Chapter XLVIII: Section III: Hindūstān (22)

[2498] or, Ārampūr. We have not succeeded in finding this
place; it seems to have been on the west bank of the Jumna,
since twice Bābur when on the east bank, writes of coming
opposite to it (_supra_ and f. 379). If no move was made on
Tuesday, Jumāda II. 6th (cf. last note), the distance entered
as done on Wednesday would locate the halting-place somewhere
near the Akbarpūr of later name, which stands on a road and at
a ferry. But if the army did a stage on Tuesday, of which
Bābur omits mention, Wednesday's march might well bring him
opposite to Hamirpūr and to the "Rampur"-ferry. The verbal
approximation of Ārampūr and "Rampur" arrests attention.—Local
encroachment by the river, which is recorded in the District
Gazetteers, may have something to do with the disappearance
from these most useful books and from maps, of _pargana_
Ādampūr (or, Ārampūr).

[2499] _tūshlāb._ It suits best here, since solitude is the
speciality of the excursion, to read _tūshmāk_ as meaning to
take the road, Fr. _cheminer_.

[2500] _da`wī bīla_; _Mems._ p. 404, challenge; _Méms._ ii,
391, _il avait fait des façons_, a truth probably, but one
inferred only.

[2501] This will be more to the south than Kūra Khas, the
headquarters of the large district; perhaps it is "Koora
Khera" (? Kūra-khirāj) which suits the route (I.S. Map, Sheet
88).

[2502] Perhaps Kunda Kanak, known also as "Kuria, Koria, Kura
and Kunra Kanak" (_D.G. of Fatḥpūr_).

[2503] Haswa or Hanswa. The conjoint name represents two
villages some 6m. apart, and is today that of their
railway-station.

[2504] almost due east of Fatḥpūr, on the old King's Highway
(_Bādshāhī Sar-rāh_).

[2505] His ancestors had ruled in Jūnpūr from 1394 to 1476
AD., his father Ḥusain Shāh having been conquered by Sl.
Sikandar _Lūdī_ at the latter date. He was one of three rivals
for supremacy in the East (_Sharq_), the others being
Jalālu'd-dīn _Nūhānī_ and Maḥmūd _Lūdī_,—Afghāns all three.
Cf. Erskine's _History of India, Bābur_, i, 501.

[2506] This name appears on the I.S. Map, Sheet 88, but too
far north to suit Bābur's distances, and also off the Sarāī
Munda-Kusār-Karrah road. The position of Naubasta suits
better.

[2507] Sher Khān was associated with Dūdū Bībī in the charge
of her son's affairs. Bābur's favours to him, his son
Humāyūn's future conqueror, will have been done during the
Eastern campaign in 934 AH., of which so much record is
missing. Cf. _Tārīkh-i-sher-shāhī_, E. & D.'s _History of
India_, iv, 301 _et seq._ for particulars of Sher Khān (Farīd
Khān _Sūr Afghān_).

[2508] In writing "Sl. Maḥmūd", Bābur is reporting his
informant's style, he himself calling Maḥmūd "Khān" only (f.
363 and f. 363_b_).

[2509] This will be the more northerly of two Kusārs marked as
in Karrah; even so, it is a very long 6 _kurohs_ (12m.) from
the Dugdugī of the I.S. Map (cf. n. _supra_).

[2510] _bīr pāra āsh u ta`ām_, words which suggest one of
those complete meals served, each item on its separate small
dish, and all dishes fitting like mosaic into one tray. T.
_āsh_ is cooked meat (f. 2 n. 1 and f. 343_b_); Ar. _ta`ām_
will be sweets, fruit, bread, perhaps rice also.

[2511] The _yaktāī_, one-fold coat, contrasts with the
_dū-tāhī_, two-fold (A.-i-A. Bib. Ind. ed., p. 101, and
Blochmann's trs. p. 88).

[2512] This acknowledgement of right to the style Sulṯān
recognized also supremacy of the Sharqī claim to rule over
that of the Nūḥānī and _Lūdī_ competitors.

[2513] _mīndīn bītī tūrgān waqāī'._ This passage Teufel used
to support his view that Bābur's title for his book was
_Waqāī`_, and not _Bābur-nāma_ which, indeed, Teufel describes
as the _Kazaner Ausgabe adoptirte Titel_. _Bābur-nāma_,
however, is the title [or perhaps, merely scribe's name]
associated both with Kehr's text and with the Ḥaidarābād
Codex.—I have found no indication of the selection by Bābur of
any title; he makes no mention of the matter and where he uses
the word _waqāī`_ or its congeners, it can be read as a common
noun. In his colophon to the _Rāmpūr Dīwān_, it is a parallel
of _ash`ār_, poems. Judging from what is found in the _Mubīn_,
it may be right to infer that, if he had lived to complete his
book—now broken off _s.a._ 914 AH. (f. 216_b_)—he would have
been explicit as to its title, perhaps also as to his grounds
for choosing it. Such grounds would have found fitting mention
in a preface to the now abrupt opening of the _Bābur-nāma_ (f.
1_b_), and if the _Malfūzāt-i-tīmūrī_ be Tīmūr's authentic
autobiography, this book might have been named as an ancestral
example influencing Bābur to write his own. Nothing against
the authenticity of the _Malfūzāt_ can be inferred from the
circumstance that Bābur does not name it, because the preface
in which such mention would be in harmony with _e.g._ his
_Walidiyyah_ preface, was never written. It might accredit the
_Malfūzāt_ to collate passages having common topics, as they
appear in the _Bābur-nāma_, _Malfūzāt-i-tīmūrī_ and
_Z̤afar-nāma_ (cf. E. & D.'s H. of I. iv, 559 for a discussion
by Dr. Sachau and Prof. Dowson on the _Malfūzāt_). (Cf. Z.D.M.
xxxvii, p. 184, Teufel's art. _Bābur und Abū'l-faẓl_;
Smirnow's Cat. of _Manuscrits Turcs_, p. 142; Index _in loco_
_s.nn._ _Mubīn_ and Title.)

[2514] Koh-khirāj, Revenue-paying Koh (H. G. Nevill's _D. G.
of Allāhābād_, p. 261).

[2515] _kīma aīchīdā_, which suggests a boat with a cabin, a
_bajrā_ (_Hobson-Jobson_ _s.n._ budgerow).

[2516] He had stayed behind his kinsman Khwāja Kalān. Both, as
Bābur has said, were descendants of Khwāja `Ubaidu'l-lāh
_Aḥrārī_. Khwāja Kalān was a grandson of Aḥrārī's second son
Yahyā; Khwāja `Abdu'sh-shahīd was the son of his fifth, Khwāja
`Abdu'l-lāh (Khwājagān-khwāja). `Abdu'sh-shahīd returned to
India under Akbar, received a fief, maintained 2,000 poor
persons, left after 20 years, and died in Samarkand in 982
AH.-1574-5 AD. (A.-i-A., Blochmann's trs. and notes, pp. 423,
539).

[2517] f. 363, f. 363_b_.

[2518] Not found on maps; OOjani or Ujahni about suits the
measured distance.

