حيدر علي وتيبو سلطان: حكام ميسور في القرن الثامن عشر في مرحلة انتقالية
Additional services for Itinerario:
Haidar
‘Ali and Tipu Sultan: Mysore's Eighteenth century Rulers in Transition
Kaveh
Yazdani
Itinerario / Volume 38 / Issue 02 / August 2014, pp 101 120
Introduction
According
to biographer Narendra Krishna Sinha, Haidar “was not an innovative ruler. He
generally followed the established practices and also respected the local
customs and laws of each region under his sway.”1 Nonetheless, Haidar was not
devoid of innovative measures: he initiated the proto-modernisation of the
military establishment.2In Confronting Colonialism: Resistance and
Modernization Under Haidar Ali and Tipu Sultan, Irfan Habib underlines that
Haidar’s “regime was untouched by any other efforts to develop technology and
commerce on modern lines, let alone obtain an opening to science or enlightenment.”3In
contrast to Habib, some historians exaggerate Tipu Sultan’s modern
characteristics. Mohibbul Hasan writes that Tipu was an “enlightened and
tolerant ruler” and in Asok Sen’s view Tipu was free from “Eastern
conservatism.”4 Sheik Ali commends Tipu’s “flair for modernization” and
believes: “If Tipu had not been disturbed by wars he would have perhaps brought
about an industrial revolution to Mysore.”5 Other historians overemphasise
Tipu’s pre-modern traits. Kate Brittlebank argues that, “Innovations and
reforms were not so much the result of caprice or the actions of ‘a modern
thinker,’ but, rather, part of the expected role of the king as defined by the
cultural traditions of the region.”6Irfan Habib’s opinion is that, “Tipu’s
intellectual horizons …remained restricted to the old inherited learning. Here
his innovations ran either on traditional lines…or into eccentricities…Tipu and
his Mysore were, therefore, still far away from a real opening to modern
civilization, despite his own bold and rest less endeavours.”7 How can
historians chart a middle course between such oppos ing views? This paper
argues that Haidar and, later, his son Tipu were transitional figures who were
neither predominantly modern nor pre-modern.
Haidar
‘Ali
Haidar ‘Ali was born between 1717 and 1722. He had three older half-brothers and an elder brother by the name of Shahbaz or Ismael Sahib. Haidar’s ancestors reached India by sea before the end of the sixteenth century. Few facts are known about Haidar’s ancestors.8 Barun De maintains that Haidar’s lineage was of “Sufi plebeian” social origin.9 However, it is certain that Haidar’s father, Fath Mohammad, was a professional soldier in the service of nawab (Muslim governor) Saadatullah Khan of Arcot during the reign of the Mughal Emperor Mohammad Shah (1719–48). At Arcot, Fath Mohammad commanded 600 foot, 500 horse and 50 rocket men. For unknown reasons, he left his employment in the service of Saadatullah Khan and joined the Raja (ruler) of Mysore—from whom he obtained the title of naik (corporal). He did not stay long owing to discord among the vari ous chiefs in Mysore. He went to Sira (Karnataka) and became a Mughal faujdar (military official)—this time in the service of the nawab Dargah Quli Khan—where he commanded 400 foot soldiers and 200 horsemen.10
When
Fath Mohammad died (c. 1728), Haidar may have been as young as five and his
brother Ismael eight. Fath Mohammad was in debt and some sources reported that
Dargah Quli Khan’s grandson Abbas captured and tortured the boys after he took
remaining belongings of the family.11 Fath Mohammad’s widow informed her
husband’s nephew, Haidar Sahib, about their plight and obtained their release
through help from the subahdar (provincial governor) of Sira and Devraj
(Commander-in-Chief and brother of the powerful Mysore finance minister
Nanjaraj), who invited them to Srirangapatna. In the capital of Mysore, Haidar
Sahib treated the two boys like his own sons and taught them the art of
fighting and cav alry. Nevertheless, we know very little about the environment
in which Haidar was raised, nor how old he was when he entered the army. Haidar
‘Ali’s elder brother, succeeded Haidar Sahib after his death. Haidar ‘Ali was
initially attached to his brother’s detachment. His courage, especially during
the siege of Devanhalli (near Bangalore) in 1749, convinced Nanjaraj to award
