« 이전계속 »
the house of Taimúr to take his place. But a prince once deprived of eyesight could not be raised to the throne. The Emperor resolved, therefore, to deprive of their eyesight the more prominent and more energetic of the many scions of the house of Taimúr held in captivity in the palace. On the 6th Muharram 1126 H. (21st January, 1714), three of the princes, A‘zzu-d-din, eldest son of Jahāndār Shāh, 'Alā Tabár," son of A'zam Shāh, and Farrukhsiyar’s own younger brother, Humāyūn Bakht (then only ten or twelve years old), were removed from the palace to the prison at the Tirpoliyah or Triple gate. It was the place where Jahāndār Shāh's life had been taken, and where in a few years’ time Farrukhsiyar himself was to suffer the same fate. A needle was passed through the eyes of the three princes, and they were thus rendered incapable of ever becoming rivals for the throne. Mir Jumlah is credited with having been the man who urged Farrukhsiyar to carry out this harsh act.” * Finally, on the 2nd Rabi’ II, 1126 H. (16th April, 1714), the Qalmāq woman, Shādmän, entitled Räe Mān, a servant in the palace, was made over to Sarbarāh Khān, the kotwal or Chief of the Police, and her head was cut off at the Chabūtrah,” or central police-station. Her crime was that, during the reign of Jahāndār Shāh, one of her relatives had drawn his sword on Mir Jumlah. Räe Mān is the woman who gave the alarm when an attempt was made to assassinate Jahāndār Shāh; * she bravely attacked the assailants and slew one of them with her own hand. For this good service she had received the titles of Razā Bahādur, Rustam-i-Hind, and the rank of 5,000 zāt.” • Although not mentioned in the general histories, the humoristic poet, Sayyad Muhammad Ja'far of Närnol, poetically Zatali, is said to have been one of the victims. His crime is said to have been a satirical
Wärid, 150b, Kāmwar Khān, p, 144, ‘Khāfī Khān II, 740.
8 Chabūtrah means a platform of earth or masonry raised slightly above the surface of the ground. This name was given to the office of the head police officer of Dihli ; it was situated in the Chāndni Cauk, the main street leading from the Lähor gate of the city to the Lähor gate of the citadel.
* See Journal, Vol. LXV (1896), p. 147.
* Kāmwar Khān, 146, Mirzā Muhammad, 187.
J. I. 6 o
parody of the distich, on Farrukhsiyar's coinage. The details will be given when we come to speak of the coinage of the reign." . . . . . . SECTION 14. FIRST QUARREL witH THE SAYYADs (APRIL 1713). The story as told by Yahyā Khān, Farrukhsiyar's Mir Munshi, is that at the enthronement ‘Abdullah Khān demanded the post. of wazir for himself. Farrukhsiyar made the objection that he had given his word to Ghāzi-ud-din, Khān. (i.e., Ahmad Beg, Ghālib Jang), a promise which he could not break. ‘Abdullah Khān might retain all power under the name of Wakil-i-Mutlaq or vicegerent. ‘Abdullah Rhān said there had been no Wakil-i-Mutlaq since Jahāngir's reign, except when Bahādur Shāh gave that office to Asad Khān. But the two cases were not parallel; he had won the crown for Farrukhsiyar by his own sword and his own right hand, therefore his title to be wazir was indisputable. Farrukhsiyar thought it best to give way, as he had only newly succeeded and was not yet 'secure on the throne. In this version of the facts, the only certain point is the supersession of Ghāziud-din Khan, Ghālib Jang : but there is no sufficient reason to believe that Farrukhsiyar was, in any way, a reluctant participator in the new arrangement, although as soon as he had appointed ‘Abdullah Khān, he appears to have repented of it.” . . . . . . . . . . . As we have seen, a few days after the victory at Agrah, Qutb-ulMulk was detached to seize Dihli; and, for the moment, the second brother, Husain 'Ali Khān, was incapacitated by severe wounds