Chapter XLIX: Section III: Hindūstān (23)

[2703] The statement that Khalīfa was asked to go so far from
where he was of the first importance as an administrator,
leads to consideration of why it was done. So little is known
explicitly of Bābur's intentions about his territories after
his death that it is possible only to put that little together
and read between its lines. It may be that he was now planning
an immediate retirement to Kābul and an apportionment during
life of his dominions, such as Abū-sa`īd had made of his own.
If so, it would be desirable to have Badakhshān held in
strength such as Khalīfa's family could command, and
especially desirable because as Barlās Turks, that family
would be one with Bābur in desire to regain Transoxiana. Such
a political motive would worthily explain the offer of the
appointment.

[2704] The "Shāh" of this style is derived from Sulaimān's
Badakhshī descent through Shāh Begīm; the "Mīrzā" from his
Mīrān-shāhī descent through his father Wais Khān Mīrzā. The
title Khān Mīrzā or Mīrzā Khān, presumably according to the
outlook of the speaker, was similarly derived from forbears,
as would be also Shāh Begīm's; (her personal name is not
mentioned in the sources).

[2705] Sa`īd, on the father's, and Bābur, on the mother's
side, were of the same generation in descent from Yūnas Khān;
Sulaimān was of a younger one, hence his pseudo-filial
relation to the men of the elder one.

[2706] Sa`īd was Shāh Begīm's grandson through her son Aḥmad,
Sulaimān her great-grandson through her daughter Sulṯān-Nigār,
but Sulaimān could claim also as the heir of his father who
was nominated to rule by Shāh Begīm; moreover, he could claim
by right of conquest on the father's side, through Abū-sa`īd
the conqueror, his son Maḥmūd long the ruler, and so through
Maḥmūd's son Wais Khān Mīrzā.

[2707] The menace conveyed by these words would be made the
more forceful by Bābur's move to Lāhor, narrated by
Aḥmad-i-yādgār. Some ill-result to Sa`īd of independent rule
by Sulaimān seems foreshadowed; was it that if Bābur's
restraining hand were withdrawn, the Badakhshīs would try to
regain their lost districts and would have help in so-doing
from Bābur?

[2708] It is open to conjecture that if affairs in Hindūstān
had allowed it, Bābur would now have returned to Kābul.
Aḥmad-i-yādgār makes the expedition to be one for pleasure
only, and describes Bābur as hunting and sight-seeing for a
year in Lāhor, the Panj-āb and near Dihlī. This appears a mere
flourish of words, in view of the purposes the expedition
served, and of the difficulties which had arisen in Lāhor
itself and with Sa`īd Khān. Part of the work effected may have
been the despatch of an expedition to Kashmīr.

[2709] This appears a large amount.

[2710] The precision with which the Rāja's gifts are stated,
points to a closely-contemporary and written source. A second
such indication occurs later where gifts made to Hind-āl are
mentioned.

[2711] An account of the events in Multān after its occupation
by Shāh Ḥasan _Arghūn_ is found in the latter part of the
_T̤abaqāt-i-akbarī_ and in Erskine's H. of I. i, 393 _et
seq._—It may be noted here that several instances of confusion
amongst Bābur's sons occur in the extracts made by Sir H.
Elliot and Professor Dowson in their _History of India_ from
the less authoritative sources [_e.g._ v, 35 Kāmrān for
Humāyūn, `Askarī said to be in Kābul (pp. 36 and 37); Hind-āl
for Humāyūn _etc._] and that these errors have slipped into
several of the District Gazetteers of the United Provinces.

[2712] As was said of the offering made by the Rāja of Kahlūr,
the precision of statement as to what was given to Hind-āl,
bespeaks a closely-contemporary written source. So too does
the mention (text, _infra_) of the day on which Bābur began
his return journey from Lāhor.

[2713] Cf. _G. of I._ xvi, 55; Ibbetson's _Report on Karnāl_.

[2714] It is noticeable that no one of the three royal
officers named as sent against Mohan _Mundāhir_, is
recognizable as mentioned in the _Bābur-nāma_. They may all
have had local commands, and not have served further east.
Perhaps this, their first appearance, points to the origin of
the information as independent of Bābur, but he might have
been found to name them, if his diary were complete for 936
AH.

[2715] The E. and D. translation writes twice as though the
inability to "pull" the bows were due to feebleness in the
men, but an appropriate reading would refer the difficulty to
the hardening of sinews in the composite Turkish bows, which
prevented the archers from bending the bows for stringing.

[2716] One infers that fires were burned all night in the
bivouac.

[2717] At this point the A.S.B. copy (No. 137) of the
_Tārīkh-i-salāṯin-i-afāghana_ has a remark which may have been
a marginal note originally, and which cannot be supposed made
by Aḥmad-i-yādgār himself because this would allot him too
long a spell of life. It may show however that the
interpolations about the two Tīmūrids were not inserted in his
book by him. Its purport is that the Mundāhir village
destroyed by Bābur's troops in 936 AH.-1530 AD. was still in
ruins at the time it was written 160 (lunar) years later
(_i.e._ in 1096 AH.-1684-85 AD.). The better Codex (No. 3887)
of the Imperial Library of Calcutta has the same passage.—Both
that remark and its context show acquaintance with Samāna and
Kaithal.—The writings now grouped under the title
_Tārīkh-i-salāṯīn-i-afāghana_ present difficulties both as to
date and contents (cf. Rieu's _Persian Catalogue_ _s. n._).

[2718] Presumably in Tihrind.

[2719] Cf. G. B.'s H. N. trs. and the _Akbar-nāma_ Bib. Ind.
ed. and trs., Index _s.nn._; Hughes' _Dictionary of Islām_
_s.n._ Intercession.

[2720] A closer translation would be, "I have taken up the
burden." The verb is _bardāshtan_ (cf. f. 349, p. 626 n. 1).

[2721] _See_ Erskine's _History of India_ ii, 9.

[2722] At this point attention is asked to the value of the
Aḥmad-i-yādgār interpolation which allows Bābur a year of
active life before Humāyūn's illness and his own which
followed. With no chronicle known of 936 AH. Bābur had been
supposed ill all through the year, a supposition which
destroys the worth of his self-sacrifice. Moreover several
inferences have been drawn from the supposed year of illness
which are disproved by the activities recorded in that
interpolation.

[2723] E. and D.'s _History of India_ v, 187; G. B.'s
_Humāyūn-nāma_ trs. p. 28.

[2724] _dar khidmat-i-dīwānī-i-buyūtāt_; perhaps he was a
Barrack-officer. His appointment explains his attendance on
Khalīfa.

[2725] Khalīfa prescribed for the sick Bābur.

[2726] _khānwāda-i-bīgānah_, perhaps, foreign dynasty.

[2727] From Saṃbhal; Gul-badan, by an anachronism made some 60
years later, writes Kālanjar, to which place Humāyūn moved 5
months after his accession.

[2728] I am indebted to my husband's perusal of Sayyid Aḥmad
Khān's _As̤ār-i-ṣanādīd_ (Dihlī ed. 1854 p. 37, and Lakhnau
ed. 1895 pp. 40, 41) for information that, perhaps in 935 AH.,
Mahdī Khwāja set up a tall slab of white marble near Amīr
Khusrau's tomb in Dihlī, which bears an inscription in praise
of the poet, composed by that Shihābu'd-dīn the Enigmatist who
reached Āgra with Khwānd-amīr in Muḥarram 935 AH. (f. 339_b_).
The inscription gives two chronograms of Khusrau's death (725
AH.), mentions that Mahdī Khwāja was the creator of the
memorial, and gives its date in the words, "The beautiful
effort of Mahdī Khwāja."—The Dihlī ed. of the
_As̤ār-i-ṣanādīd_ depicts the slab with its inscription; the
Lakhnau ed. depicts the tomb, may show the slab _in sitû_, and
contains interesting matter by Sayyid Aḥmad Khān. The slab is
mentioned without particulars in Murray's _Hand-book to
Bengal_, p. 329.

[2729] Lee's _Ibn Batuta_ p. 133 and Hirāman's
_Tārīkh-i-gūālīārī_. Cf. G. B.'s _Humāyūn-nāma_ trs. (1902
AD.), Appendix B.—_Mahdī Khwāja._

[2730] In an anonymous _Life of Shāh Ismā`īl Ṣafawī_, Mahdī
Khwāja [who may be a son of the Mūsa Khwāja mentioned by Bābur
on f. 216] is described as being, in what will be 916-7 AH.,
Bābur's _Dīwān-begī_ and as sent towards Bukhārā with 10,000
men. This was 29 years before the story calls him a young man.
Even if the word _jawān_ (young man) be read, as T. _yīgīt_ is
frequently to be read, in the sense of "efficient fighting
man", Mahdī was over-age. Other details of the story, besides
the word _jawān_, bespeak a younger man.

[2731] G. B.'s H. N. trs. p. 126; _Ḥabību's-siyar_, B. M. Add.
16,679 f. 370, l. 16, lith. ed. Sec. III. iii, 372 (where a
clerical error makes Bābur give Māhdī _two_ of his
full-sisters in marriage).—Another _yazna_ of Bābur was
Khalīfā's brother Junaid _Barlās_, the husband of Shahr-bānū,
a half-sister of Bābur.

