Chapter XXVI: Section II: Kābul666 (9)

(_Jan. 23rd_) Next day (Ṣafar 2nd) Ḥamza Khān, Malik of `Alī-shang was made over to the avengers-of-blood[1543] for his evil deeds in shedding innocent blood, and retaliation was made.

(_Jan. 24th_) On Tuesday, after reading a chapter of the Qorān [Sidenote: Fol. 251b.] (_wird_), we turned for Kābul by the Yān-būlāgh road. At the Other Prayer, we passed the [Bārān]-water from Aūlūgh-nūr (Great-rock); reached Qarā-tū by the Evening Prayer, there gave our horses corn and had a hasty meal prepared, rode on again as soon as they had finished their barley.[1544]

TRANSLATOR'S NOTE ON 926 TO 932 AH.-1520 TO 1525 AD.

Bābur's diary breaks off here for five years and ten months.[1545] His activities during the unrecorded period may well have left no time in which to keep one up, for in it he went thrice to Qandahār, thrice into India, once to Badakhshān, once to Balkh; twice at least he punished refractory tribesmen; he received embassies from Hindūstān, and must have had much to oversee in muster and equipment for his numerous expeditions. Over and above this, he produced the _Mubīn_, a Turkī poem of 2000 lines.

That the gap in his autobiography is not intentional several passages in his writings show;[1546] he meant to fill it; there is no evidence that he ever did so; the reasonable explanation of his failure is that he died before he had reached this part of his book.

The events of these unrecorded years are less interesting than those of the preceding gap, inasmuch as their drama of human passion is simpler; it is one mainly of cross-currents of ambition, nothing in it matching the maelstrom of sectarian hate, tribal antipathy, and racial struggle which engulphed Bābur's fortunes beyond the Oxus.

None-the-less the period has its distinctive mark, the biographical one set by his personality as his long-sustained effort works out towards rule in Hindūstān. He becomes felt; his surroundings bend to his purpose; his composite following accepts his goal; he gains the southern key of Kābul and Hindūstān and presses the Arghūns out from his rear; in the Panj-āb he becomes a power; the Rājpūt Rānā of Chitor proffers him alliance against Ibrāhīm; and his intervention is sought in those warrings of the Afghāns which were the matrix of his own success.

_a. Dramatis personae._

The following men played principal parts in the events of the unchronicled years:—

Bābur in Kābul, Badakhshān and Balkh,[1547] his earlier following purged of Mughūl rebellion, and augmented by the various Mīrzās-in-exile in whose need of employment Shāh Beg saw Bābur's need of wider territory.[1548]

Sulṯān Ibrāhīm _Lūdī_ who had succeeded after his father Sikandar's death (Sunday Ẕū'l-qa`da 7th 923 _AH._-Nov. 21st 1517 AD.)[1549], was now embroiled in civil war, and hated for his tyranny and cruelty.

Shāh Ismā`īl _Ṣafawī_, ruling down to Rajab 19th 930 AH. (May 24th 1524 AD.) and then succeeded by his son T̤ahmāsp _aet._ 10.

Kūchūm (Kūchkūnjī) Khān, Khāqān of the Aūzbegs, Shaibānī's successor, now in possession of Transoxiana.

Sulṯān Sa`īd Khān _Chaghatāī_, with head-quarters in Kāshghar, a ruler amongst the Mughūls but not their Khāqān, the supreme Khānship being his elder brother Manṣūr's.

Shāh Shujā' Beg _Arghūn_, who, during the period, at various times held Qandahār, Shāl, Mustang, Sīwīstān, and part of Sind. He died in 930 AH. (1524 AD.) and was succeeded by his son Ḥasan who read the _khuṯba_ for Bābur.

Khān Mīrzā _Mīrānshāhī_, who held Badakhshān from Bābur, with head-quarters in Qūndūz; he died in 927 AH. (1520 AD.) and was succeeded in his appointment by Humāyūn _aet._ 13.

Muḥammad-i-zamān _Bāī-qarā_ who held Balkh perhaps direct from Bābur, perhaps from Ismā`īl through Bābur.

`Alā'u'd-dīn `Ālam Khān _Lūdī_, brother of the late Sulṯān Sikandar _Lūdī_ and now desiring to supersede his nephew Ibrāhīm.

Daulat Khān _Yūsuf-khail_ (as Bābur uniformly describes him), or _Lūdī_ (as other writers do), holding Lāhor for Ibrāhīm _Lūdī_ at the beginning of the period.

