Chapter XLVI: Section III: Hindūstān (20)

[2074] These are the titles of the 20th and 36th chapters of
the Qorān; Sale offers conjectural explanations of them. The
"family" is Muḥammad's.

[2075] a Bāī-qarā Tīmūrid of Bābur's generation, their last
common ancestor being Tīmūr himself.

[2076] an Aūzbeg who married a daughter of Sl. Ḥusain M.
_Bāī-qarā_.

[2077] It has been pointed out to me that there is a Chinese
title of nobility _Yūn-wāng_, and that it may be behind the
words _jang-jang_. Though the suggestion appears to me
improbable, looking to the record of Bābur's officer, to the
prevalence of sobriquets amongst his people, and to what would
be the sporadic appearance of a Chinese title or even
class-name borne by a single man amongst them. I add this
suggestion to those of my note on the meaning of the words
(Index _s.n._ Muḥ. `Alī). The title _Jūn-wāng_ occurs in Dr.
Denison Ross' _Three MSS. from Kāshghar_, p. 5, v. 5 and
translator's preface, p. 14.

[2078] Cf. f. 266 and f. 299. _Yārāgī_ may be the name of his
office, (from _yārāq_) and mean provisioner of arms or food or
other military requirements.

[2079] or, Tardī _yakka_, the champion, Gr. _monomachus_ (A.
N. trs. i, 107 n.).

[2080] var. 1 watch and 2 _g'harīs_; the time will have been
between 9 and 10 a.m.

[2081] _jūldū ba nām al `azīz-i-barādar shud_, a phrase not
easy to translate.

[2082] _viz._ those chained together as a defence and probably
also those conveying the culverins.

[2083] The comparison may be between the darkening smoke of
the fire-arms and the heresy darkening pagan hearts.

[2084] There appears to be a distinction of title between the
_akhta-begī_ and the _mīr-akhẉūr_ (master of the horse).

[2085] Qorān, cap. 14, v. 33.

[2086] These two men were in one of the flanking-parties.

[2087] This phrase "our brother" would support the view that
Shaikh Zain wrote as for Bābur, if there were not, on the
other hand, mention of Bābur as His Majesty, and the precious
royal soul.

[2088] _dīwānīān_ here may mean those associated with the
wazīr in his duties: and not those attending at Court.

[2089] Qorān, cap. 14, v. 52.

[2090] Index _s.n. chuhra_ (a brave).

[2091] _hizabrān-i-besha yakrangī_, literally, forest-tigers
(or, lions) of one hue.

[2092] There may be reference here to the chains used to
connect the carts into a defence.

[2093] The braves of the _khāṣa tābīn_ were part of Bābur's
own centre.

[2094] perhaps the cataphract elephants; perhaps the men in
mail.

[2095] Qorān, cap. 101, v. 54.

[2096] Qorān, cap. 101, v. 4.

[2097] _bā andākhtan-i-sang u ẓarb-zan tufak bisyārī._ As
Bābur does not in any place mention metal missiles, it seems
safest to translate _sang_ by its plain meaning of _stone_.

[2098] Also, metaphorically, swords.

[2099] _tīr._ My husband thinks there is a play upon the two
meanings of this word, arrow and the planet Mercury; so too in
the next sentence, that there may be allusion in the _kuākib
s̤awābit_ to the constellation Pegasus, opposed to Bābur's
squadrons of horse.

[2100] The Fish mentioned in this verse is the one pictured by
Muḥammadan cosmogony as supporting the Earth. The violence of
the fray is illustrated by supposing that of Earth's seven
climes one rose to Heaven in dust, thus giving Heaven eight.
The verse is from Firdausī's _Shāh-nāma_, [Turner-Macan's ed.
i, 222]. The translation of it is Warner's, [ii, 15 and n.]. I
am indebted for the information given in this note to my
husband's long search in the _Shāh-nāmā_.

[2101] Qorān, cap. 3, v. 133.

[2102] Qorān, cap. 61, v. 13.

[2103] Qorān, cap. 48, v. 1.

[2104] Qorān, cap. 48, v. 3.

[2105] [see p. 572] _farāsh_. De Courteille, reading _firāsh_,
translates this metaphor by _comme un lit lorsqu'il est
défait_. He refers to Qorān, cap. 101, v. 3. A better metaphor
for the breaking up of an army than that of moths scattering,
one allowed by the word _farāsh_, but possibly not by
Muḥammad, is _vanished like bubbles on wine_.

[2106] Bāgar is an old name for Dungarpūr and Bānswāra [_G. of
I._ vi, 408 _s.n._ Bānṣwāra].

[2107] _sic_, Ḥai. MS. and may be so read in I.O. 217 f.
220_b___; Erskine writes Bikersi (p. 367) and notes the
variant Nagersi; Ilminsky (p. 421) N:krsī; de Courteille (ii.
307) Niguersi.

[2108] Cf. f. 318_b_, and note, where it is seen that the
stones which killed the lords of the Elephants were so small
as to be carried in the bill of a bird like a swallow. Were
such stones used in matchlocks in Bābur's day?

[2109] _guzāran_, var. _gurazān_, caused to flee and hogs
(Erskine notes the double-meaning).

[2110] This passage, entered in some MSS. as if verse, is made
up of Qorān, cap. 17, v. 49, cap. 33, v. 38, and cap. 3, v.
122.

[2111] As the day of battle was Jumāda II. 13th (March 16th),
the _Fatḥ-nāma_ was ready and dated twelve days after that
battle. It was started for Kābul on Rajab 9th (April 11th).
Something may be said here appropriately about the surmise
contained in Dr. Ilminsky's Preface and M. de Courteille's
note to _Mémoires_ ii, 443 and 450, to the effect that Bābur
wrote a plain account of the battle of Kanwā and for this in
his narrative substituted Shaikh Zain's _Fatḥ-nāma_, and that
the plain account has been preserved in Kehr's _Bābur-nāma_
volume [whence Ilminsky reproduced it, it was translated by M.
de Courteille and became known as a "Fragment" of Bāburiana].
Almost certainly both scholars would have judged adversely of
their suggestion by the light of to-day's easier research. The
following considerations making against its value, may be set
down:—

(1) There is no sign that Bābur ever wrote a plain account of
the battle or any account of it. There is against his doing so
his statement that he inserts Shaikh Zain's _Fatḥ-nāma_
because it gives particulars. If he had written any account,
it would be found preceding the _Fatḥ-nāma_, as his account of
his renunciation of wine precedes Shaikh Zain's _Farmān_
announcing the act.

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

(3) The "Fragment" begins with a quotation from the
_Bābur-nāma_ (f.310_b_ and n.), skips a good deal of Bābur's
matter preliminary to the battle, and passes on with what
there can be no doubt is a translation in inferior Turkī of
the _Akbar-nāma_ account.

