Freda Bedi Cont'd (#3)

This is a broad, catch-all category of works that fit best here and not elsewhere. If you haven't found it someplace else, you might want to look here.

Re: Freda Bedi Cont'd (#3)

Postby admin » Sun Jun 13, 2021 9:07 am

Part 1 of 2

Arthashastra
by Wikipedia
Accessed: 6/13/21



Arthashastra
Author Kautilya
Country India
Language Sanskrit
Subject Statecraft, Economic policy and Military strategy
Publication date 3rd century BCE
Text Arthashastra at Wikisource

The Arthaśāstra (Sanskrit: अर्थशास्त्र, IAST: Arthaśāstra) is an ancient Indian Sanskrit treatise on statecraft, economic policy and military strategy.[1][2][3] Kautilya, also identified as Vishnugupta and Chanakya, is traditionally credited as the author of the text.[4][5] The latter was a scholar at Takshashila, the teacher and guardian of Emperor Chandragupta Maurya.[6] Some scholars believe them to be the same person,[7] while most have questioned this identification.[8][9] The text is likely to be the work of several authors over centuries.[10] Composed, expanded and redacted between the 2nd century BCE and 3rd century CE,[11] the Arthashastra was influential until the 12th century, when it disappeared. It was rediscovered in 1905 by R. Shamasastry, who published it in 1909.[12] The first English translation was published in 1915.[13]

The title Arthashastra is often translated to "the science of wealth" (अर्थ),[14][15] but the book has a broader scope.[16] It includes books on the nature of government, law, civil and criminal court systems, ethics, economics, markets and trade, the methods for screening ministers, diplomacy, theories on war, nature of peace, and the duties and obligations of a king.[17][18][19] The text incorporates Hindu philosophy,[20] includes ancient economic and cultural details on agriculture, mineralogy, mining and metals, animal husbandry, medicine, forests and wildlife.[21]

The Arthashastra explores issues of social welfare, the collective ethics that hold a society together, advising the king that in times and in areas devastated by famine, epidemic and such acts of nature, or by war, he should initiate public projects such as creating irrigation waterways and building forts around major strategic holdings and towns and exempt taxes on those affected.[22] The text was influential on other Hindu texts that followed, such as the sections on kings, governance and legal procedures included in Manusmriti.[23][24]

History of the manuscripts

The text was considered lost by colonial era scholars, until a manuscript was discovered in 1905.[25] A copy of the Arthashastra in Sanskrit, written on palm leaves, was presented by a Tamil Brahmin from Tanjore to the newly opened Mysore Oriental Library headed by Benjamin Lewis Rice.[12] The text was identified by the librarian Rudrapatna Shamasastry as the Arthashastra. During 1905–1909, Shamasastry published English translations of the text in installments, in journals Indian Antiquary and Mysore Review.[25][26]

Two books are attributed to Chanakya: Arthashastra, and Chanakya Niti, also known as Chanakya Neeti-shastra. The Arthashastra was discovered in 1905 by librarian Rudrapatna Shamasastry in an uncatalogued group of ancient palm-leaf manuscripts donated by an unknown pandit to the Oriental Research Institute Mysore.

Formerly known as the Oriental Library, the Oriental Research Institute (ORI) at Mysore, India, is a research institute which collects, exhibits, edits, and publishes rare manuscripts written in various scripts like Devanagari (Sanskrit), Brahmic (Kannada), Nandinagari (Sanskrit), Grantha, Malayalam, Tigalari, etc.

The Oriental Library was started in 1891 under the patronage of Maharaja Chamarajendra Wadiyar X... It was a part of the Department of Education until 1916, in which year it became part of the newly established University of Mysore. The Oriental Library was renamed as the Oriental Research Institute in 1943.

From the year 1893 to date the ORI has published nearly two hundred titles. The library features rare collections such as the Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics by James Hastings, A Vedic Concordance by Maurice Bloomfield, and critical editions of the Ramayana and Mahabharata. It was the first public library in Mysore city for research and editing of manuscripts. The prime focus was on Indology. The institute publishes an annual journal called Mysore Orientalist. Its most famous publications include Kautilya's Arthashastra, written in the 4th century BC, edited by Dr. R. Shamashastri, which brought international fame to the institute when published in 1909.

One day a man from Tanjore handed over a manuscript of Arthashastra written on dried palm leaves to Dr Rudrapatnam Shamashastry, the librarian of Mysore Government Oriental Library now ORI. Shamashastry's job was to look after the library's ancient manuscripts. He had never seen anything like these palm leaves before. Here was a book that would revolutionise the knowledge of India's great past. This palm leaf manuscript is preserved in the library, now named Oriental Research Institute. The pages of the book are filled with 1500-year-old Grantha script. It looks like as if they have been printed but the words have been inscribed by hand.
Other copies of Arthashastra were later discovered later in other parts of India.[1]

In this context, my mind remembering a day which was the His Excellency Krishnaraja Wodeyar went to Germany at the time of Dr. R. Shamashastry were working as a curator of Oriental Library, Mysore, The King sat in a meeting held in Germany and introduced himself as the King of Mysore State. Immediately a man stood up and asked, "Are you from our Dr. R. Shamashastry's Mysore?" Because the Arthashastra edited by him took a fame worldwide. The King wondered and came back to Mysore immediately to see Dr. R. Shamashastry, and also Dr. R. Shamashastry appointed as Asthana Vidwan. Sritattvanidhi, is a compilation of slokas by Krishnaraja Wodeyar III. Three edited manuscripts Navaratnamani-mahatmyam (a work on gemology), Tantrasara-sangraha (a work on sculptures and architecture), and Vaidashastra-dipika (an ayurvedic text), Rasa-kaumudi (on mercurial medicine) all of them with English and Kannada translation, are already in advanced stages of printing.

Oriental Research Institute

The ORI houses over 45,000 Palm leaf manuscript bundles and the 75,000 works on those leaves. The manuscripts are palm leaves cut to a standard size of 150 by 35 mm (5.9 by 1.4 in). Brittle palm leaves are sometimes softened by scrubbing a paste made of ragi and then used by the ancients for writing, similar to the use of papyrus in ancient Egypt. Manuscripts are organic materials that run the risk of decay and are prone to be destroyed by silverfish. To preserve them the ORI applies lemon grass oil on the manuscripts which acts like a pesticide. The lemon grass oil also injects natural fluidity into the brittle palm leaves and the hydrophobic nature of the oil keeps the manuscripts dry so that the text is not lost to decay due to humidity.

The conventional method followed at the ORI was to preserve manuscripts by capturing them in microfilm, which then necessitated the use of a microfilm reader for viewing or studying. Once the ORI has digitized the manuscripts, the text can be viewed and manipulated by a computer. Software is then used to put together disjointed pieces of manuscripts and to correct or fill in any missing text. In this manner, the manuscripts are restored and enhanced. The original palm leaf manuscripts are also on reference at the ORI for those interested.

-- Oriental Research Institute Mysore, by Wikipedia


The Arthashastra, which discusses monetary and fiscal policies, welfare, international relations, and war strategies in detail. The text also outlines the duties of a ruler. Some scholars believe that Arthashastra is actually a compilation of a number of earlier texts written by various authors, and Chanakya might have been one of these authors (see above).[9]
Chanakya Niti, which is a collection of aphorisms, said to be selected by Chanakya from the various shastras.

-- Chanakya, by Wikipedia


During 1923–1924, Julius Jolly and Richard Schmidt published a new edition of the text, which was based on a Malayalam script manuscript in the Bavarian State Library. In the 1950s, fragmented sections of a north Indian version of Arthashastra were discovered in form of a Devanagari manuscript in a Jain library in Patan, Gujarat. A new edition based on this manuscript was published by Muni Jina Vijay in 1959. In 1960, R. P. Kangle published a critical edition of the text, based on all the available manuscripts.[26] Numerous translations and interpretations of the text have been published since then.[25]

The text is an ancient treatise written in 1st millennium BCE Sanskrit, coded, dense and can be interpreted in many ways, with English and Sanskrit being grammatically and syntactically different languages.[27] It has been called, by Patrick Olivelle—whose translation was published in 2013 by Oxford University Press—as the "most difficult translation project I have ever undertaken", parts of the text are still opaque after a century of modern scholarship, and the translation of Kautilya's masterpiece [of] intrigue and political text remains unsatisfactory.[27]

Authorship, date of writing, and structure

The authorship and date of writing are unknown, and there is evidence that the surviving manuscripts are not original and have been modified in their history but were most likely completed in the available form between 2nd-century BCE to 3rd-century CE.[28] Olivelle states that the surviving manuscripts of the Arthashastra are the product of a transmission that has involved at least three major overlapping divisions or layers, which together consist of 15 books, 150 chapters and 180 topics.[29] The first chapter of the first book is an ancient table of contents, while the last chapter of the last book is a short 73 verse epilogue asserting that all thirty two Yukti – elements of correct reasoning methods – were deployed to create the text.[29]

Avoid War
One can lose a war as easily as one can win.
War is inherently unpredictable.
War is also expensive. Avoid war.
Try Upaya (four strategies).
Then Sadgunya (six forms of non-war pressure).
Understand the opponent and seek to outwit him.
When everything fails, resort to military force.

—Arthashastra Books 2.10, 6-7, 10[30]


A notable structure of the treatise is that while all chapters are primarily prose, each transitions into a poetic verse towards its end, as a marker, a style that is found in many ancient Hindu Sanskrit texts where the changing poetic meter or style of writing is used as a syntax code to silently signal that the chapter or section is ending.[29] All 150 chapters of the text also end with a colophon stating the title of the book it belongs in, the topics contained in that book (like an index), the total number of titles in the book and the books in the text.[29] Finally, the Arthashastra text numbers it 180 topics consecutively, and does not restart from one when a new chapter or a new book starts.[29]

The division into 15, 150 and 180 of books, chapters and topics respectively was probably not accidental, states Olivelle, because ancient authors of major Hindu texts favor certain numbers, such as 18 Parvas in the epic Mahabharata.[31] The largest book is the second, with 1,285 sentences, while the smallest is eleventh, with 56 sentences. The entire book has about 5,300 sentences on politics, governance, welfare, economics, protecting key officials and king, gathering intelligence about hostile states, forming strategic alliances, and conduct of war, exclusive of its table of contents and the last epilogue-style book.[31]

Authorship

Stylistic differences within some sections of the surviving manuscripts suggest that it likely includes the work of several authors over the centuries. There is no doubt, states Olivelle, that "revisions, errors, additions and perhaps even subtractions have occurred" in Arthashastra since its final redaction in 300 CE or earlier.[32]

Three names for the text's author are used in various historical sources:

Kauṭilya or Kauṭalya

The text identifies its author by the name "Kauṭilya" or its variant "Kauṭalya": both spellings appear in manuscripts, commentaries, and references in other ancient texts; it is not certain which one of these is the original spelling of the author's name.[33] This person was probably the author of the original recension of Arthashastra: this recension must have been based on works by earlier writers, as suggested by the Arthashastra's opening verse, which states that its author consulted the so-called "Arthashastras" to compose a new treatise.[34]
Vishakhadatta's Mudrarakshasa refers to Kauṭilya as kutila-mati ("crafty-minded"), which has led to suggestions that the word "Kauṭilya" is derived from kutila, the Sanskrit word for "crafty". However, such a derivation is grammatically impossible, and Vishkhadatta's usage is simply a pun.[35] The word "Kauṭilya" or "Kauṭalya" appears to be the name of a gotra (lineage), and is used in this sense in the later literature and inscriptions.[33]

Vishnugupta

A verse at the end of the text identifies its author as "Vishnugupta" (Viṣṇugupta), stating that Vishnugupta himself composed both the text and its commentary, after noticing "many errors committed by commentators on treatises".[36] R. P. Kangle theorized that Vishnugupta was the personal name of the author while Chanakya (Cāṇakya) was the name of his gotra. Others, such as Thomas Burrow and Patrick Olivelle, point out that none of the earliest sources that refer to Chanakya mention the name "Vishnugupta". According to these scholars, "Vishnugupta" may have been the personal name of the author whose gotra name was "Kautilya": this person, however, was different from Chanakya. Historian K C Ojha theorizes that Vishnugupta was the redactor of the final recension of the text.[37]

One of the earliest Sanskrit literatures to identify Chanakya with Vishnugupta explicitly was the Panchatantra.

The Panchatantra is an ancient Indian collection of interrelated animal fables...The text's author has been attributed to Vishnu Sharma [Vishnugupta Sharma] in some recensions and Vasubhaga in others, both of which may be pen names....

One version reached Europe in the 11th century. To quote Edgerton (1924): "most of the stories contained in it have "gone down" into the folklore of the story-loving Hindus."...

Most European versions of the text are derivative works of the 12th-century Hebrew version of Panchatantra by Rabbi Joel. In Germany, its translation in 1480 by Anton von Pforr has been widely read.

The prelude section of the Panchatantra identifies an octogenarian Brahmin named Vishnusharma (IAST: Viṣṇuśarman) as its author. He is stated to be teaching the principles of good government to three princes of Amarasakti. It is unclear, states Patrick Olivelle, a professor of Sanskrit and Indian religions, if Vishnusharma was a real person or himself a literary invention. Some South Indian recensions of the text, as well as Southeast Asian versions of Panchatantra attribute the text to Vasubhaga, states Olivelle. Based on the content and mention of the same name in other texts dated to ancient and medieval era centuries, most scholars agree that Vishnusharma is a fictitious name....

Though the text is now known as Panchatantra, the title found in old manuscript versions varies regionally, and includes names such as Tantrakhyayika, Panchakhyanaka, Panchakhyana and Tantropakhyana. The suffix akhyayika and akhyanaka mean "little story" or "little story book" in Sanskrit.

The text was translated into Pahlavi in 550 CE, which forms the latest limit of the text's existence. The earliest limit is uncertain. It quotes identical verses from Arthasastra, which is broadly accepted to have been completed by the early centuries of the common era...

-- Panchatantra, by Wikipedia


K. C. Ojha proposes that the traditional identification of Vishnugupta with Kauṭilya was caused by a confusion of the text's editor and its originator. He suggests that Vishnugupta was a redactor of the original work of Kauṭilya. Thomas Burrow suggests that Chanakya and Kauṭilya may have been two different people.

-- Chanakya, by Wikipedia


Identity

He is generally called Chanakya, but in his capacity as author of the Arthaśhāstra, is generally referred to as Kautilya. The Arthaśhāstra identifies its author by the name Kautilya, except for one verse which refers to him by the name Vishnugupta. One of the earliest Sanskrit literary texts to explicitly identify Chanakya with Vishnugupta was Vishnu Sarma's Panchatantra in the third century B.C.E.

A prior time-limit for the Tantrakhyayika may be determined by a reference which it makes to Chanakya. Its author, at stanza 2, pays homage to six authors of hand-books for princes, among them to "Chanakya, the great," whose Artha-sastra, very recently found and published, was known to the author of our text and used by him. Chanakya, otherwise known as Kautilya or Vishnugupta, was the prime-minister of the first king of the Mauryan dynasty, king Chandragupta or [x] of Pataliputra or [x] 821-297 B.C., at whose court Megasthenes lived as ambassador of Seleukos Nikator. The earliest time-limit for the Tantrakhyayika would accordingly be about 800 b.c.


-- The Panchatantra: A Collection of Ancient Hindu Tales In Its Oldest Recension, The Kashmirian, Entitled Tantrakhyayika, by Dr. Johannes Hertel, 1915


Not every historian accepts that Kautilya, Chanakya, and Vishnugupta are the same person. K.C. Ojha suggests that Viṣṇugupta was a redactor of the original work of Kauṭilya, and that the traditional identification of Viṣṇugupta with Kauṭilya was caused by a confusion of the editor with the original author. Thomas Burrow suggests that Cāṇakya and Kauṭilya may have been two different people. The date of origin of the Arthahastra remains problematic, with suggested dates ranging from the fourth century B.C.E. to the third century C.E. [700 years] Most authorities agree that the essence of the book was originally written during the early Mauryan Period (321–296 B.C.E.), but that much of the existing text is post-Mauryan.

-- Kautilya, by New World Encyclopedia[/quote]


Chanakya

The penultimate paragraph of the Arthashastra states that the treatise was authored by the person who rescued the country from the Nanda kings, although it does not explicitly name this person.[38] The Maurya prime minister Chanakya played a pivotal role in the overthrow of the Nanda dynasty. Several later texts identify Chanakya with Kautilya or Vishnugupta: Among the earliest sources, Mudrarakshasa is the only one that uses all three names - Kauṭilya, Vishnugupta, and Chanakya - to refer to the same person. Other early sources use the name Chanakya (e.g. Panchatantra), Vishnugupta (e.g. Kamandaka's Nitisara), both Chanakya and Vishnugupta (Dandin's Dashakumaracharita), or Kautilya (e.g. Bana's Kadambari).[35] The Puranas (Vishnu, Vayu, and Matsya) are the only among the ancient texts that use the name "Kautilya" (instead of the more common "Chanakya") to describe the Maurya prime minister.[35]

Scholars such as R. P. Kangle theorize that the text was authored by the Maurya prime minister Chanakya.[39] Others, such as Olivelle and Thomas Trautmann, argue that this verse is a later addition, and that the identification of Chanakya and Kautilya is a relatively later development that occurred during the Gupta period. Trautmann points out that none of the earlier sources that refer to Chanakya mention his authorship of the Arthashastra.[39] Olivelle proposes that in an attempt to present the Guptas as the legitimate successors of the Mauryas, the author of political treatise followed by the Guptas was identified with the Maurya prime minister.[40]

Chronology

Olivelle states that the oldest layer of text, the "sources of the Kauṭilya", dates from the period 150 BCE – 50 CE. The next phase of the work's evolution, the "Kauṭilya Recension", can be dated to the period 50–125 CE. Finally, the "Śāstric Redaction" (i.e., the text as we have it today) is dated period 175–300 CE.[28]

The Arthasastra is mentioned and dozens of its verses have been found on fragments of manuscript treatises buried in ancient Buddhist monasteries of northwest China, Afghanistan and northwest Pakistan. This includes the Spitzer Manuscript (c. 200 CE) discovered near Kizil in China and the birch bark scrolls now a part of the Bajaur Collection (1st to 2nd century CE) discovered in the ruins of a Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Buddhist site in 1999, state Harry Falk and Ingo Strauch.[41]

The Spitzer Manuscript is the oldest surviving philosophical manuscript in Sanskrit, and possibly the oldest Sanskrit manuscript of any type related to Buddhism and Hinduism discovered so far. The Spitzer Manuscript was found in 1906 in the form of a pile of more than 1,000 palm leaf fragments in the Ming-oi, Kizil Caves, China during the third Turfan expedition headed by Albert Grünwedel. The calibrated age of the manuscript by Carbon-14 technique is 130 CE (80–230 CE). According to the Indologist Eli Franco, the palaeographical features suggest a date closer to 200–230 CE....

The manuscript fragments are actually copies of a collection of older Buddhist and Hindu treatises....

In addition to the Mahabharata, the Spitzer Manuscript refers to or includes sections from the Arthashastra and the Manusmriti (juridical chapters)...

The decayed Spitzer Manuscript does not survive in the form it was discovered in 1906, and portions of it were likely destroyed during the World War II. Of what survives, predominant portions are now at the Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin (Berlin State Library) in Germany and cataloged as SHT 810. Some surviving fragments are now at the British Library, and are cataloged as Or 15005/6–8, Or 15005/17–21 and Or 15005/30–32.

-- Spitzer Manuscript, by Wikipedia


Geography

The author of Arthashastra uses the term gramakuta to describe a village official or chief, which, according to Thomas Burrow, suggests that he was a native of the region that encompasses present-day Gujarat and northern Maharashtra. Other evidences also support this theory: the text mentions that the shadow of a sundial disappears at noon during the month of Ashadha (June-July), and that the day and night are equal during the months of Chaitra (March-April) and Ashvayuja (September-October). This is possible only in the areas lying along the Tropic of Cancer, which passes through central India, from Gujarat in the west to Bengal in the east.[42]

The author of the text appears to be most familiar with the historical regions of Avanti and Ashmaka, which included parts of present-day Gujarat and Maharashtra. He provides precise annual rainfall figures for these historical regions in the text.[42] Plus, he shows familiarity with sea-trade, which can be explained by the existence of ancient sea ports such as Sopara in the Gujarat-Maharashtra region.[43] Lastly, the gotra name Kauṭilya is still found in Maharashtra.[42]

Translation of the title

Different scholars have translated the word "arthashastra" in different ways.

• R.P. Kangle: "Artha is the sustenance or livelihood of men, and Arthaśāstra is the science of the means to Artha"[44] "science of politics";[45]
• A.L. Basham: a "treatise on polity"[14]
• D.D. Kosambi: "science of material gain"[14]
• G.P. Singh: "science of polity"[14]
• Roger Boesche: "science of political economy"[14]
• Patrick Olivelle: "science of politics"[15]

Artha (prosperity, wealth, purpose, meaning, economic security) is one of the four aims of human life in Hinduism (Puruṣārtha),[46] the others being dharma (laws, duties, rights, virtues, right way of living),[47] kama (pleasure, emotions, sex)[48] and moksha (spiritual liberation).[49] Śāstra is the Sanskrit word for "rules" or "science".

Organisation

Arthashastra is divided into 15 book titles, 150 chapters and 180 topics, as follows:[50]

Title / English / Title / English
Raja King Yuvaraja Prince
Senapati Chief, armed forces Parishad Council
Nagarika Town manager Pauravya vaharika City overseer
Mantri Minister Karmika Works officer
Samnidhatr Treasurer Karmantika Director, factories
Antapala Frontier commander Antar vimsaka Head, guards
Dauvarika Chief guard Gopa Revenue officer
Purohita Chaplain Karanika Accounts officer
Prasastr Administrator Nayaka Commander
Upayukta Junior officer Pradeshtri Magistrate
Sunyapala Regent Adhyaksha Superintendent


1. On the Subject of Training, 21 chapters, Topics 1-18
2. On the Activities of Superintendents,
36 chapters, Topics 19-56 (Largest book)
3. On Justices, 20 chapters, Topics 57-75
4. Eradication of Thorns, 13 chapters, Topics 76-88
5. On Secret Conduct, 6 chapters, Topics 89-95
6. Basis of the Circle, 2 chapters, Topics 96-97
7. On the Sixfold Strategy, 18 chapters, Topics 98-126
8. On the Subject of Calamities, 5 chapters, Topics 127-134
9. Activity of a King preparing to March into Battle,
7 chapters, Topics 135-146
10. On War, 6 chapters, Topics 147-159
11. Conduct toward Confederacies, 1 chapter, Topics 160-161
12. On the Weaker King, 5 chapters, Topics 162-170
13. Means of Capturing a Fort, 5 chapters, Topics 171-176
14. On Esoteric Practices, 4 chapters, Topics 177-179
15. Organization of a Scientific Treatise, 1 chapter, Topic 180

Contents

The need for law, economics and government


The ancient Sanskrit text opens, in chapter 2 of Book 1 (the first chapter is table of contents), by acknowledging that there are a number of extant schools with different theories on proper and necessary number of fields of knowledge, and asserts they all agree that the science of government is one of those fields.[52] It lists the school of Brihaspati, the school of Usanas, the school of Manu and itself as the school of Kautilya as examples.[53][54]

सुखस्य मूलं धर्मः । धर्मस्य मूलं अर्थः । अर्थस्य मूलं राज्यं । राज्यस्य मूलं इन्द्रिय जयः । इन्द्रियाजयस्य मूलं विनयः । विनयस्य मूलं वृद्धोपसेवा॥

The root of happiness is Dharma (ethics, righteousness), the root of Dharma is Artha (economy, polity), the root of Artha is right governance, the root of right governance is victorious inner-restraint, the root of victorious inner-restraint is humility, the root of humility is serving the aged.

— Kautilya, Chanakya Sutra 1-6[55]


The school of Usanas asserts, states the text, that there is only one necessary knowledge, the science of government because no other science can start or survive without it.[52][53] The school of Brihaspati asserts, according to Arthashastra, that there are only two fields of knowledge, the science of government and the science of economics (Varta[note 1] of agriculture, cattle and trade) because all other sciences are intellectual and mere flowering of the temporal life of man.[52][54] The school of Manu asserts, states Arthashastra, that there are three fields of knowledge, the Vedas, the science of government and the science of economics (Varta of agriculture, cattle and trade) because these three support each other, and all other sciences are special branch of the Vedas.[52][54]

The Arthashastra then posits its own theory that there are four necessary fields of knowledge, the Vedas, the Anvikshaki (philosophy of Samkhya, Yoga and Lokayata),[note 2] the science of government and the science of economics (Varta of agriculture, cattle and trade). It is from these four that all other knowledge, wealth and human prosperity is derived.[52][54] The Kautilya text thereafter asserts that it is the Vedas that discuss what is Dharma (right, moral, ethical) and what is Adharma (wrong, immoral, unethical), it is the Varta that explain what creates wealth and what destroys wealth, it is the science of government that illuminates what is Nyaya (justice, expedient, proper) and Anyaya (unjust, inexpedient, improper), and that it is Anvishaki (philosophy)[58] that is the light of these sciences, as well as the source of all knowledge, the guide to virtues, and the means to all kinds of acts.[52][54] He says of government in general:

Without government, rises disorder as in the Matsya nyayamud bhavayati (proverb on law of fishes). In the absence of governance, the strong will swallow the weak. In the presence of governance, the weak resists the strong.[59][60]


Raja (king)

The best king is the Raja-rishi, the sage king.[61][62]

The Raja-rishi has self-control and does not fall for the temptations of the senses, he learns continuously and cultivates his thoughts, he avoids false and flattering advisors and instead associates with the true and accomplished elders, he is genuinely promoting the security and welfare of his people, he enriches and empowers his people, he practices ahimsa[citation needed](non-violence against all living beings), he lives a simple life and avoids harmful people or activities, he keeps away from another's wife nor craves for other people's property.[61][63][62] The greatest enemies of a king are not others, but are these six: lust, anger, greed, conceit, arrogance and foolhardiness.[61][58] A just king gains the loyalty of his people not because he is king, but because he is just.[61][62]

Officials, advisors and checks on government

Book 1 and Book 2 of the text discusses how the crown prince should be trained and how the king himself should continue learning, selecting his key Mantri (ministers), officials, administration, staffing of the court personnel, magistrates and judges.[64]

Topic 2 of the Arthashastra, or chapter 5 of Book 1, is dedicated to the continuous training and development of the king, where the text advises that he maintain a counsel of elders, from each field of various sciences, whose accomplishments he knows and respects.[62][65] Topic 4 of the text describes the process of selecting the ministers and key officials, which it states must be based on king's personal knowledge of their honesty and capacity.[66] Kautilya first lists various alternate different opinions among extant scholars on how key government officials should be selected, with Bharadvaja suggesting honesty and knowledge be the screen for selection, Kaunapadanta suggesting that heredity be favored, Visalaksha suggesting that king should hire those whose weaknesses he can exploit, Parasara cautioning against hiring vulnerable people because they will try to find king's vulnerability to exploit him instead, and yet another who insists that experience and not theoretical qualification be primary selection criterion.[66]

Kautilya, after describing the conflicting views on how to select officials, asserts that a king should select his Amatyah (ministers and high officials) based on the capacity to perform that they have shown in their past work, the character and their values that is accordance with the role.[67] The Amatyah, states Arthashastra, must be those with following Amatya-sampat: well trained, with foresight, with strong memory, bold, well spoken, enthusiastic, excellence in their field of expertise, learned in theoretical and practical knowledge, pure of character, of good health, kind and philanthropic, free from procrastination, free from ficklemindedness, free from hate, free from enmity, free from anger, and dedicated to dharma.[68][69] Those who lack one or a few of these characteristics must be considered for middle or lower positions in the administration, working under the supervision of more senior officials.[68] The text describes tests to screen for the various Amatya-sampat.[68]

The Arthashastra, in Topic 6, describes checks and continuous measurement, in secret, of the integrity and lack of integrity of all ministers and high officials in the kingdom.[70] Those officials who lack integrity must be arrested. Those who are unrighteous, should not work in civil and criminal courts. Those who lack integrity in financial matters or fall for the lure of money must not be in revenue collection or treasury, states the text, and those who lack integrity in sexual relationships must not be appointed to Vihara services (pleasure grounds).[71] The highest level ministers must have been tested and have successfully demonstrated integrity in all situations and all types of allurements.[71][72]

Chapter 9 of Book 1 suggests that the king maintain a council and a Purohit (chaplain, spiritual guide) for his personal counsel. The Purohit, claims the text, must be one who is well educated in the Vedas and its six Angas.[68]

Causes of impoverishment, lack of motivation and disaffection among people

Image
Chanakya portrait in 1915 Shamasastry's Arthashastra translation.

The Arthashastra, in Topic 109, Book 7 lists the causes of disaffection, lack of motivation and increase in economic distress among people. It opens by stating that wherever "good people are snubbed, and evil people are embraced" distress increases.[73] Wherever officials or people initiate unprecedented violence in acts or words, wherever there is unrighteous acts of violence, disaffection grows.[74] When the king rejects the Dharma, that is "does what ought not to be done, does not do what ought to be done, does not give what ought to be given, and gives what ought not to be given", the king causes people to worry and dislike him.[73][74]

Anywhere, states Arthashastra in verse 7.5.22, where people are fined or punished or harassed when they ought not to be harassed, where those that should be punished are not punished, where those people are apprehended when they ought not be, where those who are not apprehended when they ought to, the king and his officials cause distress and disaffection.[73] When officials engage in thievery, instead of providing protection against robbers, the people are impoverished, they lose respect and become disaffected.[73][74]

A state, asserts Arthashastra text in verses 7.5.24 - 7.5.25, where courageous activity is denigrated, quality of accomplishments are disparaged, pioneers are harmed, honorable men are dishonored, where deserving people are not rewarded but instead favoritism and falsehood is, that is where people lack motivation, are distressed, become upset and disloyal.[73][74]

In verse 7.5.33, the ancient text remarks that general impoverishment relating to food and survival money destroys everything, while other types of impoverishment can be addressed with grants of grain and money.[73][74]

Civil, criminal law and court system

Crime and punishment

It is power and power alone which, only when exercised by the king with impartiality and in proportion to guilt either over his son or his enemy, maintains both this world and the next.
The just and victorious king administers justice in accordance with Dharma (established law), Sanstha (customary law), Nyaya (edicts, announced law) and Vyavahara (evidence, conduct).

