(11) Amjad Ali Shah (1842–1847)
After Muhammad Ali Shah’s death on 16th May, 1842 at the age of 76; his son Amjad Ali Shah, also known as Najm-ud-Daula Abul-Muzaffar Musleh-ud-din became Nawab of Awadh in 1842. His frivolous and indolent conduct and active involvement in Shia theology was deplored by both Sunni and Hindu sections of the society. Cole J.R. has written about his communal policies in the aforementioned book in the following words:
“Amjad Ali Shah enacted anti-Hindu policies, founding Shii shops to drive Hindu merchants out of business, and rewarding Hindu officials who adopted Imami Shiism. The provision of government welfare monies to only the Shii poor encouraged thousands of Hindus to convert to Shiism in the 1840s, according to clerical sources. Awadh’s fiercely Usuli governments showed little understanding of their Hindu subjects, allowing communal resentments to fester, a policy that culminated in a major battle over a religious edifice in Faizabad.”
The communal cleavage created in early 1850s was the culmination of the sectarian seed-sowings by Amjad Ali Shah and his son had to reap the bitter crop.
Amjad Ali Shah oppressed the people of Ayodhyā. Rupees twenty five lakhs were extracted from Raja Darshan Singh and his brother Bakhtawar Singh and they were banished from the kingdom. But Darshan was subsequently recalled because of the failure of the government in collecting revenue adequately. However, after the sudden death of Darshan Singh, there was no improvement in the situation. Amjad Ali Shah was a total failure as an administrator. During his regime confusion in governance got worse confounded and corruption became rampant. His stature in the eye of the British Resident was so low that the latter refused to attend his coronation ceremony in 1845. However, he remained faithful to the East India Company and gifted Rupees thirty two lakhs from his exchequer to meet the financial exigency that followed the Afghan disaster and for fighting the First Sikh war. On 13th February, 1847 Amjad Ali Shah died of blood poisoning and thus ended an inglorious chapter of Awadh history.
(12) Wajid Ali Shah (1847–1856)
After the death of his father Amjad Ali Shah, Wajid Ali Shah, the second surviving son of his father, ascended the Awadh throne as the fifth and last King of Awadh. Contrary to the general perception Wajid Ali Shah was an able administrator. He was far superior to his two predecessors in talent and far more cultured than many of his contemporary rulers. He had charming appearance, attractive demeanour, and aesthetic sense. His liberal education and literary aptitude had made him a tolerant, cultured and broad-minded ruler. His abstinence from alcoholic drinks was amazing. But the British bureaucrats have painted such a gentleman and competent ruler in such a dark colour that he is perceived as a wreckless ruler, debauch and a drunkard of the highest degree. He had many qualities which could have earned him a very good name in Indian history. But he was the most unlucky potentate. Before his ascendancy to the throne, the Governor Generals had decided to annexe Awadh on some pretext or the other in the tradition of the fable of a wolf and a lamb. Since he was not the eldest son of his father, he did not get training in the art of administration. However, he started the governance unexpectedly well. Because of his many measures aimed at the welfare of his subjects, he emerged as a benevolent king. He helped the British Government against the Sikhs at the cost of the displeasure of many of his nobles. But all this could not satisfy the pre-determined British authorities.
Impressive Silver Royal Emblem of Wajid Ali Shah.
Wajid Ali Shah was a very liberal ruler. He enjoyed Hindu festivals and plays related to Lord Krishna. He made no discrimination against the Hindus who occupied good posts during his regime. But an unfortunate communal incident first caused headache for him and even after its successful solution it became the excuse for Awadh’s annexation by East India Company in the name of law and order. In 1855 a dispute began when a Sunni zealot Shah Ghulam Husayn started a rumour about Hanuman Garhi that it was built on a site where a mosque had existed earlier. A number of Muslim zealots attacked Hanuman Garhi but they were bravely resisted by Bairagis who chased them up to the Janma-sthāna Masjid where, in a sanguinary battle, 68 Muslims and 12 Hindus were killed. In this bloody conflict the royal army of Wajid Ali Shah remained a moot spectator and did not side with anyone. Hindus took complete possession of the Janma-sthāna Masjid but after the arrival of the British troops they had to vacate it. Wajid Ali Shah constituted a committee to enquire into the allegation and submit a report. It comprised of one Muslim, one Hindu and the British Resident. The committee came to the conclusion that there was no mosque beneath the Hanuman Garhi, at least since 25-30 years. But the committee’s findings were not accepted by the Muslims who alleged that the Muslim member had taken bribe and succumbed to the doctored report. Thereafter, one Maulwi Ameer Ali led the jehad and started from Amethi along with a contigent of 700-800 determined warriors. They were confronted by the royal army and most of Amir Ali’s supporters were butchered and the agitation ended in a fiasco. But it exhibits great courage on part of a Muslim ruler to resist a Muslim agitation with force and violence. Wajid Ali Shah mustered that courage. The British Resident sent regular reports to higher authorities of the Company and carried on correspondences with the Nawab. They are available in the library of the National Archives of India in New Delhi. Many of them are quoted in the next chapter.
