The Bābur-nāma in English (Memoirs of Bābur)
"Jaghat" said to mean serpent and to be the name of a Hindū
sub-caste of Nats (Crooke, iv, 72 & 73). The word here might
be a nick-name. Bābur writes it as two words.
[1615] _khaṣa-khail_, presumably members of the Sāhū-khail
(family) of the Lūdī tribe of the Afghān race.
[1616] Erskine suggested that this man was a rich banker, but
he might well be the Farmulī Shaikh-zāda of f. 256_b_, in view
of the exchange Afghān historians make of the Farmulī title
Shaikh for Mīān (_Tārīkh-i-sher-shāhī_, E. & D. iv, 347 and
_Tārīkh-i-daudī_ ib. 457).
[1617] This Biban, or Bīban, as Bābur always calls him without
title, is Malik Biban _Jilwānī_. He was associated with Shaikh
Bāyazīd _Farmulī_ or, as Afghān writers style him, Mīān
Bāyazīd _Farmulī_. (Another of his names was Mīān Biban, son
of Mīān Āṭā _Sāhū-khail_ (E. & D. iv, 347).)
[1618] This name occurs so frequently in and about the Panj-āb
as to suggest that it means a fort (Ar. _maluẕat_?). This one
in the Siwāliks was founded by Tātār Khān _Yūsuf-khail_
(_Lūdī_) in the time of Buhlūl _Lūdī_ (E. and D. iv, 415).
[1619] In the Beth Jalandhar _dū-āb_.
[1620] _i.e._ on the Siwāliks, here locally known as Katār
Dhār.
[1621] Presumably they were from the Hazāra district east of
the Indus. The _T̤abaqāt-i-akbarī_ mentions that this
detachment was acting under Khalīfa apart from Bābur and
marching through the skirt-hills (lith. ed. p. 182).
[1622] _dūn_, f. 260 and note.
[1623] These were both refugees from Harāt.
[1624] Sarkār of Baṭāla, in the Bārī _dū-āb_ (A.-i-A. Jarrett,
p. 110).
[1625] _kūrūshūr waqt_ (Index _s.n._ _kūrūsh_).
[1626] Bābur's phrasing suggests beggary.
[1627] This might refer to the time when Ibrāhīm's commander
Bihār (Bahādur) Khān _Nūḥānī_ took Lāhor (Translator's Note
_in loco_ p. 441).
[1628] They were his father's. Erskine estimated the 3 _krors_
at £75,000.
[1629] _shiqq_, what hangs on either side, perhaps a satirical
reference to the ass' burden.
[1630] As illustrating Bābur's claim to rule as a Tīmūrid in
Hindūstān, it may be noted that in 814 AH. (1411 AD.), Khiẓr
Khān who is allowed by the date to have been a Sayyid ruler in
Dihlī, sent an embassy to Shāhrukh Mīrzā the then Tīmūrid
ruler of Samarkand to acknowledge his suzerainty
(_Maṯla`u's-sa`dain_, Quatremère, N. et Ex. xiv, 196).
[1631] Firishta says that Bābur mounted for the purpose of
preserving the honour of the Afghāns and by so doing enabled
the families in the fort to get out of it safely (lith. ed. p.
204).
[1632] _chuhra_; they will have been of the Corps of braves
(_yīgīt_; Appendix H. section _c._).
[1633] _kīm kullī gharẓ aul aīdī_; Pers. trs. _ka
gharẓ-i-kullī-i-au būd_.
[1634] Persice, the eves of Sunday and Monday; Anglice,
Saturday and Sunday nights.
[1635] Ghāzī Khān was learned and a poet (Firishta ii, 42).
[1636] _mullayāna khūd_, perhaps books of learned topic but
not in choice copies.
[1637] f. 257. It stands in 31° 50' N. and 76° E. (G. of I.).
[1638] This is on the Salt-range, in 32° 42' N. and 72° 50' E.
(_Āyīn-i-akbarī_ trs. Jarrett, i, 325; Provincial Gazetteer,
Jīhlam District).
[1639] He died therefore in the town he himself built. Kitta
Beg probably escorted the Afghān families from Milwat also;
Dilāwar Khān's own seems to have been there already (f. 257).
