CHAPTER-III
THE ROYALTY, NATIVE ARISTOCRACY AND THE
PRINCELY STATES
The British policy towards the royalty and nobility unfolded partially in the aftermath of
the First Anglo Sikh War (1845-46). The Treaties of Lahore (March 9 and 11, 1846)
separated the Jullundur Doab from the Lahore Kingdom; war indemnity of Rs.1.5 crore
was imposed; army was reduced; Maharani Jind Kaur was appointed the Regent; the
Lahore Durbar being unable to pay full war indemnity. Jammu and Kashmir was sold to
Raja Gulab Singh under another treaty signed on March 16, 1846. On December 16,
1846, the Treaty of Bhyrowal superseded the Treaties of Lahore. The Resident, Henry
Lawrence was given full authority over all matters in every department of the State. He
was made independent of the Council of Regency and elevated to the position of a
Governor. Maharani Jind Kaur was pensioned off with Rs.1.5 lakh per annum.1 The
Treaty of Bhyrowal ‗in reality effected a radical change in which all but form of power
passed into the hands of the British‘.2 Lord Hardinge, Governor General favoured the
Lahore Durbar as a buffer state on military and economic considerations.3 However, Lord
Dalhousie reoriented British policy towards the Durbar. Diwan Mulraj‘s revolt at Multan
precipitated the crisis. The British followed the policy of ‗deliberate inactivity‘.4 The
Lahore Durbar was blamed for the Multan Rebellion. However, of 34 leading chiefs took
no part in the rebellion. Out of 34, about 38 were the Sikhs; two were Mohammedans and
four Hindus. The majority of those who signed the treaties were not involved in the
hostilities against the British. Of the 16 Sirdars, who signed the treaties, only five joined
1 Syad Muhammad Latif, History of the Panjab: from the Remotest Antiquity to the Present
Time, Kalyani Publishers, New Delhi, 1994 (First Published 1889), pp. 555-56;
Khushwant Singh, A History of the Sikhs (1839-1974), Vol. II, OUP, New Delhi, 2010
(First Published 1963), pp. 56-60.
2 Fauja Singh, After Ranjit Singh, Master Publishers, New Delhi, 1982, p.161.
3 Hardinge to Hobhouse, September 2, 1846, Simla: Bikrama jit Hasrat (ed), The Punjab
Papers, V.V. Research Institute, Hoshiarpur, 1970, pp. 105-113.
4 Khushwant Singh, A History of the Sikhs (1839-1974), Vol. II, pp. 66, 72.
The Royalty, Native Aristocracy and The Princely States
83
in the rebellion. Of the eight members of the members of the Regency Council, six
remained faithful throughout the rebellion.5
Lord Dalhousie firmly stood for the annexation of the Punjab as ‗the Government
of Lahore was totally disorganised and there was no Government at all‘. Hence, ‗the act
was inevitably necessary‘.6 H.M. Elliot, Secretary of Government of India reached
Lahore and invited the attendance of the leading Sardars of the Council of Regency, Raja
Tej Singh and the Diwan Dina Nath. The Maharaja Dalip Singh pleaded sickness to
escape the conference but abandoned the excuse upon urgent intimation and attended in
rude health yet nervous and ill-ease. Diwan Dina Nath asked about the fate of the
Maharaja. Mr. H.M. Elliot said that he would go to the Deccan. Diwan requested
Banaras.7 On 28
th March 1849, the young Maharaja was called to resign a scepter which
only one hand in India had now the right or the power to wield. A Proclamation, issued
on the following day by Lord Dalhousie, announced that the great country of five and that
the frontiers of British India extended beyond the Indus to the foot of the mountains of
Afghanistan.8 Lord Dalhousie in his Proclamation of March 29, 1849 categorically stated
that ‗the Sikhs and their chiefs on their part grossly and faithlessly violated the promises
by which they were bound‘. He declared the territory of Maharaja Dalip Singh,
‗henceforth, a portion of the British empire of India‘.9 The Paper of Terms was drawn up
by Lord Dalhousie on the model of the similar document executed by the Peshwa in
1818. The Council of Regency all signed it first. Dalip Singh ratified it by his signature in
the same manner as he had ratified the Treaty of Lahore. Diwan Dina Nath and the
5 Fauja Singh, After Ranjit Singh, p. 258.
6 Dalhousie to Hobhouse, April 7, 1849, Ludhiana: The Punjab Papers, pp. 227-28.
7 Edwin Arnold, The Marquis of Dalhousie’s Administration of British India, Vol. I,
Saunders, Otley & Co., London, 1862, pp. 186-87.
8 Duke of Argyll, India under Dalhousie and Canning, Longman, Roberts & Green Co.,
London, 1865, p. 3.
9 Foreign Department, Secret Consultations, File Nos. 41-45, April 28, 1849.
The Royalty, Native Aristocracy and The Princely States
84
Lawrence Brothers exhibited signs of dejection and regret.10
Mr. H.M. Elliot recorded
that the Maharaja, endured with intelligence beyond the age, conducted himself
throughout with cheerfulness and self-composure. Large number of natives witnessed the
ceremony.11
1 THE ROYAL FAMILY
i) Dalip Singh, The Maharaja
The Proclamation of Lord Dalhousie withdrew powers of Maharaja Dalip Singh. First of
all, the eleven year old Maharaja was made to resign for himself, his heirs and his
successors, all rights, title and claim to sovereignty of the Punjab or any sovereign power
whatever in return of a pension not less than four and not exceeding five lakh of rupees
per annum. All the state property, the immense collection of valuable articles and jewels,
so zealously collected by Maharaja Ranjit Singh, were confiscated. Justifying his action,
Lord Dalhousie remarked: ―In liquidation of the accumulated debt due to this
Government by the State of Lahore, and for the expenses of the war, I have confiscated
the property of the State to the use of Honourable East India Company‖.12
Lord
Dalhousie claimed that he could not be turned aside from fulfilling the duty which he
owed to the security and prosperity of millions of British subjects by a feeling if
misplaced and mistimed compassion of the fate of a child.13
Lord Dalhousie justified the
confiscation of the Crown property on two reasons: (i) that mischief hereafter might not
be left to the Maharaja; and (ii) that the great debt which was due to this Government
might be dwindled.14
Lord Dalhousie was held ‗guilty of breach guardianship‘. This was
perhaps the first instance on record in which a guardian had visited his own misdeeds
10
Governor General‘s Proclamation on the Annexation of the Punjab, March 30, 1849,
Camp Ferozepur: Foreign Department, Secret Consultations, File Nos.18-29, April 29,
1849.
11 Dalhousie to Hobhouse, April 7, 1849, Camp Ludhaina: The Punjab Papers, pp. 228-29.
12 Dalhousie to Hobhouse, April 7, 1849, Camp Ludhaina: The Punjab Papers, p. 229.
13 W.W. Hunter, The Marquess of Dalhousie, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1895, p. 82.
14 Dalhousie to Hobhouse, April 7, 1849, Camp Ludhiana: The Punjab Papers, p. 229.
The Royalty, Native Aristocracy and The Princely States
85
upon his ward.15
The total expenses of the Punjab campaign having amounted to £ 1,
500,000; crown, property of Maharaja Dalip Singh was estimated at Rs.15,000,000 was
declared to be confiscated to the East India Company to realise the above sum.16
In fact,
the debt of the Lahore Durbar was blown out of proportions. The Acting Resident at
Lahore, Frederick Currie had communicated to the Secretary, Government of India that
the Durbar had paid into the treasury gold to the value of Rs.13,56,837 exhausting all the
gold found in the Tosakhana and the Moti Mandir or Great Treasury. Thereby, the Durbar
reduced the debt to the British Government from upwards of Rs.40 lakh to less than
Rs.27 lakh.17
Lord Dalhousie utterly failed to prove any violence of the Treaty by the
Lahore State. He levelled a charge against the Durbar that ―from the day when the Treaty
of Bhyrowal signed to the present hour, not one rupee has even been paid in discharge of
the subsidy of Rs.22 lakh as stipulated in the Treaty. This was deliberate mis-statement of
facts‖.18
In fact, the financial difficulties of the Lahore Durbar resulted from summary
settlements introduced by the Resident against the wishes of the Durbar. Raja Dina Nath
put the blame on the Resident and his assistants and anticipated that the Durbar‘s
responsibility for the financial difficulties and deficiencies would be less.19
Moreover, no
complaint was ever made by the Government, presided over by Lord Dalhousie, on
account of the non-payment of the subsidy until the annexation of the Punjab, when it
was put forward as one of the causes justifying that act.20
Lord Dalhousie considered the
expenses of the war confiscated to the East India Compay at Lahore would ‗reduce the
15
J. Sullian, John M. Ludlow and Even Bell criticized Lord Dalhousie on the issue of
guardianship and wardship: Fauja Singh, After Ranjit Singh, pp. 262-63.
16 Bikrama Jit Hasrat, Anglo-Sikh Relations (1799-1849): the Rise and Fall of the Sikhs,
V.V. Research Book Agency, Hoshiarpur, 1968, p. 350.
17 Acting Resident to the Secretary, GOI, February 28, 1848, Lahore: The Paper Relating to
the Punjab (1847-49), p. 110
18 Jagmohan Mahajan, Annexation of the Punjab: A Historical Revision, Spantech
Publishers, New Delhi, 1990 (First Published 1949), p. 97.
19 The Resident, Lahore to Secretary, GOI, April 6, 1848, Lahore: The Papers Relating to
the Punjab (1847-49), pp. 127-28.
20 Jagmohan Mahajan, Annexation of the Punjab: A Historical Revision, p. 98.
The Royalty, Native Aristocracy and The Princely States
86
above sum‘.21
The whole of the State property was put up to public sale ‗to cause some
excitement among the people‘.22
John Login was installed by Henry Lawrence on 6th
April as Governor of the
Citadel and its contents; he was known as the Khillah-Ki Malik- Lord Master of Lahore
Citadel. Henry Lawrence took John Login to the Palace, and introduced him in the
character of future Governor to the young dethroned King Duleep Singh.23
As Killah-Ki-
Malik of Lahore Citadel, Login had completed there, had charge of all guards, stores,
magazines and treasures, as well as the state prisoners. He had some European assistants
and some sergeants of Horse Artillery, four European writers, and several moonshes and
mutsuddis, to assist him in making out lists of the arms of all kinds, and of the vast camp-
equipage of all the late rulers of the Punjab. He himself took the listing of the jewel
department with Misr Makraj (the late Maharajah‘s Treasurer whose family had been
custodians of the Koh-i-Noor for two or three generations) as Assistant-keeper of the
Toshakhana.24
The celebrated diamond the Koh-i-Noor or Mountain of Light, one of the most
precious and beautiful gems in the world was surrendered to the British.25
It caused
controversy as the Court of Directors of the East India Company felt ‗ruffled by having
caused the Maharaja to accede to the Queen, the Koh-i-Noor‘. Lord Dalhousie argued
that it was ‗more for the honour of the Queen that the Koh-i-Noor should be surrendered
directly from the hand of the conquered prince to the hands of the sovereign who was his
21
Dalhousie to Hobhouse, May 11, 1849: The Punjab Papers, p. 238.
22 Syad Muhammad Latif, History of the Panjab: from the Remotest Antiquity to the Present
Time, p. 573.
23 John Login to his Wife, Residency Lahore, 20 April 1849: Lady Login, Sir John Login
and Duleep Singh, Languages Department, Patiala, 1970 (First Published 1889), p. 153.
24 John Login to his Wife, Residency Lahore, 20 April 1849: Lady Login, Sir John Login
and Duleep Singh, p. 159.
25 Syad Muhammad Latif, History of the Panjab: from the Remotest Antiquity to the Present
Time, p. 273. For the long history Koh-i-Noor See, Edwin Arnold, The Marquis of
Dalhousie’s Administration of British India, Vol. I, pp. 190-193.
The Royalty, Native Aristocracy and The Princely States
87
conquer and it should be ‗presented to her as a gift‘.26
The Koh-i-Noor had become in the
lapse of ages a sort of historical Emblem of conquest in India. For Lord Dalhousie, it
‗found its proper resting place‘.27
Dr. John Login personally examined all these jewels
which exclusive of Koh-i-Noor were valued at Rs.8,90,510. The Board directed these to
be placed in the Moti Mandir as the most secure place in the Fort. Every possible
precaution for the safe custody of these Jewels and the Koh-i-Noor was underlined.28
Inventory of all jewels exclusive of Koh-i-Noor was declared Rs.16,41,035; value of
remaining articles in the Toshakhana was Rs.7 lakh. Dr. John Login disposed off all the
surplus horses, mules, bullocks and cows of the Palace due to the ―wretched conditions‖
and realised Rs.40,000. Maharaja was left with a portion of the jewels, of which one
valued Rs.61,000. Other objects and mediations were passed over to him aggregating the
value upto Rs.1 lakh.29
It was presented to Her Majesty, Queen Victoria by the Chairman
and Deputy Chairman of the East India exhibited at the Great Exhibition of 1851.30
Lord Dalhousie was ‗taken aback‘ as Maharaja Dalip Singh declared his
resolution to became Christian. Politically, it destroyed his influence forever. It was
brought to have been achieved by tempering with the mind of a child. The case was
referred to the Court of Directors for orders with implicit aim to delay it for testing the
mind of the Maharaja.31
The Court sanctioned Maharaja Dalip Singh‘s instruction in the
Christian faith. The Court directed that everything should be done ‗quietly‘. He was
26
Dalhousie to Sir George Couper, August 16, 1849, Simla: Private Letters of Marquis of
Dalhousie (Ed. J.G.A. Baird), pp. 87-90.
27 Dalhousie to Hobhouse, April 7, 1849, Camp Ludhaina: The Punjab Papers, p. 299.
28 H.P. Burn, Secy. BOA to H.M. Elliot, Secy. to GOI with the GG, May 10 1849, Lahore;
The Secretary to GOI with the GG to H.P. Burn, Secy. BOA May 13, 1849, Simla:
Foreign Department, Secret Proceedings, File No. 105, June 30, 1849.
29 H.P. Burn, Deputy Secy. to the BOA to H.M. Elliot, Secy. to the GOI with the GG:
Foreign Department, Secret Proceedings, File No. 186, July 28- September 29, 1849.
30 Syad Muhammad Latif, History of the Panjab: from the Remotest Antiquity to the Present
Time, p. 573.
31 Dalhousie to Sir George Couper, March 3, 1851: Private Letters of Marquis of Dalhousie
(Ed. J.G.A. Baird), p. 156.
