Chapter XXXIV: Section III: Hindūstān (8)

(_May 23rd_) On Monday the 15th of the month (_Ramẓān_), we marched from our ground belonging to Kūndbah (or Kūndīh) on the Sarū-river, with easy mind about Bihār and Bengal, and resolute to crush the traitors Bīban and Shaikh Bāyazīd.

(_May 25th_) On Wednesday (_17th_) after making two night-halts by the way, we dismounted at a passage across the Sarū, called Chaupāra-Chaturmūk of Sikandarpūr.[2636] From today people were busy in crossing the river.

As news began to come again and again that the traitors, after crossing Sarū and Gogar,[2637] were going toward Luknū,[2638] the following leaders were appointed to bar (their) crossing[2639]:—The Turk and Hind amīrs Jalālu'd-dīn _Sharqī_, `Alī Khān _Farmūlī_; Tardīka (or, Tardī _yakka_), Nizām Khān of Bīāna, together with Tūlmīsh _Aūzbeg_, Qurbān of Chīrk and Daryā Khān (of Bhīra's [Sidenote: Fol. 376b.] son) Ḥasan Khān. They were given leave to go on the night of Thursday.[2640]

(_iii. Damage done to the Bābur-nāma writings._)

That same night when 1 watch (_pās_), 5 _garīs_ had passed (_cir._ 10.55 p.m.) and the _tarāwīḥ_-prayers were over,[2641] such a storm burst, in the inside of a moment, from the up-piled clouds of the Rainy-season, and such a stiff gale rose, that few tents were left standing. I was in the Audience-tent, about to write (_kitābat qīlā dūr aīdīm_); before I could collect papers and sections,[2642] the tent came down, with its porch, right on my head. The _tūnglūq_ went to pieces.[2643] God preserved me! no harm befell me! Sections and book[2644] were drenched under water and gathered together with much difficulty. We laid them in the folds of a woollen throne-carpet,[2645] put this on the throne and on it piled blankets. The storm quieted down in about 2 _garīs_ (45m.); the bedding-tent was set up, a lamp lighted, and, after much trouble, a fire kindled. We, without sleep, were busy till shoot of day drying folios and sections.

(_jjj. Pursuit of Bīban and Bāyazīd resumed._)

(_May 26th_) I crossed the water on Thursday morning (_Ramān 18th_).

(_May 27th_) On Friday (_19th_) I rode out to visit Sikandarpūr and Kharīd.[2646] Today came matters written by `Abdu`l-lāh (_kitābdār_) and Bāqī about the taking of Luknūr.[2647]

(_May 28th_) On Saturday (_20th_) Kūkī was sent ahead, with a troop, to join Bāqī.[2648]

(_May 29th_) That nothing falling to be done before my arrival might be neglected, leave to join Bāqī was given on Sunday (_21st_) to Sl. Junaid _Barlās_, Khalīfa's (son) Ḥasan, Mullā Apāq's [Sidenote: Fol. 377.] retainers, and the elder and younger brethren of Mumin Ātāka.

Today at the Other Prayer a special dress of honour and a _tīpūchāq_ horse were bestowed on Shāh Muḥammad (son) of Ma`rūf _Farmūlī_, and leave to go was given. As had been done last year (934 AH.), an allowance from Sāran and Kūndla[2649] was bestowed on him for the maintenance of quiver-wearers. Today too an allowance of 72 _laks_[2650] from Sarwār and a _tīpūchāq_ horse were bestowed on Ismā`īl _Jalwānī_, and his leave was given.

About the boats Gunjāīsh and Arāīsh it was settled with Bengalīs that they should take them to Ghāzīpūr by way of Tīr-mūhānī.[2651] The boats Asāīsh and Farmāīsh were ordered taken up the Sarū with the camp.

(_May 30th_) On Monday (_Ramẓān 22nd_) we marched from the Chaupāra-Chaturmūk passage along the Sarū, with mind at ease about Bihār and Sarwār,[2652] and after doing as much as 10 _kurohs_ [Sidenote: Fol. 377b.] (20m.) dismounted on the Sarū in a village called Kilirah (?) dependent on Fatḥpūr.[2653]

(_kkk. A surmised survival of the record of 934. A.H._[2654])

*After spending several days pleasantly in that place where there are gardens, running-waters, well-designed buildings, trees, particularly mango-trees, and various birds of coloured plumage, I ordered the march to be towards Ghāzīpūr.

Ismā`īl Khān _Jalwānī_ and `Alāūl Khān _Nūḥānī_ had it represented to me that they would come to Āgra after seeing their native land (_watn_). On this the command was, "I will give an order in a month."*[2655]

(_lll. The westward march resumed._)

(_May 31st_) Those who marched early (_Tuesday, Ramẓān 23rd_), having lost their way, went to the great lake of Fatḥpūr (?).[2656] People were sent galloping off to fetch back such as were near and Kīchīk Khwāja was ordered to spend the night on the lakeshore and to bring the rest on next morning to join the camp. We marched at dawn; I got into the Asāīsh half-way and had it towed to our ground higher up.

(_mmm. Details of the capture of a fort by Bīban and Bāyazīd._)

On the way up, Khalīfa brought Shāh Muḥammad _dīwāna's_ son who had come from Bāqī bringing this reliable news about Luknūr[2657]:—They (_i.e._ Bīban and Bāyazīd) hurled their assault on Saturday the 13th of the month Ramẓān (_May 21st_) but could do nothing by fighting; while the fighting was going on, a collection of wood-chips, hay, and thorns in the fort took fire, so that inside the walls it became as hot as an oven (_tanūrdīk tafsān_); the garrison could not move round the rampart; the fort was lost. When the enemy heard, two or three days later, of our return (westwards), he fled towards Dalmau.[2658]

Today after doing as much as 10 _kurohs_ (20m.), we dismounted beside a village called Jalisir,[2659] on the Sarū-bank, in the Sagrī _pargāna_.

(_June 1st_) We stayed on the same ground through Wednesday (_24th_), in order to rest our cattle.

(_nnn. Dispositions against Bīban and Bāyazīd._)

Some said they had heard that Bīban and Bāyazīd had crossed Gang, and thought of withdrawing themselves to their kinsfolk [Sidenote: Fol. 378.]

(_nisbahsīlār_) by way of....[2660] Here-upon the begs were summoned for a consultation and it was settled that Muḥammad-i-zamān Mīrzā and Sl. Junaid _Barlās_ who in place of Jūnpūr had been given Chunār with several _parganas_, Maḥmud Khān _Nūḥānī_, Qāẓī Jīā, and Tāj Khān _Sarāng-khānī_ should block the enemy's road at Chunār.[2661]

(_June 2nd_) Marching early in the morning of Thursday (_25th_), we left the Sarū-river, did 11 _kurohs_ (22 m.), crossed the Parsarū (Sarjū) and dismounted on its bank.

