Chapter XXIII: Section II: Kābul666 (6)

On leaving Qandahār, we dismounted in the Qūsh-khāna meadow. After setting the army forward, I had gone for an excursion, so I got into camp rather late. It was another camp! not to be recognized! Excellent _tīpūchāqs_, strings and strings of he-camels, she-camels, and mules, bearing saddle-bags (_khurzīn_) of silken stuffs and cloth,—tents of scarlet (cloth) and velvet, all sorts of awnings, every kind of work-shop, ass-load after ass-load of chests! The goods of the elder and younger (Arghūn) brethren had been kept in separate treasuries; out of each had come chest upon chest, bale upon bale of stuffs and clothes-in-wear (_artmāq artmāq_), sack upon sack of white _tankas_. In _aūtāgh_ and _chādar_ (lattice-tent and pole-tent) was much spoil for every man soever; many sheep also had been taken but sheep were less cared about!

I made over to Qāsim Beg Muqīm's retainers in Qalāt, under [Sidenote: Fol. 212b.] Qūj _Arghūn_ and Tāju'd-dīn Maḥmūd, with their goods and effects. Qāsim Beg was a knowing person; he saw it unadvisable for us to stay long near Qandahār, so, by talking and talking, worrying and worrying, he got us to march off. As has been said, I had bestowed Qandahār on Nāṣir Mīrzā; he was given leave to go there; we started for Kābul.

There had been no chance of portioning out the spoils while we were near Qandahār; it was done at Qarā-bāgh where we delayed two or three days. To count the coins being difficult, they were apportioned by weighing them in scales. Begs of all ranks, retainers and household (_tābīn_) loaded up ass-load after ass-load of sacks full of white _tankas_, and took them away for their own subsistence and the pay of their soldiers.

We went back to Kābul with masses of goods and treasure, great honour and reputation.

(_o. Bābur's marriage with Ma`ṣūma-sulṯān._)

After this return to Kābul I concluded alliance (_`aqd qīldīm_) with Sl. Aḥmad Mīrzā's daughter Ma`ṣūma-sulṯān Begīm whom I had asked in marriage at Khurāsān, and had had brought from there.

(_p. Shaibāq Khān before Qandahār._)

A few days later a servant of Nāṣir Mīrzā brought the news that Shaibāq Khān had come and laid siege to Qandahār. That Muqīm had fled to Zamīn-dāwar has been said already; from there he went on and saw Shaibāq Khān. From Shāh Beg also one person after another had gone to Shaibāq Khān. At the instigation and petition of these two, the Khān came [Sidenote: Fol. 213.] swiftly down on Qandahār by the mountain road,[1305] thinking to find me there. This was the very thing that experienced person Qāsim Beg had in his mind when he worried us into marching off from near Qandahār.

(Persian) What a mirror shews to the young man,
A baked brick shews to the old one!

Shaibāq Khān arriving, besieged Nāṣir Mīrzā in Qandahār.

(_q. Alarm in Kābul._)

When this news came, the begs were summoned for counsel. The matters for discussion were these:—Strangers and ancient foes, such as are Shaibāq Khān and the Aūzbegs, are in possession of all the countries once held by Tīmūr Beg's descendants; even where Turks and Chaghatāīs[1306] survive in corners and border-lands, they have all joined the Aūzbeg, willingly or with aversion; one remains, I myself, in Kābul, the foe mightily strong, I very weak, with no means of making terms, no strength to oppose; that, in the presence of such power and potency, we had to think of some place for ourselves and, at this crisis and in the crack of time there was, to put a wider space between us and the strong foeman; that choice lay between Badakhshān and Hindūstān and that decision must now be made.

Qāsim Beg and Sherīm T̤aghāī were agreed for Badakhshān;

(_Author's note on Badakhshān._) Those holding their heads up
in Badakhshān at this crisis were, of Badakhshīs, Mubārak Shāh
and Zubair, Jahāngīr _Turkmān_ and Muḥammad the armourer. They
had driven Nāṣir Mīrzā out but had not joined the Aūzbeg.

[Sidenote: Fol. 213b.] I and several household-begs preferred going towards Hindūstān and were for making a start to Lamghān.[1307]

(_r. Movements of some Mīrzās._)

After taking Qandahār, I had bestowed Qalāt and the Turnūk (Tarnak) country on `Abdu'r-razzāq Mīrzā and had left him in Qalāt, but with the Aūzbeg besieging Qandahār, he could not stay in Qalāt, so left it and came to Kābul. He arriving just as we were marching out, was there left in charge.[1308]

There being in Badakhshān no ruler or ruler's son, Mīrzā Khān inclined to go in that direction, both because of his relationship to Shāh Begīm[1309] and with her approval. He was allowed to go and the honoured Begīm herself started off with him. My honoured maternal-aunt Mihr-nigār Khānīm also wished to go to Badakhshān, notwithstanding that it was more seemly for her to be with me, a blood-relation; but whatever objection was made, she was not to be dissuaded; she also betook[1310] herself to Badakhshān.

(_s. Bābur's second start for Hindūstān._)

Under our plan of going to Hindūstān, we marched out of Kābul in the month of the first Jumāda (September 1507 AD.), taking the road through Little Kābul and going down by Sūrkh-rabāṯ to Qūrūq-sāī.

The Afghāns belonging between Kābul and Lamghān (Ningnahār) are thieves and abettors of thieves even in quiet times; for just such a happening as this they had prayed in vain. Said they, "He has abandoned Kābul", and multiplied their misdeeds by ten, changing their very merits for faults. To such [Sidenote: Fol. 214.] lengths did things go that on the morning we marched from Jagdālīk, the Afghāns located between it and Lamghān, such as the Khiẓr-khail, Shimū-khail, Khirilchī and Khūgīanī, thought of blocking the pass, arrayed on the mountain to the north, and advancing with sound of tambour and flourish of sword, began to shew themselves off. On our mounting I ordered our men to move along the mountain-side, each man from where he had dismounted;[1311] off they set at the gallop up every ridge and every valley of the saddle.[1312] The Afghāns stood awhile, but could not let even one arrow fly,[1313] and betook themselves to flight. While I was on the mountain during the pursuit, I shot one in the hand as he was running back below me. That arrow-stricken man and a few others were brought in; some were put to death by impalement, as an example.

We dismounted over against the Adīnapūr-fort in the Nīngnahār _tūmān_.

