[2605] "The _yasāwal_ is an officer who carries the commands
of the prince, and sees them enforced" (Erskine). Here he will
have been the superintendent of coolies moving earth.
[2606] _ma`jūn-nāk_ which, in these days of Bābur's return to
obedience, it may be right to translate in harmony with his
psychical outlook of self-reproach, by _ma`jūn_-polluted.
Though he had long ceased to drink wine, he still sought cheer
and comfort, in his laborious days, from inspiriting and
forbidden confections.
[2607] Probably owing to the less precise phrasing of his
Persian archetype, Erskine here has reversed the statement,
made in the Turkī, that Bābur slept in the Asāīsh (not the
Farmāīsh).
[2608] _aūstīdā tāshlār._ An earlier reading of this, _viz._
that stones were thrown on the intruder is negatived by
Bābur's mention of wood as the weapon used.
[2609] _sū sārī_ which, as the boats were between an island
and the river's bank, seems likely to mean that the man went
off towards the main stream. _Mems._ p. 415, "made his escape
in the river"; _Méms._ ii, 418, _dans la direction du large_.
[2610] This couplet is quoted by Jahāngīr also (_Tūzūk_, trs.
Rogers & Beveridge, i, 348).
[2611] This, taken with the positions of other
crossing-parties, serves to locate `Askarī's "Haldī-passage"
at no great distance above `Alī-qulī's emplacement at the
confluence, and above the main Bengal force.
[2612] perhaps, towed from the land. I have not found Bābur
using any word which clearly means to row, unless indeed a
later _rawān_ does so. The force meant to cross in the boats
taken up under cover of night was part of Bābur's own, no
doubt.
[2613] _ātīsh-bāzī_ lit. fire-playing, if a purely Persian
compound; if _ātīsh_ be Turkī, it means discharge, shooting.
The word "fire-working" is used above under the nearest to
contemporary guidance known to me, _viz._ that of the list of
persons who suffered in the Patna massacre "during the
troubles of October 1763 AD.", in which list are the names of
four Lieutenants fire-workers (_Calcutta Review_, Oct. 1884,
and Jan. 1885, art. _The Patna Massacre_, H. Beveridge).
[2614] _bī tahāshī_, without protest or demur.
[2615] Anglicé, Wednesday after 6 p.m.
[2616] Perhaps those which had failed to pass in the darkness;
perhaps those from Haldī-guẕr, which had been used by
`Askarī's troops. There appear to be obvious reasons for their
keeping abreast on the river with the troops in Sāran, in
order to convey reinforcements or to provide retreat.
[2617] _kīmalār aūstīdā_, which may mean that he came, on the
high bank, to where the boats lay below.
[2618] as in the previous note, _kīmalār aūstīdā_. These will
have been the few drawn up-stream along the enemy's front.
[2619] The reproach conveyed by Bābur's statement is borne out
by the strictures of Ḥaidar Mīrzā _Dūghlāt_ on Bābā Sulṯān's
neglect of duty (_Tārīkh-ī-rashīdī_ trs. cap. lxxvii).
[2620] _yūsūnlūq tūshī_, Pers. trss. _ṯarf khūd_, i.e. their
place in the array, a frequent phrase.
[2621] _dastak bīla dosta-i-qāmīsh bīla._ Cf. f. 363_b_ and f.
366_b_, for passages and notes connected with swimming and
_dastak_. Erskine twice translates _dastak bīla_ by swimming;
but here de Courteille changes from his earlier _à la nage_
(f. 366_b_) to _appuyés sur une pièce de bois_. Perhaps the
swift current was crossed by swimming with the support of a
bundle of reeds, perhaps on rafts made of such bundles (cf.
_Illustrated London News_, Sep. 16th, 1916, for a picture of
Indian soldiers so crossing on rafts).
[2622] perhaps they were in the Burh-ganga channel, out of
gun-fire.
[2623] If the Ghogrā flowed at this point in a narrow channel,
it would be the swifter, and less easy to cross than where in
an open bed.
[2624] _chīrīk-aīlī_, a frequent compound, but one of which
the use is better defined in the latter than the earlier part
of Bābur's writings to represent what then answered to an Army
Service Corps. This corps now crosses into Sāran and joins the
fighting force.
[2625] This appears to refer to the crossing effected before
the fight.
[2626] or Kūndbah. I have not succeeded in finding this name
in the Nirhun _pargana_; it may have been at the southern end,
near the "Domaigarh" of maps. In it was Tīr-mūhānī, perhaps a
village (f. 377, f. 381).
[2627] This passage justifies Erskine's surmise (_Memoirs_, p.
411, n. 4) that the Kharīd-country lay on both banks of the
Ghogrā. His further surmise that, on the east bank of the
Ghogrā, it extended to the Ganges would be correct also, since
the Ganges flowed, in Bābur's day, through the Burh-ganga (Old
Ganges) channel along the southern edge of the present Kharīd,
and thus joined the Ghogrā higher than it now does.
[2628] Bāyazīd and Ma`rūf _Farmūlī_ were brothers. Bāyazīd had
taken service with Bābur in 932 AH. (1526 AD.), left him in
934 AH. (end of 1527 AD.) and opposed him near Qanūj. Ma`rūf,
long a rebel against Ibrāhīm _Lūdī_, had never joined Bābur;
two of his sons did so; of the two, Muḥammad and Mūsa, the
latter may be the one mentioned as at Qanūj, "Ma`rūf's son"
(f. 336).—For an interesting sketch of Ma`rūf's character and
for the location in Hindūstān of the Farmūlī clan, _see_ the
_Wāqi`āt-i-mushtāqī_, E. & D.'s _History of India_, iv,
584.—In connection with Qanūj, the discursive remark may be
allowable, that Bābur's halt during the construction of the
bridge of boats across the Ganges in 934 AH. is still
commemorated by the name Bādshāh-nagar of a village between
Bangarmau and Nānāmau (Elliot's _Onau_, p. 45).
[2629] On f. 381 `Abdu'l-lāh's starting-place is mentioned as
Tīr-mūhānī.
[2630] The failure to join would be one of the evils predicted
by the dilatory start of the ladies from Kābul (f. 360_b_).
[2631] The order for these operations is given on f. 355_b_.
[2632] f. 369. The former Nūḥānī chiefs are now restored to
Bihār as tributaries of Bābur.
[2633] Erskine estimated the _krūr_ at about £25,000, and the
50 _laks_ at about £12,500.
[2634] The Mīrzā thus supersedes Junaid _Barlās_ in
Jūnpūr.—The form Jūnapūr used above and elsewhere by Bābur and
his Persian translators, supports the _Gazetteer of India_
xlv, 74 as to the origin of the name Jūnpūr.
[2635] a son of Naṣrat Shāh. No record of this earlier
legation is with the _Bābur-nāma_ manuscripts; probably it has
been lost. The only article found specified is the one asking
for the removal of the Kharīd army from a ferry-head Bābur
wished to use; Naṣrat Shāh's assent to this is an anti-climax
to Bābur's victory on the Ghogrā.
[2636] Chaupāra is at the Sāran end of the ferry, at the
Sikandarpūr one is Chatur-mūk (Four-faces, an epithet of
Brahma and Vishnu).
[2637] It may be inferred from the earlier use of the phrase
Gogar (or Gagar) and Sarū (Sīrū or Sīrd), on f. 338-8_b_, that
whereas the rebels were, earlier, for crossing Sarū only,
_i.e._ the Ghogrā below its confluence with the Sarda, they
had now changed for crossing above the confluence and further
north. Such a change is explicable by desire to avoid
encounter with Bābur's following, here perhaps the army of
Aūd, and the same desire is manifested by their abandonment of
a fort captured (f. 377_b_) some days before the rumour
reached Bābur of their crossing Sarū and Gogar.—Since
translating the passage on f. 338, I have been led, by
enforced attention to the movement of the confluence of Ghogrā
with Ganges (Sarū with Gang) to see that that translation,
eased in obedience to distances shewn in maps, may be wrong
and that Bābur's statement that he dismounted 2-3 _kurohs_
(4-6 m.) above Aūd at the confluence of Gogar with Sarū, may
have some geographical interest and indicate movement of the
two affluents such _e.g._ as is indicated of the Ganges and
Ghogrā by tradition and by the name Burh-ganga (cf. f. 370, p.
667, n. 2).
[2638] or L:knūr, perhaps Liknū or Liknūr. The capricious
variation in the MSS. between L:knū and L:knūr makes the
movements of the rebels difficult to follow. Comment on these
variants, tending to identify the places behind the words, is
grouped in Appendix T, _On L:knū_ (_Lakhnau_) and _L:knūr_
(_Lakhnār_).
[2639] Taking _guẕr_ in the sense it has had hitherto in the
_Bābur-nāma_ of ferry or ford, the detachment may have been
intended to block the river-crossings of "Sarū and Gogar". If
so, however, the time for this was past, the rebels having
taken a fort west of those rivers on Ramẓān 13th. Nothing
further is heard of the detachment.—That news of the
rebel-crossing of the rivers did not reach Bābur before the
18th and news of their capture of L:knū or L:knūr before the
19th may indicate that they had crossed a good deal to the
north of the confluence, and that the fort taken was one more
remote than Lakhnau (Oude). Cf. Appendix T.
[2640] Anglicé, Wednesday after 6 p.m.
[2641] These are recited late in the night during Ramẓān.
[2642] _kaghaẕ u ajzā'_, perhaps writing-paper and the various
sections of the _Bābur-nāma_ writings, _viz._ biographical
notices, descriptions of places, detached lengths of diary,
_farmāns_ of Shaikh Zain. The _lacunae_ of 934 AH., 935 AH.,
and perhaps earlier ones also may be attributed reasonably to
this storm. It is easy to understand the loss of _e.g._ the
conclusion of the Farghāna section, and the diary one of 934
AH., if they lay partly under water. The accident would be
better realized in its disastrous results to the writings, if
one knew whether Bābur wrote in a bound or unbound volume.
From the minor losses of 935 AH., one guesses that the current
diary at least had not reached the stage of binding.
[2643] The _tūnglūq_ is a flap in a tent-roof, allowing light
and air to enter, or smoke to come out.
[2644] _ajzā' u kitāb._ _See_ last note but one. The _kitāb_
(book) might well be Bābur's composed narrative on which he
was now working, as far as it had then gone towards its
untimely end (Ḥai. MS. f. 216_b_).
[2645] _saqarlāṯ kut-zīlūcha_, where _saqarlāṯ_ will mean warm
and woollen.
[2646] Kharīd-town is some 4 m. s.e. of the town of
Sikandarpūr.
[2647] or L:knū. Cf. Appendix T. It is now 14 days since
`Abdu'l-lāh _kitābdār_ had left Tīr-mūhānī (f. 380) for
Saṃbhal; as he was in haste, there had been time for him to go
beyond Aūd (where Bāqī was) and yet get the news to Bābur on
the 19th.
[2648] In a way not usual with him, Bābur seems to apply three
epithets to this follower, _viz._ _mīng-begī_, _shaghāwal_,
_Tāshkīndī_ (Index _s.n._).
[2649] or Kandla; cf. Revenue list f. 293; is it now Sāran
Khāṣ?
[2650] £18,000 (Erskine). For the total yield of Kundla (or
Kandla) and Sarwār, _see_ Revenue list (f. 293).
[2651] f. 375. P. 675 n. 2 and f. 381, p. 687 n. 3.
[2652] A little earlier Bābur has recorded his ease of mind
about Bihār and Bengal, the fruit doubtless of his victory
over Maḥmūd _Lūdī_ and Naṣrat Shāh; he now does the same about
Bihār and Sarwār, no doubt because he has replaced in Bihār,
as his tributaries, the Nūḥānī chiefs and has settled other
Afghāns, Jalwānīs and Farmūlīs in a Sarwār cleared of the
Jalwānī (?) rebel Bīban and the Farmūlī opponents Bāyazīd and
Ma`rūf. The Farmūlī Shaikh-zādas, it may be recalled, belonged
by descent to Bābur's Kābul district of Farmūl.—The
_Wāqi`āt-i-mushtāqī_ (E. & D.'s _H. of I._ iv, 548) details
the position of the clan under Sikandar _Lūdī_.
[2653] The MSS. write Fatḥpūr but Natḥpūr suits the context, a
_pargana_ mentioned in the _Āyīn-i-akbarī_ and now in the
`Azamgarh district. There seems to be no Fatḥpūr within
Bābur's limit of distance. The _D. G. of `Azamgarh_ mentions
two now insignificant Fatḥpūrs, one as having a school, the
other a market. The name G:l:r:h (K:l:r:h) I have not found.
[2654] The passage contained in this section seems to be a
survival of the lost record of 934 AH. (f. 339). I have found
it only in the _Memoirs_ p. 420, and in Mr. Erskine's own
Codex of the _Wāqi`āt-i-bāburī_ (now B.M. Add. 26,200), f. 371
where however several circumstances isolate it from the
context. It may be a Persian translation of an authentic Turkī
fragment, found, perhaps with other such fragments, in the
Royal Library. Its wording disassociates it from the
`Abdu'r-raḥīm text. The Codex (No. 26,200) breaks off at the
foot of a page (_supra_, Fatḥpūr) with a completed sentence.
The supposedly-misplaced passage is entered on the next folio
as a sort of ending of the _Bābur-nāma_ writings; in a rough
script, inferior to that of the Codex, and is followed by
_Tam, tam_ (Finis), and an incomplete date 98-, in words.
Beneath this a line is drawn, on which is subtended the
triangle frequent with scribes; within this is what seems to
be a completion of the date to 980 AH. and a pious wish,
scrawled in an even rougher hand than the rest.—Not only in
diction and in script but in contents also the passage is a
misfit where it now stands; it can hardly describe a village
on the Sarū; Bābur in 935 AH. did not march for Ghāzīpūr but
may have done so in 934 AH. (p. 656, n. 3); Ismā`īl _Jalwānī_
had had leave given already in 935 AH. (f. 377) under other
conditions, ones bespeaking more trust and tried
allegiance.—Possibly the place described as having fine
buildings, gardens _etc._ is Aūd (Ajodhya) where Bābur spent
some days in 934 AH. (cf. f. 363_b_, p. 655 n. 3).
[2655] "Here my Persian manuscript closes" (This is B.M. Add.
26,200). "The two additional fragments are given from Mr.
Metcalfe's manuscript alone" (now B.M. Add. 26,202) "and
unluckily, it is extremely incorrect" (Erskine). This note
will have been written perhaps a decade before 1826, in which
year the _Memoirs of Bābur_ was published, after long delay.
Mr. Erskine's own Codex (No. 26,200) was made good at a later
date, perhaps when he was working on his History of India
(pub. 1854), by a well-written supplement which carries the
diary to its usual end _s.a._ 936 AH. and also gives Persian
translations of Bābur's letters to Humāyūn and Khwāja Kalān.
[2656] Here, as earlier, Natḥpūr suits the context better than
Fatḥpūr. In the Natḥpūr _pargana_, at a distance from Chaupāra
approximately suiting Bābur's statement of distance, is the
lake "Tal Ratoi", formerly larger and deeper than now. There
is a second further west and now larger than Tal Ratoi;
through this the Ghogrā once flowed, and through it has tried
within the last half-century to break back. These changes in
Tal Ratoi and in the course of the Ghogrā dictate caution in
attempting to locate places which were on it in Bābur's day
_e.g._ K:l:r:h (_supra_).
[2657] Appendix T.
[2658] This name has the following variants in the Ḥai. MS.
and in Kehr's:—Dalm-ū-ūū-ūr-ūd-ūṯ. The place was in Akbar's
_sarkār_ of Mānikpūr and is now in the Rai Bareilly district.
[2659] Perhaps Chaksar, which was in Akbar's _sarkār_ of
Jūnpūr, and is now in the `Azamgarh district.
