The Native and the Sahib Bahadur in Colonial India

Ahmad Saeed

The Queen Empress in her proclamation had made it abundantly clear that: “We declare it to be our Royal Will and pleasure that none be in any wise favoured, none molested or disquieted by reason of their religious faith or observance, but that all shall alike enjoy the equal and impartial protection of law; and we do strictly charge and enjoin all those who may be in authority under US, that they abstain from all interference with the religious belief or worship of any of our subjects, on pain of our highest displeasure.”1

But this proclamation remained a dead letter and was never implemented either in its letter or spirit. The Indians, especially the Muslims, were denied to observe their religious obligations. In 1892, the Duke of Clearance and Avondale died in England. The Indians were forced to mourn his death. All the shops in Lahore were forcibly closed on the 20th of January, 1892. The public had to face a lot of inconvenience caused by the compulsory closing of shops in the city, Mozang and Anarkali. Some persons who had died on the evening of 19th or the morning of the 20th could not be buried until the following morning, and as it was customary for the relatives and neighbours of a deceased person not to touch food until after his burial, they were compelled to starve for a whole day.2

The Paisa Akhbar also criticized the way the Indians were compelled to go into mourning as a mark of respect to the memory of His Royal Highness. All shops including confectionaries, bakers, butchers and green-grocers were closed by orders of the Lahore Municipality under penalty of fine and imprisonment. A police constable was seen taking a shopkeeper to the Kotwali for opening his shop [The Paisa Akhbar, January 25, 1892, SVNP, p. 24]. The paper opined that closing of shops no doubt was a good way of expressing sympathy for His Royal Highness, but the idea of a municipality closing shops compulsorily was “absurd”. The paper criticized the Lahore Municipality for not taking into consideration the inconvenience caused by its orders. A patient was lying in a precarious condition, but no medicine could be obtained for him in the whole city and the poor man died of want of medicine; and as no cloth could be purchased in the market for his coffin, he was not buried until the following day.3

The Dur Bin (Lahore) and the Rahbar-i-Hind also condemned the orders of the Lahore Municipality in this regard.

This is one view of the state of affairs. The Indians were forced to “express their grief” over the death of a member of the Royal family. On the other hand the Muslims were denied their right to religious obligations. Sunday was day of Chuch-going for sahib bahadurs but for the Muslims there was no “Church-going day”. They were not allowed to say their prayers on Fridays. In 1916, during the matriculation examination of the University of the Punjab, the second-time paper regularly began at 1 p.m. including Fridays, which prevented Muslim examinees from offering their Friday prayers.4

The office of the Railway Workshop, Mughalpura, Lahore, issued an order preventing the Muslim employees on duty from offering prayers. The salaries of those who offered “Juma prayers” were deducted in proportion to the time occupied in offering prayers. Was this order not calculated to insult the religious rites of the Muslims?5

Just to emphasize the importance of Eid it can be said that it is “Muslim Christmas”. But the “impartial” Government made a distinction between the two. The Muslim staff was not allowed to celebrate their religious festival even on the Eid day and were required to attend their offices. So much so that the Muslim students of Government College, Lahore, were not allowed a holiday on account of Eid-ul-Fitr in 1895, and when some Muslim students absented themselves from the college on that day, Principal struck off their names from the roll call register. As a result the Muslim students of the College protested against the action of the Principal.6

The Punjab Civil Secretariat and the Financial Commissioner’s Office remained open on the Eid day and the Muslim employees had to attend their offices. This sad state of affairs was created because the Eid was observed one day before the date notified in the Gazette. The Paisa Akhbar criticized the Government and asked whether “it was not within the discretion of the Chief Secretary, or had he not the sense to grant the Eid holiday on the appearance of the moon?7

In 1892, the Muslim employees of the Government Press at Simla were required to attend their office on the Eid day or be heavily fined. The Wafadar on May 22, 1892, published a communication of its Simla correspondent denying the allegation and made it clear that the order of the Superintendent was to the effect that the Muslims would be fined if they failed to attend at 1 p.m. after the Eid prayers was over.8
This is interesting to note that in 1916, it was after very long and strenuous efforts on the part of A.K. Ghaznavi, a member of the Imperial Legislative Council, that the Government of India accepted his resolution regarding the grant of leave to Muslims for Juma (Friday) prayers. The Government on the one hand sanctioned grants for the construction of Churches out of the public funds, but on the other the sahib bahadar did not hesitate to desecrate a mosque.

In 1898, the Civil and Military Gazette, Lahore, reported, that the Government of India had sanctioned a grant of Rs. 11000 towards the cost of building a Church in Lahore for the Roman Catholic employees of the North-Western Railway. The Paisa Akhbar commented on the report saying that “this grant on the part of the Government is not the first or the only instance of its kind. But why should not similar grants be made in case of mosques and temples? The Hindus and Muslims pay a hundred, nay a thousand times larger amount of money in taxes than the Christians, and it is but just that the Government should also safeguard their religions.” The paper rightly complained that the government’s attitude was hardly in consonance with its professions of neutrality in matters of religion.9

The Government in 1899 sanctioned a sum of Rs. 22088 for the construction of a Church at Bamu and Dalhousie for the sake of European soldiers stationed there. The Vakil (Amritsar) while criticizing the Government asked whether it had ever sanctioned any sum for the construction of a place of worship for the use of His Majesty’s native Indian army. It was not creditable to the Government, the paper added, that its non-Christian soldiers should have to construct places of worships at their own expense. The Vakil, in this regard cited an example that the Government had constructed barracks at the cost of a lakh of rupees at Kowloon (China) facing Hong Kong, but it was to be regretted that it did not spend a few hundred or thousand rupees on constructing a mosque or a gurdwara. The Muslim sepoys, therefore, had to build a mosque at their own expense, while the Sikhs had no place of worship there.10

The Government not only constructed Churches out of the public fund but paid huge sum of money to the clergymen. Since 1812 A.D. a department known as the “Indian Ecclesiastical Establishment” was maintained at the expense of the Indian public revenue. In 1903 A.D the cost of this establishment was 45 lakh rupees per annum. The Paisa Akhbar vehemently criticized the Indian Government for spending money out of the public money and called it “unjust” that the money should be given to Bishops “whose duty is to repute the religious doctrines of the natives of this country.” The paper suggested that having regard to the principle of religious neutrality the Government should make similar arrangements for the expenses of religious teachers of other religions.11

This is quite interesting to note here that spending of money on the Ecclesiastical Establishment was not only objected to by the Muslims but by the Hindus as well.
The Arya Messenger (Lahore) under the caption “Wanton waster of 45 lakh per annum” wrote that “the Amrita Bazar Patrika furnishes a piece of valuable information, which would nearly startle many of us and let us ask the question ‘If this is the religious neutrality preached and advocated in the proclamation of 1858?

“Princely salaries given to the Christian Bishops, Archdeacons, Chaplains and other miscellaneous items are charged on the Indian revenue in order to breed up Christian missions, what faults have other religious bodies done, that the money of their own country is not given to them for propagating their religious tenants and propaganda among the Indian people. The princely salaries also make a very great difference on the sanctity attached to the preaching work in the East and West. While all the great religious teachers and mendicants in India have been proverbially starving and taking vows of self-denial from all worldly enjoyments in order to effectively preach their beliefs, the Christian prelates enjoy on the costly paraphernalia at the cost of the poor famishing Indians. Perhaps nowhere else such a horrible spectacle can be seen.”
The Arya Messenger then gave the following list showing the salaries paid to the Bishops and other dignitaries of the Anglican Church per month.

