« 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 Rathors, 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 Qadir, Bedil, wrote:
Didst thou see what they did to the mighty king ??
To this Mir Azmat-ullah, Bilgrami, Bekhabar, using the same form and rhymes, replied:
To the infirm monarch they did what they ought,
By light of Wisdom's lamp this date was prescribed:
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 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.
2 Didi kih cah ba shāh-i-girāmī kardand,
Șad jor-o-jafă zi rāh-i-khāmi kardand;
Ba qirat-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 Shah Nawāz Khān 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 inherent 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 Khushḥāl Cand, Farrukhsiyar
1 Miftaḥ, 302-3, Ma,äşir-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.1
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 Yar Khan, 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 coin a day for each of these horses, and not to report until that amount was exceeded.3
In the Aḥwāl-i-khawāqīn is a passage describing the early intimacy between Farrukhsiyar and Khan 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.4
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-i-lutf o ‘ināyat shud wālā-janāb,
Khusrau, Farrukhsiyar, shāhanshah‘ī, mālik-i-rikāb,
Sākht az rūe iradat o zi rasukh-i-i'tiqād
REIGN OF FARRUKHSÏYAR.
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 Ram, father of Khushḥal 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 Ijad, the court historian, namely, the 19th Ramazan. I cannot understand, however, how this writer came to give the year 1096 instead of 1094 H. Mirzā Muḥammad, who is nearly always to be trusted, gives an age at death which confirms Kushḥāl Cand's date (1094).2
I Miftāḥ, 303, Aṣār-uṣ-ṣanādīd, 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.
2 The two chronograms referred to are:
I. Tā kih az ăn jahān Farrukhsiyar amad ba did
Rūḥ-i-farrukh, rūḥ-i-farrukh” dar tan-i-'ālam rasid.
"In order that Farrukhsiyar should come to light from that world, "A joyous soul, a joyous soul, entered the body of this world.” II. Gar sal-i-tawallad-ash ba-umed
Goyand, "Walīd-i-‘Azīm-i-jāwed" (1094)
"If the year of his hopeful birth is sought,
"They say, 'Child of the Great Eternal.' (1094) or, "Child of 'Azīm now in eternity." Khushḥal Cand, fol. 8b.
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-shan's, defeat and death at Lahor. The first day of the reign, according to the official calculation, was fixed from this coronation at Paṭnah, and Jahāndār Shāh's reign was treated as never having existed. The victory over Jahāndār Shah took place near Agrah on the 13th Zu,l 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 Zu,l Hijjah), to the same day, 6 (lunar) years, 3 months, and 25 days.1
· C.-Style and title in life, and after death.
His titles are nowhere given with completeness. He is called either Abu, Muzaffar Mu'in-ud-din, Mḥd Farrukhsiyar, Badshah, or simply Mu'in-ud-din Muḥammad Farrukhsiyar, Badshah3; some writers style him Jalāl-ud-din, Muḥammad Farrukhsiyar, Badshah. After his death he is referred to as the Shahid-i-marḥum, "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 (chahar shambah) to Auspicious Day (Humayun shambah, and that of Thursday from Fifth day to Fortunate Day (mubarik shambah). From the date of the victory over Jahāndār Shāh, these days are so referred to in Ijad's history of the reign."
Tarikh-i-Muzaffari, fol. 150
Ijād, fol. 14a
B. M. Addl. 16, 713
B. M. Addl. 1690, fol. 163a (1125-26)
1 Kāmwar Khan, f. 137, entry of 9th Jamādī, II, 1125 H., Khushḥāl Cand, 397a, Khāfi Khān, II, 737. Khāfĩ Khān's year (1123) is wrong-it should be 1124.
3 Warid 148a, Beale's Miftāḥ, 300.
▲ Tārikh-i-Muzaffarī, page 130, Jām-i-jam.
5 Ijād, fo. 106a, 107b, Kāmwar Khan, p. 137.