The Memoirs of Bābur 927
The Bābur-nāma in English (A. S. Beveridge) 927
- Language
- English
927.1
927 AH.—DEC. 12TH 1520 TO DEC. 1ST 1521 AD. _a. The manuscript sources._ Two accounts of the sieges of Qandahār in this and next year are available, one in Khwānd-amīr's _Ḥabību's-siyar_, the other in Ma`ṣūm _Bhakkarī's Tārīkh-i-sind_. As they have important differences, it is necessary to consider the opportunities of their authors for information. Khwānd-amīr finished his history in 1524-29 AD. His account of these affairs of Qandahār is contemporary; he was in close touch with several of the actors in them and may have been in Harāt through their course; one of his patrons, Amīr Ghiyāṣu'd-dīn, was put to death in this year in Harāt because of suspicion that he was an ally of Bābur; his nephew, another Ghiyāṣu'd-dīn was in Qandahār, the bearer next year of its keys to Bābur; moreover he was with Bābur himself a few years later in Hindūstān. Mīr Ma`ṣūm wrote in 1600 AD. 70 to 75 years after Khwānd-amīr. Of these sieges he tells what may have been traditional and mentions no manuscript authorities. Blochmann's biography of him (_Āyīn-i-akbarī_ p. 514) shews his ample opportunity of learning orally what had happened in the Arghūn invasion of Sind, but does not mention the opportunity for hearing traditions about Qandahār which his term of office there allowed him. During that term it was that he added an inscription, commemorative of Akbar's dominion, to Bābur's own at Chihil-zīna, which records the date of the capture of Qandahār (928 AH.-1522 AD.).
927.2
_b. The Ḥabību's-siyar account_ (lith. ed. iii, part 4, p. 97). Khwānd-amīr's contemporary narrative allows Ma`ṣūm's to dovetail into it as to some matters, but contradicts it in the important ones of date, and mode of surrender by Shāh Beg to Bābur. It states that Bābur was resolved in 926 AH. (1520 AD.) to uproot Shāh Shujā` Beg from Qandahār, led an army against the place, and "opened the Gates of war". It gives no account of the siege of 926 AH. but passes on to the occurrences of 927 AH. (1521 AD.) when Shāh Beg, unable to meet Bābur in the field, shut himself up in the town and strengthened the defences. Bābur put his utmost pressure on the besieged, "often riding his piebald horse close to the moat and urging his men to fiery onset." The garrison resisted manfully, breaching the "life-fortresses" of the Kābulīs with sword, arrow, spear and death-dealing stone, but Bābur's heroes were most often victorious, and drove their assailants back through the Gates. _c. Death of Khān Mīrzā reported to Bābur._ Meantime, continues Khwānd-amīr, Khān Mīrzā had died in Badakhshān; the news was brought to Bābur and caused him great grief; he appointed Humāyūn to succeed the Mīrzā while he himself prosecuted the siege of Qandahār and the conquest of the Garm-sīr.[1553] _d. Negociations with Bābur._ The Governor of Harāt at this time was Shāh Ismā`īl's son T̤ahmāsp, between six and seven years old.
927.3
His guardian Amīr Khān took chief part in the diplomatic intervention with Bābur, but associated with him was Amīr Ghiyāṣu'd-dīn—the patron of Khwānd-amīr already mentioned—until put to death as an ally of Bābur. The discussion had with Bābur reveals a complexity of motives demanding attention. Nominally undertaken though intervention was on behalf of Shāh Beg, and certainly so at his request, the Persian officers seem to have been less anxious on his account than for their own position in Khurāsān, their master's position at the time being weakened by ill-success against the Sulṯān of Rūm. To Bābur, Shāh Beg is written of as though he were an insubordinate vassal whom Bābur was reducing to order for the Shāh, but when Amīr Khān heard that Shāh Beg was hard pressed, he was much distressed because he feared a victorious Bābur might move on Khurāsān. Nothing indicates however that Bābur had Khurāsān in his thoughts; Hindūstān was his objective, and Qandahār a help on the way; but as Amīr Khān had this fear about him, a probable ground for it is provided by the presence with Bābur of Bāī-qarā exiles whose ambition it must have been to recover their former seat. Whether for Harāt, Kābul, or Hindūstān, Qandahār was strength. Another matter not fitting the avowed purpose of the diplomatic intervention is the death of Ghiyāṣu'd-dīn because an ally of Bābur; this makes Amīr Khān seem to count Bābur as Ismā`īl's enemy.
927.4
Shāh Beg's requests for intervention began in 926 AH. (1520 AD.), as also did the remonstrance of the Persian officers with Bābur; his couriers followed one another with entreaty that the Amīrs would contrive for Bābur to retire, with promise of obeisance and of yearly tribute. The Amīrs set forth to Bābur that though Shāh Shujā` Beg had offended and had been deserving of wrath and chastisement, yet, as he was penitent and had promised loyalty and tribute, it was now proper for Bābur to raise the siege (of 926 AH.) and go back to Kābul. To this Bābur answered that Shāh Beg's promise was a vain thing, on which no reliance could be placed; please God!, said he, he himself would take Qandahār and send Shāh Beg a prisoner to Harāt; and that he should be ready then to give the keys of the town and the possession of the Garm-sīr to any-one appointed to receive them. This correspondence suits an assumption that Bābur acted for Shāh Ismā`īl, a diplomatic assumption merely, the verbal veil, on one side, for anxiety lest Bābur or those with him should attack Harāt,—on the other, for Bābur's resolve to hold Qandahār himself. Amīr Khān was not satisfied with Bābur's answer, but had his attention distracted by another matter, presumably `Ubaidu'l-lāh Khān's attack on Harāt in the spring of the year (March-April 1521 AD.). Negociations appear to have been resumed later, since Khwānd-amīr claims it as their result that Bābur left Qandahār this year. _e. The Tārīkh-i-sind account._
927.5
Mīr Ma`ṣūm is very brief; he says that in this year (his 922 AH.), Bābur went down to Qandahār before the year's tribute in grain had been collected, destroyed the standing crops, encompassed the town, and reduced it to extremity; that Shāh Beg, wearied under reiterated attack and pre-occupied by operations in Sind, proposed terms, and that these were made with stipulation for the town to be his during one year more and then to be given over to Bābur. These terms settled, Bābur went to Kābul, Shāh Beg to Sīwī. The Arghūn families were removed to Shāl and Sīwī, so that the year's delay may have been an accommodation allowed for this purpose. _f. Concerning dates._
927.6
There is much discrepancy between the dates of the two historians. Khwānd-amīr's agree with the few fixed ones of the period and with the course of events; several of Ma`ṣūm's, on the contrary, are _seriatim_ five (lunar) years earlier. For instance, events Khwānd-amīr places under 927 AH. Ma`ṣūm places under 922 AH. Again, while Ma`ṣūm correctly gives 913 AH. (1507 AD.) as the year of Bābur's first capture of Qandahār, he sets up a discrepant series later, from the success Shāh Beg had at Kāhān; this he allots to 921 AH. (1515 AD.) whereas Bābur received news of it (f. 233_b_) in the beginning of 925 AH. (1519 AD.). Again, Ma`ṣūm makes Shāh Ḥasan go to Bābur in 921 AH. and stay two years; but Ḥasan spent the whole of 925 AH. with Bābur and is not mentioned as having left before the second month of 926 AH. Again, Ma`ṣūm makes Shāh Beg surrender the keys of Qandahār in 923 AH. (1517 AD.), but 928 AH. (1522 AD.) is shewn by Khwānd-amīr's dates and narrative, and is inscribed at Chihil-zīna.[1554]