Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Of States and Statesmanship: Sid Harth

625 views
Skip to first unread message

Sid Harth

unread,
Feb 3, 2010, 12:18:56 PM2/3/10
to
Of States and Statesmanship: Sid Harth

Princely state

An 1895 group photograph of the eleven year old Krishnaraja Wadiyar
IV, ruler of the princely state of Mysore in South India, with his
brothers and sisters. In 1799, his grandfather, then aged five, had
been granted dominion of Mysore by the British and forced into a
subsidiary alliance. The British later directly governed the state
between 1831 and 1881.

Colonial India

Portuguese India 1510–1961
Dutch India 1605–1825
Danish India 1696–1869
French India 1759–1954
British India 1612–1948

East India Company 1612–1757
Company rule in India 1757–1857
British Raj 1858–1947
British rule in Burma 1826–1948
Princely states 1765–1947
Partition of India 1947

For other uses, see Principality, Other princely states.

A Princely State (also called Native State or Indian State) was a
nominally sovereign[1] entity of British rule in India that was not
directly administered by the British, but rather by an Indian ruler
under a form of indirect rule[2] such as suzerainty or paramountcy.
There were as many as 568 states in India before independence.
[citation needed]

The British Raj and the Native States

The Govindgarh Palace of the Maharaja of Rewa. The palace which was
built as a hunting lodge later became famous for the first white
tigers that were found in the adjacent jungle and raised in the palace
zoo.India under the British Raj or the British Indian Empire consisted
of two divisions: British India and the Native States or Princely
states. In its Interpretation Act of 1889, the British Parliament
adopted the following definitions:[3]

The expression British India shall mean all territories and places
within Her Majesty's dominions which are for the time being governed
by Her Majesty through the Governor-General of India, or through any
Governor or other officer subordinate to the Governor-General of
India. The expression India shall mean British India together with any
territories of a Native Prince or Chief under the suzerainty of Her
Majesty, exercised through the Governor-General of India, or through
any Governor or other officer subordinate to the Governor-General of
India. (52 & 53 Vict. cap. 63, sec. 18)

(In general the term "British India" had been used (and is still used)
to also refer to the regions under the rule of the British East India
Company in India from 1600 to 1858.[4] The term has also been used to
refer to the "British in India."[5])

Suzerainty over 175 Princely States, some of the largest and most
important, was exercised (in the name of the British Crown) by central
government of British India under the Viceroy; the remaining,
approximately 500, states were dependents of the provincial
governments of British India under a Governor, Lieutenant-Governor, or
Chief Commissioner (as the case might have been).[6] A clear
distinction between "dominion" and "suzerainty" was supplied by the
jurisdiction of the courts of law: the law of British India rested
upon the laws passed by the British Parliament and the legislative
powers those laws vested in the various governments of British India,
both central and local; in contrast, the courts of the Princely States
existed under the authority of the respective rulers of those states.
[6]

Princely status and titles

The Nawab of Junagadh Bhadur Khan III (seated center in an ornate
chair) shown in a 1885 photograph with state officials and family.The
Indian rulers bore various titles — including Maharaja ("great king"),
Badshah ("emperor"), Raja ("king"), Nawab ("governor"), Nizam, Wāli,
and many others. Whatever the literal meaning and traditional prestige
of the ruler's actual title, the British government translated them
all as "prince," in order to avoid the implication that the native
rulers could be "kings" with status equal to that of the British
monarch.

Some Hindu rulers used the title Thakur or its variant Thakore.

More prestigious Hindu rulers (mostly existing before the Mughal
Empire, or having split from such old states) often used the title
"Raja," or a variant such as "Rana," "Rao," "Rawat" or "Rawal." Also
in this 'class' were several Thakur sahibs and a few particular
titles, such as Sar Desai.

The most prestigious Hindu rulers usually had the prefix
"maha" ("great", compare for example Grand duke) in their titles, as
in Maharaja, Maharana, Maharao, etc. The states of Travancore and
Cochin had queens regnant styled Maharani, generally the female forms
applied only to sisters, spouses and widows, who could however act as
regents.

There were also compound titles, such as (Maha)rajadhiraj, Raj-i-
rajgan, often relics from an elaborate system of hierarchical titles
under the Mughal emperors. For example, the addition of the adjective
Bahadur raised the status of the titleholder one level.

Furthermore most dynasties used a variety of additional titles, such
as Varma in South India. This should not be confused with various
titles and suffixes not specific to princes but used by entire (sub)
castes.

The Sikh princes concentrated at Punjab, usually adopted Hindu type
titles when attaining princely rank; at a lower level Sardar was used.

Muslim rulers almost all used the title "Nawab" (the Arabic honorific
of naib, "deputy," used of the Mughal governors, who became de facto
autonomous with the decline of the Mughal Empire), with the prominent
exceptions of the Nizam of Hyderabad & Berar, the Wāli/Khan of Kalat
and the Wāli of Swat. Other less usual titles included Darbar Sahib,
Dewan, Jam, Mehtar (unique to Chitral) and Mir (from Emir).

Precedence and prestige

Photograph (1900) of the Maharani of Sikkim. Sikkim was under the
suzerainty of the Provincial government of Bengal; its ruler received
a 15-gun salute.However, the actual importance of a princely state
cannot be read from the title of its ruler, which was usually granted
(or at least recognised) as a favour, often in recognition for loyalty
and services rendered historically by the Mughal emperor, and later by
the British rulers succeeding it as paramount power (first the HEIC,
de facto; later the British crown, and ultimately assuming the style
Emperor of India as successor to the emperor of the abolished Mughal
realm). Although some titles were raised once or even repeatedly,
there was no automatic updating when a state gained or lost real
power. In fact, princely titles were even awarded to holders of
domains (mainly jagirs) and even zamindars (tax collectors), which
were not states at all. Various sources give significantly different
numbers of states and domains of the various types. Even in general,
the definition of titles and domains are clearly not well-established.
There is also no strict relation between the levels of the titles and
the classes of gun salutes, the real measure of precedence, but merely
a growing percentage of higher titles in classes with more guns.

The gun salute system was used to set unambiguously the precedence of
the major rulers in the area in which the British East India Company
was active, or generally of the states and their dynasties. Princely
rulers were entitled to be saluted by the firing of an odd number of
guns between three and 21, with a greater number of guns indicating
greater prestige. (There were many minor rulers who were not entitled
to any gun salutes, and as a rule the majority of gun-salute princes
had at least nine, with numbers below that usually the prerogative of
Arab coastal Sheikhs also under British protection.) Generally, the
number of guns remained the same for all successive rulers of a
particular state, but individual princes were sometimes granted
additional guns on a personal basis. Furthermore, rulers were
sometimes granted additional gun salutes within their own territories
only, constituting a semi-promotion.

While the states of all these rulers (about 120) were known as salute
states, there were far more so-called non-salute states of lower
prestige, and even more princes (in the broadest sense of the term)
not even acknowledged as such. On the other hand, the dynasties of
certain defunct states were allowed to keep their princely status —
they were known as Political Pensioners. Though none of these princes
were awarded gun salutes, princely titles in this category were
recognised as among certain vassals of salute states, and were not
even in direct relation with the paramount power.

After independence, the (Hindu) Maharana of Udaipur displaced the
Nizam of Hyderabad as the most senior prince in India, and the style
Highness was extended to all rulers entitled to 9-gun salutes. When
these dynasties had been integrated into the Indian Union they were
promised continued privileges and an income, known as the Privy Purse,
for their upkeep. Subsequently, when the Indian government abolished
the Privy Purse in 1971, the whole princely order ceased to exist
under Indian law, although many families continue to retain their
social prestige informally; some descendants are still prominent in
regional or national politics, diplomacy, business and high society.

At the time of Indian independence, only five rulers — the Nizam of
Hyderabad, the Maharaja of Mysore, the Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir
state, the Maharaja Gaekwad of Baroda and the Maharaja Scindia of
Gwalior — were entitled to a 21-gun salute. Five more rulers — the
Nawab of Bhopal, the Maharaja Holkar of Indore, the Maharana of
Udaipur, the Maharaja of Kolhapur and the Maharaja of Travancore —
were entitled to 19-gun salutes. The most senior princely ruler was
the (Muslim) Nizam of Hyderabad, who was entitled to the unique style
Exalted Highness. Other princely rulers entitled to salutes of 11 guns
(soon 9 guns too) or more were entitled to the style Highness. No
special style was used by rulers entitled to lesser gun salutes.

As paramount ruler, and successor to the Mughals, the British King-
Emperor of India, for whom the style of Majesty was reserved, was
entitled to an 'imperial' 101-gun salute — in the European tradition
also the number of guns fired to announce the birth of a (male) heir
to the throne.

All princely rulers were eligible to be appointed to certain British
orders of chivalry associated with India, The Most Exalted Order of
the Star of India and The Most Eminent Order of the Indian Empire.
Even women could be appointed as "Knights" (instead of Dames) of these
orders. Rulers entitled to 21-gun and 19-gun salutes were normally
appointed to the highest rank possible (Knight Grand Commander of the
Order of the Star of India).

Many Indian princes served in the British army (as others in local
guard or police forces), often rising to the high official ranks; some
even served while on the throne. Many of these were appointed as ADC
etc., either to the ruling prince of their own house (in the case of
relatives of such rulers) or indeed to the British King-Emperor. Many
also saw action, both on the subcontinent and on other fronts, during
both World Wars.

It was also not unusual for members of princely houses to be appointed
to various colonial offices, often far from their native state, or to
enter the diplomatic corps.

The doctrine of lapse

A controversial aspect of Company rule was the doctrine of lapse, a
policy under which lands whose feudal ruler had died (or otherwise
become unfit to rule) without an heir would become directly controlled
by the company. This policy went counter to Indian tradition where
unlike Europe it was far more the accepted norm for a ruler to appoint
his own heir.

The doctrine of lapse was pursued most vigorously by the Governor-
General Sir James Ramsay, 10th Earl (later 1st Marquess) of Dalhousie.
Dalhousie annexed seven states, including the Maratha states of
Nagpur, Jhansi, Satara and Awadh (Oudh), whose Nawabs he had accused
of misrule. Resentment over the annexation of these states turned to
indignation when the heirlooms of the Maharajas of Nagpur were
auctioned off in Calcutta. Dalhousie's actions contributed to the
rising discontent amongst the upper castes which played a large part
in the outbreak of the Indian rebellion of 1857. The last Mughal
Badshah (emperor), whom many of the mutineers saw as a figurehead to
rally around, was deposed following its suppression.

In response to the unpopularity of the doctrine, it was discontinued
with the end of company rule and the formation of the Indian Empire,
and no further states were absorbed in such a way.

Colonial governance

Photograph (1894) of the 19-year old Maharajah of Kohlapur visiting
the British resident and his staff at the Residency.By the beginning
of the 20th century, the four largest states — Hyderabad State,
Mysore, Jammu and Kashmir, and Baroda — were directly under the
authority of the Governor-General of India, in the person of a British
Resident. Two agencies, Rajputana Agency and Central India Agency,
oversaw 20 and 148 princely states, respectively. The remaining
princely states had political officers, or Agents, who answered to the
administrators of India's provinces. Five princely states were then
under the authority of Madras, 354 under Bombay, 26 of Bengal, 2 under
Assam, 34 under Punjab, 15 under Central Provinces and Berar and 2
under United Provinces.

By the early 1930s, the British took over the state whose king had
died (Doctrine of Lapse). Most of the princely states under the
authority of India's provinces were organised into new agencies,
answerable to the Governor-general, on the model of the Central India
- and Rajputana agencies: the Eastern States Agency, Punjab States
Agency, Baluchistan Agency, Deccan States Agency, Madras States Agency
and the Northwest Frontier States Agency. The Baroda residency was
combined with the princely states of northern Bombay Presidency into
the Baroda, Western States and Gujarat Agency. Gwalior was separated
from the Central India Agency and placed under its own Resident, and
the states of Rampur and Benares, formerly under the authority of the
United Provinces, were placed under the Gwalior Residency in 1936. The
princely states of Sandur and Banganapalle in Mysore Presidency were
transferred to the authority of the Mysore Resident in 1939.

A short list of Native States in 1909

The native states in 1909 included five large states that were in
"direct political relations" with the Government of India. Of these,
Nepal, differed from others, in that it was independent in its
internal administration, but was represented internationally by the
Government of India.[7] For the complete list of princely states in
1947, see List of Indian Princely States.

Under suzerainty of the Central Government

Five large Princely States in direct political relations with the
Central Government in India[7]

Name of Princely State Area in Square Miles Population in 1901
Approximate Revenue of the State (in hundred thousand Rupees) Title,
ethnicity, and religion of ruler Gun-Salute for Ruler Designation of
local political officer

Hyderabad 82,698 approx. 11.14 million (Hindus and Muslims) 359 Nizam,
Turk, Sunni Muslim 21 Resident in Hyderabad

Mysore 29,444 5.53 million (mostly Hindu) 190 Maharaja, Rajput, Hindu
21 Resident in Mysore

Baroda 8,099 1.95 million (chiefly Hindu) 123 Maharaja, Maratha, Hindu
21 Resident at Baroda

Kashmir and Jammu 80,900 2.91 million including Gilgit, Baltistan
(Skardu), Ladakh,

Chitral and Punch (Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists) 87 Maharaja, Dogra
Rajput, Hindu 19 (21 within Kashmir) Resident in Kashmir
Total 445,891 25.54 million 909


Central India Agency, Rajputana Agency and the Baluchistan Agency

Please expand to view the tables for the three Agencies under the
Central government

148 Princely States forming the Central India Agency[8]

Name of Princely State Area in Square Miles Population in 1901
Approximate Revenue of the State (in hundred thousand Rupees) Title,
ethnicity, and religion of ruler Gun-Salute for Ruler Designation of
local political officer

Gwalior 25,041 2.93 million (Chiefly Hindus) 163 Maharaja, Maratha,
Hindu 19 (21 within Gwalior) Resident at Gwalior

Indore 9,500 0.85 million (Chiefly Hindu) 72 Maharaja, Maratha, Hindu
19 (21 within Indore) Resident at Indore

Bhopal 6,859 0.66 million (mostly Hindu) 29 Nawab(m)/Begum(f), Afghan,
Muslim 19 (21 within Bhopal) Political Agent in Bhopal

Rewah 13,000 1.33 million (chiefly Hindu) 29 Maharaja, Baghel Rajput,
Hindu 17 Political agent in Baghelkhand

144 smaller and minor states 22,995 2.74 million (Chiefly Hindu)
129
Total 77,395 8.51 million 421

20 Princely States forming the Rajputana Agency[9]

Name of Princely State Area in Square Miles Population in 1901
Approximate Revenue of the State (in hundred thousand Rupees) Title,
ethnicity, and religion of ruler Gun-Salute for Ruler Designation of
local political officer

Udaipur (Mewar) 12,691 1.02 million (Chiefly Hindus and Bhils) 24
Maharana, Sisodia Rajput, Hindu 21 (including two guns personal to the
then ruler) Resident in Mewar

Jaipur 15,579 2.66 million (Chiefly Hindu) 62 Maharaja, Kachwaha
Rajput, Hindu 21 (including two guns personal to the then ruler)
Resident at Jaipur

Jodhpur (Marwar) 34,963 1.94 million (mostly Hindu) 56 Maharaja,
Rathor Rajput, Hindu 17 Resident in the Western States of Rajputana

Bikaner 23,311 0.58 million (chiefly Hindu) 23 Maharaja, Rathor
Rajput, Hindu 17 Political agent in Bikaner

16 other states 42,374 3.64 million (Chiefly Hindu) 155
Total 128,918 9.84 million 320

2 Princely States forming the Baluchistan Agency[10]

Name of Princely State Area in Square Miles Population in 1901
Approximate Revenue of the State (in hundred thousand Rupees) Title,
ethnicity, and religion of ruler Gun-Salute for Ruler Designation of
local political officer

Kalat 71,593 0.37 million (Chiefly Sunni Muslims) 8 Khan or Wali,
Brahui, Sunni Muslim 19 Political Agent in Kalat

Las Bela 6,441 56 thousand (Chiefly Sunni Muslim) 2 Jam, Kureshi Arab,
Sunni Muslim Political Agent in Kalat
Total 78,034 0.43 million 10

Under a Provincial Government

Burma (52 States)

52 States in Burma: all except the Karen States were included in
British India[11]

Name of Princely State Area in Square Miles Population in 1901
Approximate Revenue of the State (in hundred thousand Rupees) Title,
ethnicity, and religion of ruler Gun-Salute for Ruler Designation of
local political officer

Hsipaw (Thibaw) 5,086 105,000 (Buddhist) 3 Sawbwa, Shan, Buddhist 9
Superintendent, Northern Shan States

Kengtung 12,000 190,000 (Buddhist) 1 Sawbwa, Shan, Buddhist 9
Superintendent Southern Shan States

Mongnai 2,717 44,000 (Buddhist) 0.5 Sawbwa, Shan, Buddhist 9
Superintendent Southern Shan States

5 Karen States 4,830 45,795 (Buddhist and Animists) 0.5
Superintendent Southern Shan States

44 Other States 42,198 792,152 (Buddhist and Animist) 8.5
Total 67,011 1,177,987 13.5

Other states under provincial governments

Please expand to view the tables for other states under Provincial
Governments

30 States under the suzerainty of the Provincial Government of Bengal
[12]

Name of Princely State Area in Square Miles Population in 1901
Approximate Revenue of the State (in hundred thousand Rupees) Title,
ethnicity, and religion of ruler Gun-Salute for Ruler Designation of
local political officer

Sikkim 2,818 59,014 (chiefly Buddhist and Hindu) 1 Maharaja, Tibetan,
Buddhist 15 Political Officer, Sikkim

Cooch Behar 1,307 566,974 (chiefly Hindu and Muslim) 24 Maharaja,
Kshattriya, Brahmo 13 Commissioner of Rajshahi (ex officio Political
Agent)

Hill Tippera 4,086 173,325 (chiefly Hindu) 7 Raja, Kshattriya, Hindu
13 Commissioner of Chittagong (ex officio Political Agent)

Bhutan 20,000 250,000 (Buddhist) 2 Deb Raja, Bhotia, Buddhist
Commissioner of Rajshahi (ex officio Political Agent)

26 Other States 30,441 2,949,231 44
Total 58,652 3,998,544 78

Madras (5 States)

5 States under the suzerainty of the Provincial Government of Madras
[10]

Name of Princely State Area in Square Miles Population in 1901
Approximate Revenue of the State (in hundred thousand Rupees) Title,
ethnicity, and religion of ruler Gun-Salute for Ruler Designation of
local political officer

Travancore 7,091 2,952,157 (chiefly Hindu and Christian) 100 Maharaja,
Kshatriya-Samanthan, Hindu 21 (including two guns personal to the then
ruler) Resident in Travancore and Cochin

Cochin 1,362 812,025 (chiefly Hindu and Christian) 27 Raja, Samanta-
Kshatriya, Hindu 17 Resident in Travancore and Cochin

Padukkottai 1,100 380,440 (Hindu) 11 Raja, Kallar, Hindu 11 Collector
of Trichinopoly (ex officio Political Agent)

2 minor states (Banganapalle and Sandur) 416 43,464 3
Total 9,969 4,188,086 141

(354 States)

354 states under the suzerainty of the Provincial Government of Bombay
[13]

Name of Princely State Area in Square Miles Population in 1901
Approximate Revenue of the State (in hundred thousand Rupees) Title,
ethnicity, and religion of ruler Gun-Salute for Ruler Designation of
local political officer

Kolhapur 2,855 910,011 (chiefly Hindus) 48 Maharaja, Kshatriya, Hindu
19 Political Agent for Kolhapur

Cutch 7,616 488,022 (chiefly Hindus) 20 Maharao, Jadeja Rajput, Hindu
17 Political Agent in Cutch

Khairpur 6,050 199,313 (chiefly Muslims) 13 Mir, Talpur Baloch, Muslim
15 Political Agent for Khairpur

Junagarh 3,284 395,428 (chiefly Hindus) 27 Nawab, Pathan, Muslim 11
Agent to the Governor in Kathiawar

Navanagar 3,791 336,779 (chiefly Hindus) 31 Jam Sahib, Jadeja Rajput,
Hindu 11 Agent to the Governor in Kathiawar

349 other states 42,165 4,579,095 281
Total 65,761 6,908,648 420

United Provinces (2 States)

Two states under the suzerainty of the Provincial Government of the
United Provinces[14]

Name of Princely State Area in Square Miles Population in 1901
Approximate Revenue of the State (in hundred thousand Rupees) Title,
ethnicity, and religion of ruler Gun-Salute for Ruler Designation of
local political officer

Rampur 899 533,212 (chiefly Hindus and Muslims) 33 Nawab, Pathan,
Muslim 13 Commissioner for Bareilly (ex officio Political Agent)

Tehri (Garhwal) 4,180 268,885 (chiefly Hindus) 3 Raja, Rajput Hindu 11
Commissioner of Kumaun (ex officio Political Agent)
Total 5,079 802,097 36

Central Provinces (15 States)

15 States under the suzerainty of the Provincial Government of the
Central Provinces[15]

Name of Princely State Area in Square Miles Population in 1901
Approximate Revenue of the State (in hundred thousand Rupees) Title,
ethnicity, and religion of ruler Gun-Salute for Ruler Designation of
local political officer

Kalahandi 3,745 284,465 (chiefly Hindus) 4 Raja, Rajput, Hindu 9
Political Agent for the Chattisgarh Feudatories

Bastar 13,062 306,501 (chiefly Animists) 3 Raja, Kshatriya, Hindu
Political Agent for the Chattisgarh Feudatories

13 other states 12,628 1,339,353 (chiefly Hindus) 16 11
Total 29,435 1,996,383 21

Punjab (34 States)

34 states under the suzerainty of the Provincial Government of the
Punjab[16]

Name of Princely State Area in Square Miles Population in 1901
Approximate Revenue of the State (in hundred thousand Rupees) Title,
ethnicity, and religion of ruler Gun-Salute for Ruler Designation of
local political officer

Bahawalpur 15,000 720,877 (chiefly Muslims) 24 Nawab, Daudputra,
Muslim 17 Political Agent for Phulkian States and Bahawalpur
Patiala 5,412 1,596,692 (chiefly Hindus and Sikhs) 57 Maharaja, Sidhu
Jat, Sikh 17 Political Agent for Phulkian States and Bahawalpur

Nabha 928 297,949 (chiefly Hindus and Sikhs) 12 Raja, Sidhu Jat, Sikh
15 (including 4 guns personal to the then ruler Political Agent for
Phulkian States and Bahawalpur
Jind 1,259 282,003 (chiefly Hindus and Sikhs) 15 Raja, Sidhu Jat, Sikh
11 Political Agent for Phulkian States and Bahawalpur

Kapurthala 630 314,351 (chiefly Muslims and Hindus) 13 Raja, Ahluwalia
Kolal, Sikh 11 Commissioner of the Jullundur Division (ex-officio
Political Agent)

Faridkot 642 124,912 (Sikhs, Hindus, and Muslims) 4 Raja, Barar Jat,
Sikh 11 Commissioner of the Jullundur Division (ex-officio Political
Agent)

28 other states 12,661 1,087,614 30
Total 36,532 4,424,398 155

Assam (26 States)

26 States under the suzerainty of the Provincial Government of Assam
[17]

Name of Princely State Area in Square Miles Population in 1901
Approximate Revenue of the State (in hundred thousand Rupees) Title,
ethnicity, and religion of ruler Gun-Salute for Ruler Designation of
local political officer

Manipur 8,456 284,465 (chiefly Hindus and Animists) 4 Raja, Kshatriya,
Hindu 11 Political Agent in Manipur

25 Khasi States 3,900 110,519 (Khasis and Christians) 0.5 Deputy
Commissioner, Khasi and Jaintia Hills
Total 12,356 394,984 4.5

Accession

After independence in 1947, the princely states were forced to accede
— and thus sign away their political autonomy — either to the secular,
mainly Hindu dominion of India or the majority Islamic dominion of
Pakistan (consisting of West Pakistan and East Pakistan; the latter
would later break away as Bangladesh). The accession was to be chosen
by its ruling Prince, not by the population, akin to the 16th century
European principle of cuius regio eius religio — though, in practice,
there were exceptions to this rule. Most acceded peacefully, except
for four: Junagadh, Hyderabad, Jammu and Kashmir and Tripura.

Junagadh, the largest state in the Kathiawar peninsula (now in
Gujarat), was a princely state with a Muslim ruler over a Hindu
majority. It had originally announced to join Pakistan by its Nawab
Muhammad Mahabat Khanji III. He was traveling in Pakistan's capital
Karachi to sign the treaty of accession when the Indian Army, with the
support of Junagadh's Hindu majority, took over control of the state.
The Nawab fled into exile and the Indian-appointed Prime Minister of
the state announced its merger with India.

In Hyderabad, a similar fate befell a Muslim dynasty which had been
the highest in rank since the abolition of the Mughals at Delhi and
the Kingdom of Oudh. The Muslim ruler of Hyderbad Osman Ali Khan, Asaf
Jah VII, the last Nizam, and his followers, Razakars, wished to remain
independent. The Indian Government carried out the so called
“Hyderabad Police Action” against the Nizam. Code-named “Operation
Polo” by the Indian military, this action by the Indian armed forces'
ended the rule of the Nizams of Hyderabad and led to the incorporation
of the princely state of Hyderabad into the Indian Union.

Jammu and Kashmir had a Muslim majority but was ruled by a Hindu Raja.
The Muslim League-dominated legislative assembly issued one statement
that represented the will of the Muslim people: “After carefully
considering the position, the conference has arrived at the conclusion
that accession of the State to Pakistan is absolutely necessary in
view of the geographic, economic, linguistic, cultural and religious
conditions… It is therefore necessary that the State should accede to
Pakistan."

The Maharaja Hari Singh, reluctant, would have preferred to remain
independent, but was advised by his later Prime Minister, Mehr Chand
Mahajan, that a landlocked country such as Kashmir would be soon
engulfed by foreign powers such as the USSR or China[18].

However, M.A. Jinnah, creator and Governor-General of Pakistan,
included Kashmir in his concept of Pakistan. The British-controlled
Gilgit Scouts staged a rebellion in the Northern Areas, as a result of
which this region became effectively a part of Pakistan, unilaterally
without a referendum and is up to the present being administered by
Pakistan as a part of Pakistan Occupied Kashmir (POK)

The Tribal Kabailis of the North West Frontier Province attacked and
ravaged Kashmir proper, with the help of the Pakistan armed forces
which were still controlled and administered by British officers.

With an independence no longer an option, the Maharaja now turned to
India, requesting troops for safeguarding Kashmir. Though Indian Prime
Minister Nehru was ready to send the troops, the acting Governor
General of India, Lord Mountbatten of Burma advised the Maharaja to
accede to India before she can send her troops. Hence, considering the
emergency situation he signed the instrument of accession to the Union
of India. However, evidence proved that long before the Maharaja could
meet the Indian Prime Minister, Nehru, and sign the instrument of
accession,India had sent forces into Kashmir. After not being able to
push back the Pakistani tribals and people of Gilgit, Nehru under
Mountbatten's advise took the matter to the UN, insisting that Jammu
and Kashmir's accession to India was legal,the UN did not agree and
Nehru promised the people of Kashmir the choice to join either India
or Pakistan after a plebiscite and also mentioned, "If the people
don't want to be part of the Indian union, then even though it might
hurt us, we will accept their choice."

United Nations Security Council Resolution 47 was adopted on 21 April
1948, stating that "(...) After hearing arguments from both India and
Pakistan, the Council increased the size of the Commission established
by United Nations Security Council Resolution 39 to five members,
instructed the Commission to go to the subcontinent and help the
governments of India and Pakistan restore peace and order to the
region and prepare for a plebiscite to decide the fate of Kashmir".

The resolution further recommended that in order to ensure the
impartiality of the plebiscite, Pakistan withdraw all tribesmen and
nationals who entered the region for the purpose of fighting, and that
India to also remove all her troops. The Commission was also to send
as many observers into the region as it deemed necessary to ensure the
provisions of the resolution were enacted" [1].

In practice, the resolution failed to resolve the problem, which
remains unresolved up to the present. At the time and up to the
present, Pakistanis and Kashmiri separatists accused India of having
acted with a double standard - i.e., acting according to the wish of a
majority Hindu population where the ruler was Muslim (as in the case
of Junagadh) and according to the wishes of the Hindu ruler where the
majority population was Muslim. (As Kashmir was no longer a Princely
state, further developments fall outside the scope of the present
page, and can be found in Kashmir#Post-1948 developments).

Tripura remained an independent kingdom after the Partition of India,
until it joined India 2 years later under the Tripura Merger
Agreement.

Post-independence

India

On accession by a princely state, its territories and administrations
merged into the Union of India. The rulers of the princely states were
allowed to retain their hereditary titles and official residences.
Depending upon their size, importance and revenue they were also
allowed to retain additional properties and given privy purses (in
compensation of the state's revenue which now would go the new Union).
On abolition of the privy purse (and the right to the hereditary
titles) by the government in 1971 the princely states ceased to exist
as recognised political entities.

Mohammed Abdul Ali Azim Jah, the former Prince of Arcot, is the only
former royal in India who was not affected by the abolition of privy
purses. In the order of precedence, he enjoys the rank of cabinet
minister of the state of Tamil Nadu.

The former Nawab hails from a family that traces its lineage back to
the second caliph, Umar ibn al-Khattāb. The title 'Prince of Arcot',
uniquely using the European style prince, was conferred on his
ancestor by the British government in 1870 after the post of Nawab of
the Carnatic (a title granted by the Mughal emperor) was abolished.

Former states sometimes still maintain and observe their ceremonies,
forms of address etc. either as family traditions or as popular folk-
customs. For example, processions during the popular Gangaur festival
in Jaipur begin, as per tradition, from the City Palace, which remains
the private residence of its former royal family.

Devgadh Baria was one of the princely states in western India which is
planned on European town planning principles along with controlled
architectural character at selected junctions in the town. The town is
surrounded by about 250 mt high hills on three sides which dominate
its skyline.

Pakistan

After independence, a new hereditary salute of 15 guns was granted in
1966 by President Ayub Khan, for the Wali of Swat, ruler of one of the
last princely states to be created (1926). Before that, there were
four Gun-Salute States in Pakistan: Bahawalpur, Chitral, Kalat, and
Khairpur. A few lesser non-salute states also acceded to Pakistan,
including Dir, Kharan, and Amb. In present-day Pakistan's tribal
region in the North-West Frontier Province, the princely states were
maintained until 1971, when all states were abolished by merger into
the republic; all princely titles were abolished in 1972.

Kashmir was under a Maharaja, and is disputed and divided with India.

Other princely states

British Empire: Princely states existed elsewhere in the British
Empire. Some of these were considered by the Colonial Office (or
earlier by the BHEIC) as satellites of, and usually points of support
on the naval routes to, British India, some important enough to be
raised to the status of salute states.

A number of Arab states around the Persian Gulf, including Oman, the
present-day United Arab Emirates and Kuwait, were British
protectorates under native rulers.
On the Malay peninsula a number of states, known as the Malay states,
were administered by local rulers, who recognized British sovereignty;
they still reign, but now constitutionally, in most constitutive
states of modern Malaysia.

Netherlands: Indirect rule through princely states (or even mere
tribal chieftaincies) was also practiced in other European nations'
colonial empires. An example is the Dutch East Indies (modern
Indonesia), which had dozens of local rulers (mainly Malay and Muslim,
others tribal, Hindu or animist). The colonial term in Dutch was
regentschap 'regency', but did not apply to lower-level fiefs.

It is not customary to use the term princely state, although it would
be technically correct, for western principalities, neither in the
feudal past (there were many, especially in the Holy Roman Empire, see
Fürst) nor for the presently independent Principality of Monaco or
Principality of Liechtenstein, nor for non-sovereign entities referred
to as principalities such as Wales.

See also

See List of Indian Princely States for a list of Indian princely
states at the time of Indian Independence

Prince and Principality for information on princely styles worldwide

Notes

^ Ramusack 2004, pp. 85 Quote:

"The British did not create the Indian princes. Before and during the
European penetration of India, indigenous rulers achieved dominance
through the military protection they provided to dependents and their
skill in acquiring revenues to maintain their military and
administrative organisations. Major Indian rulers exercised varying
degrees and types of sovereign powers before they entered treaty
relations with the British. What changed during the late eighteenth
and early nineteenth centuries is that the British increasingly
restricted the sovereignty of Indian rulers. The Company set
boundaries; it extracted resources in the form of military personnel,
subsidies or tribute payments, and the purchase of commercial goods at
favourable prices, and limited opportunities for other alliances. From
the 1810s onwards as the British expanded and consolidated their
power, their centralised military despotism dramatically reduced the
political options of Indian rulers. (p. 85)"

^ Ramusack 2004, p. 87 Quote:

"The British system of indirect rule over Indian states ... provided
a model for the efficient use of scarce monetary and personnel
resources that could be adopted to imperial acquisitions in Malaya and
Africa. (p. 87)"

^ Imperial Gazetteer of India vol. IV 1907, pp. 59-60

^ 1. Imperial Gazetteer of India, volume IV, published under the
authority of the Secretary of State for India-in-Council, 1909, Oxford
University Press. page 5. Quote:

"The history of British India falls, as observed by Sir C. P. Ilbert
in his Government of India, into three periods. From the beginning of
the seventeenth century to the middle of the eighteenth century the
East India Company is a trading corporation, existing on the
sufferance of the native powers and in rivalry with the merchant
companies of Holland and France. During the next century the Company
acquires and consolidates its dominion, shares its sovereignty in
increasing proportions with the Crown, and gradually loses its
mercantile privileges and functions. After the mutiny of 1857 the
remaining powers of the Company are transferred to the Crown, and then
follows an era of peace in which India awakens to new life and
progress."

2. The Statutes: From the Twentieth Year of King Henry the Third to
the ... by Robert Harry Drayton, Statutes of the Realm - Law - 1770
Page 211 (3)

"Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, the law of British
India and of the several parts thereof existing immediately before the
appointed ..."

3. Edney, M.E. (1997) Mapping an Empire: The Geographical Construction
of British India, 1765-1843, University of Chicago Press. 480 pages.
ISBN 9780226184883 4. Hawes, C.J. (1996)

Poor Relations: The Making of a Eurasian Community in British India,
1773-1833. Routledge, 217 pages. ISBN 0700704256.

^ Imperial Gazetteer of India vol. II 1908, p. 463,470 Quote1: "Before
passing on to the political history of British India, which properly
begins with the Anglo-French Wars in the Carnatic, ... (p.463)"
Quote2: "The political history of the British in India begins in the
eighteenth century with the French Wars in the Carnatic. (p.471)"

^ a b Imperial Gazetteer of India vol. IV 1907, p. 60

^ a b Imperial Gazetteer of India vol. IV 1907, p. 92

^ Imperial Gazetteer of India vol. IV 1907, p. 93

^ Imperial Gazetteer of India vol. IV 1907, pp. 94-95

^ a b Imperial Gazetteer of India vol. IV 1907, p. 96

^ Imperial Gazetteer of India vol. IV 1907, p. 101

^ Imperial Gazetteer of India vol. IV 1907, p. 98

^ Imperial Gazetteer of India vol. IV 1907, p. 97

^ Imperial Gazetteer of India vol. IV 1907, p. 99

^ Imperial Gazetteer of India vol. IV 1907, p. 102

^ Imperial Gazetteer of India vol. IV 1907, p. 100

^ Imperial Gazetteer of India vol. IV 1907, p. 103

^ Victoria Schofield. Kashmir in conflict: India, Pakistan and the
unending war.

References

Copland, Ian (2002), Princes of India in the Endgame of Empire,
1917-1947, (Cambridge Studies in Indian History & Society). Cambridge
and London: Cambridge University Press. Pp. 316, ISBN 0521894360,

http://www.amazon.com/Princes-Endgame-19171947-Cambridge-Studies/dp/0521894360/
.

Imperial Gazetteer of India vol. II (1908), The Indian Empire,
Historical, Published under the authority of His Majesty's Secretary
of State for India in Council, Oxford at the Clarendon Press. Pp.
xxxv, 1 map, 573.

Imperial Gazetteer of India vol. III (1907), The Indian Empire,
Economic (Chapter X: Famine, pp. 475–502, Published under the
authority of His Majesty's Secretary of State for India in Council,
Oxford at the Clarendon Press. Pp. xxxvi, 1 map, 520.

Imperial Gazetteer of India vol. IV (1907), The Indian Empire,
Administrative, Published under the authority of His Majesty's
Secretary of State for India in Council, Oxford at the Clarendon
Press. Pp. xxx, 1 map, 552.

Ramusack, Barbara (2004), The Indian Princes and their States (The New
Cambridge History of India), Cambridge and London: Cambridge
University Press. Pp. 324, ISBN 0521039894,

http://www.amazon.com/Indian-Princes-States-Cambridge-History/dp/0521267277

External links

Exclusively on Indian princely states and domains at Queensland
University

ROYAL AND NOBLE LINEAGES

Welcome to the website devoted to Royalty and nobility in countries
outside of Europe. Feel free to click on any of the links in the left
hand panel to select the country of your interest. The amount of
information can vary from just a few names to a substantial amount. As
always I will try to add to it whenever possible. Additions and
corrections will be gratefully accepted no matter how small.
Information, addresses or photos are also welcome. Please consider
making a donation to enable the site to continue to grow.

258606 accesses since 10th of April 1996

http://uqconnect.net/~zzhsoszy/

Indian Princely states and their History and detailed Genealogy -
Royalark

The Golden Book of India: A Genealogical and Biographical Dictionary
of the Ruling

Princes, Chiefs, Nobles, and Other Personages, Titled or Decorated, of
the Indian

Empire, by Sir Roper Lethbridge 1893.(Full Text)

Exhaustive lists of rulers and heads of government, and some
biographies.

WorldStatesmen Exhaustive lists of rulers and heads of government, and
many legal dates.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princely_State

...and I am Sid Harth

Sid Harth

unread,
Feb 3, 2010, 12:22:02 PM2/3/10
to
NAME OF STATE TYPE UPDATED

ACHLAVDA Jagir - Pratapgarh 1-7-2002
ACHROL Thikana - Jaipur 1-1-2004
ADESAR (SANTALPUR) PS 1-7-2002
AGAR PS 10-9-2002
AGORI-BARHAR Zamindari 11-10-2005
AGRA BARKHERA PS 10-9-2002
AHIRWAL Thikana 1-7-2002
AHMEDNAGAR ? 26-3-2002
AHOR Thikana - Jodhpur 24-5-2002
AIYAVEJ PS 1-7-2002
AJABPUR Zamindari 16-7-2005
AJAIGARH PS 10-9-2002
AJAR Thikana - Jodhpur? 1-7-2002
AJITSINGHI Jagir - Jodhpur? 1-7-2002
AJRAODA PS 10-9-2002
AKADIA PS 1-7-2002
AKALKOT PS 10-9-2002
AKALTARA
Zamindari
3-9-2006

AKNUR or AKHNOOR Zamindari 24-4-2003
ALAMPUR (DEWANI) PS 1-7-2002
ALANIAWAS Jagir - Jodhpur 22-3-2002
ALELAL Jagir - Kashmir 30-9-2003
ALI RAJPUR PS 10-9-2002
ALIDHRA (Amra Moka Estate) Mendarda PS 28-5-2003
ALIPURA PS 25-5-2003
ALMORA PS - Uttar Pradesh 1-7-2002
ALSISAR Thikana - Jaipur 1-1-2004
ALWA PS 1-7-2002
ALWAR PS 20-1-2002
AMALA PS 10-9-2002
AMARCHINTA Zamindari - Hyderabad 14-4-2002
AMARGADH Thikana - Udaipur 10-3-2002
AMARGARH Thikana - Karauli 13-2-2005
AMARKOT Thikana?? - Pakistan 1-10-2002
AMARNAGAR THANA DEVLI PS 28-5-2003
AMB PS - Pakistan 20-1-2002
AMBAO PS 1-7-2002
AMBLIARA PS 22-3-2002
AMBIRAMA Jagir - Pratapgarh 1-7-2002
AMET Thikana - Udaipur 10-3-2002
AMETHI Thikana - Uttar Pradesh 19-9-2002
AMLA Jagir - Gwalior 1-1-2004
AMLETA Thikana - Ratlam
30-9-2007
AMMAYANAYAKKANUR Zamindari - Tamil Naidu
28-8-2007

AMOD Thikana 1-7-2002
AMRAPUR (Dhrafa Thana) PS 1-7-2002
AMRAPUR (Pandu Mewas) PS 1-7-2002
AMRAVATI ? 22-3-2002
ANANDPUR (Surag Sadul or Chotila Thana) PS 1-1-2004
ANANDPUR (Khachar Desa Bhoj) PS 1-1-2004
ANANDPUR (Khachar Dada & Nana Jiwa) PS 1-1-2004
ANEGUNDI Zamindari 17-1-2004
ANGHAD PS 4-6-2002
ANKEVALIA or AKEWALIA PS 1-7-2002
ANTARBELLA Jagir - Jhabua 1-7-2002
ANTARDA ?Thikana - Kotah 1-7-2002
ARCOT PS 16-11-2003
ARJYA Jagir - Udaipur 22-3-2002
ARNIA PS 1-7-2002
ARNOD Jagir - Pratapgarh 5-3-2002
AROOKA Thikana - Jaipur 16-11-2003
ARTHUNA Jagir - Banswara 1-7-2002
ASIND Thikana - Udaipur 10-4-2002
ASKOTE Zamindari 24-9-2002
ASOPE Thikana - Jodhpur 24-9-2002
ASSAM PS 24-9-2002
ATHADAMA Thikana - U.P.
1-11-2005
ATHGARH PS 10-9-2002
ATHMALIK PS 210-9-2002
ATHOON Thikana - Udaipur 26-11-2001
ATRAULA Taluk - Oudh 24-9-2002
AUL
Zamindari - Orissa
6-12-2007

AUNDH PS 4-6-2002
AUWA Jagir - Jodhpur 6-3-2002
AVCHAR PS 10-9-2002
AWAGARH Jagir 4-3-2007

http://www.uq.net.au/~zzhsoszy/ips/a/a.html

NAME OF STATE TYPE UPDATED

BAAKRA
Jagir - Jodhpur
7-12-2009

BABHNIPAIR Taluk - Oudh 10-8-2003
BABRA PS 1-7-2002
BADA KHEDA Thikana - Bundi 2-4-2003
BADABUJURG Jagir - Jaipur 19-2-2004
BADANWARA Istimrari - Jodhpur 1-1-2004
BADCHAULI Thikana - Alwar 21-10-2003
BADGAON ? - Jodhpur 24-5-2003
BADNORE Thikana - Udaipur 22-3-2002
BADLU Jagir - Jodhpur 1-7-2002
BADU Jagir - Jodhpur 12-12-2002
BADVET Jagir - Jhabua 1-7-2002
BAGASRA I (Hadala Estate) PS 28-5-2003
BAGASRA II (Ram Harsur Estate) PS 28-5-2003
BAGASRA III (Ram and Vira Mulu Estate) PS 28-5-2003
BAGHAL PS 10-9-2002
BAGHAT PS 10-9-2002
BAGHELKHAND PS 1-7-2002
BAGHERA see Deogaon-Baghera Istimrari - Jodhpur 1-1-2004
BAGLI PS 10-9-2002
BAGORE Thikana - Udaipur 10-4-2002
BAGOT 1-7-2002
BAGRI Thikana - Jodhpur 20-2-2002
BAGSEU Thikana - Bikaner? 1-7-2002
BAGSURI Istimrari - Jodhpur 1-1-2004
BAHADURNAGAR Taluk - Oudh 24-9-2002
BAHAWALPUR PS - Pakistan 24-3-2002
BAI PS 10-9-2002
BAIKUNTHPUR Jagir - Rewah 22-9-2005
BAJANA or Nani Jatwad (see Warahi) PS 15-5-2003
BAJRANGGARH PS 1-7-2002
BAKHATGARH PS 19-12-2006
BAKROL
Taluk
14-9-2009

BALARAMPUR
Zamindari - Orissa
15-7-2008

BALARWA ? 25-5-2003
BALASINOR PS 10-9-2002
BALI ? - Jodhpur 1-7-2002
BALLABGARH Zamindari 10-8-2003
BALOTRA ? - Jodhpur 1-7-2002
BALRAMPUR Zamindari - Oudh 1-11-2002
BALSAN PS 10-9-2002
BALTISTAN PS 10-8-2003
BALUNDA Thikana - Jodhpur 24-5-2003
BALWAN Thikana - Kotah 1-7-2002
BAMANBOR PS 1-7-2002
BAMBORA Thikana - Udaipur 16-3-2002
BAMBORI ?? - Udaipur 16-3-2002
BAMRA PS 10-9-2002
BANDANWARA ? 16-3-2002
BANERA Jagir - Udaipur 19-9-2002
BANGAHAL
PS - Himachal Pradesh
10-8-2008

BANGANAPALLE PS 10-9-2002
BANKA PAHARI PS 26-9-2002
BANKALI Thikana 19-4-2003
BANLAS Thikana - Udaipur 1-7-2002
BANOL
Thikana - Udaipur
27-7-2008

BANSDA PS 10-9-2002
BANSI Thikana - Udaipur 19-4-2003
BANSI Taluk - Oudh 10-8-2003
BANSKHOH Thikana - Jaipur 1-1-2004
BANSRA Thikana - Udaipur 10-8-2003
BANSWARA PS 26-11-2001
BANSYA Thikana - Jodhpur 16-3-2002
BANTVA BARAMAJMU PS 25-5-2003
BAONI PS 10-9-2002
BAP ?-Jaisalmer 1-7-2002
BAR ? - Jodhpur 16-3-2002
BARA BARKHEDA see MOTA BARKHERA ?-Dhar 31-8-2002
BARAMBA PS 10-9-2002
BARAUNDHA PS 10-9-2002
BARDIA (BARRA) PS 10-9-2002
BARHPURA
Thikana
1-2-2007

BARIA PS 10-9-2002
BARI RUPAHELI ? - Udaipur 16-3-2002
BARI SADRI Thikana - Udaipur 16-3-2002
BARKANA or Varkana? Jagir - Jodhpur 16-3-2002
BARKHERA DEO DUNGRI PS 1-7-2002
BARKHERA PANTH PS 1-7-2002
BARLI Istimrari - Jodhpur 1-1-2004
BARMAWAL ?-Sailana 1-7-2002
BARMER ?-Jodhpur 1-7-2002
BAROD Thikana - Jodhpur 13-7-2002
BARODA PS 28-7-2003
BARSORA 1-7-2002
BARWAHA ? 1-7-2002
BARWALA (Vala Bhan Desa Estate) PS 1-1-2004
BARWANI PS 10-9-2002
BASAI Thikana 1-7-2002
BASHAHR PS 5-6-2003
BASODA PS 10-9-2002
BASOHLI PS 26-3-2003
BASSI ? - Udaipur 16-3-2002
BASTAR PS 10-9-2002
BASTI Taluk - Oudh 26-9-2002
BATHERDA Thikana - Udaipur 10-4-2002
BAUDH PS 10-10-2001
BAVDA PS? or Jagir -Kolhapur 14-7-2002

BEDA Jagir - Jodhpur 1-7-2002
BEDA-NO-NESS PS 1-7-2002
BEDLA Thikana - Udaipur 16-3-2002
BEGUN Thikana - Udaipur 16-3-2002
BEJA PS 25-10-2005
BELGAUM Zamindari 16-3-2002
BELHA Zamindari 26-1-2005
BEMALI ? - Udaipur 16-3-2002
BEMLA
Jagir - Jodhpur
14-9-2009

BENARES PS 26-11-2001
BENGAL Ancient Kingdom 20-6-2007
BENGU Thikana - Udaipur 1-7-2002
BERA Thikana 10-4-2002
BERI PS 10-9-2002
BETMA
Thikana
4-3-2009

BETTIAH PS 10-9-2002
BHADAWAR Zamindari
17-10-2005
BHADESAR Jagir - Udaipur 2-4-2003
BHADLI PS 1-7-2002
BHADRAJUN Thikana - Jodhpur 1-1-2004
BHADRANA PS 1-7-2002
BHADRAWAH PS 1-1-2004
BHADRI Taluk - Oudh 12-12-2002
BHADURAN Jagir -Jodhpur 1-7-2002
BHADVA PS 10-9-2002
BHADVANA PS 17-11-2003
BHAGAT PS 1-7-2002
BHAGWANPURA ?Thikana - Udaipur 10-4-2002
BHAINSRORGARH Thikana - Udaipur 2-4-2003
BHAISAUNDA PS 10-9-2002
BHAISOLA (DOTRIA) PS 10-9-2002
BHAJJI PS 10-9-2002
BHALALA PS 1-7-2002
BHALGAM BHALDOI PS 1-7-2002
BHALGAMDA PS 1-7-2002
BHALTHAN PS 1-7-2002
BHALUSNA PS 26-3-2002
BHANDARIA PS 1-7-2002
BHARATPUR PS 5-6-2002
BHARDARWAH Jagir - Jammu & Kashmir 1-7-2002
BHAREJDA PS 1-7-2002
BHARUD PURA ? - Dhar 1-7-2002
BHATHAN PS 26-3-2002
BHAU PS 24-4-2003
BHAVNAGAR PS 10-9-2002
BHAYAVADAR PS 1-1-2004
BHAWAL PS 26-3-2002
BHENSWARA Thikana - ? 10-4-2002
BHILODIA PS 26-3-2002
BHILWARA Thikana - Udaipur 1-7-2002
BHIMORA PS 1-7-2002
BHIMSAR 1-7-2002
BHINAI Istimrari - Jodhpur 1-1-2004
BHINDAR Thikana - Udaipur 16-11-2003
BHINGA Taluk 5-9-2002
BHOIKA PS 1-7-2002
BHOITE SARANJAM
Saranjam - Maharashtra
15-2-2009

BHOJAVADAR PS 1-7-2002
BHOJAKHERI PS 10-9-2002
BHOJAPARA Taluk 22-10-2003
BHOJPURA Thikana - Bhavnagar 1-7-2002
BHOPAL PS 26-11-2001
BHOR PS 10-9-2002
BHOTI PS 24-4-2003
BHUKARKA Thikana - Bikaner 1-7-2002

BHUNAS ? - Udaipur 15-4-2002
BHUPALGARH Thikana - Jodhpur 20-6-2005
BIBIPUR Thikana - Alwar 21-10-2003
BICHRAND I aka BICHHROD I PS 10-9-2002
BICHRAND II aka BICHHROD II PS 10-9-2002
BIDASAR Thikana - Bikaner 1-7-2002
BIDWAL Jagir - Dhar 1-1-2004
BIHAT PS 10-9-2002
BIHORA PS 10-9-2002
BIJA PS 10-9-2002
BIJAIPUR Thikana - Udaipur 17-9-2003
BIJATHAL Thikana - Jodhpur 10-4-2002
BIJAWAR PS 10-9-2002
BIJNA PS 10-9-2002
BIJOLIAN Thikana - Udaipur 24-7-2003
BIKAMPUR Thikana - Bikaner 4-1-2006
BIKANER PS 26-01-2002
BILARA ?-Jodhpur 1-7-2002
BILASPUR PS 26-11-2001
BILAUD PS 1-7-2002
BILAUDA PS 10-9-2002
BILBARI PS 26-3-2002
BILDI PS 1-7-2002
BILKHA PS 26-5-2003
BILPAD Taluk - Umeta 1-7-2002
BINDRABAN ?-Awadh 1-7-2002
BIRSINGHPUR Taluk - Oudh 24-9-2002
BISHRAMPUR
Zamindari
22-2-2006

BISSAU Thikana - Jaipur 10-4-2003
BITHIAN Jagir - Jodhpur 10-4-2002
BOBBILI Zamindari - Vizagapatam 16-3-2002
BODANONESS PS 26-3-2002
BODINAICKANUR Zamindari - Tamil Naidu
28-8-2007

BODO KHEMUNDI Zamindari - Orissa
16-12-2007
BOHERA Thikana - Udaipur 16-11-2003
BOLUNDRA PS 26-3-2002
BONAI PS 12-12-2002
BORASAMBER Zamindari 12-12-2002
BORI Jagir - Jhabua 1-7-2002
BORKHERA (DEWAS) PS 10-9-2002
BORKHERA (JAORA) PS 10-9-2002
BROACH PS 1-7-2002
BUDU Jagir? 1-7-2002
BUDSU Thikana - Jodhpur 29-12-2003
BUNDI PS 10-10-2001
BURDWAN Zamindari 10-9-2002
BURWAHA Jagir - Indore 16-3-2002
BUSI
Thikana - Jodhpur
11-1-2009

BUSSAHIR PS 1-7-2002

http://www.uq.net.au/~zzhsoszy/ips/b/b.html

NAME OF STATE TYPE UPDATED

CAMBAY PS 10-2-2003
CANNANORE PS 1-1-2004
CHALALA PS 17-11-2003
CHALUKYA
Dynasty
1-5-2006

CHAMARDI (VACHHANI) PS
CHAMBA PS 1-2-2002
CHAMPRAJPUR (Vala) PS 26-3-2002
CHAMU
Thikana - Jodhpur
16-6-2006

CHANCHANA or CACANA PS 17-11-2003
CHANDAWAL Thikana - Jodhpur 10-4-2002
CHANDARNI ? 22-3-2002
CHANDELAO Thikana - Jodhpur
28-12-2001
CHANDUP PS
CHANGBHAKAR PS 10-9-2002
CHANOD or Chanoud Thikana - Jodhpur 10-4-2002
CHAPANER PS
CHARKHA PS
CHARKHARI PS 28-12-2001
CHELAWAS
Thikana - Jodhpur
11-1-2009

CHENANI Jagir - Jammu & Kashmir 16-12-2009
CHERRA PS
CHHALIAR PS 10-9-2002
CHHATARI
CHHATARPUR PS 10-9-2002
CHHOTA BARKHERA PS 10-9-2002
CHHOTA NAGPUR PS
CHHOTA UDAIPUR PS 10-9-2002
CHHOTI SADRI Thikana - Udaipur
CHHUIKHADAN PS 10-9-2002
CHICKALWANA Thikana - Jodhpur 19-4-2003
CHICKALANA Thikana - Gwalior 31-8-2008
CHIKITI Zamindari - Orissa
15-1-2008

CHINCHLI GADED PS 26-3-2002
CHINNA MERANGI Zamindari - Andhra Pradesh
10-4-2002
CHIRODA PS 10-9-2002
CHITAL (Unad Rana Wala Estate) PS 1-1-2004
CHITRAVAV (DEVANI) PS
CHITOR Thikana - Udaipur
CHITRAL PS - Pakistan 28-12-2001
CHOBARI PS
CHOK PS
CHOLA
Empire
1-5-2006

CHOMU Thikana - Jaipur 10-4-2002
CHORANGALA PS 25-2-2006
CHOTILA (Anandpur or Surag Sadul Estate) PS 1-1-2004
CHOWKARI Thikana - Jaipur 1-1-2004
CHUDA PS 25-5-2003
CHUDA SORATH PS 26-3-2002
CHUDESAR PS
CHURHAT Thikana - Rewah 19-7-2005
CHURU Thikana - Bikaner
COCHIN PS 28-12-2001
COOCH BEHAR PS 28-12-2001
COORG PS
COSSIMBAZAR Zamindari - Bengal
28-12-2001

http://www.uq.net.au/~zzhsoszy/ips/c/c.html

NAME OF STATE TYPE UPDATED

DABHA PS 10-9-2002
DABHAD Thikana - Dhar 1-7-2002
DABRI PS 1-7-2002
DADHALIA PS 10-9-2002
DAHIDA PS 1-7-2002
DAIYA
Zamindari - Uttar Pradesh
16-12-2009

DAKLA Jagir - Jodhpur 1-7-2002
DALIPPUR ? 22-4-2002
DALPATPUR Zamindari 24-4-2003
DANGA PS 1-7-2002
DANTA PS 10-9-2002
DANTA Thikana - Jaipur 1-1-2004
DAPHLAPUR PS 1-7-2002
DARBHANGA Zamindari 10-9-2002
DARIA KHERI PS 10-9-2002
DARKHAST ?- Sirmur 1-7-2002
DARKOTI PS 10-9-2002
DAROD PS 1-7-2002
DASADA PS 1-7-2002
DASPALLA PS 10-9-2002
DASPAN ? - Jodhpur 15-4-2002
DATARPUR PS 12-6-2003
DATHA PS 1-7-2002
DATIA PS 25-5-2003
DATTIGAON
Jagir - Gwalior
16-9-2009

DAUDSAR Thikana - Bikaner 28-12-2001
DAULATGADH Jagir - Idar 15-4-2002
DAULATGADH ? - Udaipur 15-4-2002
DAULATPUR Jagir - Bhopal 11-8-2003
DAVAD ? 1-1-2004
DEDAN (Unad Bhan Estate) PS 30-5-2003
DEDAN (Jaitmal Champraj Estate) PS 30-5-2002
DEDARDA PS 1-7-2002
DEDHROTA aka DEDHARTA? PS 11-8-2003
DELATH PS 1-7-2002
DELHI (Mughal) PS 14-11-2004
DELOLI PS 1-7-2002
DELWARA Thikana - Udaipur 10-4-2002
DEO
Zamindari - Bihar
18-11-2007

DEODAR PS 10-9-2002
DEODAR THANA PS 26-3-2002
DEOGAON BAGHERA Istimrari - Jodhpur 1-1-2004
DEOGARH Thikana - Udaipur 29-9-2003
DEOLIA Istimrari - Jodhpur 21-5-2008
DERBHAVTI PS 1-7-2002
DERDI JANBAI PS 1-7-2002
DEROL PS 10-9-2002
DESURI ?Thikana - Jodhpur 1-7-2002
DEVALIA PS 17-11-2003
DEVASTHAN Thikana - Udaipur 1-7-2002
DEVRALA Thikana - Jaipur 25-5-2003
DEWA ka BASS Thikana - Jaipur 15-11-2003
DEWALGHAT Jagir 1-7-2002
DEWAS Jnr PS 10-9-2002
DEWAS Snr PS 10-9-2002
DHABLA DHIR AND KAKARKHERI PS 10-9-2002
DHABLA GHOSI PS 10-9-2002
DHADI PS 12-10-2005
DHAKA Zamindari - Bangladesh 13-4-2004
DHAMASIA aka VANMALA PS 10-9-2002
DHAMI PS 10-9-2002
DHAMOTAR Jagir - Pratapgarh 1-1-2004
DHANBARI Zamindari 1-7-2002
DHANK Jagir - Gondal 10-8-2003
DHANLA
Thikana - Jodhpur
12-1-2009

DHAORA GANJARA PS 1-7-2002
DHAR PS 10-9-2002
DHARAFA PS 1-7-2002
DHARAKOTE Zamindari - Orissa
24-1-2008
DHARAMPUR PS 29-9-2003
DHARI PS 1-7-2002
DHARIAWAD Thikana - Udaipur 1-1-2004
DHARNODA or DHARNANDA PS 10-9-2002
DHARSIKHERA Thikana - Dhar 15-4-2002
DHENKANAL PS 28-9-2003
DHERI-TALOKAR Jagir - Pakistan 21-9-2005
DHIR PS - Pakistan 28-12-2001
DHOLA (DEVANI) PS 1-7-2002
DHOLARVA PS 1-7-2002
DHOLPUR PS 28-12-2001
DHOOM MANIKPUR Taluq
17-10-2003
DHOURPUR Zamindari - Udaipur (M.P.)
17-11-2009

DHRAFA PS 25-4-2002
DHRANGADHRA PS 29-9-2003
DHROL PS 29-9-2003
DHULA Thikana - Jaipur 1-1-2004
DHULATIA PS 10-9-2002
DHUNI Thikana - Jaipur 1-1-2004
DHURWAI PS 10-9-2002
DHUWANKHERI Thikana - Narsingarh 15-4-2002
DIGGI Thikana - Jaipur 20-4-2002
DINAJPUR Zamindari 10-9-2002
DODKA PS 1-7-2002
DOMPADA Zamindari - Orissa
13-8-2008

DOTRIA Thikana - Dhar 1-7-2002
DUDHPUR PS 10-9-2002
DUDHREJ aka Dhudhraj PS 1-7-2002
DUDOD
Thikana - Jodhpur
8-2-2009

DUGRI PS 10-9-2002
DUJANA PS 10-9-2002
DUJOD Thikana - Jaipur 25-6-2005
DUMARIA Zamindari 27-9-2004
DUMRAON Princely State 2-3-2003
DUNDLOD Thikana 22-01-2002
DUNGARPUR PS 25-5-2003

http://www.uq.net.au/~zzhsoszy/ips/d/d.html

Sid Harth

unread,
Feb 3, 2010, 12:24:25 PM2/3/10
to
NAME OF STATE TYPE UPDATED

EBHAL VAJSUR ESTATE PS 26-3-2002
EKA ? 24-9-2002
ELICHPUR ? - Andhra Pradesh
ERAL ? - Gujarat 2-4-2003
ETA ?
ETAIYAPURAM Zamindari - Madras 24-5-2004
ETTAWAH PS? 26-9-2002

http://www.uq.net.au/~zzhsoszy/ips/e/e.html

NAME OF STATE TYPE UPDATED

FALICHRA Thikana - Udaipur 1-1-2004
FALNA Thikana - Jodhpur 12-11-2002
FARIDKOT PS 30-12-2001
FARRUKHABAD PS 26-9-2002
FATEGARH Thikana - Kishangarh 29-11-2003
FATEHPUR I 26-9-2002
FATEHPUR II 26-9-2002
FATEHPUR III

http://www.uq.net.au/~zzhsoszy/ips/f/f.html

NAME OF STATE TYPE UPDATED

GABAT PS 10-9-2002
GAD BORIAD PS 26-3-2002
GADARMALA Thikana 26-3-2002
GADHALI (Songadh Thana) PS 26-3-2002
GADHIA PS 26-3-2002
GADHKA PS 10-9-2002
GADHOL PS 10-9-2002
GADHULA PS 10-9-2002
GADHWADA THANA 10-9-2002
GADIA Taluk - Oudh 3-9-2003
GADVI PS 10-9-2002
GADWAL Zamindari - Hyderabad 12-10-2002
GAGUDA
Thikana - Marwar
27-1-2006

GAINTA Thikana - Kotah
10-9-2002
GAJENDRAGAD PS 8-3-2005
GANDHOL PS 10-9-2002
GANGPUR PS 10-9-2002
GANGWAL Taluk - Oudh 14-8-2003
GANTEL Thikana 2-4-2003
GARAON 2-4-2003
GARBA PS 2-4-2003
GARDNER Family 19-9-2005
GARHA PS 10-9-2002
GARHI Thikana - Alwar 26-9-2002
GARHI Jagir - Banswara 10-4-2002
GARHI (BHAISAKHO) PS 2-4-2003
GARHWAL see also TEHRI-GARHWAL PS 30-12-2001
GARMALI MOTI PS 2-4-2003
GARMALI NANI PS 2-4-2003
GAROLI ??aka GARRAULI/GARAULI 2-4-2003
GARRAULI PS 10-9-2002
GAURIHAR PS 10-9-2002
GAVRIDAD PS 10-9-2002
GED PS 2-4-2003
GEDI PS 2-4-2003
GEEJGARH Thikana 26-3-2002
GEI PS 17-11-2003
GHANERAO Thikana - Jodhpur 30-12-2001
GHANGHU Thikana - Bikaner 25-6-2005
GHANSHYAMPUR Jagir - Dhrangadhra? 30-12-2001
GHODASAR aka GHODSAR PS 10-9-2002
GHUND Zaildari 18-8-2004
GIDAD 2-4-2003
GIDHAUR Zamindari
10-9-2002
GIGASARAN PS 2-4-2003
GIRWA 2-4-2003
GOELA Istimrardari - Jodhpur 1-7-2002
GOGUNDA Thikana - Udaipur 26-11-2001
GONDA Taluk 28-8-2002
GONDAL PS 4-1-2005
GONDHER see SANTHA Thikana - Jodhpur 2-4-2003
GOPALPET
Zamindari - Hyderabad
3-6-2008

GOTARDI PS 2-4-2003
GOTHDA PS 2-4-2003
GOVINDGARH Istimrari - Jodhpur 3-1-2004
GURHA MALANI Thikana - Jodhpur
18-9-2006
GUDARKHERA PS 10-9-2002
GULER PS 3-1-2004
GUMANPURA ? - Dungarpur 21-1-2003
GUNDERDEHI Zamindari 2-4-2003
GUNDIALA PS 2-4-2003
GUNDOJ Thikana? 22-3-2002
GURA SONIGARA
Thikana - Jodhpur
29-10-2008

GURDAN Thikana 2-4-2003
GURGUNTA Jagir - Hyderabad 10-5-2002
GURLA Thikana 2-4-2003
GWALIOR PS 1-02-2002
GYANGARH Thikana - Udaipur 26-3-2002

http://www.uq.net.au/~zzhsoszy/ips/g/g.html


NAME OF STATE TYPE UPDATED

HADALA PS 26-3-2002
HADALI Zamindari 2-6-2005
HADOL PS 9-9-2002
HALARIA PS 26-3-2002
HALDIA Zamindari 22-3-2002
HALIA
Zamindari
19-8-2009

HAMIRGARH Jagir - Udaipur 15-4-2002
HANSI ? 26-3-2002
HAPA PS 9-9-2002
HARASAR Thikaner - Bikaner 3-1-2004
HARIADHANA Thikana - Jodhpur 3-8-2003
HARJI
Thikana - Jodhpur
24-2-2009

HARSORO ? 26-3-2002
HASANPUR Taluk - Oudh 26-9-2002
HARSURPUR (Nana Devalia) Vala XXI PS 28-5-2003
HATHASNI ? 26-3-2002
HATHRAS Princely State 14-9-2004
HATNARA
Thikana - Ratlam
15-8-2007

HAZARA see Nawabganj
Jagir - ? 26-9-2002
HEERWA Thikana - Jaipur 3-1-2004
HEMGIR Zamindari - Gangpur 15-4-2002
HINDOL PS 9-9-2002
HINTA Jagir - Udaipur 30-12-2001
HIRANI Thikana - Jodhpur 13-7-2002
HIRAPUR PS 9-9-2002
HOTI Jagir 26-3-2002
HUNZA PS - Pakistan 8-8-2002
HYDERABAD PS 30-4-2002

http://www.uq.net.au/~zzhsoszy/ips/h/h.html

NAME OF STATE TYPE UPDATED

IAVEJ PS
ICHA Zamindari - Seraikela 15-4-2002
ICHALKARANJI Thikana - Kolkapur 30-12-2001
IDAR PS 25-11-2002
IJPURA PS 9-9-2002
ILOL PS 9-9-2002
INAYATI
Thikana - Karauli
15-5-2008

INDORE PS 30-12-2001
INDERGARH Thikana - Kotah 24-6-2007
ISARDA Thikana - Jaipur 15-4-2002
ITARIA PS 25-11-2002
ITAUNJA Taluq - Oudh 24-8-2004
ITWAD PS 25-11-2002

http://www.uq.net.au/~zzhsoszy/ips/i/i.html

NAME OF STATE TYPE UPDATED

JABRIA BHIL AND JABRI PS 10-9-2002
JAFRABAD PS 10-9-2002
JAGDISHPUR Zamindari 25-5-2005
JAGMANPUR
Zamindari - Bundelkhand
30-9-2007

JAHAZPUR 10-9-2002
JAHOTA Thikana - Jaipur 14-9-2005
JAINTIAPUR 10-9-2002
JAIPAIGURI 10-9-2002
JAIPUR PS 22-01-2002
JAIPUR RAJ Zamindari 14-4-2002
JAISALMER PS 25-11-2002
JAIWANA also Jewana
Thikana - Udaipur
30-5-2006

JAKHAN PS 17-11-2003
JALAMAND 10-9-2002
JALAUN 10-9-2002
JALIA AMRAJJI 10-9-2002
JALIA DEVANI PS 10-9-2002
JALIA KAYAJI PS 10-9-2002
JALIA MANAJI PS 10-9-2002
JALIM VILAS 10-9-2002
JALORE Jagir - Jodhpur 31-3-2002
JAMBUGODHA PS 30-12-2001
JAMKHANDI PS 27-9-2002
JAMLI Thikana - Jhabua 14-4-2002
JAMMU PS 24-9-2002
JAMMU and KASHMIR PS 22-01-2002
JAMNIA PS 19-6-2007
JAMOLI Thikana - Udaipur 30-12-2001
JANDALA PS 12-5-2003
JANJIRA PS 31-12-2001
JAOLA Thikana - Jodhpur 2-3-2004
JAOLI
Thikana - Alwar
29-3-2009

JAORA PS 10-9-2002
JARADA
Zamindari - Orissa
26-12-2007

JARAR
Zamindari - UP
15-3-2007

JARASINGHA Zamindari 14-4-2002
JARKHANA Thikana - Udaipur 31-12-2001
JASANA
Thikana - Bikaner
24-6-2007

JASDAN PS 10-9-2002
JASHPUR PS 10-9-2002
JASNAGAR Jagir - Jodhpur
7-3-2007
JASO PS 10-9-2002
JASOL Thikana - Jodhpur 2-4-2003
JASROTA PS - Jammu 25-5-2003
JASWADI Thikana - MP 19-4-2003
JASWAN ? 3-1-2004
JATH PS 10-9-2002
JAWAS ? 3-1-2004
JAWASIA PS 10-9-2002
JAWHAR PS 10-9-2002
JEHANGIRABAD Taluq - Oudh 14-4-2002
JESAR PS 10-9-2002
JEITPUR PS 10-9-2002
JETPROLE Zamindari - Hyderabad 14-4-2002
JETPUR BHAYAVADAR (Vala or Bhaya Nathu Estate) PS 28-5-2003
JETPUR SANALA (Vala or Giga Hipa Estate) PS 28-5-2003
JEYPORE Zamindari 3-1-2004
JHABUA PS 28-10-2002
JHAKNAVDA 10-9-2002
JHALAI Thikana - Jaipur 14-4-2002
JHALAWAR PS 10-9-2002
JHALERA PS 10-9-2002
JHAMAR PS 5-6-2003
JHAMKA (VELANI) PS 5-6-2003
JHAMPODAD PS 5-6-2003
JHANDA Jagir 1-8-2003
JHANSI PS 15-4-2002
JHANTLA Jagir - Pratapgarh 10-9-2002
JHARGRAM
Zamindari - West Bengal
13-7-2008

JHARI GHARKADI PS 10-9-2002
JHAROL Thikana - Udaipur 31-12-2001
JHINJHUVADA PS 10-9-2002
JIGNI PS 10-9-2002
JILIYA
Thikana - Jodhpur
28-9-2007

JIND PS 10-9-2002
JIRAL KAMSOLI PS 10-9-2002
JOBAT PS 10-9-2002
JOBNER ? 15-4-2002
JODHPUR PS 1-02-2002
JUBBAL PS 5-5-2005
JUDA 10-9-2002
JULLUNDAR 10-9-2002
JUMKHA PS 10-9-2002
JUNAGADH PS 10-9-2002
JUNAPADAR PS 10-9-2002
JUNIAN Istimrari - Jodhpur 3-1-2004

http://www.uq.net.au/~zzhsoszy/ips/j/j.html

Sid Harth

unread,
Feb 3, 2010, 12:27:25 PM2/3/10
to
NAME OF STATE TYPE UPDATED

KACHAR 1-7-2002
KACHHI BARODA PS 10-9-2002
KACHHOLA 1-7-2002
KADANA PS 1-7-2002
KADOLI PS 1-7-2002
KAGAL Jnr Jagir - Kolhapur 7-2-2007
KAGAL Snr Jagir - Kolhapur 2-7-2007
KAIMAHRA see OEL
Taluq - Uttar Pradesh
4-11-2009

KAITHAL 1-7-2002
KAKINA Zamindari 26-9-2002
KALABAGH Taluq? 31-12-2001
KALADWAS Thikana 1-7-2002
KALAHANDI PS 3-02-2002
KALAKANKAR Taluq 3-02-2002
KALAPIPAL
Jagir - Madhya Pradesh
24-7-2009

KALAT PS - Pakistan 9-9-2002
KALAYANI 1-7-2002
KALI BAORI PS 9-9-2002
KALSIA PS 9-9-2002
KALLAR
Jagir - Punjab
28-02-2007

KALUKHERA PS 9-9-2002
KALYANPURA Jagir - Pratapgarh 1-7-2002
KAMA Jagir? - Jaipur 20-4-2003
KAMADHIA Princely State - Kathiawar
17-9-2008
KAMALPUR PS 9-9-2002
KAMTA RAJAULA PS 9-9-2002
KANAI KALAN Thikana - Jodhpur 17-2-2004
KANAI KHURD
Thikana
24-7-2009

KANANA 1-7-2002
KANER PS 1-7-2002
KANGRA PS 2-3-2003
KANIKA PS 1-5-2002
KANJAL PS 26-3-2002
KANJHARDA 1-7-2002
KANKARWA
Thikana - Udaipur
6-11-2005

KANKASISALI PS 1-7-2002
KANKER PS 9-9-2002
KANKREJ THANA 9-9-2002
KANKROLI also KANKRAULI Thikana - Udaipur 9-9-2002
KANNOD Thikana - Madhya Pradesh 10-7-2005
KANOD Thikana - Udaipur 9-9-2002
KANODA PS 9-9-2002
KANORE Thikana - Udaipur 20-4-2002
KANOTA Thikana - Jaipur 22-1-2002
KANPUR Zamindari 14-6-2003
KANTALIA Thikana - Jodhpur 12-1-2009
KANPUR-ISHWARIA PS 1-7-2002
KANTHARIA PS 1-7-2002
KANTODIA 1-7-2002
KAPASAN 1-7-2002
KAPSHI PS 16-7-2005
KAPURTHALA PS 16-8-2003
KARANSAR
Thikana - Jaipur
14-10-2006

KARAUDIA or KARODIA PS 9-9-2002
KARAULI PS 1-5-2002
KARIANA PS 1-7-2002
KARJALI Jagir - Udaipur 3-1-2004
KARJU 1-7-2002
KARMAD PS 1-7-2002
KARNAL Jagir 19-4-2002
KAROI 1-7-2002
KAROL PS 1-7-2002
KARWAR 1-7-2002
KASALPURA PS 9-9-2002
KASHIPUR Jagir 3-1-2004
KASHTWAR PS 25-5-2003
KASMANDA Taluq - Oudh 31-10-2002
KASLA PAGINU MUWADA PS 1-7-2002
KASLI Jagir - Jaipur 7-6-2005
KASOTA
Thikana - Rewah
4-6-2008

KATHAUN PS
KATHIWADA PS 3-5-2006
KATHODIA Thikana - Dhar
KATHODIA (VACHHANI) PS
KATHROTA PS
KATOSAN THANA PS 9-9-2002
KAWARDHA PS 2-3-2003
KAYATHA PS 9-9-2002

KEBANIYA
Istimrari - Jodhpur
29-10-2008

KEONJHAR PS 9-9-2002
KEONTHAL PS 9-9-2002
KERANYA Thikana - Bansda 1-7-2002
KERIA Thikana 1-7-2002
KEROTE
Istimrari - Jodhpur
29-10-2008

KESARIA PS 2-3-2003
KHACHARIAWAS Thikana - Jaipur 3-1-2004
KHADAL PS 2-3-2003
KHAIRAGARH PS 21-9-2002
KHAIRIGARH PS 2-3-2003
KHAIRPUR PS 9-9-2002
KHAJURGAON Taluk 28-10-2003
KHAJURIA PS 9-9-2002
KHAKHRI Thikana
7-5-2006

KHALLIKOTE Zamindari 3-1-2004
KHAMBHALA PS 2-3-2003
KHAMBHLAV PS 2-3-2003
KHAMNOR 2-3-2003
KHANDELA-Jnr Thikana - Jaipur 1-11-2003
KHANDELA-Snr Thikana - Jaipur 1-11-2003
KHANDIA PS 2-3-2003
KHANDPARA PS 9-9-2002
KHANDU ? 18-3-2002
KHANETI PS 7-10-2005
KHANIADHANA PS 9-9-2002
KHANPUR Jagir - Pakistan 21-9-2005
KHAPRADIH Taluq - Oudh 3-11-2004
KHAPULU Jagir - Kashmir 17-8-2003
KHARAN PS - Pakistan 1-5-2002
KHARDA
Thikana - Jodhpur
24-2-2009

KHARIAR
4-12-2007

KHARI BAGASRA (Vala Ram and Vira Mulu Estate) PS 28-5-2003
KHARMANG Jagir - Kashmir 17-8-2003
KHARSAWAN PS 9-9-2002
KHARSIA PS 9-9-2002
KHARWA Istimrari - Jodhpur 3-1-2004
KHASI HILLS ? 18-3-2002
KHATOLI Thikana - Kotah
24-6-2007
KHATU Thikana - Jaipur 3-1-2004
KHAWASA Thikana - Jhabua 18-5-2003
KHEDAWADA Jagir - Udaipur 18-3-2002
KHEDAWADA PS 26-3-2002
KHEDLI ? 18-3-2002
KHEJARLA Thikana 1-7-2002
KHERABAD Thikana - Udaipur 31-12-2001
KHERALI PS 1-7-2002
KHERI RAJPURA PS 1-7-2002
KHERWA or KHERAWARA PS 9-9-2002
KHERWASA PS 9-9-2002
KHETRI Thikana - Jaipur 31-12-2001
KHIANDA PS 9-9-2002
KHIJADIA-NAJANI (Lakhpadar Thana) PS 3-1-2004
KHIJADIA (Dosaji) (Songadh Thana) PS 3-1-2004
KHIJADIA (BABRA THANA) PS 3-1-2004
KHIJADIA (Vala Shri Valera Raning) Vala XIX PS 3-1-2004
KHILCHIPUR PS 9-9-2002
KHIMSAR Thikana 21-8-2003
KHINWARA Thikana 16-5-2004
KHIRASRA PS 9-9-2002
KHIWARA ? 18-3-2002
KHOJAN KHERA Thikana - Ratlam
29-8-2008
KHOOD Thikana - Jaipur 3-1-2004
KHURDA PS - Orissa 23-9-2005
KHYRIM PS 9-9-2002

KIRLI or KIRALI PS 9-9-2002
KIRLOSKARWADI 1-7-2002
KISHANGARH PS 22-01-2002
KOCHORE Thikana 1-7-2002
KOD Thikana - Dhar 1-5-2002
KOELA Jagir? - Kotah 24-5-2003
KOLABA ? 26-3-2002
KOLHAPUR PS 31-12-2001
KOREA PS 1-5-2002
KOTAH PS 1-5-2002
KOTDA NAYANI PS 1-7-2002
KOTDA PITHA PS 1-7-2002
KOTDA SANGANI PS 9-9-2002
KOTHARIA I Jagir - Udaipur 24-9-2002
KOTHARIA II PS 9-9-2002
KOTHI
Zamindari - Rewah
20-6-2008

KOTI PS 11-6-2005
KOTKHAI
PS
23-10-2005

KOTLA Thikana 3-1-2004
KOTPUTLI 1-7-2002
KOTRI RAOLA 1-7-2002
KOTWARA Zamindari 20-11-2002
KOVUR Zamindari 16-11-2003
KUBA PS 1-7-2002
KUCHAMAN Thikana - Jodhpur 31-12-2001
KULLU Zamindari? 3-02-2002
KUMAON PS 1-7-2002
KUMHARSAIN PS 9-9-2002
KUNIHAR PS 9-9-2002
KUNJPURA 1-7-2002
KURABAR Jagir - Udaipur 1-5-2002
KURNOOL 1-7-2002
KURSELA Zamindari 5-7-2004
KURUNDWAD Jnr PS 9-9-2002
KURUNDWAD Snr PS 9-9-2002
KURUPAM Z? 3-02-2002
KURWAI PS 9-9-2002
KURWAR Taluk 27-9-2002
KUSALPUR or KASSALPURA PS 9-9-2002
KUSHALGARH PS 1-7-2002
KUSHALGARH Thikana - Banswara 1-5-2002
KUTCH PS 9-9-2002
KUTHAR PS 9-9-2002
KUTLEHAR Jagir 20-10-2001

http://www.uq.net.au/~zzhsoszy/ips/k/k.html

NAME OF STATE TYPE UPDATED

LADAKH Kingdom - Kashmir 13-8-2002
LADNUN ? 18-3-2002
LAHORE PS 24-9-2002
LAKHAPADAR PS
LAKHTAR PS 1-1-2002
LAKHTAR (THANA LAKHTAR) PS
LALGARH PS 9-9-2002
LALIAD PS
LAMBAGRAON Jagir 2-3-2003
LAMBIA ? 18-3-2002
LANGACH Th
LANGRIN PS 18-3-2002
LAS BELA PS - Pakistan 9-9-2002
LASANI Thikana 1-1-2002
LASDAWAN ? 18-3-2002
LATHI PS 9-9-2002
LAWA ? - Jaipur 9-9-2002
LERI ? 18-3-2002
LIKHI PS 9-9-2002
LIMBDA PS
LIMBDI or LIMRI PS 9-9-2002
LIMDI Thikana 2-4-2003
LODHIKA (Majmu) PS 26-3-2002
LODHIKA (Mulwaji Estate) PS 12-9-2002
LODHIKA (Vijaysinhji Estate) PS 12-9-2002
LODRAU
Thikana - Jodhpur
1-3-2009

LOGASI or LUGASI PS 9-9-2002
LOHARU PS 9-9-2002
LOROLI Jagir - Jodhpur
LUNAWADA PS 9-9-2002
LUNDA Thikana - Udaipur 1-1-2002
LUNI Thikana - Jodhpur 7-1-2004

http://www.uq.net.au/~zzhsoszy/ips/l/l.html

NAME OF STATE TYPE UPDATED

MADANPUR-RAMPUR Zamindari 29-4-2002
MADHAN or KIARI Zaildari 18-8-2004
MAGODI PS 26-9-2002
MAGUNA PS 26-3-2002
MAHAJAN Thikana - Bikaner 1-1-2002

MAHANSAR Thikana - Jaipur 16-11-2003
MAHARAM PS 26-9-2002
MAHILOG or MAHLOG PS 26-9-2002
MAHISIDAL ? 1-1-2002

MAHMUDABAD Taluq 1-1-2002
MAHSON Zamindari 22-12-2004
MAHUVA NANA see MOWA PS 26-3-2002
MAIDAS Thikana - Jodhpur 29-4-2002
MAIHAR PS 26-9-2002
MAINPURI PS 2-10-2002
MAIRWARA Thikana - Udaipur 9-9-2002

MAKADAI ? 9-9-2002

MAKRAI PS 9-9-2002
MAKRAN PS - Pakistan 9-9-2002
MAKSUDANGARH PS 26-9-2002
MAKSUDPUR
Zamindari - Bihar
20-3-2007

MALAISOHMAT PS 9-9-2002
MALARI (Champawat)
Thikana - Jodhpur
14-8-2009

MALARNA CHOR ? 26-3-2002
MALAUDH Jagir 24-9-2002
MALER KOTLA PS 26-9-2002
MALIA or MALIYA PS 9-9-2002
MALPUR PS 7-1-2004
MALSISAR Thikana - Jaipur 30-7-2003
MAMDOT Jagir 26-9-2002
MANADAR ? 26-3-2002
MANAVADAR PS 7-6-2007
MANAVAV PS 9-9-2002
MANDA
Thikana - Jodhpur
12-1-2009

MANDA Jagir? 1-1-2002
MANDAWA Thikana - Jaipur 16-11-2003
MANDAWAD PS 16-7-2006
MANDAWAL
Thikana - Jaora
9-3-2008

MANDHOLI Jagir - Jaipur 12-2-2004
MANDI PS 5-6-2003
MANDRELLA Thikana - Jaipur 7-1-2004
MANDVA PS 26-9-2002
MANDWAS Thikana - Jaipur 19-4-2003
MANGAL PS 26-9-2002
MANGROL ? 26-3-2002
MANGROP Jagir - Udaipur 29-4-2002
MANIPUR PS 1-1-2002
MANJUSHA
Zamindari
25-11-2007

MANKAPUR Taluk 29-12-2004
MANPUR PS 26-3-2002
MANSA PS 26-9-2002
MARIAW PS 26-9-2002
MAROT ? 26-3-2002
MASUDA ? - Rajasthan 22-4-2002
MASWADIA Thikana 29-4-2002
MATHWAR PS 26-9-2002
MATRA TIMBA PS 1-1-2002

MAWIANG PS 26-9-2002
MAWSYNRAM PS 26-9-2002
MAYAPADAR (Desa Nag Estate) Vala XI PS 28-5-2003
MAYURBHANJ PS 20-4-2002
MEHMADPURA PS 26-3-2002
MEHRUN Istimrari - Jodhpur 7-1-2004
MEHSANA Thikana - Rewah 15-9-2005
MEJA Jagir - Udaipur 19-9-2002
MENDARDA (Amra Moka Estate) Vala II PS 30-5-2003
MENDARDA (Manasia Nag Estate) Vala V PS 30-5-2003
MENGNI PS 12-9-2002
MERTA ? - Jodhpur 26-3-2002
MEVASA PS 1-1-2002
MEVLI PS 26-3-2002
MEWAR MERWARA ? 26-3-2002
MIANWALI ? 1-1-2002
MINDA ? 26-3-2002
MIRAJ Jnr PS 1-1-2002
MIRAJ Snr PS 1-1-2002
MITHARI Thikana - Udaipur 23-7-2003
MOHANPUR PS 26-9-2002
MOHRRA Thikana - Jodhpur 29-4-2002
MOHUR ? 26-3-2002
MOKA PAGINA MUWADA PS 26-3-2002
MONVEL PS 26-9-2002
MORCHOPNA PS 26-9-2002
MORVI PS 14-3-2003
MORWADA ? 26-3-2002
MOTA KOTHASNA PS 26-3-2002
MOTA BARKHERA aka Bara Barkhera PS? 9-3-2002
MOWA (MAHUVA) PS? 26-9-2002
MUDHOL PS 1-1-2002
MUHAMMADGARH PS 26-9-2002
MUKANGARH Thikana - Jaipur 16-11-2003
MULI PS 29-4-2002
MULIADERI aka MUTILA DERI PS 26-9-2002
MULTHAN Jagir - Madhya Pradesh
26-4-2008

MUNDERI ? 26-9-2002
MUNDLI ? 26-9-2002
MUNDOTA
Thikana - Jaipur
14-09-2009

MUNGELA ? 26-3-2002
MUNJPUR PS 26-9-2002
MURARMAU Taluq - Oudh 26-9-2002
MURSHIDABAD Zamindari - Bengal
7-1-2004
MUSTANG PS 26-9-2002
MYLLIEM or MALLIEM PS 26-9-2002
MYMENSINGH Zamindari 26-9-2002
MYSORE PS 3-02-2002

http://www.uq.net.au/~zzhsoszy/ips/m/m.html

NAME OF STATE TYPE UPDATED

NABHA PS 4-6-2002
NACHANA Thikana - Jaisalmer 25-9-2002
NADALA PS 26-3-2002
NADAUN Jagir 15-12-2004
NADIA Zamindari 1-1-2002
NAGAR PS - Pakistan 1-1-2002
NAGAUR Thikana? 18-3-2002
NAGIR PS 18-3-2002
NAGOD PS 9-9-2002
NAGPUR PS 25-5-2003
NAHARA PS 18-3-2002
NAIGAWAN REBAI PS 25-9-2002
NAILA Thikana - Jaipur 1-1-2002
NAJIBABAD ? 18-3-2002
NALAGARH PS 1-1-2002
NALIA PS 18-3-2002
NAMLI Thikana - Ratlam 2-6-2004
NANA DEVALIA (Harsurpur or Vala XXI) PS 28-5-2003
NANDGAON PS 1-1-2002
NANGAM PS 18-3-2002
NANPARA Taluq 26-9-2002
NARAJAL ? 25-9-2002
NARAYANPETT ? 18-3-2002
NARSINGARH PS 25-11-2002
NARSINGHPUR PS 29-11-2007
NARUKOT (Jambugodha) ? 26-9-2002
NARWAR ? 26-9-2002
NARWANIA PS 26-3-2002
NASVADI PS 7-1-2004
NATHDWARA Thikana - Udaipur 7-1-2004

NATORE
Zamindari - Bengal
20-6-2007

NATWARNAGAR PS 26-3-2002
NAUGAON ? 25-9-2002

NAULANA ? 26-9-2002
NAWABGANJ
Taluq
27-6-2006

NAWAGAI (BAJAUR) PS? 27-6-2006

NAWALGARH Thikana 1-1-2002
NAWANAGAR PS 9-9-2002
NAYAGAON Zamindari - Bihar 1-3-2002
NAYAGARH PS 26-9-2002
NEEMAJ or NIMAJ Thikana - Jodhpur 16-9-2003
NETAWAL Thikana - Udaipur 1-1-2002
NILGIRI PS 16-9-2003
NILVALA PS 16-9-2003

NIMBAHERA Thikana - Udaipur 1-1-2002
NIMKHERA PS? 26-9-2002
NIMRANA ? 29-4-2002
NIMRI Jagir - Udaipur 29-4-2002
NINDAR
Thikana - Jaipur
30-12-2006

NINORA ? 25-9-2002
NOBOSOPHOH PS 25-9-2002
NOGHANVADAR PS 25-9-2002
NOKH ? 25-9-2002
NONGKHLAW PS 25-9-2002
NONGSPUNG PS 25-9-2002
NONGSTOIN PS 25-9-2002
NURPUR PS 25-5-2003

http://www.uq.net.au/~zzhsoszy/ips/n/n.html

Sid Harth

unread,
Feb 3, 2010, 12:30:33 PM2/3/10
to
NAME OF STATE TYPE UPDATED

OEL Taluq 28-10-2003
OGNA
ORCHHA PS 11-10-2002
OSIAN Thikana 28-10-2003
OUDH

http://www.uq.net.au/~zzhsoszy/ips/o/o.html

NAME OF STATE TYPE UPDATED

PACHHEGAM (DEVANI) PS 14-6-2003
PACHLANA Thikana - Gwalior 18-3-2002
PACHON
PS - Uttar Pradesh
27-8-2008

PADIV ? 18-3-2002
PADNOR Thikana - Udaipur 14-6-2003
PADRAUNA Zamindari 24-3-2005
PAH PS 14-6-2003
PAHARGARH

14-9-2009

PAHRA (CHAUBEPUR) PS 25-9-2002
PAHUNA
Thikana - Udaipur
6-11-2005

PAJOD
Jagir - Junagadh
27-3-2007

PAL Jagir - Gujarat 7-2-2003
PAL PS 25-9-2002
PAL LAHARA PS 25-9-2002
PALAITHA also PALAYATA Thikana - Kotah 21-4-2002
PALAJ PS 25-9-2002
PALALI PS 14-6-2003
PALANPUR PS 21-4-2002
PALASNI PS 7-1-2004
PALASVIHIR PS 25-9-2002
PALDEO PS 7-1-2004
PALI ? 18-3-2002
PALIAD (Thana) PS 18-3-2002
PALIDA 14-6-2003
PALITANA PS 25-9-2002
PALKIANA Thikana 14-6-2003
PALRI-MARWAR see BITHIAN Thikana - Jodhpur 21-4-2002
PANARWA ? 18-3-2002
PANCHAKOTE ? 1-2-2003
PANCHAVDA (VACHHANI) PS 14-6-2003
PANCHER Thikana - Ratlam 14-6-2003
PANDARIA ? 7-1-2004
PANDU MEWAS PS 18-3-2002
PANNA PS 25-9-2002
PAN TALAVDI PS 9-9-2002
PANTHAWADA
Thikana - Gujarat
18-9-2006

PARA Istimrari - Jodhpur 7-1-2004
PARBATSAR ? 18-3-2002
PARLA KHIMEDI Zamindari - Orissa
22-12-2007
PARNA
Thikana
1-2-2007

PARON (NARWAR) aka PARONE? PS 25-9-2002
PARSOLI Jagir - Udaipur 18-3-2002
PATAN Thikana - Rajasthan 26-4-2002
PATAUDI PS 25-9-2002
PATDI PS 25-9-2002
PATHARI PS - Bhopal 25-9-2002
PATHARI ? 25-4-2002
PATHARIA ? 25-9-2002
PATIALA PS 1-1-2002
PATNA PS 25-9-2002
PATTI SAIFABAD Taluk - Oudh 25-9-2002
PAWAYAN
Zamindari - Uttar Pradesh
9-5-2008

PAYAGPUR Taluk - Oudh 31-10-2002
PEELWA Thikana - Jodhpur 1-1-2002
PEINT ? 25-4-2002
PESHWA Office - Poona 2-10-2004
PETHAPUR PS 25-9-2002
PHALTAN PS 25-9-2002
PHALTAN ? 18-3-2002
PHAROD ? 18-3-2002
PHULERA PS 25-4-2002
PILIBHIT 25-4-2002
PIMPLADEVI PS 25-9-2002
PIMPRI PS 25-9-2002
PINDARDA ? 7-1-2004
PIPALDA ? 18-3-2002
PIPALIA aka Pipaliya PS 25-9-2002
PIPLA ? - Jaipur 4-4-2002
PIPLIANAGAR PS 25-9-2002
PIPLODA PS 25-9-2002
PIPODAR PS? 25-4-2002
PIPRA
Zamindari - Bihar
18-11-2007

PIRPUR 25-4-2002
PISANGAN Istimrari - Jodhpur 7-1-2004
PITHADIA JETPUR PS 28-5-2003
PITHAPURAM Zamindari 7-1-2004
POICHA PS 1-1-2002
POKHRAN Thikana - Udaipur 25-4-2002
POLAJPUR PS? 25-4-2002
POONCH PS 25-4-2002
PORAHAT PS 25-4-2002
PORBANDAR PS 9-9-2002
POSHINA Thikana - Idar
10-4-2002
PRATAPGARH PS - Rajasthan 25-4-2002
PRATAPGARH Taluk - Uttar Pradesh 31-10-2002
PRATAPPUR
Jagir - Maharashtra
7-12-2005

PREMPUR PS 14-6-2003
PUDUKOTTAI PS 14-6-2003
PUNADRA PS 25-4-2002
PURI Zamindari - Orissa 27-9-2005
PURNEA ? 14-6-2003

http://www.uq.net.au/~zzhsoszy/ips/p/p.html

NAME OF STATE TYPE UPDATED

RADHANPUR PS 25-9-2002
RAGHOGARH Thikana - Gwalior 25-9-2002
RAIGARH PS 3-02-2002
RAIKA PS 26-3-2002
RAIPUR Thikana - Jodhpur 9-5-2006
RAIPUR Jagir - Pratapgarh 24-4-2003
RAIPUR BICHAUR Taluk - Oudh 24-9-2002
RAIPUR EKDARIA see ITAUNJA Taluk - Oudh 24-8-2004
RAIPUR RANI
Haryana
27-4-2009

RAIRAKHOL PS 25-9-2002
RAISANKLI PS 9-9-2002
RAJAURI PS 7-1-2004
RAJGARH PS 25-9-2002
RAJGARH Bhumiate - Indore 7-1-2004
RAJKOT PS 9-9-2002
RAJLANI ? 26-3-2002
RAJOR Thikana - Madhya Pradesh 2-7-2005
RAJPARA PS 25-9-2002
RAJPIPLA PS 9-9-2002
RAJPUR - Kathiawar PS 7-1-2004
RAJPUR - Gujarat PS 26-3-2002
RAJPUR- SAMBALPUR Zamindari 22-3-2002
RAJPURA (HALAR) PS 24-4-2003
RAJSHYE Zamindari 24-4-2003
RAKHI Thikana - Jodhpur 7-1-2004
RAKHI JOJAWAR Thikana - Jodhpur 29-3-2002
RALA
Zamindari - Bhopal
5-6-2006

RAMANATHAPURAM Zamindari 1-11-2002
RAMANKA PS 26-3-2002
RAMAS PS 25-9-2002
RAMBRAI PS 26-3-2002
RAMDURG PS 7-1-2004
RAMGARH Zamindari - Bihar 25-9-2002
RAMGARH
Jagir - Haryana
18-12-2009

RAMNAD
Zamindari
3-6-2008

RAMNAGAR Jagir 26-3-2002
RAMNAGAR DHAMERI Taluk - Oudh 5-10-2002
RAMPARDA PS 24-4-2003
RAMPUR PS 3-02-2002
RAMPUR-BAGHELAN Thikana - Rewah 22-9-2005
RAMPURA
Taluq - Uttar Pradesh
2-7-2008
RAMPURA (Western India) PS 26-3-2002
RANASAN PS 24-9-2002
RANDHIA PS 24-9-2002
RANIGAM PS 24-4-2003
RANIPURA PS 24-9-2002
RANPARDA (CHOK THANA) PS 24-4-2003
RANPUR Princely State - Orissa
9-1-2008
RANSIGAON
Thikana - Jodhpur
17-11-2009

RAOTI Thikana - Jodhpur 25-9-2008
RAPURIA ? 26-3-2002
RAS ?Thikana 24-9-2002
RATAN ? 24-4-2003
RATANMAL PS 24-9-2002
RATANPUR DHAMANKA PS 24-4-2003
RATESH (KOT) Zaildari - Keonthal 18-8-2004
RATLAM PS 24-9-2002
RAWATSAR Thikana - Bikaner 10-12-2001
REL Jagir - Sant 30-9-2004
RENGAN PS 26-3-2002
RENWAL Thikana - Jaipur 26-3-2002
REWAH PS 1-1-2002
RIAN Thikana - Jodhpur 25-4-2002
RIASI Zamindari 24-4-2003
RIDI Thikana
24-4-2003
RINDON ? 24-4-2003
RINSI
Thikana - Jodhpur
2-2-2009

ROHET Thikana - Jodhpur 25-4-2002
ROHISALA PS 24-4-2003
RONDU Jagir - Kashmir 17-8-2003
ROOPNAGAR Jagir - Udaipur 25-4-2002
RUPAL PS 24-4-2003

http://www.uq.net.au/~zzhsoszy/ips/r/r.html

NAME OF STATE TYPE UPDATED

SABALDUR ? 26-3-2002
SACHIN PS 1-1-2002
SACHODAR ? 26-3-2002
SADA KHERI (SHEOGARH) PS 24-6-2002
SAHASPUR Zamindari 28-12-2001
SAHRAN ? 26-3-2002
SAHUKA PS 26-3-2002
SAILANA PS 1-1-2002
SAKTHALI Jagir - Pratapgarh 26-3-2002
SAKTI PS 24-9-2002
SALAMGARH Jagir - Pratapgarh 26-3-2002
SALEMPUR Zamindari 26-3-2002
SALUMBER Thikana - Udaipur 10-4-2002
SAMADIA
Thikana - Jodhpur
9-2-2009

SAMBHAR SHAMLAT 26-3-2002
SAMBHAR I ? 26-3-2002
SAMBHAR II ? 26-3-2002
SAMADHIALA (Chok Thana) PS 24-9-2002
SAMADHIALA (Chamardi Thana) PS 24-9-2002
SAMADHIALA CHHABHADIA PS 24-9-2002
SAMBALPUR PS 19-3-2002
SAMATHUR
Zamindari - Tamil Naidu
28-10-2008

SAMLA PS 26-3-2002
SAMODE Thikana - Jaipur 1-1-2002
SAMTHAR PS 24-9-2002
SANALA JETPUR PS 28-5-2003
SANAUDA 1-1-2002
SANDERAO ? 26-3-2002
SANDUR PS 24-9-2002
SANGANWA
Taluk
29-9-2008

SANGLI PS 24-9-2002
SANGRI PS 24-9-2002
SANJELI PS 24-9-2002
SANKHEDA MEWAS ? 26-3-2002
SANKHU
Thikana - Bikaner
2-4-2006

SANKHWAI ? 26-3-2002
SANKOTRA
Thikana - Jaipur
5-12-2009

SANOR ? 26-3-2002
SANOSRA PS 26-3-2002
SANSARI
Thikana
7-11-2006

SANT PS 1-1-2002
SANTALPUR (Thana) PS 24-9-2002
SANTHA Thikana 13-9-2003
SANTOSH Zamindari 1-1-2002
SANWAR
Thikana - Udaipur
19-8-2009

SAR LASHKAR ? 26-3-2002
SARANGARH PS 24-9-2002
SARANGI Thikana - Jhabua 24-9-2002
SARASANI
Thikana - Jodhpur
9-2-2009

SARDARGARH Thikana - Udaipur 8-1-2004
SARDARGARH-BANTVA PS 25-5-2003
SARDARGARH-BARAMAJMU PS 26-3-2002
SARILA PS 24-9-2002
SAROTHIA Thikana - Bikaner 23-5-2005
SARTHAL
Thikana - Jhalawar
25-2-2009

SARVARI
Thikana - Jaipur
12-10-2008

SARWAN PS 24-9-2002
SATANONESS PS 1-1-2002
SATARA PS 3-2-2002
SATHAMBA PS 24-9-2002
SATHEEN Thikana - Jodhpur 1-1-2002
SATHIN Thikana - Udaipur 1-1-2002
SATLASNA PS 24-9-2002
SATUDAD-VAVDI PS 1-1-2002
SAVANTVADI PS 24-9-2002
SAVANUR PS 24-9-2002
SAWAR Istimrari - Jodhpur 8-1-2004
SAYADPUR BHITARI see Ausanganj
Taluq - Oudh 24-9-2002
SAYLA PS 24-5-2003

SEBDI VADAR PS 26-3-2002
SEJAKPUR PS 1-1-2002
SELAM ? 26-3-2002
SEMLIA or SEMALYA Thikana - Sailana 1-1-2002
SEOHAR ?? 27-9-2002
SERAIKELLA PS 13-8-2003
SHAHJEHANPUR Zamindari - Uttar Pradesh
7-9-2009
SHAHMAU Taluk - Oudh 24-9-2002
SHAHPUR PS - Saurashtra 12-9-2002
SHAHPURA Thikana - Jaipur 8-1-2004
SHAHPURA PS - Udaipur 2-4-2003
SHANKU Thikana 1-1-2002
SHANOR PS 26-3-2002
SHEOGARH Thikana 1-1-2002
SHEOGARH (SADA KHERI) PS 26-3-2002
SHEOPUR-BARODA ? 2-4-2003
SHERGARH
Thikana - Jodhpur
30-8-2006

SHIGAR Jagir - Kashmir 17-8-2003
SHIVBARA PS 24-9-2002
SHIVPUR 26-3-2002
SHIVRAJPUR 1-1-2002
SHIVRATI Jagir - Udaipur 13-9-2003
SHORAPUR ? 26-3-2002
SHUJAOTA or SHAHJAOTA PS 24-9-2002
SIALKOT 1-1-2002
SIBA PS 8-1-2004
SIDHPURA Jagir - Pratapgarh 1-1-2002
SIDRI 26-3-2002
SIHORA PS 24-9-2002
SIKAR Thikana - Jaipur 16-9-2002
SIKKIM Kingdom 8-1-2004
SILANA PS 26-3-2002
SIND PS 24-9-2002
SINDHIAPURA PS 24-9-2002
SIRAS
Thikana - Jaipur
4-2-2006

SIRIYARI
Thikana - Jodhpur
15-1-2009

SIRMUR PS 1-1-2002
SIROHI PS 24-9-2002
SIRSI - Gwalior PS 24-9-2002
SIRSI - Malwa PS 24-9-2002
SISANG-CHANDLI PS 1-1-2002
SITAMAU PS 24-9-2002
SIVAGANGA Zamindari 1-1-2002
SIWAS
Thikana - Jodhpur
11-1-2009

SKARDU Jagir - Kashmir 17-8-2003
SODAWAS Thikana - Jodhpur 26-4-2002
SOHAGPUR
Thikana - Rewah
4-6-2008

SOHAWAL
PS 24-9-2002
SOLAN 1-1-2002
SONEPUR PS 24-9-2002
SONGADH (VACHHANI) PS 1-1-2002
SOOR Jagir - Idar 24-4-2002
SOTHIYA
Zamindari - Bhopal
5-6-2006

SRI MOHANGARH ? 26-3-2002
SUDAMADA DHANDHALPUR PS 1-1-2002
SUDASNA or SUDASANA PS 24-9-2002
SUIGAM PS 26-3-2002
SUKET PS 24-9-2002
SUNDEM PS 25-5-2003
SUNTH PS 24-9-2002
SURANGI
Zamindari - Orissa
13-1-2008

SURAT PS 25-5-2003
SURGANA PS 24-9-2002
SURGUJA PS 21-1-2004
SUSANGA Zamindari 8-1-2004
SWAT PS - Pakistan 1-8-2003

http://www.uq.net.au/~zzhsoszy/ips/s/s.html

Sid Harth

unread,
Feb 3, 2010, 12:32:33 PM2/3/10
to
NAME OF STATE TYPE UPDATED

TAJPURI PS 24-9-2002
TALA Thikana - Rewah
24-9-2002
TALAWADA
Thikana - Udaipur
17-7-2009

TALCHER PS 24-9-2002
TALOLI Thikana 4-2-2002
TALSANA PS 1-6-2003
TAMKUHI
Zamindari
3-6-2008

TANA Thikana 4-2-2002
TANJORE PS 24-4-2002
TANTOTI Istimrari - Jodhpur 8-1-2004
TAPPA ? 24-9-2002
TARAON PS 24-9-2002
TASGAON ? 1-6-2003
TAVI PS 1-6-2003
TEHRI GARHWAL PS 29-11-2002
TEJPURA PS 1-6-2003
TEOTA
Zamindari - Bengal
26-5-2009

TERWADA PS 24-9-2002
THALRAI see KHAJURGAON Taluq 26-10-2003
THANA Thikana 4-2-2002
THANA DEVLI PS 1-6-2003
THARA PS 1-6-2003
THARAD PS 28-5-2003
THAROCH or TIROCH PS 24-9-2002
THEOG PS 7-10-2005
THEVARAM Zamindari 16-11-2003
TIGIRIA PS 24-9-2002
TILOI Taluk - Oudh 24-9-2002
TIMBA PS 24-9-2002
TIRWA Taluq? 24-9-2002
TODA VACHHANI PS 8-1-2004
TOKA ? 8-1-2004
TOLOI or TELOI or TILOI qv Zamindari 8-1-2004
TONK - Rajasthan PS 4-2-2002
TONK - Central India PS 24-9-2002
TORGAL PS 16-7-2005
TORI FATEHPUR PS 8-1-2004
TRAVANCORE PS 4-2-2002
TRIPURA PS 2-3-2003

http://www.uq.net.au/~zzhsoszy/ips/t/t.html

NAME OF STATE TYPE UPDATED

UCHAD PS 24-9-2002
UDAIPUR (Rajasthan) PS 8-1-2004
UDAIPUR (Chhattisgarh) PS 4-2-2002
UDAYARPALAYAM Zamindari 1-11-2002
UDHANI
Thikana - Idar
1-3-2009

ULPUR (Shahpur) Zamindari
2-9-2008

UMARKOT Thikana - Jhabua 14-11-2006
UMAIDNAGAR Thikana 24-5-2004
UMETHA also UMETA PS 24-9-2002
UMRI (Guna) PS 24-9-2002
UMRI (Mahi Kantha) PS 24-9-2002
UNI PS 24-9-2002
UNIARA also UNIYARA Thikana
24-9-2002

UNTDI PS 24-5-2004
UNWAL Taluq? - Gorakhpur (UP) 24-5-2004
UPARWARA PS 24-9-2002
UTELIA Thikana
24-5-2004

http://www.uq.net.au/~zzhsoszy/ips/u/u.html

NAME OF STATE TYPE UPDATED

VAANSDA Thikana 24-9-2002
VADAL BHANDARIA PS 24-9-2002
VADALI PS 24-9-2002
VADHARVA
Thikana - Kathaiawad
27-11-2006

VADHYAWAN PS 24-9-2002
VADIA PS 24-5-2003
VADOD (DEVANI) PS 24-9-2002
VADOD (JHALAWAR) PS 24-9-2002
VAGHAVADI (Vaghvori) PS 24-9-2002
VAHALI Jagir - Punjab
28-2-2007
VAJIRIA PS 24-9-2002
VAKHTAPUR (Gujarat) PS 24-9-2002
VAKHTAPUR (Western India) PS 26-3-2002
VALA PS 28-5-2003
VALA (Amra Moka Estate or Alidhra) Mendarda PS 28-5-2003
VALA (Bhan Desa Estate or Vaghania) Barwala PS 28-5-2003
VALA (Champraj Jasa Estate) Jetpur PS 28-5-2003
VALA (Manasia Nag Estate) Mendarda PS 28-5-2003
VALA (Surag Mulu Estate) Mendarda PS 28-5-2003
VALA (Bhabhabhai Unad Estate) Thumbala, Chuda, Jetpur PS 28-5-2003
VALA (Unad Rana Estate) Chital PS 28-5-2003
VALA (Ebhal Vajsur Estate or Sanathali) Jetpur PS 28-5-2003
VALA (Suryapratapgadh or Jethsur Punja Estate) Jetpur PS 28-5-2003
VALA (Anida or Mansur Punja Estate) Jetpur PS 28-5-2003
VALA (Kanthad Wala Estate) Bilkha PS 28-5-2003
VALA (Rawat Wala Estate) Bilkha PS 28-5-2003
VALA (Hadala Estate) Bagasra PS 28-5-2003
VALA (Ram Harsur Estate) Bagasra PS 28-5-2003
VALA (Ram and Vira Mulu Estate) [Khari-]Bagasra PS 28-5-2003
VALA (Giga Hipa Estate) Sanala PS 28-5-2003
VALA (Bhaya Nathu Estate) Bhayavadar PS 28-5-2003
VALA (Desa Nag Estate) Mayapadar PS 28-5-2003
VALA (Mulu Surag Estate) Pithadia Jetpur PS 28-5-2003
VALA (Valera Raning Estate) Khijadia PS 28-5-2003
VALA (Amarnagar) Thana Devli PS 28-5-2003
VALA (Harsur Vajsur Estate) Nana Devalia PS 28-5-2003
VALASNA PS 24-9-2002
VANA PS 24-9-2002
VANALA PS 24-9-2002
VANGADHRA PS 24-9-2002
VANOD PS 28-5-2003
VARATHI (Thana) PS 26-9-2002
VARNOL MOTI PS 24-9-2002
VARNOL NANI PS 24-9-2002
VARNOLMAL PS 26-3-2002
VARSODA PS 24-4-2002
VASAN SEVADA PS 24-9-2002
VASAN VIRPUR PS 24-9-2002
VASAVAD MAJMU PS 26-3-2002
VASNA PS 24-9-2002
VASURNA PS 24-9-2002
VATRAK KANTHA THANA ? 26-3-2002
VAVDI (Vachhani) PS 24-9-2002
VAVDI-DHARVALA PS 24-9-2002
VEJANONESS PS 24-9-2002
VEKARIA PS 24-9-2002
VENKATAGIRI Zamindari 8-1-2004
VERAGAON Jagir - Pratapgarh 24-9-2002
VICHHAVAD PS 24-9-2002
VIJALIA ?
24-9-2002
VIJAYNAGAR PS 23-2-2003
VIJAYANAGRAM Zamindari 24-9-2002
VIJIRIA PS? 24-9-2002
VILDYS Thikana 24-9-2002
VINCHOOR ?
24-9-2002
VIRAMPURA PS 24-9-2002
VIRPUR PS 24-5-2003
VIRSODA PS 24-9-2002
VIRVA or VIRVAO PS 24-9-2002
VISHALGADH Jagir 16-7-2005
VITHALGADH PS 13-9-2002
VIZAGAPATAM ? 1-7-2002
VIZIANAGRAM Zamindari 24-9-2002
VORA same as?? VOHORA PS 24-9-2002

http://www.uq.net.au/~zzhsoszy/ips/v/v.html

NAME OF STATE TYPE - LOCATION UPDATED

WADAGAM PS 9-9-2002
WADHWAN PS 24-5-2003
WADHWAN THANA Jagir
26-3-2002
WADI JAGIR PS 1-5-2008
WAH Jagir
29-7-2008
WAI Zamindari
26-3-2002
WANKANER PS 24-5-2003
WANPARTI or Wanapurthi Samasthan - Hyderabad
26-3-2002
WAO or VAV PS 8-1-2004
WARAHI (Moti Jatwad or Jorawarkhanji's Estate) PS 15-5-2003
WARAHI (Muradkhanji's Estate) PS 15-5-2003
WARSORA see VARSODA PS 26-9-2002
WASNA see VASNA PS 26-3-2002

http://www.uq.net.au/~zzhsoszy/ips/w/w.html

NAME OF STATE TYPE UPDATED

YELANDUR Jagir - Mysore 19-2-2002

http://www.uq.net.au/~zzhsoszy/ips/y/y.html

NAME OF STATE TYPE UPDATED

ZAIDA Zamindari 27-5-2002
ZAINABAD PS 24-5-2003
ZABARDAST KHANJI PS 26-3-2002
ZANIADRA ? 20-4-2002

http://www.uq.net.au/~zzhsoszy/ips/z/z.html

For members of the Indian Princely States families.

My contact details are as follows....

HENRY SOSZYNSKI
6 WYNGARDE STREET
McDOWALL, 4053
BRISBANE, Q.L.D.
AUSTRALIA
e-mail: zzhs...@uqconnect.net

INDIA-ROYALTY, a Mailing List for the Indian Princely States

166485 Accesses since the 1st of October 2001

LAST MODIFIED: 04

Sid Harth

unread,
Feb 3, 2010, 12:38:14 PM2/3/10
to
Search billions of records on Ancestry.com

INDEX OF PERSONS

Daughter
Daughter
ABDUL KARIM KHAN, Nawabzada Syed
ABDUL MAJID KHAN DILER JANG BAHADUR, Nawab [1960 - ]
ABDUL RASHID KHAN DILER JANG BAHADUR, Nawab
ABDULLAH KHAN, Nawabzada Syed
ABDUS SAMAD KHAN, Nawab [27 SEP 1874 - 27 JAN 1943]
AFTAB ZAMANI BEGUM, [11 SEP 1928 - 4 AUG 1993]
AHMAD ALI KHAN, Nawab Syed [1786/1787 - 5 JUL 1840]
AHMED, Mahira
AHMED, Bader Durrez Justice
AHMED, Zulnoor Ali
AIMADUDDIN AHMED KHAN BAHADUR, Nawabzada Mirza [29 JUN 1944 - ]
AITIZAZUDDIN AHMED KHAN, Sahibzada Mirza [1899 - ]
AIZZUDDIN AHMAD KHAN (FAHAD MIRZA), Sahibzada Mirza [3 OCT 1991 - ]
AIZZUDDIN AHMED KHAN BAHADUR, Capt. HH Nawab Mirza [ - 1926]
AKBAR ALI KHAN, Nawabzada Syed
ALAUDDIN AHMED KHAN II BAHADUR, HH Nawab Mirza [30 JUL 1938 - ]
ALI MOHAMMAD KHAN (KAIVAAN MIAN), Nawabzada Syed [16 FEB 1989 - ]
ALI MUHAMMED KHAN, Nawab Syed [1705/1706 - 16 SEP 1749]
ALIYA SULTAN BEGUM, Sahibzadi [1888 - ?? FEB 1967]
ALIYA SULTANA, Nawabzadi
ALLAH YAR KHAN, Nawabzada Syed
AMINUDDIN AHMED KHAN BAHADUR, Capt. HH Nawab Mirza [23 MAR 1911 - ??
JUN 1983]
AMIRUDDIN AHMAD KHAN (FARRUKH MIRZA), Nawabzada Mirza [10 OCT 1961
- ]
AMIRUDDIN AHMED KHAN BAHADUR, HH Al-Haj Nawab Mirza Sir [1859 - 1937]
ARSHAD AHMAD KHAN (ARSHAD MIRZA), Sahibzada Mirza [12 JUL 1997 - ]
ASIF MOYEEN, Sahibzada
ASKARI BEGUM SAHEBA, HH Rafat Zamani Begum [1907 - 19 OCT 1987]
AZIMUDDIN KHAN, Gen. Sahibzada [1854 - 1891]
BANDEY ALI KHAN, Nawabzada Syed
BASHIRUDDIN AHMED KHAN, Nawabzada
BEGUM ABIDA SAHEBA, [1924 - ]
BEGUM ANJUM SULTANA, [1970 - ]
BEGUM FARHAT SULTANA,
CHHAMMAN KHAN SAHIB, Sahibzada Syed
FAIZA AHMED KHAN, Sahibzadi
FAIZA KHUSRO, Sahibzadi
FAIZULLAH KHAN, Nawab Syed [1733/1734 - 17 JUL 1794]
FAKHAR BEGUM SAHEBA,
FAKHRA BEGUM, Nawabzadi
FAKHRUDDIN ALI AHMED, Shri [13 MAY 1905 - 11 FEB 1977]
FATEH ALI KHAN, Nawabzada Syed
FATIMA SULTAN BEGUM,
FAUZIA BEGUM,
GHULAM MUHAMMED KHAN, Nawab Syed [1762/1763 - 27 OCT 1794]
HABIBULLAH, Muneeza [17 JAN 1944 - ]
HABIBULLAH, Naushaba [3 SEP 1948 - ]
HABIBULLAH, Shama [1941 - ]
HABIBULLAH, Ali Bahadur [ - 11 NOV 1982]
HABIBULLAH, Inayat Bahadur
HABIBULLAH, Isha'at Bahadur Maj.Gen.(retd.) [ - ?? DEC 1991]
HABIBULLAH, Waris [1938 - ]
HAIDER ALI KHAN (HAMZAH MIAN), Nawabzada Syed [19 MAR 1990 - ]
HAJRA KHUSRO, Sahibzadi
HAMZA AHMAD KHAN (HAMZA MIRZA), Sahibzada Mirza [6 JUL 2002 - ]
HASAN ALI KHAN, Nawabzada Syed
HASAN ALI KHAN, Nawabzada Syed
HOSAIN, Attia [20 OCT 1913 - 23 JAN 1998]
HUSAIN ALI KHAN, Nawabzada Syed
HYDER ALI KHAN, Nawabzada Syed
IRFAN ALI KHAN, Sahibzada
JAFAR ALI KHAN, Nawabzada Syed
JAHANARA BEGUM, Nawabzadi
JALALUDDIN KHAN, Nawab [ - 1857/1858]
KALBEY HASAN KHAN, Nawabzada Syed
KARIMULLAH ALI KHAN, Nawabzada Syed
KAZIM ALI KHAN, Nawabzada Syed
KHAN, ALAUDDIN AHMED Nawab [1833 - 1884]
KHURSHID LAQA BEGUM, Nawabzadi Syeda [ - 16 JUN 1967]
KORESHI, Abbas Asadullah Sahibzada [27 JUL 1982 - ]
KORESHI, S. M. His Excellency Dr.
KORESHI, Zafar Ullah Dr.
MAHBANO BEGUM, [24 JUL 1936 - ]
MAHMUD ALI KHAN, Nawabzada Syed
MAJLIS ARA BEGUM,
MEHER AFSHAR SULTANA, Nawabzadi
MOHAMMAD KAZIM ALI KHAN (NAVAID MIAN), HH Nawab Syed [16 OCT 1960 - ]
MOHAMMAD KHUSRO, Sardar Shri Sahib
MOHAMMED HABIBULLAH, Sheikh
MOINUDDIN AHMED KHAN (SHAHZADA MIRZA), Sahibzada Hafiz Haj Mirza [26
FEB 1912 - ]
MUBARAK ALI KHAN, Nawabzada Syed
MUHAMMED ALI KHAN, Nawabzada Syed
MUHAMMED ALI KHAN, Nawab Syed [1752/1753 - 20 SEP 1794]
MUHAMMED HAMID ALI KHAN BAHADUR, Col. HH Nawab Sir Syed [31 AUG 1875 -
20 JUN 1930]
MUHAMMED IBRAHIM ALI KHAN BAHADUR, HH Nawab Sir Hafiz [1848 - 23 JUN
1930]
MUHAMMED KALBEY ALI KHAN, Nawab Syed [1834 - 23 MAR 1887]
MUHAMMED MURTAZA ALI KHAN BAHADUR, HH Nawab Syed [22 NOV 1923 - 7 FEB
1982]
MUHAMMED MUSHTAQ ALI KHAN BAHADUR, Nawab Syed [1856 - 25 FEB 1889]
MUHAMMED RAZA ALI KHAN BAHADUR, HH Nawab Dr. Sir Syed [17 NOV 1906 - 6
MAR 1966]
MUHAMMED SAID ALI KHAN, Nawab Syed [19 MAY 1786 - 1 APR 1855]
MUHAMMED SALABAT KHAN II SAHIB BAHADUR, [20 MAY 1944 - ]
MUHAMMED USMAN KHAN, Sahibzada
MUHAMMED YAR KHAN, Nawabzada Syed
MUHAMMED YUSUF ALI KHAN, Nawab Syed [5 MAR 1816 - 20 APR 1865]
MURTAZA KHAN, Nawabzada Syed
NADIZ ZAMANI BEGUM,
NAZIM ALI KHAN, Nawabzada Syed
NOOR BAKHTE BEGUM,
NURUL HASAN, Syed [26 DEC 1921 - 12 JUL 1993]
OMAR MOYEEN, Sahibzada [12 MAY 1988 - ]
QASIM ALI KHAN, Nawabzada Syed
QUDSIA BEGUM,
RIAZUDDIN AHMAD KHAN (RIAZ MIRZA), Nawabzada Mirza [13 JAN 1963 - ]
ROSHANARA NOOR BANO BEGUM SAHEBA, HH Mehtab Zamani Begum [11 NOV 1939
- ]
SA'ADULLAH KHAN, Nawabzada Syed
SABA ALI KHAN (KANEEZ E-SHERBANO), Nawabzadi Syeda [2 FEB 1959 - ]
SABIR ALI KHAN, Nawabzada Syed
SADIA BANO BEGUM, Nawabzadi [10 FEB 1967 - ]
SAEEDA BANO, HH
SAFDAR ALI KHAN, Nawabzada Syed
SAMAN ALI KHAN (KANEEZ E-RABAB), Nawabzadi Syeda [17 NOV 1957 - ]
SARA BEGUM, HH
SHAHBANO BEGUM,
SHAMSUNNISSA BEGUM, Sahibzadi
SHAUKAT JEHAN BEGUM, HH
SHEHR BANO MEHR JABEEN REHANA BEGUM, Nawabzadi
SUHEILUDDIN AHMED KHAN (TUGHRAL MIRZA), Sahibzada Mirza [1938 - ]
SULTAN BEGUM, HH Shahzadi [1912 - 1994]
SULTAN MUHAMMAD SALAUDDIN KHAN, Nawabzada [1979 - ]
YAKUB KHAN, Nawabzada
YAQUB ALI KHAN, Nawabzada Syed
YASEEN SULTAN JEHAN SAHEBA, HH Firdaus Zamani Begum [27 MAR 1968 - ]
YUNUS KHAN, Nawabzada
YUSUF KHAN, Nawabzada
ZALNUR ALI AHMED, Col.
ZAMAL ABIDIN KHAN, Nawabzada Syed
ZARBADAST KHAN HUSAM UL-MULK, Sahibzada
ZAYED MOYEEN, Sahibzada [24 MAY 1986 - ]
ZOYA MOYEEN, Sahibzadi [10 FEB 1995 - ]
ZULFIQUAR ALI KHAN, Nawabzada Syed
ZULFIQUAR ALI KHAN BAHADUR, HH Nawab Syed [11 MAR 1933 - 5 APR 1992]

This page updated on 7 AUG 2004 : Database maintained by Henry
Soszynski

http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~royalty/rampur/persons.html

Search billions of records on Ancestry.com

INDEX OF PERSONS

Adela
Aziza
Daughter
Daughter
Daughter
Kubrajan
SON [?? FEB 1929 - ]
SON
ABDUL AZIZ KHAN, Sardar
ABDUL BAQI,
ABDUL KADIR KHAN, Sardar
ABDUL KARIM KHAN,
ABDUL MAJID KHAN, [30 APR 1907 - 1929/1936]
ABDUL QUDDUS KHAN, Sardar
ABDUL RAHIM KHAN, Sardar
ABDUL WALI KHAN, General Sardar [5 JAN 1925 - ]
ABDULAZIZ KHAN,
ABDULAZIZ KHAN,
ABDULLAH KHAN, [1862 - ?? AUG 1878]
ABDULLAH KHAN,
ABDULQADIR KHAN,
ABDULSAMAD KHAN, Sardar [10 AUG 1893 - ]
ABDUR RASHID KHAN, [1901 - ]
ABDURRAHMAN KHAN, [1844 - 3 OCT 1901]
ABDUS SAMAD KHAN, Nawab
ABIDA BEGUM, HRH Princess [10 OCT 1917 - ]
ADELA BEGUM, HRH Princess [28 OCT 1925 - ]
AHMAD ALI KHAN, Sardar [1898 - ]
AHMAD ALI KHAN, [14 JUN 1906 - Bef 1939?]
AHMAD AYUB KHAN DURRANI, Sardar [1926 - 1969]
AHMAD SHAH KHAN, HE Sardar [1891 - ]
AHMAD SHAH KHAN, HRH Crown Prince [23 SEP 1934 - ]
AHMAD WALI KHAN, Sardar [1921 - ]
AHMED SIDIQ HAYA, Sardar
ALI AHMAD KHAN, Wali [1883 - ?? JUL 1929]
ALI SHAH JAN, Sardar [1900 - ]
ALIAH BEGUM, [1926 - ]
ALIAH BEGUM,
AMANULLAH KHAN, HM King [1 JUN 1892 - 26 APR 1960]
AMANULLAH KHAN DURRANI, Sardar
AMIN JAN KHAN, [1911 - ]
AMINA BEGUM,
AMINA BEGUM, HRH Princess [14 MAY 1915 - ]
AMINULLAH KHAN, [12 OCT 1885 - ]
AMIR, Soraya
AMIR MUHAMMED KHAN,
AREF, Fatmah Princess
AREF, Mariam Wali [1974 - ]
AREF, Zadran [1971 - ]
AREF, Zahra
AREF, Mohammad Tareq
AREF, Wali
AREF KHAN, General
ARIANE KHANUM, HRH Princess
ASADULLAH KHAN, [23 MAY 1910 - ]
ASADULLAH KHAN,
AYESHA BEGUM, [1920 - ]
AZIZULLAH QATIL, [1892 - 1935]
BALQIS BEGUM, HRH Princess [1922 - ]
BEGUM FARAH MIR, Sahebzadi
BIBI EVA KHANUM,
BILQIS BEGUM, HRH Princess [1932 - ]
BILQIS KHANUM, HRH Princess
DAOUD KHAN, HRH Prince [16 JAN 1966 - ]
DOST MUHAMMED KHAN, HH Emir [Abt 1790 - 9 JUN 1863]
DURRANI, Anjumun Sonia
DURRANI, Benezir Khanum
DURRANI, Mahjbeen Khanum
DURRANI, Nazifah Khanum
DURRANI, Nazrin Khanum
DURRANI, Nooriman Khanum
DURRANI, Parwin Khanum
DURRANI, Saira
DURRANI, Tahira Tina
DURRANI, Amar Imranullah Sardar
DURRANI, Ziaullah Sardar
FAIZ MUHAMMED KHAN, Sardar
FAIZ SEKANDER, General
FATEH MUHAMMED KHAN, Sardar [1863 - ]
FATH ALI KHAN, [1777 - ?? AUG 1818]
FATHULLAH KHAN, [ - Bef 1918]
FAZL AHMAD KHAN, Sardar
FREUDEN KHAN DURRANI, Sardar
GAILANI, Fatima
GAILANI, Ahmad Sayyid [1932 - ]
GAILANI, Hamid
GAILANI, Muhammad Sayyid
GHULAM AHMAD KHAN,
GHULAM ALI KHAN, [3 SEP 1890 - 1920]
GHULAM HAYDAR KHAN, [ - 2 JUL 1858]
GHULAM MUHAMMED KHAN, Sardar [1904 - ]
GUL MUHAMMED KHAN, Sardar [1876 - ]
GUL MUHAMMED KHAN, [1912 - ]
HABIBULLAH KHAN, HH Sir Amir [3 JUN 1872 - 20 FEB 1919]
HABIBULLAH KHAN DURRANI, Sardar
HADAYATULLAH KHAN,
HAMDAN SULTANA,
HAMIDA BEGUM,
HASAN JAN KHAN,
HASANULLAH KHAN, HRH Prince [3 OCT 1926 - ]
HAWA BEGUM,
HAYATULLAH KHAN, [29 DEC 1888 - 17 OCT 1929]
HEDAYATULLAH KHAN, HRH Prince Shahdazajan [1912 - ]
HOMA KHANUM DURRANI,
HOMAIRAH BEGUM, [1918 - 26 JUN 2002]
HUMAYUM KHAN DURRANI, Sardar [1 NOV 1963 - ]
IBRAHIM KHAN,
INAYATULLAH KHAN, HM King [20 OCT 1888 - 12 AUG 1946]
INDIA BEGUM, [7 JUN 1929 - ]
JABBAR KHAN,
JAMAL KHAN BARAKZAI, Haj [1719 - 1770/1771]
KADHER KHAN DURRANI, Sardar
KADICE SERAJ,
KAZIM KHAN, [1869 - ]
KHADIDJA POPALZAY,
KHAN, Mustafa Sardar
KHAN MUHAMMED KHAN, Sardar
KHATUL BEGUM,
KHUSH DIL KHAN, Loynab
KOHAN DIL KHAN, [ - ?? AUG 1855]
KOLTSIA BEGUM,
LALIFAH BEGUM, [?? AUG 1930 - ]
MAHBOUB GHAZI BEGUM,
MALIKA BEGUM, HRH Princess [13 APR 1920 - ]
MALOUK KHAN DURRANI, Sardar
MARGHALAY BEGUM, [ - 1998]
MARYAM BEGUM, HRH Princess [1936 - ]
MIR DIL,
MIR WAIS KHAN, HRH Prince [1957 - ]
MOSTAPHA KHAN, HRH Prince [2 MAY 1964 - ]
MUHAMMED AFZAL KHAN, [1811 - 7 OCT 1867]
MUHAMMED AFZAT KHAN, [1912 - ]
MUHAMMED AKBAR KHAN, [ - 1849]
MUHAMMED AKBAR KHAN, HRH Prince [10 AUG 1933 - 26 NOV 1942]
MUHAMMED AKBAR KHAN DURRANI, Sardar
MUHAMMED AKRAM KHAN, [1892 - ]
MUHAMMED AKTAR KHAN,
MUHAMMED ALI KHAN, Sardar [ - Bef 1936]
MUHAMMED AMIN KHAN, [ - 1865]
MUHAMMED AMIN KHAN,
MUHAMMED ASAF KHAN, Sardar [1866 - ]
MUHAMMED ASLAM KHAN, Sardar
MUHAMMED AYUB KHAN, Sardar [1854/1857 - ?? APR 1914]
MUHAMMED AYUB KHAN DURRANI, Sardar [ - Bef 1933]
MUHAMMED AZAM KHAN, Emir [1818 - 12 OCT 1869]
MUHAMMED AZAM KHAN, [1896 - ]
MUHAMMED AZAM KHAN, Sardar
MUHAMMED AZIM KHAN,
MUHAMMED AZIZ KHAN, HE Sardar [1875 - 6 JUN 1933]
MUHAMMED AZIZ KHAN, Sardar [ - 27 APR 1978]
MUHAMMED DAOUD KHAN, HE Sardar [1909 - 27 APR 1978]
MUHAMMED DAOUD PASHTUNYAR KHAN, HRH Prince [1949 - ]
MUHAMMED HASHIM KHAN, HE Sardar [1884/1891 - 26 OCT 1953]
MUHAMMED HASHIM KHAN, Sardar
MUHAMMED HEMIL KHAN,
MUHAMMED ISHAQ KHAN, Emir [1851 - ]
MUHAMMED NADIR KHAN, HM King [10 APR 1880 - 8 NOV 1933]
MUHAMMED NADIR KHAN, HRH Prince [1941 - ]
MUHAMMED NAIM KHAN, HE Sardar [1910 - 27 APR 1978]
MUHAMMED OSMAN KHAN,
MUHAMMED QABIR KHAN, [4 OCT 1895 - ]
MUHAMMED RAFIQ KHAN,
MUHAMMED SADIQ KHAN,
MUHAMMED SARVAR KHAN, [1894 - ]
MUHAMMED SHARIF KHAN, [ - ?? AUG 1883]
MUHAMMED SIDDIQ KHAN,
MUHAMMED SULAIMAN KHAN, Sardar
MUHAMMED UMAR KHAN, [1897 - ]
MUHAMMED UMAR KHAN, [1901 - ]
MUHAMMED UMAR KHAN, [16 SEP 1889 - ]
MUHAMMED WALI KHAN, Sardar
MUHAMMED YAQUB KHAN, [1849 - 15 NOV 1923]
MUHAMMED YUNUS KHAN, Sardar
MUHAMMED YUSUF KHAN, Sardar
MUHAMMED ZAHER KHAN, [1962 - ]
MUHAMMED ZAHIR SHAH, HM al-Mutawakkil al-Allah [30 OCT 1914 - ]
MUHAMMED ZAMAN KHAN,
MURTAZA KHAN DURRANI,
MUSA JAN KHAN, [1868 - 1951]
MUSTAFA KHAN DURRANI,
NADER KHAN, Sardar
NADJIAH BEGUM, [?? JAN 1934 - ]
NADJIAH BEGUM, [20 JUN 1930 - ]
NASRULLAH KHAN, HH Amir [7 APR 1875 - 31 MAY 1920]
NASSER-ZIYA, Humaira
NASSER-ZIYA, Hamid
NAZAR SEKANDER, Dr.
NAZIFAH BEGUM, [?? JUL 1928 - ]
NIK MOHAMMED KHAN,
NOAL BEGUM, HRH Princess [1980 - ]
NUR AHMAD KHAN, [1895 - ]
NUR AHMAD KHAN, [ - 1929]
NURUL SIRAJ,
PASHTUNYAR, Doran Daoud HRH Prince [1974 - ]
PAYINDA KHAN, [ - ?? OCT 1800]
QAMAR SULTAN BEGUM, [1921 - ]
RAHMATULLAH KHAN, HRH Crown Prince [7 JUN 1921 - ]
RAHMDIL KHAN,
RESMIYEH KHANUM,
ROKHSHAN BEGUM, [4 JUL 1956 - ]
ROMIN KHAN DURRANI,
SAFRIAH SAMAR AL SIRAJ, [1904 - ]
SAFURA BEGUM,
SAFURA QAMZUL BINAT, [1902 - ]
SALIH MUHAMMED KHAN,
SALTIK, Pakize Izzet Dr.
SANTERNO, Giulio_Omar_Khan SEGURINI di
SARA BEGUM,
SEKANDER KHAN,
SHAH ABDUL AZIM KHAN, Sardar [?? AUG 1932 - ]
SHAH BOBO ZULIKA KHANUM,
SHAH MAHMUD KHAN, HRH Prince [15 NOV 1946 - ?? DEC 2002]
SHAH MAHMUD KHAN GHAZI, HE Sardar [1887/1890 - 27 DEC 1959]
SHAH WALI KHAN, HE Prince [16 APR 1888 - 1976]
SHAHZADA KHANUM, [ - 1911/1912]
SHER DIL KHAN, Shahghasi Loynab
SHIR AHMAD KHAN, Sardar [1883 - ]
SHIR AHMAD KHAN, [1894 - ]
SHIR ALI,
SHIR ALI KHAN, Emir [1825 - 21 FEB 1879]
SIRAJUL BINAT,
STEENSGAARD, Anthony [21 MAR 1963 - 10 APR 2008]
STEENSGAARD, Alexandra [1st AUG 2003 - ]
SUFI DIN MUHAMMED KHAN, Sardar
SULEIMAN JAN KHAN, Sardar [1881 - ]
SULTAN AHMAD KHAN, Sardar [1904 - ]
SULTAN AHMAD KHAN, Amir
SULTAN AHMAD KHAN, [1892 - ]
SULTAN MAHMUD KHAN, Sardar [1925 - ]
SULTAN MUHAMMED KHAN, [Abt 1770 - 1833/1838]
SULTANA BEGUM, HRH Princess [1920 - ]
TAJ MUHAMMED KHAN, Sardar
TARZI, ABDUL AZIZ Sardar
TARZI, ABDUL FETTAH Sardar [ - 1978]
TARZI, ABDUL KADER Sardar
TARZI, ABDUL TAWAB Sardar
TARZI, ABDUL WAHAB Sardar
TARZI, Amina Seraj
TARZI, Ayte
TARZI, Aziza
TARZI, Fatma
TARZI, Houriya
TARZI, Kawkab Khanum [1895 - ]
TARZI, Kayriya Seraj
TARZI, MAHMUD
TARZI, MAHMUTCAN
TARZI, MEHMED
TARZI, MUSTAFA
TARZI, Soraya Khanum HM Queen [1897 - 21 APR 1968]
TARZI Hanim Efendi, Zeyneb HIH Princess [16 DEC 1940 - ]
TARZI, GHULAM MUHAMMED [1830 - 1900]
TARZI, MAHMUD BEG KHAN HE Sardar [23 AUG 1865 - 1933]
UBAIDULLAH KHAN, [18 NOV 1915 - ]
ULYA HAZRAT,
ULYA JENAB,
UMAIRAH BEGUM, [1927 - ]
WALI, Homaira [1953 - ]
WALI, Mayena [1960 - ]
WALI, Wana [1956 - ]
WALI MUHAMMED KHAN, Sardar
WALI SHAH KHAN, Sardar [?? JUL 1926 - ]
YAHYA KHAN, Sardar
YAQUB KHAN DURRANI, Sardar
YAR MUHAMMAD KHAN, Wazir [ - 1 JUN 1851]
YASMIN GUL KHANUM DURRANI,
YUNUS KHAN, [1876 - ]
ZAHERA BEGUM, HRH Princess [1915 - ]
ZAINAB BEGUM, HRH Princess [1919 - ]
ZALMAN KHAN, Sardar [1923 - ]
ZARIN BEGUM,
ZARMINA BEGUM, HRH Princess [1919 - ]
ZEKRYA, Lema Princess [27 MAR 1980 - ]
ZEKRYA, Hamzah Prince [8 JAN 1983 - ]
ZEKRYA, Tadj Ahmed
ZIAYI, Abdul Hakim [1915 - ]
ZIKRIA, Faiz Muhammed Sardar [1894 - 1979]
ZIKRIA KHAN, Sardar
ZULAIKAH KHANUM HAYA,

This page updated on 5 AUG 2003 : Database maintained by Henry
Soszynski

http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~royalty/afghan/persons.html

Search billions of records on Ancestry.com

INDEX OF PERSONS

Daughter [MAR 2001 - ]
Daughter
Daughter
Daughter [ - 21 OCT 1919]
Daughter1
Daughter2
Daughter3
Daughter4
Daughter4
Sri Panch Bada Maharani
Sri Panch Kanchhi Maharani
AISHWARYA RAJYA LAKSHMI DEVI, HM Queen [7 NOV 1949 - 1 JUN 2001]
AJATSHATRU SINGH, Maharajkumar [6 FEB 1966 - ]
AKSHITA MANJARI BHANJA DEO, Maharajkumari [1992 - ]
AMAR PRAKASH BAHADUR, Lt. Col. HH Maharajah Sir [26 JAN 1888 - 13 AUG
1933]
AMBIKA RANA,
ANANYA RAJE, Maharajkumari [APR 2002 - ]
ARIMARDAN SINGH, HH Maharaja [29 DEC 1903 - 8 NOV 1941]
BAHADUR RANA, Bam Shri [ - 1857]
BAHADUR RANA, Krishna Shri
BAHADUR RANA, Lalit Cdg.Gen. Shri
BAHADUR RANA, Ranadip Singh Cdg.Gen. HH Shri Tin Maharaja [1825 - 22
NOV 1885]
BAHADUR RANA, Uttam Shri [1892 - ]
BAHADUR SHAH, Maharajkumar [ - 1795]
BAHADUR SINHJI, HH Maharajah Shri Sir [3 APR 1900 - ]
BAL NARSINGH KUNWAR RANA,
BALA KUMARI DEVI, HH Bada Maharani
BASUNDHARA BIR BIKRAM SHAH DEV, HRH Prince [25 NOV 1921 - 31 AUG
1977]
BHADWAL TRILOKPUR, Rani
BHARATI RAJYA LAKSHMI DEVI, HRH Princess [17 FEB 1928 - ]
BHARATI RAJYA LAKSHMI DEVI, HH Maharani
BHAWANI SINGH, HH Maharaja Sawai [22 OCT 1931 - ]
BHUVAN RAJYA LAKSHMI DEVI, Rani
BIBHU KUMARI DEVI, HH Maharani [28 JUN 1944 - ]
BIKRAM RANA, Bam Shri
BIKRAM RANA, Indra Shri
BIKRAM SINGH, Rao Raja
BIPULA SHAHI, Rao Rani
BIR BIKRAM KISHORE DEV VARMA, HH Maharaja Manikya [19 AUG 1908 - 17
MAY 1947]
BIR BIKRAM SINGH, Rao Sahib
BIRENDRA BIR BIKRAM SHAH DEV, HM King [28 DEC 1945 - 1 JUN 2001]
BRAJRAJ SINGH, HH Maharawal
CHANDA KANWAR, Thakurani
CHANDRA RAJYA LAKSHMI, Rani [1895 - 18 JUL 1934]
CHANDRABATI, Maharani
DALAMARDAN SHAH, Raja
DALJIT SHAH, Rajkumar
DEB BURMAN, Pragya Maharaj Kumari [10 JAN 1969 - ]
DEB BURMAN, Pradyot Yuvaraj [4 JUL 1976 - ]
DEVA VAKTA LAKSHMI DEVI, Rani
DHAN KUMARI DEVI, Rani
DHARMA RAJYA LAKSHMI,
DHIRENDRA BIR BIKRAM SHAH DEV, HRH Prince [4 JAN 1950 - 4 JUN 2001]
DIBYA RAJYA LAKSHMI DEVI, Rao Rani
DIGVIJAY SINGH, Rao Sahib [27 MAR 1963 - ]
DIGVIJAY SINGHJI, HH Maharajah Shri Sir [1 SEP 1895 - 3 FEB 1966]
DIKSHYA KUMARI DEVI, HH Bada Maharani
DILASHA RAJYA LAKSHMI DEVI, HRH Princess
DIPENDRA BIR BIKRAM SHAH DEV, HM King [27 JUN 1971 - 4 JUN 2001]
DIVYA KUMARI, Maharajkumari [1970 - ]
DIVYESWARI RAJYA LAKSHMI DEVI, Maharani
DURGA LAKSHMI DEVI,
DUSHYANT SINGH, Yuvraj [1973 - ]
GAEKWAD, Sangram Singh Maharajkumar
GAJ SINGHJI II SAHIB BAHADUR, HH Raj Rajeshwar Maharajadhiraja
Maharaja Shri [13 JAN 1948 - ]
GAJRAJE RANE, Maharani [ - 1943]
GANGA RAJYA LAKSHMI,
GIRVAN YUDDHA BIKRAM SHAH, Maharaja [1797 - 22 NOV 1816]
GREANEY), Mrs. Shirley Shah (née Shirley [1960 - ]
GULAB KUNWERBA, HH Maharani
GYANENDRA BIR BIKRAM SHAH DEV, HM King [7 JUL 1947 - ]
HANWANT SINGHJI SAHIB BAHADUR, HH Maharaja [16 JUN 1923 - 26 JAN
1952]
HARDAYAL SINGH, Rao Raja
HARI SINGH BAHADUR, HH Shri Maharaja [30 SEP 1895 - 26 APR 1961]
HELEN RAJYA LAKSHMI DEVI, HRH Princess [21 SEP 1932 - ]
HEM RAJYA LAKSHMI DEVI, Rani
HEMANT SINGH, HH Maharaja
HEMLATA RAJYA, HH Maharani
HIMALAYA BIR BIKRAM SHAH DEV, HRH Prince [12 OCT 1921 - 9 MAY 1980]
HIMANI RAJYA LAKSMI DEVI, HRH Princess [1 OCT 1976 - ]
HOMA RAJYA LAKSHMI, [1913 - ]
HRIDAYENDRA BIR BIKRAM SHAH DEV, Shri Panch Nava Yuvaraj [30 JUL 2002
- ]
INDIRA DEVI, HH Maharani
INDIRA RAJYA LAKSHMI DEVI, Rani
INDRA RAJYA LAKSHMI DEVI, HM Queen [1924 - 27 AUG 1950]
INDRA RAJYA LAKSHMI DEVI, Rao Rani
INDRAJITENDRA NARAIN SINGH, Yuvaraj Sahib [27 JAN 1938 - ]
ISHWARI RAJYA LAKSHMI DEVI, HM Queen
JAGAT DEV SINGH, Raja [ - 1940]
JAYA RAJYA LAKSHMI DEVI, Rani
JAYANT SINGH JU DEO, HH Maharajadhiraj Sipahdar-ul-Mulk [23 MAY 1952
- ]
JAYANTI RAJYA LAKSHMI DEVI, HRH Princess [ - 1 JUN 2001]
JAYATI KUMARI, Maharaj Kumari [4 FEB 1982 - ]
JAYRAJ SINGH JU DEO, Maharaj Kumar [3 NOV 1985 - ]
JAYY SINGH JU DEO, Raja Bahadur [13 OCT 1984 - ]
JIVAJI III RAO SCINDIA, HH Maharajah Sir [26 JUN 1916 - 1961]
JUHAR KUMARI DEVI, Maharani [ - 1916]
JUNG BAHADUR RANA, Cdg.Gen. HH Shri Tin Maharaja Sir [18 JUN 1817 - 25
FEB 1877]
JUNG BAHADUR RANA, Gyan Shri
JUNG BAHADUR RANA, Jodhar Shri
JUNG BAHADUR RANA, Yuddha Pratap Cdg. Gen. Maharaja Sri Tin [ - 22 DEC
1885]
JUNG RANA, Belayat Shri
JUNG RANA, Dilli Bir Shri
JUNG RANA, Jagat Cdg. Gen. Maharaja Sri Tin [ - 1885]
JUNG RANA, Jeet Cdg. Gen. Maharajkumar
JUNG RANA, Juddha Maharajkumar
JUNG RANA, Maharshi Dambar Shri
JUNG RANA, Padma Cdg. Gen. Maharajkumar [ - 6 JUN 1906]
JUNG RANA, Piyush Shri [ - 1 APR 1907]
JUNG RANA, Ranabir Cdg. Gen. Maharajkumar
JUNG RANA, Thir Shri
JYOTI RAJYA LAKSHMI DEVI, HRH Princess
JYOTIRADITYA SCINDIA, HH Maharaja Shri [1-JAN-1971 - ]
JYOTSANA RAJYA LAKSHMI DEVI, HRH Princess
JYOTSNA DEVI, Maharajkumari [24 FEB 1957 - ]
KAILASH KUMARI, Rani
KAMAKHYA NARAIN SINGH, Maharaja [10 AUG 1916 - ]
KANIKA DEVI, Maharajkumari [29 JAN 1961 - ]
KANTI MATI, Maharani [ - 1799]
KANTI RAJYA LAKSHMI DEVI, HM Queen [1906 - 12 APR 1973]
KARAN SINGH, HH Maharaja Shri [9 MAR 1931 - ]
KASTURIKA MOOHINI DEVI, HH Maharani
KETAKI RAJYA LAKSHMI DEVI, HRH Princess [Abt 1946 - ]
KHAIDAGADH', 'Maharani of
KHEM KUNWARI,
KIRIT BIKRAM KISHORE DEV VARMA, HH Maharaja Manikya [13 DEC 1933 - ]
KISHORI RAJYA LAKSHMI DEVI, Rani [22 JAN 1927 - ]
KOMAL RAJYA LAXMI DEVI, HM Queen [18 FEB 1951 - ]
KRISHNA CHANDRA KUMARI, Rani
KRISHNA KUMARI BA SAHIBA, HH Maharani [1926 - ]
KRISHNA KUMARI DEVI, Rani
KRITI DEVI, Maharaj Kumari [3 JUN 1971 - ]
KUMARI RAJYA LAKSHMI, Rani
LAKSHMI KUMARI DEVI, Rani
LAKSHMI NARAIN SINGH, Maharaja [ - 3 APR 1919]
LAKSHMI RAJYA LAKSHMI DEVI, HRH Princess Royal
LALIT TRIPURA SUNDARI, Maharani [ - 1832]
LILA RAJYA LAKSHMI KUMARI DEVI, Maharani
LOKA BHAKTA LAKSHMI DEVI, HH Bada Maharani [ - 1905]
LOKENDRA SINGHJI, HH Maharajah [9 NOV 1927 - ]
MADALASA DEVI, HH Maharani
MADHAV II RAO SCINDIA, HH Maharaja Shri [10 MAR 1945 - 30 SEP 2001]
MADHAVI RAJE, HH Maharani
MADHAVRAO II SCINDIA, HH Maharajah Scindia [20 OCT 1876 - 5 JUN
1925]
MAHENDRA BIR BIKRAM SHAH DEV, HM King [11 JUN 1920 - 31 JAN 1972]
MAHENDRA RAJYA LAXMI KUMARI DEVI, Rani
MAHENDRA SINGH, Thakur [Abt 1890 - ]
MAHENDRA SINGH JU DEO, HH Raja Saheb Shri [5 FEB 1916 - ]
MAN SINGH II BAHADUR, HH Shri Maharajadhiraj Sir Sawai [21 AUG 1911 -
24 JUN 1970]
MANVENDRA SINHJI GOHIL, Maharaj Kumar
MARTANDAY SINGH,
MARUDHAR KUNWAR, HH Maharani [1899 - 24 DEC 1944]
MEGHA RAJYA LAXMI DEVI, Maharajkumari [ - JAN 1946]
MINAKSHI KUMARI GOHIL, Maharaj Kumari
MOHA BAKHTA RAJYA LAXMI KUMARI DEVI, Rani
MRIGANKA DEVI,
MRINALIKA MANJARI BHANJ DEO, Maharajkumari [1 DEC 1990 - ]
MUKUT RAJYA LAKSHMI DEVI, HH Maharani [1933 - ]
NAGENDRA SINGH, Maharaj Shri
NALINI RAJYA LAKSHMI DEVI, Rani
NARA BHUPAL SHAH, Raja
NARASINGH RANA, Badri Shri
NARENDRA BIKRAM SHAH, Maharajkumar
NIRAJAN BIR BIKRAM SHAH DEV, HRH Prince [6 NOV 1978 - 1 JUN 2001]
PADMA DEVI, Rani
PADMA KUMARI, Rani Saheba
PADMA KUMARI DEVI, Bada Maharani Shri
PADMA MANJARI BHANJ DEO, HH Maharani [OCT 1953 - ]
PADMA SCINDIA, HH Maharani [23 FEB 1942 - 26 APR 1969]
PADMINI DEVI, HH Maharani Saheba [1943 - ]
PARAS BIR BIKRAM SHAH DEV, HRH Crown Prince [30 DEC 1971 - ]
PASHUPATI PRATAP SINGH, Raja [14 AUG 1904 - ]
PATESHWARI PRASAD SINGH, Maharaja Sir [2 JAN 1914 - 1964]
PHANINDRA RAJYA LAKSHMI, Rani [1908 - ]
PRABHA DEVI, Rani
PRABHA MANJARI BHANJ DEO, Maharaj Kumari [21 DEC 1952 - 11 JUN 1990]
PRABHA RAJYA LAKSHMI DEVI, Maharani
PRADEEP CHANDRA BHANJ DEO, HH Maharaja Shri [12 DEC 1929 - 15 SEP
2000]
PRATAP CHANDRA BHANJ DEO, HH Maharaja Sir [18 FEB 1901 - 1968]
PRATAP KESHORE DEO, HH Maharaja [5 OCT 1919 - ]
PRATAP SINGH, Maharaja [1751 - 7 NOV 1777]
PRATAP SINGH, Lt.Gen. HH Maharajah Bahadur Sir [21 OCT 1845 - 9 SEP
1922]
PRATAP SINGH, Maharaj
PRATIMA DEVI, Rani Saheb [12 JUN 1962 - ]
PRAVEEN CHANDRA BHANJ DEO, HH Maharaja [JUL 1959 - ]
PREKSHYA RAJYA LAKSHMI DEVI, HH Princess [1952 - 12 NOV 2001]
PREMA KUMARI DEVI, HH Maharani
PRERANA RAJYA LAXMI DEVI, HRH Princess
PRINCEP RAJYA LAKSHMI DEVI, HRH Princess [16 MAR 1930 - 22 MAY 1982]
PRITHVI BIR BIKRAM SHAH DEV, HH Maharajadhiraj [18 AUG 1875 - 11 DEC
1911]
PRITHVI NARAYAN SHAH, Maharaja [1723 - 1775]
PRITHWIRAJ SINGH, Maharaj Kumar
PRIYADARSHANI, HH Maharani
PUJA RAJYA LAKSHMI DEVI, HRH Princess
PURNIKA RAJYA LAKSHMI DEVI, HRH Princess [11 DEC 2000 - ]
RABINDRA SHAH, Rajkumar
RAGHUBIR SINHJI, HH Maharana Shri
RAGHUNATH SINGH, HH Maharajah [1927 - 1981]
RAGHURAJ KUMARI, Rajmata Sahiba
RAJ RAJESWARI VIDYA LAKSHNMI, Maharani [ - 1805]
RAJENDRA BIKRAM SHAH, Maharaja [1813 - 1881]
RAJENDRA LAKSHMI DEVI, Maharani [ - 13 JUL 1785]
RAJENDRA PRAKASH BAHADUR, HH Maharajah Sir [10 JAN 1913 - 1964]
RAJENDRA SINHJI, HH Maharana Shri [30 MAR 1912 - 3 FEB 1963]
RAJYA LAKSHMI DEVI, Maharani
RAJYA LAKSHMI DEVI, Bada Maharani
RAJYA LAKSHMI RANA, Rani
RAJYA LAXMI KUMARI DEVI, Maharani
RAJYASHREE MANJARI BHANJ DEO, Maharajkumari [3 SEP 1985 - ]
RAMA RAJYA LAKSHMI DEVI, Maharani
RANA, Annapurna
RANA, Asha Rani
RANA, Devyani [Abt 1972 - ]
RANA, Geeta
RANA, Girvani Rajya Lakshmi [22 JUN 1998 - ]
RANA, Rama Maharajkumari [Abt 1947 - ]
RANA, Shivangini Rajya Laxmi
RANA, Sita
RANA BAHADUR, Maharaja [1775 - 1805]
RANENDRA BIKRAM SHAH, Maharajkumar
RASHMI KUMARI, HH Maharani [1962 - ]
RATNA RAJYA LAKSHMI DEVI, HM Queen [20 AUG 1928 - ]
REVATI RAMAN RAJYA LAKSHMI DEVI, HH Maharani [1878 - 1926]
RUDRAKSHI KUMARI, Rajkumari [25 AUG 1996 - ]
RUDRAVRAT SINGH, Rajkumar [4 NOV 1991 - ]
RUKMANI DEVI, HH Maharani
RUPARAJYA RAJYA LAXMI KUMARI DEVI, Rani
SAJJAN SINGHJI BAHADUR, Col. HH Maharaja Sir [13 JAN 1880 - 1947]
SANGRAM SINGH, Rawal [22 OCT 1900 - ]
SANO PHUJYU,
SARALA DEVI, Shrimati Rani
SCINDIA, Chitrangada Yuvrani [1967 - ]
SCINDIA, Yeshodhara Maharajkumari [19 JUN 1954 - ]
SCINDIA, Mahanaryaman Yuvaraj [1995 - ]
SHADARAJYA RAJYA LAXMI KUMARI DEVI, Rani
SHAH, Ushaanaa Laela [22 JUL 1994 - ]
SHANTI RAJYA LAXMI DEVI, HRH Princess [1941 - 1 JUN 2001]
SHARADA RAJYA LAXMI DEVI, HRH Princess [1942 - 1 JUN 2001]
SHATRUSHALYA SINGH, HH Maharaja Jam Sahib Shri [1939 - ]
SHER BAHADUR, Maharajkumar
SHIVRAJ SINGH SAHIB, Yuvraj Shri Maharajkumar [30 SEP 1975 - ]
SHIVRANJINI RAJYE BAIJI LAL SAHIBA, Maharaj Kumari Shri [22 AUG 1974
- ]
SHOBHA RAJYA LAXMI DEVI, HRH Princess [1950 - ]
SHRUTI RAJYA LAKSHMI DEVI, HRH Princess [15 OCT 1976 - 1 JUN 2001]
SHUMSHER, Hiranya Shri
SHUMSHER, Mahabir Shri
SHUMSHER, Prakash Shri
SHUMSHER, Rama Shri
SHUMSHER, Subarna Shri
SHUMSHER JUNG BAHADUR RANA, Aditya Shri
SHUMSHER JUNG BAHADUR RANA, Agni Gen. Maharajkumar
SHUMSHER JUNG BAHADUR RANA, Akhanda Col. Shri
SHUMSHER JUNG BAHADUR RANA, Arjun Shri
SHUMSHER JUNG BAHADUR RANA, Arun Gen. Shri
SHUMSHER JUNG BAHADUR RANA, Baber Gen. Maharajkumar Sir [27 JAN 1888 -
1960]
SHUMSHER JUNG BAHADUR RANA, Bahadur Maharajkumar
SHUMSHER JUNG BAHADUR RANA, Bahadur Gen. Maharajkumar Sir [1892 - 19
AUG 1977]
SHUMSHER JUNG BAHADUR RANA, Bala Shri
SHUMSHER JUNG BAHADUR RANA, Basant Maharajkumar
SHUMSHER JUNG BAHADUR RANA, Baulya Col. Shri
SHUMSHER JUNG BAHADUR RANA, Bharat Shri
SHUMSHER JUNG BAHADUR RANA, Bhim Gen. HH Shri Tin Maharaja Sir [16 APR
1865 - 1 SEP 1932]
SHUMSHER JUNG BAHADUR RANA, Bhir HH Shri Tin Maharaja [1852 - 5 MAR
1901]
SHUMSHER JUNG BAHADUR RANA, Bijaya Maharajkumar [15 DEC 1915 - 29 DEC
1953]
SHUMSHER JUNG BAHADUR RANA, Brahma Shri [1909 - ]
SHUMSHER JUNG BAHADUR RANA, Buddha Shri
SHUMSHER JUNG BAHADUR RANA, Chakra Gen. Maharajkumar
SHUMSHER JUNG BAHADUR RANA, Chandra HH Projwala-Nepala Taradisha Sri
Tin Maharaja Sir [8 JUL 1863 - 26 NOV 1929]
SHUMSHER JUNG BAHADUR RANA, Chudaraj Shri
SHUMSHER JUNG BAHADUR RANA, Damber Shri
SHUMSHER JUNG BAHADUR RANA, Dev HH Shri Tin Maharaja [1862 - FEB
1914]
SHUMSHER JUNG BAHADUR RANA, Devendra Shri
SHUMSHER JUNG BAHADUR RANA, Dharma Cdg. Gen. Maharajkumar [ - 1932]
SHUMSHER JUNG BAHADUR RANA, Diamond Shri [1918 - ]
SHUMSHER JUNG BAHADUR RANA, Dibhakar Shri
SHUMSHER JUNG BAHADUR RANA, Durga Shri
SHUMSHER JUNG BAHADUR RANA, Ekraj Col. Shri
SHUMSHER JUNG BAHADUR RANA, Futteh Cdg.Gen. Shri [ - 1907/1908]
SHUMSHER JUNG BAHADUR RANA, Gahendra Gen. Maharajkumar
SHUMSHER JUNG BAHADUR RANA, Gautam Shri [1957 - ]
SHUMSHER JUNG BAHADUR RANA, Gorakh Kumar [17 FEB 1969 - ]
SHUMSHER JUNG BAHADUR RANA, Hari Gen. Maharajkumar
SHUMSHER JUNG BAHADUR RANA, Harka Shri
SHUMSHER JUNG BAHADUR RANA, Hem Shri
SHUMSHER JUNG BAHADUR RANA, Ina Col. Shri
SHUMSHER JUNG BAHADUR RANA, Jagat Maharajkumar
SHUMSHER JUNG BAHADUR RANA, Jharendra Shri
SHUMSHER JUNG BAHADUR RANA, Jit Cdg.Gen. Shri [ - 27 JUL 1913]
SHUMSHER JUNG BAHADUR RANA, Juddha HH Sri Tin Maharaja [19 APR 1875 -
23 NOV 1952]
SHUMSHER JUNG BAHADUR RANA, Kaiser Lt.Gen. Maharajkumar Sir [8 JAN
1892 - 7 JUN 1964]
SHUMSHER JUNG BAHADUR RANA, Kendra Lt.Gen. Shri [1927 - 24 JUL 1982]
SHUMSHER JUNG BAHADUR RANA, Keyur Shri
SHUMSHER JUNG BAHADUR RANA, Khadga Cdg. Gen. Shri [1861 - NOV 1921]
SHUMSHER JUNG BAHADUR RANA, Khamba Shri
SHUMSHER JUNG BAHADUR RANA, Kiran Maharajkumar [1916 - ]
SHUMSHER JUNG BAHADUR RANA, Krishna Maj.Gen. Maharajkumar [8 FEB 1900
- 19 MAY 1977]
SHUMSHER JUNG BAHADUR RANA, Kunjar Shri
SHUMSHER JUNG BAHADUR RANA, Lila Gen. Shri
SHUMSHER JUNG BAHADUR RANA, Madan Maj.Gen. Maharajkumar
SHUMSHER JUNG BAHADUR RANA, Manoj Shri
SHUMSHER JUNG BAHADUR RANA, Mohun Gen. HH Shri Tin Maharajah [23 DEC
1885 - 6 JAN 1967]
SHUMSHER JUNG BAHADUR RANA, Mrigendra Shri [1906 - ]
SHUMSHER JUNG BAHADUR RANA, Narayan Gen. Maharajkumar
SHUMSHER JUNG BAHADUR RANA, Neer Shri
SHUMSHER JUNG BAHADUR RANA, Padma Gen. HH Shri Tin Maharajah Sir [5
DEC 1882 - 11 APR 1961]
SHUMSHER JUNG BAHADUR RANA, Pashupati Shri [1941 - ]
SHUMSHER JUNG BAHADUR RANA, Prabhakar Shri [26 NOV 1935 - ]
SHUMSHER JUNG BAHADUR RANA, Prabhu Shri
SHUMSHER JUNG BAHADUR RANA, Prashiddha Shri
SHUMSHER JUNG BAHADUR RANA, Pratap Gen. Maharajkumar [ - 1934]
SHUMSHER JUNG BAHADUR RANA, Purna Shri
SHUMSHER JUNG BAHADUR RANA, Rabi Gen. Maharajkumar
SHUMSHER JUNG BAHADUR RANA, Rudra Gen. Maharajkumar [1879 - 1964]
SHUMSHER JUNG BAHADUR RANA, Run Cdg.Gen. Shri
SHUMSHER JUNG BAHADUR RANA, Sahadev Col. Shri
SHUMSHER JUNG BAHADUR RANA, Samrajya Gen. Shri[1921 - ]
SHUMSHER JUNG BAHADUR RANA, Sarada Maharajkumar [18 OCT 1912 - ]
SHUMSHER JUNG BAHADUR RANA, Shanker Maj.Gen. Maharajkumar [1909 - 4
JUN 1976]
SHUMSHER JUNG BAHADUR RANA, Shanta Col. Maharajkumar
SHUMSHER JUNG BAHADUR RANA, Sher Maj. Gen. Shri
SHUMSHER JUNG BAHADUR RANA, Shingha Lt.Gen. Maharajkumar [1893 - ]
SHUMSHER JUNG BAHADUR RANA, Siddhi Shri
SHUMSHER JUNG BAHADUR RANA, Sridhar Shri [1928 - ]
SHUMSHER JUNG BAHADUR RANA, Subarna Col. Shri
SHUMSHER JUNG BAHADUR RANA, Suraj Lt.Gen. Shri
SHUMSHER JUNG BAHADUR RANA, Surendra Col. Maharajkumar
SHUMSHER JUNG BAHADUR RANA, Surya Gen. Maharajkumar [ - JAN 1945]
SHUMSHER JUNG BAHADUR RANA, Sushil Shri [APR 1934 - ]
SHUMSHER JUNG BAHADUR RANA, Tej Gen. Maharajkumar [1885 - 1942]
SHUMSHER JUNG BAHADUR RANA, Yadu Shri
SHUMSHER JUNG BAHADUR RANA, Yuvraj Shri
SHUMSHER JUNG NAHADUR RANA, Dhawal Shri
SHUMSHER JUNG NAHADUR RANA, Kailash Shri
SHUMSHER JUNG NAHADUR RANA, Mussoorie Maharajkumar
SHUMSHER RANA, Dhir Cdg.Gen. Shri [1828 - 14 OCT 1884]
SHUMSHER RANA, Jagat Cdg. Gen. Shri [1827 - 1879]
SHUMSHERE JUNG BAHADUR RANA, Bishnu Maj.Gen. Maharajkumar [1908 - 29
JAN 1946]
SHUMSHERE JUNG BAHADUR RANA, Nara Gen. Shri [DEC 1906 - ]
SHUMSHERE JUNG BAHADUR RANA, Sarad Shri [4 SEP 1954 - ]
SHUMSHERE JUNG BAHADUR RANA, Sur Col. Shri
SINGH, Adishree
SINGH, Ritu
SINGH, Dhananajaya Kanwar [1968 - ]
SINGH, Mahendra Rao Raja [26 JUN 1944 - ]
SINGH, Nahar Rao Raja [1923 - ]
SINGH, Narendra Rao Raja [1917 - 1983]
SINGH, Narpat Rao Raja [28 MAR 1892 - 23 JUN 1967]
SINGH, Nikhilendra Kanwar [1970 - ]
SINGH, Paraharam Bhanwar [1998 - ]
SINGH, Ranvijay
SINGH RAJAWAT, Narendra Kunwar
SITABA SAHIBA, HH Maharani Shri
SITASHMA RAJYA LAKSHMI DEVI SHAH, HRH Princess
SIVRATEN DEV SINGH, Raja [APR 1925 - ]
SNEHA MANJARI BHANJ DEO, Maharaj Kumari [2 MAY 1955 - ]
SUBARNA PRABHA, Maharani
SUNDER SINGH, Thakur [1946 - ]
SURENDRA BIKRAM PRAKASH, HH Maharajah Sir [14 NOV 1867 - 25 JUL
1911]
SURENDRA BIKRAM SHAH, Maharaja [1829 - 1881]
TARA DEVI, HH Maharani [1910 - 1967]
TARA RAJYA LAKSHMI DEVI, Rani
TARA RAJYA LAKSHMI KUMARI DEVI, Rani
TASMA KUMARI, Rani
TEHARI', 'Maharani of
THAGENDRA RAJYA LAXMI KUMARI DEVI, Rani
THULO PHUJYU,
TIPARA', 'Maharani of
TITILA LAKSHMI DEVI,
TRAILOKYA BIKRAM SHAH, Yuvaraj [1847 - 1878]
TRIBHUVAN BIR BIKRAM SHAH DEV, HM King [30 JUN 1906 - 13 MAR 1955]
TRILOKI RAJYA LAKSHMI DEVI, Rani
UDAYA SINGH, Rao Sahib
UDIT PRATAP DEO, HH Maharajah
UMA KUMARI, Rani
UNKNOWN SON,
UPENDRA BIKRAM SHAH, Maharajkumar
URMILA KUMARI, HH Maharani
USHARAJE SCINDIA, Rani [31 OCT 1943 - ]
VANDANA RAJYA LAXMI, Maharani
VASUNDHARA RAJE SCINDIA, Maharani [6 MAR 1953 - ]
VIJAYA RAJE, HH Maharani [12 OCT 1919 - 25 JAN 2001]
VIJAYA RAJYA LAKSHMI DEVI, HRH Princess
VIKRAMADITYA SINGH, Yuvraj [4 AUG 1964 - ]
VIRAD KUNWAR, Rani
YAMUNA RAJYA LAKSHMI,
YASHO RAJYA LAKSHMI DEVI, HH Maharani [1937 - ]
YUBA RAJYA LAKSHMI, Rani
This page updated on 29 JUL 2003 : Database maintained by Henry
Soszynski

http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~royalty/nepal/persons.html

Sid Harth

unread,
Feb 3, 2010, 1:47:57 PM2/3/10
to
Full text of "The golden book of India, a genealogical and
biographical dictionary of the ruling princes, chiefs, nobles, and
other personages, titled or decorated, of the Indian empire"

THE GOLDEN BOOK OF INDIA

A GENEALOGICAL AND BIOGRAPHICAL DICTIONARY OF THE
RULING PRINCES, CHIEFS, NOBLES, AND OTHER

PERSONAGES, TITLED OR DECORATED
OF THE INDIAN EMPIRE

BY

SIR ROPER LETHBRIDGE, K.C.I. E.

MACMILLAN AND CO.

AND NEW YORK

1893

A II rights reserved

Printed by R. & R. CLARK, Edinburgh

'By Special ^Permission
DEDICATED

TO

HER MOST GRACIOUS MAJESTY

QUEEN EMPRESS OF INDIA

INTRODUCTION

i. SOURCES OF INFORMATION.

O official authority whatever attaches to this work, or to any
statement in it. The Editor has received the most kind and
valuable assistance from all those Indian officials who have
charge of matters relating to Dignities and Titles ; but he is
alone responsible for the contents of The Golden Book of
India. Much of the information has been derived from the Princes,
Noble-
men, and Gentlemen whose names are included herein. To each one has
been sent, so far as it has been found possible, a prospectus of this
work, with
a request for information, and with specimens of the form in which
that
information is desired; and in every case in which that appeal has
been
responded to, the fullest consideration has been given to the
particulars
submitted for insertion. It is hoped that, now the work in its
experimental
form is once before the Indian public, all those who are interested in
its
accuracy will send their suggestions, whether for additions, or for
alterations
or corrections, direct to the Editor, care of Messrs. Macmillan and
Co.,
29 Bedford Street, Covent Garden, London, W.C. It will readily be
under-
stood that in a work of such magnitude, involving reference to some
thousands
of persons, individual correspondence must be impossible ; and
consequently
the Editor, while assuring those who favour him with their
communications
that these shall receive the most careful attention, hopes that he
will be
forgiven if he is unable to reply separately to each one.

The task of compiling this much-needed work has been of far greater
difficulty than was expected. Some of the difficulty has been due to
its
novelty ; for among those who have sent information regarding
themselves
and their families, there has naturally been little uniformity in
method or
scale. This difficulty will, it is anticipated, soon disappear. But
the chief
difficulty has been owing to the fact that India stands alone among
civilised
nations in possessing no special Department, College, or Chancery,
charged
with the duty a very necessary duty from the point of view alike of

Vlil THE GOLDEN BOOK OF INDIA

expediency and of national dignity of recording and certifying
national
honours and titles, of regulating their conferment, and of controlling
their
devolution where hereditary. The Foreign Department of the Government
of India, being that Department which has charge of the relations of
the
Paramount Power with the Feudatory States and their Rulers, naturally
and
properly directs so much of this business of State as cannot by any
possibility
be shirked. But the question of the very necessary establishment of a
Heralds' College, or a Chancery of Dignities, has only once (in 1877)
been seriously faced and then its solution was postponed.

The results of this neglect are already deplorable, and must ere long
receive the attention of the Government of India. Indian titles are
officially
defined to be, either by grant from Government, i.e. a new creation by
Her
Imperial Majesty the Queen Empress through her representative; or "by
descent, or by well-established usage." The Government alone can be
the
judge of the validity of claims, and of their relative strength, in
the case of
titles acquired by "descent" or by "well-established usage." And it is
clear
that this Royal Prerogative, to be properly used, ought to be
exercised openly
and publicly through the medium of a regular College or Chancery. It
is,
of course, true that the Foreign Department possesses a mass of more
or less
confidential information, and thoroughly efficient machinery, for
deciding all
questions of the kind, when such questions are submitted to, or
pressed upon,
the notice of Government. But when that is not the case, there seems
to be
no public authority or accessible record for any of the ordinary
Indian titles,
or for the genealogy of the families holding hereditary titles. Much
confusion
has already arisen from this, and more is likely to arise. In the
Lower
Provinces of Bengal alone, there are at this moment some hundreds of
families possessing, and not uncommonly using, titles derived from
extinct
dynasties or from common repute, yet not hitherto recognised formally
by
the British Government ; and these, sometimes justly, but more
frequently
perhaps unjustly, are in this way placed in a false and invidious
position.
The State regulation of all these matters, in a plain and
straightforward
manner, would undoubtedly be hailed with pleasure in India by princes
and
people alike.

In equal uncertainty is left, in many cases, the position of the
descend-
ants of ancient Indian royal and noble families ; as also that of the
Nobles
of Feudatory States, the subjects of ruling and mediatised princes.

Then, too, there is endless confusion in the banners, badges, and
devices
that are borne, either by the custom of the country or by personal
assump-
tion, by various families and individuals. Tod's learned work on The
Annals
of Rdjdsthdn^ taught us long ago that badges and family emblems were
as

1 Colonel Tod says : "The martial Rajpoots are not strangers to
armorial bearings. . . . The
great banner of Mewar exhibits a golden Sun on a crimson field ; those
of the chiefs bear a
Dagger. Amber displays \hepanehranga, or five-coloured flag. The lion
rampant on an argent
field is extinct with the State of Chanderi. In Europe these customs
were not introduced till
the period of the Crusades, and were copied from the Saracens ; while
the use of them amongst

INTRODUCTION IX

characteristic of Rajput chivalry as of the feudalism of Europe
appealing to
similar sentiments, and similarly useful for historical and
genealogical purposes.
To this day hundreds of Chiefs and country gentlemen in Rajputana, in
Central India, in Kathiawar, and in many other parts, use their
ancestral
devices in their seals or accompanying their signature. Thus every
petty
Thakur (as well as Chiefs of higher degree), from Oudh in the East to
the Western Sea, who can trace his descent from the proud Chauhan
clan of Rajputs that gave the last Hindu Emperors to Delhi and Ajmir,
still claims his ancestral right to the Chauhan santak, or device on
seal
and for signature, called the "Chakra" (see the drawing at p. 100).
Figures of Hanumdn (the Monkey God), of the Sacred Peacock, and of
the
Sacred Garur or Eagle, take the place, in the heraldry of the East, of
the lions,
the leopards, and the fleur-de-lys of the more elaborate and
artificial coat-
armour of the West. The kulcha, or "lucky chapdti" (biscuit), with
the
silver quatrefoils, on the green flag of the Nizam, the red oriflamme
of the
" Sun of the Hindus " (the Maharana of Udaipur), the falcon of
Marwar,
the Gangetic dolphin of Darbhanga, the white and green stripes of the
late
Sir Salar Jang, and many other hereditary devices and emblems, have
long
been and still are familiar in India. But there seems to be no
authority by
whom the use of such emblems is directed or controlled ; nor has the
Government of India ever had the prudence to avail itself of the rich
store
of revenue that might easily, and indeed (from the historical and
genealogical
point of view) usefully, be raised from the fees and duties to be
derived
from the extended use of armorial bearings. It is hoped that the
publication
of this work may have some influence in inducing the Government of
India
to establish that very necessary institution, a Heralds' College or
Chancery of
Dignities, in connection with its Political Department or, perhaps
better,
to petition Her Majesty to attach a duly-constituted Indian Department
to
the College of Arms in London under the Garter King of Arms.

In the existing circumstances it may be hoped only temporarily
existing
described above, the Editor has felt constrained, very reluctantly in
many
cases, to decline to insert the particulars of any titles that have
not been
more or less formally recognised by the Government of India, except
in
about half a dozen very special cases, where there could not by any
possibility
be any doubt of the authenticity of the claims. For instance, in the
case of
the Raikat of Baikanthpur, in the district of Jalpaiguri, Bengal, the
title appears
to be unique in India and there can be no doubt whatever that it has
been
borne by something like twenty generations of hereditary kinsmen of
the Rajas
of Kuch Behar ; some account of this singularly interesting title has
been
inserted, though there is some reason to doubt whether it appears in
any

the Rajpooc tribes can be traced to a period anterior to the war of
Troy. In the Maha-
bharat, or Great War, twelve hundred years before Christ, we find the
hero Bheesama exult-
ing over his trophy, the banner of Arjoona, its field adorned with the
figure of the Indian
Hanumdn. These emblems had a religious reference amongst the Hindus,
and were taken
from their mythology, the origin of all devices." Annals of Rdjdsthdn,
vol. i. pp. 123,

THE GOLDEN BOOK OF INDIA

official list. And so, too, with a few well-known courtesy titles (see
8 of this
Introduction).

2. METHOD OF ARRANGEMENT.

After much thought and deliberation, it has been determined that, at
least for this first edition of The Golden Book which in many respects
must
necessarily have something of the nature of an experiment the
Arrangement
of the work shall be simply alphabetical. In future editions it is
possible
that the volume may be divided into separate parts, distinguishing
between
Ruling Princes on the one hand, and Dignitaries and Titled Personages
of
British India on the other or possibly distinguishing between
Territorial
Titles and others. But the difficulties of classification would be
exceedingly
great in a large number of cases, and any attempt in that direction
would
certainly greatly delay the appearance of the work. And, after all,
even the
most careful and accurate classification would, for practical
purposes, be of
very little use ; for, as the next section of this Introduction will
show, there
is at present no strict gradation of titles and of some titles the
relative
values, strange as this may seem, are different in different parts of
India.

In India itself, the relative social importance of the various
Dignitaries
included in this work is well known, and any attempt further closely
to
define precedence would be an invidious as well as unnecessary task.

For European readers it may perhaps be sufficient to give very rough
and
general analogies from the European system. For instance, the relative
posi-
tion of such potentates as the Nizam of the Deccan or the Maharaja of
Mysore to the Indian Empire may not unfitly be compared with that of
the
King of Saxony to the German Empire. The hereditary Maharajas, Rajas,
and Nawabs of British India occupy a position very similar to that of
the
British Peerage at home ; while the holders of the lower titles may be
com-
pared with our Knights Bachelors, and the Knights and Companions of
the
Military Orders. Among the ruling chiefs, their comparative position
and
importance may also be estimated by observing the area and population
of
their respective States, as compared with the smaller Kingdoms and
Princi-
palities of Central Europe.

3. INDIAN TITLES : GENERAL.

A list of one hundred and ninety-six different titles known to the
Govern-
ment of India has been compiled in the Indian Foreign Office. Even
this
long list can hardly be regarded as exhaustive, for it does not
include many
dynastic appellations which have come to be regarded in the light of
titles,
such as Gaekwdr^ the dynastic name of the Maharajas of Baroda ;
Sindhia,
that of the Maharajas of Gwalior ; Holkar^ that of the Maharajas of
Indore.
Nor does it include such titles as that of Yuvardj or Jubardj
(Youthful Raja),
often applied (as lately in Manipur) to the heir to the Raj. And it is
of
course exclusive of the, Military Orders of Knighthood.

INTRODUCTION

The majority of these titles are Hindu (derived chiefly from the
Sanskrit
language), or Muhammadan (derived chiefly from the Persian). The Bur-
mese titles, though lengthy, are few in number ; while still fewer are
Ara-
kanese (or Magh), Thibetan, Afghan, Baluch, Somali, etc. Two
distinguished
Parsi families have received the English title of Baronet ; wKile one
Madras
family, the descendants of the old Nawabs of the Carnatic, has the
English
title of "Pjince of Arcot," called also " Amir-i-Arcot." The title of
Prince
is also often given by courtesy as the English rendering of the title
of " Shah-
zada," conferred by Her Majesty the Empress on certain descendants of
the
Tippu dynasty of Mysore, of the old kings of Oudh, and of former
Amirs
of Afghanistan.

Some Indian titles are personal ; others have been recognised by Her
Majesty as hereditary. It is intended in this work to distinguish
those which
are hereditary from those which are personal.

In the list of one hundred and ninety-six titles mentioned above
(which
is given below, in section 1 1 of this Introduction, with a glossary
of their
meanings where known), some are specific titles, analogous to the
English
" Duke," " Earl," etc. ; such are Maharaja, Rdjd, Nawdb. Some are
descriptive titles, somewhat analogous to the " Defender of the Faith
" borne
by our Gracious Sovereign ; such are Shams her Jang ("The Sword of
War"),
a title borne by His Highness the Maharaja of Travancore, and Path
Jang,
one of the many titles borne by His Highness the Nizam of the Deccan.
Titles of the latter form are generally confined to a single personage
or
dynasty; but a few are common to more than one State, as Lokendra
("Pro-
tector of the World "), borne by the Chiefs of Dholpur and Dattia.

4. INDIAN TITLES : RULING CHIEFS.

The normal or typical title of Chiefs or Nobles of Hindu descent is
Rdjd
(in the feminine Rant), or some of its numerous kindred forms. Some of
the
latter are Rand, Rao, Rdwal, Rdwat, Rai, Raikwdr, Raikbdr, Raikat. To
these is added, to indicate excess of rank, the prefix Mahd (" Great
"), as in
Mahdrdjd, Mahdrdnd, Mahdrao, Mahdrdj-Rdnd, etc. The affix Bahadur
("Brave," "The Hero") is very commonly added (as an extra honorific)
to
all Indian titles, Muhammadan as well as Hindu, and is placed at the
end of
the name, much like the English " Esquire." Saheb is a somewhat
similar
affix, and is very commonly used as a courteous form of address ; when
used
as the supplement of a title it indicates a rank somewhat less than
Bahadur,
thus Rao Bahadur and Khan Bahadur are titles usually of rather more
con-
sideration than Rao Saheb or Khan Saheb. Thdkur is also a frequently-
used
Hindu title. Some important feudatory Chiefs bear no other title, but
it
usually is of less consideration than Rdjd.

Diwdn and Sarddr are titles very similar in character to that of
Thdkur ;
but they are common to Hindus and Muhammadans.

The normal or typical title of a Chief or Noble of Muhammadan descent

Xli THE GOLDEN BOOK OF INDIA

is Nawdb (with Begam as its feminine form) ; usually with the
honorific suffix
of Bahddur, and in forms of courteous address with that of Saheb. The
title of Shdhzdda (" King's Son ") is given to some descendants of the
Tippu
dynasty of Mysore, to some descendants of former Amirs of Kabul, and
to
some descendants of the old Kings of Oudh. Other Muhammadan titles
sometimes equivalent in consideration to Nawdb, but not always are
Wali,
Sultan, Amir, Mir, Mirza, Mian, Khdn ; also Sarddr and Diwd%, which
are
common to Hindus and Muhammadans.

Among the Ruling Chiefs there are some exceptional titles, due
sometimes
to differences of language, sometimes to other known causes, and
sometimes
of unknown origin. The first and greatest of all the Princes of the
Empire
is always known as the Nizam of the Deccan a relic of the time when
His
Highness's ancestors were mediatised kings under the Emperor of
Delhi.
The title, though implying in itself fealty to an Imperial authority,
is one of
the highest dignity, and can hardly be translated by any European
title less
august than " king " ; it is therefore a suitable title for the first
mediatised
prince under the Indian Empire, charged with the absolute rule over an
area
more than twice as large as that of Bavaria and Saxony combined, and
a
population greater than that of the two kingdoms named.

Holkar and Sindhia are rather of the nature of dynastic names than of
titles ; and the Gaekwdr (the title of one of the greatest of the
Ruling Chiefs)
is of a similar nature, having been originally a caste name ; and all
these
three are relics of the Mahratta Empire.

Among the exceptional titles due to difference of language may be
noticed
that of Jam, which is of Sindhi or Baluch origin ; there are two Jams
of
ruling rank in Kathiawar, and one in Baluchistan. The Ruler of Spiti,
an
outlying Himalayan principality in the Punjab, is known as the Nono
of
Spiti " Nono " being a Thibetan form. One of the Assamese Rajas is
known
as "the Bohmong"; another simply as " the Mong Raja." Some of the
Madras
Chiefs have peculiar titles of local origin. Thus, the Maharaja of
Calicut
bears the historic title of " the Zamorin " probably a local
corruption of the
Malayalam Samundri, or " sea-king." The Maharaja of Puducotta is
known
as " the Tondiman " ; and some other Madras Rajas are called " the
Valiya
Raja." Nine Feudatories (eight in the Bombay Presidency and one at
Muscat in Arabia) bear the title of Sultan. The descendants of the
ancient
chiefs of Sind are called Mirs ; the Chief of Afghanistan is called
Amir. The
Chief of Kalat in Baluchistan is both a Mir and a Wali, and has been
created
(like the Amir of Afghanistan) a Grand Commander of the Star of
India.
In the Aden territory, which is subordinate to the Bombay Government,
some of the chiefs bear the title of Girad, which is of Somali
origin ; others
are known by the Arabic titles of Sultan, Amir, and Shaikh. Some of
the
heads of Hindu religious bodies are hereditary feudal chiefs ; and
their title
is Mahant.

All, or most of the titles mentioned above, though recognised by the
British Government, have come down to us from earlier times. Her

INTRODUCTION xill

Majesty has, in a few very special cases, authorised a change of title
among
the Feudatories ; as, for instance, when a Thdkur Saheb has been
authorised
to use the higher title of Maharaja Bahadur. But, generally speaking,
when
it is wished to confer honour on a ruling prince, it is conferred, not
by a
change in the ancient title of chiefship, but by appointment to one or
other
of the classes of the Orders of the Star of India or the Indian
Empire
by the addition of descriptive titles by an increase in the number of
guns
authorised for the salute, such increase being usually a personal one
or by
the conferment of Honorary military rank in the Imperial army.

5. TITLES RECOGNISED, AND REGULARLY CONFERRED BY HER MAJESTY

THROUGH THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA.

In British India there is now a well-established order and gradation
of nobility ; in which creations and promotions are made by Her
Gracious
Majesty's representative, the Viceroy, just as similar creations and
pro-
motions are made in England. In the higher ranks of this nobility, an
additional step or grade in each rank is made by the custom, unknown
as
yet in England, of making the creation or promotion in some cases
personal,
in others hereditary. But no rank below that of Raja for Hindus, or
Nawab
for Muhammadans, is now created hereditary.

Rai (or Rao in Southern and Western India) for Hindus, and Khan for
Muhammadans, are the first or least considerable titles conferred by
the British
Government. These, with or without the affix of Saheb, which adds to
the
dignity, are very commonly ex offitio titles, held by the subordinate
officers of
civil departments. Next above Rai Saheb, Rao Saheb, or Khan Saheb
comes
the title Rai Bahadur, Rao Bahadur, or Khan Bahadur ; and this is the
title though it has sometimes also been made simply an ex offitio
title
which is usually first conferred on Indian gentlemen who have
distinguished
themselves by their munificence, by their patriotism, or in any other
way.
Rai Bahadur is commonly used as the Hindu title in the Bengal
Presidency,
Rao Bahadur as that in the west and south of India, and Khan Bahadur
for Muhammadans and Parsis ; and this rank seems exactly analogous to
that
of Knight Bachelor in England.

Above this rank is the title of Rdjd (with the feminine Rani] for
Hindus,
Nawab (with the feminine Begaui) for Muhammadans ; and this may be
hereditary or personal a remark which applies to all the higher
ranks.
Next higher is a Rdjd Bahadur, or a Nawab Bahadur. Higher again,
for Hindus, is the title of Maharaja, and above that is Maharaja
Bahadur.
It is one of the many anomalies of the Indian system as at present
existing, that there do not seem to be any Muhammadan analogies to
these
last two highest Hindu titles, so that a Nawab Bahadur may be the
equal
either of a Rdjd Bahadur, or of a Mahdrdjd Bahadur, according to
circumstance. These seem to be very analogous to the various steps in
the
British Peerage.

xiv THE GOLDEN BOOK OF INDIA

Parsis share with Muhammadans their lower titles. But where they have
attained to higher rank than Khan Bahadur, it has been indicated by
appointment to one of the Military Orders, or by the conferment of
British
Knighthood, or (in two cases) by a British Baronetcy.

The ordinary sequence of rank, then, in the aristocracy of British
India,
is indicated by the subjoined tables :

Hindus. Muhammadans.

Mahdraja" Bahadur. Nawdb Bahadur.

Mahdrajl Nawdb.

Rdja Bahddur. Khan Bahddur.

Ra"jl Kha"n Saheb.

Rai (or Rao) Bahddur. Khdn.
Rai (or Rao) Saheb.
Rai (or Rao).

The eldest son of a Maharaja or Raja is called a Maharajkumar (or
Maharajkunwar), or Rajkumar (or Rajkunwar), or simply Kumar (or
Kunwar) ;
and these titles have in some cases been formally conferred by the
Govern-
ment. Nawdbzdda, or Mian, is the title given to the sons of Nawabs.

Among the Barons of the Punjab there is a remarkable uniformity of
title ; they are nearly all styled Sarddr or Sarddr Bahadur and their
sons
are often styled Mian, though this is also an independent title, as is
Diwdn
also, in the Punjab. In Oudh and in the Central Provinces, on the
other
hand, there is the greatest diversity in the form of the territorial
titles
Thdkur being the commonest title, but Rai is also frequent (and of
far
higher dignity than it seems to bear in some other Provinces), and so
are
Rdjd, Diwdn, and Rao.

6. BURMESE TITLES.

The chiefs of the Shan and other tribes on the frontiers of Burma
have
the titles (equivalent to Rdjd or Thdkur, or other Indian titles)
either of
Sawbwa, or Myoza, or Ngwegunhmu.

But the regular Burmese titles ordinarily conferred by the British
Government are these :

(1) Ahmitdan gaung Tazeik-ya Min (meaning "Recipient of a Medal for
Good Service"), indicated by the letters A.T.M. after the name much
as
the Companionship of the Bath in England is indicated by the letters
C.B.

(2) Kyet Thaye zaung shwe Salwe ya Min (meaning "Recipient of the
Gold Chain of Honour"), indicated by the letters K.S.M. after the
name.

(3) Thuye-gaung Ngweda ya Min (meaning " Recipient of the Silver
Sword for Bravery"), indicated by the letters T.D.M. after the name.

7. TITLES AS REWARDS FOR LEARNING.

It remains to notice two Imperial titles of ancient origin, as
indicating
exceptional distinction in learning, that were revived on the
auspicious

INTRODUCTION xv

occasion of Her Majesty's Jubilee. These are Mahdmahopddhydya for
Hindus, and Shams-ul-Ulama for Muhammadans. It is noteworthy, as
showing a wise regard for that reverence which great erudition has
always
commanded in the East, that holders of these titles, ranking equally
among
themselves according to date of creation, take rank directly after
titular
Rajas and Nawabs ; and thus the dignity is rendered somewhat analogous
to
the high Dignity of a Privy Councillor in the United Kingdom.

8. COURTESY TITLES.

There are many titles habitually used in India and a few have been
admitted into this work that are not substantive titles in the
strictest sense
of the term, but may best be described as courtesy titles. Of this
nature is
the title of "Prince" in most cases though not in the case of the
Prince of
Arcot, who enjoys a title specially conferred by the Sovereign. The
title of
" His Highness," conferred or recognised by the Queen Empress, belongs
as
of right only to a limited number of the Feudatory Chiefs, and to a
few of
the Nobles of British India ; but it is very generally conceded, as a
matter of
courtesy, to most of the Feudatory Chiefs and the greater Territorial
Nobles.
The title of " His Excellency " has been specially granted to one or
two
Chiefs ; it is also commonly used, as a matter of courtesy, in
addressing
the responsible Ministers of the chief Feudatory States.

The owners of some great Zaminddris or estates, especially in Madras,
are sometimes styled Raja in common parlance, even when they have not
received that title from the Sovereign. But there seems to be no
authority
for this ; nor so far as is known to the Editor, and with the few
exceptions
above noted is any name inserted in this work as that of a Raja, or
as
holding a similar title, unless recognised by the Government of
India.

Immemorial usage throughout India has conferred well - recognised
courtesy titles on the heirs-apparent of the greater titles ; and in
some cases
on the second, third, fourth, and younger sons. There is at least one
Raja
whose eldest son bears the courtesy title of Kunwdr, the second son
that of
Diwdn, the third that of Thdkur, the fourth that of Ldl^ and the fifth
and
younger sons that of Bdbu. It may here be noted that, in common use
in
Bengal, the title of Bdbu has degenerated like the French Monsieur
and
the English Esquire into a mere form of address ; but it belongs of
right
only to a very limited class and particularly to the sons, not
otherwise
titled, of the greater titled personages. In Orissa, Chota Nagpur,
and
Central India, the eldest son of a Raja or Thakur frequently bears the
title
of Tikait or Tikaildo ; and sometimes (but rarely) the second son
bears the
title of Pothait or Pothaildo, and the third that of Ldl But in most,
prob-
ably in all, cases, the younger sons are styled Bdbu. In some of the
Orissa
Tributary Mahals, and in Manipur and in Hill Tipperah and elsewhere,
the
heir-apparent is styled Jubardj or Yuvardj. In some other parts he is

xvi THE GOLDEN BOOK OF INDIA

called Diwdn ; while in the Punjab the heir-apparent of a territorial
Sarddr
is sometimes also called Sarddr, but more commonly he bears the title
of
Mian.

The curious Marumakkatayam law of inheritance which prevails in
Malabar and the extreme south of India under which the succession is
to
the offspring of the female members of the family, among whom the
next
eldest to the Raja is the heir-apparent makes it very fitting that tte
rank of
an heir-apparent, in those parts of India, should be marked by special
titles.
The heir-apparent to His Highness the Maharaja of Travancore is often
called
by Europeans the First Prince of Travancore ; but his proper courtesy
title is
" the Elaya Raja." The same title is borne by the heir-apparent to His
High-
ness the Maharaja of Cochin. The heir-apparent to the Zamorin of
Calicut
bears, by courtesy, the interesting title of "The Eralpad." It will be
seen
that, under the Marumakkatayam law, no son of a Raja can ever be in
the
line of succession ; these receive the courtesy title of Achchhan.

The colloquial use of the dynastic titles of Sindhia and Holkar may
be
illustrated by a somewhat similar Scottish usage, by which the actual
Chief or
Laird is colloquially known by the name of his estate. Mr. Cameron
becomes
" Lochiel " the moment he succeeds to the estate of that name ; so one
of
these young Princes becomes " Sindhia " the moment he succeeds to the
Gwalior Raj, and the other becomes "Holkar" the moment he succeeds to
the Indore Raj the junior members of these ruling Houses using the
title
as their family name.

9. ARMORIAL BEARINGS.

The Editor has already pointed out, in an earlier section of this
Intro-
duction, the need that exists for the services of an Indian King of
Arms and
an Indian Heralds' College. Such an institution, provided due regard
were
paid to Indian sentiments and prejudices, would be immensely popular
among the Chiefs and notables of India ; and a very considerable
revenue
might yearly be raised, with the greatest goodwill on the part of
those who
would pay it, from a moderate duty, similar to the one levied in the
United
Kingdom, on the authorised use of hereditary cognisances or armorial
bearings. At present an Indian noble is justly proud of a cognisance
that
has been honourably borne for centuries by his ancestors, and would
prefer
to use it with full legal authority ; but it is doubtful whether he
can do so
at all, except by a most difficult and most unusual application to the
Earl
Marshal of England and the Garter King of Arms in London, for an
authorised grant. So, too, with more modern adoptions of coat-armour;
these have been authorised by the College of Arms in London for the
two
Indian Baronets, and perhaps for a few more but as a rule the modus
operandi is unknown.

Wherever the Editor has been able to obtain a sketch of the
cognisance
or device usually used by .any Chief or that has been emblazoned on
his

INTRODUCTION xvii

banner, on such public occasions as the Imperial Assemblage at Delhi,
on
the Proclamation of Her Most Gracious Majesty as Empress of India a
copy has been given in this work in the actual form used, without
regard to
the question of its being duly authorised by the College of Arms, or
of its
being in accordance with the laws of European- heraldry. It is hoped
that
in a future edition this laxity will not be necessary, and that steps
will in the
meantime have been taken to regulate the devolution of ancient
cognisances,
and the assumption of new ones. It is stated that some of the
Feudatory
States have placed coats of arms on the postage stamps in use within
their
limits ; and it is quite clear that the use of such emblems is rapidly
becoming
common.

In the case of all those Chiefs whose banners were displayed at the
Imperial Assemblage of ist January 1877, *'* a ll tne Chiefs of
highest
rank the emblems then used were used " by authority " ; and copies of
some of them have been obtained for this work. The editor will be glad
to
be favoured with copies of others, sent through Messrs. Macmillan and
Co. ;
and will give his best consideration to them, though he must not be
taken to
pledge himself to the insertion of any.

10. CEREMONIES OBSERVED ON THE INSTALLATION OF AN INDIAN NOBLE.

The Warrant conferring (or authorising the hereditary succession to)
a
title is called a sanad sometimes spelt " sunnud." It is signed, on
behalf
of Her Majesty the Empress, by His Excellency the Viceroy ; and bears
the
Official Seal of the Empire.

It is usual though there appears to be no invariable rule for the
local
representative of Her Majesty, on the occasion of the installation or
succession of a Chief or Noble, to present him with a khilat^ and
receive
from him a nazar in return. "Khilat" literally means "a Dress of
Honour." It usually consists of pieces of cloth not made up ; but
some-
times it consists of arms, jewels, or other valuables, without any
article of
attire, although in most cases a turban and shawl form part of the
gift.
Indeed, a complete khilat may include arms, or a horse, or an
elephant, or
all of these together. The nazar (sometimes spelt nuzzur) must be of
corresponding value to the khilat.

In the case of a Maharaja Bahadur, or other noble of that rank, the
khilat and sanad are presented, in full Darbdr^ by the Governor,
Lieutenant-
Governor, or other Chief Civil Officer of the Province ; or if they
are unable
to be present, by the Commissioner of the Division at the sudder-
station (or
capital).

To the Darbar are invited all the civil and military officers
available, also
all the Indian notables and gentry of the neighbourhood.

The chair of the Presiding Officer is placed in the middle, and that
of
the noblefnan to be installed on his right. The brother, son, and any
of the

xvili

relatives of the nobleman who may be present, occupy places, according
to
their station, in the right-hand line.

The chairs for all the public functionaries are placed, according to
their
rank, on the left hand of the Presiding Officer's chair.

The local notables and gentry occupy chairs, also according to their
rank,
on the right hand of the Presiding Officer.

A company of soldiers is drawn up in front of the stairs, as a^Suard
of
Honour.

On the arrival of the noble near the stairs, the Sarishtadar or Munshi
of
the Presiding Officer leads him to the audience. All functionaries,
out of
respect to him, rise from their chairs on the Chiefs reaching the
Presiding
Officer ; who then asks him to take his seat. All functionaries and
Darbaris
must have assembled and taken their seats before the Chiefs arrival.

After a short conversation, the Presiding Officer orders his Munshi
to
take the Chief to an adjoining room, prepared previously for the
purpose,
where he is robed with the different parchas of the khilat except the
pearl
necklace. After this, he is again brought into the Darbar room, and
stands
in front of the Presiding Officer. The latter, rising from his seat
with all
the functionaries present, then ties the pearl necklace round the neck
of the
Chief.

The Presiding Officer then orders the Munshi to read out the sanad.
During the reading of the sanad the Presiding Officer and the
functionaries
resume their seats, while the Chief and the local notables and gentry
rise.

The Chief presents the usual nazardna of gold mohurs, and then all
resume their seats.

After a short pause, the Presiding Officer orders atr and pan to be
brought ; and standing up, serves out the same, first to the newly-
installed
Chief, and then to all the Indian notables and gentry present the
Munshi
bringing up each one in turn to receive the atr and pan.

They all then take their leave, and the ceremony is at an end.

The ceremony of the Installation of a Raja Bahadur, or titled
personage
of lower rank than a Maharaja Bahadur, is very similar to the one
described
above. But the Guard of Honour is not so large, and it is not
necessary
that the Chief Civil Officer of the Province should be present. Also,
the
sarpech, pearl necklace, or whatever may compose the khilat, is handed
by
the Commissioner to the Collector or Assistant Collector of the
district in
which the Chiefs estates are situated, and he requests him to invest
the
Chief with it.

A ceremonial similar to those described above is observed when a
Knight Grand Commander, or a Knight Commander, or a Companion of
the Most Exalted Order of the Star of India, or of the Most Eminent
Order
of the Indian Empire, is invested with the insignia of the Order by
the
representative of the Empress.

INTRODUCTION

xix

ii. LIST OF INDIAN TITLES, WITH A GLOSSARY OF THEIR
MEANINGS WHERE KNOWN.

TITLES.

Achchhan

Ahmudan gaung Tazeik-ya Min (A.T.M.

after name)
Ahsan Jang .
Ajdhat Sar Deshmukh

Alijdh (Sindhia) . . .

Amin-ud-daula" (Tonk)

Amir ......

Amir-ud-daula" Sayyid-ul-Mulk Mumta*z

Jang
Amir-ul-Umara .....

Arbdb

Asaf Jdh (Nizdm) ....

Azam ......

Azam-ul-Umara (Baoni)

Azim-ul-Iktiddr (Sindhia) .

Bahddur

Bahddur Desai .....
Bahadur Jang (Bhartpur) .
Bara"r Bans (Faridkot)

Bardr Bans Sirmur (Na"bha)

Begam (Bhopdl. See Nawdb Begam)

Beglar Begi (Kaldt) .

Bhup (Kuch Behar) .
Bohmong (Chief of the Regritsa

Maghs)
Brajendra (Bhartpur)

Chaube

Chaudhri ......

Chhatrapati Mahdraj (Kolhapur)

DaVar
Deshmukh

MEANING.

Achchhan (Malayalam^ a father, used
also as a title of respect, and in
Malabar applied especially to the
males of the Royal family who have
no office or official rank in the State
(Glos. of Indian Terms).

Recipient of a medal for good service
(Burmese).

Excellent in war.

(Ajdhat, Persian Wajdhat\ a title of
honour to a Vicegerent or represent-
ative, as one exhibiting the presence
of a fully authorised deputy (Mar.
Diet.)

Of exalted dignity.

Trustee of the State.

Prince, chief.

A prince of the State, distinguished in
war.

Chief of the nobles.

Lord.

An Asaf (Solomon's Wazir, according
to the Muhammadans) in dignity.

Very great.

The greatest of the nobles.

Most powerful.

Brave ; a hero ; at the 'end of a name a
title = the English "Honourable."

Desdi (Mar/^Truler of a province.

Brave in war.

Offspring of a Bardr (a Jat tribe. The
Raja" of Faridkot is head of the
tribe Griffin).

Sirmur^ a crowned head.

Lady ; queen ; title of Mughal ladies.

Lord of lords. The Governor of
Shiraz holds this title in Persia.

Sovereign, king.

(Arakanese) Head leader.

Lord of Braj, an epithet of Krishna.

A caste distinction.

Head man of a village ; an honorific

form of address.
Lord of the umbrella. A king entitled

to have an umbrella carried over

him as a mark of dignity.
A just prince, a sovereign.
An hereditary native officer under the

former Governments (Marathi).

XX

TITLES.

Diler Jang (Dholpur)
Dinkar Rao .....

Diwdn ......

Diwan Bahadur ....

Farzand-i-Arjumand Akidat Paiwand

Daulat-i-Inglishia (Ndbha)
Farzand - i - D ilband Rashikhul - 1 ti - kad

Daulat-i-Inglishia (Jind and Kapur-

thala)
Farzand - i -D ilpazir-i-Daulat - i - 1 nglishia

(Rdmpur)
Farzand - i - Khds - i - Daulat- i - 1 nglishia

(Baroda, Patidla)
Farzand - i - Saddat - i - Nishdn - i-Hazrat-i-

Kaisar-i-Hind (Faridkot)

Fath Jang (Nizam) ....

Fidwi-i-Hazrat-i-Malika-i-Muaz-zama-i-

Rafi-ud-Darjd-i-Inglista'n (Sindhia)

Gambhir Rao .....
Ghorpade.

Girad

Hafiz-ul-Mulk (Bahawalpur)

Heladi Naik Bahadur Desai Nadu-

gauda.
Himmat Bahddur ....

Hisdm-us-Saltanat (Sindhia)

Hizabr Jang .....

Ihtisham-ud-daula" (Jaora) .
Ihtisham-ul-Mulk ....

Ima"d-ud-daul (Baoni)

Indar (Kashmir) ....

Jai Deo (Dholpur) ....

Jaldl-ud-daula (Dujana)

Jdm . . ' .

Jamaddr ......

Khan

Khdn Bahddur

Khdn Saheb.

Khanzdda ...

Kiritapati (Travancore)

Kulashekhdra (Travancore)

Kumdr or Kunwdr ....

Kyet Thaye zaung shwe Salwe ya Min

(K.S.M. after name)
Lokendra (Dholpur, Dattia)
Mahant ......

Mahdrdj Kumdr ....

Mahardj Rdna (Dholpur, Jhalawar) .
Mahdrajd .....

MEANING.
Intrepid in war.
Dinkar (Sanskrit), Day-maker, the sun.

See Rao.

A minister, a chief officer of State.
See Diwdn and Bahadur.
Beloved and faithful son of the English

Government. p

Beloved and trusty son of the English

Government.

Esteemed son of the English Govern-
ment.

Favourite son of the English Govern-
ment.

A son emblematical of the good
auspices of Her Majesty the Empress
of India.

Victorious in battle.

A servant of Her August Majesty the
Queen of England, who is exalted
in position.

Sagacious chief.

A Somali title, apparently = a chief.
Guardian, preserver of the country.

Brave champion.

Sword of the State.

Lion of battle.

Pomp of the State.

Pomp of the country.

Pillar of the State.

Indra.

God of victory.

Glory of the State.

(Sindhi) Chief.

Chief or leader.

Lord, prince, title of Muhammadan

nobles.
Brave lord.

Son of a Khdn. Title of some Musal-
man chiefs settled in Pandu Mehvas.

Possessor of a diadem.

Head (Shekhara) of the race (Kulam).

Prince, son of a Rajd.

Recipient of the Gold Chain of Honour
(Burmese).

Protector of the world.

Head of a religious order.

Son of a Mahrajl

Supreme Rand or king.

Great Raj or king.

INTRODUCTION

xxi

TITLES.

Mahdrdjd Bahddur.
Mahdrdjd Dhirdj or Mahdrdj-Adhirdj
Mahdrdjd-i-Rdjagdn .
Mahdrand ....
Mahdrdnd Dhirdj (Udaipur)
Mahdrdni ....

Mahdrao . .
Mahdrao Bahddur (Kota).
Mahdrao Rdjd (Alwar and Bundi)
Mahdrdwal ....
Mahdrdwal Bahddur.
Mahdrdwat (Partdbgarh) .
Mahendra ....
Majid-ud-dauld
Malanmat Maddr.
Maldz-ul-Ulama-ul-Fdzila .

Malik

Mdlwandar (Ndbha) .
Mani Sultdn (Travancore) .

Mansur-i-Zamdn (Sindhia, Patidla)
Midn

Mihin Sarddr (Baoni)

Mir

Mirza

Mirza Bahddur.
Mong Rdjd
Muazzaz-ud-dauld
Mudabbir-ul-Mulk
Muhtashim-i-Daurdn (Sindhia)
Mujdhid-ul-Mulk
Mukhlis-ud-dauld (Bahdwalpur)
Mukhtdr-ul-Mulk (Sindhia)
Mulk ....

M umtdz-ud-dauld
Mumtdz-ul-Mulk
Mushir-i-Khas .
Mushir-ud-dauld
Mustakil Jang (Dujana)
Mustakim Jang
Mutalik ....
Muzaffar-ul-Mamdlik (Nizdm)
Naik ....
Nasrat Jang (Bahdwalpur) .
Nawdb ....
Nawdb Bdbi (Balasinor) .

MEANING.

Lord Paramount king of kings.

King of kings.

Great Rdnd or king.

Lord Paramount, king of kings.

Great Rdni or queen.

Great Rao or chief.

Supreme Rdjd or king.
Great Rdwal or prince.

Great Rdwat or prince.
Great Indra.
Glorious in the State.

Asylum of the learned and erudite.

Master, proprietor.

Lord of wealth.

The Sultdn par excellence. Mani a

jewel, a pearl.
Victorious of the age.
Lord, Master, title of sons, of Rdjput

princes.

Mihin^ greater, greatest, elder-born.
Chief, leader.
A contraction of Amir Zdda, " nobly

born." When affixed to a name, it

signifies " Prince " ; when prefixed,

simply " Mr."

Mong (Arakanese), a leader.

Honoured of the State.

Administrator or Minister of the country.

(The most) powerful of his age.

Warrior (for the faith) of the country.

Devoted servant of the State.

Ruler of the country.

Probably a misprint or corruption of

Malik, a king.
Distinguished in the State.
Distinguished in the country.
Privy counsellor, choicest counsellor.
Counsellor of the State.
Firm in battle.
Loyal in battle.
Mutlak, principal, supreme.
Victorious over kingdoms.
Nayak, leader, chief.
Victorious in battle.
Vicegerent.
Bdbi, door-keeper. The founder of

the family once held this post in the

Mughal Court, and hence the title is

given to his descendants.

XXII

TITLES.

Nawdb Bahddur.
Nawdb Begam (Bhopdl).
Nizdm-ud-dauld (Nizdm) .
Nizdm-ul-Mulk (Nizam) .
Nono (Spiti) .
Padmandbha Dasa (Travancore)
Pddwi

Pancha-Hdzdr Mansabddr .
Pant Pratinidhi

Pant Sachiv
Patang Rao
Prince (Arcot).
Rafi-ush-Shdn (Sindhia) .

Rai

Rai Bahddur.

Rai Rdydn (Banswara)

Rai Sdheb.

Rais-ud-dauld (Dholpur)

Raj Rdjendra (Jaipur)

Raj Rajeshwar (Holkar), etc.

Raj Saheb

Rdjd ....

Rdjd Bahddur.

Rdjd Dhirdj

Rdjd-i-Rdjagdn .

Rajeshwar.

Rand

Rani

Rao

Rao Bahddur.
Rao Saheb.
Rashid-ul-Mulk (Baoni) .

Rawal

Rdwat

Rukn-ud-dauld (Bahdwalpur)
Rustam-i-Daurdn (Nizam) .

Rustam Jang . . .
Saheb-i-Jdh (Baoni) .

Saif-ud-dauld

Sar Desdi

Sdrdmad - i - Rdjahd - i - Bundelkhand

(Orchha)
Sdrdmad - i - Rajahd - i - Hindustan

(Jaipur)
Sarddr ......

Sarddr Bahddur.

MEANING.

Regulator of the State.
Administrator of the country.
(Tibetan) Young nobleman.
Servant of Vishnu (the lotus-navelled).
Or Pdri)i) clan title borne after their

names by certain Merlvas Chiefs

(Bombay Gazetteer}.
Noble holding a mansab or military

rank of 5000 horse.
Pratinidhi) a vicegerent ; title borne by

a distinguished Maratha family.
SachiV) Minister, counsellor.
From Patang) the sun, and Rao^ prince.

Of exalted dignity.

(Prakrit Rai = Raja") Prince, chief.

Rai of Rais, prince of princes.

Ruler of the State.

Lord of kings, king of kings.

Rajeshivar, king of kings.

Raj = Raja".

King, prince.

Paramount Raja", king of kings.
Raja" of Raja's.

From Rajan ( = Rajd) + Ka (expressing

diminutiveness).
Title of a prince or Rajd, especially

among Rajputs.
Queen, princess.
King, prince, chief.

Director of the country.
Prince, chief.

Do.

Pillar of the State.
The Rustam (the most renowned of

Persian heroes) of his time.
A Rustam in battle.
Possessed of dignity.
Sword of the State.
Chief Desdi or ruler of a province.
Head of the Rdjds of Bundelkhand.

Head of the Rdjds of Hindustan.
Chief officer of rank.

INTRODUCTION

xxin

TITLES.

Saulat Jang (Tonk) .
Sawdi

Sawdi Bahddur (Kutch).

Sawdi Rao.

Send Khas Khel (Gaekwdr)

Send Pati

Shdhzdda

Shaikh

Shaikh-ul-Mushaikh ....
Shamsher Bahddur (Baroda)
Shamsher Jang (Travancore)
Shams-ud-dauld ....
Shiromani (Bikanir) .
Shrimdn Maha Naik Nadgauda

Nagnuriebirada Himori.
Shujd-at Jang . .
Sipahddr-ul-Mulk (Dholpur)
Sipar-i-Saltanat (Kashmir) .
Srindth (Sindhia) ....

Sultdn

Thdkur

Thdkur Rdwat.

Thdkur Saheb.

Thdkur Send Rai.

Thdkurdni .....

Thuye-gaung Ngweda ya Min (T.D.M.

after name)
Umdat-ul-Mulk .

Umdat-ul-Umara (Sindhia)
Vanji (Travancore) ....
Vishwdsrao .

Wachandth

Wdld Shikoh (Sindhia)

Wali (Kaldt)

Walvi

Wasava .
Wazir-ud-dauld .
Wazir-ul-Mulk (Tonk)
Zamorin .

MEANING.
Fury of war.
Literally, having the excess of a fourth ;

i.e. better than others by 25 per cent.

A Hindu title.

Chief of the army, commander of the

army of the State.
Army- Chief, General.
Prince-Royal, prince.
Chief.

Doctor of doctors (of law).
A mighty man of the sword.
The sword of war.
The sun of the State.
The gem, the best (of).

Brave in war.

Commander of the army of the country.

Shield of the Empire.

Lord of Fortune.

Prince, ruler.

Chief, feudal noble.

Female Thdkur.

Recipient of the Silver Sword for

Bravery (Burmese).
Chosen of the State.
Chosen from among the nobles.
Dynastic name.

From Vishvuds, trust, and Rao, prince.
Vachan-ndth, Lord of Speech.
Of high dignity.
Prince, governor.
Or Valvi. Clan title borne after their

names by certain Mehvas Chiefs

(Bombay Gazetteer],
Or Vasava Do.
Minister of the State.

Do.
Vernacular modification of Samundri,

the sea king (Malayalam).

NOTICE

THIS Edition of The Golden Book of India is up to date. It con-
tains the Honours conferred in January 1893 including fifty -four
new Titles, and nine appointments to, or promotions in, the Orders of
the Star of India and the Indian Empire, gazetted in Calcutta on 2nd
January 1893.

Communications relating to the Second Edition should be ad-
dressed to

SIR ROPER LETHBRIDGE, K.C.I. E.,
c/o Messrs. MACMILLAN & Co.,
29 BEDFORD STREET,

COVENT GARDEN,

LONDON, W.C.

January 3U/, 1893.

ABAJI BALWANT BHISB, Rao Bahddur.
The title is personal, arid was conferred on nth September 1884.
Residence. Bombay.

ABBAS ALI walad MUHAMMAD KHAN, Mir.

The title is hereditary. The Mir is a descendant of one of the Mirs
or
Chiefs of Sind at the time of the annexation.
Residence. Sind.

ABBAS KHAN, MIRZA, C.I.E.

The Mirza was created a Companion of the Most Eminent Order of the
Indian Empire, ist January 1882.
Residence.

ABDUL ALI, Khan Bahddur.

The Khan Bahadur was born in 1863, and is a descendant of the old
Nawabs of the Carnatic, being the son of Muazzaz-ud-daula, and
grandson
of His late Highness Azim Jah, first titular Prince of Arcot. He was
granted
the personal title of Khan Bahadur in 1876.

Residence. M adras.

ABDUL ALI, MIR, Khan Bahddur, and Sarddr.

The titles are personal, and were conferred, the first on 22nd
January
1873, and the second on 3ist May 1891.
Residence. B ombay.

ABDUL FATEH, MAULAVI, SAYYID, Khan Bahddur.
The title is personal, and was conferred on ist January 1887.
Residence. Na"sik, Bombay.

ABDUL FIROZ KHAN (of Sdvanur), Nawdb.

The Nawab is the uncle of the ruling Nawab of Savanur in the Dharwar
district.

Residence. -Dharwar, Bombay.

ABDUL PIROZ KHAN, Khan Saheb.

The title is personal, and was conferred on i6th February 1887, on
tne
occasion of the Jubilee of the reign of Her Most Gracious Majesty.
Residence. Bhusdwal, Bombay.

ABDUL GHANI, KHWAJA SIR, K.C.S.I., Nawdb (of Dacca}.

Born about the year 1813. The title is hereditary, and was conferred
on ist January 1877. The Nawab, who is famous throughout Bengal for
his great wealth, liberality, and public spirit, is descended from the
Bonda
family, of Kashmiri origin. The Maulavi Abdullah, who was the son of
the Maulavi Abdul Kadir, and was born in Kashmir, came to Bengal in
the
reign of the Emperor Mahmud Shah, and established himself in Sylhet.
His grandson was the Khwaja Alimullah, who was the father of the
subject
of this notice. The Nawab Abdul Ghani first distinguished himself for
his
loyalty during the Mutinies of 1857, assisting the Government with
infor-
mation, advice, and funds. Placed his steamer, The Star of Dacca, at
the
disposal of Government during the famine of 1874, and after the
cyclone of
October 1876, for relief work. Has contributed largely to works of
public
utility, and on all occasions of distress. He has been a great
benefactor to
the city of Dacca, where he has supplied many public buildings, and
main-
tains a Free School, a Madrasa for Muhammadan students, an almshouse,
etc. He was created C.S.I. in 1871 ; Nawab (personal) in 1875 ;
hereditary
Nawab on the occasion of the Proclamation of Her Most Gracious
Majesty
as Empress, ist January 1877; K. C.S.I., 1886. His son is the Hon.
Nawab Ahsanulla (q.v.\ born 1846.

Residence. Dacca, Bengal.

ABDUL GHANI, MAULAVI, Khdn Bahadur.

An Extra Assistant Commissioner of the Punjab. Created a Khan
Bahadur, as a personal distinction, 2nd January 1893.
Residence. Punjab.

ABDUL HAKIM, MUNSHI, Khdn Saheb.

Granted the title, as a personal distinction, 2nd January 1893, for
eminent services at Gilgit.

Residence. Gilgit, Kashmir.

ABDUL HAKK, SAYYID, C.I.B., Sarddr Diler Jang Bahddur.

The Sardar, who is a descendant of the Karnal family, was in early
life
in the British service, and obtained the Companionship of the Indian
Empire for distinguished service in the Police. He was lent by the
British
Government to the Government of His Highness the Nizam, attained very
high office in the latter service, and was rewarded by the titles of
Sarddr

Diler Jang Bahadur, and subsequently of Sarddr Diler-ud-dauld
Bahadur;
and the former of these titles was recognised by the British
Government as
a personal distinction.

Residence. Hyderabad and Bombay.

ABDUL HAKK, MAULAVI, Shams-ul-Ulama.

The title^is personal, and was conferred on i6th February 1887, on
the
occasion of the Jubilee of the reign of Her Most Gracious Majesty. It
entitles the Maulavi to take rank in Darbar immediately after titular
Nawabs.

Residence. Cawnpur, North- Western Provinces.

ABDUL HAKK, MAULAVI (of Khairabad), Shams-ul-Ulama.

The title is personal, and was conferred on i6th February 1887, on
the
occasion of the Jubilee of the reign of Her Most Gracious Majesty. It
entitles the Maulavi to take rank in Darbar immediately after titular
Nawabs.

Residence. Sitapur, Oudh.

ABDUL HUSAIN KHAN, MIR (of Tando Mir), His Highness.

Born 1 3th May 1850. The title is personal, and was conferred in
recog-
nition of his position as grandson of the Amir, who was the ruler of
Sind at
the time of the annexation.

Residence. Hyderabad, Sind.

ABDUL ISLAM BIN ADAM, Khan Bahadur.
The title is personal, and was conferred on ist May 1880.
Residence. Na"sik, Bombay.

ABDUL JABBAR, MAULAVI, Khan Bahadur.

The Khan Bahadur is a Deputy Magistrate of the 24-Parganas at
Calcutta, and having rendered excellent service in that capacity,
received
the title as a personal distinction on 25th May 1892.

Residence. Calcutta.

ABDUL KADIR, SAYYID, Khan Bahadur.

As the term Sayyid implies, this gentleman claims to be descended
from
the Prophet. He is a descendant of the old Nawabs of the Carnatic ;
and
his title of Khan Bahadur was recognised by the Government in
December
1890.

Residence. Madras.

ABDUL KADIR, HAFIZ, Khan.

The Khan is sometimes styled Wajih-ulla-Khan-i-Hal ; his title, which
is
personal, was conferred by the Carnatic Nawab, but was recognised by
Government in 1890.

Residence. Madras.

ABDUL KADIR KHAN walad ALI GAUHAR KHAN, MIR.

The title is hereditary, the Mir being a representative of one of the
Mirs
or Chiefs of Sind at the time of the annexation (see Khairpur).
Residence. Shika"rpur, Sind.

ABDUL KARIM, SHAIKH HAFIZ, C.I.E., Khan Bahadur.

Born 1838. The title was conferred on 24th May 1884, for services
rendered by his ancestors, and for his own acts of public generosity.
His
father was present at the battles of Bharatpur, Kamon, and Shekhawati
in
the first Kabul campaign ; and his brother was rewarded by a khilat
for his
services in the first and second Punjab campaigns. The Khan Bahadur is
a
large landed proprietor in the district of Meerut, North- Western
Provinces ;
and has been created a Companion of the Most Eminent Order of the
Indian Empire, 2ist May 1890.

Residence. Meerut, North- Western Provinces.

ABDUL LATIF, C.I.E., Nawdb Bahddur.

The Nawab Bahadur was born in March 1828. He traces his descent
from the celebrated Generalissimo of Islam, Khalid Ibn Walid, entitled
the
" Sword of God," who died in the twenty-first year of the Hijrah.
Shah
Ain-ud-din of Baghdad was the first member of the family to settle in
India.
His descendant, Kazi Abdur Rasul, was made Kazi by the Emperor of
Delhi, and sent to Faridpur in Bengal, where the family settled. A
descendant, Kazi Fakir Muhammad, was a leading pleader of the Sadar
Diwdni and Nizdmat Addlat at Calcutta ; and was a great oriental
scholar,
being the author of several works, of which the chief was the Persian
Jdmi-
ut-Tawdrikh or " Universal History." He was the father of the subject
of the
present notice; who entered the Government service in 1846, and after
some service in the Educational Department in the Dacca College and
the
Calcutta Madrasa, became a Deputy Magistrate of the 24-Parganas in
1849. Was appointed J.P. for Bengal, Behar, and Orissa, 1852. Acted
for
a short time as Police Magistrate of Calcutta, and has served three
times as
a Member of the Bengal Legislative Council. Has been a Member of the
Board of Examiners since 1860; has also been Member of the Central
Examination Committee. One of the Income -Tax Commissioners for
Calcutta, 1861-65. Fellow of the Calcutta University, 1863. In 1867
received from Government a gold medal, and a set of the new edition of
the
Encyclopedia Britannica^ with an autograph inscription by the
Viceroy : " In
recognition of his services in promoting native education, especially
the
education of those who like himself belong to the Muhammadan
religion."
In 1869 appointed one of the Commissioners to enquire into the state
of
the Calcutta and Hughli Madrasas, and received the thanks of
Government
for this work. Is a J.P. and Municipal Commissioner for Calcutta, and
also
for the suburbs ; Member of the Board of Management of the
Reformatory,
and of the District School Committee, 24-Parganas. Founder and
Secretary
of the Muhammadan Literary Society of Calcutta, established April
1863;

Hon. Secretary, Bengal Social Science Association ; Member of the
Philological Committee of the Asiatic Society of Bengal ; a Trustee of
the
Indian Association for Cultivation of Science ; Member of Committee
of
Albert Hall, also of the District Charitable Society. Received the
Companionship of the Order of the Indian Empire, ist January 1883.
Was
created a Nawab Bahadur in consideration of his eminent position and
dis-
tinguished public services on the occasion of the Jubilee of Her Most
Gracious
Majesty's reign, 1887. He has two sons Abul Fazl Muhammad Abdur-
rahman, Esquire, Barrister-at-law of the High Court, Calcutta ; Abul
Khair
Muhammad Abdus-Subhan, Khan Bahadur
Residence. 16 Toltollah Lane, Calcutta.

ABDUL LATIF AGHA JOHAR, Khan Bahadur.

The title is personal; was conferred by the Carnatic Nawab, and
recognised by Government i6th December 1890. The Khan Bahadur also
bears the Carnatic titles of Asad Jang Said-ud-daula.

Residence. Arabia.

ABDUL, LATIP LONDB, KAZI, Shams-ul-Ulama.

The title is personal, and was conferred on 2nd January 1888, for
eminent oriental scholarship. It entitles the Kazi to rank in Darbar
immedi-
ately after titular Nawabs.

Residence. Bombay.

ABDUL MAHMUD KHAN, Khan Bahadur.

Has done good service in the Medical Department, Bengal ; and
received
the title on ist January 1891, as a personal distinction.
Residence. Calcutta.

ABDUL (ABDUR) RAHIM HAKIM, Khan Bahadur.
The title is personal, and was conferred on 6th April 1882.
Residence. Bushire.

ABDUL (ABDUR) RAHIM, SHAIKH, Khan Bahadur.

The title is personal, and was conferred on 2oth May 1890, for good
service in the Medical Department.
Residence. Bengal.

ABDUL (ABDUR) RAHIM KHAN, Khan Bahadur.
The title is personal, and was conferred on ist January 1877.
Residence. Bannu, Punjab.

ABDUL (ABDUR) RAHMAN, Khan Bahadur.

The Khan Bahadur is a Deputy Commissioner in the district of Shimoga,
Mysore, under the government of His Highness the Maharaja of Mysore,
and
received the title as a personal distinction on 25th May 1892.

Residence. Shimoga, Mysore.

ABDUL (ABDUR) RAUF, MAULAVI, Shams-ul-Ulama.

The title is personal, and was conferred on 2oth May 1890, for
distinc-
tion in oriental learning. It entitles him to take rank in Darbar
immediately
after titular Nawabs.

Residence. Patna, Bengal.

ABDUL (ABDUR) RAZZAK, Khan Bahadur.

The title is personal, and was conferred on ist June 1888, for dis-
tinguished medical service.
Residence. Jeddah.

ABDUL (ABDUS) SAMAD, Khan Bahadur.
The title is personal, and was conferred on i6th February 1887.
Residence. Indore, Central India.

ABDUL VASA, Khan Bahadur.

Born 1843; a member of the Carnatic family, being the son-in-law of
His late Highness Zahir-ud-daula, the second of the titular Princes of
Arcot ;
was granted the personal title of Khan Bahadur in 1875.

Residence. M adras.

ABDUL WAHAB, MAULAVI, Khan Bahadur.

The title is personal, and was conferred on i6th February 1887. The
Maulavi's ancestors are said to have come from Kandahar in the loth
century, and to have settled at Delhi. The family afterwards removed
to
Echoli in the Meerut district ; and one of his ancestors having been
killed by
Ragbars in the i yth century, his heirs were granted the village of
Echoli by
firman of the Emperor of Delhi. In course of time this grant passed
into
the hands of the Rani of Landhaura. Abdul Wahab has rendered very
distinguished service in the Police Department, and has been publicly
com-
mended and rewarded on many occasions. He is District Superintendent
of
Police at Ballia.

Residence. Meerut, North- Western Provinces.

ABDUL WAHAB, HAJI, Khan Bahadur.

This gentleman (who, as the title of Hdji implies, has performed the
Haj or Pilgrimage to Mecca) is connected with the Carnatic family ;
and
his title, conferred by the Carnatic Nawab, was recognised by
Government
as a personal one in 1890.

Residence. M adras.

ABDULLA walad GHULAM MURTAZA KHAN, Mir.

The title is hereditary, the Mir being a descendant of one of the
Chiefs
of Sind at the time of the annexation.
Residence. Shikdrpur, Sind.

ABDULLA KHAN, Nawdb.

The titfe is hereditary, and the Nawab Abdulla Khan was specially
selected to succeed to it in August 1881. The title had been
recognised
3oth July 1875.

Residence. Dera Ismail Kha"n, Punjab,

ABDULLA KHAN, Khan Saheb.

The title is personal, and was conferred on i6th February 1887, on
the
occasion of the Jubilee of the reign of Her Most Gracious Majesty.
Residence. Sibi, Baluchistan.

ABDULLA KHAN, Khan Sahtf.

The title is personal, and was conferred on 2nd January 1888.
Residence. Ajmir, Rajputdna.

ABDUS SUBHAN, Khan Bahadur.

Born in 1849 ) nas been granted the personal title of Khan Bahadur
for
good service under the Police Department of Madras.
Residence. Madura, Madras Presidency.

ABDUS SUBHAN, SAYYID, CHAUDHRI, Nawdb.
Granted the title of Nawab, as a personal distinction, 2nd January
1893.
Residence. Bogra, Bengal.

ABHAI CHANDRA DAS, Rai Bahadur.

The title is personal, and was conferred on 23rd May 1888, for good
service as Deputy Magistrate and Deputy Collector of the 24-Parganas.
Residence. 10 Shama Charan Dey's Street, Calcutta.

ABHAI CHARAN MITTBR, Rai Bahadur.

Abhai Charan Mitter is a descendant of the Mitter family of
Charimandel
in Vikrampur, Dacca, originally imported from Rarh and stated to have
been
located in Charimandel by Chand Rai and Kedar Rai, the ruling
Kayastha
Sabas of Vikrampur. He is ninth in descent from Devaki Nandan Mitter,
who first migrated to Charimandel. Born on the i2th May 1839. His
father's name was Ram Kinker Mitter. He did meritorious service in
the
first Lushai Expedition, *both as an explorer and as a contractor for
transport ; and was kept for some time as a hostage by the Lushais.
His
services were equally valuable to Government in the last Chin -Lushai
Expedition, when he supplied boats, coolies, and other means of
transport,
notwithstanding the difficulties caused by a severe outbreak of
cholera. Was
rewarded with the title on ist January 1891.

Residence. Chittagong Hill Tracts.

ABID ALI BAHADUR, KAMR KADR MIRZA, Prince.
This is the courtesy title of the eldest son of the late King of
Oudh.
Residence. Calcutta, Bengal.

ABINAS CHANDRA BANERJI, Rat Bahadur.

Born 1 846. Son of Babu Navin Chandra Banerji, of Bali, in the
district of
Howrah, Bengal. Educated in the Free Church Institution, Calcutta ;
entered
the service of His Highness the Maharaja of Patiala, 1866; appointed
Director of Public Instruction, 1869; A.D.C. and Private Secretary to
His
Highness, 1875 ; worked for the organisation of the Bali Sadharani
Sabha, a
Public Association recognised by the Government, and made Secretary
thereof,
1882. In 1883 was elected Vice-Chairman of the Bali Municipality. In
1887, on the occasion of Her Majesty's Jubilee, received the title of
Rai
Bahadur for good service; elected Chairman of the Bali Municipality
in
1890. Is an Honorary Magistrate.

Residence. Bali, Howrah, Bengal.

ABU SAID, Khdn Bahadur.

A member of the Carnatic family, and styled Zahir-ud-din Khan Baha-
dur. The title was conferred by the Nawab of the Carnatic, and was
recog-
nised as a personal one by Government in 1890.

Residence. Madras.

ABU TURAB PARRUKH MIRZA BAHADUR, Prince.
This is the courtesy title of the fifteenth son of the late King of
Oudh.
Residence. Calcutta, Bengal.

ABUBAKR, BBARI, Khdn Bahadur.

Granted the title of Khan Bahadur, as a personal distinction, 2nd
January 1893.

Residence. Mangalore, Madras.

ABUL ALI DARAGAH MIRZA BAHADUR, Prince.
This is the courtesy title of the twentieth son of the late King of
Oudh.
Residence. Calcutta, Bengal.

ABUL HASAN, MAULAVI, Shams-ul-Ulama.

The title is personal, and was conferred on i6th February 1887, for
eminence as an oriental scholar. It entitles him to take rank in
Darbar im-
mediately after titular Nawabs.

Residence. Lucknow, Oudh.

: ABUL KHAIR MUHAMMAD ABDUS-SUBHAN, MAULAVI,

Khdn Bahadur.

Son of Nawab Abdul Latif Khan Bahadur, C.I.E., of Calcutta.
Born 27th September 1857. Traces his descent from the celebrated
Generalissimo of Islam, Khalid Ibn Walid, entitled the " Sword of
God," who
died in the twenty-first year of the Hijrah. Shah Ain-ud-din of
Baghdad, a

most learned saint, came to India first. Kazi Abdur Rasul was made
Kazi
by the Court of Delhi and sent to Bengal, and the family settled in
the
Faridpur district. Kazi Fakir Muhammad, one of his descendants, was a
leading pleader of the Sadar Diwdni and Nizdmat Addlat at Calcutta,
and
was a great oriental scholar, being the author of several works, chief
among
which was an universal history in Persian, called the Jdmi-ut-
Tawdrikh.
His son is the Nawab Abdul Latif Bahadur (q.v.\ the father of the
sub-
ject of thetpresent notice. The Khan Bahadur was educated at the Cal-
cutta Madrasa and the Presidency College, Calcutta, where he was a
scholar, prizeman, and medallist. Received the title of " Khan Bahadur
"
with his appointment as a Deputy Magistrate and Deputy Collector, on
the
loth September 1884. Vested with first-class Magisterial powers,
1888;
appointed Secretary of the District Committee of Public Instruction at
Arrah
(Shahabad), 1886; a Member and Vice -Chairman of the District Board,
Champarun, 1887; and a Municipal Commissioner of Patna, 1891.
Married,
24th August 1889, Bibi Najmoon-Neesa Khanum, fourth daughter of
Chowdhry Muhammad Rasheed Khan, Khan Bahadur of Nattore, district
Rajshahi.

Residence. Gya, Bengal.

ACHAL SINGH (of Kaimahra), Rdjd.

Born 1 5th June 1880, and succeeded Raja Narpat Singh in 1886. The
title is hereditary. The Raja of Kaimahra represents the elder branch
of the
Janwar family, the Raja of Oel representing the junior branch. They
were
originally Chauhan Kshatriyas in the service of the Sayyids of Pihani,
having
migrated from Rajputana in the i6th century. In the time of Sayyid
Khurd, in 1553, their ancestor Jamni Khan obtained the post of
Chaudhri
of Kheri, with the right to levy a cess on all the lands in that
Pargana. At
a later period, when Than Singh was head of the family, he lived at
Oel, with
the title of Rai. Ajab Singh, who was the uncle and predecessor of
the
grandfather of the present Raja, in 1837 was acknowledged as Raja by
the
tribe, and the title was confirmed as hereditary in 1864. Sleeman
states
that the Raja of Oel attempted to seize the estates of his kinsman,
Jodha
Singh of Kaimahra, grandfather of the present Raja. The mother of the
latter is the Rani Ranikunwar.

Residence. Kheri, Oudh.

ADARJI JAMSHBDJI, Khdn Saheb.

The title is personal, and was conferred on 2oth October 1885.
Residence. B ombay .

AFGHANISTAN, His Highness the Amir of.

A Ruling Chief.

His Highness Sir Abdur Rahman Khan, G. C.S.I., Amir of Afghanistan,
was born about the year 1843, an d was placed on the throne by the
British
authorities on the 22nd July 1880. He is a younger son of the late
Amir
Sher Ali Khan, Amir of Kabul, and lived for some years as an exile,
but was

brought back after the last Afghan war. The area of the State is
about
270,000 square miles; its population about 4,901,000, chiefly Muham-
madans. His Highness is entitled to a salute of 2 1 guns ; and
maintains a
military force of 19,500 cavalry, 40,408 infantry, and 210 guns.
Residence. Kabul.

AGAR (RBWA KANTHA), THAKUR GAMBHIR &INGH,

Thdkur of.

A Ruling Chief.

Born about 1867; is a Muhammadan of Rajput descent. The area of
the State is about 9 square miles ; its population consists chiefly of
Bhils.
Residence. Agar, Rewa" Kdntha, Bombay.

AGRA BARKHBRA (BHOPAL), BALWANT SINGH, Thdkur of.

A Ruling Chief.

Thakur Balwant Singh is a Rajput Chief (Hindu), born about the year
1827. He succeeded to the title, which is hereditary, on the 9th July
1859.
The population of the State, which is situated in the Bhopal Agency,
Central
India, is about 4200, and consists chiefly of Hindus.

Residence. Agra Barkhera, Bhopal, Central India.

AHMAD, MAULAVI, Khan Bahadur.

The title is personal, and was conferred on ist January 1890 "for
loyalty
and public spirit."

Residence. 70 Toltollah Lane, Calcutta, Bengal.

AHMAD ALI KHAN, Khan Bahadur.

The Khan Bahadur has rendered good service on the Survey of India,
and received the title as a personal distinction on 25th May 1892.
Residence. Calcutta.

AHMAD BAKHSH, SHAIKH, Khan Bahadur.

Born 1815. Son of Tir Bakhsh, who was in the service of the Raja of
Nagpur ; and whose ancestor, Malik Bal Lai, settled in the Fatehpur
district
in the reign of Shahab-ud-din Ghori. The Khan Bahadur served in the
Bengal Light Cavalry from the year 1830; and took part in the
campaign
against the Bhils in 1832, and in the Afghan war in 1839. He went
through
the Kabul campaigns, and joined in the pursuit of Dost Muhammad. For
his loyalty during the Mutiny he was rewarded with a khtlat, a jdgtr
(grant
of lands), and the title of Khan Bahadur, which was conferred on him
January 1866.

Residence. Fatehpur, North- Western Provinces.

AHMAD GURIKAL, MANJBRI, Khan Bahadur.

Born 1825 ; granted the personal title of Khan Bahadur for good
service
in the Madras Police, from which he retired on pension in 1888.

Residence. Malabar, Madras Presidency.

AHMAD HASAN KHAN, Nawdb Bahadur.

Son of the Nawab Kalb Ali Khan, and a grandson of the late Saadat AH
Khan, King of Oudh. The title is personal.

Residence. Lucknow, Oudh.

AHMAD HUSAIN KHAN, Nawdb (of Fatehpur}.

Born 1826. The title is hereditary. The family originally came from
Teheran; its founder, Sayyid Ikram-ud-din Ahmad, accompanied the
Emperor Humayiin on his return from Persia, took service under the
Delhi
emperors, and was appointed a mansabddr by the great Akbar. His
great-
grandson, Muhammad Taki, was in office under the Emperor Alamgir, and
was succeeded by his son Shah Kuli Khan. The grandson of the latter,
Nawab Zain-ul-Abdin Khan, came to Oudh, was appointed chakladdr of
Sarkars Kora and Kara under the Oudh Government, and obtained
extensive
jdgirs in the district of Fatehpur from the Nawab Asaf-ud-daula. He
was
succeeded by his son, Nawab Bakar Ali Khan, who transferred his head-
quarters from Kora Jahanabad to Fatehpur. He was succeeded by his
brother, Nawab Sayyid Muhammad Khan, the father of the present Nawdb.
The Nawab has two sons Ali Husain Khan and Bakar Husain Khan.

Residence. Bdkarganj, Fatehpur, North-Western Provinces.

AHMAD HUSAIN KHAN (of Pariawan), SHAIKH,
Khdn Bahadur.

Born 1865 ; succeeded 1877. The title is hereditary, and was
conferred
4th December 1877, on Dost Muhammad of Pariawan, on account of his
services in the Mutiny. The founder of the family is said to have
been
Haji Abdul Rauf, who migrated from Mecca to Ghazni, accompanied
Shahab-ud-din Ghori when he invaded India, and obtained the estate of
Pariawan, consisting of eight villages, revenue free, for services
rendered.
Revenue was, however, assessed in the time of Nawab Saadat Ali Khan.
Shaikh Gulam added to the estate by purchases, and was succeeded by
his
son, Haji Shaikh Dost Muhammad (see above), who did good service in
the
Mutiny, went on pilgrimage to Mecca, and died at Medina. Succeeded by
his son, the present Khan Bahadur, who is an Honorary Magistrate. He
has issue, two daughters.

Residence. Paridwan, Partdbgarh, Oudh.

AHMAD KHAN walad MUHAMMAD HUSAIN, Mir.

The title is hereditary, as being that of a descendant of the ancient
Mirs
of Sind.

Residence. Hyderabad, Sind.

AHMAD KHAN, JAMADAR, Khan Saheb.

The title is personal, and was conferred on i6th February 1887, on
the
occasion of the Jubilee of the reign of Her Most Gracious Majesty.
Residence. nth Bengal Lancers, India.

AHMAD KHAN, SAYYID, C.I.E.

Was created a Companion of the Most Eminent Order of the Indian
Empire, ist January 1888.
Residence.

AHMAD MUHI-UD-DIN, Khan Bahadur.

Son of Ibruth Jang Bahadur, by a niece of the Hon. Sir Sharful Umra
Bahadur, K. C.S.I. ; born 1835; married, 1864, to the second daughter
of
His Highness Nawab Zahir-ud-daula, G.C.S.I., second Prince of Arcot.
Created Khan Bahadur, 1874. Claims close connection, on both father's
and
mother's sides, with the Nawabs Rulers of the Carnatic. Was present at
the
Imperial Assemblage, Delhi, as a member of the Prince of Arcot's
suite ;
Secretary to the Prince of Arcot, 1877 to 1883. Was delegated to the
Hyderabad Court, in 1884, by the Muslim community, Madras, for
present-
ing a congratulatory address to His Highness the Nizam, on his
accession to
the masnad. A member of the Madras Muhammadan Library. Founder of
the Aujuman-i Islarniah of Madras ; which afterward was amalgamated
with
the Madras Central Muhammadan Association, when he was elected as a
Vice-President of the latter. Vice -President of the Aujuman-i Himayat-
i-
Islam, Madras. Founder of the Muslim Herald, the first Muhammadan-
English tri-weekly paper in India, which, though not now existing,
was
remarkable for its loyal spirit and moderate tone.

Residence. Mylapur and Adyar, Madras.

AHMAD MUHI-UD-DIN, Khdn Bahadur.

The Khan Bahadur is a member of the Carnatic family, being a son-in-
law of His late Highness Zahir-ud-daula, the second of the titular
Princes of
Arcot. He was born in 1842, and was granted the personal title in
1875.

Residence. M adras.

AHMAD SHAH SAYYID (of Sardhana), Nawdb.

