We have no hesitation in saying that Lord Dalhousie is one of those Indian administrators who are accused of more sing of administration than they are really guilty of. Officers like Dalhousie are nothing more than mouthpieces of tyrany. They merely execute the commands of the ‘Home’ authorities. To refer all responsibility for tyrannous misdeeds committed in India to such mouth-pieces would be as unjust as it is irrational. Dalhousie was purely a creature of the circumstances in which he was placed. The major portion of the responsibility, for good as well as for evil, therefore, rests on those who created the situation. As long as the general policy is dictated from ‘Home’, those whose duty is merely to execute it can act no more honestly than Dalhousie did. It would certainly be unjust to hold Dalhousie responnsible for all those combined acts and deeds which had to flow directly from the situation created for him by his masters in England and his assistants in India. Dalhousie merely reaped that harvest of political robbery the seeds of which had been sedulously sown for a hundred years by his predecessors. The intrigues born of political avarice had been sown long before and Dalhousie’s regime was the season in which they bore fruit. But for this heritage of iniquitous power behind him, how many kingdoms could Dalhousie have annexed? It was chiefly because generations of his predecessors had prepared the way for him by slowly undermining the foundations of the different kingdoms of India that Dalhousie was enabled, by the mere stroke of his pen, to annex so many of them.
It was in 1764 that the relations between the Company and the ruler of Outh were first established. Since then, the servants of the Company had been steadily trying to usurp the fertile land of Ayodhya. Having first compelled the Nabob of Oudh to keep English regiments in his pay for ‘protecting’ him, they obtained from him in return Rs. 16 lakhs (160,000) per
annum as the pay for these regiments. By such forced protection and voluntary compulsion, the treasury of the Nabob was rapidly emptied; and then the English suggested to the Nabob (it was a veiled command) that a replacing of all the native army of the Nabob by English regiments would be a valuable step towards the effectual ‘protection’ of the principality. A treasury which could not afford to pay even the pay of the “subsidised troops” could certainly not pay the salaries of the “additional” troops forced on the Nabob, and the English thoroughly knew this fact. Indeed, the additional demand was made because the English knew this fact. At last it was forced (most unwillingly!) upon the notice of the Company that, if the Nabob had an empty treasury, he had at least a tract of territory and, so, with the sold object of looking after the welfare and well-being of the Nabob, the Companydeprieved him, at once and for ever, of a territory yielding a new revenue of about two crores of Rupees ( 2,000,000) and forced him to accept the services of this extensive army of English soldiers. This territory was the land of Rohilkhand and the Doab.
After robbing all this land from the territory of Oudh, the English signed an agreement that, as the Nabob had surrendered all and every right over this tract of land, the rest of the territory belonging to the Nabob should remain hereditarily in the family of the Nabob. Another article in the treaty provided that the Nabob should not oppress his subjects. After this treaty which was concluded in 1801, the Nabob was made to advance to the Company, whenever they wanted financial aid, crores of Rupees. The whole kingdom of Oudh was in the hands of the Compoany’s army officers, the treasury became empty by forced loans and contributions, and it was impossible for the Nabob to administer his territory independently or to introduce internal reforms. But the philanthropic Company kept on urging upon him, pointing to the articles in the treary of 1801, to alter his administration so as to make his subjects happy and contended. How was it possible for the Nabob to do so ? The Company
thwarted all his efforts to reform the finances. Those old laws in the kingdom which esured the happiness of the people were abolished by the Company and new ones were introduced. The subjects so much in consequence of these new laws that even the Company had to acknowledge its mistake and did do so ten years after. Thus, while on the one hand the Company unlawfully interfered in the internal administration of the kingdom, on the other hand it insisted that the subjects of the Nabob should have no complaints. They first made him empty his treasury to satisfy their exorbitant demands; and when, to satisfy their further demands which they insisted on being satisfied at once, the Nabob taxed his subjects, down comes the Company on the Nabob’s poor devoted head and charges him with maladministration, because, forsooth, the subjects complained against the new taxes. The Nabob’s administration was thus paralysed, but, at the same time, if by any chance the people, with one voice, rose against the injustice and attempted to get a reform of the constitution, English bayonets and swords of the “subsidised” troops were ever ready to smother the united voice of the nation. And still, the Company persisted in requiring that there should be no complaints in the kingdom ! Thus, while on the one hand they rendered it more and more impossible either for the Nabob or the people to reform the administration in any way, on the other hand their strict and persistent demands for a better administration grew steadily louder and louder ! “As a matter of fact, the true and effectual way for the introduction of an administration which would render the people happy would have been to call the British Resident back and to given the Nabob a free hand in the administration of his dominion. Thus, the whole guilt of the unrest in his territory rests on the head of the Company”.20 Such is the clear and unmistakable evidence of Lord Hastings. But in spite of this, the Company threatened that, if the Nabob did not render his administration conducive to
