صور الصفحة
النشر الإلكتروني

Baniyas or Kayaths. It also comprised many Mahomedans from Kashmir, who seem to have rivalled the Hindus as secretaries and men of business,

Nor, in speaking of the Indian-born party, must we forget the subdivision among them due to the repugnance, even to this day so strongly shown, of Western Hindustanis or Panjabis to men from Eastern Hindustan or Bengal. Crowds of men from Bengál had followed in Farrukhsiyar's train. Khushhal Cand, in an amusing outburst, declares that "God created the Pürbiyah (man from the East) with"out shame, without faith, without kindness, without heart, malevolent, "niggardly, beggarly, cruel; ready to sell his children in the bāzār "on the smallest provocation; but to spend a penny, he thinks that a "crime equal to matricide." When they entered the imperial service, they required a signet-ring, but many tried to talk over the seal-cutters and get these for nothing. He admits that there were a few notable exceptions, but then as the saying is, "Neither is every woman a woman, nor every man, a man; God has not made all five fingers the “ same.”'l

[ocr errors]

A cross-division, to which we must draw attention, as it is a most important one, was that into Emperor's friends and Wazir's friends. In the reign of Farrukhsiyar this was the most decisive of all distinctions. From almost the first day of the reign till the very last, we shall find the whole situation to turn upon it. A small number of private favourites, such as Mir Jumlah, Khan Dauran, and at a later stage, I'tiqad Khan (Mḥd. Murad), formed a centre to which the other great nobles, each in turn, rallied, only to retire in disgust after a short experience of Farrukhsiyar's shiftiness and want of resolution.

[ocr errors]

1 Khushhal Cand, 406.

Nah har zan, zan ast, o nah har mard, mard;
Khudā har panj angusht yaksän na kard.

On the above incident someone composed the lines

Shakhṣe ba dūkān-i-saja' kan-i-dast tahī
Miguft kih: “Ãe! dalil na būd o nahi !
'Khân' kandah ba-dah, muft, ba ism-am. Guftā:
‘Jān' kandan bih, kaz în khijālat ba-rahi.”

A man at the shop of a needy motto-cutter,

Said; "Here, neither argument nor denial,

"Cut Khẩn to my name for nothing." He replied;

"To cut Jān is better, and give up such shabby tricks."

The play is upón "Jän kandan,” To engrave the word ul, Jān, instead of

vlà, Khăn, also meaning "to give up the ghost."

[ocr errors]


(MARCH 1713-APRIL 1714):

The opening of the reign was marked by many executions and other severities to men belonging to the defeated party, and such terror of strangulation spread among the nobles who had held office during the reigns of 'Alamgir and Bahadur Shah, that every time they started for the audience, they took a formal farewell of their wives and children. The whole of these severities are attributed, and apparently with truth, to the influence of Mir Jumlah. Although it involves a slight break in the chronological order, these events will be grouped together.

The first of these executions took place by Farrukhsiyar's orders during the night of the 2nd Rabi' I. 1125 H. (28th March, 1713). Sa'dullah Khan, son of 'Inayat-ullah Khan, Kashmiri, Hidayat Kesh Khan, a Hindu convert, who had been central newswriter (Waqā'inigar-i-kull) and Sidi Qasim, Habshi, late Kotwal or Police officer of Dihli, were the victims. They were strangled by the Qalmaq Slaves (Sa'dullah Khan struggling with them till he was overpowered), and their bodies were exposed for three days on the sandy space below the citadel. It is difficult to decide what Sa'dullah Khan's crime had been. In the last year of Bahadur Shah's reign he was deputy wazir with the title of Wazarat Khan, and his temporary adhesion to Jahāudār Shāh was no worse crime in him than in many others who were parAt first, Farrukhsiyar had received him with favour. But on the 21st Muḥarram 1125 H. (16th February, 1713), immediately after the Emperor had visited Padshah Begam, the sister of 'Alamgir, Sa'dullah Khan was sent to prison and his property confiscated. As to the reason for his disgrace, there are two versions, with both of which the name of Padshah Begam is mixed up. As told by Khāfi Khan, it would appear that a forged letter had been sent to Farrukhsiyar in the name of Pädṣhāh Begam asking for the removal of Sa'dullah Khan. The Begam is represented as having repudiated this letter, when Farrukhsiyar visited her after the execution of Sa'dullah Khan. But the only visit that is recorded took place a month before his execution.

