Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Later Mughals v2.c17: Chapter XI

Later Mughals v2.c17

Language
English

Contents

Chapter XI

v2.c17.1

INTERNAL CONDITION OF INDIA IN 1738—RISE AND PROGRESS OF NADIR SHAH.

v2.c17.2

[By the Editor]

Sec. 97.—Degeneration of Mughal Aristocracy.

v2.c17.s1.1

The invasion of Nadir Shah involved the Mughal Empire in disgrace spoliation and dismemberment. It was, however, not a cause of the decline of the Empire, but one of the clearest symptoms of that decline. The Persian conqueror merely revealed to the world a fact accomplished long before. He broke the spell under which men had been regarding a gorgeously dressed corpse as a strong man.

v2.c17.s1.2

How was the work of Akbar and Shah Jahan, Man Singh and Mir Jumla, thus undone? Why did the seemingly flourishing State of Aurangzeb fall down like a house of cards only 31 years after his death? In reviewing the history of these 31 years, we find first of all a startling decline in the character of the nobility and the efficiency of the army. For this the havoc of civil war was to some extent responsible. In the thirteen years following the death of Aurangzeb, seven bloody battles of succession* had been fought among his descendants in which large numbers of Princes nobles and the best soldiers had perished. Equally destructive of officers and men were the armed contests between rival nobles. For instance, the Nizam could confirm himself in the viceroyalty of the Dakhin only after defeating three rivals. For the governorship of Gujarat there were three ruinous encounters in which Shujaat Khan and Rustam Ali Khan fell and Sarbuland Khan was defeated.

v2.c17.s1.3

∗ Bahadur Shah two, Jahandar Shah three, Farrukh-siyar one, and Muhammad Shah one.

v2.c17.s1.4

The loss caused by domestic discord among the Mughals themselves was multiplied by the slaughter in operations against rebels like the Sikhs, Jats, Bundelas and Mahrattas and on two occasions against the Rathors. The gaps thus created in the ranks of the martial nobility were not filled by the natural succession of worthy offspring, nor by the rise of new men from the commonalty and recruits from abroad in sufficient number and of the right quality. To the thoughtful student of Mughal history nothing is more striking than the decline of the peerage. The heroes adorn the stage for one generation only and leave no worthy heirs sprung from their loins. Abdur-rahim and Mahabat, Sadullah and Mir Jumla, Ibrahim and Islam Khan Rumi,—who had made the history of India in the 17th century, —were succeeded by no son, certainly by no grandson even half as capable as themselves. In reading the huge biographical dictionary of the Mughal peerage (the Masir-ul-umara in 3 volumes of 900 pages each), one frequently comes across such entries as these: "This nobleman (naming a general or minister of the first rank) died in such and such a year; he left two sons who did not attain to much advancement" or that "he had three sons none of whom did anything worthy of being recorded here." Often, while the career of the founder of the family occupies eight or ten pages in this dictionary, his son's achievements are exhausted in half a page, and the grandson meets with a bare mention which he earns merely because he is his father's son.

v2.c17.s1.5

Throughout the Mughal period, the best Muslim recruits for civil administration and war alike were foreign adventurers or converted Hindus. The strong and efficient exotics rapidly deteriorated on the Indian soil. Therefore, while the infusion of fresh blood into the nobility from the indigenous Muhammadan population and the foreign immigrants permanently settled in this country did not take place, the only hope of the continued life and vigour of the State lay in the regular flow of the right type of recruits from Bukhara and Khurasan, Iran and Arabia. When this flow stopped, the Empire shrivelled up like a tree cut off from its sap.

Sec. 98.—Alienation of the Hindus and Shias.

v2.c17.s2.1

Akbar had guarded against this danger by making the first beginnings of the conversion of a military monarchy into a national State,—in effect, though not in constitutional form. He tried to range the Hindu warrior tribes behind his hired foreign troops, as the second and more reliable line of defence for his throne. Under him and his successors, Hindu Rajput soldiers had carried the Mughal banners to the banks of the Oxus and the Helmand in the west and those of the Brahmaputra and the Karnafuli in the east. They had garrisoned the Khaibar Pass, defended Garhgaon against the Ahoms and stormed Chatgaon from the Burmese. But Aurangzeb's attempt to annex Jodhpur on the death of his old servant Jaswant Singh, his invasion of Mewar, his incessant destruction of Hindu temples and his rigorous imposition of the hated poll-tax (jaziya), not only alienated the Rajput clans, but convinced all other Hindu races of India that they had no lot or part in the Mughal State and that for the preservation of their honour and liberty of conscience they must look elsewhere. This was the opportunity of the Mahrattas. This belief, rooted deep in the minds of the Hindu officers and vassals of Aurangzeb, made them indifferent or secretly hostile to their master's cause during his wars with Shivaji and his successors. To the Rajputs and Bundelas, who had so long been the staunchest supports of the Mughal cause, the Mahratta hero appeared as their heaven-sent deliverer,—a Rama slaying Ravana or a Krishna slaying Kansa. This feeling breathes in every line of the Hindi poet Bhushan's numberless odes on Shivaji. He really voices in smooth and vigorous numbers the unspoken thoughts of the millions of Hindus all over India. At the end of the 17th century they had come to regard the Mughal Government as Satanic and refused to co-operate with it.