[2732] Bābur, shortly before his death, married Gul-rang to
Aīsān-tīmūr and Gul-chihra to Tūkhta-būghā _Chaghatāī_. Cf.
_post_, Section _h_, _Bābur's wives and children_; and G. B.'s
H. N. trs. Biographical Appendix _s.nn._ Dil-dār Begīm and
Salīma Sulṯān Begīm _Mirān-shāhi_.

[2733] Cf. G. B.'s H. N. trs. p. 147.

[2734] She is the only adult daughter of a Tīmūrid mother
named as being such by Bābur or Gul-badan, but various
considerations incline to the opinion that Dil-dār Begīm also
was a Tīmūrid, hence her three daughters, all named from the
Rose, were so too. Cf. references of penultimate note.

[2735] It attaches interest to the Mīrzā that he can be taken
reasonably as once the owner of the Elphinstone Codex (cf.
JRAS. 1907, pp. 136 and 137).

[2736] Death did not threaten when this gift was made; life in
Kābul was planned for.—Here attention is asked again to the
value of Aḥmad-i-yādgār's Bāburiana for removing the
impression set on many writers by the blank year 936 AH. that
it was one of illness, instead of being one of travel, hunting
and sight-seeing. The details of the activities of that year
have the further value that they enhance the worth of Bābur's
sacrifice of life.—Ḥaidar Mīrzā also fixes the date of the
beginning of illness as 937 AH.

[2737] The author, or embroiderer, of that anonymous story did
not know the _Bābur-nāma_ well, or he would not have described
Bābur as a wine-drinker after 933 AH. The anecdote is parallel
with Niẕāmu'd-dīn Aḥmad's, the one explaining why the Mīrzā
was selected, the other why the _dāmād_ was dropped.

[2738] _Bib. Ind._ i, 341; Ranking's trs. p. 448.

[2739] The night-guard; perhaps Māhīm Begīm's brother (G. B.'s
H. N. trs. pp. 27-8).

[2740] G. B.'s H. N. trs. f. 34_b_, p. 138; Jauhar's _Memoirs
of Humāyūn_, Stewart's trs. p. 82.

[2741] Cf. G. B.'s H. N. trs. p. 216, Bio. App. _s.n._ Bega
Begam.

[2742] f. 128, p. 200 n. 3. Cf. Appendix U.—_Bābur's Gardens
in and near Kābul_.

[2743] Cf. H. H. Hayden's _Notes on some monuments in
Afghānistān_, [_Memoirs of the Asiatic Society of Bengal_ ii,
344]; and _Journal asiatique_ 1888, M. J. Darmesteter's art.
_Inscriptions de Caboul_.

[2744] _ān_, a demonstrative suggesting that it refers to an
original inscription on the second, but now absent, upright
slab, which presumably would bear Bābur's name.

[2745] Ruẓwān is the door-keeper of Paradise.

[2746] Particulars of the women mentioned by Bābur, Ḥaidar,
Gul-badan and other writers of their time, can be seen in my
Biographical Appendix to the Begīm's _Humāyūn-nāma_. As the
Appendix was published in 1902, variants from it occurring in
this work are corrections superseding earlier and
less-informed statements.

[2747] _Tārīkh-i-rashīdī_ trs. Ney Elias and Ross p. 308.

[2748] Bio. App. _s.n._ Gul-chihra.

[2749] The story of the later uprisings against Māhīm's son
Humāyūn by his brothers, by Muḥammad-i-zamān _Bāī-qarā_ and
others of the same royal blood, and this in spite of Humāyūn's
being his father's nominated successor, stirs surmise as to
whether the rebels were not tempted by more than his defects
of character to disregard his claim to supremacy; perhaps
pride of higher maternal descent, this particularly amongst
the Bāī-qarā group, may have deepened a disregard created by
antagonisms of temperament.

[2750] Until the Yāngī-ārīq was taken off the Sīr, late in the
last century, for Namangān, the oasis land of Farghāna was
fertilized, not from the river but by its intercepted
tributaries.

[2751] Ujfalvy's translation of Yāqūt (ii, 179) reads one
_farsākh_ from the mountains instead of 'north of the river.'

[2752] Kostenko describes a division of Tāshkīnt, one in which
is Ravine-lane (_jar-kucha_), as divided by a deep ravine; of
another he says that it is cut by deep ravines (Bābur's _`umīq
jarlār_).

[2753] Bābur writes as though Akhsī had one Gate only (f.
112_b_). It is unlikely that the town had come down to having
a single exit; the Gate by which he got out of Akhsī was the
one of military importance because served by a draw-bridge,
presumably over the ravine-moat, and perhaps not close to that
bridge.

[2754] For mention of upper villages _see_ f. 110 and note 1.

[2755] _Cf._ f. 114 for distances which would be useful in
locating Akhsī if Bābur's _yīghāch_ were not variable; Ritter,
vii, 3 and 733; Réclus, vi, index _s.n._ Farghāna; Ujfalvy ii,
168, his quotation from Yāqūt and his authorities; Nalivkine's
_Histoire du Khanat de Kokand_, p. 14 and p. 53; Schuyler, i,
324; Kostenko, Tables of Contents for cognate general
information and i, 320, for Tāshkīnt; von Schwarz, index under
related names, and especially p. 345 and plates; Pumpelly, p.
18 and p. 115.

[2756] This Turkī-Persian Dictionary was compiled by Mīrzā
Mahdī Khān. Nādir Shāh's secretary and historian, whose life
of his master Sir William Jones translated into French (Rieu's
Turkī Cat. p. 264_b_).

[2757] The _Pādshāh-nāma_ whose author, `Abdu'l-ḥamīd, the
biographer of Shāh-jahān, died in 1065 AH. (1655 AD.) mentions
the existence of lacunæ in a copy of the Bābur-nāma, in the
Imperial Library and allowed by his wording to be Bābur's
autograph MS. (i, 42 and ii, 703).

[2758] _Akbar-nāma_, Bib. Ind. ed. i, 305; H. B. i, 571.

[2759] Ḥai. MS. f. 118_b_; _aūshāl bāghdā sū āqīb kīlā dūr
aīdī_. _Bābur-nāma_, _sū āqīb_, water flowed and _aūshal_ is
rare, but in the R.P. occurs 7 times.

[2760] _gūzūm āwīqī-ghā bārīb tūr._ B.N. f. 117_b_, _gūzūm
āwīqū-ghā bārdī_.

[2761] _kūrā dūr mīn_, B.N. f. 83, _tūsh kūrdūm_ and _tūsh
kūrār mīn_.

[2762] _ablaq suwār bīlān_; P. _suwār_ for T. _ātlīq_ or
_ātlīq kīshī_; _bīlān_ for B.N. _bīla_, and an odd use of
piebald (_ablaq_).

[2763] _masnad_, B.N. _takht_, throne. _Masnad_ betrays
Hindūstān.

[2764] _Hamrā`īlārī (sic) bir bir gā (sic) maṣlaḥat qīlā
dūrlār._ _Maṣlaḥat for B.N. kīngāsh_ or _kīngāīsh_; _hamrāh_,
companion, for _mīnīng bīla bār_, etc.

[2765] _bāghlāmāq_ and f. 119_b_ _bāghlāghānlār_; B.N. _ālmāk_
or _tūtmāq_ to seize or take prisoner.

[2766] _dīwār_ for _tām_.

[2767] f. 119, _āt-tīn aūzlār-nī tāshlāb_; B.N. _tūshmāk_,
dismount. _Tāshlāmaq_ is not used in the sense of dismount by
B.

[2768] _pādshāh_ so used is an anachronism (f. 215); Bābur
Mīrzā would be correct.

[2769] _ẕāhirān_; B.N. _yāqīn_.

[2770] Ilminsky's imprint stops at _dīb_; he may have taken
_kīm-dīb_ for signs of quotation merely. (This I did earlier,
JRAS 1902, p. 749.)

[2771] Aligarh ed. p. 52; Rogers' trs. i, 109.

[2772] _Cf._ f. 63_b_, n. 3.

[2773] Another but less obvious objection will be mentioned
later.

[2774] Julien notes (_Voyages des pélerins Bouddhistes_, ii,
96), "Dans les annales des Song on trouve Nang-go-lo-ho, qui
répond exactement à l'orthographe indienne Nangarahāra, que
fournit l'inscription découvert par le capitaine Kittoe"
(JASB. 1848). The reference is to the Ghoswāra inscription, of
which Professor Kielhorn has also written (_Indian Antiquary_,
1888), but with departure from Nangarahāra to Nagarahāra.

[2775] The scribe of the Ḥaidarābād Codex appears to have been
somewhat uncertain as to the spelling of the name. What is
found in histories is plain, N:g:r:hār. The other name varies;
on first appearance (fol. 131_b_) and also on fols. 144 and
154_b_, there is a vagrant dot below the word, which if it
were above would make Nīng-nahār. In all other cases the word
reads N:g:nahār. Nahār is a constant component, as is also the
letter _g_(or _k_).

