Later Mughals v1.c10.s17: Sec. 17.—Illness and Death of Rafi-ud-daulah.
Later Mughals v1.c10.s17
- Language
- English
Sec. 17.—Illness and Death of Rafi-ud-daulah.
v1.c10.s17.1
Rafi-ud-daulah turned out to be as sickly and weakly as his brother and predecessor, being like him given to excess in the use of opium. On ascending the throne he gave up the habit, but the sudden abstinence produced diarrhoea. About the time that he started from Dihli he fell seriously ill. Accusations of poison are freely made by some writers, notably by Kamwar Khan : but this man's views on the subject can be readily accounted for. He had risen in the service of Rafi-ush-shan, the father of this and the previous Emperor, and naturally he expected much personal benefit from their coming to the throne. In this he was entirely disappointed. From fear of the Sayyids, the two Princes had discouraged the applications of their own dependants, such as Kamwar Khan, and by reason of their shortlived tenure of the throne such hopes of preferment were dashed to the ground. Instigated by his sorrow for their early death and by regret at his own vanished prospects, is it to be wondered at that he lost his judgment, and too readily believed that his young masters had been made away with? He was ready to accept any assertion, however improbable it might be, about the two Sayyids. The only overt act he can adduce is the substitution of the physician, Ulwi Khan, for Mahdi-Quli Khan, as head of the royal kitchen. Then in a later entry, 20th Shawwal (4th September), he insists that the attack of diarrhœa from which the young Emperor suffered, was due to the Sayyids' "cunning devices." Finally, on the 28th Shawwal (12th September), when Masih-uz-zaman, Abdullah Khan, and other physicians were called to the Emperor's bedside, Kamwar Khan can only say that "they took counsel for his departure." These vague accusations cannot for a moment be entertained. To refute them it is enough to remember how much the Sayyids were interested in keeping the Prince alive, if they could. They could in no way benefit by such gratuitous iniquity as the poisoning of an inoffensive Prince, with whom they had no quarrel, and from whom they could anticipate no injury. The truth is that Rafi-ud-daulah was not only of a weak constitution, but was addicted to opium. This fact sufficiently accounts for his succumbing under an attack of the kind from which he was suffering, as that disease when once set up in an opium-eater is almost incurable. His death occurred in camp at Bidyapur on the 4th or 5th Zul Qada 1131 H. (17th or 18th September, 1719) but the fact was concealed until the arrival from Dihli of some other Prince to be his successor. A week or more before his death the Sayyids' nephew, Ghulam Ali Khan, and other nobles had been despatched in all haste to Dihli for that purpose. [T. Muzaffari 166.]
v1.c10.s17.2
∗ Kamwar Khan, 208. Sarsi I cannot trace : Ol is on the *Indian Atlas*, sheet 50, as Oll, about 27 m. n. w. of Agra and about 15 m. s. w. of Mathura. Bidyapur is not traceable on the *Indian Atlas* map; it was the birth-place of Khizr Khan Panni, the hero of the *Siwanih-i-Khizri* so often quoted. Through the kindness of Mr. H. W. W. Reynolds, C.S., Commissioner of Agra, I learn that it is opposite mile-stone No. 17 on the metalled road from Agra to Fathpur Sikri. Kuraoli is about 15 miles w. of Agra.
v1.c10.s17.3
According to one author, various stories more or less absurd were in circulation about the early death of these two Emperors. Some said that the Sayyids, having found the two youths devoid of learning, deficient in knowledge of men, and wanting in valour, became convinced that they were useless as sovereigns, and had therefore removed them by poison. Again, others hinted that by reading the stars it was found that these Princes were doomed to misfortune, and the Sayyids were impelled to their removal by the fear of being themselves involved. Or, as some suggested, the Sayyids had resolved on killing out by degrees the whole of Taimur's race. When the way was open, they meant to claim the throne for themselves, Qutb-ul-mulk taking Hindustan, and Husain Ali Khan, the Dakhin and Malwa. The author in question sums up in favour of the third supposition, and blames the Sayyids for forgetting that:—
v1.c10.s17.4
"He who chooses to leave the beaten path
Will never reach his journey's end." [Ahwal, 172a.]