IMPERIAL HISTORIOGRAPHY: ANALYSIS OF EDWARD EASTWICKS DRY LEAVES FROM YOUNG EGYPT: BEING A GLANCE AT SINDH BEFORE THE ARRIVAL OF SIR CHARLES NAPIER

History of Sindh (1843-1947)Dr.Nasreen AfzalCourse No. 771

Submitted By:Arwa JuzarM.Phil General History

Abstract

Accounts of India written during the colonial period are primarily by the colonials themselves, are often colored by their own prejudices and experiences. Colonel E. B. Eastwick, an employee in the British East India Company, wrote his own account of his travels in Sindh by the name of Dry Leaves in Young Egypt being a glance at Sindh before the arrival of Sir Charles Napier, which covers the period of 1839 from the time the writer arrives in Sindh to his departure and the events that led to the annexation of Sindh by the British. This paper examines critically his account in order to judge whether his book fits the mold of Imperial Historiography. Through a thorough summary and analysis we see that though the writer was sympathetic to the local rulers and the people and as he professes in the preface, had written this book primarily to plead the case of the Amirs of Sindh, his allegiances to the Company and the British Empire shine through. The author as a member of the imperialistic class cannot help but view the people and area under those percepts and his own position prevents this account from being only a plea for the Amirs and to bring their plight to the general public.Keywords: Accounts of India, Bias, Dry Leaves, Eastwick, Imperial Historiography, Sindh (annexation)

Dry Leaves from Young Egypt: Being a Glance at Sindh before the Arrival of Sir Charles Napier By an Ex-Political, E.B. Eastwick, London, James Madden, 1839

IntroductionImperial History or histories written by colonizers are part of a huge body of literature that sheds light on the working and mechanism of the huge empires of the eighteenth and nineteenth century. They also show the colonial view of culture and society of the indigenous people which is valuable in understanding not only the mindset of the colonizers but the way they interacted with the people they ruled. The motivations and aspirations of the authors who are often members of the political or military office offer an important insight to the reader of today. Reading such works, one has to be careful not to be biased against or in favor of them for this is a trap very easily succumbed to. British writers in India wrote a great deal of literature primarily travel accounts and novels. These travel accounts are very illuminating for their colorful descriptions of the Empire and the colonial view. British Orientalists, the postcolonial claim goes, asserted that India lacked historical consciousness either because it has remained unchanged and static or that Indians are themselves unreflective and incurious by nature. Evidence for both these claims is legion the histories of India by James Mill (17731836) and Vincent Smith (1848-1920) are often cited, as are the works of administrators or thinkers from Robert Clive (17251774) to Warren Hastings (17321818) to Karl Marx (18181883) to Charles Napier (17861860) and everyone in between and after. Alexander Dow writes in his preface to A History of Hindostan, a translation of Firsihtas Tarikh-e-Hind, Though our author has given the title of the History of Hindostan to his work, yet it is rather that of the Mahommedan Empire in India, than a general account of the affairs of the Hindoos. What he says concerning India, prior to the first invasion of the Afgan Mussulmen, is very far from being satisfactory. He collected his accounts from Persian authors, being altogether unacquainted with the Sanscrita or learned language of the Brahmins, in which the internal history of India is comprehended. We must not therefore, with Ferishta, consider the Hindoos as destitute of genuine domestic annals, or that those voluminous records they possess are mere legends framed by the Brahmins. The prejudices of the Mahommedans against the followers of the Brahmin religion seldom permit them to speak with common candour of the Hindoos. It swayed very much with Ferishta, when he affirmed that there is no history among the Hindoos of better authority than the Mahabarit. That work is a poem, not a history: It was translated into Persian by the brother of the great Abul Fazil rather as a performance of fancy, than as an authentic account of the ancient dynasties of the Kings of India. But that there are many hundred volumes in prose in the Shanscrita language, which treat of the ancient Indians, the translator can, from his own knowledge, aver, and he has great reason to believe, that the Hindoos carry their authentic history farther back into antiquity than any other nation now existing. (Dow 1768)E.B. Eastwick (1814-1883) was an Orientalist and diplomat, best known for his translations of many works from Indian and Persian languages. Eastwick was born to a family with a long history of service in theBritish East India Company. After graduating from Oxford he joined the Bombay infantry as a cadet in 1836. While in India, he acquired an extensive knowledge of Indian and other oriental languages, and passed an exam as an interpreter with a high grade. His linguistic abilities in Oriental languages soon enabled him to leave the army and establish himself in civil and political employment. Ill health, however, forced him to return to Europe in about 1842. He spent some time in Frankfurt where he diligently studied linguistics. He was appointed Professor of Urdu by the East India Company at their private college at Hailey bury in Hertfordshire in September 1845, and remained there until the abolition of the college in 1857. He later was appointed assistant political secretary at the India Office of the East India Company.Eastwick wrote this book, Dry Leaves from Young Egypt: Being a Glance at Sindh before the Arrival of Sir Charles Napier, in 1839 as a way to plead the case of the Amirs of Sindh, who he felt had been gravely mistreated at the hands of the British. This book is a memoir of his journey and arrival in Sindh and his duties as well as his personal observations of the area, people, rulers and the flora and fauna. He writes this book after the accounts of annexation of Sindh had already been written by other British officers such as James Outram and Sullivan who had also been involved in the events themselves. The book is divided into twelve chapters and five appendices. His book can be considered as a piece of propaganda.The official account of the annexation of Sindh was published in the First and Second Sindh Blue Book of the East India Company. Another book The Conquest of Sindh had already been published by Sir Charles Napiers brother William Napier and a Commentary on the book Conquest of Sindh by James Outram who was outraged at the accusations leveled against him by the Napiers and wanted to vindicate his own actions. It was after this that Eastwick decided to write to plead the case of the Amirs as he felt that each person involved in the Sindh issue was looking out for their own interests and not of those who had been truly wronged.

