The Bābur-nāma

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 Ghaus̤2684 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…2685

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 Sult̤āns.

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.

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.2686

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-dād2687 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,2688 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.

The contribution made towards filling the gap of 936-937 AH. in the body of Niz̤āmu-’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).2689 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-salāt̤īn-i-afāghana, one which outlines a journey made by Bābur to Lāhor in 936 AH. 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.2690 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.2691 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 Niz̤āmu’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 Niz̤āmu’d-dīn’s story, as it stands, highly improbable, will be found later in this note.

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.

Ḥaidar Mīrzā is the authority for the Akbar-nāma account of Humāyūn’s departure from Qila‘-i-z̤afar 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-z̤afar, 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.2692

When the Mīrzā’s intention to leave Qila‘-i-z̤afar became known there, the chiefs represented that they should not be able to withstand the Aūzbeg on their frontier without him (his troops implied).2693 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-z̤afar 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 territory2694 but which formerly was one of the upper districts of Badakhshān, he waited while Ḥaidar went on towards Qila‘-i-z̤afar 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.

The Kāshgharīs were thus placed in the difficulty that the fort was occupied by Bābur’s representative, and that the snows would prevent their return home across the mountains till winter was past. Winter-quarters were needed and asked for by Ḥaidar, certain districts being specified in which to await the re-opening of the Pāmīr routes. He failed in his request, “They did not trust us,” he writes, “indeed suspected us of deceit.” His own account of Sa‘īd’s earlier invasion of Badakhshān (925 AH. -1519 AD.) during Khān Mīrzā’s rule, serves to explain Badakhshī distrust of Kāshgharīs. Failing in his negotiations, he scoured and pillaged the country round the fort, and when a few days later the Khān arrived, his men took what Ḥaidar’s had left.

Sa‘īd Khān is recorded to have besieged the fort for three months, but nothing serious seems to have been attempted since no mention of fighting is made, none of assault or sally, and towards the end of the winter he was waited on by those who had invited his presence, with apology for not having admitted him into the fort, which they said they would have done but for the arrival of Hind-āl Mīrzā. To this the Khān replied that for him to oppose Bābur Pādshāh was impossible; he reminded the chiefs that he was there by request, that it would be as hurtful for the Pādshāh as for himself to have the Aūzbeg in Badakhshān and, finally, he gave it as his opinion that, as matters stood, every man should go home. His view of the general duty may include that of Badakhshī auxiliaries such as Sult̤ān Wais of Kūl-āb who had reinforced the garrison. So saying, he himself set out for Kāshghar, and at the beginning of Spring reached Yārkand.

b. Humāyūn’s further action.

Humāyūn will have reached Kābul before Ẕū’l-ḥijja 10th 935 AH. (Aug. 26th 1529 AD.) because it is on record that he met Kāmrān on the Kābul ‘Īd-gāh, and both will have been there to keep the ‘Īdu’l-kabīr, the Great Festival of Gifts, which is held on that day. Kāmrān had come from Qandahār, whether to keep the Feast, or because he had heard of Humāyūn’s intended movement from Badakhshān, or because changes were foreseen and he coveted Kābul, as the Bābur-nāma and later records allow to be inferred. He asked Humāyūn, says Abū’l-faẓl, why he was there and was told of his brother’s impending journey to Āgra under overwhelming desire to see their Father.2695 Presumably the two Mīrzās discussed the position in which Badakhshān had been left; in the end Hind-āl was sent to Qila‘-i-z̤afar, notwithstanding that he was under orders for Hindūstān.

Humāyūn may have stayed some weeks in Kābul, how many those familiar with the seasons and the routes between Yārkand and Qila‘-i-z̤afar, might be able to surmise if the date of Hind-āl’s start northward for which Humāyūn is likely to have waited, were found by dovetailing the Muḥarram of Sa‘īd’s start, the approximate length of his journey to Sārīgh-chūpān, and Ḥaidar’s reception of news that Hind-āl had been 12 days in the fort.