[2519] Prayāg, Ilāhābād, Allāhābād. Between the asterisk in my
text (_supra_) and the one following "ford" before the
foliation mark f. 364, the Ḥai. MS. has a _lacuna_ which, as
being preceded and followed by broken sentences, can hardly be
due to a scribe's skip, but may result from the loss of a
folio. What I have entered above between the asterisks is
translated from the Kehr-Ilminsky text; it is in the two
Persian translations also. Close scrutiny of it suggests that
down to the end of the swimming episode it is not in order and
that the account of the swim across the Ganges may be a
survival of the now missing record of 934 AH. (f. 339). It is
singular that the Pers. trss. make no mention of Pīāg or of
Sīr-auliya; their omission arouses speculation, as to in which
text, the Turkī or Persian, it was first tried to fill what
remains a gap in the Ḥai. Codex. A second seeming sign of
disorder is the incomplete sentence _yūrtgha kīlīb_, which is
noted below. A third is the crowd of incidents now standing
under "Tuesday". A fourth, and an important matter, is that on
grounds noted at the end of the swimming passage (p. 655 n. 3)
it is doubtful whether that passage is in its right place.—It
may be that some-one, at an early date after Bābur's death,
tried to fill the _lacuna_ discovered in his manuscript, with
help from loose folios or parts of them. Cf. Index _s.n._
swimming, and f. 377_b_, p. 680 n. 2.

[2520] The Chaghatāī sulṯāns will have been with `Askarī east
of the Ganges.

[2521] _tūr hawālīk_; _Mems._ p. 406, violence of the wind;
_Méms_. ii, 398, _une température très agréable_.

[2522] _yūrtgha kīlīb_, an incomplete sentence.

[2523] _ārāl bār aīkāndūr_, phrasing implying uncertainty;
there may have been an island, or such a peninsula as a
narrow-mouthed bend of a river forms, or a spit or bluff
projecting into the river. The word _ārāl_ represents
_Aīkī-sū-ārāsī_, _Miyān-dū-āb_, _Entre-eaux_,
Twixt-two-streams, Mesopotamia.

[2524] _qūl_; Pers. trss. _dast andākhtan_ and _dast_.
Presumably the 33 strokes carried the swimmer across the deep
channel, or the Ganges was crossed higher than Pīāg.

[2525] The above account of Bābur's first swim across the
Ganges which is entered under date Jumāda II. 27th, 935 AH.
(March 8th, 1529 AD.), appears misplaced, since he mentions
under date Rajab 25th, 935 AH. (April 4th, 1529 AD. f.
366_b_), that he had swum the Ganges at Baksara (Buxar) a year
before, _i.e._ on or close to Rajab 25th, 934 AH. (April 15th,
1528 AD.). Nothing in his writings shews that he was near Pīāg
(Allāhābād) in 934 AH.; nothing indisputably connects the
swimming episode with the "Tuesday" below which it now stands;
there is no help given by dates. One supposes Bābur would take
his first chance to swim the Ganges; this was offered at
Qanauj (f. 336), but nothing in the short record of that time
touches the topic. The next chance would be after he was in
Aūd, when, by an unascertained route, perhaps down the Ghogrā,
he made his way to Baksara where he says (f. 366_b_) he swam
the river. Taking into consideration the various testimony
noted, [Index _s.n._ swimming] there seems warrant for
supposing that this swimming passage is a survival of the
missing record of 934 AH. (f. 339). Cf. f. 377_b_, p. 680 and
n. 2 for another surmised survival of 934 AH.

[2526] "Friday" here stands for Anglicé, Thursday after 6
p.m.; this, only, suiting Bābur's next explicit date Sha`bān
1st, Saturday.

[2527] The march, beginning on the Jumna, is now along the
united rivers.

[2528] _ẓarb-zanlīk arābalār._ Here the carts are those
carrying the guns.

[2529] From the particulars Bābur gives about the Tūs (Tons)
and Karmā-nāśā, it would seem that he had not passed them
last year, an inference supported by what is known of his
route in that year:—He came from Gūālīār to the Kanār-passage
(f. 336), there crossed the Jumna and went direct to Qanauj
(f. 335), above Qanauj bridged the Ganges, went on to
Bangarmāu (f. 338), crossed the Gūmtī and went to near the
junction of the Ghogrā and Sardā (f. 338_b_). The next
indication of his route is that he is at Baksara, but whether
he reached it by water down the Ghogrā, as his meeting with
Muḥ. Ma`rūf _Farmūlī_ suggests (f. 377), or by land, nothing
shews. From Baksara (f. 366) he went up-stream to Chausa (f.
365_b_), on perhaps to Sayyidpūr, 2m. from the mouth of the
Gūmtī, and there left the Ganges for Jūnpūr (f. 365). I have
found nothing about his return route to Āgra; it seems
improbable that he would go so far south as to near Pīāg; a
more northerly and direct road to Fatḥpūr and Sarāī Bāburpūr
may have been taken.—Concerning Bābur's acts in 934 AH. the
following item, (met with since I was working on 934 AH.),
continues his statement (f. 338_b_) that he spent a few days
near Aūd (Ajōdhya) to settle its affairs. The _D.G. of
Fyzābāa_ (H. E. Nevill) p. 173 says "In 1528 AD. Bābur came to
Ajōdhya (Aūd) and halted a week. He destroyed the ancient
temple" (marking the birth-place of Rāma) "and on its site
built a mosque, still known as Bābur's Mosque.... It has two
inscriptions, one on the outside, one on the pulpit; both are
in Persian; and bear the date 935 _AH._" This date may be that
of the completion of the building.—(_Corrigendum_:—On f. 339
n. 1, I have too narrowly restricted the use of the name
Sarjū. Bābur used it to describe what the maps of Arrowsmith
and Johnson shew, and not only what the _Gazetteer of India_
map of the United Provinces does. It applies to the Sardā (f.
339) as Bābur uses it when writing of the fords.)

[2530] Here the lacuna of the Ḥai. Codex ends.

[2531] Perhaps, where there is now the railway station of
"Nulibai" (I.S. Map). The direct road on which the army moved,
avoids the windings of the river.

[2532] This has been read as T. _kīnt_, P. _dih_, Eng. village
and Fr. _village_.

[2533] "Nankunpur" lying to the north of Puhari
railway-station suits the distance measured on maps.

[2534] These will be the women-travellers.

[2535] Perhaps jungle tracts lying in the curves of the river.

[2536] _jīrga_, which here stands for the beaters' incurving
line, witness the exit of the buffalo at the end. Cf. f.
367_b_ for a _jīrga_ of boats.

[2537] _aūzūn aūzāgh_, many miles and many hours?

[2538] Bulloa? (I.S. Map).

[2539] Anglicé, Sunday after 6 p.m.

[2540] _`alufa u qunal_ (f. 359_b_).

[2541] than the Ganges perhaps; or narrowish compared with
other rivers, _e.g._ Ganges, Ghogrā, and Jūn.

[2542] _yīl-tūrgī yūrt_, by which is meant, I think, close to
the same day a year back, and not an indefinite reference to
some time in the past year.

[2543] Maps make the starting-place likely to be Sayyidpūr.

[2544] re-named Zamānīa, after Akbar's officer `Alī-qulī Khān
Khān-i-zamān, and now the head-quarters of the Zamānīa
_pargana_ of Ghāzīpūr. Madan-Benāres was in Akbar's _sarkār_
of Ghāzīpūr. (It was not identified by E. or by de C.) Cf.
_D.G. of Ghāzīpūr_.

