No More Learning

It is now 77 years since the first acquisition was made of the Dewannee. During
a large portion of the period which has since elapsed, we have been extending
our dominions, but we have not equally increased our revenue while we in-
creased our charges. The acquisitions which have been made may, some of
them, have been necessary in order to secure what we already possessed, some of
them may have more than repaid in revenue the cost of governing and protect-
ing them. The consequence of extended dominion has necessarily been a more
extensive employment of British-born subjects in military and civil capacities,
but the general revenue of the State has not been improved, and the govern-
ment has diminished means of improving the condition of the people. 1
Still, as the government made no secret of its intention to hold
Karachi, Bukkur and Sukkur at least, it is not surprising that Outram
discovered ample evidence that the amirs were intriguing with the
enemies of Great Britain, and there was little doubt that they were
ready to take advantage of any opportunity that might arise. In a
letter of 14 May, 1842, to the commander-in-chief, Lord Ellenborough
said :
I see everywhere the effect of the reverse sustained at Cabul. The late
successes of which I have made the most may have checked the feeling that
was growing up that we had no longer our former power, but within the last
few weeks there have been strong indications that we were no longer consi-
dered to be what we were. Major Outram has observed a commencing change
in the Ameers of Sinde. . . . [This in connection with the formation of an army
of reserve. )?
And in a letter to General Nott of 21 June, 1842, he spoke in the
same sense :
Whenever you retire upon the Indus, some portion of the Bengal Troops
will remain at Sukkur, and there may possibly be two brigades against the
Ameers of Hyderabad unless their conduct should be more loyal than it is
represented to have been of late. Currachie will continue to be occupied by
Bombay Troops. An army of reserve of 15,000 men will be assembled in the
Sirhind Division in November etc. . . . 3
When, however, on 21 June, 1842, Outram sent a draft of a new
treaty by which he wished to bind the amirs down to cession of
territory, Lord Ellenborough, though he forwarded letters of warning
to be used in case of need, told him (10 July, 1842) that he did not see
any occasion for precipitate negotiation; and he added that it would
be a matter for consideration before the final instructions were issued
to Outram on the subject whether any probable benefit to be ever
derived from the treaty could compensate for the annual expenditure
which would be brought upon the government of India by the
maintenance of a large force at Sukkur and Karachi. It is only fair
1 Law op. cit. p. 28. 2 Ellenborough Papers, 83. Cf. Law, op. cit. p. 63.
3 Ellenborough Papers, 95. 4 Parliamentary Papers, ut supra, p. 397.
5 Idem, p. 404.
34


## p. 530 (#558) ############################################

630
CONQUEST OF SIND AND THE PANJAB
to add that Sir George Arthur, governor of Bombay, in a minute
of 2 September, 1842, stated that:
There can be no doubt that most of the Ameers of Upper and Lower Sinde,
have for some time past, been engaged in intrigues against us; in fact that they
only want the power, not the will to make an attempt, in imitation of the tribes
of Afghanistan, to expel us from their country. 1
Sir Charles Napier had arrived in Bombay on 12 December, 1841,
and in the following March we find him, in answer to a request
from Lord Ellenborough, giving his views as to the best way to deal
with the situation in Afghanistan. Lord Ellenborough did not feel,
and seemingly he was right, that he could adopt Napier's suggestions,
and on 23 April, 1842, Napier writes in his journal : “My fear is that
they will send me to Sinde, where there is no honour to be gained”. ;
On 26 August following he was formally given command of all the
troops of Upper and Lower Sind and Balochistan, and was empowered
to exercise control over all civil and political as well as military
officers within his command. This of course placed Outram under his
orders, but it was part of a general scheme, not without justification
from recent experience, and Outram had already been placed under
the control of Nott. Napier reached Karachi on 9 September, 1842.
and prepared to meet the difficulties of the situation. The English
were in possession of Karachi, Sukkur, Bukkur, Rohri, Shikarpur, and
a number of posts leading to the Bolan Pass. But as the general
advanced through Sind to meet England, who was returning from
Kandahar, he found that the amirs, though full of professions of
loyalty, were constantly breaking the treaty in small points and
anxious to throw off British ascendancy altogether. There is some
excuse for Lord Ellenborough's letter to him on 25 September, 1842 :
Your first political duty will be to hear all that Major Outram and the other
political agents may have to allege against the Ameers of Hyderabad and
Khyrpore, tending to prove the intention on the part of any of them to act
hostilely against the British army. That they may have had hostile feelings
there can be no doubt. It would be impossible to believe that they could en-
tertain friendly feelings; but we should not be justified in inflicting punis! :-
ment upon the thoughts.
The British army being withdrawn from Afghanistan it will be for the
authorities at home to decide whether we shall retain the position we now hold
upon the Lower Indus. For the present it must be retained in order to enable
the home government to exercise a full discretion upon the subject.
With a view to the maintenance of this position hereafter it will be neces-
sary to have various diplomatic transactions with the Ameers especially with
relation to Karachie and Bukkur and Sukkur. My impression is that for some
period at least it would be desirable to hold those places, and if Bukkur and
Sukkur be held they should be held in force, and their artificial defences made
such as to render them not liable to insult. . . .
The latter paragraphs of this letter have not perhaps been given due
weight in considering Lord Ellenborough's attitude towards the
1 Parliamentary Papers, ut supra, p. 408.
% Sir. William Napier, Life, of Sir Charles Napier, II, 162.
3 Idem, p. 169.