him with the title of “Khan” and the separate command of 200 foot soldiers and
50 horsemen.12
In
1750, Haidar and his Bedar peons (irregular infantry) captured a portion of the
treasure of the assassinated Nasir Jang, the Nizam of Hyderabad. He was thus
able to increase the number of soldiers at his command. He also recruited
French deserters to train his troops. He impressed Nanjaraj, again, during the
Trichinopoly Campaign and, on returning to Mysore, was appointed as the faujdar
of Dindigul (c. 1755). He further enlarged his troops and employed French
engineers to organ ise his regular artillery, arsenal and laboratory.13
After the death of his brother (c. 1756), Haidar succeeded him because Ismail Sahib had no male children. In his new position, he commanded 15,000 soldiers— including 200 Europeans and 3000 cavalry.14 However, starting in the mid-1750s, Srirangapatna became very unstable. The relationship between the powerless Raja of Mysore and the two brothers Devraj and Nanjaraj was getting bad. Devraj and Nanjaraj were in such dispute regarding their policies towards the Raja that the for mer resigned his government position in 1757. War expenses and invasions by the Nizam of Hyderabad and the Marathas had concurrently emptied the state treas ury.15 Troops who had not been paid for months decided to block the delivery of water and provisions to Nanjaraj’s house. However, Haidar proved capable of pla cating the ministers as well as paying off the troops.16 As a consequence, the Raja of Mysore appointed him Commander-in-Chief when the Marathas invaded Mysore in 1758. He succeeded in obtaining advantageous peace terms with the Marathas. When Nanjaraj decided to retire, Haidar seized power. After he successfully thwart ed a conspiracy by his divan (finance minister) Khande Rao and the Raja, no one challenged his power.17 The key to Haidar’s success was courage, determination, diplomatic and military skills, as well as the might of his semi-modern army. While Haidar always remained, in title, subordinate to the Hindu Raja of Mysore, he had full command. He also obtained the title of “Khan” and the office of faujdar of Sira in 1761. Haidar appointed a successor to Chik Krishna Raja when he died in 1766.
Over
time, Haidar grew more powerful and considerably enlarged the territory of
Mysore. He annexed Bednur, Sira, Sonda, Baramahal, Palaghat, areas of Malabar
and Maratha territories in Karnataka. Under Haidar, Mysore grew more powerful.
In spite of all this, ‘Ali Khan, the Nizam of Hyderabad, regarded Haidar to be
nothing more than a mere zamindar.18 Ishtiaq Husain Qureshi argues that the
Nizam: “Felt justified in planning the destruction of Haidar Ali because he considered
him to be a mere usurper with no right to his territories.”19
Haidar
usually went to bed after midnight and woke up about six o’clock in the
morning.20 He fluently spoke Hindustani, Kannada, Marathi, Telugu, and Tamil.21
But he could not read or write and the only formal education that he had was as
a soldier. Nonetheless, the German Protestant missionary Christian Friedrich
Schwartz wrote that he had an excellent memory and French sources portrayed him
as administrating his darbar (court) better than any other prince of Asia.22
Maistre de la Tour, an employee in Haidar’s army, relaid that, “There is no
sovereign more easy of access to every one that has business with him, whether
strangers or sub jects; and the former whatever may be their quality, are
always sure to be introduced into his presence, by demanding an audience, by a
Soutahdar, or macebearer, of which there is always a sufficient number at the
gate of his palace.”23 Accounts by Schwartz, Maistre de la Tour and others also
suggest that Haidar possessed a strong sense of justice and he did not shy away
from punishing officials (e.g., horse keepers and tax collectors) who
mistreated the poor and powerless. He even punished officials of high rank in
public.24 His sons and sons-in-law were also flogged if they had done something
wrong.25 Schwartz observed that Haidar pro tected abandoned boys and assembled
a battalion consisting exclusively of orphans. He fed and clothed the boys, to
whom Haidar gave little wooden muskets to practice military training.
