Kitabı oku: «The Bābur-nāma», sayfa 43
Humāyūn’s arrival and continued stay in Hindūstān modified earlier dispositions which included his remaining in Badakhshān. His actions may explain why Bābur, when in 936 AH. he went as far as Lāhor, did not go on to Kābul. Nothing in the sources excludes the surmise that Māhīm knew of the bestowal of royal insignia on the Bāī-qarā Mīrzā, that she summoned her son to Āgra and there kept him, that she would do this the more resolutely if the dāmād of the plan she must have heard of, were that Bāī-qarā, and that but for Humāyūn’s presence in Āgra and its attendant difficulties, Bābur would have gone to Kābul, leaving his dāmād in charge of Hindūstān.
Bābur, however, turned back from Lāhor for Āgra, and there he made the self-surrender which, resulting in Humāyūn’s “selection” as Pādshāh, became a turning point in history.
Humāyūn’s recovery and Bābur’s immediate illness will have made the son’s life seem Divinely preserved, the father’s as a debt to be paid. Bābur’s impressive personal experience will have dignified Humāyūn as one whom God willed should live. Such distinction would dictate the bestowal on him of all that fatherly generosity had yet to give. The imminence of death defeating all plans made for life, Humāyūn was nominated to supreme power as Pādshāh.
g. Bābur’s death.
Amongst other family matters mentioned by Gul-badan as occurring shortly before her Father’s death, was his arrangement of marriages for Gul-rang with Aīsān-tīmūr and for Gul-chihra with Tūkhta-būghā Chaghatāī. She also writes of his anxiety to see Hind-āl who had been sent for from Kābul but did not arrive till the day after the death.
When no remedies availed, Humāyūn was summoned from Saṃbhal. He reached Āgra four days before the death; on the morrow Bābur gathered his chiefs together for the last of many times, addressed them, nominated Humāyūn his successor and bespoke their allegiance for him. Abū’l-faẓl thus summarizes his words, “Lofty counsels and weighty mandates were imparted. Advice was given (to Humāyūn) to be munificent and just, to acquire God’s favour, to cherish and protect subjects, to accept apologies from such as had failed in duty, and to pardon transgressors. And, he (Bābur) exclaimed, the cream of my testamentary dispositions is this, ‘Do naught against your brothers, even though they may deserve it.’ In truth,” continues the historian, “it was through obedience to this mandate that his Majesty Jannat-ashiyānī suffered so many injuries from his brothers without avenging himself.” Gul-badan’s account of her Father’s last address is simple: – “He spoke in this wise, ‘For years it has been in my heart to make over the throne to Humāyūn and to retire to the Gold-scattering Garden. By the Divine grace I have obtained in health of body everything but the fulfilment of this wish. Now that illness has laid me low, I charge you all to acknowledge Humāyūn in my stead. Fail not in loyalty towards him. Be of one heart and mind towards him. I hope to God that he, for his part, will bear himself well towards men. Moreover, Humāyūn, I commit you and your brothers and all my kinsfolk and your people and my people to God’s keeping, and entrust them all to you.’”
It was on Monday Jumāda 1. 5th 937 AH. (Dec. 26th 153O AD.) that Bābur made answer to his summons with the Adsum of the Musalmān, “Lord! I am here for Thee.”
“Black fell the day for children and kinsfolk and all,” writes his daughter;
“Alas! that time and the changeful heaven should exist without thee;
Alas! and Alas! that time should remain and thou shouldst be gone;”
mourns Khwāja Kalān in the funeral ode from which Badāyūnī quoted these lines.2731
The body was laid in the Garden-of-rest (Ārām-bāgh) which is opposite to where the Tāj-i-maḥāll now stands. Khwāja Muḥammad ‘Alī ‘asas2732 was made the guardian of the tomb, and many well-voiced readers and reciters were appointed to conduct the five daily Prayers and to offer supplication for the soul of the dead. The revenues of Sīkrī and 5 laks from Bīāna were set aside for the endowment of the tomb, and Māhīm Begīm, during the two and a half years of her remaining life, sent twice daily from her own estate, an allowance of food towards the support of its attendants.
