History of Aurangzib, Based on Original Sources v3.c37.s1: §1. Aurangzib's sons : Muazzam, how treated.
History of Aurangzib, Based on Original Sources v3.c37.s1
- Language
- English
§1. Aurangzib's sons : Muazzam, how treated.
v3.c37.s1.1
Like all the other Mughal emperors, Aurangzib was unhappy in his sons. His constant fear was lest the captive Shah Jahan's prophecy should come true and he would receive the same treatment at the hands of his own sons that he had meted out to his father. Against such a retribution he guarded himself to the last day of his life, keeping all his sons under suspicious watch and control, surrounding them with an army of spies in the person of their household servants, minutely regulating every act of their life, and promptly censuring them at the least sign of ambition or encroachment on imperial prerogative.
v3.c37.s1.2
His eldest son, Muhammad SULTAN deserted to Shuja in the War of Succession (8th June 1659), but came back to the imperial army eight months afterwards, and was confined in the State prison of Gwalior. Occasionally artists were sent there to draw his portrait for the Emperor,* and thus only did the father keep himself informed of the son's exact state of health! After twelve years of captivity fortune seemed to smile on him again.* In December 1672 he was removed to Salimgarh, the citadel of Delhi, and granted an interview with the Emperor. Aurangzib at this time evidently wanted to cherish Sultan at Court and use him as a pawn to check his second son, Muhammad Muazzam, who had filled the heir-apparent's place during his eldest brother's eclipse, but whose recent conduct had been unsatisfactory. Muhammad Sultan now basked in the sunshine of royal favour: large additions were made to his harem; he was married to Murad's daughter Dostdar Banu in December 1672, to Bai Bhut Devi, the daughter of the hill-Rajah of Kishtawar in December 1675, and to a niece of Daulatabadi Mahal in the following August; his mansab and pension were restored; and he seemed to be on the high road to liberty and recognition as heir to the throne, when death cut his life short at the age of thirty-seven (3rd Dec., 1676).
v3.c37.s1.3
∗ Akhbarat, 9
v3.c37.s1.4
Muhammad Muazzam, who lived to mount his father's throne in 1707 as Bahadur Shah I., took the place of honour at the right hand of his father after the fall of Muhammad Sultan. In May 1663, when only 20 years old, he was sent to the Deccan as viceroy, and there he stayed for the next ten years, paying occasional visits to his father in Northern India and being once sent to the Panjab in command of the advanced division of the imperial army (1666) to meet a threatened Persian invasion. But early in 1670* he came under a passing cloud. The official history merely says, "It was reported to the Emperor that the prince, at the instigation of flatterers, had begun to act in a self-willed and independent manner. His Majesty's letters of good counsel producing no effect, he sent the prince's mother, Nawab Bai, to the Deccan to lure him back to the path of duty if the charges against him were true. A noble was also sent from the Court to deliver him to a stern reprimand on behalf of the Emperor. But the reports were found to be utterly false. The prince's character was full of loyalty. He wrote a very submissive reply, expressing his sorrow and regret, and the imperial grace was renewed to him." But he was evidently still regarded with suspicion; at all events he had utterly failed to repress Shivaji, and his constant quarrels with his insubordinate lieutenant Dilir Khan rendered the administration of Mughal Deccan by him impossible. So, he was removed from office in January, 1673. The restoration of Muhammad Sultan to favour at this very time may have been intended by Aurangzib to show Muazzam that the Emperor had a second string to his bow and could cut off his refractory son at his pleasure.
v3.c37.s1.5
∗ M. A. 121-125, 139, 148, 155-156, 159-160; K. K. ii. 236, 247; Ishwardas, 72 b.
v3.c37.s1.6
∗ M. A. 101; Dilkasha, 73; Storia, ii. 162-165, says it was a pretended rebellion by order of Aurangzib. M. U. i. 812. For details, see my Shivaji, 2nd ed., 192-197.
v3.c37.s1.7
Three years later, Muazzam was given the high title of *Shah Alam* (15 Oct., 1676) and sent to command in chief in Afghanistan, and on his return (20 January, 1678) he passed some months at Court exercising great influence and power. Then for a year and a half (Sep. 1678—March 1680) he governed the Deccan, but with all his "vast army, he failed to achieve any success against Shivaji or Bijapur." During the Rajput War he commanded a division in Northern Mewar and then chased the rebel Akbar for some time but without success. When the Emperor went to the Deccan, Shah Alam accompanied him, and led a detachment into Konkan with disastrous results (Sep. 1683—May 1684).
v3.c37.s1.8
At the siege of Golkonda, Shah Alam's correspondence with the enemy was intercepted, he was found to have encouraged visits from Qutb Shah's agents, received presents from them and introduced slackness into the military operations. There were even suspicions that he had secreted much of the loot of Haidarabad instead of crediting the whole of it to the imperial exchequer. So, on 21st February, 1687, he was arrested with his sons and placed in confinement. His favourite wife, Nur-un-nisa, was insulted and rebuked by eunuchs at the Emperor's bidding and deprived of her liberty; her property was escheated, and her chief officer was tortured to make him reveal the suspected disloyal acts of his master and the complicity of his mistress in them. (See Ch. 47).
v3.c37.s1.9
Shah Alam's captivity was relaxed cautiously, little by little, in a very amusing fashion, and he was finally released on 9th May, 1695 and sent to Agra and thence to Multan and afterwards to Afghanistan as viceroy. He had never been brave or proud, and now his spirit was utterly crushed; he lived in a state of abject timidity and intellectual helplessness, deceiving his father by hypocrisy and seeking consolation in the pleasures of the harem. Even his father taunted him with cowardice, though the prince was already a grandfather [Storia, iv. 245, ii. 392; M.A. 341-344, K.K. 397, J. Ind. Hist., ii. 295-306.]