The Bābur-nāma

Two or three times while we lay in that camp, Qaṃbar-‘alī, in ill-temper, was for going to his district; once he even had got to horse and started in a fume, but we sent several begs after him who, with much trouble, got him to turn back.

(o. Further action against Taṃbal and an accommodation made.)

Meantime Sayyid Yūsuf of Macham had sent a man to Taṃbal and was looking towards him. He was the head-man of one of the two foot-hills of Andijān, Macham and Awīghūr. Latterly he had become known in my Gate, having outgrown the head-man and put on the beg, though no-one ever had made him a beg. He was a singularly hypocritical manikin, of no standing whatever. From our last taking of Andijān (June 1499) till then (Feb. 1500), he had revolted two or three times from Taṃbal and come to me, and two or three times had revolted from me and gone to Taṃbal. This was his last change of side. With him were many from the (Mughūl) horde and tribesmen and clansmen. ‘Don’t let him join Taṃbal,’ we said and rode in between them. We got to Bīshkhārān with one night’s halt. Taṃbal’s men must have come earlier and entered the fort. A party of our begs, ‘Alī-darwesh Beg and Qūch Beg, with his brothers, went close up to the Gate of Bīshkhārān and exchanged good blows with the enemy. Qūch Beg and his brothers did very well there, their hands getting in for most of the work. We dismounted on a height some two miles from Bīshkhārān; Taṃbal, having Jahāngīr with him, dismounted with the fort behind him.

Three or four days later, begs unfriendly to us, that is to say, ‘Alī-dost and Qaṃbar-‘alī, the Skinner, with their followers and dependants, began to interpose with talk of peace. I and my well-wishers had no knowledge of a peace and we all[497 - bīzlār. The double plural is rare with Bābur; he writes bīz, we, when action is taken in common; he rarely uses mīn, I, with autocratic force; his phrasing is largely impersonal, e. g. with rare exceptions, he writes the impersonal passive verb.] were utterly averse from the project. Those two manikins however were our two great begs; if we gave no ear to their words and if we did not make peace, other things from them were probable! It had to be! Peace was made in this fashion; – the districts on the Akhsī side of the Khujand-water were to depend on Jahāngīr, those on the Andijān side, on me; Aūzkīnt was to be left in my jurisdiction after they had removed their families from it; when the districts were settled and I and Jahāngīr had made our agreement, we (bīz) should march together against Samarkand; and when I was in possession of Samarkand, Andijān was to be given to Jahāngīr. So the affair was settled. Next day, – it was one of the last of Rajab, (end of Feb. 1500) Jahāngīr Mīrzā and Taṃbal came and did me obeisance; the terms and conditions were ratified as stated above; leave for Akhsī was given to Jahāngīr and I betook myself to Andijān.

On our arrival, Khalīl-of-Taṃbal and our whole band of prisoners were released; robes of honour were put on them and leave to go was given. They, in their turn, set free our begs and household, viz. the commanders[498 - bāshlīghlār. Teufel was of opinion that this word is not used as a noun in the B.N. In this he is mistaken; it is so used frequently, as here, in apposition. See ZDMG, xxxvii, art. Bābur und Abū‘l-faẓl.] (Sherīm?) T̤aghāī Beg, Muḥammad-dost, Mīr Shāh Qūchīn, Sayyidī Qarā Beg, Qāsim-i-‘ajab, Mīr Wais, Mīrīm Dīwān, and those under them.

(p. The self-aggrandizement of ‘Alī-dost T̤aghāī.)