Historical EventsThe year, 1839, in which Eastwick begins his account was a momentous year especially for the British Empire. The First Opium War began in China while the First Anglo-Afghan War began in India. From 1818 to 1839 the British had been consolidating their rule in India. V.A. Smith says, During these years the foundations of modern India were being laid and the seeds were being sown of that Indo-British cultural synthesis which later provided the inner force of the Indian national movement. There followed ten years of successive wars, each leading on to the other in a logical sequence of aggression. (Smith 1981, 591) The conquest of Sindh in 1843, which Eastwick specifically alludes to in his account, was due to this sequence of aggression and is seen by the way Eastwick also tells his story. Sindh had been controlled by the Mughals since 1591, when Ahmad Shah Abdali, the Afghan ruler wrested control in1750. In 1783 after Mir Fath Ali Khan Talpura over threw the Kaloras and gained independence from his Afghan overlord, Sindh was divided among the 3 branches of the Talpurs. The first mission was sent in 1799 to the Amirs from the British, but the Amirs were distrustful and did not receive it well. The nineteenth century and the French threat drove the then Governor General Lord Minto to send another mission which resulted in a treaty in 1809 to keep out the French threat. James Burnes, the brother of Alexander Burnes British envoy to Kabul, wrote the first account of Sindh in English wherein he proposed that the Indus could be greatly beneficial as a trade route. The British interest was kindled and Sindh became an area of interest for the British, Sikh and Afghans. The Sikh ruler Ranjit Singh was at this time ruling in the Punjab and was a dangerous threat to the Amirs of Sindh. It was this threat that made the British indirect protectors of the Amirs in 1831 till 1838. A treaty was also signed in 1832 with the negotiations of Colonel Henry Pottinger, the first resident, through which the Indus was to be open to commerce with the proviso that no armed vessels or military stores should pass through. It was this point that later became the point of contention and this treaty that was violated so by the British, which caused Eastwick to put forward the case of the Amirs.Mirza Kalich Beg, a Deputy Collector in Kotri, Sindh at the time of British rule gives the details of the treaty in volume 2 of his History of Sindh, On 10th Rajjib 122421st August 1809 Treaty between the British Government and Mr Ghulam Al Khn and his 2 brothers was made by the British Government with Mrs Ghulm Al Khn, Karam Al Khn and Murd Al Khn. The articles of the treaty were as follows:

