The Ranas of Gohad and their occupations of Gwalior Fort – a numismatic perspective.

Brief history.

During the period of the decline and disintegration of the Mughal Empire, which began towards the end of the reign of Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb Alamgir, in the last 20 years or so of the 17^th century, many smaller polities declared their independence, and a number rose to prominence. Of these, some remained local but a few began to dominate large areas of the disintegrating empire. Among these rising powers were the Jats of Bharatpur.

Under Raja Suraj Mal (1756 - 1763 AD., AH. 1170 - 1177) the power of the Jat confederacy reached its zenith, and he was arguably the strongest ruler in India for a while. At the Congress of Mathura, the Durrani had invited him to take a leading role in the pacification of India after Panipat, but he would not trust the Rohillas, and could not trust the British or Marathas. It was clear that the Afghans, Mughals, Marathas, Jats and others would never agree matters between them, and the Congress broke up without accomplishing anything worthwhile. In fact, Suraj Mal never seems to have entertained such large ambitions, restricting himself mainly to a power base much nearer home. Although he had toyed with the possibilities of controlling the Delhi Government, and through it, the rest of the empire, he never took any practical steps to achieve this. Instead he sought to join forces with the Jats in the Haryana area, who could help him keep the Rohillas separate from the Durrani (those two Afghan polities were the only groups who trusted each other enough to form an alliance). He also sent an army to besiege Agra, which fell to him in mid -1761 AD.. The city was plundered, and the Imperial forces were not strong enough to take it back, so Agra became a part of the Jat’s dominions for a few years. Other areas followed Agra into his net during the next few months. The Mughals, Marathas and others remained suspicious and fearful about the resurgence of the Jats, but at first could do little against them (1). It was during that period that several Jat rulers joined forces with Suraj Mal, but his power was so much greater than theirs, that the union, rather than an alliance, has been described as annexation.

Rana Bhim Singh of Gohad (1707 to 1755 AD.) was a subordinate ally of Suraj Mal, but had previously been a powerful ruler in his own right. In 1740 AD., he had attacked the Gwalior Fort, which 'Ali Khan, its Mughal Governor, had surrendered without much resistance. For some years, Bhim Singh held Gwalior against the Marathas, but in 1754 AD., the Peshwa’s army under Vitthal Shivadeo Winchurkar attacked and recaptured it, and Rana Bhim Singh was fatally wounded during the action and died three days later. Thus, in 1754 AD., Gohad became tributary to the Marathas (2) , instead of to Bharatpur, and his territories were virtually annexed by them. (The date 1754 AD. for the capture of Gwalior Fort by the Marathas is not agreed by Dr. Natthan Singh in his Hindi ‘Jat Itihas’ of 2004. p. 359, where we find it quoted as 1756 AD..) (1, v) Rana Bhim Singh died of his wounds after three days.

Thereafter, the fortress remained in the ownership of the Marathas in the person of the said Vitthal Shivadeo Winchurkar until after the fateful Battle of Panipat, in 1761 AD, (2) and the Jat resurgence described above. In 1763, Suraj Mal was killed in an action against the Imperial forces, not far from Delhi. The fortunes of the Bharatpur Jats never fully recovered, and the Rana of Gohad found himself pretty well master of his own destiny again.

A. B. C.

Fig. 1. A: Chhatri in memory of Rana Bhim Singh near Bhimtal, in the Gwalior Fort. B: Portrait of Chhatar Singh. and C: A view of Gohad Fort. (Courtesy Wikipedia, ‘Jatland’, L R Burdak) (2)

At the Battle of Panipat, the growing power of the Maratha confederacy received a crushing defeat at the hands of the massive invading Afghan army of Ahmad Shah Abdali (Durrani) and his Indian, mostly Pathan allies. The surviving Maratha troops and their leaders retreated in disarray, fled the field under hot pursuit and, with almost every man’s hand against them had to ‘run the gauntlet’ of hostile tribesmen, ryots and landholders throughout most of their return journeys to their Deccani homeland (3).

For years, the Maratha Sardars had ruled much of the Deccan and northern India. In older histories, we read that this subjection brought with it high taxation, illegal cesses and a degree of oppression for the subject peoples, and at times, depredations from the Maratha auxiliaries, the Pindaris. Stewart Gordon (4) in a more recent study of the impact of the Maratha polity on subject states, using contemporary documentation unavailable to previous writers, has made a close study of this period, and his excellent book, written in more measured tones, has given us a more accurate idea of how well the subject states fared under Maratha administration. Whatever the truth of this matter may be, nobody likes to be a ‘subject state’, however fair and decent the rulers are. Now the oppressed people (if that is what they were) took their revenge: Many retreating Marathas of all ranks, singly or in groups, were attacked, robbed, stripped, and beaten or killed at the hands of their compatriots, and considerable numbers of those who had escaped the bloodbath of Panipat never made it home. The Jat Raja of Bharatpur was almost the only ruler who systematically rendered assistance to the retreating Maratha soldiers, many of whom were returning homewards via Bharatpur territory. Some estimates put the figure of those he helped at over 100,000 souls. He had declined to take an active part in the battle itself, having correctly predicted a Maratha defeat. (5). Panipat had shattered Maratha power, and robbed the Peshwa of most of his capable generals and many thousands of lower ranking officers and soldiers. For a while, the Maratha confederacy was practically impotent, and many expected it never to recover its former greatness. The same comments could, of course, be made concerning the Mughal Empire itself.

