Battle of Concessions in China

The Sino-Japanese War of 1894-95 proved to be a momentous and decisive event in the modern history of Far East. Apart from enabling Japan to revise her unequal treaties with the Western Powers and stimulating Japanese imperialism and exposing the ever growing weakness of China leading to the birth of anti-Manchu and pro-reform movement in the country, this war set in motion a process which has variantly been described as the “Battle of Concessions”, “Scramble for Concessions”, or “Cutting of the Chinese Melon” -- among the Powers of Europe and the West.
From Japan’s victory, it appeared to these powers that the Chinese Empire was falling to pieces. It was about to become another Africa, the booty of the powers. The idea of the partition of China gained ground; the nations began to scramble for spoil. There followed the struggle for concessions, for leased territories, for spheres of influence, which disregarding Chinese integrity seemed to promise only the imminent partition of the Empire.
Russia taking the initiative along with France and Germany, six days after the conclusion of the Treaty of Shimonesky, according to which South-East Manchuria was ceded to Japan by China, intervened to force Japan in giving up these gains. She did secure from China the island of Taiwan and the neighbouring islands.
It is very interesting to note that the Powers had undertaken this great step not sympathetically towards China but, in fact, they had their own axes to grind. In the true sense, their interests in various sectors in China were to clash with those of Japan. So they declared that in the name of peace in the Far East, it was their advice to Japan to renounce its possession of the Peninsula of Liao-tung, which “would at the same time render illusory the independence of Korea.” Being aware of ‘an unfriendly European intervention’, Japan accepted the advise.
Russia had won the point. It had opened the gates of what she desired. She had posed as the friend of China and won her goodwill, though the real cause of her intervention was her clash of interests with Japan in the Far-East. Again, she was aware of the growing economic needs of China due to war and corruption in the administration, which could be solved only through foreign loans.
Taking advantage of all this, Russia invited China’s ablest statesman of the time, Li Hung Chang, in 1896 at St. Petersburg, and by impressing upon him the friendliness of Russia towards China, persuaded him to sign the famous treaty of Lilo Vanu in 1896. The alliance was specifically directed against Japan, and the two agreed to support each other reciprocally, declare war or peace in common against the said country. In the case of war against Japan, China allowed Russia to use her ports promising to provide all necessary facilities. China also allowed Russia to construct tans-Siberian Railway across Northern Manchuria directly to Vladivostok. Russia assured China of her non-aggression towards the Chinese territory. In another term, Russia promised loan to China on easy instalments to help her pay war-indemnity to Japan.
To fulfill these obligations, a Russo-Chinese Bank was established in China which, as described in its charter, was to be agency to collect taxes, finance the business of local government, coin money and secure commercial and industrial concessions as well as the right to construct and extend railways and telegraph. The opinion of Dr. H.M. Vinacke is that “although organized and controlled under Russian law, the Russo-Chinese Bank was to serve as the fiscal agent of the Chinese government in addition to undertaking the work of financing rail-roads and other projects to Manchuria.”
The railway was to be under the joint control of Sino-Russian company for 80 years after which it was to become the property of China. However, it was narrated that should the Government of China wish to redeem the road at the beginning of the 37th year, she would have to pay a sum of at least 700 million rubles, but it seemed improbable that China would ever try to occupy it after such a huge payment.
After sometime, Russia consolidated her gains by further concessions. She got the ease of Port Arthur for 15 years with the condition that it will be opened only to the warships of China and Russia. She also got for 15 years Kiao-Chao as a naval base. She also got certain more favourable rights such as maintenance of law and order. Moreover, she got mining rights in Southern Manchuria.

The pace set by Russia was followed by Germany who also extracted concessions. She had already given notice to Russia and France about her desire to get concessions in China of port or ports where German ships could anchor, carry out repairs and get food supplies. Capitalizing on the situation created by the murder of two German missionaries in Shantung, Germany sent a strong naval squadron to Kiao-Chao and forced China to sign a treaty on March 6, 1898. The Treaty remarked that “The Imperial Chinese Government consider it advisable to give a special proof of their grateful appreciation of the friendship shown to them by Germany.”
- Germany got lease of Kiao-Chao Bay and adjacent territories for 99 years.
- She was to have full jurisdiction in the leased territory.
-Germany got free passage for her troops in the neutral zone up to 50 kilometres outside the leased area.
- Germany’s special claims in Shantung for any foreign aid were recognized.
- No Chinese or foreign control over German armies in neutral territory.
- Germany could not ‘sublet’ the territory leased to her.
- China would cede to Germany a more suitable place in the event the Germans returned the territory before the expiry of the lease period.
- China would construct Shantung Railway under a German company.
- Germany was given the right to take out coal from mines within 10 miles of Shantung.

France also followed the suit and compelled China to grant her concessions in the Treaty of 1898. She had already in 1895, secured a statement from China that she would not hand over the island of Hanan to any other power in lease. She had gained a concession in customs’ charging on goods entering China from the French dependencies in the South and also an opportunity to exploit the mines of Yunan, Kwangsi and Kwangtung Provinces. She also got the permission to extend the Annam railway into Chinese territory. But now in 1898, she furthered her interests:
- France was to get all facilities for the construction of Tongking-Yunnan railway.
- She got lease for 99 years of Kwangchao with the right to keep troops and extract coal.
- French advisers for Chinese postal service.

Britain alarmed at these developments, particularly on Russia’s growing influence in Peking, enforced a series of some agreements upon China during February to July 1898, according to which:
- She got the lease of Wei-Hai-Wei for the same period for which Russia possessed Port Arthur.
- Extension of the lease of the main territory opposite Hongkong.
- Boundaries of Burma were revised in her favour.
- Territories on Yang-Tse river not to be leased to any other power.
- A British national to be Inspector-General of customs.
- Lease of Formosa for 99 years.
- Right to construct railway up to 2800 miles (9 railroad concessions) was given to Britain.

Japan also made an agreement with China according to which the latter was not to alienate the Province of Fukien, lying across Formosa, to any other power. It was accepted by China.
Italy was the last to demand concessions from China, but being the weakest power, failed to get any. China boldly refused to comply with her wishes.

Thus it is evident from the preceding study that an acute struggle for concessions from China followed among the Europeans and the West after the Sino-Japanese War. The powers were now busy to secure their spheres of interest. Vinacke writes, “Each one of the power proceeded to secure from the others the fullest possible recognition of its exclusive interest in the area claimed by it for exploitation.” Clyde and Beers have also narrated that “an era of special and exclusive privilege was dawning in China.” It now appeared that the next logical step would be the partitioning of China among the powers. But this could not be possible partly due to the birth of a strong national and anti-foreign movement in China and partly on account of Hay’s Open Door Notes in which America clearly stated that she would not allow China to close her doors to this or that power in favour of one or the more concession-holding powers. Great Britain, already against the commercial interests within the sphere of interests, and a supporter of the Open Door Policy, greatly welcomed the Hay’s proposals, because in it Britain found the revival of its own Chinese policy of the years 1860 to 1865. Lack of mutual trust and acute rivalry and jealousies among these powers was also responsible for saving China from dismemberment. Thus writes Harold M Vinacke:
“The acceptance of the Hay principles by the Powers temporarily checked the movement toward the partition of China at the first stage of its development. The reaction of the Chinese government and people toward this foreign aggression, however, brought the question of the extinction of Chinese national life again to the front. The lesson of the Sino-Japanese War and the years immediately following was, fundamentally, that China must so reorganize herself that she could successfully defend herself against attacks from the outside. The government’s policy in the past had been to rely for the defence of the country upon the lack of harmony of interest among the European Powers. Russia’s aggressive tendencies, for example, would be held in check, it was thought by Great Britain. One Power could be so played off against another as to safeguard China. This “balance of power” theory, however, broke down in the face of the revelation of China’s weakness, and of the bringing into play of the sphere conception. A Russian alliance, it is true, was accepted to secure China against Japan. But the German demand for a lease-hold, and the acquiescence of the other states in the advance she made, changed the situation materially. The Russian alliance did not cover European aggression, and China found no one to give her active support in the face of the German threat. The ‘balance of power’ idea was invoked certainly, but to the entire disadvantage of China, since each Power demanded compensation for gains made by the others in order that the ‘balance’ should be preserved. Ultimately the action of a foreign state, the United States, did bring some external support to China, but only after the active contestants had stopped to take stock of the situation.”

Sino-Japanese Relations, 1870-1874 A.D.

The historical relations between China and Japan all centre in Korea and it was in and over Korea that they first came in serious conflict in the modern period of their history. The results of this conflict were to prove of tremendous significance not only in the history of the two immediate contestants involved in the conflict, but for the entire world.

Korea’s geographical situation was such that it inevitably became a bone of contention between her two neighbours -- China and Japan. Any one of these two powers, if in possession of Korea, could entertain and realise expansionist designs towards the other.

China being a vast and powerful country in the beginning was unaware of what was happening in Japan. In fact, she had looked with scorn towards Japan as an inferior nation. The situation began to change considerably since the second half of the 19th century. Japan, having once been opened to the West, was quick to learn Western sciences, technology, education and diplomacy, and consolidated her position. With the Meiji Restoration, internal unity of Japan under the Emperor strengthened. The situation was just the contrary in China. The Chinese territory was being trimmed and her influence was decreasing. The ruling Manchu dynasty was fast losing its prestige and vitality. Moreover, the Chinese suffering from a superiority complex were not inclined to learn anything from the West.

Again, the Chinese, by unwisely engaging into an armed conflict with the Western Powers had exposed her own weakness. As such, she was compelled to sign a number of humiliating treaties with them granting extra-territorial concessions, open a large number of her ports to trade with them and allow Christian missionaries. Her national prestige had thus been lowered. Japan proved wiser. It did not expose weakness by inviting armed conflict. She gave concessions to Europeans on honourable terms and also strengthened herself by adopting Western learning in science, technology and war.

