_, daughter of
Ḥusain and Pāyanda—particulars 266;
[♰ before Ḥusain 911 AH.-1505 AD.].
+Bega Begīm (2)+, _Mīrān-shāhī ut supra_, daughter of Aūlūgh Beg
_Kābulī_—her marriage with Muḥammad Ma`ṣūm _Bāī-qarā_ (902) 264.
+Bega Begīm (3)+, _Mīrān-shāhī ut supra_, daughter of Mahmud and
Khān-zāda II—betrothed to Ḥaidar _Bāī-qarā_ (901) 48, 61, 263;
married (903) 48;
their child 263.
+Bega Begīm (4)+, _Shāh-rukhī ut supra_, daughter of Bāī-sunghar
(_Shāh-rukhī_)—her grandson's marriage 265.
+Bega Begīm (5)+,—Ḥājī Begīm—daughter of Yādgār T̤aghāī, wife of
Humāyūn—her son Al-amān _q.v._
+Bega Begīm (6)+,—"the Bībī"—, see Mubārika.
+Bega Sulṯān Begīm+ _Mervī_, wife of Ḥusain _Bāī-qarā_—particulars
261, 7, 8;
divorced 268;
her son Badī`u'z-zamān _q.v._;
[893 AH.-1488 AD.].
Wais _Lāghari's_ +Beg-gīna+,—brings Bābur news of Al-amān's birth
(935) 621, 4.[2891]
The +Begīms+, Bābur's paternal aunts—waited on by him 301, 616, 686.
+Begīm Sulṯān+, see Sa`ādat-bakht.
+Begī Sulṯān Āghācha+, _ghūnchachī_ of Ḥusain _Bāī-qarā_—particulars
269.
+Beg Mīrak+ _Mughūl_—brings Bābur good news (932) 466;
on service (933) 548.
+Beg Mīrak+ _Turkmān_, a beg of the Chīrās (Mughūl) _tūmān_—acts for
Yūnas Khān 191;
[♰832 AH.-1428-9 AD.].
+Beg Tīlba+ _Itārachī Mughūl_, brother of Aḥmad Taṃbal—induces
the Khān (Maḥmūd) not to help Bābur (903) 91, (905) 115;
his light departure perplexes his brother 116;
invites Shaibānī into Farghāna (908) 172.
+Bhupat Rao+, son of Ṣalāḥu'd-dīn—killed at Kānwa 573;
[♰933 AH.-1527 AD.].
+Bīān Shaikh+ (Biyān)—his rapid journeys 621, 624;
brings news of the battle of Jām (935) 622, 623 n. 3;
the source of his news 624 n. 1;
hurried back 624, 627.
+Bīān-qulī+—his son Khān-qulī _q.v._
Malik +Bīban+ _Jilwānī_?[2892] _Afghān_—deserts `Ālam Khān _Lūdī_
(932) 457 and n. 2;
writes dutifully to Bābur 464;
is presuming at an audience 466;
deserts Bābur 468, 528;
is defeated 528-9;
with Bāyazīd, besieges Luknūr (933) 582;
defeats Bābur's troops 594, 598;
opposes Bābur in person (934) 598-601;
referred to as a rebel (935) 638;
serving Maḥmūd _Lūdī_ 652, 675;
Bābur resolves to crush him 677-8;
mentioned 679 n. 7, 692;
takes Luknūr(?) 681, App. T;
action taken against him 681, 2, 5;
his constant associate Bāyazīd _Farmūlī_ _q.v._
Muḥammad Shāh, +Bihār Khān+ _Bihārī_, _Nūḥānī Afghān_, son of Daryā
Khān—declared independent in Bihār (932) 523;
particulars 664;
his widow Dūdū and son Jalāl _q.v._;
[♰934 AH.-1527 AD.].
+Bihār Khān+ _Lūdī_ (or Pahār Khān),[2893] a Panj-āb amīr of Ibrāhīm
Lūdī's in 930 AH.—[2894] defeated by Bābur (930) 208, 441 (where
add "or Pahār"), 578;
a chronogram which fixes the date 575.
+Bihjat+, see Bahjat.
+Bih-būd Beg+—particulars 277, App. H, and Additional Notes under
p. 277.
Ustād Kamālu'd-dīn +Bih-zād+—particulars 291;
his training due to Nawā'ī 272;
is instructed in drawing by Shaibānī (913) 329.
+Rāja of Bījānagar+ (Vījāyanagar)—mentioned as ruling in 932 AH. 483.
+Rāja Bikam-deo+, named in the Hindūstān Revenue List.
+Rāja Bīkam-chand+, _ut supra_.
+Rāja Bīkramājīt+, _ut supra_.
+Bī-khūb Sulṯān+ (var. Nī- or Naī-khūb)? _Aūzbeg-Shaibān_—on Bābur's
service (934) 589, 602, (935) 651, 682;
in the battle of the Ghogrā 669.
Rānā +Bikramājīt+, son of Sangā and Padmāwatī—negotiations for him
with Bābur (934) ☛ 603, 612, (935) 612-3, 615, 616;
pact made with him 616-7;
possessor of Khiljī jewels 613;
his mother Padmāwatī and her kinsman Asūk Mal _q.v._
Rājā +Bikramājīt+ _Gūālīārī_, _Tūnwar Rājpūt_—his ancestral fortress
477;
his Koh-i-nūr (932) 477;
his buildings 607-610 and nn.;
his palace Bābur's quarters (935) 607;
his death (932) 477;
[♰932 AH.-1526 AD.].
Rāja +Bikramājīt+ (Vikramādītya)—his Observatory and Tables 79.
+Bīrīm Deo+ _Malinhās_—on Bābur's service (932) 462.
Rāja +Bīr-sing Deo+—named in the Revenue List (935) 521;
his force at Kānwa (933) 562;
serving Bābur 639.
Khalīfa's +Bīshka+(?)—a woman who leaves Samarkand with Bābur's mother
(907) 147.
+Bīshka Mīrzā+ _Itārachī Mughūl_—brings and receives gifts (925) 415,
416.
+Brethren of Bābur+—removal of their opposition to his aim on
Hindūstān 478.
+Buhlūl-i-ayūb+ _Begchīk_, son of Ayūb—Bābur warned against him
(910) 190;
joins Bābur 196;
his misconduct 241, (911) 254.
Sulṯān +Buhlūl+, +Sāhū-khail Lūdī+, _Afghān_—grandfather of Ibrāhīm
463;
his treasure 470;
his tomb visited by Bābur 476;
his capture of Jūnpūr and Dihlī 481;
his sons Sikandar and `Alau'u'd-dīn _q.v._;
[♰894 AH.-1488 AD.].
Pahlawān +Buhlūl+, _tufang-andāzī_—receives gifts (935) 633.
+Būjka+, a household bravo—on Bābur's service (932) 458, 474, 534,
(933) 545;
his success at Bīāna 547.
Malik +Bū Khān+ _Dilah-zāk (Dilazāk) Afghān_—receives gifts from Bābur
(925) 394;
brings tribute 409.
+Būrān Sulṯān+ _Aūzbeg-Shaibān_—his marriage with `Āyisha-sulṯān
_Bāī-qarā_ 267;
their son `Abdu'l-lāh _q.v._
Shaikh +Burhānu'd-dīn `Alī Qīlīch+, _Marghīnānī_, author of
the _Hidāyat_—his birthplace Rashdān 7;
a descendant 29, 89;
[♰593 AH.-1197 AD.].
Malik +Bū-sa`īd+ _Kamarī_—a guide (910) 230, 231;
doubted 233.
+Chaghatāī Khān+, second son of Chīngīz Khān—his _yūrt_
(camping-ground) occupied by his descendant Yūnas 12;
mentioned in the genealogy of Yūnas 19;
[♰638 AH.-1241 AD.].
+Chākū+ _Barlās_, one of Tīmūr's noted men—an ancestor of Muḥammad
Barandūq 270;
descent of his line to Akbar's day 270 n. 2.
Rāī +Chandrabān+, _Chauhān Rājpūt_—killed at Kānwa (933) 573;
[♰933 AH.-1527 A.D.].
+Chāpūq+ (Slash-face), see Ibrāhīm _Begchik_.
Sulṯān Aḥmad +Chār-shaṃba+—unhorses Muḥammad Mūmin[2895] _Bāī-qarā_
(902) 71;
coincident occurrences of "Chār-shaṃba" 71.
Ismā`īl +Chilma+ (or Chalma), son of Ibrāhīm _Jānī_—writes particulars
of the battle of Jām (935) 624.
+Chilma+ _Mughūl_ (or Chalma)—in the centre at Qandahār (913) 335;
rebels in Kābul (914) 345.
+Chilma+ _tāghchī Mughūl_ (? shoeing-smith)—in the centre at Qandahār
(913) 335.
+Chīngīz Khān+ _Mughūl_—counted back to in Yunās Khān's genealogy
12, 19;
his capture of Samarkand (619 AH.-1222 AD.) 75;
referred to concerning the name Qarshī 84;
his Rules (_Tūra_) 155, 298;
[♰624 AH.-1227 AD.].
+Chīn+ _Ṣūfī_—defends Khwārizm for Ḥusain _Bāī-qarā_ against Shaibāni
(910) 242 n. 3, 244;
killed in the surrender 255-6;
[♰911 AH.-1505-6 AD.].
+Chīn-tīmūr Sulṯān+ _Chaghatāī Chīngīz-khānid_, son of Aḥmad—mentioned
_s.a._ 912 as serving Bābur 318;
succeeds against Ibrāhīm _Lūdī's_ advance (932) 467;
in the right centre at Pānīpat 472,
and at Kānwa (933) 565, 568 n. 3;
rewarded 527, 578-9;
on service (933) 540;
at Chandīrī (934) 590;
pursues Bīban and Bāyazīd 601, 602;
in command against Balūchīs (935) 638, 676;
met on a journey 639;
writes of loss of reinforcement 675;
ordered to Āgra 676;
waits on Bābur 688;
his brothers Manṣūr, Aīsān-tīmūr, Tūkhtā-būghā, Sa`īd, Khalīl
_q.v._;
[♰936 AH.-1530 AD.].
+Chīqmāq Beg+—sent on road-surveyor's work (935) 629-30;
the _Mubīn_ quoted in connection with his orders 630;
his clerk Shāhī _q.v._
+Chirkas qīzlār+ (Circassian girls), see Gulnār and Nār-gul.
+Chūlī Begīm+, _Aẕāq Turkmān_—particulars 265, 268;
her husband Ḥusain _Bāī-qarā_ and their daughter Sulṯānīm _q.v._;
[♰before 911 AH.-1505 AD.].
+Dāmāchī+ _Mughūl_—in the centre at Qandahār (913) 335.
+Dankūsī+ var. Nigarsī—killed at Kānwa 573;
[♰933 AH.-1527 AD.].
+Darwesh-i-`alī+—serving Humāyūn in Saṃbhal (934) 587.
+Darwesh-i-`alī Beg+ _Chaghatāī_, brother of Nawā'ī—particulars 275;
in Bābur's service (916) 275 and (917) 277;
his poet-wife Āpāq Bega _q.v._
+Darwesh-i-`alī+ _pīāda_ and, later, _tūfang-andāz_—takes news
of Hind-āl's birth to Bābur (925) 385.
+Darwesh-i `Alī Sayyid+ _Mughūl_—in the centre at Qandahār (913) 335.
+Darwesh Beg Tarkhān+, _Arghūn_—particulars 39;
[♰895 AH.-1490 AD.].
+Darwesh Gāū+ _Andijānī_—put to death as seditious (899) 30.
Shaikh +Darwesh Kūkūldāsh+ _qūr-begī_—at a household-party (906) 131;
his death, successor in office, and avengeance 251, 253;
[♰911 AH.-1505-6 AD.].
+Darwesh-i-muḥammad+ _Faẓlī_—defeated (910) 241;
degraded for not supporting a comrade (925) 405.
+Darwesh-i-muḥammad Sārbān+—Mīrzā Khān's envoy to Bābur (925) 402;
a non-drinker not pressed to disobey 406;
replaces a china cup 407;
enters Bābur's service 408;
over-pressed to break the Law 410;
eats a strange fruit 410-1;
at ma`jūn-parties 412, (935) 683;
asks a fruitful question (932) 470-1;
in the right-centre at Pānī-pat 472 and at Kānwa (933) 565;
recals a vow to Bābur 553;
in the battle of the Ghogrā (935) 673.
+Darwesh-i-muḥammad Tarkhān+ _Arghūn Chingīz-khānid_—particulars 38;
envoy to the Andijān begs (899) 31;
his part in the Tarkhān rebellion (901) 62;
his death 38, 63;
his relationship to Mīrān-shāhīs 13 n. 5, 33, 38, and his kinsman
`Abdu'l-`alī _q.v._;
[♰901 AH.-1496 AD.].
+Darwesh Sulṯān+ (_? Chaghatāī_)—on Bābur's service (934) 599.
+Daryā Khān+ _Turk_, son of Mīr (Shaikh) `Alī Beg—particulars 382; his
sons Yār-i-ḥusain and Ḥasan _q.v._
+Daryā Khān+ _Nūḥānī_, _Afghān_—his sons Saīf Khān and Bihār Khān, his
grandson Jalāl _q.v._
Mullā +Dāūd+—killed serving Bābur 549;
[♰933 AH.-1527 AD.].
Sayyid +Dāūd+ _Garm-serī_—receives gifts (935) 633.
+Dāūd Khān+ _Lūdī_—defeated by Bābur's troops (932) 467-8.
+Dāūd+ _Sarwānī_, see Rāwū'ī _Sarwānī_.
+Daulat Khān+, _Yūsuf-khail Lūdī_, _Afghān_, son of Tātār—is given
Bhīra _etc._ 382, 383;
concerning his lands, Author's Note 383;
☛ a principal actor from 926 to 932 AH. 428;
dreads Ibrāhīm _Lūdī_ 439;
☛ proffers allegiance to Bābur (929?) 439, 440;
☛ his gift of an Indian fruit decides Bābur to help him 440,
503 n. 6;
☛ his action causes the return to Kābul of Bābur's fourth expedition
into Hindūstān 442;
his strength and action 443-4;
his rumoured attack on Lāhor (932) 451, 453;
negotiates with `Ālam Khān (931?) 455-6;
loses Milwat to Bābur (932) 459;
his death 461;
his sons `Alī, Apāq, Dilawār _q.v._;
his relations with Nānak 461 n. 3;
[♰932 AH.-1526 A.D.].
+Daulat-i-muḥammad Kūkūldāsh+, see Qūtlūq-i-muḥammad.
+Daulat-qadam ?+—his son Mir Mughūl _q.v._
+Daulat-shāh+ _Isfarāyinī_, author of the _Taẕkiratu'sh-shu`arā_—at
Taẕkir`atu'sh the battle of Chīkmān-sarāī (876) 46 n. 2;
[♰895 AH.-1490 AD.?].
+Daulat-sulṯān Khānīm+, _Chaghatāī Chīngīz-khānid_, daughter of Yūnas
Khān and Shāh Begīm—particulars 24;
her long family separation (907) 149;
meets her brother Aḥmad (908) 159;
married as a captive by Tīmūr _Aūz-beg_ (909) 24;
rejoins Bābur (917) _ib._ and 358 n. 1;
letters from her reach Bābur (925) 409;
sends letters and gifts to him (932) 446.
+Dāwā Khān+, _Chaghatāī Chīngīz-khānid_—-mentioned in Yūnas Khān's
genealogy 19;
[♰706 +AH.+-1306-7 AD.].
+Dejal+, the false Messiah 563 n. 1.
+Deo Sulṯān?+, see Div.
Rāja +Dharmankat+ _Gūālīārī_—stirs trouble (933) 539;
lays siege to Gūālīār 557.
+Dharm-deo+—his force at Kānwa (933) 562.
+Dilāwar Khān+ _Yūsuf-khail Lūdī_, _Afghān_, son of Daulat
Khān—☛ ill-received by Ibrāhīm _Lūdī_ (929?) 439;
☛ goes to Kābul to ask help from Bābur 439-40;
imprisoned by his father (931) 442, 443;
escapes and joins `Ālam Khān 455, 456;
joins Bābur 457, 461;
location of his mother's family 462;
does not sit in Bābur's presence 466;
entrusted by Bābur with care for the corpse of Ibrāhīm _Lūdī_ 474
n. 1;
in the right wing at Kānwa (933) 567 (here styled Khān-i-khānān);
[♰946 AH.-1539 AD.].
+Dil-dār Begīm+ (? Ṣālḥa-sulṯān 3rd daughter of Maḥmūd _Mīrān-shāhī_
and Pasha), wife of Bābur—her unborn child forcibly adopted (925)
347,
and App. L;
her son Alwar (Alūr)'s death (935) 689 n. 5;
particulars 712-4;
her sons Hind-āl and Alūr, her daughters Gul-rang, Gul-chihra and
Gul-badan _q.v._
+Dilpat Rāo+—killed at Kānwa 573;
[♰933 AH.-1527 AD.].
+Div Sulṯān+ _Rūmlū_ (or Deo)—recaptures Balkh (cir. 919) 363;
particulars 635 n. 2;
his servant describes the battle of Jām (935) 635-6.
+Dīwa Hindū+, son of Sīktū—waits on Bābur in Bhīra (925) 382;
made prisoner and ransomed 399.
+Dīwāna+ _jāma-bāf_—put to retaliatory death 73;
[♰903 AH.-1497 AD.].
+Bābā Dost+—put in charge of Humāyūn's Trans-Indus district (925) 391;
conveys wine to Bābur's camp (933) 551 (here _sūchī_).[2896]
+Dost+, son of Muḥammad Bāqir—drunk (925) 415.
+Dost-anjū+?[2897] +Shaikh+, son of Bābā `Alī—left in charge of Ghaznī
(911) 307.
+Dost Beg+ _Mughūl_, son of Bābā Qashqa and brother (p. 588) of Shāh
Muḥammad—at a social gathering and sent to Bhīra 388
(here _muhrdār_);
made a _dīwān_ (932) 476;
in charge of Bīāna (933) 539 and made its _shiqdār_ 579
(here Lord-of-the Gate);
in the right centre at Kānwa 565, 569;
waits on Bābur 581;
pursues rebels (934) 601 (here Dost-i-muḥammad);
in the battle of the Ghogrā (935) 673;
for his kinsmen see _s.n._ Bābā Qashqa.
Khwāja +Dost-i-khāwand+—lets himself down over the wall of Qandahār
(913) 343;
at boat-parties (925) 385, 388;
comes from Kābul to Āgra (933) 544;
in the left-centre at Kānwa 565;
☛ sent on Bābur's family affairs to Humāyūn in Badakhshān (934) 603;
delayed in Kābul till Kāmrān's arrival 618 and nn. 2-6;
his letters reach Bābur (935) 618.
+Dost-kīldī+ _Mughūl_—in the centre at Qandahār (913) 335.
+Dost-i-nāṣir Beg+—Dost Beg—(Nāṣir's Dost), son of Nāṣir—enters Bābur's
service (904) 103;
on service (906) 131, (908) 163, 165;
one of three standing by Bābur 166, 167, 396;
with him at Akhsī 174, 396;
one of the eight in the flight 177, 396;
at the recapture of Kābul (912) 315;
in the left centre at Qandahār (913) 335, 338;
at Tāshkīnt (918) ☛ 356 n. 1, ☛ 358, 396-7;
opposing rebels (921) ☛ 364, 397;
leading the left at Bajaur (925) 368 (here first styled Beg), 369,
370, 397;
his revenue work 384;
at wine parties 387, 388;
at Parhāla 390;
attacked by fever 394;
his death and his burial at Ghaznī 395-6;
his brother Mīrīm _q.v._;
particulars 395-7;
[♰925 AH.-1519 AD.].
+Dost+ _Sar-i-pulī_, _pīāda_ and (later) _kotwāl_—attacks Bābur
blindly (912) 316-7;
wounded (913) 324;
[♰913 AH.-1507 AD.].
+Dost-i-yāsīn-khair+—wrestles well with eight in successive
(935) 653; 656.
+Dūdū Bībī+, widow of Bihār Khān _Bihārī_—news of her bringing her
son to Bābur (935) 664;
encouraging letters sent to her 665;
Sher Khān _Sūr _her co-guardian for her son 664 n. 2;
her son Jalālu'd-dīn _Nuḥānī_ _q.v._
+Faghfūr Dīwān+—on service (933) 551;
his servants sent for fruit to Kābul (935) 687.
Ḥai. MS. reads Maghfūr.
+Fajji+ _Gāgīānī_, _Afghān_—guides Bābur's first passage of
the Khaibar (910) 229.
+Fakhrū'n-nisā'+, daughter of Bābur and `Āyisha—died an infant 35-6,
136;
[♰906 AH.-1500-1 AD.].
+Faqī-i-`alī+—reprieved (914) 345; with Bābur and left in charge of
Balkh (923) 463;
☛ left in charge of Qila`i-ẕafar by Humāyūn (936) 695.
+Farīd Khān+ _Nuḥānī_, _Afghān_, son of Naṣīr—writes dutifully
to Bābur (935) 659.
+Farīdūn+, (an ancient Shāh of Persia)—mentioned in a verse 85.
+Farīdūn-i-ḥusain Mīrzā+ _Bāī-qarā Tīmūrid_, son of Ḥusain and
Mīnglī—particulars 263, 269;
[♰915 AH.-1509 AD.].
+Farīdūn+ _qabūzī_—summoned by Bābur (935) 617.
Mullā +Farrukh+—placed on Bābur's left at a feast (935) 631;
gifts made to him 632.
+Farrukh+ _Arghūn_—surrenders Qalāt-i-ghilzāī to Bābur (911) 248-9.
Mīrzā +Farrūkh+ _Aūghlāqchī_, son of Ḥasan—mentioned for his qualities
279.
+Farrukh-i-ḥusain Mīrzā+, _Bāī-qarā Tīmūrid_, _Barlās Turk_, son
of Ḥusain and Pāpā—particulars 264;
[♰915 AH.-1509 AD.].
+Farrukh-zād Beg+—Bābur dismounts in his garden at Qandahār (913) 337.
+Farūq+, son of Bābur and Māhīm—his birth (932) announced to Bābur
(933) 536, 689 n. 5;
[933 AH.-1526-7 AD.].
+Fatḥ Khān+ _Sarwānī_ Khān-i-jahān, son of `Azim-humāyūn—is escorted
to Bābur (932) 534;
well-received (933) 537;
his hereditary title superseded _ib._;
invited to a wine-party _ib._;
serving Maḥmūd _Lūdī_ (935) 652;
his son Maḥmūd _q.v._;
? a kinsman Daud _q.v._
+Fāṯima-sūlṯān Āghā+ _Mughūl_—first wife of `Umar Shaikh _Mīrān-shāhī_
17, 24;
their son Jahāngīr _q.v._
+Fāṯima-sultān Begīm+ _Bāī-qarā Tīmūrid_, _Barlās Turk_, daughter
of Ḥusain and Mīnglī—particulars 266;
her husband Yādgar-i-farrukh _Mīrān-shāhī_ _q.v._;
[♰before 911 AH.-1505 AD.].
+Fāẓil Kūkūldāsh+—serving Shāh Beg _Arghūn_ (910) 238;
☛ a good account of him named 443;
his death a crushing grief to Shāh Beg _ib._;
[♰930 AH.-1514 AD.].
+Fāẓil Tarkhān+—a Turkistān merchant created a Tarkhān by Shaibānī,
[Author's Note] 133;
his death _ib._;
[906 AH.-1500 AD.].
+Faẓlī+, see Darwesh-i-muḥammad.
+Ferdinand the Catholic+—his action in 1504 (910 AH.) 187
n. 2 (Erskine).
+Fīrūza Begīm+ _Qānjūt_, wife of Manṣūr _Bāī-qarā_ her Tīmūrīd
ancestry 256;
her children Bāī-qarā (II), Ḥusain, Ākā and Badka _q.v._;
[♰874 AH.-1469-70 AD.].
+Fīrūz Khān+ _Mewatī_—reprieved (932) 477-8.
+Fīrūz Khān+, _Sārang-khānī_, _Afghān_—on Ibrāhīm _Lūdī's_ service
527;
waits on Bābur (932) 527, and on his service 530.
Sulṯān +Fīrūz Shāh+, _Tūghlūq Turk_—his servants' dynasties 481, 482;
his relations with the rulers of Mālwā 482 (where in n. 3 for
"Gujrāt" read Mālwā);
[♰790 AH.-1388 AD.].
+Fīrūz Shāh Beg+—his grandson `Abdu'l-khalīq _q.v._
+Gadāī+ _Balāl_—rejoins Bābur (913) 330-1.
+Gadāī+ _bihjat_—misbehaves (925) 414.
+Gadāī T̤aghāī+—shares a confection (925) 375;
at social gatherings 385, 7, 8, 400, 412;
rides carrying a full pitcher 386;
out with Bābur 404;
removes a misbehaving namesake 414.
+Gauhar-shād Begīm+, wife of Shāh-rukh _Tīmūrid_—Bābur visits her
college and tomb (912) 305;
[♰861 AH.-1457 AD.].
+Gauhar-shad Begīm+ _Mīrān-shāhī Tīmūrid_, _Barlās Turk_, daughter
of Abū-sa`īd—visited by Bābur (935) 616.
Mīr +Gesū+—finds chronogram identical with Shaikh Zain's 575.
Apāq +Ghāzī Khān+ _Turk_, son of Mīr (Shaikh) `Alī Beg—particulars
382;
his brothers Bābā Kābulī and Daryā Khān, his son `Alī and his
relation Naẕar-i-`alī _Turk_ _q.v._
Apāq +Ghāzī Khān+ _Yūsuf-khail Lūdī Afghān_, son of
Daulat Khān—☛ arrested by Bābur (930) 442;
moves against Bābur (932) 451, 453;
not trusted 455;
agrees to help `Ālam Khān 455-6;
receives him ill on defeat 457-8;
pursued for Bābur 458, 460, 461, 462, 463;
Bābur's reproach for his abandonment of his family 460-1;
his forts in the Dūn 462;
his library less valuable than was expected by Bābur 460;
his kinsman Ḥāji Khān and his own son 465.
+Ghiyās̤+, a buffoon 400 (where erroneously Ghīāṣ).
Mīr +Ghiyās̤+, building entrusted to him (935) 642.
Mīr +Ghiyās̤ T̤aghāī+ _Kūnjī Mughūl_, brother of `Alī-dost—particulars
28;
enters the Khān (Maḥmūd)'s service (899) 28, 32;
[♰ before 914 AH.-1507-8 AD.].
Amīr +Ghiyās̤u'd-dīn+, ☛ patron of Khwānd-amīr and supposed ally
of Bābur—killed in Herāt (927) 432.
+Ghiyās̤u'd-dīn+, nephew of Khwānd-amīr—☛ conveys the keys of Qandahār
to Bābur (928) 432, 435, 436.
Sulṯān +Ghīyāṣu'd-dīn+ _Balban_—Bābūr visits his tomb (932) 475;
[♰ 686 AH.-1287 AD.].
+Ghiyās̤u'd-dīn+ _qūrchī_—takes campaigning orders to Junaid _Barlās_
(935) 628;
returns to Court 636;
takes orders to the Eastern amirs 638.
+Ghulām-i-`alī+—returns from taking Bābur's three articles to Naṣrat
Shāh (935) 676.
+Ghulām bacha+, a musician—heard by Bābur in Herāt (912) 303.
+Ghulām-i-shādī+, a musician—particulars 292;
his younger brother Ghulām bacha _q.v._
Mullā +Ghulām+ _Yasāwal_—makes an emplacement for the Ghāzī mortar
(935) 670;
sent to collect the Bihār tribute 676.
Ghūrī _Barlās_—on Bābur's service (905) 125;
in the left wing at Qandahār (913) 334;
wounded 336;
[♰919 AH.-1513 AD.].
+Gūjūr Khān+—ordered on service (935) 638.
+Gul-badan Begīm+ _Mīrān-shāhī Tīmūrid_, _Barlās Turk_, daughter
of Bābur and Dil-dār—☛ her birth (929 or 930) and her book
(_cir._ 995) 441;
her journey to Āgra (935) 650 n. 2;
☛ her parentage 712;
[♰1011 AH.-1603 AD.].
+Gul-barg+ _Barlās Turk_, daughter of Khalīfa—☛ betrothed(?) to Shāh
Ḥasan _Arghūn_ (924-5) 366;
☛ married (930) 443.
+Gul-chihra Begīm+, full sister of Gul-badan _supra_—her marriage with
Tūkhtā-būghā _Chaghatāī_ 705 n. 1, 708;
her parentage 712;
☛ perhaps the mother of Salīma _Chaqānīanī_ 713.
+Gul-rang Begīm+ _Mīrān-shāhī Tīmūrid_, _Barlās Turk_, daughter
of Bābur and Dil-dār—☛ born in Khwāst (920) 363;
☛ married to Aīsān-tīmūr _Chaghatāī_ (937) 705 n. 1, 708;
parentage 712.
+Gul-rukh Begīm+ _Begchīk_, wife of Bābur—☛ with Bābur on the
Trans-oxus campaign (916-20) 358;
particulars 712;
her sons Kāmrān and `Askarī and her brother(?) Sulṯān `Alī Mīrzā
T̤aghāī _q.v._
Mīrak +Gūr+ _dīwān_ (or Kūr) captured by Shaibānī (913) 328.
Shaikh Abū'l-fatḥ +Gūran+ (G'hūran)—serving Bābur (932) 526, 528-9,
(933) 539, 567, (934) 590;
in the right wing at Kānwa (933) 567;
host to Bābur in Kūl (Koel) (934) 587;
takes lotus-seeds to him 666;
sends him grapes (935) 686;
given Gūālīār (936) 688, 690;
☛ holds it till Bābur's death 692 n. 1.
+Ḥabība-sulṯān Begīm+ _Arghūn_, wife of Aḥmad
_Mīrān-shāhī_—particulars 36, 37;
arranges her daughter Ma`ṣūma's marriage with Bābur (912) 306,
(913) 330.
+Ḥābība-sulṯān Khānīsh+ _Dūghlāt_, daughter of Muḥammad Ḥusain
and Khūb-nigār _Chaghatāī_—her marriages 21-2;
depends on Bābur (917) 22.
+Ḥāfiẕ Ḥājī+, a musician—heard by Bābur in Herī (912) 303.
+Ḥāfiẕ+ _kabar-kātib_—his brother conveys Bābur's earliest Dīwān to
Samarkand (925) 482;
at a feast (935) 631, 632.
+Ḥāfiẕ Mīrak+—composes an inscription (913) 343.
+Ḥāfiẕ-i-muḥammad Beg+ _Dūldāī Barlās_—particulars 25;
in Aūrā-tīpā (893) 17, 25;
☛ joint-guardian of Mīrzā Khān (905) 25, 122;
his death 26;
his sons Muḥammad _mīskīn_ and T̤āhir _q.v._;
his (?) Chār-bāgh 108;
[♰_cir._ 909-10 AH.-1504 AD.].
Khwāja Shamsu'd-dīn Muḥammad +Ḥāfiẕ+ _Shīrāzī_—parodied (910) 201;
[♰791 AH.-1389 AD.].
+Ḥāfiẕ+ _Tāshkīndī_—gifts made to him (935) 632.
+Haibat Khān+ _karg-andāz_, _Hindūstānī_—leaves Bābur (933) 557.
+Haibat Khān+ _Samana'ī_—☛ perhaps the provider of matter to fill
the _lacuna_ of 936 AH., 693.
Mullā +Ḥaidar+—his sons `Abdu'l-minān and Mūmin _q.v._
+Ḥaidar+ _`Alamdār_—on Bābur's service (925) 383, (926) 421.
+Ḥaidar-`alī Sulṯān+ _Bajaurī_—obeys custom in testing his dead
mother's virtue 212;
☛ his Gibrī fort taken by Bābur (924) 366, 7, 8.
+Ḥaidar Kūkūldāsh+ _Yāragī Mughūl_, Maḥmūd Khān's "looser and
binder"—defeated 35, (900) and killed 52, 111-2;
his garden 54;
his son Banda-i-`alī and a descendant (?) Ḥusain _Yārajī_ _q.v._
+Ḥaidar-Mīrzā+ _Bāī-qarā Tīmūrid_, _Barlās Turk_, son of Ḥusain
and Pāyanda-sulṯān—his Mīrān-shāhī betrothal at Ḥiṣār (901) 48, 61;
rejoins his father opportunely (903) 261;
particulars 263;
his wife Bega _q.v._;
[♰908 AH.-1502-3 AD.].
Muḥammad +Ḥāidar Mīrzā Kūrkān+ _Dūghlāt_, author of
the _Tārīkh-i-rashīdī_—particulars 21-2,[2898] 348;
☛ takes refuge with Bābur (916) 350;
☛ his first battle (917) 353;
☛ ill when Kūl-i-malik was fought (918) 357-8;
goes to Sa`īd Khān in Kāshgar 22, 362;
on Sa`īd's service (933) 590, (936) 695-6;
[♰958 AH.-1551 AD.].
+Ḥāidar-i-qāsim Beg+ _Kohbur Chaghatāī_—father of Abū'l-qāsim,
Aḥmad-i-qāsim and Qūch (Qūj) Beg _q.v._
+Ḥaidar-qulī+—on Aūzūn Ḥasan's service (904) 102.
+Ḥaidar-qulī+, servant of Khwāja Kalān—on service (932) 467;
mentioned by Bābur in writing to the Khwāja (935) 648.
+Ḥaidar+ _rikābdār_—stays with Bābur at a crisis (903) 91;
his son Muḥammad `Alī _q.v._
+Ḥaidar+ _tāqī_—his garden near Kābul 198 n. 1.
+Ḥājī Ghāzī+ _Manghīt_—sent to help Bābur (904) 101 where in n. 3 add
Vambéry's Note 29 to the references.
+Ḥājī (`Alī) Khān+ _Yūsuf-khail Lūdī Afghān_—acting with `Ālam Khān
_Lūdī_ (932) 445-6-7.
+Ḥājī pīāda+—killed at the Lovers'-cave 68;
[902 AH.-1497 AD.].
+Ḥājī Pīr+ _bakāwal_—negociates for Ḥusain _Bāī-qarā_ with the Ḥiṣār
begs (901) 61.
+Halāhil+—on service (925) 391, (925) 638.
+Ḥalwāchī Tarkhān+ _Arghūn_—engages Bābur's left wing at Qandāhar
(913) 336.
Sayyid Mīr +Hamah+—gets the better of two traitors (932-3) 546;
receives head-money (933) 546;
in the right wing at Kānwa 566.
+Ḥamīd Khān+ _Khāṣa-khaīl Sārang-khānī Lūdī_—opposes Bābur (932) 465;
defeated by Humāyūn 466;
defeated (633) 540;
sent out of the way before Kānwa 547.
+Hāmūsī+, son of Dīwa—sent to make a Hindū pact with Sangā's son
(935) 616.
Amīr +Ḥamza+—a poem mentioned imitating that in which he is celebrated
280;
[♰3 AH.-625 AD.].
+Ḥamza Beg+ _qūchīn_, son of Qāsim and a daughter of Banda-i-`alī—his
wedding gifts to Bābur on his marriage with Khalīfa's daughter
(925) 400;
joins Bābur on summons from Qūndūz 406, 410.
+Ḥamza Bī+ _Mangfīt Aūzbeg_—defeated, when raiding, by Bābur's men
(910) 195.
+Ḥamza Khān+, Malik of `Alī-shang—made over to the avengers of blood
(926) 425;
[♰926 AH.-1520 AD.].
+Ḥamza Sulṯān+ _Aūzbeg_—his various service 58, 59, 131;
defeated by Ḥusain _Bāī-qarā_ (901) 58;
enters Bābur's service 59;
given leave 64;
his Mughūls rebel against Bābur (904) 105;
serving Shaibānī (906) 131, 139, (910) 244;
☛ holding Ḥiṣār and comes out against Bābur (916) 352;
defeated at Pul-i-sangīn and put to death by Bābur (917) 18, 37,
262, 353;
his defeat announced to Ismā`īl _Ṣafawī_ 354;
his sons in the battle of Jām (935) 622;
his sons `Abdu'l-laṯīf and Mamāq _q.v._; his Mīrān-shāhī wife 37;
[♰917 AH.-1511 AD.].
+Ḥaq-dād+, headman of Dūr-namā—makes offering of his garden to Bābur
(926) 420.
+Ḥaq-naẕar+—finds the body of his nephew (Nūyān) Kūkūldāsh (907) 152.
+Ḥaq-naẕīr+ _chapā_—to punish his raid, beyond the power of the Herāt
Mīrzās (912) 300.
+Ḥarūnu'r-rashīd Khalīfa+—his second son Māmūn Khalīfa (d. 218 AH.)
79;
[♰193 AH.-809 AD.].
Ustād +Ḥasan-i-`alī+—orders given for the completion of work he had
begun in Kābul (935) 646-7.
+Ḥasan-i-`alī+ _Chaghatāī_—receives a pargana (935) 689.
+Ḥasan-i-`alī+ _Jalāīr Chaghatāī_, son of `Alī (_q.v._)—particulars
278, 286;
meets Bābur (912) 299;
his poet-sister 286 n. 1;
[♰925 AH.-1519 AD.].
Sayyid +Ḥasan+ _Aūghlāqchī Mughūl_, son of Murād—particulars 279;
serving Bābur (917) 279;
his son Farrukh _q.v._;
[♰918 AH.-1522 AD.].
+Ḥasan+ _Barlās_—his rough dealing with Bābur (910) 194.
Shāh +Ḥasan Beg+ _Arghūn_, son of Shāh (Shuja`) Beg—quarrels with his
father and goes to Bābur (924) 365, ☛ 430;
his betrothal (?) to Gul-barg (924-6) 366 and marriage (930) 443;
in the left centre at Bajaur (925) 369;
sent to claim ancient lands of the Turks 383-4;
is successful 388;
out with Bābur 395;
gifts to him _ib._ 414, 584;☛
social matters 400, 7, 10, 12;
Bābur sends him a quatrain 401;
(see _s.n._ Shāh-zāda), ☛ a principal actor between 930 and 932
AH. 427;
his attack on Multān 437, 442 and _s.n._ `Askarī;
accedes in Sind (930) 443;
reads the _khuṯba_ for Bābur 430;
his envoy to Bābur (935) 632;
[♰962 AH.-1555 AD.].
+Ḥasan+ _Chalabī_—T̤ahmāsp _Ṣafawī's_ envoy to Bābur (935), arrives
late 631, 632 n. 3, 641;
Bābur accepts excuse for his delay 649;
Bābur's envoy accompanies him on his return 641;
his servant gives Bābur's envoy an account of the battle of Jām 649.
+Ḥasan-dīkcha+ of Akhsī—supports Bābur (904) 101.
+Ḥasan-i-khalīfa+, son of Niẕāmu'd-dīn `Alī—sent on service 679.
+Ḥasan Khān+ _Bārīwāl Hindūstānī_—leaves Bābur for Sangā (933) 557.
+Ḥasan Khān+ _Daryā-khānī_, son of Daryā Khān son of Mīr `Alī Beg—on
service for Bābur (933) 582;
in the battle of the Ghogrā (935) 669;
pursuing rebels 678.
+Ḥasan-i-makan+, loses Kandār to Sangā (932) 529-30.
+Ḥasan Khān+ _Mewātī_—his change of capital (930) 578;
his opposition to Bābur (932) 523 and n. 3, (933) 545, 547;
his force at Kānwa 562 and death 573;
Bairām Khān's remarks on him 523 n. 3;
his son Nāhar _q.v._;
[♰933 AH.-1527 AD.].
+Ḥasan Nabīra+, grandson of Muḥammad _Sīghal_—waits on Bābur (902) 66;
captures his elder brother (903) 72;
leaves `Alī for Mīrzā Khān (905) 122;
goes as envoy (?) to Bābur from Mīrzā Khān (925) 415;
his elder brother Muhammad Qāsim Nabīra _q.v._
Mullā +Ḥasan+ _ṣarrāf_—given custody of gifts for Kābul (932) 525.
+Ḥasan+ _sharbatchī_—helps Bāī-sunghar _Mīrān-shāhī's_ escape (901)
62.
+Ḥasan-i-yaq`ūb Beg+, son of Nūyān Beg?—particulars 26;
supports Bābur (899) 30, 31;
his appointments 32;
shows disloyalty (900) 43;
his death 44;
his sobriquet Nūyān's Ḥasan 273;
[♰900 AH.-1494 AD.].
Malik +Hast+ _Janjūha_—receives an envoy from Bābur (925) 380;
serving Bābur 380, 389;
his injuries from Hātī _Kakar_ 391.
+Hātī+ _Kakar_—particulars 387;
his misdeeds provoke punishment (925) 387, 9, 91;
abandons Parhāla 390;
sends Bābur tribute and is sent an envoy 391-2;
referred to 452.
`Abdu'l-lāh +Hātifī+, nephew of Jāmī—particulars 288.
+Ḥātīm+ _qūrchī_—promoted to be _qūr-begī_ (911) 252;
in the centre at Qandahār (913) 335.
+Hazārāspī+, see Pīr-i-muḥammad.
+Henry VII of England+—his _Intercursus malus_ contemporary with
910 AH. 187 n. 2.
+Henry of Navarre+—☛ his difficulties, as to creed, less than those
of Bābur in 917 AH.-1511 AD., 356.
+Hilālī+, see Badru'd-dīn _Hilālī_.
Abū'l-nāṣir Muḥammad +Hind-āl Mīrzā+ _Mīrān-shāhī Tīmūrid_,
_Barlās Turk_, son of Bābur and Dil-dār—his pre-natal adoption
(925) 374;
meaning of his name Hind-āl 385;
gifts to him or his servants 522, (935) 633, 642;
the _Wālidiyyah-risāla_ and Hindūstān verses sent to him 642;
under summons to Hind 645, ☛ 696;
☛ sent by Humāyūn to Qila`-i-ẕafar (936) 695;
referred to 697;
☛ waits on his father in Lāhor 699;
☛ his dying father's wish to see him (937) 708;
his escort of Bābur's family in 946 AH. referred to 710;
[♰958 AH.-1551 AD.].
+Hindī+—Mindī,—Mahndī, see Mahndī.
+Hindū Beg+ _qūchīn_—leaves `Alī _Mīrān-shāhī_ for Mīrzā Khān (905)
122;
sent to raid Panj-kūra (925) 374;
in Bhīra 386-8;
leaves it 399;
out with Bābur 403;
serving under Humāyūn (932) 465-6, 528-9;
in the right wing at Pānīpat 472 and at Kānwa (933) 566 and
n. 2, 569;
escorts Māhīm from Kābul (935) 687;
sent to Saṃbhal _ib._;
waits on Bābur _ib._ and n. 2, 689;
his mosque in Saṃbhal 687 n. 2.
☛ +Hulākū Khān+ _Aīl-khānī_ (_Īl-khānī_)—referred to 79;
[♰663 AH.-1264 AD.].
+Ḥul-hul Anīga+—a woman drinker 417.
Naṣīru'd-dīn Muḥammad +Humāyūn Mīrzā+ _Mīrān-shāhī Tīmūrid_,
_Barlās Turk_, son of Bābur and Māhīm—his birth (913) 344;
his mother's parentage 344 n. 3, ☛ 712-3;
death of elder brethren referred to 374;
a Trans-indus district given to him (925) 391;
carried in haste to meet his father 395;
makes a good shot 417;
prefers not to go to Lamghān (926) 421;
☛ appointed to Badakhshān (927) 427;
with his father in the Trans-oxus campaign (916-20) 358;
his delay in joining the Hindūstān expedition (932) 444, 446
n. 3, 447;
a desertion from him 545;
first sight of a rhinoceros 451;
books given to him at Milwat 460;
his story-teller killed _ib._;
a successful first military affair 466-7;
on service 471;
in the right wing at Pānīpat 472;
sent to take possession of Āgra 475, 476, 526;
becomes owner of the Koh-i-nūr 477;
receives Saṃbhal and other gifts 522, 7, 8;
appointed against the Eastern Afghāns, his campaign 534, 544;
mentioned in connection with the title `Aẕam-humāyūn (933) 537;
his return to Āgra 544;
his dislike of wine 545;
in the right wing at Kānwa 566, 568-9;
his departure for Kābul (and Badakhshān) 579-80;
misappropriates treasure 583, ☛ 695 n. 1;
a daughter born (934 or 5) 618;
his father's messenger, detained a year by
him, arrives in Āgra (935) 621, 626;
birth of a son (934) 621, 624-5;
letter to him from his father quoted 624-27;
ordered to act with Kāmrān against the Aūzbegs 625-6;
news of his action reaches Bābur 639, 640;
gifts sent to him on his son's birth and with them the
_Wālidiyyah-risāla_ and the Hindustān poems 642;
topics of a letter to him enumerated 645;
the letter despatched 649;
gifts from him to his father 687;
a family tradition that his father wished to abdicate in his favour
689 n. 5;
☛ misery of his creation 692;
concerning a plan to set him aside from the succession 644
n. 4, 688 n. 2, ☛ 692-3, ☛ 702-7;
deserts his post in Badakhshān (936) 694;
its sequel 695, 6, 7-8;
ordered by his father to Saṃbhal 697;
his illness and his father's self-surrender (937) 701-2;
goes back to Saṃbhal 702;
summoned and is declared successor at his father's last audience
708;
[♰963 AH.-1556 AD.].[2899]
Bāba +Ḥūsain+—his murder of Aūlūgh Beg _Shāh-rukhī_ (853) 85 and
n. 3.[2900]
Maulānā Shaikh +Ḥusain+—particulars 283-4.
+Ḥūsain+ _Aīkrak_ (?) (or Ḥasan)—receives the Chīn-āb country from
Bābur (925) 386;
misbehaves (926) 423.
Sayyīd +Ḥusain Akbar+ _Tīrmīẕī_, a maternal relative of Maṣ`ūd
_Mīrān-shāhī_—attacks the fugitive Bāī-sunghar (903) 74;
out with Bābur (910) 234;
suspected 239;
in the left wing at Qandahār (913) 334.
Sulṯān +Ḥusain+ _Arghūn Qarā-kūlī_—particulars 40;
leaves Samarkand with the Tarkhāns (905) 121;
fights for Bābur at Sar-i-pul (Khwāja Kārdzan) (906) 139;
his great-niece Ma`ṣūma a wife of Bābur 36.
+Ḥusain Āqā+ _Sīstānī_—in the right wing at Kānwa (933) 566.
+Ḥusain+ _`aūdī_, lutanist of Ḥusain _Bāī-qarā_—particulars 292;
owed his training to `Alī-sher _Nawā'ī_ 272.
Shāh +Ḥusain+ _bakhshī_—brings Bābur news of a success (935) 685.
Khwāja +Ḥusain Beg+, brother of Aūzūn Ḥasan—particulars 26;
his daughter a wife of `Umar Shaikh 24, 146 n. 3;
leaves Samarkand with the Tarkhāns (905) 121;
fights for Bābur at Sar-i-pul (Khwāja Kārdzan) (906) 139;
one of eight in the flight from Akhsī (908) 177 (here Khwāja
Ḥusainī);
his lameness causes him to leave Bābur 178;
sends Lāhor revenues to Kābul (932) 446;
waits on Bābur 458;
on service (933) 549 (here Mullā Ḥusain);
in the left centre at Kānwa 566.
Shāh +Ḥusain+ _chuhra_, a brave of Ḥusain _Bāī-qarā_—left in Balkh
(902) 70.
Sulṯān +Ḥusain+ _Dūghlāt_—joins Bābur (901) 58-9;
conspires against Taṃbal (907) 154;
sent by The Khān (Maḥmūd) to help Bābur (908) 161.
+Ḥusain+ _Ghainī_—a punitive force sent against him (911) 253.
+Ḥūsain-i-ḥāsan+—out with Bābur (925) 403;
killed and avenged 404, 405;
[♰925 AH.-1519 AD.].
Maulānā Shāh +Ḥusain+ _Kāmī_, a poet—particulars 290.
+Ḥūsain Kashifī+—his omission from Bābur's list of Herāt
celebrities 283 n. 1.
+Ḥusain Khān+ _Lashkar_ (?) _Wazīr_—writes from Naṣrat Shāh,
accepting Bābur's three articles (935) 676.
Sulṯān +Ḥusain Mīrzā+ _Bāī-qarā Tīmūrid_, _Barlās Turk_, son of
Manṣūr—defeats Maḥmūd _Mīrān-shāhī_ (865) 46, 259 and (876) 260;
his relations with Nawā'ī 33, 272;
his campaign against Khusrau Shāh (901) 57, 58-61, 130;
his dissensions with his sons 61, 69, (902) 68-70, 260, (903) 94-5;
his capture of Herī (875) compared with Bābur's of Samarkand (906)
134-5;
does not help Bābur against Shaibānī 138, 145;
asks Bābur's help against him (910) 190-1, (911) 255;
his death 256, and burial 293;
particulars of his life and court 256-292:
—(personal 256
—amīrs 270
—ṣadrs 280
—wazīrs, etc. 281
—poets 286
—artists 291)
—his dealings with Ẕū'n-nūn _Arghūn_ and Khusrau Shāh 274;
his kindness to Maṣ'ūd _Mīrān-shāhī_ (903) 93, 95;
his disorderly Finance Office 281-2;
delays a pilgrim 284; his copyist 291;
his splendid rule 300;
his buildings 305;
his relation Nuyān Beg _Tīrmīẕī_ 273;
Bābur writes to him in ignorance of his death (912) 294;
Bābur's comments on him 60, 191, 225;
a poem mistakenly attributed to him 281;
[♰911 AH.-1506 AD.].
Sulṯān +Ḥusain Mīrzā+ _Mīrān-shāhī_, son of Maḥmūd and a Tīrmīzī
wife—his death (_æt._ 13) in his father's lifetime, 47, 110.
Mīr +Ḥusain+ _mu`ammā'ī Nishāpūrī_—particulars 288 and n. 7;
[♰904 AH.-1498-9 AD.].
+Ḥusain Khān+ _Nūḥānī Afghān_—holding Rāprī and not submissive to
Bābur (932) 523;
abandons it 530;
takes it again (933) 557;
drowned in flight 582;
[♰933 AH.-1527 AD.].
Sulṯān +Ḥusain+ _Qānjūt_, maternal grandfather of Ḥusain
_Bāī-qarā_—his Tīmūrid descent 256 n. 5.
Shāh Mīr +Ḥusain+ _Qārlūq_—waits on Bābur (925) 403 (here var. Ḥasan)
409;
sent to Bajaur (926) 422;
meets Bābur on his road 423;
in charge of _impedimenta_ (932) 458;
allowed to raid from Milwat 464;
fighting for Bābur 468, 471;
in the left wing at Pānīpat 472;
posted in Jūnpūr (933) 544.
+Ḥusain-i Shaikh Tīmūr+—particulars 273 (where in n. 2 read
grand("father")).
Sulṯān +Ḥusain+ _Sharqī_—rise and fall of his dynasty 481;
[♰905 AH.-1500 AD.].
Shāh +Ḥusain+ _Yāragī Mughūl Ghanchī_—in the left wing at Pānīpat
(932) 472, and at Kānwa (933) 567;
on service 530.
+Ḥusamu'd-dīn `Alī+ _Barlās_, son of Khalīfa—on service (934) 601;
waits on Bābur (935) 687.
+Ibn-i-ḥusāin Mīrzā+ _Bāī-qarā Tīmūrid_, _Barlās Turk_, son of Ḥusain
and Pāpā—parentage 265;
joins his brothers against Shaibānī (912) 296;
fails in etiquette when meeting Bābur 297;
his place at a reception 298;
goes back to his districts Tūn and Qāīn 301;
mentioned 331;
the poet Āhī his servant 289;
[♰919 AH.-1513 AD.].
+Ibrāhīm Ātā+ (Father Abraham)—his tomb in Turkistān 159.
+Ibrāhīm Beg+ _Begchīk_, brother of Ayūb—in the right wing at Qandahār
(913) 334.
Mīr +Ibrāhīm+ _Begchīk_—fights and kills a guardian of `Umar Shaikh
_Mīrān-shāhī_ (_cir._ 870) 25.
+Ibrāhīm+ _Chaghatāī_—joins Ḥusain _Bāī-qarā_ 279,[2901] 689 n. 4.
+Ibrāhīm+ _chuhra_—conveys a quatrain of Bābur's (925) 401.
+Ibrāhīm+ _Dūldāī Barlās_—particulars 274.
Sulṯān +Ibrāhīm+ _Ghaznawī_—his tomb 218;
[♰492 AH.-1098 AD.].
+Ibrāhīm-i-ḥusain Mīrzā+ _Bāī-qarā Tīmūrid_, _Barlās Turk_, son of
Ḥusain—particulars 265;
on his father's service (901) 57;
receives Balkh (902) 70;
besieged (903) 93-4;
[♰910 AH.-1504-5 AD.].
+Ibrāhīm+ _Jānī_—fights for Bābur at Sar-i-pul (906) 139;
one of three Ibrāhīms killed there 141, 624 n. 1;
his son Chilma _q.v._;
[♰906 AH.-1501 AD.].
Mīr +Ibrāhīm+ _qānūnī_—waits on Bābur (935) 605;
his kinsman Yūnas-i-`alī _q.v._
Sulṯān +Ibrāhīm+ _Sahu-khail Lūdī Afghān_, son of Sikandar—Bābur sends
him a goshawk and asks for the ancient lands of the Turk (925)
385;
☛ co-operation against him proffered to Bābur by Sangā 426, 529;
☛ a principal actor in the years of the _lacuna_ from 926
to 932 AH. 427;
☛ no indication of Bābur's intending to attack him in 926 AH. 429;
his misdoing leads to appeal for Bābur's help (929) 439;
defeats his uncle `Ālam Khān (932) 456-7;
Bābur moves from the Dūn against him 463;
his military strength 463, 470;
imprisons humble men sent by Bābur 464;
various news of him 465, 466-7;
Bābur's estimate of him 470;
defeated and killed at Pānīpat 473-4, 630 n. 4;
an Afghān account of Bābur's care for his corpse _ib._;
references to his rule in Gūālīār 977, to the rebellion of his
Eastern amīrs 523, 527, to his capture of Chandirī and defeat at
Dhūlpūr by Sangā 593, to Bābur's route when he was defeated (932)
206, and to his "prison-house" 459;
his resources contrasted with Bābur's 480;
his treasure at an end (935) 617;
his mother q.v. _s.n._ mother;
his son sent to Kāmrān's charge in Qandahār (933) 544;
[♰932 AH.-1526 AD.].
+Ibrāhīm Sārū+ _Mīnglīgh Beg_—_Chāpūk_—particulars [Author's Note] 52;
disloyal to Bābur (900) 52;
besieged and submits 53;
receives Shīrāz (902) 66;
remains with Bābur at a crisis (903) 91;
on service (904) 101, 106;
his man holds fast in Aūsh 107;
plundered by `Alī-dost (905) 119;
waits on Bābur 125;
one of three Ibrāhīms killed at Sar-i-pul (Khwāja Kārdzan) 139, 141;
his brother Samad _q.v._; his good bowman 66;
[♰906 AH.-1501 AD.].
+Ibrāhīm Sulṯān Mīrzā+ _Shāh-rukhī Tīmūrid_, _Barlās Turk_, son of
Shāh-rukh—his rule in Shīrāz, death and successor (838) 20;
referred to 85;
[♰838 AH.-1414-5 AD.].
+Ibrāhīm T̤aghāī Beg+ _Begchīk_, brother of Ayūb—wounded and nicknamed
_Chāpūk_ (902) 67;
leaves Bābur (903) 86;
in Akhsī with Bāyazīd _Itārachī_ (908) 171;
sent against Pāp _ib._;
arrests Bāyazīd 173-4;
wounded but fights for Bābur 174;
soon falls behind in the flight from Akhsī 176;
in the right wing at Qandahār (913) 334;
holds Balkh for Bābur (923) 463 n. 3;
sent as Bābur's envoy to Aūzbeg Khāns and Sulṯāns (935) 643.
+Ibrāhīm Tarkhān+ _Arghūn_—serving Ḥusain _Bāī-qarā_ (901) 58;
holding Shīrāz (906) 130;
reinforces Bābur 131;
one of three Ibrāhīms killed at Sar-i-pul 140-1;
his brother Aḥmad _q.v._;
[♰906 AH.-1501 AD.].
Qāẓī +Ikhtiyār+—particulars 285;
waits on Bābur and examines the Bāburī script (912) 285;
is instructed in the exposition of the Qorān by Shaibānī (913) 329;
[♰928 AH.-1521 AD.].
+Ilīās Khān+, see Rustam.
Shāh +`Imād+ _Shīrāzī_—brings Bābur friendly letters from two amīrs of
Hind (932) 463.
+`Imādu'd-dīn Mas`ūd+—an envoy of Jahāngīr _Mīrān-shāhī_ to Tramontane
clans (911-912) 296.
+`Imādu'l-mulk+, a slave—strangles Sikandar _Gujrātī_ (932) 535.
+Imām-i-muḥammad+—Bābur's company drink at his house (925) 418;
his master Khwāja Muḥammad-amīn _q.v._
+Īsān+, see Aīsān.
+Isḥāq Ātā+ (Father Isaac)—his tomb in Turkistān 159.
+Iskandar+, see Sikandar.
+Islīm+ _Barlās_—particulars 276.
+Ismā`īl+ _chilma_, see Chilma.
+Isma`īl Khān+ _Jilwānī_ (not _Jalwānī_)—with `Ālam Khān _Lūdī_ (932)
456;
deserts him 457;
writes dutifully to Bābur 464;
speaks of waiting on him (934?) 680;
does it (935) 677, 679.
+Ismā`īl Khān+ _Yūsuf-khail Lūdī_, son of `Alī—parleys with Bābur at
Milwat (932) 459;
deported 461.
+Ismā`īl Mītā+—Naṣrat Shāh's envoy to Bābur (935) 640-1, 664-5.
+Ismā`īl+ _Ṣafawī `Arab_, Shāh of Persia—reference to his capture of
`Irāq (cir. 906) 280, 336;
gives refuge to a fugitive Bāī-qarā (913) 327 n. 5;
☛ hostilities begin between him and Shaibānī (915) 350;
defeats Shaibānī at Merv (916) 18, 318, ☛ 350;
sends Khān-zāda back to Bābur 18, 352;
☛ asked by Bābur for reinforcement (917) 352-4;
☛ his alliance dangerous for Bābur 355;
☛ indication of his suzerain relation with Bābur 355;
☛ a principal actor in the _lacuna_ years from 926-930, 427;
☛ his relations with Shāh Beg _Arghūn_ 430;
relations with Bābur (927) 433-4;
☛ his death after defeat (930) 443;
☛ Lord Bacon on his personal beauty 443 n. 1;
his son T̤ahmāsp _q.v._;
his (presumed) Bāī-qarā disciple in Shī`a heresy 262;
[♰930 AH.-1524 AD.].
+Ja`far Khwāja+, son of Mahdī Khwāja and step-son of Bābur's sister
Khān-zāda—fills his father's place in Etāwa (933) 579, 582;
sent to collect boats (934) 598;
pursues Bīban and Bāyazīd (935) 682.
+Jahāngīr+ _Barlās_, son of Ibrāhīm and a Badakhshī Begīm (T.R. trs.
p. 108)—particulars 273;
joint-governor of Kābul for Abū-sa`īd 270, 273.
+Jahāngīr Mīrzā+ _Barlās Turk_, eldest son of Tīmūr—named
in Abū-sa`īd's genealogy 14;
is given Samarkand by Tīmūr 85;
his tomb in Kesh 83;
his son Muḥammad 78, 85;
[♰776 AH.-1374-5 AD.].
+Jahāngīr Mīrzā+ _Mīrān-shāhī Tīmūrid_, _Barlās Turk_, son of `Umar
Shaikh and Fāṯima _Mughūl_—particulars 17;
sent (a child) to reinforce an uncle (_cir._ 895) and then betrothed
48, 189;
comes to Andijān after his father's death (899) 32;
Mughūl support for him against Bābur (900) 43-4, (903) 87-8,
(904) 101;
joins Taṃbal 103; a "worry" 104;
defeated at Khūbān (905) 113;
waits on Bābur 119;
summoned for a Samarkand expedition 122;
reinforces Bābur (906) 138;
a gift to him from the exiled Bābur (907) 150;
joins Bābur (908) 173;
acts against Bābur's wishes 173-4;
flees in panic 174-5;
rumoured a prisoner 176;
☛ his occupation of Khujand (909?) 182;
Bābur rejects advice to dismiss him (910) 191;
deference to him from Khusrau Shāh 193;
his part in occupying Kābul 198, 199;
receives Ghaznī 227;
out with Bābur 233-4, 235-6, 239;
rejects counsel to betray him 239;
is Bābur's host in Ghaznī 240;
his experiences in an earthquake (911) 247;
insists on a move for Qalāt-i-ghilzāī 248;
waits on Bābur and does service 252-3;
his misconduct 254;
causes Bābur to mobilize his troops 255;
goes to Yaka-aūlāng (912) 294;
the clans not supporting him, he goes to Herī with Bābur 295-6;
at social gatherings 298, 302;
defeats his half-brother Nāṣir 321;
his death 331 n. 3, 345;
his widow brings their son Pīr-i-muḥammad to Bābur (913) 331;
[♰912 or 913 AH.-1507-8 AD.].
Nūru'ddin Muḥammad +Jahāngīr Pādshāh+ _Mīrān-shāhī Tīmūrid_,
_Barlās Turk_, son of Akbar—his work in Bābur's burial-ground 710;
words of his made clear by Bābur's 501 n. 6;
mentioned concerning the _tamghā_ 553 n. 1;
[♰1037 AH.-1627 AD.].
+Jahāngīr+ _Turkmān_—revolts in Badakhshān against the Aūzbegs (910)
242;
keeping his head up (913) 340.
+Jahān-shāh+ _Barlās_, son of Chakū—mentioned in his son Muḥammad
Barandūq's genealogy 270.
+Jahān-shah Mīrzā+ _Barānī_, _Qarā-qūīlūq Turkmān_—ruling in Tabrīz
while Yūnas _Chaghatāī_ stayed there 20;
his sons defeated by the Āq-qūīlūq (872) 49;
his son Muḥammadī's wife Pasha 49;[2902]
[♰872 AH.-1467-8 AD.].
Rāī +Jāīpal+ _Lāhorī_—a legend of his siege of Ghaznī 219;
[♰_cir._ 392 AH.-1002 AD.].
Rāja +Jāī-singh+ _Jāīpūrī_—his astronomical instruments 79 n. 4;
[♰1156 AH.-1743 AD.].
+Jalāl Khān+ _Jig-hat_—waits on `Ālam Khān _Lūdī_ (932) 456 and n. 4;
his house in Dihlī Bābur's quarters 476;
his son `Ālam Khān _Kālpī_ _q.v._
+Jalāl Khān+ _Lūdī_, son of`Ālam Khān—deserts his father (932) 457;
in the left wing at Kānwa (933) 567 (where for "Jamāl" read Jalāl).
+Jalāl+ _Tāshkīndī_—brings Bābur news of Bīban and Bāyazīd (935) 685.
+Jalālu'd-dīn Maḥmūd+ _nāī_—a flautist, heard in Herāt (912) 303.
Sulṯān +Jalālu'd-dīn+ _Nūḥānī_—Jalāl Khān, son of Bihār Khān and
Dūdū—one of three competitors for rule (935) 651 n. 5;
writes dutifully to Bābur 659;
news of his and his mother's coming 664;
waits on Bābur 676;
receives revenue from Bihār 676.
Maulānā +Jalālu'd-dīn+ _Pūrānī_—origin of his cognomen 306;
his descendant Jamālu'd-dīn Abū-sa`īd _Pūrān_ _q.v._;
[♰862 AH.-1458 AD.].
Sulṯān +Jalālu'd-dīn+ _Sharqī_, son of Ḥusain Shāh—waits on Bābur
(935) 651;
particulars 651 n. 5;
his man abandons Benares 652;
entertains Bābur 652;
his son styled Sulṯān _ib._;
his gift of a boat to Bābur 663;
in the battle of the Ghogrā 669;
on service 678.
Shaikh +Jamāl+ _Bārīn Mughūl_—his son(?) Shaikh `Alī _q.v._
Shaikh +Jamāl+ _Farmūlī Afghān_—deserts `Ālam Khān (932) 457;
serving Bābur (933) 551.
Shaikh +Jamālī+—at a feast (935) 631;
conveys encouragement to Dūdū Bībī 665-6.
Shaikh +Jamālu'd-dīn Abū-sa`īd+ _Pūrān_—particulars 306 n. 2;
ill-treated by Shaibānī (913) 306 n. 2, 328;
[♰921 AH.-1515 AD.].
Shaikh +Jamālu'd-dīn+ _khar_, _Arghūn_—captor of Yūnas Khān and
Aīsān-daulat Begīm (T.R. trs. p. 94)
—slain 35;
[♰877 AH.-1472-3 AD.].
Mīr +Jamālu'd-dīn+ _muḥaddas̤_—particulars 284;
[living 934-7 AH.-1527-31 AD.].
Shaikh +Jāmī+—ancestor of Akbar's mother 623 n. 8.
+Jāmī+, see `Abdu'r-raḥmān _Jāmī_.
+Jamshīd+, (an ancient ruler of Persia)—mentioned 85, 152.
Mīr +Jān-aīrdī+, retainer of Ẕū'n-nūn _Arghūn_—sells provisions to
Bābur (912) 308.
+Jānak+—recites in Turkī (912) 304.
+Jānaka Kūkūldāsh+, (or Khānika)—escapes after Sār-i-pul (906) 141.
+Jān-i-`alī+—murdered by Shaibānī (906) 127, 128;
[♰906 AH.-1500 AD.].
+Jān Beg+—in charge of _impedimenta_ (932) 458;
allowed leave for a raid 464;
in a night-attack 471;
in the left wing at Pānīpat 472 and at Kānwa (933) 567 (here
Jān-i-muḥammad Beg Ātāka);
on service (935) 682 (here Jānī Beg).
Mīr +Jān+ _Dīwān_—his house in Qandahār reserved as loot for Nāṣir
_Mīrān-shāhī_ (913) 338.
+Jānī Beg+ _Dūldāī Barlās Turk_—particulars 37 (where nn. 2 and 3
should be reversed).
+Jānī Beg Sulṯān Khān+ _Aūzbeg-Shabān Chīngīz-khānid_—his two
Mīrān-shāhī marriages of conquest 18, 35;
fights for Shaibānī at Sār-i-pūl (906) 139 (where read Jānī Beg
Sulṯān);
he and his sons at Jām (935) 622;
flees to Merv 636 n. 2.
+Jān-i-ḥasan+, _Bārīn Mughūl_—sent to reinforce Bābur (903) 92, (908)
161, 170.
+Jān-i-nāṣir+—answers a call-to-arms (925) 408.
Mīr +Jān+ _Samarkandī_—his distasteful singing (912) 303.
+Jān-wafā Mīrzā+—serving Shaibānī in Samarkand (906) 131;
escapes on Bābur's success 133.
Barlās +Jūkī+—brings Bābur good news, a live Aūzbeg, and a head (925)
408.
+Jūha Sulṯān+ _Taklū_,Governor of Ispahān—with T̤ahmāsp _Ṣāfawī_ on
the battle-field of Jām (935) 635.
+Jūjī Khān+ _Chīngīz-khānid_—a Qāzzāk descendant mentioned 23.
Muḥammad +Jūkī Mīrzā+ _Shah-rukhī Tīmūrid_, _Barlās Turk_, son of
`Abdu'l-laṯīf (♰854)—mentioned as besieged by Abū-sa`īd
_Mīrān-shāhī_ 24;
[♰868 AH.-1463-4 AD.].
Sulṯān +Junaid+ _Barlās_ (or Junīd)—particulars 276;
his sons Niẕāmu'd-dīn `Alī Khalīfa and Junaid _q.v._
Sulṯān +Junaid+ _Barlās_ (or Junīd), son of the last-entered—incites
an attempt on Samarkand (900) 52, 111;
serving Bābur (932) 460, 468, 471;
in the left wing at Pānīpat 472;
sent to help in occupying Dihlī 475;
given Dūlpūr 530-1;
posted in Jūnpūr (933) 544;
in Kharīd (935) 637 and n. 1;
joins Bābur late and is not received 667;
gives local information 668;
in the battle of the Ghogrā 669;
on service 679, 682 and n. 2;
his wife Shahr-bānū _Mīrān-shāhī_ _q.v._
+Kābulī Begīm+ _Mīrān-shāhī Tīmūrīd_, _Barlās Turk_—abandoned by her
husband Badī`u'z-zamān _Bāī-qarā_ and captured by Shaibānī (913)
328.
+Kahil+ _ṣaḥib-i-qadam_—gives his horse to Bābur (908) 174.
Pahlawān +Kalāl+—wrestles (935) 650.
+Kalāntar of Dikh-kat+ (var. _kālāntar_ and _kīlāntar_)—his house used
by Bābur (907) 150;
his aged mother's story _ib._
+Kalīmu'l-lāh Shāh+ _Bahminī Afghān_—ruling the Dakkhin (932) 482.