As a result, some of those polities that had been under subjection or tributary to the Marathas and Mughals became restless and took advantage of the discomfiture of their erstwhile suzerains. Some rebelled, or attacked other former Maratha and Imperial possessions, now vulnerable. Among the rebels was Chhatar Singh, the Jat Rana of Gohad, who, unlike his predecessors, was reduced to the level of a local ruler whom Malleson described as a mere ‘Zamindar or landholder’, and whose estate apparently consisted of a village and some territory, formerly under Maratha suzerainty. Shortly “after Panipat, he [threw off allegiance to the Marathas,] proclaimed himself ‘Rana of Gohad’ and seized Gwalior Fort [in 1761 AD.].” The conquest of Gwalior Fort by the Jat Rana of Gohad is also confirmed by Dr. Ajay Kumar Agnihotri in his Hindi ‘Gohad ke jaton ka Itihas’ p. 29 (v). This conquest, though undoubtedly spectacular, proved relatively short-lived, and the fortress was retaken in 1767 AD, (AH. 1181) by Mahadji Sindhia, after Raghunath Rao, a man of ability - both soldier and statesman, who would later become the Maratha Peshwa - had failed in the attempt (6) . Thereafter, Gwalior Fort remained in Sindhia’s possession until Hastings’ Maratha War of 1780-84 AD.

Before Hastings’ would venture to begin that war, he made careful preparations designed to increase the chances of an English success. Among these was a treaty with the Rana of Gohad, Chhatar (Chhattrapat) Singh, signed in 1779 AD. (5). This was part of Hastings’ plan to protect his frontiers with friendly states, which would act as a barriers or buffers between the English territories and the central Indian possessions of Sindhia, and other powers (7). By this treaty, the English agreed to furnish troops to assist the Rana of Gohad against the Marathas. For historical reasons, as we have seen, the Rana of Gohad was already on unfriendly terms with Sindhia, a situation that was in no way ameliorated by the predations of the Pindaris and Maratha regular and irregular forces active within his territories. The English chose Captain (8) William Popham for this task, and he crossed the River Chambal in February 1780 AD. with a force of three battalions and a small detachment of cavalry, to reinforce and support the Rana’s army. In all he had about 2,400 men, and only a few light field guns and one howitzer. He began by attacking a body of Maratha Horse (possibly Pindaris) who were engaging in plunder and pillage in the Rana’s territory. Next, the Rana asked him to reduce a Maratha hill fort at Lahar, about 50 miles west of Kalpi. Captain Popham lost 125 men in accomplishing the task, likely because he had too few and too light artillery pieces to make a practical breach, and too few men to attack in sufficient force. (6) By this time, the rainy season was approaching, and Captain Popham encamped about 10 miles from Gwalior Fort to wait for better weather before continuing hostilities. (9).

Gwalior Fort (Figs. 1 and 2 below), atop the 300 foot high, steep sided Gopachal Hill, was reputed to be among the most formidable in all India. It was famously described as “the pearl in the necklace of the castles of Hind,” (Taj-ul-Ma’asir), but because of its massive size it was, like Chitor, Ranthambore, Kumbalgarh, Rothas and others of its ilk, almost impossible to defend without large numbers of troops, certainly in the tens of thousands, effectively to man its long walls. This attack was unexpected, Sindhia’s main force was engaged elsewhere, and very few defenders seem to have been in the fort.

While Captain Popham waited for the rains to break, he worked out a scheme for the reduction of the fortress.(9)

Presumably, he did this in agreement with the Rana, because during both the planning stages and the attack, he made use of spies and guides supplied by him (6).

On the night of 3^rd August 1780 AD., according to English and most Indian accounts, he sent a small advance party to scale the outer and inner walls (about 16 feet and 30 feet high respectively) and secure rope ladders to the battlements, for an escalade by the rest of his troops. (9). The successful scaling took place almost in silence. Even so there were but few of Popham’s men inside the walls when the alarm was sounded after one of the attackers had fired shots too soon. However, it is said that the great fortress was taken in about two hours without loss of life among Captain Popham’s men, and very little on the defenders’ side. By the time daylight came on 4^th August, the fortress had changed hands. (10). The Imperial Gazetteer, Vol. XXII, p.441 says: “During the Maratha War it [Gwalior Fort] was captured in 1780 by Major Popham's brigade, a surprise assault being made by a party led by Captain Bruce, brother to the well-known traveller, who was guided up the rock by a dacoit. The spot where the escalade took place is to the west of the fort near the Urwahi Gate, and is still called the Faringi Pahar, or 'white man's ascent.' The fort was then handed back to the Rana of Gohad, but was retaken by Sindhia in 1784.’ (10)

Fig. 2. An old photograph of the Man Mandir in Gwalior Fort. The blocked

up ‘windows’ are where the Mughal prison used to be. The main gate is below

the towers in the foreground. (Copied from “Romance of the Fort of Gwalior”)

There is no mention of the Rana of Gohad’s army in these and most other English accounts of this victory. However, if we would take issue with English historians who ignored the part played by the Rana and his army, maybe we should bear in mind that a Jat account of the same event states that ‘After having taken several other forts Chhatar Singh sent in 1780 an army under Brajraj Singh against Gwalior. Brajraj Singh was killed in the war with the Maratha army commanded by Raghunath Rao, but on 4 August 1780 (2. Sha'ban 1194 AH) the Jats captured Gwalior Fort’. (HH). Should we assume that Captain Popham’s men took no part in it, then?