20 Charles Ball’s Indian Mutiny, Vol.I, p.152.
the happiness of his subjects, the Company would consider it a violationof the treaty of 1801.
This treaty of 1801 was cancelled and the Nabob entered into a fresh agreement in 1837. This treaty impaired the authority of the Nabob considerably, but he signed the new agreement simply with the intention of rescuing himself from the cunning treaty of 1801. In the year 1847, Wajid Ali Shah succeeded to the throne of Oudh. This new Nabob determined from the first to destroy the poisonous white worm which was killing the life out of the state, and with that object began reforms in the army which was the life of the kingdom. This youthful prince introduced strict regulations as to the discipline of the Sepoys and even personally supervised their drill. All the regiments had to undergo the drill every morning before the Nabob, who used to dress in the uniform of the commander-in-shift of the troops. He issued strict orders that every regiment that was late in presenting itself on the parade ground should be liable to a fine of Rs.2000 ( 200) and he, at the same time, bound himself to pay the same amount as fine if he himself failed in this duty.21 The Company, of course, could not bear to see the Nabob develop his strength. The British Resident, therefore in a short time forced the Nabob to give up these military activities and at the same time suggested that, if he so desired to increase the strength of the army, the Company was quite willing to increase the “subsidiary” force; the only condition they would impose being that the Nabob should, every year, pay a further additional sum towards its expenses and upkeep. The hotblooded Nabob was quite indignant. But he was forced to give up his darling scheme of military reform and was reduced to complete inactivity. Yet, the benevolent East India Company went on arguing that the Nabob should render his administration happy to his subjects.
21 Native Narratives of the Mutiny by Metcalfe, pp.32-33.
But now, the Nabob need ot even think as to how to render his rule happy. For Lord Dalhousie has arrived in India with the express and benevolent object of taking upon himself (as representative of the E.I.Coy.) all the responsibility for the good administration of all the independent states of India. With his keen political insight, Lord Dalhousie soon realised that the treaty of 1837 was, as a matter of fact, a great blunder. For in the annulment of the old treaty was lost a very strong and a very hypercritical reason for the annexation of the idependent principality of Oudh. The article in the treaty of 1801, demanding that the Nabob should rule for the happiness of his subjects, was an incontrovertible argument for annexing Oudh at the sweet will of the Company. How could this mistake of 1837 be repaired ? Why, by simply denying the fact that the treaty was ever entered into. Without any indirect methods, the Nabob was informed that no such treaty as the one of 1837 was ever entered into. A short time after the treaty of 1837, the English, as it would appear, remembered the treaty perfectly well. Indeed in 1847, Loard Hartington had publicly and unmistakably acknowledged this treaty. Col.Sleeman in 1851 had further testified to the treaty. Nay, in that very year 1853, not only was mention made of this treaty, but it was actually appended to the list of the existing treaties in the Company’s records for that year !22 So the English denied, aye, altogether, that there was ever any such treaty : - the very existence of a treaty which they had acknowledged just a minute before was denied by them even before the pen which had written the acknowledgment had been laid down ! And thus, Wajid Ali Shah was informed that the Company would consider it necessary to take over the administration of his kingdom if he did not introduce the happy regime !
