The Rajas of the Punjab by Lepel H. Griffin/The History of the Bhadaur Chiefship
| The full text of this chapter has been converted into Wiki format by Laxman Burdak |
Being The History of the Principal States in the Punjab and their Political relations with the British Government
Printed by the Punjab Printing Company, Limited, Lahore 1870
The History of the Bhadaur Chiefship
Contents
The Chiefs of Bhadaur
The Sirdars of Bhadour are now altogether subordinate to the Maharaja of Pattiala, but as this subordination is of recent date, it is necessary to give a brief outline of their history till the year 1858, when the supremacy of Pattiala was allowed by the British Government by favor and not by right. The genealogical tree of the family is as pictured.
- Phul (d.1652) → Rama (d.1714) → Duna (d.1726) → Bigha Singh (d.1773) → Chuhar Singh (d.1793) → Bir Singh (d.1823) + Dip Singh (d.1822)
- Dip Singh (d.1822) → Kharak Singh → Attar Singh (b.1833)
Chaudhari Duna, the founder of the family
Duna, the founder of the family, lived at Bhadour with his brother Ala Singh, Until the latter left for Barnala in 1718, when Bhadour came into his sole possession. He was a man of peace, and, not being a Sikh, he did not join his kinsmen in rebellion against the Muhammadan Empire, by which he had been entrusted with authority, as Chaudhri over Sangrur, Bhadour and other districts, which his father Rama had enjoyed according to Sanads of more than doubtful authenticity.*
The first is dated the 15th year of the Emperor Aurangjeb’s reign, or A. D. 1673, and is directed to Chandhri Duna. The second is dated A. H. 1131, corresponding with A. D. 1719, and also purports to be a grant of the Emperor Aurangzeb, although that Prince died A. H. 1119, corresponding with A. D. 1707, or twelve years before the Sanad assumes to have been issued. The third Sanad dated, 1192 A. H., or 1779 A.D. is of the Emperor Timur Shah, to Sirdar Chuhr Singh.
If the first Sanad be a genuine document, Rama must have been dead at the time of its issue, that is, in A. D. 1673, as the deed is in the name of his son as Chaudhri, in succession to his father deceased. The date given in the margin for the death of Rama, namely, A. D. 1714, would in that case be incorrect. But by comparison of many documents, the date given in the text would appear to be correct. The evidence in favor of its genuineness is stronger, at any rate than the evidence in favor of the authenticity of the Sanads. That authenticity is further rendered more doubtful, by the curious mistake as to dates occurring in the second Sanad. The genuineness of the third document cannot be disputed like the other two, from internal evidence, but the three must stand or fall together. They were put forward to suit a certain purpose by the Bhadour Sirdars, and are inserted for what they are worth.
- * Copy of a Firman said to have been granted by the Emperor Aurangzeb to Chaudhri Duna, A. H. 1083, or A. D. 1673.
- Whereas it has been brought to our notice that by order of the late Emperor, Taluka of Fhul &c. was granted to Chaudhari Raman, &c. free, subject to the payment of Rs. 85,000 per annum to the Government. And Chaudhari Duna and others, his (Raman's) heirs are alive and in possession of the Taluka, and that they request that a Firman may be issued, therefore the order is issued that the Taluka of Fhul Bhadour and Tappa, &c. and the Chaudhari thereof shall be maintained to Chaudhari Duna and the other heirs. The Rs. 85,000 which Chaudhari Duna paid to the Government, after the death of his father, he may realize their shares from his brother. At present the Rs. 85,000 are remitted to him.
- He should appreciate this kindness and pray for the prosperity of the Empire.
The office of Chaudhri a dangerous one - The office of Chaudhri was, in these days, hardly a desirable one, for it implied, collection of the Imperial Revenue, which the people were very rarely willing to pay, and no excuses were of any avail if the money was not forthcoming at the appointed time.
He fell into difficulties - In 1725, the Muhammadan Governor of Lahore demanded the customary payment and Duna left for the capital, his brothers promising to sent their quota after him. This they failed to do, and Duna, and his son Dau, were thrown into prison, in which the latter died. The intercession of a friend, Shaikh Alayas of Khawaspur, obtained the release of Duna, but the hardships of his imprisonment destroyed his health, and, returning to Bhadour, he died there in the year 1726. He left four sons, of whom Bigha succeeded him; the youngest, Suma Singh, being the ancestor of the Rampuria Sardars.