Nor is this all. Add to these figures many others in the shape of pensions, endowments, gratuities and charities. Besides, we have to take into consideration other items such as the Establishment’s contribution to the Bible Societies, hospitals, destitute mission families, Mission schools and colleges, cemetery grounds and erection of churches and chapels.”

The paper drew the attention of its readers to this queer situation that the Christian priests minister to the Christian servants of the Government preach against the religions of the Muslims and the Hindus; and those damned are compelled to fund the pay and pensions of those who damn
them.” The paper asked whether anybody could point out such an arrangement anywhere in the world. The paper inquired “How would the Christian feel if the position were reversed, and they were compelled to maintain Hindu priests and Mohammadan Mullas for the benefit of the Hindu and Mohammadan servants of the Government”? The paper was of view that “the real fact is that the Ecclesiastical establishment is an other fine hunting ground for the English middle classes. The sons of the middle classes Englihsmen are sent out to India either as soldiers or civil servants and similarly they are employed here as Christian preachers at the cost of India.”12

In 1889 it was rumoured that the Secretary of State for India had sanctioned the appointment of a separate Bishop for the North-Western Provinces and the Central Provinces. The Bharat Jiwan (Benaras) observed that the measure was opposed to the policy of religious toleration pursued by the Government. The paper made it clear that the Government was not justified in maintaining the Ecclesistical establishment at all at the expense of the native tax payers.13

The Punjab Civil List is a government document which provides the service-history of the officials serving in the Punjab. The List also includes the Ecclesiastical Department in the Punjab which provides the names of Senior and Junior Chaplains with their pay. According to the List, the Senior Chaplains of the Established Church of England were getting Rs. 800 per mensem out of the public fund. Their number was 14 and they were posted at Abbotabad, Murree, Amritsar, Gurdaspur, Jullundur, Kangra. Simla, Dagshai, Delhi, Ferozepur, Meean Mir. The Junior Chaplains received Rs. 500 per mensem and were busy in preaching and converting the Indian to Christianity at the expense of the public money. They were posted at Ambala, Multan, Nowshera, Peshawar, Rawalpindi, Lahore and Simla. Besides, the Chaplains of the Established Church of Scotland were also doing their “conversion duty” at the expense of the Indian budget at Rawalpindi, Hissar, Dalhousie, Baloon, Madhopur, Jehlum, Gujrat, Shahpur, Talagang, Pind Dadan Khan & Salt Range Post.14

This practice of funding on the Ecclesiastical Establishment out of the Indian exchequer continued as late as 1922.15 This was one “view” of the “religious neutrality” of the Government. Now we must have the other side of the picture before us.
The “Sahib Bahadur” had no regard whatsoever for the religious places of the Muslims. He would not hesitate entering the mosques with his shoes on. In 1895 Lewis Miller, Deputy Inspector of Police, desecrated the Jamia Masjid of Delhi while under the influence of liquor. He was tried by a court but he was acquitted by the Jury for want of witness. Although he had defiled the Mosque in the presence of hundreds of Muslims. The Tajul Akhbar on 16th of March, 1895 condemned the Jury writing that had a Muslim defiled a Church he would most certainly have been punished. The paper attributed the acquittal of the Deputy Inspector to “religious partiality”.16

In 1895 the following orders were engraved on entrance in the Delhi Jamia Masjid:

“All Namazis (worshippers) should leave the mosque immediately after saying their prayers. No one except the Imam and Muazzin shall remain in the Mosque at night. Civil & Military officials may enter the Mosque with their shoes on. The guards of the Mosque to be paid out of the income of the Mosque.”

The Mulla Dopiaza termed these orders as an insult to Islam calculated to injure the feelings of its followers. The paper pointed out that the time of the Isha prayer extended from 8 p.m. to 3 a.m. and it was considered an act of greater merit to offer up prayers in a mosque than in a private house, and the Jamia Masjid was better than any other mosque for this purpose. The paper condemned the orders of the Deputy Commissioner as it had rendered the purpose of prayers impossible. According to the paper the orders were opposed to the so-called policy of “neutrality” adopted by the Government.

The second part of the order was also criticized by the paper because to allow non-Muslims to enter a place of worship with their shoes on was an abominable act. The paper called the orders as an act of bigotry which must be denounced.17

It looks as if this practice of entering the Delhi Mosque continued till 1899. The Curzon Gazette in its issue of September 23, 1899 published Mohammad Azmat Ullah’s letter, a student of Madrasa-e-Islamia, Banglore, who clarified that the only reason why objection was taken to Europeans entering the Delhi Mosque, with their shoes on, was to prevent the place, where prayers were said, from being defiled by dirty and unclean shoes. Azmat Ullah, as a safeguard against this, suggested that a number of shoe-covers of cloth should be provided in the mosque and all European visitors requested to use them. He pointed out that a similar practice prevailed in the Mosque of St. Sophia in Constantinople.18
The Curzon Gazette, in an editorial note, requested the then Governor-General of India, Lord Curzon, to issue orders prohibiting the Europeans from entering the Delhi Jamia Masjid with their shoes on. The paper added that it was not asking much and it would ensure lasting fame for His Excellency.19

The Rozana Akhbar in its issue of September 8, 1899 also criticized the orders of the Deputy Commissioner. The paper rightly pointed out that the Jamia Masjid Delhi was held in great reverence by the Muslims throughout India and that their religious feelings were deeply hurt by Europeans entering it with their shoes on. The paper suggested that a memorial on the subject from all Muhammadan Anjumans, Rouasa and merchants etc. should be submitted to the Viceroy.20

The “Sahib Bahadur” also enjoyed entering the Badshahi Mosque, Lahore with his boots on. To add pleasure he would not hesitate to bring his dogs alongwith him inside the Mosque. The Journal of Anjuman-i-Islamia, Punjabin its issue of June 30, 1899 wrote that the complaint was general that the British soldiers quartered in Lahore fort were in the habit of entering the Badshahi Mosque with their boots on alongwith their dogs. On 14 May the Muazzin of the mosque complained to the Secretary of the Anjuman that “This afternoon six European soldiers, one sergeant and two ladies entered the Mosque accompanied by a dog and began to wash the animal in the cistern. No heed being paid to my remonstrances, I caught hold of the dog. Upon this one of the ladies began to beat me, and was soon joined by the soldiers. This is not the first instance of the kind.”
The Secretary of the Anjuman forwarded the complaint to the Deputy Commissioner requesting him to write to the Officer Commanding at the Fort to instruct the soldiers to abstain from wounding the religious feelings of the Muhammadans by entering the Mosque with their boots on, bringing their dogs with them.21

The “Sahib Bahadur” also visited Muslim shrines and mausoleums with their boots on and taking their dogs with them. In December 1913, Zamindar (Lahore) wrote an editorial under the caption “Insult to the sacred places of Islam” in which it remarked that instances of insult offered to mosques and shrines were gradually increasing in number and “if the Muslim community adopts an attitude of silence in the matter such cases will assume the form of an authoritative precedent for the future and its suppression will become more difficult.”