The Royalty, Native Aristocracy and The Princely States
88
placed under two years‘ patient probation. He was baptised in his own house by his own
name. The event was taken ‗as a remarkable historical incident‘.32
Pensions given to the Royal Family
The Board of Administration showed the proposed pensions of Maharaja Dalip Singh, his
relatives and dependants aggregating Rs.2, 91,669 per annum- pensions of all the
Maharanis of Maharaja Ranjit Singh and his successors. Personal allowance of Maharaja
Dalip Singh had been put over at Rs.1, 20,000 per annum. Pension of his uncle Sardar
Hira Singh reduced to Rs.6000. At present at Cawnpore he enjoyed a jageer of Rs.3000
and Rs.9000 in cash making annual allowance of Rs.12,000. The Board of
Administration considered Rs.6000 sufficient maintenance for an idle dissolute character
like Hira Singh, brother of the Maharani. Pension would commence from 1 July 1849.33
The Governor General sanctioned the pension purposed by the Board.34
Maharaja Dalip
Singh was removed from the Punjab and shifted to Fattehgarh in the United Provinces.
Dr. John Login accompanied him with 285 persons including jagirdars and servants. Of
them 200, returned back to Lahore by April 4, 1850.35
Walter Guise was appointed his
tutor. His entourage consisted of a widow of Sardar Sher Singh and other Indian
attendants with two Englishmen, Barrow and Tommy Scott.36
ii) Maharani Jind Kaur
32
Dalhousie to Sir George Couper, June 8, 1851; March 3, 1853: Private Letters of
Marquis of Dalhousie (Ed. J.G.A. Baird), p. 248.
33 Major H.P. Burn, Deputy Secy. of BOA to H.M Elliot, Secy. of GOI, No. 173, 25 June
1849, Lahore: Foreign Department, Secret Consultations, File No. 48, 28 July- 29
September 1849.
34 Secy. of GOI to BOA, No. 1233, 23 July 1849, Simla: Foreign Department, Secret
Consultations, File No. 50, 28 July- 29 September 1849.
35 John Login, Incharge, Maharaja Dalip Singh to H. M. Elliot, Secy. of GOI with GG,
February 6, 1850: Foreign Department, Secret Proceedings, No. 123, April 26-June 28,
1850.
36 Bikrama Jit Hasrat, Anglo-Sikh Relations (1799-1849): the Rise and Fall of the Sikhs, p.
359.
The Royalty, Native Aristocracy and The Princely States
89
Maharani Jind Kaur was charged of the Prema Conspiracy in February 1847. The charges
could never be proved. In August 1847, she was removed to the Fort of Sheikupura.37
In
November 1846, Lord Hardinge had instructed Frederick Currie ‗to deprive the Rani of
all powers‘. Lord Henry Lawrence wanted to send her away from the Punjab.38
Maharani
Jind Kaur, the widow of Maharaja Ranjit Singh and mother of Maharaja Dalip Singh was
suspected of having instigated the rebellion in Multan in 1848. Consequently, she was
exiled from the Punjab on May 23, 1848 and was detained as a prisoner at Banaras till
April 4, 1849 when she was transferred to the Fort of Chunar on the suspicion of making
a plot to escape from Banaras. Immediately after her arrival at Chunar, she escaped and
proceeded towards Nepal and reached its capital on 27 April 1849.39
The British
authorities confiscated all her belongings and property at Banaras and Chunar. The
Governor General wrote to the Maharaja of Nepal asking him to prevent from all
injurious intrigues against the Government. But it seems probable that the Nepal
authorities never put any restrictions on the Maharani. She carried on correspondence
with the ex- Sardars of the Lahore Darbar. Upon this, the Nepal authorities were pressed
hard to prevent the Maharani from such intrigues. As a result, the relations between
Maharani and the Maharaja of Nepal became strained and the former planned to go to
some other place in search of help. But the British Government closed every avenue of
escape to her.40
Dr Login, In charge of Maharaja Dalip Singh recommended that the
Resident at Nepal be requested to keep them informed of the residence of Maharani Jind
Kaur and description of her attendants and also suggesting the employment of an
intelligent agent under the Resident to report any attempt the Maharani may make
37
Fauja Singh, After Ranjit Singh, p. 201.
38 Hardinge to Hobhouse, August 14, September 5, 1847, Simla: The Punjab Papers, p.
120.
39 Bikrama Jit Hasrat, Anglo-Sikh Relations (1799-1849): the Rise and Fall of the Sikhs, pp.
356-57.
40 K .C. Yadav, Punjab: Colonial Challenge and Popular Response 1849-1947, Hope India
Publications, Gurgaon, 2003, p. 18.
The Royalty, Native Aristocracy and The Princely States
90
communication with her son, Maharaja.41
As a result, surveillance had been acted upon.
Resident at Nepal would give monthly report and about employment of an agent.
Governor General in Council felt it was not necessary and Resident and his assistant
should be able to provide efficient supervision themselves.42
During the Uprising of
1857, she tried her luck again. She sent messages to prominent Sikhs in the Punjab to rise
against the British but all went in vain and she remained in unhappiness. Later on, she
approached the British Government to permit her to go to England, settled down in
London where she died in 1863, prematurely old, well-nigh blind, broken and subdued in
spirit.43
TABLE III: 1: APPROPRIATE VALUE OF PROPERTY IN POSSESSION OF
MAHARAJA DALIP SINGH
Items Rs.
Jewels 99,665-0-0
Gold 1,32,625-5-4
Silver 32,126-13-6
Arms 2,369-0-0
English articles 3000-0-6
Brass and Copper plates 400-0-0
Dress pieces 14,628-0-0
Saddler and Horse clothing 1700-0-0
Tools 660-0-0
Cattle carriages 14,145-0-0
Miscellaneous 1,725-0-0
Property 25,588-0-0
Total 3,28,714-2-10 Source: Secy. of GOI to BOA, 22 March 1850: Foreign Department, Secret Consultations, File No.
28, 26 April- 28 June 1850
2. THE NATIVE ARISTOCRACY
The Governor General‘s Proclamation of March 29, 1849 categorically stated ‗the chiefs
who had not engaged in hostilities against the British shall retain their property and their
41 Deputy Secy. of BOA to Secy. of GOI 28 June 1850, Lahore: Foreign Department,
Secret Consultations, File No. 25, 26 April- 28 June 1850.
42 Secy. of GOI to BOA, 22 March 1850: Foreign Department, Secret Consultations, File
No. 28, 26 April- 28 June 1850.
43 Syad Muhammad Latif, History of the Panjab: from the Remotest Antiquity to the Present
Time, p. 573. See also, K .C. Yadav, Punjab: Colonial Challenge and Popular Response
1849-1947, p. 18.
The Royalty, Native Aristocracy and The Princely States
91
rank‘. However, ‗the Jagirs all the property of Sirdars or other who had been in arms
against the British shall be confiscated to the State‘.44
The gradual elimination of the
princes and other intermediaries and the establishment of direct rule were the central
features of Lord Dalhousie‘s policy.45
The British policy towards the aristocracy had
been formulated during the period of Regency (1846-49) in the Punjab. It was financially
curtailed as the service position of each Jagir was invalidated automatically.46
With the
suppression of the Maharaja and his mother, the ruination of the entire aristocracy was
planned. The treatment of the native aristocracy had become crucial question. In no part
of India had this aristocracy held an important position territorially than in the Punjab.
The Sikh system had been in a large measure feudal; the greater part of the country was
no doubt under the direct management of the Central Government at Lahore; but a
considerable part was under local chiefs of various degrees.47
As Sikh polity was
essentially feudal in structure, the sovereign assigned to his chieftains the land revenue of
certain villages or whole tracts of territory.48
In the times of Maharaja Ranjit Singh, he
gave to his favourite soldiers a jagir or lieu upon the revenue of some district. The
Jagirdar, or holder of a jagir, was not a landholder, but he collected the land tax and
sometimes had power to squeeze the cultivator to any extent. In return, he could be called
upon to render military service to his chief.49
It is also known fact that a large section of
the Maharaja‘s army consisted of cavalry contingents, furnished by Chieftains holdings
grants on feudal tenure. Also out of this revenue the civil officers of state and the royal
44
Governor General‘s Proclamation on the Annexation of the Punjab, March 30, 1849,
Camp Firozepur: Foreign Department, Secret Consultations, File Nos. 18-29, April 28,
1849.
45 N.M. Khilnani, British Power in the Punjab (1839-1858), Asia Publishing House,
Bombay, 1972, p.187.
46 Harish C. Sharma, ―British Policy towards Aristocracy in the Punjab‖, Journal of
Regional History, Vol. VI, 1999, pp. 95-98.
47 Richard Temple, Men and Events of My Time in India, John Murray, London, 1882, p.
72.
48 N.M. Khilnani, The Punjab Under the Lawrences, The Punjab Government Record
Office, Monograph No. 2, Simla, 1951, pp. 118-119.
49 Frederick P. Gibbon, The Lawrences of the Punjab, J.M. Dent, London, 1908, p. 187.
The Royalty, Native Aristocracy and The Princely States
92
household for the most part were paid; state pensioners, the families of military chiefs,
old soldiers, and the ladies of the royal palace were supported, endowments for objects of
sanctity, charitable donations and annuities to religious characters were granted for the
same objects, pensions were conferred.50
Notable among the nobility were the members
of the late Council of Regency which governed the country for Maharaja Dalip Singh, the
infant Prince, under the advice of the British Resident, up to the time when war and
rebellion caused the annexation of the province. Some of them had joined the enemy, but
many remained loyal and now had the highest claim to consideration. Many of these
chiefs were petty, others influential, while some were actually powerful; and their estates
were held under some sort of feudal tenure. Of these tenures, some were hereditary but
many were therefore resumable at will by the ruler of the day. The holders were
ordinarily entitled to collect as their income the land revenue which was due from the
lands and which would otherwise be collected by the State.51
A rift came in the British
administration over the question of the Jagirdars. It was known that there were Sikh
Sardars who held grants of land from the government free of any obligations save for the
responsibility of rendering military service if required. The problem of fitting these
people into the new system was a difficult one, complicated by the fact that it was
possible to quibble over the legality of many of the grants.52
This service was not wanted
under British rule, and could not be maintained; then the question arose whether the
assignment of the land revenue was to be continued. Similarly, allowances in cash from
the state treasury were made to local chiefs in consideration of duty nominal or real being
performed. This duty could not be accepted under British rule.53
The other question was
as to what extent the Government ought to maintain these rent free tenures. It was further
complicated by the fact that nearly every individual case required to be treated on its own
50
The First Punjab Administration Report (1849-1851), pp. 119-120.
51 Richard Temple, Men and Events of My Time in India, p. 72.
52 Hugh Cook, The Sikhs Wars: The British Army in the Punjab 1845-1849, Thomason
Press Limited, Delhi, 1975, p. 209.
53 Richard Temple, Men and Events of My Time in India, p. 61.
The Royalty, Native Aristocracy and The Princely States
93
merit and looked at from the point of view both of justice and policy.54
The previous
method of revenue assignment with its inevitable abuses could not be tolerated by to find
a solution for the Jagirdars, The British said that ―the Jagirdars were bad a lot; for
generations they had robbed the peasants, and now was their turn to suffer. The people
will gain by the extinction of Jagirs, which were given on condition of military or
religious service. We want neither their soldiers nor their prayers‖.55
Henry Lawrence was anxious to make things as easy as possible for the Jagirdars
and to leave them with the resources which would enable them to continue as men of
authority.56
Henry Lawrence did not for a moment advocate the retention of the native
aristocracy in their present relation to the people. He wanted to allow the chiefs to retain
a certain degree of dignity and rank, and held that justice and mercy they were demanded
should spared unnecessary humiliation, and that policy likewise sanctioned generous
treatment, as the nobles would the more readily acquiesce in and adopt themselves to the
new conditions.57
Henry Lawrence thought that liberal concessions ought to be made to
these feudal classes, for the sake of the moral effect to be produced on the people by the
example of considerations on the part of the conquerors, and for reasons of policy in
allaying discontent among influential sections of the community. The greater part of the
former grants ought to be continued, although the obligation of service might be remitted.
John Lawrence would rejoin that these grants must once be curtailed, and provision
should be made for their cessation on the demise of present incumbents.58
He regarded
the Chiefs and Jagirdars as parasitic growth who lived on the blood of the honest ryot and
put a heavy strain on the State exchequer. According to him the high dignitaries and
feudal chiefs were a great hindrance in bringing the people in direct contact with the
‗benevolent British influence‘.59
Lord Dalhousie was quite determined that chiefs and fief
54
N.M. Khilnani, The Punjab Under the Lawrences, p. 119.
55 Frederick P. Gibbon, The Lawrences of the Punjab, p. 187.
56 Hugh Cook, The Sikh Wars: The British Army in the Punjab 1845-1849, p. 208.
57 Frederick P. Gibbon, The Lawrences of the Punjab, p. 189.
58 Richard Temple, Men and Events of My Time in India, p. 62.
59 N.M. Khilnani, The Punjab Under the Lawrences, p. 119.
The Royalty, Native Aristocracy and The Princely States
94
holders of Punjab should be effectively deprived of the power of doing mischief. John
Lawrence fully agreed with the Governor General and worked ruthlessly. John Lawrence,
with his eye on any chance to increase the revenue, inclined to Lord Dalhousie‘s view
that they should be stripped of all power. Thus the policy of a hard line towards the
Jagirdars was adopted.60
The grants, held by these chief Jagirdaree grantees that held one
or more entire estates, had been investigated under the Board‘s immediate supervision by
a separate officer appointed for that purpose. The inquiry was commenced by Major
Herbert Edwardes.61
A careful enquiry was instituted into all these tenures, from the
largest to the smallest. Those which had any real character of perpetuity or permanency
were respected accordingly though there was much discussion as to what constituted this
permanency. Those which had only a temporary character were continued in part or in
whole for the lives of the incumbents and sometimes for one generation afterwards.62
In the early decades of the British rule in the Punjab, there were more than 250
families which were regarded as the families of note in terms of rank, wealth or local
influence. Only 35 of these were on the East of the Sutlej. The bulk of these families
were under the Kingdom of Lahore. Between the Indus and the Sutlej there were more
than 160 families of which more than half were the Sikhs, more than a quarter were
Hindus and 20 per cent were Muslims. In the four districts of Amritsar, Lahore, Jalandhar
and Hoshiarpur, there were 79 families representing 90 per cent of the total.63
There were
60 Sikh families of note out of which 9 had fought against the British in the Anglo-Sikh
Wars 1845-46; 1848-49.64
First of all, the cases of those chiefs who had fought either
personally or through their followers and relatives against the British in the two Anglo
Sikh Wars (1845-46; 1848-49) were taken into consideration by John Lawrence. He
confiscated the estates of some twenty five chiefs, the revenue yield of which amounted
60
Hugh Cook, The Sikh Wars: The British Army in the Punjab 1845-1849, p. 208.
61 The First Punjab Administration Report, (1849-1851), p. 120.
62 Richard Temple, Men and Events of My Time in India, p. 73.
63 J.S. Grewal and H.C. Sharma, ―Political Change and Social Readjustment: The Case of
Sikhs Aristocracy under Colonial Rule in the Punjab‖, Indian History Congress, Goa,
1987, pp. 377-78. 64
H.C. Sharma, ―The Sardars of Attari under Colonial Rule‖, Indian History Congress,
Gorakhpur, 1989-90, p. 420.
