Later Mughals v1.c9.s21: Sec. 23.—Continuation of the Plots.
Later Mughals v1.c9.s21
- Language
- English
Contents
Sec. 23.—Continuation of the Plots.
v1.c9.s21.1
As soon as the disturbance raised by Mir Jumla's return had been allayed, another hunting expedition was planned. At once the word passed from house to house and from tent to tent, that during the journey the arrest of Qutb-ul-mulk would be arranged. Farrukh-siyar moved to the Shalimar garden at Agharabad§ on the 6th Rabi II. 1128 H. (29th March, 1716), and thence on the 10th, six kos further on, to Siuli. He returned to Agharabad on the 26th, and it was here that the fight took place on the 29th (21st April, 1716) between the retainers of Samsam-ud-daulah and Muhammad Amin Khan, as already related. Farrukh-siyar returned to the palace on the 11th Jamadi II. (1st June, 1716). An urgent messenger had been sent on the 7th Rabi II. (20th March) to bring Rajah Jai Singh Sawai, from Malwa, and on the 14th Jamadi II. (4th June) the Rajah was reported to be at Sarai Allahwirdi Khan; he was received in audience two days afterwards, Samsam-ud-daulah conducting him from his camp near the Idgah.* Shortly afterwards Rao Rajah Budh Singh Hada, of Bundi, arrived. He had been expelled by Maharajah Bhim Singh Hada, of Kota. Jai Singh introduced the fugitive to the Emperor and obtained for him promises of succour. Every day Rajah Jai Singh seemed to rise in Farrukh-siyar's estimation. Finally, on the 9th Shawwal (25th September, 1716), he was entrusted with the crushing of Churaman Jat, under the circumstances and with the results already recorded.†
v1.c9.s21.2
∗ Mirza Muhammad, 253; Khafi Khan, ii. 770; Siyar-ul-mutakherin, 29.
v1.c9.s21.3
§ Agharabad, a mile or two north of the city.
v1.c9.s21.4
† Mirza Muhammad, 260, 275, 293, 302; Kamwar Khan, 163, 165; Khafi Khan, ii. 771; Ijad, 43a.
v1.c9.s21.5
Again the Emperor quitted Dihli on the 24th Muharram 1129 H. (7th January, 1717), camping first at Masjid Mochiya. On the 17th Safar (30th January, 1717) he was at Narela, and there Inayatullah Khan Kashmiri, formerly diwan of the Khalsa, was received on his return from pilgrimage to Mecca, where he had gone early in the reign, on his own removal from office and the execution of his son, Sadullah Khan. Farrukh-siyar was now of opinion that it had been a mistake to remove all the old officials, and that they would have furnished a useful counterpoise to the overwhelming influence of the Sayyids. Inayatullah Khan's return was, therefore, very welcome. He was received into favour, and the disparaging remarks, entered in the official history of the reign in regard to his son, were expunged by the Emperor's own hand. On the 27th Safar (9th February, 1717) Farrukh-siyar was at Koedali, and from the 7th to the 13th Rabi I. (19th to 25th February) near Sonpat.
v1.c9.s21.6
∗ The Idgah lies three-quarters of a mile west of the city wall; see plate 47 in Constable's *Hand Atlas*, and plate 1 in Carr Stephen, *Archæology of Dihli*.
v1.c9.s21.7
He marched to Siuli on the 26th of that month (9th March, 1717), to Narela on the 1st Rabi II. back to Agharabad on the 3rd, finally re-entering the palace on the 29th of that month (11th April). Itisam Khan, a protégé of Khan Dauran's, had just resigned the office of diwan, worn out with his struggles against undue influence. The next day Inayatullah Khan was given the rank of 4,000 (3,000 horse) and appointed to be diwan of the Khalsa and the Tan, also to be governor of Kashmir, the latter appointment to be exercised by deputy. [M. U. ii. 828, K. K. 773, Kamwar 171.]
