PUNJAB GOVERNMENT RECORD OFFICE PUBLICATIONS.

M O N O G R A P H No. 1 2

THE BUILDING OF THE JAMMU AND KASHMIR STATE

BEING THE ACHIEVEMENT OF MAHARAJA GULAB SINGH

BY

ARJUN NATH SAPRU, M.A.

line IS i jb Tl

General Editor :—H. L. O. GARRETT, I.E.S., Keeper of the Records of the Government of the Punjab.

Price: Rs. 3-12-0 or 5s. 8d.

/

>-?7<9 £

THE BUILDING OF THE JAMMU AND KASHMIR STATE

BEING THE ACHIEVEMENT OF MAHARAJA GULAB SINGH.

Revised List of Agents for the Sale of Punjab Government Publications.

ON THE CONTINENT AND UNITED KINGDOM.

Hi W book­

seller .

IN INDIA.

The GENERAL MANAGER, « The Qaumi Daler " and the Union Press, Amritsar.

Messrs. D. B. TARAPOREWALA, SONS & Co., Bombay.

The MANAGING PARTNER, The Bombay Book Depot, Booksellers and Publishers, Girgaon Bombay.

Messrs. W. NEWMAN & Co., Limited, Calcutta*

The PROPRIETOR, The Book Company, Calcutta.

Messrs. THACKER, SPINK & Co., Calcutta.

Messrs. CHATTERJI & Co., Booksellers, 204, Cornwallis Street, Calcutta.

Messrs. RAMA KRISHNA & SONS; Lahore. The SECRETARY, Punjab Beligious Book Society, Lahore*

The MANAGER, Standard Book Depot, Lahore.

The MANAGER, University Book Agency, Lahore* L. RAM LAL SURI, Proprietor. ; i The Students' Own Agency," Lahore* L. DEWAN CHAND Proprietor; The Mercantile Press, Lahore. The MANAGER, Mufid-i-'Am Press, Lahore. The PROPRIETOR, Punjab Law Book Mart, Lahore, Mr. D. PESTONJI, Stockists' Representative, Lahore. The MANAGING PROPRIETOR, The Commercial Book Company, Lahore. R. S. JAURA, Esq., B.A., B.T., The Students' Popular Depdt, Anarkali,

Lahore. The Proprietor, Aftab Punjab General Law Book Agency, Lahore. The MANAGER, Oxford Book and Stationery Co., The Mall, Lahore* The PROPRIETOR, City Book Co., Post Box No. 288, Madras.

im

Messrs. THACKER, SPINK & Co., Simla.

List of Monographs already published and under publication •

1. The Grand Trunk Road in the Punjab, by K. M. Sarkar, Rs. 2-12-0.

2. A History of the Development of the Judiciary in the Punjab (1846—1884), by" Ram Lai, Handa, Re. 1-6-0.

3. A Brief History of the Old Police Battalions in the Punjab, by H. L. 0. Garrett, As. 8".

4. A History of the Development of the Judiciary in the Punjab (1884—1926), by Daya Krishna Kapur, Re. 1-6-0.

5. A History of the Growth and Development of Western Civilization in the Punjab (1846—1884), by Harbans Rai, Mehta, Rs. 2-2-0.

6. A History of the Development of the Police in the Punjab (1849—1905), by Barkat Ram, Kalia, Rs. 4-0-0.

7. Colonization in the Rechna Doab, by Deva Singh, Rs. 3-12-0.

8. The Development of Local Self-Government in the Punjab (1849-1900), by Amar Nath, Re. 1-8-0.

9 Commerce by rivers in the Punjab. A Survey of the Marine Depai merit (1861—1872), by Faquir Chand, Arrora, Rs. 8-8-0.

10. John Lawrence as Commissioner of the Jullundur Doab (1846 1849), by R. R~ Sethi, Rs. 3-8-0.

Punjab

Rs. 3-8-0.

12. The Building up of Jammu and Kashmir, by Pandit Arjun Nath, Rs. 3-12-0.

13. A Critical Survey of the Punjab Mental Hospitals, by Major C. J. Lodge-Patch, I.M.S.,Rs. 4-8-0.

-/ e

/ > ( v»••'-*' . < » •

I

> 0 0 0 _ C . P . and S. Pb jatialr,

LANGUAGE D E ^ A K

UBRARYACC.NO. Date Due

"*»Date of Issue

Date of •Return

" -AND CAST THE KINGDOMS OLD

INTO ANOTHER MOULD."

ANDREW MARVELL.

J

f

CONTENTS

CHAPTER.

Bibliography

Introductory

• •

• •

I Jammu—its brief history

II The Development of Jammu. The Hindu Principali­ties • • • •

III The Development of Jammu. The Muhammadan Principalities • •

IV The Development of Jammu. The occupation and Annexation of Ladakh

V The Sale of the Territories • • • #

Geneological Table Statement of Jaghirs

* • • • * •

• »

LIST OF MAP

APPENDICES.

• • • • m •

PAGE

I

in

1

8

15

23

80

VI The consolidation of his authority by Maharaja Gulab Singh, the occupation of Kohistan . . . • 37

VII The consolidation of his authority by Maharaja Gulab Singh. The occupation of Kashmir . . . . 44

VIII The consolidation of his authority by Maharaja Gulab Singh. The occupation of Kashmir (contd.) •. 58

IX The Demarcation of the Territories . . . . 75

7 82

Jammu and Kashmir Territories •. 36

l I The Ladakh Agreement II Jammu granted to Raja Gulab Singh . • . . iii

I II Selected Articles from the Treaty of Lahore . . v IV Selected Articles from the Agreement of March

11,1846 V The Treaty of Amritsar

VI

vn VI The Pinal Receipt for the Purchase of Kashmir . . ix

'

BIBLIOGRAPHY.

FROM THE PUNJAB RECORD OFFICE.

Selected documents from Press Lists, Volumes IX, X, XI, XII, XIII.

Papers on the trial of Maharaja Gulab Singh.

Papers on the trial of Raja Lall Singh.

Papers on the Demarcation of Boundary between Jammu and British Trerritory.

Letters written by Major Abbott employed in demarcating Boundaries.

File No. 72.

Parliamentary Papers (a) 1844—47, (b) 1847—49.

Catalogue of the Khalsa Durbar, 2 Volumes.

Lahore Political Diaries, Volumes III, IV, VI.

I l l

Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, 1889

Koznamcha Lahore Durbar

Tarikh-i-Hassan

Gulab Nama

Zaffar Nama

Reigning family of Lahore

Travels in Kashmir, Ladakh, &c.

Travels, 2 Volumes • •

Journey in India, &c, 2 Volumes

Treaties, Engagements and Sanads, Volume IX

The Jammu and Kashmir Territories

Ladakh • • • • • •

Travels of W. Moorcroft and G. Trebeck

Memoirs * • • •

Sohun Lai.

Hassan Malik.

Kirpa Ram.

Amar Nath.

Smyth.

G. T. Vigne.

G. Forester.

Jacquemont.

C. U. Aitchison.

Drew.

A. Cunningham.

H. H. Wilson.

Gardiner.

Imperial Gazetteer of India (J. & K.)

Gazetteer of Kashmir • f (3. E. Bates.

11

• *

Kashmir Eaj

Kashmir

Kashmir

Kashmir

Lord Lawrence

History of the Punjab

History of the Sikhs

The Sikhs and the Sikh Wars

Native States of India

Enactments in force in Native States

Eoutes in Jammu and Kashmir

Hunza and Nagar Handbook

Where Three Empires Meet

Journals

Our Visit to Hindustan, Kashmir and Ladakh

The Punjab . •

Diary of a Pedestrian

• •

• • • •

Lucullus.

Dr. Neve.

F. Younghueband-

W, Lawrence.

. B. Smith.

. M. Latif.

. J. D. Cunningham

. Gough and Innes.

. Lee Warner.

De Bourbel.

Leitner.

E. F. Knight.

E. Temple.

J. C. Murray Ayns-ley.

Lt-Col. Steinbach.

Knight.

PREFATORY NOTE.

THOUGH the modern State of Jammu and Kashmir is one of the most important of the Indian States and has no political con­nection with the Punjab, its origin is so much bound up with the history of the latter province that the story of its creation may well be included in our series of Monographs.

The author has drawn upon many original sources, and has com­piled a very careful and satisfactory account of the genesis of the State, which owed so much to the shrewdness of its first ruler Maha­raja Gulab Singh. Nothing in the volume is more interesting than the account of the delicate adjustment of the boundaries of the new State. By a series of concessions and acquisitions the original State was transformed into its present compact form, and many awkward salients in the frontier on both sides were satisfactorily modified. Several biographies of Gulab Singh have appeared—the most recent being that of Professor Pannikar. But in the present volume the author deals with the most interesting period of the Maharaja's life in greater detail and with more authoritative backing than other writers on the sub­ject.

LAHORE : } H. L. 0. GAEEETT,

February 1931. ) Keeper of the Records of the Government of the Punjab.

Ill

INTRODUCTORY.

THIS thesis purposes to trace the history of certain different principalities and their coalescence to form the present Jammu and Kashmir territories. To follow the events detailed in the main Chapters a short biographical note on the man whose achievement is our subject should be only necessary.

" Gulabu " was born in the year 1788 A. D. His father Kasur Singh was the grandson of Sarup Singh, one of the brothers of Ranjit Dev, whose descendants ruled Jammu till the deposition of the son of Jey Singh in 1809. In the unsuccessful Sikh invasion of Jammu in the year 1807 Gulab Singh distinguished himself in military skill and was spoken of highly to Maharaja Ranjit Singh by Misr Dewan Chand.

In the same year he left his native country for Lahore, and after an unsuccessful stay of a few months at the Capital returned to Jammu. In 1808 he obtained military employment on Rs. 3 per month and rations under the Killadar of Mungla, a fort to the west of Jhelum. Dissatisfied there he entered the service of Sultan Khan of Bhimber, but soon after returned to live with his father at Ismailpore,—a place about 12 miles from Jammu on the road to Lahore.

He chafed under a life of inactivity, and in 1811 left again for Lahore accompanied by his brother " Dehanu." Mian Dullu, a local Hindu, advanced money on loan to provide the brothers with horses. On reaching Lahore they were presented to the Maharaja by Misr Dewan Chand. Well impressed by their courtly behaviour and handsome features the Maharaja ordered them to be in person;: 1 attendance on him on Rs. 90 per month. After the death of their lat her Kasur Singh, ' Suchetu,' the younger brother, was summoned at the Maharaja's command, and in 1813 he arrived at the court. He was 12 years of age. Graceful, and handsome, he at once wormed his way into the Maharaja's regard and confidence.

iv

Soon after the death of Jey Singh in 1809, Jammu had been occupied by the Sikhs. In those days hawks captured at Trikote, a hilly peak about thirty miles from Jammu, were considered the property of the Durbar to which they were sent by the Sikh Gover­nors of Jammu. In 1811 it was reported that one Dedu had cap­tured a remarkable hawk which he refused to yield. A party of soldiers was sent to claim the bird from him. After parleying with Dedu, the soldiers were treacherously set upon and despatched by him. Only three of them returned to tell the tale. Many efforts were made to capture Dedu but to no avail. At one time he was at the head of two thousand men, and whenever pressed hard was sure to find shelter among the inhabitants of the hills. Once he surrendered, but fearing treachery, surprised and killed the guard and escaped.

Kanjit Singh was incensed. Kushal Singh, the Sikh Gover­nor of Jammu, was dismissed. Meanwhile the Jammu brothers had secured their hold on the Maharaja. To raise their prestige at court a Jagir of Rs. 40,000 near Jammu and Bhimber was granted to Gulab Singh, who now left his brothers at Lahore and proceeded to Jammu vowing that he would place the head of Dedu at the Maharaja's feet. This he made good when he successfully returned to Lahore in 1817. The Maharaja was now completely under the influence of Dhian Singh and Suchet Singh, and desired to create them Rajas. Well tutored in the part they had to play, they re­fused to accept the honour which by precedence, they said, was due more to their elder brother. Thus all the three were created Rajas of Jammu, Bhimber and Kassouli, and Samba and Ramnagar,

with an allowance of rupees three, one and-a-half, and one lacs, respectively.

Raja Gulab Singh left for Jammu leaving his brothers at the Court " in high favour and close intimacy with their royal master, and well ins true led as to the use they were to make of their oppor­tunities lor the aggrandisement of the family."1

»Smyth, page 256.

V

" These three Rajput brethren in time monopolised all th< power and influence of the Lahore court, the Maharaja being little more than the instrument of their will Rajah Dhian Singh in particular by his superior abilities obtained such an ascendancy over Runjeet that while seemingly the humblest of his servants he was in reality the regent of the Punjab during the latter years of its aged sovereign."1 In 1822, the administration of Jammu was finally transferred to Raja Gulab Singh. How quickly and shrewdly he established and extended his authority will appear from the perusal of the main Chapters.

Chapters I, II and III trace a brief outline history of the important principalities which at present constitute the Jammu Province. The conquest of Ladakh has been treated at length. Its occupation has a threefold interest. It covers a large terri­tory ; it is a natural frontier boundary to Kashmir; it testifies to the high ambition of Raja Gulab Singh. His ambition was not ethereal, and he worked with system and sagacity. Ladakh formed a contiguous territory with Jammu through Kishtwar. He shrewdly saw that to conquer Ladakh Kishtwar formed a strate­gic base which he occupied nominally in the name of the Sikh Durbar.

Gulab Singh's empire-building ambition was quickened every day. Apart from the charm of the happy valley on its own account, and it is not possible to under estimate it, he desired the possession of Kashmir forming, as it does, a contiguous territory with Jammu and Ladakh.

As early as 1841 seizing the opportunity afforded by the murder of the Sikh Governor of Kashmir, he left Ghulam Mohy-ud-din, a minion of his, the ruler of the valley. The First Sikh War, however, opportunely facilitated matters for him.

The sale of Kashmir has been variously commented upon. I have tried to show that it was well calculated, and that the trans­fer of the valley to Raja Gulab Singh was, under the circumstances, politic.

1 Smyth, pages 256-57,

VI

A word of explanation may here be necessary to justify the short treatment that I have given to Kashmir. The eariy his­tory of the valley falls beyond the purpose of this thesis,, and does not in any way bear upon its sale.

The occupation of the territories transferred to Eaja Gulab Singh has been treated fully in Chapters VI, VII and VIII. The minor exchanges to make the boundary as natural as possible are discussed in the last chapter.

*

CHAPTER I.

Jammu : its brief history.

Jammu is of ancient origin.1 A reference to it occurs in Ferishta connecting it with events assigned to the first century A. D. The State was probably preceded by a long period of rule by petty Chiefs called Eanas and Thakars. The copperplate deeds of the Eajas of Chamba refer to Jammu under its ancient name Durgara from which the modern Dugar is derived. Babapur near Babor, 17 miles east of Jammu town, was the original capi­tal. Eajas of Babapur are mentioned as subject to Kashmir in the 11th and 12th centuries. Jammu became the capital in the 13th or 14th century, and Moslem histories refer to it since 1398. In 1399 it was captured by Timur. Situated on the plains Jammu is likely to have felt the Muhammadan aggression earlier than the hill states.

Jammu was subject to the Mughals right up to the year 1752. But the subjugation was not willingly accepted since, along with other Hill States, Jammu took a prominent part in the different outbreaks. In A. D. 1588-89 the 35th year of Akbar's reign, such an outbreak occurred, and Parsram, the Chief of Jammu, played a prominent part in it. Zain Khan, Akbar's foster-brother, subdued the Chiefs whom the Emperor pardoned. In 1594-95 another rebellion occurred.

Eanjit Dev, opinion is unanimous, was the most notable Chief that ever ruled Jammu. I cannot say whether it is because more has come down to posterity about him than about his predecessors or that he was the most capable of the Jammu rulers; Immedia­tely after his accession (1735), the Moghul Governor of the Punjab, considering him disloyal, reported to the Emperor against him. He was arrested and remained in captiv ity |or twelve long years at Lahore, his brother, Ghansar Dev, ruling the State in the mean-

1 Journal Punjab Historical Society, Volume VIII, No. 2 ; Volume III, No. 2.

B

2 THE BUILDING OF

while. Adiana Beg Khan, intervening in his behalf, Eanjit Dev was released on the promise to pay a ransom of two lakhs. Not long after his release in 1747, Ahmad Shah Durani invaded the Punjab and Eanjit Dev lent him support for which on the cession of the Province in 1752 he received favours from the invader of the Punjab. On his second invasion in 1762, Ahmad Shah prepared to invade Kashmir, where his Governor, Suk Jewan, had remitted

master Co

operating with the invader, Eanjit Dev led a strong force from Lahore to Kashmir. Sukh Jewan was imprisoned and blinded.

With the cession of the Province to Ahmad Shah Durani, the Moghul supremacy over the Punjab Hill States came to an end after about 200 years (1552—1752). But with the Moghuls passed away all strong and effective control. The anarchy result­ing from the Marhatta invasions and the predatory bands of Sikhs offered the Afghans an opportunity to establish their authority. In this state of chaos the Hill Chiefs asserted their independence, and began to resume lost territories. The weak Durani rule being merely nominal in the Hills made such efforts possible, and under the Kings of Kabul (1752—70) Jammu became practically indepen­dent.

Eanjit Dev ruled up to 1780.1 He was a man of personality. He subjugated all the States between the Chenab and the Eavi, and his arm was felt as far east as Chamba which too was under him for sometime. In 1775 he sent an army under Amrit Pal of Basohli to invade Chamba and the northern Province was overrun. He was supreme in Kishtwar and Badrawah. Under him Eajouri paid tribute to Jammu. He was " lord of a number of feudatory chiefs, of such places as Akhnur, Dalpatpure, Kiramchi and Jas-

Chiefs but military service for their liege of Jammu. Dur-) year they would be present at that citv, attend-

iOn page 123, Volume VIII No. 2, Journal Punjab Historical Society, we infer 1735 as the date of the accession of Ranjit Dev. On page 117, Volume l iJ . No. 2 of the same journal we

i ' 7 ™ ^ t h e . d a t e o f J » 2 >c c e s 8 1 0

1n a i K l 1 7 8 1 as of his death. Writing in April 1783, Forster

records 1770 as the year of Runzeid Dev's " death. Smyth records that he died in 1780.

*

JAMMU AND KASHMIR. 3

ing the court of the ruler and holding separate ones themselves."1

Eanjit Dev's rule extended south of the present boundary of the Jammu Province.

Jammu town prospered under his rule, for the anarchy in the plains carried trade to the Hills. Hindus and Moslems alike were welcome to Jammu. The Capital flourished. " Runzeid Deve, , who deservedly acquired the character of a just and wise ruler largely contributed to the wealth and importance of Jumba. Perceiving the benefit which would arise from Mahometan merchants, he held out to them a disinterested and an honour­able conduct He avowedly protected and indulged his people, particularly the Mahometans, to whom he allotted a certain quarter of the town, which was denominated Moghulpour, , a mosque was erected in the new Colony."2

But Eanjit Dev was not long allowed to live in peace . Gujar Singh invaded Jammu in 1756, Bhamma Singh in 1761, and Hira Singh in 1762. To the Bhangi Misl, to which the last two belonged, Eanjit Dev paid tribute. But on the defeat of the Sikhs at the hands of Ahmad Shah, Durani in 1764, Eanjit Dev, the ally of the invader, was once again allowed to rule in peace for about twelve years.

Eanjit Dev's latter years were attended with feuds between himself and his eldest son, Brajraj Dev, who, it is said, had a loose character, on account of which the father preferred the acces­sion to the Gadhi of his younger son, Dalel Singh. The feud re­sulted in a fight. Both sides appealed for help to the Sikhs. Brajraj applied to Sardar Charat Singh (grandfather of Eanjit Singh) of the Sukar Chakia Misl and to Jai Singh of the Kanheya Misl. Eanjit Dev applied to Jhanda Singh of the Bhangi Misl to which he had been paying tribute since 1762. Charat Singh was killed in the fight while Jhanda Singh was murdered. Hence the Sikh allies of both gave up the enterprise leaving Eanjit Dev and

1 Drew. " The Kashmir and Jammu Territories," page 40. 1 Pages 283-84, Letter X, Volume I, Forster.

B2

4 THE BUILDING OF

matters. Brairai Dev and Maha Singh, however, exchanged

turbans. i

will of his father," Brajraj on the death of Banjit Dev in 1781,

. i Government to death one of his brothers, the intended successor, and im prisoned another, who having made his escape sought the pro-

Sicq favourable Jumbo , the Sicques promi

espouse the fugitive's cause with vigour."2 The most valuable Jammu

waste by the Sikhs on the pretext of affording assistance to the brother of Brajraj. In 1783, Forster tells us, the Sikhs were " prosecuting a vigorous war against the present chief " who seems to have brought back to Jammu territory annexed by the Sikhs. Such a demand led to a joint invasion of Hakikat Singh and Maha Singh of the two Misls with the subsequent plunder and

amounted to two crores of rupees. 3

u TP Embarrassed in his finances Brajraj had levied a general contribution on the inhabitants of the city; and " his exactions had induced many of the principal merchants to abandon the place The appearance of persons of any property attracted the notice of Government."4 The revenue in 1783

5 amounted to five lakhs of rupees.

In 1797 the Sikhs again invaded Jammu and Brajraj was killed in battle. His son, Sunporun Singh, a minor only a year f»ld. succeeded him. The State became completely subject and

Sikhs 6

Meanwhile the Duranis also claimed a shadowy supremacy. Sun porun Singh died at the age of 11 and was succeeded by Jit Singh son of Dalel Sinah, vounger brother of Brairai Dev, in 1797,

1 Ceremony binding them in brotherhood. a Forster, Volume I, pages 286-87. 3 Journal Punjab Historical Society, Volume VIII, No. 2. * Forster, Volume I, page 268. 8 Forster, Volume I, page 280. • Journal Punjab Historical Society, Volume VIII, No. 2.

JAMMU AND KASHMIR. 5

In 1800-01 Maharaja Ranjit Singh having obtained the sover­eignty of the Punjab visited Jammu. The Raja offered submis­sion and presented tribute. But great trouble was caused by a rebel, one Mian Dedu, a Janrwal Rajput from a branch of the Jam­mu ruling family.1 In 1809-10 a force was deputed to suppress an outbreak led by him. Finally Gulab Singh2 requested the ' lion ' (Maharaja) to grant ' the ca t ' (Gulab Singh) permission to punish ' the r a t ' (Dedu). He, however, succeeded in defeating Dedu's troops. Dedu himself was shot while he was smoking on a rock (1820).

Equally3 troublesome were Shams Khan, Mali Sodan and Sabz Ali Sodan on Punch side. Gulab Singh was deputed to punish them and he tortured to death Mali Sodan and Sabz Ali Sodan. and seized and hanged Shams Khan and one Eajvali. In 1822 Gulab Singh seized and presented to the Maharaja, on the bank of Chenab at Akhnur, Agar Khan of Eajouri who had rebelled.

Well mannered and handsome and young in years the Jammu brothers impressed the Maharaja who granted them 1m offices. Dhian Singh rose to be the Chamberlain, and finally became the Minister of the Punjab. Suchet Singh was primarily a soldier.

rious services rendered by him in Kashmir, est Provinces in general and for the suppres­

s o r the m W

sion of the lebels Dedu, Shams Khan, Mali Sodan, etc., and Agar Khan in particular, Maharaja Eanjit Singh was pleased to grant Jammu in Jagir to Gulab bingh when the latter presented Agar Khan to the Maharaja on the banks of the Chenab at Akhnur. In 1822 the Government of Jammu Hills was entrusted to him. 5It had already been granted in fief to him in 1820. With the rise of Gulab Singh to power the fate of the remaining Hill States was sealed.