But it must not be forgotten that all these important issues had been decided on long before Dalhousie even reached the shores of Hindusthan. All his predecessors, moved by unholy designs, had prepared
22 Dalhousie’s Administration, Vol.II, p.367.
the way to swallow this province, and their endeavours, characterised by low cunning, had almost succeeded. To Dalhousie was reserved the last act of consummation, the last stroke of policy and this absorbed all his attention. It would have been out of the question to “conquer” Oudh by sending an expedition into the territory as was done in the case of the Panjab or Brahmadesh (Burma), for as yet not a single man in the Oudh territory was for the English. The charge that the Nabab did not carry out the friendly
intentions he professed was also out of the question, for had not the Nabob helped the English on all occasions, when help was needed ? And had not the Nabob freely supplied the English with money from his pocket ? Had he not supplied the English even with provisions, when they were pressed hard in many of their campaigns ?
Nor could there be any excuse, as in the case of Nagpur, that the Nabob had no direct heir; the palace was full of the Nabob’s legitimate children. Nor was there trouble about adoption as in the case of Jhansi, for the present king was the legitimate son of the late king and had, further, sat on the throne for years. In short the Nabob of Oudh had not committed any of the above “crimes” which cost other princes their kingdoms. But though the Nabob had thus avoided every other “crime”, still the demented fool had committed one unpardonable crime ! What crime could cry louder than this, that the land of Oudh was very fertile, teeming with crops and rich in every way ? Even the dry language of the Blue Book has broken forth into poetic eloquence when describing the beautiful and rich land of Oudh !
The Blue Book says :- “In this beautiful land, everywhere within twenty feet, and in some placed even within ten feet, of the surface, there is a plentiful supply of water. This splendid tract is most charming, nodding with whole forests of tall and towering bamboo trees, cooled by the share of mango trees and green with rich and verdant crops. The deep shade of the tamarind, the fragrance of the orange trees, the rich hue of the fig trees, and the sweet all-pervading scent of the pollen of flowers lend an additional glory to a scene naturally beautiful!”
That no wise Englishman should hesitate to pull down a Nabob who was guilty of such an enormity as possessing such a beautiful tract of territory all for himself, Dalhousie realised but too well and so, in the year 1856, the fiat went forth that Oudh was to be annexed. And what was the reason alleged ? Of course this, that the Nabob was not reforming his administration. But, England couldst justify thy rule over India for a day, if thou acknowledgest the plea of unrest and maladministration as sufficient ? There is the vice of opium-eating in China, absolute rule in Afghanisthan, why, under thy very nose Russia has reached a climax of lawlessness and tyranny; yet couldst thou dare for that reason to drag the Chinese Emperor
and the Amir and the Tsar from their thrones and annex their kingdoms ? How couldst though acquire the right of gagging the mouth of your neighbour and binding his hands and feet and taking possession of his house, because, forsooth, he kept his things not quite in proper order? Even the treaty of 1801 did not give the Company the right of annexing Oudh under any circumstances. And was not that very absence of good administration, at which the Company pretended so much indignation, a thing brought about by their own agency? Arnold, the biographer of Dalhousie and the historian of his regime, asserts that the Nabob of Oudh was guilty of many a crime basides that ! In the first place, he used to give presents of shawls to his servants of either sex; further that he has a fireworks display on the 11th of May; why, more - one morning he urged Shah Begum and Taj Begum to a dinner ! What more horrible crime could he commit ? All thanks to the English who bore patiently such gross acts on the part of the Nabob as taking medicinal drugs in the mornings, and desisted from dethroning him! But the patience of the English could endure no more ! For, one day the Nawab was present when some stallions were let on the mares for breeding purposes.
It is a wonder that malicious as the English historians were, trying hard to noise far and wife the incapacity of the Nabob for good administration, by such silly, trifling accusations, they should have taken the trouble to come to Hindusthan to witness such occurrences as these. Even in their own country, throughout the various royal palaces, they could have gathered enough material of worst nature; and in that case, their time would certainly have been more profitably employed in annexing and confiscating the estates of their own princes and lords, in order to put an end to violations and outrages of a far more nefarious kind!
