The salaried Sepoys and their payments.
British India.
The average modern-day soldier, in spite of not getting paid as handsomely as those in corporate sectors, yet has a lot to be happy about, if he or she for a moment considers what the pay of a soldier really was in times now gone by – and how many times, a soldier was fortunate enough to beget that pay.
For instance prior to the arrival of the East India Company, a private trading firm that simply for the twists and turns of fate found itself as a dominant political force and a regional Empire in the subcontinent of India, in the 18th century.
The life of the common soldier serving in the armies of native kings and chieftains was wretched and poverty-stricken. Not only was his pay insubstantial but he was also never paid on time. Sometimes the pay was never forthcoming and sometimes received after only he had rioted, clammered and threatened his employer.
Surprisingly, this tactic of delaying payments wasn’t just common with petty Rajas and local chieftains. The Mughals, Marathas and even the Sikh empire had displayed this very tendency. In fact, from William Irvine’s research, it appears the Mughals were absolute masters in delaying payments.
Irvine’s research into payments made in the East.
William Irvine was a British administrator with the Imperial Civil Services, stationed in British India between 1863 and 1889. During his tenure of service, he had ample time to observe the customs of the East when not busy revising the rent and revenue records as a magistrate and collector.
After retirement and return to England, William had produced a historical work on the Mughals titled, ‘The Army of the Moghuls: Its History and Organization.’ A book in which he had researched the management of the Mughal armies from a financial perspective.
William’s study of Mughal documents and his observations of Eastern customs led him to discover that delaying payments was a common practice in India. Notes William, in regard to the deliberate arrears.
The habit of the East is to stave off payment by any expedient. To owe money to somebody seems in that country the normal condition of mankind
William Irvine
Why William may have found the arrears strange was perhaps for the fact that by his time regular payments had probably become the norm. Europe, after all, at this stage was at the forefront of trade, commerce and empire-building. All of which, required discipline, promptness and punctuality in dealings.
Furthermore, we also have it on record that the British East India Company was a reasonably punctual paymaster. It had paid both its European and native soldiers regularly – unless conditions had been extremely dire.
In fact, it is to the East India Company that goes the credit for introducing monthly payments. There can be absolutely no doubt regarding this bit of history – for neither the Mughals, the Marathas nor the Sikhs had believed in this virtue at the time. Or for that matter, the other local chiefs and regents.
The Mughal arrears, a tendency to delay payments.
Although individual emperors, like Humayun for example, had provided for the wives and children of deceased soldiers. While his son, Akbar, had upped the salaries. These initiatives had been sporadic, individual and not permanent features of Mughal management.
There is also hardly any evidence available to suggest the Mughals had made any kind of conscious effort to improve the condition of the common soldier, who had suffered miserably due to delayed payments.
This we learn from Hafi Musthafa, a Mughal-era writer, who bewails the life of a common soldier in the service of his lord.
The troops are wretchedly paid. Twenty of thirty months of arrears being no rarity. The ministers, princes and grandees always keep twice or thrice as many men as they have occasion for and fancy that by withholding the pay, they concern the men in preservation of their lord’s life
Hafi Musthafa
While from Hafi Musthafa’s statement, it appears that Mughal princes had hired more men than they could afford. Not to mention also lived under the delusion that the men would still stay loyal and continue to serve them.
William Irvine, on the other hand, believed this system of delaying payment was deliberately practised, in order to prevent troops from collecting their pay and subsequently joining the services of some other chief to double their earnings.
Only in times of great distress, writes William, was the army paid. In other words, Mughal employers had only dispensed with the salaries when there was absolutely no other option left for delaying payments.
The Marathas and Sikhs, payments system.
Regardless of what in reality had spurred the Mughals to delay payments. There is enough evidence to prove the Marathas and Sikhs were equally bad at making monthly payments. This is revealed to us by both N.K Sinah and Surendra Nath Sen, two renowned Indian historians.
To cite Surendra Nath Sen, among the two. The Marathas were notorious for withholding payments, especially during the Peshwa days. Moreover, they had also deprived the men of one or two months of their salary.
The Sikhs, in particular, stand out even better. For as N.K Sinah states, they had actually borrowed the monthly payment system from the East India Company, yet never implemented it. Much like the Mughals and Marathas, the Sikhs also would not pay their soldiers regularly let alone the full amount.
