The Trial and Execution of Maharaja Nanda Kumar: A Critical
Examination of Colonial Justice, Corruption, and Power in 18th Century Bengal
I. Executive Summary
The 1775 trial and subsequent execution of Maharaja Nanda
Kumar for forgery in Calcutta represents a seminal and profoundly contentious
episode in the annals of British colonial administration in India. This event
pitted a prominent Indian official, Nanda Kumar, against the formidable
Governor-General of Bengal, Warren Hastings, in a direct confrontation that
reverberated across continents. Historians and legal scholars widely
characterize the case not as a straightforward application of justice, but rather
as a "judicial murder". This designation implies a deliberate
perversion of the legal process, driven by political rivalry and a personal
vendetta.
The Nanda Kumar affair starkly exposed fundamental
deficiencies within the nascent British judicial system in India. Significant
concerns arose regarding the court's jurisdiction over local matters, the
appropriateness of applying English common law—particularly its capital
punishments—in an Indian context, and the impartiality of the judiciary itself.
Chief Justice Sir Elijah Impey, a close associate of Warren Hastings, found his
conduct under intense scrutiny. The "judicial murder" label is not
merely a historical condemnation; it underscores a foundational tension
inherent in colonial governance, where legal structures, ostensibly introduced
to uphold the rule of law, were often instrumentalized for political ends. This
instrumentalization served to undermine the very principles of justice they
claimed to establish, setting a precedent for how imperial power could operate
through legal mechanisms to consolidate control and suppress dissent.
The execution of Nanda Kumar had immediate and far-reaching
consequences. It solidified Hastings's authority in Bengal by eliminating a
powerful accuser, yet simultaneously ignited widespread outrage among both
Indian and European populations. This public outcry ultimately contributed to
the impeachment proceedings against both Hastings and Impey in England, marking
a critical moment in the metropolitan scrutiny of colonial conduct.
II. Introduction: Setting the Stage for Conflict
The 18th century witnessed a profound transformation in the
British presence in India, as the East India Company (EIC) evolved from a mere
trading enterprise into a formidable political and territorial sovereign. This
shift was largely cemented by decisive military victories, notably the Battle
of Plassey in 1757 and the Battle of Buxar in 1764. These triumphs granted the
EIC effective control over the lucrative revenue administration of Bengal,
Bihar, and Orissa, fundamentally altering the balance of power in the
subcontinent. This period, however, was also characterized by severe financial
crises within the EIC, compounded by rampant mismanagement and widespread
corruption among its officials, both in Britain and in India. The devastating
Great Bengal Famine of 1770, which claimed over ten million lives, further
highlighted the catastrophic human cost of the Company's economic exploitation
and its prioritization of commercial objectives over the welfare of the
indigenous population.
Into this volatile environment stepped two pivotal figures:
Maharaja Nanda Kumar and Warren Hastings. Maharaja
Nanda Kumar, a Hindu Brahmin official born around 1705 in Bengal, had served in
various capacities under the Nawab of Bengal, primarily as a revenue collector.
His relationship with the British was complex; while he had provided assistance
at Plassey by holding back Nawab's troops, he generally harbored a deep-seated
hostility towards their burgeoning influence. He was appointed Diwan (tax
collector) for Burdwan, Nadia, and Hoogly in 1764. Warren Hastings, born in
1732, rapidly ascended the ranks within the EIC, becoming Governor of Bengal in
1772 and subsequently the first Governor-General of India in 1774. His tenure
was marked by significant military and political challenges, leading to
numerous accusations of corruption and misconduct.
The EIC's financial distress and administrative failures
ultimately compelled the British Parliament to intervene. Lord North, the then
Prime Minister, famously argued that the Company's territories would be
"better administered by the Crown" than by its "incapable"
Directors. This parliamentary scrutiny culminated in the Regulating Act
of 1773, a landmark piece of legislation designed to impose greater
government control over the EIC. Key provisions of this Act included the
establishment of the post of Governor-General, which Hastings assumed,
supported by a council of four members, and the creation of a Supreme Court in
Calcutta, staffed by four English judges. While the Act was ostensibly intended
to foster an independent judicial system under the direct authority of the
King, the Nanda Kumar case would soon reveal its profound inherent flaws. The
Regulating Act, though framed as a reform to curb EIC corruption and establish
the rule of law, inadvertently created a new arena for intense power struggles.