The Zamindar ridiculed the explanation of the Lt. Governor of the United Province about the “Sahib’s” entry with his boots and dogs in the famous shrine of Shaikh Saleem Chishti in Fatehpur Sikri and the mosque attached to it. The Lt. Governor’s explanation was that the servant who resided in the shrine was in the habit of demanding “tips” from the European visitors for looking after their shoes while they were viewing the shrine. As this practice on the part of the servant was likely to “worry” the European travelers he, in order to remove their difficulties, had issued an order to the effect that all Indians visiting the shrine would enter it after taking off shoes, and that the European should, on entering, take off their hats as a mark of respect to the shrine. The paper made it clear that the explanation offered by His Honor would not afford satisfaction to the Muslims. They knew that the Europeans were put to great trouble in taking off their boots. It was, therefore, idle on their part to bring forward the plea that they were “worried” by the servant of the shrine for a tip. The paper added that “in arriving at this decision the Government should have considered that the remedy suggested would undoubtedly remove the annoyance of the Europeans, but that it would at the same time cause trouble to crores of Muslims and would offend their religious feelings. Does religious liberty mean that their venerated and sacred places should be openly insulted and that Europeans should freely enter these places with their boots on, or should take their dogs with them, which Muslims regard as impure and filthy?”22

It is interesting to note that Khawaja Ghulam-us-Saqalain had asked a question in the U.P. Legislative Council on the subject. The Government declined to issue any order about the entry of the Europeans with their boots on in the sacred places.
The Sahib Bahadur on his arrival in India became too sensitive to hear the prayer-call (Aazan). The Akhbar-i-Aam (Lahore) reproduced an article from the Rozana Akhbar. The correspondent of the said newspaper reported that on December 19, 1898 two Englishmen were going out shopping in Sadar Bazar, Meerut, when the Muazzin began to call the Aazan. The English men got incensed at this and ordered the Muazzin to keep quiet in a loud voice. The Muazzin not hearing them went on calling prayers as usual, but this was too much for the Englishmen, who forthwith entered the Mosque and overawed the Muazzin into silence.23

Sayyid Ahmad Khan in his treatise The Causes of the Indian Revolt has mentioned that in case a region was hit by famine, the orphans were admitted into orphanages where they were forcibly converted to Christianity. Such incidents were witnessed in the orphanages of Sikandara during the famine of 1837.24
Perhaps Sayyid Ahmad Khan had enumerated the causes of the Revolt so that those may be avoided in future. But the Missionaries in India continued their old practice.

The Tajul Akhbar, Rawalpindi, complained that it was an open secret that the Christian Missionaries in India had taken advantage of the famine to swell the number of their converts by taking over the children of the famine-striken Hindus and Mohammadans. The Missionaries who were ever busy undermining both Hinduism and Islam, had been unremitting in their efforts to get hold of native children. The editor cited an example that at Rawalpindi the Missionaries opened an orphanage with the ostensible object of providing food for the poor children. It was rumoured that the Missionary gentleman did succeed in getting hold of several boys, one of whom was the son of a Sayyid. These children were in a way confined in the orphanage and not allowed to leave it. On the 30th of March, 1897, they grew impatient of the restraint and were, with the exception of a very young boy, turned out of the orphanage. The youngster was not, however, willing to stay with the missionary and began to scream in a loud voice. This brought to the spot a large number of men, who asked the reverend gentleman to accompany them to the Kotwali, which he refused to do. The refusal and the mob’s obstinancy at last took such a turn that some Hindus and Muslims were being chalaned in a court on a criminal charge. As the case was sub judice the editor did not comment on the incident but he considered it necessary to ask the Government not to allow the missionaries to add to the sufferings of its subjects by taking away their children from them. The Tajul Akhbar reminded the Government that the Missionaries were only creating a gulf between the Government and the subjects. It advised the Government to enforce a law to the effect that as long as Hindus and Muslims were willing to feed their orphans the Missionaries should not attempt to take them over.25

The Public Gazette (Amritsar) on January 13, 1900 published an open letter in which the writer stated that 63 more Hindu famine stricken orphans had been saved from falling into the hands of Christian missionaries, through the exertion of Lala Lajpat Rai, who were admitted into the Hindu Orphanage at Amritsar. The writer was informed by the Hindu orphans and Lala Lajpat Rai that many Muslims had fallen into the hands of the Missionaries and exhorted the Anjuman-i-Islamia at Amritsar, Lahore, Peshawar, Ludhiana and Anjuman-i-Himyat-i-Islamia Lahore to save the orphans of their co-religionists from being taken away by the Christian Missionaries. The writer made a suggestion that if the above mentioned Anjumans were not able to raise the necessary funds at least they should prevail upon the Anjuman-i-Islamia, Amritsar to take the orphans under their protection and employ them in their carpet factories at Amritsar. In this way, the orphans would support themselves and would also be saved from being converted to Christianity.26

It would not be out of place here to mention that the principal reason for establishing the Anjuman-i-Himayat-i-Islam at Lahore, Gujranwala, and Amritsar was to save the Muslim orphans from falling into the hands of the Christian Missionaries.27
These missionaries, who were paid out of the public exchequer, did not hesitate for a while to criticize the religions of the Indian people. They were free to preach in the street and bazaars. In 1894 H.C. Carlyon, at St. James Church, Delhi during his sermon stated that a letter had been received from Simla asking he Missions to discontinue preaching in bazaars for the “present”. This news was carried by the Civil & Military Gazette Lahore. On this the Junior Chaplain wrote a letter to the CMG asking the Editor to “emphatically contradict” the report” as we have so constantly been encouraged in our work by the interest shown by the officers in whose Districts we are working.”28
The CMG accordingly contradicted that “Our Delhi correspondent did not say that the Missionaries had been forbidden by the Government to preach in the bazaars, but said that in the course of his serman a preacher in Christ Church at Delhi had stated that a letter had been received from Simla asking them to discontinue preaching in the Bazar for the present”.29

This is interesting to note that the Lieutenant-Governor of the Punjab, Dennis Fitzpatrick in a letter to Dr. H.I. Mathew, Bishop of Lahore on December 19, 1894, himself admitted that “there is a matter connected with missionary enterprise in India which has from time to time troubled me during my very long service in this country and which has been forced on my notice 2 to 3 times since I returned to Punjab. I refer to the want of any sufficient authority vested in the Senior member of the Mission on the spot to control individual members of the Mission. There is of course the Society in Europe and American and in some cases there are central committees in this country which meet occasionally and settle matters connected with the Mission, but if there is an over-zealous subordinate member of the Mission who thinks that he is bound in conscience to go in for open air preaching at all times at all places, and under all circumstances without any regard to the consequences, or that he is similarly bound to put forth an attack on some Hindu and Muhammadan religious institution or doctrine or on some personage revered by Hindus or Mohammadan in the most scathing terms he can commend there is really nothing to stop him until it maybe too late.”
The Lt. Governor further wrote “if there is a man so constituted that he imagines that the obligation on him to issue a particular pamphlet or to preach in a particular strain in a particular place and under particular circumstances is so stringent that he cannot in conscience defer doing so for a couple of weeks or even a couple of months till the matter can be submitted to higher authority, all I can say is that he has mistaken his vocation and is unfit to be a missionary in a country like this.”

