The Bābur-nāma in English (Memoirs of Bābur)
bringing in 30 or 40, large or small. Mīr Muḥammad the raftsman was sent
to find a place convenient for making a bridge and to collect requisites
for making it. He came back approving of a place about a _kuroh_ (2 m.)
below the camp. Energetic overseers were told off for the work. Ustād
`Alī-qulī placed the mortar for his stone-discharge near where the
bridge was to be and shewed himself active in discharging it. Muṣṯafa
_Rūmī_ had the culverin-carts crossed over to an island below the place
for the bridge, and from that island began a culverin-discharge.
Excellent matchlock fire was made from a post[2228] raised above the
bridge. Malik Qāsim _Mughūl_ and a very few men went across the river
once or twice and fought excellently (_yakhshīlār aūrūshtīlār_). With
equal boldness Bābā Sl. and Darwīsh Sl. also crossed, but went with the
insufficient number of from 10 to 15 men; they went after the Evening
Prayer and came back without fighting, with nothing done; they were much
blamed for this crossing of theirs. At last Malik Qāsim, grown bold,
attacked the enemy's camp and, by shooting arrows into it, drew him out
(?);[2229] he came with a mass of men and an elephant, fell on Malik
Qāsim and hurried him off. Malik Qāsim got into a boat, but before it
could put off, the elephant [Sidenote: Fol. 337.] came up and swamped
it. In that encounter Malik Qāsim died.
In the days before the bridge was finished Ustād `Alī-qulī did good
things in stone-discharge (_yakhshīlār tāsh aītī_), on the first day
discharging 8 stones, on the second 16, and going on equally well for 3
or 4 days. These stones he discharged from the Ghāzī-mortar which is
so-called because it was used in the battle with Rānā Sangā the pagan.
There had been another and larger mortar which burst after discharging
one stone.[2230] The matchlockmen made a mass (_qālīn_) of discharges,
bringing down many men and horses; they shot also slave-workmen running
scared away (?) and men and horses passing-by.[2231]
(_March 11th_) On Wednesday the 19th of the latter Jumāda the bridge
being almost finished, we marched to its head. The Afghāns must have
ridiculed the bridge-making as being far from completion.[2232]
(_March 12th_) The bridge being ready on Thursday, a small body of
foot-soldiers and Lāhorīs went over. Fighting as small followed.
(_p. Encounter with the Afghāns._)
(_March 13th_) On Friday the royal corps, and the right and left hands
of the centre crossed on foot. The whole body of Afghāns, armed,
mounted, and having elephants with them, attacked us. They hurried off
our men of the left hand, but our centre itself (_i.e._ the royal corps)
and the right hand stood [Sidenote: Fol. 337b.] firm, fought, and forced
the enemy to retire. Two men from these divisions had galloped ahead of
the rest; one was dismounted and taken; the horse of the other was
struck again and again, had had enough,[2233] turned round and when
amongst our men, fell down. On that day 7 or 8 heads were brought in;
many of the enemy had arrow or matchlock wounds. Fighting went on till
the Other Prayer. That night all who had gone across were made to
return; if (more) had gone over on that Saturday's eve,[2234] most of
the enemy would probably have fallen into our hands, but this was in my
mind:—Last year we marched out of Sīkrī to fight Rānā Sangā on Tuesday,
New-year's-day, and crushed that rebel on Saturday; this year we had
marched to crush these rebels on Wednesday, New-year's-day,[2235] and it
would be one of singular things, if we beat them on Sunday. So thinking,
we did not make the rest of the army cross. The enemy did not come to
fight on Saturday, but stood arrayed a long way off.
(_Sunday March 15th-Jumāda II. 23rd_) On this day the carts were taken
over, and at this same dawn the army was ordered to cross. At beat of
drum news came from our scouts that the enemy had fled. Chīn-tīmūr Sl.
was ordered to lead his army in pursuit and the following leaders also
were made pursuers who should move with the Sulṯān and not go beyond his
word:—Muḥammad `Alī _Jang-jang_, Ḥusamu'd-dīn `Alī (son) of Khalīfa,
Muḥibb-i-`alī (son) of Khalīfa, Kūkī (son) of Bābā Qashqa,
Dost-i-muḥammad (son) of Bābā Qashqa, Bāqī of [Sidenote: Fol. 338.]
