Here Baqi is called ‘Baqi of Tashkind’ and one finds Chin-timur Sultan, leading the army and Baqi his subordinate.
(5) One more mention of Baqi Shaghawal is found in 934 A.H.
Following the Sultan there crossed over Bi-khub (var. Ni-khub) SI. and Tardi Beg (the brother) of Quj Beg, and Baba Chuhra (the Brave), and Baqi Shaghawal. Those who had crossed first and gone on, pursued Shaikh Bãyazìd till the Evening Prayer, but he flung himself into the jungle and escaped. Chin-timur dismounted late on the bank of standing-water, rode on at midnight after the rebel, went as much as 40 kurohs (80 m.), and came to where Shaikh Bãyazid’s family and relations (nisba?) had been; they however must have fled. He sent gallopers off in all directions from that place; Baqi Shaghawal and a few braves drove the enemy like sheep before them, overtook the family and brought in some Afghan prisoners.” (p. 602)
Here Baqi is again called Baqi Shaghawal
(6) In 935 A.H. Baqi is mentioned without any epithet at many places
(i) “(May 27th, 1529 A.D.) On Friday (19th) I rode out to visit Sikandarpur and Kharid. Today came matters written by ‘Abdu’i-lah (kitabdar) and Baqi about the taking of Luknur. (p. 679)
Here Baqi appears to lead the expedition but Lucknow under his command is lost to Bāyzid and Biban.
(ii) “(May 28th) On Saturday (20th) Kuki was sent ahead, with a troop, to join Baqi.” (p. 679)
(iii) “(May 29th) That nothing failing to be done before my arrival might be neglected, leave to join Baqi was given on Sunday(21st) to Sl. Junaid Barlas, Khalifa’s (son) Hassan, Mulla Apaq’s retainers, and the elder and younger brethren of Mumin Ataka.” (p. 679)
(iv) “(May 31st, 1529) On the way up, Khalifa brought Shah Muhammad diwana’s son who had come from Baqi bringing this reliable news about Luknur. (p. 681)
Here Babur appears peeved about the loss of Lucknow and uses the name Baqi only without any epithet.
(7) On 13th June, 1529 Baqi Tashkindi calls on Babur
“(June 13th) After crossing, we waited one day (Monday 7th) for all the army-folk to get across. Today Baqi Tashkindi came in with the army of Aud (Ajodhya) and waited on me.” (p. 684)
Beveridge has arbitrarily equated Aud with Ayodhyā. It was an army of Oudh engaged in expedition against Bāyazīd and Biban.
(8) On 16th June, 1529 he figures as Baqi Shaghawal again
(i) “(June 16th, 1529) “Not getting reliable news about the enemy, we sent Baqi Shaghawal with a few braves to the interior to get information about him.” (p. 685)
Here Baqi has been asked to perform a duty unbecoming of a governor or a superior army commander.
(ii) On 17th June, 1529 Baqi is mentioned as Baqi Beg:
“(June 17th) Next day (Friday 11th) at the Other Prayer, one of Baqi Beg’s retainers came in. Baqi had beaten scouts of Bìban and Bãyazìd, killed one of their good men, Mubarak Khan Salwdni, and some others, sent in several heads, and one man alive.” (p. 685)
(9) On 20th June, 1529 Baqi Shaghawal was given marching order (Rukhsat)
(June 20th) On Monday (14th) Jalal Tashkindi came from the begs and sultans of the advance. Shaikh Bãyazìd and Biban, on hearing of their expedition, had fled to the pargana of Mahuba.
As the Rains had set in and as after 5 or 6 months of active service, horses and cattle in the army were worn out, the sultans and begs of the expedition were ordered to remain where they were till they received fresh supplies from Agra and those parts. At the Other Prayer of the same day, leave was given to Baqi and the army of Aud (Ajodhya).(p. 685)
Here there are two lapses on the part of Beveridge in translating the text. First, she has omitted Shaghawal in Baqi’s name. Secondly, Baqi had been granted leave ‘for going home’, but she has omitted this part in the English translation, although in the index on page 742 she has written ‘leave given him for home’. (p. 685)
In comparison to Beveridge's translation, Thackston’s translation is very vivid:
“Since the monsoon was near and the soldiers, horses and pack animals were exhausted after a five-or-six-month expedition, the sultans and begs were ordered to halt in the place they had reached until a fresh raiding party could come from Agra and those parts. That afternoon Baqi Shigavul and the Oudh army were dismissed.”
Babur’s general order was that the sultans and begs were to halt in the place they had reached until fresh raiding party could replace them. Nevertheless, Baqi was given a marching order. It is not difficult to read between the lines.