After our return to Andijān, ‘Alī-dost’s manners and behaviour changed entirely. He began to live ill with my companions of the guerilla days and times of hardship. First, he dismissed Khalīfa; next seized and plundered Ibrāhīm Sārū and Wais Lāgharī, and for no fault or cause deprived them of their districts and dismissed them. He entangled himself with Qāsim Beg and he was made to go; he openly declared, ‘Khalīfa and Ibrāhīm are in sympathy about Khwāja-i-qāẓī; they will avenge him on me.’[499 - Cf. f. 54 foot.] His son, Muḥammad-dost set himself up on a regal footing, starting receptions and a public table and a Court and workshops, after the fashion of sult̤āns. Like father, like son, they set themselves up in this improper way because they had Taṃbal at their backs. No authority to restrain their unreasonable misdeeds was left to me; for why? Whatever their hearts desired, that they did because such a foe of mine as Taṃbal was their backer. The position was singularly delicate; not a word was said but many humiliations were endured from that father and that son alike.

(q. Bābur’s first marriage.)

‘Āyisha-sult̤ān Begīm whom my father and hers, i. e. my uncle, Sl. Aḥmad Mīrzā had betrothed to me, came (this year) to Khujand[500 - Cf. f. 20. She may have come from Samarkand and ‘Alī’s household or from Kesh and the Tarkhān households.] and I took her in the month of Sha‘bān. Though I was not ill-disposed towards her, yet, this being my first marriage, out of modesty and bashfulness, I used to see her once in 10, 15 or 20 days. Later on when even my first inclination did not last, my bashfulness increased. Then my mother Khānīm used to send me, once a month or every 40 days, with driving and driving, dunnings and worryings.

(r. A personal episode and some verses by Bābur.)

In those leisurely days I discovered in myself a strange inclination, nay! as the verse says, ‘I maddened and afflicted myself’ for a boy in the camp-bazar, his very name, Bāburī, fitting in. Up till then I had had no inclination for any-one, indeed of love and desire, either by hear-say or experience, I had not heard, I had not talked. At that time I composed Persian couplets, one or two at a time; this is one of the them: —

May none be as I, humbled and wretched and love-sick;
No beloved as thou art to me, cruel and careless.

From time to time Bāburī used to come to my presence but out of modesty and bashfulness, I could never look straight at him; how then could I make conversation (ikhtilāt̤) and recital (hikāyat)? In my joy and agitation I could not thank him (for coming); how was it possible for me to reproach him with going away? What power had I to command the duty of service to myself?[501 - Cf. f. 26 l. 2 for the same phrase.] One day, during that time of desire and passion when I was going with companions along a lane and suddenly met him face to face, I got into such a state of confusion that I almost went right off. To look straight at him or to put words together was impossible. With a hundred torments and shames, I went on. A (Persian) couplet of Muḥammad Ṣāliḥ’s[502 - He is the author of the Shaibānī-nāma.] came into my mind: —

I am abashed with shame when I see my friend;
My companions look at me, I look the other way.

That couplet suited the case wonderfully well. In that frothing-up of desire and passion, and under that stress of youthful folly, I used to wander, bare-head, bare-foot, through street and lane, orchard and vineyard. I shewed civility neither to friend nor stranger, took no care for myself or others.

Sometimes like the madmen, I used to wander alone over hill and plain; sometimes I betook myself to gardens and the suburbs, lane by lane. My wandering was not of my choice, not I decided whether to go or stay.

(s. Sl. ‘Alī Mīrzā’s quarrels with the Tarkhāns.)

In this same year, Sl. ‘Alī Mīrzā fell out with Muḥammad Mazīd Tarkhān for the following reasons; – The Tarkhāns had risen to over-much predominance and honour; Bāqī had taken the whole revenue of the Bukhārā Government and gave not a half-penny (dāng)[503 - dāng and fils (infra) are small copper coins.] to any-one else; Muḥammad Mazīd, for his part, had control in Samarkand and took all its districts for his sons and dependants; a small sum only excepted, fixed by them, not a farthing (fils) from the town reached the Mīrzā by any channel. Sl. ‘Alī Mīrzā was a grown man; how was he to tolerate such conduct as theirs? He and some of his household formed a design against Muḥ. Mazīd Tarkhān; the latter came to know of it and left the town with all his following and with whatever begs and other persons were in sympathy with him,[504 - Cf. f. 25 l. 1 and note 1.] such as Sl. Ḥusain Arghūn, Pīr Aḥmad, Aūzūn Ḥasan’s younger brother, Khwāja Ḥusain, Qarā Barlās, Ṣāliḥ Muḥammad[505 - Probably the poet again; he had left Harāt and was in Samarkand (Sh. N. Vambéry, p. 34 l. 14).] and some other begs and braves.

