As the dust of politics settles down on statements made by a state-level senior leader on Raja Rammohun Roy – saying that Roy was a ‘British agent’ who started a vicious cycle of religious conversion ~ it is time to note where the leader had ‘slipped up’ before he tendered his apology. In today’s age social reformers, freedom-fighters are routinely being insulted in public fora, their achievements derided, devalued and their legacies being marginalized or erased.
When it comes to Raja Rammohun Roy, he occupies pride of place, a high social and cultural status. In ‘The Intellectual Roots of India’s Freedom Struggle’, written by Prithwindra Mukherjee, Rammohun Roy is the ‘pioneer’ in the genesis of nationalism in India. Highlighted in every history book is Rammohun Roy’s achievement to be the first to bring about a synthesis between religions of the East and West. This was made possible because of his vast knowledge of universal history. His deep reading of Sanskrit, Latin, Greek, Hebrew, Arabian and Persian texts gave him the ability to understand core principles while removing deadwood of the past. Mukherjee explained, “He restored traditional spiritual teaching of the Vedanta in the new universal faith that he founded. Irrefutable in his arguments, culling support from trustworthy Sanskrit texts, he gave back to Brahmanism its purest monotheistic vision.”
In Brahmo Sabha, later Brahmo Samaj, he institutionalized his vision, his dream of a new world based on equality, liberty, justice, and brotherhood. There was a price to be paid too: he was mercilessly attacked when he denounced the social injustices perpetuated by Hindu orthodoxy, notably the practice of Sati, when widows at the time of their spouse’s cremation, immolated themselves. Coming back to modern-day accusations of Rammohun Roy being a ‘British agent’, there is need to know more about what the Raja’s mission was in Britain in 1831. This is where Prof Amar Farooqui’s recent ‘Governors of Empire’ opens up vistas of financial skullduggery, and bureaucratic delays by chief functionaries of East India Company.
“Rammohun Roy’s presence in London when the Privy Council took up the Dharma Sabha’s appeal (against sati abolition) was a coincidence,” explained the Professor. “Rammohun Roy had travelled to England primarily to carry out a task assigned to him by the Mughal Emperor. He had been sent by Akbar Shah as his official envoy to George IV to apprise the British Monarch of the East India Company’s breach of faith in not adhering to the commitment it had made in 1765 to render to the imperial treasury the annual peshkash of 26 lakh rupees as the Emperor’s share of the revenues of Bengal, Bihar and Orissa,” Prof Farooqui pointed out. The time-line of this task spanned over sixty years; it was Warren Hastings who had discontinued the remittance in the 1770s.
“When the Company took over the civil and military management of Delhi in 1803, it resumed partial payment of the peshkash amounting to Rs 11 lakh per annum. Shah Alam was assured that this was a provisional arrangement; the Company prevaricated, and by the late 1820s, had reneged on its commitment. Akbar Shah had pursued the matter vigorously since his accession,” noted the professor. It was Governor-General Amherst who was not inclined to recommend the increase in peshkash. His position was that the sum paid to the emperor was merely an allowance for his maintenance and had nothing to do with the Bengal peshkash.
Sixty years after the grant of diwani, it was easy to pretend that there was no commitment on the part of the Company. What did the Mughal Emperor do now? His advisors, wrote the professor, persuaded him to send an emissary to London to acquaint the British monarch with the Company’s refusal to meet its obligations, enshrined in documents, towards the Emperor. As the primary overlord of the Company, the British monarch was expected to discipline officials. The name of Rammohun Roy, who at this time did not have the title of ‘Raja’, was put forth for the mission. The proposal was given concrete shape by a prominent court official Khwaja Farid who persuaded Rammohun Roy to undertake the responsibility. Rammohun’s family had been connected with the Mughal Court for at least two generations.
