The Bābur-nāma in English (Memoirs of Bābur)
Trichinopoly, the town had been completely depopulated by the removal
of the whole _Wulsa_ to seek for food elsewhere, and the enemy had
been earnestly occupied in endeavouring to surprise the garrison."
(Here follows Erskine's quotation _see in loco_ p. 487). "The people
of a district thus deserting their homes are called the _Wulsa_ of
that district, a state of utmost misery, involving precaution against
incessant war and unpitying depredation—so peculiar a description as
to require in any of the languages of Europe a long circumlocution,
is expressed _in all the languages of Deckan and the south of India
by a single word_. No proofs can be accumulated from the most
profound research which shall describe the immemorial condition of
the people of India with more precision than this single word. It is
a bright distinction that the _Wulsa_ never departs on the approach
of a British army when this is unaccompanied by Indian allies."—By
clerical error in the final para. of my note _ūlvash_ is entered for
_ūlvan_ [Molesworth, any desolating calamity].
P. 540 n. 4.—An explanation of Bābur's use of Shāh-zāda as T̤ahmāsp's
title may well be that this title answers to the Tīmūrid one
Mīr-zāda, Mīrzā. If so, Bābur's change to "Shāh" (p. 635) may
recognize supremacy by victory, such as he had claimed for himself in
913 AH. when he changed his Tīmūrid "Mīrzā" for "Pādshāh".
P. 557.—Ḥusain _Kashīfī_, also, quotes Firdausī's couplet in the
_Anwār-i-suhaili_ (Cap. I, Story XXI), a book dedicated to Shaikh
Aḥmad _Suhaīlī_ (p. 277) and of earlier date than the _Bābur-nāma_.
Its author died in 910 AH.-1505 AD.
P. 576 n. 1.—Tod's statement (quoted in my n. 1) that "the year of
Rānā Sangā's defeat (933 AH.) was the last of his existence" cannot
be strictly correct because Bābur's statement (p. 598) of intending
attack on him in Chitor allows him to have been alive in 934 AH.
(1528 AD.). The death occurred, "not without suspicion of poison,"
says Tod, when the Rānā had moved against Irij then held for Bābur;
it will have been long enough before the end of 934 AH. to allow an
envoy from his son Bikramājīt to wait on Bābur in that year (pp. 603,
612). Bābur's record of it may safely be inferred lost with the
once-existent matter of 934 AH.
P. 631.—My husband has ascertained that the "Sayyid Daknī" of p. 631
is Sayyid Shāh T̤āhir _Daknī_ (_Deccani_) the Shiite apostle of
Southern India, who in 935 AH. was sent to Bābur with a letter from
Burhān Niẕām Shāh of Ahmadnagar, in which (if there were not two
embassies) congratulation was made on the conquest of Dihlī and help
asked against Bahādur Shāh _Gujrātī_. A second but earlier mention of
"Sayyid _Daknī_" (_Zaknī_, _Ruknī?_) _Shīrāzī_ is on p. 619. Whether
the two entries refer to Shāh T̤āhir nothing makes clear. The
cognomen Shīrāzī disassociates them. It is always to be kept in mind
that preliminary events are frequently lost in gaps; one such will be
the arrivals of the various envoys, mentioned on p. 630, whose places
of honour are specified on p. 631. Much is on record about Sayyid
Shāh T̤āhir _Daknī_ and particulars of his life are available in the
histories by Badāyūnī (Ranking trs.) and (Firishta Nawal Kishor ed.
p. 105); B.M. Harleyan MS. No. 199 contains his letters (_see_ Rieu's
Pers. Cat. p. 395).
P. 699 and n. 3.—The particulars given by the _T̤abaqāt-i-akbarī_
about Mulṯān at this date (932-4 AH.) are as follows:—After Bābur
took the Panj-āb, he ordered Shāh Ḥasan _Arghūn_ to attempt Mulṯān,
then held by one Sl. Maḥmūd who, dying, was succeeded by an infant
son Ḥusain. Shāh Ḥāsan took Mulṯān after a 16 (lunar) months' siege,
at the end of 934 AH. (in a B.N. _lacuna_ therefore), looted and
slaughtered in it, and then returned to Tatta. On this Langar Khān
took possession of it (H.B.). What part `Askarī (_æt._ 12) had in the
matter is yet to learn; possibly he was nominated to its command and
then recalled as Bābur mentions (935 AH.).
FOOTNOTES
[2861] The fist indicates Translator's matter.
