Chairperson : Prof.

Neeru

Department Co-ordinator : Prof. Sheena Pall

Course Leader : Prof. Sheena Pall

M.A. HISTORY SEMESTER – II

PAPER – I: PUNJAB IN THE 18TH CENTURY

CONTENTS

 Introductory (i)
 Syllabus (ii)

L. No. Title Author Pages

1. Establishment of Independent Rule Under Dr. Karamjit Kaur Malhotra 01

Banda Singh Bahadur; Measures of The Mughal

State; Impact of The Decline of The Mughal Empire;

Struggle for Power

2. Emergence of New Powers In the Second Half of Dr. Karamjit Kaur Malhotra 15
the Eighteenth Century

3. Role of Gurmata, Dal Khalsa, and Rakhi System In Dr. Karamjit Kaur Malhotra 25
The Political Process

4. Civil and Military Administration Under The New Dr. Karamjit Kaur Malhotra 29
Rulers; Conception of Suzerainty and Coinage;
Agrarian Conditions and Land Revenue System.

1
5. Features of Jagirdari System; Working and Recipients Dr. Karamjit Kaur Malhotra 42
of Dharmarth Grants; Development of Urban Centres;

Trade and Manufacture

6. Re-Construction of Eighteenth Century As Dr. Karamjit Kaur Malhotra 58

‘Misaldari Period; Political Relations;

Eighteenth Century Debate and the Punjab

Vetter: Prof. Sheena Pall

E-mail of Department : [email protected]

Contact No. of Department : 0172-2534329

2
 COURSE INTRODUCTION

Dear Students this paper deals with the history of the Punjab region in the eighteenth Century. The need for
regional history arises because of the vastness of the Indian sub-continent, its linguistic and cultural diversity
and differing histories. A regional perspective not only provides us with a rounded history of the Punjab focusing
on its political, economics, administrative, cultural and urban characteristics, but also helps in forming a better
understanding of the history of India.

The objective of this courses is to challenges the notion that the eighteenth century was a dark period in the
history of Punjab. This paper brings out the political process by which a hundred new centers of power, not only
the twelve Misaldars emerged in the Punjab after the decline of the Mughal Empire. It focuses on the struggle
for power between the Afghans, the Mughals, the Marathas and the Sikhs. The three institutions of Gurmata,
Dal Khalsa and Rakhi that were instrumental in establishing the Sikha as rulers over a large part of Punjab are
analysed. Some other aspects that have been dealt with are political organization administrative arrangements
and patterns of state patronage. Main features of urban and agrarian economy of the eighteenth century in the
Punjab have also been treated to from a better understanding of the region.

This paper is divided into six lessons. Reference readings for each lesson have been provided. Model questions
too have been appended with each lesson to help students prepare for examinations. Self –assessment short
type questions are given in each lesson for the students to test themselves. The lessons are interactive in nature
and aid in general understanding.

We wish you success in your studies,

Department of History,

University School of Open Learning,

Punjab University, Chandigarh

3
 Paper (i) Punjab in the Eighteenth Century

COURSE CODE: HIS 125

Objective: This paper challenges the notion of the eighteenth century as a ‘dark period’ in the Indian history
and brings out the political process by which over a hundred new centres of power and not only the ‘twelve
misaldars’ came up in the Punjab after the decline of the Mughal Empire. It deals with all the new rulers, Sikh as
well as non-Sikh, in terms of their political organization, administrative arrangements, patterns of state
patronage and the main features of urban as well as agrarian economy.

Pedagogy: The classroom teaching is supplemented by familiarizing the students with the maps of the area
besides distribution of outlines for greater effectiveness. The evaluation is based on continuous internal
assessment which comprises of unit tests, presentation of seminars, classroom participation and attendance.

Note: The candidate will be evaluated on the basis of a written examination (80 marks) and Internal Continuous
Assessment (20 marks).The duration of written examination will be 3 hours. In the written examination, the
question paper will have the following format:
The maximum marks in this paper/option will be 80.
(i) There will be 9 questions in all. The candidate will be required to attempt 5 questions.
(ii) Question No.1 will be compulsory and carry 20 marks. It will consist of 15 short questions spread
over the entire syllabus. The candidate is required to attempt any 10 short answer type questions.
Each short question, carrying 2 marks, will be answered in 25-30 words.
(iii) Remaining part of the question paper will be divided into four units, corresponding to the four
units of the syllabus. The paper setter will set 2 essay type questions from each unit. The
candidate will attempt 4 essay type questions, selecting one from each unit. Each essay type
question will carry 15 marks.
(iv) The paper setter is expected to follow the Essential Readings and set questions on the sub-themes
or parts of a theme, rather than the topic as a whole.
Unit I
Establishment of Independent rule under Banda Singh Bahadur and basis of his support; measures of the Mughal
State; Impact of the decline of the Mughal Empire on administrative functioning and finances of the Punjab;
struggle for power-the Mughals, the Afghans and the Marathas; Ahmad Shah Abdali and the Sikhs
Unit II
Emergence of the new powers in the second half of the eighteenth century: the Rajput chieftains in the hills; the
Muslim rulers in the plains; the Sikhs as rulers; role of Gurmatta, Dal Khalsa and Rakhi System in the political
process; re-construction of ‘eighteenth century as Misaldari period’.
Unit III
Civil and military ministration under the new rulers; conception of suzereignty and coinage; political relations;
Agrarian conditions and land revenue System.

Unit IV
Features of Jagirdari System; Working and recepients of dharmarth grants; Development of Urban Centres; trade
and manufacture; Eighteenth Century Debate and the Punjab

4
Essential Readings
Alam Muzaffar, Crisis of Empire in Mughal North India: Awadh and the Punjab, 1707-48, New Delhi: Oxford
University Press, 1986.
Chetan Singh, Region and Empire: Punjab in the Seventeenth Century, Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1991.
Ganda Singh, Baba Banda Singh Bahadur, Sirhind: Sarhind Historical Research Society 1976.
Ganda Singh, Ahmad Shah Durrani, Bombay: Asia Publishing House, 1959.
Sachdeva, Veena, Polity and Economy of the Punjab during the late Eighteenth Century, New Delhi: Manohar
1993.
Reference Readings
Banga, Indu, ed., Five Punjabi Centuries: Polity, Economy, Society and Culture, c.1500-1900, New Delhi:
Manohar, 1997.
Bhagat Singh, Sikh Polity in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries, New Delhi: Oriental Publishers &
Distributors, 1978.
Grewal, J.S., The Sikhs of the Punjab: The New Cambridge History of India, New Delhi: Cambridge University
Press, 1999.
Grewal, Reeta and Sheena Pall, eds., Pre Colonial and Colonial Punjab, Delhi: Manohar, 2005 (essays by Irfan
Habib, Chetan Singh and Shireen Moosvi).
Gupta, Hari Ram, History of the Sikh Confederacies (1708-1769), New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal, 1978 (3rd
edn.).
Sharma, T.R., Maharaja Ranjit Singh: Ruler and Warrior, Chandigarh: Panjab University, 2005.
Sinha, N.K., Rise of the Sikh Power, Calcutta: A. Mukherjee & Co., 1973.
Surinder Singh, Sikh Coinage – Symbol of Sikh Sovereignty, New Delhi: Manohar, 2004.

5
 Lesson- 1

ESTABLISHMENT OF INDEPENDENT RULE UNDER BANDA SINGH

BAHADUR; MEASURES OF THE MUGHAL STATE; IMPACT OF THE
DECLINE OF THE MUGHAL EMPIRE; STRUGGLE FOR POWER

Structure
1.0 Objectives
1.1 Introduction
1.2 Establishment of Independent rule under Banda Singh Bahadur and basis of his support
1.3 Measures of the Mughal State
1.4 Impact of the decline of the Mughal Empire on administrative functioning and finances of the
Punjab
1.5 Struggle for power: the Mughals, the Afghans and the Marathas
1.6 Ahmad Shah Abdali and the Sikhs
1.7 Summary
1.8 References
1.9 Further Readings
1.10 Model Questions

1.0 Objectives
To enable the students to understand the following:
 Process of the emergence of Banda Singh Bahadur as a leader of the Sikhs; His military activity
and conquests; nature of his administrative arrangements; political and military significance of
his activity and the basis of his support
 Measures of the Mughal state against Banda Singh Bahadur
 Impact of the decline of the Mughal Empire on the administration and finances of the Punjab
 Process of struggle for power among the Mughals, Afghans and the Marathas
 Conflict between Ahmad Shah Abdali and the Sikhs and its outcome

1.1 Introduction
The establishment of a sovereign state by the Khalsa under the leadership of Banda Singh within two
years of Guru Gobind Singh’s death, though short lived, created an example, and reinforced the ideal of
Khalsa Raj. Despite persecution and suppression, they survived as a political entity. The eighteenth
century was marked by the declining authority of the Mughal emperor at the court, and the assertion of
power by the provincial governors in relation to the centre and its various functionaries in the province.
The increasing tension between the court and the individuals aspiring to hold power in the province
brought Ahmad Shah Abdali on the scene. In 1752, when the province of Lahore was transferred to the
empire of Ahmad Shah Abdali, the Khalsa were increasing their political power in pockets of territory in
the central Punjab. Around 1760, when Ahmad Shah Abdali was trying hard to strike down the
Marathas, the Sikhs established their hold over much of the Punjab. Ahmad Shah Abdali failed to
dislodge them. Aware of their power and strength, they declared their sovereignty by striking a coin at
Lahore in 1765, carrying the same inscription as on Banda’s seal.
1.2 Establishment of Independent rule under Banda Singh Bahadur and the basis of
support
Teja Singh and Ganda Singh have divided their Short History of the Sikhs into three parts. The second
part relates exclusively to ‘Sikhs under Banda’ and it is given the title ‘political foundations’. Great
importance is thus given to Banda Bahadur who led the Sikhs to victories against the Mughal faujdars

6
and proclaimed the establishment of a sovereign Sikh rule. There was a background of direct armed
conflict between the Sikhs and the Mughal faujdars and, therefore, armed conflict with the Mughals was
not a new thing, what was new was the conquest and occupation of a large territory and the formal
declaration of sovereign rule. A tangible shape was given to the ideal of Raj Karega Khalsa (The
Khalsa shall rule) which is attributed to Guru Gobind Singh. The example of Banda was never forgotten
by the Khalsa during the eighteenth century.
Banda had met Guru Gobind Singh in Nander (Hazur Sahib) and after a dramatic contest
of spiritual power he had submitted to the Guru, becoming his ‘banda’ (slave). He was given khande de
pahul (Baptism of the double edged sword) and made a ‘Singh’. That is why Teja Singh and Ganda
Singh refer to him as ‘Banda Singh’. He was commissioned by Guru Gobind Singh to lead the Khalsa in
their struggle against the Mughals, and to punish Wazir Khan, the faujdar of Sarhind, and his Hindu
diwan Sucha Nand, who were responsible for the execution of the two younger sons of Guru Gobind
Singh. A few prominent Singhs, like Baj Singh, Binod Singh and Kahn Singh, were sent with him. On
reaching the Punjab he was given support by men like Bhai Fateh Singh, a descendant of an eminent
Sikh Bhai Bhagtu, Karam Singh and Dharam Singh of Bhai Rupa, Ali Singh and Mali Singh of Salaundi,
and Ram Singh and Tilok Singh, the sons of Chaudhari Phul, among many others.

If we look at the early activities of Banda Singh in the Punjab, it appears that he was
following a strategy to cut off Wazir Khan from his local support and from the Delhi side. Towards the
end of November 1709 he fell upon Samana and sacked the city. An immense booty fell into the hands
of the Sikhs, adding to their striking power. From there, he moved towards Sadhaura, marching through
Ghuram, Shahabad, Mustafabad and Kapuri. After the fall of Sadhaura the Sikhs took possession of
the fort of Mukhlispur which was fortified by Banda Singh and re-named Lohgarh. By following this
strategy, he gave time to the Sikhs across the river Sutlej to join him before attacking Sarhind.

Banda Singh moved towards Sarhind and sacked the towns of Chhat and Banur.
Meanwhile the Sikhs of the Doaba and the Majha had crossed the river Sutlej and reached Kiratpur.
Their march towards Sarhind was opposed by the Afghan Chief of Malerkotla. A battle was fought near
Ropar and the victorious Sikhs joined Banda Singh near Chappar-Chiri. Wazir Khan moved out of
Sarhind to attack the Sikhs at Chappar-Chiri in May 1710. A fierce battle was fought in which Banda
Singh, Baj Singh and Bhai Fateh Singh played a distinguished part. Wazir Khan was killed in the battle.
The near contemporary historian Khafi Khan says, ‘Not a man of the army of Islam escaped with more
than his life and the clothes which he stood in. Horsemen and footmen fell under the swords of the
infidels, who pursued them as far as Sarhind’. Two days later, Sarhind was taken after a sharp struggle
in which 500 Sikhs lost their lives. The city was partly sacked, and over two crores of rupees from the
properties of Wazir Khan and Sucha Nand fell into the hands of the Sikhs. It may be added that the
most sacred Muslim place of the city, the mausoleum of Shaikh Ahmad Sarhindi remained untouched.
Within a short time the entire territory of the Sarkar of Sarhind from Karnal to Ludhiana, yielding
revenues of about 36 lacs of rupees, came into the possession of the Sikhs.

Banda Singh made arrangements for the administration of the conquered territory. Baj
Singh was made governor of Sarhind. Bhai Fateh Singh was given charge of Samana. Baj Singh’s
brother Ram Singh, jointly with Binod Singh, was given charge of Thanesar. Banda Singh adopted
Mukhlispur as his headquarters. A coin was struck with an inscription in Persian to the effect that ‘the
sword of Nanak’ enabled the Sikhs to strike a coin in both the worlds; the victory of Guru Gobind Singh,
the King of Kings, was a manifestation of the grace of God. The foundation laid by Guru Nanak is seen
as culminating in the political triumph of Guru Gobind Singh through the Khalsa. An official seal was
used for correspondence. It bore an inscription in Persian, again to the effect that Guru Gobind Singh
obtained deg (cauldron for cooking food, or the Sikh tradition charity), tegh (sword, the source of power)
and fateh-o nusrat (victory, triumph) from Guru Nanak.

7
 The theatres of Sikh political activity in the second half of 1710 were the Gangetic Doab,
the Jalandhar Doab, and the upper Bari-Doab. The Sikhs carried their arms to the walls of Lahore. The
Mughal emperor Bahadur Shah was informed of the disturbances towards the end of June 1710 when
he was at Ajmer. He moved towards the north with a huge army. The Sikhs retired from Thanesar and
Sarhind and took their stand at the fort of Lohgarh. The Mughal forces were encamped at Sadhaura in
the first week of December 1710. The Sikhs fell upon them and ‘struck terror into the royal troops.
Before sunset, they retreated towards the fort of Lohgarh. However, they were not in opposition to face
a long siege due to shortage of provisions. Banda Singh made a determined sally on the 10th of
December and disappeared into the hills of Nahan with all his men. Mun‘im Khan, the Wazir, took the
fort on the following morning but only to find that ‘the hawk had flown’. The emperor’s displeasure was
immense. He ordered that the Raja of Nahan should be put in a cage and sent to Delhi, holding him
responsible for Banda Singh’s escape.

A hukamnama addressed to the Khalsa of Jaunpur on 12 December 1710 bears the

impression of the seal we mentioned earlier. The form of salutation in the hukamnama is ‘Fateh
Darshan’and not ‘Vaheguruji ka Khalsa, Vaheguruji ki Fateh’. The order emanates from ‘Sri Sacha
Sahib’ to the ‘Khalsa of the great immortal God’. They are asked to come fully armed with five
weapons. They are advised to follow the Khalsa rahit. They are instructed not to use any intoxicant like
bhang, tobacco, poppy or alcohal. Nor should they eat meat. They should never commit theft or
adultery. They should love one another. ‘He who follows the Khalsa rahit would be redeemed by the
Guru’. This hukamnama is significant for its emphasis on the Khalsa rahit, and also for the fact that the
form of salutation is not that of the Khalsa and the injunction about vegetarian diet does not accord with
the Khalsa preference for meat diet. The hukamnama is important also for the statement: ‘We have
brought about sat-jug’ (the golden age).

Banda Singh’s movements in the hill states are not very clear but some of the events in
the Punjab plains are noticed by news-writers or contemporary historians. Early in June 1711 he
defeated the faujdar of Jammu, and took the towns of Raipur, Bahrampur, Batala and Kalanaur. But
this was a temporary occupation. After the death of Bahadur Shah in February 1712, his son Jahandar
Shah ascended the throne. His succession was contested by Farrukh Siyar who ousted him in the
beginning of 1713. Banda Singh got the opportunity to recapture some of the lost territories between
the Sutlej and the Jamuna, including Sadhaura and Lohgarh. Farrukh Siyar turned his attention to
Banda Singh after ascending the Mughal throne. He appointed Abdus Samad Khan as the Governor of
Lahore to deal with the Sikhs. He obliged Banda Singh to evacuate Sadhaura and Lohgarh in October
1713, and to seek refuge in the Jammu hills. We hear of a few local battles between the Sikhs and the
Mughal authorities in 1714 but not of Banda Singh.

In the beginning of 1715 Banda Singh appeared in the plains and occupied Kalanaur and
Batala. Abdus Samad Khan was rebuked by the emperor and collected all the forces at his command to
capture Banda Singh. The Mughal forces were defeated in an open battle. But Banda Singh adopted a
defensive position by retreating to a walled enclosure (garhi) near Gurdas Nangal, about six kilometres
from the present Gurdaspur. He was besieged by Abdus Samad Khan who ensured that no food
reached the besieged. Binod Singh was in favour of evacuating the garhi and to cut through the enemy
lines. Banda Singh did not agree. But Binod Singh left the garhi and cut through the Mughal lines to
escape. Banda Singh and his followers in the garhi were famished due to lack of food and water, and
taken prisoners in December 1715. They were taken to Lahore and paraded in the streets.

Abdus Samad Khan’s son, Zakariya Khan, was put in charge of Banda Singh and 740
Sikhs to be taken to Delhi with 700 cart-loads of heads. They reached Delhi towards the end of
February 1716. In the procession in Delhi, 2,000 heads of Sikhs raised on bamboo poles were followed
by the body of a cat at the end of a pole to indicate that not even animals were left alive in Gurdas
Nangal. Then came Banda Singh, placed in a cage on an elephant, followed by the Sikh prisoners in

8
the procession. As an eye-witness says: ‘Not the slightest sign of dejection or humiliation was visible on
their faces’. Execution began early in March 1716. Two Englishmen, Surman and Stephenson, who
were in Delhi, wrote to Calcutta that not a single Sikh changed his faith to save his life. On 9 June 1716
Banda Singh was tortured to death near the Qutb Minar. All his companions were put to death either
before or after him, including his young son, Ajai Singh.

Teja Singh and Ganda Singh are keen to defend Banda Singh on account of the slogan of
Fateh Darshan and vegetarianism. Ratan Singh Bhangu had severely criticized Banda Singh on
account of his alleged deviation from the injunctions of Guru Gobind Singh. Teja Singh and Ganda
Singh defended Banda Singh against the charges of Bhangu. But there is hardly any need to do so.
Banda Singh remained absolutely faithful to his commission: he established sovereign rule in the heart
of the Mughal empire and died as a martyr. As Teja Singh and Ganda Singh say, ‘a will was created in
the ordinary masses to resist tyranny and to live and die for a national cause. The example set by
Banda and his companions in this respect was to serve them as a bacon-light in the darker days to
come’. When the Sikh re-established their rule in the late eighteenth century they used on their coins
the same inscriptions that had been used on the coin and the seal in the time of Banda Singh.

Ganda Singh was the first historian to credit Banda Singh with the abolition of the
zamindari system. This view has been accepted or reinforced by many others. However, there is no
credible evidence in support of this view, and there is ample room for controversy. Another
controversial point is the nature of the support that Banda received. As underlined by Irfan Habib, the
contemporary historians refer to the people of the lowest castes supporting Banda Singh, qualifying this
by mentioning peasants and Khatris among his supporters. Muzaffar Alam on the other hand gives
considerable importance to zamindars among the supporters of Banda Singh. The evidence presented
by contemporary Sikh and Persian writers leaves the impression that the main support for Banda Singh
came from Sikh peasants and the lower caste people consisting of artisans and agricultural labourers.
The presence of Khatris and banjarasamong the followers of Banda Singh is also visible. A few Sikh
zamindars were surely there in support. What gave coherence to the supporters of Banda Singh was
not any class but the Sikh faith.

Self Assessment Questions

1. Where did Banda Bahadur meet Guru Gobind Singh?

2. What did Guru Gobind Singh commission Banda Bahadur to achieve?

3. Which places were conquered by Banda Bahadur before the conquest of Sarhind?

4. Through which battle did Banda Singh Bahadur conquer Sarhind?

5. Name the Mughal Faujdar of Sarhind and his Peshkar?

6. Which Mughal emperors tried to defeat Banda Singh Bahadur?

9
1.3 Measures of the Mughal State
The only time the central and provincial governments of the Mughals came effectively together was
against Banda Singh Bahadur. Between 1710 and 1715, three successive Mughal emperors tried to
crush him. However, their own political problems, especially struggles for succession, came in the way
of dealing with one of the most serious challenges posed to the Mughal state during the eighteenth
century.
Under Aurangzeb’s successor, Bahadur Shah, the Mughal forces invaded Banda Bahadur’s
headquarter at Lohgarh towards the end of 1710. Situated in a hilly tract, it was closely invested by
60,000 Mughal forces. It was so well fortified that Emperor Bahadur Shah dared not attack it directly for
some time. After Sikhs under Banda ran short of provisions they made a determined sally out of their
stronghold and disappeared into the hills. Bahadur Shah was angry and ordered Banda’s pursuit, but
he could not be captured.
Banda Bahadur reappeared in the upper Bari Doab in the middle of 1711, and occupied Kalanaur
and Batala. He was again unsuccessfully pursued by the Mughal forces. Many persons were seized on
the assumption of being Sikhs and were handed over to the soldiers in lieu of pay, to be sold in the
horse-market at Lahore. An imperial order asked the government officials to kill Sikhs wherever they
were found. To ensure that the Sikhs were not mixed up with Hindus, another order required all Hindus
to shave off their beards and whiskers on the understanding that the true Sikhs would rather suffer
death than have their hair cut. The exasperation of the emperor was evident in these and some other
orders. However, Banda Bahadur remained un-subdued at the time of Bahadur Shah’s death at Lahore
in February 1712. Bahadur Shah was succeeded by his weak son, Jahandar Shah, who was ousted by
Farrukh Siyar after about a year.
During the struggle for succession, Banda Bahadur was able to strengthen his position and
recover the lost territory, including the fort of Lohgarh. He had also defeated some Mughal faujdars and
received allegiance from some hill chiefs who had been the feudatories of the Mughal state.
In this backdrop, when the new Mughal emperor turned to the Sikhs, he issued a general order for
their extermination. An able and energetic official, Abdus Samad Khan, was now appointed as the
governor of Lahore. He could expel Banda Bahadur from the sarkar of Sarhind by the end of 1713, but
the latter reappeared in the upper Bari Doab. His followers even aspired to occupy Lahore, obliging
Emperor Farrukh Siyar to strongly reprimand the new governor and send reinforcements. Soon
thereafter, Banda Bahadur was besieged at a place called Gurdas Nangal near the present town of
Gurdaspur. It was turned into a makeshift fortress to withstand the siege of the Mughal forces. From
here the Sikhs would often come out at night to collect supplies, bravely fighting their way through the
Mughal force and killing those who tried to stop them. The besiegers could do nothing but to strengthen
the siege in order to starve out the Sikhs. After the provisions were exhausted, about 8,000 of Banda’s
men died of hunger and disease, and the remaining were too weak to resist the Mughals indefinitely.
After eight months, Banda and his famished followers were taken prisoner by the Mughals.
Abdus Samad Khan sent Banda Bahadur and over 700 of his companions to Delhi under the
custody of the former’s son, Zakariya Khan. They were paraded in the streets of Delhi before their
execution in batches of one hundred Sikhs every day in March 1716. As was customary, life was
promised to anyone who would renounce his faith and accept Islam. There is contemporary evidence in
both Persian and English sources which underlines that not one person did opt for life on these terms.
Banda Bahadur himself was executed on 9 June 1716 near the tomb of Shaikh Qutbuddin Bakhtiyar
Kaki close to the Qutb Minar.
In one sense, measures of the Mughal state against Banda Bahadur were successful, but the
heroic struggle, achievement and willing sacrifice of Banda and his companions continued to be a
source of inspiration for the Sikhs in their later struggle against the Mughals and Afghans.