v2.c17.s2.2

By appealing to this feeling, Baji Rao I. easily entered Malwa and then made his hold upon that province good. He united the local Hindu chieftains as well as the neighbouring Rajputs of Jaipur and Mewar with the Mahrattas in an alliance against the oppressors of their common religion (dharma).

v2.c17.s2.3

This point comes out very clearly in Sawai Jai Singh's letter to Nandalal Mandaloi (the chaudhuri of Indor), after the latter had treacherously caused an immense slaughter of his master's troops by his collusion with the Mahrattas (October 1731): "A thousand praises to you, because you, in sole reliance upon my word and with a view to benefit your dharma, have destroyed the Muslims in Malwa and firmly established dharma there. You have fulfilled my heart's wishes." [Sardesai, ii. 369.]

v2.c17.s2.4

In the brief space of thirty-one years after Aurangzeb's death, his successors had to wage war, and more than once, with the Sikhs, Jats, Bundelas, Rathors Kachhwahas, and Sisodias. Thus, no Hindu tribe of military value was left on the side of the Emperor. In addition to this, the Mahrattas were an open sore which drained the life-blood of the Empire and steadily reduced its size. The Hindus not only ceased to be loyal vassals of the Later Mughals, but became open enemies against whom large forces had to be diverted by the Emperor in his day of danger from foreign invasion.

v2.c17.s2.5

The Persians are the cleverest race among the children of Islam. But they stand aloof from the rest of the Muslim world by reason of their belief in the hereditary right of the Prophet's son-in-law to his succession (khilafat). Their faith of Shia-ism is a heresy in the eyes of the immense majority of Musalmans, including those of Northern India, who are Sunnis. The liberal Akbar, the self-indulgent Jahangir, and the cultured Shah Jahan had welcomed Shias in their camps and Courts and given them the highest offices, especially in the secretariat and revenue administration, in which their genius naturally shone most. But the orthodox Aurangzeb had barely tolerated them as a necessary evil. In his reign the Shias felt that they were not wanted by him. Many striking examples of his anti-Shia bias are found in his letters and the anecdotes* about him compiled by his favourite Hamid-ud-din Khan. The populace were still more hostile to these heretics. The proposal of Bahadur Shah to read the khutba with a single Shia epithet, led to a riot at Lahor in 1712. Some years later, at Hasanabad near the capital of Kashmir, 2500 Shias were massacred by the Sunnis. [K. K. ii. 870.] Thus, to the ambitious and gifted Shia adventurers of Persia, India ceased to be a welcome home, or a field where the highest career was open to their talent.

v2.c17.s2.6

∗ Ahkam-i-Alamgiri, ed. and tr. by J. Sarkar, sec. iv.

Sec. 99.—Weak Character of Later Mughals.

v2.c17.s3.1

The decline of the Mughal nobility was mainly due to the decline in the character of the Emperor, because it is the first duty of a sovereign to choose the right sort of servants and give them opportunities for developing their talent and acquiring experience by instructing and supervising them during their administrative apprenticeship. In his private letters, Aurangzeb frequently complains of the lack of able officers during his reign as compared with the glorious days of Akbar and Shah Jahan : *az na-yabi-e-adam-i-kar ah! ah!* But the following wise saying of the great Wazir Sadullah Khan, which Aurangzeb himself quotes with approval, is a deserved rebuke to such pessimism : "No age is wanting in able men ; it is the business of wise masters to find them out, win them over, and get work done by means of them, without listening to the calumnies of selfish men against them." [Ruqat-i-Alamgiri, No. 46.]

v2.c17.s3.2

In fact, the deterioration in the character of the Emperors must be held to be the primary cause of the decline in the character of the nobility and the downfall of the Empire. The suspicious watchfulness of Aurangzeb and the excessive paternal love of his successors kept the Princes at Court or caused them to be over-chaperoned in their provincial Governments, thus preventing the development of any initiative or business capacity among them. The heirs to the throne of Dihli in the 18th century grew up utterly helpless and dependent upon others, without any independence of thought, fearlessness in assuming responsibility, or capacity to decide and act promptly. Their intellect and spirits were dulled and they found diversion only in the society of harem women buffoons and flatterers. When such Princes came to the throne, if they were wise they would leave the entire administration in the hands of able Wazirs,—which provoked factious envy among the other ministers; and if they were foolish, they constantly resorted to intrigue for subverting one too-powerful minister only to fall into the hands of another.

v2.c17.s3.3

The *faineant* Emperor could not and would not govern the country himself, and yet he had not the wisdom to choose the right man as his Wazir and give him his full confidence and support. He was easily led away by the whispers of eunuchs and flatterers, and issued orders for the dismissal of old ministers and provincial governors in the vain hope of getting more money or greater servility from their successors.

v2.c17.s3.4

Thus the nobles found that career was not open to talent, that loyal and useful service was no security against capricious dismissal and degradation, that their property and family honour were not always safe in such a Court. Their only hope of personal safety and advancement lay in asserting their independence and establishing provincial dynasties of their own. And such a course was also conducive to the good of the people of the province. They could enjoy peace and prosperity only under an independent local dynasty. For, so long as their rulers were sent from the distant imperial Court, every succeeding day a new favourite might beg or buy the viceroyalty, come with a new letter of appointment, and try to oust his predecessor. Whether these attempts succeeded or failed, the result was the same: the province was filled with war and the rumours of war, plunder, the withholding of taxes, and the closing of the roads. The history of Gujarat under Muhammad Shah graphically illustrates the point.