1 Latif's Punjab, page 283. 2 Gulab Nama, pages 150—57 Hassan, page 681 ; also Zafarnama. a Hassan, page 682. Gulabnama pages 195—202. * Hassan, pages 79—84, &c. Gulab nama. • A copy of the original Sanad is given in Appendix 1,

THE BUILDING OF

H,mum ... 1812 has been given in Jagir to Khurrni iingh, ;lU(, ,.„ Singh, i appears, was deposed. Rnghbnr Dev ad DeV] Singh were carri- I to British India, and, after the Pnnjal v annexed, were given a Jagir in Khreta near Devanagar in Gnrdaspur District where their descendants still reside.

i Journal Punjab Historical Society, Volume VIII, No. 2.

The Old Branch. family Tree of the Rajas of j ammu

THROV DEV The New Branch.

r Runjeet Dev* Bulwant Singh Ghusar Dev

r Bra j raj

Dev* I

Sumporun Dev.

Dalel Singh

I Jit

Singh*

Rughbur Dev.

Sham Singh

Lehna Singh

Devee Singh.

r

Huneer Dev

Mehtab Singh

Labh Singh

Nowrung

1 Singh.

Beer Singh. Nihal Singh.

Oodum Singh.

—i Kurtar

Dev I

Gopal Singh.

r — Gulab Singht

Rundheer Singh alias Sohun Singh.

Pratap Singh.f

*Rajas of Jammu. fMaharaja of Jammu and Kashmir,

r Mota

Viboot Singh

Bujjer Dev

Ranbir Singhf

Heera Singh.

i Soorut Singh

Zorwur Singh

Kishor Singh

Dhian Singh

Ja-wahar Singh.

Ram Singh

1 Amar Singh.

Mahara j a Hari Singhf

(The present Maharaja of the Jammu and Kashmir

State).

Dhulla

_ 1 Bhoopa.

Dhuddun

Jungoo.

1 Suchet Singh

Motee Singh.

8 THE BUILDING OF

CHAPTER II. The Development of the Jammu State 1820-46.

THE HINDU PEINCIPALITIES.

In this and the following chapter will be traced a brief his­tory of the different Hindu and Muhanimadan Principalities till their coalescence to form the present province of Jammu. A per­usal of these pages will bear witness to the keen foresight of Maha­rajah Gulab Singh. He started consolidating his position from the day he first obtained the grant of Jammu as a fief in 1820. Some of these principalities were conquered by him while others were acquired by grants to himself or to his brothers from Maha­raja Eanjit Singh whose confidence the Jammu family had mono­polised.

BHAU.

Bhau is different and separate fiom Bahu, where a fort exists and which tradition celebrates as having been the Capital of Jammu for sometime. The rulers of Bhau also were Jamwal and owned suzerainty to Jammu. The State was overturned and annexed by Baja Gulab Singh soon after 1820 when Jammu was granted in fief to him. The ruling family was granted a Jaghir in Biasi.

DALPATPUB.

Buled by a branch of the Jamwal family, it was subordinate to Jammu. The state lies in the Tawi valley and seems to have always been dependent on Jammu. It was probably founded after the 13th century previous to which it may have been subject to Jammu.

SAMBA.

Lying in the outer Sewalik hills bordering on the plains, Samba was probably founded after the 13th century. Probably from the time of Banjit Dev (1735—81) Samba was practically a part

JAMMU AND KASHMIR. 9

of the Jammu State and continued so till the senior branch of the family was expelled in 1812. About 1822 Samba and other states were granted to Suchet Singh, one of the three Jammu brothers. Suchet Singh being killed in 1844 this State was annexed to Jammu. It is necessary to remark here that Suchet Singh died childless.

JASROTA.

Jasrota lies in the outer Sewalik hills bordering on the plains. It enjoyed greater freedom and was not a dependency of Jammu. The State maintained its existence till 1834, when it was overrun and granted in fief to Raja Hira Singh, then a boy of twelve years. Hira Singh was the son of Raja Dhian Singh and a favorite of the Maharaja. The ancient ruling line was expelled and the family reside at Khanpur, near Nagrota in Jammu. The Government pays them a pension. Dhian Singh died in 1843 and Hira Singh in 1844. Hence Jasrota fell to the share of Jammu.

TRIKOT.

Trikot too was ruled by a branch of the Jamwal family be­longing to the Surajbansi race. It lies in the outer Sewalik hills. Like Bhau, Gulab Singh annexed it soon after 1820.

LAKHANPUR.

It is situated to the west of Ravi opposite to Madhopur and Shahpur. It was annexed by Jasrota probably in the middle of the 18th century. Towards the end of that century it was annex­ed by Nurpur. Hence it was not included in the territory ceded to Gulab Singh in 1846. The Jammu State, as we shall learn hereafter, acquired Lakhanpur as part of its territory in exchange for Chamba. It is now a part of the Jasrota District in Jammu.

MANKOT.

Mankot or the modern Ramkot lies in the Basantha valley north-west of Jasrota. It was founded after the 13th century, and may have been dependent on Jammu previous to that. The Chiefs belonged to the Jamwal family and enjoyed greater freedom.

10 THE BUILDING OF

*It seems to have been dependent on Jammu under Banjit Dev for in 1783 ' a Chief depending on Jammu resided ' at ' Mancote.' It came under Banjit Singh in 1809. It was destined to be one of

States Singh. Annexed to the Sikh Kingdom in 1820 it was granted in fief to Suchet Singh along with Bamnagar, Samba, etc. On the death of Baja Suchet Singh in 1844 it was annexed to Jammu. 2Vigne arrived at Mankot in 1842 and remarks that with the demolition of the fort at Mankot by a few sepahis, the Baja and his family departed from the State, being probably driven out. The Baja became a Faqir at Jowalla Mukhi. Bamkot is now a part of Jasrota district in Jammu.

BEHANDRALTA.

Behandralta or modern Bamnagar lies some miles north of Bamkot where the outer hills join the middle mountains. It was probably founded by a cadet of the Chamba Koyal House in the beginning of the 11th century. 3Built in the middle Tawi valley at a height of 2,700 feet above the sea, the town seems to have flourished at one time. It was the capital of the country called Behandralta which was governed by the Behandral caste of Mians. It was annexed by the Sikhs in 1821. 4Baja Bhupdar Dev, the last ruling chief, was deposed. He fled to Subathu and died5 at Shahzadpur near Ambala about 1834. He was granted a pension of Bs. 3,000, still paid to the family by the Government. The town was granted to Suchet Singh in 1822 when he was created Baja, and he gave it the modern name Bamnagar. 6But great efforts were made by the rebellions Thakars against Suchet Singh " when some thousands came to assault it. The Dogras, hoWever,

|

held out in the fort, which is a well planned work, until aid came from the Sikh army."

7 Suchet Singh interested himself very much in the development of Bamnagar. He built a palace outside the town, a fort, a large

1 Forster travels, page 273, Volume I. 1 Vigne, page 178, Volume I. 1 Drew, page 33. « Vigne, pages 188—90, Volume I. 1 Journal Punjab Historical Society, Volume VIII •Drew, page 34. * Vigne, page 188—90, Volume I, and Drew, page 3

JAMMU AND KASHMIE. i l

5 J

bazaar, small streets and several serais. To increase its popu­lation he gave protection to the runaways, guilty of murder and political crimes. In 1844, like other Jagirs and fiefs of Suchet Singh, it reverted to Jammu. Lately it was granted as Jagir to Eaja Earn Singh, brother of the late Maharaja Pratap Singh. Earn Singh died childless and the jagir merged into the Jammu terri­tory.

CHANENI. It is situated in the Tawi valley. Though1 it did not form a

part of Jammu under Brajraj, it was very " intimately dependent on its policy."2 " At the vicinity of Nagrotah," writes Forster in 1873, " commence the districts of the Chinanee Chief, a de­pendent on Jumbo, who possesses a revenue of about a lack of rupees. This Chief does not remit any tribute to his superior, but assists his Government with a quota of troops in the event of exigency; and conformably to this tenure he now serves in the campaign against the Sicques.

In the annexation of Behandralta by the Sikhs and the subse­quent bestowal of the same on Suchet Singh, Eaja Dyal Singh of Chaneni foresaw danger. He strengthened the eastern frontier for defence. The help3 the Eaja rendered to Gulab Singh when the latter acquired Kishtwar did not save from an attack at the hands of Suchet Singh. On his way back from the Mahadev pil­grimage Suchet Singh annexed Marothi, a village on the eastern border of Chaneni. This alarmed Eaja Dyal Chand and Suchet Singh attacked Chaneni from Eamnagar side. Dyal Singh carry-ing his family and property to the eastern frontier hurried to Lahore where he secured a firman of Maharaja Eanjit Singh com­manding the restoration of his State. But during his absence Suchet Singh had sacked the town and set the palace on fire whereas Dyal Singh on his return from Lahore was detained several months at Jammu.

However, on reaching his capital, he found his State divided in four parts of which Kotla and Nagulta were annexed by Suchet

-

1 Forster, Volume I, page 290. 2 Forster, Volume I, page 344. * Vigne, page 192, Volume I.

o2

12 THE BUILDING OF

Singh and Batote and Udhampur by Jammu. Kudhar, an ilaqa on the east, was given to Baja Dhian Singh while Chaneni proper and Malwana ilaqa were left to Dyal Chand. After some time Budhar ilaqa was restored to Chaneni by Baja Dhian Singh and this along with Chaneni proper and Malwana still forms the Jagir of the Bajas, who still reside in their capital. The State has proved comparatively fortunate for it retained its existence. The Baja enjoys great authority as a first class Magistrate within the Jagir, the whereof is carried under his orders. Kedar Chand, the father of the present Baja, was related by marriage to the Jammu royal house.

BHOTI. Founded after the 13th or 14th century Bhoti never enjoyed

complete freedom. It lies to the west of Chaneni and at times included Balwalta or Udhampur within it. It was sub­jugated by the Sikhs about the same time as Jammu, and was in­cluded in the territories ceded in 1846 to Gulab Singh who had been receiving a tribute of Bs. 2,000 from it. Bhoti was overthrown in 1834 and annexed to Jammu.

BHADU. Bhadu, Balor and Badrawah were ruled by branches of the

same family that originally came from Hardwar. The ruling race was Chandarbansi. About 1835 the State came under the control of Jammu. It was granted in fief to Baja Suchet Singh on whose death it was annexed to Jammu. The original family reside at Tilokpur near Kotha in Kangra, and they receive a pension of Bs. 3,000 annually.

BALOB. Balor or modern Basohli existed in the 11th century

and was subject to Kashmir for sometime. In the 16th century the capital was removed to Basohli. 2About the time that Forster passed through " Bissouly " (1783) " a bordering Chief had in­vaded the district, plundered the inhabitants and burned their villages before any opposition was made. The Sicaues were called

1 Foreter, pages 270-71, Volume I.

JAMMU AND KASHMIR. 13

in to repel the enemy, and defend the fort of Bissouly, but after performing the required service, they became pleased with their new situation and refused to relinquish it." Kalyan Pal, the last Raja of the ruling family which was known as Baluria, was born on 17th December 1834, two months after his father's death. Passing through Basohli in 1835, Vigne writes that the Raja was dead and that some fruits were sent to him by the Rani.

The grandmother of Kalyan Pal acted as regent during the latter's minority. Afraid of the Sikhs, the regent wanted to keep safe all jewellery and valuables with the counsel of the Brahmins. But Mian Lajan Singh, the grandfather of the minor Raja, in­formed Ranjit Singh of the affairs of Basohli and secured for himself orders to rule Basohli during the Raja's minority. The Rani and the Brahmins intrigued to kill Lajan Singh whom they finally pushed into a well where he died miserably. This was in the year 1836. In the same year Maharaja Ranjit Singh granted it in Jagir to Hira Singh, son of Dhian Singh, who entrusted the administration of the State to Mahtab Singh, Trikotia. Basohli and Jasrota, another Jagir of Hira Singh, adjoined each other. Visit­ing1 Basohli in 1839 Vigne writes that Raja Suchet Singh ruled the State. The control seems to have changed.

Suchet Singh was killed in March 1844 as was Hira Singh in December of the same year. The officials of the State found and seized the opportiunity afforded by the Sikh war of 1845 to expel the Sikh garrison and they placed Kalyan Pal on the Gaddi. But Basohli was included in the hill tracts transferred to Gulab Singh in March 1846. Kalyan Pal was granted a pension of Rs. 3,000. He died childless in 1851. Thus ended the Balunia Rajas. The decayed palace at Basohli still reminds one of them. Basohli is now in Jasrota in the Jammu Province.

BHADRAWAH. 2Bhadrawah was ruled by a branch of the same family that

originally came from Mayapuri (Hardwar) and settled in Balor or Basohli. This State might hence have originally been a fief under

1 Vigne, Volume I, page 172. 2 Journal Punjab Historical Society, Volume III, No. 2.

OF

was a separate State, [iba to which the Raja i

liar Ohand of Bhadra rebelled. A force ui but was defeated at

/Taharaja Ranjit Singh aharaja's forces were

hlu Pargana belonged to it. After makir

was regent for her i aharaja, ordered the t Chamba was to reci rce was given to V.

Chand demolished died at Amritsar. T

adrawah.

by Chamba authorit mba Raj a, was appoin In 1836 Zorawar Sin e an attempt at the c d to retreat.

ed in 1844. His brot gns on Chamba. Chick' 45. Mian Prakim Sin; de Governor of the Sti i invaded and annexed mu claim to Bhadraw sar (1846) when Cham and Gulab Singh *

the Cis-Ravi Chamba.

JAMMU AND KASHMIR. 15

CHAPTER III.

The Development of jammu, 1820—1846—(continued).

The Mohamedan Principalities-

AKHNUR.

Situated on the banks of the Chenab, Akhnur was probably founded after the 13th century. It seems to have been always dependent upon Jammu and very likely may have been a fief grant­ed. It was ruled by Jamwals of the Surajbansi race. Subdued in 1808 it was annexed to the Sikh Kingdom in 1812. The family still reside at their old capital and hold Jagirs under Jammu.

RIASI.

Founded after the 13th century, Riasi also was ruled by a branch of the Jamwal family. It appears to have previously been dependent upon Jammu1. It was overturned by Gulab Singh about the year 1817 and its administration was entrusted to Zorawar Singh, Kahluria.

KISHTWAR.

Founded2 by the ruling family of Cfaur in Bengal in the 10th century it was subject to Kashmir in the 11th. It used to be governed by Rajput Rajas of the Chanderbansi race who in early times were probably independent. The first whose name was known to Drew was Bhagwan Singh who must have ruled about the second half of the 17th century. " Three generations later came Raja Girat Singh. This one left his old faith and became a Muhammadan being converted by the miracles of one Sj'ed Shah Farid-ud-Din, in the time of Aurangzeb, who gave him the new name and title of Raja Sadat Yar Khan. The last ruler was Raja Muhammad Teg Singh called also Saif Ulla Khan."3

1 Gulabnama, pages 122—28. 2 Journal Punjab Historical Society, Volume III , No. 2. Gulabnama, pages 140—42, 9 Drew, pages 80—3?

16 THE BUILDING OF

Shah Shujah escaped from the custody of Maharaja Eanjit Singh in 1815 and disguised as a merchant made for Kishtwar through Sialkot and Jammu. In 1815-16 with the aid of his host, he raised an army of three or four thousand to invade Kashmir, then under Afghan rule. Shah Shujah entered the valley as far as Shahabad where he was defeated. He retreated to Kishtwar. On learning about his whereabouts Maharaja Eanjit Singh desired Teg Singh to deliver up the Shah. This the Eaja refused. Shah Shujah soon made his escape through the Maruwardwan Pass to Kulu and travelling through Zanskar reached Ludhiana in Septem­ber 1816.

Eanjit Singh very naturally resented such an attitude of Teg Singh. He was contemplating the conquest of Kashmir him­self, and any attempts to forestall him disconcerted him. This found vent in his deputing Gulab Singh to conquer Kishtwar.

1Vigne passed through Kishtwar in 1838. He states that Gulab Singh sent a false message to the Eaja telling him to prepare against the invasion of his territories which was likely to take place. Teg Singh made preparations and informed Gulab Singh accordingly. Thereupon Gulab Singh forged a letter of in­vitation from the Chief men of Kishtwar and from Lakhpat Eai, Vazir of Teg Singh, to Eanjit Singh requesting the Maharaja to invade Kishtwar. Sending this letter to Teg Singh, Gulab Singh expressed wonder how the Eaja could even think of resistance under the circumstances. The suspicious Eaja, believing the letter to be genuine, planned the death of his Vazir who on his appearance in the Durbar next day was wounded by the soldiers set upon him. The Eaja disowned the deed, and to save himself from unpleasant consequences put the soldiers to death. On his recovery the Vazir escaped to Bhadrawah and next to Jammu where he entered the service of Eaja Gulab Singh. To his new master, Lakhpat Eai pointed out the way to conquer Kishtwar. Gulab Singh now asked the Eaja of Kishtwar to come alone to Jammu leaving his armies

1 Vigne, Volume I, pages 181—83. I consider Vigne as the best authority on this episode.

JAMMU AND KASHMIR 17

behind and even promised to get him firmly established in his possession of Kishtwar bj the Maharaja Eanjit Singh. Thus de­ceived the Raja came over to Doda, where Gulab Singh captured him and sent him a prisoner to Jammu. Without any opposition Gulab Singh secured complete control of Kishtwar and entrusted the administration of the State to Zorawar Singh, Kahluria, his general (1820).

When liberated, Teg Singh appealed to the Maharaja at Lahore. Eanjit Singh promised to reinstate him, but the promise was never fulfilled till in 1823 Teg Singh was poisoned by a servant of his own. Teg Singh had three sons, Jaimal Singh, Zorawar Singh and Dilawar Singh. The family was granted a pension in 1846. Lakhpat Rai held high office under Gulab Singh and was killed in Srinagar when his master's troops occupied Kashmir in 1846.

RAJOURL 1Rajpuri was the ancient name of Rajouri. Huien Tsang

visited Rajpuri in 633 A. D. when it was subject to Kashmir. In A. D. 1087-88 the Raja of Rajouri was in Srinagar along with other tributary chiefs. In the 15th century the Hindu ruling family was dethroned and a son of the Muhammadan ruler of Kashmir was made Raja. 2Vigne passed through Rajouri in 1835 and re­cords that Rajouri was gifted away to the Raja's ancestors by Aurangzeb, whose grandfather, Akbar, had conquered Kashmir. The Raja possessed original grants sealed and signed by Aurangzeb and Bahadur Shah.

3The Sikh conquests lessened the territory and revenue of Rajouri. Originally the country under it extended from Punch to Jammu.

Agar Ullah Khan, the eldest son, succeeded his father, Karim Ullah Khan, in 1808. Agar Ullah was born of a Hindu mother, and the people and officers favoured the accession of

1 Journal Punjab Historical Society, Volume III, No. 2 ; Gulabnama, pages 157-58; Hassan, pages 682-83.

2 Vigne, Volume I, Journal Punjab Historical Society, Volume 9, No. 2. 3 Vigne, Volume I,

P

18 THE BUILDING OF

his younger brother, Eahim Ullah Khan, who. when approached, refused the offer in favour of his elder brother. Agar Ullah was suspicious of his brother, and a coolness between them resulted. Agar Ullah sent Eahim Ullah Khan, as State Agent to Kashmir and wrote separately to the Governor at Kashmir that his brother should be detained. But Eahim returned to his estate in Eajouri.

For1 the annexation of Kashmir to the Sikh Kingdom, the subjugation of Bhimber and Eajouri that lay on the main routes was essential. The Sikh attempt of 1810 failed. In 1812, however, they subdued Bhimber and exacted tribute from Eajouri. On the failure of the Sikh expeditions of 1812-13 on Kashmir, the Eajouri Chief, in return foi the friendly relations, promised assist­ance. In the Sikh expedition of 1814 on Kashmir, the Eajouri Eaja placed everything at the disposal of Eanjit Singh who had accompanied his troops to Eajouri. But soon after Agar, won over by the Governor of Kashmir, played a double part. The army was panic-stricken and the Maharaja himself escaped with diffi-cultv.

« /

2In 181-") Eanjit Singh sent a strong force to punish Agar Ullah Khan. Siege was laid to the Capital and its walls battered down by guns. The Eaja escaped to Kotali, and the country was looted and laid waste. After the departure of the Sikhs Agar Ullah did his best to restore the town.

In 1819, on the last and successful invasion of Kashmir, Eahim Ullah was promised the Raj of Eajouri on condition that he would render help in the campaign. Punch and Eajouri were occupied the same year. Agar Ullah and the Punch ruler offered resistance but Bahim Ullah sided with the Sikhs and helped them. 3Agar was captured by Gulab Singh in 1820. He died a prisoner at Lahore in 1825. Eahim Ullah Khan was made Eaja of Eajouri. 4Writing highly of his cordiality and hospitality, Vigne tells us

1 Journal Punjab Historical Society, Volume TX 2 Moorerof t, Volume I, page 80. 8 Gulabnama, pages 157-58; Hassan, pages 682-83. * Vigne, Volume I, pages 227—34,

JAMMU AND KASHMIR.

thai Rahim was well informed, learned and a good conversationa­list. 1Writing to his father on October 3, 1831, Jacquemont communicates : " The Baja of Rajouri, , sent his eldest son to meet me. This young man brought me apologies for his father, unable to come himself As a unique exception, this rajah enjoys the reputation of being just and learned."

2The Jammu brothers who by the year 1822-23 severally held Punch, Jammu, Ramnagar, etc., coveted Rajouri, the only inde­pendent State. Hasib Ullah Khan, son of x\gar Ullah Khan was liberated and encouraged to invade Rajouri. Ranjit Singh sent a force. The invasion was checked and Hasib Ullah was captured and imprisoned. Anxious to acquire Rajouri and rinding no other way, the Jammu brothers made a tool of Raja Hira Singh, a great favourite of the Maharaja. Expressing his gratitude for the mani­fold favours bestowed upon him, Hira Singh one day sought from the Maharaja the grant of some good rice fields wherein Rajouri abounded. Consulting Rajas Dhian Singh and Gulab Singh, who were present there, the Maharaja gave his consent to granting Rajouri to Hira Singh provided Rahim Ullah received Jammu and Jasrota. This was enough and no more was heard of the rice fields of Rajouri.

Rahim Ullah apprehended danger, and soon Rajouri was in­vaded in various quarters by Jammu. But the advance had to be suspended as the Maharaja heard about it.

On the transfer of the Hill tracts to Raja Gulab Singh, the Raja of Rajouri represented his case to Sir Henry Lawrence. In Oc­tober 1846, Maharaja Gulab Singh accompanied by an English officer arrived at Rajouri. Faqir Ullah Khan, son of Rahim Ullah, was given the option of staying in Gulab Singh's territory or residing in British India. The family at their choice removed to Rihlu in Kangra District. The family was granted a pension of Rs. 16,000 a year. The Raja died in 1847 and his grandson Hamid Ullah Khan succeeded him. A branch of the family shifted to

1 Jacquemont, Volume II, page 161. 8 Journal Punjab Historical Society, Volume IX, No . 2.

p2

20 THE BUILDING OF

Saman Burj in Wazirabad in 1855. The family rendered great military services to the British Government, and their descend­ants have been holding responsible posts in the Government service.

PUNCH.

Situated1 in the valley of Punch-Tawi, a tributary of the Jhelum, Punch, then Parnotsa, along with Kotali formed a single State during the Hindu rule. When Huien Tsang visited Par­notsa, it was subject to Kashmir and had no ruler of its own. The ruling family afterwards accepted Islam.