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

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

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

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

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

[2112] _T̤ughrā_ means an imperial signature also, but would
Bābur sign Shaikh Zain's _Fatḥ-i-nāma_? His autograph verse at
the end of the _Rāmpūr Dīwān_ has his signature following it.
He is likely to have signed this verse. Cf. App. Q. [Erskine
notes that titles were written on the back of despatches, an
unlikely place for the quatrain, one surmises.]

[2113] This is in the _Rāmpūr dīwān_ (E.D.R. Plate 17). Dr. E.
Denison Ross points out (p. 17 n.) that in the 2nd line the
Ḥai. Codex varies from the _Dīwān_. The MS. is wrong; it
contains many inaccuracies in the latter part of the Hindūstān
section, perhaps due to a change of scribe.

[2114] These words by _abjad_ yield 933. From Bābur's use of
the pluperfect tense, I think it may be inferred that (my)
Sections _a_ and _b_ are an attachment to the _Fatḥ-nāma_,
entered with it at a somewhat later date.

[2115] My translation of this puzzling sentence is tentative
only.

[2116] This statement shews that the Dībālpūr affair occurred
in one of the B.N. gaps, and in 930 AH. The words make 330 by
_abjad_. It may be noted here that on f. 312_b_ and notes
there are remarks concerning whether Bābur's remission of the
_tamghā_ was contingent on his winning at Kānwa. If the
remission had been delayed until his victory was won, it would
have found fitting mention with the other sequels of victory
chronicled above; as it is not with these sequels, it may be
accepted as an absolute remission, proclaimed before the
fight. The point was a little uncertain owing to the seemingly
somewhat deferred insertion in Bābur's narrative of Shaikh
Zain's _Farmān_.

[2117] _dā'ira_, presumably a defended circle. As the word
_aūrdū_ [bracketed in the text] shows, Bābur used it both for
his own and for Sangā's camps.

[2118] Hence the Rānā escaped. He died in this year, not
without suspicion of poison.

[2119] _aīchīmnī khālī qīldīm_, a seeming equivalent for
English, "I poured out my spleen."

[2120] var. _malūk_ as _e.g._ in I.O. 217 f.225_b_, and also
elsewhere in the _Bābur-nāma_.

[2121] On f. 315 the acts attributed to Ilīās Khān are said to
have been done by a "mannikin called Rustam Khān". Neither
name appears elsewhere in the B.N.; the hero's name seems a
sarcasm on the small man.

[2122] Bābur so-calls both Ḥasan and his followers, presumably
because they followed their race sympathies, as of Rājpūt
origin, and fought against co-religionists. Though Ḥasan's
subjects, Meos, were nominally Muḥammadans, it appears that
they practised some Hindu customs. For an account of Mīwāt,
see _Gazetteer of Ulwur_ (Alwar, Alūr) by Major P. W. Powlett.

[2123] Alwar being in Mīwāt, Bābur may mean that bodies were
found beyond that town in the main portion of the Mīwāt
country which lies north of Alwar towards Dihlī.

[2124] Major Powlett speaking (p. 9) of the revenue Mīwāt paid
to Bābur, quotes Thomas as saying that the coins stated in
Bābur's Revenue Accounts, _viz._ 169,810,00 _tankas_ were
probably Sikandarī _tankas_, or Rs. 8,490,50.

[2125] This word appears to have been restricted in its use to
the Khān-zādas of the ruling house in Mīwāt, and was not used
for their subjects, the Meos (Powlett _l.c._ Cap. I.). The
uses of "Mīwātī" and "Meo" suggest something analogous with
those of "Chaghatāī" and "Mughūl" in Bābur's time. The
resemblance includes mutual dislike and distrust (Powlett
_l.c._).

[2126] _qīlūrlār aīkān dūr._ This presumptive past tense is
frequently used by the cautious Bābur. I quote it here and in
a few places near-following because it supports Shaw's
statement that in it the use of _aīkān_ (_īkān_) reduces the
positive affirmation of the perfect to presumption or rumour.
With this statement all grammarians are not agreed; it is
fully supported by the _Bābur-nāma_.

[2127] Contrast here is suggested between Sulṯāns of Dihlī &
Hind; is it between the greater Turks with whom Bābur classes
himself immediately below as a conqueror of Hind, and the Lūdī
Sulṯāns of Dihlī?

[2128] The strength of the Tijāra hills towards Dihlī is
historical (Powlett _l.c._ p. 132).

[2129] This is one of the names of the principal river which
flows eastwards to the south of Alwar town; other names are
Bārah and Rūparel. Powlett notes that it appears in Thorn's
Map of the battle of Laswarree (1803 AD.), which he reproduces
on p. 146. But it is still current in Gurgaon, with also a
variant Mānas-le, man-killer (_G. of Gurgaon_ 1910 AD. ivA,
p.6).

[2130] _aūltūrūrlār aīkān dūr_, the presumptive past tense.

[2131] f.308.

[2132] _qīlghān aīkān dūr_, the presumptive past tense.

[2133] _Sulṯān ātīghā juldū būlūb_; Pers. trs. _Juldū ba nām-i
Sulṯān shud_. The _juldū_ guerdon seems to be apart from the
fief and allowance.

[2134] f. 315.

[2135] Bābur does not record this detail (f. 315).

[2136] f. 298_b_ and f. 328_b_. Ja`far is mentioned as Mahdī's
son by Gul-badan and in the _Ḥabību's-siyar_ iii, 311, 312.

[2137] f. 388_b_.

[2138] The town of Fīrūzpūr is commonly known as
Fīrūzpūr-jhirka (Fīrūzpūr of the spring), from a small
perennial stream which issues from a number of fissures in the
rocks bordering the road through a pass in the Mīwāt hills
which leads from the town _viâ_ Tijāra to Rewārī (_G. of
Gurgaon_, p. 249). In Abū'l-faẓl's day there was a Hindū
shrine of Mahadeo near the spring, which is still a place of
annual pilgrimage. The Kūtila lake is called Kotla-_jhil_ in
the _G. of G._ (p. 7). It extends now 3 m. by 2-1/2 m. varying
in size with the season; in Abū'l-faẓl's day it was 4 _kos_ (8
m.) round. It lies partly in the district of Nūh, partly in
Gurgaon, where the two tracts join at the foot of the Alwar
hills.

[2139] This is the frequently mentioned size for reservoirs;
the measure here is probably the _qārī_, _cir._ a yard.

[2140] Bābur does not state it as a fact known to himself that
the Mānas-nī falls into the Kūtila lake; it did so formerly,
but now does not, tradition assigning a cause for the change
(_G. of G._ p. 6). He uses the hear-say tense, _kīrār aīmīsh_.

[2141] Kharī and Toda were in Akbar's _sarkār_ of Rantaṃbhor.

[2142] Bhosāwar is in Bhurtpūr, and Chausa (or Jūsa) may be
the Chausath of the _Āyīn-i-akbarī_, ii, 183.

[2143] As has been noted frequently, this phrase stands for
artificial water-courses.

[2144] Certainly Trans-Hindū-kush lands; presumably also those
of Trans-Indus, Kābul in chief.