From information supplied by Hans Herrli, it would seem that all Jat accounts, like the one quoted above, plainly credit the victory to the Rana of Gohad’s army. The truth may well be that both forces were involved. (6). Given that Captain Popham had been sent to Gohad in a supporting role, with only 2,400 men and no battering train, co-operation between the two forces appears to be the most likely scenario. Taking together a number of accounts of the ‘battle’, it seems likely that there were few troops to defend the fort, many or most of those within the fort may have been ‘chaukidars’ or night-watchmen, and the military defenders consisted mainly of cavalry encamped without the walls, which were easily overcome by the Rana’s army (11). The commotion caused by this encounter would have distracted the garrison long enough for Popham’s escalade to succeed, after which, having just seen the Maratha cavalry overwhelmed by the Rana’s forces, they put up very little resistance. Fighting was over almost as soon as it started, and casualties were astonishingly light. It seems quite possible that the garrison surrendered to Popham almost as soon as he set foot on the fort, and that somebody soon opened the gates to allow the Rana and his army to enter and take over the ‘impregnable fortress’. It is not impossible, of course, that treachery was also involved. Muhammad Din’s eye-witness account seems to support this interpretation. (11)

Incidentally, we might well ask whether, with the Rana’s army on the spot, and with their blood up, the English had any choice but to allow him to take possession. Perhaps it was not a matter of ‘handing it to’ the Rana, but of Captain Popham not having the troops that would have been needed to prevent him taking it, even if he had wanted to do so.

---

Meanwhile, efforts by the English to cement an agreement with the Marathas, employing Raghuji Bhonsle II, Raja of Nagpur, as a negotiator, were proving infructuous, partly because of the Nagpur Raja’s equivocating attitude to the peace process. During, and probably partly because of the stalemate, “Hastings ordered [Gwalior Fort’s] restoration to the Rana of Gohad, who duly reoccupied the fort during the same year” (1780 AD.) (6). We have seen that the Rana was, in fact, already occupying the fort on the 4^th August, because the forces that had captured it consisted largely of his own men.

On the 13^th of October, 1781 AD., the English signed an agreement with Sindhia, which stipulated, among other things, that the latter was to have returned to him all territory west of the Chambal lost by him during hostilities (12). Also, he was to “leave the Rana of Gohad unmolested in his possession of Gwalior Fort, so long as he behaved properly” (6), which wording also tells us that the Rana’s occupation of the fortress was a fait accompli before that date. (13)

The terms referred to above contained a contradiction within themselves, as Gwalior is west and south of the Chambal. However, despite this discrepancy, both these stipulations were included in the treaty of Salbye (negotiated in October 1781 AD., ratified in Pune on 20^th December 1782 AD., and exchanged on 24^th January 1783 AD.).

By this treaty, Gwalior and some surrounding territory were plainly guaranteed to the Rana of Gohad so long as he observed his treaty with the English. The Rana, however, did not, we are told, observe this treaty. On the contrary, ‘a number of overt acts showing that he was quite prepared to act against the English in a confederacy forming against them were brought to his notice during 1781 and 1782 AD.’ These indiscretions (for that is probably all they were) lead to a charge of treachery against him, and the treaty of mutual assistance was regarded by the English as abrogated, which was convenient to the English. In consequence, in 1783 AD., the Rana was left to face the might of Sindhia without English support.

This decision suited Sindhia well enough, and he sent De Boigne, one of his most successful generals, to invest and recapture the ‘impregnable’ fortress. After a protracted siege, Gwalior fell to De Boigne late in 1783 AD. (AH. 1197). (6). The fort was actually betrayed by Moti Ram, a Jat officer within the fort, who assisted De Boigne to capture it. The Rani of Gohad, who had been administering Gwalior on behalf of Chhatar Singh, was in her apartments in the fort at the time it fell, and ordered a fire to be set, which destroyed that part of the fort, with her and her servants still inside. (13)

Not only did De Boigne recapture Gwalior Fort, but an army under Alijah Srinath Mahadji Sindhia attacked Gohad itself, towards the end of 1784 AD. (AH.1198/99) and occupied Gohad Fort on 27^th February 1785 AD. (16. Rabi' II 1199 AH). Chhatar Singh escaped to Karauli where he became the victim of a conspiracy at the court. He was brought back to Gwalior where he died in 1785 AD., after being forced to take poison (v). The Gohad chieftaincy then entered a period of anarchy, or ‘interregnum’, as it is often called. This lasted until Kirat Singh became Rana, but the circumstances and date of that occurrence vary from one account to another. It is clear only that Kirat Singh ascended the musnud some time before or, more probably during 1803 AD. Whatever the date of his accession was, he was certainly ruling in 1804 AD., because, as we shall see, some of the territory of his forefathers was taken from Sindhia and made over to him by the English in that year. Kirat Singh was the son of a cousin of Chhatar Singh.

The uneasy peace between the Marathas and the English continued until 1802 AD., when the English again declared war against the Marathas. Mahadji Rao had died in 1794 AD., and his nephew, Daulat Rao Sindhia, was now in charge. Daulat Rao shared his deceased uncle’s determination to rule the whole of northern India, but possessed neither his military genius, nor his intellect and strength of character (6). Gwalior Fort was, at that time, in the hands of Sindhia’s ambitious Governor of Gwalior and Gohad, Ambaji Inglia, who ‘took note of the rapid advances of the English army’, and knew that he could not withstand an attack for long. Rather than risk losing everything, he either changed sides and came over to the English, or pretended to do so, according to which version of events we choose to accept. In any case, the outcome was that he handed the fort with its dependent territory, along with that of Gohad, to the English, after they had agreed to hand half of it back, for him to rule as an independent chieftaincy. (6). The ‘ceded districts were made over to Kirath [Kirat] Singh, successor of Lakinder Singh (sic!) (15) by a treaty dated 17^th January 1804 with the exception of the fortress and city of Gwalior, which the English retained’ (6). From the plain meaning of the words in bold type, assuming they give a correct account of the proceedings, it is clear that the Rana of Gohad never possessed or occupied the fort on this occasion.