## p. 531 (#559) ############################################

NAPIER IN SIND
531
conquest of Sind. With them may be taken his opinion that the ports
on the Indus would never repay their cost, which is alluded to in a
letter from Napier of 20 October following.
The amirs were frightened by Napier's plain speaking at Hydera-
bad. On 25 October he sent off his famous letter to the governor-
general containing his "Observations on the occupation of Sind” with
many illustrative documents, in the preparation of which he had
beer assisted by Outram. Outram was then on the point of leaving;
the Lower. Sind agency closed on 14 November, 1842; and it is note-
worthy, in view of the unsatisfactory controversy that followed, to
remark that the two seem to have been in cordial, if not complete.
agreement on general questions of policy up to this point. This is
confirmed by Napier's subsequent choice of Outram as commissioner
to help him a few months later (at a time when Outram, for reasons
in no way connected with Napier or Sind, was not in favour with the
governor-general) and by entries in Napier's diary.
On 14 October, 1842, the government of India directed Napier to
threaten the amirs that he would compel them to execute the treaty
by force. He was at the same time instructed to treat with them for
a revision of the treaty. And it is significant that on the 17th of the
same month before he received these instructions Napier had written
that the amirs were quite ready to attack us. Shadows of what was
coming are to be found in Lord Ellenborough's letter of 23 October,
1842 :
I am inclined to think thai the Ameer Nusseer Khan will be so wrong-
headed or so ill-advised as to persist in refusing to observe the conditions of
the Treaty; in which case he must at once be compelled to do so; and, if tne
Government is obliged to incur any expense for the purpose of so compelling
him, the least punishment which can be inflicted upon him is that of defraying
the expense. But I should prefer depriving him of territory; and you will under-
stand that, if you are under the necessity of making any movement of troops
towards Hyderabad, the Ameer Nusseer Khan will forfeit all his property and
right in Kurachee, Tatta, Shikarpore, Sukkur, the pergunnas adjoining the
Bahawulpore country and Subzulkote; and all the property and rights in these
two last districts, whatever they may be, shall be immediately transferred to
the Khan of Bahawulpore. 3
Consequent on the infractions of the old treaty by the amirs came
the new treaty, different in several important respects, which was
sent off on 4 November, 1842. It relieved the amirs from the payment
of all tribute due to the British Government from 1 January, 1843
It settled the currency of Sind from 1845, the British Government
providing the coins (one side of which was to bear the Queen's head)
that alone were to be legal tender. With regard to territory it
contained the following provisions :
7. The following places and districts are ceded in perpetuity to the British
Governmeni : Kurachee and Tatta, with such arrondissement as may be deemed
1. Parliamentary Papers, ut supra, pp. 418 sqq.
Idem, p. 415.
Ident, p. 361


## p. 532 (#560) ############################################

832
CONQUEST OF SIND AND THE PANJAB
necessary by Major-General Sir Charles Napier, and moreover, the right of free
passage over the territories of the Amirs between Karachee and Tatta, along
such line, and within such limits on either side thereof, as Major-General Sir
Charles Napier may prefer; and, within such limits, the officers of the British
Government shall alone have jurisdiction.
8. All the right and interest of the Ameers, or any one of them, in Subzul-
koti and in all the territory intervening between the present frontier of Bahawal-
pore and the town of Roree, are ceded in perpetuity to his highness the Nawab of
Bahawalpore, the ever faithful ally and friend of the British Government.
9. To the Meer Sobdarkhan, who has constantly evinced fidelity to his
engagements, and attachment to the British Government, is ceded territory
producing half a lakh of annual revenue, such cession being made in considera-
tion of the loss he will sustain by the transfer of Kurachee to the British Gov-
ernment, and as a reward for his good conduct.
The necessary adjustments of the territory and revenue between
the amirs were to be made by a commissioner appointed by Sir
Charles Napier, and it was for this purpose, as noted above, that, with
the approval of the governor-general, he brought back Outram. A
similar treaty of the same date, designed to be made with the amirs
of Khairpur, provided, as regards territory, that:
1. The pergunna of Bhoong Bhara, and the third part of the district of
Subzulkoti, and the villages of Gotkee, Malader, Chaonga, Dadoola, and
Uzeezpore, and all the territories of the Ameers of Khyrpore, or any of them,
intervening between the present dominions of his highness the Nawab of Baha-
walpore and the town and district of Roree, are ceded in perpetuity to his
Highness the Nawab.
2. The town of Sukkur, with such arrondissement as shall be deemed
necessary by Major-General Sir Charles Napier, and the Islands of Bakkur
and the adjoining islets, and the town of Roree, with such arrondissement as
may be deemed necessary by Major-General Sir Charles Napier, are ceded in
perpetuity to the British Government.
Here again the currency was to be managed by the British Govern-
ment, and arrangements were made for the necessary adjustments
as between the various amirs. A provision was inserted making it
clear that the amirs of Khairpur, in the same measure as those of
Hyderabad by the treaty of 1839, were to promote the freedom of
navigation of the Indus. Subject to these provisos the British Gov-
ernment renounced all claim to tribute. Oddly enough, the amir of
Mirpur; as Napier pointed out in a letter of 8 December, 1842, seems
to have escaped notice, though by no means friendly to the British.
Napier suggested that he might go on paying his old tribute of half
a lakh annually, and Lord Ellenborough said that he had designedly
left him under the older treaty.
Lord Ellenborough threw the responsibility for the decision as to
the guilt of the amirs on to the local authorities. This is distinctly
stated in his letter to Sir Charles Napier of 4 November; 2 and indeed,
after the previous correspondence, he could hardly do otherwise.
Napier in his diary takes another view of the matter and says, that
1 Aitchison, op. cit. VII, 374.
2 Parliamentary Papers, ut supra, p. 496. Cf. Idem, 1844, XXXVI, 611, and
Law, op. cit. pp. 72-3.


