# The Project Gutenberg eBook, The Bābur-nāma in English, by Babur, Emperor of Hindustan, Translated by Annette Susannah Beveridge

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org

Title: The Bābur-nāma in English

Memoirs of Bābur

Author: Babur, Emperor of Hindustan

Release Date: January 7, 2014 [eBook #44608]

Language: English

Character set encoding: UTF-8

***START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE BāBUR-NāMA IN ENGLISH***

### E-text prepared by
Barbara Tozier, Turgut Dincer, Bill Tozier,
and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team
(http://www.pgdp.net)

The cover image was created by the transcriber and is placed in the public domain.

# 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

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 sult̤āns—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 [Pg viii]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 Ahṃad 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 [Pg ix]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
[Pg x] 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.] |
[Pg xi]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 Sherīm T̤ 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 Sult̤ān 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
[Pg xii] 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
[Pg xiii] 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 [Pg xiv]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 [Pg xv]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. |
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 [Pg xvi]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 Sult̤ānīm 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 [Pg xvii]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 Ḥasan 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. |
[Pg xviii] 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, [Pg xix]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 khut̤ba 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 [Pg xx]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 [Pg xxi]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
[Pg xxii] 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 [Pg xxiii]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 [Pg xxiv]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 [Pg xxv]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. 190b.
J. Bābur’s excavated chamber at Qandahār.
K. An Afghān Legend.
L. Māhīm’s adoption of Hind-āl.
M. On the term Bahrī-qut̤ās.
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.
[Pg xxvi] 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 Mosque1 | 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

Plane-tree Avenue in Babur’s (later) Burial-garden.

[Pg xxvii]

## 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 lacunæ, 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[Pg xxviii] 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 [Pg xxix]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.[Pg xxx]

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[Pg xxxi] 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[Pg xxxii] 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 [Pg xxxiii]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 [Pg xxxiv]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 [Pg xxxv]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[Pg xxxvi] 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 [Pg xxxvii]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[Pg xxxviii] 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

[Pg xxxix]

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.[Pg xl]

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.[Pg xli]

Table of the Hindustan MSS. of the Babur-nama.12

Names. | Date of completion. | Folio-standard 382.13 | Archetype. | Scribe. | Latest known location. | Remarks.
1. Babur’s Codex. | 1530. | Originally much over 382. | — | Babur. | Royal Library between 1628-38. | Has disappeared.
2. Khwaja Kalan _Ahraris_ Codex. | 1529. | Undefined 363(?), p. 652. | No. 1. | Unknown. | Sent to Samarkand 1529. | Possibly still in Khwaja Kalan’s family.
3. Humayun’s Codex = (commanded and annotate?).14 | 1531(?). | Originally = No. 1 (unmutilated). | No. 1. | ‘Ali’u-’l-katib(?). | Royal Library between 1556-1567. | Seems the archetype of No. 5.
4. Muhammad Haidar _Dughlat’s_ Codex. | Between 1536 and 40(?). | No. 1 (unmutilated). | No. 1 or No. 2. | Haidar(?) | Kashmir 1540-47. | Possibly now in Kashghar.
5. Elphinstone Codex. | Between 1556 and 1567. | In 1816 and 1907, 286 ff. | No. 3. | Unknown. | Advocates’ Library (1816 to 1921). | Bought in Peshawar 1810.
6. British Museum MS. | 1629. | 97 (fragments). | Unknown. | ‘Ali’u’l-_kashmiri_. | British Museum. | —
7. Bib. Lindesiana MS. [now John Rylands] | Scribe living in 1625. | 71 (an extract). | Unknown. | Nur-muhammad (nephew of ‘Abu’l-faẓl). | John Rylands Library. | —
8. Haidarabad Codex. | Paper indicates _cir._ 1700. | 382. | (No. 1) mutilated. | No colophon. | The late Sir Salar-jang’s Library. | Centupled in facsimile, 1905.

[Pg xlii]

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 [Pg xliii]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 [Pg xliv]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, [Pg xlv]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 [Pg xlvi]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 [Pg xlvii]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[Pg xlviii] 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 [Pg xlix]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 [Pg l]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.

[Pg li]

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 [Pg lii]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.

[Pg liii]

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:—

[Pg liv]

“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[Pg lv] 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.

[Pg lvi]

Table of Bukhara reputed-Babur-nama MSS. (Waqi‘nama-i-padshahi?).

Names. | Date of completion. | Scribe. | Last known location. | Archetype. | Remarks.
1. Waqi‘nama-i-padshahi _alias_ Babur-nama. | 1121-1709. Date of colophon of earliest known example. | ‘Ābdu’l-wahhab _q.v._ Taken to be also the author. | Bukhara. | Believed to be the original compilation. | _See_ Part III.
2. Nazar Bai Turkistani’s MS. | Unknown. | Unknown. | In owner’s charge in Petrograd, 1824. | No. 1, the colophon of which it reproduces. | Senkovski’s archetype who copied its (transferred) colophon.
3. F. O. Codex (Timurpulad’s MS.). | 1126-1714. | Unknown. | F.O. Petrograd, where copied in 1742. | Not stated, an indirect copy of No. 1. | Bought in Bukhara, brought to Petro. 1725.
4. Kehr’s Autograph | 1737. | George Jacob | Pet. Or. School, 1894. London T.O. 1921. | No. 3. | _See_ Part III.
5. Name not learned. | 1155-1742. | Unknown. | Unknown. | No. 3. | Archetype of 9.
6. (Mysore) A.S.B. Codex. | Unknown. JRAS. 1900, Nos. vii and viii. | Unknown. | Asiatic Society of Bengal. | Unknown. | —
7. India Office Codex (Bib. Leydeniana). | Cir. 1810. | Unknown. | India Office, 1921. | No. 6. | Copied for Leyden.
“The Senkovski Babur-nama.” | 1824. | J. Senkovski. | Pet. Asiatic Museum, 1900. | No. 2. | Bears a copy of the colophon of No. 1.
9. Pet. University Codex. | 1839? | Mulla Faizkhanov? | Pet. Univ. Library. | No. 5 (?). | —

[Pg lvii]

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,[Pg lviii] 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[Pg lix] 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[Pg lx] 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 [Pg lxi]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.

[Pg 1]

THE MEMOIRS OF BABUR

## SECTION I. FARGHĀNA.

### AH.—Oct. 12th 1493 to Oct. 2nd 1494 AD.

In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate.

In 36 the month of Ramẓān of the year 899 (June 1494) andḤaidarābād
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 [Pg 2]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.

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 [Pg 3]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 [Pg 4]so surprisingly fat that rumour has it four people could not Fol. 2b.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 [Pg 5]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 traversedFol. 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 [Pg 6]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. 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, [Pg 7]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 HushyārFol. 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 [Pg 8]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 [Pg 9]approach to one (qaṣbacha). Its almonds are excellent, hence its name; they all go to Hormuz or to Hindūstān. It is five orFol. 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 [Pg 10]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 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.

[Pg 11]

In the mountains round Farghāna are excellent summer-pastures (yīlāq). There, and nowhere else, the tabalghū 92grows, a tree (yīghāch) with red bark; they make staves of it; theyFol. 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 [Pg 12]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 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

[Pg 13]

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 mentionedFol. 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 [Pg 14]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 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 [Pg 15]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 wereFol. 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 [Pg 16]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, 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.

[Pg 17]

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 inFol. 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, Fāt̤ima-sult̤ān 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 [Pg 18]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 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-sult̤ān Begīm was another, her mother was a mistress, called Āghā-sult̤ān. Ruqaiya-sult̤ān Begīm was another; her mother, Makhdūm-sult̤ān Begīm, people used to call the Dark-eyed Begīm. The last-named two were born after the Mīrzā’s death. Yādgār-sult̤ān Begīm was brought up by my grandmother, Aīsān-daulat Begīm; she fell to ‘Abdu’l-lat̤īf 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 Fol. 9b.other sult̤āns and took Ḥiṣār. Ruqaiya-sult̤ān Begīm fell in that same throneless time (fatrat) to Jānī Beg Sl. (Aūzbeg). By him she had one or two children who did not live. In these days [Pg 19]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 himFol. 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-[Pg 20]‘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 Sult̤ān 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, 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 [Pg 21]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 wereFol. 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 [Pg 22]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 (t̤arīqā).150 He has a hand deft in everything, penmanship and painting, and in making arrows and arrow-barbs 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 Sult̤ān 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 [Pg 23]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).

Sult̤ān-nigār Khānīm was the youngest but one of Yūnas Khān’s children. Her they made go forth (chīqārīb īdīlār)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) Sult̤ān,157 a Qāzāq sult̤ān 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 Sult̤ān. She had two daughters by Adik Sult̤ān; one she gave to a Shaibān sult̤ān, the other to Rashīd Sult̤ān, the son of (her cousin) Sl. Sa‘īd Khān. After Adik Sult̤ān’s death, (his brother), Qāsim Khān, Khān of the Qāzāq horde, took her.158 Of all the Qāzāq khāns and sult̤āns, no one, they say, ever kept the horde in such good order as he; [Pg 24]his army was reckoned at 300,000 men. On his death the Khānīm went to Sl. Sa‘īd Khān’s presence in Kāshghar. Daulat-sult̤ān Khānīm was Yūnas Khān’s youngest child. Fol. 12b.In the Tāshkīnt disaster (908 AH.) she fell to Tīmūr Sult̤ān, 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. Fāt̤ima-sult̤ān Āghā was another; she was of the Mughūl tūmān-begs and the first taken of his wives. Qarāgūz (Makhdūm sult̤ān) 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-sult̤ān (var. Yun) of the Mughūls and Āghā Sult̤ān.

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 Tīmūr Beg.) When Sl. Abū-sa‘īd Mīrzā, after besieging Jūkī Mīrzā (Shāhrukhī) in Shāhrukhiya (868AH.-1464AD.) gave the Fol. 13.Farghāna country to ‘Umar Shaikh Mīrzā, he put this Khudāī-bīrdī Beg at the head of the Mīrzā’s Gate.160 Khudāī-bīrdī was [Pg 25]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 Fol. 13b.passed through on his way to Samarkand, himself taking service with him. The Mīrzā, for his part, gave him the Andijān Command. Later on he went to Sl. Maḥmūd Khān [Pg 26]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

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 [Pg 27]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 mercyFol. 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 Fol. 15.work to speak of 170 came to sight. He must have served Sl. Abū-sa‘īd Mīrzā. He claimed to have power to bring on rain with the jade-stone. He was the Falconer (qūshchī),worthless [Pg 28]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 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.

[Pg 29]

(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 himFol. 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 [Pg 30]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 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 [Pg 31]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 andFol. 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 [Pg 32]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; 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 Sult̤ān 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

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 [Pg 33] 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 veryFol. 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 [Pg 34](‘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. 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 (basīt̤). 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 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,[Pg 35] 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-sult̤ān 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 Sult̤ān (Aūzbeg).Fol. 20.

Ṣāliḥa-sult̤ān (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-sult̤ān 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, [Pg 36]went in a few days to God’s mercy and she herself left me at the instigation of an older sister.

Sult̤ānīm Begīm was the fourth daughter; Sl. ‘Alī Mīrzā took her; then Tīmūr Sult̤ān (Aūzbeg) took her and after him, Mahdī Sult̤ān (Aūzbeg).

Ma‘sūma-sult̤ān Begīm was the youngest of Sl. Aḥmad Mīrzā’s daughters. Her mother, Ḥabība-sult̤ān 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 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

[Pg 37]

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

Lat̤īf 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 sult̤āns’ children, fell into my hands when I took Ḥiṣār (916 AH.-1510 AD.) after defeating Ḥamza Sult̤ān and Tīmūr Sult̤ān. I set all free.

Ḥabība-sult̤ān 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 andFol. 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 [Pg 38]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.

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 [Pg 39]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 atFol. 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) sult̤āns 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 naturallyFol. 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 [Pg 40]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. 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. [Pg 41]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 theFol. 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 [Pg 42]engaged themselves unceasingly with wine and fornication. Once one of them enticed and took away a certain man’s wife. 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.

[Pg 43]

### 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-sult̤ān), 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.

[Pg 44]

When I went to the citadel, in pursuance of our decision, he had ridden out, presumably for hawking, and as soon as he had 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 Fol. 25b.less neglected.

[Pg 45]

(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 onFol. 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).

[Pg 46]

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 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

[Pg 47]

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-zādaFol 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, Sult̤ān-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, [Pg 48](Khān-zāda Begīm)250 was given, after her father’s death, to Abā-bikr 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-sult̤ān 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-sult̤ān Begīm, Sl. ‘Alī Mīrzā’s full-sister; she is now in the Badakhshān country. Two others of his daughters, Rajab-sult̤ān and Muḥibb-sult̤ān, were by mistresses (ghūnchachī).

g. His ladies (khwātīnlār) and concubines (sarārī).

His chief wife, Khān-zāda Begīm, was a daughter of the 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. [Pg 49]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. Sult̤ān-nigār Khānīm was another of his ladies; her descent has been mentioned already in the account of the (Chaghatāī) Khāns.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 [Pg 50]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, 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; [Pg 51]a jester and talkative, nicknamed Impudence, perhaps because the Mīrzā called him so.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 Sult̤ān 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) cameFol. 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 [Pg 52]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 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 Khut̤ba 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.

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 [Pg 53]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 everyFol. 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 [Pg 54]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 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 [Pg 55]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.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 [Pg 56]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

[Pg 57]

### 901 AH.—SEP. 21st. 1495 to SEP. 9th. 1496 AD.282

(a. Sult̤ān 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-lat̤īf 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, andFol. 33b. [Pg 58](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 sult̤āns and 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 sult̤āns.)

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 sult̤āns 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 [Pg 59]custom of Tīmūriya sult̤āns 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,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.

[Pg 60]

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 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 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 [Pg 61]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’sFol. 36. great rise and of action of his so much beyond his province.

When the Mīrzā reached Balkh, he, in the interests of Ṃāwarā’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 [Pg 62]‘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 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 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; [Pg 63]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.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 [Pg 64]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. 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 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.

[Pg 65]

### 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) sult̤āns, 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 againstFol. 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.

[Pg 66]

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-fit̤r), 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, 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 [Pg 67]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 greatFol. 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; [Pg 68]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 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 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 [Pg 69] 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) cameFol. 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 [Pg 70]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 splendour331 and adornment. He had many gold and silver drinking cups 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.

[Pg 71]

(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 evenFol. 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

[Pg 72]

### 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 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-[Pg 73]rabble, were brought in Diwāna, the tunic-weaver and Kālqāshūq,341 headlong leaders both, in brawl and tumult; theyFol. 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,Fol. 44. stood over against our camping-ground. Our men were not all at hand; some, for winter-quarters, had gone to Khwāja Rabāt̤ī, 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

[Pg 74]

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.

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).

[Pg 75]

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 LeadersFol. 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 [Pg 76]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 [Pg 77]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 theFol. 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 [Pg 78]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 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 Sult̤ān 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 [Pg 79]another bath is not known in Khurāsān or in Samarkand.374 Again;—to the south of the College is his mosque, known as the Fol. 46b.Masjid-i-maqat̤a‘ (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 Fol. 47. Compared with others, they are somewhat defective.

[Pg 80]

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 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-[Pg 81]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 (WaterFol. 48. of Mercy). 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 sult̤ans always made it their reserve,391 going out to camp in it each year for a month or two.

[Pg 82]

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 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 Fol. 49.carry it from land to land with rarities (tabarrūklār bīla); it is an excellent laxative medicine. Fowls and geese are much [Pg 83]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 asFol. 49b. [Pg 84]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 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.

[Pg 85]

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 Sult̤ān-i-jahāngīr; when Muḥammad Sult̤ān 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-lat̤īf 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-lat̤īf 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-lat̤īf Mīrzā is also well done:—

‘Abdu’l-lat̤īf, in glory a Khusrau and Jamshīd,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-lat̤īf 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 [Pg 86] 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, 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 [Pg 87]friend of Khwāja-i-qāẓī; we therefore, to put a stop to these desertions, sent the Khwāja to him (in Andijān) so that they,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. AtFol. 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 [Pg 88]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 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 Rabāt̤ik-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 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 [Pg 89]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 wasFol. 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.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[Pg 90] 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 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.

[Pg 91]

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 ownFol. 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,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 [Pg 92]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 (Sult̤ānīm) 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 Sult̤ān 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 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!

[Pg 93]

(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; ifFol. 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-sungharFol. 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 Naz̤ar 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.

