The Punjab and Sindh

2021-08-03 08:10

The Punjab and Sindh

1784 Kapur Singh Faizullapuria formed Dal Khalsa
Split in 2 sections—Budha Dal and Taruna Dal
Organised into 12 misls/ confederacies
Ranjit Singh conquered Lahore in 1799 and Amritsar in 1802
T/o Offensive and defensive alliance proposed by Charles Metcalfe failed to transpire in 1807
$ T/o Amritsar w/ British - acknowledge British right over cis-Sutlej territories 1809 ^ba6967
Tripartite Treaty 1838 w/ Shah Shuja and EIC for providing passage to British troops

Immediate and Potential Effects of Treaty of Amritsar

⏫ #todo ![[Pasted image 20221219135249.png]]

Punjab After Ranjit Singh

his death caused a void not a vacany -> anarcy and confusion
Upkeep of large standing army -> draining of resources
Punjabi faction like the Sindhanwalia sardars, Dogra factions -> centrifugal tendencies
Internecine warfare -> economy to shambles
Bureaucratic corruption
Kardar deafulted/ embezzeled revenue
Zamindars resisted revenue collection

Events before Annexation

Chet Singh was favorite of RS but was murdered by Wazir Dhian Singh of Dogra faction.
Naonihal Singh restored order and brought stability. He died in accident when archway of Lahore fort fell on him.
Factionism them increased where Sindhanwalias supported Chanda Kaur as regent for expected son of Naonihal Singh. Dogras supported Sher Singh who emerged succesful.
Sindhanwalias then went to British for refuge but Sher Singh to reconciliate, recalled Sindhanwalias. He was treacherously murdered by Ajit Singh along with Wazir Dhian Singh.
Later in 1843 Rani Jindan was proclaimed regent of Raja Dalip singh son of RS.
Lord Hardinge succeeded Ellenborough and inc EIC army stationed in Punjab and Meerut.
High handed manner of Company Agent Major Broadfoot in declaring all cis-Sutlej possession as protectorate of Company.

Reasons for Annexation

Rise of Khalsa, experiments w/ democratic republicanism and prospect of there being no stable gov worried B

Gallagher and Robinson - “trade with informal control if possible; trade with rule when necessary”

Commerce provided will - political disunity opportunity
Failure of Afghan campaign had lowered BR prestige.

Percival Spear : If Sikh army cannot be controlled it must be disbanded or its energies diverted in war.

PE Roberts : Rani Jindan found security in challenging British supremacy.

First Anglo-Sikh War (1845-46)

Treaty of Lahore (March 8, 1846) ended it
Reason : Sikh army crossing the River Sutlej
Provision of the Treaty :
- War indemnity > 1 crore
- Jalandhar Doab (b/w Beas - Sutlej) annexed
- British resident at Lahore under Henry Lawrence
- strength of Sikh army reduced
- Daleep Singh recognised as ruler Rani Jindan as regent
- Kashmir including Jammu sold to Gulab Singh

Second Anglo-Sikh War (1848-49)

Rani Jindan and Lal singh began to resent Residents (Henry Lawrence) control such as Residents decision to give kashmir to Raja Gulab Singh. Lal Singh was exiled and a Council of Regency was estd.
New Treaty of Bhairowal signed before the war :
- Sikhs not satisfied w/ Treaty of Lahore over Kashmir issue.
- Rani Jindan was removed, council of regency set up presided by Henry Lawrence.
Lord Hardinge succeeded by Dalhousie in 1848.
Immediate Reason : British officials appointed to assist new Governor (Agnew) of Multan were Murdered by people who asked the old Governor Mul Raj to take their leadership. The rebeellion spread all over and many including Afghans joined against British.
Dalhousie wanted to prostrate the Sikh power and annex Panjab
Battle of Ramnagar, Battle of Chillhanwala , Battle of Gujarat
Sikh army surrendered at Rawalpindi, Punjab annexed
Dalip Singh given pension and sent to England for education. 3-member board to govern Punjab, comprising of Lawrence brothers ( Henry and John ) and Charles Mansel

Evans Bell : Dalhousie violated treaties, abused a sacred trust. His acquisition was unjust and imprudent, weakened our frontier and scattered our military strength and put heavy financial burdern on the empire.

