Last Nizam (9781742626109) (4 page)

Nizam ul-Mulk's first priority was to secure the Deccan from ‘the abominations of infidelity and tyranny . . . the ruffianism of highway robbers and the rapacity of the Marathas and rebellious zamindars'.
²⁷
He then divided his newly acquired kingdom into
three parts. One third became his own private estate known as the
Sarf-i-Khas
, one third was allotted for the expenses of the government and was known as the
Diwan
's territory, and the remainder was distributed to Muslim nobles, who in return paid
nazars
to the Nizam for the privilege of collecting revenue from the villages under their suzerainty. The most important of these were the Paigah estates. The Paigahs doubled up as generals, making it easy to raise an army should the Nizam's Dominions come under attack. Scattered around the country were also numerous Hindu rajahs and chiefs who were also granted
jagirs
and allowed to maintain a certain level of autonomy on payment of annual tributes to the Nizam. On the
sanads
(scrolls) granting them their
jagirs
, inscribed in Persian were the words ‘as long as the sun and moon are in rotation'.
²⁸

The owners of the estates were mostly absentee landlords who cared little for the condition of the lands under their control.
Jagirs
were usually split into numerous pieces in order to prevent the most powerful of the nobles from entertaining any thought of carving out an empire for themselves. The system, which continued relatively unchanged until 1950, ensured a steady source of income for the state treasury and the Nizam himself, but also transformed Hyderabad into the most feudal of all the Indian princely states.

As Nizam ul-Mulk strengthened his dominions, Muhammad Shah barely clung on to his. The Mughal Emperor was better known for his debauchery than his fighting skills. (A miniature painting made at the time depicted him cavorting with one of his dancing girls – his massive phallus in the act of penetration.) Hordes of Maratha warriors terrorised Delhi, and on more than one occasion Muhammad Shah called on the Nizam to keep the raiders at bay. In 1738 a much greater threat came from beyond the Hindu Kush as the Persian conqueror Nadir Shah started advancing towards Delhi through Afghanistan and the Punjab.

Casting aside his puritanical streak, Nizam ul-Mulk answered the Emperor's call for help by sending his troops to Karnal, where Muhammad Shah's forces had gathered to turn back the Persian army. But the combined armies were cannon fodder for the Persian cavalry and its superior weaponry and tactics. Up to 150,000 Indian soldiers were said to have died in the three-hour battle on 13 February 1739. When Nizam ul-Mulk went to Nadir Shah's tent to negotiate an end to hostilities, the Persian king began upping his terms for the withdrawal of his forces from 5 million rupees to 400 million rupees. When the Emperor protested, Nadir Shah angrily pointed out that he had no choice in the matter.

A few days later the Persian army began its final march on Delhi, with Muhammad Shah and his wives guarded by 12,000 soldiers, together with whatever remained of the Indian contingents. On the outskirts of the city, Nadir Shah stopped and ordered the humiliated Emperor to march ahead so that he could organise a fitting welcome for his honoured guest. In reality Nadir Shah was there to strip his host of his dignity and wealth.

However, within 24 hours of Nadir Shah's ceremonial welcome, the citizens of Delhi began stirring. Just before midnight a group of Persian agents sent to enquire about the price grain was fetching in the bazaar had their throats slit. Shortly after, a group of Mughal prisoners seized their jailers and ran into the streets shouting that Nadir Shah had been assassinated by Muhammad Shah. Almost immediately another rumour spread that Nadir Shah had been killed by one of the female guards of the Mughal harem.

When the first reports of violence reached Nadir Shah he dismissed them as exaggerated, but by dawn the uprising was in full swing. When Nadir Shah rode through the city dressed in armour, thousands of his soldiers lay dead, many of their bodies horribly mutilated. Reaching the Sunehri Mosque near Chandni
Chowk, in the heart of what is today Old Delhi, he climbed the terrace and saw people on the surrounding rooftops throwing stones and other missiles at the Persian soldiers below. When a bullet killed one of his generals standing next to him, Nadir Shah's anger exploded. Waving his sword above his head he gave the signal for the ransack of Delhi to begin.