_SOURCES FOR THE EVENTS OF THIS GAP_

A complete history of the events the _Bābur-nāma_ leaves unrecorded has yet to be written. The best existing one, whether Oriental or European, is Erskine's _History of India_, but this does not exhaust the sources—notably not using the _Ḥabību's-siyar_—and could be revised here and there with advantage.

Most of the sources enumerated as useful for filling the previous gap are so here; to them must be added, for the affairs of Qandahār, Khwānd-amīr's _Ḥabību's-siyar_. This Mīr Ma`ṣūm's _Tārīkh-i-sind_ supplements usefully, but its brevity and its discrepant dates make it demand adjustment; in some details it is expanded by Sayyid Jamāl's _Tarkhān-_ or _Arghūn-nāma_.

For the affairs of Hindūstān the main sources are enumerated in Elliot and Dowson's _History of India_ and in Nassau Lees' _Materials for the history of India_. Doubtless all will be exhausted for the coming _Cambridge History of India_.

_EVENTS OF THE UNCHRONICLED YEARS_

926 AH.-DEC. 23RD 1519 TO DEC. 12TH 1520 AD.

The question of which were Bābur's "Five expeditions" into Hindūstān has been often discussed; it is useful therefore to establish the dates of those known as made. I have entered one as made in this year for the following reasons;—it broke short because Shāh Beg made incursion into Bābur's territories, and that incursion was followed by a siege of Qandahār which several matters mentioned below show to have taken place in 926 AH.

_a. Expedition into Hindūstān._

The march out from Kābul may have been as soon as muster and equipment allowed after the return from Lamghān chronicled in the diary. It was made through Bajaur where refractory tribesmen were brought to order. The Indus will have been forded at the usual place where, until the last one of 932 AH. (1525 AD.), all expeditions crossed on the outward march. Bhīra was traversed in which were Bābur's own Commanders, and advance was made, beyond lands yet occupied, to Sīālkot, 72 miles north of Lāhor and in the Rechna _dū-āb_. It was occupied without resistance; and a further move made to what the MSS. call Sayyidpūr; this attempted defence, was taken by assault and put to the sword. No place named Sayyidpūr is given in the Gazetteer of India, but the _Āyīn-i-akbarī_ mentions a Sidhpūr which from its neighbourhood to Sīālkot may be what Bābur took.

Nothing indicates an intention in Bābur to join battle with Ibrāhīm at this time; Lāhor may have been his objective, after he had made a demonstration in force to strengthen his footing in Bhīra. Whatever he may have planned to do beyond Sidhpūr(?) was frustrated by the news which took him back to Kābul and thence to Qandahār, that an incursion into his territory had been made by Shāh Beg.

_b. Shāh Shujā` Beg's position._

Shāh Beg was now holding Qandahār, Shāl, Mustang and Sīwīstān.[1550] He knew that he held Qandahār by uncertain tenure, in face of its desirability for Bābur and his own lesser power. His ground was further weakened by its usefulness for operations on Harāt and the presence with Bābur of Bāī-qarā refugees, ready to seize a chance, if offered by Ismā`īl's waning fortunes, for recovery of their former seat. Knowing his weakness, he for several years had been pushing his way out into Sind by way of the Bolān-pass.

His relations with Bābur were ostensibly good; he had sent him envoys twice last year, the first time to announce a success at Kāhān had in the end of 924 AH. (Nov. 1519 AD.). His son Ḥasan however, with whom he was unreconciled, had been for more than a year in Bābur's company,—a matter not unlikely to stir under-currents of unfriendliness on either side.

His relations with Shāh Ismā`īl were deferential, in appearance even vassal-like, as is shewn by Khwānd-amīr's account of his appeal for intervention against Bābur to the Shāh's officers in Harāt. Whether he read the _khuṯba_ for any suzerain is doubtful; his son Ḥasan, it may be said, read it later on for Bābur.

_c. The impelling cause of this siege of Qandahār._

Precisely what Shāh Beg did to bring Bābur back from the Panj-āb and down upon Qandahār is not found mentioned by any source. It seems likely to have been an affair of subordinates instigated by or for him. Its immediate agents may have been the Nīkdīrī (Nūkdīrī) and Hazāra tribes Bābur punished on his way south. Their location was the western border-land; they may have descended on the Great North Road or have raided for food in that famine year. It seems certain that Shāh Beg made no serious attempt on Kābul; he was too much occupied in Sind to allow him to do so. Some unused source may throw light on the matter incidentally; the offence may have been small in itself and yet sufficient to determine Bābur to remove risk from his rear.[1551]

_d. Qandahār._

The Qandahār of Bābur's sieges was difficult of capture; he had not taken it in 913 AH. (f. 208_b_) by siege or assault, but by default after one day's fight in the open. The strength of its position can be judged from the following account of its ruins as they were seen in 1879 AD., the military details of which supplement Bellew's description quoted in Appendix J.