In accordance with the directions of his will, Bābur’s body was to be conveyed to Kābul and there to be laid in the garden of his choice, in a grave open to the sky, with no building over it, no need of a door-keeper.
Precisely when it was removed from Āgra we have not found stated. It is known from Gul-badan that Kāmrān visited his Father’s tomb in Āgra in 1539 AD. (946 AH.) after the battle of Chausa; and it is known from Jauhar that the body had been brought to Kābul before 1544 AD. (952 AH.), at which date Humāyūn, in Kābul, spoke with displeasure of Kāmrān’s incivility to “Bega Begīm”, the “Bībī” who had conveyed their Father’s body to that place.2733 That the widow who performed this duty was the Afghān Lady, Bībī Mubārika2734 is made probable by Gul-badan’s details of the movements of the royal ladies. Bābur’s family left Āgra under Hind-āl’s escort, after the defeat at Chausa (June 7th, 1539 AD.); whoever took charge of the body on its journey to Kābul must have returned at some later date to fetch it. It would be in harmony with Sher Shāh’s generous character if he safe-guarded her in her task.
The terraced garden Bābur chose for his burial-place lies on the slope of the hill Shāh-i-Kābul, the Sher-darwāza of European writers.2735 It has been described as perhaps the most beautiful of the Kābul gardens, and as looking towards an unsurpassable view over the Chār-dih plain towards the snows of Paghmān and the barren, rocky hills which have been the hunting-grounds of rulers in Kābul. Several of Bābur’s descendants coming to Kābul from Āgra have visited and embellished his burial-garden. Shāh-i-jahān built the beautiful mosque which stands near the grave; Jahāngīr seems to have been, if not the author, at least the prompter of the well-cut inscription adorning the upright slab of white marble of Māīdān, which now stands at the grave-head. The tomb-stone itself is a low grave-covering, not less simple than those of relations and kin whose remains have been placed near Bābur’s. In the thirties of the last century [the later Sir] Alexander Burnes visited and admirably described the garden and the tomb. With him was Munshī Mohan Lāl who added to his own account of the beauties of the spot, copies of the inscriptions on the monumental slab and on the portal of the Mosque.2736 As is shown by the descriptions these two visitors give, and by Daniel’s drawings of the garden and the tomb, there were in their time two upright slabs, one behind the other, near the head of the grave. Mr. H. H. Hayden who visited the garden in the first decade of the present century, shows in his photograph of the grave, one upright stone only, the place of one of the former two having been taken by a white-washed lamp holder (chirāghdān).
The purport of the verses inscribed on the standing-slab is as follows: —
A ruler from whose brow shone the Light of God was that2737 Back-bone of the Faith (z̤ahīru’d-dīn) Muḥammad Bābur Pādshāh. Together with majesty, dominion, fortune, rectitude, the open-hand and the firm Faith, he had share in prosperity, abundance and the triumph of victorious arms. He won the material world and became a moving light; for his every conquest he looked, as for Light, towards the world of souls. When Paradise became his dwelling and Ruẓwān2738 asked me the date, I gave him for answer, “Paradise is forever Bābur Pādshāh’s abode.”
h. Bābur’s wives and children. 2739
Bābur himself mentions several of his wives by name, but Gul-badan is the authority for complete lists of them and their children.
1. ‘Āyisha Sult̤ān Begīm, daughter of Sl. Aḥmad Mīrzā Mīrān-shāhī was betrothed, when Bābur was cir. 5 years old, in 894 AH. (1488-89 AD.), bore Fakhru’n-nisa’ in 906 AH. [who died in about one month], left Bābur before 909 AH. (1503 AD.).
2. Zainab Sl. Begīm, daughter of Sl. Maḥmūd Mīrzā Mīrān-shāhī, was married in 910 AH. (1504-5 AD.), died childless two or three years later.
3. Māhīm Begīm, whose parentage is not found stated, was married in 912 AH. (1506 AD.), bore Bār-būd, Mihr-jān, Āīsān-daulat, Farūq [who all died in infancy], and Humāyūn.
4. Ma‘ṣūma Sl. Begīm, daughter of Sl. Aḥmad Mīrzā Mīrān-shāhī, was married in 913 AH. (1507 AD.), bore Ma‘ṣūma and died at her birth, presumably early in the lacuna of 914-925 AH. (1508-19 AD.).
