صور الصفحة
النشر الإلكتروني
[ocr errors]

Wazir's house, the Emperor directed the boatmen to increase their speed, in spite of the fact that the imperial equipage was drawn up, and the wazir waiting on the river bank to receive him. Thus this occasion for untying the knot was lost, and the Emperor turned again to Sampām-ud-daulah for advice. That noble repaired to Qutb-ul-mulk's on the 9th Zū, 1 Qa'dah (3rd October, 1718) and conferred with him. At this time, by reason of the rise of I'tiqad Khān (Muhammad Murād), Şamşām-ud-daulah had fallen out of favour with Farrukhsiyar, and was even suspected by him of treachery. Being aware of this change of feeling, he was now far from well-affected to the Emperor, had improved his relations with Qutb-ul-mulk, and had inspired that noble with full confidence in his friendship. Listening to his advice, Qutb-ul-mulk presented himself in darbær, made his obeisance, and, to all appearance, the quarrel was again made up, after the ugual false speeches had been exchanged.l

The story goes that Şamşām-ud-daulah had planned with Farrukhsiyar the arrest of Qutb-ul-mulk. The Emperor was to take his seat in the Tasbih Khānah, or chapel, 'round which the armed attendants were to be secretly collected. When the moment came, the signal was to be given by the cry of “Qül!" and, rushing in, the slaves were to seize the wazir and hurry him off to prison. Qutb-ul-mulk having entered with a small following, Farrukhsiyar, when the time came, called out as agreed on, Qul!" From some motive, either of pru. dence or friendship, Şamşām-ud-daulah, instead of repeating the signal, changed the word, and shouted “Qül!(armed retinue), the word used to signify that all those waiting for audience should be admitted. This slight change of one letter disarranged the whole plan. The slaves never stirred. But a large number of Qutb-ul-mulk's armed retinue at once appeared in the audience-chamber, and Farrukhsiyar was much disturbed at seeing this crowd. As soon as the minister had left, he vented his rage on Şamşām-ud-daulah. In his access of passion he threw at his favourite the seal, the box for holding the ink used with it, and, as some add, a metal spittoon. After this catastrophe Şamşām-ud-daulah absented himself for several days, nor did he return until Farrukhsiyar had written him a friendly note in his own hand, asking him to attend court as usual.% were mostly from Kashmir and used Kashmīrī calls to each other when working. Anand Rām, (Mukhliş) Mirat-ul-Istilāḥ, fol. 16ôb, B. M. Oriental, No. 1813 (Elliot MSS.). Anand Rām quotes Babar as to the convenience of boat travelling.

1 Khāfi Khān, II., 803, 804, Kāmwar Khān, 182, Mirzā Muhammad, 405.

% Mīrzā Muḥammad, 405, Khushḥāl Cand, 411a, Shiū Dás 178, Yahya Khan 123b, Kām Rāj, 'Ibratnāmah, 56a, Kāmwar Khān, 183,

J. I. 41

[ocr errors]

After a few days the Emperor went out again on a hunting expedition, accompanied by many officers and state officials : and, as usual, the rumoar spread that on this occasion, when Qutb-ul-mulk appeared to make his obeisance, hands would be laid upon him. Qutb-ul-mulk, receiving a hint from Samşāmrud-daulah, came surrounded by men; when he dismounted at the entrance, five hundred fully-armed soldiers dismounted with him. In spite of all that the chamberlain (Mir Tozak) and attendants (yasāwal) could say, the whole of these men followed into the audience tent. Farrukhsīyar was greatly perturbed at the sight, and it was with much constraint that he was able to utter a few words of compliment before he dismissed the visitor. Further attempts to heal the breach were made. On the 20th Zül Qa'dah (14th October, 1718) Zafar Khãn, the fourth Bakhshi, took I'tiqād Khān to Qutbul-mulk's house, when the favourite and the wazir interchanged presents, and three days afterwards, Şamşām-ud-daulah visited I'tiqad Khān. About this time Farrukhsiyar, always of a guspicious nature, came to the conclusion that his foster-mother, who held an honoured position in the harem, and I'timād Khān, a eunuch, had betrayed his secret projects to the Sayyads.!


