History of Aurangzib, Based on Original Sources v5.c83.s8: § 15. European pirates in Indian seas, early 17th century.
History of Aurangzib, Based on Original Sources v5.c83.s8
- Language
- English
§ 15. European pirates in Indian seas, early 17th century.
v5.c83.s8.1
'European piracy in the Indian Ocean had begun with the coming of Vasco da Gama at the end of the 15th century. It excited no moral reprobation in Christendom. "To prey upon Muham-madan ships was simply to pursue in other waters the chronic warfare carried on against Moors and Turks in the Mediterranean." [Biddulph's *Pirates of Malabar*, 2.] Merchants and adventurers of all classes and nationalities flocked from Europe to the Indian seas in the 16th and 17th centuries, and with the growth of Indian trade there was a corresponding growth of piracy. In 1623 the depredations of the Dutch brought the English into disgrace; their warehouses at Surat were seized and the President and factors were placed in irons by the Mughal Government for seven months.
v5.c83.s8.2
In 1635, Cobb, the captain of a ship licensed by Charles I. of England, plundered two Mughal vessels at the mouth of the Red Sea, though one of them had a pass from the Surat factory. In 1638, Sir William Courten, under a grant from the same king, sent out four ships which robbed Indian vessels and tortured their crews. For these misdeeds of their fellow-countrymen, the innocent servants of the E. I. Co. at Surat were kept in prison for two months, and released only on the payment of Rs. 1,70,000 as compensation. [Ibid, 2-6.]
v5.c83.s8.3
In the second half of the 17th century an even more lawless race of men than the old Buccaneers appeared and extended their operations to the Indian Ocean, acting generally in single ships and plundering vessels of every nationality. "Of these men, chiefly English, the most notorious were Teach, Evory, Kidd, Roberts, England and Tew, with many others less known to fame........Roberts alone was credited with the destruction of 400 trading vessels in three years......The chief cause of their immunity lay in the fact that it was the business of nobody in particular to act against them...... Their friends on shore supplied their wants and gave them timely information of rich prizes to be looked for, or armed ships to be avoided. Officials high in authority winked at their doings, from which they drew a profit......Not only were the greater number of pirates of English blood, but pirate captains of other nationalities often sailed under English colours. The native officials, unable to distinguish the rogues from the honest traders, held the E. I. Co.'s servants responsible for their misdeeds." (Ibid, viii-x).
v5.c83.s8.4
§ 16. *Atrocities of English pirates.*
v5.c83.s8.5
In 1684, six Europeans,—four of them being English and the other two Dutch,—begged their passage in a Persian merchant's richly laden vessel bound for India. In the Gulf of Persia they killed the owner, his two wives and many other persons, including 26 lascars. Fifteen of the lascars leaped overboard and escaped in a small boat to Masqat. These pirates committed more atrocities, made their way to Goa, and cast six more lascars overboard tied hand and foot. But when they landed at Honore, they were arrested by the local governor. Their ringleader was supposed to be Terrell. [Orme MSS. 117, p. 291.]
v5.c83.s8.6
In 1688 two ships under English colours seized vessels in the Red Sea worth six lakhs of Rupees. Next year a number of sea-rovers from the West Indies made their appearance and infested the Malabar coast, hoisted the red or black flag, and robbed Indian and European vessels alike. [Madras Diary.] There were besides, other European pirates in the Persian Gulf, at the mouth of the Red Sea, in the Mozambique Channel and some lying off Achen (Sumatra.)
v5.c83.s8.7
"As pirates and interlopers alike sailed under English colours, the whole odium fell on the English. In August 1691 a ship belonging to Abdul Ghafur was taken by them near Surat with nine lakhs of cash on board." The Mughal Government immediately placed a guard on the English factory at Surat and forbade their trade in the country. But one of the pirate crew having been captured and proved to be a Dane, the embargo was removed. [Biddulph, 13.]
v5.c83.s8.8
The most famous of these pirates was Henry Bridgman, who took the alias of Evory. On 30th May 1694, while acting as the mate of an English ship hired by the Spanish Government, he overpowered the officers, renamed his ship *Fancy* and took to a life of piracy, with 46 guns and 150 fighters on board. After notable captures in the Gulf of Aden, he took off Socotra (Sep. 1695) the *Fath Muhammadi*, a richly laden ship of Abdul Ghafur, the prince of Surat merchants. A few days later he achieved his crowning feat, the capture of the *Ganj-i-sawai*. [Ibid, 16-25.]