Born ist January 1835 ; succeeded in 1882. The family are Muswi or
Mashadi Sayyids, descended from Hayat AH Musa Raza, and originally
residing at Paghman near Kabul. On account of services rendered to
Alexander Barnes in his Kabul mission, and subsequently to the English
in
their retreat from Kabul, they were expelled from Kabul and settled
at
Sardhana,., At the time of the Mutiny, the head of the family, Sayyid
Muhammad Jan Fishan, Khan Saheb, took the side of the Government at
once. When the Mutiny occurred at Meerut, he raised a body of horse,
consisting of his followers and dependents, and officered by himself
and his
relatives ; accompanied General Wilson's force to the Hindan ; was
present
in both actions, and thence to Delhi, where he remained with the
head-
quarters camp till the city was taken, when his men were employed to
keep
order in Delhi. For these eminent services the title of Nawab, with a
suit-
able khilat, was conferred on him. And each of his successors have
received
the title of Na"wab for life on succeeding to the estates.

Residence. Sardhana, North-Western Provinces.

AHMAD-ULLA KHAN, Nawdb.

Born 1 6th December 1827. The title was conferred on 26th February
1885. The family claims descent from the Nawab Dadan Khdn, a Governor
of the Punjab. One of its most illustrious ancestors was Nawab
Muhammad
Khan, who, on account of his loyal services, received the title of
Khairandesh
Khan from the Emperor Alamgir. The Nawab Ahmad-ulla Khan served
the British Government for twenty-eight years as a Patrol in the
Customs
Department, and retired on pension in 1877 having distinguished
himself
for his fidelity during the Mutiny, when he was wounded and twice
robbed
by the rebels. He is an Honorary Magistrate of the first class, and
Vice-
President of the Meerut Municipal and District Boards ; in which
capacity
he has been distinguished for his public spirit.

Residence. Meerut, North-Western Provinces.

AHMAD-UN-NISA BEGAM SAHIBA, Nawdb.

Grand-daughter of His late Highness Azim-ud-daula", the first of the
titular Nawabs of the Carnatic ; granted the personal title of Nawab,
1815.
Residence. Madras.

AHMAD YAR KHAN, Khdn Bahadur.

The Khan Bahadur has occupied an important position in the police of
the Quetta-Peshin frontier, and received the title as a personal
distinction on
25th May 1892.

Residence. Quetta, Baluchistan.

AHSANULLA, THE HON. KHWAJA, C.I.E., Nawdb.

Son and heir of the Nawab (of Dacca) Khwaja Sir Abdul Ghani, K.
C.S.I.,
to whose life reference may be made for particulars of the family.
The
Nawab Ahsanulla, who was born in 1846, has long managed the large
family

property, and has followed in the footsteps of his father, both as a
liberal
and enlightened landlord, and in his large public benefactions. His
sons
are Khwaja Hafizulla Khan Bahadur and Khwaja Salimulla Khan Bahadur.
He is a member of the Legislative Council of Bengal, and belongs to
many
other public bodies.

Residence. Dacca, Bengal.

AIYASWAMI SASTRIYAR, B., Rai Bahadur. "~

Born 1836; was granted the personal title in 1887, for good service
in
the Madras Revenue Department.

Residence. Kumbhakonam, Tanjore, Madras.

AJAIGARH, BUNDELKHAND, HIS HIGHNESS MAHARAJA
SAWAI RANJOR SINGH BAHADUR, Maharaja of.

A Ruling Chief.

His Highness was bom on the 29th September 1848, and succeeded to
the Raj on the 9th September 1859. He is a Bundela Rajput, descended
from the famous Maharaja Chhatrasal of Panna (q.v.) The second son of
the Maharaja Chhatrasal was Jagat Raj, from whom are descended both
this
Chief and the Chiefs of Charkhari, Bijawar, and Sarila. His great-
grandson,
Maharaja Bakht Singh of Banda and Ajaigarh, received a sanad from the
British Government in 1807; and Bakht Singh's great-grandson is the
present Maharaja. Though Sawai was an old family title it was not
recog-
nised until 1877, when it was added to the title of Maharaja at the
Delhi
Imperial Assemblage on the occasion of the proclamation of Her Majesty
as
Empress of India. Ajaigarh has an area of 802 square miles, and a
popu-
lation of 81,454, chiefly Hindus. His Highness's revenues are Rs. 2, 2
5,000.
He is entitled to a salute of n guns, and maintains a military force
of 97
cavalry, 544 infantry, and 13 guns. The family motto is Randhir Ajai
Wir
(The Steadfast in War is an Unconquered Hero). His Highness has two
sons Raja Bahadur Bhopal Singh, aged 2 5 years ; Diwan Senapati
Jaipal
Singh, aged 17 years.

Listed Alphabetically.

More to follow...

Sid Harth

unread,
Feb 4, 2010, 12:28:55 PM2/4/10
to
AJAMBAR SINGH DEO (of Anandpur), Thdkur.

Born about 1832. The title is hereditary, and was recognised by
Government on i5th February 1873. The Thakur is connected with the
Porahat family, which is descended (according to tradition) from a
Rajput of
Jodhpur who made a pilgrimage to Jagannath about twelve or thirteen
centuries ago. His son is Babu Ajit Narayan Singh Deo.

Residence. Singhbhum, Bengal.

AJRAUDA (WESTERN MALWA), DAULAT SINGH, Thdkur of.

A Ruling Chief.

Thakur Daulat Singh was born about the year 1835, and succeeded to
the title in 1859. He is a Rajput Chief (Hindu).
Residence. Ajrauda, Central India.

AKALKOT, SHAHAJI MALOJI, alias BABA SAHEB RAJB

BHONSLB, Rdjd of.

A Ruling Chief.

Rao Saheb Mehrban Shahaji Maloji Raje Bhonsle, alias Baba Saheb, is
the son of Maloji Raje; born 1867. Is a descendant of the Bhonsle
family. Educated at Rajaram College, Kolhapur. Married, 1881, Laxumi-
bai Saheb, daughter of Dhaibar Killedar of Baroda, and grand-daughter
of His
Highness trfe late Maharaja Khanderao Bahadur Gaekwar of Baroda. Has
two
daughters, Guzra Raje and Putala Raje, aged six and three
respectively.
His accession took place in 1870; but being a minor the management of
the State was in the hands of the British Government till 1891, when
the
administration of the State was made over to him. His step-grandmother
is
the Lady Kamaljabai Saheb, widow of Shahaji Raje II., alias Appa
Saheb.
His nearest relation is his second cousin, Tulaji Raje Bhonsle, son of
the
late Futtehsing, uncle to the late Maloji Raja. Shahaji Maloji,
Sambhaji
Tulzaji, and Bhavanji Raje of Kurla are the great-grandsons of the
late Tulzaji,
brother of Futtehsing II. The founder of the family was Ranoji, a son
of Sayaji
Lokhanday Patel of Parud in the Sewari Pargan of the province of
Aurangabad,
who, without being formally adopted, was taken by Sivaji, better known
as Shao
Rajcl (the son of Sambhaji and grandson of the great Sivaji), into his
family, and
had the family surname of Bhonsle of the Rajas of Satara conferred
upon him
under the following circumstances : After the death of the Emperor
Aurangzeb,
Shao Raja was released from captivity by the Emperor Bahadur Shah. He
was
on his return to the Deccan, and had encamped at Parud, when he was
attacked
by Sayaji Patel, who appears to have been a partisan of the famous
Tarabai
(widow of Rajaram, who had assumed the reins of government). Sayaji
was
defeated and was killed in the fight. His widow took her three little
boys and
threw herself at the feet of the Raja, imploring his forgiveness and
his protec-
tion. The Raja was moved with compassion, and being naturally of a
kind-
hearted disposition conceived the idea of taking care of the eldest of
the children.
He told the mother that if she would give up the boy, who was under
ten years
of age, he would provide for him, and she gladly gave her consent.
Ranoji was
a good-looking lad, and gained the favour of the Raja. It happened
that as the
Rajd, continued his march towards Satara some resistance was offered
by the
Bhils on the road, and it was necessary to disperse them. The nominal
com-
mand of the detachment employed on this occasion was given to the boy.
The
Bhils were defeated and dispersed, and the Rajd was so well pleased
with this
fortunate omen of the child's future career that he changed his name
to Futteh-
sing. Futtehsing grew in favour and remained with the Rajd at his
Court at
Satara. In 1710 the Rajd took him into his family and gave him the
family
surname of Bhonsle, and later conferred on him the Akalkot State as an
heredi-
tary jAgir. Futtehsing died in the year 1760, and was succeeded by his
adopted
son Shahaji Raje L, alias Baba Saheb, who in turn was succeeded by his
elder
son, Futtehsing II., alias Aba Saheb (the younger was Tulaji, who was
granted
the village of Kurla for maintenance). Futtehsing II. died in 1822,
and was
succeeded by his son Maloji Raj L, alias Baba Saheb, who was succeeded
by
his son Shahaji Raje II., alias Appa Saheb, born 1821, died 1857 (his
younger
brother was Futtehsing). Shahaji Raje II. was succeeded by his son
Maloji
Raja" II., alias Buwa Saheb, born 1838, died 1870; succeeded by his
son
Shahaji Raje III., alias Baba Saheb, the present chief. The area of
the State
is about 498 square miles, and its population is about 58,040, chiefly
Hindus,
though there are nearly 8000 Muhammadans. The Chief maintains a
military
force of 46 men and 7 guns.

Residence. Akalkot, Bombay. ,

AKBAR ALI, Khan Saheb.

The title is personal, and was conferred on i5th March 1887.
Residence. Sandra, Bombay.

AKBAR ALI, MIR, Khan Bahadur.
The title is personal, and was conferred on 24th December
Residence. B ombay .

AKBAR ALI, MIR, C.S.I., Khan Bahadur.

The title is personal, and was originally conferred by His Highness
the
Nizam of the Deccan. The Khan Bahadur was created a Companion of the
Most Exalted Order of the Star of India, 4th January 1869.

Residence. Hyderabad, Deccan.

AKHIL CHANDRA MUKHARJI, Rai Bahadur.

Granted the title of Rai Bahadur, as a personal distinction, 2nd
January
1893.

Residence. Calcutta.

ALAGHASINQHARU BHATTAR, Mahdmahopddhydya.

Born 1817; was granted the personal title (entitling him to rank in
Darbar immediately after titular Rajas), for his eminence as a
Sanskrit scholar,
on 1 5th February 1887, on the occasion of the Jubilee of the reign of
Her
Most Gracious Majesty.

Residence. Srirangam, Trichinopoly, Madras.

ALAM KHAN, MIR, Khan Bahadur.

The title is personal, and was conferred on 5th September 1883, for
distinguished military service. The Khan Bahadur holds the high rank
of
Risaldar-Major in Her Majesty's Army.

Residence. With ist Punjab Cavalry.

ALAM SHAH, SAYYID, Khan Bahadur.

The title is personal, and was conferred on i6th February 1887, on
the
occasion of the Jubilee of the reign of Her Most Gracious Majesty.

Residence. Lahore, Punjab.

ALBBL SINGH (of Lidhran), Sarddr.

Born in 1824. The title is hereditary, and the Sardar is descended
from Sardar Jai Singh, who joined the Nishanwala mis I or
confederacy,
which opposed Zain Khan, the Governor of Sarhind, who was slain in
battle.
The family did good service during the Mutiny.

Residence. Ludhia"na, Punjab.

ALI AHMAD, Khan Bahadur,

The Khan Bahadur, who is also styled Iktidar Jang Afsar-ud-daula,
Rafat-ul-Mulk, derived his titles from the Carnatic Nawab ; and they
were
recognised by Government in December 1890.
Residence. Madras.

ALI AHMAD KHAN, Mir.

The title is hereditary, and the Mir is descended from one of the Mirs


of
Sind at the time of the annexation.
Residence. Shikdrpur, Sind.

ALI BAHADUR KHAN (of Saidpur), Rdjd.

The Raja is a Chib Rajput of very ancient descent. His ancestor, Chib
Chand, and his descendants long ruled in the neighbourhood of
Bhimbar ;
and one of the latter, Sadip Chand, adopted the Muhammadan faith in
the
Court of the Emperor Babar, and was confirmed by that monarch in his
possessions, taking the name of Shadab Khan. This Chief accompanied
the
Emperor Humayun on many of his expeditions, and was at length killed
in a quarrel. A descendant, Raja Sultan Khan, was conquered by the
Maharaja Gulab Singh of Jammu, who threw him into prison, where he
died. After the first Sikh war, as the British Government made over
Kashmir (including Bhimbar) to the Maharaja Gulab Singh, the Raja
Talab
Singh removed to Saidpur, where the family has since been settled.
The
title is hereditary, and the Raja's son is named Ali Akbar Khan.

Residence. Saidpur, Jhelum, Punjab.

ALI BAKHSH walad PAZL MUHAMMAD KHAN, Mir.

The title is hereditary, the Mir being a descendant of one of the

Mirs
or Chiefs of Sind at the time of the annexation.

Residence. Shikdrpur, Sind.

ALI DOST, Khan Bahadur.

Born 1829; was granted the personal title of Khan Bahadur for good
service in the Madras Police on ist January 1878; retired on pension,
1888.

Residence. North Arcot, Madras.

ALI DUT KHAN, Mir.

The title is hereditary, the Mir being a descendant of one of the

Mirs
or Chiefs of Sind at the time of the annexation (see Khairpur).

Residence. Shikdrpur, Sind.

ALI GAUHAR walat SHAH MUHAMMAD KHAN, Mir.

The title is hereditary, as in the last-mentioned case, and for the
same
reason.

Residence. Shikdrpur, Sind.

ALI GAUHAR KHAN, Khdn Bahadur. c
The title is personal, and was conferred on Qth June 1878.
Residence. Punjab.

ALI HAIDAR walad ALI MUHAMMAD KHAN, Mir.

The title is hereditary, as the Mir is descended from one of the Mirs


or
Chiefs of Sind at the time of the annexation.

Residence. Shikdrpur, Sind.

ALI HASAN KHAN, Amir-ud-dauld Ihtisham-ul-Mulk, Bahadur,

Shujdat Jang.

The title is personal, and was originally conferred by the late
Muhammad
Ali Shah, formerly King of Oudh, in 1837. He is the grandson of the
late
Saadat Ali Khan, King of Oudh ; and his title was recognised on the
4th
December 1877.

Residence. Lucknow, Oudh.

ALI HUSAIN walad ALI AHMAD KHAN, Mir.

The title is hereditary, as the Mir is descended from one of the Mirs


or
Chiefs of Sind at the time of the annexation.

Residence. Shika'rpur, Sind.

ALI HUSAIN SARDAR MIRZA BAHADUR, Prince.

The Prince is the fourteenth son of the late King of Oudh, and his
title
is a courtesy title, personal to himself.
Residence. Calcutta, Bengal.

ALI HUSAIN KHAN, Shams-ud-dauld Mukhtar-ul-Mulk,
Bahadur, Mustakim Jang.

Is grandson of the late Saadat Ali Khan, King of Oudh. His titles
were
originally conferred by the late Muhammad Ali Shah, King of Oudh ;
and
were recognised by Government, 4th December 1877.

Residence. Lucknow, Oudh.

ALI JAN, Khdn Bahddur.

The title is personal, and was conferred on ist January 1890.
Residence. North- Western Provinces.

ALI KHAN, SAYYID, Nawdb.

The title is personal, and was conferred on i6th February 1887, on
the

occasion of the celebration of the Jubilee of Her Most Gracious
Majesty.
Residence. Monghyr, Bengal.

MADAD KHAN walad SOHRAB KHAN, Mir.

The title is hereditary, as the Mir is descended from one of the Mirs


or Chiefs of Sind at the time of the annexation.

Residence. Shikdrpur, Sind.

ALI MADAD KHAN walad AHMAD KHAN, H.H. Mir, Mir.

Born 1835. The first title is personal. The second title (Mir) is
heredi-
tary, as His Highness is descended from the old Mirs or Chiefs of
Sind.
Residence. Shikdrpur, Sind.

ALI MARDAN KHAN walad RUSTAM KHAN, Mir.

Born 1 3th July 1813. The title is hereditary. Belongs to the Suhra-
bani branch of the Talpur family, formerly Amirs of Sind, being the
son of
Mir Rustam Khan, who was a ruling Amir at the time of the annexation.
The Mir has two sons Mehrab Khan and Khudadad Khan.

Residence. Hyderabad, Sind.

ALI MAZHAR SAHIB, HAPIZ, Khdn Bahadur.

Connected with the Carnatic family ; was granted the personal title
on
ist June 1888.

Residence. Karur, Madras.

ALI MUHAMMAD KHAN walad SADIK ALI KHAN, Mir.

The title is hereditary, the Mir being a descendant of one of the

Mirs
or Chiefs of Sind at the time of the annexation.
Residence. Sind.

ALI MUHAMMAD SHAD, SAYYID, Khdn Bahadur.

Is a descendant of the same family as the Nawab Vilayat AH Khan,
C.I.E. (g.v.) ; and was granted the title on ist January 1891, in
consideration
of his social position and learning.

Residence. Patna, Bengal.

ALI MUHAMMAD, Mirza.

The title is hereditary. Is the son of Mirza Khusro Beg.
Residence. Hyderabad, Sind.

ALI MURAD KHAN walad AHMAD KHAN, Mir.

Born ist September 1835. The title is hereditary; and the Mir is a
son of the Mir Ahmad Khan of the Shahwani branch of the Talpur
family,
formerly Amirs of Sind.

Residence. Hyderabad, Sind.

ALI NAWAZ walad SADIK ALI KHAN, Mir.

The title is hereditary, the Mir being a descendant of one of the

Mirs
or Chiefs of Sind at the time of the annexation.
Residence. Sind.

ALI NAWAZ KHAN walad GHULAM SHAH KHAN, Mir.

The title is hereditary, the Mir being a descendant of one of the

Mirs
or Chiefs of Sind at the time of the annexation.

Residence. Shikdrpur, Sind.

ALI NAWAZ KHAN walad GHULAM MURTAZA
KHAN, Mir.

The title is hereditary, the Mir being a descendant of one of the

Mirs
or Chiefs of Sind at the time of the annexation.

Residence. Shikdrpur, Sind.

ALIM KHAN, JAMADAR, Khan Saheb.

The title is personal, and was conferred on i6th February 1887, for
good
military service, on the occasion of the Jubilee of the reign of Her
Most
Gracious Majesty.

Residence. With 2Oth Bengal Infantry.

ALIPURA, CHHATARPATI, C.S.I., Rao Bahadur of.
A Ruling Chief.

The Rao of Alipura was born on the 29:11 August 1853 ; and succeeded
to the Raj on the 3rd November 1871. He is a Rajput (Hindu) of the
Parihar clan ; and is descended from the Rao Mukund Singh, a Sardar
of
Panna, whose grandson, Rao Pratap Singh, received a sanad from the
British
Government in 1808. The old title of the family was Sewai Rao; but
Rao
only was used until the year 1877, when the additional title of
Bahadur was
granted as a personal distinction at the Delhi Imperial Assemblage, on
the
occasion of the Proclamation of Her Majesty as Empress of India. The
area of the State is 69 square miles; its population 14,891, chiefly
Hindus.
The Rao Bahadur was created a C.S.I. on i5th February 1887, on the
occa-
sion of the Jubilee of the reign of Her Most Gracious Majesty. He
maintains
a military force of 6 cavalry, 277 infantry, and 3 guns.

Residence. Alipura, Bundelkhand, Central India.

ALIRAJPUR, RANA PARTAB SINGH, Rand of.
A Ruling Chief (ininor).

The Rana Partab Singh is a minor. He was born about the year 1881,
and succeeded to the Raj on the i4th February 1891. He is a Sisodiya
Rajput, said to be descended from the family of His Highness the
Maharana of Udaipur. The area of the State is 836 square miles ; its
population is 56,827, chiefly Hindus, but including nearly 19,000
Bhils.
The Rana is entitled to a salute of 9 guns, and maintains a military
force
of ii cavalry, 169 infantry, and 7 guns.

Residence. Alirajpur, Bhopdwar, Central India.

ALLAH BAKHSH walad ALI BAKHSH, Mir.
Born ist October 1865. The title is hereditary, the Mir being a son
of
Mir AH Bakhsh of the Shahwani branch of the Talpur family, formerly
Amirs of Sind.

Residence. Hyderabad, Sind.

ALLAH BAKHSH walad GHULAM MURTAZA
KHAN, Mir.

The title is hereditary, the Mir being a descendant of one of the Mirs


or
Chiefs of Sind at the time of the annexation.

Residence. Shikdrpur, Sind.

ALLAH BAKHSH walad GHULAM HUSAIN KHAN, Mir.
The title is hereditary, for the same reason as above.
Residence. Shikdrpur, Sind.

ALLAH BAKHSH, MUNSHI, Khdn Bahadur.

Granted the title of Khan Bahadur as a personal distinction, in
promo-
tion from that of Khan Saheb, 2nd January 1893.
Residence. Meshed.

ALLAH RAKHIO walad GHULAM MURTAZA KHAN, Mir.

The title is hereditary, the Mir being a descendant of one of the Mirs


or
Chiefs of Sind at the time of the annexation.

Residence. Shikdrpur, Sind.

ALLAHDAD KHAN, Nawdb.

The title is hereditary, and the present Nawab, in 1889, succeeded
his
father, Nawab Sarfaraz Khan, C. S. I. Sarbuland Khan, the founder of
the family,
and the first Nawab of Mankerah, was an Afghan of the Saddozai, a
ruling
race of Kabul, and held the government of the Derajat under the Nawab
of

Multan. Subsequently he obtained, through the Kabul Government,
possession of the Mankerah territory, and took up his residence at
Bhakkar
on the Indus. On his death in 1816 he was succeeded by Hafiz Ahmad
Khan, his daughter's son, who was the great-grandfather of the
present
Nawab. He was succeeded by his son, Shah Nawaz Khan; and in the
latter's time, Ranjit Singh, after the conquest of Multan, besieged
and took
Mankerah. A treaty was, however, subsequently concluded, by which the
Nawab was left in possession of a considerable territory. He wa
succeeded
by his son, Nawab Sarfaraz Khan ; and the latter by his son, the
present t
Nawab.

Residence. Dera Ismail Kha"n, Punjab.

ALLAHDAD KHAN walad AHMAD KHAN, Mir.

The title is hereditary, the Mir being a descendant of one of the Mirs


or
Chiefs of Sind at the time of the annexation.

Residence. Hyderabad, Sind.

ALLAHDAD KHAN walad WALIDAD KHAN, Mir.

The. title is hereditary, the Mir being a descendant of one of the


Mirs
or Chiefs of Sind at the time of the annexation.

Residence. Shikdrpur, Sind.

ALLAHDAD KHAN, RAISANI, MIE, Khdn Bahadur.

The title is personal, and was conferred on i6th February 1887, on
the
occasion of the Jubilee of the reign of Her Most Gracious Majesty.

Residence. Khanak and Barkhan, Baluchistan.

ALTAP HUSAIN, SHAIKH (of Lucknow), Khdn Bahadur.

Born 1842. The title is personal, and was conferred on 2Qth May
1886. The Khan Bahadur is a son of the late Shaikh Kasim Ali, who was
chakladdr in the time of Amjad Ali Shah. Is an Honorary Magistrate,
and
Member of the Municipal and District Boards, Cawnpur.

Residence. Cawnpur, North- Western Provinces.

ALUMAL TRIKAMDAS BHOJVANI, Rao Saheb,
Rao Bahadur.

The title is personal, and was conferred on ist January 1889.
Residence. Karachi, Sind.

ALVA (REWA KANTHA), THAKUR RASUL KHAN, Thdkur of.

A Ruling Chief.

Was born about the year 1875, and is a Muhammadan of Rajput descent.
The area of the State is about 3 square miles, and its population
consists
chiefly of aboriginal Bhils.

Residence. Alva, Rewd Kdntha, Bombay.

ALWAR, His Highness the Maharaja Sawai of.

His Highness the Maharaja is a minor, and only succeeded to the
Raj in the year 1892, on the death of the late Maharaja, Lieutenant-
Colonel His Highness the Maharaja Sawai Sir Mangal Singh Bahadur,
G.C.S.I. He is a Rajput (Hindu) of the Naruka clan, and is descended
from Pratap Singh, Rao of Macheri. The latter, on becoming Raja of
Raj-
t garh, took the title of Rao Raja of Macheri; and subsequently, on
bringing
the whole of Alwar into subjection, he assumed the title of Maharao
Raja, and proclaimed his independence in 1770 A.D. The family was an
offshoot from the ruling family of Jaipur. The area of the State is
3024
square miles; its population 682,926, chiefly Hindus (but including
more
than 150,000 Muhammadans). His Highness is entitled to a salute of 15
guns, and maintains a military force of 2189 cavalry, 3676 infantry,
and 351
guns. The revenue of the State is Rs. 2 6, 5 8, 7 9 2.

Residence. Alwar, Rajputdna.

AMALA, RAJA RATAN SINGH, Rdjd of.
A Ruling Chief.

The Raja was born about the year 1841, and is of Bhil descent. The
State, which is one of the Dang States, in Khandesh, is about 119
square
miles in area ; and its population, which consists chiefly of Bhils,
Konknas,
and other aboriginal tribes, is about 5300.

Residence. Amala, Khdndesh, Bombay.

AMAN SINGH, Rao.

Born 1 4th August 1876. The title is hereditary, and the traditional
account of its origin is, that Raja Chhatarsal gave the village of
Salaiyah in
Pargana Panwari in dowry to Sabha Singh, Panwar Thakur, to whom the
Raja's daughter was married, together with the title of Rao, which the
family
have ever since enjoyed. Rao Aman Singh's grandfather was Rao Nawal
Singh.

Residence. Hamirpur, North- Western Provinces.

AMAN SINGH (of Bhandra), Rdjd.

The title is hereditary, and was originally derived from Raja Nizam
Shah
of Mandla. The title was conferred on Raja Nirpat Singh, grandfather
of
the present Raja. The latter's son is Kunwar Hanman Singh.

Residence. Bhandra, Jabalpur, Central Provinces.

AMANAT FATIMA (of Basitnagar), Begam.
See Basitnagar.

AMAB CHAND, Rdjd.

The Raja, whose family is of Rajput (Katoch) origin, succeeded his
father, Raja Sir Jodbhir Singh, in 1873. Sir Jodbhir Singh was brother-
in-
law of the Maharaja Ran jit Singh of Lahore, and was created a Knight
of the
Most Exalted Order of the Star of India, and granted a personal salute
of 7
guns, by the Government. He has several sons, of whom the elc^sst is
Mian
Narindar Singh.

Residence. Nadaun, Kangra, Punjab.

AMAR SINGH, Rat.

The title is personal, and was conferred on 3oth August 1859.
Residence. Muzaffarnagar, North- Western Provinces.

AMAR SINGH (of Ramgarh), Midn.

The title is hereditary. The family is of Rajput origin, and claims
descent from Singar Chand, Raja of Bilaspur (Kahlur). A descendant of
Raja Singar Chand, named Khushal Singh, conquered Ramgarh and the
adjoining territories, and built a fort at Ramgarh.

Residence. Rdmgarh, Ambala, Punjab.

AMAR SINGH, Sarddr.

Born 1858. The title is hereditary. The family is of Jat origin, and
is
descended from Sardar Sujan Singh, who took possession of Shahkot and
ten
neighbouring villages in 1759 on the decline of the Mughal Empire.
His
successors were reduced to submission by Sardar Fateh Singh Ahluwalia,
and
subsequently by the Maharaja Ran jit Singh of Lahore.

Residence. Shdhkot, Jdlandhar, Punjab.

AMAR SINGH (of Balloki), Sarddr.

The title is hereditary.
Residence. Jdlandhar, Punjab.

AMAR SINGH (of Naugaza), Sarddr.
The title is hereditary.
Residence. Jalandhar, Punjab.

AMAR SINGH, Sarddr.
The title is hereditary.
Residence. Gujranwala, Punjab.

THE GOLDEN BOOK OF INDIA 25

AMAR SINGH, Rai Bahadur.

The title is personal, and was conferred on 2oth May 1890.
Residence. Punjab.

AMARBNDRA KRISHNA DEB, Kumar.

Fourth son of the late Raja Kali Krishna Deb Bahadur, and a de-
scendant of the famous Maharaja Navakissen Deb Bahadur, the founder
of
the Sobha Bazar Raj family of Calcutta.

Residence. No. I Raja" Rally Kissen's Street, Calcutta, Bengal.

AMBIKA CHARAN RAI, Rai Bahddur.

Born in 1827, at Behala, near Calcutta; son of the late Bdbu Durga
Prasad Rai. Is twelfth in descent from Raja Gajendranath Rai, who was
a
Minister in the Court of Delhi in the reign of the Emperor Jahangir.
The
family was settled at Anarpur near Dum-dum, but removed to Behala to-
wards the close of the last century, on account of the Mahratta raids.
The
Rai Bahadur entered the service of Government in 1842, and in 1862
was
appointed Chief Translator of the Calcutta High Court, Appellate
Side.
Has taken an active and enlightened part in municipal affairs,
especially in
connection with the South Suburban Municipality, of which he has been
the elected Chairman ever since the introduction of the elective
system.
He has also been distinguished for public benefactions, in the
building of
schools, digging of tanks, and in other ways. On the occasion of Her
Majesty's Jubilee he obtained from Government the title of Rai
Bahadur,
and a gold medal with the following inscription : " Presented by
Govern-
ment to Umbica Churn Roy, Zaminddr, Chief Translator, High Court, and
Chairman, South Suburban Municipality, with the title of Rai Bahadur,
in
recognition of meritorious and faithful services to the State and
Public.
Presented on the occasion of Her Majesty the Queen Empress's Jubilee,
1 6th February 1887, to Umbica Churn Roy of Behala, 24-Pergunnahs."
He has four sons Surendranath Rai, B.A., B.L., of the High Court,
Cal-
cutta ; Satyendranath Rai ; Amarendranath Rai ; Devendranath Rai.

Residence. Behala, Bengal.

AMETHI, Rdjd of. See Madho Singh of Amethi.

AMIN CHAND (of Bijwara), Sarddr Bahadur.

The title is personal, and was conferred on ist January 1887. The
Sardar Bahadur served for many years under the Punjab Government as
Extra Assistant Commissioner and Assistant Settlement Officer, and
was
subsequently Judicial Assistant Commissioner and Judge of the Small
Cause
Court of Ajmir. He is of a Khatri family ; his son is Ram Chand.

Residence. Bijwdra, Hoshidrpur, Punjab.

AMIR AHMAD, SAYYID, Shams-ul-Ulama.

The title is personal, and was conferred on i6th February 1887, on
the

occasion of the Jubilee of Her Most Gracious Majesty's reign, for
eminent
oriental scholarship. It entitles the holder to take rank in Darbar


im-
mediately after titular Nawabs.

Residence. North- Western Provinces. *

AMIR ALI, THE HON. SAYYID, C.I.E.

Is a Puisne Judge of the High Court of Calcutta. He was created a
Companion of the Most Eminent Order of the Indian Empire, 1 5th
February
1887, in recognition of his position as an eminent member of the
Calcutta
Bar. Belongs to a family that claims descent from the Prophet.

Residence. C alcutta.

AMIR ALI, SAYYID, Khdn Bahadur.

The title is personal, and was conferred on 2ist July 1877.
Residence. Delhi, Punjab.

AMIR ALI KHAN walad FAZL MUHAMMAD KHAN, Mir.

The title is hereditary, the Mir being a descendant of one of the

Mirs
or Chiefs of Sind at the time of the annexation.

Residence. Shikdrpur, Sind.

AMIR HASAN, SAYYID, Khdn.

The title is hereditary.

Residence. Allahabad, North- Western Provinces.

AMIR HUSAIN, SAYYID, C.I.E.

Was created a Companion of the Most Eminent Order of the Indian
Empire, ist January 1888.
Residence.

AMIR MUHAMMAD KHAN, JAMADAR, Khdn Saheb.

The title is personal, and was conferred i6th February 1887, on the
occasion of the Jubilee of Her Most Gracious Majesty's reign, for
military
services.

Residence. With nth Bengal Lancers.

AMIR SHAH, SAYYID, Khan Bahadur.

The Khan Bahadur received the title as a personal distinction on 25th
May 1892. Is an Assistant Surgeon in the Medical Service, and Lecturer
in
Chemistry in the Lahore Veterinary Surgeon.

Residence. Lahore, Punjab.

AMIR, SHAIKH, Khan Bahadur.

The title is personal, and was conferred on ist January 1889.
Residence. B ombay .

AM JAD ALI, SAYYID, Sarddr Bahadur.

Son of Sayyid Anwar Ali. The title was conferred for eminent services
in the Mutiny. His son is Sayyid Kasim Ali, Honorary Magistrate of
Delhi.

Residence. Delhi, Punjab.

AMLIYARA, THAKUR JALAMSINGHJI AMARSINGHJI,

Thdkur of.
A Ruling Chief.

The Thakur, who is a Hindu of Koli (aboriginal) descent, was born
about the year 1860, and succeeded to the gadi on the 23rd April
1876.
The State (which is in Mahi Kantha, Bombay Presidency) contains an
area
of about 157 square miles, and a population (chiefly Hindu) of
12,437.

Residence. Amliydra, Mcihi Kcintha, Bombay.

AMRIK SINGH,. CHHACHI, Sarddr.

Born 1836. The title is hereditary. Is son of Sardar Nehal Singh, who
married the only daughter of Sardar Gurmukh Singh, and was allowed to
take
the name of Chhachi and to succeed to his father-in-law's jdgir.
Sardar
Nehal Singh did valuable service to Government in the rebellion of
1848;
and for his loyalty in the time of the Mutiny received an additional
jdgir.
In 1857 the present Sardar (then Amrik Singh, eldest son of Sardar
Nehal
Singh) raised a risala of mounted police and took them down to Oudh,
where they did excellent service.

Residence. Rawalpindi, Punjab.

AMRIK SINGH, HASSANWALIA, SARDAR, Rai Bahadur.
Granted the title of Rai Bahadur, as a personal distinction, 2nd
January
1893.

Residence . Punj ab.

AMULAK SHIVDAS, Rao Saheb.

The title is personal, and was conferred on i6th February 1887, on
the

occasion of the Jubilee of Her Majesty's reign.
Residence. Ahmadabad, Bombay.

ANANDA DIN, Rat Bahadur.

The title is personal, and was conferred on 24th May 1883.
Residence. Indore, Central India.

ANANDA GAJAPATI RAZ, Mahdrdjd Sir P., G.CV.E.
See Vizianagram.

ANANDATONAI RAI, Rdjd Rai.

This is one of the titles that appear not to have been formally
recognised
by Government. It was originally conferred for approved service by
the
Emperor of Delhi. The earliest Rajas were Raja Pratapaditya Rai and
Raja
Basanta Kumar Rai.

Residence. Khulna, Bengal.

ANANTA CHARLU, P., Rai Bahadur.

Born 1844 ; is an advocate of the High Court, Madras, and appointed
Member of the Madras Municipal Commission in 1884. Granted the
personal title in 1887.

Residence. Madras.

ANTARJI NARAYAN KOTNIS, Rao Saheb.
The title is personal, and was conferred on 20th May 1890.
Residence. Vingurla, Bombay.

ANTHONY, MATING, Thuye-gaung Ngweda ya Min.

The title is personal, and was conferred on ist January 1890. It
means
" Recipient of the Silver Sword for Bravery," and is indicated by the
letters
T.D.M. after the name.

Residence. Legaing, Burma.

APJI AMAR SING-H, Rao Bahadur.

The title was conferred on i6th February 1887, on the occasion of the
Jubilee of Her Majesty's reign.
Residence. Kotah, Rajputdna.

APPAJI RAOJI, Rao Bahadur.

The title is personal, and was conferred on 9th April 1883.
Residence. Sholapur, Bombay.

APPU SASTRIYAR, S., Rao Bahadur.

Born 1855; was granted the personal title in 1889 for services to
education.

Residence. Kumbhakonam, Tanjore, Madras.

ARGOT, Prince of. See Muhammad Munawwar AH, Khdn Bahadur^

Prince of Arcot.

ARGOT, THE PRINCESS OF, Nawdb.
The title is a personal one, recognised in 1886.
Residence. Madras.

ARDESAR DORABJI (of Ahmadabad), Khdn Bahddur.
The title is personal, and was conferred on 24th May 1889.
Residence. Ajmir.

ARJUN SINGH (of Chahal), Sarddr.

Born 1845 > succeeded his father Sardar Joala Singh in 1852. The
title
is hereditary. The Sardar comes of a Chahal Jat family. Its founder,
Katha
Singh, was in the service of the Bhangi Sardars, who had taken
possession of
Lahore in 1764; and his son Karm Singh, on the overthrow of the
Bhangi
chiefs, took service with the Maharaja Ranjit Singh, and ultimately
became
one of his most powerful Sardars. He was killed in the battle of Theri
on
the Yusufzai border ; and his eldest son, Sardar Gurmukh Singh, died
of
cholera at Kohat. Sardar Joala Singh, father of the present Sardar,
was at
this time only four years old ; so the Maharaja Ranjit Singh resumed
many
of the jdgirs of the family.

Residence. Amritsar, Punjab.

ARUMUGAM PILLAI, M., Rao Bahddur.

Born 1860 ; was granted the personal title for good service in the
Madras
Revenue Department.

Residence. Ponneri, Chengalpat, Madras.

ARUR SINGH (of Naushahara Nangal), Sarddr.

Of a Shergil Jat family. The title is hereditary ; the founder of the
family was Sardar Mirza Singh, who joined the Kanahayya confederacy.
His son, Sardar Kanh Singh, and his grandson, Sardar Jassa Singh, were
in
the service of the Majithia Chief.

Residence. Amritsar, Punjab.

ASAD KHAN, C.I.B., Sarddr.

The title is hereditary, as the Sardar is the Chief of the Sarawan
Brahuis.
He was created a Companion of the Most Eminent Order of the Indian
Empire, ist January 1878.

Residence. Baluchistan.

ASAD-ULLA KHAN, Khan Bahadur.
The title is personal, and was conferred on 2nd January 1888.
Residence. Meerut, North-Western Provinces.

ASGHAR ALI, SAYYID, C.S.I., Nawdb Bahddur.

Born about the year 1831 ; son of the Nawab Tahwar Jang. The Sayyid
is the descendant and representative of the famous Nawab Muhammad
Reza
Khan Bahadur, otherwise known as Muzaffar Jang, the Naib Subahdar of
Bengal, who rendered very faithful service to Government in the time
of
Lord Clive. The title of Nawab Bahadur was conferred on him in 1862,
as
a personal distinction, "in consideration of his descent from a noble
of
historical reputation, his father's liberal patronage of native
education, and
his unblemished reputation." Has been a Member of the Bengal
Legislative
Council, and a Municipal Commissioner for the town of Calcutta.
Created
C.S.I. in 1866.

Residence. 156 Lower Circular Road, Calcutta, Bengal.

ASGHAR REZA, SAYYID, Khdn Bahddur.

The title is personal, and was conferred on i6th February 1887, on
the
occasion of the celebration of the Jubilee of Her Majesty's reign. Is
a pro-
minent Zdmindar (landowner) of Krishnaganj in Purniah, Bengal.

Residence. Purniah, Bengal.

ASHRAF-UD-DIN AHMAD, SAYYID, Khdn Bahddur.

Mutawali of the Hughli Imambara. Created a Khan Bahadur, as a


personal distinction, 2nd January 1893.

Residence. Hughli, Bengal.

ASKARAN, SBTH, Rao Saheb.

The title is personal, and was conferred on ist January 1889.
Residence. Raipur, Central Provinces.

ASMAN JAH BAHADUR, His Excellency the Nawdb Sir, K.C.LE.
Prime Minister of the Deccan.

Born in 1839. Is great-grandson of Mir Nizam-tid-din Khan, the second
Nizam of the Deccan ; and one of the three Premier Nobles of the
Hydera-
bad State, known as the illustrious Shamsiya family. His Excellency's
family
name is Mohammad Mazahr-ud-din Khan, and his full titles are Rafath
Jang, Bashir-ud-daula, Umdat-ul-Mulk, Azam-ul-Umara, Amir-i-Akbar,
Asman
Jah Bahadur. The Begam Bashir-un-Nissa Sahiba, daughter of the second
Nizam, was married to the Nawab Tej Jang, Shams-ul-Umara, Amir-i-
Kabir ;
and the sons of this royal marriage were the Nawab Muhammad Sultan-
ud-
din Khan Sabkat Jang, Bashir-ul-Mulk (father of His Excellency), and
the
Nawab Muhammad Rafi-ud-din Khan Umdat-ul-Mulk. The former died
before his father. The latter succeeded to the titles of Shams-ul-
Umara,
Amir-i-Kabir; and in 1869, on the death of His Highness the Nizam
Afzul-
ud-daula, became Co-Regent of Hyderabad with the late Sir Salar Jang,
in
consequence of the minority of His Highness the present Nizam. Under
the Regency the present Prime Minister held the important office of
Minister
of Justice, as it was considered essential that at such a time that
post should
be occupied by one of the highest nobles of the State; and in 1875,
when
the late Sir Salar Jang was absent in Europe, His Excellency, in
conjunction
with another nobleman, acted as Prime Minister and Regent, and
received
the thanks of the Government of India for the skill and ability
displayed
in this exalted capacity. On subsequent occasions also he
occasionally
acted for the late Prime Minister during the absence of the latter
from
Hyderabad. With his brother he acted as the representative of his
uncle, the then Co-Regent, on the occasion of the reception of His
Royal
Highness the Prince of Wales at Bombay; and he also accompanied
His Highness the Nizam to the Imperial Assemblage at Delhi in 1877,
and received the Delhi Medal. In 1877 the Amir-i-Kabir died, and
in 1883, on the death of Sir Salar Jang, the Nawab became a member
of the Council of Regency, and acted as administrator of the State
during the visit to Calcutta of His Highness the Nizam and the two
adminis-
trators later in the same year. In 1887 he was deputed by His High-
ness as his representative in London on the auspicious occasion of the
Jubilee
of Her Most Gracious Majesty's reign, and maintained the dignity of
his
illustrious kinsman's position, as First Prince of the Empire, with an
ability
and liberality that left nothing to be desired. His Excellency had the
honour
of being personally presented to Her Majesty the Empress at Windsor
Castle.
Before his return to the Deccan he was chosen by His Highness for the
highest post in the State, that of Prime Minister; and in this great
and
arduous office, his conspicuous success has gained the hearty approval
of His
Highness, and the congratulations of the whole world. With the loyal
and
brotherly co-operation of his distinguished kinsman, His Excellency
the
Vikar-ul-Umara (also one of the three Premier Nobles of the State),
and all
the most able statesmen of Hyderabad, he has raised the government of
His Highness the Nizam's territories to the highest state of
efficiency and
enlightenment. On the auspicious occasion of the celebration of the
Jubilee
of the reign of Her Majesty the Queen Empress in 1887, he was created
a
Knight Commander of the Most Eminent Order of the Indian Empire ; and

the speech of the British Resident, when investing him with the
insignia on
that occasion, bore ample testimony to the appreciation of the
Imperial
Government. Similar sentiments were expressed by the late Viceroy of
India, Lord Dufferin, on the occasion of Sir Asman Jah's visit to
Calcutta
in 1888.

Sir Asman Jah, like his noble kinsman, the Vikar-ul-Umara, is famous
for his unbounded hospitality, for his proficiency as a sportsman, and
in other
accomplishments of social life ; and both these noblemen, like their
kinsman
Sir Khurshid Jah, K.C.I.E., have shared the fortune of their ancestor
the
Nawab Tej Jang, Shams-ul-Umara, Amir-i-Kabir, in allying themselves
by
marriage with Princesses of the Royal House of Hyderabad.

Residences. Bashir Bagh, Hyderabad ; Sarurnagar, Hyderabad ;
Joha"nnuma,
Hyderabad.

ASMAN JAH BAHADUR, MIRZA, Prince.
The title is the courtesy title of the second son of the late King of
Oudh.
Residence. Calcutta, Bengal.

ASOTHAR, Rdjd of. See Lachhman Parshad Singh.

ATA HUSAIN, SAYYID, Nawdb.

Born 1860. The title is personal, and was conferred on i6th February


1887, on the occasion of the Jubilee of the reign of Her Most
Gracious

Majesty. Married the daughter of His late Highness the Nawab
Muntazim-
ul-Mulk, Mohsin-ud-daula" Faridun Jah Sayyid Mansur Ali Khan Bahadur
Nasrat Jang Nazim of Murshidabad ; and has issue Mahi-ud-din Husain,
born
1885 ; and Main-ud-din Husain, born 1887. Is descended from Sayyid
Khan
Dastur, a Persian follower of the Emperor Humayun, distinguished for
his
bravery, who became Zaminddr of Surjyapur, Purniah, in the Subah of
Bengal.
Succeeded by his son-in-law Sayyid Rai Khan, who obtained &farmdn from
the
great Akbar Shah, Emperor of Delhi ; and Sayyid Rai Khan's son, Raja
Sayyid
Raja, obtained the title of Raja from Shah Shuja, Nazim of Bengal, in
the year
of the Hijrah 1052. After several generations one of his descendants,
Raja
Sayyid Muhammad Jalal of Surjyapur, was defeated by the Nawab Saulat
Jang
at his fort of Jalalgarh, as recorded in the Siyar-ul-Mutakharin. His
grandson,
Raja Sayyid Faqr-ud-din Husain, was a distinguished Zaminddr ; he took
the
decennial settlement from the British Government. Succeeded by his
son,
Raja Sayyid Dedar Husain ; and the latter by his son, Raja Sayyid
Inayat
Husain (father of the present Nawab), who rendered good service to
Govern-
ment both during the Mutinies and in the Bhutan war of 1864. The
Nawab Sayyid Ata Husain is an Honorary Magistrate of the Krishnaganj
subdivision, a Member of the Central Committee of the Imperial
Institute
in India, and a Life-Member of Lady Dufferin's Fund.

Residence. Khagra, Pargana" Surjyapur, Purniah, Bengal.

ATA MUHAMMAD KHAN, KHAGWANI, Nawdb.

Is a descendant of the Khagwani (Afghan) family, and was created a
Nawab in 1875. His father, a distinguished soldier named Gholam
Sarwar
Khan, accompanied Major Lumsden to Kandahar, and on his death the
Nawab Ata Muhammad Khan succeeded to the command of his troop. Was
selected by General Nicholson, who summoned him from Bannu in 1857,
to
join his movable column ; greatly distinguished himself in the
subsequent
campaigns, and on one occasion bravely saved the life of a British
officer,
Lieutenant Humphrey. The Nawab was selected to succeed Nawab Gholam
Hasan Khan as the British representative at the Court of the Amir of
Kabul. He has five sons Ahmad Khan, Muhammad Khan, Muhammad
Nawaz Khan, Mahmud Khan, and Hamid Khan.

Residence. Dera Ismail Khdn, Punjab.

ATA MUHAMMAD, SHAIKH, Khan Bahadur.

The title is personal, and was conferred on 24th May 1889 for distin-
guished service in the Medical Department.

Residence. Hodeida.

ATAR SINGH (of Bhadaur), Sarddr Sir, K. C.I.E.

Son of Sardar Khark Singh; born 1833; * s Chief of Bhadaur, a branch
of the Phul family, from which descend the Chiefs of Patiala, Jind,
and
Nabha ; educated in Sanskrit at Benares ; rendered good service to
British
Government during Mutiny, 1857 (thanked by Government and exempted
from payment of six months' commutation-tax) ; elected a Member of
Asiatic
Society of Bengal 1869, of Senate of Punjab University (then
University
College) 1870, of Anjuman-i-Punjab 1870, and Vice-President thereof
1880,
and in that year Patron of the Sat-Sabha Punjab, and Member of the
Sri-
Guru-Singh Sabha, Lahore, and of the Bengal Philharmonical Society;
in
1877, on the occasion of the Imperial Assemblage at Delhi, received
the
title of "Malaz-ul-Ulama-ul-Fazila"; removed his Library of English,
Arabic, Persian, Sanskrit, and Gurmukhi books from Bhadaur to
Ludhiana,
where it was publicly opened on 24th May 1878; in 1873 translated the
Sakhee Book, or doctrines of the Sikh religion, from Gurmukhi into
English,
in 1876 the Travels of Guru Tej Bahadur and Guru Gobind Singh, and in
1875-76, for the Government, several chapters of the Granth (Sikh
Scriptures)
into Urdu (thanked by Government and Secretary of State) ; appointed
Member of General Committee of Darbar Sahib (Golden Temple),
Amritsar,
1883, and Vice-President and Trustee, Khalsa College Establishment
Committee, 1890; founded Sri-Guru-Singh Sabha at Ludhiana and made
President thereof 1884; granted, 1887, the title of Mahamahopadhyaya
(entitling him to rank in Darbar immediately after titular Rajas) ;
President
of the Khalsa Divan ; Life-Member of the Punjab Branch of the
Countess
of Dufferin's Fund; created C.I.E. 1880, K.C.I.E. 1888; appointed
Member of the Committee of Management of the Aitchison Chiefs'
College,
Lahore.

Residence. Bhadaur House, Ludhiana, Punjab, India.

ATHGARH, RAJA SRI KARAN BHAGIRATHI BIWARTA
PATNAIK, Rdjd of.

A Euling Chief.

The Raja, who is a Hindu of Kayasth descent, was born about the year
1844, and succeeded to the gadi on the 8th February 1869. Descended
from the Raja Niladri Deo Barman, who founded this State in very
early
times by conquest ; and twenty-seven generations have intervened
between
him and the present Raja. The State is one of the Orissa Tributary
Mahals,
Bengal ; its area is about 168 square miles, and its population
(chiefly Hindus)
is about 31,000. The Raja maintains a military force of 341 men.

Residence. Athgarh, Orissa, Bengal.

ATHMALIK, MAHARAJA MAHBNDRA DEO SAWANT,

Mahdrdjd of.

A Ruling Chief.

The Maharaja, who is a Hindu of Kshatriya descent, was born about
the year 1848, and succeeded to the gadi on the 4th February 1877.
This
State is said to have been founded by one Pratap Deo, who, with seven
other
brothers of the Raja of Jaipur, came with their families on a
pilgrimage to
Puri. For some reason or other they had a quarrel with the Raja of
Puri, by
whom two of the brothers were put to death. The remaining five
brothers
fled for their lives to the hills, and settled at Bonai, of which they
took
possession, and of which one of the brothers was made Raja. The sister
of
this Raja of Bonai married Balbhadra Bhanj, a brother of the Keunjhar
Raja,
who, having plotted to dethrone his brother, was put to death by him.
Balbhadra's wife fled to Bonai, and although the Raja of Keunjhar
sent
ambassadors there to bring her back, Pratap Deo refused to allow her
to
return, and went with her to Ramganj in Bod, where she gave birth to a
son.
At that time a Brahman named Gobardhan Deo was Raja of Bod, and as
his only son was dead, he adopted Pratap Dec's nephew as his son and
heir.
At this time a Raja who was a Dom by caste was ruling on the north of
the
Mahanadi. Pratap Deo defeated him, and becoming ruler of his
dominions,
founded a village and named it Pratap-pur after himself. The elevated
plain across the Handpagarh is, to the present day, renowned as the
garh of the Dom Raja ; and a village called Pratap-pur still exists
near it.
Pratap Deo found a handa (metal top) in a tank which he was
excavating
there, and gave the place and the State the name of Handpa. In course
of
time one of the Chiefs who ruled after Pratap Deo divided the State
into
eight subdivisions, and placed a Chief over each, with a view of
bringing
the aborigines into subjection. Hence the State changed its name from
Handpa to Athmalik (" eight chiefs "). The State (which is one of the
Orissa Tributary Mahals) has an area of 730 square miles. Its
population,
21,774, is chiefly Hindu; but there are more than 5000 aboriginal hill-
men.
The Maharaja has a military force of 360 men and i gun.

Residence. Athmalik, Orissa, Bengal.

ATMA SINGH (of Padhana), Sarddr.

The title is personal, and was conferred on 2nd January 1888.

Residence. Lahore, Punjab.

ATMARAM BABA (of Gursarai), Rdjd

Born 1831. The title was conferred on 2nd September 1882. The
Raja is a Dakhani Pandit (Maharashtra Brahman) whose family settled
in
Gursarai under the Peshwas. Dinkar Rao Ana was sent from Puna, after
the death of Gobind Rao Bundela, Subahdar of Jalaun, to manage the
Jalaun district and other territories of the Peshwa in Bundelkhand.
His
second son was the Raja Kesho Rao Dinkar, father of the present
Raja ;
who, with his four sons, performed the most eminent military services
to the
Government throughout the Mutiny in every part of the much-disturbed
Jhansi division, and received in acknowledgment the title of Raja
Bahadur
with a khilat and valuable grants. His son succeeded him in 1882.

Residence. Gursarai, Pargana" Garotha, Jhansi, North-Western
Provinces.

ATTAR SINGH (of Maloha), Sarddr.

The title is hereditary; and the Sardar belongs to a Khatri family,
descended from the Sardar Dyal Singh, whose sons were dispossessed of
much of their territory by the Maharaja Ranjit Singh of Lahore.

Residence. Maloha, Ambala, Punjab.

AULAD ALI, MAULAVI SHAIKH, Khan Bahadur.

Was an Assistant Superintendent of Police, Bengal, and in that
capacity
rendered valuable services to the Government. He has subsequently
taken
an active and useful part in the municipal work of Gya, where he has
been
an Honorary Magistrate and Member of the District Board and Municipal
Committee.

Residence. Gya, Bengal.

AULAD HUSAIN, C.I.E., Khan Bahadur.

The title is personal, and was conferred on ist January 1877, on the


occasion of the Proclamation of Her Most Gracious Majesty as Empress

of
India. He was created a Companion of the Most Eminent Order of the


Indian Empire, ist January 1882.

Residence. Raipur, Central Provinces.

AUNDH, SHRINIVAS PARASHURAM, Pant Pratinidhi of.
A Ruling Chief.

The Pant Pratinidhi of Aundh, who is a Hindu Chief of Brahman
descent, was born on the 27th November 1833, and succeeded to the
gadi

on nth June 1848. He was a Member of the Bombay Legislative Council
from 1866 to 1868. He has four sons Parashuram Rao, Gangadhar Rao,
Bhawan Rao, and Bhagwant Rao. The State was formerly a feudatory of
Satara ; and this was indicated by the title Pratinidhi, which meant "
the
likeness or representation of the Raja," and was conferred on the
Pratinidhi
Parashuram Trimbak during the reign of the Raja Rajaram Maharaj of
Satara. The title of Pant was adopted by Parashuram Pratinidhi in
1846,
on which occasion he paid a nazar of Rs. 2 5,000 to the Raja of
Satara.
Residence. Aundh, Sata>a, Bombay.

AUNG- GYI, MAUNG-, Kyet Thaye zaung shwe Salwe ya Min.

The title is personal, and was conferred on ist June 1888. It means
" Recipient of the Gold Chain of Honour," and is indicated by the
letters
K.S.M. after the name.

Residence. Ye-u, Burma.

AUTAR SINGH (of Mananali), Sarddr.
The title is hereditary.
Residence. Arabella, Punjab.

AVCHAR, NAIK YBSHWANT BADAL, Naik of.
A Ruling Chief.

The Naik, who is a Bhil (of aboriginal descent), was born about the
year 1877. The area of the State (which is one of the Dang States in
Khandesh, Bombay) is about 8 square miles, with a scanty population
of
about 500 Bhils.

Residence. Avchar, Khdndesh, Bombay.

AYODHYANATH MISR SAMAVEDI, PANDIT,

Mahdmahopddhydya.

The title is personal (entitling the holder to take rank in Darbar
immedi-
ately after Rajas), and was conferred on ist January 1890, for
eminence in
oriental scholarship.

Residence. Muzaffarpur, Bengal.

AZAM ALI, SAYYID, Khan Bahadur.
The title is personal, and was conferred on 2nd September 1853.
Residence. Murshidabad, Bengal.

AZAM GAURISHANKAR UDBSHANKAR, C.S.I.

See Gaurishankar.

AZAM SHAH, Rdjd.
The title is hereditary.

Residence. Ndgpur, Central Provinces.

AZIM HUSAIN KHAN, Khan Bahddur.

The title is personal, and was conferred on 3oth July 1*886, for dis-
tinguished military services.

Residence. With 5th Punjab Cavalry.

AZIM KHAN, KUNDI, Khan Bahddur.
The title is personal, and was conferred on 2oth May 1890.
Residence. Dera Ismail Kha"n, Punjab.

AZIM -UD- DIN KHAN, General (of Rampur), Khan Bahddur.

Born 1854. The title was conferred on ist January 1885. Is an
Umarkhel Pathan of the Yusufzai tribe of Afghans, descended from the
old
family of the Nawabs of Najibabad. His grandfather, Nawa"b Najib-ud-
daula, held the title of Amir-ul-Umara, and was Prime Minister at the
Mughal
Imperial Court of Delhi. He succeeded his uncle, Nawab AH Asghar,
Khan
Bahadur, C.S.I., as General Commanding the Rampur State troops, and
as
confidential vakil for the Court to the British Government. Is Vice-
President
of the Council of Regency, Rampur State.

Residence. Moradabad, North- Western Provinces.

AZIZ-ULLA, AKHUND (of Matare), Khdn Bahddur.

The title of Khan Bahadur is personal, and was conferred on 25th
January 1865.

Residence. Hyderabad, Sind.

AZMAT ALI KHAN (of Karnal), Nawdb Bahddur.

Born 1833. Is of a Jat family, claiming descent from King Naushirwan,
who are styled Mandul Naushirwani. Muhamdi Khan, great-grandfather of
Nawab Atmat Ali Khan, and his two brothers, were in the service of
the
Mahrattas at the head of 200 horsemen, and were rewarded by a grant
of
extensive lands in Muzaffarnagar and elsewhere. During the Mahratta
war,
Muhamdi Khan aided the British forces ; and at its close exchanged
his
lands in the Doab for the Pargana of Karnal, one-third of which
descended
to the ancestor of Nawab Azmat Ali Khan. During the disturbances of
1857, the Nawab Ahmad Ali Khan, father of the present Nawab, most
loyally aided the Government with all his retainers ; and his services
were
suitably recognised on the restoration of order. The present Nawab
formally
received that title in 1868; and the further addition of Bahadur on
ist
January 1891.

Residences. Karndl, Punjab ; and Jaroda, Muzaffarnagar, North -
Western
Provinces.

BA TU, MAUNG, Kyet Thaye zaung shwe Salwe ya Mm.

The title is personal, and was conferred on i6th February 1887, on
the

occasion of the Jubilee of Her Most Gracious Majesty's reign. It
means
" Recipient of the Gold Chaift of Honour," and is indicated by the
letters
K.S.M. after the name.

Residence. Henzada, Burma.

BA U, MAUNG, Thuye-gaung Ngweda ya Min.

The title is personal, and was conferred on i6th February 1887, on
the

occasion of the Jubilee of Her Most Gracious Majesty's reign. It
means
" Recipient of the Silver Sword for Bravery," and is indicated by the
letters
T.D.M. after the name.

Residence. Sal win, Burma.

BA WA, MAUNG, Kyet Thaye zaung shwe Salwe y a Min.

The title is personal, and was conferred on 2Qth May 1886. It means
" Recipient of the Gold Chain of Honour," and is indicated by the
letters
K.S.M. after the name.

Residence. Rangoon, Burma.

BABA KHBM SINGH, C.I.E.

Was created a Companion of the Most Eminent Order of the Indian

Empire, ist January 1879.

BACHAL walad GHULAM NAJAF KHAN, Mir.

The title is hereditary, the Mir being a descendant of one of the

Mirs
or Chiefs of Sind at the time of the annexation.

Residence. Shikdrpur, Sind.

BACHITTAR SINGH (of Shahabad), Sarddr.
The title is hereditary.
Residence. Ambala, Punjab.

BADAN SINGH (of Malaudh), Sarddr.

The title is hereditary, the Sardars of Malaudh (like those of
Bhadaur)
being descendants of Phul, and therefore of the same stock with the
Phulkian
Chiefs of Patiala, Jind, and Nabha. The family is Jat Sidhu, and
conquered
the district of Malaudh from the Afghans of Maler Kotla in 1754.
Sardar
Badan Singh's father was Sardar Mit Singh, who, with his brother
Fateh
Singh, did good service during the war of 1845-46, supplying fifty
horse-
men, and himself fighting in person at the battles of Mudki and
Firuzshahr.
In 1857 he showed conspicuous loyalty, being always ready with men
and
money to assist the Government ; he received as a reward the remission
of

a year's commutation money, while one-sixteenth of the whole sum was
excused in perpetuity. In 1872, when Malaudh was attacked by the
Kukas,
Sardar Badan Singh was badly wounded by the rebels.
Residence. Malaudh, Ludhia"na, Punjab.

BADAR-I-MUNIB, Shdhzdda.

The title is personal, and was recognised 4th February 1853, the
Shahzada being a descendant of the royal family of Kabul.
Residence. Ludhidna, Punjab.

BADI-UD-DIN, KHWAJA, Khan Bahadur.
The title is personal, and was conferred on 24th February 1882.
Residence. Bulddna, Bardr.

BADBI DAS, MUKIM, Rai Bahadur.

Born 1833. The title was conferred on ist January 1877, on the
occasion
of the celebration of the Proclamation of Her Majesty as Empress of
India.
Residence. Calcutta, Bengal.

BADRI DAT TOSHI, PANDIT, Rai Bahadur.

Born 4th October 1830. The title is personal, and was conferred on
1 6th February 1887, on the occasion of the Jubilee of the reign of
Her
Most Gracious Majesty. The Rai Bahadur's ancestor held the office of
Minister of Kumaon in the time of the Chand and Gurkha Raj.

Residence. Kumaon, North-Western Provinces.

BAG-HAL, EAJA DHYAN SINGH, Rdjd of.
A Ruling Chief.

Born about 1841 ; succeeded to the gadi 26th July 1878. Belongs to
a Puar Rajput (Hindu) family, descended from Ujjab De, who came from
Ujjain, and conquered Baghal at an unknown date. The State was
overrun
by the Gurkhas from Nepal between 1803 and 1815 ; but after their
expul-
sion in the latter year, the Puar chief (about twenty-fifth in descent
from
Ujjab De) was recognised by Government. Kishan Singh, who had been
raised to the rank of Raja in 1875, died on 23rd July 1877, and was
suc-
ceeded by his infant son, Raja Moti Singh; but the latter also died on
i2th
October 1877, when the present Raja, a collateral descendant of Ujjab
De,
succeeded. The area of the State (which is one of the Simla Hill
States)
is about 124 square miles; its population 20,633, chiefly Hindus. The
Raja maintains a military force of 150 infantry and i gun.

Residence. Baghal, Punjab.

BAGHAL SINGH, Rai Bahadur.
The title was conferred on 24th May 1883.
Residence. Sialkot, Punjab.

BAGHAT, RANA DALIP SINGH, Rand of.
A Ruling Chief.

Born 1860; succeeded to^ the gadi on the 3ist January 1862. Belongs
to a Rajput family, the ancestor of whom came from Dorar Nagri in the
Deccan, and acquired possession of the State by conquest. During the
Gurkha wars (1803-15) the conduct of the then chief, Rana Mohindar
Singh, had been unfriendly; so on the expulsion of the Gurkhas,
three-
fourths of the Baghat State was sold to Patiala for Rs. 1,30,000 and
the
remaining fourth was granted to Rana Mohindar Singh and his heirs. He
died without issue on nth July 1839, and the State was at first
treated as
lapsed; but in 1842 Lord Ellenborough restored it to Rana Bije Singh,
brother of Mohindar Singh. He died in January 1849, leaving no direct
heir,
and the State was at first again treated as lapsed; but in 1861 Lord
Canning
restored it, for good and loyal conduct, to Umaid Singh, a cousin of
the late
Rana. But before the sanad conferring the grant could be prepared,
Umaid
Singh died, and his last request was that his son Dalip Singh might
succeed
him. In January 1862 a sanad was granted to Rana Dalip Singh. The
area of the State (which is one of the Simla Hill States) is about 60
square
miles; its population 8339, chiefly Hindus. The Rana maintains a
military
force of 25 soldiers.

Residence. Baghat, Punjab.

BAGLI, THAKUR RAGHUNATH SINGH, Thdkur of.
A Ruling Chief.

The Thakur is descended from a Rahtor Rajput family (Hindu). He
was born 1860 ; and succeeded to the gadi in January 1869. The State
is
enclosed within that of Gwalior, so that its exact area is not known.
Its
population is 14,645, chiefly Hindus.

Residence. >Bagli, Indore, Central India.

BAHADUR ALI KHAN, Nawdb Bahadur.

The Nawab Bahadur is the son of the Nawab Amir AH Khan, who was
the grandson of His late Majesty Shuja-ud-daula, King of Oudh.
Residence. Lucknow, Oudh.

BAHADUR SINGH, THAKUR, Rao Saheb.

The title was conferred on ist January 1877, on the occasion of the
Proclamation of Her Most Gracious Majesty as Empress of India.
Residence. Masuda, Ajmir.

BAHAR MAL, Rao.

The title was conferred on ist January 1877, on the occasion of the
Proclamation of Her Most Gracious Majesty as Empress of India.
Residence. Merwara.

BAHAWALPUR, HIS HIGHNESS RUKN-UD-DAULA NASRAT
JANG HAFIZ-UL-MULK MUKHLIS-UD-DAULA NAWAB
SIR SADIK MUHAMMAD KHAN BAHADUR, G.C.S.I.,
Nawdb of.

A Ruling Chief.

Born in 1862 ; succeeded to ft\t gadi in 1866. Belongs to a Daudputra
(Muhammadan) family, whose ancestor came from Sind about the middle
of the 1 8th century. Muhammad Sadik Khan was Governor of Bahawalpur
under the Sikh Government ; and the chiefs of his clan retained
virtual
independence till his second son, the Nawab Bahawal Khan I., reduced
the
whole tribe, and consolidated his power. By the treaties of Lahore
between
the British Government and the Maharaja Ranjit Singh, the latter was
con-
fined to the right bank of the Satlej ; and thereby Bahawalpur was
protected
from the Sikhs. The Nawab rendered faithful assistance to the
Government
in the first Afghan war; and during the siege of Multan the troops of
Bahawal Khan III. co-operated with Sir Herbert Edwardes. Bahawal Khan
III. was succeeded by his younger son, Saadat Yar Khan ; but the
latter was
subsequently deposed by his elder brother, Haji Khan, who after his
victory
assumed the name of Fateh Muhammad Khan. He died in 1858, and was
succeeded by his son, who assumed the name of Bahawal Khan IV. He
had to face some serious rebellions, and died suddenly in 1866,
leaving his
son, the present Nawab, a boy of only four years old, in a difficult
and
dangerous position. It was resolved, however, by the Paramount Power,
that
the young Nawab should be supported ; and during his minority the
adminis-
tration was placed in British hands, native officers being appointed,
so that
there might be no break in continuity of system on the Nawab's coming
of
age. Since then vast improvements have been made in the irrigation
system
of the country, which depends upon inundation canals for the greater
part of
its cultivation. Existing works have been entirely remodelled, and
new
canals constructed in several parts of the territory, the result of
which is that
the revenues have nearly doubled. Courts of Justice have been
established,
under the general control of a Chief Court, presided over by three
native
gentlemen, and are highly popular. A system of Public Instruction,
com-
prising primary, middle, and superior education, has been set on
foot ; a
central jail has been built, and the prison system greatly improved.
Three
new towns have been founded. A stud farm for improving the breed of
horses has been started, and the extensive jungles have been placed
under
the scientific supervision of a trained Forest Conservator. The area
of the
State is 17,285 square miles; its population is 573,494, chiefly
Muhamma-
dans, with 91,272 Hindus. His Highness the Nawab Bahadur maintains a
military force of 443 cavalry, 1352 infantry, and n guns, and is
entitled to
a salute of 1 7 guns. He was created a Knight Grand Commander of the
Most Exalted Order of the Star of India, i6th November 1880.

Residences. The Palace, Bahawalpur, Punjab ; Bahawalpur House,
Lahore.

BAI (INDORB), THAKUR MANRUP SINGH, Thdkur of.
A Ruling Chief.

The Thakur is descended from a Rajput (Hindu) family, and succeeded
to the^zft/z in 1880.

Residence. Bai, Indore, Central India.

BAIDYANATH PANDIT, Rdjd.

The title is personal, and was conferred on ist January 1889.
Residence. Cuttack, Bengal.

BAIKANTHA NATH DB, Kumar, Rdjd Bahadur.
The title was conferred on ist January 1889.
Residence. Balasor, Bengal.

BAIKANTHPUR, RAIKAT PANINDRA DBB, Raikat of.

This is one of those customary titles (of which there are many,
especially
in Bengal) which have never been officially recognised by Government,
and
which consequently must, for the present, be regarded as only courtesy
titles.
The family is said to be descended from a brother of the founder of
the
Kuch Behar Raj ; and the title " Raikat," which is of high antiquity,
has
been held to indicate that the early Raikats of Baikanthpur were
Prime
Ministers and Commanders-in-Chief of the Kamrup kingdom, of which
Kuch
Behar was an important part. The present Raikat is stated to be the
twentieth in succession who has inherited the title; and during the
last
Bhutan war the family rendered good service to Government.

Residence. Baikanthpur, Jalpaiguri, Bengal.

BAIKUNTA NARAYAN SINGH, Rdjd.

This is one of the titles that appear never to have been formally
recog-
nised by Government. The Raja is the Zaminddr of Tundi in Manbhum.
The family claims to be of Surya Vansa Rajput descent, and to have
come from
Ajudhya. They have the following system of titles for the various
members
of the family of the Zaminddr or proprietor of the Rdj. For the head
of
the family, Rdjd ; for his wife, Rani.

ist son
2nd son
3rd son
4th son
5th and younger sons .
Tikait.
ist son's ist son
Kumdr.
2nd son
Thdkur.
3rd son
Nunu.
Babu.
Thdkur.
Kumdr.
Nunu.

For a similar system prevailing in the Nawagarh family, see under
Banwari Lai Singh, Raja.

Residence. Tundi, Mdnbhum, Bengal.

BAISNI (of Khimsipur), Thakurani.
The title of Rao is hereditary in this lady's family.
Residence. Farrukhabad, North- Western Provinces.

BAJANA, MALBK NASIB KHANJI DARIYA KHANJI,

Tdlukddr of.
A Ruling Chief.

Born 1 4th May 1820; succeeded to the gadi 23rd April 1841.
Descended from a family of Jat Musalmans ; is usually styled " Malek
Shri."
His son is named Jiwan Khan. The area of the State is 183 square
miles ;
its population 15,877, partly Hindu, partly Muhammadan. The Malek
Shri
maintains a military force of 60 cavalry and 230 infantry.

Residence. Bajdna, Kdthidwdr, Bombay.

BAKAR ALI KHAN, SAYYID, C.I.E.

Was created a Companion of the Most Eminent Order of the Indian

Empire, ist January 1883.

Residence.

BAKAR MIRZA, Mirza Bahadur.

The Mirza Bahadur is a son of the Nawab Mumtaz-ud-daula, who was a
grandson of His late Majesty Muhammad AH Shah, King of Oudh.
Residence. Oudh.

BAKASREI, Diwdn, Rao Bahadur.
The title is personal, and was conferred on 2ist June 1872.
Residence. Hyderabad, SincL

BAKHSHI KHOMAN SINGH (of Indore), C.SJ.

Was created a Companion of the Most Exalted Order of the Star of
India, ist January 1877,. on the occasion of the Proclamation of Her
Most
Gracious Majesty as Empress of India.

Residence. Indore, Central India.

BAKHSHISH SINGH, SINDHANWALIA, Sarddr.

The Sardar succeeded Sardar Shamsher Singh (who had adopted him as
a scion of the same family, with the consent of Government) on the
death
of the latter in 1873. The Sindhanwalia family, Jats of the Sansi
tribe, is
the acknowledged head of all Sikh families between the Bias and the
Indus ;
and is descended from the same stock as the late Maharaja Ranjit Singh
of
Lahore. The common ancestor, Budh Singh, had two sons, Chanda Singh
and Jodh Singh ; the latter was the forefather of the late Royal
family of
Lahore, while from the former descended Sardar Shamsher Singh and the

Sindhanwalia family. On the occasion of the rebellion of Diwan Mul
Raj,
Sardar Shamsher Singh remained faithful to the British Government, and
in
December 1846 he was appointed a member of the Council of Regency.
On the final annexation of the Punjab }\\sjdgirs were continued to him
for
life, and in 1862 he was appointed an Honorary Magistrate, and was
per-
mitted to adopt the present Sardar, a large portion of his jdgirs to
descend
in perpetuity, and the title to be hereditary.
Residence. Rajd Sansi, Amritsar, Punjab.

BAKHSHISH SINGH, Kunwdr.

The title is personal.
Residence. Lahore, Punjab.

BAKHTAWAR SINGH, Rat Bahadur.

Is a Court Official of the Mewar State (Udaipur), Rajputana. Received
the title as a personal distinction on 2th May 1892.
Residence. Udaipur, Rajputdna.

BAKHTGARH (Bhopdwar), THAKUR PARTAB SINGH,

Thdkur of.

A Ruling Chief.

The Thakur was born in 1863, and succeeded to the gadi in 1869. He
is descended from a Rajput (Hindu) family. The population of the State
is
8258, chiefly Hindus.

Residence. Bakhtgarh, Bhopdwar, Central India.

BAKHTIYAR SHAH, Prince.

The title is a courtesy one. His father, Prince Anwar Shah, was a
member of the Tippu family of Mysore, and grandson of Tippu Sultan.
Residence. C alcutta.

BAL MUKAND, RAI, Rai Bahadur.

Born 5th November 1834. The title is personal, and was conferred on
1 6th February 1887, the Rai Bahadur having received a Certificate of
Honour
at the Imperial Assemblage at Delhi in 1877. His ancestors (who were
Khattris) came from the Punjab about 300 years ago, and became mer-
chants at Agra. He did good service in the Mutiny of 1857, by saving
some of the records of the Agra Board of Revenue; and in 1866 was
appointed a permanent Deputy Collector.

Residence. Agra, North- Western Provinces.

BAL PARUSHURAM PANDIT, Rao Saheb.
The title is personal, and was conferred on 3oth March 1870.
Residence. Satara, Bombay.

BALA PARSHAD, PANDIT, Rai Bahadur.

The title is personal, and was conferred on i6th February 1887, on
the
occasion of the Jubilee of the reign of Her Most Gracious Majesty the
Empress. The Rai Bahadur had done good service in the Rajputana-Malwa
Railway Police, and retired on pension on ist November 1891. He has
no
son ; his brothers are Pandit Manik Parshad of Indore, born 1851; and
Pandit Kalika Parshad of the Bombay Police (retired in 1891), born
1857.

Residence. Rajputa"na-Ma"lwd Railway Police.

BALA SHASTRI AGASB, Mahdmahopddhydya.

The title is personal, and was conferred on i6th February 1887, on
the

occasion of the Jubilee of the reign of Her Most Gracious Majesty the
Empress, in recognition of eminence in oriental scholarship. It
entitles him
to take rank in Darbar immediately after titular Rajas.

Residence. Ratnagiri, Bombay.

BALAJI KRISHNA BENDIG-ERI, Rao Bahadur.
The title is personal, and was conferred on 29th May 1886.
Residence. Belgaum, Bombay.

BALASINOR, NAWAB MUNAWAR KHANJI, Bdbi of.
A Ruling Chief.

Born 1844; succeeded his father, Nawab Jorawar Khanji Babi, in
November 1882. This family is Pathan (Muhammadan), claiming descent
from Sher Khanji Babi, son of Bahadur Khanji Babi, a distinguished
officer
in the Imperial Service of Delhi. The area of the State is 189 square
miles ;
its population 46,328, chiefly Hindus. The Nawab Babi maintains a
military force of 60 cavalry, 177 infantry, and 5 guns, and is
entitled to a
salute of 9 guns.

Residence. Balasinor, Rewa" Ka"ntha, Bombay.

BALAVADRA PRASAD DAS, Rdjkumdr Bairiganjon Bhuyan

Mahdpatra.

This is one of the titles that seem never to have been formally
recognised
by the Government. The family belongs to the Ganga Varna, the ancient
race
of the Gajapati kings of Orissa, from whom the title was derived. The
Raj-
kumar has done good service by providing elephants for Government in
time
of war. His eldest son, whose name is Umakanta Das Mahapatra, bears
the
title of Tikait Bdbu ; the younger sons Bisambhar Das, Nityananda
Das,
Sachidananda Das, Achutananda Das are all styled Bdbu.

Residence. Balason, Orissa.

BALBAHADUB SINGH, Rdjd.

The title is hereditary, and was conferred on ist January 1886.
Residence. Raigarh, Central India.

BALBIR SINGH (of Kattahr), Rdjd.
The title is hereditary.
Residence. Kdngra, Punjab.

BALDBO SINGH (of Awa), Rdjd.

Born loth July 1850. .The title is hereditary, the tradition being
that
it was originally conferred by the Maharana of Udaipur. Belongs to a
family
of Jadon Rajputs, descended from Thakur Chatarbhuj, a Zaminddr of
Nari
in the Chhata Pargana, who, in the time of Muhammad Shah (1719-48),
settled at Jalesar. His grandson, Bakht Singh, gave military service
to the
Maharaja of Bharatpur and the Thakur of Amargarh, and gradually
estab-
lished himself as an independent Chief. Finally he obtained a sanad
from
the Mahrattas, authorising him to build a fort at Awa ; and his
successor,
Hira Singh, built the existing fort. In the Mahratta war Hira Singh
was
able to render some service to the British Power; and consequently in
1803
obtained from General Lake a sanad confirming him in possession. He
was
succeeded by his son, Pitambar Singh, who is said to have been
recognised
as a Raja by Lord Auckland in 1838. Pitambar Singh adopted from the
descendants of the younger brother of Bakht Singh, Raja Prithvi
Singh.
The latter did excellent service during the Mutiny ; he raised horse
and foot,
attacked the insurgent villages, restored the whole of the
neighbourhood to
order, collected the revenue, and remitted it to Agra. " In fact," to
quote
the Report of the District Officer, " he held the country till the
taking of
Delhi, and the arrival of our own troops enabled us to resume
possession."
He died in 1876, leaving one son, Raja Chatarpal Singh, a minor. The
latter died in 1884, and was succeeded by his cousin, the present
Raja.

Residence. Awa, Etah, North- Western Provinces.

BALIKRAM, Rao Bahadur.

The title is personal, and was conferred on ist April 1881.
Residence. Bulddna, Berar.

BALKISHAN AMAR SINGH, Rao Bahadur.
The title is personal, and was conferred on 25th June 1884.
Residence. Nsik, Bombay.

BALLABH DAS, Rai Bahadur.

The title is personal, and was conferred on $rd February 1883.
Residence. Jabalpur, Central Provinces.

BALSAN, RANA BIR SINGH, Rdnd of.
A Ruling Chief.

Born 1860; succeeded to the gadi i7th November 1884. Belongs to
a Rajput (Hindu) family, his ancestor, Alak Singh, the founder of the
family,
having been a scion of the ruling House of Sirmur. The Chiefs of
Balsan
were feudatories of Sirmur till 1815, when SLsanadvras granted by the
British
Government. Bhup Singh, the grandfather and predecessor of the
present
Chief, did good service in the Mutiny of 1857, and was rewarded with
the
title of Rana. His son, the Kunwar Govardhan Singh, predeceased him ;
so
he was succeeded by his grandson, the present Rana, The area of the
State
(which is one of the Simla Hill States) is 51 miles; its population is
5190,
chiefly Hindus. The Rana maintains a military force of 50 infantry.

Residence. Balsan, Punjab.

BALUCH KHAN, Sarddr.

The title is hereditary.
Residence. Baluchistan.

BALWANT RAO (of Karwi), Rao.

Born 1828. The title is hereditary. Is a Mahratta Brahman, the grand-
son by adoption of Venaik Rao, who was the son of Amrit Rao, brother
of
the last Peshwa, Baji Rao. His two uncles joined in the rebellion of
1857,
and their estates were confiscated, and themselves deported. But
Balwant
Rao proved his loyalty, and is now the head of the family at Karwi.
He
has adopted a son, Moreshwar Rao, born i7th August 1872.

Residence. Karwi, North- Western Provinces.

BALWANT RAO BHUSKUTB, Rao Saheb.
The title is personal, and was conferred on 2oth May 1890.
Residence. Nimar, Central Provinces.

BALWANT RAO GOPAL JAVDEKAR, Rao Bahadur.
The title is personal, and was conferred on 3ist January 1883.
Residence. Poona, Bombay.

BALWANT SINGH (of Bir Chima), Sarddr.

The title is hereditary, the Sarddr being the head of the younger
branch
of the Phulkian family of Malaudh (see Badan Singh, Sarddr), descended
from
Phul, the common ancestor of the Houses of Patidla, Jind, Nabha, and
Bhadaur. He is the son of the late Sarddr Hakikat Singh of Bir. On
the
death of his brother, Ranjit Singh, he succeeded to the Bir estate,
having
before held that of Chima only. He is an Honorary Magistrate, and did
excellent service in the troubled times of 1857.

Residence. Ludhiana, Punjab.

BALWANT SINGH (of Botala), Sarddr.

The title is hereditary, the Sardar being a descendant of Dhanna
Singh,
who was an associate of Sardar Jodh Singh, great-grandfather of
Maharaja
Ranjit Singh.

Residence. Gujra"nwa"la, Punjab.

BALWANT SINGH (of Rangarh Nangal), Sarddr.

The title is hereditary, the Sardar being descended from a Rajput
family
whose ancestor came originally from Bikanir, and founded Rangarh
Nangal
in the Gurdaspur district, Punjab. Sardar Karam Singh was the head of
the
family in the time of the Maharaja Ranjit Singh ; and when the latter
seized
Lahore and Amritsar, Karam Singh gave in his allegiance. His
grandson,
Sardar Argan Singh, served in the battle of Sobraon. During the
rebellion
of 1848 he joined the rebels, and his estates were confiscated. A
consider-
able pension was subsequently granted to him. The late Raja of Nabha
was
a second cousin of Sardar Balwant Singh, as Sardar Argan Singh's
sister
married Raja Devindra Singh, Chief of Nabha.

Residence. Gurddspur, Punjab.

BALWANT SINGH (of Barehta), Thdkur.

Born 1836. The title is hereditary, the ancestors of the Thakur
having
been in the Narsinghpur district from time immemorial, and long known
for
their loyalty ; it was originally conferred by one of the ancient Gond
Rajas
of Mandla. Belongs to a Raj Gond family; his son is named Barilol
Singh.

Residence. Barehta, Narsinghpur, Central Provinces.

BALWANT SINGH (of Piprasur), Rdjd.

The title is hereditary, the Raja being the son of the Raja Anrudh
Singh,
and descended from Debi Singh, Raja of Orchha.

Residence. Sa"gar, Central Provinces.

BAMANBOB, The Chief of .
A Ruling Chief.

The area of the State is 12 square miles, with a population of 987.
Residence. Bamanbor, Ka"thia"wa"r, Bombay.

BAMBO KHAN, Jam. See Bhambo Khan, Jam.

BAMRA, RAJA SUDHAL DEO, C.I.E., Rdjd of.
A Ruling Chief.

Born about 1849; succeeded to the gadi on i2th May 1869. I s
descended from a Gangabansi Rajput family, from the same stock as that
of
the Gajpati Rajas of Puri in Orissa, which acquired the Bamra
territory by
conquest in early times. He was created a Companion of the Most
Eminent
Order of the Indian Empire, ist January 1889. The Raja's son,
Sachidan-
and, bears the courtesy title of Tikait Babu. The area of the State is
1988
square miles; and its population is 81,286, many Hindus, but with
over
50,000 belonging to Abor (aboriginal) tribes.

Residence. Bamra, Central Provinces.

BANGANAPALE, NAWAB SAYYID FATH ALI KHAN

BAHADUR, C.S.I., Nawdb of.

A Ruling Chief.

Born loth July 1848; succeeded to the gadi in 1868. Is a Shiah
Muhammadan, and a Sayyid (or descendant of the Prophet). He was
created a Companion of the Most Exalted Order of the Star of India,
ist
January 1877, on the occasion of the Proclamation of Her Most
Gracious
Majesty as Empress of India. The family held an ancient title,
Jagirdar of
Banganapale; the title of Nawab was conferred in 1876. His son is
named
Sayyid Gulam AH Khan. The area of the State is 166 square miles; its
population 30,754, chiefly Hindus, the Muhammadans being 5952. The
Chief has a salute of 6 guns.

Residence. Banganapale, Madras.

BANSDA, MAHARAWAL SHRI PRATAPSINGHJI
GULABSINGHJI, Rdjd of.

A Ruling Chief.

Born 6th December 1863; succeeded to the gadi on the 6th March
1876. The family is Solanki Rajput (Hindu), and is styled "Vansdia";
it
is descended from a chieftain of ancient times named Muldeoji. The
area of
the State is 215 square miles ; its population is 34,908, chiefly
Hindus. The
Maharawal maintains a military force of 24 cavalry, in infantry, and
i
gun, and is entitled to a salute of 9 guns.

Residence. Bansda, Surat, Bombay.

BANSPAT SINGH (of Barah), Rdjd.

Born 1834. The title was conferred as a personal distinction on 3th
November 1858, for eminent services rendered during the Mutiny, the
Raja
having loyally supported the police, escorted the revenue-collections
during
the disturbances, and proceeded in December 1857 with 1000 followers
to
rid Pargana Khairagarh of a formidable band of rebels who had
gathered
there. Is descended from the same ancestry as His Highness the
Maharaja
of Rewah, and belongs to a Baghel Rajput family.

Residence. Barah, Allahabad, North-Western Provinces.

BANSWARA, HIS HIGHNESS RAI-I-RAYAN MAHARAWAL
SRI LACHMAN SINGH BAHADUR, Mahdrdwal of.

Born 3oth January 1838; succeeded to the gadi in 1842. Is a
descendant (through the Maharawal Udai Singh of Dungarpur, q.v.} of
the
Maharanas of Udaipur (" Children of the Sun "), and consequently a
Sisodiya
Rajput. Udai Singh, Maharawal of Dungarpur, gave the territory of
Banswara to his younger son Jagmal Singh, with the title of
Maharawal.
The area of the State (including that of its feudatory Kusalgarh) is
about
1500 square miles ; its population 175,145, chiefly Hindus, but with
about
50,000 Bhils (aboriginal). The Maharawal maintains a military force
of
640 cavalry, 783 infantry, and 14 guns. His Highness is entitled to a
salute of 1 5 guns. His son is the Maharaj-Kunwar Sambhu Singh
Bahadur.
Residence. Bdnswdra, Rajputa"na.

Sid Harth

unread,
Feb 4, 2010, 12:30:50 PM2/4/10
to
BANTWA (GIDAR), SAMAT KHAN BABI, Khdn of.

A Ruling Chief.

Born 1854; descended from a Pathan (Muhammadan) family.
Residence. Gidar, Kdthidwdr, Bombay.

BANTWA (MANAWADAR), KHAN SHRI FATHEH-UD-DIN

KHANJI, Khdn of.
A Ruling Chief.

Born 1835 > succeeded to the gadi 28th March 1888. There are now
four divisions of the Bantwa State ; the united area is 221 square
miles, the
united population 38,517, chiefly Hindus. The Chief of Bantwa has the
title of Khan Shri ; his family name is Babi.

Residence. Manawadar, Kdthidwdr, Bombay.

BANWARI ANANDA DEB, Mahdrdj Kumar.

The title is personal, and was conferred on the Maharaj Kumar as the
adopted son of the late Maharaja Jagatindra Banwari Govinda Bahadur
of
Banwaribad, who rendered good service during the famine of 1866-67.
The
Maharaja Jagatindra's father, Nityananda, received from the old
Mughal
Government the title of " Azimat-ullah Amir-ul-Mulk Jagatindra
Danishnanda
Sipahdar Jang Bahadur."

Residence. Murshidabad, Bengal.

BANWARI LAL SINGH, Rdjd.

This is one of the titles that appear never to have been formally

recognised by Government. The family claims that its ancestor came
from
Baghelkhand, and set up the Raj of Palganj in Hazaribagh; and that a
branch of this family obtained the Zaminddri of Nawagarh in Manbhum,

part of which is held by the present Raja, part by Thakur Giridhari
Singh,
and part by the Thakurani, widow of Thakur Bhola Prasad Singh. In
Raja
Banwari Lai Singh's branch of the family the following titles are
held : by
the head, Rdjd ; by his wife, Rani; by the eldest son, Tikait ; by
the
second son, Kumar ; by the third son, Thakur ; by the fourth son,
Nunu ;
by the fifth and younger sons, Bdbu.

Residence. Nawa*garh, Manbhum, Bengal.

BANYIN, KUN SAW, Myoza of.
A Ruling Chief.

The Myoza is one of the Shan Chiefs, and rules over a State of about
230 square miles.

Residence. Banyin, Shan States, Burma.

BAONI, His Highness the Nawdb Bahadur of.
A Ruling Chief.

The Nawab was born in 1863 ; and succeeded to the gadi on the 5th
October 1883. He is descended from a Pathan (Muhammadan) family of
Bundelkhand ; and his full titles are " His Highness Azam-ul-Umara,
Fakhr-ud-daula, Main-ul-Mulk, Saheb-i-Jah, Mihin Sardar, Nawab
Muhammad
Hasan Khan Bahadur, Zafar Jang." His ancestor, the Nawab Ghazi-ud-din
Khan, at one time Minister at the Imperial Court of the Mughals, was
grandson of Asaf Jah, Nizam of Hyderabad, and was also connected with
the
family of the Nawab Vazir of Oudh. He obtained a grant of fifty-two
villages
from the Peshwa in Bundelkhand. His son, the Nawab Vazir-ud-daula
Khan, was recognised as Chief by the British Government. The grandson
of the latter was the Nawab Muhammad Mehdi Hasan Khan, the father of
the present Nawab.

The family banner was displayed at the Imperial Assemblage at Delhi
in
1877, with the motto, "The authority is God's, and the country is
God's."
The area of the State is about 117 square miles; its population is
17,055,
chiefly Hindus, but with 2342 Muhammadans. The Nawab Bahadur
maintains a military force of 9 cavalry, 185 infantry, and 2 guns. He
is
entitled to a salute of 1 1 guns.

Residence. Baoni, Bundelkhand, Central India.

BAPU DBVA SHASTRI, C.I.B., Mahdmahopddhydya.

Born ist November 1821. The title is personal. It was conferred on


1 6th February 1887, on the occasion of the Jubilee of the reign of

Her Most Gracious Majesty the Empress, in consideration of emin-
ence as an oriental scholar ; and it entitles him to take rank in
Darbar
immediately after titular Rajas. Belongs to a Mahratta Brahman
family,
long settled, in a good position as bankers and men learned in Hindi
theology, at Tonka on the Godavari in the Ahmadabad district.
Educated

at Nagpur ; became Professor of Mathematics in the Benares College in
1842. In 1852, received a reward of Rs.2Ooo from Government for a
Hindi treatise on algebra, and in 1869 a khilat of Rs. 1000 and two
shawls.
Is a Fellow of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, of the Royal Asiatic
Society,
and of the Calcutta and Allahabad Universities. Is the author of many
works on Sanskrit literature and mathematics ; and in 1878 was created
a
Companion of the Most Eminent Order of the Indian Empire.
Residence. Benares, North-Western Provinces.

BAPU RAO PATWARDHAN, PANDIT, Rao Saheb.

The title is personal, and was conferred on ist June 1888.
Residence. Ndgpur, Central Provinces.

BAPUBHAI DAYASHANKAR, Rao Saheb.

The title is personal, and was conferred on i;th July 1867.
Residence. Ahmadabad, Bombay.

BARAMBA, RAJA BISAMBHAR BIRBAR MANGRAJ
MAHAP ATTAR, Rdjd of.

A Ruling Chief.

Born 1880; succeeded to the gadi i5th July 1881, and is still a
minor.
The Raja is descended from a Kshatriya (Hindu) family. The history of
the Baramba State commences from the year 1305 A.D., with Hatakeshwar
Raut, a famous wrestler, who served Kishori Narsingh, the ruler of
Orissa,
and in recognition of his valour was presented with two villages (by
name
Sonkha and Mohuri) on the north bank of the Mahanadi river, three
miles
south of the present Baramba headquarters. These two villages were
then
owned and inhabited by Kandhs. Hatakeshwar drove them away to about
four miles north and settled in Baramba, which has since been the
residence
of all his successors up to the present time. The two villages, Sonkha
and
Mohuri, which were close to one another, have since been amalgamated
into
one, and are known by the name of Sonkhameri. It is difficult to
ascertain
what was the area of the two villages when they were presented by the
Orissa ruler, but in all probability it never exceeded four square
miles. The
founder, however, extended the limit of his possession to about eight
square
miles before he died, leaving his younger brother, Malakeshwar Raut,
to
succeed him.

The second Chief, Malakeshwar Raut, who reigned eighteen years, ex-
tended the limit of the State to Ogalpore, about three miles west of
Sonk-
hameri, and five miles south-west of Baramba. He discovered the
temple
of the goddess Votaika or Bruhadamba or Bodama at Ogalpore, and out
of
respect for this goddess named the State after her. Jambeshwar Raut,
the
fourth Chief, who reigned from 1375 A.D. to 1416, conquered the Kandh
Chief of Kharod, eight miles north-west of Baramba, and annexed his
posses-
sion (about twenty square miles), thus raising the area of the State
to about
thirty-six square miles. The fifth Chief, Bholeshwar Raut, conquered
the
Khandayat or Chief of Amatia, six miles west of Baramba, and extended
the
limit of the State to Ratapat, eight miles west of the headquarters,
and the
present boundary between the Baramba and Narsinghpur States. It was
during the reign of this Chief, who reigned for forty-three years
(from
1416 A.D. to 1459), that the farthest western limit of the State was
reached.
His successors increased their possessions to the east of the
headquarters,
but made no attempt to extend the State farther on the west. Kanhu
Raut,
the sixth Chief, reigned for fifty-five years (from 1459 A.D. to
1514), and
extended the limit of the State to Mohulia, about five miles east of
Baramba.
Nabin Raut, the ninth Chief, reigned for twenty-three years (from 1537
A.D.
to 1560). During his reign the State attained its largest limit, from
Ratapat
in the west to Bidharpur in the east, eighteen miles, and from the
range of
hills separating Hindol from Baramba to the banks of the Mahanadi,
about
eight and a half miles, and this is the present limit of the State. In
the
reign of the twelfth Chief, Krishna Chandra Mangraj, who ruled from
1635 A ' D - t I ^5j tne Mahrattas invaded the country, but the Chief
acknow-
ledged their supremacy, and was required to pay a tribute of 6335
kahans of
cowries per annum. Padmanava Birbar Mangraj Mahapatra, the
seventeenth
Chief of the State, was a very weak ruler, who reigned from 1748 A.D.
to
1793. During the first part of his reign the Raja of Khandpara invaded
the

State, drove out the Chief, and remained in possession of it for
nearly
thirteen months. Raja Padmanava sought for and obtained the
assistance
of the Raja of Khurda, and recovered possession of the State. During
the
latter part of his reign, in the year 1775, the Raja of Narsinghpur
invaded the
State, and took possession of two of its important forts, Kharad and
Ratapat.
The Raja was powerless to expel the invaders, so he appealed to the
Mah-
rattas, and with their assistance and intercession was able to regain
possession
of the forts. It seems that the Mughals never exercised direct
supremacy
over the Chiefs of this State. The Mahrattas, however, did so, and
there are letters extant which show that they fixed the annual
tribute
of the State from the year 1183 to 1185 Amli, and collected the same
directly from the Chiefs. There are also three other old letters of
interest in the records. In one of these the Mahrattas intimate their
having recovered the Ratapat Gur from the Narsinghpur Raja ; in
another
they required the presence of the Baramba Raja to settle a boundary
dispute between Baramba and Narsinghpur ; the third is addressed to
the
Raja of Narsinghpur, and contains the decision of the Mahratta Govern
ment regarding the possession of Kharad and Ratapat. The area of the
State (which is one of the Orissa Tributary Mahals) is about 134
square
miles; its population 29,772, chiefly Hindus, but with over 3000
belonging
to aboriginal tribes. The Raja maintains a military force of 709
infantry
and 3 guns. The family emblem is a leopard.

Residence. Baramba, Orissa.

BARAUNDHA, RAJA THAKUR PRASAD SINGH, Rdjd

Bahadur of.

A Ruling Chief.

Born in 1847 > succeeded to the gadi on the i8th August 1886. Is a
Raghubansi Rajput, descended from a family of the highest antiquity
in
Central India. Thirty-four generations are said to have ruled at Rusin
in
the Banda district ; then four more at Birgarh in the territory still
belonging
to the family ; four more at Murfa, partly in Banda and partly in this
terri-
tory. Then the Raja Mohan Singh came to Baraundha, and ruled there,
and obtained a sanad from the British Government in 1807. His son
ruled
at Paturkuchar, and two more generations. Then the Raja Ragbirdayal,
father of the present Raja, ruled partly at Paturkuchar, partly at
Baraundha,
and received the additional title of "Bahadur" on the occasion of the
Imperial Assemblage at Delhi in 1877. The area of the State is 239
square miles; its population is 17,283, chiefly Hindus. The Raja
Bahadur
maintains a military force of 15 cavalry, 75 infantry, and 6 guns, and


is
entitled to a salute of 9 guns.

Residence. Baraundha, Bundelkhand, Central India.

BARDIA, Rao of. See Barra.

BARIYA, MAHARAWAL SHRI MANSINGHJI, Rdjd of.
A Ruling Chief.

Born 4th October 1855; succeeded to the gadi 5th March 1864.
Descended (like the Chiefs of Chhota Udaipur) from a Chauhan Rajput
(Hindu)
family, sprung from Patai Rawal, the last Chauhan Chief of Champanir.
The
area of the State is 873 square miles ; its population is 66,822,
chiefly Hindus.
The Maharawal maintains a military force of 38 cavalry, 250 infantry,
and
3 guns, and is entitled to a salute of 9 guns.

Residence. Bariya, Rewa" Kdntha, Bombay.

BARJORJI DORABJI PATEL, Khan Bahadur.

The title is personal, and was conferred on 24th May 1889.
Residence. Quetta, Baluchistan.

BARJORJI RUSTAMJI, MISTRY, Khan Bahadur.

The title is personal, and was conferred on 2oth May 1890,
Residence. B ombay .

BARODA, HIS HIGHNESS MAHARAJA SAYAJI RAO III.,
G. C.S.I., Maharaja Gaekwdr of.

A Ruling Chief, and one of the Premier Princes of the Empire.

Born 1 7th March 1863 ; succeeded to the gadi on the 2yth May 1875.
The Gaekwar's full titles are His Highness Farzand-i-Khas-i-Daulat-i-
Inglishia
Maharaja Sayaji Rao Gaekwar Sena Khas Khel Shamsher Bahadur,


Knight Grand Commander of the Most Exalted Order of the Star of

India.
He is the descendant of the famous Mahratta leader, Damaji Gaekwar,
who
obtained from the Shahu Raja of Satara the title of Shamsher Bahadur
for
his bravery at the battle of Ballapur, fought against the Imperial
forces of
Delhi at the close of the i7th century. Damaji Gaekwar died in 1721,
and
was succeeded by his nephew and adopted son Pilaji Gaekwar, who
obtained
from the Shahu Raja the additional title of Send Khas Khel (see
Introduction,
1 1) on the conclusion of the wars with the Peshwa. Pilaji was
assassinated in
1731, and was succeeded by his son Damaji II. ; who, during a period
of about
forty years of almost incessant warfare, played a most prominent part
in the
history of India, and firmly established the Gaekwari power
throughout
Gujarat and the neighbouring districts of Western India. In 1732, the
same
year in which his father was murdered by a Mughal emissary, he
reconquered
the capital of Gujarat, Baroda, from the Mughal Viceroy ; and that
city has
been the capital of the Gaekwars ever since. He commanded a division
at
the great and decisive battle of Panipat in 1761. He invaded
Kathiawar,
and forced many of its princes to pay him tribute ; he conquered the
ancient
city of Anhalwara Patan, and also Ahmadabad, the old capital of
Gujarat.
After his death, . his two sons Govind Rao and Fatheh Singh became
Gaekwars in succession ; and the latter was succeeded by Ananda Rao,
a
son of Govind Rao Gaekwar. In 1803 a Treaty was concluded with the
British Power, under which a British Resident was appointed to the
Court of
Baroda, and provision was made for the maintenance of a strong
subsidiary
force. Ananda Rao was succeeded by Sayaji Rao I., whose reign was
long
and on the whole prosperous ; and he was followed by three of his sons
in
turn, Ganpat Rao Gaekwar, Khande Rao Gaekwar, and Mulhar Rao
Gaekwar. His Highness Khande Rao Gaekwar rendered loyal service to
the Government at the time of the Mutiny. But the rule of his
successor
was disgraced by misgovernment ; and it terminated in his deposition
under
painful circumstances. After these misfortunes, the Paramount Power
exer-
cised the greatest care and diligence in seeking out, from among the
scions of the Gaekwari family and the descendants of Pilaji, a
successor
to the gadi, who should be in every way well fitted to discharge the
duties
of that exalted station. Their care has been amply rewarded ; for, by
the
consent of the whole world, it would be impossible to find a ruler
more
devoted to the welfare of his subjects, or one better qualified to do
credit
to the Imperial choice, than His Highness the present Maharaja Gaek-
war, who was adopted by Her Highness the Maharani Jamna Bai, the
widowed consort of Khande Rao Gaekwar and installed by the Agent of
the Governor -General, who invested him with a State Dress of Honour
on
the 27th May 1875.

The reign of the Maharaja Gaekwar Sayaji III. has been one of amazing
progress and prosperity. For His Highness himself, it has not been
without

the deep shadows of domestic bereavement; for in April 1885 he lost
his first wife, Her Highness the Maharani Chimnabai, niece of the
Princess
of Tanjore, whom he had married in 1880, and who had borne him three
children two daughters, who had died during the lifetime of their
mother,
and a son and heir named Fatheh Singh Rao, who has happily survived.
In
December 1885 His Highness took as his second wife a Princess of the
House of Dewas in Central India, Her Highness Chimnabai, the present
Maharani, who was invested by Her Most Gracious Majesty the Queen
Empress with the insignia of the Imperial Order of the Crown of India
in
1892. Of this marriage there has been issue two sons, named Jaisingh
Rao and Sivaji Rao respectively, and a Princess named Indira Raja.

The young Gaekwar had for several years the advantage of the co-
opera-
tion, as Minister of Baroda, of one of the ablest Indian statesmen of
modern
times, the Raja Sir Madhava Rao, K. C.S.I. The colleagues and
successors
of Sir Madhava the Khan Bahadur Kazi Shahab-ud-din, C.I.E., the Diwan
Bahadur Laxuman Jagannath, the Khan Bahadur Pestanji Jahangirji,
C.I.E.,
the Rao Bahadur Vinayak Janardhan Kirtane, the Khan Bahadur
Khurshidji
Rustamji, and the present Prime Minister, His Excellency the Diwan
Bahadur
Manibhai Jasbhai have also been statesmen of great ability and
devotion.
And many other names might be mentioned of distinguished officers of
the
Baroda Government during the present reign. The early years of His
Highness were guided by the judicious care of an extremely able and
sympathetic English gentleman, Mr. F. A. H. Elliot, C.I.E., who still
retains
high office in the Baroda State. In 1875 tne Gaekwar, attended by Sir
Madhava Rao and the chief officers of the State, went to Bombay to
meet
His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales ; and shortly afterwards was
honoured by a visit of His Royal Highness to the capital of Baroda,
where
the auspicious event was celebrated by the most magnificent
hospitalities.
On the ist of January 1877 His Highness, on the invitation of H.E.
the
Viceroy, attended the Imperial Assembly at Delhi to celebrate the
Proclama-
tion of Her Most Gracious Majesty the Queen as Empress of India, and
on that occasion was invested with the title of Farzand-i-Khds-i-
Daulat-i-
Inglishia (see Introduction, n) by Lord Lytton as the representative
of the
Empress.

In May 1887 His Highness, accompanied by the Maharani, set out on
an extended tour to the continent of Europe. After passing several
months
in Italy, Switzerland, and France, His Highness arrived in England in
the
following November. On the 5th of December the Maharaja proceeded to
Windsor, and had the honour of being most cordially received by Her
Most
Gracious Majesty the Queen Empress. His Highness, having previously
received the honour of Knighthood, was on this occasion invested by
the
Queen Empress with the insignia of a Grand Commander of the Most
Exalted Order of the Star of India. A second visit was paid to Europe
by
His Highness in 1889, which also greatly restored his health and
vigour.
But the hot climate of Gujarat, and excessive mental exertion, made it
im-
perative on him in the spring of 1892 to visit Europe once more; and
accordingly His Highness left India a third time on 7th May 1892.
With
the Maharani he has again been graciously received by Her Majesty,
who
honoured the Maharani by personally conferring on her the insignia of
the
Imperial Order of the Crown of India. These visits of His Highness to
England have been fruitful of the most valuable results to the Baroda
State,

and are in themselves evidence of the interest he takes in the social
and
material progress of his people. Both in 1887 and again in 1892, he
has
been attended by one of his ablest officials, the Rajashri Vasudeo
Madhava
Samarth, who now holds the position of Chief Officer with His
Highness.

By the direction of His Highness scientific land-revenue survey has
been
introduced throughout the State, the existing revenue laws have been
revised,
new ones framed, and various restrictions and petty imposts, as well
as
transit duties, which entailed much hardship on the ryots, have been
gradu-
ally abolished. By these and various other means, the cultivators have
been
greatly encouraged to increase their holdings and improve their
condition.
The existing local regulations are being codified for securing a
speedy and
efficient administration of civil and criminal justice, in which work
he has
allowed the people to take part. His Highness has issued certain rules
for
the better working of the Police, and has brought up the military
forces
to a state of efficiency. But the greatest attention of the Maharaja
Gaekwar
has been given to matters of education. He has given a strong impetus
to
primary and higher education, as well as to technical training in
industrial
arts and handicrafts. There is an Arts College at Baroda, which is
affiliated
to the Bombay University, and teaches up to the B.A. and B.Sc.
standards.
The vernacular schools have received a large accession to their
number, and
are still to be further multiplied by the establishment of thirty new
schools
every year. A recent rule to recognise by Government grants-in-aid
every
school which 'has not less than sixteen scholars on its roll has
called into exist-
ence hundreds of village schools for the instruction of the masses,
hitherto
untouched. Schools have also been opened for people of low castes,
and
boarding schools for the lowest and hitherto utterly neglected
classes.

Classes for teaching native music and scientific agriculture have
been
opened, whilst the establishment of a technical school for imparting a
know-
ledge of modern industries, and for improving the various handicrafts
of the
people, testifies to the anxiety His Highness entertains for the
industrial
progress of his State. Nor has the Maharaja Gaekwar forgotten the
claims
of female education, for in the various schools in his dominions not
only are
girls given a sound mental training, but the physical training and the
homely
arts of sewing, embroidery, and cookery are not neglected. Hospitals
and
dispensaries have been provided in almost all the principal towns of
the State ;
and it has been lately decided to appoint a lady-doctor for
administering to
the medical needs of the female population. The magnificent new
Palace,
and various handsome buildings for schools, colleges, and hospitals,
evince
the keen desire of His Highness for the promotion of public works.
Rail-
ways have been extended in the territory of Baroda, and at present the
State
owns no less than 178 miles of railway. One of the most important
recent
engineering undertakings is the construction of extensive works at
Ajwa for
supplying the city of Baroda with pure water at the cost of about
thirty lacs
of rupees.

The effects of the good and enlightened government of the present
Gaekwar, and the consequent progress and prosperity of his State and
people,
were well summed up in a speech made by the late Viceroy of India,
Lord
Dufferin, on the occasion of His Excellency's visit to Baroda in
November
1886, from which may be quoted the following words :

"Although your Highness, with characteristic modesty, has passed very
lightly over the many excellent works of a like nature which have been
con-

structed under your auspices, all who are inhabitants of this place
know that,
thanks to the intelligent energy which has been exhibited by their
ruler, few
cities and few States have ever made greater progress in everything
which tends
to improve the social condition of their inhabitants than the State
and city over
which your Highness so auspiciously and benevolently rules. The air
of
universal prosperity which characterises your capital and district
which surrounds it,
the happy and contented appearance of your people, are all marks of
conscientious
and intelligent administration, which have met my eye on every side ;
the noble
buildings which are rising in all directions under your Highness's
auspices, and
amply generous provision which you have made both for the needs and
gratifica-
tion of your people, have confirmed me in the opinion which I had
already reason
to entertain, that in your Highness India possesses one of the most
promising,
high-minded, and wise rulers with which she has been ever blessed. It
is diffi-
cult to convey in words the satisfaction which a Viceroy experiences
at being able
to arrive at such a conclusion in regard to one of the most
influential and import-
ant of Her Majesty's feudatory Princes. In your Highness I feel the
Queen
Empress possesses indeed the noble arkan-i-dawlut, a firm and trusted
pillar of
State, and that the Indian Government is entitled to regard you as a
sympathetic
and worthy coadjutor in its great work of advancing the general
happiness and
prosperity of the inhabitants of Hindustan. Believe me, Mahd.rd.jd,
there is no
object dearer to my heart than to acquire the confidence and goodwill
of the
Princes of India, to make them feel with what kindly feelings I regard
them, how
anxious I am in respect to their rights, to maintain their dignity, to
add to their
consideration and izzat ; but it becomes ten times easier to do this,
and is a
more perfect labour of love, when the conduct of a' native ruler is so
worthy of
praise and admiration as your own."

The State is one of the largest, richest, most populous, and most
advanced
in India. It contains an area of 8570 square miles. Its population is
about 2,185,005, chiefly Hindus; but there are 174,980 Muhammadans,
46,718 Jains, and 8118 Parsis. The revenue of the State is about
Rs. i, 53,00,000 per annum (at par ,1,530,000). In area the State of
Baroda is considerably larger than either Saxony or Wiirtemberg ; its
population is greater than that of Greece, and not much less than that
of
Switzerland. The Maharaja Gaekwar maintains a military force of 3562
cavalry and 4988 infantry, with 38 guns. His Highness is entitled to
a
salute of 2 1 guns. The family colour is that red which is called
Bhagwd,
the colour of the red earth of the Mahabaleshwar hills.

Residence. Baroda, Western India.

BARODA or SHBOPUR (GWALIOR), RAJA BIJAI SINGH,

Rdjd of.
A Ruling Chief.

Born 1862 ; succeeded to the gadi 271)1 September 1865. Is a Kshatri
Gaur (Hindu). The area of the State is 150 square miles; its
population
9000, chiefly Hindus. The Raja maintains a military force of 50
cavalry,
400 infantry, and 5 guns.

Residence. Baroda, Gwalior, Central India.

BARRA or BARDIA, RAO DAUKAL SINGH, Rao of.
A Ruling Chief.

The Rao was born in 1850; and succeeded to the gadi on the 25th
August 1865. Is of a Rajput (Hindu) family. The population of the
State
is about 650, chiefly Hindus.

Residence. Barra, Western Malwa", Central India.

BARWANI (BHOPAWAR), RANA INDARJIT SINGH, Rdnd of.

A Ruling Chief.

Born 1840; 'succeeded to the gadi on the i5th August 1880. Is a
Sisodiya Rajput, akin to the ruling House of Udaipur. The area of the
State is 1362 square miles; its population 56,445, chiefly Hindus,
with
8605 belonging to aboriginal tribes. The Rana maintains a miltary
force of
17 cavalry, 225 infantry, and 9 guns. He is entitled to a salute of 9
guns.

Residence. Barwdni, Central India.

BASANTA SINGH, CHAUDHRI, Rai Bahddur.

Granted the title, as a personal distinction, 2nd January 1893. I s a
landholder in the Bijnor district, North-Western Provinces.
Residence. Bijnor, North-Western Provinces.

BASAWA SINGH (of Laroa), Sarddr.

The title is hereditary.
Residence. Jdlandhar, Punjab.

BASHAHR, RAJA SHAMSHER, SINGH, Rdjd of.
A Ruling Chief.

Born 1839; succeeded to the gadi in 1849. Belongs to a Rajput
(Hindu) family claiming descent, through 120 generations, from Sri
Krishna. It is said that Parduman Singh, grandson of Sri Krishna, came
to
Bashahr from Benares to marry the daughter of the Raja Bavasa Deo ;
and
that he ultimately slew Bavasa Deo, and obtained possession of the
Raj.
Between 1803 and 1815 Bashahr was overrun by the Gurkhas; but on
their expulsion in the latter year, the British Government granted a
sanad to
the Raja, confirming him in the possession of all his territories,
except

Rawani, which was given to Keonthal. The area of the State (which is
one
of the Simla Hill States) is 3257 square miles; its population is
64,345,
chiefly Hindus. The Raja has a son named Tika Raghunath Singh. He
maintains a military force of 100 infantry and 2 guns.
Residence. Bashahr, Punjab.

BASHIR AHMAD, Khan Bahadur.

Born 1860. Is the son-in-law of His late Highness Prince Intizam-ul-
Mulk, third Prince of Arcot. Granted the title as a personal
distinction in
1887.

Residence. Madras.

BASHIYAM AIYANGAR, V., Rai Bahadur.

Is a B.A. and B.L. of the University of Madras; appointed a Fellow of
the University in 1880; Member of the Legislative Council of Fort St.
George in 1888; granted the title as a personal' distinction in 1887.
An
advocate of the Madras Bar.

Residence. Madras.

BASITNAGAR, AMANAT PATIMA, Begum of.

Born 1832. Is the widow of the Nawab Dost Ali Khan of Basitnagar,
who was succeeded on his death in 1864 by the Nawab Husain Ali Khan.
On the death of the latter in 1871 the Begum succeeded to the title
and
estates. The family is of Pathan origin, and is descended from Dildar
Khan,
third son of the Nawab Diler Khan of Shahabad. The latter was a dis-
tinguished Afghan officer under the Emperor Aurangzeb, who sent him
to
Shahabad to punish the Pande Panwar Brahmans, who had plundered a
convoy of Imperial treasure on its way from Khairabad to Delhi. He
slew
all the bandits, and was granted their extensive possessions mjdgir,
with the
titles of Nawab and Haft Hazdri or commander of seven thousand. He
founded the city of Shahabad, and built the great fort known as the
Bari
Deohri ; and his descendants held the grants rent free till Saadat Ali
Khan
resumed them. The title of Nawab was recognised by Government as
hereditary in 1864.

Residence. Shdhabad, Hardoi, Oudh.

BASODA (BHOPAL), NAWAB AMAR ALI KHAN, Nawab of.

A Ruling Chief.

The Nawab was born about 1830; and succeeded to the gadi on the
6th February 1864. He is a Pathan (Muhammadan) descended from the
Nawab Dalel Khan, founder of the Kurwai State (q.v.) The area of the
State is about 22 square miles; its population 7772, chiefly Hindus,
but
with 1454 Muhammadans. His sons are Mian Haidar Ali Khan and
Yusuf Ali Khan.

Residence. Basoda, Bhopal, Central India.

BASTAR, RAJA BHAIRAM DEO, Rdjd of.
A Ruling Chief.

Born 2ist May 1839 ; succeeded to the gadi 27th August 1853. Belongs
to an ancient Rajput family of high caste ; whose founder, Kakati
Partabrudra,
came from Warangal in the Deccan, and settled at Bastar about the
beginning
of the 1 4th century. The area of the State is 13,062 square miles;
its
population 196,248, of whom over 36,000 belong to Gond, Bhil, and
other
aboriginal tribes, the rest being chiefly Hindus.

Residence. Jagdalpur, Bastar, Central Provinces.

BASTI, Rdjd of. See Mahesh Sitla Bakhsh Singh.

BAW, MAUNG HLAING, Ngwegunhmu of.
A Ruling Chief.

The Ngwegunhmu is one of the Shan Chiefs, and rules over a State of
about 350 square miles.

Residence. Baw, Shan States, Burma.

*BAWNIN, SAW KIN, Myoza of.
A Ruling Chief.

The Myoza is one of the Shan Chiefs, and rules over a State of 30
square
miles.

Residence. Bawnin, Shan States, Burma.

BAWZAING-, MAUNG KYA YWBT, Ngwegunhmu of.
A Ruling Chief.

The Ngwegunhmu is one of the Shan Chiefs, and rules over a State of
20 square miles.

Residence. Bawzaing, Shan States, Burma.

BECHARDAS VEHARIDAS, DESAI, Sarddr, Rao Bahadur.

Born 26th February 1844. Third son of the Rao Bahadur Desai
Veharidas Ajubhai, whose eldest son, Desai Haridas Veharidas, is now
Diwdn
(Prime Minister) of the Junagarh State in Kathiawar. Educated at
Nadiad
and Ahmadabad. Appointed Member of the Local Board of Taluka Anand,
Zilla Kaira in 1867. Was the chief promoter of the "Agricultural Com-
mittee" appointed at Nadiad in 1878, and of the exhibitions of
agricultural
products of the district held at Nadiad since the year 1883. President
of
the Municipal Committee, Nadiad, from 1886 to 1889; received the title
of
"Rao Bahadur" from Government in 1887; elected a Member of the
Legislative Council, Bombay, in 1888 ; and granted the title of
"Sardar" in
the same year. The family claims descent from the Kshatriya family
reigning
in the Punjab in the time of Alexander the Great ; subsequently
migrating to
Malwa, its leading member is said to have been appointed there Diwan.

Twelve hundred years later part of the family is said to have migrated
to
Adalaj, near Ahmadabad, in the time of Siddhraj Jayasingh, and a
branch
ultimately settled at Nadiad. The founder of this branch having
rendered
good service to the then Mughal Emperor, was invited to the Imperial
presence, and received the title of Desdi with estates and pdlkhi from
the
Emperor. Vaghjibhai, the fourth in lineal descent from the founder,
rendered
valuable services both to the Peshwa and to the Gaekwar ; and also
played
an important part in bringing about a compromise after the battle of
Adas
in 1775. For this he received in indm the village of Bilodra, which
the
family enjoyed up to 1816. Prabhudas, the grandson of Vaghjibhai,
assisted
Colonel Walker in settling the terms of the treaties made by the
British
Government with the Mehwasi Thakurs in the Mahi Kantha, and received
a
pdlkhi in indm from the British Government in 1806. Desai Prabhudas's
grandson was Desai Veharidas Ajubhai (the first mentioned above), who
was a
member of the Vatan Commission, and Honorary Second Class Magistrate.
He was invited by Government to the Imperial Delhi Assemblage in
1877,
where he received the title of " Rao Bahadur."

Residence. Kaira, Bombay.

BED SARAN KUN WAR (of Agori Barhar), Rdm.

Born 1851. The title is hereditary, the Chandel Rajas of Barhar being
descended, it is said, from Pari Mai and Bari Mai of Mahoba in
Bundelkhand,
who some hundreds of years ago took service with Raja Madan of the
Baland
family of the Kharwar tribe, and after killing him, divided his
country and
founded the three principalities of Barhar, Bijaigarh, and Bardi, in
Rewah.
About a century later, near the year 1290, the exiled Balands
collected a
force, surprised the fort and palace of Agori, and killed every male
of the
Chandel race. But one of the queens of the fallen Chandel Raja, who
had
fled to the forest, shortly afterwards gave birth to a prince, who was
named
Orandeo, from the shield (oran) on which he was cradled. When he grew
up, his merits attracted the notice of the Raja of Kantit ; who gave
him his
daughter in marriage, and helped him to recover the Barhar Raj, about
the
year 1310. In 1745 Sjambhu Sah was Raja, and he was conquered and
expelled by Raja Balwant Singh ; but in 1781 Warren Hastings, as
Governor-
General, ordered the restoration of Adil Sah, the grandson of Raja
Sambhu
Sah. The estates continued in the possession of the family till 1852,
when
Raja Raghunath Sah died, and they came under the Court of Wards. His
son, Raja Kesho Saran Sah, attained his majority in 1868 ; but died
without
issue in 1871, leaving his widow, the present Rani, in possession of
the
estates for her life. Her heir is Babu Jagannath Prasad Singh of
Jamgaon,
who is descended from Babu Rachpal Singh (brother of Raja Adil Sah,
mentioned above), and is about 35 years of age.

Residence. Rajpur, Mirzapur, North- Western Provinces.

BBHRAMJI DADABHAI, Khan Bahddur.

Born 23rd October 1831. The Khan Bahadur's name is also sometimes
spelt Byramjee Dadabhoy. The title was conferred on 3rd April 1880, as
a
personal distinction, in recognition of highly meritorious service in
many

important and responsible public offices. The Khan Bahadur is the
eldest
son of the late Khan Saheb Dadabhai Shapurji, an eminent public
servant,
who had received a sherpao (or " Dress of Honour ") from the Bombay
Government in 1837, and the title of Khan Saheb in 1847. Educated at
Thanna, and Surat, and Elphinstone College, Bombay. Entered the
Govern-
ment Service in 1853; and having distinguished himself in various
civil
capacities, was specially selected in 1865 to succeed Colonel
Dunsterville as
Deputy Registrar-General and Registrar of Bombay being the first
gentle-
man of Indian birth ever appointed to fill that high office. Appointed
J.P.
in 1869; in 1872 a Delegate of the Parsi Chief Matrimonial Court in
Bombay; in 1879 acted as Inspector-General of Registration ; in 1878,
and
again in 1880, elected a Member of the Municipal Corporation of the
City
of Bombay ; and served in many other public orifices " with credit to
himself
and advantage to the public," as testified by the Bombay Government
when
in 1880 he was recommended for the title of Khan Bahadur. He was
married, 28th February 1848, to Baie Sonabaie, eldest daughter of
Khan
Saheb Cowashaw Sorabshaw Taleiyarkhan of Surat and has issue. His
sons are (i) Jehangeer Byramjee Dadabhoy, born 1864, married 1885 to
Khorsetbanu Hormusjee Pestonjee Cama ; and (2) Manikji Behramji
Dadabhai, born 1865, barrister-at-law of the Middle Temple 1887, J.P.
for
Bombay 1888, Municipal Councillor for Bombay 1889; married 1884 to
Jerbanu Dadabhai Palanji Bhedwar. His daughters are (i) Awabaie,
born 1851, married 1865 to Ardasir Cursetji Ghandie, who died in
1874;

(2) Dhanbaiji, born 1859, married 1877 to Dhanjibhoy Nasirwanji
Ghista ;

(3) Pherozebaie, born 1861, married 1877 to Framji Cursetji Rustamji
Thanawala. His brothers are (i) Cowashaw Dadabhoy, born 1845, married
1865 to Jerbaie Bargorji Hadda ; (2) Cursetjee Dadabhoy, born 1850,
married 1886 to Gulbaie Jamsetjee Seenawala.

Residence. Foras Road, Byculla, Bombay.

BEHRAMJI JEHANGIRJI RAJ KOTWALA, Khan Bahadur.

The title is personal, and was conferred 24th May 1889, in
recognition
of his public services. The Khan Bahadur's name is also sometimes
spelt
Byramjee (or Byramji) Jehanghirji Rajkotwala. Is o a Delegate of the
Parsi
Matrimonial Court at Karachi, and Member of the Sindh Sabha ; was
Honorary Special Magistrate at Nasik and Karachi from 1869 to 1890;
acted as Chairman of the Nasik Municipality in 1880 and 1883.

Residence. Karachi, Sind.

BBLASAR PARIDA, Sdmant Rai.

This is one of the titles that appear not to have been formally
recognised

by Government. It was originally obtained from one of the old Rajas
of
Kujung.

Residence. Cuttack, Orissa.

BBLI RAM, Rai Bahddur.

Granted the title, as a personal distinction, 2nd January 1893, for
emi-
nent services in the Lahore Medical College. Is an Assistant Surgeon.
Residence. Lahore, Punjab.

BENARES, HIS HIGHNESS SIR PRABHU NARAYAN SINGH,
K.C.I.E., Maharaja Bahadur of.

Born 26th November 1855; succeeded i3th June 1889; has issue
Kunwar Aditya Narayan Singh, born 6th November 1875. The family are
Brahmans of the Bhuinhar clan ; and their traditions go back to the
year
1000, when a Brahman ascetic of Utaria, a village near Benares,
foretold the
.succession of his posterity to the dominions then governed by a Hindu
Raja.
Some centuries later, in the decay of the Mughal Empire, some of the
family
who attempted to assert a turbulent independence were severely
chastised by
one of the lieutenants of the Emperor Farrukhsiyar. In the succeeding
reign Mausa Ram, the eldest brother of the branch occupying the
ancient
seat of the family in Utaria, rose to great favour with the Governor
of
Benares under the Nawab Vazir of Oudh. On the death of Mausa Ram in
1739 his son Balwant Singh sent an offering to Delhi, and received
from the
Emperor his confirmation in the government of the Jaunpur, Benares,
and
Chunar districts, with the possession in his own right of four
Parganas, and
the title of Raja Bahadur, which the family has held as an hereditary
title
ever since. In 1763, when the Emperor and the Nawab Vazir of Oudh
marched eastward to expel the British from Bengal, Raja Balwant Singh
was
compelled to join them, but his troops took no part in the battle of
Baksar,
being stationed on the other side of the Ganges, and when he fled to
one of
his hill fortresses he was called back to receive confirmation of his
posses-
sions under the British Power. On the death of Balwant Singh in 1770
the
Nawab Vazir of Oudh desired to seize the Benares territory, but the
British
Government compelled him to recognise Chait Singh, the son of Balwant
Singh, as Raja under the British suzerainty, and by the treaty of 1775
tne
territory was finally declared British. The differences between Raja
Chait
Singh and the Calcutta Government under Warren Hastings are
historically
famous, as they became the subject of one of the articles of the
impeachment
that was framed against the great Governor-General. The Raja was
deprived
of his government, which was given on conditions to his nephew, Raja
Mahip Narayan, son of Balwant Singh's daughter, and he died in exile
at
Gwalior under the protection of the Maharaja Sindhia. Raja Mahip
Narayan
died in 1795, and was succeeded by his son Udit Narayan Singh; and
the
latter in 1835 by n ^ s nephew and adopted son, Raja Ishri Parshad
Narayan
Singh Bahadur, who, for his loyal services at the time of the Mutiny,
received
in 1859 the title of Maharaja Bahadur as a personal distinction. On
the


ist January 1877, on the occasion of the Proclamation of Her Most
Gracious

Majesty as Empress of India, the Maharaja Bahadur was created a
Knight
Grand Commander of the Most Exalted Order of the Star of India ; and
on
his death in 1889 he was succeeded by his nephew and adopted son, the
present Raja. On the 8th February 1889 the late Maharaja Bahadur had
been granted the privilege, as a personal distinction, of being
addressed as
" His Highness," and in September of that year the present Raja was
granted
the same privilege, with the title of Maharaja Bahadur, also as
personal dis-
tinctions. The Maharaja has been exempted from personal appearance in
the Civil Courts, and has been assured by sanad that, in the case of
failure of
natural heirs, the Government will permit and confirm any adoption of
a suc-
cessor made by himself or any future Raja that may be in accordance
with
Hindu law and the customs of his family. He is entitled to a salute of
T 3 guns.

Residences. Rdmnagar, Benares ; Chakya, Mirzapur.

BBNKAT RAO. See Vyankat Rao

BBRI (BUNDBLKHAND), RAO BIJAI SINGH, Jdgirddr of.

A Ruling Chief.

Born 1 4th February 1848 ; succeeded to the gadi i8th March 1862. Is
a Puar Rajput, descended from Acharjya, who married a daughter of the
Maharaja Jagat Raj, son of the Maharaja Chhatarsal of Jaitpur, and
received
the jdgir of Beri. He was succeeded by his son, Khuman Singh, whose
son, Jugal Prasad, received a sanad from the British Government. His
grandson, Bishnath Singh, adopted the present Jagirdar, who is a
descendant
from the Maharaja Jagat Raj by a collateral line. The title is
hereditary ;
the Jagirdars have sometimes been styled Sawai Rao, from their
ancestor
Jagat Raj. The present Rao's son is Kunwar Bahadur Noni Raghuraj
Singh. The State has an area of about 28 square miles, and a
population of
about 5000, chiefly Hindus. The Rao maintains a military force of 10
cavalry, 66 infantry, and 2 guns.

Residence. Beri, Bundelkhand, Central India.

BBTTIAH, MAHARAJA SIR HARBNDRA KISHOR SINGH,
K.O.I.B., Maharaja Bahadur of.

Born in March 1854; succeeded his father, the late Maharaja Rajendra
Kishor Singh Bahadur, in 1883, and in 1884 received the title of
Maharaja
Bahadur as a personal distinction, with a khilat and sanad from the
hands of
the Lieutenant-Go vernor of Bengal. Created a Knight Commander of the
Most Eminent Order of the Indian Empire on ist March 1889. Belongs to
a Jaitharia Brahman (Hindu) family, descended from Gangeshwar Deo,
who
settled at Jaithar in Saran, Bengal, about the year 1244 A.D. One of
his
descendants, Agar Sen, having possessed himself by force of arms
(during
the later years of the reign of the Emperor Jahangir) of a
considerable terri-
tory in Champaran, declared himself a Raja, and ultimately obtained a
confirmation of that title from the Emperor Shah Jahan. In 1659 he
was
succeeded by his son, Raja Guj Singh, who built the palace of the
family at
Bettiah. He incurred the anger of the Emperor of Delhi by the
annexation
of many surrounding districts, and after successfully resisting one
party of
Imperial troops sent against him, was captured by a second party, and
carried
a prisoner to Delhi. He was subsequently released, and confirmed in
his
possession, on his undertaking to send an annual offering of jungle
and other
produce to Delhi. He died in 1694 A.D., leaving six sons, of whom
three
died without issue. The eldest, Raja Dalip Singh, succeeded his father
at
Bettiah, the second was the ancestor of Raja Sheoraj Nandan Singh of
Seohar in Muzaffarpur (q.v.\ and the third was the ancestor of the
Zamindars
of Madhubani in Darbhanga. Dalip Singh's son and successor, Raja
Dhrup
Singh, received a. firman from the Emperor Farrukhsiyar. In 1760 he
was
summoned to help the Emperor Shah Alam in his expedition to Bengal ;
and
subsequently, to escape the exactions of the Nawab Mir Kasim of Patna,
he
poisoned himself, and was succeeded by his daughter's son, Raja
Jugalkishor
Singh. The latter, after many vicissitudes of fortune, seems to have
been

68 THE GOLDEN BOOK OF INDIA

recognised by the British Government ; and his grandson, Raja
Anandakishor,
received the title of Maharaja Bahadur, with a khilat, as a personal
distinction
from Lord William Bentinck for good services rendered during the
Nepalese
war. He was followed by his brother and his nephew successively ; and
the
latter, the Maharaja Rajendrakishor Singh, who succeeded in 1855,
rendered
good service in the time of the Mutiny, and also during the great
famine. He
was succeeded in 1883 by his only son, the present head of the family,
who
was appointed a Member of the Legislative Council of Bengal in
January
1891. The Maharaja was created a Knight Commander of the Most
Eminent Order of the Indian Empire, 28th June 1888.
Residence. Bettiah, Champdran, Bengal.

BEYPORB, Valiya Rdjd of. See Rama Varma Raja, Rdjd.

BEZANJI SOHRABJI, Khan Bahddur.
The title is personal, and was conferred on i8th August 1881.
Residence. B ombay.

BHABAR, The Chief of.

A Ruling Chief.

The area of the State is 80 square miles; its population is 7222.
Residence. Bhabar, Pdlanpur, Bombay.

BHADARVA, RANA PATEH SINGH SARDAR SINGH, Rand of.

A Ruling Chief.

Born about 1850 ; succeeded to \hzgadi 26th January 1888. The area
of the State is 27 square miles; its population 9185.
Residence. Bhadarva, Rewa" Ka"ntha, Bombay.

BHADAUR. See Atar Singh, Sardar, Sir, K.C.I.E.

BHADAURA (GUN A), RAJA MADHO SINGH, Rdjd of.
A Ruling Chief.

The Raja is descended from a Sisodhiya Rajput (Hindu) family; was
born
in the year 1876, and succeeded to the gadi on the loth May 1883. The
State has a population of about 4000, chiefly Hindus.

Residence. Bhadaura, Guna, Central India.

BHADAWAR, Mahdrdid of. See Mahendra Mahendra Singh.

BHADVA, JARBJA BHAV SINGH JI, Chief of.
A Ruling Chief.

Born about 1826 ; succeeded to the gadi in 1843. The area of the
State
is 7 square miles; its population 1231, chiefly Hindus.
Residence. Bhadva, Ka'thia'war, Bombay.

BHAG RAM, PANDIT (of Jalandhar), Rai Bahadur.
The title is personal, and was conferred on nth August 1885.
Residence. Kashmir.

BHAG SINGH (of Sikandra), Sarddr.

Descended from Dargaha Singh, who acquired a considerable territory
by
conquest in 1759 A.D. His possessions were subsequently reduced by
other
Sikh Sardars. He had four sons, of whom the third, Sardar Agar Singh,
was the father of Sardar Bhag Singh. The Sardar has a son, named
Jowahir
Singh. The title is hereditary.

Residence. Ambala, Punjab.

BHAGAT SINGH, Sarddr Bahadur.

Born 1846. The title is personal; and was conferred on i9th April
1886, in recognition of eminent services in the Department of Public
Works,
Rajputana. Claims descent from an ancient Kshatriya family of Sikh
Sardars, of the " Party of Raja Sahibsingh," settled in the district
of Gujrat,
Punjab. The Sardar Bahadur has four sons living Sardar Krishna Singh
Kapur (barrister-at-law of the Middle Temple, 1887), Lahore ; Sardar
Vishnu
Singh Kapur (of the Royal Agricultural College, Cirencester, and of
the
Middle Temple) ; Govind Singh ; Hari Singh.

Residence. Kapur Mahil, Gujrat, Punjab.

BHAGAT SINGH (of Kapurthala), Sarddr, CJ.E.

The Sardar was created a Companion of the Most Eminent Order of the
Indian Empire, ist January 1890.
Residence. Kapurth ala.

BHAGWAN BAKHSH (of Pokhra Ansari), Rdjd.

Born ist September 1872. The title is hereditary, and was recognised
as such, 4th December 1877, when the Raja succeeded his father, Raja
Umrao Singh, as a minor. The family is a younger branch of the
Amethia
Chattris (see Rameshwar Bakhsh Singh, Raja of Amethi), descended from
Prithvi Chand, Raja of Kalinjar. His descendant, Jamdhor Singh, had
three sons, of whom the third was Ram Singh, who, on the division of
the
estates, took Pokhra Ansari, with the title of Rao. It is said that
his great-
grandson, Rao Kalian Singh, saluted a celebrated fakir with the
respectful

address of Bandagi Mian, and the grateful saint responded with a
blessing on
the " Raja," whence the title was ever afterwards borne by this
branch, who
are known as the "Bandagi Mian Amethias." A descendant, Rao Amar
Singh, endeavoured to assert his independence in the time of Shuja-ud-
daula,
after the latter had been defeated by the English ; but he was
subsequently
defeated and slain by the Nawab's forces. His son, Madho Singh,
ultimately regained most of his possessions. After his death, the
property
saw many changes, and at last fell into the hands of Raja Sahajram
Bakhsh. He was followed by Raja Umrao Singh, the father of the
present
Raja.

Residence. Rowni, Haidargarh, Bara Banki, Oudh.

BHAGWAN DAS, Rai Bahadur.

The title is personal, and was conferred on 2Qth May 1886.
Residence. Rangoon, Burma.

BHAGWAN SINGH, Sarddr Bahadur.

Born 1834. Belongs to a Jat family, whose founder, Sardar Ram Singh,
acquired the territory of Buner and other districts in 1751 A.D. The
family
appear to have done good service during the Gurkha Campaign, the
first
Sikh war, and lastly during the Mutiny in 1857. For the latter
service
they received as a reward the remission of a year's commutation tax,
and
one-sixteenth of the whole has been excused in perpetuity. The Sardar
Bhagwan Singh, whose title of Sardar is hereditary, is an Honorary
Magistrate in the Ambala district; and on ist January 1890 received
the
title of Sardar Bahadur as a personal distinction. His son is named
Brijandar Singh.

Residence. Sohana Bedwan, Ambala, Punjab.

BHAGWANT D AYAL, THAKURAI, Rai Bahadur.

Granted the title of Rai Bahadur, as a personal distinction, 2nd

January 1893. The present Thakurai, who has done good service on
several occasions, received the thanks of Government for his measures
of famine relief. He claims descent from Raja Dushasan Singh of
Dadand, of a very old Rajput family in Rajputana. One of his
ancestors
took service under Raja Mansingh, Raja of Palamau, whose throne
after-
wards he contrived to seize. Thakurai Ramban Singh, an ancestor of
the
present Thakurai, rendered good service when the English first took
Palamau ;
and Thakurai Chhatardhari Singh, great-grandfather of the present
Thakurai,
obtained from Government many rewards, including a jdgir, the title of
Rai
Bahadur, a khilat and sarpech, etc., for his services at the time of
the Kol
rebellion. The father also of the present Thakurai did good service at
the
time of the famine in 1873, and received a sanad at the Imperial


Assemblage
at Delhi in 1877.

Residence. Chainpur, Pa"la~mau, Lohdrdaga, Bengal.

BHAGWAT MAHANTI, Rat Bahadur.

Born 3rd March 1821 ; son of Jugal Mahanti, belonging to a family of
Karan or Utkal Kayasthas. Entered the service of the Government of
Bengal in the year 1839, an d served for more than fifty years in a
large
number of offices with ability and fidelity, retiring on pension in
1891. In
1870 he received a gold watch and chain from the Bengal Government,
in
recognition of " his long and valuable services," as well as in
consideration of
"his successful exertions during the famine of 1866 " ; and in 1886
the title
of Rai Bahadur was conferred upon him as a personal distinction. The
Rai
Bahadur has seven sons Ramkrishna Mahanti, Jaikrishna Mahanti,
Bhuvaneshwar Mahanti, Nandakishor Mahanti, Govindacharan Mahanti,
Paramanand Mahanti, and Sadanand Mahanti.

Residence. Pompalo, Kothdesh, Puri, Orissa.

BHAIRON SINGH (of Maslai), Rao.

Born 22nd March 1855. The title is hereditary; and is said to have
been originally received from Gori Shah, Badshah. In 1820 the then
Rao
received a sanad from Sir John Malcolm. The Rao has a son, named
Omar Singh.

Residence. Nimdr, Central Provinces.

BHAISAKHO, Bhumia of. See Ghari.

BHAISAUNDA (Bundelkhand), CHAUBE CHHATARSAL
PRASAD, Jdgirddr of.

A Ruling Chief.

The Jagirdar is of a Chaube Brahman (Hindu) family, descended from
Ram Krishna Chaube, Killadar of Kalinjar (see Paldeo), and was born
about
the year 1878. He succeeded to the gadi on the i6th January 1886. The
area of the State is 12 square miles ; its population over 4000,
chiefly
Hindus. The Jagirdar's great-grandfather, Newal Kisor, was third son
of
Ram Krishna Chaube, referred to above ; and received a sanad from the
British Government. The Jagirdar maintains a force of 52 soldiers.

Residence. Bhaisaunda, Bundelkhand, Central India.

BHAISOLA or DOTRIA (BHOPAWAR), THAKUR BHIM

SINGH, Thdkur of.

A Ruling Chief.

The Thakur is descended from a Rajput (Hindu) family ; and was born
about the year 1821. Succeeded to the gadi in the year 1842. The
population of the State is nearly 3000.

Residence. Bhaisola, Bhopdwar, Central India.

BHAJJI, RANA DURGA SINGH, Rand of.
A Ruling Chief.

Born 1842; succeeded to the gadi on the i8th November 1875.
Belongs to a Rajput family, whose founder in early times came from
Kangra,
and acquired the State (which is one of the Simla Hill States) by
conquest. It was overrun by the Gurkhas between 1803 and 1815; and
after their expulsion was confirmed in the possession of the Rana by a
sanad
from the British Government, dated 4th September 1815. Its area is 94
square miles; population 12,106, chiefly Hindus. The Chief maintains
a
military force of 60 infantry and i gun.

Residence. Bhajji, Punjab.

BHALUSNA, THAKUR MULSINGHJI, Thdkur of.

A Ruling Chief.

Born about 1852 ; is descended from a Koli (Hindu) family.
Residence. Bhalusna, Mahi Kantha, Bombay.

BHAMBO KHAN, Jam.

Born 1835. The title is hereditary, having been originally conferred
on
the Jam's ancestor, Saispal, when converted to Muhammadanism by
Sayyid
Jalal-ud-din. The Jam has two sons Khan Muhammad Alam Khan and
Gulam Ali Khan ; they bear the titles of Mian and Khan respectively.
The
Jam is a considerable Jagirdar in the district of Shikarpur.

Residence. Shikdrpur, Sind.

BHAN PARTAB (of Imjhira), Rdjd Bahadur.

The title is hereditary; and was conferred on i8th July 1858 on Raja
Surat Singh Bahadur (cousin of the present Raja), who was conspicuous
for
his loyalty, and for the brave resistance he and his followers offered
to the
rebels, in the Mutiny of 1857. Belongs to a Lodhi family, whose
ancestors
had in early times the title of Thakur, and have been settled in the
Narsinghpur district from time immemorial. In 1835 the title of Rao
was
conferred on Surat Singh (afterwards Raja Bahadur) by the Raja of
Delehri.
When Raja Surat Singh died in 1870, the succession of his uncle, Raja
Manbodh Singh Bahadur, was recognised by the Government. He was
appointed an Honorary Magistrate ; and on his death was succeeded by
his
only son, the present Raja Bahadur.

Residence. Narsinghpur, Central Provinces.

BHAO MUNSARAM, Rao Bahadur.

Granted the title, as a personal distinction, 2nd January 1893, for
eminent
services in municipal work. Is a Commissioner of the Poona
Municipality.
Residence. Poona, Bombay.

BHAO SINGH (of Piparia), Thdkur.

Bom 1858. The title is hereditary. The Thakur succeeded his father,
Thakur Bhagwan Singh.

Residence. Piparia, Jabalpur, Central Provinces.

BHABADPURA (BHOPAWAR), BHUMIA UDAI SINGH,

Chief of.

A Ruling Chief.

The Chief is a Bhilala, born about 1848 ; succeeded to the gadi'vn.
1858.
The population of the State is 1724, chiefly Hindus.

Residence. Bharadpura, Bhopawar, Central India.

BHARAT SINGH, Manki.

This is one of the titles that appear never to have been formally
recog-

nised by the Government. The Manki has a son named Jagannath Singh,
who bears the title of Babu.

Residence. M a" nbhum, B engal.

BHARTPUR, HIS HIGHNESS MAHARAJA BIRJINDAR
SAWAI SIR JASWANT SINGH BAHADUR, BAHADUR
JANG, G.C.S.I., Maharaja of.

A Ruling Chief.

Born 1851 ; succeeded to the gadi as a minor in 1853 : invested with
full
powers 4th March 1871. Is of a Jat (Hindu) family, descended from
Bal-
chand, who founded the Bhartpur State about the beginning of the i8th
century. The fifteenth in descent from Balchand was the Maharaja Brig
Singh, and seven generations further comes His Highness the present
Maha-
raja. The banner of this Chief is coloured red ; its motto is, Sri
Lachmanji
Sahai. His son is the Kunwarji Ram Singh Bahadur. The area of the
State is about 1974 square miles; its population 645,540, chiefly
Hindus,
but with 105,666 Muhammadans and 4499 Jains. His Highness maintains
a military force of 1647 cavalry, 8207 infantry, and 54 guns. He is
entitled
to a salute of 15 guns, and 2 guns more as a personal distinction.

Residence. Bhartpur, Rajputana.

BHASKARA, Rdjd. See Ramnad.

BHATKHBRI, RAWAT SHBO SINGH, Rdwat of.
A Ruling Chief.

The Rawat is a Chandrawat Rajput (Hindu), born about the year 1842 ;
succeeded to the gadi in 1861. The population of the State is 2234,
chiefly
Hindus.

Residence. Bhatkheri, Western Mdlwa", Central India.

BHAUNAGAR, HIS HIGHNESS MAHARAJA SIR TAKHT-

SINGHJI JASWATSINGHJI, G.C.S.I., Maharaja of.

A. Ruling Chief.

Born 6th January 1858 ; succeeded to the gadi on the death of his
father,
Jaswatsinghji, K.C.S.I., in April 1870. Educated first at Bhaunagar,
he was

one of the first Princes who joined
the Keatinge Rajkumar College at
Rajkot, where he studied for three
years, and was distinguished for his
diligence and docile and amiable
disposition a favourite with both
schoolfellows and masters. On
leaving the Rajkumar College in
1874 his studies were continued
under a specially selected tutor,
Captain (now Colonel) H. L. Nutt,
of the Bombay Staff Corps. During
his minority the State was jointly
administered by an European officer
of Government associated with a
native Minister of State ; but in
March 1877 His Highness took the place of the native Minister, and
so continued until within nine months of attaining his majority, when
(5th April 1878) he was placed in sole charge. On the 24th May 1881
Her Majesty the Empress of India conferred the honour of a Knight
Commander of the Star of India on His Highness, in which exalted
Order
he was advanced to Grand Commander on the ist January 1886; and His
Excellency the Viceroy five years later conferred as a personal
distinction
the high title of Maharaja. His Highness has married six wives, five
of
whom are alive their Highnesses Rani Shri Nahniba, Rani Shri Hariba,
and Rani Shri Bajirajba, married 1874; Rani Shri Bairajba, married
1879;
and Rani Shri Keserba, married 1888, and has issue. His sons are

Kuma"r Shri Bhausinghji, born 26th April 1875.
Kuma"r Shri Mangalsinghji, born 3rd June 1881.

His Highness's daughters are

Kumdri Shri Ra'mbcl.
Kumari Shri Kesa'ba'.
Kumdri Shri Rupaliba*.

Any account of the predecessors of His Highness would cover the
history
of the illustrious tribe or clan of the Gohel Rajputs of Ka'thia'wa'r,
of whom he is
the Chief, and after whom the eastern part of the province of
Ka'thia'wa'r is called
Gohelwad. The Gohels claim to be descended from the celebrated
Pa"ndavs,
who belonged to the lunar or Chandravansi race, and so trace their
line from the
celebrated Shalivahan, the founder of the Shaka era, while Colonel Tod
and
others assert that the Gohels belong to the Solar race. The old family
title of
"Ra"wal" was earned (as appears at page 258 of Tod's Western India) at
the
memorable battle of Chitor, fought with Ald-ud-din Khilji in 1303 A.D.
There
are evidences going as far back as 812 A.D. which show that the Gohels
ruled in

Saurashtra (Kdthia'wdr) from a very remote period. On the fall of the
Delhi
Empire, when the Mahratta power gradually rose into importance, the
capital of
the State was at Sihor, with Bhausingji as ruler, at which time
(1722-23 A.D.) an
encounter with the Mahratta army took place near Sihor, and resulted
in the
defeat of the Mahrattas. The struggle showed the weakness of the
position of
the capital, and Bhausingji chose the present site and founded the
city of Bhau-
nagar, which he considered more secure. He died in 1764 A.D., and was
suc-
ceeded by his son Akherajji. Akherajji assisted the Mahrattas against
the
Mughal Viceroy Mominkhan, and in 1771 assisted the British Government
in re-
ducing the pirate stronghold of Talaji. It was this ruler, too, who,
at the request
of the Resident at Baroda, gave shelter to Raghundth Rao Peshwa", then
a
refugee, sending him to Bombay in one of his own vessels. Akherajji
died in
1772, and was succeeded by his son Wakhatsinghji. Wakhatsinghji
largely ex-
tended his dominions, was a wise ruler and intrepid soldier, and
during his life-
time cultivated the friendship of the British then trading in Surat.
He died in
1 8 1 6, and was succeeded by his son Wajesinghji, who after a
prosperous reign,
extending over a period of thirty-six years, died in 1852, and was
succeeded by
his grandson Akherajji III., his son Bhausingji having died during his
lifetime.
Akherajji III. died in 1854, and having no male issue was succeeded by
his
brother Jaswatsinghji, who died in 1870, and was succeeded by his son
Takhtsinghji, the present ruler. The latter has effected great and
rapid improve-
ments in his dominions. Liberal in his charities, generous in his
grants for the
public good, he has constructed over 120 miles of railway at an
expense of over
eighty lacs of rupees, intersected his State with roads, studded the
country with
important public works, beautified his capital with permanent
buildings of a most
ornamental character, instituted a State Council, and revised the
State laws, civil
and criminal. At his capital he has from time to time received special
visits
from their Excellencies the Governors of Bombay ; and in 1 890 was
honoured by
a visit of His Royal Highness the late Duke of Clarence and Avondale,
who,
journeying to a new port founded by His Highness in the South Coast,
and now
known as Port Albert Victor, there laid the foundation-stone of the
new harbour
works. His loyalty to the British Crown is second to none in India,
and he has
recently, at a cost of over five lacs of rupees, formed for Imperial
service a regi-
ment of Lancers 350 strong of men chiefly of his own clan, of which
corps he
is Honorary Colonel.

The area of his State is 2860 square miles ; the population 464,671,
and
the annual gross revenue Rs.4 1,00,000.

Arms. Gules, an eagle or displayed ; in chief on a canton of the
second, a
lion statant of the first. Crest. An Eastern galley argent profile in
full sail.
Supporters. Two bulls argent rampant, service with bezant. Motto.
JS^TEI sji^f i^sgnC wm (" Man proposes but God disposes ") on a label
azure.

Residence. The Motibagh Palace, Bhaunagar. Club. The Indian North-
brook, 3 Whitehall Gardens, London.

BHAWAL, RAM SINGH, Seim of.
A Ruling Chief.

Born about 1864, succeeded to the gadi 25th September 1889. The
Seim is a Khasi, and his State is situated in the Khasi and Jaintia
Hills. Its
population is about 555, chiefly Khasis and Christians.

Residence. Bhawal, Khasi and Jaintia Hills, Assam.

BHAWANI GHULAM PAL (of Mahuli), Rdjd.

Born 1844. The title is hereditary, the Raja being a Surajbans
Rajput,
descended from the family of Alakdeo and Tilakdeo, who killed Kaulbil
the
Rajbhar about the year 1580, and seized his domains situated in the
Pargana
of Mahuli, Basti district. Subsequently the family obtained the title
of Pal
from the Emperor of Delhi. The Raja has a son named Lai Narendra
Bahadur Pal.

Residence. Mahson, Basti, North-Western Provinces.

BHAWANI PRIYA BARNANI (of Gauripur), Rani.


The title is personal, and was conferred on ist January 1890.

Residence. Godlpdra, Assam.

BHIKAM NARAYAN SINGH (of Deo), Rdjd Bahadur.

See Deo.

BHIKAN KHAN, Khdn Bahadur.

Born 1 22 1, Fasli era. The title is personal, and was conferred on
ist
January 1877, for eminent services during the famine of 1873-74. Has
a
son, named Golam Dastgir Khan.

Residence. Muzaffarpur, Bengal.

BHIKHAJI AMUT CHAUBB, Rao Saheb.

The title is personal, and was conferred on ist June 1888 for eminent
services in the Medical Department
Residence. Baroda, Bombay.

BHIMACHARYA BIN RAMBHAT LALKIKAR,

Mahdmahopddhydya.

The title is personal, and was conferred on 2nd January 1888, for
eminent scholarship and oriental learning. It entitles him to take


rank in
Darbar immediately after titular Rajas.

Residence. B ombay .

BHINGA, Rdjd of. See Udai Partab Singh.

BHOJAKHERI, RAO BHAWANI SINGH, Rao of.

A Ruling Chief.

The Rao is descended from a Rajput (Hindu) family, and was born
about the year 1858 \ succeeded to the gadi on the 9th December 1879.
The population of his State is about 250, chiefly Hindus.

Residence. Bhojakheri, Western MaTwa", Central India.

BHOLA RAM, Rai Saheb.

The title is personal, and was conferred on 2oth May 1890.
Residence.

BHOLANATH BISWAS, Rai Bahddur.

The title is personal, and was conferred on ist January 1877.
Residence. Calcutta, Bengal.

BHOPAL, HER HIGHNESS NAWAB SHAH JAHAN

BEGUM, G.C.S.L, O.I., Begum of.

A Ruling Princess.

Her Highness the Nawab Shah Jahan Begum is the seventh in lineal
descent from the famous Dost Muhammad Khan, founder of the Bhopal

dynasty; was born 3rd July 1838, and
succeeded to the gadi on the 1 6th November
1868. Dost Muhammad was an Afghan
officer in the service of Aurangzeb, who took
advantage of the weakness of the Mughals
after the death of that Emperor to establish
his independent authority in Bhopal and the
neighbouring districts. The State of Bhopal
has usually been on the friendliest terms
with the British authorities. In 1778, on
the occasion of General Goddard's march
across India; in 1809, at the time of General
Close's expedition ; and again in 1817, at the
commencement of the Pindari war, Bhopal
did good service to the British Power. An
interesting feature in Bhopal history has been
the fact that the Princesses of the ruling family have verp
frequently
taken the most prominent part in the administration of the State.
Kudsia Begum was succeeded in 1837 by her son-in-law, the Nawab
Jahangir Muhammad; and the latter, on his death in 1844, was
succeeded
by his widow, Her late Highness Sikandar Begum, mother of the ruling
Princess, who was succeeded by the latter in 1868. The first husband
of Her Highness the Nawab Shah Jahan Begum died in 1867, leaving one
daughter, the Nawab Sultan Jahan Begum ; the latter has been
acknowledged
as Her Highness's heir-apparent. Her Highness was created in 1872, in
recognition of her high administrative qualities, a Grand Commander of
the
Most Exalted Order of the Star of India; and has subsequently been
appointed by Her Most Gracious Majesty the Empress to the Order of
the
Crown of India. In 1871 she contracted a second marriage with the
Maulavi Muhammad Sadik Husain, Nawab Consort, a descendant of a noble
family of Bokhara. The heir-apparent, the Nawab Sultan Jahan Begum,
was
married in 1874 to Ahmad Ali Khan, a member of the Afghan clan, the
Mirazai Khel, from which the Bhopal family is descended.

The area of the State is 6872 square miles ; its population is nearly
a
million, chiefly Hindus, but including over 80,000 Muhammadans, 6000
Jains, and about 120,000 belonging to aboriginal tribes. Her Highness
the
Nawab Begum maintains a military force of 803 cavalry, 2030 infantry,
and
69 guns; and is entitled to a salute of 19 guns, with 2 guns more
within
the limits of the Bhopal territory.

Arms. Vert, a tower or within twelve musk blossoms proper in bordure.
Crest. A sheaf of arrows charged with a lily argent. Supporters.
Mahsir
(fish), proper. Motto. Nasr Minullah.

Residence. Bhopal, Central India.

BHOPAL SINGH (of Urni Piparia), Thakur.

Born 1827. The title is hereditary, having been originally derived
from
the Gond Rajas of Mandla. Is descended from a Rajput family of the
Kshatriya tribe, clan Chandra -Bansi-Tomar (or Tomar of the Lunar
race).
This family claims to be descended from Raja Anang Pal, who reigned
at
Delhi in 1193 A.D. After the subversion of the Tomar dynasty, the
family
is said to have migrated to the Gwalior and Jhansi territories, where
some of
its branches remain. Two brothers of this family, Bisram Singh and
Narwar
Singh, were called in by the Gond Raja of Mandla, and provided with
military
appointments. They captured the fort of Ajaigarh and subdued the
country
round Mandla and Kurai ; and were rewarded with the tdluka Sainkhera.
In 1842 the Thakur Bhopal Singh, with his father and brother, captured
a
rebel, and were rewarded by Government with the village of Pat Ras.
Rendered good service in the time of the Mutiny, and was rewarded
with
a money grant and a parwdna. In 1867 the Thakur was made an Honorary
Magistrate.

Residence. Piparia, Narsinghpur, Central Provinces.

BHOR, SANKAR RAO CHIMNAJI, Pant Sachiv of.
A Ruling Chief.

Born 1854. Succeeded to the gadi i2th February 1871. Is a Brahman
(Hindu) ; the Pant Sachiv was one of the eight hereditary Ministers of
the
old Mahratta* Empire. The present Pant Sachiv is the natural heir of
Chimnaji Pandit, the late Pant Sachiv ; who was adopted by
Raghunathrao
on payment of nazars to the Raja of Satara and to the British
Government.
The area of the State is 1491 square miles, and its population
145,876,
chiefly Hindus.

Residence. Bhor, Poona, Bombay.

BHOTE KHAN LALKHAN, Khan Saheb.
The title is personal, and was conferred on ist June 1888.
Residence. KMmgaon, Berar.

BHUBAN MOHAN, Kumar.

The title is personal, and was conferred i8th July 1861. The Kumar is
the son and successor of the late Raja Haris Chandra, who was the
Chief of
the Chakma clan in the Chittagong Hill Tracts, and who rendered good
service in the Lushai Expedition of 1871-72, by supplying coolies,
boats, etc.

Residence. Chittagong Hill Tracts, Bengal.

BHUGANGA BHUSAN RAI, Rdjd Rai.

This is one of the titles that appear never to have been formally
recog-

nised by Government. It was conferred by the Emperor of Delhi for
approved service, the earliest Rajas being Raja Pratapaditya Rai and
Raid
Basanta Kumar Rai.

Residence. Khulna, Bengal.

BHUP INDRA BAHADUR SINGH (of Kantit), Rdjd.
See Kantit.

BHUP INDRA BIKRAMA SINGH (of Piyagpur), Rdjd.
See Piyagpur.

Sid Harth

unread,
Feb 4, 2010, 12:32:28 PM2/4/10
to
BHUP SINGH, Rao.

Born 1851. The title is hereditary. Is descended from Dalip Singh,
Bais Thakur; who, 300 years ago, came at the head of his tribe, and
took possession of the Pargana of Kot Salbahan. Dalip Singh had two
sons, Rao Singh and Karam Singh ; and the descendants of Rao Singh,
one
of whom was Baldeo Singh, father of Bhup Singh, have always borne the
title of Rao. Rao Baldeo Singh did excellent service in the time of
the
Mutiny, and received a commendatory parwdna in reward. He also
received a Certificate of Honour at the Imperial Assemblage of Delhi
in
1877; and was appointed an Honorary Magistrate.

Residence. Bhanpur, Budaon, North- Western Provinces.

BHUP SINGH, BAGGA (of Dabanwala), Sarddr.

Born 1836. The title is hereditary. Belongs to the Bagga (Jat)
family,
formerly of great wealth and power in the Gurdaspur district,
Descended
from Sardar Amar Singh, who overran the greater part of the district.
His
son and successor, Sardar Bhag Singh, survived his father only three
years ;
and on his death his cousin Budh Singh took possession of the estates,
to
the exclusion of Bhag Singh's son, Hari Singh. But Budh Singh was
deprived of his possessions by the Maharaja Ranjit Singh.
Subsequently
the Lahore Darbar assigned a jdgir to Hari Singh, who was the father
of the
present Sardar.

Residence. Gurddspur, Punjab.

BHUPBNDRA NARAYAN RAI (of Madhavapassa), Rdjd.

This is one of the titles that appear not to have been formally
recognised

by Government. The family at one time possessed three farmdns of the
time of the Emperor Muhammad Shah, bearing the seal of the Nawab
Murshid Kuli Khan, confirming Udai Narayan Rai in the Zaminddri of
Chandradip, Bakarganj.

Residence. Madhavapassa, Bdkarganj, Bengal.

BHUPBNDRADEB RAI, Rdjd Rai and Mahdsai.

This is a title that appears not to have been formally recognised by
Government. The family claims to have received it from the Emperor
Aurangzeb in the year 1090 Hijrah ; and states that the original sanad
was
in their possession up to the time of the Imperial Assemblage at
Delhi,
in 1877.

Residence. Bansberia", Hooghly, Bengal.

BHUTAN, HIS HIGHNESS SANGAY DORJI, Deb Rdjd of.

A Ruling Chief.

His Highness the Deb Raja is a Buddhist by religion, and a Thibetan
by race. He succeeded to the gadi on the 23rd August 1885. The area
of
the State is about 20,000 square miles; its population is estimated
at
200,000, chiefly Buddhists.

Residence. Bhutan.

BHUTNATH DE, Rai Bahadur.

The title is personal, and was conferred on ist June 1888.
Residence. Raipur, Central Provinces.

BHUVAN MOHAN VIDYARATNA, Mahdmahopddhydya.

The title is personal, and was conferred on i6th February 1887, on


the
occasion of the Jubilee of the reign of Her Most Gracious Majesty the

Empress. It entitles him to take rank in Darbar immediately after
titular
Rajas, and was given for eminent oriental learning, especially in
Sanskrit.
Is a professor in the Nadiya tols, the ancient Sanskrit University of
Bengal.

Residence. Nadiy, Bengal.

BHYSONDA. See Bhaisaunda.

BICHHROD I., THAKUR RATAN SINGH, Thdkur of.
A Ruling Chief.

The Thakur is descended from a Rajput (Hindu) family ; was born
about the year 1860, and succeeded to the gadi on iyth April 1874.
The
population of his State is about 366, chiefly Hindus.

Residence. Bichhrod, Western Malwa, Central India.

BICHHROD II., THAKUR MADHO SINGH, Thdkur of.
A Ruling Chief.

The Thakur is descended from a Rajput (Hindu) family ; was born about
the year 1847, an d succeeded to the gadi in 1878.
Residence. Bichhrod, Western Malwa", Central India.

BIHARI LAL KHAZANCHI, Rao Saheb.

The title is personal, and was conferred on ist June 1888.

Jh.^ Residence. Jabalpur, Central Provinces.

BIHAT, RAO MAHUM SINGH, Jdgirddr of.
A Ruling Chief.

The Rao is descended from an ancient Bundela Rajput (Hindu) family, a
collateral branch of that which rules at Orchha. He was born on i6th
November 1858, and succeeded to the gadi on the 9th April 1872. Arjun
Pal, who ruled at Mahoni, was the common ancestor of the Orchha and
Bihat
families his third son, Dya Pal, settling at Etaura, and subsequent
genera-
tions occupying Gurha in Bihat State, and finally Bihat itself.
Aperbal Singh,
Chief of Bihat, obtained a sanad from the British Government in 1807.
The area of the State is about 13 square miles; its population 4704,
chiefly
Hindus. The Rao maintains a military force of 5 cavalry, 75 infantry,
and
i gun.

Residence. Bihat, Bundelkhand, Central India.

BIHORA, THAKUR SARDARBAWA, Thdkur of.
A Ruling Chief.

Born 1854. Area of State is rather under i square mile; its popula-
tion is chiefly Bhil (aboriginal). The Thakur belongs to a Rajput
(Muham-
madan) family.

Residence. Bihora, Rewd Kdntha, Bombay.

BIJA, THAKUR UDB CHAND, Thdkur of.
A Ruling Chief.

Born 1829. Succeeded to the gadi 1841. Belongs to a Rajput family
(Hindu), whose founder, Garab Chand, came from Ujjain in early times
and
conquered this territory. It was overrun by the Gurkhas between 1803
and
1815 ; but when they were expelled by the British in the latter year,
the
Thakur was confirmed in possession by a sanad, on conditions of
feudal
service. The State (which is one of the Simla Hill States) has an area
of
4 square miles, and a population of 1158, chiefly Hindus. The Thakur
maintains a military force of 10 men.

Residence. Bija, Punjab.

BIJAI BAHADUR (of Chichli), Rdjd.

Born 1849. Succeeded his father, Raja Nizam Singh, in 1871. The
title is hereditary ; and was originally conferred by the Gond Raja of
Mandla,
dating so far back, it is said, as 921 A.D. The sanad has been
destroyed by
age. In 1808 a flag, a, staff, a belt, and a drum were bestowed on
Raja
Sangram Shah by the late Nawab Sidak Ali, Subahdar of the Nagpur
Raja,
for the capture of a famous rebel named Mir Khan. The family were
settled
at Fatehpur in Hoshangabad until 1227; when Pahar Singh, the younger
son of Raja Bariya Singh of Fatehpur, came to Chichli and Sangal. The
present Raja's father, Raja Nizam Singh, rendered good service to
Govern-

ment in the time of the Mutiny in 1857; and received, in
consideration
thereof, a sanad si loyalty, dated igth September 1859, together with
a sword
of honour and a money grant. He was also made an Honorary Magistrate.
The Raja Bijai Bahadur has a son whose name is Lai Saheb. The family
banner is a yellow flag or pitambar, with chauri and staff ; the motto
on the
Raja's seal is Sado Sahai Narsingh, Nizam Singh Sut Bijai Bahadur
Singh,
which is " May the god Narsingh always help Bijai Bahadur Singh, son
of
Nizam Singh."

Residence. Narsinghpur, Central Provinces.

BIJAI CHAND MAHTAB, Mahdrdj- Kumar. See Burdwan.

BIJAI SINGH MBHTA, Rai Bahadur.
The title is personal, and was conferred on ist January 1878.
Residence. Jodhpur, Rajputdna.

BIJAWAR, HIS HIGHNESS MAHARAJA SAWAI BHAN

PARTAB SINGH BAHADUR, Maharaja of.

A Ruling Chief.

Born 24th December 1842. Succeeded to the gadi 23rd November
1847. His Highness the Chief of Bijawar, like those of Charkhari and
Ajaigarh, is descended from Jagat Raj, the second son of the Maharaja
Chhatarsal ; and the Bijawar territory is a portion of that which was
ruled by
his great ancestor. The second son of Jagat Raj was Birsinghdeo of
Bijawar ;
and the son of the latter, named Kesri Singh, obtained a sanad from
the
British Government in 1811. The great-grandson of the last-named is
the
present Maharaja Bahadur. The area of the State is about 974 square
miles ;
its population 113,285, chiefly Hindus, but with 2405 Muhammadans and
2506 Jains. His Highness maintains a military force of 100 cavalry,
1000
infantry, and 1 3 guns ; and is entitled to a salute of 1 1 guns. The
family
is Bundela Rajput (Hindu) ; its motto is Agni pratdp Vishwesha
(Hindi,
meaning " As fire resplendent, the Lord of the World ") ; and its
banner was
unfurled at the Delhi Imperial Assemblage in 1877.

Residence. Bijdwar, Bundelkhand, Central India.

BUNA, DIWAN MAKUND SINGH, Jdgirddr of.
A Ruling Chief.

Is a member of the Hashtbhaiya family (see Dhurwai), who are Bundela
Rajputs, the State being an offshoot of that of Orchha (q.v.) Born
January
1838 succeeded to the gadi in 1850. Diwan Sawant Singh of Bijna was
the second son of Diwan Rai Singh, the common ancestor of the
Hashtbhaiya.
Sawant Singh's grandson, Surjun Singh, obtained a sanad from the
British
Government in 1823 ; and his grandson is the present Chief. The area
of
the State is 27 square miles; its population 2084, chiefly Hindus.
The
Chief maintains a military force of 4 cavalry, 30 infantry, and 2
guns.

Residence. Bijna, Bundelkhand, Central India.

BUNT, Rani of.

Is the widow of the late Raja Kumud Narayan Bhup of Bijni, and is in
possession of the Bijni estates. The Bijni family is descended from a
younger son of one of the Rajas of Kuch Behar (q.v.)

Residence. Bijni, Godlpdra, Assam.

BIKANIR, HIS HIGHNESS MAHARAJA RAJ RAJBSHWAR
SIROMAN SRI GANGA SINGH BAHADUR, Maharaja of.

A Ruling Chief.

Born 1879. Succeeded to the gadi iQth August 1887. Is a Rahtor
Rajput, descended from Bika Singh, the founder of Bikanir, who was
the
sixth son of Rao Jodha, Chief of Jodhpur (q.v.}, claiming descent
from
Umalrai, fifty-sixth in descent from Rama. The title was confirmed to
the
family, in the person of the Maharaja Guj Singh, by the Emperor Ahmad
Shah of Delhi in 1752 A.D. The Bikanir flag is yellow and red the
former
representing Lakshmindrdyan, and the latter Devi. The area of the
State is
22,340 square miles; its population 509,021, chiefly Hindus, but with
over
50,000 Muhammadans and 21,000 Jains. His Highness (who is still a
minor) maintains a military force of 400 cavalry, 564 infantry, and 91
guns.
He is entitled to a salute of 1 7 guns.

Residence. Bikanir, Rajputdna.

BILASPUR, Rdjd of. See Kahlur.

BILAUDA, THAKUR SAMRAT SINGH, Thdkur of.
A Ruling Chief.

Born about 1872 ; succeeded to the gadi as a minor in 1878. Is
descended from a Rajput (Hindu) family. The population of the State
is
about 276, chiefly Hindus.

Residence. Bilauda, Western Mdlwa", Central India.

BILBARI, MHOSHA walad VAGHU, Chief of.
A Ruling Chief.

Born about 1860. Is descended from a Puar family. The State is one
of the numerous Dang States in Khandesh ; its area is under 2 square
miles,
and its population about 1418, chiefly Bhils (aborigines).

Residence. Bilbari, KMndesh, Bombay.

BILOD, The Khan of.
A Ruling Chief.

This State is in Western Malwa, Central India, and the succession to
the
gadi was undecided at the time when information was obtained in 1891.
The population is about 600, partly Hindus, partly Muhammadan ; the
ruling
family is Muhammadan.

Residence. Bilod, Central India.

BIPIN BIHARI DATT, Rai Bahadur.
The title is personal, and was conferred on 6th July 1888.
Residence. Hugli, Bengal.

BIPIN KRISHNA BASU (BOSS), Rai Bahadur.


The title is personal, and was conferred on ist June 1888.
Residence. Ndgpur, Central Provinces.

BIR SHAMSHBR JANG, K.C.I.E., Maharaja Sir.
Prime Minister of Nepal.

His Excellency the Prime Minister of Nepal was, on 25th May 1892,
created a Knight Commander of the Most Exalted Order of the Star of
India.

Residence. Khatmandu, Nepal

BIR SINGH DEO (of Kuarpur), Thdkur.

Born 1816. The title is hereditary, and was originally conferred on
an
ancestor of the present Thakur by one of the Gond Rajas of Mandla. Is
uncle of Thakur Kirat Singh, and a sharer in the tdluka of Kuarpur.
His
sons are (i) Kunwar Himalchal Singh, (2) Kunwar Surat Singh, (3) Kun-
war Himat Singh.

Residence. Jabalpur, Central Provinces.

BIRA SINGHA NARAYAN RAI (of Madhavapassa), Raja.

This is one of the titles that appear not to have been formally
recognised

by Government. The family at one time possessed three farmdns of the
time of the Emperor Muhammad Shah, bearing the seal of the Nawab
Murshid Kuli Khan, confirming Udai Narayan Rai in the Zaminddri of
Chandradip, Bakarganj.

Residence. Madhavapassa, Bakarganj, Bengal.

BIRESHWAR DATT, Rai Bahadur.

The title is personal, and was conferred on i6th February 1887.
Residence. Jabalpur, Central Provinces.

BISHAN CHAND DUDHURIA, Rai Bahadur.

Born loth June 1852. The title is personal, and was conferred on 2nd
January 1888 for his liberal philanthropy and public services. Owns
lands in
the districts of Maimansingh, Murshidabad, Birbhum, Burdwan,
Bhagalpur,
Faridpur, and Rajshahi, and has always contributed to charitable and
other
funds, opening annachatras (or poor-houses) in times of famine, etc.
His
son is named Bijai Singh Dudhuria, born November 1879. His brother is
Rai Budh Singh Dudhuria Bahadur (q.v.)

Residence. Azimganj, Murshidabad, Bengal.

BISHAN DATT (of Barwara), Thdkur.

Born 1831. The title is hereditary. The tdluka was given to the
family
of Anrudh Singh Baldeo Sahai by Raja Nizam Shah of Mandla about 1743.
Residence. Barwara, Jabalpur, Central Provinces.

BISHAN SABUP, MUNSHI, Rai Bahadur.

The title is personal, and was conferred on 24th May 1889.
Residence. Kekri, Ajmir.

BISHAN SINGH (of Bheri), Sarddr.

The title is hereditary. The Sardar belongs to a Jat family,
descended
from Sardar Mahtab Singh, Miran Kotia, a Sikh Chief famous for his
prowess,
who lived in 1761 A.D. His son, Sardar Rai Singh, acquired by
conquest
some villages in the Ambala district more than a century ago.

Residence. Bheri, Ludhidna, Punjab.

BISHAN SINGH (of Nabha), Diwdn, C.I.E.

The Diwan was created a Companion of the Most Eminent Order of the
Indian Empire on ist January 1890, for distinguished services to the
State
of Nabha in the Punjab.

Residence. Ndbha, Punjab.

BISHEN LAL SINGH (of Kendi), Rdjd.

This is one of the titles that have not been formally recognised by
Govern-
ment. The family is descended from Raja Nabir Singh, who was Zaminddr
of Kendi, in the Hazaribagh district, at the commencement of the i8th
century. The Raja has a son, named Iswar Prasad Singh, who bears the
courtesy title of Tikait.

Residence. Hazdribagh, Bengal.

BISHESHWAR BAKHSH SINGH, Ral
The title is hereditary.
Residence. Jaunpur, North-Western Provinces.

BISHESHWAR BAKHSH SINGH, Rai.

The title is hereditary.
Residence. Partdbgarh, Oudh.

BISHNATH SINGH (of Katra Balkhera), Thdkur,

The title is hereditary, having been originally conferred by Raja
Nizam
Shah, Gond Raja of Mandla.

Residence. Jabalpur, Central Provinces.

BISHNU CHANDRA DATTA, Rai Bahadur.

Has rendered good service as Deputy Postmaster - General, Eastern
Bengal, and received the title as a personal distinction on 25th May
1892.

Residence. Dacca, Bengal.

BISHUN NARAYAN (of Sidli), Rdjd.

The title is hereditary, and was conferred on i4th August 1868. Is
the
son of the late Raja Gauri Narayan, descended from a family said to
be
descended from the ancestors of the Maharaja of Kuch Behar. The
founder
received a jdgir from the Raja of Kuch Behar ; his descendants
subsequently
became subjects of the Mughal Empire, and in 1765 came under British
rule.
They were under Bhutiya control for some time, and reverted to British
control
after the Bhutan war in 1865.

Residence. Godlpdra, Assam.

BISHUNATH SINGH, Rao.

Born 1 5th September 1870; succeeded his father on ist October 1888.
The title is hereditary, and is said to have been conferred originally
on
Raghubar Singh, Thakur, father of Rao Bishunath Singh, by Raja Gyan
Chand.

Residence. Cawnpur, North- Western Provinces.

BOBBILI, Rdjd of.
See Venkatasveta Chala-pathi Ranga Rao, Ravu, Rdjd.

BOD, RAJA JOGINDRA DEO, Rdjd of.
A Ruling Chief.

Born about 1857 ; succeeded to the gadi on 5th October 1879. Belongs
to a Kshatriya (Hindu) family, founded by Ganda Mardan Deo, seventy
generations back. The title of Raja has been enjoyed since the time of
the
Mahratta rule; it was formally recognised by the British Government
on
2ist May 1874, in the lifetime of the late Raja Pitambar Deo, father
of the
present Raja. The eldest son of the ruling Raja is called the
Jubaraj ;
the younger sons Babus. It is said that the Rajas of Bod have always
been famous for their loyalty to the Emperors of India who were in
power
from time to time. Formerly there was a main route through this State
to
the Central and Western Provinces, and whenever any persons duly
credited
by the Muhammadan or Mahratta rulers passed over it the Rajas of Bod
used to render them every assistance, and thus earned their favour.
When
Raja Pratap Deb was the ruler, certain officers of the Muhammadan
Emperor
were passing through this State with troops en route to Puri. Some of
the
troops having caught fever it was necessary for them to halt there for
about
a month, during which time the Raja treated them very hospitably, and
gained their good opinion. On their reporting the facts to the
Emperor, the
title of " Swasti Sri Derlakhya Dumbadhipati Jharkhund Mandaleswar "
was
conferred upon the then Raja. This title continued till the time of
Raja
Banamali Deb, when certain Mahratta officers went to Sonpur to
realise
peshkash) and committed much violence. The people of Sonpur formed a
conspiracy to kill the officers, who fled to Bod for refuge. The
Sonpur
people continued their pursuit up to Bod, where the Raja took them
prisoners and sent them to Nagpur. This conduct of the Chief very
much
pleased the Mahratta ruler, who conferred the title of " Swasti Sri
Prabala-
pratapaditya Parutapa Danasampanna Jharkhand Badshah" on the Raja.
This title was subsequently abbreviated to " Jharkhand Paichha " ; and
in
consideration of the above, the Raja was once for all exempted from
paying
peshkash to the Mughal and Mahratta rulers. The area of the State
(which
is one of those known as the Orissa Tributary Mahals) is about 2064
square
miles; its population 130,103, chiefly Hindus, but over 37,000
belonging to
aboriginal tribes. The Raja maintains a military force of 592 infantry
and
2 guns.

Residence. Bod, Orissa.

BOLANDBA, THAKUR SALAMSINGHJI, Thdkur of.
A Ruling Chief.

Born about 1865. Is descended from a Rajput (Hindu) family. The
area of the State is about 14 square miles; its population about 873,
chiefly
Hindus.

Residence. Bolandra, Ma"hi Kdntha, Bombay.

BOMANJI SOHRABJI, Khan Bahadur.

The title is personal, and was conferred on ist January 1877, on the


occasion of the Proclamation of Her Most Gracious Majesty as Empress
of

India.

Residence. Poona, Bombay.

BONAI, RAJA INDAR DEO BAHADUR, Rdjd of.
A Ruling Chief.

Born about 1836; succeeded to the gadi on the i2th September 1876.
Rendered good service to the Government during the Keonjhar
disturbances
in 1867-68. Is descended from a Kshatriya (Hindu) family, who call
them-
selves Kodam Bangsa, because the progenitor of the race was born under
a
kodam tree. The infant, it is said, was abandoned, and was in danger
of falling
into the hands of an enemy, when a peacock swallowed it, and kept it
in his
craw until the danger was over ; and in gratitude the family adopted
the
peacock as its crest. The title of Tikait is the courtesy title of the
heir-
apparent ; that of Potait is borne by the second son, that of Ldl by
the third
son, and Bdbu by the younger sons, if any. The Raja Bahadur has the
following sons Tikait Nilambar Deo, Potait Bishambar Deo, Lai Hari
Krishna Deo. The area of the State (which is one of the Chota Nagpur
Tributary Mahals) is about 1297 square miles ; its population 24,026,
chiefly
Hindus.

Residence. Bonai, Chota Ndgpur, Bengal.

BORKHBRA, THAKUR AMAR SINGH, Thdkur of.
A Ruling Chief.

The Thakur is descended from a Rajput (Hindu) family.
Residence. Borkhera, Indore, Central India.

BORKHERA (WESTERN MALWA), THAKUR BHAIRON

SINGH, Thdkur oj.

A Ruling Chief.

Born about the year 1858 ; succeeded to the gadt in 1873. The popula-
tion of the State is about 1000, partly Hindus, partly Muhammadans.
Residence. Borkhera, Western Malwa", Central India.

BRAHMA NARAYAN SINGH, Thdkur.

This is one of the titles that appear not to have been officially
recognised.
The Thakur's sons all bear the courtesy title of Bdbu.
Residence. Manbhum, Bengal.

BRAJA GOPAL SINGH, Rdjd.

This is one of the titles that have never been formally recognised by
Government. The Raja's elder son is styled Tikait, his name is Madan
Mohan Singh ; and the younger, whose name is Sarat Chandra Singh, has
the title of Hikim.

Residence. Mdnbhum, Bengal.

BRAJA KISHOR SINGH, Rdjd.

This is one of the titles that appear never to have been officially
recog-
nised by Government. The family claims to be of Rajput descent. The
Raja's eldest son, named Ramakanai Singh, bears the courtesy title of
Jubardj ; the second, named Syamsundar Singh, bears that of Hikim ;
the
third is styled Kumdr. In this family no name is given to a son till
he
attains the age of twelve years. The younger sons of the Raja, below
the
third, are styled Bdbu, except the fourth, who sometimes has the
courtesy
title of Bara Thdkur.

Residence. Bdrabhum, Mdnbhum, Bengal.

BRAMHA NAND MAL, Paik-Rai.

This is one of the titles that appear not to have been formally
recognised

by Government. It was originally conferred by one of the old Rajas of
Kujung.

Residence. Cuttack, Orissa.

BRIJ BHUKAN LAL, Rai Bahadur.

Born 1820. The title is personal; and was conferred on 24th May
1882, the Rai Bahadur having held many important public offices,
having
retired on pension in 1872, and having been granted a medal by
Govern-
ment at the Imperial Assemblage of Delhi on ist January 1877, on the


occasion of the Proclamation of Her Most Gracious Majesty as Empress
of

India. Is an Honorary Magistrate of Lucknow ; one of the founders of
the
Jubilee High School, Lucknow ; President of the Kayastha Sadar Sabha
of
India, 1888 ; and Secretary to the Trustees of the Husainabad
Endowment.
Has borne for many years a high character for loyalty and
benevolence.
His son is named Ananda Prasad, born 1846; his grandson, Bansi Dhar,
born 1874; his great-grandson, Manohar Ldl, born 1891.

Residence. Lucknow, Oudh.

BRIJ LAL GHOSH, Rai Bahadur.

The title is personal, and was conferred on 8th October 1879.
Residence. Lahore, Punjab.

BRIJ RAJ SINGH (of Bhaddu), Rdjd.

The title is hereditary. The family is Rajput, and claims descent
from
the Pandus, being of the same stock as the families of Kulu, Bisauli,
and
Bahadurwah. Its founder, Raja Jai Singh, was a tributary of the
Kanahya
Sardar, Jaimal Singh. His grandson, Raja Umaid Singh, on the grant of
the
hill territories by the British Government to the Maharaja Ghulab
Singh of
Kashmir and Jammu, was dispossessed of his territories, but received
a
pension from the British Government from the territories ceded by the
Maha-
raja to meet this and similar claims. He settled in Nurpur, Kangra
district.

Residence. Ka"ngra, Punjab.

BUDDHA KHAN, Khan.

The title is personal, and was conferred on ist January 1877, on the


occasion of the Proclamation of Her Most Gracious Majesty as Empress
of

India.

Residence. Hathan, Merwara.

BUDH SINGH DUDHURIA, Rai Bahadur.

The title is personal, and was conferred on 2nd January 1888. Is a
brother of the Rai Bishan Chand Dudhuria Bahadur (q.v.)
Residence. Murshidabad, Bengal.

BUDHO KHAN walad MUHAMMAD ALI KHAN, Mir.


The title is hereditary, the Mir being a descendant of one of the Mirs
or

Chiefs of Sind at the time of the annexation.
Residence. Hyderabad, Sind.

BULAKA SINGH, Sardar.

The title is personal, and was conferred on 2nd January 1888.
Residence. Lahore, Punjab.

BUN BBHARI KAPUR (of Burdwan), Rdjd.

Title of Raja conferred, as a personal distinction, 2nd January 1893.
Born nth November 1853 ; adopted by the third brother of the late
Maharaja Adhiraj Mahtab Chand Bahadur of Burdwan on 3 ist August
1856. Appointed Diwan-i-Rdj of Burdwan in 1877, and Vice-President
of the Burdwan Raj touncil in 1879. At the Imperial Assemblage
of Delhi on ist January 1877, on the occasion of the Proclama-
tion of Her Most Gracious Majesty as Empress of India, received a
Certificate of Honour, was appointed Honorary Magistrate, and Member
of the District Board of Burdwan; and on 23rd January 1885 a Member
of the Bengal Legislative Council. Appointed Joint Manager, Burdwan
Raj estate, 1885, and sole Manager in 1891 ; and has rendered
admirable
services to the Burdwan Raj and to the country for many years past. He
is
the natural father of the present Maharaj-Kumar of Burdwan (who is
still a
minor) ; a brother-in-law of the late Maharaja Aftab Chand Bahadur,
and a
nephew of His Highness the late Maharaja Mahtab Chand Bahadur of
Burdwan.

Crest. A horse's head, erased, proper.

Residence. The Bonabas, Burdwan.

BUNDI, HIS HIGHNESS MAHARAO RAJA RAGHUBIR
SINGH BAHADUR, Mahdrao Rdjd of.

Born about 1868; succeeded to the gadi 28th March 1889. Is a
Chauhan (Kara) Rajput (Hindu), descended from Rao Deo Singh, son of
Rao Bakht Singh Deoji, who founded the State of Bundi about the year
1242 A.D. The flag of the family is coloured yellow, with the motto
Sri
Rangesh Bhagt Bundesh Ram Singhe^ meaning " Raja Ram Singh, ruler
of Bundi, is a believer in Raghunathji." The State is situated in that
part
of Rajputana known as the Haraoti and Tonk Agency. Its area is 2300
square miles; its population about 254,701, chiefly Hindus, but with
9477
Muhammadans and 3101 Jains. His Highness maintains a military force
of 446 cavalry, 1835 infantry, and 144 guns; and is entitled to a
salute of
17 guns.

Residence. Bundi, Rajputana.

Sid Harth

unread,
Feb 4, 2010, 12:34:27 PM2/4/10
to
BUR SINGH (of Mukerian), Sardar, Sarddr Bahadur.

The first title is hereditary, the second is personal, and was
conferred on
ist June 1888. The Sardar and his brothers were important Sardars
during
the reign of the Mahajara Sher Singh of Lahore. When Sher Singh was
assassinated, Sardar Budh Singh (brother of Sardar Bur Singh) was
killed on
the spot, and his cousin severely wounded. Sardar Bur Singh was
deputed
to Fatehgarh to remain in attendance on Shdhzada Shahdeo Singh, son
of
Maharaja Sher Singh, who accompanied the Maharaja Dalip Singh to that
place.

Residence. Mukerian, HoshiaVpur, Punjab.

BURDWAN, MAHARAJ-KUMAR BIJAI CHAND MAHTAB,

Mahdrdj-Kumdr of.

Born 1 9th October 1881. Succeeded the late Maharaja Aftab Chan d
Mahtab Bahadur, Maharaja of Burdwan. Belongs to a Kapur Kshatriya

family of Kotli in Lahore, Punjab,
whence Abu Rai, the founder of
the Burdwan Raj family, migrated
to Bengal. Was adopted by the
late Maharaja, and is the son of
Raja Bun Behari Kapur of Burd-
wan (q.v.\ a scion of the same
family, who is also the guardian
and manager of the large estates
of the young Maharaj - Kumar.
Abu Rai Kapur settled in district
Burdwan; and in 1657 A.D. was
appointed Chaudhri and Kotwal
of Rekabi Bazar, etc., under the
Fauzdar of Chakld Burdwan. He
was succeeded by Babu Rai, who owned Pargand Burdwan and three
other estates, and also succeeded his father as Chaudhri. Then
followed in
succession his son Gyaneshyam Rai, and his grandson Krishna Rama
Rai ;
the latter received a far man from the Emperor Aurangzeb, dated 24th

Rabiwal Akhir, in the thirty-eighth year of his reign (1695 A -D.),
confirming
him as Zamindar and Chaudhri of Burdwan. Succeeded by his son Jagat
Rama Rai, who received a similar farmdn from the Emperor Aurangzeb,
dated 5th Jamadiwal Awol, in the forty-third year of his reign (1700
A.D.) ;
and again his son, Kirti Chandra Rai, who succeeded, received a
similar
farmdn from the same Emperor, dated 2oth Sawab, in the forty-eighth
year
of his reign (1705 A.D.), mentioning him as Zamindar and Chaudhri of
forty-nine Mahals in Pargand Burdwan. Kirti Chandra Rai received a
second farmdn from the Emperor Muhammad Shah, adding some Mahals^
in the year 1736 A.D. He was succeeded by his son Chitra Sen Rai;
who, in the twenty-first year of the reign of the Emperor Muhammad
Shah (1740 A.D.), received a farmdn recognising him as Zamindar of
Chakld Burdwan, and giving him the title of Raja. He was succeeded by
his cousin, the nephew of Kirti Chandra, Raja Tilak Chandra Rai ; who
received a sanad from the Emperor Ahmad Shah, dated 7th Rajab, in the
seventh year of his reign (1753 A.D.), confirming him as Raja of
Burdwan,
etc. In 1765 he received another sanad from the Emperor Shah
Alam, granting an increase of the Zaminddri, and the additional title
of
Bahadur ; and about the same time the same Emperor wrote him a
friendly
letter, intimating his creation as Raja Bahadur, and also as a
Commander of
4000 infantry. To this, in the official farmdn that followed, was
added also
the command of 2000 cavalry; and lastly, in the ninth year of the
Emperor
Shah Alam (1768 A.D.), he received from the Commander-in-Chief, by
order
of the Emperor, a sanad conferring the title of Maharaja Adhiraj, and
making
him a Commander of 5000 infantry and 3000 cavalry, with authority for
guns, bands, nakara, etc. He was succeeded by his son, the Maharaja
Tej Chandra Rai, who, in 1771 A.D., received a similar sanad to the
last-
named. He was succeeded by his adopted son, Maharaja Mahtab Chand,
who, in 1833 A.D., received a farmdn from Lord William Bentinck,
Governor-General, confirming him in the title of Maharaja Adhiraj
Bahadur.
In 1868 he obtained for himself and his descendants the license of
Her
Majesty to bear the arms and supporters described below; and at the
Imperial Assemblage at Delhi on ist January 1877, on the occasion of
the
Proclamation of Her Most Gracious Majesty as Empress of India, he was
granted, as a personal distinction, the right to receive a salute of
13 guns.
He managed his great estates with so much success that they became
some
of the most prosperous in Bengal ; and at the time of the Santal
Rebellion
in 1855, an d again during the troubles of the Mutiny, the Maharaja
did
everything in his power to strengthen the hands of the Government, by
placing elephants and bullock-carts at the disposal of the
authorities, and by
keeping open the communications in the neighbouring districts. On his
death in 1879 he was succeeded by his adopted son, the late Maharaja
Aftab Chand Mahtab, who, on attaining his majority in 1881, was
installed
at the Palace, Burdwan, in all his father's honours and possessions.
He
died prematurely in 1888, and was succeeded by his adopted son, the
present Maharaj-Kumar, who is still a minor. The family colour is
dark-
blue with scarlet facings. The arms are azure, an ancient Hindustani
shield
proper, between in chief a crescent argent and in base two swords in
saltire,
points downwards, also proper. The crest is an iron-gray horse's
head,
couped, around the neck a riband azure, and pendent therefrom an
escutcheon of the last, charged with a lotus-flower proper. The
supporters

are, on either side an iron-gray horse regardant, around the neck a
riband
gules, and pendent therefrom an escutcheon of the last, charged with a
lotus-
flower proper.

Residences. The Palace, Burdwan, Bengal ; Mahtab Manzil, and Dilaram,
and Dar-ul-Bahr (Dilkusha Gardens), Burdwan ; The Rajbdti, Chinsurah,
Bengal ;
The Rajbti, Kalna, Bengal ; The Aftab House, Alipur, Calcutta ; The
Rosebank,
Darjiling ; The Retreat, Kurseong, Bengal ; and other residences at
Bhdgalpur,
Benares, Cawnpur, and Agra.

BURHAN-UD-DIN-KHAN, FAKIR SAYYID (of Lahore),

Khan Bahadur.

The title-is personal, and was conferred on 2nd January 1888.
Residence. Bhopdl, Central India.

BYA GALE, MAUNG, Ahmtidan gaung Tazeik-ya Min.

The title is personal, and was conferred on ist January 1889. It
means
"Recipient of the Medal of Honour for Good Service," and is indicated
by the letters A.T.M. after the name.

Residence. Pegu, Burma.

BYRAMJBE DADABHOY, Khan Bahadur.
See Behramji Dadabhai, Khan Bahadur.

CALICUT, MAHARAJA SIR MANA VIKRAMA BAHADUR,

K. C.S.I., Zamorin of.

Born i Qth March 1820 ; succeeded to the gadi 26th March 1868. The
present Zamorin is believed to be the 1 1 9th in descent from the
founder of
the family, who derived his title from Cheraman Perumal, the last
Emperor
of Malabar. The tradition is that there were two youths of the Eradi
caste
from Pumthura, near Erode, who rendered Cheraman Perumal, the last
Emperor of Malabar, signal service in subduing the stronghold of an
eastern
invader, the Chola King of Choladesh. When Cheraman Perumal became a
Buddhist in 352 A.D., and retired from political life, dividing his
empire of
Malabar among his eighteen feudatories, it chanced that these two
youths were
absent on a pilgrimage to Benares, so they were overlooked in the
distribution
of territory. At the last moment they returned, and were presented by
the
Emperor with his Imperial sword, and a small piece of land called
Kokorikot
whence the modern Calicut Cheraman Perumal bidding them win what
more they wanted with the sword. Accordingly, when Vasco da Gama
arrived at Calicut in 1498, he found the descendant of one of these
youths,
the Zamorin of Calicut, ruling over the greater part of South Malabar.
From
that time the Zamorins were mainly engaged in wars with the Rajas of
Cochin
and their allies, the Portuguese. The family follows the well-known
Maru-
makkatayam law of inheritance, by which the succession is always to
the
offspring of its female members only ; among these the next eldest
male to the
Zamorin is the heir-apparent. In 1766 the then Zamorin, being
beleaguered
by Haidar Ali of Mysore, set fire to his palace, and voluntarily
perished in
the flames. Thenceforward the Zamorins were (with short intervals of
attempts at rebellion) the subjects of Haidar and Tippu, until the
Calicut
territory was ceded to the English by the treaty with Tippu in 1792.
The

present Zamorin was appointed a Fellow of the Madras University in
1882,
created a Maharaja Bahadur in 1878, and a Knight Commander of the
Most
Exalted Order of the Star of India on 25th May 1892. His heir-
apparent
under the Marumakkatayam law is Mana Vikrama Raja, born 1832, who
bears the courtesy title of " The Eralpad."

Residence. Calicut, Malabar District, Madras.

CAMBAY, HIS HIGHNESS NAWAB JAPAR ALI KHAN
SAHBB BAHADUR, Nawdb of.

A Ruling Chief.

Bora in the year 1848 ; succeeded to the gadi nth June 1880. Belongs
to a Mughal (Shiah Muhammadan) family, descended from Mirza Jafar
Nizam-ud-daula, who married the daughter of Momin Khan Dehlami, agent
for Surat and Cambay. The Nawab at the time of the Treaty of Bassein
in
1802 was Fateh AH Khan, who was succeeded by his brother Bandeh Ali
Khan, and the latter by his nephew, the Nawab Husain Yar Khan, father
of
the present Nawab. The full title of His Highness is Sardar Nawab
Najib-
ud-daula, Mumtaz-ul-Mulk, Munim Khan Bahadur, Dilawar Jang Dawe
Ekbalu, His Highness Jafar Ali Khan Saheb Bahadur, Nawab of Cambay.
His Highness married in 1876 the Bibi Gauhar Khanum Saheb, and in
1882
the Bibi Khurshid Jahan Begum. The area of the State is about 350
square
miles; its population about 86,000, chiefly Hindus, with about 12,000
Muhammadans. The Nawab maintains a military force of 36 cavalry, 496
infantry, and 1 2 guns, and is entitled to a salute of 1 1 guns.

Residence. Cambay, Kaira, Bombay.

CASHMERE, His Highness the Maharaja Bahadur of.
See Jammu and Kashmir.

CHADCHAT, Thdkur of. See Santalpur and Chadchat, Thdkur of.

CHAMBA, HIS HIGHNESS RAJA SHAM SINGH, Rdjd of.

A Ruling Chief.

Born in 1866 ; succeeded to the gadi as a minor in 1873. Belongs to a
Rajput (Hindu) family, descended from the Raja Sail, who in very early
times
came from Marwar to Chamba. In 1846 the State came into the possession
of
the British Government after the first Sikh war, and a part of it was
made
over to the Maharaja Golab Singh of Jammu and Kashmir. Subsequently,
however, by an arrangement made with the latter in 1847, Chamba came
again entirely under British control, and it was assigned to the then
Raja,
Raja Sri Singh, and his heirs. On his death in- 1870 he was succeeded
by
his brother, Raja Gopal Singh, who abdicated in 1873, an d was
succeeded
by the present Raja. In 1854 the sanitarium of Dalhousie was
surrendered
to the Government by the Raja of Chamba, in consideration of the
remission
of part of the yearly tribute, and in 1867 the cantonments of Bakloh
and
Balun. The area of the State, which is very mountainous, being
situated in
the Himalayas, on the frontiers of Kashmir, is about 3092 square
miles; its

population 115,773, chiefly Hindus, but including 6859 Muhammadans.
The Raja maintains a military force of 12 cavalry, 200 infantry, and 3
guns,


and is entitled to a salute of 1 1 guns.

Residence. Chamba, Punjab.

CHAND MAL, SETH, Rai Bahadur.

The title is personal, and was conferred on ist January 1877, on the
occasion of the Proclamation of Her Most Gracious Majesty as Empress
of
India.

Residence. Ajmir, Rajputana.

CHANDAR SHIKHAR (of Sissaindi), Rdjd.

Born 2 Qth October 1860; succeeded the Raja Kashi Prasad in 1873.
Belongs to a Tiwari Brahman family, on whom the title of Raja was
con-
ferred by King Amjad Ali Shah of Oudh, and it was recognised as
hereditary
by the British Government in 1877. Raja Kashi Prasad was consistently
loyal during the Mutiny, and gave great assistance to British
officers. He
was specially mentioned in Lord Canning's Proclamation of March 1858
as
one of the six loyal Oudh Talukdars, and was granted large estates as
a
reward.

Residence. Sissaindi, Lucknow, Oudh.

CHANDASINGH EANSINGH SHAHANI, Rao Bahadur.
The title is personal, and was conferred on 20th May 1890.
Residence. Sind, Bombay.

CHANDRA KANTA TARKALANKAR, Mahdmahopddhydya.

The title is personal, and was conferred on i6th February 1887, on
the

occasion of the Jubilee of the reign of Her Most Gracious Majesty, in
recog-
nition of eminence in oriental learning. It entitles the holder to
take rank
in Darbar immediately after titular Rajas.

Residence. Mymensingh, Bengal.

CHANG BHAKAR, BHAYA BALBHADRA SINGH, Bhaya of.

A Ruling Chief.

Born about the year 1825 ; succeeded to the gadi ist December 1865.
Belongs to a Rajput (Hindu) family, that is a collateral branch of the
Korea
Chauhan Rajputs, descended from Jorawal Singh, a younger step-brother
of
Raja Garib Singh of Korea. The Bhaya's brother is named Lai Ran
Bahadur Singh. The State is one of those known as the Chota Nagpur
Tributary Mahals. Its area is about 906 square miles ; and its
population
about 13,466, chiefly Hindus.

Residence. Chang Bhakar, Chota Na~gpur, Bengal, India.

CHARKHARI, HIS HIGHNESS MAHARAJ-ADHIRAJ
SIPADAR-UL-MULK MULKHAN SINGH BAHADUR,

Maharaja of.

A Ruling Chief.

Bom January 1872 ; succeeded to the gadi loth July 1880. Belongs to
the famous Bundela Rajput family founded by Bir Singh in the 1 3th
century,
who first took the clan name of Bundela, and from whom are descended
a
very large number of celebrities in Central Indian history, including
the royal
families of Orchha, Panna, Dattia, Ajaigarh, Charkhari, Bijawar,
Sarila, Jigni,
Jaso, Lughasi. One of these descendants, the Maharaja Chhatarsal,
acquired
the sovereignty of Eastern and Northern Bundelkhand. Being hard
pressed
by the Mahrattas, he adopted the Peshwa as one of his sons, who thus
obtained one-third of his dominions, including Sagar, Kalpi, etc. His
eldest
son inherited Panna, while from the second son, Jagat Raj, descended
the
Chiefs of Ajaigarh, Charkhari, Bijawar, and Sarila. The son of Jagat
Raj
was Kirat Singh ; and the grandson of the latter, the Maharaja
Vikramaditya
of Charkhari, received a sanad from the British Government in 1 804.
His
grandson was the Maharaja Jai Singh, who attended the Imperial
Assemblage
at Delhi in January 1877, and in celebration of the Proclamation of
Her
Gracious Majesty as Empress of India received the additional title of
Sipadar-ul-Mulk. His son is the present Maharaja, who succeeded as a
minor in 1880, attained his majority in January 1892, and assumed the
Government of his State at a grand Darbar held at Charkhari on loth
November 1892. At this Darbar were present, besides the Maharaja and
the
young Raja of Sarila, all the principal jagirdars, thakurs, and
officials of the
State, numbering more than a hundred. The area of the State is 788
square
miles; its population about 143,000, chiefly Hindus, with 6000 Muham-
madans. The motto of the family is Singhasanesho ran Vijayi ("The
Master of the Throne is the Victorious in War "). The Maharaja
maintains
a military force of 188 cavalry, 1552 infantry, and 42 guns, and is


entitled
to a salute of 1 1 guns.

Residence, Charkhdri, Central India.

CHBNTSAL RAO, P., C.I.E.

Born 1832 ; Sarishtadar of the Madras Revenue Board, 1872; Fellow
of the Madras University, 1875; Superintendent of Stamps and
Stationery,
1882 ; Member of the Legislative Council of Fort St. George, 1887, and
of
the Governor-General's Council, 1892 ; cr. C.I.E. , 1887.

Residence. Madras.

CHEPPADIRA TBIMMIAH, Rat Bahddur.

Is the Subahdar of the Yedenalknad, Kurg, and received the title as a
per-


sonal distinction on 25th May 1892.

Residence. Mercara, Kurg.

CHBRRA, HAJAN MANIK, Seim of.
A Ruling Chief.

Born about 1833; succeeded to the gadi 24th May 1875. The Chief
and his people (said to number about 9000) are Khasis. This is one of
the
Khasi and Jaintia Hill States.

Residence. Cherra, Khasi Hills, Assam.

CHET SINGH (of Bhikra), Rao.

Born 1 5th April 1851. The title is hereditary, and has long been
recog-
nised. The family are Sengar Rajputs, descended from the Rajas of
Rura
in Etawah. The Rao has a son and heir, named Lala Tej Singh, born 8th
October 1866.

Residence. Bhikra, Etdwah, North- Western Provinces.

CHETAN SHAH, Khan Bahddur.

The title is personal, and was conferred on ist January 1877, on the
occasion of the Proclamation of Her Most Gracious Majesty as Empress
of
India.

Residence. Shdhpur, Punjab.

CHHALIAR, RAWAL CHHATRASINGHJI, Rdwal of.
A Ruling Chief.

Born about the year 1863; succeeded to the gadi 2ist June 1888.
Belongs to a Rajput (Hindu) family, which pays a tribute to the
Gaekwar of
Baroda, as well as to the Paramount Power. The area of the State is
about
9 square miles.

Residence. Chhalia"r, Rewd Ka"ntha, Bombay.

CHHATARPUR, HIS HIGHNESS RAJA VISHWANATH
SINGH BAHADUR, Rdjd of.

A Ruling Chief.

Born 2 Qth August 1866; succeeded to the gadi i4th November 1866.
Belongs to a Puar Rajput (Hindu) family ; descended from the Sardar
Soneh
Sah, a Sardar of the Panna Raj, who was in military possession of the
Chhatarpur jdgir when the British acquired Bundelkhand. He was
granted
a sanad by the British Government in 1806, and was succeeded by his
son,
the Raja Partab Singh. The grand-nephew of the latter was the Raja
Jagat
Raj, the father of the present Raja. The family motto is Agni pratdp
Vishweshah (" As fire resplendent, Lord of the World "). The area of
the
State is 1169 square miles; its population about 167,700, chiefly
Hindus,
with about 5500 Muhammadans and 749 Jains. The Raja maintains a
military force of 39 cavalry, 814 infantry, and 39 guns, and is


entitled to a
salute of 1 1 guns.

Residence. Chhatarpur, Bundelkhand, Central India.

CHHATRA KUNWAI (of Amgaon), Rdjd.

The title is hereditary, and was originally derived from Raja Hindi
Shah
of Garha-Mandla. The family is Lodhi.

Residence. Jabalpur, Central Provinces.

CHHATRA SINGH, Subahddr-Major, Rai Bahadur.

The title is personal, and was conferred on 24th June 1887 for
eminent
military service.

Residence. Burma.

CHHBDI LAL, LALA, Rai Bahadur.

The title is personal, and was bestowed on ist June 1888. The Rai
Bahadur's grandfather, Lala Sadasukh, was a wealthy grain and cotton
merchant in Cawnpur.

Residence. Cawnpur, North-Western Provinces.

CHHOTA BARKHBRA, BHUMIA MUGAT SINGH, Bhumia of.

A Ruling Chief.

Born 1865 ; succ|eded to the gadi i4th September 1889. Is descended
from a Bhilala family. The population of the State is about 125,
chiefly
Hindus.

Residence. Chhota Barkhera, Bhopdwar, Central India.

CHHOTA UDAIPUR, MAHARAWAL SHRI MOTISINGHJI,

Raj a of.

A Ruling Chief.

Born 1859; succeeded to the gadi yth July 1881. Belongs to a
Chauhan Rajput (Hindu) family, descended from the famous Patai Rawal,
the last Chauhan Chief of Champaner, from whom
also descend the Chiefs of Baria. When Cham-
paner was captured by the Muhammadans under
Muhammad Begar in 1484, the Chauhans moved
to Chhota Udaipur and to ' Baria. The Raja
Jitsinghji, father of the present Raja, bravely
resisted Tantia Topi during the Mutiny of 1857 ;
and the latter was defeated by General Parke
when encamped before the town of Chhota Udaipur.
The family at one time occupied a fort at Mohan ;
it pays tribute to the Gaekwar of Baroda. The
area of the State is about 873 square miles; its
population about 71,000, chiefly Bhils or Kolis
or other aboriginal tribes. The Maharawal main-
tains a military force of 50 cavalry, 256 infantry,
and 4 guns ; and is entitled to a salute of 9 guns.

Residence. Chhota Udaipur, Rewd Kantha, Bombay.

The Santak of the Chauhan
Rajputs, called Ckakra, used
in the seal and for signature.

(A circle with four Trisulas or
Tridents as radii at the car-
dinal points*)

CHIKLI, GUMAN SINGH, Chief of .
A Ruling Chief.

Born about the year 1864; succeeded to the gadi ist November
1888. Is a Muhammadan, but descended from a Wasava Bhil (aboriginal)
family. The area of the State is about 200 square miles; its
population
about 1444, chiefly (aboriginal) Bhils.

Residence. Chikli, Khandesh, Bombay.

CHIKTIABAR, BHUMIA UMBD SINGH, Bhumia of.
A Ruling Chief.

Born about 1845; succeeded to the gadi in 1864. The population of
the State is about 415, chiefly Hindus.

Residence. Chiktiabar, Bhopawar, Central India.

CHINCHLI, NAIK JINMYA walad GUDAD BHAVAN, Chief of

A Ruling Chief.

The State is also called Dang Chinchligadad, being one of the
numerous
Dang States in Khandesh ; and the Chief or Naik, sometimes called
Zimna
walad Bhawan, is a minor and unmarried ; belongs to an aboriginal
Bhil
tribe. The area of the State is about, 2 7 square miles ; and its
population
about 1668.

Residence. Chinchli, Khdndesh, Bombay.

CHIRAKAL, KERALA VARMA RAJA, Valiya Rdjd of.

Born 1849. I s tne head of one of the branches of the Kolattiri
House,
the Raja of Kolattiri having been one of those chieftains among whom
Chera-
man Perumal, Emperor of Malabar, divided his dominions when he became
a Buddhist and retired from the world in 352 A.D. In 1734 the
Chirakal
Raja was acknowledged by all the members of the Kolattiri House as
the
head of the family, and was entrusted with the administration. The
Raja at
the time of Tippu's invasion in 1789 was named Rama Varma, and he
committed suicide 1 to avoid falling into the hands of the conqueror.
A
prince, who took refuge in the jungles until the English obtained
possession
of the country, was recognised by them in 1795 as Raja. The family,
like
that of the Zamorin of Calicut and other Chiefs of Malabar, follows
the
Marumakkatayam law of inheritance ; by which the succession is to the
off-
spring of its female members, among whom the next eldest male after
the
Raja is his heir-apparent. The late Valiya Raja of Chirakal was
called
Rajaha Raja ; and he was succeeded by the present Valiya Raja under
the
Marumakkatayam law. He receives an allowance from Government, in
compensation for the estate that belonged to his ancestors.

Residence. Malabar, Madras.

CHIRODA, DEVI SINGH, Chief of.

A Ruling Chief.

This Chief is of a Rajput (Hindu) family. His State contains an area
of
about i square mile; with a population of 241, chiefly Hindus.
Residence. Chiroda, Ka'thiclwa'r, Bombay.

CHITPAL SINGH (of Nurpur Chitpalgarh), Rdjd.

Born 7th August 1847; succeeded his father as Raja in 1852. The
title is hereditary, and was so recognised on 9th May 1866. The Raja
represents one of the chief families of the ancient Sombansi race, and
is the
most direct descendant of the great Rajas of Partabgarh. The Raja
Duniapat,
who possessed Partabgarh, was succeeded by his widow, the Thakurain
Kusal
Kunwar, who adopted Shiuratan Singh of Karain and Tarwal. His son was
the Raja Dhir Singh of Chitpalgarh ; and the grandson of the latter is
the
present Raja, who was educated at the Partabgarh High School, was
appointed
to the Statutory Civil Service in 1881, and is now an Assistant
Commissioner
in Oudh.

Residence. Partdbgarh, Oudh.

CHORANGLA, RAWAL RAMSINGHJI, Rdwal of.

A Ruling Chief.

Born about the year 1846, of a Rajput (Hindu) family. His State
contains an area of nearly 4 square miles, and a population of about
1300,
chiefly Hindus.

Residence. Chorangla, Rewa" Kdntha, Bombay.

CHOTA LAL SIJWAR, CJ.E.

Was created a Companion of the Most Eminent Order of the Indian
Empire, ist January 1884.

CHOTA NAGPUR, Maharaja of.
See Pratap Udit Nath Sahai Deo, Mahdrdjd.

CHUIKADAN, Mahant of. See Kondka.

CHUMILAL, VENILAL, Rao Bahadur.


The title is personal, and was conferred on i6th February 1887.

Residence. Broach, Bombay.

CHURA, THAKUR BBCHARSINGHJI RAISINGHJI, Thdkur of.

A Ruling Chief.

Born Qth February 1840; succeeded to the gadi ist January 1844; is
a scion of the Wadhwan family, being a Jhala Rajput, and thus
connected in
race with the ruling Houses of Wankaner and Dhrangadra. The present
Thakur has a son and heir, named Kumar Madhavasinghji.

Residence. Chura, Kdthidwdr, Bombay.

COCHIN, HIS HIGHNESS RAJA SIR VIRA KERALA
VARMA, K.C.I.E., Rdjd of.

A Ruling Chief.

Born 1846 ; succeeded to the gadi in 1888. Belongs to a Hindu family
of pure Kshatriya blood, claiming descent (with the Royal House of
Travan-
core) from the ancient Chiefs who ruled from Gokura in North Kanara to
the
southernmost point of India. In the time of Haidar AH in Maisur, the
Raja
of Cochin was tributary to that potentate; but in 1798 he signed a
treaty,
acknowledging himself tributary to the British Power. The father of
the
present Raja was His Highness the Raja Rama Varma, who was created a
Knight Commander of the Most Exalted Order of the Star of India in
1871.
The armorial bearings of the family are a palanquin with umbrella,
lamp, and
conch or chank-shell. The heir of His Highness the Raja is the Prince
Rama Varma, Elaya Raja, born 1852. The area of the State is 1361
square
miles ; its population about 600,000, chiefly Hindus, with about
33,000
Muhammadans and 136,000 Christians. His Highness maintains a military
force of 1 6 cavalry, 327 infantry, and 4 guns; and is entitled to a
salute
(hereditary) of 17 guns.

Residence. Tripuntora, Ernakolam, Southern India.

COOCH BEHAR, Mahdrdjd of. See Kuch Behar.
CUTCH, His Highness the Rao of. See Kutch.

DABHA, MIAN GULAB MIYAN, Mian of.
A Ruling Chief.

Born 5th November 1837 ; succeeded to the gadi 27th July 1854. Is
one of the Gaekwar's tributaries. Belongs to a family claiming descent
from
the Jhala Rajputs of Halwar in Kathiawar ; his ancestor, Hari Singhji,
who
was in the service of Shah Mahmud Begara of Gujarat, became a
Musalman
in 1483. His son and heir is Kunwar Motamiyan. The area of the State
is about 99 square miles; its population is 1922, chiefly Hindus.

Residence. Da"bha, Ma"hi Kdntha, Bombay.

DABIR, Bhumia of. See Jamnia.

DABRI, THAKUR PARBAT SINGH, Thdkur of.
A Ruling Chief.

Born 1878; succeeded to the gadi as a minor in 1885. Belongs to a
Rajput (Hindu) family.

Residence. Dabri, Western Mdlwa", Central India.

DAD MUHAMMAD KHAN, Khan Bahadur.

The title is personal, and was conferred on ist January 1877, on the
occasion of the Proclamation of Her Most Gracious Majesty as Empress
of
India.

Residence. Dadu Dero, Sind.

DADABHAI HORMUSJI DUBA, Khan Bahadur.

The Khan Bahadur received the title, as a personal distinction, on
2th
May 1892 in recognition of great public services.
Residence. B ombay .

DADABHAI PALANJI, Khan Bahadur.
The title is personal, and was conferred on 2ist April 1882.
Residence. Poona, Bombay.

DADHALYA, THAKUR JASWANT SINGHJI, Thdkur of.
A Ruling Chief.

Born 1830. Belongs to a Rajput (Hindu) family that came originally
from Udaipur. His ancestor Vikaji was in the service of Kalyan Mai,
Rao
of Idar, from whom he obtained the grant of Dadhalya in 1674 ; is
tributary
to the Gaekwar and to Idar. The area of the State is 7 2 square
miles ; its
population 3877, chiefly Hindus.

Residence. Dadhalya, Ma"hi Kdntha, Bombay.

DAFLAPUR, Chief of. See Jath.

DAJI GANGAJI RANG, Rao Bahadur.
The title is personal, and was conferred on loth April 1873.
Residence. B ombay.

DAJI GOVIND GUPTB, Rai Bahadur.
The title is personal, and was conferred on 28th February 1883.
Residence. Thana, Bombay.

DAJI NILKANTH NAGARKAR, Rai Bahadur.
The title is personal, and was conferred on ist January 1877.
Residence. Poona, Bombay.

DAL CHAND (of Sahanpur), Rai.

Born October 1827. The title is hereditary. Is the representative of
a
Jat family of ancient origin, who came from Jind in the middle of the
1 6th century. A scion of this family, named Muchh Padarath, founded
the town of Nagal on the Ganges ; and rising to high favour with
Prince
Salim (afterwards the Emperor Jahangir) in the Court of the Emperor
Akbar,
obtained a Dress of Honour, the title of Rai, and the grant of the
territory
between Nagal and Barhapura. The Rai Tapraj Singh, grandfather of the
present Rai, was a man of great influence. The Rai has four sons
Partab
Singh, Harbans Singh, Jagat Singh, and Bharat Singh.

Residence. Sahanpur, Bijnaur, North-Western Provinces.

DAL SINGH (of Nahil), Rao.

Born 1842; succeeded his father, Rao Jetsingh, in 1884. The title is
hereditary. Belongs to a family of Katehria Rajputs, claiming descent
from
Rao Hari Singh, who, in the i6th century, settled in Gola Raipur on
the
river Khanant. A farmdn of the Emperor Shah Jahan, dated 1645, con-
ferred the Zaminddri of Gola on Vikrama Singh, a descendant of Rao
Hari
Singh, and subsequently the family removed to Nahil. They had many
struggles with the Pathans during the i7th and i8th centuries, in the
course of which, on one occasion, the Rao Gopal Singh, Katehria
Thakur
of Nahil, was slain in an engagement, leaving only# widow and two
infant
sons as the sole representatives of the family. Rao Jetsingh, father
of the
present Rao, did good service in the Mutiny, defending the town of
Pawayan
when the Maulavi Ahmadullah Shah besieged it in 1857 ; and he also
supplied
provisions to the British forces on their arrival in the district. The
Rao Dal
Singh has three sons Bechu Singh, Jagannath Singh, and Sardan Singh.

Residence. Ndhil, Shdhjahdnpur, North-Western Provinces.

DALIP SINGH, G.C.S.I., His Highness the Maharaja.

The title is personal. His Highness the Maharaja, who lives in
Europe,
is the representative of the " Lion of the Punjab," the famous
Maharaja
Ranjit Singh of Lahore, under whom the Sikh power rose to its highest
point.

Residence. Europe.

DALIP SINGH (of Kulu), Rai.

Born 1862. The title is hereditary. Belongs to a family whose
founder,
Sudh Singh, emigrated from Mayapuri to Kulu in the beginning of the
1 4th century, and established himself there, assuming the title of
Raja.
His son, Raja Bahadur Singh, succeeded him, and greatly extended his
dominions by conquest. The family enjoyed independence up to the time
of the Maharaja Ranjit Singh of Lahore, who wrested the country from
the
Rai Jitsingh, the last independent Raja of Kulu, but bestowed the
Wazir-i-
Rupi estate in Kulu on Rai Thakur Singh, a relative of Jitsingh's.
This
grant, with the hereditary title of Rai, was confirmed by the British
Govern-
ment by a sanad dated 24th October 1846. On his death Rai Thakur
Singh was succeeded by his son, Rai Gayan Singh, who was the father
of
the present Rai.

Residence. Ka"ngra, Punjab.

DALISNA, THAKUR DAULAT SINGH, Thdkur of.
A Ruling Chief.

Born 1857. Belongs to a Rajput (Hindu) family. The population of
the State is 765.

Residence. Dalisna, Ma"hi Kdntha, Bombay.

DALPATRAM DAYABHAI, C.I.E.

Was created a Companion of the Most Eminent Order of the Indian
Empire, 6th June 1885.

Residence. B ombay .

DALPATRAM PRANJIVAN KHAKAR, Rao Saheb.

Born at Diu on ist November 1835. The title is personal, and was
conferred on i6th February 1887. Was educated at the Elphinstone
College,
Bombay, where he took*high honours. Appointed to the Bombay Education
Service, 1859; greatly distinguished himself as Educational Inspector
of Kutch,
as tutor to His Highness the Rao of Kutch, and in other ways. Has
written
and edited many important works. Retired on pension in 1866; and in
1887 received the title in honour of the Jubilee of Her Most Gracious
Majesty's reign. Is a Member of the Managing Committee of the Seth
Gokuldas Tejpal Charities, and a Trustee of the same ; also a Member
of the

Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, and other learned
Societies. The
Rao Saheb married, 1859, Devkorbai, daughter of Meghji Jadavji,
physician
of Bhaunagar, and has a son, Mazaulal, born nth November 1870. He is
a Brahma-Kshatriya by caste, and belongs to a family long settled in
the
Portuguese dominions in Western India.

Residence. 10 Cowasji Patel's Tank Road, Bombay.

DAMARA KUMARA MADDU VBNKATAPPA NAYUDU
BAHADUR GARU (of Kalahasti), Rdjd. See Kalahasti.

DAMODAR DAS, Rai Bahadur.

An Honorary Magistrate of Bareilly. Granted the title, as a personal
distinction, 2nd January 1893.

Residence. Bareilly, North- Western Provinces.

DAMODAR NARAYAN, Rao Saheb.

The title is personal, and was conferred on 2oth May 1890.
Residence. B ombay .

DANAKOTI MUDALIYAR, A., Rai Bahadur.

Born 1852. A landowner in Madras, and Member of the Madras
Municipal Commission, 1885. Granted the personal title of Rai
Bahadur,
1887.

Residence. Madras.

DANAKOTI RAJU, W. B., Rao Bahadur.

Born 1839. M.D. of Madras; appointed a Fellow of the Madras
University, 1875. Granted the personal title of Rao Bahadur, 1889.
Residence. Madras.

DANTA, MAHARANA JASWANTSINGHJI HARISINGHJI,

Mahdrdnd of.

A Ruling Chief.

Born 1 4th October 1850; succeeded to the gadi ist December 1876.
Is tributary to the Gaekwar and to Idar. Belongs *to a very ancient
family
of Pramara Rajputs, who are said to have come from Ujjain, and to
have
settled in Sind in the year 809 A.D. The area of the State is 2300
square
miles; its population about 18,000. The Maharana maintains a military
force of 70 cavalry and 67 infantry.

Residence. Danta, Mahi Kdntha, Bombay.

DARBHANGA, MAHARAJA SIR LACHHMBSWAR SINGH
BAHADUR, K.C.I.B., Maharaja of.

One of the Premier Nobles of British India.

Born 1856; succeeded to the gadi as a minor 2oth October 1860.
In the great Bengal famine of 1873-74, the Maharaja expended nearly

.300,000 in charitable relief; and has
since then always taken the foremost
part in every public philanthropic work
in Bengal, and indeed in every part of
the Empire to which his vast revenues
have been largely devoted.

Belongs to an ancient Rajput

family, whose ancestor, Mahesh Thakur,
obtained the title of Raja, and the grant
of the Darbhanga Raj, from the Mughal
Emperor of Delhi, Akbar the Great,
early in the i6th century. Mahesh
Thakur died in the year 1558 A.D.,
leaving five sons Ram Chandra Thakur,
Gopal Thakur, Achit Thakur, Parmanand Thakur, and Subhankar Thakur.
Some of the elder sons succeeded in turn to the Raj, but they all died
without
issue, and the family was continued in the line of the youngest son,
the
Raja Subhankar Thakur. He died in 1607, leaving six sons. Of these
the eldest, Purushottam, succeeded to the Raj ; and on his death in
1642 was succeeded by his brother, Sundar Thakur. He held the Raj for
twenty years, and dying in 1662 was succeeded by his eldest son,
Mahinath
Thakur. The latter died in 1684 without issue, and was succeeded by
his
brother, Nirpat Thakur, who ruled till 1700 A.D., when he died, and
was
succeeded by his son, the great Raja Raghu Singh. He obtained the
con-
firmation of the hereditary title of Raja through the Nawab Mahabat
Jang,
who was at that time Mughal Subahddr of Behar. He also obtained from
the Mughal Government the grant of the lease of the whole of the
Sarkdr
Tirhut including the modern districts of Muzaffarpur and Darbhanga on
the payment to Government of an annual revenue of Rs. 1,00,000. The
enormous value, in those early times, of this grant may be gathered
from the
fact that in 1685 A - D - tne revenue of Sarkdr Tirhut was officially
returned
at Rs. 7, 6 9, 2 8 7. At one time, during the administration of the
Raja Raghu
Singh, the Nawab Subahdar, jealous of the vast wealth accumulated by
the
Raja, seized his property and carried off his family as prisoners to
Patna, the
Raja himself only preserving his liberty by prompt flight.
Subsequently,
however, he was restored to favour, and received large grants from
the
Mughal Government, on condition that he should "do justice, relieve
distress, and put the country in a flourishing condition." These
stipulations
have been liberally fulfilled by Raja Raghu's descendants and
successors in
the Raj. This Raja built a large mud fort at Bhawara, near Madhubani,
the
ruins of which still remain there, and the family resided there for
the next
half-century. He died in 1736, and was succeeded by his son, the Raja
Bishnu Singh. The latter died without issue in 1740, and was succeeded
by
his brother, the Raja Narendra Singh, who received large grants from
the
Nawab Subahdar AH Vardi Khan, on condition of his engaging for the

revenue, and supporting the interests of the Mughal Government. The
Raja
Narendra Singh died without issue in 1760; but he adopted Pratap
Singh,
the great-great-grandson of Narayan Thakur, younger brother of the
Raja
Sundar Thakur, and son of the Raja Subhankar Thakur mentioned above.
Raja Pratap Singh determed to remove the family residence from the
fort of
Bhawara ; and he built a new Rajbari at Darbhanga, to which he
removed
in 1762, and it has been the seat of the family ever since. Raja
Pratap
Singh died in 1776, and was succeeded by his brother, the Raja Madhu
Singh. In that year the Raja received from Shah Alam, the Mughal
Emperor of Delhi, the grant of Dharmpur, in the district of Purniah.
The
Raja Madhu Singh, during a long administration of thirty-two years,
had
frequent disputes with the Calcutta Government in regard to the
revenue
payments and the extent of his rights over the land. These disputes at
one
time became so acute that the settlement was made with others ; but
ulti-
mately he obtained from the Board of Revenue the restoration of his
estates.
'The Raja Madhu Singh died in 1808, leaving five sons Kishan Singh,
who
died without issue ; Chhatar Singh, who succeeded him, and three
others.
Chhatar Singh is the first of the Darbhanga Rajas who is recorded to
have
held the higher title of Maharaja Bahadur, though it is probable that
it had
also been held by some at least of his ancestors. The Maharaja
Chhatar
Singh, who succeeded to the gadi in 1808, lived till 1839; when, on
the
ground of old age, he made over his estates and the title to his elder
son,
Rudra Singh giving to his younger son, Bisdeo Singh, for maintenance,
the
Raj villages in Jarail, four Bouses, two elephants, and apartments in
the
Darbhanga Palace. He asked to have Rudra Singh's name entered in the
Bengal Revenue Roll, and died a few days afterwards. These
arrangements
led to extensive litigation, as the younger son claimed a larger share
of the
estates. Ultimately the High Court decided that the law of inheritance
in
this family must follow the family custom, and not the ordinary Hindu
law ;
and by the family custom (or Kuldchdr) the eldest son succeeds to the
Raj,
the younger obtaining sufficient properties in land for their
maintenance,
which lands (as under feudal tenure) revert to the Raj on failure of
male
issue. The Maharaja Rudra Singh died in 1850, leaving four sons
Mahesh-
war Singh (who succeeded him), Ganeshwar Singh, Nitreshwar Singh, and
Gopeshwar Singh. For ten years the Maharaja Maheshwar Singh held the
Raj. He died on 2oth October 1860, leaving two sons Lachhmeswar Singh
(who succeeded him, and is the present Maharaja Bahadur) and
Rameshwar
Singh (who is now the Raja Rameshwar Singh Bahadur, q.v.)

The Maharaja Lachhmeswar Singh Bahadur of Darbhanga was under the
guardianship of the Court of Wards during his minority ; and had the
great
advantage of having, as tutor, a very able and sympathetic English
gentle-
man, Mr. Chester Macnaghten, whose capacity for this work was so
marked
that he was afterwards selected by the Government for the
Principalship of
the Rajkumar College at Rajkot, in Kathiawar, for the Princes and
Chiefs of
Western India. Since the Maharaja attained his majority he has
entirely
devoted himself to the public duties of his position as one of the
greatest
Nobles of British India. He has long served as a Member of the
Legislative
Council of the Viceroy, and taken a leading part in the debates of
that body.
During the lengthened discussions on the important Bengal Tenancy
Bill, he
acted (in conjunction at first with the lamented patriot, Kristodas
Pal, and
subsequently with the Raja Piari Mohan Mukharji, C.S.I.) as the
repre-

sentative of the landowners of Bengal and Behar ; and received the
warm
recognition of the ability and moderation he brought to bear on this
and
other questions from successive Viceroys. To the public at large he is
best
known as one of the most munificent of living philanthropists. In
addition
to the ^300,000 expended in charitable relief during the Bengal famine
of
1873-74, in every time of scarcity the Maharaja's arrangements for
meeting
it have been on a splendid scale, and have been in many cases the
models
for the Government measures. He has built, and entirely supports, a
first-
class Dispensary at Darbhanga, which cost ^"3400 ; a similar one at
Kharakpur, which cost ^3500; and largely contributes to many others.
He has built an Anglo-vernacular school at a cost of ^1490, which he
maintains, as well as nearly thirty vernacular schools of different
grades ; and
subsidises a much larger number of educational institutions. He has
con-
structed hundreds of miles of roads in various parts of the Raj,
planting
them with tens of thousands of trees for the comfort of travellers. He
has
constructed iron bridges over all the navigable rivers of the Raj, and
completed
an elaborate system of irrigation-works, for prevention of famine. In
carrying
out his duties as one of the largest landowners of India he has had
the
advantage of the assistance of several very able English managers in
succession,
specially selected with the approval of the Government including
Colonel
Money of the Staff Corps, Mr. G. W. Llewhellin and Mr. Henry Bell,
formerly
of the Bengal Civil Service. With the aid of these gentlemen and
others,
the Darbhanga Raj has attained the proud position of being regarded as
the
model for good and benevolent management. The Maharaja has devoted
special attention to all agricultural improvements, and especially to
improve-
ments in the breeds of horses and cattle in Behar. He is a liberal
patron of
the turf, and has been the owner of the largest and most valuable
racing-stud
in India, under experienced English trainers ; and he is also a keen
sportsman
and a first-rate whip, his jungles on the Nepal frontier affording
some of the
best sport in the country. The new Palace at Darbhanga, with its
immense
stables, its botanical and zoological gardens, and its many beautiful
surround-
ings, is well known in England by the sketches that have appeared in
the
London illustrated papers.

Most of the Maharaja of Darbhanga's munificence has been devoted to
objects of charity pure and simple, such as famine-relief medical aid,
and
the like. But he has also contributed very largely to objects of
general
public utility as, for instance, in the gift of Rs. 50,000 to the
funds of the
Imperial Institute. In celebration of Her Majesty's Jubilee he
remitted a
large portion of the rents of all his tenants for the year 1887. It
has been
computed that since his succession to the Raj an aggregate sum of
some-
thing like two millions sterling has been expended on charities, works
of public
utility, and charitable remissions of rent.

On the occasion of the Jubilee of the reign of Her Most Gracious
Majesty the Maharaja Bahadur was created a Knight Commander of the
Most Eminent Order of the Indian Empire. The family cognisance is the
Gangetic dolphin or sacred fish of the Hindus. The Darbhanga Raj com-
prises large portions of the modern districts of Darbhanga,
Muzaffarpur,
Monghyr, Purniah, and Bhagalpur. The capital, Darbhanga, is the civil
station of the district of the same name ; it is a large and thriving
town, with
a population (by the census of 1881) of 65,955, chiefly Hindus.

Residence, Darbhanga, Tirhut, Bengal.

DARGAHI LAL, Rai Bahadur,

Born 2 1 st November 1 8 1 6. The title is personal, and was conferred
on
2nd January 1888, in recognition of eminent public services as a
Municipal
Commissioner of Cawnpur since 1862, and an Honorary Magistrate since
1879. The Rai Bahadur is a Kayasth by caste, and is a native of
Bilgram
in the Hardoi district ; but has practised as a Pleader at Cawnpur
since
1842.

Residence. Cawnpur, North-Western Provinces.

DARIA KHBRI, THAKUR ONKAR SINGH, Thdkur of.
A Ruling Chief.

Born 1861; succeeded to the gadi 9th April 1888. Belongs to a
Rajput (Hindu) family ; the predecessor of the present Thakur was
Thakur
Ranjit Singh. The area of the State is about 6 square miles ; its
population
about 6 1 6.

Residence. Daria Kheri, Bhopa"!, Central India

Sid Harth

unread,
Feb 4, 2010, 12:36:34 PM2/4/10
to
DARKUTI, RANA RAM SARAN SINGH, Rdnd of.
A Ruling Chief.

Born 1843; succeeded to the gadi i5th October 1883. Belongs to a
Rajput (Hindu) family, whose founder came from Marwar at an unknown
date and settled in the Simla Hills. Twenty-three generations bore
rule ;
and the father of the present Chief was the Rana Ram Singh, who
succeeded
to the gadi in 1856. The Gurkhas overran this State, with others in
the
Simla Hills ; and when they were expelled by the British in 1815 the
then
Rana was confirmed in possession. The area of the State is about 4
square
miles; its population 590, chiefly Hindus. The Rana maintains a
military
force of 10 infantry.

Residence. Darkuti, Simla Hills, Punjab.

DARYA KHAN, Khdn Bahadur.

The title is personal, and was conferred on xoth April 1867.
Residence. Hyderabad, Sind.

DARYAO SINGH (of Ghat Piparia), Thdkur.

Born 1831. The title is hereditary, and was originally conferred by
the
Mughal Emperors of Delhi. The ancestors of the Thakur obtained Ghat
Piparia in jdgir from the former Government of Sagar.

Residence. Sa"gar, Central Provinces.

DAS MAL, DIWAN, Rai Bahadur.

The title is personal, and was conferred on ist January 1877, on tne


occasion of the Proclamation of Her Most Gracious Majesty as Empress
of
India.

Residence. Lahore, Punjab.

DASPALLA, RAJA CHAITAN DEO BHANJ, Rdjd of.
A Ruling Chief.

Born 1854; succeeded to the gadi 2ist January 1873. Belongs to a
Kshatriya (Hindu) family, said to be of the Solar race ; descended
from a
younger son of the Raja Narayan Bhanj of Bod (q.v.) The title of Raja
has
been enjoyed by the head of the family since the time of the
Mahrattas ; and
was formally conferred by the British Government, 2ist May 1874. The
cognisance of the family is a peacock with tail spread. The area of
the
State, which is one of the Orissa Tributary Mahals, is about 568
square miles ;
its population about 42,000, chiefly Hindus, but including about
13,000
Kandhs and other aboriginal tribesmen. The Raja maintains a force of
343
infantry and 8 guns.

Residence. Daspalla, Orissa, Bengal.

DATANA, THAKUR BHAWANI SINGH, Thdkur of.
A Ruling Chief.

Born 1864; succeeded to the gadi loth December 1880. Belongs to
a Rajput (Hindu) family.

Residence. Datana, Western Malwa, Central India.

DATTIA, HIS HIGHNESS MAHARAJA LOKINDAR
BHAWANI SINGH BAHADUR, Mahdrdjd of.

A Ruling Chief.

Born 1 3th August 1854; succeeded to the gadi 2oth November 1857.
Belongs to the great Bundela Rajput family descended from Bir Singh,
who
took the clan name of Bundela, and settled in Bundelkhand in the i3th
century ; and from whom are descended the ruling families of Orchha,
Dattia,
Panna, Ajaigarh, Charkhari, Bijawar, Sarila, etc. In the time of the
Emperors Akbar and Jahangir, the Maharaja Bir Singh Deo was ruler of
Orchha; and his second son, Bhagwan Rai, became ruler of Dattia. The
State came under British control, with other territories in
Bundelkhand, by
the Treaty of Bassein, concluded with the Peshwa in 1802. The Raja
Parichhat of Dattia, whose first treaty with the British Government is
dated
1804, sided with the British throughout the subsequent wars with the
Mahrattas; and was rewarded in 1817, on the deposition of the Peshwa,
by
a new treaty and enlarged territories. His adopted son was the Raja
Bijai
Bahadur of Dattia ; and the adopted son of the latter is the present
Chief,
whose succession was disputed by Arjun Singh (an illegitimate son of
the
Raja Bijai Bahadur), but was enforced by British troops. The ancient
title

of the family was Maharaja Rao Raja. In 1865 the Government
recognised
the title of Maharaja as hereditary ; and on ist January 1877, at the
Imperial
Assemblage at Delhi, in honour of the Proclamation of Her Most
Gracious
Majesty as Empress of India, the title of Lokindar was added. The
motto
of the family is Wir dalap Sharandah (" Lord of the Brave Army, Giver
of
Refuge"). The area of the State is about 836 square miles; its
population
about 183,000, chiefly Hindus, but including some 9000 Muhammadans.
His Highness the Maharaja maintains a military force of 945 cavalry,
5203
infantry, and 124 guns; and is entitled to a salute of 15 guns.
Residence. Dattia, Bundelkhand, Central India.

DAULAT RAM, Rai Bahadur.

The title is personal, and was conferred on ist January 1883.
Residence. Jalandhar, Punjab.

DAULAT SINGH (of Kaksis), Rdjd.

Born 2nd October 1830. The title is hereditary. Belongs to a family
which is a branch of the Kachhwaha Rajput clan from Lahar, of
Surajbansi
origin, claiming descent from Raja Dula Rai of Narwar. His son
Indarpal
in the year 1033 A.D. came to Indarki and Lahar, and established a
branch of
the family there, dispossessing the Meo clan. The eldest son of Raja
Indarpal
was Raja Bawan Pal, who seized Rampur in 1241, and reigned there. The
fifth in descent from Bawan Pal was the Raja Aman Deo, who seized
Kaksis
and all the neighbouring territory. His descendants suffered much from
the
Bundela invasion in 1558; and subsequently from the exactions of the
Peshwa and Sindhia. The head of the family was confirmed in
possession
of the estates that remained to him when the country came under
British
control in 1841. The Raja has a son and heir, Raghunath Singh, aged
about thirty-four years.

Residence. Sikri, Pargana" Madhogarh, Jalaun, North- Western
Provinces.

DAULATRAI SAMPATRAJ, MUNSHI, Rao Bahadur.

The title is personal, and was conferred on i6th February 1887, on
the

occasion of the Jubilee of the reign of Her Most Gracious Majesty.
Residence. Surat, Bombay.

DATA KISHAN, Rai.

Born 5th December 1842. The title is hereditary. Is the son of Rai
Hingan Lai, Kayasth, formerly Tahsildar of Dehra Dun ; who had a jdgir
and
the honorary title of Deputy Magistrate and Collector conferred on him
on
4th August 1858, for special services rendered to the Government
during
the Mutiny in the Jaunpur district. The Rai has a son and heir named
Madan Makund, born 25th February 1865.

Residence. Jaunpur, North-Western Provinces.

DAYAL SINGH (of Majithia), Sarddr.

Born in 1848 A.D. The title is hereditary, derived originally from
the
Sikh Government, and confirmed by the British Government. The family
is
of the Shergil Jat tribe. The great-grandfather of Sardar Dayal Singh,
who
was named Jodh Singh, was a feudal retainer of Sardar Amar Singh
Baggah,
who possessed a large territory in the district now called Gurdaspur,
and held
a considerable jdgir. He died in 1788. His only son, Sardar Desa
Singh,
remained in the service of the Baggah Sardars till 1809. He entered
the
service of the Maharaja Ranjit Singh on the reduction of the Baggah
Sardars,
and accompanied the Maharaja in his famous expedition to Kangra.
After
the expulsion of the Gurkhas he was appointed Governor of the Hill
States.
He continued to perform - valuable service ; and with his son, Sardar
Lahna
Singh, received extensive grants from Ranjit Singh. He died in 1832,
and
was succeeded in all his estates and honours by Sardar Lahna Singh,
father
of the present Sardar, who received charge of the hill territory
between the
Ravi and the Sutlej. He proved a most capable Governor ; but on the
rise
of Raja Hira Singh to power, he left the Punjab for a pilgrimage, to
avoid
the enmity of Pandit Jalla. After the close of the Sutlej Campaign he
returned to Lahore at the invitation of the Council and the Resident,
and
consented to join the Council. Subsequently, however, foreseeing
further
troubles, he determined to leave the Punjab; and in January 1848 he
left
for Benares, where he died. He was a skilful mechanist and an
original
inventor ; and greatly improved the Sikh ordnance.

Residence. Majithia, Amritsar, Punjab.

DAYAL SINGH (of Vadala), Sarddr.
The title is hereditary.
Residence. Sialkot, Punjab.

DBBI PARSHAD, Rai.

The title is personal ; was originally conferred by Carnatic Nawab,
and
recognised December 1890.

Residence. Hyderabad, Deccan.

DEBI PARSHAD, Rai Bahadur.

The title is personal, and was conferred on ist January 1890.
Residence. Central Provinces.

DBBI SINGH (of Rajwara), Rao.

Born 1860. The title is hereditary, and has come down from ancient
times. The family is Bundela Rajput, and is a branch of that of the
Rajas
of Chanderi.

Residence. Rajwdra, Lalitpur, North- Western Provinces.

DBBI SINGH, CHAUDHEI (of Asaura), Rai Bahadur.

Born 4th September 1839. The title is personal ; and was conferred on
7th December 1888, for the Chaudhri's services in connection with the
improvement of agriculture.

Residence. Meerut, North-Western Provinces.

DEDHROTA, THAKUR PUNJAJI, Thdkur of.
A Ruling Chief.

Born 1850. Belongs to a Koli (aboriginal) family. The area of the
State is about 10 square miles ; its population about noo.
Residence. Dedhrota, Mdhi Kcintha, Bombay.

DBLAN SINGH (of Kaimori), Rao.

Born 1851. The title is hereditary, having been originally conferred
by Nizam Shah, Gond Raja of Mandla. Rao Anrudh Singh, the father of
Rao Delan Singh, rendered good service to the British Government
during
the Mutiny of 1857.

Residence. Jabalpur, Central Provinces.

DEO, RAJA BHIKAM NARAYAN SINGH BAHADUR, Rdjd of.

Succeeded his father, the late Maharaja Sir Joy Prakash Singh Bahadur
of Deo, K. C.S.I., in 1881. Belongs to a Sesodiya Rajput family, and
claims
to be descended from the ancestors of His Highness the Maharana of
Udaipur, through Raja Rai Bhan Singh Bahadur. The Raja Fatheh Narayan
Singh, in 1782, and again in 1804, was rewarded by Government for his
services with a grant of land and other honours. He was succeeded by
his
son, Ganesam Singh, who in 1 8 1 6 was similarly rewarded with the
grant of a
Zaminddri ; and the son of the latter, Babu Manti Bhan Singh,
rendered
excellent service in the Kol insurrection of 1831. Manti Bhan Singh
was
succeeded by his son, Joy Prakash Singh, who was conspicuous for his
loyalty
and faithful services during the Mutiny in 1857 ; and for his laudable
exer-
tions in keeping this part of the district in order, and in quelling
the insurrec-
tion in the Chutia Nagpur division, he was at first honoured with the
title of
Maharaja Bahadur, and then in 1866 created a Knight Commander of the
Most Exalted Order of the Star of India. His only son is the present
Raja
Bahadur.

Residence. Gya, Bengal.

DEO NANDAN SINGH, Rdjd.

The title is personal, and was conferred on ist January 1891, "for
his
high rank and position, and public spirit." Is a younger son of the
late
Raja Raghu Nandan Singh, Raja of Sheohar, a brother of the late Raja
Sheo
Nandan Singh Bahadur, and an uncle of the present Raja of Sheohar.

Residence. Sheohar, Muzaffarpur, Bengal.

DEO RAO VINAYAK, Rao Saheb.
The title is personal, and was conferred on ist June 1888.
Residence. Akola, Berar.

DEODAR, WAGHELA ANANDSINGH CHANDAJI, Thdkur of.

A Ruling Chief.

Born 1 843 ; succeeded to the gadi in 1888. Belongs to a Rajput
(Hindu)
family.

