.jpg?w=1)
.jpg?w=1)
Lot Essay
The present assemblage of Persian documents form a highly significant set of original diplomatic correspondence from an important Indian ruler addressed to the British Crown and courtiers. In keeping with rapidly changing political and military developments on the ground, these documents belong to a much-ignored period of the eighteenth century when India’s earlier tentative relations with Britain gave way to an intense flurry of correspondence lobbying for influence, intercession, and redress, just as the East India Company (EIC) began its domination of the Indian Subcontinent.
It is the envelope accompanying the letter to Mr William Pitt (1708 – 1778) that provides an important reference to the sender of these letters. Placed above the lines of address is an ink impression of a large, circular seal of state, with text in the nastaʿlīq hand over multiple registers of attenuated characters, listing the author’s titles as, ʿUmdat al-Mulk Sirāj al-Dawlah Anvar al-Dīn Khān Bahādur Manṣūr Jang, vassal of the Warrior-Emperor ʿĀlamgīr [II], dated to the first regnal year and 1168 Hijrī (1754-1755). The seal is the vital clue to the identity of the author through which the meaning and purpose of the whole assemblage can be explained. Consequently, we find the theatre in which the author operates switching from India’s northern and eastern regions, where one might assume the author to be situated, to the Carnatic [Karnataka], and especially the British and French settlements along the Coromandel Coast in Tamil Nadu. As governor of the Carnatic, ruled as Nawab of the town of Arcot, Muḥammad ʿAlī, entitled Anvar al-Dīn Khān (1717-1795), sided with the British against France and its allies during the Seven Years War, also known as the Third Carnatic War (1757-63). The precipitous succession of battles, sieges, and conquests shaping this period forms the backdrop to the contents of all three letters.
In retribution for the loss of territories in Bengal, the French launched an attack on British Madras [Chennai], in December 1758, which failed within a few months. Keen to regain the upper hand, in January 1760, the French attacked the strategically important fort at Wandiwash [Vandavasi] that lay not too far from either Madras or Arcot. There they were decisively defeated by EIC forces and their allies, led by Lieutenant-Colonel Eyre Coote (1726-1783). By September later in the same year, the much-depleted French forces and allies regrouped and made a stand at their traditional stronghold of Pondicherry.
Although in hindsight the Battle of Wandiwash proved to be more decisive, it was the fall of Pondicherry that brought the French war campaign in India to a rapid end. Anvar al-Dīn Khān, wished to be the first to announce the great victory, even though in reality Pondicherry was not fully conquered for another four months. Nevertheless, he perceived initial successes in demolishing and clearing the French stronghold as the very opportunity for him to build his case to King George II. As the loyal supporter serving the British cause in India, he was, in his naïvely elevated expectations, deemed worthy of recompense through honours and favourable terms against the French; all requiring the intercession of Colonel Coote and William Pitt. Unfortunately, the purpose behind the Nawab’s ambitious correspondence ended less satisfactorily.
It is important to note that the first point made in the letter addressed to King George II, after compliments to the King, is the joyful announcement of the fall of Pondicherry and its bombardment by English cannons. Although Colonel Coote did not lead this campaign, the author clearly states he served alongside the officer. Describing factors contributing to slow progress, differences among participants, and strategies, the author conveys the impression of being an eyewitness to events. Colonel Coote’s good standing with King George II (1683-1760) is noted along with the expectation that he would intercede for the author.
He then provides a summary of his longstanding good relations with and support for the English and, due to French reprisals, his involvement came at great personal and material cost. In return, the author seeks honours for his descendants and orders the EIC to respect his status, guaranteed in a sealed edict. Expecting the King to move from hostilities to reconciliation, he wishes it to be stipulated in a future treaty of peace that the French should recognise his and his heirs’ right to rule. He promises to write letters and poems often and thereby truncate the geographical distance between them. The letter ends by submitting a golden key of Pondicherry for the King and the Prince of Wales.
The following letter, addressed to the Secretary of State, Mr Pitt, begins with references to even earlier correspondence sent by the author to the recipient in gratitude for forwarding the King’s letter offering assistance against the French. The request for terms favourable to the author to be entered in the treaty of peace with the French is here restated, followed by a direct reference to the letter to King George II, described as the ‘petition of gratitude.’ Thanking Pitt for his influence, the author requests favourable intercession with the King. Interestingly the letter ends with the recommendation that the EIC share in Britain’s administration.