The Act's structure introduced significant friction points: between the
Governor-General and his Council, and between the executive and the newly
formed judiciary. This structural tension, rather than merely imposing order,
introduced new fault lines for political maneuvering and the potential
weaponization of legal mechanisms, thereby providing the fertile ground for the
Nanda Kumar controversy to ignite.
The following table provides a chronological overview of the
key events surrounding the Nanda Kumar case:
Table 2: Chronology of the Nanda Kumar Case (1773-1788)
|
Year |
Key Event |
Brief Description |
|
1773 |
Regulating Act Passed |
British Parliament establishes the post of
Governor-General and a Supreme Court in Calcutta to regulate the East India
Company. |
|
1773 |
Warren Hastings Reinstated |
Hastings becomes Governor-General of Bengal. |
|
Early 1775 |
Nanda Kumar Accuses Hastings |
Maharaja Nanda Kumar formally accuses Warren Hastings of
bribery and corruption before the Supreme Council. |
|
March 1775 |
Council Investigates Charges |
The Supreme Council, led by Francis, Clavering, and
Monson, investigates Nanda Kumar's accusations against Hastings. |
|
March 1775 |
Council Finds Hastings Guilty |
The Council, by majority vote, finds Hastings guilty of
accepting bribes and orders him to repay Rs. 3,54,105/-. |
|
March 1775 |
Hastings Dissolves Council |
Warren Hastings attempts to dissolve the Council and
leaves the meeting in protest. |
|
March-April 1775 |
Hastings Brings Conspiracy Charge |
Hastings accuses Nanda Kumar of conspiring to coerce false
bribery accusations; this charge is later dismissed. |
|
May 1775 |
Forgery Charge Filed Against Nanda Kumar |
A forgery case, dating back to 1765, is brought against
Nanda Kumar by Mohan Prasad, reportedly at Hastings's instigation. |
|
June 8-15, 1775 |
Nanda Kumar's Forgery Trial |
Nanda Kumar is tried in the Supreme Court under Chief
Justice Elijah Impey, a close friend of Hastings. |
|
June 16, 1775 |
Nanda Kumar Convicted |
Nanda Kumar is found guilty of forgery by a unanimous
verdict of judges and jury. |
|
August 5, 1775 |
Nanda Kumar Executed |
Maharaja Nanda Kumar is hanged in Calcutta, becoming the
first Indian executed under British capital law. |
|
1778 |
Impeachment Attempt Against Impey |
Unsuccessful attempt to impeach Chief Justice Impey in the
House of Commons for his role in the trial. |
|
1785 |
Hastings Returns to England |
Warren Hastings returns to Britain, facing accusations of
misconduct. |
|
1787 |
Hastings Impeached by Commons |
The House of Commons impeaches Warren Hastings on charges
of corruption and oppression. |
|
1788-1795 |
Hastings's Impeachment Trial |
Hastings undergoes a lengthy trial before the House of
Lords. |
|
1795 |
Hastings Acquitted |
Warren Hastings is honorably acquitted of all charges. |
III. The Genesis of Conflict: Accusations of Corruption
and Political Rivalry
Maharaja Nanda Kumar, a seasoned official with a history of
navigating complex political waters, had previously experienced periods of both
favor and disfavor with the British, notably falling out of grace after 1765.
In 1772, Warren Hastings had reluctantly sought Nanda Kumar's assistance in
gathering evidence to facilitate the dismissal of Muhammad Reza Khan. However,
this limited cooperation proved short-lived, and Nanda Kumar felt slighted by
Hastings, perceiving a personal affront. Recognizing an opportune moment to
advance his own interests, Nanda Kumar strategically aligned himself with the
newly appointed British councillors who were openly antagonistic towards
Hastings. In early 1775, he formally lodged accusations of corruption and
bribery against Warren Hastings, then the Governor-General.