10
Self Assessment Questions
1. Name the three Mughal rulers who tried to crush Banda Singh Bahadur?
_________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
2. Who was the Mughal ruler after Bahadur Shah?
_________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
3. Who was the provincial governor responsible for capturing Banda Singh Bahadur?
_________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________

1.4 Impact of the Decline of the Mughal Empire on the Administrative functioning and
Finances of the Punjab
In order to understand the effect of the decline of the Mughal Empire on the administration and finances
of the Punjab it is necessary first of all to see how the power and authority of the Mughal emperor
declined in the first half of the eighteenth century. The relationship between the emperor and the
nobility was crucial for the imperial organization. But the nobles wee gradually but surely alienated from
the emperor. Symptoms of the decline of the imperial edifice could be seen in the time of Bahadur
Shah. The nature or relationship between the emperor and the nobility changed totally in the time of
Muhammad Shah. A position at the centre did not depend anymore on administrative ability, or military
achievements of a mansabdar: the emperor was guided by his favourites. The emperor’s favourites
were little concerned with the problems of the empire; their main concern was to amass wealth and
keep their positions secure. The nobles, in turn, began to look to their individual interest rather than the
interests of the state. Nadir Shah’s invasion of India in 1739 gave a final blow to the emperor’s
authority, besides draining the wealth of the Mughal Empire.
The change at the Mughal Centre had its effect on the relationship between the emperor
and the provincial governors. The geographic location and economic position of the Punjab made it
more important than most other provinces. Asad Khan was withdrawn from the Punjab because of his
inability to deal with the Sikhs, and Abdus Samad Khan was made governor in his place with the chief
objective of suppressing the Sikhs. When the wazir at the Centre tried to replace Abdus Samad Khan,
he began to strengthen his position in the Punjab. This constituted the first major stage in the
breakdown of the existing pattern of relationship of the Mughal Centre with the Punjab. Abdus Samad
Khan made attempts to extend his control over the office of the diwan. In turn, the diwan began to get
independently of the Governor. Abdus Samad Khan tried to secure the office of the diwan in his own
name. No diwan was henceforth appointed to the Punjab. The imperial power in the Punjab was
impaired by the governor’s clash with the wazir and the provincial diwan, and his defiance of imperial
rules.
In 1726, Abdus Samad Khan secured the Governorship of the Punjab and Kashmir for his
son Zakariya Khan, and that of Multan for himself. Zakariya Khan was replaced by Diler Khan in 1731
but, in Kashmir, on Abdus Samad death in 1738, Zakariya Khan succeeded to the governorship of
Multan on grounds of hereditary rights. In order to safeguard his position he submitted to Nadir Shah in
1739 when there was no hope of getting any help from the Centre. He was promoted by Nadir Shah to
the mansab of 8,000 zat and 8,000 sawars, but he lost a substantial part of his revenues. Four mahals
of the Punjab and a few mahals of Multan were practically annexed to the empire of Nadir Shah.
Zakariya Khan’s sons, Yahiya Khan and Shah Nawaz Khan, claimed the Punjab and Multan as a
matter of hereditary right after his death in 1745. Disputes over the property of Zakariya Khan led to a
civil war in 1746. Yahiya Khan, who deputized on behalf of the wazir as governor of the Punjab, was
overpowered by Shah Nawaz Khan, who deputized on behalf of the wazir in Multan. Before Ahmad

11
Shah Abdali invaded the Punjab in 1748, Shah Nawaz Khan had no hesitation in seeking legitimacy of
his position from the Afghan ruler.
The governor’s estrangement with the central authorities led to a rapid decline in the
control of the centre over the various departments of the provincial and local offices. The officials who
aspired to have their own control over them had to face the governor’s hostility. At the same time the
Central authorities overlooked the irregularities and offences by those officials who were posted in the
province to be a check on the Governor. The composition of these officials changed in accordance with
the interests of one or another party in power at the Centre.
Furthermore, the lack of proper imperial control over the provincial administration
manifested itself in the misappropriation of revenues by local officials. This resulted in a conflict with the
agents of the jagirdars and the amils of land held directly by the emperor as the khalisa. The news-
writers in collecting information seriously affected the working of local administration. In a number of
cases the Centre was either ill-informed or misinformed. In a number of instances the new writers took
the side of the Governor in his clashes with the Centre. They remained in office in spite of the orders of
transfer from the Centre.
The politics of intrigues and counter-intrigues at the court encouraged the zamindars to
rise in arms in the face of the steadily weakening Centre. The central government failed to provide
adequate military assistance to the Governor. In the disturbed condition, the revenues of the Punjab fell
from 2 crores of rupees in the seventeenth century to about one crore and a quarter in the early
eighteenth century. The heaviest decline in income was in the sair mahals, which reflected a decline in
trade. The decline in trade and slump in agriculture infuriated the zamindars and peasants. Their anger
was directed against the towns and weakened the merchants. The activities of the Sikhs after the
execution of Banda had the same disastrous effect on trade and the fortunes of the merchants as the
zamindar uprisings. The economic prosperity of the Punjab, of which the writers of the seventeenth
boasted, was no longer there in the 1740s.
We can see that the interplay of forces of the Centre and the region weakened the power
of the Mughal emperor but strengthened the power of the Punjab Governors. Nevertheless, left to
themselves they could not retain power over the province in the face of foreign invasions. Their own
position was weak due to the alienation of the jagirdars, zamindars, the madad-i ma ‘ash grantees and
the traders from the Mughal empire. The entire framework of the empire was adversely affected.
Economic prosperity of the region began to decline. Zakariya Khan, perhaps the ablest Governor of the
Punjab, failed to suppress the Sikhs. They had organized themselves into a force that could contest
power not only with the Mughals but also with the Afghans.

Self Assessment Questions

1. When did Nadir Shah invade India?
_________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
2. The offices of the governor and the provincial diwan got combined under whose
governorship?
_________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Name the four Mughal governors of the early eighteenth century who came from the same
family?
_________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
3. Who was the ablest governor during the early eighteenth century?
_________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________

12
1.5.Struggle for Power: the Mughals, the Afghans and the Marathas

The Sikhs after Banda Singh

Teja Singh and Ganda Singh point out that the Sikhs were divided into several categories in the early
eighteenth century. There were Sikhs who had not yet received the baptism of Guru Gobind Singh and
adopted the outward symbols. They were called sahajdharis. They were sympathetic towards the
Khalsa, the baptized Singhs, who bore the outward symbols. Among them were the staunch followers
of Banda Singh, called the Bandais. There were several other groups, coming down from the
seventeenth century: the followers of Prithi Chand, called Minas, the followers of Dhir Mal, called Dhir
Malias, and the followers of Ram Rai, called Ram Raiyas. Then there were other groups like the Udasis
and the Hindalis, and the followers of Gulab Rai, Gangu Shah, and Ajit Singh. Politically, the most
active among these categories were the Khalsa and the Bandais. On the Diwali of 1720, they came into
opposition over the control of Harmandar Sahib. Bhai Mani Singh arrived at Amritsar on the Baisakhi of
1721, but failed to resolve the conflict. Both sides resorted to arms, and the Bandais were defeated and
ousted. Amritsar became the centre of the activity of the Khalsa.

The Sikhs and the Mughals

Small bands of the Khalsa remained active against the local authorities in the time of Abdus Samad
Khan from 1716 to 1726. His son, Zakariya Khan, who was the Punjab Governor from 1726 to 1745,
adopted strong measures for suppression. In 1733, however, he adopted a conciliatory attitude. With
the approval of the Mughal emperor, he offered jagir to the Khalsa and a title for their leader. After a
good deal of discussion, the Khalsa gathered at Amritsar agreed to accept a number of villages close to
Amritsar and chose Kapur Singh to accept the title of ‘Nawab’. As the accepted leader of the Khalsa,
‘Nawab’ Kapur Singh organized the Khalsa into two main divisions: the old veterans called the Budha
Dal, and the young Khalsa called the Taruna Dal. The latter were restive and difficult to control. They
were divided into five Jathas, each composed of 1300-2000 men, with its own banner, a common store
and a common mess. The young Khalsa were inspired by the ideal of (Raj Karega Khalsa). Their anti-
government activities obliged Zakariya Khan to resume the jagir. He adopted repressive measures
once again, and tried to control the Sikh activities in Amritsar. In this process Bhai Mani Singh was
arrested due to his inability to pay the stipulated sum for permission to hold the Diwali celebrations. On
his refusal to accept Islam he was cut to pieces limb by limb. The Sikhs were infuriated. On Nadir
Shah’s return march from Delhi in 1739, the Sikhs attacked his rear and relieved him of much of the
booty he was carrying back to Persia. He warned Zakariya Khan against the ambition of the Sikhs to
rule. Zakariya Khan mobilized all his resources against the Sikhs. Massa Ranghar was deputed to
occupy Amritsar. He desecrated the Harmandar Sahib and he was killed by Mahtab Singh and Sukha
Singh. However, the Mughal control over Amritsar continued and the Sikhs could not openly visit the
Harmandar. Bhai Bota Singh became a martyr, like Bhai Tara Singh in 1726; he died fighting against
the Mughal troops to declare by his act that the Sikhs had not relinquished their claim to rule. Bhai Taru
Singh died for the sake of his faith like Bhai Mani Singh. This was also the day of Zakariya Khan’s
death, the first of July 1745.

The Mughals, the Sikhs and the Afghans

In the uncertain situation in the Punjab after Zakariya Khan’s death, the Sikhs strengthened their
position. In 1746 a band of Sikhs killed Jaspat Rai, the faujdar of Eminabad. His brother, Lakhpat Rai,
who had been confirmed in his position as diwan by Yahiya Khan, son of Zakariya Khan, who was now
the Governor, swore to destroy the Sikhs root and branch. The most important event of 1746 was the

13
holocaust chhota ghallughara) in which the Sikhs who fought defensive battles against the Mughal
troops suffered a loss of about 7,000 men. About 3,000 Sikhs un-armed were killed in cold blood in the
horse market (nakhas) of Lahore. In March 1747, Yahiya Khan was defeated by his brother, Shah
Nawaz Khan, the Governor of Multan. Lakhpat Rai was replaced by Diwan Kaura Mal. For fear of being
displaced, Shah Nawaz Khan turned to Ahmed Shah Abdali for help. Though he returned to his
allegiance to the Mughal emperor he did not face Abdali who reached Lahore in January 1748. Ahmad
Shah Abdali made his own arrangements in Lahore and marched towards Delhi. But he was defeated
by the Mughal army at Manupur, near Sarhind in March. Muin ul-Mulk, popularly called Mir Mannu,
became the Governor of Lahore and Multan.

The Sikhs took advantage of the invasion and met at Amritsar on the Baisakhi of 1748. Jassa
Singh was chosen as the commander of the joint forces of Sikh leaders, and a mud-fortress called Ram
Rauni was built for defence. Sikh leaders began to occupy the pockets of territory in the Jalandhar,
Bari, and Rachna Doabs. Mir Manu was obliged to take notice of their activity. At the time of Diwali in
1748 he laid siege to Ram Rauni. It was raised three months later on the news of Ahmad Shah Abdali’s
invasion. However, no decisive battle took place for two months, and the two sides came to an
agreement by which Mir Mannu remained in position but ceded the trans-Indus territories to Ahmad
Shah and undertook to pay him 14 lacs of rupees a year as the revenues of the four mahals of Sialkot,
Aurangabad, Gujrat and Pasrur. This was in confirmation of the Mughal emperors, agreement with
Nadir Shah in 1739. Shah Nawaz Khan, the Governor of Multan, was encouraged by the party in power
at the centre to dislodge Mir Mannu. In view of the threat from Shah Nawaz Khan, Mir Mannu made
peace with the Sikhs, allowing them to retain Ram Rauni with a jagir of 12 villages worth about Rs.
1,25,000. With their support, Diwan Kaura Mal defeated and killed Shah Nawaz Khan. The Sikhs
celebrated the Diwali of 1749 with great enthusiasm. They were left alone for a year and a half. They
consolidated their organization for further progress towards their goal.

Mir Mannu was virtually independent of Delhi, and he wanted to be free from his obligations to
Ahmad Shah Abdali. On Mir Mannu’s reluctance to pay the arrears for the four mahals, Ahmad Shah
Abdalimarched into the Punjab before the end of 1751. Kaura Mal enlisted the support of 20,000 Sikhs.
Skirmishes dragged on till 6 March 1752 when Mir Mannu fell upon the Afghans under Ahmad Shah
Abdali. Diwan Kaura Mal and the Sikh leader Sukha Singh were killed in the battle. Mir Mannu was
defeated, but he was re-instated as the Governor of Lahore and Multan by Ahmad Shah Abdali. The
river Sutlej became the boundary between the Mughal and the Afghan empire. It was in Mir Mannu’s
interest now to suppress the Sikhs. They faced a phase of severe persecution till the death of Mir
Mannu early in November 1753. That he had failed to suppress the Sikhs is evident from the Sikh
saying that Mannu was a sickle to mow the Sikhs as a crop: ‘The more he cuts us the more we grow’.

For more than three years after Mir Mannu’s death there was no effective rule in the Punjab.
The Mughal emperor Ahmad Shah appointed his three years old son as the governor, with Mir Mannu’s
two years old son as his deputy. The latter who died towards the end of May 1754. There was a contest
for power. The whole fabric of administration fell apart. The Lahore government was left only with the
capital city and a few surrounding districts. The zamindars and the Sikhs were asserting themselves in
all the five Doabs of the province. Ahmad Shah Abdali decided to make his own arrangements. He
marched to Lahore and went on to Delhi to collect immense wealth, a royal bride for his son Taimur
Shah and another royal bride for himself and, above all, to secure the Sarkar of Sarhindin addition to
the provinces of Kashmir, Lahore, Multan and Thatta (Sind). He appointed Prince Taimur Shah as the
Viceroy of all these territories, with the veteran Afghan General Jahan Khan as his deputy. According to
Teja Singh and Ganda Singh, the Sikh leaders adopted the system of Rakhi, or protection in return for
one-fifth of the revenue. It served as the basis of later misaldari system. The Sikh rulers built forts in
their respective territories during these years.

14
The Afghans, the Sikhs and the Marathas

The years from 1757 to 1761 witnessed a sort of triangular contest between the Afghans, the Sikhs and
the Marathas. In the Afghan efforts to deal with the Sikhs in 1757, Adina Beg Khan, the faujdar of the
Jalandhar Doab, played a very dubious role, with an eye on the Governorship of Lahore. A Maratha
dispatch of 6 January 1758 says that even the environs of Lahore were not safe from the Sikhs.
Thousands of them raided the city every night and plundered the outskirts but no one dared to come
out to face them. The whole machinery of government went out of gear. Adina Beg Khan invited the
Maratha leaders stationed in the neighbourhood of Delhi, who accepted the invitation because of their
own inclination to oust the Afghans from Indian politics. The Afghan governors and faujdars retreated
before the Maratha army which entered Lahore on 19 April 1758. The Sikh leaders had joined the
Marathas for increasing their own resources and power. Raghunath Rao, their leader, realized that the
Maratha could not hold the Punjab in the face of the rising power of the Sikhs. Early in May he moved
out of Lahore, appointing Adina Beg Khan as the Governor on behalf of the Marathas. He was nowhere
near suppressing the Sikhs when he died on 15 September 1758. Ahmad Shah Abdali crossed the
Indus on 25 October 1759 with an army of about 60,000 men. Now it was the turn of the Maratha
contingents to retreat before the Afghans. The historic battle of Panipat was fought early in January
1761. The Marathas were ousted from the politics of north India. In the Punjab, Ahmad Shah Abdali
had still to contest with the Sikhs who had acquired great strength in 1759-60.

Self Assessment Questions

1. Who were the two Mughal governors of Punjab from 1716 to 1745?
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
2. What conciliatory and repressive measures were adopted by the second Mughal governor?
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

3. Who were the important Sikh martyrs of the period?

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

4. When did chhota ghallughara take place and who was the Mughal Diwan responsible for it?
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

5. Name the two foreign invaders of the Punjab from the North-West?
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

6. What was Ram Rauni? When was it built?

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

7. Name the Mughal governor defeated by Ahmad Shah Abdali and when
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

8. Which four Mughal provinces were conquered by Ahmad Shah Abdali?

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

15
9. In which battle were the Marathas defeated by Ahmad Shah Abdali and when?
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

1.6. The Afghans and the Sikhs(1760-65)

The year 1760 proved to be important for the Sikhs due to Ahmad Shah Abdali’s inability to come
to the Punjab due to his occupation with the Marathas around Delhi. The four governors (Karim Dad
Khan, Sarbuland Khan, Mir Muhammad Khan and Mir Munim Khan) whom he sent to Lahore in
succession could not check the increasing power of the Sikhs. On the Diwali of 1760 in early November
the Khalsa gathered at Amritsar and passed a resolution to take possession of Lahore. About 10,000
horsemen under some of the most important leaders moved out to attack the capital. Mir Muhammad
Khan offered Rs. 30,000 for karah parshad which the Sikh leaders accepted and retired. The local
officials found themselves helpless against the Sikhs. The governor of Chahar Mahal (four mahals or
parganasceded to Nadir Shah by the Mughals) fell into their hands and paid ransom for his release.
Even Ahmad Shah Abdali was relieved of much of his booty on his return from Delhi early in 1761. The
Sikhs continued to hover around the Afghan camp up to the Indus.
On their return from the Indus in May 1761, the Sikhs spread themselves over most of the
Punjab. They carried their arms into the hills. The Afghan General Nuruddin Bamzai, who was deputed
by Ahmad Shah Abdali to chastise the refractory people, was defeated by Charhat Singh Sukarchakia.
He took shelter in the fort of Sialkot with 12,000 of his men, but he was obliged to surrender and
allowed to return. Khwaja Ubaid Khan, the Governor of Lahore, collected a large force and marched
upon Gujranwala, the capital of Charhat Singh. Several Sikh leaders rushed to his aid and attacked the
besiegers at night. Khwaja Ubaid Khan sought safely in flight and reached Lahore with some difficulty.
The Sikhs entered Lahore but the Khwaja remained safe in the fort. The Afghan faujdars of the
Jalandhar Doab (Sa‘adat Khan and Sadiq Khan Afridi) were routed by the Sikhs, and the governor of
Jalandhar (Raja Gummand Chand of Kangra) left for the hills on their approach. Nearly the whole
territory of the upper Doabs came under the control of the Sikhs.
This was the background to the greatest holocaust (wadda ghallughara) of 5 February
1762. Ahmad Shah Abdali was on his way to the Punjab when the messengers of Aqil Das of Jandiala,
the Niranjania who had supported Ahmad Shah Abdali against the Sikhs, met him at Rohtas to seek
help for their master who had been besieged by the Sikhs. On hearing the news of Ahmad Shah
Abdali’s march, the Sikh raised the siege and went towards Sarhind. They were gathering in the
villages close to Malerkotla. Its Afghan chief, Bhikhan Khan, asked the Afghan governor of Sarhind,
Zain Kahn, for help and informed Ahmad Shah Abdali of the Sikh presence in his neighbourhood. The
Shah left Lahore on 3 February and reached the village Kupp on the 5th morning. He had already
ordered Zain Khan to march out to attack the Sikhs on the front and he himself fell upon their rear.
Several thousand Sikhs, mostly women and the children, were killed. The Sikh leaders, notably Jassa
Singh Ahluwalia and Charhat Singh Sukarchakia, decided upon throwing a cordon round the women
and children, and move on while fighting. Their aim was to reach Barnala where they hoped to find
some relief with Ala Singh. The cordon was pierced through and the Afghans killed and at least 10,000
Sikhs in the carnage, making it a greater holocaust than that of 1746.
On the eve of the Baisakhi of 1762 in April Ahmad Shah Abdali blew up the Harmandar
Sahib with gun-powder, destroyed the bungas, and filled up the sarovar with debris and refuse. He
stayed on to consolidate his hold over the Punjab. The Sikhs reacted strongly to the carnage and
desecration. They attacked Zain Khan and obliged him to pay 50,000. From Panipat and Karnal to the
north-west of Lahore they became active again. On the Diwali of 1762 in October, 60,000 Sikhs
gathered at Amritsar. Ahmad Shah Abdali marched from Lahore and reached Amritsar on 16 October,
the day before Diwali. On the day following the Sikhs attacked the Afghans and the battle raged for the
whole day. Under cover of darkness then, the Shah escaped to Lahore with all his forces. It was a

16
signal defeat for the Afghans. Before the middle of December 1762 Ahmad Shah Abdali left for
Afghanistan. Thus, he spent almost the whole year in the Punjab but without any success in
suppressing the Sikhs despite the carnage of 5 February and desecration of the Harmandar in April.
In April 1763, Hari Singh Bhangi and Charhat Singh led an expedition against the Afghans
of Kasur on the complaint of a Brahman that Usman Khan had forcibly carried away his wife. Usman
Khan was killed in a battle, and the Brahman’s wife was restored to him. The city was plundered for
booty. Ahmad Shah Abdali sent Jahan Khan to the Punjab early in November. Charhat Singh, Jhanda
Singh Bhangi and Gujjar Singh Bhangi defeated him near Sialkot and forced him to return to Peshawar.
Under the leadership of Jassa Singh Ahluwalia the Sikhs attacked Malerkotla, and killed Bhikhan Khan.
The Dal Khalsa fell upon Morinda. On 14 January 1764, the Dal Khalsa attacked Sarhind. Zain Khan
was shot dead. The city was plundered. A Gurdwara called Fatehgarh Sahib, was built on the spot
where the two younger sons of Guru Gobind Singh had been slaughtered in cold blood. The entire
Sarkar of Sarhind was parceled out among the Sikh leaders. The ruined city of Sarhind was given to
one Bhai Buddha Singh who sold it to Ala Singh for Rs. 25,000.
After the fall of Sarhind, the Sikh leaders made a few conquests across the Jamuna, drove
out Sa‘adat Khan from Jalandhar Doab, obliged Kabuli Mal, the governor of Lahore on behalf of Ahmad
Shah Abdali, to conduct his affairs on the advice of a nominee of Hari Singh Bhangi, occupied Chiniot,
captured Multan, conquered the famous fort of Rohtas, and subdued the upper Sindh Sagar Doab.
Thus, the Sikhs were establishing their power over all the territory between the Indus and the Jamuna.
Ahmad Shah Abdali crossed the Indus in October 1764 with 18,000 Afghans. At Eminabad he was
joined by Mir Naseer Khan of Kalat with his 12,000 Baluchis. Kabuli Mal joined their camp at Lahore.
Charhat Singh attacked them suddenly and the battle went on for the whole day. Qazi Nur Muhammad,
who was present in the Afghan army under Mir Naseer Khan, wrote later: ‘What a pity that the Ghazis
should be killed by the Kafirs from a distance.’ Had there been a hand to hand fight the world would
have seen some fun! The Sikhs were following their tactics of firing from distance and then running
away to reload their guns. On the day following, no Sikh was to be seen there.
Ahmad Shah reached Amritsar on 1 December 1764 to find that there were only 30 Sikhs
in the Harmandar and the Akal Takht. But, as Qazi Nur Muhammad says, ‘they had not a grain of fear
about them’. Their leader was Nihang Gurbakhsh Singh. They were determined ‘to sacrifice their lives
for the Guru’. They all died fighting. Their bodies were cremated behind the Akal Takht and a
Shahidganj was built over the spot. Ahmad Shah stayed on, but he was not clear about what to do. He
reached Kunjpura in February 1765 but decided to return to Kabul. At Sarhind, he conferred the title of
Raja upon Ala Singh, with a drum and banner as the insignia of royalty. Raja Ala Singh agreed to pay
the annual tribute of three and a half lacs of rupees to his Ahmad Shah Abdali as his suzerain. Ahmad
Shahi coins began to be struck at Patiala. This was the last important act of Ahmad Shah Abdali in the
Punjab.
Soon after crossing the Sutlej at Rupar, Ahmad Shah Abdali’s advance-guard was
attacked by the Sikhs. He ordered his army to get ready for fight. He was in the centre; on his right
were Shah Wali Khan and Jahan Khan with 12,000 men; and on his left was Mir Naseer Khan leaders
in a regular battle array: Jassa Singh Ahluwalia and Jassa Singh Ramgarhia in the centre; Charhat
Singh Sukarchakia on the right, along with Jhanda Singh Bhangi and Jai Singh Kanhaiya; and on the
left were Hari Singh and Gujjar Singh Bhangi. What happened? the usual tactics of the Sikhs obliged
Ahmad Shah Abdali to march slowly through the Jalandhar Doab. He took a whole week. He did not
stop at Lahore.
After Ahmad Shah Abdali’s departure at the end of March 1765, the Sikhs gathered at
Amritsar and resolved to take possession of Lahore. Gujjar Singh and Lehna Singh entered the city
through a hole, with 2,000 men, on the night of 16 April. Sobha Singh Kanhaiya of Niazbeg joined them.
They parcelled out the city and its neighbourhood among themselves. A coin struck at Lahore with the
same inscription as on the seal in the time of Banda Singh declared the sovereignty of the Sikhs as
derived from Guru Nanak and Guru Gobind Singh. Sikh rule was re-established with a very large part of

17
the territory between the Indus and the Jamuna under the control of the Sikhs. This was the fulfilment
of their faith in Raj Karega Khalsa.

Self Assessment Questions

1. Where did greatest holocaust the wadda ghallughara take place?
_________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
2. Name the two Sikh leaders present at the time of the wadda ghallughara?
_________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
3. Name the writer present in the Afghan Army in 1764?
_________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
4. Name any four Sikh leaders present in the battle against Ahmad Shah Abdali in 1765?
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
5. Which three Sikh leaders conquered and parcelled the city of Lahore in 1765?

6. What was the significance of the coin struck by the Sikhs in 1765?
_________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
1.7 Summary
From 1708 to 1716, the Punjab witnessed an unprecedented political turmoil created essentially by the
Khalsa under the leadership of Banda Singh who established a temporary but sovereign rule over the
Sarkar of Sarhind, striking a coin and making administrative arrangements in the territory under his
control. After his defeat and execution in 1716 the Mughal governors of Lahore tried to suppress the
Sikhs but failed to do so because of the growing weaknesses of the Mughal administration, uprisings of
the zamindars, decline in economic prosperity, foreign invasions and, above all, the tenacity of the
Sikhs. When Ahmad Shah Abdali invaded the Punjab in 1748, pockets of territories were already under
the control of a few Sikh leaders. With the successive invasions of Ahmad Shah Abdali, the power of
the Mughals was further weakened, and in 1757 the provinces of Lahore, Multan and Kashmir and the
Sarkarof Sarhind were taken over by Ahmad Shah Abdali and directly administered by the Afghan
governor at Lahore. However, the Afghan administrators in the Punjab failed to suppress the Sikhs
who in fact multiplied in numbers and enlarged their material resources by bringing considerable

18
territory under their protection. The Marathas at Delhi came to occupy the Punjab in 1758 but they were
obliged by Ahmad Shah Abdali to retreat before him a year later. While Ahmad Shah Abdali eliminated
the Marathas from the politics of the Punjab by defeating them in the battle of Panipat early in 1761, the
Sikh leaders enlarged their territories and increased their power in the absence of Ahmad Shah Abdali
from the Punjab in 1760.
Ahmad Shah Abdali now realised that the Sikhs were far more formidable as his opponents than what
he had thought. He tried to suppress them by a sudden attack in 1762, killing thousands of Sikhs in a
single day. He also tried to destroy Amritsar as the rallying centre of the Sikhs. However, the Sikhs
proved to be too strong for him and in 1765 they also felt strong enough to declare their sovereign rule
over the Punjab by striking a coin at Lahore.
1.8 References
1. J.S.Grewal, The Sikhs of the Punjab, The New Cambridge History of India, New Delhi:
Cambridge University Press, 2011(rev edn.)
2. Hari Ram Gupta, History of the Sikh Confederacies (1708-1769),New Delhi: Munshiram
Manoharlal, 1978 (3rd edition).
3. Teja Singh and Ganda Singh, A Short History of the Sikhs(1465-1765), vol. I, Patiala: Punjabi
University, 1999 (rpt.).
4. Muzaffar Alam, The Crisis of Empire in Mughal North India: Awadh and the Punjab, 1707-48,
New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1986.
1.9 Further Readings
 Chetan Singh, Region and Empire: Punjab in the Seventeenth Centurey. Delhi: Oxford
University Press.
 Ganda Singh, Ahmad Shah Durrani, Bombay : Asia Publishing House,1950
10.0 Model Questions
1. What was the process by which Banda Singh Bahadur was able to establish his independent
rule?
2. What was the political and military significance of Banda Singh Bahadur’s activity?
3. How did the decline of Mughal Empire affect the administrative functioning and finances of
the Punjab?
4. Account for the struggle for power among the Mughals, Afghans and the Marathas.
What was its impact on the rise of the Sikhs?
5. What were the highpoints in the conflict between Ahmad Shah Abdali and the Sikhs? What
was its outcome for the Sikhs?
*****

19
 Lesson-2

EMERGENCE OF NEW POWERS IN THE SECOND HALF OF THE

EIGHTEENTH CENTURY
Structure
2.0 Objectives
2.1 Introduction
2.2 The Rajput Chieftains
2.3 The Muslim rulers in the Plains
2.4 The Sikhs as rulers
2.5 Summary
2.6 Reference
2.7 Further Readings
2.8 Model Questions

2.0 Objectives
To enable the students to understand the following:
 The nature of political change in the Punjab in the second half of the eighteenth century.
 To grasp the differences between the Rajput chieftains and, the Muslim and Sikh rulers in the
plains.
 To highlight the distinctiveness of the rise of the Sikhs as rulers.

