Anglo-Jaipur Treaty Of 1818 was signed between East India Company Government and Princely state of Jaipur. This treaty marks the close of an era, with the end of anarchy and with the establishment of peace in Jaipur state.[1]
Governer General Lord Hastings initiated a new policy on the eve of the Third Anglo-Maratha war. He enunciated the policy of ‘subordinate isolation’ with a view to establishing the paramountcy of the East India Company over the whole sub-continent.
Jaipur in the then political conditions acquired a very important position and its inclusion in the system of Lord Hastings was tantamount to its success. He was not prepared to hand over Jaipur either to Sindhia or to Amir Khan. In April 1816, Lord Hastings observed the necessity of isolating Amir Khan and Sindhia from Jaipur to avoid danger to the British.[2]
Metcalfe, the Resident at Delhi, was authorized to conclude a treaty with Jaipur. Anglo-Jaipur Treaty Of 1818 was in persuance of the policy of subordinate Alliance adopted by Lord Hastings in relation to all other Rajput states in general and to Jaipur in particular.[3]
Hastings set out on his enterprise to extend British supremacy over all the Rajput States even though his Government was bound by an agreement with the Marathas (Sindhia and Holkar) not to negotiate with the Rajput States.
Hastings, in order to get freedom to deal with Rajput States, offered to Sindhia to secure him his revenues from the Rajput rulers. This was the reason why in almost all the treaties concluded with Rajput states the articles regarding payment of tributes were incorporated. It was An act of expediency which yielded great political advantages.[4]
The then Maharaja of Jaipur had signed a treaty in 1803 but he was reluctant to sign a fresh treaty because the memories of the dissolution of the treaty of 1803 without any valid reason by Sir George Barlow were still fresh in his mind.[5]
The Anglo-Jaipur Treaty Of 1818 would have been concluded even in 1816 but for Bakshi Manji Das, who was then the Prime Minister and who though anxious for an alliance with the British wanted Jaipur to remain independent and not a tutelage either of the Marathas or Pindaries or the British.[6]
Besides this the provision of tribute in the Anglo-Jaipur Treaty Of 1818 proved to be the main stumbling.[7] Since the rulers of Udaipur, Jodhpur, Kota, Bikaner and other Rajput states of Rajputana had signed treaties of subordinate alliance, it was just a question of time, and Maharaja of Jaipur could not remain isolate for long.[8]
But Lord Hastings was in a hurry. Seeing the dilatory tactics of the Maharaja of Jaipur,[9] he started direct negotiations with powerful jagirdars who were vassals of Jaipur state. Such chiefs were those of Khetri and Uniara. This frightened the Maharaja of Jaipur who at last signed the Anglo-Jaipur Treaty of subordinate alliance on April 2, 1818.[10]
During 1806 and 1816, the Jaipur ruler had faced a period of utmost trials and tribulations. From 1807 to 1814 year after year either the Pindaries of Amir Khan or the hordes of Sindhia ravaged his territories and Maharaja had often to purchase peace by paying huge sums as ransom. During these eight years he made several attempts to seek the help of the British against the Pindaries, but the request was turned down on account of the policy of non-intervention. The Maharaja Jagat Singh, fell out with the Maharaja of Jodhpur, whose territories he invaded with the help of Pindari chief, Amir Khan and disgruntled Thakurs of Jodhpur.
The bone of contention was the marriage of Krishna Kumari of Udaipur. The Maharaja of Jodhpur to whom she was betrothed, died before the marriage was celebrated. The Maharaja of Udaipur, therefore, engaged her with Jagat Singh of Jaipur. The newly installed Maharaja of Jodhpur claimed the hand of the Princess. When on this issue war was on, the troops of Amir Khan started indulging into plunder and loot.