5. Gul-rukh Begīm, whose parentage is not found stated, was perhaps a Begchīk Mughūl, was married between 914 AH. and 925 AH. (1508-19 AD.), probably early in the period, bore Shāh-rukh, Aḥmad [who both died young], Gul‘iẕār [who also may have died young], Kamrān and ‘Askarī.
6. Dil-dār Begīm, whose parentage is not found stated, was married in the same period as Gul-rukh, bore Gul-rang, Gul-chihra, Hind-āl, Gul-badan and Alwar, [who died in childhood].
7. The Afghān Lady (Afghānī Āghācha), Bībī Mubārika Yūsufzāī, was married in 925 AH. (1519 AD.), and died childless.
The two Circassian slaves Gul-nār Āghācha and Nār-gul Āghācha of whom T̤ahmāsp made gift to Bābur in 933 AH. (f. 305), became recognized ladies of the royal household. They are mentioned several times by Gul-badan as taking part in festivities and in family conferences under Humāyūn. Gul-nār is said by Abū’l-faẓl to have been one of Gul-badan’s pilgrim band in 983 AH. (1575 AD.).
The above list contains the names of three wives whose parentage is not given or is vaguely given by the well-known sources, – namely, Māhīm, Gul-rukh and Dil-dār. What would sufficiently explain the absence of mention by Bābur of the parentage of Gul-rukh and Dil-dār is that his record of the years within which the two Begīms were married is not now with the Bābur-nāma. Presumably it has been lost, whether in diary or narrative form, in the lacuna of 914-25 AH. (1508-19 AD.). Gul-rukh appears to have belonged to the family of Begchīk Mughūls described by Ḥaidar Mīrzā2740; her brothers are styled Mīrzā; she was of good but not royal birth. Dil-dār’s case is less simple. Nothing in her daughter Gul-badan’s book suggests that she and her children were other than of the highest rank; numerous details and shades of expression show their ease of equality with royal personages. It is consistent with Gul-badan’s method of enumerating her father’s wives that she should not state her own mother’s descent; she states it of none of her “mothers”. There is this interest in trying to trace Dil-dār’s parentage, that she may have been the third daughter of Sl. Maḥmūd Mīrzā and Pasha Begīm, and a daughter of hers may have been the mother of
Salīma Sult̤ān Begīm who was given in marriage by Humāyūn to Bairām Khān, later was married by Akbar, and was a woman of charm and literary accomplishments. Later historians, Abū’l-faẓl amongst their number, say that Salīma’s mother was a daughter of Bābur’s wife Sālḥa Sult̤ān Begīm, and vary that daughter’s name as Gul-rang-rukh-barg or – ‘iẕār (the last form being an equivalent of chihra, face). As there cannot have been a wife with her daughter growing up in Bābur’s household, who does not appear in some way in Gul-badan’s chronicle, and as Salīma’s descent from Bābur need not be questioned, the knot is most readily loosened by surmising that “Sālḥa” is the real name of Gul-badan’s “Dildār”. Instances of double names are frequent, e. g. Māhīm, Māh-chīchām, Qarā-gūz, Āq, (My Moon, My Moon sister, Black-eyed, Fair). “Heart-holding” (Dil-dār) sounds like a home-name of affection. It is the Ma‘āsir-ī-raḥīmī which gives Sālḥa as the name of Bābur’s wife, Pasha’s third daughter. Its author may be wrong, writing so late as he did (1025 AH. -1616 AD.), or may have been unaware that Sālḥa was (if she were) known as Dil-dār. It would not war against seeming facts to take Pasha’s third daughter to be Bābur’s wife Dil-dār, and Dil-dār’s daughter Gul-chihra to be Salīma’s mother. Gul-chihra was born in about 1516 AD., married to Tūkhta-būghā in 1530 AD., widowed in cir. 1533 AD., might have remarried with Nūru’d-dīn Chaqānīānī (Sayyid Amīr), and in 945 AH. might have borne him Salīma; she was married in 1547 AD. (954 AH.) to ‘Abbās Sult̤ān Aūzbeg.2741 Two matters, neither having much weight, make against taking Dil-dār to be a Mīrān-shāhī; the first being that the anonymous annotator who added to the archetype of Kehr’s Codex what is entered in Appendix L. —On Māhīm’s adoption of Hind-āl, styles her Dil-dār Āghācha; he, however, may have known no more than others knew of her descent; the second, that Māhīm forcibly took Dil-dār’s child Hind-āl to rear; she was the older wife and the mother of the heir, but could she have taken the upper hand over a Mīrān-shāhī? A circumstance complicating the question of Salīma’s maternal descent is, that historians searching the Bābur-nāma or its Persian translation the Wāqi‘āt-i-bāburī for information about the three daughters of Maḥmūd Mīrān-shāhī and Pasha Bahārlū Turkmān, would find an incomplete record, one in which the husbands of the first and second daughters are mentioned and nothing is said about the third who was Bābur’s wife and the grandmother of Salīma. Bābur himself appears to have left the record as it is, meaning to fill it in later; presumably he waited for the names of the elder two sisters to complete his details of the three. In the Ḥaidarabad Codex, which there is good ground for supposing a copy of his original manuscript, about three lines are left blank (f. 27) as if awaiting information; in most manuscripts, however, this indication of intention is destroyed by running the defective passage on to join the next sentence. Some chance remark of a less well-known writer, may clear up the obscurity and show that Sālḥa was Dil-dār.