The Lt.–Governor admitted that “these matters are likely to lead to disturbances.”30
The Bishop of Lahore fully agreed with the Lt.–Governor about the control over the juniors. The Bishop expressed his ignorance “to what particular missionary you refer as having acted unwisely during the present year, perhaps it was not one of the missionaries of the Church of England.” The Bishop also admitted that “the kind of preaching to which you refer as insulting to other religions is becoming more sore among our new missionaries every year.”31

Now there is another aspect of this development. In India so many missionary establishments, patronized by the Government with money and moral support, not only busied themselves with the preaching work in streets, and Bazars but also condemned the religions of the Indian. But if any Englishmen embraced Islam in England he was assaulted. In Liverpool some Englishmen embraced Islam. On this the people of Liverpool assaulted the Muslim converts and abused them and their Muazzin when saying prayers. In December 1891 Ahmad Quilliam was wounded by stones thrown at him when saying the Azan. The Akmal ul Akhbar regretted that the civilized and enlightened people of England should be so far carried away by religious bigotry as to persecute the Liverpool Muslims.32 In 1892 a journal Islam (edited by Captain Fraser), cited an incident that Mr. T. Umar Byron and William Said Blackarn, Liverpool Muslims, when returning from the mosque on May 27, 1892, at night were attacked by two Christians, one of whom inflicted a severe wound on the face of Said Blackarn with a knife and after beating him and his companion decamped. The Sirmur Gazette (Nahan) condemned the ill treatment accorded by the “Christian inhabitants of an enlightened and civilized country like England to the Liverpool Muslims will ever remain a dark stain on English civilization.” The paper called it a duty of the Indian Muslims to sympathize with their English co-religionists and to assure them of their best wishes and prayers.33

The Aftab-e-Hind, (Jullundur) also complained that the Muslim converts at Liverpool were being subjected to nearly as much persecution as the Jews in Russia. The paper asked the Anglo-Indian newspapers, which were in the habit of calling the people of India half-civilised, to turn their attention to the bigotry displayed by their own countrymen.34 The Chalta Purza (Delhi) published some verses in which the writer drew the attention of the Muslims to the religious persecution of their co-religionists at Liverpool. The Kaisar-ul-Akhbar (Karnal) expressed surprise and grief at the persecution of the Liverpool Muslims and hoped that the Turkish Ambassador would in all probability draw the attention of the British Government to the matter.35

Many a time the Indians and the European committed the same kind of crime but they were not awarded punishment according to the law but to their “colour”.

The Nasim-i-Agra complained that native convicts sentenced to rigorous imprisonment were treated with undue severity in jails. They were made to work as animals and their strength, habits, and social position was not taken into consideration at the time of fixing the amount of labour which should be exacted from them. The paper lamented the cruel treatment to which they were subjected to because “that does not befit a civilized Government like the British.”36
In 1890, some Muslim convicts, with beards, in jail were forcibly shaved. The Najmul Akhbar (Etawah) strongly protested against the action of the Government. It made it clear that the Sikhs were not subjected to shaving. The paper asked the Muslim public as well as the Anjumans to send memorials to the Government on the subject.

This was the fate of the “Indian criminals” which was totally opposite to their “British counterparts”. In 1889, the English convicts in Lahore Jail were sent to Ootacomund, a hill sanitorium in the Madras Presidency at a large public expense, the reason being that the “White” convict was unable to bear the hot weather of Lahore. The Dabdaba-i-Qaisari (Bareilly) condemned the invidious distinction between the two classes of prisoners.37

Railways

The evil of “colour distinction” was also practiced by the railway authorities. We will quote cases in which native civilians, Magistrates and even I.C.S. officers traveling first-class had been insulted, assaulted and beaten by the Europeans wearing Her Majesty’s uniform.
It is lamentable that the natives who usually traveled in third class compartments, contributed the larger portion of revenues to the Railways, but the Railway did not pay heed to their grievances.

The railway authorities provided every facilities to the European travellers. They travelled in reserved compartments. The Indians regarded it as illegal because there was nothing in the Railway Act which allowed this practice. They Daily Tribune, while criticizing the said practice wrote that “nobody would ordinarily grudge separate accommodation for European but for the fact that when carriages were overcrowded and Indian passengers suffer great hardships. Why should European travelers enjoy better facilities for the same fare which the Indians pay. This inequality of treatment is resented by those who complain of reserved compartments.”38 The Paisa Akhbar also criticized the decision of the Government. The paper in this regard brought to light the fact that some time back the Brahmins submitted a memorial to the Government for reservation of compartments for them which was rejected by the latter. The paper asked “when the Parsis and the Muslims attach no importance to difference of diet etc. Why should they not be allowed to travel in the compartments reserved for Europeans?”39

The Indians were disallowed to travel in compartments occupied by Europeans. The European travelers used to present a very funny argument for this preferential treatment. A European passenger had written a letter to the Civil & Military Gazette detailing the inconversance experienced by the European passengers when traveling with Indians. The Urdu Bulletin characterized this grievances as “extremely absurd.” The paper reminded him that the Indian passengers also experienced greater difficulties and inconversance and for this reason the Indian passengers, men and women, would like to travel with their countrymen rather than European.39

The Indians if he tried to enter a first or second class carriage in which a European was already seated, was sure to be ill-treated and insulted. If he complained to the Railway officials the latter refused to listen to his com

laints and the result was that he was generally compelled to travel in a third class marriage.41
Two Indians were traveling from Rawalpindi to Lahore by the midnight train. They purchased 2nd class tickets and when the train steamed in, they found that the 2nd class compartments were filled with Europeans. They politely asked the Assistant Station Master, Rawalpindi, to make arrangements for their accommodation, but he promptly told them to go away and get a seat in the 3rd class carriage. They, then, went to the Station Master, himself a European, who replied in the following terms “Go to hell…I am not your servant. Do not disturb me I am not on duty.” The correspondent of Choudhwin Sadi, Rawalpindi, asked the Railway authorities to publish a notice to the effect that Natives would not, in future, be allowed to travel in 1st or 2nd class compartments. 42

The Kohi-Noor quoted two more incidents of the same type. On March 12, 1878 two native gentlemen went to the Jhelum Railway Station and purchased 2nd class tickets, and took their seats in the compartment reserved for the natives. But when a European passenger came, the sign-board bearing the inscription. “Native Gentlemen” which was affixed to the compartment was removed. Thus for the sake of a European passenger, the two native gentlemen had to vacate the compartment. Then, they were allowed a compartment in a third class carriages.
On March 15, 1878 Munshi Asa Naund, Extra Assistant Commissioner, Kohat, and another native gentlemen paid the 2nd class fare at Gujranwala and took their seats. But when two Europeans came and occupied their seats in the 2nd class compartment, both the natives had to vacate their seats. When the train arrived at Wazirabad station a European lady plainly told the railway guard that she would not like to travel with a native. Accordingly, the guard went up to the native gentlemen and drove him out of the carriage with a strong reproof. The native then offered to pay 1st class fare and took his seat in the 1st class carriage to which the guard agreed. Soon after a European with a lady came and wanted to sit in the first class carriage. The guard then had native’s luggage thrown out of the carriage and told him that natives could sit in the 1st and 2nd class carriages only when there were no European passengers. The native gentleman told the guard that he would report the matter to the Traffic Manager. On this the guard, Mr. Parcel, became angry and abused him and the poor native had to travel in the 3rd class carriage with a 1st class ticket.43

