[2205] I.O. 217, f. 231, inserts here what seems a gloss, “Tā īn jā Farsī farmūda” (gufta, said). As Bābur enters his speech in Persian, it is manifest that he used Persian to conceal the bad news.
[2206] The Illustrated London News of July 10th, 1915 (on which day this note is written), has an àpropos picture of an ancient fortress-gun, with its stone-ammunition, taken by the Allies in a Dardanelles fort.
[2207] The dū-tahī is the āb-duzd, water-thief, of f. 67. Its position can be surmised from Cunningham’s Plan [Appendix R].
[2208] For Bābur’s use of hand (qūl) as a military term see f. 209.
[2209] His full designation would be Shāh Muḥammad yūz-begī.
[2210] This will be flight from the ramparts to other places in the fort.
[2211] Bābur’s account of the siege of Chandīrī is incomplete, inasmuch as it says nothing of the general massacre of pagans he has mentioned on f. 272. Khẉāfī Khān records the massacre, saying, that after the fort was surrendered, as was done on condition of safety for the garrison, from 3 to 4000 pagans were put to death by Bābur’s troops on account of hostility shewn during the evacuation of the fort. The time assigned to the massacre is previous to the jūhar of 1000 women and children and the self-slaughter of men in Medinī Rāo’s house, in which he himself died. It is not easy to fit the two accounts in; this might be done, however, by supposing that a folio of Bābur’s MS. was lost, as others seem lost at the end of the narrative of this year’s events (q.v.). The lost folio would tell of the surrender, one clearly affecting the mass of Rājpūt followers and not the chiefs who stood for victory or death and who may have made sacrifice to honour after hearing of the surrender. Bābur’s narrative in this part certainly reads less consecutive than is usual with him; something preceding his account of the jūhar would improve it, and would serve another purpose also, since mention of the surrender would fix a term ending the now too short time of under one hour he assigns as the duration of the fighting. If a surrender had been mentioned, it would be clear that his “2 or 3 garīs” included the attacking and taking of the dū-tahī and down to the retreat of the Rājpūts from the walls. On this Bābur’s narrative of the unavailing sacrifice of the chiefs would follow in due order. Khẉāfī Khān is more circumstantial than Firishta who says nothing of surrender or massacre, but states that 6000 men were killed fighting. Khẉāfī Khān’s authorities may throw light on the matter, which so far does not hang well together in any narrative, Bābur’s, Firishta’s, or Khẉāfī Khān’s. One would like to know what led such a large body of Rājpūts to surrender so quickly; had they been all through in favour of accepting terms? One wonders, again, why from 3 to 4000 Rājpūts did not put up a better resistance to massacre. Perhaps their assailants were Turks, stubborn fighters down to 1915 AD.
[2212] For suggestion about the brevity of this period, see last note.
[2213] Clearly, without Bābur’s taking part in the fighting.
[2214] These words by abjad make 934. The Ḥai. MS. mistakenly writes Būd Chandīrī in the first line of the quatrain instead of Būd chandī. Khẉāfī Khān quotes the quatrain with slight variants.