+Kal-qāshūq+—put to retaliatory death (903) 73.
Sayyid +Kāmal+—serving Khusrau Shāh (903) 96 (where for "Qasīm" read
Kāmal).
+Kamāl Khān+ _Sāhū-khail Lūdī Afghān_, son of `Ālam Khān—in the left
wing at Kānwa (933) 567.
+Kamāl Khwāja+—his birth-place Khujand 8;
[♰803 AH.-1400-1 AD.].
+Kamāl+ _sharbatchī_—in the right wing at Qandahār (913) 335.
Pahlawān Khwāja +Kamālu'd-dīn+ _Badakhshī_—in the right wing at Kānwa
(933) 566.
Khwāja +Kamālu'd-dīn Ḥusāin+ _Gāsur-gāhī_—particulars 280, 281;
sent as envoy to Shaibānī (904) 145.
Khwāja +Kamālu'd-dīn Maḥmūd+, retainer of Ismā`īl _Ṣafawī_—☛ with
Bābur after the defeat at Ghaj-davān (919) 362-3;
[♰_cir._ 919 AH.-1514 AD.].
+Kamālu'd-dīn+ _Qīāq_ (var.)—lays before Bābur complaint of the begs
of the Balkh frontier (935) 649.
+Kāmrān Mīrza+ _Mīrān-shāhī Tīmūrid_, _Barlās Turk_, son of Bābur and
Gul-rukh _Begchīk_—☛ the date of his birth App. J, xxxv;
☛ taken on the Transoxus campaign (916-920) 358;
carried in haste to meet his father (920) 395;
joins his father 417;
☛ the _Mubīn_ written for his instruction (928) 438;
☛ left in charge of Kābul and Qandahār (932) App. J, xxxv;
a letter from Bābur to him _ib._ and App. L, xliii;
his copy of the _Bābur-nāma_ App. J, xxxv-vi;
gifts sent to him (932) 460, 522, 642;
put in charge of Ibrāhīm _Lūdī's_ son (933) 544;
☛ of his transfer to Multār (934-5) ☛ 604, 605 n. 3, 645;
of his proceedings in Kābul 618;
his marriage to a cousin 619;
the _Wālidiyyah-risāla_, Hindustān Poems and specimens of the
Bāburī script sent to him 642;
heads of a letter to him 645, 646;
☛ meets Humāyūn in Kābul (935) 696;
☛ meets Bābur in Lāhor (936) 699;
☛ of his governments 699;
☛ later action in Multān and Lāhor (938) (which read for 935) 699;
☛ visits his father's tomb near Āgra (946) 709;
[♰964 AH.-1556 AD.].
+Kankū+ or Gangū—killed at Kānwa 573;
[♰933 AH.-1527 AD.].
+Karīm-bīrdī+—on Bābur's service (935) 661.
+Karīm-dād+ _Turkmān_—at a household party (906) 131;
escapes from Sar-i-pul (Khwāja Kārdzan) 141;
one of four fighting with Bābur (908) 166, 396;
reprieved from a death sentence (914) 345.
+Karm-chand+—acting for Ḥasan _Mewatī_ (933) 545, 578;
asks peace from Bābur for Ḥasan's son Nāhar 578.
+Kārm Singh+—killed at Kānwa 573;
[♰933 AH.-1527 AD.].
+Rāja Karna+ _Gūālīārī_, (or, Kirtī), _Tūnwar Rājpūt_—his buildings
in Gūālīār 608 n. 3.
+Khadīja Āghā+, and later, Begīm, mistress of Abū-sa`īd _Mīrān-shāhī_,
wife of Ḥusain _Bāī-qarā_—particulars 262, 268;
her dominance 268, 292;
visited in Herī by Bābur (912) 301;
at an entertainment to him 302;
a suspicion against her 302 n. 1;
captured by Shaibānī (913) 327;
given for a traitor to loot 328;
her daughter Āq Begīm and sons Shāh-i-gharīb and Muẓaffar-i-ḥusain
_q.v._
+Khadija-sulṯān Begīm+ _Mīrān-shāhī Tīmūrid_, _Barlās Turk_, daughter
of Abū'sa`īd—(probably) seen by Bābur in Herī
(912) 301;
Bābur visits her near Āgra (934) 588 and in Āgra Fort (935) 606,
616.
+Khaldār+ _Yāragī Mughūl_, son of Ḥaidar Kūkūldāsh—fights for Bābur
at Sar-i-pul (Khwāja Kārdzan) (906) 139.
+Khalīfa+, see Niẕamu'd-dīn `Alī _Barlās_.
+Khalīl+ _chuhra_—a brave who fought well for Bābur (904) 101.
+Khalīl+ _dīwāna_—on Aūzūn Ḥasan's service (904) 102 (where for
"Dīwān" read dīwāna).
Sulṯān +Khalīl Mīrzā+, _Mīrān-shāhī Tīmūrid_, _Barlās Turk_, son of
Mīrān-shāh—mentioned 262 n. 2;
[♰814 AH.-1411-2 AD.].
Sulṯān +Khalīl Mīrzā+ _Mīrān-shāhī_ (_ut supra_), son of Abū-sa`īd—his
daughter sole wife of Bāī-sunghar _Mīrān-shāhī_ 112.
+Khalīl Sulṯān+ _Chaghatāī Chīngīz-khānid_, son of Aḥmad, (Alacha
Khān), full brother of Sa`īd—his son Bābā Sulṯān _q.v._
+Khalīl Sulṯān+ _Itārajī Mughūl_, brother of Aḥmad Taṃbal—holding Māḏū
for Taṃbal (905) 109;
captured _ib._, and released 119;
surprises Aūsh 125;
helps Bābur against Shaibānī (906) 138;
killed at Sar-i-pul 141;
[♰906 AH.-1501 AD.].
+Khalwī+ _pīāda_ (or Khalwā)—his spear-head bitten off by a tiger
(925) 393.
The +Khatīb of Qarshī+—an envoy to Bābur (910) 188.
+Khān-i-jahān+, see Fatḥ Khān _Sarwānī_.
+Khān-i-jahān+, a "pagan"—opposes Bābur (933) 539.
+Khān-qulī+, son of Bīān-qulī—leaves Bābur in Samarkand (903) 86;
at a household party (906) 131 (where read Khān-qulī for
"Khān-i-qulī");
gives ground for suspicion (907) 156;
one of eight in the flight from Akhsī (908) 176, 177;
in the right-centre at Qandahār (913) 335.
+Khān-zāda Begīm (1)+, _Mīrān-shāhī Tīmūrid_, _Barlās Turk_, daughter
of Maḥmūd—particulars 48.
+Khān-zāda Begīm (2)+, _ut supra_, daughter of Maṣ`ūd and
Sa`ādat-bakht—particulars 267;
visited by Bābur near Āgra (935) 616.
+Khān-zāda Begīm (3)+, _ut supra_, daughter of `Umar Shaikh
and Qūtlūq-nigār—particulars 17;
her marriage with Shaibānī (907) 18, 147, ☛ 184;
her divorce and remarriage with Sayyid Hādī Khwāja 352 [Ḥ.S. iii],
364;
her reunion with Bābur (916) 18, 352, 356;
her marriage with Mahdī Khwāja _q.v._;
her summons to Hindūstān (935) 647;
his son Khurram Shāh _q.v._;
[♰952 AH.-1545 AD.].
+Khān-zādā Begīm (4)+, _Tīrmīẕī_, wife of Maḥmūd
_Mīrān-shāhī_—particulars 48;
her son Mas`ūd _q.v._;
her niece 48.
+Khān-zāda Begīm (5)+, _Tīrmīẕī_, niece of the above, wife of
Maḥmūd—particulars 48, 9;
her son Ḥusain _q.v._;
her five daughters 47-8.
+Khān-zāda Begīm (6)+, _Tīrmīẕī_, wife of Aḥmad
_Mīrān-shāhī_—particulars 37;
Bābur, a child, pulls off her wedding veil (893) 37.
+Khān-zāda Khānīm+ _Ḥājī-tarkhānī_, daughter of Aḥmad and
Badī`u'l-jamāl (Badka)—particulars 258 n. 2, 329;
illegally married by Shaibānī (913) 329;
her husband Muzaffar-i-ḥusain _Bāī-qarā_ _q.v._
+Khawānd Shāh Amīr+, ("Mirkhond"), author of the
_Rauzatu'ṣ-ṣafā_—omitted (or lost) from Bābur's list of Herāt
celebrities 283 n. 1;
[♰903 AH.-1498 AD.].
+Khiẓr Khwāja Khān+ _Chaghatāī Chīngīz-khānid_—mentioned in Yūnas
Khān's genealogy 19.
Khwāja +Khiẓr+ _Nūḥānī_, a merchant—killed by a Mughūl (910) 235
(where for "_Lūḥānī_" read _Nūḥānī_).
+Khūb-nīgār Khānīm+ _Chaghatāī Chīngīz-khānid_, daughter of Yūnas
and Aīsān-daulat—particulars 21, 22;
her death announced to Bābur (907) 148, 149;
her rebel husband forgiven for her sake (912) 319;
her husband Muḥammad Ḥusain _Dūghlāt_, their son Ḥāidar
and daughter Ḥabība _q.v._;
[♰907 AH.-1501-2 AD.].
+Khudā-bakhsh+ _Chaghatāī_, retainer, (1) of Khusrau Shāh,
(2) of Bābur—in the right wing at Qandahār (913) 334;
rebels against Bābur (914) 345.
+Khudāī-bīrdī Beg+ _tūghchī_, _Mughūl_—stays with Bābur at a crisis
(903) 91;
made a beg and on service 110;
killed at Sar-i-pul 141;
[♰906 AH.-1501 AD.].
+Khudāī-bīrdī+ _būqāq_, _Mughūl_—killed at Asfara (900) 53 (here
_ātākām_, my guardian);
his favour from Bābur 105;
his son Qulī _chūnāq_ _q.v._;
[♰900 AH.-1495 AD.].
+Khudāī-bīrdī+ _tūghchī Tīmūr-tāsh_—made `Umar Shaikh's
Lord-of-the-Gate (_cir._ 870) 14;
particulars 24-5;
[♰a few years after 870 AH.-1466 AD.].
+Khurram Shāh+ _Aūzbeg-Shaibān_, _Chīngīz-khānid_, son of Shaibānī
and Khān-zāda—particulars 18;
[♰a few years after 916 AH.-1510-11 AD.].
+Khūsh-kīldī+[2903] _Mughūl_—in the centre at Qandahār (913) 335.
+Khusrau+, an ancient ruler of Persia—mentioned in a couplet 85.
+Khusrau+ _Gāgīānī_—waits on Bābur (910) 230 (where insert his name
in the last line);
taken as a guide 231.
+Khusrau Kūkūldāsh+—at a household party (906) 131 (where insert his
name after that of Shaikh Darwesh);
captured by Taṃbal (908) 168;
rejoins Bābur (913) 330-1;
in the right centre at Qandahār 335;
out with Bābur (925) 377, 403;
an enquiry 405;
☛ posted in Sīālkot (930) 442;
seeming still to hold it (932) 453;
on service 465, 471;
in the van at Pānīpat 472;
in the right wing at Kānwa (933) 566, 568;
given Alūr (Alwar) by mistake 578;
sent against Balūchīs (935) 638;
at social gatherings 385-7-8.
Amīr Khwāja +Khusrau+ _Lāchīn Turk_—a couplet of his quoted 503;
[♰725 AH.-1325 AD.].
+Khusrau Shāh+[2904] _Turkistānī_, _Qībchāq Turk_,
—particulars 49-50;
takes Maḥmūd _Mīrān-shāhī_ (_æt._ 17) to Ḥiṣār (_cir._ 873) 46-7;
referred to as a rival 50;
his tolerance of Ḥiṣārī ill-conduct (899) 41-2;
expelled from Samarkand on Maḥmūd's death (900) 51-2;
opposes Ḥusain _Bāī-qarā_ (901) 57, 60-1;
his rise helped by Bāī-qarā failures 61;
supports Mas`ūd _Mīrān-shāhī_ 64;
falls out with him 71, 93;
blinds him (903) 95;
defeats Badī`u'-zamān _Bāī-qarā_ 60-1;
re-equips him defeated by his father (902) 70;
receives well the fugitive Bāī-sunghar _Mīrān-shāhī_ (903) 74;
makes him _pādshāh_ in Ḥiṣār 93;
strangles him (905) 110;
a fugitive Tarkhān goes to him (906) 120, 141;
his niggardliness to Bābur 129, 130;
gives him no help against Shaibānī 138, ☛ 183;
Qāsim Beg _quchīn_ takes refuge with him (907) 27;
his position less secure (910) 188;
followers of his join Bābur 189, 192, 196, 227 n. 3;
invited to co-operate with the Tīmūrid Mīrzās against Shaibānī 190;
takes the Kābul road on Bābur's approach 192, 244;
offers him service 192;
the interview of his submission 193-4;
allowed to go towards Khurāsān 194, 195;
breaks his pact and is put to flight 197, 243;
gets sensible counsel in Herāt 243;
makes trouble for Nāṣir _Mīrān-shāhī_ in Badakhshān 244-5;
beheaded at Qūndūz by the Aūzbegs 244;
good results from his death for Bābur 245;
Bābur's reflections on the indiscipline of his followers 199,
230 n. 5, 239, 244-5;
his former following rebels (914) 335;
his brothers Walī and Bāqī, and nephew Aḥmad-i-qāsim _q.v._;
[♰910 AH.-1505 AD.].
+Khwāja Chishtī+ var. Ḥusaini—at a feast (935) 631.
`Abdu'l-lāh +Khwājagān-khwāja+, fifth son of `Ubaidu'l-lāh
_Aḥrarī_—his son `Abdu'sh-shahīd 653 n. 4.
+Khwājakā Khwāja+, Muḥammad-i-`ubaidu'l-lāh, eldest son of
Aḥrarī—protects Bāī-sunghar _Mīrān-shāhī_ in the Tarkhān rebellion
(901) 62 (where, erroneously, "Khwājakī");
becomes his spiritual guide 63;
visited in Farkat by Bābur (907) 149;
his brother Yaḥyā _q.v._
+Khwāja Kalān+, descendant of `Ubaidu'l-lāh _Āḥrarī_—☛ a likely
recipient of the _Mubīn_ 438, 631 n. 3 (where for "son" read
grandson of Yaḥyā);
at a feast in Āgra (935) 631;
gifts and leave given 632, 641-2;
a copy of Bābur-nāma writings sent to him 653.
Mīr +Khwāja Kalān+, son of Maulānā Muḥammad Ṣadru'd-dīn—receives
Bajaur (925) 370;
particulars 370 n. 2;
prisoners pardoned at his request 371;
out with Bābur 372;
returns to Bajaur 376;
is recalled on grounds given (926) 422-3;
joins Bābur for Hindūstān (932) 447;
on service 465-6;
in the right wing at Pānīpat 472;
helps to secure Āgra 475;
of his leaving Hindūstān 520, 531;
his offending couplet about leaving, and Bābur's reply 525-6;
has charge of Kābul and Ghaznī 524;
conveys money to repair the Ghaznī dam 219, 524 n. 2, 647 n. 1;
Bābur's various writings sent to him, quatrains (925) 372, (932)
525-6, (935) the _Wālidiyyah-risāla_ and Hindūstān poems 642
—letters (925) 411, (935) 604, 618 n. 2, quoted 645-8;
commended to Humāyūn as a friend 627;
a letter of his mentioned 644;
wine parties in his house (925) 371-2, 375;
has Ghaznī wine at Milwat (932) 461;
urged to renounce wine 648;
tells Bābur of a fruitful orange-tree (935) 510, cf. 483 n. 2;
☛ quotation from his ode on Bābur's death 709.
`Abdu'l-lāh +Khwāja Maulānā-i-qāzī+—particulars 29, 89-90;
supports Bābur (899) 30;
chases off an invader 32;
confers with other well-wishers of the boy (900) 43;
mediates for Ibrāhīm _Sārū_ 53, for Aūrgūtīs (902) 68;
envoy to Aūzūn Ḥasan (903) 87;
open-handed to Bābur's followers 88;
entreats him to save Andijān 88-9;
Mīr Mughūl aids him in its defence 122;
hanged by Taṃbal and Aūzūn Ḥasan 89;
`Alī-dost fears retaliation for his death (905) 119;
his right guidance recalled by Bābur (912) 303;
[♰903 AH.-1498 AD.].
+Khwājakī Mullā-i-ṣadr+, son of Maulānā Muḥammad Ṣadru'd-dīn,
and elder brother of Khwāja Kalān—particulars 67;
killed near Yām 67;
[♰902 AH.-1497 AD.].
+Khwāja Mīr-i-mīrān+—speaks boldly at Akhsī (908) 174;
in charge of baggage camels (925) 376, 377, and of Bābur's camp 389,
391;
Bābur halts near his Lamghān village (926) 424;
given charge of Daulat Khān _Yūsuf-khail_ (932) 459-60;
in the left-centre at Pānīpat 973;
entrusted with gifts for Kābul 525.
+Khwāja Mīr Sulṯān+—he and his son receive gifts (935) 632.
+Khwānd-amīr+, grandson of Khāwand Shāh Amīr ("Mīrkhond")
—☛ associated with Muḥammad-i-zamān _Bāī-qarā_ (923) 364-5,
463 n. 3;
fleeced by Shaibānī's order (913) 328 n. 2;
his discomforts in Herāt 617 n. 2;
waits on Bābur (935) 605;
Bābur invites him in verse 693;
completes the _Ḥabību's-siyar_ while at Tīr-mūhānī with Bābur 687
n. 3;
his omission (or loss) from Bābur's list of Herāt celebrities 283
n. 1;
his and Bābur's varied choice of details 328 n. 2;
☛ his patron Amīr Ghiyās̤u'd-dīn and nephew Ghiyās̤u'd-dīn 436;
[♰942 AH.-1535 AD.].
Khwāja +Khwānd-sa`īd+—Bābur visits his tomb (925) 407.
Mīr +Khāwand+—Shāh Amīr ("Mīrkhond")—author of the _Rauzatu'ṣ-ṣafā_,
grandfather of Khwānd-amīr—his omission (or loss) from Bābur's
list of Herāt celebrities 283 n. 1;
[♰903 AH.-1498 AD.].
+Kīchīk `Alī+—his courage (908) 176;
made prisoner (933) 557, 576;
_shiqdār_ of Koel 176.
+Kīchīk Bāqī+ _dīwāna_—suspended (911) 248;
killed at Qalāt-i-ghilzāī 248;
[♰911 AH.-1505 AD.].
+Kīchīk Begīm+ _Bāī-qarā Tīmūrid_, _Barlās Turk_, daughter of Ḥusain
and Pāyanda-sulṯān—refused in marriage to Mas`ūd _Mīrān-shāhī_ 265;
"afterwards" marries Multā Khwāja 266.[2905]
+Kīchīk Khwāja+—on `Askarī's service (935) 681, 682.
+Kīchīk Khwāja Beg+, son of Maulānā Muḥammad Ṣadru'd-dīn and elder
brother of Khwāja Kalān—in the left wing at Khūbān (905) 113;
killed at Qalāt-i-ghilzāī 248[2906];
[♰911 AH.-1505 AD.].
+Kīchīk Mīrzā+ _Mīrān-shāhī Tīmūrid_, _Barlās Turk_, son of Aḥmad
(Mīrzā Sayyidī) and Ākā _Bāī-qarā_—particulars 257.
+Kīchkīna+ _tunqṯār_—sent with orders to Tramontane begs (925) 406.
+Kīpa+ and +Kīpīk+, see Kūpūk.
Rāja +Kirtī+ _Gūālīārī_, see Karna.
+Kītīn-qarā Sulṯān+ _Aūzbeg_—in Balkh (932) 545-6;
at Jām (935) 622 (where in n. 1 read 935 for "934");
makes complaint to Bābur 649, 645 n. 1.
+Kitta Beg+ _Kohbur Chaghatāī_, son of Sayyidī Qarā—convoys
Yūsuf-khail chiefs to Bhīra (932) 461;
on Bābur's service 465-6, 468, 528, (933) 545, (935) 638;
wounded at Bīāna (933) 548.
+Kitta Māh+ and +Kīchīk Māh+, slaves of Muz̤affar-i-ḥusain
_Bāī-qarā_—offend Bābur by their performance (912) 304.
+Kūchūm Khān Sulṯān+—Kūchkūnjī—_Aūzbeg-Shaibān_,
_Chīnqīz-khānid_—particulars 632 n. 3;
☛ his force gathered at Qarshī (917) 353;
☛ a principal actor between 926 and 932 AH. 427;
his position in relation to `Ubaidu'l-lāh (935) 618 n. 6;
in the battle of Jām 622;
various accounts of his escape or death 623, 636;
his envoy to Bābur 631, 632;
his sons Abū-sa`īd and Pulād _q.v._; [♰937 AH.-1530-1 AD.].
+Kūkī-i+[1] +Bābā Qāshqa+, see Hājī Muḥammad Khān _Kūkī_.
+Kūkī+,[2907] paternal-uncle of the last-entered (A.N.)—on Bābur's
service (934) 589, (935) 674, 679;
in the battle of the Ghogrā 673; [♰940 AH.-1553 AD.?].
+Kūpuk Beg+, var. Kīpik, Kīpa (hunchbacked)—in Bābur's service (910)
237;
promoted (911) 253;
frost-bitten (912) 311;
in the centre at Qandahār (913) 335;
envoy to Mīrzā Khān (925) 405.
+Kūpuk Bī+ _Aūzbeg_ var. _ut supra_—blamed for three murders (906)
128;
given Khwārizm by Shaibānī (911) 256;
his son Qaṃbar-i-`alī _q.v._
+Kūpuk Mīrzā+ _Bāī-qarā_, Muḥammad Muḥsin, son of Ḥusain
and Laṯīf-sulṯān—parentage 262;
defeated by his father (904) 260;
does not join his brothers against Shaibānī (912) 296-7;
defeated and killed 329-30; [♰913 AH.-1507 AD.].
Sayyid +Lāchīn+—bearer of an urgent message from Bābur (932) 453.
Ḥaẓrat +Lām+, (Lāmak, Lāmakān), father of Noah—his reputed tomb, 210.
+Langar Khān+ _Janjūha_—on Bābur's service (925) 380, 381, 388-9, 412;
one of a raft-party 385;
waits on Bābur 391, 411.
+Langar Khān+ _Nīazāī Afghān_—one of a raft-party (925) 412;
waits on Bābur (926) 421.
+Laṯīf Begīm+ _Dūldāī Barlās Turk_—particulars 37 (where for "916"
read 917 AH.).
+Laṯīf-sulṯān Āghācha+ _Chār-shaṃba'ī_, a mistress of Ḥusain
_Bāī-qarā_—particulars 269;
her sons Abū'l-muḥsin and Kūpuk _q.v._;
[♰before 911 AH.-1506 AD.].
+Lope de Vega+—a popular use of his name resembling one of Nawā'ī's
287 n. 3.
+Luṯfī Beg+—measures the Ganges-bank on Bābur's journey (933) 659.
+Maghfūr+, see Faghfūr.
+Māh-afrūz+—married by Kāmrān (934) 619 n. 1.
+Mah-chūchūq+ _Arghūn_, daughter of Muqīm and Zarīf—marries Qāsim
Kūkūldāsh (913) 342, 199 n. 1, ☛ 365;
their daughter Nahīd _q.v._;
[♰_cir._ 975 AH.-1568 AD.].
+Mahdī Sulṯān+ _Aūzbeg_, the constant associate (brother?)
of Ḥamza—defeated by Ḥusain _Bāī-qarā_ (901) 58;
enters Bābur's service 59;
deserts 64;
defeats `Alī _Mīrān-shāhī_ and goes back to Shaibānī 65;
his Mughūls are disloyal to Bābur (904) 105;
serving Shaibānī (906) 131;
at Sar-i-pul 139;
at Ḥiṣār (910) 244;
☛ retires before Bābur (916) 352;
defeated and killed by him at Pul-i-sangīn (917) 18, 37, 262, 353,
354;
his Mīrān-shāhī wife 36;
his sons at Jām (935) 622;
[♰917 AH.-1511-12 AD.].
+Mahdī-Sulṯān+ _Auzbeg-Shaibān_?—his identity discussed 264 n. 1;
his son `Ādil and grandson `Āqil _q.v._
Sayyid +Mahdī Khwāja+, son of Mūsa Khwāja and third husband of Bābur's
sister Khān-zāda—Bābur's _dīwān-begī_ (916-7) 704 n. 3;
☛ dissuades Muḥammad-i-zamān from accepting Bābur's invitation to
Kābul (after 920) 364;
on Bābur's service (932) 468, 471;
in the left wing at Pānīpat 472, 473;
commands troops sent to seize Dihlī 475;
gifts made to him 527;
given Etāwa 530;
orders changed 531;
serves as an escort (933) 534, 537;
given Bīāna 539;
sends news of Sangā's approach 544;
joins Bābur quickly 548;
in the left wing at Kānwa 567;
given leave for Kābul 579;
host to Bābur near Etāwa (935) 644;
waits on him returning to Āgra 686;
displeases him 688 n. 2, 704 n. 2;
summoned to Court 689;
later particulars 644 n. 4, 688 n. 2, ☛ 692;
☛ discussion of a plan to make him Pādshāh 703-7;
☛ his name may be a gloss in the story 705;
his son Ja`far _q.v._;
his inscribed slab at Amīr Khusrau's tomb 704 n. 1;
his surmised Tīrmīzī descent 704;
his relation or servant Mīr Muḥammad (925) 381.
+Māhīm Begīm+, wife of Bābur—particulars 344 n. 3, 711, ☛ 712, 714;
☛ with Bābur during the Transoxus campaign (916-920) 358;
adopts Hind-āl (925) 374, 385, ☛ 715, App. L;
☛ visits Humāyūn in Badakhshān (928) 436;
goes to Āgra (935) 640 n. 2, 650 n. 2, 665, 686-7, 689 n. 2, 690;
☛ her influence probably misused on Humāyūn 694, 707;
meets him, sick, in Muttra (937) 701-2;
☛ her care of Bābur's Āgra tomb (937) 709;
[♰940 AH.-1533-4 AD.].
Sayyid +Maḥmūd+ _Aūghlāqchī_, _Mughūl_—forced to go on foot (910) 239.
+Maḥmūd Beg+ _Nūndākī_, _Barlās Turk_—particulars 51;
defends Ḥiṣār against Abā-bikr _Mīrān-shāhī_ ( 873) 51,
and against Ḥusain _Bāī-qarā_ (901) 58;
negociates with Ḥusain 61.
Sultān +Maḥmūd+ _Dūldāī Barlās Turk_—expelled from Andijān (900) 44;
turns informer (905) 125.
Mulla +Maḥmūd+ _Farābī_, associated with Khalīfa—reads the Qorān to
Bābur (925) 401;
rebukes a jest at Khalīfa's expense 416;
reads the _Khuṯba_ first for Bābur in Dihlī (932) 476;
reinforces the right wing [_tūlghuma_] at Kānwa (933) 569;
leads the Morning Prayer at Rāprī (935) 643 (where for "Muḥammad"
read Maḥmūd).
Sulṯān +Maḥmūd Ghāzī+ _Ghaznawī Turk_—his humble capital Ghaznī 217,
219;
his and his descendants' tombs 218;
Dost-i-nāṣir's tomb near his 396;
his dam and Bābur's gift from Hindūstān for its repairs 219;
Būt-khāk traditionally named from his idol-breaking 409 n. 3;
mentioned as a conqueror of Hindūstān 479;
contrast made between his position and Bābur's 479;
[♰421 AH.-1030 AD.].
Sulṯān +Maḥmūd Khān+ _Chaghatāī Chīngīz-khānid_, Khāqān of the
Mughūls, elder son of Yūnas and Shāh Begīm—succeeds
his father (892) 13;
his disaster on the Chīr (895) 31, 34, 39;
invades Farghāna (899) 13, 31;
thought of as a refuge for Bābur 29, (908) 178;
retires from Farghāna 32;
attempts Samarkand and is defeated (900) 52, 111, (905) 122;
takes Aūrā-tīpā (900) 55-6;
demands Andijān (903) 87;
is visited by Bābur (900) 54, (903) 90, 92, (907 and 908) 153-159;
sends help to Bābur (903) 90, 92, (904) 101, (906) 138, 139;
his men abandon Bābur (903) 91, 92;
he opposes Bābur (905) 115-6, 116;
moves out against Taṃbal (907) 154, 156;
numbers his army 154;
acclaims his standards 155;
ceremonies on his meeting his brother Aḥmad (908) 160;
goes with him against Taṃbal 161, 168, 171;
they number their armies 161;
retires to Tāshkīnt 172;
defeated at Archīān by Shaibānī (909) 7, 23, ☛ 182-3;
his præ-accession sobriquet Khāmka Khān 23;
his summer retreat in Farghānā 5;
his Mīrān-shāhī marriage (cir. 892) 13, 35;
retainers of his 25, 28;
former followers, deported (908) by Shaibānī,
return after his death (916) 351;
Bābur's comment on him as a soldier 91, 157,
and as a verse-maker 154;
☛ murdered with five young sons by Shaibānī 350;
[♰914 AH.-1509 AD.].
+Māḥmūd Khān+ _Lūdī Afghān_, son of Sikandar—fights for Sangā at Kānwa
(933) 562;
reported to have taken Bīhar (935) 639, 675;
one of three competitors for rule 651 n. 5;
gathers an army to oppose Bābur 651-2;
it breaks up 654;
is near the Son 658;
flees before Bābur's men 662;
referred to 664 n. 7, 679 n. 7;
on his title Sulṯān 652 nn. 2, 6, 653-4 n. 1;
[♰945 AH.-1543 AD.].
+Maḥmūd Khān+ _Nūḥānī Afghān_
—holding a district from Bābur;
taken by `Ālam Khān (932) 455, 456;
deserts `Ālam Khān;
waits on Bābur and given revenue from Ghāzīpūr 527;
sent against Etāma 530;
waits on Bābur (935) 659;
searches for a passage through the Ghogrā 668;
in the battle of the Ghogrā 669 (here _Ghazīpūrī_);
receives a grant on Bihār 676;
on service against Bīban and Bāyazīd 682.
+Maḥmūd Khān+ _shikdār_ of Sikandarpūr—collects boats for Bābur's
passage of the Ghogrā (935) 668.
+Maḥmūd Khān Sulṯān+ _Aūzbeg-Shaibān Chīngīz-khānid_—in the battle
of Sar-i-pul (Khwāja Kārdzan) (906) 139;
receives Qūndūz (910) 244;
his protection sought 196 n. 5;
dies 244;
[♰910 AH.-1504 AD.].
Sulṯān +Maḥmūd+ _Khīlīj_ Turk, ruler in Mālwā—particulars 482 (where
in n. 2 for "Gujrāt" read Mālwā);
his territory (916) 593;
his jewels (925 and 935) 612-3;
thought of by Raḥīm dād as a refuge 688 n. 2 (where for "Muḥammad"
read Maḥmūd);
[♰937 AH.-1531 AD.].
+Maḥmūd+ _kūndūr-sangak, pīāda_—killed fighting 68;
[♰902 AH.-1497 AD.].
Sulṯān +Maḥmud+ _mīr-akhẉur_, see Mīrzā Beg _fīrmgī-bāz_
(58 and n. 4).
Sulṯān +Maḥmūd Mīrzā+ _Ghāzī_, _Mīrān-shāhī Tīmūrid_, _Barlās Turk_,
son of Abū-sa`īd—particulars 45-51;
defeated by Ḥusain _Bāī-qarā_ (865 and 876), 46, 259-60, 268;
succeeds his brother Aḥmad (899) 40-1, 86;
alienates allegiance 41-2;
sends Bābur wedding-gifts (900) 43;
his death 27, 45, 50, 52;
his family joins Bābur (910) 189;
referred to 12 n. 2, 13 n. 5, 190, 194;
his Ḥiṣār house 93;
[♰900 AH.-1495 AD.].
Sayyid +Maḥmūd Ṣaifī+, Maulānā _`Arūẓī_—author of the
_`Arūẓ-i-saifī_—tutor of Bāī-sunghar _Mīrān-shāhī_ 111.
+Maḥmūd+ _Sarwānī_, son of Fatḥ Khan Khān-i-jahān—ordered to stay at
Court (933) 537.
+Maḥmūd Shāh+ _Ilyās_—his murder mentioned to illustrate a succession
custom of Bengal 483.
Sulṯān +Maḥmūd+ _Sharqī_, son of Jalālu'd-dīn—Bābur gives him the
title of Sulṯān (935) 652.
+Maḥmūd+, son of Muḥammad-i-makhdūmī—beheaded in Badakhshān 242;
[♰910 AH.-1504-5 AD.?].
(?) +Mahndī+ (415, 473), or Mindī or Hindī (235, 335)—kills an Afghān
trader (910) 235;
in the centre at Qandahār (913) 335;
wine first given to him (925) 415;
in the left wing [_tūlghuma_] at Pānīpat (932) 473.
Khwāja +Majdu'd-dīn Muḥammad+ _Khawāfī_—particulars 281, 282.
+Makan+ _Farmūlī_(?) _Afghān_—not submissive to Bābur (932) 529;
sent out of the way before Kānwa (933) 547;
his son Ḥasan _q.v._
+Makhdūm-i-`ālam+, Naṣrat Shāh's Governor in Ḥājīpūr—his defences on
the Gandak (935) 663.
Ḥaẓrat +Makhdūmī Nūrā+—mentioned 641 n. 1.
+Makhdūm-sulṯān Begīm+ _Mīrān-shāhī Tīmūrid_, _Barlās Turk_, daughter
of Maḥmūd and Zuhra—in Badakhshān (_cir._ 935) 48.
+Makhdūm-sulṯān Begīm+ _Qarā-gūz_, wife of `Umar Shaikh—particulars
18, 24.
+Malik-dād+ _Kararānī_ (_Karānī_)[2908]—reprieved (932) 477-8;
on service (933) 540, 582, (935) 682;
in the right wing at Kānwa (933) 557.
+Malik-i-muḥammad Mīrzā+ _Mīran-shāhī_, nephew of Abū-sa`īd—aspires
to rule (899) 41;
murdered 41;
his wife 47;
his house 146;
[♰899 AH.-1494 AD.].
+Maliks of Alangār+—their garden a halting-place (926) 424.
+Malik of Fān+—stingy to Bābur (906) 130.
+Malik-qulī+ _Kūnārī_—Bābur halts at his son's house (926) 423 (where
read qulī for "`Alī").
+Malik Sharq+—returns from service (935) 683.
+Mallū Khān+ of Mālwā—his tank at Chanderī 597 n. 8, 598.
+Mamāq Sulṯān+ _Aūzbeg-Shaibān Chīngīz-khānid_, son of Ḥamza—takes
service with Bābur (901) 58, 59;
☛ his death 353;
[♰917 AH.-1511-2 AD.].
+Māmūm Khalīfa+, _`Abbāsī_, son of Hārūnu'r-rashīd—his Observatory
and Tables, Author's Note 79;
[♰218 AH.-833 AD.].
+Mānik-chand+ _Chauhān Rājpūt_—killed at Kānwa 573;
[♰933 AH.-1527 AD.].
Rāja +Man-sing+ _Gūālīārī_, _Tūnwar Rājpūt_—his buildings 607, 608;
his son Bikramājīt _q.v._;
[♰924 AH.-1518 AD.].
Shāh +Manṣūr+ _bakhshī_—helps Shaibānī to take Herāt (913) 325;
given Khadīja Begīm to loot 326.
Shah +Manṣūr+ _Barlās_—on service (932) 465-6, 475, 530, (933) 545;
in the right centre at Pānīpat (932) 472, 473,
and at Kānwa (933) 565, 569;
his untimely praise of the Rājpūt army 548, 550.
Sulṯān +Manṣūr Khān+ _Chaghatāī Chīngīz-khānid_, eldest son of Aḥmad,
Alacha Khān—☛ defeats his half-brother Sa`īd (914) 349;
☛ mentioned as Khāqān of the Mughūls, Sa`īd as Khān in Kāshghar 427;
[♰950 AH.-1543 AD.].
+Manṣūr Mīrzā+ _Bāī-qarā_, _`Umar-shaikhī Tīmūrid_, _Barlās
Turk_—mentioned in his son Ḥusain's genealogy 256;
his not-reigning 256;
his wife Fīrūza and their children 256, 257;
his beg Walī _q.v._
+Manṣūr+ _Turkmān_—in the centre at Qandahār (913) 335.
Malik Shāh +Manṣūr+ _Yūsuf-zāī Afghān_, son of Sulaimān—envoy of his
tribe to Bābur (924) 371;
his daughter's
marriage with Bābur (925) 375, App. K;
waits on him 399, 400;
his brother T̤aus Khān and cousin Aḥmad _q.v._;
a follower 377.
+Maqṣūd+ _sūchī_, _shārbatchī_, _karg_—in the left centre at Qandahār
(913) 335, 338;
his tossing by a rhinoceros (_karg_) 400.
+Marghūb+ _qul_—in Mahāwīn (932) 523.
Mīān +Ma`rūf+ _Farmūlī Afghān_[2909]—disaffected to Ibrāhīm and
(later) to Bābur (932) 523;
his opposition 530;
flees 533-4;
his son Muḥammad (?) leaves him (934) 598;
his sons Muḥammad and Mūsa _q.v._
+Ma`rūf+ _Yaq`ūb-khaīl Dilah-zāk_ (_Dīlazāk_) _Afghān_—waits on Bābur
at `Alī-masjid (925) 394.
Shaikh +Maṣlaḥat+ _Khujandī_—his birthplace 8;
dreamed of by Bābur (906) 132;
his tomb visited by Tīmūr (790) 132 n. 2.
+Mastī+ _chuhra_—deals with a drunken man (925) 415;
intoxicated by beer (926) 423.
Sulṯān +Mas`ūd+ _Ghaznawī_—his tomb 218.
Sulṯān +Mas`ūd Mīrzā+ _Mīrān-shāhī Tīmūrid_, _Barlās Turk_, son of
Maḥmūd and Khān-zāda I—particulars 47, 48;
holding Ḥiṣār (900) 52;
opposes Ḥusain _Bāī-qarā_ and flees (901) 57-8, 130;
one of three besieging Samarkand; retires with his desired Barlās
bride 64;
quarrels with Khusrau Shāh (902) 71,
and with the Ḥiṣār begs (903) 93;
takes refuge with Ḥusain _Bāī-qarā_ 93, 95, 261, 265;
returns to Khusrau and is blinded by him 95, 50;
goes back to Ḥusain 95, 266;
mentioned as older than Bāī-sunghar 110;
meets Bābur in Ḥerāt (912) 302;
murdered by Aūzbegs (913) 267;
his wives Ṣāliḥa-sulṯān _Mīrān-shāhī_, and Sa`ādat-bakht
_Bāī-qarā_ _q.v._;
his betrothed (?) Kīchīk Begīm _Bāī-qarā_ _q.v._;
[♰913 AH.-1507 AD.].
Sulṯān +Mas`ūd Mīrzā+ _Kābulī_, _Shāh-rukhī_, _ut supra_—particulars
382;
his cherished followers, sons of Mīr `Alī Beg _q.v._;
his son `Alī _aṣghar_ _q.v._;
[deposed 843 AH.-1439-40 AD.].
Mullā +Mas`ūd+ _Sherwānī_, of Ḥusain _Bāī-qarā's_ Court—no particulars
284.
+Ma`ṣūma-sulṯān Begīm+ _Mīrān-shāhī Tīmūrid_, _Barlās Turk_, daughter
of Aḥmad and Habība-sulṯān, and wife of Bābur—particulars 36,
☛ 711;
her marriage arranged (912) 306, ☛ 714;
brought from Ḥerāt (913) 330;
married 339;
dies in child-bed and her name at once given to her child 36;
[♰_cir._ 915 AH.-1509 AD.].
+Ma`ṣūma-sulṯān Begīm+, _ut supra_, daughter of Bābur
and Ma`ṣuma-sulṯān (_supra_)—her birth 36;
with her father in the Transoxus campaign (916-920) 358;
her marriage (or betrothal) to Muḥammad-i-zamān _Bāī-qarā_
(923 or 924) 365;
gifts made to her servants (935) 633;
☛ in the family-list 705, 706.
+Maulānā Sayyidī+, or _Mashhadī_—his chronogram on Humāyūn's birth
(913) 344.
Shaikh +Mazīd Beg+, Bābur's first guardian—particulars 26, 27;
[♰ before 899 AH.-1494 AD.].
Mīr +Mazīd T̤aghāī+ _Kūnjī Mughūl_, brother or uncle
of Aīsān-daulat—takes part in a sally from Samarkand (906) 142;
wounded at Akhsī (908) 168;
rebels (921) 363, 397;
his relations, `Alī-dost, Sherīm, Qul-naẕr _q.v._;
[♰_cir._ 923 AH.-1517 AD.].
+Mazīd Beg Tarkhān+ _Arghūn_, son of Amīr Tarkhān Junaid (Ḥ.S. lith.
ed. iii, 359)—his retainer Khusrau Shāh 49;
his action in 873 AH. 51;
his brother `Āshiq-i-muḥammad _q.v._
Shaikh +Mazīd Kūkūldāsh+—envoy of Muḥammad-i-zamān to Bābur (925) 402.
+Medinī Rāo+ var. Mindī _etc._—particulars 593 n. 5;
his force at Kānwa (933) 562;
holding Chanderī (934) 483, 593;
Bābur negociates with him 594;
his house the scene of a supreme rite 595.
+Mihr-angez Begīm+ _Bāī-qarā Tīmūrid_, _Barlās Turk_—married as a
captive (913) 329 n. 1.
+Mihr-bān Khānīm+ (see _infra_)—gifts to and from Bābur (935) 631,
632, 641;
her husband Kūchūm _Aūzbeg_ and their son Pūlād _q.v._;
a verse seeming to be addressed to her (925) 402.
+Mihr-bānū Begīm+ _Mīrān-shāhī_, half-sister of Bābur (perhaps the
Khānīm last entered)—particulars 18.
+Mihr-nigār Khānīm+ _Chaghatāī Chingīz-khānid_, daughter of
Yūnas—particulars 21, 149;
joins Bābur in Kābul (911) 246;
visited by him after her disloyalty (912) 315;
goes to Badakhshān (913) 341;
dies a prisoner 21.
+Millī Sūrdūk+—reprieved from death (932) 477, 478.
+Mīnglī Bī Āghācha+, a mistress of Ḥusain _Bāī-qarā_—particulars 269;
her sons and daughters 262-3, 266.
+Mīnglīk Kūkūldāsh+—leaves Samarkand (907) 147.
+Minūchihr Mīrzā+ _Mīrān-shāhī Tīmūrid_, _Barlās Turk_, brother
of Abū-sa`īd—an attributed descendant 24;
his son Malik-i-muḥammad _q.v._
+Minūchihr Khān+ _Turk_—delayed in waiting on Bābur by a forcible
marriage (925) 386, 388;
on Bābur's service in Bhīra 389;
leading Daryā-khānīs (934) 589;
his relation Naẕar-i-`alī _Turk_ _q.v._
+Mīrak+—entrusted with building work (935) 642.
+Mīrak Kūr Dīwān+ (or Gūr)—in Ālā-qūrghān when Shaibānī took Herāt
(913) 328.
+Mīrān-shāh Mīrzā+ _Mīrān-shāhī Tīmūrid_, _Barlās Turk_, son of Aūlūgh
Beg _Kābulī_—rebels against his father and goes to Khusrau Shāh 95;
sent to Bāmīān 96.
+Mīrān-shāh Sulṯān Mīrzā+ _Tīmūrid_, _Barlās Turk_, 3rd son
of Tīmūr—mentioned in a genealogy 14;
his daughter's son Aḥmad _Bāī-qarā_ _q.v._;
[♰810 AH.-1407-8 AD.].
+Mīr Buzurg+ _Tīrmīẕī_—his daughter and granddaughter, wives of Maḥmūd
_Mīrān-shāhī_ 47-8, 49.
+Mīrīm+—Mīr Muḥammad?[2910]—adopted son of Aūzūn Ḥasan—killed fighting
against Bābur 170;
[♰908 AH.-1502 AD.].
+Mīrīm Dīwān+—_ut supra_—captured serving Bābur (904) 106;
released (905) 119;
discovers a rebel (912) 319.
+Mīrīm+ _Lagharī_—_ut supra_—leaves Bābur for home (903) 91;
captured serving Bābur (904) 106;
killed 167;
[♰904 AH.-1499 AD.].
+Mīrīm-i-nāṣir Beg+—_ut supra_—enters Bābur's service (904) 103;
one of a household-party (906) 131;
in the left centre at Qandahār (913) 335, 338;
at social gatherings (925) 385, 388;
on service 389, 391;
receives his dead brother's district 397.
+Mīrīm Tarkhān+—_ut supra_—drowned while serving Bāī-sunghar
_Mīrān-shāhī_ 74;
[♰903 AH.-1497 AD.].
+Mīr Khurd+ _bakāwal_—one of a boat-party (925) 388;
ordered to catch pheasants 404;
made Hind-āl's guardian 408;
on service (935) 640.
+Mīr Mughūl+, son of `Abdu'l-wahhāb _shaghāwal_—helps to defend
Andijān (903) 122;
his son killed (904) 102 (here Mughūl Beg);
sent by Tarkhāns to invite Bābur to Samarkand (905) 122, 123;
on service (925) 389 (here Beg Muḥammad _Mughūl_); measures
Bābur's marches (935) 658 (here Mughūl Beg);
in the battle of the Ghogrā 673-4 (here Mughūl-i `Abdu'l-wahhāb).
+Mīr Sang-tarāsh+—entrusted with building-work (935) 642.
+Mīrzā Beg+ _firīngī-bāz_—in Ḥusain _Bāī-qarā's_ service (901) 58.
+Mīrzā Beg Kaī-khusrawī+—in Ālā-qūrghān when Shaibānī took Herī
(913) 328.
+Mīrzā Beg T̤aghāī+, see Sl. `Alī M. T̤aghāī _Begchīk_.
+Mīrzā Beg Tarkhān+—in the left centre at Pānīpat (932) 472.
Wais +Mīrzā Khān+ _Mīrān-shāhī Tīmūrid_, _Barlās Turk_—Khān Mīrzā—son
of Maḥmūd and Sulṯān-nigār _Chaghatāī_—particulars 47;
sent by The Khān (Maḥmūd _Chaghatāī_) against Samarkand (905) 122;
in Tāshkīnt (908) 159;
at Khusrau Shāh's audience of submission (910) 193;
demands vengeance on him 194;
on service 234;
disloyal (912) 313-20;
captured and banished 320;
rejoins Bābur from Herāt (913) 331;
in the right wing at Qandahār 334;
his loot 338;
goes to Badakhshān on Shāh Begīm's insistance 340-1, 342;
his claim to rule in it 698 nn. 1-3;
serves as a refuge for Sa`īd _Chaghatāī_ (915) 349
and Ḥaidar _Dūghlāt_ 350;
sends Bābur news of Shaibānī's defeat at Merv (916) 350;
invites his help in recovering their ancestral lands _ib._;
messenger of Bābur to Ismā`īl _Ṣafawī_ 352;
helps him to defend Ḥiṣār (918) 359;
receives him plundered 362;
sends him an envoy (925) 402;
loses lands to Sa`īd _Chaghatāī_ 695;
☛ mentioned 427;
his death announced to Bābur (927) 433, 621 n. 5;
his titles 21 n. 5;
his guardians 26, 122;
[♰927 AH.-1521 AD.].
+Mīr-zādas+ of Khwāst—wait on Bābur (925) 399.
+Mīrzā-i-malū+ _Qārlūq_?—his son Shāh Ḥusain or Ḥasan _q.v._
+Mīrzā Mughūl+, son of Daulat-qadam-i-turk—conveys letters
(932) 526-7.
+Mohan+ _Mundāhir Rājpūt_—☛ a punitive expedition against him
(936) 700-1;
[♰936 AH.-1529 AD.?].
The +Mother+ of the Head-man of Dikh-kat—particulars 150.
Ibrāhīm _Lūdī's_ +Mother+—receives an allowance from Bābur (932) 478;
attempts to poison him (933) 541;
started under guard for Kābul 543;
her grandson sent to Kāmrān 544;
[♰933 AH.-1527 AD.].
+Mīrzā-qulī Kūkūldāsh+ (Mīrzā's servant?)—with Jahāngīr (_æt._ 9)
in Akhsī (899) 32;
one of three with Bābur (908) 166, 396;
fights for him in Akhsī 174-5;
one of eight in flight 177;
his horse fails 178;
at social gatherings (925) 385, 387, 388;
out with Bābur 403;
behaves in his own fashion 407.
+Mūātūkān+ _Chaghatāī Chīngīs-khānid_—mentioned in Yūnās Khān's
genealogy 19.
Bībī +Mubāraka+ _Yūsuf-zāī Afghān_, a wife of Bābur—referred
to 367 n. 3;
her courtship App. K;
asked and given in marriage 375, 376;
a couplet suiting her 411;
accompanies Mahīm to Āgra (935) 689 n. 5;
☛ her probable charge of conveying Bābur's body to Kābul 709-10;
her brother Jamāl App. K, xli;
[♰ early under Akbar 963 AH.-1556 AD.].
+Mubārak Khān+ _Jilwānī_—killed serving Bīban (935) 685.
+Mubārak Shāh+ _Muz̤affarī_—rises in Badakhshān against Shaibānī
(_cir._ 910) 242;
invites Nāṣir _Mīrān-shāhī_ 242, 243;
defeats Aūzbegs (912) 294-5;
defeats Nāṣir 321;
in force (913)
Author's Note 340;
invites Mīrzā Khān to Qila`i-ẕafar 21;
[♰_cir._ 913 AH.-1508 AD.].
+Mughūl Beg+, amīr of Ḥusain _Bāī-qarā_—particulars 275.
A +Mughūl servant+—aims an arrow at Bābur (912) 316.
+Mūḥammad+, the Prophet—reference to 75;
a saying on travel 184;
his edicts do not include the imposition of the _tamghā_ 555;
on the duty of a wazīr 556;
mentioned in the _farmān_ and the _fatḥ-nāma_ (933) 553, 559-574.
Khwāja +Muḥammad+, an old tailor of `Umar Shaikh's—allays anxiety
for Bābur (899) 30.
Mīr +Muḥammad-i-Mahdī Khwāja+—on service (925) 381.
Pahlawān Ḥajī +Muḥammad+—gifts made to him (935) 633.
Ustad Sulṯān +Muḥammad+, a Kābul builder—orders for his work
(935) 646-7.
+Muḥammad `Alī+, son of Ḥaidar _kikābdār_—brings a gift (925) 418;
summons Humāyūn (933) 537-8;
sent out for news (935) 661, 662.
+Muḥammad `Alī+ _bakhshī_—on Abū-sa`īd's service and defeated
by Ḥusain _Bāī-qarā_ (868) 259.
+Muḥammad `Alī+ _Jang-jang_—in the centre at Bajaur (925) 370;
at boat-parties 387, 388;
his servant's service 391, 392;
his districts 392-3, 530;
reinforced 412;
waits on Bābur 403, 419, (932) 458;
at Milwat (932) 460, 461;
at Hiṣār-fīrūza 465-6;
wounded 471;
in the van at Pānīpat 472;
on service 530, (933) 549, 550, 576, 582;
in the left wing at Kānwa 557;
acts unsuccessfully against Bīban and Bāyazīd (934) 589, 594, 598;
pursues from near Qānūj 601;
sent against Balūchīs (935) 638;
his brother Arghūn and sons Tardī-muḥammad and Nan-roz _q.v._
Khwāja +Muḥammad `Alī+ _kitābdār_—messenger to Khwāja Yaḥyā
(905) 124;
confuses a pass word (908) 164 (here _sāīrt-kīshī_ = _sārt_);
captured by Taṃbal 168;
fights against rebels (912) 315;
in the left centre at Qandahār (913) 335;
in charge of treasure 338;
at entertainments (925) 410, 411, 413;
☛ at Kalanūr (930) 442 (here Tājik = Sārt).
+Mūḥammad `Alī+ _Mubashir-beg_—stays with Bābur at a crisis
(903) 91;
at Khūbān (905) 113;
in the flight from Akhsī (908) 163;
captured by Taṃbal 168;
killed on service 252;
his servant Sulaimān 175;
[♰911 AH.-1506 AD.].
+Muḥammad `Alī+ _pīāda_—deserts Nāṣir _Mīrān-shāhī_ (913) 343.
Khwāja +Muḥammad `Alī T̤aghāī+—`Asas—brother of Mahīm Begīm?—in the
van at Qandahār (913) 335;
meets Bābur at a crisis (914) 346;
waits on Bābur (925) 399, 403;
answers a military summons 408;
the first to follow Bābur in renouncing wine (933) 552;
at various entertainments (925) 387, 388, 400, 412, (926) 423,
(935) 683;
on his identity 522 n. 4;
☛ in charge of Bābur's Āgra tomb (937) 709.
Khwāja +Muḥammad-amīn+—out with Bābur (910) 230;
deserts from Qandahār (913) 343;
at a garden-wine-party (925) 418;
his servant Imām-i-muḥammad _ib._
+Muḥammad-āmīn Khān+ _Qāzānī_, _Jūgī Chīngīz-khānid_—Shaibānī sends
him a Herāt musician 292;
[♰925 AH.-1519 AD.].
Ustād +Muḥammad-amīn+ _jībachī_—attention for him desired from Khwāja
Kalān (935) 647.
+Muḥammad+ _Andijānī_—sent to Kābul (912) 313-4.
+Muḥammad+ _Arghūn_—with Mughūls against Bābur (904) 106.
Sayyid +Muḥammad-i-aūrūs+ _Arghūn_, son of Aūrūs—particulars 279.
Shāh Sulṯān +Muḥammad+ _Badakhshī_—his claim to Greek descent and his
six daughters 22.
(Cf. T.R. trs. p. 107.)
Mīir +Muḥammad+ _Badakhshī_ of Ishkīmīsh—particulars 288-9;
waits on Bābur (917) 289.
+Muḥammad+ _bakhshī_—on service at Qandahār (913) 338.
+Muḥammad Bāqir Beg+ _Andijānī_—with Jahāngīr (899) 32;
disloyal to Bābur (900) 44;
with Bāī-sunghar (902) 65;
leaves Bābur for home (903) 91;
in Akhsī and seen in the flight (908) 189, 181;
☛ 182;
his son Dost _q.v._
+Muḥammad Barandūq Beg+ _Barlās Turk_—particulars 270;
on Ḥusain _Bāī-qarā's_ service (901) 58;
retorts on Khusrau Shāh (910) 243;
retainer of Muz̤affar-i-ḥusain _Bāī-qarā_ (911) 274, 293;
acts against Shaibānī (912) 296, 297;
at a feast 298;
concerning Bābur's reception at the Herī Court 299;
presses him to winter in Herī 307;
his plan of defence rejected (913) 326.
+Muḥammad Beg+ _Begchīk_, brother of Ayūb—in the right wing
at Qandahār (913) 334.
Pahlawān +Muḥammad Bū-sa`īd+—particulars 292.
Shāh +Muḥammad+ _dīwāna_, receives a fugitive Bāī-qarā 263;
his son brings Bābur news of Bīban and Bāyazīd (935) 681.
+Muḥammad-dost T̤aghāī+ _Kūnjī Mughūl_, son of `Alī-dost—with Bābur
(900) 53;
remains at a crisis (903) 91;
captured by Taṃbal (904) 106;
released (905) 119;
his self-aggrandizment 119;
deserts to Taṃbal 125;
negociates for him with Bābur (908) 173;
blinded by the Aūzbegs 125.
Sayyid +Muḥammad+ _Dūghlāt Ḥiṣārī_—enters Bābur's service (901) 58,
59;
his Mughūls desert Bābur (904) 105;
conspires against Taṃbal and goes to The Khān (Maḥmūd) (907) 154;
sent with Bābur against Taṃbal (908) 161.
Sulṯān +Muḥammad+ _Dūldāī_, _Barlās Turk_—Bābur's messenger to Ḥusain
_Bāī-qarā_ (912) 294;
returns with news of Ḥusain's death 295;
in the right centre at Qandahār (913) 335;
waits on Bābur from Bajaur (925) 401;
overtakes him at Jūī-shāhī 410;
at a wine-party _ib._;
at Ḥiṣār-fīrūza (932) 465-6;
in the right-wing at Pānīpat 472;
given Qanūj 530;
abandons it (933) 557;
unwilling to return there 582;
sent against Balūchīs (935) 638;
ordered to Āgra 676.
Shāh +Muḥammad+ _Farmūlī Afghān_, son of Ma`rūf—particulars 675;
Bābur gives him Sārūn (934) 603, 675;
waits on Bābur (935) 675, 679.
Sulṯān +Muḥammad+ _Galpuk_, _Itārachī Mughūl_—opposing Bābur
(908) 165.
Shaikh +Muḥammad+ _Ghaus̤_—particulars 539;
helps Bābur to gain Gūālīār (933) 539-40;
intercedes for Raḥīm-dād (936) 688, 690.
+Muḥammad Ḥaidar Mīrzā+ _Dūghlāt_, see Ḥaidar.
+Muḥammad Ḥusain Mīrzā Kūrkān+ _Dūghlāt_, receives Aūrā-tīpā
(900) 56;
effects Qāsim _qūchīn's_ dismissal (903) 90;
sent by The Khān (Maḥmūd) to help Bābur 92;
lends him Pashāghar (904) 97,
and Dikh-kat (907) 148;
sent against Samarkand (905) 122;
keeps back Aūrā-tīpā from Bābur (907) 149;
goes to him in Kābul (911) 246;
incites a Mughūl revolt against him (912) 313-17;
captured and banished 319;
ungrateful for leniency _ib._;
Shaibānī avenges Bābur _ib._;
his son Ḥaidar's excuses for him 317 n. 3;
his wife Khūb-nigār, son Ḥaidar, daughter Ḥabība _q.v._;
[♰914 AH.-1508 AD.].
+Muḥammad Ḥusain+, brother of Abū'l-ḥasan _qūr-begī_—joins Mīrzā Khān
(912) 315;
on Bābur's service (925) 413 (here _qūrchī_).
+Muḥammad-i-ḥusain Mīrzā+ _Bāī-qarā Tīmūrid_, _Barlās Turk_, son of
Ḥusain and Mīnglī—particulars 262, 268;
hostile to his father (903) 94;
his flight into `Irāq 262.
Mīr +Muḥammad+ _jāla-bān_—examines a ford through the Sind-water
(Indus) (925) 378;
selects a site for a pontoon-bridge across the Ganges (934) 599;
examines fords above Aūd (Oudh) 602;
advises about crossing the Sarū (Goghrā) 674;
rewarded for his pontoon-bridge (935) 635;
his raft-mishaps (925) 407, 423.
+Muḥammad Jān+, Najm S̤ānī's Lord-of-the-Gate—☛ envoy to Bābur and
discontented with his reception (917) 355.
+Muḥammad Khalīl+ _akhta-begī_—sent raiding (933) 538;
at Kānwa (933) 569.
+Muḥammad Khān+ _Chaghatāī Chīngīz-khānid_—mentioned in Yūnas Khān's
genealogy 19.
+Muḥammadī Kūkūldāsh+, kinsman of Bābā Qashqa (?—_q.v._)—seen with
Bābur by Khān-zāda (before 907 and in 916) 18;
on service at Milwat (932) 458, 460;
in the right centre at Pānīpat 472, 473, 475;
sent against Dūlpūr 530;
receives Samāna 528;
in the right wing at Kānwa (933) 566, 569, 576;
sends news of a second[2911] Balūchī incursion (935) 605 n. 3, 638;
reports action 675;
ordered to Āgra 676;
at various entertainments (925) 385, 388, 412.
+Muḥammad-i-makhdūmī+—his son Maḥmūd _q.v._
+Muḥammad Ma`ṣum Mīrzā+ _Bāī-qarā Tīmūrid_, _Barlās Turk_, son of
Ḥusain and Mīnglī—particulars 264, 269;
his wife Bega _Mīrān-shāhī_ _q.v._;
[♰907 AH.-1501-2 AD. See ḤS. iii, 290].
Mullā +Muḥammad+ _Maẕhab_—profers support to Bābur (932) 463;
Bābur's envoy to Bengal (935) 637.
+Muḥammad Mazīd Tarkhān+ _Arghūn Chīngīz-khānid_, son of
Aūrdū-būghā—particulars 39;
has charge of Nāṣir _Mīrān-shāhī_ (899) 32;
leaves Samarkand after the Tarkhān rebellion (901) 62;
displeases `Alī _Mīrān-shāhī_ (905) 121;
plotted against _ib._;
invites Mīrzā Khān and Bābur 122, 123;
welcomes Bābur 40, 124;
joins Khusrau Shāh (906) 129;
fights for Bābur at Sar-i-pul (Khwāja Kārdzan) 139;
takes refuge with Khusrau Shāh 141;
at Kūl-i-malik (918) ☛ 357;
killed there 39;
his house a post of Bābur's 143;
[♰918 AH.-1512 AD.].
Sulṯān +Muḥammad Mīrzā+ _Bāī-qarā Tīmūrid_, _Barlās Turk_—parentage
257.
Sayyid +Muḥammad Mīrzā+ _Dūghlāt_, uncle of Ḥaidar—sent to help Bābur
(906) 139;
envoy of Sa`īd _Chaghatāī_ to him (917) 22;
escorts his niece to Kāshghar _ib._
Sulṯān +Muḥammad Mīrzā+ _Mīrān-shāhī_, grandson of Tīmūr—his son
Abū-sa`īd _q.v._
Sultan +Muḥammad Mīrzā+ _Mīrān-shāhī Tīmūrid_—his father Abū-sa`īd
_q.v._
+Muḥammad+ _mīskīn_, _Dūldāī Barlās_, son of Ḥafiẓ—captured
by Bābur's men (903) 72.
+Muḥammad Muḥsin+ _Bāī-qarā_, see Kūpūk.
+Muḥammad Muqīm Beg+ _Arghūn_, son of Ẕū'n-nūn—takes possession
of Kābul (908) 195 n. 3;
loses it to Bābur (910) 198, 199, 227, 246 n. 3;
loses Qalāt-i-ghilzāī to him (911) 248-9;
seeks his co-operation against Shaibānī (913) 330;
withdraws and fails in etiquette 331-2;
opposed to Bābur at Qandahār 333-7;
flees in defeat 339.
Khwāja +Muḥammad Muqīm+ _Herāwī_, father of Niẕāmu'd-dīn Aḥmad the
historian—☛ mentioned 691 n. 1, ☛ 692;
☛ his story of a plan to supersede Humāyūn as Pādshāh
in 937 AH. 703;
discussion of it 704-7;
its incredibility as told 704-5.
+Muḥammad Mūmin+ _Bāī-qarā Tīmūrid_, _Barlās Turk_, son
of Badī`u'z-zamān—Astarābād claimed for him (902) 69;
defeated by an uncle 71 (where _delete_ the _`aīn_ from his name);
his murder attributed to Khadīja Begim 268.
Shaikh +Muḥammad+ _Muṣalmān_, ancestor of the Farmūlī Shaikh-zādas—his
tomb and descendants 220.
Sulṯān +Muḥammad Muz̤affar+ _Gujrātī_, _Tānk Rājpūt_—particulars 481-2;
his death 481;
his sons Sikandar Shāh and Bahādur Khān _q.v._;
[♰932 AH.-1526 AD.].
+Muḥammad+ _Nūḥānī_, see Bihār Khān.
Mullā +Muḥammad+ _Pargharī_—loquacious (932) 453.
+Muḥammad-i-qāsim+ _Barlās_—comes accidentally on Bābur (925) 417.
+Muḥammad-i-qāsim Mīrzā+ _Arlāt_, son of Abū'l-qāsim
(Ḥ.S. iii, 327)—his Bāī-qarā wife and their child 265;
his sons (?) Bābur and Murād _q.v._
+Muḥammad-i-qāsim Mīrzā+ _Bāī-qarā Tīmūrid_, son of Ḥusain
and Pāpā—parentage 265.
+Muḥammad-i-qāsim+ _Nabīra_, grandson of Muḥammad _Sīghal_—made
prisoner when opposing Bābur (903) 72.
+Muḥammad-i-qāsim+ _Qībchāq Turk_, son of Bāqī _Chaghānīānī_—leaves
his family in Ajar (910) 191;
father (?) of Aḥmad-i-qāsim _q.v._
+Muḥammad-qulī+ _qūchīn_—Mīr Shāh _qūchīn_—helps Bāī-sunghar's escape
from Samarkand (901) 62;
with Bābur at Samarkand and wounded (902) 68;
stays with him at a crisis (903) 91;
captured (904)
and released by Taṃbal (905) 119;
in the van at Sar-i-pul (Khwāja Kārdzan) (906) 139;
besieged in Samarkand 142-144;
with Bābur when surprised by Taṃbal (908) 163;
in the left wing at Qandahār (913) 334;
in a raid (925) 403.
+Muḥammad+ _qūrchī_, retainer of Khusrau Shāh—rises against the Aūzbeg
occupation of Badakhshān (910) 242;
expels Nāṣir _Mīrān-shāhī_ (912) 321;
keeping up his head (913) 340.
Ustād +Muḥammad+ _sabz-banā_—his son Banā'ī _q.v._
Maulānā +Muḥammad Ṣadru'd-dīn+ _Andijānī_—his six sons' service
to Bābur 370 n. 2;
his sons Khwājaka Mullā-i-ṣadr, Kīchīk Khwāja, Khwāja Kalān _q.v._
+Muḥammad Ṣāliḥ Mīrzā+ _Khwārizmī_, author of the _Shaibānī-nāma_—in
Khwāja Yaḥyā's service[2912] and waits on Bābur (901) 64;
leaves Samarkand with the Tarkhāns (905) 121;
enters Shaibānī's service 65 n. 3;
on Shaibānī's service (910) 196 n. 5;
couplets of his quoted by Bābur 120-1, 448;
[♰941 AH.-1534-5 AD.].
Ustād Shāh +Muḥammad+ _sang-tarāsh_—cuts an inscription (913) 343;
receives orders for work (933) 585, 606, (935) 642.
+Muḥammad Shāh+ _Khīljī Turk_, son of Nāṣiru'd-dīn of Mālwā—takes
Chanderī and seeks Ibrāhīm _Lūdī's_ protection (916) 593;
his young son Aḥmad _q.v._;
[♰931 AH.-1524 AD.?].
+Muḥammad Shāh Pādshāh+ _Mīrān-shāhī Tīmūrid_, _Barlās Turk_—his
change of name for an orange 511 n. 4;
[♰1161 AH.-1748 AD.].
+Muḥammad+ _Shaibānī_, see Shaibānī.
Shaikh +Muḥammad-i Shaikh Bhakarī+ (?)—on service (933) 382.
Shāh +Muḥammad Shaikh-zāda+ _Farmūlī Afghān_, son of Ma`rūf—leaves his
Afghān associates (934) 598 (no name here);
favoured by Bābur 603, 675;
compelled to act with Bīban and Bāyazīd (935) 675;
writes dutifully to Bābur _ib._;
waits on `Askarī and Bābur _ib._ and 679.
+Muḥammad Sharīf+ _munajjim_ (astrologer)—comes to Kābul (925) 399
and to Āgra (933) 551;
augurs defeat at Kānwa 551, 576;
offers congratulations on victory, blamed and banished with
a gift 576.
Sulṯān +Muḥammad+ _Sīghal_, _Chaghatāī_—his descendants
Muḥammad-i-qāsim and Ḥasan _q.v._
(Cf. 66 n. 4 and Ḥ.S. lith. ed. iii, 275 for tribe and title resp.).
+Muḥammad Sulṯān+ _bakhshī_—left behind to catch pheasants (925) 404;
in a night-attack on Ibrāhīm's camp (932) 471;
in the left wing at Pānīpat 472;
has custody of the cook who poisoned Bābur (933) 542;
staff-officers at Kānwa 568;
host to Bābur (935) 629;
introduces a Kābul messenger 644;
brings news of Maḥmūd _Lūdī_ 653-4;
writes that Bābur's family is on its way from Kābul 657;
waits on Bābur 606;
his servant Shāh Qāsim _q.v._
Sulṯān +Muḥammad Sulṯān+ _Chaghatāī Chīngīz-khānid_—Sulṯānīm
and Khānika—eldest son of The Khān (Maḥmūd)—sent to help Bābur
(903) 92;
his guardian and he oppose Bābur (905) 116;
his part in acclaiming the standards (907) 155;
goes out to meet his uncle Aḥmad (Alacha Khān) (908) 159;
☛ murdered 350;
[♰914 AH.-1508 AD.].
+Muhammad Sulṯān-i-jahāngīr Mīrzā+ _Jahāngīrī Tīmūrid_,
_Barlās Turk_—Samarkand given to him by his grandfather Tīmūr 85;
his college 78.
