Not unnaturally the frequent interruptions of narrative caused by _lacunæ_ have āburnābeen misinterpreted occasionally, and sometimes detractory comment has followed on Babur, ranking him below the accomplished and lettered, steadfast and honest man 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,[10] 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 record of either man. Elphinstone was angered by Erskine's remark which, he wrote (Aug. 26th 1826) "had a bad effect on the narrative by weakening the implicit confidence in Babur's candour and veracity which his frank way of writing is so well-calculated to command." Elphinstone's opinion of Babur is not that of a reader but of a student of his book; he was also one of Erskine's staunchest helpers in its production. From Erskine's surmise others have advanced on the detractor's path saying that Babur used and threw over `Alam Khan (_q.v._).