— Arthashastra 3.1[75][76]


Book 3 of the Arthashastra, according to Trautmann, is dedicated to civil law, including sections relating to economic relations of employer and employee, partnerships, sellers and buyers.[77] Book 4 is a treatise on criminal law, where the king or officials acting on his behalf, take the initiative and start the judicial process against acts of crime, because the crime is felt to be a wrong against the people of the state.[77][78] This system, as Trautmann points out, is similar to European system of criminal law, rather than other historic legal system, because in the European (and Arthashastra) system it is the state that initiates judicial process in cases that fall under criminal statutes, while in the latter systems the aggrieved party initiates a claim in the case of murder, rape, bodily injury among others.[77]

The ancient text stipulates that the courts have a panel of three pradeshtri (magistrates) for handling criminal cases, and this panel is different, separate and independent of the panel of judges of civil court system it specifies for a Hindu kingdom.[77][78] The text lays out that just punishment is one that is in proportion to the crime in many sections starting with chapter 4 of Book 1,[79][80] and repeatedly uses this principle in specifying punishments, for example in Topic 79, that is chapter 2 of Book 4.[81] Economic crimes such as conspiracy by a group of traders or artisans is to be, states the Arthashastra, punished with much larger and punitive collective fine than those individually, as conspiracy causes systematic damage to the well-being of the people.[77][78]

Marriage laws

The text discusses marriage and consent laws in Books 3 and 4. It asserts, in chapter 4.2, that a girl may marry any man she wishes,[note 3][note 4] three years after her first menstruation, provided that she does not take her parent's property or ornaments received by her before the marriage. However, if she marries a man her father arranges or approves of, she has the right to take the ornaments with her.[81][82]

In chapter 3.4, the text gives the right to a woman that she may remarry anyone if she wants to, if she has been abandoned by the man she was betrothed to, if she does not hear back from him for three menstrual periods, or if she does hear back and has waited for seven menses.[84][85]

The chapter 2 of Book 3 of Arthashastra legally recognizes eight types of marriage. The bride is given the maximum property inheritance rights when the parents select the groom and the girl consents to the selection (Brahma marriage), and minimal if bride and groom marry secretly as lovers (Gandharva marriage) without the approval of her father and her mother.[86] However, in cases of Gandharva marriage (love), she is given more rights than she has in Brahma marriage (arranged), if the husband uses the property she owns or has created, with husband required to repay her with interest when she demands.[86][87]

Wildlife and forests

Arthashastra states that forests be protected and recommends that the state treasury be used to feed animals such as horses and elephants that are too old for work, sick or injured.[88] However, Kautilya also recommends that wildlife that is damaging crops should be restrained with state resources. In Topic 19, chapter 2, the text suggests:

The king should grant exemption [from taxes]
to a region devastated by an enemy king or tribe,
to a region beleaguered by sickness or famine.
He should safeguard agriculture
when it is stressed by the hardships of fines, forced labor, taxes, and animal herds
when they are harassed by thieves, vicious animals, poison, crocodiles or sickness
He should keep trade routes [roads] clear
when they are oppressed by anyone, including his officers, robbers or frontier commanders
when they are worn out by farm animals
The king should protect produce, forests, elephants forests, reservoirs and mines
established in the past and also set up new ones.[89]


In topic 35, the text recommends that the "Superintendent of Forest Produce" appointed by the state for each forest zone be responsible for maintaining the health of the forest, protecting forests to assist wildlife such as elephants (hastivana), but also producing forest products to satisfy economic needs, products such as Teak, Palmyra, Mimosa, Sissu, Kauki, Sirisha, Catechu, Latifolia, Arjuna, Tilaka, Tinisa, Sal, Robesta, Pinus, Somavalka, Dhava, Birch, bamboo, hemp, Balbaja (used for ropes), Munja, fodder, firewood, bulbous roots and fruits for medicine, flowers.[90] The Arthashastra also reveals that the Mauryas designated specific forests to protect supplies of timber, as well as lions and tigers, for skins.[citation needed]

Mines, factories and superintendents

The Arthashastra dedicates Topics 30 through 47 discussing the role of government in setting up mines and factories,[91] gold and precious stone workshops,[92] commodities,[93] forest produce,[94] armory,[95] standards for balances and weight measures,[96] standards for length and time measures,[96] customs,[97] agriculture,[98] liquor,[98] abattoirs and courtesans,[99] shipping,[100] domesticated animals such as cattle, horses and elephants along with animal welfare when they are injured or too old,[101] pasture land,[102] military preparedness[103] and intelligence gathering operations of the state.[104]

On spying, propaganda and information

Femme fatale as a secret agent

To undermine a ruling oligarchy, make chiefs of the [enemy's] ruling council infatuated with women possessed of great beauty and youth. When passion is roused in them, they should start quarrels by creating belief (about their love) in one and by going to another.

— Arthashastra 11.1[105][106]


The Arthashastra dedicates many chapters on the need, methods and goals of secret service, and how to build then use a network of spies that work for the state. The spies should be trained to adopt roles and guises, to use coded language to transmit information, and be rewarded by their performance and the results they achieve, states the text.[107][note 5]

The roles and guises recommended for Vyanjana (appearance) agents by the Arthashastra include ascetics, forest hermits, mendicants, cooks, merchants, doctors, astrologers, consumer householders, entertainers, dancers, female agents and others.[109] It suggests that members from these professions should be sought to serve for the secret service.[110] A prudent state, states the text, must expect that its enemies seek information and are spying inside its territory and spreading propaganda, and therefore it must train and reward double agents to gain identity about such hostile intelligence operations.[111]

The goals of the secret service, in Arthashastra, was to test the integrity of government officials, spy on cartels and population for conspiracy, to monitor hostile kingdoms suspected of preparing for war or in war against the state, to check spying and propaganda wars by hostile states, to destabilize enemy states, to get rid of troublesome powerful people who could not be challenged openly.[112][105] The spy operations and its targets, states verse 5.2.69 of Arthashastra, should be pursued "with respect to traitors and unrighteous people, not with respect to others".[113]
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 37494
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Freda Bedi Cont'd (#3)

Postby admin » Sun Jun 13, 2021 9:08 am

Part 2 of 2

On war and peace

The Arthashastra dedicates Book 7 and 10 to war, and considers numerous scenarios and reasons for war. It classifies war into three broad types – open war, covert war and silent war.[114] It then dedicates chapters to defining each type of war, how to engage in these wars and how to detect that one is a target of covert or silent types of war.[115] The text cautions that the king should know the progress he expects to make, when considering the choice between waging war and pursuing peace.[116] The text asserts:

When the degree of progress is the same in pursuing peace and waging war, peace is to be preferred. For, in war, there are disadvantages such as losses, expenses and absence from home.[117]


Kautilya, in the Arthashastra, suggests that the state must always be adequately fortified, its armed forces prepared and resourced to defend itself against acts of war. Kautilya favors peace over war, because he asserts that in most situations, peace is more conducive to creation of wealth, prosperity and security of the people.[118][119] Arthashastra defines the value of peace and the term peace, states Brekke, as "effort to achieve the results of work undertaken is industry, and absence of disturbance to the enjoyment of the results achieved from work is peace".[118]

All means to win a war are appropriate in the Arthashastra, including assassination of enemy leaders, sowing discord in its leadership, engagement of covert men and women in the pursuit of military objectives and as weapons of war, deployment of accepted superstitions and propaganda to bolster one's own troops or to demoralize enemy soldiers, as well as open hostilities by deploying kingdom's armed forces.[105] After success in a war by the victorious just and noble state, the text argues for humane treatment of conquered soldiers and subjects.[105]

The Arthashastra theories are similar with some and in contrast to other alternate theories on war and peace in the ancient Indian tradition. For example, states Brekke, the legends in Hindu epics preach heroism qua heroism which is in contrast to Kautilya suggestion of prudence and never forgetting the four Hindu goals of human life, while Kamandaki's Nitisara, which is similar to Kautilya's Arthashastra, is among other Hindu classics on statecraft and foreign policy that suggest prudence, engagement and diplomacy, peace is preferable and must be sought, and yet prepared to excel and win war if one is forced to.[120]

On regulations and taxes

The Arthashastra discusses a mixed economy, where private enterprise and state enterprise frequently competed side by side, in agriculture, animal husbandry, forest produce, mining, manufacturing and trade.[121] However, royal statutes and officials regulated private economic activities, some economic activity was the monopoly of the state, and a superintendent oversaw that both private and state owned enterprises followed the same regulations.[121] The private enterprises were taxed.[121] Mines were state owned, but leased to private parties for operations, according to chapter 2.12 of the text.[122] The Arthashastra states that protecting the consumer must be an important priority for the officials of the kingdom.[123]

Tax collection and ripe fruits

As one plucks one ripe fruit after another from a garden, so should the king from his kingdom. Out of fear for his own destruction, he should avoid unripe ones, which give rise to revolts.

—Stocking the Treasury, Arthashastra 5.2.70[124][113]


Arthashastra stipulates restraint on taxes imposed, fairness, the amounts and how tax increases should be implemented. Further, state Waldauer et al., the text suggests that the tax should be "convenient to pay, easy to calculate, inexpensive to administer, equitable and non-distortive, and not inhibit growth.[125] Fair taxes build popular support for the king, states the text, and some manufacturers and artisans, such as those of textiles, were subject to a flat tax.[124] The Arthashastra states that taxes should only be collected from ripened economic activity, and should not be collected from early, unripe stages of economic activity.[124] Historian of economic thought Joseph Spengler notes:

Kautilya's discussion of taxation and expenditure gave expression to three Indian principles: taxing power [of state] is limited; taxation should not be felt to be heavy or exclusive [discriminatory]; tax increases should be graduated.[126]

Agriculture on privately owned land was taxed at the rate of 16.67%, but the tax was exempted in cases of famine, epidemic, and settlement into new pastures previously uncultivated and if damaged during a war.[127] New public projects such as irrigation and water works were exempt from taxes for five years, and major renovations to ruined or abandoned water works were granted tax exemption for four years.[128] Temple and gurukul lands were exempt from taxes, fines or penalties.[129] Trade into and outside the kingdom's borders was subject to toll fees or duties.[130] Taxes varied between 10% to 25% on industrialists and businessmen, and it could be paid in kind (produce), through labor, or in cash.[131]

Translations and scholarship

The text has been translated and interpreted by Shamashastry, Kangle, Trautmann and many others.[53][132] Recent translations or interpretations include those of Patrick Olivelle[132][133] and McClish.[134][135]

Influence and reception

Image
Maurya Empire in Kautilya's time

Scholars state that the Arthashastra was influential in Asian history.[105][136] Its ideas helped create one of the largest empires in South Asia, stretching from the borders of Persia to Bengal on the other side of the Indian subcontinent, with its capital Pataliputra twice as large as Rome under Emperor Marcus Aurelius.[105]

Kautilya's patron Chandragupta Maurya consolidated an empire which was inherited by his son Bindusara and then his grandson Ashoka.[105] With the progressive secularization of society, and with the governance-related innovations contemplated by the Arthashastra, India was "prepared for the reception of the great moral transformation ushered in by Ashoka", and the spread of Buddhist, Hindu and other ideas across South Asia, East Asia and southeast Asia.[136][137]

Comparisons to Machiavelli

In 1919, a few years after the newly discovered Arthashastra manuscript's translation was first published, Max Weber stated:

Truly radical "Machiavellianism", in the popular sense of that word, is classically expressed in Indian literature in the Arthashastra of Kautilya (written long before the birth of Christ, ostensibly in the time of Chandragupta): compared to it, Machiavelli's The Prince is harmless.[138]


More recent scholarship has disagreed with the characterization of Arthashastra as "Machiavellianism".[139][140][141] In Machiavelli's The Prince, the king and his coterie are single-mindedly aimed at preserving the monarch's power for its own sake, states Paul Brians for example, but in the Arthashastra, the king is required "to benefit and protect his citizens, including the peasants".[139] Kautilya asserts in Arthashastra that, "the ultimate source of the prosperity of the kingdom is its security and prosperity of its people", a view never mentioned in Machiavelli's text. The text advocates "land reform", states Brians, where land is taken from landowners and farmers who own land but do not grow anything for a long time, and given to poorer farmers who want to grow crops but do not own any land.[139][140]

Arthashastra declares, in numerous occasions, the need for empowering the weak and poor in one's kingdom, a sentiment that is not found in Machiavelli; Arthashastra, states Brians, advises "the king shall provide the orphans, the aged, the infirm, the afflicted, and the helpless with maintenance [welfare support]. He shall also provide subsistence to helpless women when they are carrying and also to the children they give birth to".[139][88] Elsewhere, the text values not just powerless human life, but even animal life and suggests in Book 2 that horses and elephants be given food, when they become incapacitated from old age, disease or after war.[88]

Views on the role of the state

Roger Boesche, who relied entirely on the 1969 translation by Kangle for his analysis of Arthashastra,[note 6] and who criticized an alternate 1992 translation by Rangarajan,[88] has called the Arthashastra as "a great political book of the ancient world".[143] He interprets that the 1st millennium BCE text is grounded more like the Soviet Union and China where the state envisions itself as driven by the welfare of the common good, but operates an extensive spy state and system of surveillance.[144] This view has been challenged by Thomas Trautmann, who asserts that a free market and individual rights, albeit a regulated system, are proposed by Arthashastra.[145] Boesche is not summarily critical and adds:

Kautilya's Arthashastra depicts a bureaucratic welfare state, in fact some kind of socialized monarchy, in which the central government administers the details of the economy for the common good...In addition, Kautilya offers a work of genius in matters of foreign policy and welfare, including key principles of international relations from a realist perspective and a discussion of when an army must use cruel violence and when it is more advantageous to be humane.[146]


Scholars disagree on how to interpret the document. Kumud Mookerji states that the text may be a picture of actual conditions in Kautilya's times.[147] In contrast, Sastri, as well as Romila Thapar, quotes Brians, caution that the text, regardless of which translation is considered, must be seen as a normative document of strategy and general administration under various circumstances, but not as description of existing conditions.[147] Other scholars such as Burton Stein concur with Thapar and Sastri, however, Bhargava states that given Kautilya was the prime minister, one must expect that he implemented the ideas in the book.[147]

Views on property and markets

Thomas Trautmann states that the Arthashastra in chapter 3.9 does recognize the concept of land ownership rights and other private property, and requires the king to protect that right from seizure or abuse.[148] This makes it unlike Soviet or China model of citizen's private property rights. There is no question, states Trautmann, that people had the power to buy and sell land. However, Trautmann adds, this does not mean that Kautilya was advocating a capitalistic free market economy. Kautilya requires that the land sale be staggered and grants certain buyers automatic "call rights", which is not free market.[148] The Arthashastra states that if someone wants to sell land, the owner's kins, neighbors and creditors have first right of purchase in that order, and only if they do not wish to buy the land for a fair competitive price, others and strangers can bid to buy.[148] Further, the price must be announced in front of witnesses, recorded and taxes paid, for the buy-sale arrangement to deemed recognized by the state. The "call rights" and staggered bid buying is not truly a free market, as Trautmann points out.[148]

The text dedicates Book 3 and 4 to economic laws, and a court system to oversee and resolve economic, contracts and market-related disputes.[149] The text also provides a system of appeal where three dharmastha (judges) consider contractual disputes between two parties, and considers profiteering and false claims to dupe customers a crime.[149] The text, states Trautmann, thus anticipates market exchange and provides a framework for its functioning.[149]

Book on strategy anticipating all scenarios

Arthashastra and state

We should never forget that the Arthashastra means by the "state" an order of society which is not created by the king or the people, but which they exist to secure. These authors regarded the "state" – if that word might be used here – as essentially a beneficial institution for protection of human life and welfare and for the better realization of the ideals of humanity.

— Jan Gonda[150]


More recent scholarship presents a more nuanced reception for the text.[140][151] Paul Brians states that the scope of the work is far broader than earlier much publicized perceptions indicate, and in the treatise can also be found compassion for the poor, for servants and slaves, and for women.[139]

The text, states Sihag, is a treatise on how a state should pursue economic development and it emphasized "proper measurement of economic performance", and "the role of ethics, considering ethical values as the glue which binds society and promotes economic development".[152] Kautilya in Arthashastra, writes Brians, "mixes the harsh pragmatism for which he is famed with compassion for the poor, for slaves, and for women. He reveals the imagination of a romancer in imagining all manner of scenarios which can hardly have been commonplace in real life".[139]

Realism

India's former National Security Adviser, Shiv Shankar Menon, states: "Arthashastra is a serious manual on statecraft, on how to run a state, informed by a higher purpose, clear and precise in its prescriptions, the result of practical experience of running a state. It is not just a normative text but a realist description of the art of running a state".[153] The text is useful, according to Menon, because in many ways "the world we face today is similar to the world that Kautilya operated in".[141] He recommended reading of the book for broadening the vision on strategic issues.[153]

In popular culture

• Mentioned in season 5 episode 22 of the TV show Blue Bloods
• Mentioned in season 3 Episode 1 of the TV show iZombie
• The novel Chanakya's Chant by Ashwin Sanghi
• The novel Blowback by Brad Thor
• Mentioned in Chandragupt Maurya Hindi Serial in Sony Entertainment Television
• Mentioned in season 3 episode 5 of the TV show Dear White People
• Mentioned in the book Origin Story, A big history of everything by David Christian
• Mentioned in the book World Order by Henry Kissinger

See also

• Artha and Purushartha – Indian philosophical concepts
• Hindu philosophy
• History of espionage
• Matsya Nyaya
• Nitisara
• Rajamandala
• Tirukkural
• Machiavelli
• Manusmriti

Notes

1. Olivelle transliterates this word as Vārttā, translates it as "roughly economics", and notes that Kautilya placed the knowledge of economics at the heart of king's education; See: Olivelle[56]
2. Kangle transliterates this word as Anviksiki , and states that this term may be better conceptualized as science of reasoning rather than full philosophy, in ancient Indian traditions; See: Kangle's Part III[57]
3. The girl, notes Olivelle (2013), may marry a man of equal status or any status (no mention of caste, the original Sanskrit text does not use the word Varna or any other related to caste). See: Olivelle[82]
4. Rangarajan (1992), however, translates the verse to "same varna or another varna". See: Rangarajan[83]
5. According to Shoham and Liebig, this was a 'textbook of Statecraft and Political Economy' that provides a detailed account of intelligence collection, processing, consumption, and covert operations, as indispensable means for maintaining and expanding the security and power of the state.[108]
6. Patrick Olivelle states that the Kangle edition has problems as it incorrectly relied on a mistaken text as commentary; he has emended the corrections in his 2013 translation. See: Olivelle[142]

References

1. Roger Boesche (2002). The First Great Political Realist: Kautilya and His Arthashastra. Lexington Books. p. 7. ISBN 978-0739104019. [...] is classically expressed in Indian literature in the Arthashastra of Kautilya
Siva Kumar, N.; Rao, U. S. (April 1996). "Guidelines for value based management in Kautilya's Arthashastra". Journal of Business Ethics. 15(4): 415–423. doi:10.1007/BF00380362. S2CID 153463180. The paper develops value based management guidelines from the famous Indian treatise on management, Kautilya's Arthashastra.
2. Olivelle 2013, pp. 1-5.
3. Olivelle 2013, pp. 24–25, 31.
4. Olivelle 2013, pp. 1, 34-35.
5. Mabbett (1964): "References to the work in other Sanskrit literature attribute it variously to Viṣṇugupta, Cāṇakya and Kauṭilya. The same individual is meant in each case. The Pańcatantra explicitly identifies Chanakya with Viṣṇugupta."
6. Olivelle 2013, pp. 31-38.
7. Olivelle 2013, pp. 32-33.
8. Mabbett (1964);
Trautmann (1971, p. 10): "while in his character as author of an arthaśāstra he is generally referred to by his gotra name, Kauṭilya;"
Trautmann (1971, p. 67): "T. Burrow... has now shown that Cāṇakya is also a gotra name, which in conjunction with other evidence makes it clear that we are dealing with distinct persons, the minister Cāṇakya of legend and Kautilya the compiler of Arthaśāstra.
9. Rao & Subrahmanyam (2013): "The confident initial assertion that the text’s author was 'the famous Brahman Kautilya, also named Vishnugupta, and known from other sources by the patronymic Chanakya', and that the text was written at the time of the foundation of the Maurya dynasty, has of course been considerably eroded over the course of the twentieth century."
10. Olivelle 2013, pp. 24–25, 31–33.
11. Olivelle 2013, pp. 30-31.
12. Allen, Charles (21 February 2012). Ashoka: The Search for India's Lost Emperor. London: Hachette UK. ISBN 9781408703885. Retrieved 23 October 2015.
13. Boesche 2002, p. 8
14. Boesche 2003
15. Olivelle 2013, pp. 14, 330: "The title Arthaśāstra is found only in the colophons, in three verses 5.6.47, 7.10.38 and 7.18.42", (page 14) and "Prosperity and decline, stability and weakening, and vanquishing — knowing the science of politics [अर्थशास्त्र, arthaśāstra], he should employ all of these strategies." (page 330)
16. Rangarajan, L.N. (1987). The Arthashastra (Introduction). New Delhi: Penguin Books. pp. 1–2. ISBN 9788184750119. Retrieved 20 February 2016.
17. Olivelle 2013, pp. 1-62, 179-221.
18. Sen, R.K. and Basu, R.L. 2006. Economics in Arthashastra. New Delhi: Deep & Deep Publications.
19. Thomas Trautmann (2012), Arthashastra: The Science of Wealth, Penguin, ISBN 978-0670085279, pages xxv-27
20. R. Chadwick; S. Henson; B. Moseley (2013). Functional Foods. Springer Science. p. 39. ISBN 978-3-662-05115-3. During the same period, an ancient Hindu text (the Arthashastra) included a recipe...
Arvind Sharma (2005). Modern Hindu Thought: An Introduction. Oxford University Press. p. 186. ISBN 978-0-19-567638-9. Arthasastra, the major surviving Hindu text on polity, attributed to Chanakya (also known as Kautilya)...
Stephen Peter Rosen (1996). Societies and Military Power: India and Its Armies. Cornell University Press. p. 67. ISBN 978-0801432101. The most important single text in Hindu political philosophy is Kautilya's Arthasastra [...]
21. Olivelle 2013, pp. 122-175.
22. Olivelle 2013, pp. 101, 228-229, 286-287.
23. Olivelle 2013, pp. 29, 52.
24. Olivelle, Patrick (June 2004). "Manu and the Arthaśāstra, A Study in Śāstric Intertextuality". Journal of Indian Philosophy. 32 (2/3): 281–291. doi:10.1023/B:INDI.0000021078.31452.8a. JSTOR 23497263. S2CID 170873274.
25. Olivelle 2013, pp. 1–2.
26. Trautmann 1971, p. 1.
27. Olivelle 2013, pp. ix, xiii, xiv-xvii.
28. Olivelle 2013, Introduction.
29. Olivelle 2013, pp. 3–4.
30. Olivelle 2013, pp. 49-51, 99-108, 277-294, 349-356, 373-382.
31. Olivelle 2013, pp. 4–5.
32. Olivelle 2013, pp. 24-25, 31.
33. Olivelle 2013, pp. 31-32.
34. Olivelle 2013, p. 31.
35. Olivelle 2013, p. 32.
36. Olivelle 2013, p. 35.
37. Olivelle 2013, pp. 35-36.
38. Olivelle 2013, p. 34, 36.
39. Olivelle 2013, p. 33.
40. Olivelle 2013, pp. 33-35.
41. Falk, Harry; Strauch, Ingo (2014). "The Bajaur and Split Collections of Kharoṣṭhī Manuscripts within the Context of Buddhist Gāndhārī Literature". In Paul Harrison and Jens-Uwe Hartmann (ed.). From Birch Bark to Digital Data: Recent Advances in Buddhist Manuscript Research. Verlag der österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. pp. 71–72, context: 51–78. doi:10.2307/j.ctt1vw0q4q.7. ISBN 978-3-7001-7710-4.
42. Olivelle 2013, p. 37.
43. Olivelle 2013, pp. 37-38.
44. RP Kangle (1969, Reprinted in 2010), Arthaśāstra, Part 3, Motilal Banarsidass, ISBN 978-8120800410, pages 1-2
45. Boesche, Roger (January 2003). "Kautilya's Arthaśāstra on War and Diplomacy in Ancient India". The Journal of Military History. 67 (1): 9–37. doi:10.1353/jmh.2003.0006. ISSN 0899-3718.
46. Arvind Sharma (1999), The Puruṣārthas: An Axiological Exploration of Hinduism, The Journal of Religious Ethics, Vol. 27, No. 2 (Summer, 1999), pp. 223-256
47. Steven Rosen (2006), Essential Hinduism, Praeger, ISBN 0-275-99006-0, page 34-45
48. Macy, Joanna (1975). "The Dialectics of Desire". Numen. BRILL. 22(2): 145–60. doi:10.1163/156852775X00095. JSTOR 3269765.
49. John Bowker (2003), The Oxford Dictionary of World Religions, Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0192139658, pages 650-651
50. Olivelle 2013, pp. vii–xxvii.
51. Olivelle 2013, pp. xiv–xv.
52. Olivelle 2013, pp. 66-69.
53. Arthashastra R Shamasastry (Translator), pages 8-9
54. Sanskrit Original: कौिटलीय अर्थशास्त्र, ArthashastraArchived 9 February 2017 at the Wayback Machine Book 1, Kautilya, pages 3-5
55. JS Rajput (2012), Seven Social Sins: The Contemporary Relevance, Allied, ISBN 978-8184247985, pages 28-29
56. Olivelle 2013, p. 43.
57. Kangle 1969, pp. 99-100.
58. Kangle 1969, p. 130.
59. Olivelle 2013, pp. 68-69.
60. Sanskrit Original: कौिटलीय अर्थशास्त्र, Arthashastra Archived 9 February 2017 at the Wayback Machine Book 1, Kautilya, page 5
61. Rangarajan 1992, pp. 121-122.
62. Sanskrit Original: कौिटलीय अर्थशास्त्र, ArthashastraArchived 9 February 2017 at the Wayback Machine Book 1, Kautilya, pages 5-6
63. Olivelle 2013, pp. 70-72.
64. Olivelle 2013, pp. xx, xxii, 69-221.
65. Olivelle 2013, pp. 69-70.
66. Olivelle 2013, pp. 72-74.
67. Olivelle 2013, pp. 72-75.
68. Olivelle 2013, pp. 74-75.
69. Sanskrit Original: कौिटलीय अर्थशास्त्र, Arthashastra Archived 9 February 2017 at the Wayback Machine Book 1, Kautilya, pages 7-8
70. Olivelle 2013, pp. 75-76.
71. Olivelle 2013, pp. 72-76.
72. Sanskrit Original: कौिटलीय अर्थशास्त्र, Arthashastra Archived 9 February 2017 at the Wayback Machine Book 1, Kautilya, pages 5-7
73. Olivelle 2013, pp. 290-291.
74. Sanskrit Original: कौिटलीय अर्थशास्त्र, ArthashastraArchived 9 February 2017 at the Wayback Machine Book 7, Kautilya, pages 146-148
75. Sanskrit Original: कौिटलीय अर्थशास्त्र, Arthashastra Archived 9 February 2017 at the Wayback Machine Book 3, Kautilya, page 80;
Archive 2: KAZ03.1.41 - KAZ03.1.43 Transliterated ArthashastraMuneo Tokunaga (1992), Kyoto University, Archived at University of Goettingen, Germany
76. Olivelle 2013, pp. 181-182.
77. Thomas Trautmann (2012), Arthashastra: The Science of Wealth, Penguin, ISBN 978-0670085279, pages 136-137, for context see 134-139
78. Sanskrit Original: कौिटलीय अर्थशास्त्र, Arthashastra Archived9 February 2017 at the Wayback Machine Book 3 and 4, Kautilya, pages 79-126
79. Olivelle 2013, pp. 112-117.
80. Thomas Trautmann (2012), Arthashastra: The Science of Wealth, Penguin, ISBN 978-0670085279, page xx
81. Sanskrit Original: कौिटलीय अर्थशास्त्र, Arthashastra Archived 9 February 2017 at the Wayback Machine Book 4, Kautilya, pages 110-111
82. Olivelle 2013, p. 248.
83. Rangarajan 1992, pp. 49, 364.
84. Olivelle 2013, p. 189.
85. Sanskrit Original: कौिटलीय अर्थशास्त्र, Arthashastra Archived 9 February 2017 at the Wayback Machine Book 3, Kautilya, pages 84-85
86. Sanskrit Original: कौिटलीय अर्थशास्त्र, Arthashastra Archived 9 February 2017 at the Wayback Machine Book 3, Kautilya, pages 81-82
87. Rangarajan 1992, p. 366.
88. Boesche 2002, pp. 18-19.
89. Olivelle 2013, p. 101.
90. Olivelle 2013, pp. 140-142, 44-45.
91. Olivelle 2013, pp. 127-130.
92. Olivelle 2013, pp. 122-126, 130-135.
93. Olivelle 2013, pp. 139-140.
94. Olivelle 2013, pp. 140-141.
95. Olivelle 2013, pp. 142-143.
96. Olivelle 2013, pp. 143-147.
97. Olivelle 2013, pp. 147-151.
98. Olivelle 2013, pp. 152-156.
99. Olivelle 2013, pp. 157-159.
100. Olivelle 2013, pp. 160-162.
101. Olivelle 2013, pp. 162-170.
102. Olivelle 2013, p. 172.
103. Olivelle 2013, pp. 171-175.
104. Olivelle 2013, pp. 173-175, 78-90.
105. Roger Boesche (2003), Kautilya's Arthaśāstra on War and Diplomacy in Ancient India, The Journal of Military History, Volume 67, Number 1, pages 9-37
106. Sanskrit Original: कौिटलीय अर्थशास्त्र, Arthashastra Archived 9 February 2017 at the Wayback Machine Book 11, Kautilya, pages 206-208
107. Olivelle 2013, pp. 42-47, 78-80, 98, 112-117, 231-234, 261-263, 407-414, 476-483.
108. Dany Shoham and Michael Liebig. "The intelligence dimension of Kautilyan statecraft and its implications for the present." Journal of Intelligence History 15.2 (2016): 119-138.
109. Olivelle 2013, pp. xv-xvi, 42-43, 78-82, 98, 260.
110. Olivelle 2013, pp. 42-43.
111. Olivelle 2013, pp. 78-83.
112. Olivelle 2013, pp. 42–47, 78–83, 260–261.
113. Olivelle 2013, p. 261.
114. Olivelle 2013, p. 294.
115. Olivelle 2013, pp. 294-297.
116. Olivelle 2013, pp. 277-278.
117. Rangarajan 1992, p. 530.
118. Torkel Brekke (2009), The Ethics of War in Asian Civilizations: A Comparative Perspective, Routledge, ISBN 978-0415544375, page 128
119. Olivelle 2013, pp. 273-274.
120. Torkel Brekke (2009), The Ethics of War in Asian Civilizations: A Comparative Perspective, Routledge, ISBN 978-0415544375, pages 121-138
121. Olivelle 2013, pp. 43-44.
122. Olivelle 2013, pp. 44-45.
123. K Thanawala (2014), Ancient Economic Thought (Editor: Betsy Price), Routledge, ISBN 978-0415757010, page 50
124. Boesche 2002, p. 72.
125. Charles Waldauer et al. (1996), Kautilya's Arthashastra: A Neglected Precursor to Classical Economics, Indian Economic Review, Vol. XXXI, No. 1, pages 101-108
126. Joseph Spengler (1971), Indian Economic Thought, Duke University Press, ISBN 978-0822302452, pages 72-73
127. Olivelle 2013, pp. 43-44, 101, 228-229, 286-287.
128. K Thanawala (2014), Ancient Economic Thought (Editor: Betsy Price), Routledge, ISBN 978-0415757010, page 52
129. Olivelle 2013, pp. 99-111.
130. Olivelle 2013, p. 140.
131. Olivelle 2013, pp. 40-45, 99-110, 136-137, 150-153, 173-174, 536-545, 556-557, 572-580, 646-647.
132. Olivelle 2013.
133. Olivelle, Patrick (1 January 2004). "Manu and the Arthaśāstra, A Study in Śāstric Intertextuality". Journal of Indian Philosophy Journal of Indian Philosophy. 32 (2–3): 281–291. doi:10.1023/B:INDI.0000021078.31452.8a. ISSN 0022-1791. OCLC 5649173080. S2CID 170873274.
134. McClish, Mark Richard (2009). Political Brahmanism and the state a compositional history of the Arthaśāstra (PhD Thesis, Advisor: Patrick Olivelle). University of Texas.;
McClish M (1 January 2014). "The dependence of Manu's seventh chapter on Kautilya's Arthas̈a¯stra". Journal of the American Oriental Society. 134 (2): 241–262. doi:10.7817/jameroriesoci.134.2.241. ISSN 0003-0279. JSTOR 10.7817/jameroriesoci.134.2.241. OCLC 5713382377.
135. Kauṭilya; Olivelle, Patrick; McClish, Mark (2012). The Arthaśāstra selections from the classic Indian work on statecraft. Hackett. ISBN 978-1603848480. OCLC 934713097.
136. Henry Albinski (1958), The Place of the Emperor Asoka in Ancient Indian Political Thought, Midwest Journal of Political Science, Vol. 2, No. 1, pages 62-75
137. MV Krishna Rao (1958, Reprinted 1979), Studies in Kautilya, 2nd Edition, OCLC 551238868, ISBN 978-8121502429, pages 13-14, 231-233
138. Max Weber, Politics as a Vocation (1919). This translation is from Weber: Selections in Translation, ed. W. G. Runciman, trans. Eric Matthews (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978), pp. 212–25 (p. 220); see also this translation. Archived 31 January 2010 at the Wayback Machine
139. Paul Brians; et al., eds. (1993). Reading About the World. 1. Washington State University Press. ISBN 0-15-567425-0. Archived from the original on 23 July 2013. Retrieved 20 February 2016.
140. A Kumar (2005), The Structure and Principles of Public Organization in Kautilya's Arthashastra, The Indian Journal of Political Science, Vol. 66, No. 3, pages 463-488
141. S Set (2015), Ancient Wisdom for the Modern World: Revisiting Kautilya and his Arthashastra in the Third Millennium, Strategic Analysis, Volume 39, Issue 6, pages 710-714
142. Olivelle 2013, pp. xv-xvii.
143. Boesche 2002, pp. 1-7.
144. Boesche 2002, pp. 7-8.
145. Thomas Trautmann (2012), Arthashastra: The Science of Wealth, Penguin, ISBN 978-0670085279, pages 116-139
146. Boesche 2002, p. 7.
147. Boesche 2002, pp. 15-16.
148. Thomas Trautmann (2012), Arthashastra: The Science of Wealth, Penguin, ISBN 978-0670085279, pages 121-127
149. Thomas Trautmann (2012), Arthashastra: The Science of Wealth, Penguin, ISBN 978-0670085279, pages 134-138
150. J Gonda (1957), Ancient Indian Kingship from the Religious Point of View (Continued and Ended), Journal: Numen, Vol. 4, Fasc. 2, page 159
151. Timothy Starzl and Krishna Dhir (1986), Strategic Planning 2300 Years Ago: The Strategy of Kautilya, Management International Review, Vol. 26, No. 4, pages 70-77
152. BS Sihag (2004), Kautilya on the scope and methodology of accounting, organizational design and the role of ethics in ancient India, The Accounting Historians Journal, Vol 31, Number 2, pages 125-148
153. "India needs to develop its own doctrine for strategic autonomy: NSA". The Economic Times. NEW DELHI. Press Trust of India. 18 October 2012. Retrieved 18 October 2012.