The fortifications are of great extent with a treble line of bastioned walls and a high citadel in the centre. The place is in complete ruin and its locality now useful only as a grazing ground.... "The town is in three parts, each on a separate eminence, and capable of mutual defence. The mountain had been covered with towers united by curtains, and the one on the culminating point may be called impregnable. It commanded the citadel which stood lower down on the second eminence, and this in turn commanded the town which was on a table-land elevated above the plain. The triple walls surrounding the city were at a considerable distance from it. After exploring the citadel and ruins, we mounted by the gorge to the summit of the hill with the impregnable fort. In this gorge are the ruins of two tanks, some 80 feet square, all destroyed, with the pillars fallen; the work is _pukka_ in brick and _chunām_ (cement) and each tank had been domed in; they would have held about 400,000 gallons each." (Le Messurier's _Kandahar in 1879 AD._ pp. 223, 245.)

_e. Bābur's sieges of Qandahār._

The term of five years is found associated with Bābur's sieges of Qandahār, sometimes suggesting a single attempt of five years' duration. This it is easy to show incorrect; its root may be Mīr Ma`ṣūm's erroneous chronology.

The day on which the keys of Qandahār were made over to Bābur is known, from the famous inscription which commemorates the event (Appendix J), as Shawwāl 13th 928 AH. Working backwards from this, it is known that in 927 AH. terms of surrender were made and that Bābur went back to Kābul; he is besieging it in 926 AH.—the year under description; his annals of 925 AH. are complete and contain no siege; the year 924 AH. appears to have had no siege, Shāh Beg was on the Indus and his son was for at least part of it with Bābur; 923 AH. was a year of intended siege, frustrated by Bābur's own illness; of any siege in 922 AH. there is as yet no record known. So that it is certain there was no unremitted beleaguerment through five years.

_f. The siege of 926 AH. (1520 AD.)._

When Bābur sat down to lay regular siege to Qandahār, with mining and battering of the walls,[1552] famine was desolating the country round. The garrison was reduced to great distress; "pestilence," ever an ally of Qandahār, broke out within the walls, spread to Bābur's camp, and in the month of Tīr (June) led him to return to Kābul.

In the succeeding months of respite, Shāh Beg pushed on in Sind and his former slave, now commander, Mehtar Saṃbhal revictualled the town.

927 AH.—DEC. 12TH 1520 TO DEC. 1ST 1521 AD.

_a. The manuscript sources._

Two accounts of the sieges of Qandahār in this and next year are available, one in Khwānd-amīr's _Ḥabību's-siyar_, the other in Ma`ṣūm _Bhakkarī's Tārīkh-i-sind_. As they have important differences, it is necessary to consider the opportunities of their authors for information.

Khwānd-amīr finished his history in 1524-29 AD. His account of these affairs of Qandahār is contemporary; he was in close touch with several of the actors in them and may have been in Harāt through their course; one of his patrons, Amīr Ghiyāṣu'd-dīn, was put to death in this year in Harāt because of suspicion that he was an ally of Bābur; his nephew, another Ghiyāṣu'd-dīn was in Qandahār, the bearer next year of its keys to Bābur; moreover he was with Bābur himself a few years later in Hindūstān.

Mīr Ma`ṣūm wrote in 1600 AD. 70 to 75 years after Khwānd-amīr. Of these sieges he tells what may have been traditional and mentions no manuscript authorities. Blochmann's biography of him (_Āyīn-i-akbarī_ p. 514) shews his ample opportunity of learning orally what had happened in the Arghūn invasion of Sind, but does not mention the opportunity for hearing traditions about Qandahār which his term of office there allowed him. During that term it was that he added an inscription, commemorative of Akbar's dominion, to Bābur's own at Chihil-zīna, which records the date of the capture of Qandahār (928 AH.-1522 AD.).

_b. The Ḥabību's-siyar account_ (lith. ed. iii, part 4, p. 97).