The Thakurs of Jodhpur, disgruntled though they were, could not bear this and cut themselves off. Amir Khan and his troops that were interested more in loot and plunder than in the cause of Maharaja of Jaipur also deserted him. Jagat Singh was left in a desperate state.[11]
Amir Khan and his troops on their way back from Jodhpur ravaged the territories of Jaipur. Jagat Singh, therefore, had at last to raise the siege of Jodhpur. But Amir Khan continued to be a menace.
Thus, the treaty of 1818 was concluded due to several factors. There were internal dissensions. The vassal chiefs were becoming more and more unruly. The British Government had emerged as the most powerful single force but alliance with it was possible only on the terms and conditions laid down in the articles of the treaty.
The expeditious conclusion of the treaty was brought about by the sudden exit of Bakshi Manji Das from the scene, consequent on his removal from Prime Minister-ship and the alarm that was caused by direct negotiations that were started by the British Government with the vassal chiefs of Khetri and Uniara.[12]
- Article one of the treaty professed the desire for perpetual friendship, alliance and unity of interest between the two parties. It established a military alliance whereby the friends and enemies of one became the friends and enemies of the other.
- Article two provided that the British Government undertook to protect the territories of Jaipur and expel its enemies.
- Article three enjoined on the Maharaja to act in subordinate co-operation with the British Government and acknowledge its supremacy. It also prohibited the Maharaja from having any connection with other chiefs and states.
- Article four established control over the external relations of the Maharaja who was denied the right of negotiating with any chief or state without the knowledge and permission of the British Government. [13]
- Article five provided that in case of any dispute it shall be submitted for arbitration and award to the British Government.
- Article six provided for the tribute starting with four lakhs in the second year of the treaty, the tribute was to increase by one lakh annually and was forty to remain at eight lakhs until the revenues of the state exceeded lakhs of rupees. In addition to this, the British Government was to receive five-sixteenth of the excess amount by which the annual revenues exceeded forty lakhs.
- Article seven enjoined on the Maharaja of Jaipur to furnish troops according to means when requisitioned.
- Article eight provided that the British civil and criminal jurisdiction shall not be introduced into their territories.
- Article nine required of the Maharaja to evince a faithful attachments to the British Government. By Article 3 of the treaty of 1803[14] concluded between Maharaja of Jaipur and the British Government, East India Company had not demanded any tribute. By Article sixth the Maharaja was recognised to be the master of his army, though during the war he would act according to the advice and opinion of the commander of the English army.
After the treaty of 1803 was dissolved in 1806 unilaterally by the Governor-General on flimsy pretexts in pursuance of the policy of non-intervention,[15] the whole situation underwent such a drastic change that the Maharaja of Jaipur was forced into signing the treaty of 1818.
The articles of the treaty of 1818 signed with the Maharaja of Jaipur would appear identical to those signed with other Rajput rulers. The treaty brings into prominence a number of glaring facts.
The first is that the British had by then emerged as the most powerful single force in India, otherwise the very idea of subordinate alliance would not have come up as a practical proposition.
The second is that the short-sightedness of the Warring-chiefs-Rajputs and others had resulted in the weakening of one and all so much so that they were in constant fear for their very existence.
Thirdly, the policy of non-intervention started by Lord Cornwallis paid rich dividends to the British and amply prepared ground for the adoption of the policy of subordinate alliance.
Fourthly, the internal administration of most of the Rajput states including Jaipur had become very loose and a out of date, as a consequence of rivalries among vassal chiefs, who instead being a source of strength, had become roots of dissensions, degradation and demoralization.
Lastly, parochial tendencies had become so predominant in all the states as to eclipse completely an all India out look. The climate generated by the above factors was extremely favourable for the policy that the British chose to adopt to sub serve their ends.
Article six of the treaty as mentioned above, was perhaps the most irksome part of the whole treaty. The provision of tribute was not a necessary and universal feature of all the treaties concluded with other Rajput rules.