Bibliography

• Boesche, Roger (2002), The First Great Political Realist: Kautilya and His Arthashastra, Lanham: Lexington Books, ISBN 0-7391-0401-2
• Kangle, R. P. (1969), Kautilya Arthashastra, 3 vols, Motilal Banarsidass (Reprinted 2010), ISBN 978-8120800410
• Mabbett, I. W. (April 1964). "The Date of the Arthaśāstra". Journal of the American Oriental Society. 84 (2): 162–169. doi:10.2307/597102. JSTOR 597102.
• Olivelle, Patrick (2013), King, Governance, and Law in Ancient India: Kauṭilya's Arthaśāstra, Oxford UK: Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0199891825, retrieved 20 February 2016
• Rangarajan, L.N. (1992), Kautilya: The Arthashastra, Penguin Classics, ISBN 0-14-044603-6
• Rao, Velcheru; Subrahmanyam, Sanjay (2013), "Notes on Political Thought in Medieval and Early Modern South India", in Richard M. Eaton; Munis D. Faruqui; David Gilmartin; Sunil Kumar (eds.), Expanding Frontiers in South Asian and World History: Essays in Honour of John F. Richards, Cambridge University Press, pp. 164–199, ISBN 978-1-107-03428-0, retrieved 20 February 2016
• Trautmann, Thomas R. (1971), Kauṭilya and the Arthaśāstra: A Statistical Investigation of the Authorship and Evolution of the Text, Leiden: E.J. Brill
• Arthashastra-Studien, Dieter Schlingloff, Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde Süd- und Ostasiens, vol. 11, 1967, 44-80 + Abb. 1a-30, ISSN 0084-0084.
• Ratan Lal Basu and Raj Kumar Sen, Ancient Indian Economic Thought, Relevance for Today, ISBN 81-316-0125-0, Rawat Publications, New Delhi, 2008
• Shoham, Dany, and Michael Liebig. "The intelligence dimension of Kautilyan statecraft and its implications for the present." Journal of Intelligence History 15.2 (2016): 119–138.

External links

• Kautilya Arthashastra English translation by R. Shamasastry 1956 (revised edition with IAST diacritics and interwoven glossary)
• The full text of Arthashastra at Wikisource (First English translation, 1915 by R Shamasastry)
• Arthashastra (English) (Another archive of 1915 R Shamasastry translation)
• Arthaśāstra (Sanskrit, IAST-Translit), SARIT Initiative, The British Association for South Asian Studies and The British Academy
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 37494
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Freda Bedi Cont'd (#3)

Postby admin » Mon Jun 14, 2021 4:23 am

Part 1 of 2

Fort St. George, India
by Wikipedia
Accessed: 6/13/21




Rao (1958: 1, 3) considers Shamasastry the discoverer of the Arthasastra: ‘With the discovery of Kautilya’s Artha Sastra by Dr. R. Shama Sastri in 1905, and its publication in 1914, much interest has been aroused in the history of ancient Indian political thought; [p. 1]. . . . The Artha Sastra ¯ . . . is a compendium and a commentary on all the sciences of Polity that were existing in the time of Kautilya. It is a guidance to kings. . . . Artha Sastra ¯ contains thirty-two paragraphical divisions [Books]. . . . with one hundred and fifty chapters, and the Sastra is an illustration of a scientific approach to problems of politics, satisfying all the requirements and criteria of an exact science’ [p. 3]. But going back to the preface of the standard work and translation by Shamasastry (1967: vi), it is revealed that the manuscript of Kautilya’s Arthasastra was actually discovered by a person described merely as ‘a Pandit of the Tanjore District’ who handed it over ‘to the Mysore Government Oriental Library’ of which Shamasastry was the librarian.

-- Review and Extension of Battacharyya's Modern Accounting Concepts in Kautilya's Arthasastra, by Richard Mattessich

Tanjore District was one of the districts in the erstwhile Madras Presidency of British India. It covered the area of the present-day districts of Thanjavur, Tiruvarur, Nagapattinam, Mayiladuthurai and Aranthangi taluk, karambakudi taluk of Pudukkottai District in Tamil Nadu. Apart from being a bedrock of Hindu orthodoxy, Tanjore was a centre of Chola cultural heritage and one of the richest and most prosperous districts in Madras Presidency.

-- Tanjore District (Madras Presidency), by Wikipedia

The Madras Presidency, or the Presidency of Fort St. George, and also known as Madras Province, was an administrative subdivision (presidency) of British India. At its greatest extent, the presidency included most of southern India, including the whole of the Indian state of Tamil Nadu, and parts of Andhra Pradesh, Kerala, Karnataka, Telangana, Odisha and the union territory of Lakshadweep. The city of Madras was the winter capital of the Presidency and Ootacamund or Ooty, the summer capital. The Island of Ceylon was a part of Madras Presidency from 1793 to 1798 when it was created a Crown colony. Madras Presidency was neighboured by the Kingdom of Mysore on the northwest, Kingdom of Cochin on the southwest, and the Kingdom of Hyderabad on the north. Some parts of the presidency were also flanked by Bombay Presidency (Konkan) and Central Provinces and Berar (Madhya Pradesh).

-- Madras Presidency, by Wikipedia

PONDICHERRY

Quite near Fort St. David, in an arid plain without a port, the French bought, like the others, from the Soubeidar of the Deccan province, a small piece of land where they built a station, which they later made into a town of considerable importance, — the Pondicherry of which we have already spoken. At first, it was merely a trading centre surrounded by a thick hedge of acacias, palms, cocoanut trees, and aloes, and it was called “the boundary hedge."...

LALLI BEGINS BY BESIEGING THREE PLACES AND TAKING THEM.

As soon as he arrived, he besieged three places: one was Kudalur, [Old name for Cuddalore. Voltaire says Goudalour.] a little fort three miles from Pondicherry; the second was Saint David, a much bigger fortress; the third Devikota, [Voltaire says Divicotey.] which surrendered as he approached. It was flattering for him to have under his orders, in these first expeditions, a Count d’Estaing, descendant of that d’Estaing who saved the life of Philip Augustus at the battle of Bovine, and who transferred to his family the arms of the kings of France; a Constans, whose family was so old and famed, a La Fare, and many other officers of the first rank. It was not customary to send out young men of big families to take service in India. It would certainly have been necessary to have more troops and money with them. However, the Count d' Estaing had taken Kudalur in a day; and the day after, the General, followed by this flower of manhood, had gone to lay siege to the important station of St. David.

A NAVAL BATTLE BETWEEN ADMIRAL POCOCK AND ADMIRAL D'ACHE: 29th APRIL 1758

Not a minute was lost between the two rival nations. While Count d’Estaing was taking Kudalur, the English Fleet, commanded by Admiral Pocock, was attacking that of Comte d'Ache on the coast of Pondicherry. Men wounded or killed, broken masts, torn sails, tattered rigging, were the sole results of this indecisive battle. The two damaged fleets remained in those parts, equally unable to injure one another. The French was the worst treated — it had only forty dead, but five hundred men had been wounded, including Comte d’Ache and his captain, and after the battle, by bad luck, a ship of seventy-four cannons was lost on the coast. But a palpable proof that the French Admiral [We give the name of admiral to the chief of a squadron because it is the title of the English chiefs of squadrons. The "Grand Admiral” is in England what the admiral is in France. (V.)] shared with the English Admiral the honour of the day, is that the Englishmen did not attempt to send help to the besieged Fort St. David.

Everything was opposed in Pondicherry to the enterprise of the General. Nothing was ready to second him. He demanded bombs, mortars, and utensils of all kinds, and they had not got any. The siege dragged along; people began to fear the disgrace of abandoning it; even money was lacking. The two millions brought by the fleet and given to the treasury of the Company were already spent. The Merchants’ Council of Pondicherry had thought it necessary to pay their immediate debts in order to revive their credit, and had issued orders to Paris that, if help of ten millions was not forthcoming, everything would be lost. The Governor of Pondicherry, the successor of Godeheu, on behalf of the Merchants’ administration, wrote to the General on the 24th May this letter, which was received in the trenches:

“My resources are exhausted and we have no longer any hope left unless we are successful. Where shall I find resources in a country ruined by fifteen years of war, enough to pay the expenses of your army and of a squadron from which we were hoping for a great deal of help. On the contrary, there is nothing.”


This single letter explains the cause of all the disasters which had been experienced and of all those that followed. The more the want of necessary things was felt in the town, the more the General was blamed for having undertaken the siege of Fort St. David.

In spite of so many defeats and obstacles, the General forced the English commander to yield. In St. David were found one hundred and eighty cannons, all kinds of provisions which were lacking in Pondicherry, and money of which there was a still greater lack. There was three hundred thousand pounds in coin, which was all forwarded to the treasury of the Company.
We are only noting here facts on which all parties agree.

THE 2ND JULY 1758. LALLI PUTS THIS COMBAT ON THE 3RD OF AUGUST IN HIS MEMOIRS. IT IS A MISTAKE.

Count Lalli demolished this fortress and all the surrounding small farms. It was an order of the Minister: an ill-fated order which soon brought sad reprisals. As soon as Fort St. David had been taken, the General left to conquer Madras. He wrote to M. de Bussi who was then in the heart of the Deccan: “As soon as I become the master of Madras, I am going to the Ganges, either by land or sea. My policy can be summarized in these five words: 'No more English in the Peninsula.'” His great zeal was unquenchable, and the fleet was not in a fit condition to back him up. It had just attempted a second naval battle in sight of Pondicherry, which was even more disastrous than the first. Comte d'Ache received two wounds, and, in this bloodthirsty fight, he had resisted the attacks of a naval army, twice as strong as his own, with five dilapidated ships. After this conflict, he demanded masts, provisions, rigging and crew from the Town Council. He got nothing. The General on the sea was no more helped by this exhausted Company than the General on the land. He went to the Ile de France near the coast of Africa to find what he had not been able to discover in India.

At the beginning of the Coromandel coast is quite a beautiful province called Tanjore. The Raja of this land, whom the French and the English called “King”, was a very rich prince. The Company claimed that this prince owed them about thirteen millions in French money.

THE ACTIONS AND LETTERS OF THE JESUIT LAVOUR

The Governor of Pondicherry, on behalf of the Company, ordered the General to demand this money again with his sword in his hand. A French Jesuit, named Lavour, the head of the Indian Mission, told him and wrote to him that Providence blessed this project in an unmistakable manner. We shall be forced to speak again of this Jesuit who played an important and tragic part in all these happenings. All we need say at present is that the General, on his journey, passed over the territory of another small prince, whose nephews had a short time before offered four lakhs of rupees to the Company in order to obtain their uncle's small state and expel him from the country. This Jesuit eagerly persuaded Count Lalli to do this good work. This is one of his letters, word for word:

”The law of succession in those countries is the law of the strongest. You must not regard the expulsion of a prince here as on the same level as in Europe.”


He told him in another letter:

You must not work simply for the glory of the King’s arms. A word to the wise ...”


This act reveals the spirit of the country and of the Jesuit.

The Prince of Tanjore sought the help of the English in Madras. They got ready to create a diversion, and he had time to admit other auxiliary troops into his capital which was threatened by a siege. The little French army did not receive from Pondicherry either provisions or the necessary ammunition, and they were forced to abandon the attempt. Providence did not bless them as much as the Jesuit had foretold. The Company received money neither from the Prince nor from the nephews who wished to dispossess their uncle.


GENERAL LALLI IN A PECULIAR KIND OF DANGER

As they were preparing to retreat, a negro of those parts, the commander of a group of negro cavalry men in Tanjore, came and presented himself to the advance guard of the French Camp followed by fifty horsemen. He said that they wanted to speak to the General and enter his service. The Count was in bed, and came out of his tent practically naked with a stick in his hand. Immediately the negro captain aimed a sword blow at him, which he just managed to parry, and the other negroes fell on him. The General's guard ran up instantly and nearly all the assassins were killed. That was the sole result of the Tanjore expedition.

CHAPTER XIV: COUNT LALLI BESIEGES MADRAS. HIS MISFORTUNES BEGIN.

At last, after useless expeditions and attempts in this part of India, and in spite of the departure of the French fleet, which was believed to be threatened by the English, the General recommenced his favourite project of besieging Madras.

“You have too little money and too few provisions”, people said to him: he replied “We shall take them from the town”. A few members of the Pondicherry Council lent him thirty-four thousand rupees. The farmers of the village or aldees [Aldee is an Arab word, preserved in Spain. The Arabs who went to India introduced there many terms from their language. Well-proved etimology often serves as a proof of the emigration of peoples.] of the Company advanced some money. The General also put his own into the fund. Forced marches were made, and they arrived in front of the town which did not expect them.


MADRAS TAKEN ON THE 13TH DECEMBER 1758.

Madras, as is well known, is divided into two parts, very different from one another. The first, where Fort St. George is, is well fortified, and has been so since Bourdonnaye’s expedition. The second is much bigger and is inhabited by merchants of all nations. It is called the “Black City”, because the “Blacks” are most numerous there. It occupies such a large space that it could not be fortified; a wall and a ditch formed its defense. This huge, rich town, was pillaged.

It is easy to imagine all the excesses, all the barbarities into which rushes the soldier who has no rein on him, and who looks upon it as his incontestible right to murder, violate, burn, rape. The officers controlled them as long as they could, but the thing that stopped them the most was the fact that as soon as they entered the town, they had to defend themselves there. The Madras garrison fell on them; a street battle ensued; houses, gardens, Hindu, Muslim and Christian temples became battlefields where the attackers, loaded with booty, fought in disorder those who came to snatch away their spoils. Count d’Estaing was the first to attack English troops who were marching on the main road. The Lorraine batallion, which he was commanding, had not yet fully reassembled, and so he fought practically alone and was made a prisoner. This misfortune brought more in its wake, because, after being sent by sea to England, he was thrown at Portsmouth into a frightful prison: treatment which was unworthy of his name, his courage, our customs and English generosity.

The capture of Count d’Estaing, at the beginning of the fight, was likely to cause the loss of the little army, which, after having taken the “Black City” by surprise, was taken by surprise itself in return. The General, accompanied by all the French nobility of which we have spoken, restored order. The English were forced back right to the bridge built between Fort St. George and the "Black City”, The Chevalier of Crillon rushed up to this bridge, and killed fifty English there. Thirty-three prisoners were made and they remained masters of the town.


The hope of taking Fort St. George soon, as La Bourdonnaye had done, inspired all the officers, but the most strange thing of all was that five or six million inhabitants of Pondicherry rushed up to the expedition out of curiosity, as if they were going to a fair. The force of the besiegers numbered only two thousand seven hundred European infantry, and three hundred cavalry men. They had only ten mortars and twenty cannons. The town was defended by sixteen thousand Europeans in the infantry and two thousand five hundred sepoys. Thus the besieged were stronger by eleven thousand men. In military tactics, it is agreed that ordinarily five besiegers are required for one besieged. Examples of the taking of a town by a number equal to the number defending it are rare: to succeed without provisions is rarer still.

What is most sad is the fact that two hundred French deserters went into Fort St. George.
There is no other army where desertion is more frequent than the French army, from a natural uneasiness in the nation or from hope of being better treated elsewhere. These deserters appeared at times on the ramparts, holding a bottle of wine in one hand and a purse in the other. They exhorted their compatriots to imitate their example. For the first time, people saw a tenth of the besieging army taking refuge in the besieged town.

The siege of Madras, light-heartedly undertaken, was soon looked upon as impracticable by everybody. Mr. Pigot, the representative of the English Government and Governor of the town, promised fifty thousand rupees to the garrison if it defended itself well and he kept to his word. The man who pays in this way is better served than the man who has no money. Count Lalli had no other option but to try an attack. But, at the very time when this daring act was being prepared, in the port of Madras appeared six warships, part of the English fleet which was then near Bombay. These ships were bringing reinforcements of men and munitions. On seeing them, the officer commanding the trench deserted it. They had to raise the siege in great haste and go to defend Pondicherry, which was even more vulnerable to the English than Madras....

***

CHAPTER XVII: THE CAPTURE AND DESTRUCTION OF PONDICHERRY

While the English army was advancing towards the West and a new fleet was threatening the town in the East, Count Lalli had very few soldiers. He made use of a trick, quite usual in war and in civil life: he tried to appear to have more than he really had. He ordered a parade on the walls of the town on the seaward side. He issued instructions that all the employees of the Company should appear in uniform as soldiers, in order to overawe the enemy fleet which was alongside.

A THIRD REVOLT

The Council of Pondicherry and all its employees came to him to say that they could not obey this order. The employees said that they recognized as their Commander only the Governor established by the Company. All ordinary bourgeois think it degrading to be a soldier, although in reality it is the soldiers who give us empires. But the real reason is that they wished to cross in everything the man who had incurred the hatred of the people.

It was the third revolt which he had patched up in a few days. He only punished the heads of the faction by making them leave the town; but he insulted them with crushing words which are never forgotten, and which are bitterly remembered when one has the opportunity of revenge.

Further, the General forbade the Council to meet without his permission. The enmity of this Company was as great as that of the French Parliament’s was against the Commanders who brought the strict orders of the Court to them — often contradictory ones. He had therefore to fight citizens and enemies.

The place lacked provisions. He had houses searched for the few superfluous goods to be found there, in order to provide the troops with food necessary for their subsistence.
Those who were entrusted with this sad task did not carry it out with enough discretion with regard to most of the important officers, whose name and position deserved the greatest tact. Feelings, already irritated, were wounded beyond the limit: people cried out against the tyranny. M. Dubois, Commissary of Stores, who carried out this task, became the object of public condemnation. When conquering enemies order such a search, nobody dare even whisper, but when the General ordered it to save the town, everyone rose against him.

The officers were reduced to a half-pound of rice per day; the soldiers to four ounces. The town had no more than three hundred black soldiers and seven hundred French, pressed by hunger, to defend itself against four thousand European soldiers and ten thousand black ones. They would have to surrender. Lalli, in despair, shaken by convulsions, his spirit lost and overcome, wished to give up the command in favour of the Brigadier of Landivisiau, who took good care not to accept such a delicate and tragic post. Lalli was forced to order the misfortune and shame of the colony. In the midst of all these crises, he was daily receiving anonymous notes threatening him with the sword and poison. He actually believed himself to be poisoned: he fell into an epileptic fit, and the Missionary Lavour went to the townspeople to tell them that they must pray to God for the poor Irishman who had gone mad.

However, the danger was increasing; English troops had broken down the unhappy line of troops who were surrounding the town. The General wished to assemble a mixed Civil and Military Council which should try to obtain a surrender acceptable to the town and the colony. The Council of Pondicherry replied only by refusing, "You have broken us,” they said, “and we are no longer worth anything.” “I have not broken you,” replied the General, ”I have forbidden you to meet without my permission, and I command you, in the name of the King, to assemble and form a mixed Council to calm down the strong feelings in the whole colony as well as your own.” The Council replied with this summons which they intimated to him:

“We summon you, in the name of the religious orders, of all the inhabitants and of ourselves to order Mr. Coote (the English commander) to suspend arms immediately, and we hold you responsible to the King for all the misfortunes to which ill-timed delay may give rise.”


The General thereupon called a Council of War, composed of all the principal officers still in service. They decided to surrender, but disagreed as to the conditions. Count Lalli, angered against the English who had, he said, violated on more than one occasion the cartel established between the two nations, made a separate declaration, in which he blamed them for breaking treaties. It was neither tactful nor wise to talk to the conquerors about their faults, and embitter those to whom he wished to surrender. Such, however, was his character.

Having told them his complaints, he asked them to grant protection to the mother and sisters of a Rajah, who had taken refuge in Pondicherry, when the Rajah had been assassinated in the very camp of the English. He reproached them bitterly, as was his wont, for having allowed such barbarism. Colonel Coote did not reply to this insolent statement.

THE JESUIT LAVOUR PROPOSES CAPITULATION

The Council of Pondicherry, on its side, sent terms of capitulation, drawn up by the Jesuit Lavour, to the English Commander. The missionary carried them himself. This conduct might have been good enough in Paraguay, but it was not good enough for the English. If Lalli offended them by accusing them of injustice and cruelty, they were even more offended at a Jesuit of intriguing character being deputed to negotiate with victorious warriors. The Colonel did not even deign to read the terms of the Jesuit: he gave him his own. Here they are:

“Colonel Coote desires the French to offer themselves as prisoners of war, to be treated according to interests of his master the King. He will show them every indulgence that humanity demands.  

He will send tomorrow morning, between eight and nine o'clock, the grenadiers of his regiment, who will take possession of the Vilnour door.

The day after tomorrow, at the same time, he will take possession of the St. Louis door.

The mother and the sisters of the Rajah will be escorted to Madras. Every care will be taken of them, and they will not be given up to their enemies.

Written in our General Headquarters, near Pondicherry, on the 15th January 1761.”


They had to obey the orders of General Coote. He entered the town. The small garrison laid aside their arms. The Colonel did not dine with the General, with whom he was annoyed, but with the Governor of the Company, M. Duval de Leirit, and a few members of the Council.

THE ENGLISH ENTER PONDICHERRY

Mr. Pigot, the Governor of Madras for the English Company, laid claim to his right on Pondicherry: they could not deny it, because it was he who was paying the troops. It was he who ruled everything after the conquest.

Pigot entered the service of the East India Company in 1736, at the age of 17; after nineteen years he became governor and commander-in-chief of Madras in 1755. Having defended the city against the French in 1758-1759 and occupied Pondichéry on behalf of the company, he resigned his office in November 1763 and returned to the Kingdom of Great Britain, being made a baronet in 1764. After selling the family seat of Peplow Hall, Shropshire, he purchased Patshull Hall, Staffordshire, in 1765 for £100,000.

That year he obtained the seat of Wallingford in the Parliament of Great Britain, which he retained until 1768. In 1766 he was created an Irish peer as Baron Pigot, of Patshull in the County of Dublin. From 1768 until his death he sat in the British House of Commons for Bridgnorth. Pigot was created an LL.D. of the university of Cambridge on 3 July 1769.

Returning to India in 1775 to reoccupy his former position at Madras, Pigot was at once involved in a fierce quarrel with the majority of his council which arose out of the proposed restoration of Thuljaji, the rajah of Tanjore.

Controversy and restoration

In April 1775, Pigot was appointed governor and commander-in-chief of Madras in the place of Alexander Wynch. He resumed office at Fort St. George on 11 December 1775, and soon found himself at variance with some of his council. In accordance with the instructions of the directors he proceeded to Tanjore, where he issued a proclamation on 11 April 1776 announcing the restoration of the Raja, whose territory had been seized and transferred to Muhammed Ali Khan Wallajah, Nawab of the Carnatic in spite of the treaty which had been made during Pigot's previous tenure of office. Upon Pigot's return from Tanjore the differences in the council became more accentuated. Paul Benfield had already asserted that he held assignments on the revenues of Tanjore for sums of vast amount lent by him to the Nawab, as well as assignments on the growing crops in Tanjore for large sums lent by him to other persons. He now pleaded that his interests ought not to be affected by the reinstatement of the raja, and demanded the assistance of the council in recovering his property. Pigot refused to admit the validity of these claims, but his opinion was disregarded by the majority of the council, and his customary right to precedence in the conduct of business was denied. The final struggle between the governor and his council was on a comparatively small point—whether his nominee, Mr. Russell, or Colonel Stuart, the nominee of the majority, should have the opportunity of placing the administration of Tanjore in the hands of the Raja. In spite of Pigot's refusal to allow the question of Colonel Stuart's instructions to be discussed by the council, the majority gave their approval to them, and agreed to a draft letter addressed to the officer at Tanjore, directing him to deliver over the command to Colonel Stuart. Pigot thereupon declined to sign either the instructions or the letter, and declared that without his signature the documents could have no legal effect. At a meeting of the council on 22 August 1776, a resolution was carried by the majority denying that the concurrence of the governor was necessary to constitute an act of government. It was also determined that, as Pigot would not sign either of the documents, a letter should be written to the secretary authorizing him to sign them in the name of the council. When this letter had been signed by George Stratton[4] and Henry Brooke, Pigot snatched it away and formally charged them with an act subversive of the authority of the government. By the standing orders of the company, no member against whom a charge was preferred was allowed to deliberate or vote on any question relating to the charge. Through this ingenious manœuvre, Pigot obtained a majority in the council by his own casting vote, and the two offending members were subsequently suspended. On 23 August, the refractory members, instead of attending the council meeting, sent a notary public with a protest in which they denounced Pigot's action on the previous day, and declared themselves to be the "only legal representatives of the Honourable Company under this presidency". This protest was also sent by them to the commanders of the king's troops, and to all persons holding any authority in Madras. Enraged at this insult, Pigot summoned a second council meeting on the same day, at which Messrs. Floyer, Palmer, Jerdan, and Mackay, who had joined Messrs. Stratton and Brooke and the commanding officer, Sir Robert Fletcher, in signing the protest, were suspended, and orders were at the same time given for the arrest of Sir Robert Fletcher. On the following day Pigot was arrested by Colonel Stuart and conveyed to St. Thomas's Mount, some nine miles from Madras, where he was left in an officer's house under the charge of a battery of artillery. The refractory members, under whose orders Pigot's arrest had been made, immediately assumed the powers of the executive government, and suspended all their colleagues who had voted with the governor. Though the government of Bengal possessed a controlling authority over the other presidencies, it declined to interfere.