On November 4, 1890, Lala Janki Prasad, a respectable resident of Hathras obtained a second class ticket from Aligarh to Hathras. But when he went to a second class carriage to take his seat, the Europeans in the carriage did not allow him to enter the carriage saying that it was not intended for the use of “Niggors”. He went to another carriage but received the same treatment from the European occupants in that carriage. He had no other way than to travel in the Inter class.44

The third class compartments were not provided with bath rooms, and their occupants were frequently subjected to unspeakable inconvenience. This state of affairs caused young children greater sufferings than the adults. One can well imagine the hardships of these passengers who had to travel long distances with no bunks in their compartments. This must be mentioned that the “Sahib Bahadur” who traveled in 1st and 2nd class was provided this facility.45

The Vakil (Amritsar) also brought the same complaint to the notice of the Railway authorities that those Indians who could not afford to travel first or second class were put to great inconvenience for want of bath rooms in their carriages. As a consequence crowds of passengers used to gather around the latrines provided at the Railway stations which entailed unbearable hardships on purda nashin females.46

The native passengers traveling 3rd class were not provided with waiting rooms with the result that they found no shelter from sun and rain.
The Railway employees who were mostly Europeans and Eurasians, unnecessarily harassed the Indian passengers specially the ladies. A correspondent of the Rahbar-i-Hind, Lahore on February 5, 1878 complained of the misconduct of a ticket collector, Parcel, and his Eurasian assistant of the Punjab Northern Railway. The correspondent alleged that they used to enter the ladies compartments under the pretence of examining the age of children. If any women raised the least objection she was turned out of the carriage and made her over to the police.47
At Philour railway station, a railway servant, who was drunk, was harassing the poor Indian passengers. And when remonstrated, he replied that “he being a railway officer can do whatever he likes, can beat anyman he pleases, and can arrest anyone who offers him the least resistance.” A correspondent of the Akhbar-i-Aam, an eyewitness of the scene, asked, “Is it legal under the railway rules for a railway servant to behave in this way?”48

Musammat Umrao Begum, who was traveling from Delhi to Jind, was ill-treated by a railway-guard on the 18th of September 1898. the Tribune (Lahore) carried this news about the mischievous and bad conduct of the guard who went twice into the female compartment in which Umrao Begum was traveling alone. He used insulting language. The Gham Khawar-i-Hind made it clear that it was not the first kind of this type but that such complaints had been frequently heard of, but no stringent measures had been adopted to put a stop to.49
The Tajul-Akhbar (Rawalpindi) on November 26, 1898 reported that a Eurasian guard of the Southern Punjab Railway was find Rs. 50 for entering the carriage reserved for the native females and making “insulting proposals” to a female passenger who was its only occupant at that time. When the guard was asked to explain his position he replied that he had entered the carriage merely to look after the lady’s comforts. The paper condemned the guard’s misconduct and remarked that “A native lady traveling alone in a carriage can have nothing to complain of. At any rate, she will prefer any discomfort to the company of a railway guard. Besides, what particular sympathy had this guard with the lady in question that he should have singled her out for his attention and entered her carriage while the train was in motion? Besides, did he not know that the native women observe purdah?”50

The Paisa Akhbar after referring to a report regarding an attempted outrage on a native female passengers by certain Ticket collectors at the Lahore Railway Station observed that such cases had become very frequent of late. The paper suggested that more stringent measures should be adopted to remedy the evil. The paper also opined that grown up men should be appointed Ticket Collectors in place of beardless raw youths.”51
F.M. Rouche of the Karachi Railway workshop grossly insulted a Hindu lady belonging to a respectable family by kissing her on the Lahore Railway platform. When a complaint was lodged against him, he was prosecuted and find Rs. 8 only by a European Magistrate of Lahore.
The Kohi-Noor of Lahore invited the attention of Sir Dennis Fitzpatrick to the inadequate punishment awarded in the case.52

The Aftab-i-Punjab (Lahore) on March 30, 1896 commenting on the inadequacy of the sentence remarked that “if the price of a kiss was to be Rs. 8 only, the European and Eurasian ladies would find it difficult to walk on the Mall without running risk of being similarly.”53

The Bharat Sudhar (Lahore) commenting on the incident asked “whether the same punishment would have been inflicted if a native had been found guilty of a similar impropriety towards a European lady.”54 The Bharat Sudhar was absolutely correct in its assertion. In August, 1878 a native officer “attempted” to kiss a young European lady at Simla on the roadside. He was sentenced to 2-years rigorous imprisonment. The Dabdaba-e-Shahi while commenting on the incident remarked, “so severe a punishment for a crime which was not committed. This is excellent justice. The unfortunate officer committed a great mistake. He did not distinguish fair colour from dark colour. He wanted to cast a dark shadow upon light to eclipse the moon. It is good that he has been chastised. He has been imprisoned! Such men deserve to be burnt to ashes in English fire or anger.”55

The Hindustani (Lucknow) brought before the public another case of assault by a European railway guard, Woodward. The railway guard was accused of committing an indecent assault on the wife of Atar Singh pleader, at the Lahore Railway Station. When he was prosecuted he pleaded that he “accidentally collided with her while entering the waiting room in search for a friend, and caught her from falling.” The Assistant Commissioner accepted his statement, acquitted him, and regretted that he was unnecessarily put to the trouble and expenses of a trail. The Hindustani was of the view that no respectable native would ever institute a false prosecution of this kind against any man.56

As stated above the Indians were maltreated, disgraced and assaulted in the railway compartments no matter whether they were ordinary civilians or I.C.S. officers. The case of Shaikh Asghar Ali is of special importance. Shaikh was an I.C.S. Officer and was serving as an Assistant Commissioner, Hissar in 1899. He was the first Muslim to be appointed as Financial Commissioner of the Punjab.

On the 31st December, 1898 Asghar Ali was traveling from Lahore to Kasur. When Asghar Ali arrived at the Lahore Railway Station platform he found that the only first class compartment in the composite carriage was full of luggage and there was a lot of other luggage on the platform in front of the compartment. There were other people including some Muslim gentlemen on the platform. Some servants with the luggage told Asghar Ali that there was no room in the compartment. He waited on the platform till he saw C.M. King, officiating Deputy commissioner Ferozepur, with several other Europeans coming up to the platform. Asghar Ali, who of course knew C.M. King, wished him good evening and asked him whether the Station Master was going to attach another carriage. To this polite question King curtly and brusquely replied that he was not quite certain. Another carriage was soon afterwards attached and Asghar Ali put his things in a compartment of the new carriage. The train was about to start when C.M. King went up to Asghar Ali and asked him to go to the other carriage as he with 4 other Europeans wanted to travel into the newly attached compartment. Asghar Ali replied that he had no objection but there were no coolies to remove his things and the train was about to start. King then went back to his friends and there was a consultation among them, after which King and one other person went to the composite compartment while the two Europeans came into Asghar Ali’s compartment. They were evidently determined to provoke a quarrel with him. Shortly after their entry they asked Asghar Ali not to put his feet upon their clothes. Of course Asghar Ali did no such thing and he said so. Then these men got up and said “All-right, we shall go to the next compartment and bring our dogs and leave you with them in this compartment”, and they did it. Shaikh Asghar Ali protested. The Europeans asked him to put in a complaint at the next station and as he was about to get out to do so at the Meean Mir West Station he was suddenly assaulted from behind. The Military Officers beat him severely injuring his left eye and causing a swelling on the head.57

The Paisa Akhbar strongly condemned the assault on Shaikh Asghar Ali remarking that “all the complaints that have hitherto been regarding the discourteous manner in which the respectable natives are treated by their European fellow passengers of the 1st and 2nd class sink into insignificance before this shocking incident. If an Assistant Commissioner educated in England and a native of high social position and good manners, is not safe from such assaults, the condition of other natives might be better imagined than described.”