[2660] Ḥai. MS. _J:nāra khūnd tawābī sī bīla_ (perhaps
_tawābī`sī_ but not so written). The obscurity of these words
is indicated by their variation in the manuscripts. Most
scribes have them as Chunār and Jūnpūr, guided presumably by
the despatch of a force to Chunār on receipt of the news, but
another force was sent to Dalmau at the same time. The rebels
were defeated s.w. of Dalmau and thence went to Mahūba; it is
not certain that they had crossed the Ganges at Dalmau; there
are difficulties in supposing the fort they captured and
abandoned was Lakhnau (Oude); they might have gone south to
near Kālpī and Ādampūr, which are at no great distance from
where they were defeated by Bāqī _shaghāwal_, if Lakhnūr (now
Shahābād in Rāmpūr) were the fort. (Cf. Appendix T.)—To take
up the interpretation of the words quoted above, at another
point, that of the kinsfolk or fellow-Afghāns the rebels
planned to join:—these kinsfolk may have been, of Bāyazīd, the
Farmūlīs in Sarwār, and of Bīban, the Jalwānīs of the same
place. The two may have trusted to relationship for harbourage
during the Rains, disloyal though they were to their kinsmen's
accepted suzerain. Therefore if they were once across Ganges
and Jumna, as they were in Mahūba, they may have thought of
working eastwards south of the Ganges and of getting north
into Sarwār through territory belonging to the Chunār and
Jūnpūr governments. This however is not expressed by the words
quoted above; perhaps Bābur's record was hastily and
incompletely written.—Another reading may be Chunār and Jaund
(in Akbar's _sarkār_ of Rohtās).
[2661] _yūlīinī tūshqāīlār._ It may be observed concerning the
despatch of Muḥammad-i-zamān M. and of Junaid _Barlās_ that
they went to their new appointments Jūnpūr and Chunār
respectively; that their doing so was an orderly part of the
winding-up of Bābur's Eastern operations; that they remained
as part of the Eastern garrison, on duty apart from that of
blocking the road of Bīban and Bāyazīd.
[2662] This mode of fishing is still practised in India
(Erskine).
[2663] Islāmicé, Saturday night; Anglicé, Friday after 6 p.m.
[2664] This Tūs, "Tousin, or Tons, is a branch from the Ghogrā
coming off above Faizābād and joining the Sarju or Parsarū
below `Azamgarh" (Erskine).
[2665] Kehr's MS. p. 1132, Māng (or Mānk); Ḥai. MS. Tāīk; I.O.
218 f. 328 Bā:k; I.O. 217 f. 236_b_, Bīāk. Māīng in the
Sulṯānpūr district seems suitably located (_D.G. of
Sulṯānpūr_, p. 162).
[2666] This will be the night-guard (_`asas_); the librarian
(_kitābdār_) is in Saṃbhal. I.O. 218 f. 325 inserts _kitābdār_
after `Abdu'l-lāh's name where he is recorded as sent to
Saṃbhal (f. 375).
[2667] He will have announced to Tāj Khān the transfer of the
fort to Junaid _Barlās_.
[2668] £3750. Parsarūr was in Akbar's _ṣūbah_ of Lāhor; G. of
I. xx, 23, Pasrūr.
[2669] The estimate may have been made by measurement (f. 356)
or by counting a horse's steps (f. 370). Here the Ḥai. MS. and
Kehr's have D:lmūd, but I.O. 218 f. 328_b_ (D:lmūū).
[2670] As on f. 361_b_, so here, Bābur's wording tends to
locate Ādampūr on the right (west) bank of the Jumna.
[2671] Ḥai. MS. _aūta_, presumably for _aūrta_; Kehr's p.
1133, Aūd-dāghī, which, as Bāqī led the Aūd army, is _ben
trovato_; both Persian translations, _mīāngānī_, central,
inner, _i.e._ _aūrta_, perhaps household troops of the Centre.
[2672] Anglicé, Saturday 12th after 6 p.m.
[2673] In Akbar's _sarkār_ of Kālanjar, now in the Hamirpūr
district.
[2674] £7500 (Erskine). Amrohā is in the Morādābād district.
[2675] At the Chaupāra-Chaturmūk ferry (f.
376).—_Corrigendum_:—In the Index of the _Bābur-nāma
Facsimile_, Mūsa _Farmūlī_ and Mūsa Sl. are erroneously
entered as if one man.
[2676] _i.e._ riding light and fast. The distance done between
Ādampūr and Āgra was some 157 miles, the time was from 12 a.m.
on Tuesday morning to about 9 p.m. of Thursday. This exploit
serves to show that three years of continuous activity in the
plains of Hindūstān had not destroyed Bābur's capacity for
sustained effort, spite of several attacks of (malarial?)
fever.
[2677] Anglicé, Tuesday 12.25 a.m.
[2678] He was governor of Etāwa.
[2679] Islamicé, Friday, Shawwāl 18th, Anglicé, Thursday, June
24th, soon after 9 p.m.
[2680] Anglicé, she arrived at mid-night of
Saturday.—Gul-badan writes of Māhīm's arrival as unexpected
and of Bābur's hurrying off on foot to meet her
(_Humāyūn-nāma_ f. 14, trs. p. 100).
[2681] Māhīm's journey from Kābul to Āgra had occupied over 5
months.
[2682] Hindū Beg _qūchīn_ had been made Humāyūn's retainer in
932 AH. (f. 297), and had taken possession of Saṃbhal for him.
Hence, as it seems, he was ordered, while escorting the ladies
from Kābul, to go to Saṃbhal. He seems to have gone before
waiting on Bābur, probably not coming into Āgra till now.—It
may be noted here that in 933 AH. he transformed a Hindū
temple into a Mosque in Saṃbhal; it was done by Bābur's orders
and is commemorated by an inscription still existing on the
Mosque, one seeming not to be of his own composition, judging
by its praise of himself. (JASB. _Proceedings_, May 1873, p.
98, Blochmann's art. where the inscription is given and
translated; and _Archæological Survey Reports_, xii, p. 24-27,
with Plates showing the Mosque).
[2683] Cf. f. 375, f. 377, with notes concerning `Abdu'l-lāh
and Tīr-mūhānī. I have not found the name Tīr-mūhānī on maps;
its position can be inferred from Bābur's statement (f. 375)
that he had sent `Abdu'l-lāh to Saṃbhal, he being then at
Kunba or Kunīa in the Nurhun _pargana_.—The name Tīr-mūhānī
occurs also in Gorakhpūr.—It was at Tīr-mūhānī (Three-mouths)
that Khwānd-amīr completed the _Ḥabībū's-siyar_ (lith. ed. i,
83; Rieu's _Pers. Cat._ p. 1079). If the name imply three
water-mouths, they might be those of Ganges, Ghogrā and Dāhā.
[2684] _nīm-kāra._ E. and de C. however reverse the _rôles_.
[2685] The _Tārīkh-i-gūālīārī_ (B.M. Add. 16, 709, p. 18)
supplements the fragmentary accounts which, above and _s.a._
936 AH., are all that the _Bābur-nāma_ now preserves
concerning Khwāja Rāḥīm-dād's misconduct. It has several
mistakes but the gist of its information is useful. It
mentions that the Khwāja and his paternal-uncle Mahdī Khwāja
had displeased Bābur; that Raḥīm-dād resolved to take refuge
with the ruler of Mālwā (Muḥammad _Khīljī_) and to make over
Gūālīār to a Rājpūt landholder of that country; that upon this
Shaikh Muḥammad _Ghaus̤_ went to Āgra and interceded with
Bābur and obtained his forgiveness for Raḥīm-dād. Gūālīār was
given back to Raḥīm-dād but after a time he was superseded by
Abū'l-fatḥ [Shaikh Gūran]. For particulars about Mahdī Khwāja
and a singular story told about him by Niẕāmu'd-dīn Aḥmad in
the _T̤abaqāt-i-akbarī_, _vide_ Gul-badan's _Ḥumāyūn-nāma_,
Appendix B, and _Translator's Note_ p. 702, Section _f_.
[2686] He may have come about the misconduct of his nephew
Raḥīm-dād.
[2687] The `Īdu'l-kabīr, the Great Festival of 10th
Ẕū'l-ḥijja.
[2688] About £1750 (Erskine).
[2689] Perhaps he was from the tract in Persia still called
Chaghatāī Mountains. One Ibrāhīm _Chaghatāī_ is mentioned by
Bābur (f. 175b) with Turkmān begs who joined Ḥusain
_Bāī-qarā_. This Ḥasan-i-`alī _Chaghatāī_ may have come in
like manner, with Murād the Turkmān envoy from `Irāq (f. 369
and n. 1).
[2690] Several incidents recorded by Gul-badan (writing half a
century later) as following Māhīm's arrival in Āgra, will
belong to the record of 935 AH. because they preceded
Humāyūn's arrival from Badakhshān. Their omission from Bābur's
diary is explicable by its minor _lacunæ_. Such are:—(1) a
visit to Dhūlpūr and Sīkrī the interest of which lies in its
showing that Bībī Mubārika had accompanied Māhīm Begīm to Āgra
from Kābul, and that there was in Sīkrī a quiet retreat, a
_chaukandī_, where Bābur "used to write his book";—(2) the
arrival of the main caravan of ladies from Kābul, which led
Bābur to go four miles out, to Naugrām, in order to give
honouring reception to his sister Khān-ẓāda Begīm;—(3) an
excursion to the Gold-scattering garden (_Bāgh-i-zar-afshān_),
where seated among his own people, Bābur said he was "bowed
down by ruling and reigning", longed to retire to that garden
with a single attendant, and wished to make over his
sovereignty to Humāyūn;—(4) the death of Dil-dār's son Alwār
(var. Anwār) whose birth may be assigned to the gap preceding
932 AH. because not chronicled later by Bābur, as is Farūq's.
As a distraction from the sorrow for this loss, a journey was
"pleasantly made by water" to Dhūlpūr.
[2691] Cf. f. 381b n. 2. For his earlier help to Raḥīm-dād
_see_ f. 304. For Biographies of him _see_ Blochmann's A.-i-A.
trs. p. 446, and Badāyūnī's _Muntakhabu-'t-tawārīkh_
(Ranking's and Lowe's trss.).
[2692] Beyond this broken passage, one presumably at the foot
of a page in Bābur's own manuscript, nothing of his diary is
now known to survive. What is missing seems likely to have
been written and lost. It is known from a remark of
Gul-badan's (H.N. p. 103) that he "used to write his book"
after Māhīm's arrival in Āgra, the place coming into her
anecdote being Sīkrī.
[2693] Jauhar's _Humāyūn-nāma_ and Bāyazīd _Bīyāt's_ work of
the same title were written under the same royal command as
the Begīm's. They contribute nothing towards filling the gap
of 936 AH.; their authors, being Humāyūn's servants, write
about him. It may be observed that criticism of these books,
as recording trivialities, is disarmed if they were commanded
because they would obey an order to set down whatever was
known, selection amongst their contents resting with
Abū'l-faẓl. Even more completely must they be excluded from a
verdict on the literary standard of their day.—Abū'l-faẓl must
have had a source of Bāburiana which has not found its way
into European libraries. A man likely to have contributed his
recollections, directly or transmitted, is Khwāja Muqīm
_Harāwī_. The date of Muqīm's death is conjectural only, but
he lived long enough to impress the worth of historical
writing on his son Niẕāmu'-d-dīn Aḥmad. (Cf. E. and D.'s H. of
I. art. _T̤abaqāt-i-akbarī_ v, 177 and 187; T̤.-i-A. lith. ed.
p. 193; and for Bāyazīd _Bīyāt's_ work, JASB. 1898, p. 296.)
[2694] Ibn Batuta (Lee's trs. p. 133) mentions that after his
appointment to Gūālīār, Raḥīm-dād fell from favour ... but was
restored later, on the representation of Muḥammad Ghaus̤; held
Gūālīār again for a short time, (he went to Bahādur Shāh in
Gujrāt) and was succeeded by Abū'l-fatḥ (_i.e._ Shaikh Gūran)
who held it till Bābur's death.
[2695] Its translation and explanatory noting have filled two
decades of hard-working years. _Tanti labores auctoris et
traductoris!_
[2696] I am indebted to my husband for acquaintance with
Niẕāmu'-d-dīn Aḥmad's record about Bābur and Kashmīr.
[2697] In view of the vicissitudes to which under Humāyūn the
royal library was subjected, it would be difficult to assert
that this source was not the missing continuation of Bābur's
diary.
[2698] E. and D.'s H. of I. art. _Tārīkh-i Khān-i-jahān Lūdī_
v, 67. For Aḥmad-i-yādgār's book and its special features
_vide_ _l.c._ v, 2, 24, with notes; Rieu's _Persian Catalogue_
iii, 922_a_; JASB. 1916, H. Beveridge's art. _Note on the
Tārīkh-i-salāṯīn-i-afāghana._
[2699] Humāyūn's last recorded act in Hindūstān was that of
933 AH. (f. 329_b_) when he took unauthorized possession of
treasure in Dihlī.
[2700] _Tārīkh-i-rashīdī_ trs. p. 387.
[2701] T.-i-R. trs. p. 353 _et seq._ and Mr. Ney Elias' notes.
[2702] Abū'l-faẓl's record of Humāyūn's sayings and minor
doings at this early date in his career, can hardly be
anything more accurate than family-tradition.
[2703] The statement that Khalīfa was asked to go so far from
where he was of the first importance as an administrator,
leads to consideration of why it was done. So little is known
explicitly of Bābur's intentions about his territories after
his death that it is possible only to put that little together
and read between its lines. It may be that he was now planning
an immediate retirement to Kābul and an apportionment during
life of his dominions, such as Abū-sa`īd had made of his own.
If so, it would be desirable to have Badakhshān held in
strength such as Khalīfa's family could command, and
especially desirable because as Barlās Turks, that family
would be one with Bābur in desire to regain Transoxiana. Such
a political motive would worthily explain the offer of the
appointment.
[2704] The "Shāh" of this style is derived from Sulaimān's
Badakhshī descent through Shāh Begīm; the "Mīrzā" from his
Mīrān-shāhī descent through his father Wais Khān Mīrzā. The
title Khān Mīrzā or Mīrzā Khān, presumably according to the
outlook of the speaker, was similarly derived from forbears,
as would be also Shāh Begīm's; (her personal name is not
mentioned in the sources).
[2705] Sa`īd, on the father's, and Bābur, on the mother's
side, were of the same generation in descent from Yūnas Khān;
Sulaimān was of a younger one, hence his pseudo-filial
relation to the men of the elder one.
[2706] Sa`īd was Shāh Begīm's grandson through her son Aḥmad,
Sulaimān her great-grandson through her daughter Sulṯān-Nigār,
but Sulaimān could claim also as the heir of his father who
was nominated to rule by Shāh Begīm; moreover, he could claim
by right of conquest on the father's side, through Abū-sa`īd
the conqueror, his son Maḥmūd long the ruler, and so through
Maḥmūd's son Wais Khān Mīrzā.
[2707] The menace conveyed by these words would be made the
more forceful by Bābur's move to Lāhor, narrated by
Aḥmad-i-yādgār. Some ill-result to Sa`īd of independent rule
by Sulaimān seems foreshadowed; was it that if Bābur's
restraining hand were withdrawn, the Badakhshīs would try to
regain their lost districts and would have help in so-doing
from Bābur?
[2708] It is open to conjecture that if affairs in Hindūstān
had allowed it, Bābur would now have returned to Kābul.
Aḥmad-i-yādgār makes the expedition to be one for pleasure
only, and describes Bābur as hunting and sight-seeing for a
year in Lāhor, the Panj-āb and near Dihlī. This appears a mere
flourish of words, in view of the purposes the expedition
served, and of the difficulties which had arisen in Lāhor
itself and with Sa`īd Khān. Part of the work effected may have
been the despatch of an expedition to Kashmīr.
[2709] This appears a large amount.
[2710] The precision with which the Rāja's gifts are stated,
points to a closely-contemporary and written source. A second
such indication occurs later where gifts made to Hind-āl are
mentioned.
[2711] An account of the events in Multān after its occupation
by Shāh Ḥasan _Arghūn_ is found in the latter part of the
_T̤abaqāt-i-akbarī_ and in Erskine's H. of I. i, 393 _et
seq._—It may be noted here that several instances of confusion
amongst Bābur's sons occur in the extracts made by Sir H.
Elliot and Professor Dowson in their _History of India_ from
the less authoritative sources [_e.g._ v, 35 Kāmrān for
Humāyūn, `Askarī said to be in Kābul (pp. 36 and 37); Hind-āl
for Humāyūn _etc._] and that these errors have slipped into
several of the District Gazetteers of the United Provinces.
[2712] As was said of the offering made by the Rāja of Kahlūr,
the precision of statement as to what was given to Hind-āl,
bespeaks a closely-contemporary written source. So too does
the mention (text, _infra_) of the day on which Bābur began
his return journey from Lāhor.
[2713] Cf. _G. of I._ xvi, 55; Ibbetson's _Report on Karnāl_.
[2714] It is noticeable that no one of the three royal
officers named as sent against Mohan _Mundāhir_, is
recognizable as mentioned in the _Bābur-nāma_. They may all
have had local commands, and not have served further east.