In England, the news of these proceedings excited much discussion. At a general court of the proprietors, a resolution that the directors should take effectual measures for restoring Lord Pigot, and for inquiring into the conduct of those who had imprisoned him, was carried on 31 March 1777, by 382 votes to 140. The feeling in Pigot's favour was much less strong in the court of directors, where, on 11 April following, a series of resolutions in favour of Pigot's restoration, but declaring that his conduct in several instances appeared to be reprehensible, was carried by the decision of the lot, the numbers on each side being equal. At a subsequent meeting of the directors, after the annual change in the court had taken place, it was resolved that the powers assumed by Lord Pigot were "neither known in the constitution of the Company nor authorised by charter, nor warranted by any orders or instructions of the Court of Directors". Pigot's friends, however, successfully resisted the passing of a resolution declaring the exclusion of Messrs. Stratton and Brooke from the council unconstitutional, and carried two other resolutions condemning Pigot's imprisonment and the suspension of those members of the council who had supported him. On the other hand, a resolution condemning the conduct of Lord Pigot in receiving small presents from the Nawab of Arcot, the receipt of which had been openly avowed in a letter to the court of directors, was carried. At a meeting of the general court held on 7 and 9 May a long series of resolutions was carried by a majority of ninety-seven votes, which censured the invasion of Pigot's rights as governor, and acquiesced in his restoration, but at the same time recommended that Pigot and all the members of the council should be recalled in order that their conduct might be more effectually inquired into. Owing to Lord North's opposition, Governor Johnstone failed to carry his resolutions in favour of Lord Pigot in the House of Commons on 21 May. The resolutions of the proprietors having been confirmed by the court of directors, Pigot was restored to his office by a commission under the company's seal of 10 June 1777, and was directed within one week to give up the government to his successor and forthwith to return to England.

Death

Meantime Pigot died on 11 May 1777, while under confinement at the Company's Garden House, near Fort St. George, whither he had been allowed to return for change of air in the previous month. At the inquest held after his death, the jury recorded a verdict of willful murder against all those who had been concerned in Pigot's arrest. The real contest throughout had been between the Nawab of Arcot and the Raja of Tanjore. Members of the council took sides, and Pigot exceeded his powers while endeavouring to carry out the instructions of the directors. The proceedings before the coroner were held to be irregular by the supreme court of judicature in Bengal, and nothing came of the inquiry instituted by the company. On 16 April 1779, Admiral Hugh Pigot brought the subject of his brother's deposition before the House of Commons. A series of resolutions affirming the principal facts of the case was agreed to, and an address to the king, recommending the prosecution of Messrs. Stratton, Brooke, Floyer, and Mackay, who were at that time residing in England, was adopted. They were tried in the King's Bench before Lord Mansfield and a special jury in December 1779, and were found guilty of a misdemeanour in arresting, imprisoning, and deposing Lord Pigot. On being brought up for judgment on 10 February 1780, they were each sentenced to pay a fine of £1,000, on payment of which they were discharged.

-- George Pigot, 1st Baron Pigot, by Wikipedia


General Lalli was all the time very ill; he asked the English Governor for permission to stay four more days in Pondicherry. He was refused. They indicated to him that he must leave in two days for Madras.

We might add, since it is rather a strange thing, that Pigot was of French origin, just as Lalli was of Irish origin: both were fighting against their old fatherland.


LALLI ILL-TREATED BY HIS FOLLOWERS

This harshness was the least that he suffered. The employees of the Company, the officers of his troops, whom he had mortified without consideration, united against him. The employees, above all, insulted him right up to the time of his departure, putting up posters against him, throwing stones at his windows, calling out loudly that he was a traitor and a scoundrel. The band of people grew bigger as idlers joined it, and they, in turn, soon became inflamed by the mad anger of the others. They waited for him in the place through which he was to be carried, lying on a palanquin, followed at a distance by fifteen English hussars who had been chosen to escort him during his journey to Madras. Colonel Coote had allowed him to be accompanied by four of his guards as far as the gate of the city. The rebels surrounded his bed, loading insults upon him, and threatening to kill him. They might have been slaves who wanted to kill with their swords one of their companions. He continued his march in their midst holding two pistols in his weakened hands. His guards and the English hussars saved his life.

THE COMMISSARY OF STORES OF THE ARMY ASSASSINATED

The rebels attacked M. Dubois, an old and brave officer, seventy years old and Commissary of Stores for the Army, who passed by a moment later. This officer, the King’s man, was assassinated: he was robbed, stripped bare of clothes, buried in a garden, and his papers immediately seized and taken away from his house, since when they have never been seen.

While General Lalli was being taken to Madras, the employees of the Company obtained permission in Pondicherry to open his boxes, thinking that they would find there his treasure in gold, diamonds and bills of exchange. All they found was a little plate, clothes, useless papers, and it maddened them even more.

5TH MARCH 1761

Bowed down with sorrow and illness, Lalli, a prisoner in Madras, asked in vain for his transport to England to be delayed: he could not obtain this favour. They carried him by force on board a trading ship, whose captain treated him cruelly during the voyage. The only solace given him was pork broth. This English patriot thought it his duty to treat in this way an Irishman in the service of France. Soon the officers, the Council of Pondicherry and the chief employees were forced to follow him but, before being transferred, they had the sorrow of seeing the demolition begun of all the fortifications that they had made for their town, and the destruction of their huge shops, their markets, all that was used for trade and defence, even to their own houses.

Mr. Dupre, chosen as Governor of Pondicherry by the Council of Madras, hurried on this destruction. He was (according to our information) the grandson of one of those Frenchmen whom the strictness of the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes forced to become an exile from their fatherland and fight against it. Louis XIV did not expect that in about eighty years the capital of his India Company would be destroyed by a Frenchman.


The Jesuit Lavour wrote to him in vain: Are you equally anxious, Sir, to destroy the house in which we have a domestic altar where we can practice our religion secretly?”

Dupre was little concerned with the fact that Lavaor was saying the Mass in secret: he replied that General Lalli had razed St. David to the ground and had only given three days to the inhabitants in which to take away their possessions, that the Governor of Madras had granted three months to the inhabitants or Pondicherry and that the English were at least equal to the French in generosity, but that he must go and say the Mass elsewhere. Thereupon the town was razed to the ground pitilessly, without the French having the right to complain.

CHAPTER XVIII: LALLI AND THE OTHER PRISONERS ARE CONDUCTED TO ENGLAND AND RELEASED ON PAROLE. CRIMINAL SUIT AGAINST LALLI.

The prisoners, on the journey and in England, continued their mutual reproaches which despair made even more bitter. The General had his partisans, above all among the officers in the regiment bearing his name. Almost all the others were his enemies: one man would write to the French Ministers; another would accuse the opposite party of being the cause of the disaster. But the real cause was the same as in other parts of the world: the superiority of the English fleet, the carefulness and perseverance of the nation, its credit, its ready money, and that spirit of patriotism, which is stronger in the long run than the trading spirit and greed for riches.  

General Lalli obtained permission from the Admiralty in England to enter France on parole. The majority of his enemies obtained the same favour: they arrived preceded by all the complaints and the accusations of both sides. Paris was flooded with a thousand writings. The partisans of Lalli were very few and his enemies innumerable.

A whole Council, two hundred employees without resources, the Directors of the India Company seeing their huge establishment reduced to nothing, the shareholders trembling for their fortune, irritated officers; everybody flew at Lalli with all the more fury because they believed that in their losing he had acquired millions. Women always less restrained than men in their fears and their complaints, cried out against the traitor, the embezzler, the criminal guilty of high treason against the king.

The Council of Pondicherry, in a body, presented against him in front of the Controller-General. In this petition, they said: “It is not a desire to avenge the insults and our ruin which is our motive -- it is the force of truth, it is the pure feeling of our consciences, it is the popular complaint against him."


It seemed however that “the pure feelings of conscience” had been somewhat corrupted by the grief of having lost everything, by a personal hatred, perhaps excusable, and by a thirst for vengeance which cannot be excused.

A very brave officer of the ancient nobility, badly insulted without cause, whose honour, even, was involved, wrote in a manner even more violent than the Council of Pondicherry: “This is," he said, “what a stranger without a name, with no deeds to his credit, without family, without a title, but none the less loaded with the honours of his master, prepares for the whole colony. Nothing was sacred in his sacrilegious hands: as a leader he even laid his hands on the altar appropriating six silver candlesticks, which the English General made him give back in response to the request of the head of the Capucines,” etc.

The General had brought on himself, by his indiscretion, his impetuosity, and his unjust reproaches, this cruel accusation: it is true that he had the candlesticks and the crucifix carried to his own house, but so publicly that it was not possible that he should wish to take possession of such a small thing, in the midst of so many big things. Therefore the sentence which condemned him does not speak of sacrilege.

The reproach of his low birth was very unjust: we have got his titles together with the seal of King John. His family was very old. People therefore were overstepping the limit with him just as he had done with so many others. If anything ought to inspire men with a desire for moderation, it is this tragic event.

The Finance Minister ought naturally to protect a trading company whose ruin was liable to do so much harm to the country: a secret order was given to shut Lalli in the Bastille. He himself offered to give himself up: he wrote to the Duke of Choiseul: “I am bringing here my head and my innocence. I am awaiting your orders."

The Duke of Choiseul, Minister of War and Foreign Affairs, was generous to a fault, genial and just: the highness of his ideals equalled the breadth of his opinions, but, in an affair so important and complicated, he could not go against the clamorous demands of all Paris, nor neglect the host of imputations against the accused. Lalli was shut up in the Bastille in the same room where La Bourdonnaye had been and, like him, did not emerge from it.

It remained to be seen what judges they would give him. A Council of War seemed to be the most suitable tribunal, but he was also accused of misappropriation of funds, embezzlement, and crimes of peculation of which the Marshals of France are not the judges. Count Lalli at first only brought accusations against his enemies, who therefore tried to reply to them in some way. The case was so complicated, it was necessary to call so many witnesses, that the prisoner remained fifteen months in the Bastille without being examined, and without knowing the tribunal before which he was to plead.
“That,” several legal experts used to say, “is the tragic destiny of the citizens of a kingdom, famous for its arms and its arts but lacking in good laws, or rather a kingdom where the wise old laws have been sometimes forgotten.”

THE JESUIT LAVOUR DIES. 1,250,000 POUNDS FOUND IN HIS CASH BOX.

The Jesuit Lavour was then in Paris: he was asking the Government for a modest pension of four hundred francs so that he might go and pray to God for the rest of his days in the heart of Perigord where he was born. He died, and twelve hundred and fifty thousand pounds were found in his cash box, and more in diamonds and bills of exchange. This deed of a Mission Superior from the East, and the case of the Superior of the Western Missions, La Valette, who went into bankruptcy at the same time, with three millions in debts, excited over the whole of France an indignation equal to that which was excited against Lalli. This was one of the causes which finally got the Jesuits abolished, but, at the same time, the cash box of Lavour settled the fate of Lalli. In this trunk were found two books of memoirs, one in favour of Lalli, the other charging him with all kinds of crimes. The Jesuit was to make use of one or the other of these writings, according to the turn which affairs took. These documents were a double-edged sword, and the one that harmed Lalli was delivered to the Attorney-General. This supporter of the King complained to Parliament against the Count on account of his oppression, embezzlement, treachery, and high treason. Parliament referred the suit in the first instance to the Chatelet. Soon afterwards, letters patent of the King sent to the High Tribunal and to the "Tournelle" information of all the malpractices in India so that steps may be taken against the perpetrators in accordance with the severity of the ordinances. It might have been better to stress the word justice rather than the word severity.

As the Attorney-General had accused him of the crimes of high treason and treachery against the Crown, he was denied a counsel. For his defence, he had no other help except his own. They allowed him to write, and he took advantage of this permission -- to his own undoing.
His writings annoyed his enemies all the more and made new foes. He reproached Count d'Ache with being the cause of his loss in India, because he did not remain before Pondicherry. But as chief of a squadron, d’Ache had definite orders to defend the Isles of Bourbon and France against a threatened invasion. He was accusing a man who had himself fought three times against the English fleet, and had been wounded during these three battles. He blamed the Chevalier of Soupire violently, and he was answered with a moderation as praiseworthy as it is rare.

Finally, testifying that he had always rigidly done his duty, he gave vent to the same excesses with his pen as formerly he used to do with his tongue. If he had been granted a counsel, his defence would have been more circumspect, but he all the time thought that it was enough to believe oneself innocent. Above all, he forced M. de Bussi to give a reply that was as mortifying as it was well written. All impartial men saw with sorrow two brave officers like Lalli and de Bussi, both of tried valour, who had risked their lives a hundred times, pretend to suspect one another of lack of courage. Lalli took too much upon himself by insulting all his enemies in his memoirs. It was like fighting alone against an army, and it was impossible for him not to be overwhelmed. The talk of a whole town makes an impression on the judges even when they believe they are on their guard against such an influence.

-- Voltaire Fragments on India. Translated by Freda Bedi, B.A. Hons. (Oxon.)

Francis Ellis’ research

The text was difficult to assess because it was neither Hindu nor Christian, and indeed neither exclusively Indian nor exclusively European. The distinctive Europeanness of some of its ideas would not be apparent to believers in natural religion, and it was hard to test its claim to be a Veda, when before Colebrooke’s survey of 1802 there was little knowledge of what a Veda or the Veda was. The person who did the most to settle the matter was Francis Whyte Ellis (1777 1819), who like Colebrooke was an official of the East India Company doing research in his spare time. The Ezour-Védam, like India itself, passed from the French-speaking to the English-speaking world.

In 1781–82 Antoine-Louis-Henri Polier, a [French] Swiss Protestant who served in the English East India Company’s army until 1775, had had copies of the Vedas made for him at the court of Pratap Singh at Jaipur. Polier’s intermediary was a Portuguese physician, Don Pedro da Silva Leitão… Jai Singh had assembled a substantial collection of manuscripts from religious sites across India, and in the time of his successor Pratap Singh the library had contained the samhitas of all four Vedas in manuscripts dating from the last quarter of the seventeenth century

Polier records that he had sought copies of the Veda without success in Bengal, Awadh, and on the Coromandel coast, as well as in Agra, Delhi, and Lucknow and had found that even at Banaras “nothing could be obtained but various Shasters, [which] are only Commentaries of the Baids”…

It is perhaps significant that it was in a royal library, rather than in a Brahmin pathasala, that Polier found manuscripts of the Vedas. But the same is not true of the manuscripts acquired in Banaras only fifteen years later by Henry Thomas Colebrooke, during the period (1795–97) when he was appointed as judge and magistrate at nearby Mirzapur…
I cannot conceive how it came to be ever asserted that the Brahmins were ever averse to instruct strangers; several gentlemen who have studied the language find, as I do, the greatest readiness in them to give us access to all their sciences. They do not even conceal from us the most sacred texts of their Vedas.

The several gentlemen would likely have included General Claude Martin, Sir William Jones, and Sir Robert Chambers. These were all East India Company employees who obtained Vedic manuscripts (Jones from Polier) in the last decades of the eighteenth century.

Why was it so much easier for Polier, Colebrooke, and others to obtain what it had been so difficult for the Jesuits and impossible for the Pietists?...

-- The Absent Vedas, by Will Sweetman


The two greatest empires were the British and the French; allies and partners in some things, in others they were hostile rivals. In the Orient, from the eastern shores of the Mediterranean to Indochina and Malaya, their colonial possessions and imperial spheres of influence were adjacent, frequently overlapped, often were fought over. But it was in the Near Orient, the lands of the Arab Near East, where Islam was supposed to define teal and racial characteristics, that the British and the French countered each other and “the Orient” with the greatest intensity, familiarity, and complexity. For much of the nineteenth century, as Lord Salisbury put it in 1881, their common view of the Orient was intricately problematic: “When you have got a ...faithful ally who is bent on meddling in a country in which you are deeply interested -- you have three courses open to you. You may renounce -- or monopolize -- or share. Renouncing would have been to place the French across our road to India. Monopolizing would have been very near the risk of war. So we resolved to share.”

And share they did, in ways that we shall investigate presently. What they shared, however, was not only land or profit or rule; it the kind of intellectual power I have been calling Orientalism. In a sense Orientalism was a library or archive of information commonly and, in some of its aspects, unanimously held. What bound the archive together was a family of ideas and a unifying set of values proven in various ways to be effective. These ideas explained the behavior of Orientals; they supplied Orientals with a mentality, a genealogy, an atmosphere; most important, they allowed Europeans to deal with and even to see Orientals as a phenomenon possessing regular characteristics.


-- Orientalism, by Edward W. Said


Ellis was employed in the East India Company’s base at Fort St. George (Madras / Chennai). His greatest scholarly achievement was to show the existence of a Dravidian family of languages, distinct from the Indo-Aryan family -– an idea that is taken for granted now, but which was not widely accepted until it was developed further by Robert Caldwell some forty years later. Ellis presented it in an introduction to someone else’s book, a grammar of Telugu written by A. D. Campbell for the company’s trainees in the College of Fort St. George, the South Indian counterpart to the College of Fort William in Calcutta.

In 1816, Ellis visited the former Jesuit mission in Pondicherry, and examined a collection of eight books of manuscript, in romanized Sanskrit reflecting Bengali pronunciation and French spelling, with a French version on the facing page. Some of the books contained more than one text, some contained part of one and part of another, and one contained a fair copy of the contents of some of the others. Some of the paper had a watermark with the date 1742. Some passages lacked the translation, while one, which is the Ezour-Védam, had the French but no Sanskrit. From the samples given by Ellis, we find that the Sanskrit is in ślokas, often irregular, and the French version is abridged -– or else, if the French was the original, the Sanskrit was expanded. The titles all contain the word Veda, e.g. Zozochi kormo bédo (apparently yajuṣ-karma veda), Zosur Beder Chakha27 (yajur-vedasya śākhā), La chaka du Rik et de28 Ezour védam (ṛg-veda śākhā, yajur-veda śākhā) Chama Védan (sāma-veda), Odorbo Bedo Chakha (atharva-veda-śākhā). One text, Rik Opo Bédo (perhaps ṛg-upaveda) has the title also in Tamil script reflecting Tamil pronunciation, irukku-vedam (ṛg-veda). He describes them as ‘an instance of literary forgery, or rather, as the object of the author or authors, was certainly not literary distinction, of religious imposition without parallel’ (Ellis 1822: 1).

Ellis’ description was read in a paper to the Asiatic Society of Bengal in 1817, and published in 1822. It is all the more important because, as mentioned already, the manuscripts are now lost (Rocher 1984: 74); Ellis’ article is the source of Rocher’s description as well as mine. They were last described at first hand by J. Castets, S.J., in a monograph published in Pondicherry in 1935; he says they have deteriorated since Ellis’ time, and even his description is mainly based on Ellis.

There are still many uncertainties about these texts:

Who wrote the Sanskrit ślokas, and why?

Why were the ślokas transcribed in an inconsistent and ambiguous romanization, instead of being preserved in an Indic script?

Who wrote the French version, and why?

Why are they called Vedas?


The first and second of the above questions do not apply to the Ezour-Védam, which has no Sanskrit version, but only to the other texts in the collection, which are now lost except for the samples published by Ellis. In the case of the Ezour-Védam, Rocher argues that there was no Sanskrit original; the text was written in French, by any one of a number of Jesuit missionaries, in order to be translated into Sanskrit.29 The author must have been someone familiar with European ideas, and with a knowledge of Purānic tradition, but probably a faulty knowledge, since there are so many oddities in Vyāsa’s accounts.30

-- Ezour-Védam: Europe’s illusory first glimpse of the Veda, by Dermot Killingley
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 37494
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Freda Bedi Cont'd (#3)

Postby admin » Mon Jun 14, 2021 5:47 am

Part 2 of 2

The beginning of printing in Madras proper took place under somewhat curious circumstances which are described by Mr. W. H. Warren as follows: —

"In 1761 Sir Eyre Coote captured Pondicherry from the French and in the Governor's house was found a printing press and some types. These were brought back to Madras as part of the loot, but the Fort St. George Authorities were unable to make use of them as they had no printer. Fabricius, the great Tamil Scholar, was then living at Vepery, and the equipment was handed over to him on condition that if at any future time the Company should require any printing done, he would do it for them... It was at Vepery that Fabricius printed his hymn-book, and also his Tamil-English Dictionary (1779)." 27 [Memoirs of the Madras Library Association, Madras 1941, p. 42.]


Copies of the Tamil-English Dictionary mentioned above and of an English-Tamil dictionary printed in 1786, were to be seen at the exhibition organised on the occasion of the 1955 session of the All India Oriental Conference at Annamalainagari. The Tamil types used in the printing of this Dictionary continued to be used until 1870.

Printing in Kannada and Telugu

It appears that the beginnings of printing in Kannada and Telugu languages took place in the city of Madras in the press of the College of Fort St. George. The present writer has in his collection a copy of the second edition of "A Grammar of the Teloogo Language" by A. D. Campbell which was printed in this press in 1820. In the "Advertisement" appearing at the beginning of this book, the author describes in the following words the role which the College of Fort St. George was expected to play in the cultivation of the languages of South India: —

"Since the establishment of the College of Fort William by Marquis Wellesley, the labours of many distinguished individuals have added much valuable information to the knowledge before possessed of oriental literature, and afforded many facilities to the attainment of an improved acquaintance with the several dialects peculiar to the provinces immediately subject to the Supreme Government. A similar Institution (on a modified and less extensive scale) has more recently been established at Fort St. George, and may be expected, in course of time, to produce the same favourable results as regards the languages of the South of India; respecting which very little has as yet appeared before the public through the medium of the press, though the languages themselves had, even before the establishment of the college, been cultivated with considerable success by individuals."


As stated above, the College of Fort St. George intended to function on lines similar to those on which the College of Fort William at Calcutta did. A Board for this College was created by government in 1812. The Board maintained a sales depot and a library of oriental works. In 1820 regular rules for its observance were framed. The College trained civil servants in the languages of the province, and supervised the instruction of munshis and persons appointed as law-officers and pleaders in the provincial courts. 28 [C. S. Srinivasachari, History of the City of Madras, Madras 1939, p. 216.]

The first edition of Campbell's Grammar which appeared in 1816 29 [G. A. Grierson, Linguistic Survey of India, Vol. IV, Calcutta 1906, p. 582.] was probably also printed in the same press. It has been stated that a book in Telugu bearing the title "A Grammar of the Gentoo Language as it is understood and spoken by the Gentoo People residing north and north-westwards of Madras" by a civilian (W. Brown?) was printed in Madras earlier in 1807. 30 [Ibid.] Another Grammar of the Telinga language by Dr. William Carey was published at Serampore near Calcutta in 1814.

An English-Kannada dictionary compiled by the Rev. William Reeve, a protestant missionary belonging to the London Missionary Society, was printed in the press of the College of Fort St. George in 1824. A copy of this work is available in the library of the University of Bombay. In the prefatory "Advertisement" in this book the author gives the following information regarding its genesis:

"One of the author's principal objects in coming to India being to assist in translating the Holy Scriptures into Carnataca, he was necessarily led to pay particular attention to that language... To accomplish this object with a language that had never been brought into general notice, was, as may be easily supposed, rather a formidable task. The paucity of materials to furnish the needed data upon which to proceed, suggested the importance of attempting the formation of a Grammar and two Dictionaries, the one English and Carnataca, and the other Carnataca and English. When the first of these works had made some progress, the Grammar of J. M'Kerrell, Esq. was given to the public, and the author, therefore, from that time laid his aside. The present work was finished in 1817, after which the Dictionary Carnatica and English was commenced."


"A Grammar of the Carnatic Language" by J. M. M'Kerrel which is referred to in the above passage, was published in Madras in 1820. 31 [Ibid., p. 367.] It can be said, therefore, that printing in Kannada in Madras started in 1820 or earlier. However, in Serampore, the Baptist Missionaries, on whose printing activities we shall have occasion to dwell at some length in the next chapter, had started printing in Kannada even earlier. "A Grammar of the Kurnata Language" by Dr. W. Carey was printed in 1817 and a translation of the Bible in the same language was printed by them for the first time in 1823. It appears that the Kannada types used in the Madras College press were prepared locally, as they are somewhat different in style from those used in Serampore publications.

Although as stated above the beginnings of printing in Kannada took place in the city of Madras, Christian missionaries operating in Bellary, Bangalore and Mangalore were responsible for its subsequent development.
Credit for bringing the forms of letters in Kannada type to its present state of elegance is generally ascribed to Anantacharya, who belonged to the Achari community of blacksmiths in Mangalore. 32 [Tenkana du (Canna da Sahitya Sammelana) Mangalore 1947, pp. 114-116.]

-- The Printing Press in India: It's Beginnings and Early Development Being a Quatercentenary Commemoration Study of the Advent of Printing in India (In 1556), by Anant Kakba Priolkar


Image
Fort St George
Part of Tamil Nadu
Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India
Fort St George, the seat of Government of Tamil Nadu
Image
Coordinates 13.079722°N 80.286944°E
Type Forts
Height 45 metres[citation needed]
Site information
Controlled by Government of Tamil Nadu
Condition Good
Site history
Built 1639; 382 years ago
Built by British East India Company
Garrison information
Occupants Tamil Nadu legislative assembly–Secretariat battles =

Image
Plan of Fort St George made during the French occupation of 1746–1749

Image
An 18th-century sketch of the fort

Image
Corner of Fort St George with cathedral, ca 1905

Fort St George (or historically, White Town[1]) is the first English (later British) fortress in India, founded in 1639[2] at the coastal city of Madras, the modern city of Chennai. The construction of the fort provided the impetus for further settlements and trading activity, in what was originally an uninhabited land.[3] Thus, it is a feasible contention to say that the city evolved around the fortress.[4] The fort currently houses the Tamil Nadu legislative assembly and other official buildings.

History

Image
Fort St George in 1858

Image
In the Fort, Madras (MacLeod, p 124, 1871)[5]

The East India Company (EIC), which had entered India around 1600 for trading activities, had begun licensed trading at Surat, which was its initial bastion. However, to secure its trade lines and commercial interests in the spice trade, it felt the necessity of a port closer to the Malaccan Straits, and succeeded in purchasing a piece of coastal land, originally called Chennirayarpattinam or Channapatnam, where the Company began the construction of a harbour and a fort. The fort was completed on 23 April 1644 at a cost of £3,000,[6] coinciding with St George's Day, celebrated in honour of the patron saint of England. The fort, hence christened Fort St George, faced the sea and some fishing villages, and it soon became the hub of merchant activity. It gave birth to a new settlement area called George Town (historically referred to as Black Town), which grew to envelop the villages and led to the formation of the city of Madras. It also helped to establish English influence over the Carnatic and to keep the kings of Arcot and Srirangapatna, as well as the French forces based at Pondichéry, at bay. In 1665, after the EIC received word of the formation of the new French East India Company, the fort was strengthened and enlarged while its garrison was increased.[7]

According to the 17th century traveller Thomas Bowrey, Fort St. George was:

"without all dispute a beneficiall place to the Honourable English India Company, and with all the Residence of theire Honourable Agent and Governour all of their Affaires Upon this Coast and the Coast of Gingalee, the Kingdoms also of Orixa, (Orissa) Bengala (Bengal), and Pattana (Patna), the said Governour and his Councell here resideigne, for the Honour of our English Nation keepinge and maintainneinge the place in great Splendour, Civil and good Government, Entertaineinge nobly all Foraign Embassadors, and provideinge great quantities of Muzlinge (Muslin) Callicoes (Calico) &c. to be yearly transported to England."[8]


The Fort is a stronghold with 6 metres (20 ft) high walls that withstood a number of assaults in the 18th century. It briefly passed into the possession of the French from 1746 to 1749, but was restored to Great Britain under the Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle, which ended the War of the Austrian Succession.

The Fort now serves as one of the administrative headquarters for the legislative assembly of Tamil Nadu state and it still houses a garrison of troops in transit to various locations at South India and the Andamans. The Fort Museum contains many relics of the Raj era, including portraits of many of the Governors of Madras. The fort is maintained by the Archaeological Survey of India, with the administrative support of Indian Army.[9][10]

The church

St Mary's Church is the oldest Anglican church in India. It was built between 1678 and 1680 on the orders of the then Agent of Madras Streynsham Master.[11] The tombstones in its graveyard are the oldest English or British tombstones in India. This ancient prayer house solemnised the marriages of Robert Clive and Governor Elihu Yale, who later became the first benefactor of Yale University in the United States.

Museum

Image
Victoria memorial hall

Image
Coat of Arms of Madras Presidency depicting Fort St. George

The Fort Museum, which is the only ticketed institution of Archaeological Survey of India in the complex,[12] exhibits many items of the period of English and later British rule. This building was completed in 1795 and first housed the office of the Madras Bank. The hall upstairs was the Public Exchange Hall and served as a place for public meetings, lottery draws and occasional entertainment. These relics are reminders of British rule in India. The objects on display in the museum are the weapons, coins, medals, uniforms and other artefacts from England, Scotland, France and India dating back to the colonial period. Original letters written by Clive and Cornwallis make fascinating reading. One set of quaint period uniforms is displayed for viewing, as well. However, the piece de resistance is a large statue of Lord Cornwallis.

The National Flag of India was designed by Pingali Venkayya and adopted in its present form during the meeting of the Constituent Assembly held on 22 July 1947, a few days before India's independence from the British on 15 August 1947. The first ever flag flown after the independence is stored in the third floor of the museum. The public are allowed to see but not to touch or take photographs.

The museum is mentioned in the novel The Museum of Innocence, by Nobel-laureate Orhan Pamuk.

Wellesley House

The first floor of the building includes the Banqueting Hall, which holds paintings of the Governor of the Fort and other high officials of the Regime. The canons of Tipu Sultan decorate the ramparts of the museum. The 14.5 ft statue stands at the entrance near a stairway in the museum. This statue was created by Charles Bank in England to be brought to India. The pedestal of the statue is carved with a scene depicting Tipu Sultan's emissary handing over Tipu's two sons as hostage in lieu of a ransom he was unable to pay to the British. It takes its name from Richard Wellesley, Governor General of India, and brother of the Duke of Wellington.

