Hyderabad: Concerning Amir Muhammad Khan, if the “Amir Namah” of Basawan Lal “Shadaan” is to be given any modicum of credence, then it should be considered a strange travesty that later Indian historians covering this highly critical period in the history of the nation have followed in the footsteps of their British predecessors, for many of whom he was merely a “Pindari” and leader of “freebooters”, this even though he paid salaries to his troops like any other ruler.
These historians fail to give him the credit he deserves for his peerless brave and tireless struggle against alien domination on every available opportunity regardless of the size of the challenges he had to face, footsteps in which his above son also was to follow. The historian Mohan Sinha Mehta was to refer to him and his army in the following descriptive words: “Amir Khan was an able commander and a brave soldier. His army was extremely well-trained, and amongst the armies of all the states of Hindustan, it was recognised as the best armed and equipped force”. This is a view with which Sir John Malcolm in his “Political History of India” too concurs.
Amir Khan was the only chief who could be relied upon to deliver India from serfdom.
“The Life and Correspondence of Sir Charles Metcalfe” by Kaye also bears this apt testimonial: “With all his faults and follies, Amir Khan then was the only chief who could be relied upon to deliver India from serfdom. Neither the Nizam nor the Marathas, not even Ranjit Singh possessed the courage and enterprise to undertake the job”. Malcolm also gives expression to the fears sensed by the Company when Amir Khan had threatened Berar, that with an “ambitious Mussalman chief, at the head of a numerous army, irresistible by any power but that of the Company”, establishing his authority over territory contiguous to that of “our ally the Nizam”, this would then lead “to the formation of projects not uncongenial to the mind of the Nizam himself, and certainly consistent with the hopes of a powerful party in his dominions, for the subversion of the British alliance”. (92)
In any case, though this Movement inspired by Saiyyid Ahmad had, as stated, its intrinsic roots in Islamic thought of religious and social reform, nevertheless, as illustrated by the quoted letter addressed by him to Ranjit Singh, such was the nature of its socio-political appeal and the prompt bold action it called for in its support from its followers, regardless of the odds arrayed to challenge and smother its activities, that the aspects of its Islamic religious roots at transcended all barriers involving creed.
Movement leaders appealed followers of other religions to join them
Then, what was to add to its attraction to Indians of other faiths was that, the Movement’s leaders themselves had taken the initiative to appeal to followers of other religions to join them in support of its prime patriotic national goal, that of ridding their land of alien domination and tyranny.
Hence, in this capacity and the furtherance of the Movement’s cause, Mubariz-ud-Daulah had initiated a vigorous secret correspondence inside the State, but much more importantly throughout India and beyond with a large number of rulers, nobility and figures of influence, Mulsim and Hindu. The two prime actors responsible for this highly important and sensitive activity were the already mentioned Maulawis ‘Abdul-Hadi and Munshi Faqeer Khan.
Eminent personalities other than Nawab of Kurnool Ghulam Rasul Khan who participated in the Wahhabi Conspiracy
The network of their established contacts and correspondents, for example, had included in the Dakkan region the highly active Nawab of Kurnool, Ghulam Rasul Khan alongside many other Indian rulers and personalities of importance from elsewhere besides the above-mentioned Nawab of Tonk and his successor Wazir Muhammad Khan (Wazir-ud-Daulah). Although the sources consulted often refer to these figures by their general appellations, an attempt has been made here to provide further details on the basis of information gleaned from the interrogation notes of the captives alleged to have been involved with this Movement.
Some of the many others to whom references appear in this regard are the Nawabs of Rampur (Ahmad ‘Ali Khan and several of his nobles and subjects): Ghaus Muhammad Khan (r.1807/1222H–1826/1241H) and Mu‘iz Khan Bahadur (r.1826/1241H–1837/1253H) followed by Jahangir Muhammad Khan (r.1837/1253H–1844/1260H) of Bhopal; Shamshir Bahadur II and Zu’lfiqar ‘Ali Bahadur of Banda; and the Amirs of Sind ( including those of Haidarabad, Khairpur and Khalat, this through the agency of the noted Maulawi Naseeruddin). Amongst the list of Hindu and Sikh rulers in accordance with the revelations of Dhoom Singh (a Sikh spy engaged by the Company) were Rajah Man Singh of Jodhpur (r.1803/1218H–1843/1259H), the Maharajah of Patiala, and surprisingly in view of the earlier statement, even Maharajah Ranjit Singh of Lahore himself as well as his immediate successors despite the Movement’s referred to initial differences with the Sikhs. Other (Hindu) rulers involved included the Maratha Pratap Singh (the Rajah of Satara – deposed 1839/1255H – d.1847/1263H), though his inclusion in this list would appear questionable if “The Satara Raj” by Sumitra Kulkarni is to be credited.
Nevertheless, he had certainly been deposed by the Company under the allegation of display of inimical activity towards it; the Gaekwad of Baroda Sayaji Rao (r.1819/1234H–1847/1263H); Jankoji Sindhia II (r.1827/1242H–1843/ 1259H); Malhar Rao Holkar II of Indore (r.1811/1226H–1833/1249H); the erstwhile Peshwa’s brother Amrit Rao who had taken up residence in Banares and the Prince of Sagar. Other Hindu rulers allegedly involved were the Rajah of Bharatpur and the Rajah of Mysore (Krishnaraja Wodeyar – d.1868/1285H). More importantly, the Movement was known to enjoy the clandestine support of the Moghal Emperor and his Heir-Apparent in Delhi. (93)
The conspiracy spreads beyond the borders
The list of potentates beyond India’s borders who were communicated with had included the Amirs of Afghanistan, Dost Muhammad Khan Barakzai (d.1863/1279H) and Shah Shuja‘ Durrani (d.1842/1258H), the Qajar ruler of Iran Muhammad Shah (r.1834/1250H–1848/1264H), the Ottoman Sultan-Caliph Mahmud II (r.1808/1223H–1839 –1255H) and his Viceroy in Egypt, Muhammad ‘Ali Pasha (r.1805/1220H–1848/1264H) – the contact with the last two being through the offices of the Grand Sharif of Makkah Muhamad bin ‘Abdul-Mu‘in (r.1827/1242H– 1851/1267H).
Then, more importantly, there was the Russian Czar Nicholas I (r.1825/1240H– 1855/1271H) as well, whom the British feared much more than any of those named. Due to the rapid spread of Russian conquests in Central Asia during this period, a Russian push southwards towards the borders of India had strongly been expected in political circles in London as well as in India for some while. Consequently, the materialisation of the plan for a general uprising throughout India had been tied in British political circles for quite some while to the arrival of Russian and Persian troops on the banks of the river Indus. (94)
For some peculiar reason, most probably naivety, and due to the tone maintained by the Russians of their interest in assisting the Indians liberate themselves from British domination, the Czar was not perceived in the same light as the East India Company and later, the Crown. Indian leaders seemed to have thought that their success with heavy Russian involvement would not imply the replacement of one repressive yoke by another, equally if not more tyrannical!
The extract “The Wahhabi Conspiracy” is from the book The Era of the Early Nizams (The Paigah – its Origins, the Marathas Mysore, the French and the British till 1803/1218H) by Sultan Ghalib al-Qu’aiti.