The Memoirs of Bābur 918
The Bābur-nāma in English (A. S. Beveridge) 918
- Language
- English
918.1
918 AH.-MARCH 19TH 1512 TO MARCH 9TH 1513 AD. _a. Return of the Aūzbegs._ Emboldened by the departure of the Persian troops, the Aūzbegs, in the spring of the year, came out of Turkistān, their main attack being directed on Tāshkīnt, then held for Bābur.[1338] `Ubaid Khān moved for Bukhārā. He had prefaced his march by vowing that, if successful, he would thenceforth strictly observe Musalmān Law. The vow was made in Ḥaẓrat Turkistān at the shrine of Khwāja Aḥmad _Yasawī_, a saint revered in Central Asia through many centuries; he had died about 1120 AD.; Tīmūr had made pilgrimage to his tomb, in 1397 AD., and then had founded the mosque still dominating the town, still the pilgrim's land-mark.[1339] `Ubaid's vow, like Bābur's of 933 AH., was one of return to obedience. Both men took oath in the Ghāzī's mood, Bābur's set against the Hindū whom he saw as a heathen, `Ubaid's set against Bābur whom he saw as a heretic. _b. Bābur's defeat at Kul-i-malik._
918.2
In Ṣafar (April-May) `Ubaid moved swiftly down and attacked the Bukhārā neighbourhood. Bābur went from Samarkand to meet him. Several details of what followed, not given by Ḥaidar and, in one particular, contradicting him, are given by Khwānd-amīr. The statement in which the two historians contradict one another is Ḥaidar's that `Ubaid had 3000 men only, Bābur 40,000. Several considerations give to Khwānd-amīr's opposed statement that Bābur's force was small, the semblance of being nearer the fact. Ḥaidar, it may be said, did not go out on this campaign; he was ill in Samarkand and continued ill there for some time; Khwānd-amīr's details have the well-informed air of things learned at first-hand, perhaps from some-one in Hindūstān after 934 AH.
918.3
Matters which make against Bābur's having a large effective force at Kul-i-malik, and favour Khwānd-amīr's statement about the affair are these:—`Ubaid must have formed some estimate of what he had to meet, and he brought 3000 men. Where could Bābur have obtained 40,000 men worth reckoning in a fight? In several times of crisis his own immediate and ever-faithful troop is put at 500; as his cause was now unpopular, local accretions may have been few. Some Mughūls from Merv and from Kābul were near Samarkand (T.R. pp. 263, 265); most were with Sa`īd in Andijān; but however many Mughūls may have been in his neighbourhood, none could be counted on as resolute for his success. If too, he had had more than a small effective force, would he not have tried to hold Samarkand with the remnant of defeat until Persian help arrived? All things considered, there is ground for accepting Khwānd-amīr's statement that Bābur met `Ubaid with a small force.
918.4
Following his account therefore:—Bābur in his excess of daring, marched to put the Aūzbeg down with a small force only, against the advice of the prudent, of whom Muḥammad Mazīd Tarkhān was one, who all said it was wrong to go out unprepared and without reinforcement. Paying them no attention, Bābur marched for Bukhārā, was rendered still more daring by news had when he neared it, that the enemy had retired some stages, and followed him up almost to his camp. `Ubaid was in great force; many Aūzbegs perished but, in the end, they were victors and Bābur was compelled to take refuge in Bukhārā. The encounter took place near Kul-i-malik (King's-lake) in Ṣafar 918 AH. (April-May 1512 AD.). _c. Bābur leaves Samarkand._
918.5
It was not possible to maintain a footing in Samarkand; Bābur therefore collected his family and train[1340] and betook himself to Ḥiṣār. There went with him on this expedition Māhīm and her children Humāyūn, Mihr-jahān and Bārbūl,—the motherless Ma`ṣūma,—Gul-rukh with her son Kāmrān (Gulbadan f. 7). I have not found any account of his route; Ḥaidar gives no details about the journey; he did not travel with Bābur, being still invalided in Samarkand. Perhaps the absence of information is a sign that the Aūzbegs had not yet appeared on the direct road for Ḥiṣār. A local tradition however would make Bābur go round through Farghāna. He certainly might have gone into Farghāna hoping to co-operate with Sa`īd Khān; Tāshkīnt was still holding out under Aḥmad-i-qāsim _Kohbur_ and it is clear that all activity in Bābur's force had not been quenched because during the Tāshkīnt siege, Dost Beg broke through the enemy's ranks and made his way into the town. Sairām held out longer than Tāshkīnt. Of any such move by Bābur into Andijān the only hint received is given by what may be a mere legend.[1341] _d. Bābur in Ḥiṣār._ After experiencing such gains and such losses, Bābur was still under 30 years of age.