The paper made it clear that there was a Railway notice stuck on the walls of the compartments prohibiting the carrying of dogs unless the fellow passengers consent to it. But in this case the Europeans only wanted to insult Shaikh Asghar Ali. 58 The Gham Khwar-i-Hind, Lahore, regretted that if a respectable native gentleman of high status in society was thus treated how could old-fashioned native gentlemen of high status in society was thus treated how could old-fashioned native gentlemen travel safely in 1st and 2nd class compartments? The paper did not support the idea that separate compartments should be provided for Europeans and Natives, as suggested by the Paisa Akhbar, as it was not “calculated to encourage the social relations between the two communities.”59

The Akhbar-i-Aam characterized the assault on Sh. Asghar Ali as “most cowardly.” The paper was of the view that occurrence was disgraceful and was much to be deplored. It is interesting to note that the Europeans involved in the assault refused to give their names to the police. The paper asked whether the police have no power over the Europeans in such cases.60 The Lahore Punch termed the conduct of the Europeans as “reprehensible”. The paper expressed wonder how those officers could have been so bold as to assault an officer who was likely to become a Deputy Commissioner or a Commissioner some day.61

The Victoria Paper (Sialkot) referring to the “shameful and cowardly assault” wrote that justice demanded that those Military officers should not be tried by a court of law but that General Sir Lockhart, the C.N.C. should pass an order dismissing them from the service in anticipation of Her Majesty’s sanction.62
The Kohi-Noor remarked that it was by no means a new thing for respectable Native gentlemen to be assaulted by European soldiers in 1st class railway carriages. These “incidents were quite common nowadays but were not brought to light.” The paper also suggested that to protect the Native gentlemen from the aggression of the Europeans, separate compartments should be reserved for the two communities.63

The Tribune condemned the assault on Asghar Ali in the strongest words and wrote “this is for the first time we have heard the absence of an espirite de corps in the Indian is treated with the most sincere cordiality by all Europeans in this service”.64 The Wazir-i-Hind, (Sialkot) remarked that “these days a native gentleman of respectability is treated worse than an animal.”65

The Akhbar-i-Aam published a communication referring to the cowardly assault in which the writer sarcastically remarked “that seeing that the European soldiers shoot at Natives with impunity, the latter should be thankful to these officers for teaching them the often-repeated lesson that a native is a native, be he a civilian or not, and this being the case, he should not, while travelling on the Railway with Europeans forget the differences between the conquerors and the conquered. The natives should reconcile to their lot, seeing that they are conquered. History teach us the lesson that the conquered should patiently bear all the aggressive acts of conquerors. Shaikh Asghar Ali should have borne this fact in mind, and kissed and caressed and petted the dogs which were let into his compartment by the members of the conquered race. It is the fitness of things that the Europeans should show their superiority, even in the brute force to natives, for being numerically a microscopic minority they must keep up their prestige in order to maintain their absolute sway over the 300 millions of alien people.”66

Aziz Ahmad, Glassgow correspondent of Vakil, Amritsar, in an interesting dispatch wrote that he had profited by Shaikh Asghar Ali’s experience, and made it a point of always taking his seat in a compartment occupied by ladies. Whitemen, Aziz Ahmad added, were “immoral and smell of wine, nay the poorest native is a far more civilized and moral being than a white Christian Missionary.” He suggested that every railway carriage reserved for Europeans should be labeled “Goras and Dogs”. Aziz Ahmad was of the view that Asghar Ali did well in not prolonging the fight with his assailants or some of those cowards, would have fired a revolver at him and killed him on the spot.67

The assault on Shaikh Asghar Ali was condemned by all sections of the vernacular press even by the ultra-loyalist papers. But the Civil and Military Gazette and the Pioneer did not deem it fit to give any coverage to the incident. Many vernacular newspaper criticized this stance of the Anglo-Indian press. The Vakil carried out article of Aziz Ahmad (Glasgow) in which he brought to the notice of “His Excellency Lord Curzon the uselessness of the Pioneer and other of its stamp that they took at least one month to inform him of the cowardly and uncalled for attack made on Shaikh Asghar.” He added that the “Government of India pays lakhs of rupees to the Anglo-Indian papers for the publication of advertisements but if these newspapers do not publish useful news there is no reason why Government should help them.” He asked the justice-loving authorities to purchase papers like the Tribune and the Punjab Observer as the Pioneer, CMG and other Anglo Indian newspapers did not perform their duties properly.68

At this stage a question arises what did the Government do about the assault on Shaikh Asghar Ali. This is amusing that the Punjab Government Luson, Deputy Secretary, Home Department to the Government of India, sent to J. Wilson, officiating Chief Secretary to the Government of the Punjab, an extract of the Advocate (Lucknow, 20th January) and asked him if the statement of the paper was true. This means that even after a lapse of 25 days the Punjab Government did not deem it fit to inform the Central Government about the incident.

Whereas in 1897 the Indian Government had directed all the provincial Governments to report “all the affrays between the natives and the Europeans” vide letters No. 1736 of 24th August, 1897. If we go through the files, deposited at the Punjab Archives, we find that there are dozens of files which contain the telegrams sent to the Central Government about the minor affrays between the two communities. But strangely enough the Punjab Government did not consider this case, “to be of such political and administrative importance as to call for a telegraphic report being made to the Government of India.”69 The Chief Secretary to the Government of the Punjab, also remarked that “I do not consider that the orders cited by the Government of India are applicable. It is highly undesirable to attach exaggerated importance to an affair of the character which appears to have occurred.”70

At last the enquiry started. It was found out that (1) Asghar Ali was roughly handled by the 3 army officers (2) He did not struck any of the officers (3) C.M. King when appealed to by Asghar Ali declined to interfere.
The Lieutenant-Governor was of the view that so far as the present evidence goes Shaikh Asghar Ali gave no such provocation as could be held to justify the assault made on him.71

The Lieutenant-Governor’s remarks about C.M. King were that “Mr. King’s attitude throughout the affair and the tone of his letters has been unworthy of a Magistrate of his standing and of a civilian in relation to a fellow civilian. It seems probable that King’s demeanour towards Shaikh Asghar Ali encouraged the Military officers to adopt the attitude they did, and if he had behaved differently the assault would not have occurred.”72
The Lieutenant-Governor was “pleased” to ask C.M. King, to relinquish the charge and to take over as District Judge at Jullundur to which he greatly resented and indicated his intention to go on six month’s leave on private affairs. Sir Mackworth Young was of the opinion that the punishment inflicted was adequate. This is interesting to note that the Governor-General of the India, Lord Curzon, was not “entirely satisfied that the Lt. Governor has justified the imposition of such a lenient punishment as was actually inflicted. The temporary removal from the charge of a District was no doubt a disgrace to Mr. King, but we think that the Lt. Governor should have been well advised to inflict more substantial punishment upon him.”73