State-owned orphanages had the purpose of recruiting abandoned boys into his
army. Schwartz was so impressed by Haidar’s care for orphans that he believed
that the British should follow his example. Haidar gave Schwartz a sum of 300
rupees to sponsor the building of such an orphanage.26
With regard to Haidar’s administration, Schwartz and Wilks observed that, he “orders one man to write a letter and read it to him; then he calls another to read it again. If the writer has in the least deviated from his orders, his head pays for it.”27 Schwartz affirmed that fear was one of Haidar’s most important means of rule; whereas, he also rewarded good behaviour.28 To be respected, prevent treason, increase the efficiency of his administration and, ultimately, sustain his rule, Haidar felt obliged to pursue a policy of reward and punishment.
The
German historian Mathias Christian Sprengel (1746–1803) wrote that Haidar was
the first “Indian prince,” after emperor Aurengzeb and the Maratha ruler
Shivaji (c.1627–80), to attract European attention.29 In 1781, the French
Compagnie des Indes praised that Haidar played an incredibly important role in
Indian affairs.30 In part due to such praise, the British and Haidar began to
regard each other as arch enemies. Haidar became increasingly aware of the
danger that the British posed to
the
sovereignty of Indian rulers like himself. Haidar’s hostility towards the
British increased as a result of his own experiences with the East Indian
Company (EIC). Despite the fact that it was agreed upon in a 1769 treaty, the
EIC did not give him assistance when the Marathas attacked him in 1770.31 He
wrote that, “Another thing they assured me [was that] they were not going to
Mahe Bunder, yet they went in a manner unknown to me.”32 Schwartz also
confirmed that EIC did not keep its word and that it was unwilling to
peacefully coexist with Mysore. He reported that the British governor of Madras
was not interested in peace because he engaged an agent to collect money from
him. It should not come as a surprise that Haidar angrily sent the British
agent away and took preparatory military measures to defend Mysore from the
EIC.33 Haidar noted that, “The English first try to secure a footing in other
territories by outward professions of friendship and then gradually they bring
them under their full sway.”34
Haidar’s
rule can be characterised as generally autocratic and centralistic.
Nevertheless, he was pragmatic and respected by the local population. Twenty
years after his death, the Scottish physician and naturalist Francis Buchanan
(1762–1829) observed that, “On account of his justice, wisdom, and moderation,
his memory is greatly respected by the natives of all descriptions.”35 Father
Schwartz even compared Haidar favorably to the Prussian King Frederick the
Great (1712–86): “In his accuracy, in his astuteness against the violators of
his orders, in his efforts to regulate and improve his army, in the daily and
strictest reply of letters that he receives, there are some traits of sameness.
But the astonishing difference between them is that your king [Frederick] is an
erudite prince, whereas Haidar can not read. Nonetheless, no one is able to
deceive him.”36 Innes Munro similarly wrote in mid-1780 that, “Many have
compared the military genius and character of Hyder Ally to those of the
renowned Frederick the Second, king of Prussia; and indeed, when we consider
the distinguished abilities of that prince amongst his contempo raries in this
country, and the intrepid manner by which he has established himself upon the
throne of Misore, and extended his dominions, one cannot but allow the simile
to be exceedingly just.”37
In
1782, Haidar finally succumbed to a cancer, from which he had been suffer ing
for a long time.38 Before he died, Haidar allegedly bequeathed a letter to his
son Tipu. In this letter, Haidar outlined a lucid political and strategic
analysis that was clearly patriotic and anti-colonial:
India since the death of Aurangzeb, has lost her rank among the empires of Asia. This fair land is parceled out into provinces which make war against the other; the people divided into a multitude of sects, have lost their love of the country. The Hindus…are little able to defend their country, which has become the prey of strangers…The greatest obstacle you have to con quer is jealousy of the Europeans. The English are today all powerful in India. It is necessary to weaken them by war. The resources of Hindustan do not suffice to expel them from the lands they have invaded. Put the nations of Europe one against the other. It is by the aid of the French that you could conquer the British armies which are better trained than the Indian. The Europeans have surer tactics; always use against them their own weapons.39
Tipu
Sultan
After
Haidar’s first wife became paralysed while giving birth to a daughter, he mar
ried Fatima or Fakhr-un-Nissa, the daughter of Mir Muin-ud-din the governor of
Cuddapah. Tipu Sultan was the firstborn son of Haidar ‘Ali and Fakhr-un-Nissa.
