Talk:William Henry Sleeman

This article should be put under geniuses. For William Sleeman was a genius--212.219.59.228 (talk) 10:25, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Report in 1889

I doubt that he had a report made, having died 33 years earlier. I changed that to 1839. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.199.131.148 (talk) 17:05, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on William Henry Sleeman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150204231210/http://www.dinodata.org/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=7639 to http://www.dinodata.org/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=7639

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:06, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

QUOTE: Unlike the vast majority of British officers, he was never known to have used slurs like "niggers" or "blacks" to describe his Indian household servants or sepoy soldiers. END OF QUOTE.

This is a very bad piece of writing. English officials (do not know about the Celtic speakers) who lived in the Subcontinent did not use bad words to their serving persons. In fact, it was the native landlords and their henchmen who used words like Nee, Thoo, Eda, Edi, Enthada, Enthadi, Avattkal, Chekkan, Cherumann, Pennu, Avan, Aval &c. to their serving persons. People who have first hand information on how the Englishmen related to the local populations, know that most persons who served them improved much in the local society. However, this was a very bad experience for the local social higher ups and their henchmen who took up the argument that it was the Englishmen who were using bad words to their serving classes.

However, it might be true that the Englishmen might have used word inserted in the article by some clown to these clowns and their ancestors.

In Tarun Kumar Bhaduri's book 'Behor, baaghi, banduk', about the dacoits of the Chambal region, there is a story about Sleeman and Corbett working together to capture the 'baaghi' Sultana. As far as I remember, this was also mentioned in Jim Corbett's autobiography 163.116.199.119 (talk) 08:47, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• Tuker's biography of Sleeman is very dated (though elements seem well-researched) so I've been careful to only use it for simple biographical details and to track his movements. When it comes to the anti-thuggee campaign, it's almost completely useless and I've instead relied upon the WP:BESTSOURCES on the subject-- in this case Wagner (2007) and Dash (2005), among others. Van Woerkens (2002) repeats a lot of the tropes present in Tuker's account (covered below). Wagner (p.5) describes Dash as following "the time-honoured tradition of Sleeman hagiographies", so I've had to keep this in mind as well.
• On the start of Sleeman's association with thuggee: Tuker claims that Sleeman gathered clues or bits of information on thuggee from ~1810-1836, but Fhlathuin (2001: p.78) describes the accuracy of this portrayal as "doubtful" (further describing it as a detective story). Van Woerkens tentatively cites Tuker's account which is based on Sleeman having discovered Sherwood's article and using it in 1822 to converse with arrested Thugs. Fhlathuin holds the evidence to suggest that Sleeman first encountered Sherwood's article in 1830. Dash (2005: p.150) portrays Sleeman as an opportunist who decided to engage with thuggee in 1829 after reading a circular sent out on thuggee and seeing the success of Borthwick. This tracks with the timing of Wagner's "enter Sleeman" narrative and it's the one I've cautiously assumed.
• Dash claims that Sleeman first met his wife on sick leave in Mauritius but this isn't mentioned by Tuker (who misleadingly titles the chapter From Australia to Ile de France). According to both versions, she was sent to central India in search of sugar cane seeds for her father's plantation and was directed to Sleeman-- according to Tuker, Sleeman returned from Australia with sugar cane seeds he was to introduce to India and this was why she was directed to him. I suspect Dash might have misunderstood this.
• Precisely when the Anti-Thuggee Campaign could be said to have started is a little murky. Wagner points to an implied degree of centralisation in 1829 when the five approvers amassed thus far were put under one official's control. After Sleeman's anonymous letter in 1830, the government authorised a centralised campaign. Rawat and Mukherjee (2025: p.8) describe it as launching in 1829-1830. I've chosen to start this section in 1830, after Sleeman's letter, since Sleeman himself was only involved in localised efforts up to that point and the article revolves around him.
• Encyclopaedia Britannica claims that Sleeman was at Gwalior from 1843 to 1849 but it also claims that he was at Lucknow from 1849 to 1856. This latter claim is demonstrably false by its own account (p.382), James Outram assumed the position in 1854. This database, which would otherwise be a bit of a dodgy source, gets this right and says that he was at Gwalior from 1843 to 1844, suggesting that the position was abolished in the aftermath of the Gwalior campaign. But then Dash intimates that he held the position in 1845, so I'm going to go with Britannica's account. This source specifically on the history of Gwalior states that Sleeman was resident from 1843-1844 and that he was succeeded by a series of political agents (apparently the database's source). This makes little sense as the subsequent treaty in 1844 mentions the future role of the resident (p.38). Without further clarification on the history of the residency, the vast majority of sources point to 1843-1849.
• It should be stated that the foremost image of Sleeman on Google is not of him, it's of a different person.
• Tuker's timeline of Sleeman's death is aided by the ship logs, he even prints the log of his death, so I've gone with this as the most reliable. Dash seemingly gets the date of Sleeman's departure wrong but I've used him for the date of the annexation of Oudh.

