[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Dark Ages](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darkages) › [Mughals (1526–1857)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darkages.mughal) › [Bābur (1526–1530)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darkages.mughal.babur) › [Bāburnāma](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darkages.mughal.babur.baburnama) › [The Babur-nama in English (A. S. Beveridge)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darkages.mughal.babur.baburnama~en-beveridge) › 936.1 # The Memoirs of Bābur 936.1 The Bābur-nāma in English (A. S. Beveridge) 936.1 - **Language:** English ### [936.1.1](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darkages.mughal.babur.baburnama~en-beveridge.936.1.1) 936 AH.-SEP. 5TH 1529 TO AUGUST 25TH 1530 AD. (\_a. Raḥīm-dād's affairs.\_) (\_Sep. 7th\_) On Wednesday the 3rd of Muḥarram, Shaikh Muḥammad \_Ghaus̤\_\[2691\] came in from Gūālīār with Khusrau's (son) Shihābu'd-dīn to plead for Raḥīm-dād. As Shaikh Muḥammad \_Ghaūṣ\_ was a pious and excellent person, Raḥīm-dād's faults were forgiven for his sake. Shaikh Gūran and Nūr Beg were sent off for Gūālīār, so that the place having been made over to their charge....\[2692\] TRANSLATOR'S NOTE ON 936 TO 937 AH.-1529 TO 1530 AD. It is difficult to find material for filling the \_lacuna\_ of some 15 months, which occurs in Bābur's diary after the broken passage of Muḥarram 3rd 936 AH. (Sept. 7th 1529 AD.) and down to the date of his death on Jumāda 1. 6th 937 AH. (Dec. 26th 153O AD.). The known original sources are few, their historical matter scant, their contents mainly biographical. Gleanings may yet be made, however, in unexpected places, such gleanings as are provided by Aḥmad-i-yādgār's interpolation of Tīmūrid history amongst his lives of Afghān Sulṯāns. The earliest original source which helps to fill the gap of 936 AH. is Ḥaidar Mīrzā's \_Tārīkh-i-rashīdī\_, finished as to its Second Part which contains Bābur's biography, in 948 AH. (1541 AD.), 12 years therefore after the year of the gap 936 AH. It gives valuable information about the affairs of Badakhshān, based on its author's personal experience at 30 years of age, and was Abū'l-faẓl's authority for the \_Akbar-nāma\_. ### [936.1.2](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darkages.mughal.babur.baburnama~en-beveridge.936.1.2) The next in date of the original sources is Gul-badan Begīm's \_Humāyūn-nāma\_, a chronicle of family affairs, which she wrote in obedience to her nephew Akbar's command, given in about 995 AH. (1587 AD.), some 57 years after her Father's death, that whatever any person knew of his father (Humāyūn) and grandfather (Bābur) should be written down for Abū'l-faẓl's use. It embodies family memories and traditions, and presumably gives the recollections of several ladies of the royal circle.\[2693\] ### [936.1.3](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darkages.mughal.babur.baburnama~en-beveridge.936.1.3) The \_Akbar-nāma\_ derives much of its narrative for 936-937 AH. from Ḥaidar Mīrzā and Gul-badan Begīm, but its accounts of Bābur's self-surrender and of his dying address to his chiefs presuppose the help of information from a contemporary witness. It is noticeable that the \_Akbar-nāma\_ records no public events as occurring in Hindūstān during 936-937 AH., nothing of the sequel of rebellion by Raḥīm-dād\[2694\] and \`Abdu'l-\`azīz, nothing of the untiring Bīban and Bāyazīd. That something could have been told is shown by what Aḥmad-i-yādgār has preserved (\_vide post\_); but 50 years had passed since Bābur's death and, manifestly, interest in filling the \_lacunæ\_ in his diary was then less keen than it is over 300 years later. What in the \_Akbar-nāma\_ concerns Bābur is likely to have been written somewhat early in the \_cir.