Regarding Bigha little of importance is recorded. He, like his father, fell into difficulties about the revenue, and when the Imperial officers arrived to arrest him, he
- The Officers, Governors, Jagirdars and Karris of the present and future times, should consider this a constant order and let the Taluka remain in the possession of the grantee. This tenure will be free from change and no fresh Sanad should be demanded.
- Copy of Firman, said to have been granted by the Emperor Aurangzeb to Chaudhri Duna, A. H. 1131, or A. D. 1719.
- At this time the Firman is issued to the effect, that Chandhari Duna, of Bhadour, the son of Raman Phulwala, has always obeyed the Imperial orders, and is in no way opposed to the welfare of all parties, therefore the Office of Chandhari, of the Talukas of Sangrur, Dhanaula Bhadour and Hadaya &c. (dependancies of the Pargana of Tehora), is bestowed npon him. He should esteem this a favor, and pay year by year Rs.' 85,000 of current coin to the Hazur, and endeavour to secure the happiness of the people, and pray for the prosperity of the Empire.
- Dated 19th Muharram, 1131 Hijri, (1719) A.D.
generously proposed to give his eldest son, Gurdas Singh, in his stead. To this the mother of the boy would not consent, and carried him away with her to her father's home ; and Bigha was imprisoned till he contrived to pay the amount of his arrears, In the mean time, Gurdas Singh had died, and his mother, distracted with grief poisoned herself. These melancholy events had so much effect upon Bigha, that he resolved to resign his office of Chaudhri and become a recluse ; but the Phulkian Chiefs induced him to abandon this design, and he married a second wife who bore him Chuhr Singh and Mohr Singh. His third wife, was the widow of his brother Sukhu Singh. She became the mother of Dal Singh, from whom the Sirdars of Kot Duna, a village founded by Chaudhri Duna, have descended.
Sirdar Chuhr Singh
Chuhr Singh succeeds in 1773 - Bigha was succeeded by his eldest son Chuhr Singh, in 1773. This Chief was the most famous of all the Bhadour stock, and his prowess and energy added much to his ancestral possessions, and the fame of “Chuhr Singh ke Bar" ; his victories over the Burars, and his charity to the poor, are still sung, in many ballads, by the village bards. He was the acknowledged arbiter in all disputes ; the people preferred their complaints before him, and he punished offenders severely. For all this Chuhr Singh was the most notorious robber on the border ; cattle-lifting was not named in the code of offences which he punished, and to this very day, his old enemies, the Burars, if an ox or buffalo strays, will call it in the jungle "O ! Chuhr leia !" ( oh ! carried away by Chuhr.)
His conquests - In the year 1799, Chuhr Singh was appointed Chaudhri and collector of revenue in the Pihora and Bhadour districts, by Timur Shah, who, in that year, had invaded India, desiring to recover some of the authority possessed by his father Ahmad Shah.*
After the death of Raja Amar Singh of Patiala and the succession of the weak-minded Sahib Singh, the Bhadour Chief began to extend his possessions at the expense of the Pattiala State. He seized ninety villages in the neighbourhood of Bhadour, many of which he subsequently lost; attacked the Maler Kotla Afghans, whose villages were redeemed by Pattiala giving certain others in exchange, and even gained for a time possession of the district of Barnala. But in the midst of his successes, treachery put an end to his life.
- * Translation of a Sauad of Timur Shah in the name of Chuhr Singh Phul, dated 11th Rajjab, 1192 A. H. 1779 A. D.
- Al this time the magnificent mandate is Issued, owling to the enhanced kindness of Royalty.
- The old Taluka of Pargana Sihara, together with the Ilaka of Bhadour, which is in your possession is granted to you as heretofore. You may realize the fees collected by the Phuls, as were heretofore collected by your ancestors. And you should pay obedience to the Raja of Pattiala, and submit whatever you might have to say to the Hazur through the Raja of Pattiala.
- It has also reached our ears that Hari Singh has raised a tumult in his country. You should ally yourself with the other Rajas and restrain him from injuring the creatures of God ; and Muhammad Hussein Khan will be soon deputed in order to take possession of the Country of Hari Singh through the Raja of Pattiala, and annex it to the Royal territories.
- As Hari Singh originally come from Multan his native country, he should return to it.
- All matters connected with yourself have been explained to Muhammad Hussein Khan ; and they will be determined and executed through the Raja of Pattiala.