v5.c83.s8.9
§ 17. Plunder of the Ganj-i-sawai, 1695.
v5.c83.s8.10
This ship belonged to the Mughal Emperor and was the largest vessel of the port of Surat. Every year it used to sail to Mokha and Jidda, carrying Indian pilgrims for Mecca and Indian goods for sale in Arabia. It had 80 guns and 400 muskets on board, but its captain, Muhammad Ibrahim, was a coward.*
v5.c83.s8.11
∗ This is the estimate formed by Khafi Khan, (ii. 422) whose description of the plunder of the ship has been used by all writers hitherto. But this captain's own description of the incident is given in I. O. L. MS.; Persian No. 150 (Ethe 370)
v5.c83.s8.12
He was returning from Mokha, at the head of an Indian merchant fleet of 24 vessels, assembled for mutual defence against pirates. Approaching the Indian coast his consorts dispersed, each to its own destination, leaving the *Ganj-i-sawai* alone. Between Bombay and Daman it was attacked by the *Fancy*, a second pirate ship and two boats. The artillery fire of the Europeans was most effective; in a short time the Mughal vessel had lost 25 soldiers killed and 20 wounded. A gun on board the *Ganj-i-sawai* burst, setting the ship on fire and killing or burning several of the crew. While the Indians were distracted by the fire and engaged in putting it out, the pirates boarded the ship from all sides. No resistance was made by the crew. The Captain hid himself in a lower cabin, after placing
v5.c83.s8.13
which I translate below. It has a Falstaffian ring and I have not been able to accept it. "We arrived in safety between Bombay and Daman. Suddenly four ships appeared in the distance... They arrived near us. Artillery and muskets were fired on both sides... For five or six hours shots were showered. During that period...the *mir-dah* of artillery and... the *mir-dah* of musketeers, and others, 25 men were slain and 20 wounded. I was hurt by two cannon balls on the back and the head. Many of the enemy were sent to hell or wounded. Just then a gun on the imperial ship burst and set the ship on fire. Some men were killed by the flying splinters of the gun and burnt. Our men were distracted in extinguishing the fire. Then the English, who numbered 1200 men, boarded our ship on four sides... They kept the ship for three days, plundering it..." (Folio 19.)
v5.c83.s8.14
swords in the hands of the Turkish slave-girls whom he had purchased at Mokha and whom he now bade to fight like men! [K. K.]
v5.c83.s8.15
For three days the pirates looted the ship at leisure, taking out of it five hundred thousand *rial* in cash, besides the property of the passengers and traders as well as the armament and instruments of the ship. As usual in such cases, the women on board, many of them belonging to the Sayyid and other respectable families, were outraged, and several of these victims committed suicide. Then Evory left the unhappy ship which was carried by its crew to Surat on 12th September.
v5.c83.s8.16
The first news of the outrage had been brought to Surat some days earlier, by a *huri* boat of the *Ganj-i-sawai* in which nine of its sailors had escaped by cutting their ropes at the first attack of the pirates. Immediately on hearing of it, Itimad Khan, the governor of Surat, had sent out the small Mughal flotilla of the port with four boats borrowed from the Dutch and the French, to assist the *Ganj-i-sawai*. They had returned to Surat without being able to find out the unhappy vessel.*
v5.c83.s8.17
When, on 12th September, the *Ganj-i-sawai* itself reached Surat and its passengers, stripped of everything, unfolded the tale of plunder and rape, the people of that port were roused to uncontrollable indignation. The attack on the Mecca pilgrims and Sayyid women gave to the act of piracy the odious colour of an outrage on the Muslim faith. The sufferers ascribed the attack to Englishmen closely connected with Bombay.
v5.c83.s8.18
∗ Piracy on the *Ganj-i-sawai*, I.O.L. MS. 150, ff. 17b-19b, 21b-23b, (best); K. K. ii, 422; A. Wright, 160.
v5.c83.s8.19
§ 18. English factors at Surat imprisoned, 1695-1696.