Residence. Deodar, Pdlanpur, Bombay. I

DEODAR, WAGHELA DEWAJI CHANDAJI, Thdkur of.
A Ruling Chief.

Born 1837; succeeded to the gadi in 1888. Belongs to a Rajput
(Hindu) family.

Residence. Deodar, Pdlanpur, Bombay.

DEODAR, WAGHELA GAMBHIR SINGH, Thdkur of.
A Ruling Chief.

Born 1834 ; succeeded to the gadi ist April 1890. Belongs to a Rajput
(Hindu) family.

Residence. Deodar, Pdlanpur, Bombay.

DEODAR, WAGHELA SARDAR SINGH, Thdkur of.
A Ruling Chief.

Born 1853 ; succeeded to the gadi ist April 1890. Belongs to a Rajput
(Hindu) family.

Residence. Deodar, Pdlanpur, Bombay.

DERBHAVTI, RAJA BHONRAO RATNU, Rdjdof.*
A Ruling Chief.

Born 1870. The Chief belongs to a Bhil (aboriginal) family. The
State,
which is one of the Dang States in Khandesh, contains an area of about
76
square miles, and a population of nearly 5000, chiefly Bhils and
Konknas
(aboriginal tribes).

Residence. Derbhavti, Khandesh, Bombay.

DEROL, THAKUR RAMSINGHJI, Thdkur of.

A Ruling Chief.

Born 1853. Belongs to a Koli (aboriginal) family. The area of the
State is about 10 square miles; its population is 1224, chiefly
Hindus.
Residence. Derol, Mahi Kdntha, Bombay.

DBVALIA, Thdkur of. See Agar.

DBVBNDRA NATH MALLIK, Kumdr.

The title is personal, and was conferred on i8th July 1861 ; the
Kumar
being the eldest son of the late Raja Rajendra Nath Mallik. The
family
name is Sil ; but the hereditary title of Mallik having been granted
by the
old Mughal Emperors, has been adopted as a family name. The family is
very ancient ; its pedigree for twenty generations is in existence,
and its head
has long been reckoned the Dalapati or Chief of the Shuvarnavanik
caste,
and of the Brahmans of that clan. The crest of the family is an oval
star
enclosing a lion.

Residence. Calcutta, Bengal.

DBVBNDRA NATH SAHAI DEO, Thdkur.

The title is hereditary, and was originally conferred by the Maharaja
of
Chota Nagpur, and confirmed on 23rd December 1872. The family is a
younger branch of that of the Rajas of Chota Nagpur, and is said to
be
descended from the pandrik nag or sacred Serpent ; its cognisance or
crest is a cobra with a human face under the expanded hood.

Residence. Lohdrdaga, Bengal.

DEWA SINGH (of Bahrain), Sarddr.

The title is hereditary.
Residence. Jdlandhar, Punjab.

DBWAS, HIS HIGHNESS RAJA KRISHNAJI RAO PUAR,

Rdjd of (Senior Branch).

"Bdbd Saheb."
A Ruling Chief.

Born November 1849 ; succeeded to the gadi i8th March 1861. Belongs,
with His Highness the Raja of Dewas of the Junior Branch (who is
called
the " Dada Saheb "), to a Puar Rajput family, descended from a common
ancestor with the Raja of Dhar. The Raja Kaluji had two sons, Tukaji
and
Jiwaji, and these sons received from Baji Rao Peshwa the grant of the
Dewas
State in common the descendants of Raja Tukaji being known as the
Senior
Branch or " Baba Saheb." Tukaji was succeeded by Krishnaji, and the
latter
by Tukaji II., who adopted Rukmangad Rao, commonly known as Khasi
Saheb. He succeeded Tukaji II. in 1824; and, dying in 1860, was suc-
ceeded by his adopted son, the present Chief.

The two Rajas of Dewas, Senior Branch and Junior Branch (or Baba
Saheb and Dada Saheb), reside in different palaces in the same town
of
Dewas ; but the rule of each Chief is distinct within his own limits.
Both
Chiefs rendered good service during the Mutiny.

The area of the territories under the rule of the Baba Saheb is 155
square
miles; population about 73,940, chiefly Hindus, but including nearly
8000
Muhammadans. His Highness the Raja maintains a military force of 70
cavalry, 594 infantry, and 14 guns; and is entitled to a salute of 15
guns.

Residence. Dewds, Indore, Central India.

DEWAS, HIS HIGHNESS RAJA NARAYAN RAO PUAR,
Rdjd of (Junior Branch).

"Dddd Saheb."
A Ruling Chief.

Born 2oth December 1860; succeeded to the gadi 8th August 1864.
Belongs, with His Highness the Raja of Dewas of the Senior Branch (who
is
called the " Baba Saheb), to a Puar Rajput family, descended from a
common
ancestor with the Raja of Dhar. The Raja Kaluji had two sons, Tukaji
and
Jiwaji, and these sons received from Baji Rao Peshwa the grant of the
Dewas
State in common the descendants of Raja Jiwaji being known as the
Junior
Branch or "Dada Saheb." Jiwaji adopted Anand Rao Puar, who, in 1837,
adopted Haibat Rao, who succeeded him. The latter died in 1864 and
was
succeeded by his son, the present Raja.

The two Rajas of Dewas, Senior Branch and Junior Branch (or Baba
Saheb and Dada Saheb), reside in different palaces in the same town
of
Dewas, but the rule of each Chief is distinct within his own limits.
Both*
Chiefs rendered good service during the Mutiny.

The area of the territories under the rule of the Dada Saheb is 134
square miles; population 68,222, chiefly Hindus,' but including nearly
7000
Muhammadans. His Highness the Raja maintains a military force of 79
cavalry, 166 infantry, and 6 guns, and is entitled to a salute of 15
guns.

Residence. Dews, Indore, Central India.

DEY, KANNY LALL, C.I.E., Rai Bahadur. See Kanhai Lai De.

DHABLA DHIR and KAKARKHERI, THAKUR CHAND
SINGH, Thdkur of.

A Ruling Chief.

Born about 1836 ; succeeded to the gadi in 1871. Belongs to a Rajput
(Hindu) family. The State, which is in the Bhopal Agency, contains an
area of about 10 square miles, and an estimated population of about
1000,
chiefly Hindus.

Residence. Shujdwalpur, Bhopd.1, Central India.

DHABLA GHOSI, THAKUR GOPAL SINGH, Thdkur of.
A Ruling Chief.

Born about 1820; succeeded to the gadi in 1854. The population of
his State (which is in the Bhopal Agency) is about 400, chiefly
Hindus.
Residence. Shujdwalpur, Bhopdl, Central India.

DHAKJI KASHINATHJI, Rao Bahadur.
The title is personal, and was conferred on 2oth May 1890.
Residence. Bombay.

DHAMASIA, THAKUR KALUBAWA, Thdkurof.

A Ruling Chief.

Born 1834. Belongs to a Rajput (Muhammadan) family. The area of
the State is about 5 miles ; its population is chiefly Bhil
(aborigines).
Residence. Dhamasia, Rewd Kantha, Bombay.

DHAMI, RANA FATBH SINGH, Rand of.
A Ruling Chief.

Born 1855; succeeded to the gadi 26th January 1870. Belongs to a
Rajput (Hindu) family, whose founder, on the invasion of India by
Shahab-
ud-din Ghori in the i4th century, fled from Rajpura in the Ambala
dis-
trict, and conquered the territory of Dhami. The State was formerly a
feudatory of Bilaspur, but was made directly dependent on the British
Power
on the expulsion of the Gurkhas by the latter in 1815. The sanad
recognis-
jng the Rana is dated 4th September 1815. The present Rana succeeded
the Rana Govardhan Singh in 1870. The area of the State is 29 square
miles ; its population about 3300, chiefly Hindus. The Rana maintains
a
military force of 60 infantry.

Residence. Dhami, Simla Hills, Punjab.

DHANJIBHAI FAKIRJI COMMODORE, Khan Bahadur.
Created a Khan Bahadur, as a personal distinction, 2nd January 1893.
Residence. Marri, Punjab.

DHANJISHA EDALJI MANA, Khan Saheb.
The title is personal, and was conferred on 29th June 1886.
Residence. Kardchi, Sind.

DHANJISHA HORMASJI, Khan Bahadur.
The title is personal, and was conferred on i6th February 1887.
Residence. Kathiawar, Bombay.

DHANPAT RAI, Rdjd.

The title is personal, and was recognised on 9th December 1864.
Residence. Lucknow, Oudh.

DHANPAT RAI, Rat Bahadur.

The title is personal, and was conferred on i6th February 1887, on
the

occasion of the Jubilee of Her Majesty's reign.

Residence. Peshawar, Punjab.

DHANPAT SINGH DUGAR (of Baluchar), Rai Bahadur.
Born 1841. The title is personal, and was conferred on i3th December
1866. The Rai Bahadur, son of the late Pratap Singh Dugar of the
Oswal
caste, is a leading man among the Jains, and has founded many
Dharmsalas

for the use .of his co-religionists in various parts of India, and
published and
distributed the Jain sacred books. He is a banker and manufacturer,
having
houses in most of the great cities of Bengal, and has been
distinguished for
his liberality and public spirit. He has been twice married, and has
three
sons Babu Ganpat Singh and Babu Narpat Singh by the first wife, and
Babu Maharaj Bahadur Singh by the second. Is an Honorary Magistrate.
The family emigrated about 150 years ago from Kishengarh in
Rajputana,
and settled at Baluchar and Azimganj, in the district of Murshidabad,
Bengal.

Residence. Azimganj and Baluchar, Murshidabad, Bengal.

DHAR, HIS HIGHNESS MAHARAJA SIR ANAND RAO
PUAR, K.C.S.I., C.I.B., Rdjd of.

A Ruling Chief.

Born 8th April 1844; succeeded to the gadi 2ist November 1864.
Belongs (with their Highnesses the Rajas of Dewas, Senior and Junior
Branch) to the great Puar Rajput (Hindu) family, said to be descended
from
the famous Hindu legendary heroes, King Vikramaditya and Raja Bhoj.
Raja Bhoj is said to have been the first Puar to come to Dhar. About
the
year 1730 Anand Rao Puar, Raja of Dhar, was acknowledged by the
Peshwa,
Baji Rao, to be the head of the Puars. One of the great historical
Prin-
cesses of India, celebrated for her courage and abilities, and the
determina-
tion with which she resisted the attacks of Sindhia and Holkdr, was
the Rani
Mina Bai, widow of Anand Rao II., who was the great-grandson of his
namesake. The Rani was succeeded by her adopted son, Raja Ramchandra
Puar, who adopted Jeswant Rao, the half-brother of the present Raja.
Raja
Jeswant Rao died in 1857, and the State was confiscated for rebellion
during the Mutiny, but it was restored in 1864 to the present Raja,
who was
then a minor. The title of Viswas Rao (" Faithful ") is said to have
been
conferred on this family by the Maharajas of Satara, as the
descendants of
Sivaji and the heads of the Mahratta Empire, but it has not been
recognised
in recent years. The area of the State is about 1740 square miles, and
it
has many feudatories. The population is about 148,000, chiefly
Hindus,
but including about 12,000 Muhammadans and about 19,000 aborigines.
The present Raja has been granted the title of Maharaja as a personal
dis-
tinction, and created a Companion of the Most Eminent Order of the
Indian
Empire, ist January 1883 ; he had been created a Knight Commander of
the
Most Exalted Order of the Star of India on ist January 1877, on tne


occasion
of the Proclamation of Her Most Gracious Majesty as Empress of India.

His
Highness maintains a military force of 367 cavalry, 1249 infantry, and
5
guns ; and is entitled to a salute of 1 5 guns.

Residence. Dhdr, Bhopawar, Central India.

DHARAM NARAYAN, Rai Bahddur.
The title is personal, and was conferred on 2nd January 1888.
Residence. Ambala, Punjab.

DHARAM NARAYAN PANDIT, C.I.E., Rai Bahddur.
The title is personal, and was conferred on i5th February 1860.
Residence. Indore, Central India.

DHARAM SINGH (of Bichuri), Sardar.

Born 1857. The title is hereditary. Belongs to a Jat family, of
Manjha,
Punjab. Sardar Dargaha Singh acquired considerable territory by
conquest
in 1759 A.D., but his descendants were deprived of the largest portion
of
their estates by the Maharaja Ranjit Singh. The grandson of the
Sardar
Dargaha Singh was Sardar Dewa Singh, who was the father of the
present
Sardar.

Residence. Bichuri, Jcilandhar, Punjab.

DHARAMPUR, HIS HIGHNESS MAHARANA SHRI
NARAYANDEVJI RAMDEVJI, Rdjd of.

Born 3rd September 1840; succeeded to the gadi 2oth January 1860.
Belongs to the Solar race of Udaipur, and is consequently a Sesodiya
Rajput.
His Highness's ancestors have borne the title of Maharana from time
imme-
morial. They were the Rajas of the Surat district when the British
first
came to the country, and have always been recognised by the Paramount
Power. His Highness has four sons Shri Dharamdevji, Shri Mohandevji,
Shri Haridevji, and Shri Baldevji. His banner bears a golden-yellow
sun in
the centre of the field, in virtue of his descent from " the Sun of
the Hindus,"
the Udaipur Chief. Has two grandsons, also several daughters and
grand-
daughters ; and has received a sanad guaranteeing him the privilege of
adop-
tion. The area of the State is 794 square miles; its population about
102,000, chiefly Hindus. His Highness maintains a military force of
40
cavalry, 171 infantry, and 4 guns ; and is entitled to a salute of 9
guns.

Residence. Dharampur, Surat, Bombay.

DHARMA RAO NAYADU, R., Rao Bahddur.

Born 1857; appointed Deputy Collector in 1869; Assistant Commis-
sioner of Salt Revenue in 1880; granted the personal title of Rao
Bahadur
in 1890.

Residence. Cocanada, GodaVari District, Madras.

DHARMRAJ KUNWAR (of Parhat and Rajabazar), Rdni.

Born 1854; succeeded her late husband, the Raja Mahesh Narayan of
Rajabazar, on nth October 1878. The family are Raghubansi Rajputs,
whose founder came from Kaliangarh Sawain, and acquired the
territories of
Rajabazar. The neighbouring Rajas conferred the title of Raja by
tilak
some 200 or 300 years ago, and the late Raja was the seventh who had
borne the title. He was Raja of Parhat, in the district of Partabgarh,
Oudh,
as well as of Rajabazar ; and was an Honorary Magistrate both in Oudh
and
in the North- Western Provinces.

Residence. Ra"ja"baza>, Garwdra, Jaunpur District, North- Western
Provinces.

DHARNANDA, THAKUR BHIM SINGH,

Thdkur of.
A Ruling Chief.

Born 1859 ; succeeded to the gadi in December
1887. Belongs to a Chauhan Rajput (Hindu)
family, descended from Thakur Chhatar Sal, who
was recognised by the British Government in
I8 43- The population of the State is about

in the seal and for signature. 5OOO, chiefly Hindus.
(A circle with four Trisulas or _, . , _.. ._,.. _,

Tridents as radii at the car- Residence. Dharnanda, Gwalior, Central
India.

dinal points.)

DHARUP SINGH, Rao Saheb.

The title is hereditary. The ancestor of this family, Rao Kehari
Singh,
did good service with Sultan Muhammad, Nawab of Rahatgarh, in return
for
which he received the title and considerable grants. The father of
the
present Rao Saheb was the Rao Jag Raj Singh.

Residence. Sgar, Central Provinces.

DHAUKAL PARSHAD, MUNSHI, Rai Bahadur.

Born 27th February 1828. The title is personal, and was conferred on
2nd January 1888. Belongs to a Kanungo family of Pargand Karsoli, and
rendered good service to Government during the Mutiny. Is an Honorary
Magistrate.

Residence. Mainpuri, North- Western Provinces.

DHBNKANAL, RAJA SURA PRATAP MAHINDRA
BAHADUR, Rdjd of.

A Ruling Chief.

Born 1884; succeeded to the gadi as a minor 2Qth August 1885.
The family are Kshatriya Hindus, and were anciently feudatories of
the
old Rajas of Orissa ; said to have been founded by Harihar Samant
Singhar,
who established himself in Dhenkanal after killing the aboriginal
Raja
Dhenka, from whom the State derives its modern name. The titles of
Samant, Singhar ; Brahmarbar were conferred on the family by the old
Rajas
of Orissa. Subsequently the title of Mahindra Bahadur was conferred
by
the Mahrattas, who also recognised the title of Raja, which finally
was con-
ferred on the predecessor of the present Chief by the Government of
India
in 1874. The family crest and seal is the minaketana, a flag bearing
the
emblem of the sacred fish. The area of the State, which is one of the
Orissa Tributary Mahals, is 1463 square miles; its population about
208,316,
chiefly Hindus, but including about 80,000 Savars and other
aboriginal
tribesmen. The Raja maintains a military force of 343 infantry and 8
guns.
Residence. Dhenkanal, Orissa, Bengal.

DHIRAJ KARAN, Rai Bahadur.

Granted the title of Rai Bahadur, as a personal distinction, 2nd
January
1893.

Residence. Monghyr, Bengal.

DHOLPUR, His Highness the Mahdrdj Rand of.
A Ruling Chief.

Born 1862 ; succeeded to the gadt as a minor 9th February 1873. The
full titles of this Chief are Major His Highness Rais-ud-daula"
Sipahdar-ul-
Mulk, Maharaj-Adhiraj Sri Sawai Maharaj Rana Nihal Singh, Lokindar
Baha-
dur, Diler Jang, Jai Deo. Belongs to a Jat (Hindu) family, which
traces its
pedigree back to the nth century, when it held lands under the Puar
Kings
of Delhi. In later times it acquired territory on the banks of the
Chambal,
and was powerful in the i8th century, when the Rana of Gohad, ancestor
of
the present Maharaj Rana, joined the British troops in the Mahratta
war in
1779. The title of Rana had been recognised by the Emperor Sikandar
Lodi of Delhi, but in 1779 the British recognised the Rana as Maharaj
Rana. ' In 1805 Lord Cornwallis granted Gohad to Sindhia, and in
exchange
granted to the Maharaj Rana Kirat Singh (ancestor of the present
Chief) the
territories of Dholpur, Bari, and Rajakhera. Kirat Singh was succeeded
by
Bhagwant Singh, who showed great loyalty during the Mutiny of 1857,
and


was created a Knight Commander of the Most Exalted Order of the Star
of

India. His son married a daughter of the late Raja of Patiala, but
died
before his father, leaving a son and heir, the present Maharaj Rana,
who
succeeded his grandfather in 1873. The area of the State is 1200
square
miles; its population about 250,000, chiefly Hindus, but including
18,000
Muhammadans and 2500 Jains. The Maharaj Rana maintains a military
force of 139 cavalry, 1588 infantry, and 32 guns. His Highness is an
Honorary Major in the British army, and is entitled to a salute of 15
guns.
The family colour was azure, but in an encounter towards the end of
the last
century the then Chief captured from the Thakurs of Bamraoli a
golden-
yellow flag, with a figure of Hanuman (the monkey-god) in the centre
of the
field, and this has been subsequently adopted as the family
cognisance.

Arms. Or, a " Hanuma"n " gules, on a chief azure a sword between two
towers or. Supporters. Two Rajput warriors in full armour. Crest.
A " Narsinghji " (man-lion) proper. Motto. Mitra Mitra, Amitra Amitra
(" Sure friend, sure foe.")

Residence. Dholpur, Rajputdna.

DHRANGADRA, HIS HIGHNESS SIR MANSINGHJI
RANMALSINGHJI, K.C.S.I., Raj Saheb of.

A Ruling Chief.

Born nth January 1837 ; succeeded to the gadi on the death of his
father, His late Highness the Raj Saheb Ranmalsinghji, K.C.S.I., on
28th
October 1869. Is the head of the Jhala Rajputs, and the Chief of this
family has consequently long held the title of Raj Saheb, while the
title of
" Maharana " is commonly used by the Jhala clansmen of their chief,
and it
is also commonly used as the vernacular equivalent of " His Highness,"
the
title conferred by the Queen Empress. The Jhala Rajputs are said to
have
entered Kathiawar from Sind in the 8th century A.D., and the founder
of this
dynasty is stated to have been Harapal Devji, who obtained from the
Solankhi Rajput Chief of Patan the grant of the district subsequently
known
as Jhalawar in Kathiawar. It may be noted that the State of Jhalawar
in
Rajputana was founded in the beginning of the i8th century A.D. by
Jhala
emigrants from Kathiawar. His Highness's ancestors from whom also
descend the Chiefs of Wankaner, Limri, Wadhwan, Chura, Sayla, ano!
Than-
Lakhtar were settled first at Patri in Ahmadabad; then at Halwad in
Kathiawar; and finally at Dhrangadra. Sir Mansinghji has been dis-
tinguished for the enlightened character of his administration,
especially in
the matters of public instruction and internal communications. He has
established an efficient girls' school at Dhrangadra, and many good
schools
throughout the State ; and has constructed many good roads, and other
public works. To commemorate the visit of His Royal Highness the Duke
of Edinburgh to Bombay in 1870 His Highness contributed a large sum
towards the erection of a Dharmsdla at Rajkot ; and his loyalty was
still
more conspicuously displayed on the occasion of the landing of His
Royal
Highness the Prince of Wales at Bombay in 1875, which was celebrated
by
the erection and endowment of the Albert Edward Hospital at
Dhrangadra.
His Highness was prevented by serious illness from attending the
Imperial
Assemblage at Delhi on the Proclamation of Her Most Gracious Majesty
as
Empress of India, but he was on that occasion created a Knight Com-
mander of the Most Exalted Order of the Star of India, and received
the
addition of four guns to his salute as a personal distinction. When he
was
presented with the insignia of the Star of India, at the same time as
His
Highness the Jam of Nauanagar, the Political Agent, speaking for the
Government, said : " His Highness the Raj Saheb of Dhrangadra
commands
respect as the head, both of the Jhala tribe and of a ruling house
second to
none in domestic virtue. He now accedes to the honours enjoyed by his
father, Sir Ranmalsinghji, the worthy son of a worthy sire. The
decorations
granted to these princes are the natural ornaments of exalted
hereditary rank."
Much sympathy was felt for His Highness when, in 1879, he lost his
eldest
son and heir, the late Rajkumar Jaswantsinghji, whose son (the
grandson of
the present Chief) is now the heir-apparent to ' the gadi. The area of
the
State is 1156 square miles; its population about 100,000, chiefly
Hindus,
but including about 6000 Muhammadans. The Raj Saheb maintains a
military force of 103 cavalry, 470 infantry, and 9 guns; and is
entitled to a
salute of 15 guns.

Residence. Dhra"ngadra, Ka"thia"wa"r.

DHROL, THAKUR SAHBB HARISINGHJI JAISINGHJI,

Thdkur Saheb of.

A Ruling Chief.

Born 1846; succeeded his father, the late Thakur Saheb Jesinghji,
26th
October 1886. Is a Jareja Rajput, descended from a brother of Jam
Rawal,
the first Jam of Nauanagar, who founded that State in 1542 A.D; and
the
family is also the same as that of His Highness the Maharao Raja of
Kutch.
The area of the State is about 283 square miles; its population is
about
22,000, chiefly Hindus, but including nearly 3000 Muhammadans. The
Thakur Saheb maintains a military force of 25 cavalry, 285 infantry,
and 6


guns ; and is entitled to a salute of 9 guns.

Residence. Dhrol, Kdthia'wa'r, Bombay.

DHULATIA, THAKUR FATBH SINGH, Thdkur of.
A Ruling Chief.

Born about 1866 ; succeeded to the gadi in 1872. Belongs to a Rajput
(Hindu) family.

Residence. Dhulatia, Western Malwa", Central India.

DHURWAI, DIWAN RANJOR SINGH, Jdgirddr of.
A Ruling Chief.

Born about 1833 ; succeeded to the gadi i4th January 1851. Belongs
to a Bundela Rajput (Hindu) family, descended from the Raja Bir Singh
Deo
of Orchha. The area of the State, which is one of the Hashtbhai
jdgirs^ is
about 1 8 square miles; its population is about 1600, chiefly Hindus.
The
Jagirdar maintains a military force of 10 cavalry, 100 infantry, and 3
guns.

Residence. Dhurwai, Bundelkhand, Central India.

DILAWAR SINGH (of Tilokpur), Midn.
The title is hereditary.
Residence. Ka"ngra, Punjab.

DINA NATH, PANDIT, Rai Bahadur.

Granted the title, as a personal distinction, 2nd January 1893, for
eminent
service in the Police.

Residence. Central Provinces.

DINABANDHU NYAYARATNA, Mahdmahopddhydya.

The title is personal, and was conferred on i6th February 1887 for
eminence in oriental learning, on the occasion of the Jubilee of Her
Majesty's reign. It entitles him to take rank in Darbar immediately
after
titular Rajas.

Residence. Konnagar, Bengal.

DINANATH GHOSH, Rai Bahddur.

The title is personal, and was conferred on nth December 1884.
Residence. Calcutta, Bengal.

DINENDRA NARAYAN RAI, Kumdr.

Honorary Magistrate and Municipal Commissioner of Calcutta. Granted
the title of Kumar, as a personal distinction, 2nd January 1893.
Residence. Calcutta.

DINKAR RAO, SIR, K.C.S.I., Rdjd Mushir-i-Khas Bahddur.

Born 1819. The title is hereditary. The Raja comes of an ancient
Dakhani family of the Bombay Presidency, but usually resides in Agra,
Cawnpur, or Benares, in the North -Western Provinces. Was Minister of
His late Highness the Maharaja Sindhia of Gwalior till 1859 :
subsequently
became Superintendent of the Dholpur State, and was a Member of the
Baroda Commission. The Raja was created in 1866 a Knight Commander
of the Most Exalted Order of the Star of India. At the Imperial
Assemblage
at Delhi, on the occasion of the Proclamation of Her Most Gracious
Majesty
as Empress of India, he received the title of Raja Mushir-i-Khas
Bahadur as
a personal distinction, and on 28th August 1884 this was declared
hereditary.
His son and heir is named Raghunath Rao Dinkar, born 4th August 1858.

Residence. Agra, North- Western Provinces.

DINSHA DOSABHAI KHAMBATTA, Khdn Saheb.
The title is personal, and was conferred on i8th August 1881.
Residence. Disa, Bombay.

DIWAN CHAND, RaL

Born 1835. The only son of Diwan Ganpat Rai; who was in favour
with the Maharaja Ranjit Singh, appointed by him tutor of his
grandson, and
rewarded by the grant of a jdgir and the appointment of Hazurnavis.
Descended from a family whose ancestor, Gaggan Mai, was distinguished,
in
the time of the Emperor Akbar, as the founder of Ghartal in Sialkot,
and
obtained the title of Malik. His grandsons, Diwan Ramji Mai and
Shamji
Mai, earned the title of Diwan in the time of the Emperor Aurangzeb ;
Ramji
Mai was appointed Hazurnavis, and Shamji obtained a command in the
Kabul army. The family left Ghartal for Jammu, and subsequently for
Dera
Nanak ; but Diwan Nand Gopal, the grandfather of Rai Diwan Chand,
returned to the ancestral home. His son was Diwan Ganpat Rai
mentioned
above, who was appointed by the Maharaja Sher Singh officer in charge
of
the magazines. He was a brave soldier, and fought in the battles of
Pesha-
war, Multan, and Dera Ismail Khan; and throughout the rebellions of
1847
and 1848 attached himself to the British Resident. The Rai Diwan
Chand
was for some time Tahsildar of Roras in Wazirabad ; has subsequently
been
an able and successful journalist and author, as well as distinguished
in

municipal and university work, and is Vice-President of the Punjab
Press
Association. Received the title on 24th May 1889. Has two sons,
Munshi
Brij Lai and Munshi Gayan Chand.

Residence. Sidlkot, Punjab.

DIWAN MUHAMMAD, SAYYID, Khan Saheb.

Granted the title, as a personal distinction, 2nd January 1893, for
eminent

services in the post of Mir Munshi of the British Agency at Kabul.
Residence. Kharar, Ambala, Punjab.

DODA KHAN, Mulk.
The title is hereditary.
Residence. S ind .

DOSABHAI FRAMJI KARAKA, C.S.I.

A distinguished citizen and official of Bombay, late Collector of
Bombay
and Chairman of the Justices. Created a Companion of the Most Exalted
Order of the Star of India on ist January 1877, on the occasion of


the
Proclamation of Her Most Gracious Majesty as Empress of India.

DOSABHAI PBSTANJI, Khan Bahadur.

The title is personal, and was conferred on i6th February 1887, on
the

occasion of the Jubilee of the reign of Her Most Gracious Majesty.
Residence. Surat, B ombay .

DOST ALI KHAN walad AHMAD KHAN, Mir.

The title is hereditary, the Mir being descended from one of the Mirs
or Chiefs of Sind at the time of the annexation.
Residence. Shikdrpur, Sind.

DOST ALI KHAN, Nawdb.
The title is personal.
Residence. Tajpur, Sind.

DOST MUHAMMAD walad WALIDAD KHAN, Mir.

The title is hereditary, the Mir being descended from one of the Mirs
or Chiefs of Sind at the time of the annexation.
Residence. Shika"rpur, Sind.

DOTRIA. See Bhaisola.

DRUG SINGH (of Sarekha), Thdkur.

Born 1836. The title is hereditary ; and is stated to have been
originally
conferred by the Gond Rajas, Harade Shah and Nizam Shah of Mandla.

The family is Gond (aboriginal), and is descended from Thakur Bhik
Rai ;
whose grandson, Thakur Ranju Singh, was father of Thakur Prithi Singh,
and
grandfather of the present Thakur. Thakur Drug Singh has three sons
Thakur Jai Singh, Deo Singh, and Sardar Singh.
< Residence. Seoni, Central Provinces.

DUDHPUB, THAKUR ANUPBAWA DADABAWA, Thakur of.

A Ruling Chief.

Born 1878; succeeded to \hegadi i8th November 1888. Belongs to
a Rajput (Muhammadan) family.

Residence. Dudhpur, Rewd Kdntha, Bombay.

DUGRI, MIAN KHUDA BAKSH, Mian of.
A Ruling Chief.

Born about 1854 ; succeeded to the gadi 5th December 1883. Belongs
to a Pindari (Muhammadan) family.

Residence. Dugri, Bhopdl, Central India.

DUJANA, JALAL-UD-DAULA NAWAB MUHAMMAD MUM-
TAZ ALI KHAN BAHADUR MUSTAKIL, JANG, Nawdb of.

A Ruling Chief.

Born 1864 ; succeeded to the gadi i5th October 1879, on tne death of
the late Nawab Muhammad Saadat AH Khan. The Nawab belongs to an
Afghan (Muhammadan) family ; whose founder, Abdus Samand Khan, with
his sons, obtained the grant of large estates from Lord Lake as a
reward for
service rendered. The tenure was made hereditary, and other
territories
added, by a sanad dated 4th May 1806. The Nawab Abdus Samand Khan
was succeeded by his son Dunde Khan, and he by the Nawab Hasan AH
Khan, who was the father of the late Nawab Muhammad Saadat AH Khan.
The area of the State is 89 square miles; its population 23,416,
chiefly
Hindus, but including nearly 6000 Muhammadans. The Nawab maintains
a military force of 25 cavalry and 140 infantry.

Residence. Dujdna, Rohtak, Punjab.

DULAM SINGH (of Piparia), Thakur.

Born 1850. The title is hereditary. The Thakur is a grandson of
Thakur Ananta Singh, who was a brother of Thakur Prithi Singh, the
father
of Thakur Drug Singh of Sarekha (see above). The title was originally
derived from the Gond Rajas of Mandla.

Residence.- Seoni, Central Provinces.

DUMRAON, MAHARAJA SIR RADHA PRASAD SINGH
BAHADUR, K.O.I.B., Mahdrdjd of.

Born i4th August 1841. Belongs to an ancient Kshatriya (Hindu)
family, claiming descent from the Raja Vikramaditya of Malwa, through
the
Raja Bhoj Singh, who founded the ancient Hindu city of Bhojpur, the
ruins

of which are distant about one mile from Dumraon, in the district of
Shah-
abad. One of the descendants of Raja Bhoj Singh was Narayan Mai, on
whom it is said that the Mughal Emperor Jahangir conferred the title
of
Raja in the year 1604 A.D. ; and his son, grandson, and great-grandson
in
turn received the same title. The last-named was the Raja Haril Singh,
who
in the year 1720 A. D. received from the Emperor Muhammad Shah the
title of
Raja, extensive grants of land, and the command of 1000 infantry and
800
cavalry. His son was the Raja Chhatardhari Singh, who also obtained
the
same title and further grants from the Emperor Muhammad Shah in 1746
A.D. Chhatardhari's son was the Raja Vikramaditya Singh, who received
his
title in 1771 A.D. from the Emperor Shah Alam, and subsequently
obtained
a confirmation thereof and sundry grants from the British Government.
His
son, Jai Prakas Singh, seems to have obtained the title of Maharaja
from the
Marquess of Hastings in 1 8 1 6. He was succeeded by his grandson,
Janaki
Prasad Singh, who died whilst a minor ; and the latter in turn was
followed
by his uncle, the late Maharaja Maheshwar Bakhsh Singh (father of the
present Maharaja), who was a younger son of the Raja Jai Prakas
Singh,
born 2oth October 1803, and succeeded to the Raj in 1844. The
Maharaja
Maheshwar Bakhsh Singh took a leading part in the reception of His
Royal
Highness the Prince of Wales ; and was honoured with the gift of a
portrait-
medal from His Royal Highness, and a letter of acknowledgment of his
services. He was reported to stand conspicuous for his loyalty and
liberality
on all occasions, and was created a Knight Commander of the Most
Exalted
Order of the Star of India. Dying in 1881, he was succeeded by his
son,
the present Maharaja Radha Prasad Singh Bahadur. The latter had been
created a Raja during the lifetime of his father, for good service
rendered
during the great famine of 1873-74; and he had also been honoured by
receiving a portrait-medal from His Royal Highness the Prince of
Wales,
and a letter of acknowledgment for services rendered in the reception
of His
Royal Highness. On succeeding his father he received the title of
Maharaja
Bahadur as a personal distinction, i3th January 1882.
Residence. Dumraon, Shdhabad, Bengal.

DUN, MATING-, Thuye-gaung Ngweda ya Min.

The title is personal, and was conferred on 2oth May 1890. It means
" Recipient of the Silver Sword for Bravery," and is indicated by the
letters
T.D.M. after the name.

Residence. Katha, B urma.

DUNJ SHBTAN (of Spiti), Nona of Spiti.

The title is hereditary, the Nono being the descendant of the Tibetan
Chiefs, formerly feudatories of Ladakh in Tibet. Since the conclusion
of
the first Sikh war in 1846, Spiti has been an outlying subdivision of
the
Himalayan district of Kangra, Punjab ; and is administered by British
officials with the aid of the Nono, who is an Honorary Magistrate.
The
population of the valley which is covered by deep snow every year
from
December to April is hardly 3000, almost entirely Tibetan in race.

Residence. Spiti, Kdngra, Punjab.

DUNGARPUR, HIS HIGHNESS MAHARAWAL UDAI SINGH
BAHADUR, Mahdrdwal of.

A Ruling Chief.

Born 22nd May 1839 ; succeeded to the gadi 28th September 1846.
Is a Sesodia Rajput, descended from a branch of the ruling family of
Udaipur, the " Sun of the Hindus." The Maharawals of Dungarpur were
ributary, from time to time, to the Mughal Emperors of Delhi and to
the
Mahrattas ; from whom they were finally rescued by the British Power,
a treaty being concluded in 1 8 1 8. The Bhils were reduced to
submission ;
and in 1825 the Maharawal Jaswant Singh, being found incompetent, was
deposed by the Government, and his adopted son Dalpat Singh, second
son
of the Chief of Partabgarh, appointed to succeed. Subsequently the
Maharawal Dalpat Singh succeeded to the gadi of Partabgarh ; so the
British
Government permitted him to adopt the present Maharawal (then a
minor)
to succeed him in Dungarpur. The Maharawal has a son and heir, the
Maharaj Kunwar Khuman Singh. The distinctive family colour is red.
The area of the State is about 1000 square miles; its population
about
154,000, chiefly Hindus, but including 3609 Muhammadans and 67,000
Bhils (aborigines). His Highness the Maharawal maintains a military
force
of 251 cavalry, 535 infantry, and 8 guns; and is entitled to a salute
of
15 guns.

Residence. Dungarpur, Rdjputdna.

DUR MUHAMMAD KHAN, KHAGWANI, Bahadur
The title is personal, and was conferred on nth March 1859.
Residence. Dera Ismail KMn, Punjab.

DURGA CHARAN LAHA, C.I.B., Maharaja.

Born 23rd November 1822. The title is personal, and was conferred
on 3oth May 1891. The Maharaja, whose family name is more commonly
spelt " Law," was born at Chinsurah ; educated at the Hindu College,
Calcutta ; senior partner of the firm of Messrs. Prawn Kissen Law and
Company, and a Zamindar ; appointed Justice of the Peace and Honorary
Presidency Magistrate ; first native Member of the Port Commission ;
Member of the Bengal Legislative Council 1874 ; a Member of the
Senate
of the Calcutta University; elected a Governor of the Mayo Hospital
nth
April 1878; Member of the Imperial Legislative Council 1882; Commis-
sioner for the Reduction of Public Debt February 1882; Sheriff 1882 ;
made a Companion of the Indian Empire 24th May 1884 ; President of
the
British Indian Association in 1885 and 1888; the title of Raja was
con-
ferred in 1887; again appointed a Member of the, Imperial Legislative
Council 1888 ; the title of Maharaja conferred in 1891 ; and exempted
from
personal attendance in Civil Courts 27th January 1892. The Maharaja
has
two sons the Maharaj-Kumar Kristo Dass Law, born 24th February 1849;
and Maharaj-Kumar Rishee Kesh Law, born 4th May 1852, both Honorary
Presidency Magistrates.

Residence. 2 Cornwallis Street, Calcutta.

DURGA GATI BANARJI, Rai Bahadur.

Is a distinguished member of the Uncovenanted Civil Service. Obtained
the title on ist January 1891, "for good work as Personal Assistant to
the
Commissioners of the Patna and Presidency Divisions, and as Collector
of
Stamp Revenue and Superintendent of Excise Revenue, Calcutta."

Residence. C alcutta.

DURGA PARSHAD, Rai Bahadur.

Born 8th September 1827. The title was conferred on ist January 1885,
as a personal distinction. Belongs to a family which came originally
from
Kanauj in the Farrukhabad district and settled in Bareli. Educated at
Bareli ;
appointed to the Education Service in 1852, in which he served with
great
distinction, and was made Inspector of Schools of the Western Circle
of Oudh
in 1870. At the Imperial Assemblage at Delhi on ist January 1877, on


the occasion of the Proclamation of Her Most Gracious Majesty as
Empress

of India, received a Silver Medal and a Certificate of Honour. In
1883
appointed Inspector of Schools for Rohilkhand, and retired on pension
in
1885. Is an Honorary Magistrate, and has filled many important public
positions. The Rai Bahadur has three sons Kunwar Kanhia Lai, born
1850; Kunwar Lai Bahadur, born 1863; Kunwar Jagdamba Prasad,
born 1870.

Residence. Bareli, North- Western Provinces.

DURGA PARSHAD, Rai Bahadur.

Born gth October 1843. The title was conferred on 29th May 1886, as
a personal distinction. Belongs to a family that came originally from
Lahore
and settled at Benares, purchasing estates in various districts. His
grand-
father was Kanhaiya Lai, who was treasurer of Gorakhpur 1802-14. Was
appointed an Honorary Magistrate in 1871, and has rendered good
service
in that capacity. Received a Certificate of Honour at the Imperial
Assem-
blage of Delhi on ist January 1877, on the occasion of the
Proclamation of
Her Most Gracious Majesty as Empress of India ; and in 1879 was
presented
with a khilat in recognition of his services in the famine of 1876-77.
Is a
Member of the Legislative Council of the North- Western Provinces.

Residence. Gordkhpur, North-Western Provinces.

DURGA PRASAD, PANDIT, Mahdmahopddhydya.

The title was conferred, as a personal distinction, on the 25th May
1892,
in recognition of his eminence as an oriental scholar. It entitles him


to take
rank in Darbar immediately after titular Rajas.

Residence. Jaipur, Ra"jputa"na.

DURGA PRASHAD GHOSH, Rai Bahadur.
The title was conferred on ist January 1878, as a personal
distinction.
Residence. Hugli, Bengal.

DURJAN SINGH (of Patehpur), Rdjd.

Born 22nd July 1837. The title is hereditary. Belongs to a Raj Gond
family that claims an antiquity of more than 900 years, the tradition
being
that the jdgir of Fatehpur was granted to their ancestors in 939 A. D.
A
sanad of the Raja Kamal Nain, Gond Raja of Mandla, dated 1500 A.D.,
is
still in existence, conferring or confirming thisjdgir.

Residence. Hoshangabad, Central Provinces.

DWARIKA NATH MUKHARJI, Rai Bahddur.

Born in February 1831. The title was conferred on i5th March 1882,
as a personal distinction. Belongs to a Kulin Brahman family of high
caste,
descended from the famous Kamdev Pandit. Educated at the Nizamat
College; Murshidabad. Appointed to the Public Works Department in 1849
>
and from 1856 to 1889 executed many very important works in Fort
William and elsewhere. Rendered valuable service during the Mutiny of
1857; retired on pension August 1889. His grandfather, Navakisor
Mukharji, was in the service of the late King of Oudh ; and his
father, the
Diwan Radhanath Mukharji, was in the Public Works Department, and
became Diwan to Her Highness the Nawab Bhao Begam. Has a son and
heir, Babu Devendranath Mukharji.

Residence. Calcutta, Bengal.

DWARKA TBWARI, SUBAHDAR, Rai Bahddur.

The title is personal, and was conferred on ist January 1890.
Residence. Nepa"l.

BDALJI PBSTANJI, Khan Bahddur.

The title is personal, and was conferred on 24th February 1875.
Residence. Mhow, Central India.

ELAYA RAJA, The. See Travancore, Mahdrdjd of;
also see Cochin, Rdjd of.

FAGHFUR MIRZA, Mirza Bahddur.

Is the son-in-law of the late Wajid Ali Shah, King of Oudh. Son of
Nawab Mumtaz-ud-daula, son of Asghar Ali Khan, eldest son of Muhammad
Ali Shah, third King of Oudh. On the death of the latter he was
succeeded
by his second son, Amjad Ali Shah, though the Nawab Mumtaz-ud-daula,
the son of the eldest son, was alive. Mumtaz-ud-daula married Zinat-
un-
Nissa, the daughter of Malika Zamani, one of the consorts of Nasir-ud-
din
Haidar, second king.

Residence. Oudh.

PAIZ ALI KHAN BAHADUR (of Kotah), NAWAB SIR,

K.C.S.I.

The Nawab Bahadur was created a Knight Commander of the Most
Exalted Order of the Star of India, 3ist December 1875.
Residence. Kotah, Rajputdna.

FAIZ MUHAMMAD KAZI, Khan Bahadur.

The title is personal, and was conferred on i2th April 1876.
Residence. Karachi, Sind.

PAIZ-ULLA KHAN, Khan Bahadur.
The title is personal, and was conferred on loth July 1878.
Residence. Jodhpur, Rajputana.

FAIZ-UN-NISA, CHAUDHRAIN, Nawdb Saheb.
The title is personal, and was conferred on 24th May 1889.
Residence. Tipperah, B engal.

PAKHR-UD-DIN HAIDAR ALI KHAN, SAYYID, Nawdb
Intikhab-ud-dauld.

Is a grandson of the late Wajid Ali Shah, King of Oudh, being the son
of the Nawab Azmat-ud-daula, who married one of the King's daughters.
The title was granted to Azmat-ud-daula by King Wajid Ali Shah in
1849.

Residence. O udh.

PAKIRJI JIWAJI, Khdn Saheb.

The title is personal, and was conferred on 3rd February 1882.
Residence. Bombay.

PARDANJI PBSTANJI, Khdn Saheb.
The title is personal, and was conferred on 8th October 1874.
Residence. Poona, Bombay.

PARID-UD-DIN, MAULAVI, SAYYID, Khdn Bahadur.

Born September 1827. The title is personal, and was conferred on i6th


February 1887, on the occasion of the Jubilee of the reign of Her
Most

Gracious Majesty, for distinguished service as a Judge. The family
traces its
descent from Sayyid Abdul Khair, of Khursan, who settled in Kara,
district
Allahabad, in the year 1300. The Khan Bahadur's ancestors received
muafi
grants from the Mughal Emperors for their ability and learning.

Residence. Agra, North-Western Provinces.

PARIDKOT, His Highness the Rdjd Bahadur of.
A Ruling Chief.

Born 1842 ; succeeded to ft& gadi 22nd April 1874. His full titles
are
His Highness Farzand-i-Saadat-i-Nishan-i-Hazrat-i-Kaisar-i-Hind Barar
Bans
Raja Bikram Singh Bahadur, Raja Bahadur of Faridkot. Is the head of
the
Barar Jat tribe of Sikhs, the family tracing their origin from Barar,
seventeenth
in descent from Jesal, the founder of the Jesalmir State, and the
ancestor of
the Sidhu and other illustrious Jat clans. A descendant of Barar's,
named
Ballan, rose to eminence in the time of the Emperor Akbar. His nephew
built Kot-Kapura, a fort about six miles south of the town of
Faridkot ; and
a descendant named Sardar Hamir Singh became independent Chief of
Faridkot in 1782. In 1808 Faridkot submitted to the Maharaja Ranjit
Singh, and the territory was granted to Diwan Mokam Chand, the Lahore
General. But when in 1808-9 the British Government demanded from the
Maharaja the surrender of his conquests on the left bank of the
Sutlej,
Faridkot was given back to its ancient possessors; and in 1845, when
the
first Sikh war broke out, the Sardar Pahar Singh of Faridkot attached
him-
self to the English, using his utmost exertions to collect supplies
and carriage,
and furnishing guides for the army. Pahar Singh received as his reward
the
title of Raja, together with half the territory confiscated from the
Raja of
Nabha, and in this obtained possession once more of Kot-Kapura, the
ancestral seat of his family. He was succeeded by his son, the Raja
Wazir
Singh, who joined the English in the second Sikh war, and greatly
dis-
tinguished himself during the Mutiny of 1857 by seizing mutineers,
guarding
the ferries over the Sutlej, and attacking a notorious rebel named
Sham Das,
whose village he destroyed. His troops served with credit under
General
Van Cortlandt in Sirsa and elsewhere. For these services Raja Wazir
Singh
received the additional titles of " Barar Bans Raja Saheb Bahadur," a
khilat
of increased value, and a salute of 1 1 guns. He was also exempted
from
the service of ten horsemen, which he had previously had to provide ;
and in
1862 he received a sanad conferring the right of adoption. The
present
Raja has given up excise and transit duties in exchange for
compensation.
The area of the State is 612 square miles; its population 97,034, of
whom
40,182 are Sikhs, 27,463 are Hindus, and 29,035 are Muhammadans. His
Highness maintains a military force of 70 cavalry, 300 infantry, and 6
guns ;
and is entitled to a salute of 1 1 guns.

Residence. Faridkot, Punjab.

FARRUKH MUHAMMAD TAKI ALI, Mirza Bahadur.

Is the grandson of the late Amjad All Shah, fourth King of Oudh,
being
the son of Mirza Dara Sitwat. The title was conferred by King
Muhammad
Ali Shah on Prince Dara Sitwat in 1838.

Residence. O udh.

FARRUKH SHAH. See Muhammad Farrukh Shah.

FARRUKH SIYAR, Shdhzdda.

Is a descendant of Shah Shuja, the King of Kabul, who was restored to
the throne of Afghanistan by the British. The title is a personal one,
and
was recognised 4th February 1853.

Residence. Ludhicina, Punjab.

FATBH KHAN walad ABBAS ALI KHAN, Mir.

The title is hereditary, the Mir being a descendant of one of the
Mirs

or Chiefs of Sind at the time of the annexation.
Residence. Sind.

FATBH KHAN walad AHMAD KHAN, Mir.

The title is hereditary, the Mir being a descendant of one of the

Amirs
of the Talpur family, Chiefs of Sind at the time of the annexation.
Residence. Shikdrpur, Sind.

FATEH KHAN, Mir.

The title is hereditary, the Mir being a descendant of one of the Mirs
or

Chiefs of Sind at the time of the annexation.
Residence. Shikdrpur, Sind.

FATBH KHAN, Nawdb.

The title is personal ; a courtesy title.
Residence. Hala, Sind.

FATBH KHAN, MIR (of Mirpur), His Highness.

The title is personal, and was conferred on loth November 1877, His
Highness being a descendant of the Amir who was ruling at the time of
the
conquest.

Residence. Hyderabad, Sind.

THE GOLDEN BOOK OF INDIA 135

FATBH KHAN, Khan.

The title is hereditary, and was conferred on ist January 1877.
Residence. Chang, Merwara.

FATEH KHAN GHEBA, SARDAR, Khan Bahadur.
The title is personal, and was conferred on 2nd January 1888.
Residence. Rawalpindi, Punjab.

FATEH SHER KHAN, TIWANA, MALLIK, Khan Bahadur.

The title was conferred on 3ist January 1860 as a personal
distinction.
Belongs to an ancient Rajput family, the Tiwanas of Mitha Tiwana, who
claim common descent with the Sials of Jhang and the Ghebas of
Pindigheb,
all in the division of Rawalpindi, Punjab. Amir Ali Khan was the
founder
of the family ; and his son, Mir Ahmad Khan, built Mitha Tiwana,
which
became a flourishing town under his successors, Dadu Khan and Sher
Khan.
Dadu Khan was killed in a skirmish with his own son Sher Khan, who
then
became Chief. His grandson, Ahmad Yar Khan, submitted to the Maha-
raja Ranjit Singh , and the nephew of Ahmad Yar Khan, Fateh Khan, held
a
command under Sardar Hari Singh Nalwa till the death of that General
in
1837. Subsequently he was placed in charge of the Bannu territory by
Raja Dhyan Singh, Prime Minister at Lahore. On the outbreak of the
re-
bellion in 1848 Fateh Singh, on the recommendation of Lieutenant
Edwardes,
was appointed Governor of Bannu. He did good service, but his fort of
Dalipnagar was besieged by the mutineers, and he was shot down in the
gateway. He was succeeded by his son, Fateh Sher Khan, the present
Mallik, who served as one of Major Edwardes's chief officers. In the
Mutiny of 1857 he rendered excellent service in the Hissar and Jhajjar
terri-
tories, and was rewarded with an extensive jdgir, as well as the title
of Khan
Bahadur.

Residence. Shdhpur, Punjab.

FATEH SINGH (of Pawayan), Rdjd.

Born loth October 1858. The title is hereditary, and the present Raja
succeeded his adoptive father on the i7th May 1889. Belongs to a
family
of Gaur Rajputs, who first came into the district of Shahjahanpur to
help the
Rani of Nahil against the Pathans. Udhai Singh, the leader of the
second
expedition, founded the town of Pawayan. At the time of the cession
in
1802 the great-grandson of Udhai Singh, named Raja Raghunath Singh,
was
Raja of Pawayan, and he was confirmed in his possessions by Mr.
Wellesley,
the Deputy Governor. He was succeeded in 1825 by his widow the Rani ;
and the latter, having adopted Raja Jagannath Singh (the uncle and
adoptive
father of the present Raja), died in 1850. The Raja is an Honorary
Magistrate.

Residence. Shdhjahdnpur, North- Western Provinces.

PATEH SINGH (of Thehpur), Sarddr.

Born 1823. The title is hereditary. Descended from Sardar Milka
Singh, who was one of the most powerful of the Sikh Chiefs during the
latter
half of the last century. He died in 1804, and his son, Sardar Jiwan
Singh, died the next year. The Maharaja Ranjit Singh then seized the
largest portion of the estate, giving Sardar Anand Singh, the son and
heir of
Jiwan Singh, jdgirs in Firozpur district. Sardar Anand Singh died in
1831,
leaving his only son, the present Sardar, a minor of eight years of
age. On
the annexation of the Punjab the Sardar's personal jdgir was confirmed
to
him for life one quarter to descend to his son, who is named Shamsher
Singh, born in 1843.

Residence. Thehpur, Lahore, Punjab.

PATBH SINGH, RAJ (of Dilwara), Rao Bahadur.
The title is personal, and was conferred on 2nd January 1888.
Residence. M e wa" r, Ra" j puta" na.

PATH ALI, Nawdb, C.SJ. See Banganapale, Nawdb of.

FAUJDAR KHAN (of Ashti), Nawdb.

Born about 1825. The title is hereditary. The Nawab is the son of
Nawab Hatam Khan ; and is descended in a direct line from the Afghan
Chief, Muhammad Khan Niazi, to whom Ashti was granted as a jdgir by
the Emperor Jahangir of Delhi. The title of Nawab was conferred by
the
Emperor Shah Jahan, and has been recognised by the British
Government.
The Nawab has a son and heir named Hatam Khan.

Residence. Ashti, Wardha, Central Provinces.

FAZL AHMAD KHAN (of Panipat), Nawdb.

The title is hereditary. Is descended from the Nawab Lutf-ulla Khan,
whose great-grandson, Nawab Bakar AH Khan, was the grandfather of the
present Nawab. The family occupied important posts under the Mughal
Emperors of Delhi. The Nawab Bakar AH Khan was succeeded by his son,
the Nawab Aman-ulla Khan ; he rendered excellent service to
Government
during the Mutiny of 1857, and was rewarded with a considerable grant
of
lands. He was succeeded by his elder son, the present Nawab.

Residence. Pdnipat, Karnal, Punjab.

FAZL ALI walad MUHAMMAD KHAN, Mir.

The title is hereditary, the Mir being a descendant of the Mirs who
were


Chiefs of Sind at the time of the annexation.

Residence. Sind.

FAZL HUSAIN, SHAIKH, Khan Bahadur.

Born 1826. The title is personal, and was conferred on 24th May 1882,
in recognition of eminent services rendered during the famine of
1877.
Residence. Lucknow, Oudh.

FAZL HUSAIN KHAN walad SOHRAB KHAN, Mir.

The title is hereditary, the Mir being a descendant of the Mirs who
were


Chiefs of Sind at the time of the annexation.

Residence. Shika"rpur, Sind.

FAZL IMAM SAYYID, Khan Bahadur.

The title is personal; and was conferred on i6th February 1887, on
the
occasion of the Jubilee of the reign of Her Most Gracious Majesty.
Residence. Patna, Bengal.

FAZL MUHAMMAD walad ALI BAKHSH KHAN, Mir.

The title is hereditary, the Mir being a descendant of the Mirs who
were


Chiefs of Sind at the time of the annexation.

Residence. Shikdrpur, Sind.

FIEOZ KHAN (of Bari), Rdjd.

The title is hereditary. The Raja is a Gakkar Chief, son of Raja All
Gauhar Khan. The Gakkars trace their descent from Kai Gohar, a native
of Ispahan in Persia, whose son, Sultan Kaid, is said to have
conquered
Badakshan and part of Thibet. They were settled in the Punjab about
300
A.D. ; and their conquest of Kashmir, and their resistance to the
Emperor
Babar, are historical events. The Raja has two sons, named Sher Ahmad
Khan and Gauhar Rahman.

Residence. Haza"ra, Punjab.

FRAMJI ARDBSAR, Khan Bahadur.
The title is personal, and was conferred on 24th May 1888.
Residence. Ahmednagar, Bombay.

Listed Alphabetically. More to follow...

http://www.archive.org/stream/goldenbookofindi00lethuoft/goldenbookofindi00lethuoft_djvu.txt

Sid Harth

unread,
Feb 4, 2010, 12:47:54 PM2/4/10
to
GABAT, THAKUR VAJESING-H, Thdkur of.
A Ruling Chief.

Born 1875 ; succeeded to the gadi as a minor ; is a tributary to
Idar,
and belongs to a Koli (aboriginal) family. The State has an area of
22
square miles; and a population of 1430, chiefly Hindus.

Residence. Gabat, Ma"hi Kdntha, Bombay.

GABBAR SINGH (of Kaimori), Rao.

The title is hereditary ; and was originally conferred by Raja Bikram
Shah, Gond Raja of Mandla. The family is said to be descended from
Shiani Shah Rao, who first bore the title of Rao.

Residence. Jabalpur, Central Provinces.

GAD, Thdkur of. See Garh.

GADHI, RAJA UMAR SINGH walad DBVRAO, Rdjd of.
A Ruling Chief.

Born 1868 ; succeeded to the gadi 6th October 1886. The area of the
State, which is one of the Dang States of Khandesh, is 170 square
miles ; its
population 6309, chiefly Bhils, Konknas, and other aboriginal tribes.

Residence. Gadhi, Khdndesh, Bombay.

GADHKA, AZAM JADBJA SHIVSINGHJI GOVINDJI,

Tdlukddr of.

A Ruling Chief.

Born 1869; succeeded to the gadi as a minor, 26th November 1870.
Belongs to a Rajput (Hindu) family. The area of the State is 23
square
miles; its population 2252, chiefly Hindus.

Residence. Gadhka, Kd.thiwdr, Bombay.

GAGAR MAL, LALA, Rai Bahadur.

The title was conferred on i6th February 1887, on the occasion of the
Jubilee of Her Most Gracious Majesty's reign, as a personal
distinction.

Residence. Amritsar, Punjab.

GAJAMAN KRISHNA BHATAVADEKAR, Rao Bahdditr.


The title is personal, and was conferred on 2oth May 1890.

Residence. Baroda.

GAJAPATI RAO, G. N., Rdjd, C.LE.

Born 2nd December 1828. Is a scion of the ancient Goday family of
Vizagapatam in the Northern Circars, Madras Presidency, and Zamindar
of

Ankapalle and other estates. Educated in the
Hindu College, Calcutta. Was a Member of
the Madras Legislative Council from 1868 to
1884; and a Fellow of the University of
Madras. The title of Raja was conferred
upon him in 1881 ; and the Companionship


of the Most Eminent Order of the Indian

Empire in 1892. Has established and main-
tains several schools ; presented the statue of
Her Majesty the Queen Empress of India to
the city of Madras in honour of Her Majesty's
Jubilee in 1887 ; and has given large donations
to many public objects. Has received from

His Holiness the Pope Leo XIII., through

His Delegate Apostolic in East Indies, in 1891,

a mosaic picture as a mark of appreciation of his kindness shown to
the
Catholics of Vizagapatam. The Raja's grandfather, Sri Goday Jaga Rao,
distinguished himself in the service of Government about the middle of
the
1 8th century. It was of him that the Honourable Court of Directors in
a
communication to the Government of Fort Saint George, dated iyth
April
1789, wrote: "We concur in the acknowledgment your Government have
rendered of the zeal for our interests manifested on various occasions
by
Goday Jugga Row." Sri Jaga Rao was succeeded by his son Sri Goday
Soorya Narayan Rao, father of the Raja; born 1792, died 1853. Lord
Connemara, when publicly complimenting the Raja on his presentation of
the
statue of the Queen Empress to the city of Madras, said of this
gentleman :
"The Raja's father, Goday Soorya Narayan Rao, followed in the
footsteps of
his father, founded various charitable institutions, and during the
famine of
1833 fed a large number of poor in the neighbourhood of Nellore. He
also
contributed largely to various public works." The Raja's crest is a
rising
sun over a Hindu device, with the motto, " I desire the Light," in
Sanskrit
and Latin.

Residences. The Mahal, Vizagapatam ; and The Mansion, Madras.

GAJINDAR SINGH (of Majithia), Sardar.

The title is hereditary. Belongs to the same family of the Shergil
Jat
tribe as his first cousin the Sardar Dayal Singh of Majithia (see
Dayal
Singh), both Sardars being grandsons of Sardar Disa Singh. The father
of Sardar Gajindar Singh was Sardar Ranjodh Singh, half-brother of
Sardar
Lahna Singh, being the son [of Sardar Disa Singh by another mother.
He
was a General in the Sikh Army.

Residence. Amritsar, Punjab.

GAJRAJ SINGH (of Hirapur), Thdkur.

Born 1832. The title is hereditary; and is said to have been first
acquired from Raja Narbar. Belongs to a Rajput family of the Bais-
Suraj-
Bansi, or Bais Solar race ; said to have come from the neighbourhood
of
Delhi in the time of the Gond Rajas. Anup Singh, one of his
ancestors,
rendered military service to the Raja of Pitehra ; for which he
received a
jdgir in Sagar territory. The Thakur has five sons Than Singh,
Bhagwant
Singh, Ajmir Singh, Bisal Singh, and Kaliar Singh.

Residence. Hirapur, Narsinghpur, Central Provinces.

GALE MATING, Kyet Thaye zaung shwe Salwe ya Min.

The title is personal, and was conferred on ist January 1889. It
means
" Recipient of the Gold Chain of Honour," and is indicated by the
letters
K.S.M. after the name.

Residence. Tavoy, Burma.

GANDA SINGH (of Dhiru Majra), Sardar.

The title is hereditary. The Sardar is the present head of the Dhiru
Majra Sardars, who come of a Jat family. He has taken great interest
in
educational matters.

Residence. Dhiru Majra, Ludhia"na, Punjab.

GANBSH BALKRISHNA HANCHINAL, Azam.
The title is personal, and was conferred on 26th November 1883.
Residence. Belgaum, Bombay.

GANESH GANGADHAR, Rao Saheb.
The title is personal, and was conferred on ist January 1890.
Residence. Mdhi Kdntha, Bombay.

GANESH GOVIND, Rao Bahadur.

The title is personal, and was conferred on i7th October 1884.
Residence. Poona, Bombay.

GANESH SITARAM SHASTRI, SAR SUBAH, Rao Bahddur.

The title was conferred on i6th February 1887, on the occasion of the
Jubilee of the reign of Her Majesty the Queen Empress, as a personal
distinction.

Residence. Baroda.

GANGA BISHTU RAI, Rai Bahddur.
The title is personal, and was conferred on 6th December 1884.
Residence. Calcutta, Bengal.

GANGA CHARAN DAS, Rai Bahddur.


The title is personal, and was conferred on 24th May 1883.
Residence. Indore, Central India.

GANGA PARSHAD SINGH, Rai Bahddur.
The title is personal, and was conferred on 6th July 1888.
Residence. Darbhanga, Bengal.

GANGA RAM, Rai.

Born 1811. The title is hereditary. Belongs to a Khatri family that
has long resided at Delhi, but came originally from Nawashahr, in the
Jalandhar division of the Punjab. Several members of the family
obtained
positions of trust and honour under the Mughal Emperors ; and one,
Nagar
Mai, obtained the title of Maharaja. The Rai has four sons Baldeo
Singh,
Ram Singh, Sham Singh, and Surat Singh.

Residence. Delhi, Punjab.

GANGADHAR SHASTRI, Mahdmahopddhydya.

The title was conferred on i6th February 1887, on the occasion of the
Jubilee of Her Majesty's reign, in recognition of his eminence in
oriental
learning. It entitles him to take rank in Darbar immediately after
titular
Rajas.

Residence. Benares, North- Western Provinces.

GANGAJI RAMJI, Rao Saheb.

The title is personal, and was conferred on ist January 1890.
Residence. Bombay.

GANGPUR, RAJA RAGHUNATH SIKHAR DEO, Rdjd of.

A Ruling Chief.

Born 1849 ; succeeded to the gadi 28th November 1858. Belongs to a
Kshatriya (Hindu) family, known as the Sikhar family of Sikharpur or
Pachete in Manbhum. The Raja's eldest son and heir bears the title of
Tikait, and is named Tikait Harinath Sikhar Deo. The area of the
State,
which is one of the Chota Nagpur Tributary Mahals, is 2484 square
miles;
its population 107,985, chiefly Hindus.

Residence. Gangpur, Chota Ndgpur, Bengal.

GANPAT RAI (of Deri Ghazi Khan, Punjab), C.I.E., Diwdn.

The title is personal, and was conferred on 24th May 1883. The
Diwan, for eminent services rendered to Government as an Extra
Assistant
Commissioner in Baluchistan, was created a Companion of the Most
Eminent
Order of the Indian Empire on 25th May 1892.

Residence. Baluchistan.

GANPAT RAO (of Jaisinghnagar), Rao.

Born 1845. The title is hereditary, and was originally conferred by
the
old Mahratta Government. The ancestors of this family were a branch
of
that of the ancient rulers of Sagar. The Rao has a son and heir,
named
Narayan Rao.

Residence. Jaisinghpur, Sdgar, Central Provinces.

GANPATRAO MOROBA PITALB, Rao Saheb.
The title is personal, and was conferred on 3ist January 1870.
Residence. Bombay.

GANPATRAO RAMCHANDAR, Rao Bahadur.
The title is personal, and was conferred on 3ist October 1879.
Residence. Ujjain, Central India.

GARAB SINGH (of Nandsa), Thdkur.

The title is hereditary, having been originally conferred by the Rajas
of
Deogarh. The Thakur is Jagirdar of Pachmari, and his jdgir was
originally
held by a family of Mowasses of Korkors, the hereditary guardians of
the
Cave of Mahadeo, in the Pachmari Hills.

Residence. Nandsa, Hoshangabad, Central Provinces.

The Santak of the Chauhan

Rajputs, called Chakra, used


in the seal and for signature.

(A circle with four Trisulas or


Tridents as radii at the car-

dinal points.)

GARH, THAKUR CHANDRASINGHJI,

Thdkur of.
A Ruling Chief.

Born 1866; succeeded to the gadi loth
November 1884. Belongs to a Chauhan Rajput
(Hindu) family, descended from a younger brother
of one of the ancestors of the Chief of Chhota
Udaipur, to whom the Thakur of Garh is tributary.
The State, which is the largest in the Sankhera
Mehvas, contains an area of 134 square miles; its
population is almost entirely Bhil (aboriginal).

Residence. Garh, Rewa" Kdntha, Bombay.

The Santak of the Chauhan

Rajputs, called Chakra, used


in the seal and for signature.

(A circle with four Trisulas or


Tridents as radii at the car-

dinal points.)

GARHA, RAJA BALBHADAR SINGH,

Rdjd of.
A Ruling Chief.

Born 1870; succeeded to the gadi 7th April
1 88 1. Belongs to a Chauhan Rajput (Hindu)
family. The State is feudatory to Gwalior, and
was formerly a portion of the Rajhugarh jdgir.
Its name is sometimes spelt Gharra. Its popula-
tion is about 9500.

Residence. Garha, Guna, Central India.

GARHWAL, Rdjd of. See Tehri.

GARRAULI, DIWAN BAHADUR CHANDRA BHAN SINGH,

Jdgir ddr of.

A Ruling Chief.

Born 1884; succeeded to the gadi as a minor i6th March 1885.
Belongs to the Bundela Rajput (Hindu) family, of the Orchha stock that
has
given rulers to so many States of Central India (see Panna, Ajaigarh,
Dattia,
Charkhari, Bijawar, Sarila, Jigni, Jaso, Lughasi, etc.) Man Singh,
the
younger grandson of Rudra Pratap (founder of Orchha), was the founder
of
the Satgharia branch of this family, from which descend the Garrauli
Chiefs.
Diwan Gopal Singh obtained a sanad from the British Government in
1812.
He was succeeded by his son, Diwan Parichhat, on whom the additional
title of Bahadur was conferred, ryth October 1844. The area of the
State
is 25 square miles; its population 4976, chiefly Hindus. The Diwan
Bahadur maintains a military force of 2 cavalry, 56 infantry, and 4
guns.

Residence. Garrauli, Bundelkhand, Central India.

GAUHAR KHAN, O.I.B., Sardar.

The title is hereditary, the Sardar being the Chief of the Jalawan
Brahuis of Baluchistan. He was created a Companion of the Most
Eminent Order of the Indian Empire on the institution of that Order,
ist
January 1878.

Residence. Baluchistan.

GAUR GRANDER MAN SINGH HARI CHANDAN MURDRAJ
BHRAMARBAR RAI (of Parikud), Rdjd.

Born in November 1850. The title is hereditary, and the present Raja
succeeded to the gadi on the death of his father, Raja Chandra Sikhar
Man
Singh, in 1872. Belongs to an ancient family, whose founder was the
Raja
Jadu Raj. He possessed Parikud and other territory in the time of the
Mughals. He fought against the Subahdar of the province on behalf of
the
Nawab Parasuramraj Pandit, and defeated him, receiving large grants of
terri-
tory from the Nawab as his reward. Towards the close of the Mahratta
rule
the Raja Harisebak of Parikud was defeated by the Raja of Khurdah,
and
lost most of his possessions. Raja Chandra Sikhar Man Singh,
predecessor
of the present Raja, showed great liberality in the time of the Orissa
famine
of 1866, and was created a Companion of the Most Exalted Order of the
Star of India.

Residence. Parikud, Puri, Orissa, Bengal.

GAURHARI RAI, Rai Bahadur.
The title is personal, and was conferred on 7th April 1884.
Residence. Midnapur, Bengal.

GAURIHAR, RAO SHAMLB PRASAD BAHADUR, Jdgirddr of.

A Ruling Chief.

Born 1859; succeeded to the gadi on the death of the late Rao Gaja-
dhar Prasad, i4th November 1887. Belongs to a Brahman (Hindu) family,
that held the title of " Sawai Rajdhar " from ancient times. At the
beginning
of the present century Rajdhar Raja Ram, the head of the family, was
a Sardar of the Banda-Ajaigarh State, and Governor of its fort of
Bhuragarh
at Banda. He became a leader of note, and in 1807 was granted the
Gaurihar /dg77' by the British Government. His son, Rajdhar Rudra
Pratap,
did excellent service, and incurred great personal loss at Banda. For
this
the Government conferred on him, in the Cawnpur Darbar of 1859, the
title of Rao Bahadur, a khilat, and the right of adoption. The area of
the
State is 72 square miles; its population is 10,691, chiefly Hindus.
The
Chief maintains a military force of 43 cavalry, 198 infantry, and 6
guns.

Residence. Gaurihar, Bundelkhand, Central India.

GAURISHANKAR UDESHANKAR, AZAM, C.S.L

Born 2ist August 1805; was for a long time the Diwdn or Prime
Minister of the State of Bhaunagar (g.v.\ in Kathiawdr, where he so
distinguished himself by his vigorous administration and numerous
reforms
as to earn from Sir Bartle Frere, then Governor of Bombay, the high
praise
of being "one of the best and ablest of modern native statesmen." At
the
Imperial Assemblage of Delhi, ist January 1877, on the occasion of
the
Proclamation of Her Most Gracious Majesty as Empress of India, he was
created a Companion of the Most Exalted Order of the Star of India,
with
a Medal of Honour. He retired from the service of the Bhaunagar State
in
1879, having been honourably engaged in it for a period of no less
than
fifty-seven years.

Residence. Bhaunagar, Ka"thia"war.

GAVRIDAD, AZAM JADBJA PRATAPSINGHJI MERUJI,

Tdlukddr of.

A Ruling Chief.

Born 1839; succeeded to the gadi in 1855. Belongs to a. Rajput
(Hindu) family. The State, which was the original seat of the Chiefs
of
Palitana, has an area of 27 square miles; and a population of 2381,
chiefly
Hindus. The Talukdar maintains a military force of 1 1 cavalry, 1 9
infantry,
and 2 guns.

Residence. Gavridad, Kd.thid.w^r, Bombay.

GAWHALI, Chief of. See Raysinghpur.

GAYA PARSHAD (of Pindarna), Thakur.

Born 1852. The title is hereditary, having been originally conferred
by
Raja Mardan Singh of Garhakota. An ancestor of the family, named
Rawat
Parshad, saved the life of the Raja Mardan Singh from the Raja of
Tehri,
and obtained from him a sanad on copper-plate, granting him lands and
the
title of Thakur. He has one son, Thakur Bhairao Parshad.

Residence. Pindarna, Sdgar, Central Provinces.

GEROLI, Diwdn Bahddur of. See Garrauli.

GHANSHAM SINGH (of Mursan), Rdjd Bahddur.

Born 1851. The title is hereditary, and having long been recognised
by
Government, was formally conferred on 3rd December 1859, for the
excellent
services of the Raja Tikam Singh, grandfather of the present Raja,
during the
Mutiny of 1 85 7. The Raja comes of a family of Baisni Jats, having a
common
ancestor with the Raja Har Narayan Singh of Hathras in Aligarh a Jat
Chief,
by name Makhan, who came from Rajputana and settled in the
neighbourhood
of Mursan. His great-grandson, Thakur Nand Ram, died in 1696, leaving
fourteen sons, of whom one was named Zulkaran. The latter left a son
named
Khusal Singh, who obtained lands from the favour of the Nawab Vazir
of

Oudh, Saadat Khan. He died in 1749, and was succeeded by his son Phup
Singh, who largely increased the family estates, and assumed the title
of Raja.
His son Bhagwant Singh succeeded in 1798, and also increased the
estates,
and was granted ajagtr by the British Government for good service
performed
in Lord Lake's campaign. He died in 1823, and was succeeded by Raja
Tikam Singh, of whom above. Raja Tikam Singh was also created a
Companion of the Most Eminent Order of the Indian Empire. He died in
1878, and was succeeded by his grandson, the present Raja, who is an
Honorary Magistrate.

Residence. Mursan, Aligarh, North-Western Provinces.

GHARI, BHUMIA NAHAR SINGH, Bhumia of.

Born about 1839 ; succeeded to the gadi in 1864. Belongs to a
Bhilala family. The State is also called Bhaisakho; its population is
about 980.

Residence. Ghari, Bhopdwar, Central India.

GHARRA, Rdjd of. See Garha.

GHAUS SHAH KADARI, Khan Bahddur.

The title is personal, and was conferred on ist January 1877, in
celebra-
tion of the assumption of the Imperial title by Her Most Gracious
Majesty
the Queen Empress.

Residence. Kadar, Mysore.

GHAUSIA BBGAM, Nawdb.

Is the half-sister of His late Highness Muhammad Ghaus, the last of
the
titular Nawabs of the Carnatic. Was granted the personal title of
Nawab in
1822.

Residence. M adras.

GHAYAS-UD-DIN ALI KHAN, DIWAN, Shaikh-ul-Mushaikh.

The title is personal, and was conferred on ist January 1877, on the
occasion of the Proclamation of Her Majesty as Empress of India.
Residence. Ajmir.

GHAYAS-UD-DIN JALA-UD-DIN KAZI, MIR, Khan Saheb.
Granted the title, as a personal distinction, 2nd January 1893.
Residence. Ndsik, Bombay.

GHAZANPAR ALI, MIR, Khan.

A member of the Carnatic family. The title is a personal one ; and,
having been originally conferred by the Nawab of the Carnatic, was
recognised 1890.

Residence. M adras.

GHORAM KHAN, RIND, Khdn Bahddur.
The title is personal, and was conferred on 2 ist February 1884.
Residence. Karachi, Sind.

GHORASAR, THAKUR DADA SAHEB SURAJMALJI, Thdkurof.

A Ruling Chief.

Born 1869; succeeded to the gadi 5th January 1883. Belongs to a
Dabbi Rajput (Hindu) family. Is tributary to the Gaekwar. The area of
the State is 40 square miles ; its population 8400, chiefly Hindus.

Residence, Ghorasar, Ma~hi Kdntha, Bombay.

GHULAM AHMAD, Khan Bahadur Kasim Jang.

The title, having been originally conferred by the Nawab of the
Carnatic,
was recognised in 1890.
Residence. M adras .

GHULAM AHMAD, MIRZA, C.I.E.

Was created a Companion of the Most Eminent Order of the Indian
Empire, 24th May 1881.
Residence.

GHULAM AHMAD-ULLA, Khdn.

The title, having been originally conferred by the Nawab of the
Carnatic,
was recognised 1890. Is styled Muhammad Khair-ulla Khan.
Residence. M adras .

GHULAM AKBAR KHAN walad HUSAIM BAKHSH, Mir.

The title is hereditary, the Mir being a descendant of one of the
Mirs
or Chiefs of Sind at the time of the annexation.

Residence. Hyderabad, Sind.

GHULAM ALI, Khdn Bahadur.

A member of the Carnatic family. The title, having been originally
conferred by the Nawab of the Carnatic, was recognised 1890.
Residence. Madras.

GHULAM ALI walad ZULFIKAR KHAN, Mir.

The title is hereditary, the Mir being a descendant of the Talpur
Mirs,
who were ruling in Sind at the time of the annexation.
Residence. Hyderabad, Sind.

GHULAM ALI KHAN walad KHAN MUHAMMAD, Mir.


The title is hereditary, the Mir being a descendant of one of the
Mirs
or Chiefs of Sind at the time of the annexation.

Residence. Hyderabad, Sind.

GHULAM ALI KHAN walad GHULAM SHAH KHAN, Mir.

The title is hereditary, the Mir being a descendant of one of the Mirs
or
Chiefs of Sind at the time of the annexation.

Residence. Shika"rpur, Sind.

GHULAM BABA, MIR, Khan Bahadur.
The title is personal, and was conferred on 2yth June 1878.
Residence. Surat, Bombay.

GHULAM DASTAGIR, Khan Bahadur.
The title is a personal one, and was conferred in January 1888.
Residence. Trichinopoli, Madras.

GHULAM GHAUS, MUNSHI KHWAJA, Khdn Bahadur Zulkadr.

Born 1822. The title is personal, and was conferred on 6th June 1885.
Belongs to a family that left Kashmir towards the close of the
Durrani
dynasty on the occasion of a political outbreak, and removing to
Tibet,
engaged in commerce at Lhassa ; but subsequently migrated to Nepal,
and
finally settled at Benares. Khwaja Ghulam Ghaus succeeded his uncle
as
Mir Munshi to Government, and held that post till his retirement in
1885.
Rendered loyal service during the Mutiny of 1857, for which a sanad
and
khilat were conferred upon him.

Residence. Allahabad, North-Western Provinces.

GHULAM GHAUS. See Ghulam Muhammad Ghaus.

GHULAM HAIDAR walad MUHAMMAD KHAN, Mr.

The title is hereditary, the Mir being a descendant of one of the
Mirs
or Chiefs of Sind at the time of the annexation.
Residence. Sind.

GHULAM HASAN, SHAIKH, Khdn Bahddur.


The title is personal, and was conferred on 2nd January 1888.

Residence. Amritsar, Punjab.

GHULAM HUSAIN walad NAJIP ALI KHAN, Mir.


The title is hereditary, the Mir being a descendant of one of the
Mirs
or Chiefs of Sind at the time of the annexation.

Residence. Shikarpur, Sind.

GHULAM HUSAIN walad ALI GAUHAR KHAN, Mir.

The title is hereditary, the Mir being a descendant of one of the
Mirs
or Chiefs of Sind at the time of the annexation.

Residence. Shikcirpur, Sind.

GHULAM HUSAIN (JATI), Malik.

Born about 1847. The title is hereditary, the tradition being that it
was first conferred by Sultan Murad Khan, son of Sultan Muhammad Khan
of Constantinople. There is also a sanad from Muhammad Shah, Emperor
of Delhi. Belongs to a Jat (Muhammadan) family.

Residence. Karachi, Sind.

GHULAM HUSAIN KHAN walad IMAM BAKHSH
KHAN, Mir.

The title is hereditary, the Mir being a descendant of one of the
Mirs
or Chiefs of Sind.

Residence. Shikctrpur, Sind.

GHULAM HUSAIN KHAN walad AHMAD KHAN, Mir.

The title is hereditary, the Mir being a descendant of one of the Mirs


or
Chiefs of Sind at the time of the annexation.
Residence. Shikdrpur, Sind.

GHULAM JILANI, Khan.

The title, originally conferred by the Nawab of the Carnatic, was
recognised
in 1890.

Residence. M adras.

GHULAM KADIR KHAN walad KHAN MUHAMMAD
KHAN, Mir.

The title is hereditary, the Mir being a descendant of one of the Mirs


or
Chiefs of Sind at the time of the annexation.

Residence. Shikcirpur, Sind.

GHULAM KADIR KHAN, Khan Bahadur.
The title is personal, and was conferred on 20th May 1890.
Residence. Gwalior, Central India.

GHULAM KASIM KHAN, KATI KHEL (of Tank), Nawdb.
The title is personal, and was conferred on 6th October 1882.
Residence. Dera Ismail Kha~n, Punjab.

GHULAM MAHMUD, Khan.

The title is a personal one, and having been originally conferred by
the
Nawab of the Carnatic, was recognised in 1890. Is styled Niamat Khan.
Residence. Madras.

GHULAM MAHMUD, H AJI, Khdn Bahadur Mutasib Jang Mustafi-
iid-dauld Sharf-ul-Mulk.

The title is a personal one, and having been originally conferred by
the
Nawab of the Carnatic, was recognised in 1890.
Residence. Madras.

GHULAM MOHI-UD-DIN, Khdn.

The title is a personal one, and having been originally conferred by
the
Nawab of the Carnatic, was recognised in 1890.
Residence. Madras.

GHULAM MOHI-UD-DIN, Khdn.
The title is personal, and was conferred on 24th May 1881.
Residence. Kashm i r.

GHULAM MUHAMMAD, Khdn Bahadur.

Born 1850. Is son-in-law of His late Highness Prince Intizam-ul-Mulk,
the third of the Princes of Arcot ; granted the personal title of Khan
Bahadur
in 1887.

Residence. Madras.

GHULAM MUHAMMAD GHAUS, Khdn Bahadur.

Born 1861. Is son of Muazzaz-ud-daula, and grandson of His late
Highness Azim Jah, the first of the titular Princes of Arcot. Granted
the


personal title of Khan Bahadur in 1876.

Residence. Madras.

GHULAM MUHAMMAD HAIDAR, Khdn Bahadur.

Born 1834. Rendered eminent service in the Madras Police, for which
he received the title as a personal distinction in 1887. Retired on
pension
in 1890.

Residence. Karur, Coimbatore, Madras.

GHULAM MUHAMMAD HAJI, Khdn Bahadur.
The title is personal, and was conferred on 3rd April 1884.
Residence. Bombay.

GKEULAM MUHAMMAD, Haji, Khan Bahadur Ghalib Jang Sharf-

ud-dauld.

The title is a personal one, and having been originally conferred by
the
Nawab of the Carnatic, was recognised in 1890.
Residence. Madras.

GHULAM MUHAMMAD HASAN ALI, Khan Bahadur.

Born 1850. Son of Sardar Jang. Granted the title of Khan Bahadur
as a personal distinction in 1883.
Residence. M adras.

GHULAM MUHAMMAD KHAN walad RUSTAM KHAN,

Mir.

The title is hereditary, the Mir being a descendant of the Talpur
Mirs,
who were ruling in Sind at the time of the annexation.
Residence. Hyderabad, Sind.

GHULAM MUHI-UD-DIN, Khan Bahadur.

Born 1852. Granted the personal title of Khan Bahadur in 1885, for
good service in the Railway Department.
Residence. Tanjore, India.

GHULAM MURTAZA, Sardar.
The title is hereditary.
Residence. Baluchistan.

GHULAM MURTAZA KHAN walad CHAKAR KHAN
(of Rahuja), Mir.

The title is hereditary, the Mir being a descendant of the Talpur
Mirs,
who were rulers of Sind at the time of the annexation.
Residence. Shikdrpur, Sind.

GHULAM MUSTAFA KHAN, HAJI, walad GHULAM
HAIDAR, Mir.

The title is hereditary, the Mir being a descendant of one of the Mirs
or
Chiefs of Sind at the time of the annexation.

Residence. Hyderabad, Sind.

GHULAM NABI, MUNSHI, Khan Bahadur.

The title is personal, and was conferred on i6th February 1887, on
the

occasion of the celebration of the Jubilee of Her Majesty's reign.
Residence. Punjab.

GHULAM NABI ALI, Khan Bahadur Nasir Jang.

The title is a personal one, and having been conferred originally by
the
Nawab of the Carnatic, was recognised in 1890. Is a member of the
Carnatic family.

Residence. Madras.

GHULAM NABI KHAN walad IMAM BAKHSH KHAN, Mir.

The title is hereditary. The Mir is a descendant of one of the Mirs


or
Chiefs of Sind at the time of the annexation.
Residence. Shikdrpur, Sind.

GHULAM NAJAF KHAN walad IMAM BAKHSH KHAN,

Mir.

The title is hereditary. The Mir is a descendant of one of the Mirs


or
Chiefs of Sind at the time of the annexation.
Residence. Shikdrpur, Sind.

GHULAM RASUL, MIYAN, Khdn Bahadur.
The title is personal, and was conferred on ist January 1890.
Residence. Peshdwar, Punjab.


GHUND, Chief of.

Is a feudatory of the Raja of Keonthal (q.v.\ and rules over one of
the
Simla Hill States.

Residence. Ghund, Simla Hills, Punjab.

GIDHAUR, MAHARAJA RAVANBSHWAR PRASAD SINGH
BAHADUR, Maharaja Bahadur of.

Born 1859. Belongs to a Kshatriya family of the Chandra Vansi or
Lunar sept, whose founder was Bir Vikram Singh. His ancestors had
come
from Mahoba in Bundelkhand, and settled at Bardi in Rewah, and he was
the younger brother of the Raja of Bardi. From him the ninth in
descent is
said to have built the temple of Baidyanath. Raja Dalar Singh,
fourteenth
Raja, is stated to have received zfarmdn from the Emperor Shah Jahan
in
1651. Raja Gopal Singh was recognised by the British Government; and
his grandson was the well-known Sir Jaimangal Singh Bahadur, K.
C.S.I., on
whom the title of Maharaja Bahadur was conferred for his eminent
services
during the Santal insurrection and the Mutiny of 1857. On ist January


1877, on the occasion of the Proclamation of Her Most Gracious Majesty
as

Empress of India, Sir Jaimangal Singh received the hereditary title of
Maha-
raja Bahadur. He was succeeded by his son, Maharaja Shiva Prasad
Singh
Bahadur ; and the latter by his son, the present Maharaja Bahadur, who
is

well known for his benevolence and loyalty. Educated in Sanskrit,
Persian,
Hindi, and English ; married in 1885, and has a son and heir, born in
1890.
Received a khilat from the Lieutenant-Governor of Bengal on succeeding
to
the title, also the privilege of exemption from attendance in Civil
Courts.
The family cognisance is a trisul, or trident of Siva.
Residence. Gidhaur, Bengal.

GIRDHARLAL ULATRAM, Rao Bahadur.
The title is personal, and was conferred on 27th December 1872.
Residence. Ahmadabad, Bombay.

GIRIAPA TIMAPA DBSAI, Heladi Naik Bahadur Desai Nadugauda.
The title is hereditary.
Residence. Belgaum, Bombay.

GIRIJA NATH RAI (of Dinajpur), Mahdrdjd.

The title is personal, and was conferred on 24th May 1884. Is the son
of the late Maharani Sham Mohini of Dinajpur ; and belongs to a
family
settled in the Dinajpur district since the time of Akbar, at which
time one
of its ancestors, named Srimanta Datta, was Zamindar of Dinajpur. His
daughter married Hari Ram Rai, who had been Diwan to the Zamindar of
Idrakpur. The son of this marriage was Suka Deb Rai, who died in
1677.
His son, Raja Jai Deb, was Raja of Dinajpur from 1677 to 1682; and
was
succeeded by his brother, Raja Prannath, from 1682 to 1723, who
adopted
a young relative named Ram Nath, who succeeded to the Raj, and died
in
1760. A grandson of the latter by adoption, named Radha Nath, was
Raja
from 1780 to 1 80 1 ; at his accession he owned the greater part of
the three
districts of Dinajpur, Maldah, and Bogra, but after the Decennial
Settlement
the bulk of the estate was sold for arrears of revenue. His grandson
was
the Raja Tarak Nath, 1840 to 1865, husband of the late Maharani Sham
Mohini, and adoptive father of the present Raja. The title of Maharani
was
formally conferred on that lady in 1875, for ner eminent benevolence
during
the great famine of 1873.

Residence. Dinajpur, Bengal.

GIRISH CHANDAR DAS, Rai Bahadur.

The title is personal, and was conferred on 2nd April 1874, for
eminent
public services.

Residence. Calcutta, Bengal.

GIRISH CHANDAR GHOSH, Rai Bahadur.
: is personal, ar
ices as Judge.
Residence. Hugli, Bengal.

The title is personal, and was conferred on ipth August 1879, for
eminent services as Judge.

GIRISH CHANDAR RAI, Rai Bahadur.

The title is personal, and was conferred on 24th May 1889, for
eminent
public services.

Residence. Nalthoba, Bengal.

GOBARDHUN DAS, SAH, Rai Bahddur.

Born 2Qth October 1856. The title is personal, and was conferred on
ist January 1886, for eminent public services as a Municipal
Commissioner
of Lucknow, and an Honorary Magistrate. Belongs to an Agarwala
family ;
and is one of the sons of Sah Benarsi Das, late a banker at Lucknow,
and a
partner in the banking firm of Sah Behari Lai, Lucknow.

Residence. Lucknow, Oudh.

GOBIND RAM, Rao Bahddur.

Born 1 5th December 1851. The title was conferred, 2nd January 1888,
as a personal distinction, for his services on the District Board and
Municipal
Committee, and especially for consideration shown to his debtors in
proceed-
ings under the Jhansi Encumbered Estates Act. Belongs to a Gaur
Brahman
Pattiwal family, whose ancestor, Khem Chand, emigrated to Jaipur from
Jesalmir, and there established a commercial house ; and subsequently
established three more houses in Jhansi. The Rao Bahadur's uncle
rendered good service during the Mutiny of 1857.

Residence. Jhdnsi, North-Western Provinces.

GOBIND RAO NARAYAN, Rao.
The title is hereditary.
Residence. Allahabad, North-Western Provinces.

GOBIND SAHAI, Diwdn.
The title is hereditary.
Residence. Gujra'nwdla, Punjab.

. GOBIND SINGH (of Beona), Rdjd.

Bom 29th November 1872. The title is hereditary; and is stated by
the family to have been obtained in the year 1746 from the Mahrattas,
after
the defeat of the Bundelas by the combined forces of the Peshwa and
Nawab
Khan Bangash of Farrukhabad. Belongs to a Bundela Rajput family, and
is
the son of the late Raja Parachat, who died on 3rd March 1878.

Residence. Jalaun, North-Western Provinces.

GOBIND SINGH, THAKUR, Rao Bahddur.
The title is personal, and was conferred on ist January 1889.
Residence. Jaipur, Rajputa~na.

GODE NARAYAN GAJAPATI RAO, Rdjd. See Gajapati.

GOGAN CHANDRA RAI, Rat Bahadur.

Granted the title of Rai Bahadur, as a personal distinction, for
eminent
services rendered in the Benares Opium Department, 2nd January 1893.
Residence. Benares, North- Western Provinces.

GOKAL DAS, SBTH, Rdjd.

The title is personal, and was conferred on ist January 1889. The
Raja
had been created a Rao Saheb in 1867, on account of his liberal
contributions
towards the erection of the Jabalpur Town Hall. His father was Seth
Kushal
Chand, a wealthy banker of Jabalpur, who rendered good services during
the
Mutiny in 1857; a gold medal was presented to him by the Government
for
his liberal help in fitting out the Madras Column.

Residence. Jabalpur, Central Provinces.

GOKAL NARAYAN, Rai.

Born 1842. The title is hereditary ; having been originally conferred
by
the Nawab Shuja-ud-daula Bahadur on an ancestor of the family named
Lachmi Narayan, Khattri, who was Daroga of the palaces of the Begam.
The Rai's father was the Rai Baldeo Narayan, alias Chotu Lai. The Rai
is also known by the name of Chotu Lai ; he has three sons Babu Kesri
Narayan, Mahabir Narayan, and Badri Narayan.


Residence. Allahabad, North- Western Provinces.

GOKUL CHANDRA SINGHI, Rai Bahadur.

Born 1825; son of the late Babu Uma Charan Singhi, of Khishma,
Nadiya, Bengal. Has rendered good service in the Small Arms
Ammunition
Factory at Dum-Dum; and received the title on the ist January 1891,
in
recognition thereof. Belongs to a Kayastha family descended from Rai
Lakshman Singha of Chaula, who was the Gushtipati or " Chief of the
clan "
among the Maulik Kayasthas. Muralidhar Singha first settled in Khishma
in
the beginning of the i7th century; and it is stated that Raja Kali
Prasanna
Singha of Calcutta, translator of the Mahabharata, is a lineal
descendant of
this family. The Rai Bahadur married a daughter of the late Babu
Chandra
Nath Mustafi, Zamindar of Ula in Nadiya District, whose ancestors are
stated
to have held the post of Accountant-General under the Nawab Nazims of
Bengal. The Rai Bahadur has three sons Anukul Chandra Singha, born
1865; Bankim Chandra Singha, born 1870; Atul Chandra Singha, born
1875. His eldest son, Satis Chandra Singha, is deceased; but has left
a
son and heir, Probodh Chandra Singha, born 1881.

Residences. Dum-Dum, near Calcutta; 173 Cornwallis Street, Calcutta;
Khishma, Nadiya' District, Bengal.

GOLAK CHANDAR CHAUDHRI, Rai Bahadur.

The title is personal, and was conferred on ist January 1877, on the


occasion of the Proclamation of Her Most Gracious Majesty as Empress
of
India.

Residence. Chittagong, Bengal.

GONDAL, HIS HIGHNESS THAKUR SAHEB SIR BHAG-
WATSINGHJI SAGRAMJI, K.C.I.E., Thdkur Saheb of.

A Ruling Chief.

Born 24th October 1865 ; succeeded to \hegadi i4th December 1869
as a minor. Belongs to a Jareja Rajput (Hindu) family, tracing its
origin to

the renowned Krishna; descended from the
Nawanagar-Rajkot family ; is a Kumbhani, being
a descendant of Kumbhoji I., founder of the
Gondal dynasty ; was only four years old when
he succeeded his father, who died in 1869,
when on a visit to Bombay. The following is
a brief summary of the history of this ruling
family: (i) Kumbhoji I., founder of the Gon-
dal dynasty; 1634-49 A.D. Succeeded by his
son (2) Sagramji I., 1649-1714 A.D. Succeeded
by his son (3) Haloji, 1714-53. Succeeded
by his son (4) Kumbhoji II., 1753-90 A.D., was
a most powerful chief; was both a warrior and
a statesman, and aggrandised his possessions by
conquest and statecraft. Succeeded by his
grandson (5) Muluji, 1790-92 A.D. Succeeded
by his son (6) Dajibhai, 1792-1800 A.D., was a patron of letters, and
was
especially fond of poetry. Succeeded by his uncle (7) Devaji, 1800-12
A.D.,
was a brave soldier and a wise ruler. Succeeded by his four sons one
after
another (8) Nathuji, 1812-14 A.D. ; (9) Kanuji, 1814-21 A.D. ; (10)
Chandra Sinhji, 1820-41 A.D. ; (u) Bhanabhai, 1841-51 A.D. ; (12)
Sag-
ramji II., 1851-79 A.D., was a very quiet and pious Chief. Succeeded
by
his son, the present Thakur Saheb. During his minority the State was
at
first administered direct by the British Government, but afterwards a
Joint-
Administration was introduced. He was educated at the Rajkot Rajkumar
College and also at the Edinburgh University. His College career has
been
reported to be eminently successful ; in order to give the finishing
touch to
his education, he undertook a voyage to Europe in 1883, in the company
of
Major (now Colonel) Hancock ; returned after six months ; published
an
account of his tour under the title "Journal of a Visit to England in
1883 ";
was associated with Major (now Colonel) Nutt in the administrative
business
of his State, and assumed sole charge on the 24th August 1884. The
reply
made by him on the occasion of his installation to the address of the
Political
Agent, Colonel West, was pronounced by Government to be highly
creditable
to him, both as regards the tone and the matter of it, showing " good
feeling
and good taste, and his description of his duties as a ruler evinces a
sound
and clear judgment." Three years after his installation the Thakur
Saheb was
publicly complimented by the Governor, Lord Reay, in the following
words :
" Thakur Saheb, though you have only been three years on the gadi, I
believe
you have acted up to the pledges you then gave." Nominated a Fellow of
the
Bombay University ; and a Vice-President of the Deccan Education
Society
at Poona. Having been imbued with a love of science, he again
proceeded
to Scotland in 1886, to reside for a time at the Edinburgh
University ; which,
in appreciation of his " exemplary quest of knowledge," conferred on
him the

honorary degree of LL.D. in 1887. The same year he was requested to
be
a member of the deputation from the Kathiawar Chiefs that waited on
Her
Majesty the Queen Empress at the time of the celebration of Her Most
Gracious Majesty's Jubilee; and on that occasion was made a K.C.I.E.
Returned to India in August 1887. Takes a keen interest in the
adminis-
trative business of the State, and is a joint-proprietor of the "
Bhaunagar-
Gondal " and " Gondal-Porbandar " railways, in which concerns he has
invested
about ^"500,000. Is taking steps to connect his capital with the main
line
of railway. Besides railways, the territory has many macadamised
roads,
schools, hospitals, municipalities, rest-houses, infirmary, post and
telegraph
offices, courts of justice, and other appliances of an improved
administration.
Owing to the excellence of his administration, the British Government
was
pleased to raise Gondal from the rank of a second-class to that of a
first-class
State in Kathiawar. In 1889 his wife daughter of His Highness the
Maharana of Dharampur being taken very ill, the doctors advised her to
go
to England for a change, and His Highness was obliged to take her
there for
the benefit of her health. This is the first instance of a Rajput
consort of a
Ruling Chief ever venturing to overcome her caste prejudices. Her
Highness
was received . by Her Most Gracious Majesty the Queen Empress, and
personally invested with the Imperial Order of the Crown of India.
The
Thakur Saheb has contributed numerous donations to deserving public
institutions ; has relieved his subjects of the burden of many
obnoxious
taxes, and remitted a vast amount of debt which his people owed him.
His
subjects, in return, have voted him a statue by public subscription.

Arms. A belt and sword with the word " Gondal " at the top. Motto.
(Sanskrit) Sajyam cha Satyam, in Devanagari character, meaning "Ready
and True." His Highness's sons are Kuma'r Shri Bhojraj, heir -
apparent,
born 1883 ; is being educated in Edinburgh. Kuma'r Shri Bhupat Sinhje,
born
1888 ; is in England with his parents.

Residence. Gondal, Ka"thia~wdr, Bombay.

GOPAL CHANDAR MUKHARJI, Rai Bahadur.
The title is personal, and was conferred on ist January 1889.
Residence. C alcutta.

GOPAL CHANDRA MUKHARJI, Rai Bahadur.

Has rendered good service as Chairman of the Kasipur-Chitpur Muni-
cipality, Calcutta; and received the title as a personal distinction
on 25th
May 1892.

Residence. Calcutta.

GOPAL DAS, Rai Bahadur.

The title is personal, and was conferred on 24th May 1884.
Residence. Lahore, Punjab.

GOPAL MOHAN SARKAR, Rai Bahadur.
The title is personal, and was conferred on ist January 1887.
Residence. Calcutta.

GOPAL RAO (of Rehli), Rao.

The title is hereditary. Is the son of the late Rao Kishen Rao ; and
descended from Govind Pandit, who came to Sagar with the Mahratta
ruler
from Puna, and being a relative of the latter, was made Mdmlatddr of
Rehli.

Residence. Sagar, Central Provinces.

GOPAL RAO, PANDIT, Rao Bahadur.

Born 6th August 1832. The title was conferred on 2nd January 1888,
as a personal distinction, for eminent public services. His ancestors,
during
the Mahratta Government, held the post of Secretary to the Raja of
Sagar
for three generations ; and consequently his father and grandfather
received
political pensions from the British Government after the annexation.
The
Rao Bahadur himself rendered excellent service to Government at the
risk
of his life during the Mutiny of 1857, for which he received the grant
of two
villages in the Jalaun district for his life. His family is Dakhini
Brahman.

Residence. Jhansi, North-Western Provinces.

GOPAL RAO HARI DESHMUKH, Rao Bahadur.

Born 1 8th February 1823. The title was conferred on ist January
1877,
as a personal distinction, on the occasion of the Proclamation of Her
Most
Gracious Majesty as Empress of India. Educated at Puna. Served the
Government with the highest success and distinction from 1844 to
1879,
when he retired after occupying the place of Joint Judge and Sessions
Judge
of Nasik, and other high positions in the Judicial Service. Invited to
be
present at the Imperial Assemblage at Delhi in 1877. Granted revival
of
political pension in 1877. Member of Bombay Legislative Council,
1880.
Name entered in the list of First -Class Sardars of the Deccan for
rank and
precedence, 1881. Appointed Prime Minister of Ratlam (^.z>.), 1884.
Has
been a prominent social reformer, having been put out of caste for
ten
years for his advocacy of widow remarriage, and for sending his
second
son, Krishnarao Gopal, to England for education. Is a copious author,
acquainted with many languages, and writing under the nom-de-plume of
Lokahitawddi. Is President of the Bombay Branch of the Theosophical
Society, Bombay Arya Samaj, Puna Arbitration Court ; and Vice-
President of
the National Indian Association. Is descended from Vishwanath Sidhaye,
a
Deshmukh (hereditary farmer of the revenue), 1690-1717, many of whose
descendants held high office under the Government of the Peshwa.
Residence. Puna, Bombay.

GOPAL RAO SHIVDBO (of Malegaon), Rao Bahadur.

Born 2 gth June 1843. The title is hereditary, having been originally
conferred by the Peshwa. The Rao Bahadur's mother enjoys a pension
from the Government.

Residence. Ndsik, Bombay.

GOPALA CHARIYA KRADKAR, Mahdmahopddhydya.

The title is a personal one, and was conferred on i6th February 1887,
in recognition of his eminence in oriental learning. It entitles him


to take
rank in Darbar immediately after titular Rajas.

Residence. Gwalior, Central India.

GOPALA PADHYB GURJAR, Mahdmahopddhydya.

The title is a personal one, and was conferred on i6th February 1887,
in recognition of his eminence in oriental learning. It entitles him


to take
rank in Darbar immediately after titular Rajas.

Residence. Ratnagiri, Bombay.

GOPALA, P., RAO, Rao Bahadur.

Born 1856. Member of the Berhampur Municipal Council, 1884;
Chairman, 1887. Granted the title as a personal distinction in 1891
for his
eminent municipal services.

Residence. Berhampur, Ganjam, Madras.

GOPALJI SURBHAI DBSAI, Rao Bahadur.

Born 24th June 1832. The title was conferred on i3th January 1882,
as a personal distinction, for eminent public services in the
Educational
Service, which extended from 1853 to 1892. Is a son of Desai Surbhai
Dayalji of Puni, Surat, an important Zaminddr in that district.
Received the
title of Rao Saheb in 1864; and the sanad conferring the title of Rao

Bahadur in 1882 was delivered to him in full Darbar by the Political
Agent
at Bhaunagar. Has received the thanks of Government for his services
(in
conjunction with his father) in bringing about the settlement of
Wattans in
Surat ; also in connection with archaeological researches in
Kathiawar, and
with the settlement of the wording of the " Fashzamin " bonds entered
into
by the Kathiawar Chiefs. Appointed Fellow of the Bombay University,
1885 ;
Educational Inspector, Northern Division, Bombay Presidency, 1885. Is
President of the Kathiawar General Library, Rajkot ; a Life Member of
the
East India Association, and of the Gujarat Vernacular Society.
Residence. Surat, Bombay.

GOPI MAL, Rai.

The title is personal, and was conferred on 3ist May 1871.
Residence. Firozpur, Punjab.

^GOPINATH GURU, Rao Saheb.

The title is personal, and was conferred on i6th February 1887.
Residence. Kdlahandi, Central Provinces.

GOVARDHAN SINGH (of Ramgarh), Mian.

The title is hereditary in this branch of the family. The head of
another
branch of the same family is Sardar Ranjit Singh (q.v.\ who holds the
hereditary
title of Sardar. Descended from a Rajput family, whose great ancestor
was
Raja Singar Chand, Raja of Bilaspur (Kahlur). His younger son was
Kalal
Chand, tenth in descent from whom was Surat Singh, whose four sons,
with
their retainers, aided the Raja of Nahan to conquer Suchawar, Ramgarh,
and
other territories, and received Ramgarh as their share. Sardar
Khushal
Singh was the only one of the four who left any children. He built the
fort
at Ramgarh ; and his grandson, Gopal Singh, was the grandfather of
Mian
Govardhan Singh.

Residence. Ambala, Punjab.

GOVIND LAL RAI, Rdjd.

The title is personal, and was conferred on 2nd January 1888, in

recognition of the Raja's " liberality and public spirit."
Residence. Rangpur, Bengal.

GOVIND RAO (of Jaisinghnagar), Rao.

Born 1841. The title is hereditary, having been originally conferred
by
the old Mahratta Government, and subsequently recognised by the
Govern-
ment of India. The Rao, like his kinsmen, Rao Ganpat Rao (g.v.) and
Rao Ram Chand Rao of Jaisinghnagar, is descended from ancestors who
were connected with the former rulers of Sagar; and to one of them,
named Rao Ganpat Rao, the pargand of Jaisinghnagar was made over as
its talukdar.

Residence. Sdgar, Central Provinces.

GOVIND RAO (of Rehli), Rao.

The title is hereditary. Is a younger brother of Rao Gopal Rao of
Rehli (g.v.)

Residence. Rehli, Sa"gar, Central Provinces.

GOVIND SAKARAM HOSUR, Rao Saheb.

Granted the title, as a personal distinction, 2nd January 1893, for
eminent

municipal services. Is Vice-President of the Saundatti Municipality,
Bombay.
Residence. Saundatti, Belgaum, Bombay.

GOVINDRAO RAMCHANDRA GARUD, Rao Bahadur.
The title is personal, and was conferred on ist January 1887.
Residence. Dhulia, Bombay.

GUL HASAN KHAN, Khan Bahadur.
The title is personal, and was conferred on ist January 1877.
Residence. Hyderabad, Sind.

GULAB SINGH (of Meanoni), Rao Saheb.
The title is hereditary.


Residence. Sa"gar, Central Provinces.

GULAB SINGH (of Bina), Rao.
The title is hereditary.
Residence. Sa"gar, Central Provinces.

GUNABHIRAM SARMA BARUA, Rai Bahadur.

The title is personal, and was conferred on i6th February 1887, on
the

occasion of the celebration of the Jubilee of Her Most Gracious
Majesty's
reign.

Residence. Nowgong, Assam.

GUR SAHAI, LALA, Rai Bahadur.

The title is personal, and was conferred on ist January 1890.

Residence. P unj ab.

GURBAKHSH SINGH (of Kot Shera), Sarddr.
The title is hereditary.
Residence. Gujra'nwa'la, Punjab.

GURU PRASAD, PANDIT (of Benares) Mahdmahopddhydya.

The title is a personal one, and was conferred on i6th February 1887,
in recognition of his eminence in oriental learning. It entitles him


to take
rank in Darbar immediately after titular Rajas.

Residence. Lahore, Punjab.

GWALIOR, His Highness the Maharaja Sindhia of.
A Ruling Chief.

Born 1877 ; succeeded to the gadi as a minor 3rd July 1886. Is the
head of the great Mahratta House of Sindhia. Full title is " His
Highness
Mukhtar-ul-Mulk, Azim-ul-Iktidar Rafi-ush-Shan Wala Shikoh Muhtashaim-
i-
Dauran, Umdat-ul-Umara, Maharaj-Adhiraj Alijah Hisam-us-Saltanat
Maharaja
Madho Rao Sindhia Bahadur Srinath Mansur-i-Zaman, Fidwi-i-Hazrat-i-
Malika-i-Muaz-zama-i-Rafi-ud-Darja-i-Inglistan" (see Introduction, n).
His
Highness, who rules over an area about equal to that of Holland,
Belgium,
and Saxony combined, and over a population more numerous than that of
Switzerland or of Greece, is descended from the famous Ranoji Sindhia,
the
son of a Dekhani pdtel, who became a member of the household of the
Peshwa Balaji Rao, and subsequently a successful commander of the
Peshwa's
cavalry. Ranoji Sindhia was succeeded by his second son, Mahadaji
Sindhia,
who was one of the greatest soldiers and cleverest statesmen ever
produced
by India. He greatly distinguished himself at the battle of Panipat in
1761 ;
and, taught by that disaster, he disciplined and strongly organised
his army,
chiefly under French officers, and in this way, though nominally still
a servant
of the Peshwa, he became in 1764 really the ruler of Hindustan. He
died
in 1794, and was succeeded by his grand-nephew, Daulat Rao Sindhia,
whose reign of over thirty years is part of the history of India. The
battles
of Assaye, won by Sir Arthur Wellesley (afterwards Duke of Wellington)
in
1803, and of Laswari, won by General Lord Lake, in 1804, the Treaty
of
Sarji Anjangaon in 1805, and the Pindari war in 1817 are important
land-
marks in the career of Daulat Rao Sindhia. On his death he commended
his State and his younger widow, the famous Baiza Bai, to the care of
the
British Government. Jhankuji Sindhia subsequently succeeded to the
gadi
by adoption, marrying the grand-daughter of Baiza Bai, who was at
first regent
of the State. Family dissension, however, ensued ; Baiza Bai had to
leave
Gwalior in 1833, and Jhankuji Sindhia died without issue in 1843. His
widow adopted a young scion of the Sindhia family, who succeeded
under
the title of Jaiaji Rao Sindhia. He displayed great courage and
loyalty
during the Mutiny of 1857, when his army revolted to the mutineers,
and he
himself and his Minister, Sir Dinkar Rao, were compelled to flee to
Agra.
He was restored and brought back to Gwalior by Sir Hugh Rose on iQth
June 1858, and received many great and well-deserved honours during
the
rest of his long reign. He obtained the right of adoption, numerous
titles,
extensive grants of additional territory, and an increase to his
army ; and
became successively an Honorary General in the British army, a Knight
Grand Cross of the Bath, a Knight Grand Commander of the Star of
India,
and a Companion of the Indian Empire. The present Maharaja, Madho
Rao Sindhia Bahadur, succeeded as a minor in 1886. The family colour,
famous on so many battle-fields, is bhagwd, orange or brick-red, the
flag of
that colour bearing on its field the representation of a serpent
holding the
sun and moon in its coils referring to a legend that Ranoji Sindhia,
when
an infant, was sheltered from the heat of the sun by the expanded hood
of a
cobra. The area of the State is 29,046 square miles ; its population
3,030,743, chiefly Hindus, but including more than 160,000
Muhammadans,
12,000 Jains, and 167,000 aborigines of various tribes. The Maharaja
Sindhia maintains a military force of 5504 cavalry, 11,040 infantry,
and 48
guns. His Highness is entitled to a salute of 19 guns, and within the
limits of Gwalior territory to a salute of 2 1 guns.
Residence. Gwalior, Central India.

GTYANODA KANT RAI, Rdjd.

The title is personal, and was conferred on 6th July 1888.

Residence. Jessore, Bengal

Sid Harth

unread,
Feb 4, 2010, 12:59:55 PM2/4/10
to
HABIB KHAN, Sarddr Bahadur.
The title is personal.
Residence. Peshdwar, Punjab.

HABIB-UR-RAHMAN, KAZI, Khan Saheb.
The title is personal, and was conferred on ist June 1888.
Residence. Burhdnpur, Central Provinces.

HACHARAO AKBAT HARIHAR, Rao Bahadur.
The title is personal, and was conferred on 24th May 1889.
Residence. Belgaum, Bombay.

HADI HUSAIN KHAN, SAYYID, Khan Bahadur.
The title is personal, and was conferred on ist January 1878.
Residence. Delhi, Punjab.

HADOL, Thdkur of. See Harol.

HAFIZ ABDUL KARIM, SHAIKH, Khan Bahadur.

Born 1838. The title is personal, and was conferred in 1884 for
services


rendered by his ancestors, and for his own acts of public generosity.
His
father was present at the battles of Bharatpur, Kamon, and Shekhawati
in the

first Kabul campaign ; and his brother was rewarded with a khilat for
his good
services in the first and second Punjab wars.

Residence. Meerut, North- Western Provinces.

HAIDAR ALI KHAN walad ALI AKBAR KHAN, Mir.

The title is hereditary, the Mir being a descendant of one of the
Mirs
or Chiefs of Sind at the time of the annexation.

Residence. Hyderabad, Sind.

HAKIM KHAN, MALIK, Khdn Bahadur.
The title is personal, and was conferred on ist June 1888.
Residence. Shdhpur, Punjab.

HAKK NAWAZ KHAN (of Dera Ismail Khan, Punjab),

Khan Bahadur.

The title is personal, and was conferred on 8th May 1885.
Residence. Baluchistan.

HALARI SHAMANA, Rai Bahadur.
The title is personal, and was conferred on i8th May 1885.
Residence. Mercara, Coorg.

HAMID ALI, MUNSHI. See Muhammad Hamid Ali.

HAMID HUSAIN, MAUL AVI SAYYID, Shams-ul-Ulama.

The title is personal, and was conferred on i6th February 1887, on
the

occasion of the celebration of the Jubilee of Her Majesty's reign. It
entitles
him to take rank in Darbar immediately after titular Nawabs.

Residence. North- Western Provinces and Oudh.

HAMIR SINGH (of Bayeri), Thdkur Sawai Rai.

Born 1838. The title is hereditary, but its origin is not known. Is a
Korkars Girassia Chief. Rendered assistance to the Magistrate of
Harda
during the Mutiny of 1857, for which he received a khilat. Has two
sons
Thakur Umrao Singh and Thakur Sardar Singh.

Residence. Hoshangabad, Central Provinces.

HAMIR SINGH (of Mohli), Thdkur.

Born 7th August 1825. The title is hereditary, and was originally
con-
ferred by the Raja of Benares. Belongs to the same family as that of
the
Rajas of Hatisi in Damoh district, Central Provinces. This branch of
the
family obtained the jdgir of Mohli from the former Government of
Sagar.
Has two sons Kunwar Khalak Singh and Mohan Singh.

Residence. Sa~gar, Central Provinces.

HAMIR SINGH (of Pali), Rao.

Born 1823. The title is hereditary. This Bundela Chief belongs to the
family of the ex-Raja of Banpur, whose estates were confiscated after
the
Mutiny of 1857. His son and heir is Nirbhai Singh, aged thirty-one
years.

Residence. Banpur, Lalitpur, North- Western Provinces.

HANUMAN SINGH (of Barwara), Thdkur.

Born 1841. The title is hereditary, having been originally conferred

on
his ancestors by the Gond Raja of Mandla, Raja Nizam Shah. Is an
Honorary Magistrate of Jabalpur district.

Residence. Jabalpur, Central Provinces.

HAP A, THAKUR WAKHATSINGHJI, Thdkur of.
A Ruling Chief.

Born 1877 ; succeeded to the gadi 4th August 1889. Belongs to a Koli
(Hindu) family. Is at present a minor, and the State under the
management
of the Mahi Kantha Agency. The late Thakur was named Madhusinghji,
and his widow, the Thakurani Surajbai, is living. The State contains
an
area of 79 square miles, and a population of 1546, chiefly Hindus.

Residence. Hapa, Mdhi Kcintha, Bombay.

HARBALLABH NARAYAN SINGH (of Sonbarsa), Maharaja.

Born 7th June 1846. The title is personal, and was conferred on 2nd
January 1888. The Maharaja had received the title of Raja in 1875 f r
eminent services rendered during the famine of 1873-74, and had been
granted the title of Raja Bahadur on ist January 1877, on the occasion


of
the Proclamation of Her Most Gracious Majesty as Empress of India.

Created a Companion of the Most Eminent Order of the Indian Empire,
2nd January 1893. The family cognisance is a flag, bearing on it the
figure of an elephant.

Residence. Bhcigalpur, Bengal.

HARBANS RAI (of Hatri), JRdjd.

Born 7th April 1835. The title is hereditary, and is said to have
been
first conferred by a Muhammadan King, in 1494-95, on the Raja Sahal
Shah
of Bakhtiyargarh. Succeeded the late Raja on 8th May 1848. Rendered
good service to Government during the Mutiny of 1857. Has two sons,
of
whom the elder enjoys the title of Diwan Diwan Kishori Singh and Bhan
Partab Singh.

Residence. Damoh, Central Provinces.

HARBANS SINGH, Rdjd.

Born 1846. The title is hereditary, the Raja being the brother and
the
adopted son of the famous Sardar Tej Singh, who was Commander-in-
Chief
of the Sikhs in the first Sikh war, subsequently appointed President
of the
Council of Regency, and on 7th August 1847 created Raja of Sialkot.
Throughout the rebellion of 1848-49 the Raja Tej Singh remained
faithful to
the Government, and on the annexation of the Punjab the jdgirs of
himself
and his cousin, Sardar Bhagwan Singh, son of Jamadar Khushal Singh,
were
confirmed for life. Raja Tej Singh rendered excellent service by
raising
horsemen during the Mutiny of 1857, and as a reward, in 1862, two-
thirds of
his jdgir was granted in perpetuity, and he received a sanad
authorising him
to adopt an heir. He died in December 1862, having adopted his
brother,
the Raja Harbans Singh, who now enjoys the title and estate.

Residence. Lahore, Punjab.

HARBANS SINGH (of Kandaula), Sarddr.

The title is hereditary, the Sardar belonging to the same family as
those
of the Sardars Tara Singh of Manauli, Uttam Singh of Ghanauli, and
other
Sardars of the Ambala division. The founder of the family was Sardar
Khushal Singh, who achieved conquests in the Manjha, and took
possession
of the town of Jalandhar. In 1756 A.D. he had large Cis-Sutlej
possessions ;
they were subsequently wrested from the family by the Maharaja Ranjit
Singh of Lahore, but ultimately came under British control with the
other
Cis-Sutlej territories. Sardar Dayal Singh, the grandson of Sardar
Khushal
Singh, succeeded to the Kandaula estates, and his grandson is the
present
Sardar. For services during the Mutiny of 1857 the Sardars of this
loyal
family received large remissions from the Government.

Residence. Kandaula, Ambala, Punjab.

HARDERAM ANUPRAM MUNSHI, Rao Saheb.
The title is personal, and was conferred on i8th December 1888.
Residence. B ombay .

HARDHIAN SINGH, Rai Bahadur.

Granted the title, as a personal distinction, 2nd January 1893. Is an
Honorary Magistrate of Delhi.

Residence. Delhi, North- Western Provinces.

HARDIT SINGH (of Dayalgarh), Sarddr.
The title is hereditary.
Residence. Ambdla, Punjab.

HARDIT SINGH, ROZA, Sarddr.

The title is hereditary ; and Sardar Hardit Singh succeeded his
father,
the brave and loyal Sardar Kahan Singh, in June 1864. Sardar Kahan
Singh was the grandson of Tek Singh, who was in the service of the
Bhangi
Sardars of Lahore, and received from them the grant of the village
Nodhpur.
Kahan Singh entered the service of the Maharaja Ranjit Singh in 1822;
and, on the recommendation of General Ventura, was appointed Com-
mandant in the Life Guards, served with his regiment in Kulu, Mandi,
and
elsewhere, and being severely wounded in the attack on Raja Suchet
Singh,
was promoted to be Colonel, with large emoluments. He fought on the
Sikh side in the battles of Sobraon and Firuzshahr. After the
annexation
Colonel Kahan Singh lost his jdgirs, but was granted a pension by the
British Government. When the Mutiny broke out in 1857 .he was one of
the first Chiefs selected for service by Sir John Lawrence, and,
starting at
once for Delhi with fifty-three of his retainers, he served with the
Guides till
the fall of the city, being again severely wounded in one of the rebel
sallies.
For these services he received substantial rewards from the
Government, in-
cluding the regrant of some of his old Sikh jdgirs.

Residence. Lahore, Punjab.

HARBNDRA KISHOR SINGH, Maharaja Sir, K.CJ.E. See Bettiah.

HARI APPAJI, Rao Bahadur.

The title is personal, and was conferred on 2nd January 1888.
Residence. Baroda.

HARI CHAND (of Lahaul), Thdkur.
The title is hereditary.
Residence. Lahaul, Kangra, Punjab.

HARI CHAND (of Bhabaur), Rai.

The title is hereditary. The Rai belongs to the same family as that
of
the Rajas of Kangra, Jaswan, Goler, Siba, Datarpur, etc. ; being
descended
from Raja Pirthi Chand, son of Raja Beni Chand. The Rai Karm Chand,
in the time of the Maharaja Ranjit Singh, held a large jdgir in this
district ;
and his grandson, Rai Ratan Chand, died 24th October 1884, and was
suc-
ceeded by his son, the present Rai.

Residence. Bhabaur, Hoshirpur, Punjab.

HARI CHAND YAJOJI, Rai Bahddur.
The title is personal, and was conferred on ist January 1877.
Residence. Bombay.

HARI CHARAN SARMA, Rai Bahddur.
The title is personal, and was conferred on 3rd October 1872.
Residence. Cachar, Assam.

HARI MOHAN THAKUR, Rai Bahddur.


The title is personal, and was conferred on 6th July 1888.

Residence. Bhcigalpur, Bengal.

HARI NARAYAN KALE, Rai Bahddur.
The title is personal, and was conferred on ist January 1877.
Residence. Ratnagiri, Bombay.

HARI RAJ SINGH (of Kashipur), Rdjd.

Born 1857. The title is hereditary. Belongs to a family connected
with that of the Chand Rajas of Kumaun, being descended from Pahar
Singh, a younger son of Raja Baz Bahadur Singh, Raja of Kumaun from
1638 to 1678. In the time of Raja Dip Chand of Kumaun (1748-77),
Mohan Singh, grandson of Pahar Singh, became Bakshi or head of the
army. He eventually seized and imprisoned Raja Dip Chand, and, on the
death of the latter in prison in 1777, proclaimed himself Raja under
the

title of Mohan Chand. He himself was killed in 1788 by Harak Deb
Toshi, who again was driven out by Lai Singh, brother of Mohan Singh,
with the aid of Faiz-ullah Khan of Rampur. Mahendra Singh, son of
Mohan Singh, was installed as Raja by Lai Singh, who claimed for him
the
protection of the Nawab of Oudh, as recognised owner of the Tarai. In
1790, however, the Gurkhalis from Kathmandu invaded Kumaun and
defeated the forces of Mahendra Singh, who fled with his uncle, Lai
Singh,
to Kota, and fixed upon Kilpuri as his headquarters, where he
endeavoured
to enlist troops for an attack upon Kumaun. Hearing this, the
Gurkhali
general, Amar Singh Thapa, marched on Kilpuri and thus deprived the.
Kumaunis of their only rallying-point. Mahendra Singh and his
partisans,
deprived of every acre that they could lay claim to, fled to the Oudh
Subahdar, and representing that the tract from which the Gurkhali had
ousted them formed a part of the Tarai, which of right belonged to
the
Nawab, requested his aid in recovering it from the Gurkhalis. A war
with
Nepal would probably have resulted had not the good offices of Mr.
Cherry
promoted an understanding, by which the Gurkhalis agreed to yield up
all
pretensions to the low country. At the same time provision was made
for
the retention by the exiled family of some doubtful tenure of a
portion of
the Tarai for their subsistence. Mahendra Singh retired first to
Rudrapur
and then to Kilpuri; but, owing to bad management, this Pargana was
reduced to a swamp, and was rendered so unhealthy that on the petition
of
the representatives of the family to the British Government, it was
exchanged
for the confirmation of possession in taluqa Chachait in the Pilibhit
district.
Kunwar Partab Singh, son of Mahendra Singh, sued his uncle, Lai
Singh,
for a share in Chachait, but his claim was dismissed. He then
petitioned
the Government, who gave him Rs.25o per mensem in 1820. Partab
Singh's claim to Bazpur was also negatived. Lai Singh had held
possession
as head of the family and retained it. Guman Singh, son of Raja Lai
Singh, received a sanad from the British Government in 1828, as Raja.
His
son, Raja Shiuraj Singh, C.S.I., rendered good service during the
Mutiny of
1857 ; and was rewarded with the Order of the Star of India, and with
an
increased grant. He died in October 1886; and was succeeded by his
son,
the present Raja, who married a daughter of Kupendra Bikram Singh of
Nepal, and has a son named Kunwar Udai Raj Singh. The Raja is an
Honorary Magistrate.

Residence. Kashipur, Tara"i, North- Western Provinces.

HARI RAOJI CHIPLUNKAR, Rao Bahadur.
The title is personal, and was conferred on 2nd January 1888.
Residence. Poona, Bombay.

HARI SINGH (of Nadaun), Mian.

The title is hereditary. The Mian is a brother of Raja Amar Chand of
Nadaun, and a younger son of the Raja Sir Jodhbir Singh, brother-in-
law of
the Maharaja Ranjit Singh of Lahore, who died in 1873. The Mian is an


Extra Assistant Commissioner of the Punjab.

Residence. Nadaun, Ka~ngra, Punjab.

HARI SINGH, Sarddr.

The title is hereditary. Is one of the Sikh Sardars of the Ludhiana
district, Punjab.

Residence. Ludhidna, Punjab.

HARI SINGH (of Pindit Lala), Sarddr.

The title is hereditary. The Sardar is one of the Sardars of the
Gujrat
district, Punjab.

Residence. Gujrat, Punjab.

HARI SINGH (of Akalgarh), Diwdn.
The title is hereditary.
Residence. Gujranwala, Punjab.

HARI SINGH, SARDAR, Rai Bahadur.

The title is personal, and was conferred on i6th February 1887, on
the

occasion of the Jubilee of the reign of Her Most Gracious Majesty.
Residence. Sialkot, Punjab.

HARIHAR DATT DUBE (of Badlapur), Rdjd.

Born 1856. The title is hereditary. Belongs to a family of Dube
Brahmans, who came originally from Amauli in the Fatehpur district,
where
their ancestor, Sheo Lai, was an eminent banker. In 1788 Sheo Lai
Dube
was appointed farmer of the revenues of Jaunpur by Mr. Jonathan
Duncan,
the Resident at Benares ; and obtained the title of Raja for killing a
noted
rebel named Saltanat Singh. The sanad conferring the tdluka of
Badlapur
on Raja Sheo Lai Dube, dated November 1797, is in existence, and was
signed by Sir John Shore, then Governor-General. The present Raja is
a
great-grandson of Raja Sheo Lai Dube, and is an Honorary Magistrate.

Residence. Jaunpur, North-Western Provinces.

HARIHAR SHASTRI DRAVIDA, Mahdmahopddhydya.

The title is a personal one, and was conferred on i6th February 1887,
in recognition of his eminence in oriental learning. It entitles him
to take
rank in Darbar immediately after titular Rajas.

Residence. Indore, Central India.

HARILAL AMBASHANKAR, Rao Saheb.
The title is personal, and was conferred on ist January 1879.
Residence. Surat, Bombay.

HARINDAR SINGH (of Kandaula), Sarddr.

The title is hereditary ; the Sardar belongs to the same family as
those
of the Sardars Tara Singh of Manauli, Uttam Singh of Ghanauli, and
other Sardars of the Ambala division. For an account of the Kandaula
branch of this family, see Harbans Singh (of Kandaula), Sardar. The
Sardar is a grandson of Sardar Dayal Singh of Kandaula.

Residence. Kandaula, Ambdla, Punjab.

HARISH CHANDRA MITTRA, Rai Bahadur.
The title is personal, and was conferred on ist June 1888.
Residence. Calcutta, Bengal.

HARNAM SINGH, AHLUWALLA, Kunwdr, C.LE.

Born i Qth January 1851. Is a son of His late Highness the Raja Sir
Randhir Singh, G. C.S.I., of Kapurthala, and only brother of the late
Raja
Kharak Singh of Kapurthala, and uncle of the present Raja of
Kapurthala
(q.v.) Was created a Companion of the Most Eminent Order of the
Indian
Empire on ist January 1885.

Residence. Kapurthala, Punjab.

HARNAM SINGH (of Kharar), Sarddr.

Born 1857. The title is hereditary. Belongs to a Khatri family, whose
ancestor, Sardar Dayal Singh, took possession of considerable
territory in the
Hoshiarpur, Firozpur, and Ambala districts. His sons were deprived of
much of their land by the Maharaja Ranjit Singh ; but the eldest,
named
Sardar Dharm Singh, secured some lands in Kharar, Ambala district.
His
grandsqn, Sardar Ganda Singh, rendered excellent services during the
Mutiny
of 1857, and received a khilat from the Government in acknowledgment
thereof. He died at Patiala about the year 1876; and was succeeded by
his son, the present Sardar.

Residence. Amba"la, Punjab.

HARNAM SINGH (of Lidhran), Sarddr.
The title is hereditary.
Residence. Ludhidna, Punjab.

HARNAM SINGH (of Moron), Sarddr.

Born 1 86 1. The title is hereditary. Belongs to a Jat family, that
came
originally from Varpal, in the Amritsar district. About 1759 Sardar
Salig
Singh obtained possession of territory around Moron. The family fell
under
the power of the Maharaja Sher Singh ; but when the Jalandhar doab
was
ceded to the British after the first Sikh war, a considerable jdgir
was con-
firmed to the head of the family in perpetuity, and is now enjoyed by
Sardar
Harnam Singh.

Residence. Jalandhar, Punjab.

HARNARAYAN SINGH (of Hathras), Rdjd.

Born Qth December 1864. The title is personal, and was conferred on
ist January 1877, as a continuation of the title of the Raja's
adoptive father,
Raja Gobind Singh of Hathras. Belongs to a Jat family, whose founder,
named Makhan, came from Raj putana about the year 1600, and settled in


the
neighbourhood of Mursan. His great-grandson, Thakur Nand Ram, died

in 1696, leaving fourteen sons, of whom one was Zulkaran Singh,
ancestor
of Raja Ghansham Singh of Mursan (q.v.\ and the other was Jai Singh.
The great-grandson of the latter, Thakur Daya Ram, established himself
as
an independent Chief in his fortress of Hathras, at that time one of
the
strongest in the country. The fortress was, however, captured by
General
Marshall in 1817, and the Thakur's estates confiscated. The latter, on
his
death in 1841, was succeeded by his son, Thakur Gobind Singh. He
distinguished himself by most valuable services during the Mutiny of
1857 ;
and was rewarded in 1858, by Lord Canning on behalf of Her Majesty,
with
the title of Raja and extensive grants of land. Raja Gobind Singh was
succeeded by his adopted son, the present Raja ; who is an Honorary
Magistrate.

Residence. Aligarh, North- Western Provinces.

HARNATH CHAUDHRI (of Dubalhati), Rdjd Bahadur.

Born 1833. Is the son of the late Anandanath Rai, of Dubalhati in the
district of Rajshahi, Bengal \ who was descended through a long line
of
ancestors from Kasiram Rai. The title of Raja Bahadur was conferred as
a
personal distinction on the ist January 1877, on the occasion of the
Proclamation of Her Most Gracious Majesty as Empress of India. The
Raja
Bahadur had received the title of Raja on the i2th of March 1875, m
recog-
nition of his eminent services during the famine of 1873-74.

Residence. Rajshdhi, Bengal.

HARO SUNDARI DBBIA (of Siarsol), Mahdrdni.

The title is personal, and was conferred on ist January 1877, on the
occasion of the Proclamation of Her Most Gracious Majesty as Empress
of

India. The Maharani had already received the title of Rani on i2th
March
1875, f r ner eminent services during the famine of 1873-74. Belongs
to a
family descended from Govinda Prasad Pandit.

Residence. Bardwan, Bengal.

HAROL, THAKUR JAWANSINGHJI, Thakur of.
A Ruling Chief.

Born 1883 ; succeeded to the gadi 22nd March 1888. Belongs to a
Thakerda (Hindu) family. The State contains a population of nearly
3000,
chiefly Hindus. Its name is also spelt Hadol.

Residence. Harol, Mdhi Ka"ntha, Bombay.

HARSA SINGH (of Mughalchak), Sarddr.

The title is hereditary. Belongs to an ancient Sikh family, famous
for
the conspicuous bravery of its members. Sardar Anup Singh, of
Probyn's
Horse, was one of the most distinguished officers in the army
throughout the
Mutiny campaigns of 1857, 1858, and 1859. He was present at the fall
of
Delhi, at the capture of Lucknow, and on many other great occasions ;
was
four times wounded, and had three horses wounded under him. He also
fought with great distinction in the China campaign in 1860, and
subse-
quently in the disturbances on the north-west frontier. He twice
received
the Order of Valour for bravery in the field. In 1876 he accompanied
His
Royal Highness the Prince of Wales to England, and was honoured with
the
marked approval of Her Most Gracious Majesty the Queen Empress and
the Royal Family. He died in 1885, amid universal expressions of
regret,
and was succeeded by the present Sardar.

Residence. Mughal Chak, Gujra"nwala, Punjab.

HASAN ALI BEY BPPBNDI,
Khan Bahadur.

Is a leading member of the Karachi Bar,
and was in 1886 appointed Consul for Turkey
by His Imperial Majesty the Sultan. Presi-
dent of the Sind Branch of the Central National
Muhammadan Association, 1884; also Presi-
dent of the Karachi Madrasa Board, managing
the Karachi Muhammadan College, which has
an endowment fund of about six lakhs of
rupees.

Residence. Karachi, Bombay.

HASAN ALI walad MUHAMMAD KHAN, Mir.

The title is hereditary, the Mir being a representative of one of the


Mirs or Chiefs of Sind at the time of the annexation.
Residence. Sind.

HASAN ALI walad MUHAMMAD AISAN, Khan Bahadur.
The title is personal, and was conferred on ist June 1888.
Residence. Karachi, Sind.

HASAN ALI KHAN, C.I.E., Nawdb.

The title is hereditary. The Nawab was created a Companion of the
Most Eminent Order of the Indian Empire 5th February 1881.
Residence. Baluchistan.

HASAN ALI KHAN, MIR, His Highness.

The title is personal. His Highness is the representative of one of


the
Mirs or Chiefs of Sind at the time of the annexation.
Residence. Hyderabad, Sind.

HATI SINGH (of Chandgarh), Rao.

Born 5th September 1844. The title is hereditary, and is said to have
been originally conferred by Gori Shah Padishah. The family is
descended
from Prithi Singh, who was eleventh in descent from the famous Bhoj
Raj.

Residence. Nimdr, Central Provinces.

HATWA, MAHARAJA SIR KRISHNA PARTAB SAHI
BAHADUR, K.C.I.B., Maharaja Bahadur of.

Born October 1857. Belongs to a Baghochhia Brahman family, that
claims to have been settled as Rajas in the district of Saran for 102
generations.
The patronymic of the earlier Rajas was " Sen," this in the sixteenth
descent
was changed to "Singh," in the eighty-third to "Mai," and in the
eighty-seventh
to "Sahi." The traditions of the family state that the title of
Maharaja was con-
ferred on the eighty-sixth in this line, the Maharaja Kalyan Mai, and
that of Maha-
raja Bahadur on the eighty-seventh, the Maharaja Isham Karan Sahi
Bahadur,
both by the Emperor of Delhi. In the time of Akbar it is said that
the
Maharaja Jubraj Sahi Bahadur obtained possession of Pargana Sipa by
killing
the Muhammadan Chief Kabul Muhammad, probably one of those Muham-
madan Chiefs who had rebelled against the Imperial authority in
Southern
Behar. Four generations later the Maharaja Sardar Sahi invaded the
Majauli
Raj, and destroyed their garh or fort, and imposed as terms of peace
on the
Chief of Majauli the condition that he and his descendants were not to
dis-
play their nishans and dunkas (flags and drums) till these should be
re-
taken from the Hasipur (or Hatwa) Rajas. The eldest son of the
Maharaja
Sardar Sahi died before his father ; he was succeeded by the second
son, the
Maharaja Fateh Sahi Bahadur, who was a rebel against the British
Govern-
ment in 1767, in the time of Warren Hastings, and ultimately fled to
the
Gorakhpur jungles. His cousin, Babu Bassant Sahi, displayed his
loyalty
by assisting the Government with his retainers, and doing all in his
power
to arrest Fateh Sahi. But in 1775 he was surprised by the rebel and
killed,
and his widow ascended the funeral pyre, and was burnt with her
husband's
head on her lap. Bassant Sahi's son, Babu Mahes Datt Sahi, followed in
his
father's footsteps, and the Government was about to proclaim him the
rightful
successor of the rebel Fateh Sahi when he died, leaving a son, Babu
after-
wards Maharaja Chhatardhari Sahi. In 1790, when the Decennial Settle-
ment was in contemplation, Lord Cornwallis, after inquiring into all
the
facts and the usages of the family, granted to the latter the estates
of Fateh
Sahi; and in 1837 the title of Maharaja Bahadur was conferred upon
him.
This title was renewed in October 1858 in favour of the Maharaja
Rajendar
Partab Sahi, and by the sanad of 3ist August 1874 in favour of the
present
Maharaja Bahadur. At the time of the Santal insurrection, and again
during
the Mutiny of 1857, the Maharaja Chhatardhari Sahi Bahadur rendered
most
valuable services to the Government, and was rewarded at the close of
the
Mutiny with the grant of a portion of the confiscated estates of the
rebel
Kunwar Singh. He was succeeded by his great-grandson, the late
Maharaja
Rajendra Partab Sahi Bahadur, who died in 1871, leaving a minor son,
the
present Maharaja, The latter attained his majority and was installed
on the
gadi on 3ist August 1874. He received a medal of distinction at the
Imperial Assemblage at Delhi in 1877, on the occasion of the
Proclamation
of Her Most Gracious Majesty as Empress of India, and in 1889 he was
created a Knight Commander of the Most Eminent Order of the Indian
Empire. The family cognisance consists of a shield between two
swords,
with tigers as supporters, and underneath is the motto f{ tnihT

Residence. Hatwa, Saran, Bengal.

HAZURA SINGH, SUBAHDAR, Rai Bahadur.
The title is personal, and was conferred on 25th March 1880.
Residence. Rewa, Central India.

HIMMAT SINGH (of Katra Balkheda), Thdkur.

The title is hereditary.

Residence. Katra Balkheda, Jabalpur, Central Provinces.

HINDOL, RAJA JANARDAN MARDRAJ JAGDEB, Rdjd of.

A Ruling Chief.

Bom 1855 ; succeeded to the gadi i8th July 1877. The title of Raja
has always been enjoyed by the head of this family since Mahratta
times, and
was formally recognised by Government in 1874. The State was founded
by two brothers named Lakshman Mahratta and Bharat Mahratta, scions
of
the family of the Khemdi Raja in Ganjam. The present Raja, who suc-
ceeded his brother, Raja Fakir Singh Mardraj Jagdeb, is stated to be
twenty-
fifth in succession from them. His father was Raja Ishwar Singh
Mardraj
Jagdeb. The family cognisance is a dagger. The area of the State is
312
miles; its population 33,802, chiefly Hindus. The Raja maintains a
mili-
tary force of 148 infantry and 2 guns. The State is one of the Orissa
Tributary Mahals.

Residence. Hindol, Orissa, Bengal.

HINDUPAT (of Bharrai), Rao Saheb.

Born 1836. The title is hereditary, and was originally conferred on
Rati
Rao, the founder of the family, by the old Mahratta Government of
Deori.
Has two sons Diwan Malkhan Singh and Diwan Gajraj Singh.

Residence. Sdgar, Central Provinces.

HINDUPAT (of Ghat Piparia), Thdkur.

The title is hereditary. The present Thakur is the son of the late
Thakur Orjuri Singh. The family is descended from ancestors who
obtained
the village of Ghat Piparia, with the title of Thakur, from the old
Mahratta
Government of Sagar. ,

Residence. Ghat Piparia, Sa"gar, Central Provinces.

HINDUR (NALAGARH), RAJA ISRI SINGH, Rdjd of.
A Ruling Chief.

Born 1832 ; succeeded to the gadi i6th December 1876. Belongs to a
Rajput (Hindu) family, whose founder was named Aji Singh, and the
present
Raja is twenty-fifth in succession from him. The State was overrun by
the
Gurkhas, but they were expelled by the British forces in 1815-16, and
in
that year the Raja received a sanad confirming him in the possession
of all

his territory except the fort of Malaun, for which the Thdkuri of
Barauli was
substituted. Subsequently, in 1846, the fort was restored to him. The
area
of the State is 249 square miles; its population is 53,373, chiefly
Hindus,
but including 7201 Muhammadans. The Raja maintains a military force
of
375 infantry and 4 guns.

Residence. Hindur, Punjab.

HIBA, RAW AT (of Dewair), Thdkur Rdwat.

The title was conferred on ist January 1877 as a personal distinction,


on
the occasion of the Proclamation of Her Most Gracious Majesty as
Empress
of India.

Residence. Merwara.

HIRA SINGH, Rai Bahadur.

The- title is personal, and was conferred on i6th February 1887, on
the
occasion of the Jubilee of the reign of Her Most Gracious Majesty,
for
eminent official services in the Survey.

Residence. Survey of India.

HIRA SINGH, MAN (of Manawala), Sardar.

The title is hereditary. Belongs to a Man Jat family, descended from
Sardar Sarja Singh, whose grandson, Colonel Budh Singh, Man, served
throughout the Sutlej Campaign, and after its close was sent with the
Sher
Singh brigade to assist the Maharaja Gulab Singh to subdue the
rebellion in
Kashmir. The Colonel rendered excellent service in this campaign; and
also throughout the Multan rebellion (or second Sikh war), in which he
was
severely wounded when fighting gallantly under Major Nicholson against
the
rebels in the Margalla Pass. On the annexation he was rewarded with
extensive lands. On his death he was succeeded by his son, the
present
Sardar.

Residence. Amritsar, Punjab.

HIRA SINGH, SARDAR (of Jamdan), Rdjd.

Born 5th May 1839. The title of Raja was conferred on yth December
1888 as a personal distinction, to mark the appreciation of the
Government
of the Sardar's exertions for the improvement of agriculture in Oudh.
Is the
son of Sardar Bahadur Jai Singh, of the Gondon Khatri Sikh family of
Jamdan, who was an officer in the army of the Maharaja Ranjit Singh
of
Lahore ; was subsequently appointed by Lord Lawrence to the ist
Sikhs.
For his gallant conduct and loyalty during the Mutiny of 1857 he was
made
a Sardar Bahadur; and in 1858 was rewarded with a large grant of
lands.
He died in November 1865, and was succeeded by his son, the present
Raja, who was himself a distinguished officer in Fane's Horse, and
served
through the Mutiny campaigns and in the China war. Since his
retirement
from the army he has lived for many years on his estates in Oudh,
devoting
himself to their improvement.

Residence. Bahraich, Oudh.

HIRAPUR, RAO CHHATAR SINGH, Rao of.
A Ruling Chief.

Born 1821 ; succeeded to the gadi ist May 1841. Belongs to a Rajput
(Hindu) family. The population of the State is 963, chiefly Hindus.
Residence. Hirapur, Bhopdl, Central India.

HITTU RAM, C.I.B., Rai Bahadur.

Born 1842. Has long been a distinguished political officer on the
frontier of Baluchistan and Afghanistan, having entered the service in
1859,
when he received a reward for preparing a " History of Dera Ghazi
Khan
District and Frontier." Appointed to special duty for Kalat in 1875 ;
accompanied Sir Robert Sandeman on two missions to Kalat, and
received
a khilat in 1877 for his services thereon, also the title of Rai.
Appointed
Extra Assistant Commissioner of the Punjab in 1879; and in same year
received a khilat at the Kalat Darbar, and was placed in charge of
Sibi
district. Received the title of Rai Bahadur as a personal distinction,
2oth
April 1 88 1, having served in the Political Department throughout the
Afghan
war of 1 880-8 1, with medal. In the same year he received a jdgir,
and in
1882 was created a Companion of the Most Eminent Order of the Indian
Empire. Was in charge of arrangements for supplies, etc., for the
Afghan
Boundary Commission, 1884, across the Baluch Desert; and received
thanks
of Government for the same. Was on special duty in the Bolan Pass, in
the
military preparations for the expected outbreak of hostilities between
England
and Russia, March 1884 to November 1885. Deputed to hold charge of
Las Bela State on the death of the Jam in 1889, pending installation
of
successor; and was on special duty with Sir R. Sandeman in 1889-91,
and
specially commended.

Residence. Sibi, Baluchistan.

HLAING, MAUNG- (Shwedabo of Baw), Thuye-gaung Ngweda

ya Min.

The title is personal, and was conferred on ist June 1888. It means
" Recipient of the Silver Sword for Bravery," and is indicated by the
letters
T.D.M. after the name.

Residence. Shan State of Baw, Burma. -

HLB, MAUNG, Ahmiidan gaung Tazeik-ya Min.

The title is personal, and was conferred on ist January 1889. It
means

"Recipient of the Medal of Honour for Good Service," and is indicated
by


the letters A.T.M. after the name.

Residence. Maulmein, Burma.

HMB, MAUNG, Kyet Thaye zaung shwe Sahue ya Min.

The title is personal, and was conferred on i6th February 1887, on
the
occasion of the Jubilee of Her Most Gracious Majesty's reign. It


means
" Recipient of the Gold Chain of Honour," and is indicated by the
letters
K.S.M. after the name.

Residence. Prome, Burma.

HOLKAR, His Highness the Maharaja Bahadur (of Indore}. See Indore.

HOPON, KUN WARA, Myoza of.
A Ruling Chief.

The area of the State, which is one of the Shan States on the frontier
of
Burma, is about 400 square miles.
Residence. Hopon, Burma.

HORMASJI ADARJI PATBL, Khan Bahadur.
The title is personal, and was conferred on ist June 1888.
Residence. Surat, Bombay.

HOSHANGJI JAMASPJI, DASTUR, Khan Bahadur, Shams-ul-Ulama.

These titles are personal; the first was conferred on ist January
1878,
and the second on ist January 1890. The title of Shams-ul-Ulama
entitles
the Khan Bahadur who is also a " Dastur " or High Priest of the Parsis
of
the Deccan to take rank in Darbar immediately after titular Nawabs.
The
Dastur Jamaspassa family are descended from Assaji. The last Dastur
of that family, the Dastur Nasarwanji Jamaspji, Khan Bahadur,
rendered
valuable services to Government during the time of the Mutiny; and
received the title of Khan Bahadur as a reward for them in 1868. The
title of Shams-ul-Ulama was conferred on Dastur Hoshangji Jamaspji in
recognition of .his eminence in oriental learning.

Residence. Poona, Bombay.

HUSAIN walad SHAIKH MADAR, SHAIKH, Khan Bahadur.
The title is personal, and was conferred on ist June 1888.
Residence. Belgaum, Bombay.

HUSAIN BAKHSH walad GHULAM HAIDAR KHAN, Mir.

The title is hereditary, the Mir being a representative of one of the


Mirs
or Chiefs of Sind at the time of the annexation.
Residence. Sind.

HUSSAN. See Hasan.
HUTWA, Maharaja Bahadur of. See Hatwa.

Listed Alphabetically. More to follow...

...and I am Sid Harth


Sid Harth

unread,
Feb 4, 2010, 1:10:30 PM2/4/10
to
HYDERABAD (or, The Deccan), His Highness the Nizam of, G. C.S.I.
A Ruling Chief, and the Premier Prince of the Indian Empire.

Born 1 8th August 1866; succeeded to the masnad as a minor, on the
death of his father, His late Highness the Nizam Afzul-ud-daula, 26th
^February 1869.

The Nizam's full titles are His
Highness Asaf Jah, Muzaffar-ul-
Mamalik, Rustam-i-Dauran, Arastu-i-
Zaman, Nizam-ul-Mulk, Nizam -ud-
daula, Nawab Mir Sir Mahbub AH
Khan Bahadur, Fath Jang, Knight
Grand Commander of the Most
Exalted Order of the Star of India.
Belongs to a family of the highest
antiquity and importance among
Muhammadan rulers, being lineally
descended from the first Khalif,
Abu Bakr, the successor of the
Prophet. His descendant, after a
long line of intervening generations,
was the Turkoman Chief named

Ghazi-ud-din, one of the greatest of the Generals of the Emperor
Aurangzeb,
who was the hero of the capture of Bijapur in 1686 A.D. ; he was
largely concerned in the overthrow both of that kingdom and of the
Golkonda dynasty, and in the establishment of the Mughal power in
the Deccan, which then became a subah (or province) of the Mughal
Empire of Delhi. His son and successor was Chin Kulij Khan, 1
better known as the great Asaf Jah, the real founder of the Hyderabad
dynasty. He was bom in 1644; and in 1713 was appointed Subahddr or
Viceroy of the Deccan by the Emperor Farukh Siyar, with the title of
Nizam-
ul-Mulk (Administrator of the Country), which has ever since been
retained
by his descendants. He reigned till 1748, attaining the great age of
104;
and throughout this lengthened career, with occasional vicissitudes of
fortune,

1 Ktilij or Qulij sometimes spelt Chillich is the Turki word for
sword ; and Kulij
Khan, as a title, bears the same meaning as the Persian Shamsher Khan.
On the title of
Asaf Jah, subsequently borne by the Nawab Chin Kulij Khan and his
descendants, the
learned Professor Blochmann gives this note : " Asaf was the name of
the Vazir of Solomon,
who like his master is proverbial in the East for wisdom. During the
reign of Akbar three
grandees received this title. Badaoni, to avoid confusion, numbers
them Asaf Khan I., II.,
and III. . . . Jahangir conferred the title of Asaf Khan (IV.) on Abul
Hasan, elder brother
of the Empress Nur Jahan, and father of the Empress Mumtaz Mahal (or
Taj Bibi, Shah-
jahan's wife), whose mother was a daughter of Asaf Khan II. During the
reign of Shahjahan,
when titles containing the word Dauld were revived, Asaf Khan was
changed to Asaf-ud-
dauld ; and this title was conferred on Asaf-ud-daula Jumlat-ul-Mulk
Asad Jang, a relation
of Asaf Khan IV. Under Ahmad Shah, lastly, we find Asaf-ud-daula Amir-
ul-Mamalik,
whose name, like that of his father, Nizam-ul-Mulk Asaf Jah, occurs so
often in later Indian
history."

As the ancient titles of the Mughal Empire are retained among the
nobles of the Deccan,
and are still conferred by His Highness the Nizam, it may here be
noted that in ascending
order they contain the words Jang, Dauld, Mulk, and Umara or Jah.
Titles containing
the words Jah or Umara may be compared with English Dukes or
Marquesses ; those con-
taining Mttlk with English Earls ; those containing Dauld with
Viscounts ; and those
containingya7Z- with Barons.
he continually increased his power during the days of the declining
vigour of
the Mughal Empire.

The dynasty, thus established as the greatest native Power in the
Indian
Peninsula, has been almost uniformly closely attached to the British
Power in
India, and has consequently obtained from English writers the style of
" Our
faithfully ally the Nizam." At all the most critical periods in the
history of
the Indian Empire in the Mysore wars, in the Mahratta wars, during
the
Mutiny of 1857, and recently when Russian invasion seemed probable
the
Nizam of the day has always rendered invaluable help.

Of Asaf Jah, the founder of the dynasty, an English writer thus
speaks :

" Content, however, with actual sovereignty, he never assumed its
title and
insignia. The family, indeed, to the last professed subordination to
the Court of
Delhi, and the Nizam's successors continued to be formally confirmed
by mandates
from the Mogul Emperors. The immunity enjoyed by Nizam-ool-Moolk, in
a
practical surrender of the Deccan to his rule, appears to have been
merely due
to his essential importance as the only available check to the growing
power and
harassing incursions of the Mahrattas a constant source of disturbance
and
alarm to his titular master. The evening of his eventful life, whose
span is said
to have exceeded a century, was spent by the first Nizam with singular
retention
of extraordinary physical and mental faculties, in his so strangely
gained prin-
cipality, when death closed in 1748 a career remarkable and prominent
in a
stirring and productive time. Impartial estimates of his character can
hardly be-
grudge his descendants a pride in the founder of their name and
renown, for his
politic compass and tenacious hold of independent power were unstained
by
treachery or cruelty, and the later annals of the family are similarly
clear of the
grosser incidents of conquests. He left them, too, an example of
equanimity
undaunted in adversity and superior to elation by success." 1

After the death of the aged Nizam-ul-Mulk the throne of the Deccan
was long and fiercely contended for, with varying fortunes, by his
grandson
Muzaffar Jang, and his sons (uncles of Muzaffar Jang), known as Ghazi-
ud-din,
Nasir Jang, Salabat Jang, and Nizam Ali. Involved in these wars were
also
the English and French forces in the Carnatic, and the armies of the
Mahrattas
and of the Nawabs of Arcot. It was the Nizam Salabat Jang who finally
adopted the city of Hyderabad, on the river Musi, as his capital ; its
ancient
name was Bhagnagar, and it had been founded in 1585 by Muhammad Kutb
Shah, King of Golkonda. In 1761 Salabat Jang was dethroned by his
brother Nizam Ali, who put him to death in 1763, and reigned till
1803
playing a prominent part during the whole of that period in the
incessant
wars with the English, the Mahrattas, and the Sultans of Mysore,
Haidar and
Tippu. The first treaty between the British Power and the Nizam was
con-
cluded in 1766, followed by great and permanent treaties in 1798 and
1800.
In accordance with these engagements, after the defeats of the
Mahrattas at
Laswari and Assaye, the Nizam received large accessions of territory,
including
the great and rich province of Berar ; and similarly after the
conquest of
Tippu the Nizam shared in the division of territory. Nizam Ali died
in
1803, and was succeeded by his son, the Nizam Sikandar Jah, who was
served in turn by three famous Prime Ministers, Mir Alam, Munir-ul-
Mulk,

1 Quoted in the learned and voluminous History of Hyderabad Affairs,
compiled for
private circulation in 1883 by the Maulavi Sayyid Mehdi Ali, Nawab
Mohsin-ul-Mulk,
Secretary to the Government of His Highness the Nizam.
and the Raja Chandu Lai. In 1829 Sikandar Jah was succeeded by his
son, the Nizam Nasir-ud-daula, who reigned till 1857. He had no great
liking for affairs of State, which he left largely to the care of his
Prime
Minister, the Nawab Suraj-ul-Mulk, who died in 1853, when the Nizam
appointed his nephew, the well-known Sir Salar Jang, to succeed him in
the
office of Minister. Nasir-ud-daula is described as having " a gracious
dis-
position to private charity, and with much bountiful kindness to his
de-
pendants." He died in May 1857, just before the outbreak of the
Mutiny,
and was succeeded by His late Highness the Nizam Afzul-ud-daula,
father of
the present Nizam.

The loyalty of the late Nizam and his troops during the crisis of
1857
has been well commemorated by an English writer in the following
words :

"When, on the I7th of July in that memorable year, after a frantic
pro-
mulgation of Jihad or Holy War on the part of the indigenous
Muhammadans of
both Southern and Northern India, the Rohillas attacked the Residency,
and
were repulsed by troops under the command of the late Colonel Briggs,
had the
Nizam, untried as he then was, aided the movement, or even openly
avowed
sympathy with the mutineers, there can be no doubt that any success at
Hydera-
bad would have proved a signal for revolt to the bigoted and fanatic
Muhammadan
population, not only there, but in all Central, Western, and Southern
India,
and that our terrible straits elsewhere would have been multiplied and
sorely
aggravated. For we had at the time but one European corps at
Secunderabad,
the military station, and camped at Trimulgherry, about two miles from
the
central arsenal, which must have been left in the charge of native
soldiers if
attacked from the capital. . . . But the Nizam was firm in his
alliance, attracting
to our side all that was respectable in his Court and capital. The
traditions of
the family also, and old memories of rescue from the Mahrattas, were
with us,
and not inefficacious in our hour of need.

"And now for the behaviour of the Hyderabad contingent. In this
force,
recollect, are thousands of the same caste as those whose relatives
elsewhere were
murdering their officers, or marching towards the Mogul standard at
Delhi.
From these came emissaries, not only to their brethren of the
contingent, with
letters and personal entreaties to join, but to the Court itself. The
greater
portion of the contingent was presently ordered into the .field, and a
brigade of
all arms was pushed into Central India, where they fought, under Sir
Hugh Rose,
with bravery and endurance unsurpassed by any corps in the Service.
With only
eighteen hours' warning, i.e. receiving their orders at seven in the
morning, and
starting at midnight of the same day, these troops took the field, and
were absent
from their homes for fifteen months, remaining the whole of that time
under
canvas, leaving their own fertile plain of the Deccan behind them,
until, after
fighting their way inch by inch, they bathed in the holy river at
Calpee, after a
signal victory obtained over the rebels at that place. Instancing a
few of their
exploits, I may mention that at Mehidpoor, the seat of former triumph
to the
contingent, when they formed a part of Sir John Malcolm's army in
1817, they
arrived, after a forced march of sixty miles, in time to rescue an
English lady ;
and finding that the enemy, consisting of the Mehidpoor contingent and
the
escaped garrison of Dhar, had made away with the Mehidpoor battery
and
arsenal stores, they immediately, after despatching Mrs. Timmins to
the camp of
the Bombay column, rattled off in pursuit, the enemy having got
several hours'
start of them. They overtook the rascals late in the afternoon, about
twelve
miles distant from Mehidpoor, charged, and captured both battery and
stores,
cutting up a large number of mutineers, and severing at a blow, from
the enemy,
most important means of offence and defence, which a week later would
assuredly
have been in position and used against us when the great battle, which
lasted
throughout four days, was fought at Mundessoor. The troops, especially
the
native portion, lived almost entirely on parched grain collected from
the fields in
the neighbourhood, and immediately submitted to the process of hand
manipula-
tion over the fire. It is not my intention to trace here the further
exploits of the
Hyderabad contingent troops, beyond noticing the fact of their rapid
journeys in
advance of the main columns they accompanied, returning only to
headquarters
when a general action was to be fought. On the thousands of miles
marched by
the cavalry of this force, accompanied often by the infantry and
artillery, I need
not dwell. Sir Hugh Rose termed these troops 'the wings of my army.'
With
the restoration of peace came full time for recognising the Nizam's
fidelity and
active aid. Presents to the value of ,10,000 were made to His
Highness, and
the Star of India was conferred on him. The territory transferred in
'53 to our
management was now yielding more than the requisite revenue, and a new
arrange-
ment was accordingly proposed, under which, in 1860, districts of the
value of
13 lacs were restored to the Nizam, together with a transfer of the
principality
of Shorapoor, whose Rajah had been seduced into the rebellion of the
Southern
Mahratta country. This acquisition affords an annual surplus of ,
15,000. We
also remitted the entire debt."

The Nizam Afzul-ud-daula, G. C.S.I., died in 1869, and was succeeded
by his son, the present Nizam, who has followed all the best
traditions of his
ancestors, and has demonstrated his attachment to the Empire in even
more
striking fashion. In 1885 he offered to send troops to aid the
Government
in Egypt ; and in the same year, when there was a menace of Russian
aggression on the Afghan frontier, he repeated the generous offer. But
it
was in 1887, in the year of the Jubilee of Her Most Gracious
Majesty's
reign, that His Highness gave the most signal proof of his princely
loyalty.
In August of that year His Highness wrote the following most
remarkable
and patriotic letter to the Viceroy of India :

" HYDERABAD, August 26.

11 MY FRIEND, No inhabitant can be indifferent to the persistent
advance
of another great military power towards India ; to the necessity that
exists for
putting the frontier in a proper state of defence ; and to the burden
it imposes
on those charged with its safety and the care of the Empire. All who
have the
welfare of India at heart are bound to consider what should be done,
and to
show they are heartily in sympathy with those who are endeavouring to
place
the frontier in a proper state of defence, so as to ward off all
danger from our
hearths and homes. The Princes of India have not been blind to the
movement
of events. We realise the financial responsibility the present state
of affairs
imposes on the Indian Exchequer. It seems to me that the time has
arrived for
showing in some open manner that India is united on this question, and
for that
reason I write now to spontaneously offer to the Imperial Government a
con-
tribution from the Hyderabad State of twenty lakhs annually for three
years, for
the exclusive purpose of Indian frontier defence. This is my offer in
time of
peace. At a later stage you can count upon my sword. Your sincere
friend,

" MIR MAHBUB ALI KHAN."

The effect of this letter on public opinion throughout the world was
very
great. Her Most Gracious Majesty the Queen Empress was pleased to
express her warm appreciation of the loyal action of His Highness in
the
following letter, by His Excellency the Viceroy's hand :

"SIMLA, October*].

" MY FRIEND, I have received from Colonel Marshall your letter of the
26th of August, and send this reply by his hands. It is difficult for
me to
express in fitting terms my sense of the ready loyalty and goodwill
which have
prompted your Highness to come forward at this time with so generous
an offer,
emanating as its does from the head of one of the largest and most
important
States in India. It is indeed a striking proof of the friendly
feelings entertained
towards Her Majesty and -the British Government by the Princes of the
Empire ;
and I had the greatest satisfaction in acquainting the Queen Empress
with the
contents of your Highness's kharita. There is no doubt that the
advance of a
great military power towards the borders of India has imposed on the
Govern-
ment the obligation of taking those precautions for the defence of our
frontier
which are adopted by all nations on becoming conterminous with each
other, no
matter how friendly their existing relations. This duty undoubtedly
has con-
siderably added, and will continue to add for some time, to the
expenditure of
the Government of India ; and it is a convincing proof both of your
Highness's
statesmanlike capacity as well as of your generosity that you should
have been
the first among the Princes of India to recognise the principle that
the Native
States are as much interested as the rest of the Indian population in
assisting
the Government to take whatever measures may be necessary to preserve
the
borders of the Empire from any dangers which may arise from external
com-
plications. Again thanking your Highness in the name of my Government,
as
well as in the name of Her Majesty and the Government of England, for
the
noble example which you have set, I remain, my friend, yours
sincerely,

" DUFFERIN."

And the appreciation of the people of England of the friendly action
of
the First Prince of the Indian Empire was aptly expressed in the
following
leading article in the Times :

" This is an intimation, which no one can misinterpret, that the great
Native
Courts, who are outside the red line of British administration, have
been alive to
the incessant encroachments of Russia in the direction of India, and
now per-
ceive that this advance constitutes a danger for them as well as for
us. We
believe that feeling is shared by every potentate, great or small,
from Travancore
to Cashmere, yet it has remained voiceless, not for want of will, but
rather of
knowledge as to how and when to speak. With remarkable acumen the
Nizam
has not only seen that the time has come, but he has chosen the very
best and
the most original mode of giving vent to the pent-up feeling of a
large section of
the Indian population. In time of war and invasion, or, indeed, of any
military
operations beyond the frontier, the rulers of the Native States would
be com-
pelled to play a certain part, and we should receive, as we have
received before,
the offer of their military contingents. But we are fortunately not in
any immi-
nent risk of war or invasion, although we have sanctioned an
expenditure of some
ten millions sterling on frontier defence, and it is this which makes
the Nizam's
princely gift all the more gratifying and significant. There is
absolutely no prece-
dent in Indian history for the Nizam taking this step in time of
peace, nor, indeed,
for any Native Court admitting the least responsibility in regard to
the financial
embarrassments of the Central Government, even if caused by
expenditure on
objects from which that Court derives a direct benefit. The action of
the Nizam,
magnificent in itself, is enhanced by all the attendant circumstances.
It is quite
unexpected, the step having been taken by the Nizam entirely on his
own
initiative. . . . W T e can assure His Highness that his generous
friendship will
wake a responsive feeling in the breasts of the British people, not
merely for the
noble proportions of his contribution to frontier defence, but for the
loyal feelings
which inspired him to place on unmistakable record before the world
the unanimity
of opinion in India on the subjects of English rule and Russian
aggression.
The Nizam's act cannot fail to arouse our enthusiasm at the same time
that it
furnishes a unique compliment to our authority and power.

" The impression produced by the Nizam's letter will not be limited to
India
or this country, although its full effect will be felt most in the
Peninsula of
Hindostan, where the ruler of Hyderabad speaks as the great political
chief
among the fifty million Mahomedans of the Empire. The great service
which
he has rendered our Government and cause is that, at a moment when
even the
suspicion of compulsion could not exist, he has come forward with the
frank
declaration that in his opinion every ruler and native of India has a
common
interest in the security of the country against external attack. In
doing this he
has not only committed his own person and dynasty to a policy of
implacable
hostility to a foreign invader, but he has set all the feudatories of
the Indian
Empire a splendid example. If any other Indian chief had taken this
step the
deed would have been in a personal sense quite as gratifying, but it
would not
have possessed the same political significance. When an Indian
Mahomedan
talks of the secular power of Islam, his expressed thought may be for
the Sultan
as Caliph, but his real conviction is that for him personally the
Nizam is quite
as important a personage. The Nizam has spoken not only * as the
oldest ally
of the English in India,' but as the foremost Mahomedan potentate in
our
quarter of Asia. He is an infinitely greater prince, tested by his
revenue, the
number of his subjects, and his own personal enlightenment and that of
his
Government, than the Ameer of Bokhara, who is termed the Head of Islam
in
Central Asia. . . . The silly stories which those adventurers who wish
to make
a livelihood out of Russian credulity have been circulating about
English oppres-
sion in India, and especially at the expense of Mahomedans, have now
received
the clearest possible refutations at the hands of the most
representative Mahome-
dan prince in the Peninsula. The Nizam's letter is also .important as
putting an
end to all possible ambiguity as to the cordial relations and good
understanding
subsisting between the Central Government and the chief feudatories of
India.
A great deal too much notice has been paid to alleged disaffection at
native
courts and capitals, instigated by outside intriguers ; and the armies
and the
social state of Native States, kept up in conformity with written
treaty, may
perhaps have been scanned with too closely critical an eye under the
sudden
perception of what might be a concealed danger. The Nizam's letter
annihilates
such petty and personal criticism. It is impossible after this to
suspect Hydera-
bad of being less staunch in the cause of defending India than
ourselves ; and
when the greatest and most powerful of Indian States is thus outspoken
we may
feel sure that the rest will not lag far behind. The Nizam has been
good
enough to take the most effectual steps to shatter the pleasing belief
of Russian
commanders and some Continental critics, that when the Czar's armies
move
towards the Indus the discontented princes and peoples, alienated by
the greed
and tyranny of England, will rise to welcome them as deliverers, so
that the
contest will be virtually over before the first shot is fired. . . .
The present
Nizam has bettered his predecessor's example. He has anticipated the
crisis
which may be before that country, and he declares in the most emphatic
and
unequivocal manner that if the fatal hour comes he will be with us,
and that
' England can count on his sword.' This we never doubted, but what is
as
surprising as it is welcome is that he has discovered the very best
way to convince
the world that his words are sincere, and not mere lip service. It
would be
futile to talk of making the Nizam some adequate return, for there is
no repaying
such generosity and cordiality as he has shown. But we cannot do less
than
admit that he acquires an additional claim on our confidence and
consideration
by conferring an inestimable service on the whole of the Empire, and
one which
no one but he, as the first of Indian princes, and the greatest
magnate in alliance
with the Crown, could have rendered with the same effect. British
politicians
can learn from his action the moral that British authority in India is
both
popular and useful, and at the same time that the menace from Russia
is
regarded by the responsible representatives of the Peninsula as a real
and
growing danger. In the union of those who will suffer from it is to be
found
absolute security, both now and in the future, and the Nizam has shown
that
this union exists."

In November 1892 the Marquess of Lansdowne visited His Highness's
capital in State, as Viceroy of. India; and was entertained at dinner
by the Nizam, who took the opportunity, when proposing the health of
his
distinguished guest, to reiterate his sentiments of loyalty and
friendliness
in the following words :

" The historical friendship that has existed between my State and the
British
Government has not been confined to mere mellifluous words, but has
been
tested by deeds deeds in which the best blood of Hyderabad was shed
in
defence of British interests, deeds in which British blood was spilt
in defending
the throne of a faithful ally. This friendship is a most precious
legacy left to me
by my ancestors, which I am not only most anxious to maintain but to
increase
by continuous deeds of loyal amity."

And the speech of the Viceroy reciprocated these sentiments ; the
following
is an extract from it :

" His Highness the Niza"m rules over an area of 100,000 square miles
and a
population of over eleven millions of human beings. It is perhaps
instructive, in
order to give a correct idea of the importance of the State, to recall
the fact that
its population is about five times that of Denmark, considerably more
than double
the population of the Netherlands, of Norway, Sweden, and of Turkey in
Europe,
while it is also considerably more than double that of the great
island Continent of
Australia and of that vast Dominion of Canada in which I had for some
years the
honour of representing Her Majesty. His Highness's territories
comprise some
of the richest in natural resources of any in India, and it is not too
much to say
that given a Government founded upon justice and personal security,
there is no
reason why the State should not be what His Highness, I am sure,
desires it to
be, an example to the rest. And I may add that there is no ruler whom,
upon
personal grounds, the Government of India is more desirous of
supporting and
encouraging in the discharge of his onerous duties than His Highness
the Nizdm.

" I have had the advantage of meeting several of those who have had
official
relations with him, and they are all agreed in bearing witness to the
personal
qualities which have attracted to him the sympathy and goodwill of
those with
whom he has been brought into contact. It is satisfactory to know that
he has
on more than one occasion shown by his acts that he is sincerely
anxious to do
his duty as the ruler of this important State. I may refer in
illustration of my
meaning to the liberality with which the support of the State has been
given to
such useful measures as the improvement of the water-supply of
Secunderabad,
and to the public spirit shown by His Highness in connection with the
appoint-
ment of the Chloroform Commission, ably presided over by Surgeon-
Lieutenant-
Colonel Lawrie an enquiry which has already produced scientific
results of
importance, and which shows that His Highness is prepared to recognise
the
claims of a philanthropy transcending the limits of his own
possessions."

The progress of the State of Hyderabad under the rule of this brave
and
patriotic Prince has been most surprising, and is evident in every
department
of public affairs. In communication and means of locomotion, in
education,
in sanitation, in the administration of justice, police, and prisons,
in finance,
in revenue-administration and surveys, and in every other department,
the
most thorough reforms have been attempted with marked success. The
recent increase in trade and manufactures cotton-spinning, cloth and
silk
weaving, shawl-making and the like has been most marked. It is not
too
much to say that the Nizam is idolised by his people ; on the occasion
of his
serious illness in 1884, the prayers in all the mosques, and the
public
anxiety throughout the State, reminded fvery one of the feeling evoked
in
England by the illness of the Prince of Wales. The Nizam has had the
advantage of being served by many of the ablest and most experienced
and
successful Statesmen that India has produced, among whom the most
prominent have been the late Sir Salar Jang, the late Shams-ul-Umara,
and
the living members of the great Shamsiya family Sir Asman Jah, Sir
Khurshid Jah, and the Vikar-ul-Umara. And to these may be added the
Nawab Safdar Jang, Mushir-ud-daula, Fakhr-ul-Mulk Bahadur, Minister
of
Justice ; the Nawab Shahab Jang, Mukhtar-ud-daula Bahadur, Minister
of
Police ; the Nawab Nizam Yar Jang, Hasim-ul-Mulk, Khan-i-Khanan,
Minister
of the Miscellaneous Department ; and the Nawab Asaf Yar-ud-daula,
Asaf
Yar-ul-Mulk Bahadur, Member of Council. And among the Ministers who
have successfully administered the important Departments of State
under the
Council may be mentioned the Nawab Mehdi AH (Mohsin-ul-Mulk), the
Nawab Mushtak Husain (Vikar-ul-Mulk), the Nawab Mehdi Hasan (Fateh
Nawaz Jang), the Nawab Sayyid Husain AH Bilgrami (Imad-ul-Mulk), the
Nawab Chiragh AH (Azam Yar Jang), and the Sardar Diler Jang (Diler-
ud-
daula). By the aid of these Ministers His Highness has developed his
State by a great railway which he opened in person on the 3rd of
April
1886; he has established an extensive system of public instruction,
based
on the most perfect models, both for elementary and for secondary
education ;
he has purified the administration of justice, and put it on a par
with that in
British India ; he has repaired the neglect of centuries in the
maintenance
and construction of tanks and wells, and in the sanitation of the
great cities
of the State, and especially in the capital. He has introduced and
largely
carried out a scientific system of Revenue Survey, and safeguarded the
rights
of the poorer cultivators. The great central jail of Hyderabad,
although it
contains some of the most desperate criminals in India, is admirably
arranged
and administered, and is becoming a valuable centre for jail-
manufactures.
His Highness has cared for the medical wants of his female subjects
by
employing lady-doctors, establishing schools for the training of
nurses, and by
many similar benefactions. Some of the sons of the Hyderabad nobles
are
sent to England, at the cost of the State, to be educated. The Nizam
has
also established a system of famine-relief, for use in time of famine,
based
on the Report of Sir James Caird's Famine Commission, that may be
compared with that of British India. In every way the progress
attained,
especially of late, has been most remarkable and gratifying.

His Highness's personal staff is at present constituted as follows :
Private
Secretary, the Nawab Imad-iri-Mulk Bahadur ; Military Secretary and
Aides-
de-Camp, the Nawab Mahbub Yar Jang Bahadur, Major the Nawab Afsar
Jang Bahadur, and the Nawab Dawar-ul-Mulk Bahadur ; Surgeon-in-
attendance,
the Nawab Sultan-ul-Hukama.

The family banner of the Nizam is coloured yellow, and it bears in
its
centre a disc, which represents the " Lucky Chapati " of the first
Nizam.
This family cognisance took its origin in the following incident. When
the
first Nizam was departing to the wars in the Deccan, a holy man came
forward to give his benediction to the hero of the faith, and
presented him
with a chapdti as an emblem of good fortune ; this chapdti the warrior
carried
with him as an amulet through all his successful campaigns, and his
descendants have ever since borne the device called the kulcha on
their
banner.

The Nizam rules his State in a constitutional manner, through the
medium
of a Prime Minister His Excellency Sir Asman Jah, K.C.I.E. with a
Council of State, whose chief member is the Vikar-ul-Umara. His
Highness
has fixed days in the week when he transacts public business with the
Council ; and thrice a week the Prime Minister attends at the Palace,
with
all reports, financial statements, and other documents, thereby
keeping the
Nizam fully informed of the state of public affairs. His Highness is
said to
take a personal interest in all that goes on ; and indeed, for some
time before
the appointment of the present Prime Minister, he acted as his own
Minister,
with the aid of an English officer lent him by the Viceroy. He is a
keen
sportsman, and a proficient in all manly exercises, especially in that
of tent-
pegging, which is his great amusement, and in which he is very
expert.

The area of the Nizam's dominions including the Berars or Hyderabad
Assigned Districts, which are temporarily administered by the British
Government in trust for him is about 98,000 square miles ; its
population
is nearly 13,000,000, chiefly Hindus, but with over a million
Muhammadans.
It is by far the largest, richest, and most populous of the feudatory
States of
India ; it is three times as large as Bavaria, and more than twice as
populous.
The Nizam maintains a military force of 6228 cavalry, 24,068 infantry,
and
35 guns; exclusive of the Paigah or Household Troops. His Highness is
entitled to a salute of 2 1 guns.

Residence. Hyderabad, Deccan.

IBRAHIM KHAN. See Muhammad Ibrahim Khan.
IBRAHIM SAYYID. See Muhammad Ibrahim, Maulavi, Sayyid.

ICHHRA SINGH, Sarddr.
The title is hereditary.
Residence. Gujrdnwdla, Punjab.

IDAR, HIS HIGHNESS MAHARAJA SRI SIR KESRISINGHJI
JAWANSINGHJI, K.C.S.L, Maharaja of.

A Ruling Chief.

Born 1864; succeeded to the gadi 26th December 1868. Belongs to
the great Rahtor Rajput (Hindu) family, said to spring from the second
son
of the legendary hero Rama, and therefore of the Solar race ; of whom
the
principal Chief is His Highness the Maharaja of Jodhpur, and to which
also
belong the Chiefs of Bikanir and Kishangarh in Rajputana, and other
important Princes. In 1729, when the famous Abhai Singh, Rahtor Raja
of Jodhpur, was Subahdar of Gujarat under the Emperor Muhammad Shah,
and his brother Bakht Singh Rahtor was the conqueror of Nagar, two
other
brothers, named Anand Singh Rahtor and Rai Singh Rahtor, established
themselves at Idar by force of arms. The Peshwa and the Gaekwar soon
despoiled the young State ; and the Raja Sheo Singh Rahtor, son of
Anand
Singh, who died in 1791, was compelled to lose part of his
territories, and to
pay tribute to the Gaekwar. This tribute is still paid by the Chief of
Idar,
who in return receives tribute from some other minor States. Sheo
Singh
was succeeded by his son Bhawan Singh, who died shortly afterwards,
leaving
the gadi to a minor son, the Raja Gambhirsinghji. The latter was
succeeded
by the Maharaja Jawansinghji, K.C.S.L, who was a Member of the
Legislative
Council of Bombay, and died in 1888, leaving his son, the present
Maharaja,
as a minor. His Highness was educated at the Rajkumar College at
Indore.
His State has an area of 2500 square miles; and a population of
258,429,
chiefly Hindus, but including 8700 Muhammadans and 6266 Jains. The
Maharaja has obtained a sanad of adoption; and was created a Knight
Commander of the Most Exalted Order of the Star of India on i5th Feb-


ruary 1887, on the occasion of the Jubilee of the reign of Her Most

Gracious Majesty. His Highness maintains a military force of 54
cavalry,
100 infantry, and 21 guns; and is entitled to a salute of 15 guns.

Residence. Idar, Mdhi Kdntha, Bombay.

IJPURA, THAKUR GOBARSINGHJI, Thdkur of.
A Ruling Chief.

Born 1850. Belongs to a Koli (aboriginal) family. His State has a
population of about 392, chiefly Hindus.
Residence. Ijpura, Mahi Kntha.

ILAHI BAKHSH, SHAIKH, Khan Bahadur.


The title is personal, and was conferred on 24th May 1889.
Residence. Ajmir.

ILOL, THAKUR WAKHATSINGHJI DIPSINGHJI, Thdkur of.

A Ruling Chief.

Born 1864; succeeded to the gadi i6th April 1866. Belongs to a Koli
(Hindu) family; was educated at the Rajkumar College, Rajkot. The
State of Ilol is tributary to the Gaekwar, and also to Idar. Its area
is 44
square miles; its population is 5603, chiefly Hindus.

Residence. Ilol, Mdhi Ka"ntha, Bombay.

ILSIFAT HUSAIN, MIR, Khan Bahadur.
The title is personal, and was conferred on 24th May 1889.
Residence. B aroda.

IMAM BAKHSH walad SHER MUHAMMAD KHAN
(of Mirpur), Mir.

The title is hereditary, the Mir being a representative of one of the
Mirs
or Chiefs of Sind at the time of the annexation.

Residence. Hyderabad, Sind.

IMAM BAKHSH (of Raikot), Rai.

Belongs to a Rajput Muhammadan family, that claims descent from the
same stock as that of the ruling house of Jaisalmir. Its founder,
Tulsi Ram,
second son of Raja Dulchi Ram of Jaisalmir, is said to have become a
con-
vert to Islam in the year 1833. His descendants occupied Raikot till
the
death of Rani Bhagbari in 1852, when the territory lapsed to the
British
Government. Rai Imam Bakhsh is a distant relative of the late Rani,
and has
succeeded to her private estate. He has three sons Amir Khan, Fateh
Khan, and Faizulla Khan.

Residence. Raikot, Ludhia'na, Punjab.

IMAM BAKHSH KHAN, BOZDAR, Khan Bahadur.

Born 1834. The title was conferred on loth April 1884 as a personal
distinction, in recognition of his eminent services in the Survey
Department
as an explorer of unknown tracts on the Frontier. He has done
especially
valuable work as an explorer in the Gilgit country, also in Zhob and
the
Ghumal country, and in the Shirani Hills. He has taken part also in
ex-
ploring expeditions to the Vaziri country, to Buner, to Agror,
Kandahar, and
Kabul. He is a Member of the Municipal Committee of Dera Ghazi Khan ;
and has received a khilat and a chair in Darbar from the Government.

Residence. Dera Ghdzi Kha"n, Punjab.

IMAM BAKHSH KHAN walad MUHAMMAD HASAN
KHAN, His Highness.

The title is personal, His Highness being a representative of the
ruling
Chiefs or Mirs of Sind at th time of the annexation.

Residence. Shika" rpur, S ind.

IMAM BAKHSH KHAN, MAZARI, SIR, K.C.I.B., Mir, Nawdb.

The first title (of Mir) is hereditary, the second (of Nawab) is
personal,
and was conferred on 23rd February 1877, i n recognition of his loyal
and
zealous services in Sir R. Sandeman's mission to Kalat. Belongs to a
Mazari
Baluch family that claims descent from Amir Hamza, the uncle of the
Prophet, whose son, Kul Charag, emigrated from Persia to Kalat, and
settled
in Kach and Makran. A descendant, Batil Khan, received the title of
" Mazar," meaning a lion in the Baluch language, on account of his
gallantry
in the battles with the Lashiris, and hence the name of this Baluchi
clan.
Bahrain Khan, the father of Sir Imam Bakhsh, received a sanad from
the
Maharaja Ranjit Singh of Lahore. During the Mutiny of 1857 Sir Imam
Bakhsh gave conspicuous aid to the Government; and was created a
Knight Commander of the Most Eminent Order of the Indian Empire,
24th May 1888. He is an Honorary Magistrate of the first class, and
one
of the most influential and loyal Chiefs on the Baluch frontier. His
eldest
son, named Bahrain Khan, was born in 1857, and has married the
daughter
and only child of his cousin, Sher Muhammad, which marriage ensures
the
Tamanddrshipi or headship of the clan, to Sir Imam Bakhsh's
descendants.

Residence. Dera Ghdzi Kha"n, Punjab.

IMAM SHARIF, Khan Bahadur.

The title is personal, and was conferred on i6th February 1887.
Residence. Survey of India.

IMDAD ALI KHAN walad HASAN ALI KHAN, Mir.

The title is hereditary, the Mir being a representative of the Mirs


or
Chiefs of Sind at the time of the annexation.

Residence. Sind.

IMDAD IMAM, MAUL AVI, SAYYID, Shams-ul-Ulama.

The title was conferred on 24th May 1889 as a personal distinction,
in
recognition of his eminence as an oriental scholar. It entitles him to
take
rank in Darbar after titular Nawabs.

Residence. Patna, Bengal.

INAYAT ALI KHAN walad MIR GHULAM SHAH, Mir.

The title is hereditary, the Mir being a representative of the Mirs


or
Chiefs of Sind at the time of the annexation.

Residence. Shikdrpur, Sind.

INAYAT ALI KHAN, MIRZA, AK Kadr Bahadur.

Is a grandson of the late Muhammad AH Shah, King of Oudh, being the
son of the Nawab Sir Mohsin-ud-daula, K.C.S.I., who married the
King's
daughter. The title, which is a personal distinction, was first
conferred by
King Muhammad Ali Shah in 1839, and was recognised by Government in
1877. Is a trustee of the Husainabad Endowment.

Residence. Lucknow, Oudh.

INAYAT HUSAIN KHAN, MUNSHI, Khan Bahadur.

Born September 1834. Belongs to a Pathan family, and has been in
the service of the Government since 1850. During the Mutiny he
rendered
valuable services at the risk of his own life and property, and for
these he
has been rewarded with a grant, and on 6th June 1885 obtained the
title of
Khan Bahadur as a personal distinction.

Residence. Allahabad, North-Western Provinces.

INAYAT HUSAIN SHAIKH, Khan Bahadur.

The title is personal, and was conferred on 25th November 1870.
Residence. Hyderabad, Deccan.

INAYAT-ULLA KHAN, Khan Bahadur.

The title is personal, and was conferred on i6th February 1887, on
tne

occasion of the Jubilee of the reign of Her Most Gracious Majesty.

Residence. Gwalior, Central India.

INDAR DEO (of Akhrota), Rdjd.

The title is hereditary. The family is of ancient Rajput origin. Its
founder was Raja Ranjit Deo, Raja of Jammu, the son of Raja Darab
Deo,
who was the ancestor of the Maharajas of Jammu and Kashmir. Raja
Indar Dec's grandfather was the ruling Chief at Jammu, who was ejected
by
the Maharaja Ranjit Singh of Lahore when he conquered that territory.
He
is the son of the late Raja Raghbir Deo.

Residence. Akhrota, Pathankot, Gurdaspur, Punjab.

INDAR KUNWAR (of Balrdmpur), Mahdrdni.

The Maharani, being the widow of the late Maharaja Sir Digbijai
Singh, K.C.S.I., of Balrampur, is the largest landowner in Oudh, and
the

guardian of the heir to the Chiefship of
Balrampur, adopted by her. The hereditary
title of Raja dates from the i6th century.
The family is a younger branch of the Janwar
family of Ikauna, in the Bahraich district (see
Narpat Singh, Raja of Gangwal). Madho
Singh, the younger brother of Raja Ganesh
Singh of that family, made some conquests
between the Rapti and Kuana rivers \ and
his son, Balram Singh, founded the town of
Balrampur. Some of his successors, the
Rajas of Balrampur, successfully resisted the
exactions of the Nawabs Vazirs of Oudh.
Raja Newal Singh, who ascended the gadi
in 1777, is one of the most famous warriors
of the line. In 1836 the late Sir Digbijai
Singh, K. C.S.I., then a boy of eighteen,

became Raja. Throughout the Mutiny of 1857 he took the most active
and
conspicuous part on the side of the Government from first to last, and
in
the final campaign aided in driving the rebel leaders across the
frontier into
the Nepal TardL He was one of the five loyal Talukdars specially
mentioned
in Lord Canning's Proclamation of 1858 ; and in 1866 was created a
Knight
Commander of the Most Exalted Order of the Star of India. He was for
some time a Member of the Viceroy's Legislative Council, and enjoyed
a
personal salute of 9 guns, with many other honours and dignities. He
died on the 27th May 1882. The Maharani adopted, as son and heir,
Udit Narayan Singh, a child nearly related to the late Maharaja ; and
in
1883 this adoption was ratified by the Government.

Arms. Argent, on a fesse azure between in chief a sword in bend
surmounted by a matchlock in bend sinister, and in base on a mount a
tiger
couchant, all proper, an Eastern crown between two stars of six points
of the
first. Crest. On a wreath of the colours, upon a trunk of a tree
eradicated
fessewise and sprouting to the dexter, a falcon surmounted by a
rainbow, all
proper. Motto. Fide et Justitid.

Residence. Balrdmpur, Gonda, Oudh.

INDAR NARAYAN, Rat.

Born 1850. The title is hereditary, and was conferred on 5th June
1858. Belongs to a Brahman family of Kashmir. The late Pandit Rai
Kishan Narayan was Settlement Deputy Collector of Sagar in the
Central
Provinces at the time of the Mutiny of 1857, and greatly distinguished
him-
self by his courage and fidelity, which were of the greatest value to
the local
authorities throughout the time of the disturbances. As a reward he
received
the hereditary title of Rai, with a grant of lands. On his death his
son, the
present Rai, who is a Subordinate Judge in the North- Western
Provinces, in-
herited the title and estates. He was educated at Agra, and has two
sons
Brij Narayan and Iqbal Narayan.

Residence. Cawnpur, North-Western Provinces.

INDAR NARAYAN SINGH, Mahdrdj -Kumar.

The title is personal. The Maharaj-Kumar is the son of the late Maha-
raja Gopal Chandra Singh, who obtained the title in 1867, "on account
of
his many acts of public liberality." The Maharaja was the husband of
the
Rani Janaki Kumari, eleventh in descent from Raja Banha Singh, and
owner
of Pargana Sultanabad in the Santal Parganas.

Residence. Maheshpur, Santa"! Pargands, Bengal.

INDORB, HIS HIGHNESS MAHARAJ-ADHIRAJ SHIVAJI
RAO HOLKAR, BAHADUR, G.C.S.I., Maharaja of.

A Ruling Chief.

Born 1860; succeeded to the gadi on i2th July 1886. His Highness's
full titles are His Highness Maharaj-Adhiraj Raj Rajeshwar Sawai Sir
Shivaji Rao Holkar Bahadur, Knight Grand Commander of the Most
Exalted
Order of the Star of India. Holkar is the dynastic name of the Princes
of
this great Mahratta family, who have occupied a very conspicuous place
in
the history of India since the first half of the i8th century. It is
derived
from Hoi, the name of the village on the Nira river in the Deccan,
where,
in 1693, was born Malhar Rao, the founder of the dynasty. It is an
in-
teresting fact in connection with the history of this Principality,
that its
administration has twice, at important periods, been in the hands of
ladies of
the family once, most successfully, in those of the famous Ahalya Bai
(1765-95), and once (less happily) in those of Tulsi Bai (1811-17).
Malhar
Rao adopted a military life in his early youth, and in the year 1724
entered
the service of the Peshwa, from which time his rise was very rapid.
Eight
years later he had become the Commander-in-Chief of the Peshwa's
armies,
had conquered the Imperial Subahdar of Malwa, and had received, from
the
gratitude of the Peshwa, the territory of Indore, with most of the
conquered
territory. He continued to strengthen his position, and at the great
battle of
Panipat, in conjunction with Sindhia (see Gwalior, Maharaja of), he
com-
manded one division of the Mahratta hosts. After that disaster he
retired to
Indore, and devoted himself to the development of this great
Principality,
which he left in 1765 to his grandson, a minor named Mali Rao Holkar,
in
a state of prosperity. The latter died in a few months ; and the
administra-
tion was then assumed by his mother, Ahalya Bai, the daughter-in-law
of the
first Holkar. Aided by her Commander-in-Chief, Tukaji Rao Holkar,
this
clever and courageous lady ruled for thirty years, and left Indore, at
her
death in 1795, in a well-ordered and prosperous condition. Thereon
much
disorder ensued. At last Jeswant Rao Holkar, an illegitimate son of
Tukaji,
amid many vicissitudes of fortune, managed to maintain the position of
the
family. He defeated the combined armies of Sindhia and the Peshwa in
1802, and took possession of the Peshwa's capital of Poona; which,
how-
ever, reverted to the Peshwa by British intervention after the Treaty
of
Bassein in the same year. Again, after the Treaty of Sarji Anjengaon,
war
ensued between Jeswant Rao Holkar and the Paramount Power, with
varying
fortune, till at length, in 1805, Holkar was forced to surrender to
Lord Lake,
and sign a treaty on the banks of the river Bias in the Punjab. He
died in
1811, leaving a minor son, Malhar Rao Holkar; and the administration
was
carried on by Tulsi Bai, one of the concubines of the late Maharaja,
as
Queen Regent. She was murdered in 1 8 1 7 by her own officers ; but
the
Indore army was defeated by the British forces at the battle of
Mehidpur,
and the Treaty of Mandesar followed in 1818, by which Malhar Rao
Holkar
became a feudatory Prince of the British Empire. He died in 1833
with-
out issue. Martand Rao Holkar was adopted as his successor, but was
speedily deposed by his cousin, Hari Rao Holkar. The latter, dying in
1843
without issue, was succeeded by his adopted son, Khandi Rao, who died
in
1844, and was succeeded by adoption by His late Highness the Maharaj-

Adhiraj Tukaji Rao Holkar, father of the present Chief. Tukaji Rao
was
only eleven years old at the date of his accession, and was the second
son of
Bhao Holkar. In 1852 he attained his majority, and was invested with
the
full management of the State. In 1857 the Indore army mutinied, and
besieged the British Resident, Sir Henry Durand, at Indore, who was
ex-
posed to much difficulty and danger in taking off the women and
children to
a place of safety at Bhopal. The Maharaja, however, remained loyal,
and his
rebellious troops soon after were forced to lay down their arms. The
Maha-
raja subsequently received a sanad of adoption, an increased personal
salute,
and the rank of a Knight Grand Commander of the Most Exalted Order of
the Star of India. He died in 1886, and was succeeded by the present
Maharaj-Adhiraj Bahadur. His Highness has visited England, and is
known
as a Prince of great enlightenment and ability. Like his illustrious
father, he
has received the rank of a Knight Grand Commander of the Most Exalted
Order of the Star of India. The area of his State is 8400 square
miles ; its
population about 1,055,000, chiefly Hindus, but including about
73,000
Muhammadans, and 86,000 belonging to various aboriginal tribes. In
size
the State of Indore may be compared with the kingdoms of Saxony or
Wiirtemberg, but is larger than either. In population it may be
compared
with the Grand Duchies of Hesse or Baden, being more populous than
the
former, and less so than the latter. His Highness maintains a military
force
of 3231 cavalry, 6128 infantry, and 65 guns. He is entitled to a
salute of
2 1 guns within the limits of Indore territory, and 1 9 guns
elsewhere.

Residence. Indore, Central India.

INDRA BIKRAMA SINGH (of Raipur Ikdaria, Itaunja), Rdjd.

Born 24th November 1864. The title is hereditary, having been
assumed by Rai Dingar Deo, ancestor of the Raja, and having been
recognised as hereditary by the Government in 1877. Belongs to a
Puar Rajput (Hindu) family, of the Vasishta Gotra or clan ; tracing
their
descent from Deo Ridh Rai, eighth son of Raja Rudra Sah of Dharanagar
or
Deogarh, who took service under the King of Delhi, and obtained from
him
important commands. The Rajas have before their residence a large
square
stone, which they hold in almost sacred reverence. They say that they
brought it from Delhi, and that it is the symbol of their right to the
estates
granted to them by the Emperors of Delhi. The late Raja Jagmohan
Singh
died in 1881, four months after attaining his majority, and was
succeeded by
his brother, the present Raja, then sixteen years old, as a minor
under the Court
of Wards. Educated at Canning College, Lucknow ; attained his
majority,
and received possession of his estate 2nd January 1886.

Residence. Itaunja, Mahona, Lucknow, Oudh.

INGHAR SINGH, Rao Bahadur.

The title is personal, and was conferred on i6th February 1887, on
the
occasion of the Jubilee of the reign of Her Most Gracious Majesty.

Residence. Charkhdri, Central India.

ISHRI PARSHAD TBWARI, Rai.

The title is personal, and was conferred on 2oth May 1890.
Residence. Central Provinces.

ISHRI SINGH (of Nadaun), Mian.

The title is hereditary. Is a near relative of the Raja Amar Chand of
Nadaun (q.vl), and a descendant of the Raja Sir Jodhbir Chand,
K.C.S.I.
Residence. Ka"ngra, Punjab.

ISHWAR DAS, Rai Bahadur, Rdjd Ddyawant.

Born 1 3th June 1826. The titles are personal, and having been con-
ferred by the Nawab of the Carnatic, were recognised by the
Government
1890. His grandfather, the Rah Raja Makhan Lai Bahadur, and his
father,
Rai Raja Tikam Chand Bahadur, both successively held important posts
under the Nawabs of the Carnatic. Belongs to a Kayastha family,
claiming
descent from the famous Chitragupta. Has received the thanks of
Govern-
ment for his public services and his benevolence. His adopted son is
named
Lachmi Das.

Residence. Madras.

ISHWAR DAS, PANDIT, Rai Bahadur.
The title is personal, and was conferred on 24th May 1889.
Residence. Peshdwar, Punjab.

JABBIA BHIL and JABRI, MIAN YUSUF MUHAMMAD,

Midn of.

A Ruling Chief.

Born 1874; succeeded to the gadi loth May 1888 as a minor. Belongs
to a Pindari (Muhammadan) family, descended from Rajan Khan, brother
of
the Pindari leader Chitu. The State is tributary to Gwalior, and
contains a


population of about 1000, chiefly Hindus.

Residence. Jabria Bhil, Bhopdl, Central India.

JADAB CHANDAR BARUA, Rai Bahadur.

The title is personal, and was conferred on 3oth August 1888.
Residence. Nowgong, Assam.

JADU. See Yadu.

JADUNATH DEO (of Aul), Kumar.

Is the son of the late Raja Padmalabh Deo of Aul, who was born in
1830, succeeded to the gadi in 1840, and has recently died. Is
descended
from the ancient Royal family of Orissa. The Maharaja Makund Deo, the
last Maharaja of Orissa, was conquered by the Raja Man Singh (see
Jodhpur)
as Viceroy of the Mughal Emperor towards the close of the 1 6th
century.
When subsequently Ram Chandra Deo, belonging to another family, was
proclaimed Maharaja of Orissa by the headmen of the country, his title
was
disputed by the two surviving sons of Makund Deo, of whom the elder
was
also called Ram Chandra Deo, and the disputes were finally settled by
Raja
Man Singh in 1580 A.D., who appointed Ram Chandra Deo, the son of
Maharaja Makund Deo, to be Raja of Aul, and his . brother to be Raja
of
Sarungar of Patiya, while the other Ram Chandra Deo was made Raja of
Khurda. In 1803 the Raja of Aul acknowledged fealty to the British
Government.

Residence. Aul, Orissa, Bengal.

JADUNATH HALDAfe, Rai Bahadur.

Born 5th April 1832. The title is personal, and was conferred on 24th
May 1889. His great-grandfather was in the service of the Nawab of
Mur-
shidabad in Bengal, and was granted by him the appellation of Haldar,
which
his descendants retain as their family name. After the British
conquest of
Bengal he was appointed Tahsildar of Khas Mahal in Barrackpore.
During
the Mutiny the Rai Bahadur was a prisoner in the hands of the rebels
for
five months, and has subsequently rendered excellent service in the
Police of
the North-Western Provinces.

Residence. Allahabad, North-Western Provinces.

JADUNATH MUKHARJI, Rai Bahadur.

The title is personal, and was conferred on 22nd May 1876, "for
liberality displayed by him in various matters of public progress and
im-
provement." Granted the title of Rai Bahadur, as a personal
distinction,
2nd January 1893.

Residence. Haza*ribagh, Bengal.

JAFAR ALI KHAN, CJ.E.

Was created a Companion of the Most Eminent Order of the Indian

Empire, 25th June 1887. Is an officer in Her Majesty's Army, with the
rank of Risalddr.

Residence. C alcutta.

JAFAR ALI KHAN, Nawdb Bahadur.

The title is personal. Is the grandson of the late Amjad Ali Shah,
King
of Oudh, being the younger son of Nizam-ud-daula, who married a
daughter
of the King.

Residence. Lucknow, Oudh.

JAFARABAD, Chief of . See Janjira.

JAGADINDRA NATH RAI (of Ndtor), Maharaja.

The title is personal, and was conferred on ist January 1877. Belongs
to
a Saritra Brahman family, who were eminent for many generations as
Maha-
rajas of Nator, and at one time owned the greater portion of the
Rajshahi
district. It is stated that the title of Maharaja Bahadur was
conferred on
Ram Jiban Rai by the Emperor of Delhi, and another sanad from Delhi
was
conferred on his grandson, the Maharaja Ram Krishna Rai Bahadur of
Nator. His son was the Maharaja Bisvanath Rai Bahadur of Nator, who
is
said by the family to have been granted a political pension by the
British
Government in 1806. His grandson was the Maharaja Gobindanath Rai
Bahadur of Nator, the (adoptive) father of the present Maharaja.

Residence. Ndtor, Rajshdhi, Bengal.

JAGADISHWAR fcHATTARJI, Rai Bahadur.

Born 1 7th March 1846. The title is personal, and was conferred on
2nd
January 1888, for long and approved service in the Opium Department,
in
which he held an important position. Belongs to a Brahman family of
Bengal.

Residence. Ghdzipur, North-Western Provinces.

JAGANNADHA RAO, VALLURI, Rai Bahadur.
The title is personal, and was conferred on i6th February 1887.
Residence. Vizianagram, Madras.

JAGAT BAHADUR (of Umri), Rdjd.

Born iyth November 1850; succeeded to the gadi 23rd October 1872.
The title is hereditary. Is the senior representative of the ancient
Bilkhari
(Rajput) Chiefs of Fort Bilkhar, the vast ruins of which remain to
this day in
the mauza of Agyapur ; descended from Ghaibar Sah, fourth son of
Jaswant,
and great-grandson of Balbhaddar Dikhit, who built Fort Bilkhar after
the fall of
Kanauj. About 600 years ago one of his descendants, Raja Ram Deo, was
the Bilkharia Chief of Patti and Fort Bilkhar, but was deposed by his
son-in-
law, Bariar Singh Bachgoti (see Madho Prasad Singh, Rai), who slew his
son
Dalpat Sah, and seized the fort, leaving only a few villages to the
descendants
of Raja Ram Deo. The present Raja has a son and heir, named Lai
Krishna Pal Singh.

Residence. Umri, Partdbgarh, Oudh.

JAGAT SINGH, Sarddr Bahddur.
The title is personal.
Residence. Sia"lkot, Punjab.

JAGATPAL BAHADUR SINGH (of Raipur Bichaur), Rai.

The title is hereditary. Is the son of the late Rai Jagmohan Singh
(who
died on Qth April 1886) and of the Thakurain Sultan Kunwar, who now
holds the estate of Raipur Bichaur as the heir of her late husband
(see
Sultan Kunwar, Thakurain). Belongs to the Bachgoti clan of Rajputs
(see
Ranbijai Bahadur Singh, Diwan), and is descended from Hirda Singh of
Patti
Saifabad. In 1818 Rai Pirthipal Singh held the estate, and was
dispossessed
by the Nawab Nazim, but restored after three years.

Residence. Raipur Bichaur, Partdbgarh, Oudh.

JAGJIWANDAS KHUSHALDAS, Rao Bahddur.


The title is personal, and was conferred on ist January 1877.

Residence. Surat, Bombay.

JAGJODH SINGH, Sarddr.

The title is hereditary. Is the son of the late Kunwar Peshawara
Singh
of the Lahore family.

Residences. Sidlkot, Punjab ; and Bahraich, Oudh.

JAGNISHAN SINGH, C.I.E. (of Atra Chandapur), Rdjd.
Born 2ist August 1841; succeeded 1864. The title is hereditary.
Belongs to the great Kanhpuria (Rajput) family (see Surpal Singh
Bahadur, Raja

of Tiloi), being descended from Raja Madan Singh of Simrauta, third
son of
Prasad Singh, who was seventh in descent from Kanh, the Kshatriya
founder
of Kanhpur in the time of the great Manik Chand. The seventh in
descent
from Madan Singh was the Raja Mandhata Singh, who was in possession
of
Chandapur at the time of the conquest of Oudh by Saadat Khan. The
Raja
Shiudarshan Singh had half the estate confiscated at the time of the
Mutiny
in 1857. His grandson, the present Raja, is an Honorary Magistrate,
and
received a Medal of Honour at the Imperial Assemblage at Delhi on ist


January 1877, on the occasion of the Proclamation of Her Most
Gracious

Majesty as Empress of India ; and subsequently for good services he
has
been created a Companion of the Most Eminent Order of the Indian
Empire.
Residence. Chandapur, Rai Bareli, Oudh.

JAHAN KADR MIRZA MUHAMMAD WAHID ALI
BAHADUR, Prince.

The title is personal a courtesy title of the Prince, as a son of the
late
King of Oudh.

Residence. Calcutta, Bengal.

JAHANDAD KHAN (of Khanpur), Rdjd, Khan Bahadur.

The first title (Raja) is hereditary, and the second (Khan Bahadur) is
per-
sonal, and was conferred on 24th May 1 88 1 . Belongs to a family of
the Gakkar
tribe, who overran Kashmir in early times, and were formidable
opponents of
the Emperor Babar. Is the son of Raja Haidar Bakhsh Khan ; has acted
as
Extra Assistant Commissioner of the Punjab. His son and heir is named
Fazaldad.

Residence. H azdra, Punj ab.

JAI CHAND (of Lambagraon), Raja.

Born 1870. The title is hereditary, and was conferred on i2th
December
1851. Belongs to the Katoch family of Rajputs, and is head of the
Kangra
family. Raja Parmad Chand died childless in exile at Almora, and was
succeeded by his relative, Raja Partab Chand, the father of the
present
Raja.

Residence. Kdngra, Punjab.

JAI SINGH (of Guler), Rdjd.

The title is hereditary, and was conferred on 28th February 1878, the
Raja being the brother of the late Raja Shamsher Singh of Guler, and
having
previously enjoyed the hereditary title of Mian. His son and heir is
named
Rughnath Singh. The family is connected with that of His Highness the
Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir by marriage. It is an offshoot of the
families of Kangra and Lambagraon.

Residence. Guler, Kdngra, Punjab.

JAI SINGH (of Siba), Rdjd.

The title is personal, and was conferred on yth August 1878. The Siba
family is an offshoot of the Guler family (see Jai Singh, of Guler,
Raja), which
itself was an offshoot of that of Kangra. Is descended from Sibaru
Chand, a
younger son of the Raja of Guler, who conquered the Siba territory,
calling
it Siba after his own name. Raja Ram Singh, the last of the old
hereditary
Rajas of Siba, died without male issue in 1875. The territory lapsed
to the
Paramount Power, but as an act of favour to His Highness the Maharaja
of
Jammu and Kashmir, who is related to the family by marriage, the
territory
and title was continued to a scion of the family named Raja Bije
Singh. He
died in 1878, and was succeeded by his son, the present Raja.

Residence. Siba, Kdngra, Punjab.

JAIBANS KUNWAR (of Kaithola), Rdni.

Born 1849. The title is hereditary. The Chief of Kaithola is the head
of the great Kanhpuria family (see Surpal Singh and Jagnishan Singh),
being
the representative of Sahas, the eldest son of Kanh. From him a line
of
twenty descents from father to son ends in the late Raja Mahesh Bakhsh
of
Kaithola, who died without male issue in 1881. The estates were under
Government management for some time, and were then handed over to the
present Rani, the widow of the late Raja.

Residence. Parta"bgarh, Oudh.

JAIKISHAN DAS, C.S.I., Raja Bahadur.

Born 24th November 1832. The title is personal, and was conferred
on 1 8th January 1860. Belongs to a family of Chaube Brahmans, who
fled
to Etah from Muttra in the reign of Ala-ud-din Ghori, because they had
slain
the Kazi of Muttra. Chaube Ghansham Das, having long been in Govern-
ment service, and having retired on pension, in 1857 rendered most
valuable
aid to the Government, although blind and infirm; and ultimately was
surprised and slain by the rebels at Kasganj. His brother, the present
Raja"
Jai Kishan Das Bahadur, had loyally supported him, and was rewarded
with
the title and a grant of lands and other honours in 1860. He was
created
a Companion of the Most Exalted Order of the Star of India in 1870. Is
a
Fellow of the Allahabad University, and Deputy Collector of Bareilly.

Residence. Moradabad, North- Western Provinces.

JAIMAL SINGH (of Thalia), Sarddr.
The title is hereditary.
Residence. Jalandhar, Punjab.

JAIPRAKASH LAL, C.I.B., Rai Bahadur.

The title is personal; and was conferred on 3ist August 1881. The
Rai Bahadur was for many years the Diwan of the Dumraon Raj, and
rendered excellent service in that capacity. On 25th May 1892 he was


created a Companion of the Most Eminent Order of the Indian Empire.

Residence, Dumraon, Bengal.

Sid Harth

unread,
Feb 4, 2010, 1:22:52 PM2/4/10
to
JAIPUR, HIS HIGHNESS SIB MADHO SINGH
BAHADUR, G. C.S.I., Maharaja of.

A Ruling Chief.

Born 1 86 1 ; ascended the gadi as a minor i8th September 1880, and
was invested with full governing powers on attaining his majority in
September

1882. Is the Chief of the famous
Kachhwaha tribe of Rajputs, de-
scended from the legendary hero
Rama, and therefore of the Surya-
vansi or Solar race. Tod devotes
a large part of his learned Annals of
Rdjdsthdn to the history of this
family, which, indeed, is no unim-
portant part of the history of India.
Tod says of the ruling family of
Jaipur (otherwise called Amber or
Dhundar) : " A family which traces
its lineage from Rama of Koshala,
Nala of Nishida, and Dola the lover
of Maroni, may be allowed 'the
boast of heraldry'; and in remembrance of this descent, the Cushites
[Kach-
hwaha] of India celebrate with great solemnity the annual feast of the
sun,
on which a stately car, called the Chariot of the Sun, Surya ratha,
drawn by
eight horses, is brought from the temple, and the descendant of
Ramesa,
ascending therein, perambulates his capital."

The full title of the Maharaja is His Highness Saramad-i-Rajaha-i-
Hin-
dustan Raj Rajendra Sri Maharaj-Adhiraj Sawai Sir Madho Singh


Bahadur,
Knight Grand Commander of the Most Exalted Order of the Star of India

(see Introduction, u).

From Rama, the hero of the Rdmdyana, the greatest of the legendary
heroes of India, to Dhola Rao, the founder of the Jaipur State in 967
A.D.,
there are enumerated 34 generations ; and from Dhola Rao to the
present
Maharaja, 106 generations. Early in the nth century a descendant of
Dhola Rao named Hamaji conquered Amber from the Minas, and fixed
his court there; and Amber remained the capital of the dynasty until
the time of Jai Singh II., who transferred it to Jaipur in 1728. In
the
time of the Great Mughal, the Emperor Akbar, Raja Bhagwan Das of
Jaipur was one of the first Princes of the Empire. Overcoming Rajput
pride
of race, he gave his daughter in marriage to the Emperor's son and
heir,
Prince Salim, afterwards the Emperor Jahangir, and was himself one of
the
greatest Imperial commanders. But his adopted son and successor, the
Raja Man Singh, was the most famous of all the Imperial generals. He
and
his Rajputs carried the arms of the Empire successfully into Orissa,
Bengal,
Assam, and Kabul ; the chronicles of the age are full of the exploits
of the
brother-in-law of the Emperor, and he was successively Governor of
Kabul,
Bengal, Behar, and the Deccan. His nephew, the Raja Jai Singh, known
as
the Mirza Raja, was equally famous throughout the wars of Aurangzeb in
the
Deccan ; he it was who effected the capture of the famous Sivaji,
founder of
the Mahratta Power ; and he is said to have fallen a victim to the
jealousy of

the Emperor, who caused his death by poison. Some generations later,
in
the time of the Emperor Muhammad Shah, the second Jai Singh was
famous,
not only as a warrior, but also as an astronomer. He built
observatories at
Jaipur (to which place he removed his capital from the hills of Amber,
five
miles off), Delhi, Benares, Muttra, and Ujjain. After the death of the
Raja
Jai Singh II., the subsequent history of the family is much occupied
with
leagues with Udaipur and Jodhpur against the Imperial Power, with
contests
with Jodhpur for the honour of marrying a Princess of Udaipur, with
Rajput
rivalries and defections, and with Mahratta raids. In order to regain
the
privilege of marrying Princesses of the House of Udaipur which honour
they had forfeited by marrying a daughter to the Mughal Emperor the
Rajas of Jaipur agreed that the issue of a marriage with an Udaipur
Princess
should succeed to the Raj even before an elder brother by another
Rani ;
and this promise, coupled with the rivalry of the Rajas of Jodhpur for
the
same privilege, produced endless troubles and disasters. In the time
of the
Raja Jagat Singh, Amir Khan, the notorious Pindari leader (afterwards
Nawab
of Tonk), sided first with the Raja of Jaipur against Jodhpur, and
then with
the Raja of Jodhpur against Jaipur ; and devastated each country in
turn.
At last, in 1 8 1 8, the British Government intervened ; took the
Jaipur State
under its protection, and the Raja became one of the great
feudatories.

The late Maharaja Sawai Ram Singh succeeded to the gadi in 1835.
He rendered excellent service throughout the Mutiny of 1857, and again
in
the famine of 1868. As a reward, he twice received an increase to his
salute'; he was created a Knight Grand Commander of the Most Exalted
Order of the Star of India ; and on the occasion of the Imperial
Assemblage
at Delhi, on the Proclamation of Her Most Gracious Majesty as Empress
of
India, he was appointed a Councillor of the Empire, and received a
suitable
addition to his titles and territory. The banner of His Highness that
was
unfurled at Delhi on that auspicious occasion was exceedingly
interesting, as
showing the close approximation of Rajput and European heraldic
devices ;
for the Rajput Pancharanga was properly rendered as " A Barry of 5
gules,
vert, argent, azure, or " ; and the solar lineage of the Kachhwaha
Prince was
indicated by the device "In chief a Sun in its splendour." The late
Maharaja died in 1880; and was succeeded by his adopted son, a scion
of
the Kachhwaha race, the present Maharaja.

The area of the State is 14,465 square miles; and its population
2,534,357, chiefly Hindus, but including more than 170,000
Muhammadans
and nearly 50,000 Jains. Jaipur is therefore larger than either
Holland or
Belgium, and more populous than Greece. The Maharaja maintains a
military force of 3578 cavalry, 16,099 infantry, and 281 guns; and is
entitled to a salute of 19 guns (including 2 guns personal). There
are
many Rajput Chiefs who are feudatories of His Highness.

Arms. Barry of 5, gules, vert, argent, azure, or; in chief a Sun in
its
splendour. Crest. A kuchnar tree proper, bearing cinquefoils argent.
Sup-
porters. A tiger and a white horse. Motto. " Jato Dharma Stato Jayo."

Residence. Jaipur, Rdjputdna.

JAISALMIR, HIS HIGHNESS MAHARAWAL SALIVAHAN
BAHADUR, Mahdrdwal of.

A Ruling Chief.

Born 1886; succeeded to the gadi as a minor i2th April 1891. Is the
Chief of the Jadu Bhatti Rajputs, claiming direct descent from the
divine
Krishna, and undoubtedly boasting a lineage hardly less ancient than
that of
the great Maharana of Udaipur himself. The tribe takes its name from
Bhati, who was its leader in very remote ages, when settled in the
Punjab ;
whence it appears to have been driven by conquerors from Ghazni, and
to
have gone to the oasis of the Great Indian Desert, which it has ever
since
inhabited. Deoraj, born in 836 A.D., was the first to take the title
of Rawal,
and he founded the city of Deorawal. One of his descendants, the
Rawal
Jaisal, founded the city of Jaisalmir, and built a strong fort there,
about the
year 1156 A.D. More than a century later, when Mulraj II. was Rawal,
Jaisalmir was captured and sacked by the Moslem troops of the Emperor
Ala-ud-din, in 1294 A.D., after a siege that had lasted eight years;
and this
was the occasion of one of the great Sakas so famous in Rajput
history
when Mulraj and his warriors, having slain all their women and
children,
cased themselves in armour, put on the saffron robe, bound the mor or
nuptial crown on their heads, and then sword in hand sallied forth to
die
amid the slaughtered heaps of the foe. Again a similar disaster befell
the
city in 1306 A.D., not long after it had been repaired by the Rawal
Dudu.
Finally, in the reign of the Rawal Sabal Singh, the brave Bhattis were
com-
pelled to become feudatories of the Emperor Shah Jahan. Outlying pro-
vinces were subsequently wrested from them by the neighbouring States
of
Jodhpur and Bikanir ; till at length in 1 8 1 8, under the rule of the
Rawal
Mulraj, the State came under the protection and control of the British
Power,
and has enjoyed the blessings of peace. On the death of the Rawal
Ranjit
Singh, his younger brother, the late Maharawal Bairi Sal, succeeded to
the
gadi in 1864 ; and he was succeeded in 1891 by the present Maharawal.

The area of Jaisalmir is 16,447 square miles; its population about
109,000,
chiefly Hindus, but including about 28,000 Muhammadans. In extent it
may
be compared with Switzerland or Holland ; but is larger than either.
His
Highness maintains a military force of 140 cavalry, 353 infantry, and
25


guns ; and is entitled to a salute of 1 5 guns.

Residence. Jaisalmir, Rdjputdna.

JAISINGH RAO ANGRIA, Rao Bahadur.
The title is personal, and was conferred on 24th May 1889.
Residence. Baroda.

JALAL-UD-DIN, KAZI, Khan Bahadur.

An Extra Assistant Commissioner in Baluchistan. Granted the title of
Khan Bahadur, as a personal distinction, 2nd January 1893.
Residence. Quetta, Baluchistan.

JALAL-UD-DIN, SHAIKH, Khan Bahadur.

The title is personal, and was conferred on i6th February 1887, on
tne

occasion of the Jubilee of Her Most Gracious Majesty's reign.
Residence. Karndl, Punjab.

JALAM SINGH (of Amoda), Rdwat.

The title is hereditary ; and the present Rawat succeeded to the title
and
estates on the death of his father, the late Rawat Lakshmi Singh of
Amoda.
Belongs to a Tuar Rajput family, descended from Jet Singh.

Residence. Amoda, Nima"r, Central Provinces.

JALIA DBVANI, JARB JA MANSINGH JI, Tdlukddr of.

A Ruling Chief.

Born 1852; succeeded to the gadi as a minor 3ist December 1868.
Belongs to a Rajput (Hindu) family. The area of the State is about 36
square miles; its population 2383, chiefly Hindus. The Talukdar
maintains
a military force of 4 cavalry and 3 5 infantry.
Residence. Jdlia Deva"ni, Ka'thia'wa'r, Bombay.

JAM KHAN walad MUHAMMAD KHAN, Mir.
The title is hereditary, the Mir being a representative of one of the
Mirs
who were Chiefs of Sind at the time of the annexation.
Residence. Hyderabad, Sind.

JAMIAT SINGH (of Ghoriwaha), Sarddr.

The title is hereditary, the Sardar being of a Jat family, descended
from
Sardar Sukha Singh, who in 1759 established his power at Ghoriwaha in
the
Hoshiarpur district. The family subsequently fell under the power of
the
Maharaja Ranjit Singh of Lahore. Sukha Singh's grandson was the
Sardar
Partab Singh, father of the present Sardar.

Residence. Hoshiarpur, Punjab.

JAMKHANDI, RAM CHANDRA RAO GOPAL, Chief of.

A Ruling Chief.

The Chief of Jamkhandi also bears the name of Appa Sahib Patwardhan.
Born 1834; succeeded to the gadi as a minor i8th November 1840.
Belongs to a Brahman (Hindu) family. The area of his State is 492
square
miles; its population is 83,917, chiefly Hindus, but including 7628
Muham-
madans. The Chief maintains a military force of 52 cavalry, 943
infantry,
and i gun.

Residence. Jamkhandi, Southern Mahratta Country, Bombay.

JAMMU AND KASHMIR, COLONEL HIS HIGHNESS MAHA-
RAJA PARTAB SINGH INDAR MAHINDAR BAHADUR
SIPAR-I-SALTANAT, G.C.S.I., Maharaja of.

A Ruling Chief.

Born 1850; succeeded to the gctdi i2th September 1885. Is the son
of the late Maharaja Ranbhir Singh, G.C.S.I. ; and grandson of the
late
Maharaja Ghulab Singh, the founder of the dynasty, who was
constituted
Feudatory Chief of the hill-territories east of the Indus and west of
the Ravi
(with certain specified exceptions) by the treaty of March 1846,
concluded
after the close of the first Sikh war. Belongs to a Dogra or Jamwal
Rajput
family (Hindu) of ancient lineage, claiming descent from that of the
former
Rajas of Jammu. The Maharaja Ghulab Singh was the great-grandson of
the Raja Dharabdeo ; and a grandson of the Mian Jorawar Singh, who was
a
brother of Raja Ranjit Deo. He began life as a cavalry soldier, and
became
a trusted officer under Maharaja Ranjit Singh of Lahore, who conferred
on
him the principality of Jammu. At the outbreak of the first Sikh war
he
had been elected Minister of the Khalsa, and was one of the most con-
spicuous Sikh leaders ; and after the battle of Sobraon he negotiated
a
separate treaty with the British Power, by which he acquired the
Feudal
Chiefship of Jammu and Kashmir on payment of a sum of 75 lakhs of
rupees. In the Mutiny of 1857 he rendered excellent service, and sent
a contingent to Delhi. He died in August 1857, and was succeeded by
his third and only surviving son, the late Maharaja Ranbhir Singh,
G.C.S.I.,
who was a munificent patron of learning, and did good service in
connection
with the British Mission to Yarkand. He had the distinguished honour
of
receiving His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales at Jammu in 1876; he
also had his salute raised to 21 guns, by the addition of 2 guns as a
personal distinction. In January 1877, on the occasion of the
Proclama-
tion of Her Majesty as Empress of India, he was gazetted a General in
the
Army, and created a Councillor of the Empress. The Maharaja died on
1 2th September 1885, and was succeeded by his eldest son, the
present
Maharaja, who was created a Knight Grand Commander of the Most
Exalted
Order of the Star of India on 25th May 1892. The area of his State is
79,784 square miles; and its population is about 1,500,000, including
nearly a million Muhammadans, about half-a-million Hindus, and over
20,000 Buddhists. In point of area, the State is more than double the
combined area of Bavaria and Saxony, and equal to that of any three or
four
of the smaller European kingdoms put together. His Highness maintains
a
military force of about 8000 cavalry and infantry, and 288 guns; and
is
entitled to a salute of 2 1 guns within the limits of the State, and
to one of 1 9
guns in the rest of India.

Residence. Srinagar, Kashmir ; and Jammu, Punjab.

JAMNIA, BHUMIA HAMIR SINGH, Bkumia of.
A Ruling Chief.

Born 1855 ; succeeded to the gadi in 1863 as a minor. Belongs to a
Bhilala family the Bhilalas being reputed to spring from the
intermarriage
of Rajputs and Bhils. The founder of the family was Nadir Singh, a
famous
Bhumia of Jamnia.

Residence. Kunjrod, Jamnia, Bhopa*war, Central India.

JAMSHEDJI DHANJIBHAI WADIA, Khan Bahadur.

The title is personal, and was conferred on ist January 1877, on the


occasion of the Proclamation of Her Most Gracious Majesty as Empress
of

India.

Residence. Bombay.

JAMSHEDJI FRAMJI PALKIWALA, Khan Bahadur.

The title is personal, and was conferred on 24th May 1883.
Residence. Bombay.

JAMSHEDJI RUSTAMJI, Khan Saheb.

The title is personal, and was conferred on i8th August 1881.
Residence. Bombay.

JAN MUHAMMAD WALI ALI MUHAMMAD KHAN, Mtr.

The title is hereditary, the Mir being a representative of one of the
Mirs

who were Chiefs of Sind at the time of the annexation.
Residence. Sind.

JANAK PRIYA, RdnL

The title is hereditary, the Rani being the last
surviving Rani of the late Raja Narayan Singh of
Sambalpur. The Rajas of Sambalpur were Chauhan
Rajputs of very ancient lineage. Balram Das
Chauhan conquered Sambalpur about the year
1445 ; and left it to his elder son Raja Hirda
Narayan, while his younger son became Raja of
Sonpur (q.v.) The Chauhan device is the chakra
a circle with four tridents (trisut) as radii, pointing
The santak of the Chauhan north, east, south, and west, as shown in
the

Rajputs, called Chakra. used . '_.,'. . . , . , ,

in the seal and for signature, margin. 1 he Ram uses this device on
her seal,

(A circle with four Trisulas or and for signature.


Tridents as radii at the car-

dinal points.) Residence. Sambalpur, Central Provinces.

JANAKI BALLABH SEN (of Dimla), Rdjd.

. The title was conferred " for liberality and public spirit," on ist
January
1891.

Residence. Dimla, Kangpur, Bengal.

JANG BAHADUR KHAN, C.IB. (of Nanpara), Rdjd.

Born 1845. The title is hereditary ; and the Raja succeeded his
father,
the late Raja Munawar AH Khan, in 1847. Belongs to a Pathan family,
descended from Rasul Khan, Togh Pathan, a Risaldar in the service of
the
Emperor Shah Jahan, who in 1632 sent him to Salonabad to coerce the
Banjaras who had overrun the jdgir of Salona Begam, the wife of
Prince
Dara. For his performance of this duty he received the grant of
Nanpara.
In 1763 his descendant Karam Khan of Nanpara obtained the title of
Raja
from the Nawab Shuja-ud-daula. The present Raja was created a
Companion
of the Most Eminent Order of the Indian Empire in 1886. He is an
Honorary Magistrate; and has a son and heir named Muhammad Sadiq
Khan, born 1870.

Residence. Bahraich, Oudh.

JANI BIHARI LAL, DIWAN, Rao Bahadur.

The title is personal, and was conferred on 1 6th February 1887, on
the
occasion of the Jubilee of Her Most Gracious Majesty's reign.
Residence. Bhartpur, Rajputana.

JANJIRA, NAWAB SIDI AHMAD KHAN, Nawdb of.
A Ruling Prince.

Born 1863 ; succeeded to the gadi 28th January 1879. Belongs to an
Abyssinian family of Sunni Muhammadans, claiming descent from Sidi
Sarul Khan. The family were Abyssinian admirals of the fleet of the
Muhammadan kings of Bijapur, who in 1670 transferred their allegiance
to the Emperor of Delhi, Aurangzeb. The Mahrattas often tried to
conquer
the island of Janjira ; but were always successfully resisted. The
Nawab is
also Chief of Jafarabad, a small State in Kathiawar. The area of the
State
is 324 square miles; its population is 76,361, chiefly Hindus, but
including
13,912 Muhammadans. The Nawab maintains a military force of 310
infantry and 179 guns ; and is entitled to a salute of 9 guns.

Residence. Janjira, Koldba, Bombay.

JANJIT alias NANBI RAJA (of Darri), Sawai.

The title is hereditary.

Residence. Sagar, Central Provinces.

JANKI (of Pamakheri), Thdkur.
The title is hereditary.
Residence. Sdgar, Central Provinces.

JANKI KUNWAR (of Paraspur), Rani.

Born 1839. The title is hereditary; the Rani succeeded her late
husband, Raja Randhir Singh, on i6th June 1878. The head of the
family
is the chief of the six Thakurs of Chhedwara, famous for their
turbulence
in the times before the annexation of Oudh. They claim descent from
the
Kalhans Rajas of Khurasa, through Maharaj Singh, second son of Achal
Narayan Singh. A descendant, named Newal Singh, obtained the title of
Raja while on a visit to the Court at Delhi ; and it was recognised
as
hereditary in favour of the late Raja, Randhir Singh. The Rani's son
and
heir is Bikramajit Singh.

Residence. Paraspur, Gonda, Oudh.

JAORA, MAJOR HIS HIGHNESS IHTISHAM - UD - DAULA
NAWAB MUHAMMAD ISMAIL KHAN BAHADUR FIROZ
JANG, Nawdb of.

A Ruling Chief.

Born 1855; succeeded to the gadi 3oth April 1865 as a minor.
Belongs to a Pathan (Muhammadan) family, descended from Nawab Ghafur
Khan, an Afghan of the Swati tribe, -brother-in-law of the famous Amir
Khan
of Tonk, whom he represented at Holkar's Court. After the battle Of
Mehidpur, Nawab Ghafur Khan, being in possession of this territory as
a
grant from Holkar, was confirmed by the British Government. The
present
Nawab has been appointed an Honorary Major in the British Army. The
State, which is feudatory to Indore, has an area of 581 square miles ;
and a
population of 119,945, chiefly Hindus, but including 13,318
Muhammadans
and over 2000 Jains. His Highness maintains a military force of 63
cavalry,
177 infantry, and 15 guns ; and is entitled to a salute of 13 guns.
Jaora,
the capital of the State, is a station on the Rajputana-Malwa railway.
The
Nawab has a son and heir named Muhammad Sher Ali Khan.

Residence, Jaora, Malw, Central India.

JASDAN, KHACHAR ALA CHELA, Chief of .
A Ruling Chief.

Born 1833; succeeded to the gadi in 1852. Belongs to a Kathi
(Hindu) family. The State, which is tributary to Baroda and Junagarh,
contains an area of 283 square miles; and a population of 29,037,
chiefly
Hindus. The Chief maintains a military force of 60 cavalry, 354
infantry,
and 5 guns.

Residence. Jasdan, Kathiawar, Bombay.

JASHPUR, RAJA PRATAP NARAYAN SINGH DEO
BAHADUR, C.I.E., JRdjd of.

A Ruling Chief.

Born 1822 ; succeeded to the gadi 24th October 1845. Belongs to a
Kshatriya (Rajput) family, formerly feudatories of the Mahrattas of
Nagpur,
that came under British control in 1818. Rendered good service in the
military operations in 1857 against the mutineers and rebels in
Udaipur and
Palamau. Was created a Companion of the Most Eminent Order of the
Indian Empire, 2 ist May 1890. The area of the State is 1947 square
miles ;
its population is 90,240, chiefly Hindus. The Raja has a military
force of
2 guns.

Residence. Jashpur, Chota Nagpur, Bengal.

JASMBR SINGH, Sarddr.

Bom 1848. The title is hereditary. Belongs to a Jat family, descended
from Sardar Gurbaksh Singh, who acquired the territory of Thol
Thangor, in
the Ambala district of the Punjab, by conquest in 1759 A.D. During
the
Sikh rebellion of 1848-49, and again in the Mutiny of 1857, this
family
rendered good service to Government, and were rewarded for the latter
service. On the death of Sardar Jawahir Singh, he was succeeded by
his
two sons, the present Sardars Kishan Singh and Jasmer Singh of Thol
Thangor. The Sardar Jasmer Singh has two sons Ram Narayan Singh
(born 1863) and Sheo Narayan Singh.

Residence. Thol Thangor, Ambdla, Punjab.

JASO, DIWAN JAGATRAJ, JAGIRDAR, Diwdn of.
A Ruling Chief.

Born 1860 ; succeeded to \hzgadi 7th July 1889. Belongs to the great
Bundela Rajput family, descended from the founder of the Orchha State
that
has given ruling families to Panna, Dattia, Ajaigarh, Charkhari, and
most of
the other States of Bundelkhand. Bhartichand, the founder of the Jaso
State, was the fourth son of the Maharaja Chhatrasal ; and his great-
grandson,
Diwan Murat Singh, received a sanad from the British Government in
1816.
The Diwan Bhopal Singh received the additional title of Bahadur as a
personal distinction, at the Imperial Assemblage of Delhi on the
occasion of
the Proclamation of Her Most Gracious Majesty as Empress of India.
The
area of the State is 75 square miles ; its population over 80,000,
chiefly
Hindus. The Diwan maintains a military force of 2 horsemen, 60
infantry,
and 4 guns.

Residence. Jaso, Bundelkhand, Central India.

JAS WANT RAI, Rat Bahadur.

The title is personal, and was conferred on i6th February 1887, on
the

occasion of the Jubilee of Her Majesty's reign, in consideration of
eminent
services in the Army Medical Department.

Residence. Shdhpur, Punjab.

JASWANT SINGH (of Nurpur), Rdjd.

Born 1836. The title is hereditary. Nurpur is a hill principality to
the
west of Guler. The Raja belongs to a Rajput family, descended from
Jit
Pal, who came from Delhi about 700 years ago, and established himself
at
Pathankot. Subsequently the family removed to the hills ; and Nurpur
became their capital in the time of Raja Basu, about the year 1640
A.D. At
the time of the conquests of the Maharaja Ranjit Singh of Lahore,
Raja" Bir,
father of the present Raja, was Raja of Nurpur. He endeavoured to
resist
Ranjit Singh ; but being compelled to take refuge in Chamba, was given
up
by the Raja of Chamba, and imprisoned in the fortress of Gobindgarh.
Subsequently he was ransomed by his brother-in-law, Sardar Charat
Singh,
for Rs.85,ooo ; and in 1846 raised the standard of revolt, besieged
Nurpur, and died before its walls. He was succeeded by the present
Raja,
who has received a large grant from the British Government.

Residence. Nurpur, Kdngra, Punjab.

JATH, AMRITRAO RAO SAHEB DAPHLE, Jdgirddr of.
A Ruling Chief.

Born 1835 ; succeeded to the gadi 28th July 1841 as a minor. Belongs
to a Mahratta (Hindu) family. The late Jagirdar, Ramrao, died in 1841
without issue ; whereon his widow, Bhagirthibai, adopted Amritrao,
the
present Jagirdar. The Daphle is also Chief of Karasgi ; and the jdgir
of
Daphlapur (or Daflapur) is also really a part of this State, and will
revert to
it on the demise of the three widows of the late Chief. The founder of
the
Jath State was the hereditary pdtel, or headman, of Daflapur village.
The
area of the State is 884 square miles; its population is 49,491,
chiefly
Hindus, but including 2842 Muhammadans.

Residence. Jath, Bijdpur, Bombay.

JAWAHIR LAL, LALA, Rai Saheb.


The title is personal, and was conferred on 2oth May 1890.

Residence. India.

JAWAHIR SINGH (of Chamdri), Rao.

Born 1845. The title is hereditary, having been originally granted by
the Raja Mori Pahlodh of Chanderi, and subsequently confirmed under
British rule.

Residence. Chamdri, Sa"gar, Central Provinces.

JAWASIA, RAWAT LAL SINGH, Rdwat of.
A Ruling Chief.

Born 1858; succeeded to the gadi in 1882. Belongs to a Rajput
(Hindu) family. The population of the State is about 607, chiefly
Hindus.
Residence. Jawdsia, Western Ma"lwa", Central India.

JAWHAR, PATANGSHAH VIKRAMSHAH MUKNI, Rdjd of.

A Ruling Chief.

Born 1855 ; succeeded to thegadi 2Qth June 1866 as a minor. Belongs
to a Koli (Hindu) family, descended from Jaya Mukni, a freebooter who
possessed himself of this territory about 1335. His son, Nim Shah,
obtained
the title of Raja from the Emperor of Delhi in the year 1341. The
late
Raja Vikramshah died in 1865 ; and his widow, the Rani Lakshmibai
Saheb,
adopted the present Raja, who was then called Malhar Rao, son of
Madhav-
rao Dewrao Mukni, a descendant of Raja Krishna Shah, ninth Raja of
Jawhar.
The State has an area of 534 square miles; and a population of
48,556,
chiefly Hindus. The Raja maintains a military force of 8 cavalry and
25
infantry. The family cognisance is an arrow, barbed, point downward.

Residence. Jawhar, Thdna, Bombay.

JBJBBBHOY, SIR JAMSETJBB, Baronet, C.S.I.

Born 3rd March 1851 ; succeeded his father, the late Sir Jamsetjee
Jejeebhoy, second Baronet, in 1877 ; when (in accordance with the
special
Act of the Indian Legislature of 1860) he assumed
the name of Jamsetjee Jejeebhoy in lieu of Manekjee
Cursetjee. Is the third Baronet ; and has been
created a Companion of the Most Exalted Order of
the Star of India. Is a merchant of the city of
Bombay, a Magistrate, and Member of the Legis-
lative Council of Bombay. Belongs to a family
that has long been regarded as the leaders of the
Parsi community of Western India. The first
Baronet, Sir Jamsetjee Jejeebhoy, K.C.B., of Bom-
bay, was so created in 1857, in recognition of his
unbounded munificence and public spirit, and of
his undoubted loyalty. His very great wealth was
used in promoting the good of others ; and the second
Baronet, who died in 1877, also earned a similar
reputation for benevolence and liberality. In 1860, the special Act of
the
Indian Legislature, referred to above, was passed with the sanction of
Her
Most Gracious Majesty, enacting that all future holders of the title,
on
succeeding to it, shall relinquish their own names and assume those of
the
first Baronet. The present Baronet, in 1869, married Jerbai, daughter
of
Shapurji Dhanjibhai, Esq. ; and has a son and heir, Cursetjee, born
nth
November 1878. Sir Jamsetjee's brothers are: (i) Co wasjee Cursetjee,
born
25th November 1852, married, in 1869, Gulbai Rustamji Wadia ; and (2)
Jamsetjee Cursetjee, born 1860, married, 1882, Awabai Shapurji
Dhanjibhai.
The family arms are azure, a sun rising above a representation of the
Ghats (mountains near Bombay) in base, and in chief two bees volant,
all
proper. The crest is a mount vert, thereon a peacock amidst wheat,
and
in the beak an ear of wheat, all proper.

Residence. Mazagon Castle, Bombay.

JETPUR, AZAM VALA LAKSHMAN MERAN, Tdlukddr of.

A Ruling Chief.

Born 1849; succeeded to the gadi i;th September 1883. Jointly
rules Jetpur with several other Talukdars. The State is tributary to
Baroda
and Junagarh.

Residence. Jetpur, Ka'thia'wa'r, Bombay.

JETPUR, AZAM VALA SURAG GANGA, Tdlukddr of.
A Ruling Chief.

Born 1799; succeeded to the gadi ist September 1847. Joint-
Talukdar of Jetpur with several others.

Residence. Jetpur, Ka"thia"wa"r, Bombay.

JETPUR, AZAM VALA NAJA KALA DEODAN, Tdlukddr of.

A Ruling Chief.

Born 1865 ; succeeded to the gadi i4th June 1890. Is Joint-Talukdar
of Jetpur with several others.

Residence. Jetpur, Ka'thia'wa'r, Bombay.

JHABUA, HIS HIGHNESS RAJA GOPAL SINGH, Rdjd of.

A Ruling Chief.

Born 22nd February 1841 ; succeeded to ft&gadi as a minor in October
1841. Belongs to the great Rathor Rajput family of the Maharajas of
Jodhpur, Idar, etc. The title of Raja was bestowed on Kishan Das, a
remote ancestor of the present Raja, by Ala-ud-din, the Emperor of
Delhi,
as a reward for a successful campaign in Bengal, and for punishing the
Bhil
Chiefs of Jhabua, who had murdered an Imperial Viceroy of Gujarat.
The
State, which was at one time tributary to Indore, has an area of 1336
square
miles ; and a population of 92,938, chiefly Hindus, but including
nearly
50,000 belonging to the aboriginal Bhil and other tribes. The State
flag is
red. The Raja maintains a military force of 64 cavalry, 253 infantry,
and
4 guns ; and is entitled to a salute of 1 1 guns.

Residence. Jhabua, Bhopdwar, Central India.

JHALARIA, Thdkur of. See Jhalera.

JHALAWAR, HIS HIGHNESS MAHARAJ RANA ZALIM
SINGH, BAHADUR, Mahdrdj Rand of.

A Ruling Chief.

Born 1864 ; succeeded to the gadi 24th June 1876 as a minor. Is a
Chief of the Jhala Rajputs, whose ancestors came from Jhalawar in
Kathia-
war. In 1709 A.D. Bhao Singh, a younger son of the Chief of Halwad in
Kathiawar, took some retainers with him and went to Delhi. His son
Madhu Singh rose to high favour and rank in the service of the
Maharaja of
Kotah ; his sister was married to the heir, and his descendants thus
acquired
the title of Mama (" maternal uncle ") in Kotah. Ultimately, in 1 838,
a portion
of the State of Kotah was cut off, with the consent of the Maharaja
and of
the British Government, and erected into the State of Jhalawar, under
one
of Madhu Singh's descendants, Madan Singh, son of Zalim Singh, who
had
long been the successful administrator of Kotah. Madan Singh received
the
title of Maharaj Rana. His son, Prithi Singh, did good service during
the
Mutiny ; and was succeeded in 1876 by his adopted son, the present
Maharaj
Rana, as a minor. His Highness was educated at Mayo College, Ajmir;
and was invested with full powers of government on attaining his
majority in
1884. The State has an area of 2694 square miles; and a population of
340,488, chiefly Hindus, but including 20,863 Muhammadans. His High-
ness maintains a military force of 403 cavalry, 3873 infantry, and 94


guns ;
and is entitled to a salute of 15 guns.

Residence. Jhalra Patan, Rdjputdna.

JHALBRA, THAKUR HATTB SINGH, Thdkur of.
A Ruling Chief.

Born 1858 ; succeeded to the gadi 22nd May 1884. This is a Girdsia
State, connected with Gwalior.

Residence. Jhalera, Bhopa*!, Central India.

JHARI GHARKHADI, NAIK SUKRONA walad
CHAMBARYA RBSHMA, Chief of .

Born 1850. Belongs to a Bhil (aboriginal) family. The State (which is
one of the Dang States of Khandesh) has an area of 8 square miles ;
and a
population of 167, chiefly Bhils.

Residence. Jhari Gharkhadi, Khdndesh, Bombay.

JIGNI, RAO LAKSHMAN SINGH BAHADUR, Rao of.
A Ruling Chief.

Born 1860; succeeded to the gadi as a minor i6th September 1871.
Belongs to the great Bundela Rajput family, descended from the founder
of
the Orchha State, which has given ruling families to Panna, Dattia,
Ajaigarh,

Charkhari, Jaso, and most of the States of Bundelkhand. The founder
of
Jigni was the Rao Padam Singh, one of the sons of the great Maharaja
Chhatarsal. His great-grandson was the Rao Prithi Singh, who received
a
sanad from the British Government in 1810. His grandson by adoption
(being adopted from the kindred ruling family of Panna) is the present
Rao,
who received the additional title of Bahadur at the Imperial
Assemblage of
Delhi, on the occasion of the Proclamation of Her Most Gracious
Majesty as
Empress of India. The area of the State is 2 2 square miles : its
population
is 3427, chiefly Hindus. The Rao Bahadur maintains a military force of
47
infantry and 3 guns.

Residence. Jigni, Bundelkhand, Central India.

JIND, HIS HIGHNESS FARZAND-I-DILBAND RASIKH-UL-
ITIKAD DAULAT-I-INGLISHIA RAJA-I-RAJAGAN RAJA
RANBHIR SINGH BAHADUR, Rdjd Bahadur of.

A Ruling Chief.

Born 1878 ; succeeded to the gadi as a minor 7th March 1887. Belongs
to the famous Phulkian family of Sidhu Jats, descended from Phul, the
common ancestor of the ruling families of Patiala, Jind, Nabha, and
other
Punjab States. Phul was twenty-ninth in descent from the Rawal Jaisal
Singh, the head of the Jadu Bhati Rajputs, who founded Jaisalmir in
1156 A.D. A great-grandson of Phul, named Gajpat Singh, obtained the
title
of Raja of Jind from Shah Alam, Emperor of Delhi in 1772. His son,
Raja Bhag Singh, aided Lord Lake in his pursuit of Holkar in 1805,
and
was accordingly confirmed by the British Government in his
possessions. In
1857 Raja Sarup Singh of Jind was the first to march against the
mutineers
of Delhi ; and he and his troops took a prominent part in the siege
and
capture of the city, for which services he received large extensions
of his ter-
ritory. He died in 1864, and was succeeded by his son, the Raja
Ragbir
Singh, who was created a Knight Grand Commander of the Most Exalted
Order of the Star of India; and at the Imperial Assemblage at Delhi,


ist
January 1877, on the occasion of the Proclamation of Her Most
Gracious

Majesty as Empress of India, he was appointed a Councillor of the
Empress.
The present Raja succeeded in 1887. The area of his State is 1259
square
miles; and its population is 249,862, chiefly Hindus, but including
34,247
Muhammadans and 4335 Sikhs. His Highness maintains a military force
of 379 cavalry, 1571 infantry, and 12 guns; and is entitled to a
salute of n
guns.

Residence. Jind, Punjab.

JIND WADO walad AMIR ALI KHAN, Mir.

The title is hereditary, the Mir being a representative of one of the
Mirs or Chiefs of Sind at the time of the annexation.

Residence. Shika~rpur, Sind.

JIT SINGH (of Maheru), Sarddr.