2.1. Introduction
The Punjab region is traversed by six rivers which constitute five interfluves or Doabs (land between
two rivers): the Bist Jalandhar (between the rivers Sutlej and Beas); Bari (between the rivers Ravi and
Beas); Rachna (between the rivers Ravi and Chenab); Chaj (between the rivers Chenab and Jhelum);
and the Sindh Sagar Doab (between the rivers Jhelum and the Indus). Because of their nearness to the
hills, the upper Doabs had comparatively much greater rainfall and better agriculture and a larger
number of villages and towns compared to the lower Doabs. In other words, in the rise of the new
powers in the Punjab during the late eighteenth century, their location in the region and also their
political and social background accounted for the differences between the three categories of new
rulers discussed in this lesson. Thus, there was a long tradition of suzerain-vassal relationship in the
hills, because their inaccessibility from the plains obliged the imperial government at Delhi or the
provincial capital at Lahore to be content with the exercise of suzerainty. The Muslim chiefs in the
plains emerged from amongst the jagirdars, intermediary zamindars, and madad-i-ma‘ash grantees, all
of whom had a well-recognised position in the Mughal framework. After the decline of the Mughal
power they had simply to withhold tribute or revenues to become independent. However, these rulers
tended to accept the over lordship of the powers at Delhi or Kabul. By contrast, the Sikh rulers emerged
from amongst the Khalsa of Guru Gobind Singh, consisting largely of the peasant proprietors and even
some artisans. They fought against the Mughal and Afghan powers to occupy territories and establish
independent rule.

20
2.2 The Rajput Chieftains
Around 1750, there were over thirty contiguous principalities in the hill tracts between the rivers Jhelum
and Sutlej attached to the province of Lahore. The chiefs of these principalities were obliged to become
the vassals of the Mughal empire by paying tribute to the Mughal emperors during the sixteenth
century. The hill rulers were also required to send their own contingents for the service of the suzerain
during the time of war. They accepted the political control of the Mughal emperor, with the implication
that they could not enter into political relations with one another or with an outside power. Succession
to the throne of a vassal was also controlled by the suzerain.
Ahmad Shah Abdali tried to assert his suzerain claims over all the hill chiefs. Similarly, when the
Sikh rulers replaced Ahmad Shah Abdali’s rule in the Punjab, they tried to collect tribute from the hill
chiefs. A few of the hill chiefs themselves tried to assert political control over their neighbours. In the
process, the Punjab hills witnessed a changing pattern of political relationships. However, the Afghan
and Sikh rulers could not exercise the kind of control that had been exercised by the Mughals.
Consequently, during the late eighteenth century, a considerable number of the hill chiefs became
independent of outside control.
Jammu was one of the oldest principalities in the hills between the rivers Ravi and the Chenab.
It was in existence in the first century A.D. Of its ten offshoots, Jasrota was founded in the beginning of
the thirteenth century and Mankot around 1300. Lakhanpur was founded in the early fourteenth century
as an offshoot of Jasrota. Samba and Tirikot were established towards the end of the century as
offshoots of Lakhanpur. Riasi, Bhau, Dalpatpur, Akhnur and Kirmchi were founded after the thirteenth
century as offshoots of Jammu. There were four other principalities which were older than the first
offshoot of Jammu. Basohli was founded in the seventh century; Chenini in the ninth and Bandralta in
the eleventh century. Bhadu was founded in the eleventh century as an offshoot of Basohli. Another
offshoot of Basohli was Bhadarwah, founded in the fifteenth century.
Kangra was the oldest and most important principality in the hills between the rivers Beas and
Satlej. During the late eighteenth century, three of the principalities of the Kangra hills went down under
pressure from the neighbouring chiefs. One of these was Bangahal which had been much reduced in
size before 1750. Its remnant was taken over by Raja Ghamand Chand of Kangra in the 1760s. The
entire territory of Kutlehr was taken over by the chiefs of Kangra in two stages. The Chauki area, that is
the northern half, was seized by his successor, Ghamand Chand in 1758, and the area of Kutlehr
proper was annexed by his successor, Raja Sansar Chand in 1786. The third principality to be
obliterated was that of Shahpur. In 1781, the Sikh chiefs of Pathankot and Sujanpur mobilized their
troops but only to take over the tracts of Kandi and Palahi which belonged to Saeed Khan. Shahpur
proper was annexed by Prithi Singh.
In this context of tussel for aggrandizement, about half a dozen principalities lost part of their
territory during the late eighteenth century, and remained subordinate to one or another ruler for most
of the time: Basohli, Bhimber, Guler, Kahlur and Mandi. For a large number of principalities, the political
change meant only the change in their overlords or suzerains. When Ahmad Shah Abdali occupied the
province of Lahore and asserted his suzerain rights over the hill chiefs, many of the principalities in the
Jammu group started paying tribute to him. Subsequently, they all became subordinate to Ranjit Dev,
Jassa Singh Ramgarhia, Jai Singh Kanhiya and Sansar Chand of Kangra. The chiefs of Bhadarwah
had to pay regular tribute to the chiefs of Chamba after the death of Raja Ranjit Dev. The chiefs of
Bhadu, Basohli and Bandralta paid tribute to the chiefs of Chamba though not every year. On the
whole, the chiefs of the hills did not lose much of their territory to the new rulers of the plains; nor did all
the hill chiefs pay tribute to them.
In fact, chiefs who established their own suzerain claims over the hill principalities, or who
added to their territories, belonged to the hills. The chiefs who dominated much of the politics of the
hills during the late eighteenth century were Ranjit Dev of Jammu in the beginning of the period, Raj
Singh of Chamba in the middle and Sansar Chand of Kangra towards the end of the period. In the early
1770s, Ranjit Dev was probably at the height of his power. Jammu at this time was a flourishing city

21
and a very important centre of trade and commerce. Subsequently, Ranjit Dev was obliged to pay
tribute to the Bhangi chiefs and after his death in 1781, Jammu was sacked by Mahan Singh
Sukarchakia.
In fact, the power of Ranjit Dev was on the decline already before his death, and the power of
Chamba was on the increase. Raja Umed Singh of Chamba had recovered the territories to the south
of the Dhaula Dhar range. At the time of the death of Umed Singh in 1764, his son Raj Singh was a
minor. Chamba Singh lost Bhalai and Jund to Raja Amrit Pal of Basohli in 1775 when Ranjit Dev too
was hostile to Raj Singh because he had started asserting himself against the Jammu chief. Soon after
Ranjit Dev’s death, Raj Singh recovered Bhalai and Jund and imposed a heavy indemnity on the chief
of Basohli. In 1783, he obliged Fateh Pal of Bhadarwah to shift his allegiance from the chief of Jammu
to himself. Raj Singh also obliged the chief of Kashtwar to become his vassal. His son and successor,
Raja Jit Singh improved upon the legacy left to him. He imposed tribute on the chiefs of Basohli, Bhadu
and Bandralta.
More spectacular than the rise of Ranjit Dev and Raj Singh was that of Sansar Chand of
Kangra. When he came to the throne in 1775, he was only ten years old, and the occupation of Kangra
was his cherished aspiration. He had the honour of recovering the Kangra fort from Jai Singh Kanhiya
in 1786. This great achievement was actually his first. After the occupation of his ancestral fort, he
started looking around for territorial aggrandizement. He took over the remaining territory of the chief of
Kutlehr. He obliged the chiefs of Mandi and Kulu to pay five lacs of rupees as the price of retaining the
Bangahal territories they had taken over. In 1792, he invaded Mandi with the support of the chiefs of
Kulu and Suket. The fort of Anantpur was taken over and the minor chief of Mandi was obliged to pay
one lac of rupees as annual tribute. By the end of the eighteenth century, Sansar Chand was literally a
Maharaja, exercising suzerain rights over a number of chiefs: those of Guler, Kotla, Siba, Datarpur,
Mandi, Suket, Nurpur, Kulu, Jaswan and Kahlur.
As the suzerains of the hill chiefs, Ahmad Shah Abdali and the Sikh rulers tried to get into the
shoes of the Mughal emperors. However, the success of the new suzerains was only partial. They
could subdue some of the hill chiefs for some time but not all of them throughout the period.
Furthermore, some of the hill rulers themselves tried to assert suzerain rights over their neighbours. It
was in this context that Ranjit Dev of Jammu, Raj Singh of Chamba and Sansar Chand of Kangra
became dominant in large parts of the hills at one time or another during the late eighteenth century. An
obvious factor that can account for this change was the removal of the political control of the Mughals.
Secondly, the resources of the principalities of Jammu, Chamba and Kangra were relatively large, and
their rulers during this period possessed rather exceptional abilities. Furthermore, in the general
process of turmoil in the hills during the late eighteenth century, three principalities went out of
existence and one new principality was established. This may not appear to be much of a change, but
even this kind of change had not been witnessed during the previous two hundred years.

Self Assessment Questions

1 Name the five Doabs of the Punjab.
________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
2 What conditions of vassalage were imposed on the hill rulers by the Mughals suzerains?
________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
3 Which rulers established their suzerain claims over the hill principalities during the late eighteenth
century?
________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
4 Name the three important hill principalities that emerged as the most important states during the
second half of the eighteenth century.

22
 ________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________

5 Which hill ruler recovered the Kangra Fort and from whom?

2.3. The Muslim Rulers in the Plains

The most important Muslim principality was that of the Multan, located in the lower Doabs of the
Punjab. The Mughal province of Multan had been taken over by Ahmad Shah Abdali in 1752. However,
he chose Shakar Khan, a Saddozai Afghan, for the governorship of the province. Shakar Khan was
succeeded by his brother Shuja Khan in 1766. Ahmad Shah’s successor, Timur Shah appointed Haji
Sharif Khan as the governor of Multan and Shuja Khan had to retire to Shujabad. When Timur Shah
recovered Multan in 1780, he appointed Muzaffar Khan, the son of Shuja Khan, as its governor.
Muzaffar Khan was thus the fourth governor of Multan from the same Saddozai family. Muzaffar Khan
was not well disposed towards Timur Shah’s successor Zaman Shah. But, Muzaffar Khan he was not
dislodged from Multan, probably because he went on sending tribute to Kabul from time to time.
Between the old bed of the Beas and the river Sutlej, there were six principalities. However,
much of this area belonged to the chiefs of Bahawalpur. Mubarak Khan, the chief of Bahawalpur, had
been paying tribute to the rulers of Kabul through the Afghan governor of Multan. Mubarak Khan’s
successor, Bahawal Khan II, refused pay tribute to Timur Shah. Bahawal Khan II came to assert his
independence more clearly and became a sovereign ruler at the beginning of the nineteenth century.
Adjoining the territory of Bahawalpur, between the old bed of the Beas and the river Sutlej,
was the principality of Pakpatan established by Shaikh Muhammad Abdus Subhan, a descendant of
Shaikh Farid. Shaikh Subhan had joined hands with the chief of Bahawalpur and come into possession
of a considerable territory on both sides of the river Sutlej. His second successor was made tributary by
Ranjit Singh before his territory was taken over in the 1820s.
In the north of Pakpatan was the principality of Malka Hans. During the reign of Aurangzeb,
Shaikh Qutb Hans was given a grant worth 10,000 rupees a year in the pargana of Qabula. One of his
descendants, Muhammad Azim, established himself as the chief of Qabula and Malka Hans. In 1767,
he was defeated and imprisoned by Kamr Singh Nakkai. Muhammad Hayat, who succeeded him at
Malka Hans, was overpowered by Bhagwan Singh Nakkai in 1790 and his territories were taken over.
Adjoining Pakpatan and the river Sutlej was the principality of the tribe called the Wattus.
They had settled in these parts during the seventeenth century and acquired zamindari rights on both
sides of the river Sutlej. Around 1750, Lakha Wattu established himself as a chief with his headquarters
at Haveli Lakha Wattu, generally referred to simply as Haveli. In the 1760s, he was succeeded by his
grandson, Ahmad Yar Khan who was ousted from the Bari Doab by Lehna Singh of Lahore. Ahmad
Yar’s son, Jahan Khan ruled over the Wattu possessions on the other side of the Sutlej till 1807 when
Ranjit Singh took over his territory.
The principality of Dipalpur in the north-west of Haveli was established by Daud Khan. He
founded Jalalabad to serve as his headquarters for the territory around. On his death in 1772, he was
succeeded by Jalaluddin Khan. In 1780, Ran Singh Nakkai obliged Jalaluddin Khan to pay tribute.
Ghiyasuddin Khan, who succeeded Jalaluddin Khan in 1804, lost his territory to Ranjit Singh in 1807.
The seventh principality in the lower Bari Doab was that of the Sayyads of Hujra Shah Muqim.
Like the descendants of Shaikh Farid the ancestors of Sayyad Sadruddin, the chief of Hujra, had
received revenue-free lands from the Mughal emperors at several places in the area. In order to
consolidate his position, Sadruddin cultivated friendly relations with his neighbours. A similar attitude
was adopted by his successor Qutb Ali who was able to rule from Hujra till 1807 when his territories
were taken over by Ranjit Singh.

23
 In the lower Rachna Doab, along the river Chenab, were the territories of the Sials of
Jhang and Chiniot, and the territories of the Kharals at Kamalia. During the early eighteenth century,
Walidad Khan Sial was recognized by the Mughal authorities as the zamindar of all the Sial territories.
He got Chiniot and the adjoining territory in reward for his services. On his death in 1747 he was
succeeded by Inayat Ullah Khan. Hari Singh Bhangi occupied Chiniot in 1760. However, Inayat Ullah
Khan managed to retain the territories of Jhang by paying tribute.
The Kharal tribe had to contend with the Sials, the Nakkais, and the chiefs of Multan.
Muhammad Yar Khan Kharal recovered Kamalia from the Sials, but he lost large territories on both
sides of the river Ravi to the Nakkai chiefs. In 1767, Kamalia itself was taken over by Kamr Singh
Nakkai. On Kamr Singh’s death in the 1780s, Ran Singh Nakkai of the Bharwal family occupied
Kamalia. In the 1790s, the Kharal Chief Sa‘adat Yar Khan II was able to recover it. He lost it to Muzaffar
Khan of Multan for a short time during the invasion of Zaman Shah. Ranjit Singh took over all the
territories of the Kharal chief in 1804.
In the lower Chaj Doab, Sahiwal was ruled over by the Baloch chief Mubarak Khan in the 1750s.
His son and successor, Muhammad Khan, lost Bhera and the territory around to Jhanda Singh Bhangi
in 1771. The former’s son, Fateh Khan, submitted to Ranjit Singh in 1804. In 1810, the principality of
Sahiwal was taken over by the Maharaja.
Besides the territories of Multan and Bahawalpur and the territories of the chiefs of Dera Ghazi
Khan and Dera Ismail Khan in the lower Sindh Sagar Doab, there were three other principalities:
Khushab, Nurpur Tiwana and Mankera. The last of these was the most important. Timur Shah
authorized Muhammad Khan Saddozai, a cousin of Muzaffar Khan of Multan, to occupy the territory of
the Kalhoras in the lower Sindh Sagar Doab. Dera Ismail Khan was also given to Muhammad Khan by
the Kabul ruler. In 1794, Muhammad Khan ousted Nusrat Khan, the Hot chief, from his entire territory,
including the area in the Sindh Sagar Doab, gave him a subsistence jagir and appointed him as his own
deputy at Dera Ismail Khan. Thus, Muhammad Khan came to possess the entire territory from Mianwali
to Leia together with Dera Ismail Khan. He adopted Mankera as his headquarters. Subsequently, he
extended his influence towards the north and the north-west. Before his death in 1816, Muhammad
Khan came into control of a territory yielding ten lacs of rupees and containing a large number of forts.
To look at the Muslim chiefs as a whole, three of them commanded resources worth over eight
lacs of rupees: those of Multan, Mankera and Jhang. Four of the chiefs could collect more than a lac of
rupees as the annual revenue: those of Sahiwal, Kamalia, Khushab and Gogera. Three of them held
territories yielding less than one lac but more than 50,000 rupees. It has been possible to identify a few
chiefs whose resources were less than 50,000 rupees a year. The majority of the chiefs of the lower
Doabs were zamindars and jagirdars of the Mughals or the Afghans: like the chiefs of Bahawalpur,
Haveli and Dipalpur in the Bari Doab; the chiefs of Kamalia and Jhang in the Rachna Doab; the chief of
Sahiwal in the Chaj Doab. Two of the most important principalities namely Multan and Mankera, were
founded by the Afghan governors appointed by the rulers of Kabul.
It is a significant reflection on the polity of the times and the relative resources of the new rulers,
that most of the chiefs survived into the nineteenth century despite a wide range in their resources and
power. Only two principalities, namely Malka Hans and Haveli, established in the lower Doabs during
the eighteenth century, were obliterated before the end of the century. It is interesting to note that both
of these were subverted by Sikh chiefs, the former by Bhagwan Singh Nakkai and the latter by Lehna
Singh of Lahore.

Self Assessment Questions

1 Which was the most important principality of the lower Doabs?
________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
2 Whose descendant was the new ruler of Pakpatan?
________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________

24
3 What was the headquarter of the Sials in the lower Rachna Doab?
________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
4 Which Muslim chiefs commanded resources worth over 8 lacs of rupees?
________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________

2.4The Sikhs as Rulers

We may start with the prestigious city of Lahore which had served as the capital of the province unde r
the Mughals for a few centuries before it was taken over by Ahmad Shah Abdali in 1752. It was
occupied by three Sikh chiefs in 1765. One of them was Gujjar Singh who occupied large territories in
the Chaj Doab with his headquarters at Gujrat. Another was Lehna Singh, the adopted son of Gujjar
Singh’s maternal grandfather, Gurbakhsh Singh. The third was Sobha Singh of Niazbeg who occupied
the territory in the south of Lahore. The fort of Lahore fell to the share of Lehna Singh who possessed a
few villages in Atari and a small chunk of territory across the river Ravi. Lehna Singh was succeeded by
his son Chait Singh, and Sobha Singh was succeeded by his son Mohar Singh. They were dislodged
from Lahore by Ranjit Singh in 1799.
The city of Amritsar, the nerve centre of Sikh activities in the eighteenth century, was adopted
as headquarters by Hari Singh Bhangi, a Dhillon Jat from the village Panjwar near Amritsar. In 1760, he
was able to subjugate the Sial chief of Jhang. He fought against Ahmad Shah Abdali in the ghallughara
(great massacre) at kup near Malerkotla in 1762. In 1765, he led an expedition against Ala Singh of
Patiala because of his submission to Ahmad Shah Abdali. Hari Singh was killed in the battle.
Hari Singh’s elder son, Jhanda Singh, succeeded him at Amritsar. For nine years, he fought
battles and made conquests on a considerable scale. Ranjit Dev of Jammu was made tributary at this
time. The most striking achievement of Jhanda Singh was the conquest of Multan in 1772. In 1774, he
fought in support of Ranjit Dev against his son Brij Raj Dev who was supported by Charhat Singh
Sukarchakia and Jai Singh Kanhiya. Both Charhat Singh and Jhanda Singh died during this conflict.
The death of Jhanda Singh marked the beginning of the decline of the house of Hari Singh
Bhangi. Jhanda Singh’s younger brother, Ganda Singh, succeeded him but only to die of illness in
1775. Ganda Singh was succeeded by Jhanda Singh’s son Charhat Singh and then by his own son
Desa Singh in 1775 itself. In 1780, Desa Singh lost Multan to Timur Shah, the son and successor of
Ahmad Shah Abdali. Desa Singh himself died in 1782 and was succeeded by his son Gulab Singh who
added Tarn Taran to his possessions. In 1800, Gulab Singh joined some other chiefs against Ranjit
Singh and died at Bhasin near Lahore where the armies of the allies were facing Ranjit Singh. Gulab
Singh was succeeded by his minor son Gurdit Singh who was dislodged from Amritsar by Ranjit Singh
in 1805.
Much of the upper Bari Doab was conquered and occupied by the Kanhiyas. About half a dozen
Sikh chiefs are traditionally associated with the Kanhiya misl. The most important of them was Jai
Singh, a Sandhu Jat from the village Kanha Kachha in the south of Lahore. He appears to have started
occupying pockets of territory as early as 1750. He made conquests in the Bari Doab jointly with some
of his associates and Jassa Singh Ramgarhia. He came into possession of Batala, Dera Baba Nanak
and Kahnuwan with a large number of villages around these towns. He made a common cause with
Jassa Singh Ahluwalia against the Ramgarhia chief and ousted him from his possessions. The hill
chiefs who were tributary to Jassa Singh Ramgarhia became subordinate to Jai Singh Kanhiya. His
greatest achievement against the hill chiefs was the occupation of Kangra in 1783. In the year
following, Mahan Singh encouraged Jassa Singh Ramgarhia to take back his possessions.
Consequently, in a battle fought at Achal near Batala in 1785, Jai Singh’s eldest son Gurbakhsh Singh
was killed. Jai Singh succeeded in recovering Batala in 1789. Before his death in 1793, his grand
daughter Mehtab Kaur was betrothed to Mahan Singh’s son, Ranjit Singh. The affairs of the principality
were managed by Sada Kaur, the widow of Gurbakhsh Singh and the mother of Mehtab Kaur.

25
 The most prominent of Jai Singh’s associates in conquest was Haqiqat Singh who too belonged
to the village Kanha Kachha. With his headquarters at Fatehgarh Churian, he ruled over a number of
villages, largely in a rough circle formed by Fatehgarh Churian, Batala, Kalanaur and Dera Baba
Nanak. Haqiqat Singh remained aligned with Jai Singh Kanhiya in most of his campaigns. In 1776,
when the Ramgarhia chief was ousted from the Bari Doab, Kalanaur and the surrounding villages fell to
the share of Haqiqat Singh. These possessions were retained by his son and successor Jaimal Singh
even when the Ramgarhias returned to the Bari Doab in 1785. His daguther Chand Kaur was married
to Ramjit Singh’s son, Kharak Singh, early in 1812. Jaimal Singh died before the year ended and his
territories were taken over by Ranjit Singh.
Jassa Singh Ramgarhia and his brothers who were associated with Jai Singh Kanhiya for a
short time, occupied territories on both sides of the Beas with their headquarters at Sri Hargobindpur on
the right bank of the river. In the Bari Doab, their possessions were around Batala and Kalanaur. Jassa
Singh’s brother, Tara Singh, wrested Qadian from its Sayyad chief. In the Jalandhar Doab, they
possessed a considerable territory around Dasuya, Garhdiwala, Miani, Urmar, Tanda, Begowal and
Bhogpur. According to the near contemporary writer, Ahmad Shah of Batala, another of Jassa Singh’s
brothers, Mali Singh, was particularly an obnoxious administrator. Mali Singh and Tara Singh died
before the occupation of Lahore by Ranjit Singh in 1799. Jassa Singh alone joined the allies against
Ranjit Singh in 1800. He died in 1803 to be succeeded by his elder son Jodh Singh who died in 1816
as a tributary of Ranjit Singh. The Ramgarhia territory with scores of its fortresses was taken over by
the Maharaja.
The territory along the river Beas from the present Grand Trunk Road to the confluence of the
Beas with the Sutlej near Harike was occupied by Jassa Singh Ahluwalia. He was one of the most
eminent leaders of the Khalsa and on many occasions commanded their combined forces. After 1765,
he expanded his territories by conquests in the Jalandhar Doab and in the Sutlej-Jamuna divide. At the
time of his death in 1783, he is said to have possessed territories worth eight lacs of rupees a year and
commanded about 7,500 horsemen and 2,500 foot. In the absence of a male heir, Jassa Singh was
succeeded by Bhag Singh, a grandson of his cousin-brother. Till Bhag Singh’s death in 1801, the
Ramgarhia and Ahluwalia chiefs remained on unfriendly terms, tyring to encroach upon each other’s
territory. Bhag Singh left this legacy to his son Fateh Singh. In 1802, Fateh Singh entered into an
alliance with Ranjit Singh who did not take long to reduce Fateh Singh Ahluwalia to the position of a
vassal.
Gujjar Singh, one of the three Sikh leaders who occupied Lahore in 1765, was the only chief in
the upper Chaj Doab as, the founder of the principality of Gujrat. He had defeated the Gakkhar Chief of
Gujrat in 1765 in an open battle outside the city wall, occupied his territory and adopted Gujrat as his
headquarters. He occupied Jalalpur, Daulatnagar, Dinga, Bahlolpur, Karianwala and Manawar in the
upper Chaj Doab. The contiguous territory between the Chenab and the Jhelum upto the territories of
Akhnur and Bhimber also came under his control. He was able to occupy several villages in the Rachna
Doab, besides the well known town of Sodhra. The chiefs of Akhnur, Bhimber and Khari Khariali
accepted his overlordship and paid tribute to him.
Before his death in 1788, Gujjar Singh had started residing at Lahore, leaving Gujrat in the
hands of his eldest son Sahib Singh. His territory in the Rachna Doab was probably placed under his
son Sukha Singh. The youngest son Fateh Singh, perhaps, lived with him at Lahore. Sahib Singh
wrested the territory entrusted to Sukha Singh, killing him, in fact, in the field of battle. Fateh Singh was
ousted by Sahib Singh after Gujjar Singh’s death. Thus, the entire territory of Gujjar Singh Bhangi came
into Sahib Singh’s possession.
In the last decade of the eighteenth century, Sahib Singh was one of the most powerful Sikh
chiefs, particularly after the death of Mahan Singh Sukarchakia. Before the end of the century,
however, he lost his possession in Lahore to Ranjit Singh. By 1807, Sahib Singh had to acknowledge
Ranjit Singh’s supremacy and to pay tribute to him. Within three years more, his territories were taken
over by the Maharaja and the former’s son, Gulab Singh, was given a jagir worth 4,000 rupees in the
Gujranwala area.

