No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 November 2008
Sikh history has produced few men as controversial as Raja Gulab Singh of Jammu. His conduct, especially in the First Anglo-Sikh War of 1845–46, continues to evoke bitter argument. Whereas the debate at the end of the war pertained to the wisdom of creating the independent state of Kashmir, in more recent years it has centred around Gulab Singh's part in the conflict, which resulted in the partial dismemberment of the Sikh state. Two major evaluations have been made. A school of Panjab historians condemns the Jammu Raja's conduct as perfidious and brands him as a traitor. This conclusion is disputed by pro-Dogra historians who, while acknowledging his reluctance to become involved in the war, imply that he played an effective political role on behalf of the Sikhs which prevented the complete annexation of their state in 1846. Such widely differing assessments, often made without sufficient historical data and characterized by political or regional bias, have done little to produce a balanced understanding of this highly controversial affair. This paper tries to reconstruct and re-evaluate the Raja's role in the war.
1 SirHardinge, Henry, Governor-General (GG), to his wife Emily, Hardinge Papers (HP), vol. 6, 2 March 1846, MSS in the private papers of Lady Helen Hardinge, Penshurst, Kent, England.Google Scholar
2 Such a position is supported by, among others, Mahajan, Jagmohan, Circumstances Leading to the Annexation of the Panjab (Allahabad, 1946);Google ScholarSingh, Ganda (ed.), Private Correspondence Relating to the Anglo-Sikh Wars (Madras, 1955);Google ScholarSingh, Khushwant, The Fall of the Kingdom of the Sikhs (Calcutta, 1962).Google Scholar
3 The strongest proponent of such a belief is Panikkar, K. M., Gulab Singh (London, 1930).Google Scholar Others who express similar views include Bamzai, P. N. K., History of Kashmir (Delhi, 1962);Google ScholarGwasha, Lal Kaul, Kashmir Through the Ages (Srinagar, 1960);Google ScholarKoul, Salig Ram, The Biography of Maharaja Gulab Singh (Srinagar, 1923);Google ScholarKhan, Mohammad Aslam, The Dogra Occupation of Kashmir (Srinagar, 1946);Google ScholarKhan, Maulvi Hashmat Ali, Tarikh-e-Jammu (Lucknow, 1939) in Urdu.Google Scholar
4 Varying opinions on Gulab Singh have also been put forward by writers on the India-Pakistan dispute over Kashmir. However, their treatment of the man, covered in brief introductory surveys, tends to be superficial. The writers can be divided into two groups. The first is quite partisan and includes Bazaz, Prem Nath, The History of Struggle for Freedom in Kashmir (New Delhi, 1954);Google ScholarBeg, Aziz, Captive Kashmir (Lahore, 1957);Google ScholarGupta, Sisir, Kashmir, A Study in Indian-Pakistan Relations (New Delhi, 1966);Google ScholarMadhok, Balraj, Kashmir, Centre of New Alignments (New Delhi, 1963).Google Scholar Among the second group, portraying a more dispassionate outlook, are Birdwood, Lord, India and Pakistan (New York, 1954);Google ScholarBrecher, Michael, The Struggle for Kashmir (New York, 1953);Google ScholarLamb, Alastair, Crisis in Kashmir (London, 1966).Google Scholar
5 For a comprehensive account of his career see Singh, Bawa Satinder, ‘Gulab Singh of Jammu, Ladakh, and Kashmir, 1792–1846’ (unpub. Ph.D. diss., Wisconsin, 1966).Google Scholar