Tāshkīnt, and Red Walī. I crossed at the Sunnat Prayer. The camels were
ordered to be taken over at a passage seen lower down. That Sunday we
dismounted on the bank of standing-water within a _kuroh_ of
Bangarmāwū.[2236] Those appointed to pursue the Afghāns were not doing
it well; they had dismounted in Bangarmāwū and were scurrying off at the
Mid-day Prayer of this same Sunday.
(_March 16th-Jumāda II. 24th_) At dawn we dismounted on the bank of a
lake belonging to Bangarmāwū.
(_q. Arrival of a Chaghatāī cousin._)
On this same day (_March 16th_) Tūkhtā-būghā Sl. a son of my mother's
brother (_dādā_) the Younger Khān (_Aḥmad Chaghatāī_) came and waited on
me.
(_March 21st_) On Saturday the 29th of the latter Jumāda I visited
Laknau, crossed the Gūī-water[2237] and dismounted. This day I bathed in
the Gūī-water. Whether it was from water getting into my ear, or whether
it was from the effect of the climate, is not known, but my right ear
was obstructed and for a few days there was much pain.[2238]
(_r. The campaign continued._)
One or two marches from Aūd (Oudh) some-one came from Chīn-tīmūr Sl. to
say, "The enemy is seated on the far side of the river Sīrd[a?];[2239]
let His Majesty send help." We detached a reinforcement of 1000 braves
under Qarācha.
(_March 28th_) On Saturday the 7th of Rajab we dismounted [Sidenote:
Fol. 338b.] 2 or 3 _kurohs_ from Aūd above the junction of the Gagar
(Gogra) and Sīrd[a]. Till today Shaikh Bāyazīd will have been on the
other side of the Sīrd[a] opposite Aūd, sending letters to the Sulṯān
and discussing with him, but the Sulṯān getting to know his
deceitfulness, sent word to Qarācha at the Mid-day Prayer and made ready
to cross the river. On Qarācha's joining him, they crossed at once to
where were some 50 horsemen with 3 or 4 elephants. These men could make
no stand; they fled; a few having been dismounted, the heads cut off
were sent in.
Following the Sulṯān there crossed over Bī-khūb (var. Nī-khūb) Sl. and
Tardī Beg (the brother) of Qūj Beg, and Bābā Chuhra (the Brave), and
Bāqī _shaghāwal_. Those who had crossed first and gone on, pursued
Shaikh Bāyazīd till the Evening Prayer, but he flung himself into the
jungle and escaped. Chīn-tīmūr dismounted late on the bank of
standing-water, rode on at midnight after the rebel, went as much as 40
_kurohs_ (80 m.), and came to where Shaikh Bāyazīd's family and
relations (_nisba_?) had been; they however must have fled. He sent
gallopers off in all directions from that place; Bāqī _shaghāwal_ and a
few braves drove the enemy like sheep before them, overtook the family
and brought in some Afghān prisoners.
We stayed a few days on that ground (near Aūd) in order to settle the
affairs of Aūd. People praised the land lying along the Sīrd[a] 7 or 8
_kurohs_ (14-16 m.) above Aūd, saying it was hunting-ground. Mīr
Muḥammad the raftsman was sent out and returned after looking at the
crossings over the Gagar-water (Gogra) and the Sīrd[a]-water (Chauka?).
[Sidenote: Fol. 339.] (_April 2nd_) On Thursday the 12th of the month I
rode out intending to hunt.[2240]
TRANSLATOR'S NOTE.
Here, in all known texts of the _Bābur-nāma_ there is a break of the
narrative between April 2nd and Sep. 18th 1528 AD.-Jumāda II. 12th 934
AH. and Muḥarram 3rd 935 AH., which, whether intentional or accidental,
is unexplained by Bābur's personal circumstances. It is likely to be due
to a loss of pages from Bābur's autograph manuscript, happening at some
time preceding the making of either of the Persian translations of his
writings and of the Elphinstone and Ḥaidarābād transcripts. Though such
a loss might have occurred easily during the storm chronicled on f.
