Who was Himmat Bahadur? Gosains, Rajputs and the British in Bundelkhand, ca. 1800

Indian Economic and Social History Review

Volumn 35, Issue 2, 1998, Pages 293-335

  Pinch, William R ^a  

^a WESLEYAN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 22444453297     PISSN: 00194646     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/001946469803500304     Document Type: Article

References (163)

1. Edited by Bhagvandin, second ed., Banaras-Kashi Nagaripracharani Sabha, n.d., but probably early 1920s.
2. See C.A. Bayly, Imperial Meridian: The British Empire and the World, 1780-1830, London, 1989, and, on military labour,
3. Seema Alavi, The Sepoys and the Company: Tradition and Transition in Northern India, 1770-1830, Delhi, 1995.
4. Harsh wounds for the man who would become Britain's first imperial cartographer. Major James Rennell to the Reverend Gilbert Burrington, then Vicar of Chudleigh, 30 August 1766, Mss. Eur. D. 1073, Oriental and India Office Collection, London (hereafter OIOC). An abbreviated version of the passage can be found in Hobson-Jobson: A Glossary of Colloquial Anglo-Indian Words and Phrases, and of Kindred Terms, Etymological, Historical, Geographical and Discursive, complied by Col. Henry Yule and A.C. Burnell, London, 1903, s.v. Sunyasee, p. 872.
5. Foreign Department, Secret Branch Proceedings, National Archives of India, New Delhi (hereafter NAI), nos 5 and 6, 21 January 1773.
6. For a blow-by-blow description of the campaigns, see J.M. Ghosh, Sanyasi and Fakir Raiders in Bengal, Calcutta, 1930:
7. A.K. Dasgupta, The Fakir and Sannyasi Uprisings, Calcutta, 1992, provides a useful summary and social-historical analysis.
8. Ironically, Francis Buchanan noted in 1811 that many naga sadhus of Bihar had found employment 'in the armies of the Rajas beyond the Yamuna', raising the starting possibility that many armed ascetics driven out of greater Bengal by Company arms by 1800 may have found service with Anupgiri in Bundelkhand, and then allied to and working for the Company after 1803. Buchanan, An Account of the Districts of Bihar and Patna in 1811-1812, 1934, rpt, New Delhi, 1986, Vol. 1, 375.
9. That literature, which I cite in the course of this article, is reviewed in D. Lorenzen, 'Warrior Ascetics in Indian History', Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 98, 1978, pp. 61-75.
10. Allahabad, n.d., but probably mid-1950s.
11. The problem of access is quite understandable, given that the amount known about the akharas, particularly by the state, has been indirectly proportional to their political and military autonomy - as is clear from the history recounted in the present article. As for reliability of sectarian evidence, Jadunath Sarkar, History of the Dasnami Naga Sanyasis, pp. 82-83, noted that the documents of the Dasnami akharas shown to him in the course of his research, though purported to be of great antiquity, were in his opinion no more than 50 years old.
12. The genealogy of this view is intricate and complicated and certainly predates Max Weber's theorisation of 'this-worldly' versus 'otherworldly' asceticism. See e.g., the writings of J.C. Oman in the early twentieth century, particularly The Mystics, Ascetics, and Saints of India: A Study of Sadhuism, with an Account of the Yogis, Sanyasis, Bairagis, and Other Strange Hindu Sectarians, London, 1903.
13. For a discussion of the evolution of official British apprehensions of Indian ascetics in the nineteenth century, see the introduction to Pinch, Peasants and Monks in British India, Berkeley, 1996.
14. See especially B.S. Cohn, 'The Role of the Gosains in the Economy of Eighteenth and Nineteenth-Century Upper India', The Indian Economic and Social History Review, Vol. 1, 1964, pp. 175-82;
15. D.H.A. Kolff, 'Sanyasi Trader-Soldiers', The Indian Economic and Social History Review, Vol. 8, 1971, pp. 213-20;
16. and C.A. Bayly, Rulers, Townsmen and Bazaars: North Indian Society in the Age of British Expansion, 1770-1870, Cambridge, 1983, pp. 125-44, 242.
17. Also emblematic of this tendency is Dasgupta, The Fakir and Sannyasi Uprisings, which focuses on economic and material causes.
18. For a discussion of the ideological importance of armed ascetics in nationalist and postnationalist India, see Pinch, 'Soldier Monks and Militant Sadhus', in David Ludden, ed., Contesting the Nation: Religion, Community, and the Politics of Democracy in India, Philadelphia, 1996, pp. 140-61.
19. Bhagvandin, introduction to Himmatbahadur Birdavali, p.v.
20. Nicholas Dirks, The Hollow Crown: Ethnohistory of an Indian Kingdom, Cambridge, 1987, and the important argument that in the process of rendering Indian princes militarily dependent on the British and certifying their royal legitimacy so as to incorporate them symbolically into colonial rule, the British severed the multiple cultural and social interstices that linked society to the royal lineages, thus rendering Indian royalty politically impotent.
21. For a comparative discussion of frontiers and 'ethnogenesis' in India and Europe, see Cynthia Talbot, 'Inscribing the Other, Inscribing the Self: Hindu-Muslim Identities in Pre-Colonial India', Comparative Studies in Society and History, Vol. 37 (4) October 1995 pp. 692-722, esp. 700-10.
22. Dirk H.A. Kolff, Naukar, Rajput and Sepoy: The Ethnohistory of the Military Labour Market in Hindustan, 1450-1850, Cambridge, 1992, chapter 4, esp. pp. 120-23, 140.
23. On the rival Rajput clans and Maratha influence in Bundelkhand, a useful summary is Tapti Roy, The Politics of a Popular Uprising: Bundelkhand in 1857, Delhi, 1994, pp. 78-82.