918.6
The Aūzbegs, after his departure, re-occupied Bukhārā and Samarkand without harm done to the towns-people, and a few weeks later, in Jumāda I (July-August) followed him to Ḥiṣār. Meantime he with Mīrzā Khān's help, had so closed the streets of the town by massive earth-works that the sulṯāns were convinced its defenders were ready to spend the last drop of their blood in holding it, and therefore retired without attack.[1342] Some sources give as their reason for retirement that Bābur had been reinforced from Balkh; Bairām Beg, it is true, had sent a force but one of 300 men only; so few cannot have alarmed except as the harbinger of more. Greater precision as to dates would shew whether they can have heard of Najm S̤ānī's army advancing by way of Balkh. _e. Qarshī and Ghaj-davān._
918.7
Meantime Najm S̤ānī, having with him some 11,000 men, had started on his corrective mission against Bābur. When he reached the Khurāsān frontier, he heard of the defeat at Kul-i-malik and the flight to Ḥiṣār, gathered other troops from Harāt and elsewhere, and advanced to Balkh. He stayed there for 20 days with Bairām Beg, perhaps occupied, in part, by communications with the Shāh and Bābur. From the latter repeated request for help is said to have come; help was given, some sources say without the Shāh's permission. A rendezvous was fixed, Najm S̤ānī marched to Tīrmīẕ, there crossed the Amū and in Rajab (Sep.-Oct.) encamped near the Darband-i-ahanīn. On Bābur's approach through the Chak-chaq pass, he paid him the civility of going several miles out from his camp to give him honouring reception.
918.8
Advancing thence for Bukhārā, the combined armies took Khuzār and moved on to Qarshī. This town Bābur wished to pass by, as it had been passed by on his previous march for Bukhārā; each time perhaps he wished to spare its people, formerly his subjects, whom he desired to rule again, and who are reputed to have been mostly his fellow Turks. Najm S̤ānī refused to pass on; he said Qarshī must be taken because it was `Ubaidu'l-lāh Khān's nest; in it was `Ubaid's uncle Shaikhīm Mīrzā; it was captured; the Aūzbeg garrison was put to the sword and, spite of Bābur's earnest entreaties, all the towns-people, 15,000 persons it is said, down to the "suckling and decrepit", were massacred. Amongst the victims was Banā'ī who happened to be within it. This action roused the utmost anger against Najm S̤ānī; it disgusted Bābur, not only through its merciless slaughter but because it made clear the disregard in which he was held by his magnificent fellow-general. From murdered Qarshī Najm S̤ānī advanced for Bukhārā. On getting within a few miles of it, he heard that an Aūzbeg force was approaching under Tīmūr and Abū-sa`īd, presumably from Samarkand therefore. He sent Bairām Beg to attack them; they drew off to the north and threw themselves into Ghaj-davān, the combined armies following them. This move placed Najm S̤ānī across the Zar-afshān, on the border of the desert with which the Aūzbegs were familiar, and with `Ubaid on his flank in Bukhārā.
