of provincial authority between Subahdar and Diwaii. The two officers wore independent in their authority, though both were individually responsible to the Khan. They were also made to act as check upon one another* the expenses of Jasarat Khan and his department were paid by Kahasingh, those of Kahasingh
2
by J&sarat Khan* Sykes9 proposal would thus have imperilled both Reza Khanfs personal finances and the structure he had recreated* It was turned down , however, by Clive as an "impolitic*' affront to Reza Khan " at a time when he was of such consequence to and so principally instrumental in reducing to order and retrenching the immoderate expeaces of the Zemindars and other officers of the Government which without his assistance would have been effected with the greatest difficulty*"•
Sykes also achieved only a partial success in his efforts to cut down government expenses, one of the main tasks he had set himself " as collector of the King9s revenue, under the inspection and control of the Select
4
Committee"• By 31 October he could report considerable economies in the 5
Patna administration9 s expenses* Under the Naibat of Ram Harain and then of liir Kazim, these had run about twenty-one and a half lakhs* With the .. l
assistance of Reza Khan, Sykes reduced this figure to some seven and a half 7
lakhs; Even this he thought *' great and heavy"* but as he reported he could not cut it further as the ministers " declare to me that there is no
a
superfluous expence in that sua%
One of the measures he had proposed to effect economies was the removal of Nawab Ihteraa ud daulah, Kir Jafar9 s brother, and Dhiraj Narain, Ram
Narain9s brother, from the posts of Naib and Diwan respectively on grounds of incompetence. Reza Khan did not deny the allegations of their incompetence,but td him as well as pethaps to Rai Durlabh this was no reason to dismiss them without any alternative provision for their maintenance. The Khan did not 1. ^ f 154* 2* Sykes9 report on Dacca, BSC 18 Apr 1767 o
3* Sykes was quoting Clive in his report to Select Committee* BSC 18 Apr 1767* 4* In these words the Select Committee descibed Sykes9 functions as Resident
at the Durbar* Letter to Court 24 Jan 1767*
5* Ram Narain, son-of Rajigalalp was bred in Alivardi9 s family, was secretary to Seraj ud daulah9 s father, lie succeded J&nakiram& Rai Durlabh9 s father as Naib at Patna ih the time of Alivardi and continued in the post until he was dismissed by H r vlasim in 1761 *As he was killed in 1763 by Kir i^asim liir Jafar on his restoration appointed his brother as Diwan at Patna*
6*He was Kir Jafar9s brother and known also as Nawab Ihteram ud daulah. 7*The sum was reduced^ to Rs 750,920 tXca Rs 21,53i934 —2-10
119
it appears, oppose Sykes openly in this matter. But he was about this time very much frequent in direct communication with Clive in Calcutta both through letters and messengers so frequent that on one occasion, 19
November 17&5 » Clive v/rote to the Khan acknowledging receipt of his thirteen letters] By the end of September his relation and envoy liirza i uhammad Kazim Khan had set out from kurshidabad to see Clive and N to explain some affairs
2
relative to the country,etc., to His Lordship in private". Again early in October he warned Clive that "an answer te any letter respecting the
3 regulations of the Subah may be deferred until the papers are perused". It may well be that as a result of this correspondence that on the 25th October the Select Committee 9 replying to Sykes' proposals of the 21st , laid down that Ihteram ud daulah and Dhiraj Narain should be continued in the dignity of their stations while the ministers selected two naibs to act for than in the actual discharge of their duties^ The Select Committee, ignoring Sykes* attempt to cut expenses, went on to award an annual allowance of Rs 72,000 to Ihteram ud daulah and another Rs 50,000 to Ruh ud din Husain Khan, the Faujd&r of Pumea* The grant to Ruh ud din Husain was made "out of regard to his family connections" rather than in recognition of ability for in his case too the Khan had recommended arrangements to ensure "that the revenues of
5 Sarkar may not be lost or neglected , but be managed in the best manner",
Sykes replied on 31 October with angry complaints of "fraud and villainy" in every department of the Government and of his "struggle with every
difficulty that can be thrown in my way by the ministers, I utseddees,Congoes ^~^anungoes_7and their dependents0"^He accepted the need to retain Ihteram ud
daulah and Dhiraj Narain since "our connections" with M r Jafar and Raa
Narain "made it necessary to give them our countenance, and a proper influence in the country"^ and forwarded the proposal of Reza Khan and Rai Durlabh recommending retention in office of the two incumbents with appointment of three more officers, two on the part of the Company and one on the part of the government , " to remain not only as checks on their actions, but to
mmm— i m m r n m _ _ _ --- , , , , , ____ _________________________________________________________
1, Clive to Reza Khan , 19 Nov 1?65. CPC.I, 2752,
2, Reza Khan to Clive,recds2 Oct 1765.CPC,I,2?14«Mrza Kaaem,son-in-law of Husain Reza Khan.Haji Ahmad's grandson wr.s tne Khan's envoy to Clive in
V.ay and his agent in Clive's camp in mission to Alla-iabad.
3, Reza Khan to Clive, recd:4 Oct 176% C1£,I, 2717. 4.33C 25 Oct 1765. 5* i£id.| ?xQ'^ to Clive,26 Sep 1765(CPC,1,2710).Ruh ud din was a son
of Saif rhan wnp was posted to P u m e a early in the century,The family was oust ed Alivardi and restored by Mir Jafar in 1763e