Wainwright

7/30/2019 Wainwright

1/10

Queen Victoria and the Maharaja Duleep Singh:

Conficting Identities in an Imperial Context

A. Martin Wainwright*

An argument that starts from the sovereign claims of the son

of the Lion of Punjab, ends, somewhat ridiculously, though

not without a touch of pathos, with the sorrows of the Squire

of Elveden.1

Thus did an anonymous Times editorial of August 31, 1882, dismissthe Maharaja Duleep Singhs claim to his family estates by summarizing

the metamorphosis of his social and cultural identity. To this day Punjabs

ast maharaa remais a eimatic ad probematic re. Few wod

dispute that there is a touch of pathos to his life, but there remains no

areemet o precisey where he t i the British empires socia strctre.

One of the problems with any analysis of Duleep is that he underwent so

may metamorphoses. First, i the 1840s he was the yo maharaa, who

served alternately as the political pawn of the Sikh army, his mother, and

the British East Idia Compay. The, i the 1850s he became the exotic,

partiay-Westerized Idia price who stayed freqety as the est ofQueen Victoria while acquiring the habits of an English country gentleman.

For the ext thirty years, he resided i Britai, etertaii its aristocracy

ad immersi himsef fy i that society. Bt this ife ay broke dow i

the 1880s amid recrimiatio aaist British athorities over the oss of his

inheritance. He then resumed his Sikh identity and became a rebel against

the British Empire. Fiay, i the eary 1890s as a aii ma faci death,

he sought and received a royal pardon and tried to regain the standing that

he had ost with his British frieds.

Such a chameleon can appear in any hue that writers wish to give

him. For ate Victorias, whether the maharaas critics or frieds, Deep

had adopted many of the attributes of an English gentleman. Depending

on their perspective, either his lust for wealth led him into a self-centered

rebeio aaist his adopted ad, or the obstiacy of British breacrats

ad the temptatios of Sikh aitators ed him temporariy astray. I the eyes

of may twetieth-cetry Idias, depedi o their attitde toward the

relationship of the Sikh community to the rest of the subcontinent, he was


2/10

70 OAH PROCEEDIngS

either a hero of the early independence movement or a champion of Sikh

nationalism. All these characterizations of Duleep Singh draw on one or two

phases of his ife, bt ever a of them. The probem with both the acia

ad atioaist expaatios of Deeps motives is that either ts the c-

tural setting in which Duleep lived. The former results from a late-Victorian,pper-midde-cass British cotempt for the stereotypica diettate Easter

prince who often visited the center of imperial power. The latter represents

a Idia or Sikh atioa cosciosess that the maharaa appears oy

dimly to have appreciated. While both account in part for Duleeps behavior,

either is sfciet aoe or i combiatio with the other. The compexity of

the maharajas cultural and political odyssey may lead one to conclude that

he did, ideed, o throh severa differet ad mtay excsive seses

of his ow ethic idetity. It is derstadabe, therefore, that Michae Aex-

ander and Sushila Anand, who wrote the most scholarly biography of Duleepto date, did ot attempt to d a ifyi theme to his behavior.2

nevertheess, Deeps ife did exhibit sch ity. The reaso that it

is ot apparet is that his oyaties to ad ideticatio with a arer rop

bore little relation to those that are common today, or that were coming to

domiate the poitica ad ctra ife of ate-ieteeth cetry Britai ad

Idia. Deep cosistety c to his idetity as the maharaa of Pab,

bt for him this tite had itte to do with Idia or Sikh atioaism. nor did

it precde him from cosideri himsef a sbect of Qee Victoria. For

Deeps cocept of aeiace was either ethic or atioa. Rather itwas dynastic, and it thrived on the personal ties that were possible in an

empire that retained the concept of subjecthood to the monarch rather than

citizeship of the state. I this sese Deep had mch i commo with

Victoria, who aso rearded may aspects of the British Empire i terms of

personal rule and encouraged the maharaja to do the same. Duleep Singhs

rebeio was, therefore, ot so mch a matter of either atioaism or sesh

petulance as it was of dynastic honor.