Like other Hill States, Punch was under the rule of the Duranis from 1752. Its history during the Moghul period is uneventful. Eanjit Singh asserted his supremacy in the Punjab and other Hill States before the year 1810, and as we have already seen was anxious to acquire Kashmir. Lying on the way to Kashmir Punch had to be subdued first. Kuh Ullah Khan, then Eaja of Punch, had Afghan sympathies. Eanjit Singh sought his co-operation in the invasion of Kashmir, but the Eaja gave an evasive reply pleading inability to comply with the Maharaja's wishes as his son was a hostage with the Duranis.

In the year 1814 Eanjit Singh ordered an advance and led an army himself. The Punch forces fell back. But as the people were ordered to leave the town and villages, the Sikhs had to await supplies and suffered much. They, however, reached Tosa Maidan on 18th July 1814 and received a crushing defeat at the hands of Afghan forces of Eajouri and Punch. During their retreat the Sikhs set Punch on fire. The Maharaja escaped with great diffi­culty. On the last invasion of Kashmir in 1819, the Punch Eaja helped the Afghan Governor of Kashmir. But on the defeat of their joint troops the Eaja was expelled and the State annexed to the Sikh Kingdom.2 Sher Jangh Khan and Shams Khan, the last representatives of the main line, were killed by Gulab Singh.

* Journal Punjab Historical Society, Volume III, No. 2 : Journal Punjab Historical Society, Volume IX, No. 2.

• Vigne, Volume I, page 241 ; Qulabnama.

JAMMU AND KASMHIR. 21

Punch was soon after granted as a fief to Raja Dhian Singh and was later conferred as a Jagir upon him and he ruled over Punch till his death in September 1843. Hira Singh succeeded his father in the Jagir of Punch, but he too was killed in December 1844 when his younger brother Raja Jowahir Singh became ruler.

In the treaty of Amritsar no provision was made for the separate autonomy of Punch which thus became a part of Gulab Singh's territory. This led to a feud between Gulab Singh and Jowahir Singh who had to abdicate in 1859 in favour of his younger brother Moti Singh who died in 1897 and was succeeded by his son Baldev Singh. Sukh Dev Singh succeeded Baldev Singh on his death in 1918. The present Raja is Jagdev Singh who ascended the gaddi in 1927.

KOTLI. 1Punch and Kotli foimed a single State under Hindu rule and

was subject to Kashmir without any king of its own. It was founded as a separate State in the 15th century by the ruling family of Kashmir. Later on the Raja embraced Islam, but the State was independent till its annexation by the Sikhs in 1815. Passing through Kotli in 1837, 2Vigne writes that it contained " about 150 houses, and a Sikh custom house, the proceeds of which are the property of Raja Dhian Singh." The old family enjoys Jagirs in Jammu. It was transferred to Maharaja Gulab Singh in 1846.

BHIMBER. 3Lying in the outer hills bordering on the plains and south

of Kotli and Punch, Bhimber was founded in the 14th or loth century by a cadet of the Chibb family claiming descent from the Katoch Rajas of Kangra. Bhimber enclosed large territory along the foot of the hills and the district of Nowshehra. In earlier histories this whole country is referred to as Chibbal.

4Sultan Khan was the last ruling Chief of Bhimber. He opposed the designs of Ranjit Singh upon Kashmir and offered

1 Journal Punjab Historical Society, Volume III , No. 2. 2 Vigne, Volume I, page 247. s Journal Punjab Historical Society, Volume III , No. 2. 4 Vigne, Volume I, page 239 ; Journal Punjab Historical Society, Volume III , No. 2.

22 THE BUILDING OP

the Sikhs in 1810-12, but had finally to surrender He 0

hav gam muigucu wiun unc sxig

of Kashmir (Muhammad Azim Khan). He, however, helped the Sikhs in the invasion of 1819. Jealous of his power Gulab Singh got him imprisoned and " subsequently took him to Bihursi, and,

had him blinded " and treacherously killed. And Vi tells us that " Dhian Singh became master of Bhimber, by the gift of the Maharaja, and was ever afterwards." But a nephew of Sultan Khan seems to have held some power in Bhimber. Most of the territory, however, was ceded in 1840 and the rest in 1846-47. The ruling family retired to the British territory and was granted

p ension

KH ABI-KHABIALL

The State lies south of the outer hills bordering on the plains, and like Bhimber was founded by a descendant of the Chibb family. It probably included a part of the Mirpur District.1 It was invaded and conquered by the Sikhs in 1810 and the ruling family was granted a Jagir of Bs. 4,000. Their descendants now reside in the Gujrat District. The family rendered service as officers in the Indian Army.

It was annexed to Jammu in 1846. 1 Journal Punjab Historical Society, Volumes III and VIII, No. 2.

JAMMU AND KASHMIR. 23

CHAPTER IV.

The Development of Janimu (continued). The Conquest and Annexation of Ladakh.

LADAKH. 1Ladakh was invaded by the Kalmak Tartars in the first half

of the 17th century. Flying to Kashmir the Raja sought the help of the Moghul Governor of Kashmir. The Emperor Aurangzeb granted permission to Ibrahim Khan, the Moghul Governor of the Province, to help the Ladakh Raja provided he accepted Islam. The Raja became a convert, and the Moghuls expelled the Tartars from Ladakh. Akabut Mahmud, for that was the Moslem name given to the Raja, was replaced on the throne. His descendants reverted to their national faith, but continued to encourage Islam and to pay tribute to Kashmir.

When x\fghans occupied Kashmir, Ladakh paid tribute to them, but Ladakh also paid tribute, though, in the form of a present to Lhasa as well. In 1821, when Moorcroft visited Ladakh, the Gylpho used to pay the tribute to Kashmir.2 But the Gylpho, afraid of the Sikhs, offered allegiance to the British which was re­fused. Kashmir had been annexed to the Sikh Kingdom in 1819. The Jammu brothers with their influence at Lahore got the Gover­nors of JCashmir frequently changed lest the Sikh Government enter on the conquest of Ladakh which they themselves coveted. Hence the invasion was postponed till 1834.

3In 1834, when the Jammu brothers were supreme in the Hill States, a great army of Dogras was raised under the command of Vazir Zorawar Singh, Kahluria,4 the ablest general of Gulab Singh, to advance on Ladakh through Kishtwar. The invaders marched

1 Moorcroft, Volume 1, page 336. 1 Moorcroft, Volume 1, page 419. 3 J. D. Cunningham, page 201. * " Originally a private soldier, this remarkable man first brought himself to the notice of

Rajah Gulab Singh by pointing out the manner in which great reductions might be made in the commissariat of the army. Empowered by the Rajah to give effect to the .scheme he had proposed, he acquitted himself so admirably as to gain the fullest confi­dence of his master," Gazette of Kashmir by C. E. Bates, pages 112—14,

o4 THE BUILDING OF

gh the S leader Mangal, on 16th August 1834. The Bhotis were defeated and the people of Suru submitted. A fort was built here.

After a month's halt, the Dogras advanced to Shakhar. Here the Vazir, after demolishing the fort of the Thai Sultan, settled the zamindars of Jhanguri and Shakhar and exacted a tax of Es. 4 on each house. The Ladakhis had again to retreat at Paskyum where a desultory fight took place and the Chief fled to the fort of Sod. Next morning Mehta Basti Earn at the head of 500 men made an assault on the fort of Sod, and Avithin a few hours only possessed the fort and seized the Chief. Six thousands men were taken prisoners at Paskzum and Sod. A whole month was wasted in futile negotiations till Akabut Mahmud,1 the Gylpho of Ladakh, and the Banka Kahlan (the Prime Minister) arrived at Mulbik at the head of a large force. Finally an agreement was arrived at whereby only about half a dozen men were sent to the Ladakhi camp dealt to treat with the enemy. These men were treacherouslv dealt with. Eatan Singh, however, managed to

&"» " " " ^ * V i > iX^W.J.iCV0

escape to the Dogra camp. Meanwhile the Banka Kahlan attacked the Dogras in the rear and threw into the river those that he took prisoners. The Dogras retreated to Lang Karchu in b 1 " " '•VWVU.UUVl UV, -^CX.Lw

the Suru vallev and halted here undisturbed for four months. Now the Banka Kahlan marched towards Lang Karchu and

Zorawar Singh sent a handful of men to meet him at the distance of a mile-and-a half. Deceived bv the scattered condition of the Dogra tents and by the pretended difficulty with which they waded through the snow, the Ladakhis sat down to tea and talked of the future plans. The Dogras seized the opportunity and routed the enemy after quite an ordinary skirmish. Hundreds were taken prisoners besides Moru Tadsi, the Kahlan of Bazgo, and his son Gyurmed. The Dogra loss amounted to 23 killed and fifty or sixty wounded.

The Dogras soon passed through Paskyum, Shergol, Mulbik, and Kharbu and reached Lamayuru where an envoy delivered to them

1 This had become the generic name of the rulers of Ladakh. His real name was Tonduk Namgyle : A. Cunningham, page 337.

JAMMU AND KASHMIR. 25

a letter from Akabut Mahmud suing for peace.1 Afraid of treachery the Gylpho did not come in person. The Vazir and the Gylpho met at Bazgo, a place on the right bank of the Indus 20 miles below Leh. About ten days after, Zorawar Singh, at the request of the Gylpho, accompanied the latter with only a small party to Leh. At Leh, Changraphtan, the son of the Gylpho, took for an insult the action of Zorawar Singh while he offered a sum of money as a present to the former. Changraphtan retreated to the fort where the Dogras troops from Bazgo arrived next morning.

It was, however, finally arranged that the Gylpho should Rs. 50,000 as the indemnity and an annual tribute of Rs. 20,000. Rs. 37,000 of the indemnity were paid just then and the balance was promised in two instalments, both instalments being payable before six months' time.

The Chief of Sod had recaptured his fort and killed the garrison. The Dogras returned to punish him, but the enemy had escaped. Thence they marched to Suru where a skirmish took place with the Botis who were completely crushed. The trouble at Suru and Sod had been excited by Mian Singh, the Sikh Governor of Kashmir, who wanted to force the trade of Ladakh through Kash­mir. Next the Vazir marched to Zanskar. The Chief offered submission, and a tax of three and-a-half rupees per house was exacted.

News arrived that the Gylpho of Leh had rebelled and had at the instigation of Mian Singh, the Governor of Kashmir, closed all routes for merchants2. The Dogras at once marched through Tsumur to Leh. But the Gylpho met the Vazir at Chachot, between Chumri and Leh and expressed his regret at the event. The Dogras marched to Leh and realized the unpaid balance of the old indemnity (13,000) with additional expenses and bestowed3

Ladakh on Moru Tadsi and granted a Jagir to the Gylpho. A fort 1 This according to A. Cunningham page 388 wa3 in April 1835, and according to Vigne,

Volume IT, pages 352—57 ' in the spring of 1835.' 8 The Governor of Kahsmir had already complained of the disturbance caused in the trade

of shawl wool by the interference of Gulab Singh, but the Jammu brothers cleverly adjusted matters : J. D. Cunningham, page 241.

3 Vigne, Volume II, pages 352-55. This was before the spring of 1836. When Vigne was at Ijadakh, 'Marut Rangin' was king.

26 THE BUILDING OF

was erected at Leh and Dalel Singh appointed Thanadar. In the spring of 1836, Zorawar Singh returned to Jammu with the son of Moru Tadsi and others as hostages to ensure the good behaviour of the new king. Gulab Singh and his son Uttam Singh did not approve of the arrangement making over Ladakh to Moru Tadsi. This the Vazir promised to rectify.

A year later news arrived that Moru Tadsi was in rebellion, and that the Thanadar of Balde had been killed and the Dogras were beleaguered everywhere. Zorawar Singh started at once, but his march was delayed by the swollen condition of the rivers. Hence about four months after leaving Jammu he carried the fort of Chatragarh by storm. The people submitted. Zanskar was settled next. Bai Singh and Mia Tota advanced towards Leh. Moru Tadsi took to flight, but was seized at Tabo, on the left bank of the Spiti river near the British frontier. Moru Tadsi was deposed and the old Gylpho reinstated on condition of paying the fixed tribute and the expense of occupation.

Zorawar Singh left for Jammu, but returned the year1 after to seize Moru Tadsi and Chang Nabdan, Kahlan of Bazgo, who were plotting against the Gylpho of Leh and the Dogra authority and who were begging the aid of Ahmad Shah of Baltistan.

2Ahmad Shah had in 1835 disinherited his eldest son Muham­mad Shah in favour of his younger brother Muhammad Ali. Mu­hammad Shah just then had sought and received the protection of ^lorawar Singh at Suru.3 Zorawar Singh had promised him help on some future occasion as the conquest of Ladakh was then before him. Muhammad Shah fled to Leh in 1840 and claimed refuge with the Gylpho, a subordinate of the Dogras. The real power lay with the Kahlan of Banka and the Kahlan of Bazgo, both of whom were intriguing against the Dogras. They helped Ahmad

1 A Cunningham page 345 fixed the latter half of 1838 and the beginning of 1839 as the date.

aVigne, Volume II, pages 255-56. 3 " Muhammad Shah— put himself under the protection of Gulab Singh's Sikh Lieu-

tenant and from that time he became a puppet in the hands of Gulab Singh, who amused him and worried Ahmad Shah by promising to make him Governor of Skardo, if ever he took th« country." Vigne, Volume II, page 256.

JAMMU AND KASHMIR. 27

Shah in getting his son seized at Leh. Zorawar Singh heard of this in Zanskar and determined on the conquest and annexation of Balti.1

In the end of the year 1840 the Vazir assembled an army and made for Baltistan. Ahmad Shah made preparations and destroyed the bridge over the Indus. Hence the Dogras marched down the right bank of the river. On his way Zorawar Singh secured the submission of Khatakchan and Khaplo. The season was advancing and the severity of winter and the scarcity of pro­visions affected the discipline in the ranks of the Dogras and dis­pirited the troops. At length one night Basti Ram discovered somewhere below the camp a place where the river was thickly frozen. Passage was possible. Trees were cut down and placed over the short length of the thinly frozen part in the middle of the river. At 5 o'clock in the morning a small party of Dogras crossed the Indus, though not without paying a heavy toll. In the skirmish that ensued the Baltis were routed and the Vazir found time to reorganize his troops.

Zorawar Singh next marched to Skardo and laid siege to the fort which soon surrendered. Ahmad Shah2 was deposed and his son Muhammad Shah installed on the gaddi on condition to pay a yearly tribute of Rs. 7,000. A garrison was left behind in the fort, and to avoid further disturbance Ahmad Shah and his favourite son were carried prisoners to Ladakh.

Soon after the annexation of Skardo to Jammu the Gylpho (Akabut Mahmud) died of small-pox and was succeeded by his grandson Jigmet Singge Namgyal, a mere boy, who was recognized by Zorawar Singh as the Raja. His father Changraphtan Namgyal

1 " At a private interview with the Maharaja," writes Vigne, on ' fair authority,' " Gulab Singh said that there was but one great wish of his life unsatisfied, and that was the possession of Iskardo ; and that Eanjit then, as there was no Englishman in the country at the time, granted him permission to make the attempt My own presence in Little Tibet aided by that of Dr. Henderson (1835) and Dr. Falconer (1838) had been mainly instrumental in deterring Gulab Singh from invasion, as he feared to give offence by making war upon a State, whose Chief was affording a right hospitable reception to a British traveller." Vigne, Volume IT, pages 374-75.

• Ahmad Shah ruled over the territory between Chorbut and Hasora and was supreme in Khaplu, Shighar, Keris, Katakchunt, Totti, Parkuta and Rondu. Vigne, Volume II, page 255.

28 THE BUILDING OF

had fled after the deposal of Akabut Mahmud and had died in hia wanderings in 1839.

Encouraged with his success, Zorawar Singh entered on the invasion of Tibet. In May 1841, he advanced up the Indus valley and plundered Hanle and Tashigong and subjugated Eudok and Garoo. Chinese troops were sent out to meet him. Zorawar Singh defeated the enemy in November, but had to face another force in December. The armies met on 10th December and Zorawar Singh was shot and slain on the 12th.1 This closed the glorious career of the Kahluria general and woeful is the tale of those he led to these regions of cold and frost.

Early in 1842 the Chinese occupied Garoo and advanced to Ladakh where they besieged the new fort of the Dogras. The boy Gylpho joined the Chinese.2 But soon Dewan Hari Chand who had in the winter of 1841 been deputed to Ladakh via Srinagar and Lar with about 6,000 troops and 10,000 coolies, arrived, and with Vazir Eutnoo's help put the Chinese to flight taking prisoner the Lhasan commander. The Lhasa Vazir was set free after he had agreed to recognise the old boundary between Ladakh and China. (See Appendix II).

The rebellion of 1846 in Kashmir caused some disturbance in Zanskar. It was soon quelled by Basti Earn. Ever since the country has been quiet.

Under its native rulers the following was the revenue of 3

Ladakh:

House-tax Customs . . Tax on brokers Presents or fees

* •

Es. 30,000 18,000 5,700 5,000

Total . . 58,700

1 Orders had already been sent recalling Zorawar Singh at the express will of the British Government, but he died before these could reach him.

2 Hassan, page 668. 8 A. Cunningham, pages 271—80.

JAMMU AND KASHMIR. 29

To this may be added (1) Rs. 8,000 the sum set apart for the monasteries; (2) Rs. 4,000 as derived from the crown villages. Hence the total revenue was Rs. 58,700 plus Rs. 12,000—Rs. 71,700.

The following was the revenue under Maharaja Gulab Singh :

Tax on houses Customs . . Tax on brokers Presents or fees Monasteries

Total

Es. 45,500 18,000 5,700 5,000 6,300

80,500

A heavy tax had been levied on all the monasteries and the aggregate of Rs. 6,300 was realized in the following manner:—

Monastery of Hemis Monastery of Chimra Monastery of Thigse Monastery of Pitak . . Monastery of Gawan Monastery of Lama Yuru Twenty-five small monasteries at the rate of Es. 25

Es. 900 900 500 500 900 900

each • •

Total

1,500

6,300

Under Maharaja Gulab Singh a Thanadar exercising both civil and military authority was placed in each of the following districts:—

Ladakh, Zanskar, Kargil, Dras and Nubra.

The civil and military expenses of governing Ladakh amounted to between Rs. 50,000 and Rs. 60,000 leaving thus a surplus of about Rs. 25,000.

Before concluding the story of Ladakh it is necessary to remark that Ladakh greatly profited by the Dogra rule. For strong government, for the incentive given to trade, for the excellent means of communication, for the telegraph and postal arrangements Ladakh must thank Vazir Zorawar Singh and his master.

30 THE BUILDING OF

CHAPTER V. The sale of the Territories.

Kashmir was annexed to the Sikh dominions in 1819 and was thenceforward administered by Governors from Lahore who were frequently changed. * These are : (1) Dewan Moti Earn—1819 ;

Sirdar Hari Singh—1820 ; (3) Dewan Moti Earn—1822 ; (4) Dewan Chuni Lai—1826 ; (5) Dewan Kirpa Earn—1827 ; (6) Bhamma Singh Ardali—1831; (7) Prince Sher Singh—1832; (8) Colonel Mian Singh—1834; (9) Ghulam Mohy-ud-Din—1841; (10) Shaikh Imam-ud-Din—1846.

In April 1841 the Sikh troops in Kashmir rebelled and a rebellious Pathan, a subordinate of Tilak Singh Komedan, put to death the Governor, Colonel Mian Singh, on the night of 6th Baisakh 1898 Bikrami.2 Sikh troops were despatched to the valley under the nominal command of Pertab Singh, son of Sher Singh, while Gulab Singh was the real leader.3 After a bloody contest of a day or two on the banks of the Dudh Gang in the plain of Bat-malu near Srinagar the rebel lines were carried. Having estab­lished order, Gulab Singh seized the opportunity to extend his influence to Kashmir where he left Sheikh Ghulam Mohy-ud-Din, a creature of his own, as the Sikh Governor. This was the finish­ing touch, and thus we find Gulab Singh already supreme in the contiguous tract of territory the sovereignty of which was formally transferred to him in March 1846.

After the death of Maharaja Eanjit Singh, the Sikh kingdom had fallen into great disorder. The Sikh Government plunged into war (1845—86) with the English and soon reaped the harvest of its imprudence. Battles were fought at Mudki and Ferozshah in December 1845, at Aliwal in January 1846 and at Sobraon on February 10, 1846.

1 Hassan, pages 626—34; Gazetteer of Kashmir by C. E. Bates, page 111. 8 Hassan, pages 643—45, the date corresponds to April 1841. 8 Kashmir, by Younghusband, pages 162-63 ; Gazetteer of Kashmir by C. E. Bates, pag»

112*

JAMMU AND KASHMIE. 81

The victory of Aliwal, besides its importance for the English, was opportune for Eaja Gulab Singh. His influence and skill might have continued the war. But the prudent Eaja reproached the defeated and started negotiations with the English. With the defeat of Sobraon and the occupation of Lahore the power of the Khalsa was gone, and even the controllers of treasure, food and munitions of war finally joined the enemy. The Eani and the court called upon Gulab Singh and elected him Minister with full powers to treat with the English.1 The murder of his brothers and son at Lahore, the recent Sikh invasion of Jammu and the subse­quent fine imposed upon him, and, above all, the possibility of mak­ing a personal profit at the hands of the conquerors, determined the conduct of Gulab Singh in his negotiations with the English.

20n the 15th of February the Governor -General expressed the willingness of the English to let the Maharaja Dulip Singh con­tinue as a friendly sovereign, they retaining in perpetual sovereignty the country between the Beas and the Sutlej and the Jullundur Doab. The Sikhs were also to pay an indemnity of a million and a half sterling. The terms were finally agreed to. Besides desir­ing to punish the Sikhs for their past aggressions the Governor-General meant to overawe them for the future. Hence the pre­ference of the Beas to the old boundary of the Sutlej. Such then was the treaty of Lahore. (See Appendix III and IV).

Gulab Singh cherished hopes of securing for himself the viceroy-alty of the dominions of Lahore, but Lai Singh was his.strong rival, and the English offered Gulab Singh no support for this office. While negotiations were still afoot and the season advancing, it was considered advisable to conciliate one who might otherwise prove troublesome for Gulab Singh was very resourceful.

3The low state of the Lahore treasury, however, enabled the Governor-General to appease the Eaja in an agreeable way. Two-thirds of the money indemnity required from Lahore could not

1 Hassan, page 668. a J. D. Cunningham, pages 317-18. 3 Journal Punjab Historical Society, Volume IV, No. 1.

32 THE BUILDING OF

be realized, and Kashmir and the Hilla States from the Beas to the Indus were taken instead and transferred to Gulab Singh in per­petual sovereignity for a million pounds sterling. Such a recog­nition by the British Government had been the chief wish of the Raja, and the arrangement was highly satisfactory from his point of view.

Gulab Singh was invested with the title of Maharaja on March 15,1846, and the Treaty of Amritsar between him and the British Government was signed the next day. But a portion of the terri­tory at first proposed to be ceded to him was reserved and the payment accordingly reduced. The country between the Ravi and the Indus was transferred to him on the payment of £75,000.J

The liquidation was made easy by his being considered the heir to the treasure of Suchet Singh estimated at 1,500,000 rupees. *

Kashmir, the whole of the hill country to the south between the Ravi and the Indus and Ladakh and Gilgit, with Baltistan and the Indus valley to Chilas were transferred. A special clause in the Treaty imposed upon Raja Gulab Singh the obligation to respect the rights of the dispossessed Chiefs in fulfilment where­of an agreement was made between the Chiefs and the Raja under the guarantee of the British Government whereby cash allowances were assigned to them in perpetuity.