- You should wait on us, else your country will be taken possession of by the Government.
- Hari Singh had proceeded to the Taluka of Nali. The Raja of Pattiala excluded him from thence. If Hari Singh should now go to the Jungul, let him not enter it.
- As of old you should remain obedient to the Raja of Pattiala, and depend upon the royal favors.
Sirdar Chuhr Singh and his brother murdered in 1793 AD -
On his road home from Barnala he remained to rest at the village of Ghanne, and was invited by a Burar of the name of Sujjan to sleep in a small burj or tower for the night. Chuhr Singh, who was accompanied by his brother Dal Singh, suspected nothing; but their deceitful host, having drugged their liquor and seeing them in a deep sleep, surrounded the tower with armed men, and, piling brushwood against the walls and doors, set it on fire. Awoke by the heat and noise and finding all exit barred, the two brothers mounted to the roof, from which they shot arrows at their enemies till the roof fell in and both perished in the flames. This happened in 1793.
Bir Singh and Dip Singh
The revenge of his sons - The news of their father's murder had no sooner reached his two sons, Bir Singh and Dip Singh, than they determined to avenge it. They set out in search of Sujjan, and surprised him hawking, riding the horse of the murdered Chief. They killed him and seized Ghanne with the ten neighbouring villages forming the Ilaka of Malukha. Pattiala troops joined in this expedition under the command of Albel Singh and Bakshi Seda.
Bir Singh, the elder son of Chuhr Singh, succeeded to the estate, but in 1813, after the Cis-Satlej States had been taken under British protection, the two brothers divided it equally between them.
On the demarcation of boundaries in 1809, Maharaja Ranjit Singh retained two Bhadour villages, Saidoki and Bhagta. The British Government did not insist on their surrender, but paid to
Bhadour Rs. 2000 per annum, as an equivalent, which sum was paid direct to the descendants of Bir Singh and Dip Singh, from 1813 to 1840, when Pattiala, with the design of supporting her unjust claim of supremacy over Bhadour, contrived to obtain its payment through her vakils.*
The death of Bir Singh and Dip Singh in 1822 AD - Dip Singh accompanied Raja Bhag Singh of Jhind on his visit to Lahore in 1805, and returned with him the next year, when Ranjit Singh made his expedition against Pattiala ; but refused to join against the head of the Phulkian house, and left the camp of Ranjit Singh at Jagraon. This Sirdar died in 1822, and his brother the following year.
After the Cis-Satlej States came under British protection, the history of Bhadour is contained in that of Pattiala, and although its Chiefs asserted vigorously their independence, yet they admitted Pattiala to be their head and had no policy distinct from hers.
Kharak Singh
Kharak Singh - There is, therefore, little further of interest to record. Kharak Singh, the son of Dip Singh, succeeded to his father's share of the estate, and, although a man of considerable character and ability, was more devoted to religion than administration, and built and endowed many temples and charitable institutions. At the time of the Satlej campaign he gave assistance to the British with a contingent, and furnished supplies to the army. After the Campaign, when the whole question of the relations of Government to the States and their relations to each other was discussed and settled, the con-
:* Government of India to Sir D. Ochterlony 2nd July 1813.
nection of Pattiala and Bhadour could not but come under review, and since the question was disputed with especial warmth and earnestness, it is necessary to explain the circumstances of the case with some detail.
General orders regarding joint-estates
General orders regarding joint-estates - The proposals of the Board of Administration regarding the joint-estates held by Pattiala and other Sirdars had been formally approved by Govemment, and, in obedience to their instructions, the estates had been divided and disputed questions regarding them adjusted.* But, at the date of Colonel Mackeson's report of 1850, no orders had been passed with reference to the territory of Bhadour, comprising 58 villages, and situated on the southern border of the Firozpur district, and over these villages the Maharaja of Pattiala exercised sovereign jurisdiction, as he did over all joint-estates before the final division above referred to. Colonel Mackeson held that the British Government possessed the right of escheat to heir-less shares, but did not determine the exact relations between the Maharaja of Pattiala and the Bhadour Sirdars. Mr. Edmonstone, Commissioner of the Cis-Satlej States, had been in favour of admitting the independence of Bhadour. He considered that the Phulkian families had each gained its principality by the sword, and that each, with the exception of Bhadour, was admittedly independent of the
- * Colonel Mackeson’s Report No. 16, dated 8th January 1850. Proceedings of Financial Commissioner, Nos. 76 to 83, dated 10th January 1852. Government Order, No. 899, dated 27th February 1852, and Financial Commissioner’s proceeding Nos. 118, 119 dated 19th March 1852.