+Muḥammad Sulṯān Mīrzā+ _Bāī-qarā Tīmūrid_, _Barlās Turk_, son of Wais
and Sulṯānīm—particulars 265;
waits on Bābur at Kalānūr (932) 458;
on Bābur's service 468, 471, 475, 530, 534, (933) 545, 548, 582,
(934) 589, (935) 682;
in the left wing at Pānīpat (932) 472
and at Kānwa (933) 567, 570;
gifts to him 527;
given Qānūj 582;
joins Bābur (935) 651;
in the battle of the Ghogrā 671, 672, 674;
☛ mentioned 706 (where wrongly classed with half-Tīmūrids);
once owner of the Elphinstone Codex 706 n. 3.
Beg +Muḥammad+ _ta`alluqchī_—conveys gifts to Humāyūn (Muḥ. 934)
and returns (Rabī`I, 935) 621;
Bābur complains of his detention.
+Muḥammad T̤āhir+—captured (903) 74.
Muḥammad +Tīmūr Sulṯān+ _Aūzbeg-Shaibān_, _Chīngīz-khānid_, son of
Shaibānī—at Samarkand (906) 128;
at Sar-i-pul (Khwāja Kārdzan) 139;
defeats and kills two Bāī-qarā Mīrzās (913) 263, 329-30;
leaves Samarkand on Bābur's approach (917) 354;
at Ghaj-davān (918) 360;
his marriages with captives 24, 36, 328 n. 1.
Mullā +Muhammad+ _ṯālib-mu`ammāī_—an enigmatist of Ḥusain
_Bāī-qarā's_ Court—particulars 201 n. 7[2913];
a couplet of his quoted 201-2;
[♰918 AH.-1512 AD.].
Pahlawān Ḥājī +Muḥammad+ _tufang-andāzī_—receives gifts (935) 633.
Mullā +Muḥammad+ _Turkistānī_, retainer of Khusrau Shāh—makes Qūndūz
safe for Shaibānī Khān (910) 192.
+Muhammad-i-`ubaidu'l-lāh+, son of Aḥrārī, see Khwāja Khwāja.
Sulṯān +Muḥammad Wais+—waits on Bābur (902) 66;
runs away and is suspected (907) 156;
serving Bābur at Akhsī (908) 174;
his retainer Kīchīk `Alī _q.v._
+Muḥammad Walī+ Beg—particulars 277;
on Ḥusain Bāī-qarā's service (901) 57, (902) 70, (903) 94.
+Muḥammad-i-yūsuf+ _Aūghlāqchī_, elder son of Yūsuf—waits on Bābur
(905) 125.
Mīr +Muḥammad-i-yūsuf+—particulars 285;
waits on Bābur in Herāt (912) 285;
Shaibānī instructs him in exposition (913) 329.
+Muḥammad+ _Zaitūn_[2914]—opposing Bābur (932) 523;
written to and makes false excuse 529, 530;
waits on Bābur (933) 540;
sent out of the way before Kānwa 547.
Khwāja +Muḥammad Ẕakariya+,[2915] son of Yaḥyā—murdered 128;
[906 AH.-1500 AD.].
+Muḥammad-i-zamān Mīrzā+ _Bāī-qarā Tīmūrid_, _Barlās Turk_, grandson
and last surviving heir of Ḥusain—particulars 261, 269 n. 6, 279;
spared by Shaibānī 263;
his wanderings and association with Khwānd-amīr 364-5, 463 n. 3;
sent to Bābur and married to his daughter Ma`ṣūma-sulṯān (923-4) 365;
in Balkh 365, 522;
dutiful letters and tribute sent by him to Bābur (925) 385, 402,
☛ 427, ☛ (926-932) 428;
with Bābur (935) 606, 631, 639, 659;
objects to the Bihār command 661-2;
does homage for it and is given _insignia_ of royalty 662, ☛ 706;
starts for Bihār but is recalled 663, 664;
in the battle of the Ghogrā 668, 669, 671;
☛ given Jūnpūr 682;
pursues Bīban and Bāyazīd 682;
grounds for surmising in Bābur the intention to leave him as ruler
in Hindūstān 705-7;
☛ of his later uprisings against Humāyūn 714 n. 1;
[♰drowned at Chausa 946 AH.-1539 AD.].
+Muḥibb-i-`alī Khān+ _Barlās Turk_, son of Khalīfa—☛ marries Nāhid
Begim (930) 443;
in a night-attack (932) 471;
in the left centre at Pānīpat 472, 473
and at Kānwa (933) 565;
unhorsed in `Abdu'l-`azīz' discomfiture 549-50;
on service (934) 601.
+Muḥibb-i-`alī+ _qūrchī_—on Khusrau Shāh's service (901) 60, (902) 71;
joins Bābur (910) 188;
Bābur's praise of him (912) 307, 308;
loyal 313, (914) 346;
in the van at Qandahār (913) 335;
collector of an impost (925) 384;
at Ḥiṣār-fīrūza (932) 465-6;
at an entertainment 410.
+Muḥibb-sulṯān+ _Mīrān-shāhī Tīmūrid_, _Barlās Turk_, daughter
of Maḥmūd—particulars 48, 49.
Sāqī +Muḥsin+—wrestles (935) 660.
+Muḥsin+ _Dūldāī Barlās_—at Chanderī (934) 590.
+Muīnu'd-dīn al Zamjī+—omitted (or lost) from Bābur's list of Herāt
celebrities 283 n. 1.
+Mujāhid Khān+ _Multānī_—on Bābur's service (933) 540.
The +Mulla+, see `Abdu'r-raḥmān _Jāmī_.
+Mullā Bābā+ _Farkatī_—brings Bābur news of Shaibānī (913) 343.
+Mullā Bihishtī+—conveys gifts to Hind-al (935) 642.
+Mullā Bābā+ _Pashāgharī_, _Chaghatāī_—comes into one of Bābur's
dreams (906) 132;
at Sar-i-pul 141;
envoy for Bābur to Khusrau Shāh (910) 188;
loyal (912) 313, (914) 346;
☛ disloyal in Ghaznī (921) 363;
deserts Humāyūn (932) 545;
joins the Aūzbegs;
his proceedings 546;
his brother Bābā Shaikh _q.v._;
his Kābul garden 315.
+Mullā Hijrī+, a poet—waits on Bābur (907) 153.
+Mullā Kabīr+—his devious route to wait on Bābur (925) 399.
+Mullā Khwājakā+—prescribes for Bābur (925) 399 (where read
Khwajakā).
+Mullā Khwāja-i Sayyid Ātā+—his Bāī-qarā wife 265-6.
+Mullā Tabrīzī+—conveys gifts (935) 642.
+Mullā T̤aghāī+—envoy to Bābur of Abū-sa`īd _Aūzbeg_ (935) 631, 632,
641.
+Mūmin+—suspected of the death of Nūyān Kūkūldāsh (907) 151-2.
+Mūmin-i-`alī+ _tawāchī_—conveys orders (932) 451;
conveys the Kānwa Letter-of-victory to Kābul (933) 580.
+Mūmin Ātākā+—out with Bābur (925) 404;
on service (932) 465, 534;
in the left wing (_tūlghuma_) at Kānwa (933) 568, 569;
his brethren (935) 679.
Khwāja +Munīr+ _Aūshī_—incites attack on Bukhāra (902) 65.
Sayyid +Murād+ _Aūghlāqchī_[2916]—referred to as father of Yūsūf 39
and Ḥasan 279;
[♰874 AH.-1469-70 AD.].
+Mūrād Beg+ _Bāyandarī Turkmān_—his joining Ḥusain _Bāī-qarā_
(908) 280, 336.
+Murād Mīrzā+ _Arlāt_, son of Muḥammad-i-qāsim and Rābi`a-sulṯān
_Mīrān-shāhī_—his Bāī-qarā (?) marriage 266.[2917]
+Murād+ _Qajar Turkmān_, _qūrchī_—`Irāqī envoy to Bābur (935) 666,
688, 689, n. 4.
Mullā Khwāja +Murshid+ _`Irāqī_—envoy of Bābur to Ibrāhīm _Lūdī_
(925) 385, ☛ 427 n. 3;
made Dīwān of Bihār (935) 661, 662.
Mīr +Mūrtāẓa+—particulars 284.
+Musā Khwāja+—whispers of Mughūl rebellion (914) 346.
Malik +Musā+ _Dilah-zāk (Dilazāk) Afghān_—receives gifts (925) 394;
brings tribute 409.
+Musā Sulṯān+ _Farmūlī_, son of Ma`rūf—waits on Bābur (935) 685;
in the battle of the Ghogrā 669.
+Muṣṯafa Shaikh-zāda+ _Farmūlī Afghān_—on service for Ibrāhīm _Lūdī_
(932) 527;
his brother Bāyazīd _q.v._;
[♰932 AH.-1525-6 AD.].
+Muṣṯafa+ _Rūmī_, _tawāchī_—his culverin-discharge at Pānīpat
(932) 474;
has carts made for defence at Kānwa (933) 550;
at Kānwa 550, 568-9;
at the Gangas bridge (934) 599;
in the battle of the Ghogrā (935) 668, 669, 670.
+Mū'yad+—leading Daryā-khānīs for Bābur (933) 582.
Shāh +Muz̤affar+—particulars 291;
his artist-training owed to Nawā'ī 272.
+Muz̤affar+ _Barlās_—particulars 270-1.
Sulṯān +Muz̤affar+ _Gujrātī_—his death and successor 534 (where for
[Jumāda II] "and" read 932);
[♰932 AH.-1526 AD.].
+Muz̤affar-i-ḥusāin Mīrzā+ _Bāī-qarā Tīmūrid_, _Barlās Turk_, son
of Ḥusain and Khadīja—particulars 262, 268;
serving under his father (901) 58, (902) 71;
given Astarābād (902) 61, 69;
made joint-ruler in Herī (911) 292-3;
combines in action against Shaibānī (912) 296-7
and withdraws 301;
fails in etiquette 297;
in social relation with Bābur 298, 299, 300, 302-3;
plain speech to him from Qāsim Beg 304;
a false report of him in Kābul 313;
irresolute in opposing Shaibānī (913) 326;
his army defeated 327;
flees (to Astarābād) abandoning his family _ib._;
his wife Khān-zāda Khānīm _q.v._
Sulṯān +Muz̤affar Shāh+ _Ḥabshī_, mentioned in illustration of a
Bengal custom 483.
Mīrzā Yār-i-aḥmad +Najm S̤ānī̤+, wazīr of Ismā`īl _Ṣafawī_—his killing
Sohrāb _Bāī-qarā_ 262;
☛ his commission to correct Bābur (918) 355, 359;
☛ his massacre in Qarshī 360;
☛ slain at Ghaj-dawān 262 n. 4, 361;
Bābur's alleged failure to support him 361;
his retainer Muḥammad Jān _q.v._;
[♰918 AH.-1512 AD.].
+Nādir Shāh+ _Afshārid_—his birthplace (mod.) Qalāt-i-nādirī 329
n. 4;
[♰1160 AH.-1747 AD.].
+Nahār+, son of Ḥasan Khān _Mewātī_—released by Bābur from capture
(933) 545;
returns to Court 578;
escapes 581.
Nāhid Begīm—☛ her marriage (930) 443.
+Na`man Chuhra+—captured by Taṃbal (908) 168;
at a wine-party (925) 385.
Gurū +Nānak Shāh+—his relations with Daulat Khān _Yūsuf-khail_ and
traditionally with Bābur 461 n. 3;
[♰946 AH.-1539 AD.].
Napoleon—☛ his problem of creed in Egypt less difficult than that of
Bābur with Shī`a support 356.
+Nārpat Hāra+ _Chauhān Rājpūt_—his force at Kānwa (933) 562.
+Nāṣir Beg+—makes over Andijān to Bābur (904) 103;
counsels him (908) 165;
captured by Taṃbal 168;
his sons Dost-, Mīrīm-, and Shāhīm-i-nāṣir; his brother-in-law Aūzūn
Ḥasan _q.v._
+Naṣīr Khān+ _Nūḥānī Afghān_—particulars 659 n. 4;
disaffected to Ibrāhīm _Lūdī_ and unsubmissive to Bābur (932) 523;
discussion of his movements 530;
assembles a force but flees before Bābur's 533-4, 544;
his son Farīd _q.v._
+Nāṣir Mīrzā+ _Mīrān-shāhī Tīmūrid_, _Barlās Turk_, son of
`Umar Shaikh—particulars 17;
in Kāsān (_æt._ 8) (899) 32;
taken to his uncle Aḥmad 32;
meets Bābur (908) 172, 178;
at the capture of Kābul (910) 198, 199;
Zurmut hostility 220;
given Nīngnahār 227;
misconduct 229, 241-2;
accepts an invitation to Badakhshān 242-3;
has an imbroglio with Khusrau Shāh 243;
clans which had left him 255;
defeats Aūzbegs (912) 295;
defeated by Badakhshīs and goes to Bābur 321;
Bābur's reflections on the situation 322;
out with Bābur (913) 324;
in the van at Qandahār 335;
his loot and command and beleaguerment in Qandahār 339-40;
goes to Ghaznī 343, 344;
☛ given Kābul (917) 363;
☛ returns it to Bābur (920) 363;
dies in Ghaznī (921) 363;
his sister Mihr-bānū and wife Qarā-gūz _Bāī-qarā_ _q.v._;
[♰921 AH.-1515 AD.].
Khwāja +Naṣīru'd-dīn+ _T̤ūsī_—his Astronomical Tables 79;
[♰672 AH.-1274 AD.].
Sulṯān +Nāṣiru'd-dīn+ _Khīljī Turk_, Sulṯān of Malwā—events following
his death 593;
his son Maḥmūd _q.v._;
[♰916 AH.-1510 AD.].
+Naṣrat Shāh+ _Ḥusain-shāhī_, Sulṯān in Bengal—particulars 482-3;
reported friendly to Bābur (935) 628, 637;
sends him an envoy 637;
negociations with him 661, 664, 676;
referred to as at peace with Bābur 665;
mentioned 667, 677, 679;
his troops defeated on the Ghogrā 671-4;
peace made 676;
[♰939 AH.-1532 AD.].
+Naṣrat Shāh+ _Tūghlūq Turk_—receives Dihlī from Tīmūr 481 n. 4.
+Naurang Beg+—☛ punishes the Mundāhirs (936) 700, 701.
+Nau-roz+, brother of Muḥammad-`alī _Jang-jang_—at Bajaur (925) 370.
+Naukar Hindū+, see Tūka.
+Naẕar-i-`alī+ _Turk_—on Bābur's service (925) 389;
his relation Minūchihr _q.v._
+Naẕar Bahādur+—killed on Khusrau Shāh's service 93, 94, 279;
[♰903 AH.-1497-8 AD.].
+Naẕar Bahādur+ _Aūzbeg_—one of five champions worsted by Bābur in
single combat (914) 349 n. 1.
Shāh +Naẕar+ _Turkmān_—in the centre at Qandahār (913) 335;
rebels (914) 345.
+Ni`amat+ _Arghūn_—his defeat 34.
Mullā +Ni`amat+—killed in a surprise by Sangā 549;
[♰933 AH.-1527 AD.].
Khwāja +Ni`amatu'l-lāh+—his son Āṣafī 286 n. 2.
+Nīgārsī+, see Dankūsī.
+Niẕām Khān+ _Bīāna'ī_—not submissive to Bābur (932) 523;
receives letters and a quatrain from him 529;
defeats Bābur's troops (933) 538-9;
waits on Bābur 539;
in the left wing at Kānwa 567;
on service (935) 678.
Khwājā +Niẕāmu'd-dīn Aḥṃad+, the author of the _[T.]abaqāt-i-akbarī_,
son of Muḥammad Muqīm—☛ discussion of his story of the intended
supersession of Bābur's sons 702-8;
[♰1003 AH.-1594 AD.].
Sayyid +Niẕāmu'd-dīn `Alī Khalīfa+ _Marghīlānī_, _Barlās Turk_
son of Junaid—escapes from prison and death (900) 55;
driven from Bābur's presence (903) 90, (905) 119;
defends Kābul (912) 313;
mediates (914) 345;
hears rumours of Mughūl revolt 346;
in the left centre at Bajaur (925) 369
and at Pānīpat (932) 473;
given charge of Ibrāhīm's corpse 474 n. 1;
at Kānwa (933) 556, 558, 564-5;
on service 384, 395, 666;
communicates bad news at Chanderī (934) 594 and (935) 639;
mediates for Raḥīm-dād 689;
☛ declines the Badakhshān government (936) 697;
☛ discussion of his plan to set Humāyūn aside (in Hindūstān?)
702-8;
his seat at a feast 631;
host to Bābur 408;
his sons Muḥibb-i-`alī, Ḥusamu'd-dīn-i-`alī, Ḥamza and daughter
Gul-barg _q.v._
Shaikh +Niẕāmū'd-dīn Auliyā+—his tomb visited by Bābur (932) 475;
[♰725 AH.-1325 AD.].
+Niẕāmu'l-mulk+ _Khawāfī_, Dīwān in Herī—arrested and put
to death 282;
[♰903 AH.-1497-8 AD.].
Hazrat +Nuḥ+ (Noah)—his father Lām _q.v._
+Nūr Beg+ (perhaps Sayyid Nūru'd-dīn _Chaghānīānī_ _infra)_—disobeys
the Law, plays the lute (925) 395;
joins Bābur in an autumn garden 418;
his brethren on service (932) 446;
with Bābur in the East (935) 653;
in the battle of the Ghogrā 673;
sent to allay Rahīm-dād's fears 688-9;
his brother Shāham _q.v._
Sayyid +Nūru'd-dīn+ _Chaghānīānī_—Sayyid Amīr—a son-in-law of Bābur
and father of Salīma-sulṯān ☛ 713;
perhaps Nūr Beg _supra_.
Shaikh +Nūru'd-dīn Beg+ _Turkistānī_, _Qībchāq Turk_—grandfather,
through a daughter, of Yūnas _Chaghatāī_ 19 (see T.R. trs. p. 64).
+Nūru'l-lāh+ _ṯambūrchī_—his experience in an earthquake (911) 247.
Sayyid +Nūyān Beg+ _Tīrmīẕī_—particulars 273;
his son Ḥasan-i-ya`qūb _q.v._
+Nūyān Kūkūldāsh+ _Tīrmīẕī_—makes a right guess (906) 131-2;
on service against Shaibānī 142;
his sword sent as a gift to Taṃbal (907) 150;
that sword wounds Bābur's head (908) 151, 167, 396;
his suspicious death 151-152;
Bābur's grief 152;
Nūyān's uncle Ḥaq-naẕar _q.v._;
[♰907 AH.-1502 AD.].
+Padmāwatī+, wife of Rānā Sangā—in Rantanbhūr (935) 612;
mentioned 613 n. 1;
her son Bikramājīt and kinsman Asūk-māl _q.v._
+Pahār Khān+ _Lūdī_, see Bihār.
+Pahār Mīrza+, a father-in-law of Jahāngīr _Mīrān-shāhī_—his daughter
brings her son Pir-i-muḥammad to Bābur (913) 331.
+Pahlawān+ _Aūdī_ (_Oudhī_)—wrestles (935) 683, 688.
+Pahlawān+ _Lāhorī_, a boatman—wrestles (935) 656.
+Pāpa Āghācha+, a mistress of Ḥuṣain _Bāī-qarā_—particulars 266,
268-9;
her five sons and three daughters _ib._[2918]
+Pāpā-aūghūlī+, of Bābur's household—out with Bābur (910) 234;
at Qandahār (913) 335.
+Parbat+ _Kakar_—conveys tribute to Bābur (925) 391, 392, 393.
+Pasha Begīm+ _Bahārlū_, _Āq-qūīlūq Turkmān_, daughter of `Alī-shukr
Beg—particulars 49;
her nephew Yār-`alī Balāl _q.v._[2919]
+Pāyanda-muḥammad+ _Qīplān_—out with Bābur (925) 404.
+Pāyanda-sulṯān Begīm+ _Mīrān-shāhī Tīmūrid_, _Barlās Turk_, daughter
of Abū-sa`īd and wife of Ḥusain _Bāī-qarā_—particulars 263, 265,
268;
her son Ḥaidar and her daughters _ib._;
visited in Herāt by Bābur (912) 301;
arranges a marriage for him 306;
captured by Shaibānī (913) 327.
+Pietro della Vallé+—an illustration drawn from his recorded
morning-draught (1623 AD.) 395.
Khwāja +Pir Aḥmad+ _Khawāfī_—his son 281.
+Pir Budāgh Sulṯān+, Khāqān in Desht Qībchāq (Ḥ.S. iii, 232)—his
Bāī-qarā marriage 258 n. 2.
Mīr +Pīr Darwesh+ _Hazār-aspī_—in charge of Balkh (857) 50;
fights there _ib._
+Pīrī Beg+ _Turkmān_—joins Bābur (913) 336;
particulars Author's Note, 336.
+Pīr Kānū+ of Sakhī-sarwār—Bābur halts at his tomb (910) 238.
+Pīr Muḥammad+ _Aīlchī-būghā_, _qūchīn_—particulars 50 and nn.;
drowned 48 n. 4, 50;
[895 AH.-1490 AD.].
+Pīr Muḥammad+ _Mīrān-shāhī Tīmūrid_,_ Barlās Turk_, son of
Jahāngīr—brought by his widowed mother to Bābur (913) 331.
+Pīr-qulī+ _Sīstānī_—in the right wing at Pānīpat (932) 472, and at
Kānwa (933) 566;
on service (932) 530.
+Pīr Sulṯān+ _Pashāī_—one of Bābur's guides (912) 308.
Prester John, Wang Khān [T.R. trs. 16], Ong Khān [Abu'l-ghāzī,
Desmaisons' trs. p. 55]—his title 23 n. 3.
+Pulād Sulṯān+ _Aūzbeg-Shaibān Chīngīz-khānid_—son of Kūchūm—Bābur
sends him his earliest-mentioned Dīwān (925) 402, 632 n. 3;
at Jām (934) 622;
an envoy goes from him to Bābur (935) 631, 632, 641.
+Pūrān+ (Allāh-bīrdī or Allāh-qulī)—out with Bābur (910) 234; wounded
(913) 342;
his father-in-law Qāsim _qūchīn_ _q.v._
+Qābil+ (Cain)—Bābur goes alone to his tomb (925) 415.
+Qādīr-bīrdī+ _Ghainī_—spoken to by Bābur when in hiding (908) 180-1.
+Qāītmās+ _Turkmān_, retainer of Jahāngīr—drowned (910) 237.[2920]
+Qalandar+ _pīāda_—on Bābur's service (932) 529.
+Qaṃbar-i-`alī+ _Arghūn_—on Bābur's service (935) 688.
+Qaṃbar-i-`alī Beg+—mobilizes the Hindūstān army by Abū-sa`īd's order
(873?) 46;
expelled from Khurāsān with Maḥmū _Mīrān-shāhī_ 47.
+Qaṃbar-i-`alī Beg+ _qūchīn_, son of Qāsim—races with Bābur (?)
(907) 147;
wounded, brings Bābur a message (908) 174;
one of the eight in flight from Akhsī 177;
gives Bābur his horse 177-8;
beats down snow for a road (912) 308-9;
fights rebels in Kābul 315;
at Qandahār (913) 334;
wounded 336;
hurries from Qūndūz against rebels in Ghaznī (921) 364;
brings Bābur a letter from Balkh (?) (925) 385.
+Qaṃbār-i-`alī Be+g _Silākh_, _Mughūl_—particulars 28;
his inconvenient absence (904) 106;
recalled (905) 108;
goes away 110;
returns 112;
in the van at Khūbān 113;
goes away 115;
returns and is ill-tempered 117;
his districts 115, 124;
his ill-timed pacificism 118;
his misconduct 123;
goes to Taṃbal, made prisoner, escapes to Bābur 124;
on Bābur's service (906) 130, 131;
at Sar-i-pul 138, 139;
sends his family out of Samarkand 141;
? races with Bābur (907) 147;
? leaves Bābur in Dikh-kat 150 n. 3;
conspires against Taṃbal and goes to The Khān (Maḥmūd) 154;
serves Bābur against Taṃbal (908) 161, 162, 165, 166;
counsels Bābur distastefully and flees 168, 170;
talks to him of peace with Taṃbal 173;
made prisoner in Akhsī against Bābur's wish 174;
leaves Khusrau Shah for Bābur (910) 189;
dismissed by Bābur and why 192, 532 n. 1;
his son `Abdu'-shukūr _q.v._
+Qaṃbar Bī+ _Aūzbeg_—blamed by Shaibānī for three murders (906) 128;
on service for him (910) 242, 244;
defeated by T̤ahmāsp _Ṣafawī's_ men (934) 622.
+Qarā Aḥmad+ _yūrūnchī_—Bābur's messenger to the Kābul begs (912) 314.
+Qarā Barlās+—leaves Samarkand with the Tarkhāns (905) 121;
fights for Bābur at Sar-i-pul (906) 139;
besieged and holds out to the end 143, 144.
Sayyid +Qarā Beg+ _Kohbur Chaghatāī_—remains with Bābur at a crisis
(903) 91;
invited into Akhsī (for Bābur) (904) 101;
escapes after defeat 106;
at Khūbān (905) 113;
released 119[2921];
his (?) hasty retreat to entrenchments (906) 138, 232 n. 4;
his son `Abdu'l-qadūs _q.v._
+Qarā Bīlūt+—surrenders Qalāt-i-ghilzāī to Bābur (911) 248-9.
+Qaracha Khān+—punished for disobedience (925) 390-1;
on service (934) 602, (935) 638;
his messenger with news of Mahīm's journey 650, 659.
+Qārā-gūz Begīm+ _Arlāt_—her marriage with Nāṣir _Mīrān-shāhī_ 265.
+Qarā-gūz Begīm+, see (1) Makhdūma, (2) Rābi`a-sulṯān.
+Qarā-qūzī+—on Bābur's service (932) 471;
in the left-wing [_tūlghuma_] at Pānīpat 473.
+Qārlūghāch Bakhshī+ kills Mughūl Beg's son (904) 102.
+Qashqa Maḥmūd+ (or Qāshqa), Beg of the Chīrās _tūmān_ of Mughūls—sent
to help Bābur (906) 138;
quarrels with a Begchīk for the military post of honour (907) 155.
(He may be "Bābā Qashqa" _q.v._)
Mullā +Qāsim+—building work given to him (935) 642.
Sayyid +Qāsim+ (p. 96), see Sayyid Kāmal.
+Qāsim-i-`ajab Beg+—remains with Bābur at a crisis (903) 91;
promoted to beg's rank (904) 104;
captured by Taṃbal's men (905) 115-6;
released 119.
+Qāsim-i-`alī+ _tariyākī_—musician at entertainments (925) 385, 387,
388.
+Qāsim Beg+ _qūchīn_—particulars 26;
supports Bābur (899) 30, (900) 43;
his appointments 43, 44 (where delete Sayyid as his title);
punishes misconducted Mughūls (902) 66-7, 153 and has to leave
Bābur (907) 27, 67;
on missions (903) 90, (904) 100, 101;
remains with Bābur at a crisis (903) 91;
defeated by Mughūls (904) 105-6;
in the centre at Khūbān (905) 113;
banished from Andijān by `Alī-dost 119;
rejoins Bābur for Samarkand 123, (906) 130;
suspects Banā'ī 136;
in the centre at Sar-i-pul 139;
defending Samarkand 141, 142, 143, 144;
races with Bābur (907) 147;
advises a tactful gift 150;
out with Bābur (910) 234;
rewarded (911) 252;
goes with a punitive force to Nigr-aū 253;
a saying of his twisted for ill 254;
defeats Aūzbegs (912) 295;
insists in Herāt on ceremony due to Bābur 298;
angered by Bābur's being pressed to drink wine 304;
mistaken as to a route 308-9;
mistakenly compassionate 313;
allowed to keep his Fifth of spoil (913) 324;
in the left wing at Qandahār 334, 335;
wounded 336;
retainers allotted to him 339;
his counsel 339-40;
mediates for suspects (914) 345;
waits on Bābur returned from Hindūstān (925) 395;
mediates for Tramontane clans to leave Kābul 402;
Bābur breaks fast at his house 408;
his sons Ḥamza, Tīngrī-bīrdī, Qaṃbar-i-`alī _q.v._;
his ill-conducted nephew 414;
a servant 313;
a father-in-law Banda-i-`alī _q.v._;
[♰928 AH.-1522 AD.].
+Qāsim+ _Duldāī_, _Barlās Turk_—serving Bāī-sunghar _Mīrān-shāhī_
(902) 65;
joins Bābur 66.
+Qāsim-i-ḥusain+ _Aūzbeg-Shaibān_, son of Qāsim and `Āyisha-sulṯān
_Bāī-qarā_—particulars 267, 298;
joins Bābur (933) 550;
at Kānwa 556, 559;
receives Badāūn 582;
on service 582, (934) 589, (935) 682;
in the battle of the Ghogrā (935) 669;
mentioned 631 n. 4, ☛ 706.
Sayyid +Qāsim+ _Jalāīr_—wins the Champion's Portion at Asfara
(900) 53;
takes it at Shāhrukhiya 53;
stays with Bābur at a crisis (903) 91;
joins him for Samarkand (905) 123-4;
at Sar-i-pul (Khwāja Kārdzan) (906) 139;
his strange doings in Pāp (908) 171;
his unseasonable arrival in Akhsī 174;
defeats an Aūzbeg raider (910) 195;
out with Bābur 234, (925) 403;
drunk 415;
Bābur pays him a consolation-visit 418;
a party in his country-house (926) 420;
assigned to reinforce Khwājā Kalān in Kābul (935) 647.
+Qāsim Khān+ _Qāzzāq_, _Jūjī Chīngīz-khānid_—his marriage with
Sulṯān-nigār _Chaghatāī_ 23;
his good administration 23-4;
[♰924 AH.-1518 AD.].
+Qāsim+ _Khītka (?) Arghūn_, (var. _Jangeh_)—in Akhsī (908) 171.
+Qāsim Khwāja+—succeeds in his brother Yakka's appointments (935) 674;
on service 682.
+Qāsim Kūkūldāsh+—at a household party (906) 131 (his name is omitted
from the Ḥai. MS. f. 83 and from my text);
helps Bābur at his mother's burial (911) 246;
at Qandahār (913) 335;
his Arghūn marriage 342, 199 n. 1, ☛ 443.
+Qāsim Mīr-akhẉūr+—stays with Bābur at a crisis (903) 91;
on service (933) 548.
Malik +Qāsim+ _Mughūl_, brother (p. 568) of Bābā Qashqa—in the
right-wing [_tūlghuma_] at Pānīpat (932) 473, and at Kānwa
(933) 568;
on service with his brethren (932) 528, (933) 558, 582, (934) 589;
his good service near Qanūj and his death 599;
his kinsmen, see _s.n._ Bābā Qashqa;
[♰934 AH.-1528 AD.].
Shāh +Qāsim+ _pīāda_—sent on a second mission to Bābur's kinsfolk
in Khurāsān (935) 617.
+Qāsim+ _Saṃbhalī_—not submissive to Bābur (932) 523;
surrenders 528, 529;
sent out of the way before Kānwa (933) 547 (where the Ḥai. MS. adds
"Beg", by clerical? error).
+Qāsim Sulṯān+ _Aūzbeg-Shaibān Chīngīz-khānid_—his Bāī-qarā
marriage 267;
at a reception (912) 298;
his son Qāsim-i-ḥusain _q.v._
+Qātāq Begīm+, wife of Aḥmad _Mīrān-shāhī_—particulars 36;
of Aḥmad's escape from her dominance 36 n. 1.
+Qayyām Beg+—Aūrdū (Ūrdū) Shāh—out with Bābur (925) 403;
waits on Bābur as Governor of Nīngnahār (926) 421;
joins him in Hindūstān (933) 550 (here Qawwām Aūrdū-shāh);
at Kānwa 556, 569.
+Qāẓī Bihzādī+—Bābur forbids unlawful drinks in his house (925) 398.
+Qāẓī Ghulām+—escapes death by pretending to be a slave (904) 102.
+Qāẓī Jīā+—waits on Bābur (932) 527;
on service 530, (933) 544, (935) 639;
joins Bābur 667;
on service 668, 682.
+Qāẓī of Kābul+—waits on Bābur (925) 395.
+Qāẓī of Samāna+—☛ complains of Mundāhir attack (936) 693, 700.
+Qismatāī Mīrzā+—on Bābur's service in Hindūstān (932) 474, (933) 545,
546-7, 548;
his untimely praise of the Rājpūt army 548, 550.
+Qilka+ _Kāshgharī_—escapes death (904) 102.
+Qīzīl+ _tawāchī_—messenger of Shāh Beg _Arghūn_ to Bābur (925) 395.
+Qublāī Khān+, great-grandson of Chīngīz Khān—his building at Qarshī
84 n. 2;
[♰693 AH.-1294 AD.].
+Qūch Beg+ (Qūj), son of Aḥmad _qarāwal_—in the left wing at Khūbān
(905) 113;
his courage at Bīshkharān 118;
leaves Bābur for Ḥiṣār (906) 129;
? reprieved at Qāsim _qūchīn_'s request (914) 345;
on Bābur's service (925) 374, (925) 384;
at Parhāla 390;
comes on summons to Kābul 409;
referred to as dead (933) 565;
his brother Tardī Beg _q.v._
+Qūch+ _Arghūn_—allotted in Qalāt to Qāsim _qūchīn_ (913) 339.
+Qūch Beg+ _Kohbur Chaghatāī_, son of Ḥaidar-i-qāsim—at Sar-i-pul
(906) 139;
in Samarkand besieged 142, 143, 144.
+Qul-arūk+—drowned in the Sind-water (910) 237.
+Qul-bāyazīd+ _bakāwal_—particulars 237;
swims the Sind-water (910) 237;
at Qandahār (913) 335, 338;
his son Tīzak _q.v._;
his tomb near Kābul 198.
+Qulī Beg+ _Arghūn_—known as attached to Bābur (913) 337;
returns from an embassy to Kāshghar (925) 415;
his brother Aḥmad-`alī Tarkhān _q.v._
+Qūlij Bahādur+ _Aūzbeg_—mentioned in T̤ahmāsp _Ṣafawi_'s account
of Jām (935) 636 n. 2.
Mīrzā +Qūlī Kūkūldāsh+, see Mīrzā-qulī.
+Qulī-muḥammad+ _Būghdā qūchīn_—particulars 40.
Ustād +Qul-muḥammad+ _`Aūdī_—particulars 291;
his musical training owed to Nawa'ī 272.
+Qul-nachāq+—holding Balkh for the Bāī-qarās (912) 294, 296;
surrenders it to Shaibānī 300.
+Qul-naẕar+ of T̤aghāī Beg—sallies out from Samarkand (906) 142;
does well 144.
+Qurbān+ _Chīrkhī_—sent into Bhīra (925) 381;
a false rumour about him as invited into Balkh (935) 625;
gifts to his
servants 633;
in the battle of the Ghogrā 669;
on service 678.
+Qus̤am ibn `Abbās+, one of the Companions—his tomb at Samarkand 75.
+Qusum-nāī (?)+—on service (932) 534.
+Quṯb Khān+ _Sarwānī_—not submissive to Bābur (932) 523;
Mahdī Khwāja sent against him in Etāwa 530;
takes Chandwār (933) 557;
abandons both places 579, 582;
defeated 587.
Khwāja +Quṯbu'd-dīn+ _Aūshī_ (_Ūshī_)—his birthplace in Farghāna
475 n. 6;
Bābur visits his tomb in Dihlī (932) 475;
[♰633 AH.-1235 AD.].
+Qūtlūq Khwāja Kūkūldāsh+—with Bābur in Samarkand (906) 143, 144;
host to Bābur (925) 398, 407;
held up as an example 406.
+Qūtlūq-muḥammad Kūkūldāsh+, foster-brother of Daulat-sulṯān
Khānīm—brings Bābur letters from Kāshghar (925) 409 (where for
"Daulat" read Qūtlūq).
+Qūtlūq-nigār Khānīm+ _Chaghatāī Chīngīz-khānid_, mother
of Bābur—particulars 21;
mentioned 17, 19;
in Andijān (900) 43;
entreats her son's help (903) 88, 89;
sent to join him in Khujand 92, and in Aūrā-tīpā (905) 136;
her Mughūls rebel (904) 105;
with Bābur in Samarkand (906) 136;
leaves the town with him (907) 147;
hears of a sister's death 148-9;
goes to her own family in Tāshkīnt 149;
her dangerous illness _ib._;
her safety leaves Bābur free (908) 157, 158;
☛ with him in Sūkh 184;
uses his tent in the exodus from Farghāna (910) 188;
left in Kāhmard 189;
crosses Hindū-kush and rejoins him in Kābul 197;
her death (911) 21, 246;
her treatment as a refugee in Tāshkīnt (908) contrasted with that
of her refugee-relations in Kābul (912) 318;
her concern for her son's marriage affairs (905) 120, (910) 48;
her old governess 148;
[♰911 AH.-1505 AD.].
+Qūtlūq-qadam+ _qarāwal_—out with Bābur (910) 236-7;
in the left-centre at Qandahār (913) 335;
on service (925) 403, (932) 458, 460, 468, 471, 530;
in the left wing at Pānīpat 472 and at Kānwa (933) 567, 570;
on service 475;
host to Bābur (926) 424;
his tomb and bridge near Kābul 198, 204;
[♰934 AH.-1528 AD.?].
+Qūtlūq-sulṯān Begīm+, daughter of Mīrān-shāh son of Tīmūr—wife
of Ḥusain _Qānjūt_ 256 n. 5.
+Rābi`a-sulṯān Begīm+ _Mīrān-shāhī Tīmūrid_, _Barlās Turk_—Qarā-gūz
Begīm—daughter of Aḥmad—particulars 13, 35.
Sayyid +Rafī`u'd-dīn+ _Ṣafawī_—Mullā Rafī`—mediates for Niẕām Khān
with Bābur (933) 539;
concocts tonic powders (935) 606;
at a feast 631.
Khwāja +Raḥīm-dād+, paternal-nephew of Mahdī Khwāja—receives
and obtains possession of Gūālīar (933) 539, 540, 547;
his quarters and constructions there (935) 607, 610, 613;
Bābur sleeps in his flower-garden 612, 613;
action against him as seditious 688-9, (936) 690;
his son held as hostage and escapes (935) 688-9;
☛ Ibn Batuta's account of him 692 n. 1;
☛ no sequel of his rebellion mentioned in the _Akbar-nāma_ 692.
+Raḥmat+ _pīāda_—conveys letters to Kābul (932) 466.
+Rāja of Kahlūr+—☛ waits on Bābur (936) 699.
+Rajab-sulṯān Begīm+ _Mīrān-shāhī Tīmūrid_, _Barlās Turk_, daughter
of Maḥmūd—particulars 48, 49.
+Ramẓān+ _lūlī_—a musician at parties (925) 387, 388.
+Rāo+ _Sarwānī_, see Dāūd.
Sulṯān +Rashīd Khān+ _Chaghatāī Chīngīz-khānid_, son of Sa`īd
and Makhtūm _Qālūchī_ (T.R. trs. p. 187)—his Qāzzāq marriage 23.
Mr. Thomas +Rastel+—an illustration drawn from his morning-draught
recorded [1623 AD.] 395.
+Rānā Ratan-sī+—successor of his father Sangā in Chītor 613;
mentioned in connection with the Khīljī jewels _ib._;
his younger brother Bikramājīt _q.v._
+Rauḥ-dam+—musician at entertainments (925) 385, 387, 388;
in a raft-misadventure 407.
+Rawū'ī+ _Sarwānī_ (Rāo)—serving Bābur (933) 538 (here read as Dāūd),
(935) 682;
host to Bābur (934) 588.
+Rīnīsh+ (var. Zīnīsh) _Aūzbeg_—his defeat by T̤ahmāsp _Ṣafawī_
(934) 618, 622 (where in n. 1 for "934" read 935 as the date
of the battle of Jām);
[♰934 AH.-1528 AD.].
A +Rūmī+ prescribes for Bābur (935) 657, 660.
Rāja _Rūp-narāin_—included in Bābur's Revenue List 521.
+Ruqaiya Aghā+, wife of Badī`u'z-zamān _Bāī-qarā_—captured in Herāt
and married by Tīmūr _Aūzbeg_ 328.
+Ruqaiya-sulṯān Begīm+ _Mīrān-shāhī Tīmūrid_, _Barlās Turk_, daughter
of `Umar Shaikh—particulars 18, 19;
[♰_cir._ 935 AH.-1528 AD.].
+Rūstam-i-`alī+ _Turkmān_—in the centre at Qandahār (913) 335;
on service (925) 377, (933) 538;
in the _tūlghuma_ of the left-wing at Kānwa 568, 569.
+Rustam Khān+—Ilīās (p. 576)—captures Bābur's commander at Kūl (Koel)
(933) 557, 576;
captured and flayed alive 576.
+Sa`ādat-bakht Begīm++—Begīm Sulṯān+—_Bāī-qarā Tīmūrid_,
_Barlās Turk_, daughter of Ḥusain—particulars 266-7.
Nāṣiru'd-dīn +Sabuktīgīn+ _Ghaznawī Turk_—the humble status of his
capital 217;
a legend concerning him 219;
his son Maḥmūd _q.v._;
[♰387 AH.-997 AD.].
+Sadharān+ _Tānk Rājpūt_—his acceptance of Islām 481 n. 5.
Pahlawān +Ṣādiq+—made to wrestle (935) 650;
forbidden as an antagonist 653;
wrestles 688.
Mullā +Sa`du'd-dīn Mas`ūd+ _Taftazānī_—a descendant of 283;
[♰792 AH.-1390 AD.].
Sulṯān +Sa`īd Khān+ _Ghāzī_, _Chaghatāī Chīnqīz-khānid_, son of
Aḥmad—particulars 698 nn. 2, 3, 349;
meets Bābur (908) 159;
stays with him in Kābul (914) 318, 349-50;
receives Andijān from him (916) 318, 357;
loyal to him 344 n. 2, ☛ 351-2;
sends an envoy to him (917) 22;
Ḥaidar _Dūghlāt_ goes from Bābur to Sa`īd (918) 362;
two kinswomen take refuge with him (923 and 924) 24 (where in n. 1
_delete_ the second sentence);
reported to have designs on Badakhshān (925) 412;
an envoy to him returns 415;
☛ named as a principal actor between 926 and 932 AH. 427;
writes and sends gifts to Bābur (932) 446;
☛ invades Badakhshān (936) 695-6;
☛ gist of a letter from Bābur to him 697-8;
☛ Bābur moves menacingly for the North-west 698;
his full-brother Khalīl, his son Rashīd, his wife Ḥabība, and
_kūkūldāsh_ Yāngī Beg _q.v._;
[♰939 AH.-1533 AD.].
+Sa`īdlīq Sa`d+ _Turkmān_—defeated by Ḥusain _Bāī-qarā_ (873?) 260.
+Saif-i-`alī Beg+ _Bahārlū Qarā-qūīlūq Turkmān_, father of Bairām
Khān-i-khānān—particulars 91 n. 3.[2922]
Maulānā +Saifī+ _Bukhārī_—`Arūẓī—particulars 288;
[♰909 AH.-1503-4 AD.].
+Saif Khān+ _Nūḥānī_, son of Daryā Khān—deserts `Ālam Khān _Lūdī_
(932) 457.
+Saifu'd-dīn Aḥmad+, Shaikhu'l-islām in Herāt—particulars 283;
takes the keys of Herāt to Shaibānī (913) 328;
his pupil Muḥammad-i-yūsuf _q.v._;
killed by Shāh Ismā`īl 283;
[♰916 AH.-1510 A.D.].
Ḥājī +Saifu'd-dīn Beg+, ? uncle of Tīmūr—his descendant Walī Beg 272.
+Sakma+ _Mughūl_—rebels against Bābur (914) 345.
+Ṣalāḥu'd-dīn+ (_Silhādī_)—particulars 562 n. 3, 614 n. 2;
his force at Kānwā (933) 562;
attack on him planned and abandoned (934) 598;
Bābur visits village near his birthplace (935) 614;
mentioned 628 n. 2.
+Ṣāliḥa-sulṯān Begīm+ _Mīrān-shāhī_, daughter of Maḥmūd and Pasha,
wife of Bābur—(name not now in the Turkī text) 47;
☛ the likelihood that she and "Dil-dār" were one 713 (where read
Ṣāliḥa).
+Ṣāliḥa-sulṯān+ _Mīrān-shāhī_—Āq Begīm—daughter of Aḥmad
and Qātāq—particulars 35;
gifts from her wedding reach Bābur (900) 43.
+Salīma-sulṯān Begīm+—☛ her parentage 713.
Sulṯān +Sālīm+ _Rūmī_—takes Badī`u-z-zamān _Bāī-qarā_, a captive,
to Constantinople (920) 327 n. 5;
☛ defeats Ismā`īl _Ṣafawī_ at Chāldirān (920) 443, 469;
[♰926 AH.-1520 AD.].
+Ṣamad+ _Mīnglīghī_—wounded and dies 106;
[♰904 AH.-1499 AD.].
Mehtar +Saṃbhal+, slave of Shāh Beg _Arghūn_—particulars 338 n. 2;
captured at Qandahār and escapes (913) 338;
☛ Commander in Qandahār and revictuals it for Shāh Beg 432.
Sulṯān +Sanjar+ _Barlās Turk_, son of `Abdu'l-lāh—incites a Mughūl
revolt in Kābul (912) 313-17;
spared on family grounds 317.
Sulṯān +Sanjar Mīrzā+ _Mervī_—his daughter Bega Sulṯān Begīm's
Bāī-qarā marriage (_cir._ 860) 267.
Rānā +Sangā+ _Mewārī_—particulars 483, 558 n. 2;
his capture of Chanderī 593;
proffers Bābur co-operation against Ibrāhīm _Lūdī_ (931?) 426, 529;
fails him (932) 529;
takes Kandār 530, 539;
Bābur's attack on him deferred 530-1
and determined (933) 538;
his strength and approach 544, 547;
defeated at Kānwa 559-574;
escapes 576;
references to the battle 267, 533, 579, 582, 583, 599, 600, 630
n. 4, 637, 663;
his lands not invaded, on climatic grounds 577, 578;
Bābur's planned attack on him in Chītor frustrated (934) 598;
his wife Padmāwatī and sons Ratan-sī and Bikramājīṯ _q.v._;
his trusted man Medinī Rāo _q.v._;
[♰934 AH.-1528 AD.].[2923]
+Sangur Khān+ _Janjūha_—waits on Bābur (925) 383;
on service 389, 419;
killed in a sally from Bīāna 548;
[♰933 AH.-1527 AD.].
Mīr +Sar-i-barhana+, see Shamsu'd-dīn Muḥammad.
+Sārīgh-bāsh Mīrza+ _Itārachī_—sent by The Khān (Maḥmūd) to help Bābur
(908) 161, 170.
Mullā +Sarsān+—Kāmrān's messenger and custodian of Ibrāhīm _Lūdī's_
son (933) 544.
+Sar-u-pā+ _Gujūr_—Bābur's guide to Parhāla (925) 389, 391.
+Satrvī Kachī+—his force at Kānwa (933) 562.
Sulṯān +Sātūq-būghra Khān Ghāzī Pādshāh+ (b. 384 AH.-994 AD.).—a
surmised descendant 29 n. 8;
his style Pādshāh 344 n. 2.
+Sayyid Amīr+, see Nūru'd-dīn _Chaghanīānī_.
+Sayyid Dakkanī+—Shāh T̤āhir _Khwāndī Dakkani_—present at a feast
(935) 631.[2924]
+Sayyid Daknī+ _Shīrāzī_, or Ruknī, or Zaknī—receives honours
and orders (935) 619;
on his name and work _ib._ n. 2, 634 n. 1;
(see _supra_).
+Sayyidī Beg T̤aghāī+, see Sherīm T̤aghāī.
+Sayyidīm `Alī+ _darbān_ (? Muhammad-`alī), son of Bābā
`Alī Beg—particulars 307;
serving Khusrau Shāh (901) 60-1;
leads the Rustā-hazāra to join Bābur (910) 196;
a follower punished 197;
takes Bāī-qarā service (912) 307;
drowned by Badī`u'z-zamān 307-8;
[♰_cir._ 913 AH.-1507 AD.].
+Sayyid Mashhadī+ (var. Masnadī)—brings Bābur news of Khwāja
Raḥīmdād's sedition (935) 688.
+Sayyid Mīrzā+ _Andikhūdī_, ? brother of Apāq Begīm—his two Bāī-qarā
marriages 267.
+Sayyid Rūmī+—at a feast (935) 631.
+Sayyid T̤abīb+ _Khurāsānī_—attends Bābur's mother (911) 247.
+Shād Begīm+ _Bāī-qarā Tīmūrid_, _Barlās Turk_—particulars 263-4;
her husband `Ādil Sulṯān _Aūzbeg_ _q.v._
+Shādī+, a reciter—his son Ghulām-i-shadī 292.
+Shādī Khān+ _Kīwī Afghān_—fights and submits to Bābur (910) 233.
+Shādmān+ _chuhra_—wrestles (935) 660.
+Shāh Bābā+ _bīldār_—entrusted with building work (935) 642.
+Shah-bāz+ _qalandar_—his tomb destroyed by Bābur (925) 377.
+Shah-bāz+ _Qārlūq_—serving Taṃbal (908) 170.
+Shāh Beg+ _Arghūn_—Shuja` Beg—son of Ẕū'n-nūn—his close association
with his father 274;
mentioned as with him in Qandahār (902) 71, (910) 198, 227;
they give refuge to Badī`u'z-zamān _Bāī-qarā_ (902) 71, (913) 307;
act with the Mīrzā (903) 94, 95;
favoured by Ḥusain _Bāī-qarā_ 264;
his dominance _ib._;
proffers and renounces co-operation with Bābur against Shaibānī
(913) 330, 331-2;
loses Qandahār to him 337-8;
☛ released from Ṣafawī imprisonment by his slave Saṃbhal's devotion
(917) 338 n. 2, 365;
news of his taking Kāhān reaches Bābur (925) 395;
his interpretation of Bābur's reiterated attack on Qandahār 365,
☛ 427;
other suggestions for the attack of 926 AH. 430;
☛ action of his checks an expedition into Hindūstān (926) 428, 429,
430;
☛ his position and political relations 429;
Bābur's campaign against Qandahār (926-928) 366, 430-436, App.
J. xxxiv;
☛ final surrender to Bābur (928) _ib._;
☛ his death 437, 443;
his son Shāh Ḥasan, brother Muḥammad Muqīm, slave Mehtar, commissary
Qīzīl _q.v._;
[♰930 AH.-1524 AD.?].
+Shāh Begīm+ _Badakhshī_, wife of Yūnas Khān _Chaghatāī_—particulars
22-3;
visited by Bābur (903) 92, (907) 149, (908) 157;
delays to accept his plans 158;
meets her younger son Aḥmad 159;
☛ ordered by Shaibānī to stay in Tāshkīnt 184;
comes to Bābur in Kābul (911) 246;
disloyal (912) 317;
his reflections on her conduct 318-9;
goes to Badakhshān (913) 21, 35, 341;
captured by Abā-bikr _Kāshgharī_;
her sons Maḥmūd and Aḥmad, her daughter Daulat-sulṯān, her nephew
Sanjar _Barlās_;
her grandsons Mīrzā Khān and Sa`īd (and his brothers) _q.v._
+Shāh-i-gharīb Mīrzā+ _Bāī-qarā Tīmūrid_, _Barlās Turk_, son of Ḥusain
and Khadīja—particulars 261, 268;
his retainer Āhī the poet 289 n. 3;
[♰902 AH.-1496-7 AD.—Ḥ.S. lith. ed. iii, 260].
+Shāhī+ _qalandar_—plays the _ribāb_ (925) 417.
+Shāhī+ _ṯamghāchī_—appointed clerk (935) 629.
+Shāhīm+ (Shāh Muḥammad?)—sent for news (932) 454;
climbs into Chanderī (934) 595 (here _yūz-bāshī_);
his brother Nūr Beg _q.v._
+Shahīm-i-nāṣir+—one of eight fugitives from Akhsī (908) 177.
+Shāh-jahān Pādshāh+ _Mīrān-shāhī Tīmūrid_, _Barlās Turk_—☛ 184;
his imitation of Bābur (1030) 298 n. 3;
☛ his work in Bābur's burial-garden 710, App. V, lxxx;
[♰1076 AH.-1666 AD.].
+Shāh Muhammad+ _muhrdār_, son of Bābā Qashqa—on Bābur's service
(925) 388, (935) 688;
his kinsmen _see_ _s.n._ Bābā Qashqa;
[♰958 AH.-1551 AD.].[2925]
+Shāh-qulī+ _ghichakī_—a guitar-player—particulars 291.
+Shāh-qulī+ _Kūl-ābī_—goes into Ḥiṣāt (935) 640;
his brother Wais _q.v._
+Shāh-qulī+, ? servant of Div Sulṯān (p. 635)—sent to give Bābur
a report of the battle of Jām (935) 649;
conveys from Bābur an acceptance of excuse to T̤ahmāsp _Ṣafawī_ 649.
+Shahrak+—conveys letters and a copy of Bābur-nāma writings
(935) 652, 653.
+Shahr-bānū Begīm+ _Mīrān-shāhī Tīmūrid_, _Barlās Turk_, daughter
of Abū-sa`īd—particulars 268;
married to Ḥusain _Bāī-qarā_ (_cir._ 873) and divorced
(876) 21 n. 1, 268.
+Shahr-bānū Begīm+ _Mīrān-shāhī_, (_ut supra_), daughter
of `Umar Shaikh, wife of Junaid _Barlās_—particulars 18.
+Shāhrūkh Mīrza+ _Barlās Turk_, son of Tīmūr—mentioned
in a genealogy 14;
ruling in Herāt when Ḥusain _Bāī-qarā_ was born there (842) 256;
his wazīr serves Ḥusain (after 873) 281;
[♰850 AH.-1447 AD.].
+Shāhrukh-Sulṯān+ _Afshār Turk_—commands a reinforcement for Bābur
from Ismā`īl _Ṣafawī_ (917) 354.
+Shāh Ṣufī+—does well in Samarkand (906) 144.
+Shāh Sulṯān Begīm+ (? _Arghūn_), wife of Ābū-sa`īd _Mīrān-shāhī_
and mother of `Umar Shaikh—her parentage not stated 13 n. 5,[2926]
45 n. 1;
goes from Akhsī to Andijān when widowed (899) 32;
a mediator (905) 113;
her death announced (907) 149;
[♰906 AH.-1501 AD.].
+Shāh-suwār+ _Mughūl_—fights in single combat (904) 106.
+Shāh T̤ahir+ _Khwāndī Dakkanī_, see Sayyid Dakkanī.
+Shāh-zāda+, ? Shāh Ḥasan _Arghūn_—(926) 417, 418.
+Shāh-zādā+ _Mungīrī_, son of Naṣrat Shāh—negociates with Bābur
(935) 676 (where the note reference "5" should follow Mungir).
+Shaibak+ _pīāda_—brings news of Hind-āl's birth (925) 385.
A +Shaibān-Aūzbeg Sulṯān's+ marriage 23.
Muḥammad +Shaibānī Khān+—Shaibāq Khān[2927]—_Aūzbeg-Shaibān
Chīngīz-khānid_—his relations with Ḥamza and Mahdī Sulṯāns _q.v._;
invited to help Bāī-sunghar (903) 73;
raids Shīrāz 92;
defeats Tarkhāns in Dabūsī (905) 40, 124, (906) 137;
takes Bukhārā 125;
is given Samarkand by `Alī _Mīrān-shāhī_ 125;
murders the Mīrzā (906) 128;
his men murder Khwāja Yaḥyā and two sons 128;
loses Samarkand by Bābur's surprise attack 131, 132, 134;
Bābur's comparison of this capture with Ḥusain _Bāī-qarā's_
of Herāt 135;
Bābur's estimate of Shaibāni's position 137-8;
defeats Bābur at Sar-i-pul (Khwāja Kārdzan) 138-141;
besieges Samarkand and effects its surrender (906) 142-7;
receives an envoy from Ḥusain _Bāī-qarā_ 145;
crosses the frozen Saiḥūn and raids Shahrukhiya 151;
plunders Aūrā-tīpā 152-3;
referred to (908) 158, 168;
invited into Farghāna 172;
defeats the Chaghatāī Khāns and Bābur at Archīān 18, ☛ 183;
captures Andijān (909?) 192;
beheads Walī _Qībchāq_ (910) 196;
takes Khwārizin (911) 242, 255-6;
co-operation against him invited by Ḥusain _Bāī-qarā_ (910) 190,
(911) 255;
his men beaten in Badakhshān (911-2) 294-5;
takes Balkh 300;
his capture of Herāt (913) 263, 275, 296-7, 325-330;
besieges Nāṣir _Mīrān-shāhī_ in Qandahār and retires 339-40, 343;
a recognized menace to Kābul 21 n. 4, 340, 342;
orders Sa`īd _Chaghatāī's_ death (914) 349;
☛ murders Chaghatāī and Dughlāt chiefs 350;
war begun with Shāh Ismā`īl (915) 350;
defeated and killed at Merv 350;
his wives Mihr-nigār _Chaghatāī_, Khān-zāda _Mīrān-shāhī_,
Zuhra _Aūzbeg_ _q.v._;
his sons Tīmūr and Khurram _q.v._;
Banā'ī his retainer (906) 136;
creates a Tarkhān 133;
[♰915 AH.-Dec. 1510 AD.].
+Shaikhī+—receives gifts (935) 633.
+Shaikhīm Beg+, amīr and poet of Ḥusain _Bāī-qarā_—particulars 277,
286;
[♰918 AH.-1512-3 AD.].
+Shaikhīm Mīrzā+ _Aūzbeg_—holding Qarshī for his nephew
`Ubaidu'l-lāh (918) 360.
+Shaikhīm+ _mīr-shikār_—loses one of Bābur's good hawks (925) 394.
+Shaikhī+ _nāyī_, flautist in Ḥusain _Bāī-qarā's_ Court—particulars
291;
owed his training to Nawā'ī 272.
Shaikh +Sharaf+ _Qarā-bāghī_—his arrest for sedition (935) 687-8.
Shaikh +Sharafu'd-dīn+ _Munīrī_—his father Shaikh Yaḥyā _Chishtī_ 666;
his writings read aloud to Akbar 666 n. 7;
[♰782 AH.-1380 AD.].
+Shāmī+ (Syrian)—deserts from Qandahār (913) 343.
+Sher-afgan+, brother of Tardī and Qūj Begs—on Bābur's service
(933) 538.
+Sher-i-aḥmad+—belittled as good company (935) 648.
+Sherak Beg+ _Argūn_ (var. Sher, Sherka)—serving Muqīm _Arghūn_
(910) 195;
defeated and takes service with Bābur 196, 198;
in the centre at Qandahār (913) 335.
+Sher-i-`alī+ _Aūghlān_,[2928] _Chaghatāī Chīngīz-khanīd_—mentioned
in Yūnas Khān's genealogy 19.
+Sher-i-`alī+ _chuhra_ (a brave?)—deserts Bābur (906) 129;
put to death under suspicion (911) 248.
Mīr +Sher Ḥājī Beg+ _Kūnjī Mughūl_—his daughter's marriage with Yūnas
Khān 20 (where for "`Alī-sher" read Sher Ḥājī).
+Sherīm+ (Sher-i-muhammad?) _chuhra_, a brave?—defends Ḥiṣār (910) 244;
killed at Qūndūz _ib._;
[♰910 AH.-1505 AD.].
+Sherīm T̤aghāī+ _Kūnjī Mughūl_—T̤aghāī Beg—maternal uncle of Bābur's
mother—supports Bābur (899) 29, (903) 91, 98;
captured by Taṃbal (905) 110;
released 119;
in Samarkand (906) 141, 143, 188;
Bābur's reflections on his conduct 141, 188;
thinks of leaving Bābur (910) 188;
on his service 194, 197, 234;
loses an index-finger 235;
his post against rebels (912) 314;
an opinion on game (_kiyīk_) (913) 325;
in the right wing at Qandahār (913) 334, 337;
counsels a retreat to Badakhshān from Kābul 340;
☛ disloyal (916) 351;
heads Mughūl revolt in Ghaznī (921) 363;
defeated 364, 397;
takes refuge with Bābur 364;
his son Tūqā _q.v._;
his (and other) abbreviated names 29 n. 2.
+Sherīm Z̤ikr Beg+—put to death in Kābul under `Abdu'r-razzāq
(909?) 195 n. 3.
+Sher Khān+ _Lūdī Afghān_, son of `Ālam Khān—on his father's service
(932) 455.
+Sher Khān Sūr+ _Afghān_—Farīd Khān—Sher Shāh—favoured by Bābur
(934) 652;
serving Maḥmūd _Lūdī_ (935) 652;
co-guardian of Jalāl Khān _Nūḥānī_ with Dūdū Bībī 652 n. 1, 664 n. 2;
writes dutifully to Bābur 659;
his training, cognomen and one of his marriages 664 n. 2, 659 n. 4;
his victory over Humāyūn (1540) 652 n. 3.
+Sher Khān+ _Tarkalānī_—host to Bābur (926) 424.
+Sher-qulī+ _qarāwal Mughūl_—loyal to Bābur (912) 315;
at Qandahār (913) 333, 335;
rebels (914) 345.
Bābā +Sher-zād+, _see_ Bābā Sher-zād.
Mullā +Shams+—very riotous (932) 453.
Sulṯān +Shamsu'd-dīn+ _Āīltmīsh_[2929] (_Altamsh_) of the Slave
dynasty in Dihlī—his buildings in Gūālīār 610, 611;
[♰633 AH.-1236 AD.].
Sayyid +Shamsu'd-dīn Muḥammad+—Mīr Sar-i-barahna—particulars 280.
+Shamsu'd-dīn Muḥammad+—bearer of letters between Khwāja Kalān
and Bābur (935) 644, 645, 649.
Maulānā +Shihāb+ _mu`ammāī_—arrives in Āgra from Herāt (935) 605;
invited in verse by Bābur 683;
[♰942 AH.-1535 AD.].
Khusrau's +Shihabu'd-dīn+—on Bābur's service (935) 689, (936) 690.
Shaikh +Shihābu'd-dīn+ _`Arab_—at a feast (935) 631.
Mu`z̤z̤u'd-dīn +Shihābu'd-dīn Muḥammad+ _Ghūrī_—his capital Ghaznī 217;
mentioned as a conqueror of Hindūstān 479;
his position contrasted with Bābur's 479-80, 481;
[♰602 AH.-1206 AD.].
Shāh +Sikandar+—on Bābur's service (932-3) 546;
sent to Bihār (935) 664.
+Sikandar-i-Filkūs+—Alexander of Macedon—Badakhshī chiefs claim
of descent from him 22;
a surmise that he founded Samarkand 75;
his supposition that the Indus was the Nile a probable root of
a geographical crux 206 n. 3;
[♰327 B.C.].
Sulṯān +Sikandar Mīrzā+ _Bāī-qarā Tīmūrid_, _Barlās Turk_, nephew
of Ḥusain—parentage 257;
his wife Sulṯān-niẕhad _q.v._;
[♰908 AH.-1502-3 AD.].
Sulṯān +Sikandar+ _Lūdī Afghān_, son of Buhlūl—over-lord in Bhīra
(910) 382, 383;
his treasure 470, exhausted (935) 617;
his siege of Gūālīār 477;
his capture of Jūnpūr and Dihlī (881) 481, 571 n. 5;
Bābur visits his tomb (932) 476;
his brother `Ālam Khān and sons Ibrāhīm and Maḥmūd _q.v._;
☛ his death and its date 427 and n. 3;
[♰923 AH.-1517 AD.].
+Sikandar Shāh+ _Gujrātī_—his accession and murder 534-5 (where for
"2nd" read 932);
[♰932 AH.-1526 AD.].
+Sīktū+ _Hindū_—father of Dīwa _q.v._
+Sīūndūk+ _Turkmān_—his hands frost-bitten (912) 311;
in the centre at Qandahār (913) 335;
rebels against Bābur (914) 355.
+Sīūnjuk Sulṯān Khān+ _Aūzbeg-Shaibān_, _Chīngīz-khānid_,
son of Abu'l-khair—☛ besieges Tāshkīnt (918) 358, 396;
his son Bārāq at Jām (935) 622.
+Sohrāb Mīrzā+ _Bāī-qarā_, son of Abū-turāb—particulars 262.
The +Spanish Ambassadors+—the place of their first interview with
Tīmūr 78 n. 2.
+Sulaimān+—offers his horse to a wounded man (908) 175.
+Sulaimān Āqā+ _Turkmān_—envoy of T̤ahmāsp _Ṣafawī_ to Bābur
(933) 540, 583;
in the right wing at Kānwa 566.
+Sulaimān Mīrzā+ _Mīrān-shāhī Tīmūrid_, _Barlās Turk_, son of Mīrzā
Khān (Wais)[2930]—☛ brought to Kābul on his father's death
(927) 433 n. 1;
in the right centre at Pānīpat (932) 472, and at Kānwa (933) 565;
☛ sent to govern Badakhshān (936) 697-8, 699;
☛ Bābur's protective warning to Sa`īd _Chaghatāī_ 697-8 (here styled
Shāh Mīrzā);
on his descent 698 nn. 2, 3;
meets his rebel grandson Shāhrukh (_cir._ 983) 191 n. 2;
[♰997 AH.-1589 AD.].
Mīān _Sūlaimān Shaikh-zāda_ _Farmūlī Afghān_—reinforces `Ālam Khān
_Lūdī_ (932) 456;
gives him 4 _laks_ 457;
Bābur dismounts at his Dihlī home 476.
Malik Shāh +Sulaimān+ _Yūsuf-zāī Afghān_—murdered by Aūlūgh Beg
_Kābulī_ App. K, xxxvi;
his sons Manṣūr and T̤āūs, his nephew Aḥmad _q.v._
+Sulṯān-bakht Begīm+ _Mīrān-shāhī Tīmūrid_, _Barlās Turk_, daughter
of Abū-sa`īd—her daughter visited by Bābur (935) 616.
+Sulṯānīm Begīm+ _Mīrān-shāhī_ (_ut supra_), daughter of Aḥmad
and Qātāq—particulars 36.
+Sultānīm Begīm+ _Bāī-qarā_ (_ut supra_), daughter of Ḥusain
and Chūlī Begīm—particulars 265;
arrives in Kābul (925) 397;
dies on her way to Āgra (933) 265;
her husbands Wais _Bāī-qarā_ and `Abdu'l-bāqī _Mīrān-shāhī_,
her son Muḥammad
Sulṯān Mīrzā and grandson Aūlūgh Mīrzā (265 n. 5) _q.v._;
[♰933 AH.-1527 AD.].
+Sulṯān Malik+ _Kāshgharī_, _Duldāī Barlās Turk_—his sons Ḥāfiz
Muḥammad and Aḥmad Ḥājī Beg, his brother Jānī Beg _q.v._
+Sulṯān-nigār Khānīm+ _Chaghatāī Chingīz-khānid_, daughter of Yūnas
Khān and Shāh Begīm—particulars 23;
long parted from a half sister (907) 149;
meets her brother Aḥmad (908) 159;
mentioned in Bābur's reflection on disloyal kinsfolk (912) 318;
writes to him from Kāshghar (932) 446 n. 2;
her son Wais [Mīrzā Khān] and grandson Sulaimān _q.v._[2931];
[♰934 AH.-1527-8 AD.].
+Sulṯān-niẕhād Begīm+ _Bāī-qarā Tīmūrid_, _Barlās Turk_, daughter
of Ḥusain and Pāpā—particulars 266;
her husband Sikandar _Bāī-qarā_ _q.v._
+Sultān-qulī+ and +Sulṯān `Alī+, see Bābā-qulī and Bābā `Alī.
+Sulṯān-qulī+ _chūnāq_, _Mughūl_—his fidelity (904)
and treachery(?) (914 and 921) 105, 109 n. 5;
falls into a pit outside Kābul (910) 198;
does a bold deed 236;
out with Bābur (911) 252-3;
rejoins Bābur from Herāt (913) 330-1;
in the Mughūl rebellion at Ghaznī (921) 364 n. 1.
Sulṯān +Suyūrghatmīsh Mīrzā+ _Shāh-rukhī Tīmūrid_, _Barlās Turk_,
son of Shāh-rukh—mentioned in his son Mas`ūd's genealogy 382.
+T̤aghāī Beg+, see Sherīm T̤aghāī.
+T̤aghāī Shāh+ _bakhshī_—put in charge of Shāh Beg's treasury
(913) 338.
+Tāham-tan+ _Turkmān_—particulars 279;
his grandson Muḥammad-i-zamān _q.v._
+T̤āhir Beg+ _Dūldāī Barlās Turk_, son of Ḥāfiẓ-i-muḥammad—joint
governor of Mīrzā Khān (905) 122;
feeds the famished Bābur (907) 148.
+T̤āhir+ _tībrī_—finds Ibrāhīm _Lūdī's_ body (932) 475;
surprised by Rājpūts (933) 549.