\_ 15 years of its author's labours on it,\[2695\] but, even so, the elder women of the royal circle had had rest after the miseries Humāyūn had wrought, the forgiveness of family affection would veil his past, and certainly has provided Abū'l-faẓl with an over-mellowed estimate of him, one ill-assorting with what is justified by his Bābur-nāma record. ### [936.1.4](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darkages.mughal.babur.baburnama~en-beveridge.936.1.4) The contribution made towards filling the gap of 936-937 AH. in the body of Niẕāmu-'d-dīn Aḥmad's \_T̤abaqāt-i-akbarī\_ is limited to a curious and doubtfully acceptable anecdote about a plan for the supersession of Humāyūn as Pādshāh, and about the part played by Khwāja Muqīm \_Harāwī\_ in its abandonment. A further contribution is made, however, in Book VII which contains the history of the Muḥammadan Kings of Kashmīr, namely, that Bābur despatched an expedition into that country. As no such expedition is recorded or referred to in surviving Bābur-nāma writings, it is likely to have been sent in 936 AH. during Bābur's tour to and from Lāhor. If it were made with the aim of extending Tīmūrid authority in the Himālayan borderlands, a hint of similar policy elsewhere may be given by the ceremonious visit of the Rāja of Kahlūr to Bābur, mentioned by Aḥmad-i-yādgār (\_vide post\_).\[2696\] The T̤.-i-A. was written within the term of Abū'l-faẓl's work on the \_Akbar-nāma\_, being begun later, and ended about 9 years earlier, in 1002 AH.-1593 AD. It appears to have been Abū'-l-faẓl's authority for his account of the campaign carried on in Kashmīr by Bābur's chiefs (\_Āyīn-i-akbarī\_ vol. ii, part i, Jarrett's trs. p. 389). An important contribution, seeming to be authentic, is found interpolated in Aḥmad-i-yādgār's \_Tārīkh-i-salāṯīn-i-afāghana\_, one which outlines a journey made by Bābur to Lāhor in 936 AH. ### [936.1.5](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darkages.mughal.babur.baburnama~en-beveridge.936.1.5) and gives circumstantial details of a punitive expedition sent by him from Sihrind at the complaint of the Qāẓī of Samāna against a certain Mundāhir Rājpūt. The whole contribution dovetails into matters found elsewhere. Its precision of detail bespeaks a closely-contemporary written source.\[2697\] As its fullest passage concerns the Samāna Qāẓī's affair, its basis of record may have been found in Samāna. Some considerations about the date of Aḥmad-i-yādgār's own book and what Niamatu'l-lāh says of Haibat Khān of Samāna, his own generous helper in the \_Tārīkhi-Khan-i-jahān Lūdī\_, point towards Haibat Khān as providing the details of the Qāẓī's wrongs and avenging. The indication is strengthened by the circumstance that what precedes and what follows the account of the punitive expedition is outlined only.\[2698\] Aḥmad-i-yādgār interpolates an account of Humāyūn also, which is a frank plagiarism from the \_T̤abaqāt-i-akbarī\_. He tells too a story purporting to explain why Bābur "selected" Humāyūn to succeed him, one parallel with Niẕāmu'd-dīn Aḥmad's about what led Khalīfa to abandon his plan of setting the Mīrzā aside. Its sole value lies in its testimony to a belief, held by its first narrator whoever he was, that choice was exercised in the matter by Bābur. Reasons for thinking Niẕāmu'd-dīn's story, as it stands, highly improbable, will be found later in this note. ### [936.1.6](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darkages.mughal.babur.baburnama~en-beveridge.936.1.6) Muḥammad Qāsim Hindū Shāh \_Firishta's Tārīkh-i-firishta\_ contains an interesting account of Bābur but contributes towards filling the gap in the events of 936-937 AH. little that is not in the earlier sources. In M. Jules Mohl's opinion it was under revision as late as 1623 AD. (1032-3 AH.). (\_a. Humāyūn and Badakhshān.