British Conquest of Sindh: A Controversial Chapter in Colonial India

The English began to exhibit an interest in Sindh in the early nineteenth century, where they enjoyed some trading advantages authorized by a Farman of the Mughal Emperor in 1630. The Farman granted the English the same privileges in Sindh ports that they had elsewhere.

Emergence of Talpuras Mirs 

English Trading Presence in Thatta: Sindh was dominated by the Kallora rulers in the 18th century, before the dominance of the Talpura Amirs. 

• Due to a parwana given by the Kallora prince, Ghulam Shah, an English factory was founded at Thatta in 1758. 
• Decline of English Influence: Ghulam Shah, upon the entrance of an English resident at his court in 1761, not only signed the previous pact but also barred additional Europeans from trading there. 
• • The English had this edge until 1775, when a not-so-friendly ruler, Sarfraz Khan, forced them to close their factory.
• Settlement and Ascendancy in Sindh: In the 1770s, a Baluch clan known as the Talpuras descended from the hills and settled in Sindh’s plains. 
  • They had both outstanding troops and diligent workers. They acquired power and influence in the new region quickly. 
• Formation of the Amirs’ Rule: In 1783, the Talpuras, led by Mir Fath (Fatah) Ali Khan, acquired entire control of Sindh and exiled the Kallora prince. The then-Durani ruler approved Mir Fath Khan’s claims and ordered him to split the country with his brothers (Mir’s brothers, colloquially known as ‘Char Yar’). 
  • When Mir Fath died in 1800, the Char Yar partitioned the kingdom, naming themselves the Amirs or Lords of Sindh.
• Expansion of Amir Control: These amirs consolidated their power on all sides. They conquered Amarkot from Jodhpur’s Raja, Karachi from the chief of Luz, and Shaikarpur and Bukkar from the Afghans.

Gradual Expansion over Sindh 

Diplomatic Moves Against French-Allied Powers: In the late 18th century, it was widely assumed that Napoleon was plotting an invasion of India with Tipu Sultan. 

• In 1799, Lord Wellesley decided to reestablish business links with Sindh so that he could undermine the French alliance of Tipu Sultan and Shah Zaman, the Kabul monarch.
• British Diplomatic Setback in Sindh: The English began negotiations with Fath Ali Khan. However, under the influence of Tipu Sultan and the pressure of local traders and the anti-British group in Hyderabad (Sindh), the amir decided to order the British agent to leave Sindh within 10 days in October 1800. 
• • The British agent (Crow) left Sindh, and the Company endured the insult quietly.

Treaty of ‘Eternal Friendship’

In June 1807, Napoleon Bonaparte allied with Alexander I of Russia, known as the Treaty of Tilsit. 

• One of the terms of the alliance was the requirement for a joint invasion of India via the overland route. 
• In response, The British sought to establish a geopolitical barrier between the territories of Russia and British India. To accomplish this objective, Lord Minto dispatched three delegations led by notable individuals to establish alliances. 
• • Consequently, Metcalfe was dispatched to Lahore, Elphinstone to Kabul, and Malcolm to Teheran.

Amirs in Agreement with English

Treaty Between Sindh and the English: Sindh was visited by Nicholas Smith, who engaged in discussions with the Amirs to finalize a defensive agreement. 

• Following a series of negotiations, the Amirs reached a consensus to establish a treaty, marking a significant milestone as it represented their inaugural agreement with the English. 
• Declaration of Mutual Friendship: Following the declaration of everlasting friendship, both parties reached a consensus to prohibit the French from accessing Sindh and to establish a system of reciprocal representation at their respective courts. 
• Renewal of Treaty in 1820: The treaty underwent renewal in the year 1820, wherein a clause was incorporated to specifically exclude the Americans from its provisions. 
  • Additionally, this renewal also addressed certain border problems about Kachch after the decisive defeat of the Maratha Confederacy in 1818.

Accord of 1832

In the year 1832, William Bentinck commissioned Colonel Pottinger to Sindh to ratify a treaty with the Amirs.

The Terms of the Accord included:

• rade Access with Navigation Restrictions: Unhindered passage through Sindh would be granted to British traders and voyagers, along with the utilization of the Indus for commerce; however, the navigation of warships or transport of warfare supplies would be prohibited.
  • No British commercial figure would take up permanent residence in Sindh, and passports would be mandatory for travelers.
• Tariff Adjustments: Tariff impositions could be changed by the Amirs if they were found excessive, and no military charges or levies would be exacted.
  • The Amirs would cooperate with the Raja of Jodhpur in the suppression of the robber of Kachch.
  • The old treaties were validated, and the parties would not be jealous of each other.

Governor General Lord Auckland and Sindh

Lord Auckland’s Strategic Objectives: Lord Auckland, Governor General in 1836, aimed to safeguard India from potential Russian incursion by establishing influence over the Afghans. 