6 Kohli, Sita Ram, basing his estimates on the darbar's records, states that the numerical strength of the khalsa rose from 46,037 in 1838 to 65,835 in 1843 and again to 89,821 in 1845. These statistics include the infantry, artillery, and the cavalry but not the levies supplied by the fief-holders.Google Scholar See Kohli, , ‘The Organization of the Khalsa Army’ in Singh, Teja and Singh, Ganda (eds.), Maharaja Ranjit Singh (Amritsar, 1939), pp. 60–98, with special reference to pp. 70–87.Google Scholar
7 Hardinge, Charles, Viscount Hardinge (Oxford, 1891), p. 77, discloses that the British strength at the Ambala cantonment was increased ‘from 13,600 men and 48 guns in 01, 1844, to 32,500 men and 68 guns in 12, 1845…’Google Scholar
8 Hardinge, to SirPeel, Robert, British Prime Minister, HP, vol. 5, 19 Feb. 1846. According to Gulab Singh's post-war explanation of Lahore's objectives, the khalsa was to ‘sweep away’ the frontier stations of Feruzpur and Ludhiana. If triumphant, the darbar expected the Company's Hindu sepoys and the British-protected Sikh states east of the Sutlej to join hands with the khalsa and believed ‘that they would in a month be in possession of Delhi …’ The Sikhs also looked to ‘Nepal to be ready in case of a first success against [the British]’.Google Scholar
9 Broadfoot, George, GG's political agent at Ludhiana, to Currie, Frederick, political secretary to GG, 20 Nov 1845, in The War In India (London, 1846), p. 21.Google Scholar
10 Chund, Kishen to Broadfoot, , 3 Dec. 1845,Google Scholar quoted in The Times (London), 2 03 1846, p. 2.Google Scholar
11 Though no official figures are available, McGregor, W. L., The History of the Sikhs (London, 1846), vol. 2, p. 64, estimated the invading force to consist of ‘nearly 50,000 infantry, 25,000 cavalry and 200 guns’. It seems that a part of the army remained stationed in such provinces as Kashmir, Peshawar, and Multan.Google Scholar
12 When Singh, Bhai Ram, a pro-British courtier, attempted to dissuade Lal Singh, the latter answered: ‘Bhai Sahib, what can I do? If I remain, the soldiery seize me by the throat.’ Peel, quoting from a Lahore letter dated 24 Nov. 1845, in a speech before the House of Commons on 2 March 1846.Google ScholarSee Hansard's Parliamentary Debates, vol. 81, p. 393.Google Scholar
13 Lahore Intelligence (LI), Political Correspondence (PC), 6 Dec. 1845, transcribed records in the Panjab State Archives (PSA), Patiala.Google Scholar
14 Idem.
15 Broadfoot, William, The Career of Major George Broadfoot (London, 1888), p. 351.Google Scholar
16 Ibid., p. 370.
17 GG to the Secret Committee (SC) of the East India Company (EIC), 2 Dec. 1845, in The War In India, pp. 9–10.Google Scholar
18 Hardinge, Charles to his mother Emily, HP, vol. 6, 4 Dec. 1845.Google Scholar
19 LI, PC, 1 Dec. 1845.Google Scholar
20 GG to SC, 4 Dec. 1845, in The War In India, p. 28.Google Scholar
21 Broadfoot, , pp. 372–3. The messenger was said to have carried a written communication from the Raja but claimed that as ‘he was about to be searched at the Phillaur Ferry, he dropped the letter into the river [Sutlej] and swam across to save his life’.Google Scholar
22 LI, PC, 10 Dec. 1845.Google Scholar
23 Cunningham, J. D., A History of the Sikhs (London, 1849), p. 304.Google Scholar