The title is hereditary. Belongs to a Jat family, descended from
Sardar
Ramdas Singh and Sardar Gurdas Singh, two brothers, who took
possession *
of Maheru at the time of the decline of the Mughal Power. In 1799 A -
D ->
when the Maharaja Ranjit Singh became all-powerful in the Punjab,
Sardar
Charat Singh of Maheru made his submission to him, and retained his
pos-
sessions. His son, Sardar Jawahir Singh, succeeded, and was confirmed
in
eleven villages. But on his death, and the succession of Sardar
Jaimal
Singh, these were resumed with the exception of Maheru. The Sardar
Jaimal Singh did good service in the time of the Mutiny in 1857, and
on his
death was succeeded by the present Sardar.

Residence. Maheru, Jdlandhar, Punjab.

JIWAN SINGH, C.I.B. (of Buruja), Sarddr.

Born 1842. The title is hereditary. Belongs to a Jat family,
descended
from Sardar Nanu Singh, who came from Jhawal Mandan, in the Manjha or
central tract of the Punjab, in 1759 A.D., and took possession of
Buruja and
the surrounding territory. The present Sardar did good service, both
in the
war of 1845-46, when he was a minor, and also in the Mutiny of 1857.
For
the latter he received a considerable reward. He has a son and heir,
named
Gajindar Singh.

Residence. Ambala, Punjab.

JIWAN SINGH, C.S.I, (of SMhzddpur), Sarddr.

Born 1860. The title is hereditary. Belongs to a Jat (Sindhu) family,
descended from Sardar Dip Singh, who was the Mahant of the " Damdama
Saheb" or resting-place, which was the retreat of the Guru Govind
Singh, the
tenth and last Sikh Guru, after his defeat by the Imperial army of
Delhi. A
large number of Sikhs assembled around Dip Singh, who was ultimately
slain
in a battle with the Governor of Lahore. Dip Singh was succeeded by
Sudha Singh, who fell in a battle with the Governor of Jalandhar, and
has
always been known among Sikhs as " Shahid," or the Martyr, which
became
a family name. His successor was Sardar Karam Singh, who took
possession
of some territory in the Singhpura district, which, with the other Cis-
Sutlej
territories, came under British control in 1808-9. Sardar Sheo Kirpal
Singh,
Shahid, did good service in the time of the Mutiny of 1857, and was
re-
warded by Government ; and his son is the present Sardar, who was
created
a Companion of the Most Exalted Order of the Star of India on ist
January
1891.

Residence. Shdhzddpur, Ambdla, Punjab.

JIWAN SINGH (of Atari), Sarddr.

Born 1835. The title is hereditary. Belongs to a Sidhu Jat (Rajput)
family, descended from Kanh Chand. His great-grandson was the famous
Sardar Sham Singh, whose daughter was betrothed to the Prince Nau
Nihal

Singh, grandson of the Maharaja Ran] it Singh. When the Sikh army in-
vaded the Cis-Sutlej territory, Sardar Sham Singh disapproved of the
war, but
being reproached with his inaction he joined the camp, and fell in
battle in
01846. His sons were Sardar Thakur Singh and Sardar Kanh Singh, and
after the annexation much of the family estate was confirmed to the
latter.
He died without issue in 1872, and his estates were allowed to devolve
on
Sardar Ajit Singh, son of Sardar Thakur Singh, and a younger brother
of the
Sardar Jiwan Singh. The latter is the eldest son of the late Sardar
Thakur
Singh. He has two sons, named Partab Singh and Changa Singh.
Residence. Ata"ri, Amritsar, Punjab.

JIWAN SINGH, THAKUR (of Jakhnoda), Rao Bahadur.
The title is personal, and was conferred on 20th May 1890.
Residence Alira"jpur, Central India.

JOi3AT, RANA SARUP SINGH, Rand of.

A Ruling Chief.

Born 1866 ; succeeded to the gadi in 1874 as a minor. Belongs to the
Rahtor tribe of Rajputs (Hindu) ; occupies a fort picturesquely
situated on
the summit of a steep rocky hill, shut in on three sides by forest-
clad moun-
tains, and overlooking the town of Jobat. The area of the State is
132
square miles; its population 9387, chiefly Hindus, but including 3916
belonging to Bhii and other aboriginal tribes. The Rana maintains a
mili-
tary force of 5 cavalry and 44 infantry.

Residence. Jobat, Bhopdwar, Central India.

JODH SINGH (of Chapa), Sardar.
The title is hereditary.
Residence. Amritsar, Punjab.

JODHA SINHA (of Kakhauta), Rao.

Born 1838. The title is hereditary. The Rao belongs to an old Sengar
family, who settled in Pargand Auraiya in Etawah. He has a son and
heir,
named Lala Guman Singh, born 27th February 1870.

Residence. Kakhauta, Eta"wah, North- Western Provinces.

JODHPUR, HIS HIGHNESS SIR JASWANT SINGH
BAHADUR, G.C.S.I., Maharaja of.

A Ruling Chief.

Born 1837; succeeded to the gadi i3th February 1873. ^ s tne Chief
of the great Rahtor tribe or clan of the Rajputs, claiming direct
descent

from the legendary hero Rama, and, like
the Sesodias of Udaipur and the Kachhwahas
of Jaipur, representing the royal line of the
Surya Vansa or Solar race. His full titles
are His Highness Raj Rajeshwar Maharaj-
Adhiraj Sir Jaswant Singh, Bahadur, Knight


Grand Commander of the Most Exalted Order

of the Star of India. The proper name of
the State, the capital of which is Jodhpur
(from the name of its founder), is Marwar
anciently Marusthdn, "the land of death,"
a term applied formerly not only to the
country of Marwar, but to the whole of the
Great Indian Desert from the Sutlej to the
Indian Ocean. Tod, in his learned Annals
of Rdjdsthdn, says of the family of the
Jodhpur Maharaja "It requires neither Bhat nor Bard to illustrate its
nobility; a series of splendid deeds which time cannot obliterate has
emblazoned the Rahtor name on the historical tablet. Where all these
races have gained a place in the Temple of Fame it is almost
invidious
to select, but truth compels me to place the Rahtor with the Chauhan
on the very pinnacle." In Tod's work the Annals of Mdrwdr occupy a
place only second to those of Mewar (or Udaipur), and present a most
in-
teresting view of feudalism in India. Even to the present day the
feudal
Thakurs of Rajputana feudatories of their Highnesses the Maharana of
Udaipur, the Maharajas of Jodhpur and Jaipur, and the other Princes of
this
territory are nobles of high account and great local power. Up to
1194 A.D. the Rahtor family were rulers of the vast Empire of Kanauj.
The
famous Jai Chand was the last King of Kanauj, and his grandson,
Sivaji,
migrated westward to Marwar. Scions of the family became rulers of
Bikanir
and Kishangarh in Rajputana, of Idar and Ahmadnagar in Gujarat, and
else-
where. Mandor, the ancient capital of Marwar, was conquered by Rao
Chanda, who was tenth in descent from Sivaji, about the year 1382
A.D.
His grandson Jodh, the eldest of twenty-four sons of Rinmal, moved
the
capital from Mandor to Jodhpur in 1459 A.D. After resisting the
Emperor
Babar and the Afghan Sher Shah, Jodh ultimately had to submit to the
Great Mughal, Akbar, and sent his son Udai Singh to take service at
Delhi ;
and ultimately Udai Singh's sister, the famous Jodh Bai, became the
consort
of the Mughal monarch. When Udai Singh's son, Raja Sur Singh,
succeeded
to the gadi of Jodhpur, he rose to high favour with his Imperial
uncle, and
was the general of Akbar's troops who added Gujarat and the Deccan to
the
Mughal Empire. His son, Raja Jaswant Singh, was the general whom the
Emperor Shah Jahan sent against his rebellious son Aurangzeb, and was
defeated by the latter. The successor of Jaswant Singh was a
posthumous
son, the famous Ajit Singh. In his time Aurangzeb in person attacked
Rajputana, sacked Jodhpur, and ordered the conversion of the Rajputs
to
Muhammadanism. But Ajit Singh formed a league with Udaipur and
Jaipur, and the combined forces of the three great Rajput States held
in
check the armies of Aurangzeb. One stipulation of this league is
famous,
and was disastrous to Jodhpur and Jaipur by reason of the domestic
feuds it
caused. It was to the effect that the Jodhpur and Jaipur families, who
had
lost the privilege of marrying Princesses of Udaipur because they had
given
their own daughters to the Mughal Emperors, should recover this
privilege,
on condition that the issue of any marriage with an Udaipur Princess
should
succeed to the Raj before all other children. Ajit Singh was murdered
by
his son Bakht Singh, and heavy troubles thereafter befell the Rahtor
family.
There was a long war between the Rajas of Jaipur and Jodhpur, who
were
rival suitors for the hand of a Princess of Udaipur. Amir Khan, the
great
Pindari leader (afterwards Nawab of Tonk), took sides, first with
Jaipur, then
with Jodhpur, and plundered and utterly exhausted both States in turn.
At
last the British Government intervened, and by a treaty in 1818
Jodhpur
became a feudatory of the Paramount Power. Raja Man Singh died in
1843, leaving no son, and the nobles and Court officials, with the
consent of
the British Government, elected Takht Singh, Raja of Ahmadnagar, a
descendant of Ajit Singh, to the vacant gadi. The Raja Takht Singh
did
good service during the Mutiny of 1857. He died in 1873, an d was
suc-
ceeded by the present Maharaja. His Highness has been created a Grand


Commander of the Most Exalted Order of the Star of India. The area of

his State is 37,000 square miles ; its population is 1,750,403,
chiefly Hindus,
but including about 155,000 Muhammadans and about 172,000 Jains. In
point of extent the Jodhpur State is larger than any of the smaller
European
States, and is somewhat larger than Bavaria and Saxony combined ; in
popu-
lation it surpasses the Grand Duchy of Baden. The Maharaja maintains
a
military force of 3162 cavalry, 3653 infantry, and 121 guns; and is
entitled
to a salute of 2 1 guns (including 4 guns personal). The family
cognisance
is the falcon, the sacred garur of the Solar Rajputs. The arms of His
Highness, as displayed on the banner presented to him by the Empress
of
India at the Imperial Assemblage of Delhi in January 1877, on the
occasion
of the Proclamation of Her Most Gracious Majesty as Empress, are
shown
in the margin.

Residence. Jodhpur, Ra"jputa"na.

JOGESH CHANDRA CHATTARJI (of Anuliya, RdndgMt),

Rai Bahadur.

The title is personal, and was conferred on i6th February 1887, on
the
occasion of the Jubilee of Her Majesty's reign.

Residence. Assam.

JOG-INDRA NATH RAI (of Ndtor), Kumdr.

The title is personal. The Kumar is the son of the late Raja Anan-
danath Rai Bahadur, C.S.I.

Residence. Ra"jshdhi, Bengal.

JOTINDRA MOHAN TAGOR, SIR, K.C.S.I., Maharaja Bahadur.

See Tagore.

JUBBAL, RANA PADAM CHAND, Rand of.
A Ruling Chief.

Born 1 86 1 ; succeeded to the gadi as a minor iyth March 1877.
Belongs to a Rahtor Rajput family (see Jodhpur), claiming descent from
the
ruling family of Sirmur, which preceded the present dynasty.
Originally
tributary to Sirmur, this State (which is one of the Simla Hill
States) was
freed by the British after the conclusion of the Gurkha war, and the
Rana,
Puran Singh, received a sanad from Lord Lake in 1815. After great
vicissi-
tudes of fortune, Puran Singh (who had given up his State to the
British
Government) died in 1849, an d it was then resolved to restore the
State to
his son, Rana Karm Chand. The latter died in 1877, and was succeeded
by his son, the present Rana. The area of the State is 257 square
miles;
its population is 19,196, chiefly Hindus. The Rana maintains a
military
force of 50 infantry.

Residence. Jubbal, Simla Hills, Punjab.

JUMKHA, BECHARBHA BARYAL, Chief of.
A Ruling Chief.

Born 1836. Belongs to an aboriginal tribe.
Residence. Jumkha, Rewa" Kdntha, Bombay.

JUMMOO AND CASHMERE,


His Highness the Maharaja Bahadur of. See Jammu and Kashmir.

JUNAGARH, HIS HIGHNESS SIR BAHADUR KHANJI
MUHABAT KHANJI, G.C.I.E., Nawdb of.

A Ruling Chief.

Born 1856 ; succeeded to the gadi 29th September 1882. Belongs to a
Babi Pathan (Muhammadan) family. Is ninth in succession from Sher
Khan
Babi, the founder of the State, who about the year 1735 expelled the
Mughal
Governor and established his own power. The late Nawab, Sir Muhabat
Khanji, was created Knight Commander of the Most Exalted Order of the
Star of India in 1871. He died in 1882, and was succeeded by his son,
the present Nawab, who was invested with the insignia of a Knight
Grand
Commander of the Most Eminent Order of the Indian Empire on 2oth
November 1890. The area of the State is 3279 square miles; and its
population is 387,499, chiefly Hindus, but including 76,401
Muhammadans.
His Highness maintains a military force of 251 cavalry, 1972 infantry,
and
66 guns ; and is entitled to a salute of 1 1 guns.

Residence. Juna"garh, Ka"thidwdr, Bombay.

JWALA PERSHAD, Rai Bahadur.
The title is personal, and was conferred on 7th January 1876.
Residence. Ujjain, Central India.

JWALA SINGH (of Jharauli), Sarddr.

Born 1846. The title is hereditary. Belongs to a Sindhu Jat (Rajput)
family, descended from Dip Singh, the Mahant of the " Damdama Saheb,"
or resting-place of the Guru Govind Singh (see Jiwan Singh, Shahid,
Sardar).
His successor, Sudha Singh, falling in battle with the Governor of
Jalandhar,
the family have since been known by the name of Shahid ("Martyr").
Sardar Jwala Singh, son of Sardar Jit Singh of Jharauli, is the
present head
of the Jharauli Shahids. He has two sons Devindar Singh and Mohindar
Singh.

Residence. Jharauli, Ambala, Punjab.

JWALA SINGH (of Wazirabad), Sarddr.

Born 1822. The title is hereditary. The Sardar is the youngest son ot
the Sardar Ganda Singh, who was in attendance on the Maharaja Sher
Singh
when that prince was assassinated, and was severely wounded in the
endeavour to defend him. Sardar Ganda Singh was killed at the battle
of
Firuzshahr. Sardar Jwala Singh is an Honorary Magistrate.

Residence. Gujrdnwcila, Punjab.

JYOTI PRASAD GARGA (of Maisadal), Rdjd.

The title is personal, and was conferred on ist January 1890, for his
" liberality and public spirit." The Raja is the present
representative of

the Maisadal family. Their title of Raja is said to have been
conferred by
the old Nawabs of Bengal. The first Raja was the Raja Janardhan Upad-
hyaya. Two ladies of this family at different periods the Rani Janaki
Devi
and the Rani Mathura Devi have been in charge of the Raj. The late
Raja, Lakshman Prasad Garga of Maisadal, is recorded to have rendered
good service during the Orissa famine of 1866.
Residence. -Maisadal, Midnapur, Bengal.

KABIL SHAH, SAYYID, Khan Bahadur.

The title is personal, and was conferred on ist January 1877, on the


occasion of the Proclamation of Her Most Gracious Majesty as Empress
of

India.

Residence. Thar and Parkar, Sind.

KACHI BARODA, THAKUR DALBL SINGH, Thdkur of.
A Ruling Chief.

Born 1839; succeeded to the gadi 1864. The State is tributary to
Dhar, to which it is adjacent, and contains a population of about
3000.
Residence. Kachi Baroda, Bhopdwar, Central India.

KADATTANAD, MANA VARMA RAJA, Valiya Rdjd of.

Born 1820. The title is hereditary, the present Raja being the
twenty-
sixth in descent. Belongs to a Samanda family, which originally held
the
rule over a district named Vatakumpuram. One of his ancestors was
driven
out of Vatakumpuram by the Zamorin of Calicut, and thenceforward the
family ruled a district on the Malabar coast, extending originally
from Mahe
to Badagara, where the Raja now lives. This territory is said to have
been granted by the Cherakal Raja of Kolathiri. In 1766 Haidar AH of
Mysore invaded the country, and the Raja took refuge with the East
India
Company's officers in Tellicheri ; and again, when the Sultan Tippu
invaded
the country, the Raja and his family took refuge with the Maharaja of
Travancore. In 1792 the Raja entered into an agreement with the
British
Government to receive an annuity as compensation for the estates of
his
ancestors. Like the other Malabar Rajas, the family follows the
Marumak-
katayam law of inheritance, by which the succession is with the
offspring of
its female members, the next eldest male to the Raja being always his
heir.
The late Raja Udaya Varma was born in 181 1, and succeeded to the
title on
23rd June 1858. He died recently, and was succeeded by his heir under
the Marumakkatayam law, the present Raja.

Residence. Badagara, Malabar District, Madras.

KADIR BAKHSH, MUNSHI, Khdn Bahadur.

The title is personal, and was conferred on i6th February 1887, on
the

occasion of the Jubilee of Her Majesty's reign.
Residence. Lahore, Punjab.

KADIR HUSAIN, Khan.

The title is personal, and was originally conferred by the Nawab of
the
Carnatic, and recognised in 1891.
Residence. Madras.

KADIR HUSAIN, Khan Bahadur Ausif Jang Itimad-ud-daula.

The titles are personal, and were conferred originally by the Nawab
of
the Carnatic, and recognised on i6th December 1890.
Residence. M adras.

KADIR MOHI-UD-DIN, Khan Bahadur.

The title is personal, it was conferred originally by the Nawab of
the
Carnatic, arid recognised on i6th December 1890.
Residence. M adras.

KADIRDAD KHAN GUL KHAN, C.I.E., Khan Bahadur.

The Khan Bahadur is a Deputy Collector in Sind ; and for his services
to
the State was created a Companion of the Most Eminent Order of the
Indian


Empire on 25th May 1892.

Residence. Sind.

KAHLUR, HIS HIGHNESS RAJA BIJE CHAND, Rdjd of.

A Ruling Chief.

Born 1872; succeeded to the gadi as a minor 3rd February 1889.
Belongs to a Rajput (Hindu) family, claiming descent from Argok, a
Raja
whose territory was situated in the Deccan. Harihar Chand, a
descendant
of Argok in the fourteenth generation, came on a pilgrimage to
Jwalamukhi,
a sacred place in the Kangra district of the Punjab ; he saw
Jhandbhari, in
the Hoshiarpur district, and, attracted by the place, conquered it and
settled
down there. One of Harihar Chand's sons conquered and took possession
of the Chamba State (q.v.) ; another carved out a principality for
himself in
Kanidon; while a third son, Bir Chand, founded the State of Kahlur or
Bilaspur. From 1803 to 1815 the State was overrun by the Gurkhas, and
after their expulsion it was confirmed to the then Raja by a sanad
from the
British Government, dated 6th March 1815. The Raja Hira Singh, pre-
decessor of the present Raja, rendered good service during the Mutiny
of
1857, and was rewarded with a salute of n guns. The area of the State
(which is one of the Simla Hill States) is 448 square miles ; its
population is
86,546, chiefly Hindus. The Raja maintains a military force of 40
cavalry,
620 infantry, and n guns, and is entitled to a salute of n guns.

Residence. Kahlur, Simla Hills, Punjab.

KAHN. See Kanh.

KAILASH CHANDAR MUKHARJI, Red Bahddur.

The title is personal, and was conferred on ist January 1887, for
"long
and meritorious service in the Bengal Secretariat."
Residence. 20 Durjipara Street, Calcutta, Bengal.

KAISAR MIRZA, Nawdb Bahddur.

The title is personal, the Nawab Bahadur being the grandson of a
daughter of the late Muhammad Ali Shah, King of Oudh. He is the son
of
the Nawab Abul Hasan Khan.

Residence. O udh.

KAKARKHERI (BHOPAL), Thdkur of. See Dhabla Dhir.

KAKKU MAL, Rai Bahddur.

Born 28th February 1849. The title is personal, and was conferred on
1 6th February 1887, on the occasion of the Jubilee of Her Majesty's
reign.
Belongs to a family that migrated from the Punjab in 1751, and settled
at
Ajudhya. His father was Treasurer under the Kings of Oudh, and was
subsequently appointed Peshkar by the British Government. He has
rendered
loyal and meritorious service as Chairman of the Fyzabad Municipal
Board.

Residence. Fyzabad, Oudh.

KALAHANDI, Rdjd of. See Karond.

KALAHASTI, KUMARA MADDU VENKATAPPA, Rdjd oj.

Born 1850; succeeded recently to the gadi on the death of his father,
the Raja Damarakumara Maddu Venkatappa Nayudu Bahadur Garu, C.S.I.
Belongs to an ancient family, that acquired importance in the i5th
century
under the Government of the Rajas of Vijayanagar, and increased in
con-
sequence of the decline of that dynasty. Under the Muhammadan Govern-
ment the head of the family held the position of a Mansabddr of 5000
foot ; and a sanad granted by the Emperor Aurangzeb of Delhi made the
family directly subordinate to the Nawab of Arcot. An ancestor of the
Raja was the local Naik who procured for the English from the Raja of
Chandragiri the privilege of settling at Madras and of building a fort
there ;
and his father's name being Chenappa, he stipulated that the place
should be
called Chenappa-patnam. The late Raja received the Companionship of
the
Most Exalted Order of the Star of India from His Royal Highness the
Prince
of Wales, at the Darbar held at Calcutta on ist January 1876. The
family
banner is the " Hanumadwajam," or flag bearing the device of Hanuman
(the sacred monkey) in five colours. The Raja owns large estates in
Nellore
and North Arcot districts, Madras.

Residence. Kalahasti, Nellore, Madras.

KALAT, HIS HIGHNESS BEGLAR BEGI MIR SIR MUHAM-
MAD KHODADAD KHAN, G.C.S.I, Walt of.
A Ruling Chief.

Born 1838; succeeded to the gadi in 1857. The title of Beglar Begi
was conferred on one of His Highness's ancestors, named Nasir Khan,
by
the great Persian invader Nadir Shah in 1739. Nasir Khan subsequently
was embroiled in wars with the King of Kabul, Ahmad Shah Abdali, and
later on became a trusted leader of that monarch's troops. Nasir Khan
died in extreme old age in 1795, and was succeeded by his son Mahmud
Khan. In 1839, at the time of the first Afghan war, Mehrab Khan was
the Wali of Kalat and ruler of Baluchistan; on account of his
supposed
treachery (which was afterwards discovered to have been falsely
attributed to
him by his Wazir\ the town and fort of Kalat were stormed by General
Willshire, and the unfortunate Mehrab Khan was among the slain. In
1841,
however, his son Nasir Khan was reinstated by the British, whose army
thereon evacuated the country; and in 1854 a treaty was concluded,
stipulating for the protection of the State by the British Power.
Nasir Khan
died in 1856, and was succeeded by his brother, the present Wali. His
Highness had an interview with the Viceroy of India (Lord Lytton) in
1876
at Jacobabad, when the treaty of 1854 was renewed and extended; and,
with his great vassals, he attended the Imperial Assemblage at Delhi
in 1877,
on the occasion of the Proclamation of Her Majesty as Empress of
India,
and was created a Knight Grand Commander of the Most Exalted Order of
the Star of India. Throughout the Afghan war of 1878-79 the Wali
rendered the most valuable aid to the Government -placing all the
resources
of his country at its disposal, and sending his son and heir -apparent
to
accompany the General in command of the army passing through his
territory. The area of the State is about 91,000 square miles; its
popula-
tion is about 150,000, chiefly Muhammadans. His Highness maintains a
military force of 300 cavalry, 1500 infantry, and 6 guns; and is
entitled to a
salute of 2 1 guns (including 2 guns personal).

Residence. Kalcit, Baluchistan.

KALB ALI KHAN, MIRZA, Khdn Bahddur.

Born 22nd June 1828. The title is personal, and was conferred on 24th
May 1889, for his " distinguished loyalty in the Mutiny and his good
services."
The Khan Bahadur was formerly Sub-Judge of Unao, and has had a long
and
distinguished service in the Judicial Department.

Residence. Unao, Oudh.

KALE KHAN, MAJOR, Khan Bahddur.

Governor of Gilgit. Granted the title of Khan Bahadur, as a personal
distinction, 2nd January 1893.
Residence. Gilgit, Kashmir.

KALI BAORI, BHUMIA SHER SINGH, Bhumia of.

A Ruling Chief.

Born 1859; succeeded to the gadi in 1874. The Bhumia receives
allowances both from Dhar and from Gwalior, on condition of
preserving

order in certain territory. The State contains about 1700
inhabitants,
chiefly Hindus. The Chief belongs to a Bhilala family.
Residence. Ka"li Ba"ori, Bhopdwar, Central India.

KALI KISHAN GHOSH, Rai Bahadur.

The title is personal, and was conferred on ist June 1888, in
recognition
of highly meritorious service in the Army Medical Department, in which
the
Rai Bahadur has been an Assistant-Surgeon.

Residence. Na"gpur, Central Provinces.

KALI KUMAR DB, Rai Bahadur.

Granted the title of Rai Bahadur, as a personal distinction, 2nd
January

1893, for eminent services in the Currency Department.
Residence. Calcutta.

KALI PADA MUKHARJI, Rai Bahadur.
The title is personal, and was conferred on ist January 1890.
Residence. Orissa, Bengal.

KALIKA DAS DATT, Rai Bahadur.

Born 3rd July 1841 ; son of the late Rai Golak Nath Datt. Educated
at the Krishnagar and Presidency Colleges of the Calcutta University
(B.A.,
1860 ; B.L., 1861). Appointed to the Judicial Service in 1861, and
became
Diwan of the State of Kuch Behar in August 1869. Was formally
invested
with insignia of office in 1870, and became Member of the Kuch Behar
State
Council. Has rendered long and meritorious service as Minister of the
Kuch
Behar State, and in recognition thereof was granted the title of Rai
Bahadur
on ist January 1891. Has three sons (i) Charu Chandra Datt, born i6th
June 1876 j (2) Atal Chandra Datt, born 5th June 1878 ; (3) Nirmal
Chandra
Datt, born 23rd January 1881.

Residences. The Dewa~nkha"na, Kuch Behar, Bengal ; Meral, Burdwan,
Bengal ; and 4 Ganga"dhar Babu's Lane, Calcutta.

KALIYAN SINGH (of Jhawaro) Rao.

Born 1863. The title is hereditary, having been originally conferred
by
the old Mahratta Government of Deori, and subsequently recognised by
the
British Government.

Residence. Jhawaro, Sa"gar, Central Provinces.

KALIYAN SINGH, THAKUR, Rao Saheb.

The title of Rao Saheb is personal, and was conferred on ist January
1877.

Residence. Junian, Ajmir.

KALIYANA SUNDAEAM CHETTIYAR, Rao Bahadur.

Born 1837. The title is personal, and was conferred on ist June 1888.
Was appointed a Deputy-Collector in 1878.
Residence. Cuddalore, Madras.

KALSIA, SARDAR RANJIT SINGH, Sarddr of.
A Ruling Chief.

Born 1 88 1 ; succeeded to the gadi as a minor 28th August 1886.
Belongs to a Jat (Sikh) family, originally of Kalsia in the Lahore
district,
whose founder, Sardar Gurbakhsh Singh, conquered this territory in the
last
century. His son, Jodh Singh, was a brave and able man, who made con-
siderable conquests in the neighbourhood of Ambala towards the close
of the
century. When the Cis-Sutlej States came under British protection,
Sardar
Jodh Singh followed the general example. His grandson, Sardar Lahna
Singh, was the grandfather of the present Sardar. The area of the
State is
169 square miles; its population is 67,708, chiefly Hindus, but
including
19,930 Muhammadans and 5923 Sikhs. The Sardar maintains a military
force of 48 cavalry, 181 infantry, and 3 guns.

Residence. Kalsia, Punjab.

KALU KHAN (of Kuldchi), Khan Bahadur.

The title was conferred on nth March 1859. The Khan Bahadur
belongs to the family of the Chief of the Gandapur clan of the
Kulachi
country in the Dera Ismail Khan district of the Punjab, and belongs to
the
Bira Khel (Afghan) tribe. In the Multan campaign of 1848-49 Kalu Khan
and his father AH Khan raised a force of several hundred men of the
Bira
Khel tribe of Afghans, and rendered excellent service throughout the
second
Sikh war, for which Kalu Khan received a large pension from
Government.
When the Mutiny of 1857 broke out, he immediately raised a force of
200
horse and 400 foot, and leaving 200 foot with the Deputy-Commissioner
of
Dera Ismail Khan for the posts on the Sulaimani border, he joined Sir
Herbert Edwardes with the remaining 200 horse and 200 foot at
Peshawar,
where he served throughout the crisis with distinguished loyalty. For
this
he received a valuable khilat^ a perpetual jdgir, and the title of
Khan
Bahadur.

Residence. Dera Ismail Khdn, Punjab.

KALU KHERA, RAO UMED SINGH, Rao of.
A Ruling Chief.

Born 1830 ; succeeded to the gadi 1843. The Rao belongs to a Rajput
family, and his title is hereditary. The State contains a population
of about
1000.

Residence. Kalu Khera, Western Mdlwa", Central India.

KAMADHIA, MIR ZULFIKAR ALI, Tdlukddr of.

A Ruling Chief.

Belongs to a Muhammadan family in the Gohelwar Prant, Kathiawar.
The area of the State is 4 square miles; its population about 772,
chiefly
Hindus.

Residence. Kamadhia, Kathidwar, Bombay.

KAMALPUR, THAKUR MADAN SINGH, Thdkur of.

A Ruling Chief.

Born 1850; succeeded to the gadi nth October 1881. Receives an
allowance, in lieu of land rights, from Gwalior. Belongs to a Rajput
(Hindu)
family.

Residence. Kamalpur, Bhopal, Central India.

KAMATA PATI GHOSAL, Rai Bahadur.

The title is personal, and was conferred on ist January 1889, for
dis-
tinguished service in the Bengal Police.

Residence. Naihdti, Bengal.

KAMBAKHSH HASAN MIRZA BAHADUR, Prince.

The Prince is the tenth son of the late Wajid Ali Shah, King of Oudh,
and bears the title of Prince as a personal or courtesy title.
Residence. Calcutta, Bengal.

KAMR KADR MIRZA. See Abid Ali Bahadur.

KAMRAN SHAH, Rdjd.

Born 1840. The title is hereditary, having been originally conferred
by
the ancient Gond Rajas of Deogarh and Nagpur, and subsequently
recognised
by the British Government. Belongs to a family of Gond (aboriginal)
origin,
that is, a younger branch of the family of Raja Sulaiman Shah of
Deogarh
and Nagpur. The family became Muhammadan about 200 years ago. In
1860 the British Government confirmed his jdgirs in perpetuity to
Raja
Kamran Shah, in consideration both of his own loyal services during
the
Mutiny, and of his father's good services previously rendered. The
Raja is
an Honorary Magistrate, and Member of the local Municipal and School
Committees. He has two sons, named Kuar Omri Shah and Kuar Sultan
Shah.

Residence. Ramangan, Hoshangabad, Central Provinces.

KAMR-UD-DIN, FAKIR, Khdn Bahadur.

The title is personal, and was conferred on i6th February 1887, on
the

occasion of the Jubilee of Her^Majesty's reign.

Residence. Lahore, Punj ab.

KAMTA RAJAULA, BAG BHARAT PARSHAD, Jagirdar of.

A Ruling Chief.

Born 1 8th July 1847; succeeded to the gadi 23rd October 1874.
Belongs to a Kayastha (Hindu) family, descended from Sardar Ajudhya
Parshad, an agent of the State of Charkhari (q.v.\ who became an agent
of the
Kalinjar Chaubes, and obtained from them the jdgir of Kamta. His son,
Rao Gopal Lai, received a sanad from the British Government, and,
dying in
1874, was succeeded by the present Jagirdar. The area of the State is
4
square miles; its population is about 1500, chiefly Hindus. The
Jagirdar
maintains a military force of 1 5 infantry and i gun. He has sons, of
whom
the eldest is named Bhaya Ram Parshad.

Residence. Kamta Rajaula, Bundelkhand, Central India.

KANGSEU, Myoza of.

A Ruling Chief.

This Chief rules over one of the Shan States, on the frontiers of
Burma.
Residence. Kangseu, Shan States, Burma.

KANH CHAND, Rat Bahadur.

The title is personal, and was conferred on ist June 1888.
Residence. Kdngra, Punjab.

KANHAI LAL DB, C.I.B., Rat Bahadur.

Born 24th September 1831. The title of Rai Bahadur is personal, and
was conferred on 6th June 1872, for distinguished medical services.
The
Rai Bahadur is a son of the late Radha Nath De, Rai Bahadur, and the
name is very commonly spelt " Kanny Lall Dey." He was educated at the
Medical College of Bengal, where he graduated with distinction in
1854, and
in the same year was appointed to a Professorship of Chemistry in the
Cal-
cutta Medical College, and a Chemical Examiner to Government. In 1862
he was appointed Professor of Chemistry in the Presidency College of
the
University of Calcutta, and from that time his honours professional,
scien-
tific, and other have been exceedingly numerous. He was appointed
suc-
cessively Member British Medical Association, 1863; Honorary Member,
Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain, 1863; additional Chemical
Ex-
'aminer to Government, 1867-72 ; teacher of Chemistry and Medical
Juris-
prudence to the Vernacular Classes, Calcutta Medical College,
1869-84;
Fellow of the University of Calcutta, 1870; Member Faculty of
Medicine,
University of Calcutta, 1871; Rai Bahadur, 1872; Justice of the
Peace,
1872; Member Committee of the Economic Museum, 1874; Professor of
Chemistry and Government Chemical Examiner, Calcutta Medical College,
1877-78; Municipal Commissioner, 1877-85; Member Central Committee
for the Selection of the Vernacular Text-Books, 1887 ; Certificate of
Honour
in recognition of services to the State on the occasion of Her
Majesty's
assumption of the Imperial title, 1877 ; Examiner in Medical
Jurisprudence,

1878; Fellow Chemical Society, London (F.C.S.), 1880; Vice-President
of
the Calcutta Medical Society, 1881 ; Presidency Magistrate for
Calcutta,
1 88 1 ; Member of Committee and Juror at the Calcutta Exhibition of
Indian
Art Manufactures, 1881-82; Juror at the Jaipur Exhibition, 1883, also
Cal-
cutta International Exhibition, 1883-84; created a Companion of the
Most
Eminent Order of the Indian Empire, 1884; appointed Member of the
Syndicate, Calcutta University, 1886; Member District Charitable
Society,
Calcutta, 1886; Honorary Fellow College of Physicians, Philadelphia,
1886.
The Rai Bahadur is the author of treatises on chemistry, physics, and
medical jurisprudence in Bengali. He has helped to develop the drug
resources of India, and written an elaborate descriptive catalogue of
same.
He represented India at the International Exhibition, London, 1862 ;
Uni-
versal Exposition of Paris, 1867 and 1878; Vienna Universal
Exhibition,
1872; Melbourne Exhibition, 1880; Amsterdam Exhibition, 1883; World's
Industrial Cotton Centennial Exposition, New Orleans, U.S.A.,
1884-85;
and Colonial and Indian Exhibition, 1886, for which received
certificates
and medals, also thanks of the Government. The Rai Bahadur has a
son, named Priyalal De (the name is very frequently spelt Preo Lall
Dey),
born 24th July 1855 ; a Fellow of the Chemical Society of London
(F.C.S.),
1886 ; Presidency Magistrate for Calcutta, 1890.

Residences. 1 1 Beadon Street and 62 Aheritola Street, Calcutta,
Bengal.

KANHAI LAL JHA, PANDIT, Mahdmahopddhydya.

The title is a personal one, and was conferred on ist January 1890
for
eminence in Oriental learning. It entitles him to take rank in Darbar
imme-
diately after titular Rajas.

Residence. Darbhanga, Bengal.

KANHAYA LAL, Rai Bahddur.

The title is personal, and was conferred on 3oth March 1876.
Residence. Lahore, Punjab.

KANHAYA LAL, Rai Bahddur.

The title is personal, and was conferred on ist January 1890.
Residence. Amritsar, Punjab.

KANKBR, MAHARAJ-ADHIRAJ NARHAR DEO, Maharaja of.

A Ruling Chief.

Born 1 3th May 1850; succeeded to the gadi as a minor 5th December
1853. Belongs to a very ancient Rajput family, whose ancestors,
according
to tradition, were raised to the gadi by a popular vote in very early
times.
During the dominion of the Haihai Vansi dynasty in Chhattisgarh the
Kanker Zamindars were rich and prosperous. The area of the State is
639
square miles; its population is 63,610, chiefly Gonds (aboriginal
tribe).

Residence. Kanker, Raipur, Central Provinces.

KANNAYYA CHBTTI, K.V., Rao Bahadur.

Born 1857. The title is personal, and was conferred on ist June 1888
for eminent services to the State. Was elected a member of the Madras
Municipal Commission in 1885.

Residence. Madras.

KANNY LALL DEY, C.I.B., Rai Bahadur. .Sk.Kanhai Lai De.

KANTARAWADI, SAWLAWI, Myoza of.
A Ruling Chief.

The Myoza is the chief of one of the Karen States in Eastern Karenni,
Burma. The population consists chiefly of Karens.
Residence. Kantarawadi, Eastern Karenni, Burma.

KANTI CHANDAR MUKHARJT, C.I.B., Rai Bahadur.

The title is personal, and was conferred on i6th February 1887, on
the
occasion of the Jubilee of the reign of Her Most Gracious Majesty.

The
Rai Bahadur was created a Companion of the Most Eminent Order of the
Indian Empire on ist January 1891, for distinguished services as Diwan
or
Prime Minister of the State of Jaipur in Rajputana.

Residence. Jaipur, Rajputdna.

KANTIGYI, Chief of.
A Ruling Chief.

This Chief rules over one of the Shan States on the frontier of
Burma.
Its population consists almost entirely of Shans.
Residence. Kantigyi, Shan States, Burma.

Sid Harth

unread,
Feb 4, 2010, 1:36:44 PM2/4/10
to
KANTIT, RAJA BHUP INDRA BAHADUR SINGH, Rdjd of.

Born 1863; as a minor succeeded his father, Raja Rajendra Bahadur
Singh, in the year of his birth. Belongs to an ancient family of
Gaharwar
Rajputs, said to be a branch of that of the Rahtors of Kanauj, and
descended
from Gudan Deo. In ancient times, for a long series of years it
appears
that there was a Gaharwar Raj of the Kantit family, settled at
Benares, and
owning domains in Mirzapur district, south of the Ganges. In 1758 the
Raja Vikramaditya Singh of Kantit was driven out by Balwant Singh,
the
first Raja of Benares (g.v.); but after the flight of Raja Chet Singh
of
Benares in 1781, Raja Govinda Singh, son of Raja Vikramaditya,
recovered
his possessions. He was succeeded by his nephew and adopted son, Ram
Ghulam Singh, whose son was Raja Mahipal Singh ; and the latter in
turn
was succeeded by his son, Jagat Bahadur Singh. He died in 1850,
leaving
two minor sons, of whom the elder, Raja Rajendra Bahadur Singh,
succeeded his father, but hardly lived to attain his majority. On his
death
he was succeeded by the present Raja.

Residence. Bijaipur, Mirzapur, North-Western Provinces.

KAPILAS KUMARI (of Phulghar), Rani.

The title is hereditary. The Rani belongs to a very ancient Gond
family, descended from the Chanda stock of Gond Rajas, 800 years ago.
It
is said that the title of Raja was conferred on an ancestor by one of
the
ancient Kings of Delhi, before the family left Chanda. Until recently
the
Phulghar Zamindari was classed as a Gurjhat feudatory State ; but the
late
Raja Jagsai died without legitimate heirs in 1867, and the State
lapsed into
the form of a Zamindari, in the hands of the late Rani Sagan Kumari
of
Phulghar, who was the lawful wife of the Raja Prithi Singh. The Rani
Sagan Kumari was more than seventy years of age when she succeeded to
the
estate, as she was born before the commencement of the present
century ; she
was succeeded by the present Rani.

Residence. Phulghar, Sambalpur, Central Provinces.

KAPURTHALA, His Highness the Rdjd of.
A Ruling Chief.

Born September 1872 ; succeeded to the gadi as a minor 5th
September 1877. The Raja's full title is His Highness Farzand-i-
Dilband
Rasikhul-Iti-kad Daulat-i-Inglishia Raja-i-Rajagan Raja Jagatjit
Singh
Bahadur. Belongs to a Jat Kalal (Sikh) family, well known under the
distinguished name of Ahluwalia, from the village of Ahlu near
Lahore.
The Sardar Jassa Singh was one of the most conspicuous of the leaders
who
consolidated the Sikh Power during the disorders and weakness of the
Mughals, consequent on the invasions of Nadir Shah and Ahmad Shah
Durani. He died without issue, and was succeeded by Sardar Bagh
Singh,
a descendant of his uncle. The Chiefs of Kapurthala largely extended
their
territories and power; and the name of Sardar Bagh Singh's successor,
Sardar Fateh Singh, was associated with that of the Maharaja Ranjit
Singh
in the first Sikh treaty concluded with the British Government. In
1826
Sardar Fateh Singh sought the protection of the British Power against
Ranjit
Singh ; but in the first Sikh war his troops fought against the
British at the
battle of Aliwal, and on this account his Cis-Sutlej territories were
confiscated.
In the second Sikh war his son Sardar Nihal Singh rendered good
service ;
and in recognition of it he was created a Raja in 1849. On the
outbreak
of the Mutiny in 1857, the Raja Sir Randhir Singh, G. C.S.I., of
Kapurthala,
volunteered the services of himself and all his followers. He
strengthened
the hold of Government in the Jalandhar Doab, and then volunteered to
aid
in the subjugation of the rebellious Province of Oudh. His offer was
accepted ; and accompanied by his brother, the brave Sardar Bikrama
Singh
Bahadur, C.S.I., he marched to Oudh at the head of 2000 horse and
foot
and four guns. This force fought no less than six actions with the
rebels, with
conspicuous valour on the part alike of the Chief, his brother, and
his
followers. They held most important positions first at Bani to protect
the
Lucknow and Cawnpur road, and afterwards at Daryabad ; and captured
ten
guns from the rebels. The Kapurthala troops remained in Oudh for a
whole year ; and the Raja Sir Randhir Singh received as a reward for
his
loyalty and bravery large estates there, confiscated from the
rebellious Rajas
of Bhitauli, Baundi, and Ikauna, as well as a khilat of Rs. 10,000,
and
many other honours. In 1870 he set out to visit England, but
unfortunately
died at Aden on the way. He was succeeded by his son, the Raja Kharak
Singh, father of the present Raja ; leaving also a younger son, the
Kunwar
Harnam Singh, C.I.E. (q.v.\ and a daughter married to the Sardar Buta
Singh of Sirnanwa. The area of the State is 598 square miles; its
population is 252,617, chiefly Muhammadans, but including 82,900
Hindus
and 26,493 Sikhs. In addition to this, the Oudh estates of His
Highness
have an area of 700 square miles, and a population of 253,000. The
Raja
maintains a military force of 197 cavalry, 829 infantry, and 13 guns;


and is
entitled to a salute of 1 1 guns.

Residences. Kapurthala, Punjab ; and Bhitauli, Baundi, and Ikauna,
Oudh.

KARA AHMAD. See Muhammad Jam Jah Ali.

KARAM HUSAIN walad ALI GAUHAR KHAN, Mir.

The title is hereditary, the Mir being a descendant of one of the Mirs
or


Chiefs of Sind at the time of the annexation (see Khairpur).
Residence. Shikdrpur, Sind.

KARAM KHAN, Mir.

The title is hereditary, the Mir being a descendant of one of the Mirs
or
Chiefs of Sind at the time of the annexation (see Khairpur).
Residence* Shika~rpur, Sind.

KARAMDAD KHAN (of Pharwala), Rdjd.

The title is hereditary, and the Raja succeeded his father in March
1865, as the foremost of the Gakkar Chiefs of the Punjab. The Gakkars
trace their descent from Kai Gohar, of Ispahan in Persia, whose son,
Sultan Kaid, is said to have conquered Badakshan and a part of Tibet.
For
many hundreds of years the Gakkars were undoubtedly possessed of
great
power and a wide extent of territory ; they overran Kashmir in very
early
times, and traces of their occupation are still to be found in the
north and
west of that country. They are usually of the Shia sect of
Muhammadans.
When the Emperor Babar invaded India, Hati Khan was the Chief of the
Gakkars ; and in the Emperor's Autobiography there is a notice of his
contest with that Chief. Babar marched against Pharwala then, as now,
the capital of the Gakkars in 1526 A.D., and captured it after a
gallant
resistance, Hati Khan making his escape from one gate of the town as
Babar's troops entered by another. Sultan Mukarrab Khan was the last
independent Gakkar Chief, and in his day the power of the Gakkars was
very
great. He defeated the Yusufzai Afghans and the Chief of the
Khattaks,
and captured Gujrat, overrunning the Chib country as far north as
Bhimbar.
He joined Ahmad Shah Durani on his several invasions of India, and
was
treated by that monarch with the greatest consideration, being
confirmed in
the possession of his large territories, which extended from the
Chinab to the
Indus. Mukarrab Khan was at last defeated by the powerful Sikh Chief,
Sardar Gujar Singh, Bhangi, and compelled to retire across the
Jhelum,
giving up his possessions in the Chaj Doab. His power being thus
broken,
the rival Chiefs of his own tribe declared against him, and he was
treacherously put to death. He left four sons, of whom the youngest
was
Sultan Shadman Khan, grandfather of the present Raja. The family were
greatly impoverished, weakened, and stripped of most of their
possessions, by
the attacks first of Sardar Gujar Singh, and subsequently of Anand
Singh,
Thipuria, grandson of the famous Sardar Milkha Singh of Rawalpindi.
In
1826 the family was conceded some proprietary rights in Pharwala, the
ancient cradle and home of their race. Shadman Khan's eldest son was
Hayat-ulla-Khan, who became Raja ; he rendered excellent service
under
Captain Abbott in 1848-49, and again during the Mutiny of 1857. He
was
succeeded by the present Raja in 1865.

Residence. Pharwdla, Rawalpindi, Punjab.

KARAN SINGH, Rao.
The title is hereditary.
Residence. Aligarh, North- Western Provinces.

KARASGI, Chief of. See Jath.

KARAULI, HIS HIGHNESS MAHARAJA BONWAR PAL DEO
BAHADUR YADUKUL CHANDRA BHAL, Maharaja of.

A Ruling Chief.

Born 1862 ; succeeded to the gadi i4th August 1886. Is the head 01
the great Jadun clan of Rajputs, who claim descent from Krishna, and
are
called the Chandravansi or Children of the Moon. The title of
Maharaja
has descended to them from the remotest antiquity. Probably the first
historical personage in the pedigree is Bijai Pal, who built the fort
of Biana
in 995 A.D. Arjan Deo, in 1348 A.D., established the State, and
founded
the capital of Karauli in Rajputana. The Maharaja Dharm Pal became
Maharaja of Karauli in 1644 A.D. ; and the present Maharaja Bahadur
is
ninth in succession from Dharm Pal. The Maharaja Madan Pal rendered
good service during the Mutiny of 1857, sending a body of his troops
against
the Kotah mutineers ; and for these services he received an addition
of two
guns to his salute as a personal distinction, and was created a Knight
Grand
Commander of the Most Exalted Order of the Star of India. The area of
the State is 1208 square miles; its population is 148,670, chiefly
Hindus,
but including 8836 Muhammadans. His Highness maintains a military
force of 281 cavalry, 1640 infantry, and 56 guns; and is entitled to a
salute
of 1 7 guns. The family banner is coloured yellow.

Residence. Karauli, Ra"jputa"na.

KARENNI, WESTERN, PO BYA, Chief of.
A Ruling Chief.

Po Bya is Chief of one of the Karen States in Burma. Its population
consists almost entirely of Karens. It has three feudatory
dependencies
Bawlake, Kyetpogyi, and Naungpale.

Residence. Western Karenni, Burma.

KARIM KHAN, Sarddr Bahadur.

Born 1813; belongs to a Pathan (Afghan) family settled in Unao, Oudh.
He was distinguished for his bravery and loyalty during the Mutiny of
1857,
when he held the military rank of Subahdar ; and in recognition
thereof he
received the title of Sardar Bahadur as a personal distinction, by a
sanad
dated i8th September 1860.

Residence. Unao, Oudh.

KARIM-UD-DIN AHMAD, Khan Bahddur.

The title is personal, and was conferred on 20th May 1890.


Residence. Meerut, North- Western Provinces.

KABODIA, THAKUR CHAIN SINGH, Thdkur of.
A Ruling Chief.

Born 1864; succeeded to the gadi 26th October 1880. Belongs to a
Rajput (Hindu) family.

Residence. Karodia, Indore, Central India.

KAROLI, THAKUR BHAWANSINGH JI, Thdkur of.
A Ruling Chief.

Born 1856; belongs to a Koli (aboriginal) family. The area of the
State is 12 square miles; its population about 1500, chiefly Hindus.
Residence. Karoli, Mdhi Kdntha, Bombay.

KAROND, RAJA RAGHU KBSHAR DEO, Rdjd of.
A Ruling Chief.

Born 1871 ; succeeded to the gadi 7th April 1881. Belongs to an
ancient Rajput family of the Nagbansi (snake-race) clan the cognisance
of
the Nagbansi clan is the sacred Serpent descended on the female side
from
the original Gangabansi dynasty of Karond, and on the male side from
the
Rajas of Satrangarh in Chota Nagpur. The late Raja, Udit Partab Deo,
for
his good services to Government, received the honour of a personal
salute of
nine guns, which was conferred on ist January 1877, on the occasion of
the
Proclamation of her Most Gracious Majesty as Empress of India. The
present Raja is thirty-first in descent from the founder of the
dynasty. The
area of the State is 3745 square miles; and its population is
224,548,
chiefly Gonds (an aboriginal tribe). The Raja is entitled to a salute
of
9 guns.

Residence. Karond, Sambalpur, Central Provinces.

KARVETNAGAR, Rdjd of.
See Kumara Venkata Perumal Raz, Rdjd.

KASHI CHANDAR DATT, Rai Bahadur.

The title is personal, and was conferred on i6th February 1887, on
the
occasion of the Jubilee of the reign of Her Most Gracious Majesty.

Residence. Joinshar, Dacca, Bengal.

KASHI NATH BISWAS, Rai Bahadur.

Born October 1830. The title was conferred on i6th February 1887,


on the occasion of the Jubilee of the reign of Her Most Gracious
Majesty.

The Rai Bahadur's great-grandfather was in the service of the Nawab
Nazim
of Bengal; and his father and grandfather were employed under the
Governor-General's agent at Benares. He entered the Judicial Service
in
1856; became a first-grade Subordinate Judge in 1875, an d received a
Silver Medal of Honour at the Imperial Assemblage at Delhi in January
1877, on the occasion of the Proclamation of Her Majesty as Empress
of
India. He received the title of Rai Bahadur in recognition of his long
and
meritorious services as a Judge.

Residence. Benares, North- Western Provinces.

KASHINATH LAKSHMAN, Rao Bahadur.

Born 1 6th July 1833. The title was conferred on 24th May 1883, for
long and distinguished service in the Police Department, in Khandesh,
Bombay. The Rao Bahadur belongs to a Karhada Brahman family, and
was the son of Lakshuman Krishna, of the Political Department and
Police
of Khandesh. Was invested with the title of Rao Bahadur at a Darbar
held
at Dhulia on i5th June 1883. In 1846 he married Ganga, the only
daughter of the late Jagirdar of Waroda ; and has issue four sons
(i) Martand, born 3oth July 1865, married Lakshmibai, daughter of
Purushotam Pant Khandekar; (2) Waman, born 27th July 1867, married
Jankibai, daughter of Prathad Pant Shahane, Mamlatdar of Tasgaon ;
(3)
Govinda, born 28th August 1871, married Gopikabai, daughter of
Madhava
Rao Khandekar Phadnis, late Mamlatdar of Satara; (4) Gopal, born 24th
June 1878, married Rukhminibai, daughter of Narayan Rao Bhopatkar of
Azvi.

Residence. Jalgaon, Khdndesh, Bombay.

KASHINATH TRIMBAK TBLANG-, C.I.E., The Hon.

A distinguished member of the Bombay Bar. Was created a Companion
of the Most Eminent Order of the Indian Empire, 23rd May 1884.

KASHMIR, His Highness the Mahdrdjd Bahddur of.
See Jammu and Kashmir.

KASIM HUSAIN TAJ-UL-MULK MIRZA BAHADUR, Prince.

The Prince is the ninth son of the late Wajid AH Shah, King of Oudh ;
and accordingly bears this title as a personal or courtesy title,

Residence. Calcutta, Bengal.

KASSALPURA, THAKUR MANAJI, Thdkur of.
A Ruling Chief.

Born 1823; belongs to a Koli (aboriginal) family. The population of
the State is about 400.

Residence. Kassalpura, Mahi Kantha, Bombay.

KASTUR CHAND, SETH, Rai Bahddur.

The title is personal, and was conferred on i6th February 1887, on
the
occasion of the Jubilee of the reign of Her Most Gracious Majesty.

Residence. Kamthi, Central Provinces.

KASTUR CHAND, Seth.

The title is personal ; it was originally conferred by the Nawab of
the
Carnatic, and was recognised on i6th December 1890 by the British
Government.

Residence. Jaipur, Madras.

KATARI SUBBARAYUDU NAYUDU, Rai Bahddur.

Born in 1837. The title was conferred on 25th June 1884, for
meritorious services rendered in the Madras Police. Son of the late
K.
Subbarayudu Nayudu. Educated at Masulipatam. After four years'
service
in the Inam Commission, was appointed to the Madras Police in the
Kistna
district in 1866. Received a Gold Medal from the Mysore State for
courage
and ability shown in suppressing a notorious gang of dakaits. In 1891
received a jewelled Sword of Honour for similar services from the
British
Government. Has two sons Katari Narayanaswami and Katari Subbarao.

Residence. Nandigama, Kistna, Madras.

KATHI, CHANDRA SINGH RAHI PADRI, Chief of .
A Ruling Chief.

Born 1866; belongs to a Bhil (aboriginal) family. The area of the
State, which is one of the Mewas States in Khandesh, is about 500
square
miles; its population rather over 10,000, chiefly Bhils. The Mewas
Chiefs
maintain a force of irregulars, called Sibandis, who collect the
revenue, attend
the Chiefs, and keep order on the frontier and perform other police
duties
under the Khandesh Superintendent of Police. Besides these irregulars,
a
considerable number of Bhil headmen, naiks, are bound, if called upon
by
their Chiefs, to furnish from 30 to 50 bowmen apiece.

Residence. Kathi, Khandesh, Bombay.

KATHIWARA, THAKUR BAHADUR SINGH, Thdkur of.
A Ruling Chief.

Born 1839 ; succeeded to the gadi in 1865. Belongs to a Rajput
(Hindu) family. The area of the State is 68 square miles ; its
population
is 2376, Hindus and Bhils. The Thakur maintains a military force of
39
infantry.

Residence. Kathiwara, BhopaVar, Central India.

KATOSAN, THAKUR KARANSINGHJI RANAJI, Thdkur of.

A Ruling Chief.

Born 1850 ; succeeded to the gadi 2 ist January 1869. Belongs to a
Koli
(Hindu) family. The population of the State is about 1743.
Residence. Katosan, Mahi Kdntha, Bombay.

KAWARDHA, THAKUR RAJPAL SINGH, Thdkur of.
A Ruling Chief.

Born 1 3th November 1849 > succeeded to fatgadi i ith December 1874.
Belongs to a Raj Gond (aboriginal) family, claiming descent from Sham
Chand, from whom the present Thakur is thirteenth in descent. His
father
was the Thakur Ram Singh of Pandaria. The area of the State is 887
square
miles ; its population is 86,362, chiefly Hindus.

Residence. Kawardha, Bildspur, Central Provinces.

KAWASJI HORMASJI DADA CHARJI, Khan Saheb.
The title is personal, and was conferred on ist January 1889.
Residence. Aden.

KAWASJI JAMSHBDJI LALKAKA, Khdn Bahadur.

Bora ^i 9th September 1851. The title was conferred on 2 ist February
1884, for!eminent services rendered to the State in the Postal
Department.
Belongs to a Parsi family, son of Jamshedji Dosabji Lalkaka. Is a
Justice
of the Peace, April 1881. Acted as Deputy Postmaster- General of the
Central Provinces and Berar in 1889, and of Rajputana in 1890.
Married,
3rd December 1873, Manikbai, daughter of Nasarwanji Khurshidji
Sabavala
of Surat; and has issue two sons Jahangir, born 29th May 1875,
Kaikhushro, born 27th June 1878.

Residence. Ahmadabad, Bombay.

KAWASJI KAIKHUSRU, Khdn Saheb.
The title is personal, and was conferred on 24th May 1889.
Residence. Bombay.

KAYATHA, THAKUR SHBODAN SINGH, Thdkur of.
A Ruling Chief.

Born 1848 ; succeeded to the gadi 1863. Belongs to a Rajput (Hindu)
family.

Residence. Kayatha, Indore, Central India.

KAZIM ALI, Mirza Bahadur.

The Mirza Bahadur is the grandson of the late Muhammad Ali Shah,
King of Oudh, being a son of the Mirza Azim-us-Shan Bahadur, son of
that
monarch.

Residence. Oudh .

KAZIM ALI KHAN (1), Nawdb Bahadur.

The Nawab Bahadur is a grandson of the late Muhammad Ali Shah,
King of Oudh, being a son of the Nawab Muazzam-ud-daula Bahadur, by a
daughter of that monarch.

Residence. Lucknow, Oudh.

KAZIM ALI KHAN (2), Nawdb Bahadur.

The Nawab Bahadur is a great-grandson of the late Saadat Ali Khan,
King of Oudh, being a son of the Nawab Ikhtiar-ud-daula Bahadur, who
was a grandson of that monarch.

Residence. Lucknow, Oudh.

KBDAR NATH CHATTARJI, Rai Bahadur.

The title is personal, and was conferred on 6th June 1885.
Residence. Bali, Bengal.

KBDAR NATH KUNDU CHAUDHRI, Rai Bahddur.
The title is personal, and was conferred on 24th May 1884.
Residence. Howrah, Bengal.

KEHAR SINGH (of Khiva), Sarddr.

The title is hereditary. Belongs to a Sikh family descended from the
Sardar Rai Maha Singh ; who, with his son, Sardar Laha Singh, fell in
battle
in the service of Sardar Charat Singh, head of the Sikh misl or
confederacy
known as Sukarchakia, and grandfather of the Maharaja Ranjit Singh of
Lahore. Sardar Amar Singh, son of Laha Singh, was taken into the
service
of Sardar Charat Singh, received a jdgir, and served with distinction
under
Charat Singh's son, Sardar Dayal Singh, and under his grandson the
Maha-
raja. After his death his three sons, Sardars Fateh Singh, Dayal
Singh, and
Mohar Singh, rose into favour with the Maharaja ; and the last
especially
distinguished himself in an action with the Afghans at Khiva in the
Gujrat
district. Mohar Singh subsequently retired to Benares, and the
Maharaja
Ranjit Singh confiscated lusjdgirs. His brother, Sardar Dayal Singh
(grand-
father of the present Sardar), fought in the battle of Attock, 1813,
where he
was severely wounded; and he was again wounded in the expedition to
Kashmir,
for which he received some valuable jdgirs. He died in 1832 ; and his
son,
Sardar Bishan Singh, died two years afterwards, leaving Kishan, a
child of
two years of age. Sardar Kishan Singh was loyal in the time of the
Multan
rebellion of 1848-49; and later, in the time of the Mutiny of 1857,
he
rendered good service to Government, and was rewarded for it. He died
in
1860, and Sardar Kehar Singh is the surviving member of the family.
He
is also known as the Sardar Nand Singh.
Residence. Khiva, Gujra"t district, Punjab.

KEONTHAL, RAJA BALBIR SAIN, Rdjd of.
A Ruling Chief.

Born 1852; succeeded to the gadi 23rd August 1882. Belongs to a
very ancient Rajput family, that bore the title of Rana from early
times till
1857, when the title of Raja was conferred on Rana Sansar Sain for
his
services in the time of the Mutiny. After the expulsion of the Gurkhas
a
portion of the State was made over to the Maharaja of Patiala, and
the
remainder was confirmed to the then Rana by a sanad of the British
Govern-
ment in 1815. He has six feudatory Chiefs subordinate to him, viz.
the
Chiefs of Thiog, Koti, Ghund, Kheri, Madhan, and Ratesh; and of these
the first four are tributaries. The area of the State is 1 1 2 square
miles ; its
population is 31,154, chiefly Hindus. The Raja maintains a military
force
of 1 08 infantry and 2 guns.

Residence. Keonthal, Simla Hills, Punjab.

KERALA VARMA RAJA, Rdjd. See Chirakal, Valiya Rdjd of.

KERALA VARMA RAJA, Rdjd. See Kottayam, Valiya Rdjd of.

KEROWLEE, His Highness the Maharaja of. See Karauli.

KESHAB KANTA SINGH, Rdjd.

Bom November 1852. The title is personal, and was conferred on 2nd
February 1861, the Raja being the grandson and representative of the
late
Raja Chandra Kanta Singh, the last reigning Raja of Assam. Belongs to
the historical Ahom dynasty, who were rulers in Assam for many
centuries,
and are said to have been originally Shans from Burma. The first Raja
of
the dynasty who adopted Hinduism is stated to have been Chuhum-Pha,
who
succeeded to the gadi in 1497 A.D. From him the fourth in succession,
Raja Chutum-Hla, adopted the Hindu name of Jayadhajiya Singh and he
was reigning at the time of the Mughal invasion by Mir Jumla under
the
orders of the Emperor Aurangzeb. The invasion was unsuccessful, and
the
Ahom Raja extended his frontier to Goalpara. The greatest of the
dynasty
was Raja Rudra Singh, who succeeded to the gadi in 1695 ; and in the
next
century their power decayed. Raja Gaurinath Singh was the titular
Raja
when the British first sent a force into Assam in 1792 to restore him
after
his expulsion by the Koch Raja of Darrang. Then followed an invasion
of
the Burmese, who ruled the country till the first Burmese war ; at the
close
of which Assam was ceded by Burma to the British Power. Raja
Gaurinath
Singh had been succeeded in title by his brother, Raja Chandra Kanta
Singh ;
and the grandson of the latter is the present Raja. The family
cognisance is
an Arowan (Royal Umbrella) and Sripus Kalki (Golden Head-dress).
Residence. Gauha~ti, Assam.

KESHAVRAO BHASKARJI, Rai Bahadur.

The title is personal, and was conferred on ist January 1877, on the
occasion of the Proclamation of Her Most Gracious Majesty as Empress
of
India.

Residence. Bombay.

KESRI SINGH (of Lakhnadon), Thdkur.

The title is hereditary, the Thakur being the representative of one of
the
ancient Chiefs of the Seoni district.

Residence. Lakhnadon, Seoni, Central Provinces.

KESRI SING-H, C.I.E. (of Kucha-wan), Rao Bahddur.

The title of Rao Bahadur is personal, and was conferred on i st


January
1877, on the occasion of the Proclamation of Her Most Gracious
Majesty

as Empress of India. He has subsequently been created a Companion of
the Most Eminent Order of the Indian Empire.

Residence. Mdrwdr, Rajputa~na.

KET, MAUNG, Kyet Thaye zaung shwe Salwe ya Min.

The title is personal, and was conferred on ist June 1888. It means


"Recipient of the Gold Chain of Honour," and is indicated by the
letters
K.S.M. after the name.

Residence. Yaw, Burma.

KEUNJHAR, MAHARAJA DHANURJAI NARAYAN BHANJ

DEO, Rdjd of.
A Ruling Chief.

Born 27th July 1849 ; succeeded to \hzgadi as a minor 4th September
1 86 1. Belongs to a Rajput (Hindu) family, claiming descent from
Joti

Bhanj, a brother of Adi Bhanj, the founder of the Moharbhanj State
(q.v.\
thirty-four generations back. The following is the local tradition as
to the
way in which the Keunjhar Rajas got the patronymic of Bhanj , in which
the
State got the name of Keunjhar, and in which its borders were
enlarged :
Jai Singh, a son of Man Singh, the Maharaja of Jaipur in Rajputana,
came to
visit the shrine of Jagannath in Puri. He married Padmavati, the
daughter of
the Gajapati King of Puri, Pratapendra Deb, and received as her dowry
the
State of Hariharpur, which then comprised the two States of Moharbhanj
and
Keunjhar. Two sons were born to him, the elder of whom was named Adi
Singh and the younger Joti Singh. In mauza Rarua in killa Hariharpur
there was a petty Zamindar named Mayura Dhwaja in possession of five
pirs.
He was conquered by Prince Adi Singh, and deprived of his Zamindari.
The
Gajapati King of Puri, hearing of the success of Prince Adi Singh,
conferred
on him the title of Bhanj. Since that time the above title has been
hereditary in the Moharbhanj and Keunjhar Raj families. Adi Singh on
his
accession to the gadi changed the name of Hariharpur into Moharbhanj,
and
in commemoration of his conquest of the territory of Mayura Dhwaja,
called
it and the villages comprised in it Adipur Pir, after his own name.
Prior to
his death, Jai Singh separated from his killa a portion of land which
at
present goes by the name of Nijgarh zillah, and left it in possession
of his
younger son, Joti Bhanj. Thereupon the latter left Moharbhanj, and
established a garh (fort) at Jotipur, where he dwelt. Subsequently he
removed his headquarters to a place where there was a spring (jhar) in
an
ebony (kendu) forest ; and since then the headquarters and the killa
itself
are called Kendu-Jhar or Keunjhar. Jotipur Garh, with its adjoining
villages,
was annexed to killa Keunjhar and called Jotipur Pir. The boundaries
of
killa Keunjhar since its foundation by Joti Bhanj up to the reign of
Govind
Bhanj are laid down in the topographical maps which were prepared by
Government between 1850 and 1862. Govind Bhanj being offended for
some reason or other with his father, Trilochan Bhanj, retired to Puri
and
lived there. He was appointed Commander-in-Chief of the army of the
Gajapati King of Puri, and gained a victory for him in the battle of
Kanchi-
Cavery in the Madras Presidency. Soon after, being informed of his
father's
death, he got the permission of the Puri Raja to return home. Before
his
departure he obtained as a reward from the Raja the Zamindari of
Athgarh,
which adjoined the eastern border of the Keunjhar State, and on his
return
from Puri he was installed on the Keunjhar gadi. Since that date the
zillah
of Athgarh has remained annexed to killa Keunjhar. It is commonly
known as Anandpur. In 1794 A.D. Janardan Bhanj married Krishnapriya,
the daughter 01 Manipal and grand-daughter of Arnapurna, the Rani of
Pal
Lahera, and received as dowry the Zamindari of Pal Lahera. On the
death
of Krishnapriya in 1825, the petty Zamindars of Pal Lahera combined
with
the ryots of that State and opposed Janardan Bhanj 's possession of
Pal
Lahera. From 1794 to 1825 the Raja of Keunjhar had full authority
over
Pal Lahera ; and though the latter was subsequently made independent,
it
still pays its tribute through the former. The title of Raja is
hereditary in
this family, and dates from the period of the Mahratta dominion in
Orissa ;
it was formally conferred by the British Government in 1874. The title
of
Maharaja was conferred on the present Chief as a personal
distinction,
ist January 1877, on tne occasion of the Proclamation of Her Most
Gracious Majesty as Empress of India. The cognisance of the family is
a

peacock with the tail spread. The area of the State, which is one of
the
Orissa Tributary Mahals, is 3096 square miles; its population is
215,612,
chiefly Hindus, but including nearly 20,000 belonging to various
aboriginal
tribes. The Maharaja maintains a military force of 2949 infantry and
32
guns.

Residence. Keunjhar, Orissa, Bengal.

KHADIJA BEGAM SAHIBA, Princess.
The title is personal, and was conferred on nth March 1866.
Residence. Madras.

KHAIR-UN-NISA BBGAM, Her Highness the Nawdb.

The title is personal ; it was originally conferred by the Nawab of
the
Carnatic, and recognised on i6th December 1890. Her Highness is the
Shadi
widow of His Highness the late Nawab Ghulam Muhammad Ghaus Khan,
last titular Nawab of the Carnatic.

Residence. M adras.

KHAIRAGARH, KAMAL NARAYAN SINGH, Zaminddr of.

A Ruling Chief.

Born 1879; succeeded to the gadi on the death of Lai Umrao Singh,
1 9th February 1891. Belongs to a Raj Gond (aboriginal) family,
claiming
descent from the ancient royal family of Garha Mandla. The area of
the State is 940 square miles; its population is 166,138, chiefly
Hindus.

Residence. Khairagarh, Raipur, Central Provinces.

KHAIRPUR, HIS HIGHNESS MIR SIR ALI MURAD KHAN,

G.C.I.R, Mir of.

A Ruling Chief.

Born 28th June 1815; succeeded to the gadi 2oth December 1842.
Is the representative of the historical Baluch family called Talpur,
that con-
quered Sind in 1783 A.D. In that year Mir Fateh AH Khan Talpur
established himself as Rais of Sind; and subsequently his nephew, Mir
Sohrab Khan Talpur, with his two sons, named respectively Mir Rustam
and
Ali Murad the last-named being the present Mir of Khairpur founded
the
Khairpur branch of the Talpur rulers of Sind. Mir Sohrab Khan
gradually
extended his dominions until they extended from the Jaisalmer Desert
on the
east to Kachh Gandava in Baluchistan on the west. In 1 8 1 3 he ceased
to pay
tribute to Afghanistan; and in 1832 Khairpur was recognised as a
separate
State from the rest of Sind, in a treaty with the British Power.
During the
first Afghan war, when most of the Sind Mirs were believed to be
hostile, the
Mir Ali Murad Khan cordially supported the British policy.
Consequently,
when, after the close of that war, the victory of Miani (Meeanee)
effected
the conquest of Sind, and the rest of Sind was annexed and
incorporated
in the British territory, the State of Khairpur retained its political
existence
as a feudatory of the Empire. In 1866 a sanad was granted to His
High-
ness, guaranteeing the succession according to Muhammadan law ; and
he
has recently been created a Knight Grand Commander of the Most
Eminent
Order of the Indian Empire. His Highness's sons are Mir Faiz Muhammad
Khan, Mir Jan Muhammad Khan, and Mir Ghulam Haidar. The area
of the State is 6109 square miles; its population is 129,153, chiefly
Muhammadans, but including more than 26,000 Hindus. His Highness
maintains a military force of 700 cavalry, 774 infantry, and 32 guns;
and is
entitled to a salute of 19 guns (including 4 guns personal).

Residence. Khairpur, Sind, Bombay.

KHAJURIA, MIAN KARIM BAKSH, Mian of.
A Ruling Chief.

Born 1859; succeeded to \htgadi 24th December 1863. Belongs to a
Pindari (Muhammadan) family. The population of the State is 467,
chiefly
Hindus.

Residence. Khajuria, Bhopal, Central India.

KHALTHAUN, THAKUR HARGAYAN SINGH, Thdkur of.

A Ruling Chief.

Bom 1864; succeeded to the gadi in 1883. Belongs to a Kshatriya
Yadav (Hindu) family. The area of the State is 5 square miles ; its
popula-
tion is about 8000, chiefly Hindus. The Thakur maintains a military
force
of 15 cavalry and 50 infantry.

Residence. Khalthaun, Gwalior, Central India.

KHAN BABA KHAN, Khan Bahadur.

The title is personal, and was conferred on i6th February 1887, on

the
occasion of the Jubilee of Her Majesty's reign.

Residence. Peshdwar, Punjab.

KHAN MUHAMMAD walad WALI MUHAMMAD KHAN,

Mir.

The title is hereditary, the Mir being a representative of one of the
Mirs

or Chiefs of Sind at the time of the annexation (see Khairpur).

Residence. Shikdrpur, Sind.

KHANDBRAO APPAJI, GUPTE, Rao Saheb.
The title is personal.
Residence. Thdnd, Bombay.

KHANDBRAO SIDRAMAPA DESAI NADGAODA (of Kurbet),

Shrimdn Maha Naik Nadgauda Nagnuriebirada Himori.

The title is hereditary, having been originally conferred by the Chief
of
Anigundi on an ancestor, for having cleared the jungles of Gokak of
the
bandits who frequented them and having been recognised by the British
Government. Belongs to a Mahratta (Hindu) family claiming descent
from
Jogi Nikumbi Naik, through a long series of generations. Khanderao
Baba
Saheb succeeded his father Sidramapa Balapa Desai.

Residence. Belgaum, Bombay.

KHANDBRAO VISHWANATH EASTS, Rao Bahddur.

Born 1845. The title of Rao Bahadur is personal, and was conferred
on ist January 1877, at the Imperial Assemblage at Delhi, on the
occasion
of the Proclamation of Her Majesty as Empress of India when he also
received a Medal of Honour. Is also a First Class Sardar of the
Deccan ;
and claims the hereditary rank of Sardar. Belongs to a Konkanasth
Brahman family, resident from early times in Velneshwar, in the
district of
Ratnagiri ; originally the family name was " Gokhle," changed at a
later date
for " Raste." The founder of the family was named Ballah. His
descend-
ant, Shamji Naik, had three sons, who entered the service of the
Shahu
Raja of Satara, in which they acquired important positions. The second
of
these, named Bhikaji, had a daughter married to the Peshwa Narayan
Rao ;
the eldest, named Haribaji Naik, was the ancestor of this family. His
great-
grandson, Khanderao Nilkant Raste, was appointed to a military
command
by the celebrated Nana Farnavis under the Peshwa Mahadeo Rao
Narayan ;
he served with great success in many campaigns, and rose to high
honours,
with considerable grants of land. His son, Vishwasrao Khanderao, was
a
Sardar of the Deccan of the second class ; he was granted a pension by
the
Government in 1819, and was succeeded by his son, the present title-
holder.
The Rao Bahadur was educated at the Poona College ; was a Member of
the
Bombay Legislative Council, 1884-86; is a Magistrate for Poona, and
also
for Kolaba, and a Justice of the Peace for the town and island of
Bombay.

Residence. Poona, Bombay.

KHANDPARA, RAJA NATOBAR SINGH MARDRAJ
BHRAMARBAR RAI, Rdjd of.

A Ruling Chief.

Born 1837 ; succeeded to the gadi 28th February 1867. Belongs to a
Rajput (Hindu) family, claiming descent from a younger son of the
Nayagarh
family, seventy-one generations ago. The Raja Raghunath Singh of
Nayagarh had two sons. The elder son, Harihar Singh, became Raja of
Nayagarh, and the younger, Jadunath Singh Mangraj, retained possession
of
four Garhs, or forts, as his share, viz. Kadua, Ghuntsahi, Sardhapur,
and Khed-
pada, all in Nayagarh. There was at that time a Chief ruling over a
tract from
Ogalpur to Harichandanpur in Khandpara. Him the said Mangraj
defeated,
and took possession of his territory. Gradually in course of time and
by
dint of arms, his son Pitabas Singh, his grandson Narayan Singh, and
his great-grandson Balunkeswar Singh extended their dominions, and
strengthened the State of Khandpara. The petty chiefs who ruled
within
the jurisdiction of this State during these times, and their subjects,
were
savage aborigines. The Rajas of Khandpara defeated these petty
Chiefs,
gave education to the savages, cleared the jungles, formed villages,
and
civilised the country. Up to the reign of Raja Narayan Singh Mangraj,
Khandpara extended on the east up to Banki, on the west to
Balaramprasad
in Daspalla, on the north to Kantilo, and on the south up to Jogiapali
in
Nayagarh. During the reign of Banamali Singh Mardraj Bhramarbar Rai,
son of Raja Balunkeswar Singh Mangraj, the Raja of Bod did not give
the
State to his adopted son Makund Deb Bhanj, whom he had brought from
Moharbhanj, but gave it to another person whom he subsequently adopted
as

his son. This gave offence to Makund Deb Bhanj, and he consequently
sought help from the Raja of Khandpara, Banamali Singh Mardraj
Bhramarbar
Rai. This Banamali was a brave and powerful Raja, and expert in war.
He engaged the Raja of Bod, and after defeating him made the said
Makund
Deb Bhanj Raja over a part of Bod territory, and gave the new State
the
name of Daspalla. Raja Jadunath Singh Mangraj, the founder of the
Khandpara State, got the title of Mangraj from the Maharaja of Orissa,
and
it was enjoyed from his time down to Balunkeswar Singh. Banamali
Singh,
the son of Balunkeswar Singh, was a very powerful Chief, and defended
the
Maharaja of Orissa from the attacks of his enemies. The latter gave
him as
a reward the title of Bhai Mardraj Bhramarbar Rai, which has been
enjoyed
by successive Chiefs to the present day. During the reign of Raja
Niladri
Singh Mardraj Bhramarbar Rai, Raghuji Bhonsle, the Maharaja of
Nagpur,
gave the Raja a flag, which is still used. When Orissa was first
conquered
by the British Government, Raja Narsingha Singh Mardraj Bhramarbar
Rai
gave assistance to the chief military officers of the British
Government, and
received an elephant and a cannon in recognition thereof. The present
Raja
is a son of the late Raja Krishna Chandra Singh Mardraj Bhramarbar
Rai ;
and succeeded his brother, the late Kunja Vihari Singh Mardraj
Bhramarbar
Rai, who died without issue in 1867. The title of Raja is hereditary
in the
family, and dates from the period of the Mahratta dominion in Orissa ;
it was
formally recognised by the British Government in 1874. The cognisance
of the family is a tiger's head. The State, which is one of the Orissa
Tributary
Mahals, has an area of 244 square miles, and a population of 66,296,
chiefly
Hindus. The Raja maintains a military force of 1085 infantry and 12
guns.
Residence. Khandpdrd, Orissa, Bengal.

KHANIADHANA, RAJA CHHATAR SINGH, Jdgirddr of.
A Ruling Chief.

Born 1863; succeeded to the gadi 1 3th December 1869. Belongs to
the great Bundela (Rajput) family of Orchha, that has given ruling
families to Panna, Datia, Ajaigarh, and most of the States of
Bundelkhand.
Amresh was a younger son of the Maharaja Udit Singh of Orchha, and
received the territory of Khaniadhana as his portion. Much of this
territory
was taken away by the Mahrattas. Fourth in descent from Amresh was
the
Rajd Guman Singh, who received a sanad from the British Government in
1863. Guman Singh died in 1869, and was succeeded by the present
Jagirddr; who on ist January 1877, at the Imperial Assemblage at
Delhi,


on the occasion of the Proclamation of Her Majesty as Empress of
India,

received the title of Rajd as a personal distinction. The area of the
State is
84 square miles; its population is 13,494, chiefly Hindus. The Raja
maintains a military force of 5 cavalry, 65 infantry, and 2 guns.

Residence. Khaniddhdna, Bundelkhand, Central India.

KHARAL, MIAN SURSINGHJI SARDARSINGHJI, Mian of.

A Ruling Chief.

Born 1860; succeeded to the gadi 2oth April 1884. Belongs to a
Koli (Muhammadan) family. The area of the State is 1 6 square miles ;
its
population 3189, chiefly Hindus.

JRest<tence.Kharl, Mdhi Kdntha, Bombay.

KHARSEDJI BUSTAMJI, Khan Bahadur.

The title is personal, and was conferred on ist January 1877, on the

occasion of the Proclamation of Her Majesty as Empress of India.
Residence. Baroda.

KHARSIA, THAKUR BALWANT SINGH, Thdkur of.
A Ruling Chief.

Born 1855 ; succeeded to the^W/ 26th September 1876. Belongs to a
Rajput (Hindu) family.

Residence. Kharsia, Bhopa"!, Central India.

KHARSOWAN, THAKUR MAHBNDRA NARAYAN SINGH

DEO, Thdkur of.

A Ruling Chief.

Born 1869; succeeded his father, Thakur Raghunath Singh Deo, 2nd
March 1884, as a minor. Belongs to a Rajput (Hindu) family, descended
from a younger son of the ancient Porahat family, that came into
Orissa in
very early times from Jodhpur in Rajputana. The title of Thakur was
originally bestowed by the Raja of Porahat, and has been conferred on
the
Chief as a personal distinction. The State (which is one of the Chota
Nagpur Tributary Mahals) has an area of 149 square miles, and a
population
of 31,051, chiefly Hindus. The Thakur has a military force of 3 guns.

Residence. Kharsowan, Singhbhum, Chota Nagpur, Bengal.

KHERAWARA, THAKUR VAJESINGHJI, Thdkur of.
A Ruling Chief.

Born 1847. Belongs to a Koli (aboriginal) family. The area of his
State is 27 square miles; its population is over 1300, chiefly
Hindus.
Residence. Kherawara, Mdhi Kdntha, Bombay.

KHERI, Chief of.

Is a feudatory of the Raja of Keonthal (q.v.\ and rules over one of
the
Simla Hill States.

Residence. Kheri, Simla Hills, Punjab.

KHERWASA, THAKUR PARTAB SINGH, Thdkur of.
A Ruling Chief.

Born 1880 ; succeeded to the gadi as a minor in 1887. Belongs to a
Rajput (Hindu) family. The population of the State is about 500,
Hindus
and Muhammadans.

Residence. Kherwasa, Western Mdlwa", Central India.

KHBT SINGH (of Gobra), Rdjd.

Born 4th February 1842. The title is hereditary, having been
originally
conferred by one of the old Gond Rajas of Garha-Mandla, and confirmed
by
Government. Is a descendant of Raja Karan ; and rendered good service
in
the campaigns that followed the Mutiny of 1857.

Residence. Gobra, Damoh, Central Provinces.

KHETTAR (KSHBTTBA) CHANDAR BANARJI, Rai Bahddur.

The title is personal, and was conferred on 6th December 1884, for
services rendered in the Public Works Department.
Residence. Calcutta, Bengal.

KHIANDA, MADAN SINGH, Chief of .
A Ruling Chief.

Born 1880; succeeded to the gadi as a minor 2yth December 1889.
The population of the State is about noo, chiefly Hindus.
Residence. Khianda, Guna, Central India.

KHILAWAN SINGH (of Bilehra), Rdjd.


The title is hereditary.
Residence. Sa"gar, Central Provinces.

KHILCHIPUR, RAO BAHADUR AMAR SINGHJI,

Rao Bahddur of.

A Ruling Chief.

Born 1834 ; succeeded to the gadi 2yth November 1868. Belongs to a
Khichi Rajput (Hindu) family, descended from Durjan Sal, a Khichi
Chief.
The area of his State is about 272 square miles; its population
36,125,
chiefly Hindus. The Rao Bahadur maintains a military force of 45
cavalry,
202 infantry, and 2 guns;- and is entitled to a salute of 9 guns. The
family has a white banner (with black silk tassel), bearing the effigy
of
Hanuman, the monkey-god. The Rao Bahadur's eldest son is named Lalji
Bhawani Singh.

Residence. Khilchipur, Bhopdl, Central India.

KHIRASRA, JAREJA RAISINGHJI JIJIBHAI, Tdlukddr of.

A Ruling Chief.

Born 1850; succeeded to the gadi ist January 1872. Belongs to a
Rajput (Hindu) family. The area of his State is 13 square miles ; its
popu-
lation is 4377, chiefly Hindus.

Residence. Khirasra, Kdthidwdr, Bombay.

KHITABAT KHAN. See Muhammad Ghaus, Shaikh.

KHITISH (KSHITISH) CHANDAR RAI (of Nadiya),
Maharaja Bahadur.

Born i6th April 1868. The title was conferred on ist January 1890, as
a personal distinction, when the Maharaja Bahadur came of age after a
long
minority ; and it has been enjoyed by the Rajas of Nadiya (or Nuddea)
for
many generations, having been first conferred by the Emperor of Delhi
on
the Maharaja Rudra ten generations ago. Belongs to a Kulin Brahman
family of the highest caste, claiming descent from the famous Bhatta
Narayan, one of the five Brahman apostles whom King Adisur brought to
Bengal from Kanauj. A farmdn bearing the seal and signature of the
Emperor Alamgir is extant, in which the Raja Rudra is addressed as
Raja.
His great-grandson, the Maharaja Krishna Chandra Rai, received
twofarmdns
from the Emperor Shah Alam, conferring on him the title of Maharaja.
Since the establishment of British rule in Bengal each Raja of Nadiya
in
succession has been created a Maharaja Bahadur. The late Maharaja
Satis
Chandra Rai Bahadur, Raja of Nadiya, was eminently loyal to the
Govern-
ment, and exceedingly liberal, especially to his tenants and to
educational
institutions. He presented a beautiful park as the site for the
Krishnagar
State College of the Calcutta University, at the town of Krishnagar,
which is
the capital of Nadiya ; and he subscribed largely to the funds, both
for the
building and for the endowment of that important institution. The
present
Maharaja Bahadur was his son by adoption, and has only recently
(1890)
attained his majority.

Residence. Krishnagar, Nadiya", Bengal.

KHOJANKHERA, THAKUR BAKHTAWAR SINGH,

Thdkur of.

A Ruling Chief.

Born 1860; succeeded to the gadi in 1878. Belongs to a Rajput
(Hindu) family. The population of the State is about 500.
Residence. Khojankhera, Western Malwa", Central India.

KHORY, A. M., Khan Bahadur.

The title is personal, and was conferred on i6th February 1887, on

the
occasion of the Jubilee of Her Majesty's reign.

Residence. Mhow, Central India.

KHUDA BAKHSH, MAULAVI, Khan Bahadur.

The title is personal, and was conferred on ist January 1883, as a
reward for highly meritorious service as Government Pleader.
Residence. Patna, Bengal.

KHUDA BAKHSH KHAN walad JAM NINDO, Mir.

The title is hereditary, the Mir being the representative of one of
the
Mirs or Chiefs of Sind at the time of the annexation. He is the only
son of the
Jam Nindo Khan, a member of the Sohrabani branch of the Talpur
family.

Residence. Hyderabad, Sind.

KHUDA BAKHSH KHAN, USHTARANA, Khan Bahadur.

The title is personal, and was conferred on 2oth May 1890.
Residence. Punjab.

KHUDADAD KHAN walad KHAN MUHAMMAD
KHAN, Mir.

The title is hereditary, the Mir being the representative of one of
the
Mirs or Chiefs of Sind at the time of the annexation (see Khairpur).
Residence. Shikdrpur, Sind.

KHUDADAD KHAN, Khan Saheb.

The title is personal, and was conferred on 2nd January 1888.
Residence. Sukkurri, Sind.

KHUMAN SINGH (of Ghatakheri), Thdkur.

The title is hereditary.

Residence. Nima"r, Central Provinces.

KHURSHID JAH, BAHADUR, K.C.I.B., SIR,

Nawdb) Shams-ul-Umara) Amir-i-Kabir.

One of the Premier Nobles of the Hyderabad State.

The Nawab Bahadur, who was born about the year 1838, is the present
representative (with his brother, the Vikar-ul-Umara, q.v., and his
cousin, Sir
Asman Jah, q.v.) of the great and powerful Shamsiya family, the first
among
the noble families of Hyderabad, which has been frequently connected
by marriage with the Ruling House, and entrusted with the hereditary
command of the Paigah or Household Troops of the Nizam. Descended
from the famous captain, Shaikh Abul Khair Khan, Ima"m Jang, Shamsher
Bahadur, who was a Mansabddr in Malwa under the Emperor Aurangzeb.
He attached himself to the fortunes of the great Asaf Jah, the founder
of the
Hyderabad dynasty, under whose banner he rose to the highest
commands.
In 1745 he defeated a Mahratta force, and under the successors of
Asaf
Jah, the Nizams Nasir Jang and Salabat Jang, he continued his
successful
career. In 1752 he died at Burhanpur; and was succeeded by his son,
Abul Fateh Khan Teg Jang, who became the first Noble of the Nizam
Ali,
obtaining the command of the Paigah or Household Troops, immense
territorial possessions, and the titles of Shams-ud-daula, Shams-ul-
Mulk, and
Shams-ul-Umara. He died in 1786, when campaigning in Panghul ; and
was succeeded by his son, who at the early age of four had received
from
the Nizam the titles of Ba-ud-din Khan, Imam Jang, Khurshid-ud-daula,
and
Khurshid-ul-Mulk. He succeeded to all the honours of his father, and
became a famous scholar and savant, receiving at various times the
titles of
Teg Jang, Shams-ud-daula, Shams-ul-Mulk, Shams-ul-Umara Bahadur, and
in
1827 the title of Amir-i-Kabir. In 1849 ne became for a short time
Prime
Minister of Hyderabad. He died in 1862, leaving two sons, Umdat-ul-
Mulk
(who became Amir-i-Kabir) and Ikhtidar-ul-Mulk (who became Vikar-ul-
Umara). The former died in 1877, when the latter succeeded him in the
family honours, and as Co-Regent of the State, adding the title of
Amir-i-
Kabir to that of Vikar-ul-Umara. He died in 1881, leaving two sons,
the
Nawab Sir Khurshid Jah Bahadur and the Nawab Vikar-ul-Umara (Ikbal-
ud-
daula, Bahadur). Sir Khurshid was created a Knight Commander of the
Most
Eminent Order of the Indian Empire on i6th February 1877, on the
occasion
of the Jubilee of the reign of Her Most Gracious Majesty ; and he has
held
the offices of Member of the Council of Regency, and Member of the
Council of State. The Nawab is a fine Persian and Urdu scholar, and
has
travelled in many parts of India. Like their noble kinsman Sir Asman
Jah,
both Sir Khurshid Jah and his brother the Vikar-ul-Umara have shared
the
fortune of their ancestor, in allying themselves in marriage with
Princesses of
the Royal House of Hyderabad. In his palace at Hyderabad are to be
seen the sword and armour of his ancestor, Abul Fateh Khan Teg Jang,
a
warrior of great size and height.

Residences. Hyderabad ; Shams-ul-Umara"'s Baradari, Hyderabad.

(A circle with four Trisuias or
dS e p S ims.) radi ecar "

KHUSHAL SINGH (of Rajaur), Rdjd.

Born 1846. The title is hereditary; the Raja being one of the Chiefs
of the Chauhan Rajputs, and boasting a direct descent from Prithiraj,
the
last Chauhan Rajput Emperor of Delhi, whose
romantic history is sung by every Hindu bard, and
whose fall virtually transferred the sovereignty of
India from the Hindus to the Muhammadans.
Prithiraj perished in battle with Shahab-ud-din
Ghori in 1193 A.D. Eighth in descent from him
was the famous Bhoj Raj of Hansi, who re-
conquered Ajmir, the old home of the Chauhan
Rajputs Prithiraj having been the son of a
Chauhan Raja of Ajmir by a daughter of the

The Santak of the Chauhan Tomara Rajput Raja of Delhi, Anang Pal, and
having been adopted by his maternal grandfather at
Delhi. Fifth in descent from Bhoj Raj was Dhira
Raj, who migrated from Hansi to Bilram; and
fourth in descent from him was Sakit Deo, who
founded Sakit, and whose descendants were the Chauhan Rajas of
Sakit and Rajaur. His grandson, Bhupal Deo, had two sons, Yahani
Sahai and Udaicharan ; the latter founded the family of the Chauhan
Rajas of Mainpuri, the former remained as Raja of Sakit and Rajaur.
Seven generations later Raja Sawant Sen was driven out of these
ancestral possessions by the army of Ibrahim Shah Lodi, Sultan ot
Delhi; but after the subversion of the Lodi dynasty by the invasion
of
Babar and his Mughals, Sawant Sen's grandson, named Chakra Sen, was
enabled to return to Sakit and Rajaur as a feudatory of the Mughal
Emperor.
Eight generations followed each other in peaceful possession of the
Raj
under the strong arm of the Mughals ; and Raja Hari Singh in the time
of
Aurangzeb was famous for his prowess, won many battles, and was high
in
the favour both of that Emperor and of his successors, the Emperors
Farukh-
siyar and Muhammad Shah. But in the time of Hari Singh's son, Raj
Singh, the country was given up to anarchy ; and during this disturbed
period
Sakit was seized by the Nawab of Farukhabad, and was lost for ever, to
the
Chauhan Rajas of Rajaur. Raj Singh's grandson was Raja Datta Singh ;
and
the grandson of the latter was the late Raja Drigpal Singh, father of
the
present Raja. Raja Khushal Singh has two sons, Kunwar Lai Jagmohan
Singh, born 1873 ; and Kunwar Lai Dharm Singh, born 1883.

Residence. Rajaur, Etah, North- Western Provinces.

KHUSHALRAI SARABHAI, Rao Bahadur.

The title is personal, and was conferred on ist January 1877, on the
occasion of the Proclamation of Her Most Gracious Majesty as Empress
of
India.

Residence. Ahmadabad, Bombay.

KHYRIM, A. KHUR SINGH, Seim of.
A Ruling Chief.

Born 1843; succeeded to the gadi 4th December 1871. The Seim is
Chief of one of the Khasi and Jaintia Hill States, the population of
which
is about 24,000, and consists of Khasis and Christian converts.

Residence. Khyrim, Khasi Hills, Assam.

KINNU RAI, Rai Bahadur.

Born 1829. The title is personal, and was conferred on 6th June 1885,
in recognition of his loyal services during the time of the Mutiny in
1857,
when he protected the Stud property of the Government at the risk of
his
own life.

Residence. Ghdzipur, North- Western Provinces.

KIRALI, CHOLU walad APSINGH NAIK, Chief of.
A Ruling Chief.

Bom 1 86 1 ; succeeded to the gadi ist November 1886. Belongs to a


Bhil (aboriginal) family. The State (which is one of the Dang States
of

Khandesh) has an area of 12 square miles; and a population of 1671,
chiefly
Bhils.

Residence. Kirali, Khandesh, Bombay.

KIRAT CHAND (of Lambagraon), Mian.

The title is hereditary, the Mian being the brother of the late Raja
Partab Chand of Lambagraon, and the uncle of the present Raja, Jai
Chand
(q.v.) of Lambagraon, who is the head of the great Katoch Rajput
family of
Kangra. The Mian is the younger son of Mian Rudra Chand of Lamba-
graon, who was the grandson of the Raja Tegh Chand of Kangra, and who
became the head of the Kangra family on the failure of the elder
branch.

Residence. Lambagraon, Kdngra, Punjab.

KIRPAL SINGH (of Dhin), Sarddr.

Born 1836. The title is hereditary. The Sardar is the head of a Jat
family of Sikhs, descended from Sardar Parsa Singh. The latter was
the
nephew and heir of Sardar Sham Singh, who at the time of the decline
of
the Mughal Empire came from the district of Amritsar, conquered the
terri-
tory of Dhin in the Ambala district of the Punjab, and settled there.
Parsa
Singh's grandson was the Sardar Ranjit Singh, who was slain by Kanh
Singh,
and who was succeeded by his son, the present Sardar.

Residence. Ambala, Punjab.

KIRPAL SINGH, KUNJAHIA (of Botala), Sarddr.

Born 1832. The title is hereditary. Belongs to a Kshatriya family of
Sikhs, descended from Sardar Dhanna Singh. The latter was an associate
of
Sardar Nodh Singh, the great-grandfather of the Maharaja Ranjit Singh,
and
he and his descendants followed the fortunes of the ancestors of
Ranjit
Singh. Sardar Kirpal Singh's father, Sardar Ganda Singh, was in


attendance
on the Maharaja Sher Singh when that prince was assassinated, and was

severely wounded in the endeavour to defend him, and was subsequently
killed at the battle of Firuzshahr, where Sardar Kirpal Singh was
also
wounded. But at the time of the outbreak at Multan, Sardar Kirpal
Singh
was at Hazara, and remained faithful to the British Government, and
was
subsequently confirmed in hisjdgirs. His brother, Sardar Partab Singh
(q.v.)
of Botala, is an Extra Assistant Commissioner of the Punjab.

Residence. Guj rdn wa" la, P unj ab.

KIRPAL SINGH, Sarddr, Rai Bahadur.

These titles are personal. The first (Sardar) was conferred on 2nd
January 1888, and the second (Rai Bahadur) on 24th May 1889.
Residence. Rawalpindi, Punjab.

KISHAN. See Krishan and Krishna.

KISHAN DATT SINGH (of Oel), Rdjd.

Born 1 86 1 ; succeeded his father, the late Raja of Oel, on the i8th
of
October 1879. The title is hereditary, having been originally
conferred by
the late King of Oudh in 1849, an d recognised by the British
Government
ji December 1877. Belongs to the Jan war family of Kheri, Oudh, of
which the elder branch is represented by the Raja Achal Singh (q.v.)
of
Kaimahra. But the late Raja of Oel, Raja Anrudh Singh, was recognised
as
the head of the Kheri Janwars on account of his great wealth and
ability.
The family were originally Chauhan Rajputs in the service of the


Sayyids of
Pihani, having migrated from Rajputana in the i6th century. In the
time

of Sayyid Khurd, Jamni Khan Janwar became Chaudhri of Kheri in
1553 A.D., with the right to levy a cess on all the lands in that
Pargana. His
descendants gradually increased their possessions, the Chaudhri Parbal
Singh
Janwar owning Oel, Kaimahra, and Khogi ; and his descendant, the Rai
Than Singh, of Oel, owning many more villages. In 1838 Rai Umrao
Singh was the head of the family. The Rai Bakht Singh, grandfather of
the
late Raja Anrudh Singh, built a large and handsome temple at Oel. The
Raja has a son and heir, named Kunwar Baldeo Singh.

Residence. Oel, Kheri, Oudh.

KISHAN KUMAR, RAI (of Sahaspur), Rdjd.
Born 25th December 1848. The title of Raja is personal, and was con-
ferred on 24th May 1882, the family title being Rai. Belongs to a
Kshatriya
(Rajput) family, said to have come from the Punjab, and settled in the
district
of Moradabad, in the reign of the Emperor Muhammad Shah, by whom the
title of Rai was conferred on its then head. On the cession of
Rohilkhand,
Rai Atma Ram, great-grandfather of the present Raja, was chakladdr of
Bijnor, and subsequently he entered the service of the British
Government.
His grandson, the late Rai Pardaman Kishan, rendered good services
during
the Mutiny of 1857-58, assisting the British officers who had taken
refuge at
Naini Tal by sending them money and information. For these services
he
was rewarded with a grant of estates. The present Raja received a
Medal of
Honour at the Imperial Assemblage of Delhi on ist January 1877, on


the
occasion of the Proclamation of Her Most Gracious Majesty as Empress
of

India; and a khilat at the Agra Darbar of loth February 1879. He is
an
Honorary Magistrate. He has a son and heir, Kunwar Raj Kumar.
Residence. Sahaspur, Moradabad, North- Western Provinces.

KISHAN KUNWAR (of Rdmpur), Rdni.

Born September 1857. The title is hereditary, the Raja of Rampur
being the acknowledged head of the Rahtor Rajputs in Northern India,
and
boasting direct descent from the famous Jaichandra, the last Rahtor
Raja of
Kanauj, who was slain in 1191 A.D., when the Empire of Kanauj was
sub-
verted by Shahab-ud-din Ghori. Their Highnesses the Maharajas of
Jodh-
pur and Bikanir (q*v.) are descended from the eldest son of
Jaichandra, the
former being the head of the whole Rahtor clan ; and the Raja of
Rampur is
descended from his second son, who was named Jaipal. Prajanpal, the
fifth
in descent from Jaipal, left Kanauj, and established himself at Khor,
where
the family remained for many generations. There Jaideo, fourteenth in
descent from Jaipal, was attacked by Altamsh, and driven out after a
siege of
twelve years. Eight generations later Karan Singh settled in the
district of
Budaun. His great-grandson, Raja Pratap Rudra, received a grant of
terri-
tory from the Nawab of Farukhabad for assisting him against the
Rohillas ;
and subsequently the Raja Ramsahai, twenty-eighth in descent from
Jaipal,
established the family residence at Rampur in Etah, where it still
remains.
At the time of the cession of the territories of the Nawab to the
British,
Nawal Singh was the Raja of Rampur, and his grandson, the late Raja
Ram
Chandra Singh, was the husband of the present Rani. He died on 2oth
May 1883, and was succeeded by his widow. The Rani has a grandson and
heir, named Lai Jagmohan Singh, born in 1877.

Residence. Azamnagar, Etah, North-Western Provinces.

KISHAN PARTAB BAHADUR SAHAI (of Tamkuhi), Rdjd.

Born 1848. The title is hereditary. Belongs to a Bhuinhar Rajput
family, claiming descent from Mayur Bhat, more than a hundred
generations
back. A descendant, named Raja Fateh Sahai, Bhuinhar Raja of Hoshidr-
pur in Saran, after the battle of Baksar in 1764, was driven from his
Raj by
the troops of the East India Company, and settled on the Tamkuhi
estates,
previously purchased by him, in Gorakhpur. Raja Fateh Sahai's
grandson
was the father of the present Raja, and obtained from the British
Govern-
ment the recognition of his title as hereditary. The Raja has a son
and
heir, named Kunwar Satrajit Partab Bahadur Sahai, born 27th July
1864.

Residence. Tamkuhi, Gorakhpur, North- Western Provinces.

KISHAN SINGH (of Bad), Mian.

The title is hereditary. Belongs to a Rajput family, descended from
Raja Indar Singh, who ruled in Shahpur in the Kangra district. He
married
a daughter of the Katoch Raja of Kangra (see Jai Chand, Raja of
Lamba-
graon, Kangra), whither he fled when driven out of his own territory
by Raja
Pirthi Singh; and his grandson, Mian Ishri Singh, father of the
present
Mian, obtained a considerable jdgir from the Raja Sansar Chand of
Kangra,
son of Raja Tegh Chand. Ishri Singh's sister was married to the Jammu
Raja, Dhian Singh.

Residence. Rai, Kdngra, Punjab.

KISHAN SINGH, Sarddr.

Born 1847. The title is hereditary. Belongs to a Jat (Sikh) family,
descended from the Sardar Gurbakhsh Singh, who acquired some territory
in
the Ambala district by conquest in 1759 A. D. The representatives of
the
family rendered good service during the first Sikh war of 1845-46, and
also
at the time of the Mutiny in 1857.

Residence. Arabia, Punjab.

KISHAN SINGH, MILMYAL, Rai Bahadur.

Born 1 3th August 1850. The title was conferred on i2th December
1884, in recognition of his remarkable services to the State, and to
science,
as an explorer in Nepal, Great Tibet, Mongolia, and elsewhere. Belongs
to
a Rajburah family of Rajputs long settled in Kumaun, who, during the
rule
of the Chands and Gurkhas there, held lease of the Parganas of Johar
and
Dhanpur. In 1812 his father, Deo Singh, procured the release of two
British subjects from Tibet. The Rai Bahadur has been deputed on
explora-
tion duty four times ; and has received honours from the Royal
Geographical
Society, and the Geographical Society of France, as well as
substantial
rewards from the Government.

Residence. Kumdun, North- Western Provinces.

KISHANGARH, HIS HIGHNESS MAHARAJ-ADHIRAJ

SARDUL SINGH BAHADUR, G.C.I.E., Maharaja of.

A Ruling Chief.

Born loth December 1857; succeeded to the gadi 25th December 1879.
Is one of the Chiefs of the great Rahtor clan of Rajputs (see
Jodhpur), and

belongs to the Kishansinghot sept or
sub-clan, so-called from Kishan Singh,
who was the founder of this State and
city, and was the second of the twelve
sons of Raja Udai Singh of Jodhpur,
nicknamed Mota Rdjd (the Fat Raja)
by the Emperor Akbar. His Highness
is a Hindu of the Ballabhkul Vaish-
nava sect, and was the son and successor
of the late Maharaja Pirthi Singh.
He was married in 1870 A.D. to the
eldest daughter of the Maharao Umed
Singhji of Sirohi, and on ist January
1892 was created a Knight Grand
Commander of the Most Eminent Order of the Indian Empire. His High-
ness has only one son, the Maharaj-Kunwar Madan Singh, born 2nd
November 1884, who is now the heir-apparent, as in March 1880 the
Maha-
raja had the sorrow of losing an elder son when only five years old.
The
Maharaja has two younger brothers Maharaj Jawan Singhji, and Maharaj
Raghunath Singhji. The families most nearly related to His Highness
are the
Rdjwin (or royal) family groups of Fatehgarh and Ralaota, which are,
how-
ever, connected with him only in the seventh and eighth degree of
relation-
ship respectively. As descendant of the Mota Raja, Udai Singh of
Jodhpur,
the Maharaja has sub-clan relationship with the Chiefs of Jodhpur and
Bikaner in Rajputana ; Ratlam, Jhabua, Sailana, Sitamau, and other
Rdhtor
chiefs in Central India ; and Idar in Gujarat. By marriage His
Highness is
related to all the other great Rajput Houses, being himself the head
of one of
the greatest and most illustrious ; viz., with the Sesodias of Udaipur
and
Partabgarh, with the Kachhwahas of Jaipur and Alwar, the Kara houses
of
Bundi and Kotah, the Bhatis of Jaisalmir, and the Jhalas and
Shekhawats.
Among the more important of these matrimonial connections, which are
interesting as illustrating the inter-marriages of the most
illustrious Rajput
Houses, may be mentioned the following :

With the Sesodias of Udaipur (the family of" The Sun of the Hindus").

1. His Highness's grandmother (widow of the Maha'raja" Mokham
Singh of Kishangarh) is a daughter of the Maha'ra'na" Amar Singhji of
Udaipur.

2. His Highness's eldest sister is Dowager Maha'ra'ni of Udaipur,
being
a widow of the late Maha"ra"na" Sajan Singhji.

3. His Highness's son and heir-apparent, the Maha'raj-Kunwa'r Madan
Singh, has been recently betrothed to the fourth daughter of His
High-
ness the present Maha'ra'na" Fateh Singhji.

The Kachhwahas of Jaipur.

His Highness's third sister is married to the present Maha'raja"
Sawai
Madho Singhji, Chief of Jaipur, and is the Maha'ra'ni of Jaipur.

The Kachhwdhas of Alwar.

His Highness's second sister was married to the late lamented Maha"-

ra"j Mangal Singhji, late Chief of Alwar, and was the (Pt) head
Maha"-

rdni of Alwar.
The Haras of Bundi .

1. The late Maha"ra"ja" Ramsingh of Bundi's mother was a Kishangarh
Princess.

2. His Highness's niece, a daughter of Maha'ra'j Jawan Singhji, has
been recently betrothed to the younger brother of the present
Mahdraja"
of Bundi.

Thejhdlds ofjhdldwdr.

His Highness's fourth and youngest sister is married to the Mahdraj
Rdna Zalim Singhji, present Chief of Jha"la"wa~r, and is the (Pt)
head
Maha'ra'ni of Jhalawdr.

To the above may be added that His Highness's mother was a Princess
of the " Ranawat " (Sesodia) clan, being a daughter of the late Raja
Dhiraj
Madho Singhji of Shahpura. In addition to the titles given above,
formally
recognised by the Government as belonging to the Maharaja of
Kishangarh,
His Highness also bears those of Umdai Rajhai and Buland Makan. The
area of the State is 724 square miles; its population is 112,633,
chiefly
Hindus, but including 8492 Muhammadans and 6295 Jains. The Maha-
raja maintains a military force of 499 cavalry, 2000 infantry, and 51


guns;
and is entitled to a salute of 15 guns.

Arms. Argent, three towers proper, two and one ; in chief a Barry of
5 gules, vert, argent, aztire, or. [This is the Rajput Pancharanga,
see Jaipur.]
Supporters. Two horses. Crest. A falcon rising, proper. [This is the
sacred Garur, the cognisance of the Rahtor Rajputs, see Jodhpur.]
Motto.
The Hindi words Niti Riti, meaning " Law and Usage."

Residence. Kishangarh, Rajputdna.

KISHOR SINGH (of Fatehpur), Rdjd.

Born i st August 1834; succeeded his father i6th March 1861. The
title is hereditary, having been originally granted by the Raja Kamal
Nain,
Raj Gond Raja of Mandla. Belongs to an ancient Raj Gond family, that
claims an antiquity of more than 900 years in their present jdgir of
Fateh-
pur. The tradition in the family is that the jdgir was granted to them
in
939 A.D. An ancient sanad'm the possession of the Raja records the
grant
(or possibly the confirmation) of the jdgir to the family by the Raj
Gond
Raja of Mandla in 1500 A.D. The Raja is an Honorary Magistrate, and
has
two sons Lai Thakur Singh and Lai Mahip Singh.

Residence. Fatehpur, Hoshangabad, Central Provinces.

KISHOR SINGH (of Chamari), Rao.

Born 1840. The title is hereditary, and the Raos of Chamari formerly
held great possessions in the Sagar district. The title was originally
con-
ferred by the Raja Mori Pahludh of Chanderi, andj has been recognised
by
the British Government. The Rao has two sons, the elder (who has the
courtesy title of Diwan) being Diwan Parichhat Singh Jangjit, and the
younger being Jujhar Singh.

Residence. Chamdri, Sa"gar, Central Provinces.

KODB NARAYANASWAMI NAYUDU, Rai Bahadur.

Born 1846. The title is personal, and was conferred on i6th February


1887, on the occasion of the Jubilee of the reign of Her Most
Gracious

Majesty. Entered the Government 'service in 1874; has rendered good
service both in the Central Provinces and in Madras. During the Rumpa
and Gudiem disturbances, 1879-86, served with much distinction in the
Madras Police, and again in the Golugonda Hill disturbances of 1891.

Residence. Vizianagram, Vizagapatam, Madras.

KOLHAPUR, HIS HIGHNESS SHAHU CHHATRAPATI
MAHARAJ, Rdjd of.

A Ruling Chief.

Born 1875 i succeeded to the gadi as a minor on i7th March 1884. Is
a descendant of the Mahratta family of Sivaji the Great, the founder
of the
Mahrafta Empire, being descended from Raja Ram, his second son, and
husband of the famous Tara Bai. Sivaji's elder son Sambhaji was taken
prisoner by the Emperor Aurangzeb, and ultimately executed ; and his
son
Shahu was long detained in prison by the Mughals, but obtained his
liberty
in 1707, fixed his capital at Satara, and asserted his rights as the
heir of
his grandfather Sivaji. Meanwhile Raja Ram had died, and his widow,
Tara
Bai, a woman of great ability and courage, assumed the administration
of
Kolhapur in the name of her elder son Sivaji II., who was an idiot
child of ten
years, and proclaimed him Raja of the Mahrattas. The latter died in
1712,
when his half-brother Sambhaji (son of Raja Ram by another wife)
succeeded
him, and removed Tara Bai from the administration. The contending
claims of Shahu, Raja of Satara, and Sambhaji, Raja of Kolhapur, were
at
length settled in 1731, when precedence was surrendered to Satara, and
the
independence of Kolhapur acknowledged. In 1 8 1 1 a treaty with the
British
Power was concluded, by which Kolhapur became a feudatory ; and as
the
Raja remained faithful to the British cause in the war against the
Peshwa in
181 7, he received some additional territory. A descendant, Sivaji
III., died in
1866, and on his deathbed was allowed to adopt his sister's son, Raja
Ram.
In 1870 Raja Ram visited Europe, and died at Florence on his return
journey. His adopted son was Sivaji Maharaja Chhatrapati IV., who was
made a Knight of the Most Exalted Order of the Star of India. He
became
insane, and the Government appointed a relative, the Chief of Kagal,
as
Regent. Sivaji IV. died in December 1883, and was succeeded, by adop-
tion, by His Highness the present Raja, who was the eldest son of the
Regent. The area of the State is 2816 square miles; and its population
is
800,189, chiefly Hindus, but including 33,022 Muhammadans and 46,732
Jains. The Raja has eleven feudatory Chiefs subordinate to him, of
whom
the most important are those of Vithdlgarh, Bdvda, Kapshi, Kagal,
Ichal-
karanji Torgal, and Datva. His Highness, with his feudatories,
maintains a
military force of 255 cavalry, 1902 infantry, and 67 guns; and is
entitled to
a salute of 19 guns.

Residence. Kolhdpur, Bombay.

KONDKA, MAHANT SHAM KISHOR DAS, Mahant of.

A Ruling Chief.

Born 1838; succeeded to the gadi i3th December 1887. Belongs to
a Bairagi (Hindu) family of Mahants^ or Chief Priests, the regulations
of his
order permitting marriage. The area of the State is 174 square miles;
its
population is 32,979, chiefly Hindus.

Residence. Kondka, Raipur, Central Provinces.

KOREA, RAJA PRAN SINGH DEO, Rdjd of.

A Ruling Chief.

Born 1857 ; succeeded to the gadi 4th April 1864 as a minor. Belongs
to a Rajput (Hindu) family, claiming descent from a Chauhan Rajput
Chief
named Dhawal Singh, who came to Korea from Rajputana about 600 years
ago, and conquered the country. The title of Raja is hereditary in
the
family from early times, and was formally conferred by the British
Govern-
ment in 1875. The area of the State (which is one of the Chota Nagpur
Tributary Mahals) is 1631 square miles; and its population is 29,846,
chiefly
Hindus.

Residence. Korea, Mdnbhum, Chota Ndgpur, Bengal.

KOTAH, HIS HIGHNESS MAHARAO UMED SINGH

BAHADUR, Mahdrao of.

A Ruling Chief.

Born 1873; succeeded to the gadi nth June 1889. Like His High-
ness the Maharao Raja of Bundi, the Maharao is one of the chiefs of
the
Hara sept of the great Chauhan clan of Rajputs Kotah forming with
Bundi
the tract known for centuries as Haraoti, after the name of that sept.
Is
descended from Madhu Singh, the second son of the Rao Ratan of Bundi,
who about the year 1625 A.D. was granted the feudatory Chiefship of
Kotah
and its dependencies, for his services to the Emperor Jahangir against
his re-
bellious son, who afterwards became the Emperor Shah Jahan. Similar
services
to the latter Emperor were rendered by Madhu Singh's son and
successor,
Mokand Singh ; who, with three of his brothers, fell in a battle at
Ujjain
against Shah Jahan's rebellious son, who afterwards became the
Emperor
Aurangzeb. Mokand Singh was succeeded by his son Jagat Singh. Early
in the present century, Kotah, greatly weakened by intestine
dissensions, was
attacked by Jaipur and by the Mahrattas, to whom it became tributary.
It
was only saved from ruin by the extraordinary abilities of its great
Minister,
Zalim Singh, to whom the Maharao gave up the active task of ruling
the
State. During a Ministry of forty-five years Zalim Singh raised the
State of
Kotah to great prosperity Ultimately, in 1838, it was arranged that
Zalim
Singh's descendants should receive independent charge of a part of the
State,
as feudatories of the Empire ; and this part became a separate
Principality,
under the name of Jhalawar (q.v.) The late Maharao, Chhatra Sal
Singh,
succeeded his father in 1866; and on his death in 1889 was succeeded
by
his adopted son, the present Maharao, as a minor. His Highness is at
present a student in the Mayo College, Ajmir ; he is as yet unmarried,
but
is betrothed to a daughter of His Highness the Maharana of Udaipur,
which
is the most illustrious marriage that can be made by a Hindu Prince.
The
area of the State is 3797 square miles; its population is 517,275,
chiefly
Hindus, but including 32,866 Muhammadans and 4750 Jains. His Highness
maintains a military force of 949 cavalry, 5756 infantry, and 148
guns, and is
entitled to a salute of 17 guns. The family banner is orange in
colour,
displaying a figure of the Garur or sacred falcon of the Hara
Rajputs.

Residence. Kotah, Rajputdna.

KOTHARIA, JAREJA JBTHIJI, Tdlukddr of.

A Ruling Chief.

Born 1828 ; succeeded to the gadi 8th January 1857. The State, which
is tributary to the Nawab of Junagarh, has an area of 6 square miles,
and
a population of 2366, chiefly Hindus. The Chief maintains a military
force
of 4 cavalry and 38 infantry.

Residence. Kothdria, Kdthia"wa~r.

KOTHI, RAJA BAHADUR BHAGWAT BAHADUR SINGH,

Rdjd of.

A Ruling Chief.

Born 1852; succeeded to the gadi 5th June 1887. Belongs to a
Baghel Rajput family (Hindu) ; his father was Raja Ran Bahadur
Singh ;
and the family have been seated in Kothi for a great many years, and
were confirmed in possession by the British Government. The area of
the
State is 90 square miles; its population is 18,386, chiefly Hindus.
The
Raja maintains a military force of 35 cavalry, 210 infantry, and 4
guns.

Residence. Kothi, Baghelkhand, Central India.

KOTHIDB, BHUMIA MOTI SINGH, Bhumia of.
A Ruling Chief.

Born 1850; succeeded to the gadi in 1860. Belongs to a Bhilala
family. The population of the State is about 500.
Residence. Kothide, Bhopdwar, Central India.

KOTI, Chief of.

Is a feudatory of the Raja of Keonthal (<?.v.), and rules over one of
the
Simla Hill States.

Residence. Koti, Simla Hills,' Punjab.

KOTRA SANGANI, THAKUR MULVAJI TOGAJI, Thdkur of.

A Ruling Chief.

Born 1873; succeeded to the gadi as a minor 23rd November 1887.
Belongs to a Jareja Rajput family. The area of his State is 74 square
miles; its population is 8642, chiefly Hindus. The Thdkur maintains a
military force of 8 cavalry, 142 infantry, and 4 guns.

Residence Kotra Sangani, Ka"thia~war.

KOTTAYAM, KERALA VARMA RAJA, Valiya Rdjd of.
Born 1842. Belongs to a family that claims to be of Kshatriya origin,
and to have come from the east and acquired sovereignty in Wainad.
Subsequently they appear to have acquired some territory from the Raja
t)f

Chitrakal in Malabar, either by a gift or in war. On Haidar's invasion
of
Malabar the Raja and all his family fled to Travancore ; returned in
1782,
but fled to Travancore a second time on Tippu's invasion in 1789, and
died
there. The family, like that of the Zamorin of Calicut and other
Chiefs of
Malabar, follows the Marumakkatayam law of inheritance, by which the
succession is to the offspring of its female members, among whom the


next
eldest male after the Raja is his heir-apparent. The late Valiya Raja
of

Kottayam was called Shangara Varma Raja ; and he was succeeded by the


present Valiya Raja under the Marumakkatayam law. He receives an

allowance from Government in compensation for the estate that
belonged
to his ancestors.

Residence. Malabar, Madras.

KOURE KHAN, JATOI, Khan Bahadur.

Honorary Magistrate of Muzaffargarh. Created a Khan Bahadur, as a


personal distinction, 2nd January 1893.

Residence. Muzaffargarh, Punjab.

KRISHAN DATT RAM (of Singha Chanda), Raja.
The title is personal, and was recognised in 1877.
Residence. Gonda, Oudh.

KRISHNA CHANDAR RAI, Rai Bahadur.

Born in 1823. The title is personal, and was conferred on i6th July
1885, "for long and meritorious service under Government." The Rai
Bahadur rendered excellent service as Deputy-Magistrate and Deputy-
Collector
of Diamond Harbour. Belongs to an old Baidya family, formerly of Mur-
shidabad, now settled in the Dacca district, and known as the Baira
Rais ;
descended from Sri Chandra Rai, who served under the Nawab Shaista
Khan, and received from him a khilat. Educated at * Dacca College ;
appointed to the service of the Government of Bengal in 1841. Is an
Honorary Presidency Magistrate of Calcutta, Vice-President of the
East
Bengal Association, etc. He has five sons Lalit Chandra Rai,
physician,
born 1852 ; Vipina Chandra Rai, D.L., of the Judicial Service, born
1854;
Hem Chandra Rai, M.A., B.L., born 1864; Sarat Chandra Rai, B.L., born
1867 ; Gnan Chandra Rai, B.A., born 1870.

Residence. Baira, Mdnikganj, Dacca, Bengal.

KRISHNA NATH, PANDIT, NYAYAPANCHANANA,
Mahdmahopddhydya.

The title was conferred, as a personal distinction, on 24th May 1892,
in recognition of his eminence as a Sanskrit Scholar. It entitles him
to
take rank in Darbar immediately after titular Rajas. The title
Nydyapan-
chdnana is a literary title or degree, conferred by the learned
Pandits of the
Sanskrit University of Navadwipa or Nadiya, and refers to proficiency
in the Nydya school of logic.

Residence. Purbasthali, Nadiya", Bengal.

KRISHNA PERTAP SINGH SAHI, K.C.I.B. (of Hutwa),
Maharaja Bahadur. See Hatwa.

KRISHNA SAH, LALA, Rai Bahadur.

Born 1 8th March 1856. The title was conferred on 2nd January 1888,
as a personal distinction, in recognition of his services as an
Honorary
Magistrate and Member of the Municipal Commission of Nainital. Is the
son of the late Lala Moti Ram Sah, the well-known banker, who
rendered
distinguished services to the Government in the time of the Mutiny in
1857,
and received a handsome reward for them. Belongs to a Rajput family
of
the North- Western Provinces.

Residence. Nainita"!, North- Western Provinces.

KRISHNA SAHAI, LALA, Rai Bahadur.

Born 2nd April 1824. The title was conferred on 2nd January 1888, as
a personal distinction, in recognition of his services as an Honorary
Magistrate
and Member of the District Board of Meerut. The family has from time
immemorial been bankers and landowners in the North-Western
Provinces.

Residence. Meerut, North-Western Provinces.

KRISHNA SINGH, PANDIT (Thakur of Bhoar), Mahdmahopddhydya.

The title is a personal one, and was conferred on ist January 1890,
for
eminence in oriental learning. It entitles him to take rank in Darbar
immediately after titular Rajas.

Residence. Bhoar, Madhubani, Darbhanga, Bengal.

KRISHNAJI LAKSHMAN NALKAR, C.I.E., The Hon.

A Member of the Viceroy's Legislative Council. Was created a
Companion of the Most Eminent Order of the Indian Empire, ist January
1888.

Residence.- Calcutta.

KRISHNALAL OCHAVRAM, Rao Saheb.
The title is personal, and was conferred on 3oth July 1886.
Residence. Ahmadabad, Bombay.

KRISHNARAO GAJANAND, Rao Bahadur.
The title is personal, and was conferred on 3oth July 1886.
Residence. Ratnagiri, Bombay.

KRISHNARAO MALHARRAO, Vishwasrao.
The title is hereditary.
Residence. Kha"ndesh, Bombay.

KEISTBNDRA RAI (of Bolihar), Rdjd Bahadur.

The title was conferred on i6th February 1887, as a personal
distinction,
on the occasion of the Jubilee of the reign of Her Majesty. He belongs
to
an old Kulin Brahman family, originally called Sanyal, and long
settled at
Bolihar in the district of Rajshahi, Bengal. Is descended from Ram
Rai
Sdnyal, whose grandson was Ram Chandra Rai. His grandson was the Raja
Rajendra Rai, whose adopted son was the Raja Shiva Prasad Rai, father
of
the present Raja Bahadur. He rendered good service to the Government
during the scarcity of 1874.

Residence. Bolihar, Rajshdhi, Bengal.

KRISTO CHANDAR GHOSH, Rai Bahadur.

The title is personal, and was conferred on ist June 1888, for good
service in the Opium Department.
Residence. Bankipur, Bengal.

KSHETRA CHANDRA ADITYA, Rai Bahadur.

The Rai Bahadur has rendered good service in the Military Accounts
Department, and received the title as a personal distinction on 25th
May 1892.

Residence. Simla.

KUCH BBHAR, LIEUT. - COLONEL HIS HIGHNESS MAHA-
RAJA SIR NRIPENDRA NARAYAN BHUP BAHADUR,
GKC.I.E., Maharaja of.

A Ruling Chief.

Born 4th October 1862; succeeded his father, the late Maharaja
Narendra Narayan Bhup Bahadur, in August 1863. Belongs to a Kochi
family that has held uninterrupted sovereignty for the last 382 years
in this
territory, since their first settlement in the plains; from which
family also
descend the Bijni and Darung Houses of Assam, the Raikats of
Baikanthapur
(g.v.) in Jalpaiguri, and the Panga family in Rangpur. His Highness
was
educated, first^ in the Wards Institute at Benares ; secondly, under
the guardian-
ship of Mr. H. St. J. Kneller, in the Bankipur College, Patna, and
next as a
Law Student in the Presidency College, Calcutta. During his minority
the
State rendered good service in the Bhutan war 1863-65, for which two
guns were presented to His Highness by the British Government. Was
presented with medal and sword in 1877 at the Imperial Assemblage at
Delhi, on the occasion of the Proclamation of Her Most Gracious
Majesty as
Empress of India. Married, in March 1878, the eldest daughter of the
famous Reformer, Kesub Chander Sen. Was sent to England the same year
to complete his education, under the joint guardianship of Surgeon -
Major
(now Sir) Benjamin Simpson and Mr. Kneller. Returned to India. in the
spring of 1879, and was formally installed on his ancestral gadi on
the 8th
November 1883, by the Lieutenant - Governor of Bengal. The titles of
Maharaja Bhup. Bahadur were recognised as hereditary by the
Government
of India in 1885. His Highness was appointed Honorary Major in the
British Army in the same year. He visited England in the Jubilee year
1887, to take part in the rejoicings on the occasion of the Jubilee of
the
reign of Her Most Gracious Majesty, with the Maharam and children,
and
was invested with the Insignia of Grand Commander of the Most Eminent
Order of the Indian Empire by Her Most Gracious Majesty the Queen
Empress herself, the Maharani being invested with the Imperial Order
of the
Crown of India in the same year. Was made Honorary Aide-de-camp to
His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, with the rank of Lieutenant-
Colonel
in the British Army. The Maharaja in 1888 established the Brahmo
Somaj
or the Reformed Church in the State of Kuch Behar. He founded the
Victoria College for higher education therein, and granted a long
term
settlement of revenue to his subjects for thirty years, assessments
being
made on the most approved principles. His Highness established the
India
Club at Calcutta in 1882, founded Nripendra Narayan Hall at Jalpaiguri
in
1883, and presented house and lands at Darjiling, wherewith the Lewis
Jubilee Sanitarium was started at that station in 1887, and
established the
"Anandamayi Dharmasala" (almshouse) in 1889. The Maharaja's age is
now thirty, and he has issue, four sons and two daughters. While in
England in 1887 he received the distinguished masonic honour of Past
Grand Senior Warden of England at the hands of the Most Worshipful
the
Grand Master, made District Grand Master of Bengal in 1890, installed
District Grand Mark Master of Bengal, 1891.

The area of the State is 1307 square miles; its population is
602,624,
chiefly Hindus, but including 174,539 Muhammadans. His Highness main-
tains a military force of 9 cavalry, 176 infantry, and 4 guns, and is
entitled
to a salute of 13 guns. The ancestral banner of the family displays a
sword
and a blade of grass (with which, according to tradition, one of the
Maharaja's
ancestors cut off the head of an enemy as an offering to the Goddess
Kali).
The supporters are a tiger and an elephant. The crest is a "
Hanuman,"
holding a club in each hand.

Residences. Kuch Behar, Bengal ; Calcutta ; Darjiling.

KUDRAT AZIZ. See Muhammad Kudrat Aziz.

KUDRAT-ULLA, SHAIKH, Khan Bahadur.
The title is personal, and was conferred, on i2th October 1860.
Residence. Birbhum, Bengal.

KUMARA VENKATA PERUMAL RAZ (of Karvetnagar), Raja.

The title is hereditary, having been in the family from early times,
and
confirmed by the British Government in 1802. Is the son of the late
Raja
of Karvetnagar, Raja Kumara Bomma Raz. Belongs to a family that was
called the Bomma Raz (or " Bomrauze ") family, that rose to power in
the
district of North Arcot about 200 years ago, in consequence of the
decline of
the Vijayanagar dynasty. The family cognisance is a white flag with
the
device of a boar on its field ; the family motto, borne on its seal,
is Kdrvet-
nagar Venugopdlaswdmi Sahdyam, meaning "May Venugopalaswami the
deity of Karvetnagar assist."

Residence. Karvetnagar, North Arcot, Madras.

KUMHARSAIN, RANA HIRA SINGH, Rand of.
A Ruling Chief.

Bom 1851 ; succeeded to \hzgadi i2th November 1874. Belongs to a
Rajput family, whose founder, Kirat Singh, came from Gaya about 1000
A.D.,
and acquired possession of the State by conquest. The State, formerly
a
feudatory of Bashahr, was taken under direct British protection after
the
expulsion of the Gurkhas in 1 8 1 5, by a sanad dated February 1 8 1
6. Rana
Kehr Singh died without issue in 1839, and in consideration of his
early
attachment to British interests during the Gurkha war, the Government
confirmed the State to a collateral heir of the family named Rana
Pritam
Singh. His successor was the Rana Bhawani Singh, who was succeeded in
1874 by the present Rana, The area of the State, which is one of the
Simla
Hill States, is 94 square miles; its population is 9515, chiefly
Hindus. The
Rana maintains a military force of 45 infantry and i gun.

Residence. Kumharsain, Simla Hills, Punjab.

KUMUD KRISHNA SINGH (of Susang), Mahdrdjd.
See Susang, Mahdrdjd of.

KUN KYI (SAWBWA), Kyet Thaye zaung shwe Salwe ya Min.

The title is personal, and was conferred on i7th April 1890. It means


" Recipient of the Gold Chain of Honour," and is indicated by the
letters
K.S.M. after the name.

Residence. Mone, Burma.

bademiyansubhanallah

unread,
Feb 4, 2010, 5:54:37 PM2/4/10
to
The Sepoy War of 1857
Mutiny or First Indian War of Independence?

The profound hypocrisy and inherent barbarism of bourgeois
civilization lies unveiled before our eyes, turning from its home,
where it assumes respectable forms, to the colonies, where it goes
naked. Did they not, in India, to borrow an expression of that great
robber, Lord Clive himself, resort to atrocious extortion, when simple
corruption could not keep pace with their rapacity? While they prated
in Europe about the inviolable sanctity of the national debt, did they
not confiscate in India the dividends of the rajahs, who had invested
their private savings in the Company's own funds? While they combated
the French revolution under the pretext of defending "our holy
religion," did they not forbid, at the same time, Christianity to be
propagated in India, and did they not, in order to make money out of
the pilgrims streaming to the temples of Orissa and Bengal, take up
the trade in the murder and prostitution perpetrated in the temple of
the Juggernaut? These are the men of "Property, Order, Family, and
Religion."

-Karl Marx, The New-York Daily Tribune. 22 July, 1853.

The story of the Sepoy (sepáhí) War of 1857, (an attempt at a
compromise between two more controversial titles, 'the Sepoy Mutiny of
1857' and 'the Sepoy Rebellion of 1857,' though "insurgency" might
also fit) began long before March of 1857. The history of the war
delves deep into the colonization and conquest of India and the
cultural and religious oppression imposed on Indians by British rule.
Furthermore, the telling of the history of the war is, to this day, an
ongoing battle between two competing narratives, the history belonging
to the British that won the war, and the history claimed by the
Indians who were defeated. In a time when the history of India is
being retold everyday, this web page is an attempt to present a
history of the Sepoy War that is derived from various points of view,
accounting for the context of the histories related, and the points of
view of the historians relating them.

The East India Company was a massive export company that was the force
behind much of the colonization of India. The power of the East India
Company took nearly 150 years to build. As early as 1693, the annual
expenditure in political "gifts" to men in power reached nearly 90,000
pounds (Marx 23). In bribing the Government, the East India Company
was allowed to operate in overseas markets despite the fact that the
cheap imports of South Asian silk, cotton, and other products hurt
domestic business. By 1767, the Company was forced into an agreement
that is should pay 400,000 pounds into the National Exchequer
annually.

By 1848, however, the East India Company's financial difficulties had
reached a point where expanding revenue required expanding British
territories in South Asia massively. The Government began to set aside
adoption rights of native princes and began the process of annexation
of more than a dozen independent Rajes between 1848 and 1854 (Marx 51;
Kaye 30). In an article published in The New York Daily Tribune on
July 28, 1857, Karl Marx notes that "... in 1854 the Raj of Berar,
which comprise 80,000 square miles of land, a population from four to
five million, and enormous treasures, was forcibly seized" (Marx 51).

In order to consolidate and control these new holdings, a well-
established army of 200,000 South Asians officered by 40,000 British
soldiers dominated India by 1857. The last vestiges of independent
Indian states had disappeared and the East India Company exported tons
of gold, silk, cotton, and a host of other precious materials back to
England every year.

Religion

Historians like J.A.B. Palmer and John Kaye trace the origins of the
soldiers' rebellion at Meerut, in which South Asian soldiers rose up
against their colonial officers, to the Lee-Enfield Rifle. It was
developed at the Enfield arsenal by James P. Lee and fired a .303
caliber ammunition that had to manually loaded before firing. Loading
involved biting the end of the cartridge, which was greased in pig fat
and beef tallow. This presented a problem for native soldiers, as pig
fat is a haraam, or forbidden, substance to Muslims, and beef fat is,
likewise, deemed inauspicious for certain Hindus. Thus, the revolt
occurred as a reaction to this particular intrusion into Hindu and
Muslim culture, and then caught on as a national rebellion. Palmer
dramatically relates this discovery, according to Captain Wright,
commanding the Rifle Instruction Depot:

Somewhere about the end of the third week in January 1857, a khalasi,
that is to say a labourer, accosted a high Brahmin sepoy and asked for
a drink of water from his lotah (water-pot). The Brahmin refused on
the score of caste. The khalasi then said, "You will soon lose your
caste, as ere long you will have to bite catridges covered with the
fat of pigs and cows," or, it is added, "words to that
effect." (Palmer 15)

Furthermore, historians taking similar positions argue that British
legislation that interfered with traditional Hindu or Muslim religious
practices were a source of antagonism. Palmer and Kaye also argue
throughout their respective work that the prohibition practices such
as saathi (often transliterated "sati"), or the ritual suicide of
widows on their husbands' funeral pyres, became a source of outrage.
In other words, the growing intrusion of western culture became the
impetus for rebellious soldiers, fearful that their culture was being
annihilated.

The long-belabored significance of the Lee-Enfield cartridge is
challenged by the work of historians like Marx, Collier, Majumdar,
Chaudhuri, and Malleson (see citations below). These historians argue
that the actions of soldiers at Meerut was the "last straw" for South
Asians who had been victims of British cultural and class based
oppression and antagonism, and discard the notion that religion played
an overwhelmingly vital role in fomenting revolt. For them, the root
causes of the insurgency cannot be traced to a single, well-defined
set of events and causes, but rather stemmed from an on-going set of
conflicts.

Divide and Conquer

Col. G.B. Malleson argues that forcing Western ideas on an Eastern
people fundamentally backfired, and the "divide and conquer" tactics
employed by the British in India ultimately sowed the seeds of the
rebellion. He notes, "action of a different character ... so dear to
the untravelled Englishman, or forcing the ideas in which he has been
nurtured upon the foreign people with whom he has brought into
contact, assisted ... to loosen the bonds of discipline, which, up to
that period, had bound the [Sepoy] to his officer" (Malleson 8). In
other words, the Sepoy soldiers found themselves constantly pit
against their countrymen in an army governed by what common soldiers
came to feel were outside influences. In a colonial setting, this is
the prime breeding ground for a coup, (or in this case, a revolt)
because any soldier's allegiance is governed by competition with other
soldiers in currying favor and accumulating power, not by discipline
or obedience to the orders of superior officers, and he begins to
affiliate himself with his own people rather than the military ethics
forced on him.

Expansionism

Greater still was the influence of British expansionism on the Sepoy
Rebellion. Richard Collier explains how rapidly increasing territorial
conquest also intesified Indian unrest:

... these annexations were a source of discontent and anxiety to many
people besides the sepoys. In eight years, Canning's predecessor, the
despotic Lord Dalhousie, at 35 the youngest Governor-General India had
ever known, had annexed over 250,000 square miles-- an area three
times the size of England and Ireland. The Punjab, Sattara, Nagpur--
Dalhousie's hands had stretched out to embrace them all. 'An Indian
Governor General,' stormed The Hindu Patriot, 'is chartered to destroy
dynasties with a scratch of his quill.' Indignities were heaped upon
crowned heads: the jewels of the Royal Family of Nagpur were publicly
auctioned in Calcutta. (Collier 19)

Partcipating in the military conquest of local authorities, then, and
having first-hand knowledge of the effects of British expansionism
would have fomented resistance in the Sepoys.

Torture and Oppression

On August 28, 1857, Marx published an article in The New York Daily
Tribune in order to "[show] that the British rulers of India are by no
means such mild and spotless benefactors of the Indian people as they
would have the world believe" (Marx 72). Marx cites the official Blue
Books -- entitled "East India (Torture) 1855-57"-- that were laid
before the House of Commons during the sessions of 1856 and 1857. The
reports revealed that British officers were allowed an extended series
of appeals if convicted or accused of brutality or crimes against
Indians. Concerning matters of extortion in collecting public revenue,
the report indicates that officers had free reign of any methods at
their disposal (Marx 73).

Torture became a financial institution in colonial India, and was
challenged by a petition from the Madras Native Association presented
in January of 1856. The petition was dismissed on the basis of a lack
of evidence, despite the fact that, according to the Marx, "there was
scarcely any investigation at all, the Commission sitting only in the
city of Madras, and for but three months, while it was impossible,
except in very few cases, for the natives who had comnplaints to make
to leave their homes" (Marx 74). Marx also refers to Lord Dalhousie's
statements in the Blue Books that there was "irrefragable proof" that
various officers had committed "gross injustice, to arbitrary
imprisonment and cruel torture" (76).

In addition to torture, the Company levied extremely large taxes on
the Indian people. Collier describes taxes as "a cynical outrage. A
man could not travel twenty miles without paying toll at a river
ferry, farmed out by the Company to private speculators. Land Tax,
often demanded before the crop was raised, was made in quarterly
installments ... the annual rent for an acre of land was
3s[hillings]., yet the produce of that acre rarely averaged
8s[hillings]. in value." (Collier 20)

Marx's position, as illustrated by the introductory quote to this
page, is that the Indians were victims of both physical and economic
forms of class oppression by the British. In Marx's analysis, the
clash between the soldiers and their officers is the inevitable
conflict that is the result of capitalism and imperialism.

The Rebellion

The military history of the rebellion is straightforward. Prior to the
"mutiny" at Meerut on May 9th, 1857, fires broke out on January 22nd
near Caclutta. An incident occurred on February 25th of that year when
the 19th regiment mutinied at Berhampore, and the 34th Regiment
rebelled at Barrackpore on the 31st of March. At Berhampore, the
regiment allowed one of it's men to advance with a loaded musket upon
the parade-ground in front of a line and open fire on his superior
officer; a battle ensued. April saw fires at Allahabad, Agra, an
Ambala, but the spark that lit the powder keg went off on May 9th in
Meerut.

Members of the 3rd regiment of light cavalry were awaiting sentencing
and imprisonment for refusal to obey orders and put the Lee-Enfield .
303 caliber cartridge into their mouths. Once imprisoned, the 11th and
20th cavalry assembled and broke rank and turned on their commanding
officers. After liberating the 3rd regiment, chaos ensued in Meerut,
and the rebels engaged the remaining British Troops. Meerut was the
single-most evenly balanced station in India in terms of the numbers
of British and Indian soldiers. Troops and rebels were on near-even
terms with 2,028 European Troops versus 2,357 sepoys, which certainly
made the British side's capacity to defend its interest and defeat the
Sepoys that much more likely. Furthermore, the British had 12 field
guns and the sepoys had no artillery. Both Collier and Marx indicate
that the rebellion would have ended there had Major-General William
Hewitt cut off the rebel army at the bridge between Meerut and Delhi,
some 40 miles away, with added weapons. (Collier 40)

As the 38th, 54th, and 74th regiments of infantry and native artillery
under Bahkt Khan (c.1797- c.1859) joined the rebel army at Delhi in
May. June 1857 marked the battle of Kanpur (Cawnpore). The last
Maratha prince, Baji Rao II, decreed his title and 80,000 pound annual
pension to his son Nana Sahib (c.1820- c.1859) and was refused twice.
Despite Sahib's attempts to push his claim, Lord Dalhousie refused the
Hindu nobleman. Thus, in June 1857, Nana Sahib led the sepoy
battalions at Crawnpore against the British. Nana Sahib sent word to
Sir Hugh Wheeler, commander of the Britsh forces at Cawnpore warning
of the attack, guaranteeing him safe passage. On June 27, Nana Sahib
broke the pact and trapped Wheeler in his palace. The events leading
up to Wheeler's surrender and death have been recorded as the Cawnpore
Massacre.

(An engraving depicting Nana Sahib)

The Cawnpore Massacres

In the words of Sir Colin Campbell, leader of the British forces
during the war:

never was devised a blacker scheme than that which Nena Sahib had
planned. Our miserable countrymen were conducted faithfully enough to
the boats- officers, men, women, and children. The men and officers
were allowed to take their arms and ammunition with them, and were
escorted by nearly the whole of the rebel army. It was about eight
o'clock a.m. when all reached the riverside- a distance of a mile and
a half. Those who embarked first pushed off from the shore; but others
found it difficult to get their boats off the banks, as the rebels had
placed them as high as possible. At this moment the report of three
guns was heard from the NenaÕs camp. The mutineers suddenly levelled
their muskets, guns opened from the banks, and the massacre commenced.
Some of the boats were set on fire, volley upon volley was fired upon
the poor fugitives, numbers of whom were killed on the spot ... A few
boats crossed over to the opposite bank, but there a regiment of
native infantry (the 17th), just arrived from Azimghur, was waiting
for them; and in their eagerness to slay the "Kaffirs," rode their
horses belly deep into the river to meet the boats, and hack our
unhappy country men and women to pieces. (Campbell 112)

Andrew Ward's historical narrative, Our Bones Are Scattered, also
relates an account of the terrible and bloody massacre that followed
the rebellion at Cawnpore, as well as Delhi and Meerut. By July, when
Nana Sahib had captured Gwalior, he was reinstated as prince.

The Siege of Delhi

The siege of Lucknow lasted roughly from July 1st to August 31st. The
commanding British officer, Sir Henry Lawrence, died early on during
the siege. By July 25th two-thirds of the Britsh forces had retreated
across the river and Delhi had been taken by early September. Bahadur
Shah, the last surviving Mogul ruler was installed as ruler and the
devastating battle between rebel and British forces for control Delhi
ensued. Soldiers faced down the horrific sight of the impregnable
walls of Delhi and "more than fifty guns and mortars belching fire at
Delhi's northern walls from the water bastion on the east to the Mori
bastion on the west." (Collier 246)

As the siege wore on the Punjabi forces fighting for the British began
to weary and there was talk of a retreat. Under General John Nicholas,
Delhi had toppled by September 20th, at the cost of 3,835 soldiers,
British and Indian, and 378 horses (Collier 264). Rebel forces
retreated to Lucknow where the siege was approaching three months in
length. There the war lasted until late November, until the rebels
were driven to defeat in the Ganges Valley in December and January by
Hugh Rose and Colin Campbell. By July 8, 1858, a peace treaty was
signed and the war ended. By 1859, Rebel leaders Bahkt Khan and Nana
Sahib had been slain in battle.

(A photograph of Bhadur Shah)

Conclusion

Though the Sepoy War has been dismissed as a chaotic, disorganized
peasant uprising, several facts go undisputed that offer a counter-
argument. The "unorganized peasants" of India fought one of the most
powerful empires in the world to near defeat with limited resources
and even more limited training. Nevertheless, the lesson of the Sepoy
War is not one of victory or justice, but failure. Though the exact
cause of the Sepoy War has yet to be agreed upon, and it is likely
that there were many complex causes rather than one, it is clear that
British interference governments and the oppression of the Indian
people, religious and economic, created a bloody revolution. If there
is a lesson to be learned from any of this, it is that a people, once
pushed into a corner, will fight for nothing more than the freedom to
fight, and live, if not for religion then for their basic right to
live in freedom. Furthermore, in the desperate vengeance of a people
reduced to pure indignity, lives a coldness that rivals that of their
oppressors.

Fictional & Narrative Literature on the Sepoy War

Alavi, Seema. The Sepoys and the Company: Tradition and Transition
1770-1830. New York: Oxford U P, 1995.

Farrell, J.G.. The Siege of Krishnapur. New York: Carroll & Graf, 1985
(orig. 1973; Booker Prize winner).

Fenn, Clive Robert. For the Old Flag: A Tale of the Mutiny. London:
Sampson Low, 1899.

Grant, James. First Love and Last Love: A Tale of the Mutiny. New
York: G. Routledge & Sons, 1869.

Kaye, Mary Margaret. Shadow of the Moon. New York: St. Martin's
Press, 1979.

Masters, John. Nightrunners of Bengal. New York: Viking Press, 1951.

Raikes, William Stephen. 12 Years of a Soldier's Life In India.
Boston: Ticknor and Fields, 1860.

Works Cited

"Indian Mutiny." Encyclopedia Britannica Online. Online.
http://www.eb.com:180/cgi-bin/g?DocF=micro/342/91.html. 23 Mar. 1998.

"Lee-Enfield Rifle." Encyclopedia Britannica Online. Online.
http://www.eb.com:180/cgi-bin/g?DocF=index/in/dia/73.html. 23 Mar.
1998.

Campbell, Sir Colin. Narrative of the Indian Revolt. London: George
Vickers, 1858.

Collier, Richard. The Great Indian Mutiny. New York: Dutton, 1964.

Kaye, John William. A History of the Sepoy War In India (3 vols).
London: W.H. Allen & Co., 1878.

Keene, H. George. British Administration During the Revolt of 1857.
New Delhi: Inter- India Publications, 1985.

Malleson, Colonel G.B. The Indian Mutiny of 1857. New York: Scribner &
Sons, 1891.

Marx, Karl & Freidrich Engels. The First Indian War of Independence
1857-1859. Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1959.

Palmer, J.A.B. The Mutiny Outbreak at Meerut In 1857. Cambridge:
University Press, 1966.

Stokes, Eric. The Peasant Armed: The Indian Revolt of 1857. Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1986.

Ward, Andrew. Our Bones Are Scattered. New York: Holt & Co., 1996.

Author: Nilesh Patel, Spring '98.

http://www.english.emory.edu/Bahri/Mutiny.html

The Sepoy Mutiny

The growing Indian discontent with British rule erupted on May 10,
1857. The sepoys, who were Indians trained by the British as soldiers,
heard rumors that the cartridges for their new Enfield rifles were
greased with lard and beef fat. Since the cow is sacred to Hindus, and
the pig is abhorrent to Muslims, all the sepoys were outraged, and
they mutinied. Although initially the mutiny was spontaneous, it
quickly became more organized and the sepoys even took over the cities
of Delhi and Kanpur.

This mutiny was harshly crushed by the British. On September 20, 1857,
the British recaptured Delhi, and in the following months, the British
recaptured Kanpur and withstood a Sepoy siege of Lucknow. The British
victories were accompanied by widespread recrimination, and in many
cases, unarmed sepoys were bayonetted, sown up in the carcasses of
pigs or cows, or fired from cannons.

http://asms.k12.ar.us/classes/humanities/worldstud/97-98/imper/india/sepoy.htm

The Portuguese

The first Europeans to establish roots in India since the fall of the
Roman Empire were the Protuguese. Led by Vasco da Gama's landing at
Calicut in 1498, they established themselves along the Malabar Coast,
trading with the rest of the subcontinent from there. (The Portuguese
maintained some holdings in India as late as 1961.)

The English

In 1600, the British East India Company was given the right to a
monopoly to trade with India. While the company's primary objective
was to get spices from Indonesia (East Indies), they needed goods to
trade for spices. The good they wanted was cotton, and they got it
from India. In 1612, the English won a battle against the Portuguese.
Because of this victory, they were able to gain the right to trade and
establish factories in India from the Mughal Emporer. Because the
Dutch controlled the East Indies, the English focused all their
attention on India. The company traded for silk, sugar, and opium
among other goods.

The French

In 1664, French finance minister Jean-Baptiste Colbert launched the
French equivalent of the English East India Trading Company. The
French obtained a few cities such as Pondicherry and Chandernagore,
and gradually expanded their trade. By 1740, however, this company's
sales were only half those of the English East India Company.

Others

The Danish, the Austrians, the Swedes, and the Prussians all tried
unsuccessfully to get a piece of the action in India.

http://asms.k12.ar.us/classes/humanities/worldstud/97-98/imper/india/early.htm

The British and French Battle for Control of India

When Frederick II of Prussia siezed Silesia in 1740, France sided with
him, the British with Austria. As a result of this, The War of
Austrian Succession, the British decided that France's power in India
was too great to be left alone. After the French quickly cornered the
English in a naval battle, a treaty was signed trading Madras for Cape
Breton Island in North America.

Relations between the British and French worsened as each became mired
in local Indian politics. After the nizam, a major Mughal noble and
power-broker, died, the French took advantage of this time to pick
sides in a dispute over who would be Karnatic nawab (governor).
(Karnataka was a dependancy of the nizam. The nizam chose a nawab in
1743, but rivals for the nawab-ate weren't satisfied. Is this clear?
Good.) The French chose Chanda Sahib for nawab and Salabat Jang for
nizam. The British, not to be outdone, responded by saying that
Muhammad Ali (the Indian, not the boxer) should be nawab.

The nawab-ship wasn't really all that important, but it made a good
excuse for a war. The British/Muhammad Ali, led by Robert Clive,
gained control of Arcot (the capital of Karnataka) in 1751, and the
French/Chandra Sahib were forced to surrended in 1752.

Peace and tranquility reigned for . . . four years. Then, the Seven
Years' War began in Europe in 1756, and the British and French in
India were at it again. The British, with their naval superiority, won
victories in the Bengal, at Madras, at Ponicherry, and at Wandiwash.
The French surrendered for the second time in 1761.

http://asms.k12.ar.us/classes/humanities/worldstud/97-98/imper/india/britfren.htm

The Rise of the English East India Company

In 1786, Lord Cornwallis became British governor of Inida. He
strengthened the sepoy armies that the East India Company had raised.
Also, under Cornwallis and his successor Lord Wellesley, the British
slowly expanded their holdings. In 1813, the monopoly of the English
East India Company was broken and all British citizens were allowed to
trade with India. Over the next 30 years, the British continued to
acquire new lands and strengthen their grip on those already under
their rule.

From 1838 until 1857, however, the British were weakened by the
failure of their attempts to keep Russia out of Afghanistan. The
defeat of the British in the First Afghan War caused the Indians to
become aware that the British were not invincible. However, the
British continued to annex more Indian territory throughout the
1850's.

The British also aggravated the Hindu population of India during this
time period. They made English, instead of Persian, the official
language. They prohibited suttee (in which Hindu widows threw
themselves on their husbands' funeral pyres) and infanticide. They
also allowed Hindu widows to remarry and sanctioned missionary
activity.

http://asms.k12.ar.us/classes/humanities/worldstud/97-98/imper/india/risebrit.htm

The British Take Control

On August 2, 1858, the British Parliament passed the Government of
India Act. This act transferred autority for India from the East India
Company to Queen Victoria. In 1876, Queen Victoria declared herself
"Empress of India." In 1869, the Suez Canal was completed, reducing
the time for sea passage to India from 3 months to 3 weeks. Because of
this, British women began to come to India, and the British developed
their own society in India separate from the native society. Another
effect of the opening of the Suez Canal was that more and more British
goods were imported to India, effectively destroying many Indian
crafts. By the end of the nineteenth century, approximately 90% of the
Indian population were farmers. This number was even larger at the
beginning of the century. Despite this, however, an increasing number
of factories, railroads, hospitals, schools, and roads were built.

http://asms.k12.ar.us/classes/humanities/worldstud/97-98/imper/india/power.htm

Indian Rebellion of 1857
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Indian Rebellion of 1857/8

A 1912 map of 'Northern India The Mutiny 1857-9' showing the centres
of rebellion including the principal ones: Meerut, Delhi, Cawnpore
(Kanpur), Lucknow, Jhansi, and Gwalior.

Date 10 May 1857

Location India (cf. 1857)[1]

Result Rebellion Suppressed,
End of Company rule in India
Control taken by the British Crown

Territorial

changes Indian Empire created out of former-East India Company
territory, some land returned to native rulers, other land confiscated
by the Crown.

Belligerents

Mughal Empire
East India Company Sepoys

7 Indian princely states

Gwalior Factions
Deposed King of Oudh
Deposed ruler of the independent state of Jhansi
Some Indian civilians and converts to Islam.
British Army

East India Company's Sepoys
Native Irregulars

and EIC British regulars British civilian volunteers raised in Bengal
presidency
21 Princely states

Jaipur
Bikaner
Marwar
Rampur
Kapurthala
Nabha
Bhopal
Sirohi
Udaipur
Patiala
Sirmur
Alwar
Bharathpur
Bundi
Jaora
Bijawar
Ajaigarh
Rewa
Kendujhar
Hyderabad
Kashmir
Kingdom of Nepal
Other smaller states in region

Commanders
Bahadur Shah II
Nana Sahib
Mirza Mughal
Bakht Khan
Rani Lakshmi Bai
Tantya Tope
Begum Hazrat Mahal Commander-in-Chief, India:
George Anson (to May 1857)
Sir Patrick Grant
Sir Colin Campbell (from August 1857)
Jang Bahadur[2]

Indian Rebellion of 1857

Badli-ki-Serai – Delhi – Najafgarh – Agra – 1st Cawnpore – Chinhat –
1st Lucknow – 2nd Cawnpore – 2nd Lucknow – Central India

The Indian Rebellion of 1857 began as a mutiny of sepoys of the
British East India Company's army on 10 May 1857, in the town of
Meerut, and soon erupted into other mutinies and civilian rebellions
largely in the upper Gangetic plain and central India, with the major
hostilities confined to present-day Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, northern
Madhya Pradesh, and the Delhi region.[3]

The rebellion posed a considerable threat to Company power in that
region,[4]

and it was contained only with the fall of Gwalior on 20 June 1858.
[3]

The rebellion is also known as India's First War of Independence, the
Great Rebellion, the Indian Mutiny, the Revolt of 1857, the Uprising
of 1857 and the Sepoy Mutiny.

Other regions of Company controlled India—Bengal province, the Bombay
Presidency, and the Madras Presidency—remained largely calm.[3]

In Punjab, the Sikh princes backed the Company by providing both
soldiers and support.[3]

The large princely states, Hyderabad, Mysore, Travancore, and Kashmir,
as well as the states of Rajputana did not join the rebellion.[5]

In some regions, such as Oudh, the rebellion took on the attributes of
a patriotic revolt against European presence.[6]

Rebel leaders, such as the Rani of Jhansi, became folk heroes in the
nationalist movement in India half a century later,[3] however, they
themselves "generated no coherent ideology" for a new order.[7]

The rebellion led to the dissolution of the East India Company in
1858, and forced the British to reorganize the army, the financial
system, and the administration in India.[8] India was thereafter
directly governed by the Crown in the new British Raj.[5]

East India Company expansion in India

India in 1765 and 1805 showing East India Company Territories

India in 1837 and 1857 showing East India Company and other
territoriesMain article: Company rule in India
Although the British East India Company had earlier administered the
factory areas established for trading purposes, its victory in the
Battle of Plassey in 1757 marked the beginning of its rule in India.
The victory was consolidated in 1764 at the Battle of Buxar (in
Bihar), when the defeated Mughal emperor, Shah Alam II, granted
control of Bengal, Bihar, and Orissa to the Company. The Company soon
expanded its territories around its bases in Bombay and Madras: the
Anglo-Mysore Wars (1766–1799) and the Anglo-Maratha Wars (1772–1818)
led to control of most of India south of the Narmada River.

After the turn of the 19th century, Governor-General Wellesley began
what became two decades of accelerated expansion of Company
territories.[9]

This was achieved either by subsidiary alliances between the Company
and local rulers or by direct military annexation. The subsidiary
alliances created the Princely States (or Native States) of the Hindu
maharajas and the Muslim nawabs. Punjab, North-West Frontier Province,
and Kashmir were annexed after the Anglo-Sikh Wars in 1849; however,
Kashmir was immediately sold under the Treaty of Amritsar (1850) to
the Dogra Dynasty of Jammu and thereby became a princely state. In
1854, Berar was annexed, and the state of Oudh was added two years
later.

Causes of the rebellion

Main article: Causes of the Indian Rebellion of 1857

The sepoys were a combination of Muslim and Hindu soldiers. Just
before the Sepoy Rebellion of 1857, there were over 200,000 Indians in
the army compared to about 40,000 British. The forces were divided
into three presidency armies: the Bombay; the Madras; and the Bengal.
The Bengal army recruited higher castes, such as "Rajputs and
Brahmins", mostly from the "Avadh(or oudh) and Bihar" region and even
restricted the enlistment of lower castes in 1855; in contrast, the
Madras and Bombay armies were "more localized, caste-neutral armies"
that "did not prefer high-caste men."[10]

The domination of the Bengal high-caste in the army has been blamed in
part for the Sepoy mutiny of 1857.

In 1772, when Warren Hastings was appointed the first Governor-General
of the Company’s Indian territories, one of his first undertakings was
the rapid expansion of the Company’s army. Since the available
soldiers, or sepoys, from Bengal — many of whom had fought against the
Company in the Battle of Plassey — were now suspect in British eyes,
Hastings recruited farther west from the high-caste rural Rajputs and
Brahmins of Oudh and Bihar, a practice that continued for the next 75
years. However, in order to forestall any social friction, the Company
also took pains to adapt its military practices to the requirements of
their religious rituals. Consequently, these soldiers dined in
separate facilities; in addition, overseas service, considered
polluting to their caste, was not required of them, and the army soon
came officially to recognize Hindu festivals. “This encouragement of
high caste ritual status, however, left the government vulnerable to
protest, even mutiny, whenever the sepoys detected infringement of
their prerogatives.”[11]

It has been suggested that after the annexation of Oudh by the East
India Company in 1856, many sepoys were disquieted both from losing
their perquisites, as landed gentry, in the Oudh courts and from the
anticipation of any increased land-revenue payments that the
annexation might augur.[12]

Others have stressed that by 1857, some Indian soldiers, misreading
the presence of missionaries as a sign of official intent, were
persuaded that the East India Company was masterminding mass
conversions of Hindus and Muslims to Christianity.[13] Although
earlier in the 1830s, evangelists such as William Carey and William
Wilberforce had successfully clamored for the passage of social reform
such as the abolition of Sati and allowing the remarriage of Hindu
widows, there is little evidence that the sepoys' allegiance was
affected by this.[12]

However, changes in the terms of their professional service may have
created resentment. With East India Company victories in wars or with
annexation, as the extent of Company jurisdiction expanded, the
soldiers were now not only expected to serve in less familiar regions
(such as in Burma in the Anglo-Burmese Wars in 1856), but also make do
without the "foreign service" remuneration that had previously been
their due.[14]

Another financial grievance stemmed from the general service act,
which denied retired sepoys a pension; whilst this only applied to new
recruits, it was suspected that it would also apply to those already
in service. In addition, the Bengal army was paid less than the Madras
and Bombay armies, which compounded the fears over pensions.[15]

There were also grievances over the issue of promotions, based on
seniority (length of service). This, as well as the increasing number
of European officers in the battalions,[15]

made promotion difficult.

The final spark was provided by the reaction of Company officers to
the controversy over the ammunition for new Pattern 1853 Enfield
Rifle. To load the new rifle, the sepoys had to bite the cartridge
open. It was believed that the paper cartridges that were standard
issue with the rifle were greased with lard (pork fat) which was
regarded as unclean by Muslims, or tallow (beef fat), regarded as
anathema to Hindus.[16]

East India Company officers first became aware of the impending
trouble over the cartridges in January, when they received reports of
an altercation between a high-caste sepoy and a low-caste labourer at
Dum Dum.[17]

The labourer had taunted the sepoy that by biting the cartridge, he
had himself lost caste, although at this time the Dum-Dum Arsenal had
not actually started to produce the new round, nor had a single
practice shot been fired.[18]

On January 27, Colonel Richard Birch, the Military Secretary, ordered
that all cartridges issued from depots were to be free from grease,
and that sepoys could grease them themselves using whatever mixture
"they may prefer".[19]

This however, merely caused many sepoys to be convinced that the
rumours were true and that their fears were justified.

The civilian rebellion was more multifarious in origin. The rebels
consisted of three groups: the feudal nobility, rural landlords called
taluqdars, and the peasants. The nobility, many of whom had lost
titles and domains under the Doctrine of Lapse, which refused to
recognise the adopted children of princes as legal heirs, felt that
the Company had interfered with a traditional system of inheritance.
Rebel leaders such as Nana Sahib and the Rani of Jhansi belonged to
this group; the latter, for example, was prepared to accept East India
Company supremacy if her adopted son was recognized as her late
husband's heir.[20]

In other areas of central India, such as Indore and Saugar, where such
loss of privilege had not occurred, the princes remained loyal to the
Company even in areas where the sepoys had rebelled.[21]

The second group, the taluqdars, had lost half their landed estates to
peasant farmers as a result of the land reforms that came in the wake
of annexation of Oudh. As the rebellion gained ground, the taluqdars
quickly reoccupied the lands they had lost, and paradoxically, in part
due to ties of kinship and feudal loyalty, did not experience
significant opposition from the peasant farmers, many of whom joined
the rebellion, to the great dismay of the British.[22]

It has also been suggested that heavy land-revenue assessment in some
areas by the British resulted in many landowning families either
losing their land or going into great debt with money lenders, and
providing ultimately a reason to rebel; money lenders, in addition to
the East India Company, were particular objects of the rebels'
animosity.[23]

The civilian rebellion was also highly uneven in its geographic
distribution, even in areas of north-central India that were no longer
under British control. For example, the relatively prosperous
Muzaffarnagar district, a beneficiary of a Company irrigation scheme,
and next door to Meerut, where the upheaval began, stayed mostly calm
throughout.[24]

Charles Canning, the Governor-General of India during the rebellion.

Lord Dalhousie, the Governor-General of India from 1848 to 1856, who
devised the Doctrine of Lapse.
Lakshmibai, The Rani of Jhansi, one of the principal leaders of the
rebellion who earlier had lost her kingdom as a result of the Doctrine
of Lapse.

Bahadur Shah Zafar the last Mughal Emperor, crowned Emperor of India,
by the Indian troops, he was deposed by the British, and died in exile
in Burma

Much of the resistance to the Company came from the old aristocracy,
who were seeing their power steadily eroded. The company had annexed
several states under the Doctrine of Lapse, according to which land
belonging to a feudal ruler became the property of the East India
Company if on his death, the ruler did not leave a male heir through
natural process. It had long been the custom for a childless landowner
to adopt an heir, but the East India Company ignored this tradition.
Nobility, feudal landholders, and royal armies found themselves
unemployed and humiliated due to Company expansionism. Even the jewels
of the royal family of Nagpur were publicly auctioned in Calcutta, a
move that was seen as a sign of abject disrespect by the remnants of
the Indian aristocracy. Lord Dalhousie, the Governor-General of India,
had asked the Mughal emperor Bahadur Shah Zafar and his successors to
leave the Red Fort, the palace in Delhi. Later, Lord Canning, the next
Governor-General of India, announced in 1856 that Bahadur Shah's
successors would not even be allowed to use the title of 'king'. Such
discourtesies were resented by the deposed Indian rulers.

Sir Syed Ahmed Khan founder of the Muhammedan Anglo-Oriental College,
later the Aligarh Muslim University, wrote one of the early critiques,
The Causes of the Indian Mutiny, in 1859.

Rani Lakshmibai of Jhansi, one of the principal leaders of the Great
Uprising of 1857, who earlier had lost her kingdom as a result of Lord
Dalhousie's Doctrine of Lapse."Utilitarian and evangelical-inspired
social reform",[25] including the abolition of sati[26][27]

and the legalisation of widow remarriage were considered by many—
especially the British themselves[28]—to have caused suspicion that
Indian religious traditions were being "interfered with", with the
ultimate aim of conversion.[28][29]

Recent historians, including Chris Bayly, have preferred to frame this
as a "clash of knowledges", with proclamations from religious
authorities before the revolt and testimony after it including on such
issues as the "insults to women", the rise of "low persons under
British tutelage", the "pollution" caused by Western medicine and the
persecuting and ignoring of traditional astrological authorities.[30]

European-run schools were also a problem: according to recorded
testimonies, anger had spread because of stories that mathematics was
replacing religious instruction, stories were chosen that would "bring
contempt" upon Indian religions, and because girl children were
exposed to "moral danger" by education[30].

The justice system was considered to be inherently unfair to the
Indians. The official Blue Books, East India (Torture) 1855–1857, laid
before the House of Commons during the sessions of 1856 and 1857
revealed that Company officers were allowed an extended series of
appeals if convicted or accused of brutality or crimes against
Indians.

The economic policies of the East India Company were also resented by
the Indians.[citation needed] Some of the gold, jewels, silver and
silk had been shipped off to Britain as tax and sometimes sold in open
auctions, ridding India of its once abundant wealth in precious stones.
[citation needed] The land was reorganized under the comparatively
harsh Zamindari system to facilitate the collection of taxes. In
certain areas farmers were forced to switch[citation needed] from
subsistence farming to commercial crops such as indigo, jute, coffee
and tea. This resulted in hardship to the farmers and increases in
food prices.[citation needed]

The Bengal Army

Each of the three "Presidencies" into which the East India Company
divided India for administrative purposes maintained their own armies.
Of these, the Army of the Bengal Presidency was the largest. Unlike
the other two, it recruited heavily from among high-caste Hindus (and
comparatively wealthy Muslims). The Muslims formed a larger percentage
of the Irregular units within the Bengal army, whilst Hindus were
mainly to be found in the regular units. The sepoys (the native Indian
soldiers) were therefore affected to a large degree by the concerns of
the landholding and traditional members of Indian society. In the
early years of the Company rule, they tolerated and even encouraged
the caste privileges and customs within the Bengal Army, which
recruited its regular soldiers almost exclusively amongst the
landowning Bhumihar Brahmins and Rajputs of the Ganges Valley. By the
time these customs and privileges came to be threatened by modernizing
regimes in Calcutta from the 1840s onwards, the sepoys had become
accustomed to very high ritual status, and were extremely sensitive to
suggestions that their caste might be polluted.[31]

The sepoys also gradually became dissatisfied with various other
aspects of army life. Their pay was relatively low and after Awadh and
the Punjab were annexed, the soldiers no longer received extra pay
(batta or bhatta) for service there, because they were no longer
considered "foreign missions". The junior European officers were
increasingly estranged from their soldiers, in many cases treating
them as their racial inferiors. Officers of an evangelical persuasion
in the Company's Army (such as Herbert Edwardes and Colonel S.G.
Wheler of the 34th Bengal Infantry) had taken to preaching to their
Sepoys in the hope of converting them to Christianity.[32]

In 1856, a new Enlistment Act was introduced by the Company, which in
theory made every unit in the Bengal Army liable to service overseas.
(Although it was intended to apply to new recruits only, the Sepoys
feared that the Act might be applied retrospectively to them as well.
It was argued that a high-caste Hindu who traveled in the cramped,
squalid conditions of a troop ship would find it impossible to avoid
losing caste through ritual pollution.)

Onset of the Rebellion

Several months of increasing tension and inflammatory incidents
preceded the actual rebellion. Fires, possibly the result of arson,
broke out near Calcutta on 24 January 1857. On February 26, 1857 the
19th Bengal Native Infantry (BNI) regiment came to know about new
cartridges which allegedly had a casing made of cow and pig fat, which
had to be bitten off by mouth. The cow being sacred to Hindus, and pig
haram to Muslims, soldiers refused to use them. Their Colonel
confronted them angrily with artillery and cavalry on the parade
ground, but then accepted their demand to withdraw the artillery, and
cancel the next morning's parade.[33]

Mangal Pandey

Main article: Mangal Pandey

Mangal PandeyOn March 29, 1857 at the Barrackpore (now Barrackpur)
parade ground, near Calcutta (now Kolkata), 29-year-old Mangal Pandey
of the 34th BNI, angered by the recent actions by the East India
Company, declared that he would rebel against his commanders. When his
adjutant Lt. Baugh came out to investigate the unrest, Pandey opened
fire but hit his horse instead.[34]

General John Hearsey came out to see him on the parade ground, and
claimed later that Mangal Pandey was in some kind of "religious
frenzy". He ordered a Jemadar Ishwari Prasad to arrest Mangal Pandey,
but the Jemadar refused. The whole regiment, with the single exception
of a soldier called Shaikh Paltu, drew back from restraining or
arresting Mangal Pandey. Shaikh Paltu restrained Pandey from
continuing his attack.[34]

After failing to incite his comrades into an open and active
rebellion, Mangal Pandey tried to take his own life by placing his
musket to his chest, and pulling the trigger with his toe. He only
managed to wound himself, and was court-martialled on April 6. He was
hanged on April 8.

The Jemadar Ishwari Prasad was sentenced to death and hanged on April
22. The regiment was disbanded and stripped of their uniforms because
it was felt that they harboured ill-feelings towards their superiors,
particularly after this incident. Shaikh Paltu was promoted to the
rank of Jemadar in the Bengal Army.

Sepoys in other regiments thought this a very harsh punishment. The
show of disgrace while disbanding contributed to the extent of the
rebellion in view of some historians, as disgruntled ex-sepoys
returned home to Awadh with a desire to inflict revenge, as and when
the opportunity arose.

April 1857

During April, there was unrest and fires at Agra, Allahabad and
Ambala. At Ambala in particular, which was a large military cantonment
where several units had been collected for their annual musketry
practice, it was clear to General Anson, Commander-in-Chief of the
Bengal Army, that some sort of riot over the cartridges was imminent.
Despite the objections of the civilian Governor-General's staff, he
agreed to postpone the musketry practice, and allow a new drill by
which the soldiers tore the cartridges with their fingers rather than
their teeth. However, he issued no general orders making this standard
practice throughout the Bengal Army and, rather than remain at Ambala
to defuse or overawe potential trouble, he then proceeded to Simla,
the cool "hill station" where many high officials spent the summer.

Although there was no open revolt at Ambala, there was widespread
incendiarism during late April. Barrack buildings (especially those
belonging to soldiers who had used the Enfield cartridges) and
European officers' bungalows were set on fire.[35]

Meerut and Delhi

An 1858 photograph by Felice Beato of a mosque in Meerut where some of
the rebel soldiers may have prayed.At Meerut was another large
military cantonment. Stationed there were 2,357 Indian sepoys and
2,038 British troops with 12 British-manned guns. Although the state
of unrest within the Bengal Army was well known, on April 24, Lt.-
Colonel George Carmichael-Smyth, the unsympathetic commanding officer
of the 3rd Bengal Light Cavalry, ordered 90 of his men to parade and
perform firing drills. All except five of the men on parade refused to
accept their cartridges. On May 9, the remaining 85 men were court
martialled, and most were sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment with
hard labour. Eleven comparatively young soldiers were given five
years' imprisonment. The entire garrison was paraded and watched as
the condemned men were stripped of their uniforms and placed in
shackles. As they were marched off to jail, the condemned soldiers
berated their comrades for failing to support them.

The next day was Sunday, the Christian day of rest and worship. Some
Indian soldiers warned off-duty junior European officers (including
Hugh Gough, then a lieutenant of horse) that plans were afoot to
release the imprisoned soldiers by force, but the senior officers to
whom this was reported took no action. There was also unrest in the
city of Meerut itself, with angry protests in the bazaar and some
buildings being set on fire. In the evening, most European officers
were preparing to attend church, while many of the European soldiers
were off duty and had gone into canteens or into the bazaar in Meerut.
The Indian troops, led by the 3rd Cavalry, broke into revolt. European
junior officers who attempted to quell the first outbreaks were killed
by their own men. European officers' and civilians' quarters were
attacked, and four civilian men, eight women and eight children were
killed.[36] Crowds in the bazaar attacked the off-duty soldiers there.
The sepoys freed their 85 imprisoned comrades from the jail, along
with 800 other prisoners (debtors and criminals).[37]

Some sepoys (especially from the 11th Bengal Native Infantry) escorted
trusted British officers and women and children to safety before
joining the revolt.[38] Some officers and their families escaped to
Rampur, where they found refuge with the Nawab. About 50 Indian
civilians (some of whom were officers' servants who tried to defend or
conceal their employers) were also killed by the sepoys.[36]

Exaggerated tales of the number and manner of death of Europeans who
died during the uprising at Meerut were later to provide a pretext for
Company forces to commit reprisals against Indian civilians and
rebellious sepoys during the later suppression of the Revolt.[citation
needed]

The senior Company officers, in particular Major General Hewitt, the
commander of the division (who was nearly 70 years old and in poor
health), were slow to react. The British troops (mainly the 1st
Battalion of the 60th Rifles and two European-manned batteries of the
Bengal Artillery) rallied, but received no orders to engage the
rebellious sepoys and could only guard their own headquarters and
armouries. When, on the morning of May 11 they prepared to attack,
they found Meerut was quiet and the rebels had marched off to Delhi.

That same morning, the first parties of the 3rd Cavalry reached Delhi.
From beneath the windows of the King's apartments in the palace, they
called on him to acknowledge and lead them. Bahadur Shah did nothing
at this point (apparently treating the sepoys as ordinary
petitioners), but others in the palace were quick to join the revolt.
During the day, the revolt spread. European officials and dependents,
Indian Christians and shop keepers within the city were killed, some
by sepoys and others by crowds of rioters.

The Flagstaff Tower, Delhi, where the European survivors of the
rebellion gathered on May 11, 1857; photographed by Felice BeatoThere
were three battalions of Bengal Native Infantry stationed in or near
the city. Some detachments quickly joined the rebellion, while others
held back but also refused to obey orders to take action against the
rebels. In the afternoon, a violent explosion in the city was heard
for several miles. Fearing that the arsenal, which contained large
stocks of arms and ammunition, would fall intact into rebel hands, the
nine British Ordnance officers there had opened fire on the sepoys,
including the men of their own guard. When resistance appeared
hopeless, they blew up the arsenal. Although six of the nine officers
survived, the blast killed many in the streets and nearby houses and
other buildings.[39]

The news of these events finally tipped the sepoys stationed around
Delhi into open rebellion. The sepoys were later able to salvage at
least some arms from the arsenal, and a magazine two miles (3 km)
outside Delhi, containing up to 3,000 barrels of gunpowder, was
captured without resistance.

Many fugitive European officers and civilians had congregated at the
Flagstaff Tower on the ridge north of Delhi, where telegraph operators
were sending news of the events to other British stations. When it
became clear that no help could arrive, they made their way in
carriages to Karnal. Those who became separated from the main body or
who could not reach the Flagstaff Tower also set out for Karnal on
foot. Some were helped by villagers on the way, others were robbed or
murdered.

The next day, Bahadur Shah held his first formal court for many years.
It was attended by many excited or unruly sepoys. The King was alarmed
by the turn events had taken, but eventually accepted the sepoys'
allegiance and agreed to give his countenance to the rebellion. On 16
May, up to 50 Europeans who had been held prisoner in the palace or
had been discovered hiding in the city were said to have been killed
by some of the King's servants under a peepul tree in a courtyard
outside the palace.[40][41]

[edit] Support and opposition

States during the rebellionThe news of the events at Delhi spread
rapidly, provoking uprisings among sepoys and disturbances in many
districts. In many cases, it was the behaviour of British military and
civilian authorities themselves which precipitated disorder. Learning
of the fall of Delhi by telegraph, many Company administrators
hastened to remove themselves, their families and servants to places
of safety. At Agra, 160 miles (260 km) from Delhi, no less than 6,000
assorted non-combatants converged on the Fort.[42]

The haste with which many civilians left their posts encouraged
rebellions in the areas they left, although others remained at their
posts until it was clearly impossible to maintain any sort of order.
Several were murdered by rebels or lawless gangs.

The military authorities also reacted in disjointed manner. Some
officers trusted their sepoys, but others tried to disarm them to
forestall potential uprisings. At Benares and Allahabad, the
disarmings were bungled, also leading to local revolts.[43]

Although rebellion became widespread, there was little unity among the
rebels. While Bahadur Shah Zafar was restored to the imperial throne
there was a faction that wanted the Maratha rulers to be enthroned
also, and the Awadhis wanted to retain the powers that their Nawab
used to have.

There were calls for jihad[44]

by Muslim leaders like Maulana Fazl-e-Haq Khairabadi including the
millenarian Ahmedullah Shah, taken up by the Muslims, particularly
Muslim artisans, which caused the British to think that the Muslims
were the main force behind this event. In Awadh, Sunni Muslims did not
want to see a return to Shiite rule, so they often refused to join
what they perceived to be a Shia rebellion. However, some Muslims like
the Aga Khan supported the British. The British rewarded him by
formally recognizing his title. The Mughal emperor, Bahadur Shah,
resisted these calls because, it has been suggested, he feared
outbreaks of communal violence.

In Thana Bhawan, the Sunnis declared Haji Imdadullah their Ameer. In
May 1857 the Battle of Shamli took place between the forces of Haji
Imdadullah and the British.

The Sikhs and Pathans of the Punjab and North-West Frontier Province
supported the British and helped in the recapture of Delhi.[45][46]

Some historians have suggested that the Sikhs wanted to avenge the
annexation of Punjab eight years earlier by the Company with the help
of Purbias (Bengalis and Marathis - Easterner) who helped the British.
It has also been suggested that the Sikhs felt insulted by the
attitude of Sepoys that (in their view) had only beaten the Khalsa
with British help, they resented and despised them far more than the
British.[47]

In 1857, the Bengal Army had 86,000 men of which 12,000 were European,
16,000 Punjabi and 1,500 Gurkha soldiers, out of a total of (for the
three Indian armies) 311,000 native troops, and 40,160 European troops
as well as 5,362 officers.[48]

Fifty-four of the Bengal Army's 75 regular Native Infantry Regiments
rebelled, although some were immediately destroyed or broke up with
their sepoys drifting away to their homes. Almost all the remainder
were disarmed or disbanded to prevent or forestall rebellions. All ten
of the Bengal Light Cavalry regiments rebelled.

The Bengal Army also included 29 Irregular Cavalry and 42 Irregular
Infantry regiments. These included a substantial contingent from the
recently annexed state of Awadh, which rebelled en masse. Another
large contingent from Gwalior also rebelled, even though that state's
ruler remained allied to the British. The remainder of the Irregular
units were raised from a wide variety of sources and were less
affected by the concerns of mainstream Indian society. Three bodies in
particular actively supported the Company; three Gurkha and five of
six Sikh infantry units, and the six infantry and six cavalry units of
the recently-raised Punjab Irregular Force.[49][50]

On April 1, 1858, the number of Indian soldiers in the Bengal army
loyal to the Company was 80,053.[51][52]

This total included a large number of soldiers hastily raised in the
Punjab and North-West Frontier after the outbreak of the Rebellion.

The Bombay army had three mutinies in its 29 regiments whilst the
Madras army had no mutinies, though elements of one of its 52
regiments refused to volunteer for service in Bengal.[53]

Most of southern India remained passive with only sporadic and
haphazard outbreaks of violence. Most of the states did not take part
in the war as many parts of the region were ruled by the Nizams or the
Mysore royalty and were thus not directly under British rule.

The Revolt

Initial stages

Bahadur Shah Zafar proclaimed himself the Emperor of the whole of
India. Most contemporary and modern accounts suggest that he was
coerced by the sepoys and his courtiers to sign the proclamation
against his will.[54] The civilians, nobility and other dignitaries
took the oath of allegiance to the Emperor. The Emperor issued coins
in his name, one of the oldest ways of asserting Imperial status, and
his name was added to the acceptance by Muslims that he is their King.
This proclamation, however, turned the Sikhs of Punjab away from the
rebellion, as they did not want to return to Islamic rule, having
fought many wars against the Mughal rulers.

The province of Bengal was largely quiet throughout the entire period.
Initially, the Indian soldiers were able to significantly push back
Company forces, and captured several important towns in Haryana,
Bihar, Central Provinces and the United Provinces. When the European
troops were reinforced and began to counterattack, the sepoys who
mutinied were especially handicapped by their lack of a centralised
command and control system. Although they produced some natural
leaders such as Bakht Khan (whom the Emperor later nominated as
commander-in-chief after his son Mirza Mughal proved ineffectual), for
the most part they were forced to look for leadership to rajahs and
princes. Some of these were to prove dedicated leaders, but others
were self-interested or inept.

Rao Tularam of Rewari (Haryana) and Pran Sukh Yadav fought with the
British Army at Nasibpur and then went to collect arms from Russia
which had just been in a war with the British in the Crimea. When a
tribal leader from Peshawar sent a letter offering help, the king
replied that he should not come to Delhi because the treasury was
empty and the army had become uncontrollable.[55]

Delhi

Main article: Siege of Delhi

The British were slow to strike back at first. It took time for troops
stationed in Britain to make their way to India by sea, although some
regiments moved overland through Persia from the Crimean War, and some
regiments already en route for China were diverted to India.

It took time to organize the European troops already in India into
field forces, but eventually two columns left Meerut and Simla. They
proceeded slowly towards Delhi and fought, killed, and hung numerous
Indians along the way. Two months after the first outbreak of
rebellion at Meerut, the two forces met near Karnal. The combined
force (which included two Gurkha units serving in the Bengal Army
under contract from the Kingdom of Nepal), fought the main army of the
rebels at Badli-ke-Serai and drove them back to Delhi.

The Company established a base on the Delhi ridge to the north of the
city and the Siege of Delhi began. The siege lasted roughly from July
1 to September 21. However, the encirclement was hardly complete, and
for much of the siege the Company forces were outnumbered and it often
seemed that it was the Company forces and not Delhi that was under
siege, and the rebels could easily receive resources and
reinforcements. For several weeks, it seemed that disease, exhaustion
and continuous sorties by rebels from Delhi would force the Company
forces to withdraw, but the outbreaks of rebellion in the Punjab were
forestalled or suppressed, allowing the Punjab Movable Column of
British, Sikh and Pakhtun soldiers under John Nicholson to reinforce
the besiegers on the Ridge on August 14.[56][57]

On August 30 the rebels offered terms, which were refused.[58]

The Jantar Mantar observatory in Delhi in 1858, damaged in the
fighting
Mortar damage to Kashmiri Gate, Delhi, 1858
Hindu Rao's house in Delhi, now a hospital, was extensively damaged
in the fighting
Bank of Delhi was attacked by mortar and gunfire

An eagerly-awaited heavy siege train joined the besieging force, and
from September 7, the siege guns battered breaches in the walls and
silenced the rebels' artillery. An attempt to storm the city through
the breaches and the Kashmiri Gate was launched on September 14. The
attackers gained a foothold within the city but suffered heavy
casualties, including John Nicholson. The British commander wished to
withdraw, but was persuaded to hold on by his junior officers. After a
week of street fighting, the British reached the Red Fort. Bahadur
Shah Zafar had already fled to Humayun's tomb. The British had retaken
the city.

Capture of Bahadur Shah Zafar and his sons by William Hodson at
Humayun's tomb on 20 September 1857The troops of the besieging force
proceeded to loot and pillage the city. A large number of the citizens
were killed in retaliation for the Europeans and Indian civilians that
had been killed by the rebel sepoys. During the street fighting,
artillery had been set up in the main mosque in the city and the
neighbourhoods within range were bombarded. These included the homes
of the Muslim nobility from all over India, and contained innumerable
cultural, artistic, literary and monetary riches.

The British soon arrested Bahadur Shah, and the next day British
officer William Hodson shot his sons Mirza Mughal, Mirza Khizr Sultan,
and grandson Mirza Abu Bakr under his own authority at the Khooni
Darwaza (the bloody gate) near Delhi Gate. On hearing the news Zafar
reacted with shocked silence while his wife Zinat Mahal was happy as
she believed her son was now Zafar's heir.[59]

Shortly after the fall of Delhi, the victorious attackers organised a
column which relieved another besieged Company force in Agra, and then
pressed on to Cawnpore, which had also recently been recaptured. This
gave the Company forces a continuous, although still tenuous, line of
communication from the east to west of India.

Cawnpore (Kanpur)

Main article: Siege of Cawnpore

Tantia Topee's Soldiery

A memorial erected (circa 1860) by the British after the Mutiny at the
Bibi Ghar Well. After India's Independence the statue was moved to the
Memorial Church, Cawnpore. Albumen silver print by Samuel Bourne,
1860.In June, sepoys under General Wheeler in Cawnpore (present day
Kanpur) rebelled and besieged the European entrenchment. Wheeler was
not only a veteran and respected soldier, but also married to a high-
caste Indian lady. He had relied on his own prestige, and his cordial
relations with the Nana Sahib to thwart rebellion, and took
comparatively few measures to prepare fortifications and lay in
supplies and ammunition.

The besieged endured three weeks of the Siege of Cawnpore with little
water or food, suffering continuous casualties to men, women and
children. On June 25 Nana Sahib made an offer of safe passage to
Allahabad. With barely three days' food rations remaining, the British
agreed provided they could keep their small arms and that the
evacuation should take place in daylight on the morning of the 27th
(the Nana Sahib wanted the evacuation to take place on the night of
the 26th). Early in the morning of June 27, the European party left
their entrenchment and made their way to the river where boats
provided by the Nana Sahib were waiting to take them to Allahabad.[60]
Several sepoys who had stayed loyal to the Company were removed by the
mutineers and killed, either because of their loyalty or because "they
had become Christian." A few injured British officers trailing the
column were also apparently hacked to death by angry sepoys. After the
European party had largely arrived at the dock, which was surrounded
by sepoys positioned on both banks of the Ganges,[61] with clear lines
of fire, firing broke out and the boats were abandoned by their crew,
and caught or were set[62] on fire using pieces of red hot charcoal.
[63]

The British party tried to push the boats off but all except three
remained stuck. One boat with over a dozen wounded men initially
escaped, but later grounded, was caught by mutineers and pushed back
down the river towards the carnage at Cawnpore. Towards the end rebel
cavalry rode into the water to finish off any survivors.[63]

After the firing ceased the survivors were rounded up and the men shot.
[63] By the time the massacre was over, all the male members of the
party were dead while the women and children were removed and held
hostage (and later killed in The Bibigarh massacre).[64]

Only four men eventually escaped alive from Cawnpore on one of the
boats: two private soldiers (both of whom died later during the
Rebellion), a lieutenant, and Captain Mowbray Thomson, who wrote a
first-hand account of his experiences entitled The Story of Cawnpore
(London, 1859).

Whether the firing was planned or accidental remains unresolved. Most
early histories assume it was planned either by the Nana Sahib (Kaye
and Malleson) or that Tantia Tope and Brigadier Jwala Pershad planned
it without the Nana Sahib's knowledge (G W Forrest). The stated
reasons for the planned nature are: the speed with which the Nana
Sahib agreed to the British conditions (Mowbray Thomson); and the
firepower arranged around the ghat which was far in excess of what was
necessary to guard the European troops (most histories agree on this).
During his trial, Tatya Tope denied the existence of any such plan and
described the incident in the following terms: the Europeans had
already boarded the boats and he (Tatya Tope) raised his right hand to
signal their departure. That very moment someone from the crowd blew a
loud bugle which created disorder and in the ongoing bewilderment, the
boatmen jumped off the boats. The rebels started shooting
indiscriminately. Nana Sahib, who was staying in Savada Kothi
(Bungalow) nearby, was informed about what was happening and
immediately came to stop it.[65]

Some British histories allow that it might well have been the result
of accident or error; someone accidentally or maliciously fired a
shot, the panic-stricken British opened fire, and it became impossible
to stop the massacre.[66]

The surviving women and children were taken to the Nana Sahib and then
confined first to the Savada Kothi and then to the home of the local
magistrate's clerk (The Bibigarh)[67]
where they were joined by refugees from Fatehgarh. Overall five men
and two hundred and six women and children were confined in The
Bibigarh for about two weeks. In one week 25 were brought out dead,
due to dysentery and cholera.[62] Meanwhile a Company relief force
that had advanced from Allahabad defeated the Indians and by July 15
it was clear that the Nana Sahib would not be able to hold Cawnpore
and a decision was made by the Nana Sahib and other leading rebels
that the hostages must be killed. After the sepoys refused to carry
out this order, two Muslim butchers, two Hindu peasants and one of
Nana's bodyguards went into The Bibigarh. Armed with knives and
hatchets they murdered the women and children.[68] After the massacre
the walls were covered in bloody hand prints, and the floor littered
with fragments of human limbs.[69] The dead and the dying were thrown
down a nearby well, when the well was full, the 50-foot (15 m) deep
well was filled with remains to within 6 feet (1.8 m) of the top,[70]
the remainder were thrown into the Ganges.[71]

Historians have given many reasons for this act of cruelty. With
Company forces approaching Cawnpore and some believing that they would
not advance if there were no hostages to save, their murders were
ordered. Or perhaps it was to ensure that no information was leaked
after the fall of Cawnpore. Other historians have suggested that the
killings were an attempt to undermine Nana Sahib's relationship with
the British.[72]

Perhaps it was due to fear, the fear of being recognized by some of
the prisoners for having taken part in the earlier firings.[64]

Photograph entitled, "The Hospital in General Wheeler's entrenchment,
Cawnpore." (1858) The hospital was the site of the first major loss of
European lives in Cawnpore (Kanpur)

1858 picture of Sati Chaura Ghat on the banks of the Ganges River,
where on 27 June 1857 many British men lost their lives and the
surviving women and children were taken prisoner by the rebels.

Bibigurh house where European women and children were killed and the
well where their bodies were found, 1858.

The Bibigurh Well site where a memorial had been built. Samuel
Bourne, 1860.


The killing of the women and children proved to be a mistake. The
British public was aghast and the anti Imperial and pro-Indian
proponents lost all their support. Cawnpore became a war cry for the
British and their allies for the rest of the conflict. The Nana Sahib
disappeared near the end of the Rebellion and it is not known what
happened to him.

Other British accounts[73][74][75]

state that indiscriminate punitive measures were taken in early June,
two weeks before the murders at the Bibi-Ghar (but after those at both
Meerut and Delhi), specifically by Lieutenant Colonel James George
Smith Neill of the Madras Fusiliers (a European unit), commanding at
Allahabad while moving towards Cawnpore. At the nearby town of
Fatehpur, a mob had attacked and murdered the local European
population. On this pretext, Neill ordered all villages beside the
Grand Trunk Road to be burned and their inhabitants to be hanged.
Neill's methods were "ruthless and horrible"[76] and far from
intimidating the population, may well have induced previously
undecided sepoys and communities to revolt.

Neill was killed in action at Lucknow on September 26 and was never
called to account for his punitive measures, though contemporary
British sources lionised him and his "gallant blue caps".[77] By
contrast with the actions of soldiers under Neill, the behaviour of
most rebel soldiers was creditable. "Our creed does not permit us to
kill a bound prisoner", one of the matchlockmen explained, "though we
can slay our enemy in battle."[74]

When the British retook Cawnpore, the soldiers took their sepoy
prisoners to The Bibigarh and forced them to lick the bloodstains from
the walls and floor.[78]

They then hanged or "blew from the cannon" (the traditional Mughal
punishment for mutiny) the majority of the sepoy prisoners. Although
some claimed the sepoys took no actual part in the killings
themselves, they did not act to stop it and this was acknowledged by
Captain Thompson after the British departed Cawnpore for a second
time.

Lucknow

Main article: Siege of Lucknow

Sir Henry Montgomery Lawrence British Commissioner of Oudh who died
during the siege of Lucknow.
Secundra Bagh after the slaughter of 2,000 Rebels by the 93rd
Highlanders and 4th Punjab Regiment. Albumen silver print by Felice
Beato, 1858.Very soon after the events in Meerut, rebellion erupted in
the state of Awadh (also known as Oudh, in modern-day Uttar Pradesh),
which had been annexed barely a year before. The British Commissioner
resident at Lucknow, Sir Henry Lawrence, had enough time to fortify
his position inside the Residency compound. The Company forces
numbered some 1700 men, including loyal sepoys. The rebels' assaults
were unsuccessful, and so they began a barrage of artillery and musket
fire into the compound. Lawrence was one of the first casualties. The
rebels tried to breach the walls with explosives and bypass them via
underground tunnels that led to underground close combat. After 90
days of siege, numbers of Company forces were reduced to 300 loyal
sepoys, 350 British soldiers and 550 non-combatants.

On September 25 a relief column under the command of Sir Henry
Havelock and accompanied by Sir James Outram (who in theory was his
superior) fought its way from Cawnpore to Lucknow in a brief campaign
in which the numerically small column defeated rebel forces in a
series of increasingly large battles. This became known as 'The First
Relief of Lucknow', as this force was not strong enough to break the
siege or extricate themselves, and so was forced to join the garrison.
In October another, larger, army under the new Commander-in-Chief, Sir
Colin Campbell, was finally able to relieve the garrison and on the
November 18, they evacuated the defended enclave within the city, the
women and children leaving first. They then conducted an orderly
withdrawal to Cawnpore, where they defeated an attempt by Tantya Tope
to recapture the city in the Second Battle of Cawnpore.

Early in 1858, Campbell once again advanced on Lucknow with a large
army, this time seeking to suppress the rebellion in Awadh. He was
aided by a large Nepalese contingent advancing from the north under
Jang Bahadur,[79]

who decided to side with the Company in December 1857[citation
needed]. Campbell's advance was slow and methodical, and drove the
large but disorganised rebel army from Lucknow with few casualties to
his own troops. This nevertheless allowed large numbers of the rebels
to disperse into Awadh, and Campbell was forced to spend the summer
and autumn dealing with scattered pockets of resistance while losing
men to heat, disease and guerilla actions.


Jhansi
Main article: Central India Campaign (1858)

Jhansi was a Maratha-ruled princely state in Bundelkhand. When the
Raja of Jhansi died without a biological male heir in 1853, it was
annexed to the British Raj by the Governor-General of India under the
doctrine of lapse. His widow, Rani Lakshmi Bai, protested against the
denial of rights of their adopted son.


The Jhansi Fort, which was taken over by rebel forces, and
subsequently defended against British recapture by the Rani of
Jhansi.When war broke out, Jhansi quickly became a centre of the
rebellion. A small group of Company officials and their families took
refuge in Jhansi's fort, and the Rani negotiated their evacuation.
However, when they left the fort they were massacred by the rebels
over whom the Rani had no control; the Europeans suspected the Rani of
complicity, despite her repeated denials.

By the end of June 1857, the Company had lost control of much of
Bundelkhand and eastern Rajasthan. The Bengal Army units in the area,
having rebelled, marched to take part in the battles for Delhi and
Cawnpore. The many princely states which made up this area began
warring amongst themselves. In September and October 1857, the Rani
led the successful defence of Jhansi against the invading armies of
the neighbouring rajas of Datia and Orchha.

On 3 February Rose broke the 3-month siege of Saugor. Thousands of
local villagers welcomed him as a liberator, freeing them from rebel
occupation[80]

In March 1858, the Central India Field Force, led by Sir Hugh Rose,
advanced on and laid siege to Jhansi. The Company forces captured the
city, but the Rani fled in disguise.

After being driven from Jhansi and Kalpi, on June 1, 1858 Rani Lakshmi
Bai and a group of Maratha rebels captured the fortress city of
Gwalior from the Scindia rulers, who were British allies. This might
have reinvigorated the rebellion but the Central India Field Force
very quickly advanced against the city. The Rani died on June 17, the
second day of the Battle of Gwalior probably killed by a carbine shot
from the 8th Hussars, according to the account of three independent
Indian representatives. The Company forces recaptured Gwalior within
the next three days. In descriptions of the scene of her last battle,
she was compared to Joan Of Arc by some commentators.[81]

Indore

Colonel Henry Durand, the then Company resident at Indore had brushed
away any possibility of uprising in Indore.[82]

However, on July 1, sepoys in Holkar's army revolted and opened fire
on the pickets of Bhopal Cavalry. When Colonel Travers rode forward to
charge, Bhopal Cavalry refused to follow. The Bhopal Infantry also
refused orders and instead leveled their guns at European sergeants
and officers. Since all possibility of mounting an effective deterrent
was lost, Durand decided to gather up all the European residents and
escape, although 39 European residents of Indore were killed.[83]

Other regions

Punjab

What was then referred to by the British as the Punjab was a very
large administrative division, centred on Lahore. It included not only
the present-day Indian and Pakistani Punjabi regions but also the
North West Frontier districts bordering Afghanistan.

Much of the region had been the Sikh kingdom, ruled by Ranjit Singh
until his death in 1839. The kingdom had then fallen into disorder,
with court factions and the Khalsa (the Sikh army) contending for
power at the Lahore Durbar (court). After two Anglo-Sikh Wars, the
entire region was annexed by the East India Company in 1849. In 1857,
the region still contained the highest numbers of both European and
Indian troops.

The inhabitants of the Punjab were not as sympathetic to the sepoys as
they were elsewhere in India, which limited many of the outbreaks in
the Punjab to disjointed uprisings by regiments of sepoys isolated
from each other. In some garrisons, notably Ferozepore, indecision on
the part of the senior European officers allowed the sepoys to rebel,
but the sepoys then left the area, mostly heading for Delhi.[84]

At the most important garrison, that of Peshawar close to the Afghan
frontier, many comparatively junior officers ignored their nominal
commander (the elderly General Reed) and took decisive action. They
intercepted the sepoys' mail, thus preventing their coordinating an
uprising, and formed a force known as the "Punjab Movable Column" to
move rapidly to suppress any revolts as they occurred. When it became
clear from the intercepted correspondence that some of the sepoys at
Peshawar were on the point of open revolt, the four most disaffected
Bengal Native regiments were disarmed by the two British infantry
regiments in the cantonment, backed by artillery, on May 22. This
decisive act induced many local chieftains to side with the British.
[85]


Marble Lectern in memory of 35 British soldiers in JhelumSome
regiments in frontier garrisons subsequently rebelled, but became
isolated among hostile Pakhtun villages and tribes. There were several
mass executions, amounting to several hundred, of sepoys from units
which rebelled or who deserted in the Punjab and North West Frontier
provinces during June and July[citation needed] . The British had been
recruiting irregular units from Sikh and Pakhtun communities even
before the first unrest among the Bengal units, and the numbers of
these were greatly increased during the Rebellion.

At one stage, faced with the need to send troops to reinforce the
besiegers of Delhi, the Commissioner of the Punjab suggested handing
the coveted prize of Peshawar to Dost Mohammed Khan of Afghanistan in
return for a pledge of friendship. The British Agents in Peshawar and
the adjacent districts were horrified. Referring to the massacre of a
retreating British army in 1840, Herbert Edwardes wrote, "Dost Mahomed
would not be a mortal Afghan ... if he did not assume our day to be
gone in India and follow after us as an enemy. Europeans cannot
retreat - Kabul would come again."[86]

In the event Lord Canning insisted on Peshawar being held, and Dost
Mohammed, whose relations with Britain had been equivocal for over 20
years, remained neutral.

The final large-scale military uprising in the Punjab took place on
July 9, when most of a brigade of sepoys at Sialkot rebelled and began
to move to Delhi. They were intercepted by John Nicholson with an
equal British force as they tried to cross the Ravi River. After
fighting steadily but unsuccessfully for several hours, the sepoys
tried to fall back across the river but became trapped on an island.
Three days later, Nicholson annihilated the 1100 trapped sepoys in the
Battle of Trimmu Ghat.[87]

Jhelum in Punjab was also a centre of resistance against the British.
Here 35 British soldiers of HM XXIV regiment (South Wales Borderers),
died on 7 July 1857. To commemorate this victory St. John's Church
Jhelum was built and the names of those 35 British soldiers are carved
on a marble lectern present in that church.

Jaunpur

Landlords of the Raghuvamsha clan of Rajputs; Taluqa-Dobhi, District -
Jaunpur;[88] played a prominent part in the Rebellion. On hearing of
the uprisings against British rule in the surrounding districts of
Ghazipur, Azamgarh and Banaras, the Rajputs of Dobhi organised
themselves into an armed force and attacked the Company all over the
region. They also cut the Company communications along the Banaras-
Azamgarh road and advanced towards the former Banaras State.

In the first encounter with the British regular troops, the Rajputs
suffered heavy losses, but withdrew in order. Regrouping themselves,
they made a bid to capture Banaras. In the meantime, Azamgarh had been
besieged by another large force of rebels. The Company was unable to
send reinforcement to Azamgarh due to the challenge posed by the Dobhi
Rajputs. A clash became inevitable and the Company attacked the
Rajputs with the help of the Sikhs and the Hindustani cavalry at the
end of June 1857. The Rajputs were handicapped as the torrential
monsoon rains soaked their supplies of gun-powder. The Rajputs,
however, bitterly opposed the Company advance with swords and spears
and the few serviceable guns and muskets that they had. The battle
took place about 5 miles North of Banaras at a place called Pisnaharia-
ka-Inar. The Rajputs were driven back with heavy losses across the
Gomti river. The British army crossed the river and sacked every
Rajput village in the area.

A few months later, Kunwar Singh of Jagdishpur (District Arrah,
Bihar), advanced and occupied Azamgarh. The Banaras Army sent against
him was defeated outside Azamgarh. The Company rushed reinforcements
and there was a furious battle in which the Rajputs of Dobhi helped
Kunwar Singh, their distant relative. Kunwar Singh had to withdraw and
the Rajputs became the subject of cruel reprisals by the Company. The
leaders of the Dobhi Rajputs were invited to a conference and
treacherously arrested by the Company troops which had surrounded the
place in Senapur village in May 1858. All were summarily executed by
hanging from a mango tree, along with nine of their other followers.
The dead bodies were further shot with muskets and left hanging from
the trees. After few days, the bodies were taken down by the villagers
and cremated.

Arrah

Kunwar Singh, the 75 year old Rajput Raja of Jagdishpur, whose estate
was in the process of being sequestrated by the Revenue Board,
instigated and assumed the leadership of revolt in Bihar.[89]

On 25 July, rebellion erupted in the garrisons of Dinapur. The rebels
quickly moved towards the cities of Arrah and were joined by Kunwar
Singh and his men. Mr. Boyle, a British engineer in Arrah, had already
prepared his house for defense against such attacks. As the rebels
approached Arrah, all European residents took refuge at Mr. Boyle's
house. A siege soon ensued and 50 loyal sepoys defended the house
against artillery and musketry fire from the rebels.

On 29 July, 400 men were sent out from Dinapore to relieve Arrah, but
this force was ambushed by the rebels around a mile away from the
siege house, severely defeated, and driven back. On 30 July, Major
Vincent Eyre, who was going up the river with his troops and guns,
reached Buxar and heard about the siege. He immediately disembarked
his guns and troops (the 5th Fusiliers) and started marching towards
Arrah. On August 2, some 16 miles (26 km) short of Arrah, the Major
was ambushed by the rebels. After an intense fight, the 5th Fusiliers
charged and stormed the rebel positions successfully. On 3 August,
Major Eyre and his men reached the siege house and successfully ended
the siege.[90]

Aftermath

Retaliation

"The Relief of Lucknow" by Thomas Jones Barker
British soldiers looting Qaisar Bagh, Lucknow, after its recapture
(steel engraving, late 1850s)From the end of 1857, the British had
begun to gain ground again. Lucknow was retaken in March 1858. On 8
July 1858, a peace treaty was signed and the war ended. The last
rebels were defeated in Gwalior on 20 June 1858. By 1859, rebel
leaders Bakht Khan and Nana Sahib had either been slain or had fled.
As well as hanging mutineers, the British had some "blown from cannon"—
an old Mughal punishment adopted many years before in India. A method
of execution midway between firing squad and hanging but more
demonstrative, sentenced rebels were set before the mouth of cannons
and blown to pieces.[91]

In terms of sheer numbers, the casualties were significantly higher on
the Indian side. A letter published after the fall of Delhi in the
"Bombay Telegraph" and reproduced in the British press testified to
the scale and nature of the retaliation:

.... All the city people found within the walls (of the city of Delhi)
when our troops entered were bayoneted on the spot, and the number was
considerable, as you may suppose, when I tell you that in some houses
forty and fifty people were hiding. These were not mutineers but
residents of the city, who trusted to our well-known mild rule for
pardon. I am glad to say they were disappointed.[92]

Another brief letter from General Montgomery to Captain Hodson, the
conqueror of Delhi exposes how the British military high command
approved of the cold blooded massacre of Delhites: "All honour to you
for catching the king and slaying his sons. I hope you will bag many
more!"

Another comment on the conduct of the British soldiers after the fall
of Delhi is of Captain Hodson himself in his book, Twelve years in
India: "With all my love for the army, I must confess, the conduct of
professed Christians, on this occasion, was one of the most
humiliating facts connected with the siege." (Hodson was killed during
the recapture of Lucknow in early 1858).

Edward Vibart, a 19-year-old officer, also recorded his experience:

It was literally murder... I have seen many bloody and awful sights
lately but such a one as I witnessed yesterday I pray I never see
again. The women were all spared but their screams on seeing their
husbands and sons butchered, were most painful... Heaven knows I feel
no pity, but when some old grey bearded man is brought and shot before
your very eyes, hard must be that man's heart I think who can look on
with indifference...

Depiction of the mass execution of rebels in British India by
cannon.Some British troops adopted a policy of "no prisoners". One
officer, Thomas Lowe, remembered how on one occasion his unit had
taken 76 prisoners - they were just too tired to carry on killing and
needed a rest, he recalled. Later, after a quick trial, the prisoners
were lined up with a British soldier standing a couple of yards in
front of them. On the order "fire", they were all simultaneously shot,
"swept... from their earthly existence". This was not the only mass
execution Lowe participated in: on another occasion his unit took 149
prisoners, and they were lined up and simultaneously shot.

As a result, the end of the war was followed by the execution of a
vast majority of combatants from the Indian side as well as large
numbers of civilians perceived to be sympathetic to the rebel cause.
The British press and government did not advocate clemency of any
kind, though Governor General Canning tried to be sympathetic to
native sensibilities, earning the scornful sobriquet "Clemency
Canning". Soldiers took very few prisoners and often executed them
later. Whole villages were wiped out for apparent pro-rebel
sympathies.


forced disarmament of cavalry of BerhamporeThe aftermath of the
rebellion has been the focus of new work using Indian sources and
population studies. In The Last Mughal, William Dalrymple examines the
effects on the Muslim population of Delhi after the city was retaken
by the British and finds that intellectual and economic control of the
city shifted from Muslim to Hindu hands because the British, at that
time, saw an Islamic hand behind the mutiny.[93]

Amaresh Mishra, a journalist and history student, after examining
labor force records for the period, concludes that almost ten million
Indians lost their lives during the reprisals though his methodology
is disputed because it neither accounts for unrelated causes of deaths
nor for the movement and displacement of the population that likely
followed that period of unrest. It has to be noted that Mishra's
version of events is dramatically different from the traditional view
held by most historians. Accounting for these factors, another
historian, Saul David, estimates the number of deaths to be in the
hundreds of thousands.[94]

Reaction in Britain

Justice, a print by Sir John Tenniel in an September issue of
Punch.The scale and savagery of the punishments handed out by the
British "Army of Retribution" were considered largely appropriate and
justified in a Britain shocked by the barrage of press reports about
atrocities carried out on Europeans and Christians.[95]

Accounts of the time frequently reach the "hyperbolic register",
according to Christopher Herbert, especially in the often-repeated
claim that the "Red Year" of 1857 marked "a terrible break" in British
experience.[92] Such was the atmosphere - a national "mood of
retribution and despair" that led to "almost universal approval" of
the measures taken to pacify the revolt.[96]

The poet Martin Tupper — "in a ferment of indignation" — played a
major part in shaping the public's response. His poems, filled with
calls for the razing of Delhi and the erection of "groves of gibbets"
are telling:

"And England, now avenge their wrongs by vengeance deep and dire,/ Cut
out their canker with the sword, and burn it out with fire;/ Destroy
those traitor regions, hang every pariah hound,/ And hunt them down to
death, in all hills and cities ‘round."[97]

Two of the leading novelists of the period, Charles Dickens and Wilkie
Collins wrote an essay in Dickens' Household Words calling for the
extermination of the 'race upon whom the stain of the late cruelties
rested'.[98]

Punch, normally cynical and dispassionate where other periodicals were
jingoistic, in August published a two-page cartoon depicting the
British Lion attacking a Bengal Tiger that had attacked an English
woman and child; the cartoon received considerable attention at the
time, with the New York Times writing a piece about it in September as
emblematic of a near-universal British desire for revenge.[99]

It was re-issued as a print, and made the career of John Tenniel,
later famous as the illustrator of Alice.


The British Lion's Vengeance on the Bengal Tiger, a print by Sir John
Tenniel in an August issue of Punch.According to Victorianist Patrick
Brantlinger, no event raised national hysteria in Britain to a higher
pitch, and no event in the 19th century took a greater hold on the
British imagination, so much so that "Victorian writing about the
Mutiny expresses in concentrated form the racist ideology that Edward
Said calls Orientalism".[98]. Others note that this was just one of a
number of colonial rebellions which had a cumulative effect on British
public opinion [100]

Rumors

While incidents of rape committed by Indian rebels against European
women and girls were rare during the rebellion, falsified reports were
accepted as fact and often used to justify the British reaction to the
Rebellion. British newspapers printed various "eyewitness" accounts of
the rape of English women and girls that were later found to be, in
general, false. One such account published by The Times, regarding an
incident where 48 English girls as young as 10 had been raped by
Indian rebels in Delhi, was criticized as a false propaganda story by
Karl Marx, who pointed out that the story was written by a clergyman
in Bangalore, far from the events of the rebellion.[101]

These stories were in part an attempt to replace what did happen (for
example, General Wheeler's daughter Margaret being forced to live as
her captor's concubine) with what the Victorian public wanted to have
happened (Margaret killing her rapist then herself).[102]

[edit] Reorganisation

Bahadur Shah Zafar (last mughal emperor) exiled in Rangoon. Photograph
by Robert Tytler and Charles Shepherd, May 1858.Bahadur Shah was tried
for treason by a military commission assembled at Delhi, and exiled to
Rangoon where he died in 1862, bringing the Mughal dynasty to an end.
In 1877 Queen Victoria took the title of Empress of India on the
advice of Prime Minister, Benjamin Disraeli.

The rebellion saw the end of the British East India Company's rule in
India. In August, by the Government of India Act 1858, the company was
formally dissolved and its ruling powers over India were transferred
to the British Crown. A new British government department, the India
Office, was created to handle the governance of India, and its head,
the Secretary of State for India, was entrusted with formulating
Indian policy. The Governor-General of India gained a new title
(Viceroy of India), and implemented the policies devised by the India
Office. The British colonial administration embarked on a program of
reform, trying to integrate Indian higher castes and rulers into the
government and abolishing attempts at Westernization. The Viceroy
stopped land grabs, decreed religious tolerance and admitted Indians
into civil service, albeit mainly as subordinates.

Essentially the old East India Company bureaucracy remained, though
there was a major shift in attitudes. In looking for the causes of the
Mutiny the authorities alighted on two things: religion and the
economy. On religion it was felt that there had been too much
interference with indigenous traditions, both Hindu and Muslim. On the
economy it was now believed that the previous attempts by the Company
to introduce free market competition had undermined traditional power
structures and bonds of loyalty, placing the peasantry at the mercy of
merchants and money-lenders. In consequence the new British Raj was
constructed in part around a conservative agenda, based on a
preservation of tradition and hierarchy.

On a political level it was also felt that the previous lack of
consultation between rulers and ruled had been yet another significant
factor in contributing to the uprising. In consequence, Indians were
drawn into government at a local level. Though this was on a limited
scale a crucial precedent had been set, with the creation of a new
'white collar' Indian elite, further stimulated by the opening of
universities at Calcutta, Bombay and Madras, a result of the Indian
Universities Act. So, alongside the values of traditional and ancient
India, a new professional middle class was starting to arise, in no
way bound by the values of the past. Their ambition can only have been
stimulated by Victoria's Proclamation of November 1858, in which it is
expressly stated that "We hold ourselves bound to the natives of our
Indian territories by the same obligations of duty which bind us to
our other subjects...it is our further will that... our subjects of
whatever race or creed, be freely and impartially admitted to offices
in our service, the duties of which they may be qualified by their
education, ability and integrity, duly to discharge."

Acting on these sentiments, Lord Ripon, viceroy from 1880 to 1885,
extended the powers of local self-government and sought to remove
racial practices in the law courts by the Ilbert Bill. But a policy at
once liberal and progressive at one turn was reactionary and backward
at the next, creating new elites and confirming old attitudes. The
Ilbert Bill only had the effect of causing a White mutiny, and the end
of the prospect of perfect equality before the law. In 1886 measures
were adopted to restrict Indian entry into the civil service.

Military reorganisation

The Bengal army dominated the Indian army before the mutiny in 1857
and a direct result after the mutiny was the scaling back of the size
of the Bengali contingent in the army.[103]

Of the 67,000 Hindus in the Bengal Army in 1842, 28,000 were
identified as Rajputs and 25,000 as Brahmins, a category that included
Bhumihar Brahmins. The Brahmin presence in the Bengal Army was reduced
in the late nineteenth century because of their perceived primary role
as mutineers in the Rebellion. The British looked for increased
recruitment in the Punjab for the Bengal army as a result of the
apparent discontent that resulted in the Sepoy conflict.[104]

The rebellion transformed both the "native" and European armies of
British India. There was a large-scale disbandment of the presidency
armies; the Bengal Army almost completely vanishing from the order of
battle. These troops were replaced by new units recruited from castes
hitherto under-utilised by the British and from the so-called "Martial
Races", which were not part of mainstream Indian culture like the
Sikhs and the Gurkhas. Regiments which had remained loyal were often
retained.

The inefficiencies of the old organisation, which had estranged sepoys
from their British officers, were addressed, and the post-1857 units
were mainly organised on the "irregular" system. (Before the
rebellion, Bengal Infantry units had 26 British officers, who held
every position of authority down to the second-in-command of each
company. In irregular units, there were only six or seven or even
fewer European officers, who associated themselves far more closely
with their soldiers, while more trust and responsibility was given to
the Indian officers.)

The British increased the ratio of British to Indian soldiers within
India. Sepoy artillery was abolished also, leaving all artillery
(except some small detachments of mountain guns) in British hands. The
post-rebellion changes formed the basis of the military organisation
of British India until the early 20th century.

Nomenclature

There is no universally agreed name for the events of this period.

In India and Pakistan it has often been termed as the "War of
Independence of 1857" or "First War of Independence"[105]

but it is not uncommon to use terms such as the "Revolt of 1857". The
concept of the Rebellion being "First War of Independence" is not
without its critics in India.[106][107][108][109]

The use of the term "Indian Mutiny" is considered by some Indian
politicians[110]

as unacceptable and offensive, as it is perceived to belittle what
they see as a "First War of Independence" and therefore reflecting a
biased, imperialistic attitude of the erstwhile colonists. Others
dispute this interpretation.

In the UK and parts of the Commonwealth it is commonly called the
"Indian Mutiny", but terms such as "Great Indian Mutiny", the "Sepoy
Mutiny", the "Sepoy Rebellion", the "Sepoy War", the "Great Mutiny",
the "Rebellion of 1857", "the Uprising", the "Mahomedan Rebellion",and
the "Revolt of 1857" have also been used.

[111][112][113]

"The Indian Revolution of 1857" is a name that has been used by some
scholars.[which?]

"The Indian Insurrection" was a name used in the press of the UK and
British colonies at the time, such as The Empire (Sydney) [114]

and the Taranaki Herald (New Zealand).[115]

See also: First War of Indian Independence (term).

Debate about character

Almost from the moment the first sepoys mutinied in Meerut, the nature
and the scope of the Indian Rebellion of 1857 has been contested and
argued over. Speaking in the House of Commons in July 1857, Benjamin
Disraeli labeled it a 'national revolt' while Lord Palmerston, the
Prime Minister, tried to downplay the scope and the significance of
the event as a 'mere military mutiny'.[116]

Reflecting this debate, the early historian of the rebellion, Charles
Ball, sided with the mutiny in his title (using mutiny and sepoy
insurrection) but labeled it a 'struggle for liberty and independence
as a people' in the text.[117]

Historians remain divided on whether the rebellion can properly be
considered a war of Indian independence or not,[118]

although it is popularly considered to be one in India. Arguments
against include:

A united India did not exist at that time in political, cultural, or
ethnic terms
The rebellion was put down with the help of other Indian soldiers
drawn from the Madras Army, the Bombay Army and the Sikh regiments,
80% of the East India Company forces were Indian;[119]

Many of the local rulers fought amongst themselves rather than uniting
against the British.
Many rebel Sepoy regiments disbanded and went home rather than fight.
Not all of the rebels accepted the return of the Moghuls.
The King of Delhi had no real control over the mutineers.[120]

The revolt was largely limited to north and central India. Whilst
risings occurred elsewhere they had little impact due to their limited
nature.

A number of revolts occurred in areas not under British rule, and
against native rulers, often as a result of local internal politics.

The revolt was fractured along religious, ethnic and regional lines.
[121]

A second school of thought while acknowledging the validity of the
above-mentioned arguments opines that this rebellion may indeed be
called a war of India's independence. The reasons advanced are:

Even though the rebellion had various causes (e.g. Sepoy grievances,
British high-handedness, the Doctrine of Lapse etc.), most of the
rebel sepoys set out to revive the old Mughal empire, that signified a
national symbol for them, instead of heading home or joining services
of their regional principalities, which would not have been
unreasonable if their revolt were only inspired by grievances;

The hanging of two participants in the Indian Rebellion of 1857.
Albumen silver print by Felice Beato, 1858There was a widespread
popular revolt in many areas such as Awadh, Bundelkhand and
Rohilkhand. The rebellion was therefore more than just a military
rebellion, and it spanned more than one region;
The sepoys did not seek to revive small kingdoms in their regions,
instead they repeatedly proclaimed a "country-wide rule" of the
Moghuls and vowed to drive out the British from "India", as they knew
it then. (The sepoys ignored local princes and proclaimed in cities
they took over: Khalq Khuda Ki, Mulk Badshah Ka, Hukm Subahdar Sipahi
Bahadur Ka - i.e. the world belongs to God, the country to the Emperor
and executive powers to the Sepoy Commandant in the city). The
objective of driving out "foreigners" from not only one's own area but
from their conception of the entirety of "India", signifies a
nationalist sentiment;

The troops of the Bengal Army although from across the Indian
subcontinent displayed a common purpose.[122]

The 150th anniversary

The Government of India celebrated the year 2007 as the 150th
anniversary of "India's First War of Independence". Several books
written by Indian authors were released in the anniversary year
including Amresh Mishra's "War of Civilizations" a controversial
history of the Rebellion of 1857, and "Recalcitrance" by Anurag Kumar,
one of the few novels written in English by an Indian based on the
events of 1857.

In 2007, a group of retired British soldiers and civilians, some of
them descendants of British soldiers who died in the conflict,
attempted to visit the site of the Siege of Lucknow. However, fears of
violence by Indian demonstrators, supported by the Hindu nationalist
Bharatiya Janata Party, prevented the British visitors from visiting
the site.[123] Despite the protests, Sir Mark Havelock was able to
sneak past police in order to visit the grave of his ancestor, General
Henry Havelock.[124]

Notes

^ File:Indian revolt of 1857 states map.svg
^ The Gurkhas by W. Brook Northey, John Morris. ISBN 8120615778. Page
58
^ a b c d e Bandyopadhyay 2004, pp. 169-172 Bose & Jalal 2003, pp.
88-103 Quote: "The 1857 rebellion was by and large confined to
northern Indian Gangetic Plain and central India.", Brown 1994, pp.
85-87, and Metcalf & Metcalf 2006, pp. 100-106
^ Bayly 1990, p. 170 Quote: "What distinguished the events of 1857 was
their scale and the fact that for a short time they posed a military
threat to British dominance in the Ganges Plain."
^ a b Spear 1990, pp. 147-148
^ Bandyopadhyay 2004, p. 177, Bayly 2000, p. 357
^ Brown 1994, p. 94
^ Bayly 1990, pp. 194-197
^ Ludden 2002, p. 133
^ Rajit K. Mazumder, The Indian Army and the Making of the Punjab.
(Delhi, Permanent Black, 2003), 7-8.
^ Metcalf & Metcalf 2006, p. 61
^ a b Brown 1994, p. 88
^ Metcalf 1990, p. 48
^ Bandyopadhyay 2004, p. 171, Bose & Jalal 2003, p. 90
^ a b Essential histories, The Indian Mutiny 1857-1858, Gregory
Fremont-Barnes, Osprey 2007, page25
^ Victorian Web 1857 Indian Rebellion
^ Hibbert 1980, p. 63
^ David 2003, p. 53
^ David 2003, p. 54
^ Bandyopadhyay 2004, p. 172, Bose & Jalal 2003, p. 91, Brown 1994, p.
92
^ Bandyopadhyay 2004, p. 172
^ Metcalf & Metcalf 2006, p. 102
^ Bose & Jalal 2003, p. 91, Metcalf 1991, Bandyopadhyay 2004, p. 173
^ Brown 1994, p. 92
^ Susanne Hoeber Rudolph, Lloyd I Rudolph. "Living with Difference in
India", The Political Quarterly:71 (s1) (2000), 20–38. doi:
10.1111/1467-923X.71.s1.4
^ Pionke, Albert D. (2004). Plots of opportunity: representing
conspiracy in Victorian England. Columbus: Ohio State University
Press. pp. 82. ISBN 0-8142-0948-3.
^ Rudolph, L.I.; Rudolph, S.H. (1997). "Occidentalism and Orientalism:
Perspectives on Legal Pluralism". Cultures of Scholarship.
^ a b Embree, Ainslee in Helmstadter, Richard J.; Webb, R. K.; Davis,
Richard (eds.) (1992). Religion and irreligion in Victorian society:
essays in honor of R. K. Webb. New York: Routledge. pp. 152. ISBN
0-415-07625-0.
^ Gregory Fremont-Barnes. The Indian Mutiny 1857-58 (Essential
Histories). Reading: Osprey Publishing. pp. 9. ISBN 1-84603-209-1.
^ a b Bayly, C. A. (1996). Empire and information: intelligence
gathering and social communication in India, 1780-1870. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press. pp. 331. ISBN 0-521-66360-1.
^ Seema Alavi The Sepoys and the Company (Delhi: Oxford University
Press) 1998 p5
^ Hibbert 1980, pp. 51-54
^ Memorandum from Lieutenant-Colonel W. St. L. Mitchell (CO of the
19th BNI) to Major A. H. Ross about his troop's refusal to accept the
Enfield cartridges, 27 February 1857, Archives of Project South Asia,
South Dakota State University and Missouri Southern State University
^ a b "The Indian Mutiny of 1857", Col. G. B. Malleson, reprint 2005,
Rupa & Co. Publishers, New Delhi
^ Hibbert 1980, pp. 73-75
^ a b David 2003, p. 93
^ Hibbert 1980, pp. 80-85
^ Sir John Kaye & G.B. Malleson.: The Indian Mutiny of 1857, (Delhi:
Rupa & Co.) reprint 2005 p49
^ Hibbert 1980, pp. 98-101
^ Hibbert 1980, pp. 93-95
^ Dalrymple, The Last Moghul, pp.223-224
^ Hibbert 1980, pp. 152-163
^ Michael Edwardes, Battles of the Indian Mutiny, pp 52-53
^ Indian mutiny was 'war of religion' - BBC
^ The Story of the Storm — 1857
^ Zachary Nunn. The British Raj
^ Harris 2001, p. 57
^ Harris 2001
^ A.H. Amin, Pakistan Army Defence Journal
^ A.H. Amin, Orbat.com
^ Lessons from 1857
^ The Indian Army: 1765 - 1914
^ David 2003, p. 19
^ The Indin Mutiny 1857-58, Gregory Fremont-Barnes, Osprey 2007, page
34
^ Qizilbash, Basharat Hussain (30 June 2006) The tragicomic hero The
Nation. Nawai-e-Waqt Group.
^ God's Acre. The Hindu Metro Plus Delhi. October 28, 2006.
^ 'The Rising: The Ballad of Mangal Pandey'. Daily Mail, August 27,
2005
^ essential histories, the Indian Mutiny 1857-58, Gregory Fremont-
Barnes, Osprey 2007, page 40
^ Dalrymple 2006, p. 400
^ The story of Cawnpore: The Indian Mutiny 1857, Capt. Mowbray
Thomson, Brighton, Tom Donovan, 1859, pp. 148-159.
^ Essential Histories, the Indian Mutiny 1857-58, Gregory Fremont-
Barnes, Osprey 2007, page 49
^ a b S&T magazine No. 121 (September 1998), page 56
^ a b c Hibbert 1980, p. 191
^ a b A History of the Indian Mutiny by G. W. Forrest, London, William
Blackwood, 1904
^ Kaye's and Malleson's History of the Indian Mutiny. Longman's,
London, 1896. Footnote, p. 257.
^ Edwardes, Battles of the Indian Mutiny, p.56
^ David 2003, p. 250
^ Harris 2001, p. 92
^ Harris 2001, p. 95
^ Essential Histories, the Indian Mutiny 1857-58, Gregory Fremont-
Barnes, Osprey 2007, page 53
^ S&T magazine No. 121 (September 1998), page 58
^ John Harris, The Indian mutiny, Wordsworth military library 2001,
page 92,
^ J.W. Sherer, Daily Life during the Indian Mutiny, 1858, p. 56
^ a b Andrew Ward, Our bones are scattered - The Cawnpore massacres
and the Indian Mutiny of 1857, John Murray, 1996
^ Ramson, Martin & Ramson, Edward, The Indian Empire, 1858
^ Michael Edwardes, Battles of the Indian Mutiny, Pan, 1963 ISBN
330-02524-4
^ Units of the Army of the Madras Presidency wore blue rather than
black shakoes or forage caps
^ Raugh, Harold E. (2004). The Victorians at War, 1815-1914: An
Encyclopedia of British Military. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO. p. 89. ISBN
978-1576079256. OCLC 54778450.
^ Hibbert 1980, p. 358,428
^ Essential Histories, the Indian Mutiny 1857-58, Gregory Fremont-
Barnes, Osprey 2007, page 79
^ Lachmi Bai Rani of Jhansi, the Jeanne d'Arc of India (1901), White,
Michael (Michael Alfred Edwin), 1866, New York: J.F. Taylor & Company,
1901
^ Biographies
^ [1]
^ Memoirs of Charles John Griffiths
^ Charles Allen, Soldier Sahibs, p.276
^ Charles Allen, Soldier Sahibs, p.283
^ Charles Allen, Soldier Sahibs, pp. 290-293
^ WHO'S WHO of INDIAN MARTYRS, Volume Three. Department of Culture.
Ministry of Education and Social welfare. Government of India, New
Delhi. The National Printing Works, Darya Ganj, Delhi, India
^ [2]
^ [3] [4]
^ Sahib: The British Soldier in India 1750-1914 Richard Holmes
HarperCollins 2005
^ a b Herbert, C. (2008). War of No Pity: The Indian Mutiny and
Victorian Trauma. Princeton University Press.
^ Dalrymple 2006
^ [5]
^ Chakravarty, G. (2004). The Indian Mutiny and the British
Imagination. Cambridge University Press.
^ Judd, D. (2005). The Lion and the Tiger: The Rise and Fall of the
British Raj, 1600-1947. Oxford University Press.
^ Derek Hudson. Martin Tupper: His Rise and Fall, Constable, 1972.
^ a b Brantlinger, Patrick (1990). Rule of darkness: British
literature and imperialism, 1830-1914. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell
University Press. ISBN 0-8014-9767-1.
^ "Wrath of the British Lion", The New York Times: 4, 9 September
1857, http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9C00EFDA163CEE34BC4153DFBF66838C649FDE
^ Hyam, R (2002) Britain’s Imperial Century, 1815-1914 Third Edition,
Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke. P155
^ Beckman, Karen Redrobe (2003), Vanishing Women: Magic, Film, and
Feminism, Duke University Press, pp. 33–4, ISBN 0822330741
^ David 2003, p. 220-222
^ Rajit K. Mazumder, The Indian Army and the Making of the Punjab.
(Delhi, Permanent Black, 2003), 11.
^ Bickers, Robert A.; R. G. Tiedemann (2007). The Boxers, China, and
the World. Rowman & Littlefield. p. 231(at p 63). ISBN
978-0742553958.
^ First Indian War of Independence January 8, 1998
^ A number of dispossessed dynasts, both Hindu and Muslim, exploited
the well-founded caste-suspicions of the sepoys and made these simple
folk their cat's paw in gamble for recovering their thrones. The last
scions of the Delhi Mughals or the Oudh Nawabs and the Peshwa, can by
no ingenuity be called fighters for Indian freedom Hindusthan
Standard, Puja Annual, 195 p. 22 referenced in the Truth about the
Indian mutiny article by Dr Ganda Singh
^ In the light of the available evidence, we are forced to the
conclusion that the uprising of 1857 was not the result of careful
planning, nor were there any master-minds behind it. As I read about
the events of 1857, I am forced to the conclusion that the Indian
national character had sunk very low. The leaders of the revolt could
never agree. They were mutually jealous and continually intrigued
against one another. ... In fact these personal jealousies and
intrigues were largely responsible for the Indian defeat.Maulana Abul
Kalam Azad, Surendranath Sen: Eighteen Fifty-seven (Appx. X & Appx.
XV)
^ >Hasan 1998, p. 149
^ Nanda 1965, p. 701
^ Address at the Function marking the 150th Anniversary of the Revolt
of 1857
^ India's First War of Independence 1857
^ Le Monde article on the revolt
^ German National Geographic article
^ The Empire, Sydney, Australia, 11 July 1857
^ Taranaki Herald, New Zealand, 29 August 1857
^ The Indian Mutiny and Victorian Trauma by Christopher Herbert,
Princeton University Press, Princeton 2007
^ The History of the Indian Mutiny: Giving a detailed account of the
sepoy insurrection in India by Charles Ball, The London Printing and
Publishing Company, London, 1860
^ V.D. Savarkar argues that the rebellion was a war of Indian
independence. The Indian War of Independence: 1857 (Bombay: 1947
[1909]). Most historians have seen his arguments as discredited, with
one venturing so far as to say, 'It was neither first, nor national,
nor a war of independence.' Eric Stokes has argued that the rebellion
was actually a variety of movements, not one movement. The Peasant
Armed (Oxford: 1980). See also S.B. Chaudhuri, Civil Rebellion in the
Indian Mutinies 1857-1859" (Calcutta: 1957)
^ The Indian Mutiny, Spilsbury Julian, Orion, 2007
^ S&T magazine issue 121 (September 1988), page 20
^ The communal hatred led to ugly communal riots in many parts of U.P.
The green flag was hoisted and Muslims in Bareilly, Bijnor, Moradabad,
and other places the Muslims shouted for the revival of Muslim
kingdom." R.C. Majumdar: Sepoy Mutiny and Revolt of 1857 (page
2303-31)
^ Sitaram Yechury. The Empire Strikes Back. Hindustan Times. January
2006.
^ http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7009742.stm UK Indian Mutiny
ceremony blocked
^ http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7014281.stm Briton visits
India Mutiny grave
[edit] See also
Category:Places of Indian Rebellion of 1857
Vellore Mutiny
Titumir
British Raj
John Paton (VC)
History of South Asia
List of revolutions and rebellions
Timeline of the Indian Rebellion of 1857
East India Company
Indian Mutiny Medal

References

Text-books and academic monographs

Alavi, Seema (1996), The Sepoys and the Company: Tradition and
Transition 1770-1830, Oxford University Press, p. 340, ISBN
0195634845 .
Anderson, Clare (2007), Indian Uprising of 1857–8: Prisons, Prisoners
and Rebellion, New York: Anthem Press, pp. 217, ISBN 9781843312499,
http://atlantis.terrassl.net/anthempress.com/product_info.php?cPath=52&products_id=293&osCsid=9a2s9o8mdu8066m551rr407123
.
Bandyopadhyay, Sekhara (2004), From Plassey to Partition: A History of
Modern India, New Delhi: Orient Longman, pp. 523, ISBN 8125025960 .
Bayly, Chistopher Alan (1988), Indian Society and the Making of the
British Empire, Cambridge University Press, pp. 230, ISBN
0521250927 .
Bayly, Christopher Alan (2000), Empire and Information: Intelligence
Gathering and Social Communication in India, c 1780-1870, Cambridge
University Press, pp. 412, ISBN 0521570859 .
Bose, Sugata; Jalal, Ayesha (2004), Modern South Asia: History,
Culture, Political Economy (2nd ed.), London: Routledge, pp. 253, ISBN
0415307872 .
Brown, Judith M. (1994), Modern India: The Origins of an Asian
Democracy (2nd ed.), Oxford University Press, pp. 480, ISBN
0198731132, http://www.oup.com/uk/catalogue/?ci=9780198731139 .
Harris, John (2001), The Indian Mutiny, Ware: Wordsworth Editions, pp.
205, ISBN 1840222328 .
Hibbert, Christopher (1980), The Great Mutiny: India 1857, London:
Allen Lane, pp. 472, ISBN 0140047522 .
Judd, Denis (2004), The Lion and the Tiger: The Rise and Fall of the
British Raj, 1600-1947, Oxford University Press, xiii, 280, ISBN
0192803581 .
Keene, Henry George (1883), Fifty-Seven. Some account of the
administration of Indian Districts during the revolt of the Bengal
Army, London: W.H. Allen, pp. 145 .
Kulke, Hermann; Rothermund, Dietmar (2004), A History of India (4th
ed.), London: Routledge, xii, 448, ISBN 0415329205 .
Ludden, David (2002), India And South Asia: A Short History, Oxford:
Oneworld, xii, 306, ISBN 1851682376,
http://www.oneworld-publications.com/cgi-bin/cart/commerce.cgi?pid=145&log_pid=yes
.
Majumdar, R.C.; Raychaudhuri, H.C.; Datta, Kalikinkar (1967), An
Advanced History of India (3rd ed.), London: Macmillan, pp. 1126 .
Markovits, Claude, ed. (2004), A History of Modern India 1480-1950,
London: Anthem, pp. 607, ISBN 1843311526 .
Metcalf, Barbara D.; Metcalf, Thomas R. (2006), A Concise History of
Modern India (2nd ed.), Cambridge University Press, pp. 337, ISBN
0521682258 .
Metcalf, Thomas R. (1990), The Aftermath of Revolt: India, 1857-1870,
New Delhi: Manohar, pp. 352, ISBN 8185054991 .
Metcalf, Thomas R. (1997), Ideologies of the Raj, Cambridge University
Press, pp. 256, ISBN 0521589371 .
Mukherjee, Rudrangshu (2002), Awadh in Revolt 1857-1858: A Study of
Popular Resistance (2nd ed.), London: Anthem, ISBN 1843310759 .
Palmer, Julian A.B. (1966), The Mutiny Outbreak at Meerut in 1857,
Cambridge University Press, pp. 175 .
Ray, Rajat Kanta (2002), The Felt Community: Commonality and Mentality
before the Emergence of Indian Nationalism, Oxford University Press,
pp. 596, ISBN 0195658639 .
Robb, Peter (2002), A History of India, Basingstoke: Palgrave, pp.
344, ISBN 0333691296 .
Roy, Tapti (1994), The politics of a popular uprising: Bundelkhand
1857, Delhi: Oxford University Press, pp. 291, ISBN 0195636120 .
Stanley, Peter (1998), White Mutiny: British Military Culture in
India, 1825-1875, London: Hurst, pp. 314, ISBN 1850653305 .
Stein, Burton (2001), A History of India, New Delhi: Oxford University
Press, pp. 432, ISBN 0195654463 .
Stokes, Eric (1980), The Peasant and the Raj: Studies in Agrarian
Society and Peasant Rebellion in Colonial India, Cambridge University
Press, pp. 316, ISBN 0521297702 .
Stokes, Eric; Bayly, C.A. (ed.) (1986), The Peasant Armed: The Indian
Revolt of 1857, Oxford: Clarendon, pp. 280, ISBN 0198215703 .
Taylor, P.J.O. (1997), What really happened during the mutiny: a day-
by-day account of the major events of 1857-1859 in India, Delhi:
Oxford University Press, pp. 323, ISBN 0195641825 .
Wolpert, Stanley (2004), A New History of India (7th ed.), Oxford
University Press, pp. 530, ISBN 0195166787 .
[edit] Articles in journals and collections
Alavi, Seema (Feb., 1993), "The Company Army and Rural Society: The
Invalid Thanah 1780-1830", Modern Asian Studies 27 (1): 147–178,
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0026-749X%28199302%2927%3A1%3C147%3ATCAARS%3E2.0.CO%3B2-T
Baker, David (1991), "Colonial Beginnings and the Indian Response: The
Revolt of 1857-58 in Madhya Pradesh", Modern Asian Studies 25 (3): 511–
543, http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0026-749X%28199107%2925%3A3%3C511%3ACBATIR%3E2.0.CO%3B2-6
Blunt, Alison (July, 2000), "Embodying war: British women and domestic
defilement in the Indian «Mutiny», 1857–8", Journal of Historical
Geography 26 (3): 403–428, doi:10.1006/jhge.2000.0236
English, Barbara (Feb., 1994), "The Kanpur Massacres in India in the
Revolt of 1857", Past and Present (142): 169–178,
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0031-2746%28199402%290%3A142%3C169%3ATKMIII%3E2.0.CO%3B2-L
Frykenberg, Robert E. (2001), "India to 1858", in Winks, Robin, Oxford
History of the British Empire: Historiography, Oxford and New York:
Oxford University Press, pp. 194–213, ISBN 0199246807
Hasan, Farhad (1998), "Review of Tapti Roy, The Politics of a Popular
Uprising, OUP, 1994.", Social Scientist 26 (1): 148–151 .
Klein, Ira (2000), "Materialism, Mutiny and Modernization in British
India", Modern Asian Studies 34 (3): 545–580,
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0026-749X%28200007%2934%3A3%3C545%3AMMAMIB%3E2.0.CO%3B2-I
Lahiri, Nayanjot (Jun., 2003), "Commemorating and Remembering 1857:
The Revolt in Delhi and Its Afterlife", World Archaeology 35 (1): 35–
60, http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0043-8243%28200306%2935%3A1%3C35%3ACAR1TR%3E2.0.CO%3B2-C
Mukherjee, Rudrangshu (Aug., 1990), "'Satan Let Loose upon Earth': The
Kanpur Massacres in India in the Revolt of 1857", Past and Present
(128): 92–116, http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0031-2746%28199008%290%3A128%3C92%3A%22LLUET%3E2.0.CO%3B2-2
Mukherjee, Rudrangshu (Feb., 1994), "The Kanpur Massacres in India in
the Revolt of 1857: Reply", Past and Present (142): 178–189,
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0031-2746%28199402%290%3A142%3C178%3ATKMIII%3E2.0.CO%3B2-J
Nanda, Krishan (1965), The Western Political Quarterly, Vol. 18, No. 3
(Sep., 1965), pp. 700-701, University of Utah on behalf of the Western
Political Science Association .
Roy, Tapti (Feb., 1993), "Visions of the Rebels: A Study of 1857 in
Bundelkhand", Modern Asian Studies 27 (1): 205–228 (Special Issue: How
Social, Political and Cultural Information Is Collected, Defined, Used
and Analyzed), http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0026-749X%28199302%2927%3A1%3C205%3AVOTRAS%3E2.0.CO%3B2-P
Stokes, Eric (Dec., 1969), "Rural Revolt in the Great Rebellion of
1857 in India: A Study of the Saharanpur and Muzaffarnagar Districts",
The Historical Journal 12 (4): 696-627,
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0018-246X%28196912%2912%3A4%3C606%3ARRITGR%3E2.0.CO%3B2-P
Washbrook, D. A. (2001), "India, 1818-1860: The Two Faces of
Colonialism", in Porter, Andrew, Oxford History of the British Empire:
The Nineteenth Century, Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press,
pp. 395–421, ISBN 0199246785
[edit] Other histories
Dalrymple, William. 2006. The Last Mughal. Viking Penguin, 2006, ISBN
0-67099-925-3
David, Saul (2003), The Indian Mutiny: 1857, London: Penguin Books,
Pp. 528, ISBN 0141005548
Mishra, Amaresh. 2007. War of Civilisations: The Long Revolution
(India AD 1857, 2 Vols.), ISBN 9788129112828
Ward, Andrew. Our Bones Are Scattered. New York: Holt & Co., 1996.
[edit] First person accounts and classic histories
Barter, Captain Richard The Siege of Delhi. Mutiny memories of an old
officer, London, The Folio Society, 1984.
Campbell, Sir Colin. Narrative of the Indian Revolt. London: George
Vickers, 1858.
Collier, Richard. The Great Indian Mutiny. New York: Dutton, 1964.
Kaye, John William. A History of the Sepoy War In India (3 vols).
London: W.H. Allen & Co., 1878.
Forrest, George W. "A History of the Indian Mutiny", William Blackwood
and Sons, London, 1904. (4 vols).
Fitchett, W.H., B.A.,LL.D., A Tale of the Great Mutiny, Smith, Elder &
Co., London, 1911.
Innes, Lt. General McLeod: The Sepoy Revolt, A.D. Innes & Co., London,
1897.
Kaye, Sir John & Malleson, G.B.: The Indian Mutiny of 1857, Rupa &
Co., Delhi, (1st edition 1890) reprint 2005.
Khan, Syed Ahmed (1859), Asbab-e Baghawat-e Hind, Translated as The
Causes of the Indian Revolt, Allahabad, 1873
Malleson, Colonel G.B. The Indian Mutiny of 1857. New York: Scribner &
Sons, 1891.
Marx, Karl & Freidrich Engels. The First Indian War of Independence
1857-1859. Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1959.
Pandey, Sita Ram, From Sepoy to Subedar, Being the Life and Adventures
of Subedar Sita Ram, a Native Officer of the Bengal Native Army,
Written and Related by Himself, trans. Lt. Col. Norgate, (Lahore:
Bengal Staff Corps, 1873), ed. James Lunt, (Delhi: Vikas Publications,
1970).
Raikes, Charles: Notes on the Revolt in the North-Western Provinces of
India, Longman, London, 1858.
Roberts, Field Marshal Lord, Forty-one Years in India, Richard
Bentley, London, 1897 Forty-one years in India at Project Gutenberg
Russell, William Howard, My Diary in India in the years 1858-9,
Routledge, London, 1860, (2 vols.)
Sen, Surendra Nath, Eighteen fifty-seven, (with a foreword by Maulana
Abul Kalam Azad), Indian Ministry of Information & Broadcasting,
Delhi, 1957.
Thomson, Mowbray (Capt.), "The Story of Cawnpore: The Indian Mutiny
1857", Donovan, London, 1859.
Trevelyan, Sir George Otto, Cawnpore, Indus, Delhi, (first edition
1865), reprint 2002.
Wilberforce, Reginald G, An Unrecorded Chapter of the Indian Mutiny,
Being the Personal Reminiscences of Reginald G. WIlberforce, Late 52nd
Infantry, Compiled from a Diary and Letters Written on the Spot
London: John Murray 1884, facsimile reprint: Gurgaon: The Academic
Press, 1976.
[edit] Tertiary sources
"Indian Mutiny." Encyclopedia Britannica Online. Online.
http://www.eb.com:180/cgi-bin/g?DocF=micro/342/91.html. 23 March
1998.
"Lee-Enfield Rifle." Encyclopedia Britannica Online. 23 March 1998.
[edit] Fictional and narrative literature
Conan Doyle, Arthur "The Sign of the Four" novel, featuring Sherlock
Holmes originally appearing in Lippincott's Monthly Magazine 1890.
Reprinted.
Farrell, J.G. The Siege of Krishnapur. New York: Carroll & Graf, 1985
(orig. 1973; Booker Prize winner).
Fenn, Clive Robert. For the Old Flag: A Tale of the Mutiny. London:
Sampson Low, 1899.
Fraser, George MacDonald. Flashman in the Great Game. London: Barrie &
Jenkins, 1975.
Grant, James. First Love and Last Love: A Tale of the Mutiny. New
York: G. Routledge & Sons, 1869.
Kaye, Mary Margaret. Shadow of the Moon. New York: St. Martin's Press,
1979.
Kilworth, Garry Douglas. Brothers of the Blade: Constable & Robinson,
2004.
Masters, John. Nightrunners of Bengal. New York: Viking Press, 1951.
Raikes, William Stephen. 12 Years of a Soldier's Life In India.
Boston: Ticknor and Fields, 1860.
Rossetti, Christina Georgina. "In the Round Tower at Jhansi, June 8,
1857." Goblin Market and Other Poems. 1862.
Anurag Kumar. Recalcitrance: a novel based on events of 1857-58 in
Lucknow. Lucknow: AIP Books, Lucknow 2008.
Stuart, V.A. The Alexander Sheridan Series: # 2: 1964. The Sepoy
Mutiny; # 3: 1974. Massacre at Cawnpore; # 4: 1974. The Cannons of
Lucknow; 1975. # 5: The Heroic Garrison. Reprinted 2003 by McBooks
Press. (Note: # 1 - Victors & Lords deals with the Crimean War.)
[edit] External links
http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00routesdata/1800_1899/1857revolt/nanasahib/nanasahib.html
Sepoy Blog, A day by day account of 1857 Rebellion
Truth behind 1857 panthic.org part I, part II, part III
First War of Independence - Sify
1857 first freedom fight:: १८५७ :: अखंड भारतम्
1857 was not the first war of Independence
Development of Situation-January to July 1857 - Maj (Retd) AGHA
HUMAYUN AMIN from WASHINGTON DC defencejounal.com
The Library of Congress (US) - Research Centers - Country Study -
India @ 1857
Alexander Ganse (World History at KMLA - Mutiny 1857
The Sepoy War of 1857 - Emory.edu
The Indian Mutiny BritishEmpire.co.uk
Paintings related to events of 1857
British Army Official Records of the Era
Karl Marx, New York Tribune, 1853–1858, The Revolt in India
marxists.org
In Pictures: Rare images of the 1857 uprising in India, BBC News, 12
May 2007
India Rising National Army Museum (UK)
A Great British Tradition, John Newsinger on the Great Indian
Rebellion, Socialist Review, May 2007.
Narrative of Munshi Jeewan Lal
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Rebellion_of_1857"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Rebellion_of_1857

bademiyansubhanallah

unread,
Feb 4, 2010, 6:20:40 PM2/4/10
to
India Office Library and Records

Official publications
March 1984

Introduction

The main collection of official publications forms part of the India
Office Records as it is the reference collection maintained by the
former Record Department of the India Office which was responsible for
the receipt and distribution of government publications from India. It
contains approximately 70,000 volumes and is the most complete single
collection in this country of pre-Independence Indian official
publications. It also includes British government publications
relating to Indian affairs. The effective terminal date is 1947,
although there are a few later items.