Khwānd-amīr's contemporary narrative allows Ma`ṣūm's to dovetail into it as to some matters, but contradicts it in the important ones of date, and mode of surrender by Shāh Beg to Bābur. It states that Bābur was resolved in 926 AH. (1520 AD.) to uproot Shāh Shujā` Beg from Qandahār, led an army against the place, and "opened the Gates of war". It gives no account of the siege of 926 AH. but passes on to the occurrences of 927 AH. (1521 AD.) when Shāh Beg, unable to meet Bābur in the field, shut himself up in the town and strengthened the defences. Bābur put his utmost pressure on the besieged, "often riding his piebald horse close to the moat and urging his men to fiery onset." The garrison resisted manfully, breaching the "life-fortresses" of the Kābulīs with sword, arrow, spear and death-dealing stone, but Bābur's heroes were most often victorious, and drove their assailants back through the Gates.

_c. Death of Khān Mīrzā reported to Bābur._

Meantime, continues Khwānd-amīr, Khān Mīrzā had died in Badakhshān; the news was brought to Bābur and caused him great grief; he appointed Humāyūn to succeed the Mīrzā while he himself prosecuted the siege of Qandahār and the conquest of the Garm-sīr.[1553]

_d. Negociations with Bābur._

The Governor of Harāt at this time was Shāh Ismā`īl's son T̤ahmāsp, between six and seven years old. His guardian Amīr Khān took chief part in the diplomatic intervention with Bābur, but associated with him was Amīr Ghiyāṣu'd-dīn—the patron of Khwānd-amīr already mentioned—until put to death as an ally of Bābur. The discussion had with Bābur reveals a complexity of motives demanding attention. Nominally undertaken though intervention was on behalf of Shāh Beg, and certainly so at his request, the Persian officers seem to have been less anxious on his account than for their own position in Khurāsān, their master's position at the time being weakened by ill-success against the Sulṯān of Rūm. To Bābur, Shāh Beg is written of as though he were an insubordinate vassal whom Bābur was reducing to order for the Shāh, but when Amīr Khān heard that Shāh Beg was hard pressed, he was much distressed because he feared a victorious Bābur might move on Khurāsān. Nothing indicates however that Bābur had Khurāsān in his thoughts; Hindūstān was his objective, and Qandahār a help on the way; but as Amīr Khān had this fear about him, a probable ground for it is provided by the presence with Bābur of Bāī-qarā exiles whose ambition it must have been to recover their former seat. Whether for Harāt, Kābul, or Hindūstān, Qandahār was strength. Another matter not fitting the avowed purpose of the diplomatic intervention is the death of Ghiyāṣu'd-dīn because an ally of Bābur; this makes Amīr Khān seem to count Bābur as Ismā`īl's enemy.

Shāh Beg's requests for intervention began in 926 AH. (1520 AD.), as also did the remonstrance of the Persian officers with Bābur; his couriers followed one another with entreaty that the Amīrs would contrive for Bābur to retire, with promise of obeisance and of yearly tribute. The Amīrs set forth to Bābur that though Shāh Shujā` Beg had offended and had been deserving of wrath and chastisement, yet, as he was penitent and had promised loyalty and tribute, it was now proper for Bābur to raise the siege (of 926 AH.) and go back to Kābul. To this Bābur answered that Shāh Beg's promise was a vain thing, on which no reliance could be placed; please God!, said he, he himself would take Qandahār and send Shāh Beg a prisoner to Harāt; and that he should be ready then to give the keys of the town and the possession of the Garm-sīr to any-one appointed to receive them.

This correspondence suits an assumption that Bābur acted for Shāh Ismā`īl, a diplomatic assumption merely, the verbal veil, on one side, for anxiety lest Bābur or those with him should attack Harāt,—on the other, for Bābur's resolve to hold Qandahār himself.

Amīr Khān was not satisfied with Bābur's answer, but had his attention distracted by another matter, presumably `Ubaidu'l-lāh Khān's attack on Harāt in the spring of the year (March-April 1521 AD.). Negociations appear to have been resumed later, since Khwānd-amīr claims it as their result that Bābur left Qandahār this year.

_e. The Tārīkh-i-sind account._

Mīr Ma`ṣūm is very brief; he says that in this year (his 922 AH.), Bābur went down to Qandahār before the year's tribute in grain had been collected, destroyed the standing crops, encompassed the town, and reduced it to extremity; that Shāh Beg, wearied under reiterated attack and pre-occupied by operations in Sind, proposed terms, and that these were made with stipulation for the town to be his during one year more and then to be given over to Bābur. These terms settled, Bābur went to Kābul, Shāh Beg to Sīwī.

The Arghūn families were removed to Shāl and Sīwī, so that the year's delay may have been an accommodation allowed for this purpose.