26
 The most important chief in the upper Rachna Doab was Charhat Singh Sukarchakia. Much of
his territory in the Rachna Doab lay between Lahore and Wazirabad. Two more chiefs of the Doab are
traditionally linked with Charhat Singh, namely Gurbakhsh Singh Waraich of Wazirabad and Dal Singh
Gill who subsequently came to be known as Akalgarhia. In fact, Gurbakhsh Singh was a cousin of
Charhat Singh’s wife and Dal Singh was a collateral. Charhat Singh had built a fortress in Gujranwala
as the base of his political activity and he was supported by both Dal Singh and Gurbakhsh Singh.
Charhat Singh was among the prominent leaders of the Khalsa who opposed Ahmad Shah Abdali
during his invasions of the Punjab after the battle of Panipat. In collaboration with Gujjar Singh, he
conquered the upper portion of the Chaj Doab, Pind Dadan Khan, Ahmadabad, Jhelum, Rohtas and
some other places in the Sindh Sagar Doab. The important tribes of the Ghebas, the Jodrahs and the
Awans became tributary to Charhat Singh. On his death in 1774, he left an extensive territory with
considerable resources to his son and successor Mahan Singh.
Mahan Singh was only ten years old at the time of his father’s death. Only after 1780 did he try
to expand his territories. He invaded the neighbouring principality of the Chatthas and occupied
Rasulpur (renamed Ramnagar), Manchar and Alipur (renamed Akalgarh). This was the major territorial
gain of Mahan Singh’s life. However, he obliged a few chiefs to pay tribute to him, among whom were
the Janjuas in the Sindh Sagar Doab and the chiefs of Akhnur and Jammu in the hills. Mahan Singh
died in 1790, leaving to his son, Ranjit Singh, a large almost contiguous territory worth about twelve
lacs of rupees and a well trained force of 5,000 cavalry.
Ranjit Singh was a minor when he succeeded to the principality. But he was well trained in the
arts of war. The invasions of Zaman Shah in the late 1790s, brought the youthful Sukarchakia chief into
political activity on a large scale, enabling him to emerge as a prominent chief first and then as the
leading Sikh chief of the Punjab plains. His personal traits as well as the legacy left by his father and
grandfather enabled him to occupy Lahore in 1799, dislodging the successors of Sobha Singh and
Lehna Singh.
The principality of Rawalpindi may be regarded as founded in 1767 when Gujjar Singh Bhangi,
Charhat Singh Sukarchakia and Milkha Singh Thepuria led a joint expedition into the Doab. The
territories of the Gakkhars fell to the share of Milkha Singh who adopted Rawalpindi as his
headquarters. He kept over 450 villages worth about three lacs of ruppes under his direct
administration and entrusted nearly 200 villages to the tribal chiefs of the Gakkhars in return for a small
tribute. In due course, the Gakkhar chief of Khanpur, the Afghan chief of Sarai Niamat Khan and the
Dhund chief of Mari became tributary to Milkha Singh. He was able to retain his hold over these
territories when Zaman Shah led expeditions into the Punjab in the late 1790s. Before his death in
1804, however, Milkha Singh had acknowledged Ranjit Singh’s supremacy.
In retrospect, we may notice first that the resources of the Sikh chiefs under consideration
ranged from fifty thousand rupees a year to over ten lacs. However, only four chiefs commanded
resources exceeding ten lacs of rupees a year: Hari Singh Bhangi, Jassa Singh Ahluwalia, Charhat
Singh Sukarchakia and Gujjar Singh Bhangi. Jassa Singh Ahluwalia had considerable territories on the
left of the Sutlej also. Even the number of chiefs with resources ranging from five to ten lacs a year was
rather small. Among them were Jassa Singh Ramgarhia, Buddh Singh Faizullapuria and Baghel Singh
Karora Singhia. The last of these had his territories beyond the river Sutlej also. About sixteen chiefs
commanded resources between one to five lacs of rupees a year. About half a dozen chiefs held
territories worth more than 50,000 but less than a lac of rupees. In terms of financial resources,
obviously, no chief was very powerful.
The Sikh chiefs rose to political power by opposing the politico-administrative framework of the
Mughal empire nearly at all levels. Significantly, nearly all of them established their principalities after
the first invasion of Ahmad Shah Abdali in 1748 and before his death in 1772. The first to occupy
territories on a more or less permanent basis were the well known chiefs like Hari Singh Bhangi, Jassa
Singh Ahluwalia, Jassa Singh Ramgarhia, Jai Singh Kanhiya and Charhat Singh Sukarchakia. Much of
the area they occupied was in the Bari Doab, not far from the provincial capital.

27
 The majority of the Sikh chiefs belonged to the Bari Doab, followed by those who belonged to
the Rachna Doab. Only one of them was a carpenter by caste, that is, Jassa Singh Ramgarhia; and
only one was a vintner (Kalal) that is, Jassa Singh Ahluwalia. We know at least two instances of Khatri
chiefs: Tahil Singh Chhachhi and Dharm Singh. All the remaining chiefs were Jat. It may also be added
that though the majority of the Jat Sikh chiefs sprang from ordinary families of cultivators, more than
half a dozen of them belonged to the families of chaudhris. Presumably, some intermediary zamindars
joined the political movement after its initial success. Significantly, among the most important Jat Sikh
chiefs, there was none with the background of an intermediary zamindar.
Self Assessment Questions
1 Name the three Sikh chiefs who jointly occupied Lahore in 1765?
________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________

2 What was the family name of Hari Singh, Jhanda Singh and Ganda Singh?
________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
3 Who was the most important chief among the Kanhiyas and what was his greatest achievement
against the hill chiefs?
________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
4 Which Sikh rulers had their headquarters at Sri Hargobindpur and Kapurthala?
________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________

5. Who was the most important chief of the Rachna Doab? What was his headquarter?
________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
6. Which Sikh chiefs had resources exceeding ten lacs of rupees a year?
________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
7. What was the social background of the Sikh chiefs?
________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________

2.5 Summary
Broadly, three categories of new rulers emerged in the Punjab in the wake of the decline of Mughal
power and ouster of the Afghans. The long tradition of autonomy in the hills continued in the late
eighteenth century with some important differences. The Mughal emperors as the suzerains were
replaced for a while by Ahmad Shah Abdali as the new suzerain. Thereafter, due to their relatively
larger resources and the exceptional abilities the rulers of three hill states successively became
predominant: Jammu, Chamba, and Kangra. Simultaneously, the Sikh rulers were also making inroads
into the hills and extracting tribute form the hill chiefs. By and large, the hills represented no major
change as only three principalities went out of existence and one new principality was established
during the late eighteenth century.
The Muslim chiefs were concentrated in the lower Doabs in the west and the south-west of
the Punjab. Only three principalities had annual resources worth over eight lacs of rupees. Majority of
them had the background of having been the zamindars, jagirdars and religious grantees under the
Mughals, though the chiefs of Multan and Mankera rose because of their connection with the Kabul
monarchy.

28
 On the other hand, the Sikh rulers were predominantly of plebian origin, majority of whom
happened to be Jat cultivators and there were some from the artisanal background, while a couple of
them happened to be Khatris. They had to wage a protracted struggle against the Mughals and
Afghans at all levels of the power structure. Only about half a dozen of the relatively less important
Sikh chiefs came from amongst the intermediary zamindars. Four Sikh rulers had resources
amounting to over 10 lacs of rupees, but none was in a position to decisively subjugate others. The
last quarter of the eighteenth century is therefore, marked by struggle for ascendancy among them. By
the turn of the century, Ranjit Singh Sukarchakia could emerge stronger than others as much because
of his abilities and the legacy of his predecessors, as because of his alliances with the Kanhiyas and
the Ahluwalias. Gradually, Ranjit Singh was able to subjugate the Rajput chieftains in the hills as well
as the Muslim and Sikh rulers who had carved out new principalities during the second half of the
eighteenth century.

2.6 References
 Hari Ram Gupta, History of the Sikh Confederacies (1708-1769),New Delhi: Munshiram
Manoharlal, 1978 (3rd edition).
 Veena Sachdeva, Polity and Economy of the Punjab during the late Eighteenth Century, New
Delhi: Manohar, 1990.

2.7 Further Readings

1. J.S.Grewal, The Sikhs of the Punjab, The New Cambridge History of India, New Delhi:
Cambridge University Press, 2011(rev edn.)

2. Ganda Singh,Ahmad Shah Durrani, Bombay: Asia Publishing House, 1959.

2.8 Model Questions

1. Under what circumstances did the new rulers emerge in the late-eighteenth century
Punjab?
2. Discuss the relative position of the Sikh rulers in the region to the north of the river Sutlej.

29
 Lesson-3

ROLE OF GURMATA, DAL KHALSA, AND RAKHI SYSTEM

IN THE POLITICAL PROCESS
Structure

3.0 Objectives
3.1 Introduction
3.2 Gurmata
3.3 Dal Khalsa
3.3 Rakhi
3.5 Summary
3.6 References
3.7 Further Readings
3.8 Model Questions

3.0 Objectives
After reading this lesson you will be able to:
 Form an understanding about Gurmata
 Gain knowledge about the Dal Khalsa
 Define Rakhi System
3.1 Introduction

Historians of the Punjab generally agree that Gurmata, Dal Khalsa, and Rakhi were extremely helpful to
the Sikhs in establishing their rule over a large part of the Punjab. However, they do not agree in all the
detail. For a better understanding of these concepts or institutions it is necessary first of all to recognize
a basic difference between the Sikh and non-Sikh rulers of the eighteenth century who replaced the
Mughals and the Afghans.
The Sikhs who fought against the Mughals and the Afghans for political power did not hold
any position within the administrative framework of the Mughal empire. But the non-Sikhs who became
rulers were already a part of the Mughal administrative framework in one way or another. For example,
the Rajput chiefs of the Punjab hills were subordinate to the Mughal emperors and paid tribute to them
as the token of their subordination, and they also rendered several other kinds of services to them. In
order to become independent they had only to withhold tribute and stop providing other services. The
Muslim zamindars or intermediaries in the Punjab plains used to collect revenues from a number of
villages, submit these revenues to a state treasury, and get remuneration for this service. They had
only to keep the revenues with themselves in order to become rulers over those villages. Similar was
the position of powerful jagirdars and holders of madad-i-ma‘ash (religious) grantees. The Sikhs
challenging the Mughal authority, on the other hand, had no such association with the imperial system
which could give them an initial advantage. Therefore, they had to evolve their own institutions and
practices to contend with the powers that be.

30
3.2 Gurmata
In Punjabi, the word mata stands for a decision or a resolve by a group of persons or even an
individual. The term ‘Gurmata’ involves the Guru somehow in the decision or the resolution. But there
was no personal Guru after the death of Guru Gobind Singh in 1708. He had passed on Guruship to the
Sikh scripture called the Adi Granth which thus became Guru Granth Sahib. This was the doctrine of
Guru Granth (i.e. Granth as the Guru). Since the tenth Guru had also asked his followers to turn to the
collectively for counsel, theGuru himself was believed to be present in the body of the Khalsa. Thus, a
decision taken at a meeting of the Khalsa came to be called Gurmata. Such a decision was all the more
sanctified if it was taken in the presence of Guru Granth Sahib.
Gurmatas related to issues of common concern for the whole of the community. In theory, the
concerns of the Khalsa could be religious, social or political. But actually in the eighteenth century these
concerns were generally political, particularly dealing with the matters of defence and offensive against
the opponents of the Khalsa. In other words, the primary importance of Gurmatas was for the political
struggle of the Khalsa against the Mughals first and then against the Afghans. Therefore, the function of
the Gurmatas to provide unity and a sense of direction to the fighting bands can be better appreciated
with reference to the context of that struggle.
The first important development in this connection was the control of the Khalsa over
Ramdaspur (later called Amritsar) with its sacred tank (sarovar) and the Harmandar, called Darbar
Sahib, and the Akali Takht. No invitation was needed by a Sikh to come to Ramdaspur at the time of
Baisakhi and Diwali. The gathering of the Khalsa on these occasions (Sarbat Khalsa) would generally
be held at the Akal Takhat. In this way the institutions of the Darbar Sahib (a Gurdwara) and the Akal
Takht were not only revived by the actions of the collectivity but also strengthened. It is not an accident
that most of the important Gurmatas were passed at Amritsar. At the same time, it is important to note
that most of these Gurmatas were passed from 1745 to 1765, the phase of the life-and-death struggle
of the Khalsa which ended in the declaration of Sikh sovereignty in 1765 when a coin was struck at
Lahore with the same inscription that had appeared on the seal of Banda Singh Bahadur in 1710. This
inscription in Persian attributed the success of the Khalsa to the grace of the Gurus and God. In other
words, the Sikh rulers did not derive their authority from any king or emperor. A Gurmata did not have
any legal or constitutional status but it was morally binding for all Sikhs, and the Gurmatas passed at
Amritsar had a special sanctity.

3.3 Dal Khalsa

The term ‘Dal Khalsa’ refers literally to the united forces of the Sikh leaders. After the execution of
Banda Singh and his companions in 1716, there was no organization for political action. Gradually,
individual leaders emerged with a few followers under each. There are indications that such groups
(jathas) increased in the 1730s and Sardar Kapur Singh organized them into four or five larger jathas.
The number of jathas increased further in the 1740s. According to the consensus among historians,
these groups were combined in 1748 to form the Dal Khalsa. It is significant, again, that the most
important activities of the Dal Khalsa fall in the phase from 1748 to 1765. Indeed, there was a close
connection between the Dal Khalsa and Gurmata. All important matters were discussed, appropriate
decisions were taken, and the forces of all the Sikh leaders were placed under a single command.
During 1748-65, Jassa Singh Ahluwalia is believed to have been generally chosen to lead the Dal
Khalsa. The Dal Khalsa is sometimes regarded as the ‘national army’ of the Sikhs. Indeed, on
numerous occasions a large number of Sikh leaders combined their forces and fought under the
command of a single leader. But the equation of the Dal Khalsa with ‘national army’, or even a standing
army, is misleading. It is probable that even in the course of a joint action the individual leader
remained in command of his followers. By and large, the leaders functioned individually and their units
functioned independently of one another. But they were ready to cooperate for a common campaign
and willing to accept the leadership of an elected commander. The frequency of such joint actions by a

31
combination of Sikh sardars enabled the Dal Khalsa to play a vital role in the Sikh struggle from1748 to
1765. However, the Dal Khalsa remained an ad hoc combination of the forces of a number of sardars
for a specific purpose. The Gurmata and the Dal Khalsa were the two sides of the same political coin.

3.4 RAKHI
The word rakhi in Punjabi simply means ‘watchful protection’. Some available orders of the Sikh leaders
show that individual leaders had begun to occupy chunks of territory in the Bari Doab in 1750, if not
earlier. In due course, they evolved a system called Rakhi in which they assured the cultivators that
they would be protected against all other claimants if they paid a part of the revenues to them. A large
concession was given to the cultivators in the Rakhi system. They had to pay only about a fifth of the
produce from the land to their protectors instead of the usual one-half or nearly one-half which they
used to pay to the Mughal or Afghan officials. The system became more and more popular when the
Sikh leaders demonstrated their ability to ‘protect’. Thus, the system served as an instrument of
expansion of territories under Sikh control as well as the means of financial resource. Rakhi was not
necessarily a phase prior to occupation of territories even though an area brought under protection by a
Sikh leader was generally occupied permanently by the same leader. In this sense, it could be termed a
transitional arrangement, though a leader could occupy a particular piece of territory and extend his
protection over another at the same time. Strictly speaking, Rakhi was not comparable with the Chauth
system of the Marathas.

Self Assessment Questions

1 What do you understand by the term Gurmata?
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
2 What was the function of the Gurmata?
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________

3 What did the Sarbat Khalsa stand for?

___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________

4 Why the Gurmatas passed at Amritsar came to have a special sanctity?

___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________

5 What do you understand by the term Dal Khalsa? When was it formed?
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________

32
 6 Who was generally chosen as the leader of the Dal Khalsa?
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
7 What did the term Rakhi stand for?
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
8 What was paid by the cultivators to the Sikh leaders in lieu of Rakhi?
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
9 How did Rakhi serve as an instrument of expansion of territories?
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
10 What was the broad period during which these three devices remained operative?
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
3.5 Summary

In retrospect, we can see that Gurmata gave cohesion to the activities of the Sikhs and derived its
strength from the twin doctrine: Panth as the Guru and the Granth as the Guru. Dal Khalsa or coming
together of forces of several leaders was a result of the Gurmata, whereas Rakhi was a secular
arrangement. All the three devices enabled the Khalsa to make the Mughals ineffective and oust
Ahmad Shah Abdali and his Afghan administrators from the Punjab, and to occupy territories between
the Indus and the Jamuna with the support and sympathy of not only the Sikhs but also of large
sections of the non-Sikh peasantry.

3.6 Reference
1. J.S Grewal, Sikh Ideology, Polity and Social Order, New Delhi: Manohar, 2007.

3.7 Further Readings

1. Veena Sachdeva, Polity and Economy of the Punjab During the Late Eighteenth
Century, New Delhi: Manohar, 1993.
2.. Indu Banga, Agrarian System of the Sikhs: Late Eighteenth and Early Nineteenth
Century, NewDelhi: Manohar, 1978

3.8 Model Questions

1. Examine the role of the Gurmata and the Dal Khalsa in the political process of the Punjab
in the eighteenth century
2. What do you know about the Rakhi System?

33
 Lesson-4

CIVIL AND MILITARY ADMINISTRATION UNDER THE NEW

RULERS; CONCEPTION OF SUZERAINTY AND COINAGE;
AGRARIAN CONDITIONS AND LAND REVENUE SYSTEM.
Structure
4.0 Objectives
4.1 Introduction
4.2 Civil and Military Administration under the New Rulers
4.3 Conception of Suzerainty and Coinage
4.4 Agrarian Conditions and Land Revenue System
4.5 Summary
4.6 Further Readings
4.7 Reference
4.8 Model Questions

4.0 Objectives

To enable the students to understand the following:

 Comparison between the Mughal system of administration and that prevalent in the late-
eighteenth century to understand continuities and changes
 Administrative arrangements under the new rulers of the late eighteenth century.
 Conception of sovereignty prevalent during the period under study.
 Highlight the significance of the coins struck by the Sikh rulers.
 Agrarian conditions and nature of land revenue system prevalent in the territories of
the new rulers.
4.1 Introduction

The eighteenth century is characterized by the creation of new centres of power in the wake of the
decline of Mughal empire. As may be expected, the new rulers made administrative arrangements in
their territories and also organized their armies. There was a tendency to continue with the Mughal
framework of administration, but given the smaller sizes and resources of the new states broad
continuities at the basal level were accompanied by significant shifts. This was as true of the civil and
military administration as of suzerain-vassal relationship and land revenue administration. There was
an appreciable effort at preserving agriculture and extending cultivation. The biggest change, however,
was noticeable in the coinage of the Sikh chiefs.
4.2 Civil and Military Administration under the new Rulers
The civil administration under the new rulers can be described with reference to the background of the
Mughal administration in the Punjab plains and hills. There were three categories of new rulers: the hill
chiefs, the Muslim rulers in the plains, and the Sikh rulers. In political subordination to the Mughals the

34
hill chiefs were autonomous in the internal administration of their territories. A few changes had been
introduced in their administration due to Mughal influence but the administration as a whole remained
intact. In the late eighteenth century, hardly any change was made. The Muslim rulers in the plains had
acquired power within the Mughal framework as zamindars, jagirdars, and madad-i ma‘ash grantees.
Therefore there was no need to change the existing administration deliberately. Only the Sikh rulers
had come into power with the help of their own institutions which had nothing to do with the Mughal
administration. But even they did not try to change the entire framework. Therefore, we may expect the
maximum change in the Sikh territories, and the least in the hill principalities.
The most important functionary in the province under the Mughals was its governor,
generally called subedar. His functions were primarily military and executive. The safety of the province
against outsiders and the maintenance of peace and order within the province were his main concerns.
He was supported by a number of faujdars posted in the Doabs of the province. Some of the faujdars in
turn were assisted by thanedars in charge of small garrisons. A few of the faujdars in the Punjab, as in
some other provinces, were entrusted with the duties of dealing with the vassal chiefs. They generally
enjoyed higher rank and the privilege of direct communication with the emperor. The faujdars of Jammu
and Kangra, for instance, belonged to this category. The ‘amil in the pargana was also expected to
perform faujdari duties, but he was placed under the diwan rather than the subedar.
The second important functionary in the province was the diwan. His primary duty was the
assessment and collection of revenues. For this purpose, he had to keep all revenue accounts. He was
not placed under the subedar. He was responsible to the diwan at the centre and through him to the
emperor who actually appointed all provincial diwans. The provincial diwan was assisted by ‘amils in
the parganas.
The third important functionary in the province was the sadr who was responsible to the
sadr-us-sudur at the centre and not to the subedar. He looked after the administration of justice and
charitable grants. In the performance of his duties, he was assisted by qazis and muftis, not only in the
cities of the province but also in some of the small towns. The court of the qazi was accessible to all for
matters relating to property. In these matters it was accessible to Muslims and non-Muslims alike.
The most important unit of administration was the pargana. In the province of Lahore, and
within the rivers Indus and Sutlej in the province of Multan, the total area was more than 30,000 square
miles. The average area of the pargana was over 500 square miles. In the upper Doabs, however, the
total area was about 60,000 square miles and the average area of the pargana was less than 200
square miles. This did not imply, however, that the parganas of the province of Multan yielded higher
revenues. The upper Doabs on the whole were much more productive.
The most important administrator at the pargana level was the amil who was assisted by
accountants and assessment officers, measurers of land, watch and ward officers, and treasurers. In
the countryside, he was assisted by a chaudhari or chaudharis in the pargana, each of whom had
jurisdiction over a number of villages. In each village, there was a muqaddam or a few muqaddams
who were responsible for the collection of revenue. All revenue records at the pargana level were kept
by a qanungo, and at the village level by a patwari.
Administration in the hills was carried on by the chief through officers, called wazirs, each
of whom either lived in the area under his jurisdiction, (wazarat) or visited the area from time to
time. They had their own lower officials, and exercised both judicial and executive powers. For revenue
purposes, the lower officials of the principality worked under a officer called thare-da-mahta. The
military accounts were in the charge of an officer called bakhshi who was responsible also for the

35
administration of the Camp. The administrative sub-division of wazarat was called pargana or kothi,
and its officer, called Chata or Char, dealt with petty cases by fine and imprisonment. There was a lock-
up, in the headquarters of the pargana, called kothi.The kotwal at the pargana headquarters performed
military, judicial and fiscal duties. An officer called thare-da-kotwal performed the duties of a chief
constable in the capital. The Chata was assisted also by an official, called likhnehara, in collecting the
revenue and in keeping accounts. Below him were some others functionaries who carried out the
orders of the superior officers in dealing with the village headmen or lambardars.
This description of the administrative arrangements in the hills suggests that the chief at
the headquarters was assisted by a revenue officer for the entire principality, by a bakhshi for the
forces, and by a chief constable for the capital. The principality was divided into wazarats, under
officers called wazirs. The wazarat was divided into parganas, and parganas were sub-divided into
circuits of hamlets. At the pargana level, there was a general administrator assisted by a number of
officials for collecting revenues through the village headmen, and for keeping accounts. There was
another officer at the pargana headquarters whose duty was primarily of a military character. He too
was assisted by a subordinate official. In contemporary or near contemporary evidence, there are
references, to parganas, kardars, qanungos, kotwals and muqaddams. In the Settlement Report of
Kangra, there is a reference to chaudharis exercising jurisdiction over a number of villages for the
collection of revenue.
The administrative arrangements in the hill principalities during the late eighteenth
century, on the whole, do not appear to have undergone any appreciable change. In the general
circumstances of the late eighteenth century there was hardly any need for change. The removal of the
suzerain’s political control by itself did not affect the administrative arrangements. Similarity in some
ways to what was prevalent in the plains under the Mughal rule, was due to a certain degree of
assimilation during the influence of Mughal rule earlier.
When we turn to the principalities of the plains during the late eighteenth century, we find
that there is no mention of the sadr. However, the qazi does find mention in the near contemporary
records. It is certain that the qazi at the court was appointed by the chief himself. There are references
also to the diwan in Jhang and Mankera. We may be sure that the diwans were appointed by the chiefs
themselves, and were directly responsible to them. Thus, in place of the virtually independent sadrs
and diwans, in these principalities we have diwans and qazis appointed by the chief who had taken the
place of the Mughal subedar with the difference that he was not responsible to any emperor.
The person next in importance to the chief in the Sikh principalities is frequently referred to
as the diwan. There are references to the diwans under Gujjar Singh and Sahib Singh at Gujrat, under
Charhat Singh and Mahan Singh at Gujranwala, under Jassa Singh and Bhag Singh at Kapurthala,
under Milkha Singh at Rawalpindi, under Hari Singh and Jhanda Singh at Amritsar, under Haqiqat
Singh and Jaimal Singh at Fatehgarh Churian, and under Jai Singh at Batala. Nearly all of these were
rather important principalities. However, considering that the primary function of the diwan was related
to finances, particularly land revenue, it is safe to assume that the office of the diwan, or its counterpart,
did exist in most of the Sikh principalities.
References to kardars are more frequent than to the ‘amil, or the thanedar. In some
contemporary documents, the term ‘amil is used for the office for which the term kardar is also used.
The functions performed by those who were so designated clearly show that the two terms were used
for the same office. The term pargana and ta‘alluqa were used synonymously during the late eighteenth
in the Punjab. It is clear, therefore, that the kardar was the general administrator of the ta‘alluqa who

