The period of Company rule in Delhi began with the defeat of Daulat Rao Sindhia’s forces in the second Anglo-Maratha war of 1803. Over the next 54 years, a series of representatives of the governor-general, or residents, as they were often called, were posted to the court of the last three Mughal rulers, Shah Alam II, Akbar II, and Bahadur Shah II (Zafar). In this half-century preceding the Revolt of 1857, life in the Mughal capital and the character of the city altered dramatically.
Foregrounding everyday events and experience, Swapna Liddle vividly recounts these massive changes, from the erosion of the Mughal emperor’s tutelary status among Indian rulers, along with his authority in Delhi, to the decline of the old ruling elite and the rise of new classes, the arrival of new learning, new institutions, new uses of print, which also brought about a new cultural flowering. The five decades of Company rule have often been characterised as a lull, even an idyll, before the shock of the Revolt and its aftermath, but, as Liddle shows, a disruptive twilight and dawn had been underway all through this period.
The following excerpt is drawn from from Chapter 2, ‘The New Emperor’
Khilat was one very powerful vehicle of this delegation, and it was customary for the new Emperor to send these articles of clothing to his vassals to underline ties of loyalty to the new occupant of the throne. The British decided that it was time to set down new precedents, and Akbar was at once dissuaded from sending ceremonial robes that would signify his sovereign position vis-a-vis the rulers of independent states.
Another way in which the Mughal Emperors symbolically delegated authority, was by giving titles. Many of the rulers of principalities all across India, big and small, had received such titles. With the accession of a new Emperor, various rulers sent applications expecting and sometimes explicitly requesting that their titles, given by the previous Emperor, be confirmed, or even enhanced. The British Government had to decide how it was to deal with this situation. The only titles enjoyed by several important rulers such as the Nizam of the Deccan, the Nawabs of Awadh, Carnatic, and Bengal, were those given by the Mughal rulers. These states had been founded by those who had at one time been part of the Mughal bureaucracy. Though their rulers were now completely independent of Mughal control, they continued to use their hereditary titles. They could not reasonably be stopped from sending formal applications to the new incumbent on the throne to confirm them. The British also realized that helping to secure these titles from the throne was a useful way of obliging friends and allies.
The Company’s government did, however, make it clear that any titles given were at the instance of the British Government, and it was a message that was quickly understood. The titular Nawab of Bengal, Zain ud din Ali Khan wrote to the Governor General expressing his gratitude for the address from the throne ‘at your Excellency’s kind instance’. The British Government also thought it prudent to discourage the impression that the Emperor had any right to even nominally confirm any ruler’s right to rule. So, when Zain ud din Ali Khan’s predecessor, Baber Ali Khan had applied to the Emperor for ‘a renewal of the Sunnud conferring on His Highness the office of the Soubahdar of the provinces of Bengal, Behar and Orissa’, the British authorities had decided not to forward the application to Delhi. Similarly, when the newly ascended rulers of Jodhpur and Jaipur desired to be honoured with a tika of investiture from the Emperor, the British Government turned down the request. On the succession of Malhar Rao Holkar, the authorities at Calcutta again had to say unequivocally that a khilat or any other sign of investiture from the Mughal Emperor was neither required nor permissible.
The importance that the ties to the Mughal Emperor carried in the minds of the princely rulers becomes evident in the case of the Nizam of Hyderabad. The arrival of the Emperor’s shuqqa (literally, ‘royal order’) bestowing imperial titles on the ruler at Hyderabad was treated by the Nizam with a display of great reverence. The occasion was given additional significance by the presence of all the local British civil and military officers who turned up in the durbar for the ceremony. When the report of this event reached the British Government at Calcutta, it expressed its discomfort with this overt display of subordination by the ruler of Hyderabad to the Mughal Emperor. The local British authorities at Hyderabad were instructed that in future it would be better to stay away from such ceremonies.
By asking for titles and accepting them, the Nizam of Hyderabad was of course not really suggesting that he was a vassal of the Mughal Emperor. The nature of the allegiance was a complex one, involving a far greater reciprocity than the simple ‘giving’ and ‘accepting’ of khilats or titles. The Nizam, for instance, did not attempt to hide his ‘chagrin’ and ‘disappointment’ when his titles did not match his expectations. The British on their part supported his demands for enhanced titles, and the Resident at Delhi was told to make it clear to Akbar that he must give the desired titles. Thus, while the form was one of an overlord conferring a favour and being given a nazar in gratitude, in actual fact the Emperor did not have any real discretion in the matter. This was an expectation that existed on the part of the Nizam quite independently of the views of the British Government. Though the Nizam, and for that matter, many other rulers, had long ceased to recognize the overlordship of the Mughal Emperor, the name of the Emperor held great currency throughout the land, in the minds of high and low. Recognition from the source, however symbolic, helped to establish the ruler’s own status.
Apart from rulers of independent principalities, other people, who happened to be residents of British territory, also sought titles and khilats, for similar reasons. On the succession of Akbar II, the commercial magnate Jagat Seth wrote to the British Government, saying that it had been the tradition of his business house to present nazars to a newly ascended Emperor. Following from that, he added, ‘Although I now hold no intercourse with, nor desire the favour of any government but that of the Hon’ble Company…yet some of the principal inhabitants of this place, who are my old and intimate acquaintance [sic], have suggested to me the propriety of my continuing the observance of this established custom’. Public opinion may indeed have prompted this move, but the desire of Jagat Seth to re-open a branch of his business in Delhi may also have been a factor.
What the British Government was really interested in, at least in the long term, was a complete indifference on the part of the princes and people of India towards the Mughal throne. But there were no signs of this happening in a hurry. Several of the rulers posted vakils or agents in Delhi to keep them in constant communication with the throne. Matters such as who had been declared the heir apparent were eagerly enquired into. Samples of the new coins struck at Delhi in the name of the new Emperor were eagerly asked for. The coinage of the states themselves reflected the traditional ties with the Mughal throne. Coins almost all through India, including in the East India Company’s territories, were struck in the name of the Emperor. So much so, that an unfamiliar Sanskrit inscription on a new coin issued by Jaswant Rao Holkar in 1808 caused a sensation, because it was misunderstood as not including the name of the Emperor. To avoid controversy, Holkar decided to withdraw the coin and replace it with a coin bearing the familiar and unambiguous inscription.
This is an excerpt from Swapna Liddle’s The Broken Script : Delhi Under The East India Company And The Fall of The Mughal Dynasty, 1803-1857, published by Speaking Tiger Books. Republished here with permission from the publisher.
