Hazrat Mahal (c. 1820–1879)

views updated

Hazrat Mahal (c. 1820–1879)

Begum of Oudh and Muslim queen-mother who, in the name of her underage son, led local resistance against the British East India Company during the Indian Mutiny (1857–58). Name variations: Surname reportedly Iftikarun-nisa; took name Hazrat Mahal, Begum ("honored lady") of Oudh, when raised to the status of King's Wife after the birth of her son. Pronunciation: HAZ-rat mah-HALL. Born around 1820 in Faizabad, Oudh (or Oudhad), India (modern-day Awadh); died in 1879 while in exile in Nepal; married Wajid Ali Shah (king of Oudh, deposed by the Britishfor incompetence in 1857); children: son Mohd Ramzan Ali Bahadur Birgis Qadr (b. around 1845 and crowned king of Oudh in July 1857).

Born into a poor family in the provincial town of Faizabad, Oudh, India (c. 1820); trained as a dancing girl; entered the harem of Wajid Ali Shah some time before 1845; gave birth to her son Birgis Qadr, possibly after a liaison with Mammu Khan (c. 1845); led resistance in Oudh after the arrest of her husband (1857–59); driven into exile in Nepal and died there (1879).

"The Indian Mutiny, or the Sepoy War as the Victorians often called it, was one of the decisive events of British imperial history, which set a seal upon the manner and purpose of the Empire," writes James Morris. The Mutiny united Hindu and Muslim in ways that had never happened before and would never happen again, and had a great impact upon the manner in which the British controlled their empire in general and India in particular. Instead of being ruled by agents of the British East India Company, the country became a crown property ruled directly by Victoria , the queen of England. One of the chief movers of the rebellion was the de facto regent of the state of Oudh, the Queen-Mother Hazrat Mahal. Acting in the name of her son Birgis Qadr, Hazrat Mahal rallied the resistance in Oudh and led several attacks against the British forces before she was decisively defeated in 1859. She was driven into exile in Nepal by the British and died there in 1879 without ever surrendering. Hazrat Mahal was the last free leader of the Mutiny.

No one knows exactly where Hazrat Mahal came from, or even who her parents were. She was apparently born in the city of Faizabad, the daughter of a poor but respectable citizen. According to tradition, she was very beautiful and, perhaps because of this, trained as a dancing girl. She caught the eye of the king Wajid Ali Shah, "who not only took her into his harem but, when she gave birth to a son, raised her to the rank of one of his wives, under the title Hazrat Mahal," notes P.J.O. Taylor. But the king was probably deceived. According to Taylor, all the evidence indicates that the true father of her son was her companion and fellow commander Mammu Khan. "He was her lover when she was a dancing girl, and in fact he never left her, despite her marriage…. Hecertainly stayed with her after her husband's banishment to Calcutta, and they raised their son to the throne at the earliest opportunity."

The British were partly responsible for the decline in authority of the Mughal emperors: they encouraged local rulers to break away from the central government in exchange for trading concessions. Oudh, writes Rudrangshu Mukherjee, "was one of the biggest of these successor states. Founded in 1722 by an Iranian adventurer entitled Saadat Khan who refused the imperial order transferring him to Malwa, it was among the first regional powers to become independent of Delhi." Oudh maintained its independence through a careful balance of diplomacy between the Mughal emperor in Delhi and the British representatives in India. By the time Wajid Ali Shah became its ruler, about one hundred years after its founding, the state was well established. As the British East India Company won governmental powers for itself, local governments gained and lost autonomy. By the 1850s, the Mughal emperor in Delhi, Bahadur Shah Zafar, had become largely a powerless figurehead. Indians, both Hindu and Muslim, resented the British company's power. By the time the company annexed Oudh in 1856, the natives were ready to resist the British with force.

There were two major factors that led to the outbreak of the Indian Mutiny. Native Hindi and Muslim Indians believed that the English wanted to destroy their traditional religious practices. Rumors spread among native troops that the new ammunition cartridges provided to them were greased with a mixture of pig and beef fat—violating the religious taboos of both Hindus and Muslims. The British excuse for annexing Oudh was that corruption ran rampant in the court of Wajid Ali Shah. Wajid's government traditionally farmed out the right to collect taxes to a variety of important men in the state, who paid a large fee for the privilege. These tax collectors realized a profit from their investment by squeezing extra money from the taxpayers and by skimming off a part of the money due to the government. Often bribes were paid to government officials to prevent investigations or inquiries. So widespread was this practice that it penetrated even the court of Wajid Ali Shah and touched the king himself.