Perhaps this, their first appearance, points to the origin of
the information as independent of Bābur, but he might have
been found to name them, if his diary were complete for 936
AH.
[2715] The E. and D. translation writes twice as though the
inability to "pull" the bows were due to feebleness in the
men, but an appropriate reading would refer the difficulty to
the hardening of sinews in the composite Turkish bows, which
prevented the archers from bending the bows for stringing.
[2716] One infers that fires were burned all night in the
bivouac.
[2717] At this point the A.S.B. copy (No. 137) of the
_Tārīkh-i-salāṯin-i-afāghana_ has a remark which may have been
a marginal note originally, and which cannot be supposed made
by Aḥmad-i-yādgār himself because this would allot him too
long a spell of life. It may show however that the
interpolations about the two Tīmūrids were not inserted in his
book by him. Its purport is that the Mundāhir village
destroyed by Bābur's troops in 936 AH.-1530 AD. was still in
ruins at the time it was written 160 (lunar) years later
(_i.e._ in 1096 AH.-1684-85 AD.). The better Codex (No. 3887)
of the Imperial Library of Calcutta has the same passage.—Both
that remark and its context show acquaintance with Samāna and
Kaithal.—The writings now grouped under the title
_Tārīkh-i-salāṯīn-i-afāghana_ present difficulties both as to
date and contents (cf. Rieu's _Persian Catalogue_ _s. n._).
[2718] Presumably in Tihrind.
[2719] Cf. G. B.'s H. N. trs. and the _Akbar-nāma_ Bib. Ind.
ed. and trs., Index _s.nn._; Hughes' _Dictionary of Islām_
_s.n._ Intercession.
[2720] A closer translation would be, "I have taken up the
burden." The verb is _bardāshtan_ (cf. f. 349, p. 626 n. 1).
[2721] _See_ Erskine's _History of India_ ii, 9.
[2722] At this point attention is asked to the value of the
Aḥmad-i-yādgār interpolation which allows Bābur a year of
active life before Humāyūn's illness and his own which
followed. With no chronicle known of 936 AH. Bābur had been
supposed ill all through the year, a supposition which
destroys the worth of his self-sacrifice. Moreover several
inferences have been drawn from the supposed year of illness
which are disproved by the activities recorded in that
interpolation.
[2723] E. and D.'s _History of India_ v, 187; G. B.'s
_Humāyūn-nāma_ trs. p. 28.
[2724] _dar khidmat-i-dīwānī-i-buyūtāt_; perhaps he was a
Barrack-officer. His appointment explains his attendance on
Khalīfa.
[2725] Khalīfa prescribed for the sick Bābur.
[2726] _khānwāda-i-bīgānah_, perhaps, foreign dynasty.
[2727] From Saṃbhal; Gul-badan, by an anachronism made some 60
years later, writes Kālanjar, to which place Humāyūn moved 5
months after his accession.
[2728] I am indebted to my husband's perusal of Sayyid Aḥmad
Khān's _As̤ār-i-ṣanādīd_ (Dihlī ed. 1854 p. 37, and Lakhnau
ed. 1895 pp. 40, 41) for information that, perhaps in 935 AH.,
Mahdī Khwāja set up a tall slab of white marble near Amīr
Khusrau's tomb in Dihlī, which bears an inscription in praise
of the poet, composed by that Shihābu'd-dīn the Enigmatist who
reached Āgra with Khwānd-amīr in Muḥarram 935 AH. (f. 339_b_).
The inscription gives two chronograms of Khusrau's death (725
AH.), mentions that Mahdī Khwāja was the creator of the
memorial, and gives its date in the words, "The beautiful
effort of Mahdī Khwāja."—The Dihlī ed. of the
_As̤ār-i-ṣanādīd_ depicts the slab with its inscription; the
Lakhnau ed. depicts the tomb, may show the slab _in sitû_, and
contains interesting matter by Sayyid Aḥmad Khān. The slab is
mentioned without particulars in Murray's _Hand-book to
Bengal_, p. 329.
[2729] Lee's _Ibn Batuta_ p. 133 and Hirāman's
_Tārīkh-i-gūālīārī_. Cf. G. B.'s _Humāyūn-nāma_ trs. (1902
AD.), Appendix B.—_Mahdī Khwāja._
[2730] In an anonymous _Life of Shāh Ismā`īl Ṣafawī_, Mahdī
Khwāja [who may be a son of the Mūsa Khwāja mentioned by Bābur
on f. 216] is described as being, in what will be 916-7 AH.,
Bābur's _Dīwān-begī_ and as sent towards Bukhārā with 10,000
men. This was 29 years before the story calls him a young man.
Even if the word _jawān_ (young man) be read, as T. _yīgīt_ is
frequently to be read, in the sense of "efficient fighting
man", Mahdī was over-age. Other details of the story, besides
the word _jawān_, bespeak a younger man.
[2731] G. B.'s H. N. trs. p. 126; _Ḥabību's-siyar_, B. M. Add.
16,679 f. 370, l. 16, lith. ed. Sec. III. iii, 372 (where a
clerical error makes Bābur give Māhdī _two_ of his
full-sisters in marriage).—Another _yazna_ of Bābur was
Khalīfā's brother Junaid _Barlās_, the husband of Shahr-bānū,
a half-sister of Bābur.
[2732] Bābur, shortly before his death, married Gul-rang to
Aīsān-tīmūr and Gul-chihra to Tūkhta-būghā _Chaghatāī_. Cf.
_post_, Section _h_, _Bābur's wives and children_; and G. B.'s
H. N. trs. Biographical Appendix _s.nn._ Dil-dār Begīm and
Salīma Sulṯān Begīm _Mirān-shāhi_.
[2733] Cf. G. B.'s H. N. trs. p. 147.
[2734] She is the only adult daughter of a Tīmūrid mother
named as being such by Bābur or Gul-badan, but various
considerations incline to the opinion that Dil-dār Begīm also
was a Tīmūrid, hence her three daughters, all named from the
Rose, were so too. Cf. references of penultimate note.
[2735] It attaches interest to the Mīrzā that he can be taken
reasonably as once the owner of the Elphinstone Codex (cf.
JRAS. 1907, pp. 136 and 137).
[2736] Death did not threaten when this gift was made; life in
Kābul was planned for.—Here attention is asked again to the
value of Aḥmad-i-yādgār's Bāburiana for removing the
impression set on many writers by the blank year 936 AH. that
it was one of illness, instead of being one of travel, hunting
and sight-seeing. The details of the activities of that year
have the further value that they enhance the worth of Bābur's
sacrifice of life.—Ḥaidar Mīrzā also fixes the date of the
beginning of illness as 937 AH.
[2737] The author, or embroiderer, of that anonymous story did
not know the _Bābur-nāma_ well, or he would not have described
Bābur as a wine-drinker after 933 AH. The anecdote is parallel
with Niẕāmu'd-dīn Aḥmad's, the one explaining why the Mīrzā
was selected, the other why the _dāmād_ was dropped.
[2738] _Bib. Ind._ i, 341; Ranking's trs. p. 448.
[2739] The night-guard; perhaps Māhīm Begīm's brother (G. B.'s
H. N. trs. pp. 27-8).
[2740] G. B.'s H. N. trs. f. 34_b_, p. 138; Jauhar's _Memoirs
of Humāyūn_, Stewart's trs. p. 82.
[2741] Cf. G. B.'s H. N. trs. p. 216, Bio. App. _s.n._ Bega
Begam.
[2742] f. 128, p. 200 n. 3. Cf. Appendix U.—_Bābur's Gardens
in and near Kābul_.
[2743] Cf. H. H. Hayden's _Notes on some monuments in
Afghānistān_, [_Memoirs of the Asiatic Society of Bengal_ ii,
344]; and _Journal asiatique_ 1888, M. J. Darmesteter's art.
_Inscriptions de Caboul_.
[2744] _ān_, a demonstrative suggesting that it refers to an
original inscription on the second, but now absent, upright
slab, which presumably would bear Bābur's name.
[2745] Ruẓwān is the door-keeper of Paradise.
[2746] Particulars of the women mentioned by Bābur, Ḥaidar,
Gul-badan and other writers of their time, can be seen in my
Biographical Appendix to the Begīm's _Humāyūn-nāma_. As the
Appendix was published in 1902, variants from it occurring in
this work are corrections superseding earlier and
less-informed statements.
[2747] _Tārīkh-i-rashīdī_ trs. Ney Elias and Ross p. 308.
[2748] Bio. App. _s.n._ Gul-chihra.
[2749] The story of the later uprisings against Māhīm's son
Humāyūn by his brothers, by Muḥammad-i-zamān _Bāī-qarā_ and
others of the same royal blood, and this in spite of Humāyūn's
being his father's nominated successor, stirs surmise as to
whether the rebels were not tempted by more than his defects
of character to disregard his claim to supremacy; perhaps
pride of higher maternal descent, this particularly amongst
the Bāī-qarā group, may have deepened a disregard created by
antagonisms of temperament.
[2750] Until the Yāngī-ārīq was taken off the Sīr, late in the
last century, for Namangān, the oasis land of Farghāna was
fertilized, not from the river but by its intercepted
tributaries.
[2751] Ujfalvy's translation of Yāqūt (ii, 179) reads one
_farsākh_ from the mountains instead of 'north of the river.'
[2752] Kostenko describes a division of Tāshkīnt, one in which
is Ravine-lane (_jar-kucha_), as divided by a deep ravine; of
another he says that it is cut by deep ravines (Bābur's _`umīq
jarlār_).
[2753] Bābur writes as though Akhsī had one Gate only (f.
112_b_). It is unlikely that the town had come down to having
a single exit; the Gate by which he got out of Akhsī was the
one of military importance because served by a draw-bridge,
presumably over the ravine-moat, and perhaps not close to that
bridge.
[2754] For mention of upper villages _see_ f. 110 and note 1.
[2755] _Cf._ f. 114 for distances which would be useful in
locating Akhsī if Bābur's _yīghāch_ were not variable; Ritter,
vii, 3 and 733; Réclus, vi, index _s.n._ Farghāna; Ujfalvy ii,
168, his quotation from Yāqūt and his authorities; Nalivkine's
_Histoire du Khanat de Kokand_, p. 14 and p. 53; Schuyler, i,
324; Kostenko, Tables of Contents for cognate general
information and i, 320, for Tāshkīnt; von Schwarz, index under
related names, and especially p. 345 and plates; Pumpelly, p.
18 and p. 115.
[2756] This Turkī-Persian Dictionary was compiled by Mīrzā
Mahdī Khān. Nādir Shāh's secretary and historian, whose life
of his master Sir William Jones translated into French (Rieu's
Turkī Cat. p. 264_b_).
[2757] The _Pādshāh-nāma_ whose author, `Abdu'l-ḥamīd, the
biographer of Shāh-jahān, died in 1065 AH. (1655 AD.) mentions
the existence of lacunæ in a copy of the Bābur-nāma, in the
Imperial Library and allowed by his wording to be Bābur's
autograph MS. (i, 42 and ii, 703).
[2758] _Akbar-nāma_, Bib. Ind. ed. i, 305; H. B. i, 571.
[2759] Ḥai. MS. f. 118_b_; _aūshāl bāghdā sū āqīb kīlā dūr
aīdī_. _Bābur-nāma_, _sū āqīb_, water flowed and _aūshal_ is
rare, but in the R.P. occurs 7 times.
[2760] _gūzūm āwīqī-ghā bārīb tūr._ B.N. f. 117_b_, _gūzūm
āwīqū-ghā bārdī_.
[2761] _kūrā dūr mīn_, B.N. f. 83, _tūsh kūrdūm_ and _tūsh
kūrār mīn_.
[2762] _ablaq suwār bīlān_; P. _suwār_ for T. _ātlīq_ or
_ātlīq kīshī_; _bīlān_ for B.N. _bīla_, and an odd use of
piebald (_ablaq_).
[2763] _masnad_, B.N. _takht_, throne. _Masnad_ betrays
Hindūstān.
[2764] _Hamrā`īlārī (sic) bir bir gā (sic) maṣlaḥat qīlā
dūrlār._ _Maṣlaḥat for B.N. kīngāsh_ or _kīngāīsh_; _hamrāh_,
companion, for _mīnīng bīla bār_, etc.
[2765] _bāghlāmāq_ and f. 119_b_ _bāghlāghānlār_; B.N. _ālmāk_
or _tūtmāq_ to seize or take prisoner.
[2766] _dīwār_ for _tām_.
[2767] f. 119, _āt-tīn aūzlār-nī tāshlāb_; B.N. _tūshmāk_,
dismount. _Tāshlāmaq_ is not used in the sense of dismount by
B.
[2768] _pādshāh_ so used is an anachronism (f. 215); Bābur
Mīrzā would be correct.
[2769] _ẕāhirān_; B.N. _yāqīn_.
[2770] Ilminsky's imprint stops at _dīb_; he may have taken
_kīm-dīb_ for signs of quotation merely. (This I did earlier,
JRAS 1902, p. 749.)
[2771] Aligarh ed. p. 52; Rogers' trs. i, 109.
[2772] _Cf._ f. 63_b_, n. 3.
[2773] Another but less obvious objection will be mentioned
later.
[2774] Julien notes (_Voyages des pélerins Bouddhistes_, ii,
96), "Dans les annales des Song on trouve Nang-go-lo-ho, qui
répond exactement à l'orthographe indienne Nangarahāra, que
fournit l'inscription découvert par le capitaine Kittoe"
(JASB. 1848). The reference is to the Ghoswāra inscription, of
which Professor Kielhorn has also written (_Indian Antiquary_,
1888), but with departure from Nangarahāra to Nagarahāra.
[2775] The scribe of the Ḥaidarābād Codex appears to have been
somewhat uncertain as to the spelling of the name. What is
found in histories is plain, N:g:r:hār. The other name varies;
on first appearance (fol. 131_b_) and also on fols. 144 and
154_b_, there is a vagrant dot below the word, which if it
were above would make Nīng-nahār. In all other cases the word
reads N:g:nahār. Nahār is a constant component, as is also the
letter _g_(or _k_).
[2776] Some writers express the view that the medial _r_ in
this word indicates descent from Nagarahāra, and that the
medial _n_ of Elphinstone's second form is a corruption of it.
Though this might be, it is true also that in local speech _r_
and _n_ often interchange, _e.g._ Chighār- and Chighān-sarāī,
Sūhār and Sūhān (in Nūr-valley).
[2777] This asserts _n_ to be the correct consonant, and
connects with the interchange of _n_ and _r_ already noted.
[2778] Since writing the above I have seen Laidlaw's almost
identical suggestion of a nasal interpolated in Nagarahāra
(JASB. 1848, art. on Kittoe). The change is of course found
elsewhere; is not Tānk for Tāq an instance?
[2779] These affluents I omit from main consideration as
sponsors because they are less obvious units of taxable land
than the direct affluents of the Kābul-river, but they remain
a reserve force of argument and may or may not have counted in
Bābur's nine.
[2780] Cunningham, i, 42. My topic does not reach across the
Kābul-river to the greater Udyānapūra of Beal's _Buddhist
Records_ (p. 119) nor raise the question of the extent of that
place.
[2781] The strong form Nīng-nahār is due to euphonic impulse.
[2782] Some discussion about these coins has already appeared
in JRAS. 1913 and 1914 from Dr. Codrington, Mr. M. Longworth
Dames and my husband.
[2783] This variant from the Turkī may be significant. Should
_tamghānat(-i-)sikka_ be read and does this describe
countermarking?
[2784] It will be observed that Bābur does not explicitly say
that Ḥusain put the beg's name on the coin.
[2785] _Ḥabību's-siyar_ lith. ed. iii, 228; _Ḥaidarābād_ Codex
text and trs. f. 26_b_ and f. 169; Browne's Daulat Shāh p.
533.
[2786] Ḥusain born 842 AH. (1438 AD.); d. 911 AH. (1506 AD.).
[2787] Cf. f. 7_b_ note to braves (_yīgītlār_). There may be
instances, in the earlier Farghāna section where I have
translated _chuhra_ wrongly by _page_. My attention had not
then been fixed on the passage about the coins, nor had I the
same familiarity with the Kābul section. For a household page
to be clearly recognizable as such from the context, is
rare—other uses of the word are translated as their context
dictates.
[2788] They can be traced through my Index and in some cases
their careers followed. Since I translated _chuhra-jīrga-si_
on f. 15_b_ by cadet-corps, I have found in the Kābul section
instances of long service in the corps which make the word
cadet, as it is used in English, too young a name.
[2789] This Mr. M. Longworth Dames pointed out in JRAS. 1913.