The Secretary of State for India, George Hamilton, in his letter of January 4, 1900, to the Governor-General of India also criticized King’s role in the assault saying that, “it seems evident at the time of the fracas he showed himself to be wanting in a sense of the high standard of duty which must be expected from the Indian Civil Service and in taking the part of the aggressors against Shaikh Asghar Ali he not only behaved in a manner unworthy of his position as a public servant, but acted in a way totally inconsistent with the best traditions of his service.”
The Secretary of State for India was also of the view the “censure was not accompanied by an adequate material penalty, since Mr. King, very shortly after his removal from the officiating charge of the Ferozepur District, appears to have been re-appointed to a post of equal responsibility at Jalandhur.”74

Although Indian Government raised the revenues by fair or foul means yet it did not take equal interest in welfare of the natives. The Sahib Bahadur did not pay heed to the poor condition of the Native cultivators. The native was required to pay the revenue installments even at the time of failure of crops.

The Dabdaba-i-Qaisari very rightly complained that the native’s poverty was due to the fact that the Indians treasury was unjustly burdened with the cost of the so-called “expeditions”. The paper while citing the example of Burma’s conquest, indicated that Indians had to pay the expenses of the “conquest”, while the Sahib Bahadur, not the native, would profit by the conquest. The paper accused the Indian Government that it had “sucked the blood of this country like a vampire and reduced it to the condition of a skeleton of dry bones.”75
It would not be out of place here to mention that the actual expenditure on the Burma war had been nine times the estimated cost. The estimate was sterling pounds 25,000. It is to be kept in mind that this expenditure was not charged from the British treasury but from the Indian exchequer. The Hindustan was of opinion that, “had such a thing occurred in England or any other country, the finance minister and the officials who prepared the estimates would have been pelted with stones.” The paper strongly criticized the “extravagant use” of the Indian revenue on the Burma War for which the Governor-General of India, Lord Dufferin was granted the title of “Marquis of Ava.” The Hindustan made it clear that “had the money, so extravagantly spent by His Lordship on the war, belonged to the English treasury His Lordships would have received quite a different treatment from the English people.76

The Indian treasury was saddled with the entire cost of “expeditious” dispatch to Egypt, the Sudan, Afghanistan the Black Mountains and Chitral. The Paisa Akhbar accused the Liberals and the conservatives alike who failed to do justice to the natives who had to pay the expenses of these expeditions which in reality should have been defrayed by the British treasury.77
Perhaps very few people know the fact that in 1886 the Conquest of Burma necessitated the introduction of income tax. And when the empire was extended to Burma the natives began to demand the abolition of the “odious tax”.
The Nasim-i-Agra, an Urdu weekly, urged the Government to abolish the income tax as early as possible as the tax was very unpopular with the Indians.78

The Bharat Jiwan also asked the Sahib Bahadur to remit the income tax as the financial pressure which led to its introduction had ceased to exist. But, the paper added, “It appears the Government has no inclination to abolish or reduce the tax.”79
The Rafiqul Akhbar (Benaras) also criticized the Government for not abolishing the income tax. The paper asked the people to consider “their entire incomes as belonging to Government and the assessor of the tax.” The paper complained that the Government did not heed the cry of distress nor had the hard-hearted officers any sympathy with the people.”80

The Hamdard (Faizabad) was at a loss to understand “Why the Government does not abolish the Income Tax although the drain on the Imperial treasury on account of annexation of Burma and fortification of North-Western Frontier has greatly decreased.” The paper was of the view that the income tax was unsuited to the country and that the assessments were generally severe and its retention was tantamount to nothing less than cutting the throats of the natives.81
The Indians generally believed that the frequent visits of famines was a “gift” of the Sahib Bahadur’s policies. It is to be kept in mind that during Gladstones’ Government (1860-78) more than 12 million natives died of famines. Now, it is quite amazing that on the one hand the natives starved, the Government, while on the other land allowed a few Sahib Bahadurs to export grain from India to Europe. Millions of mounds of wheat were exported from the Madras, Karachi and Calcutta Ports. The Government allowed Messres Rally Brothers and some other firms to make money out of this “export business”.

It must be mentioned that the Sahib Bahadur purchased wheat by force. A correspondent of the Singh Sahai (Amritsar) went to purchase wheat at the grain-market in Ludhiana and found a European agent of Rally Brothers beating a villager who had refused to part with his grain. The correspondence praised the natives who inspite of being beaten and abused supplied grain to the Sahib Bahadur.82
The Indian press called upon the Sahib Bahadur to place restrictions on the export of wheat, but without effect.
The Lahore Gazette regretted to learn that a serious famine was raging throughout India and about 100 out of 350 million of Natives had to go without food at night. The paper requested the Sahib Bahadur to attend to the matter and to imitate the example of Russia by imposing a ban on the export of Wheat.83

The Akmal ul Akhbar deplored the attitude of the Government and asked, “Is not unjust that Government should remain indifferent to the matter while the people are being reduced to great strains owing to famine?”84
A correspondent of the Aftab-i-Punjab rightly pointed out that the Government was fully aware of the fact that the export of wheat was doing great harm to the natives but as the Sahib Bahadur was desirous of benefiting his own countrymen at the expense of the natives, he treated the matter with indifference.85

A correspondent of the Akmal ul Akhbar (Delhi) condemned the Government’s decision and wrote that “although the Russian Government which is considered to be a tyrannical one has prohibited the export of wheat, but the Indian Government which claims to be a humane and just one pays no attention to the wants of the natives.”86

The Rahbar-i-Hind was of the view that if the Government wished to maintain peace and order in country it should place a reasonable check on the export of grain as the rise in prices in the Punjab would lead the poor classes, especially the agriculturists, to take to crime.87
The natives very rightly alleged that it were they who laboured hard to produce wheat “but it was the Sahib Bahadur who benefited by his labour seeing that the produce of the country was exported to England which sent out worthless articles in exchange. The Sahib Bahadur makes 3 to 4 hundred% profit by their trade with the niggers.”88

Amazingly enough, the Sahib Bahadur, instead of attending to the distress of the natives, declared that the outcry raised by the native press was without foundation as India was producing more grain.89
The Sahib Bahadur invented a novel theory to justify the prevalence of famine in India attributing it to the poor natives who previously did not use wheat had now started taking to it. A correspondent of the Akhbar-i-Aam ridiculed the statement saying that in reality the reluctance of the Government to prohibit the export of wheat to England was due to the fact “that the stomachs of Englishmen had become too delicate for meat, owing to their being a conquering race and that they could not eat anything but the wheat which they plunder from India, leaving the natives to die of hunger.”90

It is quite interesting that in England a rumour spread like wild fire to the effect that the consumption of Indian wheat having caused an epidemic of sickness there, four ships laden with wheat had been sent back to India. Consequently the agencies which Messers Rally Brothers & Co. had established in India had been abolished. The Siraj ul Akhbar commenting on the rumour wrote that “if it was well-founded the natives may congratulate themselves on their good fortune.”91
Reference

