Note 22 — Chapter I

Since this passage was written, I have had reason to think that it ought to be accepted with some qualification. In October, 1840, when Dost Mahomed was flitting about the Kohistan, and the greatest anxiety prevailed among our political officers at Caubul, Shah Soojah said to Sir William Macnaghten, just as he was taking leave after an excited conference, “You know I have from the first expressed to you a mean opinion of my own countrymen. If you want further proof, look at that from my own brother.” The Shah then showed Macnaghten an intercepted letter, bearing the seal of Shah Zemaun, to the address of Sultan Mahomed Barukzye, purposing that, as Shah Soojah had made over the country to the infidels, the Barukzyes and the Sikhs united should make him (Shah Zemaun) King of Afghanistan.—[Unpublished Correspondence of Sir W. H. Macnaghten.] This story may seem to be at variance with the statement in the preceding page,—that “between a blind king and a dead king there is no political difference;” but I am acquainted with no Mahomedan law that excludes a blind prince from the throne. The exclusion is based upon the popular assumption that blindness disqualifies a man from managing the affairs of an empire. If, however, in Mahomedan countries, there have been no exceptions to this rule—of which I am doubtful—in the regal line, it is certain that many provincial governments have been in the hands of men who have been deprived of their sight. The case of Shah Allum, the blind King of Delhi, is hardly to the point; for during the years of his darkness, his royalty was only a name.