3* i irza Daud, I .iran,s son-in-law was given the Fawjdari of Shagalpur(the only Bihar district which was administered directly f ’ca i .urshidabad)in April 1765 by Reza Khan* The l-irza refused "to give a single dan more" when the demand was revised by Mykes in llov 17o5,and left the collection without notice.The Khan then with Sykes* concurrence,posted one Mir Waris Ali who agreed to pay the higher demand0(Reza Khan*s letter,reed 12I?oY*65«CliC,I,2745 4*Rmbold*s letter, BSC 9 17^9 o 5*Perhaps ha was the author of Til
6•Rumbold*s letter, BSC 9 Feb^1769o 7. ibid*
9* Balances,said Reza Khan in^ note on the past state of Bongal in 1774f”"were formerly wary uncoiimoni whenever they arose, inquiry was made into their causes*If th .y appeared reasonable the rent was lowered and the deficiency was remitted*’ I.e.Bur £ 28, p 347*
with statements of anticipated revenues for 1766-67o**vftiat the Khan had not realised was that the Company would rigorously exact fulfillment of contracts from the unfortunate Amils, without the enquiries and the abater*ents customary in former times 0
When Reza Khan reached Calcutta in October 1766 he was accorded a vote 2
of thanks by the Fort William Council* Row that he had done what was humanly possible to fulfill Clive*s expectations, it was Clive*s turn to fulfill the Khan’s expectations*
By ILarch 1766 Clive had become convinced of the usefulness of Reza Khan, and had written to the Directors through the Select Committee asking them to send a present as a distinguishing nark of the Company’s favour to "spur" the Khan to further endeavours^ But the Directors’ first comment on Reza Khan’s appointment as Naib Subah which arrived soon after the Committee’s
request for a present, was far from favourable te the Khan* Their letter, which was in reply to the letters from the Council and from Governor Spencer of 11 and 14 Karch 1765, approved the succession ©f Raja ud daulah and the appointment of a regent* But on the choice of Reza Khan for that office they cemnented, ■ we think you passed too slightly over the charges urged against him, of being so very deficient in accounting for the revenues of the province of which he has been Governor** The Directors doubtless based their comments on the letter of Kir Jafar received by the Calcutta Council on >0 December, 1764* But it is also clear that they were unable to
comprehend the political moves of Spencer's government, and that the Khan’s appointment was included in the general disapproval of things done by Spencer, the great favourite of Laurence Sulivan, which *?as voiced by Directors who
had ousted the Sulivan party* - 1 ^ -
C *
On 30 September 1765 Clive had written t© the Directors detailing his achievements, and explaining the governmental arrangements at Rurshidabad 1* Letter to Court 9 Dec 1766o 2, BPC 13 Oct 1766
3* They suggested that another of greater value should also be sent to the Nawab * to prevent his regarding that useful minister with an eye of jealousy*. Letter to Court, 24 Mar 1766,
upon which the Select Committee expended so much time and energy* This letter reached London on 20 April 1766; but the Directors* reply despatched on 17 Lay still had no favourable comment to make on the Khan*s appointment* We know in fact that in a first draft they had declared " we differ from you in our ideas of the administration of government*• They had objected to the June 21 arrangement of four men sharing the government* a plan likely to produce
discord and had recommended the appointment of one man to conduct the affairs •f the government* They had accepted Reza Khan as .a proper person to take charge in that case - but >ad added toe rider "not that we wish to see a l.usselnan 4n the office but rather a Gcmtoe"* Then on second thoughts they emitted all tnese critical comments from their letter to Bengal* conscious perhaps of their dependence on Clive*a voting power* But Clive was not
without a listening post in the Direction* The silence, no less than earlier criticism , must have worried Clive0
'.Then Clive set about rehabilitating the Khan in the eyes of the Directors he did not do so by explaining the political significance of fir Jafar* s and later of Najm ud daulah* a allegations of deficiencies in the Dacca revenues, which as Verelst said had been laid " solely with a view to prevent him from
2
being appointed to the management of the affairs of the government"* Instead he decided te ensure the Company’s protection and support of the Khan by an extraordinary measure, a vote of thanks from the Council on behalf of the Company, which should foroe the Directors* hands* Accordingly on 13 October 1766 Clive proposed to the Council "that the thanks of the Board in behalf of the Honble Company be given him" 0The motion was unanimously adopted
