Fall of the Mughal Empire v4.c55.s11: § 13. George Thomas as "the Irish Rajah" fights Sikhs and Bhātis
Fall of the Mughal Empire v4.c55.s11
- Language
- English
§ 13. George Thomas as "the Irish Rajah" fights Sikhs and Bhātis
v4.c55.s11.1
We shall now briefly trace the history of Thomas as "the Irish Rajah." On returning from Bikāner, he laid siege to Gokulgarh, a fort two miles from Rewāri and belonging to Sindhiā's local governor (late in September 1798.) It proved too strong a place for him. Early in November he was out on foray again. Leaving his camp at Bahādur-garh, he attacked Bhāg Singh, the Rajah of Jind, on being bribed by a dispossessed jāgirdār whose fief had been transferred to another man. His impetuous assault on Jind was repulsed with loss, and many other Sikh sardārs having now arrived to aid the Jind Raja, Thomas was forced into the defensive. The siege lasted for three months, out at last at the end of February 1799, he had to abandon the attempt and return to Hānsi, harassed by the Sikhs and the peasantry on the way. A peace was patched up, each side recognising the *status quo*. (March).
v4.c55.s11.2
Meantime Lakhwā Dādā, as the champion of Mahādji Sindhiā's widows, had risen against Daulat Rao's authority. But the loyal general Ambāji Inglé hired Thomas's force for half a lakh of Rupees a month, and the two together marched out of Kanud (*c.* 15 April 1799) to fight Lakhwā in Ajmir and Mewār. This campaign has been described in the history of Lakhwā Dādā (Ch. 43 § 6.) On 2nd November, Ambāji terminated the service of Thomas, who returned to Hānsi.
v4.c55.s11.3
In the middle of January 1800, Thomas invaded Patiālā at the call of princess Sāhib Kaur, who had been thrown into prison by her worthless brother, the Rajah of that State. Thomas took much plunder there and promptly returned to besiege Sirsā,* a fort belonging to the Muslim Bhāti tribe and to plunder the landholders. In July we find his contingent raised to "seven battalions of infantry, 500 cavalry, 20 field pieces of artillery and four howitzers, the whole well-equipped, regularly paid, and in strict subordination." (PRC. ix. 2, 3, 19.) His seven months campaign in the Bhāti country and capture of Bhātner brought him much wealth.
v4.c55.s11.4
∗ In the last year of his career, 1801, he was joined by two other European captains, Birch and Hopkins, and the young Eurasian Hyder Jang Hearsey, who had left Perron's brigades. Two European sergeants are also mentioned as under him.
v4.c55.s11.5
Next year, the princess Sāhib Kaur renewed hostilities against her brother, and Thomas again invaded Patiālā to support her, (beginning to January 1801.) This expedition has been magnified by himself and his biographers into a grand attempt for "the conquest of the Punjab and planting the British standard on the banks of the Attock" (i.e., the Indus.) At first his progress could not be checked, as the Sikh sardārs were disunited and torn by mutual jealousy. But in time the whole Khālsa force of that region came together, enveloped the invader, and cut him off from his base (end of March 1801). Thomas with great dexterity, took advantage of the internal dissensions of the Sikh forces and beat a hurried retreat to his dominions in safety, (April).†
v4.c55.s11.6
∗ Sirsā, in the Hisār district; but its territory has now been divided between the Hisar and Ferozpur districts of the Panjab. Sirsā fort is 50 m. n.w. of Hisar town.
v4.c55.s11.7
† The above account, based on Francklin, has been corrected by the Patiala historian, Prof. S. N. Banerji, after work on the records of that State and the Government of India. His conclusions are— Thomas's first raid led to prolonged desultory fighting, from Nov. 1799 to May 1800. The second raid began about January 1801 and ended with his retreat in March or April. The third incursion affected only the fringe of Patiala territory on the side of the Ghaggar river, and ended in June 1801; it was not actuated by any chivalrous desire to rescue the Princess. H. Compton's date for the death of Sāhib Kaur (15 Sep. 1801) has been accepted by both of us, as the alternative (year 1799) given by Lepel Griffin is not supported by any contemporary record, and is merely entered in a modern official note in the Patiala record office, which may have been taken from Griffin without verification. [PRC. ix. 241, 248-249.]