\_) An occurrence which had important results, was the arrival of Humāyūn in Āgra, unsummoned by his Father, from the outpost station of Badakhshān. It will have occurred early in 936 AH. (autumn 1529 AD.), because he was in Kābul in the first ten days of the last month of 935 AH. (\_vide post\_). Curiously enough his half-sister Gul-badan does not mention his coming, whether through avoidance of the topic or from inadvertence; the omission may be due however to the loss of a folio from the only known MS. of her book (that now owned by the British Museum), and this is the more likely that Abū'l-faẓl writes, at some length, about the arrival and its motive, what the Begīm might have provided, this especially by his attribution of filial affection as Humāyūn's reason for coming to Āgra. ### [936.1.7](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darkages.mughal.babur.baburnama~en-beveridge.936.1.7) Ḥaidar Mīrzā is the authority for the Akbar-nāma account of Humāyūn's departure from Qila\`-i-ẕafar and its political and military sequel. He explains the departure by saying that when Bābur had subdued Hindūstān, his sons Humāyūn and Kāmrān were grown-up; and that wishing to have one of them at hand in case of his own death, he summoned Humāyūn, leaving Kāmrān in Qandahār. No doubt these were the contemporary impressions conveyed to Ḥaidar, and strengthened by the accomplished fact before he wrote some 12 years later; nevertheless there are two clear indications that there was no royal order for Humāyūn to leave Qila\`-i-ẕafar, \_viz.\_ that no-one had been appointed to relieve him even when he reached Āgra, and that Abū'l-faẓl mentions no summons but attributes the Mīrzā's departure from his post to an overwhelming desire to see his Father. What appears probable is that Māhīm wrote to her son urging his coming to Āgra, and that this was represented as Bābur's wish. However little weight may be due to the rumour, preserved in anecdotes recorded long after 935 AH., that any-one, Bābur or Khalīfa, inclined against Humāyūn's succession, that rumour she would set herself to falsify by reconciliation.\[2699\] ### [936.1.8](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darkages.mughal.babur.baburnama~en-beveridge.936.1.8) When the Mīrzā's intention to leave Qila\`-i-ẕafar became known there, the chiefs represented that they should not be able to withstand the Aūzbeg on their frontier without him (his troops implied).\[2700\] With this he agreed, said that still he must go, and that he would send a Mīrzā in his place as soon as possible. He then rode, in one day, to Kābul, an item of rapid travel preserved by Abū'l-faẓl. Humāyūn's departure caused such anxiety in Qila\`-i-ẕafar that some (if not all) of the Badakhshī chiefs hurried off an invitation to Sa\`īd Khān \_Chaghatāī\_, the then ruler in Kāshghar in whose service Ḥaidar Mīrzā was, to come at once and occupy the fort. They said that Faqīr-i-\`alī who had been left in charge, was not strong enough to cope with the Aūzbeg, begged Sa\`īd to come, and strengthened their petition by reminding him of his hereditary right to Badakhshān, derived from Shāh Begīm \_Badakhshī\_. Their urgency convincing the Khān that risk threatened the country, he started from Kāshghar in Muḥarram 936 AH. (Sept-Oct. 1529 AD.). On reaching Sārīgh-chūpān which by the annexation of Abā-bakr Mīrzā \_Dūghlāt\_ was now his own most western territory\[2701\] but which formerly was one of the upper districts of Badakhshān, he waited while Ḥaidar went on towards Qila\`-i-ẕafar only to learn on his road, that Hind-āl (\_æt.\_ 10) had been sent from Kābul by Humāyūn and had entered the fort 12 days before. --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.darkages.mughal.babur.baburnama~en-beveridge.936.1](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darkages.mughal.babur.baburnama~en-beveridge.936.1) · Pramāṇa