Shāh-zāda[2932] +T̤ahmāsp+ _Ṣafawī `Arab_, son of Ismā'īl—☛ mentioned
as reigning from 930-932 AH. 427;
Bābur's envoy to him (930) returns with gifts (933) 540, 560 n. 2,
538, ☛ 712;
his campaigns against the Aūzbegs (934) 618, (935) the battle
of Jām 617 n. 3, 622-4 (where on p. 622 n. 1 read 935 for "934"),
625 n. 4, 635-6;
his own account of the battle 635-6;
desires peace 639 n. 3;
his envoys in Āgra 630, 632;
his friendship enjoined on Kāmrān 645;
[♰984 AH.-1576 AD.].
+Tāj Khān+ _Sārang-khānī Afghān_—sends Bābur news that Maḥmūd
_Lūdī's_ army has broken up (935) 654;
waits on Bābur 657;
brings news which prevents hunting 658;
sent on service 682;
superseded in Chunār by Junaid _Barlās_ 683.
+Tāju'd-dīn Maḥmūd+ _Arghūn_—holding Qalāt for Muqīm (913) 339;
waits on Bābur (925) 418.
Sulṯān Aḥmad +Taṃbal+ _Itārachī Mughūl_—with Bābur at Asfara
(900) 53;
wounded near Samarkand (902) 67;
promoted (903) 86;
deserts Bābur under privation 86, 87;
joins Aūzūn Ḥasan in supporting Jahāngīr in Farghāna 87-8;
induces The Khān (Maḥmūd) to withdraw support from Bābur 91;
his tyranny (904) 100-1;
brings Jahāngīr against Bābur in Marghīnān 101;
his men drubbed out of Akhsī and defeated at the ferry 101-2;
loses Andijān 103;
is joined by anxious Mughūls 105;
takes Jahāngīr against Andijān and retires 106-7;
Bābur's campaign against him (905) 108-110, 112-5;
defeated at Khūbān 113;
helped feebly by The Khān 115-6;
opposes Bābur at Archīān 117
and at Bīshkārān 118;
terms made 118-9;
waits on Bābur 119;
his ill-influence 119, 125;
makes Qaṃbar-i-`alī prisoner 124;
deserters to him 118, 125, 156;
moves against The Khān (906) 145, 154;
an uncle's rough comment on him 145;
is sent Nūyān's sword by Bābur (907) 150-1;
conspiracy against him 154;
the two Khāns join Bābur against him (908) 161-176;
wounds Bābur with Nūyān's sword 166-7, 396;
terms with him repudiated by Bābur 169, 171;
invites Shaibānī into Farghāna 172;
occupies Akhsī citadel 173;
left by Jahāngīr 173-174;
mentioned to Bābur in the flight from Akhsī 178, 182;
☛ helped by Shaibānī 183;
defeated by him and killed 244 and n. 3;
a couplet of Muḥammad Ṣāliḥ's about him 289;
his brothers Beg Tīlba, Khalīl, Muḥammad and Bāyazīd _q.v._;
[♰909 AH.-1504 AD.].
+Tāng-ātmīsh Sulṯān+ _Aūzbeg-Shaibān?_—at a feast (935) 631;
his descent 631 n. 4;
in the battle of the Ghogrā 669.
+Tardī Beg+, brother of Qūj (Qūch) and Sher-afgān—in the left centre
at Pānīpat (932) 472, 473,
and at Kānwa (933) 565;
on service 538-9, 582, (934) 590, 602;
[♰946 AH.-1539 AD.].
+Tardī Beg+ _khāksār_—Bābur visits him (925) 417-8;
makes verse dropping down the Kābul-river (932) 448;
praises a spring and receives a district 467, 581;
returns to the darwesh-life (933) 583;
conveys a gift to Kāmrān in Qandahār 583.
+Tardīka+—Tardi _yakka_ (568 n. 1)—on service (932) 462;
in the right wing [_tūlghuma_] at Kānwa (933) 568, 579;
joins Bābur at Dugdugī (935) 651;
on service 678.
+Tardī-muḥammad+ _Jang-jang_, son of Muḥammad _Jang-jang_—sent into
Bhīra (935) 661, 664.
+Tardī-muḥammad+ _Qībchāq_—at entertainments (925) 386, 400.
+Tarkhān Begīm+ _Arghūn Chīngīz-khānid_, daughter
of `Abdu'l-`alī—particulars 36.
+Tarsam Bahādur+—punishes the Mundāhirs (936) 700-1.
+Tarsūn-muḥammad Sulṯān+—serving Humāyūn (935) 640.
Malik +T̤āūs+ _Yūsuf-zāī Afghān_—escorts his sister Mubāraka to her
wedding with Bābur (925) 375.
+Tātār Khān+ _Kākār_ (or _Gakar_)—particulars 387;
detains one travelling to Bābur (925) 386;
killed by his cousin Hātī 387, 389;
Bābur dismounts at his house in Pauhāla 390;
[♰925 AH.-1519 AD.].
+Tātār Khān+ _Sārang-khāni Afghān_—Khān-i-jahān—in Gūālīār and not
submissive to Bābur (932) 523;
surrenders (933) 539-40;
on Bābur's service (935) 582 (here Khān-i-jahān).
+Tātār Khān+ _Yūsuf-khail Lūdī Afghān_—particulars 382, 383;
his son Daulat Khān _q.v._;
[♰a few years before 910 AH.-1504-5 AD.].
Amīr +Tīmūr Beg+ _Barlās Turk_—Ṣaḥib-i-qirān—mentioned in genealogies
14, 256;
his birthplace Kesh 83;
Samarkand his capital 75, 77, 78;
his description of Soghd 84;
his removal of the body of Sayyid Barka to Samarkand 266 n. 4;
circumambulates Shaikh Māṣlaḥat's tomb (790) 132 n. 2;
and Aḥmad _Yassawī's_ (799) 356;
captures of Qarshī 134 n. 1;
his example followed in the bestowal of Farghāna 14;
his gifts of the governments of Dihlī 487 and Samarkand 85;
his descendants styled Mīrzā down to 913 AH. 344;
Ḥusain _Bāī-qarā_ the best swordsman of his line 259
and greatest in his lands 191;
a descendant 567;
favoured begs 19, 39;
one of his old soldiers 150;
a descendant effects the migration of fowlers to Multān 225;
Bābur's victory where his had been at Pul-i-sangīn 352;
his and his descendants rule in Hindūstān 382;
their loss of lands to the Aūzbegs 340;
his builders and Bābur's numerically compared 520;
[♰807 AH.-1405 AD.].
+Tīmūr `Us̤mān+ _Mīrān-shāhī Tīmūrid_, _Barlās Turk_—mentioned 280.
+Tīngrī-bīrdī+ _Bashaghī_ (?) _Mughūl_—in the left wing [_tūlghumā_]
at Pānīpat (932) 473.
+Tīngrī-bīrdī Beg+, son of Qāsim _qūchīn_—helps to beat down snow for
a road (912) 308-9;
in the left wing at Qandahār (913) 334, 336;
his servant at Bajaur (925) 361;
entertains Bābur 401;
returns to his districts Khwāst and Andar-āb 403;
overtakes Bābur at Jūī-shāhī 410;
acts swiftly for him (932-3) 546.
+Tīngrī-qūlī+, a musician—plays at Bābur's entertainments (925) 385,
386, 388;
upset into the Parwān-water 407;
first given wine 415.
+Tīrahī Sulṯān+—takes a letter to Khwāja Kalān (925) 411.
Mulla +Tirik-i-`alī+ (= Pers. Jān-i-`alī ?)—fights for Bābur
at Bajaur (925) 368 and (on his name) n. 5;
on service (933) 551 (where read Tirik).
+Tīzak+, son of Qūl-i-bāyazīd _bakāwal_—captured as a child and kept
4 years (910) 197.
+T̤ūfān+ _Arghūn_—joins Bābur and so creates a good omen (913) 333.
Sayyid +T̤ufān+—on Bābur's service (932) 453.
+Tūghlūq-tīmūr Khān+ _Chaghatāī Chīngīz-khānid_—mentioned in Yūnas
Khān's genealogy 19.
+Tūka+ _Hindū_ (var. Nau-kār)—given charge of gifts for Kābul
(932) 525.
+Tūkhtā-būghā Sulṯān+ _Chaghatāī Chīngīz-khānid_, son of Aḥmad
(Alacha Khān)—waits on Bābur (934) 601;
at a feast (935) 631;
referred to as serving Bābur 318;
works magic 654;
in the battle of the Ghogrā 672, 673;
receives praise, thanks, and guerdon 674, 677;
on service 682;
[♰_cir._ 940 AH.-1533-4 AD.].
+Tūlik Kūkūldāsh+[2933]—Taṃbal strikes him with Bābur's sword
(912) 316;
defeats Aūzbegs in Badakhshān (925) 408;
on Humāyūn's service (935) 640;
his servant Barlās Jūkī _q.v._
+Tūlmīsh+ _Aūzbeg_—in the battle of the Ghogrā (935) 669;
on service 678.
+Tūlūn Khwāja Beg+, _Bārīn Mughūl_—particulars 87;
on Bābur's service (902) 66, (903) 88;
killed 88;
[♰903 AH.-1498 AD.].
+Tūn-sulṯān+ (var. Yūn) _Mughūl—ghūnchachī_ of `Umar Shaikh 24.
+Tūqā Beg+, son of Sherīm T̤aghāī—captured by Taṃbal when serving
Bābur (904) 106;
killed as a prisoner 107;
[♰904 AH.-1499 AD.]
Khwāja +`Ubāidu'l-lāh+ _Aḥrārī Naqshbandī_—his righteous influence
in Samarkand 42;
his intervention for peace between `Umar Shaikh and kinsmen
62 and n. 1;
Pashāghar once his village 97;
disciples named by Bābur, Aḥmad and `Umar Shaikh _Mīrān-shāhī_,
Darwesh Beg Tarkhān, and Maulānā-i-qāẓī _q.v._;
held in slight esteem by Maḥmūd _Mīrān-shāhī_ 46;
his family ill-treated by Maḥmūd (899) 41;
dreamed of by Bābur (906) 132;
his _Wālidiyyah-risāla_ versified by Bābur 619-20, 468 n. 4, ☛ 604;
his sons [Muḥammad `Ubaidu'l-lāh] Khwājakā Khwāja and Yaḥya _q.v._;
[♰895 AH.-1491 AD.].
+`Ubaidu'l-lāh Sulṯān Khān+ _Aūzbeg_, _Shaibānī Chīngīz-khānid_,
son of Maḥmūd and nephew of Shaibānī—defeats two pairs of Bāī-qarā
Mīrzās (913) 263, 329-30;
defeated at Merv (917) 354;
defeated north of Bukhārā _ib._;
his vow and return to obedience 348, 356;
victorious over Bābur at Kūl-i-malik (918) 201 n. 7, 357-8;
routs Najm S̤ānī at Ghaj-davān 360-1;
avenges Mughūl tyranny in Ḥiṣār 362;
attacks Herāt (927) 434;
takes Merv (932) 534, 617 n. 2;
takes Mashhad (933) 534, 623 n. 3;
attacked by T̤ahmāsp _Ṣafawī_ (934) 618, 622;
defeated at Jām (935) 622 (where in n. 1 for "934" read 935), 635-6;
T̤aḥmāsp's description of him 636 n. 2[2934];
his wives by capture Ḥabība _Dūghlāt_ and Mihr-angez
_Bāī-qarā_ _q.v._;
[♰946 AH.-1539 AD.].
Rāwāl +Ūdai-singh+ _Bāgarī_—his force at Kānwa (933) 562;
his death 573;
[♰933 AH.-1527 AD.].
+Ūlugh, Ūlūs+, see Aūlūgh, Aūlūs.
Mīr +`Umar Beg+ _Turkmān_—particulars 279;
his sons Abū'l-fatḥ and `Alī Khān _q.v._
+`Umar Mīrzā+ _Tīmūrid_, _Barlās Turk_, son of Mīrān-shāh—mentioned
262 n. 3.
+`Umar Shaikh Mīrzā I+, son of Tīmūr—mentioned 14 (where in l. 3 for
"and" read who);
receives Farghāna 14;
[♰797 AH.-1395 AD.].
+`Umar Shaikh Mīrzā II+ _Mīrān-shāhī_, father of Bābur—particulars
16-19, 24-28;
his lands 17, 24, 50, 55, 95 n. 2, 103;
Akhsī his capital 10;
his ambition 12;
his family relations 12;
betroths Bābur 35, 120;
Farghāna invaded (899) 13;
his death 13, 29, 32, App. A, i, iii;
his house used by Bābur (908) 172
and his tomb visited (900) 54, (908) 173;
his mother Shāh Sulṯān Begīm _q.v._;
his retainers Tūlūn Khwāja, `Abdu'l-wahhāb, Khwājakī Khwāja _q.v._;
his old tailor 30;
mentioned 6;
[♰899 AH.-1494 AD.].
+Umīd Āghācha+ _Andijānī_, _ghūnchachī_ of `Umar Shaikh—her son Nāṣir
_q.v._;
[♰before 899 AH.-1494 AD.].
+`Us̤mān+, the Third Khalif—Bābur surmised that Samarkand became
Musalmān in his reign 75;
[♰murdered 35 AH.-665 AD.].
Mullā-zāda Mullā +`Us̤mān+—particulars 284;
his birthplace Chīrkh 217.
Amīr +Wāḥid+—his tomb in Herāt visited by Bābur (912) 306;
[♰35 AH.-655-6 AD. ?]
Beg +Wais+—brings news from Kābul to Āgra (933) 536.
Pīr (or Mīr) +Wais+—stays with Bābur at a crisis (903) 91;
released (905) 119;
leaves Samarkand during the siege (906-7) 146.
Shaikh +Wais+—stays with Bābur at a crisis (903) 91;
leaves Samarkand during the siege (906-7) 146.
+Wais Ātāka+—his canal at Kābul 200.
+Wais Khān+ _Chaghatāī Chīngīz-khānid_, father of Yūnas
Khān—mentioned 19;
his sons Yūnas and Aīsān-būghā _q.v._;
[♰832 AH.-1428-9 AD.].
Sulṯān +Wais+ _Kūlābī_—his friendship recommended to Humāyūn
(935) 627;
☛ reinforces Qila`-i-ẕafar (935 or 936) 696;
his daughter Ḥaram Begīm _q.v._
+Wais+ _Lāgharī_ +Beg+ _tūghchī_—particulars 28;
joins The Khān (Maḥmūd) (899) 32;
safe-guards his ward Nāṣir _Mīrān-shāhī_ _ib._;
on service for Bāī-sunghar (902) 65;
waits on Bābur 66;
stays with him at a crisis (903) 91;
on his service (904) 98, 100, 101, 106;
at Khūbān (905) 113;
advises 117;
plundered by `Alī-dost 119;
leaves Samarkand during the siege (906-7) 146;
his son (?) Beg-gīna _q.v._
+Wais+ _Mīrān-shāhī_, see Mīrzā Khān.
Sulṯān +Wais Mīrzā+ _Bāī-qarā Tīmūrid_, _Barlās Turk_, son of
Bāī-qarā II—parentage 257;
his cousin and wife Sulṯanīm _q.v._
Sulṯān +Wais+ _Sawādī_—mentioned 372;
sent to collect a tax he had fixed (925) 374;
receives gifts and leave 376.[2935]
Sulṯān +Wālāma+ _Taklū_—mentioned in Shāh T̤ahmāsp's account
of the battle of Jām (935) 626 n. 2.
Pīr +Walī+ _Bārlas Turk_—☛ loses Sīwīstān to Shāh Beg (_cir._ 917)
429 n. 1.
+Walī Beg+ _Barlās_—particulars 272-3;
his son Muḥammad-i-Walī _q.v._;
[♰973 AH.].
+Walī Beg+ _Qībchāq Turk_, brother of Khusrau Shāh[2936]—particulars
51;
on his brother's service (901) 60, 64, (902) 71, (903) 93-4;
mentioned (906) 129, (910) 191 by Ḥusain _Bāī-qarā_;
inquired for from Khusrau by Bābur 193;
defeated by Aīmaqs 196;
his death 51, 196;
his former followers gathered together 242;
[♰910 AH.-1504 AD.].
+Walī+ _khazānchī_, _Qarā-qūzī_—captured by Taṃbal in Akhsī (908) 181;
in the left centre at Qandahār (913) 335;
his matchlock shooting at Bajaur (925) 369;
on service 391, (932) 458, 465-6, 471;
in the right wing at Pānīpat 472, 475,
and at Kanwā (933) 566;
his ill-behaviour in the heats 524.
+Walī+ _pārschī_ (cheeta-keeper)—receives a gift (935) 633.
+Walī Qīzīl+ _Mughūl_—rebuked (932) 453;
in the right-wing [_tūlghuma_] at Pānīpat 473;
made _shiq-dār_ of Dihlī 476;
on service (934) 601, (935) 638.
+Yādgār-i-muḥammad+[2937] +Mīrzā+ _Shāh-rukhī Tīmūrid_, _Barlās Turk_,
son of Muḥammad—his capture of Herāt referred to 278;
his defeat by Ḥusain _Bāī-qarā_ at Chanārān (874) 260;
his loss of Herāt to Ḥusain (875) 260, 279,
compared with Shaibānī's of Samarkand to Bābur (906) 134-5;
the date of his death referred to 259 n. 1;
his Master-of-horse Mīr (Qambar-i-)`alī _q.v._;
[♰875 AH.-1470-1 AD.].
+Yādgār-i-nāsir Mīrzā+ _Mīrān-shāhī Tīmūrid_, _Barlās Turk_,
son of Nāṣir—gifts made to him (935) 632;
[♰953 AH.-1546 AD.].
+Yādgār-i-sulṯān Begīm+ _Mīrān-shāhī_ (_ut supra_), daughter of
`Umar Shaikh—particulars 18;
her Aūzbeg marriage (908) 18, 356;
her return to Bābur (917) 356.
+Yādgār T̤aghāī+—his daughter Bega Begīm _q.v._
Khwāja +Yaḥyā+, younger son of `Ubaidu'l-lāh _Aḥrārī_—his part in
the Tarkhān revolt (901) 63;
treats with Bābur (904) 98;
welcomes him to Samarkand (905) 124;
waits on Shaibānī (906) 127;
banished by him and murdered with two sons 128, 147 n. 4;
his house mentioned 133;
his sons Muḥammad Zakariya and Bāqī, his grandsons `Abdu'sh-shahīd
and Khwāja Kalān _q.v._;
[♰906 AH.-1500 AD.].
Shaikh +Yaḥyā+ _Chīshtī_—his tomb visited by Bābur (935) 666;
his son Sharafu'd-dīn _Munīrī_ _q.v._
+Yaḥyā+ _Nūḥānī_, at the head of Hindūstān traders—allowed to leave
Kābul (925) 416.
+Yaḥyā Nūḥānī+ (perhaps the man last entered)—waits on Bābur
(935) 676;
a grant and leave given 683;
his younger brother (no name) 683.
+Yakka Khwāja+—on Bābur's service (934) 598; in the battle
of the Ghogrā (935) 671; drowned 674; his brother Qāsim _q.v._;
[♰935 AH.-1529 AD.].
+Yāngī Beg Kūkūldāsh+—brings Bābur letters and gifts from Kāshghar
(932) 445-6.
+Ya`qūb-i-ayūb+ _Begchīk_, son of Ayūb—on Ḥusain Bāī-qarā's service
(901) 58;
proffers Khusrau Shāh's service to Bābur (910) 192-3.
Sulṯān +Ya`qūb Beg+ _Āq-qūīlūq Turkmān_—a desertion to him 275;
affords refuge to Banā'ī 287;
his beg Tīmūr `Uṣman _Mīrān-shāhī_ _q.v._;
[♰896 AH.-1491 AD.].
Maulānā +Ya`qūb+ _Naqshbandī_—his birthplace Chīrkh 217;
[♰851 AH.-1447 AD.].
+Ya`qūb+ _tez-jang_—☛ one of five champions defeated in single combat
by Bābur (914) 349 n. 1.
+Ya`qūb Sulṯān+—mentioned as at Jām 636 n. 2.
Mullā +Yārak+—plays one of his compositions and incites Bābur
to compose (926) 422.
+Yārak T̤aghāī+ (var. Yārīk)—stays with Bābur at a crisis (903) 91;
_locum tenens_ in Akhsī (905) 116;
retaliates on Turkmān Hazāras (911) 253;
takes charge of sheep raided by Bābur (912) 313;
in the right wing at Qandahār (913) 334.
+Yār-i-`alī+ _Balāl_, _Bahārlū Qarā-qūīlūq Turkmān_, grandfather
of Bairām Khān-i-khānān—stays with Bābur at a crisis (903) 91;
wounded (905) 109 (where in n. 5 for "father" read grandfather);
rejoins Bābur (910) 189;
on his Tramontane service (932-3) 546.
+Yār-i-ḥusain+, grandson of Mīr (Shaikh) `Alī Beg—waits on Bābur
(910) 228;
asks permission to raise a force in Bābur's name 231;
kills Bāqī _Chaghānīānī_ (911) 250-1.
+Yārīm Beg+—Yār-i-muḥammad?—on Bābur's service (913) 337.
+Yīlī-pars Sulṯān+ _Aūzbeg-shaibān_—his brother Aīsān-qulī
(_q.v._) 265.
+Yīsūn-tawā Khān+ _Chaghatāī Chīngīz-khānid_—mentioned in Yūnas
Khān's genealogy 19.
+Yūl-chūq+—conveys a message to Bābur (904) 99.
+Yūnas-i-`alī+, son of Bābā `Alī Lord-of-the-Gate—surprised at a
Tuesday's fast (925) 398;
on Bābur's service 278, 468 (where read his name in l. 3) 475, 521;
in the right centre at Pānīpat (932) 472, 473
and at Kānwa (933) 565, 569;
has charge of Ibrāhīm's mother 543, 545;
makes a garden (932) 532;
in social charge of T̤ahmāsp _Ṣafawī's_ envoys (935) 631;
inquires into Muḥammad-i-zamān _Bāī-qarā's_ objections to Bihār
661, 662;
in the battle of the Ghogrā 671;
at entertainments (925) 400, (935) 683;
his kinsman Ibrāhīm _qanūnī_ _q.v._
+Yūnas Khān+ _Chaghatāī Chīngīz-khānid_, Bābur's maternal
grandfather—particulars[2938] 19-24;
made Khān of the Mughūls by Bābur's grandfather 20, 344 n. 2, 352;
his friendly relations with Bābur's father 12;
receives Tāshkīnt from him 13;
defeats him 16;
his sons Maḥmūd and Aḥmad _q.v._ and daughters 21-4;
his servant Qaṃbar-i-`alī _q.v._ mentioned 92 n. 1, 149, 565 n. 1;
[♰892 AH.-1487 AD.].
Khwāja +Yūnas+ _Sajāwandī_—his birthplace in Luhūgur (Logar) 217.
+Yūsuf-i-`alī+—musician at entertainments (925) 385, 387, 388,
418.
+Yūsuf-i-`alī+ _bakāwal_—on Bābur's service in Bajaur (925) 375.
+Yūsuf-i-`alī Kūkūldāsh+—made joint-_dārogha_ in Herāt (911) 293;
Bābur's cicerone in Herāt (912) 304;
his good dancing 303.
+Yūsuf-i-`alī+ _rikābdār_—conveys a letter concerning Hind-āl's
pre-natal adoption (925) 374;
receives a gift for swimming 401;
meets Bābur 418;
(?) in Saṃbhal (934) 587;
(?) dies there 675, 687 (here `Alī-i-yūsuf);
[♰935 AH.-1529 AD.].[2939]
Khwāja +Yūsuf+ _Andijānī_, a musician—particulars 4.
+Yūsuf-i-ayūb+ _Begchīk_, son of Ayūb—Bābur warned against him
(910) 190;
takes service with Bābur 196;
winters with Nāṣir 241;
leaves Bābur for Jahāngīr (911) 190, 254.
+Yūsuf+ _badī_`[2940]—particulars 289;
[♰897 AD.-1492].
Sayyid +Yūsuf Beg+ _Aūghlāqchī_, son of Murād—particulars 39;
waits on Bābur from Samarkand (903) 72;
holding Yār-yīlāq for `Alī _Mīrān-shāhī_ (904) 98;
dismissed from Khurāsān on suspicion 98;
joins Bābur (910) 196;
advises him 197;
his death 241;
his brother Ḥasan and sons Muḥammad-i-yūsuf and Aḥmad-i-yūsuf
_q.v._;
[♰910 AH.-1505 AD.].
+Yūsuf dārogha+ of Akhsī?—interviews Bābur during the flight
(908) 181-2.
Sayyid +Yūsuf+ _Machamī_—particulars 118;
opposes Bābur (905) 118, 117 n. 2.
+Zāhid Khwāja+—abandons Saṃbhal (933) 557;
on service (935) 682;
[♰953 AH.-1546 AD.].
Shaikh +Zain+ _Khawāfī_—verse-making on the Kābul-river (932) 448;
his account of Bābur's regretted couplet 448 n. 5;
goes into Dihlī for the Congregational Prayer 476;
makes a garden at Āgra 532;
recalls a vow to Bābur (933) 553;
his _inshā_ on Bābur's renunciation of wine and of the _tamghā_
553-6;
his _Fatḥ-nāma_ of Kānwa 559-574, and chronograms of victory 575;
in the left centre of the battle 565;
prefers requests for Muḥammad-i-zamān _Bāī-qarā_ (935) 662;
invited in verse by Bābur 683;
his maternal uncle Abū'l-wajd _q.v._;
[♰940 AH.-1533-4 AD.].
+Zainab-sulṯān Begīm+—her granddaughter met by Bābur near Āgra
(935) 616.
+Zainab-sulṯān Begīm+ _Mīrān-shāhī Tīmūrid_, _Barlās Turk_, daughter
of Maḥmūd—particulars 48;
married to Bābur (910) 48, 711;
[♰_cir._ 912 AH.-1506-7 AD.].
+Zard-rūī+—on Bābur's service (935) 668, 669.
+Zar-dusht+ ("Zoroaster")—mentioned in a verse 85.
Bībī +Zarīf Khātūn+—her daughter Māh-chūchūq 199 n. 1, 342 n. 3.
+Zubaida Aghācha+ _Jalāīr_—particulars 267, 273 n. 2;
[♰before 911 AH.-1506 AD.].
+Zubaida Khatūn+, wife of Khalīfa Hārūnu'r-rashīd—a surmise
concerning her 306 n. 1;
[♰216 AH.-831 AD.].
+Zubair+ _Rāghī_—revolts against Aūzbeg rule in Badakhshān (910) 242,
(912) 295;
defeats Nāṣir _Mīrān-shāhī_ 321;
standing firm (913) 340;
[♰914 AH.-1508 AD.].
+Zuhra Begī Āghā+ _Aūzbeg_, concubine of Maḥmūd
_Mīrān-shāhī_—particulars 47, 49;
intrigues disastrously with Shaibānī (905) 125-6, (906) 127-8.
Mīr Shaikh +Ẕū'n-nūn Beg+ _Arghūn_—particulars 274-5;
captures Shāl (Quetta) (884) 429 n. 1;
his ward-ship of `Alī _Mīrān-shāhī_ (900) 55;
imprisons Khalīfa 55;
surrenders Aūrā-tīpā 56;
serving Ḥusain _Bāī-qarā_ (901) 57, 60 n. 3;
becomes an ally of the rebel Badī`u-z-zamān (902) 71, (903) 94-5,
260;
invited by Ḥusain to co-operate against Shaibānī (910) 190, 191;
goes for refuge to Ḥusain 243;
dealings with his son Muqīm 198, 227, 248;
his title Lion-of-God 281;
part of the coalition government in Herāt (911) 293;
defeats Aūzbegs (912) 296;
social matters 298, 299, 307;
hears plain speaking from Qāsim Beg _qūchīn_ 304;
his futile opposition to Shaibānī (913) 326;
defeated and killed 275, 327;
his retainer Jān-aīrdī;
[♰913 AH.-1507 AD.].
Index II. Geographical.
Ābāpūr (S.E. of Āgra), Bābur at 642-3.
Abā-qūrūq (Kābul), Bābur at 197.
Āb-burdan (Upper Zar-afshān), description of 152;
spring and pass of 152;
a route through 40 n. 4.
Āb-dara (Ḥiṣār-shādmān), Bābur takes up good ground at 353.
Āb-dara (Hindū-kush), a winter-route through 205, 242, 321, 351.
Āb-i-khān (Farghāna), Taṃbal in 110, 112.
Āb-i-rahmat = Qarā-sū _q.v._ (Samarkand), mentioned to locate
Kān-i-gil 78, 81.
Āb-istāda (S.E. of Ghaznī) described 239;
Bābur at 218, 239.
Abīward (Khurāsān), Anwārī's birthplace 260 n. 1.
Āb-i-yār-qūrūq (Samarkand), Bābur in 66.
Abuha or Anuha (N.W.F.P. India), limits Sawād 400.
Ābūn- or Ātūn-village (Kābul), Bābur at 407.
Ādampūr or Ārampūr-_pargana_ (U.P. India), Bābur at 650, 684;
682 n. 1;
location of 650 n. 3;
684 n. 3.
Adīnapūr (Kābul), on the Surkh-rūd 209;
of the name 207, App. E, xxi;
a dārogha's head-quarters 208;
the Bāgh-i-wafā near 421, 443;
Bābur at 229.
Adūsa-and-Mūrī (U.P. India), Bābur at 645.
Afghānistān, Bābur's limitation of the name 200;
demerits of its mountains 223.
Āgra, revenue of 521;
`Ālam Khān plans to attack 455-6, 474;
estimate of Pānīpat casualties made in 474;
submits to Bābur 523;
exhaustion of treasure in 617;
a military rendezvous 676;
supplies from 685; hot season in 524;
measurement of Kābul-Āgra road 629;
water-raising in 487;
Bābur takes oleanders to 610;
his workmen in 520, 630, 642;
keeps Rāmẓān in 584;
receives letters from 639;
comes and goes to and from 478, 548, 581, 606, 686;
others ditto 475, 526, 540, 576-8, 606, 621-4, 650;
mentioned to locate places 529, 531 (2), 588, 597, 641, 650-8, 680.
Āhangarān (on the Herī-rūd, Khurāsān), 308 n.
Āhangarān-julgā[2941] (S.E. of Tāshkīnt), Bābur at 90, 152, 161.
Ahār-passage (Ganges), Bābur's troops at 528.
Aībak, mod. Hāībak, Fr. map Boukhara, Hai-bagh (Kābul-Balkh route),
Bābur at 189;
a rebel near 546, and for location 546, n. 2.
Aīkarī-yār (Kābul), Bābur's scouts fight near 196.
Aīkī-sū-ārā[2942] = Mīyān-dū-āb = Between-the-two-waters (Farghāna)
an alternative name Rabāṯik-aūrchīn 88;
located 88, n. 2;
Mughūls in 88, 105;
Bābur in 114;
Taṃbal in 116.
Aīlāīsh- or Aīlāmīsh-daryā, ? Qarā-daryā (Farghāna), Bābur's men
defeated on, 105;
game near 114.
Aīlāk-yīlāq (Ḥiṣār-shādmān), Bābur at 187-8, 194.
Aīlchī (E. Turkistan), of the name 50, n. 2.
Aīndīkī var. (Kābul), Bābur gathers tooth-picks near 407.
`Aīsh-pushla (Farghāna), Taṃbal near 106;
Bābur near 165.
Aītmāk-dābān (Samarkand) described 83;
a boundary 84;
64 n. 1;
80 n. 2.
Āī-tūghdī (Kābul) position of 253 n. 3;
Bābur at 253.
Ajar Fort (in Kāhmard, or Kahmard _q.v._ Fr. map Maïmènè), Bābur's
and his followers' families left in 189;
various occurrences in 197, 243, 293;
a plan to defend 191;
gifts to its peasantry 633 n. 5.
Akhsī, Akhsīkīt (Farghāna), described 9;
book-name of 9 and n. 4;
position of 13;
—`Umar Shaikh's capital 10;
exploit at 16;
death at 13;
—a rebel at 26;
a death in 40;
appointments to 32, 115;
a notable of 110;
a village of 171;
a melon of 82;
besieged 31-2, 54;
threatened 44;
army of, called up against Bābur 110;
comings and goings from and to 87, 90, 101-3, 124, 161, 176, 180,
182, 183;
river-fight below 102;
Bābur at 54, 116, 170-1-2;
apportioned to Jahāngīr 118-9;
an army hostile to Bābur near 162;
promised to Bābur 168;
his attempt to defend 173-6;
his flight from 176, 396;
Shaibānī defeats the Chaghatāī Khāns near 18, 182, 351-6.
Akrīāda-_pargana_ (Panj-āb), a holder of 453.
Alāī-tāgh (Farghāna), on a Ḥiṣār—E. Turkistān route 129;
sub-districts of 162.
Alangār-_tūmān_ (Kābul), described 210;
a constituent of the true Lamghānāt 210;
a holder of 241;
Bābur in 424.
Ālā-qūrghān = Ikhtiyāru'd-dīn (Herāt), Bābur reported captive in 313;
the Bāī-qarā households in 327;
captured by Shaibānī 328.
Ālā-sāī-_bulūk_ (Kābul), described 220-1;
wines of 221.
Ālā-tāgh (s. of Qalāt-i-ghilzāī, Afghānistān), over-run 249.[1]
Alexander's Iron-wall (Darband _q.v._ Caspian Sea), mentioned
in metaphor 564;
purpose of 564 n. 3.
Alexandria ad Caucasum (Kābul), site of 214 n. 7.
Alghū-tāgh var. Aūlūgh-tāgh (mid-Oxus valley), a Bāī-qarā arrival
near 60.
`Alī-ābād (Samarkand), Shaibānī in 135.
`Alī-masjid (Khaibar-route), Bābur passes 394, 411-2, 450;
description of its spring 412 n. 1.
`Alī-shang-_tūmān_ (Kābul), described 210;
a constituent of the tune Lamghānāt 210;
a holder of 241;
Bābur in 342, 424.
Allāhābād (India), _see_ Pīāg.
Almālīgh (E. Turkistān), depopulation of 1;
located 2 n. 1;
referred to 162 n. 2.
Almār (s. of Maïmènè, Fr. map), Bābur passes through, 296.
Ālmātū (E. Turkistān), depopulation of 1;
located 2 n. 1;
referred to 162 n. 2;
*a battle near 349.
Altī-shahr (E. Turkistān), an occasional name of Yītī-kīnt 11 n. 6.
Alwār, Alūr (Rājpūtāna), a rebel leaves 545;
an arrival from 687;
mentioned to fix limits 577-8-9;
gift made of its treasure 519;
an appointment to 578.
Aṃbahar (N.W.F.P. India?), on a suggested route 376;
pass of 376.
Aṃbāla (Panj-āb), Bābur at 465.
`Aṃbar-koh (Qūndūz), a fight on 61.
Amla (Kābul), Bābur at 422.
Amrohā (U.P. India), revenue assigned of 685.
Amū-darya, Oxus, Bābur on 48, 189, 249, others on 57, 74, 193, 244,
*359[2943];
of Trans-Amū tribes 242;
limits territory 49;
*Bābur's fortunes lost beyond 426;
—ferries of, Aūbāj, 93, 95 (where for Aūbāj read Chār-jūī), 110,
189, Chārjūī (which read for Aūbāj), Kilīf 57, 191, Kīrkī 191,
Tīrmīz 191.
Andar-āb (n. of Hindū-kush), a n. boundary of Kābul 200;
mountains of 221;
roads from 205;
a holder of 403;
comings through 51, 193 (Bābur's), 196.
Andarābā (Panj-āb), Bābur at 391-2.
Andijān (Farghāna), description of 3-4;
the capital, sport in, pure Turkī in, climate of 4
—its water 5,
mountains of 15, 55, 102, 118, 125;
tribes of 162;
a grass of 221;
its Chār-bāgh 29;
celebrities of 4, 280;
mentioned to locate places, etc., 4, 8, 10, 16, 113, 396;
its railway 30 n. 5;
given to `Umar Shaikh I and II, 14;
people of led into captivity 20, 22;
Bābur its governor 29 n. 1;
succeeds in it 29;
attacks on 27, 30, 54, 87-8, 106-8, 161-8, 171, 192;
captures of 18, 20, 89, 90, 122, 192, 244;
demanded from Bābur 87, 168, 318, 351-2;
Aūzbeg chiefs wait on Bābur in 58;
lost by Bābur 89-90, 122;
his attempts to regain 92-7-8, 162-5;
succeeds, 103-4, 115;
proposed disposition of 118;
the cause of his second exile from 105; he
compares it with Samarkand 123;
a raid near 164;
its army on service, 48, 87, 101, 171-2;
occupied by Sa`īd Khān 351-7, 362;
commandants of 25, 32, 44;
gifts sent to 633;
comings and goings to and from 32, 58, 64, 102-3-6-8-9, 113, 145,
150, 165-8, 170, *183, 399;
Bābur's comings and goings to and from 55, 66, 71, 114-9, 174;
hint of another visit 358 and n. 2;
(_see_ Farghāna).
Andikān (Farghāna), 161 _see_ Andijān.
Andikhūd (w. of Balkh, Khurāsān), fighting near 46, 260;
plan to defend 191;
Sayyids of 266-7-8;
a commandant of 279;
a traitor in 325.
Anwār, ? Unwāra (near Āgra), Bābur at 589, 641.
Āqār-tūzī (Samarkand), a battle near 34.
Āq-būrā-rūd (Farghāna), rapid descent of 5 n. 3.
Āq-kūtal (between Soghd and Tāshkīnt), a force passes 111.
Āq-qāchghāī (Aūrā-tīpā, Samarkand), a rapid message through 25.
Āq-sū (Aūrā-tīpā, Samarkand), Aḥmad _Mīrānshāhī_ dies on 33.
Āq-sū (Eastern Turkistān), 20 n. 5, 29 n. 5.
`Arabia, a bird of 497.
Arāt (Kābul), App. G. xxv.
Archa-kīnt (Farghāna), a road through 116.
Archīān-qūrghān (Farghāna), Taṃbal enters 117;
scene of the Chaghatāī Khāns' defeat 117 n. 2, *182, *351 (where
read Archīān for "Akhsī"), 356 (here read near Akhsī).
Argand-āb (Qandahār) irrigation off-takes of 332 n. 4, 333 n. 4.
Ārī-_pargana_, Arrah (Bihār, India), Bābur in 664-6.
Arind-water, Rind (U.P. India), Bābur on 684.
Arūpār (U.P. India), _see_ Rūpār.
Arus-, Urus-, Arys-sū (W. Turkistān), a battle near 16.
Asfara (Farghāna), described 7;
Persian-speaking Sārts of 7 and n. 3;
a holder of 115;
Bābur takes refuge in 7 and sends gifts to Highlanders of 633
and n. 4;
Bābur captures 53;
Bābur in a village of 123.
Asfīdūk (Samarkand), Bābur in 131-2.
Aspara or Ashpara (Mughūlistān), Abū-sa`id _Mīrān-shāhī_ leads an army
to 20.
Astar-āb (e. of Pul-i-chiragh, Fr. map Maïmènè), tribes in 255.
Astarābād (Khurāsān), partridge-cry in 496;
oranges of 510;
a poet of 290 n. 3;
Ḥusain _Bāī-qarā_ and 46, 95, 259, 260, 261, 272;
assignments of 61-9, 70, 94;
commandants in 272 (Nawā'ī), 275;
two Bāī-qarās put to death in 262, 266.
Atak, "Attock" (on the Indus), locates Nīl-āb 206 n. 3, and Bābā Walī
_Qandahārī's_ shrine 332 n. 4.
Atar (Kābul), located 211;
Bābur at 343, 422-3.
Aūba, Ubeh, "Obeh" (on the Herī-rūd), a holder of 274.
Aūd (U.P. India), _see_ Oude, Oudh.
Aūlābā-tū (Ghazni), Bābur at 323.
Aūlīā-ātā (E. Turkīstān), 2 n. 1.
Aūlūgh-nūr (Kābul), located 209;
a route past 209;
on the "nur" of the name App. F, xxiii;
Bābur at 421-5.
Aūnjū- or Ūnjū-tūpa (Farghāna), Bābur at 110.
Aurangābād (Ḥaidarābād, Dakhin, India), a grape of 77 n. 2.
Aūrā-tīpā (between Khujand and the Zarafshān, Samarkand), its names
Aūrūsh and Aūrūshna 77;
an alp of 25;
Dikh-kat a village of 149, 154;
locates Khwās 17;
escapes to 124, 141, 156;
transfers of, to `Umar `Shaikh 17,
to Aḥmad 27, 30, 35,
to Muḥ. Ḥusain _Dūghlāt_ 97;
Aḥmad dies in 33;
The Khān in 92;
Bābur's family in 136;
Bābur in 98-9, 124, 149 (2);
enemies of Bābur in 152, 154.
Aūrganj or Ūrgenj (Khwarizm), a claim to rule in 266.
Aūrgūt (Samarkand), surrenders to Bābur, 68.
Aūsh, Ūsh (Farghāna), described 4;
a trick of the ragamuffins of 6;
course of its water 10;
appointments to 32, 65;
a raid near 25;
an arrival from 112;
fugitive to 168;
dependencies of 109, 110;
Taṃbal and 103-7, 123;
Bābur's men in 114;
oppression of 172;
good behaviour at 176; Bābur at 108, 161-2-4-7-9 (advice to go to).
Aūṯrār, Ūṯrār, "Oṯrār" (W. Turkistān), _see_ Yāngī.
Aūtrūlī, Atraulī (U.P. India), Bābur at 587.
Aūz-kīnt (Farghāna), refuge in planned, for the child Bābur, 29;
Mughūls take refuge in 105;
Jahāngīr, with Taṃbal, and 103, 114-6-8, 123;
Bābur and 29, 108-9, 118, 161-2-9;
Bābur's note on 162.
Awīghūr (Farghāna), a holder of 118, 125 n. 2.
Āẕarbāījān (on the Caspian), taken by White Sheep 49;
cold of 219;
a comer from 280;
Tīmūr's workmen in 520.
Bābā Ḥasan _Abdāl_, _i.e._, Bābā Walī _Qandahārī_ (Qandahār),
irrigation-channels towards 332-6;
shrine of the saint near Atack (Attock) 332 n. 4.
Bābā Ilāhī (Herāt), Ḥusain _Bāī-qarā_ dies at 256;
(_see_ Fr. map Herat, Baboulei).
Bābā Khākī (Herāt), a rapid message from
Farghāna to 25;
an army at 326;
located 25 n. 2, 326 n. 1.
Bābā Lūlī (Kābul), Bābur advances towards 315.
Bābā Qarā (Bajaur _q.v._), spring of 371;
?identical with Khwāja Khiẓr 371 n. 1;
valley of 367 n. 3.
Bābā Tawakkul's Langar (Farghāna), the younger Khān halts at 168.
Bābā Walī (Atak, Attock), _see_ Bābā Ḥasan.
Bābur-khāna (Panj-āb), 450 n. 5.
Bāburpūr (U.P. India), Bābur at 644 n. 6.
Bachrātā var. (Farghāna), a ferry crossed near 116, 170 (by Bābur).
Badakhshān, Farghāna's s. boundary 1;
Hindū-kush divides Kābul from 204;
trees of 221;
locates Kāfiristān 46; Kābul trade of 202;
Bābur sends sugar-cane to 208;
a poet of 288; Rusta Hazāra of 196;
unprofitable to Bābur 480;
reference to his conquest of 220;
Greek descent of its Shāhs 22, 242;
a series of rulers in 47-9, 208 n. 8, 243, 340, *426, *433, *697;
a plan for defence of 191;
Aūzbegs and 242, 294;
considered as a refuge for Bābur 340;
various begīms go to 21-2-4, 48;
Nāṣir's affairs in 242-3, 321-2;
a letter of victory sent to 371;
Bābur plans going to 412;
Bābur and Māhīm visit Humāyūn in 426, 436;
Sa`īd _Chaghatāī's_ affairs with 412, *695-6;
*Humāyūn's desertion of 690, 707;
*offered to Khalīfa 697 and n. 1;
*contingent disposition of 706.
Badām-chashma (Kābul), climatic change at pass of 203; Bābur at 229,
409, 445.
Badāyūn (U.P. India), appointments to 267, 582.
Bādghīs (Khurāsān, n. of Herāt), Aūzbegs defeat Bāī-qarās in 275;
Bābur in 296, 307.
Bād-i-pīch-pass, Bād-pakht? (Kābūl), a route through 209; Bābur goes
through 343, 421;
places an inscription in 343.
Badr-aū-_bulūk_, Tag-aū (Kābul), described 221;
water of 227 n. 1;
a route through 209;
Bābur in 421.
Badrū-ferry (Ghogrā, Sarū); 667 n. 5.
Bādshāh-nagar (U.P. India), Bābur's visit gives the name to 678 n. 1.
Bāgar (Rājpūtāna), a holder of 573;
identified 573 n. 2.
"Bāghdād," a variant for Būghdā 40 and n. 2.
Bāghlān (Qūndūz), nomads leave Kābul for 402.
Bahār or Bihār (Kābul), seat of a tribe 413;
Bābur at 414.
Bahat, Bihat, Jhelum-river (Panj-āb), course of 485;
Bābur on 382, *441, 453;
crossed in fear of him 382.
Bahraich (U.P. India), revenue of 521;
locates Ghazrā crossings 669.
Bajaur (N.W.F.P. India), concerning its name 367 n. 4, 571 n. 3;
once a Kābul dependency 207;
wines and fruit of 372, 510-1;
monkeys and birds of 492-3-4;
beer made in 423;
a test of women's virtue in 211;
Bābur and 367 to 370, 371-3, 377, *429;
repopulation of 375;
tribute of 400;
Dost Beg's valour at 370, 397;
Khwāja Kalān and 370, 411, 422-3;
Bībī Mubārika left in 376;
arrivals from 401.
Bakkak-pass (between Yaka-aūlāng and the Herī-rud valley), Bābur's
perilous crossing of 309;
an alternative pass (Zirrīn) 310 n. 2.
Baksar _sarkār_ (U.P. India), revenue of 521.
Baksara (U.P. India), Bābur at *603, 660.
Balādar, Bīlādar (U.P. India), Bābur at 686.
Bālā-ḥiṣār (Kābul), present site of 198 n. 4;
(_see_ Citadel).
Bālā-jūī (Kābul), maker and name of 200 and n. 5.
Ballia (U.P. India), sub-divisions of 637 n. 1, 664 n. 8, 667 n. 2.
Balkh (Oxus valley), border-countries of 76, 261, 204;
heat in 520;
a melon-grower of 686;
its trade with Kābul 202;
holders of 18, 61-9, 257, 263, 275;
exploits at 50, 93, 270;
Ḥusain _Bāī-qarā_ and 70, 191;
Khusrau Shāh and 93-4, 110, 270;
Shaibānī and 294-6, 300, *363;
Kītīn-qarā and 545-6;
`Ubaid and 622;
*Ismā`īl _Ṣafawī_ and 359, 363;
Muḥammad-i-zamān and *364, 385, *428;
Bābur and 220, *359, *426-7, *442-4-5-6, 463 and n. 3, 546 n. 1,
625.
Balkh-āb, headwaters of 216; Bābur crosses 295.
Balnāth Jogī's hill (Panj-āb), Bābur near 452.
Bāmīān (Khurāsān ? w. of Ghūr-bund, Kābul), mountains of 215;
how reached from Kābul 205;
Khusrau Shāh and 96 (where for "Qāsim" read Kāmal);
Bābur and 189, 311, *351, 409.
Bām-valley (Herāt), a _langar_ in 308 n. 1;
Bābur in 296, 297 n. 1.
Banākat, Fanākat = Shāhrukhiya (Tāshkīnt) 2 n. 5, 76.
Banāras, Benares (U.P. India), crocodiles near 502;
threatened 652-4;
Bābur near 657.
Banas-river (India), course of 485.
Bāndīr, Bhander (C. India), a fruit of 507;
Bābur at 590-8.
Band-i-sālār Road (Farghāna), Bābur on 55, 116.
Bangarmāwū, Bangarmau (U.P. India), Bābur near 601.
Bangash _tūmān_ (Kābul), described 220, 209, 233, 405;
a holder of 27, 252;
plan of attack on 229, 231-3, 382.
Bannū plain (N.W.F.P. India), a limit of Kābul territory 200;
a waterless plain near 234;
date of the modern town 232 n. 5;
Bābur and 218, 231-2, 382, 394.
Bānswāra (Rājpūtāna), an old name of 573 n. 1.
Banūr (Patiāla, Panj-āb), Bābur on (Ghaggar) torrent of 464.
(The) Bar (Panj-āb), 380 n. 4.
Baraich (U.P. India), _see_ Bahraich.
Barak or Birk (?N.W.F.P. India), mentioned as between Dasht and Farmū
l 235.
Barakistān, Birkistān (Zurmut, Kābul), a tomb in 220;
? tongue of 207.
Barā-koh (Farghāna) described 5; position of 5 n. 2.
Bāramūla (Kāshmir), a limit of Sawād territory 372 n. 3.
Bārān-sū,[2944] Panjhīr-sū (Kābul), affluents to 210-1;
the bird-migrants' road 224;
migration of fish in 225;
bird-catching on 228;
routes crossing 209, 342;
locates various places 207 n. 5, 215, App. E, xvii;
—passers along 195, 242;
Bābur and 254, 420, _see_ Koh-dāman.
Bārān _wilāyat_ (Kohistān, Kābul), Bābur in 253, 320, 405.
Bāra (N.W.F.P. India), road of 411;
Bābur fords the water of 230.
Bārī (Rajpūtāna), hills of 486;
hunting-grounds in 509 n. 2;
Bābur at 509, 585.
Bārīk-āb (affluent of the "Kābul-river"), Bābur on 409, 414, 446.
Bast, Bost, Bust (on the Helmand, Afghānistān), Ḥusain _Bāī-qarā's_
affairs at 94, 260.
Basṯam (`Irāq), a w. limit of Khurāsān 261 (where read Basṯam);
captured 622.
Bateswār (U.P. India), ferry of 643 n. 3.
Bāzār and Tāq (India), _see_ Dasht.
Bāzārak (Hindū-kush), described 205.
Beg-tūt (Kābul), earthquake action near 247.
Benares (India), _see_ Banāras.
Bengal, Bangala (India), particulars of the rules and customs in 482;
envoys to and from 637, 640, 665;
army of 663; Bābur at ease about 677, 679 n. 7;
traversed by the Ganges 485;
a bird of 495;
fruits of 504.
Between-two-waters (Farghāna), _see_ Aīkī-sū-ārā.
Betwī-river, Betwa (C. India) described 597.
Bhānder (C. India), _see_ Bāndīr.
Bhīlsān (C. India), Sangā's 483;
Bābur's plan against 598.
Bhīra (Panj-āb), history of 382;
revenue of 521;
tribes of 387;
Balūchīs in 383;
locates places 379, 380, 381;
limit of Lūdī Afghān lands 481,
and of Bābur's in Hindūstān 520;
servants from 616, 678;
arrivals from 228, 391, 419;
local soldiery 389, 539,
rhinoceros in 490, Bābur and 377-8, 382-3-7, *429, 478;
he stays in the fort of 384;
safeguards people of 383, 478;
sends prisoners into 461;
summons by Māhīm of an escort from 650;
a governor 386-8, 392-9.
Bhūjpūr (Bihār, India), Bābur at 662.
Bīah-sū, Beas (Panj-āb), course of 485; Bābur crosses 458.
Bīāna, Bayāna (Rājpūtāna), mountains in 486;
red-stone of 532, 611;
water-raising in 487;
a dependency of 563;
locates places 539, 613;
disaffection to Bābur of 523-9;
taken 530-8, 540-5;
a gun made to use against it 537;
praise of its soldiers 548, 550;
an appointment to 579;
asked for 613;
Bābur at 577, 581;
his workmen in 520;
revenue from assigned to support his tomb *709.
Bīānwān _pargana_ (U.P. India), assignment on 540.
Bībī Māh-rūī (Kābul), Bābur at 314.
Bīgrām, Bīkrām (Panj-āb), four ancient sites so-named 230 n. 2;
Bābur at 230, 394, 450-1.
Bihār (India), a limit of Afghān lands in Hind 480-1,
and of Bābur's 520;
revenue of 521;
Bābur and 639, 656, 677-9;
an assignment on 676;
mentioned as if Bābur's 561;
Muḥammad-i-zamān and 661-3-4;
an earlier Lūdī capture of 675;
a dīwān of 661.
Bihiya (Bihār, India), Bābur at 662-7 n. 2.
Bih-zādī (Kābul), Bābur at 398, 416-8;
wine fetched from 417;
19th century vinegar of 417 n. 2.
Bījānagar, Vījāynagar (Dakhin, Deccan, India), a ruler of 483.
Bīlādar (U.P. India), _see_ Balādar.
Bīlah (Panj-āb), Bābur at 237.
Bilkir? (Kābul), Bābur at 420.
Bilwah ferry (Ganges), Bābur at 658.
Bīmrūkī _pargana_ (Panj-āb), a holder of 453.
Birk and Birkistān, _see_ Barak.
Bīshkhārān (Farghāna), good fighting at 28;
Bābur at or near 117-8, 170.
Bīsh-kīnt (on the Khujand-Tāshkīnt road), Taṃbal at 145, 154;
Bābur at 151.
Bī-sūt (Kābul), Bī-sūtīs migrated to Bajaur 375.
Bolān-pass (Balūchistān), *Shah Beg's entrance to Sind 429.
"Bottam" (? débouchement of the Zar-afshān), a word used by Ibn Hankal
76 n. 6.
Būdana-_qūrūq_ (Samarkand), described 82;
Bābur at 131 (here Quail-reserve).
Buhlūlpūr (Panj-āb), Bābur at 454.
Bukhārā (Transoxiana), described 82;
w. limit of Samarkand 76,
and of Soghd 84;
deficient water-supply of 77;
trade with Kābul 202;
wines of 83;
melons of 10, 82;
bullies in 7;
Bābur sends sugar-cane to 208;
various rulers of 35, 38, 112;
governors in 40, 52, 121;
taken by Shaibānī 125;
various attacks on 63-5, 124, *356-7-9, *354, *359, *360;
Bābur's capture of 21, 704 n. 3;
Mahdī Khwāja and 704 n. 3;
various comings and goings from and to 62-3-4, 135, 534.
Būlān (Kābul), a route through 209.
Būlī (Rājpūtāna), revenues of 521.
Burhānpūr (C. India), Bābur on water of 592-8.
Burh-ganga (Old Ganges), its part in the battle of the Ghogrā 667
n. 2, 674 n. 6, 667 n. 2.
Būrka-yīlāq (Aūrā-tīpa _q.v._), Bābur at the fort of 92, 124.
Busāwar (Rājpūtāna), Bābur at 548 (where read Busāwar) 581.
Bū-stān-sarāī (Kābul), Bābur at 251-4.
Bū-stān-sarāī (Samarkand), 62;
Bābur at 74, 134.
Būt-khāk (Kābul), damming of its water 647;
Bābur at 409, 446 n. 4.
Buz-gala-Khāna (Samarkand), _see_ Aītmāk-dābān.
Chāch, _see_ Tāshkīnt.
Chachāwalī (U.P. India), Bābur at 649.
Chach-charān (on the Herī-rūd), a holder of 274;
Bābur at 308.
Chaghānīān (Ḥiṣar-ṣhādmān), located 48 n. 5;
an earlier extension of the name 188 n. 4;
Nūndāk dependent on 471;
a meadow (_aūlāng_) of 129;
a ruler in 47;
Khusrau Shāh at 93;
Bābur in 188.
Chāghān-sarāī _bulūk_, Chīghān-sarāī (Kābul), described 212;
water of 211-2;
name of 212 n. 2;
a governor of 227;
Bābur's capture of 211 (where for "920" _read_, *366-7 n. 3.)
Chahār _see_ Chār.
*Chak-chaq pass (Ḥiṣār-shādmān), Bābur traverses 359.
Chāldirān (Persia), cart-defence in the battle of 469 n. 1.
Chaṃbal-river (C. India), course of 485;
Bābur on 509, 585-9, 607, 614;
Shāh-i-jahān pours wine into 298 n. 3.
Champāran (Bihār, India), revenue of 521.
Chanārān (n.w. of Mashhad), Ḥusain _Bāī-qarā's_ victory at 260;
located 260 n. 1
and Ferté _q.v._ p. 39 n. 2.
Chandāwal (Bajaur, N.W.F.P.), of its name 367 n. 3;
torrent of 372;
Bābur hunts near 372.
Chandawār, Chandwār (U.P. India), correct name of 642 n. 8;
water-raising in 487;
comings and goings from and to 531, 552, 582;
Bābur at 589, 642-3;
he loses it 557, 581.
Chandīrī (C. India), described 582-3-6;
hills of 486;
death of a holder of 573;
mentioned to fix dates 269, 483, 605;
Bābur's capture of 589, 590-2-4-8.
Chapar-kuda (U.P. India), identity of with Chaparghatta 650 n. 1;
a start from 659 n. 5;
Bābur at 650.
Chār-dār _col_ (Hindū-kush), 204 n. 4.
Chār-dih plain (w. of Kābul-town), the Kābul-river traverses 200 n. 4;
*overlooked from Bābur's tomb 710.
Chārikār, Chār-yak-kār (Kābul), altitude of 204 n. 4;
name of _ib._ 295 n. 1;
Judas-trees of 216 n. 3.
Chār-jūī ferry (Oxus), 95 (where "Aūbāj" is wrong).
Char-shaṃba = Wednesday (Oxus valley _see_ Fr. map Maïmènè), 71 n. 2.
Chār-sū (Samarkand), an execution in 196.
Chār-yak (Fr. map Maimènè), over-run 295, 94 (where for "San-chīrīk"
_read_ San and Chār-yak).
Chashma-i-tūra pass (Kābul), Bābur at 403-4.
Chāsh-tūpa (Kābul), Bābur at 320.
Chatsū (Rājpūtāna), revenue of 521.
Chā-tū var. Jāl-tū (Kābul), Bābur at 228.
Chatur-mūk (U.P. India), a Ghogrā-crossing at 669, 677.
Chaupāra (N.W.F.P. India), an Indus ferry at 206;
a limit of Bannū 233;
Bābur near 234.
Chaupāra (U.P. India), ferry of 677-9.
Chausa (Bihār, India), a death at 273 n. 3;
Bābur at *603, 659, 660.
Chausa or Jūsa (C. India), Bābur at 581.
Chīchīk-tū (Balkh-Herāt road), located 300;
Bābur at 296.
Chihil-dukhtarān (Farghāna), 107, 162;
(Herī) 296, 301;
(Kābul), 107 n. 1.
Chihil-qulba (Kābul), Bābur hunts near 420.
Chīkmān-sārāī (Andikhūd, Oxus valley), a defeat at 46, 260, 268.
Chīn, Chīna, Kābul trade with 203;
a Chīnī cup 407;
[for "Chīna" _see_ Khiṯāī].
Chīn-āb, Chān-āb, tract and river (Chen-āb, Panj-āb), course of 485;
the Bar in 380 n. 4;
a Turk possession 380-2;
Bābur resolves to regain 380;
he on the river *441, 453;
envoys to him from 386;
his family reach 659;
an appointment to 386.
Chīna-qūrghān (Kābul), Bābur at 407.
Chīnīūt or Chīnīwat (Panj-āb), a Turk possession 380-2;
Bābur resolves to regain 380.
Chirāgh-dān (Upper Herī-rūd), Bābur at 309;
_see_ Add. Note p. 309 for omitted passage.
Chirkh (Kābul), described 217;
a mullā of 284;
a soldier of 669, 678.
Chīr-sū, Chīr-chīk (Tāshkīnt lands), Aḥmad _Miran-shāhī's_ disaster at
17, 25, 31-4-5.
Chitr (Panj-āb), Bābur at 645.
Chītūr, Chitor (Rājpūtāna), hills of 486;
Bābur's plan against 598;
Rānā Sangā's 483, 617.
Chunār (U.P. India), advance on 652-4;
arrival from 657;
appointments 682-3;
Bābur at 658;
road measured from 659;
question of identity 682 n. n.
Chūpān-ātā (Samarkand), 72 n. 3, 76 (Kohik), 76 n. 4;
Bābur crosses 124;
[_see_ Kohik].
Chūtīalī (Dūkī, Qandahār), Bābur at 238-9.
Cintra (Portugal), oranges of 511 n. 4.
Citadel (_arg_) of Kābul, 201;
Bālā-ḥiṣār 198 n. 4;
—of Samarkand, 77;
position of 78 n. 6;
Bābur in 134, 141.
Dabūsī (Samarkand), Aūzbeg victories at 40, 124, 137.
Dahānah (_see_ Fr. map Maimènè), corn from 295;
traversed 194-7, 243, 295.
Dakka (Kābul), App. E. xx;
[_see_ note to Bārān-sū].
Dakkan, Dakhin, Deccan (India), rulers in 482;
? Daknī = Dakkanī 619, 631, Add. Note pp. 619, 631.
Dāman (N.W.F.P. India), _see_ Dasht.
Dāmghān (Persia), a w. limit of Khurāsān 261;
Bāī-qarās captured in 263;
Aūzbegs defeated at 618, 622.
Dandān-shikan pass (Khurāsān), Bābur crosses 294.
Dara-i-bām (Badghīs, Khurāsān), Bābur in 296.
Dara-i-gaz (s. of Balkh), a recall from 14.
Dara-i-Ghāzī Khān (Panj-āb), 233 n. 3.
Dara-i-khẉush (Kābul), Bābur in 27, 251-3.
Dara-i-nūr (Kābul) described 210;
unique character of 210, 241, App. F;
wines of 210, 410, App. G, xxv;
monkeys of 211, 492;
name of App. F, xxiii, xxiv;
a holder of 227, 344;
attacked 241;
Bābur in 422.
Dara-i-pūr-amīn (Kābul), Bābur at 342 (where for "anīm" _read_ amīn).
Dara-i-ṣūf (Khurāsān), character of 222.[2945]
Dara-i-zang (Khurāsān), defence for planned 191.
Dara-i-zindān (Kābul-Balkh road), mountains of 222;
located 189 n. 6;
Bābur in 189.
Darband (Caspian Sea), 564 n. 5.
Darband-i-ahanīn (Ḥiṣār-shādmān), a limit of territory 47;
a name of Qulūgha, Quhqa, 194;
*Bābur at 353;
Najm S̤āmī near 359.
Dar-i-gham canal (Samarkand) described 76, 84;
Bābur on 124-5;
(_see_ Kohik-water).
Darūta (Kābul), Bābur at 421-2.
Darwāza (Bājaur ? N.W.F.P. India), a road through 376.
Dasht (Plain), Dāman, Bāzār and Tāq (N.W.F.P. India), names of 229
n. 1, 233 and n. 1;
(Mehtar Sulaimān) mountains of 223;
limits Bannū 233;
a route through 206;
Bābur and 229, 235-7, 394.
Dasht-i-shaikh, Kurrat-tāziyān (Kohistān, Kābul) described 215.
Dāwar (Kohistān, Kābul), Bābur at 421;
perhaps Dūr-nāma 421 n. 5.
Dhar (C. India), observatory in 79.
Dībālpūr (Panj-āb), revenue of 521;
water-wheels in 486, 532;
commandants in 442-3, 463;
Bābur captures 208, *441, 575-8.
Dih-i-afghān (Kābul), a rebel in 345;
a goer to 402.
Dih-i-ghulāmān (Kābul), Bābur at 413.
Dih-i-yaq`ūb (Kābul), narrows of 200;
water of 241;
Bābur at 409, 445.
Dihlī, mountains of 485;
the capital of Hindūstān 463;
a Lūdī possession 481;
revenue of 521;
Mīwāt and 577;
`Ālam Khān and 455-6;
Ibrāhīm marches from 465;
Sangā gives Bābur rendezvous near 529;
Bābur takes possession of 475;
appointments to 476;
submissive 523;
mentioned as Bābur's 561;
Khwāja Kalān's inscription in 525;
an arrival from to Bābur 526;
treasure of 583, *695 n. 1, 617.
Dikh-kat (Aūrā-tīpa, Samarkand), described 149, 152;
an arrival in 151;
Bābur in 149, 150, 633 n. 4.
Dilmāū var. (U.P. India), comings and goings from and to 534-7, 681-4;
variants of name of 681 n. 3.
Dīn-kot, Dhānkot (N.W.F.P. India), location and name of 206 n. 6;
limit of Koh-i-jūd 380
and of Bannū 233;
routes through 206, 399.
Dīrapūr (U.P. India), Bābur in 649.
Dīrī pass (Kābul), a route through 209.
Diyūl (Samarkand), allies of Bābur in 138.
Dīzak (Samarkand), Bābur a fugitive in 148;
a governor of 26.
"Doāb," _see_ Miyān-dū-āb.
Dū-āba (U.P. India), Gangetic changes in 667 n. 2.
Dugdūgī (U.P. India), Bābur at 651-2.
Dūghāba river (Khurāsān), head-waters of 216.
Dūkī (Qandahār), mountains of 223, 236;
Bābur in 218, 238, 382.
Dūlpūr, "Dholpur" (Rājpūtāna), mountains of 486;
Ibrāhīm _Lūdī's_ begs in 593;
Bābur and 520, 552, 585, *603-6, 614, 634-5-9, 689;
accounts of work in 606, 634, 642;
a view from 610.
Dūn (Jaswān, Panj-āb); `Ālam Khān in 457;
Bābur in 461-2.
Dungarpūr (Rājpūtāna), old name of 573 n. 1.
Dūr-nāma or -namā'ī (Kohistan, Kābul), described 215;
Bābur at 420;
(_see_ Dāwar).
Dūrrin- or Dīūrrīn-tangī (Kābul), a limit of Shāh-i-Kābul 200, 417.
Dū-shaṃba (Badakhshān), Humāyun at 621.
Dūshī (n. of Hindū-kush), Khusrau Shāh submits to Bābur at 51, 191-5.
Egypt, _see_ Miṣr.
Etāwa, Itāwa (U.P. India), hostile to Bābur 523-9, 530;
appointments to 530-3, 579, 582;
comings and goings from and to 541, 645, 689;
Bābur at 644, 686.
Faizābād (Badakhshān), *? Bābur and Māhīn at 436.
Fakhru'd-dīn-aūlūm (Balkh-Herāt road), Bābur at 296;
(_see_ Fr. map Maïmènè).
Fanākat, Banākat = Shāhrukhiya (Tāshkīnt), passed by the Sīr-daryā 2;
identity of 2 n. 5, 7 n. 5.
Fān-tāgh (Ḥiṣār-shādmān), Lake Iskandar in 129;
Bābur in 130.
Fārāb (W. Turkistan?), a mullā of 643.
Farāghīna (Farghāna), Bābur at 168.
Farghāna mod. Kokand, description of 1 to 12;
extent of 2 n. 3;
included in Trans-oxiāna 76;
Alps of 223;
nick-name of 289;
winter-route into 2, *183;
capitals of 3, 10, 162;
an e. limit of Samarkand 76;
Kābul trade of 202;
celebrities of 4, 7, 76, 90, 289;
`Umar Shaikh's (I and II) 14-7, 24;
Bābur succeeds in 1, 29;
invasions of 13, 20-9, 54, *183;
proposal to dispossess Bābur 168;
an arrival in 28;
an exit from 190;
Bābur's loss of 19 n. 1, *183;
Bābur's leaving 187;
(_see_ Andijān).
Far-kat (n. of Kīndīr-tau _q.v._), a refugee in 149;
a mullā of 343;
reached from Ghawā (Farghāna, Fr. map, Gava), 179.
Farmūl _tūmān_ (Kābul), described 220;
a s. limit of Kābul 200;
Ūrghūn in 206 n. 2;
roads through 206, 231-3-5;
Shaikh-zādas of 220, 679 n. 7.
Fatḥpūr (U.P. India), Bābur at 643, 686.
Fatḥpūr or Natḥpūr (U.P. India), a dependency of 680;
lake of 681.
Fatḥpūr-Aswa (U.P. India), Bābur at 651.
Fīrūzābād (U.P. India), 643 n. 3.
Fīrūz-koh (Ghūr-Kābul road), Bābur on 365.
Fīrūzpūr (-jhirka; Gurgaon, Panj-āb), described 580 n. 1;
Bābur at 580.
Fulūl (Badakhshān), Khusrau Shāh and 60;
Mughūls from, join Bābur 192 (where _read_ Fulūl).
Gagar, Ghaggar, Kakar river (Patiāla, Panj-āb), Bābur visits and
describes 464-5;
called _rūd_ (torrent) of Banūr and Sanūr 464.
Gagar, Kakar (U.P. India), a constituent of the Gogrā, Ghogrā _q.v._;
the word Gagar or Kakar used 602.
Gamb(h)īr-water (India), Bābur crosses 606.
Gandak river (India), course of 485;
defence of 663.
Gandamak (Kābul), Bābur at 394, 414, 446.
Gang-river, Ganges (India), course of 485;
changed course of 667 n. 2, 674 n. 6-7 n. 2, 682 n. 1;
bridged by Bābur 495, 599, 633;
lands and chiefs east of 523, 628, 638, 651;
various crossings made of 530, 544, 583-7, 598, 669, 681-4;
Bābur on 598 to 665, 666-7;
a battle-station east of 371;
Bābur swims 603-5, 655, 660.