The Royalty, Native Aristocracy and The Princely States
95
to Rs.11, 31,865 per annum for an annual pension of Rs.42,670 in return. The pensions to
were commerce from July 1, 1849. The Board restricted recommendation in each case to
lowest sum consistent with the terms on which chiefs surrendered to Major Makeson.
Besides, they were deprived of their ranks. Many of them were put under surveillance in
their own houses; their conduct was closely watched while others were exiled from the
Punjab and Calcutta and Allahabad. Those who were permitted to live in Punjab were put
severe restrictions.65
They were not allowed to go beyond the boundary of their villages
without the special written sanction of the Resident. They were not to keep any arms in
their possession on any pretence. They were strictly forbidden to correspond with any of
the party who were concerned in the late rebellion. The number of their retainers was
prescribed at twenty, and under no circumstances it could be more than that. They were
not to permit any person to call on them and were warned that their conduct was watched
collectively and individually and any infringement of the prescribed rules by them would
render them as enemies of the British Government and on no account pardoned. Even the
neutral Jagirdars and holders of free land tenures were not spared. The Governor General
sent specific instructions to give them new grants on the condition of production of valid
documents justifying their claim of ownership, under the Board‘s seal and the Secretary‘s
signature. The Board acted quite promptly; holdings were sealed; records were inspected;
oral evidences were taken; the limits of holdings were surveyed; and the applications of
the proceeds were tested. A large number of persons could not produce written authorities
in support of their claims. They lost their holdings. Pension cases were also investigated
in the same manner. A special officer Major Herbert Edwardes, under the Board was
appointed to investigate army, civil, political pensioners‘ records.66
Under the Board of Administration jagirs of those Jagirdars were confiscated who
participated in the rebellion of 1848-49 and those did not participate, were allowed to
remain with their jagirs. The Board of Administration took up the case of 14 Jagirdars
who were engaged in the second Anglo Sikh War (1848-49). Their Jagirs were valued at
65 Major H.P. Burn, Deputy Secy. to BOA to H.M. Elliot, Secy. to GOI with the GG:
Foreign Department, Secret Consultations, File Nos. 68-71, May 26, 1849.
66 K .C. Yadav, Punjab: Colonial Challenge and Popular Response 1849-1947, pp. 18-
19.
The Royalty, Native Aristocracy and The Princely States
96
Rs.1,25,860 and pensions purposed were equal to Rs.15,600. All the Jagirs except a
portion of (No.2) Jawarhar Singh were resumed:
TABLE III: 2: RESUMPTION OF JAGIRS
Sr.
No.
Name Dependents Total
Jagir
Proposed
Pension per
Mensum Rs.
Remarks
1 Partap Singh Minhas 4 12000 600 -----------
2 Jawahar Singh Ristani 14 12000 3950 ----------
3 Boota Singh 15 3000 240 ----------
4 Jmmyat Singh 17 2500 300 ---------
5 Dhara Singh Mukye 25 3250 300 Leading
character
6 Partap Singh Chanewala 03 300 300 -----
7 Kishan Singh/ Karam Singh 33 14250 1260 ----
8 Budh Singh --- 15725 1680 -----
9 Garelut Singh --- 14500 3000 Did not join
but had links
10 Mohun Singh Cheechee --- 725 120
11 Nihal Singh Loona --- 10,000 2400 Deserted at
Multan
12 Bussawa Singh Majithia --- 5000 240 ------
13 Himat Singh/ Sham Singh --- 28700 1240 ------
14 Sadhoo Singh Nihang --- 2000 Nil Did not
surrender with
Sher Singh Source: Secy. BOA to Secy. GOI with GG, No. 759, June 11, 1849, Lahore: Foreign Department, Secret
Proceedings, File No. 152, July 28-September 29, 1849
The Board received the cases of 93 jagirdars who participated against the British. The
Jagirs valued at Rs.1,57,356 were resumed and pension amounted Rs.20,010 was
proposed. The Governor General sanctioned the recommendations.67
The Board
forwarded the case of 38 principal jagirs held in the Punjab by Sardars not concerned
with the Uprising in the Punjab, investigated by Major Herbert Edwardes. The present
amount of these 38 jagirs was Rs.11,04,273 of which Rs.6,11,268 was personal provision
and Rs.4,93,013; for service Jagirs worth Rs.540,738-8-0 to give life pension to the
amount of Rs.52,503, hence the resumption will be Rs.5,63,534 but the actual salary was
only Rs.5,71,031 per annum. In the next generation Rs.6030 jagirs and Rs.3625 cash
would be recommended for the life of one male heir in perpetuity. The resumption of all
67
Secy., GOI with GG to Secy., BOA, No. 48, July 2, 1849, Simla: Foreign Department,
Secret Proceedings, File No. 152, July 28- September 29, 1849.
The Royalty, Native Aristocracy and The Princely States
97
military service jagirs could prove a considerable pecuniary loss to the Sirdars and still
greater loss of honour in the eyes of the countrymen. The Governor General noticed that
there was a wide distinction between refusing to grant new jagirs as rewards and
withdrawing the jagirs of which Sirdars and others were already in possession. These
were the known members in the Punjab and rendered services to the British.68
Surfraz
Khan Kurral of Kot Kumalia sided with the British. He took four forts. Mr. Herbert
Edwardes lauded his services. He had one village in jagir and 3 wells in rent free tenure
yielding him Rs.750 a year. He was ‗a man of great influence‘, having 60 footmen and 30
horses. The Board recommended a pension of Rs.500 a year for life commencing from
April 1, 1849.69
Gurdit Singh enjoyed the jagirs of Rs.17,770: personal Rs.5820 and
service Rs.11,850. These jagirs were all resumed in consequence of the Sirdar‘s
complicity in the War (1848-49), though he never actually joined the rulers. Of the
personal jagirs, Rs.700 was the pensions of two ladies, the widows of near relatives.
Sirdar was fixed at Rs.3000 per annum. Pension of Rs.500 was sanctioned to Ganesh
Devi and Rs.200 to Narayan Devi.70
Raja Lal Singh was placed under surveillance at
Agra. He drew stipend of Rs.2000 per month from the Lahore Durbar. However, the
Board reduced it to half i.e. Rs.1000 per month as he was ‗a man of yesterday whom not
merit raised in a time into power‘. The Governor General sanctioned the stipend with a
condition that his ‗stipend would be subject to his good behaviour‘. A guard for his
security was withdrawn.71
Trial of Diwan Mulraj was directed to hold under Brig.
Godley. Since Brig. Godley was indisposed, the Board of Administration sought
permission to appoint another officer. Mr. L.B. Browning was appointed Government
68
P. Melvill, Off. Secy. of BOA to Secy. of GOI, No. 352, 8 December 1849, Lahore:
Foreign Department, Political Consultations, File No. 49, 29 December 1849.
69 H.P. Burn, Deputy Secy. to BOA to H.M. Elliot, Secy. to GOI with the GG, June 6,
1849, Lahore: Foreign Department, Political Proceedings, File No. 229, June 30, 1849.
70 H.P. Burn, Deputy Secy. to BOA to H.M. Elliot, Secy. to GOI with the GG, No. 135,
April 6, 1850, Lahore: Foreign Department, Political Proceedings, File No. 1142, May
31, 1850.
71 H.P. Burn, Deputy Secy. to BOA to H.M. Elliot, Secy. to GOI with the GG. April 20,
1849, Lahore; Secy. to the GOI with the GG to the Deputy Secy., BOA, June 2, 1849,
Simla: Foreign Department, Secret Consultations, File No. 105, June 30, 1849.
The Royalty, Native Aristocracy and The Princely States
98
Prosecuter and Captain Hamilton as the advocate of the defence.72
The Governor General
objected the appointment of Captain Hamilton as it would be ‗open to misrepresentation‘.
Diwan Mulraj was left to conduct his own defence. A Court of Three was to be
constituted out of following members: John Lawrence, C.G. Mansel, Brigadier Godley,
Colonel Penny of 2nd
European, Colonel Jones of 56 Native Infantry and Major Ross of
19th
Native Infantry.73
TABLE III: 3. JAGIRS STATEMENT OF MAJOR HERBERT EDWARDES
Jagirs Rs./Anna/Paisa
Personal 6,11,268-8-0
On terms of service 4,93,013-0-0
Total 11,04,273-0-0 Source: P. Melvill, Off. Secy. of BOA to Secy. of GOI, No. 352, 8 December 1849, Lahore:
Foreign Department, Political Consultations, File No. 49, 29 December 1849
TABLE III: 4. GRANTS RESUMED AND CONTINUED BY THE BOARD OF
ADMINISTRATION
Grants Rs./Anna/Paisa.
Continued for life of present 5,40,739-8-0
To be resumed 5,63,534
Cash pension for life per annum 52,503
Amount of jagirs to be continued to male heirs in perpetuity 1,19,375-4-8
Amount of jagirs to be continued to male heirs for life 6050
Cash pensions to male heir in perpetuity 3456
Cash pensions to male heir for life 3625
Total Source: P. Melvill, Off. Secy. of BOA to Secy. of GOI, No. 352, 8 December 1849, Lahore, Foreign
Department, Political Consultations, File No. 49, 29 December 1849
In Lahore district, Raja Tej Singh, son of Jamadhar Khushal Singh, held his family jagir.
Throughout the rebellion of 1848-49, the Raja remained loyal to Government. On the
annexation the personal jagirs of Raja Tej Singh, and Sardar Bhagwan Singh, the only
surviving son of the Jamadar amounting to Rs.1,52,779 were confirmed for life, to the
Raja Tej Singh Rs.92,779 and to Bhagwan Singh Rs.60,000. After annexation, the Raja
was very useful in the disbandment of the Sikh army and in the formation of a new native
72
G.I. Christian, Secy., BOA to H.M. Elliot, Secy. to GOI with the GG., May 16, 1849,
Lahore: Foreign Department, Secret Consultations, File No. 12, June 30, 1849.
73 Minute of the Governor General, No. 50A, May 22, 1849, Simla: Foreign Department,
Political Proceedings, File No. 12, June 30, 1849.
The Royalty, Native Aristocracy and The Princely States
99
force.74
The Nakai family of Bahrwal in this district rose to some strength. His grandson
Kahan Singh was the chief of the family during 1848. In 1848, his troops and his second
son Attar Singh who were with the army at Multan, joined the rebels; but Kahan Singh,
who was then, was not suspected of being a party to his son‘s disaffection. He enjoyed a
life pension of Rs.3,840 in addition to his jagir revenue of Rs.11, 980.75
Mir Rup Lal who
was In charge of Jasrota joined Chattar Singh‘s Camp in 1848 through compulsion, but
his sympathies were certainly with the insurgents and there was every reason to believe
that he supplied them with money. His sons also left Lahore at that time and joined their
father. In 1849, for his conduct his jagirs and property in Lahore were confiscated.76
Shamsher Singh Mari accompanied Raja Sher Singh Atariwala to Multan in 1848 and
rebelled with him. Although a very young man, he possessed ability and influence and his
whole jagirs, worth Rs.27,000 were confiscated, though in 1850 a pension of Rs.720 was
allowed him for life.77
Karam Singh was descendent from old jagirdaree family. About a century ago; his
great grandfather Sirdar Kapoor Singh, possessed himself of a large tract of country,
Taloquah Sourian which continued in the possession of the family for two or three
generations. Maharaja Ranjit Singh confiscated the whole with the exception of villages
to the amount of Rs.5000; he assigned in equal proportion on the grandsons of Kapoor
Singh namely Bhag Singh, Daya Singh and Dayal Singh on the terms of keeping up 15
sowars. On the death of his father Dayal Singh, Karam Singh succeeded to his share of
the jagir. In 1848, whole of this jagir was confiscated for their complicity with the rebels
74
Lepel H. Griffin and Charles Francis Massy, Chiefs and Families of Note in the Punjab,
Low Price Publication, New Delhi, 2010, (Vol. I-1909; Vol. II-1910), p. 249.
75 Lepel H. Griffin and Charles Francis Massy, Chiefs and Families of Note in the Punjab,
p. 289.
76 Lepel H. Griffin and Charles Francis Massy, Chiefs and Families of Note in the Punjab,
p. 357.
77 Lepel H. Griffin and Charles Francis Massy, Chiefs and Families of Note in the Punjab,
pp. 393-394.
The Royalty, Native Aristocracy and The Princely States
100
at Multan at the instance of the Resident. But they had restored their duties and jagirs
were placed in perpetuity equal to Rs.885 per annum.78
Amritsar
The two principal families in the Punjab proper, highest in rank and possessing the widest
influence were the Ahluwalia and the Sandhanwalia. The possessions of the Ahluwalia
chief were almost entirely situated in the Jullundhar Doab; whilst of all the Sikh families,
between the Beas and the Indus, the Sandhanwalia chief was the acknowledged head. The
Sandhanwalias were of the Jat tribe and claimed to Rajput origin. They stated that their
ancestor, a Bhatti Rajput, by name Shal, came from Ujjain to the Punjab, where he
founded Sialkot. Amir Singh of this family accompanied the Maharaja Ranjit Singh in the
Kasur campaign of 1807 and in the expedition against the Mohammedan tribes between
the Chenab and the Indus in 1810. In 1809, when on the death of Raja Jai Singh of
Jammu, Maharaja Ranjit Singh seized that country; he made over to Amir Singh the
ilakas of Harina, Naunar and Rata Abdal. Two years later, Amir Singh was introduced
into the Maharaja‘s service.79
When Raja Hira Singh became Wazir under Dalip Singh,
he confiscated all the Jagirs of the Sandhanwalia family except those of Sardar Shamsher
Singh, who was at Peshawar and had not joined in the conspiracy. He destroyed Raja
Sansi, family seat, ploughed up the ground on which their place had stood, and haunted
down all their friends and adherents. Seven months later, Hira Singh himself was
assassinated and Sardar Jawahir Singh, the drunken brother of Rani Jind Kaur who
succeeded him as Wazir, recalled the Sandhanwalia from exile and promised to restore all
the jagirs. In March 1845, they received out of the old estate jagirs to the value of
Rs.1,76,000. Sardar Shamsher Singh was recalled from Peshawar and placed in command
of a brigade of regular troops, which he commanded throughout the Sutlej campaign of
1845-46. He was appointed a member of the Council of Regency in December 1846. In
February 1848, the Resident at Lahore deputed Shamsher Singh to the districts about
Amritsar known as the Majha, placing under him the civil and military establishments.
Shamsher Singh was on the outbreak of the rebellion sent down to Multan in command of
one division of the Sikh army. He warned Major Herbert Edwardes of the disaffected
78
Foreign Department, Secret Consultations, File Nos. 122-123, 26 April 1850.