[2145] _aūstī_; perhaps the reservoir was so built as to
contain the bubbling spring.

[2146] _Chūn jā'ī khẉush karda ām._

[2147] f. 315.

[2148] var. Janwār (Jarrett). It is 25 m. east of Āgra on the
Muttra-Etāwa road (_G. of I._).

[2149] _kūcha-band_, perhaps a barricade at the limit of a
suburban lane.

[2150] This has been mentioned already (f. 327).

[2151] f. 315.

[2152] _i.e._ those professedly held for Bābur.

[2153] Or, according to local pronunciation, Badāyūn.

[2154] This is the old name of Shāhābād in Rāmpūr (_G. of I._
xxii, 197). The _A.-i-A._ locates it in Saṃbal. Cf. E. and
D.'s _History of India_, iv, 384 n. and v. 215 n.

[2155] Perhaps the one in Sītapūr.

[2156] f. 305_b_.

[2157] As the Elphinstone Codex which is the treasure-house of
Humāyūn's notes, has a long _lacuna_ into which this episode
falls, it is not known if the culprit entered in his copy of
the _Bābur-nāma_ a marginal excuse for his misconduct (cf. f.
252 and n.); such excuse was likely to be that he knew he
would be forgiven by his clement father.

[2158] f. 305_b_.

[2159] Kāmrān would be in Qandahār. Erskine notes that the sum
sent to him would be about £750, but that if the coins were
rūpīs, it would be £30,000.

[2160] _qiṯa`_, for account of which form of poem _see_
Blochmann's translations of Saifī's and Jāmī's _Prosody_, p.
86.

[2161] _Rāmpūr Dīwān_ (E. D. Ross' ed. p. 16 and Plate 14_a_).
I am uncertain as to the meaning of ll. 4 and 10. I am not
sure that what in most MSS. ends line 4, _viz._ _aūl dam_,
should not be read as _aūlūm_, death; this is allowed by Plate
14a where for space the word is divided and may be _aūlūm_. To
read _aūlūm_ and that the deserters fled from the death in
Hind they were anxious about, has an answering phrase in "we
still are alive". Ll. 9 and 10 perhaps mean that in the things
named all have done alike. [Ilminsky reads _khāir nafsī_ for
the elsewhere _ḥaz̤z̤-nafsī_.]

[2162] These are 20 attitudes (_rak`ah_) assumed in prayer
during Ramẓān after the Bed-time Prayer. The ablution
(_ghusl_) is the bathing of the whole body for ceremonial
purification.

[2163] This Feast is the `Id-i-fiṯṛ, held at the breaking of
the Ramẓān Fast on the 1st of Shawwāl.

[2164] Erskine notes that this is the earliest mention of
playing-cards he can recall in oriental literature.

[2165] f. 339_b_.

[2166] The two varieties mentioned by Bābur seem to be
_Diospyrus melanoxylon_, the wood of which is called _tindu
abnūs_ in Hindūstānī, and _D. tomentosa_, Hindi, _tindu_
(Brandis _s.nn._). Bārī is 19 m. west of Dūlpūr.

[2167] _mī`ād_, perhaps the time at which the Shaikh was to
appear before Bābur.

[2168] The Pers. trs. makes the more definite statement that
what had to be read was a Section of the Qoran (_wird_). This
was done with remedial aim for the illness.

[2169] As this statement needs comment, and as it is linked to
matters mentioned in the _Rāmpūr Dīwān_, it seems better to
remit remarks upon it to Appendix Q, _Some matters concerning
the Rāmpūr Dīwān_.

[2170] _risāla._ _See_ Appendix Q.

[2171] Elph. MS. _lacuna_; I.O. 215 _lacuna_ and 217 f. 229;
Mems. p. 373. This year's narrative resumes the diary form.

[2172] There is some uncertainty about these names and also as
to which adversary crossed the river. The sentence which, I
think, shews, by its plural verb, that Humāyūn left two men
and, by its co-ordinate participles, that it was they crossed
the river, is as follows:—(Darwīsh and Yūsuf, understood)
_Quṯb Sīrwānī-nī u bīr pāra rājalār-nī bīr daryā aūtūb
aūrūshūb yakshī bāsīb tūrlār_. _Aūtūb_, _aūrūshūb_ and _bāsīb_
are grammatically referable to the same subject, [whatever was
the fact about the crossing].

[2173] _bīr daryā_; W.-i-B. 217 f. 229, _yak daryā_, one
river, but many MSS. _har daryā_, every river. If it did not
seem pretty certain that the rebels were not in the
Miyān-dū-āb one would surmise the river to be "one river" of
the two enclosing the tract "between the waters", and that one
to be the Ganges. It may be one near Saṃbhal, east of the
Ganges.

[2174] var. Shīrwānī. The place giving the cognomen may be
Sarwān, a _thakurāt_ of the Mālwā Agency (_G. of I._). Quṯb of
Sīrwān may be the Quṯb Khān of earlier mention without the
cognomen.

[2175] n.w. of Aligarh (Kūl). It may be noted here, where
instances begin to be frequent, that my translation "we
marched" is an evasion of the Turkī impersonal "it was
marched". Most rarely does Bābur write "we marched", never, "I
marched."

[2176] in the Aligarh (Kūl) district; it is the Sikandara Rao
of the _A.-i-A._ and the _G. of I._

[2177] _Rāmpūr Dīwān_ (E. D. Ross' ed., p. 19, Plate 16_b_).
This _Dīwān_ contains other quatrains which, judging from
their contents, may well be those Bābur speaks of as also
composed in Saṃbal. _See_ Appendix Q, _Some matters concerning
the Rāmpūr Dīwān_.

[2178] These are aunts of Bābur, daughters of Sl. Abū-sa`īd
_Mīrān-shāhī_.

[2179] Sikandarābād is in the Buland-shahr district of the
United Provinces.

[2180] It is not clear whether Bābur returned from Sīkrī on
the day he started for Jalīsīr; no question of distance would
prevent him from making the two journeys on the Monday.

[2181] As this was the rendezvous for the army, it would be
convenient if it lay between Āgra and Anwār; as it was 6 m.
from Āgra, the only mapped place having approximately the name
Jalīsīr, _viz._ Jalesar, in Etah, seems too far away.

[2182] Anwār would be suitably the Unwāra of the _Indian
Atlas_, which is on the first important southward dip of the
Jumna below Āgra. Chandwār is 25 m. east of Āgra, on the
Muttra-Etāwah road (_G. of I._); Jarrett notes that
Tiefenthaler identifies it with Fīrūzābād (_A.-i-A._ ii, 183
n.).

[2183] In the district of Kālpī. The name does not appear in
maps I have seen.

[2184] _āghā_, Anglicé, uncle. He was Sa`īd Khān of Kāshghar.
Ḥaidar M. says Bābā Sl. was a spoiled child and died without
mending his ways.