(_t. A raid for winter stores._)

Up till then we had taken no thought where to camp, where to go, where to stay; we had just marched up and down, camping in fresh places, while waiting for news.[1314] It was late in the autumn; most lowlanders had carried in their rice. People knowing the local land and water represented that the Mīl Kāfirs up the water of the `Alīshang _tūmān_ grow great quantities of rice, so that we might be able to collect winter supplies from them for the army. Accordingly we rode out of the Nīngnahār dale (_julga_), crossed (the Bārān-water) at Sāīkal, and went swiftly as far as the Pūr-amīn (easeful) valley. [Sidenote: Fol. 214b.] There the soldiers took a mass of rice. The rice-fields were all at the bottom of the hills. The people fled but some Kāfirs went to their death. A few of our braves had been sent to a look-out (_sar-kūb_)[1315] on a naze of the Pūr-anīm valley; when they were returning to us, the Kāfirs rushed from the hill above, shooting at them. They overtook Qāsim Beg's son-in-law Pūrān, chopped at him with an axe, and were just taking him when some of the braves went back, brought strength to bear, drove them off and got Pūrān away. After one night spent in the Kāfirs' rice-fields, we returned to camp with a mass of provisions collected.

(_u. Marriage of Muqīm's daughter._)

While we were near Mandrāwar in those days, an alliance was concluded between Muqīm's daughter Māh-chūchūk, now married to Shāh Ḥasan _Arghūn_, and Qāsim Kūkūldāsh.[1316]

(_v. Abandonment of the Hindūstān project._)

As it was not found desirable to go on into Hindūstān, I sent Mullā Bābā of Pashāghar back to Kābul with a few braves. Meantime I marched from near Mandrāwar to Atar and Shīwa and lay there for a few days. From Atar I visited Kūnār and Nūr-gal; from Kūnār I went back to camp on a raft; it was the first time I had sat on one; it pleased me much, and the raft came into common use thereafter.

(_w. Shaibāq Khān retires from Qandahār._)

In those same days Mullā Bābā of Farkat came from Nāṣir Mīrzā with news in detail that Shaibāq Khān, after taking the outer-fort of Qandahār, had not been able to take the citadel but had retired; also that the Mīrzā, on various accounts, had left Qandahār and gone to Ghaznī.

Shaibāq Khān's arrival before Qandahār, within a few days [Sidenote: Fol. 215.] of our own departure, had taken the garrison by surprise, and they had not been able to make fast the outer-fort. He ran mines several times round about the citadel and made several assaults. The place was about to be lost. At that anxious time Khwāja Muḥ. Amīn, Khwāja Dost Khāwand, Muḥ. `Alī, a foot-soldier, and Shāmī (Syrian?) let themselves down from the walls and got away. Just as those in the citadel were about to surrender in despair, Shaibāq Khān interposed words of peace and uprose from before the place. Why he rose was this:—It appears that before he went there, he had sent his _ḥaram_ to Nīrah-tū,[1317] and that in Nīrah-tū some-one lifted up his head and got command in the fort; the Khān therefore made a sort of peace and retired from Qandahār.

(_x. Bābur returns to Kābul._)

Mid-winter though it was we went back to Kābul by the Bād-i-pīch road. I ordered the date of that transit and that crossing of the pass to be cut on a stone above Bād-i-pīch;[1318] Ḥāfiẓ Mīrak wrote the inscription, Ustād Shāh Muḥammad did the cutting, not well though, through haste.

I bestowed Ghaznī on Nāṣir Mīrzā and gave `Abdu'r-razzāq Mīrzā the Nīngnahār _tūmān_ with Mandrāwar, Nūr-valley, Kūnār and Nūr-gal.[1319]

(_y. Bābur styles himself Pādshāh._)

Up to that date people had styled Tīmūr Beg's descendants _Mīrzā_, even when they were ruling; now I ordered that people should style me _Pādshāh_.[1320]

(_z. Birth of Bābur's first son._)

At the end of this year, on Tuesday the 4th day of the month of Ẕū'l-qa`da (March 6th 1506 AD.), the Sun being in Pisces [Sidenote: Fol. 215b.] (_Ḥūt_), Humāyūn was born in the citadel of Kābul. The date of his birth was found by the poet Maulānā Masnadī in the words _Sulṯān Humāyūn Khān_,[1321] and a minor poet of Kābul found it in _Shāh-i-fīrūs-qadr_ (Shāh of victorious might). A few days later he received the name Humāyūn; when he was five or six days old, I went out to the Chār-bāgh where was had the feast of his nativity. All the begs, small and great, brought gifts; such a mass of white _tankas_ was heaped up as had never been seen before. It was a first-rate feast!

914 AH.—MAY 2ND 1508 TO APRIL 21ST 1509 AD.[1322]

This spring a body of Mahmand Afghāns was over-run near Muqur.[1323]

(_a. A Mughūl rebellion._)

A few days after our return from that raid, Qūj Beg, Faqīr-i-`alī, Karīm-dād and Bābā _chuhra_ were thinking about deserting, but their design becoming known, people were sent who took them below Astar-ghach. As good-for-nothing words of theirs had been reported to me, even during Jahāngīr M.'s life-time,[1324] I ordered that they should be put to death at the top of the _bāzār_. They had been taken to the place; the ropes had been fixed; and they were about to be hanged when Qāsim Beg sent Khalīfa to me with an urgent entreaty that I would pardon their offences. To please him I gave them their lives, but I ordered them kept in custody.

What there was of Khusrau Shāh's retainers from Ḥiṣār and Qūndūz, together with the head-men of the Mughūls, Chilma, [Sidenote: Fol. 216.] `Alī Sayyid,[1325] Sakma (?), Sher-qulī and Aīkū-sālam (?), and also Khusrau Shāh's favourite Chaghatāī retainers under Sl. `Alī _chuhra_ and Khudabakhsh, with also 2 or 3000 serviceable Turkmān braves led by Sīūndūk and Shāh Naẕar,[1326] the whole of these, after consultation, took up a bad position towards me. They were all seated in front of Khwāja Riwāj, from the Sūng-qūrghān meadow to the Chālāk; `Abdu'r-razzāq Mīrzā, come in from Nīng-nahār, being in Dih-i-afghān.[1327]

Earlier on Muḥibb-i-`alī the armourer had told Khalīfa and Mullā Bābā once or twice of their assemblies, and both had given me a hint, but the thing seeming incredible, it had had no attention. One night, towards the Bed-time Prayer, when I was sitting in the Audience-hall of the Chār-bāgh, Mūsa Khwāja, coming swiftly up with another man, said in my ear, "The Mughūls are really rebelling! We do not know for certain whether they have got `Abdu'r-razzāq M. to join them. They have not settled to rise to-night." I feigned disregard and a little later went towards the _ḥarams_ which at the time were in the Yūrūnchqa-garden[1328] and the Bāgh-i-khilwat, but after page, servitor and messenger (_yasāwal_) had turned back on getting [Sidenote: Fol. 216b.] near them, I went with the chief-slave towards the town, and on along the ditch. I had gone as far as the Iron-gate when Khwāja Muḥ. `Alī[1329] met me, he coming by the _bāzār_ road from the opposite direction. He joined me ... of the porch of the Hot-bath (_ḥammām_)....[1330]

TRANSLATOR'S NOTE ON 914 TO 925 AH.—1508 TO 1519 AD.