79 Lepel H. Griffin and Charles Francis Massy, Chiefs and Families of Note in the Punjab,
p. 405.
The Royalty, Native Aristocracy and The Princely States
101
state of the troops and did his best to keep them faithful. Their mutiny at length took him
by surprise; and he was carried off by Raja Sher Singh Atariwala into Multan, where
before the whole Darbar he refused to join the rebel cause, and declared that he only
owed obedience to the Maharaja. On 15 September 1848, he succeeded in making his
escape on foot from Sher Singh‘s camp, leaving behind him all his tents and elephants.
On the road, he was intercepted by two of the rebels, but he shot one, and the other took
to flight. After annexations, the personal jagirs of Sardar Shamsher Singh, amounting to
Rs.40, 250 per annum, were upheld for life; one quarter descending to his male issue on
perpetuity. His service jagir of Rs.30, 250 was resumed.80
The family of Atari, like that of Sandhanwalia was of Rajput origin and
immigrated to the Punjab from the neighbourhood of Jaisalmer. About 1735, two brothers
Gaur Singh and Kaur Singh came to the Punjab became Singhs and entered the service of
Gurbakhsh Singh Roranwala, chief of the Bhangi misal. In 1737, Gaur Singh of this
family took possession of the villages around Atari to the value of Rs.7000 per annum
and two years later afterwards received from Sardar Gujar Singh a jagir worth Rs.18,600.
On the close of Sutlej Campaign, Raja Lal Singh confiscated Rs.1,59,300 of Sham Singh
Atariwala. Rs.12,000 was lost by the abolition of the custom duty and the balance was
continued to his Sardar Kahan Singh subject to the service of ninety- seven horsemen, 25
foot and 10 zamburas. At Multan in 1848, the contingent of Kahan Singh was in the force
of Raja Sher Singh. After his rebellion twenty five sowars remained with the Raja, the
rest came away with Shamsher Singh Sandhanwalia. For this loyalty, the personal jagir of
Kahan Singh was maintained at annexation; Rs.7500 to descend in perpetuity.81
Chatar
Singh of this family took no great share in politics during the reign of Ranjit Singh; but
the family possessed great influence at Court, and in 1843 his daughter Tej Kaur was
betrothed to Maharaja Dalip Singh. Sardar Sher Singh, eldest son of Chatar Singh, in
1844 had been appointed the Governor of Peshawar. He successfully put down an
insurrection in Yusafzai in 1846; but his administration, though vigorous, was unusually
corrupt. Raja Lal Singh, minister at Lahore was his bitter enemy and in August 1846
80
Lepel H. Griffin and Charles Francis Massy, Chiefs and Families of Note in the Punjab,
p. 413-414.
81 Lepel H. Griffin and Charles Francis Massy, Chiefs and Families of Note in the Punjab,
p. 499. See also, H.C. Sharma, ―The Sardars of Attari under Colonial Rule‖, Indian
History Congress, Gorakhpur, 1989-90, p. 421.
The Royalty, Native Aristocracy and The Princely States
102
Chatar Singh was appointed to succeed his son at Peshawar, while Sher Singh returned to
Lahore. Later on Chatar Singh was made Governor of the country between Jhelum and
the Indus, where he possessed great authority; and Sher Singh received a seat in the
Council. On 18 April the outbreak occurred at Multan. Two British officers were
treacherously attacked and slain. The news of this outbreak reached Lahore on 21 April.
On the same time, the Resident was compelled to send against Multan a Sikh force under
the command of Raja Sher Singh, Sardar Shamsher Singh and Atar Singh Kalianwala.
Sher Singh and his colleagues had no thought of treason; but their troops sympathized
with the rebels, and would have been only too glad to have joined them. Sardar Chattar
Singh at this time was Governor of Hazara. His troops were notorious; but he gave no
notice to the British authorities to the disaffection. Affairs were brought to a crisis by the
murder of Colonel Canora, and an American Commandant of Artillery in the Sikh
service. As a result, Sardar Chatar Singh and Sher Singh joined the rebels.82
Their
prosperity north Rs.1,22,000 was confiscated. They were allowed a stipend of Rs.200 a
month for their maintenance and of which they actually received Rs.30 in cash and the
rest was spent by keepers on their sustenance.83
Sir Henry Lawrence, C.G. Mansel and
Major Edwardes visited Attari and found Chuttar Singh, Sher Singh and other members
of the family endeavouring to accommodate to their circumstances. Following orders
were passed on April 7, 1849:
i The Attaridars must not go beyond its (Attari) boundary with the special
written sanction of the Resident and restrict themselves when going out
to 1.5 Kos with its boundary;
ii They could not keep any arms whatever in their possession on any
pretence;
iii They were strictly forbidden to correspond with any of the parties who
were concerned in the rebellion of 1848-49 on any consideration.
iv Maharaja Gulab Singh could visit these persons;
v It guilty of unpinning of any of the above orders, they would be punished
as enemies of the British Government and on no account pardoned.84
82
Lepel H. Griffin and Charles Francis Massy, Chiefs and Families of Note in the Punjab,
pp. 505-506.
83 H.C. Sharma, ―The Sardars of Attari under Colonial Rule‖, Indian History Congress,
Gorakhpur, 1989-90, p. 421.
84 H.P. Burn, Deputy Secy. to BOA to H.M. Elliot, Secy. to GOI with the GG, May 1, 1849,
Lahore: Foreign Department, Political Proceedings, File Nos. 68-71, May 26, 1849.
The Royalty, Native Aristocracy and The Princely States
103
Sardar Chattar Singh, Raja Sher Singh and Sardar Atar Singh were placed under
surveillance at Atari for their conduct; but being discovered carrying on a treasonable
correspondence, they were in January 1850 sent as prisoners first to Allahabad and then
to Calcutta. Their estates were confiscated. An allowance was granted them of Rs.7200
being Rs.2400 each to Chattar Singh, Sher Singh and Attar Singh.85
In 1854, on the basis
of assurances given by Chattar Singh, Sher Singh and Attar Singh, they were released and
given allowance of Rs.8000 and Rs.6000 respectively.86
Surat Singh Majithia of Amritsar joined the rebels and plundered two lakhs of
Government money on his way to Multan. As a result, his jagirs worth Rs.22,500 were
confiscated and he was removed to Benares, where he remained under surveillance on a
pension of Rs.720 per annum. In the process of his removal, he applied for leave of two
months. The Board declined to grant him leave and ordered and instructed Major
MacGregor to send him off without further delay. The Board authorised Rs.600 to meet
his travelling expenses. However, the stipend was increased from Rs.1200 as suggested
by the Board.87
The conduct of Kahan Singh of this family was regarded with some pity.
He had tried to remain faithful, but had not at last strength to resist the persuasions and
example of others; but his criminality did not approach that of Surat Singh. His jagirs
were confiscated to the value of Rs.40,000 but he was allowed a pension of Rs.3,600 per
annum, which he enjoyed till his death in 1853.88
Sardar Ranjodh Singh Majithia crossed
the Sutlej on 17 January 1846, intending to move on Ludhiana and capture the siege train
which was on its way to the head-quarters of the army. He fought very bravely in this
campaign. After the close of the campaign dispute arose between him and his brother
85
Lepel H. Griffin and Charles Francis Massy, Chiefs and Families of Note in the Punjab,
pp. 513-514.
86 Foreign Department, Secret Consultations, January 31, 1854.
87 H.P. Burn, Secy., BOA to R. Montgomery, Comm. & Supt., Lahore Division, No. 23,
June 22, 1850, Lahore: Foreign Department, Secret Consultations, July 26- September
27, 1850.
88 Lepel H. Griffin and Charles Francis Massy, Chiefs and Families of Note in the Punjab,
pp. 427-428. See also, Report of John Nicholson, D.C. Jhelum: H.P. Burn, Deputy Secy.
to BOA to H.M. Elliot, No.116, May 8, 1849, Lahore: Foreign Department, Secret
Consultations, File Nos. 76-78, May 26, 1849.
The Royalty, Native Aristocracy and The Princely States
104
Lehna Singh which was settled with the help of Henry Lawrence by giving a jagir of
Rs.2000 per annum to Ranjodh Singh. In 1848, after the outbreak at Multan, he was
detected in treasonable correspondence with Mul Raj and was placed in confinement,
only being released at the close of the War. After the War, the Darbar confiscated his
jagir, but after the annexation he was allowed by his brother an annuity of Rs.2, 500. On
the death of Lehna Singh, the allowance ceased; and the Government granted him a cash
pension of Rs.3,000 per annum which he held till his death in 1872.89
Sardar Ram Singh
Chapawala was the chief instigator of the rebellion of the Sikh force at Dalipgarh in
1848. He was one of the bravest officers in the Sikh army. He fought with great gallantry
at Ramnagar and Chilianwala and one of the few men of note killed in the battle of
Gujrat. The whole jagirs of his family were confiscated for rebellion.90
Budh Singh of the
Bhilowal branch made himself master of many villages in the Amritsar district. Under
Dasaunda Singh of this family, Maharaja Ranjit Singh seized the possession, allowing
him Rs.3000 per annum, with which he was to supply five sowars to the Saurian Dera,
which was first under Prince Sher Singh and latterly under Jamadar Khushal Singh. After
his death his son Kishan Singh took his place in this regiment; but the contingent was
raised to nine sowars, which he had to furnish till the annexation of the Punjab, when his
jagir was confiscated as he had joined Raja Sher Singh.91
The Governor General
conferred the title of Raies on Punches of Amritsar: (i) Kishan Dass, (ii) Narain Dass;
(iii) Tek Chand; (iv) Sheo Nath; and (v) Shiv Dyal.92
Arjun Singh of Rangar Nangal of Gurdaspur also joined the rebels. He was
powerful Sardar under Maharaja Ranjit Singh. In 1846, he served in Kashmir expedition
and in August 1847 received a Persian title of honour on the recommendation of Major
89
Lepel H. Griffin and Charles Francis Massy, Chiefs and Families of Note in the Punjab,
pp. 422-423.
90 Lepel H. Griffin and Charles Francis Massy, Chiefs and Families of Note in the Punjab,
p. 525.
91 Lepel H. Griffin and Charles Francis Massy, Chiefs and Families of Note in the Punjab,
pp. 533-534.
92 H.M. Elliot, Secy. to GOI with GG. To Secy. BOA, No. 7, January 1, 1850, Camp
Multan: Foreign Department, Political Proceedings, File No. 1130, January 4-11, 1850.
The Royalty, Native Aristocracy and The Princely States
105
Lawrence, the Resident at Lahore. In 1848, he accompanied Raja Sher Singh Atariwala to
Multan and joined in his rebellion. His supporters, hearing of the Sardar‘s disaffection,
proceeded to follow his example, and defended the Fort of Rangar Nangal successfully
against two companies of the Durbar troops which had been sent to attack the property;
but Brigadier Wheeler marched against it on the 15 October 1848 and speedily reduced it.
On the termination of the War, the whole estate of Arjun Singh was confiscated. He
received a pension of Rs.1500, but it was personal and ceased at his death in 1859.93
Kharak Singh Chashmawala who had served under the Sher Singh Atariwala joined the
rebels when the insurrection of 1848 began. He marched to join the Sikh army under Sher
Singh and fought throughout the campaign. In consequence of his rebellion, the jagirs of
the family in the Gurdaspur to the value of Rs.15, 200 were confiscated.94
Raja Gulab
Singh Bhagowalia was Colonel of Artillery in the Sikh Service. He was acting as
Audaltee of Pakpattan. He was ‗inefficient‘ during the war 1848-49. Colonel Gulab Singh
Bhagowalia was in possession of a jagir of Rs. 5000 per annum and received an annual
service allowance of Rs.1000 in cash. The Governor General sanctioned the resumption
of the cash payment and half of his jagir i.e Rs.2500 per annum.95
The Nalwa family possessed great influence in the Court of Ranjit Singh. Hari
Singh Nalwa possessed large estates than any other man in the Punjab. He was lord of
Gujranwala, Kachi, Nurpur, Mitha Tiwana, Shekhowal, Kalargarh, Hazara, Khanpur,
Dhana, Khatak and other places, worth Rs.8, 52,000 per annum. After his death, his
estates were divided into his four sons, Punjab Singh, Arjun Singh, Jawahir Singh and
Gudit Singh. In October 1848, Sardar Arjun Singh joined the rebels. He shut himself up
in the fortified house at Gujranwala with about one hundred men and openly defied the
Government. But when a body of troops was sent by Brigadier Campbell against him, he
93
Lepel H. Griffin and Charles Francis Massy, Chiefs and Families of Note in the Punjab,
p. 7.
94 Lepel H. Griffin and Charles Francis Massy, Chiefs and Families of Note in the Punjab,
p. 37.
95 R. Montgomery, Comm. & Supt., Lahore Division to P. Melvill, Secy. BOA, No. 141,
January 26, 1850, Camp Ramnagar: Foreign Department, Political Proceedings, File No.
21, March 22, 1850, Part-I.
The Royalty, Native Aristocracy and The Princely States
106
fled. The defences of the house were destroyed and the property found in it was
confiscated. Sardar Jawahir Singh also fought against the British with great gallantry at
Chillianwala and Gujrat; and he was the man who led the charge of irregular cavalry at
Chillianwala. Sardar Punjab Singh was the only brother who remained loyal and his jagir
was exempted from confiscation.96
Jodh Singh of Mughal Chak in Gurjranwala, who was
a Colonel with jagirs worth Rs.7550 joined the rebels in 1848-49 with his nephew Jamiat
Singh, but returned to Lahore before the end of the campaign. The jagirs of this family
were resumed. Jodh Singh was allowed a pension of Rs.720, which he held until his death
in 1874.97
The Commissioner and Superintendent, Sutlej States forwarded the case to the
Board regarding the grant of a pension to the heir of late Jagirdar Baba Khushal Singh
Bedi, who got jagir from Lehna Singh Majithia for religious functions. It was a religious
jagir where religious functions and privileges descend by inheritance. Such grants were
necessarily held in great reverence by people. No one who was acquainted with the
proceedings of late Sikh Govt. could doubt that whatever uncertainty might attend grants
of other descriptions, one of the natures of their grant had continued to be respected. Mr.
Robert Cust‘s (D.C Hoshiarpur where this jagir situated) Proceedings against this class
derived from such assumption that a son of Archbishop of Canterbury did not succeed to
a share of his father‘s emoluments. The British rule was yet new to the people, they were
particularly observant of and sensitive to all points in which our principals of
administration in any degree were opposed to their prejudices or cherished experience of
the post especially Fakirs, village priests, astrologers and teachers who lost plots in ten‘s
and twenties on all sides.98
The Governor General pleased to grant Rs.1200 per annum
for the support of the six sons of Khushal Sing Bedi to be divided in such proportions as
96
Lepel H. Griffin and Charles Francis Massy, Chiefs and Families of Note in the Punjab,
p. 80.