Flag staff

The flag staff at the fort is one of the tallest in the country. Made of teakwood, it is 150 feet (46 m) high.[13]

Namakkal Kavingyar Maaligai

Main article: Namakkal Kavingyar Maaligai

Namakkal Kavingyar Maaligai is a 10-storeyed building at the campus and is the power centre of state secretariat. It houses offices of the secretaries and departments. Between 2012 and 2014, the building was renovated at a cost of ₹ 28 crore, with additional facilities like centralised air-conditioning and new electrical wiring system.[14]

In recent years

The entire complex is administered by the Department of Defence. The fort building is a three-storeyed one housing the offices of the chief minister and other ministers, the chief secretary, home ministry, treasury, etc. The remaining offices are housed in the 10-storeyed Namakkal Kavingyar Maaligai, which houses more than 30 departments.[15]

Fort St George complex housed the administrative buildings of the Government of Tamil Nadu till March 2010. The Legislature of Tamil Nadu and the secretariat (with headquarters of various government departments) was situated in the fort. The fort itself was open to the public however only to a certain area. The main building or the secretariat was open only to government officials and the police. The cannons and the moat which guarded this old building have been left untouched. In 2010 the legislature and the secretariat moved to a new location and the old assembly complex was converted into a library for the Central Institute of Classical Tamil.[16] Following the 2011 assembly elections and the return of J Jayalalithaa as the Chief Minister of the State, the Tamil Nadu Assembly and the Secretariat have been restored to Fort St George.[17]

Other monuments

An arch commemorating the diamond jubilee of Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly is under construction near the Fort on Rajaji Salai close to Napier Bridge. The structure is a replica of Fort St George's façade. The arch will be rectangular in structure with a height of 41 ft and 80 m width being built at a cost of ₹ 1.33 crore. The structure will be a mix of old and modern architecture, inspired by the frontage of Fort St George. The legend 'Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly diamond jubilee commemorative arch' would be inscribed in English and Tamil, in addition to the words '60 years'. The chief minister J Jayalalithaa laid the foundation stone for the arch on 30 October 2012. Earlier, the arch was planned to be constructed close to the entrance of Fort St George, but was later relocated beyond the prohibitive zone, as per AMASR Act. A public interest litigation (PIL) was filed in the Madras High Court opposing the move stating that the arch would choke Rajaji Salai that leads to the High Court. However, the petition was dismissed by a division bench on 9 January 2013.[18]

See also

• India portal
• Timeline of Chennai history (Section: 17th century)
• History of Chennai
• Tamil Nadu legislative assembly-secretariat complex
• List of Tamil Nadu Government Estates, Complexes, Buildings and Structures
• Heritage structures in Chennai

References

1. James Talboys Wheeler (1881). The History of India from the Earliest Ages. N. Trübner. pp. 489–.
2. Roberts, "History of the World" (Penguin, 1994)
3. Muthiah, S (12 August 2002). "A centenary's links with Chennai". The Hindu. Archived from the original on 28 October 2003. Retrieved 6 September 2002.
4. http://www.iloveindia.com/indian-monume ... eorge.html
5. MacLeod, Norman (1871). Peeps at the Far East: A Familiar Account of a Visit to India. London: Strahan & Co. Retrieved 2 November 2015.
6. Keay, John (1991). The Honourable Company A History Of The English East India Company (1993 ed.). Great Britain: HarperCollinsPublishers. p. 69. ISBN 978-0-00-743155-7.
7. Talboys Wheeler, James (1861). Madras in the Olden Time. 1. Madras: J. Higginbotham. p. 72. ISBN 9788120605534.
8. Bowrey, Thomas (1895). Temple, Richard Carnac (ed.). A Geographical Account of Countries Round the Bay of Bengal, 1669 to 1679. p. 4.
9. http://asichennai.gov.in/downloads/list ... ldings.pdf
10. Jesudasan, Dennis S. (10 August 2018). "Business group may adopt Fort St. George". The Hindu. Retrieved 28 December 2018.
11. Talboys Wheeler, James (1861). Madras in the Olden Time. 1. Madras: J. Higginbotham. p. 104. ISBN 9788120605534.
12. https://www.goibibo.com/destinations/ch ... 210220682/
13. "Fort St. George, Chennai". Maps of India. Retrieved 12 January 2013.
14. Mariappan, Julie (10 July 2014). "Jayalalithaa opens renovated exterior of Namakkal Kavignar Maligai". The Times of India. Chennai: The Times Group. Retrieved 7 February 2015.
15. "புதுப்பிக்கப்பட்ட நாமக்கல் கவிஞர் மாளிகை: ஜெயலலிதா நாளை திறந்து வைக்கிறார்". Malai Malar (in Tamil). Chennai. 9 July 2014. Archived from the original on 7 February 2015. Retrieved 7 February 2015.
16. "Old Assembly Chamber to turn reference library". The Hindu. 11 June 2010. Retrieved 13 June 2010.
17. "New secretariat in Chennai to be converted into hospital".
18. Sasidharan, S. (19 February 2013). "Work begins on Assembly arch". The Deccan Chronicle. Chennai. Retrieved 22 February 2013.

External links

• Letters to Fort St. George
• Paintings of Fort St George
• The University of Houston Digital Library has a collection of historical photographs from the magazine, India Illustrated. View this collection at the University of Houston Digital Libraries
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 37494
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Freda Bedi Cont'd (#3)

Postby admin » Mon Jun 14, 2021 6:42 am

Fort St. David
by Wikipedia
Accessed: 6/13/21

PONDICHERRY

Quite near Fort St. David, in an arid plain without a port, the French bought, like the others, from the Soubeidar of the Deccan province, a small piece of land where they built a station, which they later made into a town of considerable importance, — the Pondicherry of which we have already spoken. At first, it was merely a trading centre surrounded by a thick hedge of acacias, palms, cocoanut trees, and aloes, and it was called “the boundary hedge."...

LALLI BEGINS BY BESIEGING THREE PLACES AND TAKING THEM.

As soon as he arrived, he besieged three places: one was Kudalur, [Old name for Cuddalore. Voltaire says Goudalour.] a little fort three miles from Pondicherry; the second was Saint David, a much bigger fortress; the third Devikota, [Voltaire says Divicotey.] which surrendered as he approached. It was flattering for him to have under his orders, in these first expeditions, a Count d’Estaing, descendant of that d’Estaing who saved the life of Philip Augustus at the battle of Bovine, and who transferred to his family the arms of the kings of France; a Constans, whose family was so old and famed, a La Fare, and many other officers of the first rank. It was not customary to send out young men of big families to take service in India. It would certainly have been necessary to have more troops and money with them. However, the Count d' Estaing had taken Kudalur in a day; and the day after, the General, followed by this flower of manhood, had gone to lay siege to the important station of St. David.

A NAVAL BATTLE BETWEEN ADMIRAL POCOCK AND ADMIRAL D'ACHE: 29th APRIL 1758

Not a minute was lost between the two rival nations. While Count d’Estaing was taking Kudalur, the English Fleet, commanded by Admiral Pocock, was attacking that of Comte d'Ache on the coast of Pondicherry. Men wounded or killed, broken masts, torn sails, tattered rigging, were the sole results of this indecisive battle. The two damaged fleets remained in those parts, equally unable to injure one another. The French was the worst treated — it had only forty dead, but five hundred men had been wounded, including Comte d’Ache and his captain, and after the battle, by bad luck, a ship of seventy-four cannons was lost on the coast. But a palpable proof that the French Admiral [We give the name of admiral to the chief of a squadron because it is the title of the English chiefs of squadrons. The "Grand Admiral” is in England what the admiral is in France. (V.)] shared with the English Admiral the honour of the day, is that the Englishmen did not attempt to send help to the besieged Fort St. David.

Everything was opposed in Pondicherry to the enterprise of the General. Nothing was ready to second him. He demanded bombs, mortars, and utensils of all kinds, and they had not got any. The siege dragged along; people began to fear the disgrace of abandoning it; even money was lacking. The two millions brought by the fleet and given to the treasury of the Company were already spent. The Merchants’ Council of Pondicherry had thought it necessary to pay their immediate debts in order to revive their credit, and had issued orders to Paris that, if help of ten millions was not forthcoming, everything would be lost. The Governor of Pondicherry, the successor of Godeheu, on behalf of the Merchants’ administration, wrote to the General on the 24th May this letter, which was received in the trenches:

“My resources are exhausted and we have no longer any hope left unless we are successful. Where shall I find resources in a country ruined by fifteen years of war, enough to pay the expenses of your army and of a squadron from which we were hoping for a great deal of help. On the contrary, there is nothing.”


This single letter explains the cause of all the disasters which had been experienced and of all those that followed. The more the want of necessary things was felt in the town, the more the General was blamed for having undertaken the siege of Fort St. David.

In spite of so many defeats and obstacles, the General forced the English commander to yield. In St. David were found one hundred and eighty cannons, all kinds of provisions which were lacking in Pondicherry, and money of which there was a still greater lack. There was three hundred thousand pounds in coin, which was all forwarded to the treasury of the Company.
We are only noting here facts on which all parties agree.

THE 2ND JULY 1758. LALLI PUTS THIS COMBAT ON THE 3RD OF AUGUST IN HIS MEMOIRS. IT IS A MISTAKE.

Count Lalli demolished this fortress and all the surrounding small farms. It was an order of the Minister: an ill-fated order which soon brought sad reprisals. As soon as Fort St. David had been taken, the General left to conquer Madras. He wrote to M. de Bussi who was then in the heart of the Deccan: “As soon as I become the master of Madras, I am going to the Ganges, either by land or sea. My policy can be summarized in these five words: 'No more English in the Peninsula.'” His great zeal was unquenchable, and the fleet was not in a fit condition to back him up. It had just attempted a second naval battle in sight of Pondicherry, which was even more disastrous than the first. Comte d'Ache received two wounds, and, in this bloodthirsty fight, he had resisted the attacks of a naval army, twice as strong as his own, with five dilapidated ships. After this conflict, he demanded masts, provisions, rigging and crew from the Town Council. He got nothing. The General on the sea was no more helped by this exhausted Company than the General on the land. He went to the Ile de France near the coast of Africa to find what he had not been able to discover in India.

At the beginning of the Coromandel coast is quite a beautiful province called Tanjore. The Raja of this land, whom the French and the English called “King”, was a very rich prince. The Company claimed that this prince owed them about thirteen millions in French money.

THE ACTIONS AND LETTERS OF THE JESUIT LAVOUR

The Governor of Pondicherry, on behalf of the Company, ordered the General to demand this money again with his sword in his hand. A French Jesuit, named Lavour, the head of the Indian Mission, told him and wrote to him that Providence blessed this project in an unmistakable manner. We shall be forced to speak again of this Jesuit who played an important and tragic part in all these happenings. All we need say at present is that the General, on his journey, passed over the territory of another small prince, whose nephews had a short time before offered four lakhs of rupees to the Company in order to obtain their uncle's small state and expel him from the country. This Jesuit eagerly persuaded Count Lalli to do this good work. This is one of his letters, word for word:

”The law of succession in those countries is the law of the strongest. You must not regard the expulsion of a prince here as on the same level as in Europe.”


He told him in another letter:

You must not work simply for the glory of the King’s arms. A word to the wise ...”


This act reveals the spirit of the country and of the Jesuit.

The Prince of Tanjore sought the help of the English in Madras. They got ready to create a diversion, and he had time to admit other auxiliary troops into his capital which was threatened by a siege. The little French army did not receive from Pondicherry either provisions or the necessary ammunition, and they were forced to abandon the attempt. Providence did not bless them as much as the Jesuit had foretold. The Company received money neither from the Prince nor from the nephews who wished to dispossess their uncle.


GENERAL LALLI IN A PECULIAR KIND OF DANGER

As they were preparing to retreat, a negro of those parts, the commander of a group of negro cavalry men in Tanjore, came and presented himself to the advance guard of the French Camp followed by fifty horsemen. He said that they wanted to speak to the General and enter his service. The Count was in bed, and came out of his tent practically naked with a stick in his hand. Immediately the negro captain aimed a sword blow at him, which he just managed to parry, and the other negroes fell on him. The General's guard ran up instantly and nearly all the assassins were killed. That was the sole result of the Tanjore expedition.

CHAPTER XIV: COUNT LALLI BESIEGES MADRAS. HIS MISFORTUNES BEGIN.

At last, after useless expeditions and attempts in this part of India, and in spite of the departure of the French fleet, which was believed to be threatened by the English, the General recommenced his favourite project of besieging Madras.

“You have too little money and too few provisions”, people said to him: he replied “We shall take them from the town”. A few members of the Pondicherry Council lent him thirty-four thousand rupees. The farmers of the village or aldees [Aldee is an Arab word, preserved in Spain. The Arabs who went to India introduced there many terms from their language. Well-proved etimology often serves as a proof of the emigration of peoples.] of the Company advanced some money. The General also put his own into the fund. Forced marches were made, and they arrived in front of the town which did not expect them.


MADRAS TAKEN ON THE 13TH DECEMBER 1758.

Madras, as is well known, is divided into two parts, very different from one another. The first, where Fort St. George is, is well fortified, and has been so since Bourdonnaye’s expedition. The second is much bigger and is inhabited by merchants of all nations. It is called the “Black City”, because the “Blacks” are most numerous there. It occupies such a large space that it could not be fortified; a wall and a ditch formed its defense. This huge, rich town, was pillaged.

It is easy to imagine all the excesses, all the barbarities into which rushes the soldier who has no rein on him, and who looks upon it as his incontestible right to murder, violate, burn, rape. The officers controlled them as long as they could, but the thing that stopped them the most was the fact that as soon as they entered the town, they had to defend themselves there. The Madras garrison fell on them; a street battle ensued; houses, gardens, Hindu, Muslim and Christian temples became battlefields where the attackers, loaded with booty, fought in disorder those who came to snatch away their spoils. Count d’Estaing was the first to attack English troops who were marching on the main road. The Lorraine batallion, which he was commanding, had not yet fully reassembled, and so he fought practically alone and was made a prisoner. This misfortune brought more in its wake, because, after being sent by sea to England, he was thrown at Portsmouth into a frightful prison: treatment which was unworthy of his name, his courage, our customs and English generosity.

The capture of Count d’Estaing, at the beginning of the fight, was likely to cause the loss of the little army, which, after having taken the “Black City” by surprise, was taken by surprise itself in return. The General, accompanied by all the French nobility of which we have spoken, restored order. The English were forced back right to the bridge built between Fort St. George and the "Black City”, The Chevalier of Crillon rushed up to this bridge, and killed fifty English there. Thirty-three prisoners were made and they remained masters of the town.


The hope of taking Fort St. George soon, as La Bourdonnaye had done, inspired all the officers, but the most strange thing of all was that five or six million inhabitants of Pondicherry rushed up to the expedition out of curiosity, as if they were going to a fair. The force of the besiegers numbered only two thousand seven hundred European infantry, and three hundred cavalry men. They had only ten mortars and twenty cannons. The town was defended by sixteen thousand Europeans in the infantry and two thousand five hundred sepoys. Thus the besieged were stronger by eleven thousand men. In military tactics, it is agreed that ordinarily five besiegers are required for one besieged. Examples of the taking of a town by a number equal to the number defending it are rare: to succeed without provisions is rarer still.

What is most sad is the fact that two hundred French deserters went into Fort St. George.
There is no other army where desertion is more frequent than the French army, from a natural uneasiness in the nation or from hope of being better treated elsewhere. These deserters appeared at times on the ramparts, holding a bottle of wine in one hand and a purse in the other. They exhorted their compatriots to imitate their example. For the first time, people saw a tenth of the besieging army taking refuge in the besieged town.

The siege of Madras, light-heartedly undertaken, was soon looked upon as impracticable by everybody. Mr. Pigot, the representative of the English Government and Governor of the town, promised fifty thousand rupees to the garrison if it defended itself well and he kept to his word. The man who pays in this way is better served than the man who has no money. Count Lalli had no other option but to try an attack. But, at the very time when this daring act was being prepared, in the port of Madras appeared six warships, part of the English fleet which was then near Bombay. These ships were bringing reinforcements of men and munitions. On seeing them, the officer commanding the trench deserted it. They had to raise the siege in great haste and go to defend Pondicherry, which was even more vulnerable to the English than Madras....

***

CHAPTER XVII: THE CAPTURE AND DESTRUCTION OF PONDICHERRY

While the English army was advancing towards the West and a new fleet was threatening the town in the East, Count Lalli had very few soldiers. He made use of a trick, quite usual in war and in civil life: he tried to appear to have more than he really had. He ordered a parade on the walls of the town on the seaward side. He issued instructions that all the employees of the Company should appear in uniform as soldiers, in order to overawe the enemy fleet which was alongside.

A THIRD REVOLT

The Council of Pondicherry and all its employees came to him to say that they could not obey this order. The employees said that they recognized as their Commander only the Governor established by the Company. All ordinary bourgeois think it degrading to be a soldier, although in reality it is the soldiers who give us empires. But the real reason is that they wished to cross in everything the man who had incurred the hatred of the people.

It was the third revolt which he had patched up in a few days. He only punished the heads of the faction by making them leave the town; but he insulted them with crushing words which are never forgotten, and which are bitterly remembered when one has the opportunity of revenge.

Further, the General forbade the Council to meet without his permission. The enmity of this Company was as great as that of the French Parliament’s was against the Commanders who brought the strict orders of the Court to them — often contradictory ones. He had therefore to fight citizens and enemies.

The place lacked provisions. He had houses searched for the few superfluous goods to be found there, in order to provide the troops with food necessary for their subsistence.
Those who were entrusted with this sad task did not carry it out with enough discretion with regard to most of the important officers, whose name and position deserved the greatest tact. Feelings, already irritated, were wounded beyond the limit: people cried out against the tyranny. M. Dubois, Commissary of Stores, who carried out this task, became the object of public condemnation. When conquering enemies order such a search, nobody dare even whisper, but when the General ordered it to save the town, everyone rose against him.

The officers were reduced to a half-pound of rice per day; the soldiers to four ounces. The town had no more than three hundred black soldiers and seven hundred French, pressed by hunger, to defend itself against four thousand European soldiers and ten thousand black ones. They would have to surrender. Lalli, in despair, shaken by convulsions, his spirit lost and overcome, wished to give up the command in favour of the Brigadier of Landivisiau, who took good care not to accept such a delicate and tragic post. Lalli was forced to order the misfortune and shame of the colony. In the midst of all these crises, he was daily receiving anonymous notes threatening him with the sword and poison. He actually believed himself to be poisoned: he fell into an epileptic fit, and the Missionary Lavour went to the townspeople to tell them that they must pray to God for the poor Irishman who had gone mad.

However, the danger was increasing; English troops had broken down the unhappy line of troops who were surrounding the town. The General wished to assemble a mixed Civil and Military Council which should try to obtain a surrender acceptable to the town and the colony. The Council of Pondicherry replied only by refusing, "You have broken us,” they said, “and we are no longer worth anything.” “I have not broken you,” replied the General, ”I have forbidden you to meet without my permission, and I command you, in the name of the King, to assemble and form a mixed Council to calm down the strong feelings in the whole colony as well as your own.” The Council replied with this summons which they intimated to him:

“We summon you, in the name of the religious orders, of all the inhabitants and of ourselves to order Mr. Coote (the English commander) to suspend arms immediately, and we hold you responsible to the King for all the misfortunes to which ill-timed delay may give rise.”


The General thereupon called a Council of War, composed of all the principal officers still in service. They decided to surrender, but disagreed as to the conditions. Count Lalli, angered against the English who had, he said, violated on more than one occasion the cartel established between the two nations, made a separate declaration, in which he blamed them for breaking treaties. It was neither tactful nor wise to talk to the conquerors about their faults, and embitter those to whom he wished to surrender. Such, however, was his character.

Having told them his complaints, he asked them to grant protection to the mother and sisters of a Rajah, who had taken refuge in Pondicherry, when the Rajah had been assassinated in the very camp of the English. He reproached them bitterly, as was his wont, for having allowed such barbarism. Colonel Coote did not reply to this insolent statement.

THE JESUIT LAVOUR PROPOSES CAPITULATION

The Council of Pondicherry, on its side, sent terms of capitulation, drawn up by the Jesuit Lavour, to the English Commander. The missionary carried them himself. This conduct might have been good enough in Paraguay, but it was not good enough for the English. If Lalli offended them by accusing them of injustice and cruelty, they were even more offended at a Jesuit of intriguing character being deputed to negotiate with victorious warriors. The Colonel did not even deign to read the terms of the Jesuit: he gave him his own. Here they are:

“Colonel Coote desires the French to offer themselves as prisoners of war, to be treated according to interests of his master the King. He will show them every indulgence that humanity demands.  

He will send tomorrow morning, between eight and nine o'clock, the grenadiers of his regiment, who will take possession of the Vilnour door.

The day after tomorrow, at the same time, he will take possession of the St. Louis door.

The mother and the sisters of the Rajah will be escorted to Madras. Every care will be taken of them, and they will not be given up to their enemies.

Written in our General Headquarters, near Pondicherry, on the 15th January 1761.”


They had to obey the orders of General Coote. He entered the town. The small garrison laid aside their arms. The Colonel did not dine with the General, with whom he was annoyed, but with the Governor of the Company, M. Duval de Leirit, and a few members of the Council.

THE ENGLISH ENTER PONDICHERRY

Mr. Pigot, the Governor of Madras for the English Company, laid claim to his right on Pondicherry: they could not deny it, because it was he who was paying the troops. It was he who ruled everything after the conquest.

Pigot entered the service of the East India Company in 1736, at the age of 17; after nineteen years he became governor and commander-in-chief of Madras in 1755. Having defended the city against the French in 1758-1759 and occupied Pondichéry on behalf of the company, he resigned his office in November 1763 and returned to the Kingdom of Great Britain, being made a baronet in 1764. After selling the family seat of Peplow Hall, Shropshire, he purchased Patshull Hall, Staffordshire, in 1765 for £100,000.

That year he obtained the seat of Wallingford in the Parliament of Great Britain, which he retained until 1768. In 1766 he was created an Irish peer as Baron Pigot, of Patshull in the County of Dublin. From 1768 until his death he sat in the British House of Commons for Bridgnorth. Pigot was created an LL.D. of the university of Cambridge on 3 July 1769.

Returning to India in 1775 to reoccupy his former position at Madras, Pigot was at once involved in a fierce quarrel with the majority of his council which arose out of the proposed restoration of Thuljaji, the rajah of Tanjore.

Controversy and restoration

In April 1775, Pigot was appointed governor and commander-in-chief of Madras in the place of Alexander Wynch. He resumed office at Fort St. George on 11 December 1775, and soon found himself at variance with some of his council. In accordance with the instructions of the directors he proceeded to Tanjore, where he issued a proclamation on 11 April 1776 announcing the restoration of the Raja, whose territory had been seized and transferred to Muhammed Ali Khan Wallajah, Nawab of the Carnatic in spite of the treaty which had been made during Pigot's previous tenure of office. Upon Pigot's return from Tanjore the differences in the council became more accentuated. Paul Benfield had already asserted that he held assignments on the revenues of Tanjore for sums of vast amount lent by him to the Nawab, as well as assignments on the growing crops in Tanjore for large sums lent by him to other persons. He now pleaded that his interests ought not to be affected by the reinstatement of the raja, and demanded the assistance of the council in recovering his property. Pigot refused to admit the validity of these claims, but his opinion was disregarded by the majority of the council, and his customary right to precedence in the conduct of business was denied. The final struggle between the governor and his council was on a comparatively small point—whether his nominee, Mr. Russell, or Colonel Stuart, the nominee of the majority, should have the opportunity of placing the administration of Tanjore in the hands of the Raja. In spite of Pigot's refusal to allow the question of Colonel Stuart's instructions to be discussed by the council, the majority gave their approval to them, and agreed to a draft letter addressed to the officer at Tanjore, directing him to deliver over the command to Colonel Stuart. Pigot thereupon declined to sign either the instructions or the letter, and declared that without his signature the documents could have no legal effect. At a meeting of the council on 22 August 1776, a resolution was carried by the majority denying that the concurrence of the governor was necessary to constitute an act of government. It was also determined that, as Pigot would not sign either of the documents, a letter should be written to the secretary authorizing him to sign them in the name of the council. When this letter had been signed by George Stratton[4] and Henry Brooke, Pigot snatched it away and formally charged them with an act subversive of the authority of the government. By the standing orders of the company, no member against whom a charge was preferred was allowed to deliberate or vote on any question relating to the charge. Through this ingenious manœuvre, Pigot obtained a majority in the council by his own casting vote, and the two offending members were subsequently suspended. On 23 August, the refractory members, instead of attending the council meeting, sent a notary public with a protest in which they denounced Pigot's action on the previous day, and declared themselves to be the "only legal representatives of the Honourable Company under this presidency". This protest was also sent by them to the commanders of the king's troops, and to all persons holding any authority in Madras. Enraged at this insult, Pigot summoned a second council meeting on the same day, at which Messrs. Floyer, Palmer, Jerdan, and Mackay, who had joined Messrs. Stratton and Brooke and the commanding officer, Sir Robert Fletcher, in signing the protest, were suspended, and orders were at the same time given for the arrest of Sir Robert Fletcher. On the following day Pigot was arrested by Colonel Stuart and conveyed to St. Thomas's Mount, some nine miles from Madras, where he was left in an officer's house under the charge of a battery of artillery. The refractory members, under whose orders Pigot's arrest had been made, immediately assumed the powers of the executive government, and suspended all their colleagues who had voted with the governor. Though the government of Bengal possessed a controlling authority over the other presidencies, it declined to interfere.

In England, the news of these proceedings excited much discussion. At a general court of the proprietors, a resolution that the directors should take effectual measures for restoring Lord Pigot, and for inquiring into the conduct of those who had imprisoned him, was carried on 31 March 1777, by 382 votes to 140. The feeling in Pigot's favour was much less strong in the court of directors, where, on 11 April following, a series of resolutions in favour of Pigot's restoration, but declaring that his conduct in several instances appeared to be reprehensible, was carried by the decision of the lot, the numbers on each side being equal. At a subsequent meeting of the directors, after the annual change in the court had taken place, it was resolved that the powers assumed by Lord Pigot were "neither known in the constitution of the Company nor authorised by charter, nor warranted by any orders or instructions of the Court of Directors". Pigot's friends, however, successfully resisted the passing of a resolution declaring the exclusion of Messrs. Stratton and Brooke from the council unconstitutional, and carried two other resolutions condemning Pigot's imprisonment and the suspension of those members of the council who had supported him. On the other hand, a resolution condemning the conduct of Lord Pigot in receiving small presents from the Nawab of Arcot, the receipt of which had been openly avowed in a letter to the court of directors, was carried. At a meeting of the general court held on 7 and 9 May a long series of resolutions was carried by a majority of ninety-seven votes, which censured the invasion of Pigot's rights as governor, and acquiesced in his restoration, but at the same time recommended that Pigot and all the members of the council should be recalled in order that their conduct might be more effectually inquired into. Owing to Lord North's opposition, Governor Johnstone failed to carry his resolutions in favour of Lord Pigot in the House of Commons on 21 May. The resolutions of the proprietors having been confirmed by the court of directors, Pigot was restored to his office by a commission under the company's seal of 10 June 1777, and was directed within one week to give up the government to his successor and forthwith to return to England.

Death

Meantime Pigot died on 11 May 1777, while under confinement at the Company's Garden House, near Fort St. George, whither he had been allowed to return for change of air in the previous month. At the inquest held after his death, the jury recorded a verdict of willful murder against all those who had been concerned in Pigot's arrest. The real contest throughout had been between the Nawab of Arcot and the Raja of Tanjore. Members of the council took sides, and Pigot exceeded his powers while endeavouring to carry out the instructions of the directors. The proceedings before the coroner were held to be irregular by the supreme court of judicature in Bengal, and nothing came of the inquiry instituted by the company. On 16 April 1779, Admiral Hugh Pigot brought the subject of his brother's deposition before the House of Commons. A series of resolutions affirming the principal facts of the case was agreed to, and an address to the king, recommending the prosecution of Messrs. Stratton, Brooke, Floyer, and Mackay, who were at that time residing in England, was adopted. They were tried in the King's Bench before Lord Mansfield and a special jury in December 1779, and were found guilty of a misdemeanour in arresting, imprisoning, and deposing Lord Pigot. On being brought up for judgment on 10 February 1780, they were each sentenced to pay a fine of £1,000, on payment of which they were discharged.

-- George Pigot, 1st Baron Pigot, by Wikipedia


General Lalli was all the time very ill; he asked the English Governor for permission to stay four more days in Pondicherry. He was refused. They indicated to him that he must leave in two days for Madras.

We might add, since it is rather a strange thing, that Pigot was of French origin, just as Lalli was of Irish origin: both were fighting against their old fatherland.


LALLI ILL-TREATED BY HIS FOLLOWERS

This harshness was the least that he suffered. The employees of the Company, the officers of his troops, whom he had mortified without consideration, united against him. The employees, above all, insulted him right up to the time of his departure, putting up posters against him, throwing stones at his windows, calling out loudly that he was a traitor and a scoundrel. The band of people grew bigger as idlers joined it, and they, in turn, soon became inflamed by the mad anger of the others. They waited for him in the place through which he was to be carried, lying on a palanquin, followed at a distance by fifteen English hussars who had been chosen to escort him during his journey to Madras. Colonel Coote had allowed him to be accompanied by four of his guards as far as the gate of the city. The rebels surrounded his bed, loading insults upon him, and threatening to kill him. They might have been slaves who wanted to kill with their swords one of their companions. He continued his march in their midst holding two pistols in his weakened hands. His guards and the English hussars saved his life.

THE COMMISSARY OF STORES OF THE ARMY ASSASSINATED

The rebels attacked M. Dubois, an old and brave officer, seventy years old and Commissary of Stores for the Army, who passed by a moment later. This officer, the King’s man, was assassinated: he was robbed, stripped bare of clothes, buried in a garden, and his papers immediately seized and taken away from his house, since when they have never been seen.

While General Lalli was being taken to Madras, the employees of the Company obtained permission in Pondicherry to open his boxes, thinking that they would find there his treasure in gold, diamonds and bills of exchange. All they found was a little plate, clothes, useless papers, and it maddened them even more.

5TH MARCH 1761

Bowed down with sorrow and illness, Lalli, a prisoner in Madras, asked in vain for his transport to England to be delayed: he could not obtain this favour. They carried him by force on board a trading ship, whose captain treated him cruelly during the voyage. The only solace given him was pork broth. This English patriot thought it his duty to treat in this way an Irishman in the service of France. Soon the officers, the Council of Pondicherry and the chief employees were forced to follow him but, before being transferred, they had the sorrow of seeing the demolition begun of all the fortifications that they had made for their town, and the destruction of their huge shops, their markets, all that was used for trade and defence, even to their own houses.

Mr. Dupre, chosen as Governor of Pondicherry by the Council of Madras, hurried on this destruction. He was (according to our information) the grandson of one of those Frenchmen whom the strictness of the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes forced to become an exile from their fatherland and fight against it. Louis XIV did not expect that in about eighty years the capital of his India Company would be destroyed by a Frenchman.


The Jesuit Lavour wrote to him in vain: Are you equally anxious, Sir, to destroy the house in which we have a domestic altar where we can practice our religion secretly?”