[2545] In the earlier part of the Ḥai. Codex this Afghān
tribal-name is written Nūḥānī, but in this latter portion a
different scribe occasionally writes it Lūḥānī (Index _s.n._).

[2546] _`arza-dāsht_, _i.e._ phrased as from one of lower
station to a superior.

[2547] His letter may have announced his and his mother Dūdū
Bībī's approach (f. 368-9).

[2548] Naṣīr Khān had been an amīr of Sl. Sikandar _Lūdī_.
Sher Khān _Sūr_ married his widow "Guhar Kusāīn", bringing him
a large dowry (A.N. trs. p. 327; and _Tārīkh-i-sher-shāhi_, E.
& D.'s _History of India_ iv, 346).

[2549] He started from Chaparghatta (f. 361_b_, p. 650 n. 1).

[2550] _yīl-tūrgī yūrt._

[2551] "This must have been the Eclipse of the 10th of May
1528 AD.; a fast is enjoined on the day of an eclipse"
(Erskine).

[2552] Karmā-nā['s]ā means loss of the merit acquired by good
works.

[2553] The I.S. Map marks a main road leading to the mouth of
the Karmā-nā['s]ā and no other leading to the river for a
considerable distance up-stream.

[2554] Perhaps "Thora-nadee" (I.S. Map).

[2555] Anglicé, Sunday after 6 p.m.

[2556] _aūtkān yīl._

[2557] Perhaps the _dū-āba_ between the Ganges and
"Thora-nadee".

[2558] _yīl-tūr ... Gang-sūī-dīn mīn dastak bīla aūtūb, ba`ẓī
āt, ba`ẓī tīwah mīnīb, kīlīb, sair qīlīlīb aīdī._ Some
uncertainty as to the meaning of the phrase _dastak bīla
aūtūb_ is caused by finding that while here de Courteille
agrees with Erskine in taking it to mean swimming, he varies
later (f. 373_b_) to _appuyés sur une pièce de bois_. Taking
the Persian translations of three passages about crossing
water into consideration (p. 655 after f. 363_b_, f. 366_b_
(here), f. 373_b_), and also the circumstances that E. and de
C. are once in agreement and that Erskine worked with the help
of Oriental _munshīs_, I incline to think that _dastak bīla_
does express swimming.—The question of its precise meaning
bears on one concerning Bābur's first swim across the Ganges
(p. 655, n. 3).—Perhaps I should say, however, that if the
sentence quoted at the head of this note stood alone, without
the extraneous circumstances supporting the reading of _dastak
bīla_ to mean swimming, I should incline to read it as stating
that Bābur went on foot through the water, feeling his footing
with a pole (_dastak_), and that his followers rode through
the ford after him. Nothing in the quoted passage suggests
that the horses and camels swam. But whether the Ganges was
fordable at Baksara in Bābur's time, is beyond surmise.

[2559] _faṣl soz_, which, manifestly, were to be laid before
the envoy's master. The articles are nowhere specified; one is
summarized merely on f. 365. The incomplete sentence of the
Turkī text (_supra_) needs their specification at this place,
and an explicit statement of them would have made clearer the
political relations of Bābur with Naṣrat Shāh.—A folio may
have been lost from Bābur's manuscript; it might have
specified the articles, and also have said something leading
to the next topic of the diary, now needing preliminaries,
_viz._ that of the Mīrzā's discontent with his new
appointment, a matter not mentioned earlier.

[2560] This suits Bābur's series, but Gladwin and Wüstenfeld
have 10th.

[2561] The first is near, the second on the direct road from
Buxar for Ārrah.

[2562] The Ḥai. MS. makes an elephant be posted as the sole
scout; others post a _sardār_, or post braves; none post man
and beast.

[2563] This should be 5th; perhaps the statement is confused
through the gifts being given late, Anglicé, on Tuesday 4th,
Islamicé on Wednesday night.

[2564] The Mīrzā's Tīmūrid birth and a desire in Bābur to give
high status to a representative he will have wished to leave
in Bihār when he himself went to his western dominions,
sufficiently explain the bestowal of this sign of sovereignty.

[2565] _jīrgā._ This instance of its use shews that Bābur had
in mind not a completed circle, but a line, or in sporting
parlance, not a hunting-circle but a beaters'-line. [Cf. f.
251, f. 364_b_ and _infra_ of the crocodile.] The word is used
also for a governing-circle, a tribal-council.

[2566] _aūlūgh_ (_kīma_). Does _aūlūgh_ (_aūlūq_, _ūlūq_)
connect with the "bulky Oolak or baggage-boat of Bengal"?
(_Hobson-Jobson_ _s.n._ Woolock, oolock).

[2567] De Courteille's reading of Ilminsky's "Bāburī" (p. 476)
as Bāīrī, old servant, hardly suits the age of the boat.

[2568] Bābur anticipated the custom followed _e.g._ by the
White Star and Cunard lines, when he gave his boats names
having the same terminal syllable; his is _āīsh_; on it he
makes the quip of the har _āīsh_ of the Farmāīsh.

[2569] As Vullers makes Ar. _ghurfat_ a synonym of
_chaukandī_, the Farmāīsh seems likely to have had a cabin,
open at the sides. De Courteille understood it to have a
rounded stern. [Cf. E. & D.'s _History of India_ v, 347, 503
n.; and Gul-badan's H. N. trs. p. 98, n. 2.]

[2570] _mīndīn rukhṣat āldī_; phrasing which bespeaks admitted
equality, that of Tīmūrid birth.

[2571] _i.e._ subjects of the Afghān ruler of Bengal; many
will have been Bihārīs and Pūrbiyas. Makhdūm-i-`ālam was
Naṣrat Shāh's Governor in Ḥājīpūr.

[2572] This might imply that the Afghāns had been prevented
from joining Maḥmūd Khān _Lūdī_ near the Son.

[2573] Sl. Muḥammad Shāh _Nūḥānī Afghān_, the former ruler of
Bihār, dead within a year. He had trained Farīd Khān _Sūr_ in
the management of government affairs; had given him, for
gallant encounter with a tiger, the title Sher Khān by which,
or its higher form Sher Shāh, history knows him, and had made
him his young son's "deputy", an office Sher Khān held after
the father's death in conjunction with the boy's mother Dūdū
Bībī (_Tārīkh-i-sher-shāhī_, E. & D.'s _History of India_ iv,
325 _et seq._).

[2574] _gūz bāghī yūsūnlūq_; by which I understand they were
held fast from departure, as _e.g._ a mouse by the fascination
of a snake.

[2575] f. 365 mentions a letter which may have announced their
intention.

[2576] Ganges; they thus evaded the restriction made good on
other Afghāns.

[2577] Anglicé, Saturday 8th after 6 p.m.

[2578] The _D. G. of Shāhābād_ (pp. 20 and 127) mentions that
"it is said Bābur marched to Ārrah after his victory over
Maḥmūd _Lūdī_", and that "local tradition still points to a
place near the Judge's Court as that on which he pitched his
camp".

[2579] Kharīd which is now a _pargana_ of the Ballia district,
lay formerly on both sides of the Ghogrā. When the army of
Kharīd opposed Bābur's progress, it acted for Naṣrat Shāh, but
this Bābur diplomatically ignored in assuming that there was
peace between Bengal and himself.—At this time Naṣrat Shāh
held the riverain on the left bank of the Ghogrā but had lost
Kharīd of the right bank, which had been taken from him by
Jūnaid _Barlās_. A record of his occupation still survives in
Kharīd-town, an inscription dated by his deputy as for 1529
AD. (_District Gazetteer of Ballia_ H. R. Nevill), and _D. G.
of Sāran_ (L. L. S. O'Malley), Historical Chapters.

