The First Anglo-Sikh War

War and settlement

The First Anglo-Sikh War pitted the Lahore kingdom against the East India Company in 1845–46. After British victory, the March 1846 Treaty of Lahore ceded territory and established a British presence at Lahore; Duleep Singh remained Maharaja. Annexation followed the second war in 1849.[4]

Communications and Aliwal

During the First Anglo-Sikh War, the Sutlej frontier was also a struggle over communications. In Gough’s account of the January 1846 operations, Sikh forces threatened Ludhiana and routes supporting the British main army. Harry Smith reached Ludhiana but lost part of his baggage near Buddowal. Reinforcements were then brought together before Aliwal. The force included the Sirmoor and Nusseree battalions. The official report dates Smith’s attack to 28 January, linking the battle to those earlier movements.[1]

Sobraon and advance

Hardinge’s despatch of 19 February explains why the main attack awaited returning detachments and heavy guns and ammunition from Delhi. It records the assault at Sobraon on 10 February, followed by British troops crossing the Sutlej and advancing to Kasur. These published despatches present the command’s explanation of its operations. Their sequence illuminates preparation and movement; their language of justification remains part of the victors’ account.[2]

Thanks and policy

On 2 March 1846, John Bright interrupted Robert Peel to present a petition from Reading against voting thanks to the army. It described the war as unjust and impolitic. Peel then proposed recognition for military conduct at Mudki and Ferozeshah. He said the resolutions would avoid judgments on public policy, allowing members who questioned the Indian government’s decisions to support acknowledgement of the troops’ skill, endurance and courage.[3]

Yet Peel’s opening also defended government policy. He described the conflict as unprovoked aggression and expressed confidence in Hardinge’s justice and moderation. He portrayed refusal of thanks as a failure to recognise soldiers’ exertions. The exchange therefore exposes a disputed distinction between congratulating an army and endorsing its war. The petition and ministerial reply record positions expressed on this particular parliamentary occasion, rather than a single agreed explanation of the campaign.[3]