[24] This alludes to the facts that Humāyūn promised S͟hāh T̤ahmāsp that he would restore the fort after he had conquered India, and that Akbar had acknowledged the justice of Persia’s claim. [↑]
[25] The clause is very obscure. Perhaps it is part of what Jahāngīr had said. [↑]
[26] Farzand-i-bark͟hūrdār. [↑]
[27] It is noteworthy that Jahāngīr does not attempt to controvert the statement of S͟hāh ʿAbbās that Qandahar rightfully belonged to Persia. There is a very long account in the ʿĀlam-ārāʾī of the claims of Persia to Qandahar, and of the various attempts made to realize them, until at last it was taken by S͟hāh ʿAbbās. See the account of the 35th year in the Teheran lithograph, p. 682, etc. The fort of Qandahar surrendered on 11 S͟haʿbān, 1031, or June 11, 1622. The Shah’s letter announcing the fact and explaining his procedure was presented by Ḥaidar Beg on 26 Ābān, 1031—i.e., early in November, 1622. He brought the officers of the garrison with him. See ʿĀlam-ārāʾī and the Tūzuk text, 348 (annals of the 17th year). [↑]
[29] These words do not appear in the I.O. MSS. And what is written in this chapter about the fates of K͟halīl and Muḥtarim, etc., does not agree with Muʿtamid’s writing in Iqbāl-nāma. [↑]
[31] Ḥuqūq ba-ʿuqūq, “rights into wrongs.” [↑]
[32] I rather think the meaning is “he by his baseness and illfatedness has capitally punished them, and has (as it were) slain them by his own hand,” the meaning being that they will fall in the civil war about to take place. [↑]