v2.c17.s3.5

SEC. 100.—FORMATION OF FACTIONS AT COURT AND ITS EFFECT.

v2.c17.s3.6

When Nadir Shah invaded India, the three highest ministers of State were Asaf Jah Nizam-ul-mulk (the *Wakil-i-mutlaq* or Regent Plenipotentiary), Itimad-ud-daulah Qamar-ud-din Khan (the *Wazir* or Chancellor) and Khwaja Asim entitled Samsam-ud-daulah Khan Dauran (the *Amir-ul-umara* and *Bakhshi-ul-mamalik* or Head of the Army). Among the provincial governors the highest (if we exclude the Nizam and the semi-independent subahdar of Bengal) was Saadat Khan Burhan-ul-mulk, the subahdar of Oudh and most prominently in the running for a ministership at Court. Of these, we may leave Khan Dauran out, as he was a carpet knight and Court flatterer, without any administrative capacity or experience. The Nizam had been born in Samarqand and had migrated to India in boyhood to seek his fortune under the Mughal banner. The same was the case with Qamar-ud-din Khan the Wazir, who was his cousin. Saadat Khan was a native of Khurasan and had entered India as an adventurer early in the 18th century. These men could feel no patriotism for India, because India was not their patria. They had nothing at stake in this country, no share in its past history traditions and culture, no hereditary loyalty to its throne. The Mughal Emperor was merely their paymaster, and if they could make better terms with his enemy, they were not such fools as to reject them out of a sentimental love for a land which merely gave them an excellent field for the display of their undoubted talents and promised them a rich reward. It was only in the succeeding generations that their families became rooted in the Indian soil.

v2.c17.s3.7

When the Emperor was a sluggard or a fool, he ceased to be the master and guide of the nobility. They then naturally turned to win the controlling authority at Court or in the provinces. This selfish struggle necessarily ranged the nobles in factions, each group or bloc trying to push the fortunes of its members and hinder the success of its rival groups. The Dihli Court under the Later Mughals was divided between the Turani (or Central Asian) and the Hindustani parties,[*]—both Muhammadans, while the Hindu Rajahs sided with the latter. Each faction tried to poison the ears of the Emperor against the other, thwart its plants, stir up its discontented servants, and even engage in active hostility to it when at a distance from the Court. Rebels could not be opposed with all the armed strength of the Empire; they could always count upon secret supporters or at least neutral make-believe opponents in the Imperial Court and camp.

v2.c17.s3.8

∗ In the second half of the 18th century the division was between the Irani (Persian Shia) and Turani (Sunni) parties.

v2.c17.s3.9

This moral degradation of the nobility was accompanied by the intellectual bankruptcy of the bureaucracy, and indeed of the entire governing classes. There was no far-sighted leader, no clearly thought-out and steadily-pursued scheme of national advancement as under Akbar. No political genius arose to teach the country a new philosophy of life, or to kindle aspirations after a new heaven on earth. They all drifted and dozed in admiration of the wisdom of their ancestors and shook their heads at the growing degeneracy of the moderns.

v2.c17.s3.10

The Mughal Empire had aimed merely at being a police Government; and therefore when it could not do its police function well, when it failed to maintain internal order and external peace, it lost its sole reason for existing. The life of the country had hitherto been held together by the Court. Hence, when the throne was filled by puppets, dissolution took place in the bond that held the people together and co-ordinated their efforts and ambitions. Government ceased and anarchy began.

v2.c17.s3.11

On the eve of Nadir Shah's invasion, the Jats by their depredations had made the roads near the capital unsafe and hindered trade and traffic The Mahrattas by their regular annual incursions at first and their permanent lodgment in the frontier provinces (Gujarat, Malwa and Bundelkhand) afterwards, bled the Empire to death. The production of wealth was stopped not only as the direct result of their extortion and ravage, but also indirectly through the discouragement of industry and thrift which such insecurity of property creates.

v2.c17.s3.12

The frequent civil contests, whether among the Princes and nobles, or between the Government and rebellious subjects, spread a sense of insecurity among the taxpayers. The peasants withheld the land revenue, which was the mainstay of the Government, and the lower officials evaded delivering their collections. The victor in the contest might crush the defaulting ryots and peculating tahsildars and turn them out of house and hold; but by doing so he ruined himself all the same, as his only source of income was gone; he had only swelled the number of desperate homeless roving brigands and reduced the area under tillage.

v2.c17.s3.13

The profuse bounty of Nature to this country, its temperate climate which reduces human want, and the abstemious habits of its people, all combined to increase the national income of India throughout the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. The huge "annual addition to the national stock" ultimately made its way to the hands of the governing classes,—if we leave out the small portion that was intercepted by the trader and the revenue-farmer. The wealth of Ind was the wonder and envy of other nations. But the Mughal Court and Mughal aristocracy had not the sense to insure this wealth by spending a sufficient portion of it on efficient national defence and the improvement of the people's intellect and character by a wise system of public education. Their wealth only made their weakness fatal to them and tempted the foreign invader by assuring him of a success as easy as the booty was large.

v2.c17.s3.14

A Government which could not maintain order at home was still less likely to command respect abroad. The weakness of the Central Government was soonest felt in the frontier provinces: Malwa and Afghanistan were not guarded in strength. The Mahratta occupation of Malwa brought Dihli within striking distance of their arms, and Baji Rao in 1737 insulted the capital, pillaged and burnt its suburbs and returned to his base with perfect immunity. The defencelessness of Afghanistan brought Nadir Shah to India.