The War between the English and Sindhia was brought to an end by the treaty of Surji-Anjangaon, which was signed on 30th December 1803 AD. Under the terms of this treaty, the English Government obtained from Sindhia possession of the regions that had been taken from the French in the Doab, together with certain territories in central Rajasthan, and to the west, none of which is pertinent here. Mahadji Sindhia was to retain possession of all those districts ‘to the south of Gohad, of which the revenues had been collected by him in person or through some officer, nominated on his behalf, or land which was held by him for defraying the expenses of his army’. The erstwhile Gohad territory was returned to the Rana.

Fig. 3 . A view of the Man Mandir taken in 2006, showing the improved approach road to the main

gate. The Lashkar area is to the right of the city buildings in the background and to the south of

the Fort, and is now an integral part of the city.The fort’s fine defensive position, atop a steep

300 ft. Hill is clear in this view.

Subsequently, a dispute arose with Sindhia concerning a clause in the treaty of Surji-Anjangaon by which he had agreed to renounce all claims on his subsidiaries with whom the English Government had made treaties. Sindhia now insisted that the Rana of Gohad could not be included under this clause, because ‘the pretensions of that family had been extinct and their territories [had been] in Sindhia’s possession for the past 30 years’. This was incontrovertible, and the English gave way to Sindhia’s legal argument and abandoned Gwalior and Gohad to him. In the wake of the war, the English had land north of the Chambal to resettle. To compensate the Rana for his loss of Gohad, and ‘in consideration of the fact that the failure in the relevant stipulation of the treaty had arisen through no fault of his’, in 1805 AD., they offered to grant him the pargana of Dholpur, along with Bari, Rajakhera and Muttra’, north of the Chambal River. Powerless to resist the combined will of the English and Sindhia, he reluctantly agreed to relinquish his claim on Gohad, and accept the offer of Dholpur, and thus the former Rana of Gohad became the Rana of Dholpur, and was installed in 1806 AD. It has rightly been said that the dealings between the English and the Rana of Gohad reflect little credit onto either party.

This new arrangement suited both the English and Sindhia because it left the Chambal as a fixed, recognisable border between their territories, which ought not to lead to misunderstandings and disagreements in the future. It seems that the Rana was given little opportunity to do other than agree to move home. Please see the map below (Fig. 4.) showing the relative positions of Gwalior, Gohad and Dholpur, along with the river Chambal.

Fig. 4 This map, copied from a map dated 1786, (12), shows the relative positions of

Gwalior, Gohad, Dholpur and the River Chambal.

(Courtesy Frank Timmermann and Hamburg University Library)

The chronology of the Jat overlords of Gohad. (1) Dates are all AD.

I append below what I think is probably the most accurate chronology available of the last few chiefs and Ranas of Gohad, earlier chiefs (back to 1505 AD.) being irrelevant to our present subject. This chronology was taken from the Wikipedia entry under the article ‘Jatland’, and it largely agrees with most others available. (2) Chronologies exist showing the reign of Rana Kirat Singh beginning as early as 1785 or 1788 AD., but the correct date is almost certainly 1803 AD. The date of the Rana’s move to Dholpur is stated as either 1805 or 1806 AD. in different histories, but it seems most likely that the offer was made in 1805 AD., but the actual move did not take place until 1806 AD. The spelling of the chiefs’ names varies from one account to another. I have tried to use the most widely acceptable spellings in modern usage.

Bhim Singh, 1707-1754 or 56

Girdhar Pratap, 1756-1757

Chhatar Singh, 1757-1785

Interregnum, 1785-1803 AD. (Described as a period of ‘rebellion and anarchy’.)

Kirat Singh, 1803-1805 (Kirat Singh was offered Dholpur in place of Gohad in 1805 AD., but he did not move there until 1806 AD.)

Documentary and other evidence for the occupations.

First occupation, 1761 to 1765 AD., AH. 1175 to 1179. The two Jat occupations of Gwalior Fort mentioned above (1761 to 1765 and 1780 to 1884 AD.) are disputed (or at least, ignored) by some Maratha historians. They are, however, a well-documented and properly established part of historical accounts written by English, Jat, and some other Maratha writers. There is concrete (actually stone) evidence for the occupations, within the fort itself, in the form of the Chhatri of Rana Bhim Singh, who was Rana during the first occupation, and which is mentioned above (Fig. 1A). This was erected during the second occupation (Rana Chhatar Singh). There are other buildings and inscriptions inside the fort, also erected by the Jats during the two occupations. (HH)

Second occupation, 1780 to 1784 AD., AH1195 to 1199. In further support of the actuality of the Jat occupations, Hans Herrli, who has made about twenty lengthy visits to India over many years, spending weeks or months each time studying the history and coins in Haryana, Rajasthan and central India, and who has made a specific study of matters surrounding the Jats and Gwalior, has confirmed that “The Jat Sawaj Kalyan Parishad (Association of Jats in the Gwalior region) organises an annual fair on Rama’s Birthday (Rama Navani) in memory of Gwalior Fort’s occupation by the Jat rulers Bhim Singh Rana and Chhatar Singh Rana of Gohad State.”(2) This fair, and historical studies supported by the Jats, are stated by Hans Herrli to have been a reaction against Maratha authorities and writers trying to suppress the fact that the Marathas lost Gwalior Fort twice to the Bamraulia Jats, whom they regarded as ‘inferior’. Hans has also seen and confirmed the existence of the Chhatri and other memorials within the fort itself, put there by the Jats during the first and second occupations. The Jat group mentioned has a web site (including ‘Jatland’) on Wikipedia, and. material on those sites further confirms this version of events. (2).