[2185] From Kālpī Bābur will have taken the road to the s.w.
near which now runs the Cawnpur (Kānhpūr) branch of the Indian
Midland Railway, and he must have crossed the Betwa to reach
Īrij (Irich, _Indian Atlas_, Sheet 69 N.W.).

[2186] Leaving Īrij, Bābur will have recrossed the Betwa and
have left its valley to go west to Bāndīr (Bhander) on the
Pahūj (_Indian Atlas_, Sheet 69 S.W.).

[2187] beneficent, or Muḥassan, comely.

[2188] The one man of this name mentioned in the _B.N._ is an
amīr of Sl. Ḥusain _Bāī-qarā_.

[2189] It seems safe to take Kachwa [Kajwa] as the Kajwarra of
Ibn Batūta, and the Kadwāha (Kadwaia) of the _Indian Atlas_,
Sheet 52 N.E. and of Luard's _Gazetteer_ _of Gwalior_ (i,
247), which is situated in 24° 58' N. and 77° 57' E. Each of
the three names is of a place standing on a lake; Ibn Batūta's
lake was a league (4 m.) long, Bābur's about 11 miles round;
Luard mentions no lake, but the _Indian Atlas_ marks one quite
close to Kadwāha of such form as to seem to have a tongue of
land jutting into it from the north-west, and thus suiting
Bābur's description of the site of Kachwa. Again,—Ibn Batūta
writes of Kajwarra as having, round its lake, idol-temples;
Luard says of Kadwāha that it has four idol-temples standing
and nine in ruins; there may be hinted something special about
Bābur's Kachwa by his remark that he encouraged its people,
and this speciality may be interaction between Muḥammadanism
and Hindūism serving here for the purpose of identification.
For Ibn Batūta writes of the people of Kajwarra that they were
_jogīs_, yellowed by asceticism, wearing their hair long and
matted, and having Muḥammadan followers who desired to learn
their (occult?) secrets. If the same interaction existed in
Bābur's day, the Muḥammadan following of the Hindū ascetics
may well have been the special circumstance which led him to
promise protection to those Hindūs, even when he was out for
Holy-war. It has to be remembered of Chandīrī, the nearest
powerful neighbour of Kadwāha, that though Bābur's capture
makes a vivid picture of Hindūism in it, it had been under
Muḥammadan rulers down to a relatively short time before his
conquest. The _jogīs_ of Kachwa could point to long-standing
relations of tolerance by the Chandīrī Governors; this, with
their Muḥammadan following, explains the encouragement Bābur
gave them, and helps to identify Kachwa with Kajarra. It may
be observed that Bābur was familiar with the interaction of
the two creeds, witness his "apostates", mostly Muḥammadans
following Hindū customs, witness too, for the persistent fact,
the reports of District-officers under the British _Rāj_.
Again,—a further circumstance helping to identify Kajwarra,
Kachwa and Kadwāha is that these are names of the last
important station the traveller and the soldier, as well
perhaps as the modern wayfarer, stays in before reaching
Chandīrī. The importance of Kajwarra is shewn by Ibn Batūta,
and of Kadwāha by its being a _maḥāll_ in Akbar's _sarkār_ of
Bāyawān of the _ṣūba_ of Āgra. Again,—Kadwāha is the place
nearest to Chandīrī about which Bābur's difficulties as to
intermediate road and jungle would arise. That intermediate
road takes off the main one a little south of Kadwāha and runs
through what looks like a narrow valley and broken country
down to Bhamor, Bhurānpūr and Chandīrī. Again,—no bar to
identification of the three names is placed by their
differences of form, in consideration of the vicissitudes they
have weathered in tongue, script, and transliteration. There
is some ground, I believe, for surmising that their common
source is _kajūr_, the date-fruit. [I am indebted to my
husband for the help derived from Ibn Batūta, traced by him in
Sanguinetti's trs. iv, 33, and S. Lee's trs. p. 162.]

(Two places similar in name to Kachwa, and situated on Bābur's
route _viz._ Kocha near Jhansi, and Kuchoowa north of Kadwāha
(Sheet 69 S.W.) are unsuitable for his "Kachwa", the first
because too near Bandīr to suit his itinerary, the second
because too far from the turn off the main-road mentioned
above, because it has no lake, and has not the help in
identification detailed above of Kadwāha.)

[2190] _qūrūghīr_ which could mean also _reserved_ (from the
water?).

[2191] _qāzān._ There seems to have been one only; how few
Bābur had is shewn again on f. 337.

[2192] _Indian Atlas_, Sheet 52 N.E. near a tributary of the
Betwa, the Or, which appears to be Bābur's Burhānpūr-water.

[2193] The bed of the Betwa opposite Chandīrī is 1050 ft.
above the sea; the walled-town (_qūrghān_) of Chandīrī is on a
table-land 250 ft. higher, and its citadel is 230 ft. higher
again (Cunningham's _Archeological Survey Report_, 1871 A.D.
ii, 404).

[2194] The plan of Chandīrī illustrating Cunningham's Report
(_see_ last note) allows surmise about the road taken by
Bābur, surmise which could become knowledge if the names of
tanks he gives were still known. The courtesy of the
Government of India allows me to reproduce that plan [Appendix
R, _Chandīrī_ and _Gwālīāwar]_.

[2195] He is said to have been Governor of Chandīrī in 1513
AD.

[2196] Here and in similar passages the word _m:ljār_ or
_m:lchār_ is found in MSS. where the meaning is that of T.
_būljār_. It is not in any dictionary I have seen; Mr. Irvine
found it "obscure" and surmised it to mean "approach by
trenches", but this does not suit its uses in the _Bābur-nāma_
of a military post, and a rendezvous. This surmise,
containing, as it does, a notion of protection, links _m:ljār_
in sense with Ar. _malja'_. The word needs expert
consideration, in order to decide whether it is to be received
into dictionaries, or to be rejected because explicable as the
outcome of unfamiliarity in Persian scribes with T. _būljār_
or, _more Persico_ with narrowed vowels, _bŭljăr_. Shaw in his
Vocabulary enters _būljāq_ (_būljār_?), "a station for troops,
a rendezvous, see _malja'_," thus indicating, it would seem,
that he was aware of difficulty about _m:ljār_ and _būljāq_
(_būljār_?). There appears no doubt of the existence of a
Turkī word _būljār_ with the meanings Shaw gives to _būljāq_;
it could well be formed from the root _būl_, being, whence
follows, being in a place, posted. _Maljā_ has the meaning of
a standing-place, as well as those of a refuge and an asylum;
both meanings seem combined in the _m:ljār_ of f. 336_b_,
where for matchlockmen a _m:ljār_ was ordered "raised". (Cf.
Irvine's _Army of the Indian Moghuls_ p. 278.)

[2197] _yāghdā_; Pers. trs. _sar-āshīb_. Bābur's remark seems
to show that for effect his mortar needed to be higher than
its object. Presumably it stood on the table-land north of the
citadel.