Nanda Kumar presented a detailed letter outlining his
charges to Sir Philip Francis, a prominent member of the Supreme Council and a
known rival of Hastings. The specific allegations included:
- A
bribe of Rs. 1,04,105/- allegedly paid by Nanda Kumar himself to
Hastings in 1772 for securing the appointment of his son, Gurudas, as
Diwan.
- A sum
of Rs. 2,50,000/- allegedly accepted from Munni Begum, the widow of
Mir Jafar, for her appointment as the guardian of the young Nawab
Mubarak-ud-Daulah.
- These
two amounts totaled an alleged bribe of Rs. 3,54,105/-. Nanda Kumar
further offered to produce vouchers to substantiate these serious charges.
- While
Hastings later admitted to receiving £15,000 from Mir Jafar's widow in
1773, he characterized it as a customary "entertainment"
allowance, equating to approximately 2,000 rupees per day during his visit
to the Nawab. Nanda Kumar, however, specifically accused Hastings of
taking £35,000 from Munni Begum.
The Supreme Council, which comprised four members with
powers equal to Hastings, included Clavering, Francis, and Monson—all generally
opposed to Hastings—and Richard Barwell, who consistently supported him. Upon
Francis presenting Nanda Kumar's letter to the Council, Monson moved a motion
for Nanda Kumar to appear before them. Hastings, who was presiding, vehemently
opposed this motion, attempting to dissolve the council meeting and leaving the
room with Barwell in protest. Despite his efforts, the motion passed by a
majority vote, and Clavering was subsequently elected to preside. The Council
proceeded to investigate Nanda Kumar's claims and ultimately found his
allegations against Hastings to be accurate. They concluded that Hastings had
indeed received Rs. 3,54,105/- in bribes and, in a significant display of their
authority, directed him to pay this amount into the Company's treasury.
Hastings reacted with intense anger to the Council's
findings, refusing to acknowledge their authority to try him. He overruled the
Council's charges and, while denying any direct involvement in the subsequent
proceedings against Nanda Kumar , he vigorously fought back. His initial
counter-move was to bring charges of conspiracy against Nanda Kumar. However,
this charge was swiftly dismissed due to a lack of substantiating evidence. The
Council's finding that Hastings was guilty of bribery, despite his strenuous
efforts to suppress the investigation, marked a critical turning point. This
momentary success for Nanda Kumar and the anti-Hastings faction directly
triggered Hastings's subsequent and more aggressive retaliatory actions,
effectively transforming a political dispute into a legal weapon. This
demonstrates how a perceived defeat in one arena, the Council, led to a
strategic escalation and the weaponization of another, the judiciary, to
achieve a desired outcome.
The following table summarizes the key bribery accusations
against Warren Hastings:
Table 1: Key Bribery Accusations Against Warren Hastings
(1775)
|
Accuser |
Alleged Recipient |
Alleged Source/Beneficiary |
Alleged Purpose |
Alleged Amount (INR) |
Hastings's Acknowledged Amount/Explanation |
|
Maharaja Nanda Kumar |
Warren Hastings |
Gurudas (Nanda Kumar's son) |
Appointment as Diwan |
1,04,105/- |
Not directly acknowledged for this specific purpose. |
|
Maharaja Nanda Kumar |
Warren Hastings |
Munni Begum (Mir Jafar's widow) |
Appointment as guardian of Nawab Mubarak-ud-Daulah |
2,50,000/- |
£15,000 (approx. Rs. 1,50,000/-) as "customary
entertainment allowance" |
|
Total Alleged by Nanda Kumar |
Warren Hastings |
Various |
Various appointments |
3,54,105/- |
N/A |
IV. The Forgery Trial: A Controversial Path to Execution
Following the Supreme Council's determination that Warren
Hastings was guilty of bribery, Hastings's animosity towards Nanda Kumar
intensified, transforming Nanda Kumar into a "bitter enemy" and
prompting Hastings to "decide to take revenge". It was in this
climate of personal vendetta that Hastings reportedly "orchestrated"
or "implicated" Nanda Kumar in a forgery case. The specific charge
was brought by Mohan Prasad, a Calcutta merchant, and concerned a deed or bond
that Nanda Kumar had allegedly executed in 1765, related to the non-clearance
of a debt from a banker named Bulaki Das. The sum involved in this particular
forgery was reportedly Rs 70,000. The fact that this forgery accusation was a
"longstanding" case suggests it was strategically revived or brought
forward at a moment politically advantageous to Hastings.
