ORIGINS OF THE KINGDOM OF KHAIRPUR
Khairpur (formerly a village named Boira) was founded in 1786 by Meer
Sohrab Khan Talpur as the capital of the Kingdom of Upper Sindh
(founded 1783) which was part of the Confederacy of Talpur kingdoms
ruled independently from Khairpur, Hyderabad and Mirpurkhas. The Talpurs a noble clan of Baloch origin, had settled in Sindh
for more than a century before attaining sovereignty. Prior to that
they were settled in the Moghul province of Multan where Seraiki
language became their mother tongue. This was gradually replaced by
Sindhi as their primary language as all Talpurs speak no Balochi or Seraiki today. The Talpurs came to power by defeating the last Kalhora
Sovereign Mian Abdunabi and foreign allies in 1783 after a period of
war that began in 1775 with the murder of Mir Bahram Khan the chief of
the Talpur clan. The son and grandson of Mir Bahram, who had succeeded
him as chief, were also assassinated despite there pledge of allegiance
to Abdunabi. The Kalhora ruler marched on the leaderless Talpurs with
an army over 30,000 strong which included the foreign forces of
Afghanistan, Baloachistan and Jodhpur along with native noblemen. In
the turmoil that followed, Mir Fateh Ali, was elected by a council of
elders as head of the Talpur tribe to organize a force of 6000 to meet
the enemy at the battlefield of Halani. Mir Sohrab, who had been
delayed in gathering his supporters, joined later in the thick of the
battle with a surprise charge of 3000 men. The victory at Halani
allowed Mir Fateh Ali to established himself at Hyderabad, the former
Kalhora capital of Sindh. From this city he ruled the larger part of
southern and western Sindh. His cousin Mir Tharah took over
South-eastern Sindh from Mirpurkhas while Mir Sohrab marched north
routing any remaining resistance and claiming northern Sindh for
himself. Historians have often inaccurately stated that Mir Sohrab was a nephew of Mir Fateh Ali ruler of south-western Sindh. A study of the Talpur family tree reveals that Sohrab was actually the eldest son of Mir Chaker who was the older brother of the elected chief Mir Bahram and therefore a senior and not junior branch of the Talpur clan. It was for this reason perhaps, that Mir Sohrab disapproved of Mir Fateh's election as chief of the tribe and rejected the supremacy of Hyderabad. While Mir Fateh Ali, a grandson of the assassinated Bahram, forced the ameer of Kabul to reject the Kalhora vassal, and recognise him as the ruler of Sindh in 1792 AD, he was unable to assert his authority over his uncle Mir Sohrab who offered violent opposition. Compromising with Sohrab and the Mir Tharah of Mirpurkhas a confederacy of three Kingdoms was formed. Mirpurkhas however acknowledged the supremacy of Mir Fateh Ali, letting him control all matters of foreign affairs, but Khairpur did not.
Mir
Sohrab established himself as the Rais-ul-ummarrah (Paramount Ruler in
Arabic) of Upper Sindh maintained independent Sovereignty and his own
currency separate from Lower Sindh (Hyderabad). To the north it
possessed Kashmore and Subzalkot of Bahawalpur, and by 1791 it included
the autonomous Mazari tribal area up till Mithankot, now in the Punjab,
while to the south it possessed Noushero Firoze and bordered the
Kingdom of Jodhpur at its southeastern tip. At its greatest extent,
Khairpur ranged from Gandava (now in Balochistan) to Shahgarh (now in
India). Its area was well over 50,000 sq. kilometers. In the initial period of Talpur rule the Afghan kings claimed suzerainty over and an annual 'tribute' from Sindh which the ameers rarely paid. The Afghans had no contribution in nation building such as road, schools, canals that were built by the Mirs. Indeed their claim on Sindh was a farce since they had absolutely no control over the ameers as Khairpur and Hyderabad established direct relations with foreign nations and empires. The Afghans had no representation in the administrative set-up or even any form of political or diplomatic representation in Sindh. Often when Sindh came under attack from its enemies not one Afghan soldier was there to defend their supposed interests as they had for the Kalhora. How could the Afghan king be even nominally suzerain of the Talpurs if he was never even allowed to set foot in their dominions and his armies either defeated or chased out?! The Talpurs had a closer relationship with the Persian empire then it had with the Afghans. Indeed they were provided with Persian engineers to build forts and irrigation systems. Historians today, not afflicted with an imperialist bias or a drive to over simplify the historical map of the world, have renamed afghan relationship with the ameers as that of Sindh being under Afghan "sphere of influence" although "sphere of plundering" would be more accurate.
In an effort to end the threat of future harassment from Afghanistan as well as other neighbours, the Rais of Hyderabad entered into treaty of ‘eternal friendship’ with the British Empire of the capricious East India Company, permitting them commercial access in 1832. Soon afterwards, in the same year, Mir Rustom, then Paramount Ameer of Khairpur, entered into a similar treaty with the British. With this began the downfall and conquest of the Talpur Confederacy (1843) as it led to the gradual increase of British preponderance. To make matters worse, Hyderabad disintegrated into petty states as the Paramount Ameer was unable resist British interference in his Kingdom. In 1838, Mir Rustom surrendered control over foreign affairs to the British Empire and came under British protection by treaty. This relationship of subordinate alliance brought Khairpur under British “paramountcy” and the empire began to recognize the kingdom as a “princely” state as it had the other countries of the Indian subcontinent.
PRINCES OR KINGS?
Of the lack of respect of native sovereigns Ed Haynes says it best;
“It should be pointed out that the habitual terminology of "Princely States" is significantly flawed. These states were not ruled by "princes", but rather by "kings", some of whom enjoyed a truly ancient heritage of political power. For the British -- and their ideology of imperialism -- there was but one significant "king" (and he lived in London); Indian rulers were (and had to be) "princes." Despite the unfortunate origins, this terminology has become common,….”
("Indian
Princely States" Winthrop University site maintained by Ed Haynes,
Associate Professor of History, Winthrop University, South Carolina.)
The
ruler the empire recognized as ‘king’ was the mughal ruler of Delhi,
descendent of the emperors of the defunct mughal empire. Although
mughal territory had shrunk so greatly that it didn’t even possess Agra
and the Taj Mahal, the company, it seems, fancied itself to be the
rightful inheritors of a long dead empire by deposing the last mughal
king. States of the Indian subcontinent were lowered in stature to
justify imperial expansion.
The only word the British
translated as "king" was the persian term Shah or Badshah". In a
subcontinent of over 30 languages their were certainly more titles for
kings than one persian term adobted by an emperor. Furthermore the
informality with which the same titles were used or granted amongst the
nobility led perhaps to more confusion. The Nizam of Hyderabad, like
his Moghul predecessors, would give the title of Maharaja ('Great
King') to a noblemen in order to elavate himself over a Hindu
Soveriegn. The Khan-e-khanaan (Balochi for 'king') would give the Title
of Nizam to his nobleman etc. What should have actually been taken into
account was the independence of the ruler from other rulers, for
example could a foriegn ruler legally apply a law in another state
without the permission of the native ruler. Barbara N. Ramusack, in her
book "The Indian Princes and their States"(Cambridge University Press,
2004), includes categorisation of princely states before 1800 as: 1)
antique, including Rajput states; 2) successor, such as Hyderabad and
Awadh; and 3) warrior or conquest states, such as Gwalior and Mysore.
Later on, the British elevated many feudatories of the truly
independent States, to the 'rank' of "prince" as reward for their
support of British expansion, raising the number of 'princes' from
around 30 to an absurd 562 of which over a hundred were recognized as
sovereign.