## p. 533 (#561) ############################################

THE KHAIRPUR SUCCESSION
533
given the proof of treason Lord Ellenborough ought to decide. On
18 November he says that the amirs had collected in various places
about 20,000 men, and on the 30th, in answer to a definite enquiry
from Lord Ellenborough, he says that he is convinced of the guiit
of the amirs. Napier now knew, and Lord Ellenborough knew, for
he offered more troops, that there would be fighting, but the treaty
had to be considered first. On 2 December, 1842, it was sent to the
amirs of Hyderabad and on the 4th it was sent to Khairpur. Just
before this, on 1 December, Napier issued a proclamation to the
amirs of Upper and Lower Sind. It ran :
I have received the draft of a treaty between the Ameers of Khyrpore
(and Hyderabad) and the British Government, signed by His Excellency the
Right Honourable Lord Ellenborough, Governor-General of India, whose
commands I have to present it to your Highnesses, for your Highnesses' accepta-
tion and guidance.
In obedience to the commands of the Governor-General of India I shall
proceed to occupy Roree, and the left bank of the Indus, from the latter town
up to the Bhawulpore frontier, including the whole of the districts of Bhong
Bara and Subzulkote, as set forth in the said Treaty. 1
It is not necessary to go into a minute description of the various
intrigues which were in progress, but it may be well to touch on one
that was the subject of much comment at the time. The amir of
Khairpur was, as has been seen, a very old man. Once inclined to
throw in his lot with the English, he had long since joined the other
amirs, and the misfortunes of our troops in Afghanistan had affected
him as they, had affected them. He had given evidence of this by
taking part in various schemes directed against the English, and the
new treaty was one of the results. But the question of the moment
was that of his successor. The choice lay between his brother 'Ali
Murad, who professed attachment to the English interest, and his son.
The claims of the former to the "Turban", as it was termed, had
been placed before the governor-general by Outram on 21 April,
1842, and again by him to Napier on 30 October. On 23 November
Napier had an interview with 'Ali Murad and promised him, provided
he continued to act loyally towards the British Government, that the
governor-general would prevent the nomination of old Mir Rustam's
son, Mir Muhammad Husam, either during Mir Rustam's life or at
his death. His reasons for this step are worth recording :
1. It is just. Ali Moorad has the right to the “Turban” for his own life,
after the death of Meer Rustim, and it promises to protect him in this right.
2. It detaches Ali Moorad from any league among the Ameers, and, con-
sequently, diminishes the chance of bloodshed.
3. It lays a train to arrive at a point which I think should be urged, viz. ,
that we should treat with one Ameer, instead of a number. This will simplify
our political dealings with these princes, and gradually reduce them to the
class of rich noblemen, and their chief will be perfectly dependent on the
Government of India, living as he will do so close to this large station (Sukkur)
and I have no doubt that it will quickly be a large town. 2
1 Parliamentary Papers, 1843, XXXIX, 518.
* Idem, p. 613.


## p. 534 (#562) ############################################

534
CONQUEST OF SIND AND THE PANJAB
Napier's letters nuw breathe the calm confidence of the experi-
enced soldier. He writes on 1 December, 1842 : "I am perfectly
confident in the troops under my command being equal to any
emergency'. On the 4th the governor-general wrote:
As long as you have six regiments ready to support your just demands, I
am inclined to think they will be acceded to, as they have been in this instance
(a case of tolls on the Indus]; and I am willing to hope that, with these aids
to your negotiation, you may be able to make a settlement now without the use
of force; but I very much fear that, until our force has been actually felt,
there will be no permanent observance of the existing treaty, or of any new
treaty we may make. 1
The various amirs now agreed verbally to be bound by the new
treaty, but they continued to collect troops. The British could only
count upon the support of 'Ali Murad at Khairpur, and Mir Subudar
Khan and Mir Husain 'Ali at Hyderabad. The chiefs of Khairpur
decided at the end of November that Mir Rustam Khan should
abdicate in favour of his son on 5 December. Napier now began
pushing his troops across the Indus to take possession of Rohri, and
the plan was that Brigadier Wallace was to march towards the ceded
districts on 20 December, 1842, whilst Napier moved on Khairpur.
On 18 December he wrote to Mir Rustam :
My own belief is that personally you have ever been the friend of the
English. But you are helpless among your ill-judging family. I send this by
your brother His Highness Ali Moorad; listen to his advice; trust yourself to
his care; you are too old for war; and if war begins how can I protect you? ?
We know that Mir Rustam, who wished, or pretended to wish, to
come to Napier's camp, went to his brother for a short time, and thus
Murad 'Ali became the chief in reality if not in name. Napier wrote
on 23 December :
The whole of Upper Sinde is now in the hands of Meer Ali Moorad. There
are no armed bands but his, and his interest is synonymous with our friend-
ship. I consider therefore that Upper Sinde is perfectly settled. 3
Wallace now started for Firozpur, taking possession of and
han over to Bahawalpur the ceded districts en route, and Napier
proceeded in force to Mangni. But he now found that many of the
family and followers of Rustam had fled to Imam Garh, a desert
fortress some way to the eastward beyond the Nara river about half
way between Khairpur and Hyderabad. Here Napier resolved to
follow them and so he told 'Ali Murad on 26 December; his decision
was in no way altered by 'Ali Murad's wishing to go against the fort-
ress himself, and by the fact that there had been no declaration of
war. On 23 December, 1842, Napier advised 'Ali Murad not to assume
the turban, but, when he heard of the flight of Mir Rustam, which
took place on the 28th, he at once (1 January, 1843) issued a procla-
mation mentioning the facts, and stating that he would now support
i Parliamentary Papers, ut supra, p. 519.
2 Idem, 1844, XXXVI, 518.
3 Idem, 1843, XXXIX, 535.