[2776] Some writers express the view that the medial _r_ in
this word indicates descent from Nagarahāra, and that the
medial _n_ of Elphinstone's second form is a corruption of it.
Though this might be, it is true also that in local speech _r_
and _n_ often interchange, _e.g._ Chighār- and Chighān-sarāī,
Sūhār and Sūhān (in Nūr-valley).

[2777] This asserts _n_ to be the correct consonant, and
connects with the interchange of _n_ and _r_ already noted.

[2778] Since writing the above I have seen Laidlaw's almost
identical suggestion of a nasal interpolated in Nagarahāra
(JASB. 1848, art. on Kittoe). The change is of course found
elsewhere; is not Tānk for Tāq an instance?

[2779] These affluents I omit from main consideration as
sponsors because they are less obvious units of taxable land
than the direct affluents of the Kābul-river, but they remain
a reserve force of argument and may or may not have counted in
Bābur's nine.

[2780] Cunningham, i, 42. My topic does not reach across the
Kābul-river to the greater Udyānapūra of Beal's _Buddhist
Records_ (p. 119) nor raise the question of the extent of that
place.

[2781] The strong form Nīng-nahār is due to euphonic impulse.

[2782] Some discussion about these coins has already appeared
in JRAS. 1913 and 1914 from Dr. Codrington, Mr. M. Longworth
Dames and my husband.

[2783] This variant from the Turkī may be significant. Should
_tamghānat(-i-)sikka_ be read and does this describe
countermarking?

[2784] It will be observed that Bābur does not explicitly say
that Ḥusain put the beg's name on the coin.

[2785] _Ḥabību's-siyar_ lith. ed. iii, 228; _Ḥaidarābād_ Codex
text and trs. f. 26_b_ and f. 169; Browne's Daulat Shāh p.
533.

[2786] Ḥusain born 842 AH. (1438 AD.); d. 911 AH. (1506 AD.).

[2787] Cf. f. 7_b_ note to braves (_yīgītlār_). There may be
instances, in the earlier Farghāna section where I have
translated _chuhra_ wrongly by _page_. My attention had not
then been fixed on the passage about the coins, nor had I the
same familiarity with the Kābul section. For a household page
to be clearly recognizable as such from the context, is
rare—other uses of the word are translated as their context
dictates.

[2788] They can be traced through my Index and in some cases
their careers followed. Since I translated _chuhra-jīrga-si_
on f. 15_b_ by cadet-corps, I have found in the Kābul section
instances of long service in the corps which make the word
cadet, as it is used in English, too young a name.

[2789] This Mr. M. Longworth Dames pointed out in JRAS. 1913.

[2790] _Habību's-siyar_ lith. ed. iii, 219; Ferté trs. p. 28.
For the information about Ḥusain's coins given in this
appendix I am indebted to Dr. Codrington and Mr. M. Longworth
Dames.

[2791] Elphinstone MS. f. 150_b_; Ḥaidarābād MS. f. 190_b_;
Ilminsky, imprint p. 241.

[2792] Muḥ. Ma`ṣūm _Bhakkarí's Tārīkh-i-sind_ 1600, Malet's
Trs. 1855, p. 89; Mohan Lall's _Journal_ 1834, p. 279 and
_Travels_ 1846, p. 311; Bellew's _Political Mission to
Afghānistān_ 1857, p. 232; _Journal Asiatique_ 1890,
Darmesteter's _La grande inscription de Qandahār_; JRAS. 1898,
Beames' _Geography of the Qandahār inscription_. Murray's
_Hand-book of the Panjab etc._ 1883 has an account which as to
the Inscriptions shares in the inaccuracies of its sources
(Bellew & Lumsden).

[2793] The plan of Qandahār given in the official account of
the Second Afghān War, makes Chihil-zīna appear on the wrong
side of the ridge, n.w. instead of n.e.

[2794] destroyed in 1714 AD. It lay 3 m. west of the present
Qandahār (not its immediate successor). It must be observed
that Darmesteter's insufficient help in plans and maps led him
to identify Chihil-zīna with Chihil-dukhtarān
(Forty-daughters).

[2795] _Tārīkh-i-rashīdī_ trs. p. 387; _Akbar-nāma_ trs. i,
290.

[2796] Ḥai. Codex, Index _sn.n._

[2797] It is needless to say that a good deal in this story
may be merely fear and supposition accepted as occurrence.

[2798] Always left beyond the carpet on which a reception is
held.

[2799] This is not in agreement with Bābur's movements.

[2800] _i.e._ Humāyūn wished for a full-brother or sister,
another child in the house with him. The above names of his
brother and sister are given elsewhere only by Gulbadan (f.
6_b_).

[2801] The "we" might be Māhīm and Humāyūn, to Bābur in camp.

[2802] Perhaps before announcing the birth anywhere.

[2803] Presumably this plural is honorific for the Honoured
Mother Māhīm.

[2804] Māhīm's and Humāyūn's quarters.

[2805] Gul-badan's _Humāyūn-nāma_, f. 8.

[2806] JRAS. A. S. Beveridge's Notes on _Bābur-nāma_ MSS.
1900, [1902,] 1905, 1906, [1907,] 1908 (Kehr's transcript, p.
76, and Latin translation with new letter of Bābur p. 828).

[2807] In all such matters of the _Bābur-nāma_ Codices, it has
to be remembered that their number has been small.

[2808] Vigne's _Travels in Kāshmīr_ ii, 277-8;
_Tārīkh-i-rashīdī_ trs., p. 302 and n. and p. 466 and note.

[2809] It is not likely to be one heard current in Hindūstān,
any more than is Bābur's Ar. _bū-qalamūn_ as a name of a bird
(Index _s.n._); both seem to be "book-words" and may be traced
or known as he uses them in some ancient dictionary or book of
travels originating outside Hindūstān.

[2810] My note 6 on p. 421 shows my earlier difficulties, due
to not knowing (when writing it) that _kabg-ī-darī_ represents
the snow-cock in the Western Himālayas.

[2811] By over-sight mention of this note was omitted from my
article on the Elphinstone Codex (JRAS. 1907, p. 131).

[2812] Speede's _Indian Hand-book_ (i, 212) published in 1841
AD. thus writes, "It is a curious circumstance that the finest
and most esteemed fruit are produced from the roots below the
surface of the ground, and are betrayed by the cracking of the
earth above them, and the effluvia issuing from the fissure; a
high price is given by rich natives for fruit so produced."

[2813] In the margin of the Elphinstone Codex opposite the
beginning of the note are the words, "This is a marginal note
of Humāyūn Pādshāh's."

[2814] Every Emperor of Hindūstān has an epithet given him
after his death to distinguish him, and prevent the necessity
of repeating his name too familiarly. Thus _Firdaus-makān_
(dweller-in-paradise) is Bābur's; Humāyūn's is
_Jannat-ashi-yānī_, he whose nest is in Heaven; Muḥammad
Shāh's _Firdaus-āramgāh_, he whose place of rest is Paradise;
_etc._ (Erskine).

[2815] Here Mr. Erskine notes, "Literally, _nectar-fruit_,
probably the mandarin orange, by the natives called _nāringī_.
The name _amrat_, or pear, in India is applied to the guava or
_Psidium pyriferum_—(_Spondias mangifera_, Hort. Ben.—D.
Wallich)."... Mr. E. notes also that the note on the
_amrit-phal_ "is not found in either of the Persian
translations".

[2816] _chūchūmān_, Pers. trs. _shīrīni bī maza_, perhaps
flat, sweet without relish. Bābur does not use the word, nor
have I traced it in a dictionary.

[2817] _chūchūk_, savoury, nice-tasting, not acid (Shaw).

[2818] _chūchūk nāranj āndāq (?) maṯ`ūn aīdī kīm har kīm-nī
shīrīn-kārlīghī bī masa qīlkāndī, nāranj-sū'ī dīk tūr dīrlār
aīdī._

[2819] The _lemu_ may be _Citrus limona_, which has abundant
juice of a mild acid flavour.

[2820] The _kāmila_ and _samṯara_ are the real oranges
(_kauṅlā_ and _sangtāra_), which are now (_cir._ 1816 AD.)
common all over India. Dr. Hunter conjectures that the
_sangtāra_ may take its name from Cintra, in Portugal. This
early mention of it by Bābur and Humāyūn may be considered as
subversive of that supposition. (This description of the
_samṯara_, vague as it is, applies closer to the _Citrus
decumana_ or _pampelmus_, than to any other.—D.
Wallich.)—Erskine.

[2821] Humāyūn writes of this fruit as though it were not the
_sang-tara_ described by his father on f. 287 (p. 511 and
note).

[2822] M. de Courteille translated _jama`_ in a general sense
by _totalit.'_ instead of in its Indian technical one of
revenue (as here) or of assessment. Hence Professor Dowson's
"totality" (iv, 262 n.).

[2823] The B.M. has a third copy, Or. 5879, which my husband
estimates as of little importance.

[2824] Sir G. A. Grierson, writing in the _Indian Antiquary_
(July 1885, p. 187), makes certain changes in Ajodhya Prasad's
list of the Brahman rulers of Tirhut, on grounds he states.

[2825] Index _s.n._ Bābur's letters. The passage Shaikh Zain
quotes is found in Or. 1999, f. 65_b_, Add. 26,202, f. 66_b_,
Or. 5879, f. 79_b_.