Before the Meiji restoration, China had considered Japan merely a tiny State under her control and influence. But Japan had considerably strengthened her position after the Meiji restoration, and wanted to expand particularly in the direction of Korea. She also wanted to revise her relations with China on the basis of equality. As such, in the beginning of the seventies of the 19th century, Japan sent a Mission to China to conclude a treaty. But the Chinese Foreign Office showed reluctance for a Treaty on equal terms with Japan. She only allowed to latter to have trade with her. In 1871 A.D., a Treaty of friendship was signed between the two countries, thus marking the beginning of formal relations.

However, in 1874 A.D., the relations between the two neighbours worsened over Korea. It was under the formal control and nominal suzerainty of China, but for some years now she had not paid any attention to it. This led Japan to entertain political and territorial ambitions in Korea. Land and food for its ever expanding population, commercial expansion required due to rapid industrial progress, the imperialistic ambitions of Meiji Regime and Russia’s big naval station at Vladivostok near Korean borders with Russia’s designs against Korea itself were some of the factors that were responsible for Japan’s desire to have an early grab of Korea before any other power could do so.

Relations between China and Japan first came into conflict in 1874 A.D. over the Loochoo Islands. A certain number of ship-wrecked sailors of these islands were killed by some savage inhabitants in Formosa. Japan claiming sovereignty over Loochoo demanded compensation. China replied that Loochoo was her territory and ship-wreck incident was an internal affair of China in which Japan had no right to intervene. Japan adopted threatening policy by sending two armies -- one to Formosa and the other against China. But the mediation of the British representative, Sir Thomas, brought a compromise. China agreed to pay compensation and assured safety for Japanese seamen.

Importance: China indirectly agreed that Japan had some legal rights over Loochoo Islands. China’s responsible statesmen, such as Li-Hung-Chang, became conscious of Japan’s aggressive designs against China, which were most dangerous than that of the Europeans.

But the real conflict between China and Japan was over Korea. As rightly pointed out by Vinacke, "The historical relations of Japan and China all centre in Korea that they first came into serious conflict in the modern period of their history." As hinted above, Russia’s ambitions in regard to Korea and China’s neglect of Korea led Japan to strengthen her hold over the hermit Kingdom. As such, she concluded a treaty with Korea.

The League of Nations

The League of Nations was a result of the First World War. It stamps one of the most striking developments in the era between the two World Wars. The League, a part of President Wilson’s ‘Fourteen Points’, mainly aimed at preventing wars, or any other dispute between the two nations. Ketelbey says, “Like the Holy Alliance, the League was an expression of the desire of a war-weary world to preserve international peace and stability.”
The Covenant of the League
The Covenant of the League contained 26 articles. In these articles, the duties of the League were discussed. The Preamble states that the High Contracting Parties agreed to the Covenant “in order to promote international co-operation and to achieve international peace and security.” Some of the primary articles of the League are as follows:
- Independent nations of the world were invited to accept the membership of the League. Self-governing Dominions of the British Empire were also included to it. The Headquarters of the League were to be at Geneva in Switzerland.
- To prevent the outbreak of the War was the chief aim of the League.
- Every member-State pledged not to go to war. It had to submit first the matter in dispute to the League to consider upon. The war could not be declared unless three months had passed after the League had announced its decision, and when the decision was not accepted.
- If this undertaking of not going to war was violated by any of the member-State, others were free to take action by stopping trade, by blockade, and by the employment of force.
- The League managed for the member-States not to sign secret treaties. Copies of all the treaties were to be deposited with the League. Power was given to the League to call attention to the treaties, which might prove dangerous to the peace. The League could suggest the concerned States to revise those treaties.
The League differed with the Holy Alliance. It only dealt with the disputes of the countries and maintained peace in the world. It did not intervene in the internal affairs of the respective countries.
The Members of the League
The membership of the League can be studied as:
(a) Original Members: The States which had signed the Treaty of Peace (Grand Alliance) and thirteen neutral powers were invited to join the League immediately.
(b) Non-original Members: These States could become the members of the League after the approval of the Assembly by its 2/3 majority.
It was necessary for every member-State to pledge itself “to promote international co-operation and to achieve international peace and security by the acceptance of obligations not to resort to war.”
Any member-State could willingly withdraw from the League after giving two-years’ notice.
Organization of the LeagueThe organs of the League were as follows:
(a) The Assembly: The Assembly contained the delegates of various States. Each member-State could have three representatives, but only one could vote. All the important questions regarding the international, political and economic matters with dispute endangering the world-peace were referred to this body of the League, and it made the decisions. Every year, in the month of September, the Assembly was to meet at Geneva.
(b) The Council: As it was not possible for the Assembly to meet more than once a year, its Council performed much of the League’s business. It was to meet thrice a year and even more in emergency. It consisted of (i) Permanent members, representing the Great Powers, and (ii) Non-Permanent members, elected from time to time by the smaller States. Its actual composition changed many times after it was established.
(c) The Secretariat: A Secretariat was established in Geneva. A number of men and women were employed here as a Permanent International Civil Service. A Secretary General was appointed by the approval of the Council and the Assembly. It had to prepare the duties for the Assembly and the Council. The office of the Secretariat worked throughout the year.
The Council primarily aimed to make attempts to avoid wars. Articles X to XVII of the Covenant dealt with avoiding wars. Article X reads, “The members of the League undertake to respect and preserve as against external aggression the territorial integrity and existing political independence of all members of the League.” The League gave power to each member-State to call on the Assembly when needed.
The establishment of the League does not mean that international peace had been restored forever. It was decided that in order to settle the disputes between nations something suitable should be done lest they should take the shape of war.
(d) Court of International Justice: The League decided at its first session of the Assembly to establish a Court of International Justice. It was to sit at Hague from time to time. To this Court, the Assembly and the Council appointed a number of judges for nine years. The League of Nations had no power to remove them. Disputes could be referred to the Court for settlement within the provisions of International Law and the treaties between the parties to dispute. The decisions of the Court were binding and could not be challenged. The Court could revise its own judgment in the light of the facts brought before it. The Council and the Assembly could ask for the advisory opinion of the Court.
Till 1936, the Court dealt with seventy-one cases. Of these were forty-three disputes, which were settled judicially, while twenty-eight were requests for advisory opinions.
(e) International Labour Organization: The International Labour Organization was established to improve the conditions of the laborers and to civilize the backward countries up to the level of those prevailing elsewhere.
Functions of the League
1. Mandatory system: The League made some provisions for the annexed territories under the mandatory system. It was generally felt that the victors paid no attention to these territories and had done so, obviously, to fulfill their selfish motives. The League placed the sovereign administration of the territories captured from the Central Powers and Turkey not under any victor country, but to the powers under the supervision of the League. The process is called the ‘Mandatory System’. The mandatory powers were required to administer the mandatory State in order to help her political, social and economic development. The powers had to annually submit a report to the League, informing the progress made by the Province under their control. The League could also send its nominee to see how much progress the territories under the mandatory rule made. It was also hoped that when the regions under the mandatory system would make such progress that the continuance of the system seemed unnecessary, they would become eligible to get the League’s membership. In 1932 A.D., Iraq became eligible for the membership of the League and was granted independence.
2. Settlement of International Disputes: The main aim of the League was to prevent wars, and it succeeded in its aim many a times.
(i) Boundary Dispute: Greece and Yugoslavia were prepared for a war for Albania. However, the League intervened and solved the matter peacefully.
(ii) Bulgaria-Greek Dispute: Two Greek soldiers were killed in a conflict with Bulgaria. When Bulgaria refused to pay the compensation, Greece attacked upon it. Bulgaria appealed to the League. The Council ordered both the sides to remove their army from the field. A Commission was appointed, which found Greece guilty and ordered her to pay for the war-compensation. Both the sides accepted the decision. Thus the war came to an end.
(iii) Letacia Dispute (1933 A.D.): The army of Peru attacked Columbia and annexed Letacia from it. The League interfered in the matter on the appeal of Columbia. The decision went in the favour of Columbia and thus she recovered Letacia.
(iv) Dispute over Aaland Islands: The Aaland Islands were under Finland while her population was Swedish. In 1909 A.D., Finland along with Aaland Islands was annexed by Russia. In 1917 A.D., Finland became free and the population of Aaland Islands desired to be with Sweden. However, Finland was not prepared to accept this decision. In these circumstances, there was every possibility of a war. The League interfered in the matter and in June 1921 A.D., it was decided that Finland must have sovereignty over the Islands; people of the Islands were guaranteed autonomy and protection of their political rights; Swedish language in schools could be used; and rights of private property were to be preserved. The area was to be neutralized and unfortified. It was accepted by Sweden and Finland. Regarding it, an international treaty was signed on April 6, 1922 A.D.
(v) Tunis-Morocco Problem: It was between England and France, which was solved amicably.
(vi) Eupen and Malmedy: In 1920-21 A.D., Germany made protests before the League for giving Eupen and Malmedy to Belgium. The Council of the League discussed the matter and announced that its decision regarding the matter was final.
(vii) Hungarian Dispute: In the Paris Peace Conference, some area of Hungary was given to Romania. People of this place, however, wanted to remain under Hungary. They were allowed to go to Hungary, but could not take their property with them. Both the countries made a treaty when the League interfered.
(viii) Yorjovena Dispute: It was a dispute regarding the boundary between Poland and Czechoslovakia. The League appointed a Commission for boundary-limits, and succeeded in solving the problem.
3. Works for the Public Welfare
(i) Health: The member-States were to co-operate with the League in order to prevent the diseases.
Permanent Health Organization: The organization, established in 1923 A.D., made many attempts to prevent the increase in diseases in the backward countries. In this year, the Malaria Commission tried to prevent this dangerous disease. In 1931 A.D., a convention was called for the Rural Health Development. The delegates of the twenty-three member-States took part in it and worked for the improvement of the rural health.
(ii) Economic Reconstruction: A number of Economic Conventions were called. Among these, the Brussels Convention and the International Economic Convention are very famous. An International Relief Union was established, which gave economic help as the ‘First Aid’ through a treasure it made.
(iii) International Committee on Intellectual Co-operation: It was a seventeen-member committee, which spread the intellectual co-operation throughout the world.
(iv) Humanitarian Activities: The League of Nations strictly checked the trade of children and the women. It also made efforts to abolish slavery.
Thus the League did a lot of useful works for the human welfare, and that is why Cordell Hull says, “The League of nations has been responsible for more humanitarian and scientific endeavour than any other organization in history.”
4. Failures of the League: Besides the significant and successful activities of the League, it failed to solve a number of disputes.
(i) Vilna dispute: According to the Paris Peace Conference, the city of Vilna was given to Lithuania, taking from Poland. In 1920 A.D., Poland annexed the city militarily. Lithuania made an appeal to the League. Although the League intervened, yet it failed to get Vilna back from Poland.
(ii) Corfu dispute: Mussolini demanded compensation for the murder of the Italian delegates in the Greek territories, while they were fixing the boundary line for Albania. On the refusal by Greece, Mussolini bombarded it and annexed Corfu. Greece made an appeal to the League, which ordered Italy to pay compensation for her behaviour. Mussolini, however, did not care for the League’s decision. Although, later on, he called back his army from Corfu, yet he compelled Greece to pay compensation. It was completely a failure on the part of the League.
(iii) Dispute between Bolivia and Paraguay: An armed clash took place between Bolivia and Paraguay in December 1928, for the region of Granchaco. The area was under Bolivia, which was militarily annexed by Paraguay. Bolivia made an appeal to the League. When the League gave her decision against Paraguay, she refused to accept it. On being compelled, Paraguay resigned from the League’s membership. However, the dispute was later settled with U.S.A.’s intervention, but the fact remains that the League had failed here.
(iv) Japanese attack over Manchuria: Japan had fixed her eyes over Manchuria for a long time. On September 18, 1931 A.D., Japan annexed all the Chinese towns within a radius of 200 miles north of Mukden, and kept on to conquer Manchuria. China made many appeals to the League in this regard and Japan was ordered to retreat from Manchuria. However, Japan paid no attention to it. The British policy of appeasement also gave much force to her aims, and she ultimately succeeded in annexing it. On March 27, 1933 A.D., Japan resigned from the membership of the League. The process again proved the incapability of the League.
(v) Italian attack upon Abyssinia: In 1934-35 A>D., there were clashes between the troops of Italy and Abyssinia, as a consequence of Mussolini’s imperialistic policy. Prior to the attack, he had received much help from England and France as well. He put a number of unreasonable claims for compensation and then annexed the whole of Abyssinia. Although the League tried to check Italy, Mussolini did not care for it and remained busy with his activities. The policy of Collective Security was also a complete failure; because every State started feeling that it could do howsoever it may please without any fear of collective action against her.
(vi) Spain: Italy and Germany helped General Franco against the Republicans during the Civil War in Spain. The republicans sought help from the League. The League announced that no State could give military assistance to any faction during the Civil War. But Italy and Germany paid no attention to this order. After 1939 A.D., when General Franco won, England gave recognition to his Government. It minimized the League’s position.
(vii) Sino-Japanese War: In 1936 A.D., Japan attacked China without declaring a war. China requested the League for enforcing financial ban on Japan, but the League refused, as Japan was no more her member.
The League, thus, failed many a times in her mission to prevent the outbreak of the war and her existence proved of no value.
Causes of the failure of the League of Nations
The ultimate failure of the League of Nations was a cumulative result of a variety of factors.
(i) The League’s inter-relation with the Paris Peace Conference: From the very beginning, there were many States who were dissatisfied with the Peace Conferences. Those who had no belief in the Paris Peace Settlement did always hate the institutions related to it.
(ii) Dismemberment of America: Though President Wilson had aspired for the League of Nations, yet U.S.A. did not join the League. Consequently, the decisions of the League did not stick on America. If the League imposed financial restrictions, America was always there to help her. Thus the punishment that the League inflicted upon any erring nation had no impact.
(iii) Limited powers of the League: The scope of the activities of the League was large, while its powers were limited. This inequality also became a factor of its failure.
(iv) Wrong policies of the member-States: The response of the member-States towards the League was not sincere. Hence it also became a factor for its failure. France wanted to use it as an instrument to pressurize Germany. England wanted to use it for her commercial gains. Germany saw in it a house of conspiracy against her, while to Russia it was a conspiracy against Communism. The policy of appeasement of England also became a cause of its failure.
(v) Little number of the members: All the nations in the world had not become its members. U.S.A. did not join it. Germany and U.S.S.R. joined it later on, but soon left it. Japan also resigned its membership. Later on, the League with its limited membership was known only as a ‘community of victors’. Mutual non-cooperation and disbelief also became a cause of its failure.
(vi) Rise of Dictatorship: The rise of dictators like Mussolini and Hitler made it difficult for the League to carry on its work of International Peace. They wanted to rule over the world on the basis of their power, and were never prepared to sign any treaty, which could prove a hindrance to their imperialist designs.
(vii) Wrong policy of the League to defend peace: The League bowed to injustice in order to defend peace. When Italy attacked Abyssinia, her ruler Helsilasy declared, “Peace can be defended by justice and the second method is to defend peace at any cost. If the League tries to defend Peace at the altar of its member-State at any cost, the League will suicide.” Helsilasy’s views proved to be accurate.