24. For the Marathas' incursions into the north generally in the eighteenth century, see Stewart Gordon, The Marathas, 1600-1818, Cambridge, 1994, chapter 5.
25. The stories of Anupgiri's childhood are described by Bhagvandin, ed., in Padmakar, Himmatbahadur Birdavali, pp. xix-xx, see also pp. 44-45, p. 7.
26. Sadanandgiri, Ankargiri, Narsinghgiri, Sotamgiri (of Anantpur), Bhimgiri, Santoshgiri, Sobhagiri, Narharnathgiri, Manohargiri, Chandangiri, Narayangiri, Sanathangiri, Dhyangiri, See Lala Bahadur Bhatt, 'Anupa Prakash', 1894, mss. Hin. D. 9 (b), OIOC, London,
27. If (this mss. is a rough prose version of Man Kavi, 'Anupa Prakasa', 1791-1792, mss. Hin. D. 9[a]).
28. W. Irvine, A History of the Bangash Nawabs of Farrukhabad, from 1713 to 1771 A.D., Calcutta, 1879, p. 79.
29. In addition to Sarkar (Roy), A History of Dasnami Naga Sanyasis, pp. 123-261 (based on a combination of Persian, Marathi, Hindi and English sources), a good summary (based mostly on Company correspondences)
30. is P.N. Bhalla, 'The Gosain Brothers', Journal of Indian History, Vol. 23 (2), August 1944, pp. 128-36.
31. Ghulam Ali Khan Naqawi, 'Imad us-Sa'adat (Aid to bliss), Lucknow, 1864, p. 84,
32. translated in Richard Barnett, North India Between Empires: Awadh, the Mughals, and the British, 1720-1801, Berkeley, 1980, pp. 56-57.
33. Barnett notes that the directness of the original Persian does not allow a printable translation; Roy's rendering in Sarkar, A History of the Dasnami Naga Sanyasis, p. 158, is a tad closer to the original: 'how could the kaffirs have so much liberty as to walk with their things and buttocks exposed (peshopas barhana kardah) before the Moslems'. In any case, the Gosains did in fact comply with Abdali's request, moved their tents to a polite distance, and, notwithstanding the Durrani affront, acquitted themselves well on the battlefield.
34. See Roy in Sarkar, A History of the Dasnami Naga Sanyasis, pp. 174-75.
35. An ascetic term describing Vaishnavas, analogous to gosain, meaning 'bereft of emotion'.
36. See F.S. Growse, Mathura: A District Memoir, 1882, rpt. New Delhi, 1993, pp. 307-8.
37. See James Lochtefeld, 'The Vishva Hindu Parishad and the Roots of Hindu Militancy', Journal of the American Academy of Religion, Vol. 42 (2), Summer 1994, pp. 593-98;
38. and Pinch, 'Soldier Monks and Militant Sadhus', pp. 154-56.
39. See Richard Burghart, 'The Founding of the Ramanandi Sect', Ethnohistory, Vol. 25 (2), Spring, 1978, p. 130.
40. On Anupgiri's alliance with Najaf Khan and its ramifications for the Jats and Balanand, see Sarkar (Roy), A History of Dasnami Naga Sanyasis, pp. 187-93 (the quote is from p. 193). According to Roy, Balanand 'quitted the service of the Jat Rajah presumably after the fall of Dig and entered the service of the Jaipure State'. The account here is confused somewhat by the tendency of the author to refer to both Anupgiri and Balanand's followers as 'Gosains'.
41. Sarkar (Roy), A History of Dasnami Naga Sanyasis, pp. 207-48,
42. and Bhalla, 'The Gosain Brothers'. This would follow Najaf's death in 1782. The swirl of intrigue and political murder that overtook the Delhi court during the next two-and-a-half years, as the Company envoy James Browne and Shinde (with whom Anupgiri was allied) vied for the mantle of Mughal authority, would eventually conclude with Shinde being appointed regent to the Mughal emperor in late 1784, thus handing the Company a bitter diplomatic and military defeat just when victory appeared assured.
43. Described in Sarkar (Roy), A History of Dasnami Naga Sanyasis, pp. 249-52;
44. and Sarkar, Fall of the Mughal Empire, Vol. 4, Delhi, 1992, pp. 7-11.
45. Letters from Bristowe to Calcutta, received 24 July (undated), 11 September (dated 22 August), 8 November (dated 11 October), and 20 November (dated 4 November) 1775, Bengal Secret and Military Consultations (hereafter BSMC), OIOC, serve as sufficient examples.
46. On the political and military dimensions of the relationship with the British residents at this time, see Barnett, North India Between Empires, chapters 3 and 4.
47. Bhalla, 'The Gosain Brothers', p. 130. Bhalla notes Hastings' own cognisance of Browne's distrust of Anupgiri, and the extent to which that distrust invariably tainted the intelligence that his envoy transmitted to Calcutta.
48. See, in particular, Anderson to Hastings, received 19 February (dated 1 February) 1785, BSMC; cf. Bhalla, 'The Gosain Brothers', p. 131.
49. C.A. Bayly remarks that Brooke 'was given to superabundant conspiracy theories' and describes how on one occasion he was duped by an Indian informant seeking to garner rewards for fabricated information. Bayly, Empire and Information: Intelligence Gathering and Social Communication in India, 1780-1870, Cambridge, 1996, p. 148.
50. Correspondence of Thomas Brooke at Benares with Major M. Shawe, Secretary to Lord Wellesley, 1803-1805, British Library, Department of Manuscripts, Add. Ms. 37, 281, ff. 228b-229f. Though he uses the term 'jagheer', Brooke refers to Anupgiri's Bundelkhandi jaidad (the right to collect revenues for the maintenance of troops) of 22 lakh rupees. See below, pp. 323-24.
