he Case of the Begams of Oudh
After the death of Shuja,-ud-daulah, a shrewd, industrious and clever administrator, on the 26th January, 1775, his son and successor, Asaf-ud-daulah, unwisely allowed his liabilities to the Company to be increased by entering into a new treaty with them known as the Treaty of Faizabad-particularly binding himself thereby to pay a heavier subsidy for the maintenance of British troops. The administration of Oudh grew more arid more corrupt under the new Nawab, and the subsidy payable to the Company fell into arrears. The Begams of Oudh, mother and. grandmother of the reigning prince, had inherited from the deceased Nawab extensive jagirs and immense wealth, which, however, Asaf-ud-dALLlah, pressed by the Company for money, sought to seize on the ground that he had been unjustly deprived of them. In 1775, on the representations of Middleton, the British Resident in Oudh, the widow of Shuja-ud-dALLlah gave to her son 300,000, in addition to 250,000 already paid to him, the British Resident and the Council in Calcutta having given a guarantee that no further demands should be made on her in future. Hastings, opposed to his Council at this time, was outvoted. When in 1781 the Nawab of Oudh, pressed by the British Resident, proposed that he should be permitted to seize the property and wealth of the Begams to clear off his dues to the Company, Hastings had no hesitation in consenting to it and in withdrawing British protection from them. The Nawab soon began to waver and was afraid, as the Resident remarked, of the “uncommonly violent temper of his female relations”; but Hastings helped to screw up his courage. The Governor-General wrote to Middleton in December, 1781: “You must not allow any negotiations or forbearance, but must prosecute both services until the Begams are at the entire mercy of the Nawab.” British troops were sent to Faizabad, where the Begams lived; and their eunuchs were compelled by imprisonment, starvation and threat, if not actual infliction, of flogging, to surrender the treasure in December, 1782.
The conduct of Hastings on this occasion exceeded all limits of decency and justice. “The employment of personal severities, under the superintendence of British officers, in order to extract money from women and eunuch,” observes Sir Alfred Lyall rightly, “is an ignoble kind of undertaking; . . . to cancel the guarantee and leave the Nawab to deal with the recalcitrant princes was justifiable; to push him on and actively assist in measures of coercion against women and eunuch was conduct unworthy and indefensible.” There can be no doubt that Hastings was the moving spirit” in the whole transaction. Hastings argued, and his defenders maintain, that the Begams had forfeited their claim to British protection for their complicity in the affair of Chait Singh. The contention is hardly tenable. The testimony in regard to it is conflicting and “the charge of rebellion was ex poet facto, made when it was found necessary to present a justification for the whole business”.
In his last year of office Hastings made some unsuccessful attempts to reorganize the administration and finances of Oudh. Under the orders of the Court of Directors, he effected a partial restitution of the jagir to the Begams, and removed the British Residency, but established in its place “an agency of the Governor. General” which proved to be a heavier burden on the resources of the State.
Policy of Cornwallis and Shore to Oudh
In fact, Oudh continued to groan under the evils of maladministration and the burden of the Company’s financial demands. In the time of Lord Cornwallis, the Nawab appealed to him to relieve him of the “oppressive pecuniary burden” by withdrawing the Company’s troops stationed at Cawnpore and Fatehgarh. After meeting the Nawab’s minister Hyder Beg in a conference, the Governor-General agreed to reduce the subsidies from seventy-four to fifty lacs but objected to the withdrawal of British troops. Hyder Beg was really an able minister, eager to reform -the administration, but with his death in 1794, all hope of reform came to an end. On the death of Asaf-ud-daulah in 1797, Sir John Shore intervened in the case of disputed succession between Wazir ‘Ah-, whom Asaf-ud-daulah had looked upon as his successor, and Sa’adat ‘au, the deceased Nawab’s eldest brother. He raised the latter to the throne and entered into a treaty with him on the 21st January, 1798. By this the annual subsidy to be paid by the Nawab was raised to seventy-six lacs of rupees; the fort of Allahabad, des- cribed by Mar&mn aa the ” military key of the province “, was ceded to the Company; the Nawab bound himself not to hold communications with, or admit into kingdom, the other Europeans; and Wazir ‘All was allowed to live at Benares on an annual pension of a lao and a half of rupees. arrangement, no doubt, greatly enhanced the Company’s influence, but in no way served to remove the corruption in the internal government of Oudh. Throughout this province, “there were in all respects embarrassment and disorder. The British subsidy was always in arrear, while the most frightful extortion was practised in the realization of the revenue Justice was unknown;