A history of the Sikhs, from the origin of the nation to the battles of the Sutlej.

264

HISTORY OF THE SIKHS CHAP. VIII

1844. Hira Singh had, in his acts and successes, surpassed the
HIra Singh general expectation, and the manner in which affairs were
guided by carried on seemed to argue unlooked-for abilities of a high
Pandit order; but the Raja himself had little more than a noble
Jalla, his
preceptor. presence and a conciliatory address to recommend him, and
the person who directed every measure was a Brahman
Pandit, named Jalla, the family priest, so to speak, of the
Jammu brothers, and the tutor of Dhian Singh's sons. This
crafty and ambitious man retained all the influence over
the youthful minister which he had exercised over the
boyish pupil on whom Ranjit Singh lavished favours.
Armies had marched, and chiefs had been vanquished, as
if at the bidding of the preceptor become councillor. His
views expanded, and he seems to have entertained the idea
of founding a dynasty of 'Peshws ' among the rude Jats
of the Punjab, as had been done by one of his tribe among
the equally rude Marathas of the south. He fully perceived
that the Sikh army must be conciliated, and also that it must
be employed. He despised, and with some reason, the spirit
and capacity of most of the titular chiefs of the country; and
he felt that Raja Gulab Singh absorbed a large proportion of
the revenues of the country, and seriously embarrassed the
central government by his overgrown power and influence.
It was primarily requisite to keep the army well and regularly paid, and hence the Pandit proceeded without scruple
to sequester several of the fiefs of the sirdars, and gradually
of Jagirdars (feudal beneficiaries) may be seen in Bernier's Travels
(p. 181), and it almost seems identical with that anciently in force
among the Anglo-Saxons with reference to 'nobles by service', the followers of a lord or king. (See Kemble's Saxons in England, i. 178, &c.)
The right of the Government is full, and it is based on the feeling or
principle that a beneficiary has only the use during life of estates or
offices, and that all he may have accumulated, through parsimony or
oppression, is the property of the state. It may be difficult to decide
between a people and an expelled sovereign, about his guilt or his
tyranny, but there can be none in deciding between an allied state
and its subject about treason or rebellion. Neither refugee traitors
nor patriots are allowed to abuse their asylum by plotting against the
Government which has cast them out; and an extension of the principle would prevent desperate adventurers defrauding the state which
has reared and heaped favours on them, by removing their property
previous to engaging in rash and criminal enterprises.