[2580] Bābur's opinion of Naṣrat Shāh's hostility is more
clearly shewn here than in the verbal message of f. 369.

[2581] This will be an unceremonious summary of a
word-of-mouth message.

[2582] Cf. f. 366_b_, p. 661 n. 2.

[2583] This shews that Bābur did not recognize the Sāran
riverain down to the Ganges as belonging to Kharīd. His
offered escort of Turks would safe-guard the Kharīdīs if they
returned to the right bank of the Ghogrā which was in Turk
possession.

[2584] The Ḥai. MS. has _wālī_, clearly written; which, as a
word representing Māhīm would suit the sentence best, may make
playful reference to her royal commands (f. 361_b_), by
styling her the Governor (_wālī_). Erskine read the word as a
place-name Dipālī, which I have not found; De Courteille omits
Ilminsky's _w:ras_ (p. 478). The MSS. vary and are uncertain.

[2585] This is the "Kadjar" of Réclus' _L'Asie antérieure_ and
is the name of the Turkmān tribe to which the present ruling
house of Persia belongs. "Turkmān" might be taken as applied
to Shāh T̤aḥmāsp by Dīv Sulṯān's servant on f. 354.

[2586] _Nelumbium speciosum_, a water-bean of great beauty.

[2587] Shaikh Yaḥyā had been the head of the Chishtī Order.
His son (d. 782 AH.-1380-1 AD.) was the author of works named
by Abū'l-faẓl as read aloud to Akbar, a discursive detail
which pleads in my excuse that those who know Bābur well
cannot but see in his grandson's character and success the
fruition of his mental characteristics and of his labours in
Hindūstān. (For Sharafu'd-dīn _Munīrī_, cf.
_Khazīnatu'l-asfiyā_ ii, 390-92; and _Āyīn-i-akbarī_ _s.n._)

[2588] Kostenko's _Turkistān Region_ describes a regimen for
horses which Bābur will have seen in practice in his native
land, one which prevented the defect that hindered his at
Munīr from accomplishing more than some 30 miles before
mid-day.

[2589] The distance from Munīr to the bank of the Ganges will
have been considerably longer in Bābur's day than now because
of the change of the river's course through its desertion of
the Burh-gangā channel (cf. next note).

[2590] In trying to locate the site of Bābur's coming battle
with the forces of Naṣrat Shāh, it should be kept in mind that
previous to the 18th century, and therefore, presumably, in
his day, the Ganges flowed in the "Burh-ganga" (Old Ganges)
channel which now is closely followed by the western boundary
of the Ballia _pargana_ of Dū-āba; that the Ganges and Ghogrā
will have met where this old channel entered the bed of the
latter river; and also, as is seen from Bābur's narrative,
that above the confluence the Ghogrā will have been confined
to a narrowed channel. When the Ganges flowed in the
Burh-ganga channel, the now Ballia _pargana_ of Dū-āba was a
sub-division of Bihiya and continuous with Shāhābād. From it
in Bihiya Bābur crossed the Ganges into Kharīd, doing this at
a place his narrative locates as some 2 miles from the
confluence. Cf. _D. G. of Ballia_, pp. 9, 192-3, 206, 213. It
may be observed that the former northward extension of Bihiya
to the Burh-ganga channel explains Bābur's estimate (f. 370)
of the distance from Munīr to his camp on the Ganges; his
12_k._ (24m.) may then have been correct; it is now too high.

[2591] De Courteille, _pierrier_, which may be a balista.
Bābur's writings give no indication of other than
stone-ammunition for any projectile-engine or fire-arm. Cf. R.
W. F. Payne-Gallwey's _Projectile-throwing engines of the
ancients_.

[2592] Sir R. W. F. Payne-Gallwey writes in _The Cross-bow_
(p. 40 and p. 41) what may apply to Bābur's _ẓarb-zan_
(culverin?) and _tufang_ (matchlock), when he describes the
larger culverin as a heavy hand-gun of from 16-18lb., as used
by the foot-soldier and requiring the assistance of an
attendant to work it; also when he says that it became the
portable arquebus which was in extensive use in Europe by the
Swiss in 1476 AD.; and that between 1510 and 1520 the arquebus
described was superseded by what is still seen amongst remote
tribes in India, a matchlock arquebus.

[2593] The two positions Bābur selected for his guns would
seem to have been opposite two ferry-heads, those, presumably,
which were blocked against his pursuit of Bīban and Bāyazīd.
`Alī-qulī's emplacement will have been on the high bank of old
alluvium of south-eastern Kharīd, overlooking the narrowed
channel demanded by Bābur's narrative, one pent in presumably
by _kankar_ reefs such as there are in the region. As
illustrating what the channel might have been, the varying
breadth of the Ghogrā along the `Azamgarh District may be
quoted, _viz._ from 10 miles to 2/5m., the latter being where,
as in Kharīd, there is old alluvium with _kankar_ reefs
preserving the banks. Cf. Reid's _Report of Settlement
Operations in `Azamgarh, Sikandarpur, and Bhadaon_.—Firishta
gives Badrū as the name of one ferry (lith. ed. i. 210).

[2594] Muṣṯafa, like `Alī-qulī, was to take the offensive by
gun-fire directed on the opposite bank. Judging from maps and
also from the course taken by the Ganges through the
Burh-ganga channel and from Bābur's narrative, there seems to
have been a narrow reach of the Ghogrā just below the
confluence, as well as above.

[2595] This ferry, bearing the common name Haldī (turmeric),
is located by the course of events as at no great distance
above the enemy's encampment above the confluence. It cannot
be the one of Sikandarpūr West.

[2596] _guẕr_, which here may mean a casual ford through water
low just before the Rains. As it was not found, it will have
been temporary.

[2597] _i.e._ above Bābur's positions.

[2598] _sarwar_ (or _dar_) _waqt_.

[2599] The preceding sentence is imperfect and varies in the
MSS. The 1st Pers. trs., the wording of which is often
explanatory, says that there were _no_ passages, which, as
there were many ferries, will mean fords. The Haldī-guẕr where
`Askarī was to cross, will have been far below the lowest
Bābur mentions, _viz._ Chatur-mūk (Chaupāra).

[2600] This passage presupposes that guns in Kharīd could hit
the hostile camp in Sāran. If the river narrowed here as it
does further north, the Ghāzī mortar, which seems to have been
the only one Bābur had with him, would have carried across,
since it threw a stone 1,600 paces (_qadam_, f. 309). Cf.
Reid's _Report_ quoted above.

[2601] Anglicé, Saturday after 6p.m.

[2602] _yaqīn būlghān fauj_, var. _ta`īn būlghān fauj_, the
army appointed (to cross). The boats will be those collected
at the Haldī-ferry, and the army `Askarī's.

[2603] _i.e._ near `Alī-qulī's emplacement.

[2604] Cf. f. 303, f. 309, f. 337 and n. 4.

[2605] "The _yasāwal_ is an officer who carries the commands
of the prince, and sees them enforced" (Erskine). Here he will
have been the superintendent of coolies moving earth.

