Tempo:
254 1845-g.
Major Broadfoot's proceedings held to virtually
denote war.
HISTORY OF THE SIKHS
CHAP. IX
The views held by Major Broadfoot, and virtually adopted by the supreme government, with respect to
the Cis-Sutlej districts, and also the measures followed in particular instances, may all be defended to a certain extent, as they indeed were, on specious grounds, as on the vague declarations of Sir David Ochterlony or on the deferential injunctions of Ranjit Singh.i It is even believed that if the cession of the tracts in question had been desired, their relinquish-
ment might have been effected without a resort to arms; but every act of Major Broadfoot was considered to denote a foregone resolution, and to be conceived under the guns of.Phillaur for several days without meeting aught except civility on the part of the Sikhs. ^ Major Broadfoot is understood to have quoted to the Sikhs a letter of Sir David Ochterlony's, dated the 7th May 1809, to Mohkam Chand, Ranjit Singh's representative, to the effect that the Cis-Sutlej Lahore states were equally under British protection with other states; and also an order of April 1824, from Ranjit Singh, requiring his authorities south of the Sutlej to obey the English Agent, on pain of having their noses slit. It is not improbable that Sir David Ochterlony may, at the early date quoted, have so understood the nature of the British connexion with reference to some particular case then before him, but that the Cis-Sutlej states of Lahore were held under feudal obligations to the English seems scarcely tenable, for the following reasons ( 1 ) The protection extended by the :
English to the chiefs of Sirhind was declared to mean protection to them against Ranjit Singh, and therefore not protection of the whole country between the Sutlej and Jumna, a portion of which belonged to Lahore. (See the Treaty of 1809, and Article I of the declaration of the 3rd May 1809; arid also Government to Sir David Ochterlony, 10th April 1809.) Further, when convenient, the British Government could even maintain, that although the Treaty of 1809 was binding on Ranjit Singh, with reference to Cis-Sutlej states, it was not binding on the English, whom it simply authorized to interfere at their discretion. (Government to Capt. Wade, 23rd April 1833.) This was indeed written with reference to Bahawalpur, but the application was made general. (2) The protection accorded to the chiefs of Sirhind was afterwards extended so as to give them security in the plains, but not in the hills, against the Gurkhas as well as against Ranjit Singh (Government to Sir David Ochterlony, 23rd Jan. 1810) while with regard to Ranjit Singh's own Cis-Sutlej possessions, it was declared that he himself must defend them (against Nepal), leaving it a question of policy as to whether he should or should not be aided in their defence. It was further added, that he might march through his Cis-Sutlej districts, to enable him to attack the Gurkhas in the hills near the Jumna, in defence of the districts in question, should he so wish. (Government to Sir David Ochterlony, 4th Oct. and 22nd Nov. 1811.) The opinion of Sir Charles Metcalfe, about the proceedings of the English with regard to Whadni (see ante, p. 163, note), may also be quoted as bearing on the case in a way adverse to Major Broadfoot. ;
Major Broadfoot's proceedings held to virtually
denote war.
HISTORY OF THE SIKHS
CHAP. IX
The views held by Major Broadfoot, and virtually adopted by the supreme government, with respect to
the Cis-Sutlej districts, and also the measures followed in particular instances, may all be defended to a certain extent, as they indeed were, on specious grounds, as on the vague declarations of Sir David Ochterlony or on the deferential injunctions of Ranjit Singh.i It is even believed that if the cession of the tracts in question had been desired, their relinquish-
ment might have been effected without a resort to arms; but every act of Major Broadfoot was considered to denote a foregone resolution, and to be conceived under the guns of.Phillaur for several days without meeting aught except civility on the part of the Sikhs. ^ Major Broadfoot is understood to have quoted to the Sikhs a letter of Sir David Ochterlony's, dated the 7th May 1809, to Mohkam Chand, Ranjit Singh's representative, to the effect that the Cis-Sutlej Lahore states were equally under British protection with other states; and also an order of April 1824, from Ranjit Singh, requiring his authorities south of the Sutlej to obey the English Agent, on pain of having their noses slit. It is not improbable that Sir David Ochterlony may, at the early date quoted, have so understood the nature of the British connexion with reference to some particular case then before him, but that the Cis-Sutlej states of Lahore were held under feudal obligations to the English seems scarcely tenable, for the following reasons ( 1 ) The protection extended by the :
English to the chiefs of Sirhind was declared to mean protection to them against Ranjit Singh, and therefore not protection of the whole country between the Sutlej and Jumna, a portion of which belonged to Lahore. (See the Treaty of 1809, and Article I of the declaration of the 3rd May 1809; arid also Government to Sir David Ochterlony, 10th April 1809.) Further, when convenient, the British Government could even maintain, that although the Treaty of 1809 was binding on Ranjit Singh, with reference to Cis-Sutlej states, it was not binding on the English, whom it simply authorized to interfere at their discretion. (Government to Capt. Wade, 23rd April 1833.) This was indeed written with reference to Bahawalpur, but the application was made general. (2) The protection accorded to the chiefs of Sirhind was afterwards extended so as to give them security in the plains, but not in the hills, against the Gurkhas as well as against Ranjit Singh (Government to Sir David Ochterlony, 23rd Jan. 1810) while with regard to Ranjit Singh's own Cis-Sutlej possessions, it was declared that he himself must defend them (against Nepal), leaving it a question of policy as to whether he should or should not be aided in their defence. It was further added, that he might march through his Cis-Sutlej districts, to enable him to attack the Gurkhas in the hills near the Jumna, in defence of the districts in question, should he so wish. (Government to Sir David Ochterlony, 4th Oct. and 22nd Nov. 1811.) The opinion of Sir Charles Metcalfe, about the proceedings of the English with regard to Whadni (see ante, p. 163, note), may also be quoted as bearing on the case in a way adverse to Major Broadfoot. ;
©
2026
Lehal.net