Joko2468 (talk) 16:26, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

It'd be nice to include Dash (2005: p.116): "He never doubted the superiority of European civilization, that the British soldier was innately superior to the sepoy, or that the Company’s rule, for all its many exactions, was a considerable improvement on that of most native princes." but it's explicitly disputed by Sleeman's own writings (quoted in Tuker, pp.44-45; Rambles, p.3) where he endorses Sir Thomas Munro's quote which ends: "the Hindoos are not inferior in civilization to the people of Europe." Joko2468 (talk) 12:58, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

I messaged Dash about this on Reddit and he gracefully responded that he was perhaps mistaken to have said that. Joko2468 (talk) 23:50, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

A lot of the elements that appeared well-researched in Tuker have been lifted or further pursued from works such as Smith (1915) or James L. Sleeman's 1933 book. Tuker has a noted tendency to invent things to enrich the narrative, so I've gone back over everything I cited to him. Since largely removed from the article and areas rewritten.

• Tuker (1977: p.157) claims that Sleeman was relieved of all thuggee duties in March 1849 and replaced by his nephew, James Sleeman. Sleeman (1933: p.200) merely says that James was made Assistant Superintendent at Jubbulpore and Tuker cites no sources to his claim while incorporating information from Sleeman (1933)-- this indicates a misunderstanding though it's unclear where he got "March" from. This plaque erected by James L. Sleeman states that James superseded William Henry in 1855. This appears likely, James L. seems to have researched his ancestor and there's a report by James dated 1857 about the year 1856.
• In his preface, Tuker thanks a prebendary at Bideford and a librarian at RUSI for information regarding his early life. With that, I'm satisfied about the move to Bideford but his move to London in 1807 is less clear (it's possible that this is present in the RUSI records as part of an informal CV).
• That Mussoorie was Sleeman's destination in 1835-1836 is corroborated by A Journey through... Vol. 2 (p.374) and his preface to Rambles mentions his destination as being the Himalayas (I'm sure this is put clearer elsewhere). In A Journey... Vol. 2 (p.374) he says that he was on his way back from Mussoorie in November 1837. James L. Sleeman (1933: p.115) says that he was on sick leave for much of 1834 to 1837. I've removed "January" from Tuker's account.
• I've kept Tuker's material on his military service given that aspects of it are corroborated in other sources and he had access to military records.

This article could very much do with a more reliable biography of Sleeman, though I don't envision there being much interest in writing one (especially if it involves picking apart Tuker's fiction from his research). Joko2468 (talk) 15:30, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

It is claimed by Subrahmanyam (2009) that Sleeman had an interest in phrenology. Wagner (2010: p.44) says: It is indeed significant that the collecting of ‘Thug’ skulls for phrenological analysis was not initiated by Sleeman, as is sometimes claimed, and the writings of Spry and Cox were not part of the official campaign. The skulls were taken by Henry Spry (Sleeman's cousin) and there's nothing from Sleeman on them being taken nor on the resulting research. Wagner suggests this was because phrenology was controversial and could potentially undermine Sleeman's authority as an expert on thuggee. Joko2468 (talk) 21:28, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

I've struggled to find the November 1857 article published in The Times, referred to by Smith (1915: p.xxvi), though there is this April 1858 article that covers the same letter on the annexation, after the publication of A Journey Through the Kingdom of Oudh. It's very possible that it does exist, The Times archives are very challenging to reliably search and there are thousands of articles on Oudh. Joko2468 (talk) 10:36, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Sleeman's obituary in The Times here. Interestingly it's under the impression he supported the annexation of Awadh. Joko2468 (talk) 10:48, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

SheThinksAboutIt, could you explain to me how "Thuggee" Sleeman is an offensive nickname? It's in the title of Tuker's book and is covered by Rawat & Mukherjee without indication of offense. It is a historical fact, you may wish to read WP:NOTCENSORED. Thanks. Joko2468 (talk) 21:22, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Apologies, I somehow didn't clock that it had been already reverted by another editor. Happy to answer any questions you have about this. Joko2468 (talk) 21:42, 3 May 2026 (UTC)