v5.c83.s8.20
Itimad Khan, the governor of Surat (really collector of Customs), was a friend of the English and an officer of unrivalled uprightness and purity. Amidst the popular clamour he kept his head and by his judicious measures saved the local Englishmen from being lynched by the Muslim fanatics. An excited and daily increasing crowd assembled before the English factory, threatening death to the inmates. But the governor sent a party of regular troops under his lieutenant Ashur Beg to occupy the factory (14 Sep.), and confine the merchants there pending the receipt of the Emperor's orders. Thus 49 Englishmen,—including not only President Annesley and other members of the Surat Council, but also interlopers like John Vaux and Uphill (who had been
v5.c83.s8.21
[^ *]: "All the passengers of the Ganj-i-sawai, as well as those of Mulla Abdul Ghafur's ship, agree in charging the English with the piracy, and some of them say that at the time of the plunder they recognised some Englishmen [previously known to them.]" (Surat governor's letter to Court, I.O.L. No. 26.) "During the plundering the pirates kept saying—'We are thus avenging on you the injury that [Siddi] Yaqut and other imperialists had done to us at Bombay',—and they showed the expelled from the E. I. Co.'s service) were imprisoned there. The number of captives was increased by the arrival of the Captain and some eight sailors of the Company's ship *Benjamin* seized after landing at Swally. A similar fate overtook the English traders at Broach. The arms, including 18 brass guns, found in the factory, were taken away by the governor. [*Madras Diary.*] Iron fetters were put on the feet of the captives.* Their trade was totally stopped.
v5.c83.s8.22
These harsh measures of Itimad Khan, however, saved the prisoners from a worse fate. As Annesley wrote, "We must confess our guard was no more than necessary to defend us from the rabble, for the whole mobile was raised against us, demanding satisfaction of us even to our lives. The governor
v5.c83.s8.23
wounds they had received at that time." (*Ibid*, f. 19, Captain's report.)
v5.c83.s8.24
"The people publicly in the streets [of Surat] allege that they knew several Englishmen among the pirates whom they had seen in Surat with their servants and two small vessels which they had used to see in Bombay...and that the pirates sent to the Castle of Bombay that from thence they might receive orders...The wiser sorts give no credit thereunto." [*Surat news-letter received at Madras. Mad. Diary, 8 Nov.*]
v5.c83.s8.25
∗ When a rumour came of another ship of Abdul Ghafur having been captured by a pirate in the Persian Gulf, "the English flag was struck, and the whole of the English factory, with the exception of the President, the two members of the Council, and Captain Browne, were confined in irons." [*Bruce, iii. 193.*]
v5.c83.s8.26
was very much in danger in contradicting the stream of their madness; and they once or twice entered into furious resolutions of assaulting his house. . . . The Muhammadans stick not to call the governor a *kafir* (unbeliever) and say that the town is so defiled that no prayer can be offered up acceptable to God till justice is done." [A. Wright, 164, 169.]
v5.c83.s8.27
During his captivity, Annesley with tireless activity sent off petitions to the Surat governor, to the agents and friends of the English in Aurangzib's camp, and to the Emperor himself and his ministers, —asserting the innocence of the Company's servants and demanding their release. Sir John Gayer, the governor of Bombay, was equally active; he wrote to Itimad Khan and to the Emperor, strongly protesting against the arrest of his countrymen and appealing for justice. "We are merchants and not pirates," he repeated, and he reminded the Mughal Government of its long and friendly protection of the English traders ever since the days of Jahangir.*
v5.c83.s8.28
The life of the prisoners at Surat was troubled by internal quarrels and a conspiracy against Annesley and the Council formed by the interlopers and the discontented sailors of the *Benjamin*. But Ashur Beg's friendly aid, heavily paid for, gave them relief. "By his connivance we had use of pen and paper, wine and provisions,—without which we should have died." [A. Wright, 180-187 ; Surat to Bombay, 9 Nov. 1696 in *Orme MSS.* 119.]
v5.c83.s8.29
∗ All the original Persian letters in connection with this affair are preserved in the Surat factory's letter-book, (I.O.L. MS. 150). I have given a description and analysis of its contents in the *Proceedings of the Fifth Meeting of the Indian Hist. Records Commission* (1923). The best account in English is A. Wright's *Annesley of Surat*, Ch. 8-11.