After waiting for more than a month, Mir Jumlah was at last admitted to audience on the 7th Zū,l Hijjah (31st October, 1718) under the auspices of Nizām-ul-mulk. He received the addition of "Tarkhān" to his former titles. Three days afterwards, it being the day of the 'Id, the Emperor proceeded to the 'Idgāh for the usual observances, but by his express order Qutb-ul-mulk did not attend. The reason for this prohibition was that Farrukhsiyar recollected and resen. ted the failure of his plans on the day of the former 'īd at the end of Ramazān. On the 12th (5th November, 1718) I'tiqād Khān paid Mir Jumlah a visit at his house, and the next day, by the Emperor's order, he invited Mir Jumlah to a banquet in return. All this intercourse was encouraged by Farrukhsiyar in the hope that the chief nobles would join with him heart and soul in the destruction of Qutb-ul-mulk. But all was without avail. The bringing forward of I'tiqad Khan had

1 This gives Kāmwar Khān, 183, an opening for quoting the saying, "one spot (or dot) turns "mahram," pono (a confidant) into “ mujrim," pozno (a crimi. nal)" :

Mahram ba yak nuktah mujrim shavvad,

% For the meaning and attributes of this distinction, see Blochmann, 'Ain, I., 364, and Tarikh-i-yaashidi, Ross and Elias, p. 55, note,

[ocr errors]

estranged many who were otherwise well affected to the Emperor's person, and had caused them to enter into terms with Qutb-ul-mulk. By expatiating on the wazir's Sayyad lineage, on his claims for service done, and on bis bravery in the field, they found reasons for holding that right was on his side. I'tiqad Khān's sudden rise, which was without apparent justification, rankled like a thorn in their hearts. Farrukhsiyar paid no heed to this discontent, but continued to support I'tiqad Khān, whose counsels he received as equivalent to a revelation from on high, nor could he bear the man to be away from him for a moment. At the annual rejoicing for the defeat of Jahāndār Shāb, 15th Zü,l Hijjah 1130 H. (8th November, 1718), Qutb-ul-mulk did not attend.


On the 1st Muḥarram 1131 H. (23rd November, 1718) an official report reached the Court that in the previous month Husain 'Ali Khan had started from Aurangābād. On the 22nd Muharram (14th December, 1718) he left Burhānpur, and Ujjain on the 4th Şafar (26th December, 1718), continuing his route via Mandeshwar. Before this time he had put forward a pretext that the Dakhin climate did not agree with him, and had asked to be recalled. Farrukhsiyar said he might try a change to Ahmadābād, and if he did not recover, he might then return to Hindūstān. About this time Husain 'Ali Khān also reported that Mu'in-ud-din, a reputed sou of Prince Akbar, the rebel son of 'Alamgir, bad been captured by Rājah Sāhū, the Mabrattah, and made over to him, on the condition that he obtained the release of the Rājah's mother and brother, who had been prisoners since the year 1101 H. (15th Muharram 1101 H., 28th October, 1689) and were still at Dihli. Farrukhsiyar ordered the Bakhshi to send the pretended prince to Dihli.4

Compliance with this order did not fall in with Husain Ali Khān's plans; for his brother's, Qutb-ul-mulk's, letter had already warned him that his presence was necessary at Court. He had already made up his mind to return to Hiudūstān, and the fiction of having found a son of Prince Akbar was only part of this design, and in fact a mere excuse.

1 Kāmwar Khān, 183, 184, Mirzā Muḥammad, 410. * Mandeshwar, Thornton, 645, now in Sindiah’s dominions, Lat. 24° 1', Long.

75° 9'.

8 'Ahwäl-i-khawaqīn, 16. 127a, refers to the pretended prince as Jawān Bakht, who had come to the Karnătak from Irān when Prince Akbar died. Yahyā Khān, 124a, says he was called a son of Kām Bakhsh.

4 Kämwar Khān, Shiū Dås, 20a, Khāfi Khān, II., 793, 795.

[ocr errors]

He had given out in open darbār that he expected the arrival from Satārah of a prince, Mu'in-ud-din Husain, son of Prince Akbar. When Prince Akbar, after rebelling against the Emperor 'Alamgir, left India for Işfahān, this son had been, it was said, left behind. Equipage suitable for a prince of the Gurgāni family was prepared ; scarlet tents, a throne, and a crown were made ready. The Mir Bakhshi at the same time announced that he was about to pay a visit to Hindústān. The youth selected for the role of royal pretender was the son of a Qāzi in one of the Dakhin towns, good looking, talented, and with some external resemblance to the princes of the royal house. Mu'azzam Khān, a jama'dār, was deputed to bring to camp the so-called prince. The news writers and intelligencers asked for instructions as to what entry they should make. The Nawāb replied that he would in a short time make a report, and himself write detailed letters to Court. Next day the tents were pitched outside the city ; more soldiers were enlisted and a month's pay given to them in advance. Terms were come to with Rājah Sāhū, and payment to him of the Chauth, or one-fourth of the revenues of the Dakhin, was agreed to. Husain 'Ali Khān also obtained the services of Mahrattas at the daily rate of one rupee for each man, to be paid from the time of crossing the Narbadā until their return home.l After three or four days, Mu'in-ud-din Husain was placed on an elephant in a high-sided canopy, with a white cloth over it to keep out the dust. Red and white tents were erected, a deep ditch was dug all round his camp, sentinels were set, and all the externals of royalty were assigned to him. To keep up appearances, Įusain 'Ali Khān went daily to have a mujrā or ceremonious interview with his prisoner, such as would be necessary in the case of a real prince.?