(10) Discrepency in Beveridge’s translation
The general impression from Beveridge’s translation of the content on 13th June is that Baqi had come from Ayodhyā. But it is erroneous. He had been commanding expedition against Bāyazīd and Biban near Lucknow and had been reinforced with several troops along with many army commanders. So, he must have come to report with the troops at his command. Since Beveridge’s mind is obsessed with the forged inscriptions which she translated into English; she has made Ayodhyā’s association with Baqi. Otherwise, from the perusal of Babur-nama it is quite clear that Baqi had never landed at Ayodhyā. In Erskine’s translation it is merely said that Baqi Tashkandi arrived with his troops and Aud (Ayodhyā) is not mentioned. Erskine’s translation is as follows:
“That same day Baki Tashkandi arrived with his troops, and was introduced.”
Beveridge’s translation of the event on June 20 has caused immense damage to mediaeval Indian history and every scholar and student has been taken for a ride by this patently wrong translation. Beveridge translated from Turkish language and Erskine translated from the Persian rendering, faithfully done by Abdur Rahim Khan i Khana. Erskine has translated the event of 20th June in the following manner:
“I gave Baqi Sheghawel and his party leave to go home.”
Erskine’s translation appears more plausible because Beveridge herself writes on page 742 in Index I Personal: “leave given him (Baqi) for home 685.” i.e. Baqi was granted leave for going home. Beveridge remembers it in the Index that Baqi was granted leave for going home but forgets it in the main content.
In “The Babur-nama, Memoirs of Babur, Prince and Emperor”, translated, edited and annotated by Wheeler M. Thackston and published by Oxford University Press, New York, Thackston has translated the two passages in the following words:
“Baqi Taskkandi came with the Oudh army that day (i.e. 13th June, 1529 A.D.) to pay homage.”
and
“That afternoon (i.e. 20th June, 1529 A.D.) Baqi Shiqavul and the Oudh army were dismissed.”
In fact, here the Aud or Oudh army denotes the army of the Oudh area which was at the command of Baqi to chase and annihilate Bāyazīd and Biban and it was not the army stationed at Ayodhyā. From Beveridge’s translation an erroneous impression was made that since Baqi came with the Ayodhyā army, he was the Governor at Ayodhyā. Similarly, the translation ‘leave was granted to Baqi and Ayodhyā army’ gave an impression that they were allowed to go back to Ayodhyā. But the fact of the matter is that they were either granted leave to go back to their respective homes for ever or were dismissed from service because of their utter failure against Bāyazīd. Baqi is never heard of again after 20th June, 1529.
(11) Career of Baqi Shaghawal
In nutshell, this is the career of Baqi Shaghawal who hailed from Tashkind. He was merely a Beg, i.e. a petty army commander who first worked under Chin Timur Sultan. However, when Babur gave him an independent assignment against Bâyazîd and Biban, Baqi lost the crucial battle of Lucknow. Therefore, Babur got angry at his dismal performance and dismissed him. Baqi Shaghawal had no occasion to visit Ayodhyâ but so far, we have been taught that he was a noble soul, another Asaf and builder of the so-called Baburi mosque-all historical hoaxes.
However, one fact is clear that Baqi who was associated with Oudh was Baqi Shaghawal Tashkindi because on 13th June, 1529 the Baqi who went to meet Babur along with the army of Oudh and waited upon him was Baqi Tashk
indi. He along with the army of Oudh was given leave on 20th June, 1529. How will the builder of the mosque not write his correct name in the inscription which was fixed at the time of its construction or inauguration? Since the inscription was a fake, and forgers were not aware of the correct name of Babur’s commander, they wrote Mir Baqi instead of Baqi Tashkindi.
Thus, readers will be surprisingly shocked to learn that Mir Baqi is not mentioned in the Baburnama at all and Baqi who is frequently mentioned in Baburnama is either Baqi Shaghawal or Baqi Tashkindi or Baqi mingbashi (head of a thousand) or Baqi Beg. It appears that his full name was Baqi Shaghawal and since he was from Tashkind he was called Baqi Tashkindi. At one place Babur has made it clear that Baqi was only a ming-bashi, i.e. head of a thousand troops. Baqi was a Beg. Begs used to be petty Turkish tribal or military heads. Before the battle of Panipat against Ibrahim Lodi Babur bestowed Debalpur on Baqi Shaghawal and sent him to reinforce Balkh. Debalpur lies between the Ravi and Beas, about 40 miles south-west of Lahore. When Baqi Shaghawal was sent to Balkh, he had been promised a reward of a ser of gold for ‘the head of each of the ill-conditioned old couples’. In that connection Baqi Shaghawal is mentioned second time in the Babur-nama in the beginning of February, 1527 A.D.