In the period from 1802 to 1806 AD., however, we find universal agreement that there was no Jat occupation of the Gwalior Fort, and that it was retained by the English from the day they took possession of it in November 1802 AD. until they returned it to Daulat Rao Sindhia in November 1806 AD

The coins, and numismatic evidence for the occupations.

As coin aficionados, we are naturally specifically concerned with matters numismatic, and the question arises as to what numismatic evidence we might have for the two Jat occupations of Gwalior Fort.

First occupation, 1761 to 1764/65 AD., AH. 1175 to 1179. Coins were certainly struck in the Gwalior Fort mint during that period, and are quite commonly met with. Although there is a sprig-like mark on the obverse of some (but not all) rupees bearing relevant dates, that mark has not been specifically associated with the Rana of Gohad. In any case, these same coins often bear other small, typically Maratha marks. Therefore, we must conclude that the first occupation of Gwalior Fort by the Rana of Gohad, Bhim Singh, probably left us no conclusive numismatic evidence. However, we need to remember that the inclusion of distinguishing marks on Mughal style coins issued by Mughal successor states was by no means universal at that time. On balance, it seems appropriate for those coins of Gwalior Fort mint dated within the relevant time period (roughly 1761 to 1764 AD.), to be attributed to the Rana of Gohad, Chhatar Singh, and not to Sindhia. This has not been the case, up to now.

Second occupation, 1780 to 1784 AD., AH1194 to 1198. The coin shown below in Fig. 5. is a silver rupee weighing about 11.2 grammes and measuring about 21 to 21½ mm in diameter. The obverse bears the date (AH.) 1195, with the ‘Haft Kishwar’ legends and name of the Mughal Emperor Shah Alam II. In the middle line is the cinqfoil flower with curved stem that we see on the Gwalior Fort rupees struck during the reigns of Mahadji Rao and Daulat Rao Sindhia. The reverse has a portion of the usual formula and his regnal year 23. In the bottom line is the mint name ‘Gwaliar’, quite clear and virtually complete. To the left of the regnal year is the pistol mark typical and diagnostic of coins commonly attributed to Gohad and Dholpur mints before and after the date of this rupee. In this instance, the pistol is not upside-down. This shape of pistol mark was a symbol used by the Bamraulia gotra of the Jats. The Ranas Bhim Singh (1707-1756 AD.), Girdhar Pratap Singh (1756-1757 AD.), Chhatar Singh (1757-1785 AD.) and Kirat Singh (1803-1836 AD.) belonged to different families, but all were of that clan. (HH, 2) The pistol on this coin, as on all Gohad and Dholpur coins where it is found, is distinct in style, and can be readily differentiated from those on Maratha coins, such as Agra paisas struck under Sindhia’s Governors, where the shape of the pistol is very different. This pistol is certainly the mark of the Gohad Rana, and not of Sindhia

Fig. 5. A rupee of Gwalior Fort mint, dated AH. 1195, regnal year 23 of Shah Alam II,

It bears the Gwalior Fort mint mark of a cinqfoil flower with curved stem AND the

pistol typical of the Rana of Gohad’s coins, and later, those of Dholpur State. In all

respects, it is similar to the Krause coin numbered KM. #5.2, and this suggests that

KM’ #5.2 has been attributed to the wrong mint.

Dating evidence. The 1^st of Muharram (the Muslim New Year) AH 1195 fell on 28 December 1780, and so only four days of AH 1195 fell into 1780 AD., and the bulk fell into 1781 AD. The date AH. 1195 here occurs with the regnal year 23, and this specific date/regnal year combination covers the period 4^th April to 17^th December 1781 AD. The coin shown in Fig. 5 was therefore struck at least seven months after the Fort was ‘handed to’ the Rana of Gohad.

In the 4^th edition of “The Standard Catalogue of World Coins 1701-1800” (16) there are illustrations of another example of an exactly similar type, numbered KM #5.2 with the same date, which was plainly struck from a different set of dies from the coin shown above. It therefore seems likely that this type of coin was issued in some numbers, although they are not at all common today. Might these coins that vouched for the fact that Gwalior had been taken from Sindhia by the Jats have been deliberately collected in, melted down and re coined by Sindhia, after he had retaken the fort? Although Krause states that the mint name on the coin they have illustrated is ‘Gohad’, no part of the mint name is visible on that coin, and its attribution to Gohad is not widely supported, and it appears doubtful whether the mint name ‘Gohad’ has ever been correctly read on a rupee of this type. (HH, JL, SB)

Chronology of marks and symbols. Rupees of Gwalior Fort mint, prior to the occupation, do not show a scimitar to the right of Julus. The last recorded date of a Sindhia coin without that mark is AH. 1191, regnal year.19. The earliest published date of a Sindhia rupee with the scimitar mark is AH. 1197, regnal year 25. The rupee illustrated in Fig. 5 above, with the pistol mark of the Ranas of Gohad, fits in between these two types, and is distinct from both. (16)

In addition to this rupee, there are, in the coin cabinet of the Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge University, three copper coins, illustrated in Fig. 6 below. The first is dated AH. 1194, regnal year 2x, and has the cinqfoil flower with curved stem of the Sindhia products from Gwalior Fort mint. It is a Sindhia coin issued before the Jat occupation. The second and third are dated AH. 1195, regnal year 23. They are coins bearing the pistol symbol on the reverse, struck during the Jat occupation, and are contemporaneous and co typical with the rupee in Fig. 5.

