Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

History of Aurangzib, Based on Original Sources v1.c16: Appendices.

History of Aurangzib, Based on Original Sources v1.c16

Language
English

Contents

Appendices.

II.—Parentage of Alí II.

v1.c16.s1.1

The parentage of Ali Adil Shah II is not altogether free from doubt. The Mughals declared him to be a stranger of unknown origin whom the late Sultan had brought up like a son, *pisar-i-khanda*. (*Waris*, 118*a*, and *Adab*, 88*b*). The Bijapur side stated that Ali was born to Muhammad Adil Shah on 27th August, 1638, and that at the fond request of the Queen, Bari Sahiba, the sister of the Golkonda king, the baby was handed over to her to be brought up under her eyes in her apartments, known as the *Anand Mahal*.

v1.c16.s1.2

[^ *]: *Adab*, 157*a*, 163*a*. "Take care of Ahmadnagar. Keep your troops ready, lest when Nasiri Khan goes away to Hindustan, Shiva, finding the field vacant, should begin to plunder" (To Multafat Khan. *Adab*, 149*b*). "Don't leave your charge at the call of Shah Jahan, lest Shiva should sally out." (To Nasiri Khan, *Adab*, 157*b*). "At Nasiri Khan's departure that district has been left vacant. Attend to it, as the son of a dog is waiting for an opportunity" (To Mir Jumla, *Adab*, 92*a*). *Dilkasha*, 20 and 21.

v1.c16.s1.3

The boy's birth, initiation into Islam, and commencement of education, were all celebrated with the pomp and ceremony worthy of a prince of the blood, and he publicly rode through the capital in the style of the heir to the throne. His right to ascend the throne was apparently not questioned by the Bijapur nobility and officers of the army, though they soon afterwards began to quarrel about the division of power and influence. But such internal discords were the usual case at Bijapur and in every other country where the king is weak and his officers strong and selfish. Against Aurangzib's theory that Ali was a lowborn lad smuggled into the harem, stands the fact that at the time of his birth (August 1638), Muhammad Adil Shah was only 29 years old. Are we to believe that at this early age he and his queen had given up all hope of having any issue, and had contrived the fraud of proclaiming a stranger's child as their son? Some scandalous tale about the private life of Muhammad Adil Shah was told after his death by a Bijapur officer who had deserted to Aurangzib, (*Adab* 91a), but we do not know of its precise nature. Aurangzib himself utters a pious cry of disbelief in it! Who Ali's mother was is not explicitly stated in the Bijapur history. In the record of an event a few years after his accession, the chief Dowager Queen, Bari Sahiba, is spoken of as his *walida*, but the term may mean nothing more than adoptive mother, because in the account of Ali's birth even this lady is never once described as his mother. Possibly he was the son of a slave-girl of the harem. But under Islamic law children of such birth are not debarred from inheritance.

v1.c16.s1.4

[The history of Ali Adil Shah II from his birth to accession is given in the *Basatin-i-salatin*, 345—347. Tavernier, i. 183, repeats the prevalent story that Ali was merely an adopted child. Also Bernier, 197.]

III.—Corruption of the Bijapur Wazir by Aurangzib.

v1.c16.s2.1

The Bijapur history asserts that the prime minister, Khan Muhammad, surnamed Khan-i-khanan, was corrupted by Aurangzib, and gives the following account of his treachery and its punishment :—

v1.c16.s2.2

"Adil Shah had appointed Khan Muhammad, with a large army to guard the kingdom. He took post on the frontier. Spies brought him news that the Delhi army was crossing a pass only two or three days' march off. Khan Muhammad by a forced march at night barred the road. Famine raged in the Mughal camp, but the troops had no way open for escape. Aurangzib then wrote to the prime minister: 'If you let me off now, there will be perpetual friendship between the Bijapuris and us, and so long as you or your descendants hold the wazirship of the country, we shall never covet any of its territory.' The letter reached Khan Muhammad when he was sitting down with some learned men after his evening prayer, and, he remarked, 'This letter will be the death of me.' After long reflection, he replied on the back of the epistle, 'Early next morning, getting your men ready as for a night-attack, make a forced march and escape.' Aurangzib with his men fell on the Khan's troops who left a path open for them, and so he escaped. At the news of the night-attack Khan Muhammad's officers hastened to him, found Aurangzib already fled, and urged him to chase the Mughals as there was yet time. The Khan replied, 'We shall thus secure peace. But if we slay Aurangzib an ocean of troubles will surge up and [ Mughal ] armies will drown the Deccan land. Good, that he has escaped.' So, he forbade pursuit. Afzal Khan after using hot words left with his troops, went to Bijapur, and reported the matter to the Sultan,......... who recalled Khan Muhammad and his army to the capital. The Khan, knowing that his death was certain marched very slowly, with frequent halts. On the day he entered the city, two Mughals, armed with many sharp weapons, stood on the two sides of the Mecca gate. As the Khan's palki entered, they fell on him and despatched him with blows. The date was the year 1068 A. H. [ early in November, 1657 A. D. ]...It is said that Aurangzib ordered that the annual tribute from Bijapur to the Emperor should not that year be paid to him, but spent in building a tomb for Khan Muhammad." (Basatin-i-salatin, 349-351).

