Chapter XIX: Part 19

They drove before them the Sultan of Khwarizm (now Khiva), and
occupied Afghanistan. The fugitive, whose adventures are among
the most romantic episodes of Eastern history, attempted to
settle himself in the Panjab; but he was driven out by Altimsh
and Kabacha in 1223. Two years later Altimsh moved on the
Khiljis in the Eastern Provinces, occupied Gaur, their
capital; and proceeding from thence made further conquests
south and north at the expense of the Hindus. In 1228 he
turned against Kabacha, the mighty Satrap of Sindh, who was
routed in battle near Bakkhar, where he committed suicide or
was accidentally drowned. In 1232-3 the Sultan reduced Gwalior
(in spite of a stout resistance on the part of the Hindus
under Milak Deo), slaying 700 prisoners at the door of his
tent. In 1234 he took the province of Malwa; where he
demolished the great temples of Bhilsa and Ujain. In the
following year this puissant warrior of the Crescent succumbed
to the common conqueror, dying a natural death at Dehli, after
a glorious reign of twenty-six (lunar) years. … His eldest
son, who had conducted the war against the Khiljis, had died
before him, and the Empire was assumed by a younger son,
Rukn-ud-din Firoz. … [In 1241] Lahore was taken by the
Mughols with terrific carnage. Troubles ensued; Dehli was
besieged by the army that had been raised for its defence
against the Mughols; in May 1242 the city was taken by storm
and the new Sultan was slain. His successor, Ala-uddin I., was
a grandson of Altimsh, incompetent and apathetic as young men
in his position have usually been. The land was partitioned
among Turkish satraps, and overrun by the Mughols, who
penetrated as far as Gaur in Bengal. Another horde, led by
Mangu, grandson of Changiz, and father of the celebrated
Kiblai Khan, ravaged the Western Punjab. The Sultan marched
against them and met with a partial success. This turned into
evil courses the little intellect that he had, a plot was
organised for his destruction. Ala-ud-din was slain, and his
uncle Nasir-ud-din was placed upon the vacant throne in June
1246. Nasir's reign was long, and, so far as his personal
exploits went, would have been uneventful. But the risings of
the Hindus and the incursions of the Mughols kept the Empire
in perpetual turmoil." Nasir was succeeded in 1286-7 by his
grandson, Kai Kobad. "This unfortunate young man was destined
to prove the futility of human wisdom. Educated by his stern
and serious grandfather, his lips had never touched those of a
girl or a goblet. His sudden elevation turned his head. He
gave himself up to debauchery, caused his cousin Khusru to be
murdered, and was himself ultimately killed in his palace at
Kilokhari, while lying sick of the palsy. With his death
(1290) came to an end the Mameluke Empire of Hindustan."

_H. G. Keene,
Sketch of the History of Hindustan,
book 1, chapters 1-2._

ALSO IN:
_J. T. Wheeler,
History of India,
volume 4, part 1, chapter 2._

_A. Dow,
History of Hindustan
(from the Persian of Ferishta),
volume 1._

INDIA: A. D. 1290-1398.
From the Afghans to the Moghuls.

"In 1290 the last Sultan of the Afghan slave dynasty was
assassinated, and a Sultan ascended the throne at Delhi under
the name of Jelal-ud-din. He was an old man of seventy, and
made no mark in history; but he had a nephew, named
Ala-ud-din, who became a man of renown," and who presently
acquired the throne by murdering his uncle. "When Ala-ud-din
was established on the throne at Delhi he sent an army to
conquer Guzerat." This conquest was followed by that of
Rajputana. "Meanwhile the Moghuls [Mongols] were very
troublesome. In the previous reign the uncle of Ala-ud-din had
enlisted 3,000, and settled them near Delhi; but they were
turbulent, refractory, and mixed up with every rebellion.
Ala-ud-din ordered them to be disbanded, and then they tried
to murder him. Ala-ud-din then ordered a general massacre.
Thousands are said to have been put to death, and their wives
and children were sold into slavery. Ala-ud-din was the first
Muhammadan sovereign who conquered Hindu Rajas in the Dekhan
and Peninsula. … Ala-ud-din sent his general Malik Kafur to
invade these southern countries, ransack temples, and carry
off treasure and tribute. The story is a dreary narrative of
raid and rapine. … Ala-ud-din died in 1316. His death was
followed by a Hindu revolt; indeed Hindu influences must have
been at work at Delhi for many years previously. Ala-ud-din
had married a Hindu queen; his son had married her daughter.
Malik Kafur was a Hindu converted to Islam. The leader of the
revolt at Delhi in 1316 was another Hindu convert to Islam.
The proceedings of the latter rebel, however, were of a mixed
character. He was proclaimed Sultan under a Muhammadan name,
and slaughtered every male of the royal house. Meanwhile his
Hindu followers set up idols in the mosques, and seated
themselves on Korans.
{1707}
The rebels held possession of Delhi for five months. At the
end of that time the city was captured by the Turkish governor
of the Punjab, named Tughlak. The conqueror then ascended the
throne of Delhi, and founded the dynasty of Tughlak Sultans.
The Tughlak Sultans would not live at Delhi; they probably
regarded it as a Hindu volcano. They held their court at
Tughlakabad, a strong fortress about an hour's drive from old
Delhi. The transfer of the capital from Delhi to Tughlakabad
is a standpoint in history. It shows that a time had come when
the Turk began to fear the Hindu. The conqueror of Delhi died
in 1325. He was succeeded by a son who has left his mark in
history. Muhammad Tughlak was a Sultan of grand ideas, but
blind to all experiences, and deaf to all counsels. He sent
his armies into the south to restore the Muhammadan supremacy
which had been shaken by the Hindu revolt. Meanwhile the
Moghuls invaded the Punjab, and Muhammad Tughlak bribed them
to go away with gold and jewels. Thus the imperial treasury
was emptied of all the wealth which had been accumulated by
Ala-ud-din. The new Sultan tried to improve his finances, but
only ruined the country by his exactions. … Then followed
rebellions and revolutions. Bengal revolted, and became a
separate kingdom under an independent Sultan. The Rajas of the
Dekhan and Peninsula withheld their tribute. The Muhammadan
army of the Dekhan broke out into mutiny, and set up a Sultan
of their own. Muhammad Tughlak saw that all men turned against
him. He died in 1350, after a reign of twenty-five years. The
history of Delhi fades away after the death of Muhammad
Tughlak. A Sultan reigned from 1350 to 1388, named Firuz Shah.
He is said to have submitted to the dismemberment of the
empire, and done his best to promote the welfare of the
subjects left to him; but it is also said that he destroyed
temples and idols, and burnt a Brahman alive for perverting
Muhammadan women. In 1398-99, ten years after the death of
Firuz Shah, Timur Shah invaded the Punjab and Hindustan [see
TIMOUR]. The horrors of the Tartar invasion are indescribable;
they teach nothing to the world, and the tale of atrocities
may well be dropped into oblivion. It will suffice to say that
Timur came and plundered, and then went away. He left officers
to rule in his name, or to collect tribute in his name. In
1450 they were put aside by Afghans;—turbulent Muhammadan
fanatics whose presence must have been hateful to the Hindus.
At last, in 1525, a descendant of Timur, named the Baber,
invaded India, and conquered the Punjab and Hindustan."