other, and there was no reason that Bhadour should be considered an exception. *
Mr Barnes report 1854 - The question whether Bhadour should remain feudatory of Pattiala or be brought under the direct control of the British Government had been referred for decision in 1850, but no orders were issued, and it remained for Mr. Barnes, the Commissioner of the Cis-Satlej States, to report, in 1854, on the case,†
Representatives of family - At this time, the descendants of Duna the founder of the Bhadour family, †† were represented by six separate branches, among whom the estates were divided according to ancestral shares, the Sirdars being Kharak Singh, Jagat Singh, Kehr Singh, [[Mahan Singh]], Dewa Singh and Uttam Singh, whose relative position will be shown by a reference to the genealogical tree. The estate comprised 58 villages, and was valued at Rs. 60,000 per annum ; most of these villages were held entirely by the Bhadour Sirdars and seventeen in joint-tenure with Pattiala. The Sirdars received, moreover, a pension of Rs. 2,000 a year, in lieu of the two villages transferred in 1813, by Sir D. Ochterlony to Maharaja Ranjit Singh, and this pension they had enjoyed for upwards of forty years.
There were also eight villages in Ludhiana, held in joint tenure by the rebel Chief of Ladwa and the Bhadour Sirdars, who retained their share
- * Letter No. 3254 dated 8th June 1850, and Financial Commissioner's Proceedings No. 88 to 92 of 6th July 1850.
- † No. 21 of 4th Febrnary 1854 to Chief Commissioner.
- †† The genealogical tree at the commencement of the Pattiala
history p.11, will explain the relationship between the families of Pattiala and Bhadour.
when the moiety of Ladwa was confiscated after the first Sikh war.
The arguments of Patiala in favour of Supremacy - Pattiala claimed supremacy over Bhadour, and the right to succeed as paramount to all legitimate escheats. The Maharaja asserted, in support of his claim, that Bhadour had been always subject to Pattiala.* Ala Singh, the founder of the Pattiala family, gave Duna, the founder of the Bhadour house, the village of Shahnaki, to be held on a subordinate tenure, and the supremacy of Pattiala had always been acknowledged by Bhadour, which never even contracted a matrimonial alliance with Nabha or Jhind without Pattiala's consent. The Bhadour family never had exercised independent powers and their estates were not acquired by conquest. Bhadour was founded by Rama, father of both Ala Singh and Duna, and was then the capital of the joint-territory, Ala Singh made it over, after the death of Duna, to his heirs, and founded for himself a new capital at Barnala. So far then from this estate being a conquest of Duna's, it was a grant from Pattiala, and only came into the possession of the Bhadour family after his death. Moreover, the Bhadour Sirdars had themselves repeatedly admitted their dependence, and were still most anxious to remain in subordination to Pattiala, which they regarded as their natural head, and to which they were bound by every tie of interest and affection.
Pattiala had, on their account, paid tribute to Ahmad Shah Durani, the Mahrattas, and Ranjit Singh of Lahore; and her right to supremacy had been admitted by successive agents of the British Government-
- * Vide objections filed by Pattiala Vakil in February 1854.
and notably by Mr. G. K. Clerk, who authorized the Maharaja to employ force to reduce to order the Bhadour Sirdars ; stating, in his letter, that, on all previous occasions, at the instance of the British Government, Pattiala had maintained order in Bhadour.* So late as the 28th of August 1852, the Sirdars themselves had addressed the Settlement Officer, who required their attendance at Ludhiana, to the effect that they were then, and always had been, feudatories of Pattiala, and had no desire to deny or change relations from which they had always derived benefit.
The arguments on the other side of the question - Such were the arguments which Pattiala advanced to prove her supremacy. On the other side, it might be urged with great force that the custom of the Phulkian family was not to unite under one selected leader, but that each man of courage and capacity conquered what territory he could for himself, and left it in independent possession to his heirs. Thus had had been founded the Chiefships of Pattiala, Nabha, Jhind and Malod, and thus, it might presumed, had it been with Bhadour, Pattiala had, it is true, far outstripped her rivals in the race for power, but her wealth and extensive territory had never given her a right to supremacy over the other Chiefs. Duna, the founder of Bhadour, was certainly not a warrior, but he nevertheless acquired a certain number of villages, while his grandson, Chuhr Singh, was one of the most distinguished Chiefs of his day.