At the time The Khān had joined to Khān Mīrzā a number of Mughūl begs with Muḥ. Ḥusain Dūghlāt and Aḥmad Beg, and had appointed them to act against Samarkand.[506 - From what follows, this Mughūl advance seems a sequel to a Tarkhān invitation.] Khān Mīrzā’s guardians were Ḥāfiẓ Beg Dūldāī and his son, T̤āhir Beg; because of relationship to them, (Muḥ. Sīghal’s) grandson, Ḥasan and Hindū Beg fled with several braves from Sl. ‘Alī Mīrzā’s presence to Khān Mīrzā’s.

Muḥammad Mazīd Tarkhān invited Khān Mīrzā and the Mughūl army, moved to near Shavdār, there saw the Mīrzā and met the begs of the Mughūls. No small useful friendlinesses however, came out of the meeting between his begs and the Mughūls; the latter indeed seem to have thought of making him a prisoner. Of this he and his begs coming to know, separated themselves from the Mughūl army. As without him the Mughūls could make no stand, they retired. Here-upon, Sl. ‘Alī Mīrzā hurried light out of Samarkand with a few men and caught them up where they had dismounted in Yār-yīlāq. They could not even fight but were routed and put to flight. This deed, done in his last days, was Sl. ‘Alī Mīrzā’s one good little affair.

Muḥ. Mazīd Tarkhān and his people, despairing both of the Mughūls and of these Mīrzās, sent Mīr Mughūl, son of ‘Abdu’l-wahhāb Shaghāwal[507 - By omitting the word Mīr the Turkī text has caused confusion between this father and son (Index s. nn.).] to invite me (to Samarkand). Mīr Mughūl had already been in my service; he had risked his life in good accord with Khwāja-i-qāẓī during the siege of Andijān (903 AH. -1498 AD.).

This business hurt us also[508 - bīz khūd kharāb bū mu‘āmla aīdūk. These words have been understood earlier, as referring to the abnormal state of Bābur’s mind described under Sec. r. They better suit the affairs of Samarkand because Bābur is able to resolve on action and also because he here writes bīz, we, and not mīn, I, as in Sec. r.] and, as it was for that purpose we had made peace (with Jahāngīr), we resolved to move on Samarkand. We sent Mīr Mughūl off at once to give rendezvous[509 - For būlghār, rendezvous, see also f. 78 l. 2 fr. ft.] to Jahāngīr Mīrzā and prepared to get to horse. We rode out in the month of Ẕū’l-qa‘da (June) and with two halts on the way, came to Qabā and there dismounted.[510 - 25 m. only; the halts were due probably to belated arrivals.] At the mid-afternoon Prayer of that day, news came that Taṃbal’s brother, Khalīl had taken Aūsh by surprise.

The particulars are as follows; – As has been mentioned, Khalīl and those under him were set free when peace was made. Taṃbal then sent Khalīl to fetch away their wives and families from Aūzkīnt. He had gone and he went into the fort on this pretext. He kept saying untruthfully, ‘We will go out today,’ or ‘We will go out tomorrow,’ but he did not go. When we got to horse, he seized the chance of the emptiness of Aūsh to go by night and surprise it. For several reasons it was of no advantage for us to stay and entangle ourselves with him; we went straight on therefore. One reason was that as, for the purpose of making ready military equipment, all my men of name had scattered, heads of houses to their homes, we had no news of them because we had relied on the peace and were by this off our guard against the treachery and falsity of the other party. Another reason was that for some time, as has been said, the misconduct of our great begs, ‘Alī-dost and Qaṃbar-‘alī had been such that no confidence in them was left. A further reason was that the Samarkand begs, under Muḥ. Mazīd Tarkhān had sent Mīr Mughūl to invite us and, so long as a capital such as Samarkand stood there, what would incline a man to waste his days for a place like Andijān?

