Fall of the Mughal Empire v2.c30.s2.1

v2.c30.s2.1

In short, Shah Alam’s character at this time was one of promise. Given proper instruments and favourable circumstances he might have succeeded in restoring the Delhi monarchy. But it was the tragedy of his life that he was called upon to set right a world that was out of joint morally even more than politically. Nowhere could he find a single faithful friend or able lieutenant. All the men who gathered round him during his struggle for a kingdom were selfish men, shady adventurers, or pretenders to baronies or public offices, whose one aim was to use his prestige as lawful Emperor to oust the men in possession of the coveted landed estate or Government post. Even an angel would have to beat his wings ineffectually in such a foul atmosphere, heavy with the inertia of an age-old decadent society and State. The character of the peerage that now represented Yamin-ud-daulah and Sadullah, Mir Jumla and Asaf Jah, filled every true friend of the Delhi monarchy with despair. As Jean Law spoke in the bitterness of disappointment to the historian Ghulām Husain Khān (in April 1759),—"I have travelled everywhere from Bengal to Delhi, but nowhere have I found anything from any one except oppression of the poor and plundering of wayfarers. Whenever I wanted that one of these famous potentates, like Shuja, Imad and their peers, out of a regard for honour and a desire for the regulation of the Government, should undertake to put in order the affairs of Bengal and suppress the English [usurpers of that province], not one of them felt any inclination to this task. They did not once weigh in their minds the praiseworthiness or shame of their conduct... The Indian nobles (umara) are a set of disorderly inconsistent blockheads, who exist solely for ruining a world of people." [Siyar, ii. 257.] Shah Alam himself, after years of bitter experience, came to the same conclusion. As he wrote in 1768: "Through the perfidiousness of the nobility and vassals this anarchy has arisen, and every one proclaims himself a sovereign in his own place, and they are at variance with one another, the strong prevailing over the weak... In this age of delusion and deceit, His Majesty, places no dependence on the services or professions of loyalty of any one but the English chiefs." [CPC. ii. 1101, 836. Shākir, 107.]