Tipu Sultan was also called Fath ‘Ali, after his grandfather Fath Mohammad.40
Tipu
was an educated ruler, who, from an early age was inducted into the art of war.
Tipu was taught riding, shooting, fencing, etc. He also received instruction in
the science of tactics and learning about European military practices when
joined his father in reviews and maneuvers.41 He was in violent battles and
wars from a very young age, and around the age of seventeen, he obtained his
first nominal com mand.42 According to James Achilles Kirkpatrick (1764–1805),
Tipu was: “Born and bred in camp, and tutored in the science of war under a
great master [i.e., his father Haidar ‘Ali] possesses all the characteristic
valour and hardiness of the soldier while his achievements in the Fields of
Mars are far from discrediting the precepts incul cated by his father…his whole
reign having been one continued state of military preparations or actual
warfare.”43
Haidar
also engaged “learned tutors” in order to provide an education to Tipu.44
Charles Stewart confirmed that Haidar had “procured for his son the most able
masters in all the sciences cultivated by the Mohammedans, and enforced, by
strict discipline, the attendance of the youth to his studies.”45 The names of
his teachers remain obscured and, by reason of the turbulent times, his
education was likely interrupted time and again. Nevertheless, we know that
Tipu not only possessed books on Islamic theology, law, Sufism, arts and
crafts, the natural sciences, medicine, agriculture and military maneuvers, but
was also familiar with the knowl edge and resources of the Mughal elite and the
political developments of West Asia.46 He knew about the French Revolution of
1789 and, in 1797, went as far as initiating a “Jacobin assembly” in the
capital city of Srirangapatna.47 This was done basically on strategic grounds
so as to be assisted by revolutionary France against the bone-crushing British
threat.
An
anonymous soldier was so impressed by the quantity of Tipu’s books that he
wrote that his library “promises on the whole the greatest acquisition ever
gained to Europe of Oriental History & literature.”48 Charles Stewart, who
had written a descriptive catalogue of his library, noted that theology or
Sufism was Tipu’s favorite subject of study. He added that “the Sultan was
ambitious of being an Author,” while “not less than forty-five books, on
different subjects, were either composed or translated from other languages,
under his immediate patronage.”49 Indeed, apart from numerous letters and
hukmnamahs (written orders),50 Tipu also wrote down his dreams (Khab Namah).
They were set down in his own handwriting and date from 1785 to 1798.51
Moreover, he wrote his own memoirs (Tuzak-i Tipu), a book on astrology
(Zabarjad) and a treatise on the preparation of perfumes, the arts of dyeing
and cleaning, etc.52 Significantly, Tipu also seems to have written the first
useful manual on the handgun (Risalah dar Adab-i Tufang).53 Among the books
Tipu had commissioned, there was a compilation of a treatise on the art of
dyeing cloth and of blending perfumes (Mujmua al Senayi), a work on medicine
(Bahr al Manafi), a Persian grammar book54 (Kitab Amukhtan), a compendium of
theology, law and the art of government (Fakhr ash-Shiukh), an account of
Tipu’s emissaries to the Ottoman Empire (Waqa’i Manazil-i Rum),55 a number of
writings on military rules and regulations (Fath al-Mujahidin; Dabita-i
Sawari), on official decorum, royal insignia, decorations, medals, banners,
etc. (Muntakhab-i Dawabit-i Sultani; Risalah-i Padkha) and especially on
religious matters concerning the different chapters of the Qur’an (Fihrist
Suraha-i Kitab Allah), marriage and its different religious and moral
advantages (Risalah dar Nikah), prayers (Ta’at Saniya), funda mental principles