(1)There shall be eternal friendship between the British Government and that of Sind.(2)Enmity shall never appear between the two States.(3)The mutual dispatch of the vakeels of both the Governments shall always continue.(4)The Government of Sind will not allow the establishment of the tribe of the French in Sind. (Kalichbeg 1902)In 1838, Shah Shuja, the ruler of Afghanistan was deposed by Dost Muhammad and the Governor General Lord Auckland made the decision to go to war on his behalf, Sindh was the only logical route through which the armed forces and supplies could be conveyed to the Bolan Pass and then Afghanistan. Colonel Pottinger was sent to negotiate with the Amirs. The treaty of 1832 was thrown aside and the Amirs were not only forced to pay arrears of tribute to Shah Shuja but sign a new treaty that compelled them to pay 3 lakhs a year to the British for its subsidiary force. The First Anglo-Afghan war ended in complete disaster for the British, who now on the pretext of non-cooperation of the Amirs, decided to gain control of Karachi, Sukkur and Bukkur from the Amirs. Before James Outram, the resident of Hyderabad could get the Amirs to agree, Sir Charles Napier was sent to gain supreme military and political control of Sindh. Napier wrote in his diary, We have no right to seize Sindh, yet we shall do so and a very advantageous, useful, humane piece of rascality it will be. (Smith 1981) The Amirs were defeated at Miani in February 1843 and exiled while Sindh was annexed into the British Empire.

Summary of the BookThe book starts with Eastwicks own journey to Sindh in 1839 down the Indus River, which he was visiting for the first time during his stay in India. He travels through Deesa (in modern day Gujrat) to Mount Abu, a popular hill station in Rajasthan which was also a sacred place for the Hindus. He then makes his way through various areas in the regions of Cutch and Kathiawar, an almost desert-like region. All along his journey he comments on the state of the country, the various problems, climate and the people. On his arrival in Sindh, his first and second impressions were not favorable. The people were extremely loud and the climate inhospitable with harsh winds, sand storms and large mosquitoes to plague everyone in addition to robber gangs that are uncontrollable. Giving an example of the unwelcoming attitude of the people Eastwick writes that when he reached the village of Ladi exhausted and starving he was refused food by the headman of the village and instead became an object of amusement being called Kafir[footnoteRef:2] by the children who had never seen an Englishman before and kept calling one another to see him (Eastwick 1839, 17). He travelled down the Indus in a boat to Hyderabad where he was stationed and along the way records the various places he visits such as old tombs of Thatta, the Shikargarhs[footnoteRef:3], the shrine of Lal Shahbaz Qalandar, a local saint, and the army fort at Sukkur. There is not much to recommend this country except hunting which is also fraught with dangers. Eastwick also talks about being bestowed with a black coat, a position of honor in those days albeit an expensive one. [2: Infidel] [3: Hunting boxes built by the local rulers or the British]

The third chapter begins with Eastwicks thoughts on the occupation of Sindh and Afghanistan. The Afghan War was a series of disasters beginning with inadequate preparation of weapons, men and supplies to lack of good strong leadership which should have made informed decisions instead of playing second fiddle to Shah Shuja. The troops were given absolute confidence that the local robber tribes would not dare to attack them and thus they made basic tactical errors, such as encamping in open country instead of forts and leaving insufficient incompetent forces to guard those areas already conquered. Eastwick says, Will it be believed that, where forts existed, our troops were encamped at a distance from them, in the open country, exposed to attacks from the enemy, and separated both from their supplies and their treasure; that enormous sums in rupees and silver ingots were often left to the protection of some twenty sipahis[footnoteRef:4]; that no attempt was ever made to fortify and garrison those tremendous gorges which are the keys of Khorasan; and that the most important post in all the region between the Indus and Candahar[footnoteRef:5] was held to be insufficiently garrisoned by a native officer and thirty sipahis. (Eastwick 1839, 51-52) All these factors led to the total disaster that was the Afghan War. Similarly, says Eastwick, mistakes were made in Sindh especially the flagrant violations of the treaties that had been signed with the Amirs. Their forts were seized and troops marched through their lands, even when they had been inclined to peace from the time of first contact and humiliated in different ways by the British Agent, finally culminating in a complete takeover of their territories when they dared to protest against these acts. [4: Sepoy: An Indian soldier serving under British or other European orders (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/sepoy)] [5: Kandahar]