_f. Concerning dates._

There is much discrepancy between the dates of the two historians. Khwānd-amīr's agree with the few fixed ones of the period and with the course of events; several of Ma`ṣūm's, on the contrary, are _seriatim_ five (lunar) years earlier. For instance, events Khwānd-amīr places under 927 AH. Ma`ṣūm places under 922 AH. Again, while Ma`ṣūm correctly gives 913 AH. (1507 AD.) as the year of Bābur's first capture of Qandahār, he sets up a discrepant series later, from the success Shāh Beg had at Kāhān; this he allots to 921 AH. (1515 AD.) whereas Bābur received news of it (f. 233_b_) in the beginning of 925 AH. (1519 AD.). Again, Ma`ṣūm makes Shāh Ḥasan go to Bābur in 921 AH. and stay two years; but Ḥasan spent the whole of 925 AH. with Bābur and is not mentioned as having left before the second month of 926 AH. Again, Ma`ṣūm makes Shāh Beg surrender the keys of Qandahār in 923 AH. (1517 AD.), but 928 AH. (1522 AD.) is shewn by Khwānd-amīr's dates and narrative, and is inscribed at Chihil-zīna.[1554]

928 AH.-DEC. 1ST 1521 TO NOV. 20TH 1522 AD.

_a. Bābur visits Badakhshān._

Either early in this year or late in the previous one, Bābur and Māhīm went to visit Humāyūn in his government, probably to Faizābād, and stayed with him what Gul-badan calls a few days.

_b. Expedition to Qandahār._

This year saw the end of the duel for possession of Qandahār. Khwānd-amīr's account of its surrender differs widely from Ma`ṣūm's. It claims that Bābur's retirement in 927 AH. was due to the remonstrances from Harāt, and that Shāh Beg, worn out by the siege, relied on the arrangement the Amīrs had made with Bābur and went to Sīwī, leaving one `Abdu'l-bāqī in charge of the place. This man, says Khwānd-amīr, drew the line of obliteration over his duty to his master, sent to Bābur, brought him down to Qandahār, and gave him the keys of the town—by the hand of Khwānd-amīr's nephew Ghiyāṣu'd-dīn, specifies the _Tarkhān-nāma_. In this year messengers had come and gone between Bābur and Harāt; two men employed by Amīr Khān are mentioned by name; of them the last had not returned to Harāt when a courier of Bābur's, bringing a tributary gift, announced there that the town was in his master's hands. Khwānd-amīr thus fixes the year 928 AH. as that in which the town passed into Bābur's hands; this date is confirmed by the one inscribed in the monument of victory at Chihil-zīna which Bābur ordered excavated on the naze of the limestone ridge behind the town. The date there given is Shawwāl 13th 928 AH. (Sep. 6th 1522 AD.).

Ma`ṣūm's account, dated 923 AH. (1517 AD.), is of the briefest:—Shāh Beg fulfilled his promise, much to Bābur's approval, by sending him the keys of the town and royal residence.

Although Khwānd-amīr's account has good claim to be accepted, it must be admitted that several circumstances can be taken to show that Shāh Beg had abandoned Qandahār, _e.g._ the removal of the families after Bābur's retirement last year, and his own absence in a remote part of Sind this year.

_c. The year of Shāh Beg's death._

Of several variant years assigned for the death of Shāh Beg in the sources, two only need consideration.[1555] There is consensus of opinion about the month and close agreement about the day, Sha`bān 22nd or 23rd. Ma`ṣūm gives a chronogram, _Shahr-Sha`bān_, (month of Sha`bān) which yields 928, but he does not mention where he obtained it, nor does anything in his narrative shew what has fixed the day of the month.

Two objections to 928 are patent: (1) the doubt engendered by Ma`ṣūm's earlier ante-dating; (2) that if 928 be right, Shāh Beg was already dead over two months when Qandahār was surrendered. This he might have been according to Khwānd-amīr's narrative, but if he died on Sha`bān 22nd 928 (July 26th 1522), there was time for the news to have reached Qandahār, and to have gone on to Harāt before the surrender. Shāh Beg's death at that time could not have failed to be associated in Khwānd-amīr's narrative with the fate of Qandahār; it might have pleaded some excuse with him for `Abdu'l-bāqī, who might even have had orders from Shāh Ḥasan to make the town over to Bābur whose suzerainty he had acknowledged at once on succession by reading the _khuṯba_ in his name. Khwānd-amīr however does not mention what would have been a salient point in the events of the siege; his silence cannot but weigh against the 928 AH.