Chamba, west of the Ravi, and Hazara were included in the territory transferred to Gulab Singh. 2But an arrangement was made by Sir Henry Lawrence by which, in 1847, Gulab Singh got Lakhanpur on the Ravi and Badrawa, in lieu of Chamba. Findin it difficult to control Hazara, Gulab Singh in 1847 approached the Sikh Darbar with a proposition of exchange.3 His request was granted and the ilaqas of Munawar, Garhi, etc., were given to him in exchange.

By the treaty of Amritsar,4 Gulab Singh was to ' present annually to the British Government one horse, twelve perfect

1 J. D. Cunningham, pages 262-63. 2 Lieutenant-Colonel Lawrence to the Governor-General, 22nd November 1847. 3 Proceedings (Roburkaree) of Agent, Governor-General, North-West Frontier, and Resi

dent at Lahore in the matter of the exchange of the country of Hazara,. May 1, 1847, * Treaty of Amritsar, March 16,—see Appendix V,

fc>

JAMMU AND KASHMIE. 33

shawl goats of approved breed (six male and six female), and three pairs of Cashmere shawls ' and he engaged, ' for himself and heira, to join with the whole of his military force the British troops when employed within the hills, or in the territories adjoining his possessions'. On their part ' the British Government will give its aid to Maharaja Gulab Singh in protecting his territories from external enemies.' ' The sum of seventy-five lacs of rupee? (Nanuckshahee),' was to be paid in two instalments, ' fifty lacs to be paid on rectification of this treaty and twenty-five lacs on or before the 1st of October of the current year, A. D. 1846.' But we find that only first instalment and about Rs. 1,50,000 of the second were paid by the 14th April 1847. The last instalment, however, was paid into the Lahore treasury as late as 15th March 1850.1 (See Appendix VI).

2At the time of the transfer no one imagined that the Punjab would become a British Province within only three years. On the contrary the transaction was regarded as a masterly stroke of policy. Two birds were killed with a single stone ; the Sikh king­dom was considerably weakened and a friendly and subordinate power set up on the most important frontier of the Empire. This is obvious from a letter addressed bv the Governor-General to the Queen on 18th February, 1846 :—

" The territory which it is proposed should be ceded to Your Majesty is a fine district between the rivers Sutlej and Beas, throwing our frontier forward, within 30 miles of British territory in front of Ludhiana, which relatively with Ferozepore is so weak, that it appeared desirable to the Governor-General to improve our frontier on its weakest side to curb the Sikhs by an easy approach towards Amritsar across the Beas river, instead of the Sutlej, to round off our hill possessions to show to all Asia that although the British Government has not deemed it expedient to annex this immense country of the Punjab, making the Indus the British boundary, it has punished the treachery and violence of the Sikh

1 Final receipt for the purchase of Kashmir 1850, signed by the Board of Administration. 2 Journal Punjab Historical Society, Volume VIII , No. 2,

34 THE BUILDING OF

nation, and exhibited its power in a manner which cannot be mis­understood. For the same Political and Military reasons the Governor-General hopes to be able, before the negotiations are closed, to make arrangements by which Cashmere may be added to the possessions of Gulab Singh, declaring the Eajput Hill States with Cashmere independent of the Sikhs of the plains. The Sikhs declare their inability to pay one million and a half, and will pro­bably offer Cashmere as an equivalent. In this case if Gulab Singh pays the money demanded for the expenses of war, the district of Cashmere will be ceded by the British to him and the Rajah become one of the Princes of Hindustan."

"This was the reason we did not annex Kashmir,"1 writes Sir Francis Younghusband. The Punjab Avas yet unannexed. The East India Company in 1846 did not favour a forward policy and was not inclined to extend its possessions. They had a powerful and aggressive neighbour, to weaken whom they rewarded one who had been favourable to them. Here it mav be useful to remem-ber that Gulab Singh was a Rajput by caste and no Sikh, who might have sympathised with his co-believeres on some future occasion.

2To Cunningham " The transaction scarcely seems worthy of the British name and greatness," and to him " objections become stronger " when he considers that " Gulab Singh had agreed to pay sixty-eight lakhs of rupees (£680,000) ,3 as a fine to his para­mount before the war broke out, and the custom of the east as well as of the west requires the feudatory to aid his lord in domestic war and foreign strife." Gulab Singh " ought thus to have paid the deficient million of money as a Lahore subject, instead of being put in possession of Lahore Provinces."

Cunningham's is an excellent argument, but ethical canons do not govern practical politics. Cunningham, when he formed such an opinion forgot the circumstances of the transaction. He seems to have forgotten that all conquests of Gulab Singh previous

1 Younghusband, pages 171-72. 2 J. D. Cunningham, page 319. 8 The Khalsa invaded Jammu, 1844-45, and took prisoner Raja Gulab Singh upon whom

the fine was imposed. Mr. Jagat Singh of the Punjab Record office tells me that the amount of the fine imposed was £ 670,000 and not £680,000 as is generally iupposed.

JAMMU AND KASHMIR. 35

Sikhs while he practically independent. He wielded great influence in the Punjab and had learnt enough of intrigue at the Sikh court. As early as 1831 Jacquemont1 writes of him, ' after Runjeet Singh he is the

i Lord in the Punjab.' Again, ' Gulab Singh is better obeyed Singh.' Elsewhere2 we read that he could ' contrive the removal of an enemy without any sort of compunction ' and that ' he might play at disloyalty if hard pressed.' Certainly, as such, the English could not afford to leave him dissatisfied. Even if Gulab Singh, as Cunningham suggests, paid the deficient money as a Lahore subject, the Sikh Kingdom would be left large enough and too powerful to be a good and quiet neighbour. Moreover, the Sikh power was dwindling fast and Gulab Singh saw an opportunity to carve out for himself a king­dom upon its ruins. It has always been so and so was it with the Ottoman Empire, and so was it with the Moghuls.

?Some are inclined to think that the British did not annex Kashmir as they did not know much about it. But Forster, Moor-croft, Trebeck, Guthrie, Jacquemont, Vigne and others were in Kashmir before March 1846, and all of them had to secure the per­mission of the British Government before they could visit that part of the globe.

3Moorcroft in 1821-22 zealously urged the British Govern­ment to accept the offers of allegiance from the Rajas of Ladakh and Skardo, but was sadly disappointed. He even went so far as to establish trade relations in that quarter. 4Vigne (1835-38) expected miraculous results from the annexation of Kashmir. Simla would be deserted and the occupation of the valley " would be looked upon as the accomplishment of the one thing needful for the consolidation of the British power in Northern India ; and the res-

name En 5> Again " Kashmir enjoys the similar

1 Jacquemont, pages 1 and 164. 2 Gough and Innes, pages 147-48, Chapter I, Book IV. * Moorcroft, Volume I, pages 255—60 and at other places.

4 Vigne, Volume I I , pages 66—9.

P2

36 THE BUILDING OF

advantage of being at the same time both a fortress and a magazine ; and although the battle for the valley would have been fought on the outside of it, yet the progress of an invading power might be opposed step by step." Further on, " The tools of the Cornish miner may bring to light the hidden treasures of its iron, copper and silver ores."

All this was said before March 1846 and yet people say that Englishmen were ignorant of the importance of Kashmir. Had the first Sikh war been that of 1848-49, when the Punjab was annexed it would have been a blunder to leave out Kashmir. Had circum-stances favoured the annexation of the Punjab in 1846 it would have been an equally great blunder to leave Kashmir unannexed. But as it was nothing could have been more politic than to transfer it to Gulab Singh and not to any other person. None else could hold it and to none else would the English transfer it.

A study of the foregoing chapters will have revealed to view the various forces and influence at work to create the present Jammu and Kashmir territories. The crystallisation of these was now a matter of time.

TERRITORIAL MAP OF THE.

JAMMU AND KASHMIR STATE=

ScftUSZ M«U$felfn«kw

• % »• u * • « H i ^ Cf***J * • • * t>tU» rH w*f*fi>

T

it ^

2*1 77 Zfi T* To*

REFERENCES

NAME | M A « K STATE BOUNI

PROVINCE «

ItctU.** i" fee t -

I

E f^'.*^"* VV*H»l , tM#»«

1> *

^

H

*+*

JAMMU AND KASHMIR. 37

i

CHAPTER VI.

The Consolidation of his authority by Maharaja Gulab Singh.

THE OCCUPATION OF KOHISTAN.

One would have expected that soon after the Treaty of Amritsar, Maharaja Gulab Singh hastened to Kashmir and ad­ministered law and justice in his newly acquired country or that he immediately deputed a viceroy of his to the valley to do the same for him. It was not destined to be so. On their transfer to the Maharaja, the people of Kohistan and Kashmir were in arms against his authority. The reason for such a widespread rebellion we shall learn by and by.

Uooplal, the Governor of Jasrota, had by the 18th March given over all the forts of Kohistan to the rebels and had told them to hold fast and not to have any intercourse with the agents of the Maharaja, but to seek justice from Henry Lawrence. Accordingly some troops of Maharaja Gulab Singh were sent to the forts and districts of Jasrota, Eamnagar, Sumurth, Budrawa, and Chibbal, etc. where Kooplal, had besides the forts delivered stores, cannon, zunijails, and camel swivels to the insurgents. This, we are told, he did under imperative orders from Lahore. There was great disturbance in Chibbal and Hazara. The Sirkaree regiments march­ing under Mian Jawahir Singh from Lahore, were according to secret instructions idling on the road. Hence Gulab Singh ordered Kazee 2Mohkum-ud-Din to request Major Lawrence to press the Lahore Durbar to deliver the different fortresses to him, " If these men in Lahore," wrote the Maharaja,3 " were to be sharply chastised and punished, and more than that orders given them to go themselves and to put the guards into the strongholds and to bring back my receipt, it would be very well. Even Jalal Khan, who was sent to me for the very purpose of putting

1 Henry Lawrence to the Governor-General; 3rd April 1846. 2 Gulab Singh to Mobkum-ud-I)in ; March 19, 1846. » Gulab Singh to Mohkum-ud-Din; March 18, 1846.

38 THE BUILDING OF

in my guards (into the forts) has never arrived." Gul suspected the Lahore authorities and was rightly afraid of the consequences of their giving up the forts of Kohistan to the rebels. Some of these forts had been constructed by His Highness himself and it was only in 1845 that the Lahore Durbar had taken them. He desired that Sardar Ranjoor Singh be asked to deliver the fort of Nutteh held by him.

10n March 20, Major Lawrence pointed out to Rajah Lai Singh, the Vazir of the Khalsa, that it was the duty of the Lahore authorities to put the British or their nominees in possession of Kohistan and advised him to send a force under the command of some able officer to deliver the forts to Maharaja Gulab Singh. Lai Singh soon3 sent four servants of the Sirkar and four confi­dential agents, Sardar Chuttur Singh, Shaikh Gulam Mohy-ud-Din, Dewan Moolraj and Misr Rooplal with urgent orders to " deliver over the fortresses to the British."

Pressed again by Major Lawrence on March 21,3 the Vazir expressed4 it his heart's desire to fulfil the terms of the treaty. " I t is impossible I could refuse," wrote the Vazir who now furnished Major Lawrence with twenty-five Purwanas, signed and sealed, to the Kardars and Thanadars ordering them to give up the Doab and Kohistan to the British. Orders were also sent to Runjoor Singh.

With the knowledge we have thus far acquired we cannot definitely accuse the Khalsa of instigating or favouring the re­bellion. For certainly it had from the earliest times been the custom of the Kohistanis to rebel, notwithstanding the Jagirs given to them. The zemindars of those parts and particularly about Kulu, Mundee, Nurpur, and Hazara, etc. were continually creating disturbance even in the days of Ranjit Singh and it might have been that in the dwindling strength of Lahore they saw and seized an opportunity to assert themselves.

1 Major Lawrence to Rajah Lai Singh ; March 20, 1846. » Major Lawrence to Rajah Lai Singh; March 21, 1846.

8 Rajah Lai Singh to Major Lawrence ; March 23, 1846. * Rajah Lai Singh to Major Lawrence; no date but written in reply t

JAMMU AND KASHMIR. 3D

1Lal Singh was prepared to make over Harkishengarh in Hazara and the forts in Chhibal still held by the Lahore Government. But 2the districts of Lukchawuh and certain villages in the neighbour­hood of Sialkot which Ghulab Singh had held in Jaghir for a long time were confiscated by the Kardars of Lahore. In Gumrolah and Maharjke, the Jaghirs of Suchet Singh, the Thanadars de­serted their posts and the Maharaja's men took possession of them before the 22nd March. But3 as plain country His Highness could not claim these districts, as only Kohistan and the dependencies thereof were transferred to him.

4Besides the difficulties raised by the Sikhs the Maharaja was himself slow to take possession of Kohistan and Kashmir. This led the English to suspect his conduct and even Major Law­rence believed that the Maharaja exaggerated his complaints against the Sikhs with a view to eventually present a bill against expenses incurred in procuring possession of Kohistan. He seems to have received the news of the death of Gulam Mohy-ud-Din, the Gov­ernor of Kashmir, very cooly and he even told the Lahore Agent sent to put him in possession of the valley that his presence was not required. Hence " the evident facility with which he ", was " making his way in Kohistan " and his optimism confirmed the belief that his anxiety was pretended.

5By the 29th March, however, Gulab Singh obtained posses­sion of Jasrota and soon after he settled Eamnagar and started towards Jammu to settle Chibbal where great disturbance was on foot. Within another day0 or two the forts of Bhudoo and Sumurth were taken and " the rebels made their appearance and submission," and were given as good houses as circumstances admitted of to live in. Only one tribe out of the whole (the Phundanwalan) offered opposition. " But under the auspices

1 Rajah Lall Singh to Major Lawrence ; no date but evidently about March 24. 2 Gulab Singh to Kazee Mohkum-ud-Din ; March 22, 1846.

• Major Lawrence to Maharaja Gulab Singh ; March 23, 1846.

"* Henry Lawrence to the Governor-General; April 11, 1846.

* Henry Lawrence to the Governor-General, March 31, 1846 ; and Maharaja Gulab Singh to Mohkuin-ud-Din; March 28, 1846.

6 Maharaja Gulab Singh to Kazee Mohkum-ud-Din; March 31, 1846T

40 THE BUILDING OF

of the British Government," writes His Highness, " I attacked them and gained possession of the fort and other kings of Ramnagar where they had assembled." Five or six of the Maharaja's men were wounded and the rebels soon dispersed and fled. He did not confiscate Chamba as yet, but only accepted Nuzzranah from the Vazir.

xIn regard to Jasrota the conduct of the Lahore authorities looked suspicious. Certainly they were slow in putting the Maharaja in possessions of his territories. There was no cordiality between the Lahore and Jammu Durbars. His Highness exaggerat­ed the misdoings of Lahore and the Sikhs placed impediments in the way of an early settlement of affairs. They were naturally sore at the result of the recent events whereas he had on easy terms gained his heart's desire. Henry Lawrence was of opinion that Gulab Singh ought to have done all in his power to smoothe and accommodate them. He often suggested to the Maharaja's vakil that now that he was a great sovereign, his master ought to forego small matters and to employ all his energies in acquiring Kashmir. During an interview with Rajah Lai Singh and others, Lawrence observing that there was still some talk of the possible recovery of Kashmir warned the Sikhs of the consequence of such conduct.

2Rahim Ullah Khan and Fyz Tulab were continually exciting disturbance in the direction of Punch. A force that was sent against them gave them battle and put them to flight. His High­ness was prepared to grant them cash allowances or small estates but they were growing more and more violent every day, and it was suspected that Lai Singh was encouraging them to rebel. His Highness also intended3 to conciliate the chief people of Ramnagar, Budrawa and Basohli; such as Meean Bhoore Singh, Meean Utyar Singh, Meean Kalyan Pal and Poorub Singh, etc. by granting them small estates for their maintenance.

1 Henry Lawrence to the Governor-General; March 31, 1846. a Maharaja Gulab Singh to Mohkum-ud-Din ; April 7, 1846. 8 Maharaja Gulab Singh to Mohkum-ud-Din ; April 5, 1846,

JAMMU AND KASHMIE. 41

After settling Chibbal the Maharaja proposed to send a force to Hazara. He sought the interference of Major Lawrence, writing that " the sower of the seed ought to cultivate the plant and it rests with the British Government to support and maintain me in my new position." At Lahore the Ministers had promised to put the Company in the possession of the territory ceded and yet the Maharaja complained that he had to do it himself. Sher Baz Khan hoping to get possession of Mirpore, had come with the troops belonging to a Kardar of Eajah Lai Singh and had carried off the camels of His Highness. After constant pressure from Major Lawrence, General Mahtab Singh and Boor Singh were sent from Lahore to settle Hazara, but they were not considered fit to exert themselves much and Sardar Chattar Singh was desired to join them.

Before the 5th April the Maharaja granted Jagirs to the chief men of Budrawa, Basohli, Jasrota and Eaikote. He was in a fix regarding Hazara and Chibbal. The subjugation of the one would give time for mischief to the insurgents in the other. Finally he proposed to take Chibbal on the road and then to proceed to Hazara.

xIn the meanwhile the fort of Harkishengarh was besieged by Sikh troops and there was no man of the Maharaja present to whom it could be made over. His Highness was busy in quelling the rebellion raised by Bahim Ullah Khan, Fyz Tulab Khan, Dewan Sher Baz Khan and other rebels in Chibbal and Mirpore. Between ten and twelve thousand of his troops were engaged in suppressing these people. It was then recommended to the Maha­raja to pension off the more obstinate insurgents like Fyz Tulab Khan and Kahimullah Khan. He was prepared to do so if they submitted. But it was considered inexpedient to let them live in Chibbal for here they would again breed trouble. Fyz Tulab3

after carrying war and rebellion from one place to another, however, took to flight before the 13th April. All the other chiefs of

1 Maharaja Gulab Singh to Mohkum-ud-Din; April 7, 1846. * Maharaja Gulab Singh to Mohkum-ud-Din; April 13,

G

42 THE BUILDING OF

Chibbal came In subjugating Fy Tulab villages had been * burnt to ashes '* and left desolate. Dewan Hari Chand was now2 sent to Hazara.

3Sometimes before 27th May 1846, Wazir Eutnoo, Ahlkar of Maharaja Gulab Singh marched from Koree with 500 infantry and two guns and camped at Chah-i-Bani, three miles away from Bhimber. It was apprehended that these troops might come into conflict with the forces of Eajah Lai Singh encamped about Doulatnagar. But the situation was saved by Henry Lawrence4

who put a stop to the disputes regarding the ownership of certain lands by obtaining the consent on the one side of Jowala Sahai, the Jammu Dewan, to the surrender of several estates and on the other of Dewan Dina Nath to the abandonment of Lahore claims on others.

BBy the 21st July, Eaheemullah Khan, ez-Bajah of Eajouri, who had been, against the express orders of the British Govern­ment, opposing the Maharaja, finally came over to Sir Henry Lawrence with his three sons. Fuqeeroollah was still in Kashmir and intended disturbance. Fyz Tulab of Bhimber was employed by the Lahore Durbar on the Jammu frontier. But many of the ez-chiefs of Kohistan were now at Simla. Some of them had been exiles for twenty and thirty years. But all were exhorbitant in their demands. Even Fyz Tulab, who, along with Eaheemoolah Khan, had, as early as 1845, made an attempt on even the life of His Highness himself and had been a violent rebel in the present disturbance expressed a willingness to acknowledge the supremacy of the new master. He was, however, presented to John Lawrence on 24th August by Eajah Lai Singh. Fyz Tulab sought the inter­ference of the English for the release of his wife and family imprisoned by His Highness.6

1 Pundit Kunhya Lall; April 26, 1847, Lahore Political Diaries, Volume VI, R. 255. * Maharaja Gulah Singh to Mohkum-ud-Din; April 13. » Ruttun Chand, Vazier Chand and Ram Singh to Rajah Lai Singh; before May 27. « Henry Lawrence to the Governor-General; May 31, 1846. »Henry Lawrence to Governor-General; July 21, 1846. " John Lawrence to Governor-General ; August 25. 1846,

JAMMU AND KASHMIE. 43

Thus was the rebellion in Kohistan suppressed. The dis­possessed Chiefs were granted pensions. Certainly the Sikhs had not with any good will put the Maharaja in possession of the Hill country though they apparently " behaved quite as well as could have been expected " particularly in Hazara which they held until the troops of His Highness tardily arrived.1 The secret of such conduct we shall learn elsewhere. Here we need only remem­ber that the Lahore Durbar was jealous of Maharaja Gulab Singh who in his turn was very exacting. Had he conducted himself with common liberality and had he been a little generous minded matters might not have taken the subsequent serious turn.

1 H. M. Lawrence to the Governor-General ; July 15, 1846.

02

44 THE BUILDING OF

CHAPTER VII. The Consolidation of his authority by Maharaja Gulab

Singh (contd-). THE OCCUPATION OF KASHMIB.

Maharaja Gulab Singh was too shrewd to look forward to a peaceful possession of Kashmir. His fears were only too well founded. Sheikh Ghulam Mohy-ud-Din, a minion of his whom he had created Governor after crushing the mutiny among the Sikh troops in Kashmir in 1841, died about the 25th of March 1846.1

His son Sheikh Imam-ud-Din succeeded to his office at the re­commendation of the Maharaja. Having bestowed many favours on the house of the Sheikh, the Maharaja expected Imam-ud-Din to be faithful to him. But the wire pullers placed the Governor in an embarrassing situation. He could not take an independent course.

Vazir Lakhpat Rai who had been sent by the Maharaja at the head of a small force arrived at Srinagar about the 14th June2

and encamped at the plain of Mai Suma. In July he was followed by a reinforcement under Vazir Rutno. The Sikh Government in Kashmir had assembled more than twelve thousand men.3 Sheikh Imam-ud-Din, though willing at the Maharaja's request4 to retire to Lahore with his family and wealth, was in arms for his own protection. Lakhpat Rai, however, was in possession of most of the forts by the second week of July and moreover Henry Lawrence addressed the Sheikh about the 21st July to at once make over Kashmir to His Highness' officers and to retire to Lahore after settling accounts, any disputes over which would be later on admitted to arbitration.

Imam-ud-Din had eight or ten thousand armed men, in arrears of pay with him. Most of them if promised retrospective

1 Hassan, page 671. The exact date is 14th Chet 1902 ; Bikrami—26th. 1 Hassan, page 672, The exact date is 1st Har 1903 B. Rabi-ul-Aval 1263. 8 Edward Lake to Major Lawrence ; June 29, 1846.

4 H , M. Lawrence to the Governor -General; July 21.

JAMMU AND KASHMIE. 45

pay would have taken service with the Maharaja and had proper measures been taken and the retrospective pay promised the oc­cupation might not have been long delayed. But Imam-ud-din's intrigues and fear and His Highness' penurious policy were sure to raise disturbance before a settlement could be arrived at.

Gulab Singh was soon convinced that the Sheikh was no longer his man and believed that he had offered presents to the Governor-General. Even the Lahore Akhbar stated that the Sheikh offered thirty five lakhs to the British for Kashmir. Hence His Highness was full of complaints against Imam-ud-din and Eajah Lai Singh and declared that both of them were endeavour­ing to raise the Hill country against him. To such a belief of the Maharaja, Sir Henry Lawrence said that " he makes such ceaseless representation that agreeably to an old proverb, he may possibly be disregarded when he speaks the truth ". But Gulab Singh's suspisions were, as events proved, based on the know­ledge of facts. About the first week of August,1 however, Henry Lawrence himself got hold of two letters from the Syeds of Kaghan tending to show that the Governor was instigating rebellion against the Maharaja and it was at his persuasion that Dewan Hakim Eai2 was appointed by the Lahore Durbar to proceed to Kashmir. Major Macgregor, Deputy Commissioner and Political Agent, Trans Sutlej territory, also deputed Sohan Lall to accompany Hakim Eai. The Eaja of Eajouri who was at Simla was made to write to his son in the Sikh service in Kashmir to proceed at once to Lahore3 where his own and his soldiers arrears of pay would be liquidated.