The fourth chapter begins with the events at the end of 1839 when troops were marching through Sindh to reach Afghanistan. These troops lost their lives and supplies to robbery and banditry, harsh weather, and river floods. The assistants and other political workers were kept ignorant of important political decisions as well as dispatches which also contributed to mismanagement. The jealousy between various Residency officers also manifested itself in different ways that only added to the administrative problems. Shah Nawaz Khan of Khelat was granted British protection in September of 1839 against Ali Murad, the ruler of Cabul and victor over Shah Shuja. The fifth chapter continues the march of the troops and the Chief Political Agent leaving Sukkur and appointing Eastwick in charge of the Agency. The main concern during this time was sending adequate supplies to those on the march, for frequently were they beset by robbers and lost their supplies. A mutiny also took place during Eastwicks time in charge which demonstrated the influence native officers have over sipahis. The Subedar Major of the 1st Grenadiers at the cantonment of Shikarpore was found guilty of having robbed the Vakil of Bahawalpore with some other men and the sipahis refused to return to their duties until the prisoners were released. A Panchayat[footnoteRef:6] was called by Eastwick to solve a local dispute. [6: Local court of arbitration made up of natives]

The sixth chapter outlines Eastwicks journey from Sakkar to Shikarpore Agency to assume charge and facilitate the troops coming from Bombay. Various people attached to the Residency such as the Munshi as well as the neighboring locals such as the Vakil of Khyrpore, representatives of the governor of Hyderabad and others called to pay respect to the new chief. The various corps fates are also outlined who lost their lives to Biluchi[footnoteRef:7] robbers. The fall of Khelat in November and the arrival of the column from Bombay that was beset by cholera that left many of the officers dead. The Political Agent at every Agency received a large income almost 4000 rupees from the Government but almost half of it was spent on hospitality of visitors and the staff of the Agency. During Eastwicks stay at Shikarpore, Captain Arthur Connolly[footnoteRef:8] came to visit the Agency and regaled Eastwick with the story of his travels to Vienna, Constantinople, Khiva, Armenia and Baghdad. The surrender of the Biluchi robber gangs was a great relief to the British as their armies were constantly being beset by these hill tribes on the way to Afghanistan. Forty-eight chiefs of the Jakrani and Dumki tribes along with notorious leaders Bibarak Bugti and Bijjar Khan were captured, then insulted and paraded around in chains which made them fierce enemies who later wreaked great vengeance upon the British. [7: local tribesmen ] [8: The man who coined the term Great Game and was executed by the Emir of Kabul after the first Afghan War.]

The seventh chapter deals with the Battle of Sartaf where Lieutenant Walpole Clarke was killed while fighting the Biluchi tribes of Marri hills along with almost 130 of his 160 men. This was the first loss suffered since the British army had crossed the Indus River and thence forth no detachment could enter the hills without danger. (Eastwick 1839, 112) Another officer Amiel, also ventured into the hills with his detachment of eight horse after another Biluchi robber tribe, also suffered greatly due to lack of water and scarcity of supplies and returned badly defeated. Kabul had been captured and the Shah restored but Eastwick points out the mistakes made which rendered the British unable to hold the country. The army was withdrawn too soon and replacements were only in Sindh which could not leave Sukkur and Shikarpore and this in turn encouraged the hill tribes. The chief Political Agent went to Simla on a long holiday leaving his assistant, who was ignorant of the local language, in charge. The gravest error was appointing as Governor of Katchi a man who had no loyalty to anyone and resulted in the loss of Khelat and Kahan and the pillage of Katchi. The eighth chapter deals with the Khelat Question which was the placing of Shah Nawaz on the throne of Khelat instead of Nasir Khan, the son of Mihrab- the former ruler of Khelat. Shah Nawaz was supported by Shah Shuja as well as the Amirs of Sindh, but the British made a grave error, when they put him on the throne but then neglected to offer any more support and instead created problems for him, which Eastwick says was bound to lead to the eventual fall of Khelat to the hill tribes. The regiment stationed in Khelat under Lieutenant Loveday refused to abandon their posts despite orders from the British government. To the end says Eastwick the British underestimated these hill tribes, despite reports from reliable informers that they were gathered in huge numbers. This more than anything led to the disaster that was the Afghan campaign. Eastwick was sent on a mission to erect travelers bungalows and clear out wells for the advancing troops. The ninth chapter begins with the defeat of British troops in the Battle of Nafushk and another marching force under Major Clibborn, the one who had initially disregarded reports of the hill tribe strength, returning to Shikarpore with many supplies lost and a third of them killed. Then Eastwick continues on his journey through Sindh in order to fulfill his mission. He along with the troops was successful in saving Bagh from the hands of the Marri tribes. The tenth chapter also continues along the same lines with skirmishes between British troops and tribes, the death of Lieutenant Loveday as these troops were unable to relieve him in time from the Brahui tribesmen who had captured and tortured him. One of the Amirs Mir Nur Muhammad of Hyderabad, who had been well disposed towards the British, died and entrusted his two sons to the care of Outram, Resident of Hyderabad. A conflict took place at Gandava, three hundred men of the Brahui tribe were killed and a hundred and thirty three taken prisoner.The empire was unable to hold not because of lack of consolidation, or the dubious loyalty of the local tribesmen, or due to the harsh vagaries of the climate on the troops but due to the incompetence of the leading men beyond the Indus, writes Eastwick in the eleventh chapter. The state of Sindh at the end of 1840 was one of folly and mismanagement. The defeat and humiliation of Khelat and other areas was avenged by manipulating the factions at the courts of the Amirs of Sindh. There were three factions; 1) Mir Rustams two sons and Nasir Khan and the Vizier Fateh Mohammad Khan, 2) Mir Ali Murad, youngest brother of Mir Rustam and, 3)Mir Ali Merdan, the third son of Mir Rustam. The Chief Political Agent and the General were ordered to leave Sukkur for Shal in order to be at the scene of the campaign and Eastwick was left in charge of an almost abandoned Agency to deal with the payments as well as the huge correspondence. An ill-judged attack at the well-garrisoned fortress of Sibi not only left almost all of the Light Company of the 2nd Grenadiers dead but incited a violent rebellion at Rohri, when native sipahis took dancing women into a mosque, but the incident was dealt with by Eastwick who saved Rohri from a sacking. The flooding of the Indus that occurs every year which if properly channeled could greatly serve in the prosperity of the province. The appointment of James Outram as Resident of Upper Sindh was a prudent move that dispelled all hostilities and ensured that the Amirs did not rise against the British at a time when they were weakened by the Kabul catastrophe. Eastwick preferred Outram to his own officer Colonel Pottinger. Eastwick remained in Sindh only until this time, ill health then forced him to return to England by way of Karachi and Bombay. He also stopped at Hyderabad and discusses in detail the court of Hyderabad and the character of the Amirs. He also gives details of the city of Hyderabad and its architecture. The Amirs were in essence not very wealthy and their courts reflected the same. The Amirs were reluctant to welcome the British invasion as they knew the outcome it would eventually behold to their family.