Even were the acquisitions of Duna made with the assistance of Ala Singh, yet he was nevertheless inde-
- * Mr. G. Clerk, April 1835, and 1841.
pendent of his brother, and was his equal not his vassal.
It was quite true that, in 1854, the Bhadaur Sirdars were desirous of claiming the protection of Pattiala, but their reasons were evident and were not such as the British Government could allow.
There were plenty of old records in the Agency Office which showed that these Chiefs had insisted on their independence and had rejected the pretensions of Pattiala, proving that a struggle between the States had always been maintained ; complaints from Pattiala that Bhadour would not yield allegiance, and protests from the Sirdars against the unjust claims of their powerful neighbour.
The reason for the sudden change in the disposition of the Bhadour Chiefs is found in the change which the Sikh war had made in the relations of the Cis-Satlej States with the British Government. Before the war every State had exercised sovereign powers, and the Sirdars knew that if they were declared independent of Pattiala they would have full authority over their own subjects and would be practically under no control. For this reason they struggled against the pretensions of Pattiala. But the consequence of the war was the disfranchisement of all but the largest Sikh States. The Bhadour Chiefs would, separated from Pattiala, have sunk to the level of ordinary jagirdars, with no Civil or Criminal powers and even their revenue limited at the discretion of Government officers. Under Pattiala they would enjoy far greater power.
And, as she was anxious to retain them as feudatories, she was disposed to allow them exceptional privileges and immunities, which the British system was unable or unwilling to grant. These considerations made the Sirdars as ready to acknowledge the supremacy of Pattiala as they had before been to resist it.
The proofs of Bhadaur independence - That Bhadour had originally been independent was further proved by the joint possession of estates with the Raja of Ladwa, showing that it was able to ally itself with another Chief and make conquests on its own account. The large village of Bhai Rupa, in which every Phulkian chief held a share, was an additional proof; since, if Bhadour was merely a Pattiala feudatory, it would not have become possessed of an equal share in the estate. Lastly, the tenure of the 58 villages of the Bhadour territory, of which seventeen only were held conjointly with Pattiala, went some way to prove that these seventeen alone were acquired by Ala Singh and Duna together, and that the remainder, in which Pattiala held no share, were the sole and independent acquisition of the latter.
The claims of Patiala rejected by Govt - The British Government was unwilling to surrender to Pattiala a position which had always been denied and a supremacy which belonged to itself, the paramount power ; or to refuse to the people the improved administration and the diminished assessment which would be the result of the State being brought directly under its own control ; and, considering the independence of Bhadour sufficiently proved, directed that British jurisdiction should be extended
over the 41 villages held by Bhadour alone, and that the 17 villages held in joint tenure by Pattiala and Bhadour should be divided according to the principles which had determined the division of other estates held in co-parcenary.*
Maharaja begs for re-decision of the case - The Maharaja of Pattiala was not satisfied with the decision thus given against him, and addressed to the Chief Commissioner a remonstrance pointing out what he considered defective in the arguments which had been adduced to prove the independence of Bhadour, He urged that the order of Government was opposed to the letter of the treaty which declared that all his zaildars and feudatories should remain unmolested, and the Chief Commissioner directed further enquiries to be made and the objections of the Maharaja to be, if possible, satisfactorily answered.†
Pattiala asserts extravagant claims - Pattiala asserted her own right to succeed to heirless shares in Bhadour; but this claim could not be admitted by the British Government, which, ever since its first connection with the Cis-Satlej States, had, as paramount, claimed all such succession. The States were taken under British protection, and their independence and, indeed, their very existence were preserved ; neither tribute nor contingent was demanded from them and the trouble and complica-
- * Chief Commissioner to Government of India, No. 160 dated 28th February 1854, and Government of India to Chief Commissioner No. 1013 dated 17th March 1854. Government of India No. 399 dated 23rd February 1852.
- † Kharitah of the Maharaja to Chief Commissioner of July 1854. Letter of Commissioner Cis-Satlej States to Chief Commissioner No 167 dated 28th July 1854, and Chief Commissioner's No. 653 dated 7th August 1854 to Commissioner Cis-Satlej States.
tions which this connection involved were enormous.