v5.c83.s8.30
§ 19. *Aurangzib's policy towards European traders.*
v5.c83.s8.31
Aurangzib deeply resented this flagrant offence against his flag and his religion by the foreign misbelievers. His first retaliatory measures were to confine the English factors and stop the trade of all the European nations throughout his dominions. But he was too wise a man to be swayed by his passions. He desired above all things to secure a regular escort of European war-vessels for the pilgrim-ships to Mecca, and this embargo on European trade was only an instrument for putting pressure on them to gain that end cheaply but effectually.[*] His order ran that so long as the three European races,—Dutch, French and English,—did not agree to this demand, their trade was to be stopped, their weapons taken away, none of them was to go out armed in the city or keep any gun or musket in their houses, they were to destroy the gun platforms and embrasures constructed in their factories, their buildings were to be broken down to a low height, their flags were to be taken down, and no bell was to be rung in their churches. [I. O. L. MS. 7b, 1b.]
v5.c83.s8.32
∗ As he wrote, though at a later date, "Let the *Mir Atish* (Chief of Artillery) ask the Feringis of the artillery department how the pirates can be chastised and the sea-route kept open for travellers to the Holy Cities and for traders,—whether by friendliness and conciliation or by force and fighting." And, again, "Write to Amanat Khan (the governor of Surat) to exert himself to the utmost to safeguard the way of pilgrims... and travellers to the Holy Cities. There is no union among the Feringis; many of them are without a head or chieftain. Try to secure the help of one tribe among them, such as the French, who, in return for being given a tenth of the custom-duty [collected at Surat] may undertake to punish the hatmen pirates." (*Kalimat-i-T.* f. 133*a* and 81*a*.)
v5.c83.s8.33
The Dutch offered to clear the Indian seas of the pirates and to be responsible for the safety of the pilgrims to Arabia if they were given the exclusive right of trading in the Mughal empire free of duty. This was declined by the Emperor. Then Sir John Gayer offered to send two armed English vessels annually to patrol the seas, if the Emperor would exclude the interlopers from his realm. Annesley wrote to the Mughal Government undertaking to supply convoy for the Indian vessels in the Arabian Sea or stand responsible for their safety, on condition of the English being granted the sum of four lakhs of Rupees which the Emperor annually paid to the Siddi for the same service, though the Siddi had clearly failed to do the work. [I. O. L. MS. 61b ; Bruce, iii. 189-191.]
v5.c83.s8.34
The Emperor refused to accept these proposals. He also higgled hard over the amount to be paid for each escorting ship,—the actual running cost for the double voyage being Rs. 40,000 for a large European ship and Rs. 30,000 for a smaller one, while the Emperor offered to pay only half of these amounts. At last on 6th January 1696, Annesley signed a bond for supplying escort, and after more delay due to red tape* the prisoners were set at liberty on 27th June.
v5.c83.s8.35
§ 20. Piracy of Captain Kidd, 1697.
v5.c83.s8.36
But this relief was not destined to last long. In that very year appeared a more formidable scourge of the sea, "the grand villain Sivers (or Chivers)," a Dutchman, and next year a still more dangerous pirate William Kidd.
v5.c83.s8.37
In 1696 a syndicate of English noblemen had fitted out the *Adventure*, a very strong 30-gun vessel, to act as a privateer against the French and at the same time destroy the pirates in the Indian Ocean, the cost being recovered from the profits of privateering. Its captain was William Kidd, "destined to blossom into the most redoubtable pirate who ever besmirched the honour of England." Arriving off Calicut early in 1697, he took to a life of piracy, shamelessly describing his robberies as legitimate acts of privateering authorised by the king of England. [A. Wright, 191-198.]
v5.c83.s8.38
∗ Isa Quli, (the Armenian Christian agent of the English in Aurangzib's camp), procured the Emperor's order for releasing the English; but it being procured by Yar Ali Beg, without Asad Khan's assistance, Asad Khan found a way to render it insignificant by letting it go without his seal. [Madras Diary, 31 Oct. 1696, quoting a letter from Bombay of 18 May.] Aurangzib would at first allow only Rs. 15,000 for the hire of a large convoying ship of the Europeans to Mokha and Rs. 10,000 for a small one. Later, he rose to Rs. 40,000 and 30,000 respectively, but the Surat governor would pay only half of these sums. [Bruce, iii. 212, 236.]