Here the begs were summoned, discussion was had, and the leaders named below were appointed to go detached from the army, in rapid pursuit of Bīban and Bāyazīd towards Dalmūṯ (Dalmau):—Aīsān-tīmūr Sl., Muḥammad Sl. M., Tūkhta-būghā Sl., Qāsim-i-ḥusain Sl., Bī-khūb (Nī-khūb) Sl., Muz̤affar-i-ḥusain Sl., Qāsim Khwāja, Ja`far Khwāja, Zahid Khwāja, Jānī Beg, `Askarī's retainer Kīchīk Khwāja, and, of Hind amīrs, `Ālam Khān of Kālpī, Malik-dād _Kararānī_, and Rāo (Rāwūī) _Sarwāni_.

(_ooo. The march continued._)

When I went at night to make ablution in the Parsarū, people were catching a mass of fish that had gathered round a lamp on the surface of the water. I like others took fish in my hands.[2662]

(_June 3rd_) On Friday (_26th_) we dismounted on a very slender stream, the head-water of a branch of the Parsarū. In order not to be disturbed by the comings and goings of the army-folk, [Sidenote: Fol. 378b.] I had it dammed higher up and had a place, 10 by 10, made for ablution. The night of the 27th[2663] was spent on this ground.

(_June 4th_) At the dawn of the same day (_Saturday 27th_) we left that water, crossed the Tūs and dismounted on its bank.[2664]

(_June 5th_) On Sunday (_28th_) we dismounted on the bank of the same water.

(_June 6th_) On Monday the 29th of the month (_Ramẓān_), our station was on the bank of the same Tūs-water. Though tonight the sky was not quite clear, a few people saw the Moon, and so testifying to the Qāẓī, fixed the end of the month (_Ramẓān_).

(_June 7th_) On Tuesday (_Shawwāl 1st_) we made the Prayer of the Festival, at dawn rode on, did 10 _kurohs_ (20 m.), and dismounted on the bank of the Gūī (Gūmtī), a _kuroh_ (2 m.) from Māīng.[2665] The sin of _ma`jūn_ was committed (_irtikāb qīlīldī_) near the Mid-day Prayer; I had sent this little couplet of invitation to Shaikh Zain, Mullā Shihāb and Khwānd-amīr:—

(_Turkī_) Shaikh and Mullā Shihāb and Khwānd-amir,
Come all three, or two, or one.

Darwīsh-i-muḥammad (_Sārbān_), Yūnas-i-`alī and `Abdu'l-lāh (_`asas_)[2666] were also there. At the Other Prayer the wrestlers set to.

(_June 8th_) On Wednesday (_2nd_) we stayed on the same ground. Near breakfast-time _ma`jūn_ was eaten. Today Malik Sharq came in who had been to get Tāj Khān out of Chunār.[2667] When the wrestlers set to today, the Champion of Aūd who had come earlier, grappled with and threw a Hindūstānī wrestler who had [Sidenote: Fol. 379.] come in the interval.

Today Yaḥyā _Nuḥāni_ was granted an allowance of 15 _laks_ from Parsarūr,[2668] made to put on a dress of honour, and given his leave.

(_June 9th_) Next day (_Thursday 3rd_) we did 11 _kurohs_ (22 m.), crossed the Gūī-water (Gūmtī), and dismounted on its bank.

(_ppp. Concerning the pursuit of Bīban and Bāyazīd._)

News came in about the sulṯāns and begs of the advance that they had reached Dalmūd (Dalmau), but were said not yet to have crossed the water (Ganges). Angered by this (delay), I sent orders, "Cross the water at once; follow the track of the rebels; cross Jūn (Jumna) also; join `Ālam Khān to yourselves; be energetic and get to grips with the adversary."

(_qqq. The march continued._)

(_June 10th_) After leaving this water (_Gūmtī_, _Friday 4th_) we made two night-halts and reached Dalmūd (Dalmau), where most of the army-folk crossed Gang, there and then, by a ford. While the camp was being got over, _ma`jūn_ was eaten on an island (_ārāl_) below the ford.

(_June 13th_) After crossing, we waited one day (_Monday 7th_) for all the army-folk to get across. Today Bāqī _Tāshkīndī_ came in with the army of Aūd (Ajodhya) and waited on me.

(_June 14th_) Leaving the Gang-water (Ganges, _Tuesday 8th_), we made one night-halt, then dismounted (_June 15th-Shawwāl 9th_) beside Kūrarah (Kūra Khāṣ) on the Arind-water. The distance from Dalmūd (Dalmau) to Kūrarah came out at 22 _kurohs_ (44 m.).[2669]

(_June 16th_) On Thursday (_10th_) we marched early from that ground and dismounted opposite the Ādampūr _pargana_.[2670]

To enable us to cross (Jūn) in pursuit of our adversaries, a few [Sidenote: Fol. 379b.] raftsmen had been sent forward to collect at Kālpī what boats were to be had; some boats arrived the night we dismounted, moreover a ford was found through the Jūn-river.

As the encamping-place was full of dust, we settled ourselves on an island and there stayed the several days we were on that ground.

(_rrr. Concerning Bīban and Bāyazīd._)

Not getting reliable news about the enemy, we sent Bāqī _shaghāwal_ with a few braves of the interior[2671] to get information about him.

(_June 17th_) Next day (_Friday 11th_) at the Other Prayer, one of Bāqī Beg's retainers came in. Bāqī had beaten scouts of Bīban and Bāyazīd, killed one of their good men, Mubārak Khān _Jalwānī_, and some others, sent in several heads, and one man alive.

(_June 18th_) At dawn (_Saturday 12th_) Paymaster Shāh Ḥusain came in, told the story of the beating of the scouts, and gave various news.

Tonight, that is to say, the night of Sunday the 13th of the month,[2672] the river Jūn came down in flood, so that by the dawn, the whole of the island on which I was settled, was under water. I moved to another an arrow's-flight down-stream, there had a tent set up and settled down.

(_June 20th_) On Monday (_14th_) Jalāl _Tāshkīndī_ came from the begs and sulṯāns of the advance. Shaikh Bāyazīd and Bīban, on hearing of their expedition, had fled to the _pargana_ of Mahūba.[2673] [Sidenote: Fol. 380.]

As the Rains had set in and as after 5 or 6 months of active service, horses and cattle in the army were worn out, the sulṯāns and begs of the expedition were ordered to remain where they were till they received fresh supplies from Āgra and those parts. At the Other Prayer of the same day, leave was given to Bāqī and the army of Aūd (Ajodhya). Also an allowance of 30 _lāks_[2674] from Amrohā was assigned to Mūsa (son) of Ma`rūf _Farmūlī_, who had waited on me at the time the returning army was crossing the Sarū-water,[2675] a special head-to-foot and saddled horse were bestowed on him, and he was given his leave.