24 A hint of such an implication is found in a letter from Lal Singh to Peter Nicholson, assistant agent at Feruzpur, ‘to consider him and the bibi sahiba (Jindan) as their friends and cut up the burchas [ruffians, i.e. the khalsa] for them’. Quoted from the Nicholson Diary in Singh, Khushwant, A History of the Sikhs (Princeton, 1966), vol. 2, p. 48. An indirect reference to messages from the Rani and other leaders was also made by Hardinge in a letter to Hugh Gough, commander-in-chief of EIC's forces: ‘…such is the treachery, low cunning & perverse policy of the Durbar & even of Raja Golab Sing, that no dependence can be placed on the professions which every party is ready to make for its own interested objects & in the present state of the Sikh Army neither the Ranee nor any chief can offer any guarantee for the performance of their promise’. See Secret Department (SD), Enclosures to Secret Letters from India (ESLI), vol. 103, letter no. 14, 13 Jan. 1846, MSS in the India Office Library (IOL), London.Google Scholar
25 The extensive testimony regarding the incriminating role of Lal Singh and, to a lesser degree, Tej Singh includes Cunningham, pp. 304–9;Google ScholarMcGregor, , vol. 2, pp. 80–2;Google ScholarLatif, Muhammad, History of the Panjab (London, 1889), pp. 541–3;Google ScholarPearson, Hesketh, The Hero of Delhi (London, 1939), pp. 79–80;Google ScholarSmyth, G. Carmichael, A History of the Reigning Family of Lahore (Calcutta, 1847), pp. 173–84.Google Scholar In retrospect the Jammu chief, too, reflected upon the khalsa's appearance at Firuzshahr: ‘Teja Singh committed a great blunder; he should never have gone near you [the British], but should have marched at once upon Delhi!’ Quoted in Humbley, W. W., Journal of a Cavalry Officer, including the Sikh Campaign of 1845–46 (London, 1954), p. 104.Google Scholar
26 Among British writers, including eye-witnesses, who commended the khalsa's performance are Cunningham, pp. 301–10;Google ScholarFortescue, J. W., A History of the British Army (London, 1927), vol. 12, p. 390;Google ScholarKnollys, H. (ed.), Life of General Sir Hope Grant (London, 1894), vol. I, pp. 58–9;Google ScholarMcGregor, , vol. 2, pp. 46–53, 111–28;Google ScholarTrevaskis, H. K., The Land of the Five Rivers (London, 1928), pp. 205–6.Google Scholar
27 The Times, 2 March 1846, p. 4;Google ScholarPearson, , p. 80, quotes Hardinge's stinging observation: ‘Another such victory and we are undone!’Google Scholar
28 Lake, to Mills, , SD, ESLI, vol. 103, letter no. 3, 15 Jan. 1846.Google Scholar
29 Ibid., Currie to Mills, letter no. 24, 17 Jan. 1846. Lawrence succeeded Broadfoot who was killed at Firuzshahr.
30 Lahore News (LN) of 7 Jan. 1846, reported by the Delhi Gazette (DG) and reprinted in The Times, 2 March 1846, p. 5.Google Scholar
31 According to Honigberger, J. M., Thirty-Five Years in the East (London, 1852), vol. I, p. 122, Gulab Singh permitted himself to be drawn ‘from Jummoo, his den’, by the panches who had dubbed him the ‘bear’.Google Scholar
32 The Illustrated London News, 4 April 1846, p. 220;Google ScholarThe Times, 25 March 1846, p. 5, however, reported that the Raja came with 12,000 men.Google Scholar
33 LN, 26 Jan. 1846, DG, The Times, 25 March 1846, p. 5, reported that the Raja ‘has brought immense quantities with him; the number of bullocks with his camp is enormous—some say 300,000. He has left orders with his lieutenants in Jamoo and other places to send more as soon as they could be collected.’Google Scholar
34 LI, PC, 29 Jan. 1846.Google Scholar
35 The Illustrated London News, 4 April 1846, p. 220.Google Scholar
36 Ram, Kirpa, Gulab Nama (n.d.), p. 425, Persian MSS in PSA, wrote that the khalsa used the Urdu slogan ‘Delhi takht per bethegi aap guru ki fauj [Your guru's army will sit on Delhi's throne].’Google Scholar
37 The Illustrated London News, 4 April 1846, p. 220.Google ScholarAccording to the Tarikh Nama (n.d.), p. 589, Persian MSS in PSA, Gulab Singh told the panches he would move upon receipt of the Rani's written orders.Google Scholar