When the Times published its editorial dismissing the maharajascaims to his iheritace, thirty-six years of ecoters with British athority

had apparently transformed the heir to the kingdom of the Sikh conqueror,

Rait Sih, ito a Eish cotry etema, who mied with the hih-

est echeos of British society. The editoria was a respose to Deeps

own letter, published in the same edition of the Times. Caimi that the

East Idia Compays 1849 aexatio of Pab vioated earier treaties

and punished him for a rebellion in which he took no part, the maharaja

procaimed: I have bee most sty deprived of my kidom, ad I


3/10

QuEEn VICTORIA AnD THE MAHARAjA DulEEP SIngH 71

am still the lawful Sovereign of the Punjaub [sic]. But rather than caim the

riht to rue his former kindom, he conceded: I am quite content to be the

subject of my Most gracious Soverein. Instead of restoration to his throne,

the purpose of his public letter was to seek the fortune that he had lost as

a chid, when the East India Company had conscated his persona estatesalong with his kingdom. The former, he argued, would have returned to him

revenues of rouhy 130,000 per annum. Rather than aow him to draw

on his famiy fortune, the East India Company had made the maharaja its

tota dependent promisin him an aowance of at east 40,000 a year once

he reached adulthood. When the time came to make good on this promise,

however, the East India Company uniateray reduced its obiation to 25,000

per annum. The Company and its successor, the India Ofce, provided oans

aainst this aowance to rent severa estates, usuay castes with exceent

huntin rounds, around Enand and Scotand. In 1863 the India Ofceave him a oan of 110,000 to purchase Eveden Ha in Suffok. It withhed

the payment for these loans from his allowance, however, thus reducing his

stipend to rouhy 13,000 per annum. To this amount Pariament mandated

an increase of 2,000 in 1880. Athouh the resutin sum of 15,000 was

consideraby more than the annua income of the averae British peer, it fe far

short of the inheritance to which the maharaja considered himself entitled.3

Deeps wiiess to accept a acia sotio to the oss of his

sovereity appeared to dermie his armet. For the maharaa had

hardy sffered at the hads of British athorities sice the oss of his ki-dom. I 1854 at the ae of ftee, he mirated to Ead ad befrieded

Queen Victoria. At his residences, he frequently entertained friends from

the hihest eves of British society. Amo them was the Price of Waes.

It shod therefore come as o srprise that The London Times editorial

portrayed Duleep as a spoiled aristocrat who was raising tenuous and po-

tetiay daeros poitica isses soey i a attempt to force the British

overmet ito spporti his excessivey avish stadard of ivi.

His argument concerning his de jure sovereignty of the Punjabis manifestly only intended to support his pecuniary claims.

If this were setted to his satisfactio, he wod dobtess be

content, and more than content, to die, as he lived, an English

country gentleman, with estates swarming with game, and

with a icome sfciet to his eeds.4

The problem with this argument is that, within four years of the pub-

lication of his letter, Duleep Singh tried to organize a rebellion against the


4/10

72 OAH PROCEEDIngS

British Ra. He cotacted Sikh atioaists, procaimed the restoratio of

his kidom, ad traveed to St. Petersbr seeki miitary ad acia

assistace for the creatio of a Sikh army. I doi so he aieated the very

socia circe that formed the basis of his ife i Britai ad exied himsef from

the country where his family now liveda high price indeed to pay for gain-i the abiity to ive a ife of xry that reqired more tha the the ordy

icome of 15,000 per am cod provide.

Many have disagreed with this analysis of the maharajas grievance.

