The Bābur-nāma in English (Memoirs of Bābur)
[2098] Also, metaphorically, swords.
[2099] _tīr._ My husband thinks there is a play upon the two
meanings of this word, arrow and the planet Mercury; so too in
the next sentence, that there may be allusion in the _kuākib
s̤awābit_ to the constellation Pegasus, opposed to Bābur's
squadrons of horse.
[2100] The Fish mentioned in this verse is the one pictured by
Muḥammadan cosmogony as supporting the Earth. The violence of
the fray is illustrated by supposing that of Earth's seven
climes one rose to Heaven in dust, thus giving Heaven eight.
The verse is from Firdausī's _Shāh-nāma_, [Turner-Macan's ed.
i, 222]. The translation of it is Warner's, [ii, 15 and n.]. I
am indebted for the information given in this note to my
husband's long search in the _Shāh-nāmā_.
[2101] Qorān, cap. 3, v. 133.
[2102] Qorān, cap. 61, v. 13.
[2103] Qorān, cap. 48, v. 1.
[2104] Qorān, cap. 48, v. 3.
[2105] [see p. 572] _farāsh_. De Courteille, reading _firāsh_,
translates this metaphor by _comme un lit lorsqu'il est
défait_. He refers to Qorān, cap. 101, v. 3. A better metaphor
for the breaking up of an army than that of moths scattering,
one allowed by the word _farāsh_, but possibly not by
Muḥammad, is _vanished like bubbles on wine_.
[2106] Bāgar is an old name for Dungarpūr and Bānswāra [_G. of
I._ vi, 408 _s.n._ Bānṣwāra].
[2107] _sic_, Ḥai. MS. and may be so read in I.O. 217 f.
220_b___; Erskine writes Bikersi (p. 367) and notes the
variant Nagersi; Ilminsky (p. 421) N:krsī; de Courteille (ii.
307) Niguersi.
[2108] Cf. f. 318_b_, and note, where it is seen that the
stones which killed the lords of the Elephants were so small
as to be carried in the bill of a bird like a swallow. Were
such stones used in matchlocks in Bābur's day?
[2109] _guzāran_, var. _gurazān_, caused to flee and hogs
(Erskine notes the double-meaning).
[2110] This passage, entered in some MSS. as if verse, is made
up of Qorān, cap. 17, v. 49, cap. 33, v. 38, and cap. 3, v.
122.
[2111] As the day of battle was Jumāda II. 13th (March 16th),
the _Fatḥ-nāma_ was ready and dated twelve days after that
battle. It was started for Kābul on Rajab 9th (April 11th).
Something may be said here appropriately about the surmise
contained in Dr. Ilminsky's Preface and M. de Courteille's
note to _Mémoires_ ii, 443 and 450, to the effect that Bābur
wrote a plain account of the battle of Kanwā and for this in
his narrative substituted Shaikh Zain's _Fatḥ-nāma_, and that
the plain account has been preserved in Kehr's _Bābur-nāma_
volume [whence Ilminsky reproduced it, it was translated by M.
de Courteille and became known as a "Fragment" of Bāburiana].
Almost certainly both scholars would have judged adversely of
their suggestion by the light of to-day's easier research. The
following considerations making against its value, may be set
down:—
(1) There is no sign that Bābur ever wrote a plain account of
the battle or any account of it. There is against his doing so
his statement that he inserts Shaikh Zain's _Fatḥ-nāma_
because it gives particulars. If he had written any account,
it would be found preceding the _Fatḥ-nāma_, as his account of
his renunciation of wine precedes Shaikh Zain's _Farmān_
announcing the act.
(2) Moreover, the "Fragment" cannot be described as a plain
account such as would harmonize with Bābur's style; it is in
truth highly rhetorical, though less so as Shaikh Zain's.
(3) The "Fragment" begins with a quotation from the
_Bābur-nāma_ (f.310_b_ and n.), skips a good deal of Bābur's
matter preliminary to the battle, and passes on with what
there can be no doubt is a translation in inferior Turkī of
the _Akbar-nāma_ account.