Māhīm’s case seems one having a different cause for silence about her parentage. When she was married in Herāt, shortly after the death of Sl. Ḥusain Mīrzā, Bābur had neither wife nor child. What Abū’l-faẓl tells about her is vague; her father’s name is not told; she is said to have belonged to a noble Khurāsān family, to have been related (nisbat-i-khwesh) to Sl. Ḥusain Mīrzā and to have traced her descent to Shaikh Aḥmad of Jām. If her birth had been high, even though not royal, it is strange that it is not stated by Bābur when he records the birth of her son Humāyūn, incidentally by Gul-badan, or more precisely by Abū’l-faẓl. Her brothers belonged to Khost, and to judge from a considerable number of small records, seem to have been quiet, unwarlike Khwājas. Her marriage took place in a year of which a full record survives; it is one in the composed narrative, not in the diary. In the following year, this also being one included in the composed narrative, Bābur writes of his meeting with Ma‘ṣūma Mīrān-shāhī in Herāt, of their mutual attraction, and of their marriage. If the marriage with Humāyūn’s mother had been an equal alliance, it would agree with Bābur’s custom to mention its occurrence, and to give particulars about Māhīm’s descent.2742
i. Mr. William Erskine’s estimate of Bābur.
“Z̤ahīru’d-dīn Muḥammad Bābur was undoubtedly one of the most illustrious men of his age, and one of the most eminent and accomplished princes that ever adorned an Asiatic throne. He is represented as having been above the middle size, of great vigour of body, fond of all field and warlike sports, an excellent swordsman, and a skilful archer. As a proof of his bodily strength, it is mentioned, that he used to leap from one pinnacle to another of the pinnacled ramparts used in the East, in his double-soled boots; and that he even frequently took a man under each arm and went leaping along the rampart from one of the pointed pinnacles to another. Having been early trained to the conduct of business, and tutored in the school of adversity, the powers of his mind received full development. He ascended the throne at the age of twelve, and before he had attained his twentieth year, had shared every variety of fortune; he had not only been the ruler of subject provinces but had been in thraldom to his own ambitious nobles, and obliged to conceal every sentiment of his heart; he had been alternately hailed and obeyed as a conqueror and deliverer by rich and extensive kingdoms, and forced to lurk in the deserts and mountains of Farghāna as a houseless wanderer. Down to the last dregs of life, we perceive in him strong feelings of affection for his early friends and early enjoyments. * * * He had been taught betimes, by the voice of events that cannot lie, that he was a man dependent on the kindness and fidelity of other men; and, in his dangers and escapes with his followers, had learned that he was only one of an association. * * * The native benevolence and gaiety of his disposition seems ever to overflow on all around him; * * * of his companions in arms he speaks with the frank gaiety of a soldier. * * * Ambitious he was and fond of conquest and glory in all its shapes; the enterprise in which he was for a season engaged, seems to have absorbed his whole soul, and all his faculties were exerted to bring it to a fortunate issue. His elastic mind was not broken by discomfiture, and few who have achieved such glorious conquests, have suffered more numerous or more decisive defeats. His personal courage was conspicuous during his whole life. Upon the whole, if we review with impartiality the history of Asia, we find few princes entitled to rank higher than Bābur in genius and accomplishments. * * * In activity of mind, in the gay equanimity and unbroken spirit with which he bore the extremes of good and bad fortune, in the possession of the manly and social virtues, in his love of letters and his success in the cultivation of them, we shall probably find no other Asiatic prince who can justly be placed beside him.”