4It was not long before the English, who had been attribut­ing the delay in the occupation of Kashmir merely to the careless­ness of the Maharaja, realized that the Sheikh " was playing fast and loose, loath to give up but afraid to resist." Eajah Lai Singh was made to write to Dewan Hakim Eai not to return without

1 G. H. Macgregor to Henry Lawrence; August 6, 1846. 2 G. H. Macgregor to Henry Lawrence ; August 15, 1846. 3 H. M. Lawrence to the Governor-General; August 31.

' John Lawrence to the Governor-General; August 31.

46 THE BUILDING OP

the Sheikh. But whether from the unpopularity of His High­ness or from some other reason there was a strong feeling at Lahore in favour of Imam-ud-din and had they dared the Durbar might have supported him. The English were quick1 in urg­ing on the Durbar the necessity of making up for lost time and of forthwith sending some of their most trustworthy and influential officers to enforce the immediate surrender of the valley. All possible means were to be taken to oblige the Sheikh to come over and if he said that his officers and troops prevented him, the Durbar were asked to tell him " to join Captain Broome with such party as remain faithful to him and make it generally known that he has separated himself from the insurgents ". All guns belonging to the province of Kashmir were required to be sur­rendered. The Durbar were desired to prove their sincerity by exerting themselves strenuously in carrying out the terms of the Treaty. Threats were made to the Sheikh2 who was told that his obstinate persistence would, by the British Government be considered tantamount to rebellion.

8When Vazir Lakhpat Rai with two or three hundred men had arrived at Kashmir, the Governor, it is true, made over at once the fort of Hurree Purbut, with all the ordnance and stores to him. But the delay in the evacuation of the Valley was ex­plained by Imam-ud-din as due to the request of the Maharaja " to protect and manage the country " as there was no force of His Highness at that time on the borders of Kohistan. He plead­ed that he consequently made requisite arrangements and raised

army the fort and the Kohistan. He declared that the Maharaja's agent realised the revenue but re­fused to pay the troops who became clamourous and subsequently deserted their posts and joined him. The falsity of such an ex­planation was evident4 from the letters of Captain Broome. His Highness had repeatedly ordered the Sheikh to march his

— ^ ^

1 H. M. Lawrence to John Lawrence ; August 31, 1846. 2 H. M. Lawrence to Captain A Broome, August 31, 1846. 8 Imam-ud-Din to H. M. Lawrence ; August 12, 1846.

4 Maharaja Gulab Singh to H. M. Lawrence; September 14, 1846,

JAMMU AND KASHMIR. 47

Kashmir force to Mozufferabad as until its departure matters could not be settled. Besides it was " solely in consequence of the arrival of Mr. Charles Hardinge ", the son of the Governor-General, that the fort of Hurree Purbat had been surrendered.

*Yet we find that, by the 12th August, the Governor was preparing to start for Lahore and had even applied to the Agents of the Maharaja for coolies and carriage. But previous to leav­ing the Valley he sought an assurance regarding his Jaghirs in Jullundur and Kashmir, regarding the payment of his troops in arrears and the balance of the revenue of Kashmir, Parquharson and Broome, who were by now in that province seem to have given him some hope. But2 these were only plausible excuses. He did not make over Kashmir. Raja Lai Singh was once again addressed, and imperatively told that the Treaty of Lahore pro­viding for the transfer of Kashmir would be " void ", if any one article of the Treaty was wilfully evaded. Imam-ud-din was made to understand3 that no excuse for opposition would be entertained and that if he had ' raised a storm ' he ' must put it down'.

But the Maharaja,4 though of opinion that matters could not be settled soon, never expressed alarm. He was, however, pressed by the British5 to be more energetic and to remedy the inconveni­ences that had arisen from his own miscalculations about Imam-ud-din's conduct and intention. Justice, mercy and moderation were recommended, as essential. " If you do so," His Highness was told, " your rule will be hailed with joy and your name go down to posterity with blessings." Soon the Maharaja proposed to go to Kashmir6 after making arrangements for the prevention

his marched from Kishtwar, Budrawa, Ramnagar and Jammu thus leaving the Rajouri road to Imam-ud-Din.

1 Imam-ud-Din to H. M. Lawrence ; August 12, 1846. * H. M. Lawrence to Raja Lai Singh ; August 31, 1846. »H. M. Lawrence to Imam-ud-Din ; August 31. « H. M. Lawrence to the Governor-General ; August 31. * H. M. Lawrence to Gulab Singh ; September 4, 1846. * Abstract of Jammu news : 3rd Sentember.

48 THE BUILDING OF

On September 4th1 false news was published that the troops he Maharaja had been attacked and put to flight by those of Sheikh and that Vazirs Lakhpat Rai and Rutnoo were prisoners.

Gulab S and feared such a report would inflame Hazara. The kindness of the East India Company alone could he thought, " put him in possession." Threats were again made to Lai Singh,2 but at the same time it was not con­sidered expedient for the Sikh troops to proceed to Kashmir.3

Neither their success nor their defeat would be convenient. The present situation would not guarantee a peaceful passage of the Sikh troops through the Jammu territory. The Durbar therefore ought to try other measures to quell the storm which they had permitted their servant to raise. All modes of persuasion were to be used. Even if Kashmir were held for the winter by an insur­gent army, the eventual result, it was thought, could not be doubt­ed. Moreover all loss and inconvenience would be at the doors of the Durbar.

Lieutenant H. B. Edwards was deputed by the Governor-General4 to keep Government informed about the proceedings in Kohistan and Kashmir and to advise the Maharaja. Broome, Hay and Nicholson hajl already been deputed to Kashmir. Imam-ud-din promised Broome5 that he would leave Kashmir soon. But the British officers learnt that Lakhpat Rai was mobilising his troops. They at once met the Vazir who promised to keep peace.

Instead of concentrating his troops in the cantonment, Lakhpat Rai's forces were in the gardens. He entirely depended on the Sheikh for supplies and was in complete ignorance of the details of his own force and of the supplies in the fort. Broome, as time proved, was right in thinking that " the Sheikh could destroy the Vazir's force in a few hours and starve them in a few days." Lakhpat Rai expected reinforcements of 4,000 men but neither knew nor cared about their movements. Imam-ud-din's army was superior to his in men, money and munitions. The people of

^ " ^ ^ • ! • _ _ _ _ - - - I • " _ J _ - - _ _ X .1111 ! • • "^- - — - | r • • " ^ — ^ ^ ^

1 Abstract of Jammu News ; 4th September. * H. M. Lawrence to Raja Lai Singh ; September 4. * H. M. Lawrence to John Lawrence, September 4. 4 H. M. Lawrence to Lieutenant H. B. Edwardes ; September 4. * H. M. Lawrence to the Governor-General: Sentembftr 10. I84.fi.

JAMMU AND KASHMIR. 49

Kashmir were favourable to the Sheikh and the western Rajas, Hazaras and Gukkars awaited the raising of his standard to join him while the only pass open in winter—Baramulla—was com­manded by his allies.

The Purwana threatening punishment for disobedience was delivered to the Governor on 20th August and he promised to leave Kashmir on the 29th on condition of an assurance regarding his Jullundur Jaghirs. He had also desired the company of a British officer to Bhimber and to this Broome had acceded. On the 22nd August it was ascertained that the western Chiefs, averse to Gulab Singh, had come into the city and reproached the Sheikh for agreeing to quit the valley. " This was confirmed by good autho­rity and in more than one quarter." This very day Imam-ud-din started fortifications and stopped supplies to Lakhpat Rai. Only a day before the Sheikh had told his Sikh and Punjabee troops of his intention to leave the valley. He had threatened the Musalmans that he would join Gulab Singh against them. But the reverses to the Maharaja's troops in Hazara and the encouragement from the Western Chiefs made him change his plans. Cow killing and conversion by these Chiefs and by Sher Ahmad particularly were rife. The leading rebels were (1) Sher Ahmad, Raja of Kurna ; (2) Ata Muhammad of Doputtah; (3) Mozzuffur Khan of Uri and (4) Myupp Khan of Muzzeferabad. His Highness was now acting energetically but mistakes had been made by British officers whose assurances and favours inspired hopes in the Sheikh and roused suspicions in the Maharaja. The Durbar sent Colonel Utter Singh to Kashmir1 with strong orders insisting on the im­mediate departure of their Governor with or without his army. Being a personal friend both of the Sheikh and the Maharaja it was hoped that Utter Singh would prove successful.

2Soon it was reported that on 30th August (16th Bhadun 1903 Bikarami) a battle had been fought in Kashmir. On the

1 J . Lawrence to H. M. Lawrence ; September 6, 1846. 2 Jammu Akhbar, September 6 ; Petition of Seru Malik which was received by H. M.

Lawrence on September 8 and the letter of Fakir Ullah to his father intercepted by Raja Lai Singh on September 25. Of all these T consider the last account as the most depend­able. Also Hassan, page 072 and Gulabnama, pages 355—60.

H

50 THE BUILDING 0 1 i

mam

29th August the Governor had pitched his camp at Rambagh with the intention of leaving for Lahore when in the night a hand­ful of Vazir Eutnoo's men fired a carbine and some muskets on the guards near about. The guards replied and a cannonade was tained on both sides for nearly four hours. Next morning a fight took place at Mai Suma between the Vazirs troops under Hookum Chand of Peshawar and Fukeeroola Khan in which the former were routed. Meanwhile the troops of Lakhpat Eai were attacked by the forces of the Governor under Jan Mohammad, Eisaldar. Lakhpat Eai was killed and his troops took to flight. Vazir

Eutnoo fled and took refuge in the fort of Hurree Purbat (Kohi Mara) and about 5,000 fled to Shankracharya (Koh-i-Suleman). Eutnoo was besieged in the fort and the fugitives at Shankracharya were attacked and most of them taken prisoners. Imam-ud-din deputed Saif Ullah Khan to Eajouri with 900 men. Letters were sent throughout Kohistan ordering the Zemindars to be ready to oppose the Maharaja. Instructions were despatched to Eajouri asking the Chief men there to take the greatest care that Mirza Yusaf Khan, His Highness' Governor, did not escape. The siege of Hurree Purbat was conducted in the following manner. Towards the entrance was Dewan Dutto Mull, to the south was Fukeeroolah, to the east Sirdar Soojan Singh with two Eegiments and to the north Colonel Bussunt Singh. On the hill to the north was Moizoodeen Khan Sultan with some hill men. Futteh Singh and Goolzaree commandant were placed near the houses of the Hindus and Sumrnud Khan and Mirza Murtaza were to the west.

Dewan Hakim Eai and Sohun Lai who had left Lahore on the 15th August arrived at Eajouri1 on 3rd September taking nineteen days to travel a distance then usually done in five or six days at the most. This intentional delay was open to suspicion. To John Lawrence it appeared "unaccountable that people in earnest and going on such an important errand should not nun at a greater rate than four or five coss a day." Perhaps the orders

D urbar Had

John Lawrence to the Governor-General, September 9

JAMMU AND KASHMIR. 51

ugust 30 the skirmish might have been prevented. Saif-ian with several hundred men reached Rajouri1 four days m and declaring himself a servant of the Lahore Durbar

treated them well. Mirza Yusuf, the Maharaja's Governor at who had only a handful of men with him fled on the arrival lah. But he was pursued, seized and placed in confine­

ment. Tn Kashmir water in the fort was almost exhausted but gedheld out.

vas September and Kashmir was yet unoccupied. Winter was fast approaching and mere negotiations seemed to prove of

The situation demanded immediate and strong measures, ish Government were prepared to help Gulab Singh and o hold Jammu and Jasrota in the rear while he himself ' to Kashmir. The Lahore Durbar were asked to place

y)r two-thirds of their force at every station at the disposal

no avail.

one of the Mcl^iaraJa a n c l ^° declare confiscate the property of al

>rder who would take arms against him. His Hi sed to combine mercy with energy in coercing the

amnesty for submission up to a certain date.3 Cap-as requested to afford him assistance in his military

capacity.

; Durbar were apparently exerting themselves strongly to Maharaja.4 They issued strict orders to all the Chiefs

and officprs commanding from Lahore to the Attock to be in readi­ness to rparch at a day's notice. The Kardars were directed to

whatever money was requisite to enable the troops to I Sirdar Sher Singh, then at Rawalpindi, was appointed •nmand. " A better selection they would not have made t to character and efficiency as well as with reference to

his friendly feelings towards the Maharaja." Circulars were issued th irough a ^ t^ie fron^er districts reprobating the conduct

•ud-Din.

move an<

1 John [ 'a w r e n c e t o t n e Governor-General ; September 13. Lawrence to the Governor-General; September 10 Lawrence to H. B. Edwardes ; September lo. .awrence to the Governor-General ; September 17.

H2

52 THE BUILDING OF

His Highness had proposed to march himself at the head of an army from Kiasi and the Governor-General1 was of opinion that the forces under his command ought to be sufficient to beat the Sheikh's troops. The Sikh troops from Baramulla and the Pir Panjal Pass would have a great moral effect in proving to the world that he was supported by the British Government and the Lahore Durbar. But being at a considerable distance from each other these troops could not make a combined movement. Con­sequently the Maharaja would have to depend on means of his own for the Sheikh might combine all his forces to defeat him. But the Maharaja was not yet convinced of the necessity of such arrangements.2 He was not yet tired of negotiating with the Sheikh to whom every fresh proposal was a reprieve and though time for military operations in Kashmir was rapidly passing away he still desired that one more appeal should be made to Imam-ud-din before hostilities commenced.

Great persuasion was needed to convince His Highness futility of further negotiations. Assured of the need of military de­monstrations he agreed to consider contingent arrangements for the forcible ejection of Imam-ud-din. But summing up his forces— a raw militia proposed to be impressed from all parts of the hills he found it inadequate for a single-handed campaign with the Sheikh and felt helpless without the aid of the British Govern­ment. The Sheikh commanded larger numbers and had the re­sources of the different Chiefs at his disposal. One of the rebels, Attah Ullah, stated that the Chiefs did not side with the Governor because he was a Muhammadan, but because Gulab Singh was held in fear by them. To allay such fears the Maharaja agreed to release one-fifth of the revenue and Lieutenant Edwardes put his signature to the Ishtahar containing the promise. The Sikh soldiers in Kashmir who would come over were also promised pay­ment of their arrears and this too Edwardes guaranteed. His Highness had to enlist fresh troops3 as the whole of his army was

1 Memorandum by the Right Honourable the Governor-General ; September 24. * H. B. Edwardes to Lieutenant-Colonel Lawrence ; September 20. » Maharaja Gulab Singh to Lieutenant-Colonel Lawrence ; September 20,

JAMMU AND KASHMIR. 58

m Hazara and in Kashmir. Owing to religious differences (cow killing, etc.), the Sikhs in Kashmir were displeased with Imam-ud-din and were favourably inclined towards the Maharaja. They even relieved Hurree Purbut with water. The Sheikh had to increase his precautions while Gulab Singh requested the English to order the Sikhs in Kashmir to join him.

Sorely in need of assistance though the Maharaja was parti­cular that a British force did not enter Kashmir.1 He did not wish such a force to march farther than Bhimber unless the defeat of the Sikh troops rendered the advance absolutely necessary. Nowshera was a troublesome country and His Hignhess was anxious that British troops should hold it in check. Besides by so forward a movement people would be led to suppose that these troops would advance into Kashmir. As muskets were deficient in the Jammu army 2,000 would be lent from the nearest maga­zine and as many as possible from the Lahore Durbar. Jawala Sahai, the Jammu Dewan, thought five or six thousand men from Lahore and Shere Singh's forces from Attock would be sufficient to carry the matter through successfully, although the Lahore authorities did not consider it enough. The Maharaja had 6,000 men and 15 or 20 guns with him and awaited support from the rear. The Maharaja's army was estimated at 20,000. Of these 4,000 were in Hurree Purbut, 6,000 in Chibbal, Jasrota and Jammu and 7,000 in Hazara. Three thousands was considered the probable value of the mess levies. Adding to these the 2,500 fugitives, if supplied with arms, and 300 gunners the total was 22,800.

As 7,000 were required from the Sikhs, the Jammu authori­ties, to be sure of that number, considered it right to ask the Durbar for 10,000. Also it was desired that Bhoor Singh, who was then at Hassan Abdal, was to march with the 1,000 horsemen he had and a portion of Misr Ameen Chand's force to support Hurkishen-gurh in Hazara where only a 1,000 of the Maharaja's troops could then remain while 6,000 advanced. Thus Hurree Chand and Sir­dar Sher Singh's troops could force their way through Baramulla

— . ^ — ^ — — — • ^ — — — ^ — — — — — — ^ — — » — — ^ — • • • i • i i i i i i • i i i * — — — ^ — — i • • •

1 H. M. Lawrence to the Governor-General ; September 24,

54 THE BUILDtt

with 14,000 men while His Highness and Tej Singh advanced after joining each other at Nowsheral or Kajouri. Accordingly Bhoor Singh was ordered from Hassan Abdal with his own cavalry and with at least three or four thousai.d of Ameen Chand's force.1

Meanwhile a letter was addressed on 24th September to the Sikh officers in Kashmir informing them that English army had been ordered to support the Maharaja.! As it was " the practice of the English to warn and to give opportunity of escape before they slay," wrote Henry Lawrence, " I warn you that if on re­ceipt of this order you separate from t he Sheikh and return to the Punjab, your lives will be spared and your arrears will be paid." Gulab Singh had also sent a Tussalli p m a to the Sheikh. But it was " very vague and contained, bpit one actual promise, viz., ' subsistence > " 3

Lieutenant H. B. Edwardes was »it Riasi when, on a mission to his master, Poorun Chand, Vakil oE Imam-ud-din reached that place accompanied by Sirdars Futteh Lilian Khan Towanah, Ruttun

the part of the Lahore the conduct of hi

Singh, Jye Singh, and Gulab Singh4

] rung 8 Durbar. Poorun Chand, while exp master to Lieutenant Edwardes, assur 3d the latter that the Sheikh " had acted under orders from Lahore and could produce those orders in writing for his own justificatiDn." This was news indeed. On September 22, Edwardes,5 at the request of Poorun Chand sent with him a Purwana to Imam-ud-din wherein he promised the Sheikh " that if within two days liter the arrival of the vakil Poorun Chand, Sirdar Futteh Khanl Towanah and others, you proceed to join me at once, and disperse those over whom you have any influence, your life shall be spared and orders be issued for the release of your family, who are now in confinement, on the day that you give yourself up." 3 Governor was, at the same time, given to understand that he hafi already incurred the dis-

1 H. M. Lawrence to Raja Led Singh ; September ' H. M. Lawrence to the Sikh officers and soldiers lBvashmir ; September 24.

H. B. Edwardes to Lieutenant-Colon ; September 22. * Not the Maharaja.

* H, B. Edwardes to Imam-ud-din ; September 22^846,

JAMMU AND KASHMIE. .:r.

pleasure of the British Government and that whether he came in or held out a force would be sent for the settlement of Kashmir,

Edwardes considered the measures of His Highness in assemb­ling and marching both his and the Khalsa troops as " judicious, thoughtful and prompt."1 It appears that His Highness was bestirring himself. He was particularly grateful for the services of Sher Singh Attareewala and perhaps intended to make him do most of the business if it came to blows.

Along with these news, rumour reached Lahore that shops had been closed in Srinagar, that people were flying into the country and that the Sheikh was summoning Yusufzyes and strengthening his frontiers with detachments of troops. Vazir Kutnoo was re­ported to have only seven days' supply of water in Hurree Purbat " where the garrison were put on an allowance of a seer of water for every man per diem."

2Orders were sent to Lahore for the following forces to be held in readiness to march to Sialkot with ammunitions, tents, etc. :—

(1) His Majesty's 80th Foot.

(2) Three Regiments of Native Infantry.

(8) Twelve Guns.

(4) The irregular Cavalry then at Lahore.

In the absence of the above forces the following were ordered to march to Lahore from Ferozepore:—

(1) His Majesty's 60th Foot.

(2) Two Regiments of Native Infantry.

(3) Twelve Guns.

(4) Two Regiments of Cavalry.

A third Regiment of European Infantry would be ordered to march from the Hill Stations. Two thousands flint muskets were to be kept ready with 200 rounds of ball cartridge per musket.

1 H. B. Edwardes to Lieutenant-Colonel Lawrence ; September 22. 2 The Governor-General to H. M. Lawrence ; September 25, 1846.

56 THE BUILDING OF

The Governor-General held the Durbar responsible for the gross violation of the Treaty of Lahore and for the acts of their sen ant Imam-ud-din. As had been communicated by Lieute­nant Edwardes,1 it was also placed on record that Eaja Lai Singh had " secretly ordered the Sheikh to excite disturbance in Cashmere whilst he (Lai Singh) in his public letters and assurances led the British Government to believe that he was doing his best to cause the Sheikh to withdraw." In case it were proved the Durbar would stand accused.

The very day the above orders were issued by the Governor-General,2 two Motamids of Sirdar Chuttur Singh Attarreewala arrived at Biasi with letters for the Maharaja informing him that Chuttur Singh and his troops had been placed at his disposal by the Durbar. His Highness desired Chuttur Singh with such a force as could be spared to march by the Pukli road to Uri where Sirdar Bhoor Singh and Dewan Hurnam Singh from Hassan Abdal with 100 sowars and Dewan Hurree Chand from Hazara with 3,500 would join him. Here Sher Singh, son of Sirdar Chuttur Singh, would join them with his regiment reinforced by a regiment each from Colonel Khan Singh Man and Boodh Singh Man. Thence the united forces of father and son would proceed to Kashmir by the Baramulla pass or, if it were on spot considered advisable by Sirdar Chuttur Singh, one would march by the Baramulla pass and the other by Tosa Maidan. Sardar Chuttur Singh was instructed to bring along with him the ten guns which he had, for the Sheikh was better equipped with artillery than the Maharaja, but the idea seems to have been given up as these would have to be carried on elephants which it was immediately difficult to arrange.

The following regiments wTere to move by the Bajouri road through the Bairamgulli pass :

Bajpal Singh's.

Ajoodihva Parshad's. 1 H. B. Edwardes to Li< n i n >; m t-Colonel H. ML Lawrence : September 26. 2 H. B. Edwardes to Lieutenant-Colonel l i . M. Lawrence ; September 22.

JAMMU AND KASHMIE. 57

Earn Sahae Nujeeb's.

Golab Singh's Gurkhas.

Bishen Singh's Musalmans.

Partab Singh's.

Man Singh's.

Anxious as the Maharaja was to make a great display of the assistance of the Lahore Durbar, he wished these forces to be com­manded by Sirdar Tej Singh or failing that by Partab Singh. More­over were Imam-ud-din determined on opposition he would probably trust the defence of the Baramulla Pass to the Khuka Bumba tribes whom he had already brought over, by releasing them from tribute and by conferring Jaghirs on all such as declared in his favour. Thus,* the Sheikh would be at liberty to concentrate his regular troops, numbering more than 10,000, to oppose the division advancing through Bhimber and Eajouri. It was con­sidered best to confer the command of that division on Tej Singh or some similar Sirdar whose personal honour and sense of public duty could not brook a failure.

