Indian Antiquary Vol 58

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

Page 55

MARCE, 19291
WILLIAM IRVINE AND MAHARAJA AJIT SINGH
incentive than the offer of an appanage already his by family custom? Is it not rather to be believed that the father did something which the son felt was an attack on his personal honour ?
“Although coming from Muhammadan sources, there is another version (Kamwar) of the facts, which, destructive though it is of any respect for the character of the "great Ajit," is much more satisfactory than that put forward by the champion of the Rajputs. It is one that furnishes a sufficient motive for the dreadful deed, and thus satisfies better the conditions of the case. We are told that soon after Ajit Singh had made his peace and returned to Jodhpur, he fell in love with the wife of his middle son Bakht Singh and was guilty of an incestuous intercourse. Overcome with shame and touched in the tenderest point of his honour, Bakht Singh sought his opportunity of revenge. One night when Ajit Singh, drunk and stupefied, was lying fast asleep, his son stabbed him to death. As a contrast to Tod's dithyrambs, we may here give the Muhammadan view of the Rajah's character. "He was exceedingly wanting in good faith, a breaker of his oath, one who had slain unfairly many of his relations and dependants. Among his evil deeds was the abandonment of Farrukh. siyar to his fate, in spite of his relationship through his daughter; nay he took an active part in that Emperor's dethronement. In the end he attained the reward for his misdeeds.
" He who sows the seed of evil and hopes for good,
Racks his brain uselessly and imagines a vain thing." Thus Irvine concludes his twenty-ninth section. We have to think over two main points of this opinion. Firstly, was Bakht Singh entitled to the appanage of Nagaur with its 566 town. ships according to the custom of the family, as Irvine alleged ? To me the supposition appears almost an impossibility, because Maharaja Ajit Singh had twelve song. Had each of the eleven younger princes been allowed as big an appanage as that of Nagaur, the heir apparent. Abhai Singh, would not have been left space enough to set his foot upon, outside the gates of the Jodhpur fort even. Moreover the district of Nagaur was not at that time in possession of Maharaja Ajit Singh himself. Though Maharaja Ajit Singh had occupied Nagaur having expelled Indarsingh grandson of Rao Amarsingh in v.8. 1773 (A.D. 1716) yet in v.8. 1780 (A.D. 1723) Jai Singh, Raja of Jaipur, by order of the Emperor, oame with the imperial army and put Indar Singh agaia in possession of Nagaur. After this, on the accession of Maharaja Abhai Singh to the throne, the Jagir of Nagaur being restored to him in v.s. 1782 (A.D. 1725) he occupied it by force and in the month of Kartik of the same year, it was granted to Rajadhiraja Bakht Singh independently. How far Mr. Irvine's writing is true, under these circumstances, may be questioned.
History tells us that being terror-stricken with the formidable trio that installed kings on the throne of Delhi according to their sweet will, Muhammad Shah arranged, on the one hand, to get rid of the two Sayyid brothers, and on the other, with the connivanoe of Raja Jai Singh, of Jaipur and Bhandari Raghunath of Jodhpur, he overawed Abhai Singh. And through him he enticed Bakht Singh his, younger brother, with the title of Rajadhiraja, and the State of Nagaur, and thus prevailed upon him to murder Ajit Singh, who was now the only sur. viving thorn, out of the trio, aching at the Emperor's heart. Had it not been so how could the perpetrator of such a heinous crime as parricide, have got the title of Rajadhiraja and an independent State like Någaur ?
The second point pertains to the histories written by the Muhammadans.
Mr. Irvine mentions within brackets the name of (Kamwar) as his authority for "another version of the facts, which shows that the aforesaid queer ground for the murder of Ajit Singh has been borrowed by him from The Tazkirat-us-Salatin-i-Chaghtaiya of Muhammad Hadi Kamwar Khan.
Though the said history is not at present with us, yet in the VIIIth volume of Elliot's History of India, at pagos 17-18 there is a reference to that work. It shows that its first part commences with an account of the origin of the Mughals, and of Chingiz Khan and goes down to the death of Jahangir. The second part, which is said to be the more important, and
• Tod mentions 566 townships under Någaur, as is proverbially known, to this day, in Marwar.