The
rulers of Khairpur, were always addressed as either ‘aba’ (father) or
‘badhshah’ (king) by their subjects. In Sindh the Persian term "Shah"
or "Badshah" is used for 'syeds'(descendents of the Prophet Mohummad)
The ruling Mirs being devout muslims, therefore, took for themselves
the the same Arabic term as the Afghan King - "Ameer" or
"Emir"(Commander-of the country). In 1792 the Afghan king recognized
the Talpur ruler of Hyderabad as The "Rais" of Sindh in order to hold
some claim on Sindh after he failed to restore his Kalhora Vassal to
the throne. However, Mir Sohrab of Khairpur, who was independent of
Hyderabad, declared himself as Rais as well. Sohrab divided his kingdom
amongst three of his sons and established them as emirs, then declared
himself 'Rais of the Emirs'. Currently, 'Rais' is used for president in
the Middle East. In general Muslim kings did not use the Arabic term
for king (Mallick) as the Quran used it to refer to God, furthermore,
mallick became a commonly used term for zamindars (agricultural
landlords) in some parts of India. Nowadays, some fifty years after the
end of Khairpur state, the phrase ‘Mir His Highness’ has gained
currency in Sindh as an address for the former sovereign by the young,
while some still shout ‘badshahi barqarar’ (long live your kingship) at
the sight of the Mir. Map of India; showing the principal states which were either reduced or extinguished by the East
India Company. Note: States such as Bhopal and Rewa, which had become or attained independence
from the Moghuls before temporary subjugation under Maratha Kings, are not shown.
Khairpur State in present
day Pakistan
The “princely state” gradually lost most of its territory to the
Company. By 1851 its territory was reduced to 15669 sq kilometers. It
was under Mir Ali Murad I that Khairpur survived these dark times. In
1842, Sir Charles Napier arrived in Sindh with the predetermined
objective to conquer Sindh on any pretext whatsoever. Mir Ali Murad had
already established himself as the most powerful ameer in Upper Sindh
much before the arrival of the British and apprehending the eventual
fall of the Talpur Confederacy was determined to survive. Historical
record reveals many times over the fact that Mir Ali Murad was against
the alliance with the British but when no other Talpur ameer listened
to him he allied with the British as well but remained steadfast. The
rest of the Ameers of Sindh, despite all their submission to British
demands, were provoked and conquered after a series of short battles
between February 1843 to June of the same year. The first and most
decisive battle was that of Miani (17 February 1843)
at which the Ameers of Hyderabad surrendered while the Ruler of Mirpur
was defeated later. At Miani, British force of only 2,500 soldiers
crushed the Talpur force of about 30'000, where the Ameers surrendered
after 6'000 Baloachies were killed, while the losses of the British
were only 63! British victory was largely due to superior arms and a
disciplined (strategically united) army as opposed to the disorganized
Baloach forces. The primary weapon of the ameers was the sword and a
limited number of primitive matchlock rifles while the British had the
advanced musket. For the Talpurs, any hope of recovering their kingdoms
was lost as the Baloach Sardars quickly shifted to the British side.
Mir Ali Murad survived the annexation of Sindh as the Rais-ul-ummarah of Upper Sindh. His Survival was due to his being organized and strong enough to be a serious, albeit short term threat to the British Empire during the annexation. He was the only ameer in Sindh with a standing skilled army of Afghan and Persian mercenaries and he was considered a "mortal threat" to the British army. It was for this reason that the British chose to have peace with Khairpur. The survival of Khairpur as a state was purely the result of Mir Ali Murad's tact in handling and understanding the hypocritical policies of the East India Company. By nature, he was a man of boundless ambition and cunning--the necessary ingredients for survival. He was unique amongst the ameers of Sindh in understanding the British empire, its strengths and weaknesses. He travelled to England and made or bought allies in the parliament. His capacity to understand and manipulate a system far more advanced and powerful than his own kingdom allowed for the continued survival of his dynasty.