[2826] Cf. Index _in loco_ for references to Bābur's metrical
work, and for the Facsimile, JASB. 1910, Extra Number.

[2827] Monday, Rabi` II. 15th 935 AH.—Dec. 27th 1528 AD. At
this date Bābur had just returned from Dhūlpūr to Āgra (f.
354, p. 635, where in note 1 for Thursday read Monday).

[2828] Owing to a scribe's "skip" from one _yībārīldī_ (was
sent) to another at the end of the next sentence, the passage
is not in the Ḥai. MS. It is not well given in my translation
(f. 357_b_, p. 642); what stands above is a closer rendering
of the full Turkī, _Humāyūngha tarjuma_ [_u_?] _nī-kīm
Hindūstāngha kīlkānī aītqān ash'ārnī yībārīldī_ (Ilminsky p.
462, 1. 4 fr. ft., where however there appears a slight
clerical error).

[2829] Hesitation about accepting the colophon as
unquestionably applying to the whole contents of the
manuscript is due to its position of close association with
one section only of the three in the manuscript (cf. _post_ p.
lx).

[2830] Plate XI, and p. 15 (mid-page) of the Facsimile
booklet.—The Facsimile does not show the whole of the marginal
quatrain, obviously because for the last page of the
manuscript a larger photographic plate was needed than for the
rest. With Dr. Ross' concurrence a photograph in which the
defect is made good, accompanies this Appendix.

[2831] The second section ends on Plate XVII, and p. 21 of the
Facsimile booklet.

[2832] Needless to say that whatever the history of the
manuscript, its value as preserving poems of which no other
copy is known publicly, is untouched. This value would be
great without the marginal entries on the last page; it finds
confirmation in the identity of many of the shorter poems with
counterparts in the _Bābur-nāma_.

[2833] Another autograph of Shāh-i-jahān's is included in the
translation volume (p. xiii) of Gul-badan Begam's
_Humāyūn-nāma_. It surprises one who works habitually on
historical writings more nearly contemporary with Bābur, in
which he is spoken of as _Firdaus-makānī_ or as _Gītī-sitānī
Firdaus-makānī_ and not by the name used during his life, to
find Shāh-i-jahān giving him the two styles (cf. _Jahāngīr's
Memoirs_ trs. ii, 5). Those familiar with the writings of
Shāh-i-jahān's biographers will know whether this is usual at
that date. There would seem no doubt as to the identity of _ān
Ḥaẓrat._—The words _ān ḥaẓrat_ by which Shāh-i-jahān refers to
Bābur are used also in the epitaph placed by Jahāngīr at
Bābur's tomb (Trs. Note p. 710-711).

[2834] The Qāẓī's rapid acquirement of the _mufradāt_ of the
script allows the inference that few letters only and those of
a well-known script were varied.—_Mufradāt_ was translated by
Erskine, de Courteille and myself (f. 357_b_) as alphabet but
reconsideration by the light of more recent information about
the _Bāburī-khat̤t̤_ leads me to think this is wrong because
"alphabet" includes every letter.—On f. 357b three items of
the _Bāburī-khat̤t̤_ are specified as despatched with the
Hindūstān poems, _viz._ _mufradāt_, _qita`lār_ and
_sar-i-khat̤t̤_. Of these the first went to Hind-āl, the third
to Kāmrān, and no recipient is named for the second; all
translators have sent the _qita`lār_ to Hind-āl but I now
think this wrong and that a name has been omitted, probably
Humāyūn's.

[2835] f. 144_b_, p. 228, n. 3. Another interesting matter
missing from the _Bābur-nāma_ by the gap between 914 and 925
AH. is the despatch of an embassy to Czar Vassili III. in
Moscow, mentioned in Schuyler's _Turkistan_ ii, 394, Appendix
IV, Grigorief's _Russian Policy in Central Asia._ The mission
went after "Sulṯān Bābur" had established himself in Kābul; as
Bābur does not write of it before his narrative breaks off
abruptly in 914 AH. it will have gone after that date.

[2836] I quote from the Véliaminof-Zernov edition (p. 287)
from which de Courteille's plan of work involved extract only;
he translates the couplet, giving to _khat̤t̤_ the
double-meanings of script and down of youth (_Dictionnaire
Turque_ _s.n._ _sīghnāqī_). The _Sanglākh_ (p. 252) _s.n._
_sīghnāq_ has the following as Bābur's:—

_Chū balai khat̤t̤ī naṣīb'ng būlmāsa Bābur nī tang?
Bare khat̤t̤ almanṣūr khat̤t̤ sighnāqī mū dūr?_

[2837] Gibb's _History of Ottoman Poetry_ i, 113 and ii, 137.

[2838] Réclus' _L'Asie Russe_ p. 238.

[2839] On this same _taḥrīr qīldīm_ may perhaps rest the
opinion that the Rāmpūr MS. is autograph.

[2840] I have found no further mention of the tract; it may be
noted however that whereas Bābur calls his _Treatise on
Prosody_ (written in 931 AH.) the _`Arūẓ_, Abū'l-faẓl writes
of a _Mufaṣṣal_, a suitable name for 504 details of
transposition.

[2841] _Tūzūk-i-jahāngīr_ lith. ed. p. 149; and _Memoirs of
jahāngīr_ trs. i, 304. [In both books the passage requires
amending.]

[2842] Rāmpūr MS. Facsimile Plate XIV and p. 16, verse 3;
_Akbar-nāma_ trs. i, 279, and lith. ed. p. 91.

[2843] Cf. Index _s.n._ Dalmau and Bangarmau for the
termination in double _ū_.

[2844] Dr. Ilminsky says of the Leyden & Erskine _Memoirs of
Bābur_ that it was a constant and indispensable help.

[2845] My examination of Kehr's Codex has been made
practicable by the courtesy of the Russian Foreign Office in
lending it for my use, under the charge of the Librarian of
the India Office, Dr. F. W. Thomas.—It should be observed that
in this Codex the Hindūstān Section contains the purely Turkī
text found in the Ḥaidarābād Codex (cf. JRAS. 1908, p. 78).

[2846] It may indicate that the List was not copied by Bābur
but lay loose with his papers, that it is not with the
Elphinstone Codex, and is not with the `Abdu'r-raḥīm Persian
translation made from a manuscript of that same annotated
line.

[2847] Cf. _in loco_ p. 656, n. 3.

[2848] A few slight changes in the turn of expressions have
been made for clearness sake.

[2849] Index _s.n._ Mīr Bāqī of Tāshkīnt. Perhaps a better
epithet for _sa`ādạt-nishān_ than "good-hearted" would be one
implying his good fortune in being designated to build a
mosque on the site of the ancient Hindū temple.

[2850] There is a play here on Bāqī's name; perhaps a good
wish is expressed for his prosperity together with one for the
long permanence of the sacred building _khair_ (_khairat_).

[2851] Presumably the order for building the mosque was given
during Bābur's stay in Aūd (Ajodhya) in 934 AH. at which time
he would be impressed by the dignity and sanctity of the
ancient Hindū shrine it (at least in part) displaced, and like
the obedient follower of Muḥammad he was in intolerance of
another Faith, would regard the substitution of a temple by a
mosque as dutiful and worthy.—The mosque was finished in 935
AH. but no mention of its completion is in the _Bābur-nāma_.
The diary for 935 AH. has many minor _lacunæ_; that of the
year 934 AH. has lost much matter, breaking off before where
the account of Aūd might be looked for.

[2852] The meaning of this couplet is incomplete without the
couplet that followed it and is (now) not legible.

[2853] Firishta gives a different reason for Bābur's sobriquet
of _qalandar_, namely, that he kept for himself none of the
treasure he acquired in Hindūstān (Lith. ed. p. 206).

[2854] Jahāngīr who encamped in the Shahr-ārā-garden in Ṣafar
1016 AH. (May 1607 AD.) says it was made by Bābur's aunt,
Abū-sa`īd's daughter Shahr-bānū (Rogers and Beveridge's
_Memoirs of Jahāngīr_ i, 106).

[2855] A _jalau-khāna_ might be where horse-head-gear, bridles
and reins are kept, but _Āyīn_ 60 (A.-i-A.) suggests there may
be another interpretation.

[2856] She was a daughter of Hind-āl, was a grand-daughter
therefore of Bābur, was Akbar's first wife, and brought up
Shāh-i-jahān. Jahāngīr mentions that she made her first
pilgrimage to her father's tomb on the day he made his to
Bābur's, Friday Ṣafar 26th 1016 AH. (June 12th 1607 AD.). She
died _æt._ 84 on Jumāda I. 7th 1035 AH. (Jan. 25th 1626 AD.).
Cf. _Tūzūk-i-jahāngīrī_, Muḥ. Hādī's Supplement lith. ed. p.
401.

[2857] Mr. H. H. Hayden's photograph of the mosque shows
pinnacles and thus enables its corner to be identified in his
second of the tomb itself.

[2858] One of Daniel's drawings (which I hope to reproduce)
illuminates this otherwise somewhat obscure passage, by
showing the avenue, the borders of running-water and the
little water-falls,—all reminding of Madeira.

[2859] _chokī_, perhaps "shelter"; see Hobson-Jobson _s.n._

[2860] If told with leisurely context, the story of the visits
of Bābur's descendants to Kābul and of their pilgrimages to
his tomb, could hardly fail to interest its readers.