[Pg 94]

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 Naz̤ar Bahādur already mentioned, to destroy the water-channels 427 of 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 [Pg 95]Harāt), he was surprised by Badī‘u’z-zamān Mīrzā and Shāh Shujā‘ Beg (Arghūn). By unexpected good-fortune, he had beenFol. 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 khut̤ba but he himself did not think this combination desirable. The ungratefulFol. 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.

[Pg 96]

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.

[Pg 97]

### 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; withFol. 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 Rabāt̤-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 [Pg 98]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, 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 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 [Pg 99]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 theFol. 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 [Pg 100]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 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 [Pg 101]hill-people of the south of Andijān as the Ashpārī, Tūrūqshār,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.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 [Pg 102]just then a fugitive from Shaibānī Khān, and also the Bārīn tūmān with its begs. They arrived precisely at this time.

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 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 [Pg 103]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 ofFol. 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 [Pg 104]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 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. 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 [Pg 105]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 Rabāt̤ik-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) MughūlsFol. 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 [Pg 106]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 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 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

[Pg 107]

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.

[Pg 108]

### 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 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 Rabāt̤-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 [Pg 109]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 theFol. 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-thiefFol. 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

[Pg 110]

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 Rabāt̤-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 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 [Pg 111]M. and older than Sl. ‘Alī M. and Sl. Ḥusain M. and Sl. Wais M. known as Khān Mīrzā. His mother was Pasha Begīm.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 (mat̤la‘) 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,Fol. 69. crossed the Āq-kutal and went to Rabāt̤-i-soghd and Kān-bāī. Bāī-sunghar Mīrzā went out from Samarkand, fought him near [Pg 112]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 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 [Pg 113]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 ofFol. 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; forFol. 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 Sult̤ān Begīm 489 arrived from Andijān, thinking to beg off Jahāngīr Mīrzā if he had been taken.

[Pg 114]

(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 Fol. 71.ends we marched out of Andijān, meaning to winter near Armiyān and Nūsh-āb in the Rabāt̤ik-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 [Pg 115]herds of horses and much enfeebling him. If the whole winter had been passed in those quarters, the more probable thing isFol. 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 theFol. 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, [Pg 116]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 Sult̤ānīm,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 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 Sult̤ānīm 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 [Pg 117]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 meetFol. 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,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.

[Pg 118]

(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 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 [Pg 119]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.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 aFol. 75. Court and workshops, after the fashion of sult̤āns. 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.

[Pg 120]

(q. Bābur’s first marriage.)

‘Āyisha-sult̤ān 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 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 (ikhtilāt̤) 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 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:—

[Pg 121]

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 aFol. 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.

[Pg 122]

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 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 Fol. 77b.to Jahāngīr Mīrzā and prepared to get to horse. We rode out [Pg 123]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 beenFol. 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 [Pg 124]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. 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 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 [Pg 125]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,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

[Pg 126]

(Aūzbeg), in her ignorance and folly, had secretly written to 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.

[Pg 127]

### 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 Rabāt̤-[Pg 128]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 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 Sult̤ān’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 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 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 [Pg 129]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.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

[Pg 130]

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, 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 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 Rabāt̤-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 Rabāt̤-i-khwāja and had set up ladders when the men within came to know about them and [Pg 131]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.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 Rabāt̤-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 takeFol. 83b. [Pg 132]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 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 [Pg 133] 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.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

[Pg 134]

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, 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.

[Pg 135]

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. InFol. 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-kūlFol. 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 [Pg 136]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-sult̤ān 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 sult̤āns 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 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

[Pg 137]

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 inFol. 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 Sult̤ān’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 nextFol. 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 [Pg 138]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. 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 [Pg 139](? 20 m.), lay Sayyid Muḥ. Mīrzā Dūghlāt, bringing me 1000 to 2000 men from my Khān dādā; he would have joined me atFol. 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 Sult̤āns; his left, Ḥamza and Mahdī and someFol. 89b. other sult̤āns. 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.

[Pg 140]

(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 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 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, [Pg 141]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.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 [Pg 142]reserve. For convenience in this I took up quarters in the middle of the town, in tents pitched on the roof of Aūlūgh Beg 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-naz̤ar (son of Sherīm?) T̤aghāī Beg, and Mazīd. An Aūzbeg or two Fol. 92.put their horses at them and with Qul-naz̤ar 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 [Pg 143]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 beFol. 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,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 [Pg 144]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-naz̤ar 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 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 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 [Pg 145]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 nearFol. 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.’

[Pg 146]

### 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 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 [Pg 147]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.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 [Pg 148]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).
Fol. 96.From out our minds, death’s dread was chased (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 [Pg 149]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 usFol. 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, Sult̤ān-nīgār Khānīm and Daulat-sult̤ān 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 accountFol. 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 [Pg 150]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 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 [Pg 151]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-katFol. 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, cherishedFol. 98b. rancour against Nuyān Kūkūldāsh. At the time when we, having heard of the retirement of the Aūzbegs, sent a man to

[Pg 152]

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-naz̤ar 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 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
[Pg 153]
‘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 fewnessFol. 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.

[Pg 154]

(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 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. [Pg 155]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 clothFol. 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; [Pg 156]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.

[Pg 157]

### 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.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 [Pg 158]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?

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 [Pg 159]naught. When a second man announced his near approach, we all went out to give him honourable meeting, Shāh Begīm and his younger sisters, Sult̤ān-nigār Khānīm and Daulat-sult̤ān 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 anFol. 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 [Pg 160]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.

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), [Pg 161]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,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 sult̤ān?’ 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), crushedFol. 104. [Pg 162]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 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, [Pg 163] 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 threeFol. 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 [Pg 164]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

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.

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.

(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.

[Pg 165]

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. AFol. 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, AndijānFol. 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 Rabāt̤-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.

[Pg 166]

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 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 [Pg 167]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 choppedFol. 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 [Pg 168]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 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 [Pg 169]for you through them. You have in your hands Aūsh, Marghīnān,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 comeFol. 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 [Pg 170]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 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.[Pg 171]

(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 riverFol. 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.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 [Pg 172] 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 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.

[Pg 173]

(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. WeFol. 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 [Pg 174]or whether he pretended to misunderstand, is not known; suddenly he did the ill-deed of seizing Shaikh Bāyazīd. Braves 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 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.

[Pg 175]

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 tookFol. 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 mattersFol. 113b. as they were and none constraining him, while we were waiting [Pg 176] 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 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 [Pg 177] 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. AFol. 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 [Pg 178]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 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. 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. 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[Pg 179] 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 inFol. 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 [Pg 180]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.

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 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.

[Pg 181]

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 goFol. 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,[Pg 182] 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 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 [Pg 183] 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-rabāt̤ 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[Pg 184] 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,[Pg 185]
[Pg 186] 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.

[Pg 186]

[Pg 187]

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 countryḤaidarābād
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 [Pg 188]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.

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 [Pg 189]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 whereverFol. 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. [Pg 190]“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 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 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 [Pg 191]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,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.

[Pg 192]

(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 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 [Pg 193]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.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 Khut̤ba 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 sortFol. 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!

[Pg 194]

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 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.

[Pg 195]

(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 sentFol. 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.”

[Pg 196]

The Sun was a spear’s-length high 703 when we reached the foot of the Sanjid (Jujube)-valley and dismounted. Our scouting 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 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 [Pg 197]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 wrongFol. 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.

[Pg 198]

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, 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 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 [Pg 199]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,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 [Pg 200]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 [Pg 201]where much debauchery has gone on. About this place itFol. 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

[Pg 202]

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 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, [Pg 203]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 [Pg 204]at night without a fur-coat.746 Although the snow in most places lies deep in winter, the cold is not excessive; whereas in 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 [Pg 205]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 ratherFol. 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.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.

[Pg 206]

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

[Pg 207]

(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 alsoFol. 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, throughFol. 132. [Pg 208]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 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 [Pg 209]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 snowsFol. 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.

[Pg 210]

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 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, [Pg 211]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-sarāīFol. 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 [Pg 212]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, Fol. 134b.Sawād and the whole hill-tract. Ḥaidar-‘alī Bajaurī,—a sult̤ān 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

[Pg 213]

Kāma, again, though not a separate district but dependent on Nīngnahār, is also called a bulūk.796 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

[Pg 214]

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 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 [Pg 215]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 andFol. 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, [Pg 216]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 Astarghach; these must be the 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 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 [Pg 217]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 AḥmadFol. 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); [Pg 218]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 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 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 [Pg 219]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 Sult̤ān’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. SinceFol. 139. that time, the Sult̤ān’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 Sult̤ānīā and Tabrīz are in the two ‘Irāqs and Aẕarbāījān.

[Pg 220]

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 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 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 [Pg 221]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 Sult̤ān-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 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 [Pg 222]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 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 [Pg 223]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 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 [Pg 224]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. 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 qūt̤ān also.857 This [Pg 225]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. TheyFol. 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-catchingFol. 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 [Pg 226](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 before-hand 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.

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 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, [Pg 227]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 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.”

[Pg 228]

(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 Sult̤ān Mas‘ūdī Hazāras;874 word came a few days after collectors 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

[Pg 229]

(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.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

[Pg 230]

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 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 [Pg 231]well as the Fajjī, with us, so that, between them, they mightFol. 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.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 [Pg 232]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 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 [Pg 233]a riding-road at all; it was understood to be called the GosfandliyārFol. 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 KābulFol. 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

[Pg 234]

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 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.

[Pg 235]

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 foragersFol. 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,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 [Pg 236]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, 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 [Pg 237]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 inFol. 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 whoFol. 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 [Pg 238]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 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 [Pg 239]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, “IFol. 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 plunderedFol. 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 [Pg 240]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, 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.

[Pg 241]

(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’sFol. 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 fromFol. 154b. their districts and to have come on with him, but, he not coming, [Pg 242]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-z̤afar. 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, 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

[Pg 243]

(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 theFol. 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 theFol. 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 [Pg 244]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 Sult̤ān 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 Sult̤ān,934 went to Qūndūz, gave Qūndūz to his younger brother, Maḥmūd Sult̤ān 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 Sult̤ān, 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 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 Sult̤ān’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 [Pg 245]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.

[Pg 246]

### 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 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 [Pg 247]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,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 t̤ambourchī 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 [Pg 248]ordered to repair the breaches made in the towers and ramparts 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 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 [Pg 249]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.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 [Pg 250]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 t̤amghā 957; the whole of this he had, together 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. [Pg 251]Hearing about Bāqī, he blocked the road, made the whole partyFol. 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, havingFol. 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 [Pg 252]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 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. 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 [Pg 253]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,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.

[Pg 254]

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. 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 [Pg 255]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 againstFol. 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 [Pg 256]Chīn Ṣūfī, who never for one moment ceased to stake his life 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 [Pg 257]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 byFol. 164. Sl. Aḥmad Mīrzā,989 a grandson (nabīra) of Mīrān-shāh; by him she had a son (Muḥammad Sult̤ān 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!

[Pg 258]

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 Fol. 164b.the Twelve Imāms in the khut̤ba,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 [Pg 259]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,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

[Pg 260]

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 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!

[Pg 261]

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, QandahārFol. 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.

[Pg 262]

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 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 Lat̤īf-sult̤ān 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 sult̤āns 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 [Pg 263]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 strongFol. 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 Rabāt̤-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-sult̤ān 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) [Pg 264]Begīm and given to ‘Ādil Sl.1024 when she came to Kābul later on. Ḥaidar Mīrzā departed from the world in his father’s 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-t̤āq 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.

[Pg 265]

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, Sult̤ānīm 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. Sult̤ānīm 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 sult̤āns;1028 the son is that Muḥammad Sl. Mīrzā to whom I have given the Qanauj district.1029 At that same date Sult̤ānīm Begīm, when on her way with her grandsonFol. 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-sult̤ān 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-sult̤ān Begīm, having an aversion for him, would not give her to him;1032 she sent Kīchīk Begīm out afterwards [Pg 266]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-sult̤ān Begīm.1034

Two other daughters of the Mīrzā were by Mīnglī Bībī Āghācha. They gave the elder one, Bairam-sult̤ān 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 Fāt̤ima-sult̤ān 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, Sult̤ān-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 Sult̤ān, Fol. 168b.was given to Sl. Mas‘ūd Mīrzā after his blinding.1040 By Sl. Mas‘ūd [Pg 267]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 Sult̤ān 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-sult̤ān 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 sult̤āns; 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-sult̤ān 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 Sult̤ān 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 [Pg 268]much wretchedness, until driven at last to despair, he set himself 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 Sult̤ānīm 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-sult̤ān Begīm. When the Aūzbegs took Khurāsān (913 AH.), Payānda-sult̤ān 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 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. [Pg 269]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 Lat̤īf-sult̤ān 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 Sult̤ān 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 wereFol. 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 [Pg 270]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) 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 [Pg 271]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’t̤-t̤air (Tongue of the birds), was in the same metre as the Mant̤iqu’t̤-t̤air (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 thoseFol. 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 [Pg 272] 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 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 [Pg 273]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 onFol. 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 [Pg 274]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 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 [Pg 275] 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 fūt̤a (bathing-cloth) round his neck 1085 and gave thanks. Then, after Shaibāq Khān, coming against the Mīrzās, had beaten them oneFol. 173. by one near Bādghīs, Ẕū’n-nūn Arghūn met him face to face near Qarā-rabāt̤ 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.

[Pg 276]

Sayyid Badr (Full-moon) was another, a very strong man, 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

[Pg 277]

Bih-būd Beg was another. He had served in the pages’ circle (chuhra jīrgasī) during the guerilla times and gave suchFol. 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 gaveFol. 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.

[Pg 278]

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 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 [Pg 279]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.

Mīr (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 SamarkandFol. 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 Naz̤ar 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 [Pg 280]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 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 Sult̤ānīm 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 [Pg 281]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 someFol. 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. [Pg 282]Said he, “If the honoured Mīrzā will pledge himself to strengthen 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 Niz̤āmu’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.

[Pg 283]

(j. Others of the Court.)

Those enumerated were Sl. Ḥusain Mīrzā’s retainers and followers.1121 His was a wonderful Age; in it Khurāsān, andFol. 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. ḤusainFol. 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 [Pg 284]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 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 [Pg 285]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 themFol. 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 [Pg 286]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.)

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 [Pg 287]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.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 andFol. 180b. dubbed it ‘Alī-sher’s.

[Pg 288]

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) 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 [Pg 289]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.

[Pg 290]

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 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.

[Pg 291]

(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,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).

[Pg 292]

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 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 [Pg 293]influential wife; and to him the Mīrzā’s people had gathered.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

[Pg 294]

### 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 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 Ẓaḥāq; 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 sult̤āns with 3 or 4000 men to overrun Badakhshān. At the time Mubārak Shāh and [Pg 295]Zubair had again joined Nāṣir Mīrzā, spite of former resentments and bickerings, and they all were lying at Shakdān, below KishmFol. 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 SayyidFol. 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 [Pg 296]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, 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 [Pg 297]not come now, even at this crisis when all his brethren, older and younger, were assembling in concord, resolute against such a foeFol. 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 heavinessFol. 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.

[Pg 298]

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 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 Sult̤ān. 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 [Pg 299]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 toFol. 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,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.[Pg 300] 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-naz̤īr 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 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.[Pg 301]

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-rabāt̤.1185

(j. Bābur visits the Begīms in Herī.)

All the Begīms, i.e. my paternal-aunt Pāyanda-sult̤ān 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 hisFol. 188b. Mausoleum. Having bent the knee with (yūkūnūb bīla) Pāyanda-sult̤ān 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-sult̤ān 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 [Pg 302]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 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 [Pg 303]on me, I excused myself; I did not commit the sin. After heFol. 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,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[Pg 304] (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 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 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. [Pg 305]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 Naz̤ar-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,

[Pg 306]

New-garden, Zubaida-garden,1208 Sl. Abū-sa‘īd Mīrzā’s White-house 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-sult̤ān in marriage.)

It must have been before those throneless times 1215 that Ḥabība-sult̤ān Begīm, the mother of Sl. Aḥmad Mīrzā’s youngest daughter Ma‘ṣūma-sult̤ān Begīm, brought her daughter into Herī. One day when I was visiting my Ākā, Ma‘ṣūma-sult̤ān 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-sult̤ān Begīm Fol. 192.and Habība-sult̤ān Begīm, settled between them that the latter should bring her daughter after me to Kābul.1216

[Pg 307]

(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 Mīr Ghiyās̤.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 truthFol. 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 [Pg 308]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 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 Sult̤ān (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 Fol. 193b.guide; once more we sent Sult̤ān Pashāī ahead and, putting our [Pg 309]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 serviceableFol. 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.