[2862] See Abū'l-ghāzī's _Shajarat-i-turkī_ on the origin and
characteristics of the tribe (Désmaisons trs. Index _s.n._
Oūīghūr, especially pp. 16, 37, 39).
[2863] This date is misplaced in my text and should be
transferred from p. 83, l. 3 fr. ft. to p. 86, l. 1, there to
follow "two years".
[2864] A fuller reference to the Ḥ.S. than is given on p. 85
n. 2, is ii, 44 and iii, 167.
[2865] Cf. _s.n._ `Abdu'l-lāh Mīrzā _Shāh-rukhī_ for a date
misplaced in my text.
[2866] The date 935 AH. is inferred from p. 483.
[2867] Cf. Badāyūnī's _Muntakhabu't-tawārīkh_ and Ranking's
trs. i, 616 and n. 4, 617.
[2868] Ferté translates this sobriquet by _le dévoué_ (_Vie de
Sl. Hossein Baikara_ p. 40 n. 3).
[2869] At p. 22 n. 8 fill out to Cf. f. 6_b_ (p. 13) n. 5.
[2870] For an account of his tomb see Schuyler's _Turkistān_,
1, 70-72.
[2871] Or Aīgū (Āyāgū) from _āyāgh_, foot, perhaps expressing
close following of Tīmūr, whose friend the Beg was.
[2872] Daulat-shāh celebrates the renown of the Jalāīr section
(_farqa_) of the Chaghatāī tribes (_aqwām_) of the Mughūl
horde (_aūlūs_, _ūlūs_), styles the above-entered `Alī Beg a
veteran hero, and links his family with that of the Jalāīr
Sultāns of Bāghdād (Browne's ed. p. 519).
[2873] See H. S. lith. ed. iii, 224, for three men who
conveyed helpful information to Husain.
[2874] Later consideration has cast doubts on his
identification with Darwesh-i-`alī suggested, p. 345 n. 4.
[2875] On p. 69 n. 2 for _aūnūlūng_ read _aūnūtūng_ and
reverse _bakunīd_ with _nakunīd_.
[2876] On p. 49 l. 3 for "Black Sheep" read White Sheep.
[2877] Like his brother Hind-āl's name, Alūr's may be due to
the taking (_al_) of Hind.
[2878] See the _T̤abaqāt-i-akbarī_ account of the rulers of
Multān.
[2879] On p. 85 l. 9 for "872 AH.-1467 AD.", read 851 AH.-1447
AD.
[2880] On p. 79 transfer the note-reference "3" to _qibla_.
[2881] See Daulat-shāh (Browne's ed. p. 362) for an
entertaining record of the Mīrzā's zeal as a sportsman and an
illustrative anecdote by Shaikh `Ārif _`azarī_ _q.v._ (H.B.).
[2882] I have found no statement of his tribe or race; he and
his brother are styled Khwāja (Ḥ.S. lith. ed. iii, 272); he is
associated closely with Aḥmad Taṃbal _Mughūl_ and Mughūls of
the Horde; also his niece's name Aūlūs Āghā translates as Lady
of the Horde (_ūlūs_, _aūlūs_). But he may have been a
Turkmān.
[2883] The MS. variants between `Alī and -qulī are confusing.
What stands in my text (p. 27) may be less safe than the
above.
[2884] Bābā Qashqa was murdered by Muḥammad-i-zamān
_Bāī-qarā_. For further particulars of his family group see
Add. Notes under p. 404.
[2885] Sulṯan Bābā-qulī Beg is found variously designated Qulī
Beg, Qulī Bābā, Sl. `Alī Bābā-qulī, Sulṯān-qūlī Bābā and
Bābā-qulī Beg. Several forms appear to express his filial
relationship with Sulṯān Bābā `Alī (_q.v._).
[2886] Down to p. 346 Bābur's statements are retrospective;
after p. 346 they are mostly contemporary with the dates of
his diary—when not so are in supplementing passages of later
date.
[2887] He may be the father of Mun`im Khān (Blochmann's
Biographies A.-i-A. trs. 317 and n. 2).
[2888] See note, Index, _s.n._ Muḥammad Ẕakarīa.
[2889] He is likely to have been introduced with some
particulars of tribe, in one of the now unchronicled years
after Bābur's return from his Trans-oxus campaign.
[2890] His wife, daughter of a wealthy man and on the mother's
side niece of Sulṯān Buhlūl _Lūdī_, financed the military
efforts of Bāyazīd and Bīban (_Tārīkh-i-sher-shāhī_, E. and D.
iv, 353 ff.).
