The Bābur-nāma

2038

In Jūn-pūr (Āyīn-i-akbarī); Elliot & Dowson note (iv, 283-4) that it appears to have included, near Sikandarpūr, the country on both sides of the Gogra, and thence on that river’s left bank down to the Ganges.

2039

That the word Nawāb here refers to Bābur and not to his lieutenants, is shewn by his mention (f. 278) of Sangā’s messages to himself.

2040

Qorān, cap. 2, v. 32. The passage quoted is part of a description of Satan, hence mention of Satan in Shaikh Zain’s next sentence.

2041

The brahminical thread.

2042

khār-i-miḥnat-i-irtidād dar dāman. This Erskine renders by “who fixed thorns from the pangs of apostacy in the hem of their garments” (p. 360). Several good MSS. have khār, thorn, but Ilminsky has Ar. khimār, cymar, instead (p. 411). De Courteille renders the passage by “portent au pan de leurs habits la marque douloureuse de l’apostasie” (ii, 290). To read khimār, cymar (scarf), would serve, as a scarf is part of some Hindū costumes.

2043

Qorān, cap. 69, v. 35.

2044

M. Defrémery, when reviewing the French translation of the B.N. (Journal des Savans 1873), points out (p. 18) that it makes no mention of the “blessed ten”. Erskine mentions them but without explanation. They are the 'asharah mubash-sharah, the decade of followers of Muḥammad who “received good tidings”, and whose certain entry into Paradise he foretold.

2045

Qorān, cap. 3, v. 20. M. Defrémery reads Shaikh Zain to mean that these words of the Qorān were on the infidel standards, but it would be simpler to read Shaikh Zain as meaning that the infidel insignia on the standards “denounce punishment” on their users.

2046

He seems to have been a Rājpūt convert to Muḥammadanism who changed his Hindī name Silhādī for what Bābur writes. His son married Sangā’s daughter; his fiefs were Raisin and Sārangpūr; he deserted to Bābur in the battle of Kānwa. (Cf. Erskine’s History of India i, 471 note; Mirāt-i-sikandarī, Bayley’s trs. s. n.; Akbar-nāma, H.B.’s trs. i, 261; Tod’s Rājastān cap. Mewār.)

2047

“Dejāl or al Masih al Dajjal, the false or lying Messiah, is the Muhammadan Anti-christ. He is to be one-eyed, and marked on the forehead with the letters K.F.R. signifying Kafer, or Infidel. He is to appear in the latter days riding on an ass, and will be followed by 70,000 Jews of Ispahān, and will continue on the Earth 40 days, of which one will be equal to a year, another to a month, another to a week, and the rest will be common days. He is to lay waste all places, but will not enter Mekka or Medina, which are to be guarded by angels. He is finally to be slain at the gate of Lud by Jesus, for whom the Musalmans profess great veneration, calling him the breath or spirit of God. – See Sale’s Introductory Discourse to the Koran” [Erskine].

2048

Qorān, cap. 29, v. 5.

2049

“This alludes to the defeat of [an Abyssinian Christian] Abraha the prince of Yemen who [in the year of Muḥammad’s birth] marched his army and some elephants to destroy the ka‘ba of Makka. ‘The Meccans,’ says Sale, ‘at the appearance of so considerable a host, retired to the neighbouring mountains, being unable to defend their city or temple. But God himself undertook the defence of both. For when Abraha drew near to Mecca, and would have entered it, the elephant on which he rode, which was a very large one and named Maḥmūd, refused to advance any nigher to the town, but knelt down whenever they endeavoured to force him that way, though he would rise and march briskly enough if they turned him towards any other quarter; and while matters were in this posture, on a sudden a large flock of birds, like swallows, came flying from the sea-coast, every-one of which carried three stones, one in each foot and one in its bill; and these stones they threw down upon the heads of Abraha’s men, certainly killing every one they struck.’ The rest were swept away by a flood or perished by a plague, Abraha alone reaching Senaa, where he also died” [Erskine]. The above is taken from Sale’s note to the 105 chapter of the Qorān, entitled “the Elephant”.

2050

Presumably black by reason of their dark large mass.

2051

Presumably, devouring as fire.

