VILLAGE HOUSEHOLDS
The term village household signifies the advent of agricultural life in Kashmir which was characterized by self sustaining rural economy that neither encouraged the separation between agriculture and handicrafts nor stimulated the evolution of markets. The system was bereft of any social division of labour and specialized technical know-how. But it did not resemble Karl Marx’s “Village Community” system which expression he has used in the context of pre-colonial history of the subcontinent to denote the absence of private property in land and the responsibility of the State to maintain artificial irrigation; which elements, according to him, together resulted in unchangeableness of the subcontinent before its colonization by the British.
URBANIZATION – SEPARATION OF CRAFTS FROM AGRICULTURE
For want of adequate material we are not in a position to determine the exact date of the commencement of urbanization in Kashmir. However, on the basis of archaeological and numismatic evidence it can be assumed that such a phenomenon must have begun taking shape in Kashmir much before the Harwan culture saw the highest peak of its advancement. The coins of Indo-Greek and Saka kings found in Kashmir point to the existence of a very close commercial and trade relationship between the Valley and the neighbouring countries in the second century B.C . Such a state of affairs was not possible in an environment exclusively characterized by agricultural economy which is specially known for the combination of agriculture and handicrafts.
Large scale commerce, brisk trade and tremendous flow of foreign currency, during the 2nd century B.C, clearly signify the presence of markets in Kashmir which were positive indicators of socio-economic change. These markets would have not come into being without the availability of commodity economy and social surplus and a complex division of labour. In response to these laws of the market, the cottage industry had to sever its relations with agriculture in order to become refined enough to attract foreign customers.
With the passage of time this phenomenon finally paved the way for the evolution of Harwan culture the remains of which bear ample testimony to the mastery Kashmiris had attained in respect of arts and crafts.
HUTMURA EXCAVATION
Till recently Harwan tiles were considered to be the major discovery of the 20th century but the discoveries made through excavations carried by the State Department of Archives, Archeaology & Museums, during my tenure as Director, at different places have, besides pushing this notion to the background, shown us the missing links of the Harwan culture. The discovery of tile pavements at Hutmur, Hoinar and Doonpathri are most conspicuous in this regard. They are of immense significance as they provide us with necessary clues regarding the full-fledged civilization that flourished on the banks of Liddar Valley in the early years of the Christian era.
DISCOVERY OF HORDS OF COINS
Two hordes of copper coins, numbering 137 and 300 respectively, were discovered from Maidan Chogul, HundW&ra, district Kupwara during my tenure as Director Archives, Archaeology & Museums( 1987-88), which throw considerable light on the socio- economic development of the ancient Kashmir. These coins do not consist of copper alone; other elements too are found in them. This was ascertained through their scientific investigation at the Nuclear Research Laboratory of Babha Atomic Energy Research Centre, Zakura. Srinagar.
An energy Dispersive X-Ray Fluorescence Spectrometer was used for the evaluation of elemental concentration of these coins. Through sophisticated solid state detectors and computer controlled instruments used in a non- destructive manner, the investigation revealed the following elemental composition:
These hoards are of great historical and archaeological significance as they enable us to determine the level of socio-economic and cultural formations of the ancient Kashmir.
Copper 83%
Iron 10%
Antimony 0.2%
Arsenic 0.1%
Tin & nickel 0.2%
TRANSLATION OF AN URZIE FROM THE CHOUDARIS, MANUFACTURERS, PANDITS AND THE INHABITANTS OF KASHMIR TO THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT.
God be praised that He has appointed kings to do justice, and this can not be done by any other but you. It is well known that under your Government the people live in peace without prejudice for or against their religion and without distinction, from this cause your rule has extended .from England, even to Hindoostan. People of other Countries who have heard of the manner in which you administer justice, desire your Government. We ourselves are very unfortunate in that Our country has come under your power. All the world know that we are not employed by any one, but work with our own hands for our livelihood. Although former kings were very kind towards us, yet ,the deceased Sheikh treated us more like sons, after his death his son also behaved in the same way towards us. But the English by giving this country to Raja Golab Singh are oppressing us, his tyranny is so well known, that it needs no explanation, and his ancient subjects are witness to it.