From Qabā we moved on to Marghīnān (20 m.). Marghīnān had been given to Qūch Beg’s father, Sl. Aḥmad Qarāwal, and he was then in it. As he, owing to various ties and attachments, could not attach himself to me,[511 - Some of his ties would be those of old acquaintance in Ḥiṣār with ‘Alī’s father’s begs, now with him in Samarkand.] he stayed behind while his son, Qūch Beg and one or two of his brethren, older and younger, went with me.

Taking the road for Asfara, we dismounted in one of its villages, called Mahan. That night there came and joined us in Mahan, by splendid chance, just as if to a rendezvous, Qāsim Beg Qūchīn with his company, ‘Alī-dost with his, and Sayyid Qāsim with a large body of braves. We rode from Mahan by the Khasbān (var. Yasān) plain, crossed the Chūpān (Shepherd) – bridge and so to Aūrā-tīpā.[512 - Point to point, some 90 m. but further by road.]

(t. Qaṃbar-‘alī punishes himself.)

Trusting to Taṃbal, Qaṃbar-‘alī went from his own district (Khujand) to Akhsī in order to discuss army-matters with him. Such an event happening,[513 - Bū waqi‘ būlghāch, manifestly ironical.] Taṃbal laid hands on Qaṃbar-‘alī, marched against his district and carried him along. Here the (Turkī) proverb fits, ‘Distrust your friend! he’ll stuff your hide with straw.’ While Qaṃbar-‘alī was being made to go to Khujand, he escaped on foot and after a hundred difficulties reached Aūrā-tīpā.

News came to us there that Shaibānī Khān had beaten Bāqī Tarkhān in Dabūsī and was moving on Bukhārā. We went on from Aūrā-tīpā, by way of Burka-yīlāq, to Sangzār[514 - Sangzār to Aūrā-tīpā, by way of the hills, some 50 miles.] which the sub-governor surrendered. There we placed Qaṃbar-‘alī, as, after effecting his own capture and betrayal, he had come to us. We then passed on.

(u. Affairs of Samarkand and the end of ‘Alī-dost.)

On our arrival in Khān-yūrtī, the Samarkand begs under Muḥ. Mazīd Tarkhān came and did me obeisance. Conference was held with them as to details for taking the town; they said, ‘Khwāja Yaḥya also is wishing for the pādshāh;[515 - The Sh. N. Vambéry, p. 60, confirms this.] with his consent the town may be had easily without fighting or disturbance.’ The Khwāja did not say decidedly to our messengers that he had resolved to admit us to the town but at the same time, he said nothing likely to lead us to despair.

Leaving Khān-yūrtī, we moved to the bank of the Dar-i-gham (canal) and from there sent our librarian, Khwāja Muḥammad ‘Alī to Khwāja Yaḥya. He brought word back, ‘Let them come; we will give them the town.’ Accordingly we rode from the Dar-i-gham straight for the town, at night-fall, but our plan came to nothing because Sl. Muḥammad Dūldāī’s father, Sl. Maḥmūd had fled from our camp and given such information to (Sl. ‘Alī’s party) as put them on their guard. Back we went to the Dar-i-gham bank.