Analysis of the BookThe book, though an attempt to plead the case of the Amirs of Sindh, still holds all the trademarks of a British imperialistic historiography. Eastwick at times speaks out in favor of the local rulers and population and criticizes many of the actions taken by the colonial government but follows it up with justifications and validations which show his true allegiances and bias for his countrymen. The name Dry Leaves from Young Egypt shows Eastwicks view of Sindh as a tabula rasa (blank slate), a young Egypt that lay waiting to be developed economically and culturally by the colonizers. (Verkaaik 2004) Several times throughout the book he refers to the arid landscape and hot climate of Sindh that is very similar to that of Egypt. He refers to the people of Sindh in his first impressions that the people are as bad as the soil, poor and niggardly as the sand they tread and as hot and inflammable. (Eastwick 1839, 2) Sir Richard Burton also writes of Sindh as a country stuck in backwardness to the point of mental debility. The lack of respect for local people was also evident, and frequently were the dead desecrated and the living made objects of ridicule. In an altercation between the political coryphaeus and chief military officer of two Residencies the issue taken up was the desecration of Sindhian tombs to clear way for houses. Normally Eastwick says this would not have been important enough to take notice of despite the locals protests, but since this act had been done by officers of a different Residency than his own, His chief had decided to bring depositions against them. This demonstrates that the customs of the locals had no value for the British, and the act was justified as the dead were local people. He discusses the administration of the various British agencies he comes across in his travels. In many places he criticizes the inefficiency of the system, as for him, the solutions are very simple if carried out. His visit was a period of drought which according to him should have been better managed by the authorities as they occur frequently in the region. The people were dying in huge numbers and parents selling their children to get food. We collect annually 6, 80, 105 rupees from the province, no part of which is expended in public works. (Eastwick 1839, 9-10) Public works such as the building of dams and canals could retain the heavy rainwater for later use, and the cost would be recouped many times over, instead the government does nothing. The Political agency of Kathiawar situated in Rajkot administered a population of more than a million and a half people. Eastwick says that it is extremely understaffed and thus unable to administer such a large area effectively, no matter how hard the servants there work. Kathiawar is divided into more than two hundred petty states each of which sends a representative or Vakil to the court of the political agent who constantly file complaints. Even working ten hours a day on 300 cases during two months, Eastwick says he could not lessen the workload, and the amount of pay received was extremely meager (Eastwick 1839, 11-12). In another place he says, The supervision of a large treasury, a crowded Gaol, and a Post-office, through which hundreds of letter and parcels were forwarded daily, was quite enough to stop one from being over meditative. (Eastwick 1839, 119) Another heavy duty of political officers was to find deserters from the army, as task made all the more trouble when huge numbers were in the field. Cooks, butlers, camel men and others took flight often with supplies and money from the troops.These show that the British colonial administrative system was inefficient at many places and as Eastwick says, had his and many other political officers opinions been heeded to, the British would have found it easier to manage such a large country as India. Similarly criticizing the system of work in the various administrative stations where only the chief Political Officer was privy to the dispatches from the central authorities and no information was shared on any political subject with assistants or other workers, according to Eastwick, was detrimental to the effective running of the government. Eastwick says, The absurdity of this line of conduct is evident ; for placed, as we afterwards were, at different stations widely distant from each other, we were compelled to act independently, and kept thus in ignorance of what others were doing we might have constantly been thwarting plans which we ought to have promoted. (Eastwick 1839, 72) The reasons of failure in Afghanistan were also largely related to disorganized administration. However, showing his true allegiance to his colonial nature, Eastwick acknowledges that the Afghan expedition would not have been a failure if there had been an officer of prudence and activity, qualities that Sir William Macnaghten[footnoteRef:9] governor of Kabul singularly lacked (Eastwick 1839, 53). Instead if a superior general such as Napier or someone else had been in charge then no doubt the British would have been masters of Afghanistan. Similarly defending Charles Napiers actions in the annexation of Sindh, Eastwick writes that Napier as an Indian general has no peer and is undoubtedly worthy of glory and his account is not meant to blame him or detract his credit, as by the time Napier arrived the situation had already been deteriorating and events had long spun out of control. The blame for injustice to the Amirs lay with others. [9: Sir William Hay Macnaghten was a British interventionist agent in Afghanistan during the first Anglo-Afghan War (1839-42). He advocated British intervention to counteract Russian influence in Afghanistan. Suspected of treachery by the Afghans, Macnaghten was captured and slain by them while he was trying to arrange withdrawal of the British forces in 1841. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/355206/Sir-William-Hay-Macnaghten-Baronet (Accessed on 22-05-2014) ]

