Storia do Mogor 65.6
Storia do Mogor (Irvine) 65.6
- Language
- English
65.6.1
The king handed over the whole of Sa'adat Khan's wealth to his wife, in spite of the rule made by Akbar that the king should confiscate all the goods left by anyone in his service. This Shahjahan did in order not to let it be hinted that he killed his slave to get possession of his wealth. This wife was a Christian, though she lived as a Moor (Mahomedan). When I was in the city of Agrah in the year one thousand six hundred and seventy-nine, I was sent for by the qazi, a great friend of mine, who told me privately that for love of me he did not interfere with the Jesuit fathers, then actually dwelling in the city. For he knew of a certainty that the said woman resorted in secret to the house of the Jesuits. Such a thing was strictly prohibited. He earnestly entreated me that so long as he was in power the woman should never go there again. If she did he might suffer great damage. I gave him my thanks, and advised the said woman, and the fathers were under an obligation to me. For Aurangzeb was very inimical to those who interfered with his religion. This was chiefly because Shahjahan had given an order to knock down the bell-tower of the fathers' church, out of the ill-will he bore them; still, for some reason or other, he accorded permission for the building of a smaller church, one without tower or bells.
65.6.2
To make still more clear how Shahjahan was anxious that justice should be administered in his realm, there are other interesting cases to be described. The first is that of a soldier who took wrongfully the slave-girl of a Hindu clerk. The latter brought a complaint before the courts. The soldier said the slave-girl was his, and so likewise said the girl herself, as she wanted to live with the soldier. The charge was transferred to the king's tribunal, and he ordered the slave-girl to be placed in his palace. When he wanted to write he directed the girl to pour a little water into the inkstand, and this she did most dexterously. This proved to the king that she was the slave of the scribe, and not of the soldier ; thus he decreed that the girl should be made over to the scribe, from whom she had learnt how to pour water into an inkpot. The soldier was expelled from the service and banished the country.
65.6.3
Another very interesting case happened at Dihli. At that place dwelt four merchants, who owned equal shares in the goods stored in a shop. The agreement was that each of them should attend there in turn for one day, and on his day each should provide the oil [138] required for the lamp and the food for a cat kept at the shop. He would also have to buy another cat if the old one happened to die. It came to pass that the cat broke its leg. The three other partners were called upon to pay their share of the expenses of the cure incurred by the one whose day it was when the cat's leg was broken. They refused to pay anything, contending that they were under no obligation to pay for curing the cat. While the cat was still under treatment with a rag tied round its leg, it was scratching itself near the lamp when the rag caught fire. The cat, finding itself in this danger, ran beneath the goods, whereby the total contents of the shop were burnt.
65.6.4
The three other merchants threw the blame upon the one that was doctoring the cat, and asserted that he was under an obligation to pay them for the whole of the damage caused. The case was taken into court, and the decree given was that he who was responsible for curing the cat must pay the losses of the others. The king was informed of the dispute, and reversed the decree, deciding that the three merchants should pay him who was responsible for the cure of the cat. He said that the broken leg could not walk, and that the three legs belonging to the three traders were those that had caused the fire ; therefore, they were bound to pay the man who was in charge of the cat. Reluctance through avarice to meet a small expense is many a time the cause of total ruin.
65.6.5
If Shahjahan was opposed to injustice, he also followed up thieves in a particularly rigorous manner, and never pardoned them. If their offence was a small one, for which they did not deserve death, he ordered them to be transferred to the other side of the river Indus, and exchanged for Pathan dogs. If it chanced that the thieves could not be caught, he forced the officials to pay. Thus did it happen in the year one thousand six hundred and forty-five at the port of Surat, when thieves robbed the Dutch factory at night. Although the loss was not great, the Dutch complained to the governor. He paid no attention to their complaint. They removed the best of what they had in their factory, loaded it on their ships, and blockaded the entrance to the river, allowing no one access or exit. They demanded from the governor a heavy penalty for having allowed them to be robbed within his jurisdiction. Shahjahan got notice of this affair, and he issued an order that the Dutch should be indemnified from his treasury, while the governor should be pestered and worried until he paid. On this occasion the Dutch made a profit of a thousand per cent., and up to this day it is the practice that whoever is in authority has to pay for loss by robbery.
65.6.6
Although the king was so feared by all, still there were a few who defied him when they had reason to be angry. I have already stated above (I. 95) that Akbar made a rule that no one was to sit in the presence of persons of the blood royal. It happened that a commander had failed in his duty, and Shahjahan called him into his presence, and after a severe talking to, turned him out of the service. The officer, regardless of his life, sat himself down boldly on the ground in the king's presence, saying : 'Now that I am no longer your vassal nor your servant, I can sit down.' Shahjahan was astonished at the officer's resoluteness, and restored him to his pay and position. Then the captain rose to his feet, as before, and he was sent to Jagarnate (Jagarnath) to fight certain rebels.
65.6.7
Something similar happened with the ambassador of the King of Golconda (Gulkhandah). He appeared to Shahjahan to be a man of great wisdom, and he resolved to try an experiment upon him at the public audience. He asked him if the King of Gulkhandah, his master, was the same height as one of his slaves, then actually present and brushing away the flies. The ambassador, understanding what was meant, lifted his eyes and looked at the slave, then spoke boldly to the king : 'My king is four fingers taller than your majesty.' The reply pleased Shahjahan very much, and he praised the ambassador as a loyal vassal and true subject of his king. He remitted three years' payment of the tribute received from the King of Gulkhandah. This tribute amounted to nine hundred thousand rupees. He also gave the ambassador a rich serpad (sarapa) and a handsome horse. I was actually present in the court when this conversation took place.
65.6.8
I have already stated that the Mogul kings were the heirs of the men in their service, taking all the wealth left at their death. A commander who was assumed to be very rich because of his lavish expenditure (which was done by him deliberately, so that he might leave behind him nothing for the king) was found on his death to have nine great and well-constructed boxes, with locks and nails of gold, sealed with his seal, and labelled to the effect that these boxes were to be made over to the king. At his death they were carried off to court, everybody supposing that the king had inherited a large amount. Shahjahan joyfully ordered the boxes to be opened, and praised the loyalty of the commander. The boxes were found to be full of horns and old shoes ! By this he intended [140] to declare that if he (Shahjahan) dishonoured his own officials, he would in turn be dealt with in the same way, and the wealth that he gave away to women would lead to his having to wear old shoes — a fact that was well verified, as we shall see a little farther on (II. 54). Seeing this result, the king ordered that the property left by the said leader should be put into his tomb. He added that he did not care for any such bequest, for the general's father must have been some butcher or other, and his mother a shoemaker ; and thus he left behind him only what his parents had bequeathed to him.