Humāyūn’s arrival in Āgra is said by Abū’l-faẓl to have been cheering to the royal family in their sadness for the death of Alwar (end of 935 AH.) and to have given pleasure to his Father. But the time is all too near the date of Bābur’s letter (f.348) to Humāyūn, that of a dissatisfied parent, to allow the supposition that his desertion of his post would fail to displease.

That it was a desertion and not an act of obedience seems clear from the circumstance that the post had yet to be filled. Khalīfa is said to have been asked to take it and to have refused;2696 Humāyūn to have been sounded as to return and to have expressed unwillingness. Bābur then did what was an honourable sequel to his acceptance in 926 AH. of the charge of the fatherless child Sulaimān, by sending him, now about 16, to take charge where his father Khān Mīrzā had ruled, and by still keeping him under his own protection.

Sulaimān’s start from Āgra will not have been delayed, and (accepting Aḥmad-i-yādgār’s record,) Bābur himself will have gone as far as Lāhor either with him or shortly after him, an expedition supporting Sulaimān, and menacing Sa‘īd in his winter leaguer round Qila‘-i-z̤afar. Meantime Humāyūn was ordered to his fief of Saṃbhal.

After Sulaimān’s appointment Bābur wrote to Sa‘īd a letter of which Ḥaidar gives the gist: – It expresses surprise at Sa‘īd’s doings in Badakhshān, says that Hind-āl has been recalled and Sulaimān sent, that if Sa‘īd regard hereditary right, he will leave “Sulaimān Shāh Mīrzā”2697 in possession, who is as a son to them both,2698 that this would be well, that otherwise he (Bābur) will make over responsibility to the heir (Sulaimān);2699 and, “The rest you know.”2700

c. Bābur visits Lāhor.

If Aḥmad-i-yādgār’s account of a journey made by Bābur to Lāhor and the Panj-āb be accepted, the lacuna of 936 AH. is appropriately filled. He places the expedition in the 3rd year of Bābur’s rule in Hindūstān, which, counting from the first reading of the khut̤ba for Bābur in Dihlī (f. 286), began on Rajab 15th 935 AH. (March 26th 1529 AD.). But as Bābur’s diary-record for 935 AH. is complete down to end of the year, (minor lacunæ excepted), the time of his leaving Āgra for Lāhor is relegated to 936 AH. He must have left early in the year, (1) to allow time, before the occurrence of the known events preceding his own death, for the long expedition Aḥmad-i-yādgār calls one of a year, and (2) because an early start after Humāyūn’s arrival and Sulaimān’s departure would suit the position of affairs and the dates mentioned or implied by Ḥaidar’s and by Aḥmad-i-yādgār’s narratives.

Two reasons of policy are discernible, in the known events of the time, to recommend a journey in force towards the North-west; first, the sedition of ‘Abdu’l-‘azīz in Lāhor (f. 381), and secondly, the invasion of Badakhshān by Sa‘īd Khān with its resulting need of supporting Sulaimān by a menace of armed intervention.2701

In Sihrind the Rāja of Kahlūr, a place which may be one of the Simla hill-states, waited on Bābur, made offering of 7 falcons and 3 mans2702 of gold, and was confirmed in his fief.2703

In Lāhor Kāmrān is said to have received his Father, in a garden of his own creation, and to have introduced the local chiefs as though he were the Governor of Lāhor some writers describe him as then being. The best sources, however, leave him still posted in Qandahār. He had been appointed to Multān (f. 359) when ‘Askarī was summoned to Āgra (f. 339), but whether he actually went there is not assured; some months later (Ẕū’l-ḥijja 10th 935 AH.) he is described by Abū’l-faẓl as coming to Kābul from Qandahār. He took both Multān2704 and Lāhor by force from his (half-)brother Humāyūn in 935 AH. (1531 AD.) the year after their Father’s death. That he should wait upon his Father in Lāhor would be natural, Hind-āl did so, coming from Kābul. Hind-āl will have come to Lāhor after making over charge of Qila‘-i-z̤afar to Sulaimān, and he went back at the end of the cold season, going perhaps just before his Father started from Lāhor on his return journey, the gifts he received before leaving being 2 elephants, 4 horses, belts and jewelled daggers.2705