[2198] _shātū._ It may be noted that this word, common in
accounts of Bābur's sieges, may explain one our friend the
late Mr. William Irvine left undecided (_l.c._ p. 278), _viz._
_shāṯūr_. On p. 281 he states that _nardubān_ is the name of a
scaling-ladder and that Bābur mentions scaling ladders more
than once. Bābur mentions them however always as _shātū_.
Perhaps _shāṯūr_ which, as Mr. Irvine says, seems to be made
of the trunks of trees and to be a siege appliance, is really
_shātū u_ ... (ladder and ...) as in the passage under note
and on f. 216_b_, some other name of an appliance following.

[2199] The word here preceding _tūra_ has puzzled scribes and
translators. I have seen the following variants in
MSS.;—_nūkrī_ or _tūkrī_, _b:krī_ or _y:krī_, _būkrī_ or
_yūkrī_, _būkrāī_ or _yūkrāī_, in each of which the _k_ may
stand for _g_. Various suggestions might be made as to what
the word is, but all involve reading the Persian enclitic _ī_
(forming the adjective) instead of Turkī _līk_. Two roots,
_tīg_ and _yūg_, afford plausible explanations of the unknown
word; appliances suiting the case and able to bear names
formed from one or other of these roots are _wheeled
mantelet_, and _head-strike_ (P. _sar-kob_). That the word is
difficult is shewn not only by the variants I have quoted, but
by Erskine's reading _naukarī tūra_, "to serve the _tūras_," a
requisite not specified earlier by Bābur, and by de
Courteille's paraphrase, _tout ce qui est nécessaire aux
touras_.

[2200] Sl. Nāṣiru'd-dīn was the Khīljī ruler of Mālwā from 906
to 916 A.H. (1500-1510 AD.).

[2201] He was a Rājpūt who had been prime-minister of Sl.
Maḥmūd II. _Khīljī_ (son of Nāṣīru'd-dīn) and had rebelled.
Bābur (like some other writers) spells his name Mindnī,
perhaps as he heard it spoken.

[2202] Presumably the one in the United Provinces. For
Shamsābād in Gūālīār _see_ Luard _l.c._ i, 286.

[2203] _chīqtī_; Pers. trs. _bar āmad_ and, also in some MSS.
_namī bar āmad_; Mems. p. 376, "averse to conciliation";
_Méms._ ii, 329, "_s'élevèrent contre cette proposition_." So
far I have not found Bābur using the verb _chīqmāq_
metaphorically. It is his frequent verb to express "getting
away", "going out of a fort". It would be a short step in
metaphor to understand here that Medinī's men "got out of it",
_i.e._ what Bābur offered. They may have left the fort also;
if so, it would be through dissent.

[2204] f. 332.

[2205] I.O. 217, f. 231, inserts here what seems a gloss, "_Tā
īn jā Farsī farmūda_" (_gufta_, said). As Bābur enters his
speech in Persian, it is manifest that he used Persian to
conceal the bad news.

[2206] The _Illustrated London News_ of July 10th, 1915 (on
which day this note is written), has an àpropos picture of an
ancient fortress-gun, with its stone-ammunition, taken by the
Allies in a Dardanelles fort.

[2207] The _dū-tahī_ is the _āb-duzd_, water-thief, of f. 67.
Its position can be surmised from Cunningham's Plan [Appendix
R].

[2208] For Bābur's use of hand (_qūl_) as a military term
_see_ f. 209.

[2209] His full designation would be Shāh Muḥammad _yūz-begī_.

[2210] This will be flight from the ramparts to other places
in the fort.

[2211] Bābur's account of the siege of Chandīrī is incomplete,
inasmuch as it says nothing of the general massacre of pagans
he has mentioned on f. 272. Khẉāfī Khān records the massacre,
saying, that after the fort was surrendered, as was done on
condition of safety for the garrison, from 3 to 4000 pagans
were put to death by Bābur's troops on account of hostility
shewn during the evacuation of the fort. The time assigned to
the massacre is previous to the _jūhar_ of 1000 women and
children and the self-slaughter of men in Medinī Rāo's house,
in which he himself died. It is not easy to fit the two
accounts in; this might be done, however, by supposing that a
folio of Bābur's MS. was lost, as others seem lost at the end
of the narrative of this year's events (_q.v._). The lost
folio would tell of the surrender, one clearly affecting the
mass of Rājpūt followers and not the chiefs who stood for
victory or death and who may have made sacrifice to honour
after hearing of the surrender. Bābur's narrative in this part
certainly reads less consecutive than is usual with him;
something preceding his account of the _jūhar_ would improve
it, and would serve another purpose also, since mention of the
surrender would fix a term ending the now too short time of
under one hour he assigns as the duration of the fighting. If
a surrender had been mentioned, it would be clear that his "2
or 3 _garīs_" included the attacking and taking of the
_dū-tahī_ and down to the retreat of the Rājpūts from the
walls. On this Bābur's narrative of the unavailing sacrifice
of the chiefs would follow in due order. Khẉāfī Khān is more
circumstantial than Firishta who says nothing of surrender or
massacre, but states that 6000 men were killed fighting.
Khẉāfī Khān's authorities may throw light on the matter, which
so far does not hang well together in any narrative, Bābur's,
Firishta's, or Khẉāfī Khān's. One would like to know what led
such a large body of Rājpūts to surrender so quickly; had they
been all through in favour of accepting terms? One wonders,
again, why from 3 to 4000 Rājpūts did not put up a better
resistance to massacre. Perhaps their assailants were Turks,
stubborn fighters down to 1915 AD.

[2212] For suggestion about the brevity of this period, _see_
last note.

[2213] Clearly, without Bābur's taking part in the fighting.

[2214] These words by _abjad_ make 934. The Ḥai. MS.
mistakenly writes _Būd Chandīrī_ in the first line of the
quatrain instead of _Būd chandī_. Khẉāfī Khān quotes the
quatrain with slight variants.

[2215] _Chandīrī ṯaurī wilāyat_ (_dā_?) _wāqī` būlūb tūr_,
which seems to need _dā_, in, because the fort, and not the
country, is described. Or there may be an omission _e.g._ of a
second sentence about the walled-town (fort).

[2216] This is the "Kirat-sagar" of Cunningham's Plan of
Chandīrī; it is mentioned under this name by Luard (_l.c._ i,
210). "Kirat" represents Kirtī or Kirit Sīngh who ruled in
Gūālīār from 1455 to 1479 AD., there also making a tank
(Luard, _l.c._ i, 232).

[2217] For illustrative photographs _see_ Luard, _l.c._ vol.
i, part iv.

[2218] I have taken this sentence to apply to the location of
the tanks, but with some doubt; they are on the table-land.

[2219] Bābur appears to have written Betwī, this form being in
MSS. I have read the name to be that of the river Betwa which
is at a considerable distance from the fort. But some writers
dispraise its waters where Bābur praises.