Although the League was called a ‘League of notions’ or a ‘league of robbers’ and it was felt that the League could only bark and did not bite, yet it did a lot of work which proved very significant during its existence of twenty years. There were some disputes, which the League settled very successfully, yet it had to come forth a number of problems, which it failed to settle at all. On the whole, according to Walters, “The League as a working institution is dead, but the ideals which it sought to promote, the hopes to which it gave rise, the method it devised, the agencies it created, have become an integral part of the political thinking of the civilized world.”

Ranjit Singh established in Punjab a pure and unmitigated Despotism

“Ranjit Singh established in the Punjab a pure and unmitigated despotism.” This is what Dr. G.L. Chopra says in his remarkable work, Punjab as a Sovereign State. According to him, by destroying the Misls and allowing the Gurmatta to decay, Ranjit Singh, in reality, transformed the whole constitution of the Sikhs from irregular theocratic commonwealth of a loose federal type into a military monarchy based on personal rule.
The Gurmatta, at the time of the rise of Ranjit Singh had lost much of its popularity. The Sikh chieftains, born in circumstances of comparative affluence, and brought up in an atmosphere of mutual hostility, had by the time of Ranjit Singh lost all sense of common brotherhood. This was a reason why only a few attended the last Gurmatta convened by Ranjit Singh in 1805. On the contrary, they had imbibed personal ambitions and selfish motives which did not allow them to act together. Another cause of the decay of Gurmatta was the backward conditions of the masses. Such an institution as Gurmatta required for its successful working a state of society of far greater corporate consciousness and intelligence than that of the Sikhs. Thus the Gurmatta, from its very composition was not suitable for the purpose of an extensive dominion, as it was also incompatible with the growing power of an inherent genius. Hence it naturally gave way to single temporal authority.
Under Ranjit Singh’s personal despotism, the Punjab was governed in a manner that generally suited the existing state of society. The village life, throughout the country, was hardly interfered with except for the purpose of collection of land revenue or the recruitment of for defense purposes. The local affairs remained within the affinity of Panchayats. Thus Ranjit Singh’s government, however despotic it may have been, was not meddlesome enough to prevent the development of individual character. It is amply borne out by the fact that among the foremost dignitaries of the court of Lahore, there were many who owed their position to their own personal qualities, rather than any hereditary recommendation.
Ranjit Singh’s authority was never based upon his inherent superiority, or any Theory of the Divine Right of Kingship. He never arrogated to himself any high-sounding titles, or claimed supernatural powers. On the contrary, he always justified his aggressive designs by showing that they were directed to the glory of the whole Sikh Church. It is indeed by recalling to our mind the political environment in which the religion of the Sikhs had developed, and the fact that its transformation into a military creed was a counterblast against the Muslim bigotry, that we fully realize the real cause of the popularity of Ranjit Singh’s government.
From the viewpoint of his own subjects, the despotism of Ranjit Singh on the whole may be described as benevolent. He was no alien ruler in point of race and religion. Under his authority, the economic resources though limited, were utilized fully within the empire. Through the blessings of his rule, Punjab entered upon a period of internal peace and prosperity, which had been denied for several generations, when compared to the conditions which preceded the establishment of Ranjit Singh’s rule.
Ranjit Singh, however, cannot be said to have bestowed any constitution on the Punjab. If he had any theory of government, it was to reduce all his subjects to the same political level. This was one of his fixed aims. For this purpose he reduced every Sikh chieftain to a subordinate semi-feudal position. He had not inherited any elaborate system of government from his predecessors, much because of the pre-occupation of the chiefs in resisting foreign invasions. Such an atmosphere was obviously little conducive to the growth of definite ruler, or development of any check on the absolute power of the ruler. The Punjab had virtually degenerated into chaos and confusion at the time of the establishment of Ranjit Singh’s authority and he was occupied for over thirty years with military campaigns for the consolidation of his Kingdom.
Hence in the words of Dr. G.L. Chopra, “It was but natural that he (Ranjit Singh) should confine his efforts in the field of legislation to the task of restoration and the revival of a workable system of administration rather than aim at innovation and introduction of new laws.”

Was the Quit India Movement a failure?

The Quit India Movement was a great event in the history of Indian freedom struggle. The failure of the Cripps Mission, the impending danger of the Japanese forces of their advance towards India, ill-treatment with the Indians in Burma and the rising prices of the daily needs forced the Congress leadership to launch a movement under Gandhi ji against the British.

On 29th April, 1942 the Congress Working Committee met in Allahabad and passed a resolution, "Not only the interests of India, but also Britain's safety and world peace and freedom demand that Britain must abandon her hold over India. It is on the basis of independence alone that India can deal with Britain or other nations."