The scope of the collection includes acts and regulations, legislative
debates and official gazettes of the central and provincial
governments of British India, together with departmental annual
reports, censuses, gazetteers and law reports. There are also large
numbers of land revenue settlement reports, procedural codes and
manuals and ad hoc reports, papers and surveys. The collection
contains few official publications of the princely states except for
series of annual administration reports.

The collection, though extensive, is not complete and it is to some
extent supplemented by other sections of the Records. The Military
Department Library (L/MIL/17) and the Political and Secret Department
Library (L/P&S/20) in particular contain confidential or secret prints
of which no copy was kept in the Record Department. The Parliamentary
Branch Collections (L/PARL/2) include 18th century parliamentary
papers and confidential volumes of evidence of committees and
commissions whose reports were presented to Parliament. In other cases
reports or papers not in the Official Publications Collection maybe
found in the relevant departmental records or in the Proceedings of
the Government of India or of the local government concerned.

The India Office Library also has copies of many pre-Independence
government publications but has only acquired this type of material
selectively since 1947. (See the pamphlets Printed Books in European
languages and Periodicals and Newspapers. ) The most comprehensive
collection of post-1947 English language South Asian official
publications will be found in the British Library Official
Publications Library which also has very extensive holdings of older
Indian government publications. Oriental language official
publications and current gazettes of Indian states are held in the
Department of Oriental Manuscripts and Printed Books.

Arrangement

Official publications have been assigned the reference letter V in the
overall classification scheme of the India Office Records. The
collection is divided into twenty-seven classes:

V/l British acts
V/2 Parliamentary journals
V/3 Parliamentary debates
V/4 Parliamentary papers
V/5 London Gazette
V/6 India Office serials
V/7 British official serials
V/8 Acts and codes
V/9 Legislative proceedings
V/10 Administration reports
V/11 Gazettes
V/12 Histories of service
V/13 Civil lists
V/14 Statistical serials
V!15 Census
V/16 Public finance serials
V/17 Trade and navigation statements
V/18 Meteorological serials
V/19 Survey of India
V/20 Geological Survey of India
V/21 Archaeological Survey of India
V/22 Law reports
V/23 Selections from the Records
V/24 Departmental annual reports
V/25 Indian serials
V/26 Committee and commission reports
V/27 Monographs.

Summary details of the contents of each class will be found in the
Introduction to the India Office Records in the Catalogue Hall and
Reading Room. The three classes V/25, V/26 and V/27 are arranged in
accordance with a common subject classification which appears at the
front of the lists for these classes.

Finding aids

Lists of volumes for most classes are available for consultation-in
the Catalogue Hall and Reading Room. The following classes, however,
have either not yet been listed or have finding aids which differ from
the normal pattern.

V/2 Parliamentary journals

Unlisted. Volumes should be requisitioned by year specifying Lords or
Commons, e.g. 'Commons Journal 1784'.

V/3 Parliamentary debates

There is a list of sessional indexes. Individual volumes should be
requisitioned by session and volume number.

V/4 Parliamentary papers

There are two printed catalogues for papers relating to India for
1801-1907 and 1908-47. Commons papers should be requisitioned by
session and volume number with the prefix V/4. Reference numbers for
Lords papers are given in the catalogues.

V/11 Gazettes

Listing is not yet complete for all gazettes. Where no list is
available volumes should be requisitioned by year and part number, but
if this is not known readers should ask at the enquiry desk for
guidance.

All serials in the collection are being entered on to the computer-
held file of the University of London Union list of serials which can
be consulted in microfiche form (see the pamphlet Periodicals and
newspapers for further details). If a Records (IOR) holding is shown,
the appropriate class list should be consulted to obtain the reference
number for the particular volume required.

Requisitioning procedure

Requisition forms are kept in boxes on the tables in the Catalogue
Hall. A Records form (printed in blue) should be completed for each
volume. The reference number shown in the lists must always be entered
on these forms except in the special cases of V/2-V/4 and V/11 for
which the requisitioning procedure has been outlined above.

Photocopying facilities

Application forms are available at the staff counter or by post for
readers wishing to obtain an estimate for copying of items. (See
pamphlets on Photocopying facilities and Copyright. )

Works of reference

The letters CH denote titles kept on the reference shelves in the
Catalogue Hall. Works in the Official Publications collection have a V/
25 or V/27 reference, and Library books have a single letter and
accession number shelf-mark.


Library catalogues and union lists of serials
Bengal. Education Dept Catalogue of the Bengal Secretariat Library.
Vol 1: General books and official publications. 8th edition. Calcutta,
1928
V/27/10/26

Bombay. Secretariat Catalogue of books of the Secretariat Library of
the Government of Bombay. Bombay, 1938
V/27/10/29

Campbell, F Index-catalogue of Indian official publications in the
Library of the British Museum. London, 1899
CH ZABNA

Datta, R Union catalogue of the Central Government of India
publications held by libraries in London, Oxford and Cambridge.
London, 1970
CH ZABNA

Datta, R Union catalogue of the Government of Pakistan publications
held by libraries in London, Oxford and Cambridge. London, 1967
CH ZABNB

Imperial [National] Library, Calcutta Catalogue Part IV: Catalogue of
Indian official publications, vol I: A-L. Calcutta, 1909
CH ZABNA

India. High Commission, London India House Library: a short
catalogue.London, 1933
CH ZABNA

Macdonald, T Union catalogue of the serial publications of the Indian
government 1858-I 947 held in libraries in Britain. London, 1973
CH ZABNA

Madras. Secretariat Catalogue of books in the Secretariat Library Fort
St George. Madras, 1913
V/27/10/30

Bibliographies

Gokhale Institute of Politics & Economics and Indian Council of Social
Sciences Bibliography of economic history of India 1500-1947. 4 vols
in 5. Poona, 1977-80 [Mainly official publications.]
CH ZE

List of official publications (other than confidential) issued by
departments of the Government of India and local governments and
administrations.Various series, 1892-1944
V/25/2/1-32

Catalogue of [civil] publications of the Government of India.
Calcutta, Delhi, 1927-
V/25/2/37-41
CH ZABNA

[Catalogues of provincial governments publications for sale.] Various
series, 1902-42
V/25/2/44-72

Jadhav, C G Bibliography of census publications in India. New Delhi,
1971
CH ZS

Kumar, V Committees and commissions in India 1947-73. Delhi, 1975 -
CH ZABNA

Moreland, G B and Siddiqui, A H Publications of the Government of
Pakistan 1947-1957. Karachi, 1958
CH ZABNB

Scholberg, H District gazetteers of British India: a bibliography.
Zug, 1970
CH ZGAKA

Siddiqui, A H A guide to Pakistan government publications
1958-1970.Karachi, 1973
T 28311

General

Ford, P and Ford, G A guide to parliamentary papers. 3rd edition.
Shannon, 1972
CH ZABF

Shukla, C P A study on the publications of the Government of India.
PhD dissertation, University of Michigan, 1953
T 25607

Singh, M Government publications of India. Delhi, 1967
T 23354

Useful addresses and telephone numbers
[Please note that addresses and telephone numbers are not current.]

The British Library

India Office Library and Records
Orbit House, 197 Blackfriars Road, London SE1 8NG
# 01-928 9531

The British Library, Official Publications Library
Great Russell Street, London WC1B 3DG
# 01-636 1544 ext 234/235

The British Library

Department of Oriental Manuscripts and Printed Books
Store Street, London WC1E 7DG
# 01-636 1544 ext 259

Dramrite Printers Ltd, London SE1.

http://www.lib.uchicago.edu/e/su/southasia/off-1984.html

British Library & India Office

The British Library in St. Pancras needs little introduction or
explanation. As its name suggests it is the national repository of not
only the printed works of the British Isles, but also of many
published works from around the world.

As such, any program of research that requires reference to a printed
work not generally available will necessitate a visit to the library.

The British Library now also contains the entire archive of the India
Office, the prime source in this country of material relating to the
British in India, from the 18th century through to the mid 20th. The
archive includes an extremely substantial series of registers of
baptism, marriage and burial from the three Indian Presidencies of
Bengal, Bombay and Madras, as well as the service records of the three
armies representing the presidencies until 1861, and the Indian Army
from that date through to the mid 20th century.

For anyone researching an ancestor who lived in India during the above
period, the India Office will be an absolutely vital resource.

http://londonresearchservice.com/british_library__india_office.html

Researching Your Family History

The pursuit of family history has attracted ever increasing numbers of
devotees since its early adoption as a popular leisure pursuit in the
late 1970’s.

In Britain television programmes such as such as the newsreader Gordon
Honeycombe’s ‘Discovering your Family History’, and the hugely
successful American series ‘Roots’, introduced family history to a far
wider audience than had previously been the case.

The explosion in interest of genealogy as a hobby for all age groups
has barely slowed since that time, and recently in tandem with that
huge increase has come a proportionate burgeoning in the amount of
original material (and the means of access to it), online or via CD/
DVD.

Much of the initial donkey work of family history research has now
been substantially reduced, and in many cases if you have access to
the internet your research can ‘hit the ground running’ with your
early enquiries. However, implicit in this is the very real danger
that an inexperienced researcher will chance upon a name or piece of
information that ‘fits the bill’, and then pursue his/her research
without first corroborating that the findings are actually relevant.

Whilst the basic seeds of information are indeed now readily available
to all, so has the scope increased for fundamental and far-reaching
errors in interpretation or procedure.

The work of the professional genealogist has changed greatly since the
early flickerings of interest in family history in the 1970’s. Where
once the genealogist would need to pursue each single family event
step by step, very often having to wait for the information from one
document to be made available before moving on to a search for the
next link in the chain, he or she is now very often presented with a
substantial range of indexed sources enabling progress to be made
across several search ‘fronts’ at the same time.

It was frequently necessary to attempt to trace several events from
the same generation of a family, in order to gain that single piece of
detail which would enable research to proceed back to an earlier
generation. Although this situation can still be valid, it is far less
the case than before. This certainly does not imply however that the
work of the genealogist is no longer required. Far from it in fact.

Almost all family historians having progressed through the early
stages of research find themselves faced with the problem of having to
seek information which is unavailable online and completely unfamiliar
to them. In very many cases they will not even know how to proceed or
where the required information can be obtained.

Perversely, such has been the wealth of material opened up to family
historians by utilising newly indexed sources, that it can be a hugely
intimidating task to determine where to find those vital nuggets of
information, and how they should be utilised.

The sheer scale of the holdings at such repositories as the National
Archives, the British Library, the Guildhall Library , the London
Metropolitan Archives , and the Society of Genealogists , necessitates
a considerable degree of knowledge and expertise before they can be
used to best advantage. It is the aim of the London Research Service
to provide a service fully commensurate with this.

http://londonresearchservice.com/researching_your_family_history.html

Who We Are!

Stephen T.J. Wright (London Research Service) was established in 1984
to offer a service to the rapidly growing number of family historians
requiring genealogical research at national and local record archives
in London.

Having earned a much valued and publicly acknowledged reputation for
providing an expert, professional and conscientious service, our aim
has always been to consistently maintain the standards that earned
that reputation.

As the scope and type of family history sources has grown and evolved,
particularly since the late 1990’s, we have endeavoured to adapt to
these changes both by way of the variety of services offered and our
ability to utilise new sources of information. Our knowledge of the
range and relevance of both national and local resources in London
enables us to pinpoint quickly where best to concentrate our efforts
on clients’ behalf.

Stephen Wright has over 25 years experience as a professional
genealogist, and specialises in the records of the 18th & 19th
centuries. He is a member of the ‘Association of Genealogists &
Researchers in Archives’ , which promotes the highest standards
amongst its members and enforces a strict code of practice.

http://londonresearchservice.com/who_we_are.html

India Office Records: Further Reading on the East India Company and
India Office

A list of published material to assist the users of the India Office
Records. Copies of all the books, articles and typescripts in this
list are available in the Asian & African Studies Reading Room either
on the open-access reference shelves or through the book catalogues.

Guides, Catalogues and Lists

M.I. Moir, A General Guide to the India Office Records (London, 1988).

S.C. Hill, Catalogue of the Home Miscellaneous Series of the India
Office Records (London, 1927).

A.J. Farrington, The Records of the East India College, Haileybury,
and other institutions (London, 1976).

A.J. Farrington, Guide to the Records of the India Office Military
Department (London, 1982).

P.J. Tuson, The Records of the British Residency and Agencies in the
Persian Gulf (London, 1979).

I.A. Baxter, India Office Library and Records: A Brief Guide to
Biographical Sources (London, 1979; second edition 1990).

A. Griffin, A Brief Guide to Sources for the Study of Burma in the
India Office Records (London, 1979).

L.A. Hall, A Brief Guide to Sources for the Study of Afghanistan in
the India Office Records (London, 1981).

A.K. Jasbir Singh, Gandhi and Civil Disobedience: Documents in the
India Office Records 1922-1946 (London, 1980).

A.K. Jasbir Singh, A Guide to Source Materials in the India Office
Library and Records for the history of Tibet, Sikkim and Bhutan,
1765-1950 (London, 1988).

M.I. Moir, A Study of the History and Organisation of the Political
and Secret Departments of the East India Company, the Board of Control
and the India Office, 1784-1919, with a Summary List of Records,
Diploma in Archive Administration, University of London, 1966.

R.E. Seton, The Indian 'Mutiny' 1857-58: A Guide to Source Material in
the India Office Library and Records (London, 1986).

J.M. Sims, A List and Index of Parliamentary Papers relating to India
1908-1947 (London, 1981).

T.N. Thomas, Indians Overseas: A Guide to Source Materials in the
India Office Records for the Study of Indian Emigration, 1830-1950
(London, 1985).

P.J. Tuson, Sources for Middle East Studies in the India Office
Records (London, 1982; second edition 1984).

I.A. Baxter, 'Dutch Records from Malacca in the India Office Records',
Journal of the Malaysian Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, vol. 56
(1983), pp. 105-133.

R.J. Bingle, 'The Resources for the Study of the Indian Ocean Region
in the India Office Library and Records', India Office Library and
Records Report for 1981 (London, 1982), pp. 6-23.

M.I. Moir, 'Archival Materials for the History of Sind prior to
British Annexation available in the India Office Records and the
European Manuscripts Section of the India Office Library', typescript,
1975.

M.I. Moir, 'Archival Materials in the London Records of the East India
Company and of the India Office relating to Southeast Asia', Southeast
Asian Archives, vol. 2 (1969), pp. 68-81.

P.J. Tuson, 'Archive Sources for Arabian and Gulf Studies in the India
Office Records', typescript, 1977 (Arabic version in Journal of the
Gulf and Arabian Peninsula Studies, vol. 4 (1978), pp. 95-110.

M Makepeace, Sources for London history at the India Office Library
and Records, London Topographical Record vol xxvi (1990)

The arrangement of the records is summarised in two general guides:

J.D. Pearson, A Guide to Manuscripts and Documents in the British
Isles relating to South and South-East Asia, 2 vols. (London, 1989),
vol. i, pp. 1-53: 'India Office Library and Records: Official
Records'.

R.C. Alston, Handlist of Unpublished Finding Aids to the London
Collections of the British Library (London, 1991), pp. 71-130 ('India
Office Records').

The following older guides also contain useful information:

J.C. Lancaster, A Guide to Lists and Catalogues of the India Office
Records (London, 1966).

J.C. Lancaster, 'The India Office Records', Archivum, vol. 15 (1965),
pp. 293-302 (reprinted in Archives: The Journal of the British Records
Association, vol. 43 (1970), pp. 130-141.

W. Foster, A Guide to the India Office Records 1600-1858 (London,
1919).

F.C. Danvers, Report to the Secretary of State for India in Council on
the Records of the India Office: Records relating to Agencies,
Factories, and Settlements not now under the Administration of the
Government of India (London, 1888).

F.C. Danvers, Report on the India Office Records relating to Persia
and the Persian Gulf [London, 1889].

G.C.M. Birdwood, Report on the Old Records of the India Office, with
Supplementary Note and Appendices (London, 1890).

Other guides, catalogues and lists, relevant to particular classes of
records, are noted in the Summary Lists for those classes (see
Arrangement of the Records and List of Classes).

Calendars and Transcripts

H. Stevens, The Dawn of British Trade to the East Indies as recorded
in the Court Minutes of the East India Company 1599-1603 (London,
1886).

W.N. Sainsbury, Calendar of State Papers, Colonial Series: vol. i,
East Indies, China and Japan, 1513-1616 (London, 1862);
vol. ii, East Indies, China and Japan, 1617-1621 (London, 1870);
vol. iii, East Indies, China and Japan, 1622-1624 (London, 1878);
vol. iv, East Indies, China and Persia, 1625-1629 (London, 1884);
vol. v, East Indies and Persia, 1630-1634 (London, 1892).

E.B. Sainsbury, A Calendar of the Court Minutes etc. of the East India
Company 1635-1639 [to] 1677-1679, 11 vols. (Oxford, 1907-1938).

G.C.M. Birdwood and W. Foster, The Register of Letters etc. of the
Governour and Company of Merchants of London trading into the East
Indies, 1600-1619 (London, 1893).

F.C. Danvers and W. Foster, Letters Received by the East India Company
from its Servants in the East ... 1602-1613 [to] 1617, 6 vols.
(London, 1896-1902).

W. Foster, The English Factories in India 1618-1621 [to] 1668-1669, 13
vols. (Oxford, 1906-1927).

C.G.H. Fawcett, The English Factories in India 1670-1677 [to]
1678-1684, new series, 4 vols. (Oxford, 1936-1955).

A.J. Farrington, The English Factory in Japan, 1613-1623, 2 vols.
(London, 1991).

M Makepeace Trade on the Guinea Coast 1657-1666: the correspondence of
the English East India Company (University of Wisconsin--Madison,
1991)

V Baladouni & M Makepeace, (eds.), Armenian Merchants of the
seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries: English East India Company
sources (Philadelphia, 1998)

W. Foster, A Supplementary Calendar of Documents in the India Office
relating to India or to the home affairs of the East India Company,
1600-1640 (London, 1928).

P.N.S. Mansergh, The Transfer of Power, 1942-7: Constitutional
Relations between Britain and India, 12 vols. (London, 1970-1983).

H.R. Tinker, Burma: The Struggle for Independence, 1944-1948:
Constitutional Relations between Britain and Burma, 2 vols. (London,
1983-1984).

J. Ashtiany, The Arabic Documents in the Archives of the British
Political Agency in Kuwait, 1904-1949 (London, 1982).

Historical Studies

P. Auber, An Analysis of the Constitution of the the East India
Company (London, 1826). Supplement (London, 1828).

A.J. Farrington, Trading Places: the East India Company and Asia,
1600-1834 (London, BL, 2002)

W. Foster, John Company (London, 1926).

J. Keay, The Honourable Company: A History of the English East India
Company (London, 1991).

P. Lawson, The East India Company: A History (London, 1993).

W. Foster, England's Quest of Eastern Trade (London, 1933).

K.N. Chaudhuri, The English East India Company: The Study of an Early
Joint Stock Company, 1600-1640 (London, 1965).

K.N. Chaudhuri, The Trading World of Asia and the English East India
Company, 1600-1760 (Cambridge, 1978).

M Makepeace, English Traders on the Guinea Coast, 1657-1668: An
analysis of the East India Company Archive, History in Africa 16
(1989)

J. Sutton, Lords of the East: The East India Company and its Ships
(London, 1981).

W. Foster, The East India House: Its History and Associations (London,
1924).

R.G.C. Desmond, The India Museum, 1801-1879 (London, 1982).

L.S. Sutherland, The East India Company in Eighteenth-Century Politics
(Oxford, 1952).

P.J. Marshall, Problems of Empire: Britain and India 1757-1813
(London, 1968).

B.B. Misra, The Central Administration of the East India Company,
1773-1834 (Manchester, 1959).

C.H. Philips, The East India Company, 1784-1834 (Manchester, 1940;
second edition, Oxford, 1961).

M.I. Moir, 'The Examiner's Office: The Emergence of an Administrative
Elite in East India House (1804-1858)', India Office Library and
Records Report for 1977 (London, 1979), pp. 25-42.

M.I. Moir, 'The Examiner's Office and the Drafting of East India
Company Despatches', in K. Ballhatchet and J. Harrison, East India
Company Studies: Papers Presented to Professor Sir Cyril Philips (Hong
Kong, 1986), pp. 123-152.

M.C.C. Seton, The India Office (London, 1926).

D. Williams, The India Office, 1858-1869 (Hoshiarpur, 1983).

A.P. Kaminsky, The India Office, 1880-1910 (London, 1986).

S.N. Singh, The Secretary of State for India and his Council (Delhi,
1962).

B.B. Misra, The Administrative History of India, 1834-1947: General
Administration (Bombay, 1970).

B.B. Misra, The Bureaucracy in India: An Historical Analysis of
Development up to 1947 (Delhi, 1977).

General Guides

J.D. Pearson, South Asian Bibliography: A Handbook and Guide
(Hassocks, 1979).

D.A. Low, J.C. Iltis and M.D. Wainwright, Government Archives in South
Asia: A Guide to National and State Archives in Ceylon, India and
Pakistan (Cambridge, 1969).

http://www.bl.uk/reshelp/findhelpregion/asia/india/indiaofficerecords/indiaofficerecordsfurtherreadingontheeastindiacompanyandindiaoffice/iorreading.html

India Office Records: History and scope

The India Office Records are the documentary archives of the
administration in London of the pre-1947 government of India.

The 14 kilometres of shelves of volumes, files and boxes of papers,
together with 70,000 volumes of official publications and 105,000
manuscript and printed maps, comprise the archives of the East India
Company (1600-1858), of the Board of Control or Board of Commissioners
for the Affairs of India (1784-1858), of the India Office (1858-1947),
of the Burma Office (1937-1948), and of a number of British agencies
overseas which were officially linked with one or other of the four
main bodies. The India Office Records are part of the Public Records
of the United Kingdom, and are open for public consultation.

Timeline

1600 East India Company established in London
1709 United East India Company emerges as union of the Old and New
Companies
1757 Battle of Plassey
1765 Mughal Emperor grants Diwani of Bengal - right to collect land
revenue -to East India Company
1773 Warren Hastings appointed as first Governor of Bengal
1784 British Government Board of Control established in London
1813 End of East India Company's monopoly rights over trade with
India
1833 End of East India Company's monopoly rights over trade with
China
1857 Indian Uprisings
1858 East India Company and Board of Control replaced by India Office
and Council of India
1937 Separation of Burma from India. Establishment of Burma Office
1947 Partition of India and Pakistan. Independence granted to both
countries. Abolition of India Office
1948 Independence of Burma and abolition of Burma Office

Historical Background

The East India Company was established in 1600 as a joint-stock
association of English merchants who received, by a series of
charters, exclusive rights to trade to the 'Indies'. The 'Indies' were
defined as the lands lying between the Cape of Good Hope and the
Straits of Magellan, and the Company soon established a network of
warehouses or 'factories' throughout south and east Asia. Over a
period of 250 years the Company underwent several substantial changes
in its basic character and functions.

A period of rivalry between the Old and New Companies after 1698
resulted in the formation in 1709 of the United Company of Merchants
Trading to the East Indies. This 'new' East India Company was
transformed during the second half of the eighteenth century from a
mainly commercial body with scattered Asian trading interests into a
major territorial power in India with its headquarters in Calcutta.
The political implications of this development eventually caused the
British government in 1784 to institute standing Commissioners (the
Board of Control) in London to exercise supervision over the Company's
Indian policies.

This change in the Company's status, along with other factors, led to
the Acts of Parliament of 1813 and 1833, which opened the British
trade with the East Indies to all shipping and resulted in the
Company's complete withdrawal from its commercial functions. The
Company continued to exercise responsibility, under the supervision of
the Board, for the government of India until the re-organisation of
1858.

Throughout most of these changes the basic structure of Company
organisation in East India House in the City of London remained
largely unaltered, comprising a large body of proprietors or
shareholders and an elected Court of Directors, headed by a chairman
and deputy chairman who, aided by permanent officials, were
responsible for the daily conduct of Company business. The Board of
Control maintained its separate office close to the Government
buildings in Westminster.

With the India Act of 1858 the Company and the Board of Control were
replaced by a single new department of state, the India Office, which
functioned, under the Secretary of State for India, as an executive
office of United Kingdom government alongside the Foreign Office,
Colonial Office, Home Office and War Office. The Secretary of State
was assisted by a statutory body of advisers, the Council of India,
and headed a staff of civil servants organised into a system of
departments largely taken over from the East India Company and Board
of Control establishments, and housed in a new India Office building
in Whitehall. The Secretary of State for India inherited all the
executive functions previously carried out by the Company, and all the
powers of 'superintendence, direction and control' over the British
Government in India previously exercised by the Board of Control.
Improved communications with India - the overland and submarine
telegraph cables (1868-70), and the opening of the Suez Canal (1869) -
rendered this control, exercised through the Viceroy and provincial
Governors, more effective in the last quarter of the nineteenth
century. It was only with the constitutional reforms initiated during
the First World War, and carried forward by the India Acts of 1919 and
1935, that there came about a significant relaxation of India Office
supervision over the Government of India, and with it, in India, a
gradual devolution of authority to legislative bodies and local
governments. The same administrative reforms also led in 1937 to the
separation of Burma from India and the creation in London of the Burma
Office, separate from the India Office though sharing the same
Secretary of State and located in the same building. With the grant of
independence to India and Pakistan in 1947, and to Burma in 1948, both
the India Office and the Burma Office were dissolved.

Geographical scope of the Records

Guide to sources for areas outside British India

The central focus of the India Office Records is in the territories
now included in India, Pakistan, Burma and Bangladesh, and the major
part of the records concern their administration before 1947. As a
result of the widespread commercial activities of the East India
Company, and of India Office involvement in the external relations and
defence policy of pre-1947 India, the Records also include a
substantial body of historical source materials for neighbouring or
connected areas at different times. Among the most significant of
these are:
St Helena (to 1834);

Cape of Good Hope (to 1836);

Zanzibar, Somalia and Ethiopia (mainly nineteenth century);

Red Sea, Arabian Peninsula, Gulf States, Iraq and Iran (c1600-1947);

Afghanistan, Russian and Chinese Central Asia, Tibet, Nepal, Bhutan
and Sikkim (late eighteenth century to 1947);

Sri Lanka (c1750-1802);

Malaysia and South-East Asia (to c1867);

Indonesia (to c1825);

China (early seventeenth century to 1947); and
Japan (seventeenth century).

Other groups of documents have resulted from India Office interest in
the status of Indian emigrants to the West Indies, south and east
Africa, and Fiji.

Custody, care and use of the Records

The original documentary archives which form the India Office Records
are mainly arranged in the regular administrative series in which they
were used in the East India Company and the India Office, for example,
series of original letters received, drafts or copies of letters sent,
registered files of correspondence, minutes and proceedings of
committees and other corporate bodies, lists of personnel and nominal
returns, title deeds and other legal documents, books of account,
reports, memoranda, ships' journals, etc. Embedded in these
documentary archives are extensive collections of official
publications and maps, assembled by the India Office and its
predecessors chiefly from materials received in the official
correspondence.

The practice by which the councils and committees in factories,
settlements and centres of government routinely sent copies of their
own proceedings and minutes to London for reference contributed
significantly to the comprehensiveness of the archives of the East
India Company and the India Office from the earliest years.

The Company established a library in East India House in 1801 as a
public repository for the safe custody of books, manuscripts and works
of art placed in its care by its servants in India and by others. The
East India Company's Library was systematically developed by the
Company and the India Office as a reference library for official
administration and as a learned library for scholars, and it served,
from 1867, the archival function as the place of legal deposit in
Britain for works published in British India. The collection and
preservation of the private papers of individuals and organisations
connected with India had been carried on by the East India Company and
the India Office since early in the nineteenth century, and this
activity continues in the Private Papers section of the India Office
Records.

Both the East India Company and the Board of Control made provision
for the care and custody of their records, the Company mainly through
the office of Registrar and Keeper of the Indian Books (from 1771),
and the Board through the Librarian and Keeper of the Papers (from
1811). In 1860 the India Office surveyed its predecessors' records,
and destroyed a large amount of material, particularly commercial
records, considered to be ephemeral, while retaining what were judged
to be the important historical records. The preservation of the
pre-1858 records and of the newly-accumulating records of the India
Office was assigned to a central Record Department in 1884.

After the independence of India, Pakistan and Burma in 1947 and 1948
the Indian Records Section (later the India Office Records) and the
India Office Library were administered by the Commonwealth Relations
Office, later the Commonwealth Office, and (from 1968) by the Foreign
and Commonwealth Office. In 1982 the India Office Library and Records
were placed on deposit with the British Library Board, and the India
Office Records have since been administered, as Public Records, in the
British Library Asia Pacific & Africa Collections (formerly Oriental
and India Office Collections).

Contact
Asia, Pacific and Africa Collections enquiries
The British Library
96 Euston Road
London
NW1 2DB
United Kingdom

Tel: +44 (0)20 7412 7873
Fax: +44 (0)20 7412 7641

E-mail: apac-en...@bl.uk

http://www.bl.uk/reshelp/findhelpregion/asia/india/indiaofficerecords/indiaofficescope/indiaofficehistoryscope.html

India Office Records: Further Reading on the East India Company and
India Office

A list of published material to assist the users of the India Office
Records. Copies of all the books, articles and typescripts in this
list are available in the Asian & African Studies Reading Room either
on the open-access reference shelves or through the book catalogues.


Guides, Catalogues and Lists

M.I. Moir, A General Guide to the India Office Records (London, 1988).

S.C. Hill, Catalogue of the Home Miscellaneous Series of the India
Office Records (London, 1927).

A.J. Farrington, The Records of the East India College, Haileybury,
and other institutions (London, 1976).

A.J. Farrington, Guide to the Records of the India Office Military
Department (London, 1982).

P.J. Tuson, The Records of the British Residency and Agencies in the
Persian Gulf (London, 1979).

I.A. Baxter, India Office Library and Records: A Brief Guide to
Biographical Sources (London, 1979; second edition 1990).

A. Griffin, A Brief Guide to Sources for the Study of Burma in the
India Office Records (London, 1979).

L.A. Hall, A Brief Guide to Sources for the Study of Afghanistan in
the India Office Records (London, 1981).

A.K. Jasbir Singh, Gandhi and Civil Disobedience: Documents in the
India Office Records 1922-1946 (London, 1980).

A.K. Jasbir Singh, A Guide to Source Materials in the India Office
Library and Records for the history of Tibet, Sikkim and Bhutan,
1765-1950 (London, 1988).

M.I. Moir, A Study of the History and Organisation of the Political
and Secret Departments of the East India Company, the Board of Control
and the India Office, 1784-1919, with a Summary List of Records,
Diploma in Archive Administration, University of London, 1966.

R.E. Seton, The Indian 'Mutiny' 1857-58: A Guide to Source Material in
the India Office Library and Records (London, 1986).

J.M. Sims, A List and Index of Parliamentary Papers relating to India
1908-1947 (London, 1981).

T.N. Thomas, Indians Overseas: A Guide to Source Materials in the
India Office Records for the Study of Indian Emigration, 1830-1950
(London, 1985).

P.J. Tuson, Sources for Middle East Studies in the India Office
Records (London, 1982; second edition 1984).

I.A. Baxter, 'Dutch Records from Malacca in the India Office Records',
Journal of the Malaysian Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, vol. 56
(1983), pp. 105-133.

R.J. Bingle, 'The Resources for the Study of the Indian Ocean Region
in the India Office Library and Records', India Office Library and
Records Report for 1981 (London, 1982), pp. 6-23.

M.I. Moir, 'Archival Materials for the History of Sind prior to
British Annexation available in the India Office Records and the
European Manuscripts Section of the India Office Library', typescript,
1975.

M.I. Moir, 'Archival Materials in the London Records of the East India
Company and of the India Office relating to Southeast Asia', Southeast
Asian Archives, vol. 2 (1969), pp. 68-81.

P.J. Tuson, 'Archive Sources for Arabian and Gulf Studies in the India
Office Records', typescript, 1977 (Arabic version in Journal of the
Gulf and Arabian Peninsula Studies, vol. 4 (1978), pp. 95-110.

M Makepeace, Sources for London history at the India Office Library
and Records, London Topographical Record vol xxvi (1990)

The arrangement of the records is summarised in two general guides:

J.D. Pearson, A Guide to Manuscripts and Documents in the British
Isles relating to South and South-East Asia, 2 vols. (London, 1989),
vol. i, pp. 1-53: 'India Office Library and Records: Official
Records'.

R.C. Alston, Handlist of Unpublished Finding Aids to the London
Collections of the British Library (London, 1991), pp. 71-130 ('India
Office Records').

The following older guides also contain useful information:

J.C. Lancaster, A Guide to Lists and Catalogues of the India Office
Records (London, 1966).

J.C. Lancaster, 'The India Office Records', Archivum, vol. 15 (1965),
pp. 293-302 (reprinted in Archives: The Journal of the British Records
Association, vol. 43 (1970), pp. 130-141.

W. Foster, A Guide to the India Office Records 1600-1858 (London,
1919).

F.C. Danvers, Report to the Secretary of State for India in Council on
the Records of the India Office: Records relating to Agencies,
Factories, and Settlements not now under the Administration of the
Government of India (London, 1888).

F.C. Danvers, Report on the India Office Records relating to Persia
and the Persian Gulf [London, 1889].

G.C.M. Birdwood, Report on the Old Records of the India Office, with
Supplementary Note and Appendices (London, 1890).

Other guides, catalogues and lists, relevant to particular classes of
records, are noted in the Summary Lists for those classes (see
Arrangement of the Records and List of Classes).

Calendars and Transcripts

H. Stevens, The Dawn of British Trade to the East Indies as recorded
in the Court Minutes of the East India Company 1599-1603 (London,
1886).

W.N. Sainsbury, Calendar of State Papers, Colonial Series: vol. i,
East Indies, China and Japan, 1513-1616 (London, 1862);
vol. ii, East Indies, China and Japan, 1617-1621 (London, 1870);
vol. iii, East Indies, China and Japan, 1622-1624 (London, 1878);
vol. iv, East Indies, China and Persia, 1625-1629 (London, 1884);
vol. v, East Indies and Persia, 1630-1634 (London, 1892).

E.B. Sainsbury, A Calendar of the Court Minutes etc. of the East India
Company 1635-1639 [to] 1677-1679, 11 vols. (Oxford, 1907-1938).

G.C.M. Birdwood and W. Foster, The Register of Letters etc. of the
Governour and Company of Merchants of London trading into the East
Indies, 1600-1619 (London, 1893).

F.C. Danvers and W. Foster, Letters Received by the East India Company
from its Servants in the East ... 1602-1613 [to] 1617, 6 vols.
(London, 1896-1902).

W. Foster, The English Factories in India 1618-1621 [to] 1668-1669, 13
vols. (Oxford, 1906-1927).

C.G.H. Fawcett, The English Factories in India 1670-1677 [to]
1678-1684, new series, 4 vols. (Oxford, 1936-1955).

A.J. Farrington, The English Factory in Japan, 1613-1623, 2 vols.
(London, 1991).

M Makepeace Trade on the Guinea Coast 1657-1666: the correspondence of
the English East India Company (University of Wisconsin--Madison,
1991)

V Baladouni & M Makepeace, (eds.), Armenian Merchants of the
seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries: English East India Company
sources (Philadelphia, 1998)

W. Foster, A Supplementary Calendar of Documents in the India Office
relating to India or to the home affairs of the East India Company,
1600-1640 (London, 1928).

P.N.S. Mansergh, The Transfer of Power, 1942-7: Constitutional
Relations between Britain and India, 12 vols. (London, 1970-1983).

H.R. Tinker, Burma: The Struggle for Independence, 1944-1948:
Constitutional Relations between Britain and Burma, 2 vols. (London,
1983-1984).

J. Ashtiany, The Arabic Documents in the Archives of the British
Political Agency in Kuwait, 1904-1949 (London, 1982).

Historical Studies

P. Auber, An Analysis of the Constitution of the the East India
Company (London, 1826). Supplement (London, 1828).

A.J. Farrington, Trading Places: the East India Company and Asia,
1600-1834 (London, BL, 2002)

W. Foster, John Company (London, 1926).

J. Keay, The Honourable Company: A History of the English East India
Company (London, 1991).

P. Lawson, The East India Company: A History (London, 1993).

W. Foster, England's Quest of Eastern Trade (London, 1933).

K.N. Chaudhuri, The English East India Company: The Study of an Early
Joint Stock Company, 1600-1640 (London, 1965).

K.N. Chaudhuri, The Trading World of Asia and the English East India
Company, 1600-1760 (Cambridge, 1978).

M Makepeace, English Traders on the Guinea Coast, 1657-1668: An
analysis of the East India Company Archive, History in Africa 16
(1989)

J. Sutton, Lords of the East: The East India Company and its Ships
(London, 1981).

W. Foster, The East India House: Its History and Associations (London,
1924).

R.G.C. Desmond, The India Museum, 1801-1879 (London, 1982).

L.S. Sutherland, The East India Company in Eighteenth-Century Politics
(Oxford, 1952).

P.J. Marshall, Problems of Empire: Britain and India 1757-1813
(London, 1968).

B.B. Misra, The Central Administration of the East India Company,
1773-1834 (Manchester, 1959).

C.H. Philips, The East India Company, 1784-1834 (Manchester, 1940;
second edition, Oxford, 1961).

M.I. Moir, 'The Examiner's Office: The Emergence of an Administrative
Elite in East India House (1804-1858)', India Office Library and
Records Report for 1977 (London, 1979), pp. 25-42.

M.I. Moir, 'The Examiner's Office and the Drafting of East India
Company Despatches', in K. Ballhatchet and J. Harrison, East India
Company Studies: Papers Presented to Professor Sir Cyril Philips (Hong
Kong, 1986), pp. 123-152.

M.C.C. Seton, The India Office (London, 1926).

D. Williams, The India Office, 1858-1869 (Hoshiarpur, 1983).

A.P. Kaminsky, The India Office, 1880-1910 (London, 1986).

S.N. Singh, The Secretary of State for India and his Council (Delhi,
1962).

B.B. Misra, The Administrative History of India, 1834-1947: General
Administration (Bombay, 1970).

B.B. Misra, The Bureaucracy in India: An Historical Analysis of
Development up to 1947 (Delhi, 1977).

General Guides

J.D. Pearson, South Asian Bibliography: A Handbook and Guide
(Hassocks, 1979).

D.A. Low, J.C. Iltis and M.D. Wainwright, Government Archives in South
Asia: A Guide to National and State Archives in Ceylon, India and
Pakistan (Cambridge, 1969).

http://www.bl.uk/reshelp/findhelpregion/asia/india/indiaofficerecords/indiaofficerecordsfurtherreadingontheeastindiacompanyandindiaoffice/iorreading.html

bademiyansubhanallah

unread,
Feb 5, 2010, 4:56:32 PM2/5/10
to
ARTICLE
from theEncyclopædia Britannica
English trading company

also called English East India Company, formally (1600–1708) Governor
and Company of Merchants of London Trading into the East Indies, or
(1708–1873) United Company of Merchants of England Trading to the East
Indies

English company formed for the exploitation of trade with East and
Southeast Asia and India, incorporated by royal charter on Dec. 31,
1600. Starting as a monopolistic trading body, the company became
involved in politics and acted as an agent of British imperialism in
India from the early 18th century to the mid-19th century. In
addition, the activities of the company in China in the 19th century
served as a catalyst for the expansion of British influence there.

The company was formed to share in the East Indian spice trade. This
trade had been a monopoly of Spain and Portugal until the defeat of
the Spanish Armada (1588) by England gave the English the chance to
break the monopoly. Until 1612 the company conducted separate voyages,
separately subscribed. There were temporary joint stocks until 1657,
when a permanent joint stock was raised.

The company met with opposition from the Dutch in the Dutch East
Indies (now Indonesia) and the Portuguese. The Dutch virtually
excluded company members from the East Indies after the Amboina
Massacre in 1623 (an incident in which English, Japanese, and
Portuguese traders were executed by Dutch authorities), but the
company’s defeat of the Portuguese in India (1612) won them trading
concessions from the Mughal Empire. The company settled down to a
trade in cotton and silk piece goods, indigo, and saltpetre, with
spices from South India. It extended its activities to the Persian
Gulf, Southeast Asia, and East Asia.

After the mid-18th century the cotton-goods trade declined, while tea
became an important import from China. Beginning in the early 19th
century, the company financed the tea trade with illegal opium exports
to China. Chinese opposition to this trade precipitated the first
Opium War (1839–42), which resulted in a Chinese defeat and the
expansion of British trading privileges; a second conflict, often
called the “Arrow” War (1856–60), brought increased trading rights for
Europeans.

The original company faced opposition to its monopoly, which led to
the establishment of a rival company and the fusion (1708) of the two
as the United Company of Merchants of England trading to the East
Indies. The United Company was organized into a court of 24 directors
who worked through committees. They were elected annually by the Court
of Proprietors, or shareholders. When the company acquired control of
Bengal in 1757, Indian policy was until 1773 influenced by
shareholders’ meetings, where votes could be bought by the purchase of
shares. This led to government intervention. The Regulating Act (1773)
and Pitt’s India Act (1784) established government control of
political policy through a regulatory board responsible to Parliament.
Thereafter, the company gradually lost both commercial and political
control. Its commercial monopoly was broken in 1813, and from 1834 it
was merely a managing agency for the British government of India. It
was deprived of this after the Indian Mutiny (1857), and it ceased to
exist as a legal entity in 1873.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/176643/East-India-Company

East India Company


From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

East India Company

Fate Dissolved and activities absorbed by the British Raj
Founded 1600
Defunct 1858 (formally dissolved in 1873)
Headquarters London

The East India Company (also the East India Trading Company, English
East India Company,[1] and then the British East India Company)[2]

was an early English joint-stock company[3]

that was formed initially for pursuing trade with the East Indies, but
that ended up trading mainly with the Indian subcontinent and China.
The oldest among several similarly formed European East India
Companies, the Company was granted an English Royal Charter, under the
name Governor and Company of Merchants of London Trading into the East
Indies, by Elizabeth I on 31 December 1600.[4]

After a rival English company challenged its monopoly in the late 17th
century, the two companies were merged in 1708 to form the United
Company of Merchants of England Trading to the East Indies, commonly
styled the Honourable East India Company,[5]

and abbreviated, HEIC;[6]

the Company was colloquially referred to as John Company,[7]

and in India as Company Bahadur (Hindustani bahādur, "brave").[8]

The East India Company traded mainly in cotton, silk, indigo dye,
saltpetre, tea, and opium. However, it also came to rule large swathes
of India, exercising military power and assuming administrative
functions, to the exclusion, gradually, of its commercial pursuits.
Company rule in India, which effectively began in 1757 after the
Battle of Plassey, lasted until 1858, when, following the events of
the Indian Rebellion of 1857, and under the Government of India Act
1858, the British Crown assumed direct administration of India in the
new British Raj. The Company itself was finally dissolved on 1 January
1874, as a result of the East India Stock Dividend Redemption Act.

The Company long held a privileged position in relation to the
English, and later the British, government. As a result, it was
frequently granted special rights and privileges, including trade
monopolies and exemptions. These caused resentment among its
competitors, who saw unfair advantage in the Company's position.
Despite this resentment, the Company remained a powerful force for
over 200 years over India.

Colonial India

Portuguese India 1510–1961
Dutch India 1605–1825
Danish India 1696–1869
French India 1759–1954
British India 1612–1948

East India Company 1612–1757

Company rule in India 1757–1857
British Raj 1858–1947
British rule in Burma 1826–1948
Princely states 1765–1947
Partition of India 1947

History

The foundation years

Soon after the defeat of the Spanish Armada in 1588, a group of
merchants of London presented a petition to Queen Elizabeth I for
permission to sail to the Indian Ocean.[9]

The permission was granted and in 1591 three ships sailed from
England, around the Cape of Good Hope, to the Arabian Sea; one of
them, the Edward Bonaventure then sailed around Cape Comorin and on to
the Malay Peninsula, and subsequently returned to England in 1594.[9]

In 1596, three more ships sailed out east, however, these were all
lost at sea.[9]

Two years later, on 24 September 1598, another group of merchants of
London, having raised £30,133 in capital, met to form a corporation.
Although their first attempt was unsuccessful, they nonetheless set
about seeking the Queen's unofficial approval, purchased ships for
their venture, increased their capital to £68,373, and convened again
a year later.[9]

This time they succeeded, and on 31 December 1600, the Queen granted a
Royal Charter to "George, Earl of Cumberland, and 215 Knights,
Aldermen, and Burgesses" under the name, Governor and Company of
Merchants of London trading with the East Indies.[10]

The charter awarded the newly formed company, for a period of fifteen
years, a monopoly of trade (known today as a patent) with all
countries to the east of the Cape of Good Hope and to the west of the
Straits of Magellan.[10] Sir James Lancaster commanded the first East
India Company voyage in 1601.[11]

Initially, the Company struggled in the spice trade due to the
competition from the already well established Dutch. However the
Company did open a factory (trading post) in Bantam on the first
voyage and imports of pepper from Java were an important part of the
Company's trade for twenty years. The factory in Bantam was finally
closed in 1683. During this time ships belonging to the company
arrived in India, docking at Surat, which was established as a trade
transit point in 1608. In the next two years, it managed to build its
first factory in the town of Machilipatnam on the Coromandel Coast of
the Bay of Bengal. The high profits reported by the Company after
landing in India (presumably owing to a reduction in overhead costs
affected by the transit points), initially prompted King James I to
grant subsidiary licenses to other trading companies in England. But,
in 1609, he renewed the charter given to the Company for an indefinite
period, including a clause which specified that the charter would
cease to be in force if the trade turned unprofitable for three
consecutive years.

The Company was led by one Governor and 24 directors who made up the
Court of Directors. They were appointed by, and reported to, the Court
of Proprietors. The Court of Directors had ten committees reporting to
it.

Foothold in India

English traders frequently engaged in hostilities with their Dutch and
Portuguese counterparts in the Indian Ocean. The Company achieved a
major victory over the Portuguese in the Battle of Swally in 1612.
Perhaps realizing the cost of waging trade wars in remote seas, the
Company decided to explore the feasibility of gaining a territorial
foothold in mainland India, with official sanction of both countries,
and requested the Crown to launch a diplomatic mission. In 1615, Sir
Thomas Roe was instructed by James I to visit the Mughal Emperor
Nuruddin Salim Jahangir (r. 1605 - 1627) to arrange for a commercial
treaty which would give the Company exclusive rights to reside and
build factories in Surat and other areas. In return, the Company
offered to provide the Emperor with goods and rarities from the
European market. This mission was highly successful as Jahangir sent a
letter to James through Sir Thomas Roe:[12]

Upon which assurance of your royal love I have given my general
command to all the kingdoms and ports of my dominions to receive all
the merchants of the English nation as the subjects of my friend; that
in what place soever they choose to live, they may have free liberty
without any restraint; and at what port soever they shall arrive, that
neither Portugal nor any other shall dare to molest their quiet; and
in what city soever they shall have residence, I have commanded all my
governors and captains to give them freedom answerable to their own
desires; to sell, buy, and to transport into their country at their
pleasure.

For confirmation of our love and friendship, I desire your Majesty to
command your merchants to bring in their ships of all sorts of
rarities and rich goods fit for my palace; and that you be pleased to
send me your royal letters by every opportunity, that I may rejoice in
your health and prosperous affairs; that our friendship may be
interchanged and eternal.

Expansion

This section requires expansion.

The Company, benefiting from the imperial patronage, soon expanded its
commercial trading operations, eclipsing the Portuguese Estado da
India, which had established bases in Goa, Chittagong and Bombay
(which was later ceded to England as part of the dowry of Catherine de
Braganza). The Company created trading posts in Surat (where a factory
was built in 1612), Madras (1639), Bombay (1668) and Calcutta (1690).
By 1647, the Company had 23 factories, each under the command of a
factor or master merchant and governor if so chosen, and 90 employees
in India. The major factories became the walled forts of Fort William
in Bengal, Fort St George in Madras and the Bombay Castle.

In 1634, the Mughal emperor extended his hospitality to the English
traders to the region of Bengal (and in 1717 completely waived customs
duties for the trade). The company's mainstay businesses were by now
in cotton, silk, indigo dye, saltpetre and tea. All the while in
1650-56, it was making inroads into the Dutch monopoly of the spice
trade in the Malaccan straits, which the Dutch had acquired by ousting
the Portuguese in 1640-41. In 1657, Oliver Cromwell renewed the
charter of 1609, and brought about minor changes in the holding of the
Company. The status of the Company was further enhanced by the
restoration of monarchy in England. By a series of five acts around
1670, King Charles II provisioned it with the rights to autonomous
territorial acquisitions, to mint money, to command fortresses and
troops and form alliances, to make war and peace, and to exercise both
civil and criminal jurisdiction over the acquired areas.[citation
needed] In 1711, the Company established a trading post in Canton
(Guangzhou), China, to trade tea for silver.

The road to a complete monopoly

Trade monopoly

This section needs additional citations for verification.

Please help improve this article by adding reliable references.
Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (May 2008)

The prosperity that the officers of the company enjoyed allowed them
to return to their country and establish sprawling estates and
businesses, and to obtain political power. Consequently, the Company
developed for itself a lobby in the English parliament. However, under
pressure from ambitious tradesmen and former associates of the Company
(pejoratively termed Interlopers by the Company), who wanted to
establish private trading firms in India, a deregulating act was
passed in 1694. This allowed any English firm to trade with India,
unless specifically prohibited by act of parliament, thereby annulling
the charter that was in force for almost 100 years. By an act that was
passed in 1698, a new "parallel" East India Company (officially titled
the English Company Trading to the East Indies) was floated under a
state-backed indemnity of £2 million. However, the powerful
stockholders of the old company quickly subscribed a sum of £315,000
in the new concern, and dominated the new body. The two companies
wrestled with each other for some time, both in England and in India,
for a dominant share of the trade. However, it quickly became evident
that, in practice, the original Company faced scarcely any measurable
competition. Both companies finally merged in 1708, by a tripartite
indenture involving them both as well as the state. Under this
arrangement, the merged company lent to the Treasury a sum of
£3,200,000, in return for exclusive privileges for the next three
years, after which the situation was to be reviewed. The amalgamated
company became the United Company of Merchants of England Trading to
the East Indies.[citation needed]

In the following decades there was a constant see-saw battle between
the Company lobby and the Parliament. The Company sought a permanent
establishment, while the Parliament would not willingly allow it
greater autonomy, and so relinquish the opportunity to exploit the
Company's profits. In 1712, another act renewed the status of the
Company, though the debts were repaid. By 1720, 15% of British imports
were from India, almost all passing through the Company, which
reasserted the influence of the Company lobby. The license was
prolonged until 1766 by yet another act in 1730.

At this time, Britain and France became bitter rivals. Frequent
skirmishes between them took place for control of colonial
possessions. In 1742, fearing the monetary consequences of a war, the
British government agreed to extend the deadline for the licensed
exclusive trade by the Company in India until 1783, in return for a
further loan of £1 million. The skirmishes did escalate to the feared
war. Between 1756 and 1763, the Seven Years' War diverted the state's
attention towards consolidation and defence of its territorial
possessions in Europe and its colonies in North America. The war took
place on Indian soil, between the Company troops and the French
forces. This angered the Indian people. In 1757, the Law Officers of
the Crown delivered the Pratt-Yorke opinion distinguishing overseas
territories acquired by conquest from those acquired by private
treaty. The opinion asserted that, while the Crown of Great Britain
enjoyed sovereignty over both, only the property of the former was
vested in the Crown.[13]

With the advent of the Industrial Revolution, Britain surged ahead of
its European rivals. Demand for Indian commodities was boosted by the
need to sustain the troops and the economy during the war, and by the
increased availability of raw materials and efficient methods of
production. As home to the revolution, Britain experienced higher
standards of living. Its spiralling cycle of prosperity, demand and
production had a profound influence on overseas trade. The Company
became the single largest player in the British global market. It
reserved for itself an unassailable position in the decision-making
process of the Government.

William Pyne notes in his book The Microcosm of London (1808) that

"On the 1 March 1801, the debts of the East India Company to
£5,393,989 their effects to £15,404,736 and their sales increased
since February 1793, from £4,988,300 to £7,602,041."
[edit] Saltpetre trade

Sir John Banks, a businessman from Kent who negotiated an agreement
between the King and the Company, began his career in a syndicate
arranging contracts for victualling the navy, an interest he kept up
for most of his life. He knew Pepys and John Evelyn and founded a
substantial fortune from the Levant and Indian trades. He also became
a Director and later, as Governor of the East Indian Company in 1672,
he was able to arrange a contract which included a loan of £20,000 and
£30,000 worth of saltpetre for the King 'at the price it shall sell by
the candle'[citation needed] - that is by auction - where an inch of
candle burned and as long as it was alight bidding could continue. The
agreement also included with the price 'an allowance of interest which
is to be expressed in tallies.'[citation needed] This was something of
a breakthrough in royal prerogative because previous requests for the
King to buy at the Company's auctions had been turned down as 'not
honourable or decent.'[citation needed] Outstanding debts were also
agreed and the Company permitted to export 250 tons of saltpetre.
Again in 1673, Banks successfully negotiated another contract for 700
tons of saltpetre at £37,000 between the King and the Company. So
urgent was the need to supply the armed forces in the United Kingdom,
America and elsewhere that the authorities sometimes turned a blind
eye on the untaxed sales. One governor of the Company was even
reported as saying in 1864 that he would rather have the saltpetre
made than the tax on salt.[14]

The basis for the monopoly

Colonial monopoly

Robert Clive, 1st Baron Clive, became the first British Governor of
Bengal.Further information: Great Britain in the Seven Years War

The Seven Years' War (1756 – 1763) resulted in the defeat of the
French forces and limited French imperial ambitions, also stunting the
influence of the industrial revolution in French territories. Robert
Clive, the Governor General, led the Company to an astounding victory
against Joseph François Dupleix, the commander of the French forces in
India, and recaptured Fort St George from the French. The Company took
this respite to seize Manila[15]

in 1762. By the Treaty of Paris (1763), the French were allowed to
maintain their trade posts only in small enclaves in Pondicherry,
Mahe, Karikal, Yanam, and Chandernagar without any military presence.
Although these small outposts remained French possessions for the next
two hundred years, French ambitions on Indian territories were
effectively laid to rest, thus eliminating a major source of economic
competition for the Company. In contrast, the Company, fresh from a
colossal victory, and with the backing of a disciplined and
experienced army, was able to assert its interests in the Carnatic
from its base at Madras and in Bengal from Calcutta, without facing
any further obstacles from other colonial powers.[citation needed]

Military expansion

Main article: Company rule in India

The Company continued to experience resistance from local rulers
during its expansion. Robert Clive led company forces against Siraj Ud
Daulah, the last independent Nawab of Bengal, Bihar and Orissa(only
Midnapore district) to victory at the Battle of Plassey in 1757,
resulting in the conquest of Bengal. This victory estranged the
British and the Mughals, since Siraj Ud Daulah was a Mughal feudatory
ally. But the Mughal empire was already on the wane after the demise
of Aurangzeb, and was breaking up into pieces and enclaves. After the
Battle of Buxar, Shah Alam II, the ruling emperor, gave up the
administrative rights over Bengal, Bihar, and Orissa (only Midnapore
district, rest of Orissa was under the rule of Maratha and Nizam of
Hyderabad). Clive thus became the first British Governor of Bengal.

Haidar Ali and Tipu Sultan, the legendary rulers of Mysore (in
Carnatic, modern day Indian state of Karnataka - capital city
Bangalore), gave a tough time to the British forces. Having sided with
the French during the war, the rulers of Mysore continued their
struggle against the Company with the four Anglo-Mysore Wars. Mysore
finally fell to the Company forces in 1799, with the slaying of Tipu
Sultan.

With the gradual weakening of the Maratha empire in the aftermath of
the three Anglo-Maratha wars, the British also secured Bombay and the
surrounding areas. It was during these campaigns, both against Mysore
and the Marathas, that Arthur Wellesley, later Duke of Wellington,
first showed the abilities which would lead to victory in the
Peninsular War and at the Battle of Waterloo. A particularly notable
engagement involving forces under his command was the Battle of
Assaye. Thus, the British had secured the entire region of Southern
India (with the exception of small enclaves of French and local
rulers), Western India and Eastern India.

The last vestiges of local administration were restricted to the
northern regions of Delhi, Oudh, Rajputana, and Punjab, where the
Company's presence was ever increasing amidst the infighting and
dubious offers of protection against each other. Coercive action,
threats and diplomacy aided the Company in preventing the local rulers
from putting up a united struggle against it. The hundred years from
the Battle of Plassey in 1757 to the Sepoy Mutiny of 1857 were a
period of consolidation for the Company, which began to function more
as a nation and less as a trading concern.

The first cholera pandemic began in Bengal, then spread across India
by 1820. 10,000 British troops and countless Indians died during this
pandemic.[16] Between 1736 and 1834 only some 10% of East India
Company's officers survived to take the final voyage home.[17]

Opium trade

Main article: Opium Wars

In the eighteenth century, Britain had a huge trade deficit with Qing
Dynasty China and so in 1773, the Company created a British monopoly
on opium buying in Bengal. As opium trade was illegal in China,
Company ships could not carry opium to China. So the opium produced in
Bengal was sold in Calcutta on condition that it be sent to China.[18]

Despite the Chinese ban on opium imports, reaffirmed in 1799, it was
smuggled into China from Bengal by traffickers and agency houses (such
as Jardine, Matheson and Company, Ltd.) averaging 900 tons a year. The
proceeds from drug-runners at Lintin Island were paid into the
Company’s factory at Canton and by 1825, most of the money needed to
buy tea in China was raised by the illegal opium trade. In 1838, with
opium smuggling approaching 1400 tons a year, the Chinese imposed a
death penalty on opium smuggling and sent a new governor, Lin Zexu to
curb smuggling. This finally resulted in the First Opium War,
eventually leading to the British seizure of Hong Kong.

Regulation of the company's affairs

Monopolistic activity by the company triggered the Boston Tea Party.
[edit] Financial troubles

Though the Company was becoming increasingly bold and ambitious in
putting down resisting states, it was getting clearer day by day that
the Company was incapable of governing the vast expanse of the
captured territories. The Bengal famine, in which one-third of the
local population died, set the alarm bells ringing back home. Military
and administrative costs mounted beyond control in British
administered regions in Bengal due to the ensuing drop in labour
productivity. At the same time, there was commercial stagnation and
trade depression throughout Europe following the lull in the post-
Industrial Revolution period. The desperate directors of the company
attempted to avert bankruptcy by appealing to Parliament for financial
help. This led to the passing of the Tea Act in 1773, which gave the
Company greater autonomy in running its trade in America, and allowed
it an exemption from the tea tax—which its colonial competitors were
required to pay. When the American colonists, who included tea
merchants, were told of the act, they tried to boycott it, claiming
that, although the price had gone down on the tea when enforcing the
act, it was a tax all the same, and the king should not have the right
to just have a tax for no apparent reason. The arrival of tax-exempt
Company tea, undercutting the local merchants, triggered the Boston
Tea Party in the Province of Massachusetts Bay, one of the major
events leading up to the American Revolution.

Regulating Acts of Parliament

East India Company Act 1773

By this Act (13 Geo. III, c. 63), the Parliament of Great Britain
imposed a series of administrative and economic reforms and by doing
so clearly established its sovereignty and ultimate control over the
Company. The Act recognized the Company's political functions and
clearly established that the "acquisition of sovereignty by the
subjects of the Crown is on behalf of the Crown and not in its own
right."

Despite stiff resistance from the East India lobby in parliament, and
from the Company's shareholders, the Act was passed. It introduced
substantial governmental control, and allowed the land to be formally
under the control of the Crown, but leased to the Company at £40,000
for two years. Under this provision, the governor of Bengal Warren
Hastings was promoted to the rank of Governor General, having
administrative powers over all of British India. It provided that his
nomination, though made by a court of directors, should in future be
subject to the approval of a Council of Four appointed by the Crown -
namely Lt. General John Clavering, George Monson, Richard Barwell and
Philip Francis. He was entrusted with the power of peace and war.
British judicial personnel would also be sent to India to administer
the British legal system. The Governor General and the council would
have complete legislative powers. Thus, Warren Hastings became the
first Governor-General of India. The company was allowed to maintain
its virtual monopoly over trade, in exchange for the biennial sum and
an obligation to export a minimum quantity of goods yearly to Britain.
The costs of administration were also to be met by the company. These
provisions, initially welcomed by the Company, backfired. The Company
had an annual burden on its back, and its finances continued steadily
to decline.[19]

East India Company Act (Pitt's India Act) 1784

The India Act of 1784 (24 Geo. III, s. 2, c. 25) had two key aspects:

Relationship to the British government: the bill differentiated the
East India Company's political functions from its commercial
activities. In political matters the East India Company was
subordinated to the British government directly. To accomplish this,
the Act created a Board of Commissioners for the Affairs of India,
usually referred to as the Board of Control. The members of the Board
were the Chancellor of the Exchequer, a Secretary of State, and four
Privy Councillors, nominated by the King. The act specified that the
Secretary of State "shall preside at, and be President of the said
Board".

Internal Administration of British India: the bill laid the foundation
for the centralized and bureaucratic British administration of India
which would reach its peak at the beginning of the twentieth century
during the governor-generalship of George Nathaniel Curzon, 1st Baron
Curzon.

The expanded East India House, Leadenhall Street, London, as rebuilt
1799-1800, Richard Jupp, architect (as seen c. 1817; demolished in
1929)Pitt's Act was deemed a failure because it quickly became
apparent that the boundaries between government control and the
company's powers were nebulous and highly subjective. The government
also felt obliged to respond to humanitarian calls for better
treatment of local peoples in British-occupied territories. Edmund
Burke, a former East India Company shareholder and diplomat, was moved
to address the situation and introduced a new Regulating Bill in 1783.
The bill was defeated, however, due to intense lobbying by company
loyalists and accusations of nepotism in the bill's recommendations
for the appointment of councillors.

Act of 1786

This Act (26 Geo. III c. 16) enacted the demand of Lord Cornwallis,
that the powers of the Governor-General be enlarged to empower him, in
special cases, to override the majority of his Council and act on his
own special responsibility. The Act also enabled the offices of the
Governor-General and the Commander-in-Chief to be jointly held by the
same official.

This Act clearly demarcated borders between the Crown and the Company.
After this point, the Company functioned as a regularized subsidiary
of the Crown, with greater accountability for its actions and reached
a stable stage of expansion and consolidation. Having temporarily
achieved a state of truce with the Crown, the Company continued to
expand its influence to nearby territories through threats and
coercive actions. By the middle of the 19th century, the Company's
rule extended across most of India, Burma, Malaya, Singapore and Hong
Kong, and a fifth of the world's population was under its trading
influence.

Charter Act 1813

The aggressive policies of Lord Wellesley and the Marquis of Hastings
led to the Company gaining control of all India, except for the
Punjab, Sindh and Nepal. The Indian Princes had become vassals of the
Company. But the expense of wars leading to the total control of India
strained the Company’s finances to the breaking point. The Company was
forced to petition Parliament for assistance. This was the background
to the Charter Act of 1813 (53 Geo. III c. 155) which, among other
things:

asserted the sovereignty of the British Crown over the Indian
territories held by the Company;
renewed the Charter of Company for a further twenty years but,
deprived the Company of its Indian trade monopoly except for trade in
tea and the trade with China; required the Company to maintain
separate and distinct its commercial and territorial accounts; and,
opened India to missionaries.

Charter Act 1833

The Industrial Revolution in Britain, and the consequent search for
markets, and the rise of laissez-faire economic ideology form the
background to this act. The Act:

removed the Company's remaining trade monopolies and divested it of
all its commercial functions;
renewed for another twenty years the Company’s political and
administrative authority;
invested the Board of Control with full power and authority over the
Company. As stated by Kapur Professor Sri Ram Sharma, thus, summed up
the point: "The President of the Board of Control now became Minister
for Indian Affairs"; carried further the ongoing process of
administrative centralization through investing the Governor-General
in Council with, full power and authority to superintend and, control
the Presidency Governments in all civil and military matters;
initiated a machinery for the codification of laws; provided that no
Indian subject of the Company would be debarred from holding any
office under the Company by reason of his religion, place of birth,
descent or colour. However, this remained a dead letter well into the
20th century;
vested the Island of St Helena in the Crown.

Meanwhile, British influence continued to expand; in 1845, the Danish
colony of Tranquebar was sold to Great Britain. The Company had at
various stages extended its influence to China, the Philippines, and
Java. It had solved its critical lack of the cash needed to buy tea by
exporting Indian-grown opium to China. China's efforts to end the
trade led to the First Opium War with Britain.

Charter Act 1853

This Act provided that British India would remain under the
administration of the Company in trust for the Crown until Parliament
should decide otherwise.

Indian Rebellion of 1857-8

Main article: Indian Rebellion of 1857

The Indian Rebellion of 1857, known to the British as the "Great
Mutiny", but to Indians as the "First War of Independence", resulted
in widespread devastation in India and condemnation of the Company for
permitting the events to occur.[citation needed] One of the
consequences was that the British government nationalized the Company.
The Company lost all its administrative powers; its Indian
possessions, including its armed forces, were taken over by the Crown
pursuant to the provisions of the Government of India Act 1858.

The Company continued to manage the tea trade on behalf of the British
government (and the supply of Saint Helena) until the East India Stock
Dividend Redemption Act came into effect, on 1 January 1874, under the
terms of which the Company was dissolved.[20]

Legacy

The East India Company has had a long lasting impact on the Indian
Subcontinent. Although dissolved following the rebellion of 1857, it
stimulated the growth of the British Empire. Its armies after 1857
were to become the armies of British India and it played a key role in
replacing the official language of India from Persian to English. Even
today the English language has official status in Pakistan and India,
being used by the government and civil service. Some phrases
introduced by the company are considered to be archaic in British
English today, such as do the needful, but live on in the English of
South Asia and are used daily.[21]

East India Club

The East India Club in London was formed in 1849 for officers of the
East India Company. The Club still exists today as a private
Gentlemen's Club and its club house is situated at 16, St. James's
Square, London.

Flags

Downman (1685)
Lens (1700)
Rees (1820)
Laurie (1842)

National Geographic (1917)

Prior to the Acts of Union which created the Kingdom of Great
Britain, the flag contained the St George's Cross in the canton
representing the Kingdom of England.

The flag had a Union Flag in the canton after the creation of the
Kingdom of Great Britain in 1707.
After 1801 the flag contains the Union Flag of the United Kingdom of
Great Britain and Ireland in the canton.(1810)

The East India Company flag changed over time. From the period of 1600
to 1707 (Act of Union between England and Scotland) the flag consisted
of a St George's cross in the canton and a number of alternating Red
and White stripes. After 1707 the canton contained the original Union
Flag consisting of a combined St George's cross and a St Andrew's
cross. After the Act of Union 1800, that joined Ireland into the
United Kingdom, the canton of the East India Company's flag was
altered accordingly to include the new Union Flag with the additional
St Patrick's cross. There has been much debate and discussion
regarding the number of stripes on the flag and the order of the
stripes. Historical documents and paintings show many variations from
9 to 13 stripes, with some images showing the top stripe being red and
others showing the top stripe being white.

It has been suggested that the stripes were inspired by the flag of
the Majapahit Empire, whose flags may still have flown across the
Spice Islands in the Company's early days.

At the time of the American Revolution the East India Company flag
would have been identical to the Grand Union Flag. The flag probably
inspired the Stars and Stripes (as argued by Sir Charles Fawcett in
1937).[22]

Comparisons between the Stars and Stripes and the Company's flag from
historical records present some convincing arguments. The John Company
flag dates back to the 1600s whereas the United States adopted the
Stars and Stripes in 1777.[23]

The stripes and gridlike appearance of the flag gave rise to several
pieces of imperial slang. Most notably is the phrase 'riding the
gridiron'; this referred to travelling on a ship flying the company
flag to / from India.

Ships

A ship of the East India Company can also be called an East Indiaman.
[24]

Red Dragon
Earl of Abergavenny
Royal Captain
Agamemnon (1855)
Kent

East India Company records

Unlike all other British Government records, the records from the East
India Company (and its successor the India Office) are not in The
National Archives at Kew, London, but are stored by the British
Library in London as part of the Asia, Pacific and Africa Collection.
The catalogue is searchable online in the Access to Archives
catalogues.[25]

Many of the East India Company records are freely available online
under an agreement that FIBIS have with the British Library.

Trading again

On 14 September 2004, the name The British East India Company was
purchased from The British Government Agents by Captain William George
MacDonald.

The Company Registered Number is now on The British Companies House
Register and it is Number 3667052.

The Company Head Office is The John Laird Centre, Park Road North,
Birkenhead, Wirral, CH41 4EZ, United Kingdom.

The British East India Company Limited is now trading again and is
involved in the following commercial services:- The Oil Service
Industry, Shipping and Marine Services, Logistics and Transport (by
Land, Sea and Air), Steelmaking and Trading, Commodity Procurement and
Trading, Bonded Warehousing and WhiskyBottling

On 21 July 2006, the name and the house flag of The British East India
Company Limited was trademarked on The British Trademark Registry and
two certificates were issued.

The first certificate was for the name (The British East India Company
Limited) - Trademark Number 2404311B (Dated 28 September 2005).

The second certificate was for The Original House Flag of The British
East India Company Limited - Trademark Number 2404311A (Dated 28
September 2005).

Both trademarks belong exclusively to Captain William George MacDonald
who is Chairman of The British East India Company Limited

See also

British Empire portal
Wikimedia Commons has media related to: British East India Company
History of India
British Empire
History of South Asia series
Company rule in India
British Raj (also Crown rule in India, also British Indian Empire)
New Imperialism series
Imperialism in Asia
Chartered companies
Governor-General of India
Commander-in-Chief, India
List of BEIC directors
East India Docks, London
Blackwall Yard, London
East India Companies
Assada Company, English, founded 1635 and ceased 1657
Dutch East India Company, founded 1602 and ceased 1798
Danish East India Company, founded in 1616 and ceased 1846
Portuguese East India Company, founded 1628 and ceased 1633
French East India Company, founded 1664 and ceased 1769
Swedish East India Company, founded 1731 and ceased 1813
West India Companies
Dutch West India Company, founded 1621 and ceased 1791
French West India Company, founded 1664 and ceased 1674
Danish West India Company, founded 1671 and ceased 1776
Other trading companies:
London Virginia Company, founded 1606 and ceased 1622
Hudson's Bay Company, founded 1670 and still operating as a Canadian
corporation
Muscovy Company, founded 1555 and ceased 1917
Royal African Company founded 1660 and ceased 1752
Virginia Company of Plymouth, founded 1606 and ceased 1609
East India Company College 1805-1858
Robert Brooke 1744-1811
East India Company Cemetery in Macau
Spice wars
Indian Mutiny
British Imperial Lifeline

Notes

^ Encyclopaedia Britannica 2008, "East India Company"

^ 1. Columbia Encyclopedia 2007, "East India Company, British". 2.
Marx, Karl (June 25, 1853), "The British rule in India", New York
Daily Tribune republished in Carter, Mia; Harlow (editors), Barbara
(2003), Archives of Empire, Raleigh: Duke University Press. Pp. 802,
ISBN 0822331640, http://books.google.com/books?id=13pyxO8o4moC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_summary_r&cad=0#PPA117,M1
. Quote (p. 118): "I do not allude to European despotism, planted upon
Asiatic despotism, by the British East India Company, forming a more
monstrous combination than any of the divine monsters startling us in
the temple of Salsette."

^ The Dutch East India Company was the first to issue public stock.

^ The Register of Letters &c. of the Governor and Company of Merchants
of London trading into the East Indies, 1600–1619. On page 3, a letter
written by Elizabeth I on January 23, 1601 ("Witnes or selfe at
Westminster the xxiiijth of Ianuarie in the xliijth yeare of or
Reigne.") states, "Haue been pleased to giue lysence vnto or said
Subjects to proceed in the said voiadgs, & for the better inabling
them to establish a trade into & from the said East Indies Haue by or
tres Pattents vnder or great seale of England beareing date at
Westminster the last daie of december last past incorporated or said
Subjecte by the name of the Gournor & Companie of the merchaunts of
London trading into the East Indies, & in the same tres Pattents haue
geven them the sole trade of theast Indies for the terme of XVteen
yeares ..."

^ A. Oxford English Dictionary (Draft Edition, September 2008,
requires subscription) entry for "honourable": "2b. Applied as an
official or courtesy title of honour or distinction." Usage: ... the
prefix ‘Honourable’ ... is also applied to the House of Commons
collectively; ... also formerly to the East India Company, etc.
Examples: 1698 FRYER Acc. E. India & P. 38 "In pay for the Honourable
East India Company."

B. Encyclopaedia Britannica 1911, "HONOURABLE (Fr. honorable, from
Lat. honorabilis, worthy of honour), a style or title of honour common
to the United Kingdom, the British colonies and the United States of
America.... The epithet is also applied to the House of Commons as a
body and to individual members during debate ('the honourable member
for X.'). Certain other corporate bodies have, by tradition or grant,
the right to bear the style; e.g. the Honourable Irish Society, the
Inns of Court (Honourable Society of the Inner Temple, &c.) and the
Honourable Artillery Company; the East India Company also had the
prefix 'honourable' . The style may not be assumed by corporate bodies
at will, as was proved in the case of the Society of Baronets, whose
original style of 'Honourable' Society was dropped by command." C.
Birdwood, George (1891), Report on The Old Record of the India Office,
London: W. H. Allen & Co., Limited, and at Calcutta,

http://books.google.com/books?id=m-WBAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA14&dq=Charter+of+1709+%22Honourable+East+India+Company%22&lr=&num=100&as_brr=1

Quote (p. 14): "The English Company [Including The General Society
chartered by William III, 3rd September 1698] trading with the East ,
commonly called "the New Company," was incorporated by William III,
5th September 1698; its charter running to 1714. The above Company of
Merchants of London and the English Company, were finally incorporated
under the name of "The United Company of Merchants of England trading
to the East [commonly styled, "the Honourable East India Company"] in
1708-9."

^ Hawes, Christopher J. (1996), Poor Relations: The Making of a
Eurasian Community in British India, 1773-1833, London: Routledge. Pp.
217., ISBN 0700704256,

http://books.google.com/books?id=d22WUEmG49IC&pg=PR13&vq=HEIC&lr=&source=gbs_search_r&cad=1_1

Quote (p. xiii): "Abbreviations: Honourable East India Company
(HEIC)."

^ Ride, Lindsay; Ride, May; Mellor, Bernard (1995), An East India
Company Cemetery: Protestant Burials in Macao, Hong Kong: Hong Kong
University Press. Pp. 304, ISBN 9622093841,

http://books.google.com/books?id=flbXWNoVraEC&pg=PA7&dq=charter+1709+%22honourable+east+india+company%22&lr=lang_en&num=100&as_brr=3

Quote (p. 7): "In 1709, the Company amalgamated with a rival group,
which had been chartered in 1698 by William III. This union took the
title 'The Honourable East India Company,' which was shortened for
general use to 'the Honourable Company' and more often still to John
Company, until it ceased operations in 1834, after its monopoly of
British trade with China was discontinued."

^ Gandhi, M. K. (1997), Hind Swaraj and other writings, (Edited by
Anthony J. Parel) Cambridge and London: Cambridge University Press.
Pp. 208., ISBN 0521574315,

http://books.google.com/books?id=oc47gUOPZfcC&pg=PA39&dq=%22Company+Bahadur%22#PPA39,M1
.

Quote (p.39): "... They came to our country originally for the
purpose of trade. Recall the Company Bahadur.† Who made it Bahadur?
They had not the slightest intention at the time of establishing a
kingdom. Who assisted the Company's officers? Who was tempted by their
silver? Who bought their goods? History testifies that we did all
this. ... †: 'the Company Bahadur': an honorific title by which the
East India Company was known among Indians. 'Bahadur' means brave,
powerful, sovereign."

^ a b c d Imperial Gazetteer of India vol. IV 1908, p. 454

^ a b Imperial Gazetteer of India vol. II 1908, p. 6

^ Gardner, Brian (1972). The East India Company: a History. McCall
Publishing Company. ISBN 0841501246.

^ Indian History Sourcebook: England, India, and The East Indies, 1617
A.D

^ Thomas, P. D. G. (2008) "Pratt, Charles, first Earl Camden (1714–
1794)", Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University
Press, online edn, accessed 15 February 2008 subscription or UK public
library membership required

^ SALTPETER the secret salt - Salt made the world go round

^ Company incursion, Manila 1762-1763. See the Bib. for the citation
of Sirs Draper and Cornish; see also Cushner's citation.

^ Cholera's seven pandemics. CBC News. December 2, 2008

^ Sahib: The British Soldier in India, 1750-1914 by Richard Holmes

^ EAST INDIA COMPANY FACTORY RECORDS Sources from the British Library,
LondonPart 1: China and Japan

^ Anthony, Frank. Britain's Betrayal in India: The Story of the Anglo
Indian Community. Second Edition. London: The Simon Wallenberg Press,
2007 Pages 18- 19, 42, 45.

^ The Times reported, "It accomplished a work such as in the whole
history of the human race no other company ever attempted and as such
is ever likely to attempt in the years to come."

^ Deccan Herald

^ The Striped Flag Of The East India Company, And Its Connexion With
The American "Stars And Stripes"

^ http://www.kimber.org/flag/index.htm[dead link]

^ Sutton, Jean (1981) Lords of the East: the East India Company and
its ships. London: Conway Maritime

^ A2A - Access to Archives Home

References

Andrews, Kenneth R. (1985). Trade, Plunder, and Settlement: Maritime
Enterprise and the Genesis of the British Empire, 1480–1630.
Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0521257603.

Bowen, H. V. (1991). Revenue and Reform: The Indian Problem in British
Politics, 1757–1773. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press. ISBN
0521403162.

Bowen, H. V.; Margarette Lincoln, and Nigel Rigby, eds. (2003). The
Worlds of the East India Company. Rochester, NY: Brewer. ISBN
0851158773.

Brenner, Robert (1993). Merchants and Revolution: Commercial Change,
Political Conflict, and London’s Overseas Traders, 1550–1653.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. ISBN 0691055947.

Carruthers, Bruce G. (1996). City of Capital: Politics and Markets in
the English Financial Revolution. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press. ISBN 978-0-691-04455-2.

Chaudhuri, K. N. (1965). The English East India Company: The Study of
an Early Joint-Stock Company, 1600–1640. London: Cass.

Chaudhuri, K. N. (1978). The Trading World of Asia and the English
East India Company, 1660–1760. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University
Press. ISBN 0521217164.

Farrington, Anthony (2002). Trading Places: The East India Company and
Asia, 1600–1834. London: British Library. ISBN 0712347569.

Furber, Holden (1976). Rival Empires of Trade in the Orient, 1600–
1800. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. ISBN 0816607877.

Imperial Gazetteer of India vol. II (1908), The Indian Empire,
Historical, Published under the authority of His Majesty's Secretary
of State for India in Council, Oxford at the Clarendon Press. Pp.
xxxv, 1 map, 573.

Imperial Gazetteer of India vol. IV (1908), The Indian Empire,


Administrative, Published under the authority of His Majesty's
Secretary of State for India in Council, Oxford at the Clarendon
Press. Pp. xxx, 1 map, 552.

Lawson, Philip (1993). The East India Company: A History. London:
Longman. ISBN 0582073863.

Sen, Sudipta (1998). Empire of Free Trade: The East India Company and
the Making of the Colonial Marketplace. Philadelphia: University of
Pennsylvania Press. ISBN 978-0812234268.

Steensgaard, Niels (1975). The Asian Trade Revolution of the
Seventeenth Century: The East India Companies and the Decline of the
Caravan Trade. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0226771385
.
Dirks, Nicholas (2006). The Scandal of EMPIRE : India and the creation
of Imperial Britain. Cambridge, Massachusetts, London, England: The
Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. ISBN 0674021665.

External links

The Twilight of the East India Company: The Evolution of Anglo-Asian
Commerce and Politics, 1790-1860: Boydell & Brewer, Woodbridge, 2009

Univ. of Rochester Press Camden House

The Twilight of the East India Company
The Evolution of Anglo-Asian Commerce and Politics, 1790-1860
Anthony Webster

This book examines the development of British commercial, financial
and political relations with India and the Far East during the final
period of the East India Company's reign as the sovereign power in
India. This was a most turbulent period for British commerce with
India. The period began with the renewal of the East India Company's
Charter and its component monopolies of trade with India and China,
but this was quickly followed by the outbreak of the Napoleonic Wars,
which spread to the east and saw the completion of Britain's assertion
of power over India and much of Southeast Asia. However, the war also
strengthened those political forces in Britain campaigning against the
Company's monopolies of trade with India and China, which were
consequently abolished under the Charter Acts of 1813 and 1833. The
spectacular growth of the British economy following industrialisation
brought new forces to bear upon India, with the rise of manufactured
exports to the east. But the course of commercial relations did not
run smoothly, and economic crises in Britain and India in 1833 and
1848 swept away commercial firms in both countries, and caused severe
economic retrenchments. This instability severely hampered efforts to
facilitate the export of capital to India during the first half of the
century. Finally the rebellion of 1857 spelt the death knell for the
Company, and ushered in a new phase of Anglo-Indian economic
relations, in which British foreign investment grew substantially.
Anthony Webster is Head of the History Department at Liverpool John
Moores University.

DETAILS

Pages: 214
Size: 23.4 x 15.6
13 digit ISBN: 9781843834755
Binding: Hardback
First published: 17/Sep/2009
Price: 95.00 USD / 50.00 GBP
Imprint: Boydell Press
Series: Worlds of the East India Company
Subject: Modern History

BIC class: DSBB

STATUS: Available
Details updated on 03/02/2010

http://www.boydell.co.uk/43834758.HTM

From Trade to Colonization: Historical Dynamics of the East India
Companies

SOUTH ASIAN HISTORY

Pages from the History of India: The British East India Company and
Colonization


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From Trade to Colonization - Historic Dynamics of the East India
Companies
"In the middle of the seventeenth century, Asia still had a far more
important place in the world than Europe." So wrote J. Pirenne in his
'History of the Universe', published in Paris in 1950. He added, "The
riches of Asia were incomparably greater than those of the European
states. Her industrial techniques showed a subtlety and a tradition
that the European handicrafts did not possess. And there was nothing
in the more modern methods used by the traders of the Western
countries that Asian trade had to envy. In matters of credit, transfer
of funds, insurance, and cartels, neither India, Persia, nor China had
anything to learn from Europe."

(Quoted in Auguste Toussaint's 'History of the Indian Ocean')

Such was the situation when the East India Company began its trading
activities in the early 17th century. Initially, the British traders
had come to India with hopes of selling Britain's most popular export
item to Continental Europe - British Broadcloth, but were disappointed
to find little demand for it. Instead, like their Portuguese
counterparts, they found several Indian-made items they could sell
quite profitably in their homeland. Competing with other European
traders, and competing with several other trade routes to Europe (the
Red Sea route through Egypt, the Persian Gulf Route through Iraq, and
the Northern Caravan Route through Afghanistan, Persia and Turkey),
the early British Traders were in no position to dictate terms. They
had to seek concessions with a measure of humility and offer trade
terms that offered at least some benefits to the local rulers and
merchants. While Aurangzeb (who had, perhaps, seen the connection
between growing European Trade concessions and falling revenues from
the overland trade) attempted to limit and control the activities of
the East India Company, not all Indian rulers had as many compunctions
about making trade concessions. Besides, the East India Company was
willing to persevere; fighting and cajoling for concessions, it built
trading bases wherever it could along either side of the lengthy
Indian coastline.

In this period, relations between Indian and Britisher were not
lacking in cordiality and the East India Company included employees
from both worlds. Friendships between the two nationalities developed
not only within the context of business relations, but even beyond, to
the point of inter-marriage. Unaffected by the pompous stuffiness of
the British gentry, the British employees of the East India Company
made the most of life in India - dressing in cool and comfortable
Indian garments, enjoying Indian pastimes and absorbing local words in
their dialect. With as yet unprejudiced eyes, these British traders
delighted in the delicate craftsmanship and attractiveness of Indian
manufactures and took good advantage of their growing popularity in
Britain and France. So lucrative was the trade that even though India
would accept nothing but silver (or gold) in return, the East India
Company prospered.

Considering the long route (around the African Cape) that the British
had to take in reaching England, it was surprising that they made as
much money as they did. But other factors outweighed this
disadvantage. First, owing to their legally sanctioned monopoly status
in England, they had substantial control on the British market.
Second, by buying directly at the source, they were able to eliminate
the considerable mark-up that Indian goods enjoyed en-route to Europe.
Thirdly, the East India Company probably enjoyed better economies of
scale since their ships were amongst the largest in the Indian Ocean.
In addition, they were able to develop new markets for Indian goods in
Africa, and in the Americas.

And finally, (and perhaps, most significantly), as Veronica Murphy
reports in 'Europeans and the Textile Trade' (Arts of India
1550-1900), "although the East India Company was not itself engaged in
the transatlantic slave trade, the link was very close and highly
profitable." In fact, in the 18th century, the British dominated the
Atlantic slave trade transporting more slaves than all the other
European powers combined. In 1853, Henry Carey - author of 'The Slave
Trade, Domestic and Foreign' wrote: "It (the British System) is the
most gigantic system of slavery the world has yet seen, and therefore
it is that freedom gradually disappears from every country over which
England is enabled to gain control." The Atlantic slave trade was
hence, a vital contributor to the financial strength of the East
Indian Trading Companies.

So much so that by the middle of the 17th century, the East India
Company was re-exporting Indian goods to Europe and North Africa and
even Turkey! Unsurprisingly, this was to have a severely deleterious
effect on the Ottomans, the Persians, the Afghans, since much of the
revenues of these states came from the India trade. It also seriously
impacted the revenues of the Mughals, and while the activities of the
Arab and Gujarati traders were not entirely eliminated, their trade
was much curtailed, and largely reduced to the inter-Asian trade which
continued unabated. In any case, the Mughal state was unable to resist
centrifugal forces and rapidly disintegrated. This left the East India
Company with considerably more leverage and emboldened it to expand
its activities, and demand even greater concessions from Indian
rulers.

But even as the Indian rulers were granting more concessions, there
was a rising chorus of voices bemoaning the loss of "European" silver
to Asia. At the end of the 17th century, the silk and wool merchants
of France and England were unwilling to put up with the competition
from Indian textiles which had become the rage in the new bourgeoisie
societies of Europe. Not only did they seek bans on such trading
activities of the East India Company, they also sought and won
restrictions on the purchase of these items in their respective
nations. These prohibitions, while not entirely eliminating the
smuggling of such items, nevertheless squeezed out most of the trade,
impacting the revenues of the regional Indian states that had only
recently broken off from the centralized Mughal state and Bengal was
the first to face the consequences.

Having lost the opportunity to profit from the Indian textile trade,
the East India Company was not hesitant in changing character. In
1616, Sir Thomas Roe, an envoy of the East India Company had declared
to the Mughals that war and trade were incompatible. But already in
1669 (even before the bans on the textile trade), Gerald Ungier, chief
of the factory at Bombay had written to his directors: " The time now
requires you to manage your general commerce with the sword in your
hands" In 1687 came the reply from the directors, advocating a Goa
like British dominion in India. The French Dupleix was more or less of
similiar view. Still earlier, in 1614, the Dutch Jan Pieterzoon Coen,
had written to his directors: "Trade in India must be conducted and
maintained under the protection and favour of your weapons, and the
weapons must be supplied from the profits enjoyed by the trade, so
that trade cannot be maintained without war or war without
trade." (from Auguste Toussaint's: History of the Indian Ocean)

The Opium Trade of the 18th century (which eventually led to the Opium
Wars) , when the Royal British Navy worked more or less hand in hand
with the commercial interests of the East India Company, exemplified
precisely such a link between war and trade. From the intertwining of
war and trade, colonization was only a small step away. Plassey was a
portentious indicator of a new dynamic in Indo-British relations.

Contrary to the views of several apologists for colonial rule, who
still argue that the defeat of India had solely to do with "congenital
flaws" or the centuries old "ennui" or " weak character of the Asian",
or the "inability of the Indians (and other Asians) to govern
themselves", R. Mukerji (in Rise and Fall of the East India Company)
advanced a different thesis . He argued that there were compelling
economic imperatives that drew the European India Companies into the
path of imperialism. He pointed out that although monopoly rights
assured the India Companies of the exclusive privileges of buying and
selling, it did not guarantee that they could buy cheap. For that,
political control was essential.

A second problem for the East India Company was that their profits
were in direct conflict with those of their British-based competitors.
Under these circumstances, as long as the profit motive was paramount
(which it was), the Battle at Plassey, and the Opium Wars could be
seen as logical outcomes of circumstances where continued profits by
legal and honorable means were simply not possible. But, had the East
Company comprised of "Gentlemen Traders" as some historians have
claimed, they could not have switched so easily from trading in Indian
Textiles, to trading in Opium for Tea which, in modern language -
would surely be described as a form of "drug-running"! Had the traders
of the East India Company been "men of honour", denied the right to
profitable trade, they would have simply gone bankrupt, as so many do
in the world of business!

Yet, what is even more significant is that even after The East India
Company had regained sizeable profits from the Opium trade, it served
as no deterrence to future acts of aggression. It had become like the
proverbial man-eating tiger, that having tasted blood once, would be
driven to tasting it again and again. After Plassey, the East India
Company had been able to force the cultivation of opium in sufficient
quantities in India, and hence, procure sufficient volumes of tea for
the British market, reaping significant profits. Yet, now military
attacks were also to be directed against Indian (and other Asian)
ships engaged in the inter-Asian trade. These attacks were to lay the
ground-work for the battles against the Coromandel rulers and the
Marathas whose revenues from this trade dwindled. While Plassey may
have been a matter of "survival" for the East India Company, the
subsequent battles were not in that category. Some historians tried to
argue that competition with the French precipitated the battles in
South India, but such a view is contradicted by a Frenchman, no less!

Abbe de Pradt, author of "Les Trois Ages des colonies, Paris, 1902"
wrote that with the victory at Plassey and the establishment of
sovereign rights, England had demonstrated to all of Europe that it
was no longer necessary for it to send precious metals obtained from
the "New World" to India. She could trade on the basis of revenue
acquired from taxing subjects and commodities, whereas other European
countries had to trade at a "loss", with "metal currency". The
extension of English sovereignty in India, would exempt Europe from
sending capital into India. Specifically, Abbe de Pradt wrote: " the
people who have enough control over India to reduce substantially the
exportation of European metallic currency into Asia rule there as much
for Europe's benefit as for their own; their empire is more common
than particular, more European than British; as it expands, Europe
benefits, and each of their conquests is also a real conquest for the
latter." Chastizing European opponents of the British conquest, he
wrote: "all the sound and fury now echoing across Europe about
England's hegemony in India are the shrieks of a blind delirium, as an
anti-European uproar; it might be thought that England was taking away
from every European state what it was conquering from those of Asia,
whereas, on the contrary, every part of Asia that she takes for
herself, she, by that very fact, takes for Europe."

In fact, this view tallies quite closely with the observations of
several later analysts who found it paradoxical that inter-European
rivalries and conflicts reduced in the 18th century when compared to
the 17th century, and decreased still further after Plassey. In
essence, the race for the colonization of India had been won by the
British, and what Abbe de Pradt was saying was that it was in French
interest to enjoy the "general" benefits of this victory and not
bemoan the loss of "specific" benefits from the British victory.

N.K Sinha, author of an "Economic History of Bengal" summarizes the
situation in these words: "For more than two centuries the Europeans
had found that the trade with Bengal whether carried on by companies
or by the individual free traders or by illicit means had always been
so much in favor of Bengal that the balance had to be supplied in
cash. Now after Plassey supplies were at last found in Bengal " by
means independence of commerce" - referring to the forced taxes that
were extracted by the East India Company from the people of Bengal.

He continues: "The trade of the country merchant began to stagnate.
Armenian, Mughal, Gujarati and Bengali merchants found their free
trade daily fettered and loaded." The export, import, and manufacture
of goods moved from the hands of independant Indian merchants to
intermediaries hired by the British East India Company. Often this
required force. Sepoys of the East India Company were sent to destroy
the factories owned by Indian rivals to the East India Company.
Independent weavers who refused to work for the pitiful wages that the
East India Company offered had their thumbs cut off. After Plassey,
the East India Company also moved to impose it's monopoly on the
internal over-land trade. In a matter of three decades after Plassey,
the East India Company achieved a virtual stranglehold on the economic
and political life of Eastern India.

Just as Abbe de Pradt had predicted, the benefits of colonization did
not go exclusively to the British. French, Dutch and Danish rivals
were also able to take advantage of the trade monopoly established by
the British East India Company. With the decline of the Indian
merchants, they were able to buy Indian goods at lower prices.
Secondly, corrupt employees of the British East India Company engaged
in considerable price gouging, cheating and local thuggery. They
preferred to repatriate this illegally acquired wealth from India
through French and Dutch rivals to escape detection of their cheating
and to avoid taxes and customs duties in Britain. Even as Indian
rivals to the British East India were wiped out, European rivals
continued to survive and flourish for another 30-40 years.

The American Furber who published his research on the East India
Company in 1948 (in Cambridge, Mass.) pointed out that its French and
Dutch rivals continued operating until 1769 and 1798. He also
indicates that it was a very cosmopolitan association. At least one-
fifth of its nominal capital of pound 3,200,00 was in Dutch hands, and
a large proportion of that capital came from financiers in Amsterdam,
Paris, Copenhagen, and Lisbon, who were also directly concerned in the
company's affairs. Furber noted that the commercial activity of the
French, the Dutch, and the Danes in the Indian Ocean during the
eighteenth century clearly showed that "the time had arrived when
Europeans at home or overseas who had a stake in the maintenance of
European power anywhere on the Indian continent were one and all
forced to take part in the work of building a British empire in
India". What Furber was pointing out was not only the substantial and
cosmopolitan nature of the backing the East India Company enjoyed, but
also the motivations and direct self-interest of its backers.

Thus, Plassey was to be only the first of several assaults that no
regional Indian power was able to fend off successfully. While united
India had largely held off the Europeans, and divided India had
temporarily held off divided Europe, divided India was no match for
united Europe. The conquest of India continued with conclusive defeats
of the Marathas in 1818, the Sikhs in 1848 and the annexation of Awadh
in 1856. 1857 was a brave attempt to rollback the victories of the
East India Company, but instead it now brought on the might of the
entire British imperial government. The Indian colonies of the British
East India Company became British Colonial India - and so began a new
phase of colonial plunder from the sub-continent. A phase that saw
constant challenges to British hegemony in the region, but it was not
till 1947 that a new era could be ushered.

Hence, for almost 200 years, there was a systematic transfer of wealth
from India to Europe. Although Britain may have been the primary
beneficiary, it's allies in Europe and the new world benefited no
less. British Banks used their Indian capital to fund industry in the
US, Germany and elsewhere in Europe. The industrial revolution and the
development of modern capitalism was based on the colonization of
India and the rest of the world. It was the forced pauperization of
the colonized world that allowed nations such as Britain, or the US to
industrialize and "modernize". Any serious analysis of modern
capitalism must take this into account.

Other References: For a detailed and more insightful account of the
East India Company's activities and relationship with European rivals
in Bengal see N.K. Sinha's Economic History of Bengal - From Plassey
to the Permanent Settlement (Calcutta, 1956)

References to the connection between the African Slave Trade and the
European Trading Companies operating in Asia can also be found in an
on-line essay by Robert Harms in YaleGlobal, 9 May 2003: Trips around
the world were essential for sustaining slavery.

Also see Richardson, David: Liverpool and the English Slave Trade

Also, Porter, Roy: English Society in the Eighteenth Century, Penguin,
1982:

"Slaves were the precious life-blood of the West Indian economy, where
King Sugar reigned, and in which £70 million had been invested by
1790. Under the asiento British slave-traders transported a million
and a half Africans during the century: 'All this great increase in
our treasure,' wrote Joshua Gee in 1729, 'proceeds chiefly from the
labour of negroes in the plantations.' "

Related Essays:

European Domination of the Indian Ocean Trade

Historic Aspects of Craft and Trade in India

The Colonial Legacy - Some Myths and Popular Beliefs

For other topics concerning the colonization of India, see Index of
Topics

Notes:

Asia's role in World Trade is explored through an interesting
collection of links at the Department of History at the University of
Auckland.

See Asia as the Hub of World Trade

In particular see two articles by Andre Gunder Frank:

Asian Based World Economy: 1400-1800

Asia Comes Full Circles in a Round World

http://india_resource.tripod.com/eastindia.html

Seals and Insignias of East India Company

The Secret Trade The basis of the monopoly.

Trading Places - a learning resource from the British Library

http://www.bl.uk/learning/histcitizen/trading/tradingplaces.html

Trading Places: The East India Company and Asia, a free seminar from
the British Library on the history of the British East India Company.

Trading Places: The East India Company and Asia
Fathom

Seminar Introduction
In December 1602 two small ships of the recently founded English East
India Company sailed into the port of Bantam. Their arrival on the
northern coast of the Indonesian island of Java established the first
trading post of the commercial enterprise that dominated trade between
Britain and Asia until the early nineteenth century. Not only was the
East India Company the foundation stone of the British Empire in India
and beyond, it was also the catalyst of important cultural changes at
home. Tea from China was one of the company's key contributions to
life in Britain, as were a variety of spices from the Banda islands
and exotic textiles from India.
In this seminar, Anthony Farrington, consultant to a major exhibition
at The British Library in London and author of the accompanying book
Trading Places, outlines the history of the East India Company and
sketches its central place in the commercial links between Britain and
Asia. In an interview and extracts from his book, he describes the
seventeenth-century spice wars with the Dutch, explores the growth of
the textile trade with India, and considers how both tea and porcelain
contributed to the British economy. In 1813, for example, customs duty
on tea accounted for one-tenth of the British government's annual
revenue. The tale of the East India Company is a fascinating
combination of economic, cultural and personal histories, and of
individual and imperial ambitions. Many aspects of life in Britain
today are closely linked with the story that began in Bantam 400 years
ago.

Learning Objectives

Identify the key factors that brought about the formation of the
English East India Company.
Outline the key events in Britain's seventeenth-century spice wars
with the Dutch.
Account for the emergence of the textile trade between Britain and
Mughal India.
Outline the development of the import to Britain of tea and porcelain
from China.
List aspects of British life today that were shaped by the activities
of the East India Company.

Sessions

Session 1 The Beginnings of the English East India Company

Trading Places: The East India Company and Asia
Fathom

The Beginnings of the English East India Company

The Company of Merchants of London trading into the East Indies was
founded by a charter from Queen Elizabeth I on 31 December 1600,
following more than a year of political negotiations and finance
raising. The charter named 218 subscribers to the new enterprise,
which was granted a monopoly of all English trade in any lands lying
east from the Cape of Good Hope to the Straits of Magellan--in other
words, the whole of Asia and the Pacific.

Spices were the spur for this merchants' venture. They gave taste and
flavour to otherwise bland foods, they were mixed, blended and
distilled into medicines and perfumes, and their rarity made them
extremely valuable.

The British Library

Sir Thomas Smythe, first governor of the East India Company, engraved
by Simon de Passe, London, 1616. (BL shelf-mark OIOC P1489)

Trading in them offered the possibility of making a fortune.

Fathom: Can you describe the formation of the East India Company?

Anthony Farrington: The Company really began as a London reaction to
what the Dutch had started to do. Most Asian goods coming into London,
principally spices, were coming through the medium of the Levant
Company, which had been in existence from the late Elizabethan period
and was trading to a lot of the world of the eastern Mediterranean.
Spices and other Asian goods were coming up through the Red Sea,
carried by Arab and Persian traders into the Western world to be re-
distributed. All of a sudden, this Levant trade is seen to be under
threat, because the Dutch are imitating the Portuguese and have begun
to go round the Cape and bring goods directly into Amsterdam,
Rotterdam and the other ports. Pepper is suddenly worth a quarter of
what it was before. So it's no coincidence that in the first
subscription--that is, the first proposal that is floated in the City
of London for having an English East India Company--nearly a quarter
of the initial listed names are actually Levant merchants. They are
diversifying in the face of a potential commercial threat.

Fathom: Are they also responding to political concerns?

AF: No. There's not a sense of national purpose. There was perhaps
more of that in the Dutch voyages. The Dutch were engaged in this
horrific struggle for independence with the Spaniards and, by
extension, their fellow Catholic Portuguese. Portugal and Spain are
united in 1580, anyway, so from 1580 the ships and the whole Asian
trade of Portugal becomes fair game for these emerging northern
merchants.

Fathom: What is the monopoly that the English East India Company is
granted?

AF: It takes about 12 months to get the whole thing together, and the
subscription is widened to more than 200 merchants and city figures.
Then they apply to the Crown for a chartered monopoly. This simply
means that this is going to be the only English organisation that is
allowed to trade into Asia. You don't put up that kind of risk capital
without ensuring you minimise the risk as far as possible and making
sure there are no rivals. h all the chartered companies of the late
Elizabethan period. The Muscovy Company and the Levant Company also
have similar charters of monopoly.

Fathom: Why does Elizabeth I grant the monopoly?

AF: It has to be good for the common wealth. What's in it for the
Crown--apart from rarities and exotic goods, and prestige because
you're going to be sending letters to unknown princes who are going to
give you presents--is that there's going to be a regular flow of
dutiable stuff into the Port of London. The customs revenues were
tremendously important.

Fathom: How are the first voyages organised?

AF: They are financed as separate voyages. The first voyage leaves in
February 1601, and like all the early voyages it's intended for
Indonesia, for pepper and fine spices. They have quite a horrendous
journey though. They are becalmed on the Equator, it takes them a long
time to get down to the Cape of Good Hope. By the time the four ships,
which have got 500 men on board, get to the tip of South Africa, 100
of them are already dead. They make a couple of landfalls for
provisions, including Madagascar, and then their first Asian port is
at the tip of Sumatra. Eventually they reach Bantam in 1602, and leave
behind a small group of merchants and assistants.

But the Dutch had got there before them. The first Dutch voyage was in
1595, and the whole Dutch effort was tremendously capitalised in
comparison with the English. Something like five times as much money
went into the initial capital of the United East India Company. The
Dutch were already great merchant seamen in European waters and,
before the break with the Catholic south, the Spanish Netherlands had
been doing all the carrying trade out of Lisbon. So they already had
developed quite a lot of expertise in Asian commodities. And then also
they had got a stranglehold on the Baltic trade--herrings and tar and
pitch from northern Europe.

Fathom: How does the financing work for the first voyages?

AF: For the first 10 years, each voyage is counted as a separate
venture, so just as there is a subscription list for the founding of
the company, there is a subscription list for each of the first 12
voyages.
The British Library

Detail from the first subscription list for the English East India
Company, 22 September 1599. (BL shelf-mark OIOC B/1, f.6)

Theoretically, when the ships came back with their cargo, the cargo
was auctioned and then the shareholders in that particular voyage were
paid out. By 1615, there was a clumsiness to this operation. What
relationship and responsibilities do, say, the men who were left in
Asia by voyage number three have to the activities of voyage number
five? It was all getting ridiculously complicated. The bookkeeping was
becoming a nightmare. By 1615, they amalgamated into a single joint
stock, and really this is the beginning of a modern concept of
shareholdings and dividends.

We have to remember, in terms of the trade in Asia, the Company's
trade is a fleabite. We think it's important because of all the things
that, with hindsight, we know happened as a result of these European
incursions in Asia. Even for the mighty Portuguese, with their forts
along East Africa and their base at Goa, it's a fleabite. The total
value in Asian trade is enormous, but Asian trade is an internal
economy and these newcomers are just unimportant.

Fathom: Does the Company try to muscle in on part of that internal
trade?

AF: They try to imitate the patterns of trade and the patterns of
success that they see. They did, of course, have one difference, one
advantage. On the whole, Asian trading was peaceful. The Company were
turning up in heavily armed ships that could hold their own against
any Asian shipping that we know of. And, at the end of the day, they
were prepared to enforce their concept of free trade with guns.

If they felt that they were not being allowed a fair crack of the
whip, they could retaliate against the whole trade of a particular
port by blockading it. The men on land were always vulnerable; the sea
gives a kind of freedom of action. So in various disputes--for
instance, with the Mughal authorities--if there's a dispute on land,
and the men of the English factory find themselves thrown into prison--
which happened on occasion--then the ships would immediately strangle
the trade of the port, which brings people to negotiate.

Fathom: Are the English trying to take their own goods out there?

AF: Yes, but not with a lot of success. They are under pressure, of
course, from the home country. England's main manufacture is this
wonderful quality, heavy woollen cloth, called broadcloth, and great
fortunes were founded on this cloth.

The British Library

The arms used by the East India Company until 1709, from a plaster
cast of a ceiling boss in Poplar Chapel, East London. (BL shelf-mark
OIOC F859)

Think of the prosperity and wealth of areas like Yorkshire, East
Anglia and Gloucestershire in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries.
It's England's primary export: it's largely exported out into northern
Europe through the wool staple, going to the Hanseatic ports, and big
money is being made in this trade.

Fathom: But there is not much of a market for heavy woollen cloth in
east Asia?

AF: Absolutely. The broadcloth--which is wonderful quality and very
expensive--found a small niche market. It's such fine quality, it's
always useful as a present, even if what you do is put it on the
floor. You are certainly not going to wear it. It found a little niche
market in Japan; even now, you can find specimens of English
broadcloth lining the boxes in which sets of samurai armour are kept.
The bright red colour turned out to be quite popular for furnishing
Chinese temples, because red is a lucky colour. They even managed to
sell some in the Yemen, where they were trading for coffee. The
supposition there is that it was used mainly to line the insides of
wealthy men's tents and as blankets for camels. But you're not going
to get rich exporting broadcloth.

Fathom: Did the subscribers get rich? Is the East India Company a
successful commercial enterprise?
AF: It's enormously successful. After the Act of Union in 1707, it
becomes Britain's single most successful enterprise. By the eighteenth
century, it's head and shoulders above anything else. It becomes the
biggest single employer in London.

Fathom: When you were setting out, particularly in the early days,
what chances have you got of coming back? How risky are the voyages?

AF: Ship loss is always dramatic, and especially by the end of the
seventeenth century, when you've got greater literacy, the beginnings
of popular pamphleteering, it always excites public interest. But ship
loss is actually quite small. One of the things I've done is a great
catalogue of all the ships' logs. I calculate that about 4,600
separate ship's sailings took place from London over the 200 plus
years, and out of those only 5 percent ended in disaster. Nor was
disaster always shipwreck. Sometimes the ship gets set on fire because
some fool drops a candle next to the gunpowder barrels, this type of
thing. So it's actually a fairly rare occurrence, although it's always
horrible when it happens. And of course after the first 12 voyages the
risk is minimised anyway, because it's a joint stock.

The real problem is disease. Again, putting it into context, life is a
problem in the seventeenth century. If you're living in London the
sanitary conditions that breed disease are not very different from
those in the southern hemisphere, it's just the climate that tends to
make things worse. Also, you're going to an area where you've got
different immunities.

The British Library

Letter from King James I to an Asian ruler, carried in the East India
Company's sixth voyage in 1619. (BL shelf-mark Add.Ch.56456)

Going into the tropics you're encountering things you've never met
before. The very first voyage left three merchants at Bantam; only one
of them survived, the first two died within seven or eight months. And
this is a normal pattern. You could expect to lose at least a third of
the overseas personnel in any given year.

As well as the waterborne sanitation-linked diseases, like cholera and
typhoid, you've got the ravages of malaria, and then there are all the
terrible things that are done to the human body by excessive drinking.
Drink played a very, very large part in the lives of most European
people well into the eighteenth century. That's the culture. Water is
not fit to drink and, of course, particularly in Southeast Asia, there
are attractive new spirits to discover--arak, toddy--and the
quantities consumed are really quite amazing. They also stuck to a
terrible diet, as far as one can tell, particularly the men at the
level of the seamen, the working-class guys. Even in harbour they
would be eating away at mostly salt pork and they objected to being
given rice.

Fathom: How do monarchy and parliament regard the Company's success?
Is it seen increasingly as an imperial adventure?

AF: The imperial aspirations only enter the picture much later; that's
a long way in the future. They're happy to have the revenue coming in.
There are hiccups, obviously, in the civil war period, simply because
London finds itself caught between the King and Parliament, and trade
in general declines. But the company survives. Cromwell seems to be
that much more outwardly aggressive: He really starts to think about
Britain's pride. There is the war against the Dutch, which is partly
reflecting Dutch claims and aggression towards the English in
Southeast Asia, and English counterclaims to freedom of the seas. But
certainly by the end of the seventeenth century, the Company is just
running a very, very successful private enterprise, which has fixed
assets in the form of houses and warehouses, and a couple of
fortifications in Asia. And if you hold the shares, it's a very safe,
regular dividend investment. By the eighteenth century, it's like
gilts--it's as safe as houses.

This session is adapted from an interview with Anthony Farrington
conducted in May 2002.

http://www.fathom.com/course/21701760/session1.html

East India Company and Asia
Fathom

Sessions
Session 2
Session 1 Session 3


Spices and the Dutch

The Dutch arrived at Bantam in 1596, six years before the English--a
pattern that was to be repeated for the next 80 years. Their United
East India Company, or VOC, of 1602 began with 10 times the capital of
the English East India Company and easy access to the manpower of
North Germany and the Baltic.
The British Library
Plan of Bantam, from Historie van Indien by Willem Lodewijckszoon,
published at Amsterdam in 1598. Lodewijckszoon's book describes the
first Dutch voyage to the East Indies between 1595 and 1597. (BL shelf-
mark 1858.a.1 (1))
Almost everywhere the English Company went in its efforts to purchase
Asian goods at source and to compete alongside existing Asian networks
of trade, it found the Dutch already there, with more ships, more men,
more money and a far more focused national purpose. As early as 1601
the Dutch had demonstrated what lay ahead when they smashed a
Portuguese fleet in a full-scale naval battle in the Bay of Bantam.
Portuguese merchants, whose pepper purchases had been important in the
growth of Bantam, abandoned the city.

Cloves sold in Europe for at least three times the price of pepper.
Nutmegs and mace were even more expensive. It soon became clear that
the newly formed VOC intended a complete take-over of the European
trade in fine spices and that it would do whatever necessary to
squeeze out the English Company and the remnants of Iberian influence.
The method was both simple and ruthless--to seize control of the
sources of production. The spice islands of the Banda group (Lontor,
Neira, Api, Ai and Run), the intervening Buru, Ceram and Amboina, and
the Moluccas (Batjan, Makian, Tidore and Ternate) were ruled by
independent local kings and chieftains, most of them hostile to each
other. The VOC embarked on the classic ploy of offering 'protection'
against all enemies to individual rulers in return for treaties
guaranteeing that their spice crops would be sold only to the Dutch.
Selling to others was a breach of treaty, justifying immediate armed
occupation. In 1605 the VOC built a massive fort on the clove island
of Amboina, from 1607 the Sultan of Ternate was their puppet, and in
1609 came another large fort on Banda Neira.


The British Library Map showing the spice islands and the nearby
trading world of the seventeenth century. Buru lies to the east of
Ceram with the Banda group of tiny islands due south in the Banda Sea.
Map drawn for Trading Places by John Mitchell.
War with the Dutch
English trading attempts were routinely obstructed by Dutch ships,
forts and garrisons. They were unable to offer effective counter-
protection to the spice producers; indeed any promises made were soon
broken and served as pretexts for Dutch reprisals against the island
populations. In October 1616, in desperation at what had happened to
their world, the Bandanese of Run ceded their island to the English
Crown. The VOC moved from threats to open hostilities. Seven English
ships were captured and the Company's chief commander, John Jourdain,
was killed on the deck of his ship off Pattani by a Dutch sharpshooter
during truce negotiations in July 1619.

In the same year, the VOC's newly appointed Governor General, Jan
Pieterszoon Coen, took the decision to make their small post at
Jacatra, east of Bantam, the main rendezvous for Dutch trade. Javanese
resistance was crushed, Jacatra was destroyed, and the castle and city
of Batavia began to take shape. Batavia, now Jakarta the capital of
Indonesia, became the headquarters of the VOC's operations throughout
Asia, in imitation of Portuguese Goa. ion of 8,000. Soldiers, overseas
Chinese settlers, migrants from Europe, and slaves bought in
Madagascar, India and the islands poured in to create a Dutch colonial
settlement.

Meanwhile the English Company had finally managed to put together a
large fleet of 15 ships and was prepared to challenge the VOC. But
just as a naval battle was imminent, news arrived in March 1620 that
agreement had been reached in Europe for the two Companies to share
purchases and expenses in Asia. It reached far-away Run too late to
prevent the surrender of the island to the Dutch of Banda Neira, after
a siege of more than four years.

A period of half-hearted co-operation ensued. Under the terms of the
agreement the English moved from Bantam to Batavia. An ironically
misnamed Anglo-Dutch Fleet of Defence came together to attack
Portuguese shipping off the west coast of India and to blockade
Spanish Manila, where the opportunity was also taken to plunder
Chinese junk traffic. Such co-operation was, of course, totally at
odds with Coen's designs and in any case proved short-lived. The
English Company could not sustain its share of the expenses and the
status of Run remained in dispute, while in 1622 the VOC ships in the
combined East Asia fleet launched their own separate, though
unsuccessful, attempt to capture Macao.

Outrage on Amboina
Worse was to follow. In February 1623 Gabriel Towerson, English chief
on the clove island of Amboina, and nine other Company servants
(together with nine Japanese samurai mercenaries, some of them from
Hirado, and a Portuguese) were executed by the Dutch Governor Herman
van Speult on a charge of conspiracy to seize the fort there. The
proceedings were marked by horrific tortures to extract confessions
and it is likely that the `plot' was a convenient fabrication designed
to drive the English permanently out of the spice islands. The news
caused uproar in Europe. Pamphlets replete with gory frontispieces and
titles beginning A true relation of the unjust, cruell and barbarous
proceedings against the English appeared in London, to be refuted in
turn by publications from Amsterdam, but the affair was never settled
and joined that of Run to bedevil Anglo-Dutch relations for two
generations. Soon after the English Company withdrew from Japan and
mainland Southeast Asia. An attempt to settle on the island of Lagundy
in the Straits of Sunda in 1624 was thwarted by disease and it was not
until 1628 that the English shook themselves free from Dutch
supervision and moved back to Bantam.

The British Library The great market at Bantam, from Lodewijckszoon,
1598. The engraving is accompanied by a key in Dutch which includes:
H Stalls for all kinds of spices and drugs
L Meat stalls
R Rice market
S The place where merchants meet
(BL shelf-mark 1486.gg.18)

Access to the spice islands was now firmly closed. The English
concentrated on the pepper trade of Bantam and southern Sumatra, while
at the same time opening contact for fine spices with Makassar, on the
southwestern arm of Sulawesi, whose intrepid Bugis seafarers continued
to visit the islands in defiance of the Dutch. This loophole was not
closed until 1667, when the VOC occupied Makassar and forced its ruler
to exclude all other Europeans.

Bantam and Batavia continued an uneasy relationship, punctuated by the
VOC capture of Malacca in 1641 and the three Anglo-Dutch Wars of
1652-54, 1665-67 and 1672-74. Whatever their outcomes in Europe, in
Asia the English invariably saw their ships captured and their Bantam
trade interrupted. The Treaty of Breda at the end of the second war
did, though, resolve the problem of Run. In return for the British
Crown relinquishing its claim to Run, the Dutch handed over their New
Netherlands settlement, based on the island of Manhattan, which had
long been an irritant to the colonialists of New England.

The final VOC triumph came in 1682. Abu‘l Fatah, the 'old' Sultan of
Bantam, who had resigned his throne under pressure from his son,
Sultan Abdul Kahar, two years before, resumed the government by force.
Fulfilling one of the conditions for Dutch assistance, the English
factory was ordered out and its personnel evacuated Bantam on 11
April. News of their expulsion reached London in mid-March 1683.
Preparations to meet force with force began but were soon abandoned,
and it looked as if the VOC would succeed in excluding its rival from
the trade in Indonesian pepper as well as fine spices.

The importance of pepper
Pepper had been the most important single commodity of the Company's
trade for most of the seventeenth century. The quantities imported
were enormous, for instance more than 3,175,200 kgs in 1677, and much
of what was sold in London was re-exported to markets as far away as
Poland, Russia and the Ottoman Empire. Although profit margins were
small, the sheer volume of the trade coupled with its historic
associations as the 'foundation commodity' made the English determined
to keep market share as a matter of national pride and a sign of
resistance to the VOC's ambitions.

Most of the pepper shipped from Bantam originated in southern Sumatra.
Efforts to find an alternative regular supply were now concentrated
there. In 1685 the English negotiated a settlement at Benkulen, on the
southwest coast near the important pepper-collecting area of Silebar.
Despite Dutch attempts to intimidate the local Rajas under cover of
suzerainty claims by their client Sultan of Bantam, pepper began to
come in--the ship Williamson loaded 226,800 kgs of the spice in
October 1689. After an 80-year history of broken promises to local
rulers in Indonesia, the English had finally come to stay. Benkulen,
supplemented by supplies from Malabar and later from Madras, remained
a major source of pepper throughout the eighteenth century, regularly
sending between 453,600 and 907,200 kgs per year to London. In 1825
the settlement was handed over to Dutch control in exchange for
Malacca.

By the end of the seventeenth century the balance between the two
Companies began to shift. It was the English, under their new Dutch
king, William III, who were more enterprising, aggressive and self-
confident, while Holland's real position as a small country facing
competition on all fronts from much larger neighbours was becoming
apparent. The reasons for the `decline' of the VOC have been much
debated and have been variously attributed to the corruption of its
servants, the growing conservatism of its Directors, and the loss of
its edge in shipbuilding. Following the catastrophic effects on Dutch
seaborne trade of the fourth Anglo-Dutch War of 1780--84 and then the
French Revolutionary invasion of the Netherlands, the VOC was
dissolved on 31 December 1795. Certainly with hindsight its
concentration on Indonesia and its Batavia headquarters proved to be a
mistake. Wealth and power lay elsewhere in Asia, as the English were
soon to discover.

This session is adapted from pp.48--53 of Trading Places: The East
India Company and Asia 1600-1834 by Anthony Farrington, published by
The British Library, 2002.

http://www.fathom.com/course/21701760/session2.html


Trading Places: The East India Company and Asia
Fathom

Sessions
Session 3
Session 2 Session 4


Textiles from India

Although the English arrived at Surat in 1608, it was several years
before a permanent factory was established. The long presence of the
Portuguese on the west coast of India, pre-dating Mughal control, made
unhampered access for other Europeans more problematical than on the
east or 'Coromandel' coast, or at the open port of Bantam.

Surat, the outlet for the textile manufactures of Gujurat and the
embarkation point for the annual Haj pilgrimage, was the most
important centre for the overseas trade of the Mughal Empire. As well
as providing textiles to be exchanged for pepper and spices in
Southeast Asia, it offered the possibility of participating in and
imitating existing trade networks westwards to Persia, a source of raw
silk, and into the Red Sea, where Egyptian and Turkish merchants made
annual purchases of Gujarati textiles with silver. Surat was also, of
course, the first major Asian port city within reach of ships rounding
the Cape of Good Hope.

The British Library The Delhi Gate of the Red Fort at Agra, by an
Indian artist, early nineteenth century. The Mughal emperor Shah Jahan
established Delhi as his capital and built the Red Fort in 1638 to
house the imperial court. (BL shelf-mark OIOC Add.22716)

Existing arrangements between the Mughal local authorities and the
Portuguese, who held a string of fortified bases along the coast north
from Goa, backed up by regular naval patrols, were not to be easily
overturned. The English had to demonstrate that they could be even
more of a menace at sea and that they were capable of defeating
Portuguese attacks. This they proceeded to do over the next few years.
Sir Henry Middleton plundered the Red Sea shipping in the summer of
1612 and Portuguese fleets were beaten off with great loss, within
sight of Surat, in December 1612 and January 1615. Even so, the Mughal
authorities would not finally admit the English without Imperial
permission, which led to a remarkable series of early contacts with
the Mughal court.

The magnificence of the Mughals
Babur, a Turkic adventurer who claimed descent from the Mongol
conqueror Timur or Tamerlaine and who had gained control over
Afghanistan, invaded India in the mid-1520s. At his death in 1530 the
new arrivals had established a loosely knit empire extending from
Kabul to the borders of Bengal. mselves 'Mughal' or 'Mongol', the
first generations spoke Turkish. Their successors adopted the Persian
language and culture to create perhaps the world's most civilised
centre of power, albeit ruthless, filled with all the magnificence and
luxury that Asia could supply.

Babur's grandson Akbar, who occupied the throne from 1556 to 1605,
consolidated Mughal rule over the whole of northern India, taking in
Sind, Kashmir, Gujarat, Rajasthan, Orissa and Bengal, forming a
partnership with the Hindu Rajputs to govern through a centralised
bureaucracy with officers of state and provincial authorities under
his personal direction. More open-minded than most contemporaries,
Akbar married a Rajput princess, invited Jesuits, Brahmins, Jains and
Zoroastrians to religious discussions, and abolished the poll tax that
had customarily been levied on non-Muslims. Throughout his life he had
a love of painting, maintaining artists at his court who produced
illustrated manuscripts of Persian classics, Indian texts, histories,
biographies, portraits and, to satisfy his curiosity about the outside
world, copies of European prints and depictions of European manners
and customs. Akbar's son Jahangir (reigned 1605-27) continued the
tradition of artistic patronage, priding himself as a connoisseur of
painting and thereby offering a fascinating opening for the first
English diplomatic exchanges.

William Hawkins, commander of the Hector, left the ship at Surat in
1608 and travelled up to Agra to seek permission for a permanent
trade. Even though he had nothing to offer as presents except
broadcloth, he made a favourable impression on Jahangir, not least
because he could speak Turkish and could match the Emperor's
consumption of wine. Pressed to remain, he was made a captain of 400
horse, he married an Armenian Christian girl chosen by Jahangir and,
dressed as a Muslim nobleman, he took his place among the courtiers.
The British Library
A European lady with a dog, by a Deccani artist, c.1640. (BL shelf-
mark OIOC Johnson 14.7)
Despite such personal standing, a grant of trading privileges was not
forthcoming, so he and his wife left Agra for Surat at the end of
1611, getting on board Middleton's fleet in January 1612. He died
before reaching England. His widow remarried Gabriel Towerson (who was
executed at Amboina in 1623), returned to India with him, and then
elected to remain there among her relatives rather than sail for
Bantam. Her subsequent fate is not recorded.

Gifts to an emperor
While the Company's Directors issued strict injunctions against anyone
following Hawkins' example, reports of Jahangir's artistic tastes now
caused them to address the question `What do you give to an Emperor?'.
The fleet of 1614 carried out 78 oil paintings: 41 of them,
commissioned in London, were portraits of the King, the Queen, Sir
Thomas Smythe, assorted lords, ladies and citizens, and two fanciful
depictions of the 'Great Magoll' and 'Tamberlaine'; the rest, brought
from studios in Rouen, depicted classical and religious subjects like
Mars and Venus, the Judgement of Paris, and Adam and Eve, offering
ample opportunity to portray fair and beautiful women. Such novelties
were gratefully received but failed to secure permission for an
English factory. This had to await the arrival of a 'proper'
ambassador in 1615.

Influenced by the unanimous opinion of its servants on the spot that
mere merchants had little status at the Mughal court, the Company's
Directors persuaded King James I to despatch a special representative
at their expense. The man selected, Sir Thomas Roe, was an established
courtier, a close friend of Prince Henry (until his death in 1612) and
Princess Elizabeth. Roe remained in India for almost three years. His
diary (which is in the British Library's collections) describes the
magnificence and intrigues of Jahangir's court. Roe had plenty of
experience of courts and their conspicuous consumption, but the apex
of the enormous human and natural resources of the Mughal Empire was
another world.

At Ajmer in March 1616 Roe was received in audience by Jahangir. The
Mughal, wearing pure white clothing `adorned with more jewels than any
other monarch in the world', was seated on a throne raised four feet
above the floor, in a hall canopied with hangings of cloth of gold,
silk and velvet, with rich Persian carpets underfoot, and with seven
of the 1614 oil paintings (including the portraits of the King, the
Queen and Sir Thomas Smythe) arranged behind him. It is hard to
imagine the other great Asian empire, Ming China, granting such an
honour to a 'red-haired barbarian'. The outcome of the embassy was not
some formal treaty of commerce between the two rulers, a totally alien
concept that Roe soon had to forget. Instead he received an Imperial
edict or farman assuring good usage of the English, together with a
farman from Prince Khurram, the new Viceroy of Gujarat (who succeeded
as Shah Jahan in 1628), granting favourable conditions of trade at
Surat.

Farmans and forts
The Portuguese position in India had been weakened, though there was
still serious fighting to come. From Surat the English began to
participate in the Red Sea and Persian trades, as well as sending
cargoes of textiles to Bantam. In 1617 Shah Abbas of Persia granted a
farman for English trade at Isfahan and the Gulf port of Jask.
The British Library
Fort William, Calcutta, by George Lambert and Samuel Scott, c.1730.
The painting is one of a set of six views commissioned by the Company
for the Court of Directors' room at East India House in London. (BL
shelf-mark OIOC F45)
In 1619 a new commodity, coffee, was bought at Mokha for sale in
Persia. In 1622 the English Company's ships helped the Persians to
capture the fortress of Hormuz, the key to the Gulf, receiving as
their reward an annual share of the customs revenue of Bandar Abbas,
to where the trade was now transferred.

On the other side of India the 1611 settlement at the Golconda port of
Masulipatam on the Coromandel coast had maintained a fairly
flourishing textile trade to Bantam. In 1639 an invitation to settle
from the naik or local Hindu ruler of the coastal districts around the
small town of Madraspatam, far to the south, was eagerly accepted by
the English Company. As well as granting territory and trading rights,
the naik also licensed the construction of a fortress. Fort St George
at Madras was the first of its kind for the English Company,
comparable to the earlier Portuguese bases and to the VOC's efforts
further east. It was followed by the castle at Bombay, an island
commanding a superb harbour 160 miles south of Surat, ceded to the
Portuguese by the Sultan of Gujarat in 1534. In 1661 it was
transferred to King Charles II as part of the dowry of his Portuguese
bride, Catherine of Braganza. He in turn handed it over to the
Company, who made it their headquarters for India in 1674.

From the 1650s the English had also begun trading in Bengal under a
farman from Shah Jahan, eventually settling their main factory at the
village of Sutanati on the river Hugli, which became the city of
Calcutta. Permission to fortify was granted by the Mughal Nawab of
Bengal in 1696 and Fort William was completed in 1702. At the turn of
the eighteenth century the English presence in India consisted of a
sprinkling of small factories along the west and east coasts, and
inland as far as Patna, plus three strong points at Bombay, Madras and
Calcutta. All owed their existence to Indian permission, partnership
and complicity in the business of making money.

The trade in textiles
What of the textiles that had driven all this effort to the main
production centres of Coromandel, Gujarat and later Bengal? The ready
availability of raw cotton, silk and dyestuffs in all three areas had
stimulated, over centuries, the growth of a village-based hand-loom
industry that gave employment to hundreds of thousands of highly
skilled weavers, dyers and washers, producing enormous quantities of
different kinds of cloth for specific market requirements throughout
Asia. A definitive glossary of types has yet to be compiled.
The British Library
A cloth merchant, seated in his shop, selling chintz to a customer, by
a Tanjore artist, c.1800. (BL shelf-mark OIOC Add.Or.2531)
Among the more familiar are fine muslins, printed or painted chintz
and palampores, plain white baftas, diapers and dungarees, striped
allejaes, mixed cotton and silk ginghams, and embroidered quilts. Some
cloths were patterned in the loom, others had gold or silver threads
woven into them. But the supreme Indian achievements lay in the
mastery of colour-fast dyeing techniques, and the fabulous designs and
colour combinations produced by hand-painting and wood-blocking.
English traders always referred to them as `piece goods'--each piece
was usually about a yard wide (the width of the loom) and between ten
and twenty yards long depending upon type.

Originally intended to facilitate the purchase of pepper and spices in
Indonesia, once the first cargoes of cloth reached England demand at
home grew rapidly--as early as 1620 50,000 pieces of painted and
printed chintz were brought in, while as late as the 1750s Indian
textiles accounted for 60 percent of the total value of the Company's
sales in London. A typical eighteenth-century order, to Bengal for the
season 1730-31, called for 589,000 pieces of 38 different types, sub-
divided into 98 varieties.

Procurement of such quantities followed long-established practice. The
English factors engaged Indian brokers who were paid a fixed
percentage to negotiate and manage contracts with local authorities,
village headmen and weaver families for the delivery of stated numbers
of particular types by specified dates, and who guaranteed the safety
of cash advances by the Company for the purchase of yarn and
dyestuffs. The weavers, the ancillary craftsmen and the cultivators of
the raw materials were at the bottom of the chain. Frequently
devastated by climate, famine and war, they were always subject to
varying degrees of pressure and exploitation, while the landholders,
the brokers and the Company grew rich on their skills.

This session is adapted from pp.54--71 of Trading Places: The East
India Company and Asia 1600-1834 by Anthony Farrington, published by
The British Library, 2002.

http://www.fathom.com/course/21701760/session3.html


Trading Places: The East India Company and Asia
Fathom

Sessions
Session 4
Session 3 Session 5


Trading Tea and Porcelain with China

The English had come into contact with Chinese merchants, middlemen
and migrants throughout Southeast Asia from their earliest days at
Bantam, constantly praising them as a nation peculiarly hardworking
and sober, though terribly addicted to gambling. The maritime trade of
the whole of East Asia, from Japan to Java and Sumatra, was dominated
by Chinese junk traffic. The junks came south in search of pepper and
other spices, Indian textiles, perfumed woods and tree gums (which
formed the essential ingredients of incense), and hundreds of natural
products that were highly prized in Chinese medicine and gourmet
cuisine. They brought silk, silk textiles, porcelain, and economic
migrants. Chinese brokers acted as agents in procuring pepper cargoes
for the Europeans. They were the retail traders, small manufacturers
and spirit distillers of Southeast Asia's port cities.

The British Library The factories at Canton--a detail from an 8-metre-
long scroll of the Pearl River from Whampoa to the city, painted by a
Chinese artist c.1760. The Company's regular trade at Canton in the
eighteenth century concentrated on tea, silk textiles and inexpensive
porcelain. (BL shelf-mark Map Collection K.Top.11623)

A failed venture to Japan between 1612 and 1623 had shattered the
Company's idea of selling Chinese silks bought in Southeast Asia in
return for Japanese silver. But the dream of direct access to the
Chinese mainland, procuring there silks to fuel the inter-Asian trade
and selling English manufactures to the teeming millions of the
Celestial Empire remained an aspiration of the Company's business
schemes.

In the first half of the seventeenth century few of the Chinese goods
available at Bantam and other southern ports were imported into
England. The VOC adopted porcelain as a cargo for Europe and the
fashionable taste for blue and white that is reflected in so many
Dutch paintings of the period was soon established. The English
Company instructed its servants not to meddle with porcelain, though
its use was common in the factories and some employees did make
individual bargains. For instance, in 1619 Sir Thomas Dale sent home
from Batavia a box containing 82 pieces as a present for his brother-
in-law.

Cheng Chih-lung and the Dutch
The problem with direct trade to China was that the Chinese state,
unlike the Mughal Empire, refused to allow any Europeans into its
ports except the Portuguese at their closely supervised enclave of
Macao. Typically, the VOC soon took the offensive. Two years after
their attack on Macao in 1622 the Dutch established themselves near
modern Tainan, on the southwest coast of Taiwan, constructing a huge
castle that they named Fort Zeelandia. The island, inhabited by
aboriginal tribes, was outside Chinese control and had become a
seasonal meeting place for Chinese and Japanese trader-pirates.

Cheng Chih-lung, a protégé of Li Tan, the 'Captain' of the Chinese
trading community in Japan, assisted the Dutch settlement. By the
mid-1630s the powerful junk fleet that he built up was their main
source of Chinese goods and Chinese immigrants, who began to plant
sugar on the island. Fort Zeelandia became the VOC's distribution
centre for East Asia, sending porcelain and sugar south to Batavia,
and silk, sugar and deerskins north to Japan. ed to remain in Japan
after the expulsion of the Portuguese, transferring their factory from
Hirado to the strictly guarded artificial islet of Deshima at
Nagasaki, from where they pursued an increasingly valuable trade in
Japanese copper rather than silver.

In 1644 Manchu invaders from beyond the Great Wall captured Peking and
established the Ch’ing dynasty. Cheng Chih-lung's support for the
refugee Ming court was continued, after he had surrendered to the
Ch’ing, by his half-Japanese son Cheng Ch’eng-kung, immortalised in
East Asian historical legend as `Koxinga', the Dutch version of his
Ming title Kuo-hsing-yeh or 'Lord of the Imperial Surname'. As the
Ch’ing forces swept into southern China, Koxinga held out in the
region around Amoy before transferring his fleet to Taiwan in 1661 and
driving the Dutch out of the island.

English bases at Taiwan and Tonkin
The English Company now re-entered the East Asian scene. In 1670
Koxinga's son Cheng Ching invited the Bantam factory to open trading
relations. The Directors in London were enthusiastic, formulating
another elaborate scheme for inter-Asian trade in the region.
The British Library
Title page of John Ovington's 1699 essay on tea. Ovington became an
early enthusiast for tea when he was Chaplain at Surat between 1689
and 1693. (BL shelf-mark 1651/1509)
The theory this time was that English manufactures could be sold in
Taiwan for sugar and deerskins that could be exchanged in Japan for
copper, which would buy silk textiles in Tonkin (North Vietnam) for
Europe and Japan. Taiwan and Tonkin were opened in 1672, but the
English ship sent to Nagasaki was expelled by the Japanese
authorities.

At Taiwan, operating from the former town hall of the Fort Zeelandia
settlement, the English sold pepper and a small amount of broadcloth--
scarlet was favoured for the furnishings of Chinese temples--together
with large imports of gunpowder, lead, iron and muskets to feed the
Cheng war effort. Between 1674 and 1680 Cheng forces held Amoy again.
English ships were able to trade in a mainland port for the first
time, exporting quantities of silk, porcelain and a new commodity:
tea.

Meanwhile, Tonkin was proving to be an excellent source for locally
produced Chinese-style silk textiles, despite serious difficulties in
coping with the exactions of the Vietnamese mandarinate, 'who would
have the carpet off the table'. Conditions improved slightly when the
factory was moved from the Red River delta trading port of Phô Hien to
modern Hanoi in 1679. A typical order from London to Tonkin, in 1682,
called for 145,000 pieces of various types, including velvets, gauzes,
plain white peelongs, and lengths patterned in the loom with coloured
flowers.

In 1683 Taiwan finally surrendered to the Ch’ing forces, beginning the
process that turned the island into a Chinese province. The English
were allowed to settle their affairs and were even granted renewed
access to Amoy in 1684-85. Now the wars were over the Ch’ing
government relaxed the emergency restrictions that it had imposed on
overseas trade from the ports of South China. An explosion of junk
traffic followed, especially to Batavia. The VOC was able to obtain
all the Chinese commodities it required without any urgent need to go
to China. The English, who no longer had a southern base after their
expulsion from Bantam in 1682, persisted with voyages to the mainland,
mounting them from its Indian factories or directly from London.
Regular visits were made to Chusan, Amoy and Canton, and these were so
successful that the Tonkin factory was closed in 1697.

Consolidation at Canton
The final breakthrough came at the turn of the century. From 1699
English ships traded at the great city of Canton on the Pearl River
almost every year, and from 1715 the Chinese government made Canton
the only port for foreign trade. The English were eventually joined
there by the merchants of the French, Dutch, Austrian (or Ostend),
Danish and Swedish East India Companies, as well as `country' ships
from India and the Americas after 1784. But for once the English
Company was in first and remained leader of the pack.

Conditions of trade at Canton were very different from India.
The British Library
Scene in a tea warehouse at the Canton factories, by a Chinese artist,
c.1800. The Chinese workers are bringing in the straw containers in
which the tea has been transported from the inland growing districts.
They are supervised by Europeans, who are wearing white kerchiefs to
protect their hair from the dust. (BL shelf-mark OIOC Add.Or.4665)
The Chinese state, while projecting a Confucian disdain for foreign
barbarians and their mercantile activities, was well aware that
Europeans could be dangerous. It managed to keep them at a distance
until the 1830s.

The factories at Canton were built on a strip of land between the city
walls and the river front. Europeans were not officially allowed into
the city, though they could take recreation on Honan island in the
river, and they were only permitted to live in the factories during
the annual trading seasons from roughly June to December each year,
leaving when their ships sailed. The ships anchored and received
cargoes downstream, off the island of Whampoa, where they were
required to unload all their guns and powder into Chinese custody.
From 1773 the English Company's servants occupied a fine house at
Macao during the non-trading months, giving them a permanent presence
close to Canton.

Business was controlled, in the taxation interests of the Chinese
state, through close co-operation between the Imperial authorities
under a Peking-appointed official known as the Hoppo, and a limited
number of government-approved wholesalers called the Hong merchants.
All orders for and purchases of the main commodities had to be made
through members of the Hong Guild, at prices negotiated by them with
the up-country suppliers. No single merchant was allowed to provide
more than half of any ship's cargo, but small handicrafts like fans,
lacquerware and paintings could be bought freely from local
shopkeepers.

Chinese interpreters handled communications, in Portuguese at first
and then in a kind of pidgin that came to be known as `port lingo'--it
was the late eighteenth century before any English mastered the
Chinese language, partly because of difficulties in finding any native
speaker willing to risk official disapproval by teaching them. But
demand and profits were such that the trade flourished, whatever the
restrictions. Silver flowed into China in unprecedented quantities.

The wonder of tea
The pre-Canton voyages to ports like Amoy had bought more or less
everything on offer, including fans, porcelain figures of animals and
deities, Japanese porcelain, cabinets and wallpaper. At its December
1696 auction in London, the Company even sold one strange lot of
costumes for a Chinese opera, which brought £56-11s.
The British Library
Advertising handbill for Morgan and Fenning of London, tea dealers,
1791. (BL shelf-mark 1609/5370)
Once the regular trade at Canton was established the Company came to
concentrate on three principal commodities--tea, silk textiles and
inexpensive porcelain. All the 'fancy' goods and special orders, for
example for armorial porcelain or large decorative pieces, were left
to the private trade of their servants and ships' officers. Purchases
of silk textiles declined during the eighteenth century, although they
always formed an important part of the `country' trade from India.

Tea was the new wonder commodity that powered the China trade. Company
servants at Bantam and Hirado had become familiar with the universal
habit of tea-drinking among east Asian society of all classes, even if
the esoterics of the Japanese tea ceremony had eluded them. The tea
leaf in all its varieties, infused in boiling water, was recognised by
the discerning as a more wholesome daily drink than alcohol. It seems
to have been a belief in its health-giving properties, coupled with
its exotic novelty status, that launched tea in the West.

On 25 September 1660 Samuel Pepys drank a 'cupp of tee' for the first
time. Four years later the Company ordered 'one hundred weight of the
best tee procurable' from Bantam, followed by regular orders for small
quantities throughout the 1670s. Why tea became Britain's national
drink in the succeeding years has never been satisfactorily explained.
Demand boomed once the Company had access to Canton, and by the late
eighteenth century tea accounted for more than 60 percent of its total
trade. In 1713 the Company imported 97,070 kgs; in 1813 the total was
almost 14,515,200 kgs, and customs duty on tea was providing 10
percent of the British government's annual revenues. Green varieties
predominated at first, but from the 1760s black tea became the most
popular. Commercial tea cultivation in India and Ceylon was a late
nineteenth-century development. Until then, tea meant China.

The utility of porcelain
Along with tea, the Company also began to import massive quantities of
porcelain. In terms of value and share of the total trade it was not
of any great significance. It was, however, a useful commodity.
Porcelain was cheap, it could be sold for a modest profit and, above
all, it was an ideal non-polluting cargo to accompany the chests of
tea, providing additional ballast for the ships. hinese craftsmen at
the great manufacturing centre of Jingde-zhen near Nanking, long
accustomed to the non-Chinese requirements of markets as far away as
Constantinople, churned out whatever the customer wanted, in any shape
and any pattern.

The Company was not interested in artistic or decorative pieces. Most
of its orders to the Hong merchants fell into the two categories of
dinner services and sets for tea-drinking, either blue and white or in
coloured enamels. They were designed for domestic use, hence the level
of imports. For instance, in 1730 alone the Company brought in over
517,000 pieces, a figure that was maintained throughout the century.
Shipwreck salvage during the last twenty years has revealed, in a way
that archival statistics never could, the staggering scale of Chinese
porcelain exports, and the more humdrum pieces have now taken their
place alongside treasured survivors of the private trade.

As developments in India changed the whole nature of the English East
India Company's position there, it was the China trade that provided
both its continuing commercial justification and the revenues that
bolstered its continuing existence.

This session is adapted from pp.80--97 of Trading Places: The East
India Company and Asia 1600-1834 by Anthony Farrington, published by
the British Library, 2002.


Trading Places: The East India Company and Asia
Fathom

Sessions
Session 5
Session 4


The Impact of the East India Company

The profound changes in the world order that resulted in the
subjection of most of Asia to European colonial rule, economic
domination and varying degrees of political interference began in
India. By 1750 the Mughal Empire was in a state of collapse, although
emperors in name continued to preside over a court at Delhi and to
provide forms of historical legitimacy to events over which they had
no control.
The British Library
European sightseers visiting the Taj Mahal at Agra, by a Mughal
artist, mid-eighteenth century. (BL shelf-mark OIOC Or.2157, f.611v)
During civil wars after 1748 Sind, Gujarat, Oudh and Bengal broke away
from any effective Mughal control.

From trade to empire
The emergence of regional states throughout India brought
opportunities undreamt of by mere traders as the English Company
became a participant in the power politics of the successors to the
empire. France, which had established its Compagnie des Indes in 1664
although it was only a serious player from the 1720s, and Britain
extended their European wars to North America, to the Indian Ocean and
to southern India. Between 1744 and 1761, by which point the French
had been defeated, they confronted each other directly at sea and on
land, and indirectly as allies of rival claimants to the thrones of
Arcot and Hyderabad. The Royal Navy became a presence in the Indian
Ocean. The Company, initially at Madras, raised its own army of Indian
soldiers.

In 1756 Siraj-ud-Daula, the new young Nawab of Bengal, took the
Company's settlement at Calcutta following a refusal to stop
strengthening its fortifications against possible French attack. A
force from Madras under Robert Clive recaptured the city and at
Plassey in June 1757 defeated the Nawab. Mir Jafar, an elderly
general, was installed in his place in return for a personal payment
to Clive of £234,000. Ambition and greed fuelled episodes of king-
making to serve British interests. Mir Jafar was deposed by the
Company in 1760 in favour of the supposedly more pliable Mir Kasim,
who paid £200,000 to the Bengal Council for the privilege. He turned
out not to be so pliable and went to war against the Company in
alliance with the Emperor at Delhi and the ruler of Oudh.

The British victory at Buxar in 1764 was followed in 1765 by the
Treaty of Allahabad, which gave formal Mughal recognition to the
Company's assumption of the diwani of Bengal. A trading company was
now responsible for the civil, judicial and revenue administration of
India's richest province, with some 20 million inhabitants. The
bleeding of Bengal and the process that created the British Raj had
begun. an collaboration at all levels and by the ever-expanding
strength of the Bengal, Madras and Bombay Armies, tens of thousands of
volunteer Indian soldiers commanded by a British officer cadre and
assisted by regular British Army units posted to India at the
Company's expense. The trade continued, but the Company was no longer
a supplicant at Indian courts and ports. Over time the whole economic
structure of the sub-continent came to serve the needs of the new
rulers.

The next 70 years or so have been characterised by recent historians
as the 'hybrid' Raj. The Company's servants, transforming themselves
from merchants into administrators, judges, revenue collectors and
soldiers, eagerly adopted the manners and life styles of their Mughal
predecessors, played out in the Indian-built stuccoed and classical-
columned Palladian mansions of Calcutta, the 'city of palaces', or at
client courts like Lucknow. Administrative, judicial and revenue
responsibilities demanded a deeper knowledge of both Hindu and Muslim
India. Company servants and army officers became the new patrons of
Indian artists and craftsmen, and the intricacies of Indian classical
and modern languages began to be explored.

Back home in Britain
The most visible effects of Asian trade on Britain were, of course,
the gradual evolution of new consumer tastes and the growth of mass
markets for commodities previously unknown. The pepper and spices that
began the trade were nothing new, the English East India Company's
activities simply made them more widely available and affordable. It
was Indian textiles that had the first major impact. Their wonderful
workmanship, colour-fastness and comparative cheapness ensured their
rapid success, and by the second half of the seventeenth century they
were the most valuable part of the Company's trade into London.
The British Library
East India House, Leadenhall Street, London, by Thomas Hosmer
Shepherd, c.1825. The building, opened in 1799, was designed by Robert
Jupp. (BL shelf-mark OIOC WD.2881)
Chintz, muslins and innumerable other varieties were seized upon for
clothing of all kinds, bed covers, hangings, curtains and other house
furnishings.

Welcomed initially as an alternative to linen imports from mainland
Europe, the formidable competition they offered both to traditional
woollen manufactures and to England's growing silk-weaving industry
caused serious agitation in the 1690s. The Company's raw silk imports
from Persia and elsewhere had fed the looms of Huguenot refugees from
France who settled mainly in the Spitalfields area of London and at
Canterbury. The arrival of Chinese-type silk textiles from Tonkin and
then mainland China was seen as such a threat that rioting weavers
attacked East India House in January 1697. In 1700 an alliance of
weavers, dyers, linen-drapers and commercial rivals produced an Act of
Parliament prohibiting the use and wearing of Asian textiles. The
Company's immediate response was to concentrate upon re-export, but
protectionist legislation had little effect against market forces and
the popularity of Asian textiles continued throughout the eighteenth
century.

Crazes for coffee and tea
Coffee was the next commodity to sweep the country. The drink, with
its associated world of the coffee-house, had been encountered by
traders to the Levant. The first coffee-house in London was opened in
1657 by a merchant retired from the Smyrna trade. Within six years
there were 83, rising to almost 500 in London alone by the early
1700s. Coffee-houses became important venues for exclusively male
social and business intercourse, in rooms full of tobacco smoke where
newspapers and pamphlets were freely available. Different
establishments evolved their own particular styles and clienteles.

Thinking Points
Consider the activities of global businesses in the twenty-first
century. What similarities are there with the operations of the
English East India Company?

Are there parallels between the political activities of today's
multinationals and of the Company two centuries ago?


Deals were struck, businesses were founded and political groupings
were forged in the ambience of the coffee-house. But coffee, which was
brought in by the Company from Mokha in the Yemen, was soon overtaken
by the craze for tea and the Company's cargoes were largely re-
exported to coffee-drinking northern Europe.

Tea began as an exotic fashion among the elite that spread through the
whole of Britain. By the late eighteenth century it had become the
universal daily drink of even the poorest industrial and agricultural
workers, taken black and strong, with milk, and cheap sugar from the
West Indies. The leisured classes evolved their own essentially
feminine and domestic version of the `tea ceremony', accompanied by
the new imports of Chinese porcelain--teapots, cups and saucers, sugar
bowls, milk jugs, slop dishes and dainty plates for sugar and spice
confections.

The growing wealth generated by the Company also had an economic and
physical impact on London, by 1700 the largest city in Europe. The
diffused profits of the trade played their part in its great series of
speculative-built expansions westwards into the elegant squares and
terraces successively of Covent Garden, Soho, St James's, Bloomsbury,
Mayfair and St Marylebone, where the products of Asia became the
consumer staples of upper- and middle-class life, and shopping emerged
as a leisure activity. The Company's trade was a major generator of
employment in London. Its massive warehouses loomed over the eastern
side of the city. Its old wooden headquarters in Leadenhall Street was
transformed into a great commercial mansion. Shipbuilding for the
trade, with seamen to man the ships, involved thousands along the
river, and between 1803 and 1806 the ship owners built the East India
Docks at Blackwall.

The British Library 'A view of the East India Docks', by William
Daniell, 1808. The view is taken looking south to the Greenwich
peninsula, with the sweep of the river around the Isle of Dogs at the
right. (BL shelf-mark OIOC P838)

Reaction and regulation
The Company had always needed friends at court and in Parliament, not
least to fight off challenges to its monopoly of trade to Asia.
Opposition in the late seventeenth century that even saw the
sanctioning of a rival `New Company' in 1698 was seen off by a
negotiated merger in 1709, coupled with an expansion of the
shareholding membership. Serious objections to the Company's
activities re-emerged after the take-over of Bengal. Society at home
was accustomed to embracing the self-made man,
The British Library
Warren Hastings, by a Mughal artist, c.1782. (BL shelf-mark OIOC Or.
6633, f.67r)
returning from distant parts of the world to set himself up with a
country estate, a town house and perhaps a seat in Parliament--it
could even accommodate the occasional millionaire. But the new
'nabobs' of the Company's service were returning with fortunes
equalling those of the landed aristocracy without, it would appear,
either too much effort or ability. A corrupt political system at
Westminster combined jealousy with morality to curb the corruption of
Company rule in India.

The Regulating Act of 1773 introduced changes in the election of the
Directors of the Company and made Calcutta the seat of government,
under a governor-general in council. Warren Hastings, the president in
office, assumed the new title and responsibilities. Charles James Fox
introduced an India Bill in 1783 that would have transferred the
entire government and patronage of the Company to a Parliamentary
Board of Commissioners for the Affairs of India. After his
administration fell, William Pitt's revised act of 1784 limited the
Board to revision and control of the Company's political decisions,
leaving its trade and patronage untouched. Robert Clive managed to
escape relatively unscathed. It was Warren Hastings who was called to
answer to the new morality. Returning to England in 1785, he was
impeached on charges of mismanagement in a spectacular show trial at
Westminster. The spectacle and the excitement gradually faded as the
trial dragged on from 1788 to 1795, when he was finally acquitted.

In 1813 the Company's monopoly of Asian trade was limited to China.
The China monopoly was abolished in 1833. After 231 years the
Company's trading days were over, yet it lingered on as the proxy
administrator of British rule in Asia. The shattering revolt of its
Bengal Army in 1857 was followed by final abolition in 1858 and the
British Crown assumed the mantle of a British Raj.

This session is adapted from pp.98--118 of Trading Places: The East
India Company and Asia 1600-1834 by Anthony Farrington, published by
The British Library, 2002.

http://www.fathom.com/course/21701760/session5.html

Contributors

Credits

This seminar has been created from an interview with Anthony
Farrington and from extracts from Trading Places: The East India
Company and Asia 1600--1834, published by The British Library, 2002.
It accompanies the exhibition Trading Places: The East India Company
and Asia at The British Library from 24 May to 22 September 2002. Text
of sessions 2-5 (c) Anthony Farrington 2002; seminar (c) The British
Library.

Technical Requirements

To appreciate this seminar experience, it is critical that you have
the appropriate software, plug-ins, and network connections. Please
take the time to download the latest versions of the plug-ins
mentioned below if you do not already have them.

Browser: Netscape versions 4.x up to 4.76, or Internet Explorer
versions 4.x or later. Your browser must be JavaScript-enabled and
must be set to accept cookies.

Network Connection: The recommended minimum connection is 56Kbps with
a throughput of 34Kbps or more. A faster connection is encouraged to
take better advantage of the media elements in the seminar.

http://www.fathom.com/course/21701760/index.html

Following external links would be detailed in the next post...

Port Cities: History of the East India Company

Ships of the East India Company

Plant Cultures: East India Company in India

Library of Congress Federal Research Division Country Studies

History and Politics: East India Company

English Expansionism

Nick Robins, New Statesman, 13 December 2004, "The world's first
multinational"

Karl Marx, New York Tribune, 1853–1858, The Revolt in India

East India Company: Its History and Results article by Karl Marx, MECW
Volume 12, p. 148

East India Club Gentlemen's club originally for officers and former
officers of the Company, now open to others.

Text of East India Company Act 1773

Text of East India Company Act 1784

John Stuart Mill and The East India Company, Vinay Lal's review of
Lynn Zastoupil's 1994 book
The Richest East India Merchant: The Life and Business of John Palmer
of Calcutta, 1767-1836 (Worlds of the East India Company) by Anthony
Webster

"The East India Company – a corporate route to Europe" on BBC Radio
4’s In Our Time featuring Huw Bowen, Linda Colley and Maria Misra

A timeline of India in the 1800s

HistoryMole Timeline: The British East India Company

To be Continued...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_East_India_Company

bademiyansubhanallah

unread,
Feb 5, 2010, 5:25:49 PM2/5/10
to
Port Cities: History of the East India Company

http://www.portcities.org.uk/london/server/show/ConNarrative.136/The-East-India-Company.html

http://www.portcities.org.uk/london/server/show/ConNarrative.136/chapterId/2766/The-East-India-Company.html

http://www.portcities.org.uk/london/server/show/ConNarrative.136/chapterId/2773/The-East-India-Company.html

http://www.portcities.org.uk/london/server/show/ConNarrative.136/chapterId/2781/The-East-India-Company.html

http://www.portcities.org.uk/london/server/show/ConNarrative.136/chapterId/2790/The-East-India-Company.html

http://www.portcities.org.uk/london/server/show/ConNarrative.136/chapterId/2799/The-East-India-Company.html

http://www.portcities.org.uk/london/server/show/ConNarrative.136/chapterId/2808/The-East-India-Company.html

http://www.portcities.org.uk/london/server/show/ConNarrative.136/chapterId/2821/The-East-India-Company.html

Ships of the East India Company

http://www.eicships.info/index.html

Plant Cultures: East India Company in India

http://www.plantcultures.org/index.html

http://www.plantcultures.org/plants/plants_landing.html

http://www.plantcultures.org/themes/themes_landing.html

http://www.plantcultures.org/themes/arts_landing.html

http://www.plantcultures.org/themes/crafts_landing.html

http://www.plantcultures.org/themes/empires_landing.html

http://www.plantcultures.org/themes/food_landing.html

http://www.plantcultures.org/themes/gardens_landing.html

http://www.plantcultures.org/themes/life_events_landing.html

http://www.plantcultures.org/themes/medicine_landing.html

http://www.plantcultures.org/themes/places_landing.html

http://www.plantcultures.org/themes/sacred_and_spiritual_landing.html

http://www.plantcultures.org/themes/trade_landing.html

Library of Congress Federal Research Division Country Studies

http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/cshome.html

History and Politics: East India Company

The East India Company

The East India Company had the unusual distinction of ruling an entire
country. Its origins were much humbler. On 31 December 1600, a group
of merchants who had incorporated themselves into the East India
Company were given monopoly privileges on all trade with the East
Indies. The Company's ships first arrived in India, at the port of
Surat, in 1608. Sir Thomas Roe reached the court of the Mughal
Emperor, Jahangir, as the emissary of King James I in 1615, and gained
for the British the right to establish a factory at Surat. Gradually
the British eclipsed the Portugese and over the years they saw a
massive expansion of their trading operations in India. Numerous
trading posts were established along the east and west coasts of
India, and considerable English communities developed around the three
presidency towns of Calcutta, Bombay, and Madras. In 1717, the Company
achieved its hitherto most notable success when it received a firman
or royal dictat from the Mughal Emperor exempting the Company from the
payment of custom duties in Bengal.

The Company saw the rise of its fortunes, and its transformation from
a trading venture to a ruling enterprise, when one of its military
officials, Robert Clive, defeated the forces of the Nawab of Bengal,
Siraj-ud-daulah , at the Battle of Plassey in 1757. A few years later
the Company acquired the right to collect revenues on behalf of the
Mughal Emperor, but the initial years of its administration were
calamitous for the people of Bengal. The Company's servants were
largely a rapacious and self-aggrandizing lot, and the plunder of
Bengal left the formerly rich province in a state of utter
destitution. The famine of 1769-70, which the Company's policies did
nothing to alleviate, may have taken the lives of as many as a third
of the population. The Company, despite the increase in trade and the
revenues coming in from other sources, found itself burdened with
massive military expenditures, and its destruction seemed imminent.
State intervention put the ailing Company back on its feet, and Lord
North's India Bill, also known as the Regulating Act of 1773, provided
for greater parliamentary control over the affairs of the Company,
besides placing India under the rule of a Governor-General.

The first Governor-General of India was Warren Hastings. Under his
dispensation, the expansion of British rule in India was pursued
vigorously, and the British sought to master indigenous systems of
knowledge. Hastings remained in India until 1784 and was succeeded by
Cornwallis, who initiated the Permanent Settlement, whereby an
agreement in perpetuity was reached with zamindars or landlords for
the collection of revenue. For the next fifty years, the British were
engaged in attempts to eliminate Indian rivals, and it is under the
administration of Wellesley that British territorial expansion was
achieved with ruthless efficiency. Major victories were achieved
against Tipu Sultan of Mysore and the Marathas, and finally the
subjugation and conquest of the Sikhs in a series of Anglo- Sikh Wars
led to British occupation over the entirety of India. In some places,
the British practiced indirect rule, placing a Resident at the court
of the native ruler who was allowed sovereignty in domestic matters.
Lord Dalhousie's notorious doctrine of lapse, whereby a native state
became part of British India if there was no male heir at the death of
the ruler, was one of the principal means by which native states were
annexed; but often the annexation, such as that of Awadh [Oudh] in
1856, was justified on the grounds that the native prince was of evil
disposition, indifferent to the welfare of his subjects. The
annexation of native states, harsh revenue policies, and the plight of
the Indian peasantry all contributed to the Rebellion of 1857-58,
referred to previously as the Sepoy Mutiny. In 1858 the East India
Company was dissolved, despite a valiant defense of its purported
achievements by John Stuart Mill, and the administration of India
became the responsibility of the Crown.

http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/southasia/History/British/EAco.html

English Expansionism

Introduction

The Anglo-American World is but colonial. Its present extension is the
result of England’s self-affirmation and ambition to become a major
world power. Therefore, the words "empire" and "imperialism" describe
England’s struggle for national and international sovereignty.

The first consequence of English expansionism was the west ward
impulse of the Anglo-Saxon element, first into the Celtic periphery of
the British Isles, then across the Atlantic and finally into Africa
and Australasia.

The second more recent consequence is the emergence in the 20th
century of multi-cultural societies both in Britain and in America but
also across the British Commonwealth, which is constituted of the
former British colonies.

I. Early English expansionism in the British Isles

The origin of British colonial adventures lies in the early step taken
by English Kings towards the political, economic and religious
integration of the British Isles.

A. The Anglo-Norman enterprise

In 1066, William, Duke of Normandy, became the master in England. His
successors, the Anglo-Norman Kings, tried to increase their authority
and international prestige (especially in front of France) by
controlling the British Isles (first Ireland and then Wales).

In 1171, the English King Henry II landed in Ireland and was accepted
by the Irish Kings as their overlord (=master). During the 13th
century, many Anglo-Norman barons settled in Ireland where they were
given land by the King. They introduced the French system of feudalism
and forced the native Irish to become serfs.

In 1366, the English Parliament prohibited mixed marriages between
Irish and Anglo-Norman and Irish laws and customs were abolished in
English controlled areas. The colonization of Ireland had started.

In 1277, Edward I of England invaded Wales after the last Prince of
Wales refused to acknowledge his authority. The country soon became
part of the English Royal Estate and was re-organized into 5
countries, after the English model. In 1301, the English King became
Prince of Wales.

The Anglo-Norman never managed to conquer Scotland. After a series of
unsuccessful invasions, the English were finally forced out in 1314.
Scottish independence was secured for 4 centuries.

B. Post-Reformation settlements

By consolidating royal power, the reformation indirectly encouraged
England to extend her control over the British Isles.

In 1541, King Henry VIII, who has become head of the English church as
wall as of the State, was proclaimed King of Ireland. The actual
colonization of Ireland started in 1586 with the creation of the
Munster Plantation in the South of Ireland. Later on, in 1608,
Scottish and English settlers were encouraged by the Government to
cross the Irish Sea and to create farms in Ulster. This new settlement
was the origin of contemporary Protestant Northern Ireland. In 1652,
2/3 of Irish land was given to Protestants.

Between 1536 and 1543, a series of administrative measures put Wales
under the situation of total dependence on English legislation. The
situation of Scotland was different : between 1603 and 1707, Scotland
remained a separate independent Kingdom but under the same King as
England.

II. Formation of the old colonial empire

A. From trading posts to early settlements

A trading post is a place to carry on commercial business ; it may be
temporary and doesn’t imply settlement.

Right after the discovery of the New World in 1492, England’s self-
affirmation as an independent and dominant European power led her to
compete against Spanish and Portuguese colonial monopolies.

In 1494, by the treaty of Tordesillas, Spain and Portugal had divided
the Western Hemisphere between Spanish and Portuguese possessions. In
answer, England decided to send explorers to the New World.

In 1497, the Italian Sea Captain John Cabot explored the northern
coast of America on behalf of the English King. He called the land he
had recognized "Newfoundland".

Later on, in 1577, an English Captain explored the West Coast of
America : Francis Drake called the American Pacific sea coast
"California", legendary name of a mythical Eden.

Finally, in 1584, another sea captain, Sir Walter Raleigh, explored
the Atlantic American coast for the Queen of England and called the
place "Virginia" to celebrate his queen as the Virgin Queen.

In 1588, England took the status of a major sea power after defeating
the Spanish fleet, the "Invincible Armada". This early colonial
experience had secured English mastery of the sea. It was the starting
point of the Spanish decline. In economic terms, several colonial
joint-stock companies, in which several people invested money to found
the colonial empire, were created in England. In 1600, the East India
Company was created in order to favor trade with the East. In 1606, 2
companies were created to encourage trade with America :

•Plymouth Company for the Northern part of the coast
•London and South Virginia Company for the Southern coast.

In 1672, the Royal African Company was given the monopoly of trade
with Africa (and slavery). Therefore, the rise of Capitalism
corresponds to that of colonial. In human terms, the first successful
and permanent English settlement in America was established in May
1607 with the creation of Jamestown in Virginia by adventurers and
merchants in search of fortune. A totally different experience took
place in September 1620, when an English ship called the Mayflower
reached the place later called Plymouth Rock with a small group of
English dissidents on board, the famous Pilgrim Fathers.

This first successful puritan colony in America was motivated by
religious reasons. From 1620 to 1640, some 25000 English independents
took refuge in New England. The 3rd category of people who reached
America was African slaves. In 1619, the first shipload of slaves was
brought in America on a Dutch ship. Finally, the last category of
people in America is Native Americans. They proved to be essential to
the survival of settlers in America. The beginning of the European
settlement gave the illusion of a peaceful coexistence between
European settlers and Native Americans. In 1640, a rich colonist
called John Rolfe married the daughter of a local chief, Pocahontas.
Another Indian tribe helped the Pilgrim Fathers to avoid starvation by
teaching them how to plant corns.

But the respected interest of both communities soon became opposed.
The increase in the European population resulted in several problems
over land ownership and the American settlers soon started to displace
Indian population and sometimes used military action. The original
dream of peace turned into a bloody nightmare. Americans, however,
were relieved to think their treatment of the Natives had never
reached the savagery that was typical of Spanish colonization.

B. Mercantilism or the establishment of the colonial system

Apart from international prestige, the colonists constituted a vast
and permanent captive market for English goods. It was also a source
of raw materials and finally, it represented a convenient exile for
embarrassing subjects. The colonists played a major role in the
definition of the new international economic system called
mercantilism.

It was based on strict regulations protecting the home market and
establishing monopolies on all exchanges with the colonies. Between
1651 and 1662, a series of Navigation Acts gave English ships the
exclusive control of all trade to and from the colonies. This excluded
all foreign nations and all colonial organizations from trading across
the Atlantic : in order to secure new markets and new sources of raw
materials, the system demanded a continual expansion through wars and
invasions. The struggle for empire had started a long time before the
late 19th century, called the Scramble for Africa.

The essential part of trade consisted in the famous "triangular trade"
with the New World. Three geographical regions were involved in the
triangle :

•Western Europe
•Africa
•North America and the West Indies

Because of mercantilist regulations, most goods including African
slaves had to transit either through England or through the West
Indies. This economic situation was considered as unfair by a majority
of colonists. It was one of the origins of the American Revolution.

C. The first British colonial empire
Lasted until the American independence, which took place between 1776
and 1783. This empire had two major poses : India and North America.
The stream of emigrants was directed namely towards America but in
both cases, England and then Britain became involved in colonial wars
against Holland, Spain and France in order to protect and to extend
her trading interests.

England had started trading with India in the late 18th century. The
East Indian Company (EIC) was founded in 1600. The 18th century saw
the decline of the Indian Empire (Mogul) and military agreements with
local leaders. After 1757, the EIC controlled all trade with the West
Coast of India, Bengal and with Ceylan (Sri Lanka today). In 1760, the
French were defeated and driven out of India, except for a couple of
trading posts that she kept on the coast such as Pondichery. In 1773,
Britain started to control India through a governor based in the town
of Bombay.

In 1640, sugar cane agriculture was introduced in Barbados. In 1655,
the English took Jamaica from Spain : it marked the beginning of the
Spanish decline in the Caribbean’s.

On the American continent, the 18th century saw a total domination of
Britain on colonial land. In 1667, England invaded New Amsterdam,
which later became New York. After the 7-years’old war with France in
1763, England took control of the French West Indies, of all French
Canada and of the whole French territory between the East Coast of
America (New England) and Mississippi. Finally, England took Florida
from Spain. In 1763, the British King George III issued a royal
proclamation leaving the rich Ohio valley to the Native American
tribes that had helped the British against France. This political
measure disappointed the settlers who feared overpopulation in New
England. This was the second origin of the American Revolution.

In the 1760’s, the population of New England which was divided into 30
colonies had already reached 2.5 million inhabitants and 275 000
slaves were transported to America during the 18th century. 90 % were
to be found in the South. The loss of the American colonies in 1783
marked the end of the first colonial empire, yet, a second one was
already forming in other parts of the world.

III. The second colonial empire

Australasia. In 1768, the British captain James Cook had already
explored the coasts of Australia and New Zealand. After the discovery
of Botany Bay that later became Sydney, a penal colony was established
in Australia in 1788. Prisoners and convicts were transported to
Australia for hard labor. Settlement started much later in New
Zealand, with a treaty with local Maori chiefs in 1840.

Africa. Before the 1880’s, i.e. the Scramble for Africa, Britain
showed little interest for the African continent. The government’s
major occupation, apart from the slave market, was to secure the sea
route to India. Therefore, Britain took the Dutch colony at the cape
(South Africa) in 1806. Then, Britain insisted on receiving Mauritius
in the Indian Ocean. Later, Britain secured other places on the sea
route to Suez (e.g. : island of Malta). However, Britain accepted to
take the responsibility of protecting a colony of liberated slaves in
Sierra Leone founded in 1788.

Asia. The expansion started much later when Britain took Singapore in
1824. Later, in 1841, Britain established a trading post in Hong Kong
she kept until July 1997.

http://www.skyminds.net/anglo-american-civilisation/from-the-reformation-to-the-birth-of-the-american-nation-1534-1776/english-expansionism/

Nick Robins, New Statesman, 13 December 2004, "The world's first
multinational"

The world's first multinational

Nick Robins

Published 13 December 2004

3 commentsPrint versionEmail a friendListenRSSNS Essay 1- Corporate
greed, the ruination of traditional ways of life, share-price bubbles,
western imperialism: all these modern complaints were made against the
British East India Company in the 18th century. Nick Robins draws the
lessons

In The Discovery of India, the final and perhaps most profound part of
his "prison trilogy", written in 1944 from Ahmednagar Fort, Jawaharlal
Nehru described the effect of the East India Company on the country he
would shortly rule. "The corruption, venality, nepotism, violence and
greed of money of these early generations of British rule in India,"
he wrote, "is something which passes comprehension." It was, he added,
"significant that one of the Hindustani words which has become part of
the English language is 'loot'".

For most of the succeeding 60 years, the East India Company sank from
view. No plaque marked the site where its headquarters had stood in
the City of London for more than two centuries. It was regarded as
something that could be consigned to the history books, its deeds to
be squabbled over by academics and imperial romantics. But the onset
of globalisation has revived interest in a company that could be seen
as a pioneering force for world trade. Exhibitions at the British
Library and the V&A, plus a string of popular histories, have sought
to revive the reputation of the "Honourable East India Company". Its
founders are now hailed as swashbuckling adventurers, its operations
praised for pioneering the birth of modern consumerism and its
glamorous executives profiled as multicultural "white moguls".

Yet the East India Company, romantic as it may seem, has more profound
and disturbing lessons to teach us. Abuse of market power; corporate
greed; judicial impunity; the "irrational exuberance" of the financial
markets; and the destruction of traditional economies (in what could
not, at one time, be called the poor or developing world): none of
these is new. The most common complaints against late 20th- and early
21st-century capitalism were all foreshadowed in the story of the East
India Company more than two centuries ago.

In The Wealth of Nations (1776), Adam Smith used the East India
Company as a case study to show how monopoly capitalism undermines
both liberty and justice, and how the management of shareholder-
controlled corporations invariably ends in "negligence, profusion and
malversation". Yet nothing of Smith's scepticism of corporations, his
criticism of their pursuit of monopoly and of their faulty system of
governance, enters the speeches of today's free-market advocates.

Smith's vision of free trade entailed firm controls on corporate
power. And, as did his own times, subsequent history shows how right
he was. If it is to contribute to economic progress, the corporation's
market power has to be limited to allow real choice, and to prevent
suppliers being squeezed and consumers gouged. Its political power
also needs to be constrained, if it is not to rig the rules of
regulation so that it enjoys unjustified public subsidy or protection.
Internal and external checks and balances must curb the tendency of
executives to become corporate emperors. And clear and enforceable
systems of justice are necessary to hold the corporation to account
for any damage to society and the environment. These are tough
conditions, and have rarely been met, either in the age of the East
India Company or in today's era of globalisation.

Today, we can see the East India Company as the first "imperial
corporation", the very design of which drove it to market domination,
speculative excess and the evasion of justice. Like the modern
multinational, it was eager to avoid the mere interplay of supply and
demand. It jealously guarded its chartered monopoly of imports from
Asia. But it also wanted to control the sources of supply by breaking
the power of local rulers in India and eliminating competition so that
it could force down its purchase prices.

By controlling both ends of the chain, the company could buy cheap and
sell dear. This meant organising coups against local rulers and
placing puppets on the throne. By the middle of the 18th century, the
company was deliberately breaching the terms of its commercial
concessions in Bengal by trading in prohibited domestic goods and
selling its duty-free passes to local merchants. Combining economic
muscle with extensive bribery and the deployment of its small but
effective private army, the company engineered a series of
"revolutions" that gave it territorial as well as economic control.

After Robert Clive's victory at the Battle of Palashi in 1757, the
company literally looted Bengal's treasury. It loaded the country's
gold and silver on to a fleet of more than a hundred boats and sent it
downriver to Calcutta. In one stroke, Clive netted a cool £2.5m (more
than £200m today) for the company, and £234,000 (£20m) for himself.
Historical convention views Palashi as the first step in the creation
of the British empire in India. It is perhaps better understood as the
company's most successful business deal.

It was the unrivalled quality and cheapness of textiles that had lured
the East India Company to Bengal, and it would be Bengal's weavers who
felt the full force of the company's new-found market power. Never
rich, the weavers nevertheless had a better standard of living than
their counterparts in 18th-century England. At a time when the British
state was intervening on the side of the employer - for example, to
set maximum levels for wages - India's weavers were able to act
collectively, aiding their ability to negotiate favourable prices. But
the East India Company eliminated the weavers' freedom to sell to
other merchants, and so crushed their limited but important market
autonomy. It imposed prices 40 per cent below the market rate, and
enforced them with violence and imprisonment. Many weavers were driven
to despair. One account reports that, among the winders of raw silk,
"instances have been known of their cutting off their thumbs to
prevent their being forced to wind silk".

As the company transformed itself from a modest trading venture into a
powerful corporate machine, so its systems of governance completely
failed to cope with the new responsibilities that it faced. As Philip
Francis, one of its leading critics, put it, in- stead of seeking
"moderate but permanent profit", the company had recklessly pursued
"immediate and excessive returns". Corruption assumed epidemic
proportions and speculation overtook its shares, stoked up by insider
trading led by Clive and other executives.

In the history of financial crises, the South Sea Bubble is often
regarded as the only premodern crash worthy of note. But the East
India Company also engineered its own stock-market boom, ending in a
share-price slump that rocked the world. The company's share price
doubled in the decade following Palashi, stoked by ever more
extraordinary acquisitions, such as the takeover of Bengal's entire
tax system in 1765. In London, the company's management and
shareholders fought for control of a money machine they believed would
yield unlimited returns. A swarm of "bulls" and "bears" descended on
the company's shares, with shareholders voting for a doubling of the
annual dividend from 6 to 12 per cent in order to cash in on the new-
found wealth. This upward spiral of "infectious greed" - to use a
phrase employed by Alan Greenspan, chairman of the US Federal Reserve,
more than two centuries later - came to an end in May 1769 when news
of renewed conflict in India reached the London markets. The share
price fell 16 per cent in a single month, and would continue a
downward course for the next 15 years, reaching the depths in July
1784 after a fall of 55 per cent.

Yet the human tragedy was just beginning. In Bengal, the annual
monsoon rains had failed. But what turned a manageable natural
disaster into a catastrophe was the manipulation of local grain
markets by East India speculators, driving up the price of food beyond
the reach of the poor. "As soon as the dryness of the season foretold
the approaching dearness of rice," went one eyewitness account, "our
Gentlemen in the Company's service were as early as possible in buying
up all they could lay hold of." The situation was compounded by the
company's decision to increase the rate of tax to ensure that revenue
levels remained stable. Estimates vary, but up to ten million people
may have died of starvation. When the full story became known in
Britain, there was fury at the firm's negligence. As Horace Walpole
wrote at the time: "We have murdered, deposed, plundered, usurped -
nay, what think you of the famine in Bengal, in which millions
perished, being caused by a monopoly of provisions by the servants of
the East Indies."

The company's fortunes had now turned sharply downwards. By the end of
1772 it was, in effect, bankrupt. A final slump in its shares
precipitated a Europe-wide financial crisis, and forced the company,
begging for a bailout, into the arms of the government. But not only
was the East India Company the mother of the modern multinational
corporation, it also stimulated one of the first movements for
corporate reform.

Well-versed in the history of the Roman Republic, Britain's elite
feared that, just as the proceeds of Rome's conquest of Asia (western
Anatolia) had been used to subvert its ancient freedoms, so the
company's takeover of Bengal would bring despotism back home. If left
unchecked, argued one editorial, the company could "repeat the same
cruelties in this island which have disgraced humanity and deluged
with native and innocent blood the plains of India". Prior to his
conservative turn during the French revolution, Edmund Burke pressed
repeatedly for the company to be made accountable to parliament and
for its system of exploitation to be ended. "Every rupee of profit
made by an Englishman is lost for ever to India," he concluded, a
judgement that would probably be echoed today by millions of people
working at the wrong end of the multinational bargain.

All the tools with which we are now familiar were deployed to tame the
firm: codes of conduct for company executives, rules on shareholder
abuse, government regulation, and ultimately, as with so many failed
firms, nationalisation.

Government intervention over a hundred years transformed the company
from a purely commercial institution to an agent of the British state.
It was only in the wake of the great rebellion against company rule,
which shook northern India in 1857-58, that its anachronistic position
as a profit-making ruler was put to an end. Direct control of the
company's territories passed to the crown, and the British Raj was
born.

Yet in spite of all the parliamentary inquiries and waves of
regulation, few of the company's executives were ever brought to book.
Clive narrowly escaped parliamentary censure in 1773, only to die by
his own hand. Parliament then turned its attention to Warren Hastings,
governor-general of Bengal, voting twice to recall him for
mismanagement. Both times this was rebuffed by the company's
shareholders and, as a last resort, and at Burke's instigation, the
medieval practice of impeachment was revived and used against him.
Among the charges was that Hastings had introduced a company monopoly
over the production of opium and, in an attempt to smuggle the crop
into China, had awarded the contract at a knock-down price to the son
of the East India Company chairman, who promptly sold it on for a tidy
profit. Hastings was also the first to seek deliberately to break
China's ban on the importation of opium. His attempt failed, but would
be pursued by his successors, with tragic consequences. Burke won
Commons majorities in support of his case, and in February 1788, the
trial of Hastings began in the Lords with Burke delivering a four-day
opening speech against him.

What makes Burke's challenge to Hastings and the East India Company so
compelling are the principles on which it was based. "The laws of
morality," he declared, "are the same everywhere . . . there is no
action which would pass for an act of extortion, of peculation, of
bribery, and oppression in England, that is not an act of extortion,
of peculation, of bribery, and oppression in Europe, Asia, Africa and
the world over." Against the relativism that increasingly viewed India
as an inferior land in which different standards of justice should
apply, Burke unfurled the standard of absolute values, protesting
against "geographical morality". In the heat of his reactions to the
French revolution, Burke would oppose Tom Paine's Rights of Man. But
in the case against Hastings, Burke argued for companies to be judged
by their respect for what we would understand as universal human
rights. The trial was interrupted, first by George III's madness and
then by the French revolution. After eight long years, Hastings was
acquitted of all charges, a result that surprised nobody, given the
political complexion of the Lords.

Yet there is one instance where the company's impunity was broken. In
1774, a group of Armenian merchants launched a civil case for damages
against Hastings's predecessor, Harry Verelst. Led by Gregore Cojamaul
and Johannes Padre Rafael, the merchants alleged that Verelst had
arbitrarily locked them up in Bengal six years earlier, confiscating
their property and removing their freedom to trade. It is a testimony
to the British legal system that in December 1774, the Lord Chief
Justice decided in favour of the Armenians, judging that Verelst had
been guilty of "oppression, false imprisonment and singular
depredations". Verelst had to pay £9,000 in damages, as well as full
costs. Thousands of miles away from the scene of the crime, the
principle of extra-territorial liability for corporate malpractice was
established in 1770s London.

Many in business regard the current upsurge of global litigation
against corporations such as Talisman, Unocal and Shell as somehow new
and unjustified. Yet Verelst's case provides a powerful precedent,
demonstrating that more than 200 years ago, a senior executive of the
world's first multinational was tried and found guilty of what we
would now consider human rights abuses.

It is not, however, Cojamaul's statue that stands outside the Foreign
Office in Whitehall, but Robert Clive's. That such a rogue still has
pride of place at the heart of government suggests that Britain has
not yet confronted the connections between its corporate and imperial
pasts. This is not mere forgetfulness, but the mark of a continued
belief that the unrestrained pursuit of market power and personal
reward is to be praised at the highest levels. In India, the East
India Company's mismanagement remains part of the national
consciousness; here, knowledge of the company's corruption and abuse
is almost entirely lacking. We still do not recognise the "imperial
gene" that remains at the heart of modern corporate design.

Perhaps Nehru can help us. In The Discovery of India, he examined the
consequences of England's long domination of India in terms of karma,
the spiritual law of cause and effect. "Entangled in its meshes," he
wrote, "we have thus struggled in vain to rid ourselves of this past
inheritance and start afresh on a different basis." Independence was a
necessary starting point for India, wrote Nehru, but Britain, too,
needed to "start afresh". As we approach the 250th anniversary of
Palashi, we do not need further glorification of the East India
Company's contribution to consumerism or of the celebrity of its
executives. We need an honest reckoning with the human costs of its
quest for market domination.

Nick Robins's Imperial Corporation: reckoning with the East

India Company will be published next year. He also takes part in

The Great Debates: Hastings v Burke (Radio 4, 29 December, 8pm)

Post this article to

Diggdel.icio.usnewsvineBuzz up!RedditThis article was originally
published on 13 December 2004 in the issue The world's first
multinational

http://www.newstatesman.com/200412130016.htm

Karl Marx, New York Tribune, 1853–1858, The Revolt in India

The First Indian War of Independence (1857-1858)
and the East India Company (June-August 1853)
Marx & Engels in the New-York Daily Tribune
July 1857 - October 1858

—— On the East India Company ——

The Charter of the East India Company, Marx 9 June 1853
Sir Charles Woods’ East India Reforms, Marx 22 June 1853
British Rule in India, Marx 25 June 1853
The East India Company, Marx 11 July 1853
The Government of India, Marx 20 July 1853
The Future Results of British Rule in India, Marx 22 July 1853
The East India Question, Marx 25 July 1853
India, Marx 5 August 1853
In the House of Commons, Marx 16 August 1853

News from India, Marx 20 February 1855 (in Neue Oder Zeitung)

—— The Revolt in India ——

The Revolt in the Indian Army, Marx 15 July 1857
The Revolt in India, Marx 17 July 1857
The Indian Question, Marx 14 August 1857
Indian News, Marx 14 August 1857

State of the Indian Insurrection, Marx 18 August 1857
The Oriental Question, Marx 27 August 1857
The Indian Insurrection, Marx 29 August 1857
The Revolt in India, Marx 15 September 1857
Investigation of Tortures in India, Marx 17 September 1857
British Incomes in India, Marx 21 September 1857
The Indian Revolt, Marx 4 September 1857
The Revolt in India, Marx 3 October 1857
The Revolt in India, Marx 13 October 1857
The Revolt in India, Marx 23 October 1857
The Revolt in India, Marx 14 November 1857

The Suppression of the Insurrection

The Capture of Delhi, Engels 5 December 1857
The Siege and Storming of Lucknow, Engels 30 January 1858
The Relief of Lucknow, Engels 1 February 1857
The Approaching Indian Loan, Marx 9 February 1858
Windham's Defeat, Engels 20 February 1858
The Fall of Lucknow, Engels 30 April 1858
Details of the Attack on Lucknow, Engels 25 May 1858
The Annexation of Oude, Marx 28 May 1858
Lord Canning's Proclamation and Land Tenure in India, Marx 7 June
1858
The Revolt in India, Engels 15 June 1858
The British Army in India, Engels 26 June 1858
The Indian Army, Engels 21 July 1858

The Afermath

Taxation in India, Marx 23 July 1858
The Indian Bill, Marx 24 July 1858
Transport of Troops to India, Engels 13 August 1858
The Revolt in India, Engels 1 October 1858
Great Trouble in Indian Finances, Marx 30 April 1859

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1857/india/index.htm

East India Company: Its History and Results article by Karl Marx, MECW
Volume 12, p. 148

Articles by Karl Marx in the New-York Herald Tribune

The East India Company — Its History and Results

Source: MECW Volume 12, p. 148;
Written: June 24, 1853;

First published: in the New-York Daily Tribune, July 11, 1853.

London, Friday, June 24, 1853

The debate on Lord Stanley’s motion to postpone legislation for India,
has been deferred until this evening. For the first time since 1783
the India question has become a ministerial one in England. Why is
this?

The true commencement of the East India Company cannot be dated from a
more remote epoch than the year 1702, when the different societies,
claiming the monopoly of the East India trade, united together in one
single Company. Till then the very existence of the original East
India Company was repeatedly endangered, once suspended for years
under the protectorate of Cromwell, and once threatened with utter
dissolution by Parliamentary interference under the reign of William
III. It was under the ascendancy of that Dutch Prince when the Whigs
became the farmers of the revenues of the British Empire, when the
Bank of England[120] sprung into life, when the protective system was
firmly established in England, and the balance of power in Europe was
definitively settled, that the existence of an East India Company was
recognized by Parliament. That era of apparent liberty was in reality
the era of monopolies not created by Royal grants, as in the times of
Elizabeth and Charles I, but authorized and nationalized by the
sanction of Parliament. This epoch in the history of England bears, in
fact, an extreme likeness to the epoch of Louis Philippe in France,
the old landed aristocracy having been defeated, and the bourgeoisie
not being able to take its place except under the banner of
moneyocracy, or the “haute finance.” The East India Company excluded
the common people from the commerce with India, at the same time that
the House of Commons excluded them from Parliamentary representation.
In this as well as in other instances, we find the first decisive
victory of the bourgeoisie over the feudal aristocracy coinciding with
the most pronounced reaction against the people, a phenomenon which
has driven more than one popular writer, like Cobbett, to look for
popular liberty rather in the past than in the future.

The union between the Constitutional Monarchy and the monopolizing
monied interest, between the Company of East India and the “glorious”
revolution of 1688[121] was fostered by the same force by which the
liberal interests and a liberal dynasty have at all times and in all
countries met and combined, by the force of corruption, that first and
last moving power of Constitutional Monarchy, the guardian angel of
William III and the fatal demon of Louis Philippe. So early as 1693,
it appeared from Parliamentary inquiries, that the annual expenditure
of the East India Company, under the head of “gifts” to men in power,
which had rarely amounted to above £1,200 before the revolution,
reached the sum of £90,000. The Duke of Leeds was impeached for a
bribe of £5,000, and the virtuous King himself convicted of having
received £10,000. Besides these direct briberies, rival Companies were
thrown out by tempting Government with loans of enormous sums at the
lowest interest, and by buying off rival Directors.

The power the East India Company had obtained by bribing the
Government, as did also the Bank of England, it was forced to maintain
by bribing again, as did the Bank of England. At every epoch when its
monopoly was expiring, it could only effect a renewal of its Charter
by offering fresh loans and by fresh presents made to the Government.

The events of the Seven-Years-War transformed the East India Company
from a commercial into a military and territorial power[122]. It was
then that the foundation was laid of the present British Empire in the
East. Then East India stock rose to £263, and dividends were then paid
at the rate of 12 1/2 per cent. But then there appeared a new enemy to
the Company, no longer in the shape of rival societies, but in the
shape of rival ministers and of a rival people. It was alleged that
the Company’s territory had been conquered by the aid of British
fleets and’, British armies, and that no British subjects could hold
territorial sovereignties independent of the Crown. The ministers of
the day and the people of the day claimed their share in the
“wonderful treasures” imagined to have been won by the last conquests.
The Company only saved its existence by an agreement made in 1767 that
it should annually pay £400,000 into the National Exchequer.

But the East India Company, instead of fulfilling its agreement, got
into financial difficulties, and, instead of paying a tribute to the
English people, appealed to Parliament for pecuniary aid. Serious
alterations in the Charter were the consequence of this step. The
Company’s affairs failing to improve, notwithstanding their new
condition, and the English nation having simultaneously lost their
colonies in North America, the necessity of elsewhere regaining some
great Colonial Empire became more and more universally felt. The
illustrious Fox thought the opportune moment had arrived, in 1783, for
bringing forward his famous India bill, which proposed to abolish the
Courts of Directors and Proprietors, and to vest the whole Indian
government in the hands of seven Commissioners appointed by
Parliament. By the personal influence of the imbecile King [George
III] over the House of Lords, the bill of Mr. Fox was defeated, and
made the instrument of breaking down the then Coalition Government of
Fox and Lord North, and of placing the famous Pitt at the head of the
Government. Pitt carried in 1784 a bill through both Houses, which
directed the establishment of the Board of Control, consisting of six
members of the Privy Council, who were

“to check, superintend and control all acts, operations and concerns
which in any wise related to the civil and military Government, or
revenues of the territories and possessions of the East India
Company.”

On this head, Mill, the historian, says:

“In passing that law two objects were pursued. To avoid the imputation
of what was represented as the heinous object of Mr. Fox’s bill, it
was necessary that the principal part of the power should appear to
remain in the hand of the Directors. For ministerial advantage it was
necessary that it should in reality be all taken away. Mr. Pitt’s bill
professed to differ from that of his rival, chiefly in this very
point, that while the one destroyed the power of the Directors, the
other left it almost entire. Under the act of Mr. Fox the powers of
the ministers would have been avowedly held. Under the act of Mr.
Pitt, they were held in secret and by fraud. The bill of Fox
transferred the powers of the Company to Commissioners appointed by
Parliament. The bill of Mr, Pitt transferred them to Commissioners
appointed by the King.”

The years of 1783 and 1784 were thus the first, and till now the only
years, for the India question to become a ministerial one. The bill of
Mr. Pitt having been carried, the Charter of the East India Company
was renewed, and the Indian question set aside for twenty years. But
in 1813 the Anti-Jacobin war, and in 1833 the newly introduced Reform
Bill[123] superseded all other political questions.

This, then, is the first reason of the India question’s having failed
to become a great political question, since and before 1784; that
before that time the East India Company had first to conquer existence
and importance; that after that time the Oligarchy absorbed all of its
power which it could assume without incurring responsibility; and that
afterwards the English people in general were at the very epochs of
the renewal of the Charter, in 1813 and 1833, absorbed by other
questions of overbearing interest.

We will now take a different view. The East India Company commenced by
attempting merely to establish factories for their agents, and places
of deposit for their goods. In order to protect them they erected
several forts. Although they had, even as early as 1689, conceived the
establishment of a dominion in India, and of making territorial
revenue one of their sources of emolument, yet, down to 1744, they had
acquired but a few unimportant districts around Bombay, Madras, and
Calcutta. The war which subsequently broke out in the Carnatic had the
effect of rendering them after various struggles, virtual sovereigns
of that part of India. Much more considerable results arose from the
war in Bengal and the victories of Clive. These results were the real
occupation of Bengal, Bihar, and Orissa[124]. At the end of the
Eighteenth Century, and in the first years of the present one, there
supervened the wars with Tippoo Saib, and in consequence of them a
great advance of power, and an immense extension of the subsidiary
system.[125] In the second decennium of the Nineteenth Century the
first convenient frontier, that of India within the desert, had at
length been conquered. It was not till then that the British Empire in
the East reached those parts of Asia, which had been, at all times,
the seat of every great central power in India. But the most
vulnerable point of the Empire, from which it had been overrun as
often as old conquerors were expelled by new ones, the barriers of the
Western frontier, were not in the hands of the British. During the
period from 1838 to 1849, in the Sikh and Afghan wars, British rule
subjected to definitive possession the ethnographical, political, and
military frontiers of the East Indian Continent, by the compulsory
annexation of the Punjab and of Scinde. These were possessions
indispensable to repulse any invading force issuing from Central Asia,
and indispensable against Russia advancing to the frontiers of Persia.
During this last decennium there have been added to the British Indian
territory 167,000 square miles, with a population of 8,572,630 souls.
As to the interior, all the native States now became surrounded by
British possessions, subjected to British suzeraineté under various
forms, and cut off from the sea-coast, with the sole exception of
Guzerat and Scinde. As to its exterior, India was now finished. It is
only since 1849, that the one great Anglo-Indian Empire has existed.

Thus the British Government has been fighting, under the Company’s
name, for two centuries, till at last the natural limits of India were
reached. We understand now, why during ail this time all parties in
England have connived in silence, even those which had resolved to
become the loudest with their hypocritical peace-cant, after the
arrondissement of the one Indian Empire should have been completed.
Firstly, of course, they had to get it, in order to subject it
afterward to their sharp philanthropy. From this view we understand
the altered position of the Indian question in the present year, 1853,
compared with all former periods of Charter renewal.

Again, let us take a different view. We shall still better understand
the peculiar crisis in Indian legislation, on reviewing the course of
British commercial intercourse with India through its different
phases.

At the commencement of the East India Company’s operations, under the
reign of Elizabeth, the Company was permitted for the purpose of
profitably carrying on its trade with India, fo export an annual value
of £30,000 in silver, gold, and foreign coin. This was an infraction
against all the prejudices of the age, and Thomas Mun was forced to
lay down in A Discourse on Trade from England to the East Indies, the
foundation of the “mercantile system,” admitting that the precious
metals were the only real wealth a country could possess, but
contending at the same time that their exportation might be safely
allowed, provided the balance of payments was in favor of the
exporting nation. In this sense, he contended that the commodities
imported from East India were chiefly re-exported to other countries,
from which a much greater quantity of bullion was obtained than had
been required to pay for them in India. In the same spirit, Sir Josiah
Child wrote A Treatise wherein It Is Demonstrated That the East India
Trade Is the Most National Trade of All Trades. By-and-by the
partisans of the East India Company grew more audacious, and it may be
noticed as a curiosity, in this strange Indian history, that the
Indian monopolises were the first preachers of free trade in England.

Parliamentary intervention, with regard to the East India Company, was
again claimed, not by the commercial, but by the industrial class, at
the latter end of the 17th century, and during the greater part of the
18th, when the importation of East Indian cotton and silk stuffs was
declared to ruin the poor British manufacturers, an opinion put
forward in John Pollexfen: England and India Inconsistent in Their
Manufactures, London, 1697[127], a title strangely verified a century
and a half later, but in a very different sense. Parliament did then
interfere. By the Act 11 and 12 William III, cap. 10, it was enacted
that the wearing of wrought silks and of printed or dyed calicoes from
India, Persia and China should be prohibited, and a penalty of £200
imposed on all persons having or selling the same. Similar laws were
enacted under George I, II and III, in consequence of the repeated
lamentations of the afterward so “enlightened” British manufacturers.
And thus, during the greater part of the 18th century, Indian
manufactures were generally imported into England in order to he sold
on the Continent, and to remain excluded from the English market
itself.

Besides this Parliamentary interference with East India, solicited by
the greedy home manufacturer, efforts were made at every epoch of the
renewal of the Charter, by the merchants of London, Liverpool and
Bristol, to break down the commercial monopoly of the Company, and to
participate in that commerce, estimated to be a true mine of gold. In
consequence of these efforts, a provision was made in the Act of 1773
prolonging the Company’s Charter till March 1, 1814, by which private
British individuals were authorized to export from, and the Company’s
Indian servants permitted to import into England, almost all sorts of
commodities. But this concession was surrounded with conditions
annihilating its effects, in respect to the exports to British India
by private merchants. In 1813 the Company was unable to further
withstand the pressure of general commerce, and except the monopoly of
the Chinese trade, the trade to India was opened, under certain
conditions, to private competition. At the renewal of the Charter in
1833, these last restrictions were at length superseded, the Company
forbidden to carry on any trade at all — their commercial character
destroyed, and their privilege of excluding British subjects from the
Indian territories withdrawn.

Meanwhile the East India trade had undergone very serious revolutions,
altogether altering the position of the different class interests in
England with regard to it. During the whole course of the 18th century
the treasures transported from India to England were gained much less
by comparatively insignificant commerce, than by the direct
exploitation of that country, and by the colossal fortunes there
extorted and transmitted to England. After the opening of the trade in
1813 the commerce with India more than trebled in a very short time.
But this was not all. The whole character of the trade was changed.
Till 1813 India had been chiefly an exporting country, while it now
became an importing one; and in such a quick progression, that already
in 1823 the rate of exchange, which had generally been 2/6 per rupee,
sunk down to 2/ per rupee. India, the great workshop of cotton
manufacture for the world, since immemorial times, became now
inundated with English twists and cotton stuffs. After its own produce
had been excluded from England, or only admitted on the most cruel
terms, British manufactures were poured into it at a small and merely
nominal duty, to the ruin of the native cotton fabrics once so
celebrated. In 1780 the value of British produce and manufactures
amounted only to £386;152, the bullion exported during the same year
to £15,041, the total value of exports during 1780 being £12,648,616,
so that the India trade amounted to only 1-32 of the entire foreign
trade. In 1850 the total exports to India from Great Britain and
Ireland were £8,024,000, of which cotton goods alone amounted to
£5,220,000, so that it reached more than ‘/s of the whole export, and
more than 1/4 of the foreign cotton trade. But the cotton manufacture
also employed now 1/8 of the population of Britain, and contributed
1/12th of the whole national revenue. After each commercial crisis the
East Indian trade grew of more paramount importance for the British
cotton manufacturers, and the East India Continent became actually
their best market. At the same rate at which the cotton manufactures
became of vital interest for the whole social frame of Great Britain,
East India became of vital interest for the British cotton
manufacture.

Till then the interests of the moneyocracy which had converted India
into its landed estates, of the oligarchy who had conquered it by
their armies, and of the millocracy who had inundated it with their
fabrics, had gone hand in hand. But the more the industrial interest
became dependent on the Indian market, the more it fell the necessity
of creating fresh productive powers in India, after having ruined her
native industry. You cannot continue to inundate a country with your
manufactures, unless you enable it to give you some produce in return.
The industrial interest found that their trade declined instead of
increasing. For the four years ending with 1846, the imports to India
from Great Britain were to the amount of 261 million rupees; for the
four years ending 1850 they were only 253 millions, while the exports
for the former period 274 millions of rupees, and for the latter
period 254 millions. They found out that the power of consuming their
goods was contracted in India to the lowest possible point, that the
consumption of their manufactures by the British West Indies, was of
the value of about 14s. per head of the population per annum, by
Chile, of 9s. 3d., by Brazil, of 6s. 5d., by Cuba, of 6s. 2d., by
Peru, of 5s. 7d., by Central America, of 10d., while it amounted in
India only to about 9d. Then came the short cotton crop in the United
States, which caused them a loss of £11,000,000 in 1850, and they were
exasperated at depending on America, instead of deriving a sufficiency
of raw cotton from the East Indies. Besides, they found that in all
attempts to apply capital to India they met with impediments and
chicanery on the part of the India authorities. Thus India became the
battle-field in the contest of the industrial interest on the one
side, and of the moneyocracy and oligarchy on the other. The
manufacturers, conscious of their ascendancy in England, ask now for
the annihilation of these antagonistic powers in India, for the
destruction of the whole ancient fabric of Indian government, and for
the final eclipse of the East India Company.

And now to the fourth and last point of view, from which the Indian
question must be judged. Since 1784 Indian finances have got more and
more deeply into difficulty. There exists now a national debt of 50
million pounds, a continual decrease in the resources of the revenue,
and a corresponding increase in the expenditure, dubiously balanced by
the gambling income of the opium tax, now threatened. with extinction
by the Chinese beginning themselves to cultivate the poppy, and
aggravated by the expenses to be anticipated from the senseless
Burmese war[128].

“As the case stands,” says Mr. Dickinson, “as it would ruin England to
lose her Empire in India, it is threatening our own finances with
ruin, to be obliged to keep it.”

I have shown thus, how the Indian question has become for the first
time since 1783, an English question, and a ministerial question.

Footnotes from MECW Volume 12

120 The Bank of England was founded by private persons in 1694. The
founders loaned its fixed capital to the government, which explains
the origin of the British national debt. The Bank was actually
controlled by the government and functioned as the state bank, e.g. it
was entitled to issue money. It remained nominally a private
establishment, however, until the end of the Second World War.

121 A reference to the overthrow of the Stuart dynasty and the
enthronement of William Ill of Orange, after which constitutional
monarchy was consolidated in England on the basis of a compromise
between the landed aristocracy and the financial bourgeoisie. p. 149

122 The Seven Years’ War (1756-63)-a war between the Anglo-Prussian
and the Franco-Russo-Austrian coalitions. One of the chief causes of
the war was the colonial and commercial rivalry between England and
France. The main theatre of operations in the East was India where the
French and their puppets among the local princes were opposed by the
British East India Company, which took advantage of the war to seize
new Indian territories. The war ended with France losing almost all
her possessions in India (except five coastal towns whose
fortifications she was compelled to demolish), while England
considerably strengthened her colonial might.

123 A reference to the Reform Bill which was passed by Parliament in
June 1832. The Bill was directed against the political monopoly of the
landed and financial aristocracy and gave representatives of the
industrial bourgeoisie access to Parliament. The proletariat and the
petty bourgeoisie, the main forces in the struggle for the reform,
received no electoral rights.

124 Marx lists a number of wars of conquest waged by the British East
India Company. The war in the Carnatic (a principality in South-
Eastern India) lasted at intervals from 1746 to 1763. The warring
sides-the British and French East India Companies-sought to subjugate
the Carnatic under the guise of supporting different local pretenders
to the principality. The British, who in January 1761 took possession
of Pondichery, the principal French bastion in the south, ultimately
won the day.

In 1756, in an effort to avert a British invasion, the Nawab of Bengal
started a war, seizing Calcutta, the British base in North-Eastern
India. But the armed forces of the British East India Company under
Robert Clive’s command soon recaptured the city, demolished the Bengal
fortifications of the French, who supported the Nawab, and defeated
him at Plassey on June 23, 1757. In 1763 they crushed the uprising
that broke out in Bengal against British rule. Along with Bengal, the
British took possession of Bibar, a region on the Ganges, which was
under the rule of the Nawab of Bengal. In 1803, the British completed
the conquest of several feudal principalities of Orissa situated south
of Bengal.

125 In 1790-92 and 1799 the British East India Company waged wars with
Mysore, an independent feudal state in South India. Its ruler Tippoo
Saib had taken part in previous Mysore campaigns against the British
and was a sworn enemy of the British colonialists. In the first of
these wars Mysore lost half of its dominions, which were seized by the
East India Company and its allied feudal princes. The second war ended
with the total defeat and the death of Tippoo. Mysore became a vassal
principality.

The subsidiary system or the system of so-called subsidiary agreements-
a method of turning the potentates of Indian principalities into
vassals of the East India Company. Most widespread were agreements
under which the princes had to maintain (subsidise) the Company’s
troops stationed on their territory and agreements which saddled the
princes with loans on exorbitant terms. Failure to fulfil them
resulted in the confiscation of their possessions.

127 Marx’s preparatory materials on India (Notebook XXI) include
passages from J. R. MacCulloch’s The Literature of Political Economy,
London, 1845. The book contains extracts from the works of English
economists of an earlier period on British trade with India, among
them the above-mentioned treatises of J. Child, Th. Mun and J.
Pollexfen. p. 153

128 In the first Burmese war of 1824-26 the troops of the East India
Company seized the Province of Assam, bordering on Bengal, and the
coastal districts of Arakan and Tenasserim. The second Burmese war
(1852) resulted in the seizure by the British of the Province of Pegu.
Burma did not sign a peace treaty, however, and refused to recognise
the seizure of Pegu. In 1853 the British authorities threatened to
resume military operations but abstained from this step, largely due
to the guerrilla warfare in Pegu against the foreign invaders, which
continued until 1860. In the 1860s Britain imposed on Burma a number
of unequal treaties and in 1885, as a result of the third Burmese war,
annexed the whole territory of Burma.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1853/07/11.htm

Following items would be detailed in the next post...

bademiyansubhanallah

unread,
Feb 5, 2010, 5:39:30 PM2/5/10
to
East India Company Act, 1773 (13 Geo. III, c. 63)

VII. And, for the better management of the said United
Company's affairs in India, be it further enacted by the authority
aforesaid, that, for the government of the Presidency of Fort William
in Bengal, there shall be appointed a Governor-General, and four
counsellors; and that the whole civil and military government of the
said Presidency, and also the ordering, management and government of
all the territorial acquisitions and revenues in the kingdoms of
Bengal, Behar, and Orissa, shall, during such time as the territorial
acquisitions and revenues shall remain in the possession of the said
United Company, be, and are hereby vested in the said Governor-General
and Council of the said Presidency of Fort William in Bengal, in like
manner, to all intents and purposes whatsoever, as the same now are,
or at any time heretofore might have been exercised by the President
and Council, or Select Committee, in the said kingdoms.

VIII. And be it enacted by the authority aforesaid, that in
all cases whatsoever wherein any difference of opinion shall arise
upon any question proposed in any consultation, the said Governor-
General and Council shall be bound and concluded by the opinion and
decision of the major part of those present: And if it shall happen
that, by the death or removal, or by the absence, of any of the
members of the said Council, such Governor-General and Council shall
happen to be equally divided; then, and in every such case, the said
Governor-General, or, in his absence, the eldest counsellor present,
shall have a casting voice, and his opinion shall be decisive and
conclusive.

IX. And be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, that
the said Governor-General and Council, or the major part of them,
shall have, and they are hereby authorized to have, power of
superintending and controlling the government and management, of the
Presidencies of Madras, Bombay, and Bencoolen [sic] respectively, so
far and insomuch as that it shall not be lawful for any President and
Council of Madras, Bombay, or Bencoolen, for the time being, to make
any orders for commencing hostilities, or declaring or making war,
against any Indian princes or powers, or for negotiating or concluding
any treaty of peace, or other treaty, with any such Indian princes or
powers, without the consent and approbation of the said Governor-
General and Council first had and obtained, except in such cases of
imminent necessity as would render it dangerous to postpone such
hostilities or treaties until the orders from the Governor-General and
Council might arrive; and except in such cases where the said
Presidents and Councils respectively shall have received special
orders from the said United Company; and any President and Council of
Madras, Bombay, or Bencoolen, who shall offend in any of the cases
aforesaid, shall be liable to be suspended from his or their office by
the order of the said Governor-General and Council; and every
President and Council of Madras, Bombay, and Bencoolen, for the time
being, shall, and they are hereby respectively directed and required,
to pay due obedience to such orders as they shall receive, touching
the premises from the said Governor-General and Council for the time
being, and constantly and diligently to transmit to the said Governor-
General and Council advice and intelligence of all transactions and
matters whatsoever that shall come to their knowledge, relating to the
government, revenues, or interest, of the said United Company; and the
said Governor-General and Council for the time being shall, and they
are hereby directed and required to pay due obedience to all such
orders as they shall receive from the Court of Directors of the said
United Company, and to correspond, from time to time, and constantly
and diligently transmit to the said Court an exact particular of all
advices or intelligence, and of all transactions and matters
whatsoever, that shall come to their knowledge, relating to the
government, commerce, revenues, or interest, of the said United
Company; and the Court of Directors of the said Company, or their
successors, shall, and they are hereby directed and required, from
time to time, before the expiration of fourteen days after the
receiving any such letters or advices, to give in and deliver unto the
High Treasurer, or Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury for the
time being, a true and exact copy of such parts of the said letters or
advices as shall any way relate to the management of the revenues of
the said Company; and in like manner to give in and deliver to one of
His Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State f or the time being a
true and exact copy of all such parts of the said letters or advices
as shall any way relate to the civil or military affairs and
government of the said Company; all which copies shall be fairly
written, and shall be signed by two or more of the Directors of the
said Company.

X. And it is hereby further enacted, that Warren Hastings,
Esquire, shall be the first Governor-General; and that Lieutenant-
General John Clavering, the Honourable George Monson, Richard Barwell,
Esquire, and Philip Francis, Esquire, shall be the four first
counsellors; and they, and each of them, shall hold and continue in
his and their respective offices for and during the term of five years
from the time of their arrival at Fort William in Bengal, and taking
upon them the government of the said Presidency, and shall not be
removable in the meantime, except by His Majesty, his heirs and
successors, upon representation made by the Court of Directors of the
said United Company for the time being: and in case of the avoidance
of the office of such Governor-General by death, resignation, or
removal, his place shall, during the remainder of the term aforesaid,
as often as the case shall happen, be supplied by the person of the
Council who stands next in rank to such Governor-General; and, in case
of the death, removal, resignation, or promotion, of any of the said
Council, the Directors of the said United Company are hereby
empowered, for and during the remainder of the said term of five
years, to nominate and appoint, by and with the consent of His
Majesty, his heirs and successors, to be signified under his or their
sign manual, a person to succeed to the office so become vacant in the
said Council; and until such appointment shall be made, all the powers
and authorities vested in the Governor-General and Council shall rest
and continue in., and be exercised and executed by, the Governor-
General and Council remaining and surviving; and from and after the
expiration of the said term of five years, the power of nominating and
removing the succeeding Governor-General and Council shall be vested
in the Directors of the said United Company.

XIII. And whereas His late Majesty King George the Second did,
by his letters patent, bearing date at Westminster the eighth day of
January, in the twenty-sixth year of his reign, grant unto the said
United Company of Merchants of England trading to the East Indies his
royal charter, thereby, amongst other things, constituting and
establishing courts of civil, criminal, and ecclesiastical
jurisdiction, at the said United Company's respective settlements at
Madras-patnam, Bombay on the island of Bombay, and Fort William in
Bengal; which said charter does not sufficiently provide for the due
administration of justice in such manner as the state and condition of
the Company's Presidency of Fort William in Bengal, so long as the
said Company shall continue in the possession of the territorial
acquisitions before mentioned, do and must require; be it therefore
enacted by the authority aforesaid, that it shall and may be lawful
for His Majesty, by charter, or letters patent under the great seal of
Great Britain, to erect and establish a supreme court of judicature at
Fort William aforesaid, to consist of a chief justice and three other
judges, being barristers in England or Ireland, of not less than five
years standing, to be named from time to time by His Majesty, his
heirs and successors; which said Supreme Court of Judicature shall
have, and the same Court is hereby declared to have, full power and
authority to exercise and perform all civil, criminal, admiralty, and
ecclesiastical jurisdiction, and to appoint such clerks, and other
ministerial officers of the said Court, with such reasonable salaries,
as shall be approved of by the said Governor-General and Council; and
to form and establish such rules of practice, and such rules for the
process of the said Court, and to do all such other things as shall be
found necessary for the administration of justice, and the due
execution of all or any of the powers which, by the said charter,
shall or may be granted and committed to the said Court; and also
shall be, at all times, a court of record, and shall be a court of
oyer and terminer, and gaol delivery, in and for the said town of
Calcutta, and factory of Fort William, in Bengal, aforesaid, and the
limits thereof, and the factories subordinate thereto.

XIV. Provided nevertheless, and be it further enacted by the
authority aforesaid, that the said new charter which His Majesty is
herein-before empowered to grant, and the jurisdiction, powers, and
authorities, to be thereby established shall and may extend to all
British subjects who shall reside in the kingdoms or provinces of
Bengal, Behar, and Orissa, or any of them, under the protection of the
said United Company; and the same charter shall be competent and
effectual; and the Supreme Court of Judicature therein, and thereby to
be established, shall have full power and authority to hear and
determine all complaints against any of His Majesty's subjects for any
crimes, misdemeanours, or oppressions, committed, or to be committed;
and also, to entertain, hear, and determine, any suits or actions
whatsoever, against any of His Majesty's subjects in Bengal, Behar,
and Orissa, and any suit, action or complaint against any person who
shall, at the time when such debt, or cause of action, or complaint,
shall have arisen, have been employed by, or shall then have been,
directly or indirectly, in the service of the said United Company or
of any of His Majesty's subjects.

XXIII. And be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid,
that no Governor-General, or any of the Council of the said United
Company's Presidency of Fort William in Bengal, or any Chief Justice,
or any of the Judges of the Supreme Court of Judicature at Fort
William aforesaid, shall directly, or indirectly, by themselves, or by
any other person or persons for his or their use, or on his or their
behalf accept, receive, or take, of or from any person or persons, in
any manner, or on any account whatsoever, any present, gift, donation,
gratuity, or reward pecuniary or otherwise, or any promise or
engagement for any present, gift, donation, gratuity, or reward; and
that no Governor-General, or any of the said Council, or any Chief
Justice or Judge of the said Court, shall carry on, be concerned in,
or have any dealing or transactions, by way of traffic or commerce of
any kind whatsoever, either for his or their use or benefit, profit or
advantage, or for the benefit or advantage of any other person or
persons whatsoever (the trade and commerce of the said United Company
only excepted); any usage or custom to the contrary thereof in anywise
not-withstanding.

XXIV. And be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid,
that from and after the first day of August, one thousand seven
hundred and seventy-four, no person holding or exercising any civil or
military office under the Crown, or the said United Company in the
East Indies, shall accept, receive, or take, direct or indirectly, by
himself, or any other person or persons on his behalf, or for his use
or benefit, of and from any of the Indian princes or powers, or their
ministers or agents (or any of the natives of Asia), any present,
gift, donation, gratuity, or reward, pecuniary or otherwise, upon any
account or on any pretence whatsoever; or any promise or engagement
for any present, gift, donation, gratuity or reward; and if any
person, holding or exercising any such civil or military office, shall
be guilty of any such offence, and shall be thereof legally convicted
in such Supreme Court at Calcutta, or in the Mayor's Court in any
other of the said United Company's settlements where such offence
shall have been committed; every such person so convicted, shall
forfeit double the value of such present, gift, donation, gratuity, or
reward, so taken and received; one moiety of which forfeiture shall be
to the said United Company, and the other moiety to him or them who
shall inform or prosecute for the same; and also shall and may be sent
to England, by the order of the Governor and Council of the Presidency
or settlement where the offender shall be convicted, unless such
person so convicted shall give sufficient security to remove him or
themselves within twelve months after such conviction.

XXXVI. And be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid,
that it shall and may be lawful for the Governor-General and Council
of the said United Company's settlement at Fort William in Bengal,
from time to time, to make and issue such rules, ordinances, and
regulations, for the good order and civil government of the said
United Company's settlement at Fort William aforesaid, and other
factories and places subordinate, or to be subordinate thereto, as
shall be deemed just and reasonable (such rules, ordinances, and
regulations, not being repugnant to the laws of the realm), and to
set, impose, inflict, and levy, reasonable fines and forfeitures for
the breach or non-observance of such rules, ordinances, and
regulations; but nevertheless the same, or any of them, shall not be
valid, or of any force or effect, until the same shall be duly
registered and published in the said Supreme Court of Judicature,
which shall be, by the said new charter, established, with the consent
and approbation of the said Court, which registry shall not be made
until the expiration of twenty days after the same shall be openly
published, and a copy thereof affixed in some conspicuous part of the
court-house or place where the said Supreme Court shall be held; and
from and immediately after such registry as aforesaid, the same shall
be good and valid in law; but, nevertheless, it shall be lawful f or
any person or persons in India to appeal therefrom to his Majesty, his
heirs or successors, in Council, who are hereby empowered, if they
think fit, to set aside and repeal any such rules, ordinances, and
regulations respectively, so as such appeal, or notice thereof, be
lodged in the said new Court of Judicature, within the space of sixty
days after the time of the registering and publishing the same; and it
shall be lawful for any person or persons in England to appeal
therefrom in like manner, within sixty days after the publishing the
same in England; and it is hereby directed and required that a copy of
such rules, ordinances, and regulations, from time to time, as the
same shall be so received, shall be affixed in some conspicuous and
public place in the India House, there to remain and be resorted to as
occasion shall require; yet nevertheless, such appeal shall not
obstruct, impede, or hinder the immediate execution of any rule,
ordinance, or regulation, so made and registered as aforesaid, until
the same shall appear to have been set aside or repealed, upon the
hearing and determination of such appeal.

XXXVII. Provided always, and be it enacted by the authority
aforesaid, that the said Governor-General and Council shall, and they
are hereby required, from time to time, to transmit copies of all such
rules, ordinances, and regulations, as they shall make and issue, to
one of His Majesty's principal Secretaries of State for the time
being, and that it shall and may be lawful to and for His Majesty, his
heirs and successors, from time to time, as they shall think
necessary, to signify to the said United Company, under his or their
sign manual, his or their disapprobation and disallowance of all such
rules, ordinances, and regulations; and that from and immediately
after the time that such disapprobation shall be duly registered and
published in the said Supreme Court of Judicature at Fort William in
Bengal, all such rules, ordinances, and regulations, shall be null and
void; but in case His Majesty, his heirs and successors, shall not,
within the space of two years from the making of such rules,
ordinances, and regulations, signify his or their disapprobation or
disallowance thereof, as aforesaid, that then., and in that case, all
such rules, ordinances, and regulations, shall be valid and effectual,
and have full force.

XXXVIII. And be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid,
that the Governor-General and Council for the time being of the said
United Company's settlement at Fort William aforesaid, and the Chief
Justice and other Judges of the said Supreme Court of Judicature,
shall and may, and they are hereby respectively declared to be, and to
have full power and authority to act as justices of the peace for the
said settlement, and for the several settlements and factories
subordinate thereto; and to do and transact all matters and things
which to the office of a justice or justices of the peace do belong
and appertain; and for that purpose the said Governor-General and
Council are hereby authorized and empowered to hold quarter-sessions
within the said settlement of Fort William aforesaid, four times in
every year, and the same shall be at all times a court of record.

XXXIX. And be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid,
that if any Governor-General, President, or Governor, or Council of
any of the said Company's principal or other settlements in India, or
the Chief Justice, or any of the Judges of the said Supreme Court of
Judicature, to be by the said new charter established, or of any other
court in any of the said United Company's settlements, or any other
person or persons who now are, or heretofore have been employed by or
in the service of the said United Company, in any civil or military
station, office, or capacity, or who have or claim, or heretofore have
had or claimed, any power or authority, or jurisdiction, by or from
the said United Company, or any of His Majesty's subjects residing in
India, shall commit any offence against this act, or shall have been,
or shall be guilty of, any crime, misdemeanour, or offence, committed
against any of His Majesty's subjects, or any of the inhabitants of
India within their respective jurisdictions, all such crimes, offences
and misdemeanours, may be respectively inquired of, heard, tried, and
determined in His Majesty's Court of King's Bench, and all such
persons so offending, and not having been before tried f or the same
offence in India, shall, on conviction, in any such case as is not
otherwise specially provided for by this Act, be liable to such fine
or corporal punishment as the said Court shall think fit; and moreover
shall be liable, at the discretion of the said Court, to be adjudged
to be incapable of serving the said United Company in any office,
civil or military ; and all and every such crimes, offences, and
misdemeanours, as aforesaid, may be alleged to be committed, and may
be laid, inquired of, and tried in the the county of Middlesex.

XL. And whereas the provisions made by former laws for the
hearing and determining in England offences committed in India have
been found. ineffectual, by reason of the difficulty of proving in
this kingdom matters done there ; be it further enacted by the
authority aforesaid, that in all cases of indictments or informations,
laid or exhibited in the said Court of King's Bench, for misdemeanours
or offences committed in India, it shall and may be lawful for His
Majesty's said Court, upon motion to be made on behalf of the
prosecutor, or of the defendant or defendants, to award a writ or
writs of mandamus, requiring the Chief Justice and Judges of the said
Supreme Court of Judicature for the time being, or the Judges of the
Mayor's Court at Madras, Bombay, or Bencoolen, as the case may
require, who are hereby respectively authorized and required
accordingly to hold a court, with all convenient speed, for the
examination of witnesses, and receiving other proofs concerning the
matters charged in such indictments or informations respectively; and,
in the meantime, to cause such public notice to be given of the
holding of the said Court, and to issue such summons or other process,
as may be requisite for the attendance of witnesses, and of the agents
or counsel, of all or any of the parties respectively, and to adjourn,
from time to time as occasion may require; and such examination as
aforesaid shall be then and there openly and publicly taken viva voce
in the said Court, upon the respective oaths of witnesses, and the
oaths of skilful interpreters, administered according to the forms of
their several religions; and shall, by some sworn officer of such
Court, be reduced into one or more writing or writings on parchment in
case any duplicate or duplicates should be required by or on behalf of
any of the parties interested, and shall be sent to His Majesty, in
his Court of King's Bench, closed up, and under the seals of two or
more of the judges of the said Court, and one or more of the said
judges shall deliver the same to the agent or agents of the party or
parties requiring the same; which said agent or agents (or in case of
his or their death, the person into whose hands the same shall come)
shall deliver the same to one of the clerks in court of His Majesty's
Court of King's Bench, in the public office, and make oath that he
received the same from the hands of one or more of the judges of such
court in India (or if such agent be dead, in what manner the same came
into his hands): and that the same has not been opened, or altered,
since he so received it (which said oath such clerk in court is hereby
authorized and required to administer): and such depositions, being
duly taken and returned, according to the true intent and meaning of
this Act, shall be allowed and read, and shall be deemed as good and
competent evidence as if such witness had been present, and sworn and
examined viva voce at any trial for such crimes or misdemeanours, as
aforesaid, in His Majesty's said Court of King's Bench, any law or
usage to the contrary notwithstanding; and all parties concerned shall
be entitled to take copies of such depositions at their own costs and
charges.

XLI. And be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid,
that in case the said Chief Justice, or Judges of the said Supreme
Court of Judicature, or any of them, for the time being, shall commit
any offence against this Act, or be guilty of any corrupt practice, or
other crime, offence, or misdemeanour, in the execution of their
respective offices, it shall and may be lawful for His Majesty's said
Court of King's Bench in England, upon an information or indictment
laid or exhibited in the said Court f or such crime, offence, or
misdemeanour, upon motion to be made in the said Court, to award such
writ or writs of mandamus, as aforesaid, requiring the Governor-
General, and Council of the said United Company's settlement at Fort
William aforesaid, who are hereby respectively authorized and required
accordingly to assemble themselves in a reasonable time, and to cause
all such proceedings to be had and made as are herein before
respectively directed and prescribed concerning the examination of
witnesses; and such examination, so taken, shall be returned and
proceeded upon in the same manner, in all respects as if the several
directions herein-before prescribed and enacted in that behalf were
again repeated.

From: A. Berriedale Keith, ed. Speeches and Documents on Indian
Policy, 1750-1921. Vol. I. London: Humphrey Milford, Oxford University
Press, 1922, 45-59.

http://projectsouthasia.sdstate.edu/Docs/history/primarydocs/Political_History/ABKeithDoc009.htm

East India Company Act, 1784 (24 Geo. III, s. 2, c. 25)

An Act for the better regulation and management of the affairs of the
East India Company, and of the British possessions in India; and for
establishing a Court of Judicature for the more speedy and effectual
trial of persons accused of offences committed in the East Indies.

FOR the better government and security of the territorial possessions
of this kingdom in the East Indies, be it enacted by the King's most
excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords
Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament
assembled, and by the authority of the same. That it shall and may be
lawful to and for the King's Majesty, his heirs and successors, by any
commission to be issued under the great seal of Great Britain, to
nominate and appoint such persons, not exceeding six in number, as His
Majesty shall think fit, being of His Majesty's most honourable Privy
Council, of whom one of His Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State
for the time being, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the time
being, shall be two, to be, and who shall accordingly be,
Commissioners for the affairs of India.

II. And be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, that any
number, not less than three of the said Commissioners, shall form a
Board for executing the several powers which, by this or any other
act, shall be vested in the Commissioners aforesaid.

III. And be it further enacted, that the said Secretary of State, and,
in his absence, the said Chancellor of the Exchequer, and, in the
absence of both of them, the senior of the said other Commissioners,
according to his rank in seniority of appointment, shall preside at,
and be president of the said Board; and that the said Commissioners
shall have, and they are hereby invested with, the superintendence and
control over all the British territorial possessions in the East
Indies, and over the affairs of the United Company of Merchants
trading thereto, in manner hereinafter directed.

IV. And be it further enacted, that in case the members present at the
said Board shall at any time be equally divided in opinion, in respect
to any matter depending before them, then, and in every such case, the
then President of the said Board shall have two voices, or the casting
vote.

V. And be it further enacted, that it shall and may be lawful for the
King's Majesty, his heirs and successors, from time to time, at his
and their will and pleasure, to revoke and determine the Commission
aforesaid, and from time to time to cause any new Commission or
Commissions to be sealed as aforesaid, for appointing any other person
or persons, being of His Majesty's most honourable Privy Council, of
whom, one of his Majesty's principal Secretaries of State, and the
Chancellor of the Exchequer for the time being, shall always be two,
to be Commissioners and Members of the said Board, when and so often
as His Majesty, his heirs or successors, shall think fit, so that the
number of Commissioners therein to be named shall in no wise exceed
the aforesaid number of six.

VI. And be it further enacted, that the said Board shall be fully
authorized and empowered, from time to time, to superintend, direct,
and control, all acts, operations, and concerns, which in any wise
relate to the civil or military government or revenues of the British
territorial possessions in the East Indies, in the manner hereinafter
directed.

...................................

XI. And, to the intent that the said Board may be duly informed of all
transactions of the said Company, in respect to the management of
their concerns in the East Indies; be it further enacted that all the
members of the said Board shall, at all convenient times, have access
to all papers and muniments of the said United Company, and shall be
furnished with such extracts or copies thereof as they shall from time
to time require and that the Court of Directors of the said United
Company shall, and they are hereby required and directed to deliver to
the said Board, copies of all minutes orders, resolutions, and other
proceedings, of all general and special Courts of Proprietors of the
said Company, and of the Court of Directors, so far as relate to the
civil or military government or revenues of the British territorial
possessions in the East Indies, within eight days after the holding of
such respective Courts; and also copies of all dispatches which the
said Directors, or any Committee of the said Directors, shall receive
from any of their servants in the East Indies, immediately after the
arrival thereof; and also copies of all letters, orders, and
instructions whatsoever relating to the civil or military government
or revenues of the British territorial possessions in the East Indies,
proposed to be sent or dispatched by the said Court of Directors, or
any Committee of the said Directors, to any of the servants of the
said Company in the East Indies; and that the said Court of Directors
of the said United Company shall, and they are hereby required to, pay
due obedience to, and shall be governed and bound by, such orders and
directions as they shall from time to time receive from the said
Board, touching the civil or military government and revenues of the
British territorial possessions in the East Indies.

XII. And be it further enacted, that, within fourteen days after the
receipt of such copies last-mentioned, the said Board shall return the
same to the said Court of Directors, with their approbation thereof,
subscribed by three of the members of the said Board, or their reasons
at large for disapproving the same, together with instructions from
the said Board to the said Court of Directors in respect thereto; and
that the said Court of Directors shall thereupon dispatch and send the
letters, orders, and instructions so approved or amended, to their
servants in India, without further delay, unless, on any
representation made by the said Directors to the said Board, the said
Board shall direct any alterations to be made in such letters, orders,
or instructions; and no letters, orders, or instructions, until after
such previous communication thereof to the said Board, shall at any
time be sent or dispatched by the said Court of Directors to the East
Indies, on any account or pretence whatsoever.

XIII. And, for the readier dispatch of the civil and military concerns
of the said United Company, be it further enacted, that whenever the
Court of Directors of the said United Company shall neglect to
transmit to the said Board their intended dispatches on any subject,
within fourteen days after requisition made, it shall and may be
lawful to and for the said Board to prepare and send to the Directors
of the East India Company (without waiting for the receipt of the
copies of dispatches intended to be sent by the said Court of
Directors as aforesaid) any orders or instructions to any of the
governments or presidencies aforesaid, concerning the civil or
military government of the British territories and possessions in the
East Indies; and the said Directors shall, and they are hereby
required to transmit dispatches in the usual form (pursuant to the
tenor of the said orders and instructions so transmitted to them) to
the respective governments and presidencies in India, unless, on any
representation made by the said Directors to the said Board, touching
such orders or instructions, the said Board shall direct any
alteration to be made in the same; which directions the said Court of
Directors shall in such case be bound to conform to.

XIV. And be it further enacted, that in case the said Board shall send
any orders or instructions to the said Court of Directors, to be by
them transmitted to India, which, in the opinion of the said Court of
Directors, shall relate to points not connected with the civil or
military government and revenues of the said territories and
possessions in India, then, and in any such case, it shall be lawful
for the said Court of Directors to apply, by petition, to His Majesty
in Council, touching such orders and instructions; and His Majesty in
Council shall decide whether the same be, or be not, connected with
the civil or military government and revenues of the said territories
and possessions in India ; which decision shall be final and
conclusive.

XV. Provided nevertheless, and be it further enacted, that if the said
Board shall be of opinion that the subject matter of any of their
deliberations concerning the levying of war or making of peace, or
treating or negotiating with any of the native princes or states in
India, shall require secrecy, it shall and may be lawful for the said
Board to send secret orders and instructions to the Secret Committee
of the said Court of Directors for the time being, who shall
thereupon, without disclosing the same, transmit their orders and
dispatches in the usual form, according to the tenor of the said
orders and instructions of the said Board, to the respective
governments and presidencies in India; and that the said governments
and presidencies shall pay a faithful obedience to such orders and
dispatches, and shall return their answers to the same, sealed (under
cover) with their respective seals, to the said Secret Committee, who
shall forthwith communicate such answers to the said Board.

XVI. And be it enacted by the authority aforesaid, that it shall and
may be lawful to and for the Court of Directors of the said United
Company for the time being, and they are hereby required, from time to
time, to appoint a Secret Committee, to consist of any number of the
said Directors for the time being, not exceeding three; which Secret
Committee shall, from time to time, upon receipt of any such secret
orders and instructions concerning the levying of war or making of
peace, or treating or negotiating with any of the native princes or
states of India, from the said Commissioners for the Affairs of India,
as are hereinbefore mentioned, transmit to the respective governments
and presidencies in India a duplicate or duplicates of such orders and
instructions, together with orders in writing, signed by them the
members of the said Secret Committee, to carry the same into
execution; and to all such orders and instructions, so transmitted,
the several governments and presidencies in India are hereby required
to pay the same obedience as if such orders and directions had been
issued and transmitted by the Court of Director's of the said United
Company.

XVIL. Provided also, and be it further enacted and declared, by the
authority aforesaid, that nothing in this Act contained shall extend
to give unto the said Board the power of nominating or appointing any
of the servants of the said United Company; any thing herein contained
to the contrary notwithstanding.

XVIII. And be it further enacted, that as soon as the office of any
one of the counsellors of the presidency of Fort William in Bengal
(other than the Commander-in-Chief) shall become vacant by death,
removal, or resignation, the vacancy so happening shall not be
supplied by the said Court of Directors, but the said Supreme
Government shall from thenceforth consist of a Governor-General and
three supreme counsellors only; and that the Commander-in-Chief of the
Company's forces in India for the time being, shall have voice and
precedence in Council next after the said Governor-General ; any thing
in any former Act of Parliament contained to the contrary
notwithstanding.

XIX. And be it further enacted that the Government of the several
presidencies and settlements of Fort Saint George and Bombay shall,
after the commencement of this Act, consist of a Governor or
President, and three Counsellors only, of whom the Commander-in-Chief
in the said several settlements for the time being shall be one,
having the like precedence in Council as in the Presidency of Fort
William in Bengal, unless the Commander-in-Chief of the Company's
forces in India shall happen to be present in either of the said
settlements; and in such case the said Commander-in-Chief shall be one
of the said Counsellors, instead of the Commander-in-Chief of such
settlement; and that the said Commander- in-Chief of such settlement
shall during such time have only a seat, but no voice in the said
Council.

XX. And be it further enacted, that the Court of Directors of the said
United Company shall, within the space of one calendar month next
after the passing of this Act, nominate and appoint, from amongst the
servants of the said Company in India, or any other persons, a fit and
proper person to be the Governor of the said Presidency or Settlement
of Fort Saint George, and two other fit and proper persons from
amongst the said servants in India, who, together with the Commander-
in-Chief at Fort Saint George for the time being, shall be the Council
of the same Presidency or Settlement; and that the said Court of
Directors shall also, in like manner, and within the time aforesaid,
nominate and appoint fit and proper persons to be the Governor and
Council of the said Presidency or Settlement of Bombay, under the same
restrictions as are hereinbefore provided in respect to the Governor
or President and Council of Fort Saint George.

XXI. And be it further enacted, that in case the members present at
any of the Boards or Councils of Fort William, Fort Saint George, or
Bombay, shall at any time be equally divided in opinion in respect to
any matter depending before them, then, and in every such case the
said Governor-General or the Governor or President, as the case may
be, shall have two voices, or the casting vote.

XXII. And be it further enacted, that it shall and may be lawful to
and for the King's Majesty, his heirs and successors, by any writing
or instrument under his or their sign manual, countersigned by the
said Secretary of State, or for the Court of Directors of the said
United Company for the time being, by writing under their hands, to
remove or recall the present or any future Governor-General of Fort
William at Bengal, or any of the members of the Council of Fort
William aforesaid, or any of the governors or presidents, and members
of the Councils, of the Presidencies or Settlements of Fort Saint
George and Bombay, or of any other British Settlements in India, or
any other person or persons holding any office, employment, or
commission, civil or military, under the said United Company in India,
for the time being; and to vacate and make void all and every or any
appointment or appointments of any person or persons to any of the
offices or places aforesaid; and that all and every the powers and
authorities of the respective persons so removed or recalled, or whose
appointment shall be so vacated, shall cease or determine at or from
such respective time or times as in the said writing or writings shall
be expressed and directed: provided always, that a duplicate or copy
of every such writing or instrument, under His Majesty's sign manual,
attested by the said Secretary of State for the time being, shall,
within eight days after the same shall be signed by His Majesty, his
heirs or successors, be transmitted or delivered, by the said
Secretary of State, unto the Chairman or Deputy Chairman for the time
being of the said United Company, to the intent that the Court of
Directors of the said Company may be apprised thereof.

XXIII. And be it further enacted, that whenever any vacancy or
vacancies of the office of Governor-General or President, or of any
member of the Council, shall happen in any of the presidencies
aforesaid, either by death, resignation, or recall, as aforesaid, then
and in such case the Court of Directors of the said United Company
shall proceed to nominate and appoint a fit person or persons to
supply such vacancy or vacancies from amongst their covenanted
servants in India, except to the office of Governor-General, or the
office of Governor or President of Fort Saint George or Bombay, or of
any Commander-in-Chief, to which several offices the said Court of
Directors shall be at liberty, if they shall think fit, to nominate
and appoint any other person or persons respectively.

XXIV. Provided always, and be it further enacted, that the said
Commanders-in-Chief, at each of the said presidencies respectively,
shall in no case succeed to the office of Governor-General or
President of Fort William, Fort Saint George, or of Bombay, unless
thereunto specially appointed by the Court of Directors of the said
United Company; but that in case of the vacancy of the said offices of
Governor-General or President respectively, when no person shall be
specially appointed to succeed thereunto, the Counsellor next in rank
to such Commander-in-Chief shall succeed to such office, and hold the
same, until some other person shall be appointed thereunto by the said
Court of Directors.

XXV. Provided always, and be it further enacted, that when and so
often as the Court of Directors shall not, within the space of two
calendar months, to be computed from the day whereon the notification
of the vacancy shall have been received by the said Court of
Directors, proceed to supply the same, then and in any such case, and
so often as the same shall happen, it shall be lawful for His Majesty,
his heirs and successors, to constitute and appoint, by writing under
his or their royal sign manual (under the same restrictions and
regulations as are hereinbefore provided, with respect to the
nominations and appointments made by the said Court of Directors),
such person or persons as His Majesty, his heirs and successors shall
think proper to succeed to and supply the respective office or place,
offices or places, so vacant or from which any person or persons shall
be so recalled or removed, or whose appointment or appointments shall
have been vacated and made void as aforesaid; and that every person or
persons so constituted and appointed, shall have and be invested with
the same powers, privileges and authorities, as if he or they had been
nominated and appointed by the said Court of Directors, and shall be
subject to recall only by the King's Majesty, his heirs or successors;
any thing herein contained to the contrary notwithstanding.

XXVI. And be it further enacted, by the authority aforesaid, that it
shall and may be lawful to and for the Court of Directors of the said
United Company, if they shall so think fit, subject to the like
limitations and restrictions as are hereinbefore enacted, respecting
the persons qualified to be appointed members of the Government of the
respective settlements of the said United Company at Fort William,
Fort Saint George, and Bombay, to appoint, from time to time, fit and
proper persons to succeed, in case of vacancy, to the several offices
of Governor-General or President of Fort Saint George or Bombay, or
Commander- in-Chief of the said Company's forces at any of the said
settlements or member of any of the said Councils; and such
appointments respectively at their pleasure again to revoke; but that
no person so appointed to succeed to any of the said offices, in case
of vacancy, shall be entitled to any salary, advantage, or allowance
whatsoever, by reason of such appointment, until such persons
respectively shall take upon themselves the offices to which they
shall so respectively have been appointed.

XXVIL. And be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid that when
and so often as the number of members of any of the said Councils of
Fort William, Fort Saint George, or Bombay, shall, by death, or
absence, by reason of sickness or otherwise, for fourteen days be
reduced to two, including the Governor-General or President of such
Council, the person who shall stand senior in such provisional
appointment as is hereinbefore mentioned, or in case there shall be no
such appointment, then the senior civil servant of the said Company
upon the spot, shall be called to such Council, and shall have a voice
therein in like manner as if he had been appointed thereunto by the
Court of Directors of the said Company, and shall hold such office in
case the vacancy shall have happened by death, until a successor
thereunto shall be appointed by the said Court of Directors; or if
such vacancy shall have happened by absence or sickness, until the
return or recovery of such sick or absent member; and that all persons
so exercising the office of a Counsellor at any of the said
presidencies shall be entitled for the time he shall so hold the same,
to the like advantages, as if he had been thereunto permanently
appointed by the said Court of Directors.

XXVIII. And be it further enacted, that no resignation to be made of
the offices of the Governor- General, or Governor or President of any
of the subordinate settlements, or Commander-in-Chief or members of
the respective Councils of any of the said presidencies in India,
shall be deemed or construed to be legal or valid, or shall be
accepted as such, unless the same be made by an instrument in writing
under the hand of the officer or person resigning the same.

XXIX. And be it further enacted, that no order or resolution of any
General Court of the proprietors of the said United Company shall be
available to revoke or rescind, or in any respect to affect, any act,
order, resolution, matter, or proceeding, of the said Court of
Directors, by this Act directed or authorized to be made or done by
the said Court after the same shall have been approved by the said
Board, in the manner hereinbefore directed; any law or usage to the
contrary notwithstanding.

XXX. And be it further enacted, that so much and such parts of an Act,
made in the twenty-first year of the reign of his present Majesty, as
directs the Court of Directors of the said United Company to deliver
to the Commissioners of the Treasury, or to the High Treasurer for the
time being, or to one of His Majesty's principal Secretaries of State,
copies of any letters or orders relating to the management of the
revenues, or to the civil and military affairs of the said Company;
and also all such powers and authorities given to or vested in the
Proprietors and Directors of the said United Company, or in any
General or Special Court thereof respectively, in and by any Act of
Parliament or Charter, as are contrary or repugnant to this Act, or
anything herein contained, shall be, and the same are hereby repealed;
anything contained in any Act or Charter, or any custom or usage to
the contrary notwithstanding.

XXXI. And be it further enacted, that the Governor-General and Council
of Fort William aforesaid shall have power and authority to
superintend, control, and direct the several presidencies and
governments now or hereafter to be erected or established in the East
Indies by the said United Company, in all such points as relate to any
transactions with the country powers, or to war or peace, or to the
application of the revenues or forces of such presidencies and
settlements in time of war, or any such points as shall, from time to
time, be specially referred by the Court of Directors of the said
Company to their superintendence and control.

XXXII. And, in order to prevent the embarrassment and difficulty which
may arise from any question, whether the orders or instructions of the
Governor-General and Council of Fort William relate to other points
than those aforesaid, be it further enacted, that notwithstanding any
doubt which may be entertained by the said presidencies or settlements
to whom such orders or instructions shall be given, respecting the
power of the Governor-General and Council to give such orders, yet the
said presidencies or settlements shall be bound to obey such orders
and directions of the said Governor-General and Council in all cases
whatever, except only where they shall have received positive orders
and instructions from the said Court of Directors, or from the Secret
Committee of the said Court of Directors, repugnant to the orders and
instructions of the said Governor- General and Council, and not known
to the said Governor-General and Council at the time of dispatching
their orders and instructions as aforesaid; and the said Governor-
General and Council shall at the time of transmitting all such orders
and instructions, transmit therewith the dates of, and the times of
receiving, the last dispatches, orders, and instructions which they
have received from the Court of Directors, or from the Secret
Committee of the said Court of Directors, or any of the points
contained therein: and the said presidencies and governments, in all
cases where they have received any orders from the said Court of
Directors, or from the Secret Committee of the said Court of
Directors, as aforesaid, which they shall deem repugnant to the orders
of the said Governor-General and Council of Fort William and which
were not known to the said Governor-General and Council at the time of
dispatching their orders and instructions as aforesaid, shall
forthwith transmit copies of the same, together with an account of all
resolutions or orders made by them in consequence thereof to the
Governor-General and Council of, Fort William, who shall, after the
receipt of the same, dispatch such further orders and instructions to
the said presidencies and settlements as they may judge necessary
thereupon.