[Pg 310]

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 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 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 [Pg 311]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?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 wasFol. 196. brought from ahead that, at a place where there were narrows, [Pg 312]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,
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.

[Pg 313]

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 mistimedFol. 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 [Pg 314] 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 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 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 [Pg 315] 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,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 onFol. 199. [Pg 316]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 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?

[Pg 317]

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 ofFol. 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.

[Pg 318]

Twice over when fickle Fortune and discordant Fate had parted 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 Sult̤ān-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 Fol. 201.are now in my service Chīn-tīmūr Sult̤ān; Aīsān-tīmūr Sult̤ān, Tūkhtā-būghā Sult̤ān, and Bābā Sult̤ān;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 [Pg 319]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’sFol. 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

[Pg 320]

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! 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 [Pg 321]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;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.

[Pg 322]

That was a marvellous sign of the Divine might! Two or three years earlier the Mīrzā had left the Kābul country like a 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.

[Pg 323]

### 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,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 [Pg 324]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 Fol. 204.take the Fifth from Qāsim Beg and some others.1255 From what [Pg 325]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, hisFol. 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 [Pg 326]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 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 [Pg 327]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 inFol. 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-rabāt̤, 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-sult̤ān Begīm and Khadīja Begīm at the head of it, was inside Ālā-qūrghān; there too were the ḥarams of Badī‘u’z-zamān [Pg 328]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; 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,
Fol. 206b.All he will get is kīr-khar.1271

[Pg 329]

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 [Pg 330]road,1276—which might have turned out an amazingly good idea! But while they sit still there in Mashhad with nothing decided, the Sult̤āns arrive by forced marches. The Mīrzās for their part 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-sult̤ān 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-sult̤ān Begīm. Fol. 207b.With the honoured Begīm came Khusrau Kūkūldāsh, Sl. Qulī Chūnāq (One-eared) and Gadāī Balāl who had returned to me [Pg 331]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-razzāqFol. 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 [Pg 332]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 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 [Pg 333]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 theFol. 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 [Pg 334]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

Fol. 209b.(Author’s note on his terminology.) 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.

[Pg 335]

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-serverFol. 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 Nāz̤ir 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,Fol. 210b. turned it back and rammed it on our centre. When we, after a discharge of arrows, advanced, they, who also had been [Pg 336]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 sult̤āns 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 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 [Pg 337]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.)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 [Pg 338]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

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 [Pg 339]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, underFol. 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-sult̤ān.)

After this return to Kābul I concluded alliance (‘aqd qīldīm) with Sl. Aḥmad Mīrzā’s daughter Ma‘ṣūma-sult̤ān 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 cameFol. 213. swiftly down on Qandahār by the mountain road,1305 thinking to find me there. This was the very thing that experienced person

[Pg 340]

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.

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 [Pg 341]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-rabāt̤ 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 suchFol. 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.

[Pg 342]

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. 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

[Pg 343]

(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 daysFol. 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.

[Pg 344]

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 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 Sult̤ān 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!

[Pg 345]

### 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 Astarghach. 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,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 Naz̤ar,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

[Pg 346]

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 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

[Pg 347]

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, [Pg 348]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 Ḥaẓrat 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 [Pg 349]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-z̤afar, 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 [Pg 350]enjoyed a freedom from care never known by him before (f. 200b; 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 sult̤āns.

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).

[Pg 351]

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. 200b). 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[Pg 352] 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. 200b) recalls his earlier mention of what seems to be the same appointment (f. 10b), 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 sult̤āns 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,[Pg 353] and lay there a month awaiting reinforcement. The Aūzbeg sult̤āns 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 Sult̤āns, 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[Pg 354] 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 khut̤ba, 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 sult̤āns 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).[Pg 355]

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 [Pg 356]combined to enforce the fulfilment of his agreement. What were the precise terms of that agreement beyond the two as to the khut̤ba 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-sult̤ān had fallen to the share of Ḥamza Sult̤ān’s son ‘Abdu’l-lat̤īf 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.

[Pg 357]

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[Pg 358] 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

[Pg 359]

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 sult̤āns 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, [Pg 360]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[Pg 361] 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 [Pg 362]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 [Pg 363]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 Sult̤ān, 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. 241b) 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. 234b; T.R. p. 356). Ḥaidar did not know precisely the cause of the dispute, or shew[Pg 364] 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 [Pg 365] 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 [Pg 366]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. 216b).1350

View from above Babur’s Grave and Shah-jahan’s Mosque.

[Pg 367]

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 [Pg 368]sult̤ān 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 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 [Pg 369]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 orderFol. 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 qut̤nī 1364 was first up a ladder of all the men from the left hand of the centre, [Pg 370]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 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. Fol. 218b.Returning from our inspection, we sat down in the Bajaur sult̤ān’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.

[Pg 371]

(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 sult̤āns and of the most stubborn were made to reach their doom of death. Some heads of sult̤āns 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 [Pg 372]down by Kāfirs neighbouring on Bajaur. All wine and fruit 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.

[Pg 373]

(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.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 [Pg 374]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 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.

[Pg 375]

(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 envoyFol. 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.

[Pg 376]

(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 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 Aṃbahar-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 [Pg 377]and had cut his head off, but had dropped it on the road. HeFol. 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 theFol. 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 [Pg 378]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 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 [Pg 379] 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 wasFol. 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 [Pg 380]clans. The Koh-i-jūd runs for 14 miles along the Bhīra country, taking off from those Kashmīr mountains that are one with 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 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!”

[Pg 381]

(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,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 [Pg 382]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 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 khut̤ba 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 Fol. 225b.in Lāhūr, Daulat Khān, son of Tātār Khān Yūsuf-khail, who[Pg 383] 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 thoseFol. 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.

[Pg 384]

(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 bareback. 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.

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 [Pg 385]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 (khāt̤t̤lār) 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.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. [Pg 386]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 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.

[Pg 387]

(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. TātārFol. 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, [Pg 388]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 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 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[Pg 389] 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 Naz̤ar-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 OtherFol. 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 [Pg 390]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 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 [Pg 391]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 fromFol. 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.Fol. 231b.

[Pg 392]

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 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 [Pg 393]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, yellowFol. 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.

[Pg 394]

(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 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.).

[Pg 395]

After crossing the Sūrkh-āb, we dismounted at Kark and tookFol. 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.Fol. 234.

[Pg 396]

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 Sult̤ān’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 Rabāt̤-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

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) sult̤āns before Tāshkīnt, besieged Aḥmad-i-qāsim [Kohbur] in it [918 AH.],1450 Dost Beg [Pg 397]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 sult̤āns 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 Sult̤ānīm Begīm, Sl. Ḥusain Mīrzā’s eldest daughter, the mother of Muḥammad Sult̤ān Mīrzā. During those throneless times,1454 she had settled down in Khwārizm where Yīlī-pārsFol. 235. Sult̤ān’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.

[Pg 398]

(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 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 [Pg 399]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.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.

[Pg 400]

(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 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

[Pg 401]

Mullā kitāb-dār (librarian). The following quatrain, written impromptu, was sent to Shāh Ḥasan and those gathered in his 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 ofFol. 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, [Pg 402]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.

Ḥāfiz̤ 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 Sult̤ān.1468 On the back of it I wrote the following 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 [Pg 403]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 onFol. 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 [Pg 404]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 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 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.

[Pg 405]

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, notFol. 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

[Pg 406]

(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 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 (tūnqt̤ār) 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.

[Pg 407]

(August 16th) At dawn we made our morning (ṣubāḥī ṣubūḥī qīldūk).

(August 17th) Riding on Wednesday from Gul-i-bahār, weFol. 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 t̤ambour 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 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.

[Pg 408]

(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 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 [Pg 409]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-sult̤ān 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.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 Sult̤ānpūr. Today Shāh Mīr Ḥusain came from his country. Today came also Dilazāk chiefs under Bū Khān and [Pg 410]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), 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 (khunt̤ul). Darwīsh-i-muḥammad had never [Pg 411]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 theFol. 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 sult̤ān 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.Fol. 244. [Pg 412]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 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.

[Pg 413]

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 Sult̤ānpūr, 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 toFol. 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.

[Pg 414]

(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. 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 [Pg 415]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 wasFol. 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-timeFol. 246b. Prayer, I went to the Hot-bath where I stayed the night.

[Pg 416]

(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 Fol. 247.indeed; a word affecting Khalīfa (t̤arfidīn) 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 [Pg 417] 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 broughtFol. 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 [Pg 418]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, 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.

Fol. 248b.(Nov. 24th) On Thursday the 1st of Ẕū’l-ḥijja, Tāju’d-dīn Maḥmūd, come from Qandahār, waited on me.

[Pg 419]

(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.

[Pg 420]

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. 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.

[Pg 421]

(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 hadFol. 249b. [Pg 422]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.

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).

[Pg 423]

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 t̤alisman 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 suchFol. 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.

[Pg 424]

(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 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.

[Pg 425]

(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 QorānFol. 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

[Pg 426]

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.

[Pg 427]

a. Dramatis personæ.

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

Sult̤ān 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.

Sult̤ān 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 khut̤ba 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.

[Pg 428]

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 Sult̤ān 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.[Pg 429]

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 [Pg 430]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 khut̤ba 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. 208b) 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 [Pg 431]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 [Pg 432]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 Ghiyās̤u’d-dīn, was put to death in this year in Harāt because of suspicion that he was an ally of Bābur; his nephew, another Ghiyās̤u’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.).

[Pg 433]

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 Ghiyās̤u’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 [Pg 434]his account than for their own position in Khurāsān, their master’s position at the time being weakened by ill-success against the Sult̤ān 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 Ghiyās̤u’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[Pg 435] 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. 233b) 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

[Pg 436]

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 Ghiyās̤u’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.

[Pg 437]

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 khut̤ba 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 Niz̤āmu’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 [Pg 438]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. 351b) 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 Sult̤an 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”, [Pg 439]are in the Rāmpūr Dīwān; nor are several of those early ones of the Bābur-nāma. So that the Dīwān sent to Pūlād Sult̤ān 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-salāt̤īn-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 [Pg 440]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 [Pg 441]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.

[Pg 442]

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 Sult̤ānpūr, 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 Sult̤ānpūr 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.[Pg 443]

d. Two deaths.

This year, on Rajab 19th (May 23rd) died Ismā‘īl Ṣafawī at the age of 38, broken by defeat from Sult̤ān 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 khut̤ba 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. 214b). 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 Sult̤ānpūr, 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; [Pg 444]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. 255b).

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 Sult̤āns 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.

Babur’s Grave.

To face p. 445.

[Pg 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 theḤaidarābād
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 Sult̤ān Sa‘īd Khān (in Kāshghar), and now brought one of the Khān’s men, styled Yāngī Beg (new beg) Kūkūldāsh who conveyed letters, and [Pg 446]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 Fol. 252.dismounting at Gandamak, I had a violent discharge;1573 by God’s mercy, it passed off easily.

[Pg 447]

(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 Sult̤ānpur 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.

[Pg 448]

(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 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)

[Pg 449]

(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 itFol. 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

[Pg 450]

“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 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 [Pg 451]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 themFol. 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.”

[Pg 452]

(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 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.

[Pg 453]

(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 tūnqit̤ār 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,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).

[Pg 454]

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! 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.

[Pg 455]

(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 sult̤āns had laid siege to Balkh,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 [Pg 456]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 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 Fol. 257.with plunder and booty. Seeing the smallness of their number, Sl. Ibrāhīm’s people moved out against them in rather small [Pg 457]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 Sult̤ānpūr. 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 hadFol. 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 [Pg 458]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 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 [Pg 459]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 hadFol. 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 [Pg 460]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 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 [Pg 461]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 overFol. 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 Sult̤ānpūr 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 [Pg 462] 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 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 [Pg 463]round by precipices as Kūtila is, but is not so strong as Kūtila. As has been mentioned ‘Ālam Khān went into it.1644 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 Sult̤ān Ibrāhīm, son of Sult̤ān 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 Maz̤hab,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.

[Pg 464]

(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 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 (tunqit̤ār).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 [Pg 465]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 thereFol. 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.Fol. 262b.

[Pg 466]

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 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. [Pg 467]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 justFol. 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 Sult̤ān,1657 [Pg 468]Mahdī Khwāja, Muḥammad Sl. Mīrzā, ‘Ādil Sult̤ān, 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 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 [Pg 469]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 ofFol. 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 [Pg 470]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 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 sult̤āns? [Pg 471]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 sult̤āns 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 sult̤āns 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 madeFol. 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 Sult̤ān, 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.Fol. 266.[Pg 472]]

(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, Sult̤ān Muḥammad Dūldāī, Hindū Beg, Treasurer Walī and Pīr-qulī Sīstānī; our left was Muḥammad Sl. Mīrzā, Mahdī Khwāja, ‘Ādil Sult̤ān, 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 Sult̤ān, 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 [Pg 473]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.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

[Pg 474]

Must̤afa the commissary for his part made excellent discharge 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 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).

[Pg 475]

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 Sult̤ān, 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 Niz̤āmu’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 Qut̤bu’d-dīn’s 1685 tomb and visited the tombs and residences of Sl. Ghiyās̤u’d-dīn Balban 1686 and Sl. ‘Alāu’u’d-dīn

[Pg 476]

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 khut̤ba 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 khut̤ba 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.

[Pg 477]

(z. The great diamond.)

In Sultan Ibrāhīm’s defeat the Rāja of Gūālīār Bikramājīt the Hindū had gone to hell.1690 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, ‘Az̤im 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 [Pg 478]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 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 [Pg 479]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-dīnFol. 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 sult̤āns 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 Ghiyās̤u’d-dīn had it. The T̤abaqāt-i-nāṣirī 1709 brings it forward [Pg 480]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 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 sult̤āns, 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 Fol. 270b.of produce. On the east, south, and even on the west, it ends at its great enclosing ocean (muḥit̤ daryā-sī-gha). On the north [Pg 481]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 sult̤āns 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) sult̤āns; 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) seekingFol. 271. after knowledge, and a constant copyist of the Holy Book. His dynasty people call Tānk.1715 His ancestors also will have been [Pg 482]wine-servers to Sl. Fīrūz Shāh and those (Tūghlūq) sult̤āns; 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 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 [Pg 483]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 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 sult̤āns, 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 [Pg 484]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 (t̤āriq) 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 [Pg 485]people trade in musk-bags, b:ḥrī-qūt̤ās,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.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 [Pg 486] 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 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.

[Pg 487]

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 andFol. 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 [Pg 488]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 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 [Pg 489]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 (qit̤ār) of camels.1741

The rhinoceros is another. This also is a large animal, equalFol. 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’ [Pg 490]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 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) [Pg 491]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 HindūstānīFol. 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).

[Pg 492]

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 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

[Pg 493]

(j. Fauna of Hindūstān:—Birds.)1764

The peacock (Ar. t̤āūs) 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 (t̤auq sūsanī); its neck is of a beautiful blue;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. t̤ūt̤ī) is another. This also is in Bajaur and countries lower down. It comes into Nīngnahār and the [Pg 494]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 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 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

[Pg 495]

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

[Pg 496]

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. 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 [Pg 497]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 littleFol. 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 [Pg 498]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 [Pg 499]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, wingsFol. 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. [Pg 500]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 [Pg 501]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 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.

[Pg 502]

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 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 [Pg 503]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 harshFol. 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 [Pg 504]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 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 [Pg 505]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 HindūstānīsFol. 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 [Pg 506]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 stoneæ 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 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). [Pg 507]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 Sarat̤ān 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 theFol. 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.

[Pg 508]

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; 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 [Pg 509]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 anFol. 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 asFol. 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 [Pg 510](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 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

[Pg 511]

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 largerFol. 287. leaf than the orange.

The sangtāra 1879 is another fruit resembling the orange (nāranj). [Pg 512]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. [Pg 513]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 acidityFol. 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 [Pg 514]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 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.

[Pg 515]

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 andFol. 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.

[Pg 516]

(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.)

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 (t̤abaq) 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 [Pg 517]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 perforatedFol. 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.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.