The year 930 AH. is given by Niẕāmu'd-dīn Aḥmad's _T̤abaqāt-i-akbarī_ (lith. ed. p. 637), and this year has been adopted by Erskine, Beale, and Ney Elias, perhaps by others. Some light on the matter may be obtained incidentally as the sources are examined for a complete history of India, perhaps coming from the affairs of Multān, which was attacked by Shāh Ḥasan after communication with Bābur.

_d. Bābur's literary work in 928 AH. and earlier._

1. The _Mubīn_. This year, as is known from a chronogram within the work, Bābur wrote the Turkī poem of 2000 lines to which Abū'l-faẓl and Badāyūnī give the name _Mubīn_ (The Exposition), but of which the true title is said by the _Nafā'isu'l-ma`āsir_ to be _Dar fiqa mubaiyan_ (The Law expounded). Sprenger found it called also _Fiqa-i-bāburī_ (Bābur's Law). It is a versified and highly orthodox treatise on Muḥammadan Law, written for the instruction of Kāmrān. A Commentary on it, called also _Mubīn_, was written by Shaikh Zain. Bābur quotes from it (f. 351_b_) when writing of linear measures. Berézine found and published a large portion of it as part of his _Chrestomathie Turque_ (Kazan 1857); the same fragment may be what was published by Ilminsky. Teufel remarks that the MS. used by Berézine may have descended direct from one sent by Bābur to a distinguished legist of Transoxiana, because the last words of Berézine's imprint are Bābur's _Begleitschreiben_ (_envoi_); he adds the expectation that the legist's name might be learned. Perhaps this recipient was the Khwāja Kalān, son of Khwāja Yaḥya, a Samarkandī to whom Bābur sent a copy of his Memoirs on March 7th 1520 (935 AH. f. 363).[1556]

2. The _Bābur-nāma_ diary of 925-6 AH. (1519-20 AD.). This is almost contemporary with the _Mubīn_ and is the earliest part of the _Bābur-nāma_ writings now known. It was written about a decade earlier than the narrative of 899 to 914 AH. (1494 to 1507 AD.), carries later annotations, and has now the character of a draft awaiting revision.

3. A _Dīwān_ (Collection of poems). By dovetailing a few fragments of information, it becomes clear that by 925 AH. (1519 AD.) Bābur had made a Collection of poetical compositions distinct from the Rāmpūr _Dīwān_; it is what he sent to Pūlād Sulṯan in 925 AH. (f. 238). Its date excludes the greater part of the Rāmpūr one. It may have contained those verses to which my husband drew attention in the Asiatic Quarterly Review of 1911, as quoted in the _Abūshqa_; and it may have contained, in agreement with its earlier date, the verses Bābur quotes as written in his earlier years. None of the quatrains found in the _Abūshqa_ and there attributed to "Bābur Mīrzā", are in the Rāmpūr _Dīwān_; nor are several of those early ones of the _Bābur-nāma_. So that the Dīwān sent to Pūlād Sulṯān may be the source from which the _Abūshqa_ drew its examples.

On first examining these verses, doubt arose as to whether they were really by Bābur _Mīrānshāhī_; or whether they were by "Bābur Mīrzā" _Shāhrukhī_. Fortunately my husband lighted on one of them quoted in the _Sanglakh_ and there attributed to Bābur Pādshāh. The _Abūshqa_ quatrains are used as examples in de Courteille's _Dictionary_, but without an author's name; they can be traced there through my husband's articles.[1557]

929 AH.—NOV. 20TH 1522 TO NOV. 10TH 1523 AD.

_a. Affairs of Hindūstān._

The centre of interest in Bābur's affairs now moves from Qandahār to a Hindūstān torn by faction, of which faction one result was an appeal made at this time to Bābur by Daulat Khān _Lūdī_ (_Yūsuf-khail_) and `Alāu'd-dīn `Ālam Khān _Lūdī_ for help against Ibrāhīm.[1558]

The following details are taken mostly from Aḥmad Yādgār's _Tārīkh-i-salāṯīn-i-afāghana_[1559]:—Daulat Khān had been summoned to Ibrāhīm's presence; he had been afraid to go and had sent his son Dilāwar in his place; his disobedience angering Ibrāhīm, Dilāwar had a bad reception and was shewn a ghastly exhibit of disobedient commanders. Fearing a like fate for himself, he made escape and hastened to report matters to his father in Lāhor. His information strengthening Daulat Khān's previous apprehensions, decided the latter to proffer allegiance to Bābur and to ask his help against Ibrāhīm. Apparently `Ālam Khān's interests were a part of this request. Accordingly Dilāwar (or Apāq) Khān went to Kābul, charged with his father's message, and with intent to make known to Bābur Ibrāhīm's evil disposition, his cruelty and tyranny, with their fruit of discontent amongst his Commanders and soldiery.