following which Reza Khan was introduced and the "acknowledgement of the Board" made to him* Reza Khan in his reply of thanks promised his utmost endeavours to continue to enjoy the "good opinion" of the Board, and for the past success diplomatically gave the credit "in a great measure to the assistance given him by Lir0 Sykes" *^Dl±ve followed this up on 16 January 17671 in his parting minute of instructions to the successor government with a
strong plea for support for the Khan and a statement of the Khan's services given in the most glaring terms; "Justice to U0R*C&wa t toe Kalb Devan calls upon me to recommend him in the strongest terns, to the protection of the
1* Despatches to Bengal, Original Draft , Vol 3 page 375* 2* Verelst’s minute, BSC 20 June 1769*
140
Committee. His diligence ,disinterestedness, and abilities exceed those of any other Mussulman I have yet seen"#^
All that Clive could do by commendation , he had done# But the Khan was not ignorant of the fact that Clive was g-ing and Sykes remaining , and he was naturally anxious about his own security, continuance in power.He had received a pledge in the Company's name from the Council, but knowing how the decisions of the Council changed from time to time he was not fully assured# Clive had assured him of his support in England, reiterated in his
2
parting letter to the Khan , but if the Khan knew of the Directors* comments he must have f ;lt insecure# He now raised the question of his salary# Until he had won the confidence of Clive by his work Reza Khan had not, cleverly enough, mentioned it©Now that Clive was due to leave shortly the Khan became anxious to have it settled#
He must have been made the more anxious by the actions of Sykes# During the two months that the Khan was away from Kurshidabad, Sykes assisted by Ali Ibrahim Khan had been busy making further economies# The Clive-Reza Khan understanding of April 1766 regarding the reduction of the public expenditure of the Nizamat by twelve lakhs was incorporated in the treaty of 18 *. ay 1766 which Saif ud daulah had signed before being formally installed as Nawab the next day! According to this treaty the public funds at the Khan's disposal had been settled at Ha 24,07,277-0-0, but before the treaty was signed again on behalf of the Company on 28 November 1766 also by Clive and Camac who were absent in May , the actual amount had been further reduced, first te nineteen lakhs before November and then again to sixteen lakhs in November 1766.4 Sykes himself seems to have felt that he had gone too far, for in Kerch 1767 he wrote flhat advantage was lost to K.R.Cawn by this reduction I will not venture to pronounce) but am certain that the present sum cannot be less ened without lessening in a great degree the dignity and consequence of the _ Nabob, which we , as well as himself, de profess ourselves desirous te maintain
Clive's minute , BSC 16 Jan 1767*
2# Clive to Reza Khan 25 1767t CPC, I,28110 (Clive left Calcutta next day)0 3# It appears that the treaty was signed twice, first on 18 Nay by all members
of the Council except Clive, Camao and Sykes who were absent from Calcutta and again on 28 I-ov 1766 by the Governor and Councilo By this treaty the Nawab agreed that the 'king' was to be paid Ra 2,16,666-10-9 monthly and that he v7ould accept Rs 41,86,131-9-0 in all per year#tut of the latter sum Rs 17*76,854-1-0 was as before 'for my house' etc and the rest to bo spent by Reza Khan©(pp Eirst Report, 1772, p 208)*Saif ud daulah was seated on 19:.aj 4® 3ykes*f letter of 6 i.'ar, 33C 10 ar 1767. 5. ibid
The Directors accepted tne situation but with disapproval and *«nt stringent orders to Calcutta ; n'tfe direct you never to reduce the stipend lower being desirous that he the Nawab^should have sufficient to support his public character1*« Reza Khan must have been shocked by this underhand
2
dealing, which Sykes said later was done at Clive*s direction* In any event the Khan became further alarmed at futuro prospects and became more insistent that his own salary should be fixeti0
Until December Y(66 Reza Khan*s official sources of incone had been 3
his salary from Dacca and his jagiroThe only advantage he had personally derived had been , as authorised by Clive, the cost of maintenance of his bodyguard of one hundred, horseman and three hundred "Coss-Burdar* or musketeers* Whereas with Mir Jafar he had insisted that terns be settled before he took office, with Clive he left a monetary settlement to the last, though from a letter from the Khan to Verelst it seems that Clive may have promised him a salary of ten lakhs a year*^IIow at last Clive proposed to redeem his promise and settle the question*