51. Sarkar, Fall of the Mughal Empire, Vol. III, pp. 190-91. Sarkar's dim view of Anupgiri also reflects the Marathi and Persian sources upon which much of his magnum opus is based, which were written from the perspective of Anupgiri's employers who, to a man, sought to manipulate the Gosain but were themselves manipulated by him.
52. The quote is from Bhalla, 'The Gosain Brothers', p. 135,
53. but the sentiment is pervasive as well in Sarkar (Roy), History of the Dasnami Naga Sanyasis.
54. Sarkar (Roy), History of the Dasnami Naga Sanyasis, pp. 127-28, 156-57, 171-72.
55. Sarkar History of the Dasnami Naga Sanyasis Ibid., pp. 133-36, 161-62, 164-65. It would appear that Anupgiri was aware of the tactical deficiency of his forces, since he would engage in the 1790s with a European adventurer, John Mieselbach, to train his infantry according to European drill. I return to this point later.
56. An ethic of servitude was not restricted to Gosains and nagas: see Jos Gommans' recent description of the ghulam-shahi (royal slave) component of the Durrani Afghan army in the eighteenth century, in 'Indian Warfare and Afghan Innovation during the Eighteenth Century', Studies in History, n.s., Vol. 11(2), 1995, pp. 270-73.
57. Memoir of the Operations of the British Army in India, During the Mahratta War of 1817, 1818, & 1819, London, 1821. Emphasis added.
58. These were talents that he perfected in Najaf Khan's service, which served him well in the treacherous political and diplomatic landscape of the Delhi-Agra-Jaipur triangle in the late 1770s and early 1780s. See e.g., Sarkar (Roy), History of the Dasnami Naga Sanyasis, pp. 193-206.
59. See also D.H.A. Kolff, 'The End of an Ancien Régime: Colonial War in India, 1798-1818', in J.A. de Moor and H.L. Wesseling, eds, Imperialism and War: Essays on Colonial Wars in Asia and Africa, Leiden, 1989, esp. pp. 45-46;
60. for comparisons to Europe, see the discussion in Gommans, 'Indian Warfare', pp. 279-80.
61. See, for example, An Account of the Districts of Bihar and Patna, 1811-1812, Vol. 1, Patna, 1934, pp. 57-262;
62. An Account of the District of Shahabad, 1812-1813, Patna, 1934, pp. 51-151;
63. and 'An account of the Northern Part of the District of Gorakhpur, 1812', Mss. Eur. D. 91-92, Indian Office Library and Records, London, pp. 139-345. Given the dates for the Shahabad account, the true dates for Gorakhpur are probably 1813-1814.
64. Kautilya, Arthasastra, Mysore, 1929, esp. pp. 17-22, 159.
65. That that advice was heeded well into the nineteenth century, and even by the British (who came to fear more than value them), is clear from Bayly's recent study, Empire and Information, esp. pp. 69, 101-2, 106, 147, 194, 319-20.
66. The relevant arguments here are well known: Cohn ('The Role of the Gosains') notes that the privileged status of Gosains and their command of subcontinental pilgrimage routes enabled them to extend and diversify their institutional (monasterial) savings into urban landownership, moneylending, and trade in luxury goods in urban centres throughout the north. Kolff ('Sanyasi trader-soldiers') extends Cohn's argument to suggest that the monastic-business networks were also effective in supporting naga soldiering. Bayly (Rulers, Townsmen and Bazaars, esp. pp. 125-44), building on these arguments, emphasises the importance of military-trader ascetic orders in facilitating commercial and financial links between the increasingly regional political economies of the eighteenth century.
67. See also the discussion in Dasgupta, Fakir and Sannyasi Uprisings, pp. 24-27.
68. Sushobhan C. Sarkar, 'A Note on Puran Giri Gosain', Bengal Past & Present, Vol. 43, April-June 1932, pp. 83-87;
69. see also Jonathan Duncan, 'An Account of Two Fakeers, with their Portraits', Asiatic Researches, Vol. 5, 1808, pp. 45-46.
70. Buchanan's Dinajpur Account, in R. Montgomery Martin, The History, Antiquities Topography, and Statistics of Eastern India, Vol. 2, London, 1838, p. 517.
71. Bristowe to the Board, letters received 24 July 1775 (undated), 11 September 1775 (dated 22 August 1775), 8 January 1776 (dated 13 December 1775), and 8 April 1776 (dated 1 March 1776), BSMC.
72. See Bristowe to the Board, letters received 8 November 1775 (dated 11 October 1775) and 8 January 1776 (dated 13 December 1775), BSMC.
73. Bristowe to the Board, letters received 7 February 1776 (dated 26 January 1776) and 8 April 1776 (dated 1 March 1776), BSMC.
74. Bristowe to the Board, letters received 22 April 1776 (dated 9 April 1776), 13 June 1776 (dated 30 May 1776), and 8 July 1776 (dated 10 June 1776), BSMC.
75. Kolff, Naukar, Rajput and Sepoy, esp. pp. 3-17.
76. See, in particular, C.A. Bayly, 'The Pre-history of "Communalism?" Religious Conflict in India, 1700-1860', Modern Asian Studies, Vol. 19 (2), 1985, pp. 177-203,
77. and cf. his Empire and Information, ch. 5, 'The Indian Ecumene: An Indigenous Public Sphere';
78. for the pre-prehistory of this issue, see Talbot, 'Inscribing the Other, Inscribing the Self'.
79. The importance of the soldiering context should be emphasised here: for the contrast with earlier centuries, see Talbot, 'Inscribing the Other', esp. pp. 704-10. Anupgiri did in fact include Muslims in his entourage, most notably his wife at the time of his death, Fakhrun-Nissa Begam, and his long-term associate and advisor on legal, financial, and political matters, Waja-ud-din Khan. However, relatively little is known about either of these individuals.