Garm-chashma (Kābul), Bābur at 229, 411, 448.
Garm-sīr (S. Afghānistān), *432; a bird of 496.
Garzawān (Khurāsān, Fr. map Maïmènè, Ghourzistan), mountains of 222;
locates a place 69;
a plan for defence of 191;
Bābur at 296 (where mis-spelled "Gurzwān").
Gau- or Kau-water (Kābul), Kāfiristān the source of 210.
Gawār or Kawār (Kābul), position of 210.
Ghain (Kābul), a punitive force against 253.
Ghaj-davān (Bukhārā), *besieged 360; *battle of 361, 279:
a fugitive from 363.
Gharjistan, Ghurjistān (Khurāsān), mountains of 222;
Bābur near 308;
Muḥammad-i-zamān in 365.[2946]
Ghawā (Farghāna, Fr. map, Gava), Bābur seeks the road to 179,
180-1-*2.
Ghāzipūr (U.P. India), crocodiles of 502;
an assignment on 527;
a holder of 669;
threatened 544, 680;
Bābur at 659;
his boats sent to 679.
Ghaznī = Kābul and Zābulistan, Ghaznīn (Kābul); describes 217, 321;
a N.W. limit to Hindūstān 481;
cold of 219, 526; game in 224;
no honey from 203;
firewood of 223;
highwaymen on road to 228;
wines of, taken to Hindūstān 461, 551;
repairs of a dam at 219, 646;
a route to 206;
locates Zurmut 220;
a Shāhrukhī's 382 (here Kābul); Aūlūgh Beg and 95 n. 2;
Dost Beg buried at 396;
various governors of 227, 253-4, 307, 343-4, 363, 397, 525;
not subjected to Bābur (912 AH.) 300;
rebellion in (912 AH.) 363;
Khwāja Kalān and 447, 526;
Bābur and 199, 228, 239, 240, 330, 526.
Ghūr (Khurāsān), mountains of 222;
w. limit to Kābul 200;
road from Kābul to 214;
a holder of 274.
Ghurām (Panj-āb), an assignment of 525.
Ghūr-bund _tūmān_ (Kābul), described 214;
Nīl-āb (Naulibis) in 206 n. 3;
roads from 205;
a tulip of 215;
Bābur in 195, 294, 314.
Ghūrī (Khurāsān), position of 409;
a route through 94;
corn from 295;
a failure in 546.
Ghurjistān, _see_ Gharjistān.
Ghwālirī pass (on the Gūmāl _q.v._, India), a surmised route through
235 n. 2.
Gibrik or Kibrik (Kāfiristān), people of 207.
Gingūta (Panj-āb), described 462;
an occupation of 457.
Gīrdīz (Kābul), head-quarters in Zurmut 220;
tribesmen on road to 228, 403;
a road for 405;
locates a place 403;
Khwāja Kalān's 525;
Tang-i-waghchān a name for its pass 403 n. 1.
Gogrā, Ghogrā, Gagar, Kakar river (U.P. India), _see_ Sarū.
Gosfand-liyār (n. of Bannū-plain), a sheep-road travelled by Bābur
233.
Goshta (Kābul), 206 n. 4.
Gūālīār, Gwālior (C. India), described 607 to 612, 613-4;
Bābur's building in 520;
hills of 486;
revenue of 521;
forms of the name 486;
ruler of killed at Pānīpat 477;
hostile to Bābur 523-9 (where add "Gūālīār" after Dūlpūr, l. 4 fr.
foot), 539;
assigned 539;
gained 540;
reinforced 547, 557;
Bābur's visit to 605, 552, 607 to 614;
on envoy from 612;
sedition in 688-9, 690, *692 n. 1.
Gūī-water, Gumtī (U.P. India), course of 485 (where for "Gumtī" _read_
(Bābur's) Gūī);
Bābur on 601, 658, 683-4.
Gujrāt (Panj-āb), a tree of;
a ruler in 481;
affairs of 534-5.
Gūk-sarāī (Samarkand), described 41 n. 2, 63, 77;
ascension-stone in 77 n. 5;
a Mīrzā sent to 41.
Gul-i-bahār (Kohistān, Kābul), described (without name) 214-5;
fish-catching in 226, Bābur at 320-1, 406-7.
Gūmāl valley and river (N.W.F.P. India), Bābur and 235-6.
Guṃbazak pass (Khurāsān; _see_ Fr. map Maïmènè), Bābur at 294.
Guṃhaz-i-chaman (Farghāna), Bābur at 176.
Gūra-khattrī (Panj-āb), Bābur and 230, 294.
Gurgān-sū (s.e. of the Caspian), Ḥusain _Bāī-qarā_ swims 259,
260 n. 6.
Guzar var. (Qandahār?), Bābur at 332.
Hā-darwesh waste (Farghāna), described 9, 9, 151;
*birthplace of Bābur's legendary son 358 n. 2.
Haft-bacha pass (Hindū-kush), described 205.
Ḥājī-ghāt pass (Hindū-kush), turns Hindū-kush 205 n. 2.
Ḥājipūr (Bihār, India), Bābur and 674;
a governor of 663 n. 6.
Ḥājī-tarkhān = Astrakhān (on the Caspian), a chief of 258.
Haldī-guẕr (U.P. India), location of 668 n. 2, 669 n. 1, 671 n. 1;
Bābur's men cross 668-9, 675.
Ḥalwā-chashma (Khurāsān), a victory at 260.
Hamadān (Persia), a saint of 211; *a soldier of 700.
Hamtātū pass (Panj-āb), Bābur crosses 381.
Hangū (N.W.F.P. India), Bābur at 231-2.
Harmand-, Halmand-river (Afghānistān), source of 216;
a drowning in 307.
Hārū, Kacha-kot water (Panj-āb), Bābur crosses 379, 452;
an Indus-ford near 206 n. 5.
Hash(t)-nagar (N.W.F.P. India), a limit of Kābul 200;
desolate 207;
rhinoceros in 490;
birds of 497, 500;
locates a place 376;
Bābur advised to raid 410-1.
Hasht-yak (W. Turkistān), Bābur near 151.
Hātya (Panj-āb), limit of a clan 452 n. 5.
Hazārasp (Khwārizm), a holder of 50.
Herī, Herāt (Khurāsān), description of 304 to 306;
Ḥusain _Bāī-qarā's_ birthplace 256,
conquest of 134,
splendid rule in 273,
ease in 261,
feast in 264,
delay of a pilgrim in 284,
reception of fugitives 243,
burial in 293;
—joint-rule in 293, 326;
weakness before Aūzbeg attack on 296-9, 326;
—Shaibānī's capture of 207, 326-8-9;
—Ismā`īl _Ṣafawī's_ capture of *350-5;
—`Ubaidu'l-lāh _Aūzbeg_ and *434;
—`Ali-sher _Nawā'ī_ in 4, 271, 286-7;
Banā'ī and 286-7;
*Shāh Beg and 365, 429, 430;
Khwānd-amīr and *432, 605;
fugitives from 331;
governors of 24, 37, 274 (Koh-dāman), 275, *633;
envoys to Bābur from *436;
a Begīm comes from 267;
Maṣ`ūma brought from 330;
Bābur at 300-1-2, 302 to 307;
his marriage with Māhīm in *704;
—locates a place 25;
fixes a date 258.
Ḥimār or Khimār (? Khurāsān), a passer through 260.
Hind, Hindūstān, Hindustānāt—a northern limit of Kābul 200;
routes between it and Kābul 206;
a journey to Makka made from Kābul through 26;
trade and traders 202, 331, 416;
Jats and Gujūrs in 454;
a saint honoured in 238;
a rāja of 219;
comings and goings to and from 250, 265, 267, 368;
Khwānd-amīr in *432, 605 and n. 6;
—Astronomical Tables in 79;
names for outside places used in 202;
gold from 446;
titles in 537;
building style in 609;
greetings in 640;
mentioned by Bābur in a verse 584;
Hind-āl named from 385;
of Bīānā in 529;
of the Betwa 597;
—a seemingly limited use of the name Hindūstān 386;
of its three names used by Bābur, Hind 26, 219, 385, 525, 532, 577,
577 n. 6, 578,
Hindūstānāt 485,
Hindūstān usually;
—Hindūstān the Less (?) 46 and 46 n. 4;
—Lūdī rise in 383;
Lūdī possessions in 463, 480;
Ibrāhīm's accession in 385;
*torn by faction 439;
envoys to Bābur from *426, *436;
Bābur's comments on its chiefs 219, 385, 459;
Farmūlī ascendancy in 220;
begs in 387;
armies in 547;
—Tīmūr's conquest of 382;
his employment in Samarkand of workmen from 77;
pictures of his victories in 78;
tradition of a soldier in his army of 150;
—Bābur's persistent wish to regain Turk possessions in 340, 377,
380-1-2, 478-9;
working-out of his desire for *426;
varied opposition to his aims 478;
*his five expeditions to:—
910 AH.—39, 229, 382;
925 AH.—378 et seq., 478, 480;
926 AH.—*428, *429;
its frustration *429, *430, *441;
930 AH.—575, *442;
its frustration 442;
932 AH.—*444, 445, 479;
—one start frustrated in Kābul 913, AH. 341-3;
`Ālam Khān asks and obtains help in *439, *441, 455;
Daulat Khān proffers allegiance *440;
*Bābur's prayer for a sign of victory *440;
his fifth expedition fixes dates 269, 545;
indications that only the fifth aimed at Dihlī *429, *444, 480;
his decisive victories, at Pānīpat 475,
at Kānwa 574;
references to his conquest 220, 561;
some of his Begs wish to leave 524-5, 579, 584;
his Hindūstān poems 642, App. Q;
his ease in and hints at leaving 617, 645, 686;
his family brought to 646, 686;
—the *_Akbar-nāma_ chronicles no public events of 936-937 AH.
in 682;
*Bābur's journey to Lāhor (936 AH.) may point to his leaving
Hindūstān 707;
*Humāyūn's arrival in 696, 707;
*on Bābur's intended disposal of Hindūstān 702 to 708;
*burial of his body in 709
and later removal from 709-710;
—Bābur's description of Hindūstān 478 to 531,
_viz._:—Introduction, on earlier Tramontane expeditions into 478
to 480,
boundaries and capital of 480,
rulers in 932 AH. 481,
varied climate,
character of and northern mountains 484;
rivers and Arāvallī range 485;
irrigation 486,
other particulars 487,
—mammals 488,
birds 493,
aquatic animals 501,
fruits 503,
flowers 513;
—seasons of the year 515,
days of the week 516,
division of time 516,
weights and measures 517,
modes of reckoning 518;
—Hindūs in 518;
—defects and advantages of 518-9, 531, 532,
revenues 520-1.
Hindū-kush mountains, n. boundary of Kābul 200-4;
connected ranges 210, 380;
called Hindū-kush in Kābul 485;
account of their prolongation in Hind (_i.e._ Himālayas), 485;
roads and passes of 204-5;
the clouds a hindrance to bird-migration 224;
limits of territory fixed by 47-9, 194;
an episode on 270 *Bābur's crossing 930 AH. 442.
Ḥiṣār-fīrūza (Panj-āb), revenue of 521;
given to Humāyūn 465, 466, 528;
opposition near 540.
Ḥiṣār (-shādmān; Transoxiana), mountains of 222;
clans from 228;
Kābul trade with 202;
—Abā-bikr and 51;
Maḥmūd and 47-9;
Mas`ūd and 52, 64, 71, 93-5, 261;
Bāī-sunghar and 52, 61, 96, 110-2;
Ḥusain and 48, 57-8-9, 61, 130, 191, 260-3, 275;
Bābur traverses 128, 130, 187-8,
moves for *352,
takes 37, 262, *352-3,
defends *358, 471,
attacked in 345, *361-2,
leaves 362-3;
—Mughūls leave 58
and rebel 105;
goers to 104, 141;
Shaibānī and 192, 244, *362;
abandoned by the Aūzbegs 622-4;
Khusrau Shāh and _see s.n._;
*threefold catastrophe in 362;
Humāyūn ordered to attack 625;
Qāsim _qūchīn_ and 66;
a governor in 46-7;
occupied for Bābur 640.
Hormuz (Persia), Farghāna almonds imported to 9.
Hūnī (Kābul), Bābur at 405.
Hūpīān pass, Ūpīān (Kābul), Bābur crosses 195;
locates a place 647 n. 3.
Hurūr (Panj-āb), taken from Bābur 464.
Hushīār (Farghāna), a subdivision of Asfara 7;
Bābur a refugee in 7, *181;
his gifts to envoys from 633.
Ilyāk-sū, Kāfirnighān (Ḥiṣār-shādmān), locates a place 48 n. 5.
Indrī (U. P. India), an arrival at 456.
Indus, _see_ Sind-daryā.
`Irāq (Persia), Kābul trade with 202;
various captures of 49, 51, 280, 336;
envoys to and from 540, 583, 666;
other comings and goings from and to 20, 46, 260-2-8, 275, 282-7,
291-4 n. 3, 622;
Bābur's gifts to kinsfolk in 522.
`Iraqain, _i.e._ `Irāq-i-`ajam and `Irāq-i-`arabī, places noted for
cold in 219.
`Iraq-pass (n. w. of Kābul), a presumed crossing of 294 n. 3.
Īrij or Īrich (C. India), Bābur at 590.
Ishkīmīsh (Qūndūz?), not in Badakhshān 288;
on a named route 321;
military action at 60, 192, 243.
Ispahān (Persia), a governor of 635 n. 6.
Istālif (Kābul), described 216;
a garden at 246;
fishing at 226;
Bābur at 246, 406, 416-8.
Jagdālik pass (Kābul), Bābur crosses 229, 341, 414.
Jahān-namā fort (Bhīra, Panj-āb), Bābur in 384 (where for "nūma"
_read_ namā).
Jahān-namā hill (Dihlī district), 485.
Jahān-namā'ī (Kābul), Bābur at 421;
_see_ Jūī-shāhī.
Jajmāū or Jajmāwa (U. P. India), rebels in 533;
a submission near 534.
Jakīn _pargana_ (U. P. India), Bābur in 644.
Jālandhar (Panj-āb), an appointment to 442.
Jalīsar, Jalesar (on the Jumna, U. P. India), Humāyūn at 531;
Bābur at 589, 640 (in both places _read_ Jalīsar).
Jalīsar, Jalesar (on the Ghogrā, U. P. India), Bābur at 681;
perhaps Chaksar 681 n. 4.
Jālmīsh (w. frontier, Kābul), 205 n. 2.
Jāl-tū var. Chā-tū (Kābul), Bābur at 228.
Jām, mod. Jām-rūd (N. W. F. P. India), Bābur at 229, 230, 412.
Jām (Khurāsān), Hātifī's birthplace 288;
how marked in maps 623 n. 8, *714;
Jāmī the cognomen of Maulānā `Abdu'r-raḥman _q.v._;
Aūzbeg defeat near 622 n.1, 625 n. 4, 635, 636 n. 2,
details as to location of the battle 623 n. 8, 635 n. 4.
Janāra or Chanāra (U. P. India), rebels take refuge in 682;
not identified 682 n. 1.
Janglīk (Kābul), Bābur at 251-3, 311-4 n. 1.
Jaswān-dūn (Panj-āb), described 462;
Bābur in 461-3.
Jaunpūr (U. P. India), _see_ Jūnpūr.
Jauz-wilāyat (Khurāsān), 46 n. 3.
Jīhlam, Jīlam, Jhelum (Panj-āb), Bābur near 453;
_see_ Bahat for Jhelum river.
Jūd mountains (Panj-āb), _see_ Koh-i-jud.
Jūduk (Samarkand), Bābur at 147.
Jūī-shāhī (Kābul), Bābur at 229, 394, 410, 422;
(_see _Jahān-namā'ī).
Jumandnā, mod. "Jumoheen" ? (U. P. India), Bābur at 649.
Jūn-river, Jumna (India), course of 485;
locates a place 532;
a drowning in 582;
Bābur on or crossing 467, 475, 531, 605, 616, 638-9, 640, 650-5,
684-6;
he bathes in 644;
orders his officers to cross 684;
in flood 685.
Jūnahpūr, Jūnapūr (U. P. India), an old form of Jūnpūr or Jaunpūr
676 n. 4;
used by Bābur 276 (where read it for "Jaunpur"), 544, 636, 676, 682;
_see infra_ Jūnpūr.
Jūnpūr, Jaunpūr (U. P. India), water of 658;
formerly a Sharqī possession 481;
revenue of 521;
taken by Humāyūn 544;
an assignment on 527;
appointments to 276, 538, 544, 676, 682;
arrivals from 636, 667.
Jūrgha-tū (Kābul), _see_ Qūrgha-tū.
Jūsa or Chausa (C. P. India), Bābur at 581.
Kābul town and country, description of 199 to 227,
—position and boundaries 199, 481,
town and environs 200, fort 201, 344,
bridges 198, 314, 417,
trade 202,
climate 77, 201-3, 223, 314, 584,
snow in 208-9, 223, 314,
dividing line between hot and cold climates 208, 220, 229,
fruits 202, 510,
cultivated lands 243,
meadows 204,
Hindū-kush roads 204,
Lamghānāt roads 201,
Khurāsān road 205,
Hindūstān roads 205, 206 n. 3, 231, 308, 629;
highwaymen 205, 341,
peoples 207, 221,
subdivisions 207 to 221,
dependencies 214-5,
revenue 221,
mountain-tracts 221,
firewood 223,
fauna 223, 496-8,
bird-catching 224, fishing 225;
—rivers of, Bārān _q.v._—Kābul, Luhūgur (Logar);
_garm-sīl_ 208, 484;
unfitness for nomads 228, 402;
use "Hindū-kush" in 485;
use of "Kābul" in Āgra 532;
a mullā of 284;
—given to `Umar Shaikh 14;
Aūlūgh Beg _Kābulī_ and 95 and n. 2 (where "2" should follow "Mīrzā"
and not "son"), *185;
Abā-bikr and 260;
`Abdu-r-razzāq and 195;
Muqīm _Arghūn_ and 195, 198-9, 227;
Khusrau Shāh and 192;
—Bābur's move to win it 7, 189, 191-7;
his capture of 198-9;
dates fixed, by the capture of, 19 n. 1, 21, 26, 39, 48, 227, 251,
274, 282, 377, 383, 394,
and by his possession of 27, 529;
a sequel of its capture 243;
reserved by him for himself 227, 227 n. 5, 627, 645-6;
—his comings and goings to
and from 27, 229, 241, 248-9, 294, 323, 325, 330, 339, *350,
*363-4-5, 389, 395,
403-4-5-7-8, 415-18-19,441-2-3;
other comings and goings 51, 196, 228, 321, 349, 364-5, 385, 399,
531, 539, 544, *696, 687, 699;
men sent to 343, 413, 466, 476;
various Begims arrive in or leave 36, 306, 339—265,
397—21—264—267—269—606, 616;
family journey from 646-7, 650-5-7-8, 686-7-9 n. 5;
followers delay to go to 307;
*landless men in 706;
excess levy of grain on 228;
its _sir_ (weight) 632;
officers in 250, 270, 273, 382, 646 n. 3;
newly-made begs of 458, 524;
—anxiety for 300, 307;
disloyalty in 313-320, 331, 345;
*tranquil 349;
*Mughūls of 357;
of its troops 375, 550, 579, 625;
—Bābur in it the last ruling Tīmūrid 340, *427;
envoys to him in *439-440, *441, 529;
his poverty in 525;
learns the word _sangur_ in 232;
family affairs in *603-4;
—letters of victory sent to 371, 466, 580;
other letters to and from 374, 541, 618, 639, 644-5, 6;
gifts 463, 523, 642;
Bābur's seeming intention of return to 698 n. 5, *705-6-7;
his chosen centre *705;
the taking of his body to *709-10;
his burial-garden and grave *710-11.
Kābul-water, Nīl-āb a name of 206 n. 3;
fords of 206, 345, 411;
App. E xvii, xix, xx;
Bābur on 451.
Kābud (Soghd, Samarkand), 73, 98.
Kacha-kot (Panj-āb), a holder of 250;
Bābur crosses water of (Hārū) 379, 403, 452.
Kachwa (C. India), described 590;
Bābur at 590-2.
Kāfiristān, mountains connecting with its own 480;
former extent of 212 n. 3;
borderlands of 210-1-2;
wines of 211-2, 372;
highwaymen of 205, 214;
a _ghāzī_ raid into 46.
Kahadstān (Herī), Bābur at 305;
Shaibānī at 329.
Kāhān (Sind, India), Shāh Beg's capture of 398, *430-5.
Kahlūr (Simla Hill-state, India), taken for Bābur 464;
*its Rāja visits him, 692-9.
Kāhmard or Kalmard (Kābul-Balkh route, Fr. map Maïmènè), a plan for
defence of 191;
a governor in 409, 546 n. 2;
exposed to Aūzbeg attack 409;
various occurrences in it 239, 250, 295;
Bābur in 48, 189;
households left in 189, 194-7;
Bābur loyal to Jahāngīr in 190, 239;
he sends gifts to peasants of 633;
(_see_ Ajar).
Kahrāj (N.W.F.P. India), Bābur at 373-4.
Kakar river (N. India), _see_ Gagar, Ghaggar.
Kālābāgh (Panj-āb), locates Dīnkot 206, n. 5.
Kalānjar (Panj-āb), perverted allegiance of 387 (where in n. 3
_delete_ the second sentence).
Kalānjar (U.P. India), revenue of 521;
Mahuba a dependency of 685 n. 3.
Kalānūr (Panj-āb), a governor of 442;
Bābur and 451-8.
Kalda-kahār (Panj-āb), described 381;
Bābur at 381-9, 391.
Kalpī (U.P. India), revenue of 521;
elephants in 488;
dependencies of 649, 686;
locates places 544, 590, 659;
hostile to Bābur 523;
Bābur in 590;
boats from 598, 684.
Kālpūsh (Khurāsān), 622 n. 3.
Kāma _bulūk_ (Kābul), described 213;
water of 211.
Kamarī (Kābul), meadow of 204;
Bābur at 244;
(on the Indus), Bābur at 230.
Kām-rūd valley (Ḥiṣār-shādmān), a flight through 58;
Bābur in 129-30.
Kanār ferry (Jumna U.P. India), Bābur at 589, 590-8.
Kān-bāī (Samarkand), locates places 52, 64;
Maḥmūd (Khān) at 53, 111.
Kandār, Kuhandār (Rājpūtāna), besieged by Sangā, surrenders 530-9.
Kand-i-badām (Farghāna), described 8,
locates a place 20;
a governor of 115;
passers through 44, 172;
Bābur at 92, *358 n. 2 (a legendary visit).
Kandla or Kūndla (U.P. India), revenue of 521;
an assignment on 679.
Kāngra (Panj-āb), a "Bajaur" north of 511 n. 3.
Kānhpūr, "Cawnpore" (U.P. India), 649 n. 7.
Kanigūram (Dasht-Kābul route), 235 n. 2.
Kanwā, Kanwāha (Rājpūtāna), Bābur's victory of 549, 557 to 574,
523 n. 3.
Kanwāhīn (Panj-āb), Bābur at 458.
Karal (Panj-āb), Bābur at 464.
Karā-sū, Qarā-sū? (Kābul), a tribe on 413.
Karg-khāna, _see_ Sawād.
Kark ? (Kābul), Bābur at 395.
Karmān (`Irāq), surrenders 51;
an intruder in 260.
Karmā-nā['s]ā river (Bihār, India), ill-repute of 659;
Bābur on 659-60.
Kar-māsh mountain (Kābul), located 403;
Bābur near 403-5.
Karmīna (Samarkand), mentioned as a _wilāyat_ 84.
Karnāl (U.P. India), *Bābur at 701.
Karnān (Farghāna), a village of 161;
locates place 162, 168 (where in section heading for "Kāsān" _read_
Karnān);
a _darogha_ of 179-80;
Bābur and 179, *182.
Karrah (U.P.I.), a dependency of 651;
Bābur at 652.
Karrah-Mānikpūr (U.P. India), revenue of 521;
elephants in 488;
Humāyūn near 544.
Kāsān (Farghāna), described 10;
fixes a date 28;
a raid near 26;
a departure to 32;
a holder of hostile to Bābur 170;
Bābur at 104, 116.
Kāshghar (E. Turkistān), an e. limit of Farghāna 1, of Samarkand 76;
a border tribe of 55;
*Kāshghar-Farghāna road 183;
trade with Kābul 202,
Andijānī captives in 20 n. 3;
rulers in 21, 29 n. 5, 32-7, 318, 415, 427, 695-6;
Mughūls in *184, 351, 364;
arrivals from 399, 415-6;
Bābur's kinsfolk in 21-4, 318, 409, 522;
a devious journey through 399;
a return from 408,
and to 590.
Kashmīr, mountains of 380-7, 481;
a bird of 494;
lost dependencies of 484;
Bābur on name of 484,
*sends an expedition to 692-3-8 n. 5, 701.
Additional Note p. 693.
Kātlāng (N.W.F.P. India), Bābur at 377.
Kattawāz-plain (Ghaznī ?), torrent of 240;
Bābur in 323-5.
Kawārī-water (C. India), Bābur crosses 607, 614.
Kechef-dara (Khurāsān), leads down to Mashhad 622 n. 3.
Kesh = Shahr-i-sabz (Samarkand), described 3, 83;
a blinded refugee in 95;
Banā'ī dismissed to 136;
an arrival from 137;
Bābur and 125-8, 138.
Keshtūd (Ḥiṣār-shādmān tract), Bābur at 130.
Khaibar-mountains (Kābul), route through 206;
crossings of 250, 260, 492;
Bābur's crossings of 229, 382, 411-3.
Khairābād (U.P. India), revenue of 521;
Bābur's army at 583.
Khākān-ārīq (Farghāna), Bābur on 165-7.
Khalīla (Soghd, Samarkand), Bābur at 148.
Khalishak (Qandahār), a water-head 332;
Bābur at 333.
Khamalangān (Badakhshān), a holder of 242.
Khamchān (Badakhshān), military move to 321.
Khān-yūrtī (Samarkand), described 82;
Bābur at 67-8, 82, 124, 131.
Kharābūk (Farghāna), Bābur near 163-8.
Kharbīn (s.e. of Ghaznī), 323 n. 3.
Kharī (U.P. India), Bābur at 580.
Kharīd _pargana_ (on the Sarū = Ghogrā), formerly on both banks of the
river 561 n. 2, 664 n. 8, 674 n. 6;
present limits 637, n. 1;
position of town of 679 and n. 1;
a (now) Bihār pargana of 674;
Humāyūn plunders 544;
capture of mentioned 561;
Bābur's man in 637;
position of its army opposing Bābur 664, 676 n. 5.
Khartank (Samarkand), a celebrity of 76.
Khasbān plain (Farghāna), Bābur crosses 124.
Khaṣlar (W. Turkistān), Bābur at 151.
Kawāk road (Hindū-kush), 205;
height of its pass 204, n. 4.
Khawāl-i-qūtī (_see_ Zirrīn pass), Bābur in 309.
Khinjan (n. of Hindū-kush), roads to 205.
Khirgird or Khirjard (Khurāsān), Jāmī'sbirthplace 623, n. 8;
battle of Jām fought near 623, 635.
Khirs-khāna (Kābul), Bābur passes 417.
Khiṯāī = N. China, a caravan from 15;
porcelain, etc. from 80, 157-9, 160;
trade profits in 202.
[N. B.—For all instances Bābur's word is Khitāī and not "China".]
Khozār or Khūzār (Samarkand), mentioned as a _wilāyat_ 84;
lost by Aūzbegs, 135, 359.
Khūbān or Khūnān (Farghāna), approx. site of Bābur's first ranged
battle 113.
Khujand var. (Farghāna), described 7;
not counted by all as in Farghāna 17;
locates a place 55;
holders of 35, 115;
Aḥmad _Mīrān-shāhī_ takes 30;
surrender to Bābur of 53;
Bābur's first marriage made in it 35, 120;
he in it 89, 90-1-2;
a "poor place" 97-8;
he halts in a village of 100;
his legendary transit of 358 n. 2;
a follower's compulsory journey to 124.
Khujand-water, Saiḥūn, Sīr-daryā _see_ Saiḥūn.
Khūlm (Kābul-Balkh road, Fr. map Bokhara), vine-culture in 210 n. 6;
places on its river 546 n. 2.
Khūqān (Farghāna), an arrival at 44;
Bābur at 161.
Khurāsān, Khurāsānāt (219),
Hindustānī use of the name 202;
Kābul roads from 205, 300;
Kābul trade with 202, 225;
melons and oranges of 203, 510,
compared with Kābul Koh-dāman 216;
_ḥammāms_ in 79;
medical practice in 246;
refined manners of Khurāsānīs 303;
nomads of 221;
*enforced migration of Mughūls to 351;
—Maḥmūd _Ghaznawī_ and 479;
Abū-sa`īd's Cadet Corps of 28, 50, App. H, xxvi, xxvii;
Yūnas Khān in 20;
Abā-bikr defeated in 260;
Maḥmūd expelled from 46;
Mas`ūd "did not stay in" 95 (where add the quoted words, l. 12,
after "service");
Badī`u'z-zamān returns to 70;
Ḥusain _Bāī.qarā_ and 57, 94, 259-60-80-3;
Bābur and 185-7-8, 255, 285-6, 295, 300, 330-2;
Ma`sūma in 36, 339;
—troops of 61, 296;
dismissals to 98, 128, 194-7, 319, 320;
comings and goings from and to 15, 194, 197, *243, 264, 270, 331,
363;
distinguished men of 280-2-4, 291;
Bābur's kinsfolk in 246, 253, 522, 617;
a verse well known in 328.
Khūrd (Khẉurd)-Kābul (Kābul), wild asses in 224;
river-dam of 647;
Bābur in 341.
Khurram (Kābul-Balkh route), traitors to Bābur near 546 (Fr. map
Maïmènè, Khouram).
Khūsh-āb (Panj-āb), Abā-bikr in 260;
Bābur regards it as his own 380-2;
Balūchīs in 383;
an enemy to 383-4, 388;
a governor of 388;
a fugitive through 399.
Khutan, Khotin (E. Turkistān), Aīlchī the capital of 50 n. 2;
Gūrkhān a title of rulers in 84 n. 2;
a ruler in 32.
Khutlān (Ḥiṣār-shādmān territory), river and alps of 60, 222;
a saint's burial in 211;
a ruler and holders of 47, 58, 93, 191-6;
Bābur's victory in 18.
Khwāja `Abdu'ṣ-ṣamad (Kābul), 201.
Khwāja Basta (Kābul), a water-course near 647.
Khwāja Bikargān (Farghāna), water of 99 n. 4.
Khwāja Changal (Tāhqān), 61; located 60 n. 4.
Khwāja Chār-tāq (Qūndūz) 244.
Khwāja Dīdār (Samarkand), Bābur's winters in 73-4;
Shaibānī near 130-1-5;
Bābur passes 147.
Khwāja Ḥasan (Kābul), Bābur passes 398, 418.
Khwāja `Imād (Ḥiṣār-shādmān), Bābur at 188.
Khwāja Ismā`īl _Sirītī_ (s.e. of the Kābul territory), mountains
of 223;
Bābur at 323-4.
Khwāja Kafshīr (Samarkand), escapes by 62, 144.
Khwāja Kārdzan var. Kardzīn (Samarkand), 65, 128;
Shaibānī at 138.
Khwāja Khāwand Sa`īd (Kābul), wines of 203, 215.
Khwāja Kitta (Farghāna), Bābur at 165.
Khwāja Khiẓr (N.W.F.P. India), Bābur at 372-6.
Khwāja Khiẓr's Qadam-gāh (Kābul), 201, 407.
Khwāja Khiẓr's Mosque (Samarkand), 142.
Khwāja-rabāṯ (Samarkand), 73, 97, 127-8, 130-1.
Khwāja Raushānā'ī's _Chashma_ (Kābul), 201.
Khwāja Reg-i-rawān (Kohistān, Kābul), described 215;
Bābur at 420.
Khwāja Riwāj (Kābul), rebels go to 245, 345.
Khwāja Rustam (Kābul), Bābur near 447.
Khwāja Shabāb (Kābul), Bābur at 418.
Khwāja Shamū's tomb (Kābul), 201.
Khwāja Sih-yārān (Kābul), described 216;
names of the "Three friends" 216, n. 4;
Bābur at 398, 405-6-20.
Khwāja Zaid (n. of Hindū-kūsh), Bābur at 195.
Khwāṣ (Samarkand border?), `Umar Shaikh defeated at 17, 34;
located 17 and n. 1.
Khwārizm = Khiva, w. limit of Samarkand 76;
and northern of Khurāsān 261;
cold in 219;
Maḥmūd _Ghaznawī's_ over-rule in 479;
Chīn _Ṣufī_ defends 242, 255-6;
Khusrau Shāh's head sent to 244;
a Bāī-qarā refugee in 397;
governors of 256, 274;
Muḥammad _Ṣāliḥ_ of it 289 n. 4.
Khwāst, "Khost" (n. of Hindū-kush), mountains of 221;
name and character of 221 n. 4;
a mullā of 368;
Mīr-zādas of 412;
comers and goers from and to 399, 403, 196 n. 5;
piety of Khwāstīs 523 n. 1;
*Māhīm Begīm's connection with 714;
Bābur at *363, 408.
Kīlā-gāhī (n. of Hindū-kush), a fugitive through 321.
Kilirah? (U.P. India), Bābur at 680.
Kilīf ferry (Oxus), Ḥusain _Bāī-qarā_ and 57, 191.
Kīndīr-tau, Kurāma (Farghāna's n.w. border-mountains), 8n. 5, 11 n. 6;
—Kīndīrlīk pass, when open 2 n. 4, *183;
distinguished 116 n. 2;
The Khāns and 90, 161, 172;
Bābur crosses 54, 90, 161.
Kind-kir (Kābul), described 424;
(_see_ Masson, iii, 193).
Kintit (U.P. India), identified 657 n. 2;
Bābur at 657.
Kīrkī ferry (Oxus), 191.
Kishm (Badakhsḥān), Aūzbeg defeat at 295;
Humāyūn near 621, 624 n. 1;
? *Bābur winters in (919 AH.), 362.
Kisrī-tāq (below Bāghdād), height of 83.
Kītib or Kīb (Panj-āb), an appointment to 393.
Koel, Kūl, Kūīl (U.P. India), _see_ Kūl.
Kohāt (Panj-āb), Bābur in 218-31-33-50, 382-94.
Koh-bacha (var. ? a common noun; Kābul), tooth-picks gathered on 407.
Koh-dāman (Herāt), an appointment to 274.
Koh-dāman (Kābul), described 215 to 217;
Bābur on 320, 405, 416, 420.
Koh-i-jūd, Salt-range (Panj-āb), described 379;
places connecting with 381, 452;
a note of Erskine's on 380 n. 2.
Koh-khirāj (U.P. India), Bābur at 653.
Kohik, Chūpān-ātā _q.v._ (Samarkand), described 76 n. 4;
gardens on 78, 80;
bounds a meadow 82;
Bābur near 72.
Kohik-sū = Zar-afshān (Samarkand), course and name 76, 76 n. 4;
bounds a meadow 82,
and a _tūmān_ 84;
suggested drowning in 128 n. 2;
Bābur and 64, 130-1;
swims it in flood 140.
Koh-i-nūr, Rocky-mountain (Kābul), _see_ Kūnār.
Koh-i-safed, Spīn-ghur (Kābul), described 209;
Pushtū name of 209 n. 2;
App. E, xvii, xix, xx.
Kohistan (Badakhshān), begs of 296;
—(Kābul), villages of described 214 and n. 7;
a _tūmān_ of 213;
_rara avis_ of 213 n. 7.
Kohtin mountains (s. of Samarkand), limits possessions of territory 47.
Kūfīn (Samarkand), 65.
Kūkcha-sū (Badakhshān), 321.
Kūl, Kūīl, Koel (U.P. India), a governor of 176;
Bābur's building-work in 520 (here Kūīl),
his envoy to 526,
loss of 557, 576, visit to 586-7.
Kūl-āb (Badakhshān), a chief of 627 n. 2, *696.
Kula-grām (Kūnār, Kābul), Bābur at 423.
Kuldja (E. Turkistān), Ālmalīgh the former capital of 2 n. 1;
*The Khāns escape after defeat by its road 183 (where _read_ Kuldja).
Kul-kīna or Gul-kīnā (Kābul), a place of revel 200-1, 395.
Kūl-i-malik (Bukhārā), Bābur defeated at 40, *357.
Kūnār with Nūr-gal (Kābul), described 211;
is Koh-i-nūr (Rocky-mountain), the true name of, App. F, xxiii, xxiv;
torrent of 212;
beer made in 423; peacocks in 493;
a test of woman's virtue in 212,
governors in 227, 344;
Bābur in 343, 376, 423.
Kundī (Lamghānāt, Kābul), _see_ Multa-kundī.
Kūndih or Kūndbah (Bihār, India), Bābur at 674-7, 687 n. 5 (where read
the name as above).
Kūra pass (Kābul), divides the hot and cold climates 220;
Bābur at 421.
Kūrarah (U.P. India), Bābur at 651.
Kūrdūm-dabān (Farghāna), 5 n. 3.
Kūrīa (U.P. India), Bābur at 651.
Kurrat-tāziyān (Kābul), _see_ Dasht-i-shaikh.
Kusār (U.P. India), Bābur at 652.
Kushan (Persia), locates Rādagān 622 n. 4.
Kūtila (Panj-āb), Bābur gains 462;
strength of 463.
Kūtila-lake, mod. Kotila-jhil (Gurgaon, Panj-āb), Bābur at 580 and
n. 1.
Kūy-pāyān, Low-lane (Samarkand), 146.
Lāhūr, Lahor (Panj-āb), revenues of 446, 521;
snows seen from 485;
water-wheels of 486, 532;
locates Sīālkot 429;
Daulat Khān and 382-3, *428, *441-2-3, 451;
Bābur's envoy detained in 385;
`Ālam Khān and 444, 455-8;
Bābur's begs in 443, 453-4;
sedition in 688;
*Bābur's visit to (936 AH.) 604 n. 1, *692-3-7-8-9, 707;
Māhīm and 650-9;
*taken by Kāmrān (where for "935" _read_ 938).
Lak-lakān (s. of Tāshkīnt), a hostile meeting at 145.
Laknau, Lakhnau, Luknau, "Lucknow" (U.P. India), a bird of 495;
abandoned by Bābur's men 594;
Bābur at 601;
? Bīban and Bāyazīd approach it 677;
? news of capture of 679 and n. 2, 681;
variants in name of 677 n. 3, 678 n. 1, 582 n. 6, App. T;
_see_ Luknūr.
Lamghānāt _tūmāns_ (Kābul), described 207-13;
true use of the name 210;
classification of 200;
a tūmān of 318;
mountains of 222;
tribes in 229, 242;
fruits of 203, 424, 510-1;
birds of 494-5, 500;
fishing in 226;
routes into 206-9;
locates 208, 211;
Bābur in 414-19-21-*29;
(_see_ Lamghān).
Lamghān _tūmān_ (Kābul), the name of 200 n. 1, 210;
a fruit and tree of 508;
limits a tribe 341;
Bābur's retreat to 21, 340;
Bābur in 407-14-19-21-*29.
Lār (Persia) a native of 284.
Laswaree, Battle of (1803 AD.) 578 n. 1.
Lāt-kīnt (Farghāna), Bābur at 108.
Lawāīn (U.P. India), Bābur at 656.
Lombardy (Italy), wine culture in 210 n. 5.
Luhūgur, mod. Logar (Kābul), described 217;
Chirkh its one village 217;
a celebrity of 184, 217;
vine-culture in 210 n. 6.
Luknūr (Rāmpūr, U.P. India), revenue of 521;
besieged by Bīban 582;
? approached by Bīban and Bāyazīd 677;
? news of its capture 679 and n. 2, 681.
Macha (Upper Zar-afshān), located 149, 152;
`Alī _Mīrān-sḥāhī_ takes refuge in 55;
Bābur in 27, 67, 152-3.
Macham (Farghāna), a foot-hill 118, 125 n. 2.
Madan-Banāras, Zamania (U.P. India), Bābur at 658.
Madīna (Arābia), Bābur sends gifts to 523.
Māḏu, Māzū (Farghāna), Bābur takes 109.
Madhākūr (U.P. India), Bābur at 548, 616 (where read as here).
Maghāk-pul (Samarkand), Bābur at 68, 132.
Mahan (Farghāna), Bābur at 123.
Mahāwīn (Muttra; U.P. India), not submissive to Bābur 523.
Mahūba (U.P. India), rebels take flight to 685, 682 n. 1.
Māhūrā-sangur (N.W.F.P. India), locates a tribe 376.
Mahyar (N.W.F.P. India), 373 n. 6.
Maidān (Kābul), the road to 228;
earthquake action near 247;
white marble of 710.
Maidan-i-Rustam (Kābul), Bābur at 405.
Māīng (U.P. India), Bābur near 683.
Makka (Arabia), Bābur sends money gifts to 522,
and a Qorān in his script 228 n. 3;
pilgrims to 26, 267 n. 2, _etc._
Malabar, a succession-custom in 482 n. 5.
Malarna (Rājpūtāna), revenue of 521.
Malot, _see_ Milwat.
Mālwa (C. India), an observatory at 79;
known in Bābur's day as Mandāū _q.v._ 79.
Māmā Khātūn (Kābul), 405.
Mānas-nī (nai; Rājpūtāna), other names of 578 n. 1;
reputed outfall of 580; Bābur on 578-9.
Mandaghān (Khurāsān), Bābur at 295.
Mandāū, Mandū (C. India), capital of Mālwa 482 n. 2;
Mālwa known as 79, 482;
hills of 486;
a ruler of 482;
a holder of 593, 688 n. 2,
downfall of sulṯāns of 483;
[Elphinstone Codex _passim_ and Ḥaidarabad Codex, except on p. 79
where "Mandu" occurs, write Mandāū].
Mandīsh, Mandesh (N.W.F.P. India), Bābur at 375.
Mandrāwar _tūmān_ (Kābul), described 210;
one of the three constituents of the true Lamghānāt 210;
a village of 424;
holders of 229, 344;
Bābur in 321, 421.
Mānikpūr (U.P. India), revenue, of 521;
elephants in 489.
Maqām (N.W.F.P. India), perhaps mod. Mardān 377 n. 2;
Bābur near 377-8.
Marāgha (Āẕar-bāyigān, Caspian Sea), astronomical Tables constructed
at 79.
Marghīnān (Farghāna), described 6;
bullies of 7[2947];
a celebrity of 7, 76;
locates a place 7;
comings and goings from and to 30, 97 n. 2, 173;
lost to Bābur 30;
recovered by him 99-100;
rebel attack on 101-2;
Bābur in 103, 123, 162-9, 172.
Marūchāq (on the Murgh-āb, Khurāsān), Āūzbeg raiders defeated at 296.
Marwār (Rājpūtāna), Sangā's approach from 544 n. 5.
Mashhad (Khurāsān), a celebrity of 285;
a Bāī-qarā holder of 263, 296, 329-30;
held by Aūzbegs 534, 623;
T̤ahmāsp's route to 622 n. 3.
Masht (Ghaznī?), a tribe in 323.
Masjid-i-jauza (Farghāna), described 5.
Masjid-i-laqlaqa (Samarkand), described 80.
Masjid-i-maquṯa` (Samarkand), described 79.
Mastūng, Quetta (Balūchistān), Shāh Beg and 337, *427 (where read
Mastūng).
Mātarīd (Samarkand), a celebrity of 75.
Māwarā'u'n-nahr, Transoxiana, name of the country of Samarkand 74;
name includes Farghāna 76;
melons and wines of 82-3;
bullies in 7 (_see s.n._ Marghīnān for an omission);
Leaders of Islām born in 7, 75-6;
three strong forts in 3;
an appointment in its interests 61, 85;
in Aūzbeg hands 427, 480, 618;
*Bābur's desire to regain 697 n. 1 (and _s.n._ Bābur).
Mehtar-Sulaimān range (Afghān border), a shrine on 238;
Bābur and 236-8.
Merv, Marv (Khurāsān), comings and goings from and to 135-7, 296, 301,
*357, 623;
chiefs of 261, 244;
`Alī-sher winters in 287;
Bābur's sister in 18, *352;
Shaibānī defeated and killed near 318, *350;
`Ubaid and 534, 618, 622.
Mewāt, Mīwāt (Rājpūtāna), revenue of 521;
hills of 486;
account of 577-8-9;
holders of 523, 551;
Bābur orders a raid on 551;
Kānwa casualties on the road to 577;
Bābur at 578.
Mīān-dū-āb, "Doab" (between Ganges and Jumna), revenue of 521;
archers of 526-8, 551-7;
a _pargana_ bestowed in 539;
`Ālam Khān goes to 457;
Ibrāhīm advances into 467;
Bābur puts down a rebel in 576.
Mīān-kāl, Miyān-kāl (Samarkand), returns to Bābur 135;
Aūzbegs in 622.
Mīān-kalāī (N.W.F.P. India), Bābur in 373;
? a dū-āb 373 n. 6.
Mīān-wilāyat, Miyān-wilāyat (U.P. India), revenue of 521.
Mīch-grām (Kābul), a tribe in 413;
Bābur at 414.
Mīl (Kāfiristān), position of 210.
Milwat, Malot (Panj-āb), prisoners sent to 461.
Milwat, Malot (U.P. India), Bābur's capture of 457-8, 461.
Minār-hill (Kābul), Bābur crosses 314.
Mīr Ghiyaṣ-langar (Khurāsān), Bābur at 307-8.
Mīrzā-rabāṯ, (Farghāna), w. wind over 9 n. 2, *183.
Misr, Egypt, compared with a Samarkand _tūmān_ 84;
*Napoleon's task in 356.
Mīta-kacha (Kohistān, Kābul), described 214.
Mughūlistān, mountains of 222;
game in 325;
Aspara in 20;
Yūnas Khān in 12;
a Mughūl _tūmān_ enters 20;
*Mughūls forced to go far from 351;
a dweller in 114;
Bābur thinks of going to 158, *184.
Muḥammad Āghā's village (Kābul), Bābur at 405.
Muḥammad Chap's Bridge (Samarkand), 72.
Muḥammad-fajj (N.W.F.P. India), meaning of the name 229 n. 5;
Bābur at 231.
Multā-kundī (Kābul), defined 211.
Multān (Panj-āb), the Five-rivers meet near 485;
a dependency of 237;
fowlers migrated from 225;
Abā-bikr at 260;
Daulat Khān and 441-2;
`Askarī recalled from *603, 605;
Kāmrān and 645, 699.
Mungīr (Bengal), Bābur's envoy to 676.
Munīr (Bihār, India), Bābur at 666-7, 670.
Munūghul-tāgh (Farghāna), variants in name of 8 n. 5;
mines and malarial influence of 8;
surmised action on wind of (here Mogol-tau) 9 n. 2;
(_see_ Abū'l-ghāzī, Désmaisons p. 12).
Muqur (Afghānistān), Bābur at 345.
Mūra-pass (Ḥiṣār-shādmān), 58 n. 1;
Bābur crosses 129 (not named).
Murgh-āb river and fort (Khurāsān), Ḥusain _Bāī-qarā_ and 191, 260;
Bābur on 285, 297-9, 300;
Shaibānī at 327.
Murghān-koh (Qandahār), position of 332 n. 4;
Bābur at 336.
Mūrī and Adūsa, Bāburpūr (U.P. India), Bābur at 644.
Muttra (U.P. India), _see_ Mahāwīn.
Naghr or Naghz (Kābul), a s. limit of Kābul 200;
position of 206, 231-3.
Nagūr, Nagor (Rājpūtāna), revenue of 521.
Nakhshab (Samarkand), _see_ Qarshī.
Namangān (Farghāna), new canal of App. A, ii, n. 1;
Bābur near 117.
Nānāpūr (U.P. India), Bābur at 657.
Nānī (Ghaznī), Bābur at 240;
old Nānī plundered 254.
Napoleon's* task in Egypt compared 356.
Nardak* (U.P. India), a hunting-ground 701.
Nārīn (n. of Hindū-kush), a fugitive through 321.
Nārīn-river (n. arm of Saiḥūn), 88 n. 2, App. A, ii.
Nārnūl (U.P. India), an assignment on 677.
Nasūkh (Farghāna), Bābur at 92.
Natḥpūr or Fatḥpūr (U.P. India), Bābur near 680-1.
Naugrām (U.P. India), Bābur meets his sister at 689 n. 3.
Nijr-aū _tūmān_ (Kābul), described 213;
mountains of 222;
products of 203, 213;
boiled wine in 213;
a dependency of 220;
locates Ālā-sāī 220;
Bābur in 253, 420-1,
his frontier-post of 213 n. 2.
Nīl-āb (Indus), various instances of the name 206 n. 3;
a tribal limit 378, 387;
routes to Kābul from 206;
old Nīl-āb located 392;
comings and goings from and to 250, 265, 399, 419, 422, 647, 659;
given to Humāyūn 391;
Bābur at 392,
counts his army at 451.
Nile (The),* used as an illustration 9 n. 2;
Alexander takes the Indus for 206 n. 3.
Nīng-nahār _tūmān_ (Kābul) described 207-9;
its book-name Nagarahār 207;
meaning of the name 208, App. E;
not included in the Lamghānāt 210;
a dependency of 213;
waters of 209, App. E;
wintering tribes 242;
a bird of 493;
division of hot and cold climates n 229;
Bāgh-i-wafā laid out in 208;
holders of 227, 317, 344, 421;
an arrival from 345;
Bābur at 342.
Nīrah-tū or Tīrah-tū, Kalīūn (Herī), Shaibānī's family in 343.
Nirhun (Bihār, India), Bābur at 674.
Nirkh-pass, Takht-pass (Kābul), Bābur crosses 228.
Nīshāpūr (Khurāsān), mentioned as on a route 622 n. 3.
Nīshīn-meadow (Herī), Ḥusain _Bāī-qarā_ and 95, 261.
Nū-kīnt (Farghāna), locates an enemy 116;
threatened 170.
Nulibā (U.P. India), Bābur at 657.
Nūndāk, Ḥ.S. Nawāndāk (Chaghānīān _q.v._), located 471;
Barlās family of 51 (where "Badakhshān" is wrong);
Bābur near 129;
Aūzbegs retire to 471.
Nūr-gal (Kābul), described 211;
meaning of its name, App. F, xxiii;
holders of 227, 334;
Bābur at 343, 423.
Nūr-lām (Kābul), _see_ App. F, xxiii.
Nūr-valley (Kābul), _see_ Dara-i-nūr.
Nūsh-āb (Farghāna), Bābur near 114.
Otrār (W. Turkistān), _see_ Aūtrār.
Oude, Oudh, Aūd, Adjodhya (U.P. India), revenue of 521;
river-crossings to 669;
locates places 601-2, 679 n. 2;
army of 684-5;
a bird of 495;
appointment to 544;
? Bābur at 680 and n. 2;
his Mosque in App. U.
Paklī, Pakhlī (Panj-āb), formerly part of Kashmīr 484.
Palghar (Samarkand), limit of Samarkand on upper Zar-afshān 152.
Pamghān range and village, Paghmān (Kābul), described 215-6;
village destroyed by earthquake 247;
Shāh Begīm's 318;
*snows seen from Bābur's burial-garden 710.
Pāmīr routes, *spring re-opening of 695.
Pānī-mālī or -mānī (N.W.F.P. India), the road to 376.
Pānīpat (Panj-āb), battles at 472 n. 1;
Bābur's victory at 457, 469, 470-1-2, 534.
Panj-āb (India), of the name App. E, xx;
*Bābur's power in 426, 430;
*Daulat Khān's strength in 412, 443;
Bābur's journey to (937 AH.), 604 n. 1, *698.
Panj-dih, Pand-dih (Khurāsān), Aūzbeg raiders beaten at 296.
Panjhīr, Panj-sher _tūmān_ (Kābul), described 214;
pass-roads of 195-6, 205;
highway-men of 214;
river of 407;
a _dārogha_ in 250.
Panj-kūra (N.W.F.P. India), Bābur at 373-4.
Pāp (Farghāna), holds fast for Bābur 91, 101;
affairs in 171-4-6 n. 3.
Pārandī-pass (Hindū-kush), described 205;
height of 204 n. 4.
Parashāwar, Peshāwar (N.W.F.P. India), a limit of Kābul 200;
beauty of flowers near 393;
rhinoceros of 490;
partridges in 496;
Bigrām near 230 n. 2;
Bābur and 382, 393, 410-2.
Parhāla (Panj-āb), a Kakar stronghold 387-9;
described and taken by Bābur 396-7.
Parsarū-river (U.P. India), Bābur on 682-3.
Parsrūr, Parsarūr (Panj-āb), an assignment on 684;
Bābur at 458;
G. of India form of name Pasrūr 684 n. 1.
Pārwān (Kohistān, Kābul), described 214-5;
wind of 201, 224;
road and pass of 205;
fishing in 226, 406;
wines and flowers of 215.
Pashāghar (Samarkand), described 97;
a native of 188;
Bābur at 97-8, 148.
Pātakh-i-āb-i-shakna (Kābul), meaning of the name 403 n. 2;
Bābur at 403.
Pawat-pass (Mehtar Sulaimān range), Bābur crosses 238.
Pehlūr, Phillaur (Panj-āb), Bābur at 458.
Pesh-grām (N.W.F.P. India), Bābur at 373.
Pīāg, Allāhābād (U.P. India), Bābur at 654-5;
incident of his march from 657.
Pīchghān (Kābul), bird-catching in 220;
punitive attack on 253.
Pīch-i-Kāfiristān (n. of Kābul country), wines of 212;
hostile to Bābur 212.
Pīr Kānū, _see_ Sakhī-sarwār.
Pul-i-chirāgh, Bīl-i-chirāgh (Balkh-Herāt road), located 69;
a victory at 69, 260.
Pul-i-sālār (Herāt), 329-30.
Pul-i-sangīn (Ḥiṣār-shadmān), *Tīmūr's and Bābur's victories at 353-4.
Pushta-i-`aīsh (Farghāna), forces near 106, 165.
Qabā (Farghāna), swamp of 31;
invaded 30;
Bābur at 123, 162.
Qa`bādīān (Ḥiṣār-shādmān), Bābur at 188;
taken for him 640.
Qabil's tomb, _i.e._ Cain's (Kābul), Bābur at 415.
Qāīn (Khurāsān), held by a Bāī-qarā 296, 301.
Qaiṣār (s.w. of Maïmènè, _see_ Fr. map), Bābur at 296.
Qalāt-i-ghilzāī (Qandahār), Bābur takes 248-9, 339;
road south from 333;
a governor of 340;
fugitives join Bābur near 331;
Hindūstān traders at 331.
Qalāt-i-nādirī (n. of Mashhad, Khurāsān), birthplace of Nādir Shāh 263
n. 4, 329 n. 4;
Bāī-qarā holders of 263, 329.
Qanauj (U.P. India), revenue of 521;
appointments in 265, 582;
hostile both to Ibrāhīm and to Bābur 523-9;
military occurrences at 530, 557, 582-9, 594-8.
Qandahār (Afghānistān), sometimes reckoned as part of Ghaznī 217;
a s. limit of Khurāsān 261;
irrigation-waters of 332-6;
heat of compared 520;
Kābul trade with 202;
routes to 206, 308;
—governors in 264, 274;
Arghūns in 71, 227, 326, 336, 429;
Ḥusain _Bāī-qarā's_ failure at 94;
—Bābur's campaigns against 220, 246-8, 330-9, *365, *426-28-36-39;
unremunerative to him 480;
his rock-residence (Chihil-zīna) near 333-5, App. J;
Shaibānī's siege of 21, 331-9, 340-3;
Nāṣir in 338;
Kāmrān in 583, *694-9, *706;
—Khwānd-amīr leaves 605;
a rapid journey to 621, *705;
Lord Roberts on his first view of 333 n. 1;
ruins of in 1879 AD. 430.
Qarā-bāgh (Kābul), Bābur at 196;
? a rebel of 687.
Qarā-bāgh-meadow (Qandahār), flood-waters of 240;
spoils shared out at 339;
? a rebel of 687.
Qarā-būgh (Samarkand), Bābur at 147.
Qarā-būlāq (Samarkand), Bābur at 66-7;
a punishment at 66, 153.
Qarā-daryā (s. arm of Saiḥūn), now supplies Andijān 3 n. 6;
88 n. 2;
App. A, ii.
Qarā-kūl (Samarkand), mentioned 84;
irrigation of 76-7;
a governor of 40;
lost and regained by Aūzbegs 135-7.
Qarā-kūpa pass, ? Malakand (N.W.F.P. India), Bābur on 376.
Qarā-nakarīq ? (Kābul), a route through 209.
Qārlūq _wilāyat_ (Panj-āb), a governor of 403.
Qarshī, Nashaf, Nakhshāb (Samarkand), described 84;
Tarkhāns in 62, 88, 135 (here ? Kesh, p. 138);
Aūzbegs and 135, *353-4;
Bābur's wish to spare and Najm S̤ānī's massacre 359-60, 361.
Qarā-rabāṯ (n. of Herāt), Bāī-qarā defeat at 327.
Qarā-sū, Siyāh-āb (Kābul), Bābur fords 396;
(N.W.F.P. India), he crosses 450;
(s. arm of Zar-afshān, Samarkand) 78;
course of 82;
a meadow on 81;
known as Āb-i-raḥmat 78.
Qarā-tīgīn (n. of Ḥiṣār-shādmān), passers through 58, 112, *349;
Bābur plans to go through to Kāshghar 129;
*his Mughūl assailants retire to 362.
Qarā-tū (Kābul), located 208-9;
Bābur at 395, 409, 425.
Qarghā-yīlāq (Kābul), low hills of 320.
Qīāq-tū (Ghaznī ?), Bābur at 323.
Qībchāq road and pass (Hindū-kush), described 205;
Bābur on 197.
Qīlaghū (Kābul), Bābur at 413.
Qīrīq-arīq (Kābul), Bābur at 410, 448.
Qila`-i-Ikhtiyāru'd-dīn, Ālā-qūrghān (Herāt), Bābur rumoured captive
in 313;
Bāī-qarā families abandoned in 327.
Qila`-i-ẕafar, Shāf-tiwār (Badakhshān), former name Shāf-tiwār 242;
sends an envoy to Bābur 618;
a rapid journey from 621;
offered to Mīrzā Khān 21, *349;
a Chaghatāī fugitive through 349;
opposes the Aūzbegs 242;
—Humāyūn's departures from (932 AH.) 545,
*(935 AH.) 694-5;
*Hind-āl in charge 696-7;
*beleaguered by Sa`īd 697;
*made over to Sulaimān 699.
Qīzīl-sū, Surkh-āb, _q.v._ (n. of Hindū-kush), locates a road 205;
a fugitive on 321;
Bābur near 192-3.
Quhlugha, Quhqa (Ḥiṣār-shādmān), _see_ Dar-band-i-ahanīn.
Qulba meadow (Samarkand), described 82;
80;
a murder in 128;
Bābur in 72, 141.
Qūndūz (Badakhshān), n. limit of Kābul 200;
pass-roads 204-5;
head-waters of 216;
tribes of 228, 402;
Mughūls of 345, 361;
a ruler in 47;
Ḥusain _Bāī-qarā_ and 48, 50-7, 61, 94, 191, 260, 275;
Khusrau Shāh and 57, 60, 70-4, 93, 110, 141, 196, 244;
Shaibānī and 192, 242-4;
goings to 270, 546;
Bābur and 51, 318, *352-3, *362-3, *427-80;
letters of victory sent to 371;
his sister sent to 18, *352.
Qurgha-tū (Kābul), a route through 376.
Qurūq-sāī (Kābul), located by context 208-9, 341, 395;
Bābur at 341, 395, 414.
Qūsh-khāna (Ḥiṣār-shādmān), an encounter at 71.
Qūsh-khāna meadow (Qandahār), Bābur in 338.
Qūsh-guṃbaẕ (Kābul), Bābur at 229, 241, 447.
Qūsh-nādir or nāwar (Kābul), Bābur at 247, 417.
Qūtlūq-qadam's tomb and bridge (Kābul), position of 208;
Bābur at 198, 395.
Rabāṯ-i-duzd or -dūdur (n. of Herāt), a Bāī-qarā defeat at 263.
Rabāṯ-i-khwāja (Samarkand), head-quarters of Shavdār 97;
Bābur's men in 73;
Bābur in 97, 130-1, 127-8.
Rabāṯ-i-sarhang (Farghāna), Taṃbal in 108, 110.
Rabāṯ-i-Soghd (Samarkand), a battle near 111.
Rabāṯ-i-surkh (Kābul), Bābur at 341.
Rabāṯ-i-zauraq or -rūzaq (Farghāna), Bābur at 165, 396.
Rabāṯik-aūrchīn (Farghāna), _see_ Aīkī-sū-ārā.
Rādagān (n.w. of Mashhad), T̤ahmāsp at 622;
name and location of 622 nn. 4, 5, 623 nn. 4, 7.
Rāgh (Badakhshān), uprisings in 242, 321.
Rahap river, ? Raptī (India), course of 485.
Rāīsīng (C. India), Bābur's intention against 598.
Rant(h)ambūr (Rājpūtāna), revenue of 521;
hills of 486; Sangā's 483.
Rāprī (U.P. India), a _pargana_ of 644;
a dependency of 686;
military vicissitudes at 523-30-57-81-82-98;
Bābur at 643.
Rashdān (Farghāna), birthplace of the author of the Hidāyat 7, 76.
Rāvī river (Panj-āb) 458; source of 485.
Rechna dū-āb (Panj-āb), *Bābur in 429.
Rivers of Hindūstān 485.
Rohtās (Panj-āb), a tribal limit 452 n. 5.
Rūm (Turkey-in-Asia), Kābul trade with 202;
a medical remedy of 657;
Rūmī defence of connected carts 469, 550, 564, 635.
Rūpar (Panj-āb), Bābur at 464.
Rūstā-hazāra, ? a tribe name (Badakhshān), men of join Bābur 196;
(Elph. and Ḥai. MSS. Rūstā, Ilminskī, p. 153, Rūstākh;
is it Rūstāq _infra_ ?).
Rustam-maidān (Kābul), described 405;
Bābur at 405.
Rūstāq (Badakhshān), revolts against Aūzbegs 242;
_see_ Rūstā-hazāra _supra_.
Sabzawār (Khurāsān), a return from 261;
on a route 622 n. 3.
Ṣāf-koh (Kābul-Herāt route), Bābur on 295-6.
Safed-koh (Kābul), _see_ Koh-i-safed.
Saighān (Khurāsān; _see_ Fr. map Maïmènè), on the summer-road by
Shibr-tū 205;
Bābur in 294.
Saiḥūn-daryā, Sīr-darya, Khujand-water (Transoxiana), course of 2, 84
n. 5, App. A, ii;
the Khāns and 13, 31, 156, 172;
various crossings of 101-16;
a proposed limit of lands 118-62;
Bābur's crossings of 151 (on ice), 161, 170-9, *183;
his men's success on 102;
his father's defeat on 16;
_see_ Nārīn and Qarā-daryā for constituents of.
Sāī-kal (Kābul), Bābur at 342.
Sairām (n. of Tāshkīnt), locates Yagha 159;
holders of 17, 35;
name of used as a password 164;
*withstands the Aūzbegs 358.
Sajāwand (Kābul), celebrities of 217;
Bābur at 241.
Sakān (Farghāna), a ferry near 161.
Sakhan (Ghaznī), ruined dam of 219.
Sakhī-sawār (Dara-i-Ghāzī Khān, India), Pīr Kānū's tomb at 238;
Bābur at 238.
Salt-range (Panj-āb), _see_ Koh-i-jūd.
Sāmāna (Panj-āb), river of 465;
fixes a limit 638;
an appointment to 528;
*a surmised source of historic information 693;
*a complaint from to Bābur and punitive results 700.
Samarkand (mod. Asiatic Russia), description of 74-86;
names of 74, 75 and n. 4;
sub-divisions, _see_ Bukhārā, Karmīna, Kesh, Khozār, Qarā-kūl,
Qarshī = Nashaf and Nakhshab, Shāvdār or Shādwār, Soghd;
meadows of 67-8, 70-77, 81-2, 128, 131;
buildings and constructions in:—
(1) Tīmūr's 77-8 and _s.n._ Gardens,
(2) Aūlūgh Beg's 78-9, 80, 133, 142-4,
(3) others 75-7 nn. 6-8;
— Alps of 222;
cold in 202-4;
a comparison of 216;
fruits 8, 510;
bullies 7;
Aimāqs 221;
trade with Kābul 202;
name locates places or fixes dates 1, 2, 25, 44-9, 136, 150-1-2,
244, 284, 289;
Corps of Braves 28, App. H, xxvii;
_tūghchīs_ 28;
rulers of 13, 35, 41-6, 52, 65, 74, 90, 111, 121-7, 147, 152, 479,
622;
governors of 37, 131;
comings and goings to and from 15, 20-2-4, 64, 88, 136-7, 148-9,
256, 300, 402-3;
refugees to 46, 51, 58, 95 (plan for), 271;
an execution in 51, 196;
a raid near 16;
`Umar Shaikh and 12, 15;
Tarkhān revolt in 61-3;
besieged for a bride 64;
Abū-sa`īd takes 20-8;
Maḥmūd _Chaghatāī_ and 23, 88, 122;
— Bābur _æt._ 5, taken to 35-7;
his desire for 97-8, *706;
desired by others 64, 111-2;
his attempts on 64-6-8, 72-4, 92-3-7, 112-5-9, 131-2, *354;
invited to 122-3-4;
captures of 18, 35-9, 40, 74, 88, 132-4, 266, 277-9, *355, 471;
his surprise capture compared 134-5[2948];
rule in 86-7, 135, 147;
leaves it to help Andijān 88-9, 190;
defeated at 133-141;
besieged in and surrenders 141-7, 168, 24;
leaves it 147, 358, 471;
— Shaibānī receives it in gift 125;
loss and gain of 74, 147, 168;
occupation of 125-8, *183, 256, 300, 325-8, 360;
— *Ḥaidar _Dūghlāt_ in 357;
Merv Mughūls near 357;
Humāyūn attempts to recover 625, 639;
— envoys from to Bābur 438, 630-1, 642;
gifts to 522;
Bābur's 1st _Dīwān_ and the _Mūbīn_ sent to 402, App. Q, viii, *438.
Samnān (Persia), a fruit of 6.
Saṃbhal (U.P. India), revenue of 521;
snows seen from 485;
hostile to Bābur 523;
Bābur's 528, 547;
abandoned by his men 557;
Bābur at 586-7;
deaths of officers in 675, 683 n. 4, 687;
Humāyūn's fief 697, *700-2.
Sām-sīrak (s. of Tāshkīnt), The Khān's army counted near 154;
hunting near 156;
Bābur at 152.
Sān (Balkh territory ?), plundered 94, 295 (p. 94 for "Sān-chīrīk",
_read_ Sān and Chār-yak).
Sanām (C. India), river of 465.
Sang (Farghāna), Bābur at 176, *183.
Sang-i-āīna (Farghāna), described 7.
Sang-i-barīda (Kābul), Bābur passes 407.
Sang-i-lakhshak (Qandahār), Bābur at 333.
Sang-i-sūrākh (Kābul), Bābur passes 228;
and (Dasht-Farmūl road) _do._ 235.
Sangdakī pass (Panj-āb), Bābur crosses 379, 392.
Sangzār (Samarkand), Bābur and 92, 124, 131;
(p. 92, l. 9, _read_ "to Sangzār by way of Yār-yīlāq").
Sanjī-tāq (Kābul), a pleasure resort 200 n. 6.
Sanjid-dara (Kābul), Bābur at 196, 406.
Sanūr (C. India), torrent of 464.
Sapān (Farghāna), a hostile force at 101.
Saqā (Farghāna), Bābur's victory near 113.
Sarāī Munda (U.P. India), Bābur at 651.
Sarāī Bāburpūr (U.P. India), _see_ Mūrī and Adusa.
Sarakhs (on the Herī-rūd), Aūzbeg capture of 534.
Saran (Bihār, India), revenue of 521;
held by a Farmulī *602, 675; an assignment on 679;
locates troops 672 n. 4.
Sarangpūr (C. India), Sangā's 483;
Bābur's intention against it 598.
Sara-tāq pass (Ḥiṣār-shādmān), described 129;
mentioned on routes 40 n. 4, 58, 129;
Bābur crosses 129.
Sār-bāgh (Kābul-Balkh route), traitors to Bābur near 546;
(_see_ Fr. map Maïmènè).
Sar-i-dih (Ghaznī), dam of 218;
Bābur at 240, 323.
Sārīgh-chūpām (Badakhshan), *annexed to Kāshghar 695;
*Ḥaidar _Dūghlāt_ at 697.
Sar-i-pul, Bridge-head (Kābul), Bābur at 314;
(Samarkand), an army at 65;
Bābur defeated at 18, 137-8 to 141, 188.