Disgusted with the king's administration and his inability to repay his debts, the British East India Company's court of directors instructed Lord Dalhousie, the governor-general, to begin the process of expansion. Lieutenant General Sir James Outram, the British representative or Resident in Oudh's capital city of Lucknow, was given a new treaty for the king to sign. "Both the Queen Mother and the King's brother pleaded against annexation, to no avail, with the Regent," explains Taylor. "The King himself, recognizing the fait accompli, then sorrowfully took off his turban and placing it in the Resident's hands, said, 'Treaties are necessary between equals only.' Now that his title, rank and position were gone, it was not for him to sign a Treaty. Thus the kingdom of [Oudh] passed into British hands at 9 a.m. on 7 February 1856." On March 13, Wajid Ali Shah traveled to exile in Calcutta, leaving his young heir Birgis Qadr, his 71 other children, and his 60 concubines and wives, including the Begum Hazrat Mahal, in charge in Lucknow.

It is not clear exactly what happened in Oudh between the departure of the king and the outbreak of the Mutiny in Delhi 14 months later. The British left a quarrelsome and intolerant representative, C. Coverley Jackson, in charge. Jackson, the officiating chief commissioner stationed in Lucknow to negotiate the transfer of power from Wajid Ali Shah to the East India Company, was not the best man for the job. "When he was not quarreling with his chief assistant," writes Taylor, "he spent most of his energies in devising petty insults and annoyances for the dethroned royal family of Oudh." Jackson was replaced in March of 1857 by Sir Henry Lawrence, a much more charismatic man, but by that time Hazrat Mahal and her son had been totally alienated from the British.

The Mutiny that broke out in Delhi on May 11, 1857, quickly spread to other territories in northwest India. On May 31, Lawrence reported in a letter to the lieutenant-governor of India in Agra that he had chased a band of mutineers seven miles out of Lucknow, taking 30 prisoners. By June 9, he reported to the commander-in-chief that communications with the town of Cawn-pore (modern Kanpur) had been cut. On June 13, he explained to the commissioner at Benaras that he had lost all communications with the outside world, and that the town was effectively besieged. Lawrence made an attempt to break out of Lucknow on June 30, but he was driven back at the town of Chinhut. He was forced to take shelter with 600 Europeans and a few loyal Indians in the Residency, the 37-acre compound where the British kept their headquarters.

What exactly Hazrat Mahal and her son Birgis Qadr were doing during this period is un-certain. At some point, she managed to convince Wajid Ali Shah's other wives and concubines to support her son Birgis Qadr as king, even though Wajid Ali Shah himself was still alive. She then persuaded the Mughal emperor Bahadur Shah Zafar to name Birgis Qadr as acting regent for Oudh. Hazrat Mahal began undoing some of the corruption of her husband's administration, confiscating the property of crooked officials. For example, she discovered that Ali Nucky Khan, former chief officer of Wajid Ali Shah, had hidden a great deal of money in his house, which she used to pay her troops. Hazrat Mahal also united both Hindus and Muslims under her son's administration, largely by recruiting Jai Lal Singh, a respected Hindu leader, to her side. "With the Hindu infantry sepoys," writes Taylor, "Rajah Jai Lal Singh had the most influence; they took little persuading that he was the best military leader available, and that they should support the crowning of Hazrat Mahal's son, Birgis Qadr, as King of [Oudh]. The boy was only twelve years old: it was assumed, though not explicitly, that Hazrat Mahal should rule in his name. She did, and from that moment she had great power."

Although Hazrat Mahal's forces greatly outnumbered those of the Europeans in the Residence, she proved unable to take the compound. This was partly because of disagreement among her commanders and the presence of Indians within the compound—half the defending force were natives—but it was also because of the Residence's strong defenses. The Residents had built their home solidly and encircled the compound with strong, easily fortifiable walls. Hazrat Mahal's officers surrounded the enclosure with snipers and kept up a constant artillery bombardment. Sir Henry Lawrence was one of the first British casualties; he died on June 2, hit by artillery fire from the Indian guns pounding the Residence. The besiegers also practiced mining—driving tunnels under the walls and exploding bombs in them in hopes of collapsing the masonry above. "It was not until September 23, after 90 days of siege," writes Morris, "that the defenders heard gunfire on the other side of the city, and two days later there burst into the compound a column of Highlanders, ragged, un-shaven, kilted and furiously warlike, under the joint command of two remarkable generals, Henry Havelock and James Outram."

