The Bābur-nāma in English (Memoirs of Bābur)
through this the Ghogrā once flowed, and through it has tried
within the last half-century to break back. These changes in
Tal Ratoi and in the course of the Ghogrā dictate caution in
attempting to locate places which were on it in Bābur's day
_e.g._ K:l:r:h (_supra_).
[2657] Appendix T.
[2658] This name has the following variants in the Ḥai. MS.
and in Kehr's:—Dalm-ū-ūū-ūr-ūd-ūṯ. The place was in Akbar's
_sarkār_ of Mānikpūr and is now in the Rai Bareilly district.
[2659] Perhaps Chaksar, which was in Akbar's _sarkār_ of
Jūnpūr, and is now in the `Azamgarh district.
[2660] Ḥai. MS. _J:nāra khūnd tawābī sī bīla_ (perhaps
_tawābī`sī_ but not so written). The obscurity of these words
is indicated by their variation in the manuscripts. Most
scribes have them as Chunār and Jūnpūr, guided presumably by
the despatch of a force to Chunār on receipt of the news, but
another force was sent to Dalmau at the same time. The rebels
were defeated s.w. of Dalmau and thence went to Mahūba; it is
not certain that they had crossed the Ganges at Dalmau; there
are difficulties in supposing the fort they captured and
abandoned was Lakhnau (Oude); they might have gone south to
near Kālpī and Ādampūr, which are at no great distance from
where they were defeated by Bāqī _shaghāwal_, if Lakhnūr (now
Shahābād in Rāmpūr) were the fort. (Cf. Appendix T.)—To take
up the interpretation of the words quoted above, at another
point, that of the kinsfolk or fellow-Afghāns the rebels
planned to join:—these kinsfolk may have been, of Bāyazīd, the
Farmūlīs in Sarwār, and of Bīban, the Jalwānīs of the same
place. The two may have trusted to relationship for harbourage
during the Rains, disloyal though they were to their kinsmen's
accepted suzerain. Therefore if they were once across Ganges
and Jumna, as they were in Mahūba, they may have thought of
working eastwards south of the Ganges and of getting north
into Sarwār through territory belonging to the Chunār and
Jūnpūr governments. This however is not expressed by the words
quoted above; perhaps Bābur's record was hastily and
incompletely written.—Another reading may be Chunār and Jaund
(in Akbar's _sarkār_ of Rohtās).
[2661] _yūlīinī tūshqāīlār._ It may be observed concerning the
despatch of Muḥammad-i-zamān M. and of Junaid _Barlās_ that
they went to their new appointments Jūnpūr and Chunār
respectively; that their doing so was an orderly part of the
winding-up of Bābur's Eastern operations; that they remained
as part of the Eastern garrison, on duty apart from that of
blocking the road of Bīban and Bāyazīd.
[2662] This mode of fishing is still practised in India
(Erskine).
[2663] Islāmicé, Saturday night; Anglicé, Friday after 6 p.m.
[2664] This Tūs, "Tousin, or Tons, is a branch from the Ghogrā
coming off above Faizābād and joining the Sarju or Parsarū
below `Azamgarh" (Erskine).
[2665] Kehr's MS. p. 1132, Māng (or Mānk); Ḥai. MS. Tāīk; I.O.
218 f. 328 Bā:k; I.O. 217 f. 236_b_, Bīāk. Māīng in the
Sulṯānpūr district seems suitably located (_D.G. of
Sulṯānpūr_, p. 162).
[2666] This will be the night-guard (_`asas_); the librarian
(_kitābdār_) is in Saṃbhal. I.O. 218 f. 325 inserts _kitābdār_
after `Abdu'l-lāh's name where he is recorded as sent to
Saṃbhal (f. 375).
[2667] He will have announced to Tāj Khān the transfer of the
fort to Junaid _Barlās_.
[2668] £3750. Parsarūr was in Akbar's _ṣūbah_ of Lāhor; G. of
I. xx, 23, Pasrūr.
[2669] The estimate may have been made by measurement (f. 356)
or by counting a horse's steps (f. 370). Here the Ḥai. MS. and
Kehr's have D:lmūd, but I.O. 218 f. 328_b_ (D:lmūū).
[2670] As on f. 361_b_, so here, Bābur's wording tends to
locate Ādampūr on the right (west) bank of the Jumna.