Recent years have witnessed a resurence of interest in him, particuary amon

Sikhs, many of whom reard him as one of their nationa heroes. For exampe,

one book, pubished in 1998, describes him in its tite as hter for freedom.5

In their attempt to hihiht Dueeps roe as a nationa hero, such historians,

whether amateur or professional, challenge assertions of his transformationfrom a Sikh maharaja into an English gentleman. The Maharaja Duleep Singh

Centenary Society, a Sikh-British oranization, created in 1993 on the hundredth

anniversary of Duleeps death, summarizes the reasons for his abortive attempt

to throw off Britains rue over Punjab in the foowin terms:

Despite his Eish edcatio, Christia coversio, roya

treatmet, xrios ife stye amid Eropea amor, the

rebellious Sikh spirit, that had tasted sovereignty, was hi-

bernating in some remote recess of the sub-conscious mind

of Maharajah Duleep Singh who on gaining self-awarenessunderwent a metamorphosis that turned him into a rebel.6

More recently this organization dedicated a statue to him near El-

vede Ha. It depicts the maharaa atop a horse hodi a sword, a pose

which he almost certainly never adopted in real life.7 It is tre that i his

correspodece with Sikh atioaists i the 1880s Deep styed himsef

the lawf Soverei of the Sikh natio.8 Yet as the Ceteary Societys

description of him suggests, his role as a Sikh hero is problematic because

of his earlier persona as an English gentleman.

Sice from the ae of ftee oward Deep did ot reside i Idia,

ad sice he had o coectio with the commity of Idia iteectas

living in England, he acquired little if any sense of the national consciousness

that was spreadi across the sbcotiet i the wake of British coqest.

nor is there ay evidece to sest that his aristocratic frieds dispayed

eoh British atioaism for it to serve as a mode for him. Dri this

period, his oy siicat Sikh cotact was his mother, jida Kor, who


5/10


spet the ast two years of her ife, 1861-1863, i Britai with him. It was

she who rst iformed him of a prophesy abot a rer who wod retr

from exie to iberate the Sikh peope. Bt there is itte idicatio that he

took this information seriously at the time, if for no other reason than he was

a votary covert to Christiaity ad a cose fried of may members ofBritais socia eite.

What Duleep was conscious of, however, was his status as the ma-

haraa of Pab, a tite which the British aexatio of his homead had

considerably diminished. His situation differed from traditional practice in

Idia, where the tribtary systems of the Mha ad Mahratta empires had

allowed kings to rule their domains while acknowledging their subjection to

an imperial dynast.9 It differed aso from that of may other Idia moarchs

who had recoized the paramotcy of the East Idia Compay whieretaii siicat eves of cotro over oca affairs. Deeps misforte

was to have been titular ruler of Punjab during the governor-generalship of

lord Dahosie, whose preferece for direct aexatio of Idia kidoms

was otorios ad ater became a maor deryi reaso for the Rebeio

of 1857-1858. The Rebeio cased the British overmet to repace the

Compays re i Idia with that of its ow, ewy created Idia Ofce ad

to refrai from frther direct aexatios of Idia kidoms. Bt for Deep

it was too ate. He had ost his kidom ad the Idia Ofce showed o

iterest i restori it. I marked cotrast to Dahosies poicy the Crow

Ra extoed Idias prices i a attempt to secre them as aies aaistany future rebellion.

Long before she became empress, however, Queen Victoria herself

honored Duleep publicly in England. She and the prime minister, Lord Ab-

erdeen, soon agreed that it would be most appropriate if we accordingly

treated himjustas we do all Princes.10 Although this category did not include

the royal princes, it placed the maharaja on a par with the lesser princes

of the germa states. At pbic occasios British ofcias accorded him

precedece over ambassadors ad British aristocrats, ad sometimes hadto respod to the racia otrae of germa prices ad their staffs. give

sch recoitio it is ot srprisi that lodos excsive Carto Cb

made him a member, a level of social acceptance for a person of color in

white society that wod have bee thikabe i Idia or the white-setter

colonies.

I this socia ad poitica cotext Deep acqired a da idetity,

which was only possible under a pre-modern system of loyalty. As maha-


6/10

74 OAH PROCEEDIngS

raja, he continued to regard himself as the lawful sovereign of the Punjab.

Bt he aso recoized that the East Idia Compays victory i 1846 over

Sikh forces of which he was the titular ruler had limited this sovereignty.

