Later Mughals v1.c9.s40.1

v1.c9.s40.1

The most prominent element of Farrukh-siyar's character was weakness. He was strong neither for evil nor for good. Morally it may be indefensible to try and rid yourself, at the earliest moment, of the men to whom you owe your throne. But as a matter of practice and precedent it was otherwise. Many of his predecessors, including the greatest of them, Akbar, had been guilty of similar ingratitude. Thus, according to the morality of his day and country, Farrukh-siyar would have committed no exceptional crime by dismissing, or even killing the Sayyids. Previous rulers, however, men of vigour and resolution, when they found the greatness of some subject becoming dangerous to themselves, acted with promptitude and decision. The crisis was soon over, and though the individual might be destroyed the State did not suffer. How different with Farrukh-siyar! Still, in spite of his inherent weakness, he might have shown himself amiably inoffensive; he might have left his powerful ministers to pursue peacefully their own way, contenting himself with the name, while they kept the reality of power. Instead of this, he was for ever letting "I dare not" wait upon "I would." For seven years the State was in a condition of unstable equilibrium, and it is not too much to say that Farrukh-siyar prepared for himself the fate which finally overtook him. Feeble, false, cowardly, contemptible, it is impossible either to admire or regret him. According to Khush-hal Chand, [410a] Farrukh-siyar in the sixth year of his reign was forced, in consequence of the abscesses which troubled him, to submit to an operation that rendered him impotent. Physical degeneration, it is suggested, may have been one of the causes of the irresolution, and even cowardice, which he displayed during the final struggle with the Sayyids.