from taking any active part in affairs. The opportunity was too good to be lost. Farrukhsiyar was never long of the same mind and fell always under the influence of the last speaker. Mir Jumlah, Khān Dauran, Taqarrub Khān, and other personal friends and favourites found thus a splendid opening for intrigue, of which they at once availed themselves. Between the departure of Qutb-ul-Mulk for Dihli and Farrukhsiyar's own arrival at the capital barely a month elapsed; but this short interval was sufficient to implant in Farrukhsiyar's mind the seeds of suspicion, and he arrived at Dihli already estranged from the two Sayyads. We have told how the Court party interfered between the Sayyads and Zu,lfiqār Khān, beguiling the latter
1 Malāhat-i-maqāl, fol. 74a. Beale, p. 186, says Ezad Bakhsh, Razā, was also executed, but as he died in 1119 H. (Rieu, Index, p. 1157), this must be a mistake. The Tärikh-i-Muhammad?, a very accurate work, gives Ezad Bakhsh’s death at Akbarābād under 1119 H., and says he was son of Åqā Mullā, son of Zain-ul‘Abidain, son of Asaf Khān, Ja'far, the Sadiqi, the Qazwini, alias the Akbarābādi. An account of this Asaf Khān is in Ma,ásir-ul-umará I., 113. 8 Yahyā Khān, 122a. - -
to his destruction. These intrigues had not remained altogether concealed from Husain ‘Ali Khān, and in the most secret manner he communicated his suspicions to his brother. He wrote, we are told, that on his brother's leaving the camp it was clear, from the Prince's talk and the nature of his acts, that he was a man who paid no regard to claims for service performed, one void of faith, a breaker of his word, and altogether without shame. Thus it was necessary for them to act in their own interests without regard to the plans of the new sovereign. If Husain 'Ali Khān really wrote these words, at such an early stage of his acquaintance with Farrukhsiyar, it proves him to have possessed wonderful penetration and great insight into character. The remainder of our story yields abundant evidence of the fact that the character of Farrukhsiyar could hardly be delineated with greater accuracy than in the above words. Acting on his brother's hint, ‘Abdullah Khān, as a precaution, assumed possession of the house lately occupied by Kokaltásh Rhān, Jahāndār Shāh's foster-brother, and with it all the cash and property contained therein. For a couple of weeks after Farrukhsiyar's entry into Dihli, the appearance of amity was preserved. But the weapons of discord lay in abundance ready to hand. The disputes that now began raged round two things: The nominations to office, and the appropriation of the confiscated wealth of the Jahāndār Shāhi nobles. A third lever for persuading Farrukhsiyar to get rid of the two Sayyads was found in his superstitious fears. When ‘Abdullah Khān reached Dilhi in advance of the Emperor, he took upon himself to promise the post of Diwān of the Khâlisah, or Exchequer Office, to Lutfullah Khān, Sādiq, and that of Sadr-us-Sudūr, or Head of the Religious Endowments, to the former holder, Sayyad Amjad Khān. On the march from Ágrah, Farrukhsiyar gave these offices to his own followers; Chhabilah Rām, Nāgar, receiving the Diwani of the Khālişah,” and Afzal Khān, who had taught Farrukhsiyar to read the Qurān, being made Sadr. Over these conflicting orders a quarrel broke out directly the Emperor reached Dihli. ‘Abdullah Rhān, Qutb-ul-Mulk, fell into a passion, and said that if his very first exercise of power was contested, what was the object of being wazir P Mir Jumlah and other favourites did their best to inflame the wound by remarking that when a sovereign deputed power to a minister, it was for
1 Amjad Khān's original name was Bū ‘Ali; he was Bakhshi and Wāqi'ah Nigâr of Dihli at the time of ‘Ālamgir's death and was made Sadr by Bahādur Shāh-Khūshhāl Cand, 376a.
