TORNOS - India > Battle of Chinhat – SIR HENRY LAWRENCE AND RAJA OF MAHMUDABAD

ALSO READ FROM OUR PAST ISSUES OF LUCKNOWLEDGE > >

Lucknowledge

Newsletter


Battle of Chinhat – SIR HENRY LAWRENCE AND RAJA OF MAHMUDABAD

Volume: 18, No: 03 ; March-2024

Umpteen issues always get raised, when the battle of Chinhat is remembered and there are multiple views, if not directly conflicting. Was it a misadventure on the part of Sir Lawrence? Were there other factors apart from desertion, which led to a routing of British forces? And, although we know that Barakat Ahmad and Khan Ali Khan led the Indian side did Raja of Mahmudabad play any role?

There are two versions and one is by Inglis. J.W.E Inglis who took over the command after the demise of Sir Lawrence wrote a letter on 26th September 1857, to Calcutta narrating the incident of 30th June,

“On the evening of that day, several reports reached Sir Henry Lawrence that the rebel army, in no very considerable force, would march from Chinhat (a small village about eight miles distant On the road to Fyzabad) a Lucknow on the following morning and the late Brigadier –General, therefore, determined to make a strong reconnaissance in that direction, with the view if possible, of meeting the force at its disadvantage, either at the entrance of the suburb or at the bridge across, Kukrail, …”

There is another detailed account of Martin Gubbins. However, his relationship with Sir Lawrence was troublesome, and his work, Mutinies in Oudh was disputed, by George Hutchinson (1826–1899) of the Bengal Engineers, in “Narrative of the Mutinies in Oude.” Inglis when he took over command after the demise of Sir Lawrence, enquired who coaxed Sir Lawrence into that ‘misadventure’

It turned out that probably Gubbins himself was coaxing Sir Lawrence to send a force. One officer mentioned, “Sir Henry Lawrence did from time to time complain to me, that the indomitable personal courage of Mr. Gubbins, his excessive zeal and ardent temperament, had caused him to be the over-earnest, importunate and too public advocate of Military movements, which according to Sir Henry’s personal judgement could have ended disastrously.“

If we closely look at the incident of that morning, many things went against the contingent of Sir Lawrence. To quote from the letter of Inglis, “1. The troops, misled by the reports of wayfarers–who stated that there were few or no men between Lucknow and Chinhat — proceeded somewhat further than had been originally intended, and suddenly fell in with the enemy, who had up to that time eluded the vigilance of the advanced guard by concealing themselves behind a long line of trees. 2. The bank of the road was very steep and slippery and some of the wagons overturned in the ditch. 3. The 8-inch howitzer, which was to be the mainstay of the attack was lost. The elephant, which was attached to the limber, got freighted and ran away. Lieutenant Bonham seized the limber of another wagon but could not attach it. Meanwhile. Captain Hardinge brought up the proper limber with the elephant; but the animal was so restless under fire, that the utmost exertions of the untrained gunners failed to attach the trail of the howitzer to the limber. 4. The Indian forces, advanced from both sides and outflanked Sir Lawrence’s contingent. 5. 32nd advanced boldly but were met the withering fire and Col. Case was badly wounded. Lt. Brackenbury and Thomson were mortally wounded, which left the British forces in disarray and Indians got the advantage. 6. A series of successes emboldened Indian rebels at Chinhat, their morale and faith in themselves were very high. On the other side, the British forces were already on the defensive and must have been impacted by losses all around them.

Now, about the desertion, one can only say that one man’s traitor may be another man’s freedom fighter.

Another factor one must consider about the fall (or liberation, depending upon the viewpoint) of Lucknow was almost certain and the only issue was when. If we look at the chronology, Lucknow Cantonment was burnt and forces revolted on 30th May, Sitapur (3rd June) Muhamdi (4th June), Barabanki (8th June), Sultanpur and Faizabad (8th June), Salone (9th June), Bahraich (10thJune), and Gonda (16th June) had already rebelled. Thus all the districts in Awadh were up in arms, by the first half of June 1857. In the last week of June, the fall of Kanpur was the last straw, which further emboldened the rebels.

Thus, the Battle of Chinhat and the victory of the Indians should not be seen in isolation.

One significant feature of the Battle of Chinhat was the combination of forces of Taluqdars with rebellious forces. And It brings another facet of the Battle of Chinhat, the role of the Raja of Mahmudabad.

Quoting from the ‘Trial Proceedings Govt. vs Raja Jailal Singh’

“RAJA NAWAB ALI OF MAHMUDABAD LEADS THE REBELLION

On the 30th of June occurred the disaster of Chinhat which was at once followed up by the rebels flocking into the city, and by the siege of the Residency. The rebel Head Quarters were < established in the 32nd Barracks.

At this time Khan Ali Khan, an ex-Chakladar of Salone dismissed at the instance of Genl. Sleeman for his many excesses was the Naib of Nawab Ali Talookdar of Mahmudabad the first of his class who openly rebelled. Around this man’s standard, the Sitapur murderers speedily flocked; under Khan Ali Khan they fought at Chinhat; and we find this person and Burkut Ahmad. Ressaldar of Irregulars, (since killed) as their head, on arrival at Lucknow.”