Fig. 6. Paisas of the Gwalior Fort mint, dated AH. 1194 and 1195,

(Fitzwilliam Museum, University of Cambridge collection. Reproduced with

the kind permission of Dr. Mark Blackburn, Keeper of Coins and Medals Dept

. Photographs courtesy of Shailendra Bhandere).

Below (Fig. 7A and 7B) are two coins from the collection of the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford. The first, (Fig. 7A.) is a copper paisa dated AH. 1197, regnal year 25, bearing the Jat pistol symbol on the obverse. The mint name, although somewhat indistinct in this photograph, is clear enough to be read with certainty on the coin itself as Gohad. This coin was struck there before Gwalior Fort was recaptured by De Boigne for Sindhia, in 1784 AD. (AH.1198/99). It is apparently listed by Krause under the number KM.2, but this is uncertain, because there is no illustration for that type in any of the Krause catalogues.

7A. A copper paisa of Gohad mint, dated AH. 1197, regnal year 2x.

(similar to Krause KM.2).

7B. A silver rupee, also of Gohad mint, dated AH. 1185, regnal year 13.

Both coins 7A and 7B bear the pistol symbol.

7C. A silver rupee dated AH. 1181/9 and is of the type that preceded 7B

above. This type does not bear the pistol mark. The last reported coin of

this type has the regnal year 10 of Shah Alam II.

Fig. 7A and 7B: Photographs supplied by and used courtesy of Shailendra

Bhandere, Assistant Keeper, Ashmolean Museum, Oxford.

The second coin (Fig. 7B.) is a silver rupee dated AH.1185, regnal year 13. It also bears the Jat pistol symbol on the obverse, and the mint name ‘Gohad’ (GWHAD) in full. It is the earliest coin bearing the Bamraulia Rana’s pistol symbol to be published so far. Two other similar Gohad rupees in the Ashmolean collection dated regnal years 8 and 10 (SB), and one dated AH. 1181/9 in my own collection (illustrated above as Fig. 7C.) do not bear this symbol. This is the type shown in Krause catalogues as KM. #4. The chronology of these coin dates confirms that documented by historians, and summarised above. The status and identity of Krause KM. #5.1 and the date listing associated with it requires clarification. A Gohad rupee published in the JASB-NS for December 1910 is also relevant here. (17).

1802 to 1806 AD. This time there was no occupation by the Rana of Gohad. On the contrary, the fort is stated universally to have remained in English hands throughout. Some rupees struck during this period bear a mark, which might be a Persian ‘kaaf’, or ‘K’ on the obverse. See Fig. 8 below.

Fig. 8. A rupee of the British occupation of 1802 to 1804, bearing the date AH. (121)7,

and regnal year 45 of Shah Alam II, which began on 29^th July, 1803 AD. The obverse

displays a mark like a Persian ‘Kaaf’, in the loop of the ‘L’ of ‘Fazl’. The name of the

Rana of Gohad at this time was Kirat. The date combination covers the period from

9^th August 1802 until 22^nd April, 1803 AD.

According to most of the published chronologies of the Gohad overlords, including the one reproduced above; there was an interregnum from after Chhatar Singh’s death in 1785 AD., until 1803 AD. This is reported to have been a period of ‘anarchy’, unrest and disputation. Kirat Singh is usually said to have been ‘chosen’ as Rana by the nobility of wreck of the Gohad polity in 1803 AD. Under the circumstances of the alliance between the English and the Gohad Ranas, and their joint occupation of the Gwalior area, we may be tempted to speculate that the coin above, which could have been struck during the period immediately following his accession, and that bears what might be a Persian ‘Kaaf’, could have been intended to commemorate that event. Other, contradictory ruler lists, with different accession dates for Kirat Singh exist, but probably the date 1803 AD. is the most likely. (2) There is equally the possibility that the ‘Kaaf’ is a remnant of the word ‘Kishwar’, which appears in the couplet, just below the ‘Lam’ of ‘Fasl’. However, I would like to think it is the former.

Fig.9. This is a Gwalior Fort rupee, dated AH. (1)218, regnal year 46

(1803/04 AD,) and shows a sword of a completely different design from

that usually seen on rupees of this series, to the right of ‘Jalus’.

Photograph courtesy Jan Lingen.

Fig. 9 shows yet another type of rupee struck at Gwalior Fort. This one has a straight sword with hand-guard, which resembles those used by officers of the British Army. This design of sword could therefore symbolise that this type of rupee was struck under British authority. The date of the rupee is AH.1218, regnal year 46, which date combination runs from 29^th July, 1803 to 11^th April, 1804 AD. The English occupation ran from November 1802 to November 1806 AD. A rupee of this type was published by Dr. H B Maheshwari, on p.4 of issue #5 (October, 2005) News Bulletin of the Chandrapur Coin Society. Dr. Maheshwari refers to this shape of sword as ‘European sword’, and his coin has the same date and regnal year as the one illustrated above. Neither coin shows enough of the mint name to be read satisfactorily. Additional dates, and a readable mint name may well be found on other coins of this type but, as far as I am aware, none have yet been reported.