[2606] _ma`jūn-nāk_ which, in these days of Bābur's return to
obedience, it may be right to translate in harmony with his
psychical outlook of self-reproach, by _ma`jūn_-polluted.
Though he had long ceased to drink wine, he still sought cheer
and comfort, in his laborious days, from inspiriting and
forbidden confections.

[2607] Probably owing to the less precise phrasing of his
Persian archetype, Erskine here has reversed the statement,
made in the Turkī, that Bābur slept in the Asāīsh (not the
Farmāīsh).

[2608] _aūstīdā tāshlār._ An earlier reading of this, _viz._
that stones were thrown on the intruder is negatived by
Bābur's mention of wood as the weapon used.

[2609] _sū sārī_ which, as the boats were between an island
and the river's bank, seems likely to mean that the man went
off towards the main stream. _Mems._ p. 415, "made his escape
in the river"; _Méms._ ii, 418, _dans la direction du large_.

[2610] This couplet is quoted by Jahāngīr also (_Tūzūk_, trs.
Rogers & Beveridge, i, 348).

[2611] This, taken with the positions of other
crossing-parties, serves to locate `Askarī's "Haldī-passage"
at no great distance above `Alī-qulī's emplacement at the
confluence, and above the main Bengal force.

[2612] perhaps, towed from the land. I have not found Bābur
using any word which clearly means to row, unless indeed a
later _rawān_ does so. The force meant to cross in the boats
taken up under cover of night was part of Bābur's own, no
doubt.

[2613] _ātīsh-bāzī_ lit. fire-playing, if a purely Persian
compound; if _ātīsh_ be Turkī, it means discharge, shooting.
The word "fire-working" is used above under the nearest to
contemporary guidance known to me, _viz._ that of the list of
persons who suffered in the Patna massacre "during the
troubles of October 1763 AD.", in which list are the names of
four Lieutenants fire-workers (_Calcutta Review_, Oct. 1884,
and Jan. 1885, art. _The Patna Massacre_, H. Beveridge).

[2614] _bī tahāshī_, without protest or demur.

[2615] Anglicé, Wednesday after 6 p.m.

[2616] Perhaps those which had failed to pass in the darkness;
perhaps those from Haldī-guẕr, which had been used by
`Askarī's troops. There appear to be obvious reasons for their
keeping abreast on the river with the troops in Sāran, in
order to convey reinforcements or to provide retreat.

[2617] _kīmalār aūstīdā_, which may mean that he came, on the
high bank, to where the boats lay below.

[2618] as in the previous note, _kīmalār aūstīdā_. These will
have been the few drawn up-stream along the enemy's front.

[2619] The reproach conveyed by Bābur's statement is borne out
by the strictures of Ḥaidar Mīrzā _Dūghlāt_ on Bābā Sulṯān's
neglect of duty (_Tārīkh-ī-rashīdī_ trs. cap. lxxvii).

[2620] _yūsūnlūq tūshī_, Pers. trss. _ṯarf khūd_, i.e. their
place in the array, a frequent phrase.

[2621] _dastak bīla dosta-i-qāmīsh bīla._ Cf. f. 363_b_ and f.
366_b_, for passages and notes connected with swimming and
_dastak_. Erskine twice translates _dastak bīla_ by swimming;
but here de Courteille changes from his earlier _à la nage_
(f. 366_b_) to _appuyés sur une pièce de bois_. Perhaps the
swift current was crossed by swimming with the support of a
bundle of reeds, perhaps on rafts made of such bundles (cf.
_Illustrated London News_, Sep. 16th, 1916, for a picture of
Indian soldiers so crossing on rafts).

[2622] perhaps they were in the Burh-ganga channel, out of
gun-fire.

[2623] If the Ghogrā flowed at this point in a narrow channel,
it would be the swifter, and less easy to cross than where in
an open bed.

[2624] _chīrīk-aīlī_, a frequent compound, but one of which
the use is better defined in the latter than the earlier part
of Bābur's writings to represent what then answered to an Army
Service Corps. This corps now crosses into Sāran and joins the
fighting force.

[2625] This appears to refer to the crossing effected before
the fight.

[2626] or Kūndbah. I have not succeeded in finding this name
in the Nirhun _pargana_; it may have been at the southern end,
near the "Domaigarh" of maps. In it was Tīr-mūhānī, perhaps a
village (f. 377, f. 381).

[2627] This passage justifies Erskine's surmise (_Memoirs_, p.
411, n. 4) that the Kharīd-country lay on both banks of the
Ghogrā. His further surmise that, on the east bank of the
Ghogrā, it extended to the Ganges would be correct also, since
the Ganges flowed, in Bābur's day, through the Burh-ganga (Old
Ganges) channel along the southern edge of the present Kharīd,
and thus joined the Ghogrā higher than it now does.

[2628] Bāyazīd and Ma`rūf _Farmūlī_ were brothers. Bāyazīd had
taken service with Bābur in 932 AH. (1526 AD.), left him in
934 AH. (end of 1527 AD.) and opposed him near Qanūj. Ma`rūf,
long a rebel against Ibrāhīm _Lūdī_, had never joined Bābur;
two of his sons did so; of the two, Muḥammad and Mūsa, the
latter may be the one mentioned as at Qanūj, "Ma`rūf's son"
(f. 336).—For an interesting sketch of Ma`rūf's character and
for the location in Hindūstān of the Farmūlī clan, _see_ the
_Wāqi`āt-i-mushtāqī_, E. & D.'s _History of India_, iv,
584.—In connection with Qanūj, the discursive remark may be
allowable, that Bābur's halt during the construction of the
bridge of boats across the Ganges in 934 AH. is still
commemorated by the name Bādshāh-nagar of a village between
Bangarmau and Nānāmau (Elliot's _Onau_, p. 45).

[2629] On f. 381 `Abdu'l-lāh's starting-place is mentioned as
Tīr-mūhānī.

[2630] The failure to join would be one of the evils predicted
by the dilatory start of the ladies from Kābul (f. 360_b_).

[2631] The order for these operations is given on f. 355_b_.

[2632] f. 369. The former Nūḥānī chiefs are now restored to
Bihār as tributaries of Bābur.

[2633] Erskine estimated the _krūr_ at about £25,000, and the
50 _laks_ at about £12,500.

[2634] The Mīrzā thus supersedes Junaid _Barlās_ in
Jūnpūr.—The form Jūnapūr used above and elsewhere by Bābur and
his Persian translators, supports the _Gazetteer of India_
xlv, 74 as to the origin of the name Jūnpūr.

[2635] a son of Naṣrat Shāh. No record of this earlier
legation is with the _Bābur-nāma_ manuscripts; probably it has
been lost. The only article found specified is the one asking
for the removal of the Kharīd army from a ferry-head Bābur
wished to use; Naṣrat Shāh's assent to this is an anti-climax
to Bābur's victory on the Ghogrā.

[2636] Chaupāra is at the Sāran end of the ferry, at the
Sikandarpūr one is Chatur-mūk (Four-faces, an epithet of
Brahma and Vishnu).