The End
APPENDICES
A. – THE SITE AND DISAPPEARANCE OF OLD AKHSĪ
Some modern writers, amongst whom are Dr. Schuyler, General Nalivkine and Mr. Pumpelly, have inferred from the Bābur-nāma account of Akhsī, (in its translations?) that the landslip through which Bābur’s father died and the disappearance of old Akhsī were brought about by erosion. Seen by the light of modern information, this erosion theory does not seem to cover the whole ground and some other cause seems necessary in explanation of both events.
For convenience of reference, the Bābur-nāma passages required, are quoted here, with their translations.
Ḥai. MS. f. 4b. Saiḥūn daryā-sī qūrghānī astīdīn āqār. Qūrghānī baland jar austīdā wāqī’ būlūb tūr. Khandaqī-nīng aūrunīgha ‘umīq jārlār dūr. ‘Umar Shaikh M. kīm mūnī pāy-takht qīldī, bīr īkī martaba tāshrāq-dīn yana jarlār sāldī.
Of this the translations are as follows: —
(a) Pers. trans. (I.O. 217, f. 3b): Daryā-i Saiḥūn az pāyhā qila‘-i o mīrezad u qila‘-i o bar jar balandī wāqi‘ shuda ba jāy khandaq jarhā-i ‘umīq uftāda. ‘U. Sh. M. kah ānrā pāy-takht sākhta, yak du martaba az bīrūn ham bāz jarhā andākht.
(b) Erskine (p. 5, translating from the Persian): ‘The river Saiḥūn flows under the walls of the castle. The castle is situated on a high precipice, and the steep ravines around serve instead of a moat. When U. Sh. M. made it his capital he, in one or two instances, scarped the ravines outside the fort.’
(c) De Courteille (i, 8, translating from Ilminsky’s imprint, p. 6): ‘Le Seihoun coule au pied de la fortresse qui se dresse sur le sommet d’un ravin, dont les profondeurs lui tiennent lieu d’un fossé. ‘U. Sh. M. à l'époque où il en avait fait son capitale, avait augmenté à une ou deux réprises, les escarpements qui la ceignent naturellement.’
Concerning ‘Umar Shaikh’s death, the words needed are (f. 6b); —
Maẕkūr būlūb aīdī kīm Akhsī qūrghānī buland jar austīdā wāqi‘ būlūb tūr. ‘Imāratlār jar yāqāsīdā aīrdī… Mīrzā jardīn kabūtar u kabūtar-khāna bīla aūchūb shunqār būldī; – 'It has been mentioned that the walled-town of Akhsī is situated above ravine(s). The royal dwellings are along a ravine. The Mīrzā, having flown with his pigeons and their house from the ravine, became a falcon (i. e. died).’
A few particulars about Akhsī will shew that, in the translations just quoted, certain small changes of wording are dictated by what, amongst other writers, Kostenko and von Schwarz have written about the oases of Turkistān.