of Islam (Khulasa-i Sultani), date of the death of the Prophet, sacred persons
and important Islamic figures (Sahifat al-A’ras), etc.56 Tipu’s library further
revealed that he was also interested in art as illustrated by his patronage of
two books on the music of Mysore (Mufarrih-ul-Qulub completed in 1785; Jalwa
Namah) as well as a Persian treatise on those rules of calligraphy (Risalah dar
Khatt-i Tarz-i Mohammadi) that he himself invented.57 The contemporary transla
tor and editor of Tipu’s writings, William Kirkpatrick (1754–1812), observed
that the library contained about 2,000 volumes, including Qur’ans, Shahnamahs
(The book of Kings) and Divans (collection of poems). This was affirmed by
Charles Stewart. His descriptive catalogue shows that the library consisted of
Arabic, Persian and a few Hindi, Dekhani and Turkish manuscripts. The library
included 118 books on history; 115 books on Sufism; 24 books on ethics; 190
books on Poetry; 19 books on arts and sciences; 7 books on arithmetic and
mathematics, including a transla tion of Euclid’s Elements; 20 books on
astronomy; 62 books on physics; 45 books on philology; 29 lexicographies; 46
books on theology; 95 books on jurisprudence and 44 Qur’ans.58 Significantly,
Tipu Sultan not only continued his father’s custom of engaging European
mercenaries in his army, but, he reportedly demanded help in compiling and
translating the above-mentioned 45 new books from his British prisoners. Just
to name a few examples, Tipu’s library contained a translation of the “Complete
London Dispensatory,” a work which supposedly “was the Result of the united
Efforts of all the Learned (Physicians) of Europe;”59 an English treatise on
electrical and medical experiments; a translation of Dr. Cockburne’s treatise
on the twist of the intestines and a treatise on botany and natural history
translated from French and English books.60 This manifests that he realised
both the importance of European knowledge and grasped the relevance of studying
European books. Interestingly, the translations of Persian papers found in the
palace of the Sultan revealed that he had at least some knowledge of the
history of Great Britain: “Names of the three Islands belonging to the
English—Ireland, Gernsey, Jersey. On the English Island there was once the
Rajah of a tribe called Cooseea [Scotland] a hundred years ago, the English
Rajah put the Rajah of the Coosseeas to death, and took possession of his
country.”61
Tipu
was also aware of the American War of Independence and reportedly uttered,
“Every blow that is struck in the cause of American liberty throughout the
world, in France, India and elsewhere and so long as a single insolent and
savage tyrant remains, the struggle shall continue.”62 There is even some
evidence that Tipu was acquainted with several European languages, in addition
to Kanarese, Hindustani, and Persian.63
Tipu
not only sent envoys to West Asia and Europe to forge alliances but also
established and consolidated trade relations to procure foreign innovations.64
His interest in books and general knowledge, as well as a fascination with
European innovations likely stimulated his positive attitudes vis-à-vis science
and technology.
George
Basalla writes that, “The Muslim tradition innovation or novelty is automat
ically assumed to be evil until it can be proven otherwise and applies to
innovations made by believers of Islam as well as those imported from other
cultures.”65 This claim does not seem to be applicable to Tipu, who was a
devout Muslim and avid about European technology. He possessed a number of
European articles, like the watch he kept in his pocket.66 When Tipu was around
eighteen, he visited Madras and came across a microscope that belonged to one
of Haidar’s friends. He desired to possess it and a European merchant named Mr.