The misconduct and inclination toward drunkenness was a propensity of the British troops especially the younger soldiers as well as the administrative staff, who homesick and weary as well as beleaguered by the hot climate of India, fell into such behaviors. The climate very different from England was a great trial to the British in India and they often fell sick and had to be sent back. Eastwick himself was sent back to England on account of his ill health. Where Eastwick criticizes his own superior he greatly lauds his successor James Outram. Outram was a man of character and much praised by Eastwick, his appointment as Resident was felt to be a prudent move that contributed greatly to dispelling the discontent brewing in the courts of Sindh. Outram tried to dissipate internal quarrels between the various families such as the dispute in the court of Hyderabad between the two sons of Mir Nur Muhammad.The many places where British diplomacy and tact failed was where they disregarded the sentiments and pride of the local people. Insult is a very powerful and memorable thing that can make the most amiable of men into irreconcilable enemies. When the Biluchi robber tribes and their leaders surrendered, they were humiliated in the worst of ways, which caused them to seek revenge when released. To these hill tribes pride was everything as Eastwick illustrates by so many accounts such as one Lehri chief Biluch Khan killing Jani, a powerful member and robber of the Biluchis, for having a liaison with his wife. Says Eastwick that these leaders should either have been put to death and thus crushed any hope of revival of marauding in the province or they should have been taken into confidence and made friends of the government. This miscalculation on the part of the political agent caused a great deal of trouble to the British later on. The British failed to understand that this blood creed was a part of the culture of these hill tribes and to insult them was to invite calamity. There The mistreatment of the local population is another theme throughout the book especially in cases of payment and land grabbing, which was justified by saying that the local rulers were either cruel to the people or incapable of managing these estates or simply incompetent. Observing the building of Shikargarhs Eastwick writes, We built all our agencies, our cantonments, with timber from them, without troubling ourselves as to payment; nay we generously bestowed many valuable trees on the Parsi merchants without allowing the owners to accept a rupee for them; then we seized the whole on the plea of their being highly injurious to trade, and jocularly insisted that those people were unfit to govern who could think more of their own amusements than the comforts of their enemies. (Eastwick 1839, 24) In this way, all throughout India it was observed that whenever the colonial government wanted anything they simply took it manufacturing excuses in the process so as to validate their claims over everything. This was also the case whenever the colonial government decided to annex an area as can be seen in every annexation from Bengal and Oudh to Sindh and Punjab. One of the pretexts used to annex Sindh was that the Amir had instigated robber tribes to attack the British troops marching through his land, a move that was illegal in the first place. But as Eastwick writes that the Amirs were as helpless to stop these bandits in their areas as the British were in extinguishing Thuggery[footnoteRef:10] and Dacoitism[footnoteRef:11] in their own provinces. What was acceptable as impossible in their own areas was conveniently used as an excuse to punish local rulers for not suppressing such things. The Amirs, despite cooperating fully even after violation of signed treaties, were blamed for many supposed insurrections. is no one thing which has more sapped our power in the East than the belief which is daily gaining strength, that the English are not staunch friends- that a valiant enemy will win more from them than a submissive ally. (Eastwick 1839, 127) This treachery was displayed all over India, in fact in all the annexation of all colonial possessions in South Asia, Southeast Asia and China. [10: Also Thug:One of a band of professional assassins formerly active in northern India who worshiped Kali and offered their victims to her. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/thuggery ] [11: A member of a robber band or gang in India or Myanmar (Burma). http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Dacoits ]

