The Bābur-nāma in English (Memoirs of Bābur)
An important contribution, seeming to be authentic, is found
interpolated in Aḥmad-i-yādgār's _Tārīkh-i-salāṯīn-i-afāghana_, one
which outlines a journey made by Bābur to Lāhor in 936 AH. and gives
circumstantial details of a punitive expedition sent by him from Sihrind
at the complaint of the Qāẓī of Samāna against a certain Mundāhir
Rājpūt. The whole contribution dovetails into matters found elsewhere.
Its precision of detail bespeaks a closely-contemporary written
source.[2697] As its fullest passage concerns the Samāna Qāẓī's affair,
its basis of record may have been found in Samāna. Some considerations
about the date of Aḥmad-i-yādgār's own book and what Niamatu'l-lāh says
of Haibat Khān of Samāna, his own generous helper in the
_Tārīkhi-Khan-i-jahān Lūdī_, point towards Haibat Khān as providing the
details of the Qāẓī's wrongs and avenging. The indication is
strengthened by the circumstance that what precedes and what follows the
account of the punitive expedition is outlined only.[2698]
Aḥmad-i-yādgār interpolates an account of Humāyūn also, which is a frank
plagiarism from the _T̤abaqāt-i-akbarī_. He tells too a story purporting
to explain why Bābur "selected" Humāyūn to succeed him, one parallel
with Niẕāmu'd-dīn Aḥmad's about what led Khalīfa to abandon his plan of
setting the Mīrzā aside. Its sole value lies in its testimony to a
belief, held by its first narrator whoever he was, that choice was
exercised in the matter by Bābur. Reasons for thinking Niẕāmu'd-dīn's
story, as it stands, highly improbable, will be found later in this
note.
Muḥammad Qāsim Hindū Shāh _Firishta's Tārīkh-i-firishta_ contains an
interesting account of Bābur but contributes towards filling the gap in
the events of 936-937 AH. little that is not in the earlier sources. In
M. Jules Mohl's opinion it was under revision as late as 1623 AD.
(1032-3 AH.).
(_a. Humāyūn and Badakhshān._)
An occurrence which had important results, was the arrival of Humāyūn in
Āgra, unsummoned by his Father, from the outpost station of Badakhshān.
It will have occurred early in 936 AH. (autumn 1529 AD.), because he was
in Kābul in the first ten days of the last month of 935 AH. (_vide
post_). Curiously enough his half-sister Gul-badan does not mention his
coming, whether through avoidance of the topic or from inadvertence; the
omission may be due however to the loss of a folio from the only known
MS. of her book (that now owned by the British Museum), and this is the
more likely that Abū'l-faẓl writes, at some length, about the arrival
and its motive, what the Begīm might have provided, this especially by
his attribution of filial affection as Humāyūn's reason for coming to
Āgra.
Ḥaidar Mīrzā is the authority for the Akbar-nāma account of Humāyūn's
departure from Qila`-i-ẕafar and its political and military sequel. He
explains the departure by saying that when Bābur had subdued Hindūstān,
his sons Humāyūn and Kāmrān were grown-up; and that wishing to have one
of them at hand in case of his own death, he summoned Humāyūn, leaving
Kāmrān in Qandahār. No doubt these were the contemporary impressions
conveyed to Ḥaidar, and strengthened by the accomplished fact before he
wrote some 12 years later; nevertheless there are two clear indications
that there was no royal order for Humāyūn to leave Qila`-i-ẕafar, _viz._
that no-one had been appointed to relieve him even when he reached Āgra,
and that Abū'l-faẓl mentions no summons but attributes the Mīrzā's
departure from his post to an overwhelming desire to see his Father.