While I had been in Yār-yīlāq, one of my favoured begs, Ibrāhīm Sārū who had been plundered and driven off by ‘Alī-dost,[516 - Cf. f. 74b.] came and did me obeisance, together with Muḥ. Yūsuf, the elder son of Sayyid Yūsuf (Aūghlāqchī). Coming in by ones and twos, old family servants and begs and some of the household gathered back to me there. All were enemies of ‘Alī-dost; some he had driven away; others he had plundered; others again he had imprisoned. He became afraid. For why? Because with Taṃbal’s backing, he had harassed and persecuted me and my well-wishers. As for me, my very nature sorted ill with the manikin’s! From shame and fear, he could stay no longer with us; he asked leave; I took it as a personal favour; I gave it. On this leave, he and his son, Muḥammad-dost went to Taṃbal’s presence. They became his intimates, and from father and son alike, much evil and sedition issued. ‘Alī-dost died a few years later from ulceration of the hand. Muḥammad-dost went amongst the Aūzbegs; that was not altogether bad but, after some treachery to his salt, he fled from them and went into the Andijān foot-hills.[517 - Macham and Awīghūr, presumably.] There he stirred up much revolt and trouble. In the end he fell into the hands of Aūzbeg people and they blinded him. The meaning of ‘The salt took his eyes,’ is clear in his case.[518 - gūzlār tūz tūtī, i. e. he was blinded for some treachery to his hosts.]

After giving this pair their leave, we sent Ghūrī Barlās toward Bukhārā for news. He brought word that Shaibānī Khān had taken Bukhārā and was on his way to Samarkand. Here-upon, seeing no advantage in staying in that neighbourhood, we set out for Kesh where, moreover, were the families of most of the Samarkand begs.

When we had been a few weeks there, news came that Sl. ‘Alī Mīrzā had given Samarkand to Shaibānī Khān. The particulars are these; – The Mīrzā’s mother, Zuhra Begī Āghā

(Aūzbeg), in her ignorance and folly, had secretly written to Shaibānī Khān that if he would take her (to wife) her son should give him Samarkand and that when Shaibānī had taken (her son’s) father’s country, he should give her son a country.[519 - Muḥ. Ṣāliḥ’s well-informed account of this episode has much interest, filling out and, as by Shaibānī’s Boswell, balancing Bābur’s. Bābur is obscure about what country was to be given to ‘Alī. Pāyanda-ḥasan paraphrases his brief words; – Shaibānī was to be as a father to ‘Alī and when he had taken ‘Alī’s father’s wilāyāt, he was to give a country to ‘Alī. It has been thought that the gift to ‘Alī was to follow Shaibānī’s recovery of his own ancestral camping-ground (yūrt) but this is negatived, I think, by the word, wilāyāt, cultivated land.] Sayyid Yūsuf Arghūn must have known of this plan, indeed will have been the traitor inventing it.

906 AH. – JULY 28th. 1500 to JULY 17th. 1501 AD.[520 - Elp. MS. f. 57b; W. – i-B. I.O. 215 f. 63b and I.O. 217 f. 52; Mems. p. 82.Two contemporary works here supplement the B.N.; (1) the (Tawārikh-i-guzīda) Naṣrat-nāma, dated 908 AH. (B.M. Turkī Or. 3222) of which Berezin’s Shaibāni-nāma is an abridgment; (2) Muḥ. Ṣāliḥ Mīrzā’s Shaibānī-nāma (Vambéry trs. cap. xix et seq.). The Ḥ.S. (Bomb. ed. p. 302, and Tehran ed. p. 384) is also useful.]

(a. Samarkand in the hands of the Aūzbegs.)