THE HISTORY OF BABUR OR BABUR-NAMA

Index I. Personal

+Abā-bikr Mīrzā+ _Mīrān-shāhī Tīmūrid_, _Barlās Turk_, son
of Abū-sa`īd and a Badakhshī begīm—particulars 22, 26;
his attack on Ḥiṣār 51;
defeated by Ḥusain _Bāī-qarā_ and his death (884) 260;
his Bāī-qarā marriage 266;
a Badakhshī connection 51;
[♰884 AH.-1479 AD.].

+Abā-bikr Mīrzā+ _Dūghlāt Kāshgharī_, son of Sāniz and a Chīrās
(var. Jarās) begīm—invades Farghāna (899) 32;
his annexations in Badakhshān 695;
his Mīrānshāhī wife 48;
[♰920 AH.-1514 AD.].

+`Abbās+, a slave—murderer of Aūlūgh (Ūlūgh) Beg _Shāh-rukhī_ (853) 85.

+`Abbās Sulṯān+ _Aūzbeg_—marries Gul-chihra _Mīrān-shāhi_, Bābur's
daughter (954) 713.

+`Abdu'l-`alī Tarkhān+ _Arghūn Chīngīz-Khānid_—particulars 38, 39;
[♰cir. 899 AH.-1494 AD.].

+`Abdu'l-`azīz+ _mīr-akhẉur_—ordered to catch pheasants (925) 404;
☛[2861] posted in Lāhor (930) 442;
sent into Milwat (932) 460;
on service 465-6, 471, 530;
the reserve at Pānīpat 472-3;
reinforces the right 473;
surprised and defeated by Sangā (933) 549, 550;
in the left wing at Kānwā 567, 570;
pursues Sangā 576;
ordered against Balūchīs (935) 638;
writes from Lāhor about the journey of Bābur's family 659, 660;
arrested 688;
☛ sequel to his sedition not given in the _Akbar-nāma_ 692;
☛ reference to his sedition 698.

+`Abdu'l-`azīz Mīrzā+ _Shāh-rukhī Tīmūrid_, _Barlās Turk_, son of
Aūlūgh Beg—his Chaghatāī wife 19-20.

+`Abdu'l-bāqī+—surrenders Qandahār to Bābur (928) 436, 437.

+`Abdu'l-bāqī Mīrzā+ _Mīrān-shāhī Tīmūrid_, _Barlās Turk_, son of
`Us̤mān—particulars 280;
referred to 266 n. 6;
goes to Herī (908) 336;
his wife Sulṯānīm _Bāī-qarā_ 265 n. 5, 280.

+`Abdu'l-ghaffār+ _tawāchī_—conveys military orders (935) 638.

Mīr +`Abdu'l-ghafūr+ _Lārī_, of Ḥusain _Bāī-qarā's_ Court—particulars
284, 285;
[♰912 AH.-1506-7 AD.].

Khwāja +`Abdu'l-ḥaqq+, brother of Khwāja Makhdūmī Nūrā—waited upon
by Bābur (935) 641, 686;
has leave to stay in Āgra 641.

+`Abdu'l-karīm+ _Ushrit_ (var.) _Aūīghūr_[2862] (var.)—serving Aḥmad
_Mīrān-shāhī_ 40;
captured by an Aūzbeg (902) 65.

+`Abdu'l-khalīq Beg+ _Isfarāyini_—particulars 273-4 (where read
_Isfarāyinī_ for "_Isfārayinī_").

Shaikh +`Abdu'l-lāh+ _aīshīk-āghā_—with Jahāngīr (899) 32;
leaves Bābur for home (902) 191.

Sayyid +`Abdu'l-lāh+ _Andikhūdī_—his Bāī-qarā wife Bairām-sulṯān
and their son Barka _q.v._

Khwāja +`Abdu'l-lāh+ _Anṣārī_—his tomb visited by Bābur (912) 305;
a surmised attendant on it 145 n. 1;
[♰, 481 AH.-1088 AD.].

Shaikh +`Abdu'l-lāh+ _bakāwal_—with the Bāī-qarā families (913) 328.

Shaikh +`Abdu'l-lāh+ _Barlās_—particulars 51;
excites the Tarkhān rebellion (901) 61-2;
his daughter a cause of attempt on Samarkand 64;
with his son-in-law Mas`ūd _Mīrān-shāhī_ (903) 93.

Khwāja +`Abdu'l-lāh Khwājagān Khwāja+—fifth son of `Ubaidu'l-lāh
_Aḥrārī_—his son `Abdu'sh-shahīd, _q.v._

Mullā +`Abdu'l-lāh+ _kitābdār_—one of eleven left with Bābur (913) 337;
given the third of a potent confection (925) 373;
a drunken lapse 398;
induced by Bābur to restrict his drinking 399;
at a party where Bābur, abstaining, watches the drinkers 400-1;
rebuked for an offending verse 416;
joins Bābur in an autumn garden 418;
on service (932) 468, 530;
in the right centre at Pānīpat (932) 472, 473;
and at Kānwa (933) 565, 569;
sent to take possession of Āgra 475;
is sarcastic 581;
in attendance on Aūzbeg envoys (935) 631;
sent to take charge of Saṃbhal (935) 675, 687;
conveys orders 676;
sends news of Bīban and Bāyazīd 679;
arrives in Āgra, 687.

Khwāja +`Abdu'l-lāh+ _Marwārīd_—particulars 278-9;
preeminent on the dulcimer 291;
[♰922 AH.-1516 AD.].

+`Abdu'l-lāh Mīrzā+ _Shāh-rukhī Tīmūrid_, _Barlās Turk_—succeeds his
father, Ibrāhīm, in Shīrāz (838) 20, and his
cousin `Abdu'l-laṯīf in Transoxiana (854) 85-6;
Yūnas Khān his retainer _q.v._;
[♰ Jumāda I. 22, 855 AH.-1450 AD.].[2863]

Khwāja +`Abdu'l-lāh Qāẓī+, see Khwāja Maulānā-i-qāẓī.

+`Abdu'l-lāh Sulṯān+ _Aūzbeg-Shaibān_—particulars 267;
serving Bābur in Hindūstān (after 933?) 267.

+`Abdu'l-laṯīf+ _bakhshī_—serving Ḥusain _Bāī-qarā_ (901) 57;
acts for Bābur from Qūndūz (932-3) 546.

+`Abdu'l-laṯīf Mīrzā+ _Shāh-rukhī Tīmūrid, Barlās Turk_—murders and
succeeds his father Aūlūgh Beg (853) 15;
a couplet on his parricide 85[2864];
[♰ Rabī` l .26, 854 AH.-1450 AD.[2865]].

+`Abdu'l-laṯīf Sulṯān+ _Aūzbeg_, _Shaibānī Chīngīz-khānid_, son of
Ḥamza— Bābur's half-sister Yādgār (_æt. cir._ 8) his share of
spoil (908) 18.

Mullā +`Abdu'l-malūk+ _Khwāstī_ (var. malik)—at Bajaur (925) 368;
sent ahead into Bhīra 381;
and to Kābul 415;
returns from an embassy to `Iraq (932) 446 (here _qūrchī_);
sent again (935) 642;
on service (933) 576, 582.

+`Abdu'l-minān+, son of Mullā Ḥaidar—holding Bīsh-kīnt (907) 151.

Amīr +`Abdu'l-qadūs Beg+ _Dūghlāt_—slays Jamāl _Khar Arghūn_ (877) 35;
conveys wedding gifts to Bābur and arouses suspicion (900) 43;
[for his death see T.R. trs. pp. 94, 103].

+`Abdu'l-qadūs Beg+ _Kohbur Chaghatāī_—with Bābur at Māḏū (Māẕū) (905)
109 (where for "qāsim" read qadūs);
one of the eight fugitives from Akhsī (908) 177.

Mīrak +`Abdu'r-raḥīm+ _Ṣadr_—his servant Badru'd-dīn _q.v._

+`Abdu'r-raḥīm+ _shaghāwal_—sent to speak the Bhīra people fair for
Bābur (925) 381;
given charge of Ibrāhīm _Lūdī's_ mother (933) 543;
fetches a hostage to Court 578;
who escapes 581.

Maulānā +`Abdu'r-raḥīm+_ Turkistānī_—fleeces Khwānd-amīr 328.

Mulla +`Abdu'r-raḥmān+ _Ghaznawī_—particulars 218; [♰921 AH.-1515 AD.].

Maulānā +`Abdu'r-raḥmān+ _Jāmī_—his letters imitated by Nawā'ī 271;
his sarcasm on Shaikhīm's Verse 277;
his tomb visited by Bābur (912) 285, 305;
Bābur's reverential mention of him 283, 286;
his example followed by production of the _Wālidiyyah-risāla_ (935)
620;
his birth-place 623 n. 8;
his disciple `Abdu'l-ghafūr 284;
[898 AH.-1492 AD.].

+`Abdu'r-raḥmān Khān+ _Barak-zāī Afghān_, Amīr of Afghānistān—mentioned
in connection with Jāmī's tomb 305 n. 6;
[♰1319 AH.-1901 AD.].