From several references made in the _Bābur-nāma_ and from a passage in Gul-badan's _Humāyūn-nāma_ (f. 15), it is inferrible that Bābur was composing the annals of 914 AH. not long before his last illness and death.[1331]

Before the diary of 925 AH. (1519 AD.) takes up the broken thread of his autobiography, there is a _lacuna_ of narrative extending over nearly eleven years. The break was not intended, several references in the _Bābur-nāma_ shewing Bābur's purpose to describe events of the unchronicled years.[1332] Mr. Erskine, in the Leyden and Erskine _Memoirs_, carried Bābur's biography through the major _lacunæ_, but without firsthand help from the best sources, the _Habību's-siyar_ and _Tārīkh-i-rashīdī_. He had not the help of the first even in his _History of India_. M. de Courteille working as a translator only, made no attempt to fill the gaps.

Bābur's biography has yet to be completed; much time is demanded by the task, not only in order to exhaust known sources and seek others further afield, but to weigh and balance the contradictory statements of writers deep-sundered in sympathy and outlook. To strike such a balance is essential when dealing with the events of 914 to 920 AH. because in those years Bābur had part in an embittered conflict between Sunni and Shī`a. What I offer below, as a stop-gap, is a mere summary of events, mainly based on material not used by Mr. Erskine, with a few comments prompted by acquaintance with Bāburiana.

_USEFUL SOURCES_

Compared with what Bābur could have told of this most interesting period of his life, the yield of the sources is scant, a natural sequel from the fact that no one of them had his biography for its main theme, still less had his own action in crises of enforced ambiguity.

Of all known sources the best are Khwānd-amīr's _Ḥabību's-siyar_ and Ḥaidar Mīrzā _Dūghlāt's Tārīkh-i-rashīdī_. The first was finished nominally in 930 AH. (1524-5 AD.), seven years therefore before Bābur's death, but it received much addition of matter concerning Bābur after its author went to Hindūstān in 934 AH. (f. 339). Its fourth part, a life of Shāh Ismā`īl _Ṣafawī_ is especially valuable for the years of this _lacuna_. Ḥaidar's book was finished under Humāyūn in 953 AH. (1547 AD.), when its author had reigned five years in Kashmīr. It is the most valuable of all the sources for those interested in Bābur himself, both because of Ḥaidar's excellence as a biographer, and through his close acquaintance with Bābur's family. From his eleventh to his thirteenth year he lived under Bābur's protection, followed this by 19 years service under Sa`īd Khān, the cousin of both, in Kāshghar, and after that Khān's death, went to Bābur's sons Kāmrān and Humāyūn in Hindūstān.

A work issuing from a Sunnī Aūzbeg centre, Faẓl bin Ruzbahān _Isfahānī's Sūlūku'l-mulūk_, has a Preface of special value, as shewing one view of what it writes of as the spread of heresy in Māwarā'u'n-nahr through Bābur's invasions. The book itself is a Treatise on Musalmān Law, and was prepared by order of `Ubaidu'l-lāh Khān _Aūzbeg_ for his help in fulfilling a vow he had made, before attacking Bābur in 918 AH., at the shrine of Khwāja Aḥmad _Yasawī_ [in Haẓrat Turkistān], that, if he were victorious, he would conform exactly with the divine Law and uphold it in Māwarā'u'n-nahr (Rieu's Pers. Cat. ii, 448).

The _Tārīkh-i Ḥājī Muḥammad `Ārif Qandahārī_ appears, from the frequent use Firishta made of it, to be a useful source, both because its author was a native of Qandahār, a place much occupying Bābur's activities, and because he was a servant of Bairām Khān-i-khānān, whose assassination under Akbar he witnessed.[1333] Unfortunately, though his life of Akbar survives no copy is now known of the section of his General History which deals with Bābur's.

An early source is Yahya _Kazwīnī's Lubbu't-tawārīkh_, written in 948 AH. (1541 AD.), but brief only in the Bābur period. It issued from a Shī`a source, being commanded by Shāh Ismā`īl _Ṣafawī_'s son Bahrām.

Another work issuing also from a _Ṣafawī_ centre is Mīr Sikandar's _Tārīkh-i-`ālam-arāī_, a history of Shāh `Abbas I, with an introduction treating of his predecessors which was completed in 1025 AH. (1616 AD.). Its interest lies in its outlook on Bābur's dealings with Shāh Ismā`īl.

A later source, brief only, is Firishta's _Tārīkh-i-firishta_, finished under Jahāngīr in the first quarter of the 17th century.

Mr. Erskine makes frequent reference to Kh(w)āfī Khān's _Tārīkh_, a secondary authority however, written under Aurangzīb, mainly based on Firishta's work, and merely summarizing Bābur's period. References to detached incidents of the period are found in Shaikh `Abdu'l-qādir's _Tārīkh-i-badāyūnī_ and Mīr Ma`ṣūm's _Tārīkh-i-sind_.

_EVENTS OF THE UNCHRONICLED YEARS_

914 AH.-MAY 2ND 1508 TO APRIL 21ST 1509 AD.

The mutiny, of which an account begins in the text, was crushed by the victory of 500 loyalists over 3,000 rebels, one factor of success being Bābur's defeat in single combat of five champions of his adversaries.[1334] The disturbance was not of long duration; Kābul was tranquil in Sha`bān (November) when Sl. Sa`īd Khān _Chaghatāī_, then 21, arrived there seeking his cousin's protection, after defeat by his brother Manṣūr at Almātū, escape from death, commanded by Shaibānī, in Farghāna, a winter journey through Qarā-tīgīn to Mīrzā Khān in Qilā'-i-ẓafar, refusal of an offer to put him in that feeble Mīrzā's place, and so on to Kābul, where he came a destitute fugitive and enjoyed a freedom from care never known by him before (f. 200_b_; T.R. p. 226). The year was fatal to his family and to Ḥaidar's; in it Shaibānī murdered Sl. Maḥmūd Khān and his six sons, Muḥammad Ḥusain Mīrzā and other Dūghlāt sulṯāns.