In giving our country to Raja Golab Singh, who fears no God, you are oppressing us, and so breaking your own rule, which is, to do justice. Because you are doers of justice, and cherishers of your subjects, we beseech you not to oppress us in this way, but to place over us any one but Golab Singh. We will not disobey your orders, but if it be that we are to have him, we shall all run away, both small, and great, subscribed by the seals of two hundred and seventy-five persons”
WAS KASHMIR SOLD TO GULAB SINGH?
Nothing is more rewarding for a writer than the interest his write-up evokes among various sections of educated people. This is exactly what happened to the present author when he found a series of articles in the English dailies that followed in succession to his article Kashmir Was Never Sold To Gulab Singh (Kashmir Times, March 27,1988 ). The main points raised by the critics of the write-up are:
- That while writing history the modem historian has to look beyond facts, besides subscribing to the popular view about history;
- that to depend upon archival or ‘official source’ is not in keeping with the norms of modem historical research;
- that the “Sale of Kashmir” resulted in bartering away “the honour, freedom and rights of the Kashmiris.”
- that as a feudatory chief of Jammu, Gulab Singh was not “in a position to pay a huge amount consequent to the failure of the Sikhs to pay the same”; and
- that the British and Gulab Singh had “ no right to determine the fate of Kashmir and the Kashmiris.”,and
- that the “ Sale of Kashmir” resulted in “ bartering away the rights and freedom of Kashmiris.”
1-2) In support of the first and the second argument a “professional historian”, namely Dr. Ishaq Khan has out of context quoted Ibn-Khaldun, Beccker, Dilthey, Croce and Collingwood. But a careful study of the notable works of these illustrious authorities will clearly show that they do not denigrate the importance of facts of history; nor do they over-estimate the role of interpretation in history writing. Facts are as important to them as interpretation.
It can be argued without fear of contradiction that the facts and interpretation are two main aspects of historical research which are so intrinsically and inseparably connected together that to pronounce a divorce between the two is to nullify the very purpose of history writing. After all what does a historian interpret? He interprets the social order which is based on facts. His interpretation does not occur all of a sudden or in vacuum. He studies the facts of the past which are the outcome of the people’s action; people’s action occurs in social context, not outside it E.H. Car has rightly observed that history is a “process of interaction, a dialogue between the historian in the present and facts of the past.”
It is obvious, thus, that the interpretation is a very sensitive aspect of historical research. In the hands of a naive “historian” it can play havoc and ,thus, present before us a distorted and blurred picture of the past. But in the hands of an objective historian it recreates the past in its correct perspective and, thereby, enables the history to prove its inherent quality of deliverer from foe undue influences of both past and present environments.
3) Come what may, an objective historian taps all sources of information available to him. Like archaeology, numismatics and iconography, he makes an Extensive use of archival source material to dive deep into the ocean of facts which he marshals to interpret them in their correct perspective.
If for a while we agree to avoid the archival source, as suggested by Mr. Khan, then there is no need for spending annually so much on the maintenance and preservation of the archival material housed in the repositories established throughout the world. We shall have to reject all that has been written about Emperor Akbar or Sultan Zain-ul-Abidin by their court chroniclers namely Abul Fazl and Jonaraja. Documents, Treatise, Formans and Revenue Reports constitute the archival material which no historian can afford to ignore while writing history. If anyone cavils at this statement and suggests to adopt so- called modem technique, which I believe is a fiction writing technique, to interpret treaties in a dramatic manner so as to suit the” popular view”about history, he is simply betraying his ignorance of the methodology of historical research.
4) As regards Gulab Singh’s relations with the British, it was in recognition of his services, which he had rendered to their advantage at critical juncture of their history in India and due to his maneuverings, and also due to his treachery with his Sikh masters, that he was given Kashmir. Apart from being a top ranking wazir, he was the most influential and wealthy personage of the Lahore Darbar which fact is amply borne by history. According to one estimate he had amassed corers of rupees, silver coins, gold mohurs and jagirs by underhand means. Besides he held in his possession huge estates, townships and farms in addition to the principality of Jammu. He is also said to have been fined rupees three crore, for his contumacious coduct, by Rani Jindan. With such huge wealth it was not impossible for him to pay to the British the war indemnity which was otherwise due to Maharaja Duleep Singh.
