350 
W. Irvine —The Later Muakals. 
[No. 4, 
“salute jour lordship : Disease is dealt with in one of two ways—you 
“ either bear it, or remove the afflicted part. But once you have resort- 
“ ed to treatment, there is no hope of recovery till the offending prin- 
“ ciple is expelled.” The Sayyads then made up their mind to remove 
Farrukhsiyar. They sent for Sidi Yasin Khan (son of Sidi Qasim, 
Ffilad Khan, once Rotival of Dihli), and after promising him a reward 
said: “ Farruklislyar took your father’s life without cause, you have 
“ a legal right of retaliation, 1 put your hand on your dagger and slay 
“ him.” The young man refused. Had not his father and his family 
been the slaves of that royal house ? To kill a master who for some 
supposed fault took a slave’s life, was not permissible. 
As no one else was willing, they were forced to act themselves. 
They began by supplying Farrukhsiyar with bitter and oversalted 
dishes, but without effect. Slow poison was then tried for a time. 
Farrukhsiyar now made use of violent language, and cursed the 
Sayyads in the most virulent terms. Their patience being at an end, 
they sent executioners into the prison to strangle their victim. In 
spite of a violent resistance, these men effected their purpose, beating the 
ex-emperor on the hands till he let go the strap that they had tied round 
his neck. To make sure, lie was stabbed several times in the abdomen. 
This happened on the night between the 8th and 9th Jamadi II, 1131 
H. (27th-28th April, 1719). There is a somewhat apocryphal story told 
in the Siyar-ul-muta,a Jchkh irin as to the mode of Farrukhsiyar’s death, 
by which the direct blame for it is removed from the shoulders of the 
Sayyads. Farrukhsiyar is supposed to have evaded his guardians and . 
made an attempt to escape. He passed from one terrace roof to 
another, and was already at some distance before his absence was 
detected. The Afghan officer in charge searched for his prisoner, found 
him hiding in the shadow of a wall, and brought him back, ending by 
giving him an unmerciful beating. Farrukhsiyar, stung to the quick 
by this disgrace, ran at the wall, dashed his head against it, and frac¬ 
tured his skull. The evidence for this story seems insufficient, and the 
author’s animus, as Sayyad and Shi'a defending other Sayyads and 
Shitas, is sufficiently obvious here as elsewhere. 3 
On the following day, 10th Jamadi II, 1131 H. (29th April, 1719), 
the body was thrown down on a mat wdthin the fort for purposes of 
1 Qims . 
2 Persian text, I., 42; “ Seir,” I., 150; Briggs, 187, Muhammad Qasim, 259, 
Khafi Khan, II, 819. In the Bayan-i-ivaqi, 1 175, poison is alleged: the passage 
reads thu3 in Gladwin, 194: “ A few days after, Farrukhsiyar was destroyed by . 
poison: in order to be sure he was dead, they cut the soles of his feet, and then 
buried him.” 
