[2710] The precision with which the Rāja’s gifts are stated, points to a closely-contemporary and written source. A second such indication occurs later where gifts made to Hind-āl are mentioned.
[2711] An account of the events in Multān after its occupation by Shāh Ḥasan Arghūn is found in the latter part of the T̤abaqāt-i-akbarī and in Erskine’s H. of I. i, 393 et seq.—It may be noted here that several instances of confusion amongst Bābur’s sons occur in the extracts made by Sir H. Elliot and Professor Dowson in their History of India from the less authoritative sources [e.g. v, 35 Kāmrān for Humāyūn, ‘Askarī said to be in Kābul (pp. 36 and 37); Hind-āl for Humāyūn etc.] and that these errors have slipped into several of the District Gazetteers of the United Provinces.
[2712] As was said of the offering made by the Rāja of Kahlūr, the precision of statement as to what was given to Hind-āl, bespeaks a closely-contemporary written source. So too does the mention (text, infra) of the day on which Bābur began his return journey from Lāhor.
[2713] Cf. G. of I. xvi, 55; Ibbetson’s Report on Karnāl.
[2714] It is noticeable that no one of the three royal officers named as sent against Mohan Mundāhir, is recognizable as mentioned in the Bābur-nāma. They may all have had local commands, and not have served further east. Perhaps this, their first appearance, points to the origin of the information as independent of Bābur, but he might have been found to name them, if his diary were complete for 936 AH.
[2715] The E. and D. translation writes twice as though the inability to “pull” the bows were due to feebleness in the men, but an appropriate reading would refer the difficulty to the hardening of sinews in the composite Turkish bows, which prevented the archers from bending the bows for stringing.
[2716] One infers that fires were burned all night in the bivouac.
[2717] At this point the A.S.B. copy (No. 137) of the Tārīkh-i-salāt̤in-i-afāghana has a remark which may have been a marginal note originally, and which cannot be supposed made by Aḥmad-i-yādgār himself because this would allot him too long a spell of life. It may show however that the interpolations about the two Tīmūrids were not inserted in his book by him. Its purport is that the Mundāhir village destroyed by Bābur’s troops in 936 AH.-1530 AD. was still in ruins at the time it was written 160 (lunar) years later (i.e. in 1096 AH.-1684-85 AD.). The better Codex (No. 3887) of the Imperial Library of Calcutta has the same passage.—Both that remark and its context show acquaintance with Samāna and Kaithal.—The writings now grouped under the title Tārīkh-i-salāt̤īn-i-afāghana present difficulties both as to date and contents (cf. Rieu’s Persian Catalogue s. n.).
[2718] Presumably in Tihrind.
[2719] Cf. G. B.’s H. N. trs. and the Akbar-nāma Bib. Ind. ed. and trs., Index s.nn.; Hughes’ Dictionary of Islām s.n. Intercession.