Page 12

Tragedy & Confusions

Ironically the gazetteer of Unao, written in 1903, creates a lot of confusion and did not give a true picture of the facts. It seems the gazetteer was influenced and manipulated where Wasi-uz-zaman had been mentioned at one place as successor and at other place as son of Habib-ur-Rahman which is absolutely wrong and incorrect. The writer of the gazetteer made a several mistakes as such. Since Wasi uz Zaman was the head of the Taluqa at the time when the gazetteer was being written, it is not unlikely that several facts were not told to create these misconceptions.

The British author of Gazetteer felt shame in acknowledging that the Maulvi was given the Taluqa because he was so influential and  found competent to be enrolled as Taluqdar, rather to justify the British Grant , he mischeviously wrote that the Taluqa was granted in return of his loyal services.

I could not find any such instance or evidence where I could see Maulvi Sahib supporting the British. If anyone has the same, please forward it me , I shall amend my claim.

For example the correct date of death of Maulvi Sb in the Gazetteer of Oudh is mentioned as 27 Sep 1875 but the Gazetteer of Unnao (page 80) mentions the year of death 1878. Now for a student like us, it creates confusion!

Another example - On page 80 , the gazetteer says that Wasi uz Zaman is the current head of the family and at the end of paragraph says that the estate is under management of court of wards ? It is a joke, when a person is already in-charge of a Taluka , how could it be under the management of court of wards ? Both cannot be correct. So this is the level of authenticity of Gazetteer that it has only copied and compiled the information without any cross check.

Can anyone tell me about the period when the taluka was under the court of wards? Who was the ward ? Was it Khalil ur Rahman , the eldest son of Maulvi Habib ur Rahman OR was it Wasi uz Zaman ? If it was Khalil ur Rahman then why did he not continue as Taluqdar when he came of age ? If it was not Khalil ur Rahman then was it Wasi uz Zaman? If it was Wasi uz Zaman, then certainly he was not minor in 1903 when the gazetteer was written. Wasi uz zaman had already taken over by that time. Then what was the purpose of writing this sentence “estate is under management of court of wards “in 1903. Let me tell you that neither wasi uz zaman nor Khalil ur Rahman was minor in 1903. Both were grown up adult rather Wasi uz Zaman had already taken over the Taluka by then.

Can anyone shed some light on this confusing information by the Gazetteer of Unao?

The readers would notice that these statements are undoubtedly wrong and deviated from truth since Maulvi Sahib had two sons and his descendents are still living in Unnao and NOT in Asiwan. As per the family Shajra and records of the Khasra & Khewat , Wasi uz zaman was in no way related to Maulvi Habib ur Rahman. He was just a nominated successor who had not handed over the estate to the sons who were the rightful successors of Maulvi Habib ur Rahman.(Please refer the revenue record attached at the end of this booklet where he has clearly been mentioned as the Khalaf( Successor ) and son of Lal Khan. It is noteworthy that Khalaf is an Arabic word that means “Successor, the one who comes after you while its opposite is Salaf which means predecessor , the one who comes before you. One would notice that in all revenue papers Khalil-ur-Rahman & Jalil-ur-Rahman have been mentioned as ‘Pisran’ (Persian- meaning “sons) whereas Wasi-uz-Zaman has been mentioned as only “Khalaf” (Successor).

I have attached a number of revenue records with this booklet to substantiate the fact that Khalil ur-Rahman & Jalil-ur-Rahman only were the two sons of Maulvi Habib-ur-Rahman, taluqdar of Miyanganj and Wasi uz Zaman was neither the son of Habib ur Rahman nor was he related with blood to him in any way. After going through at all these papers and considering the factual position, if anyone claims that Maulvi Habib-ur-Rahman had no issue, he is a liar who is trying to spread a blatant lie in the broad daylight. Having said that I would go to the extent that I can now challenge the entries recorded in the Gazetteer of Unao where it mentions Wasi uz Zaman as the son of Maulvi Habib ur Rahman. It is absolutely wrong and incorrect which undoubtedly had been manipulated and written without verifying the facts. It was the gazetteer who is the real culprit and which is being quoted repeatedly over the last 100 years by our naïve and lazy scholars who have blindly spread the same lie so much that this truth got shrouded in mystery and today it is almost unknown to the present generation.

As for the misconception amongst few that Habib-ur-Rahman supported the British with his army and ammunitions and in reward of this, British granted him the estate & title. I have already busted this myth that Maulvi Sahib was a man of character and influence and he did not flatter or dishonestly sold his faith to get a reward. He was already a man of influence, was a Khaandani Ra'ees & Zamindar, besides he had the privilege of being the Chakladar of Shah-i-Awadh, therefore British only acknowledged his supremacy over the land and rightly enlisted his name as the Taluqdar. I would appreciate if anyone could show me a single proof of Maulvi Sb supporting the British. I am sure there is no such evidence. This confusion is again created by the British Gazetteer of Unnao that mentioned his Loyal services as the sole reason for enlisting him to the status of a Taluqdar. I , despite my best efforts, could not find any single proof that could support this false notion of the so called loyal Services of Maulvi sahib extended to the British. It is again a myth created by the British. I am sorry to find none of our Indian Scholars had taken any pain to explore the facts and present the truth before us. They have simply followed the Gazetteers and did not do any search of truth.