+`Abdu'r-razzāq Mīrzā+ _Mīrān-shāhī Tīmūrid_, _Barlās Turk_, son of
Aūlūgh Beg _Kābulī_—loses Kābul (910) 195, 365;
out with Bābur 234;
surmised part-vendor of Bābur's mother's burial-ground 246 n. 2;
in Herāt (912) 298;
escapes Shaibānī and joins Bābur (913) 331;
in the left wing at Qandahār 334;
his loot 337-8;
deserts Qalāt in fear of Shaibānī 340;
left in charge of Kābul _ib._;
given Nīngnahār 344;
rebels (914) 345;
his position stated 345 n. 6;
[♰915 AH.-1509 AD.?].

Khwāja +`Abdu'sh-shahīd+, son of Aḥrārī's fifth son Khwājagān-khwāja
(`Abdu'l-lāh)—placed on Bābur's right-hand (935) 631;
gifts made to him 632;
invited to a _ma`jūn_-party 653;
particulars 653 n. 4;
☛ a likely recipient of the _Mubīn_ 438, 631 n. 3;
[♰982 AH.-1574 AD.].

+`Abdu'sh-shukūr+ _Mughūl_, son of Qaṃbar-i-`alī _Silākh_—serving
Jahāngīr _Mīrān-shāhī_ (after 910) 192;
in the right wing at Kānwa (933) 566.

+`Abdu'l-wahhāb+ _Mughūl_—given Shaikh Pūrān to loot (913) 328.

+`Abdu'l-wahhāb+ _shaghāwal_, servant of `Umar-shaikh and Aḥmad
_Mīrān-shāhī_—forwards news (899) 25;
gives Khujand to Bābur 54;
his son Mīr Mughūl _q.v._

+Abraha+ _Yemenī_, an _Abyssinian Christian_—his defeat (571 AD.)
563 n. 3.

Imām +Abū Ḥanīfa+—his followers' respect for the _Hidāyat_ 76;
his ruling that peacock-meat is lawful food 493.

Khwāja +Abū'l-barka+ _Farāqī_—criticizes Banā'ī's verse (906) 137.

Shaikh +Abū'l-fatḥ+, servant of the Shāh-zāda of Mungīr—envoy from
Bengal to Bābur (934, 935) 676;
placed on Bābur's right-hand (935) 631.

+Abū'l-fatḥ Sa`īd Khān+, see Sa`īd Khān _Chaghatāī_.

+Abū'l-fatḥ+ _Turkmān_, son of `Umar—his joining Bābur from `Iraq 280;
made military-collector of Dhūlpūr (933) 540;
Bābur visits his _hammām_ (935) 615.

+Abū'l-faẓl+, see _Akbar-nāma_.

+Abū'l-ḥasan+ _qūr-begī_—in the right wing at Qandahār (913) 334;
does well (925) 404;
his brother Muḥammad Ḥusain _q.v._

+Abū'l-ḥasan+ _qūrchī_—in the centre at Qandahār (913) 335.

+Abū'l-hāshim+, servant of Sl. `Alī [T̤aghāī _Begchīk_]—overtakes Bābur
with ill news (925) 412.

+Abū'l-ma`ālī+ _Tīrmīẕī_—☛ his burial-place has significance as
to Mahdī Khwāja's family 705;
[♰971 AH.-1564 AD.].

Khwāja +Abū'l-makāram+—supports Bāī-sunghar _Mīrān-shāhī_ (901) 62,
(902) 65;
acts for peace (903) 91;
meets Bābur, both exiles (904) 99;
at Bābur's capture of Samarkand (906) 132, 141;
leaves it with him 147 n. 2;
speaks for him (908) 157-8;
fails to recognize him 161;
☛ at Archīān 184;
[♰908 AH.-1502 AD.].

Shaikh +Abū'l-manṣūr+ _Mātarīdī_—his birthplace Samarkand 75, 76;
[♰333 AH.-944 AD.].

+Abū'l-muḥammad+ _neza-bāz_—in the _tūlghuma_ of the left wing, at
Pānīpat (932) 473;
on service (933) 582, (934) 589, 598.

+Abū'l-muḥammad+ _Khujandī_—his sextant 74 n. 4.

+Abū'l-muḥsin Mīrzā+ _Bāī-qarā Tīmūrid_, _Barlās Turk_, son of Ḥusain
and Laṯīf—particulars 262 (where for "ḥusain" read muḥsin), 269;
serving his father (901) 58;
defeats his brother Badī`u'z-zamān (902) 69, 70;
defeated by his father at Halwā-spring (904) 260;
his men take Qarākūl from Aūzbegs (906) 135;
co-operates against Shaibānī (912) 296;
rides out to meet Bābur 297;
they share a divan 298;
presses him to winter in Herī 300;
returns to his district (Merv) 301;
his later action and death 329-30, 331;
[♰913 AH.-1507 AD.].

+Abū'l-muslim Kūkūldāsh+—brings an Arghūn gift to Bābur (925) 401, 402.

+Abū'l-qāsim+ _Jalāīr_—tells Bābur a parrot story. (935)[2866] 494.

+Abū'l-qāsim+—a musician (923) 387, 388 (here Qāsim only).

+Abū'l-qāsim+, _Kohbur Chaghatāī_, son of Ḥaidar-i-qāsim—on
service with Bābur (902) 68, (906) 130, 131, 133;
in the right wing at Sar-i-pul (Khwāja Kārdzan) 139;
killed 141;
[♰906 AH.-1501 AD.].

Shaikh +Abū'l-wajd+ _Fārighī_, maternal-uncle of Zain
_Khawāfī_—makes verse on the Kābul-river (932) 448;
his chronogram on Al-amān's birth (935) 621;
[♰940 AH.-1533 AD.[2867]].

Shaikh +Abū-sa`īd Khān+ _Dar-miyān_[2868]—particulars 276.

Sulṯān +Abū-sa`īd Mīrzā+ _Mīrān-shāhī Tīmūrid_, _Barlās
Turk_—his descent 14;
asserts Tīmūrid supremacy over Chaghatāī Khāqāns (855) 20, 344, 352;
takes Māwarā'u'n-nahr (855) 86;
forms his Corps of Braves 28, 50;
a single combat in his presence (857) 50;
defeats Ḥusain _Bāī-qarā_ (868) 259;
a swift courier to him 25;
joined by the Black-sheep Turkmāns (872) 49;
orders the Hindūstān army mobilized 46;
defeated and killed by the White-sheep Turkmāns (873) 25, 46, 49;
appointments named 24, 37;
his banishment of Nawā'ī 271;
reserves a Chaghatāī wife for a son 21, 36;
his Badakhshī wife and their son 22,[2869] 260;
his Tarkhān _Arghūn_ wife and their sons, 33, 45;
his mistress Khadīja _q.v._;
his daughters Pāyanda-sulṯān, Shahr-bānū, Rābi`a-sulṯān,
Khadīja-sulṯān, Fakhr-i-jahān, Apāq-sulṯān, Āq Begīm _q.v._;
retainers named as his `Alī-dost _Sāghārīchī_, Muḥammad Barandūq,
Aūrūs, and Ẕū'n-nūn _Arghūn_ _q.v._;
his marriage connection Nūyān _Tīrmīẕī_ _q.v._;
[♰873 AH.-1469 AD.].

+Abū-sa`īd Pūrān+, see Jamālu'd-dīn.

+Abū-sa`īd Sulṯān+ _Auzbeg-Shaibān_, _Chīngīz-khānid_, son of
Kūchūm—☛ at Ghaj-davān (918) 360;
at Jām (935) 622, 636;
sends an envoy to Bābur 631, 632, 641;
[♰940 AH.-1533-4 AD.].

Shaikh +Abū-sa`īd Tarkhān+ (var. Bū-sa`īd)—his house Mīrzā Khān's
loot in Qandahār (913) 338.

+Abū-turāb Mīrzā+ _Bāī-qarā Tīmūrid_, _Barlās Turk_, son of Ḥusain
and Mīnglī—particulars 262, 269;
his son Sohrab _q.v._;
[♰ before 911 AH.-1505-6 AD.].

+Adīk Sulṯān+ _Qazzāq_, _Jūjī Chīngīz-khānid_ (var. Aūng Sulṯān),
son of Jānī Beg Khān (T.R. trs. 373)—husband of Sulṯān-nigār
_Chaghatāī_ _q.v._

+`Ādil Sulṯān+ _Auzbeg-Shaibān_(?), _Chingīz-khānid_(?),
son of Mahdī and a Bāī-qarā begīm—marries Shād _Bāī-qarā_ 263;
suggestions as to his descent 264 n. 1;
waits on Bābur at Kalānūr (932) 458;
on Bābur's service 468, 471, 475, 530;
in the left wing at Pānīpat 472;
and at Kānwa (933) 567, 570;
ordered against Balūchīs (935) 638;
☛ mentioned as a landless man 706.

Sayyida +Afāq+, a legendary wife of Bābūr 358 n. 2;
her son and grandson _ib._

+Afghānī Āghāchā+, see Mubārika.

