The Bābur-nāma in English (Memoirs of Bābur)
_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;