‘There was scarcely a spot left in Delhi but was stained with human blood,' reported one survivor. ‘For a long time the streets remained strewn with corpses as the walks of a garden with dead flowers and leaves. The town was reduced to ashes and had the appearance of a plain consumed with fire. The ruin in which its beautiful streets and buildings we loved was such that the labour of years could alone restore the town to its former glory.'
²⁹
Most estimates put the number of those killed on that day at 20,000.

Unable to prevent his capital being destroyed, Muhammad Shah again summoned Nizam ul-Mulk for help. Once more the ageing monarch obliged. A master of tact and diplomacy, he presented himself before the Persian king bare-headed and with his sword hanging around his neck. Appealing to Nadir Shah's sense of pity and pleading for the massacre to end, Nizam ul-Mulk recited a couplet by the Persian poet Hafiz:

‘Oh King your anger has killed so many men,
If you want to kill some more, bring them back to life again.'
³⁰

Moved by the couplet and sickened by the slaughter taking place outside, Nadir Shah complied. Saying to the Nizam, ‘I pardon in consideration of thy grey beard',
³¹
he ordered the massacre to stop.

As the survivors began to bury or cremate their dead, Nadir Shah's men began packing up the royal treasury and stripping the palaces of valuables. ‘Confident persons sent to seize the
treasuries secured such an amount of vessels of gold and silver and vases of China, and articles set with precious jewels, and other valuable things, that the registrars and clerks were unable to catalogue or compute them,' recorded a contemporary historian. ‘Of the number was the Peacock Throne, studded with inestimable jewels, on the adornment of which the former kings of India spent two millions sterling, with such round pearls and glittering diamonds as were not to be found in the possession of any kings of the past or present time.'
³²

The Koh-i-Noor diamond, which now adorns the Crown Jewels, also made its way into Nadir Shah's collection, after a courtesan told the Persian king that the priceless stone was hidden in Mohammad Shah's turban. Citing an ancient tradition, Nadir Shah demanded an exchange of headgear with Muhammad Shah, who had no option but to comply. Some estimates of the total value of gold and silver coinage, jewellery, weapons and furniture gathered in slightly under two months run as high as 700 million rupees. The Peacock Throne, decorated with diamonds, rubies, emeralds and pearls, was believed to be worth 90 million rupees alone.

It is said that even today Delhi has not recovered the level of prosperity it enjoyed before Nadir Shah's invasion. The Imperial treasury was empty, much of the city had been destroyed and the myth of Mughal supremacy had been dealt a fatal blow. Although the Mughal Empire would continue for another 118 years, it would remain a shadow of its former glory. The only Indian ruler to retain any credibility and keep his Dominions intact was Nizam ul-Mulk.

Following the sacking of Delhi, the steady stream of exiles from the Mughal capital to the Deccan became a flood. Administrators, artisans, musicians, poets and religious teachers were welcomed into the Nizam's court. But for all his skills as a ruler, the founder of the Asaf Jahi dynasty was either unable or unwilling to stamp
out the worst legacies of Aurangzeb's reign. Banditry was rife in those areas where the Marathas held sway, disrupting the development of trade and commerce that would make the Nizam's empire viable. His elite nobles and soldiers were arrogant and morally degenerate. Peasants were exploited and whatever surplus they produced lined the pockets of the feudal aristocracy. No attempt was made to spend money on local infrastructure such as roads, irrigation works or communications. ‘They kept for themselves as much as they could out of the revenues and when subterfuges would no longer answer, they sent the remainder to headquarters.'
³³