XXXIII. And be it further enacted, that the Governor-General and
Council of Fort William aforesaid, and the several Presidents and
Counsellors of Fort Saint George and Bombay, shall, at their several
and respective Boards and Councils, proceed, in the first place, to
the consideration of such questions and business as shall be proposed
by the said Governor-General or Presidents respectively; and when and
so often as any matter or question shall be propounded at any of the
said Boards or Councils, by any of the Counsellors thereof, it shall
be competent to the said Governor-General and Presidents respectively,
to postpone or adjourn the discussion of the matter or question so
propounded to a future day: provided always, that no such adjournment
shall exceed forty-eight hours, nor shall the matter or question so
proposed be adjourned more than twice, without the consent of the
Counsellor who originally proposed the scheme.

XXXIV. And whereas to pursue schemes of conquest and extension of
dominion in India are measures repugnant to the wish, the honour, and
policy of this nation: be it therefore further enacted by the
authority aforesaid, that it shall not be lawful for the Governor-
General and Council of Fort William aforesaid, without the express
command and authority of the said Court of Directors, or of the Secret
Committee of the said Court of Directors, in any case, except where
hostilities have actually been commenced, or preparations actually
made for the commencement of hostilities, against the British nation
in India, or against some of the Princes or States dependent thereon,
or whose territories the said United Company shall be at such time
engaged by any subsisting treaty to defend or guarantee, either to
declare war or commence hostilities, or enter into any treaty for
making war, against any of the Country Princes or States in India, or
any treaty for guaranteeing the possessions of any Country Princes or
States; and that in such case it shall not be lawful for the said
Governor- General and Council to declare war or commence hostilities,
or enter into any treaty for making war, against any other prince or
state than such as shall be actually committing hostilities, or making
preparations as aforesaid, or to make such treaty for guaranteeing,
the possessions of any Prince or State, but upon the consideration of
such Prince or State actually engaging to assist the Company against
such hostilities commenced, preparations made as aforesaid; and in all
cases or where hostilities shall be commenced, or treaty made, the
said Governor-General and Council shall by the most expeditious means
they can devise, communicate the same unto the said Court of
Directors, together with a full state of the information and
intelligence upon which they have commenced such hostilities, or made
such treaties, and their motives and reasons for the same at large.

XXXV. And be it further enacted, that it shall not be lawful for the
Governors or Presidents, and Counsellors, of Fort Saint George and
Bombay, or of any other subordinate settlement respectively, to make
or issue any order for commencing hostilities, or levying war, or to
negotiate or conclude any treaty of peace, or other treaty, with any
Indian Prince or State (except in cases of sudden emergency or
imminent danger, when it shall appear dangerous to postpone such
hostilities or treaty), unless in pursuance of express orders from the
said Governor-General and Council of Fort William aforesaid, or from
the said Court of Directors, or from the Secret Committee of the said
Court of Directors; and every such treaty shall, if possible, contain
a clause for subjecting the same to the ratification or rejection of
the Governor-General and Council of Fort William aforesaid: and the
said presidents and counsellors of the said Presidencies and
Settlements of Fort Saint George, and Bombay, or other subordinate
settlement, are hereby required to yield due obedience to all such
orders as they shall from time to time respectively receive from the
said Governor-General and Council of Fort William aforesaid,
concerning the premises.

XXXVI. And be it further enacted that all and singular the said
Presidents and Counsellors who shall willfully refuse to pay due
obedience to such orders and instructions as they shall receive from
the said Governor-General and Council of Fort William as aforesaid,
shall be liable to be suspended from the exercise of their respective
offices or powers, by order of the said Governor-General and Council
of Fort William; and all and every of them are hereby further
required, constantly and diligently to transmit to the said Governor-
General and Council of Fort William aforesaid, true and exact copies
of all orders, resolutions, and Acts in Council, of their respective
governments, presidencies and councils, and also advice and
intelligence of all transactions and matters which shall come to their
knowledge, material to be communicated to the Governor-General and
Council of Fort William aforesaid, or which the said Governor-General
and Council shall from time to time require.

From: A. Berriedale Keith, ed. Speeches and Documents on Indian
Policy, 1750-1921. Vol. I. London: Humphrey Milford, Oxford University
Press, 1922, 95-114.

http://projectsouthasia.sdstate.edu/Docs/history/primarydocs/Political_History/ABKeithDoc013.htm

Organic Conservatism, Administrative Realism, and the Imperialist
Ethos

in the 'Indian Career' of John Stuart Mill

a review-article by
Vinay Lal*

Lynn Zastoupil. John Stuart Mill and India. Stanford, California:
Stanford University Press, 1994. viii + 280 pp.

"I was born in London, on the 20th of May, 1806," wrote John Stuart
Mill in his autobiography, "and was the eldest son of James Mill, the
author of the History of British India." James Mill had acquired
considerable fame as a philosopher of utilitarianism and as an
authority on India; and if it is remarkable that John Stuart Mill, who
would eclipse his father, described himself, on the opening page of
his autobiography, as the son of the "author of the History of British
India", it is just as revealing that he virtually obscured his own
life-long association with India. It is not commonly known that John
Stuart Mill, philosopher of classical liberalism, theorist of
political economy, proponent of women's rights, and one of the shapers
of modern English prose, spent nearly the entirety of his adult
working life drafting "despatches" or official documents on British
policy in India. A few terse lines, to which he had practically
nothing else to add in his autobiography, describe his association
with India: "In May, 1823, my professional occupation and status for
the next thirty-five years of my life, were decided by my father's
obtaining for me an appointment from the East India Company. . .
immediately under himself." Thus was John Stuart Mill's connection
with India assured until the demise of the East India Company in 1858.

Having entered "East India House" in 1823, when he was only seventeen
years old, John Stuart Mill was placed in the office of the Examiner
of Indian Correspondence. It was in this office in London that the
East India Company prepared the policy documents that, once they had
been approved by the Court of Directors of the Company and the Board
of Control, were sent to the Governor-General in India, and it was
through this office that the entire correspondence between India and
London was funnelled. Though employed initially as a junior clerk,
Mill was, owing to his unusual intellectual attainments, very soon
allowed to partake in the preparation of "Despatches", and in 1828 he
was made one of the assistants to the Examiner. Hitherto he had
drafted despatches mainly in the Public Department; after 1828, he was
attached to the Political Department, and from 1836 to 1856 he was
almost single-handedly responsible for the vast correspondence
pertaining to the Company's relations with the Native Indian States.
Though Mill did not attain the position of the Examiner until 1856,
the trust reposed in him by the Company is suggested by the fact that
he was chosen to represent the Company when it was asked to appear and
furnish evidence before a Parliamentary Select Committee in 1852 on
the occasion of the renewal of the Company's charter. When the Indian
Rebellion of 1857-58 compelled the Prime Minister, Lord Palmerston, to
place a bill before Parliament seeking the dissolution of the Company
and transferring the responsibility for India directly to the Crown,
Mill was assigned the unenviable task of defending the Company's
interests. Mill then prepared a extensive historical defence of the
Company's achievements in the form of a Memorandum on the Improvements
in the Administration of India during the Last Thirty Years, and this
was followed by several other petitions. Though the Company's
dissolution was unavoidable, no trading organization was ever sent to
its grave with a better epitaph. Mill left India House when the East
India Company was wound up on 2 September 1858, having "given enough"
of his life, as he said, "to India". He was then offered a seat on the
India Council, a decision-making and advisory body headed by the
Secretary of State for India, but this proposal he declined: as he put
it, "the conditions of Indian government under the new system made me
anticipate nothing but useless vexation and waste of effort from any
participation in it". He never again took up any employment, other
than occupying a seat in the House of Commons.

It is not only Mill but his biographers, and many scholars as well,
who have been loathe to recognize that Mill's 35-year tenure at the
India Office may have something to say about his life and work, his
views on political liberty and subjection, the idea of representative
government, British imperialism (with particular reference to India),
and many of the large number of other subjects on which he penned his
thoughts. The standard biography of Mill makes no mention of his time
at the India Office, and Bruce Mazlish, in his James and John Stuart
Mill, an intellectual psychobiography of father and son, is
constrained to admit that "India represents a curious lacunae in John
Stuart Mill's intellectual life". The scholarship on Mill, which is
very considerable, is predicated largely on the supposition that
Mill's work at the India Office was merely a diversion, and that it
could not have had any bearing on his work as a well-known public
philosopher and political economist; and so a recent assessment
maintains the distinction between Mill's career at the India House and
his "theoretical priorities in economics and social organisation".
Most pointedly, Eric Stokes, in his authoritative study on
utilitarianism as an aspect of Britain's policy in India, justified
the omission of a serious consideration of John Stuart Mill's role in
the creation of Indian policy with the argument that the younger Mill
had "neither his father's opportunities nor his bent for the practical
realization of the Utilitarian theories".

It is the career of John Stuart Mill at the India Office, and its
possible relation to his more widely known career as a philosopher of
liberty, theorist of government, and political economist that is the
subject of Lynn Zastoupil's study, which is uniquely based on the
1,713 despatches (and most certainly some more) that Mill wrote in the
Examiner's Office at India House. It is scarcely possible, as
Zastoupil reasonably maintains, that Mill's work for the Company left
no impression on his mind or that he effected a complete divorce
between his intellectual interests and his working life. John Stuart
Mill is supposed to have been part of the "utilitarian deluge" that
engulfed Indian administration, and in consequence he is seen as
having done little else except to follow his father. Zastoupil
disputes this conventional reading and suggests that "at India House
Mill found both ample reinforcement for and significant opportunity to
employ the ideas that mattered most to him" (p. 5). Far from
maintaining a consistently utilitarian or liberal position on Indian
affairs, or following the views associated with his father, Mill
adopted independent views and was swayed by numerous other
intellectual considerations. Thus, for example, the teachings of
Herder, Coleridge, and Saint-Simon, though they seem to be at great
remove from Indian affairs, were to have an extraordinary impact on
Mill's Indian despatches; and Mill's Indian writings "owed more to the
[eighteenth-century] Whig tradition" than has been commonly allowed;
on the other hand, Zastoupil is also prepared to argue that Mill's
more general political positions may have been considerably impacted
by his knowledge of British India.

Though Zastoupil appears to be offering a more complex reading of
Mill's Indian writings, his thesis is a rather simple one -- indeed,
not merely simple, but unfortunately simple-minded. The brunt of his
argument is easily encapsulated in a few formulations. As long as his
father was alive, the younger Mill could not but espouse his father's
views, and the radical change in John Stuart Mill's views on Indian
policy in 1836 coincides with the death of his father that year . This
argument is repeated ad infinitum and seems reasonable enough (p. 31,
40, 49, 93, 95, 98, passim). A case in point is the well-known
Anglicist-Orientalist debate over Indian education in the 1820s and
1830s. The Anglicists proposed that the government's funds be used
exclusively for the propagation of English-language education; the
Orientalists insisted that money also be spent on reviving and
supporting classical Indian learning in Sanskrit and Arabic: and the
issue was resolved when Governor-General Bentinck, influenced in part
by Macaulay's now-infamous "Minute on Indian Education", where the
languages and literatures of India are summarily dismissed as
worthless, scarcely worthy of the attention of even children, ruled in
favor of the Anglicists. James Mill, however, while he harbored
nothing but contempt for classical Indian learning, was none too
enthusiastic about English literary texts either: the aim of
education, as of government, was to promote 'usefulness', and he
thought that 'useful knowledge' was best spread through vernacular
Indian languages. That seems consistently to have been the position of
both James and John since 1824. But, in 1836, when John Stuart Mill
was asked to prepare a response to Bentinck's decision, he unabashedly
and rather surprisingly took up the Orientalist cause. Mill decried
the attempt to denigrate Indian learning and demean the integrity and
knowledge of the country's traditional intelligentsia. "The testimony
of the most competent witnesses", Mill wrote, "affirms that the
lettered classes are still held by the people of India in high
estimation, and their degradation and extinction cannot be received
with indifference by their countrymen nor submitted to without
resentment by themselves" (p. 42). Mill took the view, in the words of
the Orientalist H. H. Wilson, that "a command of the English language,
sufficient for the ordinary purposes of life, is quite compatible with
gross ignorance and inveterate superstition" (p. 45). The President of
the Board of Control, John Hobhouse, was not prepared to tolerate the
defence of an unseemly cause, and refused to send Mill's despatch to
India (p. 40); when at last a despatch was sent, it bore so little the
impress of Mill's views that Mill crossed it out from the list of his
despatches.

What might have moved Mill to so radically change his views? Zastoupil
rightfully notes that Mill had, by 1836, absorbed for nearly a decade
"the views of romantics, conservatives, Saint-Simonians, and
others" (p. 40). In 1826, as Mill was to detail in his Autobiography
(chapter 5), he experienced an extraordinary crisis in his mental
life, and thereafter slowly came to the realization that the education
received at the hands of his father had been, while intellectually
strenuous and fulfilling, wholly deficient -- indeed reprehensibly
narrow -- in many other respects. His father had not enough of an
appreciation of art, poetry, and literature; nor did he recognize that
ratiocination is no substitute for sensibility, or that the relentless
and exclusive focus on reason and logic is detrimental to the
development of the life of emotions. Mill increasingly turned to the
romantics, particularly to Coleridge, for intellectual and emotional
sustenance. He was now to believe that the sentiments of a people,
however fanciful and seemingly opposed to rational and pragmatic plans
for governance, were not to be ignored, and thus utility could not be
the end of all government and social reform; he also came to hold the
view that reform was best effected by working with, not against, the
social customs and institutions of a people, and that in this endeavor
it was imperative "to enlist the support of those learned classes to
whom Indians customarily looked for leadership in intellectual
matters" (p. 41). Some people exercised a "natural influence over the
minds of their countrymen" (p. 37), having something of an organic
bonds with the masses, and their leadership was more easily accepted
than the rule of foreigners. This is one view that Mill was to
maintain with tenacity, and if anything Zastoupil does not emphasize
enough its importance in providing a cornerstone to British policy in
India, which particularly after the Rebellion of 1857-58 was rooted in
the assumption that the safety of British rule in India was no better
assured than by seeking out the 'natural leaders' of Indian society
and maintaining good relations with them. It is for these reasons
that, as Zastoupil holds, John Stuart Mill came to espouse the
Orientalist cause, thereby repudiating the views that both he and his
father had held since 1824. But that was not all: "perhaps most
important[ly]", Zastoupil argues, "James Mill was dying and away from
his India House desk, leaving his son with considerably more freedom
to express new views on India that he might have been developing" (p.
40).

It is remarkable and almost incredulous that the younger Mill was so
firmly in the grip of his father's influence that he should have been
subservient to his father's ideological platform, while in private
adhering to views that James Mill would have treated with contempt.
This tyrannical relationship should pose considerable problems for how
we are to understand a philosopher known principally as the exponent
of liberty, much as it also compels us to attempt to reconcile Mill's
intellectual prowess with what can only be described as moral
cowardice. This is not only a conundrum for psychologists and
psychoanalysts, but a problem in English intellectual history. What
was the general tenor of father-son relationships in nineteenth-
century England, and what relation do private histories have to public
life? How did John Stuart Mill himself keep apart the public from the
private, and how did he reconcile reverence with opposition? What can
we say about Victorian intellectual practices from the relationship of
James and John Mill? Zastoupil does not allow any of these questions
to enter into his discussion, and it merely becomes axiomatic for him
that John Stuart Mill's radically altered views after 1836 about
Indian society and the nature and progress of British rule in India
are accounted for by the death of his father. He needs to take a more
nuanced view of this famous relationship: if James Mill represented
the dominant phase of imperialism, John Stuart Mill represented its
hegemonic phase. Where Zastoupil sees opposition, he might also try to
seek complementarity: in Ronald Inden's phrase, father and son
constituted the "loyal opposition", sharing numerous underlying
assumptions about Indian society.

To complement his argument, Zastoupil advances the claim that Mill
increasingly came under the influence of what he calls the "empire-of-
opinion" school of Indian governance, and that he allowed this
influence to flow freely after the demise of his father. James Mill
throughout had argued vehemently for direct rule by the British in
India. The object being to promote good and useful government as soon
and effortlessly as possible, he saw no reason why the British should
not directly take over the reins of administration in territories that
came under their jurisdiction, stripping native rulers, whom he
thought of as despicable and squalid despots, of their power. His son,
predictably, adopted a similar line of argumentation, and as late as
1832-34, had drafted three despatches on Mysore where he objected to
allowing the Indian prince to retain his throne on the promise of
delivering good administration to his subjects. How is it then that in
January 1837, six months after the death of his father, John Stuart
Mill was to draft a despatch on the troubled native state of Jaipur in
which he advocated that the British, despite the murder of one of
their officials, adhere to a policy of non-intervention?

Though John Stuart Mill was emboldened by his father's death to
repudiate views with which he did not wish to be associated, Zastoupil
additionally points to the influence on him of certain administrators
who proposed that the opinions, habits, and prejudices of a people
constituted the very basis of a stable civil society. This clumsily
termed "empire-of-opinion" school, whose most well-known proponents
were four highly-placed Scotsmen -- Thomas Munro, Governor of Madras
(1820-26); Mountstuart Elphinstone, Governor of Bombay (1819-27); John
Malcolm, Governor of Bombay (1827-30); and Charles Metcalfe, Resident
at Delhi (1811-19) and Hyderabad (1820-5), and Acting Governor-General
(1835-36) -- felt it bound to preserve native Indian institutions, pay
heed to the opinions of Indians, show "a generous consideration of the
feelings [most evidently among Muslims] of fallen greatness", conform
to native usages, abstain from innovation (which Munro described as
"the ruling vice of our government"), and involve Indians in the
administration of their country by cultivating the association of
India's 'natural' elite. Viewing India as a collection of village
communities, deemed to have existed from time immemorial, these
'romantics', while not condoning social evils, were concerned about
the possible effects of modernization and Westernization upon Indian
society, and feared that rapid changes would render Indians hostile to
British rule (pp. 56-86).

John Stuart Mill, Zastoupil argues, likewise "came to believe that
Indian participation in government was an essential component of
lasting improvement in that part of the world" (p. 87). Mill was
responsible for correspondence pertaining to the affairs of native
Indian states, and for many years after 1836, he advocated non-
intervention and indirect rule by the British. Native princes were to
be allowed to govern their states, and only in the most extreme
circumstances was intervention conceivable, though even then Mill
counseled restraint. Zastoupil summons the case of Awadh: by the terms
of a treaty signed in 1801, the British agreed to protect the Nawab
from internal and external threats, while extracting from him a
promise that he would work for the welfare and security of his people.
The Company's relations with the Nawab over the next five decades were
a constant point of tension, and the alleged negligence of the various
Nawabs (later Kings), who were said to be more interested in nautch
girls, music, poetry, and minor amusements such as kite-flying,
towards their subjects sorely tempted the British to intervene on many
an occasion and annex the kingdom to their territories. At first, as
one might expect, John Stuart Mill displayed resentment that the
British were allowing a native despotism to flourish, and even lending
it their support; and in 1834 he went so far as to draft a despatch
that authorized Bentinck to annex Awadh on the grounds that its
inefficient administration was imposing an intolerable burden on the
people (pp. 93-96). But in 1838, Mill expressed "concern about [the]
erosion of royal authority" in Awadh, and he was willing to allow that
the King of Awadh was doing all in his power to ameliorate the
situation. Mill would have agreed with the opinion of John Low,
Resident at Awadh in 1842, that "the general system of the Native
Govt. is in its theory well suited to the genius and habits of the
people of Oude" (p. 102). Mill took this position not only on Awadh,
but also on Kathiawar and other Native States (pp. 104-117).

By the mid-1840s, Zastoupil argues, Mill had moved to a more moderate
position, one that characterizes the most 'mature' phase of his
thinking. For a number of reasons, he was to come to the recognition
that he had erred in uncritically embracing the views of Coleridge,
Herder, and other romantics, much as he had mistakenly disowned rather
too much of his father's teachings. The more crucial point, which
Zastoupil acknowledges but rather inadequately, is that Mill -- much
like many other nineteenth-century European and American thinkers --
readily adopted the openly racist doctrine that all civilizations were
to be judged along an evolutionary scale. On this scale, some
civilizations were advanced, others primitive or (in today's jargon)
'under-developed': and progress lay in having the primitive nations
trod the path that aeons ago had been followed by certain European
nations with evident success. Mill diluted, when he did not abandon,
the teachings of the empire-of-opinion school, certainly for pragmatic
if not ideological reasons, and took on the mantle of a radical
reformer. He came to attack the principle of indirect rule, urged
intervention in despotic states, and saw in rapid modernization a
panacea for India's social and political evils. While still eager that
British officials work with the 'natural' elite of India, Mill
approved of Dalhousie's doctrine of lapse, which allowed the British
to take over a state where there was no biological heir to the throne,
and he supported the British annexation of Satara, Awadh, the Punjab,
and other Native States. In one fundamental respect he continued to
adhere to the principle of indirect rule and even non-intervention.
Eager to explain why he had not approved of Dalhousie's annexation of
Kerouli, while allowing all others, Mill wrote in a private letter to
John Morley in 1866: "My principle is this. Wherever there are really
native states, with a nationality, & historical traditions and
feelings, which is emphatically the case (for example) with the
Rajpoot states, there I would on no account take advantage of any
failure of heirs to put an end to them." But "in modern states created
by conquest", such as the "Mahomedan" and "Mahratta kingdoms", or the
"foreign dynasties" of Scindia and Holkar in central India, Mill
"would make the continuance of the dynasty by adoption not a right nor
a general rule, but a reward to be earned by good
government . . ." (pp. 153-54). Why should Mill, however, at all have
maintained the invidious distinction between 'real' native states and
others, and would we not have to know what Mill meant by a 'nation'
before we can reasonably infer what he might have meant by "really
native states"? Is there an implied distinction between the 'organic'
and the 'inorganic' here in Mill's adumbration of the 'real', and if
so, what is the intellectual history of that distinction?
Unfortunately, these queries form no part of Zastoupil's study.

In his final chapter on "J. S. Mill and the Imperial Experience",
Zastoupil attempts to take on some larger and mainly unresolved
questions. One might have expected that he would say something of how
influential, if at all, Mill's despatches were in the formulation of
Indian policy, but he is surprisingly silent on this point. One
scholar, as far back as 1964, came to the conclusion that "all the
important principles for governing the great dependency of India were
laid down by Mill in the documents he drafted for the Company", but
Zastoupil does not hazard so bold a judgment. The English imperial
enterprise in India was of such a magnitude that some measure for
stating just how important the "important principles" were would have
to be stipulated. The more difficult point, as Zastoupil of course
recognizes, is that the despatches prepared by Mill were amended by
the Court of Directors, and it remains uncertain how far Mill actually
helped to shape British policy on India. But that is no reason why we
ought to be precluded from attempting to assess Mill's writings as
furnishing tropes that were to become critical in the formulation of
colonial discourse. British administrators, particularly in the period
of the Raj after the Indian Rebellion of 1857-58, came to hold the
view that critics in England were in no position to understand the
difficulties faced by what came to be called the men-on-the-spot. The
excesses committed by the British in putting down the Rebellion and in
subsequent 'disturbances' (such as in the Punjab in 1919) were easily
criticized by arm-chair critics, but -- it was claimed -- often
administrators had no choice except to put down rebellions by a
display of brute force. The man-on-the spot always knows best, or so
the maxim proclaimed. Mill himself did not use this phrase, but there
can be little doubt that he was likewise inclined to this view; he
also insisted that the administration of the country was to be turned
over to professionals, and not to be left to mere amateurs or
gentleman-politician types. Arguing against Crown rule in India, Mill
suggested that the administration of India was best left in the hands
of the Company, "chiefly composed of persons who have acquired
professional knowledge of" Indian affairs. Mill was, in other words,
one of the earliest exponents of the man-on-the-spot theory. That is
easily understood, given the English predilection for a crude kind of
empiricism; yet this quintessential form of Englishness does not sit
easily with English politics' self-representation of itself as an
affair of amateurs. The distinction between amateurism, one of whose
iconic heroes was to be the figure of Sherlock Holmes, and
professionalism, which the English came to associate with the greatly
loathed Germans (and particularly Prussians), lay at the heart of the
British empire. These are the larger questions that merit attention,
but Zastoupil shows no awareness of their centrality or, at times,
even presence.

It is to the question of imperialism that we must return. Though
Zastoupil takes a few digs at Said, after the conventional
acknowledgment of the undisputed importance of his work, as well as at
those -- Bernard Cohn, Ron Inden, Gauri Viswanathan, among others --
whose work has done most to show the hegemonic processes through which
the British established themselves as the paramount power in India, he
has little to say on Mill's imperialism or on its epistemological
constructs and imperatives. He conflates imperialism with Orientalism,
and gets mired in the rather unnecessary enterprise of arguing that
Mill was not a complete Orientalist, and most likely not a bad or ill-
intentioned one (pp. 173-89). There could have been no more
Orientalist proposition than Mill's articulation of India as the raw
data, with Europe being the fount of theory: as a "theoretical
reformer of the opinions and the institutions of his time", Mill had
noted, he appreciated the insights into the "practical conduct of
public affairs" that his service with the Company brought him.
Zastoupil provides a valuable commentary on how Mill's views on land
reform in Ireland, and most particularly his arguments against the
prevailing consensus in favor of the landed aristocracy, were shaped
by his Indian experience (pp. 183-88). However, he has absolutely
nothing else to say about Mill as a spokesman for the British empire,
or about the relation of Mill's Indian writings to his other writings
on imperialism or imperial affairs, and to the end he remains fixated
on the 'influence' (an intellectually lazy word) of the 'empire-of-
opinion' school on Mill. Mill did have a great deal to say about
imperialism and about British imperial practices, and it is surprising
that Zastoupil does not seek to explore the relation between Mill's
defence of the Company and his endorsement of professional
bureaucrats, and such imperialist events as the notorious repression
by Governor Eyre of the Jamaica Rebellion of 1865. Nor does Zastoupil
recognize that Mill was the most important player, as one student of
Mill puts it, "in transforming English liberalism from a dominantly
anti-imperialist theory to a very sophisticated defense of an
expanding British empire."

Zastoupil's study, nonetheless, provides the necessary backdrop to
Mill's Indian career and thus paves the way for more complex studies.
Mill's writings encapsulate those central tropes of imperialist
discourse, such as 'natural leaders', 'fair play', and the 'man-on-the-
spot', but the contours of their operation in his discourse have
barely been articulated. Mill was an advocate of free trade and an
opponent of monopoly, but he defended a trading company which had
forcefully to be divested of its monopolistic practices. He is
remembered as the philosopher of liberty, but rather unimaginatively,
in keeping -- as they say -- with the times, used a primitive
evaluative scale to judge civilizations. He is loudly cheered as one
of the principal theorists of parliamentary democracy, but it is
indubitably certain that he was willing to countenance certain forms
of despotism. Mill attempted, not uniquely, to reconcile a
universalist reading of liberty with a particularist reading of Indian
'despotism'. These paradoxes, and numerous others, have to be
unraveled so that we might all the more successfully probe the
received conception of Mill as the philosopher of liberty. India was
the grave of many British officers, but it may also turn out to be the
grave of one whose stellar place in the intellectual history of the
West has so far been assured.

Originally published as: "John Stuart Mill and India", a review-
article. New Quest, no. 54 (January-February 1998):54-64.

http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/southasia/History/British/jsmill.html

The Richest East India Merchant: The Life and Business of John Palmer

of Calcutta, 1767-1836 (Worlds of the East India Company) (Hardcover)

~ Anthony Webster
Anthony Webster (Author)

http://www.amazon.com/dp/1843833034

The East India CompanyMedia:Listen now (45 minutes) Availability:In
RealMedia only.

Last broadcast on Thu, 26 Jun 2003, 21:30 on BBC Radio 4 (see all
broadcasts).

Synopsis

Melvyn Bragg and guests discuss the private trading company that
helped forge the British Empire. At its peak, its influence stretched
from western India to eastern China via the farthest reaches of the
Indonesian archipelago. It had a fleet of 130 twelve hundred tonne
ships and commanded an army of 200,000 troops that came to dominate
the Indian subcontinent. It funded governments, toppled princes and
generated spectacular amounts of money from trading textiles and
spices. But this wasn’t an empire, it wasn’t even a state, it was a
company. The East India Company, founded in 1600, lasted for 258 years
before the British state gained full control of its activities. In
that time it had redrawn the map of India, built an empire and
reinvented the fashions and the foodstuffs of Britain.

But how did the East India Company become so powerful? How did it
change both India and Britain and how was the idea of a company
running a country ever accepted by the British Crown?

With Huw Bowen, Senior Lecturer in Economic and Social History at the
University of Leicester; Linda Colley, School Professor of History at
the London School of Economics; Maria Misra, Fellow and Tutor in
Modern History at Keble College, Oxford.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p0054906

A Timeline of India in the 1800s

The British Raj Defined India Throughout the 1800s
By Robert McNamara, About.com Guide

.See More About:indiabritish empirequeen victoria

The British East India Company arrived in India in the early 1600s,
struggling and nearly begging for the right to trade and do business.
By the late 1700s the thriving firm of British merchants, backed by
its own army, was essentially ruling India.

In the 1800s English power expanded in India, as it would until the
mutinies of 1857-58. After those very violent spasms things would
change, yet Britain was still in control. And India was very much an
outpost of the mighty British Empire.

1600s: The British East India Company Arrives

After several attempts to open trade with a powerful ruler of India
failed in the earliest years of the 1600s, King James I of England
sent a personal envoy, Sir Thomas Roe, to the court of the Mogul
emperor Jahangir in 1614.

The emperor was incredibly wealthy and lived in an opulent palace. And
he was not interested in trade with Britain as he couldn't imagine the
British had anything he wanted.

Roe, recognizing that other approaches had been too subservient, was
deliberately difficult to deal with at first. He correctly sensed that
earlier envoys, by being too accommodating, had not gained the
emperor's respect. Roe's stratagem worked, and the East India Company
was able to establish operations in India.

1600s: The Mogul Empire at Its Peak

Library of CongressThe Mogul Empire had been established in India in
the early 1500s, when a chieftain named Babur invaded India from
Afghanistan. The Moguls (or Mughals) conquered most of northern India,
and by the time the British arrived the Mogul Empire was immensely
powerful.

One of the most influential Mogul emperors was Jahangir's son Shah
Jahan, who ruled from 1628 to 1658. He expanded the empire and
accumulated enormous treasure, and made Islam the official religion.
When his wife died he had the Taj Mahal built as a tomb for her.

The Moguls took great pride in being patrons of the arts, and
painting, literature, and architecture flourished under their rule.

.1700s: Britain Assumes the Upper Hand

The Mogul Empire was in a state of collapse by the 1720s. Other
European powers were competing for control in India, and sought
alliances with the shaky states that inherited the Mogul territories.

The East India Company established its own army in India, which was
composed of British troops as well as native soldiers called sepoys.

The British interests in India, under the leadership of Robert Clive,
gained military victories from the 1740s onward, and with the Battle
of Plassey in 1757 were able to establish dominance.

The East India Company gradually strengthened its hold, even
instituting a court system. British citizens began building an "Anglo-
Indian" society within India, and English customs were adapted to the
climate of India.

.1800s: "The Raj" Enters the Language

Pelham Richardson Publishers, circa 1850/now in public domainThe
British rule in India became known as "The Raj," which was derived
from the Sanskrit term raja meaning king. The term did not have
official meaning until after 1858, but it was in popular usage many
years before that.

Incidentally, a number of other terms came into English usage during
The Raj: bangle, dungaree, khaki, pundit, seersucker, jodhpurs, cushy,
pajamas, and many more.

British merchants could make a fortune in India and would then return
home, often to be derided by those in British high society as
"nabobs," the title for an official under the Moguls.

Tales of life in India fascinated the British public, and exotic
Indian scenes, such as a drawing of an elephant fight, appeared in
books published in London in the 1820s.

.1857: Resentment Toward the British Spills Over

The Indian Rebellion of 1857, which was also called the Indian Mutiny,
or the Sepoy Mutiny, was a turning point in the history of Britain in
India.

The traditional story is that Indian troops, called sepoys, mutinied
against their British commanders because newly issued rifle cartridges
were greased with pig and cow fat, thus making them unacceptable for
both Hindu and Muslim soldiers. There is some truth to that, but there
were a number of other underlying causes for the rebellion.

Resentment toward the British had been building for some time, and new
policies which allowed the British to annex some areas of India
exacerbated tensions. By early 1857 things had reached a breaking
point.

.1857-58: The Indian Mutiny

The Indian Mutiny erupted in May 1857, when sepoys rose up against the
British in Meerut and then massacred all the British they could find
in Delhi.

Uprisings spread throughout British India. It was estimated that less
than 8,000 of nearly 140,000 sepoys remained loyal to the British. The
conflicts of 1857 and 1858 were brutal and bloody, and lurid reports
of massacres and atrocities circulated in newspapers and illustrated
magazines in Britain.

The British dispatched more troops to India and eventually succeeded
in putting down the mutiny, resorting to merciless tactics to restore
order. The large city of Delhi was left in ruins. And many sepoys who
had surrendered were executed by British troops.

.1858: Calm is Restored in British India

American Publishing Co., 1877/now in public domainFollowing the Indian
Mutiny, the East India Company was abolished and the British crown
assumed full rule of India.

Reforms were instituted, which included tolerance of religion and the
recruitment of Indians into the civil service. While the reforms
sought to avoid further rebellions through conciliation, the British
military in India was also strengthened.

Historians have noted that the British government never actually
intended to take control of India, but when British interests were
threatened the government had to step in.

The embodiment of the new British rule in India was the office of the
Viceroy.

.1876: Empress of India

The importance of India, and the affection the British crown felt for
its colony, was emphasized in 1876 when Prime Minister Benjamin
Disraeli declared Queen Victoria to be "Empress of India."

British control of India would continue, mostly peacefully, throughout
the remainder of the 19th century. It wasn't until Lord Curzon became
Viceroy in 1898, and instituted some very unpopular policies, that an
Indian nationalist movement began to stir.

The nationalist movement developed over decades, and, of course, India
finally achieved its independence in 1947.

.Suggested Reading

•The British Retreat from Afghanistan
•The Crimean War
•The British Burn Washington, DC
Suggested Reading
•Queen Victoria
•William Ewart Gladstone, The Great Victorian Statesman
•Florence Nightingale
Suggested Reading
•Irish Rebellions Against Britain in the 1800s
•The Liberator, Daniel O'Connell
•Ireland's Uncrowned King, Charles Stewart Parnell

Related Articles

•Book Review - The Lion and the Tiger: The Rise and Fall of the
British Raj ...
•The British Raj in India - Colonial India
•India - Historical Setting - The Mughal Era - The Coming of the
Europeans
•India - Historical Setting - The Mughal Era - The Coming of the
Europeans
•Sepoy

http://history1800s.about.com/od/thebritishempire/tp/indiatimeline01.htm

The British East India Company View or Print as PDF

Timeline

1600 CE Britain's East India Company was founded. More:

1601 CE John Lancaster leads the first East India Company voyage
from London. More:

1668 CE English King Charles II gives Bombay to East India
Company. More:

1729 CE China banned opium importation which would be seriously
compromised by the British East India Company until 1839. More:

1784 CE The India Act established a Board of Control to oversee
the revenue administration and diplomatic functions of the East India
Company as well as the aspects of its military expansion although the
company maintained sole responsibility for trade and patronage
More:

1823 CE East India Company employees Charles Alexander and Robert
Bruce discovered a kind of tea previously unknown to Europeans
(Camellia sinensis var. assamica). It was growing in Assam a province
of northern India. The first shipments of Assam tea arrived in England
in 1838. More:

1824 CE After decades of battles between the Dutch and English
over control of East Indian spice trade a formal treaty gave the Dutch
control of the Malay Archipelago minus North Borneo. The British
retained control of North Borneo, the Malay mainland, India, Ceylon
and Singapore. More:

1826 CE Straits Settlements formed by East India Company.

1838 CE The new viceroy in Canton destroyed the British East
India Company's illegal opium imports a total of 2,640 thousand
pounds. More:

1839 CE Aden conquered by British East India Company. More:

1857 CE Start of Indian mutany of local soldiers of the East
India Company against the British Raj leading to a general uprising in
places. More:

1857 CE The Indian Mutiny begins with revolt of Sepoys of
Meerutkazerne in Delhi. More:

1858 CE End the Indian mutany of local soldiers against the
British Raj and the British crown took over the government of India
from the East India Company. More:

Note 1: Events described with text like this have been entered from
one source but have not yet been verified against a subsequent source
( Explain ).

Note 2: The events are sorted in semi-chronological order according to
what is factually known about the date of the event ( Explain ).

Note 3: Events with more information are marked as follows:
Has other topics associated with this event,
Has geographic locations associated with this event,
Has external links assocated with this event's topics,
Has external links associated with the geographic location of this
event,
Has external links specifically assocated with this event.

bademiyansubhanallah

unread,
Feb 5, 2010, 5:56:00 PM2/5/10
to
List of Indian princely states

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Before the Partition of India in 1947, hundreds of Princely States,
also called Native States, existed in India which were not part of
British India. These were the parts of the Indian subcontinent which
had not been conquered or annexed by the British.

Things moved quickly after the partition of British India in 1947. By
the end of 1949, all of the states except Sikkim had chosen to accede
to one of the newly independent states of India or Pakistan or else
had been annexed.

Outline

Main article: Princely state

For details of precedence between the states, see Salute state.

In principle, the princely states had internal autonomy, while by
treaty the British had suzerainty and were responsible for their
external affairs. In practice, while the states were indeed ruled by
potentates with a variety of titles, such as Raja, Maharaja, Nawab,
Khan or Nizam, the British had considerable influence.

By the time of the departure of the colonial power in 1947, only four
of the largest of the states still had their own British Resident, a
diplomatic title for advisors present in the states' capitals, while
most of the others were grouped together into Agencies, such as the
Central India Agency, the Deccan States Agency, and the Rajputana
Agency.

From 1920, the states were represented in the Chamber of Princes,
which held its meetings in New Delhi.

The most important states were ranked among the salute states.

By the Indian Independence Act 1947, the British gave up their
suzerainty of the states and left each of them free to choose whether
to join one of the newly independent countries of India and Pakistan.
For a short time, some of the rulers explored the possibility of a
federation of the states separate from either, but this came to
nothing. Most of the states then decided to accede to India or to
Pakistan, while others which held out for the possibility of
independence were later annexed by India, such as Junagadh
(1947-1948), Hyderabad on 18 September 1948, Bilaspur on 12 October
1948, and Bhopal on 1 May 1949. Dewan of Travancore chose to remain an
independent country.

In Jammu and Kashmir, a state with a Muslim majority but a Hindu
ruler, the Maharaja hoped to remain independent but acceded to India
on 27 October 1947 at the outset of the invasion of Jammu and Kashmir
by Pakistan - leading to the Indo-Pakistani War of 1947.

On 31 March 1948, Kalat acceded to Pakistan, although the brother of
the Khan led a rebellion against this decision.

The last remaining independent state, Sikkim, was incorporated into
India on 16 May 1975, following a referendum in which people of Sikkim
overwhelmingly voted for this.

Indian Princely States at the time of independence on August 15 1947

There have been various differences in organisation before, repeatedly
quite significant, during the British Raj.

Individual residencies

Princely State Now part of Last Ruler
Hyderabad Andhra Pradesh,Maharastra& Karnataka,India Asaf Jah VII
Jammu and Kashmir (partly) Jammu and Kashmir, India and Pakistan.
H.H.Dr.Karan Singh
Travancore Kerala and 3 taluks of Tamil Nadu, India Chithira
Thirunal Balarama Varma, Maharaja of Travancore
Sikkim Sikkim, India Palden Thondup Namgyal

Baluchistan Agency

Princely States of the Baluchistan Agency.

Princely State Now part of Last/Present Ruler
Kalat Balochistan, Pakistan H.H. Ahmad Yar Khan
Kharan Balochistan, Pakistan Habibullah Khan
Las Bela Balochistan, Pakistan Jam Ghulam Qadir Khan
Makran Balochistan, Pakistan Bai Khan Baloch Gikchi

Deccan States Agency and Kolhapur Residency

Princely States of Deccan States Agency and Kolhapur Residency.

Princely State Now part of Last Ruler

Akalkot Maharashtra, India Shrimant Rani Sumitra Bai Raje Bhonsle,
Rani Saheb of Akalkot
Aundh Maharashtra, India HH Meherban Shrimant Bhagwant Rao Shripat
Rao, Pant Pratinidhi Of Aundh
Bhor Maharashtra, India Raja Shrimant Sir Raghunathrao Shankarrao
Babasaheb Pandit Pant Sachiv
Janjira Maharashtra, India HH Nawab Sidi Muhammed Khan II Sidi Ahmad
Khan, Nawab of Janjira
Jath Maharashtra, India Lt. Shrimant Raja Vijaysinghrao Ramrao
Babasaheb Dafle
Kolhapur Maharashtra, India HH Shrimant Rajashri Shahu II
Chhatrapati Maharaj Sahib Bahadur, Maharaja of Kolhapur
Kurundwad Maharashtra, India Meherban Raja Hariharrao Raghunathrao
[Bapusaheb] Patwardhan, co-Raja of Kurundwad Jnr
Mudhol Karnataka, India HH Shrimant Raja Bhairavsinhrao Malojirao
Ghorpade II
Phaltan Maharashtra, India Major HH Raja Bahadur Shrimant Ram raje
Naik Nimbalkar
Sangli Maharashtra, India Capt. HH Shrimant Raja Saheb Sir
Chintamanrao II Dhundirajrao Appasaheb Patwardhan
Sawantvadi Maharashtra, India Bhonsale clan
Savanur Karnataka, India Nawab of Savanur, Abdul Majid Khan II

Gwalior Residency

Princely States of the Gwalior Residency.

Princely State Now part of Last/Present Ruler

Gwalior Madhya Pradesh, India George Jivajirao Scindia
Varanasi Uttar Pradesh, India Kunwar Ananat Narayan Singh
Garha Madhya Pradesh, India
Khaniyadhana Madhya Pradesh, India
Rajgarh Madhya Pradesh, India
Rampur Uttar Pradesh, India H.H. Nawab Syed Muhammad Kazim 'Ali Khan
Bahadur, Nawab of Rampur

[Madras Presidency

Princely States of the Madras Presidency.

Princely State Now part of Last/Present Ruler

Cochin Kerala, India Kerala Varma
Banganapalle Andhra Pradesh, India H.H. Nawab Sayyid Fazl-i-'Ali
Khan IV Bahadur, Nawab of Banganapalle
Pudukkottai Tamil Nadu, India H.H. Raja Sri Brahadamba Das Raja Sri
Rajagopala Tondiman Bahadur, Raja of Pudukkottai
Sandur Karnataka, India Shrimant Maharaj Shri Murarrao Yeshwantrao
Ghorpade, Hindurao, Mamlukatmadar Senapati, Raja of Sandur
Mysore Karnataka, India Jayachamaraja Wodeyar

North-West Frontier

Princely States of the North-West Frontier.

Princely State Now part of Last/Present Ruler

Amb North-West Frontier Province, Pakistan Nawab Saeed Khan
Chitral North-West Frontier Province, Pakistan H.H. Mehtar Saif-ul-
Mulk Nasir
Dir North-West Frontier Province, Pakistan Muhammad Shah Khosru
Khan
Phulra North-West Frontier Province, Pakistan Ata Muhammed Khan
Swat North-West Frontier Province, Pakistan Miangul Abdul-Haqq
Jahanzib

States of the Punjab

States of the Punjab States Agency (Punjab).

Princely State Now part of Last/Present Ruler

Bahawalpur Punjab, Pakistan H.H. Sadeq Mohammad Khan V
Bilaspur Himachal Pradesh, India H.H. Raja Kirti Chand, Raja of
Bilaspur
Faridkot Punjab, India Lt. H.H. Farzand-i-Sadaat Nishan Hazrat-i-
Kaisar-i-Hind Raja Bharat Indar Singh Brar Bans Bahadur, Raja of
Faridkot
Jind Haryana, India H.H. Maharaja Satbir Singh ["Prince Sunny"],
Maharaja of Jind''
Kangra Himachal Pradesh, India H.H. Raja Aditya Dev Chand Katoch
Kalsia Haryana, India Raja HIMMAT SHER SINGH Sahib Bahadur
Kapurthala Punjab, India Brig. H.H. Maharaja Sri Sukhjit Singh Sahib
Bahadur, Maharaja of Kapurthala
Loharu Haryana, India H.H. Nawab Mirza Alauddin Ahmad Khan II (alias
Parvez Mirza), Nawab of Loharu
Malerkotla Punjab, India
Mandi Himachal Pradesh, India H.H. Raja Sri Ashokpal Sen, Raja of
Mandi
Nabha State Punjab, India H.H. Maharaja Hanuwant Singh Malvinder
Bahadur, Maharaja of Nabha
Patiala Punjab, India Capt. H.H. Maharajadhiraj Shri Amarinder
Singh, Maharaja of Patiala
Sirmur Himachal Pradesh, India Lt. H.H. Maharaja RAJENDRA PRAKASH
Bahadur
Suket/ Surendernagar Himachal Pradesh, India H.H. Raja Hari Sen,
Raja of Suket"
Siba Himachal Pradesh, India H.H.Raja Dr. Ashok K. Thakur
Tehri Garhwal Uttarakhand, India H.H. Maharaja Manujendra Shah Sahib
Bahadur

States of the Rajasthan Agency

States of the Rajputana Agency.

Princely State Now part of Last Ruler

Alwar Rajasthan, India HH Maharaja Tej Singh
Banswara Rajasthan, India H.H. Rai Rayan Mahimahendra Maharajadhiraj
Maharawalji Sahib Shri Jagmalji II Sahib Bahadur, Naresh Rajya,
Maharawal of Banswara.
Bikaner Rajasthan, India H.H. Sri Raj Rajeshwar Maharajadhiraj
Narendra Sawai Maharaja Shiromani Ravi Raj Singhji Bahadur, Maharaja
of Bikaner and Head of the Royal House of Bikaner.
Bharatpur Rajasthan, India Maharaja Suraj Mal, Jawahar Singh,
Maharaja Randhir Singh, Maharaja Baldeo Singh, Maharaja Balwant Singh,
Maharaja Jaswant Singh, Maharaja Ram Singh, Maharaja Kishan Singh.
Bundi Rajasthan, India Col. HH Maharao Raja Shri BAHADUR SINGHJI
Bahadur
Dholpur Rajasthan, India Rana Kirat Singh, Rana Pohap Singh, Rana
Bhagwant Singh, Rana Nihal Singh, Rana Ram Singh, Rana Udaybhanu
Singh.
Dungarpur Rajasthan, India H.H. Rai-i-Rayan, Mahimahendra,
Maharajadhiraj Maharawal Shri Mahipal Singhji II Sahib Bahadur,
Maharawal of Dungarpur.
Jaipur Rajasthan, India Maharaja Sawai Man Singh II
Jaisalmer Rajasthan, India HH Maharajadhiraj Maharawal Sir JAWAHIR
SINGH Bahadur
Jhalawar Rajasthan, India H. Maharajadhiraj Maharaj Rana Shri
Chandrajit Singh Dev Bahadur, Maharaj Rana of Jhalawar.
Jodhpur Rajasthan, India H.H. Raj Rajeshwar Saramad-i-Rajha-i-
Hindustan Maharajadhiraja Maharaja Shri Gaj Singhji II Sahib Bahadur,
Maharaja of Jodhpur.
Karauli Rajasthan, India HH Maharaja Shri GANESH PAL Deo Bahadur
Yadakul Chandra Bhal
Kishangarh Rajasthan, India HH Umdae Rajhae Buland Makan
Maharajadhiraja Maharaja SUMER SINGHJI Bahadur
Kotah Rajasthan, India HH Maharao Shri BHIM SINGH II Bahadur
Kushalgarh Rajasthan, India Rao HARENDRA SINGH
Palanpur Gujarat, India
Pratabgarh Rajasthan, India Raja AJIT PRATAP SINGH
Shahpura Rajasthan, India HH Rajadhiraj SUDERSHAN SINGH
Sirohi Rajasthan, India
Tonk Rajasthan, India Nawab Muhammad Faruq Ali Khan
Mewar Rajasthan, India Maharana Sir Bhupal Singh
Lawa Rajasthan, India
Vallabhpur Rajasthan, India

Province of Sindh

Princely State Now part of Last Ruler
Khairpur Sindh, Pakistan H.H. George Ali Murad Khan

Gujarat States Agency and Baroda Residency

Districts of Gujarat

Laxmi Vilas Palace, BarodaBalasinor
Bansda
Bajana
Devgadh Baria
Baroda
Bhavnagar
Cambay
Chhota Udaipur
Dangs
Dhrangadhra
Gondal
Idar
Jawhar
Junagadh
Manavadar
Kutch
Lunavada
Morvi
Nawanagar
Porbandar
Poshina
Radhanpur
Rajpipla
Sachin
Sanjeda Mehvassi
Sant
Sanjeli
Surgana
Tharad
Vijaynagar
Vithalgarh
Wankaner
Vanod

States of Central India Agency

Map of British India, 1909
Subhash Marg, Indore
Bhil tribe girls in Jhabua
Orchha Palace, Madhya PradeshAjaigarh
Ali Rajpur
Alipura
Baoni
Barannda
Barwani
Beri
Bhopal
Bijawar
Charkhari
Chhatarpur
Datia
Dewas
Dhar
Garrauli
Gaurihar
Indore
Jabua
Jaora
Jaso
Jigni
Kamta-Rajaula
Khaniadhana
Khilchipur
Kothi Baghelan
Kurwai
Lugasi
Maihar
Makrai
Mathwar
Muhammadgarh
Nagod (Unchhera)
Narsingarh
Orchha
Panna
Pathari
Piploda
Rajgarh
Ratlam
Rewah
Samthar
Sarila
Sitamau

States of the Eastern States Agency

Ujjayanta Palace in Tripura
Palace in Cooch Behar
The 19th century Ujjayanta Palace, now used as the meeting place of
Tripura's State Legislative Assembly
Girivilas Palace in SarangarhAthmallik
Bastar
Baudh
Banaili
Changbhakar
Chhuikhadan
Cooch Behar
Darbhanga
Daspalla
Dhenkanal
Jashpur
Kalahandi
Kanker
Kawardha
Khairagarh
Kharsawan
Khondmals
Koriya (Koriya)
Mayurbhanj
Nandgaon
Nayagarh
Pal Lahara
Patna
Raigarh
Ramgarh
Sakti
Saraikela
Sarangarh
Sonpur
Surguja
Talcher
Tripura
Udaipur

Alphabetical list of former British India's princely states
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z

Geographical and administrative assigning is indicative, as various
names and borders have changed significantly, even entities
(provinces, principalities) split, merged, renamed et cetera.

Furthermore, criteria of statehood (used for inclusion) differ between
sources.

In some cases, several name variations or completely different names
are included.

A

Achrol in Rajasthan - Thikana of the Princely State of Jaipur
Agar (?)
Agra Barkhera
Ahmadnagar - salute
Ajaigarh in Madhya Pradesh - Hereditary salute of 11-guns
Ajraoda
Akalkot in Maharashtra
Akdia
Ali Rajpur in Madhya Pradesh - Hereditary salute of 11-guns
Alampur
Alipura in Madhya Pradesh
Alwa
Alwar in Rajasthan - Hereditary salute of 15-guns (17-guns local)
Amala
Amarchanta vassal state
Amarkot (Umerkot) in Sindh, Pakistan
Amarnaghar in Saurashtra (Gujarat)
Amb (Tanawal state) Pakistani Frontier state
Ambaliara in Maharashtra
Amethi in Uttar Pradesh
Amod
Amrapur in Kathiawar; <> below
Amrapur in Rewa Kantha
Anandpur
Anegundi Zamindari
Anghad
Angre Political Pensioner
Ankevalia
Arcot (the Carnatic) Political Pensioner
Arnia
Assam Political Pensioner - roughly the homonymous Indian state
Athgarh in Orissa
Athmalik in Orissa
Aundh in Maharashtra
Awadh=Oudh Political Pensioner

B

Babra
Bagasra
Bagasra Hadala
Bagasra Khari
Bagasra Natwar
Bagasra Ram
Baghal in Himachal Pradesh (Punjab Hills States)
Baghat in Himachal Pradesh
Bagli
Bahawalpur in Pakistan
Bai
Bajana in Saurashtra
Bakhtgarh
Balasinor in Bombay - Hereditary salute of 9-guns
Balsan in Himachal Pradesh
Baltistan (western Tibetan kingdom, since 1840 subject to Kashmir) in
Pakistan occupied Kashmir
Bamanbor
Bamra in Orissa
Banera in Chattisgarh
Banganapalle in Andhra Pradesh (was in Madras till 1-10-1953) -
Hereditary salute of 9-guns
Banka Pahari in Madhya Pradesh
Bansda in Bombay - Hereditary salute of 9-guns
Banswara in Rajastahn - Hereditary salute of 15-guns
Bantva Manavadar
Bantva Sardargadh
Baoni in Madhya Pradesh - Hereditary salute of 11-guns
Baramba in Orissa
Baraundha - Hereditary salute of 9-guns =?Baraundha Pathar Kachhar in
Madhya Pradesh - salute
Bardia
Baria - Hereditary salute of 9-guns (11-guns personal) =? Bariya in
Bombay
Barkhera Deo Dungri
Barkhera Panth
Baroda in Bombay - Hereditary salute of 21-guns
Barvala = Barwala in Saurashtra
Barwani in Madhya Pradesh - Hereditary salute of 11-guns
Bashahr in Himachal Pradesh - Personal salute of 9-guns
Basoda
Bastar in Madhya Pradesh
Bavda vassal state
Beja in Himachal Pradesh
Benares in Uttar Pradesh - Hereditary salute of 13-guns (15-guns
local)
Bengal Political Pensioner - new title Nawab of Murshidabad (their new
capital)
Beri (Behri) in Uttar Pradesh
Bhabhar
Bhadarwa
Bhadaura
Bhadli
Bhadvana
Bhadwa
Bhagat in Himachal Pradesh
Bhaisola
Bhajji in Himachal Pradesh
Bhalala
Bhandaria
Bharatpur in Rajasthan - Hereditary salute of 17-guns (19-guns local)
Bharejda
Bharudpura
Bhathan
Bhatkeri
Bhavnagar in Saurashtra - Hereditary salute of 13-guns (15-guns
local)
Bhawal
Bhioldia
Bhimoria
Bhoika
Bhojakheri
Bhojavadar
Bhopal in Madhya Pradesh - Hereditary salute of 19-guns (21-guns
local)
Bhor in Maharashtra - Hereditary salute of 9-guns
Bhorole
Bichhrand Junior
Bichhrand Senior
Bihat in Madhya Pradesh
Bihora
Bija
Bijawar in Madhya Pradesh - Hereditary salute of 11-guns
Bijna in Madhya Pradesh
Bikaner in Rajasthan - Hereditary salute of 17-guns (19-guns local)
Bilaspur in Himachal Pradesh - Hereditary salute of 11-guns
Bilaud
Bilauda
Bilbari
Bildi
Bilkha in Saurashtra
Boad
Bodanones
Bolundra
Bonai in Orissa
Borkhera (Indore)
Borkhera (Malwa)
Boudh in Orissa
Bundi in Rajasthan - Hereditary salute of 17-guns

C

Cambay=Kambay in Bombay - Hereditary salute of 11-guns
Cannanore
Carnatic
Chachana
Chamardi
Chamba in Himachal Pradesh - Hereditary salute of 11-guns
Changbhakar in Madhya Pradesh
Charkha
Charkhari in Madhya Pradesh - Hereditary salute of 11-guns
Chera
Chhaliar
Chhatarpur in Madhya Pradesh - Hereditary salute of 11-guns
Chhota Barkhera
Chhota Udaipur=Chhota Udepur in Bombay - Hereditary salute of 9-guns
Chhuikadan in Madhya Pradesh
Chiktiabar
Chinchli Ghabad
Chiroda
Chitral Pakistani Frontier State
Chitravao
Chobari
Chok
Chorangla
Chotila
Chuda in Saurashtra
Chudesar
Cochin in Kerala - Hereditary salute of 17-guns
Cooch Behar in West Bengal - Hereditary salute of 13-guns
Coorg Political pensioner
Cutch =Kutch in Saurashtra - Hereditary salute of 17-guns (19-guns
local)

D

Dabha
Dabr
Dadhalia
Dahida
Danta in Bombay - Hereditary salute of 9-guns
Daphlapur
Darbhanga
Daria Kheri
Darkoti in Himachal Pradesh
Darod
Daryabad
Dasada
Daspalla in Orissa
Datia in Madhya Pradesh - Hereditary salute of 15-guns
Datva vassal state
Debhavati
Dedarda
Dedhrota in Bombay
Delath, a tributary of Bashahr, in Himachal Pradesh
Delhi (Mughal Emperor)
Deloli
Deodar in Gujarat
Derdi Janbai
Derol
Devalia
Devlia
Dewas Junior Branch in Madhya Pradesh - Hereditary salute of 15-guns
Dewas Senior Branch in Madhya Pradesh - Hereditary salute of 15-guns
Dhabla Dhir
Dhabla Ghosi
Dhamasia
Dhami
Dhamri in Himachal Pradesh
Dhaora Ghanjara
Dhar in Madhya Pradesh - Hereditary salute of 15-guns
Dharampur in Bombay - Hereditary salute of 9-guns (11-guns personal)
Dharnauda
Dhenkanal in Orissa
Dhola
Dholarva
Dholpur in Rajasthan - Hereditary salute of 15-guns (17-guns
personal)
Dhrangadhra -Halvad in Saurashtra - Hereditary salute of 13-guns
Dhrol in Saurashtra - Hereditary salute of 9-guns
Dhulatia
Dhurwai in Madhya Pradesh
Dir (Dhir) Pakistani Frontier State
Dodka
Drapha
Dudhpur
Dudhrej
Dugri
Dujana in Punjab (now in Haryana)
Dungapur/Dungarpur in Rajasthan - Hereditary salute of 15-guns

F

Faridkot in PEPSU - Hereditary salute of 11-guns
[edit] G
Gabat
Gad Boriad
Gadhali
Gadhia
Gadhka
Gadhula
Gadvi
Gadwal vassal state
Gandhol
Gangpur in Orissa
Garamli Moti
Garamli Nahani
Garrauli in Madhya Pradesh
Gaurihar in Madhya Pradesh
Gavridad
Gedi
Ghodasar =? Ghodsar in Maharashtra
Gigarsaran
Gohad
Gondal in Saurashtra - Hereditary salute of 11-guns
Gopalpet vassal state
Gotardi
Gothda
Gundh in Himachal Pradesh
Gundiali
Gurgunta vassal state
Gwalior in Madhya Pradesh - Hereditary salute of 21-guns

H

Halvadin surendranagar (Gujarat)
Halaria
Hapa in Bombay
Harol
Hindol in Orissa
Hindur
Hirapur
Hunza Pakistani Frontier State
Hyderabad - Hereditary salute of 21-guns

I

Ichalkaranji vassal state
Idar in Bombay - Hereditary salute of 15-guns
Ilol in Bombay
Ilpura
Indore in Madhya Pradesh - Hereditary salute of 19-guns (21-guns
local)
Itria
Itvad

J

Jabria Bhil
Jafrabad in Saurashtra
Jafarabad and Janjira fusion of both states named
Jaipur in Rajasthan - Hereditary salute of 17-guns (19-guns local)
Jaisalmer in Rajasthan - Hereditary salute of 15-guns
Jakhan
Jalia Devani=Jaliadevani in Saurashtra
Jalia Kayaji
Jalia Manaji
Jambughoda or Jambuodha in Bombay
Jamkhandi in Bombay
Jammu in Jammu and Kashmir - Hereditary salute of 21-guns
Jamnia
Janjira in Bombay - Hereditary salute of 11-guns (13-guns local)
Jaora in Madhya Pradesh - Hereditary salute of 13-guns
Jasdan in Saurashtra
Jashpur
Jashur in Madhya Pradesh
Jaso in Madhya Pradesh
Jath in Bombay
Jatprole vassal state
Jawalgiri vassal state
Jawasia
Jawhar in Bombay - Hereditary salute of 9-guns
Jesar
Jetpur in Saurashtra
Jhabua in Madhya Pradesh - Hereditary salute of 11-guns
Jhalawar in Rajasthan - Hereditary salute of 13-guns
Jhalera
Jhamar
Jhamka
Jhampodar
Jhari Gharkadhi
Jhinyuvada
Jigni in Madhya Pradesh
Jiliya in Rajasthan [1]
Jind in PEPSU - Hereditary salute of 13-guns (15-guns personal and
local)
Jiral Kamsoli
Jobat in Madhya Pradesh
Jodhpur in Rajasthan - Hereditary salute of 17-guns (19-guns local)
Jubbal in Himachal Pradesh
Jumkha
Junagadh - Hereditary salute of 13-guns (15-guns personal and local)
Junapadar

K

Kachchi Baroda
Kadana
Kagal Junior vassal state
Kagal Senior vassal state
Kahlur = Kehloor - former names of Bilaspur in Himachal Pradesh
Kalahandi in Orissa - Hereditary salute of 9-guns
Kalat in Pakistani Baluchistan
Kali Baori
Kalsia in PEPSU
Kalu Khera
Kamalpur (Bombay)
Kamalpur (Central India)
Kambay = Cambai in Bombay - Hereditary salute of 11-guns
Kambhala
Kamta Rajaula
Kanada
Kaner
Kangra-Lambagraon
Kanika
Kanjarda
Kanker
Kankrej
Kanksiali
Kanpur Ishwaria
Kanta Rajaulia in Madhya Pradesh
Kantharia
Kapshi vassal state
Kapurthala in PEPSU - Hereditary salute of 13-guns (15-guns personal
and local)
Karaudia
Karauli in Rajasthan - Hereditary salute of 17-guns
Kariana
Karmad
Karol
Kashmir in Jammu & K.
Kasla Pagina Muvada
Kassalpura
Kathaun
Kathiawar - also name of the large Gujarati peninsula, roughly
corresponding to Saurashtra (divided into numerous minor (e)states)
Kathrota
Katodia
Katosan
Kawardha in Madhya Pradesh
Kayatha
Kehloor = Kahlur - former names of Bilaspur in Himachal Pradesh
Keonjhar in Orissa
Keonthal in Himachal Pradesh
Kerwada
Kesria
Khadal in Bombay
Khairagarh in Madhya Pradesh
Khairpur in Pakistan
Khajuri
Khamblav
Khandia
Khaneti, a tributary of Bashahr
Khandpara in Orissa
Khandpara
Khaniadhana in Madhya Pradesh
Kharan in Pakistani Baluchistan
Kharsawan in Bihar
Kharsi
Khedawada
Kherali
Kherawara
Kherwasa
Kheri Rajpur
Khetri vassal state
Khiauda
Khijadia (Gohilwar)
Khilchipur in Madhya Pradesh - Hereditary salute of 9-guns
Khirasra in Saurashtra
Khojankhera
Khudadad the state of Tippu Sultan - his heirs became Political
Pensioner
Khyrim
Kiari see Madhan in Himachal Pradesh
Kirli
Kishangarh in Rajasthan - Hereditary salute of 15-guns
Kolara Political Pensioner
Kolhapur in Bombay - Hereditary salute of 19-guns
Koriya (Korea) in Madhya Pradesh
Kotah in Rajasthan - Hereditary salute of 17-guns (19-guns personal)
Kotda Nayani in Saurashtra
Kotda Pitha in Saurashtra
Kotda Sangani in Saurashtra
Kotharia in Saurashtra
Kothi in Madhya Pradesh
Kuba (not Quba in Armenia!)
Kumarsain in Himachal Pradesh =?Kumharsain
Kunihar in Himachal Pradesh
Kurandvad?Kurundvad Junior Branch
Kurandvad Senior Branch
Kurnool Political Pensioner
Kurwai in Madhya Pradesh
Kushalgarh
Kutch=Cooch in Saurashtra
Kuthar in Himachal Pradesh

L

Labhowa Uttar Pradesh
Lakhapadar
Lakhtar in Saurashtra
Lalgarh
Laliyad
Landhora
Langrin
Las Bela in Pakistani Baluchistan
Lathi in Saurashtra
Lavej
Lawa in Rajasthan
Likhi
Limbda =? Limbdi in Saurashtra - Hereditary salute of 9-guns
Lodhika
Logasi in Madhya Pradesh
Loharu in Punjab (now in Haryana) - Hereditary salute of 9-guns
Lugasi
Lunavada=Lunawanda in Bombay =? Lunawarda Lunawara - Hereditary salute
of 9-guns

M

Madhan = Kiari in Himachal Pradesh
Mogalthur in Andhra Pradesh
Magodi in Bombay
Maguna in Bombay
Maharam
Mahlog =?Mahilog in Himachal Pradesh
Maihar in Madhya Pradesh - Hereditary salute of 9-guns
Mahmudpura
Makrai in Madhya Pradesh
Makran in Pakistani Baluchistan
Maksudangarh
Malaudh one of the Phulkian princely States in Punjab
Malerkotla=Maler Kotla in PEPSU - Hereditary salute of 11-guns
Malaisohmat
Malia = Maliya in Saurashtra
Malpur in Bombay
Manavadar
Mandavad officially also called Nawa-Visavadar until Independence.
Mandholi in Rajasthan, a thikana under Torawati in Jaipur state.
Mandi in Himachal Pradesh - Hereditary salute of 11-guns
Mandva in Bombay =?Mandwa
Mangal in Himachal Pradesh
Mangam
Mangrol
Manipur in colonial Assam (now a separate constitutive state) -
Hereditary salute of 11-guns
Mansa
Maoang
Maosangram
Mariaw
Masulipatam Political Pensioner
Mathwar
Matra Timba
Mayurbhanj in Orissa - Hereditary salute of 9-guns
Men
Mengani
Mevasa
Mevli
Mewar, or after its capital Udaipur - The first and foremost of all
states in British India, Hereditary salute of 19-guns (21-guns local),
soon full 21-guns
Miohanpur in Bombay
Miraj Junior Branch in Bombay
Miraj Senior Branch in Bombay
Mirpur in Pakistan
Mohanpur
Moka Pagina Muvada
Monvel
Morchopna
Morvi in Saurashtra - Hereditary salute of 11-guns
Mota Barkhera
Mota Kotharna
Mowa
Mudhol in Bombay - Hereditary salute of 9-guns
Muhammadgarh in Madhya Pradesh
Muli in Saurashtra
Mulia Deri
Multhan
Munjpar
Murshidabad Political Pensioner- new seat of the former rulers of
(Greater) Bengal
Mylliem
Mysore (modern Maisur) in Madras - Hereditary salute of 21-guns

N

Nabha in PEPSU - Hereditary salute of 13-guns (15-guns local)
Nagar Pakistani Frontier State
Nagod - Hereditary salute of 9-guns =? Nagodh in Madhya Pradesh
Nagpur in Madhya Pradesh- Political Pensioner
Nahara
Naigawan Ribai
Nalagarh in PEPSU
=? Nalagarh in Himachal Pradesh
Nalia
Nandgaon in Madhya Pradesh
Narsinghgarh in Madhya Pradesh - Hereditary salute of 11-guns
Narsinghpur in Orissa
Narukot
Narwar
Nashipur ?
Naswadi
Naugaon
Naulana
Navagarh
Nawanagar in Saurashtra - Hereditary salute of 13-guns (15-guns
local)
Nayagarh in Orissa
Nilgiri in Orissa
Nilvala
Nimkhera
Nobo Sohoh
Noghanvadar
Nongklao
Nongspung
Nongstoin

O

Orchha in Madhya Pradesh - Hereditary salute of 15-guns
Oudh = Awadh Political Pensioner - ?salute
Orai

P

Peddapuram in Andhra Pradesh
Pachegam
Pah
Pahara in Madhya Pradesh =?Pahra
Paigah vassal state
Pal
Palaj in Bombay
Palali
Palanpur in Bombay - Hereditary salute of 13-guns
Palasni
Palasvihir
Paldeo in Madhya Pradesh
Palitana in Saurashtra - Hereditary salute of 9-guns
Paliyad
Pal Lahara in Orissa =?Pal Lahera
Palsani
Panchvada
Pandu
Panna in Madhya Pradesh - Hereditary salute of 11-guns
Pantalvadi
Panth Piploda
Paron
Partabgarh in Rajasthan - Hereditary salute of 15-guns
Patan or Torawati in Rajasthan, vassal state to Jaipur
Pataudi in Punjab (now in Haryana)
Patdi in Saurashtra
Pathari in Madhya Pradesh =?Patharia
Patiala in PEPSU - Hereditary salute of 17-guns (19-guns local)
Patna in Orissa - Hereditary salute of 9-guns
Pethapur
Phaltan in Bombay
Phulera
Pimladevi
Pimpri
Piplia Sisodia
Piplianagar
Piploda in Madhya Pradesh
Poicha
Pol
Poonch vassal state
Porbandar in Saurashtra - Hereditary salute of 13-guns
Prempur in Bombay
Pudukottai in Madras - Hereditary salute of 11-guns
Punadra
Punial Pakistani Frontier State
Punjab Political Pensioner - ?salute
Pundara in Bombay
Palvancha Biggest Principality in Telengana Region(Under Nizam)

R

Radhanpur in Gujarat - Hereditary salute of 11-guns
Raghugarh
Rahrakhol
Raigarh in Madhya Pradesh
Rairakhol in Orissa
Rai Sankli
Rajgarh in Madhya Pradesh - Hereditary salute of 11-guns
Rajpara (Gohilwar)
Rajpara (Halar)
Rajkot in Saurashtra - Hereditary salute of 9-guns
Rajpipla in Gujarat - Hereditary salute of 13-guns
Rajpur (Kathiawar) in Saurashtra?
Rajpur (Rewa Kantha) in Saurashtra?
Ramanka
Ramas
Rambrai
Ramdurg in Bombay
Ramgarh
Rampur in Uttar Pradesh - Hereditary salute of 15-guns
Rampura
Ranasan in Bombay
Randhia
Ranpur in Orissa
Ratanmal
Ratanpur Dhamanka
Ratesh a zaildar in Keonthal in Himachal Pradesh
Ratlam in Madhya Pradesh - Hereditary salute of 13-guns (15-guns
local)
Rawin = Rawingarh, a tributary of Jubbal in Himachal Pradesh
Regan
Rewa=Rewah in Madhya Pradesh - Hereditary salute of 17-guns
Rohisala
Rudrapur= In Deoria Distrct of Uttar Pradesh -Satashi Naresh
Rupal

S

Sachin - Hereditary salute of 9-guns
Sada Kheri
Sahuka
Sailana in Madhya Pradesh - Hereditary salute of 11-guns
Sakti in Madhya Pradesh
Samadhiali
Samla
Samode vassal state
Samthar in Madhya Pradesh - Hereditary salute of 11-guns
Sahaspur-bilari Uttar Pradesh- title of RAJA BAHADUR
Sanala
Sandur in Karnataka (was in Madras Presidency before 1-10-1953)
Sangli in Bombay - Hereditary salute of 9-guns (11-guns personal)
Sangri in Himachal Pradesh
Sanjeli in Bombay
Sanor
Sanosra
Sant in Bombay - Hereditary salute of 9-guns
Santalpur (Adesar)
Sarangarh in Madhya Pradesh
Sarila in Madhya Pradesh
Satanones
Sarangarh
Sarila
Satara Political Pensioner - cfr. the Peshwa's Maratha confederation
Sathamba in Bombay
Satlasna
Satodad Vavdi
Savantvadi=Savantwadi in Bombay - Hereditary salute of 9-guns (11-guns
local)
Savanur in Bombay
Sayla in Saurashtra
Sejakpur
Seraikela=? Seraikhela in Bihar
Shahpur
Shahpura in Rajasthan - Hereditary salute of 9-guns
Shajaota
Shanor
Sheogarh
Sheopur-Baroda
Shevdivadar
Shivabara
Shorapur vassal state
SibaNo Salute
Sidki
Sihora
Sikkim (a Himalayan constitutive state since Indian annexation) -
Hereditary salute of 15-guns
Silana
Sind in Pakistan (khanate extinguished in 1843)
Sindhiapura
Singhana
Sirguja
Sirmur in Himachal Pradesh - Hereditary salute of 11-guns
Sirohi in Rajasthan - Hereditary salute of 15-guns
Sirsi (Gwalior)
Sirsi (Malwa)
Sitamau in Madhya Pradesh - Hereditary salute of 11-guns
Sohawal in Madhya Pradesh
Sonepur in Orissa - Hereditary salute of 9-guns
Songad
Sonkhera & Sarwan
Sudamra
Sudasna in Bombay
Suigam
Suket in Himachal Pradesh - Hereditary salute of 11-guns
Sundem
Sunth
Surat Political Pensioner
Surgana in Bombay
Surguja in Madhya Pradesh
Sutalia
Swat Pakistani Frontier State
[Sidhowal{India}in Punjab]
Srikalahasti under Madras Presidency-sold Area of Madras to East India
Company

T

Tuni in Andhra Pradesh
Tajpuri in Bombay
Tal
Talegaon Dabhade vassal state
Talcher in Orissa
Talsana
Tanawal state (see Amb) Pakistani Frontier state
Tanjore Political Pensioner
Tappa
Taraon in Madhya Pradesh
Tavi
Tehri Garhwal in Uttar Pradesh - Hereditary salute of 11-guns
Tejpura
Tervada
Thana Devli
Tharad & Morwara
Tharoch in Himachal Pradesh
Tigiria? Tigria in Orissa
Timba
Toda Todi
Tonk in Rajasthan - Hereditary salute of 17-guns
Torgal vassal state
Tori Fatehpur in Madhya Pradesh
Travancore in Kerala - Hereditary salute of 19-guns
Tripura in colonial Assam (now a separate state) - Hereditary salute
of 13-guns

U

Uchad
Udaipur, Chhattisgarh
Udaipur capital of Mewar in Rajasthan - Hereditary salute of 19-guns
(21-guns local), soon full 21-guns
Umeta In Gujurat of Thakore Jagdevsinhji Ramsinhji Padhiar
Umri (Bombay)
Umri (Central India)
Uni
Untdi
Upawara

V

Vizianagaram The only (Kshatriya-Suryavansh)Rajput Kingdom in South
India (Andhra Pradesh)
Vadal
Vadali
Vadia in Saurashtra
Vadod (Gohilwar)
Vadod (Jhalawar)
Vaghvadi
Vajiria
Vakhatpur in Bombay =?Vakhtapur
Vallabhpur
Vala in Saurashtra
Valasna in Bombay
Vana
Vanala
Vanghdhra
Vanod in Saurashtra
Varagam
Varnol Mal
Varnoli Moti
Varnoli Nani
Varsoda in Bombay
Vasan Sewada
Vasan Virpur
Vasna in Bombay
Veja-no-ness
Vekaria
Vichhavad
Vijanones
Vijayanagar in Bombay
Virampura
Virpur in Saurashtra
Virsora
Virvao
Vishalgarh vassal state
Vithalgarh
Vora

W

Wadagam
Wadi
Wai
Wadhwan in Saurashtra - Hereditary salute of 9-guns
Wadi jagir in Bombay
Wanapurthy vassal state
Wankaner in Saurashtra - Hereditary salute of 11-guns
Wao in Bombay
Warahi
Wasna

Z
Zainabad or Zainbad

Further reading

The Relationship Between the Indian Princely States and the Indian
Central Government, 1921-1933, by Harry Dunseth Wood. Published by
University of Chicago, 1951.

The Paramount Power and the Princely States of India, 1858-1881, by
Ajit K. Neogy. Published by K. P. Bagchi, 1974.

Rajahs and Prajas: An Indian Princely State, Then and Now, by S.
Devadas Pillai. Published by Popular Prakashan, 1976.

Princely States and the Paramount Power, 1858-1876: A Study on the
Nature of Political Relationship Between the British Government and
the Indian State, by Mihir Kumar Ray. Rajesh Publications, 1981.

Documents and Speeches on the Indian Princely States, by Adrian Sever.
Published by B.R. Pub. Corp., 1985.

The Late Pre-colonial Background to the Indian Princely States, by
Richard B Barnett. Published by Centre for South Asian Studies,
University of Punjab, 1988.

Indian Princely Medals: A Record of the Orders, Decorations, and
Medals of the Indian Princely States, by Tony McClenaghan. Published
by Spantech & Lancer, 1996. ISBN 1897829191.

British Policy Towards Princely States of India: Seminar Entitled
"British Policy Towards North Indian Princely States" : Selected
Papers, by R P Vyas. Published by Rajasthan-Vidya Prakashan, 1992.

The Princely States of India: A Chronological Checklist of Their
Rulers, by David P. Henige. Published by Borgo Press, 1997. ISBN
0893703257.

Constitutional Development in the Indian Princely States, by Ranjana
Kaul. Published by UBS Publishers Distributors, 1998. ISBN
8125905111.

The Maharaja & the Princely States of India, by Sharada Dwivedi.
Published by Lustre Press, 1999. ISBN 8174360816.

Illustrated Encyclopaedia & Who's who of Princely States in Indian Sub-
continent, by J. C. Dua. Published by Kaveri Books, 2000. ISBN
8174790365.

The Golden Book of India: A Genealogical and Biographical Dictionary
of the Ruling Princes, Chiefs, Nobles, and Other Personages, Titled or

Decorated, of the Indian Empire, by Sir Roper Lethbridge. Adamant
Media Corporation, 2001. ISBN 1402193289.

True Tales of British India & the Princely States: & The Princely
States, by Michael Wise. Published by In Print, 1993. ISBN
1873047061.

Princely States of India: A Guide to Chronology and Rulers, by David
P. Henige. Published by Orchid Press, 2006. ISBN 9745240494.

India's Princely States: People, Princes and Colonialism, by Waltraud
Ernst, Biswamoy Pati. Published by Routledge, 2007. ISBN 0415415411.

Sources and references

Wikimedia Commons has media related to: Indian Princely States
Indian Princely States Genealogy Queensland University
Indian Princely states and their Genealogy - royalark
Flags of Indian Princely States
WorldStatesman- separate Princely States section(s) per present
country

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Indian_princely_states

bademiyansubhanallah

unread,
Feb 5, 2010, 6:02:27 PM2/5/10
to
Political integration of India

2008/9 Schools Wikipedia Selection. Related subjects: General history
British India and the princely states in 1909

Immediate situation post-1947 independenceAt the time of Indian
independence, India was divided into two sets of territories, the
first being the territories under the control of the British Empire,
and the second being the territories over which the Crown had
suzerainty, but which were under the control of their hereditary
rulers. In addition, there were several colonial enclaves controlled
by France and Portugal. The political integration of these territories
into India was a declared objective of the Indian National Congress,
which the Government of India pursued over the next decade. Through a
combination of factors, Vallabhbhai Patel and V.P. Menon convinced the
rulers of the various princely states to accede to India. Having
secured their accession, they then proceeded to, in a step-by-step
process, secure and extend the central government's authority over
these states and transform their administration until, by 1956, there
was little difference between the territories that had formerly been
part of British India and those that had been part of princely states.
Simultaneously, the Government of India through a combination of
diplomatic and military means acquired de facto and de jure control
over the remaining colonial enclaves, which too were integrated into
India.

Although this process successfully integrated the vast majority of
princely states into India, it was not as successful in relation to a
few states, notably the former princely states of Kashmir, Tripura and
Manipur, where active secessionist movements exist.

Princely States in British India

The British-ruled Madras Province and adjacent princely statesThe
early history of British expansion in India was characterised by the
co-existence of two approaches towards the existing princely states.
The first was a policy of annexation, where the British sought to
forcibly absorb the Indian princely states into the provinces which
constituted their Empire in India. The second was a policy of indirect
rule, where the British assumed suzerainty and paramountcy over
princely states, but conceded some degree of sovereignty to them.
During the early part of the nineteenth century, the policy of the
British tended towards annexation, but the Indian Rebellion of 1857
forced a change in this approach, by demonstrating both the difficulty
of absorbing and subduing annexed states, and the usefulness of
princely states as a source of support. In 1858, the policy of
annexation was formally renounced, and British relations with the
princely states thereafter were based on indirect rule, whereby the
British exercised paramountcy over all princely states with the
British crown as ultimate suzerain, but at the same time respected and
protected them as allies. The exact relations between the British and
each princely state were regulated by individual treaties, and varied
widely, with some states having significant autonomy, some being
subject to significant control in internal affairs, and some being in
effect the owners of a few acres of land with little autonomy.

During the 20th century, the British made several attempts to
integrate the princely states more closely with British India,
creating the Chamber of Princes in 1921 as a consultative and advisory
body, transferring the responsibility for supervision of smaller
states from the provinces to the centre in 1936, and creating direct
relations between the Government of India and the larger princely
states superseding political agents. The most ambitious was a scheme
of federation in the Government of India Act, 1935, which envisaged
the princely states and British India being united under a federal
government. This scheme came close to success, but was abandoned in
1939 as a result of the outbreak of the Second World War. As a result,
in the 1940s, the relationship between the princely states and the
crown remained regulated by the principle of paramountcy and the
various treaties between the British crown and the states.

Neither paramountcy nor these arrangements could continue after Indian
independence. The British took the view that because they had been
established directly between the British crown and the princely
states, they could not be transferred to independent India. At the
same time, they imposed obligations on Britain that it was not
prepared to continue to carry out, such as the obligation to maintain
troops in India for the defence of the princely states. The British
government therefore decided that paramountcy, together with all
treaties between them and the princely states, would come to an end
upon the transfer of power.

Reasons for integration

The Saurashtra and Kathiawar regions of Gujarat were home to over two
hundred princely states, many with non-contiguous territories, as this
map of Baroda shows.The termination of paramountcy would have in
principle have meant that all rights that flowed from the states'
relationship with the British crown would return to them, leaving them
free to negotiate relationships with the new states of India and
Pakistan "on a basis of complete freedom." Early British plans for the
transfer of power, such as the offer produced by the Cripps Mission,
recognised the possibility that some princely states might choose to
stand out of independent India. This was unacceptable to the Congress,
which regarded the independence of princely states as a denial of the
course of Indian history, and consequently regarded this scheme as a "
Balkanisation" of India. The Congress had traditionally been less
active in the princely states because of their limited resources which
restricted their ability to organise there and their focus on the goal
of independence from the British, and because Congress leaders, in
particular Gandhi, were sympathetic to the more progressive princes as
examples of the capacity of Indians to rule themselves. This changed
in the 1930s as a result of the federation scheme contained in the
Government of India Act, 1935 and the rise of socialist Congress
leaders such as Jayaprakash Narayan, and the Congress began to
actively engage with popular political and labour activity in the
princely states. By 1939, the Congress' official stance was that the
states must enter independent India, on the same terms and with the
same autonomy as the provinces of British India, and with their people
granted responsible government. As a result, it insisted on the
incorporation of the princely states into India in its negotiations
with Mountbatten.

A few British leaders, particularly Lord Mountbatten, the last British
viceroy in India, were also uncomfortable with breaking links between
independent India and the princely states. The development of trade,
commerce and communications during the 19th and 20th centuries had
bound the princely states to British India through a complex network
of interests. Agreements relating to railways, customs, irrigation,
the use of ports, and other similar agreements would disappear, posing
a serious threat to the economic life of the subcontinent. Mountbatten
was also persuaded by the argument of Indian leaders such as V.P.
Menon that the integration of the princely states into independent
India would to some extent assuage the wounds of partition. The result
was that Mountbatten personally favoured and worked towards the
accession of princely states to India following the transfer of power,
as proposed by the Congress.

Accepting integration

The princes' position

The rulers of the princely states were not uniformly enthusiastic
about integrating their domains into independent India. Some, such as
the kings of Bikaner and Jawhar, were motivated to join India out of
ideological and patriotic considerations, but others insisted that
they had the right to join either India or Pakistan, to remain
independent, or form a union of their own. Bhopal, Travancore and
Hyderabad announced that they did not intend to join either dominion.
Hyderabad went as far as to appoint trade representatives in European
countries and commencing negotiations with the Portuguese to lease or
buy Goa to give it access to the sea, and Travancore pointed to the
strategic importance to western countries of its thorium reserves
while asking for recognition. Some states proposed a subcontinent-wide
confederation of princely states, as a third entity in addition to
India and Pakistan. Bhopal attempted to build an alliance between the
princely states and the Muslim League to counter the pressure being
put on rulers by the Congress.

A number of factors contributed to the collapse of this initial
resistance and to nearly all princely states agreeing to accede to
India. An important factor was the lack of unity amongst the princes.
The smaller states did not trust the larger states to protect their
interests, and many Hindu rulers did not trust Muslim princes, in
particular Hamidullah Khan, the Nawab of Bhopal and a leading
proponent of independence, who they viewed as an agent for Pakistan.
Others, believing integration inevitable, sought to build bridges with
the Congress, hoping thereby to gain a say in shaping the final
settlement. The resultant inability to present a united front or agree
on a common position significantly reduced their bargaining power in
negotiations with the Congress. The decision by the Muslim League to
stay out of the Constituent Assembly was also fatal to the princes'
plan to build an alliance with it to counter the Congress, and
attempts to boycott the Constituent Assembly altogether failed on 28
April 1947, when the states of Baroda, Bikaner, Cochin, Gwalior,
Jaipur, Jodhpur, Patiala and Rewa took their seats in the Assembly.

Many princes were also pressured by popular sentiment favouring
integration with India, which meant their plans for independence had
little support from their subjects. The king of Travancore, for
example, definitively abandoned his plans for independence after the
attempted assassination of his dewan, Sir C.P. Ramaswamy Aiyar. In a
few states, the chief ministers or dewans played a significant role in
convincing the princes to accede to India. The key factors that led
the states to accept integration into India were, however, the efforts
of Lord Mountbatten, the last Viceroy of British India, and
Vallabhbhai Patel and V.P. Menon, who were respectively the political
and administrative heads of the Indian Government's States Department,
which was in charge of relations with the princely states.

Mountbatten's role

Lord Louis Mountbatten played an important role in convincing
reluctant monarchs to accede to the Indian Union.Mountbatten believed
that securing the states' accession to India was crucial to reaching a
negotiated settlement with the Congress for the transfer of power. As
a relative of the British Emperor, he was trusted by most of the
princes and was a personal friend of many, especially the Nawab of
Bhopal, Hamidullah Khan. The princes also believed that he would be in
a position to ensure the independent India adhered to any terms that
might be agreed upon, because Jawaharlal Nehru and Patel had asked him
to become the first Governor General of the Dominion of India.

Mountbatten used his influence with the princes to push them towards
accession. He declared that the British Government would not grant
dominion status to any of the princely states, nor would it accept
them into the British Commonwealth, which meant that the states would
sever all connections with the British crown unless they joined either
India or Pakistan. He pointed out that the Indian subcontinent was one
economic entity, and that the states would suffer most if the link
were broken. He also pointed to the difficulties that princes would
face maintaining order in the face of threats such as the rise of
communal violence and communist movements.

Mountbatten stressed that he would act as the trustee of the princes'
commitment, as he would be serving as India's head of state well into
1948. He engaged in a personal dialogue with reluctant princes, such
as the Nawab of Bhopal, who he asked through a confidential letter to
sign the Instrument of Accession making Bhopal part of India, which
Mountbatten would keep locked up in his safe. It would be handed to
the States Department on 15 August only if the Nawab did not change
his mind before then, which he was free to do. The Nawab agreed, and
did not renege over the deal.

At the time, several princes complained that they were being betrayed
by Britain, who they regarded as an ally, and Sir Conrad Corfield
resigned his position as head of the Political Department in protest
at Mountbatten's policies. Mountbatten's policies were also criticised
by the opposition Conservative Party. Winston Churchill compared the
language used by the Indian government with that used by Adolf Hitler
before the invasion of Austria. Modern historians such as Lumby and
Moore, however, take the view that Mountbatten played a crucial role
in ensuring that the princely states agreed to accede to India.

Pressure and diplomacy

Vallabhbhai Patel as Minister for Home and States Affairs had the
responsibility of welding the British Indian provinces and the
princely states into a united IndiaBy far the most significant factor
that led to the princes' decision to accede to India was the policy of
the Congress and, in particular, of the two key figures in the States
Department, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel and V.P. Menon. The Congress'
stated position was that the princely states were not sovereign
entities, and as such could not opt to be independent notwithstanding
the end of paramountcy. The princely states, it declared, must
therefore accede to either India or Pakistan. In July 1946, Nehru
pointedly observed that no princely state could prevail militarily
against the army of independent India. In January 1947, he said that
independent India would not accept the Divine Right of Kings, and in
May 1947, he declared that any princely state which refused to join
the Constituent Assembly would be treated as an enemy state. Other
Congress leaders, such as C. Rajagopalachari, argued that as
paramountcy "came into being as a fact and not by agreement", it would
necessarily pass to the government of independent India, as the
successors of the British.

Patel and Menon, who were charged with the actual job of negotiating
with the princes, took a more conciliatory approach than Nehru. The
official policy statement of the Government of India made by Patel on
5 July 1947 made no threats. Instead, it emphasised the unity of India
and the common interests of the princes and independent India,
reassured them about the Congress' intentions, and invited them to
join independent India "to make laws sitting together as friends than
to make treaties as aliens." He reiterated that the States Department
would not attempt to establish a relationship of domination over the
princely states. Unlike the Political Department of the British
Government, it would not be an instrument of paramountcy, but a medium
whereby business could be conducted between the states and India as
equals.

Instruments of Accession

Patel and Menon backed up their diplomatic efforts by producing
treaties that were designed to be attractive to rulers of princely
states. Two key documents were produced. The first was the Standstill
Agreement, which confirmed that the agreements and administrative
practices that existed as between the princely state in question and
the British would be continued by India. The second was the Instrument
of Accession, by which the ruler of the princely state in question
agreed to the accession of his kingdom to independent India, and to
granting India control over specified subject matters. The nature of
the subject matters varied depending on the acceding state. The states
which had internal autonomy under the British signed an Instrument of
Accession which only ceded three subjects to the government of India —
defence, external affairs, and communications, each defined in
accordance with List 1 to Schedule VII of the Government of India Act,
1935. Rulers of states which were in effect estates or talukas, where
substantial administrative powers were exercised by the Crown, signed
a different Instrument of Accession, which vested all residuary powers
and jurisdiction in the government of India. Rulers of states which
had an intermediate status signed a third type of Instrument, which
preserved the degree of power they had under the British.

The Instruments of Accession implemented a number of other safeguards.
Clause 7 provided that the princes would not be bound to the Indian
constitution as and when it was drafted. Clause 8 guaranteed their
autonomy in all areas in which authority was not expressly ceded to
the Government of India. This was supplemented by a number of
promises. Rulers who agreed to accede would receive guarantees that
their extra-territorial rights, such as immunity from prosecution in
Indian courts and exemption from customs duty, would be protected,
that they would be allowed to democratise slowly, that none of the
eighteen major states would be forced to merge, and that they would
remain eligible for British honours and decorations. In discussions,
Lord Mountbatten reinforced the statements of Patel and Menon by
emphasising that the documents gave the princes all the "practical
independence" they needed. Mountbatten, Patel and Menon also sought to
give princes the impression that if they did not accept the terms put
to them then, they would subsequently have to accede on substantially
less favourable terms. The Standstill Agreement was also used as a
negotiating tool, as the States Department categorically ruled out
signing a Standstill Agreement with princely states that did not sign
an Instrument of Accession.

The accession process

The limited scope of the Instruments of Accession and the promise of a
wide-ranging autonomy and the other guarantees they offered, gave
sufficient comfort to many rulers, who saw this as the best deal they
could strike given the lack of support from the British, and popular
internal pressures. Between May 1947 and the transfer of power on 15
August 1947, the vast majority of states signed Instruments of
Accession. A few, however, held out. Some simply delayed signing the
Instrument of Accession. Piploda, a small state in central India, did
not accede until March 1948. The biggest problems, however, arose with
a few border states, such as Jodhpur, which tried to negotiate better
deals with Pakistan, with Junagadh, which actually did accede to
Pakistan, and with Hyderabad and Kashmir, which declared that they
intended to remain independent.

Border states

The ruler of Jodhpur, Hanwant Singh, was antipathetic to the Congress,
and did not see much future in India for him or the lifestyle he
wished to lead, and entered into negotiations with Jinnah, who was the
designated head of state for Pakistan, along with the ruler of
Jaisalmer. Jinnah was keen to attract some of the larger border
states, hoping thereby to attract other Rajput states to Pakistan and
compensate for the loss of half of Bengal and Punjab. He offered to
permit Jodhpur and Jaisalmer to accede to Pakistan on any terms they
chose, giving their rulers blank sheets of paper and asking them to
write down their terms, which he would sign. Jaisalmer refused,
arguing that it would be difficult for him to side with Muslims
against Hindus in the event of communal problems. Hanwant Singh came
close to signing. However, the atmosphere in Jodhpur was in general
hostile to accession to Pakistan. Mountbatten also pointed out that
the accession of a predominantly Hindu state to Pakistan would violate
the principle of the two-nation theory on which Partition was based,
and was likely to cause communal violence in the State. Hanwant Singh
was persuaded by these arguments, and somewhat reluctantly agreed to
accede to India.

Junagadh

Although the states were in theory free to choose whether they wished
to accede to India or Pakistan, Mountbatten had pointed out that
"geographic compulsions" meant that most of them must choose India. In
effect, he took the position that only the states that shared a border
with Pakistan could choose to accede to it.

The nawab of Junagadh, a princely state located on the south-western
end of Gujarat and having no common border with Pakistan, chose to
accede to Pakistan ignoring Mountbatten's views, arguing that it could
be reached from Pakistan by sea. The rulers of two states that were
subject to the suzerainty of Junagadh — Mangrol and Babariawad —
reacted to this by declaring their independence from Junagadh and
acceding to India. In response, the nawab of Junagadh militarily
occupied the states. The rulers of neighbouring states reacted
angrily, sending their troops to the Junagadh frontier and appealed to
the Government of India for assistance. A group of Junagadhi people,
led by Samaldas Gandhi, formed a government-in-exile, the Aarzi
Hukumat ("temporary government").

India believed that if Junagadh was permitted to go to Pakistan, the
communal tension already simmering in Gujarat would worsen, and
refused to accept the accession. The government pointed out that the
state was 80% Hindu, and called for a plebiscite to decide the
question of accession. Simultaneously, they cut off supplies of fuel
and coal to Junagadh, severed air and postal links, sent troops to the
frontier, and reoccupied the principalities of Mangrol and Babariawad
that had acceded to India. Pakistan agreed to discuss a plebiscite,
subject to the withdrawal of Indian troops, a condition India
rejected. On 26 October, the Nawab and his family fled to Pakistan
following clashes with Indian troops. On 7 November, Junagadh's court,
facing collapse, invited the Government of India to take over the
State's administration. The Government of India agreed. A plebiscite
was conducted in February 1948, which went almost unanimously in
favour of accession to India.

Kashmir

Shown in green is the Kashmiri region under Pakistani control. The
dark-brown region represents Indian-administration Jammu and Kashmir
while the Aksai Chin is under Chinese administrationAt the time of the
transfer of power, Kashmir was ruled by Maharaja Hari Singh, a Hindu,
although the state itself had a Muslim majority. Hari Singh was
equally hesitant about acceding to either India or Pakistan, as either
would have provoked adverse reactions in parts of his kingdom. He
signed a Standstill Agreement with Pakistan and proposed one with
India as well, but announced that Kashmir intended to remain
independent. However, his rule was opposed by Sheikh Abdullah, the
popular leader of Kashmir's largest political party, the National
Conference, who demanded his abdication.

Pakistan, attempting to force the issue of Kashmir's accession, cut
off supplies and transport links. The chaos in Punjab resulting from
Partition had also severed transport links with India, meaning that
Kashmir's only links with the two dominions was by air. Rumours about
atrocities against the Muslim population of Poonch by the Maharajah's
forces caused the outbreak of civil unrest. Shortly thereafter, Pathan
tribesmen from the North-West Frontier Province of Pakistan crossed
the border and entered Kashmir. The invaders made rapid progress
towards Srinagar. The Maharaja of Kashmir wrote to India, asking for
military assistance, offering an Instrument of Accession, and setting
up an interim government headed by Sheikh Abdullah. The accession was
accepted, but Nehru declared that it would have to be confirmed by a
plebiscite although there was no legal requirement to seek such
confirmation.

Indian troops secured Jammu, Srinagar and the valley itself during the
First Kashmir War, but the intense fighting flagged with the onset of
winter, which made much of the state impassable. Prime Minister Nehru,
recognising the degree of international attention brought to bear on
the dispute, declared a ceasefire and sought U.N. arbitration, arguing
that India would otherwise have to invade Pakistan itself, in view of
its failure to stop the tribal incursions. The plebiscite was never
held, and on 26 January 1957, the Constitution of India came into
force in Kashmir, but with special provisions made for it in the
Constitution's Article 370. India did not, however, secure
administrative control over all of Kashmir. The northern and western
portions of Kashmir came under Pakistan's control in 1947, and are
today Pakistan-administered Kashmir. In 1962, China occupied Aksai
Chin, the north-eastern region bordering Ladakh, which it continues to
control and administer

Hyderabad

Hyderabad state in 1909. Its former territories are today incorporated
in the Indian states of Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and
Maharashtra.Hyderabad was a landlocked state that stretched over
82,000 square miles (over 212,000 square kilometres) in south-eastern
India. Whilst 87% of its 17 million people were Hindus, its ruler
Nizam Osman Ali Khan was a Muslim, and its politics were dominated by
a Muslim elite. The Muslim nobility and the Ittehad-ul-Muslimeen, a
powerful pro-Nizam Muslim party, insisted that Hyderabad must remain
an independent state and stand on an equal footing to India and
Pakistan. Accordingly, the Nizam in June 1947 issued a firman
announcing that on the transfer of power, his state would be resuming
independence. The Government of India rejected the firman, terming it
a " legalistic claim of doubtful validity." It argued that the
strategic location of Hyderabad, which lay astride the main lines of
communication between northern and southern India, meant it could
easily be used by "foreign interests" to threaten India, and that in
consequence, the issue involved India's peace and security. It also
pointed out that the state's people, history and location made it
unquestionably Indian, and that its own "common interests" therefore
mandated its integration into India.

The Nizam was prepared to enter into a limited treaty with India,
which gave Hyderabad safeguards not provided for in the standard
Instrument of Accession, such as a provision guaranteeing Hyderabad's
neutrality in the event of a conflict between India and Pakistan.
India rejected this proposal, arguing that other states would demand
similar concessions. A temporary Standstill Agreement was signed as a
stopgap measure, even though Hyderabad had not yet agreed to accede to
India. By December 1947, however, India was accusing Hyderabad of
repeatedly violating the Agreement, while the Nizam alleged that India
was blockading his state, a charge India denied.

The situation deteriorated further in 1948. The Razakars
("volunteers"), a militia affiliated to the Ittehad-ul-Muslimeen and
set up under the influence of Muslim radical Qasim Razvi, assumed the
role of supporting the Muslim ruling class against upsurges by the
Hindu populace, and began intensifying its activities and was accused
of attempting to intimidate villages. The Hyderabad State Congress
Party, affiliated to the Indian National Congress, launched a
political agitation. Matters were made worse by Communist groups,
which had originally supported the Congress but now switched sides and
began attacking Congress groups. Attempts by Mountbatten to find a
negotiated solution failed and, in August, the Nizam, claiming that he
feared an imminent invasion, attempted to approach the UN Security
Council and the International Court of Justice. Patel now insisted
that if Hyderabad was allowed to continue its independence, the
prestige of the Government would be tarnished and then neither Hindus
nor Muslims would feel secure in its realm. On 13 September, the
Indian Army was sent into Hyderabad in Operation Polo on the ground
that the law and order situation there threatened the peace of South
India. The troops met little resistance and between 13 and 18
September took complete control of the state. The Nizam was retained
as the head of state in the same manner as the other princes who
acceded to India. He thereupon disavowed the complaints that had been
made to the UN and, despite vehement protests from Pakistan and strong
criticism from other countries, the Security Council did not deal
further with the question, and Hyderabad was absorbed into India.

Completing integration

Central Provinces and Berar, which form part of modern Madhya Pradesh
and Maharashtra.
The Madras Presidency was divided and merged with neighbouring
princely states to produce Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and Andhra
Pradesh.The Instruments of Accession were limited, transferring
control of only three matters to India, and would by themselves have
produced a rather loose federation, with significant differences in
administration and governance across the various states. Full
political integration, in contrast, would require a process whereby
the political actors in the various states were "persuaded to shift
their loyalties, expectations, and political activities towards a new
centre," namely, the Republic of India. This was not an easy task.
Whilst some princely states such as Mysore had legislative systems of
governance that were based on a broad franchise and not significantly
different from those of British India, in others, political decision-
making took place in small, limited aristocratic circles and
governance was, as a result, at best paternalistic and at worst the
result of courtly intrigue. Having secured the accession of the
princely states, the Government of India between 1948 and 1950 turned
to the task of welding the states and the former British provinces
into one polity under a single republican constitution.

Fast-track integration

The first step in this process, carried out between 1947 and 1949, was
to merge the smaller states that were not seen by the Government of
India to be viable administrative units either into neighbouring
provinces, or with other princely states to create a "princely union."
This policy was contentious, since it involved the dissolution of the
very states whose existence India had only recently guaranteed in the
Instruments of Accession. Patel and Menon emphasised that without
integration, the economies of states would collapse, and anarchy would
arise if the princes were unable to provide democracy and govern
properly. They pointed out that many of the smaller states were very
small and lacked resources to sustain their economies and support
their growing populations. Many also imposed tax rules and other
restrictions that impeded free trade, and which had to be dismantled
in a united India. Given that merger involved the breach of guarantees
personally given by Mountbatten, Patel and Nehru initially intended to
wait until after his term as Governor-General. An adivasi uprising in
Orissa in late 1947, however, forced their hand. In December 1947,
princes from the Eastern and Chhatisgarh Agencies were summoned to an
all-night meeting with Menon, in the course of which they were
persuaded to sign Merger Agreements integrating their states into
Orissa, the Central Provinces and Bihar with effect from 1 January
1948. Later that year, sixty-six states in Gujarat and the Deccan were
merged into Bombay, including the large states of Kolhapur and Baroda.
Other small states were merged into Madras, East Punjab, West Bengal,
the United Provinces and Assam. Not all states that signed Merger
Agreements were integrated into provinces, however. Thirty states of
the former Punjab Hill States Agency which lay near the international
border and had signed Merger Agreements were integrated into Himachal
Pradesh, a distinct entity which was administered directly by the
centre as a Chief Commissioner's Province, for reasons of security.

The Merger Agreements required rulers to cede "full and exclusive
jurisdiction and powers for and in relation to governance" of their
state to the Dominion of India. In return for their agreement to
entirely cede their states, it gave princes a large number of
guarantees. Princes would receive an annual payment from the Indian
government in the form of a privy purse as compensation for the
surrender of their powers and the dissolution of their states. Whilst
state property would be taken over, their private property would be
protected, as would all personal privileges, dignities and titles.
Succession was also guaranteed according to custom. In addition, the
provincial administration was obliged to take on the staff of the
princely states with guarantees of equal pay and treatment.

Although the Merger Agreements were principally intended for smaller,
non-viable states, they were also applied to a few larger states.
Kutch in western India, and Tripura and Manipur in North-East India,
all of which lay along international borders, were also asked to sign
Merger Agreements, despite being larger states, following which they
became Chief Commissioners' Provinces. Bhopal, whose ruler was proud
of the efficiency of his administration and feared that it would lose
its identity if merged with the Maratha states that were its
neighbours, also became a directly-administered Chief Commissioner's
Province, as did Bilaspur, much of which was likely to be flooded on
completion of the Bhakra dam.

Four-step integration

Merger

The bulk of the larger states, and some groups of small states, were
integrated through a different, four-step, process. The first step in
this process was to convince groups of large states to combine to form
a "princely union" through the execution by their rulers of Covenants
of Merger. Under the Covenants of Merger, all rulers lost their ruling
powers, save one who became the Rajpramukh of the new union. The other
rulers were associated with two bodies, the council of rulers whose
members were the rulers of salute states, and a presidium, one or more
of whose members were elected by the rulers of non-salute states, with
the rest elected by the council. The Rajpramukh and a deputy
Rajpramukh, or Uprajpramukh, were chosen by the council from amongst
the members of the presidium. The Covenants made provision for the
creation of a constituent assembly for the new union which would be
charged with framing its constitution. In return for agreeing to the
extinction of their states as discrete entities, the rulers were given
a privy purse and guarantees similar to those provided under the
Merger Agreements.

Through this process, Patel obtained the unification of 222 states in
the Kathiawar peninsula of his native Gujarat into the princely union
of Saurashtra in January 1948, with six more states joining the union
the following year. Madhya Bharat emerged on 28 May 1948 from a union
of Gwalior, Indore and eighteen smaller states. In Punjab, the Patiala
and East Punjab States Union was formed on 15 July 1948 from Patiala,
Kapurthala, Jind, Nabha, Faridkot, Malerkotla, Nalargarh, and Kalsia.
The United State of Rajasthan was formed as the result of a series of
mergers, the last of which was completed on 15 May 1949. Travancore
and Cochin were merged in the middle of 1949 to form the princely
union of Travancore-Cochin. The only princely states which signed
neither Covenants of Merger nor Merger Agreements were Kashmir, Mysore
and Hyderabad.

Democratisation

Merging the administrative machineries of each state and integrating
them into one political and administrative entity was not easy,
particularly as many of the merged states had a history of rivalry. In
the former Central India Agency, whose princely states had initially
been merged into a princely union called Vindhya Pradesh, the rivalry
between two groups of states became so bad that the Government of
India persuaded the rulers to sign a Merger Agreement abrogating the
old Covenants of Merger, and took direct control of the state as a
Chief Commissioner's State. As such, the mergers did not meet the
expectations of the Government of India or the States Department. In
December 1947, Menon suggested requiring the rulers of states to take
"practical steps towards the establishment of popular government." The
States Department accepted his suggestion, and implemented it through
a special covenant signed by the rajpramukhs of the merged princely
unions, binding them to act as constitutional monarchs. This meant
that their powers were de facto no different from those of the
Governors of the former British provinces, thus giving the people of
their territories the same measure of responsible government as the
people of the rest of India.

The result of this process has been described as being, in effect, an
assertion of paramountcy by the Government of India over the states in
a more pervasive form. Whilst this contradicted the British statement
that paramountcy would lapse on the transfer of power, the Congress
position had always been that independent India would inherit the
position of being the paramount power.

Centralisation and constitutionalisation

Democratisation still left open one important distinction between the
former princely states and the former British provinces, namely, that
since the princely states had signed limited Instruments of Accession
covering only three subjects, they were insulated from government
policies in other areas. The Congress viewed this as hampering its
ability to frame policies that brought about social justice and
national development. Consequently, they sought to secure to the
central government the same degree of powers over the former princely
states as it had over the former British provinces. In May 1948, at
the initiative of V.P. Menon, a meeting was held in Delhi between the
Rajpramukhs of the princely unions and the States Department, at the
end of which the Rajpramukhs signed new Instruments of Accession which
gave the Government of India the power to pass laws in respect of all
matters that fell within the seventh schedule of the Government of
India Act, 1935. Subsequently, each of the princely unions, as well as
Mysore and Hyderabad, agreed to adopt the Constitution of India
drafted by the constituent assembly as the constitution of that state,
thus ensuring that they were placed in exactly the same legal position
vis-à-vis the central government as the former British provinces. The
only exception was Kashmir, whose relationship with India continued to
be governed by the original Instrument of Accession, and the
constitution produced by the state's Constituent Assembly.

The Constitution of India classified the constituent units of India
into three classes, which it termed Part A, B, and C states. The
former British provinces, together with the princely states that had
been merged into them, were the Part A states. The princely unions,
plus Mysore and Hyderabad, were the Part B states. The former Chief
Commissioners' Provinces and other centrally administered areas,
except the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, were the Part C states. The
only practical difference between the Part A states and the Part B
states was that the constitutional heads of the Part B states were the
Rajpramukhs appointed under the terms of the Covenants of Merger,
rather than Governors appointed by the central government. In
addition, Constitution gave the central government a significant range
of powers over the former princely states, providing amongst other
things that their governance shall be under the general control of,
and comply with such particular directions, if any, as may from time
to time be given by, the President." Apart from that, the form of
government in both was identical.

Reorganisation

The distinction between Part A and Part B states was only intended to
last for a brief, transitional period. In 1956, the States
Reorganization Act reorganised the former British provinces and
princely states on the basis of language. Simultaneously, the Seventh
Amendment to the Constitution removed the distinction between Part A
and Part B states, both of which were now treated only as "states",
with Part C states being renamed " union territories." The Rajpramukhs
lost their authority, and were replaced as the constitutional heads of
state by Governors, who were appointed by the central government.
These changes finally ended the princely order to an end. In both
legal and practical terms, the territories that formerly were part of
the princely states were now fully integrated into India and did not
differ in any way from those that were formerly part of British India.
The personal privileges of the princes - the privy purse, the
exemption from customs duty, and customary dignities - survived
slightly longer, but were abolished in 1971.

Post-integration issues

The princes

Whilst the progressive integration of the princely states into India
was largely peaceful, not all princes were happy with the outcome.
Many had expected the Instruments of Accession to be permanent, and
were unhappy about losing the autonomy and the guaranteed continued
existence of their states they had expected to gain. Some felt uneasy
about the disappearance of states that generations of their family had
controlled, whilst others were unhappy about the disappearance of
administrative structures they had worked hard to build up and which
they believed to be efficient. The majority, however, despite the
"strain and tension" of adapting to life as private citizens, content
to retire on the generous pension provided by the privy purse. Several
took advantage of their eligibility to hold public offices under the
central government. The Maharaja of Bhavnagar, for example, became the
Governor of Madras State, while several others were appointed to
diplomatic posts overseas.

Colonial enclaves

Yanaon was one of five French colonial enclaves in IndiaThe
integration of the princely states raised the question of the future
of the remaining colonial enclaves in India. At independence, the
regions of Pondicherry, Karikal, Yanaon, Mahe and Chandernagore were
still colonies of France, and Daman and Diu, Dadra and Nagar Haveli
and Goa remained colonies of Portugal. An agreement between France and
India in 1948 provided for an election in France's remaining Indian
possessions to choose their political future. A plebiscite held in
Chandernagore on 19 June 1949 resulted in a vote of 7,463 to 114 in
favour of being integrated with India. It was ceded to India on a de
facto basis on 14 August 1949 and de jure on 2 May 1950. In the other
enclaves, however, the pro-French camp, led by Edouard Goubert, used
the administrative machinery to suppress the pro-merger groups.
Popular discontent rose, and in 1954 demonstrations in Yanam and Mahe
resulted in pro-merger groups assuming power. A referendum in
Pondicherry and Karaikal in October 1954 resulted in a vote in favour
of merger, and on 1 November 1954, de facto control over all four
enclaves was transferred to the Republic of India. A treaty of cession
was signed in May 1956, and following ratification by the French
National Assembly in May 1962, de jure control of the enclaves was
also transferred.

Portugal, in contrast, resisted diplomatic solutions. It viewed its
continued possession of its Indian enclaves as a matter of national
pride and, in 1951, it amended its constitution to convert its
possessions in India into Portuguese provinces. In July 1954, an
uprising in Dadra and Nagar Haveli threw off Portuguese rule. The
Portuguese attempted to send forces from Daman to reoccupy the
enclaves, but were prevented from doing so by Indian troops. Portugal
initiated proceedings before the International Court of Justice to
compel India to allow its troops access to the enclave, but the Court
rejected its complaint in 1960, holding that India was within its
rights in denying Portugal military access. In 1961, the Constitution
of India was amended to incorporate Dadra and Nagar Haveli into India
as a Union Territory.

Goa, Daman and Diu remained an outstanding issue. On 15 August 1955,
five thousand non-violent demonstrators marched against the Portuguese
at the border, and were met with gunfire, killing 22. In December
1960, the United Nations General Assembly rejected Portugal's
contention that its overseas possessions were provinces, and formally
listed them as "non-self-governing territories." Although Nehru
continued to favour a negotiated solution, the Portuguese suppression
of a revolt in Angola in 1961 radicalised Indian public opinion, and
increased the pressure on the Government of India to take military
action. African leaders, too, put pressure on Nehru to take action in
Goa, which they argued would save Africa from further horrors. On 18
December 1961, following the collapse of an American attempt to find a
negotiated solution, the Indian Army entered Goa, Daman and Diu. The
Portuguese took the matter to the Security Council but a resolution
calling on India to withdraw its troops immediately was defeated by
the USSR's veto. Portugal surrendered on 19 December. This take-over
ended the last of the European colonies in India. Goa was incorporated
into India as a centrally-administered union territory and, in 1987,
became a state.

Sikkim

The former princely state of Sikkim, located at a strategically
important point on the border between India and China, was integrated
into India in 1975 as its 22nd stateThree princely states bordering
India — Nepal, Bhutan and Sikkim — were not integrated into the
Republic of India in the period between 1947 and 1950. Nepal had been
recognised by the British and the Government of India as being de jure
independent. Bhutan had in the British period been considered a
protectorate outside the international frontier of India. The
Government of India entered into a treaty with Bhutan in 1949
continuing this arrangement, and providing that Bhutan would abide by
the advice of the Government of India in the conduct of its external
affairs.

Historically, Sikkim was a British dependency, with a status similar
to that of the other princely states, and was therefore considered to
be within the frontiers of India in the colonial period. On
independence, however, the Chogyal of Sikkim resisted full integration
into India. Given the region's strategic importance to India, the
Government of India signed first a Standstill Agreement and then in
1950 a full treaty with the Chogyal of Sikkim which in effect made it
a protectorate which was no longer part of India. India had
responsibility for defence, external affairs and communications, and
ultimate responsibility for law and order, but Sikkim was otherwise
given full internal autonomy. In the late 1960s and early 1970s, the
Chogyal, supported by the minority Bhutia and Lepcha upper classes,
attempted to negotiate greater powers, particularly over external
affairs, in order to give Sikkim more of an international personality.
These policies were opposed by Kazi Lhendup Dorji and the Sikkim State
Congress, who represented the ethnic Nepali middle classes and took a
more pro-Indian view. In April 1973, an anti-Chogyal agitation broke
out. The agitators demanded the conduct of popular elections. The
Sikkim police were unable to control the demonstrations, and Dorji
asked India to exercise its responsibility for law and order and
intervene. India facilitated negotiations between the Chogyal and
Dorji, and produced an agreement which envisaged the reduction of the
Chogyal to the role of a constitutional monarch and the holding of
elections based on a new ethnic power-sharing formula. The Chogyal's
opponents won an overwhelming victory, and a new Constitution was
drafted providing for Sikkim to be associated with the Republic of
India. On 10 April 1975, the Sikkim Assembly passed a resolution
calling for the state to be fully integrated into India. This
resolution was endorsed by 97% of the vote in a referendum held on 14
April 1975, following which the Indian Government amended the
constitution to admit Sikkim into India as its 22nd state.

Secessionism and sub-nationalism

Whilst the majority of princely states absorbed into India have been
fully integrated, a few outstanding issues remain. The most prominent
of these is in relation to Kashmir, where a violent secessionist
insurgency has been raging since the late 1980s.

Some academics suggest that the insurgency in Kashmir is at least
partly a result of the manner in which it was integrated into India.
Kashmir, uniquely amongst princely states, was not required to sign
either a Merger Agreement or a revised Instrument of Accession giving
India control over a larger number of issues than the three originally
provided for. Instead, the power to make laws relating to Kashmir was
granted to the Government of India by Article 5 of the Constitution of
Jammu and Kashmir and was, under Article 370 of the Constitution of
India, somewhat more restricted than in relation to other states.
Widmalm argues that during the 1980s, a number of Kashmiri youth began
to feel that the Indian government was increasingly interfering in the
politics of Jammu and Kashmir. The elections of 1987 caused them to
lose faith in the political process and begin the violent insurgency
which is still ongoing. Similarly, Ganguly suggests that the policies
of the Indian government towards Kashmir meant that the state, unlike
other parts of India, never developed the solid political institutions
associated with a modern multi-ethnic democracy. As a result, the
growing dissatisfaction with the status quo felt by an increasingly
politically aware youth was expressed through non-political channels
which Pakistan, seeking to weaken India's hold over Kashmir,
transformed into an active insurgency.

Separatist movements also exist in two other former princely states
located in North-East India, Tripura and Manipur. These separatist
movements are generally treated by scholars as being part of the
broader problem of insurgencies in North-east India, rather being a
result of specific problems in integrating the princely states into
India, as the Kashmir problem is and, in particular, to reflect the
failure of the Government of India to adequately address the
aspirations of tribal groups in the Northeast, or to tackle the
tensions arising from the immigration of people from other parts of
India to the north-eastern areas.

The integration of former princely states with other provinces to form
new states has also given rise to some issues. The Telengana region,
comprising the Telugu-speaking districts of the former Hyderabad
State, were in many ways different from the Telugu-speaking areas of
British India with which they were merged. In recognition of these
differences, the States Reorganisation Commission originally
recommended that Telengana be created as a separate state, rather than
as part of a broader Telugu-speaking entity. This recommendation was
rejected by the Government of India, and Telengana was merged into
Andhra Pradesh. The result was the emergence in the 1960s of a
movement demanding a separate Telengana state, which continues to be
strong in the region. A similar movement, although less strong, exists
in the Vidarbha region of Maharashtra, which consists of the former
Nagpur state and the Berar region of the former Hyderabad state.

Critical perspectives on the process of integration

Jinnah supported the right of princely states to remain independent, a
position rejected by Nehru and the CongressAs this article has
discussed, the integration process repeatedly brought Indian and
Pakistani leaders into conflict. During negotiations, Jinnah,
representing the Muslim League, strongly supported the right of the
princely states to remain independent, joining neither India nor
Pakistan, an attitude which was diametrically opposed to the stance
taken by Nehru and the Congress and which was reflected in Pakistan's
support of Hyderabad's bit to stay independent. Post-partition, the
Government of Pakistan accused India of hypocrisy on the ground that
there was little difference between the accession of the ruler of
Junagadh to Pakistan — which India refused to recognise — and the
accession of the Maharajah of Kashmir to India, and for several years
refused to recognise the legality of India's incorporation of
Junagadh, treating it as de jure Pakistani territory.

Different theories have been proposed to explain the designs of Indian
and Pakistani leaders in this period. Rajmohan Gandhi postulates that
an ideal deal working in the mind of Patel was that if Muhammad Ali
Jinnah let India have Junagadh and Hyderabad, Patel would not object
to Kashmir acceding to Pakistan. In his book Patel: A Life, Gandhi
asserts that Jinnah sought to engage the questions of Junagadh and
Hyderabad in the same battle. It is suggested that he wanted India to
ask for a plebiscite in Junagadh and Hyderabad, knowing thus that the
principle then would have to be applied to Kashmir, where the Muslim-
majority would, he believed, vote for Pakistan. A speech by Patel at
the Bahauddin College in Junagadh following the latter's take-over,
where he said that "we would agree to Kashmir if they agreed to
Hyderabad" suggests that he may have been amenable to this idea.
Whilst Patel's opinions were not India's policy, nor were they shared
by Nehru, both leaders were angered at Jinnah's courting the princes
of Jodhpur, Bhopal and Indore, leading them to take a harder stance on
a possible deal with Pakistan.

Modern historians have also re-examined the role of the States
Department and Lord Mountbatten during the accession process. Ian
Copland argues that the Congress leaders did not intend the settlement
contained in the Instruments of Accession to be permanent even when
they were signed, and at all times privately contemplated a complete
integration of the sort that ensued between 1948 and 1950. He points
out that the mergers and cession of powers to the Government of India
between 1948 and 1950 contravened the terms of the instruments of
accession, and were incompatible with the express assurances of
internal autonomy and preservation of the princely states which
Mountbatten had given the princes. Menon in his memoirs stated that
the changes to the initial terms of accession were in every instance
freely consented to by the princes with no element of coercion.
Copland disagrees, on the basis that foreign diplomats at the time
believed that the princes had been given no choice but to sign, and
that a few princes expressed their unhappiness with the arrangements.
He also criticises Mountbatten's role, saying that whilst he stayed
within the letter of the law, he was at least under a moral obligation
to do something for the princes when it became apparent that the
Government of India was going to alter the terms on which accession
took place, and that he should never have lent his support to the
bargain given that it could not be guaranteed after independence. Both
Copland and Ramusack argue that, in the ultimate analysis, one of the
reasons why the princes consented to the demise of their states was
that they felt abandoned by the British, and saw themselves as having
little other option. Older historians such as Lumby, in contrast, take
the view that the princely states could not have survived as
independent entities after the transfer of power, and that their
demise was inevitable. They therefore view successful integration of
all princely states into India was a triumph for the Government of
India and Lord Mountbatten, and as a tribute to the sagacity of the
majority of princes, who jointly achieved in a few months what the
Empire had attempted, unsuccessfully, to do for over a century — unite
all of India under one rule.

http://schools-wikipedia.org/wp/p/Political_integration_of_India.htm

bademiyansubhanallah

unread,
Feb 5, 2010, 8:11:29 PM2/5/10
to
Karl Marx in The New-York Tribune 1853

Sir Charles Woods’ East India Reforms

Source: the New-York Daily Tribune, June 22, 1853;
Transcribed: by Tony Brown.

Abstract
London, Tuesday, June 7, 1853

The last India Bill of 1783 proved fatal to the Coalition Cabinet of
Mr. Fox and Lord North. The new India Bill of 1853 is likely to prove
fatal for the Coalition Cabinet of Mr. Gladstone and Lord John
Russell. But if the former were thrown overboard, because of their
attempt to abolish the Courts of Directors and of Proprietors, the
latter are threatened with a similar fate for the opposite reason. On
June 3, Sir Charles Wood moved for leave to bring in a bill to provide
for the Government of India. Sir Charles commenced by excusing the
anomalous length of the speech he was about to deliver, by the
“magnitude of the subject,” and “the 150,000,000 of souls he had to
deal with.” For every 30,000,000 of his fellow-subjects, Sir Charles
could do no less than sacrifice one hour’s breath. But why this
precipitate legislation on that “great subject,” while you postpone it
“for even the most trifling matters?” Because the Charter of the East
India Company expires on the 30th April, 1854. But why not pass a
temporary continuance bill, reserving to future discussion more
permanent legislation? Because it cannot be expected that we shall
ever find again “such an opportunity of dealing quietly with this vast
and important question” — i.e., of burking it in a Parliamentary way.
Besides, we are fully informed on the matter, the Directors of the
East India Company express the opinion that it is necessary to
legislate in the course of the present session, and the Governor-
General of India, Lord Dalhousie, summons the Government by an express
letter by all means to conclude our legislation at once. But the most
striking argument wherewith Sir Charles justifies his immediate
legislation, is that, prepared as he may appear to speak of a world of
questions, “not comprised in the bill he proposed to bring in,” the

“measure which he has to submit is, so far as legislation goes,
comprised in a very small compass.”

After this ‘Introduction Sir Charles delivered himself of an apology
for the administration of India for the last twenty years. “We must
look at India with somewhat of an Indian eye” — which Indian eye seems
to have the particular gift of seeing everything bright on the part of
England and everything black on the side of India.

“In India you have a race of people slow of change, bound up by
religious prejudices and antiquated customs. There are [...],in fact,
all obstacles to rapid progress.”

(Perhaps there is a Whig Coalition party in India.)

“The points,” said Sir Charles Wood, “upon which the greatest stress
has been laid, and which are the heads of the complaints contained in
the petitions presented to the Committee, relate to the administration
of justice, the want of public works, and the tenure of land.”

With regard to the Public Works, the Government intends to undertake
some of “the greatest magnitude and importance.” With regard to the
tenure of lands, Sir Charles proves very successfully that its three
existing forms — the Zemindari, the Ryotwari, and the Village systems
— are only so many forms of fiscal exploitation in the hands of the
Company , none of which could well be made general, nor deserved to be
made so. An idea of establishing another form, of an altogether
opposite character, does not in the least preoccupy the mind of Sir
Charles.

“With regard to the administration of justice,” continues he, “the
complaints relate principally to the inconvenience arising from the
technicalities of English law, to the alleged incompetency of English
judges, and to the corruption of the native officers and judges.”

And now, in order to prove the hard labor of providing for the
administration of justice in India, Sir Charles relates that already,
as early as 1833, a Law Commission was appointed in India. But in what
manner did this Commission act, according to Sir Charles Wood’s own
testimony? The first and last result of the labors of that Commission
was a penal code, prepared under the auspices of Mr. Macaulay. This
code was sent to the various local authorities in India, which sent it
back to Calcutta, from which it was sent to England, to be again
returned from England to India. In India, Mr. Macaulay having been
replaced as legislative counsel by Mr. Bethune, the code was totally
altered, and on this plea the Governor-General, not being then of
opinion “that delay is a source of weakness and danger,” sent it back
to England, and from England it was returned to the Governor-General,
with authority to pass the code in whatever shape he thought best. But
now, Mr. Bethune having died, the Governor-General thought best to
submit the code to a third English lawyer, and to a lawyer who knew
nothing about the habits and customs of the Hindoos, reserving himself
the right of afterward rejecting a code concocted by wholly
incompetent authority. Such have been the adventures of that yet
unborn code. As to the technical absurdities of the law in India, Sir
Charles takes his stand on the no less absurd technicalities of the
English law-procedure itself; but while affirming the perfect
incorruptibility of the English judges in India, he nevertheless is
ready to sacrifice them by an alteration in the manner of nominating
them. The general progress of India is demonstrated by a comparison of
the present state of Delhi with that under the invasion of Khuli-Khan.
The salt-tax is justified by the arguments of the most renowned
political economists, all of whom have advised taxation to be laid on
some article of first necessity. But Sir Charles does not add what
those same economists would have said, on finding that in the two
years from 1849-'50, and 185 1252, there had been a decrease in the
consumption of salt, of 60,000 tuns, a loss of revenue to the amount
of £415,000, the total salt revenue amounting to £2,000,000. The
measures proposed by Sir Charles, and “comprised in a very small
compass,” are:

1. The Court of Directors, to consist of eighteen instead of twenty-
four members, twelve to be elected by the Proprietors, and six by the
Crown.

2. The revenue of Directors to be raised from £300 to £500 a year, the
Chairman to receive £1,000.

3. All the ordinary appointments in the civil service, and all the
scientific in the military service of India, to be thrown open to
public competition, leaving to the Directors the nomination to the
Cadetships in the Cavalry-of-the-Line.

4. The Governor-Generalship to be separated from the Governorship of
Bengal, and power to be given to the Supreme Government to constitute
a new Presidency in the districts on the Indus.

5. And lastly, the whole of this measure only to continue until the
Parliament shall provide otherwise.

The speech and measure of Sir Charles Wood was subjected to a very
strong and satirical criticism by Mr. Bright, whose picture of India
ruined by the fiscal exertions of the Company and Government did not,
of course, receive the supplement of India ruined by Manchester and
Free Trade. As to last night’s speech of an old East-Indiaman, Sir J.
Hogg, Director or ex-Director of the Company, I really suspect that I
have met with it already in 1701, 1730, 1743, 1769, 1772, 1781, 1783,
1784, 1793, 1813, etc., and am induced, by way of answer to his
directorial panegyric, to quote merely a few facts from the annual
Indian accounts published, I believe, under his own superintendence.

Total Net-Revenues of India

1849-'50 £20,275,831
1850-'51 20,249,932
1851-'52 19,927,039

Loss of Revenue within three years, £348,792

Total Charges

1849-'50 £ 16,687,382
1850-'51 17,170,707
1851-'52 17,901,666

Increase of expenditure within three years, £1,214,284

Land-Tax

Bengal oscillated in last four years from £3,500,000 to £3,560,000
North West oscillated in last four years from 4,870,000 4,900,000
Madras oscillated in last four years from 3,640,000 3,470,000
Bombay oscillated in last four years from 2,240,000 2,300,000

Gross Revenue

in 1851-52 Expenditure on Public
Works in 1851-52
Bengal £10,000,000 £87,800
Madras 5,000,000 20,000
Bombay 4,800,00 58,50
Out of £ 19,800,000 not £166,300

have been expended on roads, canals, bridges and other works of public
necessity.

Karl Marx

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1853/06/22.htm

Karl Marx in the New-York Herald Tribune 1853

The British Rule in India

Source: MECW Volume 12, p. 125;
Written: June 10, 1853;
First published: in the New-York Daily Tribune, June 25, 1853;
Proofread: by Andy Blunden in February 2005.

In writing this article, Marx made use of some of Engels’ ideas as in
his letter to Marx of June 6, 1853.

London, Friday, June 10, 1853

Telegraphic dispatches from Vienna announce that the pacific solution
of the Turkish, Sardinian and Swiss questions, is regarded there as a
certainty.

Last night the debate on India was continued in the House of Commons,
in the usual dull manner. Mr. Blackett charged the statements of Sir
Charles Wood and Sir J. Hogg with bearing the stamp of optimist
falsehood. A lot of Ministerial and Directorial advocates rebuked the
charge as well as they could, and the inevitable Mr. Hume summed up by
calling on Ministers to withdraw their bill. Debate adjourned.

Hindostan is an Italy of Asiatic dimensions, the Himalayas for the
Alps, the Plains of Bengal for the Plains of Lombardy, the Deccan for
the Apennines, and the Isle of Ceylon for the Island of Sicily. The
same rich variety in the products of the soil, and the same
dismemberment in the political configuration. Just as Italy has, from
time to time, been compressed by the conqueror’s sword into different
national masses, so do we find Hindostan, when not under the pressure
of the Mohammedan, or the Mogul[104], or the Briton, dissolved into as
many independent and conflicting States as it numbered towns, or even
villages. Yet, in a social point of view, Hindostan is not the Italy,
but the Ireland of the East. And this strange combination of Italy and
of Ireland, of a world of voluptuousness and of a world of woes, is
anticipated in the ancient traditions of the religion of Hindostan.
That religion is at once a religion of sensualist exuberance, and a
religion of self-torturing asceticism; a religion of the Lingam and of
the juggernaut; the religion of the Monk, and of the Bayadere.[105]

I share not the opinion of those who believe in a golden age of
Hindostan, without recurring, however, like Sir Charles Wood, for the
confirmation of my view, to the authority of Khuli-Khan. But take, for
example, the times of Aurangzeb; or the epoch, when the Mogul appeared
in the North, and the Portuguese in the South; or the age of
Mohammedan invasion, and of the Heptarchy in Southern India[106]; or,
if you will, go still more back to antiquity, take the mythological
chronology of the Brahman himself, who places the commencement of
Indian misery in an epoch even more remote than the Christian creation
of the world.

There cannot, however, remain any doubt but that the misery inflicted
by the British on Hindostan is of an essentially different and
infinitely more intensive kind than all Hindostan had to suffer
before. I do not allude to European despotism, planted upon Asiatic


despotism, by the British East India Company, forming a more monstrous

combination than any of the divine monsters startling us in the Temple
of Salsette[107]. This is no distinctive feature of British Colonial
rule, but only an imitation of the Dutch, and so much so that in order
to characterise the working of the British East India Company, it is
sufficient to literally repeat what Sir Stamford Raffles, the English
Governor of Java, said of the old Dutch East India Company:

“The Dutch Company, actuated solely by the spirit of gain, and viewing
their [Javan] subjects, with less regard or consideration than a West
India planter formerly viewed a gang upon his estate, because the
latter had paid the purchase money of human property, which the other
had not, employed all the existing machinery of despotism to squeeze
from the people their utmost mite of contribution, the last dregs of
their labor, and thus aggravated the evils of a capricious and semi-
barbarous Government, by working it with all the practised ingenuity
of politicians, and all the monopolizing selfishness of traders.”

All the civil wars, invasions, revolutions, conquests, famines,
strangely complex, rapid, and destructive as the successive action in
Hindostan may appear, did not go deeper than its surface. England has
broken down the entire framework of Indian society, without any
symptoms of reconstitution yet appearing. This loss of his old world,
with no gain of a new one, imparts a particular kind of melancholy to
the present misery of the Hindoo, and separates Hindostan, ruled by
Britain, from all its ancient traditions, and from the whole of its
past history.

There have been in Asia, generally, from immemorial times, but three
departments of Government; that of Finance, or the plunder of the
interior; that of War, or the plunder of the exterior; and, finally,
the department of Public Works. Climate and territorial conditions,
especially the vast tracts of desert, extending from the Sahara,
through Arabia, Persia, India, and Tartary, to the most elevated
Asiatic highlands, constituted artificial irrigation by canals and
water-works the basis of Oriental agriculture. As in Egypt and India,
inundations are used for fertilizing the soil in Mesopotamia, Persia,
&c.; advantage is taken of a high level for feeding irrigative canals.
This prime necessity of an economical and common use of water, which,
in the Occident, drove private enterprise to voluntary association, as
in Flanders and Italy, necessitated, in the Orient where civilization
was too low and the territorial extent too vast to call into life
voluntary association, the interference of the centralizing power of
Government. Hence an economical function devolved upon all Asiatic
Governments, the function of providing public works. This artificial
fertilization of the soil, dependent on a Central Government, and
immediately decaying with the neglect of irrigation and drainage,
explains the otherwise strange fact that we now find whole territories
barren and desert that were once brilliantly cultivated, as Palmyra,
Petra, the ruins in Yemen, and large provinces of Egypt, Persia, and
Hindostan; it also explains how a single war of devastation has been
able to depopulate a country for centuries, and to strip it of all its
civilization.

Now, the British in East India accepted from their predecessors the
department of finance and of war, but they have neglected entirely
that of public works. Hence the deterioration of an agriculture which
is not capable of being conducted on the British principle of free
competition, of laissez-faire and laissez-aller. But in Asiatic
empires we are quite accustomed to see agriculture deteriorating under
one government and reviving again under some other government. There
the harvests correspond to good or bad government, as they change in
Europe with good or bad seasons. Thus the oppression and neglect of
agriculture, bad as it is, could not be looked upon as the final blow
dealt to Indian society by the British intruder, had it not been
attended by a circumstance of quite different importance, a novelty in
the annals of the whole Asiatic world. However changing the political
aspect of India’s past must appear, its social condition has remained
unaltered since its remotest antiquity, until the first decennium of
the 19th century. The hand-loom and the spinning-wheel, producing
their regular myriads of spinners and weavers, were the pivots of the
structure of that society. From immemorial times, Europe received the
admirable textures of Indian labor, sending in return for them her
precious metals, and furnishing thereby his material to the goldsmith,
that indispensable member of Indian society, whose love of finery is
so great that even the lowest class, those who go about nearly naked,
have commonly a pair of golden ear-rings and a gold ornament of some
kind hung round their necks. Rings on the fingers and toes have also
been common. Women as well as children frequently wore massive
bracelets and anklets of gold or silver, and statuettes of divinities
in gold and silver were met with in the households. It was the British
intruder who broke up the Indian hand-loom and destroyed the spinning-
wheel. England began with driving the Indian cottons from the European
market; it then introduced twist into Hindostan, and in the end
inundated the very mother country of cotton with cottons. From 1818 to
1836 the export of twist from Great Britain to India rose in the
proportion of 1 to 5,200. In 1824 the export of British muslins to
India hardly amounted to 1,000,000 yards, while in 1837 it surpassed
64,000,000 of yards. But at the same time the population of Dacca
decreased from 150,000 inhabitants to 20,000. This decline of Indian
towns celebrated for their fabrics was by no means the worst
consequence. British steam and science uprooted, over the whole
surface of Hindostan, the union between agriculture and manufacturing
industry.

These two circumstances – the Hindoo, on the one hand, leaving, like
all Oriental peoples, to the Central Government the care of the great
public works, the prime condition of his agriculture and commerce,
dispersed, on the other hand, over the surface of the country, and
agglomerated in small centers by the domestic union of agricultural
and manufacturing pursuits – these two circumstances had brought
about, since the remotest times, a social system of particular
features – the so-called village system, which gave to each of these
small unions their independent organization and distinct life. The
peculiar character of this system may be judged from the following
description, contained in an old official report of the British House
of Commons on Indian affairs:

“A village, geographically considered, is a tract of country
comprising some hundred or thousand acres of arable and waste lands;
politically viewed it resembles a corporation or township. Its proper
establishment of officers and servants consists of the following
descriptions: The potail, or head inhabitant, who has generally the
superintendence of the affairs of the village, settles the disputes of
the inhabitants attends to the police, and performs the duty of
collecting the revenue within his village, a duty which his personal
influence and minute acquaintance with the situation and concerns of
the people render him the best qualified for this charge. The kurnum
keeps the accounts of cultivation, and registers everything connected
with it. The tallier and the totie, the duty of the former of which
consists [...] in gaining information of crimes and offenses, and in
escorting and protecting persons travelling from one village to
another; the province of the latter appearing to be more immediately
confined to the village, consisting, among other duties, in guarding
the crops and assisting in measuring them. The boundary-man, who
preserves the limits of the village, or gives evidence respecting them
in cases of dispute. The Superintendent of Tanks and Watercourses
distributes the water [...] for the purposes of agriculture. The
Brahmin, who performs the village worship. The schoolmaster, who is
seen teaching the children in a village to read and write in the sand.
The calendar-brahmin, or astrologer, etc. These officers and servants
generally constitute the establishment of a village; but in some parts
of the country it is of less extent, some of the duties and functions
above described being united in the same person; in others it exceeds
the above-named number of individuals. [...] Under this simple form of
municipal government, the inhabitants of the country have lived from
time immemorial. The boundaries of the villages have been but seldom
altered; and though the villages themselves have been sometimes
injured, and even desolated by war, famine or disease, the same name,
the same limits, the same interests, and even the same families have
continued for ages. The inhabitants gave themselves no trouble about
the breaking up and divisions of kingdoms; while the village remains
entire, they care not to what power it is transferred, or to what
sovereign it devolves; its internal economy remains unchanged. The
potail is still the head inhabitant, and still acts as the petty judge
or magistrate, and collector or renter of the village.”

These small stereotype forms of social organism have been to the
greater part dissolved, and are disappearing, not so much through the
brutal interference of the British tax-gatherer and the British
soldier, as to the working of English steam and English free trade.
Those family-communities were based on domestic industry, in that
peculiar combination of hand-weaving, hands-spinning and hand-tilling
agriculture which gave them self-supporting power. English
interference having placed the spinner in Lancashire and the weaver in
Bengal, or sweeping away both Hindoo spinner and weaver, dissolved
these small semi-barbarian, semi-civilized communities, by blowing up
their economical basis, and thus produced the greatest, and to speak
the truth, the only social revolution ever heard of in Asia.

Now, sickening as it must be to human feeling to witness those myriads
of industrious patriarchal and inoffensive social organizations
disorganized and dissolved into their units, thrown into a sea of
woes, and their individual members losing at the same time their
ancient form of civilization, and their hereditary means of
subsistence, we must not forget that these idyllic village-
communities, inoffensive though they may appear, had always been the
solid foundation of Oriental despotism, that they restrained the human
mind within the smallest possible compass, making it the unresisting
tool of superstition, enslaving it beneath traditional rules,
depriving it of all grandeur and historical energies. We must not
forget the barbarian egotism which, concentrating on some miserable
patch of land, had quietly witnessed the ruin of empires, the
perpetration of unspeakable cruelties, the massacre of the population
of large towns, with no other consideration bestowed upon them than on
natural events, itself the helpless prey of any aggressor who deigned
to notice it at all. We must not forget that this undignified,
stagnatory, and vegetative life, that this passive sort of existence
evoked on the other part, in contradistinction, wild, aimless,
unbounded forces of destruction and rendered murder itself a religious
rite in Hindostan. We must not forget that these little communities
were contaminated by distinctions of caste and by slavery, that they
subjugated man to external circumstances instead of elevating man the
sovereign of circumstances, that they transformed a self-developing
social state into never changing natural destiny, and thus brought
about a brutalizing worship of nature, exhibiting its degradation in
the fact that man, the sovereign of nature, fell down on his knees in
adoration of Kanuman, the monkey, and Sabbala, the cow.

England, it is true, in causing a social revolution in Hindostan, was
actuated only by the vilest interests, and was stupid in her manner of
enforcing them. But that is not the question. The question is, can
mankind fulfil its destiny without a fundamental revolution in the
social state of Asia? If not, whatever may have been the crimes of
England she was the unconscious tool of history in bringing about that
revolution.

Then, whatever bitterness the spectacle of the crumbling of an ancient
world may have for our personal feelings, we have the right, in point
of history, to exclaim with Goethe:

“Sollte these Qual uns quälen
Da sie unsre Lust vermehrt,
Hat nicht myriaden Seelen
Timur’s Herrschaft aufgezehrt?”

[“Should this torture then torment us
Since it brings us greater pleasure?
Were not through the rule of Timur
Souls devoured without measure?”]
[From Goethe’s “An Suleika”, Westöstlicher Diwan]

Karl Marx

Footnotes from MECW Volume 12

104 A reference to the rule in India, mainly in the north, of the
Mohammedan invaders who came from Central Asia, Afghanistan and
Persia. Early in the thirteenth century the Delhi Sultanate became the
bulwark of Moslem domination but at the end of the fourteenth century
it declined and was subsequently conquered by the Moguls, new invaders
of Turkish descent, who came to India from the east of Central Asia in
the early sixteenth century and in 1526 founded the Empire of the
Great Moguls (named after the ruling dynasty of the Empire) in
Northern India. Contemporaries regarded them as the direct descendants
of the Mongol warriors of Genghis Khan’s time, hence the name
“Moguls”. In the mid-seventeenth century the Mogul Empire included the
greater part of India and part of Afghanistan. Later on, however, the
Empire began to decline due to peasant rebellions, the growing
resistance of the Indian people to the Mohammedan conquerors and
increasing separatist tendencies. In the early half of the eighteenth
century the Empire of the Great Moguls practically ceased to exist.

105 Religion of the Lingam – the cult of the God Shiva, particularly
widespread among the southern Indian sect of the Lingayat (from the
word “linga” - the emblem of Shiva), a Hindu sect which does not
recognise distinctions of caste and rejects fasts, sacrifices and
pilgrimages.

Juggernaut (jagannath) – a title of Krishna, the eighth avatar of
Vishnu. The cult of juggernaut was marked by sumptuous ritual and
extreme religious fanaticism which manifested itself in the self-
torture and suicide of believers. On feast days some believers threw
themselves under the wheels of the chariot bearing the idol of Vishnu-
juggernaut.

106 Heptarchy (government by seven rulers) – a term used by English
historiographers to describe the political system in England from the
sixth to eighth centuries, when the country was divided into seven
highly unstable Anglo-Saxon kingdoms, which, in their turn, frequently
split up and reunited. Marx uses this term by analogy to describe the
disunity of the Deccan (Central and South India) before its conquest
by the Mohammedans at the beginning of the fourteenth century.

107 The island of Salsette, north of Bombay, was famous for its 109
Buddhist cave temples.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1853/06/25.htm

Marx-Engels Correspondence 1853

Engels To Marx
In London

Source: MECW Volume 39, p. 335;
First published: in full in MEGA, Berlin, 1929.

Manchester, 6 June [1853,] evening
Dear Marx,

I had intended to write to you by the first post today, but was
detained at the office until 8 o'clock. You will have received both
Weydemeyer’s and Cluss’ anti-Willich statements in the Criminal
Zeitung, i.e. direct from America. If not, write to me at once. As
usual, papa Weydemeyer is too long-winded, very seldom makes a point,
then promptly blunts it with his style, and unfolds his well-known
lack of verve with rare composure. Nevertheless, the man has done his
best, the story about Hentze, the ‘comrade-in-arms’, and the influence
of others on Hirsch’s pen is nicely fashioned; his incredible style
and his composure, regarded over there as impassibility, will appeal
to the philistines, and his performance can, on the whole, be regarded
as satisfactory. Cluss’ statement, on the other hand, pleases me
enormously. In every line we hear the chuckle of l'homme supérieur
who, through ‘personal contact’ with Willich, has, as it were, become
physically conscious of his superiority. For lightness of style, this
surpasses everything that Cluss has ever written. Never a clumsy turn
of phrase, not a trace of gêne or embarrassment. How well it becomes
him thus to ape the worthy citizen of benevolent mien who nevertheless
betrays the cloven hoof at every turn. How splendid, the sentence
about ‘revolutionary agencies’ being ‘a swindle’ off which, according
to Willich, he lives. The chivalrous one will have been surprised to
find among the uncouth agents, a fellow who is so dashing, so adroit,
so aggressive by nature and yet so unassumingly noble in his bearing,
and who returns thrust for thrust a tempo. So subtly — far more subtly
and deftly than himself. If only Willich had the discernment to
discover this! But irritation and due reflection will, I trust, give
him a little more insight.

It is obvious that we shall have to see this dirty business through to
the bitter end. The more resolutely we tackle it the better. You'll
find, by the way, that it won’t be so bad after all. The chivalrous
one has promised vastly more than he can fulfil. We shall hear of
assassination attempts, etc., the Schramm affair will be glamorously
tricked out, and such chimeras will be evoked as will cause us to
stare at one another in amazement, not having the faintest idea what
the man is actually talking about; at worst he will tell the story
about Marx and Engels arriving drunk one evening at Great Windmill
Street (vide Kinkel in Cincinnati, coram Huzelio). If he goes as far
as that, I shall tell the scandal-loving American public what the
Besançon Company used to talk about when Willich and the formosus
pastor Corydon Rauf were not present. Au bout du compte, what can a
brute of this kind find to tax us with? Mark my word, it will be just
as pauvre as Tellering’s smear.

I shall be seeing Borchardt within the next few days. If any
recommendations are to be had, you can trust me to get them. But I
hardly imagine that Steinthal, etc., have connections of the sort in
London. It’s almost wholly outside their line of business. Besides, if
only for fear of making a fool of himself, the fellow will attempt to
put off doing anything about it up here. If it were not for Lupus, I'd
consign the chap, etc. I can’t abide him, with his smooth, self-
important, vainglorious, deceitful charlatan’s physiognomy.

If Lassalle has given you a good, neutral address in Düsseldorf, you
can send me 100 copies. We shall arrange for them to be packed in
bales of twist by firms up here; but they should not be addressed to
Lassalle himself, since the packages will go to Gladbach, Elberfeld
and so on, where they will have to be stamped and sent by post to
Düsseldorf. However, we cannot entrust a package for Lassalle or the
Hatzfeldt woman to any local firm, because, 1. they all employ at
least one Rhinelander who knows all the gossip, or 2. if that goes off
all right, the recipients of the bales will get to know about it, or
3. at the very best the postal authorities will take a look at the
things before delivering them. We have a good address in Cologne, but
are not, alas, very well acquainted with the people who are the
principal buyers here for the firm in Cologne, and hence cannot expect
them to do any smuggling. Indeed, what we shall tell the people here
is that the packages contain presents for the fair sex.

From all this you will gather that I am once again on passable terms
with Charles. The affair was settled with great dispatch at the first
suitable opportunity. Nevertheless you will realise that the fool
derives a certain pleasure from having been given preference over
myself in one rotten respect at least, because of Mr Gottfried Ermen’s
envy of my old man. Habeat sibi. He at any rate realises that, if I so
choose, I can become maître de la situation within 48 hours, and
that’s sufficient.

The absence of landed property is indeed the key to the whole of the
East. Therein lies its political and religious history. But how to
explain the fact that orientals never reached the stage of landed
property, not even the feudal kind? This is, I think, largely due to
the climate, combined with the nature of the land, more especially the
great stretches of desert extending from the Sahara right across
Arabia, Persia, India and Tartary to the highest of the Asiatic
uplands. Here artificial irrigation is the first prerequisite for
agriculture, and this is the responsibility either of the communes,
the provinces or the central government. In the East, the government
has always consisted of 3 departments only: Finance (pillage at home),
War (pillage at home and abroad), and travaux publics, provision for
reproduction. The British government in India has put a somewhat
narrower interpretation on nos. 1 and 2 while completely neglecting
no. 3, so that Indian agriculture is going to wrack and ruin. Free
competition is proving an absolute fiasco there. The fact that the
land was made fertile by artificial means and immediately ceased to be
so when the conduits fell into disrepair, explains the otherwise
curious circumstance that vast expanses are now and wastes which once
were magnificently cultivated (Palmyra, Petra, the ruins in the Yemen,
any number of localities in Egypt, Persia, Hindustan); it explains the
fact that one single war of devastation could depopulate and entirely
strip a country of its civilisation for centuries to come. This, I
believe, also accounts for the destruction of southern Arabian trade
before Mohammed’s time, a circumstance very rightly regarded by you as
one of the mainsprings of the Mohammedan revolution. I am not
sufficiently well acquainted with the history of trade during the
first six centuries A.D. to be able to judge to what extent general
material conditions in the world made the trade route via Persia to
the Black Sea and to Syria and Asia Minor via the Persian Gulf
preferable to the Red Sea route. But one significant factor, at any
rate, must have been the relative safety of the caravans in the well-
ordered Persian Empire under the Sassanids, whereas between 200 and
600 A.D. the Yemen was almost continuously being subjugated, overrun
and pillaged by the Abyssinians. By the seventh century the cities of
southern Arabia, still flourishing in Roman times, had become a
veritable wilderness of ruins; in the course of 500 years what were
purely mythical, legendary traditions regarding their origin had been
appropriated by the neighbouring Bedouins, (cf. the Koran and the Arab
historian Novaïri), and the alphabet in which the local inscriptions
had been written was almost wholly unknown although there was no
other, so that de facto writing had fallen into oblivion. Things of
this kind presuppose, not only a superseding, probably due to general
trading conditions, but outright violent destruction such as could
only be explained by the Ethiopian invasion. The expulsion of the
Abyssinians did not take place until about 40 years before Mohammed,
and was plainly the first act of the Arabs’ awakening national
consciousness, which was further aroused by Persian invasions from the
North penetrating almost as far as Mecca. I shall not be tackling the
history of Mohammed himself for a few days yet; so far it seems to me
to have the character of a Bedouin reaction against the settled,
albeit decadent urban fellaheen whose religion by then was also much
debased, combining as it did a degenerate form of nature worship with
a degenerate form of Judaism and Christianity.

Old Bernier’s stuff is really very fine. It’s a real pleasure to get
back to something written by a sensible, lucid old Frenchman who
constantly hits the nail on the head sans avoir l'air de s'en
apercevoir [without appearing to be aware of it].

Since I am in any case tied up with the eastern mummery for some
weeks, I have made use of the opportunity to learn Persian. I am put
off Arabic, partly by my inborn hatred of Semitic languages, partly by
the impossibility of getting anywhere, without considerable
expenditure of time, in so extensive a language — one which has 4,000
roots and goes back over 2,000-3,000 years. By comparison, Persian is
absolute child’s play. Were it not for that damned Arabic alphabet in
which every half dozen letters looks like every other half dozen and
the vowels are not written, I would undertake to learn the entire
grammar within 48 hours. This for the better encouragement of Pieper
should he feel the urge to imitate me in this poor joke. I have set
myself a maximum of three weeks for Persian, so if he stakes two
months on it he'll best me anyway. What a pity Weitling can’t speak
Persian; he would then have his langue universelle toute trouvie
[universal language ready-made] since it is, to my knowledge, the only
language where ‘me’ and ‘to me’ are never at odds, the dative and
accusative always being the same.

It is, by the way, rather pleasing to read dissolute old Hafiz in the
original language, which sounds quite passable and, in his grammar,
old Sir William Jones likes to cite as examples dubious Persian jokes,
subsequently translated into Greek verse in his Commentariis poeseos
asiaticae, because even in Latin they seem to him too obscene. These
commentaries, Jones’ Works, Vol. II, De Poesi erotica, will amuse you.
Persian prose, on the other hand, is deadly dull. E.g. the Rauzât-us-
safâ by the noble Mirkhond, who recounts the Persian epic in very
flowery but vacuous language. Of Alexander the Great, he says that the
name Iskander, in the Ionian language, is Akshid Rus (like Iskander, a
corrupt version of Alexandros); it means much the same as filusuf,
which derives from fila, love, and sufa, wisdom, ‘Iskander’ thus being
synonymous with ‘friend of wisdom’.

Of a retired king he says: ‘He beat the drum of abdication with the
drumsticks of retirement’, as will père Willich, should he involve
himself any more deeply in the literary fray. Willich will also suffer
the same fate as King Afrasiab of Turan when deserted by his troops
and of whom Mirkhond says: ‘He gnawed the nails of horror with the
teeth of desperation until the blood of vanquished consciousness
welled forth from the finger-tips of shame.'

More tomorrow.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1853/letters/53_06_06.htm

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1853/07/11.htm

...and I am Sid Harth

bademiyansubhanallah

unread,
Feb 5, 2010, 8:21:21 PM2/5/10
to
Karl Marx in The New-York Tribune 1853

The Government of India

Source: the New-York Daily Tribune, July 20, 1853;
Transcribed: by Tony Brown.

Abstract
London, Tuesday, 5th July, 1853

Mr. Halliday, one of the officials of the East India Company, when
examined before a Committee of Inquiry, stated:

“That the Charter giving a twenty years lease to the East India
Company was considered by the natives of India as farming them out.”

This time at least, the Charter has not been renewed for a definite
period, but is revokable at will by Parliament. The Company,
therefore, will come down from the respectable situation of hereditary
farmers, to the precarious condition of tenants-at-will. This is so
much gain for the natives. The Coalition Ministry has succeeded in
transforming the Indian Government, like all other questions, into an
open question. The House of Commons, on the other hand, has given
itself a new testimonial of poverty, in confessing by the same
division, its impotency for legislating, and its unwillingness to
delay legislating.

Since the days of Aristotle the world has been inundated with a
frightful quantity of dissertations, ingenious or absurd, as it might
happen, on that question: Who shall be the governing power? But for
the first time in the annals of history, the Senate of a people ruling
over another people numbering 156 millions of human beings and
spreading over a surface of 1,368,113 square miles, have put their
heads together in solemn and public congregation, in order to answer
the irregular question: Who among us is the actual governing power
over that foreign people of 150 millions of souls? There was no
Oedipus in the British Senate capable of extricating this riddle. The
whole debate exclusively twined around it, as although a division took
place, no definition of the Indian Government was arrived at.

That there is in India a permanent financial deficit, a regular over-
supply of wars, and no supply at all of public works, an abominable
system of taxation, and a no less abominable state of justice and law,
that these five items constitute, as it were, the five points of the
East Indian Charter, was settled beyond all doubt in the debates of
1853, as it had been in the debates of 1833, and in the debates of
1813, and in all former debates on India. The only thing never found
out, was the party responsible for all this.

There exists, unquestionably, a Governor-General of India, holding the
supreme power, but that Governor is governed in his turn by a home
government. Who is that home government? Is it the Indian Minister,
disguised under the modest title of President of the Board of Control,
or is it the twenty-four Directors of the East India Company? On the
threshold of the Indian religion we find a divine trinity, and thus we
find a profane trinity on the threshold of the Indian Government.

Leaving, for a while, the Governor-General altogether one side, the
question at issue resolves itself into that of the double Government,
in which form it is familiar to the English mind. The Ministers in
their bill, and the House in its division, cling to this dualism.

When the Company of English merchant adventurers, who conquered India
to make money out of it, began to enlarge their factories into an
empire, when their competition with the Dutch and French private
merchants assumed the character of national rivalry, then, of course,
the British Government commenced meddling with the affairs of the East
India Company, and the double Government of India sprung up in fact if
not in name. Pitt’s act of 1784, by entering into a compromise with
the Company, by subjecting it to the superintendence of the Board of
Control, and by making the Board of Control an appendage to the
Ministry, accepted, regulated and settled that double Government
arisen, from circumstances in name as well as in fact.

The act of 1833 strengthened the Board of Control, changed the
proprietors of the East India Company into mere mortgagees of the East
India revenues, ordered the Company to sell off its stock, dissolved
its commercial existence, transformed it; as far as it existed
politically, into a mere trustee of the Crown, and did thus with the
East India Company, what the Company had been in the habit of doing
with the East India Princes. After having superseded them, it
continued, for a while, still to govern in their name. So far, the
East India Company has, since 1833, no longer existed but in name and
on sufferance. While thus on one hand, there seems to be no difficulty
in getting rid of the Company altogether, it is, on the other hand,
very indifferent whether the English nation rules over India under the
personal name of Queen Victoria, or under the traditional firm of an
anonymous society. The whole question, therefore, appears to turn
about a technicality of very questionable importance. Still, the thing
is not quite so plain.

It is to be remarked, in the first instance, that the Ministerial
Board of Control, residing in Cannon-row, is as much a fiction as the
East India Company, supposed to reside in Leadenhall-st. The members
composing the Board of Control are a mere cloak for the supreme rule
of the President of the Board. The President is himself but a
subordinate though independent member of the Imperial Ministry. In
India it seems to be assumed that if a man is fit for nothing it is
best to make him a Judge, and get rid of him. In Great Britain, when a
party comes into office and finds itself encumbered with a tenth-rate
“statesman,” it is considered best to make him President of the Board
of Control, successor of the Great Mogul, and in that way to get rid
of him- teste Carolo Wood.

The letter of the law entrusts the Board of Control, which is but
another name for its President, with

“full power and authority to superintend, direct, and control all
acts, operations and concerns of the East India Company which in any
wise relate to or concern the Government or revenues of the Indian
territories.”

Directors are prohibited

“from issuing any orders, instructions, dispatches, official letters,
or communications whatever relating to India, or to the Government
thereof, until the same shall have been sanctioned by the Board.”

Directors are ordered to

“prepare instructions or orders upon any subject whatever at fourteen
days’ notice from the Board, or else to transmit the orders of the
Board on the subject of India.”

The Board is authorized to inspect all correspondence and dispatches
to and from India, and the proceedings of the Courts of Proprietors
and Directors. Lastly, the Court of Directors has to appoint a Secret
Committee, consisting of their Chairman, their Deputy Chairman and
their senior member, who are sworn to secrecy, and through whom, in
all political and military matters, the President of the Board may
transmit his personal orders to India, while the Committee acts as a
mere channel of his communications. The orders respecting the Afghan
and Burmese wars, and as to the occupation of Scinde were transmitted
through this Secret Committee, without the Court of Directors being
any more informed of them than the general public or Parliament. So
far, therefore, the President of the Board of Control would appear to
be the real Mogul, and, under all circumstances, he retains an
unlimited power for doing mischief, as, for instance, for causing the
most ruinous wars, all the while being hidden under the name of the
irresponsible Court of Directors. On the other hand, the Court of
Directors is not without real power. As they generally exercise the
initiative in administrative measures, as they form, when compared
with the Board of Control, a more permanent and steady body, with
traditional rules for action and a certain knowledge of details, the
whole of the ordinary internal administration necessarily falls to
their share. They appoint, too, under sanction of the Crown, the
Supreme Government of India, the Governor-General and his Councils;
possessing, besides, the unrestricted power to recall the highest
servants, and even the Governor-General, as they did under Sir Robert
Peel, with Lord Ellenborough. But this is still not their most
important privilege. Receiving only £300 per annum, they are really
paid in patronage, distributing all the writerships and cadetships,
from whose number the Governor-General of India and the Provincial
Governors are obliged to fill up all the higher places withheld from
the natives. When the number of appointments for the year is
ascertained, the whole are divided into 28 equal parts — of which two
are allotted to the Chairman and Deputy Chairman, two to the President
of the Board of Control, and one to each of the Directors. The annual
value of each share of patronage seldom falls short of £14,000.

“All nominations,” says Mr. Campbell, “are now, as it were, the
private property of individuals, being divided among the Directors,
and each disposing of his share as he thinks fit.”

Now, it is evident that the spirit of the Court of Directors must
pervade the whole of the Indian Upper Administration, trained, as it
is, at schools of Addiscombe and Haileybury, and appointed, as it is,
by their patronage. It is no less evident that this Court of
Directors, who have to distribute, year after year, appointments of
the value of nearly £400,000 among the upper classes of Great Britain,
will find little or no check from the public opinion directed by those
very classes. What the spirit of the Court of Directors is, I will
show in a following letter on the actual state of India.’ For the
present it may suffice to say that Mr. Macaulay, in the course of the
pending debates, defended the Court by the particular plea, that it
was impotent to effect all the evils it might intend, so much so, that
all improvements had been effected in opposition to it, and against it
by individual Governors who had acted on their own responsibility.
Thus with regard to the suppression of the Suttee, the abolition of
the abominable transit duties, and the emancipation of the East India
press.

The President of the Board of Control accordingly involves India in
ruinous wars under cover of the Court of Directors, while the Court of
Directors corrupt the Indian Administration under the cloak of the
Board of Control.

On looking deeper into the framework of this anomalous government we
find at its bottom a third power, more supreme than either the Board
or the Court, more irresponsible, and more concealed from and guarded
against the superintendence of public opinion. The transient President
of the Board depends on the permanent clerks of his establishment in
Cannon-row, and for those clerks India exists not in India, but in
Leadenhall-st. Now, who is the master at Leadenhall-st.?

Two thousand persons, elderly ladies and valetudinarian gentlemen,
possessing Indian stock, having no other interest in India except to
be paid their dividends out of Indian revenue, elect twenty-four
Directors, whose only qualification is the holding of £1,000 stock.
Merchants, bankers and directors of companies incur great trouble in
order to get into the Court for the interest of their private
concerns.

“A banker,” said Mr. Bright, “in the City of London commands 300 votes
of the East India Company, whose word for the election of Directors is
almost absolute law.”

Hence the Court of Directors is nothing but a succursal to the English
moneyocracy. The so-elected Court forms, in its turn, besides the
above-mentioned Secret Committee, three other Committees, which are 1.
Political and Military. 2. Finance and Home. 3. Revenue, judicial and
Legislative. These Committees are every year appointed by rotation, so
that a financier is one year on the judicial and the next year on the
Military Committee, and no one has any chance of a continued
supervision over a particular department. The mode of election having
brought in men utterly unfit for their duties, the system of rotation
gives to whatever fitness they might perchance retain, the final blow.
Who, then, govern in fact under the name of the Direction? A large
stuff of irresponsible secretaries, examiners and clerks at the India
House, of whom, as Mr. Campbell observes, in his Scheme for the
Government of India, only one individual has ever been in India, and
he only by accident. Apart from the trade in patronage, it is
therefore a mere fiction to speak of the politics, the principles, and
the system of the Court of Directors. The real Court of Directors and
the real Home Government, &c., of India are the permanent and
irresponsible bureaucracy, “the creatures of the desk and the
creatures of favor” residing in Leadenhall-st. We have thus a
Corporation ruling over an immense Empire, not formed, as in Venice,
by eminent patricians, but by old obstinate clerks, and the like odd
fellows.

No wonder, then, that there exists no government by which so much is
written and so little done, as the Government of India. When the East
India Company was only a commercial association, they, of course,
requested a most detailed report on every item from the managers of
their Indian factories, as is done by every trading concern. When the
factories grew into an Empire, the commercial items into ship loads of
correspondence and documents, the Leadenhall clerks went on in their
system, which made the Directors and the Board their dependents; and
they succeeded in transforming the Indian Government into one immense
writing-machine. Lord Broughton stated in his evidence before the
Official Salaries Committee, that with one single dispatch 45,000
pages of collection were sent.

In order to give you some idea of the time-killing manner in which
business is transacted at the India House, I will quote a passage from
Mr. Dickinson:

“When a dispatch arrives from India, it is referred, in the first
instance, to the Examiners’ Department, to which it belongs; after
which the Chairs confer with the official in charge of that
department, and settle with him the tenor of a reply, and transmit a
draught of this reply to the Indian Minister,’ in what is technically
called P.C., i.e. previous communication. [...] The Chairs, [...] in
this preliminary state of P.C. depend mainly on the clerks. [...] Such
is this dependence that even in a discussion in the Court of
Proprietors, after previous notice, it is pitiable [...] to see the
chairman referring to a secretary who sits by his side, and keeps on
whispering and prompting and chaffing him as if he were a mere puppet,
and [...] the Minister at the other end of the system is in the same
predicament. [...] In this stage of P.C., if there is a difference of
opinion on the draught it is discussed, and almost invariably settled
in friendly communication between the Minister and the Chair; finally
the draught is returned by the Minister, either adopted or altered;
and then it is submitted to the Committee of Directors superintending
the department to which it belongs, with all papers bearing on the
case, to be considered and discussed, and adopted or altered, and
afterward it is .exposed to the same process in the aggregate Court,
and then goes, for the first time, as an official communication to the
Minister,” after which it undergoes the same process in the opposite
direction.

“When a measure is discussed in India,” says Mr. Campbell, “the
announcement that it has been referred to the Court of Directors, is
regarded as an indefinite postponement.”

The close and abject spirit of this bureaucracy deserves to he
stigmatised in the celebrated words of Burke:

“This tribe of vulgar politicians are the lowest of our species. There
is no trade so vile and mechanical as Government in their hands.
Virtue is not their habit. They are out of themselves in any course of
conduct recommended only by conscience and glory. A large, liberal and
prospective view of the interests of States passes with them for
romance; and the principles that recommend it, for the wanderings of a
disordered imagination. The calculators compute them out of their
senses. The jesters and buffoons shame them out of everything grand
and elevated. Littleness in object and in means to them appears
soundness and sobriety.”

The clerical establishments of Leadenhall-st. and Cannon-row cost the
Indian people the trifle of £160,000 annually. The oligarchy involves
India in wars, in order to find employment for their younger sons; the
moneyocracy consigns it to the highest bidder; and a subordinate
Bureaucracy paralyse its administration and perpetuate its abuses as
the vital condition of their own perpetuation.

Sir Charles Wood’s bill alters nothing in the existing system. It
enlarges the power of the Ministry, without adding to its
responsibility.

Karl Marx

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1853/07/20.htm

Karl Marx in The New-York Tribune 1853

India

Source: the New-York Daily Tribune, August 5, 1853;
Transcribed: by Tony Brown.

Abstract
London, Tuesday, July 19, 1853

The progress of the India bill through the Committee has little
interest. It is significant, that all amendments are thrown out now by
the Coalition coalescing with the Tories against their own allies of
the Manchester School.

The actual state of India may be illustrated by a few facts. The Home
Establishment absorbs 3 per cent. of the net revenue, and the annual
interest for Home Debt and Dividends 14 per cent-together 17 per cent.
If we deduct these annual remittances from India to England, the
military charges amount to about two-thirds of the whole expenditure
available for India, or to 66 per cent., while the charges for Public
Works do not amount to more than 2 3/4 per cent. of the general
revenue, or for Bengal 1 per cent., Agra 7 3/4, Punjab 1/8, Madras
1/2, and Bombay 1 per cent. of their respective revenues. These
figures are the official ones of the Company itself.

On the other hand nearly three-fifths of the whole net revenue are
derived from the land, about one-seventh from opium, and upward of one-
ninth from salt. These resources together yield 85 per cent. of the
whole receipts.

As to minor items of receipts and charges, it may suffice to state
that the Moturpha revenue maintained in the Presidency of Madras, and
levied on shops, looms, sheep, cattle, sundry professions, &c., yields
somewhat about £50,000, while the yearly dinners of the East India
House cost about the same sum.

The great bulk of the revenue is derived from the land. As the various
kinds of Indian land-tenure have recently been described in so many
places, and in popular style, too, I propose to limit my observations
on the subject to a few general remarks on the Zemindari and Ryotwar
systems.

The Zemindari and the Ryotwar were both of them agrarian revolutions,
effected by British ukases, and opposed to each other, the one
aristocratic, the other democratic; the one a caricature of English
landlordism, the other of French peasant-proprietorship; but
pernicious, both combining the most contradictory character — both
made not for the people, who cultivate the soil, nor for the holder,
who owns it, but for the Government that taxes it.

By the Zemindari system, the people of the Presidency of Bengal were
depossessed at once of their hereditary claims to the soil, in favor
of the native tax gatherers called Zemindars. By the Ryotwar system
introduced into the Presidencies of Madras and Bombay, the native
nobility, with their territorial claims, meras sees, jagheers, &c.,
were reduced with the common people to the holding of minute fields,
cultivated by themselves in favor of the Collector of the East India
Company."’ But a curious sort of English landlord was the Zemindar,
receiving only one-tenth of the rent, while he had to make over nine-
tenths of it to the Government. A curious sort of French peasant was
the Ryot, without any permanent title in the soil, and with the
taxation changing every year in proportion to his harvest. The
original class of Zemindars, notwithstanding their unmitigated and
uncontrolled rapacity against the depossessed mass of the ex-
hereditary landholders, soon melted away under the pressure of the
Company, in order to be replaced by mercantile speculators who now
hold all the land of Bengal, with exception of the estates returned
under the direct management of the Government. These speculators have
introduced a variety of the Zemindari tenure called patnee. Not
content to be placed with regard to the British Government in the
situation of’ middlemen, they have created in their turn a class of
“hereditary” middlemen called patnetas, who created again their sub-
patnetas, &c., so that a perfect scale of hierarchy of middlemen has
sprung up, which presses with its entire weight on the unfortunate
cultivator. As to the Ryots in Madras and Bombay, the system soon
degenerated into one of forced cultivation, and the land lost all its
value.

“The land,” says Mr. Campbell, “would be sold for balances by the
Collector, as in Bengal, but generally is not, for a very good reason,
viz.: that nobody will buy it.”

Thus, in Bengal, we have a combination of English landlordism, of the
Irish middlemen system, of the Austrian system, transforming the
landlord into the tax-gatherer, and of the Asiatic system making the
State the real landlord. In Madras and Bombay we have a French peasant
proprietor who is at the same time a serf, and a métayer of the State.
The drawbacks of all these various systems accumulate upon him without
his enjoying any of their redeeming features. The Ryot is subject,
like the French peasant, to the extortion of the private usurer; but
he has no hereditary, no permanent title in his land, like the French
peasant. Like the serf’ he is forced to cultivation, but he is not
secured against want like the serf. Like the métayer he has to divide
his produce with the State, but the State is not obliged, with regard
to him, to advance the funds and the stock, as it is obliged to do
with regard to the métayer. In Bengal, as in Madras and Bombay, under
the Zemindari as under the Ryotwar, the Ryots-and they form 11-12ths
of the whole Indian population — have been wretchedly pauperized; and
if they are, morally speaking, not sunk as low as the Irish cottiers,
they owe it to their climate, the men of the South being possessed of
less wants, and of more imagination than the men of the North.

Conjointly with the land-tax we have to consider the salt-tax.
Notoriously the Company retain the monopoly of that article which they
sell at three times its mercantile value — and this in a country where
it is furnished by the sea, by the lakes, by the mountains and the
earth itself. The practical working of this monopoly was described by
the Earl of Albemarle in the following words:

“A great proportion of the salt for inland consumption throughout the
country is purchased from the Company by large wholesale merchants at
less than 4 rupees per maund; these mix a fixed proportion of sand,
chiefly got a few miles to the south-east of Dacca, and send the
mixture to a second, or, counting the Government as the first, to a
third monopolist at about 5 or 6 rupees. This dealer adds more earth
or ashes, and thus passing through more bands, from the large towns to
villages, the price is still raised from 8 to 10 rupees and the
proportion of adulteration from 25 to 40 per cent. [...] It appears
the ‘ n that the people [...] pay from £21, 17s. 2d. to £27, 6s. 2d.
for their salt, or in other words, from 30 to 36 times as much as the
wealthy people of Great Britain.”

As an in stance of English bourgeois morals, I may allege, that Mr.
Campbell defends the Opium monopoly because it prevents the Chinese
from consuming too much of the drug, and that he defends the Brandy
monopoly (licenses for spirit-selling in India) because it has
wonderfully increased the consumption of Brandy in India.

The Zemindar tenure, the Ryotwar, and the salt tax, combined with the
Indian climate, were the hotbeds of the cholera — India’s ravages upon
the Western World — a striking and severe example of the solidarity of
human woes and wrongs.

Karl Marx

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1853/08/05.htm

Works of Karl Marx 1853

The Future Results of British Rule in India

Written: on July 22, 1853
Source: MECW Volume 12, p. 217;

First published: in the New-York Daily Tribune, August 8, 1853;
reprinted in the New-York Semi-Weekly Tribune, No. 856, August 9,
1853.
Signed: Karl Marx.

London, Friday, July 22, 1853
I propose in this letter to conclude my observations on India.

How came it that English supremacy was established in India? The
paramount power of the Great Mogul was broken by the Mogul Viceroys.
The power of the Viceroys was broken by the Mahrattas. The power of
the Mahrattas was broken by the Afghans, and while all were struggling
against all, the Briton rushed in and was enabled to subdue them all.
A country not only divided between Mahommedan and Hindoo, but between
tribe and tribe, between caste and caste; a society whose framework
was based on a sort of equilibrium, resulting from a. general
repulsion and constitutional exclusiveness between all its members.
Such a country and such a society, were they not the predestined prey
of conquest? If we knew nothing of the past history of Hindostan,
would there not be the one great and incontestable fact, that even at
this moment India is held in English thraldom by an Indian army
maintained at the cost of India? India, then, could not escape the
fate of being conquered, and the whole of her past history, if it be
anything, is the history of the successive conquests she has
undergone. Indian society has no history at all, at least no known
history. What we call its history, is but the history of the
successive intruders who founded their empires on the passive basis of
that unresisting and unchanging society. The question, therefore, is
not whether the English had a right to conquer India, but whether we
are to prefer India conquered by the Turk, by the Persian, by the
Russian, to India conquered by the Briton.

England has to fulfill a double mission in India: one destructive, the
other regenerating the annihilation of old Asiatic society, and the
laying the material foundations of Western society in Asia.

Arabs, Turks, Tartars, Moguls, who had successively overrun India,
soon became Hindooized, the barbarian conquerors being, by an eternal
law of history, conquered themselves by the superior civilization of
their subjects. The British were the first conquerors superior, and
therefore, inaccessible to Hindoo civilization. They destroyed it by
breaking up the native communities, by uprooting the native industry,
and by levelling all that was great and elevated in the native
society. The historic pages of their rule in India report hardly
anything beyond that destruction. The work of regeneration hardly
transpires through a heap of ruins. Nevertheless it has begun.

The political unity of India, more consolidated, and extending farther
than it ever did under the Great Moguls, was the first condition of
its regeneration. That unity, imposed by the British sword, will now
be strengthened and perpetuated by the electric telegraph. The native
army, organized and trained by the British drill-sergeant, was the
sine qua non of Indian self-emancipation, and of India ceasing to be
the prey of the first foreign intruder. The free press, introduced for
the first time into Asiatic society, and managed principally by the
common offspring of Hindoos and Europeans, is a new and powerful agent
of reconstruction. The Zemindari and Ryotwar themselves, abominable as
they are, involve two distinct forms of private property in land — the
great desideratum of Asiatic society. From the Indian natives,
reluctantly and sparingly educated at Calcutta, under English
superintendence, a fresh class is springing up, endowed with the
requirements for government and imbued with European science. Steam
has brought India into regular and rapid communication with Europe,
has connected its chief ports with those of the whole south-eastern
ocean, and has revindicated it from the isolated position which was
the prime law of its stagnation. The day is not far distant when, by a
combination of railways and steam-vessels, the distance between
England and India, measured by time, will be shortened to eight days,
and when that once fabulous country will thus be actually annexed to
the Western world.

The ruling classes of Great Britain have had, till now, but an
accidental, transitory and exceptional interest in the progress of
India. The aristocracy wanted to conquer it, the moneyocracy to
plunder it, and the millocracy to undersell it. But now the tables are
turned. The millocracy have discovered that the transformation of
India into a reproductive country has become of vital importance to
them, and that, to that end, it is necessary, above all, to gift her
with means of irrigation and of internal communication. They intend
now drawing a net of railroads over India. And they will do it. The
results must be inappreciable.

It is notorious that the productive powers of India are paralysed by
the utter want of means for conveying and exchanging its various
produce. Nowhere, more than in India, do we meet with social
destitution in the midst of natural plenty, for want of the means of
exchange. It was proved before a Committee of the British House of
Commons, which sat in 1848, that

“when grain was selling from 6/- to 8/- a quarter at Khandesh, it was
sold at 64/ to 70/- at Poona, where the people were dying in the
streets of famine, without the possibility of gaining supplies from
Khandesh, because the clay-roads were impracticable.”

The introduction of railroads may be easily made to subserve
agricultural purposes by the formation of tanks, where ground is
required for embankment, and by the conveyance of water along the
different lines. Thus irrigation, the sine qua non of farming in the
East, might be greatly extended, and the frequently recurring local
famines, arising from the want of water, would be averted. The general
importance of railways, viewed under this head, must become evident,
when we remember that irrigated lands, even in the districts near
Ghauts, pay three times as much in taxes, afford ten or twelve times
as much employment, and yield twelve or fifteen times as much profit,
as the same area without irrigation.

Railways will afford the means of diminishing the amount and the cost
of the military establishments. Col. Warren, Town Major of the Fort
St. William, stated before a Select Committee of the House of Commons:

“The practicability of receiving intelligence from distant parts of
the country, in as many hours as at present it requires days and even
weeks, and of sending instructions, with troops and stores, in the
more brief period, are considerations which cannot be too highly
estimated. Troops could be kept at more distant and healthier stations
than at present, and much loss of life from sickness would by this
means be spared. Stores could not to the same extent he required at
the various depots, and. the loss by decay, and the destruction
incidental to the climate, would also be avoided. The number of troops
might be diminished in direct proportion to their effectiveness.”

We know that the municipal organization and the economical basis of
the village communities has been broken up, but their worst feature,
the dissolution of society into stereotype and disconnected atoms, has
survived their vitality. The village isolation produced the absence of
roads in India, and the absence of roads perpetuated the village
isolation. On this plan a community existed with a given scale of low
conveniences, almost without intercourse with other villages, without
the desires and efforts indispensable to social advance. The British
having broken up this self-sufficient inertia of the villages,
railways will provide the new want of communication and intercourse.
Besides,

“one of the effects of the railway system will he to bring into every
village affected by it such knowledge of the contrivances and
appliances of other countries, and such means of obtaining them, as
will first put the hereditary and stipendiary village artisanship of
India to full proof of its capabilities, and then supply its
defects.” (Chapman, The Cotton and Commerce of India [pp. 95-97].)

I know that the English millocracy intend to endow India with railways
with the exclusive view of extracting at diminished expenses the
cotton and other raw materials for their manufactures. But when you
have once introduced machinery into the locomotion of a country, which
possesses iron and coals, you are unable to withhold it from its
fabrication. You cannot maintain a net of railways over an immense
country without introducing all those industrial processes necessary
to meet the immediate and current wants of railway locomotion, and out
of which there must grow the application of machinery to those
branches of industry not immediately connected with railways. The
railway-system will therefore become, in India, truly the forerunner
of modern industry. This is the more certain as the Hindoos are
allowed by British authorities themselves to possess particular
aptitude. for accommodating themselves to entirely new labor, and
acquiring the requisite knowledge of machinery. Ample proof of this
fact is afforded by the capacities and expertness of the native
engineers in the Calcutta mint, where they have been for years
employed in working the steam machinery, by the natives attached to
the several steam engines in the Burdwan coal districts, and by other
instances. Mr. Campbell himself, greatly influenced as he is by the
prejudices of the East India Company, is obliged to avow

“that the great mass of the Indian people possesses a great industrial
energy, is well fitted to accumulate capital, and remarkable for a
mathematical clearness of head and talent for figures and exact
sciences.” “Their intellects,” he says, “are excellent.”

Modern industry, resulting from the railway system, will dissolve the
hereditary divisions of labor, upon which rest the Indian castes,
those decisive impediments to Indian progress and Indian power.

All the English bourgeoisie may be forced to do will neither
emancipate nor materially mend the social condition of the mass of the
people, depending not only on the development of the productive
powers, but on their appropriation by the people. But what they will
not fail to do is to lay down the material premises for both. Has the
bourgeoisie ever done more? Has it ever effected a progress without
dragging individuals and people through blood and dirt, through misery
and degradation?

The Indians will not reap the fruits of the new elements of society
scattered among them by the British bourgeoisie, till in Great Britain
itself the now ruling classes shall have been supplanted by the
industrial proletariat, or till the Hindoos themselves shall have
grown strong enough to throw off the English yoke altogether. At all
events, we may safely expect to see, at a more or less remote period,
the regeneration of that great and interesting country, whose gentle
natives are, to use the expression of Prince Soltykov, even in the
most inferior classes, “plus fins et plus adroits que les
Italiens” [more subtle and adroit than the Italians], a whose
submission even is counterbalanced by a certain calm nobility, who,
notwithstanding their natural langor, have astonished the British
officers by their bravery, whose country has been the source of our
languages, our religions, and who represent the type of the ancient
German in the Jat, and the type of the ancient Greek in the Brahmin.

I cannot part with the subject of India without some concluding
remarks.

The profound hypocrisy and inherent barbarism of bourgeois
civilization lies unveiled before our eyes, turning from its home,
where it assumes respectable forms, to the colonies, where it goes

naked. They are the defenders of property, but did any revolutionary
party ever originate agrarian revolutions like those in Bengal, in
Madras, and in Bombay? Did they not, in India, to borrow an expression
of. that great robber, Lord Clive himself, resort to atrocious


extortion, when simple corruption could not keep pace with their

rapacity? While they prated in Europe about the inviolable sanctity of


the national debt, did they not confiscate in India the dividends of

the rajahs, 171 who had invested their private savings in the
Company’s own funds? While they combatted the French revolution under


the pretext of defending “our holy religion,” did they not forbid, at
the same time, Christianity to be propagated in India, and did they
not, in order to make money out of the pilgrims streaming to the
temples of Orissa and Bengal, take up the trade in the murder and

prostitution perpetrated in the temple of juggernaut? These are the
men of “Property, Order, Family, and Religion.”

The devastating effects of English industry, when contemplated with
regard to India, a country as vast as Europe, and containing 150
millions of acres, are palpable and confounding. But we must not
forget that they are only the organic results of the whole system of
production as it is now constituted. That production rests on the
supreme rule of capital. The centralization of capital is essential to
the existence of capital as an independent power. The destructive
influence of that centralization upon the markets of the world does
but reveal, in the most gigantic dimensions, the inherent organic laws
of political economy now at work in every civilized town. The
bourgeois period of history has to create the material basis of the
new world — on the one hand universal intercourse founded upon the
mutual dependency of mankind, and the means of that intercourse; on
the other hand the development of the productive powers of man and the
transformation of material production into a scientific domination of
natural agencies. Bourgeois industry and commerce create these
material conditions of a new world in the same way as geological
revolutions have created the surface of the earth. When a great social
revolution shall have mastered the results of the bourgeois epoch, the
market of the world and the modern powers of production, and subjected
them to the common control of the most advanced peoples, then only
will human progress cease to resemble that hideous, pagan idol, who
would not drink the nectar but from the skulls of the slain.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1853/07/22.htm

bademiyansubhanallah

unread,
Feb 5, 2010, 8:37:03 PM2/5/10
to
Karl Marx in the New-York Tribune 1857

The Indian Question

Source: New-York Daily Tribune, August 14, 1857;
Transcribed: by Tony Brown.

London, July, 28 1857

The three hours’ speech delivered last night in “The Dead House,” by
Mr. Disraeli, will gain rather than lose by being read instead of
being listened to. For some time, Mr. Disraeli affects an awful
solemnity of speech, an elaborate slowness of utterance and a
passionless method of formality, which, however consistent they may be
with his peculiar notions of the dignity becoming a Minister in
expectance, are really distressing to his tortured audience. Once he
succeeded in giving even commonplaces the pointed appearance of
epigrams. Now he contrives to bury even epigrams in the conventional
dullness of respectability. An orator who, like Mr. Disraeli, excels
in handling the dagger rather than in wielding the sword, should have
been the last to forget Voltaire’s warning, that “Tous les genres sont
bons excepté le genre ennuyeux.”

Beside these technical peculiarities which characterize Mr. Disraeli’s
present manner of eloquence, he, since Palmerston’s accession to
power, has taken good care to deprive his parliamentary exhibitions of
every possible interest of actuality. His speeches are not intended to
carry his motions, but his motions are intended to prepare for his
speeches. They might be called self-denying motions, since they are so
constructed as neither to harm the adversary, if carried, nor to
damage the proposer, if lost. They mean, in fact, to be neither
carried nor lost, but simply to be dropped. They belong neither to the
acids nor to the alkalis, but are born neutrals. The speech is not the
vehicle of action, but the hypocrisy of action affords the opportunity
for a speech. Such, indeed, may be the classical and final form of
parliamentary eloquence; but then, at all events, the final form of
parliamentary eloquence must not demur to sharing the fate of all
final forms of parliamentarism — that of being ranged under the
category of nuisances. Action, as Aristotle said, is the ruling law of
the drama. So it is of political oratory. Mr. Disraeli’s speech on the
Indian revolt might be published in the tracts of the Society for the
Propagation of Useful Knowledge, or it might be delivered to a
mechanics’ institution, or tendered as a prize essay to the Academy of
Berlin. This curious impartiality of his speech as to the place where,
and the time when, and the occasion on which it was delivered, goes
far to prove that it fitted neither place, time, nor occasion. A
chapter on the decline of the Roman Empire which might read
exceedingly well in Montesquieu or Gibbon would prove an enormous
blunder if put in the mouth of a Roman Senator, whose peculiar
business it was to stop that very decline. It is true that in our
modern parliaments, a part lacking neither dignity nor interest might
be imagined of an independent orator who, while despairing of
influencing the actual course of events, should content himself to
assume a position of ironical neutrality. Such a part was more or less
successfully played by the laic M. Garnier Pages — not the Garnier
Pages of Provisional Government memory in Louis Philippe’s Chamber of
Deputies; but Mt.. Disraeli, the avowed leader of an obsolete faction,
would consider even success in this line as a supreme failure. The
revolt of the Indian army afforded certainly a magnificent opportunity
for oratorical display. But, apart front his dreary manner of treating
the subject, what was the gist of the motion which he made the pretext
for his speech? It was no motion at all. He feigned to be anxious for
becoming acquainted with two official papers, the one of which he was
not quite sure to exist, and the other of which he was sure not
immediately to bear on the subject in question. Consequently his
speech and his motion lacked any point of contact save this, that the
motion heralded a speech without an object, and that the object
confessed itself not worth a speech. Still, as the highly elaborated
opinion of the most distinguished out-of-office statesman of England,
Mr. Disraeli’s speech ought to attract the attention of foreign
countries. I shall content myself with giving in his ipsissima verba a
short analysis of his “considerations on the decline of the Anglo-
Indian Empire.”

“Does the disturbance ill India indicate a military mutiny, or is it a
national revolt? Is the conduct of the troops the consequence of a
sudden impulse, or is it tile result of an organized conspiracy?”

Upon these points Mr. Disraeli asserts the whole question to hinge.
Until the last ten years, he affirmed, the British empire in India was
founded on the old principle of divide et impera — but that principle
was put into action by respecting the different nationalities of which
India consisted, by avoiding to tamper with their religion, and by
protecting their landed property. The Sepoy army served as a safety-
valve to absorb the turbulent spirits of the country. But of late
years a new principle has been adopted in the government of India —
the principle of destroying nationality. The principle has been
realized by the forcible destruction of native princes, the
disturbance of the settlement of property, and the tampering with the
religion of the people. In 1848 the financial difficulties of the East
India Company had reached that point that it became necessary to
augment its revenues one way or the other. Then a minute in Council
was published, in which was laid down the principle, almost without
disguise, that the only mode by which an increased revenue could be
obtained was by enlarging the British territories at the expense of
the native princes. Accordingly, on the death of the Rajah of Sattara,
his adoptive heir was not acknowledged by the East India Company, but
the Raj absorbed in its own dominions. From that moment the system of
annexation was acted upon whenever a native prince died without
natural heirs. The principle of adoption – the very corner-stone of
Indian society-was systematically set aside by the Government. Thus
were forcibly annexed to the British Empire the Rajs of more than a
dozen independent princes from 1848-54. In 1854 the Raj of Berar,
which comprised 80,000 square miles of land, a population from
4,000,000 to 5,000,000, and enormous treasures, was forcibly seized.
Mr. Disraeli ends the list of forcible annexations with Oude, which
brought the East India Government in collision not only with the
Hindoos, but also with the Mohammedans. Mr. Disraeli then goes on
showing how the settlement of property in India was disturbed by the
new system of government during the last ten years.

“The principle of the law of adoption,” he says, “is not the
prerogative of princes and principalities in India, it applies to
every man in Hindostan who has landed property, and who professes the
Hindoo religion.”

I quote a passage:

“The great feudatory, or jaguedar, who holds his lands by public
service to his lord ; and the enamdar, who holds his land free of all
land-tax, who corresponds, if not precisely, in a popular sense, at
least, with our freeholder — both of these classes – classes most
numerous in India – always, on the failure of their natural heirs,
find in this principle the means of obtaining successors to their
estates. These classes were all touched by the annexation of Sattara,
they were touched by the annexation of the territories of the ten
inferior but independent princes to whom I have already alluded, and
they were more than touched, they were terrified to the last degree,
when the annexation of the Raj of Berar took place. What man was safe?
What feudatory, what freeholder who had not a child of his own loins
was safe throughout India? [Hear, hear]. These were not idle fears;
they were extensively acted upon and reduced to practice. The
resumption of jagheers and of inams commenced for the first time in
India. There have been, no doubt, impolitic moments when attempts have
been made to inquire into titles but no one had ever dreamt of
abolishing the law of adoption; therefore no authority, no Government
had ever been in a position to resume jagheers and inams the holders
of which had left no natural heirs. Here was a new source of revenue;
but while all these things were acting upon the minds of these classes
of Hindoos, the Government took another step to disturb the settlement
of property, to which I must now call the attention of the House. The
House is aware, no doubt, from reading the evidence taken before the
Committee of 1853, that there are great portions of the land of India
which are exempt from the land-tax. Being free from land-tax in India
is far more than equivalent to freedom from the land-tax in this
country, for, speaking generally and popularly, the land-tax in India
is. the whole taxation of the State.

“The origin of these grants is difficult to penetrate, but they are
undoubtedly of great antiquity. They are of different kinds. Beside
the private freeholds, which are very extensive, there are large
grants of land free from the land-tax with which mosques and temples
have been endowed.”

On the pretext of fraudulent claims of exemption, the British Governor
General took upon himself to examine the titles of the Indian landed
estates. Under the new system, established in 1848,

“That plan of investigating titles was at once embraced, as a proof of
a powerful Government, vigorous Executive, and most fruitful source of
public revenue. Therefore commissions were issued to inquire into
titles to landed estates in the Presidency of Bengal and adjoining
country. They were also issued in the Presidency of Bombay, and
surveys were ordered to be made in the newly-settled provinces, in
order that these commissions might be conducted, when the surveys were
completed, with due efficiency. Now there is no doubt that, during the
last nine years, the action of these commissions of Inquiry into the
freehold property of landed estates in India has been going on at air
enormous rate, and immense results have been obtained.”

Mr. Disraeli computes that the resumption of estates from their
proprietors is not less than £500,000 a year in the Presidency of
Bengal; £370,000 in the Presidency of Bombay; £200,000 in the Punjaub,
&c. Not content with this one method of seizing upon the property of
the natives, the British Government discontinued the pensions to the
native grandees, to pay which it was bound by treaty.

“This,” says Mr. Disraeli, “is confiscation by a new means, but upon a
most extensive, startling and shocking scale.”

Mr. Disraeli then treats the tampering with the religion of the
natives, a point upon which we need not dwell. From all his premises
he arrives at the conclusion that the present Indian disturbance is
not a military mutiny, but a national revolt, of which the Sepoys are
the acting instruments only. He ends his harangue by advising the
Government to turn their attention to the internal improvement of
India, instead of pursuing its present course of aggression.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1857/08/14.htm

Karl Marx in the New-York Tribune 1857

Indian News

Source: New-York Daily Tribune, August 14, 1857;
Transcribed: by Tony Brown.

London, July 31, 1857

The last Indian mail, conveying news from Delhi up to the 17th June,
and from Bombay up to the 1st of July, realizes the most gloomy
anticipations. When Mr. Vernon Smith, the President of the Board of
Control, first informed the House of Commons of the Indian revolt, he
confidently stated that the next mail would bring the news that Delhi
had been razed to the ground. The mail arrived, but Delhi was not yet
“wiped out of the pages of history.” It was then said that the battery
train could not be brought up before the 9th of June, and that the
attack on the doomed city must consequently be delayed to that date.
The 9th of June passed away without being distinguished by ally
remarkable incident. On the 12th and 15th June some events occurred,
but rather ill the opposite direction, Delhi being not stormed by the
English, but the English being attacked by the insurgents, the
repeated sorties of whom were, however, repulsed. The fall of Delhi is
thus again postponed, the alleged cause being now no longer the sole
want of siege-artillery, but General Barnard’s resolution to wait upon
re-enforcements, as his forces — about 3,000 men — were totally
inadequate to the capture of the ancient capital defended by 30,000
Sepoys, and possessed of all the military stores. The rebels had even
established a camp outside the Ajmer gate. Until now, all military
writers were unanimous ill considering an English force of 3,000 men
quite sufficient for crushing a Sepoy army of 30,000 or 40,000 men;
and if such was not the case, how could England — to use an expression
of The London Times — ever be able to “reconquer” India?

The British army in India amounts actually to 30,000 men. The utmost
number they can dispatch from England within the next half year cannot
exceed 20,000 or 25,000 men, of whom 6,000 men are to fill up
vacancies among the European ranks in India, and of whom the
additional force of 18,000 or 19,000 men will be reduced by loss from
the voyage, by loss from the climate, and by other casualties to about
14,000 troops able to appear on the theater of war. The British army
must resolve upon meeting the mutineers in very disproportionate
numbers, or it must renounce meeting them at all. Still we are at a
loss to understand the slowness of the concentration of their forces
around Delhi. If at this season of the year, the heat proves an
invincible obstacle, which it did not in the days of Sir Charles
Napier, some months later, on the arrival of the European troops, the
rains will afford a still more conclusive pretext for a standstill. It
should never be forgotten that the present mutiny had, in fact,
already begun in the month of January, and that the British Government
had thus received ample warning for keeping its powder dry and its
forces ready.

The prolonged hold of Delhi by the Sepoys in it) face of an English
besieging army has, of course, produced its natural result. The mutiny
was spreading to the very gates of Calcutta, fifty Bengal regiments
had ceased to exist, the Bengal arms, itself had become a myth of the
past, and the Europeans, dispersed over an immense extent of land, and
blocked up in insulated spots, were either butchered by the rebels, or
had taken up position of desperate defense. At Calcutta itself the
Christian inhabitants formed a volunteer guard, after a plot, said to
have been most complete in its detail, for surprising the seat of the
Government, had been discovered, and the native troops there stationed
had been disbanded. At Benares, an attempt at disarming a native
regiment was resisted by a body of Sikhs and the Thirteenth irregular
cavalry. This fact is very important, as it shows that the Sikhs, like
the Mohammedans, were making common cause with the Brahmins, and that
thus a general union against the British rule, of all the different
tribes, was rapidly progressing. It had been an article of faith with
the English people, that the Sepoy army constituted their whole
strength in India. Now, all at once, they feel quite satisfied that
that very army, constitutes their sole danger. During the last Indian
debates, Mr. Vernon Smith, the President of the Board of Control,
still declared that

“the fact cannot be too much insisted upon that there is no connection
whatever between the native princes and the revolt.”

Two days later the same Vernon Smith had to publish a dispatch
containing this ominous paragraph:

“On the 14th of June the ex-King of Oude, implicated in the conspiracy
by intercepted papers, was lodged in Fort William, and his followers
disarmed.”

By and by there will ooze out other facts able to convince even John
Bull himself that what he considers a military mutiny is in truth a
national revolt.

The English press feigns to derive great comfort from the conviction
that the revolt had not yet spread beyond the boundaries of the Bengal
Presidency, and that not the least doubt was entertained of the
loyalty of the Bombay and Madras armies. However, this pleasant view
of the case seems singularly to clash with the fact conveyed by the
last mail of a mutiny of the Nizam’s cavalry having broken out at
Aurungabad. Aurungabad being the capital of the district of the same
name which belongs to the Bombay Presidency, the truth is that the
last mail announces a commencement of revolt of the Bombay army. The
Aurungabad mutiny is, indeed, said to have been at once put down by
General Woodburn. But was not the Meerut mutiny said to have been put
down at once? Did not the Lucknow mutiny, after having been quenched
by Sir H. Lawrence, make a more formidable reappearance a fortnight
later? Will it not be recollected that the very first announcement of
mutiny in the Indian army was accompanied with the announcement of
restored order? Although the bulk of the Bombay and Madras armies is
composed of low caste men, there are still mixed to every regiment
some hundred Rajpoots, a number quite sufficient to form the
connecting links with the high caste rebels of the Bengal army. The
Punjaub is declared to he quiet, but at the same time we are informed
that “at Ferozepore, on the 13th of June, military executions had
taken place,” while Vaughan’s corps – 5th Punjaub Infantry – is
praised for “having behaved admirably in pursuit of the 55th Native
Infantry.” This, it must be confessed, is a very queer sort of
“quiet.”

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1857/08/14a.htm

Karl Marx in the New-York Tribune 1857

State of the Indian Insurrection

Source: New-York Daily Tribune, August 18, 1857;
Transcribed: by Tony Brown.

London, August 4, 1857

On the arrival at London of the voluminous reports conveyed by the
last Indian mail, the meagre outlines of which had been anticipated by
the electric telegraph, the rumor of the capture of Delhi was rapidly
spreading and winning so much consistency as to influence the
transactions of the Stock Exchange. It was another edition of the
capture of Sevastopol hoax, on a reduced scale. The slightest
examination of the dates and contents of the Madras papers, from which
the favorable news was avowedly derived, would have sufficed to dispel
the delusion. The Madras information professed to rest upon private
letters from Agra dated June 17, but an official notification, issued
at Lahore, on the 17th of June, announces that up to 4 o’clock in the
afternoon of the 16th, all was quiet before Delhi, while The Bombay
Times, dated July 1, states that

“General Barnard was waiting for re-enforcements on the morning of the
17th, after having repelled several sorties.”

This much, as to the date of the Madras information. As to its
contents, these are evidently made up of General Barnard’s bulletin,
dated June 8, on his forcible occupation of the bights of Delhi, and
of some private reports relating to the sallies of the besieged on the
12th and 14th June.

A military plan of Delhi and its cantonments has at last been compiled
by Captain Lawrence, from the unpublished plans of the East India
Company. Hence we see that Delhi is not quite so weakly fortified as
was at first asserted, nor quite so strongly as is now pretended. It
possesses a citadel, to be taken by escalade or by regular approaches.
The walls, being more than seven miles in extent, are built of solid
masonry, but of no great bight. The ditch is narrow and not very deep,
and the flanking works do not properly enfilade the curtain. Martello
towers exist at intervals. They are semi-circular in form, and
loopholed for musketry. Spiral staircases lead from the top of the
walls down through the towers to chambers, on a level with the ditch,
and those are loopholed for infantry fire, which may prove very
annoying to an escalading party crossing the ditch. The bastion’s
defending the curtains are also furnished with banquettes for
riflemen, but these may be kept down by shelling. When the
insurrection broke out, the arsenal in the interior of the city
contained 900,000 cartridges, two complete siege trains, a large
number of field guns and 10,000 muskets. The powder-magazine had been
long since removed, at the desire of the inhabitants, from the city to
the cantonments outside Delhi, and contained not less than 10,000
barrels. The commanding bights occupied by, Gen. Barnard on the 8th of
June are situated in a north-westerly direction from Delhi, where the
cantonments outside the walls were also established.

From the description, resting on authentic plans, It will be
understood that the stronghold of the revolt must have succumbed
before a single coup de main, if the British force now before Delhi
bad been there on the 26th of May, and they could have been there if
supplied with sufficient carriage. A review of the list published in
The Bombay Times, and republished in the London papers, of the number
of regiments that had revolted, to the end of June, and of the dates
on which they revolted, proves conclusively that, on the 26th of May,
Delhi was yet occupied by 4,000 to 5,000 men only; a force which could
riot one moment have thought of defending a wall seven miles in
extent. Meerut being only forts, miles distant from Delhi, and having,
since the commencement of 1853, always served as the headquarters of
the Bengal artillery, possessed the principal laboratory for military
scientific purposes, and afforded the parade ground for exercise in
the use of field and siege ordnance; it becomes the more
incomprehensible that the British commander was in want of the means
necessary for the execution of one of those coups de main by which the
British forces in India always know how to secure their supremacy over
the natives. First we were informed that the siege train was waited
for; then that re-enforcements were wanted; and now The Press, one of
the best informed London papers, tells us,

“It is known by our Government for a fact that General Barnard is
deficient in stores and ammunition, and that his supply of the latter
is limited to 24 rounds a man.”

From General Barnard’s own bulletin on the occupation of the bights of
Delhi, which is dated the 8th of June, we see that he originally
intended assailing Delhi on the following day. Instead of being able
to follow up this plan, he was, by one accident or the other, confined
to taking up the defensive against the besieged.

At this very moment it is extremely difficult to compute the forces on
either part. The statements of the Indian press are altogether self-
contradictory; but we think some reliance may be put upon an Indian
correspondence of the Bonapartist Pays, which seems to emanate from
the French Consul at Calcutta. According to his statement, the army of
Gen. Barnard was, on the 14th of June, composed of about 5,700 men,
which was expected to be doubled (?) by the re-enforcements expected
on the 20th of the same month. His train was composed of 30 heavy
siege guns, while the forces of the insurgents were estimated at
40,000 men, badly organized, but richly furnished with all the means
of attack and defense.

We remark en passant, that the, 3,000 insurgents encamped without the
Ajmer gate, probably in the Gazee Khan’s tombs, are not, as some
London papers imagine, fronting the English force, but, on the
contrary, separated from them by the whole breadth of Delhi; the Ajmer
gate being situated on one extremity of the south-western part of
modern Delhi to the north of the ruins of ancient Delhi. On that side
the town nothing can prevent the insurgents from establishing some
more such camps. On the north-eastern, or river side of the city, they
command the ship bridge, and remain in continued connection with their
countrymen, able to receive uninterrupted supplies of men and stores.
On a smaller scale Delhi offers the image of a fortress, keeping (like
Sevastopol) open its lines of communication with the interior of its
own country.

The delay in the British operations has not only allowed the besieged
to concentrate large numbers for the defense, but the sentiment of
having held Delhi during many weeks, harassed the European forces
through repeated sallies, together with the news daily pouring in of
fresh revolts of the entire army, has, of course, strengthened the
morale of the Sepoys. The English, with their small forces, can, of
course, not think of investing the town, but must storm it. However,
if the next regular mail bring not the news of the capture of Delhi,
we may almost be sure that, for some months, all serious operations on
the part of the British will have to be suspended. The rainy season
will have set in in real earnest, and protect the north-eastern face
of the city by filling the ditch with “the deep and rapid current of
the Jumna,” while a thermometer ranging from 75 to 102, combined with
an average fall of nine inches of rain, would scourge the Europeans –
with the genuine Asiatic cholera. Then would be verified the words of
Lord Ellenborough,

“I am of opinion that Sir H. Barnard cannot remain where he is – the
climate forbids it. When the heavy rains set in he will be cut off
from Meerut, from Umballah and from the Punjaub; he will be imprisoned
in a very narrow strip of land, and he will be in a situation, I will
not say of peril, but in a situation which can only end in ruin and
destruction. I trust that he will retire in time.”

Everything, then, as far as Delhi is concerned, depends on the
question whether or not Gen. Barnard found himself sufficiently
provided with men and ammunition to undertake the assault of Delhi
during the last weeks of June. On the other hand, a retreat on. his
part would immensely strengthen the moral force of the insurrection,
and perhaps decide the Bombay and Madras armies upon openly joining
it.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1857/08/18.htm

Karl Marx in the New-York Tribune 1857

The Indian Insurrection

Source: New-York Daily Tribune, August 29, 1857;
Transcribed: by Tony Brown.

London, Aug. 14, 1857

When the Indian news, conveyed by the Trieste telegraph on the 30th of
July, and by the Indian mail on the 1st of August, first arrived, we
showed at once, from their contents and their dates, that the capture
of Delhi was a miserable hoax, and a very inferior imitation of the
never-to-be-forgotten fall of Sevastopol. Yet such is the unfathomable
depth of John Bull’s gullibility, that his ministers, his stock-
jobbers and his press had, in fact, contrived to persuade him that the
very news which laid bare General Barnard’s merely defensive position
contained evidence of the complete extermination of his enemies. From
day to day this hallucination grew stronger, till it assumed at last
such consistency as to induce even a veteran hand at similar matters,
General Sir de Lacy Evans, to proclaim on the night of the 12th of
August, amid the cheering echoes of the House of Commons, his belief
in the truth of the rumor of the capture of Delhi. After this
ridiculous exhibition, however, the bubble was ripe for bursting, and
the following day, the 13th of August, brought successive telegraphic
dispatches from Trieste and Marseilles, anticipating the Indian mails,
and leaving no doubt as to the fact that on the 27th of June Delhi
still stood where it had stood before, and that General Barnard, still
confined to the defensive, but harassed by frequent furious sorties of
the besieged, was very glad to have been able to hold his ground to
that time.

In our opinion the next mail is likely to impart the news of the
retreat of the English army, or at least facts foreshadowing such a
retrograde movement. It is certain that the extent of the walls of
Delhi forbids the belief that the whole of them can be effectively
manned, and, on the contrary,. invites to coups de main to be executed
by concentration and surprise. But Gen. Barnard seems imbued with
European notions of fortified towns and sieges and bombardments,
rather than prone to those bold eccentricities by which Sir Charles
Napier knew how to thunderstrike Asiatic minds. His forces are,
indeed, said to have been increased to about 12,000 men, 7,000
Europeans and 5,000 “faithful natives”; but on the other hand, it is
not denied that the rebels were daily receiving new reinforcements, so
that we may fairly assume that the numerical disproportion between
besiegers and besieged has remained the same. Moreover, the only point
by the surprise of which General Barnard might insure certain success
is the Mogul’s Palace, which occupies a commanding position, but the
access to which from the river side must become impracticable from the
effect of the rainy season, which will have set in, while an attack on
the palace between the Cashmere gate and the river would inflict on
the assailants the greatest risk in case of failure. Finally, the
setting in of the rains is sure to make the securing of his line of
communication and retreat the principal object of the General’s
operations. In one word, we see no reason to believe that he, with his
still inadequate forces, should venture upon risking, at the most
impracticable period of the year, what he shrunk from undertaking at a
more seasonable time. That in spite of the judicial blindness by which
the London press contrives to fool itself, there are entertained
serious misgivings in the highest quarters, may be seen from Lord
Palmerston’s organ, The Morning Post The venal gentlemen of that paper
inform us:

“We doubt whether even by the next mail after this, we shall hear of
the capture of Delhi; but we do expect that, as soon as the troops now
on their march to join the besiegers shall have arrived, with a
sufficiency of large guns, [which it seems are still missing,] we
shall receive intelligence of the fall of the stronghold of the
rebels.”

It is evident that, by dint of weakness, vacillation, and direct
blunders, the British generals have contrived to raise Delhi to the
dignity of the political and military center of the Indian revolt. A
retreat of the English army, after a prolonged siege, or a mere
staying on the defensive, will be regarded as a positive defeat, and
give the signal to a general outbreak. It would moreover expose the
British troops to a fearful mortality, from which till now they have
been protected by the great excitement inherent to a siege full of
sorties, encounters, and a hope of soon wreaking a bloody vengeance on
their enemies. As to the talk about the apathy of the Hindoos, or even
their sympathy with British rule, it is all nonsense. The princes,
like true Asiatics, are watching their opportunity. The people in the
whole Presidency of Bengal, where not kept in check by a handful of
Europeans, are enjoying a blessed anarchy; but there is nobody there
against whom they could rise. It is a curious quid pro quo to expect
an Indian revolt to assume the features of a European revolution.

In the Presidencies of Madras and Bombay, the army having not yet
pronounced, the people of course do not stir. The Punjaub, at last, is
to this moment the principal central station of the European forces,
while its native army is disarmed. To rouse it, the neighboring semi-
independent princes must throw their weight into the scale. But that
such a ramification of conspiracy as exhibited by the Bengal army
could not have been carried on on such an immense scale without the
secret connivance and support of the natives, seems as certain as that
the great difficulties the English meet with in obtaining supplies and
transports – the principal cause of the slow concentration of their
troops – do not witness to the good feelings of the peasantry.

The other news conveyed by the telegraphic dispatches are so far
important as they show us the revolt rising on the extreme confines of
the Punjaub, in Peshawur, and on the other hand striding in a southern
direction from Delhi to the Presidency of Bombay, through the stations
of Jhansi, Saugor, Indore, Mhow, till we arrive at last at Aurungabad,
only 180 miles north-east of Bombay. With respect to Jhansi in
Bundelcund, we may remark that it is fortified and may thus become
another center of armed rebellion. On the other hand, it is stated
that Gen. Van Cortlandt has defeated the mutineers at Sirsab, on his
road from the north-west to join Gen. Barnard’s force before Delhi,
from which he was still 170 miles distant. He had to pass by Jhansi,
where he would again encounter the rebels. As to the preparations made
by the Home Government, Lord Palmerston seems to think that the most
circuitous line is the shortest, and consequently sends his troops
round the Cape, instead of through Egypt. The fact that some thousand
men destined for China have been intercepted at Ceylon and directed to
Calcutta, where the Fifth Fusileers actually arrived on the 2d of
July, has afforded him the occasion for breaking a bad joke on those
of his obedient Commons who still dared doubt that his Chinese war was
quite a “windfall.”

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1857/08/29.htm

bademiyansubhanallah

unread,
Feb 5, 2010, 8:43:06 PM2/5/10
to
Karl Marx in the New-York Tribune 1857

Investigation of Tortures in India

Source: New-York Daily Tribune, September 17, 1857;
Transcribed: by Tony Brown.

Our London correspondent, whose letter with regard to the Indian
revolt we published yesterday, very properly referred to some of the
antecedents which prepared the way for this violent outbreak. We
propose to-day to devote a moment to continuing that line of
reflections, and to showing that the British rulers of India are by no


means such mild and spotless benefactors of the Indian people as they

would have the world believe. For this purpose, we shall resort to the
official Blue Books... on the subject of East-Indian torture, which


were laid before the House of Commons during the sessions of 1856 and

1857. The evidence, it will be seen, is of a sort which cannot be
gainsayed.

We have first the report of the Torture Commission at Madras, which
states its “belief in the general existence of torture for revenue
purposes.” It doubts whether

“anything like air equal number of persons is annually subjected to
violence on criminal (barges, as for the fault of non-payment of
revenue.”

It declares that there was

“one thing which had impressed the Commission even more painfully than
the conviction that torture exists: it is the difficulty of obtaining
redress which confronts the injured parties.”

The reasons for this difficulty given by the Commissioners are: 1. The
distances which those who wish to make complaints personally to the
Collector have to travel, involving expense and loss of time in
attending upon his office: 2. The fear that applications by letter

“will be returned with the ordinary indorsement of a reference to the
Tahsildar”

the district police and revenue officer — that is, to the very man
who, either in his person or through his petty police subordinates,
has wronged him; 3. The inefficient means of procedure and punishment
provided by law for officers of Government, even when formally accused
or convicted of these practices. It seems that if a charge of this
nature were proved before a magistrate, he could only punish by a fine
of fifty rupees, or a month’s imprisonment. The alternative consisted
of handing over the accused

“to the criminal judge to be punished by him, or committed for trial
before the Court of the Circuit.”

The report adds that

“these seem to be tedious proceedings, applicable only to one class of
offenses, abuse of authority – namely, in police charges, and totally
inadequate to the necessities of the case.”

A police or revenue officer, who is the same person, as the revenue is
collected by the police, when charged with extorting money, is first
tried by the Assistant Collector; he then can appeal to the Collector;
then to the Revenue Board. This Board may refer him to the Government
or to the civil courts.

“In such a state of the law, no poverty-stricken ryot could contend
against any wealthy revenue officer; and we are riot aware of any
complaints having been brought forward under these two regulations (of
1822 and 1828) by the people.”

Further, this extorting of money applies only to taking the public
money, or forcing a further contribution from the ryot for the officer
to put into his own pocket. There is, therefore, no legal means of
punishment whatever for the employment of force in collecting the
public revenue.

The report from which these quotations are made applies only to the
Presidency of Madras: but Lord Dalbousie himself, writing, in
September, 1855, to the Directors says that

“he has long ceased to doubt that torture in one shape or other is
practiced by the lower subordinates in every British province.”

The universal existence of torture as a financial institution of
British India is thus officially admitted, but the admission is made
in such a manner as to shield the British Government itself. In fact,
the conclusion arrived at by the Madras commission is that the
practice of torture is entirely the fault of the lower Hindoo
officials, while the European servants of the Government had always,
however unsuccessfully, done their best to prevent it. In answer to
this assertion, the Madras Native Association presented, in January,
1856, a petition to Parliament, complaining of the torture
investigation on the following grounds: 1. That there was scarcely any
investigation at all, the Commission sitting only in the City of


Madras, and for but three months, while it was impossible, except in

very few cases, for the natives who had complaints to make to leave
their homes; 2. That the Commissioners did not endeavor to trace the
evil to its source; had they done so, it would have been discovered to
be in the very system of collecting the revenue; 3. That no inquiry
was made of the accused native officials as to what extent their
superiors were acquainted with the practice.

“The origin of this coercion,” say the petitioners, “is not with the
physical perpetrators of it, but descends to them from the officials
immediately their superiors, which latter again are answerable for the
estimated amount of the collection to their European superiors, these
also being responsible on the same head to the highest authority of
the Government.”

Indeed, a few extracts from the evidence on which the Madras Report
professes to be founded, will suffice to refute its assertion that “no
blame is due to Englishmen.” Thus, Mr. W. D. Kohlhoff, a merchant,
says:

“The modes of torture practiced are various, and suitable to the fancy
of the tahsildar or his subordinates, but whether any redress is
received from higher authorities, it is difficult for me to tell, as
all complaints are generally referred to the tahsildars for
investigation and information.”

Among the cases of complaint from natives, we find the following:

“Last year, as our peasanum (principal paddy or rice crops) failed for
want of rain, we were unable to pay as usual. When the jamabundy was
made, we claimed a remission on account of the losses, according to
the terms of the agreement entered into in 1837, by us, when Mr. Eden
was our collector. As this remission was not allowed, we refused to
take our puttahs. The tahsildar then commenced to compel us to pay
with great severity, from the month of June to August. I and others
were placed in charge of persons who used to take us in the sun. There
we were made to stoop and stones were put on our backs, and we were
kept in the burning sand. After 8 o’clock, we were let to go to our
rice. Suchlike ill treatment was continued during three months, during
which we sometimes went to give our petitions to the collector, who
refused to take them. We took these petitions and appealed to the
Sessions Court, who transmitted them to the collector. Still we got no
justice. In the month of September, a notice was served upon us, and
twenty-five days after, our property was distrained, and afterward
sold, Beside what I have mentioned, our women were also ill treated;
the kittee was put upon their breasts.”

A native Christian states in reply to questions put by the
Commissioners:

“When a European or native regiment passes through, all the ryots are
pressed to bring in provisions, &c., for nothing, and should any of
them ask for the price of the articles, they are severely tortured.”

There follows the case of a Brahmin, in which he, with others of his
own village and of the neighboring villages, was called on by the
Tahsildars to furnish planks, charcoal, firewood, &c., gratis, that he
might carry on the Coleroon bridge work: on refusing, he is seized by
twelve men and maltreated in various ways. He adds:

“I presented a complaint to the Sub-Collector, Mr. W. Cadell, but he
made no inquiry, and tore my complaint. As he is desirous of
completing cheaply the Coleroon bridge work at the expense of the poor
and of acquiring a good name from the Government, whatever may be the
nature of the murder committed by the Tahsildar, he takes no
cognizance of it.”

The light in which illegal practices, carried to the last degree of
extortion and violence, were looked upon by the highest authority, is
best shown by the case of Mr. Brereton, the Commissioner in charge of
the Loodhiana District in the Punjaub in 1855. According to the Report
of the Chief Commissioner for the Punjaub, it was proved that

“in matters under the immediate cognizance or. direction of the Deputy-
Commissioner, Mr. Brereton himself, the houses of wealthy, citizens
had been causelessly searched; that property seized on such occasions
was detained for lengthened periods; that many parties were thrown
into prison, and lay there for weeks, without charges being exhibited
against them; and that the laws relating to security for bad character
had been applied with sweeping and indiscriminating severity. That the
Deputy-Commissioner had been followed about from district to district
by certain police officers and informers, whom he employed wherever he
went, and that these men had been the main authors of mischief.”

In his minute on the case, Lord Dalhousie says:

“We have irrefragable proof – proof, indeed, undisputed by Mr.
Brereton, himself – that that officer has been guilty of each item in
the healthy catalogue of irregularities and illegalities with which
the chief Commissioner has charged him, and which have brought
disgrace on one portion of the British administration, and have
subjected a large number of British subjects to gross injustice, to
arbitrary imprisonment and cruel torture.”

Lord Dalhousie proposes “to make a great public example,” and,
consequently, is of opinion that

“Mr. Brereton cannot, for the present, be fitly intrusted with the
authority of a Deputy Commissioner, but ought to be removed from that
grade to the grade of a first class Assistant.”

These extracts from the Blue Books may be concluded with the petition
from the inhabitants of Talook in Canara, on the Malabar coast, who,
after stating that they had presented several petitions to the
Government to no purpose, thus contrast their former and present
condition:

“While we were cultivating wet and dry lands, hill tracts, low tracts
and forests, paying the light assessment fixed upon us, and thereby
enjoying tranquillity and happiness under the administration of
‘Ranee,’ Bhadur and Tippoo, the then Circar servants, levied an
additional assessment, but we never paid it. We were not subjected to
privations, oppressions or ill-usages in collecting the revenue. On
the surrender of this country to the Honorable Com ally, they devised
all sorts of plans to squeeze out money from us. With this pernicious
object in view, they invented rules and framed regulations, and
directed their collectors and civil judges to put them in execution.
But the then collectors and their subordinate native officials paid
for some time due attention to our grievances, and acted in consonance
with our wishes. On the contrary, the present collectors and their
subordinate officials, desirous of obtaining promotion on any account
whatever, neglect the welfare and interests of the people in general.
turn a deaf car to our grievances, and subject us to all sorts of
oppressions.”

— We have here given but a brief and mildly-colored chapter from the
real history of British rule in India. In view of such facts,
dispassionate and thoughtful men may perhaps be led to ask whether a
people are not justified in attempting to expel the foreign conquerors
who have so abused their subjects. And if the English could do these
things in cold blood, is it surprising that the insurgent Hindoos
should be guilty, in the fury of revolt and conflict, of the crimes
and cruelties alleged against them?

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1857/09/17.htm

Karl Marx in the New-York Tribune 1857

The Revolt in India

Source: New-York Daily Tribune, September 15, 1857;
Transcribed: by Tony Brown.

The mail of the Baltic reports no new events in India, but has a mass
of highly interesting details, which we proceed to condense for the
instruction of our readers. The first point to be noticed is that so
late as the 15th of July the English had not got into Delhi. At the
same time, the cholera had made its appearance in their camp, the
heavy rains were setting in, and the raising of the siege and the
withdrawal of the besiegers appeared to be a question of time only.
The British press would fain make its believe that the pest, while
carrying off Gen. Sir H. Barnard, had spared his worse fed and harder
worked men. It is, therefore, riot from explicit statements,
communicated to the public, but only by way of inference from avowed
facts, that we can arrive at some idea of the ravages of this terrible
disease in the ranks of the besieging army. An officer in the camp
before Delhi, writes, July 14:

“We are doing nothing toward taking Delhi, and are merely defending
ourselves against sorties of the enemy. We have parts of five European
regiments, but (an muster only, 2,000 Europeans, for any effective
attack; large detachments from each regiment having been left to
protect Jullindur, Loodhiana, Subathoo, Dugshale, Kussowlie,
Uniballah, Meerut and Phillour. In fact, small detachments only of
each regiment have joined us. The enemy are far superior to us in
artillery.”

Now this proves that. the forces arriving from the Punjaub found the
great northern line of communication from Jullindur down to Meerut in
a state of rebellion, and were consequently obliged to diminish their
numbers by leaving detachments at the main posts. This accounts for
the arrivals from the Punjab not mustering their anticipated strength.
but it does not explain the reduction of the European force to 2,000
men. The Bombay correspondent of The London Times, writing on July 30,
attempts to explain in another way the passive attitude of the
besiegers. He says:

“The re-enforcements, indeed, have reached our camp – one wing of the
8th (King’s), one of the 61st, a company of foot artillery, and two
guns of a native troop, the 17th Irregular Cavalry regiment (escorting
a large ammunition train), the 2d Punjaub Cavalry, the 1st Punjaub
Infantry and the 4th Sikh Infantry; but the native portion of the
troops thus added to the besieging force are not entirely and
uniformly trustworthy, brigaded though they are with Europeans. The
cavalry regiments of the Punjaub force contain many Mussulmans and
high-caste Hindoos, from Hindostan proper, and Rohilcund, while the
Bengal Irregular Cavalry are mainly composed of such elements. These
men are, as a class, utterly disloyal, and their presence with the
force in any numbers must be embarrassing – and so it has proved. In
the 2d Punjaub Cavalry, it has been found necessary to disarm some 70
Hindostan men and to hang three, one a superior native officer. Of the
9th Irregulars, which have been some time with the force, several
troopers have deserted, and the 4th Irregulars have, I believe,
murdered their adjutant, while on detachment duty.”

Here another secret is revealed. The camp before Delhi, it seems,
bears some likeness to the camp of Agramante and the English have to
struggle not only with the enemy in their front, but also with the
ally in their lines. Still, this fact affords no sufficient cause for
there being only 2,000 Europeans to be spared for offensive
operations. A third writer, the Bombay correspondent of The Daily
News, gives an explicit enumeration of the forces assembled under Gen.
Read, Barnard’s successor, which seems trustworthy, as he reckons up
singly the different elements of which they are composed. According to
his statement, about 1,200 Europeans and 1,600 Sikhs, irregular horse,
etc., say altogether about 3,000 men, headed by Brigadier-Gen.
Chamberlain, reached the camp before Delhi from the Punjaub between
June 23 and July 3. On the other hand, he estimates the whole of the
forces now assembled under Gen. Read at 7,000 men, artillery and siege-
train included, so that the army of Delhi, before the arrival of the
Punjaub re-enforcements, could not have exceeded 4,000 men. The London
Times of August 13 stated that Sir H. Barnard had collected an army of
7,000 British and 5,000 natives. Although this was a flagrant
exaggeration, there is every reason to believe that the European
forces then amounted to about 4,000 men, backed by a somewhat smaller
number of natives. The original force, then., under Gen. Barnard, was
as strong as the force now collected under Gen. Read. Consequently,
the Punjaub re-enforcements have only made up for the wear and tear
which have reduced the strength of the besiegers almost one-half, an
enormous loss, proceeding partly from the incessant sorties of the
rebels, partly from the ravages of the cholera. Thus we understand why
the British can muster only 2,000 Europeans for “any effective
attack.”

So much for the strength of the British forces before Delhi. Now for
their operations. That they were not of a very brilliant character may
be fairly inferred from the simple fact that, since June 8, when Gen.
Barnard made his report on the capture of the hight opposite Delhi, no
bulletin whatever has been issued from headquarters. The operations,
with a single exception, consist of sallies made by the besieged and
repulsed by the besiegers. The besiegers were attacked now in front
and then in the flanks, but mostly in the right rear. The sorties took
place on the 27th and 30th of June, on the 3d, 4th, 9th and 14th of
July. On the 27th of June, fighting was confined to outpost
skirmishes, lasting, some hours, but toward the afternoon was
interrupted by a heavy fall of rain, the first of the season. On the
30th of June, the insurgents showed themselves in force among the
inclosures on the right of the besiegers, harassing their pickets and
supports. On the 3d of July, the besieged made early in the morning a
feint attack on the right rear of the English position, then advanced
several miles to that rear along the Kurnaul road as far as Alipore,
in order to intercept a train of supplies and treasure under convoy to
the camp. On their way, they encountered an outpost of the 2d Punjaub
irregular horse, which gave way at once. On their return to the city,
on the 4th, the rebels were attacked by a body of 1,000 infantry and
two squadrons of cavalry dispatched from the English camp to intercept
them. They contrived, however, to effect their retreat with little or
no loss and saving all their guns. On the 8th of July, a party was
sent from the British camp to destroy a canal bridge at the village of
Bussy, some six miles from Delhi, which in the former sallies had
afforded the insurgents facilities for attacking the extreme British
rear, and interfering with the British communications with Kurnaul and
Meerut. The bridge was destroyed. On the 9th of July, the insurgents
came out again in force and attacked the right rear of the British
position. In the official accounts telegraphed to Lahore on the same
day, the loss of the assailants is estimated at about one thousand
killed; but this account seems much exaggerated, since we read in a
letter of July 13 from the camp:

“Our men buried and burnt two hundred and fifty of the enemy’s dead,
and large numbers were removed by themselves into the city.”

The same letter, published in The Daily News, does not pretend that
the British forced back the Sepoys, but, on the contrary, that “the
Sepoys forced back all our working parties and then retired.” The loss
of the besiegers was considerable, amounting, as it did, to two
hundred and twelve, killed and wounded. On the 14th of July, in
consequence of another sortie, another fierce fight took place, the
details of which have not yet arrived.

The besieged had, meanwhile, received strong re-enforcements. On the
1st of July, the Rohilcund mutineers from Bareily, Muradabat and
Shahjehanpore, consisting of four regiments of infantry, one of
irregular cavalry, and one battery of artillery, had contrived to
effect their junction with their comrades at Delhi.

“It had been hoped,” says the Bombay, correspondent of The London
Times, “that they would find the Ganges impassable; but the
anticipated rise of the river not taking place, it was crossed at
Gurmukteser, the Doab was traversed and Delhi was attained. For two
days, our troops had the mortification of watching the long train of
men, guns. horses and beasts of burden of all kinds (for there was a
treasure with the rebels, say £50,000) streaming across the bridge of
boats into the city, without a possibility of preventing or in any way
annoying them.”

This successful march of the insurgents through the whole breadth of
Rohilcund proves all the country cast of the Jumna tip to the bills of
Rohilcund to be closed against the English forces, while the
untroubled march of the insurgents from Neemuch to Agra, if connected
with the revolts at Indore and Mhow, proves the same fact for all the
country south-west of the Jumna and up to the Vindhya Mountains. The
only, successful – in fact, the only – operation of the English in
regard to Delhi is the pacification of the country to its north and
its north-west by Gen. Van Cortlandt’s Punjaub Sikh forces. Throughout
the district between Loodhiana and Sirsah, he had mainly to encounter
the robber-tribes inhabiting villages sparsely scattered over a wild
and sandy desert. On the 11th of July, lie is said to have left Sirsah
for Futtehabad, thence to march on Hissar, thus opening up the country
in the rear of the besieging force.

Beside Delhi, three other points in the North-Western Provinces —
Agra, Cawnpore and Lucknow — had become centers of the struggle
between the natives and the English. The affair of Agra bears this
peculiar aspect, that it shows for the first time the mutineers
setting out on a deliberate expedition over about 300 miles of ground
with the intention of attacking a distant English military station.
According to The Mofussilite, a journal printed at Agra, the Sepoy
regiments of Nusserabad and Neemuch, about 10,000 strong, (say 7,000
infantry, 1,500 cavalry and 8 guns), approached Agra at the end of
June, encamped in the beginning of July on a plain in the rear of the
village of Sussia, about 20 miles from Agra, and on the 4th of July
seemed preparing an attack on the city. On this news, the European
residents in the cantonments before Agra took refuge in the fort. The
Commander at Agra dispatched at first the Kotah contingent of horse,
foot and artillery to serve as an advanced post against the enemy,
but, having reached their place of destination, one and all bolted to
join the ranks of the rebels. On July 5, the Agra garrison, consisting
of the 3d Bengal Europeans, a battery of artillery and a corps of
European volunteers, marched out to attack the mutineers, and are said
to have driven them out of the village into the plain behind it, but
were evidently themselves in their turn forced back, and, after a loss
of 49 killed and 92 wounded, of a total force of 500 men engaged, had
to retire, being harassed and threatened by the cavalry of the enemy
with such activity as to prevent their “getting a shot at them,” as
The Mofussilite says. In other words, the English took to downright
flight and shut themselves up in their fort, while the Sepoys,
advancing to Agra, destroyed nearly all the houses in the cantonment.
On the following day, July 6, they proceeded to Bhurtpore, on the way
to Delhi. The important result of this affair is the interruption by
the mutineers of the English line of communication between Agra and
Delhi, and their probable appearance before the old city of the
Moguls.

At Cawnpore, as was known from the last mail, a force of about 200
Europeans, under the command of Gen. Wheeler, having with them the
wives and children of the 32d foot, was shut up in a fortified work
and surrounded by an overwhelming mass of rebels, headed by Nena Sahib
of Bithoor. Different assaults on the fort took place on the 17th and
between the 24th and 28th of June, in the last of which, Gen. Wheeler
was shot through the leg and died of his wounds. On June 28, Nena
Sahib invited the English to surrender on the condition of being
allowed to depart on boats down the Ganges to Allahabad. These terms
were accepted, but the British had hardly put out into the middle of
the stream when guns opened upon them from the right bank of the
Ganges. The people in the boats that tried to escape to the opposite
bank were caught and cut down by a body of cavalry. The women and
children were made captives. Messengers having been dispatched several
times from Cawnpore to Allahabad with pressing demands for relief, on
July 1 a column of Madras fusiliers and Sikhs started, under Major
Renaud, on the way to Cawnpore. Within four miles of Futteypore it was
joined, on July 13 at daybreak, by Brig.-Gen. Havelock, who, at the
head of about 1,300 Europeans of the 84th and 64th, the 13th irregular
horse, and the remnant of Oude Irregulars, reached Allahabad from
Benares, July 3, and then followed up Major Renaud by forced marches.
On the very day of his junction with Renaud, he was forced to accept
battle before Futteypore, whither Nena Sahib had led his native
forces. After an obstinate engagement, Gen. Havelock, by a move in the
flank of the enemy, succeeded in driving him out of Futteypore in the
direction of Cawnpore, where twice he had to encounter him again on
the 15th and 16th of July. At the latter date, Cawnpore was recaptured
by the English, Nena Sahib retreating to Bithoor, situated on the
Ganges, twelve miles distant from Cawnpore, and said to be strongly
fortified. Before undertaking his expedition to Futteypore, Nena Sahib
had murdered all the captive English women and children. The recapture
of Cawnpore was of the highest importance to the English, as it
secured their Ganges line of communication.

At Lucknow, the capital of Oude, the British garrison found themselves
nearly in the same plight which had proved fatal to their comrades at
Cawnpore — shut up in a fort, surrounded by overwhelming forces,
straitened for provisions, and deprived of their leader. The latter,
Sir H. Lawrence, died July 4, of tetanus, from a wound in the leg,
received on the 2d, during a sortie. On the 18th and 19th of July,
Lucknow was still holding out. Its only hope of relief rested on Gen.
Havelock’s pushing forward his forces from Cawnpore. The question is
whether he would dare to do so with Nena Sahib in his rear. Any delay,
however, must prove fatal to Lucknow, since the periodical rains would
soon render field operations impossible.

The examination of these events forces the conclusion upon us that.,
in the north-west provinces of Bengal, the British forces were
gradually drifting into the position of small posts planted on
insulated rocks amid a sea of revolution. In lower Bengal, there had
occurred only partial acts of insubordination at Mirzapore, Dinapore
and Patna, beside an unsuccessful attempt made by the roving Brahmins
of the neighborhood to recapture the holy city of Benares. In the
Punjaub, the spirit of rebellion was forcibly kept down, a mutiny
being suppressed at Sealkote, another at Jelum, and the disaffection
of Peshawur successfully checked. Emeutes had already been attempted
in Gujerat, at Punderpoor in Sattara, at Nagpore and Saugor in the
Nagpore territory, at Hyderabad in the Nizam’s territory, and, lastly,
as far south as Mysore, so that the calm of the Bombay and Madras
Presidencies must be understood as by no means perfectly secure.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1857/09/15.htm

Karl Marx in the New-York Tribune 1857

British Incomes in India

Source: New-York Daily Tribune, September 21, 1857;
Transcribed: by Tony Brown.

The present state of affairs in Asia suggests the inquiry, What is the
real value of their Indian dominion to the British nation and people?
Directly, that is in the shape of tribute, of surplus of Indian
receipts over Indian expenditures, nothing whatever reaches the
British Treasury. On the contrary, the annual outgo is very large.
From the moment that the East India Company entered extensively on the
career of conquest – now just about a century ago — their finances
fell into an embarrassed condition, and they were repeatedly compelled
to apply to Parliament, not only for military aid to assist them in
holding the conquered territories, but for financial aid to save them
from bankruptcy. And so things have continued down to the present
moment, at which so large a call is made for troops on the British
nation, to be followed, no doubt, by corresponding calls for money. In
prosecuting its conquests hitherto, and building up its
establishments, the East India Company has contracted a debt of upward
of £50,000,000 sterling, while the British Government has been at the
expense, for years past, of transporting to and front and keeping up
in India, in addition to the forces, native and European, of the East
India Company, a standing army of thirty thousand men. Such being the
case, it is evident that the advantage to Great Britain from her
Indian empire must he limited to the profits and benefits which accrue
to individual British subjects. These profits and benefits, it must be
confessed, are very considerable.

First, we have the stockholders in the East India Company, to the
number of about 3,000 persons, to whom tinder the recent charter there
is guaranteed, upon a paid-up capital of six millions of pounds
sterling, an annual dividend of ten and a half per cent, amounting to
£630,000 annually. As the East India stock is held in transferable
shares, anybody may become a stockholder who has money enough to buy
the stock, which, under the existing charter, commands a premium of
from 125 to 150 per cent. Stock to the amount of £500, costing say
$6,000, entitles the holder to speak at the Proprietors’ meetings, but
to vote he must have £1,000 of stock. Holders of £3,000 have two
votes, of £6,000 three votes, and of £10,000 or upward four votes. The
proprietors, however, have but little voice, except in the election of
the Board of Directors, of whom they choose twelve, while the Crown
appoints six; but these appointees of the Crown must be qualified by
having resided for ten years or more in India. One third of the
Directors go out of office each year, but may be re-elected or
reappointed. To be a Director, one must be a proprietor of £2,000 of
stock. The Directors have a salary of £500 each, and their Chairman
and Deputy Chairman twice as much; but the chief inducement to accept
the office is the great patronage attached to it in the appointment of
all Indian officers, civil and military — a patronage, however,
largely shared, and, as to the most important offices, engrossed
substantially, by the Board of Control. This Board consists of six
members, all Privy Councilors, and in general two or three of them
Cabinet Ministers — the President of the Board being always so, in
fact a Secretary of State for India.

Next come the recipients of this patronage, divided into five classes
– civil, clerical, medical, military and naval. For service in India,
at least in the civil line, some knowledge of the languages spoken
there is necessary, and to prepare young men to enter their civil
service, the East India Company has a college at Haileybury. A
corresponding college for the military service, in which, however, the
rudiments of military science are the principal branches taught, has
been established at Addiscombe, near London. Admission to these
colleges was formerly a matter of favor on the part of the Directors
of the Company, but under the latest modifications of the charter it
has been opened to competition in the way of a public examination of
candidates. On first reaching India, a civilian is allowed about $150
a month, till having passed a necessary examination in one or more of
the native languages (which must be within twelve months after his
arrival), he is attached to the service with emoluments which vary
from $2,500 to near $50,000 per annum. The latter is the pay of the
members of the Bengal Council; the members of the Bombay and Madras
Councils ... receive about $30,000 per annum. No person not a member
of Council can receive more than about $25,000 per annum, and, to
obtain an appointment worth $20,000 or over, he must have been a
resident in India for twelve years. Nine years’ residence qualifies
for salaries of from $15,000 to $20,000, and three years’ residence
for salaries of from $7,000 to $15,000. Appointments in the civil
service go nominally by seniority and merit, but really to a great
extent by favor. As they are the best paid, there is great competition
to get them, the military officers leaving their regiments for this
purpose whenever they can get a chance. The average of all the
salaries in the civil service is stated at about $8,000, but this does
not include perquisites and extra allowances, which are often very
considerable. These civil servants are employed as Governors,
Councilors, judges, Embassadors, Secretaries, Collectors of the
Revenue, &c. — the number in the whole being generally about 800. The
salary of the Governor-General of India is $125,000, but the extra
allowances often amount to a still larger sum. The Church service
includes three bishops and about one hundred and sixty chaplains. The
Bishop of Calcutta has $25,000 a year; those of Madras and Bombay half
as much; the chaplains from $2,500 to $7,000, beside fees. The medical
service includes some 800 physicians and surgeons, with salaries of
from $1,500 to $10,000.

The European military officers employed in India, including those of
the contingents which the dependent princes are obliged to furnish,
number about 8,000. The fixed pay in the infantry is, for ensigns,
$1,080; lieutenants, $1,344; captains, $2,226; majors, $3,810;
lieutenant colonels, $5,520; colonels, $7,680. This is the pay in
cantonment. In active service, it is more. The pay in the cavalry,
artillery and engineers, is somewhat higher. By obtaining staff
situations or employments in the civil service, many officers double
their pay.

Here are about ten thousand British subjects holding lucrative
situations in India, and drawing their pay from the Indian service. To
these must be added a considerable number living in England, whither
they have retired upon pensions, which in all the services are payable
after serving a certain number of years. These pensions, with the
dividends and interest on debts due in England, consume some fifteen
to twenty millions of dollars drawn annually from India, and which may
in fact be regarded as so much tribute paid to the English Government
indirectly through its subjects. Those who annually retire from the
several services carry with them very considerable amounts of savings
from their salaries, which is so much more added to the annual drain
on India.

Beside those Europeans actually employed in the service of the
Government, there are other European residents in India, to the number
of 6,000 or more, employed in trade or private speculation. Except a
few indigo, sugar and coffee planters in the rural districts. they are
principally merchants, agents and manufacturers, who reside in the
cities of Calcutta, Bombay and Madras, or their immediate vicinity.
The foreign trade of India, including imports and exports to the
amount of about fifty millions of dollars of each, is almost entirely
in their hands, and their profits are no doubt very considerable.

It is thus evident that individuals gain largely by the English
connection with India, and of course their gain goes to increase the
sum of the national wealth. But against all this a very large offset
is to be made. The military and naval expenses paid out of the pockets
of the people of England on Indian account have been constantly
increasing with the extent of the Indian dominion. To this must be
added the expense of Burmese, Affghan, Chinese and Persian wars. In
fact, the whole cost of the late Russian war may fairly be charged to
the Indian account, since the fear and dread of Russia, which led to
that war, grew entirely out of jealousy as to her designs on India.
Add to this the career of endless conquest and perpetual aggression in
which the English are involved by the possession of India, and it may
well be doubted whether, on the whole, this dominion does not threaten
to cost quite as Much as it can ever be expected to come to.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1857/09/21.htm

Karl Marx in the New-York Tribune 1857

The Indian Revolt

Source: New-York Daily Tribune, September 16, 1857;
Transcribed: by Tony Brown.

London, Sept. 4, 1857

The outrages committed by the revolted Sepoys in India are indeed
appalling, hideous, ineffable — such as one is prepared to meet – only
in wars of insurrection, of nationalities, of races, and above all of
religion; in one word, such as respectable England used to applaud
when perpetrated by the Vendeans on the “Blues,” by the Spanish
guerrillas on the infidel Frenchmen, by Servians on their German and
Hungarian neighbors, by Croats on Viennese rebels, by Cavaignac’s
Garde Mobile or Bonaparte’s Decembrists on the sons and daughters of
proletarian France.

However infamous the conduct of the Sepoys, it is only the reflex, in
a concentrated form, of England’s own conduct in India, not only
during the epoch of the foundation of her Eastern Empire, but even
during the last ten years of a long-settled rule. To characterize that
rule, it suffices to say that torture formed ail organic institution
of its financial policy. There is something in human history like
retribution: and it is a rule of historical retribution that its
instrument be forged not by the offended, but by the offender himself.

The first blow dealt to the French monarchy proceeded from the
nobility, not from the peasants. The Indian revolt does not commence
with the Ryots, tortured, dishonored and stripped naked by the
British, but with the Sepoys, clad, fed, petted, fatted and pampered
by them. To find parallels to the Sepoy atrocities, we need not, as
some London papers pretend, fall back on the middle ages, not, even
wander beyond the history of contemporary England. All we want is to
study the first Chinese war, an event, so to say, of yesterday. The
English soldiery then committed abominations for the mere fun of it;
their passions being neither sanctified by religious fanaticism nor
exacerbated by hatred against an overbearing and conquering race, nor
provoked by the stern resistance of a heroic enemy. The violations of
women, the spittings of children, the roastings of whole villages,
were then mere wanton sports, not recorded by Mandarins, but by
British officers themselves.

Even at the present catastrophe it would be an unmitigated mistake to
suppose that all the cruelty is on the side of the Sepoys, and all the
milk of human kindness flows on the side of the English. The letters
of the British officers are redolent of malignity. An officer writing
from Peshawur gives a description of the disarming of the 10th
irregular cavalry for not charging the 55th native infantry when
ordered to do so. He exults in the fact that they were not only
disarmed, but stripped of their coats and boots, and after having
received 12d. per man, were marched down to the river side, and there
embarked in boats and sent down the Indus, where the writer is
delighted to expect every mother’s son will have a chance of being
drowned in the rapids. Another writer informs us that, some
inhabitants of Peshawur having caused a night alarm by exploding
little mines of gunpowder in honor of a wedding (a national custom),
the persons concerned were tied up next morning, and

“received such a flogging as they will not easily forget.”

News arrived from Pindee that three native chiefs were plotting. Sir
John Lawrence replied by a message ordering a spy to attend to the
meeting. On the spy’s report, Sir John sent a second message, “Hang
them.” The chiefs were hanged. An officer in

the civil service, from Allahabad, writes:

“We have power of life and death in our hands, and we assure you we
spare not.”

Another, from the same place:

“Not a day passes but we string up front ten to fifteen of them (non-
combatants).”

One exulting officer writes:

“Holmes is hanging them by the score, like a ‘brick.’”

Another, in allusion to the summary hanging of a large body of the
natives:

“Then our fun commenced.”