The CWC met in Wardha on 14th July, 1942 and put forth the famous Quit India Resolution, which was passed by the Congress Executive on 8th August at its meeting in Bombay. After the resolution as adopted, Gandhi ji clarified, "Everyone of you should from this moment onwards consider yourself a free man or woman and act as if you are free. .... I am not going to be satisfied with anything short of complete freedom." He advised for the Hindu-Muslim unity, no place for fraud in the Satyagraha, to pay the share of the land-lords if they support the peasants but if they side with the government they should be given nothing, no need to leave the jobs but instead declare full loyalty for the Congress, the soldiers to refuse to fire on their countrymen, and the students to boycott their classes only if they were to remain adamant to it.

By the time, when the government was involved completely in the World War, it was a great setback to her. No govt. can at this time tolerate any movement, though it is non-violent, because no movement can remain non-violent for long. Consequently, all the congress leaders were arrested and put behind the bars. It provoked the Indians and the movement spread like the jungle-fire in most parts of the country. On 6th July, 1944 Gandhi ji was released by the Govt. due to his ill-health. On 27th July Gandhi ji met the Viceroy and put forth him his term that if the government declares in favour of India's independence, the congress was ready to call off the movement as well as to support the British government. However, the Viceroy refused to accept any such term. In fact, he was fully cautious of the fact that the zeal among the Indians regarding the movement had waned by that time. Consequently the movement was called off after some time. This may be a reason when Mr. K. Sudarshan, the RSS chief, declared that the movement was a failure and the Congress can't claim for herself for the freedom of the country.

Mr. Sudarshan may be right to some extent here.However, there may be certain reservations in his comment. It is right that the Congress had clarified before the commencement of the movement that "the peril of today necessitates the independence of India and the ending of British domination. No future promise or guarantees can affect the present situation or meet that peril." However, there were certain factors which attributed to the failure of its outcome. Some of it were that there was no co-ordination among the leaders, no support from other political parties, no proper planning and above all, the majority of the Congress leaders were put behind the bars before the movement.

Here we should keep in mind that though the movement failed to attain anything immediately, but it created such zeal and fervour in the country which forced the British rulers to quit the country soon. Woodrow Wiglut, the advisor to the Cabinet Mission, had also stated that if the British failed to decide anything positive there would be another revolt in the nation. It also failed that theory that the British were experienced in solving any sort of situation. Thus we should not believe the movement a total failure.

A strong Govt. is necessary for the country's stability

Today, the major problem for India is its law and order situation. No one is secure in the country so far one's life or property is concerned. Bihar and U.P. are the worst hit in this connection. There are a number of cases of theft, dacoity, rape, murders etc. However, the government puts the responsibility on the police, the police on the country's legal system, the courts give their verdict on the basis of the constitution and the process goes on without any positive result. If there is any major mishappening in the country and there is much uproar over it, the matter is tried to be hushed up by appointing a commission. And rarely has this commission come to any conclusion. Even if it does, many ifs and buts are put over the report, that it is found better to reject it for once and all.

What happened in the case of the Mumbai blasts in 1993, is open to all. The enquiry, and then the courts and after 13 years how many convicts have died, how many are awarded the benefit of doubt, and how many will be punished and how is a question to be considered. Take the case of the Parliament attack. One Mohammad Afzal Guru has been given the death sentence, but many groups and organisations, including the CM of J&K and the human rights organisations, have come to his support, pleading the President of India to show clemency to him and forgive him. There are a number of terrorist outfits in India and a huge number of anti-social elements. However, to give death sentence on one day and to condone it on the other, is just a mockery of our legal system. After all, it is the duty of the government to give securityto all the inhabitants of its land. Such policies of the governments are merely putting the masses at the mercy of the criminals and if saved, they are exploited by the defective legal system.

Today hardly anybody dares to help the police, the reason being that he who shows courage will be prosecuted to an extent if he were a criminal.We study a lot of the legal system in the past. There were then no such courts, no such lawyers, no expensive process, but the justice was provided speedily and justifiably. The Mauryan and the Gupta rulers are remembered today in history for their love for justice. Go through the reign of the Sultans of Delhi as well the Mughal rulers, and one's head is raised in pride of being an Indian. Similar was the case during the British rulers as well. There was hardly any criminal who dared to challenge thestrength of the then rulers. No doubt, there were revolts, but they were crushed immediately, and no one waited for the rebels to have tired and then surrender. The names of Ala-ud-Din Khalji, Balban and Sher Shah Sur were terror for the criminals. The time has come if the government of India wants to actstrongly and effectively, it will have to amend its legal structure. I remember the days of Emergency during 1975 to 1977. The period should be considered the golden phase so far the law and order in the country is concerned. We are being ruled by the rats, and the great philosopher, Voltaire, used to say, "I would prefer to be ruled by one lion rather than by one hundred rats." Hence pray for a strong government and the ethical politics, without which nothing positive is going to be possible.

What is History?

I have been a student of History for the last 36 years now, perhaps when I was in class II. Since then I am deeply impressed by this subject. However, it is a tragedy that in India, at least, which has today a population of one thousand million plus, the subject is totally a discarded one. I remember, when after passing out my Matric exams, I was put on the Board's merit list, I received a huge number of my well wishers, who insisted on me to take medical or non-medical, or at least Commerce for my college studies. When I clarified them that I was not a champion of science or maths, and I may be happy with History and Political Science as my subjects for higher studies, none had objection with Pol. Science, but was infuriated with the name of History.

After all, what is in History? Why are you going to waste your time with a useless subject, just digging the graveyards of the dead? I was astonished at the behaviour for a subject by the majority of masses. Personally I have no grudge for any subject. After all, every subject has its own value. It is only up to the mental level of a person that he is weak in one and brilliant in another. There is a majority who is very fine in Maths or Science, but knows nothing about History.

During my College days, I came across a very fine statement by an English philosopher, Bacon, that History makes a man wise. I kept on thinking that how can a person become wise by studying History. Or if one who doesn't study History is a fool? No, not at all. In fact, History is something which gives us knowledge about our past. I came across a very fine study about History by E.H.Carr- 'What Is History'. It was here that my vision about the subject became more clear. No doubt, History teaches us our past. But here we are dependable on evidences. Not all the past is History. History is not a study of fables. It is a study of the facts, the facts which we explore, and may be named the historical facts. Here Marc Bloch gives a very interesting example. He writes that during the past, a number of people would have died by the bite of dogs or monkeys, but we don't find any reference to them. The reason is that no records of them were kept. However, Peter the Great, the great Czar of Russia died after he was bit by a monkey, is a record in the history. Carr writes that it is essential for a historian to know where from is he going to access his evidence, just as a fisherman knows which lake or river would fetch him fish.

It is true that history is not like science where we would conclude on the basis of experiments. It is not possible to have a view of the battle of Panipat, by calling the souls of Ibrahim Lodhi and Babur alogwith their soldiers. It is only from the record books that we can gain our knowledge. On the other hand if we want to know as to how did the people in those times felt regarding the political or social or economic environment, it is possible to understand from our present circumstances if they persist. For example if we want to know as to how the people during the beginning of the 16th century in India felt when there was anarchy and confusion all around, and corruption was at its height, it is not difficult to understand as the present day is a clear example. We must accept Mr. Carr's views that History is an unending dialogue between the past and the future, that we understand our past staying in the present and reconstruct our future. If we don't study history, we would be committing the same follies which were committed in the past.

THE UPRISING IN 1857

Ever since the victory of Plassey in 1757 AD, and putting the French East India Company to its political doom, the British East India Company established its rule in Indian and gradually tightened its grip over the major part of the country. The British introduced significant changes in the different spheres, which proved disastrous to the solidarity of their rule. The rival forces joined their hands, thus leading to the great upheaval in 1857.

                                                                             I

Divergent views are held on the nature of the 1857 uprising, whether it was a military mutiny or the first national war of independence, or a Hindu -Muslim voice against the impending danger of Christianity - is a matter of controversy among the historians. Sir John Lawrence and James Seeley feel that the uprising of 1857 was a “wholly unpatriotic and selfish Sepoy Mutiny with no native leadership and no popular support.” This opinion is accepted by Trevelyan, C. Raikes, P. E. Roberts, and Edwards and Garratt. The contention of these writers is that the uprising was influenced by the sepoys, who had their own grievances and held the British government responsible for the same. The revolt had started from the cantonments and remained effective around the same. Obviously, it was the case of greased cartridges which sparked the fire. Onthe other hand, the civilians, by and large, remained unaffected by all these developments. Indeed, the Indian rulers, who had grievances against the British, rose to the occasion after the sepoy uprising; otherwise they had no courage to take such a step.

Kaye and Malleson name it an organised Hindu - Muslim rising, which Reese prefers to call it a war of religious fanaticism against Christianity. J. Outram is of the opinion that “it was a Mohammedan conspiracy making capital of Hindu grievances.” However, Benjamin Disraeli observes that it was a well-planned, well-organised and vigilant event. 

There is a nationalist approach to this event, forwarded by V. D. Savarkar, K. M. Panikkar and Ashok Mehta, who observe that it was the First National War of Independence, in which Indian masses from all walks of life participated. The grievances of the people, as a consequence of one hundred yeas of British rule, forced them to stand in unison, putting aside all their differences, as matters caste and religion. The evidence came when even the Hindus acknowledged Bahadur Shah II as their ruler. The Hindus and the Muslims swore by the Ganges and the Holy Quran to get rid of the British rule, which was the common objective of the rebels everywhere. The event was confined not only to the military Mutiny, but spread rapidly and achieved the character of “a popular rebellion and a war of Indian Independence.”

After going through the above analysis, one comes to certain conclusions:

(a) It was a military mutiny.

(b) It was a religious war of the Hindus and the Muslims against Christianity.

(c) It was a national war of independence aimed at the freedom from the alien rule, and in which Indians from all walks of life participated.