[2671] Ḥai. MS. _aūta_, presumably for _aūrta_; Kehr's p.
1133, Aūd-dāghī, which, as Bāqī led the Aūd army, is _ben
trovato_; both Persian translations, _mīāngānī_, central,
inner, _i.e._ _aūrta_, perhaps household troops of the Centre.
[2672] Anglicé, Saturday 12th after 6 p.m.
[2673] In Akbar's _sarkār_ of Kālanjar, now in the Hamirpūr
district.
[2674] £7500 (Erskine). Amrohā is in the Morādābād district.
[2675] At the Chaupāra-Chaturmūk ferry (f.
376).—_Corrigendum_:—In the Index of the _Bābur-nāma
Facsimile_, Mūsa _Farmūlī_ and Mūsa Sl. are erroneously
entered as if one man.
[2676] _i.e._ riding light and fast. The distance done between
Ādampūr and Āgra was some 157 miles, the time was from 12 a.m.
on Tuesday morning to about 9 p.m. of Thursday. This exploit
serves to show that three years of continuous activity in the
plains of Hindūstān had not destroyed Bābur's capacity for
sustained effort, spite of several attacks of (malarial?)
fever.
[2677] Anglicé, Tuesday 12.25 a.m.
[2678] He was governor of Etāwa.
[2679] Islamicé, Friday, Shawwāl 18th, Anglicé, Thursday, June
24th, soon after 9 p.m.
[2680] Anglicé, she arrived at mid-night of
Saturday.—Gul-badan writes of Māhīm's arrival as unexpected
and of Bābur's hurrying off on foot to meet her
(_Humāyūn-nāma_ f. 14, trs. p. 100).
[2681] Māhīm's journey from Kābul to Āgra had occupied over 5
months.
[2682] Hindū Beg _qūchīn_ had been made Humāyūn's retainer in
932 AH. (f. 297), and had taken possession of Saṃbhal for him.
Hence, as it seems, he was ordered, while escorting the ladies
from Kābul, to go to Saṃbhal. He seems to have gone before
waiting on Bābur, probably not coming into Āgra till now.—It
may be noted here that in 933 AH. he transformed a Hindū
temple into a Mosque in Saṃbhal; it was done by Bābur's orders
and is commemorated by an inscription still existing on the
Mosque, one seeming not to be of his own composition, judging
by its praise of himself. (JASB. _Proceedings_, May 1873, p.
98, Blochmann's art. where the inscription is given and
translated; and _Archæological Survey Reports_, xii, p. 24-27,
with Plates showing the Mosque).
[2683] Cf. f. 375, f. 377, with notes concerning `Abdu'l-lāh
and Tīr-mūhānī. I have not found the name Tīr-mūhānī on maps;
its position can be inferred from Bābur's statement (f. 375)
that he had sent `Abdu'l-lāh to Saṃbhal, he being then at
Kunba or Kunīa in the Nurhun _pargana_.—The name Tīr-mūhānī
occurs also in Gorakhpūr.—It was at Tīr-mūhānī (Three-mouths)
that Khwānd-amīr completed the _Ḥabībū's-siyar_ (lith. ed. i,
83; Rieu's _Pers. Cat._ p. 1079). If the name imply three
water-mouths, they might be those of Ganges, Ghogrā and Dāhā.
[2684] _nīm-kāra._ E. and de C. however reverse the _rôles_.
[2685] The _Tārīkh-i-gūālīārī_ (B.M. Add. 16, 709, p. 18)
supplements the fragmentary accounts which, above and _s.a._
936 AH., are all that the _Bābur-nāma_ now preserves
concerning Khwāja Rāḥīm-dād's misconduct. It has several
mistakes but the gist of its information is useful. It
mentions that the Khwāja and his paternal-uncle Mahdī Khwāja
had displeased Bābur; that Raḥīm-dād resolved to take refuge
with the ruler of Mālwā (Muḥammad _Khīljī_) and to make over
Gūālīār to a Rājpūt landholder of that country; that upon this
Shaikh Muḥammad _Ghaus̤_ went to Āgra and interceded with
Bābur and obtained his forgiveness for Raḥīm-dād. Gūālīār was
given back to Raḥīm-dād but after a time he was superseded by
Abū'l-fatḥ [Shaikh Gūran]. For particulars about Mahdī Khwāja
and a singular story told about him by Niẕāmu'd-dīn Aḥmad in
the _T̤abaqāt-i-akbarī_, _vide_ Gul-badan's _Ḥumāyūn-nāma_,
Appendix B, and _Translator's Note_ p. 702, Section _f_.