Dupre was little concerned with the fact that Lavaor was saying the Mass in secret: he replied that General Lalli had razed St. David to the ground and had only given three days to the inhabitants in which to take away their possessions, that the Governor of Madras had granted three months to the inhabitants or Pondicherry and that the English were at least equal to the French in generosity, but that he must go and say the Mass elsewhere. Thereupon the town was razed to the ground pitilessly, without the French having the right to complain.

CHAPTER XVIII: LALLI AND THE OTHER PRISONERS ARE CONDUCTED TO ENGLAND AND RELEASED ON PAROLE. CRIMINAL SUIT AGAINST LALLI.

The prisoners, on the journey and in England, continued their mutual reproaches which despair made even more bitter. The General had his partisans, above all among the officers in the regiment bearing his name. Almost all the others were his enemies: one man would write to the French Ministers; another would accuse the opposite party of being the cause of the disaster. But the real cause was the same as in other parts of the world: the superiority of the English fleet, the carefulness and perseverance of the nation, its credit, its ready money, and that spirit of patriotism, which is stronger in the long run than the trading spirit and greed for riches.  

General Lalli obtained permission from the Admiralty in England to enter France on parole. The majority of his enemies obtained the same favour: they arrived preceded by all the complaints and the accusations of both sides. Paris was flooded with a thousand writings. The partisans of Lalli were very few and his enemies innumerable.

A whole Council, two hundred employees without resources, the Directors of the India Company seeing their huge establishment reduced to nothing, the shareholders trembling for their fortune, irritated officers; everybody flew at Lalli with all the more fury because they believed that in their losing he had acquired millions. Women always less restrained than men in their fears and their complaints, cried out against the traitor, the embezzler, the criminal guilty of high treason against the king.

The Council of Pondicherry, in a body, presented against him in front of the Controller-General. In this petition, they said: “It is not a desire to avenge the insults and our ruin which is our motive -- it is the force of truth, it is the pure feeling of our consciences, it is the popular complaint against him."


It seemed however that “the pure feelings of conscience” had been somewhat corrupted by the grief of having lost everything, by a personal hatred, perhaps excusable, and by a thirst for vengeance which cannot be excused.

A very brave officer of the ancient nobility, badly insulted without cause, whose honour, even, was involved, wrote in a manner even more violent than the Council of Pondicherry: “This is," he said, “what a stranger without a name, with no deeds to his credit, without family, without a title, but none the less loaded with the honours of his master, prepares for the whole colony. Nothing was sacred in his sacrilegious hands: as a leader he even laid his hands on the altar appropriating six silver candlesticks, which the English General made him give back in response to the request of the head of the Capucines,” etc.

The General had brought on himself, by his indiscretion, his impetuosity, and his unjust reproaches, this cruel accusation: it is true that he had the candlesticks and the crucifix carried to his own house, but so publicly that it was not possible that he should wish to take possession of such a small thing, in the midst of so many big things. Therefore the sentence which condemned him does not speak of sacrilege.

The reproach of his low birth was very unjust: we have got his titles together with the seal of King John. His family was very old. People therefore were overstepping the limit with him just as he had done with so many others. If anything ought to inspire men with a desire for moderation, it is this tragic event.

The Finance Minister ought naturally to protect a trading company whose ruin was liable to do so much harm to the country: a secret order was given to shut Lalli in the Bastille. He himself offered to give himself up: he wrote to the Duke of Choiseul: “I am bringing here my head and my innocence. I am awaiting your orders."

The Duke of Choiseul, Minister of War and Foreign Affairs, was generous to a fault, genial and just: the highness of his ideals equalled the breadth of his opinions, but, in an affair so important and complicated, he could not go against the clamorous demands of all Paris, nor neglect the host of imputations against the accused. Lalli was shut up in the Bastille in the same room where La Bourdonnaye had been and, like him, did not emerge from it.

It remained to be seen what judges they would give him. A Council of War seemed to be the most suitable tribunal, but he was also accused of misappropriation of funds, embezzlement, and crimes of peculation of which the Marshals of France are not the judges. Count Lalli at first only brought accusations against his enemies, who therefore tried to reply to them in some way. The case was so complicated, it was necessary to call so many witnesses, that the prisoner remained fifteen months in the Bastille without being examined, and without knowing the tribunal before which he was to plead.
“That,” several legal experts used to say, “is the tragic destiny of the citizens of a kingdom, famous for its arms and its arts but lacking in good laws, or rather a kingdom where the wise old laws have been sometimes forgotten.”

THE JESUIT LAVOUR DIES. 1,250,000 POUNDS FOUND IN HIS CASH BOX.

The Jesuit Lavour was then in Paris: he was asking the Government for a modest pension of four hundred francs so that he might go and pray to God for the rest of his days in the heart of Perigord where he was born. He died, and twelve hundred and fifty thousand pounds were found in his cash box, and more in diamonds and bills of exchange. This deed of a Mission Superior from the East, and the case of the Superior of the Western Missions, La Valette, who went into bankruptcy at the same time, with three millions in debts, excited over the whole of France an indignation equal to that which was excited against Lalli. This was one of the causes which finally got the Jesuits abolished, but, at the same time, the cash box of Lavour settled the fate of Lalli. In this trunk were found two books of memoirs, one in favour of Lalli, the other charging him with all kinds of crimes. The Jesuit was to make use of one or the other of these writings, according to the turn which affairs took. These documents were a double-edged sword, and the one that harmed Lalli was delivered to the Attorney-General. This supporter of the King complained to Parliament against the Count on account of his oppression, embezzlement, treachery, and high treason. Parliament referred the suit in the first instance to the Chatelet. Soon afterwards, letters patent of the King sent to the High Tribunal and to the "Tournelle" information of all the malpractices in India so that steps may be taken against the perpetrators in accordance with the severity of the ordinances. It might have been better to stress the word justice rather than the word severity.

As the Attorney-General had accused him of the crimes of high treason and treachery against the Crown, he was denied a counsel. For his defence, he had no other help except his own. They allowed him to write, and he took advantage of this permission -- to his own undoing.
His writings annoyed his enemies all the more and made new foes. He reproached Count d'Ache with being the cause of his loss in India, because he did not remain before Pondicherry. But as chief of a squadron, d’Ache had definite orders to defend the Isles of Bourbon and France against a threatened invasion. He was accusing a man who had himself fought three times against the English fleet, and had been wounded during these three battles. He blamed the Chevalier of Soupire violently, and he was answered with a moderation as praiseworthy as it is rare.

Finally, testifying that he had always rigidly done his duty, he gave vent to the same excesses with his pen as formerly he used to do with his tongue. If he had been granted a counsel, his defence would have been more circumspect, but he all the time thought that it was enough to believe oneself innocent. Above all, he forced M. de Bussi to give a reply that was as mortifying as it was well written. All impartial men saw with sorrow two brave officers like Lalli and de Bussi, both of tried valour, who had risked their lives a hundred times, pretend to suspect one another of lack of courage. Lalli took too much upon himself by insulting all his enemies in his memoirs. It was like fighting alone against an army, and it was impossible for him not to be overwhelmed. The talk of a whole town makes an impression on the judges even when they believe they are on their guard against such an influence.

-- Voltaire Fragments on India. Translated by Freda Bedi, B.A. Hons. (Oxon.)


Image

Fort St David
Part of Tamil Nadu
Cuddalore district, Tamil Nadu, India
Fort St David is located in Tamil NaduFort St DavidFort St David
Coordinates 11.75°N 79.75°E
Type Fort
Site information
Controlled by Government of Tamil Nadu
Condition Ruins

Fort St David, now in ruins, was a British fort near the town of Cuddalore, a hundred miles south of Chennai on the Coromandel Coast of India. It is located near silver beach without any maintenance. It was named for the patron saint of Wales because the governor of Madras at the time, Elihu Yale, was Welsh.[1]

History

Image
Fort St David in 1758

Fort St David, situated on the mouth of River Gadilam, has a memorable history. The region was under the domains of the Nayaks of Gingee. The Dutch in early 17th century wishing to expand their trade in the Bay of Bengal region and take advantage of the local manufacturing of goods choose the Cuddalore region and sought the permission of Krishnappa Nayaka of Gingee, to build a fort at Devanampatnam which was, subsequently granted in 1608 and construction was started. But the Nayak pulled back after the Portuguese, then dominant players at the Coramandal Coast trade, pressured Gingee's overlord rulers, Venkata I of Vijayanagara Empire to prevent Dutch entry.[2] Therefore, the fort was left with the Gingee Nayaks under appointed traders. Overseas trade continued and the port became an important source of sandalwood, camphor, cloves, nutmeg, mace, green velvet, porcelain, copper, and brass.

Later when Gingee was occupied by the Marathas, Shivaji's son Rajaram Chhatrapati who was under siege in Gingee fort by the Mughal army intended to sell the Devanampatnam fort to the highest European bidder. In 1690, the British won by out bidding the Dutch and the French. Elihu Yale, Governor of Madras, after long protracted negotiations, acquired the fort and named it Fort Saint David after a Welsh Saint.[1]

The purchase price included not only the fort but also the adjacent towns and villages within the range of a random shot of a piece of ordnance. A great gun was fired to different points of the compass and all the country within its range, including the town of Cuddalore, passed into the possession of the English. The villages thus obtained are still spoken of as cannonball villages.

Image
Fort St. David, c. 1763, Francis Swaine

James Macrae had been governor of the fort and in 1725 he became the Governor of the Madras Presidency.[3] From 1725 onwards the British greatly strengthened the fortifications. In 1746 Fort St David became the British headquarters for the southern India, and attacks by French forces under Dupleix were successfully repulsed.[4] Robert Clive was appointed its governor in 1756; in 1758 the French captured it, but abandoned it two years later to Sir Eyre Coote, KB.

In 1782 the French again retook the fort and restored it sufficiently to withstand a British attack in 1783. In 1785 it finally passed into British possession. With the end of the French threat, it was abandoned and fell into ruins.

References

1. Encyclopædia Britannica entry on Fort St David
2. text of "History_Of_Gingee_And_Its_Rulers"
3. Cuthbertson, Page 33
4. Naravane, M.S. (2014). Battles of the Honorourable East India Company. A.P.H. Publishing Corporation. pp. 152–154. ISBN 9788131300343.

Sources

• Cuthbertson, David Cuningham (1945). Autumn in Kyle and the Charm of Cunninghame. London : Jenkins.
Wikisource has the text of the 1879 American Cyclopædia article Fort St. David.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 37494
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Freda Bedi Cont'd (#3)

Postby admin » Mon Jun 14, 2021 6:46 am

George Pigot, 1st Baron Pigot
by Wikipedia
Accessed: 6/13/21

Image
George Pigot, by George Willison

George Pigot, 1st Baron Pigot (4 March 1719 – 11 May 1777) was twice the British President of the British East India Company.

Life

Pigot was the eldest son of Richard Pigot of Westminster, by his wife Frances, daughter of Peter Goode, a Huguenot who had come to England in the late seventeenth century.[1] Frances was a "tirewoman" to Queen Caroline. His brothers were Admiral Hugh Pigot (1722–1792) and Sir Robert.

Image
Triumphal entrance to Patshull Hall

Image
Patshull Hall

Pigot entered the service of the East India Company in 1736, at the age of 17; after nineteen years he became governor and commander-in-chief of Madras in 1755. Having defended the city against the French in 1758-1759 and occupied Pondichéry on behalf of the company, he resigned his office in November 1763 and returned to the Kingdom of Great Britain, being made a baronet in 1764.[2] After selling the family seat of Peplow Hall, Shropshire, he purchased Patshull Hall, Staffordshire, in 1765 for £100,000. That year he obtained the seat of Wallingford in the Parliament of Great Britain, which he retained until 1768. In 1766 he was created an Irish peer as Baron Pigot, of Patshull in the County of Dublin.[3] From 1768 until his death he sat in the British House of Commons for Bridgnorth. Pigot was created an LL.D. of the University of Cambridge on 3 July 1769.

Returning to India in 1775 to reoccupy his former position at Madras, Pigot was at once involved in a fierce quarrel with the majority of his council which arose out of the proposed restoration of Thuljaji, the Rajah of Tanjore. The governor was arrested by order of his opponents and was still a prisoner when he died.

Meanwhile, the conduct of Pigot was censured by the court of directors in Great Britain, and the order for his restoration was followed immediately by another for his recall. This happened about a month after his death, but before the news had reached Great Britain. In 1779 the matter was discussed in Parliament, and four of those who were responsible for his arrest were tried and were fined £1000 each. Pigot, who left several illegitimate children, was never married, and his barony became extinct.

Service in the British East India Company

Image
Pondicherry after the Siege of Pondicherry, with the demolished citadel in view.

George entered the service of the British East India Company in 1736 as a writer, and arrived at Madras on 26 July 1737. When a member of council at Fort St. David, Pigot was sent with Robert Clive to Trichinopoly in charge of some recruits and stores. On their return with a small escort of sepoys, they were attacked by a large body of polýgars, and narrowly escaped with their lives. Pigot succeeded Thomas Saunders as governor and commander-in-chief of Madras on 14 January 1755. He conducted the defence of the city, when besieged by Thomas-Arthur de Lally in the winter of 1758–9, with considerable skill and spirit. On the capture of Pondichéry by Lieutenant-colonel (afterwards Sir) Eyre Coote (1726–1783) in January 1761, Pigot demanded that it should be given up to the presidency of Madras as the property of the East India Company. This Coote refused after consulting his chief officers, who were of opinion that the place ought to be held for the Crown. Pigot thereupon declared that unless his demand was complied with, he would not furnish any money for the subsistence of the King's troops or the French prisoners. Upon this, Coote gave way, and Pigot took possession of Pondichéry, and destroyed all the fortifications in obedience to the orders previously received from England. Pigot resigned office on 14 November 1763, and forthwith returned to England. He was created a baronet on 5 December 1764, with remainder in default of male issue to his brothers Robert and Hugh, and their heirs male. He represented Wallingford in the British House of Commons from January 1765 to the dissolution in March 1768. At the general election in March 1768, he was returned for Bridgnorth, and continued to sit for that borough until his death. On 18 January 1766, he was created an Irish peer with the title of Baron Pigot, of Patshull in the County of Dublin.

Controversy and restoration

In April 1775, Pigot was appointed governor and commander-in-chief of Madras in the place of Alexander Wynch. He resumed office at Fort St. George on 11 December 1775, and soon found himself at variance with some of his council. In accordance with the instructions of the directors he proceeded to Tanjore, where he issued a proclamation on 11 April 1776 announcing the restoration of the Raja, whose territory had been seized and transferred to Muhammed Ali Khan Wallajah, Nawab of the Carnatic in spite of the treaty which had been made during Pigot's previous tenure of office. Upon Pigot's return from Tanjore the differences in the council became more accentuated. Paul Benfield had already asserted that he held assignments on the revenues of Tanjore for sums of vast amount lent by him to the Nawab, as well as assignments on the growing crops in Tanjore for large sums lent by him to other persons. He now pleaded that his interests ought not to be affected by the reinstatement of the raja, and demanded the assistance of the council in recovering his property. Pigot refused to admit the validity of these claims, but his opinion was disregarded by the majority of the council, and his customary right to precedence in the conduct of business was denied. The final struggle between the governor and his council was on a comparatively small point—whether his nominee, Mr. Russell, or Colonel Stuart, the nominee of the majority, should have the opportunity of placing the administration of Tanjore in the hands of the Raja. In spite of Pigot's refusal to allow the question of Colonel Stuart's instructions to be discussed by the council, the majority gave their approval to them, and agreed to a draft letter addressed to the officer at Tanjore, directing him to deliver over the command to Colonel Stuart. Pigot thereupon declined to sign either the instructions or the letter, and declared that without his signature the documents could have no legal effect. At a meeting of the council on 22 August 1776, a resolution was carried by the majority denying that the concurrence of the governor was necessary to constitute an act of government. It was also determined that, as Pigot would not sign either of the documents, a letter should be written to the secretary authorizing him to sign them in the name of the council. When this letter had been signed by George Stratton[4] and Henry Brooke, Pigot snatched it away and formally charged them with an act subversive of the authority of the government. By the standing orders of the company, no member against whom a charge was preferred was allowed to deliberate or vote on any question relating to the charge. Through this ingenious manœuvre, Pigot obtained a majority in the council by his own casting vote, and the two offending members were subsequently suspended. On 23 August, the refractory members, instead of attending the council meeting, sent a notary public with a protest in which they denounced Pigot's action on the previous day, and declared themselves to be the "only legal representatives of the Honourable Company under this presidency". This protest was also sent by them to the commanders of the king's troops, and to all persons holding any authority in Madras. Enraged at this insult, Pigot summoned a second council meeting on the same day, at which Messrs. Floyer, Palmer, Jerdan, and Mackay, who had joined Messrs. Stratton and Brooke and the commanding officer, Sir Robert Fletcher, in signing the protest, were suspended, and orders were at the same time given for the arrest of Sir Robert Fletcher. On the following day Pigot was arrested by Colonel Stuart and conveyed to St. Thomas's Mount, some nine miles from Madras, where he was left in an officer's house under the charge of a battery of artillery. The refractory members, under whose orders Pigot's arrest had been made, immediately assumed the powers of the executive government, and suspended all their colleagues who had voted with the governor. Though the government of Bengal possessed a controlling authority over the other presidencies, it declined to interfere.

In England, the news of these proceedings excited much discussion. At a general court of the proprietors, a resolution that the directors should take effectual measures for restoring Lord Pigot, and for inquiring into the conduct of those who had imprisoned him, was carried on 31 March 1777, by 382 votes to 140. The feeling in Pigot's favour was much less strong in the court of directors, where, on 11 April following, a series of resolutions in favour of Pigot's restoration, but declaring that his conduct in several instances appeared to be reprehensible, was carried by the decision of the lot, the numbers on each side being equal. At a subsequent meeting of the directors, after the annual change in the court had taken place, it was resolved that the powers assumed by Lord Pigot were "neither known in the constitution of the Company nor authorised by charter, nor warranted by any orders or instructions of the Court of Directors". Pigot's friends, however, successfully resisted the passing of a resolution declaring the exclusion of Messrs. Stratton and Brooke from the council unconstitutional, and carried two other resolutions condemning Pigot's imprisonment and the suspension of those members of the council who had supported him. On the other hand, a resolution condemning the conduct of Lord Pigot in receiving small presents from the Nawab of Arcot, the receipt of which had been openly avowed in a letter to the court of directors, was carried. At a meeting of the general court held on 7 and 9 May a long series of resolutions was carried by a majority of ninety-seven votes, which censured the invasion of Pigot's rights as governor, and acquiesced in his restoration, but at the same time recommended that Pigot and all the members of the council should be recalled in order that their conduct might be more effectually inquired into. Owing to Lord North's opposition, Governor Johnstone failed to carry his resolutions in favour of Lord Pigot in the House of Commons on 21 May. The resolutions of the proprietors having been confirmed by the court of directors, Pigot was restored to his office by a commission under the company's seal of 10 June 1777, and was directed within one week to give up the government to his successor and forthwith to return to England.

Death

Meantime Pigot died on 11 May 1777, while under confinement at the Company's Garden House, near Fort St. George, whither he had been allowed to return for change of air in the previous month. At the inquest held after his death, the jury recorded a verdict of willful murder against all those who had been concerned in Pigot's arrest. The real contest throughout had been between the Nawab of Arcot and the Raja of Tanjore. Members of the council took sides, and Pigot exceeded his powers while endeavouring to carry out the instructions of the directors. The proceedings before the coroner were held to be irregular by the supreme court of judicature in Bengal, and nothing came of the inquiry instituted by the company. On 16 April 1779, Admiral Hugh Pigot brought the subject of his brother's deposition before the House of Commons. A series of resolutions affirming the principal facts of the case was agreed to, and an address to the king, recommending the prosecution of Messrs. Stratton, Brooke, Floyer, and Mackay, who were at that time residing in England, was adopted. They were tried in the King's Bench before Lord Mansfield and a special jury in December 1779, and were found guilty of a misdemeanour in arresting, imprisoning, and deposing Lord Pigot. On being brought up for judgment on 10 February 1780, they were each sentenced to pay a fine of £1,000, on payment of which they were discharged.

Family

Two of the governor's brothers were men of repute. Sir Robert Pigot (1720–1796), who succeeded to the baronetcy, commanded his regiment (the 38th) at the battles of Lexington and Bunker Hill during the American Revolutionary War. He became a lieutenant general in 1782. The other brother, Hugh Pigot (c. 1721-1792) was a sailor. After some years of service he became an admiral and commander-in-chief in the West Indies in 1782. One of his sons was General Sir Henry Pigot (1750–1840), and another was Hugh Pigot (1769–1797), a captain in the navy, who was murdered during a mutiny in September 1797 while in command of HMS Hermione.

Pigot was unmarried. Upon his death the Irish barony became extinct, while the baronetcy devolved upon his brother Robert Pigot. He left several natural children, among others:

1. Sophia Pigot, who married, on 14 March 1776, the Hon. Edward Monckton of Somerford Hall, Staffordshire, and died on 1 January 1834;
2. Richard Pigot (1774–1868), general in the army and colonel of the 4th dragoon guards;
3. Sir Hugh Pigot, K.C.B. (1775–1857), admiral of the White;
4. Leonora, who received a fortune under her father's will and married 17 October 1777 Claude Russell, member of the Madras Council; to the memory of her and her husband there is a tablet in Marylebone Church.
5. Major George Pigot (1772?-1830) Along with Richard and Hugh, son of Catherine Hill. Member of settler community who immigrated from England (1820) to present Eastern-Cape coast of South Africa.
6. Mary Green (c.1772-1852) who married, aged twelve in 1784, John Blashfield of Presteigne, Radnorshire.

The Pigot Diamond

Pigot owned a celebrated diamond, now known as the Pigot Diamond, which he bequeathed to his siblings and eventually left the family by way of a lottery. The whereabouts of the diamond today is unknown.

References

Notes


1. Marshall, P. J. (2004). "Pigot, George, Baron Pigot (1719–1777)". Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Oxford University Press. Retrieved 30 December 2013.
2. "No. 10472". The London Gazette. 20 November 1764. p. 1.
3. "No. 10586". The London Gazette. 24 December 1765. p. 2.
4. "The Genealogy of the Stratton Family". kittybrewster.com. George Stratton of Madras and Tew Park, Born Madras, 12th December 1733. Died Great Tew, Oxon, 20th March 1800. Buried Great Tew, "in woollen only", 28th March 1800. Exponent of proactive régime change and thereby Governor of Madras 1776.

Bibliography

• "Pigot, George" . Dictionary of National Biography. London: Smith, Elder & Co. 1885–1900.
• Leigh Rayment's Peerage Pages [self-published source][better source needed]
• Ogden, J. M. (April 2009). "England's Largest Diamond (The Pigot – Part 1)". Gems and Jewellery. 18 (2): 30–33.
• Ogden, J. M. (July 2009). "England's Largest Diamond (The Pigot – Part 2)". Gems and Jewellery. 18 (3): 36–37.

Attribution

• This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: "Pigot, George". Dictionary of National Biography. London: Smith, Elder & Co. 1885–1900.
• This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). "Pigot, George, Baron". Encyclopædia Britannica. 21 (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press.
• Marshall, P. J. "Pigot, George, Baron Pigot (1719–1777)". Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (online ed.). Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/22244. (Subscription or UK public library membership required.)
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 37494
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Freda Bedi Cont'd (#3)

Postby admin » Tue Jun 15, 2021 1:46 am

Thanjavur Maratha kingdom [Tanjore]
by Wikipedia
Accessed: 6/14/21

Two books are attributed to Chanakya: Arthashastra, and Chanakya Niti, also known as Chanakya Neeti-shastra. The Arthashastra was discovered in 1905 by librarian Rudrapatna Shamasastry in an uncatalogued group of ancient palm-leaf manuscripts donated by an unknown pandit to the Oriental Research Institute Mysore.
Formerly known as the Oriental Library, the Oriental Research Institute (ORI) at Mysore, India, is a research institute which collects, exhibits, edits, and publishes rare manuscripts written in various scripts like Devanagari (Sanskrit), Brahmic (Kannada), Nandinagari (Sanskrit), Grantha, Malayalam, Tigalari, etc.

The Oriental Library was started in 1891 under the patronage of Maharaja Chamarajendra Wadiyar X... It was a part of the Department of Education until 1916, in which year it became part of the newly established University of Mysore. The Oriental Library was renamed as the Oriental Research Institute in 1943.

From the year 1893 to date the ORI has published nearly two hundred titles. The library features rare collections such as the Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics by James Hastings, A Vedic Concordance by Maurice Bloomfield, and critical editions of the Ramayana and Mahabharata. It was the first public library in Mysore city for research and editing of manuscripts. The prime focus was on Indology. The institute publishes an annual journal called Mysore Orientalist. Its most famous publications include Kautilya's Arthashastra, written in the 4th century BC, edited by Dr. R. Shamashastri, which brought international fame to the institute when published in 1909.

One day a man from Tanjore handed over a manuscript of Arthashastra written on dried palm leaves to Dr Rudrapatnam Shamashastry, the librarian of Mysore Government Oriental Library now ORI. Shamashastry's job was to look after the library's ancient manuscripts. He had never seen anything like these palm leaves before. Here was a book that would revolutionise the knowledge of India's great past. This palm leaf manuscript is preserved in the library, now named Oriental Research Institute. The pages of the book are filled with 1500-year-old Grantha script. It looks like as if they have been printed but the words have been inscribed by hand. Other copies of Arthashastra were later discovered later in other parts of India.[1]

In this context, my mind remembering a day which was the His Excellency Krishnaraja Wodeyar went to Germany at the time of Dr. R. Shamashastry were working as a curator of Oriental Library, Mysore, The King sat in a meeting held in Germany and introduced himself as the King of Mysore State. Immediately a man stood up and asked, "Are you from our Dr. R. Shamashastry's Mysore?" Because the Arthashastra edited by him took a fame worldwide. The King wondered and came back to Mysore immediately to see Dr. R. Shamashastry, and also Dr. R. Shamashastry appointed as Asthana Vidwan. Sritattvanidhi, is a compilation of slokas by Krishnaraja Wodeyar III. Three edited manuscripts Navaratnamani-mahatmyam (a work on gemology), Tantrasara-sangraha (a work on sculptures and architecture), and Vaidashastra-dipika (an ayurvedic text), Rasa-kaumudi (on mercurial medicine) all of them with English and Kannada translation, are already in advanced stages of printing.

Oriental Research Institute

The ORI houses over 45,000 Palm leaf manuscript bundles and the 75,000 works on those leaves. The manuscripts are palm leaves cut to a standard size of 150 by 35 mm (5.9 by 1.4 in). Brittle palm leaves are sometimes softened by scrubbing a paste made of ragi and then used by the ancients for writing, similar to the use of papyrus in ancient Egypt. Manuscripts are organic materials that run the risk of decay and are prone to be destroyed by silverfish. To preserve them the ORI applies lemon grass oil on the manuscripts which acts like a pesticide. The lemon grass oil also injects natural fluidity into the brittle palm leaves and the hydrophobic nature of the oil keeps the manuscripts dry so that the text is not lost to decay due to humidity.

The conventional method followed at the ORI was to preserve manuscripts by capturing them in microfilm, which then necessitated the use of a microfilm reader for viewing or studying. Once the ORI has digitized the manuscripts, the text can be viewed and manipulated by a computer. Software is then used to put together disjointed pieces of manuscripts and to correct or fill in any missing text. In this manner, the manuscripts are restored and enhanced. The original palm leaf manuscripts are also on reference at the ORI for those interested.

-- Oriental Research Institute Mysore, by Wikipedia

The Arthashastra, which discusses monetary and fiscal policies, welfare, international relations, and war strategies in detail. The text also outlines the duties of a ruler. Some scholars believe that Arthashastra is actually a compilation of a number of earlier texts written by various authors, and Chanakya might have been one of these authors (see above).[9]
• Chanakya Niti, which is a collection of aphorisms, said to be selected by Chanakya from the various shastras.

-- Chanakya, by Wikipedia


Image
Maratha Kingdom of Thanjavur
Princely State of Thanjavur
1674–1855
Map of Tanjore
Image
Approximate extent of the Thanjavur Maratha Kingdom, at the time of its accession to the British in 1798
Status: Kingdom from 1674 to 1799; Princely state under the paramountcy of the British Raj (1799–1855)
Capital: Tanjore
Common languages: Marathi, Telugu, Sanskrit, Tamil
Religion: Hinduism
Government: Principality
Ruler
• (first) 1674 - 1684: Venkoji
• (last) 1832 - 1855: Shivaji II of Thanjavur
History
• Conquest of the Madurai Nayak Kingdom by Venkoji: 1674
• Earliest records: 1674
• Disestablished: 1855
Area: 9,600 km2 (3,700 sq mi)
Preceded by / Succeeded by
Thanjavur / Company rule in India
Nayak kingdom / Company rule in India
Ramnad estate / Company rule in India

Today part of: India

The Thanjavur Maratha kingdom of bhonsle dynasty was a principality of Tamil Nadu between the 17th and 19th centuries. Their native language was Marathi. Venkoji was the founder of the dynasty.

Maratha conquest of Thanjavur

Following the demise of Chola rule in the 13th century (specifically around 1279), the Thanjavur area came under the rule of the Pandyas and then, following the invasion of Malik Kafur, it fell into disorder.

Pandya nadu very quickly reasserted their independence and forced the Delhi Sultan to flee Thanjavur. Soon afterwards, however, they were conquered by the Vijayanagara Empire. The Emperor appointed his trusted Kin, who belonged to the Telugu Balija caste as Governors (Nayakas) of Madurai and Tanjavur. An internal family squabble between Chokkanatha Nayak of Madurai Nayak dynasty and his uncle Vijayaraghava Nayaka of Tanjavur, let to a war, and eventually defeated Thanjavur. The rule of the Thanjavur Nayaks lasted until 1673 when Chokkanatha Nayak the ruler of Madurai invaded Thanjavur and killed its ruler, Vijayaraghava.

Chokkanatha placed his brother Alagiri on the throne of Thanjavur, but within a year the latter threw off his allegiance, and Chokkanatha was forced to recognise the independence of Thanjavur. A son of Vijaya Raghava induced the Bijapur Sultan to help him get back the Thanjavur throne. In 1675, the Sultan of Bijapur sent a force commanded by the Maratha general Venkoji (alias Ekoji) to recapture the kingdom from the new invader. Venkoji defeated Alagiri, and occupied Thanjavur. He did not, however, place his protege on the throne as instructed by the Bijapur Sultan, but seized the kingdom and made himself king. Thus began the rule of the Marathas over Thanjavur.