I

58 THE BUILDING OF

CHAPTER VIII.

The Consolidation of his authority by Maharaja Gulab Singh (contd)

THE OCCUPATION OP KASHMIR.

While Kashmir were afoot and while letters and despatches were flying in different directions, Dewan Jowala Sahai, in his master's name signed an agreement1 on the 27th September at Simla. By this the following persons were granted perpetual annuities for themselves and their descend­ants :

(1) Raja of Jasrota with other Miyans of Jasrota as fol­lows :

Miyan Bhoor Singh

Shumsher Singh

Sons of Miyan Bukhtawar Singh

Miyan Roop Singh

Other Miyans

(2) Rai Partap Singh of Mankote

(3) Ram Chandar Hurdeo of Ramnagar

Kalyan Pal of Basohli

(5) Ubtar Singh of Bhudwul . .

(6) Zorawar Singh and Jaimal Singh of Kishtwar

Rs.

5,000

2,000

2,000

1,000

7,000

1,500

3,000

5,000

5,000

3,000

These persons were at liberty to live anywhere in His Highness* territories or in British India, but were prohibited from residing in the dominions of Lahore though they could serve that Govern­ment. Provision would be made for others on presenting them­selves .

1 Translation of an agreement dated Simla, September 27, 1846.

JAMMU AND KASHMIR. 59

On the same day that the agreement was signed by his Dewan at Simla, the Maharaja at Risai received letters1 from Kashmir from Sohun Lai and Hakim Rai, from his motamids, Kashiram and Guneshah Singh and from a native news writer informing him that since the arrival of the deputies hostilities had been suspended. Edwardes too in his letter2 of September 26th stated that " con­sequent on the arrival of Dewan Hakim Rai and Munshi Sohun Lai hostilities between the Sheikh and the Vazir had ceased since the 20th." But both parties were still in a warlike attitude and the Sheikh seems to have made a tool of Sohun Lai1 when the former sent a message to Vazir Rutnoo suggesting to him to leave the fort with 500 men to garrison it and to encamp on the plain as before. On his part the Sheikh promised to retire a koss and-a-half from where he was. " That he could not see how his evacuation of the Fort would assist the Sheikh in getting to Lahore," was the un­pleasant reply Rutnoo made. Having failed to get Rutnoo into his snare, Imam-ud-din pleaded that he was afraid to go to Lahore without a free pardon from both the Durbar as well as the British and he requested the deputies to write for one. The Governor, it appeared, was merely gaining time.

Raja Lai Singh on September 25th3 intercepted a letter which he at first withheld but was soon made to produce. By it the unanimity that prevailed among the Muhammadan tribes in and around Kashmir was too obvious to be ignored and need for prompt action was accordingly felt. His Highness was exerting himself to muster a force. Sirdar Tej Singh was to be at Lahore on 2nd October with 7 Regiments about 4,000 strong and 10 guns. Though personally unwilling to go the Sirdar was afraid of the displeasure such conduct would cause to the British Government. Chuttur Singh and Sher Singh with their 4 Regiments, 6 guns and some cavalry were at once to move from Rawalpindi to Mozzufferabad. John Lawrence considered it important that the Jullundur force

1 H. B. Edwardes to Lieutenant-Colonel Lawrence; September 27. * H. B. Edwardes to Lieutenant-Colonel Lawrence; September 20. »John Lawrence to the Governor-General; September 28th.

i2

60 THE BUILDING Otf

should cross the Beas as early as possible for the news of its advance was calculated to overawe the enemy and to encourage the Sikhs. The chief strength of the " Ameen-ul-momnen, or the King of the Mohamedans," for the Governor had now styled himself thus, lay in his regular troops part of which belonged to the Punjab. These, it was expected, would desert him on the approach of the Sikh forces which were not slow in marching. Sirdar Tej Singh with his troops was now crossing the Eavi1 and his force was con­sidered " as efficient and as well equipped as any body of men the Sikhs ever turned out." In order that he might have no excuse for failure no person who was not in his confidence was allowed to accompany Tej Singh. Sirdar Chuttur Singh and Sher Singh were ready to march from Eawalpindi. Though better commanders themselves their troops were inferior to those of Tej Singh. Mes­sages were also sent to Lahore, Ferozepore and Sialkot for the collection of supplies for Eajouri2 the best and the most convenient country in the matter of provisions was in the possession of the enemy while His Highness had only a thousand porters and had neither camels nor mules.

Imam-ud-din once again3 expressed his willingness to evacu­ate the valley and to come over to Lahore but he was afraid that his Jullundur Jaghirs would be confiscated and that he would be charged for the arrears of his troops. Hence he wavered and sought assurances before he finally gave up. He was assured4 that if he left Kashmir immediately with the property he possessed, either with or without his troops, his life would be spared and his past conduct forgiven and that if he could prove that he had resisted at the instigation of the Lahore authorities, he would retain his property and would be exempt from rendering any ac­count to the Durbar. But he was told that his Jaghirs in Jullun­dur could not be restored for, as a resident in the British territory, and a Jaghirdar under British Government, he had disobeyed

John

* Maharaja Gulab Singh to Lieutenant-Colonel H. M. Lawrence; September 24, 184(5. » Imam-ud-din to John Lawrence ; September 21. * John Lawrence to Imam-ud-dir. • R«nt*>m>inr so

JAMMU AND KASHMIR 61

its orders. This caused the Sheikh to pause. Even Fakirullah Khan,3 the life and soul of the rebellion, approached His Highness with offers of submission. There had been great and long con­tinued enmity between the Maharaja and the house of Fakirullah. Huseebulla Khan, the head of the house, had been kept so long in confinement by the Maharaja that his brain was deranged. Kahim Ulla Khan had once made an attempt on the life of Gulab Singh and the other members of the family were the professed enemies of the Maharaja. Hence Eajouri was conferred by him on Yusuf Khan, the most submissive of the family, who pro­mised to pay an annual tribute of five thousand rupees. As we already know, Fakirulla got Syfulla deputed to Eajouri soon after hostilities were commenced in Kashmir. The tactability of Yusuf, though it recommended him to his liege, made him odious to the people and at Syfulla's approach his own zemindars seized and gave him up a prisoner along with Kashi Nath and Zorawar Singh, the Motamids of the Maharaja. But when Fakirulla came to Rajouri on the 19th or 20th September with 700 to 1,000 men, he released Zorawar Singh and Kashi Nath and wrote to His High­ness offering terms of peace. Fakirulla offered to lay down his arms and to submit on condition that his hereditary Jaghir in Rajouri were conferred on him. But the Maharaja had no faith in him for he had several times sworn fidelity on the Koran and broken his word. Edwardes also considered Fakirulla's late conduct too dangerous to be rewarded. He was, however, told that to prove his sincerity he ought to garrison the fort with the Maharaja's guards, and to join in the campaign against the Sheikh when the Sikh troops, already on their way to Rajouri, arrived. Fakirulla took some time to ponder over this.

It was now feared that the Sheikh had " entered into terms with the inhabitants of the country between Kishtwar and Yusufzyee and also with the Khyberies."2 The people of Hazara, etc., had sworn to join him provided that he

1 H. B. Edwardes to Henry Lawrence; September 28. 1 No date or name in the original but intercepted before September 30.

62 THE BUILDING OF

did not submit to His Highness. It was also reported that the Syuds of Kaghan had already joined him. The belief was confirmed as Henry Lawrence had intercepted some letters of the Syuds of Kaghan tending to prove their readiness to help the Sheikh.1 But later we learn2 that Kaghans never joined the Sheikh, " nor did he ever ask one to do so." The people of Sural, Dhoond, Suttee, Sudhun, etc., were also reported to have declared themselves against the Maharaja. Some people were so foolish as to think that it would be several years before the English could succeed in subduing Kashmir while it was said of His Highness that " like a rich rat he strikes his head and destroys himself—his wealth is gone—he has not gained the kingdom." Such like things were said but disillusionment was to come soon. Imam-ud-din's people bragged and exaggerated, but their state­ments should be taken with a grain of salt. Eumours might have been purposely spread and people might have irresponsibly talked. Along with these reports petitions from Kashmir reached the Governor-General. The Hill Chiefs expressed their " great sorrow3 " at Kashmir being given to the Maharaja and they found " no other remedy besides fighting with him." " Chowdrees, Manufacturers, Pundits and inhabitants of Cashmere " petitioned4

that " the English by giving this country to Eaja Gulab Singh are

oppressing us But if it be that we are to have him, we shall all run away both small and great." These petitions at the very first sight appear to have been got up and though space does not permit us to go into the details regarding his charac­ter and administration, yet to clear the point it is necessary to re­mark here that Maharaja Gulab Singh was never an unpopular ruler. " No Sikh or Hindu ruler," writes Henry Lawrence,8

" within my knowledge ever managed Muhammadans better than Gulab Singh." But circumstances gave his enemies occasion to spread venom and to prejudice people.

1 6 . H. Macgregor to Henry Lawrence ; August 6. 2 Futteh Khan and Poorun Chand to Lieutenant Edwardes. 8 An urzee from the Hill Chiefs to the English ; before September 30. 4 An urzee from the Chowdrees, Manufacturers, &c, to the British Government; before

September 30. 1 H. M. Lawrence to the Governor-General; October 8, 1846.

JAMMU AND KASHMIR. 63

Other false news1 reported that Imam-ud-din had taken pos­session of the fort and that Vazir Rutnoo along with many others had been killed when they made a sortie to take in water for want of which they had greatly suffered. But rumour2 soon cancelled this report and affirmed that the Vazir made a sally from Hurree Purbut, got in some water and took prisoners some of the Sheikh's men. These reports did great good immediately. The Maharaja was spurred on to action and was now in earnest,3

arming, supplying and paying. He now undertook to pay the Sikhs the carriage of 3,000 muskets and 6,000 rounds of ball am­munition, which Lieutenant-Colonel Lawrence had instructed the Durbar to furnish.4 At the advice of Henry Lawrence, he gave up the idea of marching himself through the Banihal Pass and prepared to unite his force with Tej Singh at Rajouri. To avail themselves of its supplies, they would settle Rajouri first and make it a depot of supplies for the Sikh and British troops. Leaving Dyal Chand of Chinani with 2,000 men to guard the Banihal Pass for the security of Kishtwar, the Maharaja's troops left Riasi about the 5th October and marched towards Rajouri. His Highness took5 1,100 men with him and was to be joined by 700 more on the way and by the 2,000 infantry and 600 Ghorchurruhs that he had at Nowshera. Thus he had about 4,000 regulars and as many irregular as he could press on his line of march. The Regiment which was stationed at Riasi marched6 on the 6th October towards Nowshera which was threatened by a detachment of Fakirulla's force. The Mahraja's troops defeated the insurgents unassisted and killed their leader, a cousin of Fakirullah's and continued their march to Dharamsala. Also Cortlandt with one of his Regiments,1 as ordered by the Durbar, was proceeding to join the forces marching to Kashmir.

1 Henry Lawrence to the Governor-General; October 1, 1846. * H. B. Edwardes to Lieutenant-Colonel H. M. Lawrence ; October 8. * Henry Lawrence to the Governor-General, before October 5. « H. B. Edwardes to Lieutenant-Colonel H. M. Lawrence ; October 3. * H. B. Edwardes to Lieutenant-Colonel H. M. Lawrence; October 4. « H, B. Edwardes to Lieutenant-Colonel H. M. Lawrence; October 8.

64 THE BUILDING OF

Sohan Lai and Hakim E V to cease firing on the Sheikh's men who were digging regular trenches. Imam-ud-din was again ordered1 to leave all public stores with Eutnoo but to bring all his property with himself and for safe custody to make it over to the British Government. At the same time Poorun Chand and Futteh Khan were informed'2

that the British Government had now waked " like a lion" and that troops were marching from Hoshiarpur, Jullundur and Lahore to put Maharaja Gulab Singh on the throne of Kashmir. Also Eahim Ullah Khan of Eajouri wrote to his son Fakir Ullah that in case he yielded to Edwardes,3 Lieutenant-Colonel Lawrence had promised protection and subsistence to the family. Fakir had about 700 fighting men at Eajouri, five guns and 50 Zum-boorucks and the Sheikh about 12,000 regulars and irregulars, 5,000 to 8,000 Khukka Bhumba men, and 25 guns ranging from 6 pounders downwards.

His Highness had little confidence in his Sikh allies and doubt­ed their active participation in opposing the Sheikh. Hence he was most urgent about the advance of Brigadier Wheeler to Bhimber. We already know that in no case did the Maharaja approve of the British troops marching into Kashmir.4 He always disfavoured their march beyond Bhimber and this seems to have suited the British Government which had so far been attributing motives to the unwillingness of the Maharaja to permit such a force into Kashmir. They were now afraid lest the marching of their troops beyond Bhimber might involve them in trouble in the Hills when the season would have advanced. " In case of the inefficiency or insufficiency of His Highness' force," thought the Governor General,5 " the British troops will be called to advance " and the advance was calculated to involve them in trouble, while " if we recede from a distance our reputation will suffer."

*• m

Lawrence

Khan and Poorun 1 H . B. Edwardes to Lieutenant-Colonel H. M. Lawrence ; October 8 4 H. B. Edwardes to Lieutenant-Colonel Lawren ce ; October 3, * Memorandum by the Governor-General ; October 2.

JAMMU AND KASHMIR. 65

On October 6, the Adjutant-General of the Army ordered Colonel Reed, Commanding at Ferozepore, to march his troops to Lahore.1 Major-General Sir John Littler Mas ordered to move on to Sialkot3 with his troops and lest the Sikh troops halt short of their destination Lumsden was sent to join them at Rajouri.3

Five days after Brigadier Wheeler, Commanding the Field Force, was ordered to move the forces under his command as far as Bhimber4 but was instructed on no account to proceed beyond that. Twenty days' supply for the European portion of the forces and 15 or 20 days for the natives was carried.5 Brigadier Wheeler's occupancy of Bhimber and Major Sir John Littler's of Kuluwal Ghat, about ten miles in advance of Sialkot, or even of Sialkot itself, was estimated to be useful. But the concentration of the two detachments at or near Bhimber was preferred. Bhimber being on the plains and yet on the high-road to Kashmir combined several advantages. It enabled the English to take their own time and to do as they chose. On October 12, Brigadier Wheeler was ordered not to cross the Chenab6 until he received instruction from General Littler which were given to him a week after,' ordering him to cross his forces to the right bank.

The news of mobilisation was enough. Reports from different quarters confirmed that the Sheikh, yielding to the persuasions of the deputies, had raised the siege of Hurree Purbut and made preparations for departure. Poorun Chand and Futteh Khan had arrived in Kashmir on October l8 and had delivered the written pledge of Lieutenant Edwardes to Imam-ud-din. En­couraged he raised the siege, "called in his men to their respective camps, exhorted the Kings of the Kohistan to put down the re­bellious spirit they had raised " and sent similar orders to the

1 Adjutant-General of the Army to Colonel Reed ; October 6. 2 Adjutant-General of the Army to J. Littler ; October 6. 3 Henry Lawrence to the Governor-General ; October 7. 4 H . M. Lawrence to Brigadier Wheeler ; October 11. 5 H. M. Lawrence to Major-General Littler.

6 H. M. Lawrence to Brigadier Wheeler ; October 12. ; Sir John Littler to H. M. Lawrence ; October 19. • Poorun Chand and Futteh Khan to Lieutenant Edwardes ; October 4.

K

66 THE BUILDING OF

different parts of the country. His Highness' servants imprisoned in Kashmir were released and Fakirullah was ordered to set free those in confinement at Eajouri. Eegarding the exact date on which the siege was raised there is a slight inconsistency. From the letter of Poorun Chand and Futteh Khan we infer that the siege was raised not later than 4th October while Sohan Lai and Hakim Eae give us to understand that it was raised on the 5th. Vazir Eutnoo writes1 that it was raised " on the evening of 20th Asooh (4th October)." That of Vazir Eutnoo is, I think, the right time and the right date. But when Poorun Chand and Futteh Khan fix the 4th they are only as correct as those that favour the 5th. For I am inclined to believe that the siege was raised late in the night, an hour which can favour the 4th as it can favour the 5th.

Before leaving Kashmir, Imam-ud-din wanted to make sure of the action the British Government would take against him. So he sent Futteh Khan and Poorun Chand and two of his confi­dential agents Lala Euttun Chand and Mirza Ahmed with a letter2

to Lieutenant Edwardes whom they met at Syonth,3 about 15 miles from Eajouri, on October 15. Edwardes had already promis­ed to meet the Sheikh on his way to Lahore, Imam-ud-din request­ed him to come to Bairamgulli. But as His Highness considered that he would be entirely in the Sheikh's power at Bairamgulli, Edwardes offered to meet him at Thannah, 8 or 9 miles from Eajouri and wrote4 to him not only promising to spare his life but also assuring him that the British Government " would not interfere with " his " Cashmere property, nor allow the Lahore Durbar to call " him to account" if he could prove the complicity of the Lahore authorities in the rebellion. Arrange­ments were also made to save any possibility of a collision between Imam-ud-din's troops issuing from Kashmir and the Maharaja's and Tej Singh's forces marching into the valley.

1 Vazier Rutnoo to Maharaja Gulab Singh ; October 5. a Imam-ud-Din to Lieutenant Edwardes ; October 6. ' H. B. Edwardes to Lieutenant-Colonel Lawrence ; October 15. *H. B. Edwardes to Imam-ud-din, October 15.

JAMMU AND KASHMIE. 67

Rajouri, as already proposed, had to be secured as a depot and it was finally decided that His Highness' and Tej Singh's troops would in conjunction with each other push forward that very way. Thus the Bairamgulli Pass wherefrom Imam-ud-din could go by Punch to Bhimber was left open for him.

Meanwhile on 12th October1 Mirza Fakir Ullah of Rajouri had written a humble letter of submission to Edwardes wherein he declared his readiness to submit as soon as the latter reached the Rajouri border. The Mirza wrote another letter to the Maha­raja's Moulvi offering to submit provided the Moulvi got him " the Maharaja's necklace as a pledge of good faith." Taking on himself the responsibility of his safety, Edwardes asked Fakir Ullah to come at once and His Highness too agreed to the request of the Mirza. On 18th October at 10 A.M. attended by about thirty followers this master mechanician of the Sheikh's plans, the fire­brand of the rebellion, the " lord and leader " of the insurgents and the deadly enemy of the Maharaja, came and made his sub­mission to His Highness.2 Besides being valuable as a key to the Sheikh's intentions, the Mirza's submission was of great conse­quence in influencing the Chiefs of Kohistan.

Events were taking a favourable turn.3 To advance his interests under these circumstances, mercy and leniency were essential. Sir Henry Lawrence himself was now present to advise the Maharaja. Leaving Lahore about the 16th he was with His Highness on the 21st October, when the latter was generous enough to announce that he would release the Bhimber Kaja imprisoned three years back in the Fort of Nowshera by Sirdar Chattar Singh and a son of the Kishtwar Kaja confined at Eiasi.

Soon it was reported4 that the Sheikh was making ready for his departure having promised to start on 9th Katik 1803 (Octo­ber 23, 1846). He hoped and also believed that no crime would

1 Imam-ud-din to Lieutenant Edwardes ; October 6. 2 H. B. Edwardes to Lieutenant-Colonel Lawrence ; October 18. • H . M. Lawrence to the Governor-General; October 21. * Sohun Lai to John Lawrence ; October 11,

K2

6 8 THE BUILDING OF

be " proved against him."1 " The British had ordered him to leave and leave he would," the Sheikh had said.2 " He would not stay another moment." On 23rd October finally the Sheikh communicated,3 " I have this day departed from the city of Cash­mere though my preparations for the march were far from com­plete." He proceeded about three miles from the city where it took him a day or two to complete his arrangements. " My Lord, I have ever been your servant and son . . . . My good and bad qualities I have confided to you. It is for you to estimate the sum of them." Such was Imam-ud-din's appeal to the Maha­raja.4 On his departure the Sheikh left 4,000 horse and foot under Colonel Vazir Singh to preserve the peace of the country for the ryots of Kashmir were afraid of the Zamindars and the Chiefs of Kohistan and Khukka Bhumba. Leaving the valley on 25th October and proceeding via Shopeyan he reached Bairam-gulli on the 31st and presented himself before Lieutenant-Colonel Lawrence at Thannah on November l.6 The " Ameen-ul-Momnen," writes Sir Henry, " placed his weapons at my feet and was inclined to place his head there also." Only the next day the forces under the command of Major-General Sir John Littler were ordered to withdraw and so was Brigadier Wheeler soon after. 6

Leaving Imam-ud-din safe in the custody of the English,7

His Highness accompanied by H. M. Lawrence marched on till they reached Pampur. From here His Highness started alone before daybreak on November 9, 1846. Eight o'clock in the morning-had been declared the auspicious time to enter the Fort and Sher-gurhi, and at 8 A.M. His Highness for the first time entered the capital of Kashmir as Maharaja. He found his servants in com­plete possession. Sir Henry Lawrence visited the Fort of Hurree Purbut on the morning of 11th November and he tells us that

1 Imam-ud-din to John Lawrence ; October 11. * Futteh Khan and Poorun Chand to Lieutenant Edwardes ; last week of September. * Imam-ud-din to General Edwardes ; October 23. * Tmam-ud-din to Maharaja Gulab Singh ; about the same time. * 5 ' ^* Lawrence t o t u e Governor-General ; November 1. " H. M. Lawrence to Sir John Littler ; November 2. ' H, M. Lawrence to the Governor-General ; November 12.

JAMMU AND KASHMIR. 69

half the soldiers there were hill-men and the rest Sikhs, They were ' generally fine, stout, soldierly fellows... .scarcely inferior to the average Lahore troops.' The besieged had 4 guns, an old 16 or 18 pounder and three small ones—five and two pounders.

Leaving His Highness Maharaja Gulab Singh in possession of Kashmir, we proceed to expose the mystery about the rebellion, and the complicity of the Lahore Durbar, so far purposely unre-vealed.

The ' ides of March ' 1846 witnessed the downfall of the Khalsa while Raja Gulab Singh shot up like a rocket. Now Maha­raja Gulab Singh had been a servant of the Lahore Durbar and had only some months before March 1846 been fined Rs. 68,00,000 by his sovereign when the Khalsa invaded Jammu. Hence the very idea of the rise of their servant was distasteful to the Khalsa, Moreover, His Highness had been a strong rival of Raja Lai Singh, the paramour of the dowager queen, in contesting for the ministry of the Punjab. Naturally then the Sikhs did not like to see the Maharaja in possession of the vast territories secured by him at rheir expense. But too afraid of the British Government to do anything openly, the Durbar used underhand means and created mischief. Lai Singh instigated the Sheikli to rebel and while doing so he could not imagine how the tables would be turned upon him ending in his own ruin. We shall here examine some of the despatches of the Raja to fully appreciate the part he played from behind the screen. The poor Sheikh was a mere puppet in his hands and kept on moving for some time even after the wire pulling ceased. The letters of the Durbar were in Persian and had to be translated by the English. A true copy of some of these translations I propose to put before the reader.

(1) Thus wrote Raja Lai Singh on July 25, 1846 :

Sien Manual of LAL SINGH.

I hereby promise that if my friend Sheikh Emamoodeen Khan Bahadoor with good will and fidelity to his proper masters duly

70 THE BUILDING OF

performs the task imposed upon him in a separate letter my whole interest shall be exerted to secure him from being called to account by the British Government. Whatever allowances either he or his Jageerdaree horsemen or the Sheikh his late father received from the Lahore Government, the same Jaghirs and somethin added to them as a reward for service shall be assigned him in the Lahore territory. By the grace of God I will not fail to fulfil this that I have written.