_J. T. Wheeler,
Short History of India,
part 2, chapter 1._

ALSO IN:
_M. Elphinstone,
History of India: Hindu and Mahometan,
book 6. chapters 2-3._

INDIA: A. D. 1398-1399.
Timour's invasion of the Punjab.

See TIMOUR.

[Image: Map of India, about the close of the Sixteenth Century, and map of the growth of the Anglo-Indian Empire.]

INDIA: A. D. 1399-1605.
The Saiyid and the Lodi dynasties.
The founding of the Moghul Empire by Babar and Akbar.

"The invasion of Taimur … dealt a fatal blow to an authority
already crumbling. The chief authority lingered indeed for
twelve years in the hands of the then representative, Sultan
Mahmud. It then passed for a time into the hands of a family
which did not claim the royal title. This family, known in
history as the Saiyid dynasty, ruled nominally in Northern
India for about 33 years, but the rule had no coherence, and a
powerful Afghan of the Lodi family took the opportunity to
endeavour to concentrate power in his own hands. The
Muhammadan rule in India had indeed become by this time the
rule of several disjointed chiefs over several disjointed
provinces, subject in point of fact to no common head. Thus,
in 1450, Delhi, with a small territory around it, was held by
the representative of the Saiyid family. Within fourteen miles
of the capital, Ahmad Khan ruled independently in Mewat.
Sambhal, or the province now known as Rohilkhand, extending to
the very walls of Delhi, was occupied by Darya Khan Lodi. …
Lahore, Dipalpur, and Sirhind, as far south as Panipat, by
Behlul Lodi. Multan, Jaunpur, Bengal, Malwa, and Gujarat, each
had its separate king. Over most of these districts, and as
far eastward as the country immediately to the north of
Western Bihar, Behlul Lodi, known as Sultan Behlul, succeeded
on the disappearance of the Saiyids in asserting his sole
authority, 1450-88. His son and successor, Sultan Sikandar
Lodi, subdued Behar, invaded Bengal, which, however, he
subsequently agreed to yield to Allah-u-din, its sovereign,
and not to invade it again; and overran a great portion of
Central India. On his death, in 1518, he had concentrated
under his own rule the territories now known as the Punjab;
the North-western Provinces, including Jaunpur; a great part
of Central India; and Western Bihar. But, in point of fact,
the concentration was little more than nominal." The death of
Sikandar Lodi was followed by a civil war which resulted in
calling in the Tartar or Mongol conqueror, Babar, a descendant
of Timour, who, beginning in 1494 with a small dominion (which
he presently lost) in Ferghana, or Khokland, Central Asia, had
made himself master of a great part of Afghanistan (1504),
establishing his capital at Kabul. Babar had crossed the
Indian border in 1505, but his first serious invasion was in
1519, followed, according to some historians, by a second
invasion the same year; the third was in 1520; the fourth
occurred after an interval of two or three years. On his fifth
expedition he made the conquest complete, winning a great
battle at Panipat, 53 miles to the north-west of Delhi, on the
24th of April, 1526. Ibrahim Lodi, son and successor of
Sikandar Lodi, was killed in the battle, and Delhi and Agra
were immediately occupied. "Henceforth the title of King of
Kabul was to be subjected to the higher title of Emperor of
Hindustan." Babar was in one sense the founder of the Mughal
(synonymous with Mongol) dynasty—the dynasty of the Great
Moguls, as his successors were formerly known. He died in
1530, sovereign of northern India, and of some provinces in
the center of the peninsula: But "he bequeathed to his son,
Humayun, … a congeries of territories uncemented by any bond
of union or of common interest, except that which had been
concentrated in his life. In a word, when he died, the Mughal
dynasty, like the Muhammadan dynasties which had preceded it,
had shot down no roots into the soil of Hindustan."