A third:

“We hold court-martials on horseback, and every nigger we meet with we
either string up or shoot.”

From Benares we are informed that thirty Zemindars were hanged or) the
mere suspicion of sympathizing with their own countrymen, and whole
villages were burned down on the same plea. An officer from Benares,
whose letter is printed in The London Times, says:

“The European troops have become fiends when opposed to natives.”

And then it should not be forgotten that, while the cruelties of the
English are related as acts of martial vigor, told simply, rapidly,
without dwelling on disgusting details, the outrages of the natives,
shocking as they are, are still deliberately exaggerated. For
instance, the circumstantial account first appearing in The Times, and
then going the round of the London press, of the atrocities
perpetrated at Delhi and Meerut, from whom did it proceed? From a
cowardly parson residing at Bangalore, Mysore, more than a thousand
miles, as the bird flies, distant from the scene of action. Actual
accounts of Delhi evince the imagination of an English parson to be
capable of breeding greater horrors than even the wild fancy of a
Hindoo mutineer. The cutting of noses, breasts, &c., in one word, the
horrid mutilations committed by the Sepoys, are of course more
revolting to European feeling than the throwing of red-hot shell on
Canton dwellings by a Secretary of the Manchester Peace Society, or
the roasting of Arabs pent up in a cave by a French Marshal, or the
flaying alive of British soldiers by the cat-o’-nine-tails under drum-
head court-martial, or any other of the philanthropical appliances
used in British penitentiary colonies. Cruelty, like every other
thing, has its fashion, changing according to time and place. Caesar,
the accomplished scholar, candidly narrates how he ordered many
thousand Gallic warriors to have their right hands cut off. Napoleon
would have been ashamed to do this. He preferred dispatching his own
French regiments, suspected of republicanism, to St. Domingo, there to
die of the blacks and the plague.

The infamous mutilations committed by the Sepoys remind one of the
practices of the Christian Byzantine Empire, or the prescriptions of
Emperor Charles V.’s criminal law, or the English punishments for high
treason, as still recorded by Judge Blackstone. With Hindoos, whom
their religion has made virtuosi in the art of self-torturing, these
tortures inflicted on the enemies of their race and creed appear quite
natural, and must appear still more so to the English, who, only some
years since, still used to draw revenues from the Juggernaut
festivals, protecting and assisting the bloody rites of a religion of
cruelty.

The frantic roars of the “bloody old Times,” as Cobbett used to call
it – its, playing the part of a furious character in one of Mozart’s
operas, who indulges in most melodious strains in the idea of first
hanging his enemy, then roasting him, then quartering him, then
spitting him, and then flaying him alive — its tearing the passion of
revenge to tatters and to rags – all this would appear but silly if
under the pathos of tragedy there were not distinctly perceptible the
tricks of comedy. The London Times overdoes its part, not only from
panic. It supplies comedy with a subject even missed by Molière, the
Tartuffe of Revenge. What it simply wants is to write up the funds and
to screen the Government. As Delhi has not, like the walls of Jericho,
fallen before mere puffs of wind, Jolin Bull is to be steeped in cries
for revenge up to his very ears, to make him forget that his
Government is responsible for the mischief hatched and the colossal
dimensions it has been allowed to assume.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1857/09/16.htm

bademiyansubhanallah

unread,
Feb 5, 2010, 8:52:43 PM2/5/10
to
Karl Marx in the New-York Tribune 1857

The Revolt in India

Source: New-York Daily Tribune, October 3, 1857;
Transcribed: by Tony Brown.

The news from India, which reached us yesterday, wears a very
disastrous and threatening aspect for the English, though, as may be
seen in another column, our intelligent London correspondent regards
it differently. From Delhi we have details to July 29, and a later
report, to the effect that, in consequence of the ravages of the
cholera, the besieging forces were compelled to retire from before
Delhi and take up their quarters at Agra. It is true, this report is
admitted by none of the London journals, but we can, at the very
utmost, only regard it as somewhat premature. As we know from all the
Indian correspondence, the besieging army had suffered severely in
sorties made on the 14th, 18th and 23rd of July. On those occasions
the rebels fought with more, reckless vehemence than ever, and with a
great advantage from the superiority of their cannon.

“We are firing,” writes a British officer, “18 pounders and 8-inch
howitzers, and the rebels are replying with twenty-fours and thirty-
twos.” “In the eighteen sallies,” says another letter, “which we have
had to stand, we have lost one-third of our numbers in killed and
wounded.”

Of re-enforcements all that could be expected was a body of Sikhs
under Gen. Van Cortlandt. Gen. Havelock, after fighting several
successful battles, was forced to fall back on Cawnpore, abandoning,
for the time, the relief of Lucknow. At the same time, the rains had
set in heavily before Delhi, necessarily adding to the virulence of
the cholera. The dispatch which announces the retreat to Agra and the
abandonment, for the moment, at least, of the attempt to reduce the
capital of the Great Mogul, must, then, soon prove true, if it is not
so already.

On the line of the Ganges the main interest rests on the operations of
Gen. Havelock, whose exploits at Futteypore, Cawnpore and Bithoor have
naturally been rather extravagantly praised by our London
contemporaries. As we have stated above, after having advanced twenty-
five miles from Cawnpore, he found himself obliged to fall back upon
that place in order not only to deposit his sick, but to wait for re-
enforcements. This is a cause for deep regret, for it indicates that
the attempt at a rescue of Lucknow has been baffled. The only hope for
the British garrison of the place is now in the force of 3,000 Goorkas
sent from Nepaul to their relief by Jung Bahadoor. Should they fail to
raise the siege, then the Cawnpore butchery will be re-enacted at
Lucknow. This will not be all. The capture by the rebels of the
fortress of Lucknow, and the consequent consolidation of their power
in Oude, would threaten in the flank all British operations against
Delhi, and decide the balance of the contending forces at Benares, and
the whole district of Bihar. Cawnpore would be stripped of half its
importance and menaced in its communications with Delhi on the one
side, and with Benares on the other, by the rebels holding the
fortress of Lucknow. This contingency adds to the painful interest
with which news from that locality must be looked for. On the 16th of
June the garrison estimated their powers of endurance at six weeks on
famine allowance. Up to the last date of the dispatches, five of these
weeks had already elapsed. Everything there now depends on the
reported, but not yet certain re-enforcements from Nepaul.

If we pass lower down the Ganges, from Cawnpore to Benares and the
district of Bihar, the British prospect is still darker. A letter in
The Bengal Gazette, dated Benares, August 3, states

“that the mutineers from Dinapore, having crossed the Sone, marched
upon Arrah. The European inhabitants, justly alarmed for their safety,
wrote to Dinapore for re-enforcements. Two steamers were accordingly
dispatched with detachments of her Majesty’s 5th, 10th and 37th. In
the middle of the night one of the steamers grounded in the mud and
stuck fast. The men were hastily landed, and pushed forward on foot,
but without taking due precautions. Suddenly they were assailed on
both sides by a close and heavy fire, and 150 of their small force,
including several officers, put hors de combat. It is supposed that
all the Europeans at the station, about 47 in number, have been
massacred.”

Arrah, in the British district of Shahabad, Presidency of Bengal, is a
town on the road from Dinapore to Ghazepore, twenty-five miles west of
the former, seventy-five cast of the latter. Benares itself was
threatened. This place has a fort constructed upon European
principles, and would become another Delhi if it fell into the hands
of the rebels. At Mirzapore, situated to the south of Benares, and on
the opposite bank of the Ganges, a Mussulman conspiracy has been
detected; while at Berhampore, on the Ganges, some eighteen miles
distant from Calcutta, the 63rd Native Infantry had been disarmed. In
one word, disaffection on the one side and panic on the other were
spreading throughout the whole Presidency of Bengal, even to the gates
of Calcutta, where painful apprehensions prevailed of the great fast
of the Mohurran, when the followers of Islam, wrought up into a
fanatical frenzy, go about with swords ready to fight on the smallest
provocation, being likely to result in a general attack upon the
English, and where the Governor-General has felt himself compelled to
disarm his own body-guard. The reader will, then, understand at once
that the principal British line of communications, the Ganges line, is
in danger of being interrupted, intersected and cut off. This would
bear on the progress of the re-enforcements to arrive in November, and
would isolate the British line of operations on the Jumna.

In the Bombay Presidency, also, affairs are assuming a very serious
aspect. The mutiny at Kolapore of the 27th Bombay Native Infantry is a
fact, but their defeat by the British troops is a rumor only. The
Bombay native army has broken out into successive mutinies at Nagpore,
Aurungabad, Hyderabad, and, finally, at Kolapore. The actual strength
of the Bombay native army is 43,048 men, while there are, in fact,
only two European regiments in that Presidency. The native army was
relied upon not only to preserve order within the limits of the Bombay
Presidency, but to send re-enforcements up to Scinde in the Punjaub,
and to form the columns moved on Mhow and Indore, to recover and hold
those places, to establish communications with Agra, and relieve the
garrison at that place. The column of Brigadier Stuart, charged with
this operation, was composed of 300 men of the 3d Bombay European
Regiment, 250 men of the 5th Bombay Native Infantry, 1,000 of the 25th
Bombay Native Infantry, 200 of the 19th Bombay Native Infantry, 800 of
the 3d Cavalry Regiment of the Hyderabad Contingent. There are with
this force, amounting to 2,250 native soldiers, about 700 Europeans,
composed chiefly of the Queen’s 86th Foot and the 14th Queen’s Light
Dragoons. The English had, moreover, assembled a column of the native
army at Aurungabad to intimidate the disaffected territories of
Khandeish and Nagpore, and at the same time form a support for the
flying columns acting in Central India.

In that part of India we are told that “tranquillity is restored,” but
on this result we cannot altogether rely. In fact it is not the
occupation of Mhow which decides that question, but the course pursued
by the Holkar and Scindiah, the two Mahratta princes. The same
dispatch which informs us of Stuart’s arrival at Mhow adds that,
although the Holkar still remained staunch, his troops had become
unmanageable. As to the Scindiah’s policy, not a word is dropped. He
is young, popular, full of fire, and would be regarded as the natural
head and rallying point for the whole Mahratta nation. He has 10,000
well disciplined troops of his own. His defection from the British
would pot only cost them Central India, but give immense strength and
consistency to the revolutionary league. The retreat of the forces
before Delhi, the menaces and solicitations of the malcontents may at
length induce him to side with his countrymen. The main influence,
however, on the Holkar as well as the Scindiah, will be exercised by
the Mahrattas of the Deccan, where, as we have already stated the
rebellion has at last decidedly raised its head. It is here, too, that
the festival of the Mohurran is particularly dangerous. There is,
then, some reason to anticipate a general revolt of the Bombay army.
The Madras army, too, amounting to 60,555 native troops, and recruited
from Hyderabad, Nagpore, Malwa, the most bigoted Mohammedan districts,
would not be long in following the example. Thus, then, if it be
considered that the rainy season during August and September will
paralyze the movements of the British troops and interrupt their
communications, the supposition seems rational that in spite of their
apparent strength, the re-enforcements sent from Europe, arriving too
late, and in driblets only, will prove inadequate to the task imposed
upon them. We may almost expect, during the following campaign, a
rehearsal of the Affghanistan disasters.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1857/10/03.htm

Karl Marx in the New-York Tribune 1857

The Revolt in India

Source: New-York Daily Tribune, October 13, 1857;
Transcribed: by Tony Brown.

The news received from India by the Atlantic yesterday has two
prominent points, namely, the failure of Gen. Havelock to advance to
the relief of Lucknow, and the persistence of the English at Delhi.
This latter fact finds a parallel only in British annals, and in the
Walcheren expedition. The failure of that expedition having become
certain toward the middle of August, 1809, they delayed re-embarking
until November. Napoleon, when he learned that an English army had
landed at that place, recommended that it should not be attacked, and
that the French should leave its destruction to the disease sure to do
them more injury than the cannon, without its costing one centime to
France. The present Great Mogul, even more favored than Napoleon,
finds himself able to back the disease by his sallies and his sallies
by the disease.

A British Government dispatch, dated Cagliari, Sept. 27, tells its
that

“the latest dates from Delhi are to the 12th of August, when that city
was still in possession of the rebels; but that an attack was expected
to be made shortly, as Gen. Nicholson was within a day’s march with
considerable re-enforcements.”

If Delhi is not taken till Wilson and Nicholson attack it with their
present strength, its walls will stand till they fall of themselves.
Nicholson’s considerable forces amount to about 4,000 Sikhs — a re-
enforcement absurdly disproportionate for an attack upon Delhi, but
just large enough to afford a new suicidal pretext for not breaking up
the camp before the city.

After Gen. Hewitt had committed the fault, and one may even in a
military point of view say the crime, of permitting the Meerut rebels
to make their way to Delhi, and after the two first weeks had been
wasted, allowing an irregular surprise of that city, the planning of
the siege of Delhi appears an almost incomprehensible blunder. An
authority which we shall take the liberty of placing even above the
military oracles of The London Times, Napoleon, lays down two rules of
warfare looking almost like commonplaces: 1st. That “only what can be
supported ought to be undertaken, and only what presents the greatest
number of chances of success;” and 2dly. That “the main forces should
be employed only where the main object of war, the destruction of the
enemy, lies.” In planning the siege of Delhi, these rudimental rules
have been violated. The authorities in England must have been aware
that the Indian Government itself had recently repaired the
fortifications of Delhi so far that that city could be captured by a
regular siege only, requiring a besieging force of at least 15,000 to
20,000 men, and much more, if the defense was conducted in an average
style. Now, 15,000 to 20,000 men being requisite for this enterprise,
it was downright folly to undertake it with 6,000 or 7,000. The
English were further aware that a prolonged siege, a matter of course
in consequence of their numerical weakness, would expose their forces
in that locality, in that climate, and at that season, to the attacks
of an invulnerable and invisible enemy, spreading the seeds of
destruction among their ranks. The chances of success, therefore, were
all against a siege of Delhi.

As to the object of the war, it was beyond doubt the maintenance of
English rule in India. To attain that object, Delhi was a point of no
strategical significance at all. Historical tradition, in truth,
endowed it in the eyes of the natives with a superstitious importance,
clashing with its real influence, and this was sufficient reason for
the mutinous Sepoys to single it out as their general place of
rendezvous. But if, instead of forming their military plans according
to the native prejudices, the English had left Delhi alone and
isolated it, they would have divested it of its fancied influence;
while, by pitching their tents before it, running their heads against
it, and concentrating upon it their main force and the attention of
the world, they cut themselves off from even the chances of retreat,
or rather gave to a retreat all the effects of a signal defeat. They
have thus simply played into the hands of the mutineers who wanted to
make Delhi the object of the campaign. But this is not all. No great
ingenuity was required to convince the English that for them it was of
prime importance to create an active field

army, whose operations might stifle the sparks of disaffection, keep
open the communications between their own military stations, throw the
enemy upon some few points, and isolate Delhi. Instead of acting upon
this simple and self-evident plan, they immobilize the only active
army at their disposal by concentrating it before Delhi, leave the
open field to the mutineers, while their own garrisons hold scattered
spots, disconnected, far distant from each other, and blocked up by
overwhelming hostile forces allowed to take their own time.

By fixing their main mobile column before Delhi, the English have not
choked up the rebels, but petrified their own garrisons. But, apart
from this fundamental blunder at Delhi, there is hardly anything in
the annals of war to equal the stupidity which directed the operations
of these garrisons, acting independently, irrespectively of each
other, lacking all supreme leadership, and acting not like members of
one army, but like bodies belonging to different and even hostile
nations. Take, for instance, the case of Cawnpore and Lucknow. There
were two adjacent places, and two separate bodies of troops, both very
small and disproportionate to the occasion, placed under separate
commands, though they were only forty miles apart, and with as little
unity of action between them as if situated at the opposite poles. The
simplest rules of strategy would have required that Sir Hugh Wheeler,
the military commander at Cawnpore, should be empowered to call Sir H.
Lawrence, the chief Commissioner of Oude, with his troops, back to
Cawnpore, thus to strengthen his own position while momentarily
evacuating Lucknow. By this operation, both garrisons would have been
saved, and by the subsequent junction of Havelock’s troops with them,
a little army been created able to check Oude and to relieve Agra.
Instead of this, by the independent action of the two places, the
garrison of Cawnpore is butchered, the garrison of Lucknow is sure to
fall with its fortress, and even the wonderful exertions of Havelock,
marching his troops 126 miles in eight days, sustaining as many fights
as his march numbered days, and performing all this in an Indian
climate at the hight of the Summer season — even his heroic exertions
are baffled. Having still more exhausted his overworked troops in vain
attempts at the rescue of Lucknow, and being sure to be forced to
fresh useless sacrifices by repeated expeditions from Cawnpore,
executed on a constantly decreasing radius, he will, in all
probability, have at last to retire upon Allahabad, with hardly any
men at his back. The operations of his troops, better than anything
else, show what even the small English army before Delhi would have
been able to do if concentrated for action in the field, instead of
being caught alive in the pestilential camp. Concentration is the
secret of strategy. Decentralization is the plan adopted by the
English in India. What they had to do was to reduce their garrisons to
the smallest possible number, disencumber them at once of women and
children, evacuate all stations not of strategical importance, and
thus collect the greatest possible army in the field. Now, even the
driblets of re-enforcements, sent up the Ganges from Calcutta, have
been so completely absorbed by the numerous isolated garrisons that
not one detachment has reached Allahabad.

As for Lucknow, the most gloomy previsions inspired by the recent
previous mails a are now confirmed. Havelock has again been forced to
fall back on Cawnpore; there is no possibility of relief from the
allied Nepaulese force; and we must now expect to hear of the capture
of the place by starvation, and the massacre of its brave defenders
with their wives and children.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1857/10/13.htm

Karl Marx in the New-York Tribune 1857

The Revolt in India

Source: New-York Daily Tribune, October 23, 1857;
Transcribed: by Tony Brown.

We yesterday received files of London journals up the 7th inst. In
discussing the State of the Indian revolt they are full of the same
optimism which they have cultivated from the beginning. We are not
only told that a successful attack upon Delhi was to take place, but
that it was to take place on the 20th of August. The first thing to
ascertain is, of course, the present strength of the besieging force.
An artillery officer, writing from the camp before Delhi on the 13th
of August, gives the following detailed statement of the effective
British forces on the 10th of that month:

British
Officers. British
Troops. Native
Officers. Native
Troops.
H’ses.
Staff 30 ... ... ... ...
Artillery 39 598 ... ... ...
Engineers 26 39 ... ... ...
Cavalry 18 570 ... ... 520
1st BRIGADE.
Her Majesty’s 75th Regt 16 502 ... ... ...
Hon. Co.’s 1st Fusileers 17 487 ... ... ...
Kumaon Battalion 4 ... 13 435 ...
2nd BRIGADE.
Her Majesty’s 60th Rifles 15 251 ... ... ...
Hon. Co.’s 2d Fusileers 20 493 ... ... ...
Sirmoor Battalion 4 ... 9 319 ...
3d BRIGADE.
Her Majesty’s 8th Regt 15 153 ... ... ...
Her Majesty’s 61st Regt 12 249 ... ... ...
4th Sikhs 4 ... 4 365 ...
Guide Corps 4 ... 4 196 ...
Coke’s Corps 5 ... 16 709 ...

Total ... 229 3,342 46 2,024 520

The total effective British force in the camp before Delhi amounted,
therefore, on the 10th of August to exactly 5,641 men. From these we
must deduct 120 men (112 soldiers and 8 officers), who, according to
the English reports, fell on the 12th of August during the attack upon
a new battery which the rebels had opened outside the walls, in front
of the English left. There remained, then, the number of 5,521
fighting men when Brigadier Nicholson joined the besieging army with
the following forces from Ferozepore, escorting a second-class siege
train: the 52d light infantry (say 900 men), a wing of the 61st (say 4
companies, 360 men), Bourchier’s field battery, a wing of the 6th
Punjaub regiment (say 540 men), and some Moultan horse and foot;
altogether a force of about 2,000 men, of whom somewhat more than
1,200 were Europeans. Now, If we add this force to the 5,521 fighting
men who were in the camp on the junction of Nicholson’s forces, we
obtain a total of 7,521 men. Further re-enforcements are said to have
been dispatched by Sir John Lawrence, the Governor of the Punjaub,
consisting of the remaining wing of the 8th foot, three companies of
the 24th, with three horse-artillery guns of Captain Paton’s troops
from Peshawur, the 2d Punjaub infantry, the 4th Punjaub infantry, and
the other wing of the 6th Punjaub. This force, however, which we may
estimate at 3,000 men, at the utmost, and the bulk of which consists
altogether of Sikhs, had not yet arrived. If the reader can recall the
arrival of the Punjaub re-enforcements under Chamberlain about a month
earlier, he will understand that, as the latter were only sufficient
to bring Gen. Reed’s army up to the original number of Sir H.
Barnard’s forces, so the new re-enforcements are only sufficient to
bring Brigadier Wilson’s army up to the original strength of Gen.
Reed; the only real fact in favor of the English being the arrival, at
last, of a siege train. But suppose even the expected 3,000 men to
have joined the camp, and the total English force to have reached the
number of 10,000, the loyalty of one-third of which is more than
doubtful, what are they to do? They will invest Delhi, we are told.
But leaving aside the ludicrous idea of investing with 10,000 men a
strongly-fortified city, more than seven miles in extent, the English
must first turn the Jumna from its regular course before they can
think of investing Delhi. If the English entered Delhi in the morning,
the rebels might leave it in the evening, either by crossing the Jumna
and making for Rohilcund and Oude, or by marching down the Jumna in
the direction of Mattra and Agra. At all events, the investment of a
square, one of whose sides is inaccessible to the besieging forces,
while affording a line of communication and retreat to the besieged,
is a problem not yet solved.

“All agree,” says the officer from whom we have borrowed the above
table, “that taking Delhi by assault is out of the question.”

He informs us, at the same time, what is really expected in the camp,
viz:

“to shell the town for several days and make a decent breach.”

Now, this officer himself adds that,

“at a moderate calculation, the enemy must muster now nearly forty
thousand men beside guns unlimited and well worked; their infantry
also fighting well.”

If the desperate obstinacy with which Mussulmans are accustomed to
fight behind walls be considered, it becomes a great question indeed
whether the small British army, having rushed in through “a decent
breach,” would be allowed to rush out again.

In fact, there remains only one chance for a successful attack upon
Delhi by the present British forces — that of internal dissensions
breaking out among the rebels, their ammunition being spent, their
forces being demoralized, and their spirit of self-reliance giving
way. But we must confess that their uninterrupted fighting from the
31st of July to the 12th of August seems hardly to warrant such a
supposition. At the same time, a Calcutta letter gives us a broad hint
why the English generals had resolved, in the teeth of all military
rules, upon keeping their ground before Delhi.

“When,” it says, “a few weeks ago it became a question whether our
force should retreat from before Delhi, because it was too much
harassed by daily fighting to support overwhelming fatigues much
longer, that intention was strenuously resisted by Sir John Lawrence,
who plainly informed the Generals that their retreat would be the
signal for the rising of the populations around them, by which they
must be placed in imminent danger. This counsel prevailed, and Sir
John Lawrence promised to send them all the re-enforcements he could
muster.”

Denuded as it has been by Sir John Lawrence, the Punjaub itself may
now rise in rebellion, while the troops in the cantonments before
Delhi are likely to be laid on their backs and decimated by the
pestilential effluvia rising from the soil at the close of the rainy
season. Of Gen. Van Cortlandt’s forces, reported four weeks ago to
have reached Hissar, and to be pushing forward to Delhi, no more is
heard. They must, then, have encountered serious obstacles, or have
been disbanded on their route.

The position of the English on the Upper Ganges is, in fact,
desperate. Gen. Havelock is threatened by the operations of the Oude
rebels, moving from Lucknow via Bithoor and trying at Futteypore, to
the south of Cawnpore, to cut off his retreat; while simultaneously
the Gwalior contingent is marching on Cawnpore from Calpee, a town
situated on the right bank of the Jumna. This concentric movement,
perhaps directed by Nena Sahib, who is said to wield the supreme
command at Lucknow, betrays for the first time some notion of strategy
on the part of the rebels, while the English seem anxious only to
exaggerate their own foolish method of centrifugal warfare. Thus we
are told that the 90th foot and the 5th fusileers dispatched from
Calcutta to re-enforce Gen. Havelock have been intercepted at Dinapore
by Sir James Outram, who has taken it into his head to lead them via
Fyrzabad to Lucknow. This plan of operation is hailed by The Morning
Advertiser of London as the stroke of a master mind, because, it says,
Lucknow will thus have been placed between two fires, being threatened
on its right from Cawnpore and on its left from Fyrzabad. According to
the ordinary rules of war, the immensely weaker army, which, instead
of trying to concentrate its scattered members, cuts itself up into
two portions, separated by the whole breadth of the hostile army, has
spared the enemy the pains of annihilating it. For Gen. Havelock, the
question, in fact, is no longer to save Lucknow, but to save the
remainder of his own and Gen. Neill’s little corps. He will very
likely have to fall back upon Allahabad. Allahabad is indeed a
position of decisive importance, forming, as it does, the point of
junction between the Ganges and the Jumna, and the key to the Doab,
situated between the two rivers.

On the first glance at the map, it will be seen that the main line of
operations for an English army attempting the reconquest of the North-
Western provinces runs along the valley of the lower Ganges. The
positions of Dinapore, Benares, Mirzapore, and, above all, of
Allahabad, from which the real operations must commence, will
therefore have to be strengthened by the withdrawal to them of the
garrisons of all the smaller and strategically indifferent stations in
the province of Bengal Proper. That this main line of operations
itself is seriously threatened at this moment may be seen from the
following extract from a Bombay letter addressed to The London Daily
News:

“The late mutiny of three regiments at Dinapore has cut off
communications (except by steamers on the river) between Allahabad and
Calcutta. The mutiny at Dinapore is the most serious affair that has
happened lately, inasmuch as the whole of the Bihar district, within
200 miles of Calcutta, is now in a blaze. Today a report has arrived
that the Santhals have again risen, and the state of Bengal, overrun
with 150,000 savages, who delight in blood, plunder and rapine, would
be truly terrible.”

The minor lines of operation, as long as Agra holds out, are those for
the Bombay army, via Indore and Gwalior to Agra, and for the Madras
army, via Saugor and Gwalior to Agra, with which latter place the
Punjaub army, as well as the corps holding Allahabad, require to have
their lines of communication restored. If, however, the wavering
princes of Central India should openly declare against the English,
and the mutiny among the Bombay army assume a serious aspect, all
military calculation is at an end for the present, and nothing will
remain certain but an immense butchery from Cashmere to Cape Comorin.
In the best case, all that can be done is to delay decisive events
until the arrival in November of the. European forces. Whether even
this be effected will depend upon the brains of Sir Colin Campbell of
whom, till now, nothing is known but his personal bravery. If he is
the man for his place, he will, at any expense, whether Delhi fall or
not, create a disposable force, however small, with which to take the
field. Yet, the ultimate decision, we must repeat, lies with the
Bombay army.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1857/10/23.htm

Karl Marx in the New-York Tribune 1857

The Revolt in India

Source: New-York Daily Tribune, November 14, 1857;
Transcribed: by Tony Brown.

The mail of the Arabia brings us the important intelligence of the
fall of Delhi. This event, so far ;is we can judge from the meager
details at hand, appears to have resulted upon the simultaneous
occurrence of bitter dissensions among the rebels, a change in the
numerical proportions of the contending parties, and the arrival on
Sept. 5 of the siege train which was expected as long ago as June 8.

After the arrival of Nicholson’s re-enforcements, we had estimated the
army before Delhi at a total of 7,521 men, an estimate fully confirmed
since. After the subsequent accession of 3,000 Cashmere troops, lent
to the English by the Rajah Ranbeer Singh, the British forces are
stated by The Friend of India to have amounted in all to about 11,000
men. On the other hand, The Military Spectator of London affirms that
the rebel forces had diminished in numbers to about 17,000 men, of
whom 5,000 were cavalry; while The Friend of India computes their
forces at about 13,000, including 1,000 irregular cavalry. As the
horse became quite useless after the breach was once effected and the
struggle within the town had begun, and, consequently, on the very
entrance of the English they made their escape, the total forces of
the Sepoys, whether we accept the computation of The Military
Spectator or of The Friend of India, could, not be estimated beyond
11,000 or 12,000 men. The English forces, less from increase on their
side than from a decrease on the opposite one, had, therefore, become
almost equal to those of the mutineers; their slight numerical
inferiority being more than made up by the moral effect of a
successful bombardment and the advantages of the offensive enabling
them to choose the points on which to throw their main strength, while
the defenders were obliged to disperse their inadequate forces over
all the points of the menaced circumference.

The decrease on the part of the rebel forces was caused still more by
the withdrawal of whole contingents in consequence of internal
dissensions than by the heavy losses they suffered in their incessant
sorties for a period of about ten days. While the Mogul specter
himself, like the merchants of Delhi, had become averse to the rule of
the Sepoys, who plundered them of every rupee they had amassed, the
religious dissensions between the Hindoo and Mohammedan Sepoys, and
the quarrels between the old garrison and the new re-enforcements,
sufficed to break up their superficial organization and to insure
their downfall. Still, as the English had to cope with a force but
slightly superior to their own, without unity of command, enfeebled
and dispirited by dissensions in their own ranks, but who yet, after
84 hours’ bombardment, stood a six days’ cannonade and street-fight
within the walls, and then quietly crossed the Jumna on the bridge of
boats, it must he confessed that the rebels at last, with their main
forces, made the best of a bad position.

The facts of the capture appear to be, that on Sept. 8 the English
batteries were opened much in advance of the original position of
their forces and within 700 yards of the walls. Between the 8th and
the 11th the British heavy ordnance guns and mortars were pushed
forward still nearer to the works, a lodgment being effected and
batteries established with little loss, considering that the Delhi
garrison made two sorties on the 10th and 11th, and made repeated
attempts to open fresh batteries, and kept up an annoying fire from
rifle-pits. On the 12th the English sustained a loss of about 56
killed and wounded. On the morning of the 13th the enemy’s magazine,
on one bastion, was blown up, as also the wagon of a light gun, which
enfiladed the British batteries from the Talwara suburbs; and the
British batteries effected a practicable breach near the Cashmere
gate. On the 14th the assault was made on the city. The troops entered
at the breach near the Cashmere gate without serious opposition,
gained possession of the large buildings in its neighborhood, and
advanced along the ramparts to the Moree bastion and Cabul gate, when
the resistance grew very obstinate, and the loss was consequently
severe. Preparations were being made to turn the guns from the
captured bastions on the city, and to bring up other guns and mortars
to commanding points. On the 15th the Burn bastions and Lahore
bastions were played upon by the captured guns, on the Moree and Cabul
bastions, while a breach was made in the magazine and the palace began
to be shelled. The magazine was stormed at daylight, Sept. 16, while
on the 17th the mortars a continued to play upon the palace from the
magazine inclosure.

At this date, owing, it is said by The Bombay Courier, to the plunder
of the Punjaub and Lahore mails on the Scinde frontier, the official
accounts of the storm break off. In a private communication addressed
to the Governor of Bombay, it is stated that the entire city of Delhi
was occupied on Sunday, the 20th, the main forces of the mutineers
leaving the city at 3 a.m. on the same day, and escaping over the
bridges of boats in the direction of Rohilcund. Since a pursuit on the
part of the English was impracticable until after the occupation of
Selimgurh, situated on the river front, it is evident that the rebels,
slowly fighting their way from the extreme north end of the city to
its south-eastern extremity, kept, until the 20th, the position
necessary for covering their retreat.

As to the probable effect of the capture of Delhi, a competent
authority, The Friend of India, remarks that

“it is the condition of Bengal, and not the state of Delhi, that ought
at this time to engage the attention of Englishmen. The long delay
that has taken place in the capture of the town has actually destroyed
any prestige that we might have derived from an early success; and the
strength of the rebels and their numbers are diminished as effectually
by maintaining the siege as they would be by the capture of the
city.”

Meanwhile, the insurrection is said to be spreading north-east from
Calcutta, through Central India up to the north-west; while on the
Assam frontier, two strong regiments of Poorbeahs, openly proposing
the restoration of the ex-Rajah Parandur Singh, had revolted; the
Dinapore and Ranghur mutineers, led by Kooer Singh, were marching by
Banda and Nagode in the direction of Subbulpore, and had forced,
through his own troops, the Rajah of Rewah to join them. At Subbulpore
itself the 52d Bengal Native Regiment had left their cantonments,
taking with them a British officer as a hostage for their comrades
left behind. The Gwalior mutineers are reported to have crossed the
Chumbul, and are encamped somewhere between the river and Dhalapore.
The most serious items of intelligence remain to be noticed. The
Todhpore Legion has, it appears, taken service with the rebel Rajah of
Arwah, a place 90 miles south-west of Beawar. They have defeated
considerable force which the Rajah of Todhpore had sent against them,
killing the General and Captain Monck Mason, and capturing three guns.
Gen. G. St. P. Lawrence made an advance against them with some of the
Nusserabad force, and compelled them to retreat into a town, against
which, however, his further attempts proved unavailing. The denuding
of Scinde of its European troops had resulted in a widely extended
conspiracy, attempts at insurrection being made at no less than five
different places, among which figure Hyderabad, Kurrachee and
Sikarpore. There is also an untoward symptom in the Punjaub, the
communication between Moultan and Lahore having been cut off for eight
days.

In another place our readers will find a tabular statement of the
forces dispatched from England since June 18; the days of arrival of
the respective vessels being calculated by us on official statements,
and therefore in favor of the British Government. From that list it
will be seen that, apart from the small detachments of artillery and
engineers sent by the overland route, the whole of the army embarked
amounts to 30,899 men, of whom 24,739 belong to the infantry, 3,826 to
the cavalry, and 2,334 to the artillery. It will also be seen that
before the end of October no considerable re-enforcements were to be
expected.

Troops for India

The following is a list of the troops which have been

sent to India from England since June 18, 1857

Date of arrival Total Calcutta Ceylon Bombay Kurrachee Madras

September 20 214 214 ... ... ... ...
October 1 300 300 ... ... ... ...
October 15 1,906 124 1,782 ... ... ...
October 17 288 288 ... ... ... ...
October 20 4,235 3,845 390 ... ... ...
October 30 2,028 479 1,549 ... ... ...
Total for Oct. 8,757 5,036 3,721

November 1 3,495 1,234 1,629 ... 632 ...
November 5 879 879 ... ... ... ...
November 10 2,700 904 340 400 1,056 ...
November 12 1,633 1,633 ... ... ... ...
November 15 2,610 2,132 478 ... ... ...
November 19 234 ... ... ... 234 ...
November 20 1,216 ... 278 938 ... ...
November 24 406 ... 406 ... ... ...
November 25 1,276 ... ... ... ... 1,276
November 30 666 ... 462 204 ... ...

Total for Nov. 15,115 6,782 3,593 1,542 1,922 1,276

December 1 354 ... ... 354 ... ...
December 5 459 ... ... 201 ... 258
December 10 1,758 ... 607 ... 1,151 ...
December 14 1,057 ... ... 1,057 ... ...
December 15 948 ... ... 647 301 ...
December 20 693 185 ... 300 208 ...
December 25 624 ... ... ... 624 ...

Total for Dec. 5,893 1,851 607 2,559 2,284 258

January 1 340 ... ... 340 ... ...
January 5 220 ... ... ... ... 220
January 15 140 ... ... ... ... 140
January 20 220 ... ... ... ... 220
Total for Jan. 920 ... ... 340 ... 580

Sept. till Jan. 20 30,899 12,217 7,921 4,441 4,206 2,114

Troops dispatched by the overland route:

October 2 235 R.E. 117 ... ... 118 ...
October 12 221 Art. 221 ... ... ... ...
October 14 224 R.E. 122 ... ... 122 ...
Total for Oct. 700 460 ... ... 240 ...

Total ... ... ... 31,599

Men en route from Cape, partly arrived ... 4,000

Grand total ... 35,599

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1857/11/14.htm

Frederick Engels in the New-York Tribune 1857

The Capture of Delhi

Source: New-York Daily Tribune, December 5, 1857;
Transcribed: by Tony Brown.

We will not join in the noisy chorus which, in Great Britain, is now
extolling to the skies the bravery of the troops that took Delhi by
storm. No people, not even the French, can equal the English in self-
laudation, especially when bravery is the point in question. The
analysis of the facts, however, very soon, reduces, in ninety-nine
cases out of a hundred, the grandeur of this heroism to very
commonplace proportions; and every man of common sense must be
disgusted at this overtrading in other people’s courage, by which the
English paterfamilias who lives quietly at home, and is uncommonly
averse to anything that threatens him with the remotest chance of
obtaining military glory, attempts to pass himself off as a
participator in the undoubted, but certainly not so very
extraordinary, bravery shown in the assault on Delhi.

If we compare Delhi with Sevastopol, we of course agree that the
Sepoys were no Russians; that none of their sallies against the
British cantonment was anything like Inkermann; that there was no
Todtleben in Delhi, and that the Sepoys, bravely as every individual
man and company fought in most instances, were utterly without
leadership, not only for brigades and divisions, but almost for
battalions; that their cohesion did not therefore extend beyond the
companies; that they entirely lacked the scientific element without
which an army is now-a-days helpless, and the defense of a town
utterly hopeless. Still, the disproportion of numbers and means of
action, the superiority of the Sepoys over the Europeans in
withstanding the climate, the extreme weakness to which the force
before Delhi was at times reduced, make up for many of these
differences, and render a fair parallel between the two sieges (to
call these operations sieges) possible. Again we do not consider the
storming of Delhi as an act of uncommon or extra-heroic bravery,
although as in every battle individual acts of high spirit no doubt
occurred on either side, but we maintain that the Anglo-Indian army
before Delhi has shown more perseverance, force of character, judgment
and skill, than the English army when on its trial between Sevastopol
and Balaklava. The latter, after Inkermann, was ready and willing to
re-embark, and no doubt would have done so if it had not been for the
French. The former, when the season of the year, the deadly maladies
consequent upon it, the interruption of the communications, the
absence of all chance of speedy re-enforcements, the condition of all
Upper India, invited a withdrawal, did indeed consider the
advisability of this step, but for all that, held out at its post.

When the insurrection was at its highest point, a movable column in
Upper India was the first thing required. There were only two forces
that could be thus employed — the small force of Havelock, which soon
proved inadequate, and the force before Delhi. That it was, under
these circumstances, a military mistake to stay before Delhi,
consuming the available strength in useless fights with an
unassailable enemy; that the army in motion would have been worth four
times its value when at rest; that the clearing of Upper India, with
the exception of Delhi, the re-establishing of the communications, the
crushing of every attempt of the insurgents to concentrate a force,
would have been obtained, and with it the fall of Delhi as a natural
and easy consequence, are indisputable facts. But political reasons
commanded that the camp before Delhi should not he raised. It is the
wiseacres at headquarters who sent the army to Delhi that should be
blamed — not the perseverance of the army in holding out when once
there. At the same time we must not omit to state that the effect of
the rainy season on this army was far milder than was to be
anticipated, and that with anything like an average amount of the
consequent upon active operations at such a period, the withdrawal or
the dissolution of the army would have been unavoidable. The dangerous
position of the army lasted till the end of August. The re-
enforcements began to come in, while dissensions continued to weaken
the rebel camp. In the beginning of September the siege train arrived,
and the defensive position was changed into an offensive one. On the
7th of September the first battery opened its fire, and on the evening
of the 13th two practicable breaches were opened. Let us now examine
what took place during this interval.

If we were to rely, for this purpose, on the official dispatch of Gen.
Wilson, we should be very badly off indeed. This report is quite as
confused as the documents issued from the English headquarters in the
Crimea ever were. No man living could make out from that report the
position of the two breaches, or the relative position and order in
which the storming columns were arranged. As to the private reports,
they are, of course, still more hopelessly confused. Fortunately one
of those skillful scientific officers who deserve nearly, the whole
credit of the success, a member of the Bengal Engineers and Artillery,
has given a report of what occurred, in The Bombay Gazette, as clear
and business-like as it is simple and unpretending. During the whole
of the Crimean war not one English officer was found able to write a
report as sensible as this. Unfortunately he got wounded on the first
day of the assault, and then his letter stops. As to later
transactions, we are, therefore, still quite in the dark.

The English had strengthened the defenses of Delhi so far that they
could resist a siege by an Asiatic army. According to our modern
notions, Delhi was scarcely to be called a fortress, but merely a
place secured against the forcible assault of a field force. Its
masonry wall, 16 feet high and 12 feet thick, crowned by a parapet of
3 feet thickness and 8 feet hight, offered 6 feet of masonry beside
the parapet, uncovered by the glacis and exposed to the direct fire of
the attack. The narrowness of this masonry rampart put it out of the
question to, place cannon anywhere, except in the bastions and
martello towers. These latter flanked the curtain but very
imperfectly, and a masonry parapet of three feet thickness being
easily battered down by siege guns (field pieces could do it), to
silence the fire of the defense, and particularly the guns flanking
the ditch, was very easy. Between wall and ditch there was a wide berm
or level road, facilitating the formation of a practicable breach, and
the ditch, under these circumstances, instead of being a coupe-gorge
for any force that got entangled in it, became a resting place to re-
form those columns that had into disorder while advancing on the
glacis.

To advance against such a place, with regular trenches, according to
the rules of sieges, would have been insane, even if the first
condition had not been wanting, viz, a for cc sufficient to invest the
place on all sides. The state of the defenses, the disorganization and
sinking spirit of the defenders, would have rendered every other mode
of attack than the one pursued an absolute fault. This mode is very
well known to military men under the name of the forcible attack
(attaque de vive force). The defenses, being such only as to render an
open attack impossible without heavy guns, are dealt with summarily by
the artillery; the interior of the place is all the while shelled, and
as soon as the breaches are practicable the troops advance to the
assault.

The front under attack was the northern one, directly opposite to the
English camp. This front is composed of two curtains and three
bastions, forming a slightly re-entering angle at the central (the
Cashmere) bastion. The eastern position, from the Cashmere to the
Water bastion, is the shorter one, and projects a little in front of
the western position, between the Cashmere and the Moree bastions. The
ground in front of the Cashmere and Water bastions was covered with
low jungle, gardens, houses, &c., which had not been leveled down by
the Sepoys, and afforded shelter to the attack. (This circumstance
explains how it was possible that the English could so often follow
the Sepoys under the very guns of the place, which was at that time
considered extremely heroic, but was in fact a matter of little danger
so long as they had this cover.) Besides, at about 400 or 500 yards
from this front, a deep ravine ran in the same direction as the wall,
so as to form a natural parallel for the attack. The river, besides,
giving a capital basis to the English left, the slight salient formed
by the Cashmere and Water bastions was selected very properly as the
main point of attack. The western curtain and bastions were
simultaneously subjected to a simulated attack, and this maneuver
succeeded so well that the main force of the Sepoys was directed
against it. They assembled a strong body in the suburbs outside the
Cabool gate, so as to menace the English right. This maneuver would
have been perfectly correct and very effective, if the western curtain
between the Moree and Cashmere bastions had been the most in danger.
The flanking position of the Sepoys would have been capital as a means
of active defense, every column of assault being at once taken in
flank by a movement of this force in advance. But the effect of this
position could not reach as far eastward as the curtain between the
Cashmere and Water bastions; and thus its occupation drew away the
best part of the defending force from the decisive point.

The selection of the places for the batteries, their construction and
arming, and the way in which they were served, deserve the greatest
praise. The English had about 50 guns and mortars, concentrated in
powerful batteries, behind good solid parapets. The Sepoys had,
according to official statements, 55 guns on the attacked front, but
scattered over small bastions and martello towers, incapable of
concentrated action, and scarcely sheltered by the miserable three-
feet parapet. No doubt a couple of hours must have sufficed to silence
the fire of the defense, and then there remained little to be done.

On the 8th, No. 1 battery, 10 guns, opened fire at 700 yards from the
wall. During the following night the ravine aforesaid was worked out
into a sort of trench. On the 9th, the broken ground and houses in
front of this ravine were seized without resistance; and on the 10th,
No. 2 battery, 8 guns, was unmasked. This latter was 500 or 600 yards
from the wall. On the 11th, No. 3 battery, built very boldly and
cleverly at 200 yards from the Water bastion in some broken ground,
opened fire with six guns, while ten heavy mortars shelled the town.
On the evening of the 13th the breaches – one in the curtain adjoining
the right flank of the Cashmere bastion, and the other in the left
face and flank of the Water bastion – were reported practicable for
escalade, and the assault was ordered. The Sepoys on the 11 th had
made a counter-approach on the glacis between the two menaced
bastions, and threw out a trench for skirmishers about three hundred
and fifty yards in front of the English batteries. They also advanced
from this position outside the Cabool gate to flank attacks. But these
attempts at active defense were carried out without unity, connection
or spirit, and led to no result.

At daylight on the 14th five British columns advanced to the attack.
One, on the right, to occupy the force outside the Cabool gate and
attack, in case of success, the Lahore gate. One against each breach,
one against the Cashmere gate, which was to be blown up, and one to
act as a reserve. With the exception of the first, all these columns
were successful. The breaches were but slightly defended, but the
resistance in the houses near the wall was very obstinate. The heroism
of an officer and three sergeants of the Engineers (for here there was
heroism) succeeded in blowing open the Cashmere gate, and thus this
column entered also. By evening the whole northern front was in the
possession of the English. Here Gen. Wilson, however, stopped. The
indiscriminate assault was arrested, guns brought up and directed
against every strong position in the town. With the exception of the
storming of the magazine, there seems to have been very little actual
fighting. The insurgents were dispirited and left the town in masses.
Wilson advanced cautiously into the town, found scarcely any
resistance after the 17th, and occupied it completely on the 20th.

Our opinion on the conduct of the attack has been stated. As to the
defense – the attempt at offensive counter movements, the flanking
position at the Cabool gate, the counter-approaches, the rifle-pits,
all show that some notions of scientific warfare had penetrated among
the Sepoys; but either they were not clear enough, or not powerful
enough, to be carried out with any effect. Whether they originated
with Indians, or with some of the Europeans that are with them, is of
course difficult to decide; but one thing is certain: that those
attempts, though imperfect in execution, bear a close resemblance in
their ground-work to the active defense of Sevastopol and that their
execution looks as if a correct plan had been made for the Sepoys by
some European officer, but that they had not been able to understand
the idea fully, or that disorganization and want of command turned
practical projects into weak and powerless attempts.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1857/12/05.htm

Sid Harth

unread,
Feb 7, 2010, 2:04:38 PM2/7/10
to
Frederick Engels in the New-York Tribune 1858

The Siege and Storming of Lucknow

Source: New-York Daily Tribune, January 30, 1858;
Transcribed: by Tony Brown.

The last mails from Calcutta brought some details, which have made
their way to this country through the London journals, from which it
is possible to form a judgment as to Sir Colin Campbell’s performance
at Lucknow. As the British press assert that this feat of arms stands
forth in unrivaled glory in the history of warfare, the subject may as
well be a little more closely examined.

The town of Lucknow is situated on the right bank of the River
Goomtee, which at that locality runs in a south-easterly direction. At
a distance of from two to three miles from the river a canal runs
nearly parallel to it, intersects the town, and below it approaches
the river, which it then joins about a mile further down. The banks of
the river are not occupied by crowded streets, but by a succession of
palaces, with gardens and insulated public buildings. At the junction
of the canal and river, but on the right or southern bank of both, are
situated, close together, a school, called La Martinière, and a
hunting-palace and park, called Dilkhoosha. Crossing the canal, but
remaining on the southern side of the river, and close to its bank,
the first palace and garden is that of Secunderbagh; further west come
barracks and Mess-house, and then the Motee Mahal (Pearl Palace),
which is but a few hundred yards from the Residency. 14 This latter
building is erected on the only high ground in the neighborhood; it
commands the town, and consists of a considerable inclosure with
several palaces and out-houses within it. To the south of this line of
buildings is the compact portion of the town, and two miles south of
this is the park and palace of Alumbagh.

The natural strength of the Residency at once explains how it was
possible for the English to hold out in it against far superior
numbers; but this very fact at once shows also what class of fighters
the Oudians are. In fact, men who, partly drilled under European
officers and provided plentifully with artillery, have never yet been
able to overcome a single miserable inclosure defended by Europeans –
such men are, militarily speaking, no better than savages, and a
victory over them cannot add much to the glory of any army, however
great the odds may be in favor of the natives. Another fact which
classes the Oudians with the most contemptible opponents to be met
with, is the manner in which Havelock forced his way through the very
thickest portion of the town, in spite of barricades, loopholed
houses, and the like. His loss, indeed, was great; but compare such an
engagement with even the worst-fought street-battle of 1848! Not one
man of his weak column could have made good his way had there been any
real fighting. The houses cannot have been defended at all; it would
have required weeks to take as many of them as would have secured a
clear passage. As to the judgment displayed by Havelock in thus taking
the bull by the horns, we cannot form an opinion; it is said he was
compelled to do so from the great strait to which the Residency was
reduced, and other motives are mentioned; however, nothing authentic
is known.

When Sir Colin Campbell arrived he had about 2,000 European and 1,000
Sikh infantry; 350 European and 600 Sikh cavalry; 18 horse-artillery
guns, 4 siege guns, and 300 sailors with their heavy shipguns; in all,
5,000 men, among which were 3,000 Europeans. This force was about as
strong in numbers as a very fair average of most Anglo-Indian armies
that have accomplished great exploits; indeed, the field-force with
which Sir C. Napier conquered Sinde was scarcely half as large, and
often less. On the other hand, its large admixture of the European
element and the circumstance that all its native portion consisted of
the best fighting nation of India, the Sikhs, give it a character of
intrinsic strength and cohesion far superior to the generality of
Anglo-Indian armies. Its opponents, as we have seen, were
contemptible, for the most part rough militia instead of trained
soldiers. True, the Oudians pass for the most warlike race of Lower
Hindostan, but this is the case merely in comparison with the cowardly
Bengalees, whose morale is utterly broken down by the most relaxing
climate of the world and by centuries of oppression. The way in which
they submitted to the “filibustering” annexation of their country to
the Company’s dominions, and the whole of their behavior during the
insurrection, certainly places them below the level of the Sepoys, as
far as courage and intelligence are concerned. We are, indeed,
informed that quantity made up for quality. Some letter-writers say
there were as many as 100,000 in the town. They were, no doubt,
superior to the British in the proportion of four or six to one,
perhaps more; but with such enemies that makes little difference. A
position can only be defended by a certain number, and if these are
determined to run away it matters little whether four or five times
that number of similar heroes are within half a mile. There is no
doubt that many instances of individual bravery have been seen, even
among these Oudians. Some among them may have fought like lions; but
of what avail were these in a place which they were too weak to defend
after the mere rabble among the garrison had run away? There appears
to have never been among them any attempt at bringing the whole under
a single command; their local chiefs had no authority except over
their own men, and would not submit to anybody else.

Sir Colin Campbell advanced first on Alumbagh; then, instead of
forcing his way through the town as Havelock had done, he profited by
the experience gained by that General and turned toward Dilkhoosha and
La Martinière. The ground in front of these inclosures was cleared of
the Oudian skirmishers on Nov. 13. On the 15th the attack commenced.
So neglectful had the enemy been that the preparations for intrenching
the Dilkhoosha were not yet completed even then; it was taken at once,
and without much resistance, and so was the Martinière. These two
positions secured to the English the line of the canal. The enemy
advanced once more across this obstacle to retake the two posts, lost
in the morning, but they were soon routed, with heavy loss. On the
16th the British crossed the canal and attacked the Secunderbagh
Palace. The intrenchments here were in a little better order,
consequently Gen. Campbell wisely attacked the place with artillery.
After the defenses had been destroyed, the infantry charged and took
the place. The Samuck, another fortified position, was next cannonaded
for three hours and then taken, “after one of the severest fights ever
witnessed,” says Sir C. Campbell — and, adds a wise correspondent from
the seat of war, “few men have seen more of hard fighting than he.” We
should like to know where he saw it. Surely not in the Crimea, where,
after the battle of the Alma he had a very quiet life of it at
Balaklava, only one of his regiments being engaged at the battle of
Balaklava and none at Inkermann.

On the 17th the artillery was pointed on the barracks and Mess-house
which formed the next position toward the Residency. This cannonade
lasted till 3 o’clock, after which the infantry took the place by
storm. The flying enemy was hotly pursued. One more position remained
between the advancing army and the Residency — the Motee Mahal. Before
dusk this, too, was carried, and the communication with the garrison
was fully established.

Campbell should be praised for the judgment with which he took the
easier route and with which he used his heavy artillery to reduce the
intrenched positions before he launched his columns. But the British
fought with all the advantages of skilled soldiers obeying one chief
over half savages commanded by nobody; and, as we see, they fully
availed themselves of these advantages. They did not expose their men
more than was absolutely necessary. They used artillery as long as
there was anything to be battered down. No doubt they fought with
valor; but what they deserve credit for is discretion. The best proof
of this is in the number of the killed and wounded. It has not yet
been published as far as the men are concerned; but there were five
officers killed and thirty-two wounded. The army must have had, with
5,000 men, at least 250 to 300 officers. The English officers are
certainly never sparing of their lives. To show an example of bravery
to their men is in too many cases the part of their duty which they
only know. And when in three days’ consecutive fighting, under
circumstances and in positions which are known to cost more lives than
any other to conquer, the loss is only one in eight or nine, it is out
of the question to call it hard fighting. To take an example from
British history alone, what is all this Indian fighting put together
against the single defense of Hougoumont and La Haye Sainte at
Waterloo? What would these writers who now turn every little skirmish
into a pitched battle say of contests like Borodino, where one army
lost one-half and the other one-third of its combatants?

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1858/01/30.htm

Frederick Engels in the New-York Tribune 1858

The Relief of Lucknow

Source: New-York Daily Tribune, February 1, 1858;
Transcribed: by Tony Brown.

We have at last before us the official dispatch of Sir Colin Campbell
on the relief of Lucknow. It confirms in every respect the conclusions
we drew from the first non-official reports on this engagement. The
contemptible character of the resistance offered by the Oudians is
even more apparent from this document, while on the other hand
Campbell himself appears to take more pride in his skillful
generalship than in any uncommon bravery displayed either by him or
his troops. The dispatch states the strength of the British troops at
about 5,000, of whom some 3,200 were infantry, and 700 cavalry, the
rest artillery, naval brigade, engineers, &c. The operations
commenced, as stated, with the attack on Dilkhoosha. This garden was
taken after a running fight. “The loss was very trifling; the enemy’s
loss, too, was trifling, owing to the suddenness of retreat.” There
was, indeed, no chance of displaying heroism on this occasion. The
Oudians retreated in such a hurry that they crossed at once through
the grounds of La Martinière without availing themselves of the new
line of defense offered by this post. The first symptom of a more
obstinate resistance was shown at the Secunderbagh, a high-walled,
loopholed inclosure 120 yards square, flanked by a loop-holed village
about 100 yards distant. There Campbell at once displayed his less
dashing but more sensible mode of warfare. The heavy and field
artillery concentrated their efforts on the main inclosure, while one
brigade attacked the barricaded village, and another drove back
whatever bands of the enemy attempted the open field. The defense was
lamentable. Two intrenched positions like those described flanking
each other by their fire, in. the hands of indifferent soldiers, or
even of plucky undisciplined insurgents, would require a deal of
fighting to take. But here there appears to have been neither pluck,
nor concert, nor even a shadow of sense. We do not hear of any
artillery used in the defense. The village (evidently a small cluster
of houses) was taken at the first onset. The troops in the field were
scattered without an effort. Thus in a few moments the Secunderbagh
was quite isolated, and when, after an hour’s cannonading, the walls
gave way in one point, the Highlanders stormed the breach and killed
every soul in the place; 2,000 natives are said by Sir C. Campbell to
have been found dead in it.

The Shah Nujjeef was the next post — a walled inclosure prepared for
defense, with a mosque for a reduit; again one of those positions
which a commander of brave but half-disciplined troops would exactly
wish for. This place was stormed after a three hours’ cannonade had
opened the walls. On the next day, Nov. 17, the Mess-house was
attacked. This was a group of buildings inclosed by a mud rampart and
a scarped ditch twelve feet wide — in other words, a common field
redoubt with a slight ditch and a parapet of problematical thickness
and bight. For some cause or other, this place appeared rather
formidable to Gen. Campbell, for, he at once resolved to give his
artillery full time to batter it down before he stormed it. The
cannonade accordingly lasted the whole morning, till 3 o’clock p. m.,
when the infantry advanced and took the position with a rash. No sharp
fighting here, at all events. The Motee Mahal, the last post of the
Oudians on the line toward the Residency, was cannonaded for an hour;
several breaches were made and then taken without difficulty, and this
ended the fighting for the relief of the garrison.

The character of the whole engagement is that of an attack by well-
disciplined, well-officered European troops, inured to war and of
average courage, upon an Asiatic rabble, possessing neither discipline
nor officers, nor the habits of war, nor even adequate arms, and whose
courage was broken by the consciousness of the double superiority
possessed by their opponents, as soldiers over civilians and as
Europeans over Asiatics. We have seen that Sir Colin Campbell nowhere
appears to have been opposed by artillery. We shall see, further on,
that Brigadier Inglis’s report leads to the conclusion that the great
bulk of the insurgents must have been without fire-arms; and if it is
true that 2,000 natives were massacred in the Secunderbagh, it is
evident they must have been very imperfectly armed, otherwise the
greatest cowards would have defended the place against one assaulting
column.

On the other hand, the conduct of the fight by Gen. Campbell deserves
the highest praise for tactical skill. From the want of artillery in
his opponents, he must have known that his progress could not be
resisted; accordingly he used this arm to its full extent, clearing
first the way for his columns before he launched them. The attack upon
Secunderbagh and its flanking defenses is a very excellent specimen of
the mode of conducting such an affair. At the same time, having once
ascertained the despicable nature of the defense, he did not treat
such opponents with any unnecessary formality; as soon as there was a
gap in the walls, the infantry advanced. Altogether, Sir C. Campbell
ranks from the day of Lucknow as a general; hitherto he was known as a
soldier only.

By the relief of Lucknow we are at last put in possession of a
document describing the occurrences which took place during the siege
of the Residency. Brigadier Inglis, the successor in command of Sir H.
Lawrence, has made his report to the Governor-General; and, according
to Gen. Outram and the unisono of the British press, here is a
conspicuous case of heroism, indeed — for such bravery, such
perseverance, such endurance of fatigue and hardships, have never been
seen at any time, and the defense of Lucknow stands unparalleled in
the history of sieges. The report of Brigadier Inglis informs us that
on the 30th of June the British made a sortie against the natives, who
were then just concentrating, but were repulsed with such heavy loss
that they had at once to confine themselves to the defense of the
Residency, and even to abandon and blow up another group of buildings
in the vicinity, containing 240 barrels of powder and 6,000,000 musket
cartridges. The enemy at once invested the Residency, taking
possession of and fortifying the buildings in its immediate vicinity,
some within 50 yards of the defenses, and which, against the advice of
the engineers, Sir H. Lawrence had refused to raze. The British
parapets were still partly unfinished, and only two batteries were in
working order, but, in spite of the terrific and incessant fire “kept
up by” 8,000 men firing “at one time into the position,” they were
enabled to complete them very soon, and have 30 guns in battery. This
terrific fire must have been a very wild and random kind of firing,
not at all deserving the name of sharp-shooting with which Gen. Inglis
adorns it; how otherwise could a man have lived in the place, defended
as it was by perhaps 1,200 men? The instances related to show the
terrific nature of this fire, that it killed women and children, and
wounded men in places considered well sheltered, are very poor
examples, as they occur never oftener than when the enemy’s fire,
instead of being aimed at different objects, is directed toward the
fortification at large, and consequently never hits the actual
defenders. On the 1st of July Lawrence was mortally wounded, and
Inglis took the command. The enemy had by this time 20 or 25 guns in
position, “planted all round our post.” Very lucky for the defense,
for if they had concentrated their fire on one or two places of the
ramparts, the position would in all likelihood have been taken. Some
of these guns were posted in places “where our own heavy guns could
not reply to them.” Now, as the Residency is on commanding ground,
these places can only have been so situated that the guns of the
attack could not fire at the rampart, but merely at the tops. of the
buildings inside; which was very fortunate for the defense, as that
did no great harm, and the same guns might have been far more usefully
employed in firing at the parapet or barricades. Upon the whole, the
artillery on both sides must have been miserably served, as otherwise
a cannonade at such short range must have been very shortly put a stop
to by the batteries mutually dismounting each other; and that this did
not take place, is still a mystery.

On July 20, the Oudians exploded a mine under the parapet, which,
however, did no damage. Two main columns immediately advanced to an
assault, while sham attacks were attempted at other places; but the
mere effect of the garrison’s fire drove them back. On the 10th of
August another mine exploded, and opened a breach,

“through which a regiment could have advanced in perfect order. A
column charged this breach, flanked by the subordinate attacks; but at
the breach only a few of the enemy advanced with the utmost
determination.”

These few were soon disposed of by the flank fire of the garrison,
while at the flank attacks hand-grenades and a little firing drove the
undisciplined masses back. The third mine was sprung on the 18th
August; a new breach was formed, but the assault was even more
spiritless than before, and was easily repelled. The last explosion
and assault took place on the 5th September, but again hand-grenades
and musketry drove them back. From that time to the arrival of relief,
the siege appears to have been converted into a mere blockade, with a
more or less sustained fire of muskets and artillery.

This is, indeed, an extraordinary transaction. A mob of 50,000 men or
more, composed of the inhabitants of Lucknow and the surrounding
country, with perhaps 5,000 or 6,000 drilled soldiers among them,
blockade a body of some 1,200 or 1,500 Europeans in the Residency of
Lucknow and attempt to reduce them. So little order reigned among the
blockading body, that the supplies of the garrison appear never to
have been completely cut off, though their communications with
Cawnpore were. The proceedings of what is called “the siege” are
distinguished by a mixture of Asiatic ignorance and wildness, with
here and there a glimpse of some military knowledge introduced by
European example and rule. There were evidently some artillerymen and
sappers among the Oudians who knew how to construct batteries; but
their action appears to have been confined to the construction of
shelter from the enemy’s fire. They even appear to have brought this
art of sheltering themselves to great perfection, so much so that
their batteries must have been very safe, not only for the gunners but
also for the besieged; no guns could have been worked in them with any
effect. Nor were they; or how is this unparalleled fact to be
explained, that 30 guns inside and 25 outside worked against each
other at exceedingly short ranges, some not more than 50 yards, and
yet we hear nothing of dismounted guns or one party silencing the
artillery of the other? As to the musketry fire, we first have to ask
how it is possible that eight thousand natives could take position
within musket range from the British batteries without being sent to
the right about by the artillery? And if they did, how is it possible
that they did not kill and wound every soul on the place? Still we are
told that they did hold their own, and did fire day and night, and
that in spite of all this the 32d Regiment, which could at the very
outside count 500 men after June 30, and had to bear the brunt of the
whole siege, still was 300 strong at its end? If this is not an exact
counterpart of the “last surviving ten of the Fourth (Polish)
Regiment,” which marched into Prussia 88 officers and 1,815 rank and
file strong, what then is it? The British are perfectly right that
such fighting was never seen as there was at Lucknow — indeed it was
not. In spite of the unassuming, apparently simple tone of Inglis’s
report, yet his queer observation about guns placed so that they could
not he fired, at, about 8,000 men firing day and night, without
effect, about 50,000 insurgents blockading him, about the hardships of
bullets going into places where they had no business to go, and about
assaults carried out with the utmost determination, yet repulsed,
without any effort — all these observations compel us to acknowledge
the whole of this report is full of the most glaring exaggerations,
and will not stand cool criticism for a moment.

But then surely the besieged underwent uncommon hardships? Listen.

“The want of native servants has also been a source of much privation.
Several ladies have had to tend their children, and even to wash their
own clothes as well as to cook their scanty meals entirely unaided.”

Pity the sorrows of a poor Lucknow lady! True, in these times of ups
and downs, when dynasties are made and unmade in a day, and
revolutions and commercial crashes combine to render the permanency of
all creature comforts most splendidly insecure, we are not called upon
to show any great sympathy if we hear of some ex-queen having to darn
her own stockings, and even to wash them, not to speak of her cooking
her own mutton-chop. But an Anglo-Indian lady, one of that vast number
of sisters, cousins, or nieces to half-pay officers, Indian Government
writers, merchants, clerks, or adventurers, who are, or rather were,
before the mutiny, sent out every year, fresh from the boarding-
school, to the large marriage-market in India, neither more nor less
ceremoniously, and often far less willingly, than the fair Circassians
that go to the Constantinople market — the very idea of one of these
ladies having to wash her own clothes and cook her scanty meals
entirely unaided — entirely! One’s blood boils at it. Completely
without “native servants” — ay, having actually to tend their own
children! It is revolting – Cawnpore would have been preferable!

The rabble investing the Residency may have counted 50,000 men; but
then the large majority cannot have had any firearms. The 8,000 “sharp-
shooters” may have had firearms; but of what description both arms and
men were, the effect of their fire is there to tell. The twenty-five
guns in the battery have been proved to have been most despicably
served. The mining was as much at random as the firing. The assaults
do not deserve the name even of reconnaissances. So much for the
besiegers.

The besieged deserve full credit for the great strength of character
with which they have held out for nearly five months, the greater
portion of which time they were without any news whatever from the
British forces. They fought, and hoped against hope, as it behooves
men to do when they have their lives to sell as dearly as they can,
and women and children to defend against Asiatic cruelty. Again, full
credit do we give them for their watchfulness and perseverance. But,
after the experiences of Wheeler’s surrender at Cawnpore, who would
not have done the same?

As to the attempt to turn the defense of Lucknow into a piece of
unparalleled heroism, it is ridiculous, especially after the clumsy
report of Gen. Inglis. The privations of the garrison were confined to
scanty shelter and exposure to the weather (which, however, did not
produce any serious disease), and as to provisions, the very worst
they had consisted in “coarse beef and still coarser flour!” fat. more
comfortable fare than besieged soldiers are accustomed to in Europe!
Compare the defense of Lucknow against a stupid and ignorant barbarian
rabble with that of Antwerp, 1832, and the Fort of MaIghera near
Venice, in 1848 and ’49, not to speak of Todtleben at Sevastopol, who
had far greater difficulties to contend with than Gen. Inglis.
MaIghera was attacked by the best engineers and artillerymen of
Austria, and defended by a weak garrison of raw levies; four-fifths of
them had no bomb-proof shelter; the low soil created malaria more
dangerous than an Indian climate; a hundred guns played upon them, and
during the last three days of the bombardment, forty rounds were fired
every minute; still the fort held out a month, and would have held out
longer, if the Austrians had not taken hold of a position
necessitating their retreat. Or take Dantzig, where Rapp, with the sic
k remnants of the French regiments returned from Russia, held out
eleven months. Take in fact any respectable siege of modern days, and
you will find that more skill, more spirit, and quite as much pluck
and endurance were shown against quite as great odds as in this
Lucknow affair.

The Oude insurgents, however, though contemptible in the field,
proved, immediately after the arrival of Campbell, the strength of a
national insurrection. Campbell saw at once that lie could neither
attack the City of Lucknow with his forces, nor hold his own. This is
quite natural, and will appear so to any one who has attentively read
the French invasion of Spain under Napoleon. The strength of a
national insurrection does not lie lit pitched battles, but in petty
warfare, in the defense of towns, and in the interruption of the
enemy’s communications. Campbell accordingly prepared for the retreat
with the same skill with which he had arranged the attack A few more
positions about the Residency were carried. They served to deceive the
enemy as to Campbell’s intentions, and to cover the arrangements for
the retreat. With a daring perfectly justified in front of such an
opponent, the whole army, a small reserve excepted, was employed to
occupy an extensive line of outposts and pickets, behind which the
women, the sick and wounded, and the baggage were evacuated. As soon
as this preliminary operation was performed the outlying pickets fell
back, concentrating gradually into more solid masses, the foremost of
which then retreated through the next line, again to form as a reserve
to the rear. Without being attacked, the whole of this maneuver was
carried out with perfect order; with the exception of Outram and a
small garrison left at Alumbagh (for what purposes we do not at
present see), the whole army marched to Cawnpore, thus evacuating the
Kingdom of Oude.

In the mean time unpleasant events had taken place at Cawnpore.
Windham, the “hero of the Redan,” another of those officers of whose
skill we are told that they have proved it by being very brave, had on
the 26th defeated the advanced guard of the Gwalior contingent, but on
the 27th he had been severely beaten by them, his camp taken and
burned, and he himself compelled to retreat into Wheeler’s old
intrenchment at Cawnpore. On the 28th they attacked this post, but
were repulsed, and on the 6th Campbell defeated them with scarcely any
loss, taking all their guns and train, and pursuing them for fourteen
miles. The details of all these affairs are so far but scanty; but
this much is certain, that the Indian Rebellion is as yet far from
being quelled, and that, although most or all British re-enforcements
have now landed, yet they disappear in an almost unaccountable manner.
Some 20,000 men have landed in Bengal, and still the active army is no
larger than when Delhi was taken. There is something wrong here. The
climate must make terrible havoc among the newcomers.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1858/02/01.htm

Karl Marx in the New-York Tribune 1858

The Approaching Indian Loan

Source: New-York Daily Tribune, February 9, 1858;
Transcribed: by Tony Brown.

London, Jan. 22, 1858

The buoyancy in the London money market, resulting from the withdrawal
of an enormous mass of capital from the ordinary productive
investments, and its consequent transfer to the security markets, has,
in the last fortnight, been somewhat lessened by the prospects of an
impending Indian loan to the amount of eight or ten million pounds
sterling. This loan, to be raised in England, and to be authorized by
Parliament immediately on its assembling in February, is required to
meet the claims upon the East India Company by its home creditors, as
well as the extra expenditure for war materials, stores, transport of
troops, &c., necessitated by the Indian revolt. In August 1857, the
British Government had, before the prorogation of Parliament, solemnly
declared in the House of Commons. that no such loan was intended, the
financial resources of the Company being more than sufficient to meet
the crisis. The agreeable delusion thus palmed on John Bull was,
however, soon dispelled when it oozed out that by a proceeding of a
very questionable character, the East India Company had laid hold on a
sum of about £3,500,000 sterling, intrusted to them by different
companies, for the construction of Indian railways; and had, moreover,
secretly borrowed £1,000,000 sterling from the Bank of England, and
another million from the London joint Stock banks. The public being
thus prepared for the worst, the Government did no longer hesitate to
drop the mask, and by semi-official articles in The Times, Globe, and
other governmental organs, avow the necessity of the loan.

It may be asked why a special act on the part of the legislative power
is required for launching such a loan, and then, why such an event
does create the least apprehension, since, on the contrary, every vent
for British capital, seeking now in vain for profitable investment,
should, under present circumstances be considered a windfall, and a
most salutary, check upon the rapid depreciation of capital.

It is generally known that the commercial existence of the East India
Company was terminated in 1834, when its principal remaining source of
commercial profits, the monopoly of the China trade, was cut off.
Consequently, the holders of East India stock having derived their
dividends, nominally, at least, from the trade-profits of the Company,
a new financial arrangement with regard to them had become necessary.
The payment of the dividends, till then chargeable upon the commercial
revenue of the Company, was transferred to its political revenue. The
proprietors of East India stocks were to be paid out of the revenues
enjoyed by the East India Company in its governmental capacity, and,
by act of Parliament, the Indian stock, amounting to £6,000,000
sterling, bearing ten per cent interest, was converted into a capital
not to be liquidated except at the rate of £200 for every £100 of
stock. In other words, the original East India stock of £6,000,000
sterling was converted into a capital of £12,000,000 sterling, bearing
five per cent interest, and chargeable upon the revenue derived from
the taxes of the Indian people. The debt of the East India Company was
thus, by a Parliamentary sleight of hand, changed into a debt of the
Indian people. There exists, besides, a debt exceeding £50,000,000
sterling, contracted by the East India Company in India, and
exclusively chargeable upon the Stale revenues of that country; such
loans contracted by the Company in India itself having always been
considered to lay beyond the district of Parliamentary legislation,
and regarded no more than the debts contracted by the Colonial
Government, in Canada or Australia for instance.

On the other hand, the East India Company was prohibited from
contracting interest-bearing debts in Great Britain herself, without
the especial sanction of Parliament. Some years ago, when the Company
set about establishing railways and electric telegraphs in India, it
applied for the authorization of Indian Bonds m the London market,
request which was granted to the amount of £7,000,000 sterling to be
issued in Bonds bearing 4 per cent interest, and secured only on the
Indian State revenues At the commencement of the outbreak in India,
this bond-debt stood at £3,894,400 sterling, and the very necessity of
again applying to Parliament shows the East India Company to have,
during the course of the Indian insurrection, exhausted its legal
powers of borrowing at home.

Now it is no secret that before recurring to this step, the East India
Company had opened a loan at Calcutta, which, however, turned out a
complete failure. This proves, on the one hand, that Indian
capitalists are far from considering the prospects of British
supremacy in India in the same sanguine spirit which distinguishes the
London press; and, on the other hand, exacerbates the feelings of John
Bull to an uncommon pitch, since he is aware of the immense hoardings
of capital having gone on for the last seven years in India, whither,
according to a statement recently published by Messrs. Haggard &
Paxley, there has been shipped in 1856 and 1857, from the port of
London alone, bullion to the amount of £21,000,000. The London Times,
in a most persuasive strain, has taught its readers that

“of all the incentives to the loyalty (if the natives, that of making
them out creditors was the least doubtful; while, on the other hand
among an impulsive secretive and avaricious people no temptation to
discontent or treachery could be stronger than that created by the
idea that they were annually taxed to send dividends to wealthy
claimants in other countries.”

The Indians, however, appear not to understand the beauty of a plan
which would not only restore English supremacy at the expense of
Indian capital, but at the same time, in a circuitous way, open the
native hoards to British commerce. If, indeed, the Indian capitalists
were as fond of British rule as every true Englishman thinks. it an
article of faith to assert, no better opportunity could have been
afforded them of exhibiting their loyalty and getting rid of their
silver. The Indian capitalists shutting up their hoards, John Bull
must open, his mind to the dire necessity of defraying himself in the
first instance, at least, the expenses of the Indian insurrection,
without any support on the part of the natives. The impending loan
constitutes, moreover, a precedent only, and looks like the first leaf
in a book, bearing the title Anglo-Indian Home Debt. It is no secret
that what the East India Company wants are not eight millions, or ten
millions, but twenty-five to thirty millions pounds, and even these as
a first installment only, not for expenses to be incurred, but for
debts already due. The deficient revenue for the last three years
amounted to £5,000,000; the treasure plundered by the insurgents up to
the 15th October last, to £10,000,000, according to the statement of
the Phoenix, an Indian governmental paper; the loss of revenue in the
North-eastern provinces, consequent upon the rebellion, to £5,000,000,
and the war expenses to at least £10,000,000.

It is true that successive loans by the Indian Company, in the London
Money Market, would raise the value of money and prevent the
increasing depreciation of capital; that is to say, the further fall
in the rate of interest; but such a fall is exactly required for the
revival of British industry and commerce. Any artificial check put
upon the downward movement of the rate of discount is equivalent to an
enhancement in the cost of production and the terms of credit, which,
in its present weak state, English trade feels itself unable to bear.
Hence the general cry of distress at the announcement of the Indian
loan. Though the Parliamentary sanction adds no imperial guarantee to
the loan of the Company, that guarantee, too, must be conceded, if
money is not to be obtained on other terms; and despite all fine
distinctions, as soon as the East India Company is supplanted by the
British Government its debt will be merged into the British debt. A
further increase of the large national debt seems, therefore, one of
the first financial consequences of the Indian Revolt.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1858/02/09.htm

Sid Harth

unread,
Feb 7, 2010, 2:09:25 PM2/7/10
to
Frederick Engels in the New-York Tribune 1858

Windham’s Defeat

Source: New-York Daily Tribune, February 20, 1858;
Transcribed: by Tony Brown.

While during the Crimean war all England was calling for a man capable
of organizing and leading her armies, and while incapables like
Raglan, Simpson and Codrington were intrusted with the office, there
was a soldier in the Crimea endowed with the qualities required in a
general. We mean Sir Colin Campbell, who is now daily showing in India
that he understands his profession with a master’s mind. In the
Crimea, after having been allowed to lead his brigade at the Alma
where from the rigid line-tactics of the British army, he had no
chance to show his capacities, he was cooped up in Balaklava and never
once allowed to participate in the succeeding operations. And yet, his
military talents had been clearly established in India long before, by
no less an authority than the greatest general England has produced
since Marlborough, by Sir Charles James Napier. But Napier was an
independent man, too proud to stoop to the reigning oligarchy — and
his recommendation was enough to make Campbell marked and distrusted.

Other men, however, gained distinctions and honors in that war. There
was Sir William Fenwick Williams of Kars, who now finds it convenient
to rest on the laurels acquired by impudence, self-puffing, and by
defrauding Gen. Kmetty of his well-earned fame. A baronetcy, a
thousand a year, a comfortable berth at Woolwich, and a seat in
Parliament, are quite sufficient to prevent him risking his reputation
in India. Unlike him, “the hero of the Redan,” Gen. Windham, has set
out to command a division against the Sepoys, and his very first act
has settled him forever. This same Windham, an obscure colonel of good
family connections, commanded a brigade at the assault of the Redan,
during which operation he behaved extremely phlegmatically, and at
last, no re-enforcement arriving, twice left his troops to shift for
themselves, while he went to inquire about them himself. For this very
questionable act, which in other services would have been inquired
into by a court-martial, he was forthwith made a General, and shortly
afterward called to the post of Chief of the Staff.

When Colin Campbell advanced to Lucknow, he left the old
intrenchments, the camp and the town of Cawnpore, together with the
bridge over the Ganges, in charge of General Windham and a force
sufficient for the purpose. There were five regiments of infantry,
whole or in part, many guns of position, 10 field guns and two naval
guns, beside 100 horse; the whole force above 2,000. While Campbell
was engaged at Lucknow, the various bodies of rebels hovering about
the Doab drew together for an attack on Cawnpore. Beside a
miscellaneous rabble, collected by insurgent Zemindars, the attacking
force counted of drilled troops (disciplined they cannot be called),
the remainder of the Dinapore Sepoys and a portion of the Gwalior
contingent. These latter were the only insurgent troops, the formation
of which can be said to go beyond that of companies, as they had been
officered by natives almost exclusively, and thus, with their field-
officers and captains, retained something like organized battalions.
They were consequently regarded with some respect by the British.
Windharn had strict orders to remain on the defensive, but getting no
replies to his dispatches from Campbell, the communication being
interrupted, he resolved to act on his own responsibility. On the 26th
November, he advanced with 1,200 infantry, 100 horse and 8 guns to
meet the advancing insurgents. Having easily defeated their vanguard,
he saw the main column approaching and retired close to Cawnpore. Here
he took up a position in front of the town, the 34th Regiment on the
left, the Rifles (5 companies) and two companies of the 82d on the
right. The line of retreat lay through the town, and there were some
brick-kilns in rear of the left. Within four hundred yards from the
front, and on various points still nearer to the flanks, were woods,
and jungle, offering excellent shelter to the advancing enemy. In
fact, a worse position could not well have been chosen — the British
exposed in the open plain, while the Indians could approach under
shelter to within three or four hundred yards! To bring out Windham’s
“heroism” in a still stronger light, there was a very decent position
close by, with a plain in front and rear, and with the canal as an
obstacle before the front; but, of course, the worse position was
insisted on. On the 27th November, the enemy opened a cannonade,
bringing up his guns to the edge of the cover afforded by the jungle.
Windham, who, with the modesty inherent in a hero, calls this a
“bombardment,” says his troops stood it for five hours; but after this
time, there happened some things which neither Windham, nor any man
present, nor any Indian or British newspaper, has as yet dared to
relate. From the moment the cannonade was turned into a battle, all
our direct sources of information cease, and we are left to draw our
own conclusions from the hesitating, prevaricating and incomplete
evidence before us. Windham confines himself to the following
incoherent statement.

“In spite of the heavy bombardment of the enemy, my troops resisted
the attack [rather novel to call a cannonade against field-troops an
attack] for five hours, and still held the ground, until I found from
the number of men bayoneted by the 88th, that the mutineers had fully
penetrated the town; having been told that they were attacking the
fort, I directed Gen. Dupuis to fall back. The whole force retired
into the fort, with all our stores and guns, shortly before dark.
Owing to the flight of the camp-followers, I was unable to carry off
my camp equipage and some of the baggage. Had not an error occurred in
the conveyance of an order issued by me, I am of opinion that I could
have held my ground, at all events until dark.”

Gen. Windham, with that instinct shown already at the Redan, moves off
to the reserve (the 88th occupying the town, as we must conclude), and
finds, not the enemy alive and fighting, but a great number of the
enemy bayoneted by, the 88th. This fact leads him to the conclusion
that the enemy (he does not say whether dead or alive) has fully
penetrated the town! Alarming as this conclusion is both to the reader
and to himself our hero does not stop here. He is told that the fort
is attacked. A common general would have inquired into the truth of
this story, which of course turned out to be false. Not so Windham. He
orders a retreat, though his troops could have held the position at
least until dark, had not an error been committed in the conveyance of
one of Windham’s orders!

Thus, first you have Windham’s heroic conclusion, that where there are
many dead Sepoys there must be many live ones; secondly, the false
alarm respecting the attack on the fort; and thirdly, the error
committed in the conveyance of an order; all of which mishaps combined
made it possible tor a very numerous rabble of natives to defeat the
hero of the Redan and to beat the indomitable British pluck of his
soldiers.

Another reporter, an officer present, says:

“I do not believe any one can accurately describe the fight and
retreat of this forenoon. A retreat was ordered. Her Majesty’s 34th
foot being directed to fall back behind the brick kiln, neither
officers nor men knew where to find it! The news flew rapidly about
the cantonments that our force was worsted and on the retreat, and an
overwhelming rush was made at the inner intrenchments, as resistless
as the mass of water at the Falls of Niagara. Soldiers and jacks,
Europeans and natives, men, women and children, horses, camels and
oxen, poured in in countless numbers from 2 p. m. By nightfall the
intrenched camp, with its motley assemblage of men and beasts,
baggage, luggage, and ten thousand nondescript incumbrances, rivaled
the chaos that existed before the fiat of creation went forth.”

Finally, The Times’s Calcutta correspondent states that evidently the
British suffered on the 27th “what almost amounts to a repulse,” but
that from patriotic motives the Anglo-Indian press covers the disgrace
with the impenetrable vail of charity. Thus much, however, is also
admitted, that one of Her Majesty’s regiments, composed mostly of
recruits, one moment got into disorder, without however giving way,
and that at the fort the confusion was extreme, Windham having lost
all control over his men, until in the evening of the 28th Campbell
arrived and “with a few haughty words” brought everybody to his place
again.

Now, what are the evident conclusions from all these confused and
prevaricating statements? No other than that, under the incapable
direction of Windham, the British troops were completely, though quite
unnecessarily defeated; that when the retreat was ordered, the
officers of the 34th Regiment, who had not even taken the trouble to
get in any way acquainted with the ground they had fought on, could
not find the place they were ordered to retreat to; that the regiment
got into disorder and finally fled; that this led to a panic in the
camp, which broke down all the bounds of order and discipline, and
occasioned the loss of the camp equipage and part of the baggage; that
finally, in spite of Windham’s assertion about the stores, 15,000
Minié cartridges, the Paymaster’s chests, and the shoes and clothing
for many regiments and new levies, fell into the hands of the enemy.

English infantry, when in line or column, seldom run away. In common
with the Russians, they have a natural cohesion which generally
belongs to old soldiers only, and which is in part explained by the
considerable admixture of old soldiers in both services, but it in
part also evidently belongs to national character. This quality, which
has nothing whatever to do with “pluck,” but is on the contrary rather
a peculiar development of the instinct of self-preservation, is still
very valuable, especially in defensive positions. It also, in common
with the phlegmatic nature of Englishmen, prevents panic; but it is to
be remarked that when Irish troops are once disordered and brought to
panic, they are not easy to rally. Thus it happened to Windham on Nov.
27. He will figure henceforth among that not very large but
distinguished list of English generals who have succeeded in making
their troops run away under a panic.

On the 28th the Gwalior contingent were re-enforced by a considerable
body from Bithoor, and closed up to within four hundred yards of the
British intrenched outposts. There was another engagement, conducted
on the part of the assailants without any vigor whatever. During it an
example of real pluck occurred on the part of the soldiers and
officers of the 64th, which we are glad to relate, although the
exploit itself was as foolish as the renowned Balaklava charge. The
responsibility of it, too, is shifted upon a dead man – Col. Wilson of
that regiment. It appears that Wilson advanced with one hundred and
eighty men against four guns of the enemy, defended by far superior
numbers. We are not told who they were; but the result leads to the
conclusion that they were of the Gwalior troops. The British took the
guns with a rush, spiked three of them, and held out for some time,
when, no re-enforcement arriving, they had to retreat, leaving sixty
men and most of their officers on the ground. The proof of the hard
fighting is in the loss. Here we have a small force, which, from the
loss they suffered, must have been pretty well met, holding a battery
till one-third of their numbers are down. This is hard fighting
indeed, and the first instance of it we have since the storming of
Delhi. The man who planned this advance, however, deserves to be tried
by court-martial and shot. Windham says it was Wilson. He fell in it,
and cannot reply.

In the evening the whole British force was pent up in the fort, where
disorder continued to reign, and the position with the bridge was in
evident danger. But then Campbell arrived. He restored order, drew
over fresh troops in the morning, and so far repelled the enemy as to
secure the bridge and fort. Then he made all his wounded, women,
children and baggage cross, and held a defensive position until all
these had a fair start on the road to Allahabad. As soon as this was
accomplished, he attacked the Sepoys on the 6th, and defeated them,
his cavalry and artillery following them up for fourteen miles the
same day. That there was little resistance offered is shown from
Campbell’s report; he merely describes the advance of his own troops,
never mentioning any resistance or maneuvers on the part of the enemy;
there was no check, and it was not a battle, but a battue. Brigadier
Hope Grant, with a light division, followed the fugitives, and caught
them on the 8th in the act of passing a river; thus brought to bay,
they turned round and suffered severe loss. With this event Campbell’s
first campaign, that of Lucknow and Cawnpore, is brought to a close,
and a fresh series of operations must begin, whose first developments
we may expect to hear of within a fortnight or three weeks.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1858/02/20.htm

Frederick Engels in the New-York Tribune 1857

The Fall of Lucknow

Source: New-York Daily Tribune, April 30, 1858;
Transcribed: by Tony Brown.

The second critical period of the Indian insurrection has been brought
to a close. The first found its center in Delhi, and was ended by the
storming of that city; the second centered in Lucknow, and that place,
too, has now fallen. Unless fresh insurrections break out in places
hitherto quiet, the revolt must now gradually subside into its
concluding, chronic period, during which the insurgents will finally
take the character of dacoits or robbers, and find the inhabitants of
the country as much their enemies as the British themselves.

The details of the storming of Lucknow are not yet received, but the
preliminary operations and the outlines of the final engagements are
known. Our readers recollect a that after the relief of the residency
of Lucknow, Gen. Campbell blew up that post, but left Gen. Outram with
about 5,000 men in the Alumbagh, an intrenched position a few miles
from the city. He, himself, with the remainder of his troops, marched
back to Cawnpore, where Gen. Windham had been defeated by a body of
rebels; these he completely beat, and drove them across the Jumma at
Calpee. He then awaited at Cawnpore the arrival of re-enforcements and
the heavy guns, arranged his plans of attack, gave orders for the
concentration of the various columns destined to advance into Oude,
and especially turned Cawnpore into an intrenched camp of strength and
proportions requisite for the immediate and principal base of
operations against Lucknow. When all this was completed, he had
another task to perform before he thought it safe to move – a task the
attempting of which at once distinguishes him from almost all
preceding Indian commanders. He would have no women loitering about
the camp. He had had quite enough of the “heroines” at Lucknow, and on
the march to Cawnpore; they had considered it quite natural that the
movements of the army, as had always been the case in India, should be
subordinate to their fancies and their comfort. No sooner had Campbell
reached Cawnpore than he sent the whole interesting and troublesome
community to Allahabad, out of his way; and immediately sent for the
second batch of ladies, then at Agra. Not before they had reached
Cawnpore, and not before he had seen them safely off to Allahabad, did
he follow his advancing troops toward Lucknow.

The arrangements made for this campaign of Oude were on a scale
hitherto unprecedented in India. In the greatest expedition ever
undertaken by the British there, the invasion of Afghanistan, 534 the
troops employed never exceeded 20,000 at a time, and of these the
great majority were natives. In this campaign of Oude, the number of
Europeans alone exceeded that of all the troops sent into Afghanistan.
The main army, led by Sir Colin Campbell personally, consisted of
three divisions of infantry, one of cavalry, and one of artillery and
engineers. The first division of infantry, under Outram, held the
Alumbagh. It consisted of five European and one native regiment. The
second (four European and one native regiment) and third (five
European and one native regiment), the cavalry division under Sir Hope
Grant (three European and four or five native regiments) and the mass
of the artillery (forty-eight field-guns, siege trains and engineers),
formed Campbell’s active force, with which he advanced on the road
from Cawnpore. A brigade concentrated under Brigadier Franks at
Juanpore and Azimghur, between the Goomtee and the Ganges, was to
advance along the course of the former river to Lucknow. This brigade
numbered three European regiments and two batteries, beside native
troops, and was to form Campbell’s right wing. Including it,
Campbell’s force in all amounted to —

Infantry. Cavalry. Artillery and Eng’rs. Total.
Europeans 15,000 2,000 3,000 20,000
Natives 5,000 3,000 2,000 10,000

or in all 30,000 men; to whom must be added the 10,000 Nepaulese
Ghoorkas advancing under Jung Bahadoor from Goruckpore on Sultanpore,
making the total of the invading army 40,000 men, almost all regular
troops. But this is not all. On the south of Cawnpore, Sir H. Rose was
advancing with a strong column from Saugor upon Calpee and the lower
Jumna, there to intercept any fugitives that might escape between the
two columns of Franks and Campbell. On the north-west, Brigadier
Chamberlain crossed toward the end of February the upper Ganges,
entering the Rohilcund, situated north-north-west of Oude, and, as was
correctly anticipated, the chief point of retreat of the insurgent
army. The garrisons of the towns surrounding Oude must also be
included in the force directly or indirectly employed against that
kingdom, so that the whole of this force is certainly from 70,000 to
80,000 combatants, of which, according to the official statements, at
least 28,000 are British. In this is not included the mass of Sir John
Lawrence’s force, which occupies at Delhi a sort of flank position,
and which consists of 5,500 Europeans at Meerut and Delhi, and some
20,000 or 30,000 natives of the Punjaub.

The concentration of this immense force is the result partly of Gen.
Campbell’s combinations, but partly also of the suppression of the
revolt in various parts of Hindostan, in consequence of which the
troops naturally concentrated toward the scene of action. No doubt
Campbell would have ventured to act with a smaller force; but while he
was waiting for this, fresh resources were thrown, by circumstances,
on his hands; and he was not the man to refuse to avail himself of
them, even against so contemptible an enemy as he knew he would meet
at Lucknow. And it must not be forgotten that, imposing as these
numbers look, they still were spread over a space as large as France;
and that at the decisive point at Lucknow he could only appear with
about 20,000 Europeans, 10,000 Hindoos, and 10,000 Ghoorkas — the
value of the last, under native command, being at least doubtful. This
force, in its European components alone, was certainly more than
enough to insure a speedy victory, but still its strength was not out
of proportion to its task; and very likely Campbell desired to show
the Oudians, for once, a more formidable army of white faces than any
people in India had ever seen before, as a sequal to an insurrection
which had been based on the small number and wide dispersion of the
Europeans over the country.

The force in Oude consisted of the remnants of most of the mutinous
Bengal regiments and of native levies from the country itself. Of the
former, there cannot have been more than 35,000 or 40,000 at the very
outside. The sword, desertion and demoralization must have reduced
this force, originally 80,060 strong, at least one half; and what was
left was disorganized, disheartened, badly appointed, and totally
unfit to take the field. The new levies are variously stated at from
100,000 to 150,000 men; but what their numbers may have been is
unimportant. Their arms were but in part firearms, of inferior
construction; most of them carried arms for close encounter only – the
kind of fighting they were least likely to meet with. The greater part
of this force was at Lucknow, engaging Sir J. Outram’s troops; but two
columns were acting in the direction of Allahabad and Juanpore.

The concentric movement upon Lucknow began about the middle of
February. From the 15th to the 26th the main army and its immense
train (60,000 camp followers alone) marched from Cawnpore upon the
capital of Oude, meeting with no resistance. The enemy, in the mean
time, attacked Outram’s position, without a chance of success. on
February 21 and 24. On the 19th Franks advanced upon Sultanpore,
defeated both columns of the insurgents in one day, and pursued them
as well as the want of cavalry permitted. The two defeated columns
having united, he beat them again on the 23d, with the loss of 20 guns
and all their camp and baggage. Gen. Hope Grant, commanding the
advanced guard of the main army, had also, during its forced march,
detached himself from it, and making a point to the left had, on the
23d and 24th, destroyed two forts on the road from Lucknow to
Rohilcund.

On March 2 the main army was concentrated before the southern side of
Lucknow. This side is protected by the canal, which had to be passed
by Campbell in his previous attack on the city; behind this canal
strong intrenchments had been thrown up. On the 3d, the British
occupied the Dilkhoosha Park, with the storming of which the first
attack also had commenced. On the 4th, Brig. Franks joined the main
army, and now formed its right flank, his right supported by the River
Goomtee. Meantime, batteries against the enemy’s intrenchments were
erected, and two floating bridges were constructed, below the town,
across the Goomtee; and as soon as these were ready. Sir J. Outram,
with his division of infantry, 1,400 horse, and 30 guns, moved across
to take position on the left or north-eastern bank. From here he could
enfilade a great part of the enemy’s line along the canal, and many of
the intrenched palaces to its rear; he also cut off the enemy’s
communications with the whole north-eastern part of Oude. He met with
considerable resistance on the 6th and 7th, but drove the enemy before
him. On the 8th, he was again attacked, but with no better success. In
the mean time, the batteries on the right bank had opened their fire;
Outram’s batteries, along the river-bank, took the position of the
insurgents in flank and rear; and on the 9th the 2d division, under
Sir E. Lugard, stormed the Martinière, which, as our readers may
recollect, is a college and park situated on the south side of the
canal, at its junction with the Goomtee, and opposite the Dilkhoosha.
On the 10th, the Bank-House was breached and stormed, Outram advancing
further up the river, and enfilading with his guns every successive
position of the insurgents. On the 11th, two Highland regiments (42d
and 93d) stormed the Queen’s Palace, and Outram attacked and carried
the stone-bridges leading from the left bank of the river into the
town. He then passed his troops across and joined in the attack
against the next building in front. On March 13, another fortified
building, the Imambarrah, was attacked, a sap being resorted to in
order to construct the batteries under shelter; and on the following
day, the breach being completed, this building was stormed. The enemy,
flying to the Kaiserbagh or King’s Palace, was so hotly pursued that
the British entered the place at the heels of the fugitives. A violent
struggle ensued, but by 3 o’clock in the afternoon the palace was in
the possession of the British. This seems to have brought matters to a
crisis; at least, all spirit of resistance seems to have ceased, and
Campbell at once took measures for the pursuit and interception of the
fugitives. Brigadier Campbell, with one brigade of cavalry and some
horse artillery, was sent to pursue them, while Grant took the other
brigade round to Seetapore, on the road from Lucknow to Rohilcund, in
order to intercept them. While thus the portion of the garrison which
took to flight was provided for, the infantry and artillery advanced
further into the city, to clear it from those who still held out. From
the 15th to the 19th, the fighting must have been mainly in the narrow
streets of the town, the line of palaces and parks along the river
having been previously carried; but on the 19th, the whole of the town
was in Campbell’s possession. About 50,000 insurgents are said to have
fled, partly to Rohilcund, partly toward the Doab and Bundelcund. In
this latter direction they had a chance of escaping, as Gen. Rose,
with his column, was still sixty miles at least from the Jumna, and
was said to have 30,000 insurgents in front of him. In the direction
of Rohilcund there was also a chance of their being able to
concentrate again; Campbell would not be in a position to follow them
very fast, while of the whereabouts of Chamberl ain we know nothing,
and the province is large enough to afford them shelter for a short
time. The next feature of the insurrection, therefore, will most
likely be the formation of two insurgent armies in Bundelcund and
Rohilcund, the latter of which, however, may soon be destroyed by
concentric marches of the Lucknow and Delhi armies.

The operations of Sir C. Campbell in this campaign, as far as we can
now judge, were characterized by his usual prudence and vigor. The
dispositions for his concentric march on Lucknow were excellent, and
the arrangements for the attack appear to have taken advantage of
every circumstance. The conduct of the insurgents, on the other hand,
was as contemptible, if not more so, than before. The sight of the
redcoats struck them everywhere with panic. Franks’s column defeated
twenty times its numbers, with scarcely a man lost; and though the
telegrams talk of “stout resistance” and “hard fighting,” as usual,
the losses of the British appear, where they are mentioned, so
ridiculously small that we fear there was no more heroism needed and
no more laurels to be gathered this time at Lucknow than when the
British got there before.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1858/04/30.htm

Frederick Engels in the New-York Tribune 1858

Details of the Attack on Lucknow

Source: New-York Daily Tribune, May 25, 1858;
Transcribed: by Tony Brown.

At last we are in possession of detailed accounts of the attack and
fall of Lucknow. The principal sources of information, in a military
point of view, the dispatches of Sir Colin Campbell, have not yet,
indeed, been published; but the correspondence of the British press,
and especially the letters of Mr. Russell in The London Times, the
chief portions of which have been laid before our readers, are quite
sufficient to give a general insight into the proceedings of the
attacking party.

The conclusions we drew from the telegraphic news, as to the ignorance
and cowardice displayed in the defense, are more than confirmed by the
detailed accounts. The works erected by the Hindoos, formidable in
appearance, were in reality of no greater consequence than the fiery
dragons and grimacing faces painted by Chinese “braves” on their
shields or on the walls of their cities. Every single work exhibited
an apparently impregnable front, nothing but loopholed and embrasured
walls and parapets, difficulties of access of every possible
description, cannon and small-arms bristling everywhere. But the
flanks and rear of every position were completely neglected, a mutual
support of the various works was never thought of, and even the ground
between the works, as well as in front of them, had never been
cleared, so that both front and flank attacks could be prepared
without the knowledge of the defense, and could approach under perfect
shelter to within a few yards from the parapet. It was just such a
conglomerate of intrenchments as might be expected from a body of
private sappers deprived of their officers, and serving in an army
where ignorance and indiscipline reigned supreme. The intrenchments of
Lucknow are but a translation of the whole method of Sepoy warfare
into baked clay walls and earthen parapets. The mechanical portion of
European tactics had been partially impressed upon their minds; they
knew the manual and platoon drill well enough; they could also build a
battery and loophole a wall; but how to combine the movements of
companies and battalions in the defense of a position, or how to
combine batteries and loopholed houses and walls, so as to form an
intrenched camp capable of resistance — of this they were utterly
ignorant. Thus, they weakened the solid masonry walls of their palaces
by over-loopholing them, heaped tier upon tier of loopholes and
embrasures, placed parapeted batteries on their roofs, and all this to
no purpose whatever, because it could all be turned in the easiest
possible manner. In the same way, knowing their tactical inferiority,
they tried to make up for it by cramming every post as full of men as
possible, to no other purpose than to give terrible effect to the
British artillery and to render impossible all orderly and systematic
defense as soon as the attacking columns fell upon this motley host
from an unexpected direction. And when the British, by some accidental
circumstance, were compelled to attack even the formidable front of
the works, their construction was so faulty that they could be
approached, breached and stormed almost without any risk. At the
Imambarrah this was the case. Within a few yards from the building
stood a pucka (sun-baked clay) wall. Up to this the British made a
short sap (proof enough that the embrasures and loopholes on the
higher part of the building had no plunging fire upon the ground
immediately in front), and used this very wall as a breaching battery,
prepared for them by the Hindoos themselves! They brought up two 68-
pounders (naval guns) behind this wall. The lightest 68-pounder in the
British service weighs 87 cwt., without the carriage; but supposing
even that an 8-inch gun for hollow shot only is alluded to, the
lightest gun of that class weighs 50 cwt., and with the carriage at
least three tuns. That such guns could be brought up at all in such
proximity to a palace several stories high, with a battery on the
roof, shows a contempt of commanding positions and an ignorance of
military engineering which no private sapper in any civilized army
could be capable of.

Thus much for the science against which the British had to contend. As
to courage and obstinacy, they were equally absent from the defense.
From the Martinière to the Mousabagh, on the part of the natives,
there was but one grand and unanimous act of bolting, as soon as a
column advanced to the attack. There is nothing in the whole series of
engagements that can compare even with the massacre (for fight it can
scarcely be called) in the Secunderbagh during Campbell’s relief of
the Residency. No sooner do the attacking parties advance, than there
is a general helter-skelter to the rear, and where there are but a few
narrow exits so as to bring the crowded rabble to a stop, they fall
pell-mell, and without any resistance, under the volleys and bayonets
of the advancing British. The “British bayonet” has done more
execution in any one of these onslaughts on panic-stricken natives
than in all the wars of the English in Europe and America put
together. In the East, such bayonet-battles, where one party is active
and the other abjectly passive, are a regular occurrence in warfare;
the Burmese stockades in every case furnished an example. According to
Mr. Russell’s account, the chief loss suffered by the British was
caused by Hindoos cut off from retreat, and barricaded in the rooms of
the palaces, whence they fired from the windows upon the officers in
the court-yards and gardens.

In storming the Imambarra and the Kaiserbagh, the bolting of the
Hindoos was so rapid, that the place was not taken, but simply marched
into. The interesting scene, however, was now only commencing; for, as
Mr. Russell blandly observes, the conquest of the Kaiserbagh on that
day was so unexpected that there was no time to guard against
indiscriminate plunder. A merry scene it must have been for a true,
liberty-loving John Bull to see his British grenadiers helping
themselves freely to the jewels, costly arms, clothes, and all the
toggery of his Majesty of Oude. The Sikhs, Ghoorkas and camp-followers
were quite ready to imitate the example, and a scene of plunder and
destruction followed which evidently surpassed even the descriptive
talent of Mr. Russell. Every fresh step in advance was accompanied
with plunder and devastation. The Kaiserbagh had fallen on the 14th;
and half an hour after, discipline was at an end, and the officers had
lost all command over their men. On the 17th, Gen. Campbell was
obliged to establish patrols to check plundering, and to remain in
inactivity “until the present license ceases.” The troops were
evidently completely out of hand. On the 18th, we hear that there is a
cessation of the grosser sort of plunder, but devastation is still
going on freely. In the city, however, while the vanguard were
fighting against the natives’ fire from the houses, the rearguard
plundered and destroyed to their hearts’ content. In the evening,
there is another proclamation against plundering; strong parties of
every regiment to go out and fetch in their own men, and to keep their
camp-followers at home; nobody to leave the camp except on duty. On
the 20th, a recapitulation of the same orders. On the same day, two
British “officers and gentlemen,” Lieuts. Cape and Thackwell, “went
into the city looting, and were murdered in a house;” and on the 26th,
matters were still so bad that the most stringent orders were issued
for the suppression of plunder and outrage; hourly roll-calls were
instituted; all soldiers strictly forbidden to enter the city; camp-
followers, if found armed in the city, to he hanged; soldiers not to
wear arms except on duty, and all non-combatants to he disarmed. To
give due weight to these orders, a number of triangles for flogging
were erected “at proper places.”

This is indeed a pretty state of things in a civilized army in the
nineteenth century; and if any other troops in the world had committed
one-tenth of these excesses, how would the indignant British press
brand them with infamy! But these are the deeds of the British army,
and therefore we are told that such things are but the normal
consequences of war. British officers and gentlemen are perfectly
welcome to appropriate to themselves any silver spoons, jeweled
bracelets, and other little memorials they may find about the scene of
their glory; and if Campbell is compelled to disarm his own army in
the midst of war, in order to stop wholesale robbery and violence,
there may have been military reasons for the step; but surely nobody
will begrudge these poor fellows a week’s holiday and a little frolic
after so many fatigues and privations.

The fact is, there is no army in Europe or America with so much
brutality as the British. Plundering, violence, massacre — things that
everywhere else are strictly and completely banished — are a time-
honored privilege, a vested right of the British soldier. The infamies
committed for days together, after the storming of Badajos and San
Sebastian, in the Peninsular war, are without a parallel in the annals
of any other nation since the beginning of the French Revolution; and
the medieval usage, proscribed everywhere else, of giving up to
plunder a town taken by assault, is still the rule with the British.
At Delhi imperious military considerations enforced an exception; but
the army, though bought off by extra pay, grumbled, and now at Lucknow
they have made up for what they missed at Delhi. For twelve-days and
nights there was no British army at Lucknow – nothing but a lawless,
drunken, brutal rabble, dissolved into bands of robbers, far more
lawless, violent and greedy than the Sepoys who had just been driven
out of the place. The sack of Lucknow in 1858 will remain an
everlasting disgrace to the British military service.

If the reckless soldiery, in their civilizing and humanizing progress
through India, could rob the natives of their personal property only,
the British Government steps in immediately afterward and strips them
of their real estate as well. Talk of the first French Revolution
confiscating the lands of the nobles and the church! Talk of Louis
Napoleon confiscating the property of the Orleans family! Here comes
Lord Canning, a British nobleman, mild in language, manners and
feelings, and confiscates, by order of his superior, Viscount
Palmerston, the lands of a whole people, every rood, perch and acre,
over an extent of ten thousand square miles. A very nice bit of loot
indeed for John Bull! And no sooner had Lord Ellenborough, in the name
of the new Government, disapproved of this hitherto unexampled
measure, than up rise The Times and a host of minor British papers to
defend this wholesale robbery, and break a lance for the right of John
Bull to confiscate everything he likes. But then, John is an
exceptional being, and what is virtue in him, according to The Times,
would be infamy in others.

Meanwhile – thanks to the complete dissolution of the British army for
the purpose of plunder – the insurgents escaped, unpursued, into the
open country. They concentrate in Rohilcund, while a portion carry on
petty warfare in Oude, and other fugitives have taken the direction of
Bundelcund. At the same time, the hot weather and the rains are fast
approaching; and it is not to be expected that the season will be so
uncommonly favorable to European constitutions as last year. Then, the
mass of the European troops were more or less acclimated; this year,
most of them are newly arrived. There is no doubt that a campaign in
June, July and August will cost the British an immense number of
lives, and what with the garrisons that have to be left in every
conquered city, the active army will melt down very rapidly. Already
are we informed that re-enforcements of 1,000 men per month will
scarcely keep up the army at its effective strength; and as to
garrisons, Lucknow alone requires at least 8,000 men, over one-third
of Campbell’s army. The force organizing for the campaign of Rohilcund
will scarcely be stronger than this garrison of Lucknow. We are also
informed that among the British officers the opinion is gaining ground
that the guerrilla warfare which is sure to succeed the dispersion of
the larger bodies of insurgents, will be far more harassing and
destructive of life to the British than the present war with its
battles and sieges. And, lastly, the Sikhs are beginning to talk in a
way which bodes no good to the English. They feel that without their
assistance the British would scarcely have been able to hold India,
and that, had they joined the insurrection, Hindostan would certainly
have been lost to England, at least for a time. They say this loudly,
and exaggerate it in their Eastern way. To them the English no longer
appear as that superior race which beat them at Moodka, Ferozepore and
Aliwal. From such a conviction to open hostility there is but a step
with Eastern nations; a spark may kindle the blaze.

Altogether, the taking of Lucknow has no more put down the Indian
insurrection than the taking of Delhi. This Summer’s campaign may
produce such events that the British will have, next Winter, to go
substantially over the same ground again, and perhaps even to
reconquer the Punjaub. But in the best of cases, a long and harassing
guerrilla warfare is before them — not an enviable thing for Europeans
under an Indian sun.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1858/05/25.htm

Sid Harth

unread,
Feb 7, 2010, 2:13:29 PM2/7/10
to
Karl Marx in the New-York Tribune 1858

The Annexation of Oude

Source: New-York Daily Tribune, May 28, 1858;
Transcribed: by Tony Brown.

About eighteen months ago, at Canton, the British Government
propounded the novel doctrine in the law of nations that a State may
commit hostilities on a large scale against a Province of another
State, without either declaring war or establishing a state of war
against that other State. Now the same British Government, in the
person of the Governor-General of India, Lord Canning, has made
another forward move in its task of upsetting the existing law of
nations. It has proclaimed that

“the proprietary right in the soil of the Province of Oude is
confiscated to the British Government, which will dispose of that
right in such manner as it may seem fitting.”

When, after the fall of Warsaw in 1831, the Russian Emperor
confiscated “the proprietary right in the soil” hitherto held by
numerous Polish nobles, there was one unanimous outburst of
indignation in the British press and Parliament. When, after the
battle of Novara, the Austrian Government did not confiscate, but
merely sequestered, the estates of such Lombard noblemen as had taken
an active part in the war of independence, that unanimous outburst of
British indignation was repeated. And when, after the 2d December,
1851, Louis Napoleon confiscated the estates of the Orleans family,
which, by the common law of France, ought to have been united to the
public domain on the accession of Louis Philippe, but which had
escaped that fate by a legal quibble, then British indignation knew no
bounds, and The London Times declared that by this act the very
foundations of social order were upset, and that civil society could
no longer exist. All this honest indignation has now been practically
illustrated. England, by one stroke of the pen, has confiscated not
only the estates of a few noblemen, or of a royal family, but the
whole length and breadth of a kingdom nearly as large as Ireland, “the
inheritance of a whole people,” as Lord Ellenborough himself terms it.

But let us hear what pretexts – grounds we cannot call them – Lord
Canning, in the name of the British Government, sets forth for this
unheard-of proceeding: First, “The army is in possession of Lucknow.”
Second, “The resistance, begun by a mutinous soldiery, has found
support from the inhabitants of the city and of the province at
large.” Third, “They have been guilty of a great crime, and have
subjected themselves to a just retribution.” In plain English: Because
the British army have got hold of Lucknow, the Government has the
right to confiscate all the land in Oude which they have not yet got
hold of. Because the native soldiers in British pay have mutinied, the
natives of Oude, who were subjected to British rule by force, have
nob. the right to rise for their national independence. In short, the
people of Oude have rebelled against the legitimate authority of the
British Government, and the British Government now distinctly declares
that rebellion is a sufficient ground for confiscation. Leaving,
therefore, out of the question all the circumlocution of Lord Canning,
the whole question turns upon the point that he assumes the British
rule in Oude to have been legitimately established.

Now, British rule in Oude was established in the following manner:
When, in 1856, Lord Dalhousie thought the moment for action had
arrived, he concentrated an army at Cawnpore which, the King of Oude
was told, was to serve as a corps of observation against Nepaul. This
army suddenly invaded the country, took possession of Lucknow, and
took the King prisoner. He was urged to cede the country to the
British, but in vain. He was then carried off to Calcutta, and the
country was annexed to the territories of the East India Company. This
treacherous invasion was based upon article 6 of the treaty of 180 1,a
concluded by Lord Wellesley. This treaty was the natural consequence
of that concluded in 1798 by Sir John Shore. According to the usual
policy followed by the Anglo-Indian Government in their intercourse
with native princes, this first treaty of 1798 was a treaty of
offensive and defensive alliance on both sides. It secured to the East
India Company a yearly subsidy of 76 lacs of rupees ($3,800,000); but
by articles 12 and 13 the King was obliged to reduce the taxation of
the country. As a matter of course, these two conditions, in open
contradiction to each other, could not be fulfilled by the King at the
same time. This result, looked for by the East India Company, gave
rise to fresh complications, resulting in the treaty of 1801, by which
a cession of territory had to make up for the alleged infractions of
the former treaty; a cession of territory which, by the way, was at
the time denounced in Parliament as a downright robbery, and would
have brought Lord Wellesley before a Committee of Inquiry, but for the
political influence then held by his family.

In consideration of this cession of territory, the East India Company,
by article 3, undertook to defend the King’s remaining territories
against all foreign and domestic enemies; and by article 6 guaranteed
the possession of these territories to him and his heirs and
successors forever. But this same article 6 contained also a pit-fall
for the King, viz: The King engaged that he would establish such a
system of administration, to be carried into effect by his own
officers, as should be conducive to the prosperity of his subjects,
and be calculated to secure the lives and property of the inhabitants.
Now, supposing the King of Oude had broken this treaty; had not, by
his government, secured the lives and property of the inhabitants (say
by blowing them from the cannon’s mouth, and confiscating the whole of
their lands), what remedy remained to the East India Company? The King
was, by the treaty, acknowledged as an independent sovereign, a free
agent, one of the contracting parties. The East India Company, on
declaring the treaty broken and thereby annulled, could have but two
modes of action: either by negotiation, backed by pressure, they might
have come to a new arrangement, or else they might have declared war
against the King. But to invade his territory without declaration of
war, to take him prisoner unawares, dethrone him and annex his
territory, was an infraction not only of the treaty, but of every
principle of the law of nations.

That the annexation of Oude was not a sudden resolution of the British
Government is proved by a curious fact. No sooner was Lord Palmerston,
in 1831, Foreign Secretary, than he sent an order to the then Governor-
General to annex Oude. The subordinate at that time declined to carry
out the suggestion. The affair, however, came to the knowledge of the
King of Oude, who availed himself of some pretext to send an embassy
to London. In spite of all obstacles, the embassy succeeded in
acquainting William IV., who was ignorant of the whole proceeding,
with the danger which had menaced their country. The result was a
violent scene between William IV. and Palmerston, ending in a strict
injunction to the latter never to repeat such coups d’état on pain of
instant dismissal. It is important to recollect that the actual
annexation of Oude and the confiscation of all the landed property of
the country took place when Palmerston was again in power. The papers
relating to this first attempt at annexing Oude, in 1831, were moved
for, a few weeks ago, in the House of Commons, when Mr. Baillie,
Secretary of the Board of Control, declared that these papers had
disappeared.

Again, in 1837, when Palmerston, for the second time, was Foreign
Secretary, and Lord Auckland Governor-General of India, the King of
Oude was compelled to make a fresh treaty with the East India Company.
This treaty takes up article 6 of the one of 1801, because “it
provides no remedy for the obligation contained in it” (to govern the
country well); and it expressly provides, therefore, by article 7,

“that the King of Oude shall immediately take into consideration, in
concert with the British Resident, the best means of remedying the
defects in the police, and in the judicial and revenue administrations
of his dominions; and that if his Majesty should neglect to attend to
the advice and counsel of the British Government, and if gross and
systematic oppression, anarchy and misrule should prevail within the
Oude dominions, such as seriously to endanger the public tranquillity,
the British Government reserves to itself the right of appointing its
own officers to the management of whatsoever portions of the Oude
territory, either to a small or great extent, in which such misrule
shall have occurred, for so long a period as it may deem necessary;
the surplus receipts in such case, after defraying all charges, to be
paid into the King’s Treasury, and a true and faithful account
rendered to his Majesty of the receipts and expenditure.”

By article 8, the treaty further provides:

“That in case the Governor-General of India in Council should be
compelled to resort to the exercise of the authority vested in him by
article 7, he will endeavor so far as possible to maintain, with such
improvements as they may, admit of, the native institutions and forms
of administration within the assumed territories, so as to facilitate
the restoration of these territories to the Sovereign of Oude, when
the proper period for such restoration shall arrive.”

This treaty professes to be concluded between the Governor-General of
British India in Council, 150 on one hand, and the King of Oude on the
other. It was, as such, duly ratified, by both parties, and the
ratifications were duly exchanged. But when it was submitted to the
Board of Directors of the East India Company, it was annulled (April
10, 1838) as an infraction of the friendly relations between the
Company and the King of Oude, and an encroachment, on the part of the
Governor-General, on the rights of that potentate. Palmerston had not
asked the Company’s leave to conclude the treaty, and he took no
notice of their annulling resolution. Nor was the King of Oude
informed that the treaty had ever been canceled. This is proved by
Lord Dalhousie himself (minute Jan. 5, 1856):

“It is very probable that the King, in the course of the discussions
which will take place with the Resident, may refer to the treaty
negotiated with his predecessor in 1837; the Resident is aware that
the treaty was not continued in force, having been annulled by the
Court of Directors as soon as it was received in England. The Resident
is further aware that, although the King of Oude was informed at the
time that certain aggravating provisions of the treaty of 1837,
respecting an increased military force, would not be carried into
effect, the entire. abrogation of it was never communicated to his
Majesty. The effect of this reserve and want of full communication is
felt to he embarrassing to-day. It is the more embarrassing that the
canceled instrument was still included in a volume of treaties which
was published in 1845, by the authority of Government.”

In the same minute, sec. 17, it is said:

“If the King should allude to the treaty of 1837, and should ask why,
if further measures are necessary in relation to the administration of
Oude, the large powers which are given to the British Government by
the said treaty should not now be put in force, his Majesty must be
informed that the treaty has had no existence since it was
communicated to the Court of Directors, by whom it was wholly
annulled. His Majesty will be reminded that the Cour t of Lucknow was
informed at the time that certain articles of the treaty of 1837, by
which the payment of an additional military force was imposed upon the
King, were to be set aside. It must be presumed that it was not
thought necessary at that time to make any communication to his
Majesty regarding those articles of the treaty which were not of
immediate operation, and that the subsequent communication was
inadvertently neglected. “

But not only was this treaty inserted in the official collection of
1845, it was also officially adverted to as a subsisting treaty in
Lord Auckland’s notification to the King of Oude, dated July 8, 1839;
in Lord Hardinge’s (then Governor-General) remonstrance to the same
King, of November 23, 1847, and in Col. Sleeman’s (Resident at
Lucknow) communication to Lord Dalhousie himself, of the 10th
December, 1851. Now, why was Lord Dalhousie so eager to deny the
validity of a treaty which all his predecessors, and even his own
agents, had acknowledged to be in force in their communications with
the King of Oude? Solely because, by this treaty, whatever pretext the
King might give for interference, that interference was limited to an
assumption of government by British officers in the name of the King
of Oude, who was to receive the surplus revenue. That was the very
opposite of what was wanted. Nothing short of annexation would do.
This denying the validity of treaties which had formed the
acknowledged base of intercourse for twenty years; this seizing
violently upon independent territories in open infraction even of the
acknowledged treaties; this final confiscation of every acre of land
in the whole country; all these treacherous and brutal modes of
proceeding of the British toward the natives of India are now
beginning to avenge themselves, not only in India, but in England.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1858/05/28.htm

Karl Marx in the New-York Tribune 1858

Lord Canning’s Proclamation and Land Tenure in India

Source: New-York Daily Tribune, June 7, 1858;
Transcribed: by Tony Brown.

Lord Canning’s proclamation in relation to Oude, some important
documents in reference to which we published on Saturday, has revived
the discussion as to the land tenures of India – a subject upon which
there have been great disputes and differences of opinion in times
past, and misapprehensions in reference to which have led, so it is
alleged, to very serious practical mistakes in the administration of
those parts of India directly under British rule. The great point in
this controversy is, what is the exact position which the zemindars,
talookdars or sirdars, so called hold in the economical system of
India? Are they properly to be considered as landed proprietors or as
mere tax-gatherers?

It is agreed that in India, as in most Asiatic countries, the ultimate
property in the soil rests [with] the Government; but while one party
to this controversy insists that the Government is to be looked upon
as a soil proprietor, letting out the land on shares to the
cultivators, the other side maintain that in substance the land in
India is just as much private property as in any other country
whatever — this alleged property in the Government being nothing more
than the derivation of title from the sovereign theoretically
acknowledged in all countries, the codes of which are based on the
feudal law and substantially acknowledged in all countries whatever in
the power of the Government to levy taxes on the land to the extent of
the needs of the Government, quite independent of all considerations,
except as mere matter of policy, of the convenience of the owners.

Admitting, however, that the lands of India are private property, held
by as good and strong a private title as land elsewhere, who shall be
regarded as the real owners? There are two parties for whom this claim
has been set up. One of these parties is the class known as zemindars
and talookdars, who have been considered to occupy a position similar
to that of the landed nobility and gentry of Europe; to be, indeed,
the real owners of the land, subject to a certain assessment due to
the Government, and, as owners, to have the right of displacing at
pleasure the actual cultivators, who, in this view of the case, are
regarded as standing in the position of mere tenants at will, liable
to any payment in the way of rent which the zemindars may see fit to
impose. The view of the case which naturally fell in with English
ideas, as to the importance and necessity of a landed gentry as the
main pillar of the social fabric, was made the foundation of the
famous landed settlement of Bengal seventy years ago, under the
Governor-Generalship of Lord Cornwallis — a settlement which still
remains in force, but which, as it is maintained by many, wrought
great injustice alike to the Government and to the actual cultivators.
A more thorough study of the institutions of Hindostan, together with
the inconveniences, both social and political, resulting from the
Bengal settlement, has given currency to the opinion that by the
original Hindoo institutions, the property of the land was in the
village corporations, in which resided the power of allotting it out
to individuals for cultivation, while the zemindars and talookdars
were in their origin nothing but officers of the Government, appointed
to look after, to collect, and to pay over to the prince the
assessment due from the village.

This view has influenced to a considerable degree the settlement of
the landed tenures and revenue made of late years in the Indian
provinces, of which the direct administration has been assumed by the
English. The exclusive proprietary rights claimed by the talookdars
and zemindars have been regarded as originating in usurpations at once
against the Government and the Cultivators, and every effort has been
made to get rid of them as an incubus on the real cultivators of the
soil and the general improvement of the country. As, however, these
middlemen, whatever the origin of their rights might be, could claim
prescription in their favor, it was impossible not to recognize their
claims as to a certain extent legal, however inconvenient, arbitrary
and oppressive to the people. In Oude, under the feeble reign of the
native princes, these feudal landholders had gone very far in
curtailing alike the claims of the Government and the rights of the
cultivators; and when, upon the recent annexation of that kingdom this
matter came under revision, the Commissioners charged with making the
settlement soon got into a very acrimonious controversy with them as
to the real extent of their rights. Hence resulted a state of
discontent on their part which led them to make common cause with the
revolted Sepoys.

By those who incline to the policy above indicated — that of a system
of village settlement — looking at the actual cultivators as invested
with a proprietary right in the land, superior to that of the
middlemen, through whom the Government receives its share of the
landed produce — the proclamation of Lord Canning is defended as an
advantage taken of the position in which the great body of the
zemindars and talookdars of Oude had placed themselves, to open a door
for the introduction of much more extensive reforms than otherwise
would have been practicable — the proprietary right confiscated by
that proclamation being merely the zemindarree or talookdarree right,
and affecting only a very small part of the population, and that by no
means the actual cultivators.

Independently of any question of justice and humanity, the view taken
on the other hand by the Derby Ministry of Lord Canning’s
proclamation, corresponds sufficiently well with the general
principles which the Tory or Conservative party maintain on the
sacredness of vested rights and the importance of upholding an
aristocratic landed interest. In speaking of the landed interest at
home, they always refer rather to the landlords and rent-receivers
than to the rent-payers and to the actual cultivators; and it is,
therefore, not surprising that they should regard the interests of the
zemindars and talookdars, however few their actual number, as
equivalent to the interests of the great body of the people.

Here indeed is one of the greatest inconveniences and difficulties in
the Government of India from England, that views of Indian questions
are liable to be influenced by purely English prejudices or
sentiments, applied to a state of society and a condition of things to
which they have in fact very little real pertinency. The defense which
Lord Canning makes in his dispatch, published to-day, of the policy of
his proclamation against the objections of Sir James Outram, the
Commissioner of Oude, is very plausible, though it appears that he so
far yielded to the representations of the Commissioner as to insert
into the proclamation the mollifying sentence, not contained in the
original draft sent to England, and on which Lord Ellenborough’s
dispatch was based.

Lord Canning’s opinion as to the light in which the conduct of
landholders of Oude in joining in the rebellion ought to be viewed
does not appear to differ much from that of Sir James Outram and Lord
Ellenborough. He argues that they stand in a very different position
not only from the mutinous Sepoys, but from that of the inhabitants of
rebellious districts in which the British rule had been longer
established. He admits that they are entitled to be treated as persons
having provocation for the course they took; but at the same time
insists that they must be made to understand that rebellion cannot be
resorted to without involving serious consequences to themselves. We
shall soon learn what the effect of the issue of the proclamation has
been, and whether Lord Canning or Sir James Outram was nearer right in
his anticipation of its results.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1858/06/07.htm

Frederick Engels in the New-York Tribune 1858

The Revolt in India

Source: New-York Daily Tribune, No. 5351, June 15, 1858;
Transcribed: by Tony Brown.

In spite of the great military operations of the English in the
capture first of Delhi and then of Lucknow, the successive
headquarters of the Sepoy rebellion, the pacification of India is yet
very far from being accomplished. Indeed, it may be almost said that
the real difficulty of the case is but just beginning to show itself.
So long as the rebellious Sepoys kept together in large masses, so
long as it was a question of sieges and pitched battles on a great
scale, the vast superiority of the English troops for such operations
gave them every advantage. But with the new character which the war is
now taking on, this advantage is likely to be in a great measure lost.
The capture of Lucknow does not carry with it the submission of Oude;
nor would even the submission of Oude carry with it the pacification
of India. The whole Kingdom of Oude bristles with fortresses of
greater or less pretensions; and though perhaps none would long resist
a regular attack, yet the capture of these forts one by one will not
only be a very tedious process, but it will be attended with much
greater proportional loss than operations against such great cities as
Delhi and Lucknow.

But it is not alone the Kingdom of Oude that requires to be conquered
and pacified. The discomfited Sepoys dislodged from Lucknow have
scattered and fled in all directions. A great body of them have taken
refuge in the hill districts of Rohilcund to the north, which still
remains entirely in possession of the rebels. Others fled into
Goruckpore on the east – which district, though it had been traversed
by the British troops on their march to Lucknow, it has now become
necessary to recover a second time. Many others have succeeded in
penetrating southward into Bundelcund.

Indeed, a controversy seems to have arisen as to the best method of
proceeding, and whether it would not have been better to have first
subdued all the outlying districts which might have afforded the
rebels a shelter, before directing operations against their main body
collected at Lucknow. Such is said to have been the scheme of
operations preferred by the military; but it is difficult to see how,
with the limited number of troops at the disposal of the English,
those surrounding districts could have been so occupied as to exclude
the fugitive Sepoys, when finally dislodged from Lucknow, from
entering into them, and, as in the case of Goruckpore, making their
reconquest necessary.

Since the capture of Lucknow, the main body of the rebels appear to
have retired upon Bareilly. It is stated that Nena Sahib was there.
Against this city and district, upward of a hundred miles north-west
from Lucknow, it has been judged necessary to undertake a Summer
campaign, and at the latest accounts Sir Colin Campbell was himself
marching thither.

Meanwhile, however, a guerrilla warfare seems to be spreading in
various directions. While the troops are drawn off to the North,
scattered parties of rebel soldiery are crossing the Ganges into the
Doab, interrupting the communication with Calcutta, and by their
ravages disabling the cultivators to pay their land tax, or at least
affording them an excuse for not doing so.

Even the capture of Bareilly, so far from operating to remedy those
evils, will be likely, perhaps, to increase them. It is in this
desultory warfare that the advantage of the Sepoys lies. They can beat
the English troops at marching to much the same extent that the
English can beat them at fighting. An English column cannot move
twenty miles a day; a Sepoy force can move forty, and, if hard pushed,
even sixty. It is this rapidity of movement which gives to the Sepoy
troops their chief value, and this, with their power of standing the
climate and the comparative facility of feeding them, makes them
indispensable in Indian warfare. The consumption of English troops in
service, and especially in a Summer campaign, is enormous. Already,
the lack of men is severely felt. It may become necessary to chase the
flying rebels from one end of India to the other. For that purpose,
European troops would hardly answer, while the contact of the
wandering rebels with the native regiments of Bombay and Madras, which
have hitherto remained faithful, might lead to new revolts.

Even without any accession of new mutineers, there are still in the
field not less than a hundred and fifty thousand armed men, while the
unarmed population fail to afford the English either assistance or
information.

Meanwhile, the deficiency of rain in Bengal threatens a famine —
calamity unknown within this century, though in former times, and even
since the English occupation, the source of terrible sufferings.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1858/06/15.htm

Sid Harth

unread,
Feb 7, 2010, 2:19:51 PM2/7/10
to
Frederick Engels in the New-York Tribune 1858

The British Army in India

Source: New-York Daily Tribune, June 26, 1858;
Transcribed: by Tony Brown.

Our indiscreet friend, Mr. William Russell of The London Times, has
recently been induced, by his love of the picturesque, to illustrate,
for the second time, the sack of Lucknow, to a degree which other
people will not think very flattering to the British character. It now
appears that Delhi, too, was “looted” to a very considerable extent,
and that besides the Kaiserbagh, the city of Lucknow generally
contributed to reward the British soldier for his previous privations
and heroic efforts. We quote from Mr. Russell:

“There are companies which can boast of privates with thousands of
pounds worth in their ranks. One man I heard of who complacently
offered to lend an officer whatever sum he wanted if he wished to buy
over the Captain. Others have remitted large sums to their friends.
[...] Ere this letter reaches England, many a diamond, emerald and
delicate pearl will have told its tale in a very quiet, pleasant way,
of the storm and sack of the Kaiserbagh. It is as well that the fair
wearers ... saw not how the glittering baubles were won, or the scenes
in which the treasure was trove.... Some of these officers have made,
literally, their fortunes... There are certain small caskets in
battered uniform cases which contain estates in Scotland and Ireland,
and snug fishing and shooting boxes in every game-haunted or salmon-
frequented angle of the world.”

This, then, accounts for the inactivity of the British army after the
conquest of Lucknow. The fortnight devoted to plunder was well spent.
Officers and soldiers went into the town poor and debt-ridden, and
came out suddenly enriched. They were no longer the same men; yet they
were expected to return to their former military duty, to submission,
silent obedience, fatigue, privation and battle. But this is out of
the question. The army, disbanded for the purpose of plunder, is
changed for ever; no word of command, no prestige of the General, can
make it again what it once was. Listen again to Mr. Russell:

“It is curious to observe how riches develop disease; how one’s liver
is affected by loot, and what tremendous ravages in one’s family,
among the nearest and dearest, can be caused by a few crystals of
carbon. ... The weight of the belt round the private’s waist, full of
rupees and gold mohurs, assures him the vision” (of a comfortable
independency at home) “can be realized, and it is no wonder he resents
the ‘fall in, there, fall in!’ ... Two battas, two shares of prize-
money, the plunder of two cities, and many ‘pickings by the way’, have
made some of our men too rich for easy soldiering.”

Accordingly, we hear that above 150 officers have sent in their
resignations to Sir Colin Campbell — a very singular proceeding indeed
in an army before the enemy, which in any other service would be
followed up in twenty-four hours by cashiering and severest punishment
otherwise, but which, we suppose, is considered in the British army as
a very proper act for “an officer and a gentleman” who has suddenly
made his fortune. As to the private soldiers, with them the proceeding
is different. Loot engenders the desire for more; and if no more
Indian treasures are at hand for the purpose, why not loot those of
the British Government? Accordingly, says Mr. Russell:

“There has been a suspicious upsetting of two treasure tumbrils under
a European guard, in which some few rupees were missing, and
paymasters exhibit a preference for natives in the discharge of the
delicate duty of convoy!”

Very good, indeed. The Hindoo or Sikh is better disciplined, less
thieving, less rapacious than that incomparable model of a warrior,
the British soldier! But so far we have seen the individual British
only employed. Let us now cast a glance at the British army, “looting”
in its collective capacity:

“Every day adds to the prize property, and it is estimated that the
sales will produce £600,000. [...] The town of Cawnpore is said to be
full of the plunder of Lucknow, and if the damage done to public
buildings, the destruction of private property, the deterioration in
value of houses and land, and the results of depopulation could be
estimated, it would be found that the capital of Oude has sustained a
loss of five or six millions sterling.”

The Calmuck hordes of Jenghiz Khan and Timur, falling upon a city like
a swarm of locusts, and devouring everything that came in their way,
must have been a blessing to a country, compared with the irruption of
these Christian, civilized, chivalrous and gentle British soldiers.
The former, at least, soon passed away on their erratic course; but
these methodic Englishmen bring along with them their prize-agents,
who convert loot into a system, who register the plunder, sell it by
auction, and keep a sharp look-out that British heroism is not
defrauded of a tittle of its reward. We shall watch with curiosity the
capabilities of this army, relaxed as its discipline is by the effects
of wholesale plunder, at a time when the fatigues of a hot weather
campaign require the greatest stringency of discipline.

The Hindoos must, however, by this time be still less fit for regular
battle than they were at Lucknow, but that is not now the main
question. It is far more important to know what shall be done if the
insurgents, after a show of resistance, again shift the seat of war,
say to Rajpootana, which is far from being subdued. Sir Colin Campbell
must leave garrisons everywhere; his field army has melted down to
less than one-half of the force he had before Lucknow. If he is to
occupy Rohilcund what disposable strength will remain for the field?
The hot weather is now upon him, in June the rains must have put a
stop to active campaigning, and allowed the insurgents breathing time.
The loss of European soldiers through sickness will have increased
every day after the middle of April, when the weather became
oppressive; and the young men imported into India last Winter must
succumb to the climate in far greater numbers than the seasoned Indian
campaigners who last Summer fought tinder Havelock and Wilson.
Rohilcund is no more the decisive point than Lucknow was, or Delhi.
The insurrection, it is true, has lost most of its capacity for
pitched battles; but it is far more formidable in its present
scattered form, which compels the English to ruin their army by
marching and exposure. Look at the many new centers of resistance.
There is Rohilcund, where the mass of the old Sepoys are collected;
there is North-eastern Oude beyond the Gogra, where the Oudians have
taken up position; there is Calpee, which for the present serves as a
point of concentration for the insurgents of Bundelcund. We shall most
likely hear in a few weeks, if not sooner, that both Bareilly and
Calpee have fallen. The former will be of little importance, inasmuch
as it will serve to absorb. nearly all, if not the whole of Campbell’s
disposable forces. Calpee, menaced now by General Whitlock, who has
led his column from Nagpoor to Banda, in Bundelcund, and by, General
Rose, who approaches from Jhansi, and has defeated the advanced guard
of the Calpee forces, will be a more important conquest; it will free
Campbell’s base of operations, Cawnpore, from the only danger menacing
it, and thus perhaps enable him to recruit his field forces to some
extent by troops set at liberty thereby. But it is very doubtful
whether there will be enough to do more than to clear Oude.

Thus, the strongest army England ever concentrated on one point in
India is again scattered in all directions, and had more work cut out
than it can conveniently do. The ravages of the climate, during the
Summer’s heats and rains, must be terrible; and whatever the moral
superiority of the European over the Hindoos, it is very doubtful
whether the physical superiority of the Hindoos in braving the heat
and rains of an Indian Summer will not again be the means of
destroying the English forces. There are at present but few British
troops on the road to India, and it is not intended to send out large
re-enforcements before July and August. Up to October and November,
therefore, Campbell has but that one army, melting down rapidly as it
is, to hold his own with. What if in the mean time the insurgent
Hindoos succeed in raising Rajpootana and Mahratta country in
rebellion? What if the Sikhs, of whom there are 80,000 in the British
service, and who claim all the honor of the victories for themselves,
and whose temper is not altogether favorable to the British, were to
rise?

Altogether, one more Winter’s campaign, at least, appears to be in
store for the British in India, and that cannot be carried on without
another army from England.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1858/06/26.htm

Karl Marx in the New-York Tribune 1858

Taxation in India

Source: New-York Daily Tribune, July 23, 1858;
Transcribed: by Tony Brown.

According to the London journals, Indian stock and railway securities
have of late been distinguished by a downward movement in that market,
which is far from testifying to the genuineness of the sanguine
convictions which John Bull likes to exhibit in regard to the state of
the Indian guerrilla war; and which, at all events, indicates a
stubborn distrust in the elasticity of Indian financial resources. As
to the latter, two opposite views are propounded. On the one hand, it
is affirmed that taxes in India are onerous and oppressive beyond
those of any country in the world; that as a rule throughout most of
the presidencies, and through those presidencies most where they have
been longest under British rule., the cultivators, that is, the great
body of the people of India, are in a condition of unmitigated
impoverishment and dejection; that, consequently, Indian revenues have
been stretched to their utmost possible limit, and Indian finances are
therefore past recovery. A rather discomfortable opinion this at a
period when, according to Mr. Gladstone, for some years to come, the
extraordinary Indian expenditure alone will annually amount to about
£20,000,000 sterling. On the other hand, it is asserted — the
asseveration being made good by an array of statistical illustrations
— that India is the least taxed country in the world; that, if
expenditure is going on increasing, revenue may be increased too; and
that it is an utter fallacy to imagine that the Indian people will not
bear any new taxes. Mr. Bright, who may be considered the most arduous
and influential representative of the “discomfortable” doctrine, made,
on the occasion of the second reading of the new Government of India
bill, the following statement:

“The Indian Government had cost more to govern India than it was
possible to extort from the population of India, although the
Government had been by no means scrupulous either as to the taxes
imposed, or as to the mode in which they had been levied. [...] It
cost more than £30,000,000 to govern India, for that was the gross
revenue, and there was always a deficit, which had to be made up by
loans borrowed at a high rate of interest. [...] The Indian debt now
amounted to £60,000,000, and was increasing; while the credit of the
Government was falling, partly because they had not treated their
creditors very honorably on one or two occasions, and now on account
of the calamities which had recently happened in India. [...] He had
alluded to the gross revenue; but as that included the opium revenue,
which was hardly a tax upon the people of India, he would take the
taxation which really pressed upon them at £25,000,000. Now, let not
this £25,000,000 be compared with the £60,000,000 that was raised in
this country. Let the House recollect that in India it was possible to
purchase twelve days’ labor for the same amount of gold or silver that
would be obtained in payment for one in England. This £25,000,000
expended in the purchase of labor in India would buy as much as an
outlay of £300,000,000 would procure in England. [...] He might be
asked how much was the labor of an Indian worth? Well, if the labor of
an Indian was only worth 2d. a day, it was clear that we could not
expect him to pay as much taxation as if it was worth 2s. [...] We had
30,000,000 of population in Great Britain and Ireland; in India there
were 150,000,000 inhabitants. [...] We raised here £60,000,000
sterling of taxes; in India, reckoning by the days’ labor of the
people of India, we raised £300,000,000 of revenue, or five times a
greater revenue than was collected at home. Looking at the fact that
the population of India was five times greater than that of the
British Empire, a man might say that the taxation per head in India
and England was about the same, and that therefore there was no great
hardship inflicted. But in England there was an incalculable power of
machinery and steam, of means of transit, and of everything that
capital and human invention could bring to aid the industry of a
people. In India there was nothing of the kind. They had scarcely a
decent road throughout India.”

Now, it must be admitted that there is something wrong in this method
of comparing Indian taxes with British taxes. There is on the one side
the Indian population, five times as great as the British one, and
there is on the other side the Indian taxation amounting to half the
British. But, then, Mr. Bright says, Indian labor is an equivalent for
about one-twelfth only of British labor. Consequently £30,000,000 of
taxes in India would represent £300,000,000 of taxes in Great Britain,
instead of the £60,000,000 actually there raised. What then is the
conclusion he ought to have arrived at? That the people of India in
regard to their numerical strength pay the same taxation as the people
in Great Britain, if allowance is made for the comparative poverty of
the people in India, and £30,000,000 is supposed to weigh as heavily
upon 150,000,000 Indians as £60,000,000 upon 30,000,000 Britons. Such
being his supposition, it is certainly fallacious to turn round and
say that a poor people cannot pay so much as a rich one, because the
comparative poverty of the Indian people has already been taken into
account in making out the statement that the Indian pays as much as
the Briton. There might, in fact, another question he raised. It might
be asked, whether a man who earns say 12 cents a day can be fairly
expected to pay 1 cent with the same ease with which another, earning
$12 a day, pays $1? Both would relatively contribute the same aliquot
part of their income, but still the tax might bear in quite different
proportions upon their respective necessities. Yet, Mr. Bright has not
yet put the question in these terms, and, if he had, the comparison
between the burden of taxation, borne by the British wages laborer on
the one hand, and the British capitalist on the other, would perhaps
have struck nearer home than the comparison between Indian and British
taxation. Moreover, he admits himself that from the £30,000,000 of
Indian taxes, the £5,000,000 constituting the opium revenue must he
subtracted, since this is, properly speaking, no tax pressing upon the
Indian people, but rather an export duty charged upon Chinese
consumption. Then we are reminded by the apologists of the Anglo-
Indian Administration that £16,000,000 of income is derived from the
land revenue, or rent, which from times immemorial has belonged to the
State in its capacity as supreme landlord, never constituted part of
the private fortune of the cultivator, and does, in fact, no more
enter into taxation, properly so called, than the rent paid by the
British farmers to the British aristocracy can be said to enter
British taxation. Indian taxation, according to this point of view,
would stand thus:

Aggregate sum raised £30,000,000
Deduct for opium revenue 5,000,000
Deduct for rent of land 16,000,000
Taxation proper £9,000,000

Of this £9,000,000, again, it must he admitted that some important
items, such as the post-office, the stamp duties, and the customs
duties, bear in a very minute proportion on the mass of the people.
Accordingly, Mr. Hendriks, in a paper recently laid before the British
Statistical Society on the Finances of India, tries to prove, from
Parliamentary and other official documents, that of the total revenue
paid by the people of India, not more than one-fifth is at present
raised by taxation, i. e., from the real income of the people; that in
Bengal 27 per cent only, in the Punjaub 23 per cent only, in Madras 21
per cent only, in the North-West Provinces 17 per cent only, and in
Bombay 16 per cent only of the total revenue is derived from taxation
proper.

The following comparative view of the average amount of taxation
derived from each inhabitant of India and the United Kingdom, during
the years 1855-56, is abstracted from Mr. Hendriks’s statement:

Bengal, per head, Revenue. ... £0 5 0 ... Taxation proper. £0 1 4
North-West Provinces ... 3 5 ... Taxation proper. 0 7
Madras ... 4 7 ... Taxation proper. 1 0
Bombay ... 8 3 ... Taxation proper. 1 4
Punjaub ... 3 3 ... Taxation proper. 0 9
United Kingdom ... " " ... Taxation proper. 1 10 0

For a different year the following estimate of the average paid by
each individual to the national revenue is made by Gen. Briggs:

In England, 1852 ... £ 1 19 4
In France ... 1 12 0
In Prussia ... 0 19 3
In India, 1854 ... 0 3 8½

From these statements it is inferred by the apologists of the British
Administration that there is not a single country in Europe, where,
even if the comparative poverty of India is taken into account, the
people are so lightly taxed. Thus it seems that not only opinions with
respect to Indian taxation are conflicting, but that the facts from
which they purport to be drawn are themselves contradictory. On the
one hand, we must admit the nominal amount of Indian taxation to be
relatively small; but on the other, we might heap evidence upon
evidence from Parliamentary documents, as well as from the writings of
the greatest authorities on Indian affairs, all proving beyond doubt
that this apparently light taxation crushes the mass of the Indian
people to the dust, and that its exaction necessitates a resort to
such infamies as torture, for instance. But is any other proof wanted
beyond the constant and rapid increase of the Indian debt and the
accumulation of Indian deficits? It will certainly not be contended
that the Indian Government prefers increasing debts and deficits
because it shrinks from touching too roughly upon the resources of the
people. It embarks in debt, because it sees no other way to make both
ends meet. In 1805 the Indian debt amounted to £25,626,631; in 1829 it
reached about £34,000,000; in 1850 £47,151,018; and at present it
amounts to about £60,000,000. By the by, we leave out of the count the
East Indian debt contracted in England, which is also chargeable upon
the East Indian revenue.

The annual deficit, which in 1805 amounted to about two and a half
millions, had, under Lord Dalhousie’s administration, reached the
average of five millions. Mr. George Campbell of the Bengal Civil
Service, and of a mind strongly biased in favor of the Anglo-Indian
administration, was obliged to avow, in 1852, that:

“Although no Oriental conquerors have ever obtained so complete an
ascendency, so quiet, universal and undisputed possession of India as
we have, Yet all have enriched themselves from the revenues of the
country, and many have out of their abundance laid out considerable
sums on works of public improvements. ... From doing this we are
debarred. ...The quantity of the whole burden is by no means
diminished” (under the English rule), “yet we have no surplus.”

In estimating the burden of taxation, its nominal amount must not fall
heavier into the balance than the method of raising it and the manner
of employing it. The former is detestable in India, and in the branch
of the land-tax, for instance, wastes perhaps more produce than it
gets. As to the application of the taxes, it will suffice to say that
no part of them is returned to the people in works of public utility,
more indispensable in Asiatic countries than anywhere else, and that,
as Mr. Bright justly remarked, nowhere so extravagant is a provision
made for the governing class itself.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1858/07/23.htm

Frederick Engels in the New-York Tribune 1858

The Indian Army

Source: New-York Daily Tribune, July 21, 1858;
Transcribed: by Tony Brown.

The war in India is gradually passing into that stage of desultory
guerrilla warfare, to which, more than once, we have pointed as its
next impending and most dangerous phase of development. The insurgent
armies, after their successive defeats in pitched battles, and in the
defense of towns and entrenched camps, gradually dissolve into smaller
bodies of from two to six or eight thousand men, acting, to a certain
degree, independently of each other, but always ready to unite for a
short expedition against any British detachment which may be surprised
singly. The abandonment of Bareilly without a blow, after having drawn
the active field force of Sir C. Campbell some eighty miles away from
Lucknow, was the turning point, in this respect, for the main army of
the insurgents; the abandonment of Calpee had the same significance
for the second great body of natives. In either case, the last
defensible central base of operations was given up, and the warfare of
an army thereby becoming impossible, the insurgents made eccentric
retreats by separating into smaller bodies. These movable columns
require no large town for a central base of operations. They can find
means of existence, of re-equipment, and of recruitment in the various
districts in which they move; and a small town or a large village as a
center of reorganization may be as valuable to each of them as Delhi,
Lucknow, or Calpee to the larger armies. By this change, the war loses
much of its interest; the movements of the various columns of
insurgents cannot he followed up in detail and appear confused in the
accounts; the operations of the British commanders, to a great extent,
escape criticism, from the unavoidable obscurity enveloping the
premises on which they are based; success or failure remain the only
criterion, and they are certainly of all the most deceitful.

This uncertainty respecting the movements of the natives is already
very great. After the taking of Lucknow, they retreated eccentrically
— some south-east, some north-east, some north-west. The latter were
the stronger body, and were followed by Campbell into Rohilcund. They
had concentrated and re-formed at Bareilly; but when the British came
up, they abandoned the place without resistance, and again retreated
in different directions. Particulars of these different lines of
retreat are not known. We only know that a portion went toward the
hills on the frontiers of Nepaul, while one or more columns appear to
have marched in the opposite direction, toward the Ganges and the Doab
(the country between the Ganges and the Jumna). No sooner, however,
had Campbell occupied Bareilly, than the insurgents, who had retreated
in an easterly direction, effected a junction with some bodies on the
Oude frontier and fell upon Shahjehanpore, where a small British
garrison had been left; while further insurgent columns were hastening
in that direction. Fortunately for the garrison, Brigadier Jones
arrived with re-enforcements as early as the 11th of May, and defeated
the natives; but they, too, were re-enforced by the columns
concentrating on Shahjehanpore, and again invested the town on the
15th. On this day, Campbell, leaving a garrison in Bareilly, marched
to its relief; but it was not before the 24th of May that he attacked
them and drove them back, the various columns of insurgents which had
cooperated in this maneuver again dispersing in different directions.

While Campbell was thus engaged on the frontiers of Rohilcund, Gen.
Hope Grant marched his troops backward and forward in the South of
Oude, without any result, except losses to his own force by fatigue
under an Indian Summer’s sun. The insurgents were too quick for him.
They were everywhere but where he happened to look for them, and when
he expected to find them in front, they had long since again gained
his rear. Lower down the Ganges, Gen. Lugard was occupied with a chase
after a similar shadow in the district between Dinapore, Jugdespore
and Buxar. The natives kept him constantly on the move, and, after
drawing him away from Jugdespore, all at once fell upon the garrison
of that place. Lugard returned, and a telegram reports his having
gained a victory on the 26th. The identity of the tactics of these
insurgents with those of the Oude and Rohilcund columns is evident.
The victory gained by Lugard will, however, scarcely be of much
importance. Such bands can afford to be beaten a good many times
before they become demoralized and weak.

Thus, by the middle of May, the whole insurgent force of Northern
India had given up warfare on a large scale, with the exception of the
army of Calpee. This force, in a comparatively short time, had
organized in that town a complete center of operations; they had
provisions, powder and other stores in profusion, plenty of guns, and
even founderies and musket manufactories. Though within 25 miles of
Cawnpore, Campbell had left them unmolested: he merely observed them
by a force on the Doab or western side of the Jumna. Generals Rose and
Whitlock had been on the march to Calpee for a long while; at last
Rose arrived, and defeated the insurgents in a series of engagements
in front of Calpee. The observing force on the other side of the
Jumna, in the mean time, had shelled the town and fort, and suddenly
the insurgents evacuated both, breaking up this their last large army
into independent columns. The roads taken by them are not at all
clear, from the accounts received; we only know that some have gone
into the Doab, and others toward Gwalior.

Thus the whole district from the Himalaya to the Bihar and Vindhya
mountains, and from Gwalior and Delhi to Joruckpore and Dinapore, is
swarming with active insurgent bands, organized to a certain degree by
the experience of a twelve months war, and encouraged, amid a number
of defeats, by the indecisive character of each, and by the small
advantages gained by the British. It is true, all their strongholds
and centers of operations have been taken from them; the greater
portion of their stores and artillery are lost; the important towns
are all in the hands of their enemies. But on the other hand, the
British, in all this vast district, hold nothing but the towns, and of
the open country, nothing but the spot where their movable columns
happen to stand; they are compelled to chase their nimble enemies
without any hope of attaining them; and they are under the necessity
of entering upon this harassing mode of warfare at the very deadliest
season of the year. The native Indian can stand the mid-day heat of
his Summer with comparative comfort, while mere exposure to the rays
of the sun is almost certain death to the European; he can march forty
miles in such a season, where ten break down his northern opponent; to
him even the hot rains and swampy jungles are comparatively innocuous,
while dysentery, cholera, and ague follow every exertion made by
Europeans in the rainy season or in swampy neighborhoods. We are
without detailed accounts of the sanitary condition of the British
army; but from the comparative numbers of those struck by the sun and
those hit by the enemy in Gen. Rose’s army, from the report that the
garrison of Lucknow is sickly, that the 38th regiment arrived last
Autumn above 1,000 strong, now scarcely numbers 550, and from other
indications we may draw the conclusion that the Summer’s heat, during
April and May, has done its work among the newly-imported men and lads
who have replaced the bronzed old Indian soldiers of last year’s
campaign. With the men Campbell has, he cannot undertake the forced
marches of Havelock nor a siege during the rainy season like that of
Delhi. And although the British Government are again sending off
strong re-enforcements, it is doubtful whether they will be sufficient
to replace the wear and tear of this Summer’s campaign against an
enemy who declines to fight the British except on terms most favorable
to himself.

The insurgent warfare now begins to take the character of that of the
Bedouins of Algeria against the French; with the difference that the
Hindoos are far from being so fanatical, and that they are not a
nation of horsemen. This latter is important in a flat country of
immense extent. There are plenty of Mohammedans among them who would
make good irregular cavalry; still the principal cavalry nations of
India have not joined the insurrection so far. The strength of their
army is in the infantry, and that arm being unfit to meet the English
in the field, becomes a drag in guerrilla warfare in the plain; for in
such a country the sinew of desultory warfare is irregular cavalry.
How far this want may be remedied during the compulsory holiday the
English will have to take during the rains, we shall see. This holiday
will, altogether, give the natives an opportunity of reorganizing and
recruiting their forces. Beside the organization of cavalry, there are
two more points of importance. As soon as the cold weather sets in,
guerrilla warfare alone will not do. Centers of operation, stores,
artillery, intrenched camps or towns, are required to keep the British
busy until the cold season is over; otherwise the guerrilla warfare
might be extinguished before the next Summer gives it fresh life.
Gwalior appears to be, among others, a favorable point, if the
insurgents have really got hold of it. Secondly, the fate of the
insurrection is dependent upon its being able to expand. If the
dispersed columns cannot manage to cross from Rohilcund into
Rajpootana and the Mahratta country; if the movement remains confined
to the northern central district, then, no doubt, the next Winter will
suffice to disperse the bands, and to turn them into dacoits, which
will soon be more hateful to the inhabitants than even the palefaced
invaders.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1858/07/21.htm

Sid Harth

unread,
Feb 7, 2010, 2:25:41 PM2/7/10
to
Karl Marx in the New-York Tribune 1858

The Indian Bill

Source: New-York Daily Tribune, July 24, 1858;
Transcribed: by Tony Brown.

The latest India bill has passed through its third reading in the
House of Commons, and since the Lords swayed by Derby’s influence, are
not likely to show fight, the doom of the East India Company appears
to be sealed. They do not die like heroes, it must be confessed; but
they have bartered away their power, as they crept into it, bit by
bit, in a business-like way. In fact, their whole history is one of
buying and selling. They commenced by buying sovereignty, and they
have ended by selling it. They have fallen, not in a pitched battle,
but under the hammer of the auctioneer, into the hands of the highest
bidder. In 1693 they procured from the Crown a charter for twenty-one
years by paying large sums to the Duke of Leeds and other public
officers. In 1767 they prolonged their tenure of power for two years
by the promise of annually paying £400,000 into the Imperial
exchequer. In 1769 they struck a similar bargain for five years; but
soon after, in return for the Exchequer’s foregoing the stipulated
annual payment and lending them £1,400,000 at 4 per cent, they
alienated some parcels of sovereignty, leaving to Parliament in the
first instance the nomination of the Governor-General and four
Councilors, altogether surrendering to the Crown the appointment of
the Lord Chief justice and his three judges, and agreeing to the
conversion of the Court of Proprietors from a democratic into an
oligarchic body. In 1858, after having solemnly pledged themselves to
the Court of Proprietors to resist by all constitutional “means” the
transfer to the Crown of the governing powers of the a East India
Company, they have accepted that principle, and agreed to a bill penal
as regards the Company, but securing emolument and place to its
principal Directors. If the death of a hero, as Schiller says,
resembles the setting of the sun, the exit of the East India Company
bears more likeness to the compromise effected by a bankrupt with his
creditors.

By this bill the principal functions of administration are intrusted
to a Secretary of State in Council, just as at Calcutta the Governor-
General in Council manages affairs. But both these functionaries — the
Secretary of State in England and the Governor-General in India — are
alike authorized to disregard the advice of their assessors and to act
upon their own judgment. The new bill also invests the Secretary of
State with all the powers at present exercised by the President of the
Board of Control, through the agency of the Secret Committee — the
power, that is, in urgent cases, of dispatching orders to India
without stopping to ask the advice of his Council. In constituting
that Council it has been found necessary, after all, to resort to the
East India Company as the only practicable source of appointments to
it other than nominations by the Crown. The elective members of the
Council are to be elected by the Directors of the East India Company
from among their own number.

Thus, after all, the name of the East India Company is to outlive its
substance. At the last hour it was confessed by the Derby Cabinet that
their bill contains no clause abolishing the East India Company, as
represented by a Court of Directors, but that it becomes reduced to
its ancient character of a company of stockholders, distributing the
dividends guaranteed by different acts of legislation. Pitt’s bill of
1784 virtually subjected their government to the sway of the Cabinet
under the name of the Board of Control. The act of 1813 stripped them
of their monopoly of commerce, save the trade with China. The act of
1834 destroyed their commercial character altogether, and the act of
1854 annihilated their last remnant of power, still leaving them in
possession of the Indian administration. By the rotation of history
the East India Company, converted in 1612 into a joint-stock company,
is again clothed in its primitive garb, only, that it represents now a
trading partnership without trade, and a joint-stock company which has
no funds to administer, but only fixed dividends to draw.

The history of the Indian bill is marked by greater dramatic changes
than any other act of modern Parliamentary legislation. When the Sepoy
insurrection broke out, the cry of Indian reform rang through all
classes of British society. Popular imagination was heated by the
torture reports; the Government interference with the native religion
was loudly denounced by Indian general officers and civilians of high
standing; the rapacious annexation policy of Lord Dalhousie, the mere
tool of Downing street; the fermentation recklessly created in the
Asiatic mind by the piratical wars in Persia and China — wars
commenced and pursued on Palmerston’s private dictation — the weak
measures with which he met the outbreak, sailing ships being chosen
for transport in preference to steam vessels, and the circuitous
navigation around the cape of Good Hope instead of transportation over
the Isthmus of Suez — all these accumulated grievances burst into the
cry for Indian Reform — reform of the Company’s Indian administration,
reform of the Government’s Indian policy. Palmerston caught at the
popular cry, but resolved upon turning it to his exclusive profit.
Because both the Government and the Company had miserably broken down,
the Company was to be killed in sacrifice, and the Government to be
rendered omnipotent. The power of the Company was to be simply
transferred to the dictator of the day, pretending to represent the
Crown as against the Parliament, and to represent Parliament as
against the Crown, thus absorbing the privileges of the one and the
other in his single person. With the Indian army at his back, the
Indian treasury at his command, and the Indian patronage in his
pocket, Palmerston’s position would have become impregnable.

His bill passed triumphantly through the first reading, but his career
was cut short by the famous Conspiracy bill, followed by the advent of
the Tories to power.

On the very first day of their official reappearance on the Treasury
benches, they declared that, out of deference for the decisive will of
the Commons, they would forsake their opposition to the transfer from
the Company to the Crown of the Indian Government. Lord Ellenborough’s
legislative abortion seemed to hasten Palmerston’s restoration, when
Lord John Russell, in order to force the dictator into a compromise,
stepped in, and saved the Government by proposing to proceed with the
Indian bill by way of Parliamentary resolution, instead of by a
governmental bill. Then Lord Ellenborough’s Oude dispatch, his sudden
resignation, and the consequent disorganization in the Ministerial
camp, were eagerly seized upon by Palmerston. The Tories were again to
be planted in the cold shade of opposition, after they had employed
their short lease of power in breaking down the opposition of their
own party against the confiscation of the East India Company. Yet it
is sufficiently known how these fine calculations were baffled.
Instead of rising on the ruins of the East India Company, Palmerston
has been buried beneath them. During the whole of the Indian debates,
the House seemed to indulge the peculiar satisfaction of humiliating
the Civis Romanus. All his amendments, great and small, were
ignominiously lost; allusions of the most unsavory kind, relating to
the Afghan war, the Persian war, and the Chinese war, were continually
flung at his head; and Mr. Gladstone’s clause, withdrawing from the
Indian Minister the power of originating wars beyond the boundaries of
India, intended as a general vote of censure on Palmerston’s past
foreign policy, was passed by a crushing majority, despite his furious
resistance. But although the man has been thrown overboard, his
principle, upon the whole, has been accepted. Although somewhat
checked by the obstructive attributes of the Board of Council, which,
in fact, is but the well-paid specter of the old Court of Directors,
the power of the executive has, by the formal annexation of India,
been raised to such a degree that, to counterpoise it, democratic
weight must be thrown into the Parliamentary scale.


http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1858/07/24.htm

Frederick Engels in the New-York Tribune 1858

Transport of Troops to India

Source: New-York Daily Tribune, August 13, 1858;
Transcribed: by Tony Brown.

London, July 27, 1858

At the beginning of the Anglo-Indian war, two curious questions were
mooted — the one relating to the respective superiority of steamers or
sailing vessels, the other as to the use of the overland route for the
transport of troops. The British Government having decided in favor of
sailing vessels against steamers, and for the voyage round the Cape of
Good Hope against the overland route, the House of Commons, on the
motion of Sir De Lacy Evans, ordered, on the 4th of February, 1858, a
Committee to be appointed, under the chairmanship of the veteran
General, which was to inquire “concerning the measures resorted to.”
The formation of this Committee was completely altered by the
intervening change of Ministry, consequent upon which three
Palmerstonians were substituted for Lord Stanley and Sir John
Pakington. The report of the Committee proving, on the whole,
favorable to the late Administration, Gen. Sir De Lacy Evans had a
protest printed and circulated, in which he asserts the conclusion
arrived at to be at titter variance with the premises from which it
pretended to be drawn, and quite inconsistent with the facts and
evidence laid before them. An examination of the evidence itself must
oblige all impartial persons to fully concur in this view of the case.

The decisive importance of a short line of communication between an
army in the field and its base of communication needs no
demonstration. During the American War of Independence the principal
obstacle England had to grapple with was a sea line of 3,000 miles
over which she had to convey her troops, stores and re-enforcements.
From Great Britain to the mouths of the Indus and Ganges, to Calcutta,
Madras, Kurrachee and Bombay, the distance, according to past
arrangements, may be reckoned at about 14,000 miles; but the use of
steam offered the means of shortening it considerably. Hitherto on all
occasions it had been the practice to effect the relief of regiments
in India, by this long sea voyage in sailing vessels. This was
considered a sufficient reason on the part of the late British
Administration, for declaring at the beginning of the Indian troubles,
that sailing vessels would still be preferred to steamers for the
conveyance of troops. Up to the 10th of July, 1857, of 31 vessels
taken up, nearly the whole were sailing ships. Meanwhile, public
censure in England and unfavorable news from India effected so much
that in the interval from the 10th of July to the 1st of December,
among the 59 ships taken up for troops, 29 screw steamers were
admitted. Thus a rough test was afforded of the relative qualities of
steamers and sailing vessels in accomplishing the transit. According
to the return furnished by the Marine Department of the East India
Company, giving names of transports and length of passages to the four
principal ports of India, the following may be considered the average
results as between steamers and sailing vessels.

From England to Calcutta.
Days.
From August 6 to October 21, 1857, average of steamers, omitting
fractions 82
Average of 22 sailing vessels, from June 10 to August 27, 1857 116
Difference in favor of steamers 34
To Madras.
Average of 2 steamers 90
Average of 2 sailing ships 131
Difference in favor of steamers 41
To Bombay.
Average of 5 steamers 76
Average of 9 sailing ships 118
Difference in favor of steamers 42
To Kurrachee.
Average of 3 steamers 91
Average of 10 ships 128
Difference in favor of steamers 37
Average of the whole of the 19 passages by steamers to the four ports
of India 83
Average passage of 43 sailing ships 120
Difference between averages of steam and sailing vessels 37

The same official return, dated Feb. 27, 1858, gives the following
details:

Men.
To Calcutta were conveyed by steamers 6,798
By sailing ships 9,489
Total to Calcutta 16,287
To Madras, by steamers 2,089
By sailing ships 985
Total to Madras 3,074
To Bombay, by steamers 3,906
By sailing ships 3,439
Total to Bombay 7,345
To Kurrachee, by steamers 1,351
By sailing ships 2,321
Total to Kurrachee 3,672

It appears, then, from the above that 27 steamers carried to the four
ports of disembarkation in India 14,144 men, averaging, therefore, 548
men in each ship; that in 55 sailing ships were conveyed 16,234 men,
averaging 289 men in each. Now, by the same official statement of
averages, it appears that the 14,144 men conveyed in steamers arrived
at their respective places of destination on an average of 37 days
sooner than the 16,234 men embarked on sailing ships. On the part of
the British Admiralty and the other ministerial departments no
arguments were adduced in favor of the traditionary transport but
precedent and routine, both dating from an epoch when steam navigation
was utterly unknown. Lord Palmerston’s principal plea, however, for
the delay was expense, the cost of steamers in most of the above cases
amounting to perhaps treble that of sailing ships. Apart from the fact
that this great enhancement of charge for steamers must have gradually
diminished after the first unusual demand, and that in so vital an
emergency expense ought not to be admitted as an element of
calculation, it is evident that the increased cost of transport would
have been more than compensated for by the lessened chances of the
insurrection.

Still more important than the question of superiority as between
steamers and sailing vessels, seems the controversy respecting the
voyage round the Cape on the one hand and the overland route on the
other; Lord Palmerston affirming the general impracticability of the
latter route. A controversy in regard to it between his Board of
Control and the East India Directors, appears to have commenced
contemporaneously with the first information of the Indian revolt
reaching England. The question had, in fact, been solved as long ago
as the beginning of this century. In the year 1801, when there were no
steam navigation company’s agents to aid the military arrangements,
and when no railway existed, a large force under Sir David Baird
proceeded from India and landed at Kosseir in May and June; crossed in
nine days the desert of Kherie, on the Nile; proceeded down that
river, garrisoned Alexandria, and in the following year, 1802, several
regiments returned to India by Suez and the Red Sea, in the month of
June. That force, amounting to 5,000 men, consisted of a troop of
horse-artillery, six guns and small arms, ammunition, camp equipage,
baggage, and 126 chests of treasure. The troops generally were very
healthy. The march across the Suez Desert, from the lake of St.
Pilgrims, near Grand Cairo to Suez, was performed in four days with
the greatest ease, marching by night and encamping during the day. In
June the ships proceeded to India, the wind at that season blowing
down the Red Sea. They made a very quick passage. Again, during the
late Russian war, in the summer of 1854, the 10th and 11th regiments
of Dragoons (1,400 horses, 1,600 men) arrived in Egypt from India, and
were forwarded thence to the Crimea. These corps, though their
transfer took place during the hot months, or monsoon, and though they
had to remain some time in Egypt, are known to have been remarkably
healthy and efficient, and to have continued so throughout their
Crimean service. In the last instance there is the experience of the
actual Indian war. After the waste of nearly four months, some
thousand troops were dispatched by Egypt with extraordinary advantage
as to economy of time, and with perfect preservation of health. The
first regiment that was conveyed by this line passed from Plymouth to
Bombay in thirty-seven days. Of the first regiment sent from Malta,
the first wing arrived at Bombay in sixteen and the second wing in
eighteen days. An overwhelming mass of evidence, from numerous
trustworthy witnesses, attest the peculiar facilities, especially in
periods of emergency, afforded by the overland route transport. Col.
Poeklington, Deputy Quartermaster-General, appointed in October, 1857,
to direct and superintend the transit of the troops, and who,
expressly prepared by order of the War Department a report for the
Committee of Inquiry, states:

“The advantages of the overland route are very considerable, and the
trajet is most simple. A thousand men per week can be conveyed across
the isthmus by the Transit administration of Egypt without
interference with the ordinary passenger traffic. Between 300 and 400
men can move at a time, and perform the distance from ship to ship in
26 hours. The transit by rail is completed to within almost twenty
miles of Suez. This last portion of the journey is performed by the
soldiers on donkeys in about six hours. There can be no doubt as to
the experiment having succeeded.”

The time occupied by troops from England to India is, by the overland
route, from 33 to 46 days. From Malta to India, from 16 to 18 or 20
days. Compare these periods with the 83 by steamers, or the 120 by
sailing ships, on the long sea route, and the difference will appear
striking. Again, during the longer route, Great Britain will have from
15,000 to 20,000 troops, in effect hors de combat, and beyond counter
orders for a period annually, of from 3 to 4 months, while, with the
shorter line, it will be but for the brief period of some 14 days,
during the transit from Suez to India, that the troops will be beyond
reach of recall, for any unexpected European contingency.

In resorting to the overland route only 4 months after the outbreak of
the Indian war, and then only for a mere handful of troops, Palmerston
set at naught the general anticipation of India and Europe. The
Governor-General in India assumed that the Home Government would
dispatch troops by the way of Egypt. The following is a passage from
the Governor-General in Council’s letter to the Home Government, dated
Aug. 7, 1857:

“We are also in communication with the Peninsular and Oriental Steam
Navigation Company for the conveyance from Suez of the troops that may
possibly have been dispatched to India by that route.”

On the very day of the arrival at Constantinople of the news of the
revolt, Lord Stratford de Redcliffe telegraphed to London to know
whether he should apply to the Turkish Government to allow the British
troops to pass through Egypt, on their way to India. The Sultan a
having meanwhile offered and transmitted a firman to that effect on
the 2d of July, Palmerston replied by telegraph, that it was not his
intention to send troops by that route. It being in France likewise
assumed, as a matter of course, that the acceleration of the military
re-enforcements must at that moment form the paramount object of
British policy, Bonaparte spontaneously tendered permission for the
passage over France of British troops, to enable their being embarked,
if deemed desirable, at Marseilles, for Egypt. The Pasha of Egypt
lastly, when, at length, Mr. Holton, the Superintendent of the
Peninsular and Oriental Company in Egypt, was authorized to reply on
the subject, answered immediately,

“It would be a satisfaction to him to give facility to the passage of
not only 200 men, as in the present instance, but to that of 20,000,
if necessary, and not en bourgeois but in uniform, and with their
arms, if required.”

Such were the facilities recklessly thrown away, the proper use of
which might have prevented the Indian war from assuming its formidable
dimensions. The motives by which Lord Palmerston was prompted in
preferring sailing vessels to steamers, and a line of communication
extending over 14,000 miles to one limited to 4,000 miles, belong to
the mysteries of contemporaneous history.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1858/08/13.htm

Frederick Engels in the New-York Tribune 1857

The Revolt in India

Source: New-York Daily Tribune, October 1, 1858;
Transcribed: by Tony Brown.

The campaign in India has been almost completely suspended during the
hot and rainy summer months. Sir Colin Campbell having secured, by a
vigorous effort in the beginning of summer, all the important
positions in Oude and Rohilcund, very wisely put his troops into
quarters, leaving the open country in the possession of the
insurgents, and limiting his efforts to maintaining his
communications. The only episode of interest which occurred during
this period in Oude, was the excursion of Sir Hope Grant to Shahgunge
for the relief of Maun Singh, a native chief, who, after a deal of
tergiversation, had lately made his peace with the British, and was
now blockaded by his late native allies. The excursion proved a mere
military promenade, though it must have caused great loss to the
British by sun-stroke and cholera. The natives dispersed without
showing fight, and Maun Singh joined the British. The easy success of
this expedition, though it cannot be taken as an indication of an
equally easy subjection of the whole of Oude, shows that the
insurgents have lost heart completely. If it was the interest of the
British to rest during the hot weather, it was the interest of the
insurgents to disturb them as much as possible. But instead of
organizing an active guerrilla warfare, intercepting the
communications between the towns held by the enemy, of waylaying small
parties, harassing the foragers, of rendering impassable the supply of
victuals, without which no large town held by the British could live —
instead of this, the natives have been satisfied with levying revenue
and enjoying the leisure left to them by their opponents. Better
still, they appear to have squabbled among themselves. Neither do they
appear to have profited by the few quiet weeks to reorganize their
forces, to refill their ammunition stores, or to replace the lost
artillery. The bolt at Shahgunge shows a still greater want of
confidence in themselves and their leaders than any previous defeat.
In the mean time, a secret correspondence is carried on between the
majority of the chiefs and the British Government, who have after all
found it rather impracticable to pocket the whole of the soil of Oude,
and are quite willing to let the former owners have it again. on
reasonable terms. Thus, as the final success of the British is now
beyond all doubt, the insurrection in Oude bids fair to die out
without passing through a period of active guerrilla warfare. As soon
as the majority of the landholders come to terms with the British, the
insurgent bodies will be broken up, and those who have too much to
fear from the Government will turn robbers (dacoits), in the capture
of whom the peasantry will gladly assist.

South-west of Oude the Jugdispore jungles appear to offer a center for
such dacoits. These impenetrable forests of bamboo and underwood are
held by a party of insurgents under Ummer Singh, who shows rather more
activity and knowledge of guerrilla warfare; at all events, he attacks
the British whenever he can, instead of quietly waiting for them. If,
as it is feared, part of the Oude insurgents should join him before he
can be expelled from his stronghold, the British may expect rather
harder work than they have had of late. These jungles have now for
nearly eight months served as a retreat to insurgent parties, who have
been able to render very insecure the Grand Trunk Road from Calcutta
to Allahabad, the main communication of the British.

In Western India, the Gwalior insurgents are still followed up by Gen.
Roberts and Col. Holmes. At the time of the capture of Gwalior, it was
a question of much consequence, what direction the retreating army
might take; for the whole of the Mahratta country and part of
Rajpootana appeared ready for a rising as soon as a sufficiently
strong body of regular troops arrived there to form a nucleus for the
insurrection. A retreat of the Gwalior force in a south-westerly
direction then seemed the most likely maneuver to realize such a
result. But the insurgents, from reasons which we cannot guess at from
the reports before us, have chosen a north-westerly direction. They
went to Jeypore, thence turning south toward Oodeypore, trying to gain
the road to the Mahratta country. But this roundabout marching gave
Roberts an opportunity of coming up with them, and defeating them
totally without any great effort. The remnants of this body, without
guns, without organization and ammunition, without leaders of repute,
are not the men who are likely to induce fresh risings. On the
contrary, the immense quantity of plunder which they carry along with
them, and which hampers all their movements, appears already to have
excited the avidity of the peasantry. Every straggling Sepoy is killed
and eased of his load of gold mohurs. If it has come to that, Gen.
Roberts may safely leave the final dispersion of these Sepoys to the
country population. The loot of Scindiah’s treasures by his troops
saves the British from a renewal of the insurrection in a quarter more
dangerous than Hindostan; for a rising in the Mahratta country would
put the Bombay army upon a rather severe trial.

There is a fresh mutiny in the neighborhood of Gwalior. A small vassal
of Scindiah, Maun Singh (not the Maun Singh of Oude) has joined the
insurgents, and got hold of the small fortress of Paoree. This place,
is, however, already invested by the British, and must soon be
captured.

In the mean time, the conquered districts are gradually pacified. The
neighborhood of Delhi, it is said, has been so completely
tranquillized by Sir J. Lawrence that a European may travel about with
perfect safety, unarmed, and without an escort. The secret of the
matter is, that the people of every village have been made
collectively responsible for any crime or outrage committed on its
ground; that a military police has been organized; and, above all,
that the summary justice of the Court-Martial, so peculiarly
impressive upon Orientals, is everywhere in full swing. Still, this
success appears to be the exception, as we do not hear anything of the
kind from other districts. The complete pacification of Rohilcund and
Oude, of Bundelcund and many other large provinces, must yet require a
very long time and give plenty of work yet to British troops and Court-
Martials.

But while the insurrection of Hindostan dwindles down to dimensions
which deprive it of almost all military interest, there has occurred
an event far off, at the utmost frontiers of Afghanistan, which is big
with the threat of future difficulties. A conspiracy to murder their
officers and to rise against the British has been discovered among
several Sikh regiments at Dera Ismael Khan. How far this conspiracy
was ramified, we cannot tell. Perhaps it was merely a local affair,
arising among a peculiar class of Sikhs; but we are not in a position
to assert this. At all events, this is a highly dangerous symptom.
There are now nearly 100,000 Sikhs in the British service, and we have
heard how saucy they are; they fight, they say, to-day for the
British, but may fight to-morrow against them, as it may please God.
Brave, passionate, fickle, they are even more subject to sudden and
unexpected impulses than other Orientals. If mutiny should break out
in earnest among them, then would the British indeed have hard work to
keep their own. The Sikhs were always the most formidable opponents of
the British among the natives of India; they have formed a
comparatively powerful empire; they are of a peculiar sect of
Brahminism, and hate both Hindoos and Mussulmans. They have seen the
British “raj” in the utmost peril; they have contributed a great deal
to restore it, and they are even convinced that their own share of the
work was the decisive one. What is more natural than that they should
harbor the idea that the time has come when the British raj shall be
replaced by a Sikh raj, that a Sikh Emperor is to rule India from
Delhi or Calcutta? It may be that this idea is still far from being
matured among the Sikhs, it may be that they are so cleverly
distributed that they are balanced by Europeans, so that any rising
could be easily put down; but that this idea exists among them must be
clear, we presume, to everybody who has read the accounts of the
behaviour of the Sikhs after Delhi and Lucknow.

Still, for the present, the British have reconquered India. The great
rebellion, stirred up by the mutiny of the Bengal army, is indeed, it
appears, dying out. But this second conquest has not increased
England’s hold upon the mind of the Indian people. The cruelty of the
retribution dealt out by the British troops, goaded on by exaggerated
and false reports of the atrocities attributed to the natives, and the
attempt at confiscating the Kingdom of Oude, both wholesale and
retail, have not created any particular fondness for the victors. On
the contrary, they themselves confess that among both Hindoos and
Mussulmans, the hereditary hatred against the Christian intruder is
more fierce than ever. Impotent as this hatred may be at present, it
is not without its significance and importance, while that menacing
cloud is resting over the Sikh Punjaub. And this is not all. The two
great Asiatic powers, England and Russia, have by this time got hold
of one point between Siberia and India, where Russian and English
interests must come into direct collision. That point is Pekin. Thence
westward a line will ere long be drawn across the breadth of the
Asiatic Continent, on which this collision of rival interests will
constantly take place. Thus the time may indeed not be so very distant
when “the Sepoy and the Cossack will meet in the plains of the Oxus,”
and if that meeting is to take place, the anti-British passions of
150,000 native Indians will be a matter of serious consideration.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1858/10/01.htm

Sid Harth

unread,
Feb 7, 2010, 2:31:12 PM2/7/10
to
Karl Marx in New York Daily Tribune
Articles On China, 1853-1860

[Trade or Opium?]

Written: September 20, 1858;
Transcribed by: Harold Newson;
HTML Mark-up: Andy Blunden;

September 20, 1858

THE NEWS of the new treaty wrung from China by the allied
Plenipotentiaries has, it would appear, conjured up the same wild
vistas of an immense extension of trade which danced before the eyes
of the commercial mind in 1845, after the conclusion of the first
Chinese war. Supposing the Petersburg wires to have spoken truth, is
it quite certain that an increase of the Chinese trade must follow
upon the multiplication of its emporiums? Is there any probability
that the war Of 1857-8 will lead to more splendid results than the war
of 1839-42? So much is certain that the Treaty Of 1842, instead of
increasing American and English exports to China, proved instrumental
only in precipitating and aggravating the commercial crisis of 1847.
In a similar way, by raising dreams of an inexhaustible market and by
fostering false speculations, the present treaty may help preparing a
new crisis at the very moment when the market of the world is but
slowly recovering from the recent universal shock. Besides its
negative result, the first opium-war succeeded in stimulating the
opium trade at the expense of legitimate commerce, and so will this
second opium-war do if England be not forced by the general pressure
of the civilized world to abandon the compulsory opium cultivation in
India and the armed opium propaganda to China. We forbear dwelling on
the morality of that trade, described by Montgomery Martin, himself an
Englishman, in the following terms:

"Why, the 'slave trade' was merciful compared with the 'opium trade'.
We did not destroy the bodies of the Africans, for it was our
immediate interest to keep them alive; we did not debase their
natures, corrupt their minds, nor destroy their souls. But the opium
seller slays the body after he has corrupted, degraded and annihilated
the moral being of unhappy sinners, while, every hour is bringing new
victims to a Moloch which knows no satiety, and where the English
murderer and Chinese suicide vie with each other in offerings at his
shrine."

The Chinese cannot take both goods and drug; under actual
circumstances, extension of the Chinese trade resolves into extension
of the opium trade; the growth of the latter is incompatible with the
development of legitimate commerce these propositions were pretty
generally admitted two years ago. A Committee of the House of Commons,
appointed in 1847 to take into consideration the state of British
commercial intercourse with China, reported thus:

We regret "that the trade with that country has been for some time in
a very unsatisfactory condition, and that the result of our extended
intercourse has by no means realized the just expectations which had
naturally been founded on a freer access to so magnificent a
market.... We find that the difficulties of the trade do not arise
from any want of demand in China for articles of British manufacture
or from the increasing competition of other nations.... The payment
for opium ... absorbs the silver to the great inconvenience of the
general traffic of the Chinese; and tea and silk must in fact absorb
the rest."

The Friend of China, Of July 28, I 849, generalizing the same
proposition, says in set terms:

"The opium trade progresses steadily. The increased consumption of
teas and silk in Great Britain and the United States would merely
result in the increase of the opium trade; the case of the
manufacturers is hopeless."

One of the leading American merchants in China reduced, in an article
inserted in Hunt's Merchants' Magazine, for January, 1850, the whole
question of the trade with China to this point: "Which branch of
commerce is to be suppressed, the opium trade or the export trade of
American or English produce?" The Chinese themselves took exactly the
same view of the case. Montgomery Martin narrates: "I inquired of the
Taoutai at Shanghai which would be the best means of increasing our
commerce with China, and his first answer to me, in the presence of
Capt. Balfour, Her Majesty's Consul, was: 'Cease to send us so much
opium, and we will be able to take your manufactures.'"

The history of general commerce during the last eight years has, in a
new and striking manner, illustrated these positions; but, before
analysing the deleterious effects on legitimate commerce of the opium
trade, we propose giving a short review of the rise and progress of
that stupendous traffic which, whether we regard the tragical
collisions forming, so to say, the axis round which it turns, or the
effects produced by it on the general relations of the Eastern and
Western worlds, stands solitary on record in the annals of mankind.
Previous to 1767 the quantity of opium exported from India did not
exceed 200 chests, the chest weighing about 133lbs. Opium was legally
admitted in China on the payment of a duty of about $3 per chest, as a
medicine; the Portuguese, who brought it from Turkey, being its almost
exclusive importers into the Celestial Empire. In I773, Colonel Watson
and Vice-President Wheeler — persons deserving to take a place among
the Hermentiers, Palmers and other poisoners of world-wide fame —
suggested to the East India Company the idea of entering upon the
opium traffic with China. Consequently, there was established a depot
for opium in vessels anchored in a bay to the southwest of Macao. The
speculation proved a failure. In 1781 the Bengal Government sent an
armed vessel, laden with opium, to China; and, in I794, the Company
stationed a large opium vessel at Whampoa, the anchorage for the port
of Canton. It seems that Whampoa proved a more convenient depot than
Macao, because, only two years after its selection, the Chinese
Government found it necessary to pass a law which threatened Chinese
smugglers of opium to be beaten with a bamboo and exposed in the
streets with wooden collars around their necks. About 1798, the East
India Company ceased to be direct exporters of opium, but they became
its producers. The opium monopoly was established in India; while the
Company's own ships were hypocritically forbidden from trafficking in
the drug, the licences it granted for private ships trading to China
containing a provision which attached a penalty to them if freighted
with opium of other than the Company's own make. In 1800, the import
into China had reached the number of 2,000 chests. Having, during the
eighteenth century, borne the aspect common to all feuds between the
foreign merchant and the national custom-house, the struggle between
the East India Company and the Celestial Empire assumed, since the
beginning of the nineteenth century, features quite distinct and
exceptional; while the Chinese Emperor, in order to check the suicide
of his people, prohibited at once the import of the poison by the
foreigner, and its consumption by the natives, the East India Company
was rapidly converting the cultivation of opium in India, and its
contraband sale to China, into internal parts of its own financial
system.

While the semi-barbarian stood on the principle of morality, the
civilized opposed to him the principle of self. That a giant empire,
containing almost one-third of the human race, vegetating in the teeth
of time, insulated by the forced exclusion of general intercourse, and
thus contriving to dupe itself with delusions of Celestial perfection-
that such an empire should at last be overtaken by fate on [the]
occasion of a deadly duel, in which the representative of the
antiquated world appears prompted by ethical motives, while the
representative of overwhelming modern society fights for the privilege
of buying in the cheapest and selling in the dearest markets-this,
indeed, is a sort of tragical couplet stranger than any poet would
ever have dared to fancy.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1858/09/20.htm

Karl Marx in New York Daily Tribune
Articles On China, 1853-1860

Free Trade and Monopoly

Written: September 25, 1858;
Transcribed by: Harold Newson;
HTML Mark-up: Andy Blunden;

September 25, 1858

IT WAS the assumption of the opium monopoly in India by the British
Government which led to the proscription of the opium trade in China.
The cruel punishments inflicted by the Celestial legislator upon his
own contumacious subjects, and the stringent prohibition established
at the Chinese custom-houses proved alike nugatory. The next effect of
the moral resistance of the Chinaman was the demoralization, by the
Englishman, of the Imperial authorities, custom-house officers and
mandarins generally. The corruption that ate into the heart of the
Celestial bureaucracy, and destroyed the bulwark of the patriarchal
constitution, was, together with the opium chests, smuggled into the
Empire from the English storeships anchored at Whampoa.

Nurtured by the East India Company, vainly combated by the Central
Government at Pekin, the opium trade gradually assumed larger
proportions, until it absorbed about $2,500,000 in 1816. The throwing
open in that year of the Indian commerce, with the single exception of
the tea trade, which still continued to be monopolized by the East
India Company, gave a new and powerful stimulus to the operations of
the English contrabandists. In 1820, the number of chests smuggled
into China had increased to 5,147; in 182I to 7,000, and in 1824 to
12,639. Meanwhile, the Chinese Government, at the same time that it
addressed threatening remonstrances to the foreign merchants, punished
the Hong Kong merchants, known as their abettors, developed an
unwonted activity in its prosecution of the native opium consumers,
and, at its custom-houses, put into practice more stringent measures.
The final result, like that of similar exertions in 1794, was to drive
the opium depots from a precarious to a more convenient basis of
operations. Macao and Whampoa were abandoned for the Island of Lin-
Tin, at the entrance of the Canton River, there to become manned. In
the same way, when the Chinese Government temporarily succeeded in
stopping the operations of the old Canton houses, the trade only
shifted hands, and passed to a lower class of men, prepared to carry
it on at all hazards and by whatever means. Thanks to the greater
facilities thus afforded, the opium trade increased during the ten
years from 1824 to 1834 from 12,639 to 21,785 chests.

Like the years 1800, 1816 and 1824, the year 1834 marks an epoch in
the history of the opium trade. The East India Company then lost not
only its privilege of trading in Chinese tea, but had to discontinue
and abstain from all commercial business whatever. It being thus
transformed from a mercantile into a merely government establishment,
the trade to China became completely thrown open to English private
enterprise which pushed on with such vigour that, in 1837, 39,000
chests of opium, valued at $25,000,000, were successfully smuggled
into China, despite the desperate resistance of the Celestial
Government. Two facts here claim our attention: First, that of every
step in the progress of the export trade of China since 1816, a
disproportionately large part progressively fell upon the opium-
smuggling branch; and secondly, that hand in hand with the gradual
extinction of the ostensible mercantile interest of the Anglo-Indian
Government in the opium trade grew the importance of its fiscal
interest in that illicit traffic. In 1837 the Chinese Government had
at last arrived at a point where decisive action could no longer be
delayed. The continuous drain of silver, caused by the opium
importations, had begun to derange the exchequer, as well as the
moneyed circulation of the Celestial Empire. Heu Nailzi, one of the
most distinguished Chinese statesmen, proposed to legalize the opium
trade and make money out of it; but after a full deliberation, in
which all the high officers of the Empire shared, and which extended
over a period of more than a year's duration, the Chinese Government
decided that, "On account of the injuries it inflicted on the people,
the nefarious traffic should not be legalized." As early as 1830, a
duty of 25 per cent would have yielded a revenue Of $3,850,000. In
1837, it would have yielded double that sum, but then the Celestial
barbarian declined, laying a tax sure to rise in proportion to the
degradation of his people. In 1853, Hien Fang, the present Emperor,
under still more distressed circumstances, and with the full knowledge
of the futility of all efforts at stopping the increasing import of
opium, persevered in the stern policy of his ancestors. Let me remark,
en Passant, that by persecuting the opium consumption as a heresy the
Emperor gave its traffic all the advantages of a religious propaganda.
The extraordinary measures of the Chinese Government during the years
1837, 1838 and 1839, which culminated in Commissioner Lin's arrival at
Canton, and the confiscation and destruction, by his orders, of the
smuggled opium, afforded the pretext for the first Anglo-Chinese war,
the results of which developed themselves in the Chinese rebellion,
the utter exhaustion of the Imperial exchequer, the successful
encroachment of Russia from the North, and the gigantic dimensions
assumed by the opium trade in the South. Although proscribed in the
treaty with which England terminated a war, commenced and carried on
in its defence, the opium trade has practically enjoyed perfect
impunity since 1843. The importation was estimated, in 1856, at about
$35,000,000, while in the same year, the Anglo-Indian Government drew
a revenue Of $25,000,000, just the sixth part of its total State
income, from the opium monopoly. The pretexts on which the second
opium war has been undertaken are of too recent date to need any
commentary.

We cannot leave this part of the subject without singling out one
flagrant self-contradiction of the Christianity-canting and
civilization-mongering British Government. In its imperial capacity it
affects to be a thorough stranger to the contraband opium trade, and
even to enter into treaties proscribing it. Yet, in its Indian
capacity, it forces the opium cultivation upon Bengal, to the great
damage of the productive resources of that country; compels one part
of the Indian ryots to engage in the poppy culture; entices another
part into the same by dint of money advances; keeps the wholesale
manufacture of the deleterious drug a close monopoly in its hands;
watches by a whole army of official spies its growth, its delivery at
appointed places, its inspissation and preparation for the taste of
the Chinese consumers, its formation into packages especially adapted
to the conveniency of smuggling, and finally its conveyance to
Calcutta, where it is put up at auction at the Government sales, and
made over by the State officers to the speculators, thence to pass
into the hands of the contrabandists who land it in China. The chest
costing the British Government about 250 rupees is sold at the
Calcutta auction mart at a price ranging from 1,210 to 1,600 rupees.
But, not yet satisfied with this matter-of-fact complicity, the same
Government, to this hour, enters into express profit and loss accounts
with the merchants and shippers, who embark in the hazardous operation
of poisoning an empire.

The Indian finances of the British Government have, in fact, been made
to depend not only on the opium trade with China, but on the
contraband character of that trade. Were the Chinese Government to
legalize the opium trade simultaneously with tolerating the
cultivation of the poppy in China, the Anglo-Indian exchequer would
experience a serious catastrophe. While openly preaching free trade in
poison. it secretly defends the monopoly of its manufacture. Whenever
we look closely into the nature of British free trade, monopoly is
pretty generally found to lie at the bottom of its "freedom."

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1858/09/25.htm

Karl Marx in New York Daily Tribune
Articles On China, 1853-1860

Trade and the Treaty

Written: October 5, 1858;
Transcribed by: Harold Newson;
HTML Mark-up: Andy Blunden;

October 5, 1858

THE UNSUCCESSFUL issue, in a commercial point of view, of Sir Henry
Pottinger's Chinese treaty, signed on August 29, 1842, and dictated,
like the new treaties with China, at the cannon's mouth, is a fact now
recollected even by that eminent organ of British Free Trade, the
London Economist. Having stood forward as one of the staunchest
apologists of the late invasion of China, that journal now feels
itself obliged to "temper" the sanguine hopes which have been
cultivated in other quarters. The Economist considers the effects on
the British export trade of the treaty of 1842, "a precedent by which
to guard ourselves against the result of mistaken operations." This
certainly is sound advice. The reasons, however, which Mr. Wilson
alleges in explanation of the failure of the first attempt at forcibly
enlarging the Chinese market for Western produce, appear far from
conclusive.

The first great cause pointed out of the signal failure is the
speculative overstocking of the Chinese market, during the first three
years following the Pottinger treaty, and the carelessness of the
English merchants as to the nature of the Chinese demand. The English
exports to China which, in 1836, amounted to £1,326,000, had fallen in
1842 to £969000

Their rapid and continued rise during the following six years is shown
by these figures:

1842 £969,000 1843 £1,456,000 1844 £2,305,000 1845 £2,295,000

Yet in 1846 the exports did not only sink below the level of 1836, but
the disasters overtaking the China houses at London during the crisis
of 1847 proved the computed value of the exports from 1843 to 1846,
such as it appears in the official return tables, to have by no means
corresponded to the value actually realized. If the English exporters
thus erred in the quantity, they did not less so in the quality of the
articles offered to Chinese consumption. In proof of the latter
assertion, the Economist quotes from Mr. W. Cooke, the late
correspondent of the London Times at Shanghai and Canton, the
following passages:

"In 1843, 1844 and 1845, when the northern ports had just been opened,
the people at home were wild with excitement. An eminent firm at
Sheffield sent out a large consignment of knives and forks, and
declared themselves prepared to supply all China with cutlery... They
were sold at prices which scarcely realized their freight. A London
house, of famous name, sent out a tremendous consignment of
pianofortes, 'which shared the same fate.' What happened in the case
of cutlery and pianos occurred also, in a less noticeable manner, 'in
the case of worsted and cotton manufactures.' ...Manchester made a
great blind effort when the ports were opened, and that effort failed.
Since then she has fallen into an apathy, and trusts to the chapter of
accidents."

Lastly, to prove the dependence of the reduction, maintenance or
improvement of the trade, on the study of the wants of the consumer,
the Economist reproduces from the same authority the following return
for the year 1856:

1845. 1846. 1856. Worsted Stuffi (pieces) 13,569 3,415 7,428 Camlets
13,374 8,034 4,470 Long ells 91,531 75,784 96,642 Woollens 62,731
56,996 38,553 Printed Cottons 100,615 8x,150 281,784 Plain Cottons
2,998,126 1,859,740 2,817,624 Cotton Twist lbs 2,640,098 5,324,050
5,579,600

Now all these arguments and illustrations explain nothing beyond the
reaction following the overtrade of 1843-45, It is a phenomenon by no
means peculiar to the Chinese trade, that a sudden expansion of
commerce should be followed by its violent contractions, or that a new
market, at its opening. should be choked by British oversupplies; the
articles thrown upon it being not very nicely calculated, in regard
either to the actual wants or the paying powers of the consumers. In
fact, this is a standing feature in the history of the markets of the
world. On Napoleon's fall, after the opening of the European
continent, British exports proved so disproportionate to the
continental faculties of absorption that "the transition from war to
peace" proved more disastrous than the continental system itself.
Canning's recognition of the independence of the Spanish colonies in
America was also instrumental in producing the commercial crisis of
1825 Wares calculated for the meridian of Moscow were then dispatched
to Mexico and Colombia. And in our own day, notwithstanding its
elasticity, even Australia has not escaped the fate common to all new
markets, of having its powers of consumption as well as its means of
payment over-stocked. The phenomenon peculiar to the Chinese market is
this: that since its opening by the treaty of 1842, the export to
Great Britain of tea and silk, of Chinese produce, has continually
been expanding, while the import trade into China of British
manufactures has, on the whole, remained stationary. The continuous
and increasing balance of trade in favour of China might be said to
bear an analogy to the state of commercial balance between Russia and
Great Britain; but then, in the latter case, everything is explained
by the protective policy of Russia, while the Chinese import duties
are lower than those of any other country England trades with. The
aggregate value of Chinese exports to England, which before 1842 might
be rated at about IC.7,000,000, amounted in 1856 to the sum of about
IC 9,500,000. While the quantity of tea imported into Great Britain
never reached more than 50,000,000 lbs. before 1842, it had swollen in
1856 to about 90,000,000 lbs. On the other hand, the importance of the
British import of Chinese silks only dates from 1852. Its progress may
be computed from the following figures:

1852. 1853. 1854. 1855. 1856. Silk imp'd lbs 2,418,343 2,838,047
4,576,706 4,436,962 3,723,693 Value £ .... .... 3,318,II2 3,013,396
3,676,116

Now take, on the other hand, the movement of the

BRITISH EXPORTS TO CHINA VALUED IN POUNDS STERLING.

1834 £842,852 1835 1,074,708 1836 1,326,388 1838 1,204,356

For the period following the opening of the market in 1842 and the
acquisition of Hong Kong by the British, we find the following
returns:

1845 £2,359,000 1846 1,200,000 1848 1,445,950 1852 2,508,399 1853
1,749,597 1854 1,000,716 1855 1,122,241 1856 upward of 2,000,000

The Economist tries to account for the stationary and relatively
decreasing imports of British manufacture into the Chinese market by
foreign competition, and Mr. Cooke is again quoted to bear witness to
this proposition. According to this authority, the English are beaten
by fair competition in the Chinese market in many branches of trade.
The Americans, he says, beat the English in drills and sheetings. At
Shanghai in 1856 the imports were 221,716 pieces of American drills,
against 8,745 English, and 14,420 of American sheetings, against 1,240
English. In woollen goods, on the other hand, Germany and Russia are
said to press hardly on their English rivals. We want no other proof
than this illustration to convince us that Mr. Cooke and the Economist
are both mistaken in the appreciation of the Chinese market. They
consider as limited to the Anglo-Chinese trade features which are
exactly reproduced in the trade between the United States and the
Celestial Empire. In 1837, the excess of the Chinese exports to the
United States over the imports into China was about £860,000. During
the period since the treaty of 1842, the United States have received
an annual average of £2,000,000 in Chinese produce, for which we paid
in American merchandise £900,000. Of the £1,602,849 to which the
aggregate imports into Shanghai, exclusive of specie and opium,
amounted in 1855, England supplied £1,122,24I, America £272,708, and
other countries £207,900; while the exports reached a total of
£12,603,540, of which £6,405,040 were to England, £5,396,406 to
America, and £102,088 to other countries. Compare only the American
exports to the value of £272,708 with their imports from Shanghai
exceeding £5,000,000. If, nevertheless, American competition has, to
any sensible degree, made inroads on British traffic, how limited a
field of employment for the aggregate commerce of foreign nations the
Chinese market must offer.

The last cause assigned to the trifling importance the Chinese import
market has assumed since its opening in 1842, is the Chinese
revolution, but notwithstanding that revolution, the exports to China
relatively [swelled] in 1851-52, in the general increase of trade,
and, during the whole of the revolutionary epoch, the opium trade,
instead of falling off, rapidly obtained colossal dimensions. However
that may be, this much will be admitted, that all the obstacles to
foreign imports originating in the disordered state of the empire must
be increased, instead of being diminished, by the late piratical war,
and the fresh humiliations heaped on the ruling dynasty.

It appears to us, after a careful survey of the history of Chinese
commerce, that, generally speaking, the consuming and paying powers of
the Cclestials have been greatly overestimated. With the present
economical framework of Chinese society, which turns upon diminutive
agriculture and domestic manufactures as its pivots, any large import
of foreign produce is out of the question. Still, to the amount of
L8,000,000, a sum which may be roughly calculated to form the
aggregate balance in favour of China, as against England and the
United States, it might gradually absorb a surplus quantity of English
and American goods if the opium trade were suppressed. This conclusion
is necessarily arrived at on the analysis of the simple fact that the
Chinese finances and monetary circulation, in spite of the favourable
balance of trade, are seriously deranged by an import of opium to the
amount of about £7,000,000.

John Bull, however, used to plume himself on his high standard of
morality, prefers to bring up his adverse balance of trade by
periodical war tributes extorted from China on piratical pretexts. He
only forgets that the Carthegenian and Roman methods of making foreign
people pay, are, if combined in the same hands, sure to clash with and
destroy each other.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1858/10/05.htm

Sid Harth

unread,
Feb 7, 2010, 2:37:22 PM2/7/10
to
Karl Marx in The New-York Tribune 1859

Great Trouble in Indian Finances

Source: the New-York Daily Tribune, April 30, 1859;
Transcribed: by Tony Brown.

London, April 8, 1859

The Indian financial crisis, which at this moment shares with the war
rumors and the electioneering agitation in the privilege of absorbing
public interest in England, must be considered in a double point of
view. It involves both a temporary necessity and a permanent
difficulty.

On the 14th of February Lord Stanley brought in a bill in the House of
Commons authorizing the Government to raise a loan of £7,000,000 in
England, in order to adjust the extra expenditure of the Indian
administration for the current year. About six weeks later, John
Bull’s self-congratulations as to the small cost of the Indian
rebellion were roughly interrupted by the arrival of the Overland
Mail, conveying a, cry of financial distress from the Government at
Calcutta. On March 25, Lord Derby rose in the House of Lords to state
that a further loan for India of £5,000,000, in addition to the
£7,000,000 loan now before Parliament, would be required to meet the
demands of the present year, and that even then, certain claims for
compensation and prize money, amounting to £2,000,000 at least, would
remain to be paid from some source not yet apparent. To make things
pleasant, Lord Stanley had, in his first statement, only provided for
the wants of the Indian Treasury at London, leaving the -British
Government in India to its own resources, which, from the dispatches
received, he could not but know to be far from sufficient. Quite apart
from the expenses of the Home Government, or the Indian administration
at London, Lord Canning estimated the deficit of the Government at
Calcutta for the current year of 1859-60 at £12,000,000, after
allowing an increase in the ordinary revenue of £800,000, and a
decrease on military charges of £2 ,000,000. Such was his penury that
he had stopped paying part of his civil service; such was his credit
that the Government 5 per cents were quoted at 12 per cent discount;
and such was his distress that he could only be saved from bankruptcy
by the shipment from England to India of £3,000,000 of silver within a
few months. Three points thus become evident. First: Lord Stanley’s
original statement was a “dodge,” and, so far from embracing all the
Indian liabilities, did not even touch the immediate wants of the
Indian Government in India. Secondly: During the whole period of the
insurrection, if we except the sending from London in 1857 of
£1,000,000 of silver to India, the Calcutta Government was left to
shift for itself, to provide out of its own resources for the main
part of the extraordinary war charges which, of course, had to be
disbursed in India, for the barrack accommodation of some 60,000
additional Europeans, for the restoration of the treasures plundered,
and for the replacing of all the revenues of the local Administrations
which had been swept away. Thirdly: There is, apart from the wants of
the Home Government, a deficit of £12,000,000, to be met in the
present year. By operations, the questionable nature of which we
forbear to dwell upon, this sum is to be reduced to £9,000,000, of
which sum £5,000,000 are to be borrowed in India and £4,000,000 in
England. Of the latter, £1,000,000 in silver bullion has already been
shipped to Calcutta from London, and £2,000,000 more is to be
dispatched in the shortest possible period.

It will be seen from this succinct statement that the Indian
Government was very unfairly dealt with by its English masters, who
left it in the lurch, in order to throw dust in the eyes of John Bull;
but it must, on the other hand, be admitted that the financial
operations of Lord Canning surpass in awkwardness even his military
and political exploits. Up to the end of January, 1859, he had
contrived to raise the necessary means by loans in India, issued
partly in Government stocks, partly in Treasury bills; but, strange to
say, while his efforts had answered during the epoch of the
revolution, they failed entirely from the moment English authority was
restored by the force of arms. And not only did they fail, but there
was a panic in regard to Government securities; there was an
unprecedented depreciation in all funds, with protests from the
Chambers of Commerce at Bombay and Calcutta, and, in the latter town,
public meetings composed of English and native money-mongers,
denouncing the vacillation, the arbitrary nature and the helpless
imbecility of the Government measures. Now, the loanable capital of
India which up to January 1859, had supplied the Government with
funds, began to fail after that period, when the power of borrowing
seems to have been exceeded. In point of fact the aggregate loans
which from 1841 to 1857 amounted to £21,000,000, absorbed in the two
years of 1857 and 1858 alone about £9,000,000, equal to almost one-
half of the money borrowed during the previous sixteen years. Such a
failure of resources, while accounting for the necessity of
successively screwing up the rate of interest on Government loans from
4 to 6 per cent, is, of course, far from explaining the commercial
panic in the Indian security market, and the utter inability of the
Governor-General to meet the most urgent requirements. The riddle is
solved by the fact that it has become a regular maneuver with Lord
Canning to bring out new loans at higher rates of interest than those
given on existing open loans, without any previous notice to the
public, and with the utmost uncertainty prevailing as to the further
financial operations contemplated. The depreciation of the funds, in
consequence of these maneuvers, has been calculated at not less than
£11,000,000. Pinched by the poverty of the Exchequer, frightened by
the panic in the stock market, and roused by the protests on the part
of the Chambers of Commerce and the Calcutta meetings, Lord Canning
thought best to be a good boy and to try to come up to the desiderata
of the monetary mind; but his notification of the 21st of February,
1859, shows again that the human understanding does not depend on
human will. What was he required to do? Not to open simultaneously two
loans on different conditions, and to tell the monetary public at once
the sum required for the current year, instead of deceiving them by
successive announcements, one contradictory of the other. And what
does he do in his notification? In the first instance he says that
there is to be raised by loan in the Indian market for the year
1859-60, £5,000,000, at 5 1/2 per cent, and that

“when this amount shall have been realized, the loan of 1859-60 shall
be closed, and no further loan will be opened in India during that
year.”

In the very same proclamation, sweeping away the entire value of the
assurances just given, he proceeds:

“No loan carrying a higher rate of interest will be opened in India in
the course of the year 1859-60, unless under instructions from the
Home Government.”

But that is not all. He opens, in fact, a double loan on different
terms. While announcing that “the issue of Treasury bills on the terms
notified on Jan. 26, 1859, will be closed on April 30,” he proclaims
“that a new issue of Treasury bills will be notified from the 1st of
May,” bearing interest of nearly 5 3/4 per cent, and redeemable at the
expiration of one year from the date of issue. Both loans are kept
open together, while, at the same time, the loan opened in January has
not yet been concluded. The only financial matter which Lord Canning
seems able to comprehend is that his annual salary amounts to £20,000
in name, and to about £40,000 in fact. Hence, despite the sneers of
the Derby Cabinet, and his notorious incapacity, he sticks to his post
from “a feeling of duty.”

The effects of the Indian financial crisis on the English home market
have already become apparent. In the first instance, the silver
remittances on account of Government coming to swell the large
remittances on mercantile account, and failing at an epoch when the
ordinary silver supplies from Mexico are held back in consequence of
the distracted condition of that country, have, of course, sent up the
price of bar silver. On March 25, it had risen to the factitious price
of 62 1/4 d. per ounce standard, causing such an influx of silver from
every part of Europe that the price in London again fell to 62 3/8 d.;
while the rate of discount at Hamburg rose from 2 1/2 to 3 per cent.
Consequent upon these heavy importations of silver, exchanges have
turned against England, and a drain of gold bullion has set in, which,
for the present, only relieves the London money market of its
plethora, but in the long run may seriously affect it, coupled, as it
will be, with large Continental loans. The depreciation, however, on
the London money market, of the Indian Government stocks and
guaranteed railway securities, prejudicial as it must prove to the
Government and railway loans still to be brought forward in the’
course of this season, is certainly the most serious effect on the
home market as yet, resulting from the Indian financial crisis. The
shares of many Indian railways, although 5 per cent interest upon them
is guaranteed by the Government, are now at 2 or 3 per cent discount.

Taking all in all, however, I regard the momentary Indian financial
panic as a matter of secondary importance, if compared with the
general crisis of the Indian Exchequer, which I may perhaps consider
on another occasion.

London, April 12, 1859

The latest overland mail, so far from showing any abatement of the
financial crisis in India, reveals a state of derangement hardly
anticipated. The shifts to which the Indian Government is driven in
order to meet its most urgent wants, may be best illustrated by a
recent measure of the Governor of Bombay. Bombay is the market where
the opium of Malwa, averaging 30,000 chests annually, finds its outlet
by monthly instalments of 2,000 or 3,000 chests, for which bills are
drawn upon Bombay. By charging 400 rupees upon every chest imported
into Bombay, the Government raises a revenue of £1,200,000 annually on
Malwa opium. Now, to replenish his exhausted Exchequer, and ward off
immediate bankruptcy, the Bombay Governor has issued a notification,
which raises the duty on each chest of Malwa opium from 400 to 500
rupees; but, at the same time, he declares that this increased duty
will not be levied till after the 1st of July, so that the holders of
opium in Malwa have the privilege of bringing in the drug under the
old duties for four months longer. Between the middle of March, when
the notification was issued, and the 1st of July, there are only two
months and a half during which opium can be imported, the monsoon
setting in on the 15th of June. The holders of opium in Malwa will, of
course, avail themselves of the interval allowed them for sending in
opium at the old duty; and, consequently, during the two months and a
half pour all their stock in hand into the Presidency. Since the
balance of opium, of the old and new crops, remaining at Malwa amounts
to 26,000 chests, and the price of Malwa opium reaches 1,250 rupees
per chest, the Malwa merchants will have to draw upon the Bombay
merchants for no less a sum than £3,000,000, of which more than
£1,000,000 must come into the Bombay Treasury. The aim of this
financial dodge is transparent. With a view to anticipate the annual
revenue from the opium duty, and induce the dealers in the article to
pay it at once, an enhancement of the duty is held out prospectively
in terrorem While it would be quite superfluous to expatiate upon the
empirical character of this contrivance, which fills the Exchequer for
the present by creating a corresponding void a few months hence, no
more striking instance could be given of the exhaustion of ways and
means, on the part of the great Mogul’s successors.

Let us now turn to the general state of Indian finances, as it has
grown out of the late insurrection. According to the last official
accounts, the net revenue derived by the British from their Indian
farm amounts to £23,208,000, say £24,000,000. This annual revenue has
never sufficed to defray the annual expenses. From 1836 to 1850 the
net deficit amounted to £13,171,096, or, on a rough average, to
£1,000,000 annually. Even in the year 1856, when the Exchequer was
exceptionally filled by the wholesale annexations, robberies and
extortions of Lord Dalhousie, the income and expense did not exactly
square, but, on the contrary, a deficit of about a quarter of a
million was added to the usual crop of deficits. In 1857 the
deficiency was £9,000,000, in 1858 it amounted to £13,000,000, and in
1859 it is estimated by the Indian Government itself at £12,000,000.
The first conclusion, then, which we arrive at is that even under
ordinary circumstances. deficits were accumulating, and that under
extraordinary circumstances they must assume such dimensions as to
reach one-half and more of the annual income.

The question which next presents itself is, To what degree has this
already existing gap between the expenses and the income of the Indian
Government been widened by recent events? The new permanent debt of
India accruing from the suppression of the mutiny is calculated by the
most sanguine English financiers at between forty and fifty millions
sterling, while Mr. Wilson estimates the permanent deficit, or the
annual interest for this new debt to be defrayed out of the annual
revenue, at not less than three millions. However, it would be a great
mistake to think that this permanent deficit of three millions is the
only legacy left by the insurgents to their vanquishers. The costs of
the insurrection are not only in the past tense, but are in a high
degree prospective. Even in quiet times, before the outbreak of the
mutiny, the military charges swallowed sixty per cent at least of the
aggregate regular income, since they exceeded £12,000;000; but the
state of affairs is now changed. At the beginning of the mutiny the
European force in India amounted to 38,000 effective men, while the
native army mustered 260,000 men. The military forces at present
employed in India amount to 112,000 Europeans and 320,000 native
troops, including the native police. It may be justly said that these
extraordinary numbers will be reduced to a more moderate standard with
the disappearance of the extraordinary circumstances which swelled
them to their present size. Yet the military commission appointed by
the British Government has arrived at the conclusion that there will
be required in India a permanent European force of 80,000 men, with a
native force of 200,000 men — the military charges being thus raised
to almost double their original bight. During the debates on the
Indian finances, in the House of Lords, on April 7, two points were
admitted by all speakers of authority: on the one hand that an annual
expenditure upon the revenue of India little short of twenty millions
for the army alone was incompatible with a net revenue of twenty-four
millions only; and, on the other hand, that it was difficult to
imagine a state of things which for an indefinite series of years
would render it safe for the English to leave India without a European
force double its amount before the outbreak of the mutiny. But suppose
even that it would do to add permanently to the European forces not
more than one-third of their original strength, and we get at a new
annual permanent deficit of four millions sterling at least. The new
permanent deficit, then, derived on one hand from the consolidated
debt contracted during the mutiny, and on the other hand from the
permanent increase of the British forces in India, cannot, on the most
moderate calculation, fall below seven millions sterling.

To this must be added two other items — the one accruing from an
increase of liabilities, the other from a diminution of income. By a
recent statement of the Railway Department of the Indian office at
London, it results that the whole length of railways sanctioned for
India is 4,817 miles, of which 559 miles only are yet opened. The
whole amount of capital invested by the different railway companies
amounts to £40,000,000 sterling, of which £19,000,000 are paid and
£21,000,000 are still to be called in — 96 per cent of the aggregate
sum having been subscribed in England and 4 per cent only in India.
Upon this amount of £40,000,000, the Government has guaranteed 5 per
cent interest, so that the annual interest charged upon the revenues
of India reaches £2,000,000, to be paid before the railways are in
working order, and before they can yield any return. The Earl of
Ellenborough, estimates the loss accruing to the Indian finances from
this source, for the next three years to come, at £6,000,000 sterling,
and the ultimate permanent deficit upon these railways at half a
million annually. Lastly, of the £24,000,000 of Indian net revenue, a
sum of £3,619,000 is derived from the sale of opium to foreign
countries — a source of revenue which, it is now generally admitted,
must to a considerable extent be impaired by the late treaty with
China. 148 It becomes, then, evident, that apart from the extra
expenditure still necessitated to complete the suppression of the
mutiny, an annual permanent deficit of £8,000,000 at least, will have
to be defrayed out of a net revenue of £24,000,000, which the
Government may, perhaps, by the imposition of new taxes, contrive to
raise to £26,000,000. The necessary result of this state of things
will be to saddle the English taxpayer with the liability for the
Indian debt and, as Sir G. C. Lewis declared in the House of Commons,

“to vote four or five millions annually as a subsidy for what was
called a valuable dependency of the British crown.”

It will be confessed that these financial fruits of the “glorious”
reconquest of India have not a charming appearance; and that John Bull
pays exceedingly high protective duties for securing the monopoly of
the Indian market to the Manchester free-traders.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1859/04/30.htm

Sid Harth

unread,
Feb 7, 2010, 2:45:25 PM2/7/10
to

Taxation in India

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1858/07/23.htm

Marx To Engels
In Manchester

Source: MECW Volume 39, p. 344;


First published: in full in MEGA, Berlin, 1929.

London, 14 June 1853, 28 Dean Street, Soho
Dear Frederic,

Having been prevented by all sorts of business and domestic affairs, I
have only today got round to replying to your two letters and
acknowledging receipt of the American money (handed over to
Freiligrath), likewise the balance of the American Tribune money. If
that’s the sort of business relationship you and Charles had with your
‘intermediary’, then you've been up to some trick for my sake. For
since it was not that fellow, but you, who advanced the money against
the bill, you and Charles could just as well have sent the bill to
America without the fellow. At least, that’s how it seems to me.

I did not inform Pieper of your news for the following reasons: Pieper
was becoming more and more of a wreck and some 8 or 10 days ago I took
him to task about the state of his health. It then transpired that his
illness was going de pis en pis [from bad to worse] at the hands of
his English quack. I therefore suggested I should take him straight to
Bartholomew’s Hospital — the London hospital at which the foremost and
most renowned doctors treat the public for nothing. He came with me.
An ancient Hippocrates, after examining the corpus delicti and
questioning him about his former treatment, told him: ‘You have been a
fool’, explaining at the same time that he would be ‘down’ within
three months if he did not follow his instructions to the letter. The
efficacy of the new treatment was immediately apparent and in 2 weeks
the man will be sain et sauf. The case was too serious for the
treatment to be interrupted, and anyhow Freiligrath has a post in view
for Pieper. If nothing comes of it, I shall let you know.

Rumpf, our jolly tailor, is now shut up in a lunatic asylum. Some 5
months ago, in order to extricate himself from a social quandary, le
malheureux married an elderly woman, became excessively respectable,
foreswore all spirits and worked like a carthorse. About a week since
he took to drinking again, sent for me a couple of days ago, revealed
that he had discovered the means of making the whole world happy, that
I was to be his minister, etc., etc. He has been in the asylum since
yesterday. It’s a pity about the fellow.

In The Leader — which, by the by, has become a purely bourgeois sheet
— Ruge has announced that he will be giving lectures on German
philosophy in London. Needless to say he takes this opportunity to
give himself a puff. E.g. ‘Where style is concerned, there is only one
man whom the German people set alongside him — Lessing. In the same
issue of The Leader, the Russian Herzen advertises his collected works
adding that, together with the Polish Committee, he is to set up a
Russo-Polish propaganda press here in London.

One of the enclosed letters from Cluss will reveal to you the nature
of the main blow with which Willich is threatening me. He refers to
the £20 borrowed by me from the Refugee Committee at a time when I
myself was distrained because my Chelsea landlady, although I had paid
her, had not paid her landlord, — a debt which I repaid down to the
last farthing by the necessary instalments. You must now advise me
what tactics to adopt. If that’s how the good Willich thinks he’s
going to do me in, he must be a regular ‘bonhomme’.[simpleton]

Carey, the American political economist, has brought out a new book,
Slavery at Home and Abroad Here ‘slavery’ covers all forms of
servitude, wage-slavery , etc. He has sent me his book in which he
quotes me repeatedly (from the Tribune) now as ‘a recent English
writer’, now as ‘Correspondence of The New York Tribune’. As I have
told you before, this man, in his earlier works, propounds the
‘harmony’ of the bourgeoisie’s economic foundations and attributes all
mischief to unnecessary interference by the State. The State was his
bête noire. He is now playing a different tune. All ills are blamed on
the centralising effect of big industry. But this centralising effect
is in turn blamed on England, who has made herself the workshop of the
world and has forced all other countries to revert to brutish
agriculture divorced from manufacturing. In its turn, responsibility
for England’s sins is laid on the theory of Ricardo-Malthus, and
specially Ricardo’s theory of rent. The necessary consequence both of
Ricardo’s theory and of industrial centralisation would be communism.
And to obviate all this, to counter centralisation with localisation
and the union, — a union scattered throughout the land — of factory
and farm, our ultra-free-trader finally recommends — protective
tariffs. To obviate the effects of bourgeois industry, responsibility
for which he lays on England, his recourse, as a genuine Yankee, is to
speed up this process in America itself by artificial means. For the
rest, his opposition to England drives him into Sismondian praise of
the petty bourgeoisie in Switzerland, Germany, China, etc. And this is
the chap who used to deride France for her resemblance to China. The
only thing of definite interest in the book is the comparison between
Negro slavery as formerly practised by the English in Jamaica and
elsewhere, and Negro slavery in the United States. He demonstrates how
the main stock of Negroes in Jamaica always consisted of freshly
imported barbarians, since their treatment by the English meant not
only that the Negro population was not maintained, but also that 2/3
of the yearly imports always went to waste, whereas the present
generation of Negroes in America is a native product, more or less
Yankeefied, English speaking, etc., and hence capable of being
emancipated.

The Tribune, needless to say, is puffing Carey’s book for all it’s
worth. Both, indeed, have this in common, that, in the guise of
Sismondian-philanthropic-socialist anti-industrialism, they represent
the protectionist, i.e. industrial, bourgeoisie of America. That is
also the key to the mystery why the Tribune, despite all its ‘isms’
and socialist flourishes, manages to be the ‘leading journal’ in the
United States.

Your article on Switzerland was, of course, a direct swipe at the
Tribune’s ‘leaders’ (anti-centralisation, etc.) and their man Carey
continued this clandestine campaign in my first article on India, in
which England’s destruction of native industries is described as
revolutionary. This they will find very shocking. Incidentally the
whole administration of India by the British was detestable and still
remains so today.

The stationary nature of this part of Asia, despite all the aimless
activity on the political surface, can be completely explained by two
mutually supporting circumstances: 1. The public works system of the
central government and, 2. Alongside this, the entire Empire which,
apart from a few large cities, is an agglomeration of villages, each
with its own distinct organisation and each forming its own small
world. A parliamentary report described these villages as follows:

* ‘A village, geographically considered, is a tract of country
comprising some 100 or 1000 acres of arable and waste lands:
politically viewed, it resembles a corporation or township. Every
village is, and appears always to have been, in fact, a separate
community or republic. Officials: 1. the Potail, Goud, Mundil etc. as
he is termed in different languages, is the head inhabitant, who has


generally the superintendence of the affairs of the village, settles

the disputes of the inhabitants, attends to the police, and performs
the duty of collecting the revenue within the village... 2. The Curnum
Shanboag, or Putwaree, is the register. 3. The Taliary or Sthulwar
and. 4. the Totie, are severally the watchmen of the village and of
the crops. 5. the Neerguntee distributes the water of the streams or
reservoirs in just proportion to the several fields. 6. The Joshee, or
astrologer, announces the operation of farming. 7. The smith and 8.
the carpenter frame the rude instruments seed-times and harvests, and
the lucky or unlucky days or hours for all the of husbandry, and the
ruder dwellings of the farmer. 9. The potter fabricates the only
utensils of the village. 10. The waterman keeps clean the few
garments... 11. The barber, 12. the silversmith, who often combines
the function of village poet and schoolmaster. Then the Brahmin for
worship. Under this simple form of municipal government the


inhabitants of the country have lived from time immemorial. The

boundaries of the villages have been but seldom altered; and although


the villages themselves have been sometimes injured, and even

desolated by war, famine and disease; the same name, the same limits,
the same interests, and even the same families, have continued for
ages. The inhabitants give themselves no trouble about the breaking up
and division of kingdoms, while the village remains entire, they care
not to what power it is transferred, or to what sovereign it devolves.
Its internal economy remains unchanged.'*

The post of Potail is mostly hereditary. In some of these communities
the lands of the village cultivated in common, in most of them each
occupant tills his own field. Within the same, slavery and the caste
system. Waste lands for common pasture. Home-weaving and spinning by
wives and daughters. These idyllic republics, of which only the
village boundaries are jealously guarded against neighbouring
villages, continue to exist in well-nigh perfect form in the North
Western parts of India only recently occupied by the English. No more
solid basis for Asiatic despotism and stagnation is, I think,
conceivable. And however much the English may have Irelandised the
country, the breaking up of the archetypal forms was the conditio sine
qua non for Europeanisation. The Tax-gatherer alone could not have
brought this about. Another essential factor was the destruction of
the ancient industries, which robbed these villages of their self-
supporting character.

In Bali, an island off the east coast of Java, this Hindu organisation
still intact, alongside Hindu religion, its traces, like those of
Hindu influence, discernible all over Java. So far as the property
question is concerned, this is a great bone of contention among
English writers on India. In the broken mountainous terrain south of
the Kistna, however, there appears to have been property in land. In
Java, on the other hand, as noted in the History of Java by a former
English governor, Sir Stamford Raffles, the sovereign [was] absolute
landlord throughout the country ‘Where rent to any considerable amount
was attainable’. At all events, the Mohammedans seem to have been the
first in the whole of Asia to have established the principle of ‘no
property in land’.

Regarding the above-mentioned villages, I should note that they
already feature in the Manu according to which the whole organisation
rests on them. 10 are administered by a senior collector, then 100,
then 1,000.

Write soon.

Your
K. M.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1853/letters/53_06_14.htm

Sid Harth

unread,
Feb 7, 2010, 2:54:43 PM2/7/10
to
Frederick Engels

Afghanistan [40]

Source: MECW Volume 18, p. 40;
Written: in July and the first 10 days of August 1857;
First published: in The New American Cyclopaedia, Vol. I, 1858;
Transcribed: Andy Blunden, 2001;
Proofread: and corrected by Andy Blunden in February 2005.

Review of J W Kaye’s The Afghan War, by Engels

Afghanistan, an extensive country of Asia, north-west of India. It
lies between Persia and the Indies, and in the other direction between
the Hindu Kush and the Indian Ocean. It formerly included the Persian
provinces of Khorassan and Kohistan, together with Herat, Beluchistan,
Cashmere, and Sinde, and a considerable part of the Punjab. In its
present limits there are probably not more than 4,000,000 inhabitants.
The surface of Afghanistan is very irregular, – lofty table lands,
vast mountains, deep valleys, and ravines. Like all mountainous
tropical countries it presents every variety of climate. In the Hindu
Kush, the snow lies all the year on the lofty summits, while in the
valleys the thermometer ranges up to 130°. The heat is greater in the
eastern than in the western parts, but the climate is generally cooler
than that of India; and although the alternations of temperature
between summer and winter, or day and night, are very great, the
country is generally healthy. The principal diseases are fevers,
catarrhs, and ophthalmia. Occasionally the small-pox is destructive.
The soil is of exuberant fertility. Date palms flourish in the oases
of the sandy wastes; the sugar cane and cotton in the warm valleys;
and European fruits and vegetables grow luxuriantly on the hill-side
terraces up to a level of 6,000 or 7,000 feet. The mountains are
clothed with noble forests, which are frequented by bears, wolves, and
foxes, while the lion, the leopard, and the tiger, are found in
districts congenial to their habits. The animals useful to mankind are
not wanting. There is a fine variety of sheep of the Persian or large-
tailed breed. The horses are of good size and blood. The camel and ass
are used as beasts of burden, and goats, dogs, and cats, are to be
found in great numbers. Beside the Hindu Kush, which is a continuation
of the Himalayas, there is a mountain chain called the Solyman
mountain, on the south-west; and between Afghanistan and Balkh, there
is a chain known as the Paropamisan range, very little information
concerning which has, however, reached Europe. The rivers are few in
number; the Helmund and the Kabul are the most important. These take
their rise in the Hindu Kush, the Kabul flowing cast and falling into
the Indus near Attock; the Helmund flowing west through the district
of Seiestan and falling into the lake of Zurrah. The Helmund has the
peculiarity of overflowing its banks annually like the Nile, bringing
fertility to the soil, which, beyond the limit of the inundation, is
sandy desert. The principal cities of Afghanistan are Kabul, the
capital, Ghuznee, Peshawer, and Kandahar. Kabul is a fine town, lat.
34° 10' N. long. 60° 43' E., on the river of the same name. The
buildings are of wood, neat and commodious, and the town being
surrounded with fine gardens, has a very pleasing aspect. It is
environed with villages, and is in the midst of a large plain
encircled with low hills. The tomb of the emperor Baber is its chief
monument. Peshawer is a large city, with a population estimated at
100,000. Ghuznee, a city of ancient renown, once the capital of the
great sultan Mahmoud, has fallen from its great estate and is now a
poor place. Near it is Mahmoud’s tomb. Kandahar was founded as
recently as 1754. It is on the site of an ancient city. It was for a
few years the capital; but in 1774 the seat of government was removed
to Kabul. It is believed to contain 100,000 inhabitants. Near the city
is the tomb of Shah Ahmed, the founder of the city, an asylum so
sacred that even the king may not remove a criminal who has taken
refuge within its walls.

The geographical position of Afghanistan, and the peculiar character
of the people, invest the country with a political importance that can
scarcely be over-estimated in the affairs of Central Asia. The
government is a monarchy, but the king’s authority over his high-
spirited and turbulent subjects, is personal and very uncertain. The
kingdom is divided into provinces, each superintended by a
representative of the sovereign, who collects the revenue and remits
it to the capital.

The Afghans are a brave, hardy, and independent race; they follow
pastoral or agricultural occupations only, eschewing trade and
commerce, which they contemptuously resign to Hindus, and to other
inhabitants of towns. With them, war is an excitement and relief from
the monotonous occupation of industrial pursuits.

The Afghans are divided into clans[41], over which the various chiefs
exercise a sort of feudal supremacy. Their indomitable hatred of rule,
and their love of individual independence, alone prevents their
becoming a powerful nation; but this very irregularity and uncertainty
of action makes them dangerous neighbours, liable to be blown about by
the wind of caprice, or to be stirred up by political intriguers, who
artfully excite their passions. The two principal tribes are the
Dooranees and Ghilgies, who are always at feud with each other. The
Dooranee is the more powerful; and in virtue of their supremacy their
ameer or khan made himself king of Afghanistan. He has a revenue of
about £10,000,000. His authority is supreme only in his tribe. The
military contingents are chiefly furnished by the Dooranees; the rest
of the army is supplied either by the other clans, or by military
adventurers who enlist into the service in hopes of pay or plunder.
Justice in the towns is administered by cadis, but the Afghans rarely
resort to law. Their khans have the right of punishment even to the
extent of life or death. Avenging of blood is a family duty;
nevertheless, they are said to be a liberal and generous people when
unprovoked, and the rights of hospitality are so sacred that a deadly
enemy who eats bread and salt, obtained even by stratagem, is sacred
from revenge, and may even claim the protection of his host against
all other danger. In religion they are Mohammedans, and of the Soonee
sect; but they are not bigoted, and alliances between Sheeahs and
Soonees[42] are by no means uncommon.

Afghanistan has been subjected alternately to Mogul[43] and Persian
dominion. Previous to the advent of the British on the shores of India
the foreign invasions which swept the plains of Hindostan always
proceeded from Afghanistan. Sultan Mahmoud the Great, Genghis Khan,
Tameriane, and Nadir Shah, all took this road. In 1747 after the death
of Nadir, Shah Ahmed, who had learned the art of war under that
military adventurer, determined to shake off the Persian yoke. Under
him Afghanistan reached its highest point of greatness and prosperity
in modern times. He belonged to the family of the Suddosis, and his
first act was to seize upon the booty which his late chief had
gathered in India. In 1748 he succeeded in expelling the Mogul
governor from Kabul and Peshawer, and crossing the Indus he rapidly
overran the Punjab. His kingdom extended from Khorassan to Delhi, and
he even measured swords with the Mahratta powers.[44] These great
enterprises did not, however, prevent him from cultivating some of the
arts of peace, and he was favourably known as a poet and historian. He
died in 1772, and left his crown to his son Timour, who, however, was
unequal to the weighty charge. He abandoned the city of Kandahar,
which had been founded by his father, and had, in a few years, become
a wealthy and populous town, and removed the seat of government back
to Kabul. During his reign the internal dissensions of the tribes,
which had been repressed by the firm hand of Shah Ahmed, were revived.
In 1793 Timour died, and Siman succeeded him. This prince conceived
the idea of consolidating the Mohammedan power of India, and this
plan, which might have seriously endangered the British possessions,
was thought so important that Sir John Malcolm was sent to the
frontier to keep the Afghans in check, in case of their making any
movement, and at the same time negotiations were opened with Persia,
by whose assistance the Afghans might be placed between two fires.
These precautions were, however, unnecessary; Siman Shah was more than
sufficiently occupied by conspiracies, and disturbances at home, and
his great plans were nipped in the bud. The king’s brother, Mahmud,
threw himself into Herat with the design of erecting an independent
principality, but failing in his attempt he fled into Persia. Siman
Shah had been assisted in attaining the throne by the Bairukshee
family, at the head of which was Sheir Afras Khan. Siman’s appointment
of an unpopular vizier excited the hatred of his old supporters, who
organized a conspiracy which was discovered, and Sheir Afras was put
to death. Mahmud was now recalled by the conspirators, Siman was taken
prisoner and his eyes put out. In opposition to Mahmud, who was
supported by the Dooranees, Shah Soojah was put forward by the
Ghilgies, and held the throne for some time; but he was at last
defeated, chiefly through the treachery of his own supporters, and was
forced to take refuge amongst the Sikhs. [45]

In 1809 Napoleon had sent Gen. Gardane to Persia in the hope of
inducing the shah [Fath Ali] to invade India, and the Indian
government sent a representative [Mountstuart Elphinstone] to the
court of Shah Soojah to create an opposition to Persia. At this epoch,
Runjeet Singh rose into power and fame. He was a Sikh chieftain, and
by his genius made his country independent of the Afghans, and erected
a kingdom in the Punjab, earning for himself the title of Maharajah
(chief rajah), and the respect of the Anglo-Indian government. The
usurper Mahmud was, however, not destined to enjoy his triumph long.
Futteh Khan, his vizier, who had alternately fluctuated between Mahmud
and Shah Soojah, as ambition or temporary interest prompted, was
seized by the king’s son Kamran, his eyes put out, and afterward
cruelly put to death. The powerful family of the murdered vizier swore
to avenge his death. The puppet Shah Soojah was again brought forward
and Mahmud expelled. Shah Soojah having given offence, however, was
presently deposed, and another brother crowned in his stead. Mahmud
fled to Herat, of which he continued in possession, and in 1829 on his
death his son Kamran succeeded him in the government of that district.
The Bairukshee family, having now attained chief power, divided the
territory among themselves, but following the national usage
quarrelled, and were only united in presence of a common enemy. One of
the brothers, Mohammed Khan, held the city of Peshawer, for which he
paid tribute to Runjeet Singh; another held Ghuznee; a third Kandahar;
while in Kabul, Dost Mohammed, the most powerful of the family, held
sway.

To this prince, Capt. Alexander Burnes was sent as ambassador in 1835,
when Russia and England were intriguing against each other in Persia
and Central Asia. He offered an alliance which the Dost was but too
eager to accept; but the Anglo-Indian government demanded every thing
from him, while it offered absolutely nothing in return. In the mean
time, in 1838, the Persians, with Russian aid and advice, laid siege
to Herat, the key of Afghanistan and India[46]; a Persian and a
Russian agent arrived at Kabul, and the Dost, by the constant refusal
of any positive engagement on the part of the British, was, at last,
actually compelled to receive overtures from the other parties. Burnes
left, and Lord Auckland, then governor-general of India, influenced by
his secretary W. McNaghten, determined to punish Dost Mohammed, for
what he himself had compelled him to do. He resolved to dethrone him,
and to set up Shah Soojah, now a pensioner of the Indian government. A
treaty was concluded with Shah Soojah, and with the Sikhs; the shah
began collecting an army, paid and officered by the British, and an
Anglo-Indian force was concentrated on the Sutlej. McNaghten, seconded
by Burnes, was to accompany the expedition in the quality of envoy in
Afghanistan. In the mean time the Persians had raised the siege of
Herat, and thus the only valid reason for interference in Afghanistan
was removed, but, nevertheless, in December 1838, the army marched
toward Sinde, which country was coerced into submission, and the
payment of a contribution for the benefit of the Sikhs and Shah Soojah.
[47] Feb. 20, 1839, the British army passed the Indus. It consisted of
about 12,000 men, with above 40,000 camp-followers, beside the new
levies of the shah. The Bolan Pass was traversed in March; want of
provisions and forage began to be felt; the camels dropped by
hundreds, and a great part of the baggage was lost. April 7, the army
entered the Khojak Pass, traversed it without resistance, and on April
25 entered Kandahar, which the Afghan princes, brothers of Dost
Mohammed, had abandoned. After a rest of two months, Sir John Keane,
the commander, advanced with the main body of the army toward the
north, leaving a brigade, under Nott, in Kandahar. Ghuznee, the
impregnable stronghold of Afghanistan, was taken, July 22, a deserter
having brought information that the Kabul gate was the only one which
had not been walled up; it was accordingly blown down, and the place
was then stormed. After this disaster, the army which Dost Mohammed
had collected, at once disbanded, and Kabul too opened its gates, Aug.
6. Shah Soojah was installed in due form, but the real direction of
government remained in the hands of McNaghten, who also paid all Shah
Soojah’s expenses out of the Indian treasury.

The conquest of Afghanistan seemed accomplished, and a considerable
portion of the troops was sent back. But the Afghans were noways
content to be ruled by the Feringhee Kaffirs (European infidels), and
during the whole of 1840 and ’41, insurrection followed on
insurrection in every part of the country. The Anglo-Indian troops had
to be constantly on the move. Yet, McNaghten declared this to be the
normal state of Afghan society, and wrote home that every thing went
on well, and Shah Soojah’s power was taking root. In vain were the
warnings of the military officers and the other political agents. Dost
Mohammed had surrendered to the British in October, 1840, and was sent
to India; every insurrection during the summer of ’41 was successfully
repressed, and toward October, McNaghten, nominated governor of
Bombay, intended leaving with another body of troops for India. But
then the storm broke out. The occupation of Afghanistan cost the
Indian treasury £1,250,000 per annum: 16,000 troops, Anglo-Indian, and
Shah Soojah’s, had to be paid in Afghanistan; 3,000 more lay in Sinde,
and the Bolan Pass; Shah Soojah’s regal splendours, the salaries of
his functionaries, and all expenses of his court and government, were
paid by the Indian treasury, and finally, the Afghan chiefs were
subsidized, or rather bribed, from the same source, in order to keep
them out of mischief. McNaghten was informed of the impossibility of
going on at this rate of spending money. He attempted retrenchment,
but the only possible way to enforce it was to cut down the allowances
of the chiefs. The very day he attempted this, the chiefs formed a
conspiracy for the extermination of the British, and thus McNaghten
himself was the means of bringing about the concentration of those
insurrectionary forces, which hitherto had struggled against the
invaders singly, and without unity or concert; though it is certain,
too, that by this time the hatred of British dominion among the
Afghans had reached the highest point.

The English in Kabul were commanded by Gen. Elphinstone, a gouty,
irresolute, completely helpless old man, whose orders constantly
contradicted each other. The troops occupied a sort of fortified camp,
which was so extensive that the garrison was scarcely sufficient to
man the ramparts, much less to detach bodies to act in the field. The
works were so imperfect that ditch and parapet could be ridden over on
horseback. As if this was not enough, the camp was commanded almost
within musket range by the neighbouring heights, and to crown the
absurdity of the arrangements, all provisions, and medical stores,
were in two detached forts at some distance from camp, separated from
it, moreover, by walled gardens and another small fort not occupied by
the English. The citadel or Bala Hissar of Kabul would have offered
strong and splendid winter quarters for the whole army, but to please
Shah Soojah, it was not occupied. Nov. 2, 1841, the insurrection broke
out. The house of Alexander Burnes, in the city, was attacked and he
himself murdered. The British general did nothing, and the
insurrection grew strong by impunity. Elphinstone, utterly helpless,
at the mercy of all sorts of contradictory advice, very soon got every
thing into that confusion which Napoleon [Bonaparte] described by the
three words, ordre, contre-ordre, disordre . The Bala Hissar was, even
now, not occupied. A few companies were sent against the thousands of
insurgents, and of course were beaten. This still more emboldened the
Afghans. Nov. 3, the forts close to the camp were occupied. On the
9th, the commissariat fort (garrisoned by only 80 men) was taken by
the Afghans, and the British were thus reduced to starvation. On the
5th, Elphinstone already talked of buying a free passage out of the
country. In fact, by the middle of November, his irresolution and
incapacity had so demoralised the troops that neither Europeans nor
Sepoys[48] were any longer fit to meet the Afghans in the open field.
Then the negotiations began. During these, McNaghten was murdered in a
conference with Afghan chiefs. Snow began to cover the ground,
provisions were scarce. At last, Jan. 1, a capitulation was concluded.
All the money, £190,000, was to be handed over to the Afghans, and
bills signed for £140,000 more. All the artillery and ammunition,
except 6 six-pounders and 3 mountain guns, were to remain. All
Afghanistan was to be evacuated. The chiefs, on the other hand,
promised a safe conduct, provisions, and baggage cattle.

Jan. 5, the British marched out, 4,500 combatants and 12,000 camp-
followers. One march sufficed to dissolve the last remnant of order,
and to mix up soldiers and camp-followers in one hopeless confusion,
rendering all resistance impossible. The cold and snow and the want of
provisions acted as in Napoleon’s retreat from Moscow [in 1812]. But
instead of Cossacks keeping a respectful distance, the British were
harassed by infuriated Afghan marksmen, armed with long-range
matchlocks, occupying every height. The chiefs who signed the
capitulation neither could nor would restrain the mountain tribes. The
Koord-Kabul Pass became the grave of nearly all the army, and the
small remnant, less than 200 Europeans, fell at the entrance of the
Jugduluk Pass. Only one man, Dr. Brydon, reached Jelalabad to tell the
tale. Many officers, however, had been seized by the Afghans, and kept
in captivity, Jelalabad was held by Sale’s brigade. Capitulation was
demanded of him, but he refused to evacuate the town, so did Nott at
Kandahar. Ghuznee had fallen; there was not a single man in the place
that understood any thing about artillery, and the Sepoys of the
garrison had succumbed to the climate.

In the mean time, the British authorities on the frontier at the first
news of the disaster of Kabul, had concentrated at Peshawer the troops
destined for the relief of the regiments in Afghanistan. But
transportation was wanting and the Sepoys fell sick in great numbers.
Gen. Pollock, in February, took the command, and by the end of March,
1842, received further reinforcements. He then forced the Khyber Pass,
and advanced to the relief of Sale at Jelalabad; here Sale had a few
days before completely defeated the investing Afghan army. Lord
Ellenborough, now governor-general of India, ordered the troops to
fall back; but both Nott and Pollock found a welcome excuse in the
want of transportation. At last, by the beginning of July, public
opinion in India forced Lord Ellenborough to do something for the
recovery of the national honour and the prestige of the British army;
accordingly, he authorised an advance on Kabul, both from Kandahar and
Jelalabad. By the middle of August, Pollock and Nott had come to an
understanding respecting their movements, and Aug. 20, Pollock moved
towards Kabul, reached Gundamuck, and beat a body of Afghans on the
23rd, carried the Jugduluk Pass Sept. 8, defeated the assembled
strength of the enemy on the 13th at Tezeen, and encamped on the 15th
under the walls of Kabul. Nott, in the mean time, had, Aug. 7,
evacuated Kandahar, and marched with all his forces toward Ghuznee.
After some minor engagements, he defeated a large body of Afghans,
Aug. 30, took possession of Ghuznee, which had been abandoned by the
enemy, Sept. 6, destroyed the works and town, again defeated the
Afghans in the strong position of Alydan, and, Sept. 17, arrived near
Kabul, where Pollock at once established his communication with him.
Shah Soojah had, long before, been murdered by some of the chiefs, and
since then no regular government had existed in Afghanistan;
nominally, Futteh Jung, his son, was king. Pollock despatched a body
of cavalry after the Kabul prisoners, but these had succeeded in
bribing their guard, and met him on the road. As a mark of vengeance,
the bazaar of Kabul was destroyed, on which occasion the soldiers
plundered part of the town and massacred many inhabitants. Oct. 12,
the British left Kabul and marched by Jelalabad and Peshawer to India.
Futteh Jung, despairing of his position, followed them. Dost Mohammed
was now dismissed from captivity, and returned to his kingdom. Thus
ended the attempt of the British to set up a prince of their own
making in Afghanistan.

Footnotes

40. That Engels wanted to write an article on Afghanistan (with
emphasis on the Anglo-Afghan war of 1838-42) is evident from the fact
that he included this topic in the provisional list of articles for
The New American Cyclopaedia in his letter to Marx of May 28, 1857. On
July 11, 1857, however, Engels informed Marx that the article would
not be ready by July 14, as agreed. The work on it apparently took
longer than expected. Marx had received it by August 11 and, as can be
seen from the entry in his notebook for this date, sent it off to New
York, In a letter to Marx of September 2, 1857 Charles Dana
acknowledged receipt of “Invasion of Afghanistan”.

When working on this article Engels used J. W. Kaye’s History of the
War in Afghanistan Vols. I-II, London, 1851 (see this volume, pp.
379-90).

41. Engels uses the term “clan”, widespread in Western Europe, to
designate heli (tribal groups) into which Afghan tribes were divided.

42. Soonees (Sunnites) and Sheeahs (Shiites) – members of the two main
Mohammedan sects which appeared in the seventh century as the result
of conflicts between the successors of Mohammed, founder of Islam.

