and had him assassinated[1]. Akbar was greatly displeased at this act of violence, and Bairám did not succeed in justifying himself. It may be inferred that he excused himself on the ground that such an act was necessary, in the interests of discipline, to secure the proper subordination of the nobles.
Meanwhile Hemu remained at Delhi, amusing himself with the new title of Rájá which he had assumed, and engaged in collecting troops. When, however, he heard that Akbar had reached Sirhind, he despatched his artillery to Pánípat, fifty-three miles to the north of Delhi, intending to follow himself with the infantry and cavalry. But, on his side, Akbar was moving from Sirhind towards the same place. More than that, he had taken the procaution to despatch in advance a force of ten thousand horsemen, under the command of Álí Kulí Khán-í-Shaibání, the general who had fought with Tardí Beg against Hemu at Delhi, and who had condemned his too hasty retirement[2]. Álí Kulí rode as far as Pánípat, and noting there the guns of Hemu's army, unsupported, he dashed upon them and captured them all.
- ↑ Vide Dowson's Sir Henry Elliot's History of India an told by its own Historians, vol. v, page 251 and note. The only historian who states that Akbar gave a kind of permission to this atrocious deed is Badauní. He in practically contradicted by Abulfazl and Ferishtá. In Blochmann's admirable edition of the Ain-í-Akbarí, p. 315, the story is repeated as told by Badauní, but the translator adds the words: 'Akbar was displeased. Bairám's hasty act was one of the chief causes of the distrust with which the Chagatái nobles looked upon him.'
- ↑ Blochmann's Ain-í-Akbarí, p. 319.