_G. B. Malleson,
Akbar,
chapters 4-5._

{1708}

Humayun succeeded Babar in India, "but had to make over Kabul
and the Western Punjab to his brother and rival, Kamran.
Humayun was thus left to govern the new conquest of India, and
at the same time was deprived of the country from which his
father had drawn his support. The descendants of the early
Afghan invaders, long settled in India, hated the new
Muhammadan hordes of Babar even more than they hated the
Hindus. After ten years of fighting, Humayun was driven out of
India by these Afghans under Sher Shah, the Governor of
Bengal. While flying through the desert of Sind to Persia, his
famous son Akbar was born in the petty fort of Umarkot (1542).
Sher Shah set up as emperor, but was killed while storming the
rock fortress of Kalinjar (1545). His son succeeded. But,
under Sher Shah's grandson, the third of the Afghan house, the
Provinces revolted, including Malwa, the Punjab, and Bengal.
Humayun returned to India, and Akbar, then only in his
thirteenth year, defeated the Afghan army after a desperate
battle at Panipat (1556). India now passed finally from the
Afghans to the Mughals. Sher Shah's line disappears; and
Humayun, having recovered his Kabul dominions, reigned again
for a few months at Delhi, but died in 1556. … Akbar the
Great, the real founder of the Mughal Empire as it existed for
two centuries, succeeded his father at the age of fourteen.
… His reign lasted for almost fifty years, from 1556 to
1605, and was therefore contemporary with that of our own
Queen Elizabeth (1558-1603). His father, Humayun, left but a
small kingdom in India, scarcely extending beyond the
Districts around Agra and Delhi. … The reign of Akbar was a
reign of pacification. … He found India split into petty
kingdoms, and seething with discordant elements; on his death,
in 1605, he bequeathed it an empire. The earlier invasions by
Turks, Afghans, and Mughals, had left a powerful Muhammadan
population in India under their own Chiefs. Akbar reduced
these Musalman States to Provinces of the Delhi Empire. Many
of the Hindu kings and Rajput nations had also regained their
independence: Akbar brought them into political dependence
upon his authority. This double task he effected partly by
force of arms, but in part also by alliances. He enlisted the
Rajput princes by marriage and by a sympathetic policy in the
support of his throne. He then employed them in high posts,
and played off his Hindu generals and Hindu ministers against
the Mughal party in Upper India, and against the Afghan
faction in Bengal. … His efforts to establish the Mughal
Empire in Southern India were less successful. … Akbar
subjugated Khandesh, and with this somewhat precarious
annexation his conquests in the Deccan ceased. … Akbar not
only subdued all India to the north of the Vindhya mountains,
he also organized it into an empire. He partitioned it into
Provinces, over each of which he placed a governor, or
viceroy, with full civil and military control."

_W. W. Hunter,
Brief History of the Indian People,
chapter 10._

"I wish briefly and fairly to state what the Emperor Akbar did
for the improvement of the country and the people of
Hindostan. He improved the system of land-assessment, or
rather he improved upon the improvements instituted by Shir
Shah. He adapted an uniform and improved system of
land-measurement, and computed the average value of the land,
by dividing it into three classes, according to the
productiveness of each. This computation being made, one-third
of the average produce was fixed as the amount of tax to be
paid to the state. But as this was ordinarily to be paid in
money, it was necessary to ascertain the value of the produce,
and this was done upon an average of the nineteen preceding
years, according to local circumstances; and if the estimate
was conceived to be too high, the tax-payer was privileged to
pay the assessment in kind. … The regulations for the
collection of the revenue enforced by Akbar were well
calculated to prevent fraud and oppression, and, on the whole,
they worked well for the benefit of the people; but it has
been said of them, and with truth, that 'they contained no
principle of progressive improvement, and held out no hopes to
the rural population, by opening paths by which it might
spread into other occupations, or rise by individual exertions
within its own.' The judicial regulations of Akbar were
liberal and humane. Justice, on the whole, was fairly
administered. All unnecessary severity—all cruel personal
punishments, as torture and mutilation, were prohibited,
except in peculiar cases, and capital punishments were
considerably restricted. The police appears to have been well
organised. … He prohibited … trials by ordeal … ; he
suppressed the barbarous custom of condemning to slavery
prisoners taken in war; and he authoritatively forbade the
burning of Hindoo widows, except with their own free and
uninfluenced consent. … That something of the historical
lustre which surrounds the name of the Emperor Akbar was
derived rather from the personal character of the man than
from the great things that he accomplished, is, I think, not
to be denied. His actual performances, when they come to be
computed, fall short of his reputation. But his merits are to
be judged not so much by the standard of what he did, as of
what he did with the opportunities allowed to him, and under
the circumstances by which he was surrounded. Akbar built up
the Mogul Empire, and had little leisure allowed him to
perfect its internal economy."

_J. W. Kaye,
The Administration of the East India Company,
part 1, chapter 2._

ALSO IN: 3
_W. Erskine,
History of India under Baber and Humayun._

_A. Dow,
History of Hindostan, from Ferishta,
volume 2._

_J. T. Wheeler,
History of India,
volume 4, chapter 4._

INDIA: A. D. 1498-1580.
Portuguese trade and settlements.

