Q. With reference to the British annexation of Sindh in 1843, consider the following statements:
1.Mountstuart Elphinstone described the conquest as a “bullying” act that resembled a bully who has been beaten in the street coming home to beat his wife in revenge.
2.The annexation was widely criticized by British historians and officials as a “post-facto justification” for the failure of the First Anglo-Afghan War.
3.General Charles Napier’s dispatch “Peccavi” (I have Sinned/Sind) was intended as a sincere apology to the British Parliament for exceeding his legal authority.
Which of the statements given above are correct?
Explanation:
Statement 1: Correct. Elphinstone, a prominent British statesman, was highly critical of the annexation. He used the “bully” analogy to point out that the British, after being humiliated and defeated in Afghanistan, chose to attack the weaker Amirs of Sindh to restore their military pride and secure a territorial “consolation prize.”
Statement 2: Correct. The conquest of Sindh had no legal or moral justification; it was a strategic move by Lord Ellenborough and Charles Napier to compensate for the Afghan disaster. Historians often view it as a predatory act where the British deliberately provoked the Amirs into war to seize their lands.
Statement 3: Incorrect. While Napier did use the pun “Peccavi” (Latin for “I have sinned”), it was not a sincere apology. It was a witty, albeit arrogant, play on words sent to his superiors, acknowledging the irony that he had conquered Sindh despite the lack of moral or legal authority to do so.