5) To pronounce moral judgments on historical events is not within the competence or jurisdiction of a historian because his standpoint is diametrically opposed to that of a moralist. Croce warns the historians about the negative consequences those are likely to occur while mingling morality with history in these words:
Those who, on the plea of narrating history, bustle about as judges, condemning here and giving absolution there, because they think that this is the office of history are generally recognized as devoid of historical sense.
Thus, if anyone endeavours to determine the moral justification of the Treaty of Amritsar and denounces the transfer of power to Gulab Singh as an act of “betrayal” on the part of the British, he is simply a moralist, literary intellectual and not a historian. It may be remembered that suffering is indigenous to history and history has its casualties as well as its victories.
6) The contention that the so called “ Sale-deed” resulted in “bartering away the rights and freedom of Kashmiris” is simply not true. The statement has been made to create an impression that before 1846 A.D., the Kashmiris enjoyed absolute “political freedom”. But were the Kashmiris really free before 1846 A.D.? What kind of “freedom” did they enjoy, and how was it molested and annihilated in 1846 A.D.?
These are pertinent questions and need to be viewed in terms of the facts of Kashmir history.
There was no freedom at all in Kashmir and the Kashmiris lived in utter subjugation and slavery of the Lahore Darbar which, through its Governors, denuded them of whatever they possessed. The history of Kashmir bears ample testimony to this. The concepts of freedom and democracy are modern in origin; they cannot, ‘therefore, be applied to an age which, being feudal in character, was not prepared to accommodate these in its ethos.
The leaders of the organized opposition to the Dogra regime had enough justification to bank upon the “Sale” propaganda as a strategy of political engineering. They portrayed the Treaty of Amritsar as a “bai-nama” because it served an entirely modem and a laudable purpose for arousing the Kashmiri feelings against the autocratic rule. Besides, it served as a foci for emotional attraction in case of the common Kashmiris who could not intellectualize the nature and scope of the movement. (Kashmir Times, March, 27,1988)
THE TREATY OF AMRITSAR, MARCH 16,1846
Treaty between the British Government on the one part, and Muharaja Golab Singh of JL Jummoo on the other, concluded, on the part of the British Government, by Frederick Currie, Esq., and Brevet Major Henry Montgomery Lawrence, acting under the orders of the Right Honorable Sir Henry Hardinge, G.C.B., one of Her Britannic Majesty’s most Honorable Privy Council, Governor General, appointed by the Honorable Company to direct and control all their affairs in the East Indies, and by Muharaja Golab Singh in person.
Article 1. The British Government transfers and makes over, for ever, in independent possession, to Muharaja Golab Singh, and the heirs male of his body, all the hilly or mountainous country, with its dependencies, situated to the eastward of the river Indus, and westward of the river Ravee, including Chumba and excluding Lahool, being part of the territory ceded to the Brithish Government by the Lahore State, according to the provisions of article 4 of the treaty of Lahore, dated March 9th, 1846.
Article 2. The eastern boundary of the tract transferred by the foregoing article to Muharaja Golab Singh shall be laid down by commissioners appointed by the British Government and Muharaja Golab Singh respectively, for that purpose, and shall be defined in a separate engagement, after survey.
Article 3. In consideration of the transfer made to him and his heirs by the provisions of the foregoing articles, Muharaja Golab Singh will pay to the British
Government the sum of seventy-five lacs of rupees (Nanukshahee), fifty lacs to be paid on ratification of this [treaty, and twenty-five lacs on or before the 1st of October of the current year, A.D. 1846.
Article 4. The limits of the territories of Muharaja Golab Singh shall not be at any time changed without the concurrence of the British Government.
Article 5. Muharaja Golab Singh will refer to the arbitration of the British Government any disputes or questions that may arise between himself and the Government of Lahore, or any other neighboring State, and will abide by the decision of the British Government.
Article 6. Muharaja Golab Singh engages for himself and heirs, to join, with the whole of his military force, the British troops, when employed within the hills, or in the territories adjoining his possessions.
Article 7. Muharaja Golab Singh engages never to take, or retain, in his service any British subject, nor the subject of any European or American State, without the consent of the British Government.
Article 8. Muharaja Golab Singh engages to respect, in regard to the territory transferred to him, the provisions of articles 5,6, and 7, of the separate engagement between the British Government and the Lahore Durbar, dated March 11th, 1846.