He therefore rearded himsef as a ki who owed aeiace to the British

moarch. I this sese he aso cosidered himsef a British sbect, a termwhich he used frequently.

Queen Victoria encouraed this dynastic view of Dueeps British

identity because she believed it applied to all her subjects. Even before the

Rebeion of 1857-1858, which ofciay transferred East India Company pos-

sessions to the Crown, she wrote in her journa of havin had to despoi him

[Dueep] of his Kindom,11 as if she herself had committed this act rather

than a company that hardly considered her personal wishes at all. After the

rebeion with the introduction of monarchica phrases such as Crown Rajand viceroy, to describe the trappins of British rue, Victoria insisted that

she pay a roe in the overnment of India. She stated as much to her prime

minister, lord Pamerston, durin the Sepoy Rebeion: As on as the gov-

ernment [of India] was that of the Company, the Soverein was eneray eft

quite inorant of decisions and despatches; now that the government is to

be that of the Sovereign, and the direction will, she presumes, be given in

her name, a direct ofcia responsibiity to her wi have to be estabished.12

More privately her journal entries indicate a personal desire to have titular

sovereinty over the subcontinent, that India shd [sic] belong to me.13

Her dyastic approach to the British sbecthood of Idias compe-

mented her class-based disdain toward institutions of state that attempted

to interfere with a direct relationship between her and her subjects. Such

sentiment surfaced a generation later when Victoria complained that the

Idia overmet shod attempt to hire peope of hiher caibre sociay.14

From the eariest days of her friedship with Deep, she rearded sch

bureaucrats as beneath the maharaja socially and not worthy of controlling

his acia affairs. I a etter to lord Dahosie, writte i 1854, Victoria

complained:

There is something too painful in the idea of a young deposed

sovereign, once so powerful, receiving a pension, and hav-

ing no security that his children and descendants, and these

moreover Christias, shod have ay home or positio.15

As a friend of the royal family, Duleep must have picked up on

Victorias annoyance with her ministers and civil servants and the elitist


7/10


toe that ofte accompaied it. It heps to expai why, eve whe he had

reected his British aeiace ad was attempti to oraize a rebeio

aaist the British Ra, he distiished his aimosity to the overmet

from his personal regard for Queen Victoria in a letter he wrote to her:

For Yor Maestys govermet havi braded me disoya

whe god kows I was most oya ad devoted to Yor Ma-

esty I had o other corse ope to me except either to tr

traitor or continue to submit to the insults repeatedly offered

to me by the Admiistratio of Idia.16

It is worth oti, however, that as vated as Deeps positio i

British society was, it did ot match the eve he miht have expected i a

Idia free of British re. Idias, of corse, wod have o more cosideredthe maharaja of Punjab to be a lesser prince than would Europeans, the

ki of Swede. Both ads were oce powerf reioa kidoms whose

iece had waed. Deeps father had red oe of the most formidabe

powers in South Asia, and it is likely that the young maharaja considered

himself every bit as royal as the children of Queen Victoria. The difference

ay i the fact that Victorias forces had defeated his ow o the batteed,

not vice versa. I his ater correspodece with Sikh atioaists, they ad-

dressed him as Your Majesty.17

Deep was soo to ear that, i spite of his acceptace by Britaiselite, there were two ways in which he did not even enjoy the privileges of

a esser British obe. Oe imitatio was racia. For athoh Britai had

o aws aaist misceeatio, the maharaa fod it impossibe to d a

bride amo the wome of Britais aristocracy. Qee Victoria smmarized

his remarks to Prince Albert regarding this dilemma: He could not marry a

Heathe, ad a Idia who wod become a Christia oy to pease him,

would be very objectionable. Were he to marry a European, his children

would be half-caste, which would not do.18 The royal couple encouraged

him to cort their odchid, the Idia pricess, gorama of Coor. BtDeep showed itte iterest i her, ad her ow sexa improprieties made

her eve ess sitabe i his eyes. I 1864 frstrated by the ack of iterest

i him amo Eropea aristocratic famiies, he wedded Bamba Mer, a

Ethiopia Coptic womas ieitimate dahter whom a germa merchat

had adopted.