The treaty with the Maharaja of Bikaner is an example of this. Besides this, even where there was provision of tribute, its amount was either nominal or very small. But Jaipur seems to have been almost singled out not only for fixing heavy initial amount of tribute but also for graded increase in the amount.[16]
At the time of the conclusion of the treaty the revenues of the state were about twenty two to twenty-three lakhs of rupees annually even according to Captain Thorsby, Political Agent at Jaipur.[17] The amount of the tribute starting from four lakhs was to go up to eight lakhs in the sixth year irrespective of the revenues of the state. Evidently this was a very heavy amount and clearly smells of the spirit of extreme exploitation of the situation.
The partial treatment may perhaps be due to the belief based on rumours that Jaipur had fabulous wealth and the revenues of the state ran in crores annually. This was a fallacy advertently taken into consideration to fulfill selfish interests. In reality even to the Marathas not more than Rs. 2,40,000 at a time annually was ever given and that regularly.[18]
Exorbitant rate of tribute to be levied from Jaipur might have been considered as a beneficial expedient because of its proximity to Delhi and Ajmer from where the British could exert pressure with comparative ease in collecting the tribute.
Apart from this it has been rightly said that the British had deep underlying motive while incorporating the later part of the article sixth in the treaty. By a broad and general interpretation of this article, they could interfere in the day to day administration of the Jaipur state as a matter of right.
As the British Government was the acknowledged partner in the revenues of the state, it could claim a right both on matters of justice and policy to interfere in the internal affairs of Jaipur,[19] more particularly in details of its revenue administration.
It has been asserted that this Article of the treaty of 1818 was ‘highly mischievous in its implications and rendered a disservice both to the paramount power and its dependant state by jeopardising all initiative, drying up all streams of energy and destroying all fibers of moral courage and uprightness in the latter.[20]
The Maharaja, himself when finally he agreed after a lot of hesitation to pay the tribute at the agreed rate must have weighed the pros and cons and should have been prepared to pay this heavy price of peaceful living.
A brief review of theAnglo-Jaipur Treaty Of 1818 that was signed on April 2, 1818 by C.T. Metcalfe on behalf of the East India Company and Byree Saul Nathawat on behalf of the Maharaja of Jaipur, must leave the impression that the Maharaja of Jaipur must have been forced by extremely desperate circumstances to agree especially to articles three and sixth of the treaty.
REFERENCES
[1] Dr. Raghubir Singh, Purva Adhunik Rajasthan, p. 259.
[2] A. C. Banerjee, Rajput States and the East India Company, P. 372.
[3] Kaye, Life and Correspondence of Metcalfe, p. 319.
[4] Dr. M. S. Mehta, Lord Hastings and the Indian States, p. 159.
[5] Tod, Annals And Antiquities of Rajasthan, pp. 305-6.
[6] H. C. Batra, The Relations of Jaipur State with the East India Company, p. 44.
[7] Tod, op. cit., p. 306.
[8] Dr. M. S. Mehta, Lord Hastings and the Indian States, p. 136.
[9] Kaye, op. cit., p. 333.
[10] C.U.Aitchison, Treaties, Engagements and Sanads, Vol. III, pp. 68-69.
[11] Umesh Chaturvedi, Anglo-Jaipur Treaty Of 1818, Proceedings of Rajasthan History Congress, pp. 128-132.
[12] H.C. Batra, op, cit. p. 47.
[13] Umesh Chaturvedi, Anglo-Jaipur Treaty Of 1818, Proceedings of Rajasthan History Congress, pp. 128-132.
[14] Aitchison, op. cit. Vol. III. pp. 66-67.
[15] Tod, op. cit., Vol. II, pp. 305-6.
[16] The Provision for graded increase in the amount of tribute was also in the treaty concluded with Udaipur.
[17] H.C. Batra, op, cit., p. 49.
[18] Jagdish Singh Gehlot, Rajputana ka Itihas, Vol. III, p. 135.
[19] As they did : J. Sutherland, Sketches of the Relations subsisting between the British Government and the Different Native States, p. 74.
[20] Batra, op. cit., p. 50.
