the royalty, native aristocracy and the princely...

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1846, the Treaty of Bhyrowal superseded the Treaties of Lahore.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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


Time, p. 573. See also, K .C. Yadav, Punjab: Colonial Challenge and Popular Response

1849-1947, p. 18.


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.


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.



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.


59 N.M. Khilnani, The Punjab Under the Lawrences, p. 119.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


p. 357.


pp. 393-394.


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.


p. 405.


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


p. 413-414.


p. 499. See also, H.C. Sharma, ―The Sardars of Attari under Colonial Rule‖, Indian

History Congress, Gorakhpur, 1989-90, p. 421.


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


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.


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


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.


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.


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


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


pp. 422-423.


p. 525.


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.


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


p. 7.


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.


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


p. 80.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


pp. 125-126.


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


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.


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


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


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.


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.


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.


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


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.


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.


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.


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


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.




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.


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.


Vol. II, p. 469.


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.





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.


Vol. II, p. 485.

155 Lepel H. Griffen, Rajas of the Punjab: Being the History of the Principal States in the







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.


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




161 James Douie, The Panjab, North- West Frontier Province and Kashmir, pp. 277-278.


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.


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.


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


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.


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.


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.

the royalty, native aristocracy and the princely...

Documents