v1.c16.s2.3

Now, this story of Khan Muhammad having caught Aurangzib in a trap in a mountain pass near the frontier, is clearly false. The detailed official history of the Mughals and Aurangzib's letters show that he only marched from his own frontier to Bidar (a short distance), and then from Bidar to Kaliani, and lastly (28 May) he made a four miles' advance from Kaliani in order to disperse the enemy assembled in the neighbourhood. There is no formidable mountain-pass in this route, and at every one of these steps Aurangzib had a strong base close behind him, viz., the Mughal fort of Udgir when he first marched to Bidar, the conquered fort of Bidar when he proceeded to Kaliani, and lastly the part of his army left to invest Kaliani when he advanced four miles from that fort. Further more, the road between Bidar and Kaliani had been cleared of the enemy by Mahabat Khan, before Aurangzib traversed it.

v1.c16.s2.4

Khan Muhammad might possibly have hemmed round some small Mughal detachment escorting provisions, or even Mahabat Khan's division in its march towards Kulbarga, (12th April) but then Aurangzib himself was too far off to write to the Bijapur wazir the letter of temptation described above. I think it most likely that the charge on which he was condemned of treason and murdered was that, having been already corrupted by Aurangzib, he had made a sham fight in the battle of 28th May, when he might have easily annihilated Aurangzib's force.

v1.c16.s2.5

From the description in the Basatin-i-salatin it appears that Khan Muhammad had an opportunity of crushing Aurangzib during the latter's retreat from Kaliani or Bidar. This theory receives some support from Aqil Khan Razi, who writes (p. 17), "Aurangzib's army was distracted, but he remained firm, without being at all shaken by the departure of such high officers [as Mahabat Khan and Rao Chhatra Sal.] With boldness and prudence he returned, unhurt and without loss, from the place, through that ring of enemies."

v1.c16.s2.6

In a letter written a few days after 8th October, Secretary Qabil Khan reports a rumour that Afzal Khan with the Bijapuri army had crossed the Benathora with a view to invade the mahals on "this side", evidently meaning the newly annexed districts of Bidar and Kaliani (Adab, 197a). We read (Adab, 64b), that the Bijapuri territory north of the river had been previously occupied and administered by Aurangzib's officers. Therefore, his return march from Kaliani to Bidar, 4th—9th October, could not have been molested by Khan Muhammad.

v1.c16.s2.7

Did the Bijapur prime minister, then, get and throw away, with fatal consequences to himself, the chance of capturing the Prince, during his retreat from Bidar to the Mughal frontier? The idea is plausible. The Bijapuris were certainly emboldened by the distraction of the Mughals; and Aurangzib's army was weakened by the deputation of Mir Jumla and the departure of several other officers for Delhi; and the report of his intended retreat to the Mughal frontier had totally destroyed the Imperial prestige in that region;

v1.c16.s2.8

the Bijapuris were openly insulting isolated Mughal detachments and officers. But against this theory must be urged that (1) Bidar was only 28 miles by road from the Mughal frontier (viz., the ferry over the Manjira river); (2) Kaliani and Bidar were both held by Mughal garrisons, which might have assisted Aurangzib by falling on the rear of any Bijapuri army surrounding him; (3) Aurangzib left Bidar on 18th October, and Khan Muhammad was murdered early in November, as the news of his death reached Aurangzib at Aurangabad in the middle of the month. (Adab, 92b.) There was not sufficient interval between these two events for the return of Afzal Khan to Bijapur, the summoning of Khan Muhammad by Adil Shah, and the minister's slow march from Bidar to Bijapur, as described in the Basatin-i-salatin.

v1.c16.s2.9

However, from Aurangzib's letters it is clear that Khan Muhammad was friendly to the Mughals, and advocated a policy of peace with them, while Mulla Ahmad was at that time bitterly hostile to them. (During the war Khan Muhammad openly sent an agent to Shah Jahan, evidently to propose terms on behalf of his master. Adab, 125a.) But this need not have meant that Khan Muhammad had been bribed to advocate the peace policy or that he shirked his duty in the field of battle. Before Aurangzib's invasion Mulla Ahmad himself had visited the Mughal ambassador at Bijapur and professed friendliness, though Aurangzib distrusted him. (Adab, 91b).

v1.c16.s2.10

Aurangzib's own remarks on hearing of Khan Muhammad's murder are given in a letter from Secretary Qabil Khan to Mir Jumla, written in November, 1657. The Prince only says that Khan Muhammad fell a victim to the treacherous intrigue of his false friend, Mulla [Ahmad] Natia, and that he almost threw away his life by neglecting to take proper steps to counteract his rival's designs, though repeatedly cautioned by Aurangzib. (Adab, 92b, 204b). The other references to his death are in Adab, 93b and 179a.

v1.c16.s2.11

"Khan Muhammad" is a most unusual name; "Jan Muhammad" is more likely.