v1.c9.s21.8
Inayatullah Khan's appointment was displeasing to Qutb-ul-mulk, who recollected his harsh behaviour to Asad Khan in Alamgir's reign. But Ikhlas Khan, then on very intimate terms with the minister, intervened and effected a reconciliation. Inayatullah Khan undertook to do nothing without the knowledge and consent of Qutb-ul-mulk, and to make no appointments independent of him. On the other hand, it was stipulated that Ratan Chand should not interfere with the work of the Khalsa office; and as Qutb-ul-mulk was naturally indolent and fond of pleasure, being furthermore discouraged by the Emperor's conduct, four or five months would sometimes elapse before he attended at his public office to sign papers, business remaining meanwhile at a standstill. A promise was now made by him that he would come to the office in the palace once or twice a week. For a time the compact was observed, but events soon came to pass which put an end to the truce. [K. K. 774.]
v1.c9.s21.9
First of all, much to the disgust of Ratan Chand and the other Hindu officials, the jazya, or poll-tax on non-Muhammadans, was reimposed. Next Inayatullah Khan endeavoured to reform the system of jagirs, or assignments of land revenue in payment for service. The Hindus and eunuchs and Kashmiris, by fraud and force, had acquired rank beyond their deserts, and accumulated in their hands all the most profitable and easily managed jagirs, reducing in a corresponding degree the chances of everybody else. Inayatullah Khan, after drawing up some comparative tables, meant to reduce or set aside these excessive grants. Ratan Chand and other officials were angry at these attempts to reduce their incomes, and on their persuasion Qutb-ul-mulk refused to ratify the scheme. After this time, the Hindus put every obstacle in the diwan’s way, the agreement between him and the minister ceased to operate, and peace was maintained with difficulty.
v1.c9.s21.10
During this and the preceding reign, that of Jahandar Shah, the strict rules and regulations for business in all departments were much neglected. Most of the men who knew the old routine had disappeared by death or dismissal. The Wazir was not a trained administrator himself, and paid little or no attention to civil business; Ratan Chand had been allowed to do almost what he liked. His views were narrow, and he was chiefly governed by personal considerations. For several reigns the Emperors had devoted all their efforts to break down the custom of farming out the collection of the revenue. They had tried on all occasions to substitute direct management by paid servants of the State, bearing in mind the truth of the adage, *amani abadani, ijara ujara*.[^ *] As a result their treasury was full, their subjects contented, and their army well paid. These arrangements were now set aside, and the collections leased by Ratan Chand to the highest bidder. In consequence the revenue fell off, both of the State domains and of the assigned lands, and many jagirdars complained to the Emperor of the non-receipt of their allowances. During his term of office, Lutfullah Khan had only made matters worse by granting to *mansabdars* holding the rank of from 50 to 1,000, a sum of fifty Rupees a month, instead of their assignments on the revenue. This money, considering the high prices, did not suffice to meet their expenses, and, as we must remember, it was no doubt very irregularly paid. [Khush-hal 399b.]
v1.c9.s21.11
According to Yahya Khan, one of Farrukh-siyar’s grievances against Abdullah Khan was, that whenever he appointed an *amil*, he took from the appointee a writing[^ †] in the nature
v1.c9.s21.12
[^ *]: Roebuck, No. 110, ii. page 106, "Direct management brings prosperity; farming out, ruin." [^ †]: Khat-i-ant (?), this is some Hindi word, query read, "a note of hand." [Khatian ? J. S.]
v1.c9.s21.13
of a contract or lease, and realized the money from the man's banker. This practice was held, rightly enough, to be destructive to the prosperity of the district to which the man was sent. The Emperor requested that it might be abandoned, and that in place of it, all appointments should be made amani, that is, should involve complete accounting for gross receipts and expenses, and for the resulting balance. Abdullah Khan refused. He also offered a passive resistance to the re-imposition of the jazya, or poll-tax. [Yahya 123b.]
v1.c9.s21.14
About this time a subordinate of the Khalsa office, a protégé of Ratan Chand, was called upon to file his accounts, and a large sum was brought out by the auditors as owing by him. Inayatullah Khan imprisoned this defaulter and, in spite of repeated messages from Ratan Chand, refused to release him. One day, the man evaded his guards and took refuge in the house of Ratan Chand. With the Emperor's sanction armed messengers were sent to bring the fugitive from his protector's house, but the Wazir's diwan refused to surrender him. Between the Emperor and the minister there was an angry interview, and the latter was ordered to dismiss Ratan Chand, but nothing came of it.