Sayyid +Afẓal Beg+, son of `Alī _Khwāb-bīn_—conveys Ḥusain
_Bāī-qarā's_ summons to Bābur for help against Shaibānī (911) 255;
particulars 282;
takes news to Herāt of Bābur's start from Kābul (912) 294;
sends him news of Ḥusain's death 295;
[♰921 AH.-1516 AD.].

+Āghā Begīm+ _Bāī-qarā Tīmūrid_, _Barlās Turk_, daughter
of Ḥusain and Pāyanda-sulṯān—parentage and marriage (or betrothal,
Ḥ.S. iii, 327) 266;
[♰ died in childhood].

+Āghā-sulṯān+, _ghūnchachi_ of `Umar Shaikh—her daughter
Yādgār-i-sulṯān _q.v._

+Āhī+—his feet frost-bitten (912) 311.

+Āhī+, a poet—particulars 289;
[♰ 907 AH.-1501-2].

+Ahlī+, a poet—particulars 290;
(for 4 writers using _Āhlī_ as their pen-name see 290 n. 6).

Sulṯān +Aḥmad+ _Aīlchī-būghā_, _Mughūl_—one of four daring much
(912) 315;
in the left wing at Qandahār (913) 334.

Pīr +Aḥmad+—leaves Samarkand with the Tarkhāns (905) 121;
fights for Bābur at Sar-i-pul (Khwāja Kārdzan) (906) 139.

+Aḥmad+ _Afshār Turk_—a letter to him endorsed by Bābur (935) 617.

Mīrzā +Aḥmad `Alī+ _Farsī_, _Barlās_—particulars 273.

+Aḥmad `Alī Tarkhān+ _Arghūn_, brother of Qulī Beg—favours Bābur and
admits him to Qandahār (913) 337.

Mullā +Aḥmad+ _Balkhī_— conveys treasure to Balkh (932) 446.

Mirzā Sayyidī +Aḥmad+ _Mīrān-shāhī Tīmūrid_, _Barlās Turk_, son of
Mīrān-shāh—particulars 257 n. 5;
named in a line of descent 280 n. 1;
his son Aḥmad and grandson `Abdu'l-bāqī _q.v._

Mīr +Aḥmad Beg+ _Itārajī Mughūl_, paternal-uncle of Taṃbal—guardian
of a son of The Khān (Maḥmūd) 115;
reinforces Bābur (903) 92;
acts against him (905) 115, 116;
acts against `Alī _Mīrān-shāhī_ 112;
makes a contemptuous speech about Taṃbal (906) 145.

+Aḥmad Beg+ _Ṣafawī_—☛ leads a reinforcement to help Bābur
(917) 353.

Sulṯān +Aḥmad+ _Chār-shaṃba'ī_, see Chār-shaṃba.

+Aḥmad+ _chāshnīgīr_—helps in poisoning Bābur (933) 541;
[♰933 AH.-1526 AD.].

+Aḥmad Ḥājī Beg+ _Dūldāī_, _Barlās Turk_—particulars 25, 37, 38;
his pen-name Wafā'ī and a couplet of his 38;
his hospitality to `Alī-sher _Nawāī_ 38, 271;
drives Khusrau Shāh from Samarkand (900) 51;
supports Bāī-sunghar _Mīrān-shāhī_ in the Tarkhān rebellion (901)
62, 63;
his death at the hands of slaves and slave-women 63-4;
[♰901 AH.-1496 AD.].

+Aḥmadī+ _parwānchī_—on service (925) 377, (932) 458, 460, (933) 540;
sent to surprise Ibrāhīm _Lūdī_ (932) 468 (his name is omitted in
my text);
in the left centre at Pānīpat 472, 473;
his ill-behaviour in the heats 524.

Sulṯan +Aḥmad Khān+—+Alacha Khān+—_Chaghatāī Chīngīz-khānid_, son of
Yūnas and Shāh Begīm—particulars 23, 160;
meaning of his sobriquet Alacha Khān 23;
younger Khān-dādā, Bābur's name for him 129;
considered as a refuge for Bābur (899) 29, (903) 92, (906) 129,
(908) 158;
visits Tāshkīnt (908) 159;
ceremonies of meeting 160-1, 171-2;
moves with his elder brother Maḥmūd against Taṃbal 161, 168, 171;
his kindness to Bābur 159, 166-7, 169, 171;
is given Bābur's lands and why 168;
retires from Andijān in fear of Shaibānī 172;
defeated by Shaibānī at Archīān (908 or 909) 7, 23, ☛ 182-3;
his death (909) reported to Bābur (911) 246 and n. 4;
his sons Manṣūr, Sa'īd, Bābā (T.R. trs. 160, Bābājāk), Chīn-tīmūr,
Tūkhtā-būghā, and Aīsan-tīmūr q.v.;
his grandson Bābā _q.v._;
☛ followers of his return from forced migration (908) when
Shaibānī is killed (916) 351;
[♰end of 909 AH.-1504 AD.].

+Aḥmad Khān+ _Ḥājī-tarkhānī_ (_Astrakhānī_)—marries Badī`u'l-jamāl
(Badka) _Bāī-qarā_ (899?) 257, 258;
their sons (Maḥmūd and Bahādur) 258;
their daughter Khān-zāda _q.v._

Sulṯān +Aḥmad Mīrzā+ _Dūghlāt_—sent by The Khān (Māḥmūd) to help Bābur
(908) 161.

Sulṯān +Aḥmad Mīrzā+ _Mīrān-shāhī Tīmūrid_, _Barlās Turk_, son of
Abū-sa`īd—the lands his father gave him 35, 86;
his brother Maḥmūd taken to his care (873 or 4) 46;
his disaster on the Chīr (895) 17, 25, 31, 34;
a swift courier to him 25;
defeats `Umar Shaikh 17, 34; 12 n. 2; 53;
invades Farghāna (899) 13, 30;
given Aūrā-tīpā 27;
dreaded for Bābur 29;
retires and dies 31, 33;
particulars 33, 40;
referred to by Ḥusain _Bāī-qarā_ (910) 190;
his wives and children 35-6;
an honoured Beg Nūyān _Tīrmīẕī_ _q.v._;
[♰899 AH.-1494 AD.].

Sulṯān +Aḥmād Mīrzā+, _Mīrān-shāhī Tīmūrid_, _Barlās Turk_, son of
Mīrzā Sayyidī Aḥmad—particulars 257 n. 5;
his wife Ākā Begīm _Bāī-qarā_ and their son Kīchīk Mīrzā _q.v._; 266
n. 6;
a building of his at Herī 305.

+Aḥmād+ _mushtāq_, _Turkmān_—takes Maḥmūd _Mīrān-shāhī_ to Ḥiṣār
(873 or 4) 46-7.

Sulṯān +Aḥmad+ _qarāwal_, father of Qūch (Qūj) Beg, Tardī Beg and
Sher-afgān Beg _q.v._—defends Ḥiṣār (901) 58;
enters Bābur's service (905) 112;
in the left Wing at Khūbān (905) 113;
holds Marghīnān 123.

+Aḥmad-i-qāsim+ _Kohbur Chaghatāī_, son of Ḥaidar-i-qāsim—with Bābur
(906) 133;
invited to a disastrous entertainment (907) 152;
joins Jahāngīr and Taṃbal 156;
in Akhsī (908) 171;
defeats an Aūzbeg raider (910) 195;
helps to hold Kābul for Bābur (912) 313;
pursues Mīrzā Khān 317, 320;
holding Tāshkīnt against Aūzbegs (918) 356, 358, 396, 397;
a Kābulī servant of his 351.

+Aḥmad-i-qāsim+ _Qībchāq Turk_, (grand-?) son of Bāqī _Chaghānīānī_
and a sister of Khusrau Shāh, perhaps son of Bāqī's son
Muḥammad-i-qāsim (189 n. 3)—holding Kāhmard and Bāmīān (910) 189;
given charge of the families of Bābur's expeditionary force 189;
ill-treats them and is forced to flee 197, 243;
goes to Ḥusain _Bāī-qarā_ _ib._;
killed at Qūndūz 244;
[♰910 AH.-1505 AD.].

Sulṯān +Aḥmad Qāẓī+ _Qīlīch_—particulars 29;
his son Khwāja Maulānā-i-qaẓī _q.v._

+Aḥmad+ _qūshchī_—seen by the fugitive Bābur (908) 180.

Khwāja +Aḥmad+ _Sajāwandī_—his birthplace 217.

+Aḥmad Shāh+ _Khīljī Turk_—dispossessed of Chandīrī by Ibrāhīm
_Lūdī_ 593;
restored by Bābur (934) 598.

+Aḥmad Shāh+ _Durrānī_, _Abdālī Afghān_—his victory at Pānīpat (1174)
472;
[♰1182 AH.-1772 AD.].

+Aḥmad Tarkhān+ _Arghūn Chīngīz-khānid_ (?)—joins Bābur in Samarkand
(906) 133;
loses Dabūsī to Shaibānī 137;
[♰906 AH.-1500 AD.].

+Aḥmad (son of) Tawakkal+ _Barlās_, amir of Ḥusain
_Bāī-qarā_—particulars 272.

+Aḥmad+ _yāsāwal_—conveys a message from Bābur to the begs of Kābul
Fort (912) 314.

