Bacha-i-Lada?

M.Athar Ali in his essay Perception of India (from: Akbar and His India, Ed. Irfan Habib) says that Akbar "in 1563 confronting Adham Khan...used a hindi word of abuse still living with us." The source would appear to be Bayazid Bayat's Tazkira-i-Humayun Wa Akbar, which I have no recourse to.

That sounds pretty cool. But did he really say the B word? As per the Akbar-Nama , the official biography of Akbar, in 1562 Akbar calls Adham "bacha-i-lada", which the linked translation gives as son of a fool/bitch.

Issue 1: Has anyone heard of bacha-i-lada before? I have heard ullu-ka-bacha, but not this phrase. However, would be thrilled to learn if the phrase is indeed living and being used by people somewhere. Any ideas?

Issue 2: Adham Khan was killed by Akbar in 1562 (as per Akbar-Nama, and confirmed by other sources), so M.Athar Ali seems to have made at least one mistake in claiming the year as 1563. (Is the matter of its current usage another?)

Issue 3: Did Bayazid Bayat indeed record another different term of abuse used by Akbar for Adham? He may have, but it seems unlikely given the paucity of records generally that two different people were busy recording abuse that Akbar used in reference to specific individuals! And 1563 is clearly wrong - but is the mistake by Bayat, or Athar Ali?

Now given what I know so far, the best scenario I can hazard seems to be that in 1562, Akbar abused Adham thus: Bacha-i-Lada.

But what does Lada mean, what is this term of abuse? Athar Ali says it was abuse, the translation we have gives it as son of a fool/bitch.

Now Bacha means child. Son of is not problematic. But Lada?

Platt's Urdu Dictionary gives lada as:

lada (p. 0945)

H lADA lada [lad, q.v.+S. kH], adj. & s.m. (f. -i), Beloved, pet, darling; tenderly nurtured; -- a beloved object, a pet; a favourite; a lover, sweetheart; a bridegroom; -- a character in a play; -- raw indigo-plant (as it comes into the factory): -- ladi-ladi, Lover and beloved, lovers; bridegroom and bride.

Shakespear doesn't contain it at all.

So short of correction or verification from another source, lada seems to literally translate as beloved or pet or even lover! Son of a pet? Son of a lover? How does under this translation bacha-i-lada become a term of abuse? And one that is still alive?

The questions then are these. What does lada mean, and what does bacha-i-lada mean? Is it a term of abuse? Is that what Bayazid Bayat's book says? If not, what does it say? And is this really a living phrase?

Personally I am disappointed Akbar didn't (probably) call him behenchod. It seemed so appropriate that one of the greatest kings of Desh should favour the same term of abuse hundreds of years ago that remains most popular with the people of Desh today.

ps: Could there be a typo, could this be the word?:

lalā

s.m. A boy; dear boy, darling; -- a dolt, blockhead, fool (=S. laṭa); -- adj. (f. -ī), Impotent: -- Badā'ūṅ-kā lalā, A Badā'uṅ fool; a great dolt or blockhead (cf. the Eng. `Essex calf').

If so, Shakespear unfortunately again fails to offer confirmation.

pps: Could lala in fact be ladla? That would make sense as being a term still in use, and also as being perhaps the correct spelling of 'lada' (a case of a missed letter). But the big problem: is ladla then a term of abuse?