v5.c83.s8.39
Kidd's success drew many restless English seamen into his party, including the mutinous crews of the E. I. Co.'s frigate *Mocho* and a smaller ship the *Josiah*. "Distributing his forces with the skill of a sea-strategist," Captain Kidd dominated the Indian Ocean, with his munitions and stores drawn from a base in Madagascar. "All told the pirate fleet mounted 120 guns, and was manned by not less than 300 Europeans, of whom the great majority were Englishmen. . . A more formidable menace to peaceful shipping in the East could hardly have been created in that day." [Wright, 200-1.]
v5.c83.s8.40
Besides taking many of the E. I. Co.'s ships, he captured on 2nd February 1698, the *Queda Merchant*, 400 tons, bound from Bengal to Surat with a rich cargo worth 4 lakhs of Rupees belonging to Mukhlis Khan, one of the great nobles of the empire. But, by bribing the news-writer of Surat, Annesley for a time averted the Emperor's wrath on account of this piracy. Late in 1698, Chivers captured a fine ship with a cargo worth 14 lakhs belonging to Hassan Hamidan, a merchant of Jidda and Surat.
v5.c83.s8.41
§ 21. Englishmen at Surat again imprisoned, 1699.
v5.c83.s8.42
The English merchants of Surat could not escape any longer. The wise and upright collector of the port, Itimad Khan, had died in Feb. 1697 and had been succeeded (6 May) by Amanat Khan, an unscrupulous and rapacious tyrant. "It was useless to assert that the English were not to be identified with the pirates, when...many English seamen of the piratical craft were actually recognised by reliable native sailors as former servants of the E. I. Co.; it was equally purposeless to maintain that the marauders were merely outlaws...when the pirate commander [Kidd] sailed under the English colours and possessed authentic credentials" [from the Home Government.] (Wright, 209.)
v5.c83.s8.43
The Mughal Government, therefore, again applied strict coercion to the Surat factory. On 23rd Dec. 1698, a force of five or six hundred soldiers sent by the governor surrounded the factory and gave Annesley the ultimatum either to yield to the Emperor's demand for giving a bond to guard the sea against pirates or to leave the country in ten days. The Dutch and the French were similarly treated. Meantime the factories were segregated, and Indians who tried to communicate with them were bound and flogged by order of the governor.
v5.c83.s8.44
The Queda Merchant included in its cargo two lakhs of Rupees worth of goods, the private venture of the governor of Surat. Its capture naturally turned his heart against the English. In August 1698 came an imperial order that the English French and Dutch would be held responsible for all losses at sea and that the three nations should pay total damages amounting to 14 lakhs,—the English alone being charged two lakhs for the *Queda Merchant*.
v5.c83.s8.45
"Sir John Gayer wrote to the governor of Surat, refusing to pay anything for the past piracies or to engage the English alone to make good all future losses caused by the robbers at sea. But he offered to furnish convoys for Mokha ships as he had already done. The Dutch threatened to abandon the Surat trade rather than pay the damages."
v5.c83.s8.46
"Finally, the English French and Dutch agreed to act in concert to suppress piracy and signed bonds by which they jointly engaged to make good all future losses. . ." On receiving the agreement, Aurangzib reversed his embargo on European trade in the Mughal dominions, and he wrote to the Surat governor to settle the matter in his own way. In the terms of this agreement, "the Dutch convoyed the Mecca pilgrims and patrolled the entrance to the Red Sea, besides paying Rs. 70,000 to the governor of Surat, the English paid Rs. 30,000 and patrolled the South Indian seas, while the French made a similar payment and policed the Persian Gulf." [Madras Diary, 25 Apr. 1699 ; Wright, 232—239 ; Anderson 311 ; Biddulph, 51-53.]
v5.c83.s8.47
§ 22. The New English Company and the embassy of Sir W. Norris.
v5.c83.s8.48
The cup of misery of the E. I. Co. was soon to be filled to overflowing. On 8th April 1699 a new English Company was established at Surat, with Sir Nicholas Waite as President. The old Company's prestige with the local governor and trading class was lowered by the misrepresentations and unscrupulous intrigues of the agents of its rival, who stooped to every kind of meanness and dishonesty.