The rights of a sovereign power - Was it to be supposed that, out of sovereign power. more benevolence, so onerous a charge had been accepted ? The British Government never professed to be absolutely disinterested in its motives. In return for protection, it insisted on the rights claimed by every Sovereign power, of which the chief and the only profitable one was the right of succession to shares of estates in which the only heirs were distant collateral
A very large number of estates, comprising some of the wealthiest in the Cis-Satlej territory, had thus come into British possession, including among them estates held by feudatories of Pattiala itself, such as Chamkurian, in 1812, and Serai Lashkar Khan, in 1835, the latter decision being confirmed by the Home Government.*
Nor had Pattiala itself ever exercised the right of succession to heirless shares ; and the instance which the Maharaja adduced of the succession of Sardul Singh to the estate of his cousin Jodh was not a case in pointy for that succession was simply through a marriage with his cousin's widow ; and if Jodh's estates had lapsed to Pattiala, as an escheat, Sardul Singh would never have inherited them, seeing that he was at no time Chief of Pattiala, dying in the life-time of his father Ala Singh.
The firman of Prince Timur Shah - One of the firmans granted to Chuhr Singh by Prince Timur Shah, † is said prove the feudal tenure of Bhadour and its subordination to Pattiala. This is
- * Supreme Government dated 24th Jane 1885, Agent Dehli dated 14tli August 1834.
- † Vide ante page 281.
not the construction, however, which would generally be placed upon it, even were its authenticity certain, instead of being doubtful in the extreme, as has been shown in a previous note. It would rather seem to show that Bhadour was, and had been, from the first, independent.
A reference is certainly made to the Raja of Pattiala, who was to be obeyed and through whom any necessary representations were to be made ; but this does not destroy the idea of independence which is created by an Imperial Firman being issued to Bhadour at all, and by the direction to form alliance with other Rajas to restrain the violence of Hari Singh. It was besides natural for Timur Shah to refer to the Raja of Pattiala as the head of the Sikhs Cis-Satlej, which indeed he was, though without any actual supremacy, since both Rajas Ala Singh and Amar Singh had been ennobled by his father Ahmad Shah ; and though gratitude was a virtue rare among the Sikhs, yet the Pattiala Chief might be expected to entertain it and to be loyal towards Timur Shah, if his interests did not forbid loyalty altogether.
The manner in which Bhadour had been acquired was clear - It has before been stated, that Duna, the ancestor of the Bhadour Sirdars, was a a peaceful man, content with the office of Chaudhri, which he received from the Dehli Emperor, possessing none of the ambition of his brother Ala Singh. But there is nothing to show, as asserted by Pattiala, that Duna was, in any way, subordinate to his brother. The Maharaja declared that Bhadour was not a conquest, but founded by Rama, and considered the capital till after death of Duna, when Ala Singh
gave it to his nephews, who had been entrusted to his care, as a mark of high favor and as a reward for services rendered to him by their father. It is true that Bhadour was not a conquest and that it remained the joint capital for some time, after the death of Rama its founder ; but it came into the hands of Duna by a friendly compromise between the brothers, not as the gift of a superior to an inferior.
The independence of Duna was also clear - At the time when Bhadour was transferred, Duna was the head of the family, and Ala Singh had not yet made wealth and fame. What more natural than that he should have left the ancestral village to the head of the family, trusting to conquer an an estate for himself elsewhere. That Duna was acknowledged as head of the family is evident from the two Imperial Firmans of Aurangzeb* by which he is authorized to collect the revenue of Rs. 85,000 from his brothers, including Ala Singh ; and it was as the representative of the family that he visited Lahore, where he was imprisoned and where his son Dau died.
The list furnished by Raja Sahib Singh strong proof against Patiala - In 1825, Maharaja Sahib Singh furnished Captain Murray, the Political Agent, with a list of villages over which he had jurisdiction, and he then, with reference to the Bhadour estate, entered, as belonging to the Bhadourias, 53 villages, and a share in Bhai Rupa ; with 17 villages bestowed by himself on Chuhr Singh Bhadour, on account of service and bravery in his cause. The distinction drawn between the 53 villages acquired by Bhadour apart from Pattiala, and the 17 villages, being a Pattiala grants is clear. Even this grant of the 17 villages
- * Vide ante pges 278-79.
to Chuhr Singh was not such a one as to imply any supremacy, for several of these villages were extorted from, the almost imbecile Sahib Singh by his energetic kinsman, while others appear to have been given in exchange for the lands, taken by Chuhr Singh from the Maler Kotla Afghans, and which he restored.
