Such was the state of parties and politics at Kotah in November 1819, when the death of the Maharao developed views that had long been concealed, and that produced the most deplorable results. The regent was at the Chhaoni, his standing camp at Gagraun, when this event occurred, and he immediately repaired to the capital, to see that the last offices were properly performed, and to proclaim the an, or oath of allegiance, and the accession of the Maharao Kishor Singh [562].
The Political Agent received the intelligence[[8]] on his march from Marwar to Mewar, and immediately addressed his government on the subject, requesting instructions. Meanwhile, after a few days’ halt at Udaipur, he repaired to Kotah to observe the state of parties, whose animosities and expectations were forebodings of a change which menaced the guaranteed order of things. On his arrival, he found the aged regent, still a stranger to the luxury of a house, encamped a mile beyond the city, with his devoted bands around him; while his son, the heir to his power, continued in his palace in the town. The prince and brothers, as heretofore, resided at the palace in the castle, where they held their coteries, of which Gordhandas and Prithi Singh were the principals, moulding the new Maharao to their will, and from which the second brother, Bishan Singh, was excluded. Although the late prince had hardly ceased to breathe, before the animosities so long existing between the sons of the regent burst forth, and threatened ‘war within the gates’; and although nothing short of the recovery of rights so long in abeyance was determined upon by the prince; yet—and it will hardly be believed—these schemes escaped the vigilance of the regent.
The death of his friend and sovereign, added to care and infirmity, brought on a fit of illness, the result of which was expected to crown the hopes of the parties who were interested in the event; and when, to their surprise and regret, he recovered, the plans of his prince and natural son were matured, and as notorious as the sun at noon to every person of note but the regent himself. He was not, indeed, the first aged ruler, however renowned for wisdom, who had been kept in ignorance of the cabals of his family. It required a prophet to announce to David the usurpation of Adonijah;[[9]] and the same cause, which kept David ignorant that his son had supplanted him, concealed from the penetrating eye of Zalim Singh the plot which had for its object that his power should perish with him, and that his son Gordhan should supersede [563] the heir to his hereditary staff of office. Strange as it must appear, the British Agent acted the part of Nathan on this occasion, and had to break the intelligence to the man who had swayed for sixty years, with despotic authority, the destinies of Kotah, that his sons were arming against each other, and that his prince was determined that his wand (chhari) of power should (to speak in their metaphorical style) be consumed in the same pyre with himself whenever the ‘decree of Bhagwan’ went forth.
It was then that the supplemental articles, guaranteeing Madho Singh in the succession to the regency, proved a stumbling-block in the path of our mediation between parties, the one called on to renounce that dear-bought power, the other determined to regain what time and accident had wrested from him. Had the emergency occurred while the predatory system was predominant, not a whisper would have been raised; the point in all probability would never have been mooted: it would have been considered as a matter of course, where
Amurath to Amurath succeeds,
that the Maharao Kishor should continue the same puppet in the hands of Madho Singh that his father had been in Zalim’s. This would have excited no surprise, nor would such a proceeding have afforded speculation for one hour. Nay, the usurper might have advanced to the ulterior step; and, like the Frank Maire du Palais, have demanded of the pontiff of Nathdwara, as did Pepin of Pope Zacharias, “whether he who had the power, should not also have the title, of king”;[[10]] and the same plenary indulgence would have awaited the first Jhala Raja of Kotah as was granted to the first of the Carlovingian kings! It, therefore, became a matter of astonishment, especially to the unreflecting, whence arose the general sympathy, amounting to enthusiasm, towards this hitherto disregarded family, not only from chief and peasant, within the bounds of Haraoti, and the foreign mercenary army raised and maintained by the regent, but from the neighbouring princes and nobles, who had hitherto looked upon the usurpation in silence.
A short explanation will solve what was then enigmatical, even to those most interested in forming a just opinion. The practice of the moral virtues amongst any portion of civilized society may be uncertain, but there is one invariable estimate or standard of them in theory. The policy of 1817 changed the moral with the political [564] aspect of Rajasthan. If, previous thereto, no voice was raised against usurpation and crime, it was because all hope that their condition could be ameliorated was extinct. But this was to them a naya samvat, a ‘new era,’ a day of universal regeneration. Was the sovereign not to look for the restoration of that power which had been guaranteed by treaty—nor the chiefs to claim the restitution of their estates—nor the peasant to hope for the lands now added to the crown domain;—and were not all foreign potentates interested in calling for an example of retributive justice for ministerial usurpation, however mildly exercised towards the prince? With more rational than political argument, they appealed to our high notions of public justice to accomplish these objects. Unhappy position, in which circumstances—nay, paradoxical as it may appear, political gratitude and justice—dictated a contrary course, and marshalled British battalions in line with the retainers of usurpation to combat the lawful sovereign of the country! The case was one of the most difficult that ever beset our policy in the East, which must always to a certain extent be adapted to the condition of those with whom we come in contact; and perhaps, on this occasion, no caution or foresight could have averted the effects of this affiance.
Effects of the British Treaty.
If these articles were not dictated by good policy; if they cannot be defended on the plea of expediency; if the omission in the original treaty of December could not be supplied in March, without questioning the want of foresight of the framer; he might justify them on the ground that they were a concession to feelings of gratitude for important services, rendered at a moment when the fate of our power in India was involved to an extent unprecedented since its origin. To effect a treaty with the Nestor of Rajwara, was to ensure alliances with the rest of the States, which object was the very essence of Lord Hastings’ policy. Thus, on general views, as well as for particular reasons (for the resources of Kotah were absolutely indispensable), the co-operation of the regent was a measure vitally important. Still it may be urged that as the regent himself, from whatever motive, had allowed [565] the time to go by when necessity might have compelled us to incorporate such an article in the original treaty, was there no other mode of reimbursing these services besides a guarantee which was an apple of discord? The war was at an end; and we might with justice have urged that ‘the State of Kotah,’ with which we had treated, had, in the destruction of all the powers of anarchy and sharing in its spoils, fully reaped the reward of her services. Such an argument would doubtless have been diplomatically just; but we were still revelling in the excitement of unparalleled success, to which Zalim had been no mean contributor, and the future evil was overlooked in the feverish joy of the hour. But if cold expediency may not deem this a sufficient justification, we may find other reasons. When the author of the policy of 1817 had maturely adjusted his plans for the union of all the settled governments in a league against the predatory system, it became necessary to adopt a broad principle with respect to those with whom we had to treat. At such a moment he could not institute a patient investigation into the moral discipline of each State, or demand of those who wielded the power by what tenure they held their authority. It became, therefore, a matter of necessity to recognize those who were the rulers de facto, a principle which was publicly promulgated and universally acted upon. Whether we should have been justified in March, when all our wishes had been consummated, in declining a proposal which we would most gladly have submitted to in December, is a question which we shall leave diplomatists to settle,[[11]] and proceed to relate the result of the measure.
The counsellors of the new Maharao soon expounded to him the terms of the treaty, and urged him to demand its fulfilment according to its literal interpretation. The politic deference, which the regent had invariably shown to the late prince, was turned skilfully into an offensive weapon against him. They triumphantly appealed to the tenth article of the treaty, “the Maharao, his heirs and successors, shall remain absolute rulers of their country”; and demanded how we could reconcile our subsequent determination to guarantee Madho Singh and his heirs in the enjoyment of power, which made him de facto the prince, and “reduced the gaddi of Kotah to a simple heap of cotton?”—with the fact before our eyes, that the seals of all the contracting parties were to the original treaty, but that of the supplemental articles the late Maharao died in absolute ignorance [566].