First Indian to be hanged by the British; Image Source: thearticle.in 

thumbnail_Maharaja_Nandakumar_2.jpg

Maharaja_Nandakumar_2.jpg

Maharaja Nandkumar’s hanging became controversial for more than one reason. Most highlighted of the reasons were if it was a ploy of Warren Hastings’ creation to save himself, whether the jurisdiction of Supreme Court was applicable to the case, would the Act of 1729 under which he was hanged extended to British territory in India, and most importantly, was the punishment proportional to the crime committed?

Following is the brief narration of events that took place in as unbiased a manner as possible and then we leave for you to decide the verdict for yourself. Given the humongous literature of the subject, we hope this narrative does justice to Nandkumar's story, even if the British could not. 

The story revolves mainly around the characters of Maharaja Nandkumar, Warren Hastings, and Sir Elijah Impey, with supporting roles of Bolaki Das, Mohan Prasad, and others.

It is set in the mid 18th century Bengal when the British had just asserted power and were in the initial phase of interaction with their native subjects.

Following the Battle of Buxar, Warren Hastings had resigned his position as *dewan* or tax collector of Bengal. The English East India Company, in replacement appointed Maharaja Nandkumar, who was an influential man in 18th century Bengal and also the Governor of Hooghly under Nawab Siraj-ud-Daulah, in Hastings’ place as the *dewan* for the districts of Burdwan, Nadia, and Hooghly in 1764. The title of ‘Maharaja’ was also bestowed on him by Shah Alam II in 1764.

In 1773, Hastings was appointed as the Governor-General of Bengal. After two years, in March 1775, Nandkumar brought several charges of bribery and corruption against Hastings. He gave a letter of complaint against Warren Hastings to Philip Francis, a member of the council. The letter stated that Hastings had accepted a bribe from Nandkumar in 1772 for Rs.1,04,105/- for appointing a Gurudas as *Dewan* as also a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- from Munni Begum to appoint her as the guardian of the infant Nawab Mubarak-ud-Daulah. Another letter from Nand Kumar offered to produce vouchers to support his charges of bribery against Hastings.

The letters were presented in the Supreme Council of Bengal’s meeting. The Supreme Council was established according to the provisions of the Regulating Act of 1773.

A motion was moved in the Council that asked Nandkumar to appear before it. Warren Hastings, who was presiding over the meeting, opposed the motion. It was however passed by the majority leading to an irked Hastings walking away.

Lord Clavering, who was then selected to preside over the meeting, held that the charges of Nandkumar against Hastings were indeed true that a sum total of Rs. 3,54,105/- was received by Hatings as a bribe. A resolution directed by the Council ordered Warren Hastings to pay the same amount into the Company’s treasury.

It did not end there.

Next, Warren Hastings in turn accused Nandkumar of conspiring to coerce a third party to make the bribery accusation against him. The charge was dismissed. Governor General Hastings who saw it to be difficult to arrest Nandkumar under charges of conspiracy, implicated another case of forgery onto him. The question of the forgery charges was related to the will of Bulaki Das.

A few years ago, Bulaki Das was in grave debt and took the favours of Nandkumar and Mohan Prasad to repay his loan. The documents that listed how much each Prasad and Kumar had paid, included an unlisted item of Rs 10,000/- owed to Nandkumar. The list was probably prepared in haste by Das’ chief clerk, Krishna. In a series of events, Bulaki died soon after in 1769 but left behind a will that meticulously divided his assets and liabilities amongst his friends and family, and also mentioned the Rs 10,000/- debt owed to Nandkumar. Bulaki Das, in his lifetime, had some of his payments pending from the Company. In an attempt to overcome the commissions that had to be paid in order to extract that money, his successors devised a plan. Padmohan approached Kumar and suggested he increase the amount of ‘the unlisted item of Rs 10,000/-’ to a higher amount so as to compensate for the commissions and bribe to the Company. We do not know what transpired between the two and whether Kumar accepted and executed this offer.

But he was tried and to Hastings’ advantage, this trial was headed by his friend, Sir Elijah Impey, the first Chief Justice in India. Nandkumar was declared guilty by the Court on charges of forgery. According to the English Forgery Act of 1729, the punishment for forgery was death and so was stamped on Kumar’s trial. Numerous attempts of appeal were made by his lawyers, but all in vain. He was hanged on 5th August, 1775, at 8:00 am, at Cooly bazaar, Calcutta, Bengal.

Those of the view, who believe that Kumar’s hanging was an illegal act argue that the jurisdiction of the English Forgery Act of 1729 was not applicable on Indian territory. Additionally, the events of the case took place before the establishment of the Supreme Council of 1773, and therefore did not come under its jurisdiction.

This trial became one of the grounds for Hastings’ and Impey’s impeachment by the British Parliament. They were accused of committing a conspiracy against Nandkumar and the hanging was deemed to be ‘a judicial murder’. While historians and legal authorities remain divided on the course of the matter, some believe that forgery charges were an ordinary outcome of the previous charges against Kumar and were not alleged by Hastings at a later stage.

Maharaja Nandkumar was charged guilty of forging a document. While the punishment for forgery as per The Indian Penal Code, 1860 is two years in general or seven years in case of forging a record of court or ten years in case of forging a will or a fine or both. Nandkumar’s punishment? Death.