## p. 535 (#563) ############################################

IMAM GARH
535
'Ali Murad. as chief in his various rights. Napier, however, thought
that the flight was either due to fear or that 'Ali Murad drove him
to it so as to strengthen his own position. Lord Ellenborough, while
he approved of what Napier was doing, saw difficulties in the way of
making one of the amirs responsible for the others, which would, he
felt, mean taking the rule into British hands. Napier's letter, how-
ever, to 'Ali Murad of 14 January’ shows that the governor-general
considered 'Ali Murad as the legitimate possessor of "the Turban".
What Napier was really anxious to effect was the striking of a con-
vincing blow; he saw that the amirs were merely trifling with him,
seeking to gain time. Imam Garh was said to be the Sind Gibraltar,
and he would show that he could march across the desert, and take
it. So, though detained near Khairpur by rain, he reached Daji,
a strong fortress, on 4 January, 1843; near there on the 6th he heard
of Mir Rustam whom Outram, who had now rejoined Napier,
visited and found submissive. At Daji he left the main body of the
force and mounting 350 men of the Queen's ‘Regiment on camels
and adding 200 horse and a couple of howitzers he set off on his
memorable expedition. At the end of the first march there was so
little fodder that he had to send back 150 of the horse, but he pushed
on and camped near Imam Garh on the 12th. The fortress which
was surrounded by walls forty feet high offered no resistance, and
Outram with the consent of 'Ali Murad blew it up. This desert march
of Napier's, however irregular it might be, had no greater admirer
than the Duke of Wellington, who spoke of it as one of the most
curious military operations he had ever heard of.
Napier now sent off Outram to Khairpur where he was to meet
the amirs of Upper and Lower Sind or their representatives, and
arrange with them the details connected with the new treaty. He
carried a letter dated 15 January to Mir Rustam, saying that the past
was all forgotten, and with regard to the amirs he was given con-
siderable latitude, at all events so far as suggestion was concerned,
prcvided that the spirit and the principle of the treaty were preser-
ved. The amirs were ordered to attend, and threatened with the
occupation of their territories if they did not. But though Outram
fixed a date, the 20th, for the meeting at Khairpur, only the amirs of
Hyderabad sent vakils, and the odd thing is that Outram, as we see
from his letters to Napier of 22 January, had no idea of what was
going on. He wrote to Napier objecting to the retention of Tatta,
whrre Napier agreed with him, and also wished to modify the coinage
clause, which Napier had no power to alter, but he did not see how
unreal the whole business was. Napier, who now moved near to
the Indus, sent a strong proclamation to the amirs of Upper Sind on
the 27th giving them till 1 February to come in. 8
1 Parliamentary Papers, 1843, XXXIX, p. 849.
2 Idem, 1844, XXXVI, 530.
3Idem, 1843, XXXIX, 566.


## p. 536 (#564) ############################################

636
CONQUEST OF SIND AND THE PANJAB
At Outram's request also he, on the 28th, ordered that officer to
move to Hyderabad where Outram thought that all could be satisfac-
torily arranged by personal influence. Napier read the East far more
correctly than Outram, and knew how little words counted in a
country filled with armed men who were stirred by the fear that
their national independence was at stake. Napier also saw that.
whatever the amirs might say, they had but little control over the
bands who were moving rapidly about the country near the capital.
Nor was the fact that Wallace towards the end of January handed
over Sabzalkot and Bhung Bara to the nawab of Bahawalpur likely
to make for peace.
While Outram was dreaming and talking, the two sides were
acting. The amirs were collecting large masses of troops; of this
Napier knew, and he prepared accordingly, although he extended
the period of peace till the 6th. On that date he wrote to Outram,
ordering him to tell the amir of Khairpur that he was directed to
disperse their troops and would do so. Outram had also to tell the
amirs of Hyderabad not to allow troops from Khairpur to come into
Lower Sind. Outram reached Hyderabad on the 8th and managed
before the end to get all the amirs but one to sign. He thought more
of this willingness than it deserved. He wrote to Napier that he did
not believe that the amirs would begin hostilities; on two occasions
he urged Napier not to bring his troops any nearer; he said that there
was not an armed man in Hyderabad, and on the 12th added the
crowning absurdity of suggesting that Napier should come alone to
the capital.
That evening Outram was insulted in the streets and
wrote, simply enough, that he did not think Napier would wish to
come now. The general had no intention of doing so and wrote on
the 15th from Hala ordering Outram not to pledge himself to any-
thing, and telling him that he was marching on Hyderabad. The
same day Outram was attacked in the Residency, and, after a gallant
defence against several thousand armed Balochis, took refuge on a
steamer and rejoined his commanding officer. He ceased henceforth
to count in Napier's calculations, and the great controversy between
them is best left in obscurity. Those who wish to enter further into
the question of the negotiations with the amirs between the 8th to
the 13th will find an interesting criticism of Outram's notes by Lord
Ellenborough in a letter to the Secret Committee of 23 June, 1843. 1
Napier knew that the amirs were at Miani with over 20,000 men;
he had but 2800 himself with twelve pieces of artillery. But he was
ready, even anxious to fight, and the thought of the odds only stimu-
lated him. At 4 a. m. on the morning of 17 February, 1843, he
marched, and at 9 o'clock he attacked. The great mass of the enemy
1 Parliamentary Papers, 1844, XXXVI, 609. Cf. Holmes, Sir Charles Napier,
pp. . 43 syg.