Sarjū affluent of the Gogrā, _q.v._ 602 n. 1.
Sarsāwa spring (U.P. India), Bābur at 467.
Sarū-daryā, Gagar, Gogra, Ghogrā (India), two constituent rivers Sīrd
(Sarda) and Gagar (or Kakar) 602, 1677 n. 2;
course of (Gagar) 485;
confluence and _dū-āb_ with Gang (Ganges) 665-6-7, 677 n. 2;
narrowed below and above the confluence 668 n. 1, 674 nn. 1, 2;
rhinoceros and water-hogs of 490, 502;
— various crossings of 544, 668, 671-4-5-7, 685;
Bābur crosses after his victory on 674-7-9;
leaves it 682;
Battle of the Gogrā 671-7.
Sārū-qamsh (Khurāsān), an ascribed site of the battle of Jām 635 n. 4.
Sarwār (U.P. India), revenue of 521; Bībān and Bāyazīd sent towards
642;
an assignment on 679; 682 n. 1;
Bābur at ease about 679.
Sawād (N.W.F.P. India), a limit fixed 400;
trees of 222;
various products of 492-4, 510-11;
brewing in 422;
desolate 207;
a test of women's virtue in 211;
chiefs of 372-4;
Yūsuf-zāī in 410, App. K, xxxvii, an arrival from 399;
Bābur and 373-6-7, 411-2.
Sawā-sang (Qandahār), Bābur over-runs 249.
Sawātī, ? an adjective=of Sawād, _q.v. kargkhāna_ and Bābur's
rhino-hunting in 378, 450.
Sayyidpūr ? or Sidhpūr (Panj-āb), Bābur takes 429.
Sehonda, Seondhā (C. India), revenue of 521.
Shāf-tiwār (Badakhshān), _see_ Qila`-i-ẕafar.
Shāhābād (Panj-āb), Bābur at 466.
Shāh-i-Kābul mountain, Sher-darwāza (Kābul), located 200-1;
*Bābur buried on 710.
Shahmang ? (Panj-āb), once part of Kashmīr 484.
Shahr-i-sabz (Samarkand), _see_ Kesh.
Shahr-i-ṣafā (Ḥiṣār-shādmān), a holder of 188;
(Qandahār), Bābur at 332-3.
Shāhrukhiya = Fanākat _q.v._ (Tāshkīnt), a limit of Samarkand 76;
names of 2 n. 5, 7 n. 5, 13, 76;
holders of 13, 17;
various military occurrences at 21-4, 16, 54, 7, 23, 151;
Champion's-portion taken at 53.
Shakdān (Badakhshān), a force at 295.
Shāl = Quetta (Balūchistān), Shāh Beg goes to 337, *427.
Shām, Syria, a Samarkand _tūmān_ compared with 84.
Shamsābād (U.P. India), exchanges of 477, 594-8, 613;
an assignment on 677.
Sham-tū (n. of Hindū-kush), on a route 192.
Shāsh (W. Turkistān), _see_ Tāshkīnt.
Shatlut river, ? Sutlej (Panj-āb), Bābur crosses 457.
Shāvdār or Shādwār _tūmān_ (Samarkand), described 84;
a fort of 68;
head-quarters in 97;
a Tarkhān in 122;
joins Bābur 125.
Sherkot (Bhīra, Panj-āb), a holder of 382.
Sherūkān ? (Ghaznī?), a fight near 397.
Sherwān (n.e. of Mashhad, Persia), a native of 284;
(_see_ Fr. map Maïmènè).
Shibarghān (Khurāsān), besieged 94;
defence planned 191;
battle near 260.
Shibr-tū pass (Hindū-kush), described 205;
height of 204 n. 4;
meaning of name 205 n. 2;
crossed 242, 321;
Bābur crosses 294, 311;
(for an omission on p. 205, _see_ Add. Note p. 205).
Shīrāz (Persia), Yūnas Khān in 20;
(Samarkand), a Commandant of 130;
Bābur near 64-6, 73;
raided by Shaibānī 92; 98.
Shīwa (Kābul-river), Bābur at 343.
Sniz (Kābul-Ghaznī road), Bābur near 248.
Shorkach (Ghaznī ?), locates a place 323 n. 3.
Shulut (Kābul), App. F, xxiv.
Shunqār-khāna mountains (n.w. rampart of Zar-afshān valley), Bābur
crosses 130.
Shutur-gardan (Samarkand), described 142 n. 1, 143.
Sīālkot (Panj-āb), revenue of 521;
officers of 98, *442-3;
*attacked 443;
Bābur and *429-52-54-58.
Sidhpūr (Panj-āb), _see_ Sayyidpūr.
Sihkāna (Afghānistān), a tribe in 323.
Sihrind, Sahrind, Sirhind (Panj-āb), revenue of 521;
names of 383 n. 1;
rivers rising n. of 485;
fixes a limit 638;
fixes a date 457;
snows seen from 485;
a holder of 383;
an assignment on 582;
Bābur and *441-64, *693-9, *700-1.
Sikandar's dam (C.P. India), described 606;
Bābur at 585.
Sikandara (U.P. India), Bābur at 587.
Sikandaräbād (U.P. India), Bābur passes 588.
Sikandarpūr (U.P. India), a ferry station of 677;
an official of 668;
Bābur at 679.
Sikrī (U.P. India), hills of 485;
*Bābur keeps Rāmẓān at 351, changes name of 548 n. 2;
selects it for his camp (933 AH.) 548;
Bābur at 549, 581-5-8, 600, 615-6;
revenues of support his tomb *709.
Sind (India), *Shāh Beg and 427-9.
Sind-daryā, Indus, of "Nīl-āb" as a name of 206 n. 3;
fords and ferries of 206;
tributaries of 216, 485;
rhinoceros of 490;
limits lands 206 n. 6, 231-3, 380, 392, 484, 525;
— *Shāh Beg and 431;
— *Bābur's compulsion to seek territory across 706;
Bābur on 230-7-8, 378-92, *452-3;
mentions it in verse 525-6.
Singar-water, Sengar (U.P. India), Bābur bathes in 649.
Sinjid-dara (Kābul), Bābur in 196, 406.
Sīr-āb or Sar-i-āb (n. of Hindū-kush), a pass-route to 205;
a defeat near 51, 196.
Sīr-auliya (U.P. India), Bābur at 654.
Sīrd, Sīrda, Sarda (U.P. India), a constituent of the Gagar, Gogrā,
Ghogrā 602.
Sirhind (Panj-āb), _see_ Sihrind.
Sīrkāī, ? Sirakhs (Khurāsān), Shaibānī near 327.
Sīstān (Khurāsān), a s. limit of Khurāsān 261;
plan of defence for 326.
Siwālik-hills, or Sawālak (N. India), Bābur on the name 485.
Sīwī, Sībī (Balūchistān), an official in 238;
an incursion into 260;
Sīwīstān, *427.
Siyāh-āb, _see_ Qarā-sū.
Siyāh-koh (Kābul), located (unnamed) 209;
various names of 209 n. 3.
Siyāh-sang (Kābul), meadow of 201;
*scene of an Afghān massacre, App. K, xxvi.
Soghd _tūmān_ (Samarkand), described 84, 147;
Bābur and 64, 135, 147.
Son-water (Bihār, India), an enemy near 658;
crossed for Bābur 662;
Bābur on 666.
Spīn-ghur (Afghānistān), _see_ Safed-koh.
Sūf-valley (Khurāsān), _see_ Dara-i-ṣūf.
Sūgandpūr (U.P. India), Bābur at 686.
Sūhān-nūrī, or Sūhār-nūrī (Kābul), App. G, xxv.
Sūhān-sū (Panj-āb), a tribe on 380;
Bābur on 379, 391.
Sūkh (Farghāna), Bābur's refuge in 7, 130 n. 1, 176 n. 1, *184-5;
gifts to envoys from 633.
Sukhjāna (C.P. India), Bābur near 614.
Sulaimān-range (Afghān border), _see_ Mehtar Sulaimān.
Sulṯānīa (Persia), cold of 219.
Sulṯānpūr (Kābul), Bābur at 409-13-47.
Sulṯānpūr (Panj-āb), founder of 442-61;
a return to 457;
*taken from Bābur 443.
Sūnkār (Rājpūtāna), Bābur at 581.
Sūrkh-āb (n. of Hindū-kūsh), _see_ Qīzīl-sū.
Surkh-āb, Qizil-sū (Ḥiṣār-shādmān), Bābur's victory on 352-3.
Surkh-āb and rūd, Qīzīl-sū (Kābul), 207 n. 5;
Bāgh-i-wafā on 208, Adīnapūr-fort on 209;
wild-ass near 224;
Bābur crosses 395;
ruins near App. E, xvii.
Surkh-rabāṯ (Kābul), _see_ Rabāṯ-i-surkh.
Sūsān-village (Kābul), Bābur at 422.
Sutluj and Shutlūt (_sic_ Ḥai. MS.), Sutlej-river (Panj-āb), limits
lands 383;
course of 485;
crossed 457;
Trans-Sutluj revenues 521.
Syria, _see_ Shām.
Tabrīz (Persia), cold of 204-19;
Yūnas Khān in 20.
Tag-aū (Kābul), _see_ Badr-aū.
Tahangar (Rājpūtāna), hostile to Bābur 538.
Takāna (? Khurāsān), a fight at 260.
"Takhta Qarachi" (Samarkand), 83 n. 2;
_see_ Aītmāk-dābān.
Takht-i-sulaimān (Farghāna) 5 n. 2.
T̤āliqān, T̤āīkhān (Oxus), a Bāī-qarā at 60;
Mughūls from 192.
Tal Ratoi (Nathpūr, U.P. India), 681 n. 1.
Tang-āb (Farghāna), Bābur at 100;
located 99 n. 4.
Tang-i-wāghchān pass (Kābul), _see_ Gīrdīz.
Tank, Tāq (N.W.F. Province), _see_ Dasht.
T̤arāz or T̤arar (E. Turkistān), _see_ Yāngī.
Tarnak river (Qandahār), _see_ Turnūk.
Tarshīz (Khurāsān), Ḥusain _Bāī-qarā's_ victory at 259 and n. 5 (where
_read_ p. 524).
Tāshkīnt, Tāshkend (Russia-in-Asia), of its names 2 n. 5, 7 and n. 5,
*184;
its book-names Shāsh and Chāch 13, 76;
ravines of App. A, ii;
holders of 32-5, 115, 154, 161;
a rebel at 36;
Khalīfa sent to 90;
name of used as a pass-word 164;
Shaibānī's capture of (908 AH.) 23-4, *184;
holds out for Bābur (918 AH.) 356-8, 396;
its Aūzbeg Sulṯāns at Jām 622.
Tāsh-rabāṯ (n. of Herī), Bābur at 301.
Tatta (Sind, India), course of the Indus through 485;
playing cards sent to 584.
Tāzī var. Yārī (Ghaznī-Qalāt road), Bābur at 248.
Tibet, Bābur locates 485.
Tijāra (Rājpūtāna), a chief town in Mīwāt 578;
given to Chīn-tīmūr 578-9, 688.
Tīka-sīkrītkū, Goat-leap (Farghāna), `Umar Shaikh defeated at 16.
Tīl, Thāl (Kohāt, N.W.F.P. India), Bābur at 232.
Tīimūr Beg's Langar (Kābul), Bābur at 313.
Tīpa (Kābul), assigned for a camp 199;
earthquake damage in 247;
an exit from 254.
Tirāk-pass (Farghāna), 15 n. 5.
Tirhut (Bihār, India), revenue of 521.
Tīrmīẕ (Ḥiṣār-shādmān territory), a s. limit of Samarkand 76, Begīms
of 37, 47-8;
Ḥusain _Bāī-qarā_ and 5, 191;
a governor of 74;
Bāqī _Chaghānīānī's_ 188, 249;
a sayyid of *704-5;
Najm _S̤ānī_ at 359;
entered for Bābur 640.
Tīr-mūhānī (Bihār, India), mentioned 679, 675 n. 1, 687 and n. 2;
the _Ḥabību's-siyar_ finished at 687 n. 2.
Tīzīn-dara (Kābul), 208 n. 4.
Tochī-valley (N.W.F.P. India), ? to be traversed by Bābur 231.
Toda-bhīm (Rājpūtāna), Bābur at 581;
Sangā at 545 (where "Āgra district" is wrong).
Tons-river, Tūs-sū (U.P. India), Bābur on 656, 683.
Tramontana (between the Oxus and Hindū-kush), army of 447; *706.
Tūghlūqābād (Dihlī), Bābur at 476.
T̤ūl-pass and road (Hindū-kush), account of 205;
height of 204 n. 4.
Tūn (Khurāsān), a Bāī-qarā holder of 296, 301.
Tūp (Kābul-Herāt road), Bābur at 295.
Tūqūz-aūlūm (Oxus), a defence question 191.
T̤urfān (Chinese Turkistān), Bābur plans going to 158.
Turkistān, course of the Saiḥūn in 2-3;
trade with Kābul 202;
gold-cloth of 641 n. 5;
Shaibānī and 65 n. 3, 73-4, 135;
his vow in Haẓrat Turkistān 356;
*`Ubaid in 354.
Turnūk, Tarnak (Qandahār), 332 n. 3;
a holder of 340.
Tūs-sū (U.P. India), _see_ Tons.
T̤ūs (`Irāq), an astronomer of 79;
Shaibānī attacks 534.
Tūta (U.P. India), Begims from Kābul pass 616.
Tūtlūq-yūl, Mulberry-road (Farghāna), Bābur on 165.
Tūtūn-dara (Kābul), water taken from 647.
Udyānapūra (Kābul), App. E, xxi;
_see_ Adīnapūr.
Ujjain (Mālwa, C. India), an observatory in 79.
`Umān-sea, receives the Indus 485.
`Umarābād (Khurāsān), an ascribed site of the battle of Jām 635 n. 4.
Ūnjū-tūpā (Farghāna), _see_ Aūnjū-tūpā.
`Uqābain (Kābul), site of the Bālā-ḥiṣār 201.
Ūrgenj (Khwārizm), _see_ Aūrgānj.
Ūrghūn (Kābul), _see_ Aūrghūn.
Urūs-sū (W. Turkistān), _see_ Arūs.
Ush (Farghāna), _see_ Aūsh.
Ushtur-shahr (Kābul), Bābur in 195, 294, 314.
`Uṯrār, Otrār, Aūṯrār (W. Turkistān), _see_ Yāngī.
Varsak (Badakhshān), position of 523 n. 1, Bābur's gifts to 523.
Vierney, Vernoe (E. Turkistān), position on site of old Ālmātū 2 n. 1.
Wakhsh (Ḥiṣār-shādmān), Aūzbegs at 352, 362.
Walīān pass (Hindū-kush), account of 205;
height of 204 n. 4.
Warūkh (Farghāna), account of 7.
Wasmand fort (Samarkand), Bābur at 132.
Wazr-āb (Ḥiṣār-shādmān), 58 n. 1.
Yada-bīr (Kābul), Bābūr at 394, 411, 448.
Yaftal (Badakhshān), a force at 321.
Yagha or Yaghma (n. of Tāshkīnt), tombs at 139;
Bābur at 139.
Yāī (Khurāsān), tribes in 255.
Yaka-aulang (w. of Bāmīān, _see_ Fr. map Maïmènè), Jahāngīr goes to
294;
passes from Herī-rūd valley to 310 n. 2;
Bābur in 311.
Yak-langa (Kābul), Bābur crosses 445.
Yām (Samarkand), Bābur at 67;
84 n. 3.
Yān-bulāgh (Kābul), Bābur on road of 425.
Yāngī-ḥiṣār (Kāshghar), *a death-bed repentance at 362.
Yāngī = Tarāz (E. Turkistān), depopulated 2;
book-name of 2 and n. 1;
an army at 20.
Yāngī = Ūṯrar, Otrar (W. Turkistān), a mistaken entry of in some MSS.
2 n. 1.
Yāngī-yūl pass (Hindū-kush), described 205.
Yārī (Ghaznī-Qalāt road), _see_ Tazī.
Yārī (Zar-afshān), Bābur crosses the bridge to 130.
Yārkand (E. Turkistān), *696.
Yār-yīlāq (Samarkand), Tīmūr's "head" of Soghd 84;
fights near 35, 122;
villages of 97-8;
submits to Bābur 98;
Bābur in 64, 92, 125, 130-1.
Yasān (Farghāna), _see_ Khasbān.
Yāsī-kījīt (Farghāna), Bābur's men defeated at 27, 105.
Yīlān-aūtī or Yīlān-aūt (Samarkand), Bābur at 147.
Yīlān-chaq (n. of Hindū-kush), a tribe of 196.
Yītī-kīnt (Farghāna), mandrake in 11;
of its position 11 n. 6;
Yūnas Khān's headquarters 20 n. 5.
Zābul, Zābulistān, a name of Ghaznī _q.v._
[Z.]aḥāq fort, "Zohak" (s. of Bāmīān), Bābur at 294;
(_see_ Fr. map Maïmènè).
Zamānia (U.P. India), _see_ Madan-Banaras.
Zamīn (Samarkand), locates places 34, 64;
Bābur at 97.
Zamīn-dāwar (Qandahār), Arghūn chiefs in 71, 337-9;
Zū'n-nūn's 274;
taken by Bābur 27;
plan to defend 326.
Zar-afshān river, Kohik-sū _q.v._ (Samarkand), described 76 and nn.
4, 5;
Macha village on 149 n. 4;
Bābur crosses 67, 130;
*Najm _S̤ānī_ crosses 360.
Zardak-chūl (w. of Balkh), over-run 94.
Zarqān or Zabarqān (Farghāna), Bābur at 161.
Zindān valley (Kābul-Balkh road), _see_ Dara-i-zindān.
Zirrīn-pass (between Herī-rūd valley and Yaka-aūlāng), Bābur misses
it 309-10.
Zurmut _tūmān_ (Kābul), described 220;
floods in 240;
Gīrdīz head-quarters in 220.
Index III. General
Abbreviated names 29.
Abdu'l-wahhāb _Ghaj-dāvānī_ see _Wāqi`-nāma-i-pādshāhī_.
Ablution—before death 188;
reservoirs 208, 217, 580, 639, 683.
Abū-ṯālib _Ḥusainī_ or Abū'l-ḥusain _Turbatī_
_see_ _Malfūzāt-i-tīmūri_.
_Abūshqa_, a Turki—Turkish Dict.—quotes verses as Bābur's 438;
quotes Khw. Kalān 526;
the Bāburī-script App. Q, lxiii.
Account-rolls of palm leaves 510.
Adoption—of a son 170;
præ-natal 374, App. L.
_Afghanistan and the Afghans_, H. W. Bellew—vine-culture 210;
decoy-ducks 225 (_where_, _in n. 5_, _read title as above_).
_Afghan Poets of the XVII Century_, C. E. Biddulph—Khūsh-āb _Khattak_
mentions Bābur 439.
Afẓal Khān _Khattak_—(_Raverty's Notes_ _q.v._)—Nīl-āb
(_ferry-station_) 206.
Agriculture—seed-corn and money advances 86;
young millet grazed 215;
methods of vine culture 210;
water-raising appliances 388, 486-7;
irrigation, "running waters":—Farghāna 4, 5, 7,
Samarkand 76-7, 147;
Hindūstān 486-7, 519-31-81,
Qandahār 332-6,
Chandīrī 596;
—canals:—Farghāna 67,
Samarkand 76, 147;
—grain, corn:—Farghāna 2, 3, 55, 114-46,
Kābul 203, 228, 373-4,
[green corn] 394,
Qandahār 333,
Hash-nagar 410,
Bārā 414,
Bhīra 381;
—raft of corn seized on the Sind 392;
horse-corn fails on a march 238-9;
(rice) 342-74-94, 410.
_Akbar-nāma_, Shaikh Abū'l-faẓl _`Allāmīy_, (_trs. H. Beveridge_)—(_see
notes on pp. given_) +meanings+:—_bāt-qāq_ 31;
_nihilam_ and _tasqāwal_ 45;
Tardīka 568;
Tarkhān 34;
_fīl-i-daryā'i_ App. M. xlvii;
—+persons+:—13, 22, 263-4, 346, 552, 562, 641, 657;
—+various places+:—191, 206, 441, 523, App. J, xxxv;
—winter access to Farghāna 2;
Niẕāmī quoted 44;
an inscription of Bābur's 343;
Rūmi defences 469;
the(Koh-i-nūr) diamond 477;
a cognomen 566;
risks to MSS. App. D, x;
Akbar-nāma material *441-5, *691-3;
Bābur supplemented 639;
length of work on it *692 n.;
Mubīn passage translated in the "Fragments" (_q.v._) *437-8;
Bābur's self-devotion *701;
his choice of a successor *702 to 705,
mentioned Preface xxxiii;
translated from by Jahāngīr (?) xlv.
`Alī-sher _Nawā'ī's_ comforts 287.
_Allgemeine Erdkunde_, Carl Ritter—Barā-koh 5;
Bābur's _farsī-gūī_ useful 7;
Akhsī distances App. A, v.
_`Amal-i-ṣāliḥ_, Muḥ. Ṣāliḥ—Shāh-jahān's destruction of wine 298;
_tūīgūn_ (bird) 418.
_Amanitates exoticae_, Engelbertus Kæmpfer—_Ijtihād_ 284.
Amusements _see_ Games.
_Ancient Geography of India_, Major-Gen. Sir Alex. Cunningham—(_see
nn. on pp. named_) Shibr-tu 205;
Nīl-āb 206;
Kohistān villages 214;
Gūrkhattri 230;
Bigrām 230;
Udyān-apūra App. E, xxi.
_Annals and Antiquities of Rajastan_ Col. James Tod—Sangā's force 547;
negociations with Bābur 550;
appearance 558;
Ṣalāḥu'd-dīn (Silhādi) 562.
Antidotes—lime-juice 511,
Lemnian earth 543.
_Anwar-i-suhailī_, Ḥusain Wā`iẕu 'l-kāshīfī—quoted 22;
Firdausi quoted 557,
Add. N, P. 557.
Apostates 577-8, 590-1.
Arabic Sciences 283-5.
_`arāq_ see fermented drinks, _s.n._ Wine.
Archery[2949]—[_see nn. on pp. named_], _good bowmen_ 16, 22, 26,
34 (2),
cross-bowman 53, 263;
remarkable feats 276, 279;
—_archer's marks_:—_ilbāsūn_ (duck), _qabāq_ (gourd), _tūqūq_ (hen)
34,
_takhta_ (target);
_qabāq-maidān_ 276;—
_arrows_:—_aūq_ 22, 34, 255,
_etc._, _giz_ 213, 225,
_khadang_ (white poplar) 13,
_tīr-giz_ 11
(_where preface n. 2 by the name_), 34;
arrow-barb, _paikān_ 22,
-notch, _gosha_ App. C, -flight 8, 140;
flights of arrows 52;
rain of, 138;
quiver T. _sāghdāq_ 160, 166,
P. _tarkash_ 526;
an arrow-borne letter 361;
—_bows_:—Chāchī bow (_kamān_) 13;
cross-bow _takhsh-andāz_, _kamān-i-guroha_ 55, 263;
_narmdīk yāī_, an easy-bow 420;
_qātīq yāī_, a stiff-bow 490;
—bows ruined by Hindūstān climate 519, *700;
—_various_:—_chaprās_, _daur_, _gosha_, _kamān-khāna_, _kardāng_
explained App. C;
_gosha-gīr_, a repairing-tool 166, App. C;
Turkish bow-making a fine craft App. C, ix;
dismounting to shoot 52;
—_to bow-string_ (T. _kīrīsh sālmāq_) 110.
Architecture Timuriya and Timurid Pr. xxxi.
_Archiv für Asiatische Litteratur_ H. J. Klaproth (_q.v._)—Kasan
gardens 10;
his extracts from the Bukhara Compilation MSS. Pr. xxxix, xlvii.
_Ariana Antiqua_, H. H. Wilson—_Masson's art. Actīnapūr Region_ 227,
Nagarāhāra App. E, xvii.
_Army of the Indian Moghuls_, W. Irvine—trepanning 109;
misled 470;
on _muljār_ (_q.v._) 592;
"_shātur_" explained 593;
_firingi_ (gun) 473,
pontoon-bridges 600.
_`Arūz-i-saifi_, Maulāna Sayyid Maḥmūd _Saifi_
of Bukhāra, (_trs. Blochmann and Ranking_)—a note by Rieu 288;
Saifi's pupil Bāī-sunghar 111;
his high number of rubā'i measures App. Q, lxvi.
_Asia Portuguesa_, Manuel de Faria y Sousa—Habshi succession custom
482.
_Astronomy and Astrology_—Tables and Observatories 74, 79, Pr. xxx;
Canopus (Suhail) 195;
forecasts 139, 551;
houses of Scorpio 633;
Pole-star a guide 323,
its altitude at Chandīrī 597;
Capricorn 597.
_Ayīn-i-akbarī_, Abū-faẓl (_trs. Blochmann, Jarrett_)—(_see nn. on pp.
named_);
Climates 1;
_qīlīj_ (cognomen) 29;
observatories 79;
guns 473;
clepsydra 516;
kitchen rules 541;
fruits 3, 501-3-4-5, 512;
_chalma_ 624;
hunting deer 630;
_baḥrī_ (falcon) 632;
_mīlak_ (gold, cloth) 641;
_yak-tai_ (unlined) 652;
—+(weights and measures)+ _khar-war_ 228,
_tānāb_ 630,
_sang_=_tāsh_ 632;
—a title 209;
a child traveller 265;
Barlās begs 270;
+(places)+ Kābul 207, 221;
Kacha-kot 250;
Sidhpūr 429;
Nagarāhāra App. E, xxiii;
Buhlūlpūr 454;
Kanwāhīn 458;
Milwat (Malot) 461;
Jahān-nāma 485;
Chausath 581;
Lakhnūr 582;
Sikandra Rao 587,
Godi, Gūī 601;
—+(persons)+ 285, 653, 666, App. P, lvi;
—Bābur's expedition to Kashmīr 693.
_Agār-i-sanādīd_, Sayyid Aḥmad Khān—places Bābur visited 475;
Mahdī Khwāja and Amīr Khusrau's tomb 704.
+Noticeable words+:
—P. _āb-duzd_ 109 = P. _dū-tahī_ 62, 595-6;
_aīkī-sū-ārā_ = P. _miyān-dū-āb_ (Mesopotamia) _i.a_ 88;
_aīmāq_ (clan) 51, 196, 207-15-55, Add. Note P. 49; M.
_ālāchī_ whence _Alacha_ 23;
_arghamchī_ 614; _āsh-kīna_ (stew) 4;
_aūdālīq_ (odalisque) = P. _ghūnchachī_ _q.v._;
_aūghlān_ (child, boy, non-regnant chief) 19;
_aūgh-lāqchī_ 39;
_aūrchīn_ 44, 88;
_aūng_, _ūng_ (Prester John's title) 23;
_aūpchīn_ 176, 282;
Aūz-beg, -khān, -kīnt, _i.a_ 162, (_see_ A.N. trs. i, 160, 170);
_āyīk-aūt_ = P. _mihr-giyāh_ (mandrake) 11.
_The Bābur-nāma_, Z̤ahīru'd-dīn Muḥ. Bābur (Lion) Mīrzā and (later)
Pādshāh _Ghāzī_.
I. SECTIONS OF THE BOOK:—(_The record of præ-accession
years is lost Pr. xxxvi_); (1) +Farghāna+ 1-182, (Trs. N.
[_bridging a gap_] 182-185); (2) +Kābul+ 187-346, (Trs. N.
347-366), 367-425, (Trs. N. 426-444); (3) +Hindustān+ 445-602,
(Trs. N. 603-4), 605-690, (Trs. N. 691-716);
SUB-SECTIONS:—(_a_) +Descriptions+ of Farghāna 1-12, Kābul
199-227, Herāt 304-5, Hindustān 480-521, Chandīrī 592, 596,
Gūālīār 605-614; (_b_) +Biographies+ of Yūnas Khān 19-24 (_see
infra, displacements_), of Mīrān-shāhīs _viz._ `Umar Shaikh
13-19, 24-28, Aḥmad 33-40, Maḥmūd 45-51, Bāī-sunghar 110-112,
of Ḥusain _Bāī-qarā_ 256-292, of amīrs _etc._ 24, 37, 49, 270;
II. LACUNÆ:—(_other than mentioned above_); minor in 935 AH.
_see_ dating and nn. on pp. 617, 621, 630, 636, 687, and for
surmised patching from fragments of 934 AH. 654, 655, 680; (1)
+References to events of the gaps+ _see_ nn. on pp. 105, 364
—208, 441, 575 —381 —408, 422 —(of 934 AH.) 603, 617, 618, 621
—an Akbar-nāma indication 639; (2) +Varia concerning the
gaps+:—Causes of, Pr. xxxiv; misinterpreted xxxv; results in
present displacement xxxvi;
III. VARIA CONCERNING THE BOOK:— (1) +Date of composition+,
[_see nn. on pp. named_]; 48, 50, 79, 98 —102, 105 —139, 154,
176, 190 (l. 5 fr. ft.) 198 —203-4-6-8 —214-18-19-20 (_para.
3_), 269-76-78-85 —313 ("now" _para. 2_), 314 ("now" l. 4),
315 (l. 2), 318 (_para._ 2), 337 (l. 16), 373 (l. 8 fr. ft.),
374; (2) +Literary style and idiom+:— plain diction 2, precise
wording _e.g._ 5, 79, 475, 485, appreciation of words 67, 265,
283, 627, comments on style _e.g._ 22, 67, and pronunciation
210, 484, early diary differs in wording from the narrative
367; lapses into courtly Persian 445, 537, 539; (3)
+Grammatical details+:— relatives not used Add. Note, P. 167;
uses of "we" and "I" 104, 118; distinctions of meaning
expressed by Ar. and T. plurals _e.g._ 5, 80; uses of the
presumptive tense 37, 75, 162, 167, 577 (cf. Shaw's Grammar);
examples of idiom 29, 44, 66, 75, Add. Note, P. 167
(_gharīcha_); (4) +Varied information+ _see_ Preface _passim_;
(5) +Bābur's notes+: —Khwāja Maulānā-i-qāẓī 29 —Ibrāhīm Sārū
52 —Champion's portion 53 —Gūk-sarāī 63 —Fāzīl Tarkhān 133
—Aūz-kīnt 163 —Pass-words 169 —Multā-kundī 211 —Military terms
334 —Pīrī Beg 336 —Badakhshān 340 —Sl. Ma`sūd M. 382 —Campaign
of 910 AH. 382 —Daulat Khān 383 —_daqīqa_ 516 —_pol_ 517
—Mullā Apāq 526 —_kuroh_ (from the _Mubīn_) 630 —_tāsh_ weight
632;
IV. WORK DONE ON THE BOOK:— (1) +Turki Codices+ _see_ Preface,
Cap. III, Part II and Table xli; —(_a_) _Haidar Mīrzā's
Codex_—its importance Pr. xxxiv, xxxv, xxxviii, xli, xlii (No.
iv); (_b_) _Elphinstone Codex_—archetypes 405, Pr. xli, xlii,
xliii (No. v); its losses of pages 445; defacement 129, 325,
415, 548; Erskine's use of it Add. Note, P. 287; reliance on
it _in loco_ 1, 187, 445; preserves Humayun's attested notes
447-52-67, 510-14 and attributed notes 216, 494, 507 —also a
quatrain on Mughūls 140; "Rescue-passage" not in it App. D;
divergency from it in the Kasan Imprint _ib._ xiv; a former
owner 706; referred to in nn. on pp. 7, 10, 12, 14, 23-6-8,
31-6, 44-7-8, 60-4, 75, 88, 112-3, 133 (Shaibāq), 143-8, 154
(_dīm_), 159, 161-4-9; Preface xli, xlii, xliii (No. v),
xlvii; _cf._ JRAS _Notes infra_; (_c_) _Haidarabad Codex_,
published in Facsimile by the Gibb Trust, ed. A. S.
Beveridge—basis of the _B.N. in English_ 1, 187, 445, Preface
xxvii; appears a direct copy of Bābur's autograph Codex 47,
103, 515; contains (Jahangir's?) Rescue-passage App. D;
divergency of Kasan Imprint from it _ib._ xiv; referred to in
nn. on pp. 2, 8, 9, 10, 12, 133 (Shaibāq), 14, 18, 23 (careful
pointing clears away a doubt), 28, 31, 36, 40 (Bāghdād
corrected to Būghdā), 60-4, 75, 88, 132, 140-6-8, 153 (a
mistake?), 154 (_dīm_), 159, 164 (_sāīrt kīshī_), 165, 168,
177 (Pers. _dictum_), App. A, i (Akhsī); Preface xxvii, xxxiii
(title), xxxv, xli (Table), xlvi (No. x), xlvii;—[2950]
(2) +Persian work+:— (_a_) _Tabaqāt-i-bāburī_, described 445;
made known to Erskine 520; its deference to Bābur App. P,
lvii; shews a date 496; shews nature of an illness (B.'s) 446;
specifies drinking-days 447, 450; gives a useful pen-name 448;
Buhlūlpūr 454; of a gun 489; Varsak and Khwāstis 523; Naukar
or Tuka 525; Bābur points "Sīkrī" to read _shukrī_ 548; styles
him "Nawāb" 560 _etc._; describes a porpoise as _baḥrī_ App.
M, xlvii; helps as to "Luknūr" App. T, lxxiv; (_b_)
_Wāqi`āt-i-bāburī_ (Acts of Bābur), (_the first Pers. Trs.
1583_), Pāyanda-ḥasan _Mughūl_ of Ghaznī and Muḥ-qulī _Mughūl_
of Ḥiṣār—explicit 187, 198; useful variants 267, 624, 645; a
puzzling phrase 549, and passage 617; title Pr. xxxiii;
described liii (No. vi); (_c_) _Wāqi`āt-i-bāburī_ (Acts of
Bābur), (_the second Pers. Trs. 1589_), `Abdu'r-raḥīm M.
_Turkmān_—misleading glosses 2 n. 1, 3 n. 1; _tāsh_ misread
312 _etc._; verses doubtfully Babur's 312; a gloss unsupported
337; a difficult passage 617; a fine illustrated copy (B.M.
3714) 155, 298, 325; Erskine's account of its diction (quoted)
Pr. xliv (No. vii); on its title xxxiii;
(3) +Persian-English work+:—_The Memoirs of Baber_, Leyden and
Erskine (1826)—[_see nn. on pp. named_]; +Varia+:— Leyden's
slight collaboration 287, 367, 380, Add. Note, P. 287, Pr.
xlviii, Cap. iv, [L. and E. _Memoirs_]; two notes by Leyden
10, 219; not fully representative of Bābur's autobiography 2,
Cap. iv; advance in help (MSS. and other) since Erskine worked
347, 620-22, App. T, lxxiii; his own MSS. 680; Indian guidance
632, 661; dating agrees with Bābur's 629; misled by his
Persian source [_q.v._ 3 _etc._] and by a scribe's slip 544;
his help to Ilminski 1, 187, 326, Pr. lv; misleads by uniform
"Luknow" App. T; omissions 2, 632, 468, 559 (_important_); a
prayer reproduced in its words 316; quoted 715; —+questioned
readings+:—143, 223-5-9, 324-7, 333-7, 369, 400-16, Add. Note,
P. 416, 446-49-57-62-67 (shaving-passage), 478,
523-34-49-55-59-61, 608-9, 617-19-26-38-40-46-47; —[_Numerous
verbal explanations and other notes are reproduced as
Erskine's and each identified_];
(4) +Turki-English work+:—_The Bābur-nāma in English_
(_Memoirs of Babūr_), Annette S. Beveridge—_see_ Preface and
other contents of these volumes.
_Bābar_, Stanley Lane Poole—the Eight Stars 139; a misled note 468.
_Bābur und Abu'l-faẓl_, Teufel [_ZDMG, 1862_]—an opinion negatived
119;
useful critique on "Fragments" (_q.v._) Preface Cap. III, Part III
and App. D; Mubīn MS. used by Berézine 438;
Babur-nama title 653, Pr. xxxiii.
_Bahar-i-`ajam_ (Pers. Dict.) _see_ Dictionaries.
_Bāz-nāma_ (Book of Sport), Muḥibb-i-`alī _Barlās_—its author's
descent 276;
_l_ exchanged with _n_ (_cf._ _Luḥānī and Nuḥānī_) _ib._
Bélin M.—[_Journal Asiatique xvi, xvii_] 257-8, 271-82-92.
_Bengali Household Stories_, Macculoch—a sign of obedience 275.
Beveridge Annette S.—JRAS. Notes in referred to _in loco_:—MSS. of
the B.N. Turki text 1900;
Further Notes 1902,
Haidarabad Codex and all others 1905, 1906;
Elphinstone Codex 1907;
Material for a definitive text and account of Kehr's Codex and its
Persian alloy 1908;
Kehr's Latin Version of part of his source _i.e._
the _Wāqi`-nāma-i-pādshāhī_ (Bukhara Compilation _q.v._) 1908,
Klaproth's _Archiv_ 1909, and (expected) on the confused identity
of the Bukhārā Compilation with the _Bābur-nāma_ 1922;
—(2) Grounds for making a new translation Preface Cap. IV;
the mistaken identity of Kehr's source (_supra_) Cap. III[2951];
of the _Bābur-nāma_, Preface _passim_.
Beveridge Henry—(1) +Notes _in loco_+:—_tabalghū_ 11;
Bābā-i-kābulī 14;
Quintets 15, 288;
a mistake by Firishta 15;
Lotus-eaters 42;
Daulat-shāh 46; Ḥāfiẓ parodied 201;
Byron's _tambourgī_ 247;
Jāmī plagiarized 258;
_Khazīnatu'l-asfiyā_ quoted 211;
Tīmūr's burial-position 266;
syphilis 279;
an illegal marriage 329;
Bābur's satirical verse and Shaikh Zain 448;
_Z̤afar-nāma_ (?) quoted 485;
"_kaka_" 502;
Khw. Khusrau's couplet 503;
the name "Cintra" for an orange 512;
Tīmūr on Hindūstān 526;
fate of Ibrāhim _Lūdī's_ mother 543;
_ṯamghā_ 553;
a pun 571;
versus traced 571, 625-6;
Ibn Batūta quoted 591;
date of Bābur's visit to Lāhor from Āgra 604;
Khwānd-amīr 605;
Raḥīm-dād 608, 688;
Mahdi Khw. 704;
Scorpio and Libra 623;
Battle of Jām 635;
"bulky Oolak" 663;
Kashmīr expedition 693;
a poor MS. App. P, lv;
Shaikh Zain's deference _ib._ lvii;
—(2) +Translations+:
—(_a_) Akbar-nāma _q.v._ and Tūzūk-i-jahāngīrī _q.v._
—(_b_) revision of Persian _farmān_ 553, and the Kānwa
Letter-of-victory 559;
—(3) +Articles referred to+:
—(_a_) A.Q.R. 1899, _Bābur's Diamond, was it the Koh-i-nūr?_ 447;
1901, _An Afghān Legend_ 375, App. K;
1910, _Paper-mills of Samarkand_ 81;
1911, _Oriental Cross-bows_ 140, 142;
_Bābur's Dīwān_ (Rāmpūr MS.) 439;
_Some verses by the Emperor Bābur_ 439
—1915, Silhādī and the _Mirāt-i-sikandari_ 614;
—(_b_) Calcutta Review 1884, _the Patna Massacre_ 672;
—JASB. 1898, _Bāyazīd Bīyāt_ 691;
—1905, _The Emperor Bābur's legendary son_ 558;
—1884, _Authorship of the Dabistān_;
—1916, _Tārīkh-i-salāṯīn-i-afāghana_ 693;
—(_c_) JRAS. 1900, _On the word nihilam_ 45, 224
—1901, _Pers. MSS. in Indian Libraries_ 348
—1910, _On the word mutaiyīm_ 16, 275
—1913-14, _Coinage of Ḥusain Bāī-qarā_ App. H, xxvi
—1916, _Rashaḥāt-i-`ainu'l-ḥayāt_ 620;
—(4) +Other related articles+:—
(_a_) A. S. Q.—_Emperor Bābur and the Habību's-siyar_ 1906;
_Emp. B. and Khwānd-amīr_ 1909 (_2 parts_);
_Emp. B.'s opinion of India_ 1917;
_Attempt to poison B._ _ib._;
_Was `Abdu'r-raḥīm the translator of B.'s Mems. into Persian?_
1900 (_2 parts_);
(_b_) JRAS.—_The B.N. "Fragments"_ 1908;
_Date of Shāh Ḥasan Arghūn's death_ 1914;
_An obscure quatrain by Banā'i_ 1917;
_The Mongol title Tarkhān_ _ib._;
_Tarkhān and Tarquinius_ 1918[2952];
—(5) +His help+: _see_ Postscript of Thanks, Preface lxi.
The Bible—untrimmed beard 552;
moon-stroke 608.
_Bibliothèque Orientale_, B. d'Herbélot—(_see nn. on pp. named_),
`Umar Shaikh 13;
Sātūq-būghrā Khān 29; Maḥmūd _Mīrān-shāhī_ 46;
Mātarīdiyah and Ash`ariyah Sects 75-6;
Ismā`īl _Khartank_ 76;
Naṣīru'd-dīn _Tūsī_ 79;
Nīl-āb 206;
"Qīzīl-bāsh" explained 630.
_Biographie Universelle_, Langlésart. _Babour_ xlv.
_Biographies of Ladies_ (_Sprenger's Cat._)—two women-poets 286.
_Birds of India_, T. C. Jerdon—partridge-tippets 496;
cries _ib._;
bustard 498;
_mānek_ 499;
_likhh_ (florican) App. N;
_kabg-i-darī_and _chīūrtīka_ (snow-cock) _ib._
"Blessed Ten" 562.
Blochmann H. (_JASB. 1873_)—Bābur's Mosque in Saṃbhal 687;
_see_ _Āyīn-i-akbari._
Blood-ransom 461;
retaliation 64, 102, 119, 194, 251-53, 424.
Boats—383-5-7-8, 407-10-22-23-54, 589, 652-4-5-6-8-9, 660, 662;
Bābur names his Ganges flotilla 663, 669, 670-1-4-9, 681-4;
pontoon bridge 599, 633.
Book-names—Akhsīkīt = Akhsī 9;
Banākat = Shāhrukhiya 76;
Chāch and Shāsh = Tāsh-kīnt 13, 76;
Gālīūr or Gālīwar = Gūālīār 605;
Nashaf and Nakhshab = Qarshī 84;
Nagarahāra = Nīng-nahār 207;
Tarāz = Yāngī 2.
Book-room—Ghāzī Khān _Lūdī's_ 460.
Books (_no titles_)—Exposition of the _Nafaḥāt_ 284;
On Jurisprudence 285,
—prosody 271,
—rhyme 285,
—riddles 289.
_Botany of the Afghan Delimitation Commission_, Aitchison—regional
grasses 222;
_qarqand_ = _sax-aol_(_?_) 223.
Brahminical thread 561.
Bridge of boats _see_ Boats.
_Buddhist Records_, S. Beal—Greater Udyāna-pūra App. E, xxi;
sugarcane in Lāmghān 203 (_where read Beal_).
Browne, Professor Edward Granville—the Ḥaidarābād Codex Facsimile,
Preface xlvi (No. x).
Building-stone—Samarkand 83,
Kābul 710,
Chandīrī 597,
Dūlpūr 606,
Gūālīār 608,
Bīāna 611.
"Bukhārā Compilation," known as "_Bābur-nāma_"
see _Wāqī`nāma-i-pādshāhī_.
Bullies of Marghīnān (Marghīlān) 7 (_where in line 1, add_, "They are
notorious in Mā-warā'u'n-nahr for their bullyings").
_Burhān-i-qāṯi`_ (Pers. Dict.) _see_ Dictionaries.
_Buried Cities of Khotan_, Sir M. Aurel Stein—Aq-būrā-rūd 4.
_Bū-stān_, Sa`dī—couplets quoted 139, 152, 626.
+Noticeable words+:—
(P.-Ar.-T.) _bāghāt_, _bāghlār_, _bāghchā_ and _begāt_, _beglār_ 5,
80, 478;
_bāghīsh_ 59, 69;
_bakhshī_ (in M. surgeon) 169;
_bāshlīqlār_ (commanders) 119;
_bātmān_ (a weight) 261;
_bātqāq_ (slough of despond) 31;
_bāī_ (rich man) 127;
_bāīrī_ (old servant) 30;
_bī_ = beg 127-8;
_bīldūrga_ 225;
_b:d-hindī_ = P. _sih-bandī_ (Byde Horse) 470;
_bīlāk_ 446;
_būghū-marāl_ 8, 10;
_būghdā_ (cutlass) 40;
_būlāk_ and _balūq_ 196, 17 and 221;
_būsh_ (bosh) 507.
_Cabool_ (Kabul), Sir Alex. Burns—(_see nn. on pp. named_);
wind and running sands 201, 215;
climate 204;
_kabg-i-darī_ 213;
Kohistān 214;
millet 215;
Bābur's Burial-garden 710.
Cadell, Jessie E.—quoted Preface xxvii.
Cadet-corps formed 28, App. H, xxvii.
Cairn _i.e._ "Bābur Pādshāh's Stone-heap" 446, Preface xxxvii.
Candles and candlesticks—none in Hind 518;
offensive substitutes _ib._
Canopus _see_ Suhail.
Capitals of Farghāna—Andijān 3,
Akhsi 10,
Aūz-kīnt 162.
Caravans—15, 202, 250, 331.
Carruthers, Mr. Douglas—help from App. B, vii.
Carving—Bābur no carver 304.
Caste-names—518.
Catalogues:—(_see nn. on pp. named_);
" Coins of the Shahs of Persia (B.M.), R. S. Poole—Bābur's surmised
vassal coin 355, App. H, xxx, Preface xxxv;
" Feronia Nursery Calcutta, Seth—Jack-fruit 506;
_sang-tarā_ orange 511;
" Library of the King of Oudh, A. Sprenger—Biographies of Ladies 286;
_Shāh u Darwesh_ 290;
Ahlī 290;
" Library of Tippoo Sulṯān, C. Stewart—_T̤abaqāt-i-naṣīrī_ 479;
" _Manuscrits Turcs de l'Institut des langues orientales_, W. D.
Smirnov—_Malfūzāt-i-tīmūri_ 653;
Bābur's writings _ib._
" Persian MSS. (B.M.), C. Rieu—Shāsh and Fanākat 2, 7;
Khw. Kamāl 8;
Akhsīkītī 9;
`Abdu'l-lāh _Barlās_ 51;
Saifī 111, 288;
Halwa-spring 260;
Niẓāmī 271;
Daulat-shah 274;
_Bāz-nāma_ 276;
Suhailī 277;
Marwārīd 278;
Amīr Ḥamza 280;
`Atā'u'l-lāh 282;
Taftazānī 283;
_Khamsatīn_ 288;
Husain _Nishapūrī_ 288;
Yūsuf of Farghāna 289;
Hilālī 290;
a scribe-poet 291;
_Sūlūku'l-mulūk_ 348;
Nawā'ī's Dīwāns arranged 419;
Histories of T̤ahmāsp 622;
_Ḥabibu's-siyar_ finished 687;
_Tārīkh-i-ṣalātīn-i-afāghāna_ 693, 701;
—Kasan Imprint misleads 259;
a questioned reading 266;
" Persian MSS. in the I.O. Library, H. Ethé—Khw. Hijrī 153;
Ḥusain _Nishapūrī_ 288;
_Shāh u Darwesh_ 290;
a scribe-poet 293[2953];
" Turki MS. in B.M., C. Rieu—the author of the _Sang-lākh_ App.
A, v;
the _Shaibānī-nāma_ 289.
Catamites 26, 42-5-9, 278, 396 (_cf._ 174 n.).
_Cathay and the way thither_, ed. Sir H. Yule (Hakluyt Society vol.
i, p. 20)—running-sands 215.
_Caubul_ (Kābul), Hon. Mountstewart Elphinstone—millet 215;
Judas-tree 216;
Indus ford (_Nīl-āb_) 378;
"Nangrahaur" App. E, xix.
"Chaghatāī Castles" 208.
Chaghatāī families—`Alī-sher _Nawā'ī_ a member of one, Preface xxxi.
Chaghatāī-Osmanisches Wörterbüch _see_ Dictionaries.
Chaghatāīsche Sprach-studien, H. Vambéry—(_mil._) pass-words
(_aūrān_) 219;
meaning of _gepanzert_ 221,
_bīldurga_ 225,
_sīghnāq_ App. Q, lxiv.
Champion's portion won and explained 53.
_Charikar_, T. C. Haughton—Kohistan of Kabul 214-5.
Charles XII's sobriquet Iron-head 14.
_Chār-ūlūs_ (Four hordes), Aulugh Beg Mirza, Preface xxx.
_Childe Harold's Pilgrimage_—tambourgi 247.
_Chinese Turkistan_, P. W. Church—marāl 8.
Chīngīz-tūrā (_ordinances_) respected 155, 298.
_Chīnīūt_, D. G. Barkley [_JRAS._ 1899]—its position 380.
Chirkas sword 65.
Chishti order 666.
_Chrestomathie Turque_, Berézine—the _Mubīn_ quoted 438, 630.
Chronograms 85, 135, 152, 217, 344, 427, 575, 596.
Cider 83.
Circumcision 14, 69.
Coincidences 71, 123, 261, 686.
Coins—_ashrafī_ 446-60;
_dām_ 383;
_kipkī_ 296;
_sikka_ (coined money ?) 277;
_shāhrukhi_ 379-83, 400, 408, 417-46-78-9, 523;
_tang_ 641;
_tanka_ "black" (_i.e._ _copper_) 521,
"white" (_i.e._ _silver_) 338-9, 344, 446, 521-7, 641, App.
P, lvii;
"red and white" (money) 522;
Bābur's "vassal coins" 354-5-6, App. H, xxx.
Confections—_ma`jūn_:—used in excess 16;
gifts of 373;
parties on non-drinking-days 447;
eating of 377-83-84-88-93, 410-12-15-16-18, 420-2, 448-50, 580-8,
615-50-59-83;
_kamālī_ 373.
Congregational Prayer—unbroken attendance at 283.
Countermark [_Bih-būd_] on coins 277, App. H, xxv, xxvi, xxix.
_Cross-bow_, Sir W. F. Payne-Gallwey—archers' marks 34;
bow-shot distances 140;
what may apply to Bābur's _ẕarb-zan_ and _tūfang_ 667.
Cunningham, Maj.-Gen. Sir Alex. _see_ _Indian Eras_ and Reports on
Arch. Survey.
Customs—Musalmān scruples about burial-places 246;
the Champion's-portion 53;
circumambulation of tombs 54, 285, 301-5-6, 475,
and of the sick 701;
amongst combatants' wives 22, 268;
dipping 16 times in bathing 151;
levirate marriage 23;
mourning rites 32, 246, 293;
a nativity-feast 344;
nine a mystic number _see s.n._ nine;
an ordeal of virtue 211;
divining from sheep-blade-bones 233;
pillars of heads 232, _i.a._ 573-6;
rock-inscription 153;
signs of submission 53, 232-3, 248;
succession in Bengal 482-3 n. 5;
unveiling a bride 37;
gifts from those marrying 43, 400;
gifts by wives _q.v._
Cyclopædia of Archery _see_ _Kulliyatu'r-rāmī_.
Czar Vassili III—Bābur's embassy to, App. Q, lxiii.
+Noticeable words+:—_Chāchī_ 13;
_chāghīr_ 83, 298;
_chāpūk_, slash-face 68;
P. _chār-dara_ 80, 629;
_chaughān_ (polo) 26;
P. _chalma_ 624;
H. _chaukandī_ = Ar. _ghurfat_ and P. _chār-dara_ (?) 629-63;
_chāpkūn_ 324;
_chiqār_ (exit) 44;
_yinka-chīcha_ 616;
_chuhra-jīrga_ 50, 227,
App. H, xxvi-vii.
_Dabistān_, Mir Ẕū'l-fiqār `Alī'u'l-ḥusaini (_pen-name Mūbad_)—Nānak
founder of the Sikh religion 461;
Rādiyān sect 622;
[concerning the authorship of the book _see_ JRAS. H.B.'s art.
_q.v.s.n._].
Darwesh-life—soldiering abandoned for 262;
return to 583.
Dating by events:—Battle of the Goat-leap 16,
Dispersion of Aīrzīn 20,
Battle of Kānbāī 111-2 [_T.R. trs._ 119];
the dating of 935 AH. 605, App. S.
Defrémery C.—[_J. des Savans_ 1873], art. _Les Mémoires de Baber_
(P. de C.) 562.
_De Paris à Samarcande_, Madame Ujfalvy—(_see nn. on pp. named_);
Barā-koh 5, 6;
Samarkand 74-5;
_qarā yīghāch_ (hard-wood elm) 81;
paper-pulping mortars 81.
De Saçy, A. L. Silvestre (_Nat. et Ex._ 265, 285)—Ḥusain Shaikh Tīmūr
273 (_cf._ _Daulat-shah_ (Browne) 538-9);
date of Hilāli's death 290.
_Dialects of the Hindu-kush_, Col. J. Biddulph—Khowārī 211;
forms of "nine" App. E, xix.
Dictionaries, Lexicons, Vocabularies:—[_see nn. on pp. named_];
" of Antiquities, W. W. Smith—clepsydra 516;
" Arabic-English Lexicon, E. W. Lane—_akhmail_ 336;
" _Arabes, Supplèment aux Dictionnaires_, R. Dozy—_baḥri_ (a falcon)
App. M, xlvi;
" _Bahār-i-`ajam_ (Pers. Dict.), Rāī Tikchana Bahār—a sign of fear
232;
the Taftazānī Shaikhs of Islām 283;
" _Burhān-i-qāti`_ (Pers. Dict.), Muḥ. Ḥusain b.
Khalfa'u't-tabrīzī—_izāra_ (dado) 80;
" _Chaghatāī-osmanisches Wörterbuch_, Shaikh Sulaiman Effendi
(ed. Kunos)—_tunqiṯār_ 464;
_qūtān_ App. N, 1;
_sīghnāq_ App. Q, lxiv;
" English-Persian, A. N. Wollaston—a rare meaning 648;
" Hindustani-English, D. Forbes—changed name of an orange 511;
"needle-melting" citron 513;
great millet (maize?) 514;
names of days 516;
gongman _ib._;
" Hindustani-English, J. Taylor [ed. W. Hunter]—"sang-tara" and
"Cintra" App. O lii;
" of Islām, J. P. Hughes—turbans 15;
eating of food 44;
_maẕhab_ 463;
the Eight Paradises 646;
legal endowment 701;
" Oriental Biographical, T. W. Beale [_ed._ _Keene_]—Khw. Naṣīr
_Tūsī_ 79;
" of Oriental Quotations, C. Field—a common couplet 22;
" Persian-English, F. Steingass—176, 202, 286, (_metres_) 514, 527,
630;
_qīzil-bāsh_ 643;
" Persico-Latinum Lexicon, I. A. Vullers—_shash-par_ 160;
_kaka_ 502;
_gharau_ 514;
_rād_ (_whence Rādagān_) 622;
" Pushtū-English, H. J. Raverty—Multakund 211;
" _Sang-lākh_ (Turki-Persian), Muḥ. Mahdi Khān—described App. B, v;
_kharpala_ (the "Qarshi birdie") _ib._;
contains verses entered as by Bābur 439;
" Sanscrit-Bengali-English, Haughton—a stork 499;
gula-prawn 502;
" of Towns (_Majama`u'l-buldān_), Yāqūt—"Akhsīkīs̤" 9, 10;
" _Turc Orientale_, A. Pavet de Courteille—Bābur's verses quoted
439, 526;
a wag-tail 501;
a meaning 626;
Bābur's script App. Q, lxiii;
" Turki Vocabulary, R. B. Shaw—_kūk-būrā_ (a game) 39;
_qūrūgh_, reserved land 81;
_aūpchīnlīk_, 4 horse-shoes and their nails 176;
_chārūq_, brogues, and _chāpān_, long coat 187;
_qālpāq_, felt wide-awake 258;
_qūsh-begi_, a Court official 278;
_shaghāwal_ ib. 463;
_jīrān_, a deer 491;
_qīn_, scabbard 503;
_akhta-begi_, master-gelder 538;
_būljār_, a rendezvous _etc._ 592;
—Part II. J. Scully—_qodan_, water-hen 224;
_kīklīk_ (_caccabis_, _chikūr_) 496;
_`aqqa_, magpie 501;
_qīrīch_, swift 501;
_būīā_, a plant 505;
_amān-qarā_ (perhaps maize) 504;
_aīrkāk-qūmūsh_, male-reed 514.
Diseases and accidents:—(_a_) +Babur's+ saddle turns 147;
sciatica 253-4;
boils 254, 657-60;
dislocated wrist 409-13-20;
tooth breaks 424;
ear-ache 310, 601-8-15;
fall of river bank 655;
fall of tent 678;
wounds of head 150-167,
—leg 167-9,
—arm-pit 176;
+his illnesses+:—unspecified (923) 365;
catarrhal discharge (_rezāndalīk_) 446-49-51;
fever (903 AH.) 88-9, (911) 247, (925) 399 to 401, (934) 585-6-8,
603-4, (935) 619-20, (937) 702-3-5;
(_b_) +Of others+:—child-birth 36;
small-pox 48;
"violent illness" 45;
frost-bite 116, 311;
cold 151;
ulcerated hand 125;
siphylis 279;
pestilence 524;
paralysis 620;
malarial fever 4, 8;
fever 33, 246.
Diversity of place-names through trs. _see_ (_e.g._) Qīzīl = Surkh,
Safed = Spīn.
Dividing line of the Afghāns and Khurāsān 200.
Divorces 267-8, 329.
_Dīwān-i Bābur Pādshāh_, [_ed. Sir E. D. Ross_]—not Bābur's earliest
collection 438-9, 447;
appears referred to 642;
verses suiting his moods and deeds 604, 626-44, 705;
verses of the Dīwān in the B.N. 526-75-84-89;
the _Wālidiyyah-risala_ and B.'s new ruler 643;
Elizabethan conceits 645;
concerning the Rāmpūr MS. App. Q, (illustration); 585; 635.
_Dīwān-i Khwāja Ḥāfiẓ_ [_ed. H. Brockhaus, trs. W. Clarke_]—a couplet
411.
_Dīwān-i Nūru'd-dīn `Abdu'r-raḥmān Jāmī_—a quatrain plagiarized 257.
Dīwān-writers mentioned by Bābur—Āhī 289;
Ahlī 290;
`Alī-sher _Nawā'ī_ (Pers.) 272;
Ḥusain _Bāī-qarā_ (_Turkī_) 259;
Kāmī 290;
Saifī 288;
Suhailī 277;
Maḥmūd _Barlās_ 51;
Maḥmūd _Mīrān-shāhī_ 46.
Domestic animals—ass 144;
buffalo 231, 393, 454, 490;
camel:—_khachar_ 74, 249,
_tīwa_ 232-5, 240, 376-91;
camels counted 391;
flesh eaten 251;
cost of keep 489;
gift of 382;
—cattle 150, 231-4-5-8, 333-96, 454;
symbol of submission 232;
—dog 144, 224;
elephant _s.n._ Nat. Hist.;
horse _see s.n._;
mule 194, 338;
sheep 50-5, 71, 228, 234-5-8-9, 249-50, 394;
swine 211;
yāk 55, 490 (here _baḥrī-qūtās_) App. M;
—fowls 82, 213;
goose 82;
pigeon 13, 259, 401.
Domestic appliances—china 80, 195, 407;
festal ornament 304, App. I;
drinking cups 489, 298 and 552;
fuel 223, 311;
goatskins 371, 421;
gong 515;
knife 44;
lamp 518;
litter 254 and 401, 331 n. 3, 268;
rope 509;
spoon 44, 73 n. 1, 407, 509;
table-cloth 44, 132;
tooth-pick 407;
torch 213-34, 387-8, 518.
Dreams—Bābur's 132, (attributed) 132 n. 2, App. D, xi;
another's App. D, xii.
Dress, articles of—_bāsh-ayāq_ = _sar-u-pā_ (head to foot) _i.a._
159, 393;
bathing-cloth (_fūṯa_) 275, 527;
brogues (_chārūq_) 187;
caps:—black lambskin (_qarā-qūzī būrk_) 258,
ermine (_ās būrk_) 150,
_Mughūl būrk_ 15, 179;
_muftūl_ or _mūftūnlūq Mughūl būrk_ 159;
helm-cap (_dūwulgha būrk_) 167;
—_chār-qab_ 304, 527;
clasp (_qulāb_) 156;
girdle (_tak-bund_) 156, (_bīl-bāgh_ lit. waist-band) 298,
(_kamr-bund_) 642;
cymar (_khimār_) 561;
coats and tunics:—_jāma_ 652,
surtout (_jība_) 303, 632,
long coat (_chāpān_) 187,
sheep-skin coat (_postīn_) 181;
short tunic (_nīmcha_) 652;
tunic and coat (_tūn_) 14, 51, 159, 166, 371, 400;
clothes-in-wear (_artmāq_, _artmāq_) 339;
torque (_ṯauq_) 561;
head-wear (_bāshlīq_) 632;
_lung_ (_dhoti_) 519;
rain-cloak (_kīpīng_) 389;
feather tippet 496;
turban 14, 33, 101, 258;
turban-aigrette 225, 325;
wide-awake (_qālpāq_);
vest (_kūnglāk_) 171.
Drums—nagaret 144, 155, 250, 337, 369, 628;
of departure 235, morning 392, saddle 163-4;
drumming sound [at the Running Sands] 315;
dismissal of 595;
tambour-player 247.
_Durch Asien's Wüsten_, Sven Hedin—Farghāna wind 9.
Dynasties—Bāhmani 482;
Qīlīch 29;
Tūghlūq 451;
Shaibānī's destruction of 39;
"Mughūl
Dynasty" a misnomer in Hind 158 (_see s.nn. Turk and Mughūl_).
+Noticeable words:+—
_dābān_, a difficult defile;
_dādā_ 157 (_see ṯaghāī_);
Ar. _daur_, warp of a bow, App. C;
_dīm_ [_T root de_, _telling_] = P. _san_, numbering 154[2954], 161,
468, Add. Note, P. 54.
Ear-rings 510 (_where add (in l. 5) an omitted passage entered in App.
O, liv_).
_Economic Products of India_, Watts—date-plum 210;
fish-drugs 226;
oranges var. 512.
Editors mentioned _in loco_—A. S. Beveridge, G. B.'s _Humāyūn-nāma_,
and Fac-simile of the Ḥaidarābād Codex;
H. Brockhaus, _Die Lieder des Hafis_;
E. G. Browne, _Taẕkirātu'sh-shu`arā_ (Memoirs of Poets),
_Tārīkh-i-guzīda_ (Select History);
C. M. Fræhn, _Shajarat-i Turk_ (Genealogical Tree of the Turk);
N. I. Ilminski, _Bāber-nāma_ (Kasan Imprint);
I. Kūnos, Shaikh Sulaimān _Effendī's_ Vocabulary;
D. C. Phillott, _Taẕkirāt-i T̤ahmāsp_;
E. D. Ross, _Bābur's Dīwān_ (Rāmpūr MS.), and Three Turkī MSS. from
Kashghar;
C. Schafer, _Siyāsat-nāma_;
R. C. Temple, _Peter Munday's Travels_;
F. Veliaminof-Zernov, _Abūshqa_;
H. Yule, Wood's _Journey_.
_Einblicke in das Farghana Thal_—A. I. v. Middendorf—winds 9.
Elphinstone, Hon. M.—his Codex _see s.n. Bābur-nāma_.
Embassy from Bābur to Moscow App. Q, lxiii.
_Embassy to Timur_, Ruy Gonsalves di Clavigo (_trs. Sir C.
Markham_)—Hindustan the Less 46;
kneeling in greeting 54;
Samarkand 74-5-8;
Kesh 83.
_Encyclopædia Britannica_—range of temperature 204;
Farīdu'd-dīn _`At̤t̤ār_ 271;
rhinohorns 408;
maize when first in Asia 509.
_Encyclopædia of Islām_—Réné Basset's art. Al-buṣīrī 620.
Erskine William—Preface xxxiii, xliii-iv-viii-ix, Cap. IV,
[_see Memoirs of Baber and History of India_].
_Essays_, Lord Bacon—Ismā`īl _Ṣafawī's_ personal beauty 441.
Etiquette and decorum—well-mannered 45, 271-3-6, 303;
knees not crossed 33;
feet hidden 34;
deference to elders 303;
epistolary 332;
farewell 330;
—+Interviews+:—kneeling 61-9, 301, 408;
looking one another in the eyes (_i.a._) 54, 64;
embrace 160;
+—Meetings+:—The Khāns with Bābur 54, 159, 169;
the two Khāns 160;
Tīmūriya reception 59;
Bābur and the Bāī-qarā Mīrzās 297-8-9, and elder Begims 301-97;
his reception of Khusrau Shāh 193,
Daulat Khān 459,
Naṣrat Shāh's envoy 640-1.
Exemplars of Bābur—Preface, Cap. I.
_Expédition scientifique Française_, C. E. Ujfalvy—_yīghāch_
(_measure_) 4;
Aūsh (Ūsh) 5;
Barā-koh 5;
Bābur's serviceable "Farsī-gūī" 7;
misreading (?) App. A, ii;
distances near old Akhsī _ib._ v;
Samarkand 74;
Āb-burdan 152.
_Explorations in Turkistan_, R. Pumpelly—Āq-būrā-rūd (_Huntingdon's
art._) 5;
Akhsī App. A, i, v.
_Fair at Sakhī-sarwār_, Michael Macauliffe—238.
_Famous Monuments of Central India_, Sir Lepel H. Griffin—Gūālīār 605.
_Fān-valley_, W. R. Rickmers—[_JRGS. 1907_], Sara-tāq-dābān 129;
Āb-burdan 152.
_Farhang-i-aẕfarī_ [_Turki-Pers. Dict._] _nihilam_ explained 45.
_Fauna of British India_, Oates and Blanford—flying-squirrel and
snow-cock 213 nn. 5, 6, 7;
various birds 495, 497, 501.
Festivals—Bābur's Rāmẓān rule 584;
Īd-i-fiṯr 66, 235, 311, 351, 410, 584, 683, 689;
Īd-i-qurb-ān 154;
Nū-roz 236;
approximation of Nū-roz and Īd-i-fiṯr 236.
Fifth-share (_Khams_) 324.
Five-days' World 50, 128, 328.
_Flora Indica_, W. Roxburgh—spikenard 392;
_mahuwā_ 505;
_gūlar_ 508;
_chirūnji_ _ib._;
_kīūrā_ 514.
"Florio Beg _Beneveni_", Secretary to a Russian Mission, Preface xliv.
Folk-lore—test of a dead woman's virtue 212;
blizzard-raising spring 219;
"commerce with the Spheres" 275;
eye-bewitchment 664;
omen as to sex of an unborn babe App. L;
succession customs 482.
Food (_ex. birds and fruits_)—bread 148 (_cf. A.N. trs. i, 421 for
spiced bread, also Memoirs p. 144 n._);
brochettes (_kabāb_) 148, 415;
betel 440;
camel-flesh 493;
carrots 542;
cheese 394;
meat cold 411;
date-palm cheese 508;
dried meat 542;
fritters 541;
haggis 506;
hare 542;
honey 203, 409, 440;
lotus seed 660;
mango preserve 440;
millet porridge 181;
pistachio nuts 508 (cf. _s.n._ Nat. Hist.).
_A Frontier Campaign_, Lord Fincastle—_khahr_ = _shahr_ 367;
Katgola and Panj-kūra 374.
Frontier-posts 213.
Games and amusements—acrobats 635;
cards 584;
chess 38, 275-84-87;
dancing 276-99, 303;
dancing-girls 522, 634;
dice 16, 275-8;
draughts 16, 278;
feats of archery _q.v._;
fights of cocks 259, rams 259, elephants 631, camels 631;
improvisation and recitation of verse 16, 26, Preface xxx;
_kūk-būrā_ 39;
leap-frog 26;
pigeon-flying 13, 259;
polo (_chaughān_) 26;
wrestling 292, 660-83, Index I. _s. nn._ Dost-i-yāsīn, Ṣādīq;
hawking and fowling _see s.n._
Gardens—+Andijān+:—Chār-bāgh 29,
Ḥāfiẓ Beg's 108,
Birds' 168,
Aūsh 5,
Asfara 7,
Kāsān 10;
Tāshkīnt:—Ḥaidar Kūkūl-dāsh's 54,
Poplar 145, 146;
+Samarkand+:—Heart-expanding 78, 82,
New 62, 138,
North, Paradise, Plane-tree 78,
Plain's 92,
Porcelain, World-picture 78,
Darwesh Tarkhān's 80, 81;
+Kābul+:—Almshouse 315,
Avenue 647,
Bābur's Burial-garden 709 _see_ illustrations,
Chār-bāgh 249-51-54, 346-97-98, 416-7-8,
Ḥaidar _Tāqī's_ 198, 401,
Khalīfa's 315,
Little 198,
Paradise 315-6-7,
Plane-tree 401, 418,
Private 346-97,
Rendezvous (?) 346,
Violet 395, 415-7;
+Koh-dāman+:—Istālif 216-7, 398, 416,
New Year's 246, Royal 418;
+Nīng-nahār+:—447,
Adīnapūr 207 and n. 5,
Chār-bāgh, Fidelity 207 n. 5, 208, 394, 409, 414-21-22, 443-7;
Qarā-tu 395;
+Herāt+:—`Alī-sher's 305,
Marigold, Town, White 306, Raven's 134, 306;
+Hindustan+:—_Ṣafā_ (purity) 381, 665,
(Agra), Chār-bāgh, Eight-paradises 531-3-7, 543-4, 548, 616-34-86,
Gold-scattering 640-41, 689 n. 3, *708,
Garden of Rest 709,
(+Dūlpūr+) Chār-bāgh 603-6-15,
Lotus 639, (on the Gagar) 465,
(Sīkrī) 581-4,
(+Gūālīār+) 607-10-12-13-14.
Gardening _see_ "Indian" and "Manual".
The Gate—Lordship in 24;
Bābur's 26, 32;
the place of judgment 24, 197, 259;
Gate-house 43;
between-the-doors 24, 100, 133;
waiting in 277;
gate-ward post 166.
_Gates of India_, Sir T. H. Holdich—a Central Asian claim to Greek
descent 22;
headwaters in Koh-i-baba 216;
a route 310.
Gazetteers:—[_see nn. on pp. named_];
" of India [ed. 1908-9]—Observatories 79;
Nīl-āb 206; Gūr-khattri 230;
Pīr Kānū 238;
Sawātī 378;
Parhāla 387;
Nagarahāra App. E, xvii, xx (Bellew);
the Gagar (Kakar, Ghagghar) 465;
Bāgar 573;
Chandawār, Chandwār 581-9, 643;
Lukhnūr 582;
Sarwān 587;
Sikandra Rao _ib._;
Gūālīār 605, 610, 611;
Parsarūr 684;—Gujūr 250;
Kakar 386;
Luḥānī (var.) 455;
Mundāhir 700;
—brackish streams 384;
a ruined range 486;
a hunting-ground (Bārī) 509;
Jūna(h)pūr = Junpūr 676;
—tree squirrel 492;
frogs 503;
_yāk_ App. M, xlvii.
District Gs. of India:—Allahabad, (H. G. Neville), 653;
`Azamgarh, ("), 680;
Ballia, ("), 664, 667;
Etawa, (Drake-Brockmann), 644 nn. 2, 6;
Fathpur, (H. G. Neville), 651;
Fyzabad, (") 656, App. U;
Ghazipur, (Drake-Brockmann), 658;
Gualiar, C. E. Luard, 590-4-7, 605-9, 610-12-13-14;
Gurgaon, (F. Cunningham), 578-80;
Jihlam, ("), 452, 461;
Mainpuri, (E. R. Neave), 643-4;
Rawalpindi, (F. A. Robertson), 452;
Saran, (L. L. S. O'Malley), 664;
Shahabad (D. B. Allen), 664;
Sultanpur, (H. G. Neville), 683;
Ulwar, Alwar (P. W. Powlett), 557-8.
Gazetteers of the Province of Oude, App. T, lxxv, lxxvi.
" of the Turkistan Region, Col. L. F. Kostenko
—+Farghāna:+—passes 2;
fruits 3;
cooking recipe 4;
fever 4;
running-waters 5;
Āq-būrā-rūd 5;
Khujand 7, 8;
Mogol-tau 8;
Sang-ferry 176;
—+Samarkand:+—74;
extent of town 75, 145;
Kohīk-sū 76;
paper-making 81;
Āb-burdan 15;
three passes 83, 90, 129;
Lake Iskandar 129;
—distances 4, 6, 75, 84;
ravines App. A, ii;
various _ib._ v;
rapid riding 25;
_kūk-būrā_ 37;
Sārts and their tongues 6, 7;
Central Asian claim to Greek descent 22.
_Géographie_, Abū'l-feda [_trs. Reinaud_]—land cultivated by the
Zar-afshān (Kohik) 76;
Naṣīr _Tūsī_ 79;
names of Qarshī 84.
_Geography and History of Bengal_, H. Blochmann—Habshi
succession-customs 452.
" _of the Qandahār Inscription_, T. Beames [JRAS. 1898]—revision
incomplete App. T. xxxiv.
" _Oriental_ [_Ashkālu'l-bilād_] Ibn Ḥauqāl,
[_trs. Ouseley_]—absorption of the Sīr 3;
"Banakas̤" 9;
Akhsī App. A, ii, iii;
Kohik irrigation 76;
Samarkand Gates 77;
Qarshi names 84.
Geographical unit, [_village and its cultivated land_] 3.
_Geschichte von schönen Redekünste Persiens_, Freiherr v.
Hammer-Purgstall—Hilālī 290;
_Shāh u Darwesh_ 290;
Sām Mīrzā's jeer 648.
_Ghiyāsu'l-lughāt_ (Pers. Dict.), Muḥ. Ghiyāsu'd-dīn
_Rāmpūrī_—_kardi_-peach 504.
Ghulām-i-muḥammad (_collaborator with Raverty_)—Nijr-au 213;
Nīl-āb 206;
Bābur's frontier-posts 213;
a route 208.
Gibb, E. J. Wilkinson, Memorial Trust—Preface xlvii.
_Glossary of Terms_, H. H. Wilson—_ser_ (_sīr_)-measure 517;
_tanāb_-measure 630.
_The Golden Bough_, T. G. Frazer—a succession custom 482.
_Goswara Inscription_, Kittoe and Kielhorn [_I.A. 1888_]—App. E,
xviii-ix, xxii.
Grant, Mr. Ogilvie—his help App. B, vii.
_Great Diamonds of the World_, E. W. Streeter—its Koh-i-nūr account
incomplete 477.
Greek descent, 22, 341.
Guest-begs 141, 227.
Gul-badan Begīm (_Lady Rosebody_) _see_ H. N.
_Gulistān_, Sa`dī [_trs. Eastwick_]—quoted 42, 152-8, 190, 313.
_Gulzār-i-Bihār_, Ajodhya Prasad—rulers in Tirhut and Darbanga App.
P, lvii;
varied by Sir G. A. Grierson (_I. A._ 1885) _ib._ n. 1.
+Noticeable words:+—
P. _gosha_, bow-tip and notch App. C;
P. _gosha-gīr_, an archer's repairing-tool 160-6, App. C, =
_chaprās_ and _kadāng_; P. _ghūnchachī_ 17.
_Ḥabību's-siyar_, Khwānd-amīr—[_see nn. on pp. named_];
relations with the _Bābur-nāma_ 57, 127, 256, 328;
value as a source 70, 348, 426;
not used for _The Memoirs_ 347;
used by Bābur 11, 256-91;
completion of 687;
—Kinsmen of Bābur 13,[2955] 18, 34-5, 46-8, 50, 61, 90, 111, 127;
—Bābur 29, 147, 184, 297, 354-7, 432-7, 704;
—various persons 25, 38, 47, 50-4-8, 72, 98, 111, 128, 249, 396;
[Bih-būd] 227 and App. H, xxvi, 579, 621;
_varia_ 133, 244-96, 327-8-9, 463 (_n. where read Tamarisk_), 469,
617-22;
—Herāt 305;
Chār-shaṃba 71;
_kīsāk_ 66;
Niẕāmī 85 (_where in n. read l. 2_), Ḥ.S. iii, 44, 167.
_Haft Iqlīm_, Amīn Aḥmad _Rāzī_—celebrities of Chīrkh 217.
Hand-book to Dihli, H. J. Keene—places visited by Bābur 475.
" to Bengal, Murray's—observatories 79;
Dihli 475, 704.
" to the Panj-āb, Murray's—Qandahār Inscription App. J, xxxiii.
Hawking and fowling—experts in 31-8, 40-5, 67, 270-3-6;
birds with dogs 224;
a story 254;
lost hawk 394;
Bābur's gift of a goshawk (_qārchīgha_) 385;
Aḥmad _Mīrān-shāhī_ and goshawks 34, Add. Note, P. 34.
Herāt's high standard of proficiency 283, Preface xxx;
_see_ Index II.
_Herat, On the city of_, Col. C. E. Yule [_JASB. 1887_]—280, 305-6.
" B. de Meynard (J. A. xvi)—257, 305-6-7, 326.
_Hidāyat_, Burhānu'd-dīn `Alī _Qīlīch_ (_trs. C. Hamilton_)—its
author's birth-place 7, 76;
held in honour 76;
his descendant 29;
_Khams_, the Fifth 324.
_Hidāyatu'r-rāmī_ (The Archer's Guide), Amīnu'd-dīn (T. O. MS.
2768)—_nāwak_ 142;
_gosha-gīr_ App. C, viii;
(_cf._ _AQR. 1911_, _H.B.'s art. Oriental Cross-bows_).
_High Tartary_, R. Shaw—_tanga_, (_coin_) App. P, lvii.
Hindū-shāhī rulers in Kābul 200.
Hindustani uses of "Khurāsān" 202 and other words 455-88-91-92-99
(_where for yak-rang read bak-ding_);
pronunciation 380, 484.
Hinks, Mr. A. E. (_R.G.S._), estimate of distance from Kishm to
Qandahār 621.
_Histoire de Chingiz Khan_, F. Pétis de la Croix, the elder—Gūk-sarāī
63, Ascension Stone 77.
_Histoire du Khanat de Khokand_, L. Cahun—Farghāna winds 9.
" _du Khanat de Khokand_, Gen. V. R. Nalivkine—Sarts 6;
Akhsī App. A, i, iv, v;
tradition of Bābur's abandoned child 358.
" _de Timur Beg_, F. Pétis de la Croix, the younger—Samarkand Gates
and walls 77 (_see Z̤afar-nāma_).
_Historical Sketches_, Col. Mark Wilks—_wulsa_ (flight _en masse_)
486-7 (_where for "ūlwash" read ūlwan_);
Add. Notes, P. 487.
Histories:—(_see nn. on pp. named_).
" of Bukhara, A. Vambéry—descent of chiefs 244.
" of Gujrāt, E. C. Bayley trs. _see Mirāt_.
" of India, Elliott and Dowson—Tarkhāns 31 (_where add (n. 4)
references vol. i, 300, 320-1, 498_);
Farmūlis 456, 675;
Bugīāls 452;
_varia_ 274, 440-77, 652-9, 693;
places 191, 219, 457, 582, 699;
earthquake 247;
Mīān = Shaikh 457;
a B. N. source 348, 428-39, 621;
_The Malfūzāt-i-tīmūrī_ 653;
supers-session of B.'s sons proposed 703.
" of India, Baber, W. Erskine—148-94, 247, 332-8, 343-6, 361, 440-78,
520-2, 562, 651, 702;
gunpowder 369;
coins and Revenue List 446-78, 520-22, 627, App. P, lv;
value of the book 428.
" of Musical Sounds, C. Carus-Wilson—215.
" of Ottoman Poetry, E. J. Gibbs—double meaning in composition App.
Q, lxiv.
_Hobson-Jobson_, Sir H. Yule (_ed. Crookes_)—(_see nn. on pp.
named_), Byde (_var._) Horse 470;
the Koh-i-nūr 477;
black-buck 491;
gynee-cow 492;
partridge cries 496;
rock-pigeon (bāghrī-qarā?) 498;
coucal 500;
_koel_ 501;
mango 503;
plantain 504;
"mohwa" 505;
_kīshmīsh_ 505;
_jambū_ 506;
jack-fruit 506;
toddy 509;
an orange 511;
shoe-flower 513;
ghurry (clepsydra) 516;
_ser_ (measure) 517;
"bowly" (_baoli_) 533;
"talookdār" 621;
"cuscuss"-grass 631;
"moonaul" (monal) App. N, xlix;
"choki" App. V, lxxxi.
Holy War—against Kāfiristān 46;
Bābur's against Sangā 547 _et seq._ and Chandīrī 589;
references to 579-83, 637.
Horse-accoutrement—Mughūl 160;
mail 140-67, 380;
saddle-bags 338.
Horses—_tīpūchāqs_;—a breeder of 38;
mentioned 235, 303 and 336 (grey), 383 (almond-coloured), 401,
captured at Qandahār 338;
—Kābul horse-trade 202;
horses bred for sale 235;
how fed in a siege 145;
eaten on a journey 148;
swim the Zarafshān in mail 140;
in snow 253, 308-11;
single-file in snow 314;
women's use of during a battle 268;
murrians 31;
abandoned 239, 379;
invalided to Kābul 376-8;
trodden down by elephants 457;
restorative treatment 666;
—tribute in 228, _etc._;
raided by Bābur 313;
galloping-ground for 222;
steps counted to estimate a distance 666;
—_qūsh-āt_, a change-horse led by a rider 453;
corn and grass for 186, 221-2-3, 238; 311, 394;
unfit grass 222;
anatomical similarity with the rhinoceros 490.
Hot-bath, _ḥammān_—Samarkand 78,
Akhsī 173,
Kābul 346,
Bābur finds none in Hindūstān 518,
constructs in Agra, 532, 634,
in Dūlpūr 614, 639.
Households and families—various 32, 123, 125-9, 141;
Bābur's sent to him 71-2, 151-3;
(B.'s) 184, 306;
marching for Kābul 189, 191-7;
Mughūls' come to B.'s army 192-4;
B. safeguards 199, 460-1;
driven like sheep 242 (2);
Bāī-qarās desert 327;
Shaibānī anxious about 135, 343;
B.'s come to Hind 645-6, 650-7-8, 665-75-89;
his wives and children 711-4.
Houses—high 221,
windowed 201;
in Chandīrī 597;
in Gūālīār 608.
Huma, a fabulous bird 26.
Hunting:—circle (_jīrga_) 114, 325, 424-50, 657;
Babur's hunting 296, 602, 707.
_Humāyūn-nāma_, Bāyazīd Bīyāt—a commanded book 691.
_Humāyūn-nāma_, Gul-badan Begīm—(_trs. and ed. A. S. Beveridge_)—[_see
nn. on pp. named_];
Adik Sl. 23;
a betrothal 48;
Khān-zāda 147;
Māh-chūchūk 199, 342;
Apāq B. 301;
Mahdī Khw. 381, 688, 703-4, 579;
`Asas (1) 387, (2) 552;
Māmā Atūn 148, 407;
various men 408 and 640, 526;
a begīm's manly pursuits 263;
Māhim B. 344, 686;
Mirzā Khān 433 (_where, l. 2 fr. ft. read grand-"mother"_);
Bābur's sons 436, App. J, xxxv, 619, App. L, xliii, 545;
B.'s daughters 441, 522, 708, 713;
Bābur's wounds 167, 524, 616, 630;
his self-devotion 701, (illustration 702, Preface xxxii;)
his death 708-9;
removal of body to Kābul 709;
—references to the H.N. 347, 689, 691-4, Pref. xxviii;
its Biographical App. 13, 705, 711.
Ibn Batuta _see_ Travels.
" Ḥauqāl _see_ Geography.
_Illustrated London News_—fortress gun and stone ammunition 595;
rafts 673.
_Indian Eras_, Sir Alex. Cunningham—intercalary months 515;
discrepant dates App. S, lxxi.
_Indian Forest Trees_, D. Brandis—[_see nn. on pp. named_],
date-plum 210;
cypress 222;
weeping-willow App. I, xxxii;
"mohwa" 505;
bullace-plum 507;
orange-like fruits 510;
ebony-tree 585.
_Indian Hand-book of Gardening_, G. T. F. Speede—_sinjid_ (jujube) 203;
_amlūk_ (date-plum) 210;
_saṃbal_ (spikenard) 392;
"keeras" (cherry) 501;
_kamrak_ (_averrhoa carambola_) 506;
_sang-tāra_ (orange) 511;
under-ground jack-fruit App. O, lii.
Inscriptions—Bābur's atĀb-burdan 152,
Bād-i-pīch pass 343,
Qandahār App. T;
—on Ajodhya Mosque App. U;
on B.'s tomb 710.
_Inscriptions de Caboul_, J. Darmesteter [_J.A. 1888_]—in Bābur's
Burial-garden 710.
Intercession—Bābur's, through Aḥrārī 620;
through Imām `Alī, 702.
"Islam"'s foes killed 370;
its army 564.
Ivory 489.
Jogis—at Gūr-khattrī 230.
_Journal of Travel_, W. Griffiths—red apple 507;
_cicadæ_ s. of Ghazni App. N, l.
_Journey from Bengal to England_, G. Forster—division of climates
229 (_where for "Travels" read Journey_).
_Journey to the Sources of the Oxus_, J. Wood (_ed. Yule_)—Kābul 199;
Running-sands 201, 215;
Hindu-kush passes (_Yule's Introduction_) 204;
dun sheep 224;
Nagarahāra regions App. E, xxiii.
_Journeys in Biluchistan, Afghanistan and the Panj-ab_,
E. Masson—(_see nn. on pp. named_), Kābul 199, 200, 201,
(fruits) 203-4;
Shibr 215;
Panjhīr 205;
Nīl-āb (in Ghūr-bund) 216;
Adīnapūr 207;
Chaghatāī castles 208;
a meaning of "Lām" 210;
Running-sands 215;
Judas-tree 216;
—places 405, 412-17-45, 647;
routes 231, 417;
sign of submission 232;
Nagarahāra App. E, xvii;
"Babur Padshah's stone-heap" (cairn) 416;
Preface p. xxxviii.
_Journey to India overland_, A. Conolly—Kābul 199;
_rawāj_ (rhubarb) 203.
Kabul _see_ "Cabool" and "Caubul".
"Kāfir"—uses of the word 481-3; 518, 577.
_Kafirs of the Hindu-kush_, Robertson—their wines 212.
_Kaiser Akbar_, Count F. v. Noer (_trs. A. S. Beveridge_)—finance
reform 282.
Kehr, Dr. G. J. [_scribe of the Pet. F. O. School Codex of the
"Bukhārā Bābur-nāma"_] see _Wāqi`-nāma-i-pādshāhī_.
The _Khamsatīn_ (Two Quintets)—a reader of 15;
imitated 288.
_Khazīnatu'l-asfiyā_ [Treasury of Saints], Ghulām-i-sarwār—Khwājakī
Khw. 67;
Mīr Sayyid `Alī _Ḥamadānī's_ grave 211;
Pīr Kānū 238;
Jālalu'd-dīn _Pūrānī_ 306;
Sharafu'd-dīn _Munīrī_ 666.
_Khuṯba_—read disloyally 52, 328;
Bābur's compact 354-6;
read in Dihli for him 476.
The (Koh-i-nūr) diamond 477, 702.
Klaproth Jules—Preface xxxix, xlvii;
[_see_ _Archiv_ and _Mémoires relatifs etc._].
_Kulliyatu'r-rāmī_ (Cyclopædia of Archery), Muḥ. Budhā'ī—_nāwak_ 142;
_gosha-gīr_ App. C, viii;
(_cf. Oriental Cross-bows, H.B. AQR. 1911_).
+Noticeable words:+—_khachar_ 74, 249; _khāk-bīla_
(leap-frog) 26; _Khān-dāda_; _kīsāk_ (old person) 66; _kīm_
(yeast) 423; _kīyīk_ 6, 8, 10, 224, 491; _khimār_ = cymar
(scarf) 561; _kūīlāk_ syn. _kūnglāk_ (pullover vest, jersey)
171-5; _kūkbūrā_ see _aūghlāqchī_; _kūr-khāna_; Qarshī = Ar.
_qaṣr_ 84; _kūrūsh_, looking in the eyes, interviewing _i.a._
54, 64, 640 (_cf. qūchūsh_, embracing); _kusarū_[?] 369;
_kūshlūq_ 250.
_La Grande inscription de Qandahar_, J. Darmesteter (_JAS. 1890_),
App. J, xxxiii-iv.
_Lahor to Yaṛkand_, Hume and Henderson—_yāk_ App. M, xlvii.
Laidlaw (_JASB 1848_)—nasal utterance App. E.
Lane's Lexicon _see_ Dictionaries.
Langlés art. Babour Preface xiv.
Law (Muḥammad's)—on blood-vengeance 194, 251-8;
Shaibānī's disregard of 329;
Ḥusain _Bāī-qarā's_ regard for 258;
Bābur's orthodox observance shown _e.g._ 25, 44, 111, 262, 370-7,
483, 547-51-74-89-96, and in the _Mubīn and Wālidiyyaḥ-risāla_
_q.v._;
his orthodox reputation (_epitaph_) 711;
his observance as to intoxicants 302, beyond his 23rd year 299,
302-3-4;
his return to obedience (933) in 44th year 551-5;
referred to 203 (_verse_) 645-7-8;
his breaches of Law:—against types of verse 447,
repented 448;
against wine, _see s.n._ Wine.
_Les Mosquées de Samarcande_, Pet. Archeol. S.—74-8-7.
_Les six voyages en Turquie, en Perse, et aux Indes_, Jean Baptiste
le Tavernier—the coin _casbeke, kipkī_ 296.
_Letters of Lady Mary W. Montagne_—lovers' marks 16.
Letters—Nawā'ī's imitation of Jāmī's collection 271;
Bābur keeps a letter of 910 to 935 AH. 190;
his royal-letters (_farmān_) 463-4, 526, 617 (_with autograph
marginal couplet_), others (_khaṯ_ṯ) 331-2;
to Khw. Kalān 411 (_with autograph couplet_), 603 n. 3, 627, and
(_reproduced_) 645;
to Humāyūn (_reproduced_) 624;
to Kāmrān 645-6, Preface xxxv, xliii;
to Māhīm 374, 541;
Letters-of-victory:—Kābul 319,
Bajaur 371,
Ḥiṣar-fīrūza 466,
Kānwa 559-74, 580.
Levirate marriage 23, 267.
Levy on stipendiaries 617.
Lexicon Persico-Latinum, I. A. Vullers _see_ Dictionaries.
Leyden John—tentative trs. of the Bukhara Compilation, Preface
xlvii-viii-ix, lviii.
_Life and Letters of Ogier G. de Busbecq_ [_trs.
Forster & Daniel_]—explains "Sulṯanīm" 29.
_L'Inde des Rajas_, L. Rousselet—Gūālīār 605.
_Linguistic Survey of India_, Sir G. A. Grierson—forms of "nine"
App. E, xviii.
Loess 3, 30, App. A, ii.
Looting of assigned individuals 328.
Lord [JASB 1838]—Ghūrbund 205;
Running-sands 215.
"Lords of the Elephant" 563-73.
Lordship in the Gate _see_ Gate.
_Lotophagi_, a fruit they ate 210;
quoted 42.
Lover's-marks 16, Add. Note, P. 16.
_Lubbut't-tawārīkh_, Yaḥya _Kazwīnī_—an early (brief) source 349;
dates the battle of Ghaj-dāvān 361.
+Noticeable words+:—
_lām_ (fort) 210;
_likh_, _lūja_, _lūkha_ (a bird) 498, App. N, xlvii.
_Ma`āṣir-i-raḥīmī_ (a Life of `Abdu'r-raḥīm Mirza _q.v._),
`Abdu'l-bāqī _Nahavandī_—Bābur's wife Ṣalḥa 713.
_Ma`āsiru'l-`umrā_, Shāh-navāz-Khān—Mu'az̤z̤am-nagar = Dīn-kot 206.
McGregor, Col. H. G.—meaning of "_ningrahar_" and
"_nungnihar_" = 9 streams, App. E, xix.
Magic—rain making with the jade-stone (_yada-tāsh_) 27, 67, 654;
the stone used to ensure victory 623;
Bābur's talisman to stop rain 423.
_Majālis-i-nafā'is_, `Alī-sher _Nawā'ī_—mentions `Abdu'l-lāh
_Barlās_ 51.
_Making of a Frontier_, A. G. A. Durand—Greek descent 22.
_Malfūzāt-i-tīmūrī_ (Tīmūr's Turki Annals)—not discredited by
no-mention in the mutilated B.N. 653;
Yūnas Khān and the book Preface xxix;
an incentive to Bābur xxx,
perhaps also at xxxii;
their acceptance in a Persian translation by Shāh-jahān xlvi.[2956]
_Mammals of India_, T. E. Jerdon—hog-deer 491.
_Manners and customs of the modern Egyptians_, E. W. Lane—drinkables
298.
_Manual of Gardening_, Firminger—cherries 203;
_kamrak_ fruit 506;
an orange 511;
_sadā-fal_ 512.
Manufactures of Samarkand, cramoisy and paper 81, 305.
_Marmion_ (_Scott's Notes to_), wild geese checked in flight 214.
Marriage, compelled 386;
levirate 23, 267;
legitimate 269;
illegal 329.
The _Maṣnawī_ of Jalālu'd-dīn _Rūmī_ (_trs. E. H. Whinfield_)—read
by `Umar Shaikh 15, Preface xxx.
_Materials for the History of India_, Nassau Lees—amongst the sources
for filling out Bābur-nāma gaps 428.
_Maṯla`u's-sa`dain_, `Abdu'r-razzāq (_N. et Ex. xiv_)—Timurid
suzerainty acknowledged in Dihli [in 814-1411] 459.
Meal-hours—big breakfast 389;
nooning 614-861.
Measures—+Linear+:—_aīlīk_ (finger-breadth) 489, 630;
_arghamchī_ (rope) 614;
arrow's-flight (_i.a._ bow-shot), _i.a._ 8, 640;
from gate-ward to Gate 316;
_gaz_ 611 n. 3;
_kuroh_ _i.a._ 76;
_qadam_ (step, pace) 75, 630, (of a horse) 666;
_qārī_ 7, 208-9, 489, 550, 611-29-30-31;
_qārīsh_ (inch) 489;
_qūlāch_ 406-93;
_shar`ī_ 76, 200;
spear's length 196, 377, 474;
_tanāb_ (rope) 630;
_tūtām_ (hand-breadth) 630;
_yīghāch_ (Prs. trs. _farsang_) 4, 7, 9, 10, 25, 55, 76, 82-3-4,
99, 138, 208-17-18, 323, App. A, v. n. 1;
—+Time+:—Hindūstān divisions of the year 515 to 517;
boiling of milk 175, 237;
—+Weight+:—bātmān 263, 276;
_mān_ 699;
miṣqāl 421-77, 632;
_ratī_ 477 n. 6, 517;
_tāsh_ (stone, silver & gold) 632;
Kābul _sīr_ (_ser_) 632, 546;
Table of weights of Hind 517-8;
_tūla_ 517-41;
—ass-load (_kharwar_) 228, 338-9, 374;
—+Numeration+ (Indian) 518;
—+Capacity+:—_x_ mills water-power _i.a._ 208, 216, 462-5, 581;
(coins by the) quiverful 632.
Medical and surgical remedies:—dried plums (_prunes_) 82;
water dropped from cotton 89;
trepanning 106-9;
seton, bandage (_yīldīz_) 169;
powder for bone-growing 169;
water-melon and narcissus 246, 399, 401;
rose-water (_jūl-āb_) 400;
antidotes to poison 511, 543;
tonic powders 606;
opium 608, 661;
quicksilver 618;
pepper-steaming 657, 660.
_Mediæval geography and history of Central and Western Asia_,
E. Bretschneider—Ālmālīgh and other old towns 2;
Sīmīz-kīnt [_Fat-village_], a name of Samarkand 75;
_Nūyān_ explained 131.
_Mémoires relatifs à l'Asie_ (_ii, 134_), J. Klaproth—its valuable
extracts from the Bukhara Compilation, Preface, Cap. III,
Part III;
Bābur's letter to Kāmrān, App. J, xxxv, (_see Archivs_).
Memory, retentive, 290.
_Merv Oasis_, O'Donovan—Rādagān 622.
_Metamorphoses_, Ovid—Scorpio and Libra 623.
Migration enforced—of Mughūls of the Horde 20, 350-1;
of Tramontane tribes 202-70, 322;
of villagers to Bajaur 375,
and planned to Sīālkot.
Military:—+Armies, size of+:—Maḥmūd (Ghazni) 479;
Shihābu'd-dīn _Ghurī_ 480;
Aūz-beg 480;
Daulat Khān _Lūdī_ 451;
Bābur, Qandahār 334,
Bhīra 480,
Pānipat 452-80;
Ibrahim _Lūdī_ 463-80;
Sangā 547;
T̤ahmāsp at Jām 635;
—Bābur's force in various encounters (200 to 300) 91;
(240) 100;
(1000) 87;
(240) 334-7;
(10 to 15) 140;
(100) 147;
(10 to 15) 166;
(3) _ib._;
(1) 167;
(100) 173;
(20 to 25) 177;
(1) 178;
—+Commands+:—Mīnglīgh (1000) 52;
Nūyān (_Mughūli_) 151;
Tūmān-begi (10,000) 17;
Yūz-atlīk (_Centurion of horse_) 143;
Qūchīn 32;
—+Army array:+—108-13-55-98;
234-381;
468-71, 557-8;
Bābur's organization and terms 334;
flanking-movement (_tūlghuma_) 139,
described 140, 473, 568;
rallying-point 547;
rendezvous (_buljār_) 122-3, 592, 638;
at the Sind-ferry 461-2;
postings 113-39, 372, 595, 662-68;
—+Various+:—A.S. Corps 674;
army-list 451-2;
camp-bāzār 67-8;
Corps of Braves 28, App. H, xxvii;
discipline 66-7;
necessaries for holding a fort 145;
numbering (_dīm_) 154-61, 468, (_san_) 451-2;
pass-words 164;
pillars of heads 232, 324-71, 404;
war-cries 138-44-55-63-66;
ways and means 228, 617;
—Rājpūt fighting customs 595;
massacres of "Pagans" 370, 484, 596;
—+Appliances and constructions+:—axe (tool) 108, 379;
catapult 59;
camp defence:—ditch and branch 60-1, 110-17, 138, (908 AH.) 162,
Rūmī defence of linked carts _infra_ (932 AH.) 469-70, 550-58;
draw-bridge (_pul-i-rawān_) 171-76;
flaming-fire 595;
guns _see_ fire-arms;
ladders (_shātū_) 130-31-43-71, 368-70, 593;
mantelet (_tūrā_) 108-13-55, 368, 469, 593;
mines 53-9, 343-70;
moat 10;
pit 198;
head-strike (_sar-kob_) 53-9;
spade or shovel (_kītmān_) 108;
smoke 59;
wheeled-tripod 550-7;
—+Armour+:—helm 166-7, 396;
cuirass (mail or wadded) _i.a._ 195, 315-96;
the word _jība_ 495;
Qālmāq _jība_ 175;
coat of mail (_joshan_) 195;
horse-mail (_kīchīm_) _see_ horse;
arm-protector, the 4 plates of mail, attachment (_gharīcha_) 167,
315, 396;
—+Arms+:—battle-axe (_bāltū_) 160, 370;
broad dagger (_jaṃdar_) 528;
hanger (_khanjar_) 528;
Hindū knife (_kārd_) 528;
lance (_neza_) 370;
six-flanged mace (_shash-par_) 160;
rugged mace (_piyāzī_, _Sanglākh Dict. f. 312b_, _kisgīn_) 160;
_casse-tâte_ mace (_kistīn_) 160;
scabbard (_qīn_) 167;
sword (_qīlīch_) 160-61-67, 315-70-96, 453;
broad sword (_yāsī qīlīch_) 150;
(_see Archery_);
—+Carts+ (_arāba_) for Rūmī defence:—(Pānīpat) ordered collected
468;
700 brought and used as described 468-9;
—misleading omission from (E.'s) _Memoirs_ 468 n. 3;
—progress of the defences 469-70;
mantelets used 469;
(position of guns 473-74);
—(Kānwa) carts supplemented by wheeled tripods 550;
place of carts in the march out 550-57-58;
carts the frontal protection 550-58;
well-made in Rūmī fashion 550;
[posts of matchlockmen and canoneers along the line of carts
569];
carts in the battle 564-697, 471;
centre troops move from behind them 570-71;
carts advanced in front of Bābur 571;
—(Jām) T̤ahmāsp's Rūmī defence 623, 635-36;
—+Fire-arms+:—_firingi_ (swivel-gun, _pierrier_) 472, 667;
mortars (_qāzān_) 59
—the Ghāzī cast 536,
tested 547
—used 570-99
—ineffective at Chandīrī 592-5
—its elephant-traction 489;
mortars and (_add_) carts landed 651
—used in the Gogra battle (_where "tope"_) 669-70-71;
a larger mortar made, bursts 588;
—_ẓarb-zan_ (culverin) 473
—used at Pānīpat 474,
Kānwa 564-9, 71,
the Ganges-bridge 599,
Eastern campaign 651-6;
—_tūfang_, _tūfak_ (matchlock) used 368-9, 466-9, 558-64-70-71-73,
599, 628-67-8-9;
T̤ahmāsp's 622-35;
—gunners and matchlockmen 368,
their pay 617
and wellbeing 647;
"fire-working" Bengalis 672;
—_muljār_ (gun emplacement) 593, 628
(_for būljār_?), 668;
—+Stone-missiles+:—hurled by hand 109, 370, 595;
legendary dropping of by birds 563;
discharged from catapults 59,
from mortars and matchlocks 109, 369, 431-73, 571-88-93-95-99,
617-67-70-79;
—+Transport:+—pack animals 235;
camels 232-5, 378, (_counted_) 391, 601-56
(_see Domestic animals_);
elephants 489;
carts (_baggage_) 237, 376-77, 468, 636, 700,
(_gun_) 592-99,
(_unspecified_) 601-51-56.
Minerals:—ribbon jasper 6;
turquoise 8, 12;
iron 12;
jade 27, 67;
ruby 194;
silver and lapis-lazuli 214;
lead and copper 485.
_Mirāt-i-jahān-numā_, Shaikh Muḥ. _Baqā_—Khwānd-amīr's journey to
Hind 505.
_Mirāt-i-sikandarī_, `Alī Muḥ. Khān (_trs. E. Clive Bayley_)—Gujrāt
affairs 535;
persons 562 and 614, 612;
Gūālīār jewels 613.
Mirror-stone, (_Farghāna_) 7.
_Miscellaneous Works_, Greaves—Observatories 79.
Mohl, Jules—date of revision of _Tārīkh-i-firishta_ 694 (_E. and D.'s
Hist. of India iv, 209_).
_Mongolia_, N. Prejevalsky (_trs. E. Delmar-Morgan_)—_aīmāq_ 49,
explained Add. Notes P. 49.
Moon-stroke 608.
_Mountain-passes leading into the valley of Bamian_, Lt.-Gen. E. Kaye,
C.B. [PRGS. 1879]—birds 213.
_Mubīn_ (Exposition), Bābur—date of composition (928 AH.) 426, 437;
described 437-8;
Bābur's choice of its title 630, 653;
thought during its composition 449;
quoted 630;
sent to Samarkand 653.
+Mughūls and Bābur+:—a faithful Mughūl 87-8;
Mughūls enter his service 58-9, 189, 190-2-4, 245;
support Jahāngīr against him _see i.a. snn._ Taṃbal, `Alī-dost;
offer to supplant him by Sa`īd _Chaghatāī_ 351;
sent to help him 101-4,
oppose him 115;
desert him 86-7, 104-5;
Five Rebellions against him 105, 208, 313-4, 345-9, 361-2-3, 397;
his following purged of them 427;
his comments on them 66, 104-5, 115-40, 172;
a Mughūl chief's dying comment on them 363;
"Mughūl dynasty" a misnomer 158.
_Muhammadan Dynasties_, Stanley Lane-Poole—Table of Timurids 262;
various 479-82;
certain Aūzbeg deaths 636.
Mu'inu'd-dīn al Zamji (_J.A. xvi, 476, de Meynara's art._)—Kīchīk
Mīrzā's Egyptian information 257.
_Muntakhabu'l-lubāb_, Muḥ. Hāshim _Kh(aw)āfī_ Khān—[_see nn. on pp.
named_], a source for filling Bābur-nāma gaps 208;
Sihrind, Sar-i-hind 383;
siege of Chandīrī 596;
varies Bābur's chronogram of the victory 596.
_Muntakhabu't-tawārīkh_, `Abdu'l-qādir _Badāyūnī_ (_trs. Ranking,
Lowe_) Ḥasan _Hijri_ 153;
Bābur's Script 228, App. Q, lxii, arrow-sped couplet 361;
_Mubīn_ 437-8;
Chronogram of Sikandar _Ludi's_ death 427;
the haunted field of Pānīpat 472;
Hasan _Miwāti_ 523;
Shaikh Gūran 526;
Fārighī 621;
Muh. _Ghaus̤_ 690;
quotes Bābur's Funeral Ode 709.
"Musalmān" as used by Bābur 99, 104, 268, 481,
and by Shaikh Zain 553-5.
_Musalman Numismatics_, O. Codrington—various coins 632 [_see JRAS.
1913-4_].
Music—+instruments+:—`_aūd_ (lute) 292, 395;
_chang_ (jews'-harp) 303;
drum _see s.n._;
_ghachak_ (guitar) 291;
_nāī_ (flute) 291, 303;
_qānūm_ (dulcimer) 278;
_qūbūz_ (guitar) 39;
—+modes+:—76 n. 5, 136, 287, 422;
—+performers+:—39, 278, 286-7, 291, 292, 422 (Bābur);
at entertainments _passim_;
—Banā'ī's rapid progress as a musician 287.
+Noticeable words+:—
_āīmāq_ 51 _etc._ Add. Note P. 51;
_mīng_ = P. _hazāra_ 52;
_mīng-begī_ see _qūchīn_;
_mihman-beg_ 227.
Nadir Shāh Pref. xlvii.
_Nagarahāra_, Simpson [JASB. xiii?]—App. E. xxiii.
_Narrative of the Journey of the Embassy to Kashghar_ (_Yarkand_),
H. W. Bellew—Satūq-būghrā Khān 29.
Nasal utterance—its seeming products "_nīng_" (var.) = nine, App. E,
xviii, xix, and "Tānk" = Tāq 233.
Natural History—+Beasts+:—those common to Kābul and Hind 222;
wild ass 224, 325;
wild buffalo 490, 657;
_būghū-marāl_ 8, 10, 114, 373, 491, 500;
—elephant described 488,
encounters with rhino and camel 451, 631, 657,
in battle 463-70, 457-66-68, 529, 668,
in hunting 657,
killed by a fleeing foe 662,
killed in Makka 563,
statues of, at Gūālīār 609,
various 590, 628-58;
—ermine-weasel 492;
yellow fox 114;
flying-fox (bat) 500 (_and n. 6 where read f. 135_);
_gainī_ cattle 492;
goat 16, 83;
hare 10, 114;
—_kīyīk_:—black buck, hog-deer and a smaller deer 222, 491,
_āq kīyīk_ (white) 6, 8, 10, 491,
_qīzīl kīyīk, arqārghalcha_ (dun sheep) 224, 491;
—tree-mouse 492;
monkey, ape 211, 222, 492;
musk-rat 214;
_nīl-gau_ 222, 490;
pig 114;
_qūchqār_ (ram) 492;
_karg_ (rhinoceros) 378, 450-1-89, 557;
squirrel 492;
flying squirrel 213[2957];
tiger 393, 664;
_yāk_ (_qūtās_) 55, 155,
_baḥrī qūtūs_ 485, 490, App. M.
—+Birds+:—migration 220-4;
catching 220-4-5;
common to Hind and Kābul 220;
decoy-birds 225;
impeded flight 214, 496;
special notes on App. B and N;
combined sex-name 500;
_dīng_ (adjutant) 398, 498;
_bak-dīng_[2958] (adjutant) 499;
_bāghrī-qarā_ _see_ sand-grouse and App. N.;
Indian bustard and Great bustard 498;
Large _buzak_ (black ibis) 499;
white _buzak_ 499, 500 l. 2;
buzzard (T. _sār_) 499, 500[2959];
chameleon-bird _see lūkha_;
cranes var. 224, 499;
crow var. 500;
ducks var. 224, 500;
egret (_qarqara_) 224;
golden eagle (_būrgūt_) 373, 500;
florican 498[2960];
goshawk (T. _qārchīgha_ and _qīrghīcha_) 34, Add. Note, P. 34,
385;
grey heron (_aūqār_) 224, 499;
jungle-fowl var. 497;
_kabg-i-darī_ 214, 496-7, App. N, xlix (_see lūkha_);
kūīl, koel 501;
Indian loriquet 494 n. 5;
_lūkha_ var. 213, 222, 496, Add. Note, P. 496
(_see kabg-i-darī_);
magpie 500;
green magpie 501;
_mānek_ (beef-steak bird) 499;
_monal_ 496, 497, App. N, _phūl-paikar_ 497;
_bulbul_ (nightingale) 420, 501;
northern-swallow 495;
parrot var. 493-4;
partridge var. 421-93-96-97;
peacock 493;
pelican (_qūṯān_) 224, App. N, 1;
pheasant (_qīr-ghāwal_) 3, 8, 10, 34, 114, 493-97 (_chīr_);
_qīl-qūyirūgh_ (_Qarshī-birdie_) 84, App. B;
quail var. 34, 497-8;
sand-grouse (_bāghrī-qarā_) 84, 498,[2961] App. B;
_sārīgh-aūsh_[2962] 373;
_sharak_;
—Himālayan starling? 495 n. 3;
_pindāwati_ 495;
house-_mīna_ 495 (_add n. ref. 5_);
pied-_mīna_ _ib._—sparrow (_chūchūq_) 8;
snow-cock 213, 421, App. N, 1, (_see_ _lūkha_ and _chīūrtīka_
_ib._);
white stork 499;
_karcha_ (swift) 501;
wag-tail 498, 501;
wild fowl 497;
little green wood-pecker 501;
_zummaj_ 500 ("eagle," _add_ Its colour is black);
—+Fish and amphibia+:—migration 225;
catching 225-7, 406, 682;
of Hindustan fish 503;
cray fish 502;
unnamed 663;
frog 503;
porpoise 502;
crocodile var. 501-2, 663;
—+Various+:—lizard 501-2;
locust (_chīūrtīka_) 421, App. N, 1;
mosquito 204;
snakes, 8, 147, 406;
+Flowers+:—Farghāna 5, 10;
Kābul 215-7;
Peshāwār 393;
Hind 513-5;
—_arghwān_ (red, the Judas-tree) 216-7, 305,
(yellow) 217;
hibiscus 513;
jasmine 515;
oleander 514, 580, 610;
roses 5, 321 (couplet), 513;
screw-pine 516;
tulips 5, 215, 321;
violets 5;
—+Fruits+:—Farghāna 2, 3, 6, 8, 10;
Samarkand 77, 82-4;
Kābul 202-3-8-9-10-12-16-18-20-21;
Hind 503 to 513, App. O;
—`_ain-ālū_ 506;
almond 6, 7, 9, 223, 507-8;
_ālū-bālū_ 203;
apple 2, 8, 77, 202-20, 507;
apricot 6, 202;
_badrang_ 203;
plantain (banāna) 208, 504;
cherry 203;
_chīrūnjī_ 508;
citron var. 203-8-10, 501-11;
clustered-fig 508;
coco-nut 509;
colocynth-apple (_wild gourd_) 410-11 (_where for khunṯal read
ḥunẕal_);
coriander 211;
corinda 507;
date-palm 410-24, 506-8;
date-plum (T. _qarā-yīmīsh_) 203-10;
fig 508;
grape 3, 77, 202-3-10-12-18-21, 507-8, 646-86-87;
jack-fruit 506;
_jāman_ 506, 606;
_jīlghūza_ (pine-seeds) 203-13;
jujube (_sinjid_) 196, 203;
_chīkdā_ 506;
_kamrak_ 506 (_where add, It has no stone_);
lemon 512, 614;
lime var. 512;
lote-fruit 507;
lotus-seed (_dūdah_) 666;
mango 503;
melon var. 10, 82-4, 92, 411, 645-6, 686-7;
mimusops 505;
myrobalan 508;
_nāshpāti_ 3;
orange var. 203-10-11, 414, 510, 512, Add. N. P. 512, 614, App.
O, liii;
pear 203;
peach 203;
pistachio 508;
plum 82;
monkey-jack 506-7;
pomegranate 6, 8, 77, 202-8, 507;
quince 202, 507-12;
tamarind 505 (_n. ref. to būīā_);
walnut 203, 508;
—+Trees and plants+:—_amān-qarā_, maize (?) 504,
small almond 233,
_būīā_ 505,
_būtā-kūh_ 221,
clover, trefoil, _sih-barga_, _yūrūnchqā_ 6, 209, 346,
conifers, archa, 221-2,
cypress 81, 222,
_dhak_ 472;
ebony-tree 585, 614,
hardwood-elm 81,
grass (_cuscus_) 631 n. 2,
holm-oak 213-16-23,
madder 218,
_mahuwā_ 505-8,
male-reed 514,
mandrake and its similars 11,
mastic 213-23,
millet 81, 215,
mulberry (_tūt_) 248, 494,
olive 222,
palmyra palm 509, App. O, liv,
Pinus Gerardiana, _jilghūza_ 203-13,
plane 216, 398,
poplar var. 13, 15, (_tūrūk_) 145 and 156, 414 (_where for
"purslain" read poplar_),
_qarqand_ 223,
reed 514,
rice 210, 342,
rhubarb 203, 345, 507,
spikenard 392,
sugar-cane 208, 388,
_tabalghū_ 11,
tamarisk 14, 463 (_where, wrongly, "Tamarind"_);
—willow 217, 306,
(weeping) 304, App. I,
(_amāl-bīd_) 512;
—+Physical various—Climate+:—change on the Kīndīrlīk-pass (?) 2;
meeting places of hot and cold in Kābul 208 and 229, 220;
both near the town 202;
good climate Aūsh 4-6,
Kāsān 10,
Soghd 84,
Kābul 263;
—+Climes+:—Farghāna and Samarkand in the 5th 1, 74;
Kābul in the 4th 199;
—cold, Akhsī 116,
Hasht-yak 151,
Ghazni 219, 526,
Khwārizm 219,
upper Herī-rūd valley 311,
Kābul 314;
—+Various+:—dust-storm 520, 32-6;
earthquake 247, 367;
solar eclipse 659;
ice,—Sīr-daryā crossed on 151;
Kābul ice-houses 215;
near Parhāla 452;
none had in Hind 518;
—+malaria+:—Andijān 4,
Khujand 8;
—+rain+:—384, 425;
rain-making _see_ magic;
rain-talisman 423;
rainy season (various) 405, 507, 514-19, 677-8;
—+snow+:—208, 215, 252, 314, 373;
Himālayan snows 485;
perilous journey in snow 309-11;
snowfall of Samarkand and Kābul compared 77;
—+wind:+—Farghāna 9 and n. 2, 151;
Kābul 201;
upper Herī-rūd valley 310;
Hind 520, pestilential 524, 532, 654-7,
does damage to Bābur's writings 658.
Nestorian Church 2.
_New account of the East Indies_ (Edin. 1727), Alex. Hamilton—Malabar
succession customs 482.
_Nigār-nāma-i-hind_, Sayyid Ghulām-i-`alī—a British monument
at Pānīpat 472.
Nine a mystic number—9 Tarkhān privileges 250;
9 allowed offences 250;
gifts by nines;
[Cf. _Shajaratu'l-atrāk, Miles trs. p. 530_, for the root of
reverence for the number nine].
_Notes on Afghanistan and Baluchistan_, H. G. Raverty—[_see nn. on pp.
named_], Kābul rulers and river 200;
river called Nīl-āb 206;
`Aqabain 201;
Adīnapūr-region 207;
Ghazni magic spring 219;
migration of fowlers 225;
Tīmūr's pillars of heads 232;
place of Ẕū'n-nūn's death 327;
"Kakar" 386;
"Pātakh" (= _bāt-qaq_ = quagmire) 403;
But -khāk a vahāra-site 409;
—+Various places+ 206, 220, (Gūm-rahān) 236, 238-47-48 (2),
"Chāriākar" (_Chār-yak-kār_) 295, 345-73, 403, (Zābul) 405;
—+Routes+ 206-9, 212, 228-35-54;
book needs revision 330-67;
a collaborator 213.
_Notes on the Chugani and neighbouring tribes of Kafiristan_, Col.
H. S. Tanner (_JRGS. 1881_)—map mentioned 209;
Dara-i-nūr 210, App. F;
Nīng-nahār App. E, xix.
[_Cf. Index II s.n. chīqān._]
_Notes on some monuments in Afghanistan_, H. H. Hayden—Bābur's Grave
(illustration) 710, App. V, lxxx.
_Nouvelle Géographie_; _L'Asie Antérieure_, Réclus—[_see nn. on pp.
named_], Farghāna 4, 5, 9;
distances (Akhsī) App. A, v, (Tīrmiẕ-Ḥiṣār) 57;
Samarkand 74, 83, 88;
Mīl-i-rādagān 622;
Kadgar (_i.a._ Qajar) 666;
_sīghnāq_ = fort App. Q, lxiv;
_dābān_ and other pass-names 54.
+Noticeable words+:—
P. _nabīra_ 66, 72;
_nihilam_ (game-driving) 45;
M. _nūyān_ 131, 224-73.
Observatories _see_ Astronomy.
Omens—of the sex of an unborn child App. L;
of success 466, 558.
_Onau_, Sir Charles Elliot—Badshāh-nagar named from Bābur's halt 675.
"Oolak" (baggage-boat), perhaps from T. _aūlūgh_, great 663.
Open-table, maintainers of 39, 45-9, 119, 227.
Opium-eater 385.
_Oriental Biographical Dictionary_, T. W. Beale (_ed. Keene_) _see_
Dictionaries.
_Oriental Proverbs_, T. Roebuck—the "five-days' world" 50.
+Noticeable words+:—
M. Oghlāt = T. Dūghlāt = Qūngūr-āt of Aūzbegs 22.
Pādshāh—uses of the word 1;
title assumed by Bābur 344.
_Pādshāh-nāma_, `Abdu'l-ḥamīd—_lacunæ_ in an early copy of the
_Bābur-nāma_ App. D, x.
_Pādshāh-nāma_, Muḥammad Amīn _Kazwīnī_—Bābur's gardens in and near
Kābul App. V;
[cf. _Malfūzāt-i-tīmūrī_].
Pagan _see_ Kāfir.
Painting and painters—22, 78, 111, 272-91.
_Painting and Painters of Persia_, Martin—Bih-zād 291.
Pargiter, Mr. F. E.—on "_wulsa_" 487-8, Add. Note, P. 487.
Pass-names 54.
Pass-words _see_ Military.
Penmanship and scripts—good writers 28, 111, 278, 291;
the Bāburī-script 228, 642, App. Q, lxii.
Pen-names—`Adilī 111,
Ahī 289,
Ahlī 290,
`Arūzī 288,
Badakhshī 288,
Banā'ī 286,
Bayānī 278,
Fānī and Nawā'ī 272,
Farāqī 137,
Gharbatī 261,
Hātifī 288,
Hilālī 290,
Ḥusainī 259,
Kāmī 290,
Sharaf 448,
Suhailī 277,
Tufailī 278,
Wafā'ī 38, etc.
_Persia and the Persian Question_, Lord Curzon—its "Radkan"
explained 622.
Persian Grammar, J. T. Platts (_ed. Ranking_) lunar months App. L, lxx.
_Persian Poets_, Sir W. Ouseley—Khwāja Kamāl 8.
"Pharoah" used as an epithet 39.
_Poems of Niẕāmī_ (_Meçon and Lahor eds._)—_Haft Paikar_ quoted 6;
_Khusrau u Shīrīn_:—parricide 85, Add. Note, P. 85;
death inevitable 182 [_here Turkī_], App. D, xi [_here Pers.; Maçon
ed. iii, 1589_];
Fate an avenging servitor 251, Add. Note, P. 251 [_f. 281 in MS. of
317 ff._];
swift action a maker of victory 625;
lovers' marks Add. Note, P. 16;
—the _Khamsatīn_ 15, 288.[2963]
_Poems of Nūru'd-dīn `Abdu'r-raḥmān Jāmī_—an exposition of the
_Nafaḥāt_ 284;
the metre of the _Subḥatu'l-abrār_ adopted in the
_Shaibānī-nāma_ 289,
and in the _Wālidiyyah-risāla_ 620 (_where read raḥmān for
"raḥīm"_).
_Poems of Kipling_—"My Lord the Elephant" 208;
"The Border-thief" 308;
"If—--" 320.
Poison—suspected 302, 576;
given to Bābur 541;
revealed by rhino-horn 489;
antidotes, lime-juice 511,
Lemnian Earth 543.
_Political Mission to Afghanistan and Seistan_, H. W. Bellew—birds
at Āb-istāda 240;
Qandahār 430, App. J, xxxiii.
_Polyglot List of Birds_, E. Denison Ross, Ph. D.—373, 495-6-7-8,
500, App. M, xlvi.
_Popular Religion of Northern India_, W. Crooks—Sarsāwa 467.
Prayers, The Five—`Umar Shaikh's observance of 15;
voluntary Sunnat-prayer 100;
Bābur (_æt._ 12) less neglects the after-midnight prayer 44;
Aḥmad _Mīrān-shāhī_ observes on drinking-days 33;
a reverse case 111;
Erskine on their "performance" 258;
time expressed by their names _passim_.
Prisoners—rebels killed 69, 113;
war-captives killed 233, 466-8;
set free 37, 237, 313, 371, 413;
traitors pardoned 317-9, 320, 345.
_Projectile-throwing engines of the ancients_,
Sir W. F. Payne-Gallwey—stone ammunition 667.
Promotions—to begs rank from the household-circle 104;
household beg to Great Beg 86, 104;
_yasāwal_ to beg 273;
to begship 87, 114, 278;
_qūrchī_ to _qūr-begī_ 252;
brave to beg 396;
—a beg self-made 118;
(`Askari) to preside in Dīwān 628;
(a Mīrzā) to royal insigna 662, 706;
to use of the _tūgh_ (standard), frequent.
Proverbs and sayings—90, 117, 24-5-8, 145-66-77-82-84-90-93, 223-7-8,
254, 310, 453-94, 542-3, 703.
Punishments—beard shaved off 404;
blinding 50, 63, 95, 194, 266;
bow-stringing 110, 194;
quartering 238, 454, 543;
hanging 345;
impalement 341;
nose-slitting 234, 383;
parade mutilated 404, 234;
shooting 543;
skinning alive 542;
for disloyalty 70, 113.
Puns and Quips—44, 115, 136-7, 150, 189, 287, 391, 529, 648.
+Noticeable words+:—
P. _pahr_ and _pās_ distinguished 634;
_postīn_ 10.
_Qandahar in 1879_ AD., Le Mesurier—the old town 431;
stone-ammunition _ib._
_Qandahar_ see _La grande inscription de Q._
_Qaṣidatu'l-burda_, Al-buṣīrī—Bābur works from its motive 620;
[cf. Réné Basset].
_qibla_—discrepancy 79.
_qizil-bash_ (red-head) 266, 618-22-30-35.
The Qoran (_trs. G. Sale_)—quoted by Bābur 194, 316, 449;
read by or to him, remedially, 401, Add. Note, P. 401, 585;
copied by him in his Script 228;
obeyed as to the Khams (5th) of booty 324;
referred to by him 517;
—`Umar Shaikh a reader of 15, Preface xxx;
transcribers of 38, 481;
recited 246, 301;
frequent quotations by Shaikh Zain 553 to -6, 559 to -74;
quoted on a Samarkand arch 77;
sworn on 179, 557;
Shaibānī makes exposition of 329;
a collection of homonymous verses 285;
Sale's Intro, referred to 562-3.
Quatremère, E.—(_N. et Ex._) 446-59, (_J. des Savans, 1843_) 605.
_Qirānu's-sa`dain_, Amīr Khusrau—a couplet quoted 503 (H.B.).
+Noticeable words:+—
_qābāq_ 34;
_qāchār_ (punned on) 44;
_qārī_ (a measure) 7;
_qarā-tīyāq_ 101, 103;
_qāzāqlar_ (guerilla times) 35;
_qāptāl_ (part of a saddle) 253;
_qūba-yūzlūq_ (fat-faced) 14;
_qurchī_ (armourer, life-guardsman) _i.a._ 188, 288;
_qūchīn_ = _mīng-begī_ 26, 40;
_qūrghān_ (walled-town) _i.a._ 3, 5, 8, 10;
_qūrūq_ (reserved land) 81, 168, 197;
_qūshūq_ (improvised dance and song) 24;
_qumīz_ (fermented mare-milk) 155;
_qūchūsh_ (embrace) 160;
_qūlāch_ (a measure) 406.
_Races of Afghanistan_, H. W. Bellew—Khīlīch 29 (_where read title
as above_).
Raft—(Farghāna) 161, 180;
(Kābul) 410-11-12-21-22-23, 447-8.
_Rāmacārita_, H. Sastri (_Memoirs, AS Bengal_) Nagarahāra App. E,
xxiii.
Rāmpūr MS. of Bābur's Diwān, Preface 1, App. Q.
Rapid travel—Aūrā-tīpa to Bābā Khākī 25;
Kishm to Qandahār 621;
Kābul to Āgra 621.
_Rashaḥāt-i-`ainu'l-ḥayāt_ [_Tricklings from the Fount of Life_]
`Alī _Kāshifī_— Khwājakī Khwāja 62;
Aḥrārī 620;
[_not known to Erskine_].
_Rauẓatu's-ṣafā_, Mīr Khwānd—referred to (?) 11;
Bābā-i-kābulī 14;
Hazārāspī 50;
a chronogram 85;
the Chaghatāī Khāns (908 AH.) 161.
_Récueils d'Itinéraires_, Th. Radloff—fruit as food in C. Asia 3, 114;
position of Yītī-kīnt 11;
elevation to Khānship 21;
Pul-i-mougak 68 (Khorochkine's art.);
battle-cries 163.
Reports:—
" _on the Ghilzai country_, J. S. Broadfoot [ed. W. Broadfoot]—birds
at Āb-istāda 240;
" _of the Indian Archeological Survey_, Cunningham & Ferguson—[_see
nn. on pp. named_], places Bābur visited 475-6;
a Gūālīār dynasty's term of rule 477;
Chandīrī 592-7, App. R, (plan);
Gūālīār 605-7 to 13;
App. R, (plan);
Saṃbhal 687;
—Annual Report 1914—_kos-mīnār_ 629;
" _on Karnal_, D. Ibbetson—Mundāhirs 700;
" _of Mission to Kāshghar_, Col. J. Biddulph's art.—_marāl_ 8;
" _Persian Boundary Commission_, W. T. Blanford's art.—_Pteroclas
arenarius_ App. B, vi;
—A. Gérard's art.—irrigation-channels of Aūsh (Ūsh) 4;
" _Settlement Operations etc._, Reid—old alluvium on the Gogrā
667;
narrowing of the river 669;
Reports (_I. O. Library_) I, VI, VII, J. Wood—vine-culture 210;
Ghūr-bund 214;
_bootr_ (a plant) 222;
climate-shed 229;
—VI, VII, D. Leach—204-5-6-13-38;
—IX, X, Alex. Burnes—Kābul 199;
unchanging trade-habits of Luḥānīs 235.
"Rescue-passage" 182, App. D;
Preface xlv (No. viii).
_Revenue Accounts_ (_Bengal_), F. Gladwin—dating of 935 AH. 629,
App. S;
_tanāb_-measure 630.
_Revenue resources of the Mughal Empire_, E. Thomas—coin-values 446;
_ṯamghā_ 553;
Sikandarī _tanka_ 577.
Revenues various—Farghāna 12,
Tātār Khān _Lūdī's_ 383,
Kābul-town 250,
Hindustān 520, App. P.
_Rhétorique_, Garçin de Tassy—_combinaisons énigmatiques_ 202.
_Ride from Samarkand to Herat_, N. Grodekoff (_trs.
Marvin_)—Pul-i-chīrāgh 69;
Chār-shaṃba 71.
_Riyazu's-salāṯīn_, Ghulām-i-husain—a Lūdī alliance 482.
Roads measured—Agra-Kabul 629;
Munīr to camp by horse-paces 666;
Chunār eastwards 659.
ruler, _misṯār_—a new one for copying the _Wālidiyyah-risāla_ 643.
_Russian Policy in Central Asia_, Grigorief (_Schuyler's Turkistan_
App. IV)—Bābur's embassy to Moscow App. Q, lxiii;
Peter the Great's embassy to Bukhara Preface p. liii.
Sachau, C.—on the _Malfūzāt-i-tīmūrī_ 653.
_Ṣāḥih-i-bukhārī_, Ismā`īl _Khartank_—his native land 76.
Sainthood—courage a witness to 90.
_Siyaru'l-muta`akhirīn_, Ghulām-i-ḥusain Khān—trepanning 105.
Salt, fidelity to 125, 440.
Samarkand begs—action of 52, 62, 86, 124-5.
Samarkandis—displeased with a Mīrzā 42;
overjoyed at his death 52;
no scarcity in a siege 64;
move against Bukhārā 65;
oppose Bābur 72;
their orthodoxy 75;
joy at Bābur's return 131-3.
Sanctuary 63.
_Sang-lākh_ _see_ Dictionaries.
Sārt, Sāīrt—Bābur's serviceable use of the name 6, 7, 149;
a "Sāīrt"'s blunder 169.
_Science of Language_, Max Müller—guest-tribes 227.
Scottish service for the _Bābur-nāma_, Preface xlvii, xlviii.
_Second Afghan War (Official Account)_—its maps 201-6, 229, 314-32;
Chār-dih 200;
Qandahār App. J, xxxiii;
`Alī-masjid 450;
a valuable book in following Babur's campaigns, 333.
_Second Journey through Persia_, J. J. Morier (Ḥājī Bābā)—a bird App.
B, vi.
Sects, Muḥammadan—Mātarīdiyah, Ash`ariyah, Abū Ḥanīfa's 75-6,
Shafi`ī 283;
Radīyān 625.
_Shāhī Kings of Kābul_, Sir Aurel Stein—200.
_Shāh-nāma_, Firdausī [_trs. Warner_] Chāchī bow, _khadang_ arrows 13;
much read 15;
Bāqī Tarkhān sketched 40;
a couplet 557;
a quatrain 571.
_Shaibānī-nāma_, Muḥ. Ṣāliḥ Mīrzā [_ed. Vambéry_]—[_see nn. on pp.
named_], writes "Shaibānī" not Shaibāq 12;
Sh.'s marriages, with Bābur's sister 17-8, 147,
and with Zuhra _Aūzbeg_ 126-8;
his dealings with Zuhra's son `Alī 126-8,
with Bābur 144-6-7,
with the Chaghatāī Khāns 182-3-4;
later action 191-2;
—Taṃbal 145, 244;
others 40, 62, 101, 196;
Chīn Ṣūfī 242-56;
Khusrau Shāh's jewels 144;
Oghlāt (Dūghlāt) 22;
Chirkas sword 65;
Khwāst a hell 221,
_bāghrī qarā_ App. B, v, vii;
the book and its author 64, 120-1-7 [_cf. Tuḥfa-i-Sāmī I.O. 655,
f. 342_].
_Shajarat-i Turk_, Abū'l-ghāzī Mīrzā [_ed. Fræhn, trs.
Désmaisons_]—[_see nn. on pp. named_], "Nurīm" Sherīm _etc._ 29;
an archer's mark 34;
_san_ = _dīm_ 154;
_tūghāī_, _tūqāī_ (bend of a river) 643;
a Shabān sulṯān 265;
of Bābur's descent _see_ its Introduction.
_Shajaratu'l-atrāk_, Aūlugh _Beg Shahrukhī_ (trs. Miles)—Bābur's
descent _see_ its Introduction.
_Sharaf-nāma_, Sharaf Khān (_trs. F. E. Charmoy_)—Battle of Jām 635.
Sharafu'd-dīn `Alī _Yazdī_—his book on enigmas 201;
his _Z̤afar-nāma_ (see _s.n._) Preface xxix.
Shaving—Bābur's first 187;
Humāyūn notes his in the B.N. 466;
beard shaved as punishment 404;
untrimmed by vow 552;
head shaved 408, 649.
Shī`a heresy—instances 258-62-86, 111 (and return);
Bābur's fatal Shī`a alliance, 347-54-55-61, Preface xxxv.
Sikh religion—Nānak's exposition to Bābur 461;
Nānak and Daulat Khān _ib._
_Siyāsat-nāma_ [_Traité de gouvernement_], Wazīr Niẕamu'l-mulk, [_ed.
C. Schefer_]—use of a whip in making count of an army 154.
Slaves—slave-women retaliate on their owner's murderers 63,
are captured at the Samarkand ditch 73,
taken by crocodiles 502;
slave-agents in poisoning Bābur 541;
—Shāh Beg's faithful slave _see_ Saṃbhal;
the chief-slave 346;
slave-trade between Hind and Kābul 202;
—Mīnglī Bībī, a slave-woman 269.
Song by Wordsworth recalled—the "undying fish" 305.
_Spanish Literature_, Ticknor—Montalvan on Lope de Vega 287.
_Sport and politics under an Eastern sky_, Lord Ronaldshay—_marāl_ 8.
_" and Travel_, F. C. Selous—_marāl_ 8.
Square seal—Abū-sa`īd's 28.
Standards (_tūgh_, _qūtās-tūgh_)—acclaimed 155;
bestowed 372 _etc._;
Bābur's 140-66 _etc._
_Sūlūku'l-mulūk_, Faẓl b. Ruzbahān _Isfahānī_—value as a source 348;
supports the form "Bābur" 356.
_Supplément etc._, R. Dozy _see_ Dictionaries.
Swimming—man and horse in mail 140, 237;
man and horse bare 237;
competition 401;
on bundles of reeds 673;
Bābur's (in mail) 140, 603-55-660-61.
+Noticeable words+:—
P. _sar-i-sabz_, green-head 66, 703;
P. _sar-kob_ 53-9[2964];
_sangur_ 232;
_sīghnāq_, a script App. Q, lxiii.
_T̤abaqāt-i-akbarī_, Niẕāmu'd-dīn Ahmad—[_see nn. on pp. named_],
Bāburī Script 228, App. Q, lxii;
_Jang-jang_ 370;
date of Shāh Beg's death 437;
Hazāras serve Bābur 457;
Gujrāt affairs 535;
Multan affairs 699;
Bābur's Kashmīr force 692-8;
the author's father 691;
proposed supersession in Hind of Bābur's sons 644-88-92-93,
discussed 702 ff.;
the book plagiarized 693.
" _-i-bāburi_, Shaikh Zainu'd-dīn _Khawāfī_ _see_ B.N. and Zain.
" _-i-nāṣirī_, Minhaj [_trs. Raverty_] Sātūq-būghrā Khān 29 [_where
read T̤abaqāt_];
Chandwāl 537;
quoted by Bābur 479;
described by Erskine 279;
used in Appendix E, xxiii.
_ṯamghā_ (_lit. stamp_), a transit or customs duty 250;
forms the revenue of Kābul town _ib._;
Ḥusain _Bai-qarā_ marks his stamps _Bih bud_ (_valid_) 271;
remission of 553-95;
a _ṯamghāchī_ clerk 629.
_Tārīkh-i-`ālam-arāī_, Mīr Sikandar—[_see nn. on pp. named_], its
Ṣafawī outlook 349;
T̤ahmasp's Aūzbeg campaign 622;
Battle of Jām 623;
insignificant appearance of `Ubaidu'l-lāh 636.
" _-i-badāyūnī_ see _Muntakhabu't-tawārīkh_.
" _-i-daudī_, `Abdu'l-lāh—"Shaikh" and "Mīān" interchangeable titles
457.
" _-i-firishta_, Muḥ. Qāsim _Firishta_ [_trs. Major-Gen.
J. Briggs_]—`Umar Shaikh 13;
a mistake 15;
Bābur's reluctance to rank himself with Tīmūr 134;
his single combats 329;
his sobriquet Qalandar 523;
his Embassy to Persia 540;
his siege of Chandīrī 596;
—Yar-i-`alī _Balāl_ 91;
Ghāzī Khan's literary culture 460;
the cognomen _jān-dār_ 566;
Badrū-ferry over Gogrā 667;
—value of the book as a source 208, 349, 694;
date of its revision 694.
_Tārīkh-i-Gūālīārwār_, Jalāl _Ḥiṣārī_ and Hirā-man—Gūāliār 605;
Khw. Raḥīm-dād 607, 688, 704.
" _-i-Hājī Muḥ_. _`Ārīf Qandahārī_—account of Qandahār 348.
" _-i-Khān-i-jahān Lūdī_, Ni`amatu'l-lāh—helped in his book by Haibat
Khan 693.
" _-i-rashīdī_, [Muḥ. ] Haidar Mirza _Dūghlāt_ [_ed. Ney Elias, trs.