[Pg 518]

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; 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 [Pg 519]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 andFol. 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 isFol. 291b. affected, armour, book, cloth, and utensils all; a house even does [Pg 520]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 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 [Pg 521]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 Fol. 292b.
Āgra |  | 29 | 76,919
Mīān-wilāyat (Midlands) | 2 | 91 | 19
Gūālīār | 2 | 23 | 57,450
Kālpī and Sehoṇda (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 Fol. 293.
Jūnpūr | 4 | ·0 | 88,333
Karra and Mānikpūr | 1 | 63 | 27,282
Bihār | 4 | 5 | 60,000
Sāran | 1 | 10 | 17,506½
Sarwār | 1 | 55 | 18,373
Champāran | 1 | 90 | 86,060
Kandla | 1 | 43 | 30,300
Tirhut from Rāja Rup-narāīn’s tribute, silver | 1 | 43 | 55,000
black (i.e. copper) | 1 | 27 | 50,300
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.

[Pg 522]

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) 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 [Pg 523]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; Niz̤ām 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; Qut̤b 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 Sult̤ān Muḥammad.Fol. 294b. Marghūb the slave was in Mahāwīn (Muttra?); he remained there, thus close, for some time but came no nearer.

[Pg 524]

(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 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

[Pg 525]

(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’sFol. 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 Sult̤ān 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 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 [Pg 526] 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 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 [Pg 527]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 Muṣt̤afa Farmūlī and Fīrūz Khān Sārang-khānī, to act against the rebel amīrs of the East (Pūrab). Muṣt̤afa 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 Sult̤ān, Mahdī Khwāja and Muḥammad Sl. Mīrzā chār-qabs, sword-belts and dagger-belts; and to the begs andFol. 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:—

[Pg 528]

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). 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, [Pg 529] 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 Niz̤ām Khān in Bīāna with royal letters of promise and threat; with these was sentFol. 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 detachFol. 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 [Pg 530]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 Qut̤b 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.

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 Sult̤ān, 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.

[Pg 531]

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,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 aFol. 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 [Pg 532]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 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 [Pg 533]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. TheFol. 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 [Pg 534]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 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 [Pg 535]ruler in their father’s place and, owing to his evil disposition,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.

[Pg 536]

### 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 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 [Pg 537]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 ‘Az̤am-humāyūn’s, and other lands also, one pargana given being worth a krūr and 60 laks.1964

In Hindūstān they give permanent titles [muqarrarī khit̤āblār] to highly-favoured amīrs, one such being ‘Az̤am-humāyūn (August Might), one Khān-i-jahān (Khan-of-the-world), anotherFol. 303. Khān-i-khānān (Khān-of-khāns). Fatḥ Khān’s father’s title was ‘Az̤am-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 [Pg 538]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. 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 Niz̤ām 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 Niz̤ām Khān of Bīāna’s Afghāns and sipāhīs 1970 were an army of over 4000 horse and of Fol. 304.foot-men themselves again, more than 10,000. Niz̤ām Khān [Pg 539] 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 Niz̤ām 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-dādFol. 304b. a few Bhīra men and Lāhorīs with Hastachī 1975 tūnqit̤ār 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 [Pg 540]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

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).

[Pg 541]

(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 heardFol. 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 [Pg 542]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. 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 [Pg 543] 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 dreadfulFol. 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 [Pg 544]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.)

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 [Pg 545]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.”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-z̤afar) to join the Hindūstān army, (Muḥ. 932 AH.-Oct. 1525 AD.)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 [Pg 546]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-lat̤īf 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 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 [Pg 547]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 toFol. 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 [Pg 548]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 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.

[Pg 549]

(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 justFol. 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, [Pg 550]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). Must̤afa Rūmī had 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, Must̤afa 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, [Pg 551]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 thereFol. 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), whenFol. 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
[Pg 552](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 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.

[Pg 553]

(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 aidFol. 313. [Pg 554]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 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 [Pg 555]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 fromFol. 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 [Pg 556]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.)

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.

[Pg 557]

“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 oathFol. 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; Qut̤b 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 secondFol. 315b. Jumāda (March 13th), having the carts 2036 and wheeled tripods [Pg 558]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 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.

[Pg 559]

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.Fol. 316b.

[Pg 560]

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 Fol. 317.standards of Islām have been raised to the highest pinnacles. The account of this auspicious fortune is as follows:—

[Pg 561]

(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 (t̤auq), 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 Sult̤ān of Dihlī, theFol. 317b. Sult̤ān of Gujrāt and the Sult̤ān 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 [Pg 562]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 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 [Pg 563]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 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.

[Pg 564]

“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 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, Niz̤āmu’d-dīn ‘Alī Khalīfa, the pillar of the Imperial fortune, exerted himself [Pg 565]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 uprightFol. 319b. brother, the beloved friend of Destiny, the favoured of Him whose aid is entreated (i.e. God), Chīn-tīmūr Sult̤ān,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 sult̤ānate, 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, Niz̤āmu’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, Sult̤ān ‘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, Niz̤āmu’d-dīn Tardī Beg brother of Qūj (son of) Aḥmad, whom God hath taken into His mercy,—ShīrafganFol. 320. son of the above-named Qūj Beg deceased,—the pillar of great ones, the mighty khān, Ārāīsh Khān,2068—the wazīr, greatest [Pg 566]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 Sult̤ān,—the pillar of the nobility Niz̤āmu’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, Niz̤āmu’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 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 Niz̤āmu’d-dīn Khwājagī Asad jān-dār.2072 In the right wing [Pg 567]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 Sult̤ān son of Mahdī Sult̤ān,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 Niz̤āmu’d-dīn Jān-i-muḥammad Beg Ātāka.

Of amīrs of Hind there were in this division, the scions of sult̤āns, Kamāl Khān and Jamāl Khān sons of the Sl. ‘Alā’u’d-dīnFol. 321. above-mentioned,—the most excellent officer ‘Alī Khān Shaikh-zāda of Farmūl,—and the pillar of the nobility, Niz̤ām Khān of Bīāna.

[Pg 568]

(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, Niz̤āmu’d-dīn Sult̤ān 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 sult̤āns 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 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 Sult̤ān, 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, Muṣt̤afa 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

[Pg 569]

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 Muṣt̤afa 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 Sult̤ān and the pillars of royal retainers, Niz̤āmu’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 inFol. 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 Khalīl 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 Sult̤ānate, Niz̤āmu’d-din ‘Alī Khalīfa.

[Pg 570]

Our high-born brother 2087 Muḥammad Sl. Mīrzā, and the representative of royal dignity, ‘Ādil Sult̤ān, 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 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

[Pg 571]

(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 theFol. 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,Fol. 323b.
One Earth flew up to make another Heaven.2100

[Pg 572]

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 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 (bāt̤il) 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 [Pg 573]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 greatFol. 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.

[Pg 574]

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.

[Pg 575]

Below the titles (t̤ughrā)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.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 Wasat̤-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 [Pg 576]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, 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.

[Pg 577]

(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 Sult̤āns; the Sult̤āns of Hind,2127 whether because theirFol. 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 [Pg 578]put up with this amount of (imperfect) submission. For our own part, we did after the fashion of earlier Sult̤āns; 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 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 [Pg 579]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 afterFol. 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) Qut̤b Khān abandoned it and went off.2137

[Pg 580]

(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 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 [Pg 581]which had dismounted at Toda-(bhim).2141 After leaving Toda, we dismounted at Sūnkār; there Ḥasan Khān Mīwātī’s sonFol. 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,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 [Pg 582]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, Qut̤b 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. Qut̤b 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 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 Sult̤ān 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.

[Pg 583]

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 equipmentFol. 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

[Pg 584]

(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,
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

[Pg 585]

(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;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 [taqt̤i‘] the following couplet of mine into 504 measures 2169:—

[Pg 586]

“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.)

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.

[Pg 587]

### 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 Qut̤b 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 [Pg 588] 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.

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-sult̤ān 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.

[Pg 589]

(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 thanFol. 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 sult̤āns and amīrs of that neighbourhood, such as Qāsim-i-ḥusain Sult̤ān, Bī-khūb (or, Nī-khūb) Sult̤ān, 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 [Pg 590]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 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. [Pg 591]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 isFol. 333. reached, smaller than its own and, like that, made by throwing a dam across between hills.

[Pg 592]

(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) [Pg 593]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 Sult̤āns of Mandāū (Mandū). When Sl. Nāṣiru’d-dīn passed away,2200 oneFol. 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 [Pg 594]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 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.

[Pg 595]

(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 entirelyFol. 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, droveFol. 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 [Pg 596]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 [Pg 597]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 inFol. 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

[Pg 598]

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.

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.

[Pg 599]

(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 boatsFol. 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. Muṣt̤afa 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 elephantFol. 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 [Pg 600]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 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 [Pg 601]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 Sult̤ān 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 ofFol. 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 [Pg 602]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 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 Sult̤ān and discussing with him, but the Sult̤ān 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 Sult̤ān 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?).

Fol. 339.(April 2nd) On Thursday the 12th of the month I rode out intending to hunt.2240

[Pg 603]

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. 376b, 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. 365b) and Baksara (f. 366-366b); that he swam the Ganges (f. 366b), bestowed Sarūn on a Farmūlī Shaikh-zāda (f. 374b and f. 377), negociated with Rānā Sangā’s son Bikramājīt (f. 342b), ordered a Chār-bāgh laid out (f. 340), and was ill for 40 days (f. 346b). It may be inferred too that he visited Dūlpūr (f. 353b) recalled ‘Askarī (f. 339), sent Khwāja Dost-i-khāwand on family affairs to Kābul (f. 345b), and was much pre-occupied by the[Pg 604] 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. 363b), 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. 363b and ff. 366-366b).

(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.

[Pg 605]

### 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 [Pg 606]Prayer of Sunday the 5th of the month, went into the fort of Āgra to bid farewell to Fakhr-i-jahān Begīm and Khadīja-sult̤ān 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 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) [Pg 607]to be cut out in the solid rock on that same side, and a mosqueFol. 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.

[Pg 608]

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 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 [Pg 609]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 theFol. 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 (t̤abaqat), 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 [Pg 610]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 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 [Pg 611]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 joinsFol. 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 [Pg 612]naked without covering for the privities. Along the sides of 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 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

[Pg 613]

(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.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 [Pg 614]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 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, [Pg 615]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 sidesFol. 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 [Pg 616]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-sult̤ān 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 Sult̤ān-bakht Begīm’s daughter, and my yīnkā chīcha’s grand-daughter, that is to say, Zaināb-sult̤ān Begīm.2307 They had come past Tūta and dismounted at a small 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 [Pg 617]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 andFol. 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 Ahṃad Afshār (Turk) a summons to Farīdūn the qabūz-player was written with my own hand.

(Here the record of 11 days is wanting.)

[Pg 618]

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-z̤afar).

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 sult̤āns of Samarkand and those parts, and that all the sult̤āns of Mā warā’u’n-nahr had gone to help him.2318

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, [Pg 619]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 (naz̤m qīlmāq) [Pg 620] 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 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 [Pg 621]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.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-z̤afar to Qandahār in 11 days.2335

[Pg 622]

(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 Bast̤ām, 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 sult̤āns 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 Fol. 347b.Samarkand and Mīān-kāl, Mahdī Sl.’s and Ḥamza Sl.’s sons from Ḥiṣār, Kītīn-qarā Sl. from Balkh, all these sult̤āns 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 [Pg 623]himself there.2340 Here-upon the Aūzbegs, with entire disregard of their opponents,2341 left their counsels at this:—“Let all of us sult̤āns 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 sult̤āns are overcome and slaughtered.

In one letter it (khūd) was written, “It is not known for certainFol. 348. that any sult̤ān except Kūchūm Khān has escaped; not a man who went with the army has come back up to now.” The [Pg 624]sult̤āns 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 [Pg 625]over-looked that common people mostly say alāmā or aīlāmān.2352 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,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 [Pg 626]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 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 t̤ā (iltafāt̤) and qūlinj with yā (qīlinj?).2363 Although thy letter can be read if every sort [Pg 627]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.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, sult̤āns, Turk and Hind amīrs were summoned for [Pg 628]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 sult̤āns and amīrs from beyond Gang (Ganges), and march in whatever direction favoured fortune. These particulars having been written down, Ghīāṣu’d-dīn the 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 sult̤āns 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, 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.

[Pg 629]

(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 t̤amghāchī’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 [Pg 630]in whose pargana the post-house may be.” Chīqmāq Beg got out of Āgra with Shāhī on that same day.

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.); That each tūtām is four fingers (aīlīk), Each aīlīk, six barley-corns. Know this knowledge.2377

The measuring-cord (t̤anāb)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 [Pg 631]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 ḥāfiz̤es 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 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 sult̤āns, 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 [Pg 632]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 Ḥāfiz̤2390 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 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 Sult̤ān and his sons, to Ḥāfiz̤ 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 [Pg 633]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 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 hisFol. 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 [Pg 634]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, Fol. 354.and the whole body of workmen in the way customary for master-workmen and wage-earners of Āgra.

[Pg 635]

(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.Fol. 354b. These the Aūzbeg beat at once on coming up, dismounted and [Pg 636]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 sult̤āns, 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 [Pg 637]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 sult̤āns, 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.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-dīnFol. 355b. the armourer was made to gallop off, with tryst of 20 days,2423 to [Pg 638]convey written orders to the eastern amīrs for all the sult̤āns, 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 Sult̤ān, 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 Sult̤ān’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., 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 Sult̤ān 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.)

[Pg 639]

(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 newsFol. 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 [Pg 640]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 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 [Pg 641]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 ofFol. 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 [Pg 642]grandson Khwāja Kalān for Samarkand, who had come by way of a mission from Aūzbeg khāns and sult̤āns.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 (qit̤a‘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-khat̤) 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 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 [Pg 643]to the Shāh 2453; and Chāpūq 2454 was joined with the Aūzbeg envoys and sent to the Aūzbeg khāns and sult̤āns.

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 (mist̤ar) of eleven lines 2457 in order to write the mixed hands of the translation.2458 Today [Pg 644]the words of the honoured man-of-God admonished my heart.2459

(Feb. 6th) Opposite Jākīn,2460 one of the Rāprī parganas, we 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

[Pg 645]

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 madeFol. 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 [Pg 646]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 Fol. 359b.to me. After thinking matters over, my choice fell on this:—How should a country hold together and be strong (marbūt̤ u maẓbūt̤), 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 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

[Pg 647]

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 ofFol. 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

[Pg 648]

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 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 [Pg 649]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 Sult̤ān 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 hadFol. 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).

[Pg 650]

(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 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.

[Pg 651]

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,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 [Pg 652]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 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 [Pg 653]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-khairFol. 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 [Pg 654]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

[Pg 655]

(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 [Pg 656]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. 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, [Pg 657]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 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.

[Pg 658]

(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 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 [Pg 659]measure all marches from Chunār on the direct road, Lut̤fī 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. TodayFol. 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-nāśā-river, about the water of which Hindūs are understood to be extremely scrupulous. They do not cross it, but go past its [Pg 660]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 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-nāśā-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) 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 [Pg 661]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 wasFol. 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

[Pg 662]

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 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 [Pg 663]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:—aFol. 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 [Pg 664]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.)

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 [Pg 665]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 articlesFol. 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.

[Pg 666]

(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.

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 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 [Pg 667]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 [Pg 668]Muṣt̤afa, 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 Muṣt̤afa as his reserve; that both for Ūstād ‘Alī-qulī and Muṣt̤afa shelters (muljār) for the culverin-firers should be raised by a mass of spadesmen and coolies (kahār) Fol. 370b.under appointed overseers; that as soon as these shelters were ready, ‘Askarī and the sult̤āns 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 Sult̤ān, 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, [Pg 669]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 thereFol. 371. to come down on the enemy; let Ūstād ‘Alī-qulī and Muṣt̤afa 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 Muṣt̤afa 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 sult̤āns Qāsim-i-ḥusain Sult̤ān, Bī-khūb Sult̤ān and Tāng-aītmīsh Sult̤ān, 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, theFol. 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

[Pg 670]

(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. Muṣt̤afa 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!” 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

[Pg 671]

(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 andFol. 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 [Pg 672]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 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

[Pg 673]

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.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 Sult̤ān 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 (Muṣt̤afa’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 Sult̤āns to say, “Gather well together those whoFol. 374. cross, go close to the opposing army, take it in the flank, and get to grips.” Accordingly the Sult̤āns 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 Sult̤āns 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-[Pg 674]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 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 Sult̤āns 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.