[2790] _Habību's-siyar_ lith. ed. iii, 219; Ferté trs. p. 28.
For the information about Ḥusain's coins given in this
appendix I am indebted to Dr. Codrington and Mr. M. Longworth
Dames.
[2791] Elphinstone MS. f. 150_b_; Ḥaidarābād MS. f. 190_b_;
Ilminsky, imprint p. 241.
[2792] Muḥ. Ma`ṣūm _Bhakkarí's Tārīkh-i-sind_ 1600, Malet's
Trs. 1855, p. 89; Mohan Lall's _Journal_ 1834, p. 279 and
_Travels_ 1846, p. 311; Bellew's _Political Mission to
Afghānistān_ 1857, p. 232; _Journal Asiatique_ 1890,
Darmesteter's _La grande inscription de Qandahār_; JRAS. 1898,
Beames' _Geography of the Qandahār inscription_. Murray's
_Hand-book of the Panjab etc._ 1883 has an account which as to
the Inscriptions shares in the inaccuracies of its sources
(Bellew & Lumsden).
[2793] The plan of Qandahār given in the official account of
the Second Afghān War, makes Chihil-zīna appear on the wrong
side of the ridge, n.w. instead of n.e.
[2794] destroyed in 1714 AD. It lay 3 m. west of the present
Qandahār (not its immediate successor). It must be observed
that Darmesteter's insufficient help in plans and maps led him
to identify Chihil-zīna with Chihil-dukhtarān
(Forty-daughters).
[2795] _Tārīkh-i-rashīdī_ trs. p. 387; _Akbar-nāma_ trs. i,
290.
[2796] Ḥai. Codex, Index _sn.n._
[2797] It is needless to say that a good deal in this story
may be merely fear and supposition accepted as occurrence.
[2798] Always left beyond the carpet on which a reception is
held.
[2799] This is not in agreement with Bābur's movements.
[2800] _i.e._ Humāyūn wished for a full-brother or sister,
another child in the house with him. The above names of his
brother and sister are given elsewhere only by Gulbadan (f.
6_b_).
[2801] The "we" might be Māhīm and Humāyūn, to Bābur in camp.
[2802] Perhaps before announcing the birth anywhere.
[2803] Presumably this plural is honorific for the Honoured
Mother Māhīm.
[2804] Māhīm's and Humāyūn's quarters.
[2805] Gul-badan's _Humāyūn-nāma_, f. 8.
[2806] JRAS. A. S. Beveridge's Notes on _Bābur-nāma_ MSS.
1900, [1902,] 1905, 1906, [1907,] 1908 (Kehr's transcript, p.
76, and Latin translation with new letter of Bābur p. 828).
[2807] In all such matters of the _Bābur-nāma_ Codices, it has
to be remembered that their number has been small.
[2808] Vigne's _Travels in Kāshmīr_ ii, 277-8;
_Tārīkh-i-rashīdī_ trs., p. 302 and n. and p. 466 and note.
[2809] It is not likely to be one heard current in Hindūstān,
any more than is Bābur's Ar. _bū-qalamūn_ as a name of a bird
(Index _s.n._); both seem to be "book-words" and may be traced
or known as he uses them in some ancient dictionary or book of
travels originating outside Hindūstān.
[2810] My note 6 on p. 421 shows my earlier difficulties, due
to not knowing (when writing it) that _kabg-ī-darī_ represents
the snow-cock in the Western Himālayas.
[2811] By over-sight mention of this note was omitted from my
article on the Elphinstone Codex (JRAS. 1907, p. 131).
[2812] Speede's _Indian Hand-book_ (i, 212) published in 1841
AD. thus writes, "It is a curious circumstance that the finest
and most esteemed fruit are produced from the roots below the
surface of the ground, and are betrayed by the cracking of the
earth above them, and the effluvia issuing from the fissure; a
high price is given by rich natives for fruit so produced."
[2813] In the margin of the Elphinstone Codex opposite the
beginning of the note are the words, "This is a marginal note
of Humāyūn Pādshāh's."
[2814] Every Emperor of Hindūstān has an epithet given him
after his death to distinguish him, and prevent the necessity
of repeating his name too familiarly. Thus _Firdaus-makān_
(dweller-in-paradise) is Bābur's; Humāyūn's is
_Jannat-ashi-yānī_, he whose nest is in Heaven; Muḥammad
Shāh's _Firdaus-āramgāh_, he whose place of rest is Paradise;
_etc._ (Erskine).
[2815] Here Mr. Erskine notes, "Literally, _nectar-fruit_,
probably the mandarin orange, by the natives called _nāringī_.
The name _amrat_, or pear, in India is applied to the guava or
_Psidium pyriferum_—(_Spondias mangifera_, Hort. Ben.—D.
Wallich)."... Mr. E. notes also that the note on the
_amrit-phal_ "is not found in either of the Persian
translations".
[2816] _chūchūmān_, Pers. trs. _shīrīni bī maza_, perhaps
flat, sweet without relish. Bābur does not use the word, nor
have I traced it in a dictionary.
[2817] _chūchūk_, savoury, nice-tasting, not acid (Shaw).
[2818] _chūchūk nāranj āndāq (?) maṯ`ūn aīdī kīm har kīm-nī
shīrīn-kārlīghī bī masa qīlkāndī, nāranj-sū'ī dīk tūr dīrlār
aīdī._
[2819] The _lemu_ may be _Citrus limona_, which has abundant
juice of a mild acid flavour.
[2820] The _kāmila_ and _samṯara_ are the real oranges
(_kauṅlā_ and _sangtāra_), which are now (_cir._ 1816 AD.)
common all over India. Dr. Hunter conjectures that the
_sangtāra_ may take its name from Cintra, in Portugal. This
early mention of it by Bābur and Humāyūn may be considered as
subversive of that supposition. (This description of the
_samṯara_, vague as it is, applies closer to the _Citrus
decumana_ or _pampelmus_, than to any other.—D.
Wallich.)—Erskine.
[2821] Humāyūn writes of this fruit as though it were not the
_sang-tara_ described by his father on f. 287 (p. 511 and
note).
[2822] M. de Courteille translated _jama`_ in a general sense
by _totalit.'_ instead of in its Indian technical one of
revenue (as here) or of assessment. Hence Professor Dowson's
"totality" (iv, 262 n.).
[2823] The B.M. has a third copy, Or. 5879, which my husband
estimates as of little importance.
[2824] Sir G. A. Grierson, writing in the _Indian Antiquary_
(July 1885, p. 187), makes certain changes in Ajodhya Prasad's
list of the Brahman rulers of Tirhut, on grounds he states.
[2825] Index _s.n._ Bābur's letters. The passage Shaikh Zain
quotes is found in Or. 1999, f. 65_b_, Add. 26,202, f. 66_b_,
Or. 5879, f. 79_b_.
[2826] Cf. Index _in loco_ for references to Bābur's metrical
work, and for the Facsimile, JASB. 1910, Extra Number.
[2827] Monday, Rabi` II. 15th 935 AH.—Dec. 27th 1528 AD. At
this date Bābur had just returned from Dhūlpūr to Āgra (f.
354, p. 635, where in note 1 for Thursday read Monday).
[2828] Owing to a scribe's "skip" from one _yībārīldī_ (was
sent) to another at the end of the next sentence, the passage
is not in the Ḥai. MS. It is not well given in my translation
(f. 357_b_, p. 642); what stands above is a closer rendering
of the full Turkī, _Humāyūngha tarjuma_ [_u_?] _nī-kīm
Hindūstāngha kīlkānī aītqān ash'ārnī yībārīldī_ (Ilminsky p.
462, 1. 4 fr. ft., where however there appears a slight
clerical error).
[2829] Hesitation about accepting the colophon as
unquestionably applying to the whole contents of the
manuscript is due to its position of close association with
one section only of the three in the manuscript (cf. _post_ p.
lx).
[2830] Plate XI, and p. 15 (mid-page) of the Facsimile
booklet.—The Facsimile does not show the whole of the marginal
quatrain, obviously because for the last page of the
manuscript a larger photographic plate was needed than for the
rest. With Dr. Ross' concurrence a photograph in which the
defect is made good, accompanies this Appendix.
[2831] The second section ends on Plate XVII, and p. 21 of the
Facsimile booklet.
[2832] Needless to say that whatever the history of the
manuscript, its value as preserving poems of which no other
copy is known publicly, is untouched. This value would be
great without the marginal entries on the last page; it finds
confirmation in the identity of many of the shorter poems with
counterparts in the _Bābur-nāma_.
[2833] Another autograph of Shāh-i-jahān's is included in the
translation volume (p. xiii) of Gul-badan Begam's
_Humāyūn-nāma_. It surprises one who works habitually on
historical writings more nearly contemporary with Bābur, in
which he is spoken of as _Firdaus-makānī_ or as _Gītī-sitānī
Firdaus-makānī_ and not by the name used during his life, to
find Shāh-i-jahān giving him the two styles (cf. _Jahāngīr's
Memoirs_ trs. ii, 5). Those familiar with the writings of
Shāh-i-jahān's biographers will know whether this is usual at
that date. There would seem no doubt as to the identity of _ān
Ḥaẓrat._—The words _ān ḥaẓrat_ by which Shāh-i-jahān refers to
Bābur are used also in the epitaph placed by Jahāngīr at
Bābur's tomb (Trs. Note p. 710-711).
[2834] The Qāẓī's rapid acquirement of the _mufradāt_ of the
script allows the inference that few letters only and those of
a well-known script were varied.—_Mufradāt_ was translated by
Erskine, de Courteille and myself (f. 357_b_) as alphabet but
reconsideration by the light of more recent information about
the _Bāburī-khat̤t̤_ leads me to think this is wrong because
"alphabet" includes every letter.—On f. 357b three items of
the _Bāburī-khat̤t̤_ are specified as despatched with the
Hindūstān poems, _viz._ _mufradāt_, _qita`lār_ and
_sar-i-khat̤t̤_. Of these the first went to Hind-āl, the third
to Kāmrān, and no recipient is named for the second; all
translators have sent the _qita`lār_ to Hind-āl but I now
think this wrong and that a name has been omitted, probably
Humāyūn's.
[2835] f. 144_b_, p. 228, n. 3. Another interesting matter
missing from the _Bābur-nāma_ by the gap between 914 and 925
AH. is the despatch of an embassy to Czar Vassili III. in
Moscow, mentioned in Schuyler's _Turkistan_ ii, 394, Appendix
IV, Grigorief's _Russian Policy in Central Asia._ The mission
went after "Sulṯān Bābur" had established himself in Kābul; as
Bābur does not write of it before his narrative breaks off
abruptly in 914 AH. it will have gone after that date.
[2836] I quote from the Véliaminof-Zernov edition (p. 287)
from which de Courteille's plan of work involved extract only;
he translates the couplet, giving to _khat̤t̤_ the
double-meanings of script and down of youth (_Dictionnaire
Turque_ _s.n._ _sīghnāqī_). The _Sanglākh_ (p. 252) _s.n._
_sīghnāq_ has the following as Bābur's:—
_Chū balai khat̤t̤ī naṣīb'ng būlmāsa Bābur nī tang?
Bare khat̤t̤ almanṣūr khat̤t̤ sighnāqī mū dūr?_
[2837] Gibb's _History of Ottoman Poetry_ i, 113 and ii, 137.
[2838] Réclus' _L'Asie Russe_ p. 238.
[2839] On this same _taḥrīr qīldīm_ may perhaps rest the
opinion that the Rāmpūr MS. is autograph.
[2840] I have found no further mention of the tract; it may be
noted however that whereas Bābur calls his _Treatise on
Prosody_ (written in 931 AH.) the _`Arūẓ_, Abū'l-faẓl writes
of a _Mufaṣṣal_, a suitable name for 504 details of
transposition.
[2841] _Tūzūk-i-jahāngīr_ lith. ed. p. 149; and _Memoirs of
jahāngīr_ trs. i, 304. [In both books the passage requires
amending.]
[2842] Rāmpūr MS. Facsimile Plate XIV and p. 16, verse 3;
_Akbar-nāma_ trs. i, 279, and lith. ed. p. 91.
[2843] Cf. Index _s.n._ Dalmau and Bangarmau for the
termination in double _ū_.
[2844] Dr. Ilminsky says of the Leyden & Erskine _Memoirs of
Bābur_ that it was a constant and indispensable help.
[2845] My examination of Kehr's Codex has been made
practicable by the courtesy of the Russian Foreign Office in
lending it for my use, under the charge of the Librarian of
the India Office, Dr. F. W. Thomas.—It should be observed that
in this Codex the Hindūstān Section contains the purely Turkī
text found in the Ḥaidarābād Codex (cf. JRAS. 1908, p. 78).
[2846] It may indicate that the List was not copied by Bābur
but lay loose with his papers, that it is not with the
Elphinstone Codex, and is not with the `Abdu'r-raḥīm Persian
translation made from a manuscript of that same annotated
line.
[2847] Cf. _in loco_ p. 656, n. 3.
[2848] A few slight changes in the turn of expressions have
been made for clearness sake.
[2849] Index _s.n._ Mīr Bāqī of Tāshkīnt. Perhaps a better
epithet for _sa`ādạt-nishān_ than "good-hearted" would be one
implying his good fortune in being designated to build a
mosque on the site of the ancient Hindū temple.
[2850] There is a play here on Bāqī's name; perhaps a good
wish is expressed for his prosperity together with one for the
long permanence of the sacred building _khair_ (_khairat_).
[2851] Presumably the order for building the mosque was given
during Bābur's stay in Aūd (Ajodhya) in 934 AH. at which time
he would be impressed by the dignity and sanctity of the
ancient Hindū shrine it (at least in part) displaced, and like
the obedient follower of Muḥammad he was in intolerance of
another Faith, would regard the substitution of a temple by a
mosque as dutiful and worthy.—The mosque was finished in 935
AH. but no mention of its completion is in the _Bābur-nāma_.
The diary for 935 AH. has many minor _lacunæ_; that of the
year 934 AH. has lost much matter, breaking off before where
the account of Aūd might be looked for.
[2852] The meaning of this couplet is incomplete without the
couplet that followed it and is (now) not legible.
[2853] Firishta gives a different reason for Bābur's sobriquet
of _qalandar_, namely, that he kept for himself none of the
treasure he acquired in Hindūstān (Lith. ed. p. 206).
[2854] Jahāngīr who encamped in the Shahr-ārā-garden in Ṣafar
1016 AH. (May 1607 AD.) says it was made by Bābur's aunt,
Abū-sa`īd's daughter Shahr-bānū (Rogers and Beveridge's
_Memoirs of Jahāngīr_ i, 106).
[2855] A _jalau-khāna_ might be where horse-head-gear, bridles
and reins are kept, but _Āyīn_ 60 (A.-i-A.) suggests there may
be another interpretation.
[2856] She was a daughter of Hind-āl, was a grand-daughter
therefore of Bābur, was Akbar's first wife, and brought up
Shāh-i-jahān. Jahāngīr mentions that she made her first
pilgrimage to her father's tomb on the day he made his to
Bābur's, Friday Ṣafar 26th 1016 AH. (June 12th 1607 AD.). She
died _æt._ 84 on Jumāda I. 7th 1035 AH. (Jan. 25th 1626 AD.).
Cf. _Tūzūk-i-jahāngīrī_, Muḥ. Hādī's Supplement lith. ed. p.
401.
[2857] Mr. H. H. Hayden's photograph of the mosque shows
pinnacles and thus enables its corner to be identified in his
second of the tomb itself.
[2858] One of Daniel's drawings (which I hope to reproduce)
illuminates this otherwise somewhat obscure passage, by
showing the avenue, the borders of running-water and the
little water-falls,—all reminding of Madeira.
[2859] _chokī_, perhaps "shelter"; see Hobson-Jobson _s.n._
[2860] If told with leisurely context, the story of the visits
of Bābur's descendants to Kābul and of their pilgrimages to
his tomb, could hardly fail to interest its readers.
THE HISTORY OF BABUR OR BABUR-NAMA
Index I. Personal
+Abā-bikr Mīrzā+ _Mīrān-shāhī Tīmūrid_, _Barlās Turk_, son
of Abū-sa`īd and a Badakhshī begīm—particulars 22, 26;
his attack on Ḥiṣār 51;
defeated by Ḥusain _Bāī-qarā_ and his death (884) 260;
his Bāī-qarā marriage 266;
a Badakhshī connection 51;
[♰884 AH.-1479 AD.].