While summoning Rammohun to Delhi in 1828, the Emperor made it a point to refer to the services rendered to Shah Alam by Rammohun’s grandfather, Brajabinod. “Rammohun was formally designed elchi ~ envoy, a Turco-Mongol word frequently used for a representative engaged in peace negotiations. As befitting his new status, the title of ‘Raja’ was conferred on him. Henceforth he was known as Raja Rammohun Roy who arrived in England in April 1831,” narrated Prof Farooqui. Despite the obvious hostility of Company officials, Rammohun was able to meet the king, George IV’s successor William IV (1830-1837), and present the Akbar Shah epistle addressed to George IV. He was an invitee at the coronation ceremony of William IV held in September 1831.
The Company’s hostility and the refusal of its London headquarters to officially inform Rammohun of the outcome of the directors’ deliberations about the peshkash, left him in a state of despair. For over a year, he was unsure about where he stood with respect to the claim. Modern readers would be aware of such financial deceptions and delays in the corporate world. Such was the case with Rammohun Roy. Prof Farooqui pointed out: “With his knowledge of English legal terminology, Rammohun had given final shape to the letter which incorporated the Mughal Emperor’s understanding of his position ~ namely that he was a sovereign within his domain, although the Company had de facto authority. This basic premise was questioned neither by the British government nor by the directors. The acceptance of the letter, from one sovereign to another, itself amounted to a recognition of the Mughal Emperor’s status.
In his letter Akbar Shah addressed the British monarch as ‘My Brother’, declaring at the outset that he was writing to him ‘with the language of fraternal equality’. Mindful of his sovereign status, he stated in the concluding paragraph: “I will not condescend to accept, and Your Majesty will disdain to confer as a favour that which is due as a right.” The mission did not yield much in monetary terms. In February 1833, the directors agreed to increase the peshkash from Rs 12 lakh to Rs 15 lakh per annum. Rammohun Roy was disappointed with the decision and did not recommend its acceptance. There were delays by the Company, and even as he was contemplating his future course of action, he died in September 1833 at Bristol, leaving the question of the peshkash unsettled. A tragic end to a pioneer’s life.
But the story does not end here… With Rammohun Roy removed from the scene, there were no further negotiations with the directors about royal prerogatives and the figure of Rs 3 lakh was taken as final. In January 1834, Calcutta received instructions that the emperor be informed of the offer to enhance the peshkash to Rs 15 lakhs annual on the condition that he would renounce all further claims. Left with no other option, the emperor reluctantly agreed to the settlement. However, there was one more hurdle: the Company, much to the Emperor’s surprise, put conditions on how the additional sum could be utilized ~ something which Akbar Shah was unwilling to concede.
His priority, the Professor pointed out, was to provide a regular allowance for the heirs of Raja Rammohun Roy out of the additional sum of Rs 3 lakhs. Four years had gone by, and in 1837, Roy’s close friend Dwarkanath Tagore stepped in to prepare a memorandum for Akbar Shah. It provided a list of beneficiaries among whom the enhanced amount would be distributed. Rammohun’s sons, Radhaprasad and Ramaprasad, together were to receive Rs 22,500 annually, and the rest would be distributed among royal family-members.
Akbar Shah had made a solemn commitment to his envoy: he was firm that he could not forsake Rammohun Roy’s heirs. The East India Company declined to release the additional sum if a part of it was to go ‘to individuals not being members of the Royal Family and who have no claim on the bounty of the British Government’. Despite financial difficulties, Akbar Shah firmly stuck to his decision.
In his reply to the Delhi resident’s communication of January 1837 on the subject, he declared, “Roy Radhaprasad and Roy Rumaprasad, (were) the sons of Rajah Rammohun Roy (who went to England as an Ambassador…and who departed this life while engaged in my service)… consequently I refuse to take the additional allowance (peshkash)”. In September 1837 Emperor Akbar Shah passed away; his son Bahadur Shah became Emperor and he too rejected the Company’s conditions. The issue was destined to remain unresolved till the end of the Mughal monarchy. One hundred and eighty-eight years after the Emperor’s passing, we wonder who was whose ‘agent’; and who wore the crown of dedication and loyalty to their subjects.
(The writer is a researcherauthor on history and heritage issues, and a former deputy curator of Pradhanmantri Sangrahalaya)