38 History of the Campaign on the Sutlej and the War in the Punjaub (London, 1846), p. 36.Google Scholar
39 Ibid., p. 37; LN, 29 Jan. 1846, DG, The Times, 1 April 1846, p. 6.
40 LI, PC, 29 Jan. 1846.Google Scholar
41 LN, 30 Jan. 1846, DG, The Times, 1 April 1846, p. 6.Google Scholar
42 LI, PC, 30 Jan. 1846.Google Scholar
43 Ibid., 31 Jan. 1846.
44 One crore equals 10,000,000.Google Scholar
45 LI, PC, 31 Jan. 1846.Google Scholar
46 LN, 31 Jan. 1846, DG, The Times, 1 April 1846, p. 6.Google Scholar
47 Idem.
48 GG to SC. Further Papers respecting the Late Hostilities on the North- Western Frontier of India; and the Conclusion of Treaties with the Maharajah Dhuleep Sing, of Lahore, and Maharajah Golab Sing of Jummoo (FPNWF), 19 Feb. 1846 (House of Commons, 1846), p. 67.Google Scholar
49 Panjab Intelligence (PI), 1 Feb. 1846, SD, ESLI, vol. 103, enc. no. 6, IOL.Google Scholar
50 LN, 1 Feb. 1846, DG, The Times, 1 April 1846, p. 6.Google Scholar
51 Ibid., LN, 2 Feb. 1846.
52 LI, PC, 2 Feb. 1846.Google Scholar
53 Idem.
54 PI, 4, 6, and 8 Feb. 1846, SD, ESLI, vol. 103, enc. no. 6.Google Scholar
55 Ibid., 7 Feb. 1846.
56 Ibid., 8 Feb. 1846.
57 Ibid., 1, 4, and 5 Feb. 1846.
58 Ibid., 6 Feb. 1846.
59 Ibid., 8 Feb. 1846.
60 GG to SC, FPNWF, 19 Feb., p. 67.Google Scholar
61 Hardinge, to Peel, , HP, vol. 5, 3 Feb. 1846. In a similar vein GG wrote to SC, FPNWF, 3 Feb. 1846, p. 54, that it ‘may be politic and proper in the course of discussions which may arise, to weaken the territorial power of the Government of Lahore,—rendering the Rajpoots of the Hills independent of the Sikhs, and by other means involving a loss of a portion of their territory …’Google Scholar
62 Innes, J. J. M., Sir Henry Lawrence (Oxford, 1898), p. 208.Google Scholar
63 According to Edwardes, William, Reminiscences of a Bengal Civilian (London, 1853), p. 104, a soldiers' deputation complained to the Rani of a shortage of food at the front. When told that Gulab Singh had sent sufficient supplies, the soldiers retorted: ‘No he has not, we know the old fox; he has not sent breakfast for a bird.’Google Scholar
64 PI, 5 Feb. 1846, SD, ESLI, vol. 103, enc. no. 6.Google Scholar
65 LN, 8 Feb. 1846, DG, The Times, 1 April 1846, p. 6.Google Scholar
66 Mackeson, to Currie, , 10 Feb. 1846, SD, ESLI, vol. 103, letter no. 23.Google Scholar
67 Honigberger, , vol. 1, p. 122;Google ScholarLN, 7 Feb. 1846, DG, The Times, 1 April 1846, p. 6; PI, 9 Feb. 1846, SD, ESLI, vol. 103, enc. no. 6.Google Scholar
68 LN, 8 Feb. 1846, DG, The Times, 1 April 1846, p. 6.Google Scholar
69 Several British writers refer to the cowardly conduct of the Sikh generals at Sobraon. Cunningham, , p. 327, wrote: ‘The traitor, Tej Singh, indeed, instead of leading fresh men to sustain the failing strength of troops on his right, fled on the first assault, and, either accidentally, or by design, sank a boat in the middle of the bridge of communication.’ Calling him ‘a base traitor’,Google ScholarHumbley, , p. 179, charged that Tej Singh ‘deserted his post; he fled at the first brush…’ He also notes that Lal Singh ‘lay with his cavalry higher up the river in a careless, unmilitary position, conscious of being closely watched by the English’.Google ScholarTrevaskis, , p. 205, condemned the Sikh and British generals alike and commented that the war ‘may be described as one between lions led by asses…’Google Scholar
70 Cunningham, , p. 328(n),Google Scholarputs the number of dead and wounded between 5,000 and 8,000, but Humbley, , p. 180, believes it was between 12,000 and 15,000.Google Scholar
71 McGregor, , vol. 2, p. 177.Google Scholar
72 PI, 12 Feb. 1846, SD, ESLI, vol. 103, enc. no. 6, also reported Gulab Singh's boast ‘that had he gone, he would have died like the other Sirdars, & not have run away like the Khalsa’.Google Scholar