+Abā-bikr Mīrzā+ _Dūghlāt Kāshgharī_, son of Sāniz and a Chīrās
(var. Jarās) begīm—invades Farghāna (899) 32;
his annexations in Badakhshān 695;
his Mīrānshāhī wife 48;
[♰920 AH.-1514 AD.].
+`Abbās+, a slave—murderer of Aūlūgh (Ūlūgh) Beg _Shāh-rukhī_ (853) 85.
+`Abbās Sulṯān+ _Aūzbeg_—marries Gul-chihra _Mīrān-shāhi_, Bābur's
daughter (954) 713.
+`Abdu'l-`alī Tarkhān+ _Arghūn Chīngīz-Khānid_—particulars 38, 39;
[♰cir. 899 AH.-1494 AD.].
+`Abdu'l-`azīz+ _mīr-akhẉur_—ordered to catch pheasants (925) 404;
☛[2861] posted in Lāhor (930) 442;
sent into Milwat (932) 460;
on service 465-6, 471, 530;
the reserve at Pānīpat 472-3;
reinforces the right 473;
surprised and defeated by Sangā (933) 549, 550;
in the left wing at Kānwā 567, 570;
pursues Sangā 576;
ordered against Balūchīs (935) 638;
writes from Lāhor about the journey of Bābur's family 659, 660;
arrested 688;
☛ sequel to his sedition not given in the _Akbar-nāma_ 692;
☛ reference to his sedition 698.
+`Abdu'l-`azīz Mīrzā+ _Shāh-rukhī Tīmūrid_, _Barlās Turk_, son of
Aūlūgh Beg—his Chaghatāī wife 19-20.
+`Abdu'l-bāqī+—surrenders Qandahār to Bābur (928) 436, 437.
+`Abdu'l-bāqī Mīrzā+ _Mīrān-shāhī Tīmūrid_, _Barlās Turk_, son of
`Us̤mān—particulars 280;
referred to 266 n. 6;
goes to Herī (908) 336;
his wife Sulṯānīm _Bāī-qarā_ 265 n. 5, 280.
+`Abdu'l-ghaffār+ _tawāchī_—conveys military orders (935) 638.
Mīr +`Abdu'l-ghafūr+ _Lārī_, of Ḥusain _Bāī-qarā's_ Court—particulars
284, 285;
[♰912 AH.-1506-7 AD.].
Khwāja +`Abdu'l-ḥaqq+, brother of Khwāja Makhdūmī Nūrā—waited upon
by Bābur (935) 641, 686;
has leave to stay in Āgra 641.
+`Abdu'l-karīm+ _Ushrit_ (var.) _Aūīghūr_[2862] (var.)—serving Aḥmad
_Mīrān-shāhī_ 40;
captured by an Aūzbeg (902) 65.
+`Abdu'l-khalīq Beg+ _Isfarāyini_—particulars 273-4 (where read
_Isfarāyinī_ for "_Isfārayinī_").
Shaikh +`Abdu'l-lāh+ _aīshīk-āghā_—with Jahāngīr (899) 32;
leaves Bābur for home (902) 191.
Sayyid +`Abdu'l-lāh+ _Andikhūdī_—his Bāī-qarā wife Bairām-sulṯān
and their son Barka _q.v._
Khwāja +`Abdu'l-lāh+ _Anṣārī_—his tomb visited by Bābur (912) 305;
a surmised attendant on it 145 n. 1;
[♰, 481 AH.-1088 AD.].
Shaikh +`Abdu'l-lāh+ _bakāwal_—with the Bāī-qarā families (913) 328.
Shaikh +`Abdu'l-lāh+ _Barlās_—particulars 51;
excites the Tarkhān rebellion (901) 61-2;
his daughter a cause of attempt on Samarkand 64;
with his son-in-law Mas`ūd _Mīrān-shāhī_ (903) 93.
Khwāja +`Abdu'l-lāh Khwājagān Khwāja+—fifth son of `Ubaidu'l-lāh
_Aḥrārī_—his son `Abdu'sh-shahīd, _q.v._
Mullā +`Abdu'l-lāh+ _kitābdār_—one of eleven left with Bābur (913) 337;
given the third of a potent confection (925) 373;
a drunken lapse 398;
induced by Bābur to restrict his drinking 399;
at a party where Bābur, abstaining, watches the drinkers 400-1;
rebuked for an offending verse 416;
joins Bābur in an autumn garden 418;
on service (932) 468, 530;
in the right centre at Pānīpat (932) 472, 473;
and at Kānwa (933) 565, 569;
sent to take possession of Āgra 475;
is sarcastic 581;
in attendance on Aūzbeg envoys (935) 631;
sent to take charge of Saṃbhal (935) 675, 687;
conveys orders 676;
sends news of Bīban and Bāyazīd 679;
arrives in Āgra, 687.
Khwāja +`Abdu'l-lāh+ _Marwārīd_—particulars 278-9;
preeminent on the dulcimer 291;
[♰922 AH.-1516 AD.].
+`Abdu'l-lāh Mīrzā+ _Shāh-rukhī Tīmūrid_, _Barlās Turk_—succeeds his
father, Ibrāhīm, in Shīrāz (838) 20, and his
cousin `Abdu'l-laṯīf in Transoxiana (854) 85-6;
Yūnas Khān his retainer _q.v._;
[♰ Jumāda I. 22, 855 AH.-1450 AD.].[2863]
Khwāja +`Abdu'l-lāh Qāẓī+, see Khwāja Maulānā-i-qāẓī.
+`Abdu'l-lāh Sulṯān+ _Aūzbeg-Shaibān_—particulars 267;
serving Bābur in Hindūstān (after 933?) 267.
+`Abdu'l-laṯīf+ _bakhshī_—serving Ḥusain _Bāī-qarā_ (901) 57;
acts for Bābur from Qūndūz (932-3) 546.
+`Abdu'l-laṯīf Mīrzā+ _Shāh-rukhī Tīmūrid, Barlās Turk_—murders and
succeeds his father Aūlūgh Beg (853) 15;
a couplet on his parricide 85[2864];
[♰ Rabī` l .26, 854 AH.-1450 AD.[2865]].
+`Abdu'l-laṯīf Sulṯān+ _Aūzbeg_, _Shaibānī Chīngīz-khānid_, son of
Ḥamza— Bābur's half-sister Yādgār (_æt. cir._ 8) his share of
spoil (908) 18.
Mullā +`Abdu'l-malūk+ _Khwāstī_ (var. malik)—at Bajaur (925) 368;
sent ahead into Bhīra 381;
and to Kābul 415;
returns from an embassy to `Iraq (932) 446 (here _qūrchī_);
sent again (935) 642;
on service (933) 576, 582.
+`Abdu'l-minān+, son of Mullā Ḥaidar—holding Bīsh-kīnt (907) 151.
Amīr +`Abdu'l-qadūs Beg+ _Dūghlāt_—slays Jamāl _Khar Arghūn_ (877) 35;
conveys wedding gifts to Bābur and arouses suspicion (900) 43;
[for his death see T.R. trs. pp. 94, 103].
+`Abdu'l-qadūs Beg+ _Kohbur Chaghatāī_—with Bābur at Māḏū (Māẕū) (905)
109 (where for "qāsim" read qadūs);
one of the eight fugitives from Akhsī (908) 177.
Mīrak +`Abdu'r-raḥīm+ _Ṣadr_—his servant Badru'd-dīn _q.v._
+`Abdu'r-raḥīm+ _shaghāwal_—sent to speak the Bhīra people fair for
Bābur (925) 381;
given charge of Ibrāhīm _Lūdī's_ mother (933) 543;
fetches a hostage to Court 578;
who escapes 581.
Maulānā +`Abdu'r-raḥīm+_ Turkistānī_—fleeces Khwānd-amīr 328.
Mulla +`Abdu'r-raḥmān+ _Ghaznawī_—particulars 218; [♰921 AH.-1515 AD.].
Maulānā +`Abdu'r-raḥmān+ _Jāmī_—his letters imitated by Nawā'ī 271;
his sarcasm on Shaikhīm's Verse 277;
his tomb visited by Bābur (912) 285, 305;
Bābur's reverential mention of him 283, 286;
his example followed by production of the _Wālidiyyah-risāla_ (935)
620;
his birth-place 623 n. 8;
his disciple `Abdu'l-ghafūr 284;
[898 AH.-1492 AD.].
+`Abdu'r-raḥmān Khān+ _Barak-zāī Afghān_, Amīr of Afghānistān—mentioned
in connection with Jāmī's tomb 305 n. 6;
[♰1319 AH.-1901 AD.].
+`Abdu'r-razzāq Mīrzā+ _Mīrān-shāhī Tīmūrid_, _Barlās Turk_, son of
Aūlūgh Beg _Kābulī_—loses Kābul (910) 195, 365;
out with Bābur 234;
surmised part-vendor of Bābur's mother's burial-ground 246 n. 2;
in Herāt (912) 298;
escapes Shaibānī and joins Bābur (913) 331;
in the left wing at Qandahār 334;
his loot 337-8;
deserts Qalāt in fear of Shaibānī 340;
left in charge of Kābul _ib._;
given Nīngnahār 344;
rebels (914) 345;
his position stated 345 n. 6;
[♰915 AH.-1509 AD.?].
Khwāja +`Abdu'sh-shahīd+, son of Aḥrārī's fifth son Khwājagān-khwāja
(`Abdu'l-lāh)—placed on Bābur's right-hand (935) 631;
gifts made to him 632;
invited to a _ma`jūn_-party 653;
particulars 653 n. 4;
☛ a likely recipient of the _Mubīn_ 438, 631 n. 3;
[♰982 AH.-1574 AD.].
+`Abdu'sh-shukūr+ _Mughūl_, son of Qaṃbar-i-`alī _Silākh_—serving
Jahāngīr _Mīrān-shāhī_ (after 910) 192;
in the right wing at Kānwa (933) 566.
+`Abdu'l-wahhāb+ _Mughūl_—given Shaikh Pūrān to loot (913) 328.
+`Abdu'l-wahhāb+ _shaghāwal_, servant of `Umar-shaikh and Aḥmad
_Mīrān-shāhī_—forwards news (899) 25;
gives Khujand to Bābur 54;
his son Mīr Mughūl _q.v._
+Abraha+ _Yemenī_, an _Abyssinian Christian_—his defeat (571 AD.)
563 n. 3.
Imām +Abū Ḥanīfa+—his followers' respect for the _Hidāyat_ 76;
his ruling that peacock-meat is lawful food 493.
Khwāja +Abū'l-barka+ _Farāqī_—criticizes Banā'ī's verse (906) 137.
Shaikh +Abū'l-fatḥ+, servant of the Shāh-zāda of Mungīr—envoy from
Bengal to Bābur (934, 935) 676;
placed on Bābur's right-hand (935) 631.
+Abū'l-fatḥ Sa`īd Khān+, see Sa`īd Khān _Chaghatāī_.
+Abū'l-fatḥ+ _Turkmān_, son of `Umar—his joining Bābur from `Iraq 280;
made military-collector of Dhūlpūr (933) 540;
Bābur visits his _hammām_ (935) 615.
+Abū'l-faẓl+, see _Akbar-nāma_.
+Abū'l-ḥasan+ _qūr-begī_—in the right wing at Qandahār (913) 334;
does well (925) 404;
his brother Muḥammad Ḥusain _q.v._
+Abū'l-ḥasan+ _qūrchī_—in the centre at Qandahār (913) 335.
+Abū'l-hāshim+, servant of Sl. `Alī [T̤aghāī _Begchīk_]—overtakes Bābur
with ill news (925) 412.
+Abū'l-ma`ālī+ _Tīrmīẕī_—☛ his burial-place has significance as
to Mahdī Khwāja's family 705;
[♰971 AH.-1564 AD.].
Khwāja +Abū'l-makāram+—supports Bāī-sunghar _Mīrān-shāhī_ (901) 62,
(902) 65;
acts for peace (903) 91;
meets Bābur, both exiles (904) 99;
at Bābur's capture of Samarkand (906) 132, 141;
leaves it with him 147 n. 2;
speaks for him (908) 157-8;
fails to recognize him 161;
☛ at Archīān 184;
[♰908 AH.-1502 AD.].
Shaikh +Abū'l-manṣūr+ _Mātarīdī_—his birthplace Samarkand 75, 76;
[♰333 AH.-944 AD.].
+Abū'l-muḥammad+ _neza-bāz_—in the _tūlghuma_ of the left wing, at
Pānīpat (932) 473;
on service (933) 582, (934) 589, 598.
+Abū'l-muḥammad+ _Khujandī_—his sextant 74 n. 4.
+Abū'l-muḥsin Mīrzā+ _Bāī-qarā Tīmūrid_, _Barlās Turk_, son of Ḥusain
and Laṯīf—particulars 262 (where for "ḥusain" read muḥsin), 269;
serving his father (901) 58;
defeats his brother Badī`u'z-zamān (902) 69, 70;
defeated by his father at Halwā-spring (904) 260;
his men take Qarākūl from Aūzbegs (906) 135;
co-operates against Shaibānī (912) 296;
rides out to meet Bābur 297;
they share a divan 298;
presses him to winter in Herī 300;
returns to his district (Merv) 301;
his later action and death 329-30, 331;
[♰913 AH.-1507 AD.].
+Abū'l-muslim Kūkūldāsh+—brings an Arghūn gift to Bābur (925) 401, 402.
+Abū'l-qāsim+ _Jalāīr_—tells Bābur a parrot story. (935)[2866] 494.
+Abū'l-qāsim+—a musician (923) 387, 388 (here Qāsim only).
+Abū'l-qāsim+, _Kohbur Chaghatāī_, son of Ḥaidar-i-qāsim—on
service with Bābur (902) 68, (906) 130, 131, 133;
in the right wing at Sar-i-pul (Khwāja Kārdzan) 139;
killed 141;
[♰906 AH.-1501 AD.].
Shaikh +Abū'l-wajd+ _Fārighī_, maternal-uncle of Zain
_Khawāfī_—makes verse on the Kābul-river (932) 448;
his chronogram on Al-amān's birth (935) 621;
[♰940 AH.-1533 AD.[2867]].
Shaikh +Abū-sa`īd Khān+ _Dar-miyān_[2868]—particulars 276.
Sulṯān +Abū-sa`īd Mīrzā+ _Mīrān-shāhī Tīmūrid_, _Barlās
Turk_—his descent 14;
asserts Tīmūrid supremacy over Chaghatāī Khāqāns (855) 20, 344, 352;
takes Māwarā'u'n-nahr (855) 86;
forms his Corps of Braves 28, 50;
a single combat in his presence (857) 50;
defeats Ḥusain _Bāī-qarā_ (868) 259;
a swift courier to him 25;
joined by the Black-sheep Turkmāns (872) 49;
orders the Hindūstān army mobilized 46;
defeated and killed by the White-sheep Turkmāns (873) 25, 46, 49;
appointments named 24, 37;
his banishment of Nawā'ī 271;
reserves a Chaghatāī wife for a son 21, 36;
his Badakhshī wife and their son 22,[2869] 260;
his Tarkhān _Arghūn_ wife and their sons, 33, 45;
his mistress Khadīja _q.v._;
his daughters Pāyanda-sulṯān, Shahr-bānū, Rābi`a-sulṯān,
Khadīja-sulṯān, Fakhr-i-jahān, Apāq-sulṯān, Āq Begīm _q.v._;
retainers named as his `Alī-dost _Sāghārīchī_, Muḥammad Barandūq,
Aūrūs, and Ẕū'n-nūn _Arghūn_ _q.v._;
his marriage connection Nūyān _Tīrmīẕī_ _q.v._;
[♰873 AH.-1469 AD.].
+Abū-sa`īd Pūrān+, see Jamālu'd-dīn.
+Abū-sa`īd Sulṯān+ _Auzbeg-Shaibān_, _Chīngīz-khānid_, son of
Kūchūm—☛ at Ghaj-davān (918) 360;
at Jām (935) 622, 636;
sends an envoy to Bābur 631, 632, 641;
[♰940 AH.-1533-4 AD.].
Shaikh +Abū-sa`īd Tarkhān+ (var. Bū-sa`īd)—his house Mīrzā Khān's
loot in Qandahār (913) 338.
+Abū-turāb Mīrzā+ _Bāī-qarā Tīmūrid_, _Barlās Turk_, son of Ḥusain
and Mīnglī—particulars 262, 269;
his son Sohrab _q.v._;
[♰ before 911 AH.-1505-6 AD.].