97 Lepel H. Griffin and Charles Francis Massy, Chiefs and Families of Note in the Punjab,
p. 106.
98 D.J. Macleod, Comm. & Supt., Cis- Sutlej States to P. Melvill, Secy. BOA, No. 136,
March 22, 1850: Foreign Department, Political Proceedings, File No. 1142, 31 May
1850.
The Royalty, Native Aristocracy and The Princely States
107
they may arrange among themselves, the pension of each share to be lapsed on his
death.99
The Board referred to the Governor General the claims of Mahmud Nasar Khan to
pension or other reward for his services during the late war. Nasar Khan was employed
under Diwan Sawan Mull and also by Diwan Mulraj as Joint Commander of the District
of Dera Ghazi Khan. He was dismissed by Diwan Mulraj and was out of employ at
breaking out of the insurrection in 1848-49. Major Herbert Edwardes and Van
Cortlandt‘s marched towards Multan down the Derajat. Nasar Khan joined them and on
their crossing the Indus they left him In charge of the Dera Ismail Khan district where by
Major Edwardes and Cortlandt‘s testimony he performed excellent service preventing at
one time a large part of the mutinous Futtah Khan joining the rebel garrison. The Board
of Administration recommended reward Mahmud Nasar Khan for a pension of Rs.100
per month to commence from 1 January 1850.100
Governor General sanctioned the grant
of pension to Mahmud Nasar Khan of Rs.1200 per annum commencing from 1 January
1850.101
The Corps of General Bishan Singh mutinied at Bannu. He was involved in the
murder of Colonel John Homes and Fullah Khan Lowava . General surrendered with 90
soldiers. He had pay of Rs. 500 per mensum. He wanted entry in the service. He was
denied and pensioned off with Rs.50 per mensum.102
The Board reported the case of
Colonel Umeer Singh Munhas of Thurpal in the Wazeerabaad district. He was a Colonel
in the Khohistanee Regiment. He joined Raja Sher Singh and fought against Brigadier
Wheeler in the Jullundur Doab. He was a hill man of the Dogra clan and had a jagir of his
village worth Rs.720 per annum and Rs. 8 a day from the Lahore Durbar. He was ‗a man
99
Secy., GOI with GG. to Secy., BOA, No. 139, May 16, 1850, Simla: Foreign
Department, Political Consultations, File No. 139, 31 May 1850.
100 Deputy Secy. of BOA to Secy. of GOI, No. 127, 1 April 1850; Van Cortlandt, D.C. of
Dera Ghazi Khan to Deputy Secy. of BOA, No. 84, 20 December 1849, Dera Ghazi
Khan; Secy. of GOI to BOA, No. 115, 11 May 1850, Simla: Foreign Department,
Political Proceedings, File No. 50, 31 May 1850.
101 H.P. Burn, Secy. BOA to H.M Elliot, Secy, GOI with GG, No. 127, April 1, 1850,
Lahore: Foreign Department, Political Consultations, File No. 51, 31 May 1850.
102 H.P. Burn, Deputy Secy. to BOA to H.M. Elliot, Secy. to GOI with the GG, June 4, 1849,
Lahore: Foreign Department, Political Proceedings, File No. 229, June 30 1849.
The Royalty, Native Aristocracy and The Princely States
108
of character and ability‘. The Board of Administration recommended a pension of Rs.240
per annum w.e.f. the date of annexation of the Punjab.103
John Nicholson, Deputy Commissioner Jhelum, toured the district from April 15-
21 1849. The Chaudharis of Dhunee enjoyed jagirs. They took part in the Rebellion.104
The Board recommended the Chaudaries of Dhunee in the District of Jhelum for
pensions. The Chaudaries held Jagirs worth Rs.14,383 a year under the Durbar, which
were confiscated for their participation in the late rebellion. They had preferred claims to
be regarded as the sudden Malyazara of the villages of Dhune, but these claims had been
rejected and the Deputy Commissioner had in consideration of their reduced and their
former influential position proposed pensions for them according to the shares they
formerly held. The Board thought it would be judicious. Pensions for life sanctioned.
TABLE III: 5: LIFE PENSIONS IN THE DISTRICT OF JHELUM
Name Rs.
Sultan Sur Khan 187
Fateh Khan 114
Chowdree Ghulam Shah 60
Abdulah Khan and Ayat Khan 52
Chowdree Noor Khan, Rawalpindi 122
Miher Khan and Jehan Khan 80
Bahudur Khan and Nuwali Khan 80
Ghulam Hussain and Nadir Ali 24
Ufzul Khan 24
Khan Bahudur 24
Baksh Lal 24
Kurundad and Fateh Khan 50
Total 811 Source: Foreign Department, Political Consultations, File No. 40, 19 March 1852
The Governor General sanctioned life pensions amounting in the aggregate to Rs.811 a
year to the Chowdaries of Dhunee in the district of Jhelum.105
In October 1848, Major
103
Secy. of the GOI wit GG to secy., BOA, No. 126, May 13, 1850, Simla: Foreign
Department, Political Consultations, May 31, 1850.
104 H.P. Burn, Deputy Secy. to BOA to H.M. Elliot, No. 116, May 8, 1849, Lahore: Foreign
Department, Secret Consultations, File Nos.76-78, May 26, 1849.
105 Secy. of BOA to Secy. of GOI, No. 211, 1 March 1852, Lahore; Off. Secy. of GOI to
BOA, No. 6940, 19 March 1852: Foreign Department, Political Consultations, File Nos.
40-42, 19 March 1852.
The Royalty, Native Aristocracy and The Princely States
109
Herbert Edwardes, Assistant Resident learnt that the Pujhaee Syuds had been active in the
pursuit of Bhai Maharaj Singh. They were promised six annas a day for horsemen and two
annas for footmen. The Syuds raised 670 men and efficiently opposed Narian Singh and
could not join Raja Chatter Singh in 1849. They demanded remission of the half of
revenue in the Jhang district which the Resident Fredrick Currie promised them. The
Board recommended full remission of Rs.2968; for the levies raised Rs.8000 to be paid;
Rs.6000 for the families of 52 Zamindars killed in action after investigation; for the
Khillats Rs.1285 for Kher Singh, Mher Singh, Futteh Singh and Ahmed Shah. In all 50,
about Rs.11893 were sanctioned to the Syuds of the Punjhaees.106
The Board submitted
the list of 72 ‗influential persons in Hazara district who assisted during the Rebellion of
Multan‘ for Khillats for ‗rendering good services and intelligence‘. The Governor General
in his Minute dated July 12, 1850 noticed that the Board ‗entirely deported from both the
principles to the grant of jagirs they had adhered to and which they required their
adherence for the rest of the Punjab‘. The Board recommended ‗continuance of Jagirdaree
instead of commutation‘. He sought an explanation. He sanctioned the proposal of
Khillats to the extent of Rs.20,000.107
The Commissioner of Cis-Sutlej States forwarded a statement of five Sodhi Jagirs
in the Umballa & Thanesur districts. The statement contained the Board‘s
recommendations on each case. The total value of the five Jagirs was Rs.1200 per annum
in one case that of a religious grant of the value of Rs.500 which had been held nearly 90
Years, the recommendations was for continuance in perpetuity on payment of ¼ of
revenue. In two other similar cases (involving Rs.300/ annum) continuance in perpetuity
was also recommended- One grant of Rs.250 was resumed and a pension proposed of
Rs.50/ annum—the remaining case was one in which the Sirdar of Shoradpore a minor,
whose state in under the Court of Wards had the interest –the value of the grant was
Rs.150- the orders regarding it was, that it be released during the minority after which it
106
H. P. Burn, Off., Secy. to BOA, to H.M. Elliot, Secy. to GOI with GG, No. 107, March
7, 1850, Lahore: Foreign Department, Secret Proceedings, April 26-June 28, 1850.
107 H.M. Elliot, Secy. to GOI with GG. to H.P. Burn, Secy. BOA, No. 67, July 1850, Simla:
Foreign Department, Political Consultations, August 2, 1850.
The Royalty, Native Aristocracy and The Princely States
110
will rest with the Sirdar to resume or not.108
The Khan of Mamdot sided with the British
in 1848-49. He was invested with the title of Nawab. He got Rs.2000 per annum as
compensation due to abolition of transit duties w.e.f January 1, 1847.109
The Board appreciated the services rendered by Dheenoo Kotwal or hereditary
agricultural Chief of Shahpur in the Kangra district during the disturbances in the
Jullundhur Doab. The Governor General sanctioned the reward of Rs.1000 as well as
annual grant of Rs.100 for life but not in land.110
The Board considered the claims of the
Kokar family consisting of Nihal Singh, Uttar Singh, Kishan Singh, Deep Singh in the
Ludhiana district. Kishen Singh joined the Sikhs in the war of 1845-46. Lt. Lake, Deputy
Commissioner made over share to Uttar Singh who ‗deserved well for having sided with
the British‘. He was in possession of the whole jagir amounting Rs.8000. The Board
recommended that Uttar Singh be confirmed in his Jagir of Rs.4000 and Kishan Singh‘s
share of Rs.4000 be resumed and a subsistence allowance of Rs.360 per annum be granted
to him.111
The Commissioner of the Cis-Sutlej States applied for the refund of Rs.1184 to
the Jagirdars of Rungeelpore, Perganah Ropar in the Umballa District under the following
circumstances. On the confiscation of the Estate of Sardar Bhup Singh of Ropar in 1846,
these Jagirdars were ordered to furnish two Sowars to perform service under the district
officer of Ludhiana which they did till May 1847. When their service was commuted for a
payment of Rs.166 each Sowar per month or Rs.384 per year for both no regard was taken
of the circumstances of the Jagirdars and the produce of the village of Rangeelpore. At the
same time and the sum fixed had been collected from 1847/48 to 1850/51 making a total
of Rs.1536 for the Years. The Jagirdars petitioned stating that the communication
exceeded the produce of the villages and on enquiring this was found to be actually the
108
Secy. of BOA to Secy. of GOI, No. 222, 1 March 1852, Lahore: Foreign Department,
Political Consultations, File No. 65, 19 March 1852.
109 Secy. to GOI with GG to BOA, May 25, 1849, Simla: Foreign Department, Secret
proceedings, File No. 105, June 30, 1849.
110 H.M. Elliot, Secy. to GOI with GG. to Secy. BOA, No. 2797, December 31, 1849, Camp
Multan: Foreign Department, Political Proceedings, File No. 1130, January 4-11, 1850.
111 P. Melvill, Secy. BOA to H.M. Elliot, Secy. GOI with GG. July 21, 1850, Simla: Foreign
Department, Political Consultations, File Nos. 7-8, August 30, 1850.
The Royalty, Native Aristocracy and The Princely States
111
case, the village yielding but Rs.350 per month. The Commissioner proposed to reduce
the commutation to ¼ of the revenue of the village or Rs.88 a year and refund to the
Jagirdars Rs.1184 the sum taken in excess of this rate. The Board thought that this was a
fair course, and recommended that the refund be sanctioned. On this case, the Governor
General observed that neither the village nor the Jagirdars were entered on Colonel
Mackneson‘s list. He did not clearly understand who gave away the Jagirs on when it was
given away. The Ropar Sardar was called their feudal superior. The Governor General
would wish to know whether the Jagirs were given by him as payment for sowars and if
so, whether this village did always furnish two sowars to the Sardar of Ropar. He
observed that the recommendation in the present instance to assess the Jagirdars at ¼ of
their revenue and to give them a refund of sum drawn in excess was virtually to recognise
them as amongst the protected Sikh Jagiradrs and this without due examination in their
letter. The Governor General would be unwilling to make a general note suited to the Cis-
Sutlej Jagirdars applicable to cases which differed materially in their origin from the
Jagirdars. For the foregoing reason, Governor General thought that sufficient grounds had
as yet been given for the release of the village and for the consequent refund and he could
not be induced to sanction the present application without some further explanation on the
this point.112
In the Hoshiarpur district, Diwan Singh Sodhi was the head of Anandpur
family in 1846 when the Jullundhar Doab was annexed. The conduct of the Sodhis
generally was unsatisfactory at that period and they suffered in the confiscation of their
estates. Diwan Singh was awarded a cash allowance of Rs.8,400 per annum.113
Nawab of Multan, Hazee Huzufur Khan and five of his sons were killed during the
capture of the Fort of Multan. Sarfraz Khan held out and surrendered to Diwan Ram
Dayal on the gurantee of honourable treatment for himself and family and pension of
Rs.50,000 a years. The grants were made originally on June 15, 1818 after the seize of 84
days of the Fort of Multan. Sarfraz Khan commanded the garrison of Puthans to
112
Secy. of BOA to Off. Secy. of GOI No. 279, 20 March 1852, Lahore; Off. Secy. of GOI
to BOA No. 1426, 7 May 1852: Foreign Department, Political Consultations, File Nos.
37-39, 7 May 1852.
113 Lepel H. Griffin and Charles Francis Massy, Chiefs and Families of Note in the Punjab,
pp. 125-126.
The Royalty, Native Aristocracy and The Princely States
112
surrender. He was conducted in great honour to Lahore and most kindly received by
Maharaja Ranjit Singh. The promise of Rs.50,000 was never strictly followed. The
Nawab petitioned the Board on behalf of 50 members of the family. The Board
recommended that the Nawab must continue to be pay master and controller of his own
household. The Board recommended that the pensions amounting Rs. 37,998 per annum
which the family to Nawab was receiving be continue for the lives of the respective
pensioners.114
The Governor General sanctioned to grants on ‗the district understanding
that every pension was for life only‘. 115
Asud Khan was the Wali or Chief of Saugar
Territory of the Derajat. The Saugar tract was worth Rs.80,000 per annum. Maharaja
Ranjit Singh conquered the Derajat in 1820-21. Asud Khan eventually seized by General
Ventura and sent to Lahore. A jagir of Rs.15000 a year was offered on condition that he
must have good behaviour. Later he was confined in Multan by Diwan Sawan Mal.
Diwan Mulraj released him. He shifted to Bahawalpur. Since 1833, he was in receipt of
Rs.3000 a year. The Board recommended that Rs.3000 be continued for life and Rs.1000
a year be allowed on his death to his sons and there heir males.116
The Governor General
sanctioned the grant of an allowance of Rs.600 per annum Chief of Sooleb Khail division
of the Spirkee tribe of the Wuzeerees for ‗rendering benefices services to the British from
the annexation of the Punjab retrospectively.‘117
The Board also recommended certain
jagirs to Pathans for their service. To Faujdar Khan besides his Rs.4000 jagir Rs.400 per
month, cash pay for general service in the frontier and the house and stable of Daya Ram
rebel in Multan confiscated by the Government, to Futtah Sher Khan (besides the cash
pension of Rs.2000) a salary of Rs.2000 for service, to Kalloo Khan, Goondapur (besides
114
Major H.P. Burn, Deputy Secy. to BOA to H.M. Elliot, Secy. to the GOI with GG, No.