Debonnaire arranged for Tipu to have it as a present.67 When the British
plundered Tipu’s palace in 1799, they encountered “telescopes, and optical
glasses of every size and sight, with looking glasses and pictures in unbounded
profusion; while of china and glass ware there was sufficient to form a large
mercantile magazine.”68 In 1792, Major Dirom found a case of mathematical
instruments from London in Tipu’s tent. He concluded that this gave
“probability to accounts we have received that the Sultan has turned his
attention to the science of fortification and that he had been his own
engineer.”69 Buchanan observed that a French artist helped Tipu to construct a
water-powered machine for boring cannons. He mocked Tipu for having removed the
water wheel and replacing it with bullocks.70 In defense of Tipu, Irfan Habib
assumed that he probably employed bullocks because the waterwheels did not work
well. He points out that attaching bullocks to the engine necessitated a
supplementary iron geared mechanism which “must have required a creditable
level of craftsmanship.”71 The incident hardly supports Buchanan’s statement
that Tipu was “little sensible” of the value of machines.72 On the contrary,
Tipu showed a profound interest in mechan ical devices. A 17-year-old
Englishman and “native of India,” William Smith, gave evidence of Tipu’s
enthusiasm for technology. Smith attended Tipu’s embassy in 1794, when the EIC
released his sons as hostages.73 Smith presumed Tipu detained the embassy for
19 days in order “to instruct two of his arz begs (lords of requests) in the
use of an…apparatus, presented to him [Tipu] by the government of Madras.”74 In
a letter to Andrew Bell, Smith revealingly wrote: “I exhibited the follow ing
experiments, viz. head and wig, dancing images, electric stool, cotton fired,
small receiver and stand, hemispheres, Archimedes’s screw, siphon, Tantalus’s
cup, water-pump, condensing engine, &c. Captain Doveton was present, and
explained, as I went on, to the Sultaun, who was giving an instance of his
being acquainted with some of these experiments. He has shewn us a condensing
engine made by himself, which spouted water higher than ours.”75
Tipu
set high value on transmitting European technological innovations. More than
once, he asked Smith “to teach a man, who professed several mechanic arts, the
doctrine of the siphon, Archimedes’s screw, and the water-pump.”76 Tipu’s pen
chant for technology steadily grew. His efforts to enhance local sites of
production and state manufactures reflected this penchant.77 Tipu also
appreciated the value of a French education. Although it never came to
fruition, he was willing to send one of his sons to go to school in France.78
When
Haidar died in late 1782, Tipu assumed power without any obstacles because the
military considered his younger brother to be of little experience and good
sense.79 This event marked a new phase in Tipu’s life and, he detached him self
from the shadow of his father. Tipu’s newly gained autonomy permitted him to
put his idiosyncratic ideas and hukm namahs into practice. Tipu terminated his
official subordination to the previous Wodeyar Dynasty and declared
independence in 1783. This was a potentially perilous political step since the
Mughal Emperor, or shahanshah (“king of kings”), was still largely considered
the God-given legal and religious leader of all Indian Muslims and also
principal authority for successor states in India until up to the early nineteenth
century.80 This decision also provoked the Nizam of Hyderabad and the nawab
Walajah, who were both under British influ ence and were looking for an excuse
to attack Tipu. When Tipu tried to obtain the status of a legal prince via the
Mughal court in 1783, he did not get an approval. He was even denied the
khil’at (Robe of Honor),81 owing to the considerable degree of influence that
Mysore’s arch-enemy the British already exercised in Delhi. In reac tion, Tipu
symbolically omitted the name and title of the Mughal Emperor from his coins
and started to call himself Padshah (or Emperor) in 1786. The assumption of
this title represented the second shift in Tipu Sultan’s life after his
takeover of Mysore. In 1786, he issued The Mysorean Revenue Regulations or
Regulations for the Management of his Country (i.e., the Regulations) which
covered almost all aspects of daily life from agriculture to people’s mores. He
forged a new identity for himself by changing the calendar, currencies,
weights, measurements, renaming towns and changing the words of command, names
of firearms, titles of military officials, etc. into Persian.82 The Regulations
also marked a transition to an Islamic theocracy.83 Tipu’s neighbouring enemies
kept a jealous watch over him and were reluctant to accept his authority. It
was only after the victorious war against the Marathas and the Nizam (1784–87)
that both these forces acceded to call him Tipu Sultan instead of Fath ‘Ali
Khan. Only outside potentates, such as the Persian King Karim Khan Zand (r.
1765–79) and the Afghan ruler Zaman Shah Abdali (r. 1793–1800), accepted Haidar
and Tipu as equal monarchs.84
According
to the French merchant, “banker,” writer, politician and sea captain
Pierre-Antoine Monneron (1747–1801), Tipu regularly worked six hours per day.