+Adīk Sulṯān+ _Qazzāq_, _Jūjī Chīngīz-khānid_ (var. Aūng Sulṯān),
son of Jānī Beg Khān (T.R. trs. 373)—husband of Sulṯān-nigār
_Chaghatāī_ _q.v._
+`Ādil Sulṯān+ _Auzbeg-Shaibān_(?), _Chingīz-khānid_(?),
son of Mahdī and a Bāī-qarā begīm—marries Shād _Bāī-qarā_ 263;
suggestions as to his descent 264 n. 1;
waits on Bābur at Kalānūr (932) 458;
on Bābur's service 468, 471, 475, 530;
in the left wing at Pānīpat 472;
and at Kānwa (933) 567, 570;
ordered against Balūchīs (935) 638;
☛ mentioned as a landless man 706.
Sayyida +Afāq+, a legendary wife of Bābūr 358 n. 2;
her son and grandson _ib._
+Afghānī Āghāchā+, see Mubārika.
Sayyid +Afẓal Beg+, son of `Alī _Khwāb-bīn_—conveys Ḥusain
_Bāī-qarā's_ summons to Bābur for help against Shaibānī (911) 255;
particulars 282;
takes news to Herāt of Bābur's start from Kābul (912) 294;
sends him news of Ḥusain's death 295;
[♰921 AH.-1516 AD.].
+Āghā Begīm+ _Bāī-qarā Tīmūrid_, _Barlās Turk_, daughter
of Ḥusain and Pāyanda-sulṯān—parentage and marriage (or betrothal,
Ḥ.S. iii, 327) 266;
[♰ died in childhood].
+Āghā-sulṯān+, _ghūnchachi_ of `Umar Shaikh—her daughter
Yādgār-i-sulṯān _q.v._
+Āhī+—his feet frost-bitten (912) 311.
+Āhī+, a poet—particulars 289;
[♰ 907 AH.-1501-2].
+Ahlī+, a poet—particulars 290;
(for 4 writers using _Āhlī_ as their pen-name see 290 n. 6).
Sulṯān +Aḥmad+ _Aīlchī-būghā_, _Mughūl_—one of four daring much
(912) 315;
in the left wing at Qandahār (913) 334.
Pīr +Aḥmad+—leaves Samarkand with the Tarkhāns (905) 121;
fights for Bābur at Sar-i-pul (Khwāja Kārdzan) (906) 139.
+Aḥmad+ _Afshār Turk_—a letter to him endorsed by Bābur (935) 617.
Mīrzā +Aḥmad `Alī+ _Farsī_, _Barlās_—particulars 273.
+Aḥmad `Alī Tarkhān+ _Arghūn_, brother of Qulī Beg—favours Bābur and
admits him to Qandahār (913) 337.
Mullā +Aḥmad+ _Balkhī_— conveys treasure to Balkh (932) 446.
Mirzā Sayyidī +Aḥmad+ _Mīrān-shāhī Tīmūrid_, _Barlās Turk_, son of
Mīrān-shāh—particulars 257 n. 5;
named in a line of descent 280 n. 1;
his son Aḥmad and grandson `Abdu'l-bāqī _q.v._
Mīr +Aḥmad Beg+ _Itārajī Mughūl_, paternal-uncle of Taṃbal—guardian
of a son of The Khān (Maḥmūd) 115;
reinforces Bābur (903) 92;
acts against him (905) 115, 116;
acts against `Alī _Mīrān-shāhī_ 112;
makes a contemptuous speech about Taṃbal (906) 145.
+Aḥmad Beg+ _Ṣafawī_—☛ leads a reinforcement to help Bābur
(917) 353.
Sulṯān +Aḥmad+ _Chār-shaṃba'ī_, see Chār-shaṃba.
+Aḥmad+ _chāshnīgīr_—helps in poisoning Bābur (933) 541;
[♰933 AH.-1526 AD.].
+Aḥmad Ḥājī Beg+ _Dūldāī_, _Barlās Turk_—particulars 25, 37, 38;
his pen-name Wafā'ī and a couplet of his 38;
his hospitality to `Alī-sher _Nawāī_ 38, 271;
drives Khusrau Shāh from Samarkand (900) 51;
supports Bāī-sunghar _Mīrān-shāhī_ in the Tarkhān rebellion (901)
62, 63;
his death at the hands of slaves and slave-women 63-4;
[♰901 AH.-1496 AD.].
+Aḥmadī+ _parwānchī_—on service (925) 377, (932) 458, 460, (933) 540;
sent to surprise Ibrāhīm _Lūdī_ (932) 468 (his name is omitted in
my text);
in the left centre at Pānīpat 472, 473;
his ill-behaviour in the heats 524.
Sulṯan +Aḥmad Khān+—+Alacha Khān+—_Chaghatāī Chīngīz-khānid_, son of
Yūnas and Shāh Begīm—particulars 23, 160;
meaning of his sobriquet Alacha Khān 23;
younger Khān-dādā, Bābur's name for him 129;
considered as a refuge for Bābur (899) 29, (903) 92, (906) 129,
(908) 158;
visits Tāshkīnt (908) 159;
ceremonies of meeting 160-1, 171-2;
moves with his elder brother Maḥmūd against Taṃbal 161, 168, 171;
his kindness to Bābur 159, 166-7, 169, 171;
is given Bābur's lands and why 168;
retires from Andijān in fear of Shaibānī 172;
defeated by Shaibānī at Archīān (908 or 909) 7, 23, ☛ 182-3;
his death (909) reported to Bābur (911) 246 and n. 4;
his sons Manṣūr, Sa'īd, Bābā (T.R. trs. 160, Bābājāk), Chīn-tīmūr,
Tūkhtā-būghā, and Aīsan-tīmūr q.v.;
his grandson Bābā _q.v._;
☛ followers of his return from forced migration (908) when
Shaibānī is killed (916) 351;
[♰end of 909 AH.-1504 AD.].
+Aḥmad Khān+ _Ḥājī-tarkhānī_ (_Astrakhānī_)—marries Badī`u'l-jamāl
(Badka) _Bāī-qarā_ (899?) 257, 258;
their sons (Maḥmūd and Bahādur) 258;
their daughter Khān-zāda _q.v._
Sulṯān +Aḥmad Mīrzā+ _Dūghlāt_—sent by The Khān (Māḥmūd) to help Bābur
(908) 161.
Sulṯān +Aḥmad Mīrzā+ _Mīrān-shāhī Tīmūrid_, _Barlās Turk_, son of
Abū-sa`īd—the lands his father gave him 35, 86;
his brother Maḥmūd taken to his care (873 or 4) 46;
his disaster on the Chīr (895) 17, 25, 31, 34;
a swift courier to him 25;
defeats `Umar Shaikh 17, 34; 12 n. 2; 53;
invades Farghāna (899) 13, 30;
given Aūrā-tīpā 27;
dreaded for Bābur 29;
retires and dies 31, 33;
particulars 33, 40;
referred to by Ḥusain _Bāī-qarā_ (910) 190;
his wives and children 35-6;
an honoured Beg Nūyān _Tīrmīẕī_ _q.v._;
[♰899 AH.-1494 AD.].
Sulṯān +Aḥmād Mīrzā+, _Mīrān-shāhī Tīmūrid_, _Barlās Turk_, son of
Mīrzā Sayyidī Aḥmad—particulars 257 n. 5;
his wife Ākā Begīm _Bāī-qarā_ and their son Kīchīk Mīrzā _q.v._; 266
n. 6;
a building of his at Herī 305.
+Aḥmād+ _mushtāq_, _Turkmān_—takes Maḥmūd _Mīrān-shāhī_ to Ḥiṣār
(873 or 4) 46-7.
Sulṯān +Aḥmad+ _qarāwal_, father of Qūch (Qūj) Beg, Tardī Beg and
Sher-afgān Beg _q.v._—defends Ḥiṣār (901) 58;
enters Bābur's service (905) 112;
in the left Wing at Khūbān (905) 113;
holds Marghīnān 123.
+Aḥmad-i-qāsim+ _Kohbur Chaghatāī_, son of Ḥaidar-i-qāsim—with Bābur
(906) 133;
invited to a disastrous entertainment (907) 152;
joins Jahāngīr and Taṃbal 156;
in Akhsī (908) 171;
defeats an Aūzbeg raider (910) 195;
helps to hold Kābul for Bābur (912) 313;
pursues Mīrzā Khān 317, 320;
holding Tāshkīnt against Aūzbegs (918) 356, 358, 396, 397;
a Kābulī servant of his 351.
+Aḥmad-i-qāsim+ _Qībchāq Turk_, (grand-?) son of Bāqī _Chaghānīānī_
and a sister of Khusrau Shāh, perhaps son of Bāqī's son
Muḥammad-i-qāsim (189 n. 3)—holding Kāhmard and Bāmīān (910) 189;
given charge of the families of Bābur's expeditionary force 189;
ill-treats them and is forced to flee 197, 243;
goes to Ḥusain _Bāī-qarā_ _ib._;
killed at Qūndūz 244;
[♰910 AH.-1505 AD.].
Sulṯān +Aḥmad Qāẓī+ _Qīlīch_—particulars 29;
his son Khwāja Maulānā-i-qaẓī _q.v._
+Aḥmad+ _qūshchī_—seen by the fugitive Bābur (908) 180.
Khwāja +Aḥmad+ _Sajāwandī_—his birthplace 217.
+Aḥmad Shāh+ _Khīljī Turk_—dispossessed of Chandīrī by Ibrāhīm
_Lūdī_ 593;
restored by Bābur (934) 598.
+Aḥmad Shāh+ _Durrānī_, _Abdālī Afghān_—his victory at Pānīpat (1174)
472;
[♰1182 AH.-1772 AD.].
+Aḥmad Tarkhān+ _Arghūn Chīngīz-khānid_ (?)—joins Bābur in Samarkand
(906) 133;
loses Dabūsī to Shaibānī 137;
[♰906 AH.-1500 AD.].
+Aḥmad (son of) Tawakkal+ _Barlās_, amir of Ḥusain
_Bāī-qarā_—particulars 272.
+Aḥmad+ _yāsāwal_—conveys a message from Bābur to the begs of Kābul
Fort (912) 314.
Khwāja +Aḥmad+ _Yasawī_—+Sayyid Ātā+—Shaibānī's vow at his shrine
348, 356;
[♰514 AH.-1120-1 AD.].[2870]
+Aḥmad-i-yūsuf Beg+ _Aūghlāqchī_, son of Ḥasan, nephew of
Yūsuf—managing Yār-yīlāq for `Alī _Mīrān-shāhī_ (904) 98;
dismissed on suspicion of favouring Bābur 98;
probably joins Bābur with his uncle (910) 196;
remonstrated with him for fighting unmailed (911) 252;
helping loyalists in Kābul (912) 313;
saves Bābur a blow 315, 316;
at Bājaur (925) 369, 401 (here Aḥmad Beg);
joins Bābur in Hindūstān (933) 550;
in the right wing at Kānwa 566 (where in n. 1 for "may" read is),
569;
governor of Sīālkot 98.
Malik +Aḥmad+ _Yūsuf-zāī Afghān_, nephew of Sulaimān
_q.v._—particulars App. K.
+Aī Begīm+ _Mīrān-shāhī Tīmūrid_, _Barlās Turk_, daughter of Maḥmūd
and Khān-zāda II.—betrothed to Jahāngīr. (_cir._ 895) 48;
married (910) 189;
their daughter 48.
+Aīkū-sālam+ _Mughūl_—rebels against Bābur (914) 345.
+Aīkū[2871]-tīmūr Beg Tarkhān+ _Arghūn_—his descendant Darwesh Beg
_q.v._;
[♰793 AH.-1391 AD.].
Sulṯān? +Aīlīk+ _Māẓī Aūīghūr_ (_Ūīghūr_)—his descendant Khwāja
Maulānā-i-qāẓī _q.v._
+Aīrzīn Beg+ (var. Aīrāzān) _Bārīn Mughūl_—supports Yūnas _Chaghatāī_
(_cir._ 830), takes him to Aūlūgh Beg _Shāh-rukhī_
(_cir._ 832) 19;
ill-received and his followers scattered 20;
[♰832 AH.-1428 AD.].
+Aīsān-būghā Khān+ _Chaghatāī Chīngīz-khānīd_, son of Dāwā—named in
Yūnas Khān's genealogy 19;
[♰_cir._ 718 AH.-1318 AD.].
+Aīsān-būghā Khān II.+ _Chaghatāī Chīngīz-khānid_, son of
Wais—particulars 19;
invades Farghāna and defeated at Aspara (_cir._ 855) 20;
quarrels with the begs of the Sāghārīchī _tūmān_ and leads to the
elevation of Yūnas _ib._;
[♰866 AH.-1462 AD.].
+Aīsān-daulat Begīm+ _Kūnjī_ (or _Kūnchī_) _Mughūl_, wife of Yūnas
_Chaghatāī_—particulars 20, 21;
her good judgment (900) 43;
entreats Bābur's help for Andijān (903) 88-9;
joins him in Khujand after the loss of Andijān 92;
and in Dikh-kat after that of Samarkand (907) 151;
news of her death reaches Kābul (911) 246;
rears one of `Umar Shaikh's daughters 18;
her kinsmen `Alī-dost, Sherīm, Ghiyās̤ _q.v._;
[♰910 AH.-1505 AD.].
+Aīsān-qulī Sulṯān _Aūzbeg-Shaibān_, _Chīngīz-khānid_—his Bāī-qarā
marriage, 265, 397.
+Aīsān-tīmūr Sulṯān+ _Chaghatāī Chīngīz-khānid_, son of Aḥmad
(Alacha Khān)—on Bābur's service 318, 682;
meets Bābur (935) 654;
in the battle of the Ghogrā 672, 673;
thanked 677;
angers Bābur 684.
+Ākā Begīm+, _Barlās Turk_, daughter of Tīmūr—an ancestress of Ḥusain
_Bāī-qarā_ 256.
+Ākā Begīm+ _Bāī-qarā Tīmūrid_, daughter of Manṣūr and
Fīrūza—particulars 257;
her husband Aḥmad and their son Kīchīk Mīrzā _q.v._
Abū'l-fatḥ Jalālu'd-dīn Muḥammad +Akbar+ _Mīrān-shāhī Tīmūrid_,
_Barlās Turk_, grandson of Bābur and Māhīm—☛ 184;
☛ an addition about him made to the Chihil-zīna inscription 432;
☛ his visit to Pānīpat (963) 472;
his change in the name of the cherry explained by Bābur's words 501,
n. 6;
[♰1014 AH.-1605 AD.].
+Alacha Khān+, see Aḥmad _Chaghatāī_.
+Al-amān+, son of Humāyūn—his birth and name (935) 621, 624, 642;
[♰ in infancy].
+`Ālam Khān+ _Kālpī_, son of Jalāl Khān _Jik-hat_ (or
_Jig-hat_)—holding Kālpī and not submissive to Bābur (932) 523;
goes to Court (933) 544;
disobeys orders 557;
is Bābur's host in Kālpī (934) 590;
on service (935) 682;
an order about him 684.
`Alāu'u'd-dīn +`Ālam Khān+ _Lūdī Afghān_, son of Buhlūl—☛ a principal
actor between 926-32 AH. 428;
☛ asks and obtains Bābur's help against his nephew Ibrāhīm (929)
439-441;
placed by Bābur in charge of Dībālpūr (930) 442;
☛ defeated by Daulat Khān _Yūsuf-khail_ (931) 444;
flees to Kābul and is again set forth 444, 455;
defeated by Ibrāhīm and returns to Bābur (932) 454-8;
his relations with Bābur reviewed 455, n. 1;
in Fort Ginguta 457, 463;
in the left centre at Kānwa (933) 565;
his sons Jalāl, Kamāl, and Sher Khān (_Lūdī_) _q.v._
Sulṯān `Alāu'u'd-dīn +`Ālam Khān+ _Sayyidī_—holding Dihlī 481;
[♰855 AH.-1451 AD.].
+`Ālam Khān+ _Tahangarī_, brother of Niẕām Khān of Bīāna—works badly
with Bābur's force (933) 538;
defeated by his brother 539;
sent out of the way before Kānwa 547.
+`Alāu'u'd-dīn Ḥusain Shāh+, ruler in Bengal—the circumstances of his
succession 483;
his son Naṣrat _q.v._;
[♰925 AH.-1518 AD.?].
+`Alāu'u'd-dīn Ḥusain+ _Jahān-soz Ghūrī_—his destruction in Ghazni
(550) 219;
[♰556 AH.-1161 AD.?].
Sulṯān +`Alāu'u'd-dīn Muḥammad Shāh+ _Khīljī Turk_—Bābur visits his
tomb and minār (932) 476;
his bringing of the Koh-i-nūr from the Dakkhin 477;
[♰715 AH.-1315 AD.].