The _Bābur-nāma_ makes no mention of Daulat Khān's relations
with Nānak, the founder of the Sikh religion, nor does it
mention Nānak himself. A tradition exists that Nānak, when on
his travels, made exposition of his doctrines to an attentive
Bābur and that he was partly instrumental in bringing Bābur
against the Afghāns. He was 12 years older than Bābur and
survived him nine. (Cf. _Dabistān_ lith. ed. p. 270; and, for
Jahāngīr Pādshāh's notice of Daulat Khān, _Tūzūk-i-jahāngīrī_,
Rogers and Beveridge, p. 87).
[1640] I translate _dūn_ by _dale_ because, as its equivalent,
Bābur uses _julga_ by which he describes a more pastoral
valley than one he calls a _dara_.
[1641] _bīr āqār-sū._ Bābur's earlier uses of this term
[_q.v._ index] connect it with the swift flow of water in
irrigation channels; this may be so here but also the term may
make distinction between the rapid mountain-stream and the
slow movement of rivers across plains.
[1642] There are two readings of this sentence; Erskine's
implies that the neck of land connecting the fort-rock with
its adjacent hill measures 7-8 _qārī_ (yards) from side to
side; de Courteille's that where the great gate was, the
perpendicular fall surrounding the fort shallowed to 7-8
yards. The Turkī might be read, I think, to mean whichever
alternative was the fact. Erskine's reading best bears out
Bābur's account of the strength of the fort, since it allows
of a cleft between the hill and the fort some 140-160 feet
deep, as against the 21-24 of de Courteille's. Erskine may
have been in possession of information [in 1826] by which he
guided his translation (p. 300), "At its chief gate, for the
space of 7 or 8 _gez_ (_qārī_), there is a place that admits
of a draw-bridge being thrown across; it may be 10 or 12 _gez_
wide." If de Courteille's reading be correct in taking 7-8
_qārī_ only to be the depth of the cleft, that cleft may be
artificial.
[1643] _yīghāch_, which also means wood.
[1644] f. 257.
[1645] Chief scribe (f. 13 n. to `Abdu'l-wahhāb). Shaw's
Vocabulary explains the word as meaning also a "high official
of Central Asian sovereigns, who is supreme over all _qāzīs_
and _mullās_."
[1646] Bābur's persistent interest in Balkh attracts
attention, especially at this time so shortly before he does
not include it as part of his own territories (f. 270).
Since I wrote of Balkh _s.a._ 923 AH. (1517 AD.), I have
obtained the following particulars about it in that year; they
are summarized from the _Ḥabību's-siyar_ (lith. ed. iii, 371).
In 923 AH. Khwānd-amīr was in retirement at Pasht in
Ghūrjistān where also was Muḥammad-i-zamān Mīrzā. The two went
in company to Balkh where the Mīrzā besieged Bābur's man
Ibrāhīm _chāpūk_ (Slash-face), and treacherously murdered one
Aūrdū-shāh, an envoy sent out to parley with him. Information
of what was happening was sent to Bābur in Kābul. Bābur
reached Balkh when it had been besieged a month. His presence
caused the Mīrzā to retire and led him to go into the
Darā-i-gaz (Tamarind-valley). Bābur, placing in Balkh
Faqīr-i-`alī, one of those just come up with him, followed the
Mīrzā but turned back at Āq-guṃbaz (White-dome) which lies
between Chāch-charān in the Herī-rūd valley and the Ghūrjistān
border, going no further because the Ghūrjistānīs favoured the
Mīrzā. Bābur went back to Kābul by the Fīrūz-koh, Yaka-aūlāng
(cf. f. 195) and Ghūr; the Mīrzā was followed up by others,
captured and conveyed to Kābul.
[1647] Both were amīrs of Hind. I understand the cognomen
Maẕhab to imply that its bearer occupied himself with the
Muḥammadan Faith in its exposition by divines of Islām
(_Hughes' Dictionary of Islām_).
[1648] These incidents are included in the summary of `Ālam
Khān's affairs in section _i_ (f. 255_b_). It will be observed
that Bābur's wording implies the "waiting" by one of lower
rank on a superior.
[1649] Elph. MS. Karnāl, obviously a clerical error.