An official history of Hyderabad published in the 1930s described the Deccan in the final years of the First Nizam's rule as having been ‘well-nigh devastated as a result of these perpetual struggles, in many parts it was almost depopulated, and in the absence of anything like a settled government confusion and chaos reigned everywhere. The petty rajahs and zamindars were frequently in a state of revolt. They were always turbulent and very dilatory in the payment of their
peshkash
. The bigger nobles enjoyed their estates with almost regal powers. They had the power of life and death and exercised a kind of “Imperium-in-Imperio”.'
³⁴

Just days before he died in 1748, Asaf Jah dictated his last will and testament. The 17-clause document was a blueprint for governance and personal conduct that ranged from advice on how to keep the troops happy and well fed to an apology for neglecting his wife. He began by calling on his successors to defend the dignity of the Deccan from the Marathas, whom he referred to as ‘armies of freebooters'. He warned them to be on guard against the Marathas, Pathans, Gujaratis and Kashmiris. As for Hindu Brahmins, they were ‘fit only to be hanged and quartered'. He then reminded his successors to remain subservient to the Mughal Emperor who had granted them their
office and rank. He warned against declaring war unnecessarily, but if forced to do so to seek the help of elders and saints and follow the sayings and practices of the Prophet. He cautioned against senseless killing, saying that: ‘Mankind should not be likened to so many ears of barley, wheat and maize which grow anew every year.'
³⁵

He also urged fiscal restraint. ‘Keep the treasury with you wherever you go so that whenever the army gets restive, their arrears can be paid off. There is enough money in the treasury to last seven generations – if properly spent.' Finally, he insisted: ‘You must not lend your ears to tittle-tattle of the backbiters and slanderers, nor suffer the riff-raff to approach your presence.'
³⁶
Having dictated his will, Nizam ul-Mulk summoned his second son Nasir Jung, his wives and chief nobles to his bedside, said his prayers and died aged 77.

Despite the unrest that began to spread through his Dominions in the final years of his rule, Nizam ul-Mulk is remembered as laying the foundation for what would become the most important Muslim state outside the Middle East by the first half of the twentieth century. ‘History has done scant justice to his achievements,' reads one modern account of his legacy. ‘He was not only in command of armies, but was indeed a leader of men. He not only founded a State, but also organised and established it.' The endless platitudes heaped upon him include his loyalty and bravery, his skills as a poet and scholar as well as his ‘political sagacity and statesmanship of a high order'.
³⁷

When compared with his successors the First Nizam's achievements were indeed remarkable; but it would take another century before Hyderabad recovered from the misrule that followed his death. Henry George Briggs was more critical in his assessment of Nizam ul-Mulk than most Indian historians, but he was still impressed by his stature:

If pliableness of will, unparalleled duplicity and utter unscrupulousness constitute the necessary elements to greatness, Nizam ul-Mulk possessed them in a degree passing belief. But it must be remembered that Nizam ul-Mulk lived at a time and in a country where men gloried in excelling in these qualities . . . Nurtured and trained at the court of Aurangzebe, it is not strange that Nizam ul-Mulk should have been both wily and unscrupulous; nor yet that, like his royal master, he should have exercised his devotions to austerity; but unlike Aurangzebe, he was an affectionate parent and his attachment to his friends was both sincere and steady. He left a legacy to his posterity whi ch the rebellion of 1857 has made ‘
the greatest Mohammadan power in India
'.
³⁸

N
IZAM UL
-M
ULK OUTLIVED EIGHT
Mughal Emperors and achieved victory in all but one of the 87 battles he fought in his lifetime. As the Viceroy of the Deccan he had freed himself from all but the most nominal dependence on his masters and grew more powerful than the rulers of Delhi. But for all his foresight and skills as a ruler, there was nothing he could have done to prevent the fratricidal power struggle that broke out after his death.