[ocr errors]

The other version is that Farrukhsiyar had consulted Padshah Begam as to his conduct towards Asad Khan and Zū’lfiqar Khan. She wrote a reply counselling him not to deal severely with them, but to admit them to favour and maintain them in office. She made over the letter to 1 Khāfi Khan, II., 732. Yahya Khan, 1216, puts all these executions to the account of the two Sayyads. The Aḥwāl-i-Khawāqin, 62a, names one 'Ashūr Khān

as head of the executioners.

2 His original name was Bhola Nath, and he succeeded to the office on his father, Chatar Mall's, death in 1109 H., Ma,āṣir-i-'A, 396.

Să'dullah Khan, who was her Mir-i-Saman, or steward. As he was strongly opposed to Zü'lfiqar Khan, owing to the quarrel about the appointment of a successor to Mun'im Khan, Bahadur Shah's wazir, and also hoped that a rival's removal would increase his own chance of becoming wazir he extracted the real letter and substituted one of an entirely contrary effect, or, as one version says, altered the words "should not kill" (na bayad kusht) into "should kill" (bayad kusht). Pādshah Begam reproached Farrukhsiyar for having taken Zü,lfiqār Khan's life. The Emperor pulled her letter out of his pocket and the substitution of the forged letter was thus discovered. Sa'dullah Khân was immediately arrested. This second story, certainly appears the

more probable of the two.1

[ocr errors]

Hidayat Kesh Khan's crime was that he had denounced to Jahandār Shāh the hiding-place of Muḥammad Karim, the new Emperor's brother, and thus indirectly led to that prince's life being taken: Some say that, in addition, he behaved in a harsh and insolent manner to him when he was made prisoner. No one knows what Sidi Qāsim had done to deserve death, unless it be attributed to private revenge. · Aș faujdar of some of the parganahs near Dihli he had executed the son of a tradesman named Udhū. This man, thirsting for the kotwāť's blood, levied a contribution of ten or twelve rupees on each shop in the quarters of Shāhganj and Shahdarah. Having collected a very large sum, he paid it over to Mir Jumlah, and secured in exchange the arrest and execution of Sidi Qāsim.

[ocr errors]

The next cruelty was done on Sabha Cand, the Hindu confidant of the late Zü,lfiqar Khan. On the 11th Jamadi II, 1125 H. (4th July 1713), he was made over to Mir Jumlah. The next day it was intimated to the Emperor that Sabha Cand's tongue had been cut out, as a punishment for the foul language that he had constantly used. The strange thing was that after this deprivation he was still able to talk and make himself understood.8

After Sabha Cand, came the turn of Shah Qudratullah of Allahābād. His father, Shekh 'Abd-ul-Jalil, was a man of learning of the Sufi sect, who lived in Allahabad. On his death, Qudratullah succeeded to his influence and position, being himself a man of learning and considerable eloquence. Prince 'Azim-ush-shan chanced to make Qudrat

1 Tarikh-i-Muzaffari, p. 155, Khushḥal Cand 3976. There is a separate biography in M-nl-U II., 504. Sa'dullah Khan was the second son of 'Inayatullah Khan, Kashmiri. It is said in the Makhzanu-l-gharaib that he wrote under the name of Hidayat. (Ethé, Bodleian Catalogue, No. 395).

2 Khushhal Cand, 398a, Kāmwar Khan, 184, Khafi Khan II., 735.›
8 Khāfi Khan II., 735. ́

ullah's acquaintance, and took such a fancy to him that he could not bear him to be away from his side. Wherever the prince went, the Shekh accompanied him; and in the end, the Shekh became allpowerful. In the last years of Bahadur Shah's reign all business passed through his second son's hands, and Qudratullah was that prince's right hand. It was as if the whole empire had fallen under his rule, even the wazir and his sons asking him to plead for them. The refusal to appoint Zū,lfiqar Khan to succeed Mun'im Khan and the appointment instead of a deputy, Hidayatullah Khan (Sa'dullah Khan), were due to Shekh Qudratullah, although he had no official rank whatever. In the struggle for the throne his advice prevailed over that of all others. After 'Azim-ush-shān's death, the Shekh, fearing the resentment of Zü,lfiqār Khān, hid himself and escaped secretly to his home at Allahābād. When Farrukhsiyar started for Agrah to confront Jahāndār Shah, the Shekh, believing success to be utterly impossible, stayed quietly at home, not even coming to present his respects. After the victory had been won, the Shekh still hesitated to return to Court, since in his day of power he had conciliated no one, not even the sons of his patron. Then one Mulla Shadman, a holy man of Patnah 'Azīmābād, passed through on his way to Dihli. It is commonly asserted that this man had prophesied that Farrukhsiyar would gain the throne, and from this cause the Prince had acquired the greatest confidence in his powers. Qudratullah, thinking the Mulla's protection would be certain to secure him a favourable reception, joined his party and they travelled together to Dihli.