v1.c9.s21.15
In pursuance of the plan to restore the older men to office, Sayyid Amir Khan Ulwi, who was then fort-commander at Agra, was recalled to Court; he and his relations were presented on the 9th Rajab 1129 H. (18th June, 1717).* Mirza Muhammad who, as a page, had served under this man in Alamgir's reign, was of opinion that his age (he being then seventy-four) and his failing memory, rendered him unfit for active employment. Samsam-ud-daulah being of the same opinion, and seeing that the old man could never become a dangerous rival, pushed his claims, and as Qutb-ul-mulk was displeased with Amin-ud-din Khan,† obtained for him that noble's office of darogha of the khawas, or pages, 15th Shawwal 1129 H. (21st September, 1717). Farrukh-siyar's consent to this change was only reluctantly given.* Other appointments of old officials were those of Muhammad Yar Khan, grandson of Asaf Khan, Yamin-ud-daulah,† to be Khan-saman, and of Hamid-ud-din Khan Alamgiri, to be arz mukarrar, 29th Shaban 1128 H. (17th August, 1716). As already related, it was about this time that the ending of the campaign against Churaman Jat through the intrigues of Qutb-ul-mulk and Sayyid Khan Jahan (April 10th, 1718), added fresh fuel to Farrukh-siyar's anger.‡
v1.c9.s21.16
∗ The popular rumour was that Samsam-ud-daulah had fallen into disgrace, and would soon be supplanted in his office of darogha of the privy audience-chamber by Sayyid Amir Khan.
v1.c9.s21.17
† Amin-ud-din Khan obtained re-employment two months afterwards (Mirza Muhammad, 331), and on the 29th Zul Hijja 1129 H. (3rd December, 1718) he was made Buyutat of the Rikab (i.e., the Court) and of Dihli.
v1.c9.s21.18
† Muhammad Yar Khan (son of Mirza Bahmanyar), subahdar of Dihli, Masir-ul-umara, iii.
v1.c9.s21.19
‡ Khafi Khan, ii. 775, 776; Shiu Das, 17a; Mirza Muhammad, 293, 319, 228; Kamwar Khan, 172.
v1.c9.s21.20
* According to Mirza Muhammad, 319, Sayyid Amir Khan's name was Abdul-karim; he was the son of Amir Khan, son of Qasim Khan Namakin. His father died when he was very young; he long received a daily allowance, and eventually obtaining a small mansab, rose gradually under Alamgir, and gained the title of Tanak (or Multifat) Khan. He succeeded Anwar Khan as superintendent of the pages, an office that he held for more than fifteen years and up to the death of Alamgir. He had become Khanazad Khan Hafiz, and finally Amir Khan. In Bahadur Shah's reign he was subahdar of Agra, up to the end of the reign. In Jahandar Shah's reign he was replaced by Muhammad Mah (Azam Khan), and transferred to charge of the Agra fort. From their residence in Sind, his family bore the epithet of Sindhi, although really they were Sayyids from Hirat. There are the following biographies in the Masir-ul-umara: Amir Khan Sindhi, i. 303, Qasim Khan (Mir Abul Qasim), Namakin, iii. 74, Amir Khan (Mir Abul Baqa), d. 1057 H., i. 172. For an explanation of the epithet "Namakin" (not "Tamkin"), see Blochmann Ain, i. 470, and table on p. 471. Amir Khan was not long at Court; on the 10th Rabi I. 1130 H. (Kamwar Khan, 176) he was replaced by Muhammad Murad; and on the 9th Jamadi I. 1130 H. (ibid, 177), was sent back to Agra as fort commandant. He died on the 28th Zul Qada 1132 H. (30th September, 1720), aged 77 years, and the Tarikh-i-Muhammadi describes him as the son-in-law of Mir Isa, Himmat Khan (d. 1092 H.) Mir Bakhshi, son of Islam Khan Badakhshi (d. 1072 H.)
v1.c9.s21.21
⁷⁰⁶ His son Hasan Yar Khan died young (Tarikh-i-Mhdi, d. 15th-20th Safar 1133 H. aged about 40), and he had no other issue. Muhammad Yar Khan himself died 18th Jamadi I. 1138 H. at Dihli. There are the following biographies of this family in the Masir-ul-umara; Asaf Khan, i. 151, d. 1051 H.; Itiqad Khan, i. 232, d. 1082 H; Muhammad Yar Khan, iii. 700, d. 1138 H.
