صور الصفحة
النشر الإلكتروني

but his cousin Muhammad Amin Khan was, in a way, friendly to the Sayyads; and Şamşām-ud-daulah "resorting to fox-like tactics” came over to their party.l

The distant şübahs were left in the same hands as before, with a few exceptions, special arrangements being made for Mālwah and Kābul. Sarbuland Khān had been nominated to the latter province some months before, and had gone one or two stages on his journey. On learning that Farrukhsīyar had been deposed, he returned by himself to Dihli, and his appointment having been confirmed, he left again on the 19th Rabi' II (10th March, 1719). There remained Nizām-ul-mulk, and it was urgent that he should be induced to quit the capital. The Sayyads feared mischief from the Mughals, the strongest in numbers and in fluence of any of the numerous groups into which their opponents were divided. At the last moment Muḥammad Amin Khan had elected to take their side against Farrukhsīyar; but Nizām-ul-mulk, as his habit was, had declined to declare himself. The government of Patnah had been assigned to him on the 18th Rabi' (7th February, 1719); but apparently he was not anxious to proceed there. Husain 'Ali Khān, as usual, was for the emplyment of violent measures; he thought Nizām-ul-mulk should be assassinated. Qutb-ul-mulk preferred to detach him from his friends, believing that when thus weakened, he could more easily be got rid of. Şamşām-ud-daulah adhered to the latter view. The Sayyads, though good soldiers, were poor politicians; and " since a leader without wisdom is no better than a common soldier," they thus made ready the way for their own downfall.

Nizām-ul-mulk was offered Mālwah. At first he declined it; and it was only upon a solemn promise of non-revocation that he accepted. He left the capital on the 24th Rabi' II (15th March, 1719), taking with him all his family and property; and although repeatedly arged to do so, he would not leave even his son to represent him at court. He was followed by all the Mughals who had been out of employ since the fall of Mir Jumlah, and he reached his headquarters in about two months. Another change which led to future difficulties was the removal of Marahmat Khān, son of Amir Khān, from the charge of Mándū. He had given dire offence to Ņusain 'Ali Khān by neglecting to

pay his respects, when the Amir-ul-umarā had passed near that fortress on his way from the Dakhin to Dehli.”

1 Khāfi Khān, II, 817, Kāmwar Khān 197, Aḥwâl-i-khawaqin, 146a, 152b.

% Kāmwar Khān, 188, Ahwâl-i-khawaqin, 152a, Shiū Dās, 266. The form of farmān to the governors can be seen from a translation of that to Ja'far Khân, governor of Bengal, in C. R. Wilson, “ Early Annals," III, entry No. 1269 (consultation of March 19th, 1719 0. S.).

The faujdārship of Murādābād was given to Saif-ud-din 'Ali Khān, younger brother of the wazir ; Muḥammad Rizā became chief qārī, Mir Khān, 'Alamgiri, was made Şadr--sudūr or Grand Almoner, Diyānat Khān, Khwāfi (grandson of Amānat Khân) was appointed Diwān of the Khālisah, and Rājah Bakht Mall made diwān of the Tan. Himmat Khān, a protégé of Qutb-ul-mulk's, was given a subordinate post connected with the audience-chamber, and entrusted with the care of the young Emperor as his tutor and guardian.

The next task was to proceed against the persons and property of Farrukhsiyar's chief adherents. I'tiqad Khān (MẠd. Murād) was sent as a prisoner to Husain ‘Ali Khān's house, bis jāgirs were resumed, and all his property confiscated. He had managed to make away with a great deal, but much was recovered. By one account, it took ten to fifteen days to remove the immense store of valuables that he had obtained through the unwise liberality of Farrukhsiyar. I'tiqād Khān now disappears from our story, and ending his days in obscurity, he died at Dehli on the 12th Ramazān 1139 H. (2nd May, 1727) at the age of seventy-two years. The jāgūrs of the late Sādāt Khān, father-inlaw, and of Shāistah Khān, maternal uncle of the late Emperor, were resumed ; as were also those of Sayyad Şalābat Khān, late general of the artillery, and of Afzal Khān, the late Sadr. The allowances and lands of Farrukhsiyar's wife, the daughter of Mabārājah Ajit Singh were not interfered with.”

A few days after the accession of the new sovereign, the Mahrattas under Bālā Ji, the peshwā, who bad come in Husain 'Ali Khan's train, received their dismissal for the Dakhin (29th Rabi' II, 1131 H., 30th March, 1719), taking with them Madan Singh, the younger son of Sambhā Ji and some female members of his family who had been prisoners since the days of 'Alamgir. The Mabrattas also took with them at this time three important documents, a grant of the chauth of the Dakhin provinces, one for the sardeshmukhī of the same, and one for the swarāj or hereditary states. The first dated the 22nd Rabi'II, 1131 H. (13th

1 'Ali Naki (Diyānat Khān), d. 1151, H., 1738 A.D., Ma'āşir-ul-umarā, II, 70, was the son of 'Abd-ul-qadir (Diyanat Khan) d. 1124 H., 1712-13, id. II, 59, son of Ma'in-ud-din Ahmad (amānat Khān) d. 1095, H., 1683-4, id. I, 258.