36
combined in his office the fiscal, executive and some judicial powers. It appears that when his function
as a revenue collector was underlined, the term tehsildar was used for his office. To underline his
concern for peace and order, the term thanedar was occasionally used. It is possible, however, that in
some principalities thanedars were appointed specifically for maintaining small garrisons at strategic
points. By far the most important administrator outside the headquarters of the chief was the kardar.
The qanungos, the chaudharis and the muqaddams are mentioned in connection with a
large number of principalities. Karori Mal, for instance, was the qanungo of Eminabad under Charhat
Singh Sukarchakia, Kishan Chand was the qanungo of Batala under Jassa Singh Ramgarhia. Among
the chaudharis in the Sikh principalities can be mentioned Roop Chand under Fateh Singh Ahluwalia,
Usman Khan, and Jhanda Singh under Jai Singh Kanhiya. A few of the muqaddams specifically
mentioned were Bahadur Singh under Jai Singh Kanhiya, and Naurang Singh under Jassa Singh
Ramgarhia. It appears in fact that the holders of all these positions occupied them on a hereditary
basis. The functions of the holders of these positions were the same now as in the Mughal times.
There are references to qazis and muftis but not many. Qazi Kamaluddin is mentioned as
performing his duties at Wazirabad, Qazi Haji at Gujrat and Qazi Abdul Rahman at Gujranwala. The
available evidence does suggest that wherever they remained in existence, they continued to perform
the same functions as they used to perform under the provincial sadr during the Mughal times. There
are detailed references to bai‘namas, girvinamas, tazkaras and iqrarnamas executed in the court of the
qazi of Batala. It is interesting to note that these transactions took place between Muslims and Muslims,
between Muslims and non-Muslims and between non-Muslims and non-Muslims. The non-Muslims
chose to go to the qazi’s court because of the uniform application of the law ensured their legal rights.
The army during the late eighteenth century can be placed in two categories the troops of
the chief, that is, his khas fauj, and the troops of his jagirdars. Revenue from land was assigned to the
jagirdar in lieu of the salary for his service and that of his men. The khas fauj was divided into deras,
with a sardar at the head of each. The deras were further divided and placed under sarkardas and
jama‘dars. The soldiers were paid every six months, partly in kind and partly in cash. They were also
given a share in the booty.
Cavalry was the prized part of the army. Almost everyone preferred to fight as a horseman
(ghurcharha). The high figures of cavalry under the Punjab chiefs reflect their preference for horsemen.
Horses and arms were the personal property of ghurcharhas. Eachone of them was furnished with two
blankets, which were placed beneath the saddle with a gram bag and heel ropes; this in fact was the
baggage of a horseman. The ghurcharhas sometimes were paid large sums through jagirs in
recognition of their meritorious services. The infantry soldiers were considered altogether inferior to the
cavalry and were left behind to garrison forts in times of war. They were also employed for night watch.
They consisted of khidmatgars, pahlwans, beldars and the like.
The main weapon was the sword with which the ghurcharhas were very skilful. Bows and
arrows were used by the infantry. Matchlocks and muskets were used most effectively. Small cannons,
swivels, zamburaks and siege guns were also used. Sansar Chand of Kangra established a factory of
small arms. Some of the artillery officers of the chiefs of the Punjab during the late eighteenth century
find mention in contemporary and near contemporary records. The chiefs were usually armed with steel
caps, breast-plates, arm-guards, gauntlets and shields.The big Zamzama gun, called Bhangian-wali-
Top, was not used at all in any campaign. But its possession was a matter of prestige.
Forts were the main basis of defence. They were also the repositories of treasure and war-
materials. There are references to a number of forts in the jurisdiction of each chief. Muzaffar Khan of

37
Multan had nineteen forts; Sahib Singh of Gujrat had twelve; and Nizamuddin Khan of Qasur had ten.
Construction of many new forts is also referred to. Fateh Singh Ahluwalia built eight. In the pargana of
Amritsar alone, seven forts were constructed by the Sikh chiefs. After a reverse in the open, the fort
was the last resort of a fugitive. Siege craft formed a vital part of warfare. The strong forts were usually
reduced by strict investment, starving out the garrison and sometimes cutting out the supply of water to
the fort. The chiefs did not have heavy guns. Therefore, they usually resorted to bribing the inmates for
treachery.
There are references to the military strength of the chiefs of the Punjab. Sansar Chand of
Kangra had a force of 16,000 men; Muzaffar Khan of Multan, 11,000; Ranjit Dev of Jammu, 10,000;
Mahan Singh Sukarchakia and Jassa Singh Ramgarhia, 5,000 each; Milkha Singh of Rawalpindi,
4,000; and Haqiqat Singh Kanhiya, 2,000. Sahib Singh of Gujrat had a regular army of 2,000 men but in
an emergency he was able to collect 8,000 horsemen and 4,000 foot. No single ruler had a large army
but collectively they commanded a very formidable force.
Self Assessment Questions
1. Which categories of new rulers emerged in the Punjab during the late eighteenth century?
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________

2. What were the main functions of subadar, faujdar, ‘amil, sadar andthe qazi under the Mughals?
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________

3. What were the main functions of the kardar, chaudhari,muqaddam, qanungo and the patwari during
the late eighteenth century?
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
4. What was the primary functions of the diwan in the territory of a Sikh chief?
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
5. Why did the non-Muslims prefer to go to the qazi’s court under Sikh rulers?
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
6. What were the different category of soldiers in the army of a Sikh chief?
_______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________

38
7. Which was the most important wing of the army under a Sikh Chief?
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________

8. What were the different weapons used during the late eighteenth century?
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________

9. What was the function of forts in the military administration of the new rulers?
_______________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________

4.3 CONCEPTION OF SUZERAINTY AND COINAGE

Suzerain-vassal relationship was an essential feature of Indian polity even before the Turks conquered
northern India. This feature of Indian polity was effectively used by the Mughal rulers to give a certain
degree of political unity to nearly the whole of the Indian subcontinent. When Ahmad Shah Abdali took
over the Mughal provinces of Kabul, Kashmir, Lahore and Multan, he assumed the former position of
the Mughal rulers in their capacity as the suzerain of vassal chiefs in the hills and the plains.
During the late eighteenth century, the successors of Ahmad Shah Abdali tried to assert their
claims not only over the old vassal principalities but also over the new chiefs. Their attempt met a
failure but they did not give up their claims even after the end of the eighteenth century. In the case of
the hill chiefs, for instance, Timur Shah and Zaman Shah claimed suzerainty over Raja Sampuran Dev
of Jammu, Raja Raj Singh, Raja Jit Singh of Chamba, and some of the other hill chiefs. They received
tribute also from Muzaffar Khan of Multan, Muhammad Khan of Mankera, Bahawal Khan of
Bahawalpur, and Nizamuddin Khan of Qasur. In the last decade of the eighteenth century, Zaman Shah
was making offers severally to Sikh chiefs to accept his superior political claim as the condition of
holding their territories.
By far the large majority, however, of the rulers of the Punjab during the late eighteenth century
did not pay tribute to Ahmad Shah Abdali or his successors. This does not mean that every chief of the
Punjab during this period remained independent all the time. Some of the hill chiefs tried to assert their
superior political claims over others. Raja Ranjit Dev of Jammu successfully asserted such claims over
a large number of hill principalities. During a part of the year they remained present at Jammu,
attending the court of the ruler. According to Ganesh Das, the vassal chieftains used to sit on the left in
the court of Ranjit Dev in order of their importance.
Ranjit Dev was not the only hill chief to assert suzerain claims over others. Sansar Chand of
Kangra acted as the overlord of several principalities. Raj Singh of Chamba, acted as the overlord of
Bhadarwah and Kashtwar, and his successor Jit Singh obliged the chiefs of Bhadu, Basohli and
Bandralta to pay tribute. The chiefs of Kahlur used to get tribute from the petty chiefships known as
Bara Thakurian till 1793.
The non-Sikh chiefs of the plains did not have any strong regional tradition of suzerain-vassal
relationship. However, there are numerous references to Sikh rulers collecting tribute or asserting

39
suzerain rights in some others ways over non-Sikh chiefs, both in the hills and the plains. Jassa Singh
Ahluwalia, for instance, collected tribute from Rai Ibrahim Bhatti of Kapurthala, Churh Mal of Phagwara,
and Rai Ahmad Khan Manj of Talwan. Similarly Charhat Singh Sukarchakia collected tribute from the
Chatthas, the Jodrahs, the Ghebas, and the Awans. Among the chiefs who paid tribute to Mahan Singh
were the Janjuas and the chiefs of Jammu and Akhnur. Hari Singh Bhangi, collected tribute from the
Sials and the Khokhars. A number of hill principalities were obliged to accept the overlordship of Jassa
Singh Ramgarhia and Jai Singh Kanhiya from 1775 to 1786. Many hill chiefs of accepted the suzerainty
of Gujjar Singh and his successor Sahib Singh.
Thus, we find that suzerain-vassal relationship remained an essential feature of polity in the
Punjab during the late eighteenth century. The tradition being strong in the hills, it is not surprising that
every powerful hill chief tried to invoke this age old institution to increase his political influence and to
some extent his resources. Many of the Sikhs chiefs were tempted to make use of this institution for
political aggrandizement on a considerable scale. One very significant feature of the suzerain-vassal
relationship was that the two rulers concerned entered into this relationship in their capacity as
individuals.
We do not come upon any coins of the non-Sikh chiefs of the Punjab. In all probability, they
went on using the coins issued in the name of the Afghan rulers of Kabul after the death of Ahmad
Shah Abdali. Even the Sikh chiefs of Patiala, Nabha and Jind struck coins in the name of Ahmad Shah
Abdali. The Raja of Nabha is said to have adopted the coin struck at Lahore in 1765 as the state coin in
the early nineteenth century.
The Sikh coin struck at Lahore in 1765 was clearly a declaration of Sikh sovereignty
indeed, because from ancient times to strike a coin had been the prevalent mode of declaring one’s
sovereign status. The coin struck at Lahore bore the inscription:
Deg-o teg-o fateh-o nusrat bedrang
Yaft az Nanak Guru Gobind Singh.
In other words, the Sikhs claimed to have derived their authority from their Gurus and not from any
earthly ruler: they were independent, sovereign rulers in their own right. Another coin struck later at
Amritsar bore the inscription:
Sikka zadd bar har do alam alam teg-i Nanak wahib ast
Fateh Gobind (Singh) Shah-i- Shahan fazl-i Sacha Sahib ast
In other words, the sword of Guru Nanak enabled to Sikhs to strike the coin, and the grace of God was
the source of Guru Gobind Singh’s triumph. This inscription was originally used on the coin struck in the
time of Banda Bahadur, just as the earlier inscription was used on the seal used for his hukamnamas.
These two inscriptions remained in use throughout the period of Sikh rule in the territories under Ranjit
Singh and his successors.
In modern historical writing on the Sikhs since the early nineteenth century, it has been
assumed or underlined that the coins were declaration of the collective sovereignty of the Khalsa. N.K.
Sinha, for example, talks of the coin struck by ‘the Sikh Commonwealth’. The absence of the name of
any chief in the inscriptions of the coins is the strongest presumption in favour of the view that the Sikh
coins were meant to symbolize collective sovereignty of the Sikhs. This view has nevertheless been
questioned, essentially on the argument that this is not the only inference possible. The inscriptions on
the Sikh coins could enable the individual ruler also to claim that he was independent of all earthly
rulers, whether Sikh or non-Sikh.

40
 Indeed, the inference that the inscriptions on the Sikh coins symbolized collective
sovereignty does not find support from the available evidence. The seals of the late eighteenth century
Sikh chiefs invoked the help of God for the chief issuing the order. The epithet Khalsaji was used for the
individual chief, as for Charhat Singh Sukarchakia, Gulab Singh Bhangi, Sada Kaur, Milkha Singh of
Rawalpindi, and several others. The ruler was also referred to as ‘Singh Sahib’. The term ‘Sarkar’ also
was used for several of the Sikh chiefs: Gujjar Singh Bhangi, Jai Singh Kanhiya, Haqiqat Singh and
Jaimal Singh, for example. In combination, the two terms produced the phrase ‘Sarkar Khalsaji’. This
was the legacy that Ranjit Singh kept alive.
In retrospect, we can see that an important feature of the late eighteenth century polity of
the Punjab was the survival of the idea of suzerain-vassal relationship. Whereas the suzerainty of the
Mughal emperors was nominally recognized in many parts of the country, the new rulers of the Punjab
did not recognize the Mughals as their suzerains. For some time suzerainty was claimed by Ahmad
Shah Abdali, and his successors did not relinquish the claim. What was more significant, however, the
new rulers themselves started asserting superior political authority over one another. Crucial to the
suzerain-vassal relationship was the autonomy of the individual chief, whether sovereign or
subordinate. The Sikh coins declared the sovereignty of the Khalsa and the individual Sikh ruler at one
and the same time.
Self Assessment Questions
1. What do you understand by suzerain-vassal relationship as an essential feature of Indian polity?
_______________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
2. Which hill chiefs asserted suzerain claims over others?
_______________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
3. Which Sikh rulers exercised suzerainty by collecting tribute?
_______________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
4. What was the political significance of the striking of coins by the Sikhs?
_______________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
5. Which Sikh chiefs struck coins in the name of Ahmad Shah Abdali?
_______________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
6. In whose names were the coins of the Sikh rulers struck?
_______________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
7. The inscriptions on the coins struck at Lahore and Amritsar were used by whom first?
_______________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________

41
4.4 Agrarian Conditions and Land Revenue System
On the agrarian conditions of the Punjab during the late eighteenth century we have the statements of
contemporary Europeans.Writing in the 1770s, Colonel Polier observed that the possessions of the
Sikh chiefs were ‘exceedingly well cultivated, populous and rich’. He also observed that the revenues
were generally collected in kind and not in money. This arrangement was favourable to the cultivators.
Six or seven years later, George Forster referred to the large revenues of the extensive and fertile
territories of the Sikhs. Without precise information on the revenues of the Sikh times, Forster thought
that there was ‘no great decrease in the revenues collected during the reign of Aurangzeb’. James
Browne referred to ‘a state of high cultivation’ in the Sikh territories and added that the ‘rent’ was
moderate and the cultivator was never molested. In the 1790s, John Griffiths referred to grains, cotton,
indigo, jaggery, and a variety of fruits produced in the Punjab. Towards the end of the eighteenth
century, William Franklin stated that grain in the Punjab was cheaper than in any other part of India. He
also referred to the abundance of sugarcane, wheat, barley, rice, pulses of all sorts, tobacco, and
various fruits produced in the Punjab. It was also well supplied with cattle. Writing in the early
nineteenth century, Malcolm referred to one half of the produce taken by the chiefs as revenue but
added that the chief never levies the whole of his share; and ‘in no country, perhaps, is the Rayat, or
cultivator, treated with more indulgence’. Thus, the European observers are unanimous about the
agrarian production and the happy state of the cultivators in the territories of the Sikh chiefs.
Henry Prinsep does not talk about agricultural production but he does talk about tenures
which involved agrarian relations. According to him, there were four kinds of tenures in the territories of
the Sikhs: pattidari, misldari, tabadari and jagirdari. The first two related actually to arrangements
between the larger and the smaller chiefs. The two latter referred to the system of jagirs. Prinsep also
added that, as in the rest of the country, in the territories of the Sikh chiefs one could find ‘religious and
charitable appropriations and grants’ made to Sikh Gurus, Sodhis and Bedis, and to endowments for
temples and charitable distribution of alms, and sometimes ‘even to Musalman Pirzadas’.
N.K. Sinha gives less information than what we find in the early European writers and H.R.
Gupta adds small bits of information without adding anything to our understanding of agricultural
production and agrarian relations during the late eighteenth century in the territories of the Sikh chiefs.
In the light of the study of the agrarian history of medieval India, we can see that the early European
writers provide meager but significant information on the subject. Besides general agrarian prosperity
and moderate revenues, they refer to the low rates of assessment, the collection in kind, the major
produce form land, the jagirdari system and the alienation of revenues for charitable purposes.
Indeed, in a recent study of the agrarian system of the Sikhs by Indu Banga, it has been
shown that batai and kankut were the most prevalent methods of assessment in the Sikh dominions.
Cash rates were charged on wells and ploughs and certain crops were assessed in cash in some
areas. Cash rates per unit area were limited to a few crops. The rates of assessment varied from place
to place and from time to time but they were generally lower than what they had been in the Mughal
times. The cultivators were encouraged to extend cultivation. The jagirdari system under the Sikh rulers
closely resembled the one prevalent earlier and dharmarth grants formed even a more important
feature of the state patronage now than earlier. There were proprietary and tenant cultivators in the
Sikh dominions as in the Mughal provinces of Lahore and Multan. Thus, we find that in spite of the
political change, there was a large degree of continuity in the system of agricultural production, agrarian
relations and land tenures. We have already noticed that the degree of politico-administrative change in
the non-Sikh principalities was smaller than in the Sikh principalities. Therefore, we may expect greater

42
continuity in the system of agrarian production agrarian relations and land tenures in the territories of
the non-Sikh chiefs.
During the Mughal period, three major methods of assessment were used, namely kankut,
batai and zabt. The first involved assessment of the share of the government on the basis of appraisal
of the standing crop before it was harvested; the second involved the division of crop after harvesting;
and the third involved cash assessment per unit area measured. In the Punjab as a whole, the system
of zabt was the most prevalent during the early eighteenth century, followed by batai and kankut. The
collection of revenue in the case of kankut was generally made in cash and even in the case of
batai,the share of the government could be sold at the spot. The rate of assessment for kankut and
batai was generally one-half and the rate in the case of zabt was generally about 40 per cent of the
estimated yield.
Turning to the late eighteenth century, we find that all the three systems of kankut, batai
and zabt prevailed in the hill principalities. Batai, for instance, was prevalent in the territories of Jammu
and Guler; kankut was prevalent in Jaswan and Nurpur; and zabt as well as kankut was prevalent in
Kangra and Chamba. The revenue in the hill principalities was collected both in cash and kind.
Similarly, in some of the non-Sikh principalities for which evidence is available, all the three methods of
assessment were current: batai in Mankera and Multan, and kankut in Pindi Gheb, Rawalpindi and
Jhang. The zabt system was applied in the hills as well as in the plains of the Punjab to crops like
sugarcane, cotton, tobacco, and perishable crops. It must be added that in some of the non-Sikh
principalities like Multan and Pakpatan, revenues on cash crops like indigo and cotton too were
collected in kind. Therefore, almost everywhere the revenue was collected in both cash and kind. This
was also the position in the Sikh territories. In Lahore and Sialkot, for instance, batai was the prevalent
method and in Kapurthala kankut and zabt as well as batai. About the rate of assessment, only in a few
places it is mentioned as one-half; generally, it was less, going down to even one-fifth or one-sixth of
the produce. This variation in the rates of assessment from region to region was due to differences in
the condition of the soil, mode of irrigation and the expense of cultivation.
Before the division of the crop between the state and the cultivator, deductions were made
for the expenses of cultivation and on account of pachotra or the five per cent share of the chaudhari or
the muqaddam. One the other hand weighman’s fees and carriage were charged from the cultivator,
besides some other cesses. The share of the government in the case of indigo was assessed in cash
per maund. This practice was prevalent under the Bahawalpur chiefs. It was generally fixed at five
rupees per maund, but the rate varied according to the market price. A grazing tax called tirni was
collected from pastoral tribes. It was common in the lower parts of the Doabs where irrigation facilities
were scarce and a large proportion of land was lying waste. Even the cultivators who kept large number
of camels and herds of cattle paid tirni.Relevant information on all the principalities is not available but
there is no reason to doubt the general prevalence of cesses and taxes in addition to the land revenue.
Perhaps, the practices of the Mughal times were either not discarded or they were revived.
The important rabicorps were wheat, barley, gram, tobacco, fodder, and vegetables. The
important kharif crops were maize, rice, sugarcane, pulses, cotton, and turmeric. Several additional
crops were grown in some areas in both the harvests, like indigo in Multan and Muzaffargarh, and fruits
in the hills and the plains. Multan was known for its date trees. Artificial means of irrigation, which are
known to have been there during the Mughal period, were used during the late eighteenth century. In
the lower portions of the Doabs, where rainfall was inadequate, the new chiefs took several steps to
cater to the needs of the cultivators. The non-Sikh chiefs of Mankera, Multan and Bahawalpur are said

43
to have constructed about seventeen inundation canals in the territories under their jurisdiction. The
Shah Nahar, also called Hasli, remained in use during the late eighteenth century. This is evident from
the orders of Jai Singh Kanhiya and Sada Kaur in which they exempted the grantees from the tax on
water from the Shah Nahr for the irrigation of their revenue-free lands. Jai Singh Kanhiya directed the
authorities of the Shah Nahr in 1775 to give water free of charge to Mahant Prem Nath for his
khudkasht landin pargana Gurdaspur. It is clear that the cultivators used to pay naharana or water tax
for the canal water used for irrigation.
Besides construction new inundation canals, the chiefs of the Punjab took several other
steps to revive agrarian prosperity during the late eighteenth century. To quote a settlement officer of
Gujrat; ‘the names of Gujjar Singh and Sahib Singh Bhangi are often in the mouths of people of this
district who look back to their rule without the smallest bitterness. They seem indeed to have followed
an enlightened and liberal policy, sparing no effort to induce the people to settle down to peaceful
occupations’. Agriculture was encouraged, the system of in‘ams and chaharamis was introduced, and
every effort made to induce the people to settle down to their previous pursuits.
In retrospect, we can see that there was hardly anything in the last quarter of the
eighteenth century in the Punjab which should necessarily have resulted in the decline of agriculture.
The available evidence on administrative units and their functionaries, the methods and rates of
assessment and the attitude of the new rulers towards the cultivators gives an indication that
agricultural production did not suffer. There are no revenue figures comparable with those of the
Mughal times but figures by themselves would not prove any point, because the rate of assessment
was a crucial factor in the situation. There was certainly a revival of agriculture even if the revenue
figures are smaller than those of the seventeenth century. If the middle decades of the century
witnessed decline in agriculture, cultivation was certainly on the increase before the end of the
eighteenth century.

Self Assessment Questions

1. Name the early European observers who commented on the agrarian conditions of the Punjab
during the late eighteenth century?
_______________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________

2. Which methods of assessment of land revenue were prevalent in the territories of the new rulers?
_______________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________

3. What was the mode of payment of land revenue?

_______________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
4. At what rates was the land revenue assessed during the late eighteenth century?

44
 _______________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________

5. Which were the major harvests? What were the important crops under each?
_______________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________

6. What were the artificial means of irrigation prevalent during the late eighteenth century?
__________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________

4.5 Summary
Emergence of a large number of new rulers in the Punjab during the late eighteenth century
presupposed smaller states, with lesser resources and fewer administrative functionaries. Even when
the terms subadar and diwan remained in currency, they probably signified much smaller jurisdiction
and limited functions. The key official bridging the chief and the lower revenue functionaries was the
kardar. The new rulers continued to use the services of the hereditary revenue functionaries like the
chaudhari, muqaddam, qanungo and the patwari. Even the qazi’s courts functioned in the plains,
including the territories under the Sikh rulers.
While there was a broad continuity of the earlier framework of land revenue administration,
there were noticeable shifts in the methods of assessment, revenue rates and mode of payment
particularly in the territories of the Sikh rulers. In place of measurement (zabt), crop-sharing (batai) and
appraisement (kankut) became more prevalent. The rates of assessment were lower, more in tune with
the local circumstances like soil, water and character of population. The cultivators could pay in both
kind and cash. As a whole, a concern for the cultivator and the safety of his fields was evident in the
sources of the period.
The ambitious and the powerful among the new rulers also tried to establish suzerain
claims over others. Since the tradition of suzerain-vassal relationship was the strongest in the hills, the
Rajput chieftains as well as the Sikh rulers tried to establish their overlordship over the neighbouring hill
states by extracting tribute from them and by permitting autonomy to the subordinate rulers. This
tendency is evident in the plains as well, but payment of tribute was not regular. By the turn of the
century, Ranjit Singh extracted tribute generally as a prelude to annexation.
In medieval India, the striking of coin amounted to a declaration of independence. The coins of
the Sikh rulers present a major departure from the existing coinage. With the exception of the states of
Patiala, Nabha and Jind whose coins acknowledged the suzerainty of Ahmad Shah Abdali, the
inscriptions on the coins of the remaining Sikh rulers had been used for the first time by Banda Bahadur
on his seal and the coin. These derived power and authority from God through Guru Nanak and Guru
Gobind Singh. By striking these coins the Sikh rulers declared their independence of any earthly power,
underlining, at the same time, the sovereignty of the individual ruler rather than any collectivity.

45
4.6 References

1. Veena Sachdeva, Polity and Economy of the Punjab During the Late Eighteenth Century, New
Delhi: Manohar 1993.
2. Indu Banga, Agrarian System of the Sikhs: Late Eighteenth and Early Nineteenth Century, New
Delhi: Manohar, 1978.

4.7 Furthure Readings

1. Irfan Habib,The Agrarian System of Mughal India 1556-1707, New Delhi: Oxford University
Press, 1999 (rev.edn.).
2. Surinder Singh, Sikh Coinage: Symbol of Sikh Sovereignty, New Delhi: Manohar, 2004.

4.8 Model Questions

1. Discuss the features of the civil administration under the new rulers of the late-eighteenth
century?
2. How did the Land Revenue system function under the new rulers? How did the agrarian
conditions under the new rulers compare with those under the Mughals?
3. Examine the significance of suzerain-vassal relationship and coinage for the polity in the
late eighteenth century Punjab?

46
 Lesson-5

FEATURES OF JAGIRDARI SYSTEM; WORKING AND

RECIPIENTS OF DHARMARTH GRANTS; DEVELOPMENT OF
URBAN CENTRES; TRADE AND MANUFACTURE
Structure
5.0 Objectives
5.1 Introduction
5.2 Features of Jagirdari System
5.3 Working and Recipients of Dharmarth Grants
5.4 Development of Urban Centres
5.5 Trade and Manufacture
5.6 Summary
5.7 References
5.8 Further Readings
5.9 Model Questions
5.0 Objectives
Through the following discussion to enable the students to:
 Appreciate the nature of jagirdari system
 Understand different categories of jagirs
 Notice the diversity of recipients of charitable grants and its significance for the process of
consolidation of the new system of power represented by the Sikhs
 Notice the processes of gradual revival of trade and manufacture as well as urbanization.

