THE PERSIAN CHRONICLE, Riyaz-us-Salatin mentioned earlier, provides specific details testifying to the bigotry of Murshid Quli Khan. Its author, Ghulam Husain Salim Zaidpuri displays the typical trait of Muslim chroniclers who are innately imbued with pro-Islamic prejudice. Thus, his pen transforms Quli’s bigotry into piety.
But Zaidpuri’s predecessor, Salimullah — author of the Tarikh-i-Bangala — really goes wild in his exaggerated eulogy of Murshid Quli Khan. Here is a revealing passage.
Since the time of Shaista Khan there had not appeared in any part of Hindustan an amir who could be compared with Jafar Khan [Murshid Quli Khan] for zeal in the propagation of the faith; for wisdom in the establishment of laws and regulations; for munificence and liberality in the encouragement and support given to men of family and eminence; for rigid and impartial justice in redressing wrongs and punishing offenders. His judicial decisions were rational and proper…
In other words, Murshid Quli Khan was a blighted literalist of the Islamic law. As an orthodox Shia, he endeared himself to the members of his sect, which faced constant endangerment in the Mughal Empire, helmed by Sunnis. But both sects quickly closed ranks as far as the infidel Hindus were concerned.
The story of Bindraban, the Hindu Talukdar of Chunakhali starkly illustrates this truth.
Once, a Muslim fakir came begging to Bindraban’s door for alms. But because his conduct was disgusting, he was turned away. This is what happened next.
The fakir collected a number of bricks, with which he erected a wall on Bindrabund’s road, and gave it the name of a mosque; and from it called the Muslims to prayer. Whenever Bindrabund passed that way, he vociferated the summons to prayer, and so vexed him, that in rage he threw down some of the bricks…and drove him away.
This was the perfect excuse that the fakir needed to lodge a complaint with Murshid Quli who reffered the case to a powerful Qazi named Mohammed Sharif who in turn sentenced the Talukdar to death. This put Quli in a fix. Bindraban was a Kaffir but he held a titled post and was loyal to Quli. So he intervened with the Qazi and asked him if there was any way to save Bindraban from the death sentence. The Qazi didn’t bat an eyelid: “Yes. The Sacred Quranic Law says that Bindraban will be permitted to live only until his interceder is first executed.” Murshid Quli got the message loud and clear. After this, Qazi Mohammed Sharif killed the ill-fated Bindraban by shooting an arrow with his own hand. Quli then complained about the Qazi’s high-handedness to Aurangzeb, who replied with a single line: “The Qazi is on the side of Allah.”
Clearly, the life of a Hindu Talukdar was worthless when compared to that of a Muslim fakir.
CHARLES STEWART, in his History of Bengal gives ample instances of Murshid Quli’s bigotry against Hindus. Here are two of the most representative samples.
He prohibited the zemindars, and other Hindoos of opulence, from riding in palanquins, obliging them to make use of an inferior kind of conveyance, called a Dooly, or Chowpaleh. Whoever deviated, in the smallest degree, from his general regulations, was certain to experience the effect of his resentment.
Notwithstanding the high encomiums which are…bestowed upon the government of Moorshud Cooly, his memory is universally execrated by the Hindoos; who contemplate, with heartfelt joy, the happy influence of the British sway over these regions; whereby they have been relieved from the direful effects of Mohammedan superstition, and are permanently secured from the merciless hand of tyranny, rapacity, and oppression.
The other side of Murshid Quli Khan’s bigotry was his private and public conduct as a zealous and puritanical Shia Muslim. The following are some snippets collated from the Tarikh-i-Bangala and Riyaz-us-Salatin.
“he never indulged himself with spirituous liquors, nor any intoxicating drugs; neither did he amuse himself with singers or dancers. He always kept constant to one lawful wife; and, out of his excess of delicacy, would not suffer any strange women, or eunuchs, to enter the apartments of his seraglio.”
“He despised all the refinements of luxury, and particularly in dress; and refrained from every thing that is prohibited in the Sacred Law…”
“…he slept but little, and carefully observed the stated times of prayer: from breakfast to noon he employed himself in copying the Koran…every year he sent Korans of his own writing, with valuable offerings, to Mecca, Medina, and other holy places.”
