The Bābur-nāma in English (Memoirs of Bābur)

[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. 328b (D:lmūū).

[2670] As on f. 361b, 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 Niz̤āmu’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 Niz̤āmu'-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 Niz̤āmu'-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, 922a; JASB. 1916, H. Beveridge’s art. Note on the Tārīkh-i-salāt̤īn-i-afāghana.

[2699] Humāyūn’s last recorded act in Hindūstān was that of 933 AH. (f. 329b) 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 Sult̤ān-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.