69, July 11 1849, Lahore : Foreign Department, Secret Proceedings, File No. 624, July
28- September 28, 1849.
115 H.M. Elliot, Secy. of GOI with GG to Secy. to BOA, No. 1374, August 3, 1849, Simla:
Foreign Department, Secret Proceedings, File No. 624, July 28-September 28, 1849.
116 H.P. Burn, Secy. to BOA to H.M. Elliot, Secy. to the GOI with GG, No. 63, February
1850, Lahore: Foreign Department, Secret Proceedings, File No. 99, March 22, 1850,
Part I.
117 Secy., GOI, with GG to Secy. to BOA, No. 65, September 2, 1850: Foreign Department,
Political Consultations, File No. 111, September 6, 1850.
The Royalty, Native Aristocracy and The Princely States
113
his pension of Rs.1000) a salary of Rs.2000 per service, to Ghuman Khan Khakwani
(besides his pension of Rs.200 a month) a free grant of the garden at Shoojabad with
average income Rs.459-13-4 per annum, to Sadiq Mahmood Khan Badozoi, (besides
pension of Rs.2000) a free grant of garden at Multan with Rs.164-14-3 value per annum
and a confiscated house in Multan belonging to the crown equivalent to the estate
destroyed by Mul Raj in revenge of his services to General Whish, to Kowrah Khan
(besides his old jagir of Rs.1000 a year and his new pension of Rs.100 per month) the
crown garden at Dera Ghazi Khan, to Ghulam Moostafa Khan (besides his pension of
Rs.2000) a crown garden at Multan value at Rs.150-13-6.118
The Governor General
considered the recommendation of the Board for the Jagir in the Dera Ghazi Khan
district. He recommended to continuation of jagirs of present incumbents with value of
Rs.2549 and resumption of grants carrying value of Rs.3294.119
Other Jagirs and Pensions
The Board of Administration communicated to the Governor General regarding the
pensions paid by the late Lahore Government and proposed to be continued by the Board
of Administration. Military and civil pensions of all kinds were little short of Rs.7 lakh
exclusive of those paid to Maharanis and their followers. Dr. John Login In charge of
Public Establishment of the late Durbar recommended pensions of the old servants of the
Durbar whose services were no longer required. They were attached to the Toshakhana,
the Magazine or employed as camel drivers, Durwans or Hurkaras. Their number was
131 and the total amount of pension recommended was Rs.6659.120
The Governor General
sanctioned the pensions worth Rs.6659.121
The Board recommended that the case of 108
for family members of Irregular Force of Lahore Durbar. The pensions amounted at
118
Deputy Secy. of BOA to Secy. of GOI, No. 394, 21 December 1849, Lahore: Foreign
Department, Political Consultations, File No. 1130, 4-11 January 1850.
119 H.M. Elliot, Secy. of GOI with GG to Secy. to BOA, No. 1374, August 15, 1850:
Foreign Department, Secret Proceedings, File Nos. 59-61, August 23, 1850.
120 Deputy Secy. of BOA to Secy. of GOI, No. 3, 3 January 1849, Lahore: Foreign
Department, Political Consultations, File No. 26, 1 February 1850.
121 Secy. of GOI to Secy. of BOA, No. 95, 21 January 1850, Indus: Foreign Department,
Political Consultations, File No. 28, 1 February 1850.
The Royalty, Native Aristocracy and The Princely States
114
Rs.6722-13-14 per annum; the case of 29 was recommended for donations in lieu of their
pensions.122
The Board forwarded a statement regarding certain pensioners of the late
Durbar from July to the end of December 1850 and during the month of January 1851
amounting to Rs.8204-2-11. These pensioners were men of the old Irregular Force of the
late Durbar most of whom were pensioners in 1846, on the reduction of the Sikh army,
they have all been paid to the 31 December 1849 from which date their pensions will be
paid. The Governor General sanctioned this.123
The Governor General considered that no
claim of pension had been made in favour of Gomanee Lal of the Lahore Durbar. The
Board reconsidered the case. Gomanee Lal was employed by the Lahore Durbar in
onerous and responsible situations. He discharged his duties to the satisfaction. Before
the campaign of 1846, he was an Agent on the Frontier and was in frequent
communication with the British. In 1848-49, he recommended in the Central Bari Doab,
the focus of Sikh rebellion. He remained faithful and discharged his duties creditably. A
pension of Rs.50 per mensum was recommended and sanctioned from June 1, 1849.124
Major Herbert Edwardes investigated the terms and titles under which the
principal jagirdars of the Punjab held their lands. Under 37 tenures exclusive of personal
jagirs Rs.5,82,743 of land tenures was alienated for the support of 1980 horsemen at the
rate of more than Rs.24 each horsemen a month. The jagirdari horsemen were 1/5th
more
expensive than the same number of Irregular horsemen. The men would be pensioned in
½ or ½ or ¼ or other portion of their dismounted pay which in British service was Rs.8-
20 or 2/5 of the mounted pay. The Board calculated that the pension of all those whose
length of service entitled them to such provision would amount to 1/3 of the whole 2/5
dismounted pay. The Board feared that the measured would be distasteful to the chiefs
and to the horsemen. The Governor General concurred that the change was ‗essential‘ to 122
H.P. Burn, Secy. to BOA to Secy. to the GOI with GG, No. 118, July 17, 1850, Lahore:
Foreign Department, Secret Consultations, August 9, 1850.
123 Deputy Secy. of BOA to Secy. of GOI, No. 146, 20 February 1851, Lahore; Secy. of GOI
to BOA, No. 688, 4 March 1851: Foreign Department, Political Consultations, File No.
117-118, 14 March 1851.
124 H.M. Elliot, Secy. of GOI with GG to Secy. to BOA, No. 1582, August 31, 1849:
Foreign Department, Political Proceedings, File Nos. 1120, September 1-8, 1849.
The Royalty, Native Aristocracy and The Princely States
115
the public interest as removing the dangerous power from the hands of the Chiefs. No
Chief in the Punjab should be permitted to entertain Jagirdari horse.125
Ditta Mal,
grandson of Mohkum Chand was a confidential agent of the Lahore Durbar with the
resident at Delhi. Major Endrews employed him during the Multan revolt. The Board
decided to maintain his jagirs for life to lapse at death.126
The Board submitted the
statement of 209 claims of charitable pensions of the Lahore Durbar in three Purganahs
of Amritsar District. The Board recommended the grants thus; resumption Rs.7811; to be
continued Rs.9045; and donations recommended Rs.3228.127
General Ventura of the
Lahore Durbar made request for payment of his jagir in London from May 1850. The
compensation of his Jagir was fixed at company Rs.10,000 or £ 1000 payable in London.
The Court of Directors approved the payment of allowance in London to the extent of £
1000 per annum from May 1, 1850. 128
The Commissioner Cis-Sutlej States, Mr G.F. Edmostone forwarded with a list of
67 chiefs whom it was proposed to exempt from the jurisdiction of the civil and criminal
courts in certain cases. The Board of Administration asked for 50 names but the
Commissioner submitted the names of 67. The exemption shall extend to all who were
named in the list.129
TABLE: III: 6: EXEMPTION TO THE NOBLES FROM JURISDICTION OF
THE CIVIL AND CRIMINAL COURTS IN THE CIS SUTLEJ
STATES
Numbers. Name of Privilged Sirdars Name of Taluqa Remarks
125
H.P. Burn, Deputy Secy. to BOA to H.M. Elliot, Secy. to the GOI with GG, No. 220,
August 3, 1849, Lahore; H.M. Elliot, Secy. to the GOI with GG, to H.P. Burn, Deputy
Secy. to BOA No. 1746, September 20, 1849, Simla: Foreign Department, Secret
Consultations, File Nos. 56-58, September 29, 1849.
126 H.M. Elliot, Secy. to the GOI with GG, to Secy., BOA, No. 67, July 18, 1850, Simla:
Foreign Department, Political Consultations, August 2, 1850.
127 H.P. Burn, Deputy Secy. to BOA to H.M. Elliot, Secy. to the GOI with GG, No. 35, July
23, 1850, Simla: Foreign Department, Political Consultations, August 16, 1850.
128 H.M. Elliot, Secy. to the GOI with General Ventura, No. 216, September 1850, Simla:
Foreign Department, Political Consultations, September 13, 1850.
129 Secy. of BOA to Secy. of GOI, No. 218, 26 April 1849, Lahore, Foreign Department,
Political Proceedings, File No. 90, 31 May 1850.
The Royalty, Native Aristocracy and The Princely States
116
1 Bhai Jasmeer Singh Arnoulee Sons of Bhai Golab
Singh 2 Bhai Nao Nihal Singh Arnoulee
3 Bhai Anokh Singh Arnoulee
4 Nawab Mahmud Ali Khan Koonjpoora
5 Sirdar Sher Singh Shahabad Sons of Kurum Singh
6 Sirdar Ranjit Singh Shahabad
7 Sirdar Purtab Singh Shahabad
8 Sirdar Jewun Singh Booreea
9 Mir Mahmud Akbar Ali Kotaha
10 Raja Gurbakhsh Singh Munmagra
11 Sirdar Futtah Singh Pubhat
12 Sirdar Bhopal Singh Singhpoora Sons of Boodh Singh
13 Sirdar Lall Singh
14 Sirdar Dyal Singh
15 Sirdar Gopal Singh
16 Sirdar Jaswant Singh
17 Sirdar Deva Singh Sealba Sons of Vuzeer
Singh, Ram Singh,
Outum Singh, Raja
Singh and Churrut
Singh.
18 Sirdar Boodh Singh
19 Sirdar Chanan Singh
20 Sirdar Sahib Singh
21 Sirdar Kishunt Singh
22 Sirdar Sugut Singh
23 Sirdar Iqbal Singh
24 Sirdar Harnam Singh
25 Sirdar Huree Singh
26 Sirdar Kan Singh
27 Sirdar Ram Singh
28 Sirdar Shan Singh
29 Sirdar Nidhan Singh
30 Sirdar Bussawa Singh
31 Atta Muhmmad Khan Kothila Nihang
32 Sirdar Nith Singh Malodh
33 Sirdar Bussant Singh Kheree
34 Sirdar Ram Singh Shaugurh Sons of Huba Singh
35 Sirdar Kauh Singh
36 Sirdar Ranjit Singh Sons of Bhag Singh
37 Sirdar Hukeekut Singh
38 Sirdar Lena Singh
39 Sirdar Mutha Singh Dhanoura Sons of Sahib Singh
40 Sirdar Sukha Singh Dhanoura
41 Sirdar Dhur Singh Dhanoura
42 Sirdar Deva Singh
43 Sirdar Gursurin Singh Mootfabad
44 Sirdar Sheo Kirpal Singh Suheed
45 Sirdar Jawahir Singh Jhola
46 Sirdar Geyunda Singh Kurbur
47 Sirdar Bussawa Singh Bydeon Grandsons of Ranjit
Singh 48 Sirdar Bhagwan Singh Bydeon
49 Sirdar Jewun Singh Bydeon
The Royalty, Native Aristocracy and The Princely States
117
50 Sirdar Jaswant Singh Rysal
51 Sirdar Futtah Singh Hullahur
52 Sirdar Deva Singh Leyda
53 Meean Devi Singh Ramgurh
54 Duleep Singh Ramgurh
55 Meean Huree Singh Ramgurh
56 Meean Singh Ramgurh
57 Meean Sheo Dusshun Singh Ramgurh
58 Meean Sucheyat Singh Ramgurh
59 Rao Mikha Singh Raepoor
60 Sirdar Nihal Singh Kakeer
61 Bhai Sampooran Singh Bagarean
62 Sirdar Sookha Singh Budrooka
63 Sirdar Bhugwan Singh Budrooka
64 Sirdar Futtah Singh Sekunda Sons of Hoogur
Singh 65 Sirdar Bhag Singh Sekunda
66 Sirdar Narain Singh Sekunda
67 Bhai Zabbarjung Singh Jhooba Source: Off. Comm. & Supt., Cis-Sutlej States to Secy. of BOA, No. 208, 12 April 1850,
Umbala Camp: Foreign Department, Political Proceedings, File No. 1142, 31 May 1850
Jagirs
The aggregate value of the jagirs claimed by the 24 parties was Rs.32,940-8-0 besides
cash which amounted to Rs. 18,100 both were assigned in lieu of service and pay. The
Board forwarded the following arrangements which were approved by the Governor
General.130
130
Secy. of BOA to Secy. of GOI, No. 218, 26 April 1849, Lahore, Secy. of GOI to BOA,
18 July 1850, Simla: Foreign Department, Political Consultations, File Nos. 70-71, 2
August 1850.
The Royalty, Native Aristocracy and The Princely States
118
TABLE: III: 7: ARRANGEMENT OF JAGIRS
Jagirs (Rs./Anna/Paisa)
Jagirs to be maintained
In perpetuity
1008-8-0
For life of present incumbents 20,527-0-0
Cash pension for life of present incumbents 2460-0-0
Total grants 23995-8-0
Cash pensions to sons where separate jagirs were recommended
for resumption on their father‘s death
2000-0-0
Jagirs to be resumed 11,405-0-0 Source: Secy. of BOA to Secy. of GOI, No. 218, 26 April 1849, Lahore: Foreign Department,
Political Consultations, File No. 70, 2 August 1850
The Case of 38 Parties was submitted by the Board with an aggregate value of Rs.72,075
and cash amount of Rs.38514. following arrangement of jagirs was recommended by the
Board:
TABLE III: 8: ARRANGEMENT OF JAGIRS
Category Assessment (Rs)
Jagirs to be maintained in perpetuity 4540
For life of present incumbents 20772
Cash pensions for life for present incumbents 21424
Donations 4025
Total 50761
Cash pensions to dependent sons of present incumbents 1000
Jagirs to be resumed 46763 Source: P. Melvill Secy. BOA to H.M. Elliot, Secy. GOI with GG, No. 31, May 22, 1850, Simla:
Foreign Department, Political Consultations, September 6, 1850
The Board submitted for confirmation of the Governor General a roll of 91 Rebel Sirdars
and petty officers of the late Durbar who were concerned personally in the rebellion and
who were admitted to terms under the conditions granted to Rebel forces at Rawalpindi
by Major General W. R. Gilbert and Lieutenant Colonel Mackeson. The amount of
pensions proposed for these 91 officers was Rs.9944 per annum. The former pensions
granted to parties similarly selected from July 1849, it was therefore proposed by the
Board that these pensions be held to commence from the same date. The Governor
General authorised the grants of pensions amounting in the aggregate to Rs.9944 per
annum with effect from July 1849 to the 91 rebel Sirdars name in Roll.131
131
Deputy Secy. of BOA to Secy. of GOI No. 363, 6 September 1850, Lahore; Secy. of GOI
to BOA, No. 1913, 19 September 1850: Foreign Department, Political Consultations,
File Nos. 73-74, 27 September 1850.