Muslim law does not set down any rules for the succession of sovereigns. Under the Mughals it was not the eldest son who inherited the throne, but the son or grandson with the longest sword and the strongest army. In the case of the Nizams, the succession process was further complicated by the fact that no distinction was made between legitimate and illegitimate offspring.
¹
Discord and strife would remain a feature of the dynastic succession in Hyderabad well into the twentieth century, when the state had been reduced to a few crumbling palaces and rusty safes stuffed with gemstones and jewellery. Even today Hyderabad's courts are clogged with cases filed by Mukarram Jah's relatives demanding their share of the fortunes allegedly lying in Swiss vaults and overseas bank accounts.

Had the wishes of the First Nizam been followed it would have moulded a very different dynasty from the one that would totter between plenty and penury and be constantly prey to slander and court intrigues. Rather than building on the foundations that Nizam ul-Mulk had laid for statehood, his successors began tearing it down. Power-hungry rulers obsessed with their own comfort, security and wealth conveniently forgot the more salient points of Nizam ul-Mulk's testament. His warnings about the folly of wars fought for the sake of conquest were ignored. His belief that the income of the state would last seven generations did not anticipate the firesale of territories and their revenue that his heirs were forced to undertake for the dynasty to survive. Several times over the course of the next 150 years Hyderabad would teeter on the verge of bankruptcy. Suspicion, jealousy and manipulation became the lifeblood of the Nizams' entourage. Looking back at seven generations of dynastic rule, one observer wrote: ‘They seemed to carry with them an echo of Mughal Emperors long dead or whisperings and betrayals in the Red Palace of Shah Jehan.'
²

The British and the French were well-placed to take advantage of the chaos that followed Nizam ul-Mulk's death. The crumbling might of the Mughal Empire had stirred their empire-building ambitions. Founded in 1600, the East India Company by now had a presence in three provinces. Madras had been acquired in 1640 from the Vijayanagar king, Bombay was part of the dowry of Charles II's Portuguese queen and Bengal was a lonely group of villages on the Hoogly River. Essentially they were trading posts or ‘factories', but by the end of the eighteenth century they would be transformed into fully fledged outposts of the empire. Events in the Deccan would be the trigger for the East India Company's transformation.

The First Nizam had maintained a strict neutrality in his dealings with the European powers, perceiving correctly the danger
of becoming a pawn in hostilities that were being played out half a world away. But that did not stop them from trying to engage him. In March 1742, the British who were based in Fort St George in Madras sent a modest hamper to Nizam ul-Mulk in recognition of his leadership of the most important of the Mughal successor states. Its contents included a gold throne, gold and silver threaded silk from Europe, two pairs of ‘large painted looking glasses', an ‘equipage for coffee cups', 163¾ yards of green and 73½ yards of crimson velvet, brocades, Persian carpets, a gold ceremonial cloth, two Arab horses, half a dozen ornate rose-water bottles and 39¾ chests of rose water – enough to keep the Nizam and his entire
darbar
fragrant for the rest of his reign. Careful to maintain his distance, the Nizam sent in return just one horse, a piece of jewellery and a note warning the British they had no right to mint their own currency, to which they meekly complied.
³

In 1747 Nizam ul-Mulk listened favourably to their complaint that the ‘insolent and perfidious' French were subjecting innocent English traders to ‘robberies, cruelties and depredations'. He immediately instructed one of his governors, the Nawab of Arcot, to ‘protect, aid and assist the British in all respects, and use your best endeavours in such a manner that the French may be severely chastised and rooted off'.
⁴
His son, Nasir Jung, fired off an even stronger missive to Joseph Dupleix, the French Governor of Pondicherry, warning him of ‘severe punishment' if he did not comply.
⁵
Dupleix had arrived as Governor of Pondicherry in 1742 after serving as a commercial director in the small French trading post of Chandernagar in Bengal. ‘Vain, irascible and pompous'
⁶
, he was the first European to recognise the opportunities for the Western powers to take advantage of what would be a 14-year-long war for control of the court of Hyderabad following the First Nizam's death.