When, acting on that woman’s promise, Shaibānī Khān went to Samarkand, he dismounted in the Garden of the Plain. About mid-day Sl. ‘Alī Mīrzā went out to him through the Four-roads Gate, without a word to any of his begs or unmailed braves, without taking counsel with any-one soever and accompanied only by a few men of little consideration from his own close circle. The Khān, for his part, did not receive him very favourably; when they had seen one another, he seated him on his less honourable hand.[521 - i. e. on his right. The Ḥ.S. ii, 302 represents that ‘Alī was well-received. After Shaibāq had had Zuhra’s overtures, he sent an envoy to ‘Alī and Yaḥya; the first was not won over but the second fell in with his mother’s scheme. This difference of view explains why ‘Alī slipped away while Yaḥya was engaged in the Friday Mosque. It seems likely that mother and son alike expected their Aūzbeg blood to stand them in good stead with Shaibāq.] Khwāja Yaḥya, on hearing of the Mīrzā’s departure, became very anxious but as he could find no remedy,[522 - He tried vainly to get the town defended. “Would to God Bābur Mīrzā were here!” he is reported as saying, by Muḥ. Ṣāliḥ.] went out also. The Khān looked at him without rising and said a few words in which blame had part, but when the Khwāja rose to leave, showed him the respect of rising.

As soon as Khwāja ‘Alī[523 - Perhaps it is for the play of words on ‘Alī and ‘Alī’s life (jān) that this man makes his sole appearance here.] Bāy’s[524 - i. e. rich man or merchant, but Bī (infra) is an equivalent of Beg.] son, Jān-‘alī heard in Rabāt̤-i-khwāja of the Mīrzā’s going to Shaibānī Khān, he also went. As for that calamitous woman who, in her folly, gave her son’s house and possessions to the winds in order to get herself a husband, Shaibānī Khān cared not one atom for her, indeed did not regard her as the equal of a mistress or a concubine.[525 - Muḥ. Ṣāliḥ, invoking curses on such a mother, mentions that Zuhra was given to a person of her own sort.]

Confounded by his own act, Sl. ‘Alī Mīrzā’s repentance was extreme. Some of his close circle, after hearing particulars, planned for him to escape with them but to this he would not agree; his hour had come; he was not to be freed. He had dismounted in Tīmūr Sult̤ān’s quarters; three or four days later they killed him in Plough-meadow.[526 - The Sh. N. and Naṣrat-nāma attempt to lift the blame of ‘Alī’s death from Shaibāq; the second saying that he fell into the Kohik-water when drunk.] For a matter of this five-days’ mortal life, he died with a bad name; having entered into a woman’s affairs, he withdrew himself from the circle of men of good repute. Of such people’s doings no more should be written; of acts so shameful, no more should be heard.

The Mīrzā having been killed, Shaibānī Khān sent Jān-‘alī after his Mīrzā. He had apprehensions also about Khwāja Yaḥya and therefore dismissed him, with his two sons, Khwāja Muḥ. Zakarīya and Khwāja Bāqī, towards Khurāsān.[527 - Harāt might be his destination but the Ḥ.S. names Makka. Some dismissals towards Khurāsān may imply pilgrimage to Meshhed.] A few Aūzbegs followed them and near Khwāja Kārdzan martyred both the Khwāja and his two young sons. Though Shaibānī’s words were, ‘Not through me the Khwāja’s affair! Qaṃbar Bī and Kūpuk Bī did it,’ this is worse than that! There is a proverb,[528 - Used also by Bābur’s daughter, Gul-badan (l.c. f. 31).] ‘His excuse is worse than his fault,’ for if begs, out of their own heads, start such deeds, unknown to their Khāns or Pādshāhs, what becomes of the authority of khānship and and sovereignty?

(b. Bābur leaves Kesh and crosses the Mūra pass.)

Since the Aūzbegs were in possession of Samarkand, we left Kesh and went in the direction of Ḥiṣār. With us started off Muḥ. Mazīd Tārkhān and the Samarkand begs under his command, together with their wives and families and people, but when we dismounted in the Chultū meadow of Chaghānīān, they parted from us, went to Khusrau Shāh and became his retainers.

Cut off from our own abiding-town and country,[529 - Cut off by alien lands and weary travel.] not knowing where (else) to go or where to stay, we were obliged to traverse the very heart of Khusrau Shāh’s districts, spite of what measure of misery he had inflicted on the men of our dynasty!