80. On the different levels of discipline and self-negation necessary to wage war effectively through the ages, see John Keegan, The Face of Battle, London, 1976.
81. Also useful, on global historical dimensions of pre- and proto-modern infantry training, is the introduction to David B. Ralston, Importing the European Army: The Introduction of European Military Techniques and Institutions into the Extra-European World, 1600-1914, Chicago, 1990.
82. An important point here is that while individuals seem to have been able to adopt the mantles 'Afghan' or 'Rajput' or 'Maratha' (and the religious culture that went with those identities) with relative ease in the period before about 1700, after that date such terms gained political potency because they invoked increasingly elite, closed, military professional identities that could only be reproduced biologically. In addition to Kolff, Naukar, Rajput and Sepoy, see Jos Gommans, The Rise of the Indo-Afghan Empire, c. 1710-1780, Leiden, 1994,
83. and Gordon, The Marathas.
84. W.H. McLeod, The Evolution of the Sikh Community, Delhi, 1975, p. 13, observes that for Guru Gobind Singh (d. 1708) 'the characteristic name of God was sarab-loh, the "All-Steel"', and it is no accident that in the preparation for Sikh baptism the baptismal water is stirred with a two-edged sword. See also the many references to the sword in Textual Sources for the Study of Sikhism, ed., W.H. McLeod, Manchester, 1984, and, more generally, Lorenzen, 'Warrior Ascetics', for a theorisation of the genesis of the Sikh khalsa or 'army of the pure' in the seventeenth century as a phase of armed asceticism in Indian history.
85. A concise summary of this period is given in 'Papers Relative to Bundelkhand', British Library, Add. Mss. 13,591, 1f-9f.
86. Bhagvandin, the editor of Himmatbahadur Birdavali, claims (p. xxxi) that Arjun Singh was a Panwar Rajput, which could mean that he was a member of the dominant Panwar lineage centered in Ujjain and Malwa and heir to what Kolff calls the Rajput 'great tradition', or that he belonged to the less prestigious Panwar subgrouping within the extended Bundela clan. See Kolff, Naukar, Rajput and Sepoy, pp. 59, 121. The latter seems more likely, given that Arjun Sirigh's father was born and raised in northern Bundelkhand (Bhagvandin in Himmatbahadur Birdavali, p. xxxi). In either case, the ethnographic marker would have signified a proud military heritage.
87. On the rasika, or 'school of sweet devotion', genre, see Bhagwati Prasad Sinha, Ram Bhakti Mein Rasika Sampraday (The Rasika Sampraday in Ram Worship), Balrampur, 1957;
88. and Philip Lutgendorf, The Life of a Text: Performing the Ramcaritmanas of Tulsidas, Berkeley, 1991, pp. 310-21.
89. Himmatbahadur Birdavali, pp. 2-8 (selections from vv. 3-50).
90. Bhagvandin, Introduction to Himmatbahadur Birdavali, p.v. Bhagvandin is at a loss to explain Padmakar's shift in, allegiance, considering the many qualities that recommended Arjun Singh, and the conclusion to his lengthy introduction includes the lament that Padmakar had not chosen to commemorate the Rajput's earlier victory against Anupgiri in 1762. He offers a telling comparison between the Rajput and the Gosain (p. xxxvi): '1-Arjunsingh was a kshatriya, and a true kshatriya. Himmat Bahadur was the son of a Sanadhya Brahman beggar and the disciple of a thieving gosain. 2-Arjun was a kshatriya who was completely devoted to kshatriya patriotism. Himmat Bahadur was a brave brahman and a gosain devotee of Siva who served the foreigner and the irreligious yavana [barbarian, can also mean Muslim]. 3-Arjunsingh never begged the assistance of anyone, he always fought with his own personal strength and helped others. Himmat Bahadur always sought the aid of others. 4-Himmat Bahadur fought with his own self interest in mind, he wanted to establish his own state come what may. The villages and territories that Arjunsingh won in battle he always offered to his ward [Bhakta Singh], and if he had wanted he could have established a state at any time. 5-Even on his deathbed Himmat Bahadur was engaged in trickery and deceit, which for a man of courage and honour is a great sin. One hears nothing of this sort with respect to Arjunsingh. 6-Himmat Bahadur was a kind of traitor to his country. Arjunsingh was innocent of this treachery. Indeed, because he fought against a traitor we can speak of him as a lover of his country. As a result of all these points, the name of Arjunsingh is accorded such great respect that Himmat Bahadur's name pales in comparison'. One com-parison that Bhagvandin fails to make, of course, is that after 1792. Arjun Singh was dead and Anupgiri was, to put it bluntly, not dead.
91. Bhagvandin in Himmatbahadur Birdavali, p. xxxiv.
92. On Chandi or Candika, see C. Dimmitt and J.A.B. van Buitenen (eds), Classical Hindu Mythology: A Reader in the Sanskrit Puranas, Philadephia, 1978, pp. 220, 225. The following ode to the goddess from the Siva Purana (quoted on p. 220) captures the sentiment best: 'Smeared with the mire of demon blood and fat, ablaze with rays, May your sword be auspicious! O Candika, we bow to you!'
93. Ali Bahadur's father was the fifth son of Bajirao, named Shamsher Bahadur (b. 1734); his mother was Mastani, Baji Rao's Muslim mistress and the subject of local scandal, particularly when the Peshwa brought her into the household. See R.D. Palsokar, Bajirao I: An Outstanding Cavalry General, New Delhi, 1995, p. 53.