(2) A day after the Eajah addressed Imam-ud-din:

After Compliments,

Doubtless you will have perused the contents of my former letter.

My friend you are not ignorant of the ingratitude and want of faith which Eajah Golab Singh has exhibited towards the Lahore Sirkar. It is indeed sufficiently glaring. I now write therefore to request my friend that you will not set before your eyes the example of your late father's former intercourse with the aforesaid Eajah; but consider both your duty and your interest to be this way ; and inflict such injury and chastisement upon the said Eajah that he shall have reason to remember it. It is to be hoped that if the Eajah makes but one false step he will never be able to re-establish himself again. For your security and confidence, my friend, I have sent you a separate written guarantee that you may have no misgivings as to the consequences. Let me hear often of your welfare.

(3) The following letter written on 28th July bore the seal of the Maharajah Duleep Singh and the signature of Eajah Lai Singh :

Be it known to officers and soldiers and office bearers who are under the orders of Ameenool Moolk Sheikh Bmamoodeen Bahadoor, Governor of (appointed to) Cashmere.

At this time the orders of the Maharajah are issued to you it behoves you on the receipt of His Highness' order to remain with Ameenool Moolk Sheikh Emamoodeen in performing

JAMMU AND KASHMIE. 71

services for the Government and whenever you return to the presence you will be continued in the service. Be assured (have no apprehension) remain with the Sheikh, attend to this order.

(4) On the same day was issued the following order :—

Sign Manual of LAL SINGH.

To the officers and sepoys and non-commissioned officers under the command of the Governor Sheikh Emamoodeen Khan Baha-door in Cashmere.

Seal of Maharajah DULEEP SINGH.

This order is now sent to you and after receiving it you will remain with the Governor Sheikh Emamoodeen Khan Bahadoor doing the work of the State and whenever he returns to the presence you shall be kept in the service as before. Have no fear therefore but remain with the person in question. This is an imperative order. Consider your welfare as my care.

When Dewan Hakim Eai under pressure from1 the British Government was sent with Purwanahs ordering the Sheikh to at once evacuate the valley, he was given secret instructions to ask Imam-ud-din to hold out and this was therefore why the Dewan took a long time to reach Kashmir, for while he could not obey both the open orders and the secret instructions, he could not afford to disobey them either. In the end, however, the Khalsa was

•

discomfited and Gulab Singh triumphed. The Maharaja was in Kashmir on November 9, and Rajah

Sher Dil Khan2 a Khukka Bhumba Chief who ruled over Bunniar and the vakils of three other chiefs submitted by the 12th. His Highness generously allowed Sher Dil " the occupancy of his own country to the amount of 2,500 rupees annually and a Jaghir of

1 These letters were put in as evidence at the subsequent trial of Lai Singh in Lahore for his complicity in this affair. As a result of that trial Lai Singh was removed from office. The trial formed the subject of a detailed paper read by me before the Punjab Historical Society some years ago.—Editor.

2 H. M. Lwronee to the Governor-General ; November 12.

7 2 THE BUILDING OF

3,000 in Cashmere " but the lands amounting to about 20,000 rupees given to him by the Sheikh were forfeited. The seven Eajas of Skardo who were in the Fort during the siege were reasonably treated by His Highness. The Skardo Eajas paid ^ths of the revenue they derived as tribute and the Kaja of Skardo proper paid 6,000 and reserved only a thousand for himself. Lieut­enant-Colonel Lawrence, who was yet in the valley, announced that all those who submitted would be provided for and given the option of residing in either the Maharajah's territories or in British India and that they could obtain his intercession while he was in Kashmir. Encouraged thus some more Khukka Bhumba Rajas came in by the morning of 15th November1 and others were expect­ed to follow. But great difficulty regarding Jaghirdars was raised by the conduct of Imam-ud-din who had even on the day of his departure granted and restored Jaghirs. By the evening of the 15th, however, all but two of the Khukka Bhumba Chiefs had tendered their submission.1 Of the two absentees one was a minor, while the other was represented by his vakil. The Maha­raja was very generous in his dealings with these Chiefs and Lawrence was surprised " at his intimate knowledge of the affairs of each." The several Rajas promised to be faithful and His Highness in return agreed to continue in their favour all Jaghirs, etc., granted one year previous to the death of Ghulam Mohy-ud-din which had occurred in March 1846. Further a fifth of the tribute paid to the Sikhs wras remitted.

The Sultan of Kathai soon tendered his submission2 while Sultan Hussein Khan of Mozufferabad and Ata Muhammad of Doputtah rendered important services to His Highness. The Jaghirs of Sultan Nujjuff Khan of Kahooree whose conduct had been treasonable were confiscated and granted to Sultan Hussein Khan, " Nuslien bied Nuslien," by Dewan Kurrum Chand subject to the sanction of the Maharaja which for various reasons was withheld. Lumsden in February 1847 secured for Sultan Hussein

, Lawrence Agnew to

1846.

JAMMU AND KASHMIR. 73

Khan the sultanat of Mozzufferabad, his jaghirs in Kashmir and a rozina but there soon arose some feud about the matter. Hussein Khan in February 1847 expelled Sher Ahmad, Nujjeff Khan and Moiz-ud-din Khan from Kurna and compelled them to throw themselves on the mercy of His Highness through Bijy Singh an officer of the Maharajah. Sher Ahmad and Moiz-ood-din Khan of Kurna held out long but made over their principal forts about the 22nd December 1846. I

The Maharaja paid pensions to the following Chiefs of the Gukka family2:

Ali Gohr Khan of Khanpoor

Kummal Khan

Bahadur Ali Khan . .

Hyat Ullah Khan . .

Add to this the Jaghirs to

Shahb Ali Khan

o •

Rs.

3,450

360

240

800

Bahadur Khan - •

200

500

Total . . 5,350

Sultan Hussein Khan paid Ks. 9,500 as tribute for Muzufferabad Rs. 3,000 for Kahoori.3 He received a jaghir of Rs. 12,000 a rozina of Rs. 9,125 per annum. Thus His Highness had to pay 8 625 for the quiet government of Mozzufferabad and Kahoori. The tribute of Doputtah was Rs. 6,500 and its rozina Rs. 1,825

a year Maharaj

Kruna paid Rs. 3,500 as tribute and nela a jagmr oi aoout me same value for which a nuzzurana of a thousand rupees was paid. The tribute and rozina of Kathai were exactly the same as that of Do-putta. i In money the Maharaja received about Rs. 17,975 ominallv from the Khukka Bhumba country.

1

1

H. M. Lawrence to the Governor-General ; December 22, 1846. James Abbott to Lieutenant-Colonel Lawrenc© ; May 5, 1847. Vans Agnew to Lieutenant-Colonel Lawrence ; June 25, 1847.

h

74 THE BUILDING OF

Such then was the occupation of Kashmir and such its sub­jugation. All this and much more was gradually acquired till the House of Jamwal was firmly planted in its newly acquired terri­tories.

JAMMU AND KASHMIR. 75

CHAPTER IX.

The Demarcation of the Territories.

Article II of the Treaty of Amritsar provided that to clearly define the frontiers of the British, Lahore and His Highness' terri­tories commissioners would be " appointed by the British Govern­ment and Maharajah Gulab Singh respectively." Captain James Abbott was accordingly entrusted with the work. The territory ceded to the Maharajah were his hill possessions with their depen­dencies as held by him during Maharajah Khurruk Singh's life1

and Kohistan east and west of Jammu with such lands in the plains as would be proved to belong to the hills. Nurpur, Kulu and Lahoul were to be retained by the English and the whole of Chamba and Hazara to be surrendered to His Highness ; but to make a regular and continuous boundary " detached villages and tongues of lands were to be exchanged."

The Raja of Chamba who had been a tributary of the Khalsa was unwilling to hold a similar position under Maharajah Gulab Singh. Luckily for the Raja, it was considered best to make the Ravi the British boundary. Hence the supremacy of the Chamba Cis-Ravi was transferred to the English,2 the Maharajah getting the Taluka of Lukhimpur yielding about Rs. 16,000 or Rs. 17,000 in exchange. It was, however, soon found necessary to modify this arrangement and by the final settlement3 Maharajah Gulab Singh retained Budrawa, the whole of Lukhimpur and Chandgraon Trans-Ravi and relinquished all claims on the kingdom of Chamba on both sides of the Ravi. The Raja of Chamba bound himself to pay to the British Government Rs. 12,000 a year and undertook " in time of war to furnish such number of troops as may be required."

1 H. M. Lawrence to Captain J. Abbott; March 16, 1846 ; also Treaty of Lahore, Article 12 and Treaty of Amritsar, Article 1.

* H. M. Lawrence to Captain Abbott ; October 14, 1846 ; and Governor-General to H. M. Lawrence ; October 28, 1846 ; and II. M. Lawrence to Governor-General, October 14, 1846.

• H. M. Lawrence to the Governor-General ; November 22, 1847.

L2

7 6 THE BUILDING OF

The 3hamba was then estimated at Ks. 15,000,! while the lands given in exchange, Lukhimpur, Chand-Es. 16,500. Both to secure the excess and to

3

improve the boundary lands eastward of the left branch of the Eiver Chukki, Nungul, Gurrotah and Meerthul, the last as a jaghir, and certain villages of Pathankote beyond the Chukki were enclosed within the British boundary.2

On the undefined frontier the Lahore Durbar claimed Khari Khariali, Mirpore, Kathua, Pullote, Bulloul, Trikote, Bewul, Suchetgurh, Uree, Khanpoor, Dumah, Mooshckish, Furwala, Karoo, Kahoota, Kirpa Churra and Minawar while Maharajah Gulab Singh laid claims to Bhimber, Tehoce, Balima, Goner, Syudpoor and several other districts. Into the fate of these dis­puted Taluquas we shall look one by by one

Bhimbur was a dismembered hill principality4 of which the northern or Nowshera portion had been adjudged to belong to Maharajah Gulab Singh and the south-eastern pergannah of Kotla to the Sikh Government leaving Bhimbur proper contested by the two. At the death of Maharajah Khurruk Singh, Gulab Singh had neither title to nor possession of Bhimbur. But there could be no doubt that the principality belonged to the mountains and it was only as such that it was transferred to Jammu.5 A large part of Bhimbur was, however, cut off and given to Lahore to make the boundary definite and to square accounts.6

At the death of Khurruk Singh, Maharajah Gulab Singh had neither claim to nor possession of Khari Khariali.7 Hence its fate could be decided by defining it as hilly or plain. Abbott considered it to the latter. The low ridge of hills forming its northern boundary from Bhimbur to the Jhelum formed also the limit of the hills of Juppal southward. Thirteen villages of Khari were scattered along

1 Captain Abbott to Lieutenant-Colonel H. M. Lawrence, May 27, 1847. 2 Abbott to Lieutenant Lake, September 1846. 3 H. M. Lawrence to Captain Abbott ; October 4, 1846. * Report No. IV of Captain Abbott ; November 15, 1846. * Governor-General to H. M. Lawrence ; February 12, 1847.

Report No. V of Captain Abbott, November 20, 1846. urn

JAMMU AND KASHMIE. 77

rard of Mungla between the river and the hills KhariaH Bhimb

But this, Abbott thought, could not affect the designation of an extensive tract of the plains. The seat of the government of the

S distant from Jammu

Maharajah Gulab Singh was thought to have " no claim upon it " and it was to sim were recom

a

mended to be given to the Maharajah. But though conterminous and mixed up with Khariali, Henry Lawrence considered Kharri a distinct and a hill estate.1 In his opinion His Highness' claim to Kharri and to such villages of Khariali as lay between the ridge running to Mungla and Bhimbur was established and it was at his recommendation that the whole of Kharri and a few villages of Khariali were finally made over to Jammu. Such an arrange­ment also admitted of a cart road from Bhimbur to Mirpur,

object of extreme importance."2 Later on Abbott himself regretted that he did not transfer the whole of Khariali to His Highness for the boundary would thus have been much im­proved.

The evidence of the oldest zemindars showed that Mirpore Chowmook was neither a dependency of Juppal nor of Jammu but of the Gukka principality from which it was severed only by the stream of Jhelum.3 Gulab Singh had never held it in jaghir during the reign of Khurruk Singh and though he quoted a sanad he could not produce it. Geographically the Taluquas belonged to the mountain tracts of Juppal being shut in by lower ranges

of those mountains. These hills, <m low, form a complete barrier between Mirpore Chowmook

termination

Jamm and the plains. As such the Taluquas went to The testimony of both the Lahore and Jammu authorities and

the evidence of the zemindars concurred in holding Sultanpur and 1 It. M. Lawrence to the Governor-General ; December 31, 1846. 2 Captain Abbott ; March 25, 1847—Lahore Political Diaries, Volume IV. * Captain Abbott's Report No. VI ; November 18, 1847. * Governor-General to H. M. Lawrence ; February 12, 1847.

78 THE BUILDING OF

ihri, situated on the right bank of the Jhelum, as dependencies Eohtas.1 Geographically too the districts did not belong to the •ritory ceded to His Highness for though abounding in small hills w are cut off both on the north and the west from the Juppal iges by the river Jhelum. The Maharajah pleaded that he had

held the districts in jaghir but the zemindars deposed that they had from about 1840 been paying rents to the Kardars of Rohtas. This made the claim of the Maharajah doubtful. Abbott, however, considered the exchange of these districts for Khari Khariali de­sirable but Henry Lawrence did not approve of the arrangement2

and suggested its assignment to Lahore. Because of " the neces­sity of fixing a good geographical boundary between Rohtas, Potawar and Chuck , plain principalities on the one hand and Jhupal and the Huzzareh hill one's on the other " the Gov­ernor-General too agreed with Lawrence and the districts were

Lahore 3

The claim of Maharajah Gulab Singh upon Kathua rested upon a twofold plea * : (1) that it was a dependency of the hills and (2) that it was a jaghir of his nephew Raja Hira Singh. But there is not even a hillock within three miles of its boundary and since the first rise of the Sikh power it had been annexed now to the hills and now to the plains. His Highness considered it hilly because the hill dialect prevailed here. There existed a sanad granting it in jaghir to Raja Hira Singh but it reverted to the Government after his death. Lying at the foot of the hills, the Taluqua had alter­nately belonged to Jasrota and to Jammu, but since the rise of the Sikhs it had always been dealt with separately. Abbott did not favour the claim of the Maharajah and said that" the pleas alleged for constituting Kathua Hill territory are such as if allowed will lead to interminable controversy ; the prevalence of a dialect shared by many other taluquas of the plains and the heirship to jaghirs of

1 Captain Abbott's Report No. VII ; November 20, 1846.

*H. M. Lawrence to tbe Governor-General ; December 31, 1846 * Governor-General to H. M. Lawrence ; February 12, 1847. * Captain Abbott to H. M. Lawrence ; October 28, 1846.

JAMMU AND KASHMIR. 79

his brother's family many of which are now peacefully occupied by the Sikhs." It was immediately given to Lahore.1 But the terri­torial line was disturbed and an ugly notch formed in that part of the Maharajah's territory. Kathua, situated on the bank of the Ravi and with the hill territory on the other three sides, would always be at the mercy of Maharajah Gulab Singh whereas giving the taluqua to Jammu would result in forming an excellent boundary, viz., the Ravi, previous to its more southerly inclination. Finally,2

Kathua was enclosed within the Jammu territory forming a part of the lands secured by His Highness in exchange for Hazara.

By his own statement3 Gulab Singh neither possessed nor had title to Minawar at the death of Maharajah Khurruk Singh for the sanad and authority he had was of Nao Nihal Singh without the sanction of the reigning sovereign. Regarding the question of hill and plain, Minawar Khas is perfectly plain and six miles distant from the nearest hills but the dependent Tuppehs including Akhnoor are distinctly hill country and the Maharajah had a claim to those. As these Tuppehs could not be withheld a line was drawn from the north of Bijwath (Sikh) towards the south of Burnala (of His Highness) giving to the latter4 the hill Tuppehs with a portion the plain and only the bond fide plain villages of Minawar to the Sikhs. In all, seventy villages went to Gulab Singh5 and only fifty-seven to Lahore along with Minawar Khass.6 Like Kathua these lands were offset by the exchange of Hazara.

Being distant from the hills, Maharajah Gulab Singh could lay no claim to Suchetgurh.7 But there were other contiguous and equally distant tracts of the plains appertaining to Jammu without dispute. Ranjit Singh considered Suchetgurh separate

1 H. M. Lawrence to Governor-General ; November 15, 1846. 2 Captain Abbott, January 14—31, 1847 ; Lahore Political Diaries, Volume IV. J Abbott to H. M. Lawrenc* ; November 9, 1846. 4 H. M. Lawrence to the Governor—General ; November 15, 1846.

• H. M. Lawrence ; October 24, 1847-Lahore Political Diaries, Volume III. G J . Abbott ; March 6, 1847-Lahore Political Diaries, Volume IV. 1 J. Abbott to H, M. Lawrence ; November 9, 1846.

80 THE BUILDING OF

from Jammu and allotted it accordingly. It was, however, estab­lished by evidence that His Highness had possessed entire control of this district since 1826 and it is not very unlikely that it might have been given to him by his brother as the family would naturally feel pride in the aggrandisement of Jammu. Possession was in­deed a strong plea of the Maharajah but he could produce no sanad. Immediately it went to the Sikhs1 but soon we find that it was trans­ferred to Jammu in exchange for Bewul, Zillah Moghul and Hoomuk.2 Finally along with Kathua and part of Minawar, Suchet-gurh seems to have been secured in exchange for Hazara.3

The pargana or Tuppeh of Bewul was a portion of table-land (about 350 feet higher than the valley of the Jhelum) which com­mences a few miles westward of the fortress of Eohtas and extends to the Indus. Towards the brink of the river Jhelum this plateau suddenly falls and rises again in a ridge of sandstone hills about 400 feet high which may have belonged to the table-land before the soil was washed therefrom by the waters of the Jhelum. This ridge was Balimah. Other rocky eminences of the same character belonged to Bewul and perhaps formed integral portions of its table-land before it was isolated by the waste of their soil. Thus Bewul is an undulating plateau and not a hill country. It was, moreover, cut off from the mountains of Maharajah Gulab Singh by the Sikh Pargana of Kullur and though he had held it in jaghir for thirty-two years his claim was geographically considered null. Bewul was given to Lahore.5

Balimah was formerly one of the Tuppehs of Dhangulli; Kullur was another.6 When the Gukka principality was rent into many fragments, Balimah seemed to have naturally fallen into Kullur, between which and the river Jhelum it is wedged. It is a ridge of sandstone rock about a thousand feet higher than the river

1 Governor-General to H. M. Lawrence ; February 12, 1847.

* J . Abbott ; March 28, 1847—Lahore Political Diaries, Volume IV. 3 0. U. Aitchison, Volume IX, page 343. 4 Captain Abbott's Report No. VIII, November 27, I846. 6 The Governor-General to H. M. Lawrence ; February 12, 1847.

ft

• Captain Abbot'ts Report No. IX; November 27, 1846.

JAMMU AND KASHMIE. 81

Jhelum which it overhangs but not more than fifty feet higher than the table-and of Kullur of which it appeared to have formed a portion before it was severed therefrom by some primaeval furrow of the Jhelum- It rather belonged to the table-land of Kullur than to the mountain formation northwards and as Maharajah Gulab Singh never held possession of it his claim was considered unten­able1 and Balimah was enclosed within the Lahore boundary.

Most of the Mooshuksa villages of Eawalpindi lay in the plains and belonged to the district of Eawalpindi.2 Thirteen were upon the hills of the chain belonging to His Highness and nineteen on the skirts of those hills on the Eawalpindi side. The Sikhs said that the villages were never the jaghir of Maharajah Gulab Singh who claimed them as the gift of his brother Eaja Dhian Singh. The revenue of the thirteen hill and the nineteen plain villages had been separately collected, but it was a mere matter of convenience and afforded no reason for their transfer from plain to hill. The value

*

of the hill villages, however, was considered trifling and their control an expense. The estimated rental of all the thirty-two villages was about Es. 15,0003, of which only three or four thou­sand belonged to the hill villages which were given to Jammu.

Since the establishment of the Sikh empire, Goolreh had been a part of Eawalpindi to which it geographically belongs and Maha­rajah Gulab Singh had never held possession of it.4 The villages of Hoomuk (seven in all) belonged to the plains as did the seventeen villages of Zillah Mogul in the plain of Eawalpindi. All these ac cordingly went to Lahore.5

While the Boundary Commissioners were thus busy with their work, Lieutenant-Colonel H. M. Lawrence entered into an agreement with Maharajah Gulab Singh regarding the support

1 H. M. Lawrence to the Governor-General ; December 31, 1846. 2 Captain Abbott's Report No. XI ; December 16, 1846. 3 H. M. Lawrence to the Governor-General; December 31, 1846. ^Captain Abbott \s Report No. X I I ; December 16, 1846, and No. XIII, December 18 an-1

No. XIV, December 19. 6The Governor-General to H. M. Lawrence ; February 12, 1847,

M

S T A T E M E N T O F T H E F I X E D A L L O W A N C E F O R T H E M A I N T E N A N C E O F T H E K O H I S T A N R A J A S F O R P E R P E T U I T Y A C C O R D I N G T O T H E S T A T E M E N T O F D E W A N J O W A L A S A H A E , T H E M O O K H T E A R O F M A H A R A J A H G O L A B S I N G H , P A I D

A S F O L L O W S F R O M T H E B R I T I S H T R E A S U R Y A N D P L A C E D T O T H E A C C O U N T O F T H E S A I D M A H A R A J A H .

Name of the Rajah,

o

1

2

Raja Rahim-TJlla-Khan of Rajauri..

Raja Bhoori Singh of Jasrota

3

5

6

7

8

9

10

Rao Uppuru Singh of Mankote

Ram Chandar Hardeo of Ramnagar

Raja Kalyan Pal of Basohli

Raja Aotar Singh of Bhudoo

Miyans Zorawar Singh and Jaimal Singh of Kishtwar.

Hashimali Khan Narwallah

Raja Fyztulah Khan of Bhimber

Dewan Sher Yar Khan

Total • •

Date or year on which the stipend has been fixed.

22nd October 1846.

16th March 1846.

16th March 1846.

Ditto

Ditto

16th April 1846.

16th March 1846.

13th Novem­ber 1846.

15th October 1846.

(2 crops of Rub bee). 1904 Sam vat

63,200

62

Amount of pension fixed as

mentioned by Jowala

Sahae.

Rs. 16,000

17,000

1,500

3,000

5,000

5,000

3,000

1,000

10,000

1,700

Amount of stipend of those who

have agreed to reside in

the terri­tory of

Maharajah Golab Singh.

Rs. • »

13,700

5,000

• •

1,700

20,400

Amount of stipend of those who

have agreed to reside

in British territory.

Rs. 16,000

3,300

1,500

3,000

• •

5,000

3,000

1,000

10,000

• •

42,800

Name of the places of residence in the British

frontier.

Rihlu, District Kangra.

Nurpur, District Kangra.

Name of the treasury

from which they are

allowed to draw their

stipend.

Kangra,

Kangra • •

Ditto

Shahzadpura .

Ditto

Nurpur

Ditto • •

Ditto

Ambala

Ditto

Kangra

Ditto

Gujrat District

Shahdara—Lahore

Shahdara • •

Lahore

Ditto

Ditto,

• •

i

• •

REMARKS.

Rs, 3,300 to be paid from the British treasury to be divided as follows : Mian Shumsher Singh Rs. 2,000 per annum ; Bishen Singh Rs. 600, Jeewan Singh Rs. 200, Suchet Singh, Rs. 500.

One individual.