One of our plans had been to go to my younger Khān dādā, i. e. Alacha Khān, by way of Qarā-tīgīn and the Alāī,[530 - The Pers. annotator of the Elph. Codex has changed Alāī to wīlāyat, and dābān (pass) to yān, side. For the difficult route see Schuyler, i, 275, Kostenko, i, 129 and Rickmers, JRGS. 1907, art. Fan Valley.] but this was not managed. Next we were for going up the valley of the Kām torrent and over the Sara-tāq pass (dābān). When we were near Nūnḍāk, a servant of Khusrau Shāh brought me one set of nine horses[531 - Amongst Turks and Mughūls, gifts were made by nines.] and one of nine pieces of cloth. When we dismounted at the mouth of the Kām valley, Sher-‘alī. the page, deserted to Khusrau Shāh’s brother, Walī and, next day, Qūch Beg parted from us and went to Ḥiṣār.[532 - Ḥiṣār was his earlier home.]

We entered the valley and made our way up it. On its steep and narrow roads and at its sharp and precipitous saddles[533 - Many of these will have been climbed in order to get over places impassable at the river’s level.] many horses and camels were left. Before we reached the Sara-tāq pass we had (in 25 m.) to make three or four night-halts. A pass! and what a pass! Never was such a steep and narrow pass seen; never were traversed such ravines and precipices. Those dangerous narrows and sudden falls, those perilous heights and knife-edge saddles, we got through with much difficulty and suffering, with countless hardships and miseries. Amongst the Fān mountains is a large lake (Iskandar); it is 2 miles in circumference, a beautiful lake and not devoid of marvels.[534 - Schuyler quotes a legend of the lake. He and Kostenko make it larger.]

News came that Ibrāhīm Tarkhān had strengthened Fort Shīrāz and was seated in it; also that Qaṃbar-‘alī (the Skinner) and Abū’l-qāsim Kohbur, the latter not being able to stay in Khwāja Dīdār with the Aūzbegs in Samarkand, – had both come into Yār-yīlāq, strengthened its lower forts and occupied them.

Leaving Fān on our right, we moved on for Keshtūd. The head-man of Fān had a reputation for hospitality, generosity, serviceableness and kindness. He had given tribute of 70 or 80 horses to Sl. Mas‘ūd Mīrzā at the time the Mīrzā, when Sl. Ḥusain Mīrzā made attack on Ḥiṣār, went through Fān on his way to his younger brother, Bāī-sunghar Mīrzā in Samarkand. He did like service to others. To me he sent one second-rate horse; moreover he did not wait on me himself. So it was! Those renowned for liberality became misers when they had to do with me, and the politeness of the polite was forgotten. Khusrau Shāh was celebrated for liberality and kindness; what service he did Badī‘u’z-zamān Mīrzā has been mentioned; to Bāqī Tarkhān and other begs he shewed great generosity also. Twice I happened to pass through his country;[535 - The second occasion was when he crossed from Sūkh for Kābul in 910 AH. (fol. 120).] not to speak of courtesy shewn to my peers, what he shewed to my lowest servants he did not shew to me, indeed he shewed less regard for us than for them.

Under the impression that the Aūzbegs were in Keshtūd, we made an excursion to it, after passing Fān. Of itself it seemed to have gone to ruin; no-one seemed to be occupying it. We went on to the bank of the Kohik-water (Zar-afshān) and there dismounted. From that place we sent a few begs under Qāsim Qūchīn to surprise Rabāt̤-i-khwāja; that done, we crossed the river by a bridge from opposite Yārī, went through Yārī and over the Shunqār-khāna (Falcons’-home) range into Yār-yīlāq. Our begs went to Rabāt̤-i-khwāja and had set up ladders when the men within came to know about them and forced them to retire. As they could not take the fort, they rejoined us.