(_sss. Bābur returns to Āgra._)

(_June 21st_) With an easy mind about these parts, we set out for Āgra, raid-fashion,[2676] when 3 _pās_ 1 _garī_ of Tuesday night were past.[2677] In the morning (_Tuesday 15th_) we did 16 _kurohs_ (32 m.), near mid-day made our nooning in the _pargana_ of Balādar, one of the dependencies of Kālpī, there gave our horses barley, at the Evening Prayer rode on, did 13 _kurohs_ (26 m.) in the night, at the 3rd night-watch (_mid-night_, _Shawwāl 15-16th_) dismounted at Bahādur Khān _Sarwānī's_ tomb at Sūgandpūr, a _pargana_ of Kālpī, slept a little, went through the Morning Prayer and hurried on. After doing 16 _kurohs_ (32 m.), we reached Etāwa at the fall of day, where Mahdī Khwāja came out to meet us.[2678] Riding [Sidenote: Fol. 380b.] on after the 1st night-watch (9 p.m.), we slept a little on the way, did 16 _kurohs_ (32 m.), took our nooning at Fatḥpūr of Rāprī, rode on soon after the Mid-day Prayer (_Thursday Shawwāl 17th_), did 17 _kurohs_ (34 m.), and in the 2nd night-watch[2679] dismounted in the Garden-of-eight-paradises at Āgra.

(_June 24th_) At the dawn of Friday (_18th_) Pay-master Sl. Muḥammad came with several more to wait on me. Towards the Mid-day Prayer, having crossed Jūn, I waited on Khwāja `Abdu'l-ḥaqq, went into the Fort and saw the begīms my paternal-aunts.

(_ttt. Indian-grown fruits._)

A Balkhī melon-grower had been set to raise melons; he now brought a few first-rate small ones; on one or two bush-vines (_būta-tāk_) I had had planted in the Garden-of-eight-paradises very good grapes had grown; Shaikh Gūran sent me a basket of grapes which too were not bad. To have grapes and melons grown in this way in Hindūstān filled my measure of content.

(_uuu. Arrival of Māhīm Begīm._)

(_June 26th_) Māhīm arrived while yet two watches of Sunday night (_Shawwāl 20th_)[2680] remained. By a singular agreement of things they had left Kābul on the very day, the 10th of the 1st Jumāda (_Jan. 21st 1529_) on which I rode out to the army.[2681]

(_Here the record of 11 days is wanting._)

(_July 7th_) On Thursday the 1st of Ẕū'l-qa`da the offerings made by Humāyūn and Māhīm were set out while I sat in the large Hall of Audience.

Today also wages were given to 150 porters (_kahār_) and they were started off under a servant of Faghfūr _Dīwān_ to fetch melons, grapes, and other fruits from Kabul. [Sidenote: Fol. 381.]

(_vvv. Concerning Saṃbhal._)

(_July 9th_) On Saturday the 3rd of the month, Hindū Beg who had come as escort from Kābul and must have been sent to Saṃbhal on account of the death of `Alī-i-yūsuf, came and waited on me.[2682] Khalīfa's (son) Ḥusāmu'd-dīn came also today from Alwār and waited on me.

(_July 10th_) On Sunday morning (_4th_) came `Abdu'l-lāh (_kitābdār_), who from Tīr-mūhānī[2683] had been sent to Saṃbhal on account of the death of `Alī-i-yūsuf.

(_Here the record of 7 days is wanting._)

(_www. Sedition in Lāhor._)

People from Kābul were saying that Shaikh Sharaf of Qarā-bāgh, either incited by `Abdu'l-`azīz or out of liking for him, had written an attestation which attributed to me oppression I had not done, and outrage that had not happened; that he had extorted the signatures of the Prayer-leaders (_imāmlār_) of Lāhor to this accusation, and had sent copies of it to the various towns; that `Abdu'l-`azīz himself had failed to give ear to several royal orders, had spoken unseemly words, and done acts which ought to have been left undone. On account of these matters Qaṃbar-i-`alī _Arghūn_ was started off on Sunday the 11th of the month (_Ẕū'l-qa`da_), to arrest Shaikh Sharaf, the Lāhor _imāms_ with their associates, and `Abdu'l-`azīz, and to bring them all to Court.

(_xxx. Varia._)

(_July 22nd_) On Thursday the 15th of the month Chīn-tīmūr Sl. came in from Tijāra and waited on me. Today Champion [Sidenote: Fol. 381b.] Ṣādiq and the great champion-wrestler of Aūd wrestled. Ṣādiq gave a half-throw[2684]; he was much vexed.

(_July 28th_) On Monday the 19th of the month (_Ẕū'l-qa`da_) the Qīzīl-bāsh envoy Murād the life-guardsman was made to put on an inlaid dagger with belt, and a befitting dress of honour, was presented with 2 _laks_ of _tankas_ and given leave to go.

(_Here the record of 15 days is wanting._)

(_yyy. Sedition in Gūālīār._)

(_August 11th_) Sayyid Mashhadī who had come from Gūālīār in these days, represented that Raḥīm-dād was stirring up sedition.[2685] On account of this, Khalīfa's servant Shāh Muḥammad the seal-bearer was sent to convey to Raḥīm-dād matters written with commingling of good counsel. He went; and in a few days came back bringing Raḥīm-dād's son, but, though the son came, Raḥīm-dād himself had no thought of coming. On Wednesday the 5th of _Ẕū'l-ḥijja_, Nūr Beg was sent to Gūālīār to allay Raḥīm-dād's fears, came back in a few days, and laid requests from Raḥīm-dād before us. Orders in accordance with those requests had been written and were on the point of despatch when one of Raḥīm-dād's servants arriving, represented that he had come to effect the escape of the son and that Raḥīm-dād himself had no thought of coming in. I was for riding out at once to Gūālīār, but Khalīfa set it forth to me, "Let me write one more letter commingled with good counsel; he may even yet come peacefully." On this mission Khusrau's (son?) Shihābu'd-dīn was despatched.

(_August 12th_) On Thursday the 6th of the month mentioned (_Ẕū'l-ḥijja_) Mahdī Khwāja came in from Etāwa.[2686] [Sidenote: Fol. 382.]

(_August 16th_) On the Festival-day[2687] (_Monday 10th_) Hindū Beg was presented with a special head-to-foot, an inlaid dagger with belt; also a _pargana_ worth 7 _laks_[2688] was bestowed on Ḥasan-i-`alī, well-known among the Turkmāns[2689] for a Chaghatāī.[2690]

936 AH.-SEP. 5TH 1529 TO AUGUST 25TH 1530 AD.

(_a. Raḥīm-dād's affairs._)

(_Sep. 7th_) On Wednesday the 3rd of Muḥarram, Shaikh Muḥammad _Ghaus̤_[2691] came in from Gūālīār with Khusrau's (son) Shihābu'd-dīn to plead for Raḥīm-dād. As Shaikh Muḥammad _Ghaūṣ_ was a pious and excellent person, Raḥīm-dād's faults were forgiven for his sake. Shaikh Gūran and Nūr Beg were sent off for Gūālīār, so that the place having been made over to their charge....[2692]

TRANSLATOR'S NOTE ON 936 TO 937 AH.-1529 TO 1530 AD.