The other imitatio was ea, becase the East Idia Compay ad

its sccessor, the Idia Ofce, hed the maharaas prse stris. Frther-


8/10

76 OAH PROCEEDIngS

more, these institutions regarded him more with suspicion than the respect

that the moarchy accorded him. I spite of Qee Victorias repeated peas

for a more favorabe acia adstmet or a restoratio of some of his

Idia estates, the Idia Ofce cotied to treat the maharaa as acia

dependent, much as a parent might treat an adolescent child.

I the cotext of his birth ad oriis these acia woes mst have

seemed ai. His freqet eed to petitio the Idia Ofce for moey,

his acia iabiity to ive as a roya, the circmstaces that forced him

to marry a woman well beneath his rankall of these setbacks and com-

promises must have reminded him of the kingdom and attendant fortune

that he had lost as a child. Duleeps failure to achieve a satisfactory settle-

met with the Idia Ofce occrred arod the time of two we-pbicized

wars in which non-European monarchs received radically different, and inDeeps opiio, better treatmet at the hads of British athorities tha

he had. Oe was the Z War i which Ceteswayo had ed his army to

initial victory then ultimate defeat. His actions had resulted in the loss of

thosads of British sodiers. Yet he retaied cotro of his kidom as a

protectorate of the British empire ad received a warm wecome o his visit

to Ead. The secod was the war aaist Ahmed Arabi, a ofcer i the

army of Tewk Pasha, the khedive of Eypt. British forces crshed Arabis

revolt but allowed the khedive, who had not been involved in the rebellion,

to remai o his throe, oce aai as the rer of a British protectorate. As

Duleep remarked in his letter to The London Times, My case at that timewas exacty simiar to what the Khedives is at this momet.19

It is i this cotext, of a moarchs persoa sese of rak ad hoor

that we mst derstad Deeps actios from 1885 to 1890: his recover-

sion to Sikhism, his contacts with and proclamations of independence to

Sikh atioaists, ad his orey to Rssia to seek the acia ad materia

spport of Tsar Aexader III. By the time Deep visited Rssia i 1887,

however, the hitherto chilly relations between London and St. Petersburg

were beginning to thaw, and the Tsar was unwilling to meet with the maharaja,et aoe cosider his pea for assistace. Withot Rssia hep, Deeps

hope of restoring his throne evaporated. He spent the remainder of his life

i Paris. After he sffered a stroke i 1890, his edest so, Victor, who was

a ofcer i the British army, persaded him to petitio Qee Victoria for a

pardo. With the areemet of the British overmet, she rated it, ths

aowi the maharaa to visit Ead oce aai. Whe he died i 1893

he was buried at Elveden Hall.


9/10


Twenty years earlier Queen Victoria and Prime Minister William

Ewart gadstoe had areed to pace Deep Sih at the apoee of British

society by offering him a peerage. Party politics and changes of govern-

met cospired to deay the offer, bt by the time it ay arrived i 1880,

the maharaja was no longer interested. When Lord Argyll, the Secretaryof State for Idia, visited Evede to make a aterative offer of peeraes

for his sos, Victors British ttor witessed the meeti ad ater recaed,

the maharajas reply:

I thak Her Maesty. Most heartiy ad hmby covey to her

my esteem affectio ad admiratio. Beyod that I caot

o. I caim mysef to be roya; I am ot Eish, ad either

I or my chidre wi ever become so. Sch titesthoh

kindly offered, we do not need and cannot assume. Welove the English and especially their Monarch, but we must

remain Sikhs.20

Sch a rebff cod hardy have rested soey from the acia

sorrows of the squire of Elveden. More likely it came from a man who was

very conscious of his personal identity as the son of the Lion of Punjab.