Typically a Sikh soldier had received a single month’s payment only five times a year. That is to say, out of an annual amount of Rs. 96. He had received only Rs. 40 – and if very fortunate, Rs. 48, annually.
Substandard pay.
Besides the arrears, we also know that a common soldier’s pay was quite phenomenally substandard.
For instance, in the 16th century, an Infantryman under the Maratha hero Chatrapati Shivaji had received between Rs.3 and Rs.9 as a basic salary. The later Mughals had paid between Rs. 6 and Rs. 10. While the great Sikh leader, Ranjit Singh, had paid his infantrymen Rs. 7 and Rs. 8.
The lack of loyalty of Mughal and Maratha troops.
Given the arrears in payment and the substandard pay. It is also not surprising why the troops in India had harboured no great loyalty towards their employers.
Quoting the words of Surendranath Sen and William Irwin, the historian Amiya Sen explains this point in a thesis he had prepared for his PhD in 1964.
Narrates Sen, the Mughal army was a force of mercenaries. It had comprised of men who had only served for their own interests. When things went badly, they had either deserted or joined the highest bidder. Likewise, the Maratha troops also had no scruple in changing masters as often as it was convenient to them or their recruiting officers.
Even in 1756, when Siraj-ud-Daula had advanced to capture Calcutta, he had to pay the army a six-month salary in advance. Indeed they had refused to march without their pay and for a very plausible reason.
Furthermore, according to Robert Clive, in Siraj-ud-Daula and Mir Jafar’s army, arrears had amounted to over three million sterlings.
Payments in the Bengal army.
Among these powers, it was only the East India Company that had tried to develop a modern military force. The company had not only invested in the training and conversion of raw recruits into professional soldiers. But also put in place a proper remuneration system.
For its Bengal army, it had recruited Sepoys at a monthly wage rate of Rs. 6 initially, and later Rs. 7 – Rs. 6, essentially the market price of hiring a mercenary soldier in 1757. Yet, unlike the other regional powers, it had paid the amount regularly at the end of every month.
While this salary amount had been no less substandard, the company’s policy of providing the full amount, regularly and without cuts, had allowed a Bengal Sepoy to receive his full dues of Rs. 84 annually – at least for a good part of the 17th century.
This system of regular payments that the East India Company had implemented and adhered to is what had made military service in its presidential armies very popular in the job market.
Perks in the Bengal army.
Besides this regular income and the Batta (field allowance), the Sepoys of all three presidential armies had been granted prize money during wars. They had also been awarded for gallantry and valour with medals and standards. As well as provided with a lifelong pension upon retirement.
Furthermore, says Amiya Sen. In 1782, when the Bengal treasury was exhausted. The East India Company had established the Jagir system of land grants. Under this new scheme, the pension of soldiers who accepted land had also continued but not in full – see thesis.
The pension amount had been gradually reduced in instalments but a good part of it had still been paid for life. Moreover, upon the death of the pensioner, his heirs had been allowed to enjoy the land at a fixed rent.
For those invalided or out of the service, there was another type of land grant and pay available.
Monthly Payments, the main attraction.
But, no matter how lucrative the perks were, it was ultimately the regular payments that had created the most impact and allowed the East India Company to gain the upper hand over the recruitment systems of the Mughals, Sikhs and Marathas.
Despite these native powers also rewarding gallantry, valour and sacrifice with occasional gifts and allowances. It was the expectation of monthly salaries that had continued to attract candidates well into the early years of the 18th century.
This, in spite of the fact that by this time, the substandard pay of Rs. 7 had become hopelessly inadequate to cope with rising prices, and introduction of service dues had further left a Sepoy with very little money in hand.
The East India Company’s military organization, naturally, wasn’t infallible. There were loopholes and issues in human resource management. Due to which outbreaks had frequently erupted over pay and other grievances.
Additionally, we also have on records that both its European and native regiments had mutinied, time and again, over substandard pay, curtailment of the Batta and occasionally delayed payments.
Yet it was this private company of merchants. Eager to cut costs and double revenues, as any other private firm in modern times. That had attracted the loyalty and service of the 18th-century Sepoys.