[Pg 675]

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, ShāhFol. 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 [Pg 676] (200m.), attacked the Balūchīs and given them a good beating.2631 Orders were sent through ‘Abdu’l-lāh (kitābdār) for the Sult̤ān 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 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 [Pg 677]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 BengalīFol. 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 [Pg 678]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 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 [Pg 679]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’sFol. 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

[Pg 680]

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

[Pg 681]

(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 kinsfolkFol. 378. [Pg 682] (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 Dalmūt̤ (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

[Pg 683]

(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,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 on

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 hadFol. 379. come in the interval.

Today Yaḥyā Nuḥāni was granted an allowance of 15 laks [Pg 684]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 sult̤āns 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 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 [Pg 685]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 sult̤āns of the advance. Shaikh Bāyazīd and Bīban, on hearing of their expedition, had fled to the pargana of Mahūba.2673 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 sult̤āns 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.

[Pg 686]

(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 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 [Pg 687]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 Kābul.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 [Pg 688]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 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 [Pg 689]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 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

[Pg 690]

### 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 Ghaus̤2691 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

[Pg 691]

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 Sult̤āns.

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

[Pg 692]

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 Niz̤āmu-’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, [Pg 693]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-salāt̤īn-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 Niz̤āmu’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 Niz̤āmu’d-dīn’s story, as it stands, highly improbable, will be found later in this note.

[Pg 694]

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-z̤afar 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-z̤afar, 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,[Pg 695] 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-z̤afar 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-z̤afar 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-z̤afar 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 [Pg 696]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 Sult̤ān 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-z̤afar, 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 [Pg 697]and Qila‘-i-z̤afar, 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-z̤afar. 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 [Pg 698]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 khut̤ba 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

[Pg 699]

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-z̤afar 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 [Pg 700]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 [Pg 701]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 [Pg 702]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 Niz̤āmu’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, [Pg 703]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

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 Niz̤āmu’d-dīn Aḥmad’s father Khwāja Muḥammad Muqīm Harāwī was in the service of the Office of Works.2724 Amīr Niz̤āmu’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.

[Pg 704]

As Niz̤āmu’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 [Pg 705]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 Niz̤āmu’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 Sult̤ān 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 [Pg 706]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 Sult̤ān Mīrzā,2735 ‘Ādil Sult̤ān, and Qāsim-i-ḥusain Sult̤ān, 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 [Pg 707]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 Niz̤āmu’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 [Pg 708] 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,[Pg 709] 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 [Pg 710]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 [Pg 711]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 (z̤ahīru’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 Sult̤ān 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.).

[Pg 712]

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

[Pg 713]

Salīma Sult̤ān 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 Sult̤ān 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 Sult̤ān 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 [Pg 714]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

[Pg 715]

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[Pg 716] 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.

[Pg i]

## 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. 3b): 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. 6b);—

Maẕkūr būlūb aīdī kīm Akhsī qūrghānī buland jar austīdā wāqi‘ būlūb tūr. ‘Imāratlār jar yāqāsīdā aīrdī.... Mīrzā jardīn kabūtar u [Pg ii] 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 [Pg iii]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. 6b), 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. 110b) 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, [Pg iv]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.

[Pg v]

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. 49b), 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. 49b, 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 [Pg vi]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. qit̤ā, 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[Pg vii] 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 qit̤ā 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 qit̤ā 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. 72b) 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.

[Pg viii]

### 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. 36b) 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. 125b) 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[Pg ix] 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. 118b), 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.[Pg x]

On the other hand, it is not with the Elphinstone Codex (f. 89b); 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. 376b), 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;—

[Pg xi]

(a) Elphinstone MS. f. 89b,—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. 118b) 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. 96b),—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, khāt̤irīm-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 Niz̤āmī’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 [Pg xii] 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 [Pg xiii] 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 (t̤alab) 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 [Pg xiv]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[Pg xv] 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.

[Pg xvi] 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.

[Pg xvii]

## [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 [Pg xviii] 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. 131b); 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 [Pg xix]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 [Pg xx]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).

[Pg xxi]

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. 131b);

[Pg xxii]

2. That Nīng-nahār is nine torrents, i.e. mountain streams, tūquz-rud;

3. That (the) nine torrents issue from Safed-koh (f. 132b).

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. 3b)—(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.

[Pg xxiii]

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),[Pg xxiv] 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.”[Pg xxv]

### 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[Pg xxvi] 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. 135b; Ḥaidarābād Codex f. 173b; 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 [Pg xxvii]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 Niz̤āmu’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. 15b) 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 [Pg xxviii]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. 210b. 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

[Pg xxix]

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 Khān’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

[Pg xxx]

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 “Sult̤ān Muḥammad” of No. 652 (gold), nor the “Sult̤ān Bābur Bahādur” of the silver coins enables confident acceptance of them as names he himself would use.

### I.—ON THE WEEPING-WILLOWS OF f. 190b.

The passage omitted from f. 190b, 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.[Pg xxxi]

The first Persian translation omits the passage (I.O. 215 f. 154b); the second varies from the Turkī, notably by changing sāch and sāj to shākh throughout (I.O. 217 f. 150b). 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,

[Pg xxxii]

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. 208b).

Since making my note (f. 208b) 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 [Pg xxxiii] 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-t̤āq, frontal arch, which, coupled with Mohan Lall’s word arch (t̤āq)
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.2794

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,

[Pg xxxiv]

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. 324b), 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.[Pg xxxv]

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. 306b foot).

Presumably the letter was with Kāmrān’s own copy of the Bābur-nāma. That copy may have reached Humāyūn’s hands

[Pg xxxvi]

(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 Sult̤ān Shāh, the father of Malik Aḥmad. Before Sulaimān was killed he made three requests [Pg xxxvii] 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, 220b, 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.

[Pg xxxviii]

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[Pg xxxix] 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[Pg xl] 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[Pg xli] 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.

[Pg xlii]

### 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 [Pg xliii] to be a girl?’ they write ‘Alī or Ḥasan on one of two pieces of paper and Fāt̤ima 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

[Pg xlv]

[Pg xliv]

## [APPENDICES TO THE HINDŪSTĀN SECTION.]

### M.—ON THE TERM BAḤRĪ QŪT̤ĀS.

That the term baḥrī qūt̤ās 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 qūt̤ās, the yāk, was less well known than it now is.

The word qūt̤ās 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 qūt̤ās, 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 (qūt̤ās) as bœuf marin (baḥrī qūt̤ās) and his Mémoires ii, 191, renders Bābur’s baḥrī qūt̤ās by bœuf vert de mer (f. 276, p. 490 and n. 8).

The term baḥrī qūt̤ās 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 [Pg xlvi]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 qūt̤ās 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 qūt̤ās” 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 qūt̤ās so that there is no warrant from him for taking the term to apply to the wild yāk. His cousin and[Pg xlvii] contemporary Ḥaidar Mīrzā, however, mentions the wild yāk twice and simply as the wild qūt̤ās.

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 qūt̤ās 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. 281b.[Pg xlviii]

### 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.278b).

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 (qūt̤ās) 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.278b) 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.[Pg xlix]

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. 278b):—

On f. 135, “lokheh” is said to mean hill-chikor.
On f. 278b, | 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 [Pg l] (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 qūt̤ān (f. 142, p. 224; Memoirs, p. 153; Mémoires ii, 313).

Mr. Erskine for qūt̤ān enters khawāṣil [gold-finch] which he will have seen interlined in the Elphinstone Codex (f. 109b) in explanation of qūt̤ān.

Shaikh Effendi (Kunos’ ed., p. 139) explains qūt̤ān 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 [Pg li] herons and egrets of Bābur’s trio; it also would appear a more likely bird to be caught “with the cord”.

That Bābur’s qūt̤ān (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 qūt̤ān 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 qūt̤ān) “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[Pg lii] with its original in the Advocates Library, the copy I made of them in 1910.

a. On the kadhil, jack-fruit, Artocarpus integrifolia (f. 283b, p. 506; Elphinstone MS. f. 235b).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. 238b, 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 [Pg liii] 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 (?).”

[Pg liv]

“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 samt̤ara.2821

“The other is the samt̤ara 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 samt̤ara 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 samt̤ara 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 [Pg lv] 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 [Pg lvi]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).[Pg lvii]

(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

[Pg lviii]

### 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. 237b) when he records sending “my dīwān” to Pūlād Sl. Aūzbeg.

[Pg lix]

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 [ṣaḥḥ] 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 ṣaḥḥ, 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 ṣaḥḥ 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 ṣaḥḥ 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 ṣaḥḥ avouches the accuracy of its archetype and not its own.2831

[Pg lx]

(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. 330b) 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. 330b, 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. 357b), 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) [Pg lxi] 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. 376b, 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

[Pg lxii]

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. 144b), a name used later by Ḥaidar Mīrzā, Niz̤āmu’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 [Pg lxiii] of the Bābur-nāma it is not mentioned again till 935 AH. (fol. 357b) but at some intermediate date Bābur made in it a copy of the Qorān which he sent to Makka.2835 In 935 AH. (f. 357b) 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

[Pg lxiv]

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 [Pg lxv] of the Hindūstān poems (f. 357b), 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. 330b) he cut up the following couplet:—

Gūz u qāsh u soz u tīlīnī mū dī?
Qad u khadd u saj u bīlīnī mū dī?

[Pg lxvi]

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. 180b) 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. 252b) 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. 36b, 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 [Pg lxvii]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 naz̤r 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 lat̤if 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 laḥz̤a 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.

[Pg lxviii]

[Pg lxix]

A. Cunningham del.

[Pg lxx]

### 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:[Pg lxxi]—

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)
Ra”bīiII. | 29 Monday | 29 A (Sunday)
Jumadā I. | 30 Tuesday | 30 B (Monday)
Jum”adāII. | 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)*

[Pg lxxii]

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. 368b 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.[Pg lxxiii]

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 [Pg lxxiv]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. 278b | L:knūr | L:knū | L:knū, | p. 361 | Luknow.
2. | f. 338 | L:knū | " | ” | p. 437 | "
3. |  | f. 292b | 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. 376b | L:knūr | " | ” | p. 487* | "
8. | f. 377b | 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. 278b and f. 338, are shown by their context to represent Lakhnau.

The third (f. 292b) 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 [Pg lxxv]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

[Pg lxxvi]

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. 376b, f. 377b) 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.

[Pg lxxvii]

### 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:—

1. Ba farmūda-i-Shāh Bābur ki ‘ādilash
Banā’īst tā kākh-i-gardūn mulāqī,
2. Banā kard īn muhbit̤-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

[Pg lxxviii]

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. M[i]r 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:—

[Pg lxxix]

1. Ba nām-i-anki dānā hast akbar
Ki khāliq-i-jamla ‘ālam lā-makānī
2. Durūd Muṣt̤afá 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).

[Pg lxxx]

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 Sult̤ān 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 [Pg lxxxi]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.27

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.28

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.29

[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).30

[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 Niz̤āmī 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 Rabāt̤. 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 Rabāt̤ 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] bādiya; 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 Tīmūrid 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-sult̤ān, 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; Tīmūr-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 Niz̤āmī 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. Ṣāliḥ 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-z̤afar. 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 t̤arīqā 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 Sult̤ān 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 Sult̤ān-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, Sult̤ān 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 t̤aurī 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 Sult̤ānīm also when used (f. 72) of Sl. Muḥammad Khānika but of Sult̤ānīm 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 Sult̤ān 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 Sult̤ān Sātūq-būghrā Khān Ghāzī Pādshāh and Tārīkh-i-nāṣirī (Raverty s.n.)

[184] darzī; Ḥ.S. khaiyāt̤.

[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] t̤awīla t̤awīla 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 at̤awārī 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 Niz̤āmī’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-az̤farī, 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] Niz̤āmu’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 sult̤āns 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 sult̤āns; 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-qāt̤i‘; 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] t̤aur. 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 Niz̤āmī 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-lat̤īf 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; Rabāt̤ik-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 Sult̤ān 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] t̤aurī; 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 mat̤la‘ 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 bīla 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 Niz̤āmu’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. 18b); 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 t̤aghāī but dādā father. I have not met with an instance of his saying ‘My t̤aghāī’ 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 Khut̤ba 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 Sult̤ān 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 Kāfirs 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. 21a, 1058b.

[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 10d. thus making the total revenue only £33,333 6s. 8d. 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. Qūt̤ān 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] Niz̤āmu’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] khāt̤ir-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 ‘ 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 sult̤āns, 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 sult̤āns 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 t̤ambourchi, 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 t̤amghā, 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] t̤aur [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-sult̤ān 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 Sult̤ānīm (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-sult̤ān 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 Tīmūrids).

[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 Sult̤ān 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 sult̤ān, one whose father was a Shabān sult̤ān, 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 sult̤āns 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 sult̤ān inference makes him seem. This little crux presses home the need of much attention to the lacunæ in the Bābur-nāma, since in them are lost some exits and some entries of Bābur’s dramatis personæ, 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-t̤āq 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 Sult̤ān Mīrzā (A. A. Blochmann, p. 461). No mention is made here of Sult̤ānīm 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-sult̤ān, 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 Sult̤ānīm’s husbands, Aḥmad and ‘Abdu’l-bāqī (ff. 164, 175b).

[1039] This should be four (f. 169b). 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 Sult̤ān (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) Sult̤ān-nizhād, married to Iskandar Bāī-qarā; (3) Sa‘ādat-bakht also known as Begīm Sult̤ān, married to Mas’ūd Mīrān-shāhī (Ḥ.S. iii, 327); (4) Manauwar-sult̤ān, 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 Fāt̤ima-sult̤ān Begīms. So too four wives:—Bega-sult̤ān and Chūlī Begīms, Zubaida and Lat̤īf-sult̤ān 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] Niz̤āmī’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-wasat̤ 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] Niz̤āmu’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 Niz̤āmu’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 “Niz̤āmu’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] Niz̤āmu’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] Sult̤ānīm 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 Kæmpfer, 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. 144b 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. 180b 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 Niz̤āmī 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 Niz̤āmī 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. 148b and 217 f. 125b; Mems. p. 199.

[1172] News of Ḥusain’s death in 911 AH. (f. 163b) did not reach Bābur till 912 AH. (f. 184b).

[1173] Lone-meadow (f. 195b). 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. 127b). 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 Rabāt̤-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 Rabāt̤-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-sult̤ān (named), Khadīja-sult̤ān, Apāq-sult̤ān, and Fakhr-jahān Begīms, all daughters of Abū-sa‘īd. The Apāq Begīm named above (also on f. 168b 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. 190b.

[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. 47b 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. 137b) 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. Ḥaidar 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. 233b, f. 224b, 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. 139b; 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. 164b and 217 f. 139b). 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. 198b.

[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 sult̤āns reside in the heats (J. Asiatique xvi, 501, de Meynard’s article; Ḥ.S. iii, 356).

[1261] f. 172b.

[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 Rabāt̤-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 Khut̤ba 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 Herī 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. 163b) 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 Rabāt̤-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. 201b-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. l68b, ‘imarātī kah az sang yak pāra farmūda būdīm; 217 f. 143b, 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. 14b 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. 209b, 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. 144b) 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. 170b). The second Pers. trs. (217 f. 145b) 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. 10b, 11b. 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. 205b for the same phrase, with supposedly different meaning.

[1312] qāngshār lit. ridge of the nose.

[1313] bīr aūq ham qūīā-ālmādīlār (f. 203b 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. 172b; W.-i-B. I.O. 215 f. 174b and 217 f. 148b; 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. 118b as though through loss of pages, and a blank of narrative follows. Before the later gap of f. 251b 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, Naz̤ar 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. 234b, 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. 12b when writing of Daulat-sult̤ān 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 Sult̤ān. 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. 106b), 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 lacunæ 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. 216b and note to “Monday”.

[1351] Elph. MS. f. 173b; 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. 180b, and finally ends on f. 223b.

[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. 220b 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. 154b 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. 245b).

[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. 178b), in 217 (f. 149b) 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. qut̤bī, 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. 234b) 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. 218b.

[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] t̤aur yīrī waqī‘ būlūb tūr. As on f. 160 of the valley of Khwesh, I have taken t̤aur to be Turkī, complete, shut in.

[1406] chashma (f. 218b 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. 145b.

[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. 142b.

[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. 203b 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-sult̤ān 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. 195b) 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. 235b 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. 240b.

[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. 240b.

[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. 133b 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 Hāfiz̤ 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. 141b.

[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. 45b), 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. 202b; 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. 251b and Appendix F, On the name Dara-i-nūr.