915 AH.-APRIL 21ST 1509 TO APRIL 11TH 1510 AD.

In this year hostilities began between Shāh Ismā`īl _Ṣafawī_ and Muḥ. Shaibānī Khān _Aūzbeg_, news of which must have excited keen interest in Kābul.

In it occurred also what was in itself a minor matter of a child's safety, but became of historical importance, namely, the beginning of personal acquaintance between Bābur and his sympathetic biographer Ḥaidar Mīrzā _Dūghlāt_. Ḥaidar, like Sa`īd, came a fugitive to the protection of a kinsman; he was then eleven, had been saved by servants from the death commanded by Shaibānī, conveyed to Mīrzā Khān in Badakhshān, thence sent for by Bābur to the greater security of Kābul (f. 11; Index _s.n._; T.R. p. 227).

916 AH.-APRIL 11TH 1510 TO MARCH 31ST 1510 AD.

_a. News of the battle of Merv._

Over half of this year passed quietly in Kābul; Ramẓān (December) brought from Mīrzā Khān (Wāis) the stirring news that Ismā`īl had defeated Shaibānī near Merv.[1335] "It is not known," wrote the Mīrzā, "whether Shāhī Beg Khān has been killed or not. All the Aūzbegs have crossed the Amū. Amīr Aūrūs, who was in Qūndūz, has fled. About 20,000 Mughūls, who left the Aūzbeg at Merv, have come to Qūndūz. I have come there." He then invited Bābur to join him and with him to try for the recovery of their ancestral territories (T.R. p. 237).

_b. Bābur's campaign in Transoxiana begun._

The Mīrzā's letter was brought over passes blocked by snow; Bābur, with all possible speed, took the one winter-route through Āb-dara, kept the Ramẓān Feast in Bāmīān, and reached Qūndūz in Shawwāl (Jan. 1511 AD.). Ḥaidar's detail about the Feast seems likely to have been recorded because he had read Bābur's own remark, made in Ramẓān 933 AH. (June 1527) that up to that date, when he kept it in Sīkrī, he had not since his eleventh year kept it twice in the same place (f. 330).

_c. Mughūl affairs._

Outside Qūndūz lay the Mughūls mentioned by Mīrzā Khān as come from Merv and so mentioned, presumably, as a possible reinforcement. They had been servants of Bābur's uncles Maḥmūd and Aḥmad, and when Shaibānī defeated those Khāns at Akhsī in 908 AH., had been compelled by him to migrate into Khurāsān to places remote from Mughūlistān. Many of them had served in Kāshghar; none had served a Tīmūrid Mīrzā. Set free by Shaibānī's death, they had come east, a Khān-less 20,000 of armed and fully equipped men and they were there, as Ḥaidar says, in their strength while of Chaghatāīs there were not more than 5,000. They now, and with them the Mughūls from Kābul, used the opportunity offering for return to a more congenial location and leadership, by the presence in Qūndūz of a legitimate Khāqān and the clearance in Andijān, a threshold of Mughūlistān, of its Aūzbeg governors (f. 200_b_). The chiefs of both bodies of Mughūls, Sherīm Taghāī at the head of one, Ayūb _Begchīk_ of the other, proffered the Mughūl Khānship to Sa`īd with offer to set Bābur aside, perhaps to kill him. It is improbable that in making their offer they contemplated locating themselves in the confined country of Kābul; what they seem to have wished was what Bābur gave, Sa`īd for their Khāqān and permission to go north with him.

Sa`īd, in words worth reading, rejected their offer to injure Bābur, doing so on the grounds of right and gratitude, but, the two men agreeing that it was now expedient for them to part, asked to be sent to act for Bābur where their friendship could be maintained for their common welfare. The matter was settled by Bābur's sending him into Andijān in response to an urgent petition for help there just arrived from Ḥaidar's uncle. He "was made Khān" and started forth in the following year, on Ṣafar 14th 917 AH. (May 13th 1511 AD.); with him went most of the Mughūls but not all, since even of those from Merv, Ayūb _Begchīk_ and others are found mentioned on several later occasions as being with Bābur.

Bābur's phrase "I made him Khān" (f. 200_b_) recalls his earlier mention of what seems to be the same appointment (f. 10_b_), made by Abū-sa`īd of Yūnas as Khān of the Mughūls; in each case the meaning seems to be that the Tīmūrid Mīrzā made the Chaghatāī Khān Khāqān of the Mughūls.

_d. First attempt on Ḥiṣār._

After spending a short time in Qūndūz, Bābur moved for Ḥiṣār in which were the Aūzbeg sulṯāns Mahdī and Ḥamza. They came out into Wakhsh to meet him but, owing to an imbroglio, there was no encounter and each side retired (T.R. p. 238).

_e. Intercourse between Bābur and Ismā`īl Ṣafawī._

While Bābur was now in Qūndūz his sister Khān-zāda arrived there, safe-returned under escort of the Shāh's troops, after the death in the battle of Merv of her successive husbands Shaibānī and Sayyid Hādī, and with her came an envoy from Ismā`īl proffering friendship, civilities calculated to arouse a hope of Persian help in Bābur. To acknowledge his courtesies, Bābur sent Mīrzā Khān with thanks and gifts; Ḥaidar says that the Mīrzā also conveyed protestations of good faith and a request for military assistance. He was well received and his request for help was granted; that it was granted under hard conditions then stated later occurrences shew.

917 AH.-MARCH 31ST 1511 TO MARCH 19TH 1512 AD.

_a. Second attempt on Ḥiṣār._

In this year Bābur moved again on Ḥiṣār. He took post, where once his forbear Tīmūr had wrought out success against great odds, at the Pul-i-sangīn (Stone-bridge) on the Sūrkh-āb, and lay there a month awaiting reinforcement. The Aūzbeg sulṯāns faced him on the other side of the river, they too, presumably, awaiting reinforcement. They moved when they felt themselves strong enough to attack, whether by addition to their own numbers, whether by learning that Bābur had not largely increased his own. Concerning the second alternative it is open to surmise that he hoped for larger reinforcement than he obtained; he appears to have left Qūndūz before the return of Mīrzā Khān from his embassy to Ismā`īl, to have expected Persian reinforcement with the Mīrzā, and at Pul-i-sangīn, where the Mīrzā joined him in time to fight, to have been strengthened by the Mīrzā's own following, and few, if any, foreign auxiliaries. These surmises are supported by what Khwānd-amīr relates of the conditions [specified later] on which the Shāh's main contingent was despatched and by his shewing that it did not start until after the Shāh had had news of the battle at Pul-i-sangīn.