Ditto.

Ditto.

Ditto.

In the following sums : Zorawar Singh Rs. 1,380; Myan Jaimal Singh Rs. 1,380 ; Delawar Singh Rs. 240.

One individual.

Ditto.

T** «o o * ^OTE.-—Rs. 63,200 is the total but I cannnot make out why Lawrence puts Rs. 62,200 below it. **- e.,209 as the total amount of pension. I find it difficult to reconcile the letter with this statement and

In his letter of the same date as this B t e t e m ^ ^ a ^ ^ e ^ e n U o M still more difficult to account for two different amounts in uie

*ame clause LAHOBE LAWRENCE

Doled Commissioner <k Superintendent, Trans Svtlej Territory on duty at Lahore.

GO to

I-3'

fej-td

O

JAMMU AND KASHMIR. 83

of the exiled Hill Chiefs of His Highness' territory.1 The whole amount of pensions to be given by the Maharajah was Rs. 62,200 out of which Rs. 42,800 would be drawn by the Chiefs that chose to reside in British India and the rest by those that would live in His Highness' territories. These allowances were granted " to the pen­sioners and their heirs in perpetuity." To realise the amount of pensions it was considered convenient to take lands amounting to Rs. 48,000 from the Maharajah while it was at the same time decided not to alter the boundary with the lapse of any pensions. His Highness was accordingly told that, though " on failure of heirs of any families, the amount of their pensions will revert to the Jummoo Raj , the lands will in no case be restored, but cash payments be made." Captain James Abbott was at once asked to annex2 Jammu lands valuing from Rs. 45,000 to Rs. 55,000 to the Lahore territory, for to obtain the " unexcep­tionable " boundary of Beas, Chukki, Ravi and Hussuli for them­selves, the British would take Pathankote,3 Shujanpur and other lands from the Lahore Government and give them in exchange Jammu lands of equal value. Thus were Pathankote, the villages eastward of the Hussuli canal4 and Meerthul, Nungul, Gurrota and Biarpore5 enclosed within the British boundary which now ran from6 the Chukki River to the Hussuli Canal, then almost a

w

straight line of a mile to the Toogyanee Nuddee from where it ran to opposite Sujanpur, thence a straight line of one or two miles to the Eavi.

On April 13, 1847, Dewan Jowala Sahae came with a proposal for exchange of territory in behalf of his master, Maharajah Gulab Singh.7 His Highness desired that from Kharri to Mozufferabad the river Jhelum be made the boundary between Lahore and his

i H. M. Lawrence to the Governor-General ; August 13, 1847. 2 H. M. Lawrence to Captain Abbott ; Ferbuary 17, 1847. • H. M. Lawrence to the Govern or-General ; December 31, 1846. 4 J. Abbott to John Lawrence ; May 8, 1847. * H. M. Lawrence to Captain Abbott ; May 17, 1847. «H. M. Lawrence to the Governor-General ; August 13, 1847. 'Captain J. Abbott to H. Mf Lawrence ; April 13, 1847,

M2

84 THE BUILDING OF

own territories. He would surrender the whole of Hazara, Khan-poor, Karoo, Khowta and their dependencies roughly estimated at five lakhs of revenue and would receive territory in Minawar Jammu and Kharri in exchange for the aforesaid. This, Lawrence said, was " the most sensible proposition yet made by the Jammu Government."

Certainly the mountain tribes to the west of the Jhelum were difficult to control and the Lahore Government was in a better position to rule Hazara than Maharajah Gulab Singh, who had no free communication in the plains southward of the mountains whereas these troublesome and warlike hill tribes needed a heavv hand to control them. If retained by the Maharajah they would always plunder the Lahore territories and thereby raise a cause for dispute between the two Governments. " Geographically and politically " then the Jhelum as the frontier to Mozufferabad, was " equally advantageous to both parties." Both would profit by having a natural boundary and though no surplus revenue would accrue to Lahore by the acquisition of Hazara, it would provide troops experienced in warfare for service in Attock and Peshawar.

To hasten settlement1 Henry Lawrence on 1st May 1847 placed the following three propositions of exchange before the Durbar

(1) " That the plain of Hazara including the Fort of Hur-kishengurh with Srikot and Torbela altogether yielding about one lakh and fifty thousand rupees yearly revenue be given to Lahore and in lieu thereof that lands to the annual value of one lakh be made over to Jammu, that is, one rupee for 1 | rupees."

(2) " That the whole Hazara territory whether hill or plain be made over to Lahore for an equivalent at the rate of one rupee for 2£ rupees.

1 " Proceedings (Robukaree) of the Agent, Governor-General, North-West Frontier and Resident at Lahore in the matter of the Exchange of the country of Hazara." May 1, 1847.

JAMMU AND KASHMIR. 85

(3) " That the whole of the Jammu territory west of the Eiver Jhelum including Kahoota, Puklee and Hazara be exchanged at the rate of two rupees for one."

Dewan Jowala Sahae preferred the second to the first proposition and totally disapproved of the third whereas Lawrence and Abbott considered " the third in all respects advantageous to Lahore, as giving a good and well defined boundary and not entailing more expense than will be eventually covered by the income derived."

On May 22,1847,1 the Lahore Durbar decided that " inasmuch then as the first and second propositions are disapproved by Colonel Lawrence they are also disapproved of and rejected by the Dur­bar and as the third proposition has been approved by that gentleman and by Captain Abbott, it is also approved of by the officers of the Durbar, who agree accordingly that an assess­ment of these territories should be mutually left to the arbitra­tion of Captain Abbott who will exclude from the calcula­tion all rent free lands, jageers and charitable grants." Three days after both the Governments agreed2 " that Captain Abbott, the Boundary Commissioner, having examined the revenue records of the country west of the Jhelum, shall after deducting jageers and rent free lands, fix the yearly rent; after which lands producing half that rent shall be made over to Jammu from the Lahore terri­tory—Captain Abbott shall then lay down a well defined boundary so as to prevent all future dispute, viz., on the west of Jhelum River to the borders of Mozzufferabad whence it is to follow the Kuraka River until such place as Captain Abbott can determine a distinct and well marked line across the river Indus." Proclama­tions were immediately sent round3 by the Durbar to inform the inhabitants on both sides of the river Jhelum that the object of the exchange was "the welfare and security of the ryots" and the estab­lishment of " peace and quiet." " All Kardars, zemindars, ryots and other inhabitants " of Hazara and other districts in question

1 Robkaree of the Lahore Durbar ; May 22, 1847. 2 " Agreement concluded between the Governments of Lahore and Jammu "; May 25, 1847. 8 ' Public Proclamation * by H. M. Lawrence ; May 25, 1847.

86 THE BUILDING OF

were instructed to act according to the orders of Captain Abbott " in all matters connected with the revenue, the settlement of boundaries and other details of the exchange."

So far the account between Maharajah Gulab Singh and the Sikh Government stood as follows1:—

Lahore Creditor. Maharajah Gulab Singh Creditor,

Pensions Kathua Chota Suchetgurh . Detached villages Kotla Kharriali villages

Total

Es. . 50,000 . 28,953

4,692 1,500 3,060 2,500

. 90,705

Part of Jasrota Charwah Devigurh and Keerpind Thoob villages Koleeta villages Burnala villages Detached villages Part of Kharri Part of Bhimber

Total

Es. 22,268 3,434

12,500 4,061 2,000 7,649 1,000

22,000 15,000

89,912

The fate of most of the disputed tracts had, however, been already decided. Gulab Singh had been in possession of the vil­lages of Kirpeh Churreh in the plain of Rawalpindi close to the hills.2 It was not certain whether they were given to His Highness as salary for protecting the hills or were secured by him on im­prisoning Shahdman Khan and Madad Khan, who were part posses­sors. As Abbott considers them belonging to the plains, they were given to Lahore. Raj pur, Thagwal3, Buluhur and Rungore (vil­lages of Ramgurh) had been annexed to Suchetgurh by Raja Suchet Singh who was in charge of them. The evidence of the zemindars was strongly against the Lahore claim and accordingly the villages were annexed to Jammu. The village of Burhi in Ramgurh which had been given to His Highness by the Sikhs, was

1 James Abbott to H. M. La\vrence ; May 25, 1847. a Captain Abbott's Report No. XVI ; December 22, 1846. 8 Various Reports of Captain Abbott are the authority for this paragraph.

JAMMU AND KASI*MIR- 87

the jaghir of a Lahore sowar who had rendered service to the Maharajah Gulab Singh for this village.

Evidence favoured the claim of the Maharajah and it went to Jammu. Bhagiari was given to the S i k h s for> although Kajas Suchet Singh and Gulab Singh had held possession of it, the latter could produce no sanad. Soluhur, Ulla a n d eleven villages of Charwa had been retained by His Highness at the settlement of Kangra boundary and his claim to these w a s considered establish­ed. He was also given Sohagpur, Powa11 a n d P i n d i w h i c h were legally united to Charwa before the MahaiaJah h a d possession of it. The Lahore Durbar as late as 1848 claimed Suluhur and Ulla but their claim was not recognised.1 The villages of Nauni and Khudral were given to Lahore. Wattala,- Amriawala, Mogriawalla, Guddala, Ussur, Gulbehar, Bastur, Kahank> Gurhal, Kohur, Bhoon, Dhurmkote, Dum, Heer and some other villages were claimed by and given to His Highness and so were R u w a ^ Dhungal, Chaidali, Turf and Chak Oomza, the villages of C!huPral t h e n annexed to Thoob and held by the Maharajah Gulab ^ i n g h before the death of Khurruk Singh transferred to him. A / a u n ' Bahiwal, Hazzari, and Kalse and Futwal,2 Mohal, Surgpur, Bunnote, and two other villages in Puddal Taluqua were encl()Sed within the Lahore boundary.

The boundary3 was laid down by CaP t a in A b b o t t upwards of the river Jhelum between Muzufferabad a n d P u k l i o f Hazara after it was decided to make the river Jhelum the boundary between the Lahore and His Hi that side.

exchange of Beerungulli, the jag i r of Sultan Hussein Khan, for Garhi Habibullah Ummin Ali Khan would have improved the boundary, °ut Ummin Ali Khan was reluctant to give up his ancestral lands* Moreover, Abbott was of oninion that " the nossession of Gurhi Habibullah confers

1 Captain J. Abbott to F. Carrie, Resident at Lahore ; AP r i l 5» 1 8 4 7 ,

8 Captain Abbott's Report ; May 17, 1847. 8 Captain J. Abbott to H. M. Lawrence ; August 22, 184"7 a r w i H - M- Lawrence to Captain

J. Abbott; November 29, 1847.

88 THE BUILDING OF

such influence as should not, be lodged in foreign

hands. 5>

The territory of Maharajah Gulab Singh to the west of the Jhelum was at first estimated to yield not more than three lakhs and a half.1 But later on the value seems to have been reduced still further. The first estimate had been the following:

Hazara including Khanpur Nurrai, Kurrore, etc. Karoo Khowta Dhangulli villages Mooshuksa villages ..

• •

• • • •

Rs.

3,00,000 16,000 29,000 1,500 8,000

Total 3,54,500

That the value was afterwards reduced is apparent from the state­ment given below to show how the account between the two Gov­ernments stood after the exchange of the territory of Maharajah Gulab Singh westward of the river Jhelum.2

Lahore Creditor. Maharajah Gulab Singh Creditor,

Pensions Kathua Chota Suchetgurh Kotla villages Detached villages Kharriali villages Minawar Burr a Suchetgurh Purgannas

Rs. 50,000 Lands beyond Jhelum 22,953 4,692 3,060 5,000 2,500

35,000 9,000

Part of Jasrota Thoob villages Burnala villages Detached villages Bhimber villages

Rs. 1,60,000

22,268 4,261 7,648 1,000

15,000

a b o u t 71,973 Jammu.

Total 2,04,178 Total . . 2,10,177

1 Captain J. Abbott to H. M. Lawrence ; May 25, 1847. * J. Abbott to H. M. Lawrence ; May 25, 1847.

JAMMU AND KASHMIE. 89

Only the northern part of Minawar was transferred to Mahara­jah Gulab Singh while Bijwat remained with Lahore.1 Bijwat was the jagir of Kaja Tej Singh who was obstinate to retain it.3

Hence the rest of Minawar (Bunjitgurh) could not be given to His Highness in whose frontier Bijwat formed an awkward notch. His Highness was prepared to pay more than its equivalent and had Tej Singh agreed to the exchange the remainder of Minawar down to the river Chenab could have been transferred to Jammu, " and the frontier line would be unexceptionable." To take away Bijwat from him, the Maharajah had said, would be " like taking away a slice from his body."3

The Lahoul Boundary was laid down by Captain Cunningham and Mr. Vans Agnew in 1846.4 Kegarding the northern frontier, F. Currie (Secretary with Governor-General) did not approve of any interference with the boundary though the relations of the Maha­rajah with the petty states on that side were quite indefinite so much so that if he only chose to he could pick a quarrel with any of them for the claimed countries which neither the Sikhs nor he ever conquered.5 He claimed the Dadru country as lying on this side of the Indus and Hunza and Naggar as dependencies of Gilgit which last was not really conquered but only assisted by the Sikhs. A commission was, however, deputed under Captain A. Cunningham in 1847° but as much work was to be done in connection with the boundary between Ladakh and Chinese Tartary the mission was " to make particular enquiries respecting the lines of trade with a view to improve " the commercial position of the British and " to increase the bounds of geographical knowledge " and Dr. Thomson was to ascertain " the mineral resources along and within the British frontier." Commissioners from Lhassa and Kashmir were to join the mission. Accordingly the Maharajah

1 J. Abbott to H. M. Lawrence ; October 1, 1847. 1 H. M. Lawrence to Captain Abbott ; November 9, 1847. • Lieutenant Lake to Major Lawrence ; June 29, 1846.

• G. C. Barnes, Deputy Commissioner, Kangra, to Major Abbott ; September 20, 1851. 6 Vans Agnew to H. M. Lawrence ; December 20, 1846. • Governor-General to Captain A. Cunningham ; July 27, 1847.

90 THE BUILDING OF THE JAMMU AND KASHMIR

deputed Mian Jowahir Singh and Mehta Basti Ram,1 the former of whom joined the mission on 22nd September, 1847, at Puga and the latter five days after at Giah. But no Lhassan delegates ap­peared.2 Further owing to Imam-ud-din's rebellions in Kashmir, the Commissioners could not reach the Tibetan boundary. Mr. Vans Agnew who had been deputed the head of a commission pre­vious to Cunningham had already written a memorandum pointing out that the frontier was sufficiently defined by nature and recog­nised by custom except on the two extremities. From the report of Captain Cunningham " on Maharajah Gulab Singh's boundary with China "3 also we find that no changes could be made. As the territories of either power ended in deserts, the possession of these was not considered a serious matter. Moreover long and high mountain ranges and rapid waters served to make the boundary at mo3t places. The two termini, one near Piti and the other on the north-west therefore remained undefined.

Lawrence

C. U. Aitchison, Volume IX, pages 342-43. boundary with China

A P P E N D I C E S

L&3 O^^yj It u/jyfi/sjLsL. <-4h)j&\> \>j ucT(/-

WJJ ii*l*/«*ix iS^J- \t»tJf r $6i, J H iSSj&fj* I (f/S D ^X^^O

J VAtSJtyi Ijatf Si/g» Xfi

fats ^-^^i^&i^^M'

^iri IfiQj

r

lj&> 9 M I

9

'HAW(LJ-j\ti\Jji$fM i i\tfisA*i»f'

K

i5" ^i»k/» V t<cH>V>>c<i;u^c^

5 ^ ' >&J*:(i>» >d fca >"<£• •

J 3

Jp)\) ny; ./J

U • *

»>t^

m \i* l*JJ

V

APPENDIX HI.

Selected Articles from the Treaty of Lahore. Selected Article? from the Treaty of Lahore, March 9, 1846.

Article 2.—The Maharajah of Lahore renounces for himself, his heirs and successors, all claim to, or connexion with, the territories lying to the south of the River Sutlej, and engages never to have any concern with those territories, or the inhabitants thereof.

Article 3.—The Maharajah cedes to the Honourable Company, in per­petual sovereignty, all his forts, territories, and rights, in the Doab, or coun­try, hill and plain, situate between the Rivers Beas and Sutlej.

Article 4t.—The British Government having demanded from the Lahore State, as indemnification, for the expenses of the war, in addition to the ces­sion of territory described in Article 3, payment of one and a half crores of rupees ; and the Lahore Government being unable to pay the whole of this sum at this time, or to give security, satisfactory to the British Government, for its eventual payment ; the Maharajah cedes to the Honourable Company, in perpetual sovereignty, as equivalent for one crore of rupees, all his forts, territories, rights, and interests, in the hill countries which are situate be­tween the Rivers Beas and Indus, including the Provinces of Cashmere and Hazarah.

Article 12.—In consideration of the services rendered by Rajah Golab Singh of Jummoo, to the Lahore State, towards procuring the restoration of the rela­tions of amity between the Lahore and British Governments, the Maharajah hereby agrees to recognize the independent sovereignty of Rajah Golab Singh, in such territories and districts in the hills, as may be made over to the said Rajah Golab Singh by separate agreement between himself and the British Government, with the dependencies thereof, which may have been in the Rajah's possession since the time of the late Maharajah Khurruk Singh ; and the British Government, in consideration of the good conduct of Rajah Golab Singh, also agrees to recognize his independence in such territories, and to admit him to the privileges of a separate treaty with the British Government.

Article 13.—In the event of any dispute or difference arising between the Lahore State and Rajah Golab Singh, the same shall be referred to the arbit­ration of the British Government; and by its decision the Maharajah engages to abide*

VI

APPENDIX IV.

Selected Articles from the Agreement of March 11, 1846.

Some of the Articles of t\e Agreement concluded between the British Government and the Lahore Durbar, on the llth of March, 1846.

Article 5.—The British Government agrees to respect the bona fide rights of those jagirdars within the territories ceded by the Articles 3 and 4 of the Treaty of Lahore, dated 9th instant, who were attached to the families of the late Maharajahs Runjeet Singh, Khurruk Singh, and Shere Singh ; and the British Government will maintain the jagirdars in the bona fide possessions, during their lives.

Article 6.—The Lahore Government shall receive the assistance of the British local authorities in recovering the arrears of revenue justly due to the Lahore Government from their Kardars and managers in the territories ceded by the provisions of Articles 3 and 4 of the Treaty of Lahore, to the close of the Khurreef harvest of the current year, viz., 1902 of the Sumbut Bikramajeet.

Article 7.—The Lahore Government shall be at liberty to remove from the forts in the territories specified in the foregoing Article, all treasure and State property, with the exception of guns. Should, however, the British Govern­ment desire to retain any part of the said property, they shall be at liberty to do so, paying for the same at a fair valuation ; and the British officers shall give their assistance to the Lahore Government, in disposing on the spot of such of the aforesaid property as the Lahore Government may not wish to re­move, and the British officers may not desire to retain.

Article 8.—Commissioners shall be immediately appointed by the two Governments to settle and lay down the boundary between the two States, as defined by Article 4 of the Treaty of Lahore, dated March 9, 1846.

» •

vn

APPENDIX V.

The Treaty of Amritsar.

Treaty between the British Government and Maharajah Golab Singh, concluded at Amritsar} on March 16, 1846.

Treaty between the British Government on the one part, and Maharajah Golab Singh, of Jummoo, on the other, concluded, on the part of the British Government, by Frederick Currie, Esq., and Brevet Major Henry Mont­gomery Lawrence, acting under the orders of the Right Honourable Sir Henry Hardinge, G.C.B., one of Her Britannic Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council, Governor-General, appointed by the Honourable Company to direct and control all their affairs in the East Indies, and by Maharajah Golab Singh in person.

Article 1.—The British Government transfers, and makes over, in inde­pendent possession, to Maharajah Golab Singh, and the heirs male of his body, all the hilly or mountainous country with its dependencies, situated to the eastward of the River Indus, and westward of the River Ravee, including Chamba and excluding Lahoul, being part of the territory ceded to the British Government by the Lahore State, according to the provisions of Article 4 of the treaty of Lahore dated M^rch 9, 1846.

Article 2.—The eastern boundary of the tract transferred by the forego­ing Article to Maharajah Golab Singh sha 11 be laid down by Commissioners appointed by the British Government and Maharajah Golab Singh, respect­ively, for that purpose, and shall be defined in a separate engagement, after survey.

Article 3.—In consideration of the transfer made to him and his heirs, by the provisions of the foregoing Articles, Maharajah Golab Singh will pay to the British Government the sum of seventy-five lacs of rupees (Nanueh-shahee), fifty lacs 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.

Article 4.—The limits of the territories of Maharajah Golab Singh shall not be at any time changed, without the concurrence of the British

Government.

Article 5.—Maharajah Golab Singh will refer to the arbitration of the British Government any dispute or questions that may arise between himself and the Government of Lahore, or any other neighbouring State and will

abide by the decision of the British Government.

• • •

Vlll

Article 6.—Maharajah Golab Singh engages, for himself and heirs, to join, with the whole of his military force, the British troops, when employed with­in the hill, or in the territories adjoining his possessions.

Article 7.—Maharajah Golab Singh engages never to take, or retain in his service, any British subject, nor the subject of any European or American State, without the consent of the British Government.

Article 8.—Maharajah Golab Singh engages to respect, in regard to the territory transferred to him, the provisions of Articles 5, 6 and 7, of the sepa­rate engagement between the British Government and the Lahore Durbar dated March 11, 1846.

Article 9.—The British Government will give its aid to Maharajah Golab Singh, in protecting his territories from external enemies.

Article 10.—Maharajah Golab Singh acknowledges the supremacy of the British Government, and will, in token of such supremacy, present annually to the British Government, one horse, twelve perfect shawl goats of approved breed (six male and six female), and three pairs of Cashmere shawls.

This Treaty, consisting of ten Articles, has been this day settled by Frederick Currie, Esq., and Brevet Major Henry Montgomery Lawrence, acting under the directions of the Eight Honourable Sir Henry Hardinge, G.C.B., Governor-General, on the part of the British Government, and by Maharajah Golab Singh in person ; and the said Treaty has been this day ratified by the seal of the Right Honourable Sir Henry Hardinge, G.C.B., Governor-General.

Done at Amritsar, this 16th day of March, in the year of our Lord, 1846, corresponding with the 17th day of Rubbee-ool-awul, 1262, Hijree.

GOLAB SINGH (L. S.) H. HARDINGE (L. S.)

F. CURRIE.

H. M. LAWRENCE.

IX

APPENDIX VI

The Final Receipt for the Purchase of Kashmir

receipt for the purchase of Kashmir signed by the Board of Administration.1

" The Hon'ble The East India Company having received from His High ness the Maharajah Gulab Singh the sum of Es. 75,00,000 (seventy-five lakhs) in payment of the amount guaranteed by the III Article of the Treaty between the Hon'ble Company and His Higness dated Umritsar the 16th March, 1846. The single acknowledgment of the receipt of the whole amount is granted by the Board of Administration for the affairs of the Punjab, at the request of Dewan Jowalla Sahae, in addition to the receipts already given to His High­ness' agents by the receiving officers, for the instalments received by them from time to time between the date of the Treaty and the 14th March 1850, the day on which the last instalment was paid into the Lahore Treasury."

H. M. LAWRENCE.

JOHN LAWRENCE.

C. E. MANSEL. Lahore, 29th March 1850.

1 Copy in the Punjab Record Office Museum. Editor.

PBINTED BY

T H E SUPEBINTENDENT, GOVEBNMENT PBINTING, PUNJAB,

1916 CS—200—2-6-31—SGPP Lahore.

r \

\

I

i