________________
NOVEMBER, 1889.]
MODERN PANJABI COINS.
327
The coins therefore of the Jînd State show those of rulers who reigned as follows:RÂjá Gajpat Singh, A.D. 1764-1786
22 years. Râjâ Bhåg Singh 1786-1819
33 years. [Raja Fath Singh , 1819-1822
3 years.]18 Raja Sangat Singh, 1822-1834
12 years. Raja Sarap Singh 1834-1864 ............... 30 years. Râjâ Ragh bîr Singh, 1864-1885 ................ 21 years.
Raja Ranbir Singh , 1885 to date. I think the same inference may be drawn from this set as from that given of the Maharajas of Patiala -- that the tyle has not materially changed throughout 120 years.
We must pass on to the history of the owners of the next set of coins shown in figs. 22 to 26, viz., the Sardars, or more popularly, the Bhais of Kaithal. The State is now extinct, and I have not found it possible to refer the individual coins to particular rulers, though distinctions were apparently made between their issues.
The Kaithal family traces its descent direct from the eldest son of Siddhy, whereas the Phůlksån descent springs from the second son. Its connection with the Phůlkiäú Rájás is therefore a very distant one, but it has always been recognized, and a short time before the State lapsed to the British Crown under the Sikh law of inheritance, the Bhais of Kaithal were most important chiefs; - the last, Bhai Udai Singh, being received at a Governor General's Darbar in 1828, as of equal rank with, and senior to the Rajâs. of Jînd and Nábh.10 The loss of their State to the family under the operation of the law was directly due to the action of its own representatives; for on the death of Sangat Singh of Jind in 1834, as above described, without heirs, & plain opportunity was given by the British Government to the principal Sikh Chiefs to choose between the payment of a fixed tribute, or the existing freedom from payment coupled with the chance of lapses to Government on the failure of direct heirs. The chiefs finally "preferred the easy terms which they enjoyed in the present to a more secure future which involved some present sacrifice." The result was the almost immediate lapse of a part of Jind and the total lapse of Kaithal within nine years.20 The folly of the decision of the chiefs becomes the more apparent when it is considered that failure of direct heirs has always been a common occurrence in great Sikh families, owing to the intemperance and private vices so frequent, at any rate at that time, among them.
The founder of the Kaithal Chiefship was Bhai Gurbakhsh Singh, friend and contemporary of Rajá Álha Singh of PatialA (1729-1765). He was succeeded by his fourth son, Bhai Desa Singh, who actually conquered Kaithal town from some Afghan Chiefs in 1767, and afterwards much enlarged his borders. He died in 1781, and was practically succeeded by his second son, BhA1 Lal Singh, after the latter had murdered the heir, his elder brother, Bhai Bahal Singh. An able, utterly untrustworthy, violent and unscrupulous man, he greatly enlarged his estate in those troubled times, and became the most powerful Cis-Satluj Chief after Patiala. He died an old man in 1819, and was succeeded by his eldest son, Bhai Partab Singh, and then in 1824 by his younger son, Bhai Udai Singh, a prominent figure in his day, who died childless in 1843. Upon this all but an insignificant part of the State became British territory.21 The Bhals of Kaithal therefore ruled as follows 23:Bhái Désů Singh, A.D. 1767-1781..............
14 years. Bhai Bahal Singh, 1781-1781................................ Bhái Lal Singh, 1781-1819............
38 years. Bhai Partab Singh, 1819-1824 ...........
5 years. Bhai Udai Singh, 1824-1843 .............
........ 19 years.
18 No coin of this RajA has been found.
Griffin, op. cit. p. 870 n.
Griffin, op. cit. p. 330. n Bhd is the title of a Sikh sint or holy man, and is used as a prefix by his descendants. The Kaithal Chiefs got their title of Bhal from Bh& Råmdial, the father of Garbakhsh Singh, a personage of great sanctity in his time.
» As an instance of the great difficulty of dates when writing of such histories as this, I may say that Ibbotson's Casetteer of the Karnal District, pp. 38-40, differs somewhat from Griff's Rajds of the Partjd., pp. 48-49, and that both authors worked on the best original sources of information procurable on the spot.