King George II died four days after the date of dispatch (11 Rabīʿ al-Avval 1174/21 October 1760) and William Pitt would soon be out of favour with the new king, George III (1738-1820), partly due to the vehemence of his opposition to royal plans for restoring to the French territories they lost in the course of war. The political landscape would have shifted yet further by the time the nawab’s letters arrived in England.
The Nawab lost no time in composing yet another official letter addressed to the king, the third in the present group, once news of the succession reached Indian shores. Describing his sadness at the death of the late King George II, he congratulates the unnamed kingly recipient (King George III) on his accession and appeals for business as usual. While the present letter is described as a congratulatory petition on the accession, the author recalls his sending of the earlier congratulatory petition and the subject of the conquest of Pondicherry, casting himself as the one bringing about the felicitous omen marking the auspiciousness of the new king’s reign.
Here the author provides a valuable summary of past correspondence with the British Crown. Two letters had previously been dispatched, the first from Arcot, the second from Pondicherry, both most likely referring the earlier documents within this set. Revisiting subjects already explored in the letter to King George II, the author recounts his privations and personal costs in maintaining the British at Madras. That current expenses are disputed is an interesting breach in the edifice of harmony and consensus that characterised the tone and import of the earlier documents. Requesting investigations of accounts, a provisional schedule for repayments is suggested. Once again, the author wishes the increase in his honours to be formalised and he wishes it to be stipulated in a future treaty of peace that the French should recognise his and his heirs’ right to rule. While not characterised as intercession, the glowing reports of Admiral Pocock are recommended for particulars.
The present assemblage of documents shows a remarkable unity of subject, purpose, design, language, and literary traits that can hardly be explained as incidental. They all refer to the campaign and fallout from Pondicherry directly and indirectly. Significantly, they all anticipate the drafting of a treaty of peace formalising reconciliation with the French, and this explains the repeated appeals for favourable representations and intercession with the king.
The exceptionally preserved correspondence illustrates the fragility of politics and the difficulties of establishing intergovernmental diplomatic relations between Britain and India. Despite good intentions urging communications on both sides, systemic failure was built into such long-distance correspondence, through the constraints of transportation, reception, and interpretation. These Persian documents are vivid illustrations of the pioneering Nawab of Arcot’s positive belief and sheer energy of effort in the power of diplomacy and epistolary arts to cultivate communications with the British Crown, notwithstanding the avarice and impediments of his neighbour, the EIC.
We are grateful to Dr Saqib Baburi for his research and preparation of this essay.
It is the envelope accompanying the letter to Mr William Pitt (1708 – 1778) that provides an important reference to the sender of these letters. Placed above the lines of address is an ink impression of a large, circular seal of state, with text in the nastaʿlīq hand over multiple registers of attenuated characters, listing the author’s titles as, ʿUmdat al-Mulk Sirāj al-Dawlah Anvar al-Dīn Khān Bahādur Manṣūr Jang, vassal of the Warrior-Emperor ʿĀlamgīr [II], dated to the first regnal year and 1168 Hijrī (1754-1755). The seal is the vital clue to the identity of the author through which the meaning and purpose of the whole assemblage can be explained. Consequently, we find the theatre in which the author operates switching from India’s northern and eastern regions, where one might assume the author to be situated, to the Carnatic [Karnataka], and especially the British and French settlements along the Coromandel Coast in Tamil Nadu. As governor of the Carnatic, ruled as Nawab of the town of Arcot, Muḥammad ʿAlī, entitled Anvar al-Dīn Khān (1717-1795), sided with the British against France and its allies during the Seven Years War, also known as the Third Carnatic War (1757-63). The precipitous succession of battles, sieges, and conquests shaping this period forms the backdrop to the contents of all three letters.
In retribution for the loss of territories in Bengal, the French launched an attack on British Madras [Chennai], in December 1758, which failed within a few months. Keen to regain the upper hand, in January 1760, the French attacked the strategically important fort at Wandiwash [Vandavasi] that lay not too far from either Madras or Arcot. There they were decisively defeated by EIC forces and their allies, led by Lieutenant-Colonel Eyre Coote (1726-1783). By September later in the same year, the much-depleted French forces and allies regrouped and made a stand at their traditional stronghold of Pondicherry.