It is difficult to find material for filling the _lacuna_ of some 15 months, which occurs in Bābur's diary after the broken passage of Muḥarram 3rd 936 AH. (Sept. 7th 1529 AD.) and down to the date of his death on Jumāda 1. 6th 937 AH. (Dec. 26th 153O AD.). The known original sources are few, their historical matter scant, their contents mainly biographical. Gleanings may yet be made, however, in unexpected places, such gleanings as are provided by Aḥmad-i-yādgār's interpolation of Tīmūrid history amongst his lives of Afghān Sulṯāns.

The earliest original source which helps to fill the gap of 936 AH. is Ḥaidar Mīrzā's _Tārīkh-i-rashīdī_, finished as to its Second Part which contains Bābur's biography, in 948 AH. (1541 AD.), 12 years therefore after the year of the gap 936 AH. It gives valuable information about the affairs of Badakhshān, based on its author's personal experience at 30 years of age, and was Abū'l-faẓl's authority for the _Akbar-nāma_.

The next in date of the original sources is Gul-badan Begīm's _Humāyūn-nāma_, a chronicle of family affairs, which she wrote in obedience to her nephew Akbar's command, given in about 995 AH. (1587 AD.), some 57 years after her Father's death, that whatever any person knew of his father (Humāyūn) and grandfather (Bābur) should be written down for Abū'l-faẓl's use. It embodies family memories and traditions, and presumably gives the recollections of several ladies of the royal circle.[2693]

The _Akbar-nāma_ derives much of its narrative for 936-937 AH. from Ḥaidar Mīrzā and Gul-badan Begīm, but its accounts of Bābur's self-surrender and of his dying address to his chiefs presuppose the help of information from a contemporary witness. It is noticeable that the _Akbar-nāma_ records no public events as occurring in Hindūstān during 936-937 AH., nothing of the sequel of rebellion by Raḥīm-dād[2694] and `Abdu'l-`azīz, nothing of the untiring Bīban and Bāyazīd. That something could have been told is shown by what Aḥmad-i-yādgār has preserved (_vide post_); but 50 years had passed since Bābur's death and, manifestly, interest in filling the _lacunæ_ in his diary was then less keen than it is over 300 years later. What in the _Akbar-nāma_ concerns Bābur is likely to have been written somewhat early in the _cir._ 15 years of its author's labours on it,[2695] but, even so, the elder women of the royal circle had had rest after the miseries Humāyūn had wrought, the forgiveness of family affection would veil his past, and certainly has provided Abū'l-faẓl with an over-mellowed estimate of him, one ill-assorting with what is justified by his Bābur-nāma record.

The contribution made towards filling the gap of 936-937 AH. in the body of Niẕāmu-'d-dīn Aḥmad's _T̤abaqāt-i-akbarī_ is limited to a curious and doubtfully acceptable anecdote about a plan for the supersession of Humāyūn as Pādshāh, and about the part played by Khwāja Muqīm _Harāwī_ in its abandonment. A further contribution is made, however, in Book VII which contains the history of the Muḥammadan Kings of Kashmīr, namely, that Bābur despatched an expedition into that country. As no such expedition is recorded or referred to in surviving Bābur-nāma writings, it is likely to have been sent in 936 AH. during Bābur's tour to and from Lāhor. If it were made with the aim of extending Tīmūrid authority in the Himālayan borderlands, a hint of similar policy elsewhere may be given by the ceremonious visit of the Rāja of Kahlūr to Bābur, mentioned by Aḥmad-i-yādgār (_vide post_).[2696] The T̤.-i-A. was written within the term of Abū'l-faẓl's work on the _Akbar-nāma_, being begun later, and ended about 9 years earlier, in 1002 AH.-1593 AD. It appears to have been Abū'-l-faẓl's authority for his account of the campaign carried on in Kashmīr by Bābur's chiefs (_Āyīn-i-akbarī_ vol. ii, part i, Jarrett's trs. p. 389).

An important contribution, seeming to be authentic, is found interpolated in Aḥmad-i-yādgār's _Tārīkh-i-salāṯīn-i-afāghana_, one which outlines a journey made by Bābur to Lāhor in 936 AH. and gives circumstantial details of a punitive expedition sent by him from Sihrind at the complaint of the Qāẓī of Samāna against a certain Mundāhir Rājpūt. The whole contribution dovetails into matters found elsewhere. Its precision of detail bespeaks a closely-contemporary written source.[2697] As its fullest passage concerns the Samāna Qāẓī's affair, its basis of record may have been found in Samāna. Some considerations about the date of Aḥmad-i-yādgār's own book and what Niamatu'l-lāh says of Haibat Khān of Samāna, his own generous helper in the _Tārīkhi-Khan-i-jahān Lūdī_, point towards Haibat Khān as providing the details of the Qāẓī's wrongs and avenging. The indication is strengthened by the circumstance that what precedes and what follows the account of the punitive expedition is outlined only.[2698] Aḥmad-i-yādgār interpolates an account of Humāyūn also, which is a frank plagiarism from the _T̤abaqāt-i-akbarī_. He tells too a story purporting to explain why Bābur "selected" Humāyūn to succeed him, one parallel with Niẕāmu'd-dīn Aḥmad's about what led Khalīfa to abandon his plan of setting the Mīrzā aside. Its sole value lies in its testimony to a belief, held by its first narrator whoever he was, that choice was exercised in the matter by Bābur. Reasons for thinking Niẕāmu'd-dīn's story, as it stands, highly improbable, will be found later in this note.

Muḥammad Qāsim Hindū Shāh _Firishta's Tārīkh-i-firishta_ contains an interesting account of Bābur but contributes towards filling the gap in the events of 936-937 AH. little that is not in the earlier sources. In M. Jules Mohl's opinion it was under revision as late as 1623 AD. (1032-3 AH.).

(_a. Humāyūn and Badakhshān._)

An occurrence which had important results, was the arrival of Humāyūn in Āgra, unsummoned by his Father, from the outpost station of Badakhshān. It will have occurred early in 936 AH. (autumn 1529 AD.), because he was in Kābul in the first ten days of the last month of 935 AH. (_vide post_). Curiously enough his half-sister Gul-badan does not mention his coming, whether through avoidance of the topic or from inadvertence; the omission may be due however to the loss of a folio from the only known MS. of her book (that now owned by the British Museum), and this is the more likely that Abū'l-faẓl writes, at some length, about the arrival and its motive, what the Begīm might have provided, this especially by his attribution of filial affection as Humāyūn's reason for coming to Āgra.