The view of the case taken by Mr. Clerk - There would be no advantage in following the arguments of Bhadour and Pattiala step by step, and determining the amount of truth in each. There can be no doubt that Mr. Clerk, the Political Agent, who, on one occasion, did permit the Pattiala Chiefs to coerce the Bhadourias, which permission would have been better withheld, formed later a perfectly just estimate of the connection between the States. Writing to the Maharaja on the 8th of June 1835, he states as follows : —
- " In truth, the relations between Pattiala and Bhadour are of the following nature. The Sirdars of Bhadour, since the date of protection, have existed on precisely the same footing as all other Chiefs of the Cis-Satlej. The late Maharaja was accustomed to call the Bhadourias his uncles (chacha sahib), whereas you designate them as Dependants and vassals. Your vakil has been the usual channel for presenting applications from the Bhadour Sirdars in pending cases, and therefore Bhadour disputes have generally been referred to you. I and Mr. Ross Bell have always counseled you that Pattiala is, as it were, the elder brother, and the Bhadourias younger brothers. The senior has the authority to discipline his younger brethren, and, in this view of your relations, the affairs
- of Bhadour have been usually consigned to you."*
Patiala has always been acknowledged as the head of family - That the Bhadour Chiefs acknowledged Pattiala as the head of the Phulkian family is clear : Nabha and Jhind did the the same but Pattiala never claimed to assert over them any supremacy. There is no evidence to show that the Bhadour estate, or any large portion of it, was a Pattiala grant ; while there is ample proof that it was an independent acquisition. The British Government, often careless of its rights, and served by men who have not been sufficiently jealous of its prerogatives, had undoubtedly allowed Pattiala to act towards Bhadour in a manner which gave some color to the claim of supremacy ; and in the interval between the death of Bir Singh in 1823, and 1847, the date of the extension of British protection, the power and aggressiveness of Pattiala constantly increased while the capability of resistance on the part of Bhadour as constantly diminished ; for, while the right of primogeniture kept Pattiala compact, the rule of division among the sons had reduced the Bhadour State to a number of petty Chiefships without any cohesion or power of combined resistance.
Many changes in the assertions of the Chiefs - The wishes of the Chiefs had also changed in 1847, and they preferred the license which Pattiala promised them, if her supremacy was allowed, to the dullness and compelled moderation of their position as simple jagirdars in British territory. At the present day, with their position assured and the supremacy of
- * Letter of Mr. Clerk to Maharaja Sahib Singh 8th June 1835. Objections and arguments filed by Pattiala in 1854, and 1855, and Letter No. 221 dated 12th September 1855, from Commissioner Cis-Satlej States to Government Punjab.
Pattiala acknowledged, the Bhadourias have again changed, if not their desire, their mode of expression, and assert their former independence as sturdily as they were wont to do forty years ago, and as obstinately as they denied it in 1847 and 1854.
The claims of Patiala finally rejected in 1855 - In 1855, the supremacy of Pattiala was refused by the British Government, which declared its final determination to adhere to the former decision of the 17th March 1854, by which British jurisdiction was extended over the villages held by Bhadour, while those held in joint tenure by Pattiala and Bhadour were to be divided on the principle which regulated the Chaharumi tenures.* The Sirdars of Bhadour were, moreover, by a later order, exempted from the jurisdiction of the ordinary tribunals for acts done by them previous to the 27th of April 1855, the
date on which the final order a Government were passed.†
The joint estate divided
The joint estate divided - There was still some difficulty in settling the terms of the agreement ; but, at length, Pattiala agreed to accept as her share of the assessment, which amounted to Rs. 7,676, the villages of Chota and Bara Bazidri ; Bawant ; Bilaspur Sunda; Gidhari; Mandian and Jahingirpur, worth Rs. 7,786 per annum.††
- * Government of Punjab to Government of India, No. 162, dated 9th February 1855, and Government of India to Government Punjab, No. 1524 dated 27th April 1855.
- † Commissioner Cis-Satlej States to Punjab Government No. 211, dated 17th September 1855. Punjab Government to Government of India No. 741, dated 3rd October. Government of India to Government Punjab. No. 9729 dated 24th October 1855.