Credits : (shared by: A.K. Srivastva) / Freedom Struggle in Uttar Pradesh Vol II Chapter ; Gubbins: An account of Mutinies in Oude (London, 1858); Wylie: The English Captives in Oudh (London, 1858)

LUCKNOWLEDGE is an initiative by Tornos. We do not intend to intrude your privacy and thus have an automated UNSUBSCRIBE system. At any point you may unsubscribe to our e-column or subscribe to it again through a link on our website. The above article is shared and in no way intends to violate any copy right or intellectual rights that always remains with the writer/publisher. This e-column is a platform to share an article/event/update with the netizens and educate them about Destination Lucknow.

Battle of Chinhat – SIR HENRY LAWRENCE AND RAJA OF MAHMUDABAD

Umpteen issues always get raised, when the battle of Chinhat is remembered and there are multiple views, if not directly conflicting. Was it a misadventure on the part of Sir Lawrence? Were there other factors apart from desertion, which led to a routing of British forces? And, although we know that Barakat Ahmad and Khan Ali Khan led the Indian side did Raja of Mahmudabad play any role?

There are two versions and one is by Inglis. J.W.E Inglis who took over the command after the demise of Sir Lawrence wrote a letter on 26th September 1857, to Calcutta narrating the incident of 30th June,

“On the evening of that day, several reports reached Sir Henry Lawrence that the rebel army, in no very considerable force, would march from Chinhat (a small village about eight miles distant On the road to Fyzabad) a Lucknow on the following morning and the late Brigadier –General, therefore, determined to make a strong reconnaissance in that direction, with the view if possible, of meeting the force at its disadvantage, either at the entrance of the suburb or at the bridge across, Kukrail, …”

There is another detailed account of Martin Gubbins. However, his relationship with Sir Lawrence was troublesome, and his work, Mutinies in Oudh was disputed, by George Hutchinson (1826–1899) of the Bengal Engineers, in “Narrative of the Mutinies in Oude.” Inglis when he took over command after the demise of Sir Lawrence, enquired who coaxed Sir Lawrence into that ‘misadventure’

It turned out that probably Gubbins himself was coaxing Sir Lawrence to send a force. One officer mentioned, “Sir Henry Lawrence did from time to time complain to me, that the indomitable personal courage of Mr. Gubbins, his excessive zeal and ardent temperament, had caused him to be the over-earnest, importunate and too public advocate of Military movements, which according to Sir Henry’s personal judgement could have ended disastrously.“

If we closely look at the incident of that morning, many things went against the contingent of Sir Lawrence. To quote from the letter of Inglis, “1. The troops, misled by the reports of wayfarers–who stated that there were few or no men between Lucknow and Chinhat — proceeded somewhat further than had been originally intended, and suddenly fell in with the enemy, who had up to that time eluded the vigilance of the advanced guard by concealing themselves behind a long line of trees. 2. The bank of the road was very steep and slippery and some of the wagons overturned in the ditch. 3. The 8-inch howitzer, which was to be the mainstay of the attack was lost. The elephant, which was attached to the limber, got freighted and ran away. Lieutenant Bonham seized the limber of another wagon but could not attach it. Meanwhile. Captain Hardinge brought up the proper limber with the elephant; but the animal was so restless under fire, that the utmost exertions of the untrained gunners failed to attach the trail of the howitzer to the limber. 4. The Indian forces, advanced from both sides and outflanked Sir Lawrence’s contingent. 5. 32nd advanced boldly but were met the withering fire and Col. Case was badly wounded. Lt. Brackenbury and Thomson were mortally wounded, which left the British forces in disarray and Indians got the advantage. 6. A series of successes emboldened Indian rebels at Chinhat, their morale and faith in themselves were very high. On the other side, the British forces were already on the defensive and must have been impacted by losses all around them.

Now, about the desertion, one can only say that one man’s traitor may be another man’s freedom fighter.

Another factor one must consider about the fall (or liberation, depending upon the viewpoint) of Lucknow was almost certain and the only issue was when. If we look at the chronology, Lucknow Cantonment was burnt and forces revolted on 30th May, Sitapur (3rd June) Muhamdi (4th June), Barabanki (8th June), Sultanpur and Faizabad (8th June), Salone (9th June), Bahraich (10thJune), and Gonda (16th June) had already rebelled. Thus all the districts in Awadh were up in arms, by the first half of June 1857. In the last week of June, the fall of Kanpur was the last straw, which further emboldened the rebels.

Thus, the Battle of Chinhat and the victory of the Indians should not be seen in isolation.

One significant feature of the Battle of Chinhat was the combination of forces of Taluqdars with rebellious forces. And It brings another facet of the Battle of Chinhat, the role of the Raja of Mahmudabad.

Quoting from the ‘Trial Proceedings Govt. vs Raja Jailal Singh’

“RAJA NAWAB ALI OF MAHMUDABAD LEADS THE REBELLION

On the 30th of June occurred the disaster of Chinhat which was at once followed up by the rebels flocking into the city, and by the siege of the Residency. The rebel Head Quarters were < established in the 32nd Barracks.

At this time Khan Ali Khan, an ex-Chakladar of Salone dismissed at the instance of Genl. Sleeman for his many excesses was the Naib of Nawab Ali Talookdar of Mahmudabad the first of his class who openly rebelled. Around this man’s standard, the Sitapur murderers speedily flocked; under Khan Ali Khan they fought at Chinhat; and we find this person and Burkut Ahmad. Ressaldar of Irregulars, (since killed) as their head, on arrival at Lucknow.”