The trial was presided over by Sir Elijah Impey, who held
the esteemed position of the first Chief Justice of the newly established
Supreme Court in Calcutta. Impey's close personal relationship with Warren
Hastings, described as a "longtime friend" and "old school
chum," became a central point of contention and a primary reason why the
trial is widely characterized as biased and a "judicial murder".
Impey later sought to justify his refusal to grant Nanda Kumar a reprieve,
asserting that doing so would have undermined the court's authority,
particularly given what he perceived as "obvious" evidence of
wrongdoing.
The Nanda Kumar trial was fraught with significant legal
controversies:
- Jurisdiction
of the Supreme Court: A major point of contention was whether the
newly established Supreme Court had the authority to hear a case involving
an offense allegedly committed in 1765, prior to the Regulating Act of
1773 which created the court. Nanda Kumar's advocate raised this
jurisdictional plea at the outset of the trial, but it was summarily
rejected by the court. Critics argued that the local Faujdari Adalats,
traditional Indian criminal courts, should have retained jurisdiction over
such a matter.
- Applicability
of the English Forgery Act of 1729: The English Act of 1729 stipulated
that forgery was a capital crime punishable by execution. However, there
was a "divided opinion even among the sitting judges" regarding
whether this specific Act was legally applicable in India. Ultimately, Chief
Justice Impey's interpretation, supported by the majority of the judges,
prevailed, leading to the imposition of capital punishment.
- Discrepancies
with Hindu and Muslim Laws: A critical aspect of the controversy was
that forgery was not considered a capital offense under either Hindu or
Muslim laws, the prevailing legal systems for Indians at the time. The
application of a British statute prescribing the death penalty for forgery
was unprecedented in Bengal; indeed, "No body in India had ever heard
of a man being hanged for forgery". This highlights a profound
conflict of laws and the imposition of an alien legal standard, which was
perceived as arbitrary and unjust.
The trial proceedings themselves were subject to intense
scrutiny and allegations of bias. The trial spanned eight consecutive days,
from June 8 to June 15, 1775, with court sessions often extending late into the
night. Allegations of procedural irregularities included:
- Judges'
Cross-Examination: The judges, including Impey, took an active role in
cross-examining defense witnesses in "minute detail". This
practice raised serious questions about their impartiality and the
integrity of the judicial process, as it blurred the lines between the
role of the bench and the prosecution.
- Denial
of Appeal: Nanda Kumar was explicitly denied the opportunity to appeal
his conviction to the King-in-Council in England. Furthermore, petitions
from Nanda Kumar's advocates to stay the execution until a decision from
the Council could be obtained, as well as appeals from Nawabs to defer the
sentence, were all rejected by the Supreme Court.
- Ex-Post-Facto
Law: The argument that the law was being applied retroactively to an
offense committed in 1765, before the establishment of the Supreme Court
and the full applicability of English law, was also dismissed.
On June 16, 1775, Chief Justice Impey summed up the case,
and both the judges and the jury unanimously delivered a verdict of
"guilty". Nanda Kumar was subsequently sentenced to death under the
provisions of the 1729 Act. The Nanda Kumar trial stands as a stark
illustration of the suppression of legal pluralism in colonial India. The
arbitrary imposition of English common law and statutes, often selectively
applied, clashed fundamentally with existing indigenous legal systems and local
customs. This created a legal environment ripe for abuse, where legal
principles could be conveniently invoked or ignored to serve the political
agenda of the colonial administration. The disregard for established local
legal traditions in favor of a foreign system, which could be more easily
manipulated to achieve desired political outcomes, served to undermine the very
legitimacy of the "rule of law" in the eyes of the colonized
population. This episode vividly demonstrates the inherent tension between
colonial power and the principles of equitable justice.