Ḥaidar Mīrzā is the authority for the Akbar-nāma account of Humāyūn's departure from Qila`-i-ẕafar and its political and military sequel. He explains the departure by saying that when Bābur had subdued Hindūstān, his sons Humāyūn and Kāmrān were grown-up; and that wishing to have one of them at hand in case of his own death, he summoned Humāyūn, leaving Kāmrān in Qandahār. No doubt these were the contemporary impressions conveyed to Ḥaidar, and strengthened by the accomplished fact before he wrote some 12 years later; nevertheless there are two clear indications that there was no royal order for Humāyūn to leave Qila`-i-ẕafar, _viz._ that no-one had been appointed to relieve him even when he reached Āgra, and that Abū'l-faẓl mentions no summons but attributes the Mīrzā's departure from his post to an overwhelming desire to see his Father. What appears probable is that Māhīm wrote to her son urging his coming to Āgra, and that this was represented as Bābur's wish. However little weight may be due to the rumour, preserved in anecdotes recorded long after 935 AH., that any-one, Bābur or Khalīfa, inclined against Humāyūn's succession, that rumour she would set herself to falsify by reconciliation.[2699]

When the Mīrzā's intention to leave Qila`-i-ẕafar became known there, the chiefs represented that they should not be able to withstand the Aūzbeg on their frontier without him (his troops implied).[2700] With this he agreed, said that still he must go, and that he would send a Mīrzā in his place as soon as possible. He then rode, in one day, to Kābul, an item of rapid travel preserved by Abū'l-faẓl.

Humāyūn's departure caused such anxiety in Qila`-i-ẕafar that some (if not all) of the Badakhshī chiefs hurried off an invitation to Sa`īd Khān _Chaghatāī_, the then ruler in Kāshghar in whose service Ḥaidar Mīrzā was, to come at once and occupy the fort. They said that Faqīr-i-`alī who had been left in charge, was not strong enough to cope with the Aūzbeg, begged Sa`īd to come, and strengthened their petition by reminding him of his hereditary right to Badakhshān, derived from Shāh Begīm _Badakhshī_. Their urgency convincing the Khān that risk threatened the country, he started from Kāshghar in Muḥarram 936 AH. (Sept-Oct. 1529 AD.). On reaching Sārīgh-chūpān which by the annexation of Abā-bakr Mīrzā _Dūghlāt_ was now his own most western territory[2701] but which formerly was one of the upper districts of Badakhshān, he waited while Ḥaidar went on towards Qila`-i-ẕafar only to learn on his road, that Hind-āl (_æt._ 10) had been sent from Kābul by Humāyūn and had entered the fort 12 days before.

The Kāshgharīs were thus placed in the difficulty that the fort was occupied by Bābur's representative, and that the snows would prevent their return home across the mountains till winter was past. Winter-quarters were needed and asked for by Ḥaidar, certain districts being specified in which to await the re-opening of the Pāmīr routes. He failed in his request, "They did not trust us," he writes, "indeed suspected us of deceit." His own account of Sa`īd's earlier invasion of Badakhshān (925 AH.-1519 AD.) during Khān Mīrzā's rule, serves to explain Badakhshī distrust of Kāshgharīs. Failing in his negotiations, he scoured and pillaged the country round the fort, and when a few days later the Khān arrived, his men took what Ḥaidar's had left.

Sa`īd Khān is recorded to have besieged the fort for three months, but nothing serious seems to have been attempted since no mention of fighting is made, none of assault or sally, and towards the end of the winter he was waited on by those who had invited his presence, with apology for not having admitted him into the fort, which they said they would have done but for the arrival of Hind-āl Mīrzā. To this the Khān replied that for him to oppose Bābur Pādshāh was impossible; he reminded the chiefs that he was there by request, that it would be as hurtful for the Pādshāh as for himself to have the Aūzbeg in Badakhshān and, finally, he gave it as his opinion that, as matters stood, every man should go home. His view of the general duty may include that of Badakhshī auxiliaries such as Sulṯān Wais of Kūl-āb who had reinforced the garrison. So saying, he himself set out for Kāshghar, and at the beginning of Spring reached Yārkand.

_b. Humāyūn's further action._

Humāyūn will have reached Kābul before Ẕū'l-ḥijja 10th 935 AH. (Aug. 26th 1529 AD.) because it is on record that he met Kāmrān on the Kābul 'Īd-gāh, and both will have been there to keep the `Īdu'l-kabīr, the Great Festival of Gifts, which is held on that day. Kāmrān had come from Qandahār, whether to keep the Feast, or because he had heard of Humāyūn's intended movement from Badakhshān, or because changes were foreseen and he coveted Kābul, as the _Bābur-nāma_ and later records allow to be inferred. He asked Humāyūn, says Abū'l-faẓl, why he was there and was told of his brother's impending journey to Āgra under overwhelming desire to see their Father.[2702] Presumably the two Mīrzās discussed the position in which Badakhshān had been left; in the end Hind-āl was sent to Qila'-i-ẕafar, notwithstanding that he was under orders for Hindūstān.

Humāyūn may have stayed some weeks in Kābul, how many those familiar with the seasons and the routes between Yārkand and Qila`-i-ẕafar, might be able to surmise if the date of Hind-āl's start northward for which Humāyūn is likely to have waited, were found by dovetailing the Muḥarram of Sa`īd's start, the approximate length of his journey to Sārīgh-chūpān, and Ḥaidar's reception of news that Hind-āl had been 12 days in the fort.

Humāyūn's arrival in Āgra is said by Abū'l-faẓl to have been cheering to the royal family in their sadness for the death of Alwar (end of 935 AH.) and to have given pleasure to his Father. But the time is all too near the date of Bābur's letter (f.348) to Humāyūn, that of a dissatisfied parent, to allow the supposition that his desertion of his post would fail to displease.

That it was a desertion and not an act of obedience seems clear from the circumstance that the post had yet to be filled. Khalīfa is said to have been asked to take it and to have refused;[2703] Humāyūn to have been sounded as to return and to have expressed unwillingness. Bābur then did what was an honourable sequel to his acceptance in 926 AH. of the charge of the fatherless child Sulaimān, by sending him, now about 16, to take charge where his father Khān Mīrzā had ruled, and by still keeping him under his own protection.

Sulaimān's start from Āgra will not have been delayed, and (accepting Aḥmad-i-yādgār's record,) Bābur himself will have gone as far as Lāhor either with him or shortly after him, an expedition supporting Sulaimān, and menacing Sa`īd in his winter leaguer round Qila`-i-ẕafar. Meantime Humāyūn was ordered to his fief of Saṃbhal.