[2637] It may be inferred from the earlier use of the phrase
Gogar (or Gagar) and Sarū (Sīrū or Sīrd), on f. 338-8_b_, that
whereas the rebels were, earlier, for crossing Sarū only,
_i.e._ the Ghogrā below its confluence with the Sarda, they
had now changed for crossing above the confluence and further
north. Such a change is explicable by desire to avoid
encounter with Bābur's following, here perhaps the army of
Aūd, and the same desire is manifested by their abandonment of
a fort captured (f. 377_b_) some days before the rumour
reached Bābur of their crossing Sarū and Gogar.—Since
translating the passage on f. 338, I have been led, by
enforced attention to the movement of the confluence of Ghogrā
with Ganges (Sarū with Gang) to see that that translation,
eased in obedience to distances shewn in maps, may be wrong
and that Bābur's statement that he dismounted 2-3 _kurohs_
(4-6 m.) above Aūd at the confluence of Gogar with Sarū, may
have some geographical interest and indicate movement of the
two affluents such _e.g._ as is indicated of the Ganges and
Ghogrā by tradition and by the name Burh-ganga (cf. f. 370, p.
667, n. 2).

[2638] or L:knūr, perhaps Liknū or Liknūr. The capricious
variation in the MSS. between L:knū and L:knūr makes the
movements of the rebels difficult to follow. Comment on these
variants, tending to identify the places behind the words, is
grouped in Appendix T, _On L:knū_ (_Lakhnau_) and _L:knūr_
(_Lakhnār_).

[2639] Taking _guẕr_ in the sense it has had hitherto in the
_Bābur-nāma_ of ferry or ford, the detachment may have been
intended to block the river-crossings of "Sarū and Gogar". If
so, however, the time for this was past, the rebels having
taken a fort west of those rivers on Ramẓān 13th. Nothing
further is heard of the detachment.—That news of the
rebel-crossing of the rivers did not reach Bābur before the
18th and news of their capture of L:knū or L:knūr before the
19th may indicate that they had crossed a good deal to the
north of the confluence, and that the fort taken was one more
remote than Lakhnau (Oude). Cf. Appendix T.

[2640] Anglicé, Wednesday after 6 p.m.

[2641] These are recited late in the night during Ramẓān.

[2642] _kaghaẕ u ajzā'_, perhaps writing-paper and the various
sections of the _Bābur-nāma_ writings, _viz._ biographical
notices, descriptions of places, detached lengths of diary,
_farmāns_ of Shaikh Zain. The _lacunae_ of 934 AH., 935 AH.,
and perhaps earlier ones also may be attributed reasonably to
this storm. It is easy to understand the loss of _e.g._ the
conclusion of the Farghāna section, and the diary one of 934
AH., if they lay partly under water. The accident would be
better realized in its disastrous results to the writings, if
one knew whether Bābur wrote in a bound or unbound volume.
From the minor losses of 935 AH., one guesses that the current
diary at least had not reached the stage of binding.

[2643] The _tūnglūq_ is a flap in a tent-roof, allowing light
and air to enter, or smoke to come out.

[2644] _ajzā' u kitāb._ _See_ last note but one. The _kitāb_
(book) might well be Bābur's composed narrative on which he
was now working, as far as it had then gone towards its
untimely end (Ḥai. MS. f. 216_b_).

[2645] _saqarlāṯ kut-zīlūcha_, where _saqarlāṯ_ will mean warm
and woollen.

[2646] Kharīd-town is some 4 m. s.e. of the town of
Sikandarpūr.

[2647] or L:knū. Cf. Appendix T. It is now 14 days since
`Abdu'l-lāh _kitābdār_ had left Tīr-mūhānī (f. 380) for
Saṃbhal; as he was in haste, there had been time for him to go
beyond Aūd (where Bāqī was) and yet get the news to Bābur on
the 19th.

[2648] In a way not usual with him, Bābur seems to apply three
epithets to this follower, _viz._ _mīng-begī_, _shaghāwal_,
_Tāshkīndī_ (Index _s.n._).

[2649] or Kandla; cf. Revenue list f. 293; is it now Sāran
Khāṣ?

[2650] £18,000 (Erskine). For the total yield of Kundla (or
Kandla) and Sarwār, _see_ Revenue list (f. 293).

[2651] f. 375. P. 675 n. 2 and f. 381, p. 687 n. 3.

[2652] A little earlier Bābur has recorded his ease of mind
about Bihār and Bengal, the fruit doubtless of his victory
over Maḥmūd _Lūdī_ and Naṣrat Shāh; he now does the same about
Bihār and Sarwār, no doubt because he has replaced in Bihār,
as his tributaries, the Nūḥānī chiefs and has settled other
Afghāns, Jalwānīs and Farmūlīs in a Sarwār cleared of the
Jalwānī (?) rebel Bīban and the Farmūlī opponents Bāyazīd and
Ma`rūf. The Farmūlī Shaikh-zādas, it may be recalled, belonged
by descent to Bābur's Kābul district of Farmūl.—The
_Wāqi`āt-i-mushtāqī_ (E. & D.'s _H. of I._ iv, 548) details
the position of the clan under Sikandar _Lūdī_.

[2653] The MSS. write Fatḥpūr but Natḥpūr suits the context, a
_pargana_ mentioned in the _Āyīn-i-akbarī_ and now in the
`Azamgarh district. There seems to be no Fatḥpūr within
Bābur's limit of distance. The _D. G. of `Azamgarh_ mentions
two now insignificant Fatḥpūrs, one as having a school, the
other a market. The name G:l:r:h (K:l:r:h) I have not found.

[2654] The passage contained in this section seems to be a
survival of the lost record of 934 AH. (f. 339). I have found
it only in the _Memoirs_ p. 420, and in Mr. Erskine's own
Codex of the _Wāqi`āt-i-bāburī_ (now B.M. Add. 26,200), f. 371
where however several circumstances isolate it from the
context. It may be a Persian translation of an authentic Turkī
fragment, found, perhaps with other such fragments, in the
Royal Library. Its wording disassociates it from the
`Abdu'r-raḥīm text. The Codex (No. 26,200) breaks off at the
foot of a page (_supra_, Fatḥpūr) with a completed sentence.
The supposedly-misplaced passage is entered on the next folio
as a sort of ending of the _Bābur-nāma_ writings; in a rough
script, inferior to that of the Codex, and is followed by
_Tam, tam_ (Finis), and an incomplete date 98-, in words.
Beneath this a line is drawn, on which is subtended the
triangle frequent with scribes; within this is what seems to
be a completion of the date to 980 AH. and a pious wish,
scrawled in an even rougher hand than the rest.—Not only in
diction and in script but in contents also the passage is a
misfit where it now stands; it can hardly describe a village
on the Sarū; Bābur in 935 AH. did not march for Ghāzīpūr but
may have done so in 934 AH. (p. 656, n. 3); Ismā`īl _Jalwānī_
had had leave given already in 935 AH. (f. 377) under other
conditions, ones bespeaking more trust and tried
allegiance.—Possibly the place described as having fine
buildings, gardens _etc._ is Aūd (Ajodhya) where Bābur spent
some days in 934 AH. (cf. f. 363_b_, p. 655 n. 3).

[2655] "Here my Persian manuscript closes" (This is B.M. Add.
26,200). "The two additional fragments are given from Mr.
Metcalfe's manuscript alone" (now B.M. Add. 26,202) "and
unluckily, it is extremely incorrect" (Erskine). This note
will have been written perhaps a decade before 1826, in which
year the _Memoirs of Bābur_ was published, after long delay.
Mr. Erskine's own Codex (No. 26,200) was made good at a later
date, perhaps when he was working on his History of India
(pub. 1854), by a well-written supplement which carries the
diary to its usual end _s.a._ 936 AH. and also gives Persian
translations of Bābur's letters to Humāyūn and Khwāja Kalān.