The situation in Awadh was not as bad as the Resident Sleeman had projected in his reports. He had been asked by Dalhousie to prepare an adverse report against Wajid Ali Shah, so that the reports could be a pretext for the annexation of the Province. Even the accounts of some European contemporaries were testimony to the fact that Awadh was not so badly governed as projected by Sleeman and Outram. The Governor General, the Marquis of Dalhousie, was not getting any occasion to intervene. Wajid Ali Shah had successfully handled the jehad crisis with an iron hand. The Governor General wrote that he was unable to find a pretext for annexation because the king of Awadh won’t offend or quarrel with us and “will take any amount of kicking without being rebellious.” Thereafter, on the basis of the reports of the Residents at Lucknow, Dalhousie denounced the Kingdom as ‘a fortress of corruption and infamous governments’. He sought to effect the extinction of the kingdom of Awadh by interpreting the old treaties of 1807 and 1837. First, he proposed that the status of a sovereign may be retained by the king of Awadh but he must “vest all power, jurisdiction, rights and claims in the hands of the East India Company.” Unfortunately, then there was no Edmund Burke in the British Parliament, who could expose the dishonest diplomacy of Dalhousie with a monarch who was so civilized and cultured!
Though Dalhousie’s tenure as Governor General had expired, he had sought extension just to annex the most faithful ally of the British Government. In the beginning of January, 1856 Dalhousie received two orders from the Court of Directors. One was the extension of his tenure and another was the approval of the annexation of Awadh. General Outram was the Resident at Oudh court. He was directed to persuade the King of Oudh formally “to abdicate his sovereign functions, and to make over, by a solemn treaty, the Government of his territories to the East India Company.”
Probably, never in the annals of Indian history a dignified king was subjected to such a humiliating treatment by a junior officer and never in such a momentous crisis a condemned king showed such royal dignity as Wajid Ali Shah did. On 4th February, 1856 the Resident Outram met the King Wajid Ali Shah and presented him a draft of the proposed treaty along with a letter of the Governor General Dalhousie urging him to accept it. But Wajid Ali Shah declared that “treaties were only between equals; that there was no need for him to sign it.” He further told Outram frankly that “the British had taken his honour and his country and he would not ask them for the means of maintaining his life.” After having said so, King Wajid Ali Shah took off the turban from his head and placed it in the hands of the Resident Outram. Outram was amazed. He could not ask the King to sign the proposed treaty or accept the stipend which was offered. Thereafter,
a proclamation was issued claiming the province of Awadh to be a component part of the Empire of the East India Company on 7th February, 1856. Having seen the fate of the Awadh Kingdom one should remember the Latin proverb and be alert: Timeo danaos et dona ferentes, i.e. Beware of the Greeks when they come bearing gifts. The Britishers came to Awadh as the protector of the Nawabs, but they devoured the whole territory. An arrogant despot Dalhousie declared in a derogatory and demeaning manner:
“The wretch at Lucknow, who sent his crown to the Exhibition, would have done his people and us a good service if had sent his head in it, and he never would have missed it.”
(13) Karl Marx’s indictment of the Annexation
In distant Europe the illegal and immoral annexation of Awadh to ever-expanding East India Empire was indicted by the great political philosopher Karl Marx in 1858 in the following indignant words:
“England, by one stroke of the pen, has confiscated not only the estates of a few noblemen, or of a royal family, but the whole length and breadth of a kingdom nearly as large as Ireland, “the inheritance of a whole people,” as Lord Ellenborough himself terms it.”