Sindh : Annexation of Sindh 1843

Kallora chiefs were usurped by Tralpura Balochs in 1771 and Mir Fath Ali khan estd suzerainty over it. He was confirmed by Durrani Empire.
His sons called the Char Yar were to divide his empire aka Amirs of Sindh.
==Lord Minto signed treaty of Eternal Friendship to check French designs in 1809. Was renewed in 1820 to exclude Americans from Sindh.==
Alexander Burns was send by Lord Ellenborough to survey Sindh for commercial motives under the pretext of bringing gifts to Ranjit Singh

Treaty of 1832

William Bentinck sent Colonel Pottinger to Sindh to sign a new treaty w/ Amirs of Sindh for :
- Free passage through Sindh for English traders
- No English merchant would settle down in Sindh, and passports needed to enter.
- Tariff rates could be altered by the Amirs if found high and no military dues or tolls.
- The Amirs would work with the Raja of Jodhpur to put down the robbers of Kachch
- Old treaties were confirmed.
Ranjit Singh was contemplating invasion of Sindh. EIC offered protection who reluctantly agreed to a treaty in 1838 (Tripartite Treaty). They accepted EIC mediation with Sikhs and a British Resident who had freedom of Movt in their territory.
A ==tripartite treaty involving Ranjit Singh, Amir of Sind Shah Shuja and EIC was signed==. RS accepted British negotiation. Shah agreed to pay tribute. ^bb53eb
Pottinger was sent again to annul the 1832 treaty and pay the money. A subsidiary force was stationed in 1839
Ellenborough succeeded Auckland.

VA Smith : He was eager to find a pretext for annexation of Sindh, deliberately provoked war.

Charles Napier replaced Outram as Company’s resident in Sind.

VA Smith : Pursued a bullying policy assuming that the Govt of India was allowed to whatever it pleased.
Napier accused Amir Rustom of Lharipur with secret intercourse with foreign states, maltreatment of British officials, obstructing navigation of the Indus etc. Charges were also made against Nasir Khan of Hyderabad.
Napier was sent by Ellenborough to negotiate a new treaty where Amirs were required to cede territories, provide fuel to steamers and surrendering right to coining money.
Napier also supported claims of Alim murad agaist his brother Mir Rustum who fled. Lower Sindh rebelled and Amirs of Upper Sind fled there.
Major Outram led the conquest of Sindh which culminated by April 1843.
It gave a shorter and safer frontier on the west, control over Indus, direct commercial link to Central Asia.
Annexation was condemned by politicians and historians alike.
James Outram : I am sick of your Policy.
Times of London Called it rotten throughout and Bombay Times wrote He disgraces the name of Englishmen.
Robert Peel the PM of england described it as unjust which would discredit the name and character of British authorities.
Napier Himself said that it was a humane piece of rascality it will be.
Gladstone : Mischief of retaining Sindh was less that mischief of abandoning Sindh.
Percival Spear : annexation was least creditable and fascist but it was in their own best interest to integrate them to the world

Annexation of Sindh as a Sequel to Afghan War

Napier believed it to be the tail of Afghan storm
PE Roberts has called it morally and politically a sequel of Afghan war
Annex done for strategic puroposed to build defence against Russo-Persian designs -> this was validated in a letter that was written by Lord Auckland to British resident in Sind
Amirs were coerced to provide finances, bases etc for Afghan War. Various treaties were forced on them to meet the changing situation on it.
Failure in the war gave reason to fortify frontiers and British prestige due to the loss has suffered greatly. Thus to demonstrate England’s strength and re-establish her prestige steps were taken

Elphinstone equated Britain to a bully who was knocked at the street and went back home to beat his wife in revenge.

PYQs

“Punjab’s fate after Ranjit Singh was foredoomed as the impulse of neo-Victorian Imperialism was bound to overwhelm it”. Elucidate [2010, 20m]

After the death of Maharaja Ranjit Singh in 1839, the Sikh Empire soon began to decline. The death of Ranjit Singh left the kingdom with no strong leader and the Durrani Empire of Afghanistan, the British East India Company and the Khalsa Army all competed for control of the kingdom.

The Durrani Empire of Afghanistan, under the leadership of Dost Mohammad Khan, invaded the kingdom in 1837 and captured Peshawar. The Khalsa Army, led by the Sikh generals, fought against the Afghans and ultimately defeated them in 1838. However, the Khalsa Army soon began to fracture and the British East India Company saw an opportunity to expand its empire. In 1846, the British launched the First Anglo-Sikh War and defeated the Khalsa Army. The Second Anglo-Sikh War of 1848-1849 was even more disastrous for the Sikh Empire and the British annexed the Punjab region.