v5.c83.s8.49
Sir William Norris was sent out from England as the English king's ambassador to the Mughal Court in the interests of the new Company, in the hope of his repeating the success of Sir Thomas Roe's celebrated visit to Jahangir in 1615. Norris visited Aurangzib in the siege camp before Panhala (April 1701); there was an exchange of presents between the two Governments, but nothing was secured by the ambassador in return for his very expensive mission* and waste of sixteen months (27 Jan. 1701—18 April 1702). Aurangzib had demanded, as the price of a farman for the new Company's factories, that the English should give an undertaking to clear the pirates from the seas, while Norris knew it to be an impossible task.
v5.c83.s8.50
∗ Mission of Norris : Wright, 263-270; Akhbarat, 4 Apr., 28 May, 1 June, 1701; Storia do Mogor, iii. 298-307.
v5.c83.s8.51
§ 23. Confinement of Sir John Gayer, 1701-1707.
v5.c83.s8.52
Meantime, in February 1701, Sir John Gayer had been seized and imprisoned by Amanat Khan at Surat, through the machinations of Waite, who had procured an order from Aurangzib to that effect by bribing the Surat news-writer. Poor Gayer was kept in confinement for six years with only occasional intervals of liberty, and his enforced absence gained for Sir Nicholas Waite the governorship of Bombay of which he had been made the reversionary under orders from Home. "A return prepared in January 1702 showed that the captives numbered 109 persons, including 21 English officials of the Company...and 15 seamen. Their imprisonment varied in rigour according to the caprice of the governor." [Wright, 260-282.] Gayer's captivity ended only with his dismissal from the now united Company's governorship after the death of Aurangzib. (Ibid, 293-297.)
v5.c83.s8.53
On 28th August 1703 two ships of Surat, one belonging to Abdul Ghafur and another to Qasim-bhai, when returning from Mokha were captured by the pirates off Surat. The news of the outrage reached Surat on the 31st, and the governor, Itibar Khan, seized all the Indian brokers of the European Companies, and blockaded their factories, cutting off their food supply and every kind of communication with outside. The brokers of the French and of the new English Company were released, but those of the old English Company (Vittal and Keshav Parekh) were barbarously tortured. Three lakhs of Rupees were extorted by the governor from these two men, and three lakhs more from the brokers of the Dutch.
v5.c83.s8.54
In October 1703, seven Dutch ships arrived and blockaded the port, until February 1704, when the governor was glad to make an accommodation. The guards were withdrawn from the factories on 15th March.
v5.c83.s8.55
In this the governor had merely enforced the indemnity-bond which his predecessor Amanat Khan had extorted from the Europeans in February 1699 to the effect that they would stand security for any losses caused to Indian shipping by the pirates. Aurangzib, on hearing of it, disapproved of Itibar Khan's action and superseded him by Nejabat Khan. An imperial order was received on 8th March 1704, setting aside the agreement extorted in February 1699. A "letter by order" from the Court (dated February) closed the dispute, and the Surat merchants gave a written discharge of all their claims on the Europeans. [Storia, iii. 487-491.]
v5.c83.s8.56
But in truth there was no peace for the Europeans. The captivity of Sir John Gayer and his Council continued with the usual relaxations, under fresh orders from the Mughal Court in July 1704. The Dutch made reprisals by capturing a rich vessel bringing Indian pilgrims back from Mecca. Among them were Nur-ul-Haq (a son of the late Chief Qazi Abdul Wahab) and Fakhr-ul-Islam (evidently his nephew.) Both were held in high veneration by Aurangzib, the former being regarded as "a great saint." "Without ill-treating them, the captors sent a message to the governor of Surat calling on him to repay the money he had taken from them by force. On being paid, they would restore the ships." [Storia, iv. 62-63.]
v5.c83.s8.57
Aurangzib at last realised how helpless he was at sea and that he must make an unconditional surrender to the Europeans if his subjects were ever to make pilgrimages to Mecca. He instructed Nejabat Khan to secure the release of these two holy men and the other captives on any terms that he could get and forbade him to take indemnity-bonds from the Europeans in future. [Inayetullah's Ahkam, 17a.]