2052

This is 50 m. long and blocked the narrow pass of the Caspian Iron-gates. It ends south of the Russian town of Dar-band, on the west shore of the Caspian. Erskine states that it was erected to repress the invasions of Yajuj and Mujuj (Gog and Magog).

2053

Qorān, cap. lxi, v. 4.

2054

Qorān, cap. ii, v. 4. Erskine appears to quote another verse.

2055

Qorān, cap. xlviii, v. 1.

2056

Index s. n.

2057

Khirad, Intelligence or the first Intelligence, was supposed to be the guardian of the empyreal heaven (Erskine).

2058

Chīn-tīmūr Chīngīz-khānid Chaghatāī is called Bābur’s brother because a (maternal-) cousin of Bābur’s own generation, their last common ancestor being Yūnas Khān.

2059

Sulaimān Tīmūrid Mīrān-shāhī is called Bābur’s son because his father was of Bābur’s generation, their last common ancestor being Sl. Abū-sa‘id Mīrzā. He was 13 years old and, through Shāh Begīm, hereditary shāh of Badakhshān.

2060

The Shaikh was able, it would appear, to see himself as others saw him, since the above description of him is his own. It is confirmed by Abū’l-faẓl and Badāyūnī’s accounts of his attainments.

2061

The honourable post given to this amīr of Hind is likely to be due to his loyalty to Bābur.

2062

Aḥmad may be a nephew of Yūsuf of the same agnomen (Index s. nn.).

2063

I have not discovered the name of this old servant or the meaning of his seeming-sobriquet, Hindū. As a qūchīn he will have been a Mughūl or Turk. The circumstance of his service with a son of Maḥmūd Mīrān-shāhī (down to 905 AH.) makes it possible that he drew his name in his youth from the tract s.e. of Maḥmūd’s Ḥiṣār territory which has been known as Little Hind (Index s. n. Hind). This is however conjecture merely. Another suggestion is that as hindū can mean black, it may stand for the common qarā of the Turks, e. g. Qarā Barlās, Black Barlās.

2064

I am uncertain whether Qarā-qūzī is the name of a place, or the jesting sobriquet of more than one meaning it can be.

2065

Soul-full, animated; var. Ḥai. MS. khān-dār. No agnomen is used for Asad by Bābur. The Akbar-nāma varies to jāmadār, wardrobe-keeper, cup-holder (Bib. Ind. ed. i, 107), and Firishta to sar-jāmadar, head wardrobe-keeper (lith. ed. p. 209 top). It would be surprising to find such an official sent as envoy to ‘Irāq, as Asad was both before and after he fought at Kānwa.

2066

son of Daulat Khān Yūsuf-khail Lūdī.

2067

These are the titles of the 20th and 36th chapters of the Qorān; Sale offers conjectural explanations of them. The “family” is Muḥammad’s.

2068

a Bāī-qarā Tīmūrid of Bābur’s generation, their last common ancestor being Tīmūr himself.

2069

an Aūzbeg who married a daughter of Sl. Ḥusain M. Bāī-qarā.

2070

It has been pointed out to me that there is a Chinese title of nobility Yūn-wāng, and that it may be behind the words jang-jang. Though the suggestion appears to me improbable, looking to the record of Bābur’s officer, to the prevalence of sobriquets amongst his people, and to what would be the sporadic appearance of a Chinese title or even class-name borne by a single man amongst them. I add this suggestion to those of my note on the meaning of the words (Index s. n. Muḥ. ‘Alī). The title Jūn-wāng occurs in Dr. Denison Ross’ Three MSS. from Kāshghar, p. 5, v. 5 and translator’s preface, p. 14.

2071

Cf. f. 266 and f. 299. Yārāgī may be the name of his office, (from yārāq) and mean provisioner of arms or food or other military requirements.

2072

or, Tardī yakka, the champion, Gr. monomachus (A. N. trs. i, 107 n.).

2073

var. 1 watch and 2 g’harīs; the time will have been between 9 and 10 a.m.

2074

jūldū ba nām al ‘azīz-i-barādar shud, a phrase not easy to translate.

2075

viz. those chained together as a defence and probably also those conveying the culverins.