The arrival of Havelock and Outram and their men did not change the status of the besieged occupants of the Residence. There were only about 1,000 soldiers in the relieving force, and Hazrat Mahal's troops quickly tightened the siege again. Finally, on November 17, General Colin Campbell forced his way into Lucknow and began evacuating the Residence, leaving Hazrat Mahal in uncontested control of her capital city. Campbell, however, left a strong British force under James Outram at the Alambagh—the "world-garden," the chief home of the former Queen-Mother of Oudh—about three miles south of Lucknow. In late November or early December, Hazrat Mahal summoned a Durbar, or high council, demanding that her commanders attack the Alambagh and drive the British away.

There is some evidence that Hazrat Mahal was losing control over her army commanders. The British offered favorable terms and clemency for soldiers who had mutinied, provided that they had not killed any British citizens. Several important talukdars, the landowners of Oudh, showed signs of making peace separately with the British. "Great things were promised from the all-powerful Delhi and my heart used to be gladdened by the communications I received from that city," said Hazrat Mahal, as she addressed her commanders:

but now the King has been dispossessed and his army scattered; the English have bought over the Sikhs and the rajas, and have established their government West East and South, and communications have been cut off; the [Sahib, ruler of Cawnpore] has been vanquished; and Lucknow is endangered; what now is to be done? The whole army is in Lucknow, but it is without courage. Why does it not attack the Alambagh? Is it waiting for the English to be reinforced and Lucknow to be surrounded? How much longer am I to pay the sepoys for doing nothing? Answer now, and if fight you won't, I shall negotiate with the English to spare my life.

The commanders reportedly replied, "Fear not, we shall fight, for if we do not we shall be hanged one by one; we have this fear before our eyes." Writes Taylor, "There is almost an echo of Queen Elizabeth addressing her troops at Tilbury" in Hazrat Mahal's demand for action. "She displays the same courage, but her message is full of reproach instead of encouragement."

In accordance with Hazrat Mahal's wishes, the Indian troops made six separate assaults on the Alambagh between December 22, 1857, and February 25, 1858. Although they mustered up to 30,000 soldiers, the Indians never managed to break Outram's defenses. Even the presence of the Maulvi of Faizabad, a renowned Muslim religious leader, failed to shift the balance. Finally, on March 16, 1858, the British marched into Lucknow and recaptured the city, and Hazrat Mahal and the Maulvi retreated with the remnants of their army. Hazrat Mahal sought help from Jung Bahadur, the maharajah of Nepal, but he had been helping the British and refused to assist her. In June of 1858, Hazrat Mahal, the Maulvi, and a force of 18,000 men were attacked by General Sir Hope Grant and were driven into the north of the country.

As the months "dragged on," writes Taylor, "the rebel army was still formidable and had not been decisively defeated or dispersed. There was hope. Hazrat Mahal's writ still ran in much of the old Kingdom of [Oudh], and she proved to be a talented administrator. Even the British admitted that had she been the ruler instead of her husband there would have been scant excuse for the annexation." It was not until the first of November of 1858 that the British brought their most powerful weapon into play. Queen Victoria announced in a proclamation that the British East India Company's government in India was dissolved, and from that time the country would be ruled directly by the British government under the queen.

Hazrat Mahal responded to the queen's proposal with a proclamation of her own, issuing the following statement, critical of British attitudes, in the name of her son Birgis Qadr:

In the Proclamation it is written, that the Christian religion is true, but no other creed will suffer oppression, and that the laws will be observed towards all. What has the administration of justice to do with the truth or falsehood of a religion? That religion is true which acknowledges one God, and knows no other. Where there are three Gods in a religion, neither Mussulmans nor Hindoos—nay, not even Jews, Sun-worshippers, or Fire-worshippers can believe it true. To eat pigs and drink wine, to bite greased cartridges, and to mix pig fat with flour and sweetmeats, to destroy Hindoo and Mussulman temples on pretence of making roads, to build churches, to send clergymen into the streets and alleys to preach the Christian religion, to institute English schools and to pay people a monthly stipend for learning the English sciences, while the places of worship of Hindoos and Mussulmans are to this day entirely neglected; with all this, how can the people believe that religion will not be interfered with? The rebellion began with religion, and for it, millions of men have been killed. Let not our subjects be deceived; thousands were deprived of their religion in the North-West, and thousands were hanged rather than abandon their religion.