5.1 Introduction
In the wake of the decline of the Mughal empire in the first half of the eighteenth century, and after
the ouster of the Afghans from the Punjab in 1765, a large number of new centres of power around
120, came up in the region. Over half of these were created by the Khalsa of Guru Gobind Singh. It
is possible, therefore, to notice a broad similarity in the structure of government and administration
created by the Sikhs. Like any medieval Indian polity, they were concerned mainly with the
collection and distribution of revenues, maintenance of law and order, provision of justice, and
defence and expansion of territories. The available sources of the period suggest that the new
rulers were influenced by the Khalsa ideology on the one hand and a conscious desire to continue
with the Mughal framework of administration on the other. Thus, a broad continuity of the Mughal
revenue system and also the framework of distribution of revenues through jagirs and charitable
grants is evident in the newly conquered territories. In fact, the institution of jagirdari coversdifferent
situations in thepolitical process of the eighteenth century.
Through their charitable grants the rulers extended the scope of state patronage to the sections
which had not been included earlier. It is equally remarkable that during the last quarter of the
eighteenth century the new rulers assiduously tried to extend cultivation, encourage trade and
promote manufactures of various kinds. Multiplicity of rulers entailed multiplicity of headquarters.

47
 Several old towns were repopulated, new ones were founded and traders and artisans were given
incentives to settle in these. In fact, prosperity of agriculture, extension of trade and promotion of
manufactures went with urbanization.
As a whole, there was a marked contrast between the Punjab of the 1750s and the Punjab of
the 1790s. Therefore, it would be incorrect to treat the eighteenth century as a dark age in the
history of the region. The decline of the Mughal empire created opportunities for several regions.
However, the Punjab remains somewhat of an exception in view of remarkable regional resurgence
in which ordinary people from the peasant and artisan backgrounds came into power and reversed
the process of decline in a significant manner. In this sense, the so called eighteenth century
debate about the causes of the decline of the Mughal empire acquires altogether a new meaning
and significance in the history of the Punjab in the second half of the eighteenth century.

5.2 Features of Jagirdari System

Jagir is a compound of two Persian words jai and gir, literally meaning ‘holding or occupying a place’.
The Persian term jagir came into currency under Akbar for a tract of land whose revenues were
assigned in lieu of service. The assignee came to be known as the jagirdar, that is holder of a jagir.
Given the background of the Mughal times and the process of political change during the
eighteenth century, there are indeed several references in contemporary records to jagirs of all kinds
given by the Sikh and non-Sikh chiefs, and it may be safely inferred that the jagirdari system in general
remained prevalent in their territories. There is enough information on the Sikh chiefs of the late
eighteenth century to suggest that they adopted the jagirdari system not long after the occupation of
territories.
Types of Jagirs
In the eighteenth century three types of jagirs have been identified by historians: service, in‘am and
subsistence. Service jagir was primarily military or civil. When a jagirdar was required to serve with a
certain number of horsemen he was assigned revenues from the land not only for his personal service
but also for the maintenance of horsemen. The civil jagirdar, on the other hand,was paid for his
personal service only. This may be illustrated with reference to both large and small jagirdars. Charhat
Singh Sukarchakia, for instance, gave a jagir worth 65,000 rupees to Sahib Singh Kalianwala for
maintaining 80 horsemen. Jassa Singh Ahluwalia granted villages worth 4,000 rupees in jagir to Jagat
Singh, Prem Singh, and Des Raj on condition of service of four horsemen. Among the administrators
paid in jagir for performing civil duties, for example, were Diwan Shiv Dayal under Charhat Singh
Sukarchakia and Qazi Abdul Rahman under Mahan Singh Sukarchakia. Thus, the difference between
the civil and military jagir hinged on the fact that the military jagirdar maintained troopers and was paid
for maintaining them. The total amount of pay received by a military jagirdar and variations of pay
broadly corresponded to the number of his men. It may be added that apart from qazis (judicial officers
dispensing Islamic law), several other categories of employees received jagirs for their personal service
such as boatmen, cooks (langris), barbers and personal attendants.
Jagirs given in perpetuity or hereditary jagirs were not unknown in the eighteenth century
Punjab. But they were not service jagirs. Assignments of revenues from land held not against any
office, or with any regular service to the state, may appropriately be termed in‘amjagirs which were
frequently given by the new rulers. The recipients were largely chaudharis and muqaddams (the tappa
and village headmen, respectively), though the in‘amjagirs were given by way of reward also to those
who brought waste land under cultivation.
Then, the revenues from land were given to individuals merely for subsistence, without involving
the idea of either reward or service. Subsistence jagirs, like in‘am jagirstended to be for life and would
generally become hereditary. Close relations of the ruler in particular enjoyed subsistence jagirs. Gujjar
Singh of Gujrat, for instance, gave such a jagir to his father-in law. Land revenue by way of subsistence

48
was given by the Sikh chiefs also to the dispossessed rulers and their dependants during the late
eighteenth century.
The jagirdari system implied a distinction between the khalisa (the land whose revenues went
directly to the state treasury) and jagir lands (whose revenues were collected by the assignees), and it
could not work without the maintenance of revenue records during the eighteenth century.

Service Jagirs
Since the service jagirs constituted the most important and also the largest category of jagirs some
more detail may be given about these.
There are numerous references to service jagirdarsoccurring in the sources with merely the
amount payable to them, but there is hardly any doubt that the lump sum payment to them included the
payment made on account of horsemen. To cite a few examples, Dasaunda Singh Randhawa, a
jagirdar under Hari Singh Bhangi of Amritsar, received 20,000 rupees a year; Katha Singh Chahal
under Lehna Singh received 5,000 rupees; and Gajjan Singh Chashmawala under Jai Singh Kanhiya
received 4,000 rupees. There are a few cases in which the number of troops required is also
mentioned. Gaura Singh Atariwala, for example, took service under Gujjar Singh of Gujrat receiving a
jagir of 18,000 rupees a year when he was required to serve the chief with twenty five horsemen. Jagat
Singh was granted four villages worth 4,000 rupees in jagir on the condition of furnishing four horsemen
to Jassa Singh Ahluwalia. Godh Singh Kamla held a jagir worth 40,000 rupees under Hari Singh Bhangi
of Amritsar. His nephew Jai Singh Kamla received a jagirworth 50,000 rupees under Gulab Singh
Bhangi.
Sometimes, a single horseman (ghurcharha) was granted a considerable jagir. Dyal Singh of
Dadubajra in Sialkot district entered the service of Tara Singh Pathankotia as a trooper, served him in
many expeditions and received from him a jagirworth 5,000 rupees in Pathankot. Some other cases of
individual horsemen getting handsome jagirsare also known: Kapur Singh under Jaimal Singh Kanhiya;
Amir Singh, Gajja Singh and Bakshish Singh under Nar Singh Chamiariwala; and Prem Singh under
Jassa Singh Ramgarhia.
Some of the descendants of chaudharis, muqaddams and jagirdars of the Mughal times also
joined the service of the new rulers and received jagirs. For example, one Ladda had been authorized
to collect revenues of twenty two villages under the Mughals. The office remained with the family for
many generations. On the decline of the Mughal empire, the family accepted the Sikh faith. Sarja
Singh, who was probably a descendant of Ladda, offered his services to the Sukarchakias and he was
granted a jagir. His sons were also given separate jagirs.
In some cases, service jagirs were given by the rulers to their relatives. For example,
Dasaunda Singh, a Dhillon Jat of Jhabal was taken into service by his half brother Baghel Singh Karora
Singhia and given a jagir. Nodh Singh, who married the sister of Amar Singh Bagga, was given a jagir
worth 2,500 rupees by his brother-in-law.
The jagirdars who distinguished themselves in service could hope to receive larger jagirs. In
1783, Mahan Singh Sukarchakia took over the territories of the Chatthas, and assigned to Diwan Singh,
his jagirdar, an additional allowance of 1,000 rupees per annum from the salt duties. Likewise, Pahar
Singh Mann, who showed great gallantry in various campaigns against the Chatthas, was granted an
additional jagir of 11,000 rupees by Mahan Singh Sukarchakia.
The duration for which an individual or a family held a service jagir could go beyond a
generation, though in a few known cases, the rulers deprived the jagirdars of their jagirs when they felt
that persons concerned were not performing their duties well. For example, Tegh Singh Kontal, a
jagirdar of Jai Singh Kanhiya lost his jagir because of his suspected involvement with Sansar Chand of
Kangra. On the other hand, even when the service jagirdars did not possess any hereditary rights over

49
the jagirs, the rulers normally gave service to their descendants. That was how several families of
jagirdars continued to serve the eighteenth century rulers for more than one generation. For example,
on the death of Gaura Singh, a jagirdar of Sahib Singh of Gujrat, his son Nihal Singh was taken into
service. Dasaunda Singh Randhawa and his descendants served Hari Singh Bhangi of Amritsar and
his successors for three generations. At the same time, jagirdars could lose or gain due to political
changes. There are known instances of jagirdars who suffered losses due to subjugation of their
masters by Ranjit Singh. There also are known instances of jagirdarswho chose to stay with their old
masters as jagirdars, albeit receiving a much smaller amount in jagir. However, most of the jagirdars of
the dispossessed chiefs were absorbed in the expanding state of Ranjit Singh as service or
subsistence jagirdars.
In the light of the above discussion, it may be safely suggested that the jagirdari system prevalent
during the period under study was broadly similar to the system prevalent under the Mughals. The
jagirdari system survived the political upheaval of the times because it provided the framework for
upward social mobility and administrative continuity, thus contributing also towards political stability. To
borrow an expression from Indu Banga, ‘the time honoured institution of jagirdari’ covered a variety of
changing empirical situations in the processes of conquest and consolidation in the Punjab during the
late eighteenth century.
Self Assessment Questions
1. What do you understand by the term jagir?
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
2. What were the different categories of jagirs?
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________

3. What do you understand by the term jagirdar?

____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________

4. What do you understand by the term military jagir? How was it different form civil jagir?
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________

5. What do you understand by the term khalisa land? How was it different from the jagir
land?
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________

50
 6. Who was a ghurcharha?
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________

7. Who were chaudharis and muqaddams? How were they paid by the state?
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________

8. Who were the qazis? How were they paid by the state?
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________

9. Name the Sukarchakia rulers of the eighteenth century who assigned revenues in
jagirs.
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________

10. How did the jagirdari system contribute towards political stability?
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________

5.3 Working and Recipients of Dharmarth Grants

Rulers in India had been giving grants of revenue-free land to religious personages and institutions
since ancient times. The Mughal emperors, the immediate predecessors of the Sikh rulers, had been
rather liberal in matters of madad-i ma‘ash grants not only to sayyids and shaikhs but also to non-
Muslims of known religious sanctity. The vassal chiefs of the Mughal empire had been free to make
charitable grants from their territories. The jagirdars of the Mughal emperors had tended to imitate their
masters within the jagirs assigned to them, and some of the grants given by them initially for their own
tenure actually continued to be enjoyed by the grantees even later. Consequently, where ever the
Sikhs made their conquests they found many a plot of land held in charity, which they called
‘dharmarth’. The other terms used for dharmarth grants in the orders of the Sikh rulers are mu‘afand
waguzar, that is exempt from the payment of revenues. From the very beginning, and as a matter of
policy, they confirmed the grants given by their predecessors. The non-Sikh chiefs also gave charitable
grants.

Working of Dharmarth Grants

Procedurally, the chiefs issued formal orders bearing their seals, addressed generally to the local
administrators called the ‘amils or the kardars, and sometimes to the chaudharis and the village
zamindars. A comparison of the orders of the rulers of the late eighteenth century with those of the
Mughal emperors and their functionaries makes it clear that the essential points concerning the grant of
revenue-free land were the same. What the ruler granted were the revenues due to the state which
were collected directly by the grantee in most situations. Sometimes the revenues were collected for
him by the agents of the state.
The revenue-free land granted was generally given in terms of the measures of land called
ghumaons (equal to about 2 bighas or an acre)and kanals (1/4th of a bigha or 1/8thof a ghumaon).
Presumably, in all such cases, land was measured and clearly demarcated. Though much less
frequently, the land was given in terms of wells and ploughs as well. Sometimes, a whole village or half
a village or fourth of a village too was given in grant. As during the Mughal times, in addition to the

51
grant of land revenue, concessions were also given during the late eighteenth century like exemption
from payment of water tax, forced labour (begar)or any payment in lieu thereof. In some cases,
however, the grantee was asked indirectly to perform a small service for the state. If there was any
interference with the revenue-free grants from any quarters, it was brought to the notice of the chief
concerned. The available admonitory orders of the rulers indicate that they tried to ensure that the
grantees enjoyed without interference what was given to them.
There was a common practice during the Mughal times to follow the principle of half and half in
giving revenue-free grants on the basis of which half of the land granted for the purpose was cultivable
waste. When this waste land was brought under cultivation by the grantee, it became his property, and
he was entitled to keep its entire produce. During the late eighteenth century also instances are known
of grantees themselves getting the land cultivated and keeping the entire produce.
There was a tendency to treat the dharmarth grants as hereditary. It is not surprising that
several hereditary holders of grants not only came down from the Mughal times, but continued to enjoy
the right over revenue-free land throughout the late eighteenth and the early nineteenth century and
survived into the British period.
In fact, the practice of making charitable grants was so deep-rooted that in their generosity
rulers were followed by several other categories of people associated with land. The jagirdars of a chief
often alienated portions of revenue from their own jagirs for charitable purposes. Then, there are
instances of grants given by the wives of some Sikh chiefs. Even the individual horsemen, generally
called the ghurcharhas, are known to have given away revenues from their own jagirs. A large number
of chaudharis and muqaddams too gave dharmarth grants.
It may be added that while most of the charitable grants were made to the individuals and
institutions of known religious sanctity, in a few cases revenue-free land was granted for a specific
purpose like distribution of medicines to the poor, for daily distribution of food, to maintain chhabil in
summers for providing free drinking water as an act of piety. Grants were also given in support of
individual teachers as well as educational establishments. It may be added that state patronage during
the late eighteenth century was not confined to the grants of revenue-free land. Grants were sometimes
made in cash. In a few cases, dharmarth grants were made in kind. Tolls and customs were also
remitted sometimes.

Recipientsof Dharmarth Grants

As mentioned in the beginning, all rulers, whether Sikh or non-Sikh, gave charitable grants, but the
available evidence about the dharmarth grants made by the Sikhs is overwhelming. Majority of the
recipients, both individual and institutional, also happened to be associated with Sikh faith, receiving
such grants most probably for the first time.
The largest proportion of the revenues was granted to the descendants of the Gurus. The
descendants of Guru Nanak, the Bedis, received the maximum grants nearly from all the Sikh rulers
during the late eighteenth century. The descendants of Guru Ram Das, the Sodhis, too were patronized
by a large number of chiefs. Similarly, the descendants of Guru Amar Das, the Bhallas, were given land
in dharmarth. There is no known instance but it is not unlikely that some Trehan descendants of Guru
Angad also received such grants.
Revenue-free lands were granted to various Gurdwaras as well. Prominent among these
were the Harmandar Sahib (later, the Golden Temple) at Amritsar, followed by the Darbar Sahib at
Tarn Taran, the Gurdwara Shahidganj at Lahore, and Gurdwara Manji Sahib at Jandiala. The
establishments like the Akal Bunga and the Jhanda Bunga in the Harmandar Sahib complex at Amritsar
received separate grants. Some village Gurdwaras even received charitable grants. Revenue-free
lands were given also to the granthis, ragis, rababis, and dhadis attached to the Harmandar Sahib at
Amritsar. Similar grants were enjoyed by those attached to the institutions associated mostly with the
Gurus at Kartarpur, Goindwal, Nankana Sahib, and Rori Sahib.
The Udasis represented the order of renunciates claiming spiritual descent from Baba Sri
Chand, the elder son of Guru Nanak. The Udasi establishments known as the Akharas, Deras,

52
Darbars, Smadhs, and Dharmsalas were extensively patronized by the Sikh chiefs. A large number of
fresh grants were given to the newly founded Udasi centres which came into prominence during the
late eighteenth century. The Akhara of Baba Santokh Das, known as Akhara Brahm Buta, virtually
within the Harmandar Sahib complex, and two other Akharas in Amritsar received dharmarth grants.
Like them, the Nirmala sadhs representing an order of the Sikh renunciates received revenue-free
grants.
Furthermore, the new rulers of the Punjab gave charitable grants to the temples dedicated
to various Brahmanical deities. Priests (purohits) and Brahmans were also patronized by a large
number of chiefs. They gave revenue-free grants to the Vaishnava and Jogi Matths, Thakurdwaras,
Deras, Smadhs and Dharamsalas as well. The Vaishnava establishment at Pindori in Gurdaspur district
received the largest number of grants and became one of the most venerated institutions of this period.
The consideration shown by the Sikh rulers to the Mahants of Pindori comes out clearly in their orders
to the ‘amils, kardars, zamindars, jagirdars and the panches, in which they are repeatedly instructed not
to allow any interference with the collection of revenue by the Mahant of Pindori. Similarly, the Jogis
associated with several Shaiva establishments called Shivdwaras or Shivalas, received revenue-free
grants from the Sikh and non-Sikh chiefs of the Punjab.
Muslim individuals and institutions were also patronized by the new rulers of the Punjab.
Several Muslim chiefs confirmed the Mughal grants and gave fresh grants of their own. As mentioned
earlier, as a matter of policy, the Sikh rulers confirmed the imperial grants, and gave fresh ones to the
sayyads (sanctified because of their association with the Prophet or his tribe), Sufi shaikhs and the
minstrels called the mirasis as well asthe khanqahs and takias (establishments and resting places of
the Sufi pirs), and mosques. These grants were given as much for the maintenance of establishments
as for their attendants.

Evidently, state patronage during the late eighteenth century was not confined to the co-religionists of
the rulers, particularly the Sikh rulers who gave grants to religious institutions and individuals of all
faiths. Extensive patronage of religious classes was an expression as much of their sense of piety and
catholic outlook, as of their practical good sense. Through charitable grants, they tended to increase
their power and influence as if in a spirit of competition with one another. To enlist the support of
influential individuals by giving them grants was to enlist the support of their followers at the same time.

Self Assessment Questions

1. What do you mean by the term dharmarth?
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________

2. What other terms were used for dharmarth grants?

____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________

3. Other than the ruler, who were the donors of charitable grants?
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________

4. What were the measures of land in which dharmarth grants were generally made?
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________

53
 5. The descendants of which Guru received the maximum dharmarth grants during the late
eighteenth century?
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________

6. Mention any two historic Gurdwaras which received revenue-free land?

____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________

7. Who were the Udasis?

____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________

8. Mention any two Akharas of the Udasis which received revenue-free land?
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________

9. Mention any two Brahmanical establishments receiving dharmarth grants during the late
eighteenth century.
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
10. Mention any two Islamic establishments receiving charitable grants during this period.
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________

5.4 Development of Urban Centres

An urban centre may broadly be defined as a human settlement supporting a heterogeneous population
pursuing a multitude of non-agricultural occupations catering to the urban and rural settlements around,
and having a social-political organization of its own. Depending upon the complexity of functions,
especially its manufactures and trade, the size of a centre varied in the urban hierarchy, consisting
broadly of the small, middling and large centres in the region, and constituting a network oriented
towards its city or cities. The phenomenon of urbanization in the sense of increase in the number and
sizes of urban centres, occasionally followed by the decline of some centres, is as old as the
functioning of organized societies. The ‘Punjab Region’ has a long history of urbanization. There were
urban centres not only in the medieval period but also in the ancient and pre-historic times. Coming to
the recent centuries, the interfluve (doab) between the Beas and the Ravi had emerged as an urban
region par excellence, with all the three cities of the Punjab – Lahore, Amritsar and Multan, and a large
number of small and middling towns,
Even though, Adina Beg Khan, a Mughal faujdar and later the governor of the Punjab, founded
the township of Adina Nagar around 1752, urban centres had begun to decline in the second quarter of
the eighteenth century, especially after the invasion of Nadir Shah. Several towns and cities declined
during the third quarter in the wake of the contest first between the Sikhs and the Mughals supported by
the Marathas, and then between the Afghans and the Sikhs. However, by the late 1760s, over a
hundred small and large new principalities came into existence which also entailed the revival of
administrative headquarters and emergence of several new capital towns.
Many urban centres of the Mughal times were revived by the new rulers of the Punjab during
the late eighteenth century. The provincial capital Lahore, for instance, had been utterly ruined as a
result of the successive invasions of Ahmad Shah Abdali. When Gujjar Singh, Lehna Singh and Sobha
Singh occupied the city in 1765, they paid much attention to its rehabilitation. They issued a

54
proclamation that anyone oppressing the subjects would be punished. In his part of the city, Gujjar
Singh built Qila Gujjar Singh and invited people to reside in that quarter. He laid forty wells for the
supply of water and got constructed 15 shops and 150 houses. The town of Gujrat, founded by Akbar
on the imperial road, and situated in the Chaj Doab (between the rivers Jhelum and Chenab), had been
prey to the advancing and retiring armies of Ahmad Shah. Gujjar Singh rebuilt the fort and invited
traders and others to reside inside. Several other chiefs are known to have revived the old towns. Kamr
Singh Nakkai rebuilt Satghara which had been sacked around 1745 and abandoned by its inhabitants.
He built a brick wall around the town. Similarly, Sialkot was repopulated by Jiwan Singh, Mohar Singh,
Sahib Singh and Natha Singh; Bhera was repopulated by Dhanna Singh Kalalwala; Jalalpur, by
Rahmat Khan Waraich; and Jhang, by Walidad Khan Sial. In the Upper Bari Doab out of the old
pargana headquarters, Batala alone had continued to exist as an urban centre of importance; it
flourished under the Kanhiyas after Jai Singh Kanhiya occupied it as his capital.
The development of Ramdaspur, now called Amritsar, is the most eloquent example of urban
revival and development. The Harmandar, which was blown up by Ahmad Shah Abdali in 1762, was
reconstructed by the Sikh chiefs in the last quarter of the century. They also built their residences
(bungas) around the shrine. Around the central township, the Sikh chiefs built about a dozen katras
(market-cum-residential quarters), encouraging traders and craftsmen to reside in them. These katras
had their own administration, and provided all the security their inhabitants needed. Some of the chiefs
built forts. Thus, a cluster of townships came to develop around Ramdaspur before the end of the
eighteenth century.
There were several other instances of revival and growth. Through repairs and revenue grants
and other incentives, several rulers and jagirdars collectively contributed towards the revival of Dera
Baba Nanak, a township founded originally by Guru Nanak. Dera Baba Nanak developed a market and
grew into a flourishing urban centre. Sri Hargobindpur was developed by Jassa Singh Ramgahria as his
capital. Rawalpindi was a small village before it was occupied by Milkha Singh Thepuria in 1767. He
fortified the place and constructed a number of new buildings, employing a large number of workers. He
invited traders to settle in Rawalpindi. It became a large town under his administration. While Charhat
Singh Sukarchakia chose Gujranwala as his seat of government, Jassa Singh Ahluwalia chose
Kapurthala as his capital. Fatehabad, Rahon, Hallowalia, Phillaur, Sujanpur, Sayyadwala and Nur
Mahal were some of the other places which grew up as urban centres and administrative headquarters
during the late eighteenth century.
Urban centres developed at some altogether new places. For instance, among the Phulkian
rulers, Ala Singh founded Patiala, Hamir Singh founded Nabha and Gajpat Singh founded Jind in the
Satlej-Jamuna divide. Elsewhere in the Punjab plains, Haqiqat Singh Kanhiya, founded Fatehgarh, and
his brother founded Chittaurgarh. The town of Narot was founded by Jaimal Singh Kanhiya. Qila Sobha
Singh and Qila Suba Singh were built by sons of Bhag Singh Hallowalia. Nidhan Singh Hattu built
Daska. Shuja Khan built Shujabad with a fort and a palace. His son founded the town of Muzaffarbad in
1794. His daughter built the fort and town of Khangarh, while his son founded Ghazanfarabad. Nur
Muhammad Chattha, likewise built Rasulnagar and his son Pir Muhammad built Alipur, Naiwala and
Fatehpur. In the foothills, Raja Ghamand Chand of Kangra founded Sujanpur, and Basohli was
enlarged by Raja Amrit Pal and his successor Mohinderpal.

As a whole, there is hardly any doubt that some of the towns and cities of the Mughal period
suffered a decline and a few of them lost their status as urban centres in the first half of the eighteenth
century. It is more important, however, that during the later part of the century many of the old centres
were revived. These included not only the capital cities of Lahore and Multan but also the important
towns like Gujrat, Sialkot, Wazirabad, Batala, Dipalpur, Jalandhar and Rahon. Even more important is
the fact that some urban centres grew all afresh. The most important of these was Amritsar. Some of
the other important examples were Rawalpindi, Gujranwala, Kapurthala and Patiala. It is equally
pertinent to point out that if the size of the former towns and cities became smaller during the late
eighteenth century, the number of urban centres increased very considerably. Most of the towns and

55
cities of the late eighteenth century served not only as centres of administration but also as centres of
collection-distribution of agricultural produce as well as trade and manufactures which constituted their
backbone.

