British Views on Their Invasion of Punjab

THE RETRIBUTION Of THE ARCHIVE: BRITISH VIEWS ON THEIR INVASION OF PUNJAB Jason R. B. Smith HE event known as “The Sikh War,” “The First and Second Silth TWars,” and “The Anglo-Such War,” received considerable attention from former British officers in the aftermath ofthe episode. From 1845 to 1849 the British invaded and reinvaded Punjab, an area in modern northwestern India and north Pakistan whose name literally translates as “Five Rivers,” for the five rivers the territory resides within. Histories written by British administrators and former British soldiers explained the military conquest ofthe Punjab as a decidedly just annexation. These administrators and soldiers described a territory in chaos, to which they brought enlightened rule. In contrast, contemporary historians and scholars suggest that the British manufactured the conditions ofdisorder in the Punjab prior to bringing it stability. These latter historians make use of revealing documents that the former did not take into account, while the former concerned themselves mostly with a vivid account of a victorious campaign against an aggressive enemy. British acting- historians immediately following the military subjugation of Punjab inaccurately represented the violence they brought to the region as a heroic and justified military engagement, whereas the Punjabi people defending their home received the part of barbaric but brave people urgently in need of western values and styles of government. British historiography from the period following the conquest does not stray far from the themes of chaos, instability and culpability. G. Kharana’s British Historiography ofthe Sikh Power in the Punjab serves as an excellent source of analysis on the nature of British historiography,’ Initially, as the British came into contact with Sikhs, they sought out all the knowledge they could get. Khurana notes, “British historiography on the Sikhs was a result of British interest in the rise and growth of the ‘G. Khurana, British Historiography of the Sikh Power in the Punjab (London: Mansell Publishing Limited, 1958). 24 Jason R. B. Smith Sikhs and the political power they had come to wield.”2 A History ofthe Sikhs written in 1849 by Joseph Davey Cunningham, a lieutenant of engineers in the British army is one such example. With regards to who was writing this history, there existed a genuine lack of trained histo rians: ‘The authors were either military officials of civil administrators, and, for the most part, their writings aimed at influencing the course of British policy towards the Sikhs.”3 Concerning what information might be included in their stories Khurana explains, “It must be admitted that the means ofcollecting information at the disposal ofthese writers were limited, particularly because of the language barrier.”4 This barrier had little impact on the decision to withhold vital information about the intentional participation in the destabilizing of the Punjab. Sources this paper will examine reveal that though letters between British officials were available to nineteenth century military acting-historians, they often did not include them in their productions.5 Contemporary histo rians have since piloted considerable revisions on the history of the encounter upon the examination of many of these correspondences. Khurana also identified a dreadful trend within this episode among the British concerned with what versions ofthis epoch reached readers at home. He wrote that “the writers were also influenced by the attitude of the Government. .. the punishment was equally rigorous where authors tried to transgress the norms of official propriety;” even “During the Ranjit Singh period the British Government wanted to suppress the facts.”6 These realities no doubt seriously impacted the manner in which the early British histories were manufactured. Regarding Ranjit Singh, both British and Punjabi sources gave considerable praise to him for the stability his reign enjoyed. Khurana’s analysis is key in any examination of these texts. Invasion, Occupation, and Rebellion Before we look at the earlier texts and inspect their constitution, it would be opportune to develop a stronger sense of the nature and chronology of the events in question. We will use a few scholars to do this and later mobilize additional historian’s works to buttress the claims made here. Muzaffar Alam’s The Crisis ofEmpire in Mughal North India “Ibid.,i37. Ibid., 737-140. 4lbid,, 140. Hasrat, Bikrama Jit, ed., The Punjab Papers. (Hoshiarpur, India: V. V. Research Institute Press, 1970). 