[2220] T. _qīā_ means a slope or slant; here it may describe
tilted _strata_, such as would provide slabs for roofing and
split easily for building purposes. (_See_ next note.)

[2221] _`imārat qīlmāq munāsib_. This has been read to mean
that the _qīālar_ provide good sites (Mems. & _Méms._), but
position, distance from the protection of the fort, and the
merit of local stone for building incline me to read the words
quoted above as referring to the convenient lie of the stone
for building purposes. (_See_ preceding note.)

[2222] _Chandīrī-dā judai (jady)-nīng irtiqā`ī yīgīrma-bīsh
darja dūr_; Erskine, p. 378, Chanderi is situated in the 25th
degree of N. latitude; de Courteille, ii, 334, _La hauteur du
Capricorne à Tchanderi est de 25 degrées_. The latitude of
Chandīrī, it may be noted, is 24° 43'. It does not appear to
me indisputable that what Bābur says here is a statement of
latitude. The word _judai_ (or _jady_) means both Pole-star
and the Sign Capricorn. M. de Courteille translates the quoted
sentence as I have done, but with Capricorn for Pole-star. My
acquaintance with such expressions in French does not allow me
to know whether his words are a statement of latitude. It
occurs to me against this being so, that Bābur uses other
words when he gives the latitude of Samarkand (f. 44_b_); and
also that he has shewn attention to the Pole-star as a guide
on a journey (f. 203, where he uses the more common word
_Quṯb_). Perhaps he notes its lower altitude when he is far
south, in the way he noted the first rise of Canopus to his
view (f. 125).

[2223] Mallū Khān was a noble of Mālwā, who became ruler of
Mālwā in 1532 or 1533 AD. [?], under the style of Qādir Shāh.

[2224] _i.e._ paid direct to the royal treasury.

[2225] This is the one concerning which bad news reached Bābur
just before Chandīrī was taken.

[2226] This presumably is the place offered to Medinī Rāo (f.
333_b_), and Bikramājīt (f. 343).

[2227] Obviously for the bridge.

[2228] _m:ljār_ (_see_ f. 333 n.). Here the word would mean
befittingly a protected standing-place, a refuge, such as
matchlockmen used (f. 217 and Index _s.n._ _arāba_).

[2229] _sīghīrūrdī_, a vowel-variant, perhaps, of
_sūghūrūrdī_.

[2230] f. 331_b_. This passage shews that Bābur's mortars were
few.

[2231] _nufūr qūl-lār-dīn ham karka bīla rah rawā kīshī u āt
aītīlār_, a difficult sentence.

[2232] _Afghānlār kūprūk bāghlāmāq-nī istib`ād qīlīb tamaskhur
qīlūrlār aīkāndūr._ The ridicule will have been at slow
progress, not at the bridge-making itself, since
pontoon-bridges were common (Irvine's _Army of the Indian
Moghuls_).

[2233] _tūīlāb_; Pers. trs. _uftān u khezān_, limping, or
falling and rising, a translation raising doubt, because such
a mode of progression could hardly have allowed escape from
pursuers.

[2234] Anglicé, on Friday night.

[2235] According to the Persian calendar, New-year's-day is
that on which the Sun enters Aries.

[2236] so-spelled in the Ḥai. MS.; by de Courteille
Banguermādū; the two forms may represent the same one of the
Arabic script.

[2237] or Gūī, from the context clearly the Gumti. Jarrett
gives Godi as a name of the Gumti; Gūī and Godī may be the
same word in the Arabic script.

[2238] Some MSS. read that there was not much pain.

[2239] I take this to be the Kali-Sarda-Chauka affluent of the
Gogra and not its Sarju or Saru one. To so take it seems
warranted by the context; there could be no need for the fords
on the Sarju to be examined, and its position is not suitable.

[2240] Unfortunately no record of the hunting-expedition
survives.

[2241] One historian, Aḥmad-i-yādgār states in his
_Tārīkh-i-salāṯīn-i-afāghina_ that Bābur went to Lāhor
immediately after his capture of Chandīrī, and on his return
journey to Āgra suppressed in the Panj-āb a rising of the
Mundāhar (or, Mandhar) Rājpūts. His date is discredited by
Bābur's existing narrative of 934 AH. as also by the absence
in 935 AH. of allusion to either episode. My husband who has
considered the matter, advises me that the Lāhor visit may
have been made in 936 or early in 937 AH. [These are a period
of which the record is lost or, less probably, was not
written.]

[2242] Elph. MS. f. 262; I. O. 215 f. 207b and 217 f. 234_b_;
_Mems._ p. 382. Here the Elphinstone MS. recommences after a
_lacuna_ extending from Ḥai. MS. f. 312_b_.

[2243] _See_ Appendix S:—_Concerning the dating of_ 935 AH.

[2244] `Askarī was now about 12 years old. He was succeeded in
Multān by his elder brother Kāmrān, transferred from Qandahār
[Index; JRAS. 1908 p. 829 para. (1)]. This transfer, it is
safe to say, was due to Bābur's resolve to keep Kābul in his
own hands, a resolve which his letters to Humāyūn (f. 348), to
Kāmrān (f. 359), and to Khwāja Kalān (f. 359) attest, as well
as do the movements of his family at this time. What would
make the stronger government of Kāmrān seem now more "for the
good of Multān" than that of the child `Askarī are the Bīlūchī
incursions, mentioned somewhat later (f. 355_b_) as having
then occurred more than once.

[2245] This will be his own house in the
Garden-of-eight-paradises, the Chār-bāgh begun in 932 AH.
(August 1526 AD.).

[2246] To this name Khwānd-amīr adds Aḥmadu'l-ḥaqīrī, perhaps
a pen-name; he also quotes verses of Shihāb's
(_Ḥabību's-siyar_ lith. ed. iii, 350).

[2247] Khwānd-amīr's account of his going into Hindūstān is
that he left his "dear home" (Herāt) for Qandahār in
mid-Shawwāl 933 AH. (mid-July 1527 AD.); that on Jumāda I.
10th 934 AH. (Feb. 1st 1528 AD.) he set out from Qandahār on
the hazardous journey into Hindūstān; and that owing to the
distance, heat, setting-in of the Rains, and breadth of rapid
rivers, he was seven months on the way. He mentions no
fellow-travellers, but he gives as the day of his arrival in
Āgra the one on which Bābur says he presented himself at
Court. (For an account of annoyances and misfortunes to which
he was subjected under Aūzbeg rule in Herāt _see Journal des
Savans_, July 1843, pp. 389, 393, Quatremère's art.)

[2248] Concerning Gūālīār _see_ Cunningham's _Archeological
Survey Reports_ vol. ii; Louis Rousselet's _L'Inde des Rajas_;
Lepel Griffin's _Famous Monuments of Central India_,
especially for its photographs; _Gazetteer of India_; Luard's
_Gazetteer of Gwalior_, text and photographs; _Travels of
Peter Mundy_, Hakluyt Society ed. R. C. Temple, ii, 61,
especially for its picture of the fort and note (p. 62)
enumerating early writers on Gūālīār. Of Persian books there
is Jalāl _Ḥiṣārī's Tārīkh-i-Gwālīāwar_ (B.M. Add. 16,859) and
Hirāman's (B.M. Add. 16,709) unacknowledged version of it,
which is of the B.M. MSS. the more legible.