V. The Execution and Immediate Public Reaction
Maharaja Nanda Kumar was hanged in Calcutta on August 5,
1775. The execution took place at Cooly Bazaar, an area located north of the
present-day Vidyasagar Setu, near Fort William and the modern Hastings Bridge.
Despite the highly controversial nature of his conviction and the political
machinations surrounding his trial, Nanda Kumar reportedly maintained
remarkable dignity and composure throughout the proceedings and up to his final
moments. Alexander Macrabie, the Sheriff of Calcutta who oversaw the execution,
described Nanda Kumar's "aplomb and cheerfulness," noting that he
even requested his own servant to tie the cloth over his face.
The execution of Nanda Kumar sent shockwaves through both
the Indian and European communities in Calcutta. It "shocked Indians"
and "provoked strong protests from Hastings's critics and rivals, both in
India and in England". The event caused "horror among the native
population," leading many Brahmin families, for whom capital punishment
for forgery was alien to their legal and moral frameworks, to abandon Calcutta
in a profound act of protest. Even Europeans residing in Calcutta considered
the execution an "unsound act". Major Scott, a Company official,
testified that the incident became a pervasive topic of discussion throughout
the city. The widespread concern and the public outcry underscored a
deep-seated "resentment against the Company and its imperial rule".
The public outrage and the symbolic act of Brahmin families abandoning Calcutta
were far more than mere emotional reactions; they constituted a significant and
visible rejection of the legitimacy of the British judicial system and its
perceived arbitrary application of power. This public response laid bare the
deep cultural and legal alienation caused by colonial rule, revealing the
inherent fragility of British authority despite its military and legal
dominance. This perceived injustice and the imposition of foreign law led to a
profound withdrawal of consent and a delegitimization of the British legal
system in the eyes of the colonized. While the execution may have consolidated
immediate power for Hastings, it simultaneously sowed seeds of deeper resentment
and distrust, contributing to a lasting narrative of colonial oppression.
VI. Historical Interpretations: The "Judicial
Murder" Debate
The characterization of Maharaja Nanda Kumar's execution as
a "judicial murder" is a pervasive and widely accepted interpretation
in historical discourse. This view is famously encapsulated in the title of
Henry Beveridge's 1886 book, "The Trial of Maharaja Nanda Kumar: A
Narrative of a Judicial Murder". Several compelling arguments underpin
this interpretation:
- Warren
Hastings's Direct Motivation for Revenge: A central argument posits
that Hastings's primary motivation for orchestrating the forgery
prosecution was personal vendetta. After the Supreme Council found
Hastings guilty of bribery based on Nanda Kumar's accusations, Hastings
became a "bitter enemy" of Nanda Kumar and "decided to take
revenge". He is widely believed to have "orchestrated" the
forgery charges against Nanda Kumar. The swift transition from a dismissed
conspiracy charge to a successful forgery charge, which carried the death
penalty, suggests a deliberate strategic move by Hastings to eliminate a
formidable accuser.
- Chief
Justice Impey's Compromised Impartiality: The close personal
friendship between Chief Justice Elijah Impey and Warren Hastings is a
cornerstone of the "judicial murder" argument. This relationship
profoundly compromised the perceived independence of the judiciary ,
casting a long shadow over the fairness of the trial.
- Questionable
Jurisdiction and Applicability of English Law: Critics argue that the
Supreme Court's jurisdiction over an offense committed in 1765, prior to
the court's establishment, was legally dubious. Furthermore, the
imposition of capital punishment for forgery, a penalty alien to existing
Hindu and Muslim legal traditions in India, is seen as a fundamental abuse
of legal process and a clear example of the arbitrary application of
foreign law.