However, there are certain limitations in accepting any of these views. In fact, the movement was never religious in character. Christianity was being supported by the British government, which was posing a general threat to the Hinduism and the Islam. But in this struggle those who were defeated were the followers of a religion and not religion itself. Secondly, it was not on the whole, a sepoy mutiny. Though the sepoys provided boon to other elements to operate, they did not take part in it from all over the country. In many places, many of them even supported the British cause. Thirdly, the revolt did not cover the whole of the country, but its scope was limited only to certain parts. The majority of the North and the Deccan remained entirely unaffected or fought on the side of the foreigners against the rebels. The revolt had nothing constructive as its objective rather than the anti-British base. There is a recent approach towards the character of the mutiny, led by Dr. R. C Majumdar. He holds the view that “the so called First National War of Independence of 1857 is neither first nor National, nor a War of Independence.” According to him, those who participated did so not out of any nationalist consideration, but only to further their self - interests. In fact, the population was, by and large, unaware of nationalism during 1857. The struggle was much less for the freedom of India, but for Jhansi or Oudh etc. It is the general contention that the civilians also participated in the revolt along with the sepoys, and that the former were punished to death in great number because of this reason. But it is significant to understand the social stratification of the civilians in this uprising. The major role in the rural areas was played by the peasant, who held the moneylenders as the source of their agony. These moneylenders were supported by the British which caused unrest among the peasants against the government. However, the revolt was strong in the rural areas only where the moneylenders’ position was weak and the hereditary caste and clan groups were strong. There were certain castes and tribes in the Central and Northern India, which had been subdued, found an opportunity when the British rule was shaken. They again returned to their traditional profession of loot and plunder, and there was nothing national in it. As matters the feudal lords, they had an intention of regaining their old status of the medieval times.

From the above survey, it is not proper to name this event either the military uprising, because it remained active in and around the cantonments; or the first war of independence, because people from all walks of life took active part in it without any distinction of caste or religion. People lacked the sense of national consciousness, and those who rebelled did so influenced by a variety of grievances. The revolt, however, sowed the seeds of national awakening, which were to be observed in the coming years. 

                                                                                  II

The major reason regarding the outbreak of the revolt is associated with the greased cartridge controversy. The soldiers were provided with the new Enfield Rifles and the cartridges were allegedly greased with the fat of cow and pig. These cartridges were to be opened with the mouth before using in the rifles. It enraged the Hindus and the Muslim soldiers, because it hurt their religious sentiments. When the soldiers objected to its use, they were court-martialled, thus “falling as a spark on dry tinder.” However, the cartridge issue was not the whole important. Obviously, it had only enraged the soldiers and gave the military feed to the discontented general masses and the ruling classes, who hated the British rule for its political, economic, socio-religious and military policies. In fact, “the first century of British rule in India set the stage for the great tragic drama which was to celebrate the centenary of its foundation in the blood and tears.”

The British came to India as traders and took advantage of its political weaknesses, created by its lack of unity and mutual distrust. As a consequence of the French defeats in the Carnatic Wars, and the British victories at Plassey (1757) and Buxar (1764), the East India Company established its rule in Bengal. Apart from defeating the Marathas and the Mysore, the British made a successful bid to hold their political control over different States in India. The Subsidiary Alliance System, formed by Lord Wellesley, set up the British influence in many States including Oudh, Tanjore, Carnatic, Hyderabad, Mysore, Nagpur, Indore, Gwalior, Baroda, Jaipur, Jodhpur and Bhopal, and annexed many parts into the Company’s Empire. The work of the political conquests was carried on by Lord Hastings, William Bentick and Ellenborough . The crises reached its climax under Lord Dalhousie. The Doctrine of Lapse gave the authority to the Company Empire to annex all the States of the heirless rulers. The adopted sons of such rulers could not succeed unless permitted by the East India Company. Luckily or otherwise, the States of Satara, Jhansi, Nagpur, Jaitpur, Sambalpur, Udaipur and Bhagalpur fell a prey to this policy which caused restlessness among the ruling classes. The titles and pensions of the Raja of Tanjore, the Nawab of Carnatic and Nana Sahib, the adopted son of Peshwa Baji Rao II were abolished. Dalhousie’s imperialism crossed all the limits, when in 1856, Oudh was annexed to the Company’s rule on the pretext of mal-administration. Even the Mughal Emperor, Bahadur Shah II, was informed that his sons would be deprived of the title, fort and palace, which hurt the Muslim sentiments in the country and added fuel to the fire. The Mughal Empire was, in fact, looked upon as the pillar of Islamic State in India and the loss of the Empire was, in other terms, a loss to the position of the Muslims.

The administrative set up was also a cause of discontentment to the Indians. The British ruled the country from England. They had no sentiments, and no sense of gratitude for the Indians. The natives were deprived of the high posts in the administration. Though the Charter Act of 1833 mentioned that caste, creed or colour would not become a barrier to appointments, it was not implemented. No doubt, Lord William Bentick had appointed Indians on lower posts, but the key posts were reserved for the Europeans. The Charter Act of 1853, recommended for the competitive examinations for those aspiring to higher administrative positions, but the Indians found its terms too harsh for themselves to get through. The examinations were conducted in England, and the maximum age limit was 22 years. The highest office any Indian could aspire for, was that of a Deputy Collector in the Executive and a Sadar Amin in the Judiciary. The natives could not approach their English officers easily, and were ill-treated by them. They were considered inferior “even to the backward persons of the most backward of the European countries.” Sir Syed Ahmed Khan exposed in The Causes of the Indian Revolt that the absence of Indian representatives in the Governor-General’s Legislative Council was an important factor leading to the revolt. The Government could not understand the feeling of the subjects. In his opinion, it was in the general interest of the government to have the representative voice in its Council.

Suspicions and hatred towards the British rule increased on the socio-religious grounds. The government allowed the Christian Missionaries in 1813 to spread their religion in India, and they did so with much zeal. Even the government supported their cause. Missionary schools were opened with this very object. During a severe famine in 1837 in Upper India, the relief work was left with the charitable institutions, and it gave an opportunity to the missionaries to undertake their proselytizing task. Those who converted to Christianity were fed properly. The Disabilities Act of 1856 guaranteed the rights over inheritance, even after conversion, but only to Christianity.

The spread of Western education, the introduction of female education and the establishment of railways and telegraph system were looked upon by the Indians an instrument to crush their religion. They government also started interfering into the social structure of the Indians. The abolition of Sati and female infanticide, and the introduction of secular legal system was a danger to the prevailing structure. The abolition of Persian in the courts also offended the Muslims. The new system affected the priestly classes to a large extent and they toyed with the fears of the common masses in instigating them against the government.

Here the blame rests not with the common masses, as they were ignorant of the objectives and utilization of all these innovations, but with the officials themselves. They issued certain statements, which raised the fears in the minds of the natives. Mangles, the Chairman of the Board of Directors, declared in the House of Commons, “Providence had entrusted the extensive Empire of Hindustan to England in order that the banner of Christ should wave triumphant from one end of India to the other. Every one must exert all his strength — in continuing in the country the grand work of making all Indians Christians.” The statement of Major Edwards that “the Christianization of India was to be the ultimate end of our continued possession of it,” made the Indians deadly against the British rule. The British officials, military as well as civil, used abusive language for Lord Rama and the Prophet, and prevailed upon their subordinates to convert to Christianity. The Indians were discriminated even in the courts where they were meted out harsh punishments even for minor crimes, while the Christians received mild punishments for complex crimes.

The economic policies of the British had grave consequences on the Indian public, which stood to revolt. The economic exploitation of India started since the British established their rule here. The British economic policy proved beneficial to England, while it had drastic results over India. The Indian trade was kept in the hands of the British traders and were given many concessions, which had a negative impact on the economy of Indian traders. The Charter Act of 1813 brought to an end the monopoly of the East India Company to trade with India, while the Company rule began to serve the commercial interests of the English traders and the industrialists. To start with, the British opened their trade in spices, cotton, etc. but after the industrial revolution their policy in trade matters also changed. “India became a milch cow, while her own sons were gradually pushed to the starvation wage.” India exported raw materials to England at cheap rates, while became a ready market for the sale of finished goods at high prices. The government aimed at destroying the Indian trade and manufactures; therefore it imposed heavy custom duties on Indian made goods in England, while a nominal duty was imposed on British manufactures in India. The result was that India became an economic colony for the British.

Not only were the trade and industry of India destroyed, but also the British rule led to the deterioration of agriculture. The revenue policy of the British did no favour either to the peasants or the zamindars. Revenue was imposed on the rent-free lands given in the form of religious grants as well. To make the matters worse, Lord William Bentick had confiscated land from a number of landlords who could not prove that these were assigned to their forefathers by the then rulers.

The army’s role in the revolt was very significant, but the soldiers had their own grievances. The inequality in the status of the Indians and European soldiers was disliked by the Indian troops. All the commissioned ranks were reserved for the Europeans, and the highest rank in the army an Indian could aspire for was that of a Subedar with a salary of Rs. 60 per month. However, their European counterparts used to draw the salary 7 to 8 times more than the Indians. The additional bhattas (allowances) of the soldiers was also stopped. The efforts of the British Generals to propagate Christianity among their ranks, was also a cause of misery to the Indian mercenaries. The number of the Indian soldiers in the army was much larger as compared to the Europeans. The heavy losses that the British had to suffer in Afghanistan encouraged the Indian soldiers. Discipline among them was waning and Lord Dalhousie had informed the authorities in England about it. To make the matters worse, the soldiers were abandoned to send the revenue free letter according to the Post Office Act, 1854. They had been enjoying this privilege so far. The General Services Recruitment Act, 1856, required the new recruits to serve any part they were sent. Though the new Act did not affect the old incumbents, it became very unpopular, because service in the Bengal Army was almost hereditary. It was felt against the social and religious beliefs to go across the sea. Earlier too, the Barrackpur Regiment was disbanded in 1824, when the soldiers had refused to go to Burma.

