Aftermath
James Outram returned to England shortly after the annexation. He had been critical of Napier and Ellenborough before he left, and he was certainly not going to let up on his criticism when they were out of sight. The annexation had been unwarranted and unjust; nor was he alone in his thinking. Sir Henry Lawrence found the whole affair exceedingly hateful, writing to Lord Hardinge that he believed the Government should restore the Mirs to their rightful place. Robert Peel’s cabinet wholeheartedly disapproved, and even Lord Elphinstone commented,
“Coming after Afghanistan, it put one in mind of a bully who has been kicked in the street and went home to beat his wife in revenge.”
Lord Ellenborough would justify the annexation on financial grounds, stating he expected Sindh would fill the EICo coffers to the tune of £500,000 in a year, thus mitigating the losses the British had incurred in China and Afghanistan; he also saw it as a way of permanently securing India’s borders from invasions. However, he cloaked it in old tropes – the Mirs had been savage rulers, and the coming of the EICo would prove to be a blessing for the people. However, he never bothered to ask the people. As it was, Ellenborough’s estimates of bounty in Sindh were wildly imaginative, and the province never yielded the vast amounts that he had envisioned. He never questioned the treaties he had forced on the Mirs, and like Napier, never considered there was a different way of settling disputes. Outram, in his three years in Sindh, had found a way, but it required two things that neither Napier nor Ellenborough possessed – understanding. Unfortunately, his method, which would have proved successful had he been allowed to proceed, was irksome to Ellenborough. He wanted to restore the glory of the British following the disasters in Afghanistan and wanted success in Sindh for the company, something Outram opposed, who wanted Sindh to retain its independence from the EICo. So Ellenborough demoted Outram to regimental duties and sent in Charles Napier.
As for Napier, his appetite for glory, his yearning for honours and above all, riches (he became a very rich man following the annexation), Sindh satisfied his ambitions. He did not think highly of the people of Sindh, considering them barely a step above barbarians. However, he also loathed the EICo, calling them a “shopocracy” and tyrannical to boot, stating he preferred the despotism of Napoleon over the despots of the EICo. In the end, both men encouraged each other to annex Sindh and both, ultimately, profited, but it was for a time, at the cost of their reputations. However, Ellenborough and Napier were just the last of a long list of meddling, devious EICo officials who had officiated for the subjugation of Sindh.
It cannot be denied that the wheels set in motion for the annexation of Sindh did not begin moving on the spur of a moment. It was the “…culmination of a long drawn-out process, starting in the early nineteenth century, of a foreign power’s manipulation and coercion of Sindh’s rulers. The first Anglo-Afghan war initiated by Auckland accelerated this process; it certainly did not begin it. To win Sindh’s submission, Napier levelled a number of charges against Meer Rustam; he accused the Meer of breaching the provisions of treaties he had signed, of levying tolls on Indus traffic, of allying with the Punjab against the British. There is no evidence in British annexation records to support any of these charges. Napier levelled the charges in order to justify the annexation of Sindh; Outram protested because he believed annexation to be unjust.” (Verma) In the end, over 40 years had elapsed since the EICo first set foot in Sindh and through their continuous meddling in local power structures, their gradual undermining of the Mirs, and finally their lengthy, numerous and questionable treaties, they were finally able to take what they wanted; Ellenborough and Napier were the men who closed the door on the whole affair. Despite the obvious black eye the EICo carried away from the particular devilry, Sindh became a province attached to the Bombay Presidency, and the British would now find themselves relying heavily on the very people they had deemed barbarians, for holding Sindh was only possible with the cooperation of stronger, local Baluchi tribes to hold their querulous brethren in check.
In the end, Sindh was a stain on the reputation of the EICo but that did not stop them from carrying on in the same manner, annexing provinces, deposing rulers, making up false accusations and destroying established rights and privileges of the common man, all under the guise of “civilisation.” The annexation of Oudh in 1856 and the aftermath of 1857 would finally show them the price of their civilisation.
Sources:
Aitken, E.H. Gazetteer of the Province of Sind. Karachi: Mercantile Steam Press, 1907.
Eastwick, J.B. Dry Leaves from Young Egypt, being a Glance at Sindh before the Arrival of Sir Charles Napier. London: James Madder, 1843
Edwards, William. Sketches in Scind. London: Henry Graves, 1846
Goldsmid, F.J. James Outram, a Biography. Vol I. London: Smith, Elder & Co., 1880
Hughes, Albert William. A Gazetteer of the Province of Sindh. London: George Bell & Sons. 1876
Napier, W.F.P. The Conquest of Sindh, in Two Volumes. London. T. & W. Boone. 1845.
Napier, W.F.P. The History of General Sir Charles Napier’s Conquest of Scinde. London: Charles Westerton, 1857
Outram, James. The Conquest of Scinde: a Commentary. In Two Parts. London: William Blackwood & Sons, 1846
Panhwar, Sani H. comp. ed. Talpur Era in Sindh. Selected Articles and Opinions of the Period of Talpur Rule in Sindh and Wars with the British. Los Angeles, California, 2022
Postans, Thomas. Personal Observations on Sindh: the Manners and Customs of its Inhabitants and its Productive Capabilities. London: Longman, Brown, Green & Longman, 1843.
Verma, Esha (2016). Sindh in Transition: From Mughal Rule to British Annexation, Early Eighteenth Century to 1843. Open Access Te Herenga Waka-Victoria University of Wellington. Thesis. https://doi.org/10.26686/wgtn.17143394.v1
Khera, P.N. British Policy Towards Sindh up to the Annexation in 1843 (1941). Reproduced by Sani Panwar (California, 2015)
Downfall of Talpur dynasty and British annexation of Sindh: A Critical Review of British-Talpur Treaties.
Bashir Ahmed Summer Sultana, Department of Political Science, University of Karachi, Karachi, Sindh, Pakistan. WALIA journal 35(1): 132-139, 2019. Available online at www.Waliaj.com
Mutiny Reflections 