No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 15 March 2011
No incident in Akbar's life is better known or more universally accepted than the supposed refusal of “the spirited boy” to strike with his sword the captive and wounded Hēmū after the second battle of Pānīpat in November, 1556.
This is the anecdote as told by Elphinstone, partly after Ferishta (Firishta):—
“Bairām was desirous that Akbar should give him the first wound, and thus, by imbruing his sword in the blood of so distinguished an infidel, should establish his right to the envied title of ‘Ghāzī’ or ‘Champion of the Faith’; but the spirited boy refused to strike a wounded enemy, and Bairām, irritated by his scruples, himself cut off the captive's head at a blow.”
page 527 note 1 Hist, of India, 5th ed., p. 496.Google Scholar
page 527 note 2 Briggs, transl., reprint by Cambray, , ii, 189Google Scholar. The name should be spelt Hēmū, not Hīmū or Hīmūn. It evidently is a colloquial form of a Hindu name beginning with the word Hēm (gold), such as Hēmchand, a probable name for a Hindu baniyā, as Hēmū was. Such colloquial forms are commonly used in northern India.
page 528 note 1 “There is an account of the arrival of the head at Kabul in Bayāzīd Bivāt's Memoirs.”
page 528 note 2 Akbarnāmah, tr. Beveridge, H., vol. ii, pp. 65–7, and note.Google Scholar
page 529 note 1 Muntakhab-ut-tawārīkh, tr. Lowe, W. H. (Calcutta, 1884), vol. ii, pp. 8, 9.Google Scholar
page 529 note 2 “The Tārīkh-i-Daūdī and many other histories say the young Prince declined to commit this wanton act of brutality, and his subsequent actions render this highly probable. Firishta says, that at Bairam Khān's importunity, he merely touched the head of the captive with the sword, by which he became entitled to the appellation of ‘Ghāzī’” (Elliot, and Dowson, , vol. v, pp. 65, 66, and part of note 1).Google Scholar
page 530 note 1 De Laet, , De Imperio Magni, Mogolis, sive India Vera, Lugduni Batavorum, Elzevir, 1631, p. 174/181Google Scholar. For details concerning the book, see Smith, V. A., “Joannes De Laët on India and Shahjahan,” Ind. Ant., 1914, pp. 239–44Google Scholar. There are two issues, with different paging, both bearing the date 1631. The passage is from the Fragmentum Histories Indices by van den Broecke, In my article in Ind. Ant. I followed Lethbridge in spelling “De Laët”, but “de Laet” is more correct. “Couli-gan Marem” = Shāh Qulī Mahram-i-Bahārlü (Blochmann, , Āīn, vol. i, p. 359, No. 45)Google Scholar. “Coulinghan” = 'Alī Qulī Khān, the principal lieutenant of Bairām Khān, and better known by his title of Khān Zamān (ibid., p. 319, No. 13).
page 531 note 1 Transl. Beveridge, and Rogers, , p. 40.Google Scholar