- Procedural
Irregularities: The trial was marred by several procedural issues that
contributed to its perception as unfair. These included the judges
themselves engaging in extensive cross-examination of witnesses , which
raised concerns about their neutrality. Additionally, Nanda Kumar was
denied the opportunity to appeal his sentence to the King-in-Council , and
all petitions to stay the execution were rejected.
- Benefit
to Hastings: The outcome of the trial undeniably served Warren
Hastings's interests, as the execution "clearly benefited Hastings
since it stemmed the tide of accusations against him".
While the "judicial murder" perspective is
dominant, some historical interpretations offer a more nuanced or even
counter-argument. P.J. Marshall, for instance, suggested that the independence
of the judges in the Nanda Kumar case "seems in retrospect to be beyond
question". Hastings himself vehemently denied accusations of instigating
Nanda Kumar's prosecution or influencing the verdict. During his later
impeachment trial, Hastings's defense often hinged on the argument that his actions,
while perhaps not conforming to British moral standards, were consistent with
the accepted norms of an Indian ruler, implying a different ethical framework.
It is also generally accepted that Nanda Kumar had "technically committed
forgery" , though the core debate remains on the disproportionate
application of capital punishment.
The enduring "judicial murder" debate is not
merely an academic exercise in historical accuracy; it reflects a deeper,
ongoing struggle over the moral legitimacy of British imperial power. The
persistence of this characterization, despite occasional attempts at a more
neutral interpretation, underscores the profound impact this event had on the
perception of colonial justice as inherently biased and serving imperial
interests. The perceived injustice of the trial led to its immediate condemnation
and the lasting "judicial murder" label. This label subsequently
became a powerful narrative tool, utilized by critics of Hastings, such as
Edmund Burke and Lord Macaulay , and later by Indian nationalists, to
delegitimize British rule. The debate itself, therefore, forms an integral part
of the Nanda Kumar case's legacy, representing a continuous re-evaluation of
colonial actions through a moral and ethical lens, rather than solely a legal
one.
VII. Long-Term Consequences and Enduring Legacy
The Nanda Kumar case left an indelible mark on the British
administration of justice in India and significantly shaped the relationship
between the judiciary and the executive. The trial exposed "major
flaws" in the practical operation of the newly established Supreme Court
and the Regulating Act of 1773. It vividly illustrated the "blurred lines
between politics and judiciary" and the pervasive "influence of
political power on legal proceedings" during the early years of British
rule. The outcome of the trial, particularly the execution of a prominent
accuser, "greatly enhanced the power of Warren Hastings and nobody dared
to bring an accusation against him" , demonstrating in no uncertain terms
the executive's capacity to dominate the judiciary in practice. The controversy
surrounding the case directly contributed to subsequent legislative reforms,
most notably the India Act of 1784. This Act aimed to exert "more
government control" over the East India Company by establishing the Board
of Control in England and further increasing the authority of the
Governor-General in India.
Upon his return to England in 1785, Warren Hastings faced
considerable opposition and was subjected to severe charges of corruption and
oppression during his tenure in India. The Nanda Kumar trial stood as a
"major ground" for his subsequent impeachment proceedings. Prominent
figures such as Edmund Burke and William Pitt the Younger led the parliamentary
attack against him. Hastings was formally impeached by the House of Commons in
1787 and subsequently tried before the House of Lords, a monumental trial that
spanned eight years, from 1788 to 1795. He was accused of "high crimes and
misdemeanors" based on British moral standards, with charges including
extortion (e.g., from Chait Singh and the Begums of Oudh) and various forms of
bribery. Despite the arduous and protracted nature of the trial, Hastings was
ultimately "honourably acquitted of all charges".