In the meantime, the controversy regarding the greased cartridges caught much fire, ultimately leading to the mutiny. Soon, it spread among the civilians as well, who were waiting for an opportune moment to strike.

                                                                              III

The banner of revolt was raised at Barrackpur on March 29, 1857. A young Brahmin sepoy Mangal Pandey, refused to use the greased cartridges and killed hisEuropean officers. The government disbanded the 34 N.I. Regiment and punished the guilty rebels.The mutiny spread like wild fire and in May 1857, 85sepoys of 3rd Cavalry Regiment, at Meerut, were court-martialled on their refusal to use the cartridges. On May 10, the rebels killed many European officers and got their fellows released.Even General Hewlett, at the command of 2200 soldiers, could not dare resist the mutineers.

On May 12, the rebels attacked Delhi. Lt. Willoughby surrendered after putting some resistance. Bahadur Shah Zafar was declared the Emperor of India, to which he hesitantly accepted. The loss of Delhi was very tragic to the British position.

Soon the rebellion centered around Lucknow, Kanpur, Barreily, Benaras, Jhansi and many towns in the Central and Northern India. To crush the revolt, Lord Canning felt the expediency of re-establishing the British authority over Delhi. Military assistance was sought from the Presidencies of Bombay and Madras and the Chief Commissioner of Punjab Sir, John Lawrence. The British got valuable services from the Gorkhas, the Sikhs and a number of rulers from the Indian states. Delhi was besieged under Sir Henry Bernard and Wilson, while the rebels fought bravely under Mirza Mughal and Bakht Khan. However, General Nicolson succeeded in recapturing Delhi on September 14, but soon after succumbed to his injuries received during the battle. Bahadur Shah was arrested from the tomb of Humayun by Lt. Hudson, while his two sons and a grandson were publicly shot. The loot and plunder of Delhi by the British troops continued for three days and surpassed even the loot of Nadir Shah.

The revolt broke out in Lucknow on June 4, 1857. The rebels attacked the British Residency and killed its Resident, Sir Henry Lawrence. The efforts of Havelock and Outram to recover Lucknow failed. Later on Sir Colin Campbell at the head of the Gorkha Regiment, entered the city in March 1858, but the guerilla activities continued till September.

In June 1857, the revolt broke out in Kanpur also and the rebellious troops occupied the city. Nana Sahib declared himself the Peshwa and forced Sir Hugh Wheeler to surrender on June 27. Taking revenge of the atrocities committed on the Indians by General Neil at Allahabad and Benaras, the Indian troops murdered many English men and women in Kanpur. On July 17, Gen. Havelock defeated Nana Sahib and forced him to retreat towards Fatehgarh, but after

The decisive battle was fought in the first week of December, when Sir Colin Campbell defeated the rebels on December 6. Nana Sahib fled towards Nepal, while Tantia Tope escaped and joined Laxmibai, the queen of Jhansi. Laxmibai, the widow of King Gangadhar Rao, led the rebels in Jhansi in June 1857. On April 3, 1858, Sir Hugh Rose attacked Jhansi and recaptured it. Laxmibai fled to Kalpi, where assisted by Tantia Tope, inflicted many losses on the enemies. Ultimately, the British defeated the rebels on May 24. Laxmibai and Tantia Tope fled to Gwalior and sought Sicindia’s help. But Sicindia, showing loyalty to the British refused to assist them. However, the troops of Gwalior revolted against Scindia and forced him to flee towards Agra. Sir Hugh Rose attacked Gwalior on June 11, and after a fierce battle of 8 days, captured the town Rani Laxmibai gave a fine expression of her bravery, but died on the battlefield. Tantia Tope, who had fled to the South, was arrested in April 1859.

The death of Laxmibai proved to be a death knell to the revolt. Though there were rebellions in Rohilkhand, Bareilly, Shahjahanpur, Bihar, parts of Rajputana, and the Maratha territories, these had no impression on the destruction of the alien rule and were very easily crushed. By December 1858, the British were able to re-establish their authority all over India.

                                                                                IV

The rebels had shown the signs of their extreme bravery, but the British had their day. Varieties of factors are held responsible for the failure of this upheaval from the Indian point of view. The superiority of the British arms, discipline in their troops and their control over telegraph system played a very significant role in the Company’s success over the rebels. At this critical juncture, the British secured valuable support from many Indian States including Patiala, Jind, Nabha, Kapurthala, Gwalior, Hyderabad, Rampur etc. Even Canning observed that the British would have been forced to pack, had Scindia joined the rebels. Even the warrior

The political diplomacy of the British had its own role in this success. They created the communal differences among the Hindus, the Muslims and the Sikhs to a great extent and successfully played on these. On the other hand, they won the support from the rulers of the States. In his analysis, Dr. R. C. Majumdar observes, “A race which could successfully employ the sepoys against the Sikhs, and then the Sikhs against the sepoys, the sepoys against the Pathans and the Gurkhas, and then the Pathans and the Gurkhas against the sepoys, certainly deserves a Empire.”

A serious drawback on the part of the rebels, was the lack of any common solid objective. Apart from their limited resources, indeed, the rebels had an anti-British attitude in common, but they had nothing national in them. Each party had its divergent interests and had only to fulfil the same. While Bahadur Shah, Laxmibai and Nana Sahib were eager to achieve their political interests, they were not serious towards the hardships of the peasantry and the menial classes. Their unity with the sepoys was also only to strengthen their military positions. Moreover, inefficiency of the rebel leaders against the British was also observed. Obviously, they fought bravely, but it was their strategy that mattered.

Last but not the least important factor was the attitude of the civilians towards the sepoys. The plundering activities and the reckless destruction on their part had alienated the general masses from them. Civil population did not help them at any stage, which was ultimately a factor of the failure of the cause of the revolt.

                                                                               V

The Mutiny was suppressed, but it had the long-drawn consequences over the Indian history, which affected almost each and every sphere of life. P. E. Roberts writes, “The suppression of the Mutiny was deemed a fitting time for the Crown finally to take over the control of the Indian government.” The suppression led, on the one hand, to the end of the Mughal rule in India, and on the other of the East India Company, which had established its political authority with the conquest of Plassey (1757). The Company protested against the decision and held that she established the rule in India at a time when the Crown was losing her significant colonial government in the United States. John S. Mill even filed a petition against the decision but of no use, and the administration passed over to the Crown on November 1, 1858. Sir H. S. Cunningham remarked that it was “a formal than a substantial change.” According to the Act of 1859, the Board of Control and the Court of Directors were abolished, and their place was taken over by the Secretary of State for India. The Council of India was formed consistently of seven members. The Indian administration was to be supervised by the Viceroy of the Crown. “For a few years, Crown and Parliament showed a keen desire to supervise Indian affairs, but this gradually diminished. Towards the end of the sixties hardly a dozen members took any active interest in India.” Soon certain factors strengthened the importance of the Secretary of State and his position in the Cabinet increased his authority over the finances and political activities of the government of India.

A very significant aspect of the aftermath of the revolt was the enactment of Indian Councils Act of 1861. As the British had acquaintance of the Indian reaction towards the government’s policies, the Indians were nominated to the Legislative Council. The annexation policy of the East India Company, especially the Doctrine of Lapse, was a prime factor of many States raising the banner of revolt, even though the Company’s officials deny this fact. The timely assistance provided by other States helped in crushing the revolt and consequently deeply affected the policy of the Government towards the Indian States during the future course. Lord Stanley, the Secretary of State for India, expressed his views before the House of Commons: “I think also that the Government, whether in India or in this country, have profited sufficiently by the recent and costly experience, not to feel inclined to pursue that policy of annexation, which, whether well or ill-founded, has undoubtedly, in a great degree, been the cause of the present disaster.” The valuable support of the Indian States had defended the British cause. Sir John Lawrence, the Chief Commissioner of Punjab, reported to Lord Canning, “Had they (the Sikh chiefs of cis-Sutlej territories) deserted our cause any time before the fall of Delhi, the communications with the Punjab would have been cut off. . These chiefs not only remained staunch, but acted vigorously on our behalf.” Those who supported the government at this critical juncture were announced many rewards - monetary, territorial as well as titular. To conciliate these Princes, the Queen in her proclamation assured of the safety of their territories and to respect their rights, dignity and honour. They were given the rights of adopting sons and nominating them as their political heirs. Lord Canning realised both at home and in the Council. Metcalfe assesses that “should British power ever in the future be challenged by a foreign foe, or British resources be drained from India to fight a European war, the support of these princes would be worth more to the Empire than any number of British troops.”

The revolt had a serious impact on the Indo-European relations, which caused racial bitterness on both the sides. While the Indians were furious over the British atrocities committed on them, the British could not forget the Indians “behaving like brutes and killing English men, women and children” during the days of the revolt.

The Queen had declared that everybody would be granted equal protection of the law and that recruitment to different services and promotions were to be made on the basis of merit, though it was not implemented. The bureaucrats were not willing to treat the Indians on the same footing. Wells, a judge in the Calcutta High Court, explained in the Legislative Council, “It is insulting to place the Europeans on the same level, and subject them to the same regulations as those tainted with the spirit of rebellion. Between the Indians and the Europeans there could be no equality.” The only policy of the British was to increase the respect for the Europeans and to treat the Indians as a subject race. Efforts were made to keep the Indians away from the higher administrative services.

A very serious effect of the revolt was on the Hindu-Muslim relations as well. Though both the communities had actively participated in it, but the Muslims showed more zeal and vigour. The British officers in Agra, Aligarh and Rohilkhand had also reported that the Muslims were “for the most part against us,” while the Hindus remained “almost universally friendly.” Similar views were held by the Government of Punjab. On the other hand, the Hindu and the Muslim leaders blamed each other for not extending full co-operation. The British took full advantage of those differences and adopted the policy of divide et imperis. They adopted the strategy of political counterpoises, which continued throughout their rule. All the avenues of progress and enhancement were opened in the Hindu dominated areas, while the Muslims lagged behind in the political, economic and cultural spheres.