Sec. 101.—Decline of the Safawi Monarchy and Afghan Usurpation of Persia.

v2.c17.s4.1

The Safawi dynasty founded by Shah Ismail at the beginning of the 16th century, freed Persia from foreign rule and the wars of domineering nomad tribes. The new line of kings gave the country peace prosperity and extension of territory. The faith of the people, which had been persecuted by the former rulers as a heresy, now became the State religion. Wealth and civilization increased, and Persia again took her ancient position as one of the world's famous and independent monarchies, the rival of Turkey and Hindustan in the eyes of the Muslim world.

v2.c17.s4.2

For nearly a century and a half after the founder, a succession of wise warlike and active kings maintained the strength and glory of Persia. But about the middle of the 17th century began the inevitable decline in the monarchy from a continuous decline in the character of the monarch. In the words of the historian Sir John Malcolm, during the century following the death of Abbas the Great (1627), the Persian throne was occupied by "a succession of weak, cruel and debauched monarchs...... The lower orders became every day more unwarlike and...... ceased to be able to defend the State...... The nation may be said to have existed on the reputation it had acquired before." [Hist. of Persia, 2nd ed., i. 379.]

v2.c17.s4.3

Shah Husain, the last of the Safawi line, who reigned from 1694 to 1722, was no doubt free from vice; but he went to the opposite extreme of meekness and religious bigotry, and did still greater harm than his dissolute predecessors. He placed the administration entirely in the hands of the priests and thus alienated the old martial and official nobility. Under the advice of the keepers of his conscience the king persecuted and banished from the land the Sufi philosophers as heretics from Islamic orthodoxy, and thus enraged the intellectual classes. But the prestige of his worthier ancestors had given the State a momentum which made it continue to go on for nearly twenty years longer.

v2.c17.s4.4

At last early in the 18th century the dissolution came, and from the hands of its Afghan subjects. Ever since Abbas I.'s conquest of Qandahar early in the 17th century, Southern Afghanistan had been a province of Persia. It was the home of the Ghilzai and Abdali tribes. The wise statesmanship of the earlier Shahs had left the subject races of the Persian Empire under their own laws, and often under their own magistrates. The turbulent character of the Afghan people, the wildness of their country and their position on the debatable land between the rival monarchies of India and Persia, enabled them to extort for themselves a considerable amount of local independence. Their submission to the Central Government was lax and dependent on their own pleasure. In 1708, a new Persian governor of Qandahar, the converted Armenian Gurgin Khan, by trying to rule with a strong hand, caused an explosion. The Ghilzai tribe rose under Mir Wais, killed the governor, seized Qandahar and established their own rule there.

v2.c17.s4.5

The successful rebel's son Mahmud gained the throne of Qandahar in 1717, and led his tribe on to the plunder of the effete king and people of Persia. The Safawi Empire now broke to pieces. Mahmud captured the capital Isfahan, and on 21st October 1722 Shah Husain Safawi resigned his ancestors' throne and the Afghan rule over Persia began. Mahmud was succeeded by his uncle's son Ashraf in 1725. But new dangers threatened the conquerors. Qandahar was held by Mahmud's brother, whom Ashraf could not oust from the fort. Thus the Ghilzai tribe became divided under two chiefs reigning at two distant places. The governor of Sistan annexed nearly all Khurasan and proclaimed his independence. But Ashraf's greatest enemy was Mirza Tahmasp, the son of the deposed Shah Husain, who had assumed the royal title and was trying to establish his power in the province of Mazendran. This Prince was a foolish effeminate and debauched youth, and could not have recovered his heritage by his own efforts. But he was now joined by Nadir Quli, the greatest Asiatic general of that age. [Malcolm, i. 401-465.]

Sec. 102.—Nadir Delivers Persia and Makes Himself King.

v2.c17.s5.1

Nadir Quli was the son of Imam Quli, a poor Turkoman of the Afshar tribe long settled in Khurasan, who earned his bread by making coats and caps of sheepskin. Nadir was born in 1688 and passed his early years amidst great hardship and privation, which only called forth his extraordinary genius and energy. He was carried away to Tartary by the Uzbak raiders and kept there as a prisoner for four years. On returning home he served under some petty chiefs and finally took to a life of robbery with his own band of hardy and adventurous followers. The eclipse of Government during the Afghan usurpation of Persia enabled him to pursue such a career with safety and much profit in the ill-controlled frontier province of Khurasan. Seizing the fort of Kalat by murdering his own uncle (who was its governor), he used the power thus gained to defeat the Afghan ruler of Khurasan and recover the city and district of Naishabur. This victory in the national cause secured his welcome by his lawful king Shah Tahmasp, whose service he entered in 1727. [Malcolm ii. 2-5, M.U. i. 823.]