Sir Elijah Impey also faced an unsuccessful attempt at
impeachment in the House of Commons in 1788, specifically for his role and
"judicial misconduct" in Nanda Kumar's trial. While both Hastings and
Impey were ultimately acquitted in England, the very act of their impeachment,
fueled significantly by the Nanda Kumar case, demonstrates that the colonial
administration's actions were not immune to scrutiny within Britain. This
indicates a nascent, albeit imperfect, accountability mechanism and suggests
that the ethical standards of governance in India were beginning to be debated
and judged by metropolitan British values. This process laid crucial groundwork
for future reforms and criticisms of imperial conduct. The impeachment
proceedings, despite their outcome, signified a shift in the British political
landscape where the EIC's previously unchecked power was increasingly
questioned.
The Nanda Kumar case remains a profound "black spot of
Judiciary" in colonial history. It continues to be a prominent case in
Indian legal history, serving as a cautionary tale of how a justice system
"should 'not' be". Its enduring legacy is symbolized by the display
of Nanda Kumar's turban in the Victoria Memorial in Kolkata, a "forgotten
testament to a dark chapter in colonial history". The case serves as a
powerful reminder of the complex and often troubling interplay of power,
corruption, and justice during the formative years of British rule in India.
VIII. Conclusion
The trial and execution of Maharaja Nanda Kumar in 1775
stands as a defining moment in the history of British colonial India,
encapsulating a complex interplay of political ambition, entrenched corruption,
and the precarious nature of justice under imperial rule. The case originated
from Nanda Kumar's courageous, yet ultimately fatal, accusations of bribery
against Governor-General Warren Hastings, which were initially substantiated by
a faction within the Supreme Council. This challenge to Hastings's authority
triggered a fierce retaliatory response, culminating in the forgery trial that
led to Nanda Kumar's hanging.
The proceedings of the trial itself were deeply
controversial, earning the enduring label of a "judicial murder."
This characterization stems from the evident personal vendetta of Warren
Hastings, the compromised impartiality of Chief Justice Sir Elijah Impey due to
his close friendship with Hastings, and fundamental legal irregularities. These
irregularities included the dubious jurisdiction of the newly established
Supreme Court over a past offense and the arbitrary application of an English
capital punishment for forgery, a crime not similarly penalized under
prevailing Indian legal traditions. The public outrage that followed Nanda
Kumar's execution underscored a profound cultural and legal alienation,
revealing the fragility of British authority despite its military might.
While Warren Hastings and Sir Elijah Impey were ultimately
acquitted in their subsequent impeachment trials in England, the very fact of
these proceedings, heavily influenced by the Nanda Kumar affair, marked a
significant shift. It demonstrated a nascent, albeit imperfect, accountability
mechanism within the British Empire, where the ethical standards of colonial
governance began to be scrutinised by metropolitan values. The Nanda Kumar case
thus remains a potent symbol of the abuses of power inherent in colonial
administration and a stark reminder of how legal systems can be manipulated to
serve political ends. Its legacy continues to shape the discourse on justice,
sovereignty, and the complex historical relationship between India and Britain.
Sources used in the report
The Trial of Maharaja Nanda Kumar: A Narrative of a Judicial
Murder - Amazon.com
Trial
of Raja Nand Kumar (1775) : A Judicial Murder | PDF | Judge | Impeachment -
Scribd
digitalcommons.library.uab.edu
Key Cases of Supreme Court in Calcutta (1773) - GGSIPU Study
Material - All Clear Notes
Raja Nand Kumar Case Critical Analysis | PDF | Supreme Court Of
The United States
Parliament and the East India Company - UK Parliament
Nand
Kumar | India, Politician, Leader | Britannica
Warren Hastings | EBSCO Research Starters
Maharaja
Nandakumar - Wikipedia
First judicial Murder of India: Raja Nand Kumar Case - IJRASET
Hanging
of Nandan Kumar - Kolkata on Wheels
senate.gov
About Impeachment | Historical Overview - U.S. Senate
indiaspiritual.wordpress.com
Maharaja Nanda Kumar's execution by Warren Hastings |
Spiritual ...
The First Judicial Hanging in India: The tale of Raja Nanda
Kumar ...
ramauniversity.ac.in
www.ramauniversity.ac.in
Comments
Post a Comment