Maratha kings

Venkoji

Venkoji, a half-brother of the Maratha king Shivaji, was the first Raja of Thanjavur from the Bhosale dynasty. It is believed[by whom?] that he took over the administration of Thanjavur in April 1674 and ruled until 1684. During his reign, Shivaji invaded Gingee and Thanjavur in 1676–1677 and made his brother Santaji the ruler of all lands to the north of the Coleroon. During the last years of his reign, Venkoji also allied with Chokkanatha of Madurai to repulse an invasion from Mysore.

Shahuji I

Shahuji I was the eldest son of Venkoji and he ascended the throne at the age of twelve. During his reign, the Mughals occupied the Coromandel coast and Tiruchirapalli and forced him to pay tribute. Shahuji was a patron of literature. During his reign, there were frequent skirmishes and battles with the Raja of Madurai and Ramnad for control of the border lands.

Shahuji I
by Wikipedia
Accessed: 3/25/22

Image
Shahuji I Bhonsle, Raja of Thanjavur Maratha kingdom

Shahuji I Bhonsle (b.1672) also called Shahji of the Bhonsle dynasty was the second Maratha ruler of Thanjavur. He was the eldest son of Ekoji I, who was a half brother of Shivaji, the first Maratha ruler of Thanjavur. He reigned from 1684 to 1712.

Accession

Shahuji I ascended the throne in 1684 at the age of 12 on the death of his father Venkoji or Ekoji I the first Maratha ruler of Thajnavur.

The campaign of Zulfiqar Khan

The Mughal Emperor Aurangazeb's Deccan campaign reached its highpoint after the death of Shivaji. The Deccan sultanates were annexed in 1687 and Shivaji's eldest son Shambhaji was captured and slain. However, the annihilation of the Maratha Empire was prevented by the brave resistance offered by Shivaji's second son Rajaram and his wife Tara Bai. As the Maratha territories were overrun by Mughal troops, the focus of resistance shifted to Gingee fort which Rajaram took in 1693 with an army of 20,000 men provided by his cousin, the Raja of Thanjavur.

Aurangazeb retaliated by sending his general Zulfiqar Khan who recaptured Gingee and pursued the fleeing Marathas into Thanjavur. From 1691, Thanjavur had been forced to pay a tribute of four lakhs to the Mughals in order to retain their sovereignty. In 1697, Zulfiqar Khan forced Shahuji I to return the lands he had obtained from Mangammal, the Nayaki of Tiruchirapalli. Eventually Shahuji defeated the Mughals and captured lands as far as Varanasi. For this; he was immortalized in many literary works.

Wars and Conquests

An inscription at Pattukkottai boasts of the conquest of all lands between Pamban and Pudukkottai by Babaji son of Gangadhara, the agent of Shahuji I and the construction of a fort by the same official. Inscriptions also refer to the help offered by Shahji I to the Maravas. In 1700, Babaji invaded Tiruchirapalli in alliance with the Sethupathy of Ramnad. However, Rani Mangammal, the Queen of Tiruchirapalli inflicted a crushing defeat on Ramnad. Soon Shahuji I switched sides on account of the common danger to Thanjavur and Tiruchirapalli from the anicut built by Mysore across the Cauvery. A major war with Mysore was averted. But furious with Shahuji I over his new-found friendship with the Nayaks of Madurai / Tiruchirapalli, Kilavan, the Raja of Ramnad invaded Tiruchirapalli and defeated the forces of the Nayaki. He sent a huge army across the dominions of Shahuji I and took the fort of Aranthangi in 1709.

Literature

Shahuji I patronized learning and promoted literature. There are some dramas (koothu) in manuscript in the Thanjavur library which belong to this period. A large number of high-quality Sanskrit works were produced during this period. Dharmakuta heaps praises on Shahuji I. Tryambaka Raya Makhi gave a new interpretation to the Ramayana. Venkata Krishna Dikshitar who was a court-poet of Shahuji I composed Natesa Vijayam. Apart from this, Bhaskara Dikshit wrote Ratnatulika while Veda Kavi wrote Vidya Parinayam and Jivananda.

In 1693, Shahuji I renamed Thiruvisanallur as Shahajirajapuram and made a gift of this village to 46 Pandits of his court. This village soon emerged as the hub of literary, art and architectural activity.

Bhulokadevendra Vilasam, Athirupavathi Kalyanam, Sankaranarayana Kalyanam, Chandrikahasa Vilasa Natakam, Koravanji and Vishnu saharasraja vilasam are some works in Tamil drama which belong to this period. However, almost all Tamil works of Shahuji's period indicate a decline in quality. The usual plot is that some princess falls in love with Sahendra or Shahuji and secures him at last. The king is described in them as a linguist and a conqueror. Besides these, there are a few stray pieces praising Ekoji, Shahuji and Serfoji.

There are also some Telugu works from this period which are also lower in quality when compared to those of the Nayak period. Sahasraja vilasa nataka narrates how Shahuji I defeated the Muslim sultans and conquered all lands up to Varanasi. Vishnu sahasraja vilasam is a Tamil koothu written in Telugu script.


Later life

According to the Advaita Kirtana, Shahuji I abdicated the throne in 1712 and became a yogi. He was succeeded by his brother Serfoji I.

References

1. 'The Maratha Rajas of Tanjore' by K.R.Subramanian, 1928.


Serfoji I

Serfoji I was a younger son of Venkoji and he ruled from 1712 to 1728. His rule was marked by regular warfare and disputes with the Madurai Nayak.

Tukkoji

Tukkoji, a younger brother of Serfoji I, ruled Thanjavur from 1728 to 1736. His reign witnessed the invasion of Chanda Sahib and he is credited with having repulsed a Muslim invasion of Madurai.

Pratapsingh

A period of anarchy followed the death of Tukkoji and came to an end when Pratapsingh came to the throne in 1739. He ruled until 1763. He allied with Muhammad Ali, the Nawab of the Carnatic, and aided the British East India Company against the French East India Company in the Carnatic Wars and the Seven Years' War. He was the last king to be addressed to be the Directors of the British East India Company as "His Majesty". In 1762, a tripartite treaty was signed between Thanjavur, Carnatic and the British by which he became a vassal of the Nawab of the Carnatic.

Thuljaji

Thuljaji was a very weak ruler and the last independent ruler of Thanjavur. In 1773, Thanjavur was annexed by the Nawab of the Carnatic who ruled till 1776. The throne was restored to him by the Directors of the British East India Company. But his restoration came at a heavy price as it deprived him of his independence.

The Nawabs of the Arcot (also referred to as the Nawabs of Carnatic) were the nawabs who ruled the northern part of the Carnatic region of South India between about 1690 and 1855.

Nawab (Arabic: ناواب‎; Bengali: নবাব/নওয়াব; Hindi: नवाब; Punjabi (Gurmukhi): ਨਵਾਬ; Persian, Punjabi (Shahmukhi), Sindhi, Urdu: نواب), also spelt Nawaab, Navaab, Navab, Nowab, Nabob, Nawaabshah, Nawabshah or Nobab, is a Royal title indicating a sovereign ruler, often of a South Asian state, in many ways comparable to the western titles of King. The relationship of a Nawab to the Emperor of India has been compared to that of the Kings of Saxony to the German Emperor. In earlier times the title was ratified and bestowed by the reigning Mughal emperor to semi-autonomous Muslim rulers of subdivisions or princely states in the Indian subcontinent loyal to the Mughal Empire i.e. Nawabs of Bengal. The title is common among Muslim rulers of South Asia as an equivalent to the title Maharaja.

"Nawab" usually refers to males and literally means Viceroy; the female equivalent is "Begum" or "Nawab Begum". The primary duty of a Nawab was to uphold the sovereignty of the Mughal emperor along with the administration of a certain province.

The title of "nawabi" was also awarded as a personal distinction by the paramount power, similar to a British peerage, to persons and families who ruled a princely state for various services to the government of British India. In some cases, the titles were also accompanied by jagir grants, either in cash revenues and allowances or land-holdings. During the British Raj, some of the chiefs, or sardars, of large or important tribes were also given the title, in addition to traditional titles already held by virtue of chieftainship.

The term "Zamindari" was originally used for the subahdar (provincial governor) or viceroy of a subah (province) or regions of the Mughal empire.

-- Nawab, by Wikipedia


The Carnatic was a dependency of Hyderabad Deccan, and was under the legal purview of the Nizam of Hyderabad, until their demise. They initially had their capital at Arcot in the present-day Indian state of Tamil Nadu. Their rule is an important period in the history of the Carnatic and Coromandel Coast regions, in which the Mughal Empire gave way to the rising influence of the Maratha Empire, and later the emergence of the British Raj...

Muhammad Ali Khan Wallajah (1749–1795) became the ruler in 1765.

The growing influences of the English and the French and their colonial wars had a huge impact on the Carnatic. Wallajah supported the English against the French and Hyder Ali, placing him heavily in debt. As a result, he had to surrender much of his territory to the East India Company. Paul Benfield, an English business man, made one of his major loans to the Nawab for the purpose of enabling him, who with the aid of the English, had invaded and conquered the Mahratta state of Tanjore.


Image
Muhammad Ali Khan Walla Jah

Muhammad Ali Khan Wallajah, or Muhammed Ali, Wallajah (7 July 1717 – 13 October 1795), was the Nawab of Arcot in India and an ally of the British East India Company. Muhammad Ali Khan Wallajah was born to Anwaruddin Muhammed Khan, by his second wife, Fakhr un-nisa Begum Sahiba, a niece of Sayyid Ali Khan Safavi ul-Mosawi of Persia, sometime Naib suba of Trichonopoly, on 7 July 1717 at Delhi. Muhammed Ali Khan Wallajah the Nawab of Arcot often referred to himself as the Subedar of the Carnatic in his letters and correspondence with the then Mughal Emperor Shah Alam II...

Muhammad Ali Khan Wallajah was granted the titles of "Siraj ud-Daula", Anwar ud-din Khan Bahadur, and Dilawar Jang, together with the Subadarship of the Carnatic Payeen Ghaut and a mensab of 5,000 zat and 5,000 sowar, the Mahi Maratib, Naubat, etc. by Imperial firman on 5 April 1750.

He joined forces with Nasir Jung [Mir Ahmed Ali Khan Siddiqi Bayafandi, Nasir Jung, was the son of Nizam-ul-Mulk by his wife Saeed-un-nisa Begum. He was born 26 February 1712. He succeeded his father as the Nizam of Hyderabad State in 1748.] and the British in opposing Chanda Sahib, the French nominee for the Subadarship.

Chanda Sahib (died 12 June 1752) Nawab of the Carnatic between 1749 and 1752. Initially he was supported by the French during the Carnatic Wars. After his defeat at Arcot in 1751, he was captured by the Marathas of Thanjavur and executed.

He was the son-in-law of the Nawab of Carnatic Dost Ali Khan, under whom he worked as a Dewan.

Chanda Sahib, an ally of the French, annexed the Madurai Nayaks and was declared the "Nawab", bringing Tanjore and Tinnevelly into the dominions of the Mughal Empire.

He was weakened by constant Maratha attacks and was defeated by Muhammed Ali Khan Wallajah. After his forces were defeated by Robert Clive and the Maratha Empire, he attempted to recoup his losses but was beheaded in a mutiny by Hindu subjects in the Tanjore army.


-- Chanda Sahib, by Wikipedia


He was defeated by the French at Gingee in December 1750, and fled to Trichnopoly for a second time. He received an Imperial firman confirming his possession of the Carnatic and appointing him as Naib to Viceroy of the Deccan, 21 January 1751.

Raised to the titles of Walla Jah and Sahib us-Saif wal-qalam Mudabbir-i-Umur-i-'Alam Farzand-i-'Aziz-az Jan by Emperor Shah Alam II in 1760, he was recognised by the Treaty of Paris as an independent ruler in 1763 and by the Emperor of Delhi 26 August 1765.

Sir John Macpherson, writing to Lord Macartney in November 1781 declared, "I love the old man...mind me to my old Nabob. I have been sending him sheep and bags of rice by every ship. It is more than he did for me when I was fighting his battles."


The Nawab was an ally of the British East India Company, but also harboured great ambitions of power in the South Indian arena, where Hyder Ali of the Mysore, the Marathas, and the Nizam of Hyderabad were constant rivals. The Nawab could also be unpredictable and devious, and his breach of promise in failing to surrender Tiruchirappalli to Hyder Ali in 1751 was at the root of many confrontations between Hyder Ali and the British.

When Hyder Ali swept into the Carnatic towards Arcot on 23 July 1780, with an army estimated at 86–100,000 men, it was not the Nawab, however, but the British who had provoked Hyder Ali's wrath, by seizing the French port of Mahé which was under his protection. Much of the ensuing war was fought on the Nawab's territory.

For the defence of his territory, the Nawab paid the British 400,000 pagodas per annum (about £160,000) and 10 out of the 21 battalions of the Madras army were posted to garrison his forts. The British derived income from his jagirs (land grants).


Political influence

For a period the situation of the Nawab was a significant factor in Westminster politics. The Nawab had borrowed heavily; and many East India Company officials, in India or in the United Kingdom, were his creditors. Elections in the UK could be, and were, influenced by nabob money, with the result that a group of about a dozen Members of Parliament formed a discernible "Arcot interest", as it was called.

By the 1780s issues affecting Arcot were therefore having a direct impact on British politics: the debts of the Nawab mattered in domestic terms.


Death

He died from gangrene poisoning, at Madras on 13 October 1795. He was buried outside the gate of the Gunbad of Shah Chand Mastan, Trichinopoly.

-- Muhammad Ali Khan Wallajah, by Wikipedia


The thirteenth Nawab, Ghulam Muhammad Ghouse Khan (1825–1855), died without issue, and the British annexed the Carnatic Nawabdom, applying the doctrine of lapse.

According to the doctrine, any Indian princely state under the suzerainty of the East India Company (EIC) (the dominant imperial power in the Indian subsidiary system), would have its princely status abolished (and therefore be annexed into British India) if the ruler was either "manifestly incompetent or died without a male heir". The latter supplanted the long-established right of an Indian sovereign without an heir to choose a successor. In addition, the EIC decided whether potential rulers were competent enough. The doctrine and its applications were widely regarded as illegitimate by many Indians, leading to resentment against the EIC.

The policy is most commonly associated with Lord Dalhousie, who was the Governor General of the East India Company in India between 1848 and 1856. However, it was articulated by the Court of Directors of the East India Company as early as 1847 and several smaller states had already been annexed under this doctrine before Dalhousie took over the post of Governor-General. Dalhousie used the policy most vigorously and extensively, though, so it is generally associated with him...

As per the policy, Kings without a male heir or son cannot declare an adopted child or any relative as the heir. He is required to relinquish his rights to the throne and surrender his kingdom to the East India Company.

-- Doctrine of lapse, by Wikipedia


Ghouse Khan's uncle Azim Jah was created the first Prince of Arcot (Amir-e-Arcot) in 1867 by Queen Victoria, and was given a tax free-pension in perpetuity.

-- Carnatic Sultanate, by Wikipedia


Serfoji II

Thuljaji was succeeded by his teenage son Serfoji II in 1787. Soon afterwards, he was deposed by his uncle and regent Amarsingh who seized the throne for himself. With the help of the British, Serfoji II recovered the throne in 1798. A subsequent treaty forced him to hand over the reins of the kingdom to the British East India Company, becoming part of the Tanjore District (Madras Presidency). The district collectorate system was installed thereafter to manage the public revenues. Serfoji II was however left in control of the Fort and the surrounding areas. He reigned till 1832. His reign is noted for the literary, scientific and technological accomplishments of the Tanjore country.

Shivaji

Shivaji was the last Maratha ruler of Thanjavur and reigned from 1832 to 1855. As his first wife did not have any male heir, the Queen adopted her nephew, and the adoption took place after the Maharaja's (Shivaji I) death in 1855. The British did not accept this adoption and Thanjavur was annexed by them as per the provisions of the Doctrine of Lapse.

Literature

The Thanjavur Maratha Rajas favoured Sanskrit and Telugu to such an extent that classical Tamil began to decline.[1] Most of the plays were in Sanskrit. Venkoji, the first ruler of the Bhonsle dynasty composed a 'Dvipada' Ramayana in Telugu. His son Shahuji was a great patron of learning and of literature. Most of the Thanjavur Maratha literature is from his period. Most of them were versions of the Ramayana or plays and short stories of a historical nature. Sanskrit and Telugu were the languages used in most of these plays while there were some Tamil 'koothu' as well. Advaita Kirtana is one of the prominent works from this period. Later Thanjavur rulers like Serfoji II and Shivaji immersed themselves in learning and literary pursuits when they were dispossessed of their empire. Serfoji built the Saraswathi Mahal Library within the precincts of the palace to house his enormous book and manuscript collection.

Image
Maharaja Serfoji's Sarasvati Mahal Library

Saraswathi Mahal Library, also called Thanjavur Maharaja Serfoji's Saraswathi Mahal Library is a library located in Thanjavur (Tanjore), Tamil Nadu, India. It is one of the oldest libraries in Asia established during 16th century by Nayakas of Thanjavur and has on display a rare collection of Palm leaf manuscripts and paper written in Tamil and Sanskrit and a few other languages indigenous to India. The collection comprises well over 49,000 volumes, though only a tiny fraction of these are on display. The library has a complete catalog of holdings, which is being made available online. Some rare holdings can be viewed on site by prior arrangement.

History

The Saraswathi Mahal library was started by Nayak Kings of Tanjavur as a Royal Library for the private intellectual enrichment of Kings and their family of Thanjavur (see Nayaks of Tanjore) who ruled from 1535 CE till 1676 CE. The Maratha rulers who captured Thanjavur in 1675 promoted local culture and further developed the Royal Palace Library until 1855. Most notable among the Maratha Kings was Serfoji II (1798–1832), who was an eminent scholar in many branches of learning and the arts. In his early age Sarfoji studied under the influence of the German Reverent Schwartz, and learned many languages including English, French, Italian and Latin. He enthusiastically took special interest in the enrichment of the Library, employing many Pandits to collect, buy and copy a vast number of works from all renowned Centres of Sanskrit learning in Northern India and other far-flung areas.

During 1918 the Saraswathi Mahal Library was open to public. The Library is located within the campus of Tanjavur palace....

The Collection

The bulk of the manuscripts (39,300) are in Tamil and Sanskrit. Manuscripts number over 4500, comprising titles in literature and medicine. The Library has a collection of 3076 Marathi manuscripts from the South Indian Maharastrian of the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries; this includes the hierarchy of the Saints of Maharashtra belonging to Sri Ramadasi and Dattatreya Mutts. The Marathi manuscripts are mostly on paper but a few were written in Telugu script on palm-leaf. There are 846 Telugu manuscripts in the holdings, mostly on palm leaf. There are 22 Persian and Urdu manuscripts mostly of 19th century also within the collection. The library also holds medical records of Ayurveda scholars, including patient case studies and interviews in the manuscripts classified under the Dhanvantari section.

Apart from these manuscripts there are 1342 bundles of Maratha Raj records available at the Library. The Raj records were written in the Modi script (fast script for Devanagari) of the Marathi language. These records encompass the information of the political, cultural and social administration of the Maratha kings of Thanjavur.

Some of the rare books and manuscripts

• Dr. Samuel Johnson's dictionary published in 1784
• The pictorial Bible printed in Amsterdam in the year 1791
• The Madras Almanac printed in 1807
• Lavoisier's Traité Élémentaire de Chimie ("Elements of Chemistry")
• The notes of Bishop Heber on Raja Serfoji II
• The correspondence letters of William Torin of London who purchased a lot of books for Raja Serfoji II and the Saraswathi Mahal Library
• Ancient maps of the world
• Town planning documents of Thanjavur including the underground drainage system, the fresh water supply ducting system

-- Saraswathi Mahal Library, by Wikipedia


Apart from Indian languages, Serfoji II was proficient in English, French, Dutch, Greek and Latin as well.

Administration

The king was assisted in the administration of his country by a council of ministers. The supreme head of this council of ministers was a Mantri or Dalavoy. The Dalavoy was also the Commander-in-chief of the Army. Next in importance at the court was a Pradhani or Dewan also called Dabir Pandit. The country was divided into subahs, seemais and maganams in the decreasing order of size and importance. The five subahs of the country were Pattukkottai, Mayavaram, Kumbakonam, Mannargudi and Tiruvadi.

Economy

The ruler collected his taxes from the people through his mirasdars or puttackdars. They were collected right from the village level onwards and were based on the agricultural produce of the village. Rice was one of the primary crops in the region and the land used for cultivation was owned by big landlords. It was Anatharama Sashtry who proposed collecting taxes to improve conditions for the poor. No foreign trade was carried out. The only foreign trade in the country was carried out by European traders who paid a particular amount of money as rent to the Raja. The currency system used was that of a chakram or pon (1 chakram = one and three-fourths of a British East India Company rupee). Other systems of coinage used were that of pagoda (1 pagoda = three and a half Company rupees), a big panam (one-sixth of a Company rupee) and a small panam (one-thirteenth of a Company rupee).

See also

• List of Maratha dynasties and states
• Thanjavur Marathi people

References

1. Anwar, Kombai S. (26 April 2018). "Thanjavur emerged as a thriving cultural capital under the Marathas". The Hindu. ISSN 0971-751X. Retrieved 16 April 2021.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 37494
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Freda Bedi Cont'd (#3)

Postby admin » Tue Jun 15, 2021 2:30 am

Part 1 of 2

Madras Presidency
by Wikipedia
Accessed: 6/14/21

Presidency of Fort St George
Presidency of British India
1652–1947
Image
Flag of Madras Presidency
Image
Coat of arms of Madras Presidency
Image
The Madras Presidency in 1913
Capital: Summer: Ooty; Winter: Madras
Historical era/ New Imperialism
Established / 1652
Disestablished / 1947

Preceded by / Succeeded by
Nawabs of the Carnatic / Dominion of India
Madurai Nayak / Dominion of India

Image
Colonial India
British Indian Empire
Imperial entities of India
Croatian India: 1530–1667
Dutch India: 1605–1825
Danish India: 1620–1869
French India: 1668–1954
Austrian India 1778–1785
Portuguese India (1505–1961)
Casa da Índia: 1434–1833
Ceilão Português: 1597–1658
Portuguese East India Company: 1628–1633
British India (1612–1947)
East India Company: 1612–1757
Company rule in India: 1757–1858
British rule in Ceylon: 1796–1948
British rule in Portuguese India: 1797–1813
British Raj: 1858–1947
British rule in Burma: 1824–1948
British rule in the Maldives: 1887–1965
Princely states: 1721–1949
Partition of India: 1947–

The Madras Presidency, or the Presidency of Fort St. George, and also known as Madras Province, was an administrative subdivision (presidency) of British India. At its greatest extent, the presidency included most of southern India, including the whole of the Indian state of Tamil Nadu, and parts of Andhra Pradesh, Kerala, Karnataka, Telangana, Odisha and the union territory of Lakshadweep. The city of Madras was the winter capital of the Presidency and Ootacamund or Ooty, the summer capital. The Island of Ceylon was a part of Madras Presidency from 1793 to 1798 when it was created a Crown colony. Madras Presidency was neighboured by the Kingdom of Mysore on the northwest, Kingdom of Cochin on the southwest, and the Kingdom of Hyderabad on the north. Some parts of the presidency were also flanked by Bombay Presidency (Konkan) and Central Provinces and Berar (Madhya Pradesh).

In 1639, the English East India Company purchased the village of Madraspatnam and one year later it established the Agency of Fort St George, precursor of the Madras Presidency, although there had been Company factories at Machilipatnam and Armagon since the very early 1600s. The agency was upgraded to a Presidency in 1652 before once more reverting to its previous status in 1655. In 1684, it was re-elevated to a Presidency and Elihu Yale was appointed as president. In 1785, under the provisions of Pitt's India Act, Madras became one of three provinces established by the East India Company. Thereafter, the head of the area was styled "Governor" rather than "President" and became subordinate to the Governor-General in Calcutta, a title that would persist until 1947. Judicial, legislative and executive powers rested with the Governor who was assisted by a Council whose constitution was modified by reforms enacted in 1861, 1909, 1919 and 1935. Regular elections were conducted in Madras up to the outbreak of the Second World War in 1939. By 1908, the province comprised twenty-two districts, each under a District Collector, and it was further sub-divided into taluks and firqas with villages making up the smallest unit of administration.

Following the Montagu–Chelmsford Reforms of 1919, Madras was the first province of British India to implement a system of dyarchy, and thereafter its Governor ruled alongside a prime minister. In the early decades of the 20th century, many significant contributors to the Indian independence movement came from Madras. With the advent of Indian independence on 15 August 1947, the Presidency became the Madras Province. Madras was later admitted as Madras State, a state of the Indian Union at the inauguration of the Republic of India on 26 January 1950.

Origins

Before the arrival of the English


The discovery of dolmens from this portion of the subcontinent shows inhabitation as early as the Stone Age. The first prominent rulers of the northern part of the future Presidency were the Tamil Pandya dynasty (230 BC – AD 102). Following the decline of the Pandyas and the Cholas, the country was conquered by a little known race of people called the Kalabhras.[1] The country recovered under the subsequent Pallava dynasty and its civilisation attained a peak when the later Telugu kings started acquiring vast places in Tamil Nadu. Following the conquest of Madurai by Malik Kafur in 1311, there was a brief lull when both culture and civilisation began to deteriorate. The Tamil and Telugu territories recovered under the Vijayanagar Empire, founded in 1336. Following the empire's demise, the country was split amongst numerous sultans, polygars and European trading companies.[2] Between 1685 and 1947, a number of kings ruled the areas that became part of the Madras Presidency.[3]

The southwestern portions of the Presidency, which together constitute Tulu Nadu and Kerala, has a distinct history, language, and culture from its eastern counterparts.

Early English trading posts

On 31 December 1600, Queen Elizabeth I of England (1533–1603) granted a group of English merchants a charter to establish a joint-stock company which became known as the East India Company.[4][5][6][7] Subsequently, during the reign of King James I (1567–1625), Sir William Hawkins and Sir Thomas Roe were sent to negotiate with the Mughal Emperor Jahangir (1569–1627) to permit the establishment of trading factories in India on behalf of the company. The first of these were built at Surat on the west coast[8] and at Masulipatam on the country's eastern seaboard.[9] Masulipatam is thus the oldest English trading post on India's east coast, dating back to 1611. In 1625, another factory was established at Armagon, a few miles to the south, whereupon both the factories came under the supervision of an agency based at Machilipatam.[9] The English authorities decided to relocate these factories further south, due to a shortage of cotton cloth, the main trade item of the east coast at the time. The problem was compounded when the Sultan of Golconda started harassing the local officers.[9] The East India Company's administrator Francis Day (1605–73) was sent south, and after negotiations with the Raja of Chandragiri he obtained a land grant to set up a factory in the village of Madraspatnam,[9] where the new Fort St George was built. An agency was created to govern the new settlement, and the factor Andrew Cogan of Masulipatnam was appointed as its first Agent.[10] All the agencies along India's east coast were subordinated to the East India Company presidency of Bantam in Java.[11] By 1641, Fort St George became the company's headquarters on the Coromandel Coast.[12]

Agency of Fort St George

Andrew Cogan was succeeded by Francis Day (1643–1644), Thomas Ivie (1644–1648) and Thomas Greenhill (1648–52 and 1655–58). At the end of Greenhill's term in 1652, Fort St George was elevated to a Presidency, independent of Bantam[9] and under the leadership of the first president, Aaron Baker (1652–1655).[9] However, in 1655 the status of the fort was downgraded to an Agency and made subject to the factory at Surat,[13] until 1684. In 1658, control of all the factories in Bengal was given to Madras, when the English occupied the nearby village of Triplicane.[14][15]

History

Main article: History of Madras Presidency

Image
Stringer Lawrence who established the Madras Army with Muhammed Ali Khan Wallajah, the Nawab of Carnatic

Expansion

In 1684, Fort St George was again elevated in rank to become the Madras Presidency, with William Gyfford as its first president.[16] The city came to be divided into two parts: the European inhabited White Town and the Black Town where the 'natives' lived. The White Town was confined inside the walls of Fort St. George and the Black Town outside of it. The Black Town later came to be known as George Town.[17] During this period, the Presidency was significantly expanded and reached an extent which continued into the early 19th century. During the early years of the Madras Presidency, the English were repeatedly attacked by the Mughals, the Marathas and the Nawabs of Golkonda and the Carnatic region.[18] In September 1774, by Pitt's India Act, passed by the Parliament of Great Britain to unify and regulate the administration of the territories of the East India Company, the President of Madras was made subordinate to the Governor-General of India based in Calcutta.[19] In September 1746, Fort St George was captured by the French, who ruled Madras as a part of French India until 1749, when Madras was handed back to the British under the terms of the Treaty of Aix-la-Chappelle of the previous year.[20]

During the Company Rule

See also: Company rule in India

From 1774 until 1858, Madras was a part of British India and was ruled by the British East India Company. The last quarter of the 18th century was a period of rapid expansion. Successful wars against Tipu Sultan (1782–99), Maruthu Pandyar, Velu Thampi, Polygars and Ceylon added vast areas of land and contributed to the exponential growth of the Presidency. Newly conquered Ceylon formed part of the Madras Presidency between 1793 and 1798.[21] The system of subsidiary alliances originated by Lord Wellesley as Governor-General of India (1798–1805) also brought many princely states into the area militarily subordinate to the Governor of Fort St George.[22] The largest kingdom of the hill-tract region of Visakhapatanam was Jeypore and in 1777 it was conquered by Captain Matthews.[23] The hill tracts of Ganjam and Visakhapatnam were the last places to be annexed by the British.[24]

The period also witnessed a number of rebellions starting with the 1806 Vellore Mutiny.[25] The rebellion of Velu Thambi and Paliath Achan and the Poligar Wars were other notable insurrections against the British rule, but the Madras Presidency remained relatively undisturbed by the Sepoy Mutiny of 1857.[26]

The Madras Presidency annexed the kingdom of Mysore in 1831 on allegations of maladministration[27] and restored it to Chamaraja Wodeyar (1881–94), the grandson and heir of the deposed Mummadi Krishnaraja Wodeyar (1799–1868) in 1881. Thanjavur was annexed in 1855, following the death of Shivaji II (1832–1855) who left no male heir.[28]