## p. 537 (#565) ############################################

MIANI
637
were in the dry bed of the Fulaili river, and the scene, as described
by Sir William Napier from his brother's accounts, has rarely been
equalled for picturesque detail :
Then rose the British shout, the English guns were run forward into posi-
tion, the infantry closed upon the Fullailee with a run, and rushed up the
sloping bank. The Beloochs, having their matchlocks laid ready in rest along
the summit, waited until the assailants were within fifteen yards ere their
volley was delivered; the rapid pace of the British, and the steepness of the
slope on the inside deceived their aim, and the execution was not great; the
next moment the 22nd were on the top of the bank, thinking to bear down all
before them, but they staggered back in amazement at the forest of swords
waving in their front! Thick as standing corn, and gorgeous as a field of
flowers, stood the Beloochs in their many coloured garments and turbans; they
Alled the broad deep bed of the Fullailee, they clustered on both banks, and
covered the plain beyond. Guarding their heads with their large dark shields,
they shook their sharp swords, beaming in the sun, their shouts rolled like a
peal of thunder, as with frantic gestures they rushed forwards, and full against
the front of the 22nd dashed with demoniac strength and ferocity. . . . Now
the Beloochs closed their dense masses, and again the shouts and the rolling
fire of musketry and the dreadful rush of the swordsmen were heard and seen
along the whole line, and such a fight ensued as has seldom been known or told
of in the records of war. For ever those wild warriors came close up, sword
and shield in advance, striving in all the fierceness of their valour to break
into the opposing ranks; no fire of small arms, no push of bayonets, no sweep-
ing discharges of grape from the guns, which were planted in one mass on the
right, could drive the gallant fellows back; they gave their breasts to the shot,
they leaped upon the guns and were blown away by twenties at a time, their
dead went down the steep slope by hundreds; but the gaps in their masses were
continually filled up from the rear, the survivors of the front rank still pressed
forward, with unabated fury, and the bayonet and the sword clashed in full
and frequent conflict.
Such was the fierce battle of Miani in which Napier gained, a
victory-a victory important out of all proportion to the loss of life.
5000 Balochis fell as against 256 of the British force. Six of the amirs
at once came into camp and surrendered, giving up Hyderabad which
was immediately occupied. But crushing though the blow was, Sinci
was not yet conquered, for the Lion of Mirpur, Shir Muhammad,
was still in command of considerable forces, and Napier's little army,
wasted by sickness, was surrounded by hostile tribesmen. Lord
Ellenborough sent prompt reinforcements, but Napier wisely waited,
entrenching himself, and hoping that he would be attacked in a
position of his own choosing. In March, hearing that the Balochis
were concentrating, he prepared to move, though in great difficulties,
owing to the heat of the weather and the intrigues of the captive
amirs. So that he was glad to be able to strike a final blow at Dabo,
six miles from Hyderabad, where on 24 March, 1843, he defeated Shir
Muhammad. The victory was not achieved without difficulty, and
Shir Muhammad fled to the desert. Hurrying onwards it was a race
against summer. Napier secured Mirpur on 27 March, and Umarkot
on 4 April, movements through a desert country which prove capacity
and resolution of no comnion order. The annexation of Sind had


## p. 538 (#566) ############################################

538
CONQUEST OF SIND AND THE PANJAB
>
been decided upon as early as 13 March (dispatch of 26 June, 18434)
and Napier was made its first governor. Khairpur, however, was as
a reward handed over to 'Ali Murad. The next four and a half years
were occupied in the organisation and development of this important
addition to the British Empire. There was still fighting to be done,
but when Jacob on 14 June, 1843, defeated Shir Muhammad finally
and drove him out of Sind, the main war was at an end.
Napier's own view of the conquest of Sind has been perhaps best
expressed in a letter to Outram of January, 1843, of which a few
sentences may be quoted :
Lord Auckland began by a great act of injustice, political injustice, which
produced the treaties. Lord Ellenborough then came and had his line of policy,
viz. , to abandon ali beyond and maintain all on the Indian side of the Indus. He
found existing treaties with Scinde to maintain, but the only part of his prede-
cessor's policy in which he appears to agree is the maintenance of free traffic
on the Indus, with possession of certain towns on its banks, the seizure of
which was Lord Auckland's act; to keep them has been Lord Ellenborough's in
compliance with treaties which no man of sense will say were well drawn up
. Now I do not agree with you in thinking the Amirs are fools. I think them
cunning rascals to a man if measured by our standard of honesty; but assuredly
Lord Auckland's policy was not calculated to make them form a higher esti-
mate of us. Well, they saw our defeat and that encouraged them to break
existing treaties, it gave them heart, and that they hoped to have a second
Cabool affair is as clear to me as the sun now shining. . . . Now what is to be
done? That which is best for the advancement of good government and well-
being of the populatior; and we must not sacrifice all this to a minute endea-
vour, utterly hopeless, I may say impossible, to give to these tyrannical, drunken,
debauched, cheating, intriguing, contemptible Ameers, a due portion of the
plunder they have amassed from the ruined people they conquered sixty years
ago. They are fortunate robbers one and all, and though I most decidedly con-
demn the way we entered this country (just as honest, however, as that by
which the Talpoors got it from the Kalloras) I would equally condemn any
policy that allowed these rascals to go on plundering the country to supply
their debaucheries after we had raised the hopes of every respectable man
in the country. This I consider to be Lord E. 's view and in that sense I act.
If I thought Lord E. was acting on an unjust plan I would of course obey my
orders, but should deeply regret my position. But I do no such thing: the
whole injustice was committed by Lord Auckland, and such a course of in-
justice cannot be closed without hardship on someone. It is likely to fall on
the Ameers, and on a crew more deserving to bear it hardly could it alight. It
falls heaviest on Roostum, an old worn debauchee, a man drunk every day of
his life, breaking his own religious ordinances, and even the habits and customs
of his country. ?
The judgment that has held the field hitherto has been hostile;
from 1844 when a writer in the Calcutta Review said : "The real cause
a
of this chastisement of the Ameers consisted in the chastisement
which the British had received from the Afghans", till the recent
verdict in the Cambridge Modern History. But the truer view will be
more like that of Outram's great apologist: "In the light of subse-
quent history it may even be argued that Outram's policy of trust
1 Law, op. cit. pp. 68 sqq. Napier, Conquest of Scinde, 334.
2 Napier, Life. . . . of Sir C. J. Napier, II, 300