In May, 1498, Vasco da Gama, the Portuguese navigator, reached
Calicut, on the southwest (Malabar) coast, being the first
European to traverse the ocean route to India, around the Cape
of Good Hope (see PORTUGAL: A. D. 1463-1498). He met with a
hostile reception from the natives of Malabar; but the next
voyager from Portugal, Alvarez Cabral, "who came out the
following year, was very favourably received, being allowed to
establish a factory on the mainland and to appoint a 'factor'
(or consul, as we say now) to represent Portugal there. This
factor seems to have had some difficulties with the natives,
chiefly owing to his own high-handed actions, which resulted
in the murder of himself and the destruction of the factory.
Alvarez Cabral therefore sailed up to Cochin, and was received
with great friendliness by the chiefs of that part of the
country, who allowed him again to set up agencies at Cochin
and at Cananore. But the vengeance of the ruler of Malabar
pursued them; and the Portuguese, together with their native
allies, had to fight desperately for their safety.
{1709}
They were almost exhausted with the struggle when in 1504
large reinforcements were sent from Portugal, bombarded
Calicut, the capital of Malabar, and established the name and
fame of the Portuguese as an important power in India
generally. A regular maritime trade with India was now firmly
set on foot, but the Portuguese had to struggle hard to
maintain it. The Mohammedans of India called in the aid of
Egypt against them, and even the republic of Venice joined
these enemies, in hopes of crushing this new rival to their
ancient trade. In 1508 a powerful expedition was sent out from
Egypt against the newcomers, a tremendous battle took place,
and the Portuguese were defeated. But by a desperate effort
Almeida, the Portuguese viceroy, collected all his forces for
a final blow, and succeeded in winning a magnificent naval
victory which once and for all firmly established the
Portuguese power in India. Two years afterwards Almeida's
rival and successor, Alfonso de Albuquerque, gained possession
of Goa (1510), and this city became the centre of their Indian
dominion, which now included Ceylon and the Maldive Islands,
together with the Malacca and Malabar coasts. In 1511 the city
of Malacca was captured, and the city of Ormuz in 1515. The
next few years were spent in consolidating their sovereignty
in these regions, till in 1542 the Portuguese colonists
practically regulated all the Asiatic coast trade with Europe,
from the Persian Gulf … to Japan. … For nearly sixty years
after this date the king of Portugal, or his viceroy, was
virtually the supreme ruler—in commercial matters at any
rate—of the southern coast of Asia. The Portuguese were at
the climax of their power in the east. The way in which
Portuguese trade was carried on is an interesting example of
the spirit of monopoly which has, invariably at first and very
often afterwards, inspired the policy of all European powers
in their efforts of colonisation. The eastern trade was of
course kept in the hands of Portuguese traders only, as far as
direct commerce between Portugal and India was concerned; but
even Portuguese traders were shut out from intermediate
commerce between India and other eastern countries, i. e.,
China, Japan, Malacca, Mozambique, and Ormuz. This traffic was
reserved as a monopoly to the crown; and it was only as a
great favour, or in reward for some particular service, that
the king allowed private individuals to engage in it. The
merchant fleet of Portugal generally set sail from Lisbon,
bound to Goa, once a year about February or March. … This
voyage generally took about eighteen months, and, owing to the
imperfect state of navigation at that time, and the lack of
accurate charts of this new route, was frequently attended by
the loss of several ships. Immense profits were, however, made
by the traders. On arriving back at Lisbon the Portuguese
merchants, as a rule, did not themselves engage in any trade
with other European countries in the goods they had brought
back, but left the distribution of them in the hands of Dutch,
English, and Hansa sailors who met them at Lisbon. … The
colonial empire of Portugal, so rapidly and brilliantly
acquired, came to a disastrous close. It lasted altogether
hardly a century. The avarice and oppressions of its viceroys
and merchants, the spirit of monopoly which pervaded their
whole policy, and the neglect both of the discipline and
defences necessary to keep newly-acquired foreign possessions,
hastened its ruin. By 1580 the Portuguese power in the east
had seriously declined, and in that year the crown of Portugal
was united to that of Spain in the person of Philip II. The
Spaniards neglected their eastern possessions altogether, and
engaged in wars with the Dutch which had the effect, not only
of wasting a great portion of their own and the Portuguese
fleet, but of positively driving the Dutch into those very
eastern seas which the Portuguese had once so jealously kept
to themselves. Only Goa and Diu and a few other small stations
remained out of all their magnificent dominion."

_H. de B. Gibbins,
History of Commerce in Europe,
book 3, chapter 1 (sections 94-97)._

ALSO IN:
_E. McMurdo,
History of Portugal,
volume 3, books 2-5._

_Commentaries of the Great Afonso Dalboquerque
(Hakluyt Society Publications)._

_E. Grey,
Introduction to Travels of Pietro della Valle
(Hakluyt Society Publications)._

_H. M. Stephens,
Albuquerque._

INDIA: A. D. 1600-1702.
Beginnings of English trade.
The chartering of the English East India Company.
Its early footholds in Hindostan.
The founding of Madras, Bombay and Calcutta.
The three Presidencies.