73 Ibid., 12 and 13 Feb. 1846.
74 GG to SC, FPNWF, 19 Feb. 1846, p. 68.Google Scholar
75 Idem.
76 Hardinge, to Emily, Hardinge, HP, vol. 6, 17 Feb. 1846.Google Scholar
77 GG to SC, FPNWF, 19 Feb. 1846, pp. 68–9.Google Scholar
78 Mackeson, wrote to Currie, SD, ESLI, vol. 103, letter no. 29, 19 Feb. 1846, that ‘Rumors were afloat at Loodiana, quite undeserving of credit, such as the Governor-General & his suite with Rajah Goolab Singh and others having been murdered at an interview with the Ranee at Lahore… I am inclined to credit the report of Rajah Goolab Singh's death.’ According to LN, 18 Feb. 1846, DG, The Times, 20 April 1846, p. 6, ‘a rumor got abroad [at Lahore] that Rajah Gholab Singh and others, who had gone to the British camp had been seized and made prisoners by the British, which greatly alarmed the people’.Google Scholar
79 Hardinge, to Peel, , HP, vol. 5, 19 Feb. 1846.Google Scholar
80 GG to SC, 19 Feb. 1846, in The War In India, p. 102.Google Scholar
81 Hardinge, told Peel, , HP, vol. 5, 19 Feb. 1846, that in anticipation of independence Gulab Singh ‘wished us to [let him] adopt the subsidiary system & a Resident. This was refused.’Google Scholar
82 GG to SC, 19 Feb. 1846, in The War In India, p. 104.Google Scholar
83 The Illustrated London News, 4 April 1846, p. 222, reported that these troops numbered ‘from 14,000 to 20,000 horse and foot, with about 35 guns’.Google Scholar
84 Papers of Lt H. L. Pester, p. 14, European MSS in IOL.Google Scholar
85 Papers of R. N. Cust, p. 76, European MSS in IOL. Cust, an assistant to Lawrence, claimed to have witnessed an attempt by unknown snipers to kill Gulab Singh on 24 Feb. Hardinge, C., pp. 138–9, also refers to a conspiracy by Lal Singh to murder the Raja.Google Scholar
86 LN, 21, 22 and 23 Feb. 1846, DG, The Times, 20 April 1846, p. 6.Google Scholar
87 Ram, Kirpa, p. 443.Google Scholar
88 ‘The Treaties of Lahore’ by ‘Our Indian Correspondent’ in The Times, 25 May 1846, p. 8.Google Scholar
89 Cunningham, , pp. 406–11.Google Scholar
90 Marshman, J. C., Memoirs of Sir Henry Havelock (London, 1960), pp, 161–2,Google Scholar
91 Hardinge, to Walter, Hardinge, HP, vol. 7, 11 March 1846.Google Scholar
92 The new state under Gulab Singh was not to include such eastern hill areas as Kulu, Kangra, Nurpur, and Mandi. The British considered the region strategically important and annexed it. Justifying the territorial division GG told SC, 4 March 1846, FPNWF, p. 89: ‘It is highly expedient that the trans-Beas portion of Kooloo and Mundi, with the more fertile district and strong position of Noorpoore, and the celebrated Fort Kangra—the Key of the Himalayas, in native estimation—with its district and dependencies, should be in our possession.’ Further territorial adjustments which did not affect Kashmir were made later.Google Scholar
93 One lakh = 100,000.Google Scholar
94 Cunningham, , pp. 413–15. Article 3 of the agreement states that ‘fifty lacs [were] to be paid, on ratification of this treaty, and twenty-five lacs on or before the 1st of October of the current year, A.D. 1846.’ Despite some doubts the following evidence seems to indicate that, though late, Gulab Singh paid this amount in full. Hardinge informed his predecessor that Gulab Singh ‘has paid his first instalment of 50 lacs…’Google Scholar See Ellenborough, Papers (EP), vol. 7, 12 May 1846, Public Record Office, London. The GG communicated similar information to SC, 3 Sept. 1846, Papers Relating to the Articles of Agreement for Administration of the State of Lahore (House of Commons, 1847), p. 180.Google ScholarAccording to Mahajan, , p. 48 (n), ‘the last instalment was paid as late as 14 March 1850. The final receipt for the purchase of Kashmir signed by the Board of Administration—the original draft of which is exhibited in the Punjab Government Record Office Museum [Lahore]—is dated 30 March 1850.’Google Scholar
95 Cunningham, , p. 332 (n).Google Scholar
96 Hardinge, to Sarah, , HP, box no. 1 of unfiled letters, 19 Feb. 1846.Google Scholar
97 Hardinge, to Emily, , HP, vol. 6, 2 March 1846.Google Scholar
98 GG to SC, 4 March 1846, FPNWF, p. 89.Google Scholar
99 Hardinge, to Peel, , HP, vol. 5, 19 March 1846.Google Scholar
100 Hardinge, C., p. 131.Google Scholar
101 Napier, W., The Life and Opinions of General Sir Charles Napier (London, 1857), vol. 3, p. 391.Google Scholar
102 Ibid., pp. 457–8.
103 Ibid., pp. 469–70.
104 The inhabitants of north-western India were not unaware of Napier's militant attitude. A news item entitled ‘India and China—The Overland Mail’ in The Times, 6 March 1846, p. 5, revealed that they had tagged him ‘Sheitan ka bhaee, “the Devil's brother”’.Google Scholar
105 Hardinge, C., p. 131;Google ScholarCharles also wrote about the ‘impolity and the difficulties of annexation’ to Walter, , HP, vol. 7, 4 March 1846: ‘Peshawar 300 miles in advance of the Sutlege with 4 deep rivers intersecting it—and the military occupation of Cashmeer touching Chinese Tartary with our troops extending down to Mooltan would by no means improve our frontier line.’Google Scholar
106 Hardinge, C., pp. 132–3.Google Scholar
107 Ellenborough, to Hardinge, , EP, vol. 7, 22 April 1846.Google Scholar
108 Hardinge, to Ellenborough, , EP, vol. 7, 7 June 1846.Google Scholar
109 Edwardes, B. and Merivale, H., Life of Sir Henry Lawrence (London, 1877), vol. 2, p. 61.Google Scholar
110 Morrison, J. L., Lawrence of Lucknow (London, 1934), p. 158.Google Scholar
111 Hardinge, C., p. 143.Google Scholar
112 Willock, H., Hogg, J., and Astell, W. of the Board of Directors, EIC, to GG, Board's Drafts of Secret Despatches to India, vol. 19, 4 April 1846, MSS in IOL.Google Scholar
113 The Times, 5 May 1846, p. 4.Google Scholar
114 Ibid., 21 May 1846, p. 4.