43. The Moguls – invaders of Turkish descent, who came to India from
the cast of Central Asia in the early sixteenth century and in 1526


founded the Empire of the Great Moguls (named after the ruling dynasty
of the Empire) in Northern India. Contemporaries regarded them as the

direct descendants of the Mongol warriors of Genghis Khan, hence the


name “Moguls”. In the mid-seventeenth century the Mogul Empire

included most of India and part of Afghanistan. Later on, however, the


Empire began to decline due to peasant rebellions, the growing

resistance of the Indian people to the Mohammedan conquerors, and


increasing separatist tendencies. In the early half of the eighteenth

century the Empire of the Great Moguls virtually ceased to exist.

44. The Mahrattas (Marathas) – an ethnic group who lived in
Northwestern Deccan. In the mid-seventeenth century they began an
armed struggle against the Empire of the Great Moguls, thus
contributing to its decline. In the course of the struggle the
Mahrattas formed an independent state of their own, whose rulers soon
embarked on wars of conquest. At the close of the seventeenth century
their state was weakened by internal feudal strife, but early in the
eighteenth century a powerful confederation of Mahratta principalities
was formed under a supreme governor, the Peshwa. In 1761 they suffered
a crushing defeat at the hands of the Afghans in the struggle for
supremacy in India. Weakened by this struggle and internal feudal
strife, the Mabratta principalities fell a prey to the East India
Company and were subjugated by it as a result of the Anglo-Mahratta
war of 1803-05.

45. The Sikhs – a religious sect which appeared in the Punjab
(Northwestern India) in the sixteenth century. Their belief in
equality became the ideology of the peasants and lower urban strata in
their struggle against the Empire of the Great Moguls and the Afghan
invaders at the end of the seventeenth century. Subsequently a local
aristocracy emerged among the Sikhs and its representatives headed the
Sikh principalities. In the early nineteenth century these
principalities united under Ranjit Singh whose Sikh state included the
Punjab and some neighbouring regions. The British authorities in India
provoked an armed conflict with the Sikhs in 1845 and in 1846
succeeded in turning the Sikh state into a vassal. The Sikhs revolted
in 1848, but were subjugated in 1849.

46. The siege of Herat by the Persians lasted from November 1837 to
August 1838. Intent on increasing Britain’s influence in Afghanistan
and weakening Russia’s in Persia, the British Government declared the
Shah’s actions to be hostile to Britain and demanded that he should
lift the siege. Threatening him with war, it sent a squadron into the
Persian Gulf in 1838. The Shah was forced to submit and to agree to a
one-sided trade treaty with Britain. Marx described the siege of Herat
in his article “The War against Persia.”

47. During the Anglo-Afghan war the East India Company resorted to
threats and violence to obtain the consent of the feudal rulers of
Sind, a region in the northwest of India (now in Pakistan) bordering
on Afghanistan, to the passage of British troops across their
territory. Taking advantage of this, the British demanded in 1843 that
the local feudal princes proclaim themselves vassals of the Company.
After crushing the rebel Baluchi tribes (natives of Sind), they
declared the annexation of the entire region to British India.

48. Sepoys – mercenary troops in the British-Indian army recruited
from the Indian population and serving under British officers. They
were used by the British to subjugate India and to fight the wars of
conquest against Afghanistan, Burma and other neighbouring states.
However, the Sepoys shared the general discontent of the Indian people
with the colonial regime and took part in the national liberation
insurrection in India in 1857-59.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1857/afghanistan/index.htm

bademiyansubhanallah

unread,
Feb 7, 2010, 6:16:56 PM2/7/10
to
Provinces of British India

Note: British colonial authorities ruled India with two administrative
systems:

About 60% of territory of the Indian sub-continent were provinces and
territories directly under British colonial administration,

40% of the sub-continent were native Indian ("princely") States under
direct treaty relations with British India (A-J and K-Z).

Party abbreviations: AIC = All India Congress; BPML = Bengal Province
Muslim League;

IIL = Indian Independence League (nationalist, pro-Japanese,
1937-1945);
INC = Indian National Congress (nationalist, pro-independence, mainly
Hindu, est.1885);
IP = Ittihad Party (Union Party);
JP = Swaraj Party (Justice Party);
ML = Muslim League, All India (Muslim party, 1906-1947);
MPP = Muslim Political Party; UP = Unionist Party

Ajmer-Merwara

1818 Ceded to Britain.
1832 Part of North-West Frontier Provinces.
1 Apr 1871 Ajmer-Merwara-Kekri a separate province.
15 Aug 1947 Part of independent India.

Agents

1832 - 1834 A. Lockett
1834 - 1841 N. Alves
1841 - 1848 J. Sutherland
1848 - 1852 J. Low
1852 - 1853 George St.Patrick Lawrence (b. 1804
- d. 1884)
(1st time)
1853 - 1857 Henry Montgomery Lawrence (b. 1806
- d. 1857)
1857 - 1864 George St.Patrick Lawrence (s.a.)
(2nd time)
1864 - 1865 E.K. Elliott
1865 - 1867 W.F. Eden
1867 - 1871 Richard Harte Keatinge (b. 1825
- d. 1904)

Chief Commissioners

1 Apr 1871 - 21 Jun 1873 Richard Harte Keatinge (s.a.)
21 Jun 1873 - 12 Dec 1878 Sir Lewis Pelly (b. 1825
- d. 1892)
12 Dec 1878 - 27 Mar 1887 Edward Ridley Colborne Bradford (b. 1836
- d. 1911)
27 Mar 1887 - 20 Mar 1890 Charles Kenneth Mackenzie Walter (b. 1833
- d. 1892)
20 Mar 1890 - 20 Mar 1895 George Herbert Trevor (b. 1840
- d. 1927)
20 Mar 1895 - 10 Mar 1898 Robert Joseph Crosthwaite (b. 1841
- d. 1917)
10 Mar 1898 - 1 Apr 1905 Arthur Henry Temple Martindale (b. 1854
- d. 1942)
1 Apr 1905 - 4 Jan 1918 Elliot Graham Colvin (b. 1861
- d. 1940)
4 Jan 1918 - 22 Dec 1919 John Manners Smith (b. 1864
- d. 1920)
22 Dec 1919 - 7 Aug 1925 Robert Erskine Holland (b. 1873
- d. 1965)
7 Aug 1925 - 18 Mar 1927 Stewart Blakeley Agnew Patterson (b. 1872
- d. 1942)
18 Mar 1927 - 14 Oct 1932 Leonard William Reynolds (b. 1874
- d. 1946)
14 Oct 1932 - 28 Oct 1937 George Drummond Ogilvie (b. 1882
- d. 1966)
28 Oct 1937 - 1 Dec 1944 Arthur Cunningham Lothian (b. 1887
- d. 1962)
1 Dec 1944 - 15 Aug 1947 Hiranand Rupchand Shivdasani (b.
1904)

Andaman and Nicobar Islands

1 Jan 1756 - 1 Jun 1778;
1784 - 16 Oct 1868
23 Mar 1942 - 6 Oct 1945

Dec 1943 - Aug 1945

Provisional Government of Free India

12 Dec 1755 Danish settlers arrive in the Nicobar
Islands.
1 Jan 1756 Nicobar Islands a Danish colony, named New
Denmark
(subordinated to Tranquebar).
Dec 1756 Nicobar Islands renamed Frederik Øerne
(Frederik Islands).
14 Apr 1759 - 19 Aug 1768 Nicobar Islands abandoned.
1 Jun 1778 - 1784 Nicobar Islands occupied by Austria
(annexed 12 Jul 1778),
named Theresia Islands.
1787 - 1805/07 Nicobar Islands abandoned.
Sep 1789 Andaman Islands a British possession (Port
Cornwallis),
part of British India (abandoned May
1796).
1807 - 1814 Nicobar Islands occupied by Britain.
1814 - 31 Jul 1831 Nicobar Islands abandoned.
13 Jun 1834 - 4 Jan 1845 Nicobar Islands abandoned.
5 May 1845 Nicobar Islands reclaimed for Denmark
(annexed 25 Feb 1846).
1848 Nicobar Islands abandoned.
22 Jan 1858 Andaman Islands resettled by Britain.
(subordinated to British India [to Burma
1864-1868]).
16 Oct 1868 Danish rights to the Nicobar Islands sold
to Britain,
part of British India.
23 Mar 1942 - 6 Oct 1945 Japanese occupation.
Dec 1943 - Aug 1945 Administered by the Japanese-sponsored Free
India
Movement (Provisional Government of Free
India);
Andamans are renamed Shaheed Islands and
Nicobars
are renamed Sawaraj Islands.
15 Aug 1947 Part of independent India.

Danish Residents in the Nicobar Islands

12 Dec 1755 - 1756 Tang (d.
1756)
1756 - 9 Sep 1756 Tanner (acting)
9 Sep 1756 - 1756 Tycho Volquard (d.
1756)
1756 Müller
1756 - Jul 1757 C.F. Lund (1st time) (acting)
Jul 1757 - 1757 (18 days) Jens Twed (d.
1757)
1757 - 14 Apr 1759 C.F. Lund (2nd time) (acting)
14 Apr 1759 - 19 Aug 1768 Abandoned
19 Aug 1768 - 17.. Gottlieb Volker
17.. - 17.. Armedinger
17.. - 1 Jun 1778 Joseph Blaschke
1 Jun 1778 - 4 Sep 1778 Bennet -Austrian commander
4 Sep 1778 - 1783 Gottfried Stahl -Austrian Resident (d.
1783)
1783 - 1787 John Gottfried Haensel
1787 - 1791 Abandoned
1791 - 12 Apr 1791 Henning Munck Engelhart (d.
1791)
12 Apr 1791 - 1805 Abandoned
1805 - 1807 ....
1807 - 1814 .... (British commanders)
1814 - 31 Jul 1831 Abandoned?
31 Jul 1831 - 22 Sep 1831 Lauritz Christensen -Governor (b. 1793
- d. 1832)
22 Sep 1831 - 13 Jun 1834 David Rosen
13 Jun 1834 - 5 May 1845 Abandoned
4 Jan 1845 - 26 Feb 1846 Steen Andersen Bille
26 Feb 1846 - 1848 Richard Aschlund (b. 1800
- d. 1863)
1848 - 16 Oct 1868 Abandoned
British Officers in Charge of Port Cornwallis
Sep 1789 - Mar 1793 Archibald Blair (d.
1815)
Mar 1793 - May 1796 Alexander Kyd (b. 1754
- d. 1826)
Superintendents of Port Blair
22 Jan 1858 - 1858 Henry Stuart Man (1st time) (b. 1815
- d. 1893)
(naval officer in charge)
1858 - Oct 1859 James Pattison Walker (b. 1823
- d. 1906)
Oct 1859 - 1862 James Colpoys Haughton (b. 1817
- d. 1887)
Apr 1862 - Feb 1864 Robert Christopher Tytler (b. 1818
- d. 1872)
1864 - 1868 Barnet Ford (b. 1824
- d. 1907)
1868 - 1871 Henry Stuart Man (2nd time) (s.a.)
1871 - 1872 F.L. Playfair

Chief Commissioners of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands

1872 - 1875 Donald Martin Stewart (b. 1824
- d. 1900)
1875 - 1879 Charles Arthur Barwell
1879 - 1892 Thomas Cadell (b. 1835
- d. 1919)
1892 - 1894 Norman Mcleod Thomas Horsford
1894 - 1904 Richard Carnac Temple (b. 1850
- d. 1931)
(from 1902, Richard Carnac Temple, Baron
Nash)
1904 - 1906 William Rudolph Henry Merk (b. 1852
- d. 1925)
1906 - 1913 Herbert Arrott Browning
1913 - 1920 Montague William Douglas
1920 - 1923 Henry Cecil Beadon
1923 - 1931 Michael Lloyd Ferrar (b. 1876
- d. af.1931)
1931 - 1935 John William Smith
1935 - 1938 William Alexander Cosgrave (b. 1879
- d. 1952)
1938 - 23 Mar 1942 Charles Francis Waterfall (b. 1888
- d. 1954)
(Japanese prisoner 23 Mar 1942-45)
23 Mar 1942 - 1943 Bucho
(Japanese civil governor)
Dec 1943 - Aug 1945 A.D. Loganathan (b. 1899
- d. 1949) IIL
(for provisional government of Free
India)
2 Oct 1944 - Aug 1945 Mansoor Ali Alvi
(acting for Loganathan)

Japanese Military Governors

23 Mar 1942 - Jun 1944 Ishikawa Shigeru (b. 1889
- d. 1947)
Jun 1944 - 6 Oct 1945 Teizo Hara (b. 18..
- d. 1946)
Governors
1945 - 1946 Charles Francis Waterfall (s.a.)
1946 - 15 Aug 1947 Noel Kennedy Patterson

Chief Commissioner

Feb 1946 - 15 Aug 1947 Inamul Majid

Assam

1824 - 1826 Occupied by Britain.
24 Feb 1826 Ceded to Britain by Burma.
1826 - 1832 Part of Bengal.
1832 - Oct 1838 Princely state briefly restored in Upper
Assam.
1838 - 7 Feb 1874 Part of Bengal.
1873 British political control imposed on
tWestern Naga communities.
16 Oct 1905 Part of province of East Bengal and Assam.
1 Apr 1912 Assam a separate province.
Mar 1944 - Jul 1944 Part of the Assam (the Naga Hills District)
and part
of the princely state of Manipur occupied
by Japan.
1 Apr 1946 Self rule granted.
15 Aug 1947 Part of independent India.

Commanders of British Forces

1824 George McMorine (b. 1763
- d. 1824)
1824 - 1826 Arthur Richards
Political Agent
1826 - 1828 David Scott (b. 1786
- d. 1831)

Commissioners

1828 - 20 Aug 1831 David Scott (s.a.)
1831 - 1834 Thomas Campbell Robertson (b. 1789
- d. 1863)
1834 - 1861 Francis Jenkins (b. 1793
- d. 1866)
1861 - 1874 Henry Hopkinson

Chief Commissioners

1874 - 1878 Richard Harte Keatinge (b. 1825
- d. 1904)
1878 - 1881 Stewart Colvin Bayley (b. 1836
- d. 1925)
1881 - 1885 Charles Alfred Elliott (b. 1835
- d. 1911)
1885 - 1887 William Erskine Ward (1st time) (b. 1838
- d. 1916)
1887 - 1889 Dennis Fitzpatrick (b. 1837
- d. 1920)
1889 - 1891 James Wallace Quinton (b. 1834
- d. 1891)
1891 - 1896 William Erskine Ward (2nd time) (s.a.)
1896 - 1902 Henry John Stedman Cotton (b. 1845
- d. 1915)
1902 - 1905 Joseph Bampfylde Fuller (b. 1854
- d. 1935)

Lieutenant-governors (of East Bengal and Assam)

1905 - 1906 Joseph Bampfylde Fuller (s.a.)
1906 - 1911 Lancelot Hare (b. 1851
- d. 1922)
1911 - 1912 Charles Stuart Bayley (b. 1854
- d. 1935)

Chief commissioners

1912 - 1918 Archdale Earle (b. 1861
- d. 1934)
1918 - 3 Jan 1921 Sir Nicholas Dodd Beatson Bell (b. 1867
- d. 1936)

Governors

3 Jan 1921 - 2 Apr 1921 Sir Nicholas Dodd Beatson Bell (s.a.)
3 Apr 1921 - 10 Oct 1922 Sir William Sinclair Marris (b. 1873
- d. 1945)
10 Oct 1922 - 28 Jun 1927 Sir John Henry Kerr (b. 1871
- d. 1934)
28 Jun 1927 - 11 May 1932 Sir Egbert Laurie Lucas Hammond (b. 1873
- d. 1939)
11 May 1932 - 4 Mar 1937 Sir Michael Keane (b. 1874
- d. 1937)
4 Mar 1937 - 4 May 1942 Robert Neil Reid (b. 1883
- d. 1964)
4 May 1942 - 4 May 1947 Sir Andrew Gourlay Clow (b. 1890
- d. 1957)
Mar 1944 - Jul 1944 Mutaguchi Renya (b. 1888
- d. 1966)
(Japanese military commander)
Mar 1944 - Jul 1944 A.C.
Chatterjee IIL
(for provisional government of Free
India)
4 May 1947 - 15 Aug 1947 Sir Akbar Hydari (b. 1894
- d. 1948)

Chief ministers

1 Apr 1937 - 19 Sep 1938 Maulavi Saiyid Sir
Muhammad ML
Saadulla (1st time)
19 Sep 1938 - 17 Nov 1939 Gopinath Bordoloi (1st time) (b. 1890
- d. 1950) INC
17 Nov 1939 - 24 Dec 1941 Maulavi Saiyid Sir
Muhammad ML
Saadulla (2nd time)
24 Dec 1941 - 24 Aug 1942 Governor's Rule
25 Aug 1942 - 11 Feb 1946 Maulavi Saiyid Sir
Muhammad ML
Saadulla (3rd time)
11 Feb 1946 - 15 Aug 1947 Gopinath Bordoloi (2nd time)
(s.a.) INC

Briish Political Officers in Naga Hills District

1866 - 1869 John Gregory
1869 - 25 Dec 1875 John Butler (d.
1875)
1875 - 1877 Carnegy
1877 - 1879 Guybon Henry Damant (b. 1846
- d. 1879)

Deputy Commissioners of the Naga Hills District

1879 - 1881 T. Mitchell
1881 - 1894 R.B. McCabe
1894 - 1899 Albert Edward Woods (1st time) (b. 1862
- d. 1938)
1900 - 1907 William James Reid (b. 1871
- d. 1939)
1907 - 1908 A.W. Davis
1908 - 1912 Albert Edward Woods (2nd time) (s.a.)
1912 - 1913 J.K. Webster
1913 - 1917 H.C. Bernera
1917 - 1935 John Henry Hutton (b. 1885
- d. 1968)
1935 - 1937 James Philip Mills (b. 1890
- d. 1960)
1937 - 1947 Charles Ridley Pawsey (b. 1894
- d. 1972)

Baluchistan

19 Jun 1877 British occupy Quetta.
1 Oct 1887 British Baluchistan Province and Tribal
Areas
1 Nov 1887 Incorporated into British India.
15 Aug 1947 Part of Pakistan.

Chief Commissioners (and Agents to the Governors-General for
Baluchistan Agency)

19 Jun 1877 - 11 Dec 1887 Sir Oliver Beauchamp Coventry (b. 1837
- d. 1891)
St. John (1st time) (acting)
11 Dec 1887 - 3 Apr 1889 Sir Robert Groves Sandeman (b. 1835
- d. 1892)
(1st time)
3 Apr 1889 - 8 Oct 1889 Sir Harry North Dalrymple (b. 1834
- d. 1913)
Prendergast (acting)
8 Oct 1889 - 23 Apr 1891 Sir Robert Groves Sandeman (s.a.)
(2nd time)
23 Apr 1891 - 8 May 1891 Sir Hugh Shakespear Barnes (b. 1853
- d. 1940)
(1st time) (acting)
9 May 1891 - 4 Jun 1891 Sir Oliver Beauchamp Coventry (s.a.)
St. John (2nd time)
5 Jun 1891 - 9 Jul 1891 Sir Hugh Shakespear Barnes (s.a.)
(2nd time) (acting)
10 Jul 1891 - 16 Nov 1891 John Biddulph (acting) (b. 1840
- d. 1922)
16 Nov 1891 - 29 Jan 1892 Sir Robert Groves Sandeman (s.a.)
(3rd time)
30 Jan 1892 - 21 Mar 1892 Sir Hugh Shakespear Barnes (s.a.)
(3rd time) (acting)
22 Mar 1892 - 13 Jun 1896 Sir James Browne (b. 1839
- d. 1896)
14 Jun 1896 - 14 Nov 1896 James Adair Crawford (acting)
15 Nov 1896 - 12 Apr 1899 Sir Hugh Shakespear Barnes (s.a.)
(4th time)
12 Apr 1899 - 21 Dec 1899 Henry Wylie (acting) (b. 1844
- d. 1918)
21 Dec 1899 - 20 Nov 1900 Sir Hugh Shakespear Barnes (s.a.)
(5th time)
20 Nov 1900 - 4 Nov 1904 Charles Edward Yate (b. 1849
- d. 1940)
4 Nov 1904 - 23 Jan 1905 John Ramsay (1st time) (acting) (b. 1862
- d. 1942)
23 Jan 1905 - 2 Apr 1907 Alexander Lauzun Pendock Tucker (b. 1861
- d. 1941)
(acting)
2 Apr 1907 - 3 Jun 1909 Sir Arthur Henry McMahon (b. 1862
- d. 1949)
(1st time)
3 Jun 1909 - 6 Sep 1909 Charles Archer (1st time) (acting) (b. 1861
- d. 1941)
6 Sep 1909 - 25 Apr 1911 Sir Arthur Henry McMahon (s.a.)
(2nd time)
25 Apr 1911 - 21 Oct 1912 John Ramsay (2nd time) (s.a.)
21 Oct 1912 - 14 Nov 1912 Charles Archer (2nd time) (acting) (s.a.)
14 Nov 1912 - 2 Apr 1914 John Ramsay (3rd time) (s.a.)
2 Apr 1914 - 23 May 1914 Charles Archer (3rd time) (acting) (s.a.)
23 May 1914 - 15 Jun 1915 John Ramsay (4th time) (s.a.)
15 Jun 1915 - 5 Jul 1915 Charles Archer (4th time) (acting) (s.a.)
5 Jul 1915 - 5 Dec 1917 John Ramsay (5th time) (s.a.)
5 Dec 1917 - 1 Sep 1919 Sir Henry Robert Conway Dobbs (b. 1871
- d. 1934)
1 Sep 1919 - Jun 1922 Armine Brereton Dew (b. 1867
- d. 1941)
Jun 1922 - 15 Sep 1923 Henry Beauchamp St. John (b. 1874
- d. 1954)
(1st time) (acting)
15 Sep 1923 - 7 Jul 1926 Frederick William Johnston (b. 1872
- d. 1947)
7 Jul 1926 - 4 Nov 1927 Edmond Henry Salt James (1st time) (b. 1874
- d. 1952)
(acting)
4 Nov 1927 - 2 Feb 1929 Henry Beauchamp St. John (s.a.)
(2nd time)
2 Feb 1929 - 1 Oct 1929 Edmond Henry Salt James (2nd time) (s.a.)
(acting)
1 Oct 1929 - 17 Dec 1931 Charles Edward Bruce (acting) (b. 1876
- d. 1950)
17 Dec 1931 - 10 May 1932 Alexander Norman Ley Cater (b. 1880
- d. 1957)
(1st time) (acting)
10 May 1932 - 1 Oct 1932 John Aloysius Brett (acting) (b. 1879
- d. 1955)
1 Oct 1932 - 1 Apr 1936 Alexander Norman Ley Cater (s.a.)
(2nd time)
1 Apr 1936 - 18 Apr 1936 Ronald Evelyn Leslie Wingate (b. 1889
- d. 1978)
(1st time) (acting)
18 Apr 1936 - 20 Jun 1937 Arthur Edward Broadbent Parsons (b. 1884
- d. 1966)
(1st time) (acting)
20 Jun 1937 - 28 Nov 1937 Ronald Evelyn Leslie Wingate (s.a.)
(2nd time) (acting)
28 Nov 1937 - 14 Mar 1938 Olaf Kirkpatrick Caroe (acting) (b. 1892
- d. 1981)
14 Mar 1938 - 11 Aug 1939 Arthur Edward Broadbent Parsons (s.a.)
(2nd time)
11 Aug 1939 - 24 Nov 1943 Sir Herbert Aubrey Francis (b. 1883
- d. 1943)
Metcalfe
24 Nov 1943 - 1946 William Rupert Hay (b. 1893
- d. 1962)
14 May 1946 - 1946 Henry Mortimer Poulton (b. 1898
- d. 1973)
1946 - 3 Oct 1947 Sir Geoffrey Prior (b. 1896
- d. 1972)

Bengal

2 Feb 1634 English granted permission to establish
factories
in Bengal at Hugli, Balasore, Kasimbazar
and Patna.
1658 Bengal factories subordinated to Madras.
1676 - 1690 Hugli officially made headquarters of the
Bengal trade.
3 Sep 1681 Bengal a separate agency (Bengal Agency).
17 Jul 1682 - Jan 1694 Presidency of Coromandel and Bengal
Settlements.
Jan 1694 - 1698 Subordinated to Madras.
26 May 1700 Presidency of Bengal (Fort William).
20 Oct 1774 - 1854 Direct rule by the central government of
British India.
1854 Bengal, Bihar, and Orissa province.
16 Oct 1905 Partitioned into two provinces: West Bengal
and East Bengal.
1 Apr 1912 Partitioned reversed renamed the Fort
William Presidency,
Bihar and Orissa made separate
provinces.
1 Apr 1937 Bengal Presidency restored.
15 Aug 1947 Divided between India (West Bengal) and
Pakistan
(East Bengal [later Bangladesh]).

Chief Agents

3 Sep 1681 - 17 Jul 1684 William Hedges (b. 1632
- d. 1701)
17 Jul 1684 - 1684 John Beard

Presidents

8 Aug 1684 - 26 Jan 1685 William Gyfford
26 Jan 1685 - 10 Jan 1693 Job Charnock (b. c.
1630 - d. 1693)
10 Jan 1693 - 12 Aug 1693 Francis Ellis (acting)
12 Aug 1693 - Jan 1694 Charles Eyre (b. 16..
- d. 1729)
Chief Agents
Jan 1694 - 1698 Charles Eyre (1st time) (s.a.)
1698 - Dec 1699 John Beard
Dec 1699 - 26 May 1700 Charles Eyre (2nd time) (s.a.)

Presidents

26 May 1700 - 7 Jan 1701 Charles Eyre (s.a.)
7 Jan 1701 - 1705 John Bead
1705 - Jul 1705 Edward Littleton (b. 16..
- d. 1705)
Jul 1705 - 20 Jul 1710 Council
20 Jul 1710 - 4 Mar 1711 Anthony Weltden
4 Mar 1711 - 3 Dec 1713 John Russell
3 Dec 1713 - 12 Jan 1718 Robert Hedges
12 Jan 1718 - 17 Jan 1723 Samuel Flake
17 Jan 1723 - 30 Jan 1726 John Deane (1st time)
30 Jan 1726 - 23 Aug 1728 Henry Frankland (b. 1684
- d. 1728)
17 Sep 1728 - 18 Sep 1728 Edward Stephenson
18 Sep 1728 - 25 Feb 1732 John Deane (2nd time)
25 Feb 1732 - 29 Jan 1739 John Stackhouse
29 Jan 1739 - 4 Feb 1746 Thomas Broddyll
4 Feb 1746 - 18 Apr 1748 John Forster
18 Apr 1748 - 17 Jun 1749 William Barwell
17 Jun 1749 - 5 Jul 1752 Adam Dawson
5 Jul 1752 - 8 Aug 1752 William Fytche
8 Aug 1752 - Oct 1756 Roger Drake
Oct 1756 - 28 Jan 1760 Sir Robert Clive (1st time) (b. 1725
- d. 1774)
28 Jan 1760 - 27 Jul 1760 John Zephaniah Holwell (acting) (b. 1711
- d. 1798)
27 Jul 1760 - 3 Dec 1764 Henry Vansittart (b. 1732
- d. 1769)
3 Dec 1764 - 3 May 1765 John Spencer (acting) (b. c.
1725 - d. c.1770)
3 May 1765 - 29 Jan 1767 Robert Clive, Baron Clive of (s.a.)
Plassey (2nd time)
29 Jan 1767 - 26 Dec 1769 Harry Verelst (b. c.
1733 - d. 1785)
26 Dec 1769 - 13 Apr 1772 John Cartier (b. 1733
- d. 1802)
13 Apr 1772 - 20 Oct 1774 Warren Hastings (b. 1732
- d. 1818)
20 Oct 1774 - 1 May 1854 administered by the government of British
India

Lieutenant-governors

1 May 1854 - 1 May 1859 Frederick James Halliday (b. 1807
- d. 1901)
1 May 1859 - 24 Apr 1862 John Peter Grant (b. 1807
- d. 1893)
24 Apr 1862 - 1866 Sir Cecil Beadon (b. 1816
- d. 1880)
23 Apr 1867 - 1 Mar 1871 William Grey (b. 1818
- d. 1878)
1 Mar 1871 - 9 Apr 1874 George Campbell (b. 1824
- d. 1892)
9 Apr 1874 - 8 Jan 1877 Richard Temple (b. 1826
- d. 1902)
8 Jan 1877 - 15 Jul 1879 Ashley Eden (b. 1831
- d. 1887)
15 Jul 1879 - 24 Apr 1882 Stewart Colvin Bayley (1st time) (b. 1836
- d. 1925)
(acting)
24 Apr 1882 - 11 Aug 1885 Augustus Rivers Thompson (b. 1829
- d. 1890)
11 Aug 1885 - 2 Apr 1887 Horace Abel Cockerell (acting) (b. 1832
- d. 1908)
2 Apr 1887 - 17 Dec 1890 Sir Stewart Colvin Bayley (s.a.)
(2nd time)
17 Dec 1890 - 30 May 1893 Charles Alfred Elliot (b. 1836
- d. 1911)
30 May 1893 - 18 Dec 1895 Anthony Patrick MacDonnell (b. 1844
- d. 1925)
18 Dec 1893 - 23 Jun 1897 Alexander Mackenzie (b. 1842
- d. 1902)
23 Jun 1897 - 7 Apr 1898 Sir Charles Cecil Stevens (acting) (b. 1841
- d. 1909)
7 Apr 1898 - 23 Nov 1902 John Woodburn (b. 1848
- d. 1902)
23 Nov 1902 - 2 Nov 1903 James Austen Bourdillon (acting) (b. 1848
- d. 1913)
2 Nov 1903 - 10 Apr 1906 Arthur Henderson Leith Fraser (b. 1848
- d. 1919)
10 Apr 1906 - 16 Aug 1906 Lancelot Hare (acting) (b. 1851
- d. 1922)
16 Aug 1906 - 1 Dec 1908 Sir Francis Alexander Slacke (b. 1853
- d. 1940)
1 Dec 1908 - 14 Jul 1911 Sir Edward Norman Baker (b. 1857
- d. 1956)
14 Jul 1911 - 1 Apr 1912 Sir Frederick William Duke (b. 1863
- d. 1924)

Governors

1 Apr 1912 - 26 Mar 1917 Thomas David Gibson-Carmichael, (b. 1859
- d. 1926)
Baron Carmichael of Skirling
26 Mar 1917 - 28 Mar 1922 Lawrence John Lumley Dundas (b. 1876
- d. 1961)
28 Mar 1922 Henry Wheeler (acting) (b. 1870
- d. 1950)
28 Mar 1922 - 28 Mar 1927 Victor Alexander George Robert (b. 1876
- d. 1947)
Bulwer-Lytton, Earl of Lytton
28 Mar 1927 - 29 Mar 1932 Francis Stanley Jackson (b. 1870
- d. 1947)
29 Mar 1932 - 10 Aug 1934 Sir John Anderson (1st time) (b. 1882
- d. 1958)
10 Aug 1934 - 1 Apr 1937 John Ackroyd Woodhead (1st time) (b. 1881
- d. 1973)
(acting)
1 Apr 1937 - 27 Nov 1937 Sir John Anderson (2nd time) (s.a.)
27 Nov 1937 - 23 Jun 1938 Michael Herbert Rudolph (b. 1895
- d. 1939)
Knatchbull-Hugessen,
Baron Brabourne
24 Feb 1939 - 12 Jun 1939 Robert Neil Reid (acting) (b. 1883
- d. 1964)
12 Jun 1939 - 18 Nov 1939 John Ackroyd Woodhead (2nd time) (s.a.)
18 Nov 1939 - 6 Sep 1943 John Arthur Herbert (b. 1895
- d. 1943)
6 Sep 1943 - 22 Jan 1944 Thomas George Rutherford (acting) (b. 1886
- d. 1957)
22 Jan 1944 - 19 Feb 1946 Richard Gardiner Casey (b. 1890
- d. 1976)
19 Feb 1946 - 15 Aug 1947 Sir Frederick John Burrows (b. 1887
- d. 1973)

Chief ministers

1937 - Jul 1943 A.K. Fazlul Huq (b. 1873
- d. 1962) ML
Jul 1943 - Aug 1945 Khwaja Nazimuddin (b. 1894
- d. 1964) BPML
Aug 1945 - Jun 1946 Governor's Rule
Chief minister of East Bengal
Jun 1946 - 15 Aug 1947 Huseyn Shaheed Suhrawardy (b. 1893
- d. 1963) BPML
Chief minister of West Bengal
3 Jul 1946 - 15 Aug 1947 Prafulla Ghosh (b. 1891
- d. 1983) INC

Agents to the Governor-General for Eastern States Agency

1933 - 1934 Edmund Currey Gibson (b. 1886
- d. ....)
1934 - 1937 A.S. Meek
1937 - 1939? H.W.C. Robson
1939 - 1941 Cyril Percy Hancock (b. 1896
- d. 1990)
1941 - 1944? Sir Walter Fendall Campbell (b. 1894
- d. 1973)
1944 - 1947 Herbert John Todd
1947 C.W.L. Harvey

Bihar and Orissa

1756 Bihar part of Bengal.
14 Oct 1803 Orissa occupied by Britain.
1 Apr 1912 Separated from Bengal as Bihar and Orissa
province.
1 Apr 1936 Bihar and Orissa become separate
provinces.
23 Mar 1946 Bihar granted self rule.
23 Apr 1946 Orissa granted self rule.
15 Aug 1947 Part of independent India.

Lieutenant governors

1 Apr 1912 - 19 Nov 1915 Sir Charles Stuart Bayley (b. 1854
- d. 1935)
19 Nov 1915 - 5 Apr 1918 Sir Edward Albert Gait (1st time) (b. 1863
- d. 1950)
5 Apr 1918 - 12 Jul 1918 Sir Edward Vere Levinge (acting) (b. 1867
- d. 1954)
12 Jul 1918 - 29 Dec 1920 Sir Edward Albert Gait (2nd time) (s.a.)

Governors

29 Dec 1920 - 29 Nov 1921 Satyendra Prasanna Sinha, (b. 1864
- d. 1928)
Baron Sinha of Raipur
29 Nov 1921 - 12 Apr 1922 Havilland Le Mesurier (acting) (b. 1866
- d. 1931)
12 Apr 1922 - 7 Apr 1927 Sir Henry Wheeler (b. 1870
- d. 1950)
7 Apr 1927 - 7 Apr 1932 Sir Hugh Lansdowne Stephenson (b. 1871
- d. 1950)
7 Apr 1932 - 1 Apr 1936 Sir James David Sifton (b. 1878
- d. 1952)

Bihar

Governors

1 Apr 1936 - 11 Mar 1937 Sir James David Sifton (s.a.)
11 Mar 1937 - 5 Aug 1939 Sir Maurice Garnier Hallett (b. 1883
- d. 1969)
5 Aug 1939 - 9 Jan 1943 Sir Thomas Alexander Stewart (b. 1888
- d. 1964)
(acting to Sep 1939)
9 Jan 1943 - Mar 1943 Sir Thomas George Rutherford (b. 1886
- d. 1957)
(1st time)
Mar 1943 - 1944 Sir Robert Francis Mudie (acting) (b. 1890
- d. 1976)
1944 - 13 May 1946 Sir Thomas George Rutherford (s.a.)
(2nd time)
13 May 1946 - 15 Aug 1947 Sir Hugh Dow (b. 1886
- d. 1978)

Chief ministers

1937 - Oct 1939 Srikrishna Sinha (1st time) (b. 1888
- d. 1961) INC
Oct 1939 - 23 Mar 1946 Governor's Rule
23 Mar 1946 - 15 Aug 1947 Srikrishna Sinha (2nd time)
(s.a.) INC

Orissa

Governors

1 Apr 1936 - 11 Aug 1938 Sir John Austen Hubback (1st time) (b. 1878
- d. 1968)
11 Aug 1938 - 8 Dec 1938 George Townsend Boag (acting) (b. 1884
- d. 1969)
8 Dec 1938 - 1 Apr 1941 Sir John Austen Hubback (2nd time) (s.a.)
1 Apr 1941 - 1 Apr 1946 Sir William Hawthorne Lewis (b. 1888
- d. 1970)
1 Apr 1946 - 15 Aug 1947 Sir Chandulal Madhavlal Trivedi (b. 1893
- d. 1981)

Chief ministers

1 Apr 1937 - 19 Jul 1937 Maharaja Krushna Chandra Gajapati (b. 1892
- d. 1974) Non-party
Narayan Deo (1st time)
19 Jul 1937 - 4 Nov 1939 Biswanath Das (b. 1889
- d. 1984) INC
4 Nov 1939 - 24 Nov 1941 Governor's Rule
24 Nov 1941 - 29 Jun 1944 Maharaja Krushna Chandra Gajapati
(s.a.) Non-party
Narayan Deo (2nd time)
29 Jun 1944 - 23 Apr 1946 Governor's Rule
23 Apr 1946 - 15 Aug 1947 Harekrushna Mahatab (b. 1899
- d. 1987) INC

Bombay

23 Jun 1661 Bombay Island and its dependencies ceded to
England by Portugal.
18 Sep 1662 English arrive to take possession, but are
rebuffed.
16 Aug 1663 King of Portugal orders cession to take
place.
23 Nov 1663 English forced to do battle with
Portuguese.
18 Feb 1665 Final cession of Bombay to England (without
its dependencies).
23 Sep 1668 - 2 May 1685 Bombay Presidency subordinated to Surat;
under British East
India Company rule (to 1858).
2 May 1685 - 1703 Surat subordinated to Bombay.
Jun 1703 Surat incorporated into Bombay.
Sep 1839 - 1932 Aden (in Yemen) subordinated to Bombay.
1843 - 1 Apr 1936 Sind subordinated to Bombay.
30 Mar 1946 Self rule granted.
15 Aug 1947 Part of independent India.

Royal commander

19 Mar 1662 - Oct 1664 Sir Abraham Shipman (d.
1664)

Governors

Oct 1664 - 5 Nov 1666 Humphrey Cooke (acting)
5 Nov 1666 - 21 May 1667 Sir Gervase Lucas (b. 1611
- d. 1667)
22 May 1667 - 23 Sep 1668 Henry Garey (acting)
23 Sep 1668 - 14 Jul 1669 Sir George Oxenden (acting) (b. 1620
- d. 1669)
14 Jul 1669 - 7 Jun 1672 Matthew Gray (acting)
7 Jun 1672 - 30 Jun 1677 Gerald Aungier (b.
1635/40 - d. 1677)
30 Jun 1677 - 27 Oct 1681 Sir Henry Oxenden (b. 1645
- d. 1709)
1681 - 1683 John Child (1st time) (b.
1637/8 - 1690)
27 Dec 1683 - 19 Nov 1684 Richard Keigwin (acting) (d.
1690)
19 Nov 1684 - 1685 Charles Zinzan (acting)
1685 - 2 May 1687 Sir John Wyborne (acting)
2 May 1687 - 4 Feb 1690 Sir John Child (2nd time) (s.a.)
4 Feb 1690 - 10 May 1694 Bartholomew Harris (acting) (b.
1648/9 – d. 1694)
10 May 1694 - 17 May 1694 Samuel Annesley (acting)
17 May 1694 - Nov 1704 Sir John Gayer (b. 16..
- d. 1711)
Nov 1704 - 20 Apr 1708 Sir Nicholas Waite
20 Apr 1708 - 11 Oct 1715 William Aislabie
11 Oct 1715 - 26 Dec 1715 Stephen Strutt (acting)
26 Dec 1715 - 9 Jan 1722 Charles Boone
9 Jan 1722 - 10 Jan 1729 William Phipps
10 Jan 1729 - 22 Sep 1734 Robert Cowan (d.
1737)
22 Sep 1734 - 7 Apr 1739 John Horne
7 Apr 1739 - 15 Nov 1742 Stephen Law
15 Nov 1742 - 26 Nov 1742 John Geekie (acting)
26 Nov 1742 - 17 Nov 1750 William Wake
17 Nov 1750 - 1760 Richard Bourchier
1760 - 28 Feb 1760 John Holkell (acting)
28 Feb 1760 - 27 Jan 1767 Charles Crommelin (b. 1717
- d. 1788)
27 Jan 1767 - 23 Feb 1771 Thomas Hodges (d.
1771)
26 Feb 1771 - 1 Jan 1784 William Hornby (b. 1723
- d. 1803)
1 Jan 1784 - 9 Jan 1788 Rawson Hart Boddham (b. 1732
- d. 1812)
9 Jan 1788 - 6 Sep 1788 Andrew Ramsay (acting)
6 Sep 1788 - 21 Jan 1790 Sir William Medows (b. 1738
- d. 1813)
21 Jan 1790 - 26 Nov 1792 Sir Robert Abercromby (b. 1740
- d. 1827)
26 Nov 1792 - 9 Nov 1795 George Dick (acting)
9 Nov 1795 - 27 Dec 1795 John Griffith (acting)
27 Dec 1795 - 11 Aug 1811 Jonathan Duncan (b. 1756
- d. 1811)
11 Aug 1811 - 12 Aug 1812 George Brown (acting)
12 Aug 1812 - 1 Nov 1819 Sir Evan Nepean (b. 1751
- d. 1822)
1 Nov 1819 - 1 Nov 1827 Mountstuart Elphinstone (b. 1779
- d. 1859)
1 Nov 1827 - 1 Dec 1830 Sir John Malcolm (b. 1769
- d. 1833)
1 Dec 1830 - 17 Jan 1831 Sir Thomas Sidney Beckwith (b. 1772
- d. 1831)
(acting)
17 Jan 1831 - 21 Mar 1831 John Romer (acting)
21 Mar 1831 - 17 Mar 1835 John Fitzgibbon, Earl of Clare (b. 1792
- d. 1851)
17 Mar 1835 - 11 Jul 1838 Sir Robert Grant (b. 1779
- d. 1838)
11 Jul 1838 - 31 May 1839 James Farish (acting)
31 May 1839 - 28 Apr 1841 Sir James Rivett-Carnac (b. 1785
- d. 1846)
28 Apr 1841 - 9 May 1842 George William Anderson (acting) (b. 1791
- d. 1857)
9 May 1842 - 6 Jul 1846 Sir George Arthur (b. 1784
- d. 1854)
6 Jul 1846 - 23 Jan 1847 Lestock Robert Reid (acting)
23 Jan 1847 - 1 May 1848 Sir George Russell Clerk (1st time)(b. 1800
- d. 1889)
(acting)
1 May 1848 - 26 Dec 1853 Lucius Bentinck Carey, (b. 1803
- d. 1884)
Viscount Falkland
26 Dec 1853 - 11 May 1860 John Elphinstone, Baron (b. 1807
- d. 1860)
Elphinstone
11 May 1860 - 24 Apr 1862 Sir George Russell Clerk (2nd time)(s.a.)
(acting)
24 Apr 1862 - 6 Mar 1867 Sir Henry Bartle Edward Frere (b. 1815
- d. 1884)
6 Mar 1867 - 6 May 1872 William Robert Seymour Vesey (b. 1818
- d. 1885)
Fitzgerald
6 May 1872 - 30 Feb 1877 Sir Philip Edmond Wodehouse (b. 1811
- d. 1887)
30 Feb 1877 - 13 Mar 1880 Sir Richard Temple (b. 1826
- d. 1902)
13 Mar 1880 - 28 Apr 1880 Lionel Robert Ashburner (acting) (b. 1827
- d. 1907)
28 Apr 1880 - 27 Mar 1885 Sir James Fergusson (b. 1823
- d. 1907)
27 Mar 1885 James Braithwaite Peile (acting) (b. 1833
- d. 1906)
27 Mar 1885 - 12 Apr 1890 Donald James Mackay, Baron Reay (b. 1839
- d. 1921)
12 Apr 1890 - 16 Feb 1895 George Robert Canning Harris, (b. 1851
- d. 1932)
Baron Harris
16 Feb 1895 - 18 Feb 1895 Herbert Mills Birdwood (acting) (b. 1837
- d. 1907)
18 Feb 1895 - 17 Feb 1900 William Mansfield, Baron Sandhurst (b. 1857
- d. 1933)
17 Feb 1900 - 5 Sep 1903 Henry Stafford Northcote,
Baron Northcote (b. 1846
- d. 1911)
5 Sep 1903 - 12 Dec 1903 Sir James Monteath (acting) (b. 1847
- d. 1929)
12 Dec 1903 - 28 Jul 1907 Charles Wallace Cochrane Baillie,
Baron Lamington (b. 1860
- d. 1940)
28 Jul 1907 - 18 Oct 1907 Sir John William Pitt
Muir-Mackenzie (acting) (b. 1854
- d. 1916)
18 Oct 1907 - 4 Apr 1913 Sir George Sydenham Clarke,
Baron Sydenham (b. 1848
- d. 1933)
4 Apr 1913 - 17 Dec 1918 George Freeman Freeman-Thomas,
Baron Willingdon (b. 1866
- d. 1941)
17 Dec 1918 - 8 Dec 1923 Sir George Ambrose Lloyd (b. 1879
- d. 1941)
8 Dec 1923 - 10 Dec 1923 Sir Maurice Hayward (acting) (b. 1868
- d. 1964)
10 Dec 1923 - 20 Mar 1926 Sir Leslie Orme Wilson (b. 1876
- d. 1955)
20 Mar 1926 - 8 Dec 1928 Sir Henry Staveley Lawrence (b. 1870
- d. 1949)
(acting)
8 Dec 1928 - 25 Apr 1931 Sir Frederick Hugh Sykes (b. 1877
- d. 1954)
25 Apr 1931 - 30 May 1937 Michael Herbert Rudolph (b. 1895
- d. 1939)
Knatchbull-Hugessen,
Baron Brabourne
30 May 1937 - 18 Sep 1937 Sir Robert Duncan Bell (acting) (b. 1878
- d. 1953)
18 Sep 1937 - 24 Mar 1943 Sir Lawrence Roger Lumley (b. 1896
- d. 1969)
24 Mar 1943 - 15 Aug 1947 Sir David John Colville (b. 1894
- d. 1954)

Chief minister

1937 - Oct 1939 Bal Gangadhar Kher (1st time) (b. 1888
- d. 1957) INC
Oct 1939 - 30 Mar 1946 Governor's Rule
30 Mar 1946 - 15 Aug 1947 Bal Gangadhar Kher (2nd time)
(s.a.) INC

Central Provinces and Berar

1852 Nagpur province
11 Dec 1853 Napur province annexed to British India.
1861 Nagupr united with Saugor Nerbudda
territories.
1862 Renamed Central Provinces.
1 Oct 1903 Berar falls under British administration.
24 Oct 1936 Central Provinces united with Berar.
20 Apr 1946 Self rule granted.
15 Aug 1947 Part of independent India.

Resident

1850 - 13 Mar 1854 Charles G. Mansel (b. 1806
- d. 1886)
Chief Commissioners
13 Mar 1854 - 1854 Charles G. Mansel (s.a.)
1854 - 1855 Edward King Elliot (1st time) (b. 1811
- d. 1865)
1855 - 1860 G. Plowden
1861 - 1864 Edward King Elliot (2nd time) (s.a.)
1864 - 1867 Sir Richard Temple (b. 1826
- d. 1902)
Apr 1867 - May 1883 Sir John Henry Morris (b. 1828
- d. 19..)
(acting to Apr 1868)
1883 - 1884 William Bence Jones
1884 - 1885 Sir Charles Haukes Todd (b. 1835
- d. 1915)
Crosthwaite
1885 - 1887 Dennis Fitzpatrick (acting) (b. 1827
- d. 1920)
1887 - 1889 Alexander Mackenzie
1889 - 1893 Sir Anthony Patrick Macdonnell (b. 1844
- d. 1925)
1893 - 1895 Sir John Woodburn (b. 1843
- d. 1902)
1 Nov 1895 - 1899 Sir Charles James Lyall (b. 1845
- d. 1920)
1899 - 1900 Sir Andrew Henderson Letih Fraser (b. 1848
- d. 1919)
1900 - 1902 Sir Denzil Charles Jelf Ibbetson (b. 1847
- d. 1908)
1902 - 1904 John Prescott Hewett (b. 1854
- d. 1941)
1904 - 1905 Frederic Styles Philpin Ley
1905 - 1906 John Ontario Miller (b. 1857
- d. 1943)
1907 - 1912 Reginald Henry Craddock (b. 1864
- d. 1937)
1912 - 1920 Sir Benjamin Robertson (b. 1864
- d. 1953)
1920 - 17 Dec 1920 Sir Frank George Sly (b. 1876
- d. 1932)

Governors

17 Dec 1920 - 26 Jan 1925 Sir Frank George Sly (s.a.)
26 Jan 1925 - 19 Aug 1927 Sir Montagu Sherard Dawes Butler (b. 1873
- d. 1952)
(1st time)
19 Aug 1927 - 16 Dec 1927 John Thomas Marten (acting) (b. 1872
- d. 1929)
16 Dec 1927 - 29 Nov 1929 Sir Montagu Sherard Dawes Butler (s.a.)
(2nd time)
29 Nov 1929 - 29 Mar 1930 Vacant
29 Mar 1930 - 29 Jul 1932 Sir Montagu Sherard Dawes Butler (s.a.)
(3rd time)
29 Jul 1932 - 25 Nov 1932 Sir Arthur Edward Nelson (acting) (b. 1875
- d. 1950)
25 Nov 1932 - 15 Sep 1933 Sir Hyde Clarendon Gowan (1st time)(b. 1878
- d. 1938)
15 Sep 1933 - 15 May 1936 Sir Montagu Sherard Dawes Butler (s.a.)
(4th time)
15 May 1935 - 11 Sep 1936 E. Raghavendra Rao (acting)
11 Sep 1936 - 3 Mar 1938 Sir Hyde Clarendon Gowan (2nd time)(s.a.)
3 Mar 1938 - 27 May 1938 Hugh Bomford (acting) (b. 1882
- d. 1939)
27 May 1938 - 1 Jun 1940 Sir Francis Verner Wylie (b. 1891
- d. 1970)
1 Jun 1940 - 16 Sep 1946 Sir Henry Joseph Twynam (b. 1887
- d. 1966)
(acting to 1 Oct 1940)
16 Sep 1946 - 15 Aug 1947 Sir Frederick Chalmers Bourne (b. 1891
- d. 1977)

Prime ministers

Aug 1937 - Jul 1938 Narayan Bhaskar Khare (b. 1882
– d. 1970) INC
Jul 1938 - 20 Apr 1946 Governor's Rule
20 Apr 1946 - 15 Aug 1947 Ravi Shankar Shukla (b. 1877
- d. 1956) INC

Coorg

10 Apr 1834 British annex Coorg.
10 Apr 1834 - 15 Aug 1947 Subordinated to Mysore.
15 Aug 1947 Part of independent India.

Chief Commissioners

10 Apr 1834 - 1 Jul 1940 the commissioners of Mysore
1 Jul 1940 - 26 Apr 1943 Joseph William Pritchard
26 Apr 1943 - 15 Aug 1947 Diwan Bahadur Ketoli Chengappa (b. 1878
- d. 19..)

Delhi

1832 - 1858 Part of North-West Provinces.
1858 - 1912 Part of Punjab.
17 Sep 1912 Delhi a separate province.
15 Aug 1947 Part of independent India.

Chief Commissioners

1912 - 1918 William Malcolm Hailey (b. 1872
- d. 1969)
1918 - 1924 Claud Alexander Barron (b. 1871
- d. 1948)
1924 - 1926 Evelyn Robins Abbott
1926 - 1928 Alexander Montague Stow (b. 1873
- d. 1936)
1928 John Nesbitt Gordon Johnson (b. 1885
- d. 1955)
(1st time) (acting)
1928 - 1932 John Perronet Thompson (b. 1873
- d. 1935)
1932 - 1937 John Nesbitt Gordon Johnson (s.a.)
(2nd time)
1937 - 1940 Evan Meredith Jenkins (b. 1896
- d. 1985)
1940 - 1945 Arthur Vivian Askwith (b. 1893
- d. 1971)
1945 - 15 Aug 1947 William Christie (b. 1896
- d. 1983)

Madras

1523 - 1672 Portuguese settlement near Madras, São
Thomè de Meliapur.
(and again 1697 - 21 Oct 1749).
1 Mar 1640 Madras an English possession (Presidency of
Fort St. George),
under British East India Company rule (to
1858).
1640 - 1652 Subordinated to Bantam (Madras Agency).
1652 - 1655 Presidency of Madras.
1684 Presidency of Madras.
10 Sep 1746 - Aug 1749 French occupation.
20 Oct 1774 Part of British India.
30 Apr 1946 Self rule granted.
15 Aug 1947 Part of independent India.

Captains-major of São Thomè de Meliapur
1523 - 1672 ....
c.1645 Manuel Mascarenhas Homem
1697 - 21 Oct 1749 ....

Agents

1 Mar 1640 - 1653 Andrew Cogan
1643 - 1644 Francis Day (b. 1605
- d. 1673)
1644 - 1648 Thomas Ivie (d.
1694/95)
1648 - 1652 Thomas Greenhill (b.
1611/12 - d. 1658)
President
1652 - 1655 Aaron Baker (b. 1620
- d. 1683)

Agents

1655 - 4 Jan 1658 Thomas Greenhill (s.a.)
1658 - 1661 Sir Thomas Chambers
1661 - Aug 1665 Sir Edward Winter (1st time) (b. 1622
- d. 1686)
Aug 1665 - 16 Sep 1665 George Foxcraft (1st time) (b. c.
1634 - d. 1715)
16 Sep 1665 - 22 Aug 1668 Sir Edward Winter (2nd time) (s.a.)
(acting)
22 Aug 1668 - Jan 1670 George Foxcraft (2nd time) (s.a.)
Jan 1670 - 27 Jan 1678 Sir William Langhorne (b. c.
1634 - d. 1715)
27 Jan 1678 - 3 Jul 1681 Streynsham Master (b. 1640
- d. 1724)
3 Jul 1681 - 8 Aug 1684 William Gyfford

Presidents

8 Aug 1684 - 26 Jan 1685 Elihu Yale (1st time)(acting) (b. 1649
- d. 1721)
26 Jan 1685 - 25 Jul 1687 William Gyfford
27 Jul 1687 - 3 Oct 1692 Elihu Yale (2nd time) (s.a.)
3 Oct 1692 - 7 Jul 1698 Nathaniel Higginson (b. 1652
- d. 1708)
7 Jul 1698 - 18 Sep 1709 Thomas Pitt (b. 1653
- d. 1726)
18 Sep 1709 - 17 Oct 1709 Gulston Addison (b. 1673
- d. 1709)
17 Oct 1709 - 14 Nov 1709 Edmund Montague (acting)
14 Nov 1709 - 11 Jul 1711 William Fraser (acting)
11 Jul 1711 - 8 Jan 1717 Edward Harrison (b. 1674
- d. 1732)
8 Jan 1717 - 18 Jan 1720 Joseph Collett (b. 1673
- d. 1723)
18 Jan 1720 - 15 Oct 1721 Francis Hastings (acting)
15 Oct 1721 - 15 Jan 1725 Nathaniel Elwick (b. 1675
- d. 1750)
15 Jan 1725 - 14 May 1730 James Macrae (b. c.
1677 - d. 1744)
14 May 1730 - 23 Jan 1735 George Morton Pitt (d.
1756)
23 Jan 1735 - 14 Jan 1744 Richard Benyon (b. 1698
- d. ....)
17 Jan 1744 - 10 Sep 1746 Nicholas Morse (d.
1772)

French Governors

10 Sep 1746 - 2 Oct 1746 Bertrand François Mahé,
comte de la Bourdonnais (b. 1699
- d. 1753)
(acting)
2 Oct 1746 - Aug 1749 Jean-Jacques Duval d'Eprémesnil (b. 1714
- d. 1764)

Presidents

10 Sep 1746 - 14 Apr 1747 John Hinde (in Fort David) (d.
1747)
16 Apr 1747 - 19 Sep 1750 Charles Floyer, Jr. (in Fort David)(b. 1715
- d. 1766)
19 Sep 1750 - 14 Jan 1755 Thomas Saunders (b.
1712/13 - d. 1775)
(in Fort David to 5 Apr 1752)
14 Jan 1755 - 14 Nov 1763 George Pigot (1st time) (b. 1719
- d. 1777)
14 Nov 1763 - 25 Jan 1767 Robert Palk (b. 1717
- d. 1798)
25 Jan 1767 - 31 Jan 1770 Charles Bourchier
31 Jan 1770 - 2 Feb 1773 Josias DuPré (d.
1780)
2 Feb 1773 - 11 Dec 1775 Alexander Wynch (b. 1721
- d. 1781)
11 Dec 1775 - 23 Aug 1776 George Pigot (2nd time) (s.a.)
23 Aug 1776 - 31 Aug 1777 George Stratton (b. 1733
- d. 1780)
31 Aug 1777 - 8 Feb 1778 John Whitehill (1st time) (acting) (b. 1735
- d. ....)
8 Feb 1778 - 6 Apr 1780 Sir Thomas Rumbold (b. 1736
- d. 1791)
6 Apr 1780 - 8 Nov 1780 John Whitehill (2nd time) (acting) (s.a.)
8 Nov 1780 - 22 Jun 1781 Charles Smith (acting) (b. 1736
- d. ....)
22 Jun 1781 - 12 Feb 1785 George Macartney (b. 1737
- d. 1806)

Governors

12 Feb 1785 - 14 Jun 1785 George Macartney (s.a.)
14 Jun 1785 - 6 Apr 1786 Alexander Davidson (acting) (b. 1742
- d. 1791)
6 Apr 1786 - 7 Feb 1789 Sir Archibald Campbell (b. 1739
- d. 1791)
7 Feb 1789 - 13 Feb 1790 John Holland (acting)
13 Feb 1790 - 20 Feb 1790 Edward J. Holland (acting)
20 Feb 1790 - 1 Aug 1792 William Medows (b. 1738
- d. 1813)
1 Aug 1792 - 7 Sep 1794 Sir Charles Oakeley (b. 1751
- d. 1826)
7 Sep 1794 - 21 Feb 1798 Robert Hobart, Baron Hobart (b. 1760
- d. 1816)
21 Feb 1798 - 21 Aug 1798 George Harris (acting) (b. 1746
- d. 1829)
21 Aug 1798 - 30 Aug 1803 Edward Clive, Baron Powis (b. 1754
- d. 1839)
30 Aug 1803 - 11 Sep 1807 William Henry Cavendish-Bentinck (b. 1774
- d. 1839)
11 Sep 1807 - Dec 1807 William Petrie (acting) (b. 17..
- d. 1816)
Dec 1807 - 24 Feb 1808 .... (acting)
24 Feb 1808 - 21 May 1813 Sir George Hilario Barlow (b. 1762
- d. 1846)
21 May 1813 - 16 Sep 1814 John Abercromby (acting) (b. 1772
- d. 1817)
16 Sep 1814 - 10 Jul 1827 Sir Thomas Munro (b. 1761
- d. 1827)
10 Jul 1827 - 18 Oct 1827 Henry Sullivan Graeme (acting)
18 Oct 1827 - 25 Oct 1832 Stephen Rumbold Lushington (b. 1776
- d. 1868)
25 Oct 1832 - 4 Mar 1837 Sir Frederick Adam (b. 1781
- d. 1853)
4 Mar 1837 - 6 Mar 1837 George Edward Russell (acting)
6 Mar 1837 - 24 Sep 1842 John Elphinstone, (b. 1807
- d. 1860)
Baron Elphinstone
24 Sep 1842 - 23 Feb 1848 George Hay, Marquess of Tweeddale (b. 1787
- d. 1876)
23 Feb 1848 - 7 Apr 1848 Henry Dickinson (acting)
7 Apr 1848 - 24 Apr 1854 Sir Henry Eldred Pottinger (b. 1789
- d. 1856)
24 Apr 1854 - 28 Apr 1854 Daniel Eliott (acting)
28 Apr 1854 - 28 Mar 1859 George Francis Robert Harris, (b. 1810
- d. 1872)
Baron Harris
28 Mar 1859 - 8 Jun 1860 Sir Charles Edward Trevelyan (b. 1807
- d. 1886)
8 Jun 1860 - 5 Jul 1860 William Ambrose Morehead (b. 1805
- d. 1863)
(1st time) (acting)
5 Jul 1860 - 2 Aug 1860 Sir Henry George Ward (b. 1797
- d. 1860)
4 Aug 1860 - 18 Feb 1861 William Ambrose Morehead (s.a.)
(2nd time) (acting)
18 Feb 1861 - 26 Nov 1863 Sir William Thomas Denison (b. 1804
- d. 1871)
(1st time)
26 Nov 1863 - 18 Jan 1864 Edward Maltby (acting)
18 Jan 1864 - 27 Mar 1866 Sir William Thomas Denison (s.a.)
(2nd time)
27 Mar 1866 - 19 Feb 1872 Francis Napier, Baron Napier (b. 1819
- d. 1898)
of Merchistoun
19 Feb 1872 - 15 May 1872 Alexander John Arbuthnot (acting) (b. 1822
- d. 1907)
15 May 1872 - 29 Apr 1875 Vere Henry Hobart (b. 1818
- d. 1875)
29 Apr 1875 - 23 Nov 1875 William Rose Robinson (acting) (b. 1822
- d. 1886)
23 Nov 1875 - 20 Dec 1880 Richard Plantagenet Campbell (b. 1823
- d. 1889)
Temple-Nugent-Brydges-Chandos-
Grenville, Duke of Buckingham
and Chandos
20 Dec 1880 - 24 May 1881 William Patrick Adam (b. 1823
- d. 1881)
24 May 1881 - 5 Nov 1881 William Huddleston (acting) (b. 1826
- d. 1894)
5 Nov 1881 - 8 Dec 1886 Mountstuart Elphinstone Grant Duff (b. 1828
- d. 1906)
8 Dec 1886 - 1 Dec 1890 Robert Bourke, (from 10 May 1887) (b. 1827
- d. 1903)
Baron Connemara
1 Dec 1890 - 23 Jan 1891 John Henry Garstin (acting) (b. 1838
- d. 1903)
23 Jan 1891 - 18 Mar 1896 Bentley Lawley, Baron Wenlock (b. 1849
- d. 1912)
18 Mar 1896 - 28 Dec 1900 Sir Arthur Elibank Havelock (b. 1844
- d. 1908)
28 Dec 1900 - 30 Apr 1904 Arthur Oliver Villiers-Russell, (b. 1869
- d. 1935)
Baron Ampthill (1st time)
30 Apr 1904 - 13 Dec 1904 James Thompson (acting)
13 Dec 1904 - 15 Feb 1906 Arthur Oliver Villiers-Russell, (s.a.)
Baron Ampthill (2nd time)
15 Feb 1906 - 28 Mar 1906 Gabriel Stoles (acting) (b. 1849
- d. 1920)
28 Mar 1906 - 3 Nov 1911 Sir Arthur Lawley (b. 1860
- d. 1932)
3 Nov 1911 - 30 Mar 1912 Sir Thomas David Gibson-Carmichael (b. 1859
- d. 1926)
30 Mar 1912 - 30 Oct 1912 Sir Murray Hammick (acting) (b. 1854
- d. 1936)
30 Oct 1912 - 29 Mar 1919 John Sinclair, Baron Pentland (b. 1860
- d. 1925)
29 Mar 1919 - 10 Apr 1919 Sir Alexander Gordon Cardew (b. 1861
- d. 1937)
(acting)
10 Apr 1919 - 12 Apr 1924 George Freeman Freeman-Thomas, (b. 1866
- d. 1941)
Baron Willingdon
12 Apr 1924 - 14 Apr 1924 Sir Charles George Todhunter (b. 1869
- d. 1949)
(acting)
14 Apr 1924 - 29 Jun 1929 George Joachim Goschen, Viscount (b. 1866
- d. 1952)
Goschen of Hawkhurst
29 Jun 1929 - 11 Nov 1929 Sir Norman Edward Majoribanks (b. 1872
- d. 1939)
(acting)
11 Nov 1929 - 16 May 1934 Sir George Frederick Stanley (b. 1872
- d. 1938)
(1st time)
16 May 1934 - 16 Aug 1934 Khan Bahadur Sir Muhammad Usman (b. 1884
- d. 1960)
Sahib Bahadur (acting)
16 Aug 1934 - 15 Nov 1934 Sir George Frederick Stanley (s.a.)
(2nd time)
15 Nov 1934 - 18 Jun 1936 Sir John Francis Ashley Erskine (b. 1895
- d. 1953)
(1st time)
18 Jun 1936 - 1 Oct 1936 Rai Bahadur Sir Kurma Venkata (b. 1875
- d. 1942)
Reddi Naidu (acting)
1 Oct 1936 - 12 Mar 1940 Sir John Frederick Erskine (s.a.)
(2nd time)
12 Mar 1940 - 26 Feb 1946 Arthur Oswald James Hope (b. 1897
- d. 1958)
26 Feb 1946 - 5 May 1946 Sir Henry Foley Knight (acting) (b. 1886
- d. 1960)
5 May 1946 - 15 Aug 1947 Sir Archibald Edward Nye (b. 1895
- d. 1967)

Chief ministers

17 Dec 1920 - 11 Jul 1921 Subbarayalu Reddiar (b. 1855
- d. 1921) JP
11 Jul 1921 - 3 Dec 1926 Raja of Panagal (b. 1866
- d. 1928) JP
4 Dec 1926 - 27 Oct 1930 P. Subbarayan (b. 1889
- d. 1963) Non-party
27 Oct 1930 - 4 Nov 1932 P. Munusamy
Naidu JP
5 Nov 1932 - 4 Apr 1936 Ramakrishna Ranga Rao, Raja of
Bobbili (1st time) (b. 1901
- d. 1978) JP
4 Apr 1936 - 24 Aug 1936 P.T.
Rajan JP
24 Aug 1936 - 1 Apr 1937 Ramakrishna Ranga Rao, Raja of
Bobbili (2nd time)
(s.a.) JP
1 Apr 1937 - 14 Jul 1937 Kurma Venkata Reddy Naidu
14 Jul 1937 - 29 Oct 1939 Chakravarti Rajagopalachari (b. 1878
- d. 1972) INC
29 Oct 1939 - 30 Apr 1946 Governor's Rule
30 Apr 1946 - 23 Mar 1947 Tanguturi Prakasam (b. 1872
- d. 1957) INC
23 Mar 1947 - 15 Aug 1947 Omandur P. Ramaswami Reddiar (b. 1895
- d. 1970) INC

Mysore: see under Indian Princely States K-W

North-West Frontier Province

1849 British capture area from Punjab.
25 Oct 1901 North-Western Frontier Province created.
15 Aug 1947 Part of Pakistan.

Chief Commissioners

9 Nov 1901 - 7 Jul 1908 Harold Arthur Deane (b. 1854
- d. 1908)
7 Jul 1908 - 16 Nov 1909 Sir George Olof Roos-Keppel (b. 1866
- d. 1921)
(1st time)
16 Nov 1909 - 1 Nov 1910 William Rudolph Henry Merck (b. 1852
- d. 1925)
(acting)
1 Nov 1910 - 28 Aug 1913 Sir George Olof Roos-Keppel (s.a.)
(2nd time)
28 Aug 1913 - 28 Jan 1915 Sir John Stuart Donald (acting) (b. 1861
- d. 1948)
28 Jan 1915 - 10 Sep 1919 Sir George Olof Roos-Keppel (s.a.)
(3rd time)
10 Sep 1919 - 8 Mar 1921 Sir Alfred Hamilton Grant (b. 1872
- d. 1937)
8 Mar 1921 - Jul 1923 Sir John Loader Maffey (b. 1877
- d. 1969)
Jul 1923 - 3 Dec 1925 Horatio Norman Bolton (1st time) (b. 1875
- d. 1965)
3 Dec 1925 - Aug 1926 William John Keen (acting) (b. 1873
- d. 1958)
Aug 1926 - 10 May 1930 Horatio Norman Bolton (2nd time) (s.a.)
10 May 1930 - 9 Sep 1931 Sir Stuart Edmond Pearks (b. 1875
- d. 1931)
10 Sep 1931 - 18 Apr 1932 Sir Ralph Edwin Hotchkin Griffith (b. 1882
- d. 1963)
Governors

18 Apr 1932 - 2 Mar 1937 Sir Ralph Edwin Hotchkin Griffith (s.a.)
2 Mar 1937 - 11 Aug 1939 Sir George Cunningham (1st time) (b. 1888
- d. 1964)
11 Aug 1939 - 10 Dec 1939 Sir Arthur Edward Broadbent
Parsons (b. 1884
- d. 1966)
10 Dec 1939 - 3 Mar 1946 Sir George Cunningham (2nd time) (s.a.)
3 Mar 1946 - 26 Jun 1947 Sir Olaf Kirkpatrick Caroe (b. 1892
- d. 1981)
26 Jun 1947 - 13 Aug 1947 Sir Robert Lockhart (acting) (b. 1893
- d. 1981)
13 Aug 1947 - 8 Apr 1948 Sir George Cunningham (3rd time) (s.a.)

Premiers

1 Apr 1937 - 7 Sep 1937 Sir Sahibzada Abdul Qayyum Khan (b. 1863
- d. 1937) AIC
7 Sep 1937 - 10 Nov 1939 Khan Sahib (1st time) (b. 1883
- d. 1958) INC
10 Nov 1939 - 25 May 1943 Governor's rule
25 May 1943 - 16 Mar 1945 Sardar Aurangzeb Khan (b. 1899
- d. 1953) ML
16 Mar 1945 - 22 Aug 1947 Khan Sahib (2nd time)
(s.a.) INC

Panth-Piploda

1935 Chief commissioner's province.
15 Aug 1947 Part of independent India.

Chief commissioners

1935? - 1942? Kenneth Samuel Fitze (b. 1887
- d. 1960)
May 1942 - 15 Aug 1947 Sir Walter Fendall Campbell (b. 1894
- d. 1973)

Punjab

29 Mar 1849 Annexed by Britain.
2 Apr 1849 Punjab province.
1 Apr 1937 Self-rule granted.
15 Aug 1947 Partitioned between India (western
Punjab)and
Pakistan (eastern Punjab).

Chief Commissioner

31 Mar 1849 - 1853 Board of Administration
- John Laird Mair Lawrence (b. 1811
- d. 1879)
- Henry Lawrence (b. 1811
- d. 1879)
- Charles G. Mansel (b. 1806
- d. 1886)
1853 - 1 Jan 1858 John Laird Mair Lawrence (s.a.)
(from 5 Feb 1856, Sir John Laird Mair
Lawrence)

Lieutenant governors

1 Jan 1859 - 25 Feb 1859 Sir John Laird Mair Lawrence (s.a.)
25 Feb 1859 - 10 Jan 1865 Sir Robert Montgomery (b. 1809
- d. 1887)
10 Jan 1865 - 1 Jun 1870 Donald Friell McLeod (b. 1810
- d. 1872)
1 Jun 1870 - 1 Jan 1871 Sir Henry Marion Durand (b. 1812
- d. 1871)
1 Jan 1871 - 20 Jan 1871 .... (acting)
20 Jan 1871 - 2 Apr 1877 Sir Robert Henry Davies (b. 1824
- d. 1902)
2 Apr 1877 - 3 Apr 1882 Sir Robert Eyles Egerton (b. 1857
- d. 1912)
3 Apr 1882 - 2 Apr 1887 Sir Charles Umpherston Aitchinson (b. 1832
- d. 1896)
2 Apr 1887 - 5 Mar 1892 Sir Charles James Lyall (b. 1845
- d. 1920)
5 Mar 1892 - 6 Mar 1897 Sir Dennis Fitzpatrick (b. 1827
- d. 1920)
6 Mar 1897 - 6 Mar 1902 Sir William Mackworth Young (b. 1840
- d. 1924)
6 Mar 1902 - 6 Mar 1907 Sir Charles Montgomery Rivaz (b. 1845
- d. 1926)
6 Mar 1907 - 26 May 1907 Sir Denzil Charles Jelf Ibbetson (b. 1847
- d. 1908)
(1st time)
26 May 1907 - 12 Aug 1907 Sir Thomas Gordon Walker (b. 1849
- d. 1917)
(1st time) (acting)
12 Aug 1907 - 22 Jan 1908 Sir Denzil Charles Jelf Ibbetson (s.a.)
(2nd time)
22 Jan 1908 - 25 May 1908 Sir Thomas Gordon Walker (s.a.)
(2nd time) (acting)
25 May 1908 - 28 Apr 1911 Sir Louis William Dane (1st time) (b. 1856
- d. 1948)
28 Apr 1911 - 4 Aug 1911 James MacCrone Douie (acting) (b. 1854
- d. 1935)
4 Aug 1911 - 26 May 1913 Sir Louis William Dane (2nd time) (s.a.)
26 May 1913 - 26 May 1919 Sir Michael Francis O'Dwyer (b. 1864
- d. 1940)
26 May 1919 - 3 Jan 1921 Sir Edward Douglas Maclagan (b. 1864
- d. 1952)

Governors

3 Jan 1921 - 31 May 1924 Sir Edward Douglas Maclagan (s.a.)
31 May 1924 - 9 Aug 1928 Sir William Malcolm Hailey (b. 1872
- d. 1969)
9 Aug 1928 - 19 Jul 1932 Sir Geoffrey Fitzhervey de (b. 1876
- d. 1955)
Montmorency (1st time)
19 Jul 1932 - 19 Oct 1932 Sir Sikandar Hayat Khan (1st time) (b. 1892
- d. 1942)
(acting)
19 Oct 1932 - 12 Apr 1933 Sir Geoffrey Fitzhervey de (s.a.)
Montmorency (2nd
time)
12 Apr 1933 - 1 Feb 1934 Sir Herbert William Emerson (b. 1881
- d. 1940)
(1st time)
15 Feb 1934 - 9 Jun 1934 Sir Sikandar Hayat Khan (2nd time) (s.a.)
(acting)
9 Jun 1934 - 4 Apr 1938 Sir Herbert William Emerson
(s.a.)
(2nd time)
4 Apr 1938 - 7 Apr 1941 Sir Henry Duffield Craik (b.
1876 - d. 1955)
7 Apr 1941 - 8 Apr 1946 Sir Bertrand James Glancy (b.
1882 - d. 1953)
8 Apr 1946 - 15 Aug 1947 Sir Evan Meredith Jenkins (b. 1896
- d. 1985)

Premiers

1 Apr 1937 - 26 Dec 1942 Sir Sikandar Hayat Khan
(s.a.) UP
Dec 1942 - Feb 1945 Khizar Hayat Khan Tiwana (b.
1900 - d. 1975) UP
(1st time)
Feb 1945 - Apr 1946 Governor's Rule
Apr 1946 - 4 Mar 1947 Sir Khizar Hayat Khan Tiwana
(s.a.) UP
(2nd time)

Sind

21 Feb 1843 Sind occupied by Britain.
Jun 1843 Annexed by Britain; subordinated to
Bombay.
1 Apr 1936 Sind a separate province.
15 Aug 1947 Part of Pakistan.

Commissioners

1843 - 1847 Charles James Naiper (b. 1782
- d. 1853)
1847 - 1851 Richard Keith Pringle
1851 - 1859 Henry Edward Bartle Frere (b. 1815
- d. 1884)
1859 - 1862 Jonathan Duncan Inverarity (b.
1812/13 - d. 1882)
1862 - 1867 Samuel Mansfield
Jun 1867 - Jul 1868 William Henry Havelock (acting)
1868 - 1877 William Lockyer Merewether (b. 1825
- d. 1880)
1877 - 1879 Francis Dawes Melville
1879 - 1887 Henry Napier Bruce Erskine (b. 1832
- d. 1893)
1887 - 1889 Charles Bradley Pritchard
1889 - 1891 Arthur Charles Trevor
1891 - 1900 Henry Evan Murchison James (b.
1846 - d. 1923)
1900 - 1902 Robert Giles
1902 - 1903 Alexander Cumine
1903 - 1904 Horace Charles Mules
1904 - 1905 John William Pitt Muir-Mackenzie (b. 1854
- d. 1916)
1905 - 1912 Arthur Delaval Youngshound
1912 - 1916 William Henry Lucas
1916 - 1920 Henry Staveley Lawrence (b. 1870
- d. 1949)
1920 - 1925 Jean Louis Rieu
1925 - 1926 Partick Robert Cadell (b. 1871
- d. 1961)
1926 - 1929 Walter Frank Hudson
1929 - 1931 George Arthur Thomas
1931 - 1935 Raymond Evelyn Gibson (b. 1878
- d. 1969)
1935 - 1936 Godfrey Ferdinando Stratford (b. 1888
- d. 1952)
Collins
Governors

1 Apr 1936 - 1 Aug 1938 Sir Lancelot Graham (1st time) (b.
1890 - d. 1962)
1 Aug 1938 - 1 Dec 1938 Joseph Hugh Garrett (acting) (b.
1880 - d. 1978)
1 Dec 1938 - 1 Apr 1941 Sir Lancelot Graham (2nd time)
(s.a.)
1 Apr 1941 - 15 Jan 1946 Sir Hugh Dow (b.
1886 - d. 1978)
15 Jan 1946 - 15 Aug 1947 Sir Robert Francis Mudie (b. 1890
- d. 1976)

Premiers

24 Apr 1937 - 23 Mar 1938 Sir Ghulam Hussain Hidayatullah (b. 1879
- d. 1948) MPP
Khan Bahadur Shaykh
(1st time)
23 Mar 1938 - 18 Mar 1940 Shaheed Allah Bux Soomro (1st time)(b. 1900
- d. 1943) IP
18 Mar 1940 - 7 Mar 1941 Mir Bandeh Ali Khan Talpur (b.
1909 - d. 1963) ML
7 Mar 1941 - 14 Oct 1942 Shaheed Allah Bux Soomro (2nd time)
(s.a.) IP
14 Oct 1942 - 15 Aug 1947 Sir Ghulam Hussain Hidayatullah
(s.a.) MPP
Khan Bahadur Shaykh
(2nd time)

Surat

12 Mar 1612 Permission to establish Surat factory
granted by Moghuls.
Nov 1612 English establish a factory at Surat.
Feb 1616 Surat made chief factory in India.

1658 Surat Presidency

23 Sep 1668 - 2 May 1685 Bombay subordinated to Surat; under British
East
India Company rule.
2 May 1685 - 1703 Surat subordinated to Bombay.
Jun 1703 Surat incorporated into
Bombay.

Commander

12 Mar 1612 - Feb 1613

Best Agents

Feb 1613 - 2 Apr 1615 Agents
- William Starkey
- Paul Canning (to Apr 1613)
- Aldworth (to Nov 1613)
- Nicholas
- Withington
(to Apr 1613, 22 Jun 1613-Nov 1613)
- Thomas Kerridge
(to 22 Jun 1613)
2 Apr 1615 - 1616 Aldworth

Governors

1616 – 1621 Thomas Kerridge (1st time)
1621 – 1625 Thomas Rastell (1st time)
1625 – 1628 Thomas Kerridge (2nd time)
1628 – 1630 Richard Wylde
1630 John Skibbow
1630 – 1631 Thomas Rastell (2nd time)
1631 – 1633 John Hopkinson
1633 – 1638 William Methwold (b. 1590
- d. 1653)
1638 – 1644 William Tremlen
1644 – 1649 Francis Breton
1649 – 1652 Thomas Merry
1652 – 1654 Jeremy Blackman
1654 – 1655 John Spiller
1655 – 1656 Edward Pearce
1656 – 1657 John Spiller
1657 – 1658 Thomas Revington
1659 – 1662 Matthew Andrews
1662 - 14 Jul 1669 Sir George Oxenden (b. 1620 -
d. 1669)
14 Jul 1669 - 30 Jun 1677 Gerald Aungier (b.
1635/40 – d. 1677)
30 Jun 1677 - 27 Oct 1681 Sir Thomas Rolt (b.
1631 – d. 1710)
27 Oct 1681 - 1688 Sir John Child
(b. 1637/8 – d. 1690)
1688 - 10 May 1694 Bartholomew Harris
(b. 1648/9 – d. 1694)
(acting to 4 Feb
1690)
10 May 1694 - 13 May 1698 Daniel Annesley
13 May 1698 - Jun 1703 Stephen Colt
Jun 1703 Sir Nicholas Waite

United Provinces

14 Nov 1834 Presidency of Agra
1 Jan 1836 North-Western Provinces
3 Apr 1858 Oudh taken under British control.
1 Apr 1871 Ajmer, Merwara and Kekri made separate
commissionership.
15 Feb 1877 Oudh added to North-Western Provinces.
22 Mar 1902 Renamed United Provinces of Agra and Oudh.
3 Jan 1921 United Provinces of British India.
1 Apr 1937 United Provinces
1 Apr 1946 Self rule granted.
15 Aug 1947 Part of independent India.

Governors

14 Nov 1834 - 20 Mar 1835 Sir Charles Theophilus Metcalfe (b. 1785
- d. 1846)
20 Mar 1835 - 11 Nov 1835 William Blunt (acting)
11 Nov 1835 - 1 Jun 1836 Alexander Ross (b.
1777 - d. 18..)

Lieutenant governors

1 Jun 1836 - 1 Jun 1838 Sir Charles Theophilus Metcalfe (s.a.)
1 Jun 1838 - 4 Feb 1840 administered by governor-general of India
4 Feb 1840 - 31 Dec 1842 Thomas Campbell Robertson (b. 1789
- d. 1863)
31 Dec 1842 - 30 Jun 1843 administered by governor-general of India
30 Jun 1843 - 22 Dec 1843 Sir George Russell Clerk (b. 1800
- d. 1889)
22 Dec 1843 - 10 Oct 1853 James Thomason (b. 1804
- d. 1853)
10 Oct 1853 - 7 Nov 1853 Alfred William Begbie (acting)
7 Nov 1853 - 9 Sep 1857 John Russell Colvin (acting) (b. 1807
- d. 1857)
10 Sep 1857 - 30 Sep 1857 Edward Anderton Reade (acting) (b. 1807
- d. 1886)
30 Sep 1857 - 9 Feb 1858 Hugh Fraser (acting)
9 Feb 1858 - 19 Jan 1859 administered by governor-general of
India
19 Jan 1859 - 27 Feb 1863 Sir George Frederick Edmonstone (b.
1813 - d. 1864)
27 Feb 1863 - 7 Mar 1863 R. Money (acting)
7 Mar 1863 - 10 Mar 1868 Edmund Drummond (b.
1814 - d. 1895)
10 Mar 1868 - 7 Apr 1874 Sir William Muir (b.
1819 - d. 1905)
7 Apr 1874 - 26 Jul 1876 Sir John Strachey (b.
1823 - d. 1907)
26 Jul 1876 - 15 Feb 1877 Sir George Ebenezer Wilson Couper (b.
1824 - d. 1908)

Lieutenant governors and Commissioners

15 Feb 1877 - 17 Apr 1882 Sir George Ebenezer Wilson Couper (s.a.)
17 Apr 1882 - 21 Nov 1887 Sir Alfred Comyns Lyall (b. 1835
- d. 1911)
21 Nor 1887 - 28 Nov 1892 Sir Auckland Colvin (b. 1838
- d. 1908)
28 Nov 1892 - 9 Jan 1895 Sir Charles Haukes Todd (b.
1835 - d. 1915)
Crosthwaite
9 Jan 1895 - 6 Nov 1895 Alan Cadell (acting) (b.
1841 - d. 1921)
6 Nov 1895 - 14 Nov 1901 Sir Anthony Patrick MacDonnell (b. 1844
- d. 1935)
14 Nov 1901 - 22 Mar 1902 Sir James John Digges La Touche (b. 1844
- d. 1921)

Lieutenant governors

22 Mar 1902 - 1 Jan 1907 Sir James John Digges La Touche
(s.a.)
1 Jan 1907 - 30 Apr 1910 Sir John Prescott Hewett (b.
1854 - d. 1941)
(1st time)
30 Apr 1910 - 20 Oct 1910 Sir Leslie Alexander Selim Porter (b.
1854 - d. 1932)
(1st time)
(acting)
20 Oct 1910 - 1 Apr 1911 Sir John Prescott Hewett
(s.a.)
(2nd time)
1 Apr 1911 - 16 Dec 1911 Sir Leslie Alexander Selim Porter
(s.a.)
(2nd time)
(acting)
16 Dec 1911 - 15 Sep 1912 Sir John Prescott Hewett (s.a.)
(3rd time)
15 Sep 1912 - 18 Sep 1913 Sir James Scorgie Meston (b. 1865
- d. 1943)
(1st time)
18 Sep 1913 - 15 Nov 1913 Sir Duncan Colvin Baillie (acting) (b.
1856 - d. 1919)
15 Nov 1913 - 7 Feb 1917 Sir James Scorgie Meston
(s.a.)
(2nd time)
7 Feb 1917 - 15 Feb 1918 John Mitchell Holmes (acting)
15 Feb 1918 - 3 Jan 1921 Sir Spencer Harcourt Butler (b.
1869 - d. 1938)

Governors

3 Jan 1921 - 21 Dec 1922 Sir Spencer Harcourt Butler
(s.a.)
21 Dec 1922 - 24 Dec 1922 Sir Ludovic Charles Porter (b. 1869
- d. 1928)
(acting)
24 Dec 1922 - 13 Aug 1926 Sir William Sinclair Marris (b.
1873 - d. 1945)
(1st time)
13 Aug 1926 - 1 Dec 1926 Sir Samuel Perry O'Donnell (b.
1874 - d. 1946)
(acting)
1 Dec 1926 - 14 Jan 1927 Sir William Sinclair Marris
(s.a.)
(2nd time)
14 Jun 1927 - 17 Jun 1928 Sir Alexander Phillips Muddiman (b.
1875 - d. 1928)
17 Jun 1928 - 9 Aug 1928 .... (acting)
9 Aug 1928 - 16 Oct 1930 Sir William Malcolm Hailey (b.
1872 - d. 1969)
(1st time)
16 Oct 1930 - 19 Apr 1931 Sir George Bancroft Lambert (b.
1873 - d. 1945)
(acting)
19 Apr 1931 - 8 Apr 1933 Sir William Malcolm Hailey
(s.a.)
(2nd time)
8 Apr 1933 - 27 Nov 1933 Nawwab Sir Muhammad Ahmad Said (b.
1888 - d. 19..)
Khan Chhatari
(acting)
27 Nov 1933 - 6 Dec 1934 Sir William Malcolm Hailey
(s.a.)
(3rd time)
6 Dec 1934 - 7 Dec 1939 Sir Harry Graham Haig (b.
1881 - d. 1956)
7 Dec 1939 - 7 Dec 1945 Sir Maurice Garnier Hallett (b.
1883 - d. 1969)
7 Dec 1945 - 15 Aug 1947 Sir Francis Verner Wylie (b.
1891 - d. 1970)

Chief minister

1 Apr 1946 - 15 Aug 1947 Govind Ballabh Pant (b.
1887 - d. 1961) INC

©2000 Ben Cahoon

bademiyansubhanallah

unread,
Feb 7, 2010, 6:29:46 PM2/7/10
to
Princely States of India

Note: The British ruled India with two administrative systems: British
Provinces and Indian "princely" states; about 60% of the territory of
the Indian sub-continent were provinces and 40% were princely states.
Provinces were British territories directly administered by the
colonial government of British India. Princely states were states with
native rulers which had entered into treaty relations with the
British.

Except for some states that were extinguished in the 19th century
(Arkat, Assam, Awadh, Kodagu, Mahratta states, Pañjab, Utkala), this
record contains those Indian ("princely") states that acceded to India
with effective date on or after 15 Aug 1947. If no date of accession
is noted, 15 Aug 1947 is understood. This list is selective, there
were more than 565 states when Britain granted the Indian
independence 15 Aug 1947; about 210 are listed here. However, only
"states" are included; "estates" (jagir), "estate revenue
grants" (thikana), and "land holders" (zamindar) are excluded, no
matter how prominent and/or titled these were. Obsolete but once
official English-language names of the polities are given in
parentheses, i.e., Awadh (Oudh). The phrase "British India" is used
for U.K. colonial possessions even before 1858, for brevity. The all
princely states of India entered into protectorate/tributary
relations with Britain by the end of the 19th century, where exact
dates are known they are noted.

Historical and Political Maps of India

(All maps listed below have been completed and are available from the
author upon request. Those showing a link are immediately available as
a sample)

1. General Maps

BRITISH INDIA (1858)

THE BRITISH INDIAN EMPIRE 1 (1858 - 1903)
THE BRITISH INDIAN EMPIRE 2 (1903 - 1933)
BOUNDARIES OF BENGAL (1905 - 1912)
THE BRITISH INDIAN EMPIRE 3 (1934 - 1947) ---- The British Indian
Empire Map (1934 - 1947)
SOUTH ASIA 1 (1947 - 1953)
SOUTH ASIA 2 (1954 - 1995)

2. Regional and State Maps

2.1. Regional Maps

PUNJAB STATES (1946) ---- The Punjab States Agency Map (1946)
WESTERN INDIA STATES (1947) ---- Baroda, Western India & Kathiawar
States Ag. Map (1947)
CENTRAL INDIA STATES (1947) ---- Gwalior and Central India Ag. Map
(1947)
EASTERN STATES AGENCY (1947)
KASHMIR & NORTH WEST FRONTIER PROVINCE 1 (1849)
KASHMIR & NORTH WEST FRONTIER PROV.2 (1947) ---- J. & K. and the
N.W.F.P. Map (1947)
KASHMIR & NORTH WEST FRONTIER PROVINCE 3 (1999)
KOLHAPUR AND DECCAN STATES (1947) ---- Kolhapur and Deccan States Map
(1947)
KHASI STATES (1947) ---- Khasi States Map (1947)
SHAN AND KARENNI STATES (1889 - 1959)

2.2. State and Provincial Maps

DEWAS STATES (1947)

JAORA, SITAMAU AND PIPLODA (1947) ---- Jaora, Sitamau and Piploda Map
(1947) 67k
NARSINGHGARH AND RAJGARH (1947) ---- Narsinghgarh and Rajgarh Map
(1947) 115k
RATLAM AND SAILANA (1947)
DHAR (1947)
BRITISH PROVINCE OF PANTH PIPLODA (1947)

http://www.terra.es/personal7/jqvaraderey/india2.htm

http://www.terra.es/personal7/jqvaraderey/193447id.gif

http://www.terra.es/personal7/jqvaraderey/punjab.htm

http://www.terra.es/personal7/jqvaraderey/1947punb.gif

http://www.terra.es/personal7/jqvaraderey/gujarat.htm

http://www.terra.es/personal7/jqvaraderey/1947Guje.gif

http://www.terra.es/personal7/jqvaraderey/cindia.htm

http://www.terra.es/personal7/jqvaraderey/1947cind.gif

http://www.terra.es/personal7/jqvaraderey/jknwfp.htm

http://www.terra.es/personal7/jqvaraderey/1947NWJK.gif

http://www.terra.es/personal7/jqvaraderey/kolhapur.htm

http://www.terra.es/personal7/jqvaraderey/1947decc.gif

http://www.terra.es/personal7/jqvaraderey/khasi.htm

http://www.terra.es/personal7/jqvaraderey/1947KHAS.GIF

http://www.terra.es/personal7/jqvaraderey/jaora.htm

http://www.terra.es/personal7/jqvaraderey/jaora.gif

http://www.terra.es/personal7/jqvaraderey/narsing.htm

http://www.terra.es/personal7/jqvaraderey/narsing5.gif

Several of the maps are under construction

If you require more information about the map please contact the
author

Joaquín de Salas Vara de Rey
Avda. del Carmen, 45 A34
Estepona
29680 Malaga (Spain)
email: naoer...@eresmas.net

http://www.worldstatesmen.org/India_princes_A-J.html

bademiyansubhanallah

unread,
Feb 7, 2010, 6:44:24 PM2/7/10
to
Princely States of India A

Ahmadnagar: see Idar

Ajaygarh (Ajaigarh)

1731 Ajaygarh state founded.
1855 - 1859 Occupied by British India.

Rajas

1731 - 1758 Jagat Raja
1758 - 1765 Pahar Singh (d.
1765)
1765 - 1792 Guman Singh (d.
1792)
1792 - 1793 Bakht Singh (1st time) (b. 17..
- d. 1837)
1793 - 1802 `Ali Bahadur
1802 - 1804 Shamsher Bahadur
1804 - 1807 Lakshman Dada
1807 - 21 Jun 1837 Bakht Singh (2nd time) (s.a.)
1837 - 1849 Madho Singh (d.
1849)
1849 - 22 Jun 1853 Mahipat Singh (d.
1853)
1853 - 12 Sep 1855 Bijai Singh (d.
1855)
12 Sep 1855 - 4 Sep 1859 Interregnum
4 Sep 1859 - 1877 Ranjor Singh (b. 1848
- d. 1919)

Rulers (title Sawai Maharaja)

1877 - 1919 Ranjor Singh (s.a.)
7 Jun 1919 - 1942 Bhopal Singh (b. 1866
- d. 1942)
11 Jul 1942 - 15 Aug 1947 Punya Pratap Singh (b. 1884
- d. 1958)

Akalkot

Map of Akalkot Capital: Akalkot

Population: 82,047 (1901)

7 Jul 1708 Akalkot state, founded.
1708 - 1848 Vassal of Satara.
8 Mar 1948 Accedes to India.

Rulers (title Meherban Shrimant Raja)

7 Jul 1708 - 1760 Fatehsinh I Shivaji Raje Bhonsle (d.
1760)
1760 - 1789 Shahaji I Fatehsinh Raje Bhonsle (d.
1789)
1789 - 1822 Fatehsinh II Shahaji Raje Bhonsle (b. 1770
- d. 1822)
1822 - Apr 1823 Maloji I Fatehsinh Raje Bhonsle (b. 1803
- d. 1823)
Apr 1823 - 1857 Shahaji II Maloji Raje Bhonsle (b. 1822
- d. 1857)
Apr 1823 - 1838 .... -Regent
1857 - 1870 Maloji II Shahaji Raje Bhonsle (b. 1837
- d. 1870)
1866 - 1870 .... -administrator
1870 - 31 Dec 1896 Shahaji III Maloji Raje Bhonsle (b. 1867
- d. 1896)
1870 - Nov 1891 .... -administrator
31 Dec 1896 - 3 Apr 1923 Fatehsinhrao III Shahaji Raje (b. 1894
- d. 1923)
Bhonsle
31 Dec 1896 - 20 Aug 1916 Lakshmi Bai Raje Sahib
Bhonsle (f) -Regent
4 Apr 1923 - 8 Mar 1948 Vijaya Singh Rao Bhonsle (b. 1915
- d. 1952)
4 Apr 1923 - 27 Feb 1936 Tara Bai Raje Sahib (b. 1899
- d. 1942)
Bhonsle (f) -Regent

Alipura

1757 State founded.
1808 Named Alipura

Rulers (title Rao, from 1877 Rao Bahadur)

1757 - 1790 Achal Singh (d.
1790)
1790 - 1835 Pratap Singh
1835 - 1840 Pancham Singh
1840 - 1841 Daulat Singh
1841 - 1871 Hindupat Singh (d.
1871)
1871 - 1903 Chhatrapati Singh (b. 1853
- d. 1922)

Rulers (title Rao Bahadur Raja)

1903 - 1922 Chhatrapati Singh (s.a.)
26 Mar 1922 - Nov 1934 Harpal Singh (b. 1882
- d. 1934)
(regent 1919 - 1922)
Nov 1934 - 1934 Bhopal Singh
1934 - 15 Aug 1947 Raghuraj Singh (b. 1901
- d. 1987)

Ali Rajpur

1437 Ali Rajpur state founded.

Rulers (title Rana)

.... - .... Prithi Deo
.... - 1765 Surat Deo
1765 - 1818 Pratap Singh
1818 - 17 Mar 1862 Jashwant Singh (b. 1818
- d. 1862)
1862 - Mar 1871 Gang Deo
1871 - 1881 Rup Deo (d.
1881)
1881 - 16 Aug 1890 Bijai Singh (d.
1890)
16 Aug 1890 - 14 Feb 1891 Interregnum
14 Feb 1891 - 1911 Pratap Singh (b. 1881
- d. 19..)
Rajas
1911 - 19.. Pratap Singh (s.a.)
19.. - 23 Oct 1941 Fateh Singh (b. 1904
- d. 1941)
1941 - 15 Aug 1947 Surendra Singh (b. 1923
- d. 1996)

Alwar

Nov 1775 Alwar state founded (previously part of
Jaipur).
14 Nov 1803 British protectorate.

Rulers (title Rao Raja)

Nov 1775 - 26 Sep 1791 Pratap Singh (b. 1740
- d. 1791)
(personally styled Maharao Rana Shri
Sawai)
26 Sep 1791 - 27 Jan 1815 Bakhtawar Singh (b. 1779
- d. 1815)
27 Jan 1815 - 1832 Banni Singh (b. 1806
- d. 1857)
- jointly with following -
1815 - 1826 Balvant Singh (d.
1845)

Rulers (title Maharao Raja)

1832 - Aug 1857 Banni Singh (s.a.)
Aug 1857 - 11 Oct 1874 Shivdan Singh (installed 1867) (b. 1845
- d. 1874)
1857 - 1863 .... -Regent
11 Oct 1874 - Apr 1889 Mangal Singh (b. 1859
- d. 1892)

Maharajas (title Raj Rishi Shri Sawai Maharaja)

Apr 1889 - 22 May 1892 Mangal Singh (s.a.)
22 May 1892 - 1933 Jai Singh (b. 1882
- d. 1937)
22 May 1892 - 10 Dec 1903 .... -Regent
1933 - 15 Aug 1947 Tej Singh (installed 22 Jul 1937) (b. 1911
- d. 2009)

Amarnagar

17 Sep 1883 Thana Devli State, known as Amarnagar,
founded.

Rulers (title Darbar Shri Wala)

17 Sep 1883 - 12 May 1922 Laksman Meran (b. 1849 - d. 1922)
12 Oct 1922 - 19.. Amra Laskman (b. 1895)

Amb (Tanawal State): see Pakistani Princely States

Amber: see Jaipur

Angul

1848 Annexed to British India.

Rajas
.... - .... Dhanujjaya Singh Jagadeo
.... - .... Nityananda Singh Jagadeo
1803 Krishna Chandra Singh Jagadeo
1803 - 1806 Achala Man Singh Jagadeo
1806 - 1809 Jarawar Singh
1809 Jaya Singh
1809 - 1813 Prithvi Singh
1814 - 1848 Somanath Singh

Arakan: see Arakan, Shan, and Karen states of Burma

Arkat (Arcot/Carnatic)


1692 State of Arkat (Arcot) also called,
Karnataka (Carnatic)
after the region it dominated, founded
subordinate
to Haydarabad.
1692 - 1750 French protectorate.
1763 Independence recognized under British
protectorate.
26 Jul 1801 Arkat is de facto absorbed by the U.K.
colonial government.
7 Oct 1855 State extinguished, annexed to British
India.

Rulers (title Nawab Subadar)

1692 - 1703 Zulfikar Ali Khan
1703 - 1710 Daud Khan
1710 - 1732 Muhammad Saadatullah Khan I
1732 - 1740 Dost Ali Khan (d.
1740)
1740 - 1742 Safdar Ali Khan (d.
1742)
1742 - 1744 Muhammad Saadatullah Khan II (d.
1746)
1744 - 31 Jul 1749 Anwaruddin Khan Bahadur (b. c.
1672 - d. 1749)
31 Jul 1749 - 16 Oct 1795 Muhammad Ali Anwar ud-din Khan (b. 1717
- d. 1795)
Bahadur
1750 - 1752 Husain Dost Khan (in opposition)
16 Oct 1795 - 15 Jul 1801 Ghulam Husain Ali Khan Bahadur (b. 1748
- d. 1801)
31 Jul 1801 - 3 Aug 1819 Abdul Ali Khan Bahadur (b. 1775
- d. 1819)
3 Aug 1819 - 12 Nov 1825 Muhammad Munawwar Khan Bahadur (b. 1797
- d. 1825)
23 Dec 1825 - 7 Oct 1855 Ghulam Muhammad Ghaus Khan Bahadur (b. 1824
- d. 1855)
12 Nov 1825 - 25 Aug 1842 Azim Jah Bahadur -Regent

Assam

1228 The Ahom people (Ahom is a dialectal
version of Assam).
found a state, frequently under Burmese
suzerainty.
Mar 1817 - Apr 1817 Occupied by Burma.
Mar 1819 - Jun 1825 Occupied by Burma.


1824 - 1826 Occupied by Britain.

24 Feb 1826 Burma formally cedes Assam to Briain
(incorporated in Bengal).
1832 - Oct 1838 A briefly revived Ahom state in Upper
Assam.

Rajas

1681 - 1696 Gadadhar Singh
1696 - 1714 Rudra Singh
1714 - 1744 Siva Singh (Xiba Xingha)
1744 - 1751 Pramatta Singh
1751 - 1769 Rajesvar Singh
1769 - 1780 Sunyeopha Lakshmi Singh
1780 - 1792 Suhitpangpha Gaurinathasimha
Juvaraja (1st time)
1792 - 1793 Baratha Singh Mahamari (1st time)
1793 - 1796 Sarvananda Singh
1796 Baratha Singh Mahamari (2nd time)
1796 - 1808 Suhitpangpha Gaurinathasimha
Juvaraja (2nd time)
1808 - 1809 Suklingpha Kamaleshvarasimha
1810 - 1818 Sudinpha Chandrakantasimha (d.
182.)
Narendra (1st time)
1818 - 9 Mar 1819 Purendrasimha Narendra (1st time)
Mar 1819 - Apr 1821 Sudinpha Chandrakantasimha (s.a.)
Narendra (2nd time)
Apr 1821 - 1822 Yogeshvarasimha (1st time)
1822 - 21 Jun 1822 Sudinpha Chandrakantasimha (s.a.)
Narendra (3rd time)
21 Jun 1822 - 1825 Mingyi Maha Thilawa -Burmese official
1822 - 24 Feb 1826 Yogeshvarasimha (2nd time)
1832 - Oct 1838 Purendrasimha Narendra (2nd time)

British Commanders

1824 George McMorine (b. 1763
- d. 1824)
1824 - 1826 Arthur Richards

British Agent

1832 - 1838 Adam White (b. 1790
- d. 1839)

Athgarh

13.. Athgarh state founded.

Rajas

1681 - 1709 Karan Narayana Bawarta Patnaik
1709 - 1741 Karan Rama Krishna Bawarta Patnaik
1741 - 1771 Karan Debia Singh Bawarta Patnaik
1771 - 1821 Karan Gopinath Bawarta Patnaik
1821 - 1825 Karan Krishna Chandra Bawarta
Patnaik
1825 - 1837 Karan Rama Chandra Bawarta
1837 - 1862 Karan Bhubaneswar Bawarta Patnaik
1862 - 1868 Karan Jagunath Bawarta Patnaik (b. c.
1844 - d. ....)
1868 - 1893 Karan Bhagirathi Bawarta Patnaik
1893 - 25 Jan 1896 Karan Raghunath Bawarta Patnaik
1896 - 22 Jun 1918 Karan Vishvanath Bawarta Patnaik
22 Jun 1918 - 15 Aug 1947 Karan Radhanath Bawarta Patnaik (b.
1909)

Athmallik

1874 Athmallik estate (jagir) is recognized as a
state.

Rajas

1874 - 4 Feb 1877 Jogendra Samant (d.
1877)
4 Feb 1877 - 1902 Narendra Deo Samant (b. c.
1848 - d. 1902?)
(from 1890, personally styled Maharaja)
1902 - 3 Nov 1918 Bibhudendra Deo Samant (d.
1918)
3 Nov 1918 - 15 Aug 1947 Kishor Chandra Deo Samant (b.
1904 - d. c.1971)
3 Nov 1918 - 24 Dec 1925 Cobden Ramsay -Regent

Aundh

1690 Aundh state founded.

Rulers (title Pant Pratinidhi)

1697 - 27 May 1718 Parusharam Trimbak (b. 1660
- d. 1718)
1718 - 25 Nov 1746 Shrinivasrao Parashuram (d.
1746)
1746 - 1754 Jagjivanrao Parashuram
1754 - 5 Apr 1776 Shrinivasrao Gangadhar (d.
1776)
1776 - 30 Aug 1777 Bhavanrao (d.
1777)
30 Aug 1777 - 11 Jun 1848 Parashuramrao Shrinivas (b. 1777
- d. 1848)
11 Jun 1848 - 1901 Shrinivasrao Parashuram (b. 1833
- d. 1901)
1901 - 1905 Parashuramrao Shrinivas
"Dada Sahib" (b. 1858
- d. 1905)
1905 - 4 Nov 1909 Gopalkrishnarao Parashuram
"Nana Sahib"
4 Nov 1909 - 15 Aug 1947 Bhavanrao Shrinivas "Bala Sahib" (b. 1868
- d. 1951)

Prime minister

1944 - 1948 Parshuram Rao Pant (b. 1912
- d. 1992)

Avuku

1481 Avuku state
1804 Annexed to Haydarabad.

Rulers

1691 - 1735 Pedda Kumara Raghava
1735 - 1737 Appa Naransinha
1737 - 1739 Shellama
1739 - 1743 Narasinha II
1743 - 1751 Kishama
1751 - 1759 Olajapati II
1759 - 1767 Kumara Raghava
1767 - 1771 Venkata Narasinha
1771 - 1785 Narayana
1785 - 1805 Krishna

Awadh (Oudh)

c.1842 - 13 Feb 1856

1732 A senior official of the Mughal Empire
establishes a
hereditary polity (under Mughal
sovereignty) in Awadh (Oudh).
1 May 1816 British protectorate.
8 Oct 1819 The ruler takes the style of padshah
(king), signaling
formal independence.
7 Feb 1856 King deposed and Awadh incorporated into
British India.
5 Jul 1857 - 3 Mar 1858 Brief rebellion by son of deposed king.

Rulers (title Subadar Nawab)

1732 - 19 Mar 1739 Borhan al-Molk Mir Mohammad Amin
Musawi Sa`adat `Ali Khan I (b. c.
1680 - d. 1739)
19 Mar 1739 - 28 Apr 1748 Abu´l Mansur Mohammad Moqim Khan
(1st time) (b. c.
1708 - d. 1754)

Ruler (title Nawab Wazir al-Mamalik)

28 Apr 1748 - 13 May 1753 Abu´l Mansur Mohammad Moqim Khan (s.a.)
(acting to 29 Jun 1748)

Rulers (title Subadar Nawab)

5 Nov 1753 - 5 Oct 1754 Abu´l Mansur Mohammad Moqim Khan (s.a.)
(2nd time)
5 Oct 1754 - 15 Feb 1762 Jalal ad-Din Shoja` ad-Dowla (b. 1732
- d. 1775)
Haydar

Rulers (title Nawab Wazir al-Mamalik)

15 Feb 1762 - 26 Jan 1775 Jalal ad-Din Shoja` ad-Dowla (s.a.)
Haydar
26 Jan 1775 - 21 Sep 1797 Asaf ad-Dowla Amani (b. 1748
- d. 1797)
21 Sep 1797 - 21 Jan 1798 Mirza Wazir `Ali Khan (b. 1780
- d. 1817)
21 Jan 1798 - 11 Jul 1814 Yamin ad-Dowla Nazem al-Molk
Sa`adat `Ali Khan II Bahadur (b. bf.
1752 - d. 1814)
11 Jul 1814 - 19 Oct 1818 Ghazi ad-Din Rafa`at ad-Dowla (b. 1769
- d. 1827)
Abu´l-Mozaffar Haydar Khan

Kings (title Padshah-e Awadh, Shah-e Zaman)

19 Oct 1818 - 19 Oct 1827 Ghazi ad-Din Mo`izz ad-Din (s.a.)
Abu´l-Mozaffar Haydar Shah
19 Oct 1827 - 7 Jul 1837 Naser ad-Din Haydar Solayman (b. 1803
- d. 1837)
Jah Shah
7 Jul 1837 - 17 May 1842 Mo`in ad-Din Abu´l-Fath Mohammad (b. 1777
- d. 1842)
`Ali Shah
17 May 1842 - 13 Feb 1847 Naser ad-Dowla Amjad `Ali Thorayya (b. 1801
- d. 1847)
Jah Shah
13 Feb 1847 - 7 Feb 1856 Naser ad-Din `Abd al-Mansur (b. 1822
- d. 1887)
Mohammad Wajed `Ali Shah
5 Jul 1857 - 3 Mar 1858 Berjis Qadr (in rebellion) (b.
1845? - d. 1893)

British Residents (Agents) in Lucknow

1773 - 1774 Nathaniel Middleton (1st time) (b. 1750
- d. 1807)
1774 - 1776 John Bristow (1st time) (b. 1750
- d. 1802)
1776 - 1779 Nathaniel Middleton (2nd time) (s.a.)
1779 - 1780 Purling
1780 - 1781 John Bristow (2nd time) (s.a.)
1781 - 1782 Nathaniel Middleton (3rd time) (s.a.)
1782 - 31 Dec 1783 John Bristow (3rd time) (s.a.)
1784 - 1793 Edward Otto Ives (b. 1754
- d. 1809)
1793 - 1796 George Frederick Cherry (b. 1761
- d. 1799)
1796 - 1799 James Lumsden
1799 - 1804 W. Scott
1804 - 11 Jun 1807 John Ulrich Collins (d.
1807)
1807 - 1815 John Baillie (b. 1772
- d. 1833)
1815 - 1817 Richard Charles Strachey (b. 1781
- d. 1847)
1818 - 1820 J.R. Monckton (d.
1857)
1820 - 1823 Felix Vincent Raper
1823 - 1827 Mordaunt Ricketts (b. 1786
- d. 1862)
1829 - 1831 Thomas Herbert Maddock (b. 1790
- d. 1870)
1831 - 1842 John Low (b. 1788
- d. 1880)
1839 - 1841 James Caulfield (acting for Low)
1842 - 1843 William Nott (b. 1782
- d. 1845)
Dec 1843 - 1844 George Pollock (b. 1786
- d. 1872)
1844 - 1849? Archibald Richmond
1849 - 1854 William Henry Sleeman (b. 1788
- d. 1856)
1854 - 1856 James Outram (b. 1803
- d. 1863)

Commissioners of Lucknow

1856 James Outram (s.a.)
1856 - 1857 Henry Montgomery Lawrence (b. 1806
- d. 1857)
1858 - 1863 Saunders A. Abbott (b. 1811
- d. 1894)

bademiyansubhanallah

unread,
Feb 7, 2010, 6:59:30 PM2/7/10
to
Princely States of India  B

Baad: see Idar

Baghal

c.1643 Baghal state founded.
1803 - 1815 Occupied by Nepal.

Rulers (title Rana)

1670 - 1727 Prithvi Chand
1727 - 1743 Mehar Chand
1743 - 1778 Bhup Chand
1778 - 1803 Jagat Singh (1st time)
(in Nalagarh exile 1803 - 1815)
1803 - 1815 occupied by Nepal
3 Sep 1815 - 1828 Jagat Singh (2nd time)
1828 - 1840 Shiv Saran Singh
1840 - 12 Mar 1875 Kishan Singh (d.
1877)
(personal style Raja 1860?)

Rajas

12 Mar 1875 - 23 Jul 1877 Kishan Singh (s.a.)
Jul 1877 - 12 Oct 1877 Moti Singh (d.
1877)
1877 - 1904 Dhian Singh (b.
1841? - d. 1904)
23 Apr 1904 - 3 Oct 1922 Bikram Singh (b. 1893
- d. 1922)
3 Oct 1922 - 21 Dec 1945 Surendra Singh (b. 1909
- d. 1945)
21 Dec 1945 - 15 Aug 1947 Rajendra Singh (b.
1928)

Baghat

Middle Ages Baghat state founded.
1839 - 1842 Part of British India.
1849 - 1861 Part of British India.

Rulers (title Rana)

1803 - 11 Jul 1839 Mohindar Singh (d.
1839)
1839 - 1842 part of British India
1842 - Jan 1849 Bije Singh (d.
1849)
1849 - 1861 part of British India
1861 Umaid Singh (b. 1825
- d. 1861)
1861 - 30 Dec 1911 Dhalip Singh (b. 1860
- d. 1911)
1911 - 4 Jun 1928 Durga Singh (b. 1901
- d. 1977)
Raja
4 Jun 1928 - 15 Aug 1947 Durga Singh (s.a.)

Bahawalpur: see Pakistani Princely States

Balasinor

28 Sep 1758 Balasinor state founded.

Rulers (title Nawab Shri Babi)

28 Sep 1758 - 17.. Muhammad Khanji Bahadur Khanji
17.. - .... Jamiyat Khanji Muhammad Khanji
.... - May 1820 Salabat Khanji Jamiyat Khanji (d.
1820)
May 1820 - 1822 Abid Khanji
1822 - 2 Dec 1831 Jalal Khanji (Edal Khanji) (d.
1831)
2 Dec 1831 - 30 Nov 1882 Zorawar Khanji (b. 1828
- d. 1882)
2 Dec 1831 - 20 May 1841 Shri Yamuna Bibi (d.
1841)
Sahiba (f) -Regent
30 Nov 1882 - 24 Mar 1899 Munawar Khanji Zorawar Khanji (b. 1846
- d. 1899)
24 Mar 1899 - 2 Feb 1945 Jamiyat Khanji Munawar Khanji (b. 1894
- d. 1945)
(suspended from Feb 1938)
24 Mar 1899 - 9 Nov 1915 .... -Regent
2 Feb 1945 - 15 Aug 1947 Muhammad Salabat Khan II (b.
1944)
2 Feb 1945 - 15 Aug 1947 .... -Regent

Balsan

1803 - 1815 Occupied by Nepal.

Rulers (title Thakur)

.... - .... Jai Singh
.... - 1815 Dharam Singh
1815 - 1858 Jog Raj (b. 1800
- d. 1867)
Rulers (title Rana)
1858 - 1867 Jog Raj (s.a.)
1867 - 17 Nov 1884 Bhup Singh (d.
1884)
1884 - 1918 Bir Singh (b. 1860
- d. 19..)
1918 - May 1936 Atar Singh (b. 1868
- d. 19..)
May 1936 - 1943 Ran Bahadur Singh (b. 1905
- d. ....)
1943 - 15 Aug 1947 Vidyabushn Singh (b. 1938
- d. 1979)

Baltistan: see Pakistani Princely States

Bamra

c.1602 Bamra state founded according to legend.

Rajas

.... - .... Bibhuti Deb
.... - .... Hadu Deb
.... - .... Chandra Sekhar Deb
1803? Pratap Arudra Deb
18.. - 1820 Arjuna Deb
1820 - 1832 Balunka Brusabha Deb
1832 Khageswar Deb
1832 - May 1869 Braja Sundar Deb
12 May 1869 - 19 Nov 1903 Basu Deb Sudhal Deb (b. 1850
- d. 1903)
1903 - 11 Mar 1916 Satchitananda Tribhuban Deb
1916 - 1 Jan 1920 Dibyashankar Sudhal Deb (d.
1920)
1 Jan 1920 - 15 Aug 1947 Bhanuganga Tribhuban Deb (b. 1914
- d. 1982)

Banaras (Benares)

.... Kashi (or Banaras) state
1194 Part of Oudh.
1740 Estate transformed into Banaras state.
15 Aug 1947 Accedes to India, renamed Varanasi.

Rajas

1740 - 19 Aug 1770 Balwant Singh (b. 1717
- d. 1770)
1770 - 1781 Chait Singh (d.
1810)
Sep 1781 - Sep 1794 Mahip Narayan Singh (d.
1794)
1794 - Mar 1835 Udit Narayan Singh (d.
1835)
1835 - 13 Jun 1889 Ishvari Prasad Narayan Singh (b. 1822
- d. 1889)
1889 - 1918 Prabhu Narayan Singh (b. 1855
- d. 1931)
Rulers (title Maharaja Bahadur)
1918 - 4 Aug 1931 Prabhu Narayan Singh (s.a.)
4 Aug 1931 - 5 Apr 1939 Aditya Narayan Singh (b. 1874
- d. 1939)
5 Apr 1939 - 15 Aug 1947 Vibhuti Narayan Singh (b. 1927
- d. 2000)

British Resident

1793 - 14 Jan 1799 George Frederick Cherry (b. 1761
- d. 1799)

Banda

1790 Banda state founded.
1858 Annexed by British India.

Rulers (title Nawab)

1790 - 1802 Ali Bahadur I
1802 Zulfiqar Ali (1st time)
1802 - 1825 Shamsher Bahadur
1825 - 1850 Zulfiqar Ali (2nd time)
1850 - 1858 Ali Bahadur II (d.
1873)

Bandhora: see Jaso

Bangala: see Bangladesh

Banganapalle

1665 Banganapalle estate founded.
1783 - 1790 Annexed by Mahisur (Mysore).
1790 Banganapalle liberated from Mahisur
(Mysore), becomes a state.
1831 - 12 Jul 1848 Nominally annexed by Haydarabad
(Hyderabad),
but under British administration.
1 Feb 1905 - 21 Apr 1905 Administered by British India.
1939 - 15 Aug 1947 Administered by British India.

Rulers (title Kiladar)

1686 - 1758 Fadli `Ali Khan I (d.
1758)
1758 - 7 Apr 1769 Fadli `Ali Khan II (b. 1749
- d. 1769)
1758 - 1767 Muhammad Beg Khan-i-Lang -Regent
7 Apr 1769 - 26 Aug 1783 Hosayn `Ali Khan (d.
1783)
26 Aug 1783 - 1784 Gholam `Ali Khan I (1st time) (d.
1825)
1784 - 1790 annexed to Mahisur (Mysore)
1784 - 1790 Muhammad Yusuf -Administrator
1790 - 1814 Mozaffar al-Molk Asad `Ali Khan
- jointly with following-
1790 - 8 Sep 1822 Gholam `Ali Khan I (2nd time) (s.a.)
8 Sep 1822 - 1831 Hosayn `Ali Khan (1st time) (d.
1848)
12 Jul 1848 - 1848 Hosayn `Ali Khan (2nd time) (s.a.)
1848 - 7 Oct 1868 Gholam Mohammad `Ali Khan II (d.
1868)
7 Oct 1868 - 24 Jan 1876 Fath `Ali Khan (b. 1849
- d. 1905)
Rulers (title Nawab)
24 Jan 1876 - 21 Apr 1905 Fath `Ali Khan (s.a.)
21 Apr 1905 - 22 Jan 1922 Gholam `Ali Khan III (b. 1874
- d. 1922)
21 Apr 1905 - 12 Dec 1908 .... -Regent
22 Jan 1922 - 15 Aug 1947 Fadli `Ali Khan III (b. 1901
- d. 1948)
(forced to reside outside state 1939 -
1947)

Bansda

Rulers (title Raja Sahib; from 1876 Maharaja Sahib)

.... - 1701 Udaisimhji II
1701 - 1716 Virsimhji I
1716 - 1739 Ralbhamji
1739 - 1753 Ghulabsimhji I
1753 - 1770 Udaisimhji III
1770 - 1780 Kiratsimhji Las
1780 - 1789 Virsimhji II
1793 - 1815 Raisimhji
1815 - 28 Oct 1828 Udaisimhji IV (d.
1828)
1828 - 16 Jun 1861 Hamirsimhji
1862 - 13 Feb 1876 Ghulabsimhji II (d.
1876)
6 Mar 1876 - 21 Sep 1911 Pratapsimhji Ghulabsimhji (b. 1863
- d. 1911)
21 Sep 1911 - 15 Aug 1947 Indrasimhji Pratapsimhji (b. 1888
- d. 1951)

Banswara

1527 Banswara state founded.
16 Nov 1818 British protectorate.

Rulers (title Rawal, from 1747 Maharawal)

1688 - 1702 Ajab Singh
1702 - 1713 Bhim Singh (d.
1713)
1713 - 1737 Bishan Singh (d.
1737)
1737 - 1747 Udai Singh II (d.
1747)
1747 - 1786 Prithvi Singh (d.
1786)
1786 - 1816 Bijai Singh (b. 17..
- d. 1816)
1816 - 1819 Umaid Singh (d.
1819)
1819 - 6 Nov 1838 Bhawani Singh (b. c.
1803 - d. 1838)
1838 - 2 Feb 1844 Bahadur Singh (b. c.
1788 - d. 1844)
1844 - 29 Apr 1905 Lakshman Singh (b. 1835
- d. 1905)
1905 - 8 Jan 1914 Shambhu Singh (b. 1868
- d. 1914)
Rulers (title Sri Raj-i-Rajan Maharawal)
8 Jan 1914 - 28 Jul 1944 Prithvi Singh (b. 1888
- d. 1944)
29 Nov 1944 - 15 Aug 1947 Chandra Vir Singh (b. 1909
- d. 1985)

Bantva-Manavadar: see Manavadar

Baoni

1784 Baoni state founded.
1806 British protectorate.

Rulers (title Nawab)

1784 - 1 Sep 1800 `Emad al-Molk Ghazi ad-Din Khan (b. 1736
- d. 1800)
1 Sep 1800 - 11 May 1815 Naser ad-Dowla (b. c.
1756 - d. 1815)
11 May 1815 - 18 Oct 1838 Amir al-Molk (d.
1838)
18 Oct 1838 - 18 Aug 1859 Mohammad Hosayn (d.
1859)
18 Aug 1859 - 5 Oct 1883 Emam ad-Dowla Hosayn (d.
1895)
5 Oct 1883 - 2 Aug 1894 Mohammad Hasan Khan (b. 1863
- d. 1894)
2 Aug 1894 - 27 Oct 1911 Riaz al-Hasan Khan (b. 1876
- d. 1911)
27 Oct 1911 - 15 Aug 1947 Mohammad Moshtaq al-Hasan Khan (b. 1896
- d. 1977)

Baramba

1305 Baramba state founded.

Rulers (title Rawat)

1679 - 1711 Balabhadra Mangaraj
1711 - 1743 Fakir Mangaraj
1743 - 1748 Banadhar Mangaraj
1748 - 1793 Padmanava Birbar Mangaraj
1793 - 1842 Pindik Birbar Mangaraj Mahapatra
1842 - 1869 Gopinath Birbar Mangaraj
1869 - 1874 Daswanathi Birbar Mangaraj
Mahapatra

Rajas

1874 - 1881 Daswanathi Birbar Mangaraj
Mahapatra
15 Jul 1881 - 20 Aug 1922 Bishambhar Birbar Mangaraj (b. 1880
- d. ....)
Mahapatra
20 Aug 1922 - 15 Aug 1947 Narayan Chandra Birbar Mangaraj
Mahapatra (b. 1914
- d. 1954)
20 Aug 1922 - 16 Jan 1935 .... -Regent

Baraundha Pathar Kachhar

bf.1549 Baraundha Pathar Kachhar state founded.

Rulers (title Thakur)

1790 - 1827 Mohan Singh (d.
1827)
1827 - 1867 Sarabjit Singh
1867 - 1870 Dharampal Singh
1870 - 1874 Chhatarpal Singh (d.
1874)
1874 - 1886 Raghubar Dayal Singh (d.
1886)
(personal style Raja Bahadur from 1877)
18 Aug 1886 - 8 Jul 1908 Pratap Singh (b.
1847 - d. 1930)
Rajas
8 Jul 1908 - 1930 Pratap Singh (s.a.)
1930 - 1933 Gaya Prasad Singh (b.
1865 - d. 1933)
1933 - 15 Aug 1947 Ram Pratap Singh (d. af.
1970)

Bariya (Baria)

Rajas

.... - 1720 Mansimhji
1720 - 1732 Interregnum
1732 - 17.. Prithiraj
.... - .... Rayadharji
.... - .... Gangdasji
.... - .... Gambhirsimhji
.... - .... Dhiratsimhji
.... - .... Sahibsimhji
1803? Jashwantsimhji
18.. - Aug 1819 Ganga Das (d.
1819)
1819 - 1820 Bhimsimhji Ganga Das
1820 - 1864 Prithirajji Ganga Das

Rulers (title Maharawal)

5 Mar 1864 - 25 Feb 1908 Mansimhji Prithirajji (b. 1855
- d. 1908)
25 Feb 1908 - 15 Aug 1947 Ranjitsimhji Mansimhji (b. 1886
- d. 1949)


Baroda

c.1875 - 1936 Maharaja's flag
1936 - 1947 Maharaja's flag
10 Oct 1924 - 15 Aug 1947 Merchant Flag

Apr 1721 Baroda state founded by Mahratta general.
1780 British protectorate.

Rulers (title Maharaja Gaekwar)

Apr 1721 - 14 May 1732 Pilaji Rao Gaekwar (d.
1732)
14 May 1732 - 18 Aug 1768 Damaji Rao II Gaekwar (d.
1768)
18 Aug 1768 - 1771 Govind Rao Gaekwar (1st time) (d.
1778)
1771 - 1774 Sayaji Rao I Gaekwar (1st time)
1771 - 1774 Fateh Singh Rao Gaekwar -Regent (d.
1789)
(1st time)
1774 - 1778 Govind Rao Gaekwar (2nd time) (s.a.)
1778 - 1792 Sayaji Rao I Gaekwar (2nd time)
1778 - 1779 Fateh Singh Rao Gaekwar -Regent (s.a.)
(2nd time)
1779 - 1792 Manaji Rao Gaekwar -Regent (d.
1793)
1792 - 27 Jul 1793 Manaji Rao Gaekwar (s.a.)
27 Jul 1793 - 19 Sep 1800 Govind Rao Gaekwar (b. 17..
- d. 1800)
19 Sep 1800 - 2 Oct 1819 Anand Rao Gaekwar (b. 17..
- d. 1819)
19 Sep 1800 - 23 Jun 1818 Fateh Singh Rao Gaekwar -Regent (b. 1769
- d. 1818)
23 Jun 1818 - 2 Oct 1819 Sayaji Rao Gaekwar -Regent (b. 1800
- d. 1847)
2 Oct 1819 - 28 Dec 1847 Sayaji Rao II Gaekwar (s.a.)
28 Dec 1847 - 19 Nov 1856 Ganpat Rao Gaekwar (b. 1816
- d. 1856)
19 Nov 1856 - 28 Nov 1870 Khande Rao Gaekwar (b. 1828
- d. 1870)
28 Nov 1870 - 19 Apr 1875 Malhar Rao Gaekwar (b. 1831
- d. 1882)
(regent to 5 Jul 1871; suspended from 13
Jan 1875)
19 Apr 1875 - 25 May 1875 Madhav Rao Tanjochkar
(chairman regency council)
25 May 1875 - 6 Feb 1939 Sayaji Rao III Gaekwar (b. 1863
- d. 1939)
25 May 1875 - 28 Dec 1881 Jamna Bai Sahib Gaekwar (f)-Regent (b. 1853
- d. 1898)
6 Feb 1939 - 15 Aug 1947 Pratap Singh Rao Gaekwar (b. 1908
- d. 1968)

Dewans

1743 - 17.. Diwanji Takapir
+ Mahadaji Govind Kakirde
17.. - 17.. Madhav Nimbaji Vanikar
17.. - 17.. Ramchandra Basvant
17.. - 17.. Balaji Yamaji
(acting for Basvant)
17.. - 17.. Gopal Naik Tambekar
c.1777 Antaji Ganesh
17.. - 1780 Govind Pandit
17.. - 17.. Hiramand (acting)
17.. - 17.. Baloba
17.. - 17.. Gumaji Patel
c.1787 Ramchandra Bhaskar
Dec 1793 - 20 Sep 1800 Raoji Appaji (1st time)
1800 - 1820 Vithalrao Devaji (Dewan of Kathiawar)


- jointly with following -

20 Sep 1800 - 27 Jan 1801 Shrimant Sardar Khanjirao
Maharaja Sahib Gaekwar
27 Jan 1801 - 18 Jul 1803 Raoji Appaji (2nd time)
1803 - 1807 Sitaram Raoji
1807 - Nov 1810 Babaji Rao
1810 - 1812 Vithalrao Bhau (1st time)
(Vithal Rao Bhau)
1812 - 14 Jul 1815 Gangadhar Shastri (d.
1815)
Jul 1815 - Oct 1819 Bhimashankar
12 Oct 1819 - Jan 1820 Dhakji Dadaji
Jan? 1820 - 1828 Vithalrao Bhau (2nd time)
+ Vithalrao Devaji
1828 - 1829 Veniram Aditram
+ Prabhaka Dikshit
1829 - 1833 Gopal Atmaram Devadar
1833 - 28 Nov 1839 Veniram Aditram
1839 - 1848 Vacant
1848 - 1849 Balasaheb Dhaibar
1849 - 1854 Bhau Tambekar
1854 - 10 Nov 1867 Govindrav Pandurang Rode
+ Ganesh Sadashiv Ojhe (to Mar 1861)
17 Nov 1867 - 24 Nov 1869 Bhau Shinde
25 Nov 1869 - Nov 1870 Nimbaji Rao Dhole (or Davale)
(acting)
Nov 1870 - Mar 1871 Hariba Gaikvad
22 Mar 1871 - 1872 Gopal Rav Mairal (d.
1872)
Nov 1872? - Mar 1873? Balvantrav (Balwant Rao) Khanvelkar
4 Aug 1874 - Jan 1875 Dadabhai Naoroji
10 May 1875 - 1882 T. Madhava Rao
29 Sep 1882 - 31 Jul 1886 Khan Bahadur Kazi Shahabuddin
1 Aug 1886 - 30 May 1890 Bahadur Lakshman Jagannath Vaidya
31 May 1890 - 21 Nov 1895 Manibhai Jasbhai
15 Jul 1896 - 2 Oct 1901 S. Shrinivas Raghava Iyengar
3 Oct 1901 - 30 Jun 1904 R.V. Dhamnaskar
1 Jul 1904 - 28 Feb 1909 Kersaspji Rustamji Dadachanji
1 Jun 1909 - 30 Nov 1909 Shri Romesh Chunder Dutt
1 Dec 1909 - 3 Jan 1912 V.P. Madhava Rao (b. 1850
- d. 1930)
1 Dec 1912 - 16 Mar 1914 Bihari Lal Gupta (b. 1849
- d. 1916)
17 Mar 1914 - 7 May 1916 Vishwanath Patankar Madhava Rao (b. 1850
- d. 1934)
9 May 1916 - 1927 Manubhai Nandshankar Mehta (b. 1868
- d. 1946)
1927 - 1945 T. Krishnamachari
Jan 1945 - 1947 Brojendra Lal Mitter (b. 1875
- d. 1950)
1947 Jivraj N. Mehta (b. 1887
- d. 1977)

British Residents

11 Jul 1802 - 1809 Alexander Walker (1st time)
1809 - 1810 James Rivett-Carnac (1st time) (b. 1785
- d. 1846)
(acting)
1810 Alexander Walker (2nd time)
1810 - May 1820 James Rivett-Carnac (2nd time) (s.a.)
May 1820 C. Norris (acting)
May 1820 - Nov 1837 James Williams
Nov 1837 - Jun 1840 James Sutherland
26 Jun 1840 - Jul/Aug 1844 William Sprot Boyd (b. 1799
- d. 1845)
Aug 1844 - Jul 1845 T. Ogilvie (acting)
Jul 1845 - Apr 1846 Robert Keith Arbuthnot (b. 1801
- d. 1873)
Apr 1846 - May 1847 William Charles Andrews (acting)
May 1847 - Oct 1848 James Outram (1st time) (b. 1803
- d. 1863)
Oct 1848 - May 1850 Patrick Theodor French (acting)
May 1850 - Jan 1852 James Outram (2nd time) (s.a.)
Jan 1852 - Jun 1853 J.M. Davies
Jun 1853 - Mar 1854 G.B. Seton Karr (acting)
Mar 1854 - May 1854 James Outram (3rd time) (s.a.)
May 1854 - Nov 1855 D.A. Malcolm
Feb 1856 - Mar 1857 Cuthbert Davidson (b. 1810
- d. 1862)
Mar 1857 - May 1859 Sir Richmond Campbell Shakespear (b. 1812
- d. 1861)
Aug 1859 - Jan 1866 R. Wallace
Jan 1866 - May 1867 J.T. Barr (1st time)
May 1867 - Nov 1867 E.P. Arthur (acting)
Nov 1867 - Apr 1872 J.T. Barr (2nd time)
Apr 1872 - Mar 1873 A.G. Shortt (acting)
Mar 1873 - Dec 1874 Robert Phayre (b. 1820
- d. 1897)
Dec 1874 - Apr 1875 Lewis Pelley (b. 1825
- d. 1892)
18 Apr 1875 - Nov 1875 Richard John Meade (b. 1821
- d. 1899)

Agents

16 Nov 1875 - 2 Apr 1881 Philipp Sandys Melvill (1st time) (b. 1827
- d. 19..)
2 Apr 1881 - 10 Apr 1881 J.H. Seller (acting)
11 Apr 1881 - 1 Jul 1881 W.G. Waterfield (acting)
2 Jul 1881 - 2 Jan 1881 Philipp Sandys Melvill (2nd time) (s.a.)
3 Jan 1882 - 15 Sep 1883 John Watson (1st time)
16 Sep 1883 - 15 Nov 1883 F.H Jackson (1st time)(acting)
16 Nov 1883 - 26 Aug 1885 John Watson (2nd time)
27 Aug 1885 - 24 Oct 1885 C.K.M. Walter (acting)
25 Oct 1885 - 3 Mar 1886 John Watson (3rd time)
4 Mar 1886 - 4 Nov 1886 F.H Jackson (2nd time)(acting)
4 Dec 1886 - 7 Jul 1886 James Cavan Berkeley (1st time)
8 Jul 1886 - 10 Jul 1886 F.H Jackson (3rd time)(acting)
10 Aug 1886 - 29 Dec 1887 James Cavan Berkeley (2nd time)
30 Dec 1887 - 1 Oct 1888 Sir Oliver Beauchamp Coventry (b. 1837


- d. 1891)
St. John

2 Oct 1888 - 17 Jan 1889 F.H Jackson (4th time)(acting)
18 Jan 1889 - 26 Mar 1889 Harry North Dalrymple Prendergast (b. 1834
- d. 1913)
(1st time)
27 Mar 1889 - 22 Oct 1889 F.H Jackson (5th time)(acting)
23 Oct 1889 - Apr 1890 Harry North Dalrymple Prendergast (s.a.)
(2nd time)
Apr 1890 - Jul 1890 F.H Jackson (6th time)(acting)
Jul 1890 - 6 Feb 1891 Harry North Dalrymple Prendergast (s.a.)
(3rd time)
6 Mar 1891 - 4 Jan 1893 Edward Swalman Reynolds
11 Jan 1893 - 27 Apr 1893 John Biddulph (1st time) (b. 1840
- d. 1922)
27 Apr 1893 - 27 Jul 1893 P.W. Snell (acting)
28 Jul 1893 - 24 Feb 1895 John Biddulph (2nd time) (s.a.)
25 Feb 1895 - 23 Jul 1896 Norton Charles Martelli (1st time)
24 Jul 1896 - Oct 1896 P.Z. Cox (acting)
Oct 1896 - 1899 Norton Charles Martelli (2nd time)

Residents

30 Aug 1899 - 13 Mar 1901 Charles Withers Ravenshaw (b. 1835
- d. 1935)
14 Mar 1901 - 9 Oct 1901 W.H.M. Stewart (acting)
4 Nov 1901 - 2 May 1902 Malcolm John Meade (1st time) (b. 1854
- d. 1933)
3 May 1902 - 3 Nov 1902 H.C.J. Carnegy (acting)
4 Nov 1902 - 30 Mar 1906 Malcolm John Meade (2nd time) (s.a.)
31 Mar 1906 - 13 Apr 1906 H. Harrison (acting)
14 Apr 1906 - 11 Dec 1906 C.H. Pritchard (acting)
12 Dec 1906 - 3 Sep 1908 Malcolm John Meade (3rd time) (s.a.)
4 Sep 1908 - 29 Oct 1908 R.S. Pottinger (acting)
30 Oct 1908 - 18 Feb 1909 Malcolm John Meade (4th time) (s.a.)
19 Feb 1909 - 30 Sep 1910 O.V. Bossaquet (acting)
1 Oct 1910 - 1 May 1912 Henry Venn Cobb (b. 1864
- d. 1949)
5 May 1912 - 13 Mar 1914 Lawrence Impey (1st time) (b. 1862
- d. 1944)
(acting to 17 May 1913)
14 Mar 1914 - 11 Apr 1914 W.M.P. Wood (acting)
12 Apr 1914 - 14 Dec 1914 W.E. Jardine (acting)
15 Dec 1914 - 3 Mar 1917 Lawrence Impey (2nd time) (s.a.)
4 Mar 1917 - 16 Feb 1918 F.W.P. Macdonald (acting)
17 Feb 1918 - 23 Mar 1918 K.S. Pitze (acting)
23 Mar 1918 - 7 Apr 1919 Charles Lennox Russell
(acting to 19 Apr 1918)
8 Apr 1919 - 5 May 1919 T.B. Russell (acting)
6 May 1919 - 28 May 1919 William Pell Barton (1st time) (b. 1871
- d. 1956)
1 Jun 1919 - 9 Sep 1919 W.H. Wilkinson (acting)
10 Sep 1919 - 2 Feb 1920 William Pell Barton (2nd time) (s.a.)
3 Feb 1920 - 30 Oct 1920 Charles Joseph Windham (b. 1867
- d. 1941)
31 Oct 1920 - 21 Jul 1921 Denys B. Blakeway (b. 1870
- d. 19..)
22 Jul 1921 - 12 Dec 1922 L.M. Crump (acting)
13 Dec 1922 - 1923 Reginald I.R. Glancy
1923 - 1927 Herbert Kealy
1927 - 1929 Richard J.C. Burke
1930 - 1932 Frederick M. Bailey
1932 - 1933 Arthur Cunningham Lothian (b. 1887
- d. 1962)
1933 - 1937 James Leslie Rose Weir
1933 - 1939? Elliott James Dowell Colvin (b. 1885
- d. 1950)
1939 - 1940 Clive K. Daly
1940 - 1942 Cosmo G.N. Edwards
1943 - 1944 Lionel W. Jardine
5 Nov 1944 - 6 May 1947 Cyril P. Hancock (b. 1896
- d. 1990)
(acting to 4 Jul 1945)
7 May 1947 - 14 Aug 1947 L.G. Coke-Wallis

Barwani

bf.1500 Barwani state founded.
1861 - 1873 British India administration.

Rulers (title Rana)

1675 - 1700 Jodh Singh (d.
1700)
1700 - 1708 Parbat Singh (d.
1708)
1708 - 1730 Mohan Singh I (d.
1731)
1730 - 1760 Anup Singh (d.
1760)
1760 - 1794 Umed Singh (d.
1794)
1794 - 1839 Mohan Singh II (d.
1839)
1839 - 1861 Jashwant Singh (1st time) (d.
1880)
1861 - 1873 Vacant
1873 - 1880 Jashwant Singh (2nd time) (s.a.)
15 Aug 1880 - 1894 Indrajit Singh (b. 1840
- d. 1894)
14 Dec 1894 - 21 Apr 1930 Ranjit Singh (b. 1888
- d. 1930)
21 Apr 1930 - 15 Aug 1947 Devi Sahib Singhji (b. 1922
- d. 2007)

Bashahr

1412 Bashahr state founded.
1803 - 1815 Occupied by Nepal.

Ruler (title Rana)

.... - 1708 Vijay Singh
1708 - 1725 Udai Singh
1725 - 1761 Ram Singh (d.
1761)
1761 - 1785 Udar Singh
1785 - 1803 Ugar Singh (d.
1810)
1803 - 1815 occupied by Nepal

Rajas

1815 - 1850 Mahendra Singh (b.
1809 - d. 1850)
1850 - 1887 Shamsher Singh (1st time) (b.
1838 - d. 1914)
1887 - Feb 1898 Raghunath Singh (d.
1898)
1898 - 4 Aug 1914 Shamsher Singh (2nd time) (s.a.)
1914 - Nov 1917 A.A. McMitchell -Manager
5 Aug 1914 - Apr 1947 Padna Singh (b.
1873 - d. 1947)
(recognized by British from 30 Nov 1917)
Apr 1947 - 15 Aug 1947 Virbhadra Singh (b.
1934)

Basoda

1753 Basoda state founded as a vassal state of
Gwalior.

Rulers (title Nawab)

1753 - 1786 Ahsan Allah Khan (d.
1786)
1786 - 1800 Baqa´ Allah Khan
18.. - 1864 Asad `Ali Khan
6 Feb 1864 - 1896 `Omar `Ali Khan (b. c.
1830 - d. ....)
1897 - 2 Jul 1929 Haydar `Ali Khan
1929 - 15 Aug 1947 Mohammad Ayyub `Ali Khan

Basohli

c.750 AD Basohli state founded.
1836 Incorporated into Jammu.

Rulers (title Raja)

1693 - 1725 Diraj Pal (d.
1725)
1725 - 1736 Medini Pal (b.
1717? - d. 1736)
1736 - 1757 Ajit Pal (d.
1757)
1757 - 1776 Amrit Pal (b.
1745 - d. 1776)
1776 - 1806 Vijay Pal (b.
1763 - d. 1806)
1806 - 1813 Mahendra Pal (d.
1813)
1813 - Nov 1834 Bhupendra Pal (b. c.
1806 - d. 1834)
17 Dec 1834 - 1836 Kalyan Pal (b.
1834 - d. 1857)

Bastar

14.. Bastar state founded.

Rajas

1680 - 1709 Digpal Deo
1709 - 1721 Rajpal Deo
1721 - 1731 Mama
1731 - 1774 Dalpat Deo
1774 Daryao Deo (1st time)
1774 - 1777 Ajmar Singh Deo
1777 - bf.1819 Daryao Deo (2nd time)
1819? Mahipal Deo
1830 - 1853 Bhopal Deo
27 Aug 1853 - Jul 1891 Bhairam Deo (b. 1839
- d. 1891)
1891 - 1921 Rudra Pratap Deo (b. 1885
- d. 1921)
23 Nov 1922 - 28 Feb 1936 Profulla Kumari Devi (f) -Rani (b. 1910
- d. 1936)
Maharaja
28 Oct 1936 - 15 Aug 1947 Pravir Chandra Bhanj Deo (b. 1929
- d. 1966)

Diwans

1846 - 1863 Lal Dalganjan Singh (d.
1863)
1863 - 1867 Moti Singh
1867 - 1876 Gopinath Kapurdar
18.. - Feb 1881 Durjan Singh (d.
1881)
1882 - 188. Lal Kalendra Singh
188. - 1888 Krishna Rao
1888 - Mar 1890 Ganpat Rao Gokle
1890 - 1891 Gopinath Guru (d.
1891)
.... - .... Pandit Alamchand
.... - .... Rama Krishna Rao (superintendent)
.... - .... Pandit Alamchand (superintendent)
.... - .... L.J. Fagan (administrator)
.... - .... G.W. Gayer (administrator)
.... - .... R.B. Panda Baijnath (superintendent)
Diwan
.... - .... R.B. Panda Baijnath

Baudh

21 May 1874 Baudh estate becomes a state.

Rajas

21 May 1874 - 1879 Pitambar Deo
5 Oct 1879 - 10 Mar 1913 Jogendra Deo (b. c.
1857 - d. 1913)
10 Mar 1913 - 15 Aug 1947 Narayan Prasad Deo (b. 1904
- d. bf.1971)

Bayar: see Idar

Benares: see Banaras

Bengal: see Bangladesh

Beri-Bundelkhand

Rulers (title Rao)

1753 - 17.. Achharaji Singh
17.. - 1780 Kuman Singh
1780 - 1814 Jugal Prasad Singh
1814 - 1857 Pheran Singh
1857 - 1861 Vishvanath Singh (d.
1861)
18 Mar 1862 - 1880 Vijay Singh (b.
1848 - d. ....)
1880 - 1904 Raghuraj Singh
1904 - 1945 Lokendra Singh
Raja
1945 - 1947 Yadvendra Singh (b.
1918 - d. 1984)

Bhadrawa (Bhadrawah)

1483 Bhadrawa founded possibly as a jagir, later
becoming a state.
Jun 1821 Annexed to Chamba.
16 Mar 1846 Annexed to Jammu and Kashmir.

Rajas

1691 - 1707 Abhaya Pal (d. 1707)
1707 - 1735 Medini Pal
1735 - 1770 Sampat Pal (b. 1710 - d.
1770)
1770 - 1790 Fateh Pal (b. 1732 - d.
1790)
1790 - 1794 Daya Pal (1st time) (b. 1756 - d.
1810)
1794 - .... Bhup Chand
.... - 1810 Daya Pal (2nd time) (s.a.)
1810 - Jun 1821 Pahar Chand (b. 1789 - d.
18..)

Bhajji

bf.1800 Bhajji state founded.
1803 - 1815 Occupied by Nepal.

Rulers (title Rana)

.... - .... Amrit Pal
.... - 1803 Rudra Pal (1st time)
1803 - 1815 occupied by Nepal
1815 - 1842 Rudra Pal (2nd time)
1842 - 1875 Ran Bahadur Singh (d.
1875)
18 Nov 1875 - 1913 Durga Singh (b. 1842
- d. 1913)
9 May 1913 - 1940 Bir Pal (b. 1906
- d. 1961)
8 Sep 1940 - 15 Aug 1947 Ram Chandra Pal Singh (b.
1928)

Bharatpur

1880 - 1943
c.1943 - 1948

1752 Bharatpur founded and becomes name of
state.
18 Jan 1828 British protectorate.

Ruler (title Raja Mahendra)

1752 - 21 May 1755 Badan Singh (d.
1755)
Maharajas
21 May 1755 - 25 Dec 1763 Suraj Mal (b. 1707
- d. 1763)
25 Dec 1763 - 27 Aug 1768 Jawahir Singh (d.
1768)
27 Aug 1768 - 11 Apr 1769 Ratan Singh (d.
1769)
22 Aug 1768 - 11 Apr 1769 Dan Shahi -Regent
11 Apr 1769 - 28 Mar 1778 Keshri Singh (b. 1766
- d. 1778)
11 Apr 1769 - 11 Aug 1775 Nihal Singh -Regent (b. 17..
- d. 1775)
11 Aug 1775 - 28 Mar 1778 Ranjit Singh -Regent (d.
1805)
28 Mar 1778 - 6 Dec 1805 Ranjit Singh (s.a.)
6 Dec 1805 - 7 Oct 1823 Randhir Singh (d.
1823)
7 Oct 1823 - 26 Feb 1825 Baldeo Singh (d.
1825)
26 Feb 1825 - 28 Mar 1825 Balwant Singh (1st time) (b. 1819
- d. 1853)
28 Mar 1825 - 19 Jan 1826 Durjan Sal (usurper)
19 Jan 1826 - 21 Mar 1853 Balwant Singh (2nd time) (s.a.)
19 Jan 1826 - 1835 Gangawaue Miraj Kaur (f) -Regent
21 Mar 1853 - 12 Dec 1893 Jashwant Singh (b. 1851
- d. 1893)
21 Mar 1853 - 10 Jun 1869 .... -Regent
12 Dec 1893 - 27 Aug 1900 Ram Singh (b. 1873
- d. 1929)
(suspended from 10 Aug 1900)
27 Aug 1900 - 27 Mar 1929 Kishen Singh (b. 1899
- d. 1929)
27 Aug 1900 - 28 Nov 1918 Bibiji Girraj Kaur (f) -Regent (b. 18..
- d. 1922)
27 Mar 1929 - 15 Aug 1947 Brijendra Singh (b. 1918
- d. 1995)
27 Mar 1929 - 22 Oct 1939 .... -Regent

Bhavnagar

to 1947
10 Oct 1924 - 15 Aug 1947 Merchant Flag

1240 Predecessor state of Sejakpur founded.
1309 Umrala state.
1570 Sihor state.
1723 Bhavnagar founded and becomes name of
state.

Rulers (title Thakur Sahib)

1660 - 1703 Ratanji II (d.
1703)
1703 - 1764 Bhavsinhji I Ratanji (b. 1683
- d. 1764)
1764 - 1772 Akherajji III Bhavsimhji (b. 1714
- d. 1772)
1772 - 1816 Wakhatsimhji Akherajji (b. 1748
- d. 1816)
1816 - 1852 Wajesimhji Wakhatsimhji (b. 1780
- d. 1852)
1852 - 1854 Akherajji IV Bhavsimhji (b. 1817
- d. 1854)
1854 - 11 Apr 1870 Jashwantsimhji Bhavsimhji (b. 1827
- d. 1870)
11 Apr 1870 - 29 Jan 1896 Takhatsimhji Jashwantsimhji (b. 1858
- d. 1896)
11 Apr 1870 - 5 Apr 1878 .... -Regent
29 Jan 1896 - 1 Jan 1918 Bhavsimhji II Takhatsimhji (b. 1875
- d. 1919)
(personal style Maharaja Rao from 1 Jan
1909)

Rulers (title Maharaja Rao)

1 Jan 1918 - 16 Jul 1919 Bhavsimhji II Takhatsimhji (s.a.)
16 Jul 1919 - 15 Aug 1947 Krishnakumarsimhji Bhavsimhji (b. 1912
- d. 1965)
16 Jul 1919 - 18 Apr 1931 .... -Regents

Bhopal

Map of Bhopal Capital: Bhopal
Population: 730,000 (1931)

1723 Bhopal state founded
1817 British protectorate.
26 Aug 1947 Accession to India

Rulers (title Nawab)

1723 - Mar 1728 Dost Mohammad Khan (b. 1672
- d. 1728)
Mar 1728 - 1742 Soltan Mohammad Khan (b. 1720
- d. ....)
Mar 1728 - 30 Aug 1728 Sardar Aqil Muhammad Khan -Regent
30 Aug 1728 - 1742 Yar Mohammad Khan -Regent (b. 1709
- d. 1742)
1742 - 12 Dec 1777 Fayz Mohammad Khan (b. 1731
- d. 1777)
12 Dec 1777 - 17 Nov 1807 Hayat Mohammad Khan (b. 1736
- d. 1807)
17 Nov 1807 - 28 Aug 1826 Ghows Mohammad Khan (b. 1767
- d. 1826)
23 Nov 1808 - 16 Mar 1816 Wazir al-Molk Wazir Mohammad (b. 1765
- d. 1816)
Khan -Regent
17 Mar 1816 - 11 Nov 1819 Naser al-Dowla Naser Mohammad (b. c.
1798 - d. 1819)
Khan -Regent
11 Nov 1819 - 30 Nov 1837 Qodsiyya Begam (f) -Regent (b. 1801
- d. 1881)
28 Aug 1826 - 30 Nov 1837 Mo'izz Mohammad Khan (d.
1869)
30 Nov 1837 - 9 Dec 1844 Jahangir Mohammad Khan (b. 1816
- d. 1844)
Nawab Begam
9 Dec 1844 - 30 Apr 1860 Soltan Shah Jahan Begam (f) (b. 1838
- d. 1901)
(1st time)
21 Jan 1845 - 3 Jan 1847 Fawdjar Mohammad Khan -Regent (b. 1811
- d. af.1847)
3 Jan 1847 - 30 Apr 1860 Sikander Begam (f) -Regent (b. 1818
- d. 1868)
30 Apr 1860 - 30 Oct 1868 Sikander Begam (f) (s.a.)
2 Nov 1868 - 16 Jun 1901 Soltan Shah Jahan Begam (f) (s.a.)
(2nd time)
16 Jun 1901 - 29 Apr 1926 Soltan Kaykhosrow Jahan Begam (f) (b. 1858
- d. 1930)
Nawab
29 Apr 1926 - 26 Aug 1947 Mohammad Hamidollah Khan Iskandar
Sowlat Iftikhar al-Molk Bahadur (b. 1894
- d. 1960)

Bhor

1697 Bhor state founded.

Rulers (title Pant Sachiv)

1697 - 1707 Shankarji Narayan
1707 - 1737 Naro
1737 - 1757 Chimnaji I
1757 - 1787 Sadasiv Rao
1787 - 1791 Raghunath Rao I
1797 - 1798 Shankr Rao I
1798 - 1827 Chimnaji Rao II
1827 - 1837 Raghunath Rao II Chimnaji Rao
1837 - 1871 Chimnaji Rao III Raghunath Rao (d.
1871)
1871 - 17 Jul 1922 Shankr Rao II Chimnaji Rao (b. 1854
- d. 1922)
1922 - Jun 1936 Raghunath Rao III Shankar Rao (b. 1878
- d. 1951?)
"Baba Sahib"
Raja
Jun 1936 - 15 Aug 1947 Raghunath Rao Shankar Rao (s.a.)
"Baba Sahib"

Bhutan (Bhootan): see Bhutan

Bihar see: Koch Bihar

Bija

bf.1803 Bija state founded.
1803 - 1815 Occupied by Nepal.

Rulers (title Thakur)

1815 - 1817 Man Chand
1817 - 1841 Pratap Chand
1841 - 1905 Udai Chand (b. 1829
- d. 19..)
1905 - 15 Aug 1947 Puran Chand

Bijawar

1765 Bijawar state founded.

Rajas

1765 - 1793 Bir Singh Deo (d.
1793)
1793 - 1802 Himmat Bahadur
1802 - Dec 1810 Keshri Singh (d.
1810)
1811 - 1833 Ratan Singh (d.
1833)
1833 - 1847 Lakshman Singh
23 Nov 1847 - 1866 Bham Pratap Singh (b. 1842
- d. 1899)

Maharajas (title from 1877 Sawai Maharaja)

1866 - 15 Sep 1899 Bham Pratap Singh (s.a.)
15 Sep 1899 - 30 Oct 1940 Savant Singh (b. 1877
- d. 1940)
30 Oct 1940 - 15 Aug 1947 Govind Singh (b. 1934
- d. 1983)

Bikanir (Bikaner)

1465 Bikanir state founded.
9 Mar 1818 British protectorate.

Maharajas (title Maharajadhiraj Narendra Maharaja)

19 Jun 1698 - 15 Dec 1700 Sarup Singh (b. 1689
- d. 1700)
15 Dec 1700 - 16 Dec 1735 Sujan Singh (b. 1690
- d. 1735)
16 Dec 1735 - 15 May 1746 Zorawar Singh (b. 1713
- d. 1746)
15 May 1746 - 25 Mar 1787 Gaj Singh (b. 1723
- d. 1787)
25 Mar 1787 - 25 Apr 1787 Raj Singh II (b. 1744
- d. 1787)
25 Apr 1787 - 9 Oct 1787 Pratap Singh (b. 1781
- d. 1787)
25 Apr 1787 - 25 Mar 1828 Surat Singh (Regent to 9 Oct 1787) (b. 1766
- d. 1828)
25 Mar 1828 - 7 Aug 1851 Ratan Singh (b. 1790
- d. 1851)
7 Aug 1851 - 16 May 1872 Sardar Singh (b. 1818
- d. 1872)
16 May 1872 - 19 Aug 1887 Dungar Singh (b. 1854
- d. 1887)
19 Aug 1887 - 2 Feb 1943 Ganga Singh (b. 1880
- d. 1943)
19 Aug 1887 - 16 Dec 1898 British Political Agent -Regent
2 Feb 1943 - 15 Aug 1947 Sadul Singh (b. 1902
- d. 1950)

Prime Ministers (Dewans)

1898 - .... Amir Mohammad Khan
1916 - 19.. Shri Bhairon Singh
1920 - 1925 Kunwar Sardul Singh
1927 - 1934 Manubhai Nandshankar Mehta (b. 1868
- d. 1946)
1939 - 1948 Kavalam Madhava Panikkar (b. 1895
- d. 1963)

Bilaspur

c.697 Kahlur state (later called Bilaspur)
founded.

Rajas

1665 - 1712 Bhim Chand (d. c.
1712)
1712 - 1741 Ajmer Chand (d.
1741)
1741 - 1778 Devi Chand (d.
1778)
1778 - 1824 Mohan Chand (b. 1772
- d. 1824)
1824 - 29 Mar 1839 Kharak Chand (b. 1813
- d. 1839)
Apr 1839 - 1850 Jagat Chand (d.
1857)
1850 - Jan 1883 Hira Chand (b. 1835
- d. 1883)
Jan 1883 - 3 Feb 1889 Amar Chand (b. 1857
- d. 1889)
3 Feb 1889 - 18 Feb 1927 Bijai Chand (b. 1873
- d. 1931)
18 Feb 1927 - 15 Aug 1947 Tikka Anand Chand (b. 1913
- d. 1983)
18 Feb 1927 - 9 Jan 1933 .... -Regent

Bonai


Rajas

1804 - 1851 Dayanidhi Chandra Deo
1851 - 1876 Chandra Deo
12 Sep 1876 - 1898 Indra Deo (b. c.
1836 - d. 1898)
1898 - 1902 Nilambar Chandra Deo (d.
1902)
19 Feb 1902 - 1947? Dharani Dhar Deo (b. 1884
- d. 19..)

Bundi

18.. - 1947 Royal flag
to 1947 State flag


1342 Bundi state founded.
10 Feb 1818 British protectorate.

Rulers (title Rao Raja, from 1821 Maharao Raja)

1696 - 1735 Budh Singh (d.
1739)
1735 - 1749 Dalel Singh
1749 - 1770 Umaid Singh (1st time) (b. 1729
- d. 1804)
1770 - 1773 Ajit Singh (d.
1773)
1773 - 1804 Umaid Singh (2nd time) (s.a.)
1804 - 14 May 1821 Bishan Singh (d.
1821)
1821 - 28 Mar 1889 Ram Singh (b. 1811
- d. 1889)
1889 - 26 Jul 1927 Raghubir Singh (b. 1869
- d. 1927)
8 Aug 1927 - 23 Apr 1945 Ishvari Singh (b. 1893
- d. 1945)
1945 - 15 Aug 1947 Bahadur Singh (b. 1920
- d. 1977)

bademiyansubhanallah

unread,
Feb 8, 2010, 6:17:50 PM2/8/10
to
THE STATES

The birth of Chhattisgarh

The new State of Chhattisgarh is formed amid much suspense, and now
Ajit Jogi, its first Chief Minister, has multiple challenges ahead.

V. VENKATESAN
in Raipur

THE new State of Chhattisgarh was born with the swearing-in of a new
Governor and a new Chief Minister in Raipur, the capital, in the early
hours of November 1. Dinesh Nandan Sahaya, a Samata Party leader and a
former Indian Police Service (IPS) officer, was sworn in Governor by
the Acting Chief Justice of the State, Justice Ramesh Surajmal Garg,
who was appointed a day earlier, before a huge gathering. This was
followed by anxious moments until the new Chief Secretary, Arun Kumar,
invited Ajit Jogi, wh o had been elected unopposed as the leader of
the 48-member Congress(I) Legislature Party (CLP) on October 31, to be
sworn in Chief Minister, at 12.58 a.m. Present on the occasion were
Madhya Pradesh Chief Minister Digvijay Singh and All India Congress C
ommittee observers Ghulam Nabi Azad and Prabha Rao.

A.M. FARUQUI
Ajit Jogi being sworn in Chief Minister of Chhattisgarh by Governor
Dinesh Nandan Sahaya in Raipur on November 1.

Jogi's assumption of office would have been a smooth affair but for
the precarious state of the Congress(I) in the 90-member Chhattisgarh
Assembly. The Bharatiya Janata Party has 36 members and the Bahujan
Samaj Party (BSP) three. Within the CLP, Jogi's supporters are fewer
than those of the other aspirants for the post. Of the 41 party MLAs
who attended the CLP meeting, only two-thirds seemed to have supported
Jogi, and that too after considerable persuasion by Digvijay Singh.
The seven MLAs who boycot ted the meeting belong to the faction led by
the former Union Minister Vidya Charan Shukla.

BORN in 1946 at Bongri-Gorela village of Bilaspur division, Jogi, a
former Indian Administrative Service (IAS) officer, entered politics
in the mid-1980s during the Rajiv Gandhi administration. A strong
contender for the post of Madhya Pradesh Chief Mini ster in 1993, Jogi
then had the backing of Congress(I) Working Committee (CWC) member
Arjun Singh. Since then he has tried to project himself as the leader
of the State's tribal people, albeit with limited success. Jogi's
claim to represent the Scheduled Tribes has often been questioned by
his critics, who allege that he belonged to the Satnami caste, a
Scheduled Caste. Jogi took the civil services examination in 1970
under the general category.

Jogi has often criticised Digvijay Singh's style of functioning, and
therefore it came as a surprise when the latter canvassed support for
him. Perhaps, Digvijay Singh was helpless as party president Sonia
Gandhi clearly told him when he met her in New D elhi on October 29
that she was in favour of Ajit Jogi becoming the Chief Minister of the
new State. Digvijay Singh, initially projected his loyalist and Madhya
Pradesh Minister Satyanarayan Sharma as the new Chief Minister,
claiming that it was not nece ssary for Chhattisgarh to have a tribal
person as the first Chief Minister. (In fact, the Congress(I) never
promised to make a tribal leader the Chief Minister.) The names of
former Uttar Pradesh Governor Motilal Vora, who hails from Durg in
Chhattisgarh , and Mahendra Karma from Bastar were also mentioned as
possible candidates, in order to check the rise of Ajit Jogi.

SANDEEP SAXENA
Former Union Minister V.C. Shukla.

Digvijay Singh is known to enjoy considerable influence among
Congress(I) MLAs of Chhattisgarh as he had a major role in selecting
candidates in the last Assembly elections. Yet he found it difficult
to ensure smooth sailing for Ajit Jogi, as directed by the high
command. Some of the MLAs present at the CLP meeting called to elect
the leader questioned the high command's move to 'impose' Ajit Jogi
and in the process the narrowness of Jogi's support base was exposed.
His detractors believe that he would not have had the backing of more
than three or four MLAs, had there been a contest.

The problem of finding a suitable candidate for the post was
compounded by the absence of a charismatic leader. The "political
vacuum" tempted regional satraps to enter the fray. V.C. Shukla, a
strong claimant for the Chief Minister's post, admitted that he had
the support of only 19 MLAs. Of them, only seven stayed away from the
CLP meeting; the rest concurred with the majority decision to elect
Jogi, in the absence of an alternative. (Ajit Jogi, who is not a
legislator, has to be elected to the Assemb ly within six months from
the constituency vacated by one of his supporters.)

While Digvijay Singh managed to convince the majority of CLP members
to back Ajit Jogi, the absence of V.C. Shukla and his supporters at
the meeting raised questions about the exercise of seeking consensus.
Ghulam Nabi Azad was right when he said that th e MLAs were told to
ignore media reports about Sonia Gandhi's preference and indicate
their choice freely. But the message sent out by Digivjay Singh was
unmistakable: though he is a leader in his own right, he had to keep
Sonia Gandhi in good humour and not earn her displeasure over the
issue of the leadership of a State which is not under his domain. The
MLAs understood Digvijay Singh's compulsions, and mostly fell in
line.

The cracks in the supposed consensus, however, came into the open when
Digvijay Singh, accompanied by Ghulam Nabi Azad and Prabha Rao, went
to meet V.C. Shukla at his residence in Raipur, soon after the
election of Ajit Jogi, to placate him. Shukla's sup porters, who had
gathered in large numbers at his sprawling farmhouse, heckled Digvijay
Singh for "betraying" their leader. Digvijay Singh, who received a few
bouts from the mob, tried to give it back to his attackers before he
and the AICC(I) observers were escorted inside. The incident rattled
Digvijay Singh. V.C. Shukla apologised to Digvijay Singh and the
others for the incident maintaining that although his followers were
angry he believed that outsiders were involved in the attack.

V.C. Shukla told Frontline that Sonia Gandhi's move to impose Ajit
Jogi on the CLP betrayed her lack of "political sense". He claimed
that the new government would not be stable but stated that he would
continue to be in the Congress(I). Shukla la unched the Chhattisgarh
Rajya Sangarsh Morcha last year as a sort of pressure group to demand
statehood and assumed that as the leader of this movement he had a
natural claim to the Chief Minister's post. His detractors in the
party, who included his eld er brother and former Chief Minister
Shyama Charan Shukla, who wanted to become the Chief Minister of
Chhattisgarh himself, however, lost no time to mobilise themselves
against his bid to form the government. He bargained for a ministerial
position for h is son, who is an MLA.

After failing to convince Sonia Gandhi, whom he spoke to before the
crucial CLP meeting, V.C. Shukla tried desperately to stop Ajit Jogi's
ascent to power. He sent feelers to Defence Minister George Fernandes
and Minister of State for Railways Digvijay S ingh who had arrived in
Raipur to witness the formation of the new State, to use their
influence with the Governor to delay the invitation to Ajit Jogi. Soon
the local unit of the BJP got interested in a possible topple game and
sounded out Union Home Mi nister L.K. Advani and Minister of State for
Law Arun Jaitley, who were in Raipur on October 31-November 1.

However, when it became known that V.C. Shukla could not gather the
signatures of the MLAs on his side to be presented to the Governor,
the manoeuvre suffered an irreversible setback. Advani pretended to be
unconcerned with the local BJP unit's efforts t o stop the Congress(I)
from assuming power, but a move to make V.C. Shukla Chief Minister
with the outside support of the BJP was at one stage considered a
possibility, before it was given up in view of the lack of support to
V.C. Shukla within the Congr ess(I). He did not obviously have the one-
third support to effect a legally valid split in the party. Any
attempt to split the Congress(I) on the lines adopted by the BJP in
Uttar Pradesh or Goa was considered too risky. Bereft of any issue,
the BJP is n ow banking on the infighting in the Congress(I) to win
the Assembly elections, which could follow if the Ajit Jogi government
falls. The BJP is presenting the view to the electorate that there is
a larger Christian conspiracy behind Sonia Gandhi's choice of Ajit
Jogi, a Christian, as the Chief Minister.

A heavy agenda awaits Ajit Jogi, who may face considerable challenge
in constituting his Council of Ministers. Tackling the drought
situation in Sarguja and its neighbouring districts, apart from the
Naxalite menace in the southern districts, would prese nt a major test
for his administrative abilities. For the moment, the focus seems to
be on creating a modicum of facilities for the political
representatives in Raipur and in Bilaspur, the seat of the High Court.
The apportionment of services has proved to be a painful exercise,
with several Madhya Pradesh government personnel unwilling to join the
new State cadre.

RAJEEV BHATT
Madhya Pradesh Chief Minister Digvijay Singh.

Chhatisgarh, which comprises 16 districts of the undivided Madhya
Pradesh, contributed 28.58 per cent of the State's revenue. Madhya
Pradesh's expenditure on the region had always been commensurate with
the population share: the population share of the n ew State in the
undivided M.P. was 26.47 per cent, whereas the government expenditure
incurred on the territories constituting the new State was also around
26.03 per cent. The truth is that Chhattisgarh was not only exploited
by the rest of Madhya Prade sh, but by the Centre. Forests and mineral
wealth, which abounds in the region, is under national control
regimes.

One implication of the division of the State is that Chhattisgarh has
a low tax base compared to the rest of Madhya Pradesh. Over 40 per
cent of its income will be from non-tax revenue, such as royalties on
minerals and income from forests. For the rest of Madhya Pradesh, non-
tax revenue will now be 23 per cent.

Volume 17 - Issue 23, Nov. 11 - 24, 2000
India's National Magazine
from the publishers of THE HINDU

http://www.flonnet.com/fl1723/17230320.htm


SPECIAL FEATURE: CHHATTISGARH

A vision for his State

Interview with Chief Minister Ajit Jogi.

Ajit Jogi took charge as the first Chief Minister of Chhattisgarh on
November 1, 2000, when the State was carved out of Madhya Pradesh.
Jogi had left the Indian Administrative Service in 1986 to become a
Congress(I) Member of the Rajya Sabha.

Jogi, who hails from a tribal family, is aware of the tough task ahead
of him in the State. Under his leadership the state, endowed with
abundant natural resources but inhabited by some of the poorest people
of the country, hopes to go forward on the path of development and
progress. The Chief Minister spoke to Kalyan Chaudhuri in Raipur about
his government's development policies. Excerpts:

What are the prospects and potential of Chhattisgarh as a new state?

Chhattisgarh has immense potential. It is a paradox that this is one
of the richest States as far as mineral resources are concerned,but
its people remain among the poorest in the country. In terms of
resources we have no equals. We have deposits of various kinds of
valuable minerals such as coal, iron ore, bauxite, dolomite,
limestone, gold and diamond. We have the richest forests in mainland
India. Our human resource is plentiful. We are power-surplus.
Geographically we are centrally located. These are all advantages that
Nature has given us, and now our government has to utlilise them for
the benefit of the state and its people.

DEPT OF INFORMATION AND PUBLIC RELATIONS, CHHATTISGARH

What is your thrust area for development?

Agriculture. Chhattisgarh is a rice-producing land, and that is why it
is called the 'rice bowl'. Farmers here are not inclined to cultivate
crops other than paddy. We are completely dependent on the rains, as
there is no proper irrigation system in the region. We are self-
sufficient in rice, but at the same time we have to explore the
possibility of cultivating other crops so that farmers are not badly
affected, should there be a crop failure at some point of time.
Efforts are on to change the existing mono-crop pattern and introduce
a multi-crop system. We wish to increase the irrigated land area to at
least 70 per cent from the present 17 per cent. For that purpose, a
comprehensive irrigation policy was framed the day Chhattisgarh came
into existence. The main source of irrigation is canals. We plan to
widen the scope of electrically operated pumps even in the remotest
rural areas. At the same time we have laid emphasis on the quick
completion of irrigation projects that had been taken up by the Madhya
Pradesh government earlier.

Compared to many other States, Chhattisgarh is industrially developed.
What are your plans in this sector?

We have several industrial towns such as Bhilai, Bilaspur and Durg and
public sector undertakings (PSUs) such as the Bhilai Steel Plant. We
have also power projects under the National Thermal Power Corporation
(NTPC). Now we are more interested in getting private investment, and
for that proper infrastructure is needed. No private investor will
come forward unless there are proper roads, electricity, communication
infrastructure and peaceful working conditions. We are determined to
develop high-quality infrastructure to promote trade and industry in
Chhattisgarh and we want to commit all facilities to entrepreneurs and
investors from outside the State. We expect that they will give
preference to our youth in employment opportunities. The industrial
policy of Chhattisgarh is based on an in-depth study of the industrial
policies of the developed States of India. Provision has been made for
special capital subsidy for small- and medium-scale industries.

What are your government's achievements so far?

We have signed three major memorandums of understanding (MoUs) - with
the Jindal group, the Monnet group, and Bhushan Ltd - which are
collectively worth about Rs.5,500 crore. Besides, the National Mineral
Development Corporation has proposed to set up a steel plant in Bastar
district.

Our achievement in the field of higher education has been substantial.
We set up four medical colleges in one year; earlier there was only
one. Similarly, to develop agriculture through modern methods, we have
established three new agriculture colleges. Earlier there was only one
such college. We have opened 28,000 primary schools in rural areas,
particularly in the underdeveloped tribal belts.

Are you satisfied with the kind of help and cooperation that the
Bharatiya Janata Party-led National Democratic Alliance (NDA)
government at the Centre has extended to Chhattisgarh?

I am aware that a State should not be fully dependent on the Centre to
stand up on its own feet. But Chhattisgarh, being a fledgeling State,
is not getting the desired help from the Central government. Whenever
a new capital is formed, as was the case with Chandigarh, the Centre
has always extended financial assistance for its development. But
despite our repeated requests, we have not received any such
assistance for the rebuilding of our capital city of Raipur. Raipur
does not have the infrastructure for a capital. It looks more like a
historical site. For that reason alone, we are looking for an
alternative site for a capital, not far away from Raipur. That will
require a lot of money.

The Centre has not revised the rate of royalty for coal for the past
several years, which it used to do every three years in the natural
course. The Government of India did not revise it for two consecutive
terms - in 1997 and 2000. As a result the State government, which gets
80 per cent of the royalty from this sector alone, incurs heavy
losses.

Your government is concerned with the uplift of the backward and poor
people living in the tribal belt of the State. What measures are you
taking in this regard?

From the outset my government has been trying to serve the poor with
dedication. We are committed to the uplift of the economically
backward people of Chhattisgarh. Fifty per cent of our total
population of two crore belongs to the Scheduled Castes and the
Scheduled Tribes. We have initiated four special schemes for the rural
people, particularly for village women. These are the Indira Gaon
Ganga Yojana, the Indira Sahara Yojana, the Indira Soochna Shakti
Yojana, and the Rajiv Gyanodaya Yojana. These schemes are aimed at,
among other things, the creation of at least one sustainable water
source in every village, freedom from destitution by providing social
security pension to all destitute women from 18 to 50 years of age,
free information technology (IT) education for girl students from poor
families, and the setting up of libraries in every village.

There is a controversy over your tribal identity, which is being used
by the Opposition and also some members of your own party to demand
your resignation.

This is an absolutely false campaign. I very much come from a tribal
family. Jogi is not my surname, it is a title relating to Jogisar, the
place from which my ancestors hail. My great-grandfather fled the
village after he had eloped with a Rajput girl of the same village. My
ancestors later settled in another village called Gorella and
converted to Christianity. But the conversion does not alter my tribal
identity. It is obvious that the controversy has been generated with
political motives. I cannot be bothered with such pettiness.

http://www.flonnet.com/fl1824/18240900.htm

ASSEMBLY ELECTIONS

A test run in Chhattisgarh

PURNIMA S. TRIPATHI
in Raipur

A commendable record in developmental activities and the confusion in
the BJP may help the Ajit Jogi-led Congress(I) government win another
term.

SHAJU JOHN

Chief Minister Ajit Jogi.

BOTH the Bharatiya Janata Party and the Congress(I) describe the
November-December Assembly elections as the "semi-final" for the next
Lok Sabha elections. This is true, more than anywhere else, in
Chhattisgarh, which is going to provide a "test run" for the BJP's
"Indian vs foreigner" political campaign. If the "tribal vs non-
tribal" slogan targeting Chief Minister Ajit Jogi succeeds, the BJP
will have reason to be optimistic about the viability of the other
slogan in the Lok Sabha elections. In the present round of polls,
Chhattisgarh is the only State where Assembly elections are being held
for the first time. The outcome will depend on what influences voters
at large, development or disputes like who is a "fake tribal" and who
is a "genuine tribal".

One thing that strikes a visitor approaching Raipur by air is the
plethora of small and big waterbodies that dot the entire landscape.
Even inside Raipur city, one comes across big and small ponds at
frequent intervals, all brimming with water. It makes one wonder about
the water crisis in Chhattisgarh that one had heard about before.
Inquiries in Raipur reveal that these waterbodies came up in the last
three years, ever since the new State was carved out of Madhya
Pradesh. Symbolically called Jogi Dabris (small ponds), over 60,000
such ponds have come up in the State. Several existing ones have been
repaired. The result is that the State has been rid of its infamous
water shortage.

One anticipates bad roads in Raipur; after all, it was part of Madhya
Pradesh until three years ago, where stories about bad roads abound.
Raipur, though, is a pleasant surprise. Travel even farther from
Raipur, towards Bilaspur, Jaspur, or Jagdalpur, the roads are in good
condition. The figures are revealing. The government used to build or
repair over 1,200 km of road every year before the State was created.
Now 13,000 km of road has either been added or repaired.

Qualitative and quantitative changes are visible on the education
front too. The State had only one agricultural college and no dental
college before its creation, now it boasts 24 and two respectively;
the State had only four universities earlier, now there are seven,
apart from 28 private universities. The State did not have a school
that offered the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE)
curriculum earlier, now it has 108. There were only 382 secondary
schools earlier, now there are 587. Over 100 more higher secondary
schools have been opened in the last three years. While there was only
one medical college earlier, the government has added one more and
also opened six paramedical training institutions.

The government has taken several major initiatives for the advancement
of the agricultural sector. The State is a major producer of rice.
Earlier farmers used to travel 35 to 40 km and pay Rs.20 to Rs.25 a
quintal as transportation charges to reach mandis at their respective
district headquarters. Now societies have been opened for every four
or five villages where the farmers can sell their produce at the
government-fixed prices. They not only save the transportation cost,
but get better prices. There were only 100 mandis earlier, now there
are over 1,500 societies. The government has also trained and
encouraged farmers to go in for cultivation of spices, medicinal
plants, vegetables, fruits and other horticultural items.

SANDEEP SAXENA

Nationalist Congress Party leader Vidya Charan Shukla.

The expenditure on developmental activities has been possible because
the government has drastically cut down on non-developmental
activities. It has closed 52 of the 60 public sector enterprises
(PSEs), reduced the number of government departments from 54 to 18 and
closed several departmental headquarters. The expenditure on the
administrative infrastructure has been reduced from 70 per cent to 32
per cent of the State's revenue, making the money spent on salaries
and so on available for development.

Chief Minister Ajit Jogi is confident of coming back to power. He told
Frontline: "The kind of development that has taken place, people could
not even have imagined earlier. It has been seen, felt and
appreciated. I am fully informed, that is why I know what needs to be
done for the people. We are coming back with an overwhelming
majority." He keeps a close watch on the Ministers too. "I ask nothing
from my Ministers; only performance. I hold them responsible for their
work," he says.

Ajit Jogi has no reason to worry if elections are actually fought and
won on the basis of issues of development. The BJP grudgingly accepts
his contribution to development but adds that a lot of it has been
facilitated because of Central funding. It has been harping on only
one issue - Ajit Jogi's "fake tribal" status. But people's responses
indicate that the issue is fizzling out. "All this is only natural at
the time of elections. It is for those in Delhi to bother about. For
us the only thing that matters is that he is working for the people,"
said one resident of Gurhi village, which falls in the Mandir Hasaud
constituency.

Gurhi is the native village of Union Minister and BJP leader Ramesh
Bais, who is also one of the probable chief ministerial candidates.
His brother Shyam Bais lost three times to the Congress(I)'s
Shyamnarayan Sharma, the State's Higher Education Minister, in the
constituency. Actually, if the Congress(I) has an edge in this
constituency, it is because of Sharma. "Hamarey sukh dukh ka saathi
hai (he is our companion in our sorrow and happiness)," one resident
of Gurhi said about Sharma. The BJP seems to have sensed Sharma's
popularity, for it has replaced Bais with Shobharam Yadav, in the hope
that he will be able to win the support of the substantial Yadav
population there.

One thing that is going in favour of the Congress(I) is the support it
enjoys among the tribal people. The Scheduled Tribes (S.Ts), who
constitute 34 per cent of the State's population, remain steadfastly
committed to the Congress(I), not so much because of Jogi but more
because of Indira Gandhi, who is some sort of a cult figure in the
State. Besides, the S.Ts also value the work done by the Congress(I).
"Kaam sahi hona chahiye (they should work for us). We have been voting
for the Congress(I) for decades. They have done a lot of work for us.
There is no problem here. There is a school, a hospital. People are
happy, nobody is dying of hunger and everyone has work. What more
should we look for," asks Prem Singh Dhruv, a tribal person and the
postmaster of Seerpur village post office. Sudesh Kumar Pulharia of
Mahasamund airs the same sentiment. "The Congress(I) has given us our
livelihoods. Why should they not be re-elected," he asks. Sudesh works
as a casual labourer and is satisfied with the performance of the Jogi
government.

The Scheduled Castes (S.Cs), which constitute 14 per cent of the
State's population, also largely favour the Congress(I). "Jogi ko bane
rehna chahiye (Jogi should continue as Chief Minister). Ever since he
has come, some work or other has been going on," says Mangaldas
Gaekwad, who belongs to an S.C. community.

Another factor that seems to help the Congress(I) is the strong
leadership it has at various levels in the State. For example, take
Mahasamund, which is represented by Shyam Charan Shukla in the Lok
Sabha. Shukla has a good image and has initiated and overseen a lot of
developmental work in the area. Apparently, Congress(I) candidates
contesting in Assembly constituencies that form part of the Mahasamund
Lok Sabha constituency would have an edge over the BJP candidates. In
the Rajim Assembly constituency, the Congress(I) candidate, Amitesh
Shukla, S.C. Shukla's son, seems to be way ahead of his BJP rival
Chandulal Sahu. "Here nobody else, but Amitesh Shukla can win," says
Sadhoram Sahu, a tailor. According to him and others like Parsu Ram, a
kabadiwala, Balram Sen, a barber, and Pradip Shukla, a schoolteacher,
the work done by Amitesh Shukla should see him through. "It is a
walkover for Amitesh Shukla," says Pradip Shukla.

A.M. FARUQUI

BJP Legislature Party leader Nand Kumar Sai.

THE BJP, on the other hand, has no credible leadership in the State.
This is the reason why the party has not yet announced its chief
ministerial candidate, and this seems to be weighing the party down.
Even those who do not want Jogi to return to power and want to vote
for the BJP are confused because they do not know who would become the
Chief Minister. According to Ratan Lal, a farmer from Parsada village
in Mahasamund, a staunch BJP supporter, Jogi should be removed. But
what baffles him is the fact that there is no guarantee that the one
who replaces him will be better. "Not projecting their candidate is
going to damage the BJP," says Ratan Lal.

However, the BJP leadership is still not able to see the ground
reality. "The leadership issue will be decided within 24 hours [after
the elections]. The MLAs and the Central leaders will decide. It [not
projecting a chief ministerial candidate] was done as part of a
strategy and the result is that there is no infighting, the party is
united, and there is collective campaigning," says State BJP president
Dr. Raman Singh, himself an aspirant for the top post.

The state of confusion in the BJP is evident from the fact that BJP
Legislature Party leader Nand Kumar Sai, who had already filed his
nomination from Tapkara, was asked to contest against Jogi in the
Marwahi constituency. Sai lost to Jogi in the Raigarh Lok Sabha
constituency in 1989 by a margin of over 5,000 votes. Moreover,
Marwahi, from where Jogi contested his first Assembly election after
becoming Chief Minister, was vacated by a BJP MLA in his favour. He
won the seat by a margin of over 50,000 votes against the BJP's Amar
Singh Khusro. Interestingly, Sai's daughter Priyam and her husband had
joined the Congress(I) with great fanfare when the BJP National
Executive meeting was held in Raipur in July.

One factor that could have damaged the Congress(I)'s prospects to some
extent - the presence in the fray of the Nationalist Congress Party
(NCP), which got a boost with Congress(I) leader V.C. Shukla joining
it - has also fizzled out. The NCP is only a marginal player and has
not many supporters even in areas that were once supposed to be
strongholds of Vidya Charan Shukla. Apparently, the people of
Mahasamund, whom Shukla represented seven times in the Lok Sabha, too
have turned against him. "What has Vidya Charan Shukla done for
Chhattisgarh? In fact, he was always opposed to the creation of the
State. He got votes because of the Congress(I)," say Shitla Prasad,
who describes himself as a "Congressi by birth", in Mahasamund. The
Congress(I), realising the mood of the people, has gathered enough
ammunition to attack V.C. Shukla. It has collected all his speeches
and statements against the demand for a separate State and is giving
them wide publicity. "The NCP will not cross double digit," says
Congress(I) spokesperson Shailen Nitin Trivedi.

The BJP, however, seems to be hoping that V.C. Shukla would cut into
Congress(I) votes and ultimately pave the way for a hung Assembly. In
this eventuality, the BJP is banking on support from the NCP because
of Shukla's ambition to become the Chief Minister. In fact, party
insiders disclosed that this was one reason why the party had not
declared its chief ministerial candidate. In case NCP support is
required, V.C. Shukla might press for the post and will have to be
obliged, a la Mayawati.

Volume 20 - Issue 24, November 22 - December 05, 2003
India's National Magazine
from the publishers of THE HINDU

http://www.flonnet.com/fl2024/stories/20031205003702700.htm

bademiyansubhanallah

unread,
Feb 8, 2010, 6:31:08 PM2/8/10
to
THE STATES

A political celebration

The Bharatiya Janata Party government in Uttaranchal celebrates the
State's first birth anniversary with a hail of election promises.

PURNIMA S. TRIPATHI
in Dehra Dun

ALTHOUGH with an unimpressive track record, the Bharatiya Janata Party
government in Uttaranchal began its second year in office with
fanfare. The party converted the first anniversary celebration of the
nascent State on November 9 into a platform to launch its election
campaign. At a "star-studded" show, which was attended by, among
others, Union Home Minister L.K. Advani and Human Resource Development
Minister Murli Manohar Joshi, the new Chief Minister, Bhagat Singh
Koshiyari, made announcements aimed at pleasing different sections of
society.

The Chief Minister promised to provide jobs for 15,000 engineering
diploma holders and those trained at industrial training institutes in
the next two months. His predecessor Nityanand Swamy had announced a
plan to create 18,000 new jobs while taking over as Chief Minister on
November 8 last year, but nothing much was done to fulfil this
promise. A major reason why there is no fresh recruitment is that
government servants who had opted for the Uttar Pradesh cadre still
continue in Uttaranchal. Koshiyari does not seem to be deterred by
such constraints.

Keeping in mind the fact that the State has a large number of people
who were with the armed services, Koshiyari announced the setting up
of a soldiers' welfare board and an increase in the pension for women
who lost their husbands in the Second World War from Rs.250 to Rs.500
a month. Besides, he increased the freedom fighters' pension from Rs.
2,250 a month to Rs.3,016. With a view to appeasing the politically
strong farmers' lobby, he announced that the limit for the kisan
credit card will be increased from Rs.45,000 to Rs.1 lakh. Paying
tribute to women, who contributed to the creation of the new State, he
announced the creation of 4,500 new jobs for them in anganwadis under
the Integrated Child Development Scheme and free computer education
for girls in schools.

For the people of Uttaranchal, who were reeling under power shortage,
he promised uninterrupted power supply for 20 hours in a day. Given
that there has been no addition to the power supply position in the
last one year, it is not clear how the Chief Minister will fulfil this
promise. It will take a minimum of two years to complete the on-going
hydel power projects at Tehri and Maneri Bhali.

These promises have the potential to influence voters, but an
objective assessment of the government's performance in the past year
raises doubts about their fulfilment. Similar promises made by
Nityanand Swamy remain on paper. Nor was there any blueprint for the
State's development, which the previous Chief Minister said was high
on his priority list. When Uttaranchal was created, there was talk of
making tourism the mainstay of its economy. But no fresh investment
has taken place in the tourism sector.

ON the political front, the BJP continues to be riven by infighting.
Nityanand Swamy's appointment itself was resented by partymen who saw
him as an "outsider". All along there had been a demand for his
removal. His age and failing health only strengthened the demand. In
the past one month he was summoned to Delhi three times. On the first
two occasions he came back with an assurance from the central
leadership that he would be allowed to continue in office until
November 9. But on the third occasion, on October 26, the leadership
asked him to quit. In these circumstances, the outgoing Chief Minister
could not achieve much. In a fit of anger he even admitted once that
he never got the party's cooperation. His government's achievements
were moderate: it opened 14 degree colleges, provided drinking water
to 550 of over 10,000 villages in the State, and gave road links to
550 villages. The much-hyped promise of getting the "special State"
status for Uttaranchal also did not materialise.

While admitting the government's failure to deliver, Koshiyari said
that its one achievement was to have moved closer to the people.
"Lucknow was too far off. This government is more accessible; this is
the people's own government. This is our main achievement," he said.

The process of delimitation of constituencies in the State is complete
and the first-ever elections to the Assembly is expected to be held in
February. In normal circumstances the BJP, which has a two-thirds
majority in the Assembly, should have no cause for worry. But its poor
performance in government appears to have spoilt its chances and paved
the way for the return of the Congress. The general disenchantment
with the BJP-led government and the absence of any other major party
in the arena have made it easier for the Congress to emerge as an
alternative after a gap of a decade. Another factor that has helped
the Congress is the general perception that the region developed when
Congress leader N.D. Tiwari was the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh.
State Congress president Harish Rawat, a Rajput, is believed to have a
strong hold over his community. Rajputs form an overwhelming majority
of the voters in Uttaranchal. This is one reason why the BJP chose
Koshiyari as its Chief Minister in an election year. Besides being a
Rajput, Koshiyari has the image of being a "people's man".

With the BJP blowing the bugle for the battle, the political situation
is hotting up in Uttaranchal. The Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) is trying
to gain a foothold among the tribal population. Its vice-president
Mayawati has already toured the State to gauge the people's mood. The
Left parties are keen to have an alliance with the regional parties,
which have mushroomed with a view to cashing in on the hostility of
the local people towards those from the plains. Among them, only the
Uttarakhand Kranti Dal (UKD) enjoys some credibility because it had
consistently demanded a separate State for the hill people. The UKD
might succeed in capitalising on the general sense of frustration
among the people. If the Left parties, along with Samajwadi Party,
which has a marginal presence in Uttaranchal, forge an alliance with
the UKD, it would queer the pitch for the BJP.

Volume 18 - Issue 24, Nov. 24 - Dec. 07, 2001


India's National Magazine
from the publishers of THE HINDU

http://www.flonnet.com/fl1824/18240530.htm

WATER RESOURCES

Resisting a dam project

ANNIE ZAIDI
in Kurkut

An agitation in Chhattisgarh against the construction of a dam on the
Kurkut river by Jindal Steel is representative of many such popular
struggles going on across the country.

ANNIE ZAIDI

The partly constructed embankment across the Kurkut river, near Rabo
in Chhattisgarh.

IN Chhattisgarh's Raigarh district, a pitched battle is being fought
across the river Kurkut over the construction of a dam. The might of
the administration and the government machinery combined with the
money and influence of a big industrial group is pitted against the
anger and resistance of the local populace. Though neither side has
won, the status quo is in place for the present.

The scene of conflict is Rabo, a village near Kurkut, where Jindal
Steel and Power Limited (JSPL) proposes to build a dam for a 1,000
megawatt (MW) hydel power project. The dam will cater to the power
needs of the company in Raigarh district. A move to dam the river in
October 2004was thwarted by the villagers with the help of a non-
governmental organisation (NGO) called Lok Shakti.

There have been a series of demonstrations since August 2004, but the
high point of the agitation came on January 29 this year, when nearly
15,000 people took part in a demonstration at Raigarh. Earlier, on
January 4, a public hearing had turned violent, with the District
Collector being roughed up by angry tribal women.

What agitates the villagers is the fact that the proposal suggested
that the company would own the dam and therefore, indirectly, the
river as well. Rajesh Tripathi, an activist with Lok Shakti, said:
"The Jindals are trying to assume control of all the local natural
resources. The land, the coal mines, and now the water. Trees are
being cut indiscriminately. We estimate that no less than 40,000 trees
have been destroyed. The Environment Ministry has not cleared the
power project, except in principle."

A mud embankment has been built more than half-way across the river
but the contractors' machinery is lying idle now as the villagers do
not allow work to progress; they have threatened to set fire to the
machinery if the construction is taken up.

Ramesh Agarwal, another Lok Shakti activist, explained: "There is no
transparency. The State government has not clarified what purpose the
dam will serve and whether it will irrigate tribal lands. At public
hearings, they don't let the poor people see the relevant documents.
The villagers don't want to vacate their lands to convenience
industrialists. Also, environmental pollution is a big issue here.
There is black fly dust, emanating from the Jindal plant, in the grain
and the vegetables grown in the fields. Nobody wants industrial
expansion here."

Rakesh Jindal, vice-president, JSPL, said that the agitation was
uncalled for. "We shall not be owning the dam. But we are expanding
and we shall need more power. Besides, nobody is getting displaced. In
fact they will all be adequately compensated for the takeover of the
land. Near the dam, we propose to create a tourist spot in a five-acre
area. It is all in the interest of the development of the region."

According to District Collector R.S. Vishwakarma, in the case of the
dam projects, the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. "Since 1995,
the need to build a dam here was felt, but the government did not have
the funds for such a big project. The Jindals offered to build it
instead. The State Pollution Board is checking the project's
viability. What is guaranteed is that no villages will be submerged
and hence there will be no issue of rehabilitation," he said.

The claim is strongly refuted by local activists. They believe that
355 hectares of forest land and 1,000 ha of agricultural land will be
swallowed up by the project and that 6,000 families from 15 villages
will be affected. The dam is estimated to be 1,729 metres long and
18.5 m high.

The State Water Resource Ministry has issued a notice saying that the
dam water will be owned by the State and that the profits will be used
in the development of the surrounding region. It also claims that the
residents will not be affected by the dam, and that groundwater levels
will rise and villagers will have a perennial source of water supply.

It also promises that those affected will be encouraged to form a
fishing cooperative so that they can take up a new source of
livelihood. The notice even promises that those rendered landless by
the project will be provided barren land and help to make it
cultivable.

But in a letter to the Chief Secretary, Chhattisgarh, the District
Collector noted: "According to the conditions laid down at the time,
the dam would be owned by Jindal Steel and Power Ltd, who would
construct it. Only the technical support and operational control would
remain with the Water Resource Ministry." The letter further stated
that the company had already bought land from the villagers and begun
work. "The company has offered to pay Rs.20,000 for acquiring
irrigated land. 261 families' lands will be submerged, and the
compensation offered is very low. Rs.50 crores (as quoted in the 1996
proposal) will not be sufficient. At least Rs.300 crores will be
required." He recommended that one member of each family affected by
the dam should get a permanent job with Jindal Steel and that this
should be set down as a precondition in the project proposal.

Vishwakarma admits in the letter that JSPL did not wait to obtain all
the necessary clearances from the Government of India and the
Environment Ministry. He concludes by saying that the whole proposal
needs to be re-evaluated, that the dam needs to be State-owned, and
that the water left over after meeting industrial needs should be
released for irrigation.

Officials in the local administration point out that JSPL plans to
invest Rs.7,000 crores in industries in Chhattisgarh; of this, about
Rs.4,500 crores has already been invested in a thermal power plant.
Hence it needs to build the dam at any cost, they aver.

Medha Patkar, who has been agitating against big dams in Madhya
Pradesh for years now, explained that the administration's attitude to
dams had been a defensive one earlier, but now it is turning
aggressive. "All these decisions (to build dams) are contractual
decisions, not rational or scientific ones. The monitoring agencies
are not working. The poor are left to face mighty political forces and
private parties, who use their money power and, increasingly, their
muscle power. Our experience - from Enron to Jindal - proves that. The
environment impact assessment is also done in a partisan manner, which
is pro-corporates and anti-people."

THERE are many similar protests against dams going on across the
country. Fear of displacement, in the absence of concrete plans for
rehabilitation, is pushing people to protest against dam projects at
Rabo and elsewhere.

Himanshu Thakkar of the South-Asian Network on Dams, Rivers and People
says: "There are agitations against projects on the Tipai in Manipur,
at Athirapalli on the Chalakudy river in Kerala, on the Narmada, at
Tehri in Uttaranchal, at Karcham-Wangtoo on the Sutlej river in
Himachal Pradesh, on the Sonbhadra in Orissa, on the Koel-Karo in
Jharkhand, on the Teesta in West Bengal, at Polavaram on the Godavari
river in Andhra Pradesh, at Uchhangi in Maharashtra and so on. Most of
these agitations are very localised, and are small and uphill
struggles. As per Government of India and World Bank data, about 4.3
million people have been displaced because of large projects. The
problem is aggravated because the administration is non-participative,
non-transparent and non-accountable."

He adds: "We must realise that dams are not an end by themselves. The
needs of society are sacrosanct. The projects are not. In the case of
Kurkut, we must look at the needs of the people and prioritise. Then,
the decision would have socio-political acceptance."

Volume 22 - Issue 09, Apr. 23 - May. 06, 2005


India's National Magazine
from the publishers of THE HINDU

http://www.flonnet.com/fl2209/stories/20050506001503800.htm

THE STATES

People's war

PURNIMA S. TRIPATHI
in Dantewada

Even as people are killed by naxalites, a popular movement against
them is gaining momentum in parts of Chhattisgarh.

AKHILESH KUMAR

Tribal villagers searching for Maoist rebels in Dantewada.

CHHATTISGARH is witnessing an unprecedented and unique mobilisation of
people against naxalite violence. Called Salwa Judum (people's
movement), it was initiated in late 2004 and has armed villagers
roaming the jungles and patrolling the roads in search of naxalites
and guarding potential targets of attack. Sometimes security personnel
accompany Salwa Judum members, but mostly they are on their own. The
level of popular support is evident from the fact that the movement is
backed by both the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party and the Opposition
Congress - it is led by Congress Legislature Party leader Mahendra
Karma.

An increasing number of people are associating themselves with Salwa
Judum despite the threat of naxalite retaliation and the fact that
once they become activists they have to leave their villages and stay
in relief camps. Entire villages are being vacated because even family
members of activists do not feel safe there and prefer to shift to
these camps.

The exodus began after the killing of 29 villagers in a mine explosion
on February 28 near Konta village in Dantewada district. The villagers
were returning from a Salwa Judum camp at nearby Dornapal. According
to survivors, while 10 to 12 villagers were killed in the blast, the
rest were killed with swords by the naxalites. More than 50 people
sustained injuries in the attack. After the attack, the naxalites
abducted a villager. His body was later recovered from Inzerram near
Konta on March 4, with a letter attached to his shirt. The letter
warned the villagers against participating in Salwa Judum and ordered
them to return to their houses.

The incident spread panic among villagers and so far over 50,000 have
fled their homes and are living in camps in Dantewada district and
adjoining Bijapur district. Senior police officers and even Chief
Minister Raman Singh admit that naxalite violence has increased after
Salwa Judum started operations, but adds there is no other way out to
fight the extremists. Raman Singh said: "The ultras drew their
strength from the people. If we have to tackle this problem, the
villagers themselves have to rise against them. We will try our best
to provide them security but this is our ultimate weapon to fight them
after all else has failed." Besides, Raman Singh said, if the people,
fed up with violence over the past 15 years, now had realised that
they were on the wrong side of the fence, it was a good signal. "If we
lose this opportunity to root out naxalism, we will never get
another," he said.

Mahendra Karma agrees. He said: "There is no other way to tackle the
naxalite menace. I do not care what my critics say. This is a people's
problem and being a people's representative, I have to fight for their
problems." He was alluding to criticism within his own party. The
Congress, as usual, is divided on the issue. Some of its State leaders
have held the Chief Minister responsible for the death of many
villagers in naxalite violence.

Importantly, the villagers who are part of Salwa Judum are not scared.
Instead, they are full of hope that the movement will pave the way for
a peaceful future for their children even if they lose their lives in
the process. This correspondent visited three camps - Dornapal where
5,600 tribal people from 26 adjoining villages are staying; Errabore,
where over 1,000 people have taken shelter; and Konta, where over
15,000 villagers are staying. During an extensive interaction, not
even one villager said he or she was afraid of naxalites. In fact,
they have become so used to violence that the fear factor does not
matter now.

"Earlier too we were getting killed by naxalites. Now at least we have
the consolation that we will die fighting," said Shyam Singh Sinna of
Dubbatota village at the Dornapal relief camp. Sinna, who left behind
his wife and three children to join Salwa Judum, said what motivated
him was the hope that it would lead to peace in the area and a better
future for his children. "Even if I get killed, my children will be
safer and better off," he said. Hinga Tollai, Kutturam Deva Tatrai and
Soyam Mokka expressed similar feelings. Tollai and Tatrai said they
had been members of a dalam (the core group of naxalites) and had
participated in some killings but got fed up with violence and now
wanted to lead a peaceful life.

Interestingly, there were many girls too who wanted to join Salwa
Judum and had come to Dornapal. Soryam Raje, like Tollai and Tatrai,
was a dalam member and used to go around with Maoists singing
revolutionary songs. She too wanted to get back to normal life and
hence was in Salwa Judum. Similarly, other girls such as Madkam Adme,
Kottam Chinge and Kottam Lachchi, all in their teens, had fled the
dalam to join Salwa Judum. For all of them, it was the only hope of
coming back to a peaceful and normal life. At Konta camp too, people
had similar stories to tell.

Apparently, the naxalites have been rattled by the growing number of
villagers associating themselves with Salwa Judum. This is reflected
in the sudden spurt in attacks. On March 4, naxalites blew up a
portion of the Bhansi railway station in Dantewada district and
attacked a railway engine. It was the first such attack on railway
property. "This obviously shows their desperation," said the Chief
Minister. They also attacked villagers near Bansagudda in the early
morning on March 5, killing eight people and injuring over 40. The
naxalites took 15 hostages, whose whereabouts are not yet known.
Pamphlets warning villagers against participating in Salwa Judum were
recovered from all the sites of attack. Even human rights groups such
as the People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) admit that the spurt
in attacks shows the naxalites' desperation to assert their supremacy.
"These senseless killings are unfortunate and must stop and both sides
should sit down to talk and find a way to peace," said Vinayak Sen, a
PUCL activist in Raipur.

Raman Singh, however, remains convinced that Salwa Judum is the only
way in which the naxalite problem can be solved. He has a
rehabilitation package for those participating in Salwa Judum. "I have
70,000 land pattas ready to give them the moment the Centre passes the
Tribal Land Rights Bill. Besides, I can give them employment for 250
to 300 days a year with help from various government schemes. Then
there are other welfare packages. In three years, if I keep getting
people's support, I will change the face of Bastar," he says. For the
moment, he said, able-bodied members of Salwa Judum would be given
arms training and employed as special police officers on a salary of
Rs.1,500 a month. The rest would be employed as labourers. Raman Singh
said that while about 1,000 pucca houses were ready for those
displaced, over 2,000 more would be built in a few months so that
these people can be relocated in groups at one place.

Counter-insurgency experts agree that policing or military action
alone cannot solve the naxalite problem. No matter how effective such
action is, it will have to be accompanied by socio-economic
development. "This has to be a militarily, politically,
administratively, economically and psychologically synchronised
action," said Brigadier (retd) B.K. Ponwar, who has been brought in to
set up a counter-terrorism and jungle warfare college at Kanker in
Chhattisgarh, on the lines of the Grey Hound Academy in Andhra
Pradesh.

According to Ponwar, Salwa Judum is an exceptionally good idea because
when people turn against naxalites, their main support base is eroded.
Then it would become easier for the police to tackle it. "I'm here to
teach the policeman to fight the guerilla like a guerilla," he said.

He has already trained 600 Chhattisgarh policemen and 600 others from
Orissa and Jharkhand, the two other States that face the naxalite
problem.

Volume 23 - Issue 05 :: Mar. 11 - 24, 2006
INDIA'S NATIONAL MAGAZINE


from the publishers of THE HINDU

http://www.flonnet.com/fl2305/stories/20060324007613300.htm

bademiyansubhanallah

unread,
Feb 8, 2010, 6:35:22 PM2/8/10
to
COVER STORY

Private water, public misery

Privatisation of water is taking root in India, often aided by
political and bureaucratic corruption. Alongside, resistance to this
is also building up.

AKHILESH KUMAR

THE BARRAGE ON the Sheonath river, built by Radius Water Limited, has
left the stretch after it with little water.

Sheonath's sorrow

By Aman Sethi in Durg, Chhattisgarh

THE Sheonath River Project is turning out to be Chhattisgarh's worst
inheritance from undivided Madhya Pradesh. The project, India's first
river privatisation experiment, was handed over to Radius Water
Limited (RWL) by the Madhya Pradesh government, pleading a lack of
sufficient funds.

The Rs.9-crore project was formalised on October 5, 1998, between
Madhya Pradesh Audyogik Kendra Vikas Nigam (MPAKVN) and RWL on a
build, own, operate and transfer (BOOT) basis for the construction of
a barrage on the Sheonath to supply up to 30 million litres of water
per day (MLD) to the Borai Industrial Growth Centre in Durg district.
The barrage construction was completed in two years and operations
began in January 2001.

"We got to know about the privatisation of the river only when RWL
began harassing villagers near the river and held self-laudatory press
conferences in Delhi," says Lalit Surjan, Editor of Deshbandhu, a
local newspaper. "We then began an investigation and were shocked by
the findings."

The agreement, which was inherited by the Chhattisgarh State
Industrial Corporation (CSIDC) when the State was carved out of Madhya
Pradesh in 2000, categorically gave RWL exclusive access to a 23.6-
kilometre stretch of the river for a period of 22 years (including two
years for project construction). RWL secured monopoly rights over the
supply of water to all sectors and phases of the Borai Industrial
Centre, and the CSIDC was obliged to provide all land for the project
free of cost. The CSIDC was expected to purchase water from RWL and
sell it to the industrial units in Borai.

The contract states: "It is clearly understood by both parties that
the Project Company has nothing to do with the actual users of the
water, i.e. various Industries/Units/Companies ... ." The contract
further required a "minimum guaranteed purchase of 4 MLD water
quantity by the Corporation... in case the demand reduces below 4 MLD,
the payable bill shall be for 4 MLD from the applicable first tier of
tariff." Early termination of the agreement was possible only by
"reimbursing all outstanding loans and credits of the Project
[estimated at a minimum of Rs.6.5 crores] ... [and] by compensating
the likely profit that the project company is expected to earn in the
balance concession period." The exit penalty could be as high as Rs.
400 crores.

Thus, for the last five years, the corporation has been trying to
ensure the profitability of RWL irrespective of its own losses.

"It is true that the Sheonath River Project is a loss-making
enterprise for the Chhattisgarh government," admits CSIDC Chairman
Rajinderpal Singh Bhatia.

A major problem is the lack of sufficient demand. Borai has only two
large and medium-scale industries, and their combined water
requirements is between 1 and 1.5 MLD - while the CSIDC pays for 4 MLD
as per the contract.

The government claims to be pushing hard to attract more industry, but
that, paradoxically, might force the CSIDC deeper into debt. "We
purchase the water at Rs.15.02 a kilolitre (1,000 litres). However, we
sell it to industry at only Rs.12 a kilolitre," explains a senior
official in the Accounts Department of the CSIDC. Thus, the CSIDC
makes a loss of 20 per cent on every unit of water sold, and an
increase in demand will simply mean increased losses. To make matters
worse, Hindustan Electro Graphite (HEG), which buys 90 per cent of the
CSIDC's total water sales, has refused to pay its dues.

"HEG is a special case," remarks the official. HEG was required to buy
a minimum of 3.6 MLD and pay for 90 per cent of the agreed amount in
case it did not require the entire amount. But HEG reneged on its
contract; moreover, it filed a case against the government in the
Chhattisgarh High Court. The court, which has issued a stay order,
directed HEG to pay at half the agreed amount - that is, at Rs.6 a
kilolitre!

In March alone, the Chhattisgarh government suffered a loss of Rs.12
lakhs. "You could say we have lost Rs.6 crores in the last five
years," concludes the official.

The Sheonath River Project illustrates the tremendous risks involved
in the privatisation of common property resources, especially water.
Apart from the ethical issues involved, the high installation cost of
water infrastructure and the relatively low price of water per unit
make it unviable for private capital. Companies like RWL can only
succeed in markets heavily distorted in their favour, where a
compliant state offers them the luxuries of perfect monopoly, minimum
purchase guarantees, tax holidays, generous exit clauses and complete
protection from people's protests.

Unfortunately, the Sheonath project is not the only such project in
Chhattisgarh. In a working paper on Chhattisgarh's water sector,
environmental activist Gautam Bandhopadhyay lists four other projects
- on the Kelo and Khurkutt rivers in Raigarh, on the Mand in Jagjir,
on the Kharoon in Raipur, and the Savri in Dantewada - where water
rights to rivers have been handed over to private consortia on the
pretext of attracting industry to the State. As with the Sheonath, the
terms of the agreement are being jealously guarded.

While the people of Durg fight to regain their rights to a river that
has sustained them for generations, the Government of Chhattisgarh
finds itself financing a private water supplier and subsidising a
private water consumer on the basis of an agreement that it never
signed.

Flawed policy

By Prafulla Das in Bhubaneswar

ASHOKE CHAKRABARTY

A dried-up canal of the Panasjhar minor irrigation project in Khurda
district in Orissa.

ORISSA has 4 per cent of India's population, but possesses 11 per cent
of the country's water resources. Yet, water is scarce in the State
and the situation does not seem set to improve, with a growing
population, rising demands in agriculture and industry and the absence
of a comprehensive water policy.

Chief Minister Naveen Patnaik recently made an ambitious announcement
that irrigation facilities would be provided for at least 35 per cent
of the cultivable land in all blocks of the State in the next five
years. An official report reveals that irrigation coverage extends to
less than 35 per cent of the cultivable land in about 200 blocks.
Patnaik's promise to reverse this in five years has few takers.

It is the absence of a comprehensive water policy that seems to be in
the way of any improvement in the situation. The State formulated a
water policy in 1994, based on the national water policy of 1987. When
a revised national water policy was adopted in 2002, Orissa decided to
review and update its own policy. The process of working it out is
still on. "The revised draft policy was submitted to the State
government a few months ago by the Water Resource Department. A few
changes have been suggested. We are working on the new policy again
and it will be submitted soon," U.P. Singh, Secretary of the Water
Resource Department, told Frontline.

Some voluntary organisations have alleged that the State government is
planning to treat water as a tradable commodity and that the new
policy would allow private participation in water management. U.P.
Singh said the allegations were "baseless". "Water will continue to be
treated as a valuable natural resource and there is nothing in it to
conclude that water is being privatised," he said.

However, the final draft of the State Water Plan, drawn up by the
Orissa Water Planning Organisation in September 2004, advocates
privatisation of water. "The Government of Orissa, in particular, has
very limited budgetary resources and cannot find money for new
development. There are not even any funds for maintenance of already
existing works. Thus, the water service sector is in an unsatisfactory
state," the draft says.

The latest report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General also points
to the losses suffered by the major and medium irrigation projects of
Orissa. In 2003-04, the 52 major and medium irrigation projects
incurred a loss of Rs.193.66 crores. Six of 11 major irrigation
projects incurred losses of above Rs.10 crores each.

The State Water Plan says that the answer to the problem lies in
seeking private participation in the development and management of
water resources. However, it also sounds a word of caution, saying
that private participation in all spheres of water management would
not be wise. "Only surplus water should be allowed to be exploited
commercially and only for production of commercial goods," it
suggests.

The Plan also floats the idea of introducing volumetric pricing of
water. "A gradual changeover is recommended - the sooner, the better.
Immediately, the micro systems may be converted to the volumetric
system. Supply to pani panchayats [water users' associations] may be
made on volumetric basis," it says.

All this seems to indicate there is some truth in the allegation that
the government's much-hyped pani panchayat scheme is a veiled attempt
to privatise water in the name of farmers' participation in irrigation
management.

The government aims to hand over all irrigation projects to pani
panchayats in a phased manner, under the scheme started in 2002. So
far, 8.01 lakh hectares of land has been handed over to the 13,284
pani panchayats registered under the Registration of Societies Act,
1860.

The government claims that this participatory irrigation management
programme allows farmers to take decisions regarding the distribution
and management of water resources in irrigated farmlands. In reality,
the programme seems to have created a divide between big farmers on
the one hand and small farmers and landless peasants on the other.
With the virtual withdrawal of the state from the scene, big farmers
exercise more influence.

Landless peasants are not even able to become members of the pani
panchayats. "The rich families of our village, who own vast areas of
agricultural land, run the pani panchayat. We are just cultivating
their land and paying them 50 per cent of the paddy we produce during
the kharif season and 25 per cent of the produce during the rabi
season," said Musa Badhai, a tribal farmer of Nuapada village of
Khurda district who has no land of his own. The Panasjhar minor
irrigation project in his village is now being managed by a pani
panchayat.

The Orissa government plans to develop 11 river basins, with help from
international banks. But the State is not prepared to meet the serious
deficit that is bound to arise with growth. A government survey shows
that the demand for water will rise from 54,895 million cubic metres
(mcum) in 2001 to 83,538 mcum in 2050, a rise of 52 per cent against
the total water availability of 91,000 mcum, which will remain
unchanged. The study was made in 2004, and the actual demand in 2050
could be far higher because there are many industrial projects that
were not taken into account in 2004.

Experts say that the 50-odd steel and aluminium units planned so far
are expected to consume a huge volume of water. But the authorities
insist that this increased demand will not affect the supply of water
for drinking and domestic use.

Public money worth crores has been pumped into irrigation projects,
but the State has not been able to manage its water resources
efficiently. International aid agencies and foreign banks are now keen
to give loans for the management of water. But with water management
slowly falling into private hands, it remains to be seen how much the
people benefit.

Fiasco in Delhi

By Aman Sethi

In New Delhi, families queue up for water, which has become scarce
owing to the non-commissioning of the Sonia Vihar water treatment
plant. A file picture.

"PRIVATISATION makes a team. The people are on the team, working in
new jobs and buying shares in their own future. Investors are on
theteam, risking everything they own and betting that we can
succeed.Government is on the team, the referee who keeps everything
fair, the old man we can trust."

While the lyrics from Ubinafsishaj (privatisation) - a Tanzanian pop
song produced by ,the Adam Smith International, (an international
development consultancy group), spear-headed a World Bank funded
privatisation agenda in Tanzania, theirthe citizens of Delhi were left
to find their own tunes. No agency - neither government nor private,
thought it necessary to inform them of a proposal to privatize the
city's water distribution. The truth behind the "Delhi Water Supply
and Sewage Project", better known as the 24X7 Project, only emerged as
a corollary to intense public scrutiny of the Sonia Vihar Water
Treatment Plant.

The summer of 2005 was a watershed period for privatization
experiments in the national capital. The intense heat and the failure
of the Delhi Government to supply both - electricity and water, in
sufficient amounts, made for a rather agitated citizenry. The
privatisation of power distribution had failed to live up to
expectations and a shortage of raw water had meant that, in spite of
its early completion, the Sonia Vihar Water Treatment Plant was
dysfunctional. The period saw members of residential colonies stop
traffic, stage dharnas and call for the dismissal of the Government on
basis of its failure to provide basic infrastructural services.

Victims of repeated hikes in electricity tariffs, post-privatisation,
without an accompanying increase in quality, Delhi's citizens had
finally woken up to the fact that monopolistic private operators were
as inefficient as public operators - at twice the price. Thus, the
public was understandably wary of any further "sectoral reforms".

Built at an inflated cost of Rs 880 crore - a figure that invited a-
investigation - the Sonia Vihar WTP was designed to process
approximately 140 million gallons per day (MGD); a lion's share of
which was allocated to zones to S-II and S-III in South Delhi, where a
pilot privatisation project had been initiated. While the plant itself
did not lie in the ambit of the privatisation project, it's role in
supplying the water made it crucial to the success of the project.
Eventually, news of the privatization only emerged when Parivartan, an
NGO working on transparency and infrastructure, filed under the Right
to Information Act on the basis of a report in a national daily.

The privatisation of Delhi's water supply was scheduled to follow the
well-trodden path of "unbundling", where the first step would have
involved the disaggregation of the Delhi Jal Board into a number of
smaller entities individually charged with tasks like water treatment,
supply and distribution. Once unbundled, the tasks of water treatment
and supply to localized operating zones was to be held by publicly-
owned companies, while the distribution of water within these
operating zones was to be handed over to "experienced private
operators." Each private operator was to be held responsible for
supplying water to an assigned zone 24 hours a day, seven days a
week.

While the contract incorporated significant escape clauses for the
private operators, it held the Jal Board responsible for a continuous
supply of water to the mouth of each localized operating zones. While
World Bank literature suggests that pressure-controlled water supply
within a localized operating zone is a complex and technical process -
essential for proper metering and leak detection, DJB officials
privately admitted that local distribution was the easiest of
processes and that most leakages in the system occurred outside
localized operating zones. The contract further called for a
"rationalization of prices" and a gradual move towards "full cost
recovery"- euphemisms for steep increases in user tariffs.

Parivartan also alleged that the World Bank had micro-managed the
consultancy tendering process to the point of outright favouring of
Price Waterhouse Coopers - an accusation that the World Bank denied.

Parivartan's findings were soon made public, and sustained media
coverage and citizen pressure resulted in furious back-peddling on the
part of the state government, the Delhi Jal Board, and the World Bank.
In a public statement, Michael Carter, India Country Director, World
Bank, stated, "Neither under the proposed project nor in any advisory
work is the Bank proposing privatisation of any part of DJB nor is
there is a timetable for any privatisation. As a matter of fact, at
this time, the World Bank would definitely not recommend
privatisation." However, water activists feel that handing over
control of distribution networks from a public entity to private
operators is, in fact, privatisation.

"At present the project has been put on hold," says Sudip Mozumder, a
media information official at the World Bank. However, neither
Mozumder, nor any DJB officials commented on why it was so.

With the summer coming around once more, Delhites have braced
themselves for another dry season. In a desperate attempt to improve
Delhi's water security, Chief Minister, Sheila Dixit has threatened to
sue the Uttar Pradesh if it refuses to release 300 cusecs of water as
per an agreement signed at the time of the construction of Tehri dam
and the Sonia Vihar Plant. But for now, with municipal elections
around the corner, no-one in the government dares mention
"privatisation

Not for the poor

By Dionne Bunsha in Chandrapur

RANJIT DESHMUKH

IN CHANDRAPUR TOWN of Maharashtra, both young and old take turns at
the Community pipes to collect water in view of the erratic supply.

"WHOM should I ask today?" This thought plays on Swarta Shende's mind
soon after she wakes up. It is a bright morning and her main concern
is about finding the 20 pots of water that her family needs for the
day. She does it every day. So do many other women in Chandrapur, the
first town in Maharashtra to privatise its water supply.

"The public tap has water for only two hours a day. And, with so many
women scrambling for their share, I get only three pots from here,"
says Swarta. "Then I go to other people's homes - those who have their
own taps or wells, asking if they will let me fill a few pots." Swarta
tries not to go too often to the same place, for they may get
irritated. "Two hours of my day is spent just collecting water," she
says.

It was not always this bad. "Earlier, we got water from 1 p.m. to 6
p.m. That was enough for everyone. But a year back, they cut it down
to two hours, so now we have to borrow from others," says Swarta. Why
the cut in water supply? She has no idea, but others point to the
privatisation of the town's water distribution in March 2004. Of
course, Swarta does not know that the Chandrapur Municipal Council
(CMC) handed over the task of water supply to a contractor. She is
only struggling to cope with its after-effects.

The privatisation of water supply in Chandrapur was an attempt to
`improve efficiency and investment'. The CMC wanted to cut the
`losses' it was incurring on the water supply scheme. Sheikh Maqsood,
city engineer of the CMC, who was one of the officials involved in the
tendering process, told Frontline: "We aimed to recover at least Rs.
1.46 crores as water tax, but we were able to recover only half that
amount. Our expenses were Rs.3 crores every year and we were making
huge losses. So we decided that it was better to hand it over to a
private company, since the Maharashtra government has allowed
privatisation schemes."

RANJIT DESHMUKH

At the hand pumps to collect water.

The deal: the CMC gets Rs.1.59 crores (over a period of 10 years) and
a Rs.75-lakh bank guarantee for handing over water distribution to
Gurukripa Associates. The CMC retains ownership of the network but the
private company takes over the distribution, maintenance and water tax
collection for 10 years. The contractor has to build only 1 km of new
pipeline every year. Any improvement and investment in the network is
the CMC's responsibility.

The privatisation may cut the CMC's losses, but has efficiency of
water supply gone up? Has investment increased? As we travelled
through this grimy industrial town, people in different neighbourhoods
- from the `VIP areas' to the slums - said the water supply situation
had only worsened. There was no response to their complaints as well.

Ratnamala Nagarkar from Vadgaon, Sai Baba ward, said water supply had
reduced to a trickle. "We used to get water twice a day. Now we get it
only in the afternoon for three hours," she said. "The flow in our
public tap is very weak now and it takes longer to fill. Often,
there's no water for two or three days, so we have to be careful and
always keep aside some pots in case there is no water the next day."
Ratnamala and many like her do not know that they are guinea pigs in
Chandrapur's water privatisation experiment.

Public taps run dry

Supply to many public taps has been stopped and the government has
issued a notification that no new public standposts should be built.
It says that efforts should be made to have group connections so that
people share the water bill. The worst hit by these measures are the
poor, who are wholly dependent on public taps for their water needs.

"Four taps in our area are not functioning. They refuse to repair it.
We can't afford to have our own water taps. Only one in six houses has
its own connection," said Prahlad Kamte, a resident of Indira Nagar in
Mela ward.

Girish Chandak, director of Gurukripa Associates, told Frontline:
"Every few days, the public taps get stolen and water flows out of the
pipes and is wasted. So, instead, we are trying to get people to pay
for group connections. It's the government's policy. If you give water
free, people don't value it."

Many who have water supply at home have got fed up and let the company
disconnect their connection. "We haven't got tap water for almost two
years. So we let them stop our supply. It doesn't make any difference
to us," said D.S. Khanke, a retired Forest Department employee. "We
dug our own borewell so that we don't have to rely on them."

"This is a man-made shortage. There's enough drinking water for the
entire city from the Irai dam nearby, but there's no network to supply
it to residents," says Sanjay Vaidya, Municipal Councillor.
Chandrapur's water network has not been expanded since the mid-1960s.
As the town has grown, several new neighbourhoods that have come up
over the years do not have municipal water supply. The residents rely
on their own borewells.

While Sanjay Vaidya estimates that 60 per cent of Chandrapur's three-
lakh population is not covered by the water pipeline network, Sheikh
Maqsood puts the figure at 30 per cent. The water table is falling as
more borewells are dug, most of them without permission from the CMC.
The CMC has decided not to dig any more borewells, but it keeps no
check on the proliferation of private wells. Plans to enhance the
distribution network have been stalled because the CMC does not have
the funds to guarantee the loans granted for the project.

Said Girish Chandak of Gurukripa Associates: "We have tried to balance
out water supply so that places that didn't get water are now getting
it and those areas which had five hours of water, or even 24 hours,
now receive less. The people you met must have been getting water for
longer, that's why they were complaining."

Refuting complaints that services were worse because the company did
not spend on maintenance, he said: "We have put in Rs.3 crores to
streamline the whole system. There was no proper maintenance or
records earlier, and there was a lot of corruption and delay in repair
works. There are regular leakages because the pipelines near the coal
mines often burst owing to blasting. We repair them within six hours,
while the CMC would have taken six days."

Girish Chandak added that the municipality used to get 150 complaints
a day, while his company gets just five. He said that five years ago
the CMC had 24,000 connections, which dropped to 17,000 in 2004 when
the company took over the distribution. "Today it is 19,000. That is
enough proof. If there was no proper water supply, people would not
take a new connection," he said.

Questions have also been raised about Gurukripa's track record. It is
alleged that it was formed only to bid for the tender and that it had
no experience in water management. Its partners are powerful traders
in the city - oil merchants, builders, medicine distributors and even
liquor barons. The nexus perhaps became clear when Frontline met the
city engineer. He invited us to the house of the head of the planning
committee, a Councillor, for the interview. It was apparent that the
engineer knew which places Frontline had visited. While the interview
was going on, he sent word to Girish Chandak, who showed up
immediately though we were supposed to meet him at his office later.

The people of Chandrapur were not given a choice between public or
private irregularities. They can now only decide every day who they
will borrow water from.

Costly alliance

By V. Sridhar in Tirupur

M. BALAJI

COLLECTING water from a broken pipe in the heart of Tirupur. This is a
common site in the town.

HARD-SELLING the idea of water as a privately owned saleable commodity
was never going to be easy, particularly in water-starved Tirupur in
Tamil Nadu. A way had to be found to get around popular opposition to
the sale of an increasingly scarce natural resource.

The result was a public-private partnership for supplying water to
industries, villages and the Tirupur Municipality. Launched in
February 2006, the New Tirupur Area Development Corporation Limited
(NTADCL) project, costing about Rs.1,023 crores, was expected to
provide a "final solution" to the water problem. The project is meant
to supply water to the 700 dyeing and bleaching units in and around
Tirupur and to domestic consumers in the Tirupur Local Planning Area
(TLPA), comprising the Tirupur Municipality, 16 village panchayats and
two other municipalities.

Those supporting the project hailed it as a "model" worthy of
emulation in the rest of the country. But people in Tirupur are
already paying 50 per cent more for the water supplied by the
municipality. There is also apprehension that the private-public
partnership is dividing the town with a population of about six lakhs
into haves and have-nots in terms of water.

The unique structure of the project makes it possible for the state to
vacate the space it held hitherto as a provider of a basic public
utility. The Tamil Nadu Water Investment Company, promoted by the
Tamil Nadu government and the Infrastructure Leasing and Financial
Services, was among the main equity holders. Others included the
Tirupur Exporters' Association and Mahindra Water Utilities Ltd.,
which maintains and operates the service on behalf of the consortium.

The build-own-operate-and-transfer model of ownership enables the
company to draw 185 million litres of water a day (mld) from the
Bhavani river at a point about 60 km from Tirupur. Of this, up to 115
mld is for industries; the remaining quantity is meant for users in
Tirupur and its surrounding areas. The concession granted to the
company runs for a period of 30 years. The initial agreement between
the company and industrial users priced the water at Rs.45 a kilolitre
(1,000 litres). While the municipality was to pay Rs.5 a KL, wayside
village panchayats were to pay Rs.3.50 a KL. The pricing of water thus
had an inbuilt element of cross-subsidisation; industrial users would
pay more so that domestic users could pay a more "reasonable" price.
The scheme, backed by the United States Agency for International
Development (USAID) and the World Bank, provided for some kind of
indexation, which implied an annual price escalation reported to range
between 6.5 per cent and 8 per cent.

The cross-subsidisation scheme is in danger of unravelling. Industrial
units have already refused to pay the originally agreed rate of Rs.45
a KL for water supplied by NTADCL. N. Kandasamy, president of the
Dyers' Association of Tirupur, said that industries could get water
for about Rs.30 a KL in tankers from villages near Tirupur. He said:
"It is true that we had committed to pay Rs.45 a KL, but we now find
this rate too high." Apparently, NTADCL is considering a reduction in
the industrial water tariff from Rs.45 a KL to about Rs.37 a KL in
order to increase the offtake by industrial users.

The two existing schemes, implemented by the government prior to the
NTADCL project, supplied Tirupur about 26.5 mld. The NTADCL project is
now providing about 15 mld to the town, which can increase up to a
maximum of 50 mld over the lifetime of the project.

Even before the project commenced delivery of water, the Tirupur
Municipality decided to increase the rate at which it supplied water
to users in Tirupur. While rates for domestic users were increased
from Rs.4 to Rs.6 a KL, the rates for commercial establishments in the
town were hiked from Rs.6 to Rs.10 a KL. The Chairman of the Tirupur
Municipality, M.N. Palanisamy, justifies the increase in user charges.
He points out that while the municipality pays NTADCL Rs.5 a KL, it
actually incurs a cost of Rs.7 a KL in supplying water to residents.
The town of about six lakhs has a mere 44,000 water connections and
about 650 public taps. There have been 10,000 fresh applications for
water connections, about 6,000 of which are from applicants living in
"approved" residential areas of the town.

Palanisamy rules out any water connections for those living in the
"unapproved" parts of the town. It is estimated that between one-third
to one half of the population in this booming town lives in its
"unapproved" parts. Palanisamy said that the State government had
prohibited the installation of new street-end common water taps.
"These are a nuisance and cause wastage of water," he said. Most
people who depend on street-end water taps for collecting water would
lose access to water if Palanisamy has his way.

Palanisamy claims that Tirupur residents with water connections at
home get water once in three days for about two hours. However,
Bommidurai, a municipal councillor, points out that in his locality
even those with a water connection get water once in eight to 12 days.
He said that the quantity of water supplied has not increased since
the NTADCL water started flowing into Tirupur. Piped supply of water
caters to only a fraction of the town's population. In Thennampalayam
in Tirupur, Angathal, wife of a manual worker, said she paid Rs.0.50 a
kodam (pot) of water to her neighbour who had a water connection. She
collects water once in eight to 10 days. Most people complain about
the poor quality of the water. Palanisamy agrees, but says that people
will "soon get used to it".

Palanisamy says that the municipality has been incurring huge losses
by supplying water at below-cost rates. The municipality incurred a
loss of Rs.7.11 crores during 2004-05. This, he said, ruled out the
possibility of supplying subsidised water to people in the town. It is
obvious that the bustling town can do much better in mobilising
revenues, which would enable it to provide better public services. For
instance, the municipality collects about Rs.12 crores as property
tax, which is minuscule in comparison to the hosiery industry's
turnover of nearly Rs.9,000 crores. A contribution of 1 per cent of
the industry's turnover would enable the municipality to provide water
at reasonable rates to people in the town. But these choices are not
acceptable to the powerful.

C. Govindasamy, Coimbatore district (east) secretary of the Communist
Party of India (Marxist), who has opposed the project from its
inception, points out that while people in nearby Coimbatore are
getting water at Rs.3.50 a KL, people in Tirupur are being asked to
pay Rs.6 a KL. He asks: "How can that be fair?"

It appears that the State government is pursuing a strategy that
applies pressure on consumers to access water from NTADCL instead of
other sources. In other words, state policy is deliberately attempting
to steer the project towards viability by closing other options.
Industry sources told Frontline that the revenue authorities had
threatened action if they drew ground water. In Tirupur itself the
strategy of forced exclusion of large sections of the people appears
to be aimed at creating a viable market for high-cost water supplied
by NTADCL. NTADCL, which is now pumping about 75 mld a day, is
currently supplying a little more than half the contracted quantities
to the village panchayats in the TLPA. Since there are no other
projects being planned in the foreseeable future, the rural panchayats
may be forced to buy the high-cost water.

In an article written on the occasion of World Water Day in The Hindu
(March 22), U.S. Ambassador to India David C. Mulford cited the
Tirupur project "as a great example of how private sector involvement"
can "dramatically improve access to water and sanitation".

The evidence certainly does not back his assertion that the
involvement of the private sector actually results in lower costs and
better services. Water is not only substantially more expensive as a
result of the scheme, but large sections have been excluded from a
service that was once the duty of the government to provide.

In strategic terms the public-private partnership model has enabled
the government to lease an important water source to a private
company. In hindsight, there are many advantages to the private
owners, which would not have been possible if the project was a full-
blown private enterprise. First, state involvement has blunted the
edge of popular outrage that would have arisen from the handing over
of a common property resource to a private entity. Second, the
institutional backing of the state ensures that the private entity's
access to the common property resource is more secure. Third, there
are the hidden subsidies that are available to the private owners in
terms of subsidised land and other similar benefits. The sweetener in
the deal is the promise to supply water to the domestic users in
Tirupur and its surrounding areas. This assurance was critical because
it successfully blunted the opposition of rural people to the deal.

It is no wonder that Tirupur is being touted as a great example to be
emulated. Institutions which were traditionally geared to serve an
essential human necessity have been bent beyond shape. This will make
it difficult for the government to change course later. That is the
most significant consequence of the great Tirupur experiment.
Govindasamy, who is contesting the coming Assembly elections from
Tirupur, said that it might not be possible for the scheme to be
"dismantled" even if a Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam-led government comes
to power. He said that it would be difficult for any government to
abrogate the agreement with the private parties.

He said: "We can at best effect changes in the way water is delivered
to people. Maybe the government can compensate the private parties and
send them packing. I do not know whether a new government headed by
the DMK will have the will to do this. But we will put pressure."

Vigil continues

By R. Krishnakumar in Thiruvananthapuram

VIPIN CHANDRAN

A protest in Kochi against the Kerala High Court verdict allowing Coca-
Cola to draw groundwater from Plachimada. A file picture

The Periyar, the biggest river in Kerala, has long lost its pristine
glory. It flows through two central districts of the State, Idukki and
Ernakulam, and caters to the domestic, industrial and commercial needs
of nearly 50 local bodies. Six power plants and a large number of
industrial units depend on it. But by the time the Periyar flows into
the industrial belt in Ernakulam district, just before joining the
Arabian Sea, its nature is altered by indiscriminate sand mining and
its supply heavily utilised. Since its mouth is below sea level, salt
water intrudes far into the river during the summer months and at
other times when there is reduced flow in the river. Industries
depending on its water are shut down periodically and domestic water
supply downstream is affected by pollution and increased salinity.

Yet, a grand scheme proposed by the Congress-led United Democratic
Front government soon after it came to power in 2001 was to allow
private investors to draw 200 million litres a day (MLD) of water from
the Periyar and purify and distribute it exclusively to industries,
commercial establishments and other bulk consumers in the Greater
Cochin Area. The proposed beneficiaries included private and public
sector industries, super-speciality hospitals, universities and
industrial parks. The Rs.330-crore scheme would have given the
investor company exclusive rights, initially for 20 years, to draw its
share of water from a location upstream of the government water supply
plants and to build check dams as "long-term steps to improve the flow
rate in the river". Other details of the scheme were never disclosed.

The government also announced plans to let private investors, among
them foreign companies, run a similar scheme (estimated at Rs.1,351
crores) to supply water to the Kanjikode industrial belt and the
Pudusseri industrial area in drought-hit Palakkad district. The
investor company, it proposed, could draw an assured supply of water
from the Malampuzha irrigation system (the source of drinking water to
Palakkad town and six panchayats in the district) and groundwater
sources and even utilise rainwater harvesting to draw and sell water
to a number of industrial customers, among them Pepsi, several
breweries and bottling units.

At least three similar schemes, for the temple town of Guruvayoor and
the tourist resorts at Kumarakom and Kovalam, were offered to
investors, who could utilise water from major rivers, dams and
groundwater sources.

But an avalanche of questions about the implications of the schemes
for local communities, protests in the project areas and media
criticism saw the government, which had just then launched its
flagship event, the Global Investors Meet in Kochi, beat a hasty
retreat. For the first time, and nearly a year after Coca-Cola and
Pepsi quietly set up their bottling units, Kerala was jolted out of
its complacency by the government's brazen attempts to privatise
community water resources. The proposals were declared withdrawn,
albeit temporarily.

But if they were never revived, it was not because the administration
was convinced about the concerns raised (Ministers continued to
describe the schemes as a grand opportunity sabotaged by unrealistic
protesters), but because another battle took the centre-stage. At
Plachimada in Palakkad district, the small local community took on the
soft-drink giant Coca-Cola in what was to become a symbol of the
struggles worldwide for the people's right to public resources.

Aided by a combination of factors, including support from a variety of
sources, it has succeeded in being a nagging, tenacious presence
against the multinational giant that had been sucking their
neighbourhoods dry. The struggle crossed its fourth year in April. The
residents' staying power brought them support from the world over and
helped them connect with similar struggles against corporate theft of
the world's most valuable resource.

Coca-Cola (and the government) arrogantly ignored the demands of the
motley crowd of villagers and tribal people who gathered at the
factory gates in April 2002 - denying the accusations of acute water
shortage and pollution caused by the company, and influencing the
government and its agencies. But within a year, both the company and
the State administration, along with all the mainstream political
parties, were forced to acknowledge the struggle and address their
simple but serious questions.

Within a few months of launching their agitation, the protesters
forced the panchayat to act on their behalf. The panchayat, acting at
their behest, refused to renew the company's licence and when the
State government intervened for the multinational, went to court.
Eventually, when the issue reached the Supreme Court, the State
government and its agencies were compelled to argue the case against
the company and from the side of the protestors.

Coca-Cola was made to shut down its plant by March 2004, supply
drinking water in tanker lorries to the people of the affected
villages and take remedial measures to contain pollution. And despite
the supreme confidence of the company's officials about winning the
court battles very soon, Coca-Cola's efforts to reopen the unit has
been frustrated by the protesters, the panchayat and, albeit
reluctantly, the government machinery.

At certain stages, even when the panchayat was ordered by courts to
renew the company's licence, the local body imposed conditions that
Coca-Cola could not comply with. The latest one in a list of 12 simply
said: "The company shall not use groundwater from Perumatty panchayat
for industrial purposes, or for producing soft drinks, aerated
carbonate beverages or fruit juice." It was exercising the priority
rights of the local community and acting against the over-exploitation
of groundwater in a manner that could lead to scarcity of the
resource.

The court battle is, for the first time in India, laying bare for
debate the crucial issues involved when commercial interests are
entrusted with the exploitation of scarce public resources. Among the
issues are the complex nature of ownership of public assets, the
rights of local communities, the powers of governments to intervene,
and the real danger of loss of public control over such vital, fast-
depleting assets.

In November 2005, the company said in a letter to the government that,
as a last resort, it was willing to "relocate" its bottling plant to
the Kanjikode industrial estate if other "options" failed and if the
government could ensure that it had "water and electricity" and a
trouble-free environment. The industrial estate is about 50 km from
Plachimada, and a similar unit of Pepsi located there is facing less
trouble as its source of water is within the industrial area.

The new offer came even as Coca-Cola launched its battle to stay on at
Plachimada in the apex court and made the several special leave
petitions filed before the Supreme Court by the panchayat, the State
government and the State Pollution Control Board against the judgments
of the Kerala High Court favouring the company, critical to the cause
of the history-makers at Plachimada.

The protesters continue to sit at the gates of the factory - for more
than 1,500 days now - seeking justice, and in the process ensuring
that no government in Kerala would dare launch another mega project
that lets commercial interests make a roaring business out of
dwindling water resources. Those who derided it as a hopeless struggle
of a few villagers against a behemoth corporation or as a misguided
campaign against the State's economic development eventually had to
recognise its true worth.

The real strength of the people of Plachimada may, after all, be in
the David-Goliath symbolism of their historic struggle.

Volume 23 - Issue 07 :: Apr. 08 - 21, 2006


INDIA'S NATIONAL MAGAZINE
from the publishers of THE HINDU

http://www.flonnet.com/fl2307/stories/20060421007101000.htm

bademiyansubhanallah

unread,
Feb 10, 2010, 6:31:12 PM2/10/10
to
History of Genocide being repeated in India
Posted on Feb 10 2010 by alip...@aol.com

» In India, we are going to witness another cataclysmic act against
the original inhabitants or Adivasis of the Naxal-affected area.

» Under the pretext of eradicating Naxals, the state government
declared the war against its own tribal people.

» There is every reason to doubt that ‘Operation Green Hunt’ aims at
the tribal people of the Naxal belt gifted with abundant treasures of
minerals.

The latest reports of Survival International apparently serve as death
knells for the original inhabitants in several parts of the world.
Modern man’s selfish deeds have resulted in their near-extinction.
Leading a life in harmony with nature, these exploited lots now stand
to be wiped out of their own land for good.

The Great Andaman Trunk Road has spelt doom for Jarwas, the tribe that
inhabits central islands of Andaman. Adding to their miseries are,
widespread encroachments on their land and illegal poaching. The case
of the Onge and Sentinelese tribes are no different while the Jangil
tribe of Rutland Island has already been part of history. Onges, who
used to number more than 650 in 1900, are less than 100 today whereas
Jarwas number less than 300. Despite a Supreme Court order and the
growing protests by human rights activists, the work of the Trunk road
continued, of course, in connivance with the local politicians. What
the indigenous people got in return were some hitherto-unheard –of
diseases.

For over a century between 1870 and 1970, over 150,000 native Indian
children in Canada were taken away from their families and put in
church-run residential schools. These government-funded schools were
ostensibly set up to educate them. But their hidden motive was to
Christianize and assimilate them into the European population.
Uprooted from their families and put in an alien environment, these
children were subjected to all sorts of emotional, physical and sexual
abuse. They were treated like dogs and subjected to physical torture
if they spoke their native languages.

Subjected to inhuman treatment, many took to drugs and alcohol. While
thousands never went back to their parents half of them were estimated
to have succumbed to deadly diseases in unhygienic school conditions.
Though the Canadian government spends billions of dollars for them
annually, they fare very badly on human development indices. Early-age
deaths, suicides and alcoholism are common among them.

The state-funded Human Rights Commission says Australia’s original
inhabitants, whose cultures date several thousands of years back,
aborigines would be deeply affected by the impact of global warming,.
Blood-borne tropical diseases such as malaria and dengue fever would
increase and food security of indigenous populations would be
threatened. They have much higher rates of infant mortality, health
problems and suicide than other Australians, with many living in
squalid camps rife with unemployment, alcoholism and lawlessness. They
are jailed five times more often than black males who were imprisoned
in South Africa under apartheid. They are twice as likely as their non-
Indigenous peers to be a victim of violent aggression, with 24 per
cent of them reported as being victims of violence in every year and
also11 times more likely to be in prison. At the time of white
settlement in 1788 aborigines were believed to number more than one
million, but now account for just 2.5 per cent of the population, with
an estimated 517,000 people. A quarter of these lived in remote
outback and coastal areas, with up to 80 per cent of adults in these
communities relying on the natural environment for livelihood. They
controlled, used, managed or had access to about 20 per cent of the
Australian continent. Now they are considered uncivilized and have
reached the disastrous stage where their language, culture and even
their very survival are threatened.

In Botswana, the indigenous people of southern Africa known as The
Bushmen of the Kalahari are on the verge of losing their ancestral
homeland. The government forced out virtually all the Bushmen from
their land in 1997, 2002 and 2005. Their homes were dismantled, their
school and health post closed down, water supply destroyed and finally
the people were trucked away. Although the Bushmen won a legal battle
to go back to their land in 2006, the government did everything it
could to make their return impossible. It banned them from using their
water borehole, and refused to issue a single permit to hunt on their
land, the state police arrested more than 50 Bushmen for hunting to
feed their families, and also banned them from taking their small
herds of goats back to the reserve. Survival International report
says, “They now live in resettlement camps outside the reserve. Rarely
able to hunt, and arrested and beaten when they do, they are dependent
on government handouts. They are now gripped by alcoholism, boredom,
depression, and illnesses such as TB and HIV/AIDS. Unless they can
return to their ancestral lands, their unique societies and way of
life will be destroyed, and many of them will die.’’

Before Portuguese invaders set their foot on the Brazilian land there
were more than 50, 00000 original inhabitants. The atrocious
exploitation and genocide reduced their count to 3, 50000. The current
law of Brazil denies them the right to land and considers them as
‘minors’. In 1986, 4000 gold excavators encroached the land and
granted them a new disease, malaria, which left 20 per cent of them
dead.

In India, we are going to witness another cataclysmic act against the
original inhabitants or Adivasis of the Naxal-affected area. Under the
pretext of eradicating Naxals, the state government declared the war
against its own tribal people. There is every reason to doubt that
‘Operation Green Hunt’ aims at the tribal people of the Naxal belt
gifted with abundant treasures of minerals. The war within the nation
is not for its people, but for the corporate giants who are lured into
the huge collections of boxite, iron ore, silica, silver ore, and
other minerals in Chhattisgarh, Bihar, Jharkhand, etc. The corporates
like, Mittal, Tata, Posco , Vedanta and A star have only one obstacle:
the tribal people who tirelessly quarrel with the government against
the move to hand over the land to these companies.

Which established tradition or segment in history speaks about the
survival of the indigenous people? Don’t they have right to live on
their on land and preserve their age-old culture? Terminating
indigenous people from their own land is, perhaps, what ‘the
civilized” mean by being modern and trendy.

The history of holocaust was well-documented and is often reminded of
in the present times, but these genocides remain shrouded in
negligence in history, albeit those who lost their lives in them are
hundred times more than those killed in the holocaust. The Unwritten
History Of Genocides, By KK Abdul Raoof, 09 February, 2010
Countercurrents.org

KK Abdul Raoof
Dep Of History
AMU, Aligarh
UP, 202002

http://www.pakrockerx.com/politics/history-of-genocide-being-repeated-in-india/

0 new messages