"For some time it appears to have been thought by other
European Powers, that the discovery of the passage round
Africa by the Portuguese gave them some exclusive claim to its
navigation. But after the year 1580 the conquest of Portugal
by Spain, and the example of the Dutch who had already formed
establishments not only in India but the Spice Islands,
aroused the commercial enterprise of England. In 1599 an
Association was formed for the Trade to the East Indies; a sum
was raised by subscription, amounting to £68,000; and a
petition was presented to the Crown for a Royal Charter. Queen
Elizabeth wavered during some time, apprehending fresh
entanglements with Spain. At length, in December 1600, the
boon was granted; the 'Adventurers' (for so were they termed
at that time) were constituted a body corporate, under the
title of 'the Governor and Company of Merchants of London
trading into the East Indies.' By their Charter they obtained
the right of purchasing lands without limitation, and the
monopoly of their trade during fifteen years, under the
direction of a Governor, and twenty-four other persons in
Committee, to be elected annually. … In 1609, the Charter of
the new Company was not only renewed but rendered
perpetual,—with a saving clause, however, that should any
national detriment be at any time found to ensue, these
exclusive privileges should, after three years' notice, cease
and expire. It does not seem, however, that the trade of the
new Company was extensive. Their first voyage consisted of
four ships and one pinnace, having on board £28,742 in
bullion, and £6,860 in goods, such as cloth, lead, tin,
cutlery, and glass. Many other of their voyages were of
smaller amount; thus, in 1612, when they united into a Joint
Stock Company, they sent out only one ship, with £1,250 in
bullion and £650 in goods. But their clear profits on their
capital were immense; scarcely ever, it is stated, below 100
per cent. During the Civil Wars the Company shared in the
decline of every other branch of trade and industry.
{1710}
But soon after the accession of Charles II. they obtained a
new Charter, which not only confirmed their ancient privileges
but vested in them authority, through their agents in India,
to make peace and war with any prince or people, not being
Christians, and to seize within their limits, and send home as
prisoners, any Englishmen found without a licence. It may well
be supposed that in the hands of any exclusive Company this
last privilege was not likely to lie dormant. … The period
of the Revolution was not so favourable to the Company as that
of the Restoration. A rival Company arose, professing for its
object greater freedom of trade with the East Indies, and
supported by a majority in the House of Commons. It is said
that the competition of these two Companies with the private
traders and with one another had well nigh ruined both. … An
Union between these Companies, essential, as it seemed, to
their expected profits, was delayed by their angry feelings
till 1702. Even then, by the Indenture which passed the Great
Seal, several points were left unsettled between them, and
separate transactions were allowed to their agents in India
for the stocks already sent out. Thus the ensuing years were
fraught with continued jarrings and contentions. … After the
grant of the first Charter by Queen Elizabeth, and the growth
of the Company's trade in India, their two main factories were
fixed at Surat and Bantam. Surat was then the principal
sea-port of the Mogul Empire, where the Mahometan pilgrims
were wont to assemble for their voyages towards Mecca. Bantam,
from its position in the island of Java, commanded the best
part of the Spice trade. But at Surat the Company's servants
were harassed by the hostility of the Portuguese, as at
Bantam, by the hostility of the Dutch. To such heights did
these differences rise that in 1622 the English assisted the
Persians in the recovery of Ormuz from the Portuguese, and
that in 1623 the Dutch committed the outrage termed the
'Massacre of Amboyna,'—putting to death, after a trial, and
confession of guilt extorted by torture, Captain Towerson and
nine other Englishmen, on a charge of conspiracy. In the final
result, many years afterwards, the factories both at Bantam
and Surat were relinquished by the Company. Other and newer
settlements of theirs had, meanwhile, grown into
importance.—In 1640 the English obtained permission from a
Hindoo Prince in the Carnatic to purchase the ground adjoining
the Portuguese settlement of St. Thomé, on which they
proceeded to raise Fort St. George and the town of Madras. …
In a very few years Madras had become a thriving town.—About
twenty years afterwards, on the marriage of Charles II. to
Catherine of Braganza [1661], the town and island of Bombay
were ceded to the King of England as a part of the Infanta's
dowry. For some time the Portuguese Governor continued to
evade the grant, alleging that the patent of His Majesty was
not in accordance with the customs of Portugal; he was
compelled to yield; but the possession being found on trial to
cost more than it produced, it was given up by King Charles to
the East India Company, and became one of their principal
stations. Nor was Bengal neglected. Considering the beauty and
richness of that province, a proverb was already current among
the Europeans, that there are a hundred gates for entering and
not one for leaving it. The Dutch, the Portuguese, and the
English had established their factories at or near the town of
Hooghly on one of the branches—also called Hooghly—of the
Ganges. But during the reign of James II. the imprudence of
some of the Company's servants, and the seizure of a Mogul
junk, had highly incensed the native Powers. The English found
it necessary to leave Hooghly, and drop twenty-five miles down
the river, to the village of Chuttanuttee. Some petty
hostilities ensued, not only in Bengal but along the coasts of
India. … So much irritated was Aurungzebe at the reports of
these hostilities, that he issued orders for the total
expulsion of the Company's servants from his dominions, but he
was appeased by the humble apologies of the English traders,
and the earnest intercession of the Hindoo, to whom this
commerce was a source of profit. The English might even have
resumed their factory at Hooghly, but preferred their new
station at Chuttanuttee, and in 1698 obtained from the Mogul,
on payment of an annual rent, a grant of the land on which it
stood. Then, without delay, they began to construct for its
defence a citadel, named Fort William, under whose shelter
there grew by degrees from a mean village the great town of
Calcutta,—the capital of modern India. … At nearly the
same period another station,—Tegnapatam, a town on the coast
of Coromandel, to the south of Madras,—was obtained by
purchase. It was surnamed Fort St. David; was strengthened
with walls and bulwarks, and was made subordinate to Madras
for its government. Thus then before the accession of the
House of Hanover these three main stations,—Fort William,
Fort St. George, and Bombay,—had been erected into
Presidencies, or central posts of Government; not, however, as
at present, subject to one supreme authority, but each
independent of the rest. Each was governed by a President and
a Council of nine or twelve members, appointed by the Court of
Directors in England. Each was surrounded with fortifications,
and guarded by a small force, partly European and partly
native, in the service of the Company. The Europeans were
either recruits enlisted in England or strollers and deserters
from other services in India. Among these the descendants of
the old settlers, especially the Portuguese, were called
Topasses,—from the tope or hat which they wore instead of
turban. The natives, as yet ill-armed and ill-trained, were
known by the name of Sepoys,—a corruption from the Indian
word 'sipahi,' a soldier. But the territory of the English
scarcely extended out of sight of their towns."

_Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope);
History of England, 1713-1783,
chapter 39 (volume 4)._

ALSO IN:
_J. Mill,
History of British India,
book 1 (volume 1)._

_P. Anderson,
The English in Western India,
chapters 1-10._

_H. Stevens, editor.,
Dawn of British Trade to East Indies:
Court Minutes of the East India Company, 1599-1603._

_J. W. Kaye,
The Administration of the East India Company,
chapters 3-4._

INDIA: A. D. 1602-1620.
Rise of the Dutch East India Company.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1594-1620.

{1711}

INDIA: A. D. 1605-1658.
Jahangir and Nur Mahal.
Shah Jahan and the Taj Mahal.
Seizure of the throne by Aurungzebe.

"Selim, the son and successor of Akbar, reigned from the year
of his father's death until 1627, having assumed the title of
Jahangir, or 'Conqueror of the World'; that is to say, he
reigned, but he did not govern. Before he came to the throne,
he fell in love with a poor Persian girl," whom his father
gave in marriage to one of his officers. "On his advent to the
throne, Jahangir … managed to get the husband killed, and
took the widow into his harem. He subsequently married her,
and she ruled, not him alone, but the whole empire. … [She
was first called Nur Mahal, 'Light of the Harem,' then Nur
Jahan, 'Light of the World.'] It was during this reign, in
1615, that the first English ambassador, Sir Thomas Roe,
arrived in Hindustan from James I.; and proceeding to Ajmere,
where Jahangir was staying at the time with his court, he made
him several presents, amongst which, we are told, a beautiful
English coach gave the Emperor the most satisfaction. He
received the ambassador with great distinction, showed him
marked attention at all public receptions, and granted a
firmân to the English to establish a factory at Surat. … The
later years of Jahangir's reign were disturbed by family
intrigues, in which the Empress Nur Jehan took a prominent
part, endeavouring to secure the succession for her
son-in-law; but after the death of the Emperor, his oldest
living son, Shah Jahan, pensioned and forced the Empress into
retirement … and … 'dispatched all the males of the house
of Timour, so that only himself and his children remained of
the posterity of Baber, who conquered India.' In some respects
the reign of Shah Jahan was unfortunate. He lost his Afghan
dominions, and gained but little by his invasions of the
Dekhan, which were carried on by his rebellious son and
successor, Aurungzeb; but in another direction he did more to
perpetuate the glory of the Mughal dynasty than any other
emperor of his line. Amongst other handsome buildings, he
erected the most beautiful the world has ever possessed. …
This was the well-known Taj Mahal at Agra, a mausoleum for his
favourite Empress Arjamund, known as Mumtaz-i-Mahal [of which
name, according to Elphinstone, Taj Mahal is a corruption],
'the Exalted One of the Seraglio.' … When Shah Jahan had
attained his 66th year (according to some writers, his 70th),
he was seized with a sudden illness, the result of his
debauched life, and as it was reported that he was dead, a
civil war broke out amongst his sons for the possession of the
throne. These were four in number, Dara (the oldest), Shuja,
Aurungzeb, and Murad (the youngest); and in the conflict
Aurungzeb, the third son, was ultimately successful. Two of
the brothers, Dara and Murad, fell into the power of the
last-named and were put to death by his orders. Shuja escaped
to Arracan, and was murdered there; and as for the Emperor,
who had recovered, Aurungzeb confined him in the fort at Agra,
with all his female relatives, and then caused himself to be
proclaimed in his stead [1658]. Towards the close of Shah
Jehan's life [which came to an end in 1666], a partial
reconciliation took place between him and his son, who,
however, did not release him from his confinement."

_J. Samuelson,
India, Past and Present,
part 1, chapter 7._

ALSO IN:
_J. T. Wheeler,
History of India,
volume 4, chapters 5-7._

Sir T. Roe,
Journal of Embassy
(Pinkerton's Collection of Voyages, volume 8).

_M. Elphinstone,
History of India: Hindu and Mahometan,
book 10._

INDIA: A. D. 1662-1748.
The struggle of Aurungzebe with the Mahrattas.
The Mahratta empire.
Invasion of Nadir Shah.
Sack of Delhi and great Massacre.

