Indian Antiquary Vol 58

Author(s): Richard Carnac Temple, Charles E A W Oldham, S Krishnaswami Aiyangar, Devadatta Ramkrishna Bhandarka
Publisher: Swati Publications

Page 54

48
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY
[MARCE, 1929
Thus the burden of completion of the book, after Irvine's death, devolved upon the well known Mughal historian Jadunath Sarkar, who, having ably edited the book, got it published.
The above lines will give an idea of the work Later Muyhals, which is thus the fruit of the combined effort of two learned scholars, namely Messrs. Irvine and Sarkar; more presumably so, is the subject of our enquiry, falling, as it does, under chapter VII of the book.
In the following paragraphs we reproduce section 29, chapter VII, vol. II, of the book, headed "Murder of Ajit Singh by his Son."
"We shall conclude this section with the death of Rajah Ajit Singh. Tod admits that the bards and chroniclers pass over the event with a mere mention, one of them going so far as to leave a blank page at the critical point of his story. But in another part of Tod's book, we have a detailed narrative of the crime. In any case, that Ajit Singh met a violent death at the hand of his second son, Bakht Singh, is admitted by the Rajputs themselves, and even by their ardent champion Colonel Tod." (Tod, I, 698, II, 88).
“According to their story, Bakht Singh after saying goodnight concealed himself in a room adjoining the one in which his parents were sleeping. When all was still be entered their room, seized his father's sword, and plunged it into him. The wife was awakened by feeling her husband's blood on her breast. Bakht Singh escaped. Ajit Singh's body was cremated on the 7th June 1724, when eighty-four wives and concubines sacrificed themselves on his funeral pyre. A dispute about the succession at once arose between the sons on the spot. On the 25th July 1724, Abhai Singh, then between twenty-one and twenty-two years of age, obtained through the intervention of Samsam-ud-daulah the title of Rajah Rajeshwar, with the rank of 7,000 zat (7,000 horse), and was allowed to depart for Jodhpur to take possession of his father's succession. (Tod, I. 699, K.K. 974, Khush-hal 1044b.)
The fact of Ajit Singh's murder by his son, Bakht Singh, is not denied by any one ; but a divergence of opinion exists as to the incentives to the deed. Tod's informants told him that Bakht Singh acted at the instigation of his elder brother, Abhai Singh, then at Dihli, and in the power of the Emperor. The murderer's reward was to be the appanage of Nagor and ita five-hundred and sixty-five townships. To account for Abhai Singh's unholy desire we are told that his ambition had been stirred by the Machiavellin Sayyids, eager to wreak vengeance upon Ajit Singh for his opposition to their dethronement of Farrukh-siyar. Now let us apply some of the simplest critical tests. Can the offered reward be looked on as sufficient to impel Bakht Singh to an act of parricide? He may not have been a very clever man, but he was hardly such a simpleton as to incur the infamy of such an act, (1) for the benefit, not of himself, but of a brother, and (2) for the grant of an appenage which, by universal Rajput practice, would have been his as a matter of course whenever his father died a natural death. But coming finally to external tests, what is there left of the story? Wo find that its very foundation vanishes. The assassination of Ajit Singh took place in June 1724 ; one Sayyid had, been assassinated on the 8th October 1720, and the other, after being defeated in battle and made a prisoner on the 14th November 1720, died in prison on the 11th October 1722. Obviously they could not have been in 1724 the instigators of Abhai Singh. Further, it is impossible, after even the most elementary study of the period, to ignore the fact that Ajit Singh, instead of opposing, helped the Sayyids to the utmost in getting rid of Farrukh-siyar. Tod's story is thus a mere legend, which falls to pieces directly it is examined ; nor, as he admits, does his usual resource, the rhyming chronicles of the bards, afford him here any countenance. And Tod himself (II, 113) confesses that " but for that one damning crime, Bakht Singh would have been handed down to posterity as one of the noblest Princes Rajwara ever knew." Conceding the truth of even a part only of this glowing eulogy, is it not more unlikely than ever that such a paladin could have become the miserable tool of an ambitious brother, with no greater
1 Tod. I. 699. This passage shows Tod at his weakest as an historian. His fastening of Ajit Singh's mur. der upon the Sayyids is a gross chronological error. Hardly less absurd is his assertion that Ajit Singh over refused "unction to the nefarious sohames of the Sayyids." He was their friend and partisan up to the end.
3 Warid, 130, asigns the same reason as Tod for the murder. Of. M.U., III, 758.