The Victorian era

See also: British Raj

In 1858, under the terms of Queen's Proclamation issued by Queen Victoria, the Madras Presidency, along with the rest of British India, came under the direct rule of the British crown.[29] During the period of governor Lord Harris (1854–1859), measures were taken to improve education and increase representation of Indians in the administration. Legislative powers were given to the Governor's council under the Indian Councils Act 1861.[30] The council was reformed and expanded under the Indian Councils Act 1892,[31] the Indian Councils Act 1909,[32][33] the Government of India Act 1919, and the Government of India Act 1935. V. Sadagopacharlu (1861–63) was the first Indian to be appointed to the council.[34] The legal profession was specially prized by the newly emerging corpus of educated Indians.[35] In 1877, T. Muthuswamy Iyer became the first Indian judge of the Madras High Court despite strong opposition from the Anglo-Indian media.[36][37][38] He also acted as the Chief Justice of the Madras High Court for a few months in 1893, thereby becoming the first Indian to hold the post.[39] In 1906, C. Sankaran Nair became the first Indian to be appointed Advocate-General of the Madras Presidency. A number of roads, railways, dams and canals were constructed during this period.[37]

Two large famines occurred in Madras during this period, the Great Famine of 1876–78 and the Indian famine of 1896–97.[40] As a result, the population of the Presidency fell for the first time from 31.2 million in 1871 to 30.8 million in 1881. These famines and alleged partiality shown by the government in handling the Chingleput Ryots' Case and the Salem riots trial caused discontent among the population.[41]

Indian Independence Movement

See also: Indian independence movement in Tamil Nadu

Image
Annie Besant in 1922

A strong sense of national awakening emerged in the Madras Presidency in the later half of the 19th century. The first political organisation in the province, the Madras Native Association, was established by Gazulu Lakshminarasu Chetty on 26 February 1852.[42] However, the organisation did not last long.[43] The Madras Native Association was followed by the Madras Mahajana Sabha which was started on 16 May 1884. Of the 72 delegates who participated in the first session of the Indian National Congress at Bombay in December 1885, 22 hailed from the Madras Presidency.[44][45] Most of the delegates were members of the Madras Mahajana Sabha. The third session of the Indian National Congress was held in Madras in December 1887[46] and was a huge success attended by 362 delegates from the province.[47] Subsequent sessions of the Indian National Congress took place in Madras in 1894, 1898, 1903 1908, 1914 and 1927.[48]

Madam Blavatsky and Colonel H. S. Olcott moved the headquarters of the Theosophical Society to Adyar in 1882.[49] The society's most prominent figure was Annie Besant, who founded the Home Rule League in 1916.[50] The Home Rule Movement was organised from Madras and found extensive support in the Province. Nationalistic newspapers such as The Hindu, the Swadesamitran and the Mathrubhumi actively endorsed the campaign for independence.[51] India's first trade union was established in Madras in 1918 by V. Kalyanasundaram and B. P. Wadia.[52]

Dyarchy (1920–37)

Main article: Diarchy in Madras Presidency

Image
Image
The non-Brahmin movement was started by C. Natesa Mudaliar (left) who founded the Justice Party in 1916 and Periyar E. V. Ramasamy (right), who founded the Self-Respect Movement and took over the Justice party in 1944

A dyarchy was created in Madras Presidency in 1920 as per the Montagu–Chelmsford Reforms with provisions made for elections in the presidency.[53] Democratically elected governments would henceforth share power with the Governor's autocratic establishment. Following the first elections held in November 1920, the Justice Party, an organisation established in 1916 to campaign for increased representation of non-Brahmins in the administration, came to power.[54] A. Subbarayalu Reddiar became the first Chief Minister of the Madras Presidency but resigned soon after due to declining health and was replaced by P. Ramarayaningar, Minister of Local Self-Government and Public Health, popularly known as the Raja of Panagal.[55] The party split in late 1923 when C. R. Reddy resigned from primary membership and formed a splinter group allied with the opposition Swarajists. A motion of no-confidence was proposed against Ramarayaningar's government on 27 November 1923, but was defeated 65–44. Ramarayaningar remained in power until November 1926. The enactment in August 1921 of the first communal Government Order (G.O. No. 613), which introduced caste-based communal reservations in government jobs, remains one of the high points of his rule. In the following elections of 1926 the Justice Party lost. However, as no party was able to obtain a clear majority, the Governor, Lord Goschen, set up a cross-party government under the leadership of P. Subbarayan and nominated its supporting members.[56] In the election of 1930, the Justice Party was victorious, and P. Munuswamy Naidu became Chief Minister.[57] The exclusion of Zamindars from the Ministry split the Justice Party once again. Fearing a no-confidence motion against him, Munuswamy Naidu resigned in November 1932 and the Raja of Bobbili was appointed Chief Minister in his place.[58] The Justice Party eventually lost the 1937 elections to the Indian National Congress, and Chakravarti Rajagopalachari became Chief Minister of Madras Presidency.[59]

During the 1920s and 1930s, an Anti-Brahmin movement emerged in the Madras Presidency. It was launched by E. V. Ramaswamy who, unhappy with the principles and policies of the Brahmin leadership of the provincial Congress, left the party to form the Self-Respect Movement. Periyar, as he was alternatively known, criticised Brahmins, Hinduism, and Hindu superstitions in periodicals and newspapers such as Viduthalai and Justice. He also participated in the Vaikom Satyagraha, which campaigned for the right of untouchables in Travancore to enter temples.[60]

Last days of British rule

Image
The Indian National Congress came to power for the first time in 1937 with Chakravarti Rajagopalachari (pictured at a rally) as its Chief Minister

In 1937, the Indian National Congress was elected to power in the Presidency of Madras for the first time.[59] Chakravarti Rajagopalachari was the first Chief Minister of the Presidency to come from the Congress party. He successfully enacted the Temple Entry Authorization and Indemnity Act[61] and introduced both prohibition[62] and sales taxes in the Madras Presidency. His rule is largely remembered for the use of Hindi being made compulsory in educational institutions, a measure which made him highly unpopular as a politician[63][64] and sparked widespread Anti-Hindi agitations, which led to violence in some places. Over 1,200 men, women, and children were jailed for their participation in such Anti-Hindi agitations[65] while Thalamuthu and Natarasan died during the protests.[64] In 1940, Congressional ministers resigned in protest over the Government of India's declaration of war on Germany without their consent. The Governor of Madras, Sir Arthur Hope, took over the administration and the unpopular law was eventually repealed by him on 21 February 1940.[64]

Most Congressional leadership and erstwhile ministers were arrested in 1942, as a result of their participation in the Quit India movement.[66] In 1944, Periyar renamed the Justice Party as Dravidar Kazhagam and withdrew it from electoral politics.[67] After the end of the Second World War, the Indian National Congress re-entered politics, and in the absence of any serious opposition it easily won the 1946 election.[68] Tanguturi Prakasam was then elected as Chief Minister with the support of Kamaraj and served for eleven months. He was succeeded by O. P. Ramaswamy Reddiyar, who became the first Chief Minister of Madras state when India gained independence on 15 August 1947.[69] The Madras Presidency became the Madras State in independent India.[70]

Geography

Image
Madras province (North), 1909

Image
Madras province (South), 1909

At its greatest extent, the Madras Presidency included much of southern India. Present-day territories that were once part of the presidency are the whole Indian State of Andhra Pradesh excluding the region of Banaganapalle Princely State, the Tondai Nadu, Kongu Nadu, Chola Nadu and part of Pandya Nadu regions of Tamil Nadu, the Malabar region of North Kerala, the Lakshadweep Islands, the Ganjam, Gajapati, Rayagada, Koraput, Nabarangapur and Malkangiri districts of southern Odisha and the Bellary, Dakshina Kannada, and Udupi districts of Karnataka and the parts of Jayashankar Bhupalapalli, Bhadradri Kothagudem districts of Telangana. The presidency had its winter capital at Madras and summer capital at Ootacamund.[71]

Demographics

See also: Demographics of Madras Presidency

Historical population

In 1822, the Madras Presidency underwent its first census, which returned a population of 13,476,923. A second census conducted between 1836 and 1837 recorded a population of 13,967,395, an increase of only 490,472 over 15 years. The first quinquennial population enumeration took place from 1851 until 1852. It returned a population of 22,031,697. Subsequent enumerations were made in 1851–52, 1856–57, 1861–62, and 1866–67. The population of Madras Presidency was tallied at 22,857,855, 24,656,509 in 1861–62 and 26,539,052 in 1866–67.[73] The first organised census of India was conducted in 1871 and returned a population of 31,220,973 for the Madras Presidency.[74] Since then, a census has been conducted once every ten years. The last census of British India held in 1941 counted a population of 49,341,810 for the Madras Presidency.[75]

Languages

See also: Dravidian languages

Image
Linguistic map of the Madras Presidency

The Tamil, Telugu, Malayalam, Kannada, Odia, Tulu and English languages were all spoken in the Madras Presidency. Tamil was spoken in the southern districts of the Presidency from a few miles north of Madras city as far west as the Nilgiri hills and Western Ghats.[76] Telugu was spoken in the districts to the north of Madras city and to the east of Bellary and Anantapur districts.[76] In the district of South Kanara, the western part of Bellary and Anantapur districts and parts of Malabar, Kannada was spoken.[77] Malayalam was spoken in the districts of Malabar and South Kanara and the princely states of Travancore and Cochin, while Tulu was spoken in South Canara.[77] Oriya was spoken in the parts of the districts of then Ganjam and Vizagapatam.[77] English was spoken by Anglo-Indians and Eurasians. It was also the link language for the Presidency and the official language of British India in which all government proceedings and court hearings were conducted.[78]

According to the 1871 census, there were 14,715,000 people who spoke Tamil, 11,610,000 people who spoke Telugu, 2,324,000 people who spoke Malayalam, 1,699,000 spoke Canarese or Kannada, 640,000 people spoke Oriya and 29,400 people spoke Tulu.[79] The 1901 census returned 15,182,957 speakers of Tamil, 14,276,509 Telugu-speakers, 2,861,297 speakers of Malayalam, 1,518,579 were speakers of Kannada, 1,809,314 spoke Oriya, 880,145 spoke Hindusthani/Urdu and 1,680,635 spoke other languages.[80] At the time of Indian independence, Tamil and Telugu speakers made up over 78% of the total population of the presidency, with Kannada, Malayalam and Tulu speakers making up the rest.[81]

Religion

Image
Vaishnavite Brahmin students at a Gurukulam in Tanjore, c. 1909

Image
A village shrine dedicated to Lord Ayyanar, c. 1911

Image
Muslim (called in English at the time as Muhammadan) boy, c. 1914

In 1901, the population breakdown was: Hindus (37,026,471), Muslims (2,732,931), and Christians (1,934,480). By the time of India's independence in 1947, Madras had an estimated population of 49,799,822 Hindus, 3,896,452 Muslims and 2,047,478 Christians[82]

Hinduism was the predominant religion in the presidency and practised by around 88% of the population. The main Hindu denominations were Saivite, Vaishnavite and Lingayat.[83] Among the Brahmins, the Smartha doctrine was quite popular.[84] Worship of village gods was strong in the southern districts of the presidency while the mathas at Kanchi, Sringeri and Ahobilam were regarded as the centres of the Hindu faith. Of the Hindu temples, the largest and most important were the Venkateswara temple at Thirupathi, the Brihadeeswarar temple at Tanjore, the Meenakshi Amman temple at Madurai, the Ranganathaswamy temple at Srirangam, the Krishna temple at Udupi and the Padmanabhaswamy temple in the princely state of Travancore. Islam was brought to the southern part of India by Arab traders although most converts were made from the 14th century onwards, when Malik Kafur conquered Madurai. Nagore was the holiest city for the Muslims of the Madras Presidency. The presidency also had one of the oldest Christian populations in India. Branches of the Syrian church, contrary to historical evidence, are popularly believed to have been instituted by St. Thomas, an apostle of Jesus Christ who visited the Malabar coast in 52 AD[85] Christians were mainly concentrated in the Tinnevely and Malabar districts of Madras Presidency with native Christians forming over one–quarter of the total population of the princely state of Travancore.[86] Hill tribes of the Nilgiris, Palani and Ganjam regions such as the Todas, Badagas, Kotas, Yerukalas and the Khonds, worshipped tribal gods and were often classified as Hindus. Until the early years of the 20th century, the Pallar, Paraiyar, Sakkiliar, Pulayar, Madiga, Izhava and Holeya Hindu communities were regarded as untouchable and were not allowed inside Hindu temples. However, along with the emancipation of Indian women and removal of social evils, untouchability was slowly eradicated through legislation and social reform. The Raja of Bobbili who served the Premier from 1932 to 1936, appointed untouchables to temple administration boards all over the presidency. In 1939, the Congress government of C. Rajagopalachari introduced the Temple Entry Authorization and Indemnity Act which removed all restrictions on untouchables entering Hindu temples.[61] Chithira Thirunal of Travancore had issued a similar had earlier introduced similar legislation, the Temple Entry Proclamation at the advice of his Diwan, Sir C. P. Ramaswamy Ayyar, in 1937.[87]

In 1921 the Raja of Panagal's government passed the Hindu Religious Endowments Bill[88] that established government-controlled trusts in the Madras Presidency to manage Hindu temples and prevent potential misuse of their funds.[88] The Raja of Bobbili also introduced reforms in the administration of the Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams, the trust which manages the Hindu temple at Tirupathi.

Administration

See also: Administrative divisions of Madras Presidency

The Pitt's India Act of 1784 created an executive council with legislative powers to assist the Governor. The council initially consisted of four members, two of whom were from the Indian civil service or covenanted civil service and the third, an Indian of distinction.[89] The fourth was the Commander-in-chief of the Madras Army.[90] The council was reduced to three members when the Madras Army was abolished in 1895.[90] The legislative powers of this council were withdrawn as per the Government of India Act 1833 and it was reduced to the status of a mere advisory body.[91] However, these powers were restored as per Indian Councils Act 1861.[91] The council was expanded from time to time through the inclusion of official and non-official members and served as the main legislative body till 1935, when a legislative assembly of a more representative nature was created and legislative powers were transferred to the assembly. On India's independence on 15 August 1947, the three-member Governor's executive council was abolished.

The origins of Madras Presidency lay in the village of Madraspatnam which was obtained in 1640.[92] This was followed by Fort St David which was acquired in 1690. Chingleput district, known as the "jaghire" of Chingleput, obtained in 1763, was the first district in the Madras Presidency.[92] Salem and Malabar districts were obtained from Tipu Sultan in 1792 as per the Treaty of Seringapatam and Coimbatore and Kanara districts after the Fourth Mysore War in 1799.[93] The territories of the Thanjavur Maratha kingdom were constituted as a separate district in 1799. In 1800, the districts of Bellary and Cuddapah were created out of the territory ceded by the Nizam of Hyderabad.[92][94] In 1801, the districts of North Arcot, South Arcot, Nellore, Trichinopoly, Madura and Tinnevely were created out of the territories of the erstwhile Carnatic kingdom.[92] Trichinopoly district was made a sub-division of Tanjore district in June 1805 and remained so till August 1808 when its status as a separate district was restored. The districts of Rajahmundry (Rajamahendravaram), Masulipatnam and Guntur were created in 1823.[95] These three districts were reorganised in 1859 into two – the Godavari and Krishna districts.[95] Godavari district was further bifurcated into East and West Godavari districts in 1925. The Kurnool kingdom was annexed in 1839 and was constituted as a separate district of the Madras Presidency.[92] For administrative convenience, the district of Kanara was split into North and South Kanara in 1859. North Kanara was transferred to Bombay Presidency in 1862. Between 1859–60 and 1870, the districts of Madras and Chingleput were put together into a single district.[92] A separate Nilgiris district was carved out of Coimbatore district in 1868.[93] As of 1908, Madras Presidency was made up of 24 districts[90] each administered by a District Collector who was from the Indian Civil Service. The districts were sometimes sub-divided into divisions each under a Deputy Collector. The divisions were further sub-divided into taluks and union panchayats or village committees. Agencies were sometimes created in British India out of volatile, rebellion-prone areas of the Presidency. The two important agencies in the Madras Presidency were the Vizagapatam Hill Tracts Agency which was subject to the District Collector of Vizagapatam and the Ganjam Hill Tracts Agency subject to the District Collector of Ganjam. In 1936, the districts of Ganjam and Vizagapatam (including the Vizagapatam and the Ganjam agencies) were partitioned between Madras and the newly created province of Orissa.

There were five princely states subordinate to the Madras government. They were Banganapalle, Cochin, Pudukkottai, Sandur, and Travancore.[96] All these states had a considerable degree of internal autonomy. However, their foreign policy was completely controlled by a Resident who represented the Governor of Fort St George.[97] In case of Banganapalle, the Resident was the District Collector of Kurnool, while the District Collector of Bellary[98] was the Resident of Sandur.[99] The Resident of Pudukkottai from 1800 to 1840 and 1865 to 1873, was the District Collector of Tanjore, from 1840 to 1865, the District Collector of Madura and from 1873 to 1947, the District Collector of Trichinopoly.[100]

Army

Image
A British officer in the Madras Light Cavalry

Main article: Madras Army

The English East India Company was first permitted to set up its own garrison in 1665 to guard its settlements. Notable amongst the early operations of the company's forces were the defence of the city from Mughal and Maratha invaders and from the incursions of the Nawab of Carnatic. In 1713, the Madras forces under Lieutenant John de Morgan distinguished themselves in the siege of Fort St David and in putting down Richard Raworth's Rebellion.[101]

When Joseph François Dupleix, the Governor of French India, began to raise native battalions in 1748, the British of Madras followed suit and established the Madras Regiment.[102] Though native regiments were subsequently established by the British in other parts of India, the distances that separated the three presidencies resulted in each force developing divergent principles and organisations. The first reorganisation of the army took place in 1795 when the Madras army was reconstituted into the following units:

• European Infantry – Two battalions of ten companies
• Artillery – Two European battalions of five companies each, with fifteen companies of lascars
• Native Cavalry – Four regiments
• Native Infantry – Eleven regiments of two battalions[103]

Image
A Jamadar of the 20th Deccan Horse

In 1824, a second reorganisation took place, whereupon the double battalions were abolished and the existing battalions were renumbered. The Madras Army at the time consisted of one European and one native brigade of horse artillery, three battalions of foot artillery of four companies each, with four companies of lascars attached, three regiments of light cavalry, two corps of pioneers, two battalions of European infantry, 52 battalions of native infantry and three local battalions.[104][105]

Between 1748 and 1895, as with the Bengal and Bombay armies, the Madras Army had its own Commander-in-Chief who was subordinate to the president, and later to the Governor of Madras. By custom, the Commander-in-chief of the Madras Army was a member of the Governor's Executive Council. The army's troops participated in the conquest of Manila in 1762,[106] the 1795 expeditions against Ceylon and the Dutch as well as the conquest of the Spice Islands in the same year. They also took part in expeditions against Mauritius (1810), Java (1811),[107] the wars against Tipu Sultan and the Carnatic Wars of the 18th century, the British attack on Cuttack during the Second Anglo-Maratha War,[108] the Siege of Lucknow during the Indian Mutiny, and the invasion of Upper Burma during the Third Anglo-Burmese War.[109]

The 1857 Mutiny, which quickly led to drastic changes in the Bengal and Bombay armies, had no effect on the Madras Army. In 1895, the presidency armies were finally merged and the Madras regiments came under the direct control of the Commander-in-chief of British India.[110]

in 1890 three madras infantry battalions were accordingly reconstituted, at least for a time, by tapping two south Indian communities which had not yet provided many recruits to the Indian army-the Mappilas and the coorgs, the government of madras was sceptical, and agreed to the formation of two Mappila battalions only on condition they were deployed outside Malabar. Raised in 1900, the new regiments were complete failure, they soon dwindled to 600 men 'quite useless for service'. ref:The Sepoy and the Raj: The Indian Army, 1860-1940 [111]

Land tenure

Image
Statue of Sir Thomas Munro who introduced the "Ryotwari System" in the Madras Presidency

See also: List of zamindari estates in Madras Presidency
Revenue from land rental as well as an income tax based on the tenant's net profits from their land was the presidency's main source of income.

In ancient times, land appears to have been held in common with an individual unable to sell it without the consent of the other owners, who in most cases were members of the same community.[112] Prior to the arrival of the British, the concept of individual proprietorship of land had already emerged along India's west coast[113] such that the new administration's land revenue system was not markedly different from that of its predecessor.[114] Nevertheless, landlords never sold land without the consent of other members of the community.[113] This communistic property rights system was known as kaniachi among the Vellalars, swastium among the Brahmins and mirasi among Muslims and Christians.[113] In the Tanjore district, all mirasi in the village were vested in a single individual who was called the Ekabhogam.[113] The mirasidars were required to donate a certain amount of money known as mirei to the village administration.[113] They also paid a specified sum to the Government. In return, the mirasidars demanded non-interference by the government in the internal affairs of the villages.[115]

The proprietary system was entirely different in the district of Malabar and the states of Cochin and Travancore where communal ownership of land did not exist.[116] Instead, land was individual property mostly owned by the landowning gentry, to wit the Namboodiri and Nair people, who did not have to pay land-tax and held extensive freeholds of land rented to tenants for agricultural purposes. In return, the Nairs supplied the king with fighting men in times of war while the Namboodhiris managed the upkeep of Hindu temples. These landlords were somewhat self-sufficient and had their own police and judicial systems such that the personal expenses of the Raja were minimal.[116] However, landlords lost their exemption from the taxes on land if they disposed of it[117] meaning that mortgage of land was more common than sale. Individual proprietorship of land was also common in the Telugu-speaking areas of the Presidency.[118] The chieftains of the Telugu-speaking districts had more or less maintained an independent existence for a long time,[118] furnishing the sovereign with armies and equipment in times of war. In return, their right to revenues from land remained unmolested.[118] During the time of the British, most of land in the northern districts of the Presidency were parcelled out among these petty "Rajahs".[118]

Islamic invasions caused minor changes in the land proprietorship system when taxes on Hindu land owners were raised and private ownership of property came down.[119]

When the British took over administration, the centuries-old system of land proprietorship was left intact.[120] The new rulers appointed middlemen to collect revenue for lands which were not under the control of local zamindars. In most cases, these go-betweens ignored the welfare of the farmers and exploited them to the full.[120] A Board of Revenue was established in 1786 to solve the issue but to no avail.[121] At the same time, the zamindari settlement established in Bengal by Lord Cornwallis proved highly successful and was later implemented in the Madras Presidency from 1799 onwards.[122]

However, the Permanent Settlement was not as successful as it had been in Bengal. When the Company did not reach the expected profit levels, a new system known as the "Village Settlement" was implemented between 1804 and 1814 in the districts of Tinnevely, Trichinopoly, Coimbatore, North Arcot and South Arcot. This involved the leasing of land to the principal cultivators, who in turn leased the land to ryots, or peasant farmers. However, as a village settlement had few differences compared to a permanent settlement, it was eventually discarded. In its place came the "Ryotwari Settlement" implemented by Sir Thomas Munro between 1820 and 1827. According to the new system, land was handed over directly to the ryots who paid their rent directly to the government. The land was assessed and paid revenue fixed by the Government This system had a number of advantages as well as disadvantages for the ryots. In 1833, Lord William Bentinck implemented a new system called the "Mahalwari" or village system under which landlords as well as ryots entered into a contract with the Government.[123][124]

By the early 20th century, the greater part of the land was held by ryots who paid rent directly to the Government. Zamindari estates occupied about 26 million acres (110,000 km2), more than one-quarter of the whole presidency. The peshkash, or tribute, payable to the government in perpetuity was about £330,000 a year. Inams, revenue-free or quit-rent grants of lands made for religious endowments or for services rendered to the state, occupied an aggregate area of nearly 8 million acres (32,000 km2).[125] In 1945–46, there were 20,945,456 acres (84,763.25 km2) of Zamindari estates yielding revenues of ₹9,783,167 and 58,904,798 acres (238,379.26 km2) of ryotwari lands which produced ₹72,665,330.[126] Madras had forest coverage of 15,782 square miles (40,880 km2).[127]

The Land Estates Act of 1908 was passed by the Madras Government in order to protect cultivators in Zamindaris from exploitation. Under the act, ryots were made permanent occupants of the land.[128] However, far from protecting the ryots, the legislation proved to be detrimental to the interests of the cultivators in the Oriya-speaking northern districts of the presidency[129] who were the intended beneficiaries, as it tied the cultivator to his land and landlord with the chains of eternal serfdom. In 1933, an amendment to the Act was introduced by the Raja of Bobbili to curb the rights of Zamindars and safeguard the cultivators from exploitation. This act was passed in the legislative council despite strong opposition from the Zamindars.

Agriculture and irrigation

Image
A 1936 map of rice stations in Madras Presidency

Almost 71% of the population of Madras Presidency was engaged in agriculture[130][131] with the agricultural year usually commencing on 1 July.[132] Crops cultivated in the Madras Presidency included cereals such as rice, corn, kambhu (Indian millet) and ragi as well as[133] vegetables including brinjal, sweet potato, ladies' fingers, beans, onions, garlic[134] and spices such as chilli, pepper and ginger along with vegetable oils made from castor beans and peanuts.[135] Fruits cultivated included lime, banana jackfruit, cashew nuts, mangos, custard apples and papayas.[136] In addition, cabbages, cauliflowers, pomelos, peaches, betel pepper, niger seed and millet were introduced from Asia, Africa or Europe,[133] while grapes were introduced from Australia.[137] The total cultivated area used for food crops was 80% and for cash crops, 15%.[138] Of the gross area, rice occupied 26.4 percent; kambhu, 10 percent; ragi, 5.4 percent and Cholam, 13.8 percent.[138] Cotton occupied 1,740,000 acres (7,000 km2), oilseeds, 2.08 million, spices,0.4 million and indigo, 0.2 million.[138] In 1898, Madras produced 7.47 million tons of food grains from 21,570,000 acres (87,300 km2) of crops grown on 19,300,000 acres (78,000 km2) of ryotwari and inam lands, which supported a population of 28 million.[131] The rice yield was 7 to 10 cwt. per acre, the cholam yields were 3.5 to 6.25 cwt. per acre, khambu, 3.25 to 5 cwt. per acre and ragi, 4.25 to 5 cwt. per acre.[138] The average gross turnout for food crops was 6.93 cwt. per acre.[131]

Image
The Mullaperiyar Dam was constructed across the Periyar river for power generation

Irrigation along the east coast is carried out mostly by means of dams across rivers, lakes and irrigation tanks. The main source of water for agriculture in the Coimbatore district were tanks.[137]

The Land Improvement and Agriculturists Loan Act passed in 1884 provided funds for the construction of wells and their utilisation in reclamation projects.[139] In the early part of the 20th century, the Madras government established the Pumping and Boring Department to drill boreholes with electric pumps.[136] The Mettur Dam,[140] the Periyar Project, the Cudappah-Kurnool canal and the Rushikulya Project were the biggest irrigation projects launched by the Madras Government. Constructed below the Hogenakkal Falls on the Madras-Mysore border in 1934, the Mettur Dam supplied water to the western districts of the Presidency. The Periyar Dam (now known as the Mullaperiyar Dam) was constructed across the Periyar river in Travancore, near the border.[141] This project diverted the waters of the Periyar river to the Vaigai River basin in order to irrigate the arid lands to the east of the Western Ghats.[141] Similarly, the Rushikulya Project was launched to utilise the waters of the Rushikulya river in Ganjam.[142] Under the scheme over 142,000 acres (570 km2) of land were brought under irrigation.[142] The British also constructed a number of dams and canals for irrigation. An upper dam was constructed across the Kollidam river near Srirangam island.[143] The Dowlaishwaram dam across the Godavari river, the Gunnavaram aqueduct across the Vaineteyam Godavari, the Kurnool-Cuddapah canal[131] and the Krishna dam are examples of major irrigation works carried out by the British.[142][143] In 1946–47, the total area under irrigation was 9,736,974 acres (39,404.14 km2) acres which yielded a return of 6.94% on capital outlay.[144]

Trade, industry and commerce

Image
The port of Tuticorin

Image
Textile showroom of M. V. Cunniah Chetty and Sons, circa 1914

Image
Weaving on Handlooms, c. 1913

Image
Parry & Co. sugar refineries at Samalkota, c. 1914

Image
Workshops of the Madras Automobiles Ltd., c. 1904

The trade of the Madras Presidency comprised that of both the Presidency with other Provinces and its overseas trade. External trade made up 93 percent of the total with internal trade making up the remainder.[145] Foreign trade accounted for 70 percent of the total while 23 percent was inter-provincial.[145] In 1900–01, imports from other provinces of British India amounted to ₹13.43 crores while exports to other provinces amounted to ₹11.52 crores. During the same year, exports to other countries reached ₹11.74 crores while imports were valued at ₹66.2 million.[146] At the time of India's independence, imports of the Presidency amounted to ₹71.32 crores a year while exports were valued at ₹645.1 million.[144] Trade with the United Kingdom made up 31.54% of the total trade of the Presidency with Madras the chief port accounting for 49% of the total trade.[144]

Cotton piece-goods, cotton twist and yarn, metals and kerosene oil were the main items of import while animal hides and skins, raw cotton, coffee and piece-goods were the chief exports.[145] Raw cotton, animal hides, oil seeds, grains, pulses, coffee, tea and cotton manufactures were the main items of sea trade.[147] Most of the sea trade was carried through the presidency's principal port of Madras. Other important ports were Gopalpur, Kalingapatnam, Bimlipatnam, Visakhapatnam, Masulipatnam, Cocanada, Madras, Cuddalore, Negapatam, Pamban and Tuticorin on the east coast along with Mangalore, Cannanore, Calicut, Cochin, Alleppey, Quilon (Coulão) and Colachel on the western seaboard.[148] The port of Cochin was taken over by the Government of India on 1 August 1936, and that of Madras on 1 April 1937.[144] There were Chambers of Commerce in Madras, Cochin and Cocanada.[149] These chambers each nominated a member to the Madras Legislative Council.[149]

Cotton-ginning and weaving were two of the main industries in the Madras Presidency. Cotton was produced in large quantities in the Bellary district and was pressed in Georgetown, Madras.[150] The scarcity of cotton in Lancashire caused by a decline in trade due to the American Civil War gave an impetus to cotton and textile production and led to cotton presses being established all over the Presidency.[150] In the early years of the 20th century, Coimbatore emerged as an important centre for cotton textiles and earned the epithet "Manchester of South India". The northern districts of Godavari, Vizagapatam and Kistna were well-known cotton-weaving centres. There was a sugar factory at Aska in Ganjam run by F. J. V. Minchin and another at Nellikuppam in South Arcot district run by the East India Distilