The Bābur-nāma in English (Memoirs of Bābur)

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”.

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

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.

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.

(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.]

(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. 290b, 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