2076

The comparison may be between the darkening smoke of the fire-arms and the heresy darkening pagan hearts.

2077

There appears to be a distinction of title between the akhta-begī and the mīr-akhẉūr (master of the horse).

2078

Qorān, cap. 14, v. 33.

2079

These two men were in one of the flanking-parties.

2080

This phrase “our brother” would support the view that Shaikh Zain wrote as for Bābur, if there were not, on the other hand, mention of Bābur as His Majesty, and the precious royal soul.

2081

dīwānīān here may mean those associated with the wazīr in his duties: and not those attending at Court.

2082

Qorān, cap. 14, v. 52.

2083

Index s. n. chuhra (a brave).

2084

hizabrān-i-besha yakrangī, literally, forest-tigers (or, lions) of one hue.

2085

There may be reference here to the chains used to connect the carts into a defence.

2086

The braves of the khāṣa tābīn were part of Bābur’s own centre.

2087

perhaps the cataphract elephants; perhaps the men in mail.

2088

Qorān, cap. 101, v. 54.

2089

Qorān, cap. 101, v. 4.

2090

bā andākhtan-i-sang u ẓarb-zan tufak bisyārī. As Bābur does not in any place mention metal missiles, it seems safest to translate sang by its plain meaning of stone.

2091

Also, metaphorically, swords.

2092

tīr. My husband thinks there is a play upon the two meanings of this word, arrow and the planet Mercury; so too in the next sentence, that there may be allusion in the kuākib s̤awābit to the constellation Pegasus, opposed to Bābur’s squadrons of horse.

2093

The Fish mentioned in this verse is the one pictured by Muḥammadan cosmogony as supporting the Earth. The violence of the fray is illustrated by supposing that of Earth’s seven climes one rose to Heaven in dust, thus giving Heaven eight. The verse is from Firdausī’s Shāh-nāma, [Turner-Macan’s ed. i, 222]. The translation of it is Warner’s, [ii, 15 and n.]. I am indebted for the information given in this note to my husband’s long search in the Shāh-nāmā.

2094

Qorān, cap. 3, v. 133.

2095

Qorān, cap. 61, v. 13.

2096

Qorān, cap. 48, v. 1.

2097

Qorān, cap. 48, v. 3.

2098

[see p. 572] farāsh. De Courteille, reading firāsh, translates this metaphor by comme un lit lorsqu’il est défait. He refers to Qorān, cap. 101, v. 3. A better metaphor for the breaking up of an army than that of moths scattering, one allowed by the word farāsh, but possibly not by Muḥammad, is vanished like bubbles on wine.

2099

Bāgar is an old name for Dungarpūr and Bānswāra [G. of I. vi, 408 s. n. Bānṣwāra].

2100

sic, Ḥai. MS. and may be so read in I.O. 217 f. 220b; Erskine writes Bikersi (p. 367) and notes the variant Nagersi; Ilminsky (p. 421) N: krsī; de Courteille (ii. 307) Niguersi.

2101

Cf. f. 318b, and note, where it is seen that the stones which killed the lords of the Elephants were so small as to be carried in the bill of a bird like a swallow. Were such stones used in matchlocks in Bābur’s day?

2102

guzāran, var. gurazān, caused to flee and hogs (Erskine notes the double-meaning).

2103

This passage, entered in some MSS. as if verse, is made up of Qorān, cap. 17, v. 49, cap. 33, v. 38, and cap. 3, v. 122.

2104

As the day of battle was Jumāda II. 13th (March 16th), the Fatḥ-nāma was ready and dated twelve days after that battle. It was started for Kābul on Rajab 9th (April 11th). Something may be said here appropriately about the surmise contained in Dr. Ilminsky’s Preface and M. de Courteille’s note to Mémoires ii, 443 and 450, to the effect that Bābur wrote a plain account of the battle of Kanwā and for this in his narrative substituted Shaikh Zain’s Fatḥ-nāma, and that the plain account has been preserved in Kehr’s Bābur-nāma volume [whence Ilminsky reproduced it, it was translated by M. de Courteille and became known as a “Fragment” of Bāburiana]. Almost certainly both scholars would have judged adversely of their suggestion by the light of to-day’s easier research. The following considerations making against its value, may be set down: – (1) There is no sign that Bābur ever wrote a plain account of the battle or any account of it. There is against his doing so his statement that he inserts Shaikh Zain’s Fatḥ-nāma because it gives particulars. If he had written any account, it would be found preceding the Fatḥ-nāma, as his account of his renunciation of wine precedes Shaikh Zain’s Farmān announcing the act.