NOTES

*

1. The London Times, 31 August 1882, 7.

2. Athoh direct criticism of Deep Sih was coed to codetia overmet

correspodets ad editorias i British ewspapers, the wife of the maharaas deceased

ttor, Sir joh loi, wrote a memoir that portrayed their chare as a ood yo ma who

had ater oe astray at the behest of Sikh cospirators. See lady lea Campbe loi,

Sir John Login and Duleep Singh (Patiaa: . p., 1890). Sice Deep Sih is a atioa

hero for may Sikhs, he is the sbect of ofcia pbicatios of the Sikh commity. Recet

exampes of atioaist portrayas of Deep Sih icde Baadewa Siha Baddaa, Ma-

haraja Duleep Singh: Fighter for Freedom (Dehi: natioa Book Shop, 1998) ad PrithipaSih Kapr, ed., Maharajah Duleep Singh: The Last Sovereign Ruler of the Punjab (Amritsar:

Shiromai grdwara Parbadhak Committee, 1995). Eve the Maharaja Duleep Singh

Correspondence (Patiaa: Pabi uiversity, 1977) is part of a arer series etited The

Freedom Movement. For a accot, aimed at a eera adiece, of Deeps deais with

Sikh atioaists see Christy Campbe, The Maharajas Box: An Imperial Story of Conspiracy,

Love and a Gurus Prophecy(lodo: Harper Cois, 2000). For a schoary examiatio

of his reatioship with Qee Victoria, see Michae Aexader ad Sshia Aad, Queen

Victorias Maharajah: Duleep Singh, 1838-93 (new York: Tapier Pbishi Co., 1980). It

is perhaps the best treatment of Duleeps life.


10/10

78 OAH PROCEEDIngS

3. The London Times, 31 Ast 1882, 5.

4. The London Times, 31 August 1882, 7.

5. Baddaa, Maharaja Duleep Singh: Fighter for Freedom.

6. The Rebe Price at The Maharaa Deep Sih Ceteary Trst, http://www.mdsct.or.k/ifestory/lifeStory.htm, dowoaded 11 March 2001.

7. Campbe, The Maharajas Box, xv.

8. Ecosre B to R. D. Watso to Viscot Cross, 28 jaary 1887, The Maharaja

Duleep Singh Correspondence, no. 416.

9. See Adr Wik, Land and Sovereignty in India: Agrarian Society and Politics Un-

der the Eighteenth-Century Maratha Svar_jya (Cambride: Cambride uiversity Press,

1986).

10. Qoted i Aexader ad Aad, Queen Victorias Maharajah, 55.

11. Qoted i Aexader ad Aad, Queen Victorias Maharajah, 50

12. Qee Victoria to Viscot Pamersto, 24 December 1857, Letters of Queen Victo-

ria, 1837-1861, ed. Arthr Christopher Beso ad Viscot Esher (new York: lomas,

gree, ad Co., 1907), 3: 327.

13. Quoted in Elizabeth Longford, Victoria R. I. (lodo: Weidefed ad nicoso,

1964), 280.

14. Qoted i Marqess of ladsdowe to Qee Victoria, 13 May 1891, Letters of

Queen Victoria, 1886-1901, 2: 29.

15. Qee Victoria to the Marqess of Dahosie, 2 October 1854, Letters of Queen

Victoria, 1837-1861, 3: 61.16. Qoted i Aexader ad Aad, Queen Victorias Maharaja, 230.

17. See for istace the etter headed From Sardar Thakr Sih Sihawaia to His

Maesty Maharaa Deep Sih, 9 november 1883, i The Maharaja Duleep Singh Cor-

respondence, no. 162.

18. Qoted i Aexader ad Aad, Queen Victorias Maharajah, 65.

19. The London Times, 31 Ast 1882, 5.

20. The ttor was Rev. j. Osbore jay, whose accot is qoted by Bamba Stherad,

Deep Sihs dahter, i her preface to Price Frederick Deep Sih, Portraits in Norfolk

Houses, ed. Rev. Edmd Farrer (norwich: jarrod ad Sos, 1928), 1: xiv.

Wainwright

Documents

Transcript of Wainwright