After Sulaimān's appointment Bābur wrote to Sa`īd a letter of which Ḥaidar gives the gist:—It expresses surprise at Sa`īd's doings in Badakhshān, says that Hind-āl has been recalled and Sulaimān sent, that if Sa`īd regard hereditary right, he will leave "Sulaimān Shāh Mīrzā"[2704] in possession, who is as a son to them both,[2705] that this would be well, that otherwise he (Bābur) will make over responsibility to the heir (Sulaimān);[2706] and, "The rest you know."[2707]

_c. Bābur visits Lāhor._

If Aḥmad-i-yādgār's account of a journey made by Bābur to Lāhor and the Panj-āb be accepted, the _lacuna_ of 936 AH. is appropriately filled. He places the expedition in the 3rd year of Bābur's rule in Hindūstān, which, counting from the first reading of the _khuṯba_ for Bābur in Dihlī (f. 286), began on Rajab 15th 935 AH. (March 26th 1529 AD.). But as Bābur's diary-record for 935 AH. is complete down to end of the year, (minor _lacunæ_ excepted), the time of his leaving Āgra for Lāhor is relegated to 936 AH. He must have left early in the year, (1) to allow time, before the occurrence of the known events preceding his own death, for the long expedition Aḥmad-i-yādgār calls one of a year, and (2) because an early start after Humāyūn's arrival and Sulaimān's departure would suit the position of affairs and the dates mentioned or implied by Ḥaidar's and by Aḥmad-i-yādgār's narratives.

Two reasons of policy are discernible, in the known events of the time, to recommend a journey in force towards the North-west; first, the sedition of `Abdu'l-`azīz in Lāhor (f. 381), and secondly, the invasion of Badakhshān by Sa`īd Khān with its resulting need of supporting Sulaimān by a menace of armed intervention.[2708]

In Sihrind the Rāja of Kahlūr, a place which may be one of the Simla hill-states, waited on Bābur, made offering of 7 falcons and 3 _mans_[2709] of gold, and was confirmed in his fief.[2710]

In Lāhor Kāmrān is said to have received his Father, in a garden of his own creation, and to have introduced the local chiefs as though he were the Governor of Lāhor some writers describe him as then being. The best sources, however, leave him still posted in Qandahār. He had been appointed to Multān (f. 359) when `Askarī was summoned to Āgra (f. 339), but whether he actually went there is not assured; some months later (Ẕū'l-ḥijja 10th 935 AH.) he is described by Abū'l-faẓl as coming to Kābul from Qandahār. He took both Multān[2711] and Lāhor by force from his (half-)brother Humāyūn in 935 AH. (1531 AD.) the year after their Father's death. That he should wait upon his Father in Lāhor would be natural, Hind-āl did so, coming from Kābul. Hind-āl will have come to Lāhor after making over charge of Qila`-i-ẕafar to Sulaimān, and he went back at the end of the cold season, going perhaps just before his Father started from Lāhor on his return journey, the gifts he received before leaving being 2 elephants, 4 horses, belts and jewelled daggers.[2712]

Bābur is said to have left Lāhor on Rajab 4th (936 AH.)-(March 4th, 1530 AD.). From Aḥmad-i-yādgār's outline of Bābur's doings in Lāhor, he, or his original, must be taken as ill-informed or indifferent about them. His interest becomes greater when he writes of Samāna.

_d. Punishment of the Mundāhirs._

When Bābur, on his return journey, reached Sihrind, he received a complaint from the Qāẓī of Samāna against one Mohan _Mundāhir_ (or _Mundhār_)[2713] _Rājpūt_ who had attacked his estates, burning and plundering, and killed his son. Here-upon `Alī-qulī of Hamadān[2714] was sent with 3000 horse to avenge the Qāzī's wrongs, and reached Mohan's village, in the Kaithal _pargana_, early in the morning when the cold was such that the archers "could not pull their bows."[2715] A marriage had been celebrated over-night; the villagers, issuing from warm houses, shot such flights of arrows that the royal troops could make no stand; many were killed and nothing was effected; they retired into the jungle, lit fires, warmed themselves(?), renewed the attack and were again repulsed. On hearing of their failure, Bābur sent off, perhaps again from Sihrind, Tarsam Bahādur and Naurang Beg with 6000 horse and many elephants. This force reached the village at night and when marriage festivities were in progress. Towards morning it was formed into three divisions,[2716] one of which was ordered to go to the west of the village and show itself. This having been done, the villagers advanced towards it, in the pride of their recent success. The royal troops, as ordered beforehand, turned their backs and fled, the Mundāhirs pursuing them some two miles. Meantime Tarsam Bahādur had attacked and fired the village, killing many of its inhabitants. The pursuers on the west saw the flames of their burning homes, ran back and were intercepted on their way. About 1000 men, women and children were made prisoner; there was also great slaughter, and a pillar of heads was raised. Mohan was captured and later on was buried to the waist and shot to death with arrows.[2717] News of the affair was sent to the Pādshāh.[2718]

As after being in Sihrind, Bābur is said to have spent two months hunting near Dihlī, it may be that he followed up the punitive expedition sent into the Kaithal _pargana_ of the Karnāl District, by hunting in Nardak, a favourite ground of the Tīmūrids, which lies in that district.

Thus the gap of 936 AH. with also perhaps a month of 937 AH. is filled by the "year's" travel west of Dihlī. The record is a mere outline and in it are periods of months without mention of where Bābur was or what affairs of government were brought before him. At some time, on his return journey presumably, he will have despatched to Kashmīr the expedition referred to in the opening section of this appendix. Something further may yet be gleaned from local chronicles, from unwritten tradition, or from the witness of place-names commemorating his visit.

_e. Bābur's self-surrender to save Humāyūn._

The few months, perhaps 4 to 5, between Bābur's return to Āgra from his expedition towards the North-west, and the time of his death are filled by Gul-badan and Abū'l-faẓl with matters concerning family interests only.

The first such matter these authors mention is an illness of Humāyūn during which Bābur devoted his own life to save his son's.[2719] Of this the particulars are, briefly:—That Humāyūn, while still in Saṃbhal, had had a violent attack of fever; that he was brought by water to Āgra, his mother meeting him in Muttra; and that when the disease baffled medical skill, Bābur resolved to practise the rite believed then and now in the East to be valid, of intercession and devotion of a suppliant's most valued possession in exchange for a sick man's life. Rejecting counsel to offer the Koh-i-nūr for pious uses, he resolved to supplicate for the acceptance of his life. He made intercession through a saint his daughter names, and moved thrice round Humāyūn's bed, praying, in effect, "O God! if a life may be exchanged for a life, I, who am Bābur, give my life and my being for Humāyūn." During the rite fever surged over him, and, convinced that his prayer and offering had prevailed, he cried out, "I have borne it away! I have borne it away!"[2720] Gul-badan says that he himself fell ill on that very day, while Humāyūn poured water on his head, came out and gave audience; and that they carried her Father within on account of his illness, where he kept his bed for 2 or 3 months.