[1530] This passage will be the basis of the account on f. 143b 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. 143b. 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. lacunæ.

[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. 226b) 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. 216b 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 (Sult̤ān-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. 252b, f. 351b).

[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. 205b; W.-i-B. I.O. 215 f. 199b 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 Sult̤ān-nigār and Daulat-sult̤ān 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. 208b) 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. 145b, 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. 351b. In both places its name escaped the notice of Erskine and de Courteille, who here took it for mīn, I, and on f. 351b 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. 222b, 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. 4b); 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. 149b, 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. 139b) 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. 256b, 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 (Mat̤la‘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. 255b). 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 tunqit̤ār 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 sult̤āns 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. 209b

[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. 100b, 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. 217b 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-salāt̤īn-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. 209b 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 Archæological 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. 185b, minār-i-au) and not mention the Qut̤b Minār. Possibly he confused the two. The ‘Alāī Minār remains unfinished; the Qut̤b is judged by Cunningham to have been founded by Qut̤bu’d-dīn Aībak Turk, circa 1200 AD. and to have been completed by Sl. Shamsu’d-dīn Altamsh (Aīltimīsh?) Turk, circa 1220 AD. Of the two tanks Bābur visited, the Royal-tank (ḥauẓ-i-khāẓ) was made by ‘Alāu’u’d-dīn in 1293 AD.

[1688] The familiar Turkī word Tūghlūq would reinforce much else met with in Dihlī to strengthen Bābur’s opinion that, as a Turk, he had a right to rule there. Many, if not all, of the Slave dynasty were Turks; these were followed by the Khiljī Turks, these again by the Tūghlūqs. Moreover the Panj-āb he had himself taken, and lands on both sides of the Indus further south had been ruled by Ghaznawid Turks. His latest conquests were “where the Turk had ruled” (f. 226b) long, wide, and with interludes only of non-Turkī sway.

[1689] Perhaps this charity was the Khams (Fifth) due from a victor.

[1690] Bikramājīt was a Tūnūr Rājpūt. Bābur’s unhesitating statement of the Hindu’s destination at death may be called a fruit of conviction, rather than of what modern opinion calls intolerance.

[1691] 120 years (Cunningham’s Report of the Archæological Survey ii, 330 et seq.).

[1692] The Tārīkh-i-sher-shāhī tells a good deal about the man who bore this title, and also about others who found themselves now in difficulty between Ibrāhīm’s tyranny and Bābur’s advance (E. & D. iv, 301).

[1693] Gūālīār was taken from Bikramājīt in 1518 AD.

[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. 270b).

[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-salāt̤īn). 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 qūt̤ās; 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. 192b) 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. 278b 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. 230b 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 pūt̤, 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. 129b).

[1858] P. mar manjān, which I take to refer to the rīwājlār of Kābul. (Cf. f. 129b, 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. 283b), 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. 250b.

[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. 33Ob). 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. 285b 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, armāt̤” (p. 1010), and of armāt̤, “a kind of date-tree with a fragrant blossom” (p. 39), by making armāt̤ 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. 240b) 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. 173b (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. 201b, 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. 243b; 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. 251b) 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. 267b.

[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. 263b.

[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. Niz̤āmu’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. 208b; 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. 15b 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. 268b 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. 380b). 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 guz̤asht, 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. 307b) 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. 299b.

[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. 267b, 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. 30b and 73b).

[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. 255b 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. 205b 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. 205b); 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 Must̤afa 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. 189b.

[2015] This line shews that Bābur’s renouncement was of wine only; he continued to eat confections (ma‘jūn).

[2016] Cf. f. 186b. 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 t̤aghāī, 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. 313b), 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. 220b; Erskine writes Bikersi (p. 367) and notes the variant Nagersi; Ilminsky (p. 421) N:krsī; de Courteille (ii. 307) Niguersi.

[2108] Cf. f. 318b, 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.310b 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. 312b 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.225b, 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 Sult̤āns of Dihlī & Hind; is it between the greater Turks with whom Bābur classes himself immediately below as a conqueror of Hind, and the Lūdī Sult̤āns 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] Sult̤ān ātīghā juldū būlūb; Pers. trs. Juldū ba nām-i Sult̤ān 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. 298b and f. 328b. Ja‘far is mentioned as Mahdī’s son by Gul-badan and in the Ḥabību’s-siyar iii, 311, 312.

[2137] f. 388b.

[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. 305b.

[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. 305b.

[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] qit̤a‘, 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 14a). 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-fit̤ṛ, 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. 339b.

[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) Qut̤b 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.). Qut̤b of Sīrwān may be the Qut̤b 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 16b). 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. 336b, 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. shāt̤ūr. 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 shāt̤ūr 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. 216b, 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 t̤aurī 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. 44b); 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 Qut̤b). 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. 333b), 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. 331b. 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-salāt̤īn-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. 234b; Mems. p. 382. Here the Elphinstone MS. recommences after a lacuna extending from Ḥai. MS. f. 312b.

[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. 355b) 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. 330b.

[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. 341b, and a Hindū temple ib.); and (3) because he uses it for the word “building” in the term building-stone, f. 335b and f. 339b. 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. 339b 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. 330b and f. 339b.

[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. 344b 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. 238b, 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. 64b). 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. 346b).

[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. 353b; 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. 344b, 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 Muḥ. 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. 345b 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 muhz̤ūf 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. 351b, (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-z̤afar 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. 213b).

[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 Bast̤ām.]

[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 sult̤āns’ abandonment of Ḥiṣār, without waiting for his father’s urgency (f. 348b). Whether he had done so and was the cause of the sult̤āns’ 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. 90b).

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. 15b 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 Niz̤āmī’s Khusrau and Shīrīn. [They occur on f. 256b 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-faẕl, 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. 354b, and with exchange of T. m:ljār for P. mī‘ād, f. 355b.

[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 (t̤amghā) 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 t̤anāb 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 9O7^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. 347b) who had stood staunch to Bābur till murdered in 906 AH.-1500 AD. (80b). 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 Ḥāfiz̤ of Samarkand see f.237b.

[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. 237b) 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. 122b, 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) sult̤ān 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 sult̤āns 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 sult̤āns 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. 350b (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. 350b and f. 354b. 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-faz̤l 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. 357b); 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. 380b), 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. 331b, 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. 361b.

[2438] Presumably this refers to the appliances mentioned on f. 350b.

[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 t̤arīqī bīla; their special mission may have been to work for peace (f. 359b, 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-khat̤ 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. 331b), 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. 331b 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, Fræhn’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) khat̤ī bīla tarjuma bīlīr aūchūn. The Rāmpūr Dīwān may supply the explanation of the uncertain words tarkīb khat̤ī. 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. 357b); he will have judged them unsatisfactory; hence to give space for the mixture of hands (tarkīb khat̤ī), 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 xiva, 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. 359b 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 Niz̤āmu’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. 356b).

[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 marbūt̤līghī; 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. 364b.

[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] naz̤ar-gāh, perhaps, theatre, as showing the play enacted at the ford. Cf. ff. 137, 236, 248b. 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. 377b).

[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. 351b (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 Khaṣ, 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. 363b).

[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. 343b); 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 Sult̤ān 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. 216b)—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. 1b), 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. 363b.

[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. 377b, p. 680 n. 2.

[2520] The Chaghatāī sult̤āns 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. 366b), 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. 366b) 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. 377b, 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. 338b). 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. 365b), 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. 338b) 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 Ajodhya (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. 367b 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. 359b).

[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. 361b, 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-nāśā 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-nāśā 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. 373b) to appuyés sur une pièce de bois. Taking the Persian translations of three passages about crossing water into consideration (p. 655 after f. 363b, f. 366b (here), f. 373b), 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. 364b 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. 366b, 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. 361b), 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 Sult̤ān’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 12k. (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] Muṣt̤afa, 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 Sult̤ān’s neglect of duty (Tārīkh-ī-rashīdī trs. cap. lxxvii).

[2620] yūsūnlūq tūshī, Pers. trss. t̤arf khūd, i.e. their place in the array, a frequent phrase.

[2621] dastak bīla dosta-i-qāmīsh bīla. Cf. f. 363b and f. 366b, 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. 366b) 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. 360b).

[2631] The order for these operations is given on f. 355b.

[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. 338-8b, 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. 377b) 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 lacunæ 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. 216b).

[2645] saqarlāt̤ kut-zīlūcha, where saqarlāt̤ 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. 363b, 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-ūt̤. 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. 236b, Bīāk. Māīng in the Sult̤ānpūr district seems suitably located (D.G. of Sult̤ānpūr, 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. 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.

[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-salāt̤in-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-salāt̤īn-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. 339b). 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 Sult̤ān 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 Niz̤āmu’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. 34b, 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. 112b). 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. 264b).

[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. 118b; 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. 117b, 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. 119b 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] z̤āhirān; 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. 63b, 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. 131b) and also on fols. 144 and 154b, 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. 26b and f. 169; Browne’s Daulat Shāh p. 533.

[2786] Ḥusain born 842 AH. (1438 AD.); d. 911 AH. (1506 AD.).

[2787] Cf. f. 7b 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. 15b 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. 150b; Ḥaidarābād MS. f. 190b; 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. 6b).

[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 (?) mat̤‘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 samt̤ara 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 samt̤ara, 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. 65b, Add. 26,202, f. 66b, Or. 5879, f. 79b.

[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. 357b, 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. 357b) 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. 144b, 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.

[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. 6b (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] Sult̤an Bābā-qulī Beg is found variously designated Qulī Beg, Qulī Bābā, Sl. ‘Alī Bābā-qulī, Sult̤ān-qūlī Bābā and Bābā-qulī Beg. Several forms appear to express his filial relationship with Sult̤ān 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 Sult̤ān 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 Niz̤ām 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 “Sult̤ān-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. 183b and f. 264b read f. 103b 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-t̤ālib” 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-t̤ālib Ḥusainī; that what ‘ 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 Niz̤āmi’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.”

## THE HISTORY OF BABUR OR BABUR-NAMA

[Pg 873]

### 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. 24b.

ib. l.8 fr. ft. “Taghai” add and Auzun Ḥasan.

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 Ḥasan add and Sl. Ahṃad 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 Ahṃadi 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.

[Pg 874]

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. “(366b)” 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.

[Pg 875]

## 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 Ahṃad.

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. 32b.

57 l.1, enter f. 33 and move “f. 33b” 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. 183b” read f. 103b and for f. 264b 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.

[Pg 876]
[Pg 877]

## ADDITIONAL NOTES

P. 16 l. 11.—Niz̤āmī 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. 12b) 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. 144b 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-lat̤īf’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. [Pg 878] 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.—Niz̤āmī 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 [Pg 879] 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 Niz̤ām Shāh of Ahṃadnagar, in which (if there were not two embassies) congratulation was made on [Pg 880] 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).

Qut̤bu

P. 699 and n. 3.—The particulars given by the T̤abaqāt-i-akbarī about Mult̤ān at this date (932-4 AH.) are as follows:—After Bābur took the Panj-āb, he ordered Shāh Ḥasan Arghūn to attempt Mult̤ān, then held by one Sl. Maḥmūd who, dying, was succeeded by an infant son Ḥusain. Shāh Ḥāsan took Mult̤ān 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.).

Stephen Austin and Sons, Ltd., Printers, Hertford.

[Pg 717]