## p. 539 (#567) ############################################

THE SIKHS
539
in the Ameers would have proved less wise than Napier's policy of
vigilant coercion”: assuming for the moment that such were the
respective policies of the two men.
The conquest of Sind, however, cannot be said to be the fault of
any one man. Lord Auckland looking on the country as a portion
of the older Afghanistan treated its liberties or rather the liberties
of its conquerors—as subsidiary to the general Afghan policy, for
which again he can hardly be held altogether responsible. He left
the Sind problem in a desperate condition to his successor, but neither
of them seems to have wished to annex the country; circumstances
were too strong for both of them. As to Sir Charles Napier, who
came fresh to the country, he acted a soldier's part and acted it
extraordinarily well. He illustrated the extreme value of common-
sense and directness, and there is an element of profound, as well as
kindly, truth in his remark that "Outram is a clever fellow, but he
seems to have been so long accustomed to Indian tricks that he thinks
them of real importance". In any estimate of Napier's conduct the
instructions he received must always be remembered; and in parti-
cular those of 26 August, 1842 :
It may be convenient that you should at once be informed that, if the
Ameers or any one of them, should act hostilely or evince hostile designs
against our army, it is my fixed resolution never to forgive the breach of faith
and to exact a penalty which shall be a warning to every chief in India. 1
And yet the whole transaction has been thought to bear a colour of
injustice which may rightly be ascribed to some of its parts, and the
plea of the happiness of the people, who gained enormously by the
change, has not been held sufficient to justify what happened.
II. THE PANJAB
At the beginning of the nineteenth century Ranjit Singh, the
greatest of the Sikh rulers, had consolidated a powerful kingdom
north-west of the Satlej, and seemed likely to extend his empire as
far as the Jumna; he was aided on the one hand by the weakness of
the Afghans and on the other by the policy of the English, who
seemed disinclined at first to interfere owing to the more serious
responsibilities of their great struggle with the Marathas. Lake, it
will be einembered, and Wellesley defeated Sindhia and Holkar in a
series of great battles the result of which was to increase the import-
ance of the English in the north-west, and so to make the relations
between them and the Sikhs more vital. The Cis-Satlej chiefs fought
against the English in the battle of Delhi, and in 1805 Holkar fled to
Amritsar. Ranjit Singh was too clever to help him against Lake, and
the resulting treaty of Lahore of 1 January, 1806, kept the Marathas
out of the Panjab, secured the friendship of the English, and left the
1 Parliamentary Papers, 1843, XXXIX, 408.


## p. 540 (#568) ############################################

510
CONQUEST OF SIND AND THE PANJAB
>
Sikhs free from English interference for the time being north of the
Satlej. This state of affairs, however, was not to last.
The Cis-Satlej states had risen to virtual independence owing to
the gradual decline of the Muhammadan power, but they were
engaged in constant strife, and the unsettled state of the country they
inhabited invited the ambition of any freebooting adventurer. A
quarrel between the chiefs of Nabha and Patiala gave Ranjit Singh
an excuse to cross the Satlej (26 July, 1806) and to capture Ludhiana
which was at once transferred to his uncle Bhag Singh of Jind. The
English, under Lord Lake, had had considerable connection with
Sirhind and it was natural that the idea of the establishment of
Ranjit Singh's power in this wild and desolate country, for such it
was then, was viewed with some concern. And when he had crossed
the river a second time in 1807, the chiefs of Sirhind became suffi-
ciently alarmed to send and ask for British protection. This was in
1808, at a time when the possibility of a French invasion of India
was much discussed, and though there was no definite answer at
once, the result was the sending in September of that year of Metcalfe
to Ranjit Singh with the purpose of arranging a treaty; at the same
time assurances of protection were given to the frightened chiefs.
For the moment it seemed likely that the negotiation would fall
through; Ranjit Singh crossed the Satlej for the third time, seized
Faridkot and Ambala, and would have taken Patiala had he not
feared English intervention. But the advance of Ochterlony with a
detachment, the adroitness of the young diplomatist who is said to
hava assured the Sikh chieftain that he could make conquests in other
directions without British interference, and it has been conjectured
the weakening of the danger from the West owing to the improved
relations between England and Mahmud II, the new sultan of Turkey,
caused Ranjit Singh to pause. On 9 February, 1809, Ochterlony
issued a warning proclamation to the effect that any further aggres-
sions south of the Satlej would be forcibly resisted; and this coupled,
as Cunningham suggests, with the fear that some of the Panjab chiefs
might also seek British protection, brought the great Sikh to terms.
He therefore signed the treaty of 25 April, 1809. This guaranteed
him against interference on the part of the English north of the
Satlej, and as to the left bank, it was stated in the second article)
that the raja would never maintain, in the territory which he occu-
pied there, more troops than were necessary for the internal duties
of that territory, nor commit or suffer any encroachments on the
possessions or rights of the chiefs in its vicinity. The transaction
was completed by a proclamation of 3 May, 1809, of which the
important articles ran as follows:
1. The country of the chiefs of Malwa and Sirhind having entered under
the British protection, they shall in future be secured from the authority and
influence of Maharaja Ranjit Singh, conformably to the terms of the treaty.
1 Aitchison, op. cit. vwa, 144.
. .


