« السابقةمتابعة »
Rajputs raged inwardly, and fiercely laid hand on sword or dagger But who can fight a whole people? At length, several spoon-sellers and bāzār touts having been killed by the Rāthors, the habit of abusing them was abandoned.1
SECTION 41.-THE CONDUCT OF THE SAYYADS CONSIDERED.
On few subjects does there seem to have been such violently contradictory views expressed as upon the conduct of the Sayyads at this juncture. Writers who are themselves Sayyads and Shi'as defend their action as the only course that could have been pursued. But, as the two brothers soon fell from power and lost their lives, the partizans of their rivals and successors have not hesitated to denounce them, and hold them up to the execration of mankind. The two extremes are even embodied by rival poets in chronograms composed for the occasion. Mirzā Abdul Qādir, Bedil, wrote:
Didst thou see what they did to the mighty king 22
I asked Wisdom for the date. She answered :
To this Mir 'Azmat-ullah, Bilgrāmi, Bekhabar, using the same form and rhymes, replied:
To the infirm monarch they did what they ought,
It is impossible, I think, to accept to the full either conclusion. To none but extreme believers in the divinity that doth hedge a king, will it seem wrong to have removed from power such a worthless thing as Farrukhsiyar. But the
But the way of doing what had become almost a necessity was unduly harsh, too utterly regardless of the personal dignity of the fallen monarch. Blinding a deposed king was the fixed usage; for
1 Muḥammad Qāsim, 262.
şad jor-o-jafā zi rāh-i-khāmi kardand ;
Tārīkh cū az Khirad ba-justam, farmūd :
All dast-i-hakim har cah bayad kardand;
Ba qirät-i.Khirad nuskhah-i-tārīkh navisht:
that the Sayyads are not specially to blame. But the severity of the subsequent confinement was excessive; and the taking of the captive's life was an extremity entirely uncalled for. As Shāh Nawāz Khan says, the Sayyads were forced into action by a regard for their own lives and honour. At the same time, as he points out, the nobler course would have been for them to have abandoned the struggle, and contented themselves with some distant government, or they might have quitted the service of the state and proceeded on a pilgrimage to Mecca. “ But it is not in the power of mortal man to rise superior to that worst of evil passions, the love of power and place.” The pious Mahomedan consoles himself by the reflection that God in his good purposes saw fit to impose expiation on the two brothers, by their own speedy death and the destruction of all their power; and thus in His mercy he allowed them to atone for whatever sin they had committed, and did not exclude them from final redemption. Their own violent deaths sufficed to save their souls.1
SECTION 42. CHARACTER OF FARRUKHSIYAR.
The most prominent element of Farrukhsiyar's character was weakness. He was strong neither for evil nor for good. Morally it may be indefensible to try and rid yourself, at the earliest moment, of the men to whom you owe your throne. But as a matter of practice and precedent it was otherwise. Many of his predecessors, including the greatest of them, Akbar, had been guilty of similar ingratitude Thus, according to the morality of his day and country, Farrukhsiyar would have committed no exceptional crime by dismissing, or even killing the Sayyads. Previous rulers, however, men of vigour and resolution, when they found the greatness of some subject becoming dangerous to themselves, acted with promptitude and decision. The crisis was soon over, and though the individual might be destroyed the State did not suffer. How different with Farrukhsiyar! Still, in spite of his inberent weakness, he might have shown himself amiable inoffensive; he might have left his powerful ministers to pursue peacefully their own way, contenting himself with the name, while they kept the reality of power. Instead of this, he was for ever letting “I dare not” wait upon “I would.” For seven years the State was in a condition of unstable equilibrium, and it is not too much to say that Farrukhsiyar prepared for himself the fate which finally overtook him. Feeble, false, cowardly, contemptible, it is impossible either to admire or regret him. According to Khūshḥāl Cand, Farrukhsiyar
1 Miftah, 302-3, Ma,agir-ul-amaru, I ; 321, 344, 345,
in the sixth year of his reign was forced, in consequence of the abscesses which troubled him, to submit to an operation that rendered him impotent. Physical degeneration, it is suggested, may have been one of the causes of the irresolution, and even cowardice, which he displayed during the final struggle with the Sayyads.
His most amiable qualities were profuseness and liberality, which made him the darling of the lower orders. Among his personal habits two were especially marked—a fondness for fine clothes and for good horses. He loved gold-embroidered raiment edged with gold lace, such as the sovereign himself had never worn before. All the great nobles imitated him and began to wear what pleased their master. Thus he was at any rate mourned by the lace-sellers and the indigent. As for horses, he chose them with care, for their fine paces, their colour, and their great speed. Several thousand horses stood in his private stables, and a select number of them were tethered under the balcony window of the room where he slept. Thus he was able from time to time to see them from this window, or the roof of the palace. Even when in bed asleep, if a horse rose up and lay down two or three times; he would be roused and enquire the reason, calling both the animal and its groom by their names. The Khānsāmān or Lord Steward had strict orders about their food. Once Muḥammad Yār Khān, when holding that office, reported that the quantities issued were in excess of the regulations. Farrukhsiyar directed him to pay up to the amount of one gold coins a day for each of these horses, and not to report until that amount was exceeded.3
In the Ahwal-i-khawaqin is a passage describing the early intimacy between Farrukhsiyar and Kbān Daurān (Khwajah 'Aşim), where we are told that the prince was passionately fond of wrestling, archery, horsemanship, polo-playing, and other soldierly exercises. His devotion to hunting and the chase is shown by the regularity with which, throughout his reign, he left. Dihli to hunt or shoot in the imperial preserves situated at various distances round the city.