v2.c17.s5.2

The fame of Nadir drew the best recruits to his side and he became the centre of the Persian national effort to throw off the foreign yoke. His genius for war and diplomacy and his concentration of all authority in his hands led to his rapid and unbroken success. Persia was recovered from the Afghans, very few of whom returned to their own country from the slaughter on the battle-field or murder at the hands of the incensed peasantry. The Afghan domination had been a seven years' horror to the afflicted people of Persia. "Within seven years nearly a million of her inhabitants had perished, her finest provinces had been rendered desert, and her proudest edifices levelled with the dust; and this by enemies who had neither the force nor the wisdom to maintain the conquest." [Malcolm, i. 472.] The national deliverance of Persia was the work of Nadir alone, and naturally the enthusiasm of the people for him was unbounded. The king showed his gratitude by granting to the general half the kingdom with a richly jewelled crown and the right of stamping coins with his own name.

v2.c17.s5.3

But during Nadir's absence in the eastern provinces, the king, who had injudiciously conducted expeditions in the west, lost his general's gains in that direction and made a humiliating peace. The national indignation was very great. The officers of the army felt that if Shah Tahmasp were left at the head of affairs, he would only undo all their recent work and bring back national servitude. They with one voice urged Nadir to assume the crown. [Anandram, 34; Malcolm ii. 8-11.] But though Tahmasp was deposed, 26th August 1732, his general did not as yet venture to sit on the throne. Abbas, an eight-month old son of Tahmasp, was proclaimed king, and Nadir became his regent with full authority. Four years later the infant died, and Nadir became king with the title of Shahan-Shah Nadir Shah, 26th February 1736.

v2.c17.s5.4

He wrested Armenia and Georgia from the Turks, and made a peace with the Russians by which he gained the lost provinces bordering the Caspian. The island of Bahrain was recovered from the Arabs. Next, the predatory Bakhtiari tribe of the Shuster hills was vanquished and enrolled in his army,—thus diverting their energies into a useful channel and keeping them from disturbing the peace. [Malcolm ii. 11-18.]

v2.c17.s5.5

Finally, early in 1737 Nadir Shah started with 80,000 men against Qandahar. So long as that centre of independent Afghan power was not destroyed, it would remain a menace to the safety of Persia and constantly disturb the peace and prosperity of Khurasan. Moreover, without the conquest of Qandahar the full heritage of the Safawis could not be said to have come into his possession. This fort stood on the route of his advance to the Mughal Empire and he wished to enlist the Afghans under his banners to assist him in his foreign conquests, as Mahmud of Ghazni had done seven centuries before.

v2.c17.s5.6

Qandahar was now in the possession of Husain, the younger brother of Mahmud (the usurping king of Persia). The old city* stood on the eastern slope of a ridge, two miles west of the modern city. Its walls were of extreme strength and the garrison had made preparations for a good defence. The Persian army invested it on 30th March 1737, but the siege dragged on for a year, and the fort fell† only on 12th March 1738. The fort and city were dismantled by the victor. In its environs he built a new city with quarters for the governor and soldiers, which was named Nadirabad by him, but is now known as modern Qandahar. He treated the defeated Afghan tribesmen very kindly, released all the prisoners taken, bestowed pensions on the tribal chiefs, enlisted the clansmen in his army, and by transplanting the Ghilzais to Naishabur and other places in Khurasan (the former homes of the Abdalis) and posting Abdali chieftains as governors of Southern Afghanistan (Qandahar, Girishk, Bist and Zamin-dawar), kept his former enemies usefully employed in his service. His policy was to tempt the other Afghan forts to surrender to him by creating a reputation for himself as a merciful enemy and liberal master, and to enlist the Afghan soldiers under his banners as devoted supporters of his projected conquests of Central Asia and India. [Jahankusha 311-328, Malcolm ii. 20, Anandram 6-8.]

v2.c17.s5.7

∗ For a description of the fort and its walls, see J. Sarkar's History of Aurangzib, i. 140-143. † Anandram p. 7 says, to treachery.

v2.c17.s5.8

After the fall of Qandahar came the turn of the Mughal Empire; and here Nadir made out a strong case for declaring war. He proceeded in such a way as to ensure that neutral States and lovers of international law would not be able to condemn his invasion of India as an act of wanton aggression and spoliation. Nadir was no mere soldier, no savage leader of a savage horde, but a master of diplomacy and statecraft as well as of the sword. The profoundness of his diplomacy was no less remarkable than the greatness of his generalship in war and the wisdom of his policy to the vanquished after his victories in the field.

Sec. 103.—Causes of the Diplomatic Rupture Between the Persian Government and the Mughal Empire.

v2.c17.s6.1

The conduct of the effete Court of Dihli towards Persia had been marked by violation of diplomatic usage and courtesy and even by unfriendly negligence. For several generations past there had been an exchange of envoys, presents and diplomatic courtesies between the Mughal Emperors of India and the Safawi Shahs of Persia. Abbas II. continued this practice even after he had wrested Qandahar from Shah Jahan and fought four campaigns against Mughal arms. At all events formal letters of congratulation used to be written by the one Court to the other at every new accession to the throne. But Muhammad Shah, forgetting this usage, neglected to felicitate Shah Tahmasp II. after he had overthrown the Afghan usurper and recovered the throne of his ancestors. Nay, the Dihli Government, no doubt out of a timid love of quiet, had kept up friendly relations with Mir Wais and his son Husain (the usurpers of Qandahar), though the latter had raided the province of Multan and ravaged the imperial territory.

v2.c17.s6.2

After the expulsion of the Afghans from Persia, Nadir had sent Ali Mardan Khan Shamlu as ambassador to India to inform the Dihli Court that a campaign against the Afghans of Qandahar would be soon undertaken,* and to request that the Emperor would order his subahdar of Kabul to prevent these Afghans from escaping into his territory. Muhammad Shah replied that he had issued instructions to this effect and would reinforce the army in Kabul to have this work done.