94. Indeed, according to an independent Bundelkhandi telling (related in Bhagvandin, Himmatbahadur Birdavali, pp. xxxi-xxxii), the end of Arjun Singh's dominance had been predicted by a sadhu whom Arjun Singh used to wait upon in his youth, who prophesied that the Rajput would rise to great fame and win three important battles, only to be killed in the fourth (the battle against Anupgiri) by a member of Arjun Singh's clan. The contrast with Padmakar's assertion that Anupgiri himself killed Arjun Singh is significant insofar as it suggests that united Rajput dominance in Bundelkhand was under strain well prior to Anupgiri's arrival in 1790.
95. Some sources identify Mieselbach as the recently arrived Dutch soldier of fortune and nephew of the chief of the Dutch Chinsurah Factory, one Mr Heining; see 'Papers Relative to Bundelkhand', British Library Add. Mss. 13,591, 5b; and 'Correspondence of Thomas Brooke at Benares with Major M. Shawe, Secretary to Lord Wellesley, 1803-1805', British Library Add. Mss. 37, 281, 205f; other sources identify him as a Dane (most notably, Bhalla, 'The Gosain Brothers', 136). This latter impression is probably based on the fact that he retired to the Danish settlement at Serampore after 1807 and died there in 1819. Hence W.R. Pogson, History of the Boondelas, 1828, rpt, New Delhi, 1974), p. 126, erroneously quotes Mieselbach's obituary in the Government Gazette, Calcutta, 28 October 1819, to the effect that Mieselbach was a Dane. (Bhalla also cites the Government Gazette obituary, but does not misquote it.) The notice in the Government Gazette in fact makes no mention of Mieselbach's nationality, but does note that 'the Danish flag was hoisted half-mast high on the occasion' of his death. According to 'Papers Relative to Bundelkhand' (5b) and 'Correspondence of Thomas Brooke' (205f), Mieselbach signed on with Anupgiri and Ali Bahadur in 1792-1793, just after the battle against Arjun Singh, to assist in the subsequent siege of Kalinjar. Mieselbach's career path is further confused by the assertion in the Government Gazette that he was in the service of Anupgiri for 18 years. Mieselbach remained in Anupgiri's employ until 1804, the year of the Gosain's death; if the Government Gazette's (admittedly loose) assertion is to believed, he entered Anupgiri's service in 1786 - when Anupgiri was involved in intrigues in Delhi. However, the earliest mention of Mieselbach that I have seen is in official Company correspondences of 1795, according to which the adventurer and four other Europeans (two of whom, named Arnott and Bellasis, were said to have been in Company employ) entered Bundelkhand in March to seek their fortunes in the service of Indian princes. See C.W. Malet, Resident at Poona, to John Shore, Governor-General, no. 4 of 17 April [dated 25 March 1795], Bengal Political Consultations (hereafter BPC), OIOC; and W. Palmer, resident with Scindia, to Shore, no. 18 of 12 June 1795 [dated 28 May 1795], BPC. They first appeared to join with the Bundela Rajputs of Kalinjar, led by Dhokub Singh; however, they soon found themselves completely outnumbered and surrounded by Ali Bahadur's men. Mieselbach, not unwisely, decided to switch sides (G.T. Cherry, Resident at Lucknow, to Shore, no. 16 of 21 September 1795 [dated 10 September 1795], BPC). The fate of Bellasis and the other three men is unknown, but it is likely they followed suit. This, then, appears to be the route by which Mieselbach eventually came to Anupgiri's attention.
96. Palmer to Shore, no. 18 of 12 June 1795 (dated 28 May 1795), BPC. According to one observer ('Papers relative to Bundelkhand', 96f), however, this fear was misplaced with regard to Mieselbach: 'For some years past one battalion has been placed under the charge of Mr Misselbeck, but has not yet attained any great degree of discipline'.
97. 'Papers relative to Bundelkhand', 95b-96f.
98. See the discussion of polity and peasantry in Kolff, Naukar, Rajput and Sepoy, esp. p. 27.
99. G. Mercer to Edmonstone, Shahpore, no. 9 of 3 March 1804 (dated 5 September 1803), Bengal Secret and Political Consultations (hereafter BSPC). The description of Anupgiri's troop strength also comes from this letter.
100. Pogson, History of the Boondelas, p. 121, n. 105.
101. Wm. Scott, Resident at Lucknow, to N.B. Edmonstpne, Secretary to Government, Secret Political, and Foreign Departments, no. 26 of 16 September 1802 (dated 26 August 1802), BPC.
102. The amicable relations that prevailed between Anupgiri and Ghani Bahadur is reflected in a letter of late August 1803 from Anupgiri to Ahmuty, no. 15B of 3 March 1803 (undated, but received 26 August 1803), BSPC.
103. 'Translation of a paper of intelligence from the camp of Zoolfekaur Ally Khan son of the late Nawaub Ally Behaudur, dated the 24 and 25 of Rubbee us Sauni, corresponding with the 24th and 25th of August 1802', no. 28 of 16 September 1802, BPC. My interpretation of this event differs substantially from that of Bhalla. 'The Gosain Brothers', pp. 133-34, who (citing the same source) felt that Anupgiri conspired with Ghani Bahadur in placing the child on the throne. Rather, I would argue that Anupgiri was hedging his bets, waiting to learn of the intentions of the Peshwa and to see whether Shamsher Bahadur would depart for Bundelkhand so as to stake his claim. The passage cited above continues thus, in case there is any doubt about Anupgiri's intentions: 'The Rajah replied [to the statement by the Begum Chanda Bhani] that since, were the Musnud to continue vacant, the military and civil affairs would get into confusion, he consented to the measure of placing Zoolfekar Ally on the Musnud, until his eldest brother should arrive from Poona, who would then assume the reins of Government'.