376_b_, it seems likely that Bābur would then have become aware of it
and have made it good. A more probable explanation of the loss is the
danger run by Humāyūn's library during his exile from rule in Hindūstān,
at which same time may well have occurred the seeming loss of the record
of 936 and 937 AH.
(_a. Transactions of the period of the lacuna._)
Mr. Erskine notes (_Mems._ p. 381 n.) that he found the gap in all MSS.
he saw and that historians of Hindūstān throw no light upon the
transactions of the period. Much can be gleaned however as to Bābur's
occupations during the 5-1/2 months of the _lacuna_ from his chronicle
of 935 AH. which makes several references to occurrences of "last year"
and also allows several inferences to be drawn. From this source it
becomes known that the Afghān campaign the record of which is broken by
the gap, was carried on and that in its course Bābur was at Jūn-pūr (f.
365), Chausa (f. 365_b_) and Baksara (f. 366-366_b_); that he swam the
Ganges (f. 366_b_), bestowed Sarūn on a Farmūlī Shaikh-zāda (f. 374_b_
and f. 377), negociated with Rānā Sangā's son Bikramājīt (f. 342_b_),
ordered a Chār-bāgh laid out (f. 340), and was ill for 40 days (f.
346_b_). It may be inferred too that he visited Dūlpūr (f. 353_b_)
recalled `Askarī (f. 339), sent Khwāja Dost-i-khāwand on family affairs
to Kābul (f. 345_b_), and was much pre-occupied by the disturbed state
of Kābul (_see_ his letters to Humāyūn and Khwāja Kālan written in 935
AH.).[2241]
It is not easy to follow the dates of events in 935 AH. because in many
instances only the day of the week or a "next day" is entered. I am far
from sure that one passage at least now found _s.a._ 935 AH. does not
belong to 934 AH. It is not in the Ḥai. Codex (where its place would
have been on f. 363_b_), and, so far as I can see, does not fit with the
dates of 935 AH. It will be considered with least trouble with its
context and my notes (_q.v._ f. 363_b_ and ff. 366-366_b_).
(_b. Remarks on the lacuna._)
One interesting biographical topic is likely to have found mention in
the missing record, _viz._ the family difficulties which led to
`Askarī's supersession by Kāmrān in the government of Multān (f. 359).
Another is the light an account of the second illness of 934 AH. might
have thrown on a considerable part of the Collection of verses already
written in Hindūstān and now known to us as the _Rāmpūr Dīwān_. The
_Bābur-nāma_ allows the dates of much of its contents to be known, but
there remain poems which seem prompted by the self-examination of some
illness not found in the _B.N._ It contains the metrical version of
Khwāja `Ubaidu'l-lāh's _Wālidiyyah_ of which Bābur writes on f. 346 and
it is dated Monday Rabī` II. 15th 935 AH. (Dec. 29th 1528 AD.). I
surmise that the reflective verses following the _Wālidiyyah_ belong to
the 40 days' illness of 934 AH. _i.e._ were composed in the period of
the _lacuna_. The Collection, as it is in the "Rāmpūr Dīwān", went to a
friend who was probably Khwāja Kalān; it may have been the only such
collection made by Bābur. No other copy of it has so far been found. It
has the character of an individual gift with verses specially addressed
to its recipient. Any light upon it which may have vanished with pages
of 934 AH. is an appreciable loss.
935 AH.-SEP. 15TH 1528 TO SEP. 5TH 1529 AD.[2242]
(_a. Arrivals at Court._)
(_Sep. 18th_) On Friday the 3rd[2243] of Muḥarram, `Askarī whom I had
summoned for the good of Multān[2244] before I moved out for Chandīrī,
waited on me in the private-house.[2245]
(_Sep. 19th_) Next day waited on me the historian Khwānd-amīr, Maulānā
Shihāb[2246] the enigmatist, and Mīr Ibrāhīm the harper a relation of
Yūnas-i-`alī, who had all come out of Herī long before, wishing to wait
on me.[2247]
(_b. Bābur starts for Gūālīār._)[2248]