v2.c17.s6.3

After some time Nadir sent a second messenger, Muhammad Ali Khan with a similar request, and the Dihli Government replied in the same terms. When early in 1737 the Persians invested Qandahar and the local Afghans began to flee northwards into Mughal Afghanistan, Nadir despatched a force to Ulang Muragha, in the Qalat district, which was his last outpost on the Perso-Mughal frontier, to bar the path of the retreating Ghilzais. This detachment ravaged the country up to the end of the hills of Kalat, slaying about a thousand Ghilzais and capturing much booty and many prisoners. The rest of the tribe fled into Mughal territory, towards Ghazni and Kabul, there being no Mughal officer or army on the frontier to obstruct them. The Persian generals, not having received orders to cross the frontier, stopped there and reported the affair to their master. Nadir Shah then (30th April 1737) sent a third envoy, Muhammad Khan Turkoman to India by way of Sindh, to ask for an explanation of this breach of promise on the part of the Emperor. The messenger was ordered to spend not more than forty days in India but bring a reply within that period. The Dihli Court, however, would give him neither a reply nor the permission to return. Its imbecile policy is thus described by Ali Hazin: "As soon as this envoy arrived at Shahjahanabad, he delivered his letter and was told to wait; but they were silent as to any answer. Sometimes they were unable to agree in their own minds on the question of writing any answer at all; at other times they were perplexed [as to] what titles they should use to Nadir Shah......Thinking the detention of the ambassador a stroke of State policy, they waited to see, if perchance Husain the Afghan with the troops besieged in Qandahar gained the victory over Nadir Shah, and destroyed him or put him to flight; on which event there would be no need of writing any answer to his letter."

v2.c17.s6.4

∗ Ali Hazin says that Shah Tahmasp II. after recovering Isfahan sent one of his nobles to India as envoy to report his accession and to request Muhammad Shah to keep the Ghilzais out of his territory, and that after the accession of the infant Abbas III. a similar message was sent. But Jahankusha 331 shows that both these embassies were sent by Nadir.

v2.c17.s6.5

A year passed away in this way, and then after the fall of Qandahar, Nadir wrote to his envoy in India to return at once. The matter had passed beyond the stage of correspondence and discussion. Nadir had decided on invading India. [Jahankusha, 331-332; Belfour's Ali Hazin, 281-287 (which is paraphrased in Siyar i. 93-94.)]

Sec. 104.—Neglected and Defenceless Condition of Afghanistan and the Panjab.

v2.c17.s7.1

At this point it is necessary to stop the narrative of events, and look at the condition of the provinces forming the north-western frontier of the Mughal Empire. Afghanistan had been a precarious possession and source of weakness to the successors of Babar, but they had succeeded in occupying the country and keeping the passes from India open. The earlier Mughal Emperors had repeatedly visited Kabul. But during the long reign of Aurangzeb, the imperial authority there was seriously imperilled. The formidable rebellion, first of the Yusufzais of Peshawar (1667) and then of the Afridis of Khaibar (1672), was aggravated by a rising of the Pathan population along the entire North-western frontier against the ruler of Dihli. The resources of the whole Empire had to be concentrated under the Emperor's personal command against the tribesmen. After only a modified success Aurangzeb returned from the frontier where he had now spent two years, and peace of a sort was restored by profuse bribery to the border Afghans (1676). Next year Amir Khan* was appointed governor of Kabul and he held the post for 21 years with conspicuous ability and success.

v2.c17.s7.2

∗ See J. Sarkar's History of Aurangzib iii. (2nd ed.) 243 and Studies in Mughal India 111-117.

v2.c17.s7.3

Aurangzeb ascribes this viceroy's administrative triumph to his tactful dealings, practical skill, policy of keeping the hillmen usefully employed by enlisting them in the imperial army, and his judicious and economical management of the treasury, which enabled him to pay regular subsidies to the clansmen living near the passes.

v2.c17.s7.4

When Amir Khan died (1698), he was followed by no worthy successor. After a short lull, trouble began to revive. But Shah Alam, who governed the province from 1699 to his father's death in 1707, kept order fairly well. He had a large and efficient army, and used to move about the country a good deal, passing the winter at Peshawar (which was then included in Afghanistan), and the summer at Kabul or Bamian; but he was forced to continue the policy of bribing the pass Afghans to maintain peace. In 1709 or 1710, Nasir Khan, formerly faujdar of Jamrud, was appointed subahdar of Kabul, and he continued to hold this post till his death, about 1719, when his son, also entitled Nasir Khan, succeeded him and was later confirmed in his office by Muhammad Shah (1720). This second Nasir Khan's mother was of the Afghan race and he was expected to succeed easily in ruling the province and keeping the passes open. [M.U. iii, 833.]

v2.c17.s7.5

But he was a simple-minded and indolent man. His chief business was hunting, and when not engaged in it he spent his time in prayer. [Siyar, i. 93.] Thus, the peace of the country was left to take care of itself, and the roads became unsafe. His patron at Court was Roshan-ud-daulah, a favourite of the Emperor, and the imperial grant for payments to keep the passes open was sent to Nasir Khan through the hands of this noble. Roshan-ud-daulah's rival Khan Dauran accused him of embezzling the money, and induced the Emperor to stop this payment as useless. Nasir Khan's appeals were disregarded. About 1730 Roshan-ud-daulah himself fell out of favour and was dismissed. The result was that things in Afghanistan were left to drift without the least hope of remedy.