_b. Reception of Dilāwar Khān in Kābul._

Wedding festivities were in progress[1560] when Dilāwar Khān reached Kābul. He presented himself, at the Chār-bāgh may be inferred, and had word taken to Bābur that an Afghān was at his Gate with a petition. When admitted, he demeaned himself as a suppliant and proceeded to set forth the distress of Hindūstān. Bābur asked why he, whose family had so long eaten the salt of the Lūdīs, had so suddenly deserted them for himself. Dilāwar answered that his family through 40 years had upheld the Lūdī throne, but that Ibrāhīm maltreated Sikandar's amīrs, had killed 25 of them without cause, some by hanging some burned alive, and that there was no hope of safety in him. Therefore, he said, he had been sent by many amīrs to Bābur whom they were ready to obey and for whose coming they were on the anxious watch.

_c. Bābur asks a sign._

At the dawn of the day following the feast, Bābur prayed in the garden for a sign of victory in Hindūstān, asking that it should be a gift to himself of mango or betel, fruits of that land. It so happened that Daulat Khān had sent him, as a present, half-ripened mangoes preserved in honey; when these were set before him, he accepted them as the sign, and from that time forth, says the chronicler, made preparation for a move on Hindūstān.

_d. `Ālam Khān._

Although `Ālam Khān seems to have had some amount of support for his attempt against his nephew, events show he had none valid for his purpose. That he had not Daulat Khān's, later occurrences make clear. Moreover he seems not to have been a man to win adherence or to be accepted as a trustworthy and sensible leader.[1561] Dates are uncertain in the absence of Bābur's narrative, but it may have been in this year that `Ālam Khān went in person to Kābul and there was promised help against Ibrāhīm.

_e. Birth of Gul-badan._

Either in this year or the next was born Dil-dār's third daughter Gul-badan, the later author of an _Humāyūn-nāma_ written at her nephew Akbar's command in order to provide information for the _Akbar-nāma_.

930 AH.—NOV. 10TH 1523 TO OCT. 29TH 1524 AD.

_a. Bābur's fourth expedition to Hindūstān._

This expedition differs from all earlier ones by its co-operation with Afghān malcontents against Ibrāhīm _Lūdī_, and by having for its declared purpose direct attack on him through reinforcement of `Ālam Khān.

Exactly when the start from Kābul was made is not found stated; the route taken after fording the Indus, was by the sub-montane road through the Kakar country; the Jīhlam and Chīn-āb were crossed and a move was made to within 10 miles of Lāhor.

Lāhor was Daulat Khān's head-quarters but he was not in it now; he had fled for refuge to a colony of Bilūchīs, perhaps towards Multān, on the approach against him of an army of Ibrāhīm's under Bihār Khān _Lūdī_. A battle ensued between Bābur and Bihār Khān; the latter was defeated with great slaughter; Bābur's troops followed his fugitive men into Lāhor, plundered the town and burned some of the _bāzārs_.

Four days were spent near Lāhor, then move south was made to Dībālpūr which was stormed, plundered and put to the sword. The date of this capture is known from an incidental remark of Bābur about chronograms (f. 325), to be mid-Rabī`u'l-awwal 930 AH. (_circa_ Jan. 22nd 1524 AD.).[1562] From Dībālpūr a start was made for Sihrind but before this could be reached news arrived which dictated return to Lāhor.

_b. The cause of return._

Daulat Khān's action is the obvious cause of the retirement. He and his sons had not joined Bābur until the latter was at Dībālpūr; he was not restored to his former place in charge of the important Lāhor, but was given Jalandhar and Sulṯānpūr, a town of his own foundation. This angered him extremely but he seems to have concealed his feelings for the time and to have given Bābur counsel as if he were content. His son Dilāwar, however, represented to Bābur that his father's advice was treacherous; it concerned a move to Multān, from which place Daulat Khān may have come up to Dībālpūr and connected with which at this time, something is recorded of co-operation by Bābur and Shāh Ḥasan _Arghūn_. But the incident is not yet found clearly described by a source. Dilāwar Khān told Bābur that his father's object was to divide and thus weaken the invading force, and as this would have been the result of taking Daulat Khān's advice, Bābur arrested him and Apāq on suspicion of treacherous intent. They were soon released, and Sulṯānpūr was given them, but they fled to the hills, there to await a chance to swoop on the Panj-āb. Daulat Khān's hostility and his non-fulfilment of his engagement with Bābur placing danger in the rear of an eastward advance, the Panj-āb was garrisoned by Bābur's own followers and he himself went back to Kābul.