She continued with an analysis of the political situation of Oudh under the British:

In the Proclamation it is written that all contracts and agreements entered into by the Company will be accepted by the Queen. Let the people carefully observe this artifice. The Company has seized on the whole of Hindoostan and if this arrangement be accepted, what is then new in it…. [R]ecently, in defiance of treaties and oaths, and notwithstanding that they owed us millions of Rupees, without reason, and on the pretence of the misgovernment and discontent of our people, they took our country and property worth millions of Rupees. If our people were discontented with our Royal predecessor, Wajid Ally Shah, how come they are content with us? And no ruler ever experienced such loyalty and devotion of life and goods as we have done? What then is wanting that they do not restore our country?
Further it is written in the Proclamation that they want no increase of territory but yet they cannot refrain from annexation. If the Queen has assumed the government why does Her Majesty not restore our country to us when our people wish it?

Despite the points that Hazrat Mahal made in her response, she continued to lose adherents. By December of 1858, General Campbell had her forces in retreat around the town of Bareitch in northern Oudh. Hazrat Mahal received an offer to spare her life, grant her asylum, and receive a pension in exchange for her surrender. "She was tempted," writes Taylor, "and might have accepted; we shall never know for certain; her chiefs got wind of the possibility, struck camp and fled, taking her and her son as virtual hostages." By the time she was able to approach the British again, the offer had been withdrawn, partially because of rumors that she had been involved in the deaths of British citizens.

Most historians agree that Hazrat Mahal was not responsible for mass murders of British civilians the way some of her colleagues were. She went on record protesting the killing of 200 British women and children at Cawnpore on July 15, 1857—known as the "Bibigarh massacre." But there is some evidence that she revenged herself on certain Europeans who had hurt her. She was accused of having Coverley Jackson's niece, Georgina Jackson , and nephew, Sir Mountstuart Jackson, killed. The two young people, along with their sister, Anna Madeline Jackson , sought refuge with the Rani of Dhouraira after the outbreak of the mutiny. The rani protected them at first, but later was compelled to send them to Hazrat Mahal in Lucknow. Anna Madeline survived and wrote an account of her escape. Witnesses later testified that a telegraph operator named Deverine was killed by mutineers. His head was cut off, writes Taylor, and "was sent to the [Hazrat Mahal]'s private apartments, that she might feast her eyes on the sight, and … the bearer of the trophy was rewarded with a killat." Historians speculate that rumors such as these played an important part in Hazrat Mahal's refusal to surrender.

She was still at large in January of 1859, but her cause was becoming more and more hopeless. By the end of that year, she was left with only 1,500 adherents, most of them without guns, ammunition, or food. Eventually she and her son found shelter with the maharajah of Nepal, Jung Bahadur. "The months passed, the years passed, and Hazrat Mahal refused to surrender," Taylor explains. "The Times in London briefly chronicled her history. At the end of 1858 it was saying 'Like all the women who have turned up in the insurrection she has shown more sense and nerve than all her generals together.'" Hazrat Mahal died in exile in 1879.

sources:

Bhatnagar, G.D. The Annexation of Oude. Vol. 3. Uttaara Bharati: [n.p.], 1956.

——. Awadh under Wajid Ali Shah. Varanasi: Bharatiya Vidya Prakashan, 1968.

Jafri, Rais Ahmad. Hazrat Mahal. Lahore: Sheikh Ghulam Ali, 1969 (written in Urdu).

Lawrence, Henry Montgomery. Letters of Sir Henry Montgomery Lawrence: Selections from the Correspondence of Sir Henry Montgomery Lawrence (1806–1857) during the Siege of Lucknow from March to July, 1857. Edited by Sheo Bahadur Singh. New Delhi: Sagar Publications, 1978.

Llewellyn-Jones, Rosie. A Fatal Friendship: The Nawabs, the British and the City of Lucknow. Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1985.

Morris, James. Heaven's Command: An Imperial Progress. NY: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1973.

Mukherjee, Rudrangshu. Awadh in Revolt 1857–58: A Study of Popular Resistance. Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1984.

Pemble, John. The Raj, the Indian Mutiny, and the Kingdom of Oudh. 1st American ed. Cranbury, NJ: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 1976.

Stokes, Eric. The Peasant Armed: The Indian Revolt of 1857. Edited by C.A. Bayly. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986.

Taylor, P.J.O. A Feeling of Quiet Power: The Siege of Lucknow 1857. Delhi: Harper-Collins, 1994.

——. A Star Shall Fall: India, 1857. Delhi: Harper-Collins, 1993.

——, general ed. A Companion to the "Indian Mutiny" of 1857. Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1996.