Self Assessment Questions

1. What do you understand by the term urban centre?
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________

2. What do you understand by the term urbanization?

____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________

3. Which doab emerged as the urban region par excellence in the Punjab during the eighteenth
century?
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________

4. Who founded the town of Adina Nagar?

____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________

5. Name any two urban centres of the Mughal time which were revived by the rulers of the Punjab
during the late eighteenth century.
___________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________

6. Mention any two towns founded by the Sikh chiefs as their capitals in the Satlej-Jamuna divide
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
.
7. Name the Sikh chiefs who chose Gujranwala and Kapurthala as their seats of government.
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________

8. Name the two towns build by non-Sikh chiefs in the Punjab plains.
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________

9. Name the two towns founded/ enlarged by the hill chiefs during the late eighteenth century.
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________

10. What constituted the backbone of urban centres during your period of study?
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
56
5.5 Trade and Manufacture
The twentieth century historians have written very little about trade and manufacture in the Punjab
during the late eighteenth century. This has been due partly to the assumption that trade and
manufacture suffered in a period of political strife, and partly to the lack of easily available information
on the subject. However, there are references to considerable economic activity in the writings of the
contemporary Europeans observers, particularly George Forster, William Francklin, James Browne and
Antoine-Louis Henri Polier, who passed through the Punjab or its environs in the last quarter of the
eighteenth century. In fact, the existence of towns and cities in the Punjab during this period
presupposes existence of thriving trade and diversified manufactures.
Writing in the 1780s, George Forster observes that before Nadir Shah’s invasion of India, the
trade route form Delhi to Kashmir passed through Sarhind, Lahore and Bhimber but after the Afghan
invasions, and particularly after the occupation of territories by the Sikhs, the merchants felt unsafe to
use that route. They then used the Bilaspur, Kangra and Jammu route to Kashmir. Though this
alternative route was safer, it was more tedious and involved larger expense. One important result of
this change in the trade route, according to Forster, was the great prosperity of Jammu. Its ruler, Ranjit
Dev, encouraged traders of all communities and his judicious administration made Jammu ‘a place of
extensive commercial resort where all descriptions of men experienced in their persons and property, a
full security’. In a history of Jammu, entitled Rajdarshini, there is a reference to bankers in Jammu
during the reign of Ranjit Dev. The author of the Rajdarshini also gives the names of some Khatri
millionaires of Jammu who probably came from the Punjab plains. However, in the 1780s, commerce in
Jammu was not so prosperous as around 1770. This was partly due to the sack of Jammu by Mahan
Singh Sukarchakia and partly to the more rigorous demands of Ranjit Dev’s successor on local and
foreign traders. Yet, Forster could easily contact his banker and immediately get his hundi (bill of
exchange) encashed. He also observed that the income of the Jammu state still came largely from
‘import and export duties’.
Forster was never able to visit the Punjab plains, but passing through the neighbouring hill
areas, he carried the impression that an extensive and valuable commerce was carried on in the
territories of the Sikh chiefs and ‘extended to distant quarters of India’, particularly to the provinces of
Bihar and Bengal, where many Sikh merchants had taken up residence. Forster also observed:
‘Merchants of every nation or sect, who may introduce a traffic into their territories, or are established
under their Government, experience a full protection, and enjoy commercial privileges in common with
their own subjects. At the same time, it must be noticed, that such immunities are granted only to those
who remain amongst them, or import wares for the immediate supply of the Sikh markets. But the

57
foreign traders, or even travellers, who attempt to pass through the Punjab are often plundered and
usually ill-treated’.
William Francklin refers to the exchange of cloths, matchlocks and horses from the plains for
commodities sent out from the hills. The major items of export from the Punjab plains, according to
Francklin, were horses, camels, rice, sugar, white cloth, matchlocks, swords, bows and arrows. In
addition to rice, sugar and white cloth, wheat and indigo were exported to Kashmir and to the countries
west of the Indus. The items of import from there were swords, horses, fruits, lead and spices; and from
Kashmir came shawls, saffron, fruit and a variety of cloths. From Gujarat in western India the Punjab
plains imported pearls, gold-thread, elephant’s teeth, broad cloth, nutmegs, cloves, dry dates, coconut,
iron, lead, copper, vermilion, and drugs. The imports from the Deccan consisted of iron, sulphur, salt,
lead, indigo, coarse broad cloth, and spices. On the basis of contemporary evidence, H.K. Naqvi
suggests that a certain degree of stability in the trade of Lahore was achieved by the 1770s. Goods
from Murshidabad coming to Lahore through Patna consisted of raw silk, cotton fabrics, silken stuffs
and chinaware. In 1777, for example, the total cargo consisted of ‘1662 maunds 20 seers of raw silk,
11,813 pieces of cotton goods and 9,656 pieces of silken stuffs; there were 3 maunds of vermilion but
no Chinaware’. In the accounts of Sohan lal Suri and Ganesh Das, there are references to the
extraction of salt form the mines of the Salt Range, and its trade within and outside the region during
the period.
Contemporary writers also refer to the manufactures of the Punjab plains during the late
eighteenth century. C. Grey refers to the manufacture of ‘arms, ordnance and accoutrements of all
description’; there is a reference also to the Kashmiri immigrants who had settled in Nurpur and who
manufactured shawls and other woollens. According to James Browne, the principal manufactures of
the Punjab were fine cloths made at Lahore and also the arms which he thought were the best in
Hindustan. Another Englishman, Captain Griffiths, writing at the turn of the century, refers to the
manufacture of shawls and blankets, white cloth and fine and coarse piece goods at Lahore. He also
notices the manufacture of piece goods, white cloth and chintz of all sorts at Multan, in addition to the
manufacture of swords, matchlocks, cotton cloth, and coarse and fine silks. According to Polier, yet
another European observer, the Punjab was known for a breed of the best horses in northern India and,
according to Francklin again, the Sikh territories were said to contain prodigious quantities of cattle,
oxen, cows and sheep as well as horses.
Francklin carried the impression that the trade which the Punjab had at one time with the rest of
northern India was no longer there in the late eighteenth century. It did not mean, however, that there
was no trade. Commercial intercourse between the Punjab and Hindustan was still there. The
merchants who wanted to conduct trade in the territories of the Sikh chiefs had to get passports to enter

58
their territories, but such passports were issued almost as a matter of routine. In fact, in the new
political situation, new routes of trade had come into use. An important route within the Punjab was
from Amritsar to Patiala, by way of Machhiwara. From Patiala, there was a trade route to Rajasthan by
way of Hansi and also through Kaithal, Jind and Dadri. There was a trade route from Patiala to Delhi
through Karnal as well.
Forster refers to ‘the collector of the customs’ at Bilaspur where he also saw a caravan of the
agents of some merchants on its way to Delhi and Lucknow. At Chenini, later, he had to pay one rupee
‘for permission to cross the Chenab’. As in the hills so in the plains, traders had to pay custom duties. In
the Tahmas Nama, written around 1760, there is a reference to the levying of transit duty on the Ravi
near Shahpur; it is also added that Tahmas Khan himself was exempted from this duty on the basis of a
letter of the Raja of Jammu. James Browne refers to the partition of Lahore amongst three chiefs in
1765, each of whom received a certain share of the revenues from imposts and duties. According to
Lepel Griffin, a later British administrator, Chaudhari Chhaju Mal reduced the amount of custom duties
by more than a half to attract merchants and traders to take up residence in the katra (a market-cum-
residential quarter with its our entrance and internal management) founded in Amritsar by Jai Singh
Kanhiya. There were bankers and money lenders in the plains as in the hills during the late eighteenth
century. In the time of Mahan Singh Sukarchakia, Gurmukh Singh Lamma’s father, Pardhan Singh, was
a money changer in the small town of Khiwa on the right bank of the river Jhelum, opposite Jalalpur.
Contrary to the impression carried by Francklin that because of the scarcity of precious metals
in the Sikh territories, trade was ‘chiefly carried on by barter system especially in the manufacturing
towns’, there is clear contemporary evidence of prices in cash in different situations. The information on
prices, however, relates only to the extraordinary years of famine and scarcity. Tahmas Khan, for
instance, refers to the famine that occurred in the Punjab around 1760 and mentions that the price of
wheat in Sialkot, Lahore and Jalandhar was more than five and half rupees per maund. During the
great famine of 1783, grain was reportedly sold in Batala at about four and a half rupees a maund; in
Lahore, the price of grain was ten rupees a maund; in Gujrat, more than eleven rupees; in Jehlam and
Jammu, more than thirteen rupees; and in Sialkot, it was twenty rupees a maund. A near contemporary,
Ram Sukh Rao, on the other hand, states that in 1783, in Kapurthala territories under Bhag Singh
Ahluwalia, the price of grain was 2 rupees per maund. During Zaman Shah’s invasion in 1797, the price
of wheat is given as 17 seers per rupee, that of ghee as 2 seers, of oil 4 seers and of barley as 20
seers a rupee. In the year following, wheat was sold at 20 seers a rupee, rice at 12 seers, pulses at 15
seers, raw sugar at 14 seers, fine sugar at 3 seers, and ghee at two and half seers a rupee. These
prices were unusual but even so there is no suggestion that cash nexus was absent or even
unimportant.

59
 It may be in order to mention that evidence from the early nineteenth century throws light on the
trade and manufactures of several towns and cities of the Punjab, most notably Lahore, Amritsar,
Multan, Mankera, Jhang, Sahiwal, Pakpatan, Nakodar, Phagwara, Jalandhar, Sialkot, Chiniot,
Wazirabad, Gujrat, Bhera and Pind Dadan Khan, among others. Apart from dozens of different items of
manufactures in cotton, silk and woollen textiles, gold, silver, iron and copper metals, leather goods of
different kinds, and wood and ivory work, the Punjab was known particularly for its rock salt, horses,
weapons, cotton textiles and paper of different varieties. There is clear evidence of money transactions
through hundis within and outside the region.
On the whole, if trade and manufactures in the Punjab declined during the middle decades of the
eighteenth century, there was a visible revival before its end, rather by the beginning of the last quarter
of the century. At the same time, in the absence of concrete and detailed data, it is not possible to
institute a quantitative comparison between the situation during the early and the later part of the
eighteenth century, or between the situation during the late eighteenth century and the early nineteenth.
The available evidence, nevertheless, leaves the dominant impression that the extensive trade and
manufactures of the Punjab during the early nineteenth century was not so much a fresh development
but a continuation of the trends witnessed during the last three decades of the eighteenth century.

Self Assessment Questions

1. What were the major items of export from the Punjab plains during the late eighteenth
century?
______________________________________________________________________

2. What were the major items of import into the Punjab plains?
______________________________________________________________________
3. What were the main manufactures of the Punjab?
______________________________________________________________________
4. Which were the important trade routes in the Punjab during the late eighteenth century?
______________________________________________________________________
5. From which major regions did the Punjab receive its imports?
_____________________________________________________________________
6. What do you understand by the term katra?
_____________________________________________________________________
7. What did hundi stand for?
____________________________________________________________
8. Where was salt found in the Punjab?
____________________________________________________________
9. Name the four contemporary European observers commenting on the trade and
manufactures of the late eighteenth century Punjab?
____________________________________________________________

60
 10. Name any four products that the Punjab was particularly known for?
____________________________________________________________

5.6 Summary

In this lesson we have learnt that the pattern of jagirs appears to be close to what was there under the
Mughals. There are instances of jagirs given for military service, some of which were pretty large. There
are instances of jagirs given to single horsemen.Jagirs were given also to individuals for performing
services in the civil administration. In ‘amjagirs were given as a reward and also, for bringing waste
land under cultivation. Subsistence jagirs were given to the dispossessed chiefs and their dependants
as well as to the close relations of the ruler to enable them to live in accordance with their social status.
The jagirdari system during the late eighteenth century accommodated social mobility, and thereby
introduced a certain element of political stability.
As in the case of jagirdarsso in the case of the charitable revenue grantees, the pattern
during the late eighteenth century remained very much similar to the pattern existing earlier under the
Mughals. Almost all the chiefs confirmed old grants as a matter of policy and gave fresh grants of their
own. The example of the chiefs was followed by their jagirdars, and even by chaudharis and
muqaddams. Grants were given to religious personages and institutions of all faiths throughout the
Punjab during the late eighteenth century. The Sikh rulers gave the maximum number of fresh grants of
which a substantial portion went to the descendants of the Sikh Gurus, religious institutions like the
Harmandar Sahib and the Udasi renunciates and centres. Grants were also given in cash and kind.
We have noticed that many urban centres of the Mughal times continued to exist, or they were
revived. Furthermore, new urban centres were founded as administrative headquarters, capital towns
and religious places. Thus, the number of urban centres became much larger by the end of the
eighteenth century. All of them were centres of trade and manufacture. Not only, in terms of revival, but
also of trade and manufacturing activities, there was a significant continuity in the case of Lahore,
Multan, Sialkot, Gujrat, Batala and Jalandhar. Cash nexus was well established and even small towns
had their sahukars who used hundis with ease. The region had extensive trade not only within but also
with other parts of India like the Deccan, Bengal and Bihar. Income from transit duties on trade was a
major source of the income of the state. Several new urban centres came to be known for their
specialties which were in demand even outside the Punjab. This indirect evidence of trade and
manufacture from the growth of urbanization is supported by direct evidence of contemporary and near
contemporary sources. The correlation that is generally assumed by historians between political
disintegration and economic decline does not get support from what we know of the Punjab during the
late eighteenth century.

61
5.7 References
1. Irfan Habib, The Agrarian System of Mughal India 1556-1707, New Delhi: Oxford University
Press, 1999 (rev.edn.).
2. Veena Sachdeva, Polity and Economy of the Punjab During the Late Eighteenth Century, New
Delhi: Manohar 1993.
3. Indu Banga, Agrarian System of the Sikhs: Late Eighteenth and Early Nineteenth Century, New
Delhi: Manohar, 1978.
4. Reeta Grewal, ‘Urban Patterns in the Punjab Region since Protohistoric Times’, [International]
Journal of Punjab Studies, vol. 20, Spring-Fall, 2013.
5. Reeta Grewal (ed.), Five Thousand Years of Urbanization: The Punjab
Region, New Delhi: Manohar, 2005 (relevant articles).

5.8 Further Readings

1. J.S. Grewal and Indu Banga (eds.), Studies in Urban History, Amritsar: Guru Nanak Dev
University, [1981] (relevant articles).
2. Indu Banga and J.S. Grewal (eds.), Maharaja Ranjit Singh: The State and Society, Amritsar:
Guru Nanak Dev University, 2001

5.9 Model Questions

1 Critically examine the features of the jagirdari system under the new rulers of the eighteenth
century Punjab?
2 What do you understand by dharmarth grants? What were the different categories of recipients
of these grants?
3 Discuss the development of urban centres in the Punjab during the late eighteenth century.
4. What kind of evidence do we have on trade and manufactures during the last quarter of the
eighteenth century?

62
 Lesson-6

RE-CONSTRUCTION OF EIGHTEENTH CENTURY AS ‘MISALDARI

PERIOD; POLITICAL RELATIONS; EIGHTEENTH CENTURY
DEBATE AND THE PUNJAB
Structure
6.0 Objectives
6.1 Introduction
6.2 Reconstruction of eighteenth century as ‘Misaldari Period’
6.3 Political Relations
6.4 Eighteenth Century Debate and the Punjab
6.5 Summary
6.6 Reference
6.7 Further Readings
6.8 Model Questions
6.0 Objectives

To enable the students to understand the following:

 The idea of the eighteenth century as the ‘Misaldari Period’.
 Nature of Political Relations between Sikh and Muslim chiefs of the plains, the Sikh and Rajput
chiefs of the Hills, and among the Sikh chiefs themselves.
 Views of different historians about the decline of the Mughal empire in the first half of the
eighteenth century.
 Views of the historians of the Punjab about the nature of the Sikh Polity in the second half of the
eighteenth century.

6.2 Introduction

The eighteenth century politics was marked by the ultimate success of the Sikh struggle against the
Mughals and the Afghans. In the process, the Sikh leaders made use of the institutions of Rakhi, Misl,
and the Dal Khalsa. Their rise into power, especially the period of their rule, has been labelled as the
‘Misaldari Period’ which, however, is not a correct description. It was not a single polity or state,
because after conquering territory each misldar was autonomous in its administration. The coins
current in the Sikh territories also underscored the sovereignty of the individual ruler who claimed to be
independent of all non-Sikh political powers, and also of one another. In their political relations too, the
new rulers acted independently of others.
However, the Sikhs were not the only new rulers of the Punjab. There were several others who
had used the Mughal framework and acquired autonomous position as vassal chiefs, jagirdars,
zamindars, and madad-i ma‘ash grantees. Therefore, they all figure in the political relations of the
Punjab during the late eighteenth century.
Viewed in the larger context of Indian history, the eighteenth century witnessed two main
historical developments leading to new configurations of power. The first half of the eighteenth century
witnessed transition from the Mughal imperial political economy to regional political orders. In the
second half, the English East India Company acquired a position of prominence in most part of north

63
India. In the Punjab, however, the second half of the eighteenth century saw the rise of new centres of
power, with the largest number of new rulers coming from amongst the Sikhs. Their polity was
influenced as much by the Sikh ideology and the political process by which they came into power, as by
the background of the Mughal rule. The historians of Mughal India have expressed different views
about the causes of Mughal decline in the Punjab during the early eighteenth century. The nature of
Sikh polity during the second half of the century has been the concern only of the historians of the
Punjab.

6.2 Reconstruction of eighteenth century as ‘misaldari period’

The most important unit of Sikh polity during the late eighteenth century is generally believed to be the
misl. It is interesting to note, however, that the European observers of the last quarter of the eighteenth
century, namely Colonel Polier, George Forster, James Browne and John Malcolm, do not use the term
misl. This was noted by J.D. Cunningham who wrote his History of the Sikhs in 1849 when he pointed
out that Henry Prinsep was writing around 1830 ‘the first who perceived and pointed out the Sikh
system of “Misals”’. Cunningham also commented on ‘the uncertainty and irregularity natural to the
system of “Misals” and indeed to all powers in process of change or development’. According to
Cunningham, there was no justisfication for ‘making the Nishanias and Shahids regular Misals’. Thus,
Cunningham was a little skeptical about the ‘Misal System’. Nevertheless, he accepted the notion that
the entire Punjab in the 1760s was divided among the twelve misls enumerated by Prinsep. The
twentieth century historians, like N.K. Sinha and H.R. Gupta, have merely assumed the correctness of
Prinsep’s understanding of the misl.
However, if we turn to near contemporary evidence, the concept of the misl and misldar is not
very clear. Ahmad Shah of Batala writing in the 1820s uses the term misl but without defining it.
According to him, there were more than four or five hundred sardars but pre-eminent for their armies,
followers and territories were only a few groups. He refers to sardar and misldar in terms which make
the latter clearly subordinate to the former. Each misldar, however, made his own administrative
arrangements without reference to another misldar, or even to the sardar. Thus, it seems that in the
phase of warfare and conquest a number of the leaders of the Khalsa could combine their forces
voluntarily, accepting the leadership of one in a given situation, for defence as well as for the purpose
of territorial occupation.
For further clarification, we may examine the position of a few so-called misls. The label of
‘Bhangi’, for instance, is used for Hari Singh, Jhanda Singh, Ganda Singh, Charhat Singh, Desa Singh,
Gulab Singh and Gurdit Singh. They all belonged to the family of Hari Singh and succeeded to
chiefship one after the other until Gurdit Singh was ousted from Amritsar by Ranjit Singh in the first
decade of the nineteenth century. Obviously, they formed a dynasty of chiefs. There were eight other
chiefs who are believed to have been associated with the ‘Bhangis’, namely Lehna Singh of Lahore,
Gujjar Singh of Lahore and Gujrat, Karam Singh Dulu of Chiniot, Milkha Singh of Rawalpindi, Karam
Singh Man of Mananwala, Gurbakhsh Singh of Doda, Sanwal Singh Randhawa of Chamiari and
Dhanna Singh Kalalwala of Bhera. None of these chiefs was related to Hari Singh ‘Bhangi’ and they
were not related to one another either. Each respectively was succeeded by Chait Singh, Sahib Singh,
Jassa Singh, Jiwan Singh, Ram Singh, Suddh Singh, Nar Singh, and Jodh Singh, forming altogether
eight dynasties of rulers. Indeed, the principle of hereditary succession was well recognized by all the
Sikh chiefs during the late eighteenth century. It may be interesting to add here that the label ‘Bhangi’ is
also used for some other chiefs who actually had no formal connection with the chiefs mentioned
above. These chiefs were Bagh Singh of Hallowal, Karam Singh Chhina of Firozke and the four rulers
of Sialkot: Sahib Singh, Jiwan Singh, Natha Singh and Mohar Singh. The only possibility that remains is
that some of these chiefs collaborated for territorial occupation. Taken together, their territorial
possessions in the Bari, Rachna, Chaj and the Sindh Sagar Doabs were almost contiguous, a pattern
which suggests that there was perhaps some kind of an association between them for the purpose of

64
 conquest. There in any case are some references to close co-operation between two or more of the
chiefs called ‘Bhangi’.
At the same time, there are several references to the association of ‘Bhangi’ chiefs with some
other Sikh chiefs. Before the end of the eighteenth century, some of the ‘Bhangi’ chiefs entered into
alliance even with non-Sikh chiefs. Significantly, the chiefs of the second generation were entirely
independent in their relations with other chiefs, whether Sikh or non-Sikh. Furthermore, at no time was
any ‘Bhangi’ chief subordinate to Hari Singh Bhangi or any of his successors. We have already seen
that every chief made administrative arrangements within his territories independently of others. This
would also be evident from their alienation of land revenue in jagir and dharmarth. Thus, each of the
‘Bhangi’ chiefs was as much autonomous in his internal administration as in his political relations with
others.
This was true as much of the chiefs called ‘Kanhiya’ ‘Dallewalia, and ‘Nakkai’ as of the
‘Bhangis’. The case of the ‘Nakkais’, in fact, is rather interesting. The two Nakkai families based at
Gogera and Bharwal had no relationship with one another. They did not associate with each other at
any stage. In fact, they fought against each other on several occasions. The apparent justification for
using the term Nakkai lies in the fact that the original villages of the founders of these principalities were
in the region called Nakka in the south of Lahore.
Thus, we find that the term ‘misl’ in its application to Sikh polity of the late eighteenth century
does not possess the kind of significance which is attributed to it. Just as the Gurmata, the Dal Khalsa
and Rakhiproved to be important instruments of territorial occupation, so did the combination of two or
more leaders. But to refer to such combinations or ‘misls’ in terms of ‘misaldari system’ carries little
meaning for the polity of the Sikh chiefs during the late eighteenth century.
The absence of the name of any chief in the inscriptions of the Sikh coins is often offered as an
argument in support of the view that Sikh coins symbolised collective sovereignty. This erroneous
impression is re-inforced by the fact that none of the Sikh rulers struck any coin in his own name. But
the declaration of sovereignty having been derived from God and the Gurus enabled each Sikh ruler to
claim sovereignty. The seals of the Sikh chief bore their name, invoking the help of God or Akal Purkh.
The individual chief was also called Khalsaji, or even Sarkar. Thus we can see that Maharaja Ranjit
Singh, whose government was referred to as ‘Sarkar Khalsaji’, was keeping up a legacy coming down
from his father Mahan Singh, and his grandfather Charhat Singh.

Self Assessment Questions

1 Who was the first European writer to use the phrase ‘Sikh system of Misals’?
__________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
2 In what respects was every Sikh chief autonomous?
__________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________

3. In what terms does the near contemporary writer, Ahmad Shah of Batala refer to the term misldar?
__________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________

4. Where were the two families of the Nakkai chiefs located?

__________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________

5. What was the significance of the inscriptions on the Sikh coins issued from Lahore and Amritsar?
__________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________

65
6.3 Political Relations
‘Political relations’ in the Punjab from 1765 to 1799 are built into the events connected with what Hari
Ram Gupta calls ‘expansion of Sikh territories in the plains’, ‘conquest of the Kangra and Jammu hills’,
and ‘internecine warfare’ . To put it differently, political relations consist largely of relations between the
Sikh and Muslim chiefs of the plains, the Sikh and Rajputs chiefs of the Kangra and Jammu hills, and
relations among the Sikh chiefs themselves. In the given situations of the late eighteenth century, the
relations were generally hostile but we come upon a number of alliances between Sikh and non-Sikh
chiefs. Thus, on the whole, the chiefs were guided by political and personal interests rather than by
religious affinity or sentiments.
In the plains of the central Punjab there were only a few independent Muslim principalities. The fort of
Rai Ibrahim, the Bhatti Rajput chief of Kapurthala, was captured by Jassa Singh Ahluwalia in 1770. The
Afghan chiefs of Kasur were obliged by Jassa Singh Ahluwalia and Jhanda Singh Bhangi to pay tribute.
The Afghan principality survived into the early nineteenth century to be subverted by Ranjit Singh.
Gujjar Singh Bhangi led an expedition against Ahmad Khan Chattha, the Jat chief of Rasulnagar, who
submitted after slight opposition and agreed to pay tribute. The principality was subverted by Mahan
Singh Sukarchakia before 1780. To the south of Lahore were the principalities of Kharals and Wattus
who fought among themselves and also with the Sikh chiefs of Bharwal and Sayyadwala (called the
Nakkais) who too were hostile to each other, and fought several times. Kot Kamalia, the stronghold of
the Kharals, was the bone of contention among them all. Bhagwan Singh of Bharwal subverted the
principality of Pakpatan. Generally, the ousted chiefs were giver jagirs for subsistence.
In the south-western Punjab the most important Afghan territory was that of Multan, under a governor
appointed by Ahmad Shah Abdali. Jhanda Singh and Ganda Singh Bhangi directed their attention to
Multan in 1771. Their commander Majja Singh occupied several places subject to Multan and
Bahwalpur. The Nawab of Bahawalpur sent his nephew to check his progress. In the action that
followed Majja Singh lost his life, but his followers besieged Multan. The governor, Shuja Khan, shut
himself up in the fort and Ahmad Shah Abdali sent Jahan Khan, the commander-in-chief of the
Afghans. The Sikhs lifted the siege. On Ahmad Shah’s death in 1772, his successor, Timur Shah,
appointed Haji Sharif Khan as the governor of Multan. Shuja Khan retired to Shujabad. After six
months, Sharif Beg was made the governor. Haji Sharif Khan invited Jhanda Singh and Ganda Singh to
make his position secure. They reached Multan at the head of a large army and decided to seize
Multan. The province fell into their hands in December 1772. In the late 1770s, Muzaffar Khan, son of
Shuja Khan, joined hands with the Nawab of Bahawalpur to lay siege to Multan. Ganda Singh came to
the help of the besieged and invaders were defeated. Timur Shah sent his commander to recover
Multan. He laid siege to the fort of Multan in 1778 but he was soon recalled. Another commander was
similarly sent and recalled. In January 1780, Timur Shah himself laid siege to Multan. The Sikh
governor of Multan surrendered, and Timur Shah appointed Muzaffar Khan as his own governor.
Multan survived into the early nineteenth century to be conquered by Ranjit Singh in 1818.
In the western Punjab, Jhanda Singh Bhangi subdued the Baloch chiefs and collected tribute from the
Nawab of Ahmadabad. He appears to have collected tribute also from the chief of Mankera. He
captured Pindi Bhattian. In the north-western Punjab, Gujjar Singh Bhangi subjugated the warlike tribes
of the upper Sindh Sagar Doab with the help of Charhat Singh Sukarchakia. The Gakkhars were

66
subdued in 1770. Pindi Gheb, Fatehjang and Attock were subjugated. Only a part of the territories were
taken over and the chiefs were left in position as subordinate to the Sikh overloads.
The Sikhs were familiar with the Punjab hills. The Kangra hills were the first to experience their arms.
Raja Ghamand Chand Katoch submitted to the Sikhs, and his example was followed by several other
hill chiefs, who agreed to pay regular tribute. In 1770, the chiefs of Kangra hills became tributary to
Jassa Singh Ramgarhia who collected about two lacs of rupees as tribute. Nurpur became tributary to
Jassa Singh Ramgarhia sometime later. To resist the pressure of Raja Ranjit Dev of Jammu, Raja Raj
Singh of Chamba sought the help of Jassa Singh Ramgarhia who expelled the chief of Basohli, who
had invaded Chamba at Ranjit Dev’s behest, from the territories of Chamba. Raj Singh paid a lac of
rupees to Jassa Singh and became his tributary. The supremacy of Jassa Singh Ramgarhia in the hills
ended in 1772 when he was overthrown by Jai Singh Kanhiya.
Tegh Chand of Kangra, who succeeded Ghamand Chand in 1774, continued to retain Afghans as
mercenary troops, but his son, Sansar Chand, who succeeded him in 1776, reduced their number and
recruited a body of 200 Sikhs. This proved to be harmful to his interests. The Mandi state came under
Sikh influence certainly after 1781, but it could be earlier. In 1782, the chief of Basohli approached the
Sikhs to help him against the Chamba forces which had invaded Basohli. The Sikhs expelled the
Chamba forces but decided to stay on in Basohli. Sansar Chand of Kangra was keen to conquer the
fort of Kangra which was held by the Mughal faujdar, Saif Ali Khan. On invitation to help, Jai Singh
Kanhiya sent his son Gurbaksh Singh for the conquest of Kangra. The siege lasted for a long time till
Saif Ali Khan died in 1783. His son was bribed and he agreed to hand over the fort to Jai Singh’s men.
Jai Singh retained possession of the fort for only four years. In 1786, Sansar Chand was able to take
possession of the fort by conquering some of Jai Singh’s territories in the plains and striking a
compromise.
On the death of Raja Ranjit Dev of Jammu in 1781 he was succeeded by his son Brij Raj Dev. During
the latter’s reign the state came completely under the subjection of the Sikhs for an annual tribute of
Rs. 30,000. The Jammu ruler’s last great effort in 1787 to free himself from the overlordship of the
Bhangi chiefs of Sialkot resulted in his death in battle. The whole country which had been added to his
chiefship by Ranjit Dev was appropriated by the Sikhs. In 1797, Ahmad Shah Abdali’s grandson, Shah
Zaman, tried to reassert his overlordship, but the Sikhs remained supreme in the Jammu hills.
III
Turning to the mutual rivalry and warfare among the Sikh chiefs, Hari Ram Gupta says in his History of
the Sikhs ( vol. III: Trans- Sutlej Sikhs, 1769-1799, p.34) that their history of these thirty years was
‘made up of endless petty warfare among all the Sikh chiefs each of whom built for himself strong forts
which served as centres to harry the neighbouring country. The petty feuds which raged almost daily
are of little interest, and such only deserve mention as contributed to produce important changes in the
Sikh State’.
The First important event Gupta mentions is the fighting at Jammu in 1774. On one side were Brij Raj
Dev, the elder son of Ranjit Dev, Charhat Singh Sukarchakia, and Jai Singh Kanhiya, and on the other
side were Raja Ranjit Dev himself and Jhanda Singh Bhangi. Both Charhat Singh and Jhanda Singh
died, but not in a battle. Charhat Singh was killed by the bursting of his gun which struck him in the
forehead. It was suspected that this had been the result of a plot. In any case, Jai Singh Kanhiya bribed
a Ranghreta Sikh in the service of Jhanda Singh and he shot the Bhangi chief dead.