"Aurungzebe had reigned five years before he succeeded in
destroying all his kinsmen. … About that time, in the year
1662, a new and extraordinary power in Southern India began to
attract attention. The Mahrattas appear to have been nothing
more than the Hindoo peasantry, scattered throughout some of
the mountainous districts of the Mahomedan kingdoms of
Ahmednuggur, Beijapoor and Golconda, and united into a body
only by the prejudices of caste, of which their rank was the
lowest, that of Sudra. In the confusion incidental to the
constant wars in which these states were engaged, some of the
head men of their villages set up for themselves, and one of
them, Shahji Borla, became powerful enough to play a
conspicuous part at the time of the annexation of Ahmednuggur
to the Mogul empire. His son Sevaji, setting out from this
vantage ground, strengthened his hands by the silent capture
of some hill forts in Beijapoor, and eventually raising the
standard of revolt against that government, introduced a
spirit of union amidst the scattered masses of his people, and
may thus be considered the founder of the Mahratta empire. In
1662 he commenced his predatory expeditions into the Mogul
territory, and in ten years he found himself at the head of a
regular government with the title of Rajah, and strong enough
to encounter and defeat the imperial forces in a field battle.
This was the critical moment in the progress of the Mogul
empire. Aurungzebe was called away for two years by the
chronic disturbances beyond the Indus; his strength was wasted
by the ceaseless wars of the Deccan; and being goaded to
madness by the casual insurrection of some Hindoo devotees in
the centre of his dominions, he replaced the capitation tax on
infidels, and fulminated other decrees against that portion of
his subjects of such extravagant intolerance that they at
length looked upon the progress of their co-religionists, the
Mahrattas, with more longing than alarm. In 1679, the western
portion of Rajahstan was in arms against the empire, and
continued in a state of hostility more or less active during
the whole reign. Even the emperor's eventual successes in the
Deccan, in overthrowing the kingdoms of Beijapoor and
Golconda, contributed to his ruin; for it removed the check of
regular government from that distracted portion of the
country, and … threw into the arms of the Mahrattas the
adventurous and the desperate of the population. Sevaji died,
and successors of less talent filled the throne of the
robber-king; but this seems to have had no effect upon the
progress of the inundation, which now bursting over the
natural barriers of the peninsula, and sweeping away its
military defences, overflowed Malwa and a portion of Guzerat.
Aurungzebe fought gallantly and finessed craftily by turns;
… and thus he struggled with his destiny even to extreme old
age, bravely and alone. He expired in his 89th year, the 50th
of his reign, on the 21st of February, 1707. … During the
next twelve years after the death of Aurungzebe, no fewer than
five princes sat upon the throne, whose reigns, without being
distinguished by any great events, exhibited evident
indications of the gradual decline of the empire.
{1712}
During that period the Sikhs, originally a sect of Hindoo
dissenters, whose peculiarity consisted in their repudiation
of all religious ceremonies, having first been changed into
warriors by persecution, began to rise by the spirit of union
into a nation; but so weak were they at this time that in 1706
the dying energies of the empire were sufficient almost for
their extirpation. … Mahomed Shah succeeded to the throne in
1719. The Mahratta government was by this time completely
consolidated, and the great families of the race, since so
celebrated, had begun to rise into eminence: such as that of
the Peshwa, the official title of a minister of the Rajah; of
Holkar, the founder of which was a shepherd; and of Sindia,
which sprang from a menial servant. … A still more
remarkable personage of the time was Asof Jah, whose
descendants became the Nizams [regulators or governors—the
title becoming hereditary in the family of Asof, at Hyderabad]
of the Deccan. … While the empire was … rent in pieces by
internal disturbances, a more tremendous enemy even than the
Mahrattas presented himself from without. A revolution had
taken place in Persia, which seated a soldier of fortune upon
the throne; and the famous Nadir Shah, after capturing
Candahar, found it necessary, according to the fashion of
conquerors, to seize upon the Mogul territories, Ghizni and
Cabul, and when at the latter city to continue his march into
Hindostan. In 1739, he arrived at Kurnaul, within 70 miles of
Delhi, and defeated the emperor in a general engagement. …
The two kings then proceeded to Delhi after the battle, where
Nadir, in consequence, it is said, of an insurrection of the
populace, set fire to the city and massacred the inhabitants
to a number which has been variously estimated at from 30,000
to 150,000. He then proceeded to the main business of his
invasion, robbing first the treasury and afterwards the
inhabitants individually, torturing or murdering all who were
suspected of concealing their riches, and at length returned
to his own dominions, having obtained a formal cession of the
country west of the Indus, and carrying with him in money and
plate at least twelve millions sterling, besides jewels of
great value, including those of the Peacock Throne [the throne
of the Great Mogul, made solidly of gold and adorned with
diamonds and pearls,—the enamelled back of the throne being
spread in the form of a peacock's tail.]

_Tavernier's Travels,
translated and edited by V. Ball,
book 2, chapter 8 (volume 1)._

From this period to the death of the Emperor Mahomed Shah, in
1748, the interval was filled up with the disturbances which
might be expected."

_Leitch Ritchie,
History of the Indian Empire,
book 1, chapter 5 (volume 1)._

The Asof or Asaf Jah mentioned above had become, in 1721, the
Prime Minister of the Emperor Muhammad Shah, "In a little more
than three years he had thrown up in disgust an office which
the levity of the young monarch hindered him from discharging
to his satisfaction; and had repaired to the Deccan, where he
founded the State which still subsists under the name of 'The
Nizam's Dominions.' Nominally, it was the Subah [province]
erected on the ruins of the old Musalman kingdoms; but in the
decline of the Empire it became a hereditary and
quasi-independent province, though the ruler never took the
royal title, but continued to retain the style of an Imperial
Viceroy, as 'Nizam-ul-mulk,' which his descendant still
bears."

_H. G. Keene,
Madhava Rao Sindhia,
chapter 1._

"The different provinces and viceroyalties went their own
natural way; they were parcelled out in a scuffle among
revolted governors, rebellious chiefs, leaders of insurgent
tribes or sects, religious revivalists, or captains of
mercenary bands. The Indian people were becoming a masterless
multitude swaying to and fro in the political storm, and
clinging to any power, natural or supernatural, that seemed
likely to protect them. They were prepared to acquiesce in the
assumption of authority by anyone who could show himself able
to discharge the most elementary functions of government in
the preservation of life and property. In short, the people
were scattered without a leader or protector; while the
political system under which they had long lived was
disappearing in complete disorganization. It was during this
period of tumultuary confusion that the French and English
first appeared upon the political arena in India."

