Rise of the Talpur Amirs and the Conquest of Sindh

At a Glance

• What it is The Talpur rise in Sindh and the English annexation of 1843
• Talpur ascendancy Complete hold on Sindh in 1783 under Mir Fath Ali Khan
• Key treaties 1820 (renewal), 1832, 1838 and February 1839
• Annexation 1843; Charles Napier first governor
• Exam link UPSC Prelims, Modern History: Conquest of Sindh and Punjab

Where Does It Fit?

This is the first topic of the category on the conquest of Sindh and Punjab. The earlier category ended with the Marathas, the last great power of the south and west. This topic turns to the north-west frontier. The next topic covers Ranjit Singh and the Sikh state. Previous topic: Why the Marathas Lost.

How Did the English First Reach Sindh?

In the early nineteenth century the English began to show an interest in Sindh, where they had some trade facilities authorised by a farman of the Mughal Emperor in 1630. The farman gave the English in the ports of Sindh the same privileges they enjoyed elsewhere.

Before the Talpur Amirs, Sindh was ruled by the Kallora chiefs. An English factory was built at Thatta in 1758 under a parwana given by the Kallora prince Ghulam Shah. In 1761 Ghulam Shah, on the arrival of an English resident at his court, ratified the earlier treaty and also excluded other Europeans from trading there. The English enjoyed this advantage till 1775, when a not-too-friendly ruler, Sarfraz Khan, made them close their factory.

How Did the Talpur Amirs Rise?

In the 1770s a Baluch tribe called the Talpuras came down from the hills and settled in the plains of Sindh. They were excellent soldiers and used to a hard life. They gained great influence and soon took power. In 1783, under Mir Fath (Fatah) Ali Khan, the Talpuras established complete hold over Sindh and sent the Kallora prince into exile. The Durrani monarch confirmed Mir Fath Khan’s claims and ordered him to share the country with his brothers, popularly known as the Char Yar.

When Mir Fath died in 1800, the Char Yar divided the kingdom among themselves, calling themselves the Amirs, or Lords, of Sindh. They extended their dominion on all sides. They conquered Amarkot from the Raja of Jodhpur, Karachi from the chief of Luz, and Shikarpur and Bukkar from the Afghans.

Why Did the English Care About Sindh?

The English interest was strategic. In 1799 Lord Wellesley’s efforts to revive commercial relations with Sindh hid an aim to counter the alliance of the French, Tipu Sultan and Shah Zaman of Kabul. The Amir, under Tipu’s influence, ordered the British agent out of Sindh in October 1800, and the Company quietly swallowed the insult.

In June 1807 Napoleon joined the Alliance of Tilsit with Alexander I of Russia, one condition of which was a combined invasion of India by land. The British wanted a barrier between Russia and British India. Lord Minto sent delegations to forge alliances: Metcalfe to Lahore, Elphinstone to Kabul and Malcolm to Tehran. Nicholas Smith visited Sindh and met the Amirs to conclude a defensive arrangement. The Amirs agreed to their first treaty with the English, professing eternal friendship and agreeing to exclude the French from Sindh and exchange agents. The treaty was renewed in 1820, adding an article excluding the Americans and settling some border disputes on the Kachchh side after the Maratha confederacy’s final defeat in 1818.

What Did the Treaty of 1832 Provide?

In 1832 William Bentinck sent Colonel Pottinger to Sindh to sign a treaty with the Amirs.

How Did Sindh Become a Protectorate?

Lord Auckland, Governor-General from 1836, looked at Sindh as part of saving India from a possible Russian invasion and sought a counter-influence among the Afghans. Ranjit Singh was strong enough to resist coercion, but the Amirs were not. The English view was that they had to consolidate their position in Sindh as a first step for their Afghan plans.

The chance came when Ranjit Singh captured the frontier town of Rojhan in Sindh, and Pottinger was sent to Hyderabad to sign a new treaty. It offered protection to the Amirs on condition that Company troops be kept in the capital at the Amirs’ expense, or that the English be given suitable concessions instead. The Amirs refused at first but signed reluctantly in 1838. The treaty let the English intervene in the disputes between the Amirs and the Sikhs and station a British resident. Sindh became a British protectorate in 1838.

In June 1838 the Company also persuaded Ranjit Singh to sign the Tripartite Treaty, accepting British mediation in his disputes with the Amirs, and then made Shah Shuja give up his sovereign rights over Sindh, provided arrears of tribute were paid. The English fixed the sum.

Under threat of superior force, the Amirs accepted a treaty in February 1839 by which a subsidiary force was stationed at Shikarpur and Bukkar at the Amirs’ cost of Rs 3 lakh a year. They could no longer negotiate with foreign states without the Company’s knowledge, had to provide a store-room at Karachi, abolish tolls on the Indus and give auxiliary forces for the Afghan war if asked.

How Was Sindh Annexed?

The first Anglo-Afghan War (1839-42), fought on Sindh’s soil, was disliked by the Amirs, who did not like the British troops in their region. Yet under the treaty they had to pay for it, and they did. They were not rewarded but accused of hostility and disaffection. Ellenborough, in a precarious position due to the Afghan reverses, sent Outram to negotiate a new treaty by which the Amirs had to cede important provinces, supply fuel to the Company’s steamers on the Indus and stop minting coins.

In a succession dispute the English intervened through Charles Napier and started a war when the Amirs rose in revolt. The British won at Miani on 17 February 1843 and at Hyderabad on 24 March 1843. The whole of Sindh capitulated quickly, and the Amirs were made captives and banished. In 1843, under Governor-General Ellenborough, Sindh was merged into the British Empire, and Charles Napier was appointed its first governor.

How Do Historians Judge the Conquest?

Historians generally condemn the acquisition of Sindh in strong words. The causes for annexation were manufactured. Like many episodes of the conquest, the Afghan war was a story of bullying and deceit. The English suffered terribly at the hands of the Afghans, with a loss of prestige, and they annexed Sindh to make up for it. Elphinstone compared it to a bully who has been knocked down in the street and goes home to beat his wife in revenge.

Charles Napier himself wrote that the English had no right to seize Sindh but would do so, and his deputy James Outram complained that the English policy was the shortest, that of the sword. P.E. Roberts called the treatment of Sindh morally indefensible. As an analytical point, the conquest shows the pattern in miniature: treaties of friendship, then of protection, then subsidiary force, and finally annexation on the plea of disaffection.

Why Is This Topic Important?

• Frontier policy Sindh links the Napoleonic scare, the Russian fear and the Afghan wars
• Direct facts The treaties of 1832, 1838 and 1839 and the 1843 annexation are common Prelims items
• Pattern of conquest It is a clear example of annexation by stages

What Came Next?

The next topic covers Ranjit Singh and the consolidation of the Sikh state in Punjab. Next topic: Ranjit Singh and the Consolidation of the Sikh State.

Key People and Terms

• Talpur Amirs The Baluch rulers of Sindh from 1783
• Char Yar The four brothers among whom Mir Fath Ali Khan’s lands were divided
• Kalloras The chiefs who ruled Sindh before the Talpurs
• Protectorate A state that is protected by another and loses control of its foreign relations
• Pottinger The envoy who signed the treaties of 1832 and 1838
• Napier The general who conquered Sindh and became its first governor

Exam Corner

Mains Angle

Questions ask about the stages and morality of the conquest of Sindh. These points add depth.

• Strategic motives The French, Russian and Afghan fears drove policy
• Stages Treaties moved Sindh from friend to protectorate to colony
• Morality Even English officers saw the conquest as unjustified