As soon as the British Resident received the order that the Nabob should be informed of the decision of Dalhousie - a lasting stain on his regime - the Resident went to the Nabob’s palace and began to insist that the Nabob should sign a document stating that he was perfectly willing to give over his dominions to the Company. The Nabob read the document and flatly refused to sign. To make the Nabob sign this document, the Resident began attempts to bribe the Ranee and the Vizier and the threat was also given that a refusal by the Nabob to sign the document would result in even his pension being stopped. The Nabob was overwhelmed with grief at this and began even to weep. But it was of no use. Seeing at the end of three days that the refusal was still persisted in, the British army, insolently setting aside the Nabob’s authority, entered Lucknow and took forcible possession of the whole Ryasat, including his palace. The Zenanas were looted, the Begums were insulted, the Nabob was hurled from the throne, palaces were turned into stables for the soldiers of the English and thus began a happy beginning of the good administration of the so-far-badly-managed Kingdom of Oudh.
Though the ruling prince of Oudh was a Mahomedan, most of the big land-owners under him were Hindus. Jahgirs and Talukdari rights had continued from father to son in the families of these Zemindars for generations. Hundreds of villages were administered under the single authority of each of these proprietors. They possessed forts and had small armies under them to protect these Jahgirs. No wonder, then, that these Zemindars very soon incurred the displeasure of the Company. With a view
to reduce all to the same level of poverty, the sordid roller of the Company’s land revenue administration began to devastate the land. The Talukdars were deprived of their numerous villages wholesale, their lands were confiscated, their forts were demolished, and all over the land of Ayodhya one long wail of suffering rent the air ! The Amir of yesterday became a Fakir to-day. The descendants of ancient and noble families were driven from village to village at the behest of a raw white youth of yesterday; insults were everywhere given; whole families were reduced to dust.23
The English claimed that they were doing these things for the poor agriculturists and villagers. Tyrannous land-owners oppressed the Ryot; hence, these protectors of the Ryot were introducing new methods to deliver the Ryot from the cruel grip of the landowner. How many Ryots and how many villagers were deceived by these false pretensions will soon be witnessed on the battle-fields of Ayodhya. Fahtiful villagers, attached to their masters, used to visit these homeless Zemindars and Taklukdars, robbed and driven from door to door, and used to pay them faithful homage in the profuse flow of sincere tears. Thus, there was terrible suffering - right from the Nabob of Oudh to the villagers; not a place but witnesses wholesale looting, even burning, misery, oppression, and tyranny, and did not hurl terrible curses and vowed vengeance; not a homestead but looked desolate, terribly desolate! Such was the beneficient administration that was substituted in Oudh for the misgovernment of the Nabob !
The world-wide difference between Swarajya and foreign rule was, thus, brought painfully to the notice of all Oudh. All their previous
23 Kaye says with reference to the Zemindar :- The chances against him were many and great, for he
had divers ordeals to pass through and he seldom survived them all. When the claims of a great
Talukdar could not be altogether ignored, it was declared that he was a rogue or a fool…. They gave
him a bad name and they straightway went to ruin him It was at once a cruel wrong and a grave
error to sweep it away as though it were an encumbrance and an usurpation.
history stood before them vividly. They realised full well know that even death was preferable to living in slavery. How long to look on, while the Swadesh was reduced to dust and Swarajya was no more? They hated intensely these results and this shameful condition.
At this very time, the roller of the Inam Commission was working in other provinces in order to destroy the stamina of Zemindars and Vatandars in those provinces and reduce them to the level of those classes in Oudh. Those lands and those Jahgirs which had been won by the Sanad of the Sword were being abolished wholesale, because they could not show documentary evidence of Sanads of paper. That the work of the Inam Commission was terrible may, to some extent, be realised from this single fact that nearly 35000 big Jahgirs and extensive Inams were inquired into by the Inam Commission and of these, within the space of ten years, three-fifths were usurped! By this means, all over India, property of every kind was rendered insecure. Thrones of princes, Vatans of Sardars, lands of Zemindars, Talukas of Talukdars, houses of citizens, the lands dedicated to the temples, the fields of agriculturists - all these were, in this terrible conflagration, burned to ashes. Even life was rendered insecure. No one could be sure that the few morsels of food which he was allowed to-day would be spared to him to-morrow. The contrast between Swarajya and foreign government, independence and slavery, stood naked in all its horrible aspects before the people.
Thus did the English Administrator benevolently in this extraordinary way these vast dominions of our Indian princes which had been so far badly administered !