Sulṯān +`Alāu'u'd-dīn+ _Sawādī_—waits on Bābur (925) 372, 375-6.
+`Alāūl Khān+ _Sūr Afghān_—writes dutifully to Bābur (935) 659.
+`Alāūl Khān+ _Nūḥānī Afghān_—his waitings on Bābur (934, 935) 677,
680.
Sharafu'd-dīn Muḥammad +al Buṣīrī+—his _Qaṣīdatu'l-būrda_ an example
for the _Wālidiyyah-risāla_ 620;
[♰_cir._ 693 AH.-1294 AD.].
+Alexander of Macedon+, see Iskandar _Fīlqūs_ (_Failaqūs_).
Sayyid +`Alī+—escapes from a defeat (909) 102;
out with Bābur (925) 403;
sent against Balūchīs (935) 638.
Sulṯān +`Alī+ _aṣghar_ Mīrzā _Shāh-rukhī Tīmūrid_, _Barlās Turk_,
son of Mas`ūd _Kābulī_—particulars 382.
+`Alī Ātāka+, servant of Khalīfa—reinforces the right wing
(_tūlghuma_) at Kānwa (933) 569.
Shaikh +`Alī Bahādur+, one of Tīmūr's chiefs—his descendant Bābā
`Alī 27.
Khwāja +`Alī Bāī+—mentioned (906) 127;
fights for Bābur at Sar-i-pul (Khwāja Kārdzan) 139;
his son Jān-i-`alī _q.v._
Shaikh +`Alī+ _Bārīn Mughūl_, son of Shaikh Jamāl—in the left wing
(_tūlghuma_) at Pānīpat (932) 473;
sent against Balūchīs (935) 638.
+`Alī+ _Barlās Turk_—his son Muḥammad Barandūq _q.v._
+`Alī Beg+ _Jalāīr Chaghatāī_, father of Ḥasan-i-`Alī and Apāq
Bega—his Shāh-rukhī service 278.[2872]
Mīr (Shaikh) +`Alī Beg+ _Turk_ (inferred 389), governor of Kābul for
Shāh-rukh _Tīmūrīd_—his sons Bābā Kābulī, Daryā Khān, and Ghāzī
(Apāq) Khān (_q.v._) cherished by Mas`ūd _Shāh-rukhī_ 382;
(see his son Ghāzī's grandson Minūchihr for a Turk relation 386).
Sulṯān +`Alī+ _chuhra_, _Chaghatāī_—his loyalty to Bābur doubted
(910) 239;
rebels (914) 345.
Sayyid +`Alī-darwesh Beg+ _Khurāsānī_—particulars 28;
with Jahāngīr (_æt._ 8), in Akhsī (899) 32, leaves Bābur for home
(903) 91;
on Bābur's service (904) 106, (905) 28, 118.
Mīr +`Alī-dost T̤aghāī+ _Kūnjī Mughūl_, a Sāghārīchī-_tūmān_
beg—particulars 27-8;
his appointment on Bābur's accession (899) 32;
has part in a conference (900) 43;
surrenders Andijān (903) 88-9;
asks Bābur's pardon (904) 99;
gives him Marghīnān 100;
defeated by Taṃbal 106;
in the right wing at Khūbān (905) 113;
his ill-timed pacifism 118;
his self-aggrandizement 119, 123;
joins Bābur against Samarkand 123;
in fear of his victims, goes to Taṃbal 125;
his death _ib._;
his brother Ghiyās̤, his son Muḥammad-dost, and his servant Yūl-chūq
_q.v._;
[♰a few years after 905 AH.-1500 AD.].
Mīr Sayyid +`Alī+ _Hamadānī_—his death and burial 211;
[♰786 AH.-1384 AD.].
Mullā +`Alī-jān+ (var. Khān)—fetches his wife from Samarkand (925) 403;
is taught a rain-spell (926) 423;
makes verse on the Kābul-river (932) 448;
a satirical couplet on him made and repented by Bābur 448;
host of Mullā Maḥmūd _Farābī_ (935) 653.
+`Alī Khān+ _Bāyandar_, _Āq-qūīlūq Turkmān_—joins Ḥusain _Bāī-qarā_
(873) 279.
Shaikh-zāda +`Alī Khān+ _Farmūlī Afghān_—his family-train captured
(932) 526;
waits on Bābur 526-7;
in the left wing at Kānwa (933) 567;
on service 576, 582, 678.
+`Alī Khān+ _Istiljū_—leads Ismā`īl _Ṣafawī's_ reinforcement to Bābur
(917) 353.
Sayyid +`Alī Khān+ _Turk_, son of Ghāzī (Apāq) Khān and grandson of
Mīr (Shaikh) `Alī Beg—one of Sikandar _Lūdī's_ Governors in the
Panjāb (910) 382;
leaves Bhīra on Bābur's approach _ib._;
his lands made over by him to Daulat Khān _Yūsuf-khail_ 382-3;
his son Minūchihr and their Turk relation (389) _q.v._
+`Alī Khān+ _Turkmān_, son of `Umar Beg—defends the Bāī-qarā families
against Shaibānī (913) 328.
+`Alī Khān+ _Yūsuf-khail Lūdī Afghān_—eldest son of Daulat Khān—his
servants wait on Bābur (925) 382;
comes out of Milwat (Malot) to Bābur (932) 459-60;
sent under guard to Bhīra 461;
his son Ismā`īl _q.v._
Sayyid +`Alī+ _Khwāb-bīn_, father of Sayyid Afẓal _q.v._ (cf. Ḥ.S.
lith. ed. iii, 346).
Mullā Sulṯān +`Alī+ _khẉush-nawīs_, calligrapher of Ḥusain
_Bāī-qarā_—particulars 291;
given lessons in penmanship by Shaibānī (913) 329;
[♰919 AH.-1513 AD.].
+`Alī-mazīd Beg+ _qūchīn_—particulars 26;
leaves Bābur for home (903) 91.
Mīr +`Alī+ _mīr-akhẉur_[2873]—particulars 279;
helps Ḥusain _Bāī-qarā_ to surprise Yādgār-i-muḥammad _Shāh-rukhī_
in Herī (875) 134, 279.
Sulṯān +`Alī Mīrzā+ _Mīrān-shāhī Tīmūrid_, _Barlās Turk_, son of Maḥmūd
and Zuḥra—particulars 47;
serving his half-brother Bāī-sunghar (900) 27, 55;
made _pādshāh_ in Samarkand by the Tarkhāns (901) 62-3, 86;
meets Bābur 64;
their arrangement 66,(902) 65, 82, 86;
gives no protection to his blind half-brother Mas`ūd (903) 95;
suspects a favoured beg (904) 98;
quarrels with the Tarkhāns (905) 121;
desertions from him 122;
defeats Mīrzā Khān's Mughūls _ib._;
is warned of Bābur's approach 125;
gives Samarkand to Shaibānī and by him is murdered (906) 125-7;
his wife Sulṯānīm _Mīrān-shāhī_ and sister Makhdūm-sulṯān _q.v._;
[♰906 AH.-1500 AD.].
Sulṯān +`Alī Mīrzā T̤aghāī+ _Begchīk_ (Mīrzā Beg T̤aghāī), brother(?)
of Bābur's wife Gul-rukh—movements of his which bear on the
_lacuna_ of 914-924 AH. 408;
arrives in Kābul (925) _ib._;
Kāmrān marries his daughter (934) 619;
conveys Bābur's wedding gifts to Kāmrān (935) 642;
takes also a copy of the _Wālidiyyah-risāla_ and of the Hindūstān
poems, with writings (_sar-khat̤t̤_) in the Bāburī script 642.
Ustād +`Alī-qulī+—his match-lock shooting at Bajaur (925) 369;
shoots prisoners (932) 466;
ordered to make Rūmī defences at Pānīpat 469;
fires _firingīs_ from the front of the centre 473;
casts a large mortar (933) 536, 547;
his jealousy of Muṣṯafa _Rūmī_ 550;
his post previous to Kānwa 558;
his valiant deeds in the battle 570-1;
a new mortar bursts (934) 588;
his choice of ground at Chandīrī 593;
his stone-discharge interests Bābur 595, 670-1-2;
uses the Ghāzī mortar while the Ganges bridge is in building 599;
a gift to his son (935) 633;
his post in the battle of the Ghogrā 667, 668, 669.
+`Alī-qulī+ _Hamadānī_—☛ sent by Bābur to punish the Mundāhirs,
and fails (936) 700.
Mīr +`Alī+ _qūrchī_—conveys playing-cards to Shāh Ḥasan _Arghūn_
(933) 584.
Malik +`Alī+ _quṯnī_(?)—in the left centre at Bajaur (925) 369.
+`Alī Sayyid+ _Mughūl_—in the right wing at Qandahār (913) 334;
rebels (914) 345[2874];
his connection Aūrūs-i `Alī Sayyid 335.
+`Alī+ _shab-kūr_ (night-blind)—one of five champions defeated in
single combat by Bābur (914) 349.
Mīr +`Alī-sher Beg+ _Chaghatāī_, pen-names Nawā'ī and Fanā'ī—his
obligations to Aḥmad Ḥājī Beg and return to Herāt 38;
fails in a mission of Ḥusain _Bāī-qarā's_ (902) 69[2875];
his Turkī that of Andijān 4;
checks Ḥusain in Shī`a action 258;
opposes administrative reform 282;
particulars 271-2;
his relations with Banā'ī 286-7, 648;
corresponds with Bābur (906) 106;
exchanges quatrains with Pahlawān Bū-sa`īd 292;
some of his poems transcribed by Bābur (925) 419;
his restoration of the Rabāṯ-i-sang-bast 301 n. 1;
his flower-garden (_bāghcha_) and buildings visited or occupied by
Bābur (912) 301, 305, 306;
his brother Darwesh-i-`alī _q.v._;
a favoured person 278;
a mystic of his circle 280-1;
his scribe 271;
[♰906 AH.-Dec. 1500 AD.].
+`Alī-shukr Beg+, of the Bahārlū-aīmāq of the Āq-qūīlūq[2876]
Turkmāns—his daughter Pasha, grandson Yār-i-`alī _Balāl_,
and descendant Bairām Khān-i-khānān _q.v._
Sulṯān +`Alī Sīstānī+ _Arghūn_—his help against Shaibānī counselled
(913) 326;
☛ one of five champions worsted by Bābur in single combat (914) 349;
with Bābur and chops at a tiger (925) 393.
Shaikh +`Alī T̤aghāī+ _Mervī_(?)—holding Balkh for Badī`u'z-zamān
_Bāī-qarā_ (902) 70;
joint-dārogha in Herī (911) 293.
+Allāh-bīrdī+ (var. qūlī)—serving Bābur (910) 234.
+Allāh-wairān+ _Turkmān_—in the van at Qandahār (913) 335.
+Alūr+ or Alwar,[2877] son of Bābur and Dil-dār—mentioned 689 n. 5.
☛ 712;
[♰died an infant].
+Amīn Mīrzā+—an Aūzbeg envoy to Bābur (935) 631;
receives gifts 632, 641.
+Amīn-i-muḥammad Tarkhān+ _Arghūn_—punished for disobedience (925)
390-1;
deals with a drunken companion 415.
+Amīr Khān+, chief guardian of T̤ahmāsp _Ṣafawī_—☛ negociates with
Bābur (927) 433.
Mullā +Apāq+—particulars 526;
on Bābur's service (932) 526, 528, (933) 539, (934) 590;
surprised by Sangā (933) 549;
made _shíqdār_ of Chandīrī 598;
his retainers on service (935) 679.
+Apāq Bega+ _Jalāīr Chaghatāī_, sister of Ḥusan-i-`alī—a poet 286.
Sayyida +Apāq Begīm+ _Andikhūdī_—particulars 267, 268, 269;
visited in Herāt by Bābur (912) 301.
+Apāq Khān+, see Ghāzī Khān.
+Apāq Khān+ _Yūsuf-khail_, see Ghāzī Khān.
+Apāq-sulṯān Begīm+ _Mīrān-shāhī Tīmūrid_, _Barlās Turk_, daughter of
Abū-sa`īd—one of the paternal aunts visited by Bābur (912)
301 n. 3.
+Āq Begīm+ (1), _Bāī-qarā Tīmūrid_, _Barlāṣ Turk_, daughter of Ḥusain
and Pāyanda-sulṯān—particulars 265;
[pre-deceased her husband who died ♰911 AH.-1504 AD.].
+Āq Begīm+ (2), _Mīrān-shāhī Tīmūrid_, _Barlās Turk_—daughter of
Abū-sa`īd and Khadīja—particulars 262, 268;
waited on by Bābur (935) 606.
+Āq Begīm+ (3), _ut supra_, daughter of Maḥmūd
and Khān-zāda II.—brought to join Bābur's march (910) 48.
+Āq Begīm+ (4), see Ṣāliḥa-sulṯān.
+Āq-būghā Beg+, one of Tīmūr's chiefs—collateral ancestor of
Khudāī-bīrdī _Tīmūr-tāsh_ 24.
+`Āqil Sulṯān+ _Aūzbeg-Shaibān_, son of `Ādil and Shād _Bāī-qarā_—his
conjectured descent 264 n. 1 (where in l. 4 for "`āqil"
read `ādil).
+Arāīsh Khān+—proffers support to Bābur against Ibrāhīm _Lūdī_
(932) 463;
in the left centre at Kānwa (933) 565;
negociates about surrendering Chandīrī (934) 594;
his gift of a boat to Bābur 663.
+Arghūn Sulṯān+, elder brother of Muḥammad `Alī _Jang-jang_—deputed to
hold Milwat (Malot., 932) 461.
Shaikh +`Ārif+ _Āẕarī_, nephew of Tīmūr's story-teller, see Index
_s.n._ Aūlūgh Beg _Shāh-rukhī_;
[♰866 AH.-1461-2 AD. _æt._ 82, Beale].
+Arslān+ _Jazāla_—his building of the Rabāṯ-i-sang-bast 301 n. 1.
+Asad Beg+ _Turkmān_—joins Ḥusain _Bāī-qarā_ 279;
his brother Taham-tan _q.v._
Khwāja and Khwājagī +Asadu'l-lāh+ _Jān-dār_, _Khawāfī_—with Bābur in
Dikh-kat (907) 150;
envoy to T̤ahmāsp _Ṣafawī_ (933) 540, 583;
has charge of Ibrāhīm _Lūdī's_ mother 543;
in the right wing at Kānwa 566, 569.
Khwāja +Āṣafi+—particulars 286;
waits on Bābur (912) 286;
[♰920 or 926 AH.-1514 or 1520 AD.].
+`Asas+, see Khwāja Muḥammad `Alī _`asas_.
+`Āshiq+ _bakāwal_—with advance-troops for Chandīrī (934) 590;
ordered on service (935) 638.
+`Āshiq-i-muḥammad Kūkūldāsh+ _Arghūn_, son of "Amīr Tarkhān Junaid"
(Ḥ.S. lith. ed. iii, 359)—defends Ālā-qūrghān against Shaibānī
(913) 328;
his brother Mazīd Beg _q.v._
+`Āshiqu'l-lāh+ _Arghūn_—killed fighting against Bābur at Qandahār
(913) 333 (where for "`Ashaq" read `Āshiq).
+Asīru'd-dīn+ _Akhsīkītī_, a poet—his birthplace Akhsī-village
(kīt-kīnt) 9-10;
[♰608 AH.-1211-2 AD.].
Muhammad +`Askarī+ _Mīrān-shāhī Tīmūrīd_, _Barlās Turk_, son of Bābur
and Gul-rukh—☛ his birth (922) 364;
gifts to him (932) 523, (933) 628;
☛ his recall from Multān (934) 603-4-5, 699[2878];
waits on his father (935) 605;
made Commander (_æt. cir._ 12) of the army of the East 628, 637;
at a feast 631;
takes leave 634;
waits on his father at Dugdugī 651;
east of the Ganges 654;
in the battle of the Ghogrā 668-9, 671-3;
waits on Bābur after the victory 674;
[♰965 AH.-1557-8 AD.].
+Asūk Mal+ _Rājpūt_—negociates with Bābur for Sangā's son (934-5)
612-3.
Sayyid +`Atā+, see Khwāja Aḥmad _Yasawī_.
Khwāja Jamālu'd-īn +`Aṯā+—particulars 282 (where in n. 3 for
(Ḥ.S. iii), "345" read 348-9).
+Atākā+ _bakhshī_ (var. Ātīkā, Pers. Atka)—a surgeon who dresses
a wound of Bābur's (908) 169.
