صور الصفحة
النشر الإلكتروني

but his cousin Muḥammad Amin Khan was, in a way, friendly to the Sayyads; and Şamṣām-ud-daulah "resorting to fox-like tactics" came over to their party.1

The distant subahs were left in the same hands as before, with a few exceptions, special arrangements being made for Mālwah and Kābul. Sarbuland Khan had been nominated to the latter province some months before, and had gone one or two stages on his journey. On learning that Farrukhsiyar 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 Nizam-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 Farrukhsiyar; but Nizam-ul-mulk, as his habit was, had declined to declare himself. The government of Paṭnah 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. Samṣām-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 Malwah. 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 urged 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 Maraḥmat Khān, son of Amir Khan, from the charge of Māndū. He had given dire offence to Husain 'Ali Khan by neglecting to pay his respects, when the Amir-ul-umara had passed near that fortress on his way from the Dakhin to Dehli.2

1 Khafi Khăn, II, 817, Kāmwar Khăn 197, Ahuat-i-khaā qīn, 146a, 152b.

2 Kāmwar Khan, 188, Aḥwāl-i-khawāqīn, 152a, Shiu Dās, 266. The form of farman to the governors can be seen from a translation of that to Ja'far Khān, governor of Bengal, in C. R. Wilson, "Early Annals," III, entry No. 1269 (consultation of March 19th, 1719 0. S.).

The faujdarship of Murādābād was given to Saif-ud-din 'Ali Khan, younger brother of the wazir; Muḥammad Rizā became chief qāḍī, Mir Khan, 'Alamgiri, was made Sadr--uş şudur or Grand Almoner, Diyanat Khan, Khwäfi (grandson of Amanat Khan) was appointed Diwān of the Khāliṣaḥ, and Rājah Bakht Mall made dwān 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 Khan (Mḥd. Murad) was sent as a prisoner to Husain 'Ali Khan's house, his jāgīrs 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 Ramazan 1139 H. (2nd May, 1727) at the age of seventy-two years. The jāgīrs of the late Sādāt Khan, father-inlaw, and of Shaistah Khan, maternal uncle of the late Emperor, were resumed; as were also those of Sayyad Salabat Khan, late general of the artillery, and of Afzal Khan, 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 peshwa, who had 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 Sambha Ji and some female members of his family who had been prisoners since the days of 'Alamgir. The Mahrattas also took with them at this time three important documents, a grant of the chauth of the Dakhin provinces, one for the sardeshmukhi of the same, and one for the swarāj or hereditary states. The first dated the 22nd Rabi' II, 1131 H. (13th

1 'Alī Naki (Diyānat Khān), d. 1151, H., 1738 A.D., Ma'āṣir-ul-umarā, II, 70, was the son of 'Abd-ul-qadir (Diyānat Khān) d. 1124 H., 1712-13, id. II, 59, son of Maʼin-ud-din Aḥmad (Amānat Khān) d. 1095, H., 1683-4, id. I, 258.

2 Kāmwar Khan, 199, Khāfi Khan, II, 817, Mḥd. Qāsim Lāhorī, 253, Tārīkh-iMuḥammadi, year 1139 H. Sayyad Ṣalabat Khān (afterwards Sādāt Khān, Zu,lfiqar Jang) was the eldest son of the Sādāt Khăn above named. He died after Muharram 1170 H. (September-October 1756), see Ma,āṣir-ul-umarā, II, 524. Sayyad Afzal Khan, Şadr Jahan, died late in Rabi' II, or early in Jamadî I, 1138 H. (Jan. 1725) at Shāhjahānābād (T-i-Mḥdi).

3 Chauth, literally "one-fourth," th of the revenue collections; sardesh,

March, 1719), gave them one-fourth of the revenue of all the six ṣūbahs of the Dakhin, including the tributary states of Tanjor, Trichinoply and Maisūr. The second dated the 4th Jamâdi I, (24th March, 1719) was for 10 per cent. of the remaining three-fourths of the same revenues. The swaraj were the territories in Shiva Ji's possession at the time of his death in 1681, now confirmed to his grandson with certain modifications.1


‘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 jāgīrs 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 Khan; and the two brothers almost came to drawing their swords upon each other. Ratn Cand, who is described as the "key of 'Abdullah Khan'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. If 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


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

1 Kāmwar Khăn, 199. Grant Duff (Bombay edition), 199 and note, where he says that these grants were made out in the name of Muḥammad Shah. 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 Shah'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.

