The Memoirs of Bābur 926.2
The Bābur-nāma in English (A. S. Beveridge) 926.2
- Language
- English
926.2.1
(_Jan. 23rd_) Next day (Ṣafar 2nd) Ḥamza Khān, Malik of `Alī-shang was made over to the avengers-of-blood[1543] for his evil deeds in shedding innocent blood, and retaliation was made. (_Jan. 24th_) On Tuesday, after reading a chapter of the Qorān [Sidenote: Fol. 251b.] (_wird_), we turned for Kābul by the Yān-būlāgh road. At the Other Prayer, we passed the [Bārān]-water from Aūlūgh-nūr (Great-rock); reached Qarā-tū by the Evening Prayer, there gave our horses corn and had a hasty meal prepared, rode on again as soon as they had finished their barley.[1544] TRANSLATOR'S NOTE ON 926 TO 932 AH.-1520 TO 1525 AD. Bābur's diary breaks off here for five years and ten months.[1545] His activities during the unrecorded period may well have left no time in which to keep one up, for in it he went thrice to Qandahār, thrice into India, once to Badakhshān, once to Balkh; twice at least he punished refractory tribesmen; he received embassies from Hindūstān, and must have had much to oversee in muster and equipment for his numerous expeditions. Over and above this, he produced the _Mubīn_, a Turkī poem of 2000 lines. That the gap in his autobiography is not intentional several passages in his writings show;[1546] he meant to fill it; there is no evidence that he ever did so; the reasonable explanation of his failure is that he died before he had reached this part of his book.
926.2.2
The events of these unrecorded years are less interesting than those of the preceding gap, inasmuch as their drama of human passion is simpler; it is one mainly of cross-currents of ambition, nothing in it matching the maelstrom of sectarian hate, tribal antipathy, and racial struggle which engulphed Bābur's fortunes beyond the Oxus. None-the-less the period has its distinctive mark, the biographical one set by his personality as his long-sustained effort works out towards rule in Hindūstān. He becomes felt; his surroundings bend to his purpose; his composite following accepts his goal; he gains the southern key of Kābul and Hindūstān and presses the Arghūns out from his rear; in the Panj-āb he becomes a power; the Rājpūt Rānā of Chitor proffers him alliance against Ibrāhīm; and his intervention is sought in those warrings of the Afghāns which were the matrix of his own success. _a. Dramatis personae._ The following men played principal parts in the events of the unchronicled years:— Bābur in Kābul, Badakhshān and Balkh,[1547] his earlier following purged of Mughūl rebellion, and augmented by the various Mīrzās-in-exile in whose need of employment Shāh Beg saw Bābur's need of wider territory.[1548] Sulṯān Ibrāhīm _Lūdī_ who had succeeded after his father Sikandar's death (Sunday Ẕū'l-qa`da 7th 923 _AH._-Nov. 21st 1517 AD.)[1549], was now embroiled in civil war, and hated for his tyranny and cruelty.