At the end of the month of waiting, the Aūzbegs one morning swam the Sūrkh-āb below the bridge; in the afternoon of the same day, Bābur retired to better ground amongst the mountain fastnesses of a local Āb-dara. In the desperate encounter which followed the Aūzbegs were utterly routed with great loss in men; they were pursued to Darband-i-ahanīn (Iron-gate) on the Ḥiṣār border, on their way to join a great force assembled at Qarshī under Kūchūm Khān, Shaibānī's successor as Aūzbeg Khāqān. The battle is admirably described by Ḥaidar, who was then a boy of 12 with keen eye watching his own first fight, and that fight with foes who had made him the last male survivor of his line. In the evening of the victory Mahdī, Ḥamza and Ḥamza's son Mamak were brought before Bābur who, says Ḥaidar, did to them what they had done to the Mughūl Khāqāns and Chaghatāī Sulṯāns, that is, he retaliated in blood for the blood of many kinsmen.

_b. Persian reinforcement._

After the battle Bābur went to near Ḥiṣār, was there joined by many local tribesmen, and, some time later, by a large body of Ismā`īl's troops under Aḥmad Beg _Ṣafawī_, `Alī Khān _Istiljū_ and Shāhrukh Sl. _Afshār_, Ismā`īl's seal-keeper. The following particulars, given by Khwānd-amīr, about the despatch of this contingent help to fix the order of occurrences, and throw light on the price paid by Bābur for his auxiliaries. He announced his victory over Mahdī and Ḥamza to the Shāh, and at the same time promised that if he reconquered the rest of Transoxiana by the Shāh's help, he would read his name in the _khuṯba_, stamp it on coins together with those of the Twelve Imāms, and work to destroy the power of the Aūzbegs. These undertakings look like a response to a demand; such conditions cannot have been proffered; their acceptance must have been compelled. Khwānd-amīr says that when Ismā`īl fully understood the purport of Bābur's letter, [by which would seem to be meant, when he knew that his conditions of help were accepted,] he despatched the troops under the three Commanders named above.

The Persian chiefs advised a move direct on Bukhārā and Samarkand; and with this Bābur's councillors concurred, they saying, according to Ḥaidar, that Bukhārā was then empty of troops and full of fools. `Ubaid Khān had thrown himself into Qarshī; it was settled not to attack him but to pass on and encamp a stage beyond the town. This was done; then scout followed scout, bringing news that he had come out of Qarshī and was hurrying to Bukhārā, his own fief. Instant and swift pursuit followed him up the 100 miles of caravan-road, into Bukhārā, and on beyond, sweeping him and his garrison, plundered as they fled, into the open land of Turkistān. Many sulṯāns had collected in Samarkand, some no doubt being, like Tīmūr its governor, fugitives escaped from Pul-i-sangīn. Dismayed by Bābur's second success, they scattered into Turkistān, thus leaving him an open road.

_c. Samarkand re-occupied and relations with Ismā`īl Ṣafawī._

He must now have hoped to be able to dispense with his dangerous colleagues, for he dismissed them when he reached Bukhārā, with gifts and thanks for their services. It is Ḥaidar, himself present, who fixes Bukhārā as the place of the dismissal (T.R. p. 246).

From Bukhārā Bābur went to Samarkand. It was mid-Rajab 917 AH. (October 1511 AD.), some ten months after leaving Kābul, and after 9 years of absence, that he re-entered the town, itself gay with decoration for his welcome, amidst the acclaim of its people.[1336]

Eight months were to prove his impotence to keep it against the forces ranged against him,—Aūzbeg strength in arms compacted by Sunnī zeal, Sunnī hatred of a Shī`a's suzerainty intensified by dread lest that potent Shī`a should resolve to perpetuate his dominance. Both as a Sunnī and as one who had not owned a suzerain, the position was unpleasant for Bābur. That his alliance with Ismā`īl was dangerous he will have known, as also that his risks grew as Transoxiana was over-spread by news of Ismā`īl's fanatical barbarism to pious and learned Sunnīs, notably in Herī. He manifested desire for release both now and later,—now when he not only dismissed his Persian helpers but so behaved to the Shāh's envoy Muḥammad Jān,—he was Najm S̤ānī's Lord of the Gate,—that the envoy felt neglect and made report of Bābur as arrogant, in opposition, and unwilling to fulfil his compact,—later when he eagerly attempted success unaided against `Ubaid Khān, and was then worsted. It illustrates the Shāh's view of his suzerain relation to Bābur that on hearing Muḥammad Jān's report, he ordered Najm S̤ānī to bring the offender to order.

Meantime the Shāh's conditions seem to have been carried out in Samarkand and Bābur's subservience clearly shewn.[1337] Of this there are the indications,—that Bābur had promised and was a man of his word; that Sunnī irritation against him waxed and did not wane as it might have done without food to nourish it; that Bābur knew himself impotent against the Aūzbegs unless he had foreign aid, expected attack, knew it was preparing; that he would hear of Muḥammad Jān's report and of Najm S̤ānī's commission against himself. Honesty, policy and necessity combined to enforce the fulfilment of his agreement. What were the precise terms of that agreement beyond the two as to the _khuṯba_ and the coins, it needs close study of the wording of the sources to decide, lest metaphor be taken for fact. Great passions,—ambition, religious fervour, sectarian bigotry and fear confronted him. His problem was greater than that of Henry of Navarre and of Napoleon in Egypt; they had but to seem what secured their acceptance; he had to put on a guise that brought him hate.

Khān-zāda was not the only member of Bābur's family who now rejoined him after marriage with an Aūzbeg. His half-sister Yādgār-sulṯān had fallen to the share of Ḥamza Sulṯān's son `Abdu'l-laṯīf in 908 AH. when Shaibānī defeated the Khāns near Akhsī. Now that her half-brother had defeated her husband's family, she returned to her own people (f. 9).

918 AH.-MARCH 19TH 1512 TO MARCH 9TH 1513 AD.

_a. Return of the Aūzbegs._

Emboldened by the departure of the Persian troops, the Aūzbegs, in the spring of the year, came out of Turkistān, their main attack being directed on Tāshkīnt, then held for Bābur.[1338] `Ubaid Khān moved for Bukhārā. He had prefaced his march by vowing that, if successful, he would thenceforth strictly observe Musalmān Law. The vow was made in Ḥaẓrat Turkistān at the shrine of Khwāja Aḥmad _Yasawī_, a saint revered in Central Asia through many centuries; he had died about 1120 AD.; Tīmūr had made pilgrimage to his tomb, in 1397 AD., and then had founded the mosque still dominating the town, still the pilgrim's land-mark.[1339] `Ubaid's vow, like Bābur's of 933 AH., was one of return to obedience. Both men took oath in the Ghāzī's mood, Bābur's set against the Hindū whom he saw as a heathen, `Ubaid's set against Bābur whom he saw as a heretic.