The British learnt a lesson from the sepoy mutiny and felt it expedient to do away with the practices originally responsible for it. The Indian soldiers out-numbered their European counterparts by more that 5 times, and some cantonments were held only by the Indians. Consequently, the number of the Europeans was increased to such an extent that they should not be less than half the number of the Indians. Artillery was put strictly under the control of the Europeans. In order to check the possibility of the break-out of any such revolt, the units were divided on communal basis, e.g. the Jat regiment, the Sikh regiment, the Gorkha regiment etc. The number of the Brahmans and the Muslims in the army ranks was reduced, while those who had supported the British at this juncture, were recruited in great numbers. Moreover, the sepoys were forbidden to read the Indian newspapers.

Another relatively significant aspect was that the government showed no more interest in the social and religious reforms. It became also very much cautious in extending its support to the Christian missionaries.

The post mutiny period paved the way for the reorganisation of the fiscal system. The government’s finances were greatly shattered in her efforts to crush the revolt. Experts in the fiscal affairs were called from England and economic reforms were introduced, which began a new era in Indian economy. Annual budgets, income tax etc. were introduced. Additional taxes, apart from the land-revenue, on the landholders were also introduced. While free trade policy was adopted for exports on the raw material and tea, the custom duties were reduced on imports. The government undertook the steps to check the expenditures. However, the new commercial policy became highly detrimental to the Indian interest. Now, the basic aspect of the policy was the economic exploitation by the British as a whole. The Indian trade and industries had already been hampered, and the agriculture ruined. The British now created a wedge among the social classes, appeasing those who could be helpful for the continuance of their rule. The government supported the interests of the landlords and the feudal lords, while divided the peasant by granting certain concessions to the larger peasant farmers, and by enacting laws under which peasant lands could be bought and sold.

The Revolt of 1857 proved to be a turning point in the British rule in India. It was a cumulative result of a number of factors, each having its own importance. The revolt had created a sense of national awakening among the Indians, who in the future raised the banner of independence from the British rule. The revolt had failed in 1857, but it gave many lessons to the Indians to learn from its failure.

Purpose of Studying History

Every branch of knowledge has some purpose. If a particular branch of knowledge is not serving any purpose, it is of no use. History too serves some purpose and the importance of the subject depends upon the purpose it serves.

History serves the obvious purpose of entertainment by showing how things have come to be as they are.1 Herodotus, the father of history, is full of amusing stories but he has not comprised the dignity of the subject.2 This entertainment value of history is acceptable everywhere in the world.3 People are also interested in history because it provides satisfaction to the curiosity of a person.4 It shows them how things have become what they are and by studying history one may find many things that are unknown to him already.

As in the case of social sciences, the study of history is helpful in the understanding of other disciplines.5 As if we are to study how our present political system has come into existence or if we are to study how our present day social institutions have evolved we are to go to the past, which is the subject matter of history. The same is the case with other disciplines studying society in the present or planning for the future that they cannot function well without a historical perspective.

History only wants to show what happened. “The strict presentation of the facts is the supreme law of historiography.” Historian is to tell the truth, nothing but the truth.6 So when the business of history is to tell the truth or what really happened, it is by history that we learn much about the past. To understand something of the society, culture, politics and economic order of the earlier times, history enables one to rise above his own present circumstances and all this gives awareness and self-understanding.7 We know more than our ancestors knew and we acquire more command over the forces of nature.8

The study of history is also essential for self-knowledge.9 One’s knowledge about oneself is increased, when one learns about the past. History is a human self-knowledge. It is thought that it is of basic importance to man that he should know himself. From history we know what man has done and what he is.10 It is essential for man to increase his own knowledge which is only possible through the study of history because it deals with the past and tells us what had happened. Through history we come to know those things that were not known to us earlier. The study of history is not the study of the isolated past but it is the study of one society in relation to the other i.e. the society of today and that of yesterday.11

The main purpose of the historian is self-understanding. He may want to understand himself, his people, and by understanding the experience of the earlier generations one can become better.12 So by this way history gives us better understanding of ourselves.

History can teach lessons. All writers from Thucydides to modern period are of this view that history teaches lessons. It teaches wise humility; and in the moment of darkness, confusion or pain, it teaches a wise patience.13 It is a pre-supposition of history that man is capable by the experiences of his predecessors and progress in the history rests on the acquired skills which include the capacity to master, transform and utilize one’s environment.14

History, after enquiring into the minds of every order, gives some lessons that are based on wisdom. So it is said that history is a guide for the present and for the future.15 There are critics who say that the events of the past are the unique events and history cannot be generalized. But history, according to E.H. Carr, is not concerned with the unique but with what is general in the unique.16 In history, we cannot separate them. The study of history contains innumerable instances that may find their parallels in other times and places. Therefore, the study of history enables us to draw lessons. For instance, it is from history we learn that whenever there was an undue increase in the land revenue, there were revolts. Thus it is a lesson.

It is also said that from the successes and failures of the people in the past we may learn something to guide our actions in the present. But it is also necessary that value of history, in this sense, should not be over-estimated because conditions of the present are vastly different from those of the past and their ideas and forms of conduct are different from those of the present.17 But it does not mean that we cannot learn anything from history rather we learnt much from it. As in the case of the situation in the Punjab. We have learned that whenever the religious feelings of the Sikhs were hurt, they rose against the authority, whosoever it may be. That is why the Indian government after independence has tried its level best to avoid interference in the religious affairs of the Sikhs. However, when Mrs. Indira Gandhi attacked the Golden Temple, whatsoever the circumstances would have been, there was all round resentment among the Sikhs, which culminated in her murder.

History is a dialogue between the events of the past and progressively emerging future ends.18 It is so because with the passage of time we have come to know much more about the past and with its experience we can suggest something for the future. It is due to history that mankind is moving from good to better.19 It is only on the basis of the past knowledge that we can say something in the present and also mould it to suit the future. But all this is possible if we have grasped the problem fully, i.e. the past of the problem and its every aspect.

The lessons that history offers make it possible to comprehend the events of today and to foresee the future.20 So it is rightly said that future is shaped with the help that past offers.21 It is so that one learns from history, because among other things, it tells us that what were the follies committed in the past and what was its outcome. So one with the experience of the past, moulds one’s coming times to such direction so that nothing should happen in future which must be harmful to the society.

In a nutshell, the dual task of history is to enable man to understand the society in the past and also to increase his mastery over the society of the present.22 To give people full sense of their future one needs to have, first of all, a full sense of one’s past, which is possible only through history.23 Though the past act is dead, yet by re-enacting the thought historically we can use that heritage for our own advancement in future.24 History helps us to understand how the world has developed as it is and also promotes the knowledge of human nature.25 History is invaluable in increasing our knowledge of human nature, because it shows how people may be expected to behave in new situation.26 So history tells us what really has happened in the past and it suggests remedies for the present and guides our future. All this, i.e. to know the past is possible only through history.

References:
1. Jacques Barzun & Henry F. Graff, The Modern Researcher, Harcourt Brace Javanvich, New York 1977, p.11.
2. Bertrand Russel, Understanding History, Philosophical Library, New York 1957, pp. 18-19.
3. Allan Nevins, The Gateway to History, Vora & Co., Bombay 1968, p.21.
4. John C.B. Webster, An Introduction to History, Macmillan, Delhi 1977, p.1.
5. R.G. Collingwood, The Idea of History, Oxford University Press, New York 1976 (reprint), 205.
6. Hans Meyerhoff, The Philosophy of History in our own times, Doubleday Anchor Books, NewYork 1959, pp. 13- 16.
7. John C.B. Webster, op cit, 165.
8. Bertrand Russel, op cit, 54-55.
9. R.G. Collingwood, op cit, 292.
10. Ibid, 134.
11. E.H. Carr, What is History?, Penguin Books, London 1977 (reprint), p.5.
12. John C.B. Webster, op cit, 24.
13. Allan Nevins, op cit, 19-21.
14. E.H. Carr, op cit, 117.
15. Allan Nevins, op cit, 19-21.
16. E.H. Carr, op cit, 63.
17. Alban G. Widgery, The Meaning of History, George Allan & Unwin, London 1967, pp. 13-14.
18. E.H. Carr, op cit, 121-123.
19. Ibid, 125.
20. L. Vidyasova, “Turning Points of History”, in International Affairs (ed. V.P. Shafranov), Progress Publications, Moscow July 1981, p. 131.
21. John Webster, op cit, 13.
22. E.H. Carr, op cit, 55.
23. Ibid, 58.
24. R.G. Collingwood, op cit, 230.
25. Bertrand Russel, op cit, 10.
26. Ibid, 25.

Maharaja Ranjit Singh's relations with Kangra

Ranjit Singh’s relations with the hill-chiefs in the Panjab are one of his policies of expansionism and annexation. It was the similar policy adopted in the plains. Ever since he occupied Lahore, it was his ambition to unify the small and petty States of the Panjab into a great empire and rule over it. And this ambition of his increased after every conquest.

Ranjit Singh came into contact with the hill chiefs as early as in 1802 A.D. The Kangra chief, Sansar Chand Katoch, performed the dominant personality in the hills. The imperialist designs of Sansar Chand had also made the Lahore ruler his rival. The Katoch chief had clarified his imperialist policy, when he attacked the possessions of Sada Kaur and annexed some. Alarmed by the policy, being followed by Sansar Chand, he responded to the call of request made by the Rani and attacked the Kangra territories. Sansar Chand, finding it impossible for himself to check Ranjit, made peace with him, and agreed to pay nazrana fixed by the Maharaja.
But Ranjit was not content with all this. However, the opportunity he sought was found in 1804. The relations had once again estranged. After having overcome the fear of the Maharaja, he attacked Hoshiarpur and Bajwara. Ranjit Singh ousted the Katoch ruler very easily from these places with the help of his artillery.
All that Ranjit now did was, he kept a vigilant eye over the plans and activities of the Katoch chief. On the other side, the latter smelled danger not only from Ranjit Singh’s side, but the Nepalese under their able general, Amar Singh Thapa, ere on advance towards the Panjab hills. Thapa had established his sovereignty over Chamba, Nurpur, Kotla, Jasrota, Basauli, Jaswan, Mandi, Suket and Kullu. Thus the hill-territories were likely to become an open battlefield among Sansar Chand, Ranjit Singh and Amar Singh Thapa.