926.2.3
Shāh Ismā`īl _Ṣafawī_, ruling down to Rajab 19th 930 AH. (May 24th 1524 AD.) and then succeeded by his son T̤ahmāsp _aet._ 10. Kūchūm (Kūchkūnjī) Khān, Khāqān of the Aūzbegs, Shaibānī's successor, now in possession of Transoxiana. Sulṯān Sa`īd Khān _Chaghatāī_, with head-quarters in Kāshghar, a ruler amongst the Mughūls but not their Khāqān, the supreme Khānship being his elder brother Manṣūr's. Shāh Shujā' Beg _Arghūn_, who, during the period, at various times held Qandahār, Shāl, Mustang, Sīwīstān, and part of Sind. He died in 930 AH. (1524 AD.) and was succeeded by his son Ḥasan who read the _khuṯba_ for Bābur. Khān Mīrzā _Mīrānshāhī_, who held Badakhshān from Bābur, with head-quarters in Qūndūz; he died in 927 AH. (1520 AD.) and was succeeded in his appointment by Humāyūn _aet._ 13. Muḥammad-i-zamān _Bāī-qarā_ who held Balkh perhaps direct from Bābur, perhaps from Ismā`īl through Bābur. `Alā'u'd-dīn `Ālam Khān _Lūdī_, brother of the late Sulṯān Sikandar _Lūdī_ and now desiring to supersede his nephew Ibrāhīm. Daulat Khān _Yūsuf-khail_ (as Bābur uniformly describes him), or _Lūdī_ (as other writers do), holding Lāhor for Ibrāhīm _Lūdī_ at the beginning of the period. _SOURCES FOR THE EVENTS OF THIS GAP_
926.2.4
A complete history of the events the _Bābur-nāma_ leaves unrecorded has yet to be written. The best existing one, whether Oriental or European, is Erskine's _History of India_, but this does not exhaust the sources—notably not using the _Ḥabību's-siyar_—and could be revised here and there with advantage. Most of the sources enumerated as useful for filling the previous gap are so here; to them must be added, for the affairs of Qandahār, Khwānd-amīr's _Ḥabību's-siyar_. This Mīr Ma`ṣūm's _Tārīkh-i-sind_ supplements usefully, but its brevity and its discrepant dates make it demand adjustment; in some details it is expanded by Sayyid Jamāl's _Tarkhān-_ or _Arghūn-nāma_. For the affairs of Hindūstān the main sources are enumerated in Elliot and Dowson's _History of India_ and in Nassau Lees' _Materials for the history of India_. Doubtless all will be exhausted for the coming _Cambridge History of India_. _EVENTS OF THE UNCHRONICLED YEARS_ The question of which were Bābur's "Five expeditions" into Hindūstān has been often discussed; it is useful therefore to establish the dates of those known as made. I have entered one as made in this year for the following reasons;—it broke short because Shāh Beg made incursion into Bābur's territories, and that incursion was followed by a siege of Qandahār which several matters mentioned below show to have taken place in 926 AH. _a. Expedition into Hindūstān._
926.2.5
The march out from Kābul may have been as soon as muster and equipment allowed after the return from Lamghān chronicled in the diary. It was made through Bajaur where refractory tribesmen were brought to order. The Indus will have been forded at the usual place where, until the last one of 932 AH. (1525 AD.), all expeditions crossed on the outward march. Bhīra was traversed in which were Bābur's own Commanders, and advance was made, beyond lands yet occupied, to Sīālkot, 72 miles north of Lāhor and in the Rechna _dū-āb_. It was occupied without resistance; and a further move made to what the MSS. call Sayyidpūr; this attempted defence, was taken by assault and put to the sword. No place named Sayyidpūr is given in the Gazetteer of India, but the _Āyīn-i-akbarī_ mentions a Sidhpūr which from its neighbourhood to Sīālkot may be what Bābur took. Nothing indicates an intention in Bābur to join battle with Ibrāhīm at this time; Lāhor may have been his objective, after he had made a demonstration in force to strengthen his footing in Bhīra. Whatever he may have planned to do beyond Sidhpūr(?) was frustrated by the news which took him back to Kābul and thence to Qandahār, that an incursion into his territory had been made by Shāh Beg. _b. Shāh Shujā` Beg's position._
926.2.6