The British, on taking over native mints at the end of the Maratha and other wars, did not always alter the issues of those mints, especially if they were earmarked for early closure. This could have been the case here, as Gwalior is close enough to have been supplied with specie from Farrukhabad mint, from which the British, at one point, intended to supply specie to much of British northern India. However, the British sometimes did make design changes to issues from mints in ceded territories, such as the addition of Fasli Era dates on Pune Ankushi rupees. If, as seems likely, the above changes were made deliberately, they might reasonably be assumed to have had some relevance.

Explanation of the dating of coins struck in the name of Shah Alam II.

Prince Ali Gauhar (pre-accession name of Shah Alam II) proclaimed himself Emperor while he was in Bihar, in AH. 1173, as soon as he heard of his father’s murder (18). Alamgir II was murdered on 8^th Rabi II, AH.,1173, and Prince Ali Gauhar heard the news about a month later, and was crowned at Kanauti on 4^th Jamad I, AH 1173., (24^th December 1759 AD.) and took the name Shah Alam II. The 24^th December 1759, therefore, is the date from which his jalus or regnal years ought to have been calculated (JL). Meanwhile, Sadashiv Rao Bhau, then in charge at the Qila i-Mualla, had enthroned and proclaimed a new Emperor in Delhi, who took the name Shah Jahan (III). A few months later, Sadashiv Rao Bhau deposed Shah Jahan III in his turn (fortunately without murdering him), and proclaimed Shah Alam II Emperor for the second time (first time at the capital) (18) . Shah Alam II later issued orders that his reign should be reckoned from the day following that on which his father had died. So the first regnal year of Shah Alam II officially commenced on 9^th Rabi II, AH. 1173, which is 30^th November, 1759 AD., at the behest of the Emperor himself (18). Clearly, with such a confused start to his reign, it is unsurprising that there are coins in existence with ‘incorrect’ combinations of regnal year and AH. date, particularly in the first year of the reign. Date list records indicate that this initial muddle was sorted out almost everywhere before the start of RY3. At any event, the date (AH.) 1195 with regnal year 23 is a legitimate combination beginning on.4^th April, 1781, about eight months after Gwalior Fort had been taken from Sindhia by the English forces. This would have allowed ample time for the Rana to have taken full authority at the fortress, and for the mint to have prepared new dies showing the pistol mark of the Ranas of Gohad. The paisa dated AH. 1194 is clearly a normal issue of Sindhia, struck before the fort changed hands between 14^th April (start of AH. 1194) and 3rd August, 1780 AD, when the fort was attacked by the forces of Captain Popham and the Rana of Gohad.

There is a gap in the date run of the published and unpublished Sindhia copper and silver coins of Gwalior Fort, which nicely corresponds with these distinct issues of the Gohad Rana. (Lingen and Wiggins numbers 01, 02 and 03 of Gwalior Fort, Krause numbers KM.55, 56 and 57.1 for rupees, and the above coin dated AH. 1194 along with KM.54 and Lingen and Wiggins type 04 for the paisas). (16, 20)

Conclusions.

From the foregoing summary of the history, and the evidence adduced from the coins themselves (21), it is certain that the rupee and the paisas illustrated above, and dated AH. 1195/23 are coins of the Rana of Gohad, Chhatar Singh, struck in 1781 AD. at the Gwalior Fort mint, while the fort was in his possession. They therefore constitute conclusive numismatic evidence for the second occupation of Gwalior Fort by the Rana of Gohad, Chhatar Singh . This also confirms Gwalior Fort as a mint town of the Rana of Gohad, albeit of short duration.

We cannot legitimately continue to refer to the coins of the Rana of Gohad as Dholpur State coins except those struck after he moved there in 1806 AD. Additionally, whatever mint name they bear, coins struck by that polity after that date must be coins of Dholpur State, struck at Dholpur mint. Whether we should refer to the Gohad polity, at any stage in its existence, as a State is a matter for debate. The rupee in Fig. 5 above is the same type as KM. #5.2 listed by Krause under Dholpur State, Gohad mint, and this attribution is demonstrated to be incorrect in every particular. Coins of KM. #5.1 with dates during the occupation could have been struck at either mint, but the Rana’s coins dated after Gwalior had been lost to De Boigne could only have been struck at Gohad. After the loss of Gohad, there can have been no more Gohad Rana’s coins struck anywhere, until he moved to Dholpur, at which point all his coins become Dholpur State coins. His Dholpur coins cannot have been struck until 1806 AD., when the Rana moved to Dholpur from Gohad.

Coins struck by the Gohad polity up to its capture of Gwalior Fort in AH. 1194 can only have been struck at Gohad. Those struck during the occupation could have been struck at either Gohad or Gwalior mints. After Gwalior was retaken by De Boigne, Gohad coins could only have been struck at Gohad mint, but Gohad came under attack so soon after the Rana lost Gwalior, and the polity was living in such precarious circumstances, that such coins, if they exist at all, must be very rare. The coppers of both Gwalior and Gohad mints, except the one dated AH. 1197/25, which appears in Krause as KM.2 without an illustration (16) are, I think, published here for the first time.

References.

(1) ‘The Jats – Their Role in the Mughal Empire’ by Girish Chandra Dwiverdi, Arnold Publishers, New Delhi. 1989.p.208 et seq.

(2) ‘Wikipedia’ entries for Jats, ‘Jatland’ and ‘The Jat Sawaj Kalyan Parishad’. See also ‘Jat Wiki’.

(3) ‘History of the Marathas’ by James Grant Duff, reprinted Karan Publications, Delhi, 2000. vol. 2, p.111, 112.

(4) ‘Marathas, Marauders and State –Formation in 18^th Century India’ by Stewart Gordon. Oxford University Press. 1994.

(5) ‘History of the Marathas’ by James Grant Duff, reprinted Karan Publications, Delhi, 2000. vol. 2p.112.