On reaching Dihli, the Mulla was admitted to an audience and received with great cordiality. Assured of his own favour with the new Emperor, the Mulla arranged that at his second interview Qudratullah should accompany him. The Mulla passed on into the Tasbiḥ Khanah (chaplet-room or oratory), where the Emperor was, intending to mention Qudratullah's name and obtain leave to produce him. Mir Jumlah, who was with Farrukhsiyar, heard what the Mulla said. He had seen the extent of Qudratullah's power and influence in 'Azim-ushshan's time, and he feared that this might be renewed in the case of the son, His own position would thus be destroyed. Taking hurried leave of the Emperor, he came to the door of the Privy Audience Hall,

1 B.M. Or, 1690, fol. 165a, gives the 13th as the date. He was released on the 17th Jamādī II., 1126 H., at the request of Qutb-ul-Mulk, after paying a fine of *Rs. 100,000 (Kāmwar Khan, 147). Rae Sābhā (or Sambhā) Cand, Khatrî, died at Dihli in the end of Jamādī I. 1137 H. (Jan.-Feb., 1725), aged nearly 70 years (T-iMlti.)

* Mirzā Muḥammad, 181–186, Kāmwar Khan, 142, T-i-Mḥdi, Year 1125. H.

where the Shekh was seated, and gave him a most effusive greeting. He added that, just at that moment, His Majesty being deep in some very important business, à full audience, as such a friend was entitled to, would be impossible; it would be far better for the Shekh to accept for that night the hospitality of his old friend. Next day or the day after, a proper interview could be arranged. As Mir Jumlah at that time had the entire power of the realm in his own hands, the Shekh thought these blandishments of good augury, and fell in with his proposal. Forgetting all about his companion, Mullā Shādmān, he set off with Mir Jumlah, who put him in one of his own palkis and carried him off to his house. That night and the next day Mir Jumlah was profuse in his attentions.

At the end of the day Mir Jumlah went to the Emperor. He said to him that it would be wrong to pardon the Shekh. The gentleman was a necromancer and by his incantations and jugglery had inveigled 'Azim-ush-shān into his net. By his rise all the nobles had been put out of heart, hence when Zu,lfiqar Khan took the field, many would not bear a part, and the rest although pressed made no proper efforts. If Qudratullah gained the same acceptance here, he would cause mischief in every business. Since Farrukhsiyar looked on Mir Jumlah as Wisdom and Prudence personified, he gave a nod of assent. Mir Jumlah left the darbar at the usual time; and at midnight he gave orders to his men to hang the Shekh, in his presence, to a maulsari tree growing in the courtyard of his mansion. Next morning, the 13th Zu'l qa'dah 1125 H. (30th November 1713), the Shekh's dead body was made over to his servants for burial. It is said that Mullā Shādmān remonstrated with Farrukhsiyar, saying that the man had done nothing to deserve death. Even if such acts were proved, Qudratullah and he having come to Court together, the Shekh's death would bring disgrace on him and throw doubt on his character. Farrukhsiyar was ready to admit all this, but as the deed was done, he made some excuses and tried to talk the Mullā over. But the Mulla declined to remain longer at Court, and returned to his home.

Shortly after this time, Farrukhsiyar having quarrelled with the Sayyads, was afraid that they might bring forward some other prince of

1 Maulsari, a tree (Mimusops elengi), the flowers of which are highly fragrant. (Shakespear's Dictionary).

♣ Kamwar Khân, 142, entry of 11th Zul qa'dah 1125 H. (2nd year) gives the facts with a slight variation. He says that Qudratullah, a darvesh, son of 'Abdul Jalil Allahābādī, having reached court presented an offering of one musk bag (bakhūrah). An order issued that he should be put up in the house of Mir Jumlah. On the 12th it was reported that Mir-Jumlah had hung the man,

« السابقةمتابعة »