(2) Moreover, the “Fragment” cannot be described as a plain account such as would harmonize with Bābur’s style; it is in truth highly rhetorical, though less so as Shaikh Zain’s.

(3) The “Fragment” begins with a quotation from the Bābur-nāma (f.310b and n.), skips a good deal of Bābur’s matter preliminary to the battle, and passes on with what there can be no doubt is a translation in inferior Turkī of the Akbar-nāma account.

(4) The whole of the extra matter is seen to be continuous and not fragmentary, if it is collated with the chapter in which Abū’l-faẓl describes the battle, its sequel of events, the death, character, attainments, and Court of Bābur. Down to the death, it is changed to the first person so as to make Bābur seem to write it. The probable concocter of it is Jahāngīr.

(5) If the Fragment were Bābur’s composition, where was it when ‘Abdu-r-raḥīm translated the Bābur-nāma in 998 AH. -1590 AD.; where too did Abū’l-faẓl find it to reproduce in the Akbar-nāma?

(6) The source of Abū’l-faẓl’s information seems without doubt to be Bābur’s own narrative and Shaikh Zain’s Fatḥ-nāma. There are many significant resemblances between the two rhetoricians’ metaphors and details selected.

(7) A good deal might be said of the dissimilarities between Bābur’s diction and that of the “Fragment”. But this is needless in face of the larger and more circumstantial objections already mentioned.

(For a fuller account of the “Fragment” see JRAS. Jan. 1906 pp. 81, 85 and 1908 p. 75 ff.)

2105

T̤ughrā means an imperial signature also, but would Bābur sign Shaikh Zain’s Fatḥ-i-nāma? His autograph verse at the end of the Rāmpūr Dīwān has his signature following it. He is likely to have signed this verse. Cf. App. Q. [Erskine notes that titles were written on the back of despatches, an unlikely place for the quatrain, one surmises.]

2106

This is in the Rāmpūr dīwān (E.D.R. Plate 17). Dr. E. Denison Ross points out (p. 17 n.) that in the 2nd line the Ḥai. Codex varies from the Dīwān. The MS. is wrong; it contains many inaccuracies in the latter part of the Hindūstān section, perhaps due to a change of scribe.

2107

These words by abjad yield 933. From Bābur’s use of the pluperfect tense, I think it may be inferred that (my) Sections a and b are an attachment to the Fatḥ-nāma, entered with it at a somewhat later date.

2108

My translation of this puzzling sentence is tentative only.

2109

This statement shews that the Dībālpūr affair occurred in one of the B.N. gaps, and in 930 AH. The words make 330 by abjad. It may be noted here that on f. 312b and notes there are remarks concerning whether Bābur’s remission of the tamghā was contingent on his winning at Kānwa. If the remission had been delayed until his victory was won, it would have found fitting mention with the other sequels of victory chronicled above; as it is not with these sequels, it may be accepted as an absolute remission, proclaimed before the fight. The point was a little uncertain owing to the seemingly somewhat deferred insertion in Bābur’s narrative of Shaikh Zain’s Farmān.

2110

dā’ira, presumably a defended circle. As the word aūrdū [bracketed in the text] shows, Bābur used it both for his own and for Sangā’s camps.

2111

Hence the Rānā escaped. He died in this year, not without suspicion of poison.

2112

aīchīmnī khālī qīldīm, a seeming equivalent for English, “I poured out my spleen.”

2113

var. malūk as e. g. in I.O. 217 f.225b, and also elsewhere in the Bābur-nāma.

2114

On f. 315 the acts attributed to Ilīās Khān are said to have been done by a “mannikin called Rustam Khān”. Neither name appears elsewhere in the B.N.; the hero’s name seems a sarcasm on the small man.

