Later Mughals v1.c9.s12: Sec. 13.—Severities Inflicted at the Instigation of Mir Jumla (March 1713—April 1714).
Later Mughals v1.c9.s12
- Language
- English
Sec. 13.—Severities Inflicted at the Instigation of Mir Jumla (March 1713—April 1714).
v1.c9.s12.1
The opening of the reign was marked by many executions and other severities to men belonging to the defeated party, and such terror of strangulation spread among the nobles who had held office during the reigns of Alamgir and Bahadur Shah, that every time they started for the audience, they took a formal farewell of their wives and children. The whole of these severities are attributed, and apparently with truth, to the influence of Mir Jumla.* Although it involves a slight break in the chronological order, these events will be grouped together.
v1.c9.s12.2
The first of these executions took place by Farrukh-siyar's orders during the night of the 2nd Rabi I. 1125 H. (28th March, 1713). Sadullah Khan, son of Inayatullah Khan Kashmiri, Hidayat Kesh Khan, a Hindu convert, who had been central news-writer (waqia-nigar-i-kal)† and Sidi Qasim Habshi, late kotwal or police officer of Dihli, were the victims. They were strangled by the Qalmaq slaves (Sadullah Khan struggling with them till he was overpowered), and their bodies were exposed for three days on the sandy space below the citadel. It is difficult to decide what Sadullah Khan's crime had been. In the last year of Bahadur Shah's reign he was deputy Wazir with the title of Wazarat Khan, and his temporary adhesion to Jahandar Shah was no worse crime in him than in many others who were pardoned. At first, Farrukh-siyar had received him with favour. But on the 21st Muharram 1125 H. (16th February, 1713), immediately after the Emperor had visited Padshah Begam, the daughter of Alamgir, Sadullah Khan was sent to prison and his property confiscated. As to the reason for his disgrace, there are two versions, with both of which the name of Padshah Begam is mixed up. As told by Khafi Khan, it would appear that a forged letter had been sent to Farrukh-siyar in the name of Padshah Begam asking for the removal of Sadullah Khan. The Begam is represented as having repudiated this letter, when Farrukh-siyar visited her after the execution of Sadullah Khan. But the only visit that is recorded took place a month before his execution.
v1.c9.s12.3
† His original name was Bhola Nath, and he succeeded to the office on his father, Chatar Mal's, death in 1109 H., M-i-A., 396.
v1.c9.s12.4
The other version is that Farrukh-siyar had consulted Padshah Begam as to his conduct towards Asad Khan and Zulfiqar Khan. She wrote a reply counselling him not to deal severely with them, but to admit them to favour and maintain them in office. She made over the letter to Sadullah Khan, who was her *Mir-i-saman*, or steward. As he was strongly opposed to Zulfiqar Khan, owing to the quarrel about the appointment of a successor to Munim Khan, Bahadur Shah's Wazir, and also hoped that a rival's removal would increase his own chance of becoming Wazir he extracted the real letter and substituted one of an entirely contrary effect, or, as one version says, altered the words "should not kill" (*na bayad kusht*) into "should kill" (*bayad kusht*). Padshah Begam reproached Farrukh-siyar for having taken Zulfiqar Khan's life. The Emperor pulled her letter out of his pocket and the substitution of the forged letter was thus discovered. Sadullah Khan was immediately arrested. This second story certainly appears the more probable of the two.*
v1.c9.s12.5
∗ Khafi Khan, ii. 732. Yahya Khan, 121b, puts all these executions to the account of the two Sayyids. The Ahwal-ul-khawaqin, 62a, names one Ashur Khan as head of the executioners.
v1.c9.s12.6
Hidayat Kesh Khan's crime was that he had denounced to Jahandar Shah the hiding-place of Muhammad Karim, the new Emperor's brother, and thus indirectly led to that Prince's life being taken. Some say that, in addition, he behaved in a harsh and insolent manner to him when he was made prisoner. No one knows what Sidi Qasim had done to deserve death, unless it be attributed to private revenge. As *faujdar* of some of the parganas near Dihli he had executed the son of a tradesman named Udhu. This man, thirsting for the *kotwal's* blood, levied a contribution of ten or twelve Rupees on each shop in the quarters of Shahganj and Shahdara. Having collected a very large sum, he paid it over to Mir Jumla, and secured in exchange the arrest and execution of Sidi Qasim.†
v1.c9.s12.7
† Khush-hal Chand 398*a*, Kamwar Khan 134, Khafi Khan ii. 735.