v2.c17.s7.6

As Ghulam Husain writes, "Neither the subahdar nor the Amir-ul-umara [at Court] kept himself informed about the roads and passes of the country. No guards remained on the roads. Owing to the weakness of the Government, the local officers lost all fear of being called to account. None cared for any one else, none feared, none sought instructions from any [higher officer]. Everywhere every one did whatever he liked. Any one who wished could come and go [through these frontier roads, unquestioned]; the Emperor and his nobles never heard of it. They never inquired why no news-letter was coming to Court from any province or outpost." [Siyar, i. 93.]

v2.c17.s7.7

When we contrast this negligence and slothfulness of Muhammad Shah with the sleepless vigilance* of Aurangzeb in respect of the Persian frontier, we can realize the depth of inefficiency to which the Mughal administration had fallen on the eve of Nadir Shah's invasion.

v2.c17.s7.8

The governor of Kabul had sent repeated applications to the Emperor for money to pay his troops; but nobody paid any heed to them, as the faction opposed to him was now in power at Court and the Emperor never exercised his own judgment nor personally looked into any business. The soldiers posted in the province starved as their salary for five years was in arrears. Ill-fed, ill-equipped, ill-armed through poverty, they pressed the subahdar to pay them at least one year's dues out of the five, so that they might satisfy their creditors to some extent and have a little left over for the expenses of marching. Nasir Khan used to reassure them by saying "Friends! why this anxiety? I have written to the Emperor and also to my agent at Court, and the money is sure to come to-morrow if not to-day." When his agent presented the application to Khan Dauran the Amir-ul-umara, and in fear and trembling described the alarming situation in Afghanistan, that noble replied in derision, "Do you think that I am a petty simpleton that I shall be impressed by such a tale as yours? Our houses are built on the plain; we do not fear anything except what we can see with our own eyes. Your houses stand on lofty hills, and therefore you have probably sighted Mongol and Qizilbash armies from the roofs of your houses! Reply to your master that we are writing for money to the governor of Bengal; and when the Bengal revenue arrives after the rainy season, the money due will be quickly sent to Kabul."* [Anandram, 11-12.]

v2.c17.s7.9

∗ Striking illustrations in Hamid-ud-din's Ahkam-i-Alamgiri, § § 49-52 translated by J. Sarkar as Anecdotes of Aurangzib.

v2.c17.s7.10

Those people of Dihli who bore testimony to the defenceless condition of Afghanistan, were sneered at as fools. Khan Dauran's friends even suggested that the deputation of Kabul citizens with this report had been stage-managed by the Wazir and the Nizam, (the leaders of the Turani faction), in order to discredit Khan Dauran and induce the Emperor to transfer his confidence to the former party! [Siyar, i. 96.]

v2.c17.s7.11

The result is best described in the words of Ghulam Husain: "It was impossible for Nasir Khan to prevent Nadir Shah's entrance into India. The Government was rotten, the Emperor was powerless. No money was sent to maintain the administration in Afghanistan. The subahdar, therefore, sought his own comfort and lived at Peshawar, entrusting the fort of Kabul to a qiladar with orders to control and watch the passes leading into India." [Siyar, i. 94.]

v2.c17.s7.12

Equally neglected and defenceless was the next gateway of India, the province of the Panjab. Zakariya Khan (son of Abdus-samad Khan) was the governor of Lahor and Multan. His family had come from Ahrar in Central Asia, and therefore he was regarded as "a strong pillar of the Turani party." His mother was a sister of the late Wazir Muhammad Amin Khan's wife, and he naturally excited the bitter opposition of the Hindustani party under Khan Dauran.† Zakariya Khan was a brave and active soldier and good administrator; he gave peace and prosperity to the province in his charge by repeated campaigns against rebels and robbers. [M. U. ii. 106; Anandram 138.] But the Hindustani party who possessed the Emperor's ears, opposed all his applications to Court, misrepresented his character and motives and prevented money and troops from being sent to him when Nadir's invasion was imminent.

v2.c17.s7.13

∗ On this Anandram rightly remarks, "If the Afghans had been set to guard the frontier with their whole hearts and customary bravery, they could have stopped the advance of the Persian army long enough to enable reinforcements to reach them from Dihli, and then India would not have been sacked."

v2.c17.s7.14

† An astonishing example of this party rancour is supplied by the historian Shakir Khan (an Indian Muhammadan of Panipat), who asserts that Zakariya Khan at the instigation of the Nizam and Saadat Khan, who wanted to overthrow Khan Dauran, disloyally admitted Nadir into Lahor!

v2.c17.s7.15

Thus, in the Emperor's hour of supreme need, factious jealousy and foolish distrust prevented any real attempt being made to repel the invader from the frontier, or even to check him there long enough to enable defensive preparations to be completed at Dihli and the army of the Empire marshalled in the Panjab. The 'gateways of India' fell into Nadir's hands at the first touch, and yet the foolish Emperor and his advisers delayed their own preparations for defence in the vain hope of the enemy not being able to force the passes of Afghanistan and the rivers of the Panjab.

v2.c17.s7.16

Such was the condition of the north-western marches of India when the storm burst on them.