Nizam ul-Mulk left six sons and one grandson fighting for
their right to succeed him. It was Nasir Jung who made the first move, seizing the treasury and claiming the title of Nizam that he had coveted ever since he had crossed swords with his father in 1741. Nasir Jung was described as ‘high-spirited, but tenderhearted', qualities which at the time did not make for a long life-expectancy. According to James Grant Duff, the nineteenth-century author of the iconic
History of the Marathas
, Nasir Jung was also a poet and a lover of literature and would have become a ‘gallant knight and an accomplished gentleman' if only he had partaken of a dose of ‘European education'. However, Grant Duff concluded pessimistically that he ‘was totally destitute of his father's prudence and if successful in his fortunes would probably have sunk into a Mahommedan sensualist'.
⁷

Still smarting from having their pride insulted by Nasir Jung, the French backed Nizam ul-Mulk's grandson, Muzzafar Jung. Unlike his scheming uncle, Muzzafar Jung was said to be ‘a brave and gallant youth, with noble promise of making a great and good monarch'.
⁸
He also had the advantage of being Nizam ul-Mulk's nominated heir.

The attributes of the two men, however, mattered little to the British and the French, whose main concern was extending their influence in whatever way possible. For the first time, peaceful traders of two countries so far removed from India that it took six months for news to arrive, went into battle on opposite sides. With the help of soldiers of fortune from as far afield as America, Ireland and even Armenia, Britain and France would play a vital role in consolidating the warring armies of India. Introducing European methods of training, attack and defence, they demonstrated how small corps of highly disciplined troops could accomplish in well co-ordinated strikes what had once taken enormous Mughal armies months or even years to achieve. They ranged from lofty aristocrats such as Benoit de Boigne, who entered the service of the Maratha ruler Madhaji Sindia, to the
Irish deserter George Thomas, who fought against Sikh brigands, became a land-pirate, drank copiously and ‘kept a
zenana
of charming girls'.
⁹

The forerunner of this motley crew cut an unlikely figure. Stringer Lawrence was a stoutly built man with a protruding stomach, double chin and heavy jowl who arrived at Fort St George on 1 January 1748. An ex-navy captain, he had been brought out of retirement by the East India Company at the age of 50 to take command of the Madras garrison and had been given the rank of major. Lawrence is credited with being the creator of the Company's army in southern India by training English and Indian troops to become a small but competent military machine. One of his disciples was Robert Clive, who went on to become one of the Company's most successful generals and the master of Bengal.

Now that the British had thrown their support behind Nasir Jung, Lawrence assembled a small English force backed by 300,000 native troops and marched to the fort of Gingee to await the forces of Muzzafar Jung. Built on a number of hills in the form of a circle and connected by strong walls, Gingee had withstood a 12-year siege by Aurangzeb and was considered the most impregnable fort in southern India. Mutinous, and convinced of Nasir Jung's military superiority, the French force supporting Muzzafar Jung refused to attack and retreated to Pondicherry. Muzzafar Jung, however, remained behind after being told that his uncle had promised forgiveness and had sworn on the Koran not to take his nephew prisoner; but on approaching Nasir Jung's camp he was seized by guards and placed in chains in a tent.

Muzzafar Jung's capture, and the ignominious retreat of the French forces along with most of their native troops, looked like the end of Dupleix's ambition to make himself ruler of southern India. The flamboyant Frenchman now faced a huge force
under the command of an angry Nasir Jung and supported by a strong body of British troops. But whatever setbacks Dupleix faced on the military front were more than countered by his political genius and unique insight into how to exploit local Indian authorities to his advantage. Through well-placed spies he soon learned that all was not well in Nasir Jung's camp. The nawabs of Cuddapah, Kurnool and Savanur were dissatisfied with his treatment of Muzzafar Jung. The British were frustrated by Nasir Jung's refusal to appoint their nominee as Nawab of Carnatic and had recalled most of their forces to Fort Saint David. Believing the campaign to be over, Nasir Jung sent most of his troops back to Hyderabad while he went to Arcot on a hunting expedition. Seizing the moment, Dupleix sent a small force of 250 Europeans and 4200 sepoys under the command of diplomatist and soldier Charles de Bussy to attack Gingee. Instead of attempting a regular siege, de Bussy stormed the fort, taking its defenders by surprise, and with only four guns obtained the surrender of Nasir Jung's forces.