[2656] Here, as earlier, Natḥpūr suits the context better than
Fatḥpūr. In the Natḥpūr _pargana_, at a distance from Chaupāra
approximately suiting Bābur's statement of distance, is the
lake "Tal Ratoi", formerly larger and deeper than now. There
is a second further west and now larger than Tal Ratoi;
through this the Ghogrā once flowed, and through it has tried
within the last half-century to break back. These changes in
Tal Ratoi and in the course of the Ghogrā dictate caution in
attempting to locate places which were on it in Bābur's day
_e.g._ K:l:r:h (_supra_).

[2657] Appendix T.

[2658] This name has the following variants in the Ḥai. MS.
and in Kehr's:—Dalm-ū-ūū-ūr-ūd-ūṯ. The place was in Akbar's
_sarkār_ of Mānikpūr and is now in the Rai Bareilly district.

[2659] Perhaps Chaksar, which was in Akbar's _sarkār_ of
Jūnpūr, and is now in the `Azamgarh district.

[2660] Ḥai. MS. _J:nāra khūnd tawābī sī bīla_ (perhaps
_tawābī`sī_ but not so written). The obscurity of these words
is indicated by their variation in the manuscripts. Most
scribes have them as Chunār and Jūnpūr, guided presumably by
the despatch of a force to Chunār on receipt of the news, but
another force was sent to Dalmau at the same time. The rebels
were defeated s.w. of Dalmau and thence went to Mahūba; it is
not certain that they had crossed the Ganges at Dalmau; there
are difficulties in supposing the fort they captured and
abandoned was Lakhnau (Oude); they might have gone south to
near Kālpī and Ādampūr, which are at no great distance from
where they were defeated by Bāqī _shaghāwal_, if Lakhnūr (now
Shahābād in Rāmpūr) were the fort. (Cf. Appendix T.)—To take
up the interpretation of the words quoted above, at another
point, that of the kinsfolk or fellow-Afghāns the rebels
planned to join:—these kinsfolk may have been, of Bāyazīd, the
Farmūlīs in Sarwār, and of Bīban, the Jalwānīs of the same
place. The two may have trusted to relationship for harbourage
during the Rains, disloyal though they were to their kinsmen's
accepted suzerain. Therefore if they were once across Ganges
and Jumna, as they were in Mahūba, they may have thought of
working eastwards south of the Ganges and of getting north
into Sarwār through territory belonging to the Chunār and
Jūnpūr governments. This however is not expressed by the words
quoted above; perhaps Bābur's record was hastily and
incompletely written.—Another reading may be Chunār and Jaund
(in Akbar's _sarkār_ of Rohtās).

[2661] _yūlīinī tūshqāīlār._ It may be observed concerning the
despatch of Muḥammad-i-zamān M. and of Junaid _Barlās_ that
they went to their new appointments Jūnpūr and Chunār
respectively; that their doing so was an orderly part of the
winding-up of Bābur's Eastern operations; that they remained
as part of the Eastern garrison, on duty apart from that of
blocking the road of Bīban and Bāyazīd.

[2662] This mode of fishing is still practised in India
(Erskine).

[2663] Islāmicé, Saturday night; Anglicé, Friday after 6 p.m.

[2664] This Tūs, "Tousin, or Tons, is a branch from the Ghogrā
coming off above Faizābād and joining the Sarju or Parsarū
below `Azamgarh" (Erskine).

[2665] Kehr's MS. p. 1132, Māng (or Mānk); Ḥai. MS. Tāīk; I.O.
218 f. 328 Bā:k; I.O. 217 f. 236_b_, Bīāk. Māīng in the
Sulṯānpūr district seems suitably located (_D.G. of
Sulṯānpūr_, p. 162).

[2666] This will be the night-guard (_`asas_); the librarian
(_kitābdār_) is in Saṃbhal. I.O. 218 f. 325 inserts _kitābdār_
after `Abdu'l-lāh's name where he is recorded as sent to
Saṃbhal (f. 375).

[2667] He will have announced to Tāj Khān the transfer of the
fort to Junaid _Barlās_.

[2668] £3750. Parsarūr was in Akbar's _ṣūbah_ of Lāhor; G. of
I. xx, 23, Pasrūr.

[2669] The estimate may have been made by measurement (f. 356)
or by counting a horse's steps (f. 370). Here the Ḥai. MS. and
Kehr's have D:lmūd, but I.O. 218 f. 328_b_ (D:lmūū).

[2670] As on f. 361_b_, so here, Bābur's wording tends to
locate Ādampūr on the right (west) bank of the Jumna.

[2671] Ḥai. MS. _aūta_, presumably for _aūrta_; Kehr's p.
1133, Aūd-dāghī, which, as Bāqī led the Aūd army, is _ben
trovato_; both Persian translations, _mīāngānī_, central,
inner, _i.e._ _aūrta_, perhaps household troops of the Centre.

[2672] Anglicé, Saturday 12th after 6 p.m.

[2673] In Akbar's _sarkār_ of Kālanjar, now in the Hamirpūr
district.

[2674] £7500 (Erskine). Amrohā is in the Morādābād district.

[2675] At the Chaupāra-Chaturmūk ferry (f.
376).—_Corrigendum_:—In the Index of the _Bābur-nāma
Facsimile_, Mūsa _Farmūlī_ and Mūsa Sl. are erroneously
entered as if one man.

[2676] _i.e._ riding light and fast. The distance done between
Ādampūr and Āgra was some 157 miles, the time was from 12 a.m.
on Tuesday morning to about 9 p.m. of Thursday. This exploit
serves to show that three years of continuous activity in the
plains of Hindūstān had not destroyed Bābur's capacity for
sustained effort, spite of several attacks of (malarial?)
fever.

[2677] Anglicé, Tuesday 12.25 a.m.

[2678] He was governor of Etāwa.

[2679] Islamicé, Friday, Shawwāl 18th, Anglicé, Thursday, June
24th, soon after 9 p.m.

[2680] Anglicé, she arrived at mid-night of
Saturday.—Gul-badan writes of Māhīm's arrival as unexpected
and of Bābur's hurrying off on foot to meet her
(_Humāyūn-nāma_ f. 14, trs. p. 100).

[2681] Māhīm's journey from Kābul to Āgra had occupied over 5
months.

[2682] Hindū Beg _qūchīn_ had been made Humāyūn's retainer in
932 AH. (f. 297), and had taken possession of Saṃbhal for him.
Hence, as it seems, he was ordered, while escorting the ladies
from Kābul, to go to Saṃbhal. He seems to have gone before
waiting on Bābur, probably not coming into Āgra till now.—It
may be noted here that in 933 AH. he transformed a Hindū
temple into a Mosque in Saṃbhal; it was done by Bābur's orders
and is commemorated by an inscription still existing on the
Mosque, one seeming not to be of his own composition, judging
by its praise of himself. (JASB. _Proceedings_, May 1873, p.
98, Blochmann's art. where the inscription is given and
translated; and _Archæological Survey Reports_, xii, p. 24-27,
with Plates showing the Mosque).

