353 
1904.] W. Irvine —The Later Mughals. 
that the Sayyads are not specially to blame. But the severity of the 
subsequent confinement was excessive ; and the taking of the captive’s 
life was an extremity entirely uncalled for. As Shah Nawaz Khan 
says, the Sayyads were forced into action by a regard for their own 
lives and honour. At the same time, as he points out, the nobler 
course would have been for them to have abandoned the struggle, and 
contented themselves with some distant government, or they might 
have quitted the service of the state and proceeded on a pilgrimage to 
Mecca. “ But it is not in the power of mortal man to rise superior to 
that worst of evil passions, the love of power and place.” The pious 
Mahomedan consoles himself by the reflection that God in his good 
purposes saw fit to impose expiation on the two brothers, by their own 
speedy death and the destruction of all their power ; and thus in His 
mercy he allowed them to atone for whatever sin they had committed, 
and did not exclude them from final redemption. Their own violent 
deaths sufficed to save their souls. 1 
Section 42. —Character op FarrukhsIyar. 
The most prominent element of Farrukhsivar’s character was 
weakness. He was strong neither for evil nor for good. Morally it 
may be indefensible to try and rid yourself, at the earliest moment, of 
the men to whom you owe your throne. But as a matter of practice 
and precedent it was otherwise. Many of his predecessors, including 
the greatest of them, Akbar, had been guilty of similar ingratitude 
Thus, according to the morality of his day and country, FarrukhsIyar 
would have committed no exceptional crime by dismissing, or even 
killing the Sayyads. Previous rulers, however, men of vigour and 
resolution, when they found the greatness of some subject becoming 
dangerous to themselves, acted with promptitude and decision. The 
crisis was soon over, and though the individual might be destroyed 
the State did not suffer. How different with Farrukhsivar ! Still, in 
spite of his inherent weakness, he might have shown himself amiable 
inoffensive; he might have left his powerful ministers to pursue 
peacefully their own way, contenting himself with the name, while they 
kept the reality of power. Instead of this, he was for ever letting 
“ I dare not ” wait upou “ I would.” For seven years the State was in 
a condition of unstable equilibrium, and it is not too much to say that 
FarrukhsIyar prepared for himself the fate which finally overtook 
him. Feeble, false, cowardly, contemptible, it is impossible either to 
admire or regret him. According to Khushhal Cand, FarrukhsIyar 
1 Miftajib, 302-3, Ma^ir-xil-amaru, I ; 321, 344» 345. 