2 Kamwar Khan, 196, Khāfi Khān, II., 822.

upon asses.

Kashmiris who had been guilty of calling out abusive words when the Rajah passed them, and caused them to be paraded with ignominy seated 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 Rajah 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 Gujarāt (17th Jamādī II., 6th May, 1719). Within a few days, however, events occurred which hindered him from carrying out his intention.1


During the weeks which followed the deposition of Farrukhsiyar, rumours of many sorts were prevalent. Suspicion chiefly rested on Rajah Jai Singh, Sawãe, Rājah Chabelah Ram, governor of Allahābād, and Nawab Nizām-ul-mulk, the new governor of Malwah. 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 grouud for these assertions. The other two men were, however, notorious partizans of Farrukhsiyar, Chabelah Ram 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 Nekusiyar 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 Khan, the Sayyads' nephew, was hurried off to his new government, so that he might reach Agrah before Nizam-ul-mulk passed through it on his way to Mãlwah. A new commandant, Samandar Khan, was appointed (16th Jamādi II, 1131 H., 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 Dawar Dad Khan accompanied Samandar Khān; but in addition to this ostensible errand, everyone believed that he had been commissioned to blind Nekusiyar 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 Agrah garrison, who had set up a rival emperor in the person of Prince Nekūsiyar."

1 Khāfi Khan, II, 823, Mḥd. Qāsim, Lahorī, 263, 264, Kāmwar Khan, 202, SivāniḥKhizri, f.

% Kāmwar Khăn, 202, Shiu Das, 26 b. Khāfi Khān, II, 827.

Nekūsiyar, eldest surviving son of Prince Muhammad Akbar, the fourth son of the Emperor 'Alamgir, was born in Sha'ban 1090 H. (September, October 1679). Early in Muharram 1092 H. (January 1681).. Prince Akbar fled from his father's camp, and joining the Pathors, laid claim to the throne. His property was at once confiscated by 'Alamgir, and his wife, two sons, Nekusiyar and Mḥd. Asghar, and two daughters were made prisoners. A few days afterwards Prince Akbar's family was sent off from Ajmer to Akbarābād. Here Nekusiyar 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 what it was called.3

Accounts vary as to the part taken in the plot by Safi Khan, the displaced qila'hdar. 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 Kalinjar to Agrah 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 ambitious 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 say that among the men mixed

[ocr errors]

1 His birth was reported to his grandfather on the 1st Zū,l Qa‘dah 1090 H. (4th December, 1679), Ma,āṣir-i-‘Ālamgīrī, 182. He was the third son.

2 The wife and family were despatched on the 16th Muḥarram 1092 H. (5th February, 1681), Ma,āṣir-i-‘Ālamgīrī 204. Another son, Buland Akhtar, and two daughters were born to Prince Akbar after his rebellion, and were left with the Rathors upon his flight to the Dakhin. The boy was surrendered to 'Alamgir on the 20th Zu,l 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 Bāgh there, Ma,āṣir-i-‘Ālamgīrī, 395, Tārikh-iMuḥammadi, year 1118 H., and Kām Rāj, ‘Ibratnāmah, fol. 69a, Bhim Sen, Nuskhahi-dilkushā, fol. 1576.

3 Maʻāṣir-i-'Alamgīrī, 202, 203.


✦ Mirzā ‘Abd-us-salām, first Mumin Khan, then Şafi Khan, died early in Rajab 1137 H. (March 1725) at Dihli, aged over 70 years. He was son-in-law of his uncle, Ashraf Khan (d. 1097 H., 1685-6). His brother, Islām Khān (Mir Aḥmad, formerly Barkhūrdār Khan) died in 1144 H. (1731-2) aged 77. Their father was Şafi Khān (d. 1105 H., 1693-4), second son of Islām Khan, Mashhadi, (Mīr ‘Abd-us-salām) whose first title was Ikhtiṣās Khan, (d. 1057 H., 1647-8), Ma,āṣir-ul-umarā, I., 182167, I. 272, II. 741, Tārīkh-i-Muḥammadi, years 1057, 1097, 1105, 1137, 1144 H., Burhān-ul-fatūḥ, 162a, 167a.

J. 1. 5

« السابقةمتابعة »