[2683] Cf. f. 375, f. 377, with notes concerning `Abdu'l-lāh
and Tīr-mūhānī. I have not found the name Tīr-mūhānī on maps;
its position can be inferred from Bābur's statement (f. 375)
that he had sent `Abdu'l-lāh to Saṃbhal, he being then at
Kunba or Kunīa in the Nurhun _pargana_.—The name Tīr-mūhānī
occurs also in Gorakhpūr.—It was at Tīr-mūhānī (Three-mouths)
that Khwānd-amīr completed the _Ḥabībū's-siyar_ (lith. ed. i,
83; Rieu's _Pers. Cat._ p. 1079). If the name imply three
water-mouths, they might be those of Ganges, Ghogrā and Dāhā.

[2684] _nīm-kāra._ E. and de C. however reverse the _rôles_.

[2685] The _Tārīkh-i-gūālīārī_ (B.M. Add. 16, 709, p. 18)
supplements the fragmentary accounts which, above and _s.a._
936 AH., are all that the _Bābur-nāma_ now preserves
concerning Khwāja Rāḥīm-dād's misconduct. It has several
mistakes but the gist of its information is useful. It
mentions that the Khwāja and his paternal-uncle Mahdī Khwāja
had displeased Bābur; that Raḥīm-dād resolved to take refuge
with the ruler of Mālwā (Muḥammad _Khīljī_) and to make over
Gūālīār to a Rājpūt landholder of that country; that upon this
Shaikh Muḥammad _Ghaus̤_ went to Āgra and interceded with
Bābur and obtained his forgiveness for Raḥīm-dād. Gūālīār was
given back to Raḥīm-dād but after a time he was superseded by
Abū'l-fatḥ [Shaikh Gūran]. For particulars about Mahdī Khwāja
and a singular story told about him by Niẕāmu'd-dīn Aḥmad in
the _T̤abaqāt-i-akbarī_, _vide_ Gul-badan's _Ḥumāyūn-nāma_,
Appendix B, and _Translator's Note_ p. 702, Section _f_.

[2686] He may have come about the misconduct of his nephew
Raḥīm-dād.

[2687] The `Īdu'l-kabīr, the Great Festival of 10th
Ẕū'l-ḥijja.

[2688] About £1750 (Erskine).

[2689] Perhaps he was from the tract in Persia still called
Chaghatāī Mountains. One Ibrāhīm _Chaghatāī_ is mentioned by
Bābur (f. 175b) with Turkmān begs who joined Ḥusain
_Bāī-qarā_. This Ḥasan-i-`alī _Chaghatāī_ may have come in
like manner, with Murād the Turkmān envoy from `Irāq (f. 369
and n. 1).

[2690] Several incidents recorded by Gul-badan (writing half a
century later) as following Māhīm's arrival in Āgra, will
belong to the record of 935 AH. because they preceded
Humāyūn's arrival from Badakhshān. Their omission from Bābur's
diary is explicable by its minor _lacunæ_. Such are:—(1) a
visit to Dhūlpūr and Sīkrī the interest of which lies in its
showing that Bībī Mubārika had accompanied Māhīm Begīm to Āgra
from Kābul, and that there was in Sīkrī a quiet retreat, a
_chaukandī_, where Bābur "used to write his book";—(2) the
arrival of the main caravan of ladies from Kābul, which led
Bābur to go four miles out, to Naugrām, in order to give
honouring reception to his sister Khān-ẓāda Begīm;—(3) an
excursion to the Gold-scattering garden (_Bāgh-i-zar-afshān_),
where seated among his own people, Bābur said he was "bowed
down by ruling and reigning", longed to retire to that garden
with a single attendant, and wished to make over his
sovereignty to Humāyūn;—(4) the death of Dil-dār's son Alwār
(var. Anwār) whose birth may be assigned to the gap preceding
932 AH. because not chronicled later by Bābur, as is Farūq's.
As a distraction from the sorrow for this loss, a journey was
"pleasantly made by water" to Dhūlpūr.

[2691] Cf. f. 381b n. 2. For his earlier help to Raḥīm-dād
_see_ f. 304. For Biographies of him _see_ Blochmann's A.-i-A.
trs. p. 446, and Badāyūnī's _Muntakhabu-'t-tawārīkh_
(Ranking's and Lowe's trss.).

[2692] Beyond this broken passage, one presumably at the foot
of a page in Bābur's own manuscript, nothing of his diary is
now known to survive. What is missing seems likely to have
been written and lost. It is known from a remark of
Gul-badan's (H.N. p. 103) that he "used to write his book"
after Māhīm's arrival in Āgra, the place coming into her
anecdote being Sīkrī.

[2693] Jauhar's _Humāyūn-nāma_ and Bāyazīd _Bīyāt's_ work of
the same title were written under the same royal command as
the Begīm's. They contribute nothing towards filling the gap
of 936 AH.; their authors, being Humāyūn's servants, write
about him. It may be observed that criticism of these books,
as recording trivialities, is disarmed if they were commanded
because they would obey an order to set down whatever was
known, selection amongst their contents resting with
Abū'l-faẓl. Even more completely must they be excluded from a
verdict on the literary standard of their day.—Abū'l-faẓl must
have had a source of Bāburiana which has not found its way
into European libraries. A man likely to have contributed his
recollections, directly or transmitted, is Khwāja Muqīm
_Harāwī_. The date of Muqīm's death is conjectural only, but
he lived long enough to impress the worth of historical
writing on his son Niẕāmu'-d-dīn Aḥmad. (Cf. E. and D.'s H. of
I. art. _T̤abaqāt-i-akbarī_ v, 177 and 187; T̤.-i-A. lith. ed.
p. 193; and for Bāyazīd _Bīyāt's_ work, JASB. 1898, p. 296.)

[2694] Ibn Batuta (Lee's trs. p. 133) mentions that after his
appointment to Gūālīār, Raḥīm-dād fell from favour ... but was
restored later, on the representation of Muḥammad Ghaus̤; held
Gūālīār again for a short time, (he went to Bahādur Shāh in
Gujrāt) and was succeeded by Abū'l-fatḥ (_i.e._ Shaikh Gūran)
who held it till Bābur's death.

[2695] Its translation and explanatory noting have filled two
decades of hard-working years. _Tanti labores auctoris et
traductoris!_

[2696] I am indebted to my husband for acquaintance with
Niẕāmu'-d-dīn Aḥmad's record about Bābur and Kashmīr.

[2697] In view of the vicissitudes to which under Humāyūn the
royal library was subjected, it would be difficult to assert
that this source was not the missing continuation of Bābur's
diary.

[2698] E. and D.'s H. of I. art. _Tārīkh-i Khān-i-jahān Lūdī_
v, 67. For Aḥmad-i-yādgār's book and its special features
_vide_ _l.c._ v, 2, 24, with notes; Rieu's _Persian Catalogue_
iii, 922_a_; JASB. 1916, H. Beveridge's art. _Note on the
Tārīkh-i-salāṯīn-i-afāghana._

[2699] Humāyūn's last recorded act in Hindūstān was that of
933 AH. (f. 329_b_) when he took unauthorized possession of
treasure in Dihlī.

[2700] _Tārīkh-i-rashīdī_ trs. p. 387.

[2701] T.-i-R. trs. p. 353 _et seq._ and Mr. Ney Elias' notes.

[2702] Abū'l-faẓl's record of Humāyūn's sayings and minor
doings at this early date in his career, can hardly be
anything more accurate than family-tradition.