_b. Bābur's defeat at Kul-i-malik._

In Ṣafar (April-May) `Ubaid moved swiftly down and attacked the Bukhārā neighbourhood. Bābur went from Samarkand to meet him. Several details of what followed, not given by Ḥaidar and, in one particular, contradicting him, are given by Khwānd-amīr. The statement in which the two historians contradict one another is Ḥaidar's that `Ubaid had 3000 men only, Bābur 40,000. Several considerations give to Khwānd-amīr's opposed statement that Bābur's force was small, the semblance of being nearer the fact. Ḥaidar, it may be said, did not go out on this campaign; he was ill in Samarkand and continued ill there for some time; Khwānd-amīr's details have the well-informed air of things learned at first-hand, perhaps from some-one in Hindūstān after 934 AH.

Matters which make against Bābur's having a large effective force at Kul-i-malik, and favour Khwānd-amīr's statement about the affair are these:—`Ubaid must have formed some estimate of what he had to meet, and he brought 3000 men. Where could Bābur have obtained 40,000 men worth reckoning in a fight? In several times of crisis his own immediate and ever-faithful troop is put at 500; as his cause was now unpopular, local accretions may have been few. Some Mughūls from Merv and from Kābul were near Samarkand (T.R. pp. 263, 265); most were with Sa`īd in Andijān; but however many Mughūls may have been in his neighbourhood, none could be counted on as resolute for his success. If too, he had had more than a small effective force, would he not have tried to hold Samarkand with the remnant of defeat until Persian help arrived? All things considered, there is ground for accepting Khwānd-amīr's statement that Bābur met `Ubaid with a small force.

Following his account therefore:—Bābur in his excess of daring, marched to put the Aūzbeg down with a small force only, against the advice of the prudent, of whom Muḥammad Mazīd Tarkhān was one, who all said it was wrong to go out unprepared and without reinforcement. Paying them no attention, Bābur marched for Bukhārā, was rendered still more daring by news had when he neared it, that the enemy had retired some stages, and followed him up almost to his camp. `Ubaid was in great force; many Aūzbegs perished but, in the end, they were victors and Bābur was compelled to take refuge in Bukhārā. The encounter took place near Kul-i-malik (King's-lake) in Ṣafar 918 AH. (April-May 1512 AD.).

_c. Bābur leaves Samarkand._

It was not possible to maintain a footing in Samarkand; Bābur therefore collected his family and train[1340] and betook himself to Ḥiṣār. There went with him on this expedition Māhīm and her children Humāyūn, Mihr-jahān and Bārbūl,—the motherless Ma`ṣūma,—Gul-rukh with her son Kāmrān (Gulbadan f. 7). I have not found any account of his route; Ḥaidar gives no details about the journey; he did not travel with Bābur, being still invalided in Samarkand. Perhaps the absence of information is a sign that the Aūzbegs had not yet appeared on the direct road for Ḥiṣār. A local tradition however would make Bābur go round through Farghāna. He certainly might have gone into Farghāna hoping to co-operate with Sa`īd Khān; Tāshkīnt was still holding out under Aḥmad-i-qāsim _Kohbur_ and it is clear that all activity in Bābur's force had not been quenched because during the Tāshkīnt siege, Dost Beg broke through the enemy's ranks and made his way into the town. Sairām held out longer than Tāshkīnt. Of any such move by Bābur into Andijān the only hint received is given by what may be a mere legend.[1341]

_d. Bābur in Ḥiṣār._

After experiencing such gains and such losses, Bābur was still under 30 years of age.

The Aūzbegs, after his departure, re-occupied Bukhārā and Samarkand without harm done to the towns-people, and a few weeks later, in Jumāda I (July-August) followed him to Ḥiṣār. Meantime he with Mīrzā Khān's help, had so closed the streets of the town by massive earth-works that the sulṯāns were convinced its defenders were ready to spend the last drop of their blood in holding it, and therefore retired without attack.[1342] Some sources give as their reason for retirement that Bābur had been reinforced from Balkh; Bairām Beg, it is true, had sent a force but one of 300 men only; so few cannot have alarmed except as the harbinger of more. Greater precision as to dates would shew whether they can have heard of Najm S̤ānī's army advancing by way of Balkh.

_e. Qarshī and Ghaj-davān._

Meantime Najm S̤ānī, having with him some 11,000 men, had started on his corrective mission against Bābur. When he reached the Khurāsān frontier, he heard of the defeat at Kul-i-malik and the flight to Ḥiṣār, gathered other troops from Harāt and elsewhere, and advanced to Balkh. He stayed there for 20 days with Bairām Beg, perhaps occupied, in part, by communications with the Shāh and Bābur. From the latter repeated request for help is said to have come; help was given, some sources say without the Shāh's permission. A rendezvous was fixed, Najm S̤ānī marched to Tīrmīẕ, there crossed the Amū and in Rajab (Sep.-Oct.) encamped near the Darband-i-ahanīn. On Bābur's approach through the Chak-chaq pass, he paid him the civility of going several miles out from his camp to give him honouring reception.

Advancing thence for Bukhārā, the combined armies took Khuzār and moved on to Qarshī. This town Bābur wished to pass by, as it had been passed by on his previous march for Bukhārā; each time perhaps he wished to spare its people, formerly his subjects, whom he desired to rule again, and who are reputed to have been mostly his fellow Turks. Najm S̤ānī refused to pass on; he said Qarshī must be taken because it was `Ubaidu'l-lāh Khān's nest; in it was `Ubaid's uncle Shaikhīm Mīrzā; it was captured; the Aūzbeg garrison was put to the sword and, spite of Bābur's earnest entreaties, all the towns-people, 15,000 persons it is said, down to the "suckling and decrepit", were massacred. Amongst the victims was Banā'ī who happened to be within it. This action roused the utmost anger against Najm S̤ānī; it disgusted Bābur, not only through its merciless slaughter but because it made clear the disregard in which he was held by his magnificent fellow-general.

From murdered Qarshī Najm S̤ānī advanced for Bukhārā. On getting within a few miles of it, he heard that an Aūzbeg force was approaching under Tīmūr and Abū-sa`īd, presumably from Samarkand therefore. He sent Bairām Beg to attack them; they drew off to the north and threw themselves into Ghaj-davān, the combined armies following them. This move placed Najm S̤ānī across the Zar-afshān, on the border of the desert with which the Aūzbegs were familiar, and with `Ubaid on his flank in Bukhārā.