[2686] He may have come about the misconduct of his nephew
Raḥīm-dād.
[2687] The `Īdu'l-kabīr, the Great Festival of 10th
Ẕū'l-ḥijja.
[2688] About £1750 (Erskine).
[2689] Perhaps he was from the tract in Persia still called
Chaghatāī Mountains. One Ibrāhīm _Chaghatāī_ is mentioned by
Bābur (f. 175b) with Turkmān begs who joined Ḥusain
_Bāī-qarā_. This Ḥasan-i-`alī _Chaghatāī_ may have come in
like manner, with Murād the Turkmān envoy from `Irāq (f. 369
and n. 1).
[2690] Several incidents recorded by Gul-badan (writing half a
century later) as following Māhīm's arrival in Āgra, will
belong to the record of 935 AH. because they preceded
Humāyūn's arrival from Badakhshān. Their omission from Bābur's
diary is explicable by its minor _lacunæ_. Such are:—(1) a
visit to Dhūlpūr and Sīkrī the interest of which lies in its
showing that Bībī Mubārika had accompanied Māhīm Begīm to Āgra
from Kābul, and that there was in Sīkrī a quiet retreat, a
_chaukandī_, where Bābur "used to write his book";—(2) the
arrival of the main caravan of ladies from Kābul, which led
Bābur to go four miles out, to Naugrām, in order to give
honouring reception to his sister Khān-ẓāda Begīm;—(3) an
excursion to the Gold-scattering garden (_Bāgh-i-zar-afshān_),
where seated among his own people, Bābur said he was "bowed
down by ruling and reigning", longed to retire to that garden
with a single attendant, and wished to make over his
sovereignty to Humāyūn;—(4) the death of Dil-dār's son Alwār
(var. Anwār) whose birth may be assigned to the gap preceding
932 AH. because not chronicled later by Bābur, as is Farūq's.
As a distraction from the sorrow for this loss, a journey was
"pleasantly made by water" to Dhūlpūr.
[2691] Cf. f. 381b n. 2. For his earlier help to Raḥīm-dād
_see_ f. 304. For Biographies of him _see_ Blochmann's A.-i-A.
trs. p. 446, and Badāyūnī's _Muntakhabu-'t-tawārīkh_
(Ranking's and Lowe's trss.).
[2692] Beyond this broken passage, one presumably at the foot
of a page in Bābur's own manuscript, nothing of his diary is
now known to survive. What is missing seems likely to have
been written and lost. It is known from a remark of
Gul-badan's (H.N. p. 103) that he "used to write his book"
after Māhīm's arrival in Āgra, the place coming into her
anecdote being Sīkrī.
[2693] Jauhar's _Humāyūn-nāma_ and Bāyazīd _Bīyāt's_ work of
the same title were written under the same royal command as
the Begīm's. They contribute nothing towards filling the gap
of 936 AH.; their authors, being Humāyūn's servants, write
about him. It may be observed that criticism of these books,
as recording trivialities, is disarmed if they were commanded
because they would obey an order to set down whatever was
known, selection amongst their contents resting with
Abū'l-faẓl. Even more completely must they be excluded from a
verdict on the literary standard of their day.—Abū'l-faẓl must
have had a source of Bāburiana which has not found its way
into European libraries. A man likely to have contributed his
recollections, directly or transmitted, is Khwāja Muqīm
_Harāwī_. The date of Muqīm's death is conjectural only, but
he lived long enough to impress the worth of historical
writing on his son Niẕāmu'-d-dīn Aḥmad. (Cf. E. and D.'s H. of
I. art. _T̤abaqāt-i-akbarī_ v, 177 and 187; T̤.-i-A. lith. ed.
p. 193; and for Bāyazīd _Bīyāt's_ work, JASB. 1898, p. 296.)
[2694] Ibn Batuta (Lee's trs. p. 133) mentions that after his
appointment to Gūālīār, Raḥīm-dād fell from favour ... but was
restored later, on the representation of Muḥammad Ghaus̤; held
Gūālīār again for a short time, (he went to Bahādur Shāh in
Gujrāt) and was succeeded by Abū'l-fatḥ (_i.e._ Shaikh Gūran)
who held it till Bābur's death.