(4) The whole of the extra matter is seen to be continuous and
not fragmentary, if it is collated with the chapter in which
Abū'l-faẓl describes the battle, its sequel of events, the
death, character, attainments, and Court of Bābur. Down to the
death, it is changed to the first person so as to make Bābur
seem to write it. The probable concocter of it is Jahāngīr.
(5) If the Fragment were Bābur's composition, where was it
when `Abdu-r-raḥīm translated the _Bābur-nāma_ in 998 AH.-1590
AD.; where too did Abū'l-faẓl find it to reproduce in the
_Akbar-nāma_?
(6) The source of Abū'l-faẓl's information seems without doubt
to be Bābur's own narrative and Shaikh Zain's _Fatḥ-nāma_.
There are many significant resemblances between the two
rhetoricians' metaphors and details selected.
(7) A good deal might be said of the dissimilarities between
Bābur's diction and that of the "Fragment". But this is
needless in face of the larger and more circumstantial
objections already mentioned.
(For a fuller account of the "Fragment" see JRAS. Jan. 1906
pp. 81, 85 and 1908 p. 75 ff.)
[2112] _T̤ughrā_ means an imperial signature also, but would
Bābur sign Shaikh Zain's _Fatḥ-i-nāma_? His autograph verse at
the end of the _Rāmpūr Dīwān_ has his signature following it.
He is likely to have signed this verse. Cf. App. Q. [Erskine
notes that titles were written on the back of despatches, an
unlikely place for the quatrain, one surmises.]
[2113] This is in the _Rāmpūr dīwān_ (E.D.R. Plate 17). Dr. E.
Denison Ross points out (p. 17 n.) that in the 2nd line the
Ḥai. Codex varies from the _Dīwān_. The MS. is wrong; it
contains many inaccuracies in the latter part of the Hindūstān
section, perhaps due to a change of scribe.
[2114] These words by _abjad_ yield 933. From Bābur's use of
the pluperfect tense, I think it may be inferred that (my)
Sections _a_ and _b_ are an attachment to the _Fatḥ-nāma_,
entered with it at a somewhat later date.
[2115] My translation of this puzzling sentence is tentative
only.
[2116] This statement shews that the Dībālpūr affair occurred
in one of the B.N. gaps, and in 930 AH. The words make 330 by
_abjad_. It may be noted here that on f. 312_b_ and notes
there are remarks concerning whether Bābur's remission of the
_tamghā_ was contingent on his winning at Kānwa. If the
remission had been delayed until his victory was won, it would
have found fitting mention with the other sequels of victory
chronicled above; as it is not with these sequels, it may be
accepted as an absolute remission, proclaimed before the
fight. The point was a little uncertain owing to the seemingly
somewhat deferred insertion in Bābur's narrative of Shaikh
Zain's _Farmān_.
[2117] _dā'ira_, presumably a defended circle. As the word
_aūrdū_ [bracketed in the text] shows, Bābur used it both for
his own and for Sangā's camps.
[2118] Hence the Rānā escaped. He died in this year, not
without suspicion of poison.
[2119] _aīchīmnī khālī qīldīm_, a seeming equivalent for
English, "I poured out my spleen."
[2120] var. _malūk_ as _e.g._ in I.O. 217 f.225_b_, and also
elsewhere in the _Bābur-nāma_.
[2121] On f. 315 the acts attributed to Ilīās Khān are said to
have been done by a "mannikin called Rustam Khān". Neither
name appears elsewhere in the B.N.; the hero's name seems a
sarcasm on the small man.
[2122] Bābur so-calls both Ḥasan and his followers, presumably
because they followed their race sympathies, as of Rājpūt
origin, and fought against co-religionists. Though Ḥasan's
subjects, Meos, were nominally Muḥammadans, it appears that
they practised some Hindu customs. For an account of Mīwāt,
see _Gazetteer of Ulwur_ (Alwar, Alūr) by Major P. W. Powlett.
[2123] Alwar being in Mīwāt, Bābur may mean that bodies were
found beyond that town in the main portion of the Mīwāt
country which lies north of Alwar towards Dihlī.