As to what followed the sources vary; they are brief; they differ less in statement of the same occurrence than in their choice of details to record; as Mr. Erskine observes their varying stories are not incompatible. Their widest difference is a statement of time but the two periods named, one a few days, the other four months, may not be meant to apply to the same event. Four months the siege is said to have lasted; this could not have been said if it had been a few days only. The siege seems to have been of some duration.

At first there were minor engagements, ending with varying success; provisions and provender became scarce; Najm S̤ānī's officers urged retirement, so too did Bābur. He would listen to none of them. At length `Ubaid Khān rode out from Bukhārā at the head of excellent troops; he joined the Ghaj-davān garrison and the united Aūzbegs posted themselves in the suburbs where walled lanes and gardens narrowed the field and lessened Najm S̤ānī's advantage in numbers. On Tuesday Ramẓān 3rd (Nov. 12th)[1343] a battle was fought in which his army was routed and he himself slain.

_f. Bābur and Yār-i-aḥmad Najm Sānī._

Some writers say that Najm S̤ānī's men did not fight well; it must be remembered that they may have been weakened by privation and that they had wished to retire. Of Bābur it is said that he, who was the reserve, did not fight at all; it is difficult to see good cause why, under all the circumstances, he should risk the loss of his men. It seems likely that Ḥaidar's strong language about this defeat would suit Bābur's temper also. "The victorious breezes of Islām overturned the banners of the schismatics.... Most of them perished on the field; the rents made by the sword at Qarshī were sewn up at Ghaj-davān by the arrow-stitches of vengeance. Najm S̤ānī and all the Turkmān amīrs were sent to hell."

The belief that Bābur had failed Najm S̤ānī persisted at the Persian Court, for his inaction was made a reproach to his son Humāyūn in 951 AH. (1544 AD.), when Humāyūn was a refugee with Ismā`īl's son T̤ahmāsp. Badāyūnī tells a story which, with great inaccuracy of name and place, represents the view taken at that time. The part of the anecdote pertinent here is that Bābur on the eve of the battle at Ghaj-davān, shot an arrow into the Aūzbeg camp which carried the following couplet, expressive of his ill-will to the Shāh and perhaps also of his rejection of the Shī`a guise he himself had worn.

I made the Shāh's Najm road-stuff for the Aūzbegs;
If fault has been mine, I have now cleansed the road.[1344]

_g. The Mughūls attack Bābur._

On his second return to Ḥiṣār Bābur was subjected to great danger by a sudden attack made upon him by the Mughūls where he lay at night in his camp outside the town. Firishta says, but without particulars of their offence, that Bābur had reproached them for their misconduct; the absence of detail connecting the affair with the defeat just sustained, leads to the supposition that their misdeeds were a part of the tyranny over the country-people punished later by `Ubaidu'l-lāh Khān. Roused from his sleep by the noise of his guards' resistance to the Mughūl attack, Bābur escaped with difficulty and without a single attendant[1345] into the fort. The conspirators plundered his camp and withdrew to Qarā-tīgīn. He was in no position to oppose them, left a few men in Ḥiṣār and went to Mīrzā Khān in Qūndūz.

After he left, Ḥiṣār endured a desolating famine, a phenomenal snowfall and the ravages of the Mughūls. `Ubaid Khān avenged Bābur on the horde; hearing of their excesses, he encamped outside the position they had taken up in Wakhsh defended by river, hills and snow, waited till a road thawed, then fell upon them and avenged the year's misery they had inflicted on the Ḥiṣārīs. Ḥaidar says of them that it was their villainy lost Ḥiṣār to Bābur and gained it for the Aūzbeg.[1346]

These Mughūls had for chiefs men who when Sa`īd went to Andijān, elected to stay with Bābur. One of the three named by Ḥaidar was Ayūb _Begchīk_. He repented his disloyalty; when he lay dying some two years later (920 AH.) in Yāngī-ḥiṣār, he told Sa`īd Khān who visited him, that what was "lacerating his bowels and killing him with remorse", was his faithlessness to Bābur in Ḥiṣār, the oath he had broken at the instigation of those "hogs and bears", the Mughūl chiefs (T.R. p. 315).

In this year but before the Mughūl treachery to Bābur, Ḥaidar left him, starting in Rajab (Sep.-Oct.) to Sa`id in Andijān and thus making a beginning of his 19 years spell of service.

919 AH.-MARCH 9TH 1513 TO FEB. 26TH 1514 AD.

Bābur may have spent this year in Khishm (Ḥ.S. iii, 372). During two or three months of it, he had one of the Shāh's retainers in his service, Khwāja Kamālu'd-dīn Maḥmūd, who had fled from Ghaj-davān to Balkh, heard there that the Balkhīs favoured an Aūzbeg chief whose coming was announced, and therefore went to Bābur. In Jumāda 11 (August), hearing that the Aūzbeg sultan had left Balkh, he returned there but was not admitted because the Balkhīs feared reprisals for their welcome to the Aūzbeg, a fear which may indicate that he had taken some considerable reinforcement to Bābur. He went on into Khurāsān and was there killed; Balkh was recaptured for the Shāh by Deo Sulṯān, a removal from Aūzbeg possession which helps to explain how Bābur came to be there in 923 AH.

920 AH.—FEB. 26TH 1514 TO FEB. 15TH 1515 AD.

Ḥaidar writes of Bābur as though he were in Qūndūz this year (TR. p. 263), says that he suffered the greatest misery and want, bore it with his accustomed courtesy and patience but, at last, despairing of success in recovering Ḥiṣār, went back to Kābul. Now it seems to be that he made the stay in Khwāst to which he refers later (f. 241_b_) and during which his daughter Gul-rang was born, as Gul-badan's chronicle allows known.

It was at the end of the year, after the privation of winter therefore, that he reached Kābul. When he re-occupied Samarkand in 917 AH., he had given Kābul to his half-brother Nāṣir Mīrzā; the Mīrzā received him now with warm welcome and protestations of devotion and respect, spoke of having guarded Kābul for him and asked permission to return to his own old fief Ghaznī. His behaviour made a deep impression on Bābur; it would be felt as a humane touch on the sore of failure.

