The king makers, ‘Abdullah and Husain ‘Ali, now raised to the throne two phantom kings, Rafi-ud-Darajat and Rafi-ud-daulah, sons of Rafi-us-Shan. But within a few months the Sayyids, who determined to “rule through the Imperial puppets”, thought that they had discovered another roi faineant in a youth of eighteen, named Rohsan Akhtar, son of Jahan Shah (the fourth son of Bahadur Shah), who ascended the throne as Muhammad Shah. The new Emperor did not prove to be a docile agent of the Sayyids, as they had expected, and found many supporters among those who had become enemies of the ministers during the seven years of their power.
The ablest of the new alies of the sovereign was the famous Nizam-ul-mulk of the Deccan. Husain ‘Ali was removed by action while he was proceeding towards Malwa to chastise the Nizam. ‘Abdullah made an attempt to retain his power by placing on the throne a more convenient puppet, Muhammad Ibrahim, another son of Rafi-us-Shan, but he was defeated and imprisoned in 1720 and killed by poison in 1722. The new wazir, Muhammad Amin Khan, expired in 1721, and the Nizam-ul-mulk was called upon to accept that post in February, 1722. As he was essentialy a man of action, the atmosphere of the imperial court did not suit his temperament. He soon left it for the Deccan, where he established a virtualy independent kingdom, though the fiction of imperial supremacy was maintained to the last. The fal of the Sayyids, and the departure of the Nizam-ul-mulk for the Deccan, did not, however, serve to increase the power and prestige of Muhammad Shah. As Ghulam Husain, the author of Siyar, writes: “Young and handsome, and fond of al kinds of pleasures, he addicted himself to an inactive life, which entirely enervated the energy of the Emperor”. Though destiny granted him a long reign, yet ” in utter unconcern he let the affairs drift in their own way, and the consequence was most fatal”. Province after province–the Deccan, Oudh and Bengal–slipped out of imperial control; the Marathas established their power far and wide; the Jats became independent near Agra; the Ruhela Afghans founded the State of Rohilkhand (Ruhelkhand) in the North Gangetic plain; the Sikhs became active in the Punjab; and the invasion of Nadir Shah dealt a staggering blow to the Delhi Empire. Thus within about three decades of Aurangzeb’s death, the vast Empire of the Mughuls ceased to exist as an al India political unit and was split up into numerous independent or semi-independent states.
The next Emperor, Ahmad Shah, son of Muhammad Shah, was unable to cope successfully with the disintegrating forces that had grown so alarming on All sides. The Empire rapidly shrank in extent, being reduced only to a small district round Delhi. The Emperor was deposed and blinded in 1754 by the Amir Ghazi-ud-din Imad-ul-mulk, a grandson of the deceased Nizam-ul-mulk of the Deccan, who now imitated the Sayyid brothers in playing the king-maker. He placed on the throne ‘Aziz-ud-din (son of Jahandar Shah), who had been so long in confinement, and who now adopted the same title as the great Aurangzeb, and called himself Almagir II. But the new ruler “found himself as much a prisoner upon the throne as he was formerly in his confinement”. His attempt to free himself from the control of the all-powerful wazir only resulted in his ruin, as he was put to death by the latter’s orders. The malignant hostility of this ambitious and unscrupulous wazir compelled Shah ‘Alam II, the son and successor of Alamgir II, to move as a wanderer from place to place. Passing through many vicissitudes of fortune, this unlucky sovereign had to throw himself ultimately on the protection of the English and live as their pensioner till his death in A.D. 1806. Shah ‘Alam II’s son, Akbar II, lived in Delhi with the title of Emperor till 1837. The Imperial dynasty became extinct with Bahadur Shah II, who was deported to Rangoon by the English on suspicion of assisting the Sepoy mutineers. He died there in A.D. 1862.
Changed Character of the Later Mughul Nobility, and Party Factions
The deterioration in the character of the nobility during the eighteenth century had a large share in hastening the decline of the Mughul Empire. The nobles of the time ceased to discharge the useful functions which some of them had done in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. To the great misfortune of the country, they became eager only for self-aggrandizement and personal ascendancy, to achieve which, they plunged the land into bitter civil wars, disastrous conspiracies, and hopeless confusion and anarchy. It was partly due to the incapacity and lack of resolution on the part of the later rulers of the country, who had not the ability to select the right type of men for administration but were guided by the selfish advice of interested and depraved flatterers. Thus when the Emperor “was a sluggard or a fool, he ceased to be the master and guide of the nobility. They then naturally turned to win the controlling authority at court or in the provinces”.
Broadly speaking, the nobles were ranged in two parties. Those who were children of the soil, or had been long domiciled in the country, formed the Hindustan or Indo-Moslem party. To this group belonged the Afghan nobles, the Sayyids of Barha, and Khan-i-Dauran, whose ancestors came from Badakhshan. These Indian Muslims depended mostly on the help of their Hindu compatriots. The foreign nobles of diverse origin, opposed as a class to the members of the Hindustani party, were indiscriminately called Mughuls, but they were subdivided into two groups according to the land of their origin. Those who came from Transoxiana and other parts of Central Asia, and were mostly of the Sunni persuasion, formed the Turani party. The most prominent members of this group were Muhammad Amin Khan and his cousin, Chin Qilich Khan, better known as the Nizam-ul-mulk. The Irani party was composed of those who hailed from the Persian territories and were Shiahs. The most important members of the Irani party were Asad Khan and Zu’lfiqar Khan, the king maker. These were mere factions and were not like the political parties of modern times. Their members had no common principle of action among themselves except that of self-interest and no firm party allegiance. The nature of the political struggles of the period can be well understood when we note that, during the reigns of Bahadur Shah and Jahandar Shah, the Irani party was in the ascendant under its leader Zu’lfiqar Khan. But from the beginning of Farrukhsiyar’s reign the Hindustani party maintained its authority in alliance with the Turani group. Then the Turanians and the Iranians combined to oust the Hindustanis from power.