104. Mieselback to Ahmuty, no. 160 of 22 June 1803 (dated 1 June 1803), BSPC. Mieselbach notes Anupgiri's concern in this letter that nearly six months had passed since his earlier communication with Ahmuty and the Governor-General, which would place the original contact in January.
105. In Mieselbach's words: 'While I was sitting with the Rajah an express by couple of Jassoos arrived from Dowlut Row Sindia's camp with a letter for the Rajah and one for Gunnee Behadur. The contents of which was as follows: That Dowlut Row, Holkar, and Nagpore Rajah all combined together that they will have an army about 200,000 horsemen, and 12 brigades to face the English Army, and Nizam's now at Deccan, and that he had sent off about 5,000 pindarrahs and 3,000 horsemen with six battalions: Jasseby to stay with the Bhow to be in readiness in that Quarter, and also had wrote to General Peron to combine with the Seiks and that the Rajah and Gunnee to be in readiness in this part should the war be proclaimed, so that it is his wish to face and attack the English from all Quarters. I asked the Rajah if I might write to you on this subject, his answer to me was that I might do as I please, but not in his name; I asked him for the copy of the letter he had received but he declined giving it fearing it might be sent by the English to Dowlut Row Scindia.' Mieselback to Ahmuty, no. 160 of 22 June 1803 (dated 1 June 1803), BSPC. He would add in a letter to Ahmuty the following day, 2 June 1803 (no. 161 of 22 June 1803, BSPC), that '5,000 pindaries with 3,000 Horsemen are ordered to join Himmut Bahadur, and Gunnee Behadhur is commanded by Durram Row Pundit to begin to make depredations into the Company's dominions'. For the lay of the land in 1803, see Sarkar, Fall of the Mughal Empire, Vol. 4, pp. 221, 235.
106. William Scott, Resident at Lucknow, to Edmonstone, no. 45 of 22 September 1803 (dated 27 August 1803), BSPC; 'Translation of a paper of intelligence from Kalinjer dated the 4th of Jemmadi ul Awul 1218 Hij. corresponding with the 23rd of August 1803', no. 46 of 22 September 1803, BSPC. For Shamsher's arrival, see Ahmuty to Edmonstone, no. 25 of 28 July 1803 (dated 11 July 1803), BSPC.
107. See Pogson, A History of the Boondelas, p. 123.
108. See, for example, Edmonstone to Colonel Collins, Resident with Shinde, no. 163 of 22 June 1803 (dated 18 June 1803), BSPC. An intriguing measure of the precise value of that particular item of intelligence to British strategic designs during the middle months of 1803 is afforded by correspondence between Mieselbach and Governor-General Barlow five years later, following the announcement that the pension of the Dutch adventurer had been set at a paltry Rs 300 per month. In a breathtakingly long letter to Barlow, dated 4 June 1807 (no. 7 of 19 June 1807, BPC), Mieselbach lamented the amount, compared it unfavourably to remunerations whilst in Anupgiri's employ, and enumerated the many considerable services he had rendered to the Company, first and most important among which was the intelligence that he transmitted in June of 1803 regarding the amassing of Maratha troops. Barlow promptly issued his opinion, no. 11 of 19 June 1807, that Mieselbach's service was indeed unusually remarkable and hence he was due a revised pension of Rs 1,000 per month.
109. Edmonstone to Mercer, no. 2 of 3 March 1803 (dated 22 July 1803), BSPC.
110. G. Mercer to Edmonstone, Shahpore, no. 9 of March 1804 (dated 5 September 1803), BSPC.
111. The terms are spelled out in a wajib al-arz of that date, no. 11 of 3 March 1804, BSPC.
112. The exact value of the jaidad would be a matter of contention, with estimates ranging from 18 lakhs to 22 lakhs. See esp. no. 103 of 17 May 1804, BSPC, a schedule of the mahals and their contested values drawn up by Captain John Baillie.
113. Ahmuty to Mercer, no. 17 of 3 March 1804 (dated 15 September 1803), BSPC.
114. Powell to Mercer, no. 60 of 3 March 1804 (dated 15 October 1803). BSPC.
115. Ahmuty to Mercer, no. 28 of 3 March 1804 (dated 28 September 1803); and Ahmuty to Mercer, no. 30 of 3 March 1804 (dated 5 October 1803), BSPC. In the first letter, from Banda, Ahmuty informs Mercer (who is near Agra with Lake) of his illness and begs to be allowed to return to Allahabad; in the second, written from Allahabad, Ahmuty informs him of the increased fever and his decision to return to that city on his own accord. On Baillie's appointment, see Mercer to Baillie, no. 79 of 3 March 1804 (dated 20 October 1803), BSPC.
116. Powell to Mercer, no. 85 of 3 March 1804 (dated 22 October 1803), BSPC.
117. Powell to Major Armstrong (with Lake at Agra), no. 75 of 3 March 1804 (dated 18 October 1803), BSPC. In a letter to Mercer the previous day, no. 76 of 3 March 1804, BSPC, he had noted that 'they one and all refuse to have any kind of settlement transacted through the medium of the Rajah'.
118. Powell to Mercer, no. 85 of 3 March 1804 (dated 22 October 1803), BSPC. Powell's open disdain for Anupgiri would earn him a formal censure from Wellesley (Edmonstone to Powell, no. 88 of 3 March 1804 [dated 16 November 1803], BSPC).
119. His assessment of Anupgiri's intentions can be seen in Baillie to Mercer, paragraph 8 of no. 126 of 3 March 1804 (dated 18 November 1803), BSPC.