Marx wrote an article ‘The Annexation of Oudh’ on May 14, 1858 and it was published in the ‘New York Daily Tribune’ No. 5336 on May 28,1858. The article is a testimony to the correct analysis of contemporary events of Oudh and concern of Karl Marx for India. Marx correctly concluded:
“Now, why was Lord Dalhousie so eager to deny the validity of a treaty which all his predecessors, and even his own agents, had acknowledged to be in force in their communications with the King of Oudh? Solely because, by this treaty, whatever pretext the King might give for interference, that interference was limited to an assumption of government by Britisn officers in the name of the King of Oudh, who was to receive the surplus revenue. That was the very opposite of what was wanted. Nothing short of annexation would do. This denying the validity of treaties which had formed the acknowledged base of intercourse for twenty years;this seizing violently upon independent territories in open infraction even of the acknowledged treaties; this final confiscation of every acre of land in the whole country; all these treacherous and brutal modes of proceeding of the British toward the natives of Indian are now beginning to avenge themselves, not only in India, but in England.” (On Colonialism, p. 180)
(14) Consequences of the annexation
After this proclamation all the land in the territory of Awadh became the property of the British Government and no title of an individual or a group or a trust or a waqf was left. All the land including the Ramajanma-bhūmi-Baburi mosque plot became the ‘nazul’ land, i.e. the government land and hence neither the Hindus nor the Muslims did have any title or proprietary right on the disputed site.
How the British rulers were utterly ungrateful to the Kings of Awadh is reflected in the following letter of Lord Amherst written to the King of Avadh Ghaziuddin Hyder on 14th October, 1825; when the latter had advanced a loan of one crore of rupees during the financial crisis of the First Burmese war:
“The benefits and fruits of our amity, which have existed from days of yore, are impressed upon the heart of every Englishman, both here and in Europe as indelibly as if they had been engraved upon adamant (unalterable); nor will lapse of time or change of circumstances efface from the memory of the British nation so irrefragable a proof, so irritable an argument, of the fraternal sentiments of Your Majesty.”
Except Tipu Sultan who knew the true colour of the Britishers and hence never made any compromise with them every native ruler was deceived and betrayed by them. They devoured all those rulers who came to their rescue! The province of Awadh was annexed for the sake of good governance. But it was followed by the plunder of the private property of the royal family and administration of a cruel character which has been properly projected by Kaye in these words:
“It was charged against us that our Officers had turned the stately palaces of Lucknow into stalls and kennels, that delicate women, the daughters or companions of Kings, had been sent adrift, homeless and helpless, that treasure-houses had been violently broken open and despoiled, that the private property of the royal family had been sent to the hammer, and that other vile things had been done, very humiliating to the king’s people but far more disgraceful to our own.”
The new Governor General Canning sent all the charges to the Chief Commissioner of Awadh for enquiry. But despite several reminders and admonitions, the Commissioner did not submit a single report. The non-submission of any enquiry report indirectly confirmed these charges, though they were denied by many class-conscious British historians.
It is a tragic irony that such an impartial ruler was dethroned and Awadh was annexed by the avaricious authorities of the Company. Therefore, there was no surprise that Awadh witnessed such an intense struggle for the liberation from servitude under the British yoke that even Lord Canning had to admit that ‘the rising against our authority in Oude has been general, almost universal’.
(Canning to Secret Committee of Court of Directors, 17th June, 1858).
The disdainful deposition of Wajid Ali Shah resulted in widespread wave of sorrow and grief. Poor and rich, young and old, all were bewailing for the King and dropped tears from their eyes. Wajid Ali Shah left Lucknow on 13th March, 1856 and reached Calcutta on 13th May, where he was kept as a pensioner. After the outbreak of the Revolt he was detained as a prisoner at Matia Buruj near Calcutta where he died on 1st September, 1887. W. Crooke in ‘Songs About the King of Oudh’ has written:
“Noble and peasant all wept together
and all the world wept and wailed
Alas! The chief has bidden adieu
to his country and gone abroad.”