v1.c9.s12.8
The next cruelty was done on Sabha Chand, the Hindu confidant of the late Zulfiqar Khan. On the 11th Jamadi II. 1125 H. (4th July 1713), he was made over to Mir Jumla. The next day it was intimated to the Emperor that Sabha Chand's tongue had been cut out, as a punishment for the foul language that he had constantly used. The strange thing was that after this deprivation* he was still able to talk and make himself understood. [K. K. 735.]
v1.c9.s12.9
∗ *Tarikh-i-Muzaffari*, p. 155, Khush-hal Chand 397*b*. There is a separate biography in *M. U.* ii. 504. Sadullah Khan was the second son of Inayatullah Khan Kashmiri. It is said in the *Makhzan-ul-gharaib* that he wrote under the name of Hidayat. (Ethé, Bodleian Catalogue, No. 395).
v1.c9.s12.10
After Sabha Chand, came the turn of Shah Qudrat-ullah of Allahabad. His father, Shaikh Abdul-Jalil, was a man of learning of the Sufi sect, who lived in Allahabad. On his death, Qudrat-ullah succeeded to his influence and position, being himself a man of learning and considerable eloquence. Prince Azim-ush-shan chanced to make Qudrat-ullah's acquaintance, and took such a fancy to him that he could not bear him to be away from his side. Wherever the Prince went, the Shaikh accompanied him; and in the end, the Shaikh became all-powerful. In the last years of Bahadur Shah's reign all business passed through his second son's hands, and Qudrat-ullah was that Prince's right hand. It was as if the whole Empire had fallen under his rule, even the Wazir and his sons asking him to plead for them. The refusal to appoint Zulfiqar Khan to succeed Munim Khan and the appointment instead of a deputy, Hidayatullah Khan (Sadullah Khan), were due to Shaikh Qudrat-ullah, although he had no official rank whatever. In the struggle for the throne his advice prevailed over that of all others. After Azim-ush-shan's death, the Shaikh, fearing the resentment of Zulfiqar Khan, hid himself and escaped secretly to his home at Allahabad. When Farrukh-siyar started for Agra to confront Jahandar Shah, the Shaikh, believing success to be utterly impossible stayed quietly at home, not even coming to present his respects. After the victory had been won, the Shaikh still hesitated to return to Court, since in his day of power he had conciliated no one, not even the sons of his patron. Then one Mulla Shadman, a holy man of Patna Azimabad, passed through on his way to Dihli. It is commonly asserted that this man had prophesied that Farrukh-siyar would gain the throne, and from this cause the Prince had acquired the greatest confidence in his powers. Qudrat-ullah, thinking the Mulla's protection would be certain to secure him a favourable reception, joined his party and they travelled together to Dihli.*
v1.c9.s12.11
∗ B. M. Or. 1690, fol. 165a, gives the 13th as the date. He was released on the 17th Jamadi II. 1126 H., at the request of Qutb-ul-mulk, after paying a fine of Rs. 1,00,000 (Kamwar Khan, 147). Rai Sabha (or Sambha) Chand Khatri died at Dihli in the end of Jamadi I. 1137 H. (Jan.-Feb., 1725), aged nearly 70 years (T-i-Mhdi.)
v1.c9.s12.12
On reaching Dihli, the Mulla was admitted to an audience and received with great cordiality. Assured of his own favour with the new Emperor, the Mulla arranged that at his second interview Qudrat-ullah should accompany him. The Mulla passed on into the *tasbih-khana* (chaplet-room or oratory), where the Emperor was, intending to mention Qudrat-ullah's name and obtain leave to produce him. Mir Jumla, who was with Farrukh-siyar, heard what the Mulla said. He had seen the extent of Qudrat-ullah's power and influence in Azim-ush-shan's time, and he feared that this might be renewed in the case of the son. His own position would thus be destroyed. Taking hurried leave of the Emperor, he came to the door of the privy audience-hall, where the Shaikh was seated, and gave him a most effusive greeting. He added that, just at that moment, His Majesty being deep in some very important business, a full audience, as such a friend was entitled to, would be impossible; it would be far better for the Shaikh to accept for that night the hospitality of his old friend. Next day or the day after, a proper interview could be arranged. As Mr. Jumla at that time had the entire power of the realm in his own hands, the Shaikh thought these blandishments of good augury, and fell in with his proposal. Forgetting all about his companion, Mulla Shadman, he set off with Mir Jumla, who put him in one of his own *palkis* and carried him off to his house. That night and the next day Mir Jumla was profuse in his attentions.