[2249] Perhaps this stands for Gwālīāwar, the form seeming to
be used by Jalāl _Ḥiṣārī_, and having good traditional support
(Cunningham p. 373 and Luard p. 228).

[2250] _tūshlānīb_, _i.e._ they took rest and food together at
mid-day.

[2251] This seems to be the conjoined Gambhīr and Bāngānga
which is crossed by the Āgra-Dhūlpūr road (_G. of I._ Atlas,
Sheet 34).

[2252] _aīchtūq_, the plural of which shews that more than one
partook of the powders (_safūf_).

[2253] T. _tālqān_, Hindī _sattu_ (Shaw). M. de Courteille's
variant translation may be due to his reading for _tālqān_,
_tālghāq_, _flot_, _agitation_ (his Dict. _s.n._) and _yīl_,
wind, for _bīla_, with.

[2254] in 933 AH. f. 330_b_.

[2255] "Each beaked promontory" (Lycidas). Our name
"Selsey-bill" is an English instance of Bābur's (not
infrequent) _tūmshūq_, beak, bill of a bird.

[2256] No order about this Chār-bāgh is in existing annals of
934 AH. Such order is likely to have been given after Bābur's
return from his operations against the Afghāns, in his account
of which the annals of 934 AH. break off.

[2257] The fort-hill at the northern end is 300 ft. high, at
the southern end, 274 ft.; its length from north to south is
1-3/4 m.; its breadth varies from 600 ft. opposite the main
entrance (Hātī-pūl) to 2,800 ft. in the middle opposite the
great temple (Sās-bhao). Cf. Cunningham p. 330 and Appendix R,
_in loco_, for his Plan of Gūālīār.

[2258] This Arabic plural may have been prompted by the
greatness and distinction of Mān-sing's constructions. Cf.
Index _s.nn._ _begāt_ and _bāghāt_.

[2259] A translation point concerning the (Arabic) word
_`imārat_ is that the words "palace", "_palais_", and
"residence" used for it respectively by Erskine, de
Courteille, and, previous to the Hindūstān Section, by myself,
are too limited in meaning to serve for Bābur's uses of it in
Hindūstān; and this (1) because he uses it throughout his
writings for buildings under palatial rank (_e.g._ those of
high and low in Chandīrī); (2) because he uses it in Hindūstān
for non-residential buildings (_e.g._ for the Bādalgarh
outwork, f. 341_b_, and a Hindū temple _ib._); and (3) because
he uses it for the word "building" in the term building-stone,
f. 335_b_ and f. 339_b_. _Building_ is the comprehensive word
under which all his uses of it group. For labouring this point
a truism pleads my excuse, namely, that a man's vocabulary
being characteristic of himself, for a translator to increase
or diminish it is to intrude on his personality, and this the
more when an autobiography is concerned. Hence my search here
(as elsewhere) for an English grouping word is part of an
endeavour to restrict the vocabulary of my translation to the
limits of my author's.

[2260] Jalāl _Ḥiṣārī_ describes "Khwāja Raḥīm-dād" as a
paternal-nephew of Mahdī Khwāja. Neither man has been
introduced by Bābur, as it is his rule to introduce when he
first mentions a person of importance, by particulars of
family, _etc._ Both men became disloyal in 935 AH. (1529 AD.)
as will be found referred to by Bābur. Jalāl _Ḥiṣārī_
supplements Bābur's brief account of their misconduct and
Shaikh Muḥammad _Ghaus̤'_ mediation in 936 AH. For knowledge
of his contribution I am indebted to my husband's perusal of
the _Tārīkh-i-Gwālīāwar_.

[2261] Erskine notes that Indians and Persians regard
moonshine as cold but this only faintly expresses the
wide-spread fear of moon-stroke expressed in the Psalm (121 v.
6), "The Sun shall not smite thee by day, nor the Moon by
night."

[2262] _Agarcha lūk balūk u bī sīyāq._ Ilminsky [p. 441] has
_balūk balūk_ but without textual warrant and perhaps
following Erskine, as he says, speaking generally, that he has
done in case of need (Ilminsky's Preface). Both Erskine and de
Courteille, working, it must be remembered, without the help
of detailed modern descriptions and pictures, took the above
words to say that the buildings were scattered and without
symmetry, but they are not scattered and certainly Mān-sing's
has symmetry. I surmise that the words quoted above do not
refer to the buildings themselves but to the stones of which
they are made. T. _lūk_ means heavy, and T. _balūk_ [? block]
means a thing divided off, here a block of stone. Such blocks
might be _bī sīyāq_, _i.e._ irregular in size. To take the
words in this way does not contradict known circumstances, and
is verbally correct.

[2263] The Rājas' buildings Bābur could compare were Rāja
Karna (or Kirtī)'s [who ruled from 1454 to 1479 AD.], Rāja
Mān-sing's [1486 to 1516 AD.], and Rāja Bikramājīt's [1516 to
1526 AD. when he was killed at Panīpat].

[2264] The height of the eastern face is 100 ft. and of the
western 60 ft. The total length from north to south of the
outside wall is 300 ft.; the breadth of the residence from
east to west 160 ft. The 300 ft. of length appears to be that
of the residence and service-courtyard (Cunningham p. 347 and
Plate lxxxvii).

[2265] _kaj bīla āqārītīb._ There can be little doubt that a
white pediment would show up the coloured tiles of the upper
part of the palace-walls more than would pale red sandstone.
These tiles were so profuse as to name the building Chīt
Mandīr (Painted Mandīr). Guided by Bābur's statement,
Cunningham sought for and found plaster in crevices of carved
work; from which one surmises that the white coating approved
itself to successors of Mān-sing. [It may be noted that the
word Mandīr is in the same case for a translator as is
_`imārat_ (f. 339_b_ n.) since it requires a grouping word to
cover its uses for temple, palace, and less exalted
buildings.]

[2266] The lower two storeys are not only backed by solid
ground but, except near the Hātī-pūl, have the rise of ground
in front of them which led Bābur to say they were "even in a
pit" (_chūqūr_).

[2267] MSS. vary between _har_ and _bīr_, every and one, in
this sentence. It may be right to read _bīr_, and apply it
only to the eastern façade as that on which there were most
cupolas. There are fewer on the south side, which still stands
(Luard's photo. No. 37).

[2268] The ground rises steeply from this Gate to an inner
one, called Hawā-pūl from the rush of air (_hawā_) through it.

[2269] Cunningham says the riders were the Rāja and a driver.
Perhaps they were a mahout and his mate. The statue stood to
the left on exit (_chīqīsh_).

[2270] This window will have been close to the Gate where no
mound interferes with outlook.