After the first war for independence in 1857 led to the demise of the East India Company, the Indian empire came directly under the crown and parliament of Britain. A far more dependable and steadfast institution represented in the person of the viceroy. These changes led India into the most progressive phase in its history and Khairpur developed a fruitful relationship with the empire.
Correcting Misinformation!
| It
is important to note that vicious propaganda by the Congress party
during and after independence (1947) has led many to believe that the
princely states including Khairpur were a creation of the British.
Nothing could be further from the truth. The Indian sub-continent is a
large land mass which consist of many nations although it appears small
on commonly available maps of the world. This is because these maps are
flattened projections of the world where areas far north and south of
the equator have been stretched to appear much larger then they
actually are in order to show both sides of the planet on one page. In
fact the distance between Rome and London can comfortably fit with in
the subcontinent. The creation of modern India as one state instead of several countries is primarily due to the policies of the British empire. Firstly, the uniting of the different peoples of sub-continent by the roads and railways built by the British empire. Secondly, the education provided to the natives introduced western ideas of freedom and democracy rather than inducing loyalty. Finally, the struggle to overthrow the British united all nationalities of the sub-continent providing them with a common Identity. With out the British influence there would have been no India today. In actual fact, the term 'India' derives from the word hindustan which gets its name from the river Indus. India or Hindustan was the name given to the "mysterious" land east of the river, by western peoples in Medieval times. Like Europe, the sub-continent also consists of many nationalities and languages. It was only in the Mughal era that modern Hindi evolved as the language of the central Gangetic plain between the Punjab and Bengal. It was India and Pakistan that were the children of the British empire. One empire divided into two. To call India one country is like calling Europe or Africa one state and is a travesty of history. India is still an empire. |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bibliography
Fateh Nama. (Persian)1783Farraer Nama. (Persian)1823.
British Relations with Sind. 1799-1843. An Anatomy of Imperialism. Robert. A. Huttenback. University of California Press Barkley and Los Angeles 1962.
Mc Murdo's Account of Sind (A.D.1830) J. Mc Murdo. Edited by Mubarak Ali. Published by The Institute of Sindhology, University of Sind, Jamshoro. Reprinted 1985.
Delhoste's Observations on Sind (A.D.1832) E. Delhoste . Edited by Mubarak Ali , Dept of History, University of Sind. Institute of Sindhology, Jamshoro Sind , Pakistan. Reprinted 1987.
A History of Sind.(Volume 2). Translated from 18th century persian books by Mirza Kalichbeg Fredunbeg Deputy collector, Kotri (Sind). Printed at Commissioners Press Karachi 1902. Second Edition 1982, Published by Scinde Classics Surnagati Karachee, Printed by Ishtiaq Printing Press Karachi, Produced by Sami Communicationss 255, Hotel Metropol, Karachi.
Historic Battlefields of Pakistan Johnny Torrens-Spence, Oxford University Press 2006, Karachi
The History of Sir Charles Napier's Conquest of Scinde. (A.D.1845) Lieutinent General Sir W.W.F. Napier. With an introduction by Hamida Khuhro. Oxford University Press. Reprinted 2005
A Glance at Sind Before Napier or Dry Leaves From Young Egypt. (A.D.1849) By F.B Eastwick with an introduction by H.T Lambrick. Oxford University Press. First Published in England as Dry leaves from young Egypt. 1849. Second Edition 1851. Reprinted in Pakistan and Published as a Glance at Sind Before Napier 1973. New Introduction and index Oxford University Press 1973.
Narrative of a Residence at the Court of Meer Ali Murad (In two volumes) A.D.1860 By Edward Archer Langley, Retd. Captain, Madras Cavalry. Published by Hurst and Blackett, London. 1860 Reprinted by Dawn Group of Newspapers, Karachi, 2005.