The name Akhsī, as used by Ibn Haukal, Yāqūt and Bābur, describes an oasis township, i. e. a walled-town with its adjacent cultivated lands. In Yāqūt’s time Akhsī had a second circumvallation, presumably less for defence than for the protection of crops against wild animals. The oasis was created by the Kāsān-water,2743 upon the riverain loess of the right and higher bank of the Saiḥūn (Sīr), on level ground west of the junction of the Nārīn and the Qarā-daryā, west too of spurs from the northern hills which now abut upon the river. Yāqūt locates it in the 12th century, at one farsākh (circa 4 m.) north of the river.2744 Depending as it did solely on the Kāsān-water, nothing dictated its location close to the Sīr, along which there is now, and there seems to have been in the 12th century, a strip of waste land. Bābur says of Akhsī what Kostenko says (i, 321) of modern Tāshkīnt, that it stood above ravines (jarlār). These were natural or artificial channels of the Kāsān-water.2745
To turn now to the translations; – Mr. Erskine imaged Akhsī as a castle, high on a precipice in process of erosion by the Sīr. But Bābur’s word, qūrghān means the walled-town; his word for a castle is ark, citadel; and his jar, a cleft, is not rendered by ‘precipice.’ Again; – it is no more necessary to understand that the Sīr flowed close to the walls than it is to understand, when one says the Thames flows past below Richmond, that it washes the houses on the hill.
The key to the difficulties in the Turkī passage is provided by a special use of the word jar for not only natural ravines but artificial water-cuts for irrigation. This use of it makes clear that what ‘Umar Shaikh did at Akhsī was not to make escarpments but to cut new water-channels. Presumably he joined those ‘further out’ on the deltaic fan, on the east and west of the town, so as to secure a continuous defensive cleft round the town2746 or it may be, in order to bring it more water.
Concerning the historic pigeon-house (f. 6b), it can be said safely that it did not fall into the Sīr; it fell from a jar, and in this part of its course, the river flows in a broad bed, with a low left bank. Moreover the Mīrzā’s residence was in the walled-town (f. 110b) and there his son stayed 9 years after the accident. The slip did not affect the safety of the residence therefore; it may have been local to the birds’ house. It will have been due to some ordinary circumstance since no cause for it is mentioned by Bābur, Ḥaidar or Abū’l-faẓl. If it had marked the crisis of the Sīr’s approach, Akhsī could hardly have been described, 25 years later, as a strong fort.
Something is known of Akhsī, in the 10th, the 12th, the 15th and the 19th centuries, which testifies to sæcular decadence. Ibn Haukal and Yāqūt give the township an extent of 3 farsākh (12 miles), which may mean from one side to an opposite one. Yāqūt’s description of it mentions four gates, each opening into well-watered lands extending a whole farsākh, in other words it had a ring of garden-suburb four miles wide.
Two meanings have been given to Bābur’s words indicating the status of the oasis in the 15th century. They are, maḥallātī qūrghān-dīn bīr shar‘ī yurāqrāq tūshūb tūr. They have been understood as saying that the suburbs were two miles from their urbs. This may be right but I hesitate to accept it without pointing out that the words may mean, ‘Its suburbs extend two miles farther than the walled-town.’ Whichever verbal reading is correct, reveals a decayed oasis.
In the 19th century, Nalivkine and Ujfalvy describe the place then bearing the name Akhsī, as a small village, a mere winter-station, at some distance from the river’s bank, that bank then protected from denudation by a sand-bank.
Three distinctly-marked stages of decadence in the oasis township are thus indicated by Yāqūt, Bābur and the two modern travellers.
It is necessary to say something further about the position of the suburbs in the 15th century. Bābur quotes as especially suitable to Akhsī, the proverbial questions, ‘Where is the village?'2747 (qy. Akhsī-kīnt.) ‘Where are the trees?’ and these might be asked by some-one in the suburbs unable to see Akhsī or vice versâ. But granting that there were no suburbs within two miles of the town, why had the whole inner circle, two miles of Yāqūt’s four, gone out of cultivation? Erosion would have affected only land between the river and the town.
Again; – if the Sīr only were working in the 15th century to destroy a town standing on the Kāsān-water, how is it that this stream does not yet reach the Sīr?
Various ingatherings of information create the impression that failure of Kāsān-water has been the dominant factor in the loss of the Akhsī township. Such failure might be due to the general desiccation of Central Asia and also to increase of cultivation in the Kāsān-valley itself. There may have been erosion, and social and military change may have had its part, but for the loss of the oasis lands and for, as a sequel, the decay of the town, desiccation seems a sufficient cause.
The Kāsān-water still supports an oasis on its riverain slope, the large Aūzbeg town of Tūpa-qūrghān (Town-of-the-hill), from the modern castle of which a superb view is had up the Kāsān-valley, now thickly studded with villages.2748