Shāh Beg was now holding Qandahār, Shāl, Mustang and Sīwīstān.[1550] He knew that he held Qandahār by uncertain tenure, in face of its desirability for Bābur and his own lesser power. His ground was further weakened by its usefulness for operations on Harāt and the presence with Bābur of Bāī-qarā refugees, ready to seize a chance, if offered by Ismā`īl's waning fortunes, for recovery of their former seat. Knowing his weakness, he for several years had been pushing his way out into Sind by way of the Bolān-pass. His relations with Bābur were ostensibly good; he had sent him envoys twice last year, the first time to announce a success at Kāhān had in the end of 924 AH. (Nov. 1519 AD.). His son Ḥasan however, with whom he was unreconciled, had been for more than a year in Bābur's company,—a matter not unlikely to stir under-currents of unfriendliness on either side. His relations with Shāh Ismā`īl were deferential, in appearance even vassal-like, as is shewn by Khwānd-amīr's account of his appeal for intervention against Bābur to the Shāh's officers in Harāt. Whether he read the _khuṯba_ for any suzerain is doubtful; his son Ḥasan, it may be said, read it later on for Bābur. _c. The impelling cause of this siege of Qandahār._
926.2.7
Precisely what Shāh Beg did to bring Bābur back from the Panj-āb and down upon Qandahār is not found mentioned by any source. It seems likely to have been an affair of subordinates instigated by or for him. Its immediate agents may have been the Nīkdīrī (Nūkdīrī) and Hazāra tribes Bābur punished on his way south. Their location was the western border-land; they may have descended on the Great North Road or have raided for food in that famine year. It seems certain that Shāh Beg made no serious attempt on Kābul; he was too much occupied in Sind to allow him to do so. Some unused source may throw light on the matter incidentally; the offence may have been small in itself and yet sufficient to determine Bābur to remove risk from his rear.[1551] _d. Qandahār._ The Qandahār of Bābur's sieges was difficult of capture; he had not taken it in 913 AH. (f. 208_b_) by siege or assault, but by default after one day's fight in the open. The strength of its position can be judged from the following account of its ruins as they were seen in 1879 AD., the military details of which supplement Bellew's description quoted in Appendix J.
926.2.8
The fortifications are of great extent with a treble line of bastioned walls and a high citadel in the centre. The place is in complete ruin and its locality now useful only as a grazing ground.... "The town is in three parts, each on a separate eminence, and capable of mutual defence. The mountain had been covered with towers united by curtains, and the one on the culminating point may be called impregnable. It commanded the citadel which stood lower down on the second eminence, and this in turn commanded the town which was on a table-land elevated above the plain. The triple walls surrounding the city were at a considerable distance from it. After exploring the citadel and ruins, we mounted by the gorge to the summit of the hill with the impregnable fort. In this gorge are the ruins of two tanks, some 80 feet square, all destroyed, with the pillars fallen; the work is _pukka_ in brick and _chunām_ (cement) and each tank had been domed in; they would have held about 400,000 gallons each." (Le Messurier's _Kandahar in 1879 AD._ pp. 223, 245.) _e. Bābur's sieges of Qandahār._ The term of five years is found associated with Bābur's sieges of Qandahār, sometimes suggesting a single attempt of five years' duration. This it is easy to show incorrect; its root may be Mīr Ma`ṣūm's erroneous chronology.
926.2.9
The day on which the keys of Qandahār were made over to Bābur is known, from the famous inscription which commemorates the event (Appendix J), as Shawwāl 13th 928 AH. Working backwards from this, it is known that in 927 AH. terms of surrender were made and that Bābur went back to Kābul; he is besieging it in 926 AH.—the year under description; his annals of 925 AH. are complete and contain no siege; the year 924 AH. appears to have had no siege, Shāh Beg was on the Indus and his son was for at least part of it with Bābur; 923 AH. was a year of intended siege, frustrated by Bābur's own illness; of any siege in 922 AH. there is as yet no record known. So that it is certain there was no unremitted beleaguerment through five years. _f. The siege of 926 AH. (1520 AD.)._ When Bābur sat down to lay regular siege to Qandahār, with mining and battering of the walls,[1552] famine was desolating the country round. The garrison was reduced to great distress; "pestilence," ever an ally of Qandahār, broke out within the walls, spread to Bābur's camp, and in the month of Tīr (June) led him to return to Kābul. In the succeeding months of respite, Shāh Beg pushed on in Sind and his former slave, now commander, Mehtar Saṃbhal revictualled the town.