The real reasons for first befriending local rulers, then signing treaties with them and maintaining relations were almost always economic. Similarly was the case with Sindh as Eastwick says, The navigation of the Indus promised golden returns; interested persons told us of the fertility of the soil;" Sindh," said they, "is a magnificent country, but crushed by the iron rule of these Biluchi despots. The soil near Hyderabad is favorable for indigo, tobacco and sugar. At Karachi pearls are found, the fishery for them might be rendered most profitable, but the ignorance and folly of the Amirs throw obstacles in the way of all improvement. The whole wealth of the country is in their hands, and in the hands of a few favorites. No other class of people dare exhibit any signs of riches. The Biluchis hold every species of traffic in the greatest contempt, and consider merchants legitimate objects of plunder. The Hindus, by whom all the trade and commerce of the country is carried on, are a despised and degraded race, and are treated on every occasion with the greatest injustice. Under the present Government there is no sort of market for goods, no safety for the trader, and no hope of an elevation of the system." Such were the calumnies poured forth in the greedy ears of the invaders. Had they all been true, we should not have been justified in seizing the country, unless it can be shown that we ought to take a man's coat because he does not choose to mend a hole in it. (Eastwick 1839, 200-201) The justifications given was the development of Sindh for its own good, however under British rule there was not much change in the condition of the people. What development was done was for the British themselves. Defending the Amirs Eastwick also says that their government was just according to the rules of their own country and the people were happy and prosperous. Their government should not be judged by British standards.The British relied on native soldiers for their troops, for without these vast quantities of men they would have never been able to hold on to their colonial possessions for so long. This was a very strategic move, for as we can observe, the European regiments and political officers fell sick very easily in the harsh climate of India. Men had to be sent back to England and more often than not they died on the journey. As Eastwick says that a great risk it would be if any attempt was made to introduce reforms or changes which were not acceptable to the native troops, such as employing high-caste Bengali warriors to do public works which they consider beneath their dignity and more suited to artisans, and it would result in sapping the fidelity of the native troops and upsetting the machine with which we have so long ruled our vast territories in the East. (Eastwick 1839, 81) This seems to be true when observed in the light of the Mutiny of 1857 where sipahis, albeit only scattered regiments, opposing the changes in their guns rebelled against their European officers and resulted in the Crown assuming charge of India. The writer, Eastwick calls on sympathy for his fellow Englishman, Loveday who was captured and then treated cruelly by the tribes, but the same treatment of the locals at the hands of the British troops does not warrant the same. However, Eastwick acknowledges that the death of Loveday had resulted from the British political mismanagement. There are numerous such criticisms of the political system peppered throughout this book that makes it a valuable source and can show one the intricate workings of a vast bureaucracy from the eyes of an insider. There are many places where censure is heaped on the colonial government. The interference in the personal rivalries of the Amirs of Sindh and favoring a younger man Ali Murad over Mir Rustam, the man who had initially welcomed the British and was well-disposed towards them, is said by Eastwick to be a great injustice. The British had no right to do so in order to fulfill their own purposes and no justification in involving themselves in affairs that were none of their business. The Amirs were just and fair rulers, and having met them personally, Eastwick says he is a better judge of their nature than men who have never set eyes on them. Sani Panhwar says in the introduction in a reproduction of James Outrams, Commentary on the book The Conquest of Sindh, To highlight the hypocritical cast of the war in Sindh for all the parties condemned, despite Napiers professed sorrow over the invasion and the Companys shock over what the General had done, the Directors awarded him 60,000 in silver rupees for taking Sindh. It may be noted that only five hundred of Napiers forces were white; the rest were natives. The mulatto and the Talpur traitor who had betrayed the Sindhis in the heat of battle had been approached and bribed by one Mirza Ali Akhbar, who arrived from Persia. He had served first as munshee or personal secretary to James Outram and then to Napier. Ali Akhbar, Burton said, served with special bravery at the Battle of Miani and then at Dubba. Napier had remarked later to Burton that the Mizra did as much towards the conquest of Scinde as a thousand men, for as a fellow Muslim he was able to enter the enemy camps and bribe some of their best forces to desert the battlefield. (Outram 1846, 4)