For the remainder of the day, he rested or dedicated his time to the practice
of Islam— to which he was strongly attached.85 It is more probable that he
worked sixteen hours from morning until evening, as Mohibbul Hasan suggests. Another
European who worked in Mysore, confirmed that Tipu was a diligent worker who
rarely occu pied himself with pleasures, although he sometimes enjoyed the art
of dancing. He had breakfast and dinner simply with two or three of his sons
and some principal officers. In the evening, a qazi (Muslim judge) and his
principal munshi (secretary) were equally present at dinner. Tipu’s biographer,
Hasan, describes that during the meal, Tipu “discussed on learned and religious
subjects with those who were present. He also sometimes recited passages and
verses from the works of great historians and poets.”86 Monneron was of the
opinion that Tipu’s main passion was neither for conquest nor wealth but to
preserve the country he inherited from his father and to make a historical mark
which would live on after his death.87 Evidence suggests that he was proud,
vain and imperious. He was also forgiving and par doned his brother Abdul
Karim, his ministers Mir Sadiq and Purniah and his General Qamar ud-din Khan.
He remained loyal to his friends and allies. One of his most striking
characteristics was his ambition and determination to struggle until the bitter
end without much disposition towards compromise in order not to become a vassal
of foreign forces and lose independence.88
While Tipu consulted his chief civil and military officers on significant issues, he was an undisputed autocrat: he determined Mysore’s foreign policy, he was its military leader and personally dictated important letters.89 According to Captain Taylor, Tipu’s “intelligence is an object of particular consideration…He does not depend on the word of a single Individual, but employs several on the same occa sion, examines them apart & whether they agree or differ in their Tale they are all detained close prisoners till the truth is disclosed, and to the man who is found in an error, no lenity is shown.”90 Tipu’s autocratic rule was pervasive as he adminis tered every possible detail such as fixing the wages of the lower classes (e.g. the earnings of a sweeper).91
Most
existing European documents, most notably travel accounts and the records of
the EIC and French East India Companies, described Tipu in an unflat tering
manner. The EIC civil servant George Forster stated that, “He is said to be
violent, cruel and so insufferably arrogant that he has disgusted most of his
Fathers old servants and adherents. His treatment of his Troops has been so
oppressive and severe, that it is the received opinion in his Durbar that more
Men have been lost by desertion than by the casualties of the late War.”92 In a
similar vein, the French Governor of Pondicherry, Cossigny, wrote in 1786: “His
cruelty, due to his greed and ill-intent; I am always afraid that at the moment
of combat, the enemies will clean up a total defection of his troops as he has
mistreated so many of them.”93 Besides the fact that Cossigny’s statement about
Tipu’s supposed greed is inconsistent with those of Monneron, there is further
evidence that contradicts the statements by Forster and Cossigny. Throughout
Tipu’s reign, the Mysore army was loyal to him and possessed a favourable
opinion of his intentions and capabilities. According to Major Dirom, Tipu’s
troops remained faithful in the field “until their last overthrow.”94 Most of
the European accounts of Tipu produce biased images and depict him as a
one-dimensional oriental despot. In 1788, J. Moodie writes that Tipu “may be
said to be a living example of Eastern barbarity, even his father, the
implacable Hyder Ali Khan, has been exceeded by him in acts of the most
unparalleled cruelty; his sav age manners yielding only to the baseness and
malignity of his heart.”95 European accounts of Tipu Sultan must be taken with
a grain of salt, since orientalist senti ments generally distorted the
picture.96 Few European accounts exist that contradict the one-sided and
one-dimensional depiction of Tipu as a cruel and violent ruler. Such accounts
serve well to correct portrayals of Tipu as imbued with prejudices. Edward Moor
was one of the few EIC officers who was favourable toward Tipu.97 He served as
Captain of a contingent during the Third Anglo–Mysore War and observed:
“Those…who do not choose to be carried away by the torrent of popu lar opinion,
but, in preference to thinking by proxy, venture to think for themselves, can
find the same excuse for the restlessness of Tippoo, as for that of any other
ambitious sovereign; and on the subject of his cruelties, venture to express a
doubt whether they may not possibly have been exaggerated.”98 In 1792, Major
Dirom observed that Tipu’s “government, though strict and arbitrary, was the
despotism of a political able sovereign, who nourishes, not oppresses, the
subjects who are to be the means of his future aggrandizement: and his
cruelties were, in general, inflict ed only on those whom he considered as his
enemies.”99
Click HERE for part 2 of this article