[1650] Shaikh Sulaimān Effendi (Kunos) describes a _tunqiṯār_
as the guardian in war of a prince's tent; a night-guard; and
as one who repeats a prayer aloud while a prince is mounting.
[1651] _rūd_, which, inappropriate for the lower course of the
Ghaggar, may be due to Bābur's visit to its upper course
described immediately below. As has been noted, however, he
uses the word _rūd_ to describe the empty bed of a
mountain-stream as well as the swift water sometimes filling
that bed. The account, here-following, of his visit to the
upper course of the Ghaggar is somewhat difficult to
translate.
[1652] _Hindūstāndā daryālārdīn bāshqa, bīr āqār-sū kīm bār_
(_dūr_, is added by the Elph. MS.), _bū dūr_. Perhaps the
meaning is that the one (chief?) irrigation stream, apart from
great rivers, is the Ghaggar. The bed of the Ghaggar is
undefined and the water is consumed for irrigation (G. of I.
xx, 33; Index _s.n._ _āqār-sū_).
[1653] in Patiāla. Maps show what may be Bābur's strong
millstream joining the Ghaggar.
[1654] Presumably he was of Ibrāhīm's own family, the
Sāhū-khail. His defeat was opportune because he was on his way
to join the main army.
[1655] At this place the Elphinstone Codex has preserved,
interpolated in its text, a note of Humāyūn's on his first use
of the razor. Part of it is written as by Bābur:—"Today in
this same camp the razor or scissors was applied to Humāyūn's
face." Part is signed by Humāyūn:—"As the honoured dead,
earlier in these Acts (_wāqi`āt_) mentions the first
application of the razor to his own face (f. 120), so in
imitation of him I mention this. I was then at the age of 18;
now I am at the age of 48, I who am the sub-signed Muḥammad
Humāyūn." A scribe's note attests that this is "copied from
the hand-writing of that honoured one". As Humāyūn's 48th
(lunar) birthday occurred a month before he left Kābul, to
attempt the re-conquest of Hindūstān, in November 1554 AD. (in
the last month of 961 AH.), he was still 48 (lunar) years old
on the day he re-entered Dihlī on July 23rd 1555 AD. (Ramẓān
1st 962 AH.), so that this "shaving passage" will have been
entered within those dates. That he should study his Father's
book at that time is natural; his grandson Jahāngīr did the
same when going to Kābul; so doubtless would do its author's
more remote descendants, the sons of Shāh-jahān who
reconquered Transoxiana.
(Concerning the "shaving passage" _vide_ the notes on the
Elphinstone Codex in JRAS. 1900 p. 443, 451; 1902 p. 653; 1905
p. 754; and 1907 p. 131.)
[1656] This ancient town of the Sahāranpūr district is
associated with a saint revered by Hindūs and Muḥammadans. Cf.
W. Crooke's _Popular Religion of Northern India_ p. 133. Its
_chashma_ may be inferred (from Bābur's uses of the word
_q.v._ Index) as a water-head, a pool, a gathering place of
springs.
[1657] He was the eighth son of Bābur's maternal-uncle Sl.
Aḥmad Khān _Chaghatāī_ and had fled to Bābur, other brothers
following him, from the service of their eldest brother
Manṣūr, Khāqān of the Mughūls (_Tārīkh-i-rashīdī_ trs. p.
161).
[1658] _fars̱-waqtī_, when there is light enough to
distinguish one object from another.
[1659] _dīm kūrūldī_ (Index _s.n._ _dīm_). Here the L. & E.
_Memoirs_ inserts an explanatory passage in Persian about the
_dīm_. It will have been in one of the _Wāqi`āt-i-bāburī MSS._
Erskine used; it is in Muḥ. _Shīrāzī_'s lithograph copy of the
Udaipūr Codex (p. 173). It is not in the Turkī text or in all
the MSS. of the Persian translation. Manifestly, it was
entered at a time when Bābur's term _dīm kūrūldī_ requires
explanation in Hindustan. The writer of it himself does not
make details clear; he says only, "It is manifest that people
declare (the number) after counting the mounted army in the
way agreed upon amongst them, with a whip or a bow held in the
hand." This explanation suggests that in the march-past the