v1.c9.s12.13
At the end of the day Mir Jumla went to the Emperor. He said to him that it would be wrong to pardon the Shaikh. The gentleman was a necromancer and by his incantations and jugglery had inveigled Azim-ush-shan into his net. By his rise all the nobles had been put out of heart, hence when Zulfiqar Khan took the field, many would not bear a part, and the rest although pressed made no proper efforts. Qudrat-ullah gained the same acceptance here, he would cause mischief in every business. Since Farrukh-siyar looked on Mir Jumla as Wisdom and Prudence personified, he gave a nod of assent. Mir Jumla left the *darbar* at the usual time; and at midnight he gave orders to his men to hang the Shaikh, in his presence, to a *maulsari* tree growing in the courtyard of his mansion.* Next morning, the 13th Zul Qada 1125 H. (30th November 1713), the Shaikh's dead body was made over to his servants for burial. It is said that Mulla Shadman remonstrated with Farrukh-siyar, saying that the man had done nothing to deserve death. Even if such acts were proved, Qudrat-ullah and he having come to Court together, the Shaikh's death would bring disgrace on him and throw doubt on his character. Farrukh-siyar was ready to admit all this, but as the deed was done, he made some excuses and tried to talk the Mulla over. But the Mulla declined to remain longer at Court, and returned to his home.†
v1.c9.s12.14
∗ Mirza Muhammad 181-186, Kamwar Khan 142, *T-i-Mhdi*, year 1125 H.
v1.c9.s12.15
† Kamwar Khan, 142, entry of 11th Zul Qada 1125 H. (2nd year) gives the facts with a slight variation. He says that Qudrat-ullah, a *darvesh*, son of Abdul-Jalil Allahabadi, having reached Court presented an offering of one musk bag (*bakhura*). An order issued that he should be put up in the house of Mir Jumla. On the 12th it was reported that Mir Jumla had hung the man.
v1.c9.s12.16
Shortly after this time, Farrukh-siyar having quarrelled with the Sayyids, was afraid that they might bring forward some other Prince of the house of Taimur 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 Taimur held in captivity in the palace. On the 6th Muharram 1126 H. (21st January, 1714), three of the Princes, Azz-ud-din, eldest son of Jahandar Shah, Wala Tabar, son of Azam Shah, and Farrukh-siyar's own younger brother, Humayun Bakht (then only ten or twelve years old), were removed from the palace to the prison at the Tirpoliya or Triple gate. It was the place where Jahandar Shah's life had been taken, and where in a few years' time Farrukh-siyar 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 Jumla is credited with having been the man who urged Farrukh-siyar to carry out this harsh act. [Warid 150b, Kamwar 144, K. K. 740.]
v1.c9.s12.17
∗ *Maulsari*, a tree (Mimusops elengi), the flowers of which are highly fragrant. (*Shakespeare's Dictionary*).
v1.c9.s12.18
Finally, on the 2nd Rabi II. 1126 H. (16th April, 1714), the Qalmaq woman, Shadman, entitled Rai Man, a servant in the palace, was made over to Sarbarah Khan, the kotwal or chief of the police, and her head was cut off at the chabutra,* or central police-station. Her crime was that, during the reign of Jahandar Shah, one of her relatives had drawn his sword on Mir Jumla. Rai Man is the woman who gave the alarm when an attempt was made to assassinate Jahandar Shah ; she bravely attacked the assailants and slew one of them with her own hand. For this good service she had received the titles of Raza Bahadur Rustam-i-Hind, and the rank of 5,000 zat. [Kamwar 146, M. M. 187.]
v1.c9.s12.19
Although not mentioned in the general histories, the humoristic poet, Sayyid Muhammad Jafar of Narnol, poetically Zatali, is said to have been one of the victims. His crime is said to have been a satirical parody of the distich on Farrukh-siyar's coinage. The details will be given when we come to speak of the coinage of the reign.†
v1.c9.s12.20
† Malahat-i-maqal, fol. 74a. Beale, p. 186, says Ezad Bakhsh Raza was also executed, but as he died in 1119 H. (Rieu, Index, p. 1157), this must be a mistake. The Tarikh-i-Muhammadi, a very accurate work, gives Ezad Bakhsh's death at Akbarabad under 1119 H., and says he was son of Aqa Mulla, son of Zain-ul-abidain, son of Asaf Khan, Jafar, the Sadiqi, the Qazwini, alias the Akbarabadi. An account of this Asaf Khan is in Masir-ul-umara i. 113.