[1347] One of the mutineers named as in this affair (T.R. p. 257) was Sl. Qulī chūnāq, a circumstance attracting attention by its bearing on the cause of the lacunæ in the Bābur-nāma, inasmuch as Bābur, writing at the end of his life, expresses (f. 65) his intention to tell of this man’s future misdeeds. These misdeeds may have been also at Ḥiṣār and in the attack there made on Bābur; they are known from Ḥaidar to have been done at Ghaznī; both times fall within this present gap. Hence it is clear that Bābur meant to write of the events falling in the gap of 914 AH. onwards.
[1348] In 925 AH. (ff. 227 and 238) mention is made of courtesies exchanged between Bābur and Muḥammad-i-zamān in Balkh. The Mīrzā was with Bābur later on in Hindūstān.
[1349] Mīr Ma‘ṣūm’s Tārīkh-i-sind is the chief authority for Bābur’s action after 913 AH. against Shāh Beg in Qandahār; its translation, made in 1846 by Major Malet, shews some manifestly wrong dates; they appear also in the B. M. MS. of the work.
[1350] f. 216b and note to “Monday”.
[1351] Elph. MS. f. 173b; W.-i-B. I.O. 215 f. 178 and 217 f. 149; Mems. p. 246. The whole of the Ḥijra year is included in 1519 AD. (Erskine). What follows here and completes the Kābul section of the Bābur-nāma is a diary of a little over 13 months’ length, supplemented by matter of later entry. The product has the character of a draft, awaiting revision to harmonize it in style and, partly, in topic with the composed narrative that breaks off under 914 AH.; for the diary, written some 11 years earlier than that composed narrative, varies, as it would be expected à priori to vary, in style and topic from the terse, lucid and idiomatic output of Bābur’s literary maturity. A good many obscure words and phrases in it, several new from Bābur’s pen, have opposed difficulty to scribes and translators. Interesting as such minutiae are to a close observer of Turkī and of Bābur’s diction, comment on all would be tedious; a few will be found noted, as also will such details as fix the date of entry for supplementary matter.
[1352] Here Mr. Erskine notes that Dr. Leyden’s translation begins again; it broke off on f. 180b, and finally ends on f. 223b.
[1353] This name is often found transliterated as Chandul or [mod.] Jandul but the Ḥai. MS. supports Raverty’s opinion that Chandāwal is correct.
The year 925 AH. opens with Bābur far from Kābul and east of the Khahr (fort) he is about to attack. Afghān and other sources allow surmise of his route to that position; he may have come down into the Chandāwal-valley, first, from taking Chaghān-sarāī (f. 124, f. 134 and n.), and, secondly, from taking the Gibrī stronghold of Ḥaidar-i-‘alī Bajaurī which stood at the head of the Bābā Qarā-valley. The latter surmise is supported by the romantic tales of Afghān chroniclers which at this date bring into history Bābur’s Afghān wife, Bībī Mubāraka (f. 220b and note; Mems. p. 250 n.; and Appendix K, An Afghān legend). (It must be observed here that R.’s Notes (pp. 117, 128) confuse the two sieges, viz. of the Gibrī fort in 924 AH. and of the Khahr of Bajaur in 925 AH.)
[1354] Raverty lays stress on the circumstance that the fort Bābur now attacks has never been known as Bajaur, but always simply as Khahr, the fort (the Arabic name for the place being, he says, plain Shahr); just as the main stream is called simply Rūd (the torrent). The name Khahr is still used, as modern maps shew. There are indeed two neighbouring places known simply as Khahr (Fort), i.e. one at the mouth of the “Mahmand-valley” of modern campaigns, the other near the Malakand (Fincastle’s map).
[1355] This word the Ḥai. MS. writes, passim, Dilah-zāk.