The Royalty, Native Aristocracy and The Princely States
119
Pensions to the Widows
The Board wanted the recommendation of the Governor General for the pensions for
widows of servants of the Lahore Durbar, who lost their lives in the service of the British
Government. The first request was made by Lieutenant Herbert, Assistant Commissioner,
on behalf of the widow of Shaikh Sultan Ali, Major of Artillery, who was murdered by
the Sikhs in consequence of his having faithfully served under that officer in Attock.
Sheikh Sultan Ali served the Lahore Durbar 28 Years, was promoted to Major three years
back on a salary of Rupees 45 per month. His widow was 40 Years of age and has one lad
of 18 Years of age. The other application was made by Major Napier on behalf of the
widow of Bubber Ali also a Major of Artillery, who fell during the operations before
Multan, at the taking of the Dharamshalla on the 12 September 1848. He had served the
Lahore Durbar 30 Years; his salary as a Major was Rs.45 per month. His widow was 30
Years of age and had a son, Sher Ali of 17 Years of age. The Board was in the view of
recommending each widow be allowed a pension of 20 Rupees per month for life.132
The
Governor General sanctioned this amount as pensions.133
Mr. Barnes, Deputy
Commissioner, Kangra recommended the case of two wives and a concubine of Mian Jit
Singh, a jagirdar of Kangra who took part in the rebellion of Mihul Maree Chief. He
joined the Sikh army and died. The ladies were in destitution. Since, they were the scions
of the old royal family and looked by the people with favour, an allowance of Rs.20 per
month was recommended and sanctioned w.e.f August 1, 1849. 134
Thus, the investigation to all the grants or jagirs was done under the supervision of
Board of Administration. The Jagirdars, who fought against the British in the Anglo-Sikh
Wars, lost their jagirs while others who remained loyal or did benevolent service to the
British were allowed to continue with their belongings. The Board of Administration
132
Major, H.P. Burn, Deputy Secy. of BOA to Secy. of GOI, No. 189, 7 July 1849, Lahore:
Foreign Department, Political Proceedings File No. 117, 25 August 1849.
133 Secy. of GOI to BOA, No. 1236, 23 July 1849, Simla: Foreign Department, Political
Consultations, File No. 118, 25 August 1849.
134 H.M. Elliot, Secy., GOI with GG to Secy. BOA, No. 1536, August 31, 1844, Simla:
Foreign Department, Political Proceedings, File No.1120, September 1-8, 1849.
The Royalty, Native Aristocracy and The Princely States
120
admitted that ‗when a state falls, its nobility of its supporters must to some extent suffer
with it‘.135
3. THE PRINCELY STATES
The Presidencies of Bengal, of Madras and Bombay did not cover the whole of British
India. The British acquired territory in the Cis-Sutlej region from Lord Lake‘s Maratha
campaign under the Treaty of Anjangam (December 30, 1803). The region comprised in
the districts of Delhi, Gurgaon, Rohtak, Karnal, Hissar and Sirsa tehsil of Firozepur.
Under the Treaty of Amritsar 1809, the British provided protection to the Chiefs. The
Chiefs were confirmed feudatory princes of Faridkot, Patiala, Jind, Nabha and minor
states of Malerkotla and Kalsia and others became Jagirdars or smaller chiefs to whom
the revenue of the territory was granted.136
The Cis- sutlej States comprised a tract of
country which intervened between the British North-West or Jummna Frontier, and the
river Sutlej. When the young Sikh nation formed itself into twelve misls or confederacies,
one misl styled the Phulkean occupied the territories south of the Sutlej and were called
the Malwa Sikhs.137
Maharaja Ranjit Singh consolidated the scattered misls, north of
Sutlej under his rule. He turned his attention towards the misls of south of Sutlej. The
British interposed at the entreaty of the Chiefs. By the Treaty of 1809, the ambition of
Ranjit Singh was confined to the countries north of the Sutlej with some few exceptions.
A political agent was stationed at Umbala. The numerous Chiefs were left in the
enjoyment of sovereign rights. However, they were restricted from contentions and
preying on one another. The British could resort to acquisition of territory by escheat.
Consequently, the British Government acquired strips of territory around Ludhiana,
Ferozpur and Umbala administered on the principals of non-regulation districts, the
political Agent being Commissioner and his Assistant district officers.138
After the First
Anglo Sikh War (1845-46) the territory of the Lahore Durbar, South of Sutlej, was
confiscated by the British Government. The Cis-Sutlej districts of Firozepur, Ludhiana
135
The First Punjab Administration Report (1849-1851), pp. 175-176.
136 B.H. Baden-Powell, The Land Systems of British India: Being a Manual of the Land –
Tenures and of the System of Land-Revenue Administration Prevalent in the Several
Provinces, Vol. II, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1892, pp. 42-45.
137 The First Punjab Administration Report (1849-1851), p. 163.
138 The First Punjab Administration Report (1849-1851), p. 162-65
The Royalty, Native Aristocracy and The Princely States
121
and Ambala in the Cis-Sutlej Jullundur, Hoshiarpur and Kangra in the Jullundur Doab
were annexed.139
Some of the protected Chiefs were deprived of their Faujdars or Civil
power. Their fiscal powers however remained untouched. The states of Puttiala, Jheed,
Nabha, and six others were exempted. However, the states of Rupar, Ladwa, Aloowala
were confiscated: Colonel Mackeson was appointed Commissioner with a proportionate
staff of Assistants placed under the orders of the Agent Governor General with
headquarter at Umbala. A Session Judge Mr. Eraskine was also appointed. A summary
settlement was effected followed by a revenue survey and then a regular settlement
within a year. Hence, the foundation was laid for civil administration in the territories of
the deprived Chiefs.140
Under the second Treaty of Lahore (1846), the Agent, Governor
General became resident at Lahore, the Commissioners of the Cis and Trans-Sutlej states
were authorised to correspond with the Government. In 1848, they were against mere
subordinate to the Resident as Chief Commissioner. 141
After annexation, the Cis-Sutlej
States were placed on the same footing as the other Commissionership under the Board of
Administration.142
In June 1849, it was declared that, with the exception of the nine
States (Patiala, Jind, Faridkot, Maler Kotla, Chichrowli( Kalsia), Raikot, Buria, Mamdot
and Nabha) all the chiefs would cease to hold sovereign powers; would lose all civil,
criminal and fiscal jurisdiction, and would be considered as no more than ordinary
subjects of the British Government in possession of certain exceptional privileges. The
political power of the District officers was abolished, and the Commissioner of Ambala
appointed the only referee in disputes between the chiefs.143
The Board forwarded the
statement of the Commissioner of the Cis-Sutlej States, towards the expenses of the
Campaign 0f 1848-49. The total amount was Rs.39, 96,375 and of this Patiala advanced
36 Lakhs and the remainder was Rs.2,96,375 was contributed by various petty chiefs.
139
B.H. Baden-Powell, The Land Systems of British India, Vol. I, p. 44.
140 The First Punjab Administration Report (1849-1851), p. 165.
141 The First Punjab Administration Report (1849-1851), p. 165.
142 The First Punjab Administration Report (1849-1851), p. 165.
143 Lepel H. Griffen , Rajas of the Punjab: Being the History of the Principal States in the
Punjab and their Political Relations with the British Government, Low Price
publications, Delhi, (reprint) 2000, (First Published 1870), p. 389.
The Royalty, Native Aristocracy and The Princely States
122
The Governor General approved of the proposal to pay up the small loan amounting
Rs.2,96,275.144
Patiala
Patiala occupied five seventh of the Phulkian inheritance. The predominant agricultural
tribe was the Jats, over three- fourths of whom were Sikhs. The cultivated area was four-
fifths of the former was irrigated, 27 per cent from wells, and the rest from the two
canals.145
Ala Singh, the founder of Patiala State, died in 1765 and was succeeded by his
grandson Amar Singh (1765- 1781), who was occupied in continual warfare with his
brother and his neighbours, as became a Sikh chieftain of those days. Ahmad Shah
conferred the title of Raj-i-Rajgan Amar Singh. He made Patiala the most powerful state
between the Jumna and the Sutlej, but after his death the administration fell into disorder
and in 1852, it was necessary for the British Government to interfere authoritatively in
the Patiala affairs.146
His son, Sahib Singh (1781-1813), came under British protection in
1809. Karm Singh (1813-1845), his successor, was British ally in the Gurkha War. His
successor, Maharaja Narinder Singh (1845-1862) was the chief of Patiala at the time of
annexation.147
He helped the British in the First Anglo-Sikh War and his assistance was
acknowledged by the gift of a portion of the confiscated Nabha territory.148
The necessary
result of the British Government assuming the direct management of so large a portion of
the Cis-Sutlej territory was the readjustment of the relations of those petty chiefs who
were half subject to and half independent of the larger States. The most intricate and
tedious of the cases which thus arose, related to what were known as Chaharumi villages
144
Secy. of BOA to Secy. of GOI, Lahore; Secy. of GOI to BOA, 11 October 1850, Simla:
Foreign Department, Secret Consultations, File Nos. 19-22, 25 October 1850.
145 James Douie, The Panjab, North- West Frontier Province and Kashmir, Seema
Publications, Delhi, 1974 (First Published 1916), p. 274.
146 Lepel H. Griffin & Charles Francis Massy, Chiefs and Families of Note in the Punjab,
Vol. II, p.469.
147 James Douie, The Panjab, North- West Frontier Province and Kashmir, p. 274.
148 Lepel H. Griffin & Charles Francis Massy, Chiefs and Families of Note in the Punjab,
Vol. II, p. 469.
The Royalty, Native Aristocracy and The Princely States
123
in which the Maharaja of Patiala and various petty Sikh chiefs were co sharers.149
The
powerful family of Patiala shared equally certain villages, one hundred and nineteen in
number; with several other Sikh families. The total revenue of an estate being theoretical
half the assets, the co- partners were entitled to half of this proportion that was one fourth
of the whole assets and were called chaharumees.150
It was understood that each party
had originally half the revenue and half the civil jurisdiction in these villages. Both
parties being equal, neither owed fealty or service to the other, but both of them
allegiance, subordinate to the common paramount, But as years on, Patiala, being the
stronger reduced to submission the co- sharers in twenty- five of the hundred and
nineteen villages.151
When the matter came before the British authorities, the body of co-
partners appeared to be divided into two parties; one composed of the co-partners in
twenty- five villages, who, inured to subjection, sided with Patiala; the other composed of
the co-partners in ninety- four villages, who claimed protection, and entire separation
from the aggressive neighbours. At the Board‘s recommendation dispute was decided on
following terms. The twenty- five villages, in which the Chaharumees admitted Patiala‘s
sovereignty, were to be transferred formally to that state which would continue to
exercise full jurisdiction allowing them to collect half the revenue. The families which
held the ninety- four villages, and which desired separation, were to affect an equal
partition of the estate with Patiala.152
Jind
The real founder of the Jind state was Gajpat Singh, who was a chief of great vigour. He
conquered Jind and in 1774 deprived his relative, the Chief of Nabha, of Sangrur. He died
in 1789. His successor, Raja Bhag Singh, was a good ally of the British Government. He
died after a long and successful career in 1819. His son, Fateh Singh, only survived him
by three years. Sangat Singh succeeded to troublous times and died childless in 1834. His
149
Lepel H. Griffen, Rajas of the Punjab: Being the History of the Principal States in the
Punjab and their Political Relations with the British Government, p. 219.
150 The First Punjab Administration Report (1849-1851), p. 166.
151 The First Punjab Administration Report (1849-1851), p. 167.
152 The First Punjab Administration Report (1849-1851), p. 167.
The Royalty, Native Aristocracy and The Princely States
124
second cousin, Raja Sarup Singh, was only allowed by Gajpat Singh, from whom he
derived his claim.153
During the First Anglo-Sikh War, behaviour of Raja Sarup Singh
was satisfactory as contingent served with the British troops and their assistance was
rendered in the matter of carriage and supplies. In 1847, the Raja received a sanad, the
British Government engaging never to demand from him or his successors, tribute or
revenue, or commutation in lieu of troops; the Raja on his part promised to assist the
Government with all his resources in case of war.154
When the second Sikh war broke
out, he was anxious to prove his devotion to the Government, and offered to lead his
troops in person to Lahore, to join the English army. His services were declined, as they
were not needed, but he was warmly thanked for the offer, and the loyalty that had
prompted it.155
After the annexation of the Punjab, the Raja of Jind was one of the few
chiefs permitted to retain independent power, with the exception of the right of capital
punishment, which was conceded to him after the Mutiny. He showed himself deserving
of the privileges granted him, endeavouring to reform his administration after the English
model, and to adopt the English system of revenue and police.156
During this time, the
peasants of Sujurah, a village on the Rohtak boundary, rose in revolt, killing the tehsildar
who had been sent to measure the cultivated area of villages, with a view to making a
settlement and to mark off the surplus waste lands into separate estates. They then called
together the villagers of the neighbourhood, belonging to the same clan, and threw up
entrancements, arming and provisioning themselves for a siege. The Raja marched
against the insurgents with all his available force, but before attacking them, followed the
advice of the British Government.157
153
James Douie, The Panjab, North- West Frontier Province and Kashmir, p. 276.
154 Lepel H. Griffin & Charles Francis Massy, Chiefs and Families of Note in the Punjab,
Vol. II, p. 485.
155 Lepel H. Griffen, Rajas of the Punjab: Being the History of the Principal States in the
Punjab and their Political Relations with the British Government, p. 389.
156 Lepel H. Griffen, Rajas of the Punjab: Being the History of the Principal States in the
Punjab and their Political Relations with the British Government, p. 389.
157 Lepel H. Griffen, Rajas of the Punjab: Being the History of the Principal States in the
Punjab and their Political Relations with the British Government, p. 390.
The Royalty, Native Aristocracy and The Princely States
125
Kapurthala
The real founder of the Kapurthala house was Sardar Jassa Singh Ahluwalia, who in
1763, when Sirhind fell, was the leading Sikh chief in the Punjab. He captured
Kapurthala in 1771 and made it his headquarter and died in 1783. A distant relative, Bagh
Singh succeeded. His successor Fateh Singh was a sworn brother of Ranjit Singh, with
whom he exchanged turban. But an alliance between the weak and the strong was not free
from fears and in 1826 Fateh Singh, who had large possession south of the Sutlej, fled
and asked the protection of the British. He died in 1836. His successor, Nihal Singh, was
a timid man, and his failure to support the British in 1845 led to the loss of his Cis-Sutlej
Estates. During the First Anglo-Sikh War, his troops fought against the British, under
their commander, Haider Ali, both at Aliwal and Budhowal; but for this hostile act the
Sardar was not personally responsible, inasmuch as the soldiers broke away from his
control and murdered the Wazir who attempted to restrain them. His conduct was
generally, however, condemned as weak for as a protected Cis-Sutlej feudatory he was
bound to place all his resources at the disposal of the British Government and in this he
failed. At the end of the war, the Sardar was confirmed in possession of his territories in
the Jullundhar Doab estimated at Rs.5,77,763 per annum, conditionally on his paying to
the British Government a commutation in cash of the service engagements by which he
had previously been bound to the Government of Lahore; but his estates south of the
Sutlej, yielding a revenue of Rs.5,65,00 were declared on escheat to the Government on
account of his having failed to act up to his obligations under the Treaty of 1809. The
punishment inflicted after the First Anglo-Sikh War was not without its effect on Sardar
Nihal Singh. In the Second Anglo-Sikh War, he did all in his power to retrieve his name,
furnishing carriage and supplies, and proving himself a loyal and active ally; and at the
close of the campaign he was honoured with a visit from the Governor General Lord
Dalhousie who created him a Raja in acknowledgment of his valuable services.158
Before
his death he wrote a Will which he sent to Board of Administration for the approval.