Article 9. The British Government will give its aid to Maharaja Golab Singh, in protecting his territories from external enemies.
Article 10. Maharaja Golab Singh acknowledges the supremacy of the British Government, and will, in token of such supremacy, present annually to the British Government one horse, twelve perfect shawl goats of approved breed (six male, and six female), and three pairs of Cashmere shawls.
This treaty, consisting of ten articles, has been this day settled by Frederick Currie, Esq., and Brevet Major Henry Montgomery Lawrence, acting under the directions of the Right Honorable Sir Henry Hardinge, G.C.B., Governor General, on the part of the British Government, and by Maharaja Golab Singh in person; and the said treaty has been this day ratified by the seal of the Right Honorable Sir Henry Hardinge, G.C.B., Governor General.
Done at Umrutsir, this 16th day of March, in the year of our Lord 1846, corresponding with the 17th day of Rubbee-ool-awul, 1262, Hijree.
DID GULAB SINGH PAY FOR KASHMIR?
According to the third article of the Treaty of Amritsar, Gulab Singh was required to pay the stipulated sum of seventy-five lakhs of rupees in two installments, “fifty lacs… on ratification of this treaty, and twenty-five lacs on or before the 1st of October of the current year, AD.1846.” Some sources, like the anonymous author of Kashmir-ke-Halaat, have implied that the British never really collected the required sum from the Dogra ruler. However, there is substantial evidence that, though late, Gulab Singh did pay the amount in full. In a letter dated May 12,1846 A.D., Hardinge informed Ellenborough, that the Maharaja “has paid his first installment of 50 lacs.”The Governor-General communicated similar information to the Secret Committee in September. Even more important, however, is the following table of payments prepared on October 10, 1848 A.D., by the Company’s financial department at Calcutta, which clearly indicates that by the end of July 1848 A.D., Gulab Singh had paid most of his debt:
In 1845/46 AD. 497,204-4-9
In 1846/47AD. 5,619,518-10-0
In 1847/48AD. 858,541-128
In 1848/49AD.
May 97,997-13-0
June 48,156-7-6
July 0-0-0 146.154-4-6
7,121,481-15-11
Balance due to the Brithish Government
On the 31st July 1848 AD. 378,518-0-14
The rest of the amount , totaling less than flour lakhs of rupees, was paid by the end of March 1850 A.D., and a copy of Administration of Punjab,” is on exhibition at the Punjab Record Office Museum in Lahore.
THE SECRET DISPATCHES OF MIRZA SAIF-UD-DIN
These confidential dispatches of Mirza Saif-Ud-Din, provide one of the most important sources for the early history of the Dogra rule in Kashmir. Saif-Ud-Din was engaged as a khufia navis ( secret writer ). Gulam Singh became aware of his activities soon after he became the Maharaja . Immensely displeased, the Dogra ruler forbade Saif-Ud-Din’s attendance at his Darbar, and confiscated his jagirs, but refrained from inflicting further punishment for fear of infuriating the informer’s employers. In 1848 A.D. Gulab Singh accused him of reporting news,” right and wrong , true and false .”Five years later the Kashmir ruler was delighted to learn that the British authorities were contemplating the termination of Saif-Ud-Din’s dispatches continued and so did Gulab Singh’s discomfiture. As late as 1857 A.D. , the Maharaja remained unreconciled to the presence of the Company’s spy in his capital and asked his Prime Minister, Jawala Sahai,” to get this seditious and imprudent man dismissed from British service by any possible means.”
Saif-ud-Din had the unenviable position not only of being stigmatized for being in the pay of the British but also of living under constant fear of reprisal at the hands of the Maharaja. He often complained of official harassment . At one time he begged the British to secure him employment outside Kashmir and wrote : “ The displeasure of the ruler has made it impossible for me to live here.”
Saif-Ud-Din’s dispatches capture in minute detail the everyday occurrences during the entire reign of Gulab Singh and the first few years of Ranbir Singh’s rule. The information in his communications is arranged in chronological order. Each dispatch either bears a specific date or refers to the months it covers.
Dr. Abdul Ahad is a well-known historian of Kashmir. He presents a perspective on the Kashmir issue and talks about Kashmir’s history and individuality and personality. For feedback the author can be mailed at drahadhist@yahoo.co.in