Thereafter, on 12th January, 1528 A.D. Baqi Ming-bashi (Ming-Begi, according to Erskine) is seen to have joined along with other Begs the expedition under the leadership of Chin Timur Sultan who moved with six or seven thousand troops against Chanderi. Since Baqi is frequently seen to chase Bāyazīd and Biban under the command of Chin Timur Sultan, it is necessary to know Sultan’s relations with Babur. During Babur’s time Uzbek Princes used to bear the title Sultan after their names. Therefore, this Chin Timur Sultan was an Uzbek Prince and distantly related to Babur from maternal side. In Babur-nama Babur has acknowledged his relation with Sultan at many places. Chin Timur Sultan was the son of Sultan Ahmad Khan. Babur writes:
“Up to this very date none of that clan who has come to me has been treated with anything but what is due a kinsman-witness Chin Timur Sultan, Esan Timur Sultan, Tokhta-Sultan and Baba Sultan, who are with me at this date. I have treated them all better and shown them more favour than my own flesh and blood.” (f. 201; Erskin’s translation)
While recollecting the battle against Rana Sanga Babur affectionately mentions Chin Timur Sultan in these words:
“Our brave and elevated brother Chin Timur Sultan, according to orders, carried a gallant reinforcement, joined in the combat, and having driven back the heathen, pushed on nearly to their centre. And a noble gift has been given to that our exalted brother.” (f. 321b; Erskin’s translation)
In the Chanderi expedition Baqi, who was just a Beg, was sent along with other Begs, like Tardi Beg, under the command of Chin Timur Sultan. Similarly, on March 15, 1528 A.D. Chin Timur Sultan was asked to lead his army in the pursuit of Bāyazīd and Biban. Baqi Tashkindi, who figures seventh in the list of 8 petty commanders, was directed to accompany and assist the Sultan, and implement his orders in the most obedient way. This shows the servile and subordinate status of Baqi who could not be the Governor of Ayodhyā.
Babur further informs that Baqi Shaghawal ably assisted Sultan in the pursuit of Bāyazīd and Biban. In close sequence Baqi’s name figures as Baqi Tashkindi and Baqi Shaghawal for the same mission and confirms that they are the same person.
On 27th May, 1529 when Babur rode round Kharid and Sekandarpur, he received letters from Abdullah and Baqi, which stated the taking over of ‘Lucknow by the enemy’. This Abdullah was Mulla Abdullah Kitabdar, who was very close to Babur. He had fought in the Panipat battle. He was at Khanwa also. He had been sent to take possession of Agra and was in-charge of Sambhal, too. So he had the precedence over Baqi. On 28th May, 1529 Kuki was sent ahead with a troop to join Baqi. On 29th May, 1529, some other commanders were sent to join and hold on till his arrival. Thus, Baqi had been made in-charge of the expedition against Bāyazīd and Biban at Lucknow. Baqi sent a report narrating the details of the assault of the enemy on Lucknow. Babur further writes:
“They (i.e. Bìban and Bãyazìd) hurled their assault on Saturday the 13th of the month Ramzan (May 21st) but could do nothing by fighting; while the fighting was going on, a collection of wood-chips, hay and thorns in the fort took fire, so that inside the walls it became as hot as an oven (tanurdik tafsan); the garrison could not move round the rampart; the fort was lost.” (p. 681)
Thus, the Mughal fort at Lucknow under the control of Baqi was lost to Bāyazīd and Biban. When they learnt 2 or 3 days later that Babur was moving to chase them, they fled towards Dalmau.
Despite sending many reinforcements to Baqi, his team could not catch hold of Bāyazīd and Biban who were moving freely. Even the Sultans and Begs, who had been dispatched, had miserably failed.