120. Private letter from Baillie to Mercer, included as no. 109 of 17 May 1804 (dated 5 April 1804), BSPC. Baillie elaborates in a letter to Mercer, no. 234 of 21 June 1804 (dated 6 June 1804), BSPC: 'I could never induce him to submit a muster roll of his forces, nor could I form a correct estimate of their number, from the circumstance of a large proportion of them being constantly employed in the collection of the revenue of his jaidad, but I have now reason to be convinced that the number of his cavalry has never exceeded 2,500 and that these with the three battalions of infantry of 1,500 men commanded by Colonel Meisilback and occasional levies of matchlockmen employed in the collections have uniformly constituted the whole of the rajah's force'.
121. Baillie to Mercer, no. 102 of 17 May 1804 (dated 23 March 1804), BSPC.
122. Private letter from Baillie to Mercer, no. 109 of 17 May 1804 (dated 5 April 1804), BSPC. Baillie adds that, to add insult to injury, 'The Rajah went on collecting in the districts which he assigned to us'. Indeed, according to Mieselbach, when the Dutchman had informed Ahmuty of these sundry details, presumably before the letter's illness removed him from the province, Ahmuty's reply was, 'We must please the Rajah until we get rid of the Nawab [Shamsher Bahadur]'. This introduces the possibility that Ahmuty was colluding with Anupgiri in some loose manner, and that he had departed the province under the cover of fever so as to escape the glare of Powell's discomfiting inquiries.
123. W.D. Fawcett to J. Gerard, 93 of 21 June 1804 (dated 1 June 1804), BSPC.
124. Mercer to Ahmuty, para. 6 of no. 44 of 3 March 1804 (dated 8 October 1803), BSPC.
125. Baillie to Mercer, para. 8 of no. 109 of 3 March 1804 (dated 9 November 1803), and no. 176 of 3 March 1804 (dated 14 December 1803), BSPC. In the December letter, for example, he notes: 'his [Anupgiri's] conduct upon this occasion has added to the many proofs which I possess; and which have been submitted to His Excellency the Commander-in-Chief as the grounds of my entire conviction, that exclusively of the assistance in the department of supply which the presence of the Rajah has afforded, and of the services of Colonel Meiselback at present in the southern districts of Boondelcund, our connexion with this chieftain will in no degree secure to us the beneficial effects which might have been justly expected from the favourable terms which were originally granted to him. His failure on the present occasion however, will furnish an additional instrument of the success of my negociation [sic] hereafter for the relinquishment of his Jaidad, and I shall not fail to apply it in the manner but calculated to accomplish His Excellency's views'.
126. Private letter from Mercer to Baillie, included as no. 108 of 17 May 1804 (dated 30 March 1804), BSPC.
127. Baillie to Mercer, no. 137 of 5 July 1804 (dated 2 June 1804), BSPC. This letter is catalogued out of order, and should precede no. 232 of 21 June 1804, Emphasis added.
128. Baillie to Mercer, no. 232 of 21 June 1804 (dated 4 June 1804), BSPC. In this letter, Baillie makes reference to a private letter to Mercer of 3 June, which unfortunately is not included in the consultations volume.
129. Baillie to Mercer, no. 232 of 21 June 1804 (dated 4 June 1804), BSPC. Emphasis added. One need only compare the italicised portion of this extract with that in the previous paragraph to appreciate Baillie's remarkably dextrous powers of interpretation in the service of Company interests.
130. Baillie to Mercer, para. 5 of no. 234 of 21 June 1804 (dated 6 June 1804), BSPC.
131. Baillie to Mercer, no. 72 of 5 July 1804 (dated 21 June 1804), BSPC.
132. Lt. Col. A. Kyd to Col. W. Scott, no. 71 of 24 June 1802 (dated 23 July 1802 [sic, should be 1801]), BSPC.
133. Baillie to Mercer, no. 234 of 21 June 1804 (dated 6 June 1804), BSPC.
134. The widow of Rajah Himmat Bahadur to Baillie, no. 235 of 21 June 1804 (received 6 June 1804), BSPC.
135. Naga service under the British in Bundelkhand was not without its ups and downs, however. See in particular, Baillie to Mercer, no. 319 of 7 March 1805 (dated 13 August 1804), BSPC.
136. See e.g., Baillie to Edmonstone, No. 8 or 26 February 1807 (dated 14 February 1807), BPC and J. Richardson to Edmonstone, 32 of 4 January 1808 (dated 18 December 1807), BPC; cf. Seema Alavi, 'The Company Army and Rural Society: The Invalid Thana, 1780-1830', Modern Asian Studies, Vol. 27 (1), 1993, pp. 147-78,
137. and Alavi, The Sepoys and the Company.
138. On that world, see D.H.A. Kolff, 'The End of an Ancien Régime'.
139. See e.g., the extensive correspondences included as enclosures in J. Wauchope to J. Adams, no. 85 of 4 July 1815 (dated 18 May 1815), BPC.
140. See, in particular, correspondences concerning his role in the Vizier Ali plot: G.H. Barlow, Secretary to Government, to Samuel Davis, Magistrate of Benares, no. 3 of 13 May 1799 (undated by possibly 13 May 1799), no. 11 of 3 June 1799 (dated 28 May 1799), and, most notably J.H. Craig to D. Vanderheyden, no. 7 of 20 August 1799 (undated), Bengal Separate and Secret Consultations (stored with BSPC), where reference is made to 'Raja Rajinder Gheer Ghossein, more usually known by the name of Rajah Omrau Gheer'.