158
Lepel H. Griffin & Charles Francis Massy, Chiefs and Families of Note in the Punjab,
Vol. II, p. 500.
The Royalty, Native Aristocracy and The Princely States
126
According to this Will his younger sons Bikrama Singh and Suchet Singh got estate of
one lakh of rupees each. His elder son Randhir Singh, the heir apparent, had got the
responsibility of managing the whole state and also to pay nazrana to Government for his
and his brothers‘ shares of the estate.159
The Agent of Randhir Singh addressed the Board
of Administration on the death of the Raja that the three brothers did not approve of the
Will and had no desire to divide the estate. The Board of Administration were doubtful
how to precede with regard to Kapurthala. One member proposed to resume lands in lieu
of the nazrana, or at any rate to take the outlying lands such as Phagwara, giving a
reduction of the commutation; also to resume the police and criminal powers exercised
by the late Raja. The two other members of the Board opposed all these proposals, on
ground of policy and good faith and being unable to come to a decision, the numerous
minutes written on the subject by the members of the Board were forwarded to the
Government of India for a final decision upon the points on which the Board could not
agree.160
Nabha
Nabha consisted of twelve patches of territory in the north scattered among the
possessions of Patiala, Jind and Faridkot, and two other patches in the extreme south on
the border of Gurgaon. Hamir Singh, one of the chief who joined in the capture of
Sirhind, may be considered the first Raja. He died in 1783 and was succeeded by his
young son; Jaswant Singh proved a very capable chief and succeeded in aggrandising his
State which he ruled for 57 years.161
His son, Raja Davendra Singh was the ruler of
Nabha at the time of First Anglo-Sikh War. In consequence of his conduct at that time,
nearly ¼ of his possessions were confiscated and he was removed from his state at the
159
Lepel H. Griffen, Rajas of the Punjab: Being the History of the Principal States in the
Punjab and their Political Relations with the British Government, p. 554.
160 Lepel H. Griffen, Rajas of the Punjab: Being the History of the Principal States in the
Punjab and their Political Relations with the British Government, p. 557.
161 James Douie, The Panjab, North- West Frontier Province and Kashmir, pp. 277-278.
The Royalty, Native Aristocracy and The Princely States
127
end of the campaign; the succession passing to his eldest son, Bharpur Singh, then a boy
of seven years.162
Lieutenant Colonel Mackson stated that the Raja of Faridkot obtained his title of
Raja and an increase of Rs.25,000 of territory from Lord Hardinge for special fidelity and
good service at a period which the majority of the protected chiefs were backward. The
Faridkot people furnished good information during the war.163
The confiscation of the
Lahore Cis-Sutlej possession at the opening of the campaign of 1845-46 made the British
Government a large proprietor in the Cis-Sutlej States. Hitherto, it had held mere patches
of land about Ambala, Ferozpur, Kythal and Ludhiana and its charged was mainly that of
protecting and supervising rather than administrating. It never had an eye to revenue till
this confiscation took effect. After the constitution of the Board, one of their first duties
was to call upon Commissioners subordinate to them in the Punjab to submit for approval
statements with illustrated maps of the establishments which they purposed for their
respective divisions. The orders of the Government dated 23 May 1849 for the future
administration of the Cis-Sutlej territories and assumption of the police control in the
Estates of the petty chiefs delayed the completion of the revised statements. The
contiguity of nine protected states had created some problems. The total expenditure was
required Rs 2,80,200 per annum for a country yielding revenue to government
Rs.22,68,702-13-5.164
The Board stated the Governor General passed orders in the case of Chappur
Estate, as soon as information was furnished as to whether the terms of the original grant
had been investigated and whether the Board recommended it be pleased in perpetuity as
only for the lives of present incumbents. The Board stated for the information of the
Governor General that Chappur was a Chiefship, sovereign and hereditary like all the
162
Lepel H. Griffin & Charles Francis Massy, Chiefs and Families of Note in the Punjab,
Vol.II, p.491.
163 Major Burns, Deputy Secy. of BOA to Secy. of GOI, No. 195, 11 July 1849, Lahore;
Secy. of GOI to Deputy Secy. of BOA, No. 1374, 3 August 1849, Simla: Foreign
Department, Secret Consultations, File Nos. 69-71, 28 July- 29 September 1849.
164 P. Melvill Secy. of BOA to H.M. Elliot, Secy. of GOI, 21 June 1850, Lahore: Foreign
Department, Political Consultations, File No. 19, 9 August 1850.
The Royalty, Native Aristocracy and The Princely States
128
other Chiefship that come under British protection in 1808/09. The Chappur Chiefs lost
their authority with majority of the other Cis-Sutlej Chiefs, after the Sutlej Campaign, on
account of their failure, to give active aid to the British Army in the furnishing of the
supplies. What the Board asked in this matter was simply the parties whom they deemed
innocent should not be involved in a punishment for an offence which they were guiltless.
The recommendation was therefore that these chiefs as not having been concerned in the
affray which led to the confiscation should remained as they were before the Sutlej
Campaign, in possession of their estate which the error as it has appeared to the Board of
the District officer, disposed them off. The Governor General was in opinion that two
thirds of the estate be exempted from confiscation and given over to heirs of Bodh Singh
and Jodh Singh in perpetuity as these Chiefs were not concerned in the affray which led
to the confiscation and that the ex-chief Mehal Singh‘s share of 1/3 remained confiscated.
This pension was limited to Rs.747 per annum being equal to 1/2 of his share 1/3 or 1/16
of the whole estate.165
Faridkot
The founder of the Faridkot was one Bhullar who rose to importance in the time of
Mughal Emperor Akbar. The family of Faridkot, Brar Jat, sprang from the same stock as
the Phulkian and Kythal Chiefs. They were originally Bhatti Rajputs who emigrated from
Sialkot in the Rachna Doab at Malwa. Kapura succeeded his uncle in 1643. He met Guru
Gobind Singh and became the first independent Chief of Faridkot. In 1807, Maharaja
Ranjit Singh intervened and kept Kotkapura for himself and giving five Jalal villages to
Raja of Nabha. On 26th
September 1808, Maharaja Ranjit Singh marched against
Faridkot. Under the Treaty of Amritsar 1809, Maharaja Ranjit Singh surrendered Faridkot
‗most unwillingly‘. On April 3, 1809, Faridkot was restored to Sardar Gulab Singh and
his brothers.166
Sardar Pahar Singh rendered good services to the British Government in
1845-46. He was created Raja as he used his utmost exertion to collect supplies and
carriage. Many of the Cis-Sutlej Chiefs were indifferent or hostile during the First Anglo-
165
Secy. of BOA to Off. Secy. of GOI, No. 509, 25 May 1852, Lahore; Off. Secy. of GOI,
No. 1899, 11 June 1852: Foreign Department, Political Consultations, File Nos. 162-
163, 11 June 1852.
166 Lepel H. Griffin, The Rajas of the Punjab, pp. 599-614.
The Royalty, Native Aristocracy and The Princely States
129
Sikh War (1845-46). On the eve of Battle of Ferozepur, he showed little vacillation.
However, he was rewarded by grant half of the territory confiscated from the Raja of
Nabha.167
Captain Nicholson, Commissioner and Superintendent, Cis Sutlej States
examined the case for the Board of Administration. He testified that ‗the servants of
Sirdar of Faridkot helped in supplying vital information from the every camp‘. Sirdar of
Faridkot was in personal attendance on Lord Hardinge. Lt. Colonel Mackeson stated that
the Raja of Faridkot received territory yielding revenue of Rs.25,000.168
Raja Pahar Singh
died in April 1849. His son Wazir Singh succeeded him. He served on the side of the
British in the Second Anglo Sikh War (1848-49).169
However, it was reported by Lt.
Colonel Mackeson that the Raja was ‗not alert‘. Raja Pahar Singh was noticed by the
British officials and reported his ‗misconduct‘. His servants ‗did not help the British
property‘. The Board acknowledged that in recommending a mulet of the customs
compensation of Rs.20,000 they were ‗awarding a severe punishment‘. He demanded
pardon from the Governor General and warning for the future.170
The Governor General
preferred ‗to overlook the tardiness of the Faridkot ministers‘. The young Raja (Wazir
Singh) reminded that the British would not always ‗forgive lukewaemness in its
professed friends‘. He did not desire to be ‗unduly severe due to Raja‘s temporary
neglect‘. He acceded the recommendation of the Board.171
The territory of the Cis Sutlej States had been permanently divided into five
districts, namely Ferozpur, Ludhiana, Umbala. Thaneysur and Simla. Simla consisted of
small hill dependencies acquired by the British after the Napelese War in 1814. Within its
167
Syed Muhammad Latif, History of the Punjab, pp. 643-44; Lepel H. Griffin, The Rajas
of the Punjab, pp. 618-620.
168 G.I. Christian, Secy. of BOA to H.M. Elliot, Secy. to the GOI with GG, No.71, July 28,
1849, Lahore: Foreign Department, Secret Proceedings, File No. 521, July 28-September
29, 1849.
169 Lepel H. Griffin, The Rajas of the Punjab, p. 620.
170 G.I. Christian, secy. of BOA to H.M. Elliot, Secy. to the GOI with GG, No.71, July 28,
1849, Lahore: Foreign Department, Secret Proceedings, File No. 521, July 28-September
29, 1849.
171 H.M Elliot Secy. GOI with GG, to Secy. BOA No. 269, August 4, 184, Simla: Foreign
Department, Secret Proceedings, File No. 521, July 28- September 29, 1849.
The Royalty, Native Aristocracy and The Princely States
130
circles, were situated 50 of the dependent Chiefships and the 9 independent States,
several hill Rajas and Ranas, all of whom had jurisdiction within their own estates. In
1847, many of the Chiefs had been deprived of their Faujdari powers which included all
such as administrative powers, civil powers and fiscal. Civil jurisdiction of all kinds had
been transferred from the chiefs to the British authorities.172
On March 19, 1850, the Rani
of Thanesar Estate died at Khanna. She had no heir. Her estate ‗lapsed‘ to the British
Government.173
The Board forwarded statement of Jagir and Mafee villages in recently lapsed Thaneswar
Estate. The recommendation of Board was as follow:
TABLE: III: 9: JAGIRS AND MAFEE VILLAGES IN THE THANESHAR STATE
Total assumed Rs. 7470
To be upheld for life Rs. 9106 subject to commutation payment of Rs. 550
To be upheld for two generations Rs. 5106 subject to commutation payment of Rs. 900
To be upheld in perpetuity or during
pleasure of Government
Rs. 3950 subject to commutation payment of Rs. 746
Cash pensions proposed Rs.3525 Source: Secy. of BOA to Secy. of GOI, No. 515, 10 May 1851, Lahore: Foreign Department,
Political Consultations, File No. 108A, 17 October 1851.
The Governor General sanctioned the Board‘s recommendation.174
The Trans Sutlej states were ceded to the British in 1846. They consisted of the
Jullundur Doab situated between the Beas and the Sutlej and the territories lying between
the Ravee and the Beas. The protected principalities included Mandi, Sooket and Chumba.
Kangra was the prominent place with its Fort. In 1847, the garrison in Fort of Kangra
capitulated. During the Rebellion of 1848, several of these Chiefs raised a partial
insurrection in the ceded territory which was ‗speedingly quelled‘.175
The Board sought
sanction to pension of Rs.150 per annum each for persons Sarenput and Muralu, sons of
172
The First Punjab Administration Report (1849-1851), pp. 165-66
173 Secy., BOA to H.M. Elliot, GOI with GG, No. 16, March 30, 1850, Lahore: Foreign
Department, Political Consultations, August 16, 1850.
174 Secy. of BOA to Secy. of GOI No. 515, 10 May 1851, Lahore: Secy. of GOI to BOA No.
1765, 4 June 1851, Simla: Foreign Department, Political Consultations, File Nos. 108A-
108E, 17 October 1851.
175 The First Punjab Administration Report (1849-1851), pp. 170-71.
The Royalty, Native Aristocracy and The Princely States
131
Kuporoo, Wazir of Sweoraj, a division of Kulu in the Kangra District due to their
‗influence over the primitive inhabitants‘. They had been reduced to destitution. The
pension commenced from August 1, 1849 to be drawn from the Kangra Treasury.176
Raja
Mohinder Singh of State of Bussahir died. His son was a minor of 8 years. Bussahir was
bordered on the North and North East of Tibet, forming part of the Empire of China on
the North West by the British Province of Spitti on the West by Kulloo Trans-Sutlej and
on the South by the river Novgree. The point was to remove the Rani from the Capital.
The Governor General objected ‗to the interference of the British Government being
exercised suddenly and unnecessarily with independent states‘. The Wazir was permitted
Superintendence for a minor chief.177
The Cis and Trans Sutlej states yielded an aggregate of surplus of £ 82 lakh during
1849-1851.
TABLE: III: 10: ESTIMATED REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE OF THE CIS
AND TRANS SUTLEJ STATES (1849-1851)
1 ITEM 1849-50(£) 1850-1851(£)
Revenue 69,00,843 67,19,511
Expenditure 19,00,499 35,46, 399 Source: The First Punjab Administration Report (1849-1851), p.184, Appendix F
The Board of Administration dwelt with the royalty, native aristocracy and the
Princely states in the light of changed circumstances. The privileges of the Lahore Durbar
were the things of the past. New aristocracy in the form of bureaucracy was to take place
of the old system. The Lahore Kingdom turned into the Punjab Province with changed set
of regulations and institutions. The Board of Administration was more than an instrument
to achieve that objective. In fact, the internal turned into a facilitator. Onwards, the focus
moved to the peasantry as a force for production and revenue, raising new hopes among
the people in the Punjab.
176
G.I. Christian, Secy. of BOA to H.M. Elliot, Secy. to the GOI with GG, No.153, July 23,
1849, Lahore: Foreign Department, Secret Proceedings, File No. 69, August 18, 1849.
177 Secy. GOI with GG to Secy. BOA, June 2, 1850, Simla: Foreign Department, Political
Consultations, June 21, 1850.