6 Khurana, British Historiography, 141. Ex POST FACTO THE RETRIBUTION OF THE ARCHIVE 25 delineates a clear period of instability in Punjab as its population resisted the Mughal imperial center at Delhi. Relative autonomy followed in Punjab and a separate sphere of politics emerged therein. J. S. Grewal, a noted Sikh scholar and current president of the Indian Institute of Advanced Study at Shimla, wrote a text in 1994 entitled The Sikhs ofthe Punjab and makes use of relevant information previously neglected by British acting-historians.7 He begins his chapter on the assault by remarking about the state of Punjab under Maharaja Ranjit Singh: “Paying personal attention to revenue administration and trade in his large dominions he revived prosperity in the Punjab... In the rulin class too, Hindus and Muslims came to form a substantial element.” Therefore, according to Grewal, Ranjit Singh provided a space in which the people of the five rivers were able to thrive and develop a viable society. It was just less than a decade after the death of Ranjit Singh that the British launched their bloody invasion into the region. Grewal makes a strong case that the Punjab thrived under Ranjit Singh. He wrote, “Increase in agricultural production was paralleled by an increase in manufacturing and the volume of trade. Cities and towns expanded with the expansion of Ranjit Singh’s dominions.”9 further, Ranjit advanced trade in the region by securing trade routes and main taining light taxes on tradesmen coming in and out of the area.’° Grewal further recognizes the developments of a host of arts and crafts during this period, from painting to new monumental architectural structures in Sikh temples and secular structures as well.” As further proof of the economic prosperity the Sikh kingdom enjoyed, Grewal notes, “the Austrian traveler Baron Charles Hugel remarked that the state estab lished by Ranjit Singh was ‘the most wonderful object in the whole world.”2 Thus following the period of Mughal imperial rule the region came into an interlude of stability.’3 Grewal explains that Ranjit made it possible during his reign for anyone to advance his or her social position and that political and social oppression were practically absent.’4 The Maharaja died in Lahore in 1839, having elected Kharak Singh to replace him. tntrigue in the court began immediately and with “Cher Singh Bajwa, [heavily influencing] the new Maharaja, and [with] Chet 7J. S. Grewal, The Sikhs ofthe Punjab (New Dehli: Cambridge University Press, ‘Ibid.,99. Ibid., lb. Ibid., in. “Ibid. “Ibid., H3. ‘ Muzaffar Alam, The Crisis of Empire in Mughal North India: Awadh and the Punjab, 1701—48 University Press, 1986). ‘ (Dehli: Oxford Grewal, 113. VOLUME XIX 2010 26 Jason R. B. Smith Singh’s aspiration to oust Dhian Singh, [he] induced the latter to conspire with Prince Nau Nihal Singh. [Consequently] Chet Singh was murdered in early October.”5 Prince Nau took indirect control over the Khalsa and the kingdom, and in spite of the British claims to the contrary following their bloodletting, this new court maintained peace and order until British agents brought chaos to them in the form of conspiracies. Grewal notes that under the de facto rule of Prince Nau Nihal Singh “the attempts of the British officers like MacNaughten to favor the fugitive Shah Shuja at the cost of Maharaja Kharak Singh in the Peshawar region were foiled.”6 But shortly after this, the de jure ruler Maharaja Kharak Singh died.’7 Thus Sher Singh took the title of Maharaja four days later 1841l8 and “Prince Sher Singh occupied the fort of Lahore on 20 January Ominously the British, explains Grewal, became increasingly interested in the internal affairs of the Punjab during the period in which Sher Singh was enthroned as Maharaja.’9 British involvement came in the form ofa coup, which seriously des tabilized the Punjab. Grewal explains, “It was on the suggestion of a British political Agent that Maharaja Sher Singh pardoned Sardar Attar Singh and Ajit Singh Sandhanwalia allowed them to return to Lahore.”2° After they regained the Maharaja’s trust Lehna Singh and Ajit Singh murdered him and his son, Prince Pratap Singh, on 15 September 1843.21 The faith of the Khalsa in the leadership began to falter and disorder began to reign in earnest in the region. Thus, the British had a major hand in the production of disorder among the Khalsa. Different factions of the Khalsa began to take opposing positions and infighting began. The Maharaja Ranjit Singh may have come from the Sandhanwalia Sardars.22 They worked with the British, who intended to install Dali Singh with his mother as regent.23 In this way, the British no doubt hoped to capitalize on their assistance in bringing their ally to power. The Sardars partici pated, believing they would have a stronger influence over the affairs of state with Dali Singh on the throne. Because of the failure of this plan, chaos ensued, which British acting-historians then cited as a significant reason for British military intervention. Thus, the British played a major ‘ Ibid., 120. 6 Ibid. ° Ibid. His death took place on November 1840 and was due to illness. 8 5 ‘ Ibid. ibid., 121. ibid. Ibid.,121—122. ‘2She Singh, The Sansis ofPunjab: a Gypsy and De-notified Tribe ofRajput Origin (Dehli: Munshiram Manoharlal, 1965).

Load more