_Sir A. Lyall,
Rise of the British Dominion in India,
chapter 4, sections 1-2._

ALSO IN:
_S. Lane-Poole,
Aurangzib,
chapters 9-12._

_A. Dow,
History of Hindostan, from Ferishta,
volume 3._

_J. G. Duff,
History of the Mahrattas,
volume 1, and volume 2, chapter 1._

_C. R. Markham,
History of Persia,
chapter 12._

INDIA: A. D. 1665-1743.
Commercial undertakings of the French.
Their settlement at Pondicherry.

"Many expeditions to India had been made [by the French]
earlier than the time of Colbert's East India Company,
chartered in the year 1665. The first French ships, of which
there is any record, that succeeded in reaching India, were
two despatched from one of the ports of Brittany in 1601.
These ships were, however, wrecked on the Maldive Islands, and
their commander did not return to France for ten years.
Voyages were undertaken in 1616, 1619, and again in 1633, of
which the most that can be said is that they met with no great
disaster. The attempt to found settlements in Java and
Madagascar, which was the object of these voyages, completely
failed. The first operations of the French East India Company
were to establish factories in Hindostan. Surat, a large
commercial city at the mouth of the Taptee, was fixed upon for
the principal depot. The abuses and lavish waste of the
officers entrusted to carry out Colbert's plans, brought the
company to an end in five years. An attempt in 1672 to form a
colony at Trincomalee, on the north-east coast of Ceylon, was
frustrated by the hostility of the Dutch. Afterwards the
French made an attempt on Meliapoor or Thomé, belonging to the
Portuguese. They were soon expelled, and the survivors sought
refuge at Pondicherry [1674], a small town which they had
purchased on the same coast of the Carnatic. In 1693,
Pondicherry was taken by the Dutch, who improved the
fortifications and general condition of the town. At the peace
of Ryswick, in 1697, the settlement was restored to the
French. For half a century Pondicherry shared the neglect
common to French colonies, and owed more to the probity and
discretion of its governors than to the home government. M.
Martin, and subsequently Dumas, saved the settlement from
ruin. They added to the defences; and Dumas, being in want of
money for public purposes, obtained permission from the King
of Delhi to coin money for the French settlers. He also
procured the cession of Karikal, a district of Tanjore. On the
other hand, several stations and forts had to be given up."

_J. Yeats,
Growth and Vicissitudes of Commerce,
part 3, chapter 7._

ALSO IN:
_G. B. Malleson,
History of the French in India,
chapters 1-3._

_H. Martin,
History of France: Age of Louis XIV.,
volume 1, chapter 2._

{1713}

INDIA: A. D. 1743-1752.
Struggle of the French and English for supremacy in the Deccan.
Clive against Dupleix.
The founding of British empire.

"England owes the idea of an Indian empire to the French, as
also the chief means by which she has hitherto sought to
realize it. The war of the Austrian succession had just broken
out [1743] between France and England.

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1743.

Dupleix, the governor of the settlements of the French East
India Company, proposed to the English company a neutrality in
the eastern seas; it was rejected. The English probably
repented of their presumption when they saw Captain Peyton,
the commander of a squadron of three liners and a frigate,
after an indecisive engagement with the French admiral,
Labourdonnais, take flight to the Bay of Bengal, leaving
Madras, then the most flourishing of the English settlements,
defenceless. Dupleix and Labourdonnais were the first of that
series of remarkable Frenchmen who, amidst every
discouragement from home, and in spite of their frequent
mutual dissensions, kept the French name so prominent in India
for more than the next half century, only to meet on their
return with obloquy, punishment, even death. Labourdonnais,
who was Admiral of the French fleet, was also Governor of
Mauritius, then called the Isle of France. He had disciplined
a force of African negroes. With French troops and these, he
entered the narrow strip of coast, five miles long, one mile
broad, which was then the territory of Madras, bombarded the
city, compelled the fort (which had lost five men) to
surrender. But his terms were honourable; the English were
placed on parole; the town was to be given up on payment of a
moderate ransom (1746). Dupleix, however, was jealous; he
denied Labourdonnais powers; broke the capitulation; paraded
the Governor and other English gentlemen in triumph through
Pondicherry. In vain did Admiral Boscawen besiege the latter
place; time was wasted, the trenches were too far, the rains
came on; Boscawen raised the siege, crippled in men and
stores; was recalled by the news of the peace of
Aix-la-Chapelle, and, to close his career of misfortune, lost
several ships and 1,200 men on the Coromandel coast (1748-9).
News of the treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle, however, produced a
very temporary cessation of hostilities, Madras being
restored, with fortifications much improved. The English
fortunes seemed at their lowest in India; the French rising to
their full height. Dupleix conceived the bold plan of
interfering in the internal politics of the country.
Labourdonnais had disciplined the negro; Dupleix disciplined
the native Indian. … Labourdonnais had beaten off the
so-called Nawab of the Carnatic, when he attempted to take
Madras; the event produced an immense sensation; it was the
first victory obtained for a century by Europeans over the
natives of India. Dupleix was strong enough to be reckoned a
valuable ally. But on the English side a young man had
appeared who was to change the whole course of events in the
East. Robert Clive, an attorney's son from Market Drayton,
born in 1725, sent off at eighteen as a writer to Madras—a
naughty boy who had grown into an insubordinate clerk, who had
been several times in danger of losing his situation, and had
twice attempted to destroy himself—ran away from Madras,
disguised as a Mussulman, after Dupleix's violation of the
capitulation, obtained an ensign's commission at twenty-one,
and began distinguishing himself as a soldier under Major
Lawrence, then the best British officer in India."

_J. M. Ludlow,
British India,
lecture 7._