[2124] Major Powlett speaking (p. 9) of the revenue Mīwāt paid
to Bābur, quotes Thomas as saying that the coins stated in
Bābur's Revenue Accounts, _viz._ 169,810,00 _tankas_ were
probably Sikandarī _tankas_, or Rs. 8,490,50.
[2125] This word appears to have been restricted in its use to
the Khān-zādas of the ruling house in Mīwāt, and was not used
for their subjects, the Meos (Powlett _l.c._ Cap. I.). The
uses of "Mīwātī" and "Meo" suggest something analogous with
those of "Chaghatāī" and "Mughūl" in Bābur's time. The
resemblance includes mutual dislike and distrust (Powlett
_l.c._).
[2126] _qīlūrlār aīkān dūr._ This presumptive past tense is
frequently used by the cautious Bābur. I quote it here and in
a few places near-following because it supports Shaw's
statement that in it the use of _aīkān_ (_īkān_) reduces the
positive affirmation of the perfect to presumption or rumour.
With this statement all grammarians are not agreed; it is
fully supported by the _Bābur-nāma_.
[2127] Contrast here is suggested between Sulṯāns of Dihlī &
Hind; is it between the greater Turks with whom Bābur classes
himself immediately below as a conqueror of Hind, and the Lūdī
Sulṯāns of Dihlī?
[2128] The strength of the Tijāra hills towards Dihlī is
historical (Powlett _l.c._ p. 132).
[2129] This is one of the names of the principal river which
flows eastwards to the south of Alwar town; other names are
Bārah and Rūparel. Powlett notes that it appears in Thorn's
Map of the battle of Laswarree (1803 AD.), which he reproduces
on p. 146. But it is still current in Gurgaon, with also a
variant Mānas-le, man-killer (_G. of Gurgaon_ 1910 AD. ivA,
p.6).
[2130] _aūltūrūrlār aīkān dūr_, the presumptive past tense.
[2131] f.308.
[2132] _qīlghān aīkān dūr_, the presumptive past tense.
[2133] _Sulṯān ātīghā juldū būlūb_; Pers. trs. _Juldū ba nām-i
Sulṯān shud_. The _juldū_ guerdon seems to be apart from the
fief and allowance.
[2134] f. 315.
[2135] Bābur does not record this detail (f. 315).
[2136] f. 298_b_ and f. 328_b_. Ja`far is mentioned as Mahdī's
son by Gul-badan and in the _Ḥabību's-siyar_ iii, 311, 312.
[2137] f. 388_b_.
[2138] The town of Fīrūzpūr is commonly known as
Fīrūzpūr-jhirka (Fīrūzpūr of the spring), from a small
perennial stream which issues from a number of fissures in the
rocks bordering the road through a pass in the Mīwāt hills
which leads from the town _viâ_ Tijāra to Rewārī (_G. of
Gurgaon_, p. 249). In Abū'l-faẓl's day there was a Hindū
shrine of Mahadeo near the spring, which is still a place of
annual pilgrimage. The Kūtila lake is called Kotla-_jhil_ in
the _G. of G._ (p. 7). It extends now 3 m. by 2-1/2 m. varying
in size with the season; in Abū'l-faẓl's day it was 4 _kos_ (8
m.) round. It lies partly in the district of Nūh, partly in
Gurgaon, where the two tracts join at the foot of the Alwar
hills.
[2139] This is the frequently mentioned size for reservoirs;
the measure here is probably the _qārī_, _cir._ a yard.
[2140] Bābur does not state it as a fact known to himself that
the Mānas-nī falls into the Kūtila lake; it did so formerly,
but now does not, tradition assigning a cause for the change
(_G. of G._ p. 6). He uses the hear-say tense, _kīrār aīmīsh_.
[2141] Kharī and Toda were in Akbar's _sarkār_ of Rantaṃbhor.
[2142] Bhosāwar is in Bhurtpūr, and Chausa (or Jūsa) may be
the Chausath of the _Āyīn-i-akbarī_, ii, 183.
[2143] As has been noted frequently, this phrase stands for
artificial water-courses.
[2144] Certainly Trans-Hindū-kush lands; presumably also those
of Trans-Indus, Kābul in chief.