There can be no doubt as to Bābur's faith in the rite he had practised, or as to his belief that his offering of life was accepted; moreover actual facts would sustain his faith and belief. Onlookers also must have believed his prayer and offering to have prevailed, since Humāyūn went back to Saṃbhal,[2721] while Bābur fell ill at once and died in a few weeks.[2722]

_f. A plan to set Bābur's sons aside from the succession._

Reading the _Akbar-nāma_ alone, there would seem to be no question about whether Bābur ever intended to give Hindūstān, at any rate, to Humāyūn, but, by piecing together various contributory matters, an opposite opinion is reached, _viz._ that not Khalīfa only whom Abū'l-faẓl names perhaps on Niẕāmu'd-dīn Aḥmad's warrant, but Bābur also, with some considerable number of chiefs, wished another ruler for Hindūstān. The starting-point of this opinion is a story in the _T̤abaqāt-i-akbarī_ and, with less detail, in the _Akbar-nāma_, of which the gist is that Khalīfa planned to supersede Humāyūn and his three brothers in their Father's succession.[2723]

_To face p. 702._]

The story, in brief, is as follows:—At the time of Bābur's death Niẕāmu'd-dīn Aḥmad's father Khwāja Muḥammad Muqīm _Harāwī_ was in the service of the Office of Works.[2724] Amīr Niẕāmu'd-dīn `Alī Khalīfa, the Chief of the Administration, had dread and suspicion about Humāyūn and did not favour his succession as Pādshāh. Nor did he favour that of Bābur's other sons. He promised "Bābur Pādshāh's son-in-law (_dāmād_)" Mahdī Khwāja who was a generous young man, very friendly to himself, that he would make him Pādshāh. This promise becoming known, others made their _salām_ to the Khwāja who put on airs and accepted the position. One day when Khalīfa, accompanied by Muqīm, went to see Mahdī Khwāja in his tent, no-one else being present, Bābur, in the pangs of his disease, sent for him[2725] when he had been seated a few minutes only. When Khalīfa had gone out, Mahdī Khwāja remained standing in such a way that Muqīm could not follow but, the Khwāja unaware, waited respectfully behind him. The Khwāja, who was noted for the wildness of youth, said, stroking his beard, "Please God! first, I will flay thee!" turned round and saw Muqīm, took him by the ear, repeated a proverb of menace, "The red tongue gives the green head to the wind," and let him go. Muqīm hurried to Khalīfa, repeated the Khwāja's threat against him, and remonstrated about the plan to set all Bābur's sons aside in favour of a stranger-house.[2726] Here-upon Khalīfa sent for Humāyūn,[2727] and despatched an officer with orders to the Khwāja to retire to his house, who found him about to dine and hurried him off without ceremony. Khalīfa also issued a proclamation forbidding intercourse with him, excluded him from Court, and when Bābur died, supported Humāyūn.

As Niẕāmu'd-dīn Aḥmad was not born till 20 years after Bābur died, the story will have been old before he could appreciate it, and it was some 60 years old when it found way into the _T̤abaqāt-i-akbarī_ and, with less detail, into the _Akbar-nāma_.

Taken as it stands, it is incredible, because it represents Khalīfa, and him alone, planning to subject the four sons of Bābur to the suzerainty of Mahdī Khwāja who was not a Tīmūrid, who, so far as well-known sources show, was not of a ruling dynasty or personally illustrious,[2728] and who had been associated, so lately as the autumn of 1529 AD., with his nephew Raḥīm-dād in seditious action which had so angered Bābur that, whatever the punishment actually ordered, rumour had it both men were to die.[2729] In two particulars the only Mahdī Khwāja then of Bābur's following, does not suit the story; he was not a young man in 1530 AD.,[2730] and was not a _dāmād_ of Bābur, if that word be taken in its usual sense of son-in-law, but he was a _yazna_, husband of a Pādshāh's sister, in his case, of Khān-zāda Begīm.[2731] Some writers style him Sayyid Mahdī Khwāja, a double title which may indicate descent on both sides from religious houses; one is suggested to be that of Tirmiẕ by the circumstance that in his and Khān-zāda Begīm's mausoleum was buried a Tirmiẕ sayyid of later date, Shāh Abū'l-ma`ālī. But though he were of Tirmiẕ, it is doubtful if that religious house would be described by the word _khānwāda_ which so frequently denotes a ruling dynasty.

His name may have found its way into Niẕāmu'd-dīn Aḥmad's story as a gloss mistakenly amplifying the word _dāmād_, taken in its less usual sense of brother-in-law. To Bābur's contemporaries the expression "Bābur Pādshāh's _dāmād_" (son-in-law) would be explicit, because for some 11 years before he lay on his death-bed, he had one son-in-law only, _viz._ Muḥammad-i-zamān Mīrzā _Bāī-qarā_,[2732] the husband of Ma`ṣūma Sulṯān Begīm. If that Mīrzā's name were where Mahdī Khwāja's is entered, the story of an exclusion of Bābur's sons from rule might have a core of truth.

It is incredible however that Khālīfa, with or without Bābur's concurrence, made the plan attributed to him of placing any man not a Tīmūrid in the position of Pādshāh over all Bābur's territory. I suggest that the plan concerned Hindūstān only and was one considered in connection with Bābur's intended return to Kābul, when he must have left that difficult country, hardly yet a possession, in charge of some man giving promise of power to hold it. Such a man Humāyūn was not. My suggestion rests on the following considerations:—

(1) Bābur's outlook was not that of those in Āgra in 1587 AD. who gave Abū'l-faẓl his Bāburiana material, because at that date Dihlī had become the pivot of Tīmūrid power, so that not to hold Hindūstān would imply not to be Pādshāh. Bābur's outlook on his smaller Hindūstān was different; his position in it was precarious, Kābul, not Dihlī, was his chosen centre, and from Kābul his eyes looked northwards as well as to the East. If he had lost the Hindūstān which was approximately the modern United Provinces, he might still have held what lay west of it to the Indus, as well as Qandahār.

(2) For several years before his death he had wished to return to Kābul. Ample evidence of this wish is given by his diary, his letters, and some poems in his second _Dīwān_ (that found in the Rāmpūr MS.). As he told his sons more than once, he kept Kābul for himself.[2733] If, instead of dying in Āgra, he had returned to Kābul, had pushed his way on from Badakhshān, whether as far as Samarkand or less, had given Humāyūn a seat in those parts,—action foreshadowed by the records—a reasonable interpretation of the story that Humāyūn and his brothers were not to govern Hindūstān, is that he had considered with Khalīfa the apportionment of his territories according to the example of his ancestors Chīngīz Khān, Tīmūr and Abū-sa`īd; that by his plan of apportionment Humāyūn was not to have Hindūstān but something Tramontane; Kāmrān had already Qandahār; Sulaimān, if Humāyūn had moved beyond the out-post of Badakhshān, would have replaced him there; and Hindūstān would have gone to "Bābur Pādshāh's _dāmād_".