Being aware of the danger at the doors, Sansar Chand pretended to establish the relations of friendship and amity with the Sikh ruler. The former opened negotiations with the latter, but had his own dice to play. He promised Ranjit to hand over the fortress of Kangra to him as a reward of driving the Gorkhas away from the Katoch territory. Should Ranjit not be suspected and assuring his goodwill towards him, he sent his son, Anrudh Chand to him as a hostage. In the meantime, Sansar Chand was defeated by the joint forces of Amar Singh and other petty hill-chiefs. So he made a similar offer to Amar Singh provided he ousted the Sikhs. Sansar Chand hoped that in their armed clash, the Sikhs and the Gorkhas would destroy each other, thus keeping the field open for himself.

Ranjit was, however, not a man to fall so easily in the trap lay down by Sansar Chand. The moment he came to know of Sansar Chand’s duplicity, he put his son under arrest. After a fierce battle that ensued between the Gorkhas and the Sikhs, the former were forced to retreat. Thapa opened negotiations for peace. During the negotiations, he proposed to the Maharaja a joint attack against the Rajput hill-chiefs. He also offered the fortress of Kangra as the Sikh ‘share of spoil’. On Ranjit’s denial, he agreed to pay a nazrana of Rs. 1,00,000 and to leave the country, abandoning his conquests on the right side of the Sutlej.

After the expulsion of the Gorkhas, Ranjit Singh asked Sansar Chand to hand over the fort to him. As the Katoch ruler was hesitant to fulfill his promise, he also failed to check the Sikhs occupying it. On August 24, 1809, the Sikhs entered the fort without any sort of resistance and occupied it. Desa Singh Majithia was appointed the Governor of Kangra and other adjoining States.

The annexation of Kangra by the Sikh chief ended the supremacy of the Katochs in the hills. However, the Anglo-Sikh relations also affected Ranjit Singh’s relations towards the hill-states. The treaty of Amritsar (1809) signed between the British and Ranjit Singh had debarred the latter of all his conquests on the eastern side of River Sutlej, but was allowed to extend his domination in the North. Now although Sansar Chand had yielded before the Sikhs, yet he continued to intrigue against them. He secretly opened negotiations with the British government and pleaded them to interfere in his case, and also help him recover him recover his lost possessions. “My object is,” wrote Sansar Chand, “to get my former possessions together with the fort of Kangra restored to me and the administration of justice left in my hands.” The British Government, who did not want to lose the goodwill of his old ally, who held a buffer State between their and the Afghan dominions, however, paid no heed to Sansar Chand’s requests and the matter ended. Thus the intriguous efforts of Sansar Chand had no affect upon the imperialist policy of Ranjit Singh.

William Moorcroft commented in 1823, “He is now poor, and in danger of being wholly subjected to Ranjit Singh. His misfortunes are mainly owing to himself and his decline presents a remarkable contrast to the rise of his neighbour, and now paramount lord, Ranjit Singh.”

Ranjit willed to establish the relations of cordiality with the Katochs. Till his death in 1824, Sansar Chand was allowed to rule over his territories as a tributary of Lahore. His son, Anrudh Chand succeeded him. The Maharaja anted to bring him very close to him by establishing matrimonial relations with the Katochs. In 1828 A.D., the Maharaja offered a proposal for Hira Singh’s (son of Dhian Singh) marriage with Anrudh’s sister. As Anrudh was hesitant, he arranged her marriage with the Raja of Garhwal. After his death, the entire Katoch territories were annexed and the Maharaja assigned suitable jagirs to the legitimate heirs of the Katoch family.

The Maharaja himself established the matrimonial alliance with the Katoch family, when he married two of the daughters of late Raja Sansar Chand at Jawalamukhi. According to the Umdat-ut-Tawarikh, one of those, called Katochan, performed sati at the death of the Maharaja.

Lord Hardinge's policy towards the Panjab

The appointment of Lord Hardinge as the Governor General of India in 1844, took place at a time when the relations between the Kingdom of Lahore and the British India were passing through a very critical phase. The history of their relations could not but arouse the suspicions of the Khalsa as to the intentions of the British towards the Kingdom of Lahore. For Lord Hardinge had already carried a reputation as a war veteran during the revolutionary and Napoleonic wars. To the eyes of a far seeing student of history it appeared as if the British Government had appointed him purposely, to direct personally the military operations against the Kingdom of Lahore. That was bound to take place in the near future.

That Hardinge was not a pacifist, is proved from his following letter to Major Broadfoot, written in October 1845: “The Panjab must, however, be Sikh or British, and I see no element out of which a Sikh government can possibly be constructed, the delay is merely a postponement of the settlement of the question.” Writing in the same strain, the Governor General continues, “At the same time we must bear in mind that as yet no cause of war has been given. The lull following the laid breeze will last, I think through the cold season and I anticipate no offensive operation.”

This letter of Hardinge clearly shows that the British were not as they publicly professed; mere passive and disinterested spectators of the anarchic condition in the Punjab. They were making systematic preparations for active intervention in the stormy and unstable political position of the Panjab. And in the preparations, the contribution of Hardinge was of no small measure. Within a year of his assuming the office, Hardinge added 23,000 men and 28 pieces of guns distributed among Ludhiana, Ferozepur, Ambala and Meerut to the existing strength of the British garrison on the Panjab frontier, which was about 17,612 men and 66 guns towards the end of the Governor Generalship of Lord Ellenborough. He further assembled 1100 picked horses and mules at Mathura, and 500 elephants, 700 camels and a large number of bullock carts at convenient stations between Kanpur and Sutlej. In September, a flotilla of 60 large sized boats arrived at Ferozepur to be used for a bridge on the Sutlej in the event of a war.

It is thus clear that under the garb of forbearance and defensive preparation the soldier statesman carried on the policy of his predecessors with greater prescience and skill.

The war that broke out in December 1845, between the British and the Kingdom of Lahore was the deliberate outcome of the British imperialistic policy resulting in the ultimate victory of the British. But it may be pointed out here that the victory was as much the result of the valour of the British arms as the treachery of the Sikh commanders like Lal Singh and Tej Singh etc. and in encouraging them to be traitors to their Kingdom, the hand of Hardinge and his subordinates like Henry Lawrence was no less.

The war having broken out, Hardinge a seasoned soldier that he was, took an active part in directing the operations by moving about from place to place. The victory in this war ultimately sided with the British. The road to Lahore lay open to the victors. Having crossed the Sutlej, the Durbar emissaries hastened to tender their submission to Lord Hardinge.

After the war had been won, the task before Hardinge was much more difficult. It was the task of reconstructing the Kingdom of Lahore in a manner that would make it harmless in future. The farsighted Governor General realized that in the presence of a large number of Sikh soldiers spread all over the State, it would be a difficult affair to extend the boundaries of the British India to Indus by direct annexation of the Kingdom of Lahore without a protracted war of sieges. But the inadequate forces at the disposal of Commander-in-Chief prevented him from engaging in that war of sieges. Therefore, he ruled out the policy of annexation at this stage. The deficit in the Ludhiana treasury, the approaching hot weather and the weakened military resources – all combined to deter Hardinge from annexing the Kingdom of Lahore at that juncture.

But short of a nominal annexation, Lord Hardinge shrewdly gained all the advantages of it by arranging the terms of the Treaty of Lahore.

To turn to the treaty itself, by annexing the Jalandhar Doab and rendering the hills independent of the plains, the victors not only struck a deathblow to its weakened resources but destroyed its political stability as well. The articles relating to the reorganization and limitations of their army made it virtually impossible for the Sikhs to recover their former strength. The English right to control the two rivers and the restrictions on the employment of foreigners reduced the internal independence of the Panjab almost to a mockery. Principal S.R. Kohli has aptly described the treaty made with the Durbar on 9th March as “a blend of confiscatory, retributive and repressive clauses in it; the splitting of Ranjit Singh’s compact empire, a part each for the British, for Gulab Singh and the Durbar was already foreshadowed; and the army reduced to 1/3 of its strength.” Hardinge’s own letter to Henry Lawrence, dated 23rd October, 1846 may be quoted with benefit here to show the working of the mind of the Governor General while arranging the terms of the treaty: “The Panjab was never intended to be an independent State. By the clause I added, the chief of State can neither make war nor peace, nor exchange nor sell n acre of territory, nor admit a European officer nor refuse us a thoroughfare through its territories nor in fact perform any act without our permission. In fact, the native Prince is in fetters and our protection and must do our bidding.”

But the Treaty of Lahore did not mark the elimination of Lord Hardinge’s Panjab’s policy; it was just the beginning. In the months that followed, no efforts were spared to further strengthen the control of the British over the Kingdom of Lahore and remove the obstacles whatever and whenever they come in the way. This is clear from the trial and deposition of Lal Singh and tackling of certain other matters.

The Treaty of Bhyrowal gave the copingstone to Hardinge’s Panjab policy. Careful examination of the terms of the treaty clearly reveals that the imperialist Governor General gave a complete control to the British in all the matters of the State, internal as well as external through their Resident. The underhand measures employed by the Governor General in bringing the leading chiefs of the Durbar to accept the terms of the Treaty proposed by him and the removal of Rani Jindan from the scene cannot be justified by any code of international law. J.C. Marshmann has correctly observed about the Treaty of Bhyrowal, “an officer of the Company’s artillery became in effect the successor of Ranjit Singh.” The only regret that the Governor General had was that he had not been able to formally annex the plains of the Panjab to an Empire already overgrown. This is clear from his letter to Currie dated 10th December 1846, “Personally I may regret that it is not my fate to plant the British standard on the banks of the Indus.”