(Indian Antiquary, vol. XL, 1911, p. 62)
Chapter Seventeen
How a rumour resulted in the rupture
of relations between the twocommunities in 1855
[(1) Introduction (2) Storming of Hanumangarhi in July, 1855 (3) Land-grants to Abhayarãma Das (4) Constitution of a Commission of Enquiry headed by the Governor Agha Ali Khan (5) Negotiation between the King and Ameer Ali Amethavi (6) Correspondences between the Resident, the King and the Governor (7) Parcha No. 2 (8) Parcha No. 3 (9) Parcha No. 4, (10) Parcha No. 5 (11) Parcha No. 6 (12) Officiating Resident’s report on the escape of Shah Ghulam Hoosain (13) Officiating Resident J. Outram’s report (14) Encounter with Maulavi Ameer Ali (15) An interesting report of the ‘Friend of India’ of 1855. (16) Travel Account of the Begum Nawab of Bhopal (17) Errors in Neville’s Gazetteer]
(1) Introduction
Rumours ruin societies. They may ruin even a nation. Beware of rumours which are more explosive than time-bombs. If not checked in time, they can enlarge like a Surasã and engulf the whole society and even a nation.
Hanumangarhi is a famous and magnificent temple situated in the heart of Ayodhyā. It is dedicated to Hanumānjī, the chief devotee of Lord Rāma. Though the worship of Hanuman continued at the site since the time immemorial, the construction of the present grand temple started during the reign of Sa’adat Khan. As stated earlier, after the ascendancy obtained in the Galata conference in 1718 A.D., the Rāmanandi sadhus went to important pilgrim centres connected with the life of Rāma. Sadhu Abhayarāma Das came to Ayodhyā and he built the present Hanumangarhi temple. At Ayodhyā it is said that the Nawab Safdar Jung suffered from some severe illness and was cured by the prayer of Abhayarama Das. Thereafter, Nawab granted vast chunk of land and assisted him in the construction of the temple. This tradition may be true to the extent that he might have encouraged and financially helped Abhayarāma Das. But two Mughal Farmans indicate that it was Sa’adat Khan, the first Shia Nawab of Awadh during whose Governorship the Mughal Emperor Muhammad Shah granted vast chunk of land to Abhayarāma on the tila for the accommodation of Bairagi Sadhus. The constuction of the temple started during Sa’adat Khan’s time and continued during the Governorship of Mansur Ali K
han and Shuja-ud-daulah. It was completed during the days of Asaf-ud-dullah. Thus, the construction of this temple was carried out in the full view of four Nawabs of Awadh namely Sa’adat Khan, Safdar Jung, Shuja-ud-daulah and Asaf-ud-daulah. They would not have allowed the construction of a temple over a mosque. Ayodhyā continued to remain under the rule of the Nawabs and therefore there was no chance of building a temple either after demolishing a mosque or by superimposing the temple. But there is no end to the mischief a rumour monger can create.
(2) Storming of Hanumangarhi in July, 1855
In February 1855 A.D. Shah Ghulam Husayn sowed seeds of dissension by starting a rumour that “the site had originally supported a mosque subsequently supplanted by the Hanumangarhi. He collected a good number of crusaders and in July 1855 they stormed the Hanumangarhi” with a force of 400-600 zealots but they were repulsed and chased up to the Baburi mosque.
In the vicinity of the Rāma Janma-bhūmi temple a fierce battle was fought and about 75 Muslims and 11 Hindus were killed. The Hindus captured the mosque also for some time. During the entire sanguinary skirmish the royal force remained indifferent. It is said that when representations of the Hindus and Muslims were placed before King Wajid Ali Shah for passing an order to maintain peace, he wrote on one representation:
हम इश्क के बन्दे हैं, मजहब से नहीं वाकिफ।
गर काबा हुआ तो क्या, बुतखाना हुआ तो क्या।।
But it does not seem to be a correct version because the Nawab Wajid Ali Shah tried his best to solve this issue. He was a liberal Nawab who used to participate in certain Hindu festivals. In the beginning, the Shia administration might have been indifferent because it was perceived to be a confrontation between the Sunnis and the Hindus. But after the ghastly murder of about 90 persons, the Nawab was furious about the killing of Muslims at the mosque. But at the same time he wanted action against the Sunni troublemakers also. His officers at Faizabad tried to diffuse the tension following the reprehensible crime.
Ayodhya Revisited Page 79