+Atā+ _mīr-ākhẉur_—gives Bābur a meal (925) 418.
Mīr Burhānu'd-dīn +`Aṯā'u'l-lāh+ _Mashhadī_—particulars 285
(Ḥ.S. iii, 345);
[♰926 AH.-1520 AD.].
+Atūn Māmā+, a governess—walks from Samarkand to Pashāghar (907) 148;
mentioned? (925) 407 l. 4.
+Aūghān-bīrdī+ _Mughūl_ (var. Afghān-bīrdī and -tardī)—on service
(925) 376, 377;
of a boat-party 387;
in the battle of the Ghogrā (935) 671, 672.
Sayyid _Āūghlāqchī_, see Murād.
+Auliya Khān+ _Ishrāqī_—waits on Bābur (935) 677.
+Aūlūgh Beg Mīrzā+ _Bāī-qarā Tīmūrid_, _Barlās Turk_, son of Muḥammad
Sulṯān Mīrzā—his (?) journey to Hindustan (933) 265.
+Aūlūgh Beg Mīrzā+ _Kābulī_, _Mīrān-shāhī_, _ut supra_,
son of Abū-sa`īd—particulars 95;
his earliest guardians amusingly frustrate his designs against
them 270;
his dealings with the Yūsuf-zāī App. K. xxxvi;
his co-operation with Ḥusain _Bāī-qarā_ against the Aūzbegs 190;
his praise of Istālīf 216;
his death (907) 185;
gardens of his bought by Bābur (perhaps one only) 216, (911) 246;
another garden 315;
houses of his 247, 251;
his Almshouse 315;
referred to 284;
his joint-guardians Muḥammad Barandūq and Jahāngīr _Barlās_, his
later one Wais Ātāka _q.v._;
his sons `Abdu'r-razzāq and Mīrān-shāh, his daughter Bega Begīm
and daughter-in-law Manauwar _q.v._;
[♰907 AH.-1501-2 AD.].
+Aūlūgh Beg Mīrzā+ _Shāh-rukhī_, _ut supra_ (Ūlūgh), son
of Shāh-rukh—his Trans-oxus rule 85[2879];
receives Yūnas _Chaghatāī_ badly (832-3?) 19-20;
defeated by Abā-bikr _Mīrān-shāhī_ 260;
his family dissensions 20;
his constructions, Astronomical and other 74, 77, 78-9[2880];
his sportsmanship 34[2881];
his murder and its chronograms 85;
Bābur resides in his College (906) 142;
his sons `Abdu'l-laṯīf and `Abdu'l-`azīz _q.v._;
a favoured beg Yūsuf _Aūghlāqchī_ _q.v._;
Preface, _q.v._ _On the misnomer "Mughūl Dynasty"._
[♰853 AH.-1449 AD.].
+Aūlūs Āghā+ (Ūlūs), daughter of Khwāja Ḥusain _q.v._—particulars 24.
+Aūrdū-būghā Tarkhān+ _Arghūn_ (Ūrdū)—his son-in-law Abū-sa`īd
_Mīrān-shāhī_ and son Darwesh-i-muḥammad _q.v._
+Aūrdū-shāh+—murdered as an envoy (923) 463 n. 3.
+Aurangzīb Pādshāh+ _Mīrān-shāhī Tīmūrid_, _Barlās Turk_—☛ referred
to as of Bābur's line 184;
[♰1118 AH.-O.S. 1707 AD.].
Amīr +Aūrūs+—☛ flees from his post on Shaibānī's death (916) 350.
+Aūrūs-i `Alī Sayyid+ _Mughūl_, son? of `Alī Sayyid—in the centre at
Qandahār (913) 335.
+Aūrūs+ _Arghūn_—his son Muḥammad-i-aūrūs _q.v._
+Aūzbeg Bahādur+ (Ūzbeg)—☛ one of five champions worsted in single
combat by Bābur (914) 349 n. 1.
+Aūzūn Ḥasan Beg+ _Āq-qūīlūq Turkmān_—his defeat of the Qarā-qūīlūq
Turkmāns and of Abū-sa`īd _Mīrān-shāhī_ 49;
[♰883 AH.-1478 AD.].
Khwāja +Aūzūn Ḥasan+ (Ūzūn)[2882]—negociates for Bābur (899) 30;
his appointment 32;
confers in Bābur's interests (900) 43 (where add his name after
`Alī-dost's);
acts for Jahāngīr against Bābur (903) 87, 88, 91, (904) 100, 101,
102;
his servant's mischievous report of Bābur's illness (903) 89;
his men defeated by Bābur's allies 102;
loses Akhsī and Andijān 102-3;
captured and released by Bābur 104;
goes into Samarkand to help Bābur (907) 146;
his brother Ḥusain and adopted son Mīrīm _q.v._
+`Ayisha-sulṯān Begīm+ _Bāī-qarā Tīmūrid_, _Barlās Turk_, daughter of
Ḥusain—particulars 267;
her husbands Qāsim _Aūzbeg-Shaibān_ and Būrān, her sons
Qāsim-i-ḥusain and `Abdu'l-lāh _q.v._
+`Ayisha-sulṯān Begīm+ _Mīrān-shāhī_, _ut supra_, daughter of Aḥmad
(Alacha Khān) and first wife of Bābur—particulars 35, 36;
married (905) 35, 120, 711;
joins Bābur in Samarkand (906) 135-6;
her child 136;
leaves Bābur 36.
Mīr +Ayūb Beg+ _Begchīk_—particulars 50;
sent by The Khān (Maḥmūd) to help Bābur (903) 92, (906) 138, 161,
170;
his Mughūls misbehave at Sar-i-pul (Khwāja Kārdzan) 140;
claims post in the right wing (_tūlghuma_) 155;
his Mughūls confuse pass-words 164;
in the right wing at Qandahār (913) 334;
☛ vainly tempts Sa`id _Chaghatāī_ to betray Bābur (916) 351;
☛ does not then desert 352, 362;
☛ rebels in Ḥiṣār (918) 362;
☛ dying, repents his disloyalty (920) 362;
his sons Buhlūl-i-ayūb, Ya`qūb-i-ayūb and Yūsuf-i-ayūb _q.v._;
[♰920 AH.-1514 AD.].
+`Aẕim Humāyūn+ _Sarwānī_—invests Gūāliār 477;
his title changed and why (933) 537;
his son Fatḥ Khān _q.v._
Mīr +`Azū+, a musical composer—particulars 292.
+Bābā `Alī+ _aīshīk-āghā_ (_īshīk_), a Lord-of-the-Gate of Ḥusain
_Bāī-qarā_—particulars 278;
his son Yūnas-i-`alī and friend Badru'd-dīn _q.v._
Bābā-qulī's Sulṯān +Bābā `Alī Beg+[2883]—particulars 27;
his sons Bābā-qulī, Sayyidīm `Alī and Dost-i-anjū (?) Shaikh _q.v._;
[♰900 AH.-1495 AD.].
+Bābā-aūghūlī+, see Pāpā-aūghūlī.
+Bābā Chuhra+, a household brave—reprieved from death (914) 344;
on Bābur's service (932) 474, 534, (934) 590, 602;
does well in the battle of the Ghogrā (935) 671.
+Bābā Ḥusain+, see Ḥusain.
+Bābā Jān+ _akhtachī_, a groom or squire—Bābur dislocates his own
thumb in striking him (925) 409.
+Bābā Jān+ _qābūzī_—musician at entertainments (925) 386-7, 388.
+Bābā Kābulī+ _Turk_, son of Mīr `Alī, Shāh-rukh _(Tīmūrid)'s_
Governor of Kābul—nominated `Umar Shaikh's guardian when Kābul was
allotted to the boy 14;
particulars 382;
his brothers Daryā Khān and Ghāzī (Apāq) Khān _q.v._
+Bābā Khān Sulṯān+ _Chaghatāī Chīngīz-khānīd_, (Bābājāk), son of Aḥmad
(Alacha Khān)—his ceremonious meeting with Bābur (908) 159;
[living in 948 AH.-1542—T.R.].
+Bābā Khān+ _Chaghatāī_, son of The Khān (Maḥmūd)—murdered with his
father and brothers by Shaibānī (914) 35.
+Bābā Qashqa+ _Mughūl_ (perhaps identical with Qashqa Maḥmūd _Chīrās_
_q.v._)—out with Bābur (925) 404, 405;
in charge of Dībālpūr (930) 442;
his brothers Malik Qāsim and Kūkī;
his sons Shāh Muḥammad, Dost-i-muḥammad and Ḥājī Muḥammad Khān
_Kūkī_ _q.v._;
[♰_cir._ 940 AH.-1553 AD.].[2884]
Sulṯān +Bābā-qulī Beg+, son of Sulṯān Bābā `Alī Beg—serving under
Khusrau Shāh (901) 60, 61;
with Bābur and captured (903) 72;
staunch to him 91;
in the centre at Qandahār (913) 335;
conveys royal letters (932) 529.[2885]
+Bābā Sairāmī+—pursues Bābur in his flight from Akhsī (908) 178;
promised fidelity but seems to have been false 179-182.
+Bābā Shaikh+ _Chaghatāī_, brother of Mullā Bābā _Pashāgharī_—in the
left centre at Qandahār (913) 335;
☛ rebels at Ghaznī (921) 363;
forgiven (925) 397;
deserts Humāyūn (932) 546;
his capture and death 545;
a reward given for his head _id._;
[♰932 or 933 AH.-1526 AD.].
+Bābā Shaikh+—sent out for news (935) 661.
+Bābā Sher-zād+—one of three with Bābur against Taṃbal (908) 163;
does well at Akhsī 174;
fights against rebels at Kābul (912) 315;
at Qandahār (913) 335.
+Bābā Sulṯān+ _Chaghatāī Chīngīz-khānid_, son of Khalīl son of Aḥmad
(Alacha Khān)—waits on Bābur near Kālpī (934) 590;
particulars 590;
on service 318, (934) 599;
not at his post (935) 672.
+Bābā Yāsāwal+—at the siege of Bajaur (925) 370;
chops at a tiger's head 393.
+Bābū Khān+—holding Kalanjar and looking towards Hātī _Kākar_ (925)
387.
Ẓahīru'd-dīn Muḥammad _Bābur Pādshāh_ _Mīrān-shāhī Tīmūrid_, Barlās
Turk—b. Muḥarram 6th 888 AH.-Feb. 14th 1483 AD. p. 1;
♰Jumāda I, 6th 937 AH.-Dec. 26th 1530 A.D. 708;
+Parentage+:—paternal 13;
maternal 19, 21;
+Titles+:—Mīrzā (inherited) Pādshāh (taken) 344;
Ghāzī (won) 574;
Firdaus-makānī (Dweller-in-paradise, posthumous) see Gladwin's
Revenue Accounts;
+Religion+:—[2886]belief in God's guidance 31, 72-3, 103-13-37-94-99;
in His intervention 73, 247, 316, 446-51-74-79, 525-96, 620;
that His will was done 55, 100-16-32-34-35-67, 269,
316-22-23-36-37-70, 454-70-71-80, 542-94, 627-28-70;
that He has pleasure in good 331;
that to die is to go to His mercy 67;
reliance on Him 100-08-16-32, 311, 463, 678;
God called to witness 254
and invoked to bless 624;
His punishment of sin 42-5, 449-77 (Hell),
and of breach of Law 449;
His visitation of a father's sins on children 45;
His predestination of events 128, 243-46-53, 469, 594;
—prayer to Him for a sign of victory 440,
for the dead 246,
against a bad wife 258;
a life-saving prayer 316;
+Characteristics+:—ambition 92-7;
admiration of high character 27, 67, 89, 90;
bitterness and depression (in youth)
91, 130-52-57-78;
consideration for dependants 91-9, 158-78-96, 469;
distrust of the world 95, 144-56;
silent humiliation 119;
fairness 15, 24, 91, 105, 469;
fearlessness 163-5-73;
fidelity:—to word 104, 129 (see 118-9), 172-3, 194,
to salt 125,
to family-relation,—filial 88-9, 135-49-57-58-88,
—fraternal see Jahāngīr and Nāṣir,—Tīmūrid 41, 149-57-68,
Chaghatāī 54, 169-72,
Mughūl 27, 119-25,
Aūzbeg 37;
friendship see Nūyān and Khw. Kalān;
good judgment 43, 87, 91, 134-37-55;
gratitude 99, 633;
insouciance 150;
joy at release from stress 99, 134-35-48-81;
bashfulness and passion 120;
persistence 92-7 and _passim_;
promptitude 117, 170;
reprobation of vice, tyranny and cruelty 42-5-6, 50, 66, 70, 90-6,
102-10-25-97, 290
and of an unmotherly woman 125-28;
self-reproach 147;
self-comment on inexperienced action 165-67-73;
dislike of talkativeness 28, 97, 143-92-93;
vexation at loss of rule (_æt._ 14) 90-1-9, 129-30-57;
truth for truth sake 135, 318;
seeking and weighing counsel 73, 100-14-31-41-65-70-73-97-98,
229-30-31-48, 340-76-78, 410-12-69, 524-30-77, 628-39-67-69-82;
enjoins Humāyūn to take counsel 627;
+Occupations+ (non-military):—archery _i.a._ 175;
calligraphy see _infra_;
literary composition see _infra_;
metrical amusements see verse;
Natural History _passim_;
travel, excursions, sight-seeing, social intercourse _passim_;
building 5, 217-9, 375-98,
in Dūlpūr 585, 606-07-42,
in Āgra 642,
in Kābul 646-7,
in Sīkrī 588,
Ajodhyā mosque 656 n. 3, App. U,
Pānīpat mosque 472 n. 1;
gardening and garden-making _passim_;
—Bābur's script (_Bāburī-khat̤t̤_) devised 910 AH. 228,
Qorān transcribed by him in it 228 n. 4;
studied by an enquirer 285;
alphabet and specimens sent to Bābur's sons 642;
_Abūshqa_ account of, App. Q, lxii to lxv;
+Observance and breaches of Muḥ. Law+:—signs of his Sunnī mind
_e.g._ 25, 44, 111, 262, 370-7, 483, 547-51-74-89-96,
in the _Mubīn_ and _Wālidiyyah-risāla q.v._;
his orthodox reputation 711;
his heterodox seeming 354,
and arrow-sped disclaimer 361;
—his boyish obedience as to wine 302,
up to his 23rd year 299, 302-3-4;
for breach see Law and Wine;
+Writings+:—_a._ Verses in the B.N. down to 926 AH. see _infra_;
_b._ First Dīwān 402;*
perhaps containing the _Abūshqa_ quotations 438;
_c._ Diary of 925 and 926 _q.v._ AH. (probably a survival of more)
*438;
_d._ The _Mubīn_ (928 AH.) 426-37-38-49;
quoted 630-31 n. 3;
_e._ Treatise on Prosody (931 AH.)
586, App. Q, lx, lxvi;
_f._ The _Wālidiyyah-risāla_ (935 AH.) 619-20-31 n. 3, (_tarjuma_)
642-3, App. Q, lix;
_g._ The _Hindūstān Poems_ 642, App. Q;
_h._ _Rāmpūr MS._ of 6 and 7. App. Q, referred to *438, 620 n. 6,
642 n. 3;
_i._ Diary of 932 to 936 _q.v._;
_j._ Narrative of 899 to within 914 AH. _q.v._;
+Bābur's verse quoted in the Bābur-nāma+:—(Turkī,) love-sickness
120-1;
the worldling 130;
granting a request 137;
respite from stress 148;
praise of a beloved 153;
the neglected exile 154;
isolation 156;
the New Years 236;
Fortune's cruelty 309;
? Turkmān Hazāra raid 312;
Spring 321;
God only is strength 337;
dealing with tribesmen 393;
greeting to absent convives 401;
message to a kinswoman 402;
his broken vow 449, 450 n.;
reply to Khw. Kalān 526;
disobedience to Law (T. & P.) 556;
Death inevitable (T. & P.) 556 (?);
the Ghāzī's task 575;
to those who have left him 584;
couplet used in metrical amusement 586, App. 2, sect. 2;
fever 588;
Chandīrī 596;
on his first grandson's birth 624;
_Mūbīn_ quoted 637;
Pagan lands 637;
pain in renunciation 648;
an invitation 683;
[Persian,] good in everything 311;
insight of Age 340;
on casting off his Shī`a seeming 361;
parting from Khw. Kalān 372;
a message 411;
satirical couplet 448;
before Pānīpat 470;
Bīāna warned 529.
See Table of Contents, _On Bābur's Naming_.