918.9
As to what followed the sources vary; they are brief; they differ less in statement of the same occurrence than in their choice of details to record; as Mr. Erskine observes their varying stories are not incompatible. Their widest difference is a statement of time but the two periods named, one a few days, the other four months, may not be meant to apply to the same event. Four months the siege is said to have lasted; this could not have been said if it had been a few days only. The siege seems to have been of some duration. At first there were minor engagements, ending with varying success; provisions and provender became scarce; Najm S̤ānī's officers urged retirement, so too did Bābur. He would listen to none of them. At length `Ubaid Khān rode out from Bukhārā at the head of excellent troops; he joined the Ghaj-davān garrison and the united Aūzbegs posted themselves in the suburbs where walled lanes and gardens narrowed the field and lessened Najm S̤ānī's advantage in numbers. On Tuesday Ramẓān 3rd (Nov. 12th)[1343] a battle was fought in which his army was routed and he himself slain. _f. Bābur and Yār-i-aḥmad Najm Sānī._
918.10
Some writers say that Najm S̤ānī's men did not fight well; it must be remembered that they may have been weakened by privation and that they had wished to retire. Of Bābur it is said that he, who was the reserve, did not fight at all; it is difficult to see good cause why, under all the circumstances, he should risk the loss of his men. It seems likely that Ḥaidar's strong language about this defeat would suit Bābur's temper also. "The victorious breezes of Islām overturned the banners of the schismatics.... Most of them perished on the field; the rents made by the sword at Qarshī were sewn up at Ghaj-davān by the arrow-stitches of vengeance. Najm S̤ānī and all the Turkmān amīrs were sent to hell." The belief that Bābur had failed Najm S̤ānī persisted at the Persian Court, for his inaction was made a reproach to his son Humāyūn in 951 AH. (1544 AD.), when Humāyūn was a refugee with Ismā`īl's son T̤ahmāsp. Badāyūnī tells a story which, with great inaccuracy of name and place, represents the view taken at that time. The part of the anecdote pertinent here is that Bābur on the eve of the battle at Ghaj-davān, shot an arrow into the Aūzbeg camp which carried the following couplet, expressive of his ill-will to the Shāh and perhaps also of his rejection of the Shī`a guise he himself had worn. I made the Shāh's Najm road-stuff for the Aūzbegs; If fault has been mine, I have now cleansed the road.[1344] _g. The Mughūls attack Bābur._
918.11
On his second return to Ḥiṣār Bābur was subjected to great danger by a sudden attack made upon him by the Mughūls where he lay at night in his camp outside the town. Firishta says, but without particulars of their offence, that Bābur had reproached them for their misconduct; the absence of detail connecting the affair with the defeat just sustained, leads to the supposition that their misdeeds were a part of the tyranny over the country-people punished later by `Ubaidu'l-lāh Khān. Roused from his sleep by the noise of his guards' resistance to the Mughūl attack, Bābur escaped with difficulty and without a single attendant[1345] into the fort. The conspirators plundered his camp and withdrew to Qarā-tīgīn. He was in no position to oppose them, left a few men in Ḥiṣār and went to Mīrzā Khān in Qūndūz. After he left, Ḥiṣār endured a desolating famine, a phenomenal snowfall and the ravages of the Mughūls. `Ubaid Khān avenged Bābur on the horde; hearing of their excesses, he encamped outside the position they had taken up in Wakhsh defended by river, hills and snow, waited till a road thawed, then fell upon them and avenged the year's misery they had inflicted on the Ḥiṣārīs. Ḥaidar says of them that it was their villainy lost Ḥiṣār to Bābur and gained it for the Aūzbeg.[1346]
918.12
These Mughūls had for chiefs men who when Sa`īd went to Andijān, elected to stay with Bābur. One of the three named by Ḥaidar was Ayūb _Begchīk_. He repented his disloyalty; when he lay dying some two years later (920 AH.) in Yāngī-ḥiṣār, he told Sa`īd Khān who visited him, that what was "lacerating his bowels and killing him with remorse", was his faithlessness to Bābur in Ḥiṣār, the oath he had broken at the instigation of those "hogs and bears", the Mughūl chiefs (T.R. p. 315). In this year but before the Mughūl treachery to Bābur, Ḥaidar left him, starting in Rajab (Sep.-Oct.) to Sa`id in Andijān and thus making a beginning of his 19 years spell of service.