Finally on the 15th Shawwāl (10th September, 1718) Husain 'Ali Khān appointed his brother, Saif-ud-din 'Ali Khān, to the command of a vanguard of 4,000 to 5,000 men, and sent him towards Burhānpur to collect artillery and other stores. 'Alim 'Ali Khān, his nephew and adopted son, was named as his representative during his absence. Saif-ud-dīn 'Ali Khān temporarily replaced Jän Nişār Khān as gover

I G. Duff, 197,
% Kām Rāj, 'Ibratnāmäh, 64b.

8 'Alim 'Ali Khan had been adopted when an infant, (Kam Rāj, 'Ibratnāmah, 64b.) The farman of appointment can be seen in Majma'-ul-insha (litho.) p. 84. It includes the 6 şübahs of the Dakbin with the faujdār-ship of the Karnatak and of Bijāpur, and the collectorship (tahsildārī) of the tribute (peshkash) due from the zamīndārs of Sondhã and Bidnūr. Mubāriz Khān, Daler Khan, and the other governors were placed under him, and letters notifying this fact were transmitted to them through


[ocr errors]

nor of Khandesh, and Sádāt Khān, an old officer now blind of bo h eyes, was sent as commandant of the fort at Aḥmadnagar.2 'Alim Ali Khān was put under the tutelage of Shankarā Mulhār, a trusted agent of Rājah Sahu. About November, 1718, Ņusāin 'Ali Khān started himself, accompanied by Sayyad Asadullah (Nawāb Auliyā), the sons of Jān Nişār Khān, 'Iwaz Khan, deputy governor of Barār, Asad 'Ali Khān, the one-handed, the 'Ali Murād Khāni, Dil Daler Khān (brotber of Lutfullah Khān, şādiq), Ikhtişāş Khâu (grandson of Khan Zamān), Hāji Saifullah Khān, Ziā-ud-din Khān, diwān of the Dakhin, Firūz 'Ali Khān, Bārbah, the Amir-ul-umarā's Bakhshi, Diyānat Khān (grandson of Amanat Khān, 'Khāfi), Rājah Jai Singh, Bundelab, Rājah Muḥkam Singh, one of the chief employés, and Khițr Khān, Panni (sister's son of Dāüd Khān, Panni). In all there were twenty-two imperial commanders, many of whom followed unwillingly. There were 8,000 or 9,000 of his own troops and 11,000 or 12,000 Mahrattas, besides Bhils and Talingās. He carried with him nearly all the civil establishments of the Dakhin, and anyone who made excuses and turned back was punished by the loss of his jāgir.5 The total force was 25,000 horsemen, besides the artillery, and 10,000 to 11,000 infantry armed with matchlocks. At the head of the Mahrattas were Bālā Ji Wiswanāth, the Peshwā, Khandū Rão Dhabāriyah, Santā,6 and

Santā, and some others. These leaders received horses and elephants, robes of honour,

1 Khāfi Khān, II., 797.
& -For Shankarā, see Grant Duff, 197, Khāfi Khan, II., 796.

8 Khāfi Khān, the historian, was himself present in Husain 'Ali Khan's army, see II., 798. He had just been removed from the faujdarī of Mustafābād.

4 Maḥammad Qāsim, Lāhorī, 225. Ikhtişāş Khān, eldest son of Manavvar Khăn, Qatbi, son of Manaviar Khãn, son of Khăn Zamān, Makagi-ul-dumara, III., 655, Ziā-ud-din Khān, diwān of the Dakhin, see Ma, āşir-ul-umurā, III., 36, and Khafi Khān, II., 790, Diyāpat Khān, grandson of Amânat Khān, Majāşir-ul-umara, I., 258. Diyānat Khān, No. 2, id. II., 62, Rājah Mukḥam Singh (Khatri), Majāşir-ulumarā, II., 330, died Jamīdī II, 1137 H., Tārīkh-i-Muḥammadi. For the Pannīs, see Ma,āşir-ul-umară, II., 63. Instead of " Jai Singh " the Siyar-ul-muta, akharīn has " Partit Singh.”

5 Khafi Khān, II., 803.

8 Or Khandī. This man was Rājah Sahu's so-called Şübahdär in Khāndesh, (Khāfi Khān, II., 798). An abstraot of his career rans thus (Grant Duff, 162, 163, 196, 209): he was present at the council held after the death of Sambhā Ji (1689); and took & part in the flight of Rājā Rām. In 1716, after a long absence, he reappeared at the court of Satāra and was made Senāpatā (commander-in-chief). He died in 1721, shortly after the defeat of 'Alim Ali Khan, Santā Ji was said to be the natural son of Parsū Ji, Bhonslah (G. Duff, 199, note). Briggs in a note (p. 178) calls him Santā Jī, Kadam,

« السابقةمتابعة »