[2271] Rooms opening on inner and open courts appear to form
the third story of the residence.

[2272] T. _chūqūr_, hollow, pit. This storey is dark and
unventilated, a condition due to small windows, absence of
through draught, and the adjacent mound. Cunningham comments
on its disadvantages.

[2273] _Agarcha Hindūstānī takalluflār qīlīb tūrlār walī bī
hawālīk-rāq yīrlār dūr._ Perhaps amongst the pains taken were
those demanded for _punkhas_. I regret that Erskine's
translation of this passage, so superior to my own in literary
merit, does not suit the Turkī original. He worked from the
Persian translation, and not only so, but with a less rigid
rule of translation than binds me when working on Bābur's
_ipsissima verba_ (_Mems._ p. 384; Cunningham p. 349; Luard p.
226).

[2274] The words _aūrtā dā_ make apt contrast between the
outside position of Mān-sing's buildings which helped to form
the fort-wall, and Bikramājīt's which were further in except
perhaps one wall of his courtyard (see Cunningham's Plate
lxxxiii).

[2275] Cunningham (p. 350) says this was originally a
_bāra-dūrī_, a twelve-doored open hall, and must have been
light. His "originally" points to the view that the hall had
been altered before Bābur saw it but as it was only about 10
years old at that time, it was in its first form, presumably.
Perhaps Bābur saw it in a bad light. The dimensions Cunningham
gives of it suggest that the high dome must have been
frequently ill-lighted.

[2276] The word _tālār_, having various applications, is not
easy to match with a single English word, nor can one be sure
in all cases what it means, a platform, a hall, or _etc._ To
find an equivalent for its diminutive _tālār-ghina_ is still
more difficult. Raḥīm-dād's _tālār_-ette will have stood on
the flat centre of the dome, raised on four pillars or perhaps
with its roof only so-raised; one is sure there would be a
roof as protection against sun or moon. It may be noted that
the dome is not visible outside from below, but is hidden by
the continuation upwards of walls which form a mean-looking
parallelogram of masonry.

[2277] _T. tūr yūl._ Concerning this hidden road _see_
Cunningham p. 350 and Plate lxxxvii.

[2278] _bāghcha._ The context shews that the garden was for
flowers. For Bābur's distinctions between _bāghcha_, _bāgh_
and _baghāt_, _see_ Index _s.nn._

[2279] _shaft-ālū_ _i.e._ the rosy colour of peach-flowers,
perhaps lip-red (Steingass). Bābur's contrast seems to be
between those red oleanders of Hindūstān that are rosy-red,
and the deep red ones he found in Gūālīār.

[2280] _kul_, any large sheet of water, natural or artificial
(Bābur). This one will be the Sūraj-kund (Sun-tank).

[2281] This is the Telī Mandīr, or Telingana Mandīr (Luard).
Cf. Cunningham, p. 356 and Luard p. 227 for accounts of it;
and _G. of I._ _s.n._ Telīagarhi for Telī Rājas.

[2282] This is a large outwork reached from the Gate of the
same name. Bābur may have gone there specially to see the
Gūjarī Mandīr said by Cunningham to have been built by
Mān-sing's Gūjar wife Mṛiga-nayāna (fawn-eyed). Cf. Cunningham
p. 351 and, for other work done by the same Queen, in the s.
e. corner of the fort, p. 344; Luard p. 226. In this place
"construction" would serve to translate _`imārat_ (f. 340 n.).

[2283] _āb-duzd_, a word conveying the notion of a stealthy
taking of the water. The walls at the mouth of Urwā were built
by Altamsh for the protection of its water for the fort. The
date Bābur mentions (a few lines further) is presumably that
of their erection.

[2284] Cunningham, who gives 57 ft. as the height of this
statue, says Bābur estimated it at 20 _gaz_, or 40 ft., but
this is not so. Bābur's word is not _gaz_ a measure of 24
fingers-breadth, but _qārī_, the length from the tip of the
shoulder to the fingers-ends; it is about 33 inches, not less,
I understand. Thus stated in _qārīs_ Bābur's estimate of the
height comes very near Cunningham's, being a good 55 ft. to 57
ft. (I may note that I have usually translated _qārī_ by
"yard", as the yard is its nearest English equivalent. The
Pers. trs. of the B. N. translates by _gaz_, possibly a larger
_gaz_ than that of 24 fingers-breadth _i.e._ inches.)

[2285] The statues were not broken up by Bābur's agents; they
were mutilated; their heads were restored with coloured
plaster by the Jains (Cunningham p. 365; Luard p. 228).

[2286] _rozan_ [or, _aūz:n_] ... _tafarruj qīlīb_. Neither
Cunningham nor Luard mentions this window, perhaps because
Erskine does not; nor is this name of a Gate found. It might
be that of the Dhonda-paur (Cunningham, p. 339). The 1st Pers.
trs. [I.O. 215 f. 210] omits the word _rozan_ (or, _auz:n_);
the 2nd [I.O. 217 f. 236b] renders it by _jā'ī_, place.
Manifestly the Gate was opened by Bābur, but, presumably, not
precisely at the time of his visit. I am inclined to
understand that _rozan_ ... _tafarruj karda_ means enjoying
the window formerly used by Muḥammadan rulers. If _aūz:n_ be
the right reading, its sense is obscure.

[2287] This will have occurred in the latter half of 934 AH.
of which no record is now known.

[2288] He is mentioned under the name Asūk Mal _Rājpūt_, as a
servant of Rānā Sangā by the _Mirāt-i-sikandarī_, lith. ed. p.
161. In Bayley's Translation p. 273 he is called Awāsūk,
manifestly by clerical error, the sentence being _az
jānib-i-au Asūk Mal Rājpūt dar ān (qila`) būda_....

[2289] _ātā-līk, aūghūl-līk_, _i.e._ he spoke to the son as a
father, to the mother as a son.

[2290] The _Mirāt-i-sikandarī_ (lith. ed. p. 234, Bayley's
trs. p. 372) confirms Bābur's statement that the precious
things were at Bikramājīt's disposition. Perhaps they had been
in his mother's charge during her husband's life. They were
given later to Bahādur Shāh of Gujrāt.

[2291] The Telī Mandīr has not a cupola but a waggon-roof of
South Indian style, whence it may be that it has the southern
name Telingana, suggested by Col. Luard.

[2292] See Luard's Photo. No. 139 and P. Mundy's sketch of the
fort p. 62.

[2293] This will be the Ghargarāj-gate which looks south
though it is not at the south end of the fort-hill where there
is only a postern approached by a flight of stone steps
(Cunningham p. 332).

[2294] The garden will have been on the lower ground at the
foot of the ramp and not near the Hātī-pūl itself where the
scarp is precipitous.

[2295] _Mūndīn kīchīkrāq ātlānīlghān aīkāndūr._ This may imply
that the distance mentioned to Bābur was found by him an
over-estimate. Perhaps the fall was on the Mūrar-river.