페이지 이미지
PDF

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 Samsām-ud-daulah for advice. That noble repaired to Qutb-ul-mulk's on the 9th Zü, l Qa'dah (3rd October, 1718) and conferred with him. At this time, by reason of the rise of I'tiqād Khān (Muhammad Muråd), Samsām-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 darbār, made his obeisance, and, to all appearance, the quarrel was again made up, after the usual false speeches had been exchanged.

The story goes that Samsām-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 “Qūll" 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, “Qull” From some motive, either of prudence or friendship, Samsām-ud-daulah, instead of repeating the signal, changed the word, and shouted “Qūll” (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 Samsām-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 Samsām-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 Kashmiri calls to each other when working. Anand Rām, (Mukhlis) Mirãt-ul-Istiláh, fol. 166b, B. M. Oriental, No. 1818 (Elliot MSS.). Anand Rām quotes Bābar as to the convenience of boat travelling.

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

* Mirzā Muhammad, 405, Khushbāl Cand, 4.11a, Shili Dás 17a, Yahyā Khān 128b, Kām Râj, ‘Ibratnāmah, 56a, Kāmwar Khān, 183. .

J. I. 41

After a few days the Emperor went out again on a hunting expedition, accompanied by many officers and state officials: and, as usual, the rumour 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 Samsāmrud-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 (yasūwal) could say, the whole of these men followed into the audience tent. Farrukhsiyar 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 Zü,l Qa'dah (14th October, 1718) Zafar Khān, the fourth Bakhshi, took I'tiqād Khān to Qutbul-mulk's house, when the favourite and the wazir interchanged presents, and three days afterwards, Samsām-ud-daulah visited I'tiqād FChân. About this time Farrukhsiyar, always of a suspicious 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."

SECTION 30,—MIR JUMLAH PARDONED.

After waiting for more than a month, Mir Jumlah was at last admitted to audience on the 7th Zü,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 ‘Idgäh 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 resented the failure of his plans on the day of the former ‘Id at the end of Ramazán. 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'tiqād Khan had

1 This gives Kämwar Khān, 183, an opening for quoting the saying, “one spot (or dot) turns “makram,” so (a confidant) into “mujrim,” ps” (a crimi. mal)”: Mahram ba yak nuktah mujrim shavuad. a For the meaning and attributes of this distinction, see Blochmann, ‘Ain, I., 364, and Tārīkh-i-yaashidi, Ross and Elias, p. 55, note.

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 his bravery in the field, they found reasons for holding that right was on his side. I'tiqād 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'tiqād 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 Shāh, 15th Zü,l Hijjah 1130 H. (8th November, 1718), Qutb-ul-mulk did not attend."

SECTION 31–HUSAIN “ALI KHAN's START FROM THE DAKHIN.

On the 1st Muharram 1131 H. (23rd November, 1718) an official report reached the Court that in the previous month Husain ‘Ali Khān had started from Aurangābād. On the 22nd Muharram (14th December, 1718) he left Burhānpur, and Ujjain on the 4th Safar (26th December, 1718), continuing his route viá 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 Hindústän. About this time Husain ‘Ali Khān also reported that Mu‘in-ud-din,” a reputed son of Prince Akbar, the rebel son of ‘Alamgir, had been captured by Rājah Sāhū, the Mahrattah, 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.”

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 Hindústān, and the fiction of having found a son of Prince Akbar was only part of this design, and in fact a mere excuse.

* Kāmwar Khān, 183, 184, Mirzā Muhammad, 410. * Mandeshwar, Thornton, 645, now in Sindiah's dominions, Lat. 24° 1', Long. 75° 97. * ‘Ahwäl-i-khawāqin, Ib. 127a, refers to the pretended prince as Jawān Bakht, who had come to the Karnātak from Irān when Prince Akbar died. Yahyā Khān, 124a, says he was called a son of Kām Bakhsh. * Kāmwar Khān, Shi'i Däs, 20a, Khāfi Khān, II., 793, 795.