## p. 541 (#569) ############################################

RANJIT SINGH'S CONQUESTS
541
.
2. All the country of the chiefs thus taken under protection shall be
exempted from all pecuniary tribute to the British Government.
3. The chiefs shall remain in the full exercise of the same rights and
authority in their own possessions which they enjoyed before they were re-
ceived under the British protection.
4. Should a British army on purposes of general welfare, be required to
march through the country of the said chiefs, it is necessary and incumbent
that every chief shall, within his own possessions, assist and furnish, to the full
of his power, such force with supplies of grain and other necessaries which
may be demanded.
5. Should an enemy approach from any quarter, for the purpose of con-
quering this country, friendship and mutual interest require that the chiefs
join the British army with all their force, and, exerting themselves in expelling
the enemy, act under discipline and proper obedience. 1
The idea was that Ranjit Singh's Cis-Satlej conquests made before
the last campaign were to remain his, but that he was to have no
claim to allegiance from Cis-Satlej chiefs. Still, this was a very
important negotiation. On the one hand it directed Ranjit Singh's
energies elsewhere than southwards; he gave up. Faridkot and Ambala.
On the other it has been said to have moved the British frontier from
the Jumna to the Satlej. The relations of the protected chiefs among
themselves took a good deal of arranging. It was necessary to protect
the weak against the strong, when the fear of Ranjit Singh was
removed, and a proclamation had to be issued on 22 August, 1811,
to the effect that while the independence of the chiefs would be
respected nd their states duly protected, they would not be allowed
to usurp the rights of others. But it was long before all the various
claims were settled and rights established.
Ranjit Singh was thus free to devote his attention elsewhere. He
got the better of the Gurkhas from 1809 to 1811, taking the Kangra
district, and when the English war in 1814-15 with the same people
brought the English and Sikhs together in the mountains, there was
excellent reason for their remaining friends. Another similar reason
was supplied by the Afghan question. Shah Shuja had been driven
from Afghanistan in 1809-10. Ranjit Singh sought to prevent him
from getting aid from the English, in view of his own project against
Multan which he unsuccessfully endeavoured to seize in February,
1810. However, Shuja was soon carried off to Kashmir, and after
various adventures in the course of which Ranjit Singh secured the
Koh-i-nur from him, he returned to Ludhiana in 1816. Meanwhile
the Sikhs, though they secured Attock, defeating the Afghans at
Haidaru in 1813, did not manage to secure Kashmir. More important
during this period was their reduction of the northern plains and
lower hills by which they gradually strengthened themselves for
further efforts. The first of such was the capture of Multan, which
had been attempted more than once before, and which was effected
in 1818. In the same year, by taking advantage of the troubles which
followed Fath Khan's death, kanjit Singh entered Peshawar, though
1 Cunningham, History of the Sikhs (ed. 1918), p. 382. 2 Idem, p. 383.


## p. 542 (#570) ############################################

642
CONQUEST OF SIND AND THE PANJAB
he relinquished it to the Barakzai governor Yar Muhammad Khan.
1819 saw him master of Kashmir. In 1823 he again took Peshawar,
and this time he left Yar Muhammad Khan to rule in his name. Thus
by 1824 he had added to his dominions the three Muhammadan states
of Kashmir, Multan and Peshawar. A small Sikh minority ruled
a vast kingdom almost equally divided as regards inhabitants bet-
ween Hindus and Muhammadans, the latter more numerous towards
the north-west. The older organisation of the misls or confederacies
each following a chief or group of chiefs had given place to an
organised military despotism although the phrases used by Ranjit
Singh disguised the fact. The whole strength of the state was devoted
to war. The system suited the Sikh people who were excellent
soldiers and it was not disliked by the military Muhammadans of the
Panjab whom Ranjit Singh slowly reduced to obedience. The mate-
rial at his disposal, recruits obtained by the feudal system of land
tenure, was rendered more formidable by the European methods of
discipline which he adopted; he used men who had deserted from
the British service to train his troops and soon Frenchmen and other
European officers like Allard, Court, Ventura and Avitabile joined his
service.
Sir Lepel Griffin has truly said that the conquest of the frontier
was a matter beyond the Sikh strength; it was inevitable that the
subjection of so much territory in the Himalayan region should
involve constant struggles and constant loss. The events of Ranjit
Singh's later years often made him wish that he had not had the
trouble of maintaining such expensive conquests. With the English
he became more friendly, especially as his relations with them were
in the hands of Captain Wade at Ludhiana. In the discussions as to
the districts south of the Satlej, the English gave way on some points
but secured Firozpur. But it required all Wade's skill until the end
of the Burmese War and the capture of Bharatpur to keep the Sikhs
quiet. After a troublesome religious revolt under Saiyid Ahmad
Shah Ghazi, who for a time (1830) held Peshawar, had been sup-
pressed, Ranjit Singh's position in India was very strong. It was now,
therefore, when the idea of counteracting Russian influence by the
forination of buffer states was in favour, that Lord William Bentinck
arranged the famous meeting with the Sikh ruler at Rupar on the
Satlej in October, 1831, when an assurance of friendship with the
English was given which satisfied both parties for different reasons.
Much discussion took place about Sind and about the navigation of
the Indus, Ranjit Singh agreeing that that river and the Satlej should
be open to commerce. He also gave up for the time being his designs
on Shikarpur (1832) on which he had fixed his mind.
Hence the attitude of the English in regard to Shah Shuja in these
years is easily understood. They looked upon his efforts to regain the
Afghan throne with benevolent neutrality, and left him to make his
own bargain with the Sikhs and the amirs of Sind. But the Sikhs got