Gazatteer of The Province of Sind (A.D.1876) Compiled by A.W.Hughes, F.R.G.S., F.S.S., Bom. Uncov.Civil Service. Second Edition. London: George Bell and Sons, York Street Covent Garden 1876, Reprint 1996 by Indus Publications, Karachi.
SIND A GENERAL INTRODUCTION. By H.T Lambrick. C.I.E., D.L.I.T.T., F.S.A., Emritus Fellow of Oriel College Oxford. Sindhi Adabi Board Hyderabad (Sind). Pakistan. First Edition 1964 Second edition 1975 Printed in Pakistan By Nazeer Printing Works, Karachi.
GAZATTEER OF PROVINCE OF SIND (A.D.1907) Compiled by E. H Aitken. Bombay Salt Department . 1907. Printed for Government at The Mercantile Steem Press. Karachi. Indus Publications, Karachi.
Lives of the Indian Princes by Allen, Charles; Dwivedi, Sharada Publisher: Random House Value Pub, Westminster, Maryland, U.S.A. Date Published: 1987 ISBN:
The Indian Princes and their States Author; Barbara N. Ramusack University of Cincinnati Barbara.Ramusack@uc.edu University of Oslo Publisher; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. ISBN: 0-52-126-727-7
Modern Indian Kingship: Tradition, Legitimacy and Power in Rajasthan Marzia Balzani (Oxford, 2003).
Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origins and Spread of Nationalism (1991). Benedict Andersen.
Ruling Princes and Chiefs of India With introduction by Sir Walter Lawrence Originally published by the Times of India 1930 Reprinted by Sang-e-Meel Publications, Lahore 2005.
INSTRUMENTS OF ACCESSION AND SCHEDULES OF STATES ACCEDING TO PAKISTAN Presented by The Honourable Minister for the States and Frontier Regions to The constitutional Assembly (legislature), on the 14th February , 1949. Printed and Published by the Assisstant Manager Governor-General's Press and Publications, Karachi, 1949.
MEMORANDUM.... (Submitted to the Chairman and Members of the Basic Principles Committee of the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan on behalf of The Government and The People of Khairpur State on 25th day of May, 1954.)
FACTS AND FIGURES OF KHAIRPUR STATE (West Pakistan) Published by The Department of Industrial Development, Khairpur State. 31st July 1954.
LUMINARIES OF THE LAND SIND MADRESSAH'S ROLL OF HONOUR Alma Mater of Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah. Author; Muhammad Ali Shaikh,Sind Madressatul Islam. Shahrah-e-Liaquat Karachi. Published in November 1999 By Sind Madressatul Islam As part of the Golden Jubilee Celeberations Programme of Pakistan.
Travels, Tales, and Encounters in Sindh and Balochistan 1840-1843. Marianne Postans. With Introduction by R.A. Raza. Reprinted by Oxford University Press.2003.
PARTITION OF INDIA Legend and Reality H.M Seervai. Oxford University Press 2005.
The Last Wali of Swat An Autobiography as told to Fredrick Barth. White Orchid Press Bangkok, 1995 First Edition 1985 Second Edition 1995
The Oxford History Of India By the Late Vincent A. Smith, C.I.E., Edited by Percival Spear. Fourth Edition. Oxford University Press Karachi.
Travels in Beloochistan and Sinde Henry Pottinger with an introduction by Rosie Vaughan. First published by Longman ,Hurst, Rees, Orme and Brown Peternoster-Row, 1816. Oxford University Press , Karachi. 2002.
INSIDE BALUCHISTAN. Political Autobiography of Khan-e-Azam Mir Ahmed Yar Khan Baluch, Ex-Ruler of Kalat State. Publishers Royal Book Company P.O Box No. 7737 Karachi-3, 1975. First Edition 1975 Printed at MAAREF PRINTERS Karachi (Pakistan.)
A JOURNEY TO DISILLUSIONMENT Sherbaz Khan Mazari. As told to Shehryar Khan Mazari. Oxford University Press 1999. Second Impression 2000.