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 Isfahân, 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 Hindústän. The youth selected for the rôle 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 Chawth, 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." 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, Husain ‘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 Shawwal (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. ‘Ālim ‘Ali Khān,” his nephew and adopted son, was named as his representative during his absence. Saif-ud-din ‘Alī Khān temporarily’ replaced Jân Nişār Khān as gover

1 G. Duff, 197.

8 Kām Râj, ‘Ibratnāmāh, 64b. **

8 ‘Ālim ‘Alī Khān had been adopted when an infant, (Käm Râj, ‘Ibratnāmah, 64b.) The farmán of appointment can be seen in Majma'-wl-inshā (litho.) p. 84. It includes the 6 sićbahs of the Dakhin with the faujdúr-ship of the Karnātak and of Bijäpur, and the collectorship (tahsildári) of the tribute (peshkash) due from the zamindårs of Sondhã and Bidnir. Mubăriz Khān, Daler Khan, and the other governors were

placed under him, and letters notifying this fact were transmitted to them through him.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

nor of Khāndesh, and Sādāt Khān, an old officer now blind of boh eyes, was sent as commandant of the fort at Ahmadnagar. ‘Ālim ‘Ali Khān was put under the tutelage of Shankarā Mulhär, a trusted agent of Rājah Sahā.” About November, 1718, Husāin 'Ali Khān started himself,” accompanied by Sayyad Asadullah (Nawāb Auliyā), the sons of Jān Nişār Khān, ‘Iwaz Khān, deputy governor of Barār, Asad ‘Ali Rhān, the one-handed, the ‘Ali Murād Khāni, Dil Daler Khān (brother of Lutfullah Khān, Sādiq), Ikhtisãs Khān (grandson of Khān Zamān), Hājī Saifullah Khān, Zia-ud-din Khān, diwān of the Dakhin, Firüz ‘Ali Khān, Bärhah, the Amir-ul-wmarã's Bakhshi, Diyāmat Khān (grandson of Amânat Khān, ‘Khāfi), Räjah Jai Singh, Bundelah, Rājah Muhkam Singh, one of the chief employés, and Khizr Khān, Panni (sister's son of Dā'ūd 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 Talingăs. 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 jägår." 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, Khamdā Rāo Dhabāriyah, Santă,” and some others. These leaders received horses and elephants, robes of honour,

1 Khāfī Khān, II., 797.

3. For Shankarä, see Grant Duff, 197, Khāfī Khān, II., 796.

$ Khāfī Khān, the historian, was himself present in Husain ‘Alī Khān's army, see II., 798. He had just been removed from the faujdari of Mustafābād.

* Muhammad Qāsim, Lahori, 225. Ikhtisãs Khān, eldest son of Manavvar Khān, Qutbi, son of Manavvar Khān, son of Khān Zamān, Ma,ágir-ul-umarā, III., 655, Ziá-ud-din Khān, divām of the Dakhin, see Ma, āsir-ul-wmarā, III., 36, and Khafi Khān, T.I., 790, Diyānat Khān, grandson of Amânat Khān, Ma,āgīr-wl-wmarā, I., 258. Diyānat Khān, No. 2, id. II., 62, Rājah Mukham Singh (Khatri), Ma,ásir-ulwmarā, II., 330, died Jamādi II, 1137 H., Tārīkh-i-Muhammadi. For the Pannis, see Ma,āşīr-wl-wmarā, II., 63. Instead of “Jai Singh " the Siyar-ul-mwta, akharin has “Partit Singh.”

5 Khāfī Khān, II., 803.

* Or Khandi. This man was Rājah Sahū’s so-called Sābahdār in Khāndesh, (Khāfi Khān, II., 798). An abstract of his career runs thus (Grant Duff, 162, 163, 196, 209) : he was present at the council held after the death of Sambhā Jī (1689); and took a part in the flight of Rājā Rām. In 1716, after a long absence, he reappeared at the court of Satāra and was made Semāpatā (commander-in-chief). He died in 1721, shortly after the defeat of ‘Alim Ali Khān. Santā Jī 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,

As

« 이전계속 »