921 AH.—FEB. 15TH 1515 TO FEB. 5TH 1516 AD.

_a. Rebellion of chiefs in Ghaznī._

Nāṣir Mīrzā died shortly after (_dar hamān ayyām_) his return to Ghaznī. Disputes then arose amongst the various commanders who were in Ghaznī; Sherīm T̤aghāī was one of them and the main strength of the tumult was given by the Mughūls. Many others were however involved in it, even such an old servant as Bābā of Pashāghar taking part (f. 234_b_; T.R. p. 356). Ḥaidar did not know precisely the cause of the dispute, or shew why it should have turned against Bābur, since he attributes it to possession taken by Satan of the brains of the chiefs and a consequent access of vain-glory and wickedness. Possibly some question of succession to Nāṣir arose. Dost Beg distinguished himself in the regular battle which ensued; Qāsim Beg's son Qaṃbar-i-`alī hurried down from Qūndūz and also did his good part to win it for Bābur. Many of the rioters were killed, others fled to Kāshghar. Sherīm T̤aghāī was one of the latter; as Sa`īd Khān gave him no welcome, he could not stay there; he fell back on the much injured Bābur who, says Ḥaidar, showed him his usual benevolence, turned his eyes from his offences and looked only at his past services until he died shortly afterwards (T.R. p. 357).[1347]

922 AH.—FEB. 5TH 1516 TO JAN. 24TH 1517 AD.

This year may have been spent in and near Kābul in the quiet promoted by the dispersion of the Mughūls.

In this year was born Bābur's son Muḥammad known as _`Askarī_from his being born in camp. He was the son of Gulrukh _Begchīk_ and full-brother of Kāmrān.

923 AH.—JAN. 24TH 1517 TO JAN. 13TH 1518 AD.

_a. Bābur visits Balkh._

Khwānd-amīr is the authority for the little that is known of Bābur's action in this year (Ḥ.S. iii, 367 _et seq._). It is connected with the doings of Badī`u'z-zamān _Bāī-qarā's_ son Muḥammad-i-zamān. This Mīrzā had had great wanderings, during a part of which Khwānd-amīr was with him. In 920 AH. he was in Shāh Ismā`īl's service and in Balkh, but was not able to keep it. Bābur invited him to Kābul,—the date of invitation will have been later therefore than Bābur's return there at the end of 920 AH. The Mīrzā was on his way but was dissuaded from going into Kābul by Mahdī Khwāja and went instead into Ghurjistān. Bābur was angered by his non-arrival and pursued him in order to punish him but did not succeed in reaching Ghurjistān and went back to Kābul by way of Fīrūz-koh and Ghūr. The Mīrzā was captured eventually and sent to Kābul. Bābur treated him with kindness, after a few months gave him his daughter Ma`ṣūma in marriage, and sent him to Balkh. He appears to have been still in Balkh when Khwānd-amīr was writing of the above occurrences in 929 AH. The marriage took place either at the end of 923 or beginning of 924 AH. The Mīrzā was then 21, Ma`ṣūma 9; she almost certainly did not then go to Balkh. At some time in 923 AH. Bābur is said by Khwānd-amīr to have visited that town.[1348]

_b. Attempt on Qandahār._

In this year Bābur marched for Qandahār but the move ended peacefully, because a way was opened for gifts and terms by an illness which befell him when he was near the town.

The _Tārīkh-i-sind_ gives what purports to be Shāh Beg's explanation of Bābur's repeated attempts on Qandahār. He said these had been made and would be made because Bābur had not forgiven Muqīm for taking Kābul 14 years earlier from the Tīmūrid `Abdu'r-razzāq; that this had brought him to Qandahār in 913 AH., this had made him then take away Māhchuchak, Muqīm's daughter; that there were now (923 AH.) many unemployed Mīrzās in Kābul for whom posts could not be found in regions where the Persians and Aūzbegs were dominant; that an outlet for their ambitions and for Bābur's own would be sought against the weaker opponent he himself was.

Bābur's decision to attack in this year is said to have been taken while Shāh Beg was still a prisoner of Shāh Ismā`īl in the Harāt country; he must have been released meantime by the admirable patience of his slave Saṃbhal.

924 AH.—JAN. 13TH 1518 TO JAN. 3RD 1519 AD.

In this year Shāh Beg's son Shāh Ḥasan came to Bābur after quarrel with his father. He stayed some two years, and during that time was married to Khalīfa's daughter Gul-barg (Rose-leaf). His return to Qandahār will have taken place shortly before Bābur's campaign of 926 A.H. against it, a renewed effort which resulted in possession on Shawwāl 13th 928 AH. (Sep. 6th 1522 AD.).[1349]

In this year began the campaign in the north-east territories of Kābul, an account of which is carried on in the diary of 925 AH. It would seem that in the present year Chaghān-sarāī was captured, and also the fortress at the head of the valley of Bābā-qarā, belonging to Ḥaidar-i-`alī _Bajaurī_ (f. 216_b_).[1350]

925 AH.-JAN. 3RD TO DEC. 23RD 1519 AD.[1351]

(_a. Bābur takes the fort of Bajaur._)

(_Jan. 3rd_) On Monday[1352] the first day of the month of Muḥarram, there was a violent earthquake in the lower part of the dale (_julga_) of Chandāwal,[1353] which lasted nearly half an astronomical hour.

(_Jan. 4th_) Marching at dawn from that camp with the intention of attacking the fort of Bajaur,[1354] we dismounted near it and sent a trusty man of the Dilazāk[1355] Afghāns to advise its sulṯān[1356] and people to take up a position of service (_qullūq_) and surrender the fort. Not accepting this counsel, that stupid and ill-fated band sent back a wild answer, where-upon the army was ordered to make ready mantelets, ladders and other appliances for taking a fort. For this purpose a day's (_Jan. 5th_) halt was made on that same ground.

(_Jan. 6th_) On Thursday the 4th of Muḥarram, orders were given that the army should put on mail, arm and get to horse;[1357] that the left wing should move swiftly to the upper side of the fort, cross the water at the water-entry,[1358] and dismount on the [Sidenote: Fol. 217.] north side of the fort; that the centre, not taking the way across the water, should dismount in the rough, up-and-down land to the north-west of the fort; and that the right should dismount to the west of the lower gate. While the begs of the left under Dost Beg were dismounting, after crossing the water, a hundred to a hundred and fifty men on foot came out of the fort, shooting arrows. The begs, shooting in their turn, advanced till they had forced those men back to the foot of the ramparts, Mullā `Abdu'l-malūk of Khwāst, like a madman,[1359] going up right under them on his horse. There and then the fort would have been taken if the ladders and mantelets had been ready, and if it had not been so late in the day. Mullā Tirik-i-`alī[1360] and a servant of Tīngrī-bīrdī crossed swords with the enemy; each overcame his man, cut off and brought in his head; for this each was promised a reward.