1. Supplement to the Punjab Gazette, November 3, 1858, p. 1.
2. The Kohi-Noor, January 23, 1892, cited in Selections from the Vernacular Newspapers published in the Punjab hereafter cited as SVNP, p. 24.
3. The Paisa Akhbar, January 25, 1892, S.V.N.P., p. 24.
4. The Vakil, Amritsar, April 15, 1916 in SVNP, p. 339.
5. The Kisan, Lahore, August 19, 1916, SVNP, p. 695.
6. The Rahbar-i-Hind, 16 Sept., 1895, Cf. SVNP, pp. 573-74.
7. The Paisa Akhbar, 6 April, 1895, SVNP, 1895, p. 197.
8. The Wafadar, 22 May, 1892, SVNP, p. 151.
9. The Paisa Akhbar, 9 June, 1898, SVNP, p. 378.
10. The Vakil, 2 May, 1899, SVNP, p. 318.
11. The Paisa Akhbar, 12 September, 1903, SVNP, p. 250.
12. The Arya Messenger, Lahore, 11 September, 1903, SVNP, pp. 238-39.
13. The Bharat Jiwan, 13 January, 1890, cited in Selections from the Native Newspapers published in NW Provinces, Oudh, C.P. and Rajputana, p. 34.
14. The Punjab Civil List, 1877, Lahore, pp. 68-69.
15. The Paisa Akhbar, July 27, 1922, p. 2.
16. SVNP, p. 159.
17. The Mulla Dopiaza, Lahore, 7 December 1895, SVNP, p. 746.
18. The Curzon Gazette, September 23, 1899 in SVNP, p. 567.
19. Ibid., p. 567.
20. The Rozana Akhbar, September 8, 1899, SVNP, p. 582.
21. S.V.N.P., p. 567.
22. The Zamindar, December 22, 1913, SVNP, pp. 23-24.
23. Akhbar-i-Aam, Lahore, January 10, 1899, SVNP, p. 21.
24. Hafeez Malik, Political Profile of Sir Sayyid Ahmad Khan, Islamabad, 1982, p. 134.
25. The Tajul Akhbar, 3 April, 1897, SVNP, pp. 254-55.
26. The Public Gazette, January 13, 1900 in SVNP, p. 32.
27. Mohammad Hayat, Anjuman-i-Himayat-i-Islam ki Mukhtasar Tareekh, Lahore, 1934.
28. Home/General, proceedings for April 1900, No. 150-4, File No. 131, p. 9.
29. Ibid., p. 9.
30. Ibid., pp. 18-25.
31. Ibid.
32. SVNP, p. 7.
33. The Sirmur Gazette, June 27, 1892, SVNP, p. 198.
34. The Aftab-e-Hind, January 9, 1892, p. 10.
35. The Kaisar ul Akhbar, January 9, 1892, p. 10.
36. The Nasim-i-Agra, June 7, 1889, Selection from the Vernacular Press published in N.W. Provinces, C.P., Agra and Rajputana, p. 365.
37. Ibid., SVN Published in the N.W. Provinces, C.P & Agra, p. 365.
38. The Tribune, September 19, 1916, SVNP, p. 882.
39. The Paisa Akhbar, October 24, 1916, SVNP, p. 870.
40. The Urdu Bulletin, October 29, 1916, SVNP, p. 886.
41. The Akhbar-i-Aam, June 25, 1896, SVNP, p. 379.
42. The Chaudhwin Sadi, January 23, 1899, SVNP, pp. 62-63.
43. The Kohi-Noor, March 22, 1878, SVNP, pp. 226-27.
44. The Hindustan, Kalakankar, November 16, 1890, SVN, C.P & Rajputana, p. 753.
45. The Sialkot Paper, September 8, 1901, SVNP, pp. 585-86.
46. The Vakil, November 8, 1901, SVNP, pp. 724-25.
47. SVNP, pp. 115-16.
48. The Akhbar-i-Aam, May 8, 1878, SVNP, pp. 406-07.
49. The Gham Khawar-i-Hind, October 8, 1898, SVNP, pp. 677.
50. The Tajul Akhbar, November 26, 1898, SVNP, pp. 758-59.
51. The Paisa Akhbar, April 20, 1901, SVNP, p. 263.
52. The Kohi-Noor, March 17, 1896, SVNP, p. 161.
53. SVNP, p. 191.
54. SVNP, p. 192.
55. The Dabdba-i-Shahi, August 17, 1878, SVNP, pp. 741-42.
56. The Hindustani, Lucknow, November 23, 1890, SVN published in the NW Provinces, C.P & Rajputana, p. 761.
57. The Tribune, ed., January 17, 1900.
58. The Paisa Akhbar, 16 January, 1899, SVNP, p. 37.
59. Ibid., SVNP, pp. 37-38.
60. The Akhbar-i-Aam, January 14, 1899, SVNP, p. 38.
61. The Lahore Punch, January 18, 1899, SVNP, p. 50.
62. The Victoria Paper, January 24, 1899, SVNP, p. 63.
63. The Kohi-Noor, January 31, 1899, SVNP, p. 80.
64. The Tribune, January 17, 1899.
65. SVNP, p. 38.
66. The Akhbar-i-Aam, January 18, 1899, SVNP, p. 49.
67. The Vakil, March 13, 1899, SVNP, p. 176.
68. The Vakil, April 3, 1899, SVNP, p. 246.
69. Letter, dated 8 Feb, 1899, File No. 109, Punjab Archives.
70. Ibid., File No. 109, p. 7.
71. Ibid.
72. Ibid.
73. Government of India, Home Deptt., Public, No. 20 of 1900, pp. 1-2.
74. Public No. 2.
75. The Dabdaba-i-Qaisri, 12 April, 1890, SVNP, p. 14.
76. The Hindustan, Kalahankar, Dec. 22, 1889, SVN Published in The N.W. Provinces, C.P. & Rajputana, pp. 797-98.
77. The Paisa Akhbar, 4 May, 1895, SVNP, p. 268.
78. The Nasim-e-Agra, 30 April, 1890, SVNP in N.W. Provinces G.P., and Rajputana, p. 277.
79. The Bharat Jiwan, 17 November, 1890, Ibid., pp. 769-70.
80. The Rafiqul Akhbar, Ibid., p. 770.
81. The Hamdard, 16 November, 1890, Ibid., p. 790.
82. The Singh Sahai (Amritsar), 1 June, 1892, SVNP, p. 160.
83. The Lahore Gazette, 9 January, 1892, Ibid., pp. 19-20.
84. The Akmal ul Akhbar, 1 January, 1892, SVNP, p. 9.
85. The Aftab-e-Punjab, 30 May, 1892, SVNP, p. 160.
86. The Akmal ul Akhbar, 25 December, 1891, Ibid., p. 5.
87. The Rahbar-i-Hind, 31 December, 1891, Ibid., p. 5.
88. The Wafadar, 15 June, 1892, SVNP, p. 173.
89. The Wafadar, (Lahore), 1 January, 1892, SVNP, p. 9.
90. The Akhbar-i-Aam, 5 January, 1892, SVNP, p. 10.
91. The Sirajul Akhbar, 7 March, 1892, SVNP, p. 65.