“Annexation of Punjab was part of a broad north-west frontier policy set in motion after the exit of Maharaja Ranjit Singh.” Critically examine [2015, 10 Marks]

The North West Frontier policy of the British in India referred to the strategy employed by the British government in dealing with the various tribes and kingdoms along the northwest border of British India (now Pakistan and Afghanistan). The policy aimed to maintain stability and control over the region, which was seen as a potential threat to British rule in India. The policy included a combination of military force, diplomacy, and administrative control.

The British also employed a system of “Forward Policy” which included the establishment of forts, outposts and military garrisons in the region to deter tribal raids and incursions into British India. The British also tried to win over the support of local leaders and tribes through the use of subsidies and other incentives. However, the policy was not without controversy, and it was met with resistance from the local population, leading to several uprisings and conflicts.

Underline the major considerations of the British imperial power that led to the annexation of Punjab. [2017, 10m]

The major considerations of the British imperial power that led to the annexation of Punjab were:

Fear of Russian expansion into India and the need to secure the northwest frontier
Economic interests, such as control of Punjab’s agricultural wealth and access to its trade routes
Political instability in Punjab, which was seen as a threat to British rule in India
The desire to expand British territorial control and maintain dominance over other European colonial powers in the region.

Sind

“We have no right to seize Sind, yet we shall do so and a very advantageous, useful, humane piece of rascality it will be.” Comment. [1984, 20m]

Charles Napier said this after annexing Sindh in 1943. This statement was made after he annexed the region of Sindh, in 1843, it was not done under the doctrine of lapse but under the justification of ‘civilizing’ the region as it was under the rule of the Amirs who were seen as unjust and corrupt by the British.

Why it was advantageous and useful

Control of the Indus River: The annexation of Sindh provided the British with control over the Indus River, which was a key transportation route and a source of irrigation for the region. This control allowed the British to regulate trade and commerce in the region, and to increase their economic and political power in the area.
Strategic Location: Sindh was strategically located on the trade routes between India, Central Asia, and the Middle East. The annexation of Sindh allowed the British to secure these trade routes, and to protect their interests in the region.
Access to resources: Sindh was rich in natural resources such as cotton, wheat, and fruits. The annexation of Sindh provided the British with access to these resources, which they could use to support their own economy.
Military advantage: Sindh was also strategically important from a military perspective. The annexation of Sindh allowed the British to establish a military presence in the region, which they could use to protect their interests and to project power in the area.
Control of local population: The British saw the local Amirs as unjust and corrupt, and the annexation of Sindh allowed them to replace the local government with their own officials, who were more sympathetic to British interests. This gave them more control over the local population and allowed them to implement policies that were more favorable to their own interests.

Why it was a rascal measure

The annexation of Sindh was not based on any legal or moral justification. The British East India Company did not have any right or claim to the province, and they annexed it without the consent of the people of Sindh or the ruling Amirs.
The annexation was a violation of the sovereignty of the indigenous people. Sindh had its own distinct culture, history, and identity, and the British had no right to impose their rule on the province without the consent of the people.
The annexation caused immense suffering and hardship for the people of Sindh. The British imposed heavy taxes and forced labor on the population, which led to widespread poverty and hardship.
The British also introduced a number of changes to the administration and legal system in Sindh, which were detrimental to the local population. They centralized power, restricted the rights of the local population and imposed their own customs and laws on them.
“We have no right to seize Sind, yet we shall do so, and a very advantageous, useful and human piece of rascality it will be.” Comment. [1990, 20m]
“The British conquest of Sind was both a political and moral sequel to the first afghan war.” Comment. [1995, 60m]

The British conquest of Sindh in 1843 can be seen as a political and moral sequel to the First Afghan War, which took place between 1839 and 1842.

Political: The First Afghan War was a major setback for the British in terms of their political and military ambitions in the region. The defeat of the British forces in Afghanistan led to the loss of influence and prestige for the British Empire in the region, and the conquest of Sindh was seen as an opportunity to restore their power and prestige in the region.
Moral: The British saw the conquest of Sindh as a moral imperative, they were convinced that they were bringing civilization and progress to the region. They saw the local Amirs as unjust and corrupt, and the annexation of Sindh allowed them to replace the local government with their own officials, who were more sympathetic to British interests.
Security: The First Afghan war also showed the British that their Indian territories were vulnerable to attacks and invasions from the neighboring regions, and the annexation of Sindh helped secure their western borders.
Sir Charles Napier said, “We have no right to seize Sind, yet we shall do so, and a very advantageous, useful, humane piece of rascality it will be.” Comment. [2000, 20m]