Stung by the defeat, Nasir Jung assembled a 60,000-strong force to retake the fort, but Dupleix had yet to play all his cards. As the two sides negotiated the release of Muzzafar Jung, Dupleix was exploiting the discontent among the nawabs in Nasir Jung's camp while secretly preparing an attack. When the French force arrived, Nasir Jung put on a white tunic and rode unarmed on his elephant to the camp of the Nawab of Kurnool, Himmat Khan, demanding that his men join him and fight their common enemy. As instructed by Dupleix, Himmat Khan refused to move, and when Nasir Jung called him a coward the nawab and his watchman ‘discharged their guns into [Nasir Jung's] breast and sent him at once to paradise'.
¹⁰

With Nasir Jung now out of the way, the French took Muzzafar Jung to Pondicherry, where, on 26 December 1750, ‘amid exultation and festivity', the firing of salutes and the singing of
the
Te Deum
, he was proclaimed the new Nizam.
¹¹
Muzzafar Jung's inauguration at Pondicherry rather than Hyderabad was a deliberate act. Dupleix wanted to remind the Muslim world that power had passed from the Viceroy of the Deccan to the French. ‘This was but the beginning of the greatness of Dupleix,' wrote one of his early biographers, Thomas Macaulay. ‘The new Nizam came thither to visit his allies and the ceremony of his installation was performed there with great pomp. Dupleix, dressed in the garb worn by Mohammedans of the highest rank, entered the town in the same palanquin with the Nizam and in the pageant which followed took precedence of all the court.'
¹²

In return for France's assistance Muzzafar Jung bestowed honours, treasure and land upon Dupleix and declared him Viceroy of the whole of southern India from the Kistna River to Cape Comorin. Dupleix now ruled 30 million people with almost absolute power. No honour or emolument could be obtained from the government but by his intervention. No petition signed by him was perused by the Nizam. ‘His countrymen boasted that his name was mentioned with awe even in the chambers of the palace of Delhi, the native population looked with amazement on the progress which in a short space of four years a European adventurer had made towards domination in Asia.'
¹³

By his actions, Muzzafar Jung set an important precedent which would dictate the future of his dynasty. He became the first Indian ruler to engage a military force under the command of a European commander in exchange for a grant of territory. As the geopolitical situation in the Deccan became more complex, the Nizams would pawn off more and more swathes of territory until they found themselves mere surrogates of empire-builders in Paris and then in London.

For all the pomp and ceremony of his installation, Muzzafar Jung's reign was never officially recognised by the Mughal Emperor in Delhi and was in any case destined to last only six
weeks. The same nawabs who had plotted with Dupleix to kill his uncle were now demanding exorbitant sums from Muzzafar Jung for putting him on the throne. Fearing an ambush, he asked Dupleix for a French contingent to accompany him to Hyderabad to take possession of his inheritance. Dupleix was only too happy to oblige. Seeing it as a way of ensuring French influence continued in Hyderabad, he provided a force of 300 French soldiers under the command of de Bussy. But things did not go according to plan. Intoxicated with their success in killing Nasir Jung and smarting at the measly share they had received for helping to put Muzzafar Jung in power, the nawabs laid a trap. While approaching a narrow pass in the Eastern Ghats, Muzzafar Jung found his way blocked by forces under the command of the Nawab of Cuddapah, who attacked the Nizam's army forces from the rear. Instead of waiting for French reinforcements, Muzzafar Jung mounted his war elephant and personally led the charge against the nawab's forces. The encounter was brief. A well-aimed arrow from Himmat Khan's bow hit Muzzafar Jung in the eye, killing him instantly.