- †† Deputy Commissioner Firozpur to Commissioner Cis-Satlej States; No. 814, dated 15th November 1855. Commissioner to Deputy Commissioner, No. 1536, dated 17th November 1855. Commissioner Cis-Satlej States to Government Punjab, Nos. 5256, dated 10th and 13th March 1856. Government Punjab to Commissioner Cis-Satlej, Nos. 209 and 210 dated 22nd March 1856.
Certain villages given up to Patiala - Of the eleven villages to which Pattiala made specific claims subsequent to the final settlement of the Bhadour dispute, the Maharaja's right to one was allowed, and in the remaining six cases denied. With reference, however, to the four villages of Kot Duna, Bugar,* Rampur and Kotla Kowra, it was recommended that, under the special circumstances of the case, they should, as an act of grace, be surrendered to the Maharaja, although the right of jurisdiction was clearly proved to belong to the British Government. †
A subsequent recommendation was made in favor of the village of Man, which was held, in equal shares, by Pattiala and the Kot Duna branch of the Bhadour family, and lay in the midst of the Pattiala possessions. These five villages were accordingly made over to Pattiala.††
The supremacy over Bhadour granted as a reward for service in 1857 The supremacy for which the Maharaja had struggled with so much pertinacity, but which he was unable to establish as a right, was granted as an act of grace and as a reward for loyal service to the British Government in the year 1858. All the rights of the paramount power were yielded to Pattiala : the jurisdiction over Bhadour, the right
- * This village most not be confounded with the village of the same name, regarding which there was a dispute between Pattiala and Nabha, and which, in 1857, was assigned to the latter.
- † Commissioner Cis-Satlej States, No. 155, 156, dated 10th July 1855; Punjab Government, Mo. 670, dated 1st August 1855.
- †† Deputy Commissioner of Firozpur to Commissioner Cis-Satlej States, No. 290, dated 24th October 1855. Commissioner Cis-Satlej States to Government Punjab, Nos. 22 and 281, dated 9th February and 5th September 1857. Government Punjab to Government of India, Nos. 180 and 623, dated 6th March and 9th September 1857. Government of India to Government Punjab, No. 1617 and 4600, dated 14th April and 18th November 1857.
of escheats ; the reversion of lapsed estates ; and the annual commutation tax, amounting to RS. 5,265.*
The reasons for dwelling at such length on the case - The supremacy of Pattiala having been thus allowed, it would seem almost unnecessary to have dwelt at so much length on the dispute regarding it, were it not of importance as showing the manner of the rise of the Cis-Satlej States, the nature of their mutual relations, and the motives which influence the statements of the Chiefs. Much of the difficulty of questions relating to these States is occasioned by the uncertainty which surrounded the law of inheritance ; an uncertainty increased by the utter disregard of truth in the statements made by the Chiefs, unless the truth happened to favor the view which they desired to maintain. The more careful the search in the history of these States, the more certain it appears that no statement should be accepted without rigorous enquiry, unless made by a person absolutely devoid of interest in the matter at issue. The idea of preferring truth to his own interests never seems to have occurred to any Sikh . Chief.
Sirdar Attar Singh of Bhadaur
Sirdar Attar Singh, who succeeded his father Kharak Singh in 1858, is the present head of Bhadour family, and was born in the year 1833. He was educated at Benares, and there acquired a taste for learning
- * Government Punjab to Government of India, No 34, dated 13th April 1858. Government of India to Government Punjab, No. 1549, dated 2nd June 1858. Kharitah of Governor General to Maharaja of Pattiala of the same date. Some doubt was felt by the Maharaja as to the terms of this grant, and the Government of India subsequently declared that the Bhadour territory was to be held by the Maharaja and his lineal male heirs in perpetuity. Commissioner Cis-Satlej States to Government Punjab, No. 140, dated 20th May 1859. Government Punjab to Government of India, No. 886, dated Ist June, and Government of India to Government Punjab, No. 7712, dated 17th June 1859.
which is very rare among the Sikhs. He has a good library at Bhadour, stocked with valuable MSS., Sanskrit, Gurmukhi and Persian, and has founded a School, in which these languages are taught free of all charge, the very poor being fed as well as taught. Besides encouraging learning, Attar Singh is himself a good scholar and composes in a graceful style. In 1870 he was appointed one of the Senate of the Punjab University College, While a jagirdar of the British Government he did good service, in 1857, at Ludhiana and at Firozpur, with fifty horsemen, and received the acknowledgments of Government and exemption from payment of six months' commutation.