8 Chhabilah Bām's appointment was made on the 17th Zā,l Hijjah, Kāmwar Khān, 127.
the minister to recognise the limits of that power, and not make appointments to high office without sanction. A compromise was at last arrived at ; Lutfullah Khān retained the Diwani and Afzal Khān, the Sadārat with the titles of Sadr Jahān. Chhabilah Râm was consoled with the Government of Agrah." co * Owing to the violent change of government, there were naturally many confiscated mansions at the disposal of the crown. Two of these with their contents were conferred on Qutb-ul-Mulk and his brother. One known as Ja‘far Khān's, which Kokaltāsh Khān, Khān Jahān, had held, was given to Qutb-ul-Mulk; and another called Shāistah Khān's, recently in the possession of Zü’lfiqār Khān, was made over to Husain 'Ali Khān. As soon as the distribution had been made, Farrukhsiyar's private circle of friends poured into his ear suggestions that these two mansions contained untold treasures, the accumulated wealth of many generations. In them was stored, they said, the property which had belonged to the four sons of Bahādur Shāh, and the whole revenues of Hindústān for a year past. All this had now fallen into the possession of the two Sayyads. On the other hand, the imperial treasury had been emptied and the palace denuded of everything to pay Jahāndār Shāh's soldiers.” * Superstition was even more powerfully brought into play. It was a superstitious country and a superstitious age ; and Farrukhsiyar was as much subject to these influences as any of his contemporaries. A prophesy had been made, which met with the widest acceptance, that after Bahādur Shāh's death his youngest descendant would reign. He would, in his turn, be followed by a Sayyad. Talk about this became so common that soon everyone had heard it. Of course, it was at once urged on the Emperor that the Sayyad who was to reign could be no other than one of the two brothers. Acting on the principle that dropping water wears away a stone,” they repeated this story over and over again to Farrukhsiyar, till it had the effect of making him openly show ill-feeling to the two Sayyad brothers.” * The quarrel had proceeded so far by the beginning of Rabi ‘I. (27th March 1713), that Qutb-ul-Mulk ceased to attend the daily audience, an infallible sign that a noble had a grievance or was out of humour. Farrukhsiyar was always ready to take any step, however humiliating, which might for the moment postpone decisive action and give him time to plan some fresh treachery. Accordingly, on the 9th Rabi “I. (4th April 1713), on his way back from Wazirābād, a place on the banks of the Jamnah, where he had gone to hunt, he paid a visit to Qutb-ul-Mulk's house and embraced him affectionately. He deigned to eat his breakfast and take his midday sleep there before returning to the palace. Qutb-ul-Mulk, in return for so much condescension, made many costly gifts to His Majesty, receiving others in return. This is noted as the first public disclosure of the ill-feeling between the Emperor and his minister, which went on increasing year by year till it ended in catastrophe."
1 Mbd. Qāsim, 171. Afzal Khān died at Dihli in the end of Rabi ‘II. or early in Jamādi I, 1138 H. (January 1726), Rank 5000—T-i-Mhdi., Khāfī Khān II, 729, '731.
3 Kāmwar Khān, 132, Wärid, 149a.
8 The Persian saying is Hezam kashān, ‘ālam soz, “Go on gathering firewood, and you can burn the world "
4 Wärid, 149a.
“SECTION 15. CAMPAIGN AGAINST RAJAH AJIT SINGH RAHTor
As we have already explained, the Rājput states had been for fifty years in veiled revolt from the Imperial authority. Bahādur Shāh had been unable, owing to more pressing affairs, to reduce the Rajahs effectually. During the confusion which arose on that monarch's death, Ajit Singh, after forbidding cow-killing and the call for prayer from the 'Alamgiri mosque, besides ejecting the imperial officers from Jodhpur and destroying their houses, had entered the imperial territory and taken possession of Ajmer. Early in Farrukhsiyar's reign it was determined that this encroachment must be put an end to ; and as the Rājah's replies to the imperial orders were not satisfactory, it was necessary to march against him.”
At first it was intended that the Emperor in person should take the field, but he was dissuaded on the ground that his dignity would suffer if the rebel fled into the desert, where there was nothing but sand to feed upon. Nor does the Emperor appear to have been in particularly good health.” Husain Ali Khān was therefore appointed, Samsām-ud-daulah receiving charge of his seal as his deputy at Court. The plots against the Sayyads were still being carried on in Farrúkhsiyar's
1 Kāmwar Khān, 134, Wärid, 149b.
* Khāfi Khān Il, 788. Ahwāl-i-khawāqān, 69b. According to Tod, II., 82, the Rājah had been called on to send in his son, Abhai Singh, but had refused. Instead, he sent men to Dihli to assassinate one Mukand, his enemy. This outrage produced the invasion of Jodhpur. Probably this Mukand is the same as Mulkan of Mairtha on p. 75 of the same volume.
8 Farrukhsiyar was ill from the 1st Zü,l Hijjah 1125 H. (18th December 1713), but was better on the 9th (26th December), and to stop rumours, he appeared at the Jama 'Masjid on the ‘Id i.e., the 10th. His bathing after recovery took place on the 22nd (8th January 1714).-Kāmwar Khān, 143.