## p. 543 (#571) ############################################

CAPTURE OF PESHAWAR
543
>
the advantage. The negotiations fluctuated from time to time. The
amirs feared the approach of the English, and in 1832 they offered
help if Shah Shuja would give up his claims on their country. He
agreed in case he succeeded. But he reopened the question with the
maharaja, and, finding that he was the only potentạte whom he had
to conciliate, he entered into an alliance with him in August, 1833.
This treaty was the basis of the Tripartite Treaty of 1838, and provided
that the districts beyond the Indus in possession of the Sikhs should
be formally ceded to them. The Sindians were abandoned and Shah
Shuja was allowed to proceed towards his native land by way of
Shikarpur where he defeated the Sindians, who had finally decided
to oppose him, on 9 January, 1834. He then passed on towards
Kandahar, near which city he was routed by Dost Muhammad and
his brothers: on 1 July, 1834, and later after much wandering and
various attempts to secure aid he reached Ludhiana again. Ranjit
Singh resolved to make what he could out of the affair, and accord-
ingly he sent Hari Singh, his general, and Nao Nihal Singh, his
grandson, who secured the town and citadel of Peshawar on 6 May,
1834, thus finally establishing Sikh power there. Dost Muhammad,
who had been so perplexed when Shah Shuja entered Afghanistan
that he had offered his submission to the government officials as a
dependent on Great Britain, now plucked up courage, calling himself
ghazi as well as amir, and advanced as he thought to retake Peshawar.
He still wished to secure English help, and tried to do so through his
nephew Abdul Ghiyas Khan, who was at Ludhiana. The English,
however, who had their attention still directed to the question of the
navigation of the Indus, declined to interfere. The result was that
Dost Muhammad came to the eastern end of the Khaibar and having,
on 11 May, 1835, been almost surrounded by the Sikhs, was glad to
retreat hurriedly enough with considerable loss of prestige. About
September in the same year he commenced negotiations with Persia
though still hoping for English aid. Hearing, however, that the Sikhs
had sent home some of their forces, he sent Muhammad Akbar Khan,
his son, who, though he failed to secure the Sikh position, won a
doubtful battle near Jamrud on 30 April, 1837, Hari Singh the great
Sikh leader being killed. Reinforcements, however, arriving,
Muhammad Akbar Khan had to retire without having taken either
Peshawar or Jamrud.
The defeat of the amirs of Sind by Shah Shuja frightened them
and they would probably have gladly allowed Ranjit Singh to have
taken Shikarpur if he would have protected them against further
attempts of the same kind. This did not please the English who, as
Cunningham points out were beginning to have political as well as
commercial schemes in those directions. Ranjit Singh did not really
wish to be friendly with the amirs, and kept a representative of the
exiled Kaloras in his state; he even began negotiating with Shah Shuje
once more. There was a good deal of local friction and the fortress
>


## p. 544 (#572) ############################################

544
CONQUEST OF SIND AND THE PANJAB
of Rojhan, the stronghold of a robber tribe called Mazaris, who indecd
gave trouble to the Sikhs but could hardly be termed subjects of the
amirs, was taken by the governor of Multan in August, 1836. Soon
afterwards the Sikhs went south to Ken. As there seemed every
likelihood of further aggression, 'Lord Auckland decided to mediate,
especially as both parties were ready to declare open war.
December, 1836, Ranjit Singh yielded, though unwillingly, and agreed
to let things be on their own footing, retaining however Rojhan
and Mazari territory while he destroyed the fortress of Ken. It was
on this occasion that he asked the famous question of those who were
trying to dissuade him from peace what had become of the 200,000
spears of the Marathas.
There was then a feeling of intense hostility at this time between
the Afghans and the Sikhs. Both had considerable dread of the
English and the last thing they wished for was British interference.
Unfortunately this state of feelirig, which might otherwise have
passed naturally away, occurred at a time when the fear of the
Russians was the mainspring of Indian foreign politics. There were
also numerous French designs, and the story of Allard's diplomatic
character at the court of Lahore aroused suspicion; Wellington
afterwards (4 February, 1843) warned Lord Ellenborough of the
French connection. In such circumstances the English could please
no one. Ranjit Singh did not like to be restrained from action in
Sind and elsewhere; and Dost Muhammad would have gladly wel-
comed English aid against the Sikhs. The English chose perhaps
the worst possible way out of their difficulties.
The weakness of the scheme of the Tripartite Treaty of 1838 was
obvious. The English could not trust Shah Shuja to the Sikhs for
fear that the war of restoration should become a war of aggressioni
on their part. Ranjit Singh disliked the final passing of all hopes of
gaining Shikarpur, and although the march of a Sikh force through
the Khaibar with Shah Shuja's son was decided upon, the Sikhs not
altogether unnaturally decided to do as little as they could and to
gain the utmost advantage. At the end of 1838 Ranjit Singh met
Lord Auckland at Firozpur, where the British force was assembled,
but his health had failed. He heard of the fall of Kandahar, and died
on 27 June, 1839.
Ranjit Singh's power was personal and as he founded no perma-
nent institutions which could live apart from himself his death was
the signal for the beginning of anarchy. Cunningham, the sympathetic
historian of the Sikhs, has thus estimated his claims to greatness :
Ranjit Singh found the Punjab a waning confederacy, a prey to the factions
of its chiefs, pressed by the Afghans and the Marathas and ready to submit to
English supremacy. He consolidated the numerous petty states into a kingdom,
he wrested from Kabul the fairest of its provinces, and he gave the potent
English no cause for interference.