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 Sult̤ān 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 Sult̤ānīm 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.].
- [Pg 718] 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-sult̤ān 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 [Pg 719]cousin ‘Abdu’l-lat̤īf 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 Sult̤ān Aūzbeg-Shaibān—particulars 267;
  - serving Bābur in Hindūstān (after 933?) 267.
- ‘Abdu’l-lat̤īf bakhshī—serving Ḥusain Bāī-qarā (901) 57;
  - acts for Bābur from Qūndūz (932-3) 546.
- ‘Abdu’l-lat̤īf 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-lat̤īf Sult̤ān 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;
  - [Pg 720]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.
- [Pg 721] 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 Lat̤īf—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].
- [Pg 722] Shaikh Abū-sa‘īd Khān Dar-miyān 2868—particulars 276.
- Sult̤ān 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-sult̤ān, Shahr-bānū, Rābi‘a-sult̤ān, Khadīja-sult̤ān, Fakhr-i-jahān, Apāq-sult̤ān, 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 Sult̤ān 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 Sult̤ān Qazzāq, Jūjī Chīngīz-khānid (var. Aūng Sult̤ān), son of Jānī Beg Khān (T.R. trs. 373)—husband of Sult̤ān-nigār Chaghatāī q.v.
- ‘Ādil Sult̤ān 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.
- [Pg 723] 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-sult̤ān—parentage and marriage (or betrothal, Ḥ.S. iii, 327) 266;
  - [♰ died in childhood].
- Āghā-sult̤ān, ghūnchachi of ‘Umar Shaikh—her daughter Yādgār-i-sult̤ān 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).
- Sult̤ān 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.
- Sult̤ān 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[Pg 724] 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.
- Sult̤an 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.
- Sult̤ān Aḥmad Mīrzā Dūghlāt—sent by The Khān (Māḥmūd) to help Bābur (908) 161.
- Sult̤ān 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.].
- Sult̤ān 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.
- [Pg 725] Aḥmād mushtāq, Turkmān—takes Maḥmūd Mīrān-shāhī to Ḥiṣār (873 or 4) 46-7.
- Sult̤ān 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.].
- Sult̤ān 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 [Pg 726] 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.].
- Sult̤ān? 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 Sult̤ān Aūzbeg-Shaibān, Chīngīz-khānid—his Bāī-qarā marriage, 265, 397.
- Aīsān-tīmūr Sult̤ān Chaghatāī Chīngīz-khānid, son of Aḥmad (Alacha Khān)—on Bābur’s service 318, 682;
  - meets[Pg 727] 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.
- Sult̤ān ‘Alāu’u’d-dīn ‘Ālam Khān Sayyidī—holding Dihlī 481;
  - [♰855 AH.-1451 AD.].
- ‘Ālam Khān Tahangarī, brother of Niz̤ām 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.?].
- [Pg 728] Sult̤ān ‘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.].
- Sult̤ān ‘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.
- Sult̤ān ‘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).
- Sult̤ān ‘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.
- [Pg 729] 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 Sult̤ān ‘Alī khẉush-nawīs, calligrapher of Ḥusain Bāī-qarā—particulars 291;
  - given lessons in penmanship by Shaibānī (913) 329;
  - [♰919 AH.-1513 AD.].
- [Pg 730] ‘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.
- Sult̤ān ‘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 Sult̤ānīm Mīrān-shāhī and sister Makhdūm-sult̤ān q.v.;
  - [♰906 AH.-1500 AD.].
- Sult̤ān ‘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 Muṣt̤afa 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 qut̤nī(?)—in the left centre at Bajaur (925) 369.
- [Pg 731] ‘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 Rabāt̤-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.
- Sult̤ān ‘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.
- [Pg 732] 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-sult̤ān 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-sult̤ān—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-sult̤ān.
- Āq-būghā Beg, one of Tīmūr’s chiefs—collateral ancestor of Khudāī-bīrdī Tīmūr-tāsh 24.
- ‘Āqil Sult̤ān 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 Sult̤ān, 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 Rabāt̤-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 [Pg 733] (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 ‘At̤ā—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 ‘At̤ā’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.
- [Pg 734] Auliya Khān Ishrāqī—waits on Bābur (935) 677.
- Aūlūgh Beg Mīrzā Bāī-qarā Tīmūrid, Barlās Turk, son of Muḥammad Sult̤ān 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-lat̤īf 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.
- Aurang-zīb 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.
- [Pg 735] 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-sult̤ān 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-sult̤ān 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.].
- ‘Az̤im 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.
- [Pg 736] 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 Sult̤ān 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 Sult̤ān 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
- Sult̤ān Bābā-qulī Beg, son of Sult̤ān 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.
- [Pg 737] 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 Sult̤ān 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:—2886belief 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) [Pg 738]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.) [Pg 739]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-sult̤ān 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;
  - [Pg 740]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 Sult̤ān 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.
- [Pg 741] 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-sult̤ān 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 khut̤ba 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;
  - [Pg 742]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 Sult̤ān 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.].
- Bat̤almīūs (Ptolemy)—mentioned as constructor of an observatory 79.
- Sult̤ān Bāyazīd 2889—urges attack on the Afrīdī (925) 411, 412.
- [Pg 743] Shaikh Bāyazīd, Farmūlī Afghān—acts for his dead brother Muṣt̤afa 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 Sult̤ān 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 Sult̤ān, see Sa‘ādat-bakht.
- Begī Sult̤ān Āghācha, ghūnchachī of Ḥusain Bāī-qarā—particulars 269.
- [Pg 744] 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, 411 (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.
- [Pg 745] 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 Sult̤ān (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.
- Sult̤ān 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.
- [Pg 746] Būrān Sult̤ān Aūzbeg-Shaibān—his marriage with ‘Āyisha-sult̤ān 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.
- Sult̤ān 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 Sult̤ān 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;
  - [Pg 747] 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 Sult̤ānīm 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;
  - [Pg 748] his relationship to Mīrān-shāhīs 13 n. 5, 33, 38, and his kinsman ‘Abdu’l-‘alī q.v.;
  - [♰901 AH.-1496 AD.].
- Darwesh Sult̤ān (? 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 Mīr 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-sult̤ān 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 Sult̤ān?, see Div.
- Rāja Dharmankat Gūālīārī—stirs trouble (933) 539;
  - lays siege to Gūālīār 557.
- Dharm-deo—his force at Kānwa (933) 562.
- [Pg 749] 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-sult̤ān 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 Sult̤ān 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;
  - [Pg 750]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-z̤afar 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.].
- [Pg 751] 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.
- Fāt̤ima-sūlt̤ān Āghā Mughūl—first wife of ‘Umar Shaikh Mīrān-shāhī 17, 24;
  - their son Jahāngīr q.v.
- Fāt̤ima-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.
- [Pg 752] Sult̤ān 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 Naz̤ar-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.
- Sult̤ān 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.
- [Pg 753] 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(?) Sult̤ān ‘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-sult̤ān Begīm Arghūn, wife of Aḥmad Mīrān-shāhī—particulars 36, 37;
  - arranges her daughter Ma‘ṣūma’s marriage with Bābur (912) 306, (913) 330.
- [Pg 754] Ḥābība-sult̤ān Khānīsh Dūghlāt, daughter of Muḥammad Ḥusain and Khūb-nigār Chaghatāī—her marriages 21-2;
  - depends on Bābur (917) 22.
- Ḥāfiz̤ Ḥājī, a musician—heard by Bābur in Herī (912) 303.
- Ḥāfiz̤ kabar-kātib—his brother conveys Bābur’s earliest Dīwān to Samarkand (925) 482;
  - at a feast (935) 631, 632.
- Ḥāfiz̤ Mīrak—composes an inscription (913) 343.
- Ḥāfiz̤-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 Ḥāfiz̤ Shīrāzī—parodied (910) 201;
  - [♰791 AH.-1389 AD.].
- Ḥāfiz̤ 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 Sult̤ān 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-sult̤ān—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.].
- [Pg 755] 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 Sult̤ān 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;
  - [Pg 756] ☛ 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-lat̤īf 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-naz̤ar—finds the body of his nephew (Nūyān) Kūkūldāsh (907) 152.
- Ḥaq-naz̤īr chapā—to punish his raid, beyond the power of the Herāt M[i]rzās (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 khut̤ba 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.
- [Pg 757] Ḥasan-dīkcha of Akhsī—supports Bābur (904) 101.
- Ḥasan-i-khalīfa, son of Niz̤āmu’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.
- [Pg 758] 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-z̤afar (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 ‘Az̤am-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 [Pg 759]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.
- Sult̤ān 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;
  - [Pg 760]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.
- Sult̤ān 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.
- Sult̤ān Ḥusain Mīrzā Bāī-qarā Tīmūrid, Barlās Turk, son of Manṣūr—defeats Maḥmūd Mīrān-shāhī (865) 46, 259 (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.].
- Sult̤ān 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.].
- [Pg 761] Sult̤ān 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”)).
- Sult̤ān 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.
- Sult̤ān 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.].
- [Pg 762] Mīr Ibrāhīm qānūnī—waits on Bābur (935) 605;
  - his kinsman Yūnas-i-‘alī q.v.
- Sult̤ān 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 Sult̤ān 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 Sult̤āns (935) 643.
- [Pg 763] 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.].
- [Pg 764] 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 Fāt̤ima 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.
- [Pg 765] 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.
- Sult̤ān 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.].
- Sult̤ān 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 Sult̤ān 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.
- [Pg 766]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 Sult̤ān 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 Sult̤ān);
  - 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 Sult̤ān Taklū,Governor of Ispahān—with T̤ahmāsp Ṣāfawī on the battle-field of Jām (935) 635.
- [Pg 767] Jūjī Khān Chīngīz-khānid—a Qāzzāk descendant mentioned 23.
- Muḥammad Jūkī Mīrzā Shah-rukhī Tīmūrid, Barlās Turk, son of ‘Abdu’l-lat̤īf (♰854)—mentioned as besieged by Abū-sa‘īd Mīrān-shāhī 24;
  - [♰868 AH.-1463-4 AD.].
- Sult̤ān Junaid Barlās (or Junīd)—particulars 276;
  - his sons Niz̤āmu’d-dīn ‘Alī Khalīfa and Junaid q.v.
- Sult̤ān 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.].
- [Pg 768] 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-sult̤ān Begīm Mīrān-shāhī Tīmūrid, Barlās Turk, daughter of Abū’sa‘īd—(probably) seen by Bābur in Herī [Pg 769](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).
- Sult̤ān Khalīl Mīrzā, Mīrān-shāhī Tīmūrid, Barlās Turk, son of Mīrān-shāh—mentioned 262 n. 2;
  - [♰814 AH.-1411-2 AD.].
- Sult̤ān Khalīl Mīrzā Mīrān-shāhī (ut supra), son of Abū-sa‘īd—his daughter sole wife of Bāī-sunghar Mīrān-shāhī 112.
- Khalīl Sult̤ān Chaghatāī Chīngīz-khānid, son of Aḥmad, (Alacha Khān), full brother of Sa‘īd—his son Bābā Sult̤ān q.v.
- Khalīl Sult̤ān 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.].
- [Pg 770] 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.].
- [Pg 771] 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;
  - [Pg 772]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.].
- [Pg 773] 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 Sult̤ān—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-sult̤ān—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.].
- [Pg 774] Kīchīk Mīrzā Mīrān-shāhī Tīmūrid, Barlās Turk, son of Aḥmad (Mīrzā Sayyidī) and Ākā Bāī-qarā—particulars 257.
- Kīchkīna tunqt̤ār—sent with orders to Tramontane begs (925) 406.
- Kīpa and Kīpīk, see Kūpūk.
- Rāja Kirtī Gūālīārī, see Karna.
- Kītīn-qarā Sult̤ān 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 Sult̤ān—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 Lat̤īf-sult̤ān—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.].
- [Pg 775] 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.
- Lat̤īf Begīm Dūldāī Barlās Turk—particulars 37 (where for “916” read 917 AH.).
- Lat̤īf-sult̤ān 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.
- Lut̤fī 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 Sult̤ān 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-Sult̤ān 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;
  - [Pg 776] 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, 650650 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 Khut̤ba 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).
- Sult̤ān 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.].
- Sult̤ān Maḥmūd Khān Chaghatāī Chīngīz-khānid, Khāqān of the Mughūls, elder son of Yūnas and Shāh Begīm—succeeds
  - [Pg 777] 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 Sult̤ān 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 Sult̤ān 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.].
- Sult̤ān Maḥmūd Khīlīj Turk, ruler in Mālwā—particulars 482 (where in n. 2 for “GUJRĀT” read Mālwā);
  - his territory (916) 593;
  - [Pg 778] 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.].593;
- Sult̤ān Maḥmud mīr-akhẉur, see Mīrzā Beg fīrmgī-bāz (58 and n. 4).
- Sult̤ān 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.
- Sult̤ān Maḥmūd Sharqī, son of Jalālu’d-dīn—Bābur gives him the title of Sult̤ān (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-sult̤ān Begīm Mīrān-shāhī Tīmūrid, Barlās Turk, daughter of Maḥmūd and Zuhra—in Badakhshān (cir. 935) 48.
- Makhdūm-sult̤ān Begīm Qarā-gūz, wife of ‘Umar Shaikh—particulars 18, 24.
- [Pg 779] 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 Sult̤ān 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.
- Sult̤ān 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
  - [Pg 780] 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.
- Sult̤ān Mas‘ūd Ghaznawī—his tomb 218.
- Sult̤ān 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-sult̤ān Mīrān-shāhī, and Sa‘ādat-bakht Bāī-qarā q.v.;
  - his betrothed (?) Kīchīk Begīm Bāī-qarā q.v.;
  - [♰913 AH.-1507 AD.].
- Sult̤ān 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-sult̤ān Begīm Mīrān-shāhī Tīmūrid, Barlās Turk, daughter of Aḥmad and Habība-sult̤ān, 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.].
- [Pg 781] Ma‘ṣūma-sult̤ān Begīm, ut supra, daughter of Bābur and Ma‘ṣuma-sult̤ān (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.
- [Pg 782] 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 Naz̤ar-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 Sult̤ān 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 [Pg 783] 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 Sult̤ān-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;
  - [Pg 784] 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-z̤afar 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 Sult̤ān 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;
  - [Pg 785] 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 Sult̤ān 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.
- [Pg 786] 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.
- Sult̤ān 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.
- Sult̤ān 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.
- [Pg 787] 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.
- [Pg 788] 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.].
- Sult̤ān 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.
- Sult̤ān 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, 246246 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 Niz̤āmu’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;
  - [Pg 789] 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.
- Sult̤ān 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;
  - [Pg 790] 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.
- Sult̤ān 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 Sult̤ān 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.
- Sult̤ān Muḥammad Sult̤ān Chaghatāī Chīngīz-khānid—Sult̤ānīm 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.].
- [Pg 791] Muhammad Sult̤ān-i-jahāngīr Mīrzā Jahāngīrī Tīmūrid, Barlās Turk—Samarkand given to him by his grandfather Tīmūr 85;
  - his college 78.
- Muḥammad Sult̤ān Mīrzā Bāī-qarā Tīmūrid, Barlās Turk, son of Wais and Sult̤ānīm—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 Sult̤ān 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 t̤ālib-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.
- Sult̤ān 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.
- [Pg 792] 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-sult̤ān (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-sult̤ān Mīrān-shāhī Tīmūrid, Barlās Turk, daughter of Maḥmūd—particulars 48, 49.
- Sāqī Muḥsin—wrestles (935) 660.
- [Pg 793] 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-sult̤ān Mīrān-shāhī—his Bāī-qarā (?) marriage 266.2917
- Murād Qajar Turkmān, qūrchī—‘Irāqī envoy to Bābur (935) 666, 688, 689, n. 4.
- [Pg 794] 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 Sult̤ān Farmūlī, son of Ma‘rūf—waits on Bābur (935) 685;
  - in the battle of the Ghogrā 669.
- Muṣt̤afa Shaikh-zāda Farmūlī Afghān—on service for Ibrāhīm Lūdī (932) 527;
  - his brother Bāyazīd q.v.;
  - [♰932 AH.-1525-6 AD.].
- Muṣt̤afa 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.
- Sult̤ān 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.
- Sult̤ān 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;
  - [Pg 795] 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.].
- [Pg 796] Sult̤ān Nāṣiru’d-dīn Khīljī Turk, Sult̤ān of Malwā—events following his death 593;
  - his son Maḥmūd q.v.;
  - [♰916 AH.-1510 AD.].
- Naṣrat Shāh Ḥusain-shāhī, Sult̤ān 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.
- Naz̤ar-i-‘alī Turk—on Bābur’s service (925) 389;
  - his relation Minūchihr q.v.
- Naz̤ar Bahādur—killed on Khusrau Shāh’s service 93, 94, 279;
  - [♰903 AH.-1497-8 AD.].
- Naz̤ar Bahādur Aūzbeg—one of five champions worsted by Bābur in single combat (914) 349 n. 1.
- Shāh Naz̤ar 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.
- Niz̤ām 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 Niz̤āmu’d-dīn Aḥṃad, the author of the Ṭabaqāt-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 Niz̤āmu’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
  - [Pg 797] 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 Niz̤āmū’d-dīn Auliyā—his tomb visited by Bābur (932) 475;
  - [♰725 AH.-1325 AD.].
- Niz̤āmu’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-sult̤ān ☛ 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 t̤ambūrchī—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-naz̤ar 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.
- [Pg 798] 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-sult̤ān 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 Sult̤ān, 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 Sult̤ān 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.
- [Pg 799] Pulād Sult̤ān 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 Beg 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.
- [Pg 800] 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-sult̤ān.
- 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;
  - [Pg 801] 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-sult̤ān 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 Sult̤ān-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.
- [Pg 802] 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 Sult̤ān 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.
- [Pg 803] 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-naz̤ar 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.
- Qut̤b 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 Qut̤bu’d-dīn Aūshī (Ūshī)—his birthplace in Farghāna 475 n. 6;
  - Bābur visits his tomb in Dihlī (932) 475;
  - [♰633 AH.-1235 AD.].
- [Pg 804] 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-sult̤ān 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-sult̤ān Begīm, daughter of Mīrān-shāh son of Tīmūr—wife of Ḥusain Qānjūt 256 n. 5.
- Rābi‘a-sult̤ān 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 Niz̤ām 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;
  - [Pg 805]☛ 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-sult̤ān 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.
- Sult̤ān 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-sult̤ān 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 Sult̤ān—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.].
- [Pg 806] 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.].
- Sult̤ān 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.
- [Pg 807] Ṣāliḥa-sult̤ān 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-sult̤ān Mīrān-shāhī—Āq Begīm—daughter of Aḥmad and Qātāq—particulars 35;
  - gifts from her wedding reach Bābur (900) 43.
- Salīma-sult̤ān Begīm—☛ her parentage 713.
- Sult̤ān 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.
- Sult̤ān Sanjar Barlās Turk, son of ‘Abdu’l-lāh—incites a Mughūl revolt in Kābul (912) 313-17;
  - spared on family grounds 317.
- Sult̤ān Sanjar Mīrzā Mervī—his daughter Bega Sult̤ān 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 Bikramājīt̤ 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.
- [Pg 808] Sar-u-pā Gujūr—Bābur’s guide to Parhāla (925) 389, 391.
- Satrvī Kachī—his force at Kānwa (933) 562.
- Sult̤ān 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 Sult̤ān 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;
  - [Pg 809]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-sult̤ān, 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 t̤amghāchī—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.].
- [Pg 810] 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 Sult̤ān (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-Sult̤ān Afshār Turk—commands a reinforcement for Bābur from Ismā‘īl Ṣafawī (917) 354.
- Shāh Ṣufī—does well in Samarkand (906) 144.
- Shāh Sult̤ān 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 Sult̤ān’s marriage 23.
- [Pg 811] Muḥammad Shaibānī Khān—Shaibāq Khān 2927—Aūzbeg-Shaibān Chīngīz-khānid—his relations with Ḥamza and Mahdī Sult̤āns 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.
- [Pg 812] 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;
  - [Pg 813]his training, cognomen and one of his marriages 664 n. 2, 659659 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.
- Sult̤ān 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.].
- Sult̤ān Sikandar Mīrzā Bāī-qarā Tīmūrid, Barlās Turk, nephew of Ḥusain—parentage 257;
  - his wife Sult̤ān-niẕhad q.v.;
  - [♰908 AH.-1502-3 AD.].
- Sult̤ān 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.].
- [Pg 814] 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 Sult̤ān 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.
- Sult̤ān-bakht Begīm Mīrān-shāhī Tīmūrid, Barlās Turk, daughter of Abū-sa‘īd—her daughter visited by Bābur (935) 616.
- Sult̤ānīm 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;
  - [Pg 815]her husbands Wais Bāī-qarā and ‘Abdu’l-bāqī Mīrān-shāhī, her son Muḥammad
- Sult̤ān Mīrzā and grandson Aūlūgh Mīrzā (265 n. 5) q.v.;
  - [♰933 AH.-1527 AD.].
- Sult̤ān Malik Kāshgharī, Duldāī Barlās Turk—his sons Ḥāfiz Muḥammad and Aḥmad Ḥājī Beg, his brother Jānī Beg q.v.
- Sult̤ān-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.].
- Sult̤ān-niẕhād Begīm Bāī-qarā Tīmūrid, Barlās Turk, daughter of Ḥusain and Pāpā—particulars 266;
  - her husband Sikandar Bāī-qarā q.v.
- Sultān-qulī and Sult̤ān ‘Alī, see Bābā-qulī and Bābā ‘Alī.
- Sult̤ān-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.
- Sult̤ān 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, 560560 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;
  - [Pg 816] 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.
- Sult̤ān 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 Sult̤ān 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[Pg 817] 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 Sult̤ān—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.].
- [Pg 818] 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 Sult̤ān—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 Sult̤ān 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.].
- [Pg 819] Tūn-sult̤ān (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 Sult̤ān 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.].
- [Pg 820] ‘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 Sult̤ān 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.].
- Sult̤ān Wais Kūlābī—his friendship recommended to Humāyūn (935) 627;
  - ☛ reinforces Qila‘-i-z̤afar (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 (?) Beggīna q.v.
- Wais Mīrān-shāhī, see Mīrzā Khān.
- [Pg 821] Sult̤ān Wais Mīrzā Bāī-qarā Tīmūrid, Barlās Turk, son of Bāī-qarā II—parentage 257;
  - his cousin and wife Sult̤anīm q.v.
- Sult̤ān Wais Sawādī—mentioned 372;
  - sent to collect a tax he had fixed (925) 374;
  - receives gifts and leave 376.2935
- Sult̤ān 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-sult̤ān Begīm Mīrān-shāhī (ut supra), daughter of ‘Umar Shaikh—particulars 18;
  - her Aūzbeg marriage (908) 18, 356;
  - her return to Bābur (917) 356.
- [Pg 822] 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.
- Sult̤ān 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 Sult̤ān—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 [Pg 823] 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 Sult̤ān 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 [Pg 824] 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-sult̤ān Begīm—her granddaughter met by Bābur near Āgra (935) 616.
- Zainab-sult̤ān 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.
- [Pg 825] 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.].
- [Pg 826]
- [Pg 827]