67
Jhanda Singh’s murder rankled in the mind of his brother Ganda Singh. Pathankot, which had been
given to Nand Singh by Jhanda Singh, was occupied by Haqiqat Singh Kanhiya’s brother Tara Singh
who had married Nand Singh’s daughter after his death and murdered both the wife and the mother-in-
law. Ganda Singh formed a formidable alliance with Gujjar Singh, Jassa Singh Ramgarhia, Muhammad
Khan Chaththa, Ranjit Dev of Jammu and others. Their united forces advanced against the combined
forces of the Kanhiyas, Sukarchakias and Ahluwalias. A battle was fought for several days near
Dinanagar. After 10 days, Ganda Singh fell ill and died. His son and successor, Desa Singh, was a
minor. The allies of the deceased decided to suspend hostilities.
In 1782, Brij Raj Dev, now the Raja of Jammu, thought of recovering the territories which had been
annexed by the Bhangi chiefs. He approached Haqiqat Singh Kanhiya for assistance. As a result, the
Kanhiyas and the Bhangis were involved in the strife which ended in the victory of the former. Brij Raj
Dev became a tributary to Haqiqat Singh for an annual sum of Rs. 30,000. However, the Kanhiyas and
the Bhangis patched up their differences and seized the territory which had been restored to Brij Raj
Dev. He approached Mahan Singh Sukerchakia for assistance. The Kanhiyas and the Bhangis laid
siege to the fortress of Dinpur in the Jammu territory, but found their opponents too strong to be
overwhelmed. Both sides approached Jassa Singh Ahluwalia for help but he decided to support the
Kanhiya and Bhangi chiefs. The Ahluwalia chief sent a strong force under Kanwar Bhag Singh. Fighting
continued for several days. Eventually, the fort was retained by Brij Raj Dev but the territory around was
handed over to Haqiqat Singh.
After six months, Haqiqat Singh demanded the payment of tribute from Brij Raj Dev. Mahan Singh was
won over by Haqiqat Singh, and they decided to attack Jammu. Mahan Singh reached Jammu earlier
and attacked the city. Brij Raj Dev fled, and Mahan Singh acquired immense booty. He is said to have
collected tow crores of rupees. When he visited Amritsar he paid his respects to Jai Singh Kanhiya who
demanded half the share in booty for Haqiqat Singh. When Mahan Singh tried to humour him by
offering sweets to seek forgiveness, Jai Singh dismissed him insultingly, saying that he had no time to
listen to the lame excuses of a dancing boy (bhagtia). The matter did not end there. Mahan Singh
engaged him in a battle near Majithia and worsted him. As we shall see later, the two rulers were
ranged on opposite sides in yet another battle.
The rivalry between the two old chiefs, Jassa Singh Ahuliwalia and Jassa Singh Ramgarhia, had flared
up soon after the battle of Pathankot in 1775. They fought a battle near Zahura in which the Ramgarhia
chief was wounded. In 1776, the Ahluwalia chief fell into the hands of Jassa Singh Ramgarhia but he
treated him well and set him free. However, Jassa Singh Ahluwalia was incited by Jai Singh Kanhiya,
Gujjar Singh Bhangi and others to retaliate. Their combined forces attacked Sri Hargobindpur, the
headquarters of Jassa Singh Ramgarhia. He put up a hard resistance but he was overpowered. Jai
Singh’s son, Gurbakhsh Singh, wrested Batala from Jassa Singh Ramgarhia’s brother, Mali Singh.
Another brother, Tara Singh, was expelled from Kalanaur. Jassa Singh Ramgarhia had to leave his
territories and become an exile.
About a decade later, Jassa Singh Ramgarhia got the opportunity to return when a quarrel broke out
between Jai Singh Kanhiya and Mahan Singh Sukerchakia. Persuaded by Mahan Singh, Jassa Singh
returned to recover his lost territories. Raja Sansar Chand of Kangra joined them to march against
Batala, the headquarters of Jai Singh. The opposing armies met near Achal. In the battle that followed,

68
Gurbakhsh Singh was shot dead. Jai Singh was so broken-hearted by the death of his son that he
fought so desperately that none dared approach him in his grief, and all withdrew from the field. Batala
was occupied by Jassa Singh Ramgarhia. Before long, however, Jai Singh was able to win over both
Mahan Singh and Sansar Chand. With their assistance, he attacked Batala. Jassa Singh shut himself
up in the fortified city. Jai Singh had to raise the siege after three weeks. Nevertheless, Batala was
recovered by Jai Singh with the help of Mahan Singh after the betrothal of Mehtab Kaur, daughter of
the late Gurbakhsh Singh, to Mahan Singh’s son Ranjit Singh.

Finally, we come to the conflict of Mahan Singh Sukerchakia with Gujjar Singh Bhangi and then with his
son Sahib Singh who was also Mahan Singh’s sister’s husband. In a fight between Sukha Singh and
Sahib Singh, the two elder sons of Gujjar Singh, Sukha Singh was killed. The father was grieved and
annoyed. Sahib Singh displeased him further and insulted him. In this refractory attitude he was
encouraged by his brother-in-law, Mahan Singh. Before he died in 1788, Gujjar Singh gave most of his
possessions to his youngest son, Fateh Singh. In 1789, Sahib Singh seized all the territories of his
younger brother Fateh Singh. Now Mahan Singh espoused the cause of Fateh Singh. Hostilities broke
out between Sahib Singh and Mahan Singh. In 1791, Mahan Singh laid siege to the fort of Sodhra. The
siege was prolonged. Fighting was going on when Mahan Singh fell ill. He was taken back to
Gujranwala where he died three days later.

In retrospect, we find that almost all the important chiefs of the Punjab in the late eighteenth century
were keen to increase their power and resources at the cost of one another, irrespective of their creed,
clan or tribe. In the south of the Punjab, the Afghan governors of Multan and Mankera strengthened
their position under nominal submission to the rulers of Kabul. In the Punjab hills, Raja Sansar Chand
of Kangra emerged as the most powerful ruler. In the central Punjab, Qasur survived as an
independent Afghan principality. Occasionally, its chiefs entered into alliance with some Sikh chiefs
against some other Sikhs chiefs. This pattern of alliances was more common in the case of the Sikh
and Rajput chiefs. Among the second generation of Sikh rulers, Mahan Singh substantially improved
upon his inheritance, and left this legacy for his only son, Ranjit Singh. The inability of the chiefs of
Lahore to hold it against Shah Zaman, induced Ranjit Singh to occupy Lahore in 1799. In the words of
Hari Ram Gupta (History of the Sikhs, vol. III: Trans- Sutlej Sikhs, 1769-1799, p.128):

With Ranjit Singh’s occupation of Lahore an important stage is reached which forms a landmark in the
history of the Sikhs. Henceforward it centres almost exclusively in this great man. This event marks the
beginning of the downfall of the independent Sikh chiefs on the one hand, and the establishment of
Sikh monarchy on the other.

69
 Self Assessment Questions

1. Around which three kinds of developments were the political relations of the late eighteenth century
chiefs built?
__________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________

2. How were the independent Muslim principalities in the central Punjab treated by the Sikh rulers?
__________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________

3. Which was the most important Afghan territory in the south-western Punjab and which Sikh rulers first
directed their attention towards its conquest?
__________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________

4. Which Sikh chiefs exercised overlordship over the hill territories and collected tribute from their rulers?
________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________

5. Which were the most important hill states to come under the political influence or domination of the
Sikhs?
__________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________

6. Which Sikh chiefs were successively ranged on opposite sides over the domination of Jammu?
__________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________

7. On which occasions did the old rivalry between the Ahluwalia and the Ramgarhia chiefs come out?
__________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________

8. On which occasions were the Kanhiya and the Ramgarhia chiefs fought on opposite sides?
__________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________

9. How did Mahan Singh Sukerchakia take advantage of the changing political relations?
__________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________

6.4 Eighteenth Century Debate and the Punjab

We may notice that the second development does not apply to the Punjab. The English East India
Company would extend its political power up to the river Sutlej only in the early nineteenth century. The

70
rest of the Punjab would be finally annexed to the British empire in 1849. Thus, the debate on the
eighteenth century in Indian history in case of the Punjab covers only the first half of the century. This
does not mean, however, that there has been no debate about the Punjab in the second half of the
eighteenth century. There has been a debate, but largely among the historians of the Punjab and the
Sikhs. The historians of the Punjab have expanded the scope of Punjab studies, and the historians of
the Sikhs have clarified the issues of Sikh polity in the late eighteenth century, besides expanding the
scope of Sikh studies.
Historians have continued to debate the causes of the Mughal decline, with two opposing views. One
view is that the decline was a consequence of the economic crisis and exploitation by the ruling
classes. The other view is that regional assertiveness initiated economic prosperity that resulted in
regional autonomy. In both cases, interest in the study of imperial decline brings economy and society
into sharper focus. For the exponents of the first view, the political collapse started a process of
economic and social decay, leading to a ‘dark age’. For the upholders of the second view, regional
political orders resulted in economic prosperity.
Jadunath Sarkar, who paid special attention to the reign of Aurangzeb, looked upon his
religious policy and his Deccan campaigns as the chief causes of dislocation. He emphasized the
importance of ‘Hindu’ reaction to Aurangzeb’s Muslim orthodoxy. Sri Ram Sharma and Ishwari Prasad
saw the religious policy of the Mughal rulers as the chief cause of the decline of the Mughal empire,
which resulted in political chaos and economic crisis. Satish Chandra regarded the structural flaws in
the working of the Jagirdari and Mansabdari systems as responsible for the financial crisis of the late
seventeenth century. This development heralded the process of imperial collapse. M. Athar Ali
attributed the decline of the Mughal Empire mainly to the crisis in the Jagirdari system due to shortage
of jagirs. Irfan Habib explained the Mughal decline, and the political and social unrest that followed, in
terms of an economic crisis. The high rate of land revenue demanded caused large-scale rural
exploitation leading to migration of peasants or their revolts. This crisis resulted in weakening the
Mughal imperial framework. The political chaos and economic decline were seen by these historians as
the marks of a ‘dark age’.
Irfan Habib’s well considered view of the eighteenth century Punjab is expressed
exclusively in terms of the rise of the Sikhs into political power. The plebeian character of the Sikh
revolt was well marked in the uprising of Banda Bahadur in 1710-15. A contemporary historian refers of
his supporters as consisting of sweepers, tanners, banjaras, and ‘other lowly and wretched people’. A
later but near contemporary historian adds Khatris (a mercantile and bureaucratic caste) and warlike
Jats (a peasant and zamindar caste) to the lowly people as the supporters of Banda Bahadur.
Zamindari aspirations became important with time, and social egalitarianism of the Sikh movement
could not prevent the rise of men like ‘Nawab’ Kapur Singh as leaders. However, the peasant and
plebeian character of the soldiery and even leadership, combined with a very deep-rooted religious
ethos, delayed the transformation of Sikh polity into a traditional state. Ultimately, the full blown raj of
Ranjit Singh was established in the early nineteenth century. It was seemingly a continuance of Mughal
administration with strong Rajput symbolism and rites.
An alternate view of the first half of the eighteenth century Punjab has been put forward by
Muzaffar Alam. He explains regional developments in terms of the working of the Mughal administrative
institutions of subedari, and jagirdari and and the role of merchants. According to him, Zakariya Khan,
the Mughal governor of the Punjab from 1726 to 1745, could not consolidate his power because of the
presence of big jagirdars and the khalisa lands in the province, and in the absence of links between the

71
Mughal subedar and the Khatri merchants. Furthermore, the Sikh movement reflected a deep-rooted
antagonism towards the Mughal state, and the Sikhs began to put forward a claim to rulership. They
would not be content with anything less than the total overthrow of the Mughal rule.
Chetan Singh has suggested that political unrest in the Punjab was linked to tensions
between the agrarian economy of the Mughal core and the tribal societies on the fringe which were
moving towards sedentary life. This process altered the structure of the tribal societies and increased
pressure on agrarian economy. The events of the eighteenth century were rooted in the economic
processes that shaped the functioning of the empire from its very inception.
Much more than Muzaffar Alam, Chetan Singh underscores the relevance of Sikh
presence as a factor of great importance. In the seventeenth century the ideology of Sikhs grew in
strength. Sikh militancy of the early seventeenth century did not coincide with a period of economic
hardship but with a period that witnessed an expanding economy and a better material life in the region.
The remarkable cohesiveness among the Sikhs in the seventeenth century was due to the institution of
Guruship itself. The Guru was the leader in worldly affairs as much as a spiritual guide. Before the end
of the century, militant Sikhism emerged as a matter of direct concern for the Mughal Government. With
the background of a direct conflict between the Khalsa and the Mughal state, the full fledged Sikh
rebellion under Banda Bahadur does not come as a surprise. As the product of a long-term project,
Sikh militancy did not end with the death of Banda Bahadur.
Turning to the second half of the eighteenth century, we find that its first fifteen years were marked
mainly by the struggle between the Afghans under Ahmad Shah Abdali and the Sikhs under a large
number of Sikh leaders. In 1765, the Sikh leaders struck a coin at Lahore as the formal declaration of
their sovereign rule over the Punjab. Soon afterwards, Europeans in the service of the East India
Company began to take notice of the Sikh rulers and to comment on their military organization,
government and administration. The aspects of Sikh polity which the early European writers tried to
highlight collectively were Gurmata, Dal Khalsa, Rakhi and the Misl. J.D. Cunningham, the last of the
early European historians of the Sikhs, defined Sikh polity as ‘theocratic confederate feudalism’ in his
History of the Sikhs, published in 1849, the year in which the Sikh state of Lahore was finally subverted
by the British. In his view, Sikh polity was theocratic in the sense that the Sikhs were inspired by their
religious faith. It was confederate in the sense that a number of units calls misls were headed by
leaders of equal rank, each acting independently of others in the internal matters of the territory under
their jurisdiction. Sikh polity was feudal in the sense that in each unit there was a hierarchical system of
assignment and collection of land revenue, and interdependence.
N.K. Sinha and Hari Ram Gupta have discussed Sikh polity in their works on the
eighteenth century, and Bhagat Singh has written a monograph on the subject. There is a general
agreement in their view of Sikh polity. Sinha accepts Cunningham’s formulation with a slight variation.
Gupta pays more attention to Rakhi as a phase in the process towards territorial occupation,
emphasizes the importance of Gurmata and the Dal Khalsa, and thinks of Sikh rulers in terms of misls.
BhagatSingh goes into greater detail but without coming to any important conclusions different from
those of Sinha and Gupta. In other words, the views expressed by the European writers have been
largely accepted and amplified, and only slightly modified. They all tend to assume that a sort of
confederacy or Misaldari system remained operative until Ranjit Singh established monarchical rule in
the early nineteenth century.
The first historian to question the prevalent understanding of Sikh polity was J.S. Grewal.
In a discussion of the Misl in the work of Ahmad Shah of Batala J.S. Grewal comes to the conclusion

72
 that the nature and function of the Misl underwent a considerable change, and it is useful to make a
distinction between its pre-territorial and territorial phases. The leaders who united to fight and conquer
as a single unit divided the conquered territory to rule. The individual leader was free to make
administrative arrangement as he liked within his share of the territory. With the passage of time such
individuals became independent rulers for all practical purposes. They were succeeded by their
descendants in all cases. In an analysis of the evidence of Ganesh Das on Sikh polity in his Char Bagh-
i Punjab, J.S. Grewal comes to the conclusion that Ganesh Das did not see any incompatibility between
the religious beliefs and political aspirations of the Khalsa or the ambition of an individual to exercise
power without any external or constitutional check on his discretion. In his discussion of Sikh polity in
general, J.S. Grewal has pointed out that Rakhi ended with territorial occupation; the scope of Gurmata
was never extended to the internal affairs of an individual ruler’s territory; and the Dal Khalsa met only
to face an external threat. The relationship of Sikh suzerain with a non-Sikh vassal clearly suggests that
the Sikh ruler entered into this compact as an individual. Finally the inscriptions on Sikh coins derived
authority from the Gurus and God and, by striking or accepting these coins, each Sikh ruler could claim
to be a sovereign ruler. Thus, the difference between Ranjit Singh as a so-called misldar and Ranjit
Singh as ‘the Maharaja’ was a difference only of degree.
Indu Banga has further clarified the concepts of Rakhi, Gurmata, Dal Khalsa and the Misl
in her Agrarian System of the Sikhs, a work that expands the scope of historical writing on the
eighteenth century Punjab by treating the period of Sikh rule from 1765 to 1849 as a single unit of study
in which the agrarian conditions, revenue administration, jagirdari and madad-i ma‘ash or dharmarth
grants under Sikh rule are discussed in some depth. Indu Banga comes to the conclusion that the
Punajb region witnessed a sure degree of agrarian prosperity in the late eighteenth century as well as
in the early nineteenth. Both J.S. Grewal and Indu Banga have shown that after a phase of de-
urbanization in the middle decades of the eighteenth century, a new phase of urbanization began with
the establishment of Sikh rule. J.S. Grewal refers to some important works of Sikh literature of the late
eighteenth century, an area which has been well covered now by the historians of the eighteenth
century Punjab.
Self Assessment Questions
1. How have the historians of the Punjab and the Sikhs contributed towards the study of the eighteenth
century?
__________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
2. What are the most important causes of political chaos and economic decline of the Mughal empire in
the early eighteenth century according to the historians of Mughal India?
__________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
3. How was the plebian character of the Sikh movement reflected in the uprising of Banda Bahadur?
__________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
4. What is Muzaffar Alam’s view of the Punjab during the first half of the eighteenth century?
__________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
5. How does Chetan Singh account for the political unrest in the Punjab during the early eighteenth
century?

73
 __________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
6. What does J.D. Cunningham mean by ‘theocratic confederate feudalism’?
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
7. What is J.S. Grewal’s view of the late eighteenth century Punjab?
__________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
8. How Indu Banga views the Punjab during the eighteenth century?
__________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________

6.5 Summary

The Sikh rulers emerged from amongst the Khalsa of Guru Gobind Singh, consisting largely of the
peasant proprietors and even some artisans. They fought against the Mughal and Afghan powers to
occupy territories and establish independent rule.
The term ‘Misaldari Period’ was coined by Henry Princep, a British writer of the early nineteenth
century. It was unquestioningly picked up by a number of later historians. In recent decades, however,
the terms misl and misldar have been clarified on the basis of the near contemporary evidence. While
the term misl seemed to stand for a band of fighters under a particular leader who voluntarily joined
hands with other such leaders for warfare and conquest, he remained autonomous in the administration
of the conquered territory. Thus, the terms misldari lost relevance for governance and political relations.
The Sikh coins deriving authority from God and the Gurus also underlined the independence of the
individual ruler.
The political relations during the last three decades of the eighteenth century were
characterized by struggle for aggrandizement among a number of chiefs in the hills and the plains as
well as the tussle for ascendancy among the leading ones. Despite the efforts to enhance resources
and striking power through political alliances, conquests, tribute, plunder and even intrigue and
treachery, no single ruler could emerge as clearly stronger than the rest. Finally, towards the end of the
century, the balance of power was altered when the Kanhiyas forged a matrimonial alliance with Ranjit
Singh Sukerchakia and the latter subsequently conquered Lahore and entered into a treaty of
friendship with the Ahluwalias.
Lastly, there is a marked difference in the views of historians about India in the early eighteenth
century which is seen as an empire on the decline. Only a few historians notice the significance of the
Sikh challenge to the Mughal Empire and its culmination in the rise of the Sikhs into political power in
the second half of the eighteenth century. Among the historians of the late eighteenth century Punjab,
J.S. Grewal and Indu Banga take a nuanced and rounded view of the Sikh polity, encompassing the
processes of political struggle against the Mughals and Afghans as well as the organization of
government and administration by the Sikh rulers. Indu Banga treats the late eighteenth century and
the period of Ranjit Singh in the early nineteenth as a broad continuity. Together, the different views in
this debate enrich our understanding of the Punjab during the eighteenth century.

74
6.6 Reference
1. J.S. Grewal, ‘Ahmad Shah of Batala on the Misl’ in Sikh Ideology, Polity and Social Order: From
Guru Nanak to Maharaja Ranjit Singh, New Delhi: Manohar, 2007, pp.154-161.
2. J.S. Grewal, ‘Eighteenth-Century Sikh Polity’ in Sikh Ideology, Polity and Social Order: From Guru
Nanak to Maharaja Ranjit Singh, New Delhi: Manohar, 2007, pp.162-173.
3. Indu Banga, Agrarian System of the Sikhs: Late Eighteenth and Early Nineteenth Century, New
Delhi: Manohar, 1978.
4. Veena Sachdeva, Polity and Economy of the Punjab during the late Eighteenth Century, New
Delhi: Manohar, 1993.
5. Hari Ram Gupta, History of the Sikhs (vol. III: Trans- Sutlej Sikhs, 1769-1799), Lahore: Minerva
Book Shop, 1944.

6.7 Further Readings

1. Seema alavi, ed., The Eighteenth Centurey in India, New Delhi: Oxford University Press,
2002
2. Muzaffar Alam, The Crisis of the Empire in Mughal north India: Awadh and the
punjab1707-1830, New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1986
3. Chetan Singh, Regiaon and Empire: Punjab in the Seventeeth century Delhi: Oxford
University Press, 1991.

6.8 Model Questions

1. Critically examine the term ‘Misaldari’ and its application to the second half of the eighteenth
century?
2. How have different historians viewed the causes of the Mughal decline in the Punjab during the
first half of the eighteenth century?
3. How do historians view the Sikh polity during the second half of the eighteenth century?
4. What are the salient features of the political relations in the Punjab from 1765 to 1799?

Printed by : M/s Sri Guru Nanak Publishing House, Plot No. 168, Gandhi Complex, V.P.O. Badheri, Chandigarh.
U.S.O.L. (325) / 140 / DOA January 2023
Last updated 02/02/2022

75
 CENTRE FOR INTERNAL QUALITY ASSURANCE (CIQA)
USOL, PANJAB UNIVERSITY, CHANDIGARH

FEEDBACK PROFORMA FOR POSTGRADUATE CLASSES

Dear Learner,
Centre for Internal Quality Assurance (CIQA) is making a modest attempt to seek your feed-back on the
study material of this paper. Your feedback is sought on the parameters given below. Please do take
out few minutes to provide your valuable feedback as it shall go a long way in improving our study
material.
Please submit the duly filled-in Feed-Back Proforma along with ‘your assignments’ in your respective
departments or send it separately.

Best Wishes
Convener, CIQA, USOL
*********************************************************************************************************************

FEEDBACK PROFORMA FOR STUDY MATERIAL

Class............................Semester.........................Subject.....................................Paper............................
Your Enrolment No............................. Mobile No.................................. E-mail ID.....................................
Please give your opinion on the following parameters by putting a tick in the appropriate column.
Sr. No. Parameters Yes No
(Please specify the problems/suggestions along with
the title/no of the lesson. You may write overleaf also.)

1. Content is sufficient for self

study

2. Content coverage is as per

syllabus

3. Content is up to date

4. Presentation of the topics is

good

5. Printing quality is good

6. Study material is student

friendly

7. Any other suggestions

76
77