Sec. 105.—Nadir Conquers Northern Afghanistan from the Mughals.

v2.c17.s8.1

On 10th May 1738, the Persian monarch began his march into Northern Afghanistan to make an end of his Afghan enemies. Crossing the Mughal frontier at the Mukhur spring he halted at Qarabagh, 36 miles s. w. of Ghazni. A powerful detachment was sent under his younger son Nasr-ullah to operate against the Afghans of Ghorband and Bamian in the north-west of Kabul. When Nadir reached Qarabagh, Baq Khan the Mughal governor of Ghazni fled away in terror; the qazis scholars and rich men of the city waited on the invader with presents and offer of submission. So, he entered Ghazni in peace, 31st May, and treated the people well.

v2.c17.s8.2

Two other detachments had been operating against the Hazaras or hill Afghans south-west of Ghazni, who had defied Nadir's troops. All who made timely submission were pardoned. But the men who resisted were put to the sword, their women dragged into captivity and their houses destroyed. Thus securing his flank and Rear, Nadir advanced on Kabul. The chief men of the city tried to avert the storm by advancing two marches to welcome him on the way, and he sent them back with robes of honour presents and reassuring words. But Sharza Khan, the commandant of the citadel, with the soldiers of the garrison decided to offer resistance, and shutting the fort-gates prepared for defence.

v2.c17.s8.3

On 10th June, Nadir's advance-tents arrived near the fort, but a part of the garrison sallied out and made a hostile demonstration. The porters were not prepared for resistance, and therefore declining the challenge they quietly set up the tents at a safe distance from the walls, at Ulang, half a league to the east of the city. Nadir arrived here on the 11th, and next day he rode out towards the Black Rock to view the environs of the city and the defences of its citadel. The garrison issued in force and began to discharge their fire-arms at him; but a charge of the Persian escort drove them back to the foot of the wall. Nadir now began an investment of the city. His guns and mortars, dragged up to the neighbouring heights, played upon the walls. On the seventh day (19th June) the tower of Aqa-bin collapsed from the shock of a big gun fired from it, and a part of the wall* fell down; the citadel capitulated, and the imperial treasury horses elephants and stores at Kabul passed into Nadir's possession. [*Jahankusha* 333—335.]

v2.c17.s8.4

Here he passed forty days to settle the affairs of the province, and here he was joined (1st July) by his son Nasr-ullah who had returned after subduing Ghorband and Bamian. In the meantime, a letter had been received from his envoy at Dihli reporting that the Emperor would neither reply to his letter nor give the ambassador his congé. At this Nadir Shah wrote a strong protest to the Emperor and sent it with a fast courier accompanied by some leading men of Kabul, who offered to explain the real state of things in Afghanistan to the Mughal Court. In this letter, Nadir Shah charges Muhammad Shah with the violation of his promise, delay in replying to embassies and detention of the last Persian envoy for more than a year, in violation of the usage of nations. He points out how the Afghans had done even greater havoc to India than to Persia, and therefore in crushing them he was really doing a service to the Mughal Empire. He explains how the hostility of the imperial garrison in Kabul and their alliance with the Afghans had forced him to fight them, but that after their submission he had guarded them from harm, as his sole intention was the punishment of his Afghan enemies. The party entrusted with this letter left Kabul on 3rd July. On their reaching Jalalabad, the Kabuli notables were forced by the local governor to go back, while the courier and his nine guards were robbed and murdered by a neighbouring chieftain, the son of Mir Abbas.*

v2.c17.s8.5

∗ Anandram 10. He tells the incredible story that the breach thus caused was large enough to let 500 horsemen gallop through it abreast. The recoil of a single gun could not have overthrown a quarter-mile of stone-wall. Hanway (ii. 359) says that Nadir massacred the greater part of the garrison, including Sharza Khan and his son, after the fall of Kabul.

v2.c17.s8.6

Meantime Nadir Shah had left Kabul (19th July) on account of scarcity of provisions there, and moved into the more fertile and populous hills of Chahar-ek-kar Najrad and Safi. The hill-crests occupied by the local clansmen were stormed and the vanquished were forced to submit and enter the Persian military service. After passing 22 days here, he started for Gandamak on 25th August.

v2.c17.s8.7

Then came the news of the murder of the courier. The Persian advanced guard made a sudden dash on Jalalabad and seized the grain stored there. The governor fled, the chief men submitted and yielded up the fort (7th September). But the city was subjected to a massacre in punishment of the attack on Nadir's courier. The hill-fort of Mir Abbas's son was stormed, the men were put to the sword, and the women (including his sister and wives) were brought away to the Persian camp as captives. [Jahankusha 337-339, Ali Hazin 289.]

v2.c17.s8.8

After spending some days in regulating the administration of the country, the Persian king advanced to Bahar-Showlani† to the south of Jalalabad. In view of his expected long absence in India, the distance of Dihli from his base in Persia, and probably also the accidents of war, Nadir Shah invested his eldest son Mirza Raza Quli with the crown of the deputy-king or regent of Persia (3rd November), and sent him back to that country amidst great pomp at the head of a strong force.

v2.c17.s8.9

∗ Jahankusha 335-337, Ali Hazin 288.

v2.c17.s8.10

† Bahar 17 m. s. w. of Jalalabad; Showlani (spelt Safli in Jahankusha) 8 m. e. of Bahar.

Linked texts (1)