## Index II. Geographical.

- Ābāpūr (S.E. of Āgra), Bābur at 642-3.
- Ābā-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 Rabāt̤ik-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.
- [Pg 828] 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;
  - (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 [Pg 829] 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).
- Aūt̤rār, Ūt̤rār, “Ot̤rār” (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;
  - [Pg 830] 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 Farmūl 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.
- Bast̤am (‘Irāq), a w. limit of Khurāsān 261 (where read Bast̤am);
  - 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.
- [Pg 831] 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-shādmān), 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.
- [Pg 832] 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 Khit̤āī].
- 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.
- [Pg 833] 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”).
- [Pg 834] 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,
  - [Pg 835] 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.
- [Pg 836] 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 [Pg 837]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-nāśā 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;
  - [Pg 838] 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.
- Khit̤āī = 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, 259-60-80-83;
  - 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.
- [Pg 839] 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-rabāt̤ (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.
- [Pg 840] 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 sult̤āns 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.
- [Pg 841] Masht (Ghaznī?), a tribe in 323.
- Masjid-i-jauza (Farghāna), described 5.
- Masjid-i-laqlaqa (Samarkand), described 80.
- Masjid-i-maqut̤a‘ (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-rabāt̤, (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;
  - [Pg 842] 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.
- [Pg 843] 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. 135);
  - Aūzbegs and 135, *353-4;
  - Bābur’s wish to spare and Najm S̤ānī’s massacre 359-60, 361.
- Qarā-rabāt̤ (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-z̤afar, 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 80, 82;
  - 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.
- Rabāt̤-i-duzd or -dūdur (n. of Herāt), a Bāī-qarā defeat at 263.
- Rabāt̤-i-khwāja (Samarkand), head-quarters of Shavdār 97;
  - Bābur’s men in 73;
  - Bābur in 97, 130-1, 127-8.
- Rabāt̤-i-sarhang (Farghāna), Taṃbal in 108, 110.
- Rabāt̤-i-Soghd (Samarkand), a battle near 111.
- Rabāt̤-i-surkh (Kābul), Bābur at 341.
- Rabāt̤-i-zauraq or -rūzaq (Farghāna), Bābur at 165, 396.
- Rabāt̤ik-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.
- [Pg 844] 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.
- [Pg 845] 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, 677 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-z̤afar.
- 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.
- [Pg 846] 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.
- Sult̤ānīa (Persia), cold of 219.
- Sult̤ānpūr (Kābul), Bābur at 409-13-47.
- Sult̤ānpūr (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-rabāt̤ (Kābul), see Rabāt̤-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 Sult̤āns at Jām 622.
- Tāsh-rabāt̤ (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.
- [Pg 847] 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 Ḥaẓrat 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.
- Ūsh (Farghāna), see Aūsh.
- Ushtur-shahr (Kābul), Bābur in 195, 294, 314.
- ‘Ut̤rār, Otrār, Aūt̤rār (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 = Ūt̤rar, 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.
- Ẓaḥāq 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.
- [Pg 848]
- [Pg 849]

## 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-t̤ālib 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;
  - Niz̤āmī 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‘iz̤u ‘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
  - [Pg 850]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
        - [Pg 851] (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;
        - t̤amghā 553;
        - a pun 571;
        - versus traced 571, 625-6;
        - [Pg 852] 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-salāt̤īn-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-darīand 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-qāt̤i‘ (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.
- [Pg 853] 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);
- Ca”lo Coins of the Shahs of Persia (B.M.), R. S. Poole—Bābur’s surmised vassal coin 355, App. H, xxx, Preface xxxv;
- Ca”lo Feronia Nursery Calcutta, Seth—Jack-fruit 506;
  - sang-tarā orange 511;
- Ca”lo Library of the King of Oudh, A. Sprenger—Biographies of Ladies 286;
  - Shāh u Darwesh 290;
  - Ahlī 290;
- Ca”lo Library of Tippoo Sult̤ān, C. Stewart—T̤abaqāt-i-naṣīrī 479;
- Ca”lo Manuscrits Turcs de l’Institut des langues orientales, W. D. Smirnov—Malfūzāt-i-tīmūri 653;
  - Bābur’s writings ib.
- Ca”lo 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;
- Ca”lo Persian MSS. in the I.O. Library, H. Ethé—Khw. Hijrī 153;
  - Ḥusain Nishapūrī 288;
  - Shāh u Darwesh 290;
  - a scribe-poet 293 2953;
- Ca”lo 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 z̤arb-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.
- [Pg 854] 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];
- Di”ct of Antiquities, W. W. Smith—clepsydra 516;
- Di”ct Arabic-English Lexicon, E. W. Lane—akhmail 336;
- Di”ct Arabes, Supplèment aux Dictionnaires, R. Dozy—baḥri (a falcon) App. M, xlvi;
- Di”ct Bahār-i-‘ajam (Pers. Dict.), Rāī Tikchana Bahār—a sign of fear 232;
  - the Taftazānī Shaikhs of Islām 283;
- Di”ct Burhān-i-qāti‘ (Pers. Dict.), Muḥ. Ḥusain b. Khalfa’u’t-tabrīzī—izāra (dado) 80;
- Di”ct Chaghatāī-osmanisches Wörterbuch, Shaikh Sulaiman Effendi (ed. Kunos)—tunqit̤ār 464;
  - qūtān App. N, 1;
  - sīghnāq App. Q, lxiv;
- Di”ct English-Persian, A. N. Wollaston—a rare meaning 648;
- Di”ct Hindustani-English, D. Forbes—changed name of an orange 511;
  - “needle-melting” citron 513;
  - great millet (maize?) 514;
  - names of days 516;
  - gongman ib.;
- Di”ct Hindustani-English, J. Taylor [ed. W. Hunter]—“sang-tara” and “Cintra” App. O lii;
- Di”ct of Islām, J. P. Hughes—turbans 15;
  - eating of food 44;
  - maẕhab 463;
  - the Eight Paradises 646;
  - legal endowment 701;
- Di”ct Oriental Biographical, T. W. Beale [ed. Keene]—Khw. Naṣīr Tūsī 79;
- Di”ct of Oriental Quotations, C. Field—a common couplet 22;
- Di”ct Persian-English, F. Steingass—176, 202, 286, (metres) 514, 527, 630, qīzil-bāsh 643;
- Di”ct Persico-Latinum Lexicon, I. A. Vullers—shash-par 160;
  - kaka 502;
  - gharau 514;
  - rād (whence Rādagān) 622;
- Di”ct Pushtū-English, H. J. Raverty—Multakund 211;
- Di”ct Sang-lākh (Turki-Persian), Muḥ. Mahdi Khān—described App. B, v;
  - kharpala (the “Qarshi birdie”) ib.;
  - contains verses entered as by Bābur 439;
- Di”ct Sanscrit-Bengali-English, Haughton—a stork 499;
  - gula-prawn 502;
- Di”ct of Towns (Majama‘u’l-buldān), Yāqūt—“Akhsīkīs̤” 9, 10;
- Di”ct 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.
- [Pg 855] 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 (fūt̤a) 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 (t̤auq) 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 t̤aghāī);
  - 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
  - [Pg 856] 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-az̤farī [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-fit̤r 66, 235, 311, 351, 410, 584, 683, 689;
  - Īd-i-qurb-ān 154;
  - Nū-roz 236;
  - approximation of Nū-roz and Īd-i-fit̤r 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];
- Ga”ze 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.
- Ga”ze 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;
  - [Pg 857] 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.
- Ga”ze 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.
- Ge”og of the Qandahār Inscription, T. Beames [JRAS. 1898]—revision incomplete App. T. xxxiv.
- Ge”og 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.
- Ghiyās̤u’l-lughāt (Pers. Dict.), Muḥ. Ghiyās̤u’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;
  - Niz̤āmī 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.
- [Pg 858] Histoire du Khanat de Khokand, L. Cahun—Farghāna winds 9.
- Hi”st du Khanat de Khokand, Gen. V. R. Nalivkine—Sarts 6;
  - Akhsī App. A, i, iv, v;
  - tradition of Bābur’s abandoned child 358.
- Hi”st 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).
- Hi”st of Bukhara, A. Vambéry—descent of chiefs 244.
- Hi”st of Gujrāt, E. C. Bayley trs. see Mirāt.
- Hi”st 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.
  - Hi”st 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.
  - Hi”st of Musical Sounds, C. Carus-Wilson—215.
  - Hi”st 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.
- Hi”st 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.
- [Pg 859] 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.
- Khut̤ba—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 (khat̤t̤) 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 “Sult̤anīm” 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.
- [Pg 860] “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.
- Mat̤la‘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
  - [Pg 861] 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;
  - [Pg 862] 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;
  - Ḥasan 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 (qūt̤ān) 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
  - [Pg 863] 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 khunt̤al read ḥunz̤al);
  - 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.
- [Pg 864] 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 Niz̤āmī (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;
  - [Pg 865] 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:—
- Hi”st on the Ghilzai country, J. S. Broadfoot [ed. W. Broadfoot]—birds at Āb-istāda 240;
- Hi”st 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;
- Hi”st on Karnal, D. Ibbetson—Mundāhirs 700;
- Hi”st of Mission to Kāshghar, Col. J. Biddulph’s art.—marāl 8;
- Hi”st” Persian Boundary Commission, W. T. Blanford’s art.—Pteroclas arenarius App. B, vi;
  - —A. Gérard’s art.—irrigation-channels of Aūsh (Ūsh) 4;
- Hi”st” 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;
  - t̤amghā 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-salāt̤īn, Ghulām-i-husain—a Lūdī alliance 482.
- Roads measured—Agra-Kabul 629;
  - Munīr to camp by horse-paces 666;
  - Chunār eastwards 659.
- ruler, mist̤ār—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.
- [Pg 866] 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 sult̤ān 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, Niz̤āmu’d-dīn Ahṃad—[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.
- Hi”st -i-bāburi, Shaikh Zainu’d-dīn Khawāfī see B.N. and Zain.
- Hi”st -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.
- t̤amghā (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 t̤amghāchī 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.
- Hi”st -i-badāyūnī see Muntakhabu’t-tawārīkh.
- Hi”st -i-daudī, ‘Abdu’l-lāh—“Shaikh” and “Mīān” interchangeable titles 457.
- Hi”st -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 [Pg 867] 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—Gūālīār 605;
- Khw. Raḥīm-dād 607, 688, 704.
- Hi”st -i-Hājī Muḥ. ‘Ārīf Qandahārī—account of Qandahār 348.
- Hi”st -i-Khān-i-jahān Lūdī, Ni‘amatu’l-lāh—helped in his book by Haibat Khan 693.
- Hi”st -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-z̤afar 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, qūt̤ās 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).
- Hi”st -i-salāt̤īn-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.
- Hi”st -i-shahrukhī, Niyāz Muḥ. Khukandī—tradition of a babe abandoned 358.
- Hi”st -i-sher-shāhī, ‘Abbas Khān Sarwānī—“Shaikh” and “Mīān” 457;
  - ‘Aẕam Humāyūn 477;
  - Sher Khān Sūr 659, 664.
- Hi”st -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.
- Hi”st -i-ḥāfī-i-raḥmat-khānī (part-trs. H. Beveridge AQR. 1901)—Bībī Mubār-ika’s marriage with Bābur 375, App. K, An Afghan Legend.
- Taz̤kirātu’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.
- Hi”st -i-Sul[t]ān Sātūq-būghrā Khān—a seeming descendant 29.
- Hi”st -i-Tahmāsp, Shāh T̤ahmāsp Ṣafawī (ed. D. C. Phillott)—Div Sult̤ān 635;
  - battle of Jām 636.
- Hi”st -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-qūt̤ās App. M, xlvi.
- Thomas, F. W., Ph.D.—his help App. J, lxxiv with Preface lii.
- Thorn-defences 487.
- ‘-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;
  - [Pg 868] 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;
- Tr”vel in Europe and Asia, Peter Mundy (ed. Sir R. Temple)—baoli (a well) 533;
  - Gūālīār 605.
- Tr”vel in India, Pietro della Vallé—the morning-draught 395.
- Tr”vel of Ibn Batūta (trs. Sanguinetti & Lee)—Samarkand the Protected City 75, Add. N.P. 75;
  - Kajwarra 590;
  - Raḥīm-dād 693; 704.
- Tr”vel in Kashmir, G. T. Vigne—yāk and kosh-gau App. M, xlv-vii.
- Tr”vel in Panj-āb (etc.), Mohan Lall—Herāt 305-6;
  - Qandahār Insc. App. J;
  - Bābur’s burial-place 710.
- Tr”vel of the Russian Mission, G. Timkovsky [trs. H. E. Lloyd] fruit as food 3.
- Tr”vel 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 91 and Bayandar 279;
  - —Black-sheep Horde 10;
  - Qajar 666;
  - Turkmāns serve Bābur 47, 279, 361;
  - —features 111;
  - —Hazāras (infra);
  - Tūrūq-shār 101;—
  - [Pg 869] 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.
- Hi”st 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.
- Hi”st 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;
  - t̤āsh, stone confused with tāsh, outer 3, 43, 78, 80, 160;
  - t̤aūrī, 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.
- Hi”st dans l’Asie septentrionale, P. S. Pallas—āq kīyīk, argālī (Ovis poli) 6.
- Hi”st 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.
- [Pg 870] 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 his 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.
- [Pg 871] 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 t̤amghā-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.

***END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE BāBUR-NāMA IN ENGLISH***

******* This file should be named 44608-h.txt or 44608-h.zip *******

This and all associated files of various formats will be found in:
http://www.gutenberg.org/4/4/6/0/44608

Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions will be renamed.

Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission. If you do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the rules is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and research. They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks. Redistribution is subject to the trademark license, especially commercial redistribution.

## *** START: FULL LICENSE ***
THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK

To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work (or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project Gutenberg-tm License available with this file or online at www.gutenberg.org/license.

### Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works

1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property (trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.

1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.

1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation" or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others.

1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United States.

1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:

1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, copied or distributed:

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org

1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work.

1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm.

1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project Gutenberg-tm License.

1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.

1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided that

- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation."
- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg-tm works.
- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of receipt of the work.
- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works.

1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below.

1.F.

1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain "Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by your equipment.

1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further opportunities to fix the problem.

1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS', WITH NO OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.

1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.

1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause.

### Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm

Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from people in all walks of life.

Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org

### Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation

The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit 501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws.

The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S. Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered throughout numerous locations. Its business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up to date contact information can be found at the Foundation's web site and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact

For additional contact information:
Dr. Gregory B. Newby
Chief Executive and Director
gbnewby@pglaf.org

### Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation

Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations ($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt status with the IRS.

The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate

While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who approach us with offers to donate.

International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.

Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate

### Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works.

Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and distributed Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support.

Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition.

Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility: www.gutenberg.org

This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.