(6) ‘An Historical Sketch of the Native States of India’, by Col. G B Malleson. Facsimile reprint published by The Acadamic Press, Gurgaon, 1984.

(7) “In order to form a barrier against the Marathas, Warren Hastings made a treaty in 1779 with the Rana, and the joint forces of the English and the Rana recaptured Gwalior. This treaty is a document of some curiosity, having been negotiated in the infancy of our acquaintance with the political affairs of Northern India. In 1781 a treaty with Sindhia stipulated for the integrity of the Gohad territories ; but after the Treaty of Salbai (1782) the Rana was abandoned on the ground that he had been guilty of treachery, and Sindhia soon possessed himself of Gohad and Gwalior.” Imperial Gazetteer of India (Imperial Gazetteer Vol .11, p.324)

(8) The rank of this officer is variously reported as Major, Captain and Colonel. The confusion possibly occurred because these events were recorded by the writers at different times, some long after the events described, and after Captain Popham had been promoted. His rank at the times of writing have probably been inserted into those accounts.

(9) ‘History of the Marathas’ by James Grant Duff, reprinted Karan Publications, Delhi, 2000Duff (iii). p.299.

(10) ‘The Imperial Gazetteer of India’, HMSOSI in Council, Clarenden Press, Oxford, reprint edition, Today and Tomorrow’s Printers and Publishers, New Delhi, Vol.12, p.441

(11) ‘The Travels of Dean Mahomet, A Native of Patna in Bengal, Through Several Parts of India, While in the Service of The Honourable The East India Company’ Written by ‘Himself’, 1794,Letter XXX. www.eScholarship.org/editions.

(12) ‘History of the Marathas’ by James Grant Duff, reprinted Karan Publications, Delhi, 2000. Vol.2 p.297-299.

(13) ‘The Hind Rajasthan’, compiled by H Mehta, 1896, publisher unknown. p.414-415 tells us that, under the terms to which the English and Sindhia were about to sign up, the Rana was to be “allowed to retain the hill-fort of Gwalior and its dependencies.....”. This tells us that at that point in time the Rana had already taken possession. If the Rana’s forces were not in the Fort, from whom did De Boigne “take” it in 1784 AD.? The English?

(14) ‘Romance of the Fort of Gwalior’ by Hem Chandra Rai, Delhi 1931. p. 62.

(15) Several accounts give the name of one or more of the Ranas of Gohad as Lakindar (or Lokinder) Singh. In fact, at the time of Panipat and the first Jat occupation of Gwalior Fort, the Rana’s name was Bhim Singh, at the time of the second occupation he was Chhatar (Chhatar) Singh, and at the time of the third Maratha War he was Kirat Singh. Lokinder is a title held by all Jat rulers of Gohad, in the same way that all rulers of Bharatpur were entitled ‘Mahinder ‘or ‘Brajinder’, and the rulers of Datia were also all entitled ‘Lokinder’. There are other examples, as rulers of all Jat houses had titles ending in ‘-inder’ (SB)

(16) ‘Standard Catalogue of World Coins’ 18^th & 19^th Century editions, and ‘South Asian Coins...’, 1980 to date. Krause Publications, Iola, Wisconsin, USA.

(17) JASB Numismatic Supplement “Notes on some Mughal Coins” by B Whitehead. Coin no CN054, p.674, JASB Dec. 1910, Plate XLV.

(18) ‘Forgotten Mughals’, G S Cheema, Manohar, Delhi, 2002. p.

(19) ‘Shah Alam and the East India Company’, by Kalikinka K Datta, World Press, Calcutta, 1965. p.8

(20) ‘Coins of the Sindhias’ J Lingen & K Wiggins, Hawkins Pubs. London 1978. p.41.

(21) A very knowledgeable numismatist once told me, “If you want to know the truth, you must go to the coins”. I have found it to be useful advice, as coins rarely lie, even though they sometimes ‘bend the truth’ a little. I pass Shailen Ji’s advice on as a ‘Word to the Wise’

Other Material consulted, cited and quoted.

(i) ‘The Call of Gopachal’ by Thakur Shri Yashwant Singh, Vijay Singh Chauhan, Gwalior

(ii) Private correspondence with Hans Herrli.

(iii) ‘Warren Hastings and British India’, Penderel Moon, Hodder & Stoughton Ltd. London 1947.

(iv) It has proved difficult to find detailed information concerning the Bamraulia Jats written in or translated into English. There are three histories that are said to be reliable. They are in Hindi and English translations do not appear to exist. Details below were supplied by Hans Herrli, and are included here because there are certainly a goodly number of readers of the JONS who do read Hindi, and may find these references helpful:-

1. ‘Gohad ke jaton ka Itihas’, Dr. Ajay Kumar Agnihotri, Nav Sahitya Bhawan. (New Delhi, Delhi. 1985)

2. ‘Gwalior ke Qile ka Itihas’, Balwantrao Bhaiya Saheb Sindhia, (Bombay, 1890)

3. ‘Jat – Itihas’, Dr. Natthan Singh, Jat Samaj Kalyan Parishad. (Gwalior, 2004.)

Acknowledgements.

SB, HH and JL. I would like to thank Shailendra Bhandere, Hans Herrli and Jan Lingen for their help in supplying photographs, advice and data. Shailen Ji has checked my text, and suggested several corrections and alterations, for which he has my thanks. Jan Lingen provided a useful table of Jalus commencement dates for the reign of Shah Alam II, thus saving me the tedious job of constructing my own. Thank you, Gentlemen.