|
xxxvi
|
PREFACE
|
||
|
|
|||
|
detractory comment has followed on Babur, ranking him below the accomplished and lettered, steadfast and honestman he was. I select two examples of this comment neither of which has a casual origin.
The first is from the B.M. Cat. of Coins of the Shahs of Persia p. xxiv, where after identifying a certain gold coin as shewing vassalage by Babur to Isma'il Safawi, the compiler'of the Catalogue notes, " We can now understand the omission from Babar's 'Memoirs' of the occurrences between 914 H. and 925 H." Can these words imply other than that Babur suppressed mention of minting of the coins shewing acknowledgment of Shi'a suzerainty ? Leaving aside the delicate topic of the detraction the quoted words imply, much negatives the surmise that the gap is a deliberate " omission " of text: (1) the duration of the Shi'a alliance was 19-20 months of 917-918 AH. (p. 355), why omit the peaceful or prideful and victorious record of some 9-10 years on its either verge ? (2) Babur's Transoxus campaign was an episode in the struggle between Shaibaq Khan (Shaibani) Auzbeg and Shah Isma'il between Sunni and Shi'a ; how could " omission " from his book, always a rare one, hide what multitudes knew already ? " Omission " would have proved a fiasco in another region than Central Asia, because the Babur-Haidar story of the campaign, vassal-coinage included," has been brought into English literature by the English translation of the Tarikh-i rashidi. Babur's frank and self-judging habit of mind would, I think, lead him to write fully of the difficulties which compelled the hated alliance and certainly he would tell of his own anger at the conduct of the campaign by Isma'il's Commanders. The alliance was a tactical mistake ; it would have served Babur better to narrate its failure.
The second misinterpretation, perhaps a mere surmising gloss, is Erskine's {Memoirs Supp. p. 289) who,, in connection with 'Alam Khan's request to Babur for reinforcement in order to oust his nephew Ibrahim, observes that " Babur probably flattered 'Alam Khan with the hope of succession to the empire of Hindustan." This idea does not fit the reeord of either man. Elphinstone was angered by Erskine's remark which, he wrote (Aug. 26th 1826) "had a bad
App. H, xxx.
|
|||
|
|
|||