[2891] My translation on p. 621 l. 12 is inaccurate inasmuch
as it hides the circumstance that Beg-gīna alone was the
"messenger of good tidings".
[2892] In taking Bīban for a Jilwānī, I follow Erskine, (as
inferences also warrant,) but he may be a Lūdī.
[2893] For the same uncertainty between Bihār and Pahār see E.
and D.'s History of India iv, 352 n. 2.
[2894] Firishta lith. ed. i, 202.
[2895] For "Mū'min" read Mūmin, which form is constant in the
Ḥai. MS.
[2896] He may be Ḥamīda-bānū's father and, if so, became
grandfather of Akbar.
[2897] Ilminsky, _anlū_, Erskine, _angū_. Daulat-shāh mentions
a Muḥammad Shāh _anjū_ (see Brown's ed. Index _s.n._).
[2898] On p. 22 n. 2 delete "_Chaghatāī Mughūl_" on grounds
given in Additional Note, Page 22.
[2899] For Humāyūn's annotation of the _Bābur-nāma_, see
General Index _s.n._ Humāyūn's Notes.
[2900] For a correction of dates, see _s.n._ Aūlūgh Beg.
[2901] On p. 279 l. 3 from foot read "There was also Ibrāhīm
_Chaghatāī_" after "Muḥammad-i-zamān Mīrzā".
[2902] _Addendum_:—p. 49 l. 4, read "wife" of Muḥammadī "son"
of Jahān-shāh.
[2903] His name might mean Welcome, _Bien-venu_.
[2904] Khusrau-shāh may be the more correct form.
[2905] The "afterwards" points to an omission which
Khwānd-amīr's account of Ḥusain's daughters fills (lith. ed.
iii, 327).
[2906] No record survives of the Khwāja's deeds of daring
other than those entered above; perhaps the other instances
Bābur refers to occurred during the gap 908-9 AH.
[2907] This may be a tribal or a family name. Abū'l-ghāzī
mentions two individuals named "Kouk". One was Chīngīz Khān's
grandson who is likely to have had descendants or followers
distinguishable as _Kūkī_. See Add. Note P. 673 on Kūkī fate.
[2908] Cf. E. and D. for "Karānī" (_e.g._ vol. iv, 530). The
Ḥai. MS. sometimes doubles the _r_, sometimes not.
[2909] See _Wāqi`āt-i-mushtāqī_, E. and D. iv, 548.
[2910] Shaikhīm _Suhailī_ however was named Aḥmad (277) not
Muhammad.
[2911] The record of the first appears likely to be lost in
the _lacuna_ of 934 AH.
[2912] See _Shaibānī-nāma_, Vambéry's ed. Cap. xv, l. 12, for
his changes of service, and Sām Mīrzā's _Tuḥfa-i-sāmī_ for
various particulars including his classification as a
Chaghatāī.
[2913] He died serving Bābur, at Kūl-i-malik (Ḥ.S. iii,
344).—Further information negatives my suggestion (201 n. 7)
that he and Mīr Ḥusain (p. 288 and n. 7) were one.
[2914] "Zaitun is the name of the Chinese city from which
satin was brought (_hodie_ Thsiuancheu or Chincheu) and my
belief is that our word satin came from it" (Col. H. Yule, E.
and D. iv, 514).
[2915] My text omits to translate _yīgīt_ (_aūghūl_) and thus
loses the information that Yaḥyā's sons Bāqī and Ẕakarīa were
above childhood, were grown to fighting age—braves—but not yet
begs (see Index _s.n._ _chuhra_).
[2916] See Add. Notes under p. 39.
[2917] See Add. Notes under p. 266.
[2918] For emendation of 266 n. 7, see Add. Notes under P.
266.
[2919] On p. 49 l. 3 for "Black" read White; and in l. 3 read
("wife of") Muḥammadi son of ("Jahān-shāh").
[2920] Cf. Ḥ.S. Fertī's trs. p. 70 for the same name Qaitmās.
[2921] His capture is not recorded.
[2922] He joined Bābur with his father Yār-i-`alī _Balāl_
(_q.v._) in 910 AH. (Blochmann's Biographies, A.-i-A. trs.
315).
[2923] Concerning the date of his death, see Additional Notes
under p. 603.
[2924] Since my text was printed, my husband has lighted upon
what shows that the guest at the feast was an ambassador sent