It appears from ‘Tarikh-i-Shershahi’ written by Abbas Khan Sarwani in 1579-86 at the instance of Akbar that Bāyazīd ‘on several occasions had fought with the force of Firdaus Makani (Babar Badshah) and Jannat Āsyani (Humayun Badshah) and came out victorious.” (translated by B.P. Ambashthya, Patna, 1974, p. 252. It is a part of Elliot and Dowson’s monumental work ‘History of India as told by its own Historians’, Vol. IV, p. 354). Since Sarwani wrote this history book at the command of Akbar, the writer could not have dared to write a patently wrong account. Thus, Bāyazīd had defeated Babur’s troops at some stage. This may be the cause of Babur’s anger. What was the reason that the emperor Babur who could defeat Ibrahim Lodi and Rana Sanga could not catch hold of Bāyazīd or Biban during his various expeditions, although he made vigorous and continuous campaign for 15 months? Bāyazīd had been financed by his brother Mustafa’s widow Fath Malka, who had inherited the treasure of her father Muhammad Farmuli Kala Pahar, who was the nephew (sister’s son) of Bahlol Lodi and Governor of Avadh during Bahlol, Sikandar and Ibrahim Lodi’s time. It was said that he had amassed 300 mounds of pure crimson gold. The glitter of gold and other precious gems kept Bāyazīd beyond the bondage of Babur who had, by now, every reason to get angry.
Babur was rarely angry with his commanders. But this time he sent stern orders “to cross the water at once; follow the track of the rebels; cross Jamuna also; join Alam Khan to yourselves; be energetic and get to grips with the adversary.” These directions show his disenchantment and disappointment with the leader of the expedition, i.e. Baqi. Under this background Baqi Tashkindi called on Babur near Dalmud (Dalmau) on 13th June, 1529. Beveridge’s translation reads thus:
“Today Baqi Tashkindi came in with the army of Aud (Ajodhya) and waited on me.”
Let us now see what happened after the failed commander called on the Emperor. After a few days, Babur ‘dispatched Baqi Shaghawal with a few troops (or the word Miangi, perhaps means batmen) to procure intelligence of the enemy’. Can a Governor of a Province ever be entrusted with such an insignificant task? Next day Baqi tried to retrieve the situation by sending his servant Jumaa with information that he had routed one outpost of the enemy and killed one officer along with some men and sent their heads through one prisoner. But Bāyazīd and Biban remained elusive and Babur’s anger did not subside. While on 20th June, 1529 A.D. he issued a general order that ‘as the Rains had set in and as after 5 or 6 months of active service, horses and cattle in the army wore out, the sultans and begs of the expedition were ordered to remain where they were till they received fresh supplies from Agra and those parts’. However, he dismissed Baqi Shaghawal and his condemned troops by giving them leave for going home. Baqi was not given a single penny; while an allowance of 30 lakhs from Amroha was assigned to Musa, son of Maruf Farmuli, a nephew of Bāyazīd along with a special head-to-foot cloak (saropa) and a saddled horse, when he was granted leave. However, Baqi was not given even a horse.
He was disgraced and given leave for going home. He might have gone to Debalpur near Lahore, if his earlier assignment continued or gone to his native place Tashkind. But he is niether mentioned in the Babur-nama, nor heard of again
anywhere. Beveridge’s omission of dispatching him home has cost Indian history costly because historians have accepted her translation at face value. Here another omission on her part is that she has written Baqi only instead of his complete name Baqi Shaghawal in the original. Mere Baqi is confused with Mir Baqi.
Had Baqi’s name really been Mir Baqi Babur must have mentioned him at least once as Mir Baqi. When Babur was camping near Dalmau, the Baqi who waited upon him along with the army from Oudh was Baqi Tashkindi and it was this Baqi who was given marching order along with the army of Oudh.
Thus, it is quite clear that the petty Army-commander stationed in the Oudh area was Baqi Tashkindi and not Mir Baqi, the name which figures in the inscriptions. The forgers of inscriptions did not know the correct name of Baqi and therefore mentioned his name as Mir Baqi instead of Baqi Shaghawal/Tashkindi used by Babur in his Memoirs.
In one inscription produced by A. Fuhrer, it was Mir Khan who built the mosque by the order of Babur. In the same inscription Husain/Desai arbitrarily added Baqi and produced it as Mir Khan (and) Baqi. In another inscription Husain/Desai again read the name of Mir Baqi; whereas in the same inscription Fuhrer had not found the name of Mir Baqi at all. But to-day, thanks to the forgers and the misinterpreters, the whole world of historians knows that Mir Baqi was the Governor of Babur, posted at Ayodhyā and he was the noble who built the mosque at the command of Babur. Our great historians have been teaching that Mir Baqi’s name is found in the Babur-nama and therefore its veracity is confirmed beyond any doubt. In the light of the above analysis one can conclude how hollow and shallow is the following comment of the four historians in their “Rāma-janma-bhūmi-Baburi Masjid: A Historians’ Report to the Nation”:
“The contemporaneity of the inscriptions was shown by their text and date, and their accuracy was established by the fact that Mir Baqi finds mention in Babur’s memoirs as the governor of Awadh or Ayodhya at exactly the same time. (AH 935)”
Ayodhya Revisited Page 30