What appears probable is that Māhīm wrote to her son urging his coming
to Āgra, and that this was represented as Bābur's wish. However little
weight may be due to the rumour, preserved in anecdotes recorded long
after 935 AH., that any-one, Bābur or Khalīfa, inclined against
Humāyūn's succession, that rumour she would set herself to falsify by
reconciliation.[2699]
When the Mīrzā's intention to leave Qila`-i-ẕafar became known there,
the chiefs represented that they should not be able to withstand the
Aūzbeg on their frontier without him (his troops implied).[2700] With
this he agreed, said that still he must go, and that he would send a
Mīrzā in his place as soon as possible. He then rode, in one day, to
Kābul, an item of rapid travel preserved by Abū'l-faẓl.
Humāyūn's departure caused such anxiety in Qila`-i-ẕafar that some (if
not all) of the Badakhshī chiefs hurried off an invitation to Sa`īd Khān
_Chaghatāī_, the then ruler in Kāshghar in whose service Ḥaidar Mīrzā
was, to come at once and occupy the fort. They said that Faqīr-i-`alī
who had been left in charge, was not strong enough to cope with the
Aūzbeg, begged Sa`īd to come, and strengthened their petition by
reminding him of his hereditary right to Badakhshān, derived from Shāh
Begīm _Badakhshī_. Their urgency convincing the Khān that risk
threatened the country, he started from Kāshghar in Muḥarram 936 AH.
(Sept-Oct. 1529 AD.). On reaching Sārīgh-chūpān which by the annexation
of Abā-bakr Mīrzā _Dūghlāt_ was now his own most western territory[2701]
but which formerly was one of the upper districts of Badakhshān, he
waited while Ḥaidar went on towards Qila`-i-ẕafar only to learn on his
road, that Hind-āl (_æt._ 10) had been sent from Kābul by Humāyūn and
had entered the fort 12 days before.
The Kāshgharīs were thus placed in the difficulty that the fort was
occupied by Bābur's representative, and that the snows would prevent
their return home across the mountains till winter was past.
Winter-quarters were needed and asked for by Ḥaidar, certain districts
being specified in which to await the re-opening of the Pāmīr routes. He
failed in his request, "They did not trust us," he writes, "indeed
suspected us of deceit." His own account of Sa`īd's earlier invasion of
Badakhshān (925 AH.-1519 AD.) during Khān Mīrzā's rule, serves to
explain Badakhshī distrust of Kāshgharīs. Failing in his negotiations,
he scoured and pillaged the country round the fort, and when a few days
later the Khān arrived, his men took what Ḥaidar's had left.
Sa`īd Khān is recorded to have besieged the fort for three months, but
nothing serious seems to have been attempted since no mention of
fighting is made, none of assault or sally, and towards the end of the
winter he was waited on by those who had invited his presence, with
apology for not having admitted him into the fort, which they said they
would have done but for the arrival of Hind-āl Mīrzā. To this the Khān
replied that for him to oppose Bābur Pādshāh was impossible; he reminded
the chiefs that he was there by request, that it would be as hurtful for
the Pādshāh as for himself to have the Aūzbeg in Badakhshān and,
finally, he gave it as his opinion that, as matters stood, every man
should go home. His view of the general duty may include that of
Badakhshī auxiliaries such as Sulṯān Wais of Kūl-āb who had reinforced
the garrison. So saying, he himself set out for Kāshghar, and at the
beginning of Spring reached Yārkand.
_b. Humāyūn's further action._
Humāyūn will have reached Kābul before Ẕū'l-ḥijja 10th 935 AH. (Aug.
26th 1529 AD.) because it is on record that he met Kāmrān on the Kābul
'Īd-gāh, and both will have been there to keep the `Īdu'l-kabīr, the
Great Festival of Gifts, which is held on that day. Kāmrān had come from
Qandahār, whether to keep the Feast, or because he had heard of
Humāyūn's intended movement from Badakhshān, or because changes were
foreseen and he coveted Kābul, as the _Bābur-nāma_ and later records
allow to be inferred. He asked Humāyūn, says Abū'l-faẓl, why he was
there and was told of his brother's impending journey to Āgra under
overwhelming desire to see their Father.[2702] Presumably the two Mīrzās
discussed the position in which Badakhshān had been left; in the end
Hind-āl was sent to Qila'-i-ẕafar, notwithstanding that he was under
orders for Hindūstān.