“He maintained above two thousand readers, beadsmen, and chanters, who were constantly employed in reading the Koran, and in other acts of devotion… Their meals were supplied twice daily from the Nawab's own kitchen, and comprised game, birds, and other animals… During the first twelve days of the month Rabi’u-l-Awwal, which include the birth and death of the holy Prophet, he feasted people of all conditions…”
“…daily he used to feed the excellent and the venerable Shaikhs, the Ulama, the pious saints, and inviting them from the environs of Murshidabad, he used to receive them with great respect at his banquets, and till they finished their dinners, he used to stand before them in a respectful posture, and to serve them…”
Murshid Quli Khan’s conduct thus reinforces another common theme in the history of Muslim rulers in India: the more orthodox, the more fanatical the ruler, the greater is the power exercised by his freeloading Ulema.
MURSHID QULI KHAN died on June 30, 1727 after completing a full decade as the Nawab of Bengal. He had in fact anticipated his death about a year ago when he found that his health had declined to the point of no return. He wanted to die as a pious Shia Musalman and be remembered as such.
And so, in that vainglorious precedent of all Muslim rulers, he made arrangements to construct a mosque and tomb for himself. Accordingly, he summoned his faithful servant, Murad Ferash and assigned the task to him.
Murad Ferash, a menial slave, discovered that he had suddenly acquired great power. He erected a large makeshift camp in a place called Khaas Taluk on the eastern plains of Murshidabad to supervise the construction of these buildings. His first act was to demolish all the Hindu temples in the area and used their debris to build the new structures. Charles Stewart describes the gut-wrenching response of the Hindus at this heartless marauding.
The zemindars, and other Hindoos, would have preserved their temples at any price; but no entreaties or bribes could prevail: not one was left standing in Murshidabad, or at the distance of four days’ journey from it. In the remote villages,many of the Hindoos’ houses were threatened with destruction, upon pretence of their being dedicated to religious uses; and they were necessitated to redeem them by the payment of a sum of money. The servants of Hindoos of all ranks were compelled to work…By these means, in the course of a year, the buildings were completed…
However, the Riyaz-us-Salatin describes the same event as a pious performance on the part of Murshid Quli Khan.
Towards the close of his career, on the eastern plain of the city of Murshidabad, on the grounds of his Khas T'aluq, the Nawab erected a Treasury, a Katrah [market square], a mosque, a monument, a Reservoir, and also sank a large well, and under the staircase of the mosque, he located his own tomb, so that it might be safe from damage, and might also, owing to the proximity of the mosque, be blessed with perpetual benedictions for his soul.
Acharya Jadunath Sarkar’s overall assessment of Murshid Quli Khan is worth quoting in some detail.
For a century before… the Indian Renaissance, our ancestors lived worked and suffered in many different lines as Murshid Quli Khan had taught them to do…he must be pronounced a glorified civil servant only, a masterly collector and accountant, a brainy departmental head, but no statesmanlike leader possessed of vision… his one absorbing passion for filling the State coffers made him neglect the national defence and… internal security…of Bengal… The gorgeous luxury of the Nawab’s court at Murshidabad…should not blind our eyes to the utter weakness of [his] Bengal Government when confronted with the steady musketry and accurate artillery of the handful of white troops only a generation after Murshid Quli’s death. The incredible contrast in numbers between the victors and the vanquished at Plassey is a matter of shame…but still more humiliating is the political blindness and administrative corruption of the preceding years which made such a defeat…possible.
In the final reckoning, the tumultuous rise and the despotic regime of Murshid Quli Khan is but a familiar chapter in the history of Islamic rule in India. He was by no means a Sultan of a substantial empire but he wielded Sultan-like powers in his own domain.
As mentioned in the beginning of this work, Murshid Quli’s life and career resembles that of Malik Kafur and Maqbul who were born Hindus and forcibly converted to Islam at a young age and grew up to become more bigoted than born Muslims. In that sense, Murshid Quli Khan also stands as a lasting caution to the Hindu community, a caution brilliantly phrased by Swami Vivekananda.
If Murshid Quli Khan had grown up as Suryanarayana Mishra, who knows, his name might have found a place of pride in Hindu annals as a learned Vedic scholar or Sanskrit poet. Instead, he has earned eternal infamy as the man responsible for temple destructions, forcible conversions, Hindu persecution and for paving the way for the British usurpation of Bharatavarsha.
Series Concluded
The Dharma Dispatch is now available on Telegram! For original and insightful narratives on Indian Culture and History, subscribe to us on Telegram.