Note A. The Jaziya or Poll-tax
v1.c9.s21.t1.1
The *jaziya* tax was re-imposed by Alamgir in his twenty-second year (1090 H., 1679-80), and thus it had been levied for thirty-four years when it was abolished again in the first year of Farrukh-siyar. Alamgir's rules were, no doubt, revived upon its re-introduction through Inayatullah Khan : and here, as in many of his other regulations, Alamgir, a bigoted Muhammadan, studied to imitate as closely as possible the methods laid down by the orthodox doctors of that religion. The exemptions seem to have been numerous. They comprised men of Rum possessing revealed Scriptures (*i.e.*, Jews and Christians), the "idol worshippers of Ajam and of Arab" (whoever they were), apostates, minors, women, slaves, the helpless, the maimed, the blind, the blemished, or the aged poor.
v1.c9.s21.t1.2
Persons paying the yearly impost were divided into three classes : (1) The poor, (II) the middle class, (III) the rich. The rates were respectively 12, 24, and 48 *dirhams*. But as there was no *dirham* current in India, uncoined silver was to be taken ; from the first class, 3 *tolchah*, 1-4/5 *masha*, double that weight from the second, and four times from the third class. Rupees were not to be demanded. But if any one offered them, they were to be received equal to the above weight of silver.*
v1.c9.s21.t1.3
Poor, middle class, and rich were defined as follows : a poor man was he who had either nothing at all, or property worth two hundred *dirhams* ; a middle class man, he who had property worth between 200 and 10,000 *dirhams*; a rich man, he who had over 10,000 *dirhams'* worth of property. A poor man, who had nothing but the strength of his own right arm to rely on, or who had many children, was to be excused.
v1.c9.s21.t1.4
∗ As to the *dirham*, see C. J. Rodgers' *Catalogue of Lahor Museum*, p. 206, for a coin stamped *dirham sharai*, or legal drachma, struck at Lahor in Farrukh-siyar's 6th year (1129 H.), possibly in connection with the revival of the *jaziya* tax in that year. It is a square coin weighing 41½ grains. Taking Farrukh-siyar's Rupee as equal to 176 grains, the value of the *dirham* comes out at .23 of a Rupee, or 3 annas and 8 pies. But the weight of silver claimed makes the three classes of the tax equivalent to Rs. 3-3-6, Rs. 6-7-0, and Rs. 12-14-0, respectively, instead of Rs. 2-12-0, Rs. 5-8-0, and Rs. 11-0-0 as they would be by the above *dirham-i-sharai*.
v1.c9.s21.t1.5
Precise rules for the manner of collection were laid down. These must have been exceedingly galling to the better class of Hindus, and here, no doubt, is to be found a substantial reason for the exceeding unpopularity of the tax. The person paying (styled, of course, a *zimmi*, in itself a stigma) must appear in person, bare-footed, the collector being seated and the tax-payer standing. The collector, placing his hand upon the *zimmi's* hand, lifted up the money, and pronounced a formula in Arabic, signifying, "I accept the poll-tax from this dependant." Money sent through another person must be refused.
v1.c9.s21.t1.6
Collection was made from the first class in four, the second class in two, and the third class in one instalment. The tax ceased either on death, or on the acceptance of Islam. If a minor became of full age, a slave was emancipated, or a sick man was restored to health before the date of collection, the tax was levied. If these events happened after that date, the tax was remitted for that year. If a man fell from the class of rich to that of poor men, and the change applied to part of the year only, the rate levied was to be the mean between that of the class he had left and of that he had entered. If a poor tax-payer was ill for half the year he paid nothing. Servants of the Government, with their children living in their house, were altogether exempt. As Khush-hal Chand remarks, [286a] the tax-collectors, in spite of these wise orders, were guilty of exactions, and at the beginning of every year levied money, even from widows, under the pretext of expenses.*