Khwāja +Aḥmad+ _Yasawī_—+Sayyid Ātā+—Shaibānī's vow at his shrine
348, 356;
[♰514 AH.-1120-1 AD.].[2870]

+Aḥmad-i-yūsuf Beg+ _Aūghlāqchī_, son of Ḥasan, nephew of
Yūsuf—managing Yār-yīlāq for `Alī _Mīrān-shāhī_ (904) 98;
dismissed on suspicion of favouring Bābur 98;
probably joins Bābur with his uncle (910) 196;
remonstrated with him for fighting unmailed (911) 252;
helping loyalists in Kābul (912) 313;
saves Bābur a blow 315, 316;
at Bājaur (925) 369, 401 (here Aḥmad Beg);
joins Bābur in Hindūstān (933) 550;
in the right wing at Kānwa 566 (where in n. 1 for "may" read is),
569;
governor of Sīālkot 98.

Malik +Aḥmad+ _Yūsuf-zāī Afghān_, nephew of Sulaimān
_q.v._—particulars App. K.

+Aī Begīm+ _Mīrān-shāhī Tīmūrid_, _Barlās Turk_, daughter of Maḥmūd
and Khān-zāda II.—betrothed to Jahāngīr. (_cir._ 895) 48;
married (910) 189;
their daughter 48.

+Aīkū-sālam+ _Mughūl_—rebels against Bābur (914) 345.

+Aīkū[2871]-tīmūr Beg Tarkhān+ _Arghūn_—his descendant Darwesh Beg
_q.v._;
[♰793 AH.-1391 AD.].

Sulṯān? +Aīlīk+ _Māẓī Aūīghūr_ (_Ūīghūr_)—his descendant Khwāja
Maulānā-i-qāẓī _q.v._

+Aīrzīn Beg+ (var. Aīrāzān) _Bārīn Mughūl_—supports Yūnas _Chaghatāī_
(_cir._ 830), takes him to Aūlūgh Beg _Shāh-rukhī_
(_cir._ 832) 19;
ill-received and his followers scattered 20;
[♰832 AH.-1428 AD.].

+Aīsān-būghā Khān+ _Chaghatāī Chīngīz-khānīd_, son of Dāwā—named in
Yūnas Khān's genealogy 19;
[♰_cir._ 718 AH.-1318 AD.].

+Aīsān-būghā Khān II.+ _Chaghatāī Chīngīz-khānid_, son of
Wais—particulars 19;
invades Farghāna and defeated at Aspara (_cir._ 855) 20;
quarrels with the begs of the Sāghārīchī _tūmān_ and leads to the
elevation of Yūnas _ib._;
[♰866 AH.-1462 AD.].

+Aīsān-daulat Begīm+ _Kūnjī_ (or _Kūnchī_) _Mughūl_, wife of Yūnas
_Chaghatāī_—particulars 20, 21;
her good judgment (900) 43;
entreats Bābur's help for Andijān (903) 88-9;
joins him in Khujand after the loss of Andijān 92;
and in Dikh-kat after that of Samarkand (907) 151;
news of her death reaches Kābul (911) 246;
rears one of `Umar Shaikh's daughters 18;
her kinsmen `Alī-dost, Sherīm, Ghiyās̤ _q.v._;
[♰910 AH.-1505 AD.].

+Aīsān-qulī Sulṯān _Aūzbeg-Shaibān_, _Chīngīz-khānid_—his Bāī-qarā
marriage, 265, 397.

+Aīsān-tīmūr Sulṯān+ _Chaghatāī Chīngīz-khānid_, son of Aḥmad
(Alacha Khān)—on Bābur's service 318, 682;
meets Bābur (935) 654;
in the battle of the Ghogrā 672, 673;
thanked 677;
angers Bābur 684.

+Ākā Begīm+, _Barlās Turk_, daughter of Tīmūr—an ancestress of Ḥusain
_Bāī-qarā_ 256.

+Ākā Begīm+ _Bāī-qarā Tīmūrid_, daughter of Manṣūr and
Fīrūza—particulars 257;
her husband Aḥmad and their son Kīchīk Mīrzā _q.v._

Abū'l-fatḥ Jalālu'd-dīn Muḥammad +Akbar+ _Mīrān-shāhī Tīmūrid_,
_Barlās Turk_, grandson of Bābur and Māhīm—☛ 184;
☛ an addition about him made to the Chihil-zīna inscription 432;
☛ his visit to Pānīpat (963) 472;
his change in the name of the cherry explained by Bābur's words 501,
n. 6;
[♰1014 AH.-1605 AD.].

+Alacha Khān+, see Aḥmad _Chaghatāī_.

+Al-amān+, son of Humāyūn—his birth and name (935) 621, 624, 642;
[♰ in infancy].

+`Ālam Khān+ _Kālpī_, son of Jalāl Khān _Jik-hat_ (or
_Jig-hat_)—holding Kālpī and not submissive to Bābur (932) 523;
goes to Court (933) 544;
disobeys orders 557;
is Bābur's host in Kālpī (934) 590;
on service (935) 682;
an order about him 684.

`Alāu'u'd-dīn +`Ālam Khān+ _Lūdī Afghān_, son of Buhlūl—☛ a principal
actor between 926-32 AH. 428;
☛ asks and obtains Bābur's help against his nephew Ibrāhīm (929)
439-441;
placed by Bābur in charge of Dībālpūr (930) 442;
☛ defeated by Daulat Khān _Yūsuf-khail_ (931) 444;
flees to Kābul and is again set forth 444, 455;
defeated by Ibrāhīm and returns to Bābur (932) 454-8;
his relations with Bābur reviewed 455, n. 1;
in Fort Ginguta 457, 463;
in the left centre at Kānwa (933) 565;
his sons Jalāl, Kamāl, and Sher Khān (_Lūdī_) _q.v._

Sulṯān `Alāu'u'd-dīn +`Ālam Khān+ _Sayyidī_—holding Dihlī 481;
[♰855 AH.-1451 AD.].

+`Ālam Khān+ _Tahangarī_, brother of Niẕām Khān of Bīāna—works badly
with Bābur's force (933) 538;
defeated by his brother 539;
sent out of the way before Kānwa 547.

+`Alāu'u'd-dīn Ḥusain Shāh+, ruler in Bengal—the circumstances of his
succession 483;
his son Naṣrat _q.v._;
[♰925 AH.-1518 AD.?].

+`Alāu'u'd-dīn Ḥusain+ _Jahān-soz Ghūrī_—his destruction in Ghazni
(550) 219;
[♰556 AH.-1161 AD.?].

Sulṯān +`Alāu'u'd-dīn Muḥammad Shāh+ _Khīljī Turk_—Bābur visits his
tomb and minār (932) 476;
his bringing of the Koh-i-nūr from the Dakkhin 477;
[♰715 AH.-1315 AD.].

Sulṯān +`Alāu'u'd-dīn+ _Sawādī_—waits on Bābur (925) 372, 375-6.

+`Alāūl Khān+ _Sūr Afghān_—writes dutifully to Bābur (935) 659.

+`Alāūl Khān+ _Nūḥānī Afghān_—his waitings on Bābur (934, 935) 677,
680.

Sharafu'd-dīn Muḥammad +al Buṣīrī+—his _Qaṣīdatu'l-būrda_ an example
for the _Wālidiyyah-risāla_ 620;
[♰_cir._ 693 AH.-1294 AD.].

+Alexander of Macedon+, see Iskandar _Fīlqūs_ (_Failaqūs_).

Sayyid +`Alī+—escapes from a defeat (909) 102;
out with Bābur (925) 403;
sent against Balūchīs (935) 638.

Sulṯān +`Alī+ _aṣghar_ Mīrzā _Shāh-rukhī Tīmūrid_, _Barlās Turk_,
son of Mas`ūd _Kābulī_—particulars 382.

+`Alī Ātāka+, servant of Khalīfa—reinforces the right wing
(_tūlghuma_) at Kānwa (933) 569.

Shaikh +`Alī Bahādur+, one of Tīmūr's chiefs—his descendant Bābā
`Alī 27.

Khwāja +`Alī Bāī+—mentioned (906) 127;
fights for Bābur at Sar-i-pul (Khwāja Kārdzan) 139;
his son Jān-i-`alī _q.v._

Shaikh +`Alī+ _Bārīn Mughūl_, son of Shaikh Jamāl—in the left wing
(_tūlghuma_) at Pānīpat (932) 473;
sent against Balūchīs (935) 638.

+`Alī+ _Barlās Turk_—his son Muḥammad Barandūq _q.v._

+`Alī Beg+ _Jalāīr Chaghatāī_, father of Ḥasan-i-`Alī and Apāq
Bega—his Shāh-rukhī service 278.[2872]

Mīr (Shaikh) +`Alī Beg+ _Turk_ (inferred 389), governor of Kābul for
Shāh-rukh _Tīmūrīd_—his sons Bābā Kābulī, Daryā Khān, and Ghāzī
(Apāq) Khān (_q.v._) cherished by Mas`ūd _Shāh-rukhī_ 382;
(see his son Ghāzī's grandson Minūchihr for a Turk relation 386).

Sulṯān +`Alī+ _chuhra_, _Chaghatāī_—his loyalty to Bābur doubted
(910) 239;
rebels (914) 345.