The only well-known edifice constructed in his reign was a third arch of marble to the mosque at the Qutb, added in 1130 H. It bears the inscription.
Maurid-z-lutf o 'ināyat shud wā!a-janab,
1 Khushḥāl Cand, 410a.
sakht az rūe irādat o zi rasukh-i-i'tiqad
A.-Farrukhsīyar's age. Authorities differ much as to the year of Farrukhsiyar's birth, nor do they altogether agree in the month or the day of the month. The earliest year is 1093 H., the latest 1098 H. The correct year ought to be determined, I think, by the two chronograms composed by Jiwan Rām, father of Kbūshḥāl Cand. It is only fair to suppose that a man would not sit down to compose one of these poetical memorials, and then deliberately import into it an erroneous date. I therefore accept the year 1094 H. as correct; while for the day and month, the best authority is the direct statement of Ijād, the court historian, namely, the 19th Ramazān. I cannot understand, however, how this writer came to give the year 1096 instead of 1094 H. Mïrzā Muḥammad, who is nearly always to be trusted, gives an age at death which confirms Käshḥāl Cand's date (1094).*
I Miftâḥ, 303, Aşăr-us-sanādid, p. 53, No. 61. The inscription gives only the maddah. Carr Stephens 178, note, has a translation only, and a second inscription is also translated.
% The two chronograms referred to are:I. Ta kh az – Jaham Farakhs@gar amad ba dad “ i Rūḥ-z-farrukh, rüh-i-farrukh " dar tan-i-alam rasīd. (1094)
(1091) "In order that Farrukhsīyar should come to light from that world,
"A joyous soul, a joyous soul, entered the body of this world." II. Gar säl-2-tawallad-ash ba-umed
Goyand, “Walīd-7- Azīm-i-jawed” (1094)
“They say, 'Child of the Greate Eternal.' (1094)
Day. Kāmwar Khān (38 years in 1131 H.)
1093 , T-i Mhdi (1131-5-8-36-8-2) =
6 Khūshḥāl Cand, fol. 3978, (31 in 1125 H) 1094
B.-Length of the reign. Farrukhsiyār proclaimed himself emperor at Patnah on the 29th Şafar 1124 H. (6th March, 1712), soon after he had heard of his father's, 'Azim-ush-shān's, defeat and death at Lahor. The first day of the reign, according to the official calculation, was fixed from this coronation at Patnah, and Jahāndār Shāh's reign was treated as never having existed. The victory over Jahāndār Shāh took place near Agrah on the 13th Zul Hijjah 1124 H. (10th December, 1712.) Counting from the first of these dates, the reign up to the 8th Rabi 'II, 1131 H., lasted 7 (lunar) years, 1 month, and 9 days; or from the latter date ( 13th Zul Hijjah), to the same day, 6 (lunar) years, 3 months, and 25 days.
0.--Style and title in life, and after death. His titles are nowhere given with completeness. He is called either Abū,l Muzaffar Muốin-ud-din, MẶd Farrukhsiyar, Bādshāh, or simply Mu'in-ud-din Muḥammad Farrukhsiyar, Badshāb3 ; some writers style him Jalal-ud-din, Muḥammad Farrukhsiyar, Bādsbāh.4 After his death he is referred to as the Shahid-i-marħūm, " the Martyr received into mercy," although I know of no formal statement that this description had been officially assigned to him. As other sovereigns have claimed to be above grammar, so Farrukhsiyar asserted a similar right over the calendar by changing the name of Wednesday from Fourth Day (chahār shambah) to Auspicious Day (Humāyūn shambah, and that of Thursday from Fifth day to Fortunate Day (mubārik shambah). From the date of the victory over Jabāndār Shāh, these days are so referred to in Ijad's history of the reign.
Month. Day. Tarikh-i-Muzaffari, fol. 150
18 Ijād, fol. 14a
19 B. M. Addl. 16, 713
18 B. M. Addl. 1690, fol. 163a (1125-26)
1098 Blochmann, ‘A’in, table
1098 1 Kāmwar Khān, f. 137, entry of 9th Jamādi, II, 1125 H., Khūshḥāl Cand, 397a, Khāfī Khān, II, 737. Khāfi Khān's year (1123) is wrong-it should be 1124.