By November Clive had in fact provided for the Khan*® salary by making Sykes unofficially deduct eight lakhs from the i;&wab*s public funds* The difficulty was to make sure that the Directors would #groe to the payment of a big sun despite their expressed dislike of the Khan0Cnce again Clive sought to tic their hands by action in Ir*dia0Cn 31 December 1766 the Select Committee took up the question of the Ministers* salaries, as a matter
arising from the repeated representation of the Khan* In a sldlllfully worded minute twelve lakhs was recommended for the Khan, Rai Durlabh and Shitab Rai, "as shall bo settled by the Right Hon*ble the President ^Clive^ their payment to coiuaence on the last day of January next gl7<S7_/! The
distribution ©f the sum, which remained unspecifi jd in the resolution of the Committee was later communicated to t:;e recipients as 9 lakhs for the Khan, 2 lakhs for Rai Durlabh and 1 lakh ( actually 4 rupees less) for Shitab Rai*^
1* Court*8 letter , 16 Mar 1768*
2<> Sykes*$ letter 6 Mar, BSC 10 i ar 1767# The Khan perhaps was not aware of Clive* s hand behind this deduction which made the agreement meaningless even before it was finally signedgKaram Ali puts the blame on Ali
Ibrahim Khan* a eagerness to court Sykes*s favour* (MN f 161)
3* The Khan enjoyed his j&gir as a Mughal mansabdar and as a gift from the emperor, liis Dacca salary was Rs 90,000 per year,
4* y 1772 the strength had risen to 550 sepoys. Trial Papers.11,128. cm r’Pf* ^filive's letters 2b Jan 17o7. CPC. 1*2811,281%
The matter was communicated to London in the last letter from the Select Committee to the Directors signed by Clive as governor, dated 24 January 1767* ^wo ^ays before he set sail for home#In this letter three para
graphs were devot d to the question of salary of the ministers, particularly of Reza Khan, admirably building up a case for the sanction of twelve lakhs as salary for the three - without specifying the amount fixed for each# It was observed that Reza Khanfs present emoluments were eight lakhs from perquisites ; and therefore , the letter added ," we thought it proper in the distribution of salaries, to consider Mahomed Reza Cawn in a light superior to the other ministers"# The letter continued, "this we have recommended to the President, who will adjust, with their approbation, the several proportion to be drawn from the above appointment"# Finally, there was a strong recommendation for the sanction of that " great and enormous "
*
sum of twelve lakhs which had been set apart for the ministers on the ground " that it is necessary and reasonable^ and will appear so on consideration of the power which men employed on those important services have either to obstruct or promote the public good, unless their integrity be confirmed by ties of gratitude and interest"© The Directors were not told how the twelve lakhs were to be distributed, though Reza Khan and Rai Durlabh were told of their respective salaries by letters from Clive dated 25 January©
The slow exchange about the Khan continued with a letter from the Directors written on 21 November 1766 in reply to toe Committee*s letter of 24 I arch 1766# The Directors still cautioned Calcutta against showing favour to Reza Khan and referred again te Mir Jafar*s allegations# Not until 16 :arch 1768, after the news of the vote of thanks by the Calcutta Council and Clive*3 recommendations had been reinforced by Clive*s arrival in
England ( in July 1767) did the Directors authorise the Fort William government to " assure him ^the KhanJ[ of our approbation and protection and of the sense we entertain of his services"# By the same letter the Directors accorded their sanction to the setting apart of twelve lakhs for the ministers#
When they gave their overall sanction the Directors were still unaware of the way in which the sum was allotted, and when they did finally know they could do nothing but comment that nine lakhs was too high a salary for Reza Khan* Clive*s manoeuvres had thus succeeded, for the Company
m
had at last to confirm what Clive left as an accomplished fact in India*
In Bengal the Khan had been definitely established in his new position by Clive. Clive's protection had saved him from all his enemies,notably from Kandkur.ar whom Clive would have banished to Chittagong had not Nabakrishna's pleas on behalf of the Raja's family and caste dissuaded h ± m \ Clive had also shielded Reza Khan's administration from some though not all of
SykesS measures of economy* The Khan had been honoured with titles from the Bmperor, and with the thanks of the Company delivered by the Council* He had been assured by Clive's manoeuvre of a handsome salary. The Khan had also in his own way helped Clive to work the diwani and particularly te secure extension to the terms of the grant of the Jagir by a further period
2