E. D. Ross_]—+Places+:—Ālmalīgh 2;
Yītī-kīnt 11;
Qilāt-i-nādarī 263;
Qila`-i-ẕafar 21;
Herāt 306;
Qandahār [Insc.] App. J, xxxv;
+Tribes _etc._+:—tūmān-begs 17;
_qūchīn_ 26;
_chuhra-jirga_ App. H, xxvii;
Chaghatāīs and Mughūls distinguished 320;
Chaghatāī or Timurid supremacy 344,
Begchīks 50, 712
or Chīrās 155;
Tarkhāns 31;
Greek descent 317;
Jīgrāks 55;
Turkmān Hazāras 311;
+Persons+:—12—App. A, iii; 21, 23, 32, 48, 62;
Jahāngīr 183, 254-94-302, 195-242-56, 249-272, 273; 330-41-96-7,
409; 641; 694-6;
+Varia+:—fruit as food 3;
_yāk_, _qūṯās_ App. M, xlvii;
on joint-rule 293;
epoch-making events 20, 35, 158, 182, 350;
+Bābur+:—name 17;
character 194, 320;
Script App. Q, lxii;
disastrous expedition (910 AH.) 241;
relationships 246;
single combats 349;
Tramontane campaign 349 to 366;
hospitality to exiles 350;
a frontier affair 412;
onset of last illness 706;
+Haidar+:—his life saved 21;
descent and other particulars 22;
excuses his father 317;
his list of tribes and chiefs valuable 415;
his book of great and, perhaps, unique value for Bābur's
_lacunæ_ 347-8;
referred to Preface xxxiv, xxxviii;
his Codex xli, xlii (No. iv).
" _-i-salāṯīn-i-afāghana_, Aḥmad Yādgār [_part-trs. E. & D. vol.
I_]—Hindustan in 929 AH. 439-40;
Pānīpat 474;
Bābur's visit to Lāhor (936 AH.) 604-98 to 700, 703-6;
Mundāhirs 700;
anachronism 707;
Bābur's "selection" of a successor 707;
importance of its contribution for filling a _lacuna_ 693, 702-6.
" _-i-shahrukhī_, Niyāz Muḥ. _Khukandī_—tradition of a babe abandoned
358.
" _-i-sher-shāhī_, `Abbas Khān _Sarwānī_—"Shaikh" and "Mīān" 457;
`Aẕam Humāyūn 477;
Sher Khān _Sūr_ 659, 664.
" _-i-Sind_, Muḥ. Ma`ṣūm _Bhakkarī_—a chief authority 336, 428;
Shāh Beg 338, 427, (death) 437;
sieges of Qandahār 431 to 436;
the Inscription App. J, xxxiii.
Tarkhān—suitable meaning 31 [where add ref. E. & D.'s H. of I. i,
300, 20, 21, 498]
privileges nine 250;
not given to all Arghūn chiefs 249 n. 2;
a merchant Tarkhān 133;
marriages 49, Preface xxviii;
revolt 61 to 64, 86, 112;
see _s.n. Nine_ & H. Beveridge's note on Etruscan names.
_Tarkhān-nāma_ or _Arghūn-nāma_, Sayyid Jamāl—a useful source 428.
_Tawārīkh-i-guzīda_—(Select Histories)—fashions of sitting and
kneeling 33, 54-9;
Tūlūn Khwāja _Mughūl_ 66;
supplements the B. N. 127.
" _-i-ḥāfī-i-raḥmat-khānī_ (_part-trs. H. Beveridge_ AQR.
1901)—Bībī Mubār-ika's marriage with Bābur 375, App. K,
_An Afghan Legend_.
_Taẕkirātu'sh-shu`arā_ (_Memoirs of Poets_) Daulat-shāh
(_ed. Browne_)—[_see nn. on pp. named_], Akhsīkītī 9;
dates of Maḥmūd _Mīrān-shāhī's_ boyhood 46;
Aḥmad _Mushtāq_ 47;
Hazārāspī 50;
a couplet 85;
Ḥusain _Bāī-qarā_ 259-60-73;
Gāzur-gāhi's good birth 281;
Rabāt-i-sangbast 301-30;
Bih-būd Beg App. H, xxvi-vii;
Rādagān-(town) 622;
Jamī's birthplace 623;
—the author in the battle of Chīkmān-sarāī 46;
one of his collaterals 274.
" _-i-Sul[t]ān Sātūq-būghrā Khān_—a seeming descendant 29.
" _-i-T̤ahmāsp_, Shāh T̤ahmāsp _Ṣafawī_ (_ed. D. C. Phillott_)—Div
Sulṯān 635;
battle of Jām 636.
" _-i-Wāqi`āt_ (_var._) Jauhar (_trs. C. Stewart_)—outside literary
criticism 619;
a date at which Bābur's body lay near Kābul 709.
+Tents+—_ālāchūq_ 188;
_aūtāgh_ 339;
_aq-awi = chādar_ 169-88, 239, (flooded) 339, 678;
_chār-tāq_ 264;
_khar-gāh_ ( = _kibītka_, and _ālāchuq_ ?) 239, 678;
—_shamīāna_ (awning) 358;
_tūnglūq_ (roof-flap) 678;
_pesh-khāna_ 678.
_Thesaurus_, Meninsky—_bāghrīqarā_ cry App. B, vi;
_baḥrī-qūṯās_ App. M, xlvi.
Thomas, F. W., Ph.D.—his help App. J, lxxiv with Preface lii.
Thorn-defences 487.
Timūr-pūlād, buys a Codex of the _W'āqi`nāma-i-padshahī_ _q.v._
_Three (Turkī) MSS. from Kāshghar_ [_ed. Sir E. Denison Ross_]—the
title _Jūn-wang_ 567.
_Through unknown Pamirs_, O. Olufsen—yāk App. M, xlvii.
The Times—on diverse names of a single place 209.
Tongues and utterance—Andijān Turkī 4;
Farsī (Persian)-speaking Sārts of Asfara 7;
Kābul's polyglot tongues 207;
Mughūlī-speaking Hazāras;
Bābur on clipped Hindustanī utterance 380,
and on the words Kās and Sawālak 485.
Trade—202-35, 331, 416-85.
Traditions—4, 5;
one versed in 283-4.
Translators:—Bābur [_Wal.-ris._];
E. C. Bayley (_Mirāt_);
A. S. Beveridge [_s.n._];
H. Beveridge [_s.n._];
H. Blochmann [_s.n._];
H. S. Jarrett [_Ayīn_];
J. Briggs [_Tar.-i-fir._];
F. C. Charmoy [_Sharaf-n._];
W. Clarke [Dīwān-i-Ḥ.];
A. P. de Courteille [_Méms._];
Delmar-Morgan [_Mong._];
Desmaisons [_Shaj.-i-Turk_];
E. B. Eastwick [_Gul._];
H. M. Elliot and J. Dowson [_H. of I._];
Forster & Daniel [_Life of O. de B._];
C. Hamilton [_Hidāyat_];
W. H. Lowe & G. S. A. Ranking [_Munt._];
H. E. Lloyd [_Travels_];
G. du Laurens [_Voyages_];
C. E. Markham [_Embassy_];
R. Marvin [_Ride_];
W. Ouseley [_Or. Geo._];
F. Pélis de la Croix, _elder & younger_ [_Histoire_];
G. S. A. Ranking [see _Lowe; and `Arūz_];
H. G. Raverty [_T̤ab.-i-n._];
M. Reinaud [_Geo._];
G. Sale [_Qorān_];
B. R. Sanguinetti & T. Lee [_Travels_];
H. Sastri [_Rama._];
C. Stewart [_Taẕ._];
A. Vambéry [_Shai.-n._];
Warner [_Shāh-n._];
E. H. Whinfield [_Mas. and `Umar_].
Transliteration 2.
Transmigration 518.
_Travels in Bukhara_, Sir Alex. Barnes—[_see nn. on pp. named_],
_nuzla_, a Panj-āb disease 446;
water-fall fishing 227;
" _in Europe and Asia_, Peter Mundy (_ed. Sir R. Temple_)—_baoli_
(a well) 533;
Gūālīār 605.
" _in India_, Pietro della Vallé—the morning-draught 395.
" _of Ibn Batūta_ (_trs. Sanguinetti & Lee_)—Samarkand the Protected
City 75, Add. N.P. 75;
Kajwarra 590;
Raḥīm-dād 693; 704.
" _in Kashmir_, G. T. Vigne—_yāk_ and _kosh-gau_ App. M, xlv-vii.
" _in Panj-āb_ (_etc._), Mohan Lall—Herāt 305-6;
Qandahār Insc. App. J;
Bābur's burial-place 710.
" _of the Russian Mission_, G. Timkovsky [_trs. H. E. Lloyd_] fruit as
food 3.
" _on the Upper and Lower Amoor_, T. W. Atkinson—_marāl_ 8.
_Tribes and Castes of the N. W. P. and Oude_, W. Crooke—Jats 454;
Nuḥānī (or Luhānī) 455;
Jaghat (serpent) 456;
Tānk 481.
Tribes and other groups:—
+Afghān+:—`Abdu'r-raḥmān 403;
Afrīdī 411-2;
Aūghān 217-20;
Aūrūq-zāī 526;
Bīlūt 248;
Bīrkī 207;
Dilah-zāk 231, 367-94, 412-3;
Dilah-zāk Ya`qūb-khail 394;
Gagīānī 251;
Ghiljī 323-31;
`Isa-khail 233;
Jasawāl _var._ Jaswān 462;
Jalwānī _see_ Index I;
Khattak 439;
Khirilchī 208-20-49-413;
Khiẓr-khail 413;
Khūgīānī 220;
Kīwī 233;
Kūrānī, Kārānī, Kararānī 233, 477;
Landar 220;
Lūdī 481, Index I;
Lūdī _khaṣa-khail_ _i.e._ Sahū-khail 465;
Lūdī Sarang-khānī 540, 654;
Luḥānī _see_ Nuḥanī;
Mahmand 221, 323-31-45;
Muḥammad-zāī 376 (_where read as here_);
Nīā-zāī 233;
Nuḥānī 235 (_cf. 455 n. 3_), Index I;
Pānī 540;
Pashāī(?) 207;
Samū-khail (Khīrīlchī?) 412;
Sūr 233;
Tarkalānī 242, 424;
Tūrī 220;
Wazīrī 413;
Yūsuf-zāī 231, 371-3-5-6, 400-10-19;
—Afghāns of Bhīra 399,
Ghazni 218,
Sind riverain 218-36,
Kābul 207-21;
—Afghān thieves 208, 341;
Afghān warrings in Hind 426,
and power 480-1;
serving Bābur 522;
bad-mannered 451;—
+Aūz-beg+ ("_Ūzbeg_"):—2, 37, 135, 622, Index I;
Aūz-beg Qāzzāq ("_Cossack_") 23;
Aūz-beg Mankfīt 195;—
+Chaghatāī+ (_i.e._ Chaghatāī Khān's tribal appanage):—extinct but
for their Khāns in 1547 (953 AH.) _Tār. Rash._ trs. 149;
near Herī 320, 689;
its Kohbur clan 55;
high families in, Sighal 66, 72, Nawā'ī's (_Index I_);
distinguished from Mughūls 320, 351,
Turks 340;—
+Mughūls of the Horde+:—105-92;
_tūmans_ (_groups of 10,000_):—Bārīn 19, 473;
Begchīk 155;
Chīrās 158;
Sāghārīchī 20;
_sub-divisions_ (?):—Bīshāghī (_var._) 473;
Darbān 60;
Itārajī 161, 415;
Jalair 91;
Kūnchī 20;
Qālmāq 23;
Manghīt 101[2965];
—Mughūl devastation 2, 98, 172, 362;
faithlessness 105, 140 _etc._;
conduct on the Chīr 17, 31-4;
the Horde divided 19;
its dislike for cultivated lands 12;
its _āīmāqs_ in open land 221-54-55;
return from enforced migration 20, 350-1;—
+Turk+:—Afshār 354;
Aūīghūr (_Awīghūr_, _Uīghūr_) 40, 118;
its Ishrit clan 40, 65;
Barlās 51, 429, Index I;
Barlās Dūldāī 25, 37;
Daryā-khānī 231, 589;
Istiljū 353;
Khilij 482;
Qīpchāq 19, 49;
—Turks of Andijān 4,
Kabul-lowlands 207-15-21;
early Turk rulers of Kābul 200;
contrasted with Sārts 149;
—Uses of the name, "Mughūl and Turk" 158, 402,
"Chaghatāī and Turk" 340;
"Turk and Tīmūrid" one 380-2-4-8-9;
probable statement of B.'s descent 320;
his claim to rule in Hind, based on Turk descent 380-2-4, 476-9;
Turk warning to Bīāna 529;—
+Turkmān+:—White-sheep Horde 49 (_where read White for "Black"_);
—its Bahārlū clan 49;
its Balāl 911 and Bayandar 279;
—Black-sheep Horde 10;
Qajar 666;
Turkmāns serve Bābur 47, 279, 361;
—features 111;
—Hazāras (_infra_);
Tūrūq-shār 101;—
+Various+:—`Arab 207, 522, 631;
Arlāt (Turk?) 265;
Ashpārī 101;
Asiqānchī [_var._ Saqānchī] 197;
Balūchī 383, 459, 522;
Bengali (race) 482;
Būgīāl 452;
Kāfir 212-3, 342-72, 421;
Kakar (_var._) 387-9;
Kas 484;
Kīb (or Kītib) 393;
Meos 577;
Farsī (Persian, race) 7, 207, 507-55;
Ghiyās-wāl (or -dāl) 393;
Gūjūr 250, 379-87, 454;
Habshi 483;
Janjuha-khail and Jūd-khail 379-80-87;
Jats 250, 387, 454;
Jīgrāk (_var._) 55, 101;
Nīkdīrī (_var._) 196-7, 200-1-7, 275, 326, 430 (_cf. E. & D. iv,
304, Tukdari_)
Nīl-ābī 379 (_see Index II_);
Parājī 207;—
Rājpūt;—
Chūhān 573,
Tānk sept 481;—
Tājik 6, 207, 420, 535;—
+Hazāra+ (1000):—Gadāī or Kīdī 250,
Qārlūq 391-3, 403;
Rustāq [or Rusta] 196;
Sl. Mas`ūdī 221-8, 525;
Turkmān 27, 214-51, 311 to 313;
+Hazāras+:—w. of Kābul 200-7-22, 430;
e. of the Sind 457, 522;
in the open country of Ghazni 218,
Kābul 221,
Heri-rūd valley 308;
refuge taken amongst 95;
traversed 254.
Tribute—Jīgrāk 55,
Ghazni 240,
Yūsuf-zāī 375,
Bhīra 384,
Kakar 391,
Bajaur and Sawād 400,
Balkh 402;
Nijr-aū 421;
Koh-i-jūd 379.
_Tuḥfa-i-sāmī_ (_a Turkī anthology_), Sām M. _Ṣafawi_—Marwārīd 278;
syphilis 279;
a jeer 648.
The twelve Imāms, 258, 354.
Turkī tongue, Preface xxvii, Cap. iv.
_Turkistan_, Alex. Petzhold—Ṣārts 6.
" E. Schuyler—[_see nn. on pp. named_],
+Farghāna+:—extent of 2,
various 5, 6, 8;
(wind) 9;
(out-of-doors life) 29;
_kūk-būrā_ (a game) 39;
Old Akhsī App. A;
Ṣārts 6;—
+Samarkand+:—67, 74-5-7, 83,
(Aūrgūt) 68;
Kesh 83;
+Various+:—Sarā-tāq pass 129;
Lake Iskandar _ib._ Hazrat Turkistan (shrine) 356;
a distance 9;
a lizard 501;—
Bābur's Moscow Embassy App. Q, lxiii;
Gregorief's _Russian Policy_, (_App. iv trs._) Preface, liii.
" Franz v. Schwarz—autumn fever 4;
running-waters 4,
recipe for _ma`jūn_ 16;
_yīghāch_ (measure) 4;
a Kīrghis measure 196;
loess constructions 30;
_charkh_ (a hunting bird) 224;
Mogol-tau 8;
duties of the Lord of the Gate 24;
_kūk būrā_, _baiga_ 39;
Greek descent 22; various App. A, v.
_Tūzūk-i-jahāngīrī_, Jahāngīr Pādshāh (_trs. Rogers and
Beveridge_)—Bugials 452;
Daulat Khān _Lūdī_ 461;
measures 189;
birds 497;
_kīshmīsh_ 515;
couplet 670;
metrical amusement App. Q, lxvi-vii;
its titles for Bābur varied _ib._ lxi;
Jahāngīr's additions to the B.N. App. D, xiii, Preface xlv
(No. viii), lii;
his pilgrimage to B.'s burial-garden App. V, lxxx;
his stay in B.'s Garden _ib._
+Noticeable words+:—
_tabalghū_, a tree 11;
_tāsh-chantāī_, outside bag (?) 160;
_ṯāsh_, stone confused with _tāsh_, outer 3, 43, 78, 80, 160;
_ṯaūrī_, complete, enclosed 109, 280, 501 (_where this better
describes the koel's song_);
_tipūchāq_ a horse and its points 38;
_tīr-gīẓ_, arrow 34;
_tīrik_ 36, 362;
P. _tū_, turn of a hill 205-8 _etc._;
_tūlūk_ vegetable food, other than grain 114;
_tūn-yārīm_, half-dark 100;
_tūrā_ (ordinances) 38;
_tūrā_ (army mantelets) 108-13-55, 368, 469, 593;
_tūmān_, 10,000, a district command 17;
_tūq-bāī_, one using a standard 313;
_tūlghuma s.n._ Military;
_tusqāwal_ 224, 314;
_tūghāī_ and _tuqāī_ 643.
_`Umar Khayyām's Quatrains_ (_trs. E. H. Whinfield_)—a couplet Babur's
words recall 203.
_Upper Basin of the Kābul-river_, Sir C. Markham (_PRGS.
1879_)—Hindu-kush passes 204,
maps of Koh-i-baba 216.
Veliaminof-Zernof, editor of the _Sharaf-nāma_ 635 and _Abūshqa_
App. Q, lxiii.
_Vergleichunge-Tabellen des Muh. and Christlichen Zeitrechnung_,
F. Wüstenfeld—dates of 935 AH. 629, App. S.
Verses:—of untraced authorship 332, 316 and 670;
verse-making 15, 22, 38-9, 46, 54, 111, 136-7, 154;
Bābur's opinion of Nawā'ī's Turkī verse 271;
Shaibanī's verses made public 329;
composition on a model 448;—
Metrical amusements 585-6, App. Q, lxv-vi.
Vikramāditya Era 79 (where _read_ began).
Virgil—citron-juice as an antidote 511;
Scorpio and Libra 623.
_Visit to Ghuzni_ (_etc._), G. T. Vigne—[_see nn. on pp. named_],
boundary between Afghāns and Khurāsān 200;
Kābul-river _ib._;
`Uqābain 201;
rhubarb 203;
ṣāḥibī-grapes 203;
Dūr-nāma 215;
Running-sands 215;
Pāmghān villages 216;
_arghwān_ 217;—
various:—218-9, 224, 227;
"Tānk" for Tāq 233;
routes 208, 235;
Bīlah on the Indus 237; _see_ App. E, xxiii.
_Visit to Kafiristan_, W. W. Macnair (_PRGS. 1884_)—Nīng-nahār App.
E, xxiii.
_Voyage dans le Turkistan_, Fedtschenko (_trs. G.
du Laurens_)—Sang-aina, Mirror-stone, 7.
" _dans l'Asie septentrionale_, P. S. Pallas—_āq kīyīk, argālī_
(Ovis poli) 6.
" _des Pélerins Bouddhistes_, S. A. Julien—Nanganahāra App. E, xviii.
_Voyages en Perse et autres lieux d'Orient_, Jean
Chardin—lovers'-marks 16;
square seal 28;
Sīkīz-yīldūz, Eight-stars 139;
_kipkī_ "casbeké" (a coin) 296;
epistolary etiquette 332.
_Wāqi`-nāma-i-pādshāhī_ (Record of Royal Acts), `Abdu'l-wahhāb
_akhund_ of Ghajdāvān (1709)—(_found mentioned as the Bābur-nāma,
the "Bukhārā Bābur-nāma" and the "Bukhārā Compilation"_)—for its
seeming author's colophon JRAS. 1900, p. 474 and Preface lvii;
its divergence from the true text Preface xxxix,
its element of true text (Kāmrān's tattered Codex) li;
its dual purpose xxxix, lxii;
its character xl;
its stop-gaps xlv;
its use by Leyden xlviii;
+Described+ (_as it is in Kehr's transcript_):—Preface, Cap. III,
Parts I and III; its history liii, author and colophon lvii,
(_cf._ JRAS. 1900, p. 474);
its identity confused with Bābur's true text Preface, Cap. III,
Part III;
ITS DESCENDANTS AND OFFTAKES Table lvii;—
(_a_) Petrograd F. O. Codex (_an indirect copy_ (?)), described
by purchaser as _Bābur-nāma_, Preface xliii-iv;
(_b_) Pet. F. O. School of Oriental Languages Codex, entitled
_Bābur-nāma_, scribe G. J. Kehr—referred to _in
loco_:—diction of the Farghāna Section 1, of the Kābul
Sect. 187, of the Hindūstān Sect. 445;
its Persified character exemplified 147, 150, 167, and Add.
Note, 177, (_cf. JRAS. 1908, pp. 76, 88_);
its Latin version App. J, xxxv, Preface liv;—
Other references 9, 18, 19, 44-8, 88, 164, 169;
+Full contents+:—Preface lii;
their reconstruction by Ilminski lii-iv, (_cf. his own Preface
JRAS. 1900 and a separate form in B.M., I.O., R.A.S. Libraries,
etc._);
the "Fragments" Preface xlv (No. viii), lii, (_in loco_) 438,
549, (_a discussion_) 574, 630, 640 (_cf._ JRAS. 1900-6-8);
(_c_) The "_Bābur-nāma_" Imprint (_constructed and edited by_)
N. I. Ilminski—referred to _in loco_, App. D, 227-59, 336,
420, App. I, xxxii;
modelled on the L. and E. _Memoirs of Baber_ 326, 337, App. T,
lxxiv, Preface lii (_cf. Ilminski's Preface ref. supra_), 574;
Preface:—its Kasan publication li;
its deviation from its sole basis (_Kehr's Codex_) lii;
Ilminski's work and some results lii, with n. 1 mid-page, liv;
his doubts and achievement of a Turki reading book _see_ hi
s own Preface ref. _supra_;
(_d_) _Mémoires de Bāber_, (_French trs. of Ilminski's
Bābur-nāma_) A. Pavet de Courteille—referred to _in
loco_, 215, 227, 346, 347, 407, 446, 478, 489, 559, 632,
App. T, lxxviii, App. M, xlv;—
the _Mubīn_ not recognized 449, 630;
an illness 619;
mistakenly controverted 468;
surmised ground on which it accepted the "Rescue Passage" App.
D, xiv;
its help in considering Shaikh Zain's compositions 553, 559;—
questioned readings 223-5, 327-33-69, 421 (_chīūrtīka_), 462-70,
534, 617-19-38-40-47;
a surmise discussed 574;—
reviewed by Defrémery 562;
its title Preface xxxiii, translation li, source liv, diction
lix.
Water—water-thief 109,
-road 595;
dug for 234;
under-ground courses of 417.
Wedding-gifts—43, 400.
Wednesday (_Chār-shaṃba_)—coincidences of the day 71.
Wells—chambered (_wāīn_, _baoli_) 532-3;
dug 548, 552;
purified when new 634.
White cloth—traded 202;
booty 233-4-5-7-8.
Whiteway, Mr. R. S.—his help App. B, vii.
Wilāyat = Kābul 414.
_With the Kuram Field-Force_, J. A. S. Colquhoun—a route 231.
Wine (_i.e. any fermented liquor_)—_`arāq_ (spirit) 385-6-7-8,
453-61-76;
mahuwa-flower 505;
beer 423;
cider (_chagīr_) 83, Add. Note, P. 83;
wines of Bukhārā 83,
Herī 265,
Kābul:—Ālā-sāī 221,
Dara-i-nūr 210, 410, App. G;
Ghazni 461,
Kābul-_tumān_ 203,
Nijr-aū 213;—
Kāfiristan 211-12, 372;—
+rules in use+:—drinking-days 33-4, 111, 447;
one liquor only 386;
no-pressure on a non-drinker 406-10;
+wine-parties+:—Bābur protests against excess 398;
excludes drunkards 419,
is disgusted by drunken uproar 386
and by beer-intoxication 423;
gives his followers freedom to do as Herātīs did 304;
givers of "wines", Khw. Kalān 371-5, 461,
Shāh Beg 400,
the Bāī-qarā Mirzas 299, 302,
Khw. Muḥ. `Alī 411 (a business-party), 413;—
+Bābur's breaches of Law+ not committed till _cir._ his 28th year
83, 355;
resisted temptation in Herāt 299, _etc._—
his parties associated with beauty of scene, _e.g._ autumnal
414-16-18;
in his gardens 412, 406 and 420;
under a plane-tree 405,
at Istālīf 406,
near an illuminated camp 450;
after and before long marches (_frequent_); mention made of
(925 AH.) 375-85-88, 408-10-14-15-16-17-19;
(926 AH.) 420-1-2-3-4;
(932 AH.) 447, 450-53-61;
(933 AH.) 537;—
drinks a few cups to console 418,
out of courtesy in a charmless place 424;
"morning" 395-8, 415-20-22;
gallops when not sober 388-98;—
+Other Law-breakers+ Preface xxix, 16, 33-4, 45, 70, 134, 259-68-73,
(woman) 36, 417;
Herātīs 259,
Ḥiṣāris 42,
Pich-Kāfirs 22;—
+Parties accompanied+ by improvisation 26,
dancing 299, music (_usually_);
(_for return to obedience see Law and Index I s.n. Bābur_).
Wordsworth's "undying fish" recalled 305.
Workmen—Tīmūr's 77, 520;
Bābur's 520, 634.
Wray, Mr. Cecil and Mr. Leonard—their help 495, 502.
Yajuj and Majuj (_Gog and Magog_) 560.
Yāqūt _see_ Dictionary of Towns.
+Noticeable words+:—
_Yada-tāsh_, jade-stone _see_ Magic;
_yāghrūnchī_, divination from sheep's-blades 233;
_yīghāch_, tree, wood 11, 81;
_yīghāch_ _see_ Measures;
_yīgīt_, a brave 16, 53, 70, App. H, xxvii;
_yīlāq_, alp see _i.a._ Yār- and Būrka-;
_yīnka-chīcha_, maternal-uncle's mother-in-law (?);
_yīnkalīk_, levirate 23, 267, 306, 616;
_yūkūnmāk_, to bend the knee 301;
_yūsūnlūq_, hereditary 23.
_Z̤afar-nāma_ (Book of Victory _i.e._ Tīmūr's) Maulana Sharafu'd-dīn
`Ali _Yazdī_—[_see nn. on pp. named_], places 10, 74-8, 83-4;
persons 39, 272;
meaning of Sawālak 485;
Tīmūr's capture of Qarshī 134;
his burial at a saint's feet 266;
his workmen 77, 520;
partly translated in _Histoire de Tīmūr Beg q.v._;
the book and its main basis, the _Malfūzāt-i-tīmūrī_ Preface xxix,
xxx,
its author xxxiii.
Zainu'd-dīn _Khawāfī_ (Shaikh Zain)'s writings—
(1) _T̤abaqāt-i-bāburī q.v._;
(2) _Mubīn_, a Commentary on Bābur's _Mubīn_ 438;
(3) _Farmān_ announcing Bābur's renouncement of wine and remission
of _ṯamghā_-tax 553;
(4) _Fatḥ-nāma_ of the victory at Kānwa 559 to 574;
Bābur's reason for inserting it (4) in his book 559;
the sole Letter of victory so preserved 561;
grounds against supposing Bābur wrote a plain Turkī account of the
battle 574.
OMISSIONS FROM TRANSLATION AND FOOTNOTES.
p. 7 l.1 "turbulent" _add_ They are notorious in Mawara'u'n-nahr for
their bullyings.
p. 27 l.5 "(1504)" _add_ when, after taking Khusrau Shah, we besieged
Muqim in Kabul.
p. 31 l.1 "paid" _add_ no (attention).
p. 43 l.9 _enter_ f. 24_b_.
_ib._ l.8 fr. ft. "Taghai" _add_ and Auzun Hasan.
p. 45 Sec. c, l.2 "good" _add_ he never neglected the Prayers.
p. 48 l.16 "grandmother" _add_ Khan-zada Begim.
p. 52 l.4 fr. ft. "childhood" _add_ and had attained the rank of Beg.
p. 88 l.9 Hasan _add_ and Sl. Ahmad Tambal.
p. 92 l.8 "on" _add_ to Sang-zar.
p. 95 l.12 "service" _add_ did not stay in Khurasan but.
p. 128 l.18 "two" _add_ young (sons).
p. 131 l.12 "Jan-wafa" _add_ Mirza.
p. 134 l.7 fr. ft. "that" _add_ night that.
_ib._ l.3 fr. ft. "was" _add_ in my 19th (lunar) year.
p. 136 l.5 "was" _add_ in my 19th (lunar) year.
p. 139 l.11 fr. ft. _read_ Jani Beg Sultan.
p. 141 l.10 "Khusrau Shah" _add_ my highly-favoured beg Qambar-i-ali
_the Skinner Mughul_, not acting at such a time as this according
to the favour he had received, came and took his wife from
Samarkand; he too went to Khusrau Shah.
p. 143 l.16 "that" _add_ near Shutur-gardan.
p. 152 l.12 fr. ft. "dead" _add_ A few days later we went back
to Dikh-kat.
p. 164 Sec. d, l.6 fr. ft. "for" _add_ Sairam.
p.201 l.12 _read_ Kabul-fort.
p. 205 l.10 fr. ft. _read_ "are closed for" 4 or 5 months in winter.
After crossing Shibr-tu people go on through Ab-dara. In the heats,
when the waters come down in flood, these roads have the same rule
as in winter ("because" _etc._).
p. 217 l.11 "Sih-yaran" _add_ It became a very good-halting-place.
I had a vineyard planted on the hill above the seat.
p. 221 Sec. h, at the beginning _insert_ The mountains to the eastward
of the cultivated land of Kabul are of two kinds as also are those
to its westward ("Where the mountains" _etc._).
p. 230 last line "men" _add_ Khusrau _Gagiani_.
p. 247 l.1 "Qush-nadir" _add_ meadow.
p. 308 l.14 "ground" _add_ Moreover it snowed incessantly and after
leaving Chiragh-dan, not only was there very deep snow but the road
was unknown.
p. 391 March 18th "darogha-ships" _add_ Sangur Khan Qarluq and
Mirza-i-malui Qarluq came leading 30 or 40 men of the Qarluq elders,
made offering of a horse in mail, and waited on me. Came also the
army of the Dilah-zak Afghāns.
p. 393 March 25th l.2 "out" _add_ from the river's bank.
p. 454 l.5 "boat" _add_ There was a party; some drinking _`araq_, some
beer. After leaving the boat at the Bed-time Prayer, there was more
drinking in the _khirgah_ (tent). For the good of the horses, we
gave them a day's breathing on the bank of this water.
p. 468 l.3 "sent" _add_ Yunas-i-'ali and Ahmadi and ("`Abdu'l-lah").
p. 484 l.1 "Rao" _add_ with four or five thousand Pagans.
p. 498 (_s.n._ florican), "colour" _add_ The flesh of the florican is
very delicate. As the _kharchal_ (Indian buzzard) resembles the
_tughdaq_ (great buzzard) so the _charz_ (florican) resembles the
_tughdiri_.
_ib._ (_s.n._ sand-grouse) "Tramontana" _add_ the blackness of its
breast is less deep, its cry also is sharper.
p. 500 after l. 11 "eagle" _add_ (new para.) Another is the buzzard
(T. _sar_); its tail and back are red.
p. 506 (_s.n._ _kamrak_) "long" _add_ It has no stone.
p. 507 n. 3 "name" _add_ also; "plantain" _add_ (banana).
p. 510 l. 5 see App. O, p. liv for _addendum_.
p. 529 l. 4 fr.ft. "Dulpur" _add_ Gualiar.
p. 595 l. 19 "other" read 2 or 3 (places); the Pagans in the _du-tahi_
began to run away; "the _du-tahi_ was taken."
p. 603 l. 7 fr.ft. "(366_b_)" _add_ and between Ghazipur and Banaras
(p. 502).
p. 674 l. 2 "river" _add_ in his mail.
p. 678 l. 2 "amirs" _add_ Sultan.
p. 679 l. 8 fr.ft. "given" _add_ It was settled that a son of each of
them should be always in waiting in Agra; l. 7 fr.ft. "Araish"
_add_ and two others; l. 2 fr.ft. "Saru" _add_ towards Oude.
p. 689 l. 2 fr.ft. "laks" _add_ and a head-to-foot (dress).
App. Q l. 1 "interpret" add those of.
CORRIGENDA.
_To ensure notice many of these are entered in the Indices._
Pages
6 l.4 "meadow" _read_ plain (_maidan_).
11 n.4, "siyar" unaccented; (H.S.) ii _read_ iii n.n. pp. 18, 38, 48,
244.
12 n.4 l.3 "attack in" _read_ attacking.
14 l.3 "and" _read_ who.
16 l.10 n. ref. "3" _tr. to_ "amorous".
24 n.1 "932" _read_ 923.
27 para. 2 _read_ "Baba `Ali Beg's Baba-quli".
28 l.8 "leaders" _read_ Mughul mirzadas.
29 n.6 l.5 "then" _read_ his.
37 l.8 "916" _read_ 917; and tr. nn. 2 and 3.
38 l.9 "favour" _run on_ to Ahmad.
44 l.9 55 l.12 _delete_ "Sayyid".
46 l.12 _read_ Chikman.
49 l.3 "Black" _read_ White.
51 l.12 fr. ft. "Badakhshan" _read_ Hisar.
55 "f. 34" _read_ f. 32_b_.
57 l.1, enter f. 33 and _move_ "f. 33_b_" to 58 l.2.
61 l.4 "Beg" _read_ Baba-quli Beg.
68 l.10 fr. ft. _tr._ n. ref. 4 to "Aurgut".
69 n.2, read _aunutung_; and _tr._ _nakunid_ and _bakunid_.
79 l.5 tr. n. ref. 3 to _qibla_; in author's n. _read_ Batalmius;
and in n.4 _read_ _Ayin_.
85 l.9 _read_ 851 A.H.-1447 A.D.; l.3 fr. ft. _move_ "Jumada I, 22,
855 A.H." to p.86 l.1, after "years".
94 l.6 "Chirik" _read_ Char-yak.
95 l.2 fr. ft. "Aubaj" _read_ Char-jui.
96 last line "Qasim" _read_ Kamal (or Kahal).
109 l.16 "qasim" _read_ qadus.
_ib._ n.5 l.3 _read_ grand "father".
117 n.2 "909" _read_ 908.
122 n.4 "_bulghar_" _read_ _buljar_.
129 l.14 "_daban_" _read_ _kutal_.
131 ll.3-4 fr. ft. _read_ Khan-quli and Karim-dad.
134 l.3 fr. ft. and 136 l.5 _read_ in my 19th (lunar) year.
144 para. 3 "rain" _read_ grain.
148 n.2 "f. 18" _read_ f. 118.
149 l.17 _read_ Khanim.
154 n.3 "f. 183_b_" _read_ f. 103_b_ and for f. 264_b_ _read_ f. 264.
168 Sect. heading "Kasan" _read_ Karnan.
175 l.11 _read_ Mirza-quli.
183 last line "Kulja" _read_ Khuldja.
192 l.3 _read_ Taliqan.
194 l.12 _read_ Quhlugha.
_ib._ n.3 _read_ Bai-sunghar.
204 l.16 _read_ Curriers'.
205 l.5 _read_ Sir; l.13 _read_ Wa(lian); l.14 _read_ Qibchaq.
205 l.10 fr. ft. "three or four" _read_ four or five (cf. omissions
p. 205).
211 para. 3, end, "920" _read_ 924.
212 n.2 l.2 _read_ _chiqmaq_.
213 n.5 "_parwan_" _read_ _parran_; and nn.5, 6, 7 _read_ Blanford.
244 ll.8 and 25 "page" _read_ preferably, brave; l.19 _read_
gallopers.
273 n.2 _read_ grand-"daughter".
282 n.3 l.2 "345" _read_ 348-9.
289 l.5 "wonderful" _read_ metaphorist.
342 mid-page _read_ Pur-amin.
344 last line "Appendix" _read_ Trs.' note 711.
351 l.15 "Akhsi" _read_ Archian.
387 n.3 _delete_ sentence 2.
410 last line "_khuntul_" _read_ _hunzal_.
414 l.2 "18th" _read_ 13th; and l.2 fr. ft. "purslain" _read_ poplar.
438 l.15 "son" _read_ grandson.
447 n.3 para. 2 l.1 "month" _read_ week.
470 n.l. 5 fr. ft. "p.66" _read_ p. 166.
482 n.3 "Gujrat" _read_ Malwa.
485 sec. e l.7 "Gumti" _read_ Gui.
499 l.17 "_yak-rang_" _read_ _bak-ding_ (see Add. Note P. 499).
500 l.15 _s.n._ crow "_qarcha_" _read_ _qargha_; n.6 "f. 136"
_read_ f. 135.
505 l.6 tr. n. ref. "2" to, _buia_.
520 n.1 "1854" _read_ 1845.
534 l.2 fr. ft. "and" _read_ 932.
535 l.2 fr. ft. _delete_ "others".
579 l.8 "April 13th" _read_ April 3rd.
591 n.2 "_qurughir_" _read_ _quruqtur_.
604 n.l.1 _read_ _Afaghana_.
616 l.5 _read_ Madhakur; and Sect. m "_qara-su_" _read_ _darya
qaraghi_ or _qaraghina_.
620 l.7 _rahim_ _read_ _rahman_.
621 l.11 after "servants" _read_ Beg-gina "had come".
622 l.12 _read_ Siunjuk; l.13 Tashkint.
631 l.13 _delete_ the parenthesis (see Add. Note P. 631).
632 l.4 _read_ Farrukh.
636 l.7 "rest" _read_ eight others.
640 l.1 _read_ quli.
643 (Feb. 4th) "Muhammad" _read_ Mahmud.
644 n.5 "323" _read_ 232.
699 l.13 "935" _read_ 938.
713 l.3 _read_ Saliha; and l.11 fr. ft.
Miran-shahi.
ADDITIONAL NOTES
P. 16 l. 11.—Niẕāmī mentions "lover's marks" where a rebel chieftain
commenting on Khusrau's unfitness to rule by reason of his
infatuation for Shīrīn, says, "_Hinoz az`āshīqbāzī garm dāgh ast._"
(H.B.)
P. 22 n. 2.—Closer acquaintance with related books leads me to delete
the words "Chaghatāī Mughūl" from Ḥaidar _Dūghlāt's_ tribal
designations (p. 22, n. 2, l. 1). (1) My "Chaghatāī" had warrant (now
rejected) in Ḥaidar's statement (T.R. trs. p. 3) that the Dūghlāt
amirs were of the same stock (_abna`-i-jins_) as the Chaghatāī
Khāqāns. But the Dūghlāt off-take from the common stem was of earlier
date than Chīngīz Khān's, hence, his son's name "Chaghatāī" is a
misnomer for Dūghlāts. (2) As for "Mūghūl" to designate Dūghlāt, and
also Chaghatāī chiefs—guidance for us rests with the chiefs
themselves; these certainly (as did also the Begchīk chiefs) held
themselves apart from "Mughūls of the horde" and begs of the horde—as
apart they had become by status as chiefs, by intermarriage, by
education, and by observance of the amenities of civilized life. To
describe Dūghlāt, Chaghatāī and Begchīk chiefs in Bābur's day as
Mughūls is against their self-classification and is a discourtesy. A
clear instance of need of caution in the use of the word Mughūl is
that of `Alī-sher _Nawā'ī Chaghatāī_. (Cf. Abū'l-ghāzī's accounts of
the formation of several tribes.) (3) That "Mughūl" described for
Hindustānis Bābur's invading and conquering armies does not
obliterate distinctions in its chiefs. Mughūls of the horde followed
Tīmūrids when to do so suited them; there were also in Bābur's armies
several chiefs of the ruling Chaghatāī family, brothers of The Khān,
Sa`īd (_see_ Chīn-tīmūr, Aīsan-tīmūr, Tūkhta-būghā). With these must
have been their following of "Mughūls of the horde".
P. 34 l. 12.—"With the goshawks" translates _qīrchīgha bīla_ of the
Elph. MS. (f. 12_b_) where it is explained marginally by _ba bāzī_,
with the falcon or goshawk. The Ḥai. MS. however has, in its text,
_pīāzī bīla_ which may mean with arrows having points (_Sanglākh_ f.
144_b_ quoting this passage). Ilminski has no answering word (_Méms._
i, 19). Muḥ. _Shirāzī_ [p. 13 l. 11 fr. ft.] writes _ba bāzī
mīandākhtan_.
P. 39.—The _Ḥabību's-siyar_ (lith. ed. iii, 217 l. 16) writes of
Sayyid Murād _Āūghlāqchī_ (the father or g.f. of Yūsuf) that he (who
had, Bābur says, come from the Mughūl horde) held high rank under
Abū-sa`īd Mīrzā, joined Ḥusian _Bāī-qarā_ after the Mīrzā's defeat
and death (873 A.H.), and (p. 218) was killed in defeat by Amīr `Alī
_Jalāīr_ who was commanding for Yādgār-i-muḥammad _Shāh-rukhī_.
P. 49.—An _Aīmāq_ is a division of persons and not of territory. In
Mongolia under the Chinese Government it answers to khanate. A Khān
is at the head of an _aīmāq_. Aīmāqs are divided into _koshung_,
_i.e._ banners (_Mongolia_, N. Prejevalsky trs. E. Delmar Morgan, ii,
53).
P. 75 and n. 1.—For an explanation, provided in 94 AH., of why
Samarkand was called _Baldat-i-maḥfūẓa_, the Guarded-city, see
Daulat-shāh, Browne's ed. _s.n._ Qulaiba p. 443.
P. 85 n. 2.—The reference to the _Ḥabību's-siyar_ confuses two
cases of parricide:—`Abdu'l-laṯīf's of Aulugh Beg (853-1447) to which
Ḥ.S. refers [Vol. III, Part 2, p. 163, l. 13 fr. ft.] with (one of
7-628) Shīrūya's of Khusrau Parvīz (Ḥ.S. Vol. I, Part 2, p. 44, l. 11
fr. ft.) where the parricide's sister tells him that the murderer of
his father (and 15 brothers) would eventually be punished by God, and
(a little lower) the couplet Bābur quotes (p. 85) is entered (H.B.).
P. 154 n. 3.—The Persian phrase in the _Siyāsat-nāma_ which describes
the numbering of the army (T. _dīm kūrmāk_) is _ba sar-i-tāzīāna
shumurdan_. Schafer translates _tāzīāna_ by _cravache_. I have
nowhere found how the whip was used; (cf. S.N. Pers. text p. 15 l.
5).
P. 171 n. 1.—Closer acquaintance with Bābur's use of _daryā_, _rūd_,
_sū_, the first of which he reserves for a great river, casts doubt
on my suggestion that _daryā_ may stand for the Kāsān-water. But the
narrative supports what I have noted. The "upper villages" of Akhsī
might be, however, those higher up on the Saiḥūn-daryā (Sīr-daryā).
P. 189 and n. 1.—A third and perhaps here better rendering of _bī
bāqī_ is that of p. 662 (_s.d._ April 10th), "leaving none behind."
P. 196.—The _Habību's-siyar_ (lith. ed. iii, 250 l. 11 fr. ft.)
writes of _barādarān_ of Khusrau Shāh, Amīr Walī and Pīr Walī. As it
is improbable that two brothers (Anglicé) would be called Walī, it
may be right to translate _barādarān_ by brethren, and to understand
a brother and a cousin. Bābur mentions only the brother Walī.
P. 223 ll. 1-3 fr. ft.—The French translation, differing from
`Abdu'r-rahim's and Erskine's, reads Bābur as saying of the ranges
separating the cultivated lands of Kabul, that they are _comme des
ponts de trèfle_, but this does not suit the height and sometimes
permanent snows of some of the separating ranges.—My bald "(great)
dams" should have been expanded to suit the meaning (as I take it to
be) of the words _Yūr-ūnchaqā pul-dik_, like embankments (_pul_)
against going (_yūr_) further; (so far, _ūncha_). Cf. Griffiths'
_Journal_, p. 431.
P. 251.—Niẕāmī expresses the opinion that "Fate is an avenging
servitor" but not in the words used by Bābur (p. 251). He does this
when moralizing on Farhad's death, brought about by Khusrau's trick
and casting the doer into dread of vengeance (H. B.).
P. 266 n. 7.—On p. 266 Bābur allots three daughters to Pāpā Aghācha
and on p. 269 four. Various details make for four. But, if four, the
total of eleven (p. 261) is exceeded.
P. 276 para. 3.—Attention is attracted on this page to the unusual
circumstance that a parent and child are both called by the same
name, Junaid. One other instance is found in the _Bābur-nāma_, that
of Bābur's wife Ma`ṣuma and her daughter. Perhaps "Junaid" like
"Ma`ṣūma" was the name given to the child because birth closely
followed the death of the parent (_see_ _s.n._ Ma`ṣūma).
P. 277.—Concerning Bih-būd Beg the _Shaībānī-nāma_ gives the
following information:—he was in command in Khwārizm and Khīva when
Shaibānī moved against Chīn _Ṣūfī_ (910 AH.), and spite of his name,
was unpopular (Vambéry's ed. 184, 186). Vambéry's note 88 says he is
mentioned in the (anonymous) prose _Shaibānī-nāma_, Russian trs. p.
lxi.
P. 372 l. 2 fr. ft.—Where the Ḥai. MS. and Kāsān Imp. have _mu`āraẓ_,
rival, E. and de C. translate by representative, but the following
circumstances favour "rival":—Wais was with Bābur (pp. 374-6) and
would need no representative. His arrival is not recorded; no
introductory particulars are given of him where his name is first
found (p. 372); therefore he is likely to have joined Bābur in the
time of the gap of 924 AH. (p. 366), before the siege of Bajaur-fort
and before `Alā'u'd-dīn did so. The two Sawādī chiefs received gifts
and left together (p. 376).
P. 393 l. 4.—In this couplet the point lies in the double-meaning of
_ra`iyat_, subject and peasant.
P. 401.—Under date Thursday 25th Bābur mentions an appointment to
read _fiqah sabaqī_ to him. Erskine translated this by "Sacred
extracts from the Qorān" (I followed this). But "lessons in theology"
may be a better rendering—as more literal and as allowing for the use
of other writings than the Qorān. A correspondent Mr. G. Yazdānī
(Gov. Epigraphist for Muslim Inscriptions, Haidarabad) tells us that
it is customary amongst Muslims to recite religious books on
Thursdays.
P. 404 l. 7 fr. ft.—Bābā Qashqa (or Qāshqā)'s family-group is
somewhat interesting as that of loyal and capable men of Mughūl birth
who served Bābur and Humāyūn. It must have joined Bābur in what is
now the gap between 914 and 925 AH. because not mentioned earlier and
because he is first mentioned in 925 AH. without introductory
particulars. The following details supplement _Bābur-nāma_
information about the group:—(1) Of Bāba Qashqa's murder by
Muḥammad-i-zamān _Bāī-qarā_ Gul-hadan (f. 23) makes record, and
Badāyūnī (Bib. Ind. ed. i, 450) says that (_cir._ 952 AH.) when
Bābā's son Ḥājī Muḥ. Khān _Kūkī_ had pursued and overtaken the rebel
Kāmrān, the Mīrzā asked, as though questioning the Khān's ground of
hostility to himself, "But did I kill thy father Bābā Qashqa?"
(_Pidrat Bābā Qashqa magar man kushta am?_).—(2) Of the death of Bābā
Qashqa's brother "Kūkī", Abū'l-faẓl records that he was killed in
Hindūstān by Muḥammad Sl. M. _Bāī-qarā_ (952 AH.), and that Kūkī's
nephew Shāh Muḥ. (_see_ p. 668) retaliated (955 AH.) by
arrow-shooting one of Muḥ. Sl. Mīrzā's sons. This was done when Shāh
Muḥ. was crossing Mīnār-pass on his return journey from sharing
Humāyūn's exile in Persia (_see_ Jauhar).—(3) Hājī Muḥ. Khān _Kūkī_
and Shāh Muḥammad Khān appear to have been sons of Bābā Qashqa and
nephews of "Kūkī" (_supra_). They were devoted servants of Humāyūn
but were put to death by him in 958 AH.-1551 AD. (cf. Erskine's _H.
of I. Humāyūn_).—(4) About the word _Kūkī_ dictionaries afford no
warrant for taking it to mean foster-brother (_kokah_). Chīngīz Khān
had a beg known as Kūk or Kouk (or Gūk) and one of his own grandsons
used the same style. It may link the Bābā Qashqā group with the
Chīngīz Khānid Kūkī, either as descendants or as hereditary
adherents, or as both. (_See_ Abū'l-ghāzī's _Shajarat-i-Turk_, trs.
Désmaisons, Index _s.n._ _Kouk_ and also its accounts of the origin
of several tribal groups.)
P. 416.—The line quoted by `Abdu'l-lāh is from the _Anwār-i-suhailī_,
Book II, Story i. Eastwick translates it and its immediate context
thus:—
"People follow the faith of their kings.
My heart is like a tulip scorched and by sighings flame;
In all thou seest, their hearts are scorched and stained
the same." (H.B.)
The offence of the quotation appears to have been against Khalīfa,
and might be a suggestion that he followed Bābur in breach of Law by
using wine.
P. 487 n. 2.—The following passages complete the note on _wulsa_
quoted by Erskine from Col. Mark Wilks' _Historical Sketches_ and
show how the word is used:—"During the absence of Major Lawrence from
Trichinopoly, the town had been completely depopulated by the removal
of the whole _Wulsa_ to seek for food elsewhere, and the enemy had
been earnestly occupied in endeavouring to surprise the garrison."
(Here follows Erskine's quotation _see in loco_ p. 487). "The people
of a district thus deserting their homes are called the _Wulsa_ of
that district, a state of utmost misery, involving precaution against
incessant war and unpitying depredation—so peculiar a description as
to require in any of the languages of Europe a long circumlocution,
is expressed _in all the languages of Deckan and the south of India
by a single word_. No proofs can be accumulated from the most
profound research which shall describe the immemorial condition of
the people of India with more precision than this single word. It is
a bright distinction that the _Wulsa_ never departs on the approach
of a British army when this is unaccompanied by Indian allies."—By
clerical error in the final para. of my note _ūlvash_ is entered for
_ūlvan_ [Molesworth, any desolating calamity].
P. 540 n. 4.—An explanation of Bābur's use of Shāh-zāda as T̤ahmāsp's
title may well be that this title answers to the Tīmūrid one
Mīr-zāda, Mīrzā. If so, Bābur's change to "Shāh" (p. 635) may
recognize supremacy by victory, such as he had claimed for himself in
913 AH. when he changed his Tīmūrid "Mīrzā" for "Pādshāh".
P. 557.—Ḥusain _Kashīfī_, also, quotes Firdausī's couplet in the
_Anwār-i-suhaili_ (Cap. I, Story XXI), a book dedicated to Shaikh
Aḥmad _Suhaīlī_ (p. 277) and of earlier date than the _Bābur-nāma_.
Its author died in 910 AH.-1505 AD.
P. 576 n. 1.—Tod's statement (quoted in my n. 1) that "the year of
Rānā Sangā's defeat (933 AH.) was the last of his existence" cannot
be strictly correct because Bābur's statement (p. 598) of intending
attack on him in Chitor allows him to have been alive in 934 AH.
(1528 AD.). The death occurred, "not without suspicion of poison,"
says Tod, when the Rānā had moved against Irij then held for Bābur;
it will have been long enough before the end of 934 AH. to allow an
envoy from his son Bikramājīt to wait on Bābur in that year (pp. 603,
612). Bābur's record of it may safely be inferred lost with the
once-existent matter of 934 AH.
P. 631.—My husband has ascertained that the "Sayyid Daknī" of p. 631
is Sayyid Shāh T̤āhir _Daknī_ (_Deccani_) the Shiite apostle of
Southern India, who in 935 AH. was sent to Bābur with a letter from
Burhān Niẕām Shāh of Ahmadnagar, in which (if there were not two
embassies) congratulation was made on the conquest of Dihlī and help
asked against Bahādur Shāh _Gujrātī_. A second but earlier mention of
"Sayyid _Daknī_" (_Zaknī_, _Ruknī?_) _Shīrāzī_ is on p. 619. Whether
the two entries refer to Shāh T̤āhir nothing makes clear. The
cognomen Shīrāzī disassociates them. It is always to be kept in mind
that preliminary events are frequently lost in gaps; one such will be
the arrivals of the various envoys, mentioned on p. 630, whose places
of honour are specified on p. 631. Much is on record about Sayyid
Shāh T̤āhir _Daknī_ and particulars of his life are available in the
histories by Badāyūnī (Ranking trs.) and (Firishta Nawal Kishor ed.
p. 105); B.M. Harleyan MS. No. 199 contains his letters (_see_ Rieu's
Pers. Cat. p. 395).
P. 699 and n. 3.—The particulars given by the _T̤abaqāt-i-akbarī_
about Mulṯān at this date (932-4 AH.) are as follows:—After Bābur
took the Panj-āb, he ordered Shāh Ḥasan _Arghūn_ to attempt Mulṯān,
then held by one Sl. Maḥmūd who, dying, was succeeded by an infant
son Ḥusain. Shāh Ḥāsan took Mulṯān after a 16 (lunar) months' siege,
at the end of 934 AH. (in a B.N. _lacuna_ therefore), looted and
slaughtered in it, and then returned to Tatta. On this Langar Khān
took possession of it (H.B.). What part `Askarī (_æt._ 12) had in the
matter is yet to learn; possibly he was nominated to its command and
then recalled as Bābur mentions (935 AH.).
FOOTNOTES
[2861] The fist indicates Translator's matter.
[2862] See Abū'l-ghāzī's _Shajarat-i-turkī_ on the origin and
characteristics of the tribe (Désmaisons trs. Index _s.n._
Oūīghūr, especially pp. 16, 37, 39).
[2863] This date is misplaced in my text and should be
transferred from p. 83, l. 3 fr. ft. to p. 86, l. 1, there to
follow "two years".
[2864] A fuller reference to the Ḥ.S. than is given on p. 85
n. 2, is ii, 44 and iii, 167.
[2865] Cf. _s.n._ `Abdu'l-lāh Mīrzā _Shāh-rukhī_ for a date
misplaced in my text.
[2866] The date 935 AH. is inferred from p. 483.
[2867] Cf. Badāyūnī's _Muntakhabu't-tawārīkh_ and Ranking's
trs. i, 616 and n. 4, 617.
[2868] Ferté translates this sobriquet by _le dévoué_ (_Vie de
Sl. Hossein Baikara_ p. 40 n. 3).
[2869] At p. 22 n. 8 fill out to Cf. f. 6_b_ (p. 13) n. 5.
[2870] For an account of his tomb see Schuyler's _Turkistān_,
1, 70-72.
[2871] Or Aīgū (Āyāgū) from _āyāgh_, foot, perhaps expressing
close following of Tīmūr, whose friend the Beg was.
[2872] Daulat-shāh celebrates the renown of the Jalāīr section
(_farqa_) of the Chaghatāī tribes (_aqwām_) of the Mughūl
horde (_aūlūs_, _ūlūs_), styles the above-entered `Alī Beg a
veteran hero, and links his family with that of the Jalāīr
Sultāns of Bāghdād (Browne's ed. p. 519).
[2873] See H. S. lith. ed. iii, 224, for three men who
conveyed helpful information to Husain.
[2874] Later consideration has cast doubts on his
identification with Darwesh-i-`alī suggested, p. 345 n. 4.
[2875] On p. 69 n. 2 for _aūnūlūng_ read _aūnūtūng_ and
reverse _bakunīd_ with _nakunīd_.
[2876] On p. 49 l. 3 for "Black Sheep" read White Sheep.
[2877] Like his brother Hind-āl's name, Alūr's may be due to
the taking (_al_) of Hind.
[2878] See the _T̤abaqāt-i-akbarī_ account of the rulers of
Multān.
[2879] On p. 85 l. 9 for "872 AH.-1467 AD.", read 851 AH.-1447
AD.
[2880] On p. 79 transfer the note-reference "3" to _qibla_.
[2881] See Daulat-shāh (Browne's ed. p. 362) for an
entertaining record of the Mīrzā's zeal as a sportsman and an
illustrative anecdote by Shaikh `Ārif _`azarī_ _q.v._ (H.B.).
[2882] I have found no statement of his tribe or race; he and
his brother are styled Khwāja (Ḥ.S. lith. ed. iii, 272); he is
associated closely with Aḥmad Taṃbal _Mughūl_ and Mughūls of
the Horde; also his niece's name Aūlūs Āghā translates as Lady
of the Horde (_ūlūs_, _aūlūs_). But he may have been a
Turkmān.
[2883] The MS. variants between `Alī and -qulī are confusing.
What stands in my text (p. 27) may be less safe than the
above.
[2884] Bābā Qashqa was murdered by Muḥammad-i-zamān
_Bāī-qarā_. For further particulars of his family group see
Add. Notes under p. 404.
[2885] Sulṯan Bābā-qulī Beg is found variously designated Qulī
Beg, Qulī Bābā, Sl. `Alī Bābā-qulī, Sulṯān-qūlī Bābā and
Bābā-qulī Beg. Several forms appear to express his filial
relationship with Sulṯān Bābā `Alī (_q.v._).
[2886] Down to p. 346 Bābur's statements are retrospective;
after p. 346 they are mostly contemporary with the dates of
his diary—when not so are in supplementing passages of later
date.
[2887] He may be the father of Mun`im Khān (Blochmann's
Biographies A.-i-A. trs. 317 and n. 2).
[2888] See note, Index, _s.n._ Muḥammad Ẕakarīa.
[2889] He is likely to have been introduced with some
particulars of tribe, in one of the now unchronicled years
after Bābur's return from his Trans-oxus campaign.
[2890] His wife, daughter of a wealthy man and on the mother's
side niece of Sulṯān Buhlūl _Lūdī_, financed the military
efforts of Bāyazīd and Bīban (_Tārīkh-i-sher-shāhī_, E. and D.
iv, 353 ff.).
[2891] My translation on p. 621 l. 12 is inaccurate inasmuch
as it hides the circumstance that Beg-gīna alone was the
"messenger of good tidings".
[2892] In taking Bīban for a Jilwānī, I follow Erskine, (as
inferences also warrant,) but he may be a Lūdī.
[2893] For the same uncertainty between Bihār and Pahār see E.
and D.'s History of India iv, 352 n. 2.
[2894] Firishta lith. ed. i, 202.
[2895] For "Mū'min" read Mūmin, which form is constant in the
Ḥai. MS.
[2896] He may be Ḥamīda-bānū's father and, if so, became
grandfather of Akbar.
[2897] Ilminsky, _anlū_, Erskine, _angū_. Daulat-shāh mentions
a Muḥammad Shāh _anjū_ (see Brown's ed. Index _s.n._).
[2898] On p. 22 n. 2 delete "_Chaghatāī Mughūl_" on grounds
given in Additional Note, Page 22.
[2899] For Humāyūn's annotation of the _Bābur-nāma_, see
General Index _s.n._ Humāyūn's Notes.
[2900] For a correction of dates, see _s.n._ Aūlūgh Beg.
[2901] On p. 279 l. 3 from foot read "There was also Ibrāhīm
_Chaghatāī_" after "Muḥammad-i-zamān Mīrzā".
[2902] _Addendum_:—p. 49 l. 4, read "wife" of Muḥammadī "son"
of Jahān-shāh.
[2903] His name might mean Welcome, _Bien-venu_.
[2904] Khusrau-shāh may be the more correct form.
[2905] The "afterwards" points to an omission which
Khwānd-amīr's account of Ḥusain's daughters fills (lith. ed.
iii, 327).
[2906] No record survives of the Khwāja's deeds of daring
other than those entered above; perhaps the other instances
Bābur refers to occurred during the gap 908-9 AH.
[2907] This may be a tribal or a family name. Abū'l-ghāzī
mentions two individuals named "Kouk". One was Chīngīz Khān's
grandson who is likely to have had descendants or followers
distinguishable as _Kūkī_. See Add. Note P. 673 on Kūkī fate.
[2908] Cf. E. and D. for "Karānī" (_e.g._ vol. iv, 530). The
Ḥai. MS. sometimes doubles the _r_, sometimes not.
[2909] See _Wāqi`āt-i-mushtāqī_, E. and D. iv, 548.
[2910] Shaikhīm _Suhailī_ however was named Aḥmad (277) not
Muhammad.
[2911] The record of the first appears likely to be lost in
the _lacuna_ of 934 AH.
[2912] See _Shaibānī-nāma_, Vambéry's ed. Cap. xv, l. 12, for
his changes of service, and Sām Mīrzā's _Tuḥfa-i-sāmī_ for
various particulars including his classification as a
Chaghatāī.
[2913] He died serving Bābur, at Kūl-i-malik (Ḥ.S. iii,
344).—Further information negatives my suggestion (201 n. 7)
that he and Mīr Ḥusain (p. 288 and n. 7) were one.
[2914] "Zaitun is the name of the Chinese city from which
satin was brought (_hodie_ Thsiuancheu or Chincheu) and my
belief is that our word satin came from it" (Col. H. Yule, E.
and D. iv, 514).
[2915] My text omits to translate _yīgīt_ (_aūghūl_) and thus
loses the information that Yaḥyā's sons Bāqī and Ẕakarīa were
above childhood, were grown to fighting age—braves—but not yet
begs (see Index _s.n._ _chuhra_).
[2916] See Add. Notes under p. 39.
[2917] See Add. Notes under p. 266.
[2918] For emendation of 266 n. 7, see Add. Notes under P.
266.
[2919] On p. 49 l. 3 for "Black" read White; and in l. 3 read
("wife of") Muḥammadi son of ("Jahān-shāh").
[2920] Cf. Ḥ.S. Fertī's trs. p. 70 for the same name Qaitmās.
[2921] His capture is not recorded.
[2922] He joined Bābur with his father Yār-i-`alī _Balāl_
(_q.v._) in 910 AH. (Blochmann's Biographies, A.-i-A. trs.
315).
[2923] Concerning the date of his death, see Additional Notes
under p. 603.
[2924] Since my text was printed, my husband has lighted upon
what shows that the guest at the feast was an ambassador sent
by Burhān Niẕām Shāh of Aḥmadnagar to congratulate Bābur on
his conquest of Dihlī, namely, Shāh T̤āhir the apostle of
Shiism in the Dakkan. He is thus distinguished from Sayyid
Daknī, (Ruknī, Zaknī) _infra_ and my text needs suitable
correction. (See Add. Notes under p. 631 for further
particulars of the Sayyid and his embassy.)
[2925] For further particulars see Add. Note under p. 688.
[2926] For "H.S. ii" read iii (as also in some other places).
[2927] Down to p. 131 the Ḥai. MS. uses the name Shaibānī or
Shaibānī Khān; from that page onwards it writes Shaibāq Khān,
in agreement with the Elphinstone MS.—Other names found are
_e.g._ Gulbadan's Shāhī Beg Khān and Shah-bakht. (My note 2 on
p. 12 needs modification.)
[2928] The title "Aūghlān" (child, boy) indicates that the
bearer died without ruling.
[2929] This cognomen was given because the bearer was born
during an eclipse of the moon (_āī_, moon and the root _al_
taking away); _see_ Badāyūnī Bib. Ind. ed. i, 62.
[2930] Here _delete_ "Sulṯān-nigar Khānīm", who was his
grandmother and not his mother.
[2931] On p. 433 n. 1 her name is mistakenly entered as that
of Sulaimān's mother.
[2932] Concerning this title, see Add. Notes under p. 540.
[2933] He may be the Tūlik Khān _qūchīn_ of the
_Ma`asiru'l-umrā_ i, 475.
[2934] Ḥaidar Mīrzā gives an interesting account of his
character and attainments (T.R. trs. p. 283).
[2935] See Additional Note under P. 372.
[2936] See Additional Notes under P. 51.
[2937] Here the Ḥai. MS. and Ilminsky's Imprint add "Nāṣir".
[2938] The natural place for this Section of record is at the
first mention of Yūnas Khān (p. 12) and not, as now found,
interrupting another Section. See p. 678 and n. 4 as to
"Sections".
[2939] The entries of 934 and 935 may concern a second man
`Alī-i-yūsuf.
[2940] Perhaps skilled in the art of metaphors and tropes
(_`ilmu'l-badī`_).
[2941] My text has _julgāsī_, but I am advised to omit the
genitive _sī_; so, too, in aīkī-sū-ārā-sī, Rabāṭjk-aūrchīn-ī
_q.v._
[2942] Cf. _s.n._ Āhangaran-julga n. as to form of the name.
[2943] Asterisks indicate Translator's matter.
[2944] Bābur uses this name for, Anglicé, the Kābul-river as
low as nearly to Dakka.
[2945] "The Dara-i-ṣūf, often mentioned by the Arabian
writers, seems to lie west of Bāmīān" (Erskine, _Memoirs_, p.
152 n. 1).
[2946] Bābur's itinerary gives Gharjistan a greater eastward
extent than the Fr. map Maïmènè allows, thus agreeing with
Erskine's surmise (_Memoirs_ p. 152 n. 1).—The first syllable
of the name may be "Ghur".
[2947] On p. 7, l. 1, after "turbulent", _add_, " They are
notorious in Māwarā'u'n-nahr for their bullying."
[2948] On p. 134 for "(I was) 19" _read_ in my 19th (lunar)
year.
[2949] Cf. _Life of Busbecq_ (Forster and Daniels) i, 252-7,
for feats of Turkish archery.
[2950] For the Bukhara (Bābur-nāma) Compilation _see_
_Wāqi`-nāma-i-pādshāhi_; as also for its Codices, descendants
and offtakes, _viz._ Ilminski's "_Bābur-nāma_" and de
Courteille's _Mémoires de Baber_.
[2951] The confusion of identity has become clear to me in
1921 only.
[2952] One of the nine great gods of the Etruscans was called
Tūrān. Etr. _Tūr_ means strong, a strong place (fortress);
with it may connect L. _turma_ (troop) and the name of
Virgil's Rutulian hero Turmus may root in the Mongol tongue.
Professor Jules Marthe writes in _La Langue Etrusque_ (Pref.
vi), "Il m'a paru qu'il y avait entre l'Etrusque et les
langues finns-ougriennes d'étroites affinités" (hence with the
Mongol tongue). "Tarkhān" is "Tūrkhān" in Miles trs. p. 71 of
the _Shajaratu'l-atrāk_ (H. B.).
[2953] This Cat. contains the Turkī MS. of the Bukhara
Compilation, once owned by Leyden.
[2954] where, in n. 3, for f. 183_b_ and f. 264_b_ _read_ f.
103_b_ and f. 264.
[2955] For "Ḥ.S. ii" read Ḥ.S. iii—also on p. 244.
[2956] On this peg may be hung the following note:—The
_Pādshāh-nāma_ (_q.v._) calls the author and presenter of the
above translation "Abū-ṯālib" _Ḥusainī_ (Bib. Ind. ed. vol. i,
part 2, p. 288), but its index contains many references
seemingly to the same man as Khwāja Abū'l-husain _Turbati_.
The P. N. says the book which it entitles
_Wāqi`āt-i-ṣaḥib-qirān_ (The Acts of Tīmūr), was in Turki, was
brought forth from the Library of the (Turk) Governor of Yemen
and translated by Mīr Abū-ṯālib _Ḥusainī_; that what Timūr had
done with this book of counsel (_dastān-i-nasā'iḥ_) when he
sent it to his son Pīr-i-muhammad, then succeeding (his
brother) Jahāngīr [in Kābul, the Ghaznis, Qandahār, _etc._]
Shāhjahān also did by sending it, out of love, to his son
Aurangzīb who had been ordered to the Deccan.
[2957] In n. 5 for "_parwān_" read _parrān_, and _read_
Blanford.
[2958] Which _read_ (l. 17) for _yak rang_. The name
_bak-dīng_ appears due to the clapping of the bird's mandibles
and its pompous strut; (cf. Ross' _Polyglot List_, No. 336).
[2959] Following the _zammaj_ insert "Another is the buzzard
(T. _Sār_); its back and tail are red". (_Cf._ Omission List
under p. 500.)
[2960] _See_ Omission List under p. 498.
[2961] After "Tramontane", _add_ Its breast is less deeply
black.
[2962] The bird being black, its name cannot be translated
"yellow-bird"; as noted on p. 373 _sārīgh_ = thief; [_sārāgh_
or _sārīgh_ means a bird's song].
[2963] For references to Niẕāmi's text, I am indebted to Mr.
Beveridge's knowledge of the poems.
[2964] Cf. Mr. G. Murray's trs. (Euripides i, 86) suggesting
that the Wooden Horse was a _sar-kob_.
[2965] Abū'l-ghāzī classes Manghīt with Mughul tribes, Radloff
with Turk tribes (_Récueils p. 325_), Erskine says, "modern
Nogais."
_Stephen Austin and Sons, Ltd., Printers, Hertford._
*** End of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "The Bābur-nāma in English - Memoirs of Bābur" ***
Copyright 2023 LibraryBlog. All rights reserved.