It is evident from what followed that Daulat Khān commanded much strength in the Panj-āb; evident also that something counselled delay in the attack on Ibrāhīm, perhaps closer cohesion in favour of `Ālam Khān, certainly removal of the menace of Daulat Khān in the rear; there may have been news already of the approach of the Aūzbegs on Balkh which took Bābur next year across Hindū-kush.

_c. The Panj-āb garrison._

The expedition had extended Bābur's command considerably, notably by obtaining possession of Lāhor. He now posted in it Mīr `Abdu'l-`azīz his Master of the Horse; in Dībālpūr he posted, with `Ālam Khān, Bābā Qashqa _Mughūl_; in Sīālkot, Khusrau Kūkūldāsh, in Kalanūr, Muḥammad `Alī _Tājik_.

_d. Two deaths._

This year, on Rajab 19th (May 23rd) died Ismā`īl _Ṣafawī_ at the age of 38, broken by defeat from Sulṯān Salīm of Rūm.[1563] He was succeeded by his son T̤ahmāsp, a child of ten.

This year may be that of the death of Shāh Shujā` _Arghūn_,[1564] on Sha`bān 22nd (July 18th), the last grief of his burden being the death of his foster-brother Fāẓil concerning which, as well as Shāh Beg's own death, Mīr Ma`ṣūm's account is worthy of full reproduction. Shāh Beg was succeeded in Sind by his son Ḥasan, who read the _khuṯba_ for Bābur and drew closer links with Bābur's circle by marrying, either this year or the next, Khalīfa's daughter Gul-barg, with whom betrothal had been made during Ḥasan's visit to Bābur in Kābul. Moreover Khalīfa's son Muḥibb-i-`alī married Nāhīd the daughter of Qāsim Kūkūldāsh and Māh-chūchūk _Arghūn_ (f. 214_b_). These alliances were made, says Ma`ṣūm, to strengthen Ḥasan's position at Bābur's Court.

_e. A garden detail._

In this year and presumably on his return from the Panj-āb, Bābur, as he himself chronicles (f. 132), had plantains (bananas) brought from Hindūstān for the Bāgh-i-wafā at Adīnapūr.

931 AH.—OCT. 29TH 1524 TO OCT. 18TH 1525 AD.

_a. Daulat Khān._

Daulat Khān's power in the Panj-āb is shewn by what he effected after dispossessed of Lāhor. On Bābur's return to Kābul, he came down from the hills with a small body of his immediate followers, seized his son Dilāwar, took Sulṯānpūr, gathered a large force and defeated `Ālam Khān in Dībālpūr. He detached 5000 men against Sīālkot but Bābur's begs of Lāhor attacked and overcame them. Ibrāhīm sent an army to reconquer the Panj-āb; Daulat Khān, profiting by its dissensions and discontents, won over a part to himself and saw the rest break up.

_b. `Ālam Khān._

From his reverse at Dībālpūr, `Ālam Khān fled straight to Kābul. The further help he asked was promised under the condition that while he should take Ibrāhīm's place on the throne of Dihlī, Bābur in full suzerainty should hold Lāhor and all to the west of it. This arranged, `Ālam Khān was furnished with a body of troops, given a royal letter to the Lāhor begs ordering them to assist him, and started off, Bābur promising to follow swiftly.

`Ālam Khān's subsequent proceedings are told by Bābur in the annals of 932 AH. (1525 AD.) at the time he received details about them (f. 255_b_).

_c. Bābur called to Balkh._

All we have yet found about this affair is what Bābur says in explanation of his failure to follow `Ālam Khān as promised (f. 256), namely, that he had to go to Balkh because all the Aūzbeg Sulṯāns and Khāns had laid siege to it. Light on the affair may come from some Persian or Aūzbeg chronicle; Bābur's arrival raised the siege; and risk must have been removed, for Bābur returned to Kābul in time to set out for his fifth and last expedition to Hindūstān on the first day of the second month of next year (932 AH. 1525). A considerable body of troops was in Badakhshān with Humāyūn; their non-arrival next year delaying his father's progress, brought blame on himself.

_To face p. 445._]

THE MEMOIRS OF BĀBUR