ConclusionThis book was written so that the reader, at that time the people of England, could judge whether the actions of the British government were grossly unfair to the Amirs of Sindh. Writing as an eyewitness of the events leading up to the annexation of Sindh and as one who was closely involved, Eastwick tries to present the case to the reader. Where at times the book is a candid mirror into the inefficiencies of the colonial government it also seems a vindication of many of the important players especially of Sir Charles Napier, who Eastwick says is not to blame as these events had been set into motion long before his appointment. This book is a valuable source, for its detailed description of Sindh and its culture, flora, fauna, and people. The author has included many local legends, as well as a detailed description of the various monuments and places he visits such as the tomb of Masum Shah in Sukkur, shrine of Pir Sirhind and Magar Talao or Alligator Lake. Dry Leaves shows us that the colonial men and women, especially the political and military officers who came to India, greatly assimilated into the culture and land. Many of them had a genuine respect for the people and culture and they also dared to criticize those actions of the central authorities that they deemed unfair to the people. They respected the local rulers and people as they had observed the high level of honor among the people of India, even if they subscribed to a creed and religion very different from their own. The locals in turn worked closely with the British and many of them cooperated so that there could be peace. The case of the Amirs was one such, where despite initial misgivings, they facilitated the British in all ways, going against their fellow countrymen and even developing close friendships with many of the Political Agents and officers. That this spirit of friendship was rewarded by humiliation, conquest and exile seems a poor show and a typical response of the colonial government. It was this behavior that eventually led to the resentment of the people of India that later culminated in a struggle for independence. Almost all accounts of the period written by the British and other colonials reflect the same opinion of the local rulers and people.

Bibliography

Dow, Alexander. A History of Hindostan. 1768.

Eastwick, Edward Backhouse. Dry Leaves from Young Egypt: Being a glance at Sindh before the arrival of Sir Charles Napier. London: James Madden, 1839.

Huttenback, Robert. British Relations with Sind 1799-1843. California: University of California Press, 1962.

Kalichbeg, Mirza. History of Sindh. Karachi: Commissioner's Press, 1902.

Kennedy, Richard Hartley. Narrative of the Campaign of the Army of the Indus in Sind and Kaubool in 1838-39 . London: Bentley, 1840.

Lakho, Dr.Ghulam Muhammad. "Sindh-Iran Relations during the Talpur Period." Journal of Subcontinent Researches, 2010: 83-94.

Loloi, Parvin. "Encyclopedia Iranica." Iranica Online. March 6, 2009. http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/eastwick-edward-backhouse- (accessed May 5, 2014).

Outram, James. Commentary on the book The Conquest of SIndh. Cambridge : Camridge University Press, 1846.

Smith, V.A. The Oxford History of India. London : Oxford University Press, 1981.

"Speeches of Captain Eastwick on the Sinde Question, The India Billof 1858 etc." London: Smith and Co., 1862.

Syriatou, Athena. "National, Imperial, Colonial and the Political: British Imperial Histories and their Descendants." Historein, 2012: 38-67.

Verkaaik, Oscar. Migrants and Militants: Fun and Urban violence in Pakistan. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2004.