2115

Bābur so-calls both Ḥasan and his followers, presumably because they followed their race sympathies, as of Rājpūt origin, and fought against co-religionists. Though Ḥasan’s subjects, Meos, were nominally Muḥammadans, it appears that they practised some Hindu customs. For an account of Mīwāt, see Gazetteer of Ulwur (Alwar, Alūr) by Major P. W. Powlett.

2116

Alwar being in Mīwāt, Bābur may mean that bodies were found beyond that town in the main portion of the Mīwāt country which lies north of Alwar towards Dihlī.

2117

Major Powlett speaking (p. 9) of the revenue Mīwāt paid to Bābur, quotes Thomas as saying that the coins stated in Bābur’s Revenue Accounts, viz. 169,810,00 tankas were probably Sikandarī tankas, or Rs. 8,490,50.

2118

This word appears to have been restricted in its use to the Khān-zādas of the ruling house in Mīwāt, and was not used for their subjects, the Meos (Powlett l. c. Cap. I.). The uses of “Mīwātī” and “Meo” suggest something analogous with those of “Chaghatāī” and “Mughūl” in Bābur’s time. The resemblance includes mutual dislike and distrust (Powlett l. c.).

2119

qīlūrlār aīkān dūr. This presumptive past tense is frequently used by the cautious Bābur. I quote it here and in a few places near-following because it supports Shaw’s statement that in it the use of aīkān (īkān) reduces the positive affirmation of the perfect to presumption or rumour. With this statement all grammarians are not agreed; it is fully supported by the Bābur-nāma.

2120

Contrast here is suggested between Sult̤āns of Dihlī & Hind; is it between the greater Turks with whom Bābur classes himself immediately below as a conqueror of Hind, and the Lūdī Sult̤āns of Dihlī?

2121

The strength of the Tijāra hills towards Dihlī is historical (Powlett l. c. p. 132).

2122

This is one of the names of the principal river which flows eastwards to the south of Alwar town; other names are Bārah and Rūparel. Powlett notes that it appears in Thorn’s Map of the battle of Laswarree (1803 AD.), which he reproduces on p. 146. But it is still current in Gurgaon, with also a variant Mānas-le, man-killer (G. of Gurgaon 1910 AD. ivA, p.6).

2123

aūltūrūrlār aīkān dūr, the presumptive past tense.

2124

f.308.

2125

qīlghān aīkān dūr, the presumptive past tense.

2126

Sult̤ān ātīghā juldū būlūb; Pers. trs. Juldū ba nām-i Sult̤ān shud. The juldū guerdon seems to be apart from the fief and allowance.

2127

f. 315.

2128

Bābur does not record this detail (f. 315).

2129

f. 298b and f. 328b. Ja‘far is mentioned as Mahdī’s son by Gul-badan and in the Ḥabību’s-siyar iii, 311, 312.

2130

f. 388b.

2131

The town of Fīrūzpūr is commonly known as Fīrūzpūr-jhirka (Fīrūzpūr of the spring), from a small perennial stream which issues from a number of fissures in the rocks bordering the road through a pass in the Mīwāt hills which leads from the town viâ Tijāra to Rewārī (G. of Gurgaon, p. 249). In Abū’l-faẓl’s day there was a Hindū shrine of Mahadeo near the spring, which is still a place of annual pilgrimage. The Kūtila lake is called Kotla-jhil in the G. of G. (p. 7). It extends now 3 m. by 2-1/2 m. varying in size with the season; in Abū’l-faẓl’s day it was 4 kos (8 m.) round. It lies partly in the district of Nūh, partly in Gurgaon, where the two tracts join at the foot of the Alwar hills.

2132

This is the frequently mentioned size for reservoirs; the measure here is probably the qārī, cir. a yard.

2133

Bābur does not state it as a fact known to himself that the Mānas-nī falls into the Kūtila lake; it did so formerly, but now does not, tradition assigning a cause for the change (G. of G. p. 6). He uses the hear-say tense, kīrār aīmīsh.

2134

Kharī and Toda were in Akbar’s sarkār of Rantaṃbhor.

2135

Bhosāwar is in Bhurtpūr, and Chausa (or Jūsa) may be the Chausath of the Āyīn-i-akbarī, ii, 183.