Humāyūn may have stayed some weeks in Kābul, how many those familiar
with the seasons and the routes between Yārkand and Qila`-i-ẕafar,
might be able to surmise if the date of Hind-āl's start northward for
which Humāyūn is likely to have waited, were found by dovetailing the
Muḥarram of Sa`īd's start, the approximate length of his journey to
Sārīgh-chūpān, and Ḥaidar's reception of news that Hind-āl had been 12
days in the fort.
Humāyūn's arrival in Āgra is said by Abū'l-faẓl to have been cheering to
the royal family in their sadness for the death of Alwar (end of 935
AH.) and to have given pleasure to his Father. But the time is all too
near the date of Bābur's letter (f.348) to Humāyūn, that of a
dissatisfied parent, to allow the supposition that his desertion of his
post would fail to displease.
That it was a desertion and not an act of obedience seems clear from the
circumstance that the post had yet to be filled. Khalīfa is said to have
been asked to take it and to have refused;[2703] Humāyūn to have been
sounded as to return and to have expressed unwillingness. Bābur then did
what was an honourable sequel to his acceptance in 926 AH. of the charge
of the fatherless child Sulaimān, by sending him, now about 16, to take
charge where his father Khān Mīrzā had ruled, and by still keeping him
under his own protection.
Sulaimān's start from Āgra will not have been delayed, and (accepting
Aḥmad-i-yādgār's record,) Bābur himself will have gone as far as Lāhor
either with him or shortly after him, an expedition supporting Sulaimān,
and menacing Sa`īd in his winter leaguer round Qila`-i-ẕafar. Meantime
Humāyūn was ordered to his fief of Saṃbhal.
After Sulaimān's appointment Bābur wrote to Sa`īd a letter of which
Ḥaidar gives the gist:—It expresses surprise at Sa`īd's doings in
Badakhshān, says that Hind-āl has been recalled and Sulaimān sent, that
if Sa`īd regard hereditary right, he will leave "Sulaimān Shāh
Mīrzā"[2704] in possession, who is as a son to them both,[2705] that
this would be well, that otherwise he (Bābur) will make over
responsibility to the heir (Sulaimān);[2706] and, "The rest you
know."[2707]
_c. Bābur visits Lāhor._
If Aḥmad-i-yādgār's account of a journey made by Bābur to Lāhor and the
Panj-āb be accepted, the _lacuna_ of 936 AH. is appropriately filled. He
places the expedition in the 3rd year of Bābur's rule in Hindūstān,
which, counting from the first reading of the _khuṯba_ for Bābur in
Dihlī (f. 286), began on Rajab 15th 935 AH. (March 26th 1529 AD.). But
as Bābur's diary-record for 935 AH. is complete down to end of the year,
(minor _lacunæ_ excepted), the time of his leaving Āgra for Lāhor is
relegated to 936 AH. He must have left early in the year, (1) to allow
time, before the occurrence of the known events preceding his own death,
for the long expedition Aḥmad-i-yādgār calls one of a year, and (2)
because an early start after Humāyūn's arrival and Sulaimān's departure
would suit the position of affairs and the dates mentioned or implied by
Ḥaidar's and by Aḥmad-i-yādgār's narratives.
Two reasons of policy are discernible, in the known events of the time,
to recommend a journey in force towards the North-west; first, the
sedition of `Abdu'l-`azīz in Lāhor (f. 381), and secondly, the invasion
of Badakhshān by Sa`īd Khān with its resulting need of supporting
Sulaimān by a menace of armed intervention.[2708]
In Sihrind the Rāja of Kahlūr, a place which may be one of the Simla
hill-states, waited on Bābur, made offering of 7 falcons and 3
_mans_[2709] of gold, and was confirmed in his fief.[2710]
In Lāhor Kāmrān is said to have received his Father, in a garden of his
own creation, and to have introduced the local chiefs as though he were
the Governor of Lāhor some writers describe him as then being. The best
sources, however, leave him still posted in Qandahār. He had been