Although in hindsight the Battle of Wandiwash proved to be more decisive, it was the fall of Pondicherry that brought the French war campaign in India to a rapid end. Anvar al-Dīn Khān, wished to be the first to announce the great victory, even though in reality Pondicherry was not fully conquered for another four months. Nevertheless, he perceived initial successes in demolishing and clearing the French stronghold as the very opportunity for him to build his case to King George II. As the loyal supporter serving the British cause in India, he was, in his naïvely elevated expectations, deemed worthy of recompense through honours and favourable terms against the French; all requiring the intercession of Colonel Coote and William Pitt. Unfortunately, the purpose behind the Nawab’s ambitious correspondence ended less satisfactorily.
It is important to note that the first point made in the letter addressed to King George II, after compliments to the King, is the joyful announcement of the fall of Pondicherry and its bombardment by English cannons. Although Colonel Coote did not lead this campaign, the author clearly states he served alongside the officer. Describing factors contributing to slow progress, differences among participants, and strategies, the author conveys the impression of being an eyewitness to events. Colonel Coote’s good standing with King George II (1683-1760) is noted along with the expectation that he would intercede for the author.
He then provides a summary of his longstanding good relations with and support for the English and, due to French reprisals, his involvement came at great personal and material cost. In return, the author seeks honours for his descendants and orders the EIC to respect his status, guaranteed in a sealed edict. Expecting the King to move from hostilities to reconciliation, he wishes it to be stipulated in a future treaty of peace that the French should recognise his and his heirs’ right to rule. He promises to write letters and poems often and thereby truncate the geographical distance between them. The letter ends by submitting a golden key of Pondicherry for the King and the Prince of Wales.
The following letter, addressed to the Secretary of State, Mr Pitt, begins with references to even earlier correspondence sent by the author to the recipient in gratitude for forwarding the King’s letter offering assistance against the French. The request for terms favourable to the author to be entered in the treaty of peace with the French is here restated, followed by a direct reference to the letter to King George II, described as the ‘petition of gratitude.’ Thanking Pitt for his influence, the author requests favourable intercession with the King. Interestingly the letter ends with the recommendation that the EIC share in Britain’s administration.
King George II died four days after the date of dispatch (11 Rabīʿ al-Avval 1174/21 October 1760) and William Pitt would soon be out of favour with the new king, George III (1738-1820), partly due to the vehemence of his opposition to royal plans for restoring to the French territories they lost in the course of war. The political landscape would have shifted yet further by the time the nawab’s letters arrived in England.
The Nawab lost no time in composing yet another official letter addressed to the king, the third in the present group, once news of the succession reached Indian shores. Describing his sadness at the death of the late King George II, he congratulates the unnamed kingly recipient (King George III) on his accession and appeals for business as usual. While the present letter is described as a congratulatory petition on the accession, the author recalls his sending of the earlier congratulatory petition and the subject of the conquest of Pondicherry, casting himself as the one bringing about the felicitous omen marking the auspiciousness of the new king’s reign.
Here the author provides a valuable summary of past correspondence with the British Crown. Two letters had previously been dispatched, the first from Arcot, the second from Pondicherry, both most likely referring the earlier documents within this set. Revisiting subjects already explored in the letter to King George II, the author recounts his privations and personal costs in maintaining the British at Madras. That current expenses are disputed is an interesting breach in the edifice of harmony and consensus that characterised the tone and import of the earlier documents. Requesting investigations of accounts, a provisional schedule for repayments is suggested. Once again, the author wishes the increase in his honours to be formalised and he wishes it to be stipulated in a future treaty of peace that the French should recognise his and his heirs’ right to rule. While not characterised as intercession, the glowing reports of Admiral Pocock are recommended for particulars.
The present assemblage of documents shows a remarkable unity of subject, purpose, design, language, and literary traits that can hardly be explained as incidental. They all refer to the campaign and fallout from Pondicherry directly and indirectly. Significantly, they all anticipate the drafting of a treaty of peace formalising reconciliation with the French, and this explains the repeated appeals for favourable representations and intercession with the king.
The exceptionally preserved correspondence illustrates the fragility of politics and the difficulties of establishing intergovernmental diplomatic relations between Britain and India. Despite good intentions urging communications on both sides, systemic failure was built into such long-distance correspondence, through the constraints of transportation, reception, and interpretation. These Persian documents are vivid illustrations of the pioneering Nawab of Arcot’s positive belief and sheer energy of effort in the power of diplomacy and epistolary arts to cultivate communications with the British Crown, notwithstanding the avarice and impediments of his neighbour, the EIC.
We are grateful to Dr Saqib Baburi for his research and preparation of this essay.