141. Lala Bahadur Bhatt, prose rendering of Man Kavi, 'Anupa Prakasa', 1.
142. Baillie to Mercer, no. 232 of 21 June 1804 (dated 4 June 1804), BSPC.
143. The widow of Rajah Himmat Bahadur to Baillie, no. 235 of 21 June 1804 (received 6 June 1804), BSPC. Emphasis added. The events surrounding the transfer of Anupgiri's heirs to the jagir near Kanpur, and the travails of his family there over the next four decades, give some indication that the begam, though she played along, was soon weary of the drama. While an examination of the fate of the gosains in Sivarajpur'over the next four decades is beyond the scope of this article, an interesting feature of the discussions concerning that fate is the ways in which British officials involved adjudged the merits of various claims according to the standard of a 'biological family'. Hence, different officials would attach different legal weight to whether an individual was the actual biological offspring or 'adopted' (i.e., a chela, though the chelas were soon careful to describe themselves legally as 'adopted' children), favouring the former in disputes. By the 1840s, when officials were adjudicating the inheritance of the estate after Narindragiri's death, legitimacy as natural-born heirs depended on whether both parents were of the same religion. In all of this can be seen the further refinements of political and biological legitimacy according to official convenience that would evolve into the contentious 'Doctrine of Lapse'. I am grateful to Dr Seema Alavi for bringing to my attention in a conversation of early 1995 the significance of the shifting family rhetoric in the context of the gosains at Sivarajpur.
144. See nos 5 and 6 of 21 January 1773, Foreign Department, Secret Branch Proceedings, NAI.
145. On the subalternity of elites, see Partha Chatterjee, The Nation and Its Fragments: Colonial and Postcolonial Histories, Princeton, 1993, pp. 35-37. Of course, anyone who has read Thomas Broughton's description of Kamptagiri's arrival at Daulatrao Shinde's camp with 1,500 armed nagas in 1809 (Letters Written in a Maratha Camp, London, 1813, p. 129) will know that many of Anupgiri's followers were unwilling to give up the life of military entrepreneurship and settle down in the jagir near Sivarajpur. Kamptagiri was a disciple of Kanchangiri, who himself would for a short time (with Narindragiri and the Begam in tow) seek service beyond the Company's dominions. But that, along with the travails of the family/disciples near Kanpur, including the participation of some Sivarajpur gosains in the revolt of 1857, are the subjects of another essay.
146. Cf. Dirks, The Hollow Crown.
147. On the theatre of the kumbh, particularly in the nineteenth century, see my 'Soldier Monks and Militant Sadhus', pp. 155-56.
148. References has already been made to Bankim's Anandamath; see, as well, J. McLane, Indian Nationalism and the Early Congress, Princeton, 1977, esp. chapter 11,
149. and Peter Heehs, The Bomb in Bengal: The Rise of Revolutionary Terrorism in India, 1900-1910, Delhi, 1994.
150. This verse is cited in Farquhar, 'The Fighting Ascetics of India', p. 439;
151. Ghosh, Sanyasi and Fakir Raiders in Bengal, p. 13;
152. and Lorenzen, 'Warrior Ascetics in Indian History', p. 61, who begins his essay with it. Lorenzen also points out that though the verse is included in the Bijak of Kabir, it was probably composed after the 'first' battle of Panipat (1526) and the large-scale introduction of firearms into India. I have altered slightly the English rendering of the verse by Lorenzen.
153. By hook and by crook, but not once and for all: significantly, another, perhaps more coherently articulated (or at least more coherently remembered, given the importance of state-building for historical documentation and national memory) armed asceticism had begun to take political and territorial shape in the late 1790s in the Panjab (another important north Indian buffer region, in a game with greater stakes) under Ranjit Singh. The British would not have to deal with Sikh khalsa military culture until the 1830s, and the colonial solution to the problem that that martial identity posed for British Indian empire, for better or for worse, was to be found in the encouragement and co-optation of Sikh khalsa ideals into the culture of imperial arms. See McLeod, Evolution of the Sikh Community,
154. cf. Richard Fox, Lions of the Punjab: Culture in the Making, Berkeley, 1985.
155. One could even argue that the potency of Gandhi's non-violent asceticism was dialectically dependent on martial (or violent) asceticism.
156. See Kolff, Naukar, Rajput and Sepoy.
157. For the verse translations, see W. Douglas P. Hill, The Holy Lake of the Acts of Rama: An English Translation of Tulsi Das's Ramacaritamanasa, Oxford, 1952, pp. 72-81;
158. also useful, for comparing Hill to the Hindi original, is Sri Ramacharitamanasa, Gorakhpur, 1968, pp. 135-50. This derision occurs in portion of the Balakanda text where, roughly speaking, we would expect to learn about the travails of Vasishta and Viswamitra - ancient sages skilled in the arts of war in Valmiki's Ramayana. A full discussion of these texts in relation to military asceticism can be found in my 'Subaltern Sadhus? Political Ascetics in Indian Myth, Memory, and History', Walter Hauser Festschrift, University of Virginia, 24-25 May 1997 (accessible on the web at http://www.virginia. edu/~soasia/symsem/kisan/papers/sadhus.html). See esp. section 5, 'Discipline, Devotion, and the Ascetic Armed'.
159. J.W. Anderson to Hastings, Sindia's camp at Muttrah, dated 10 May (recorded in proceedings 26 May 1785), BSMC.
160. Hill, Holy Lake, pp. 75-76.
161. See Louis Dumont, 'World Renunciation in Indian Religions', Contibutions to Indian Sociology, Vol. 4, 1960;
162. later published as Appendix B to Dumont, Homo Hierarchicus: The Caste System and Its Implications, rev. ed., Chicago, 1980, pp. 267-86.
163. It is impossible to say how many. Certainly he was not the first orphan to be 'adopted' by a sadhu and to become widely known for his activities on the margins of a monastic order. See my 'History Devotion, and the Search for Nabhadas of Galta', presented at 'The Place of the Past: Uses of History in South Asia', School of Oriental and African Studies, London, 16-18 April 1997.