(3) Muḥammad-i-zamān had much to recommend him for Hindūstān:—Tīmūrid-born, grandson and heir of Sl. Ḥusain Mīrzā, husband of Ma`ṣūma who was a Tīmūrid by double descent,[2734] protected by Bābur after the Bāī-qarā _débacle_ in Herāt, a landless man leading such other exiles as Muḥammad Sulṯān Mīrzā,[2735] `Ādil Sulṯān, and Qāsim-i-ḥusain Sulṯān, half-Tīmūrids all, who with their Khurāsānī following, had been Bābur's guests in Kābul, had pressed on its poor resources, and thus had helped in 932 AH. (1525 AD.) to drive him across the Indus. This Bāī-qarā group needed a location; Muḥammad-i-zamān's future had to be cared for and with his, Ma`ṣūma's.

(4) It is significant of intention to give Muḥammad-i-zamān ruling status that in April 1529 AD. (Sha`bān 935 AH.) Bābur bestowed on him royal insignia, including the umbrella-symbol of sovereignty.[2736] This was done after the Mīrzā had raised objections, unspecified now in the _Bābur-nāma_ against Bihār; they were overcome, the insignia were given and, though for military reasons he was withheld from taking up that appointment, the recognition of his royal rank had been made. His next appointment was to Jūnpūr, the capital of the fallen Sharqī dynasty. No other chief is mentioned by Bābur as receiving the insignia of royalty.

(5) It appears to have been within a Pādshāh's competence to select his successor; and it may be inferred that choice was made between Humāyūn and another from the wording of more than one writer that Khalīfa "supported" Humāyūn, and from the word "selected" used in Aḥmad-i-yādgār's anecdote.[2737] Much more would there be freedom of choice in a division of territory such as there is a good deal to suggest was the basis of Niẕāmu'd-dīn Aḥmad's story. Whatever the extent of power proposed for the _dāmād_, whether, as it is difficult to believe, the Pādshāh's whole supremacy, or whether the limited sovereignty of Hindūstān, it must have been known to Bābur as well as to Khalīfa. Whatever their earlier plan however, it was changed by the sequel of Humāyūn's illness which led to his becoming Pādshāh. The _dāmād_ was dropped, on grounds it is safe to believe more impressive than his threat to flay Khalīfa or than the remonstrance of that high official's subordinate Muqīm of Herāt.

Humāyūn's arrival and continued stay in Hindūstān modified earlier dispositions which included his remaining in Badakhshān. His actions may explain why Bābur, when in 936 AH. he went as far as Lāhor, did not go on to Kābul. Nothing in the sources excludes the surmise that Māhīm knew of the bestowal of royal insignia on the Bāī-qarā Mīrzā, that she summoned her son to Āgra and there kept him, that she would do this the more resolutely if the _dāmād_ of the plan she must have heard of, were that Bāī-qarā, and that but for Humāyūn's presence in Āgra and its attendant difficulties, Bābur would have gone to Kābul, leaving his _dāmād_ in charge of Hindūstān.

Bābur, however, turned back from Lāhor for Āgra, and there he made the self-surrender which, resulting in Humāyūn's "selection" as Pādshāh, became a turning point in history.

Humāyūn's recovery and Bābur's immediate illness will have made the son's life seem Divinely preserved, the father's as a debt to be paid. Bābur's impressive personal experience will have dignified Humāyūn as one whom God willed should live. Such distinction would dictate the bestowal on him of all that fatherly generosity had yet to give. The imminence of death defeating all plans made for life, Humāyūn was nominated to supreme power as Pādshāh.

_g. Bābur's death._

Amongst other family matters mentioned by Gul-badan as occurring shortly before her Father's death, was his arrangement of marriages for Gul-rang with Aīsān-tīmūr and for Gul-chihra with Tūkhta-būghā _Chaghatāī_. She also writes of his anxiety to see Hind-āl who had been sent for from Kābul but did not arrive till the day after the death.

When no remedies availed, Humāyūn was summoned from Saṃbhal. He reached Āgra four days before the death; on the morrow Bābur gathered his chiefs together for the last of many times, addressed them, nominated Humāyūn his successor and bespoke their allegiance for him. Abū'l-faẓl thus summarizes his words, "Lofty counsels and weighty mandates were imparted. Advice was given (to Humāyūn) to be munificent and just, to acquire God's favour, to cherish and protect subjects, to accept apologies from such as had failed in duty, and to pardon transgressors. And, he (Bābur) exclaimed, the cream of my testamentary dispositions is this, 'Do naught against your brothers, even though they may deserve it.' In truth," continues the historian, "it was through obedience to this mandate that his Majesty Jannat-ashiyānī suffered so many injuries from his brothers without avenging himself." Gul-badan's account of her Father's last address is simple:—"He spoke in this wise, 'For years it has been in my heart to make over the throne to Humāyūn and to retire to the Gold-scattering Garden. By the Divine grace I have obtained in health of body everything but the fulfilment of this wish. Now that illness has laid me low, I charge you all to acknowledge Humāyūn in my stead. Fail not in loyalty towards him. Be of one heart and mind towards him. I hope to God that he, for his part, will bear himself well towards men. Moreover, Humāyūn, I commit you and your brothers and all my kinsfolk and your people and my people to God's keeping, and entrust them all to you.'"

It was on Monday Jumāda 1. 5th 937 AH. (Dec. 26th 153O AD.) that Bābur made answer to his summons with the _Adsum_ of the Musalmān, "Lord! I am here for Thee."

"Black fell the day for children and kinsfolk and all," writes his daughter;

"Alas! that time and the changeful heaven should exist without thee;
Alas! and Alas! that time should remain and thou shouldst be gone;"

mourns Khwāja Kalān in the funeral ode from which Badāyūnī quoted these lines.[2738]

The body was laid in the Garden-of-rest (_Ārām-bāgh_) which is opposite to where the Tāj-i-maḥāll now stands. Khwāja Muḥammad `Alī _`asas_[2739] was made the guardian of the tomb, and many well-voiced readers and reciters were appointed to conduct the five daily Prayers and to offer supplication for the soul of the dead. The revenues of Sīkrī and 5 _laks_ from Bīāna were set aside for the endowment of the tomb, and Māhīm Begīm, during the two and a half years of her remaining life, sent twice daily from her own estate, an allowance of food towards the support of its attendants.

In accordance with the directions of his will, Bābur's body was to be conveyed to Kābul and there to be laid in the garden of his choice, in a grave open to the sky, with no building over it, no need of a door-keeper.