• While in Punjab Ranjit Singh resisted coercion, the weaker Amirs in Sindh were perceived as an opportunity to counter Russian influence.
• British Diplomacy and Treaty Negotiations: After Ranjit Singh captured Rojhan, Pottinger negotiated a treaty with the reluctant Amirs in Hyderabad. 
• • The pact, signed in 1838, offered Amir’s protection in exchange for hosting Company forces in the capital. 
  • The Amirs, facing potential external support for Ranjit Singh, reluctantly accepted the treaty.
• Transformation of Sindh into a British Protectorate: The treaty granted the English authority to intervene in conflicts between Amirs and Sikhs, establishing a British resident with unrestricted mobility accompanied by English forces. 
  • This marked Sindh’s transformation into a British protectorate in 1838.

Tripartite Treaty of 1838

• Manipulation and Diplomacy: To tackle the Afghan issue (as perceived by the British), the Company turned to additional deceit. 
• First, they forced Emperor Shah Shuja to renounce his sovereign claims over Sindh in exchange for paying the outstanding tribute, and they convinced Ranjit Singh to sign a tripartite convention in June 1838 consenting to British mediation in his conflicts with the Amirs. 
• Financial and Territorial Gains: The English, whose primary goal was to secure funding for the Afghan expedition and as much of the Amirs’ territory as would provide a line of action against Afghanistan through Sindh, was to decide exactly how much tribute was to be paid.

Sindh’s Adoption of the Subsidiary Alliance (1839)

The Company’s objective was to convince or coerce the Amirs into remitting the funds and to grant their assent to the revocation of that provision from the 1832 treaty, which forbade English troops from traversing Sindh via land or water. According to B.L. Grover, “the Amirs of Sindh agreed to a treaty in February 1839 under the threat of superior force”. 

• Provisions: 
  • The treaty stipulated the stationing of a British subsidiary force at Shikarpur and Bukkar and required the Amirs to make an annual payment of Rs 3 lakh for the upkeep of the Company’s troops. 
  • The Amirs were subsequently prohibited from engaging in negotiations with foreign states in secret from the Company. 
  • Amirs were obligated to establish a storage facility in Karachi to accommodate the Company’s military provisions, eliminate all tolls on the Indus, and, if necessary, contribute an auxiliary force to the Afghan war.

Sindh’s Surrender

Reluctant Compliance Amid Distrust: The Amirs of Sindh did not incline the first Anglo-Afghan War (1839–42), which took place on their territory. Neither did they appreciate the British forces’ presence in their vicinity. 

• The treaty, however, required them to pay for everything, and they complied. Instead of gratitude and recognition for their contributions, they were accused of disloyalty and hostility towards the British government.
• Accusations of Treason and Diplomatic Tensions: The Amirs were accused of treasonous activities against the British, and Ellenborough dispatched Outram to Sindh to negotiate a new treaty, placing him in a precarious position due to the Afghan war’s setbacks. 
• The 1843 Treaty and the Annexation of Sindh: Under the 1843 treaty, Amirs compensated for past transgressions by ceding strategic provinces, halting coin minting, and supplying fuel to the Company’s steamers on the Indus. 
• • English intervention in a succession dispute led to the Amirs’ rebellion, resulting in Sindh’s swift capitulation. 
  • In 1843, Governor General Ellenborough incorporated Sindh into the British Empire, appointing Charles Napier as the first governor.

Criticism of the Conquest of Sindh 

• Criticism from Trusted Figures: Charles James Napier’s officer, Sir James Outram, disapproved, criticizing the “policy of the sword.” The Times of London labeled the affair “riddled with corruption,” while the Bombay Times expressed sorrow for tarnishing the English name.
  • Even conqueror Charles Napier doubted the righteousness, acknowledging in his diary that there was no legitimate claim to seize Sind. 
  • Henry Lawrence suggested returning Sind to the Amirs, and Napier himself admitted the lack of a justifiable pretext.
• Political Opposition and Disapproval: Prime Minister Robert Peel condemned the conquest for its hasty and unjust actions that would tarnish the British authorities’ reputation. 
  • Despite widespread recognition of the unjust nature, British Home authorities did not overturn the Indian government’s decision.
• Delayed Acknowledgement of Wrongdoing: Years later, Liberal leader Mr. Gladstone admitted that the harm in keeping Sind was less than the harm in abandoning it. 
  • Historians like Innes argued that the case for Sind’s annexation was deliberately manufactured, while Edward Thornton believed it happened without a justifiable pretext.
• Aggressive Act and Unjustifiable Acquisition: Ramsay Muir criticized the annexation, stating, “Sind is the sole British acquisition in India that cannot be justified by circumstances and can only be seen as an aggressive act.”

Conclusion

The British conquest of Sindh, marked by strategic diplomacy, treaties, and eventual annexation, remains a controversial chapter in colonial history. While the British achieved their geopolitical aims, their methods sparked widespread criticism, both contemporaneously and in later reflections. The conquest is often viewed as an unjustifiable act of aggression, driven by imperial ambitions rather than legitimate claims, leaving a lasting stain on British colonial legacy in India.

DOWNLOAD PDF