3 Kãmwar Khăn, 199, Khăfi Khan, II, 817, Md. Qặsim Lahori, 253, Tārā kh-Muḥammadī, year 1139 H. Sayyad Şalăbat Khān (afterwards Sādāt Khān, Zulfiqar Jang) was the eldest son of the Sādāt Khan above named. He died after Muḥarram 1170 H. (September October 1756), see Magāşir-ul-umarā, II, 524. Sayyad Afzal Khān, Şadr Jahān, died late in Rabi II, or early in Jamādi I, 1138 H. (Jan. 1725) at Shāhjabānābād (T-i-Mhdi). 3 Chauth, literally one-fourth,"

» fth of the revenue collections; sardesh,

March, 1719), gave them one-fourth of the revenue of all the six şübahs of the Dakhin, including the tributary states of Tānjor, Trichinoply and Maisūr. The second dated the 4th Jamadi I, (24th March, 1719) was for 10 per cent of the remaining three-fourths of the same reve

The swarāj were the territories in Shivā Ji's possession at the time of his death in 1681, now confirmed to his grandson with certain modifications,



'Abdullah Khān, making use of his position within the palace and fort, had taken possession of all the buried treasure, the jewel-house, the armoury, and all the imperial establishments. He had also resumed the jāgārs of over two-hundred of Farrukhsiyar's officers, and of the relations of Bahādur Shāh and “Alamgir. Within two or three days' time these were all granted afresh to his own officers and dependants. This procedure was greatly objected to by Husain ‘Ali Khān; and the two brothers almost came to drawing their swords upon each other. Ratn Cand, who is described as the “key of 'Abdullah Khān's wits," intervened with smooth words, caused the jāgīrs of the dismissed nobles to be granted to Husain 'Ali Khan's followers, and thus put an end to the strife. He reminded the brothers that they had lately behaved in a way to anger both God and man, and if they wished for their own preservation from the clutches of rival nobles, it was absolutely necessary for them to suppress all differences and act heart and soul together. lf they did not act in agreement, the Mughal leaders would rend them to pieces.


As already mentioned, Ajit Singh when he passed through the bazars was followed by cries of “Slayer of his son-in-law” (dāmādkush). Insulting words were written on pieces of paper and stuck upon the door of his house, and one day cow bones were thrown down among the vessels he used in daily worship. The Wazir seized two or three Kashmiris who had been guilty of calling out abusive words when the Rājah passed them, and caused them to be paraded with ignominy seated upon asses.

mukhi, the allowances of a sardeshmukh, [Sar, “chief,” des, country," mukh, "head"]; Swa, "own,rāj," territory."

1 Kāmwar Khān, 199. Grant Duff (Bombay edition), 199 and note, where he says that these grants were made out in the name of Muḥammad Shāh. No doubt, the above dates fall in the 1st year of that reign by the official reckoning; but if the deeds were actually issued on the dates they bear, they must have been made out in the name of Rafi'ud-darajāt, for Maḥammad Shāh's accesion being then hidden in the future, the fact that at a subsequent date that accession would be ante-dated could not be known to anyone.

& Kẩmwar Khăn, 196, Khafi Khăn, II, 822.

But the Kashmiri boys followed, and shouted that this was the fitting punishment of the faithless and evil-minded, (meaning, of Ajit Singh himself). The Rājah to escape these insults was in haste to quit Dehli. After receiving large gifts in cash and jewels, he obtained an order for returning to his government of Gujarat (17th Jamādi II., 6th May, 1719). Within a few days, however, events occurred which hindered him from carrying out his intention.


During the weeks which followed the deposition of Farrukhsiyar, rumours of many sorts were prevalent. Suspicion chiefly rested on Rājah Jai Singh, Sawāe, Rājah Chabelah Rām, governor of Allahābād, and Nawāb Nizām-ul-mulk, the new governor of Mālwah. A combination of these three nobles was supposed to be imminent. As to the last of them, it may be doubted whether there was any sufficient ground for these assertions. The other two men were, however, notorious partizans of Farrukhsīyar, Chabelah Rām and his family owing their elevation entirely to that emperor and his father, “ Azim-ush-shān. In the case of those two nobles, there was undoubtedly some foundation for the popular belief. The centre of danger appeared to be Akbarābād, where Nekūsīyar and other members of the imperial house were in prison. A pretender might be set up from among these princes; and against this possibility special precautions must be taken. Ghairat Kbān, the Sayyads' nephew, was hurried off to his new government, so that he might reach Agrah before Nizām-ul-mulk passed through it on his way to Mālwah. A new commandant, Samandar Khan, was appointed (16th Jamādi II, 1131 8., 5th May, 1719) to take charge of the fort at Āgrah. Much treasure was still in the vaults of that stronghold, and the new government was anxious to obtain control of this money themselves, and prevent its falling into anyone else's hands. To take charge of these hoards Dāwar Dād Khān accompanied Samandar Khān; but in addition to this ostensible errand, everyone believed that he had been commissioned to blind Nekūsiyar and the other princes. On the 1st Rajab 1131 H. (19th May, 1719) word was brought to Dihli that the new commandant had been refused admission by the Āgrah garrison, who had set up a rival emperor in the person of Prince Nekūsiyar.a

[ocr errors]

1 Khāfi Khān, II, 823, Mḥd. Qāsim, Lāhorī, 263, 264, Kāmwar Khān, 202, 8iwānih. Khizrī, f.

% Kāmwar Khān, 202, Shiū Dās, 26 b. Khāfi Khān, II, 827.

[ocr errors]

Nekūsīyar, eldest surviving son of Prince Muḥammad Akbar, the fourth son of the Emperor 'Alamgir, was born in Sha'bān 1090 H. (September, October 1679) Early in Muharram 1092 H. (January 1681). Prince Akbar fled from his father's camp, and joining the Pāthors, laid claim to the throne. His property was at once confiscated by * Alamgir, and his wife, two sons, Nekasiyar and Mhd. Asghar, and two daughters were made prisoners. A few days afterwards Prince Akbar's family was seut off from Ajmer to Akbarābād. Here Nekūsiyar had been a state prisoner ever since, and although now over forty years of age had never set foot outside the fort. His ignorance is described, no doubt with some exaggeration, as so great that when he saw a cow or horse, he asked what sort of animal it was and wbat it was called.3

Accounts vary as to the part taken in the plot by Safi Khān, the displaced qila hdār. Some describe him as a willing agent, or even the originator of in the conspiracy; others make him out to have acted under compulsion from the mutinous garrison. He had been transferred by the Sayyads from Kálinjar to Āgrah only a short time before (17th Sha'bān 1130 H., 15th July, 1718), and in those few months could not have acquired such influence over the garrison as to induce it to follow him in such an ambitions undertaking. Moreover, he was by this time nearly seventy years of age and thus not very likely to be a willing sharer in such a revolt. Some

Some say that among the men mixed

1 His birth was reported to his grandfather on the 1st Zū,1 Qa'dah 1090 H. (4th December, 1679), Ma,āsir-j- Alamgīrī, 182. He was the third son.

% The wife and family were despatched on the 16th Muharram 1092 H. (5th February, 1681), Maāsir-j-Alamgirī 204. Another son, Buland Akhtar, and two daughters were born to Prince Akbar after his rebellion, and were left with the Rāthors upon his flight to the Dakhin. The boy was surrendered to 'Alamgir on the 20th Zū,1 Qa'dah 1109 H. (30th May, 1698) by Durgā Dās, Rāthor, as a peaceoffering : he died in prison at Aḥmadnagar on the 29th Rabi 'II, 1118 H. (9th August, 1706) and was buried in the Bihisht Bägh there, Ma,āşir-z-'Ālangārī, 395, Tārikh-eMuhammadī, year 1118 H., and Kām Rāj, 'Ibratnāmah, fol. 69a, Bhim Sen, Nuskhah. 2-dilkushā, fol. 1576.

3 Maʻāsir-e-Alamgērī, 202, 203.

* Mirzā 'Abd-us-salām, first Mūmin Khan, then Şafi Khān, died early in Rajab 1137 H. (March 1725) at Dihlī, aged over 70 years. He was son-in-law of his uncle, Ashraf Khân (d. 1097 H., 1685-6). His brother, Islām Khān (Mir Ahmad, formerly Barkħārdār Khan) died in 1144 H. (1731-2) aged 77. Their father was Şafí Khăn (d. 1105 H., 1693-4), second son of Islām Khān, Mashhadi, (Mīr 'Abd-us-salām) whose first title was Ikhtişāş Khān, (d. 1057 H., 1647-8), Ma,āşir-ul-umară, I., 162167, I. 272, II. 741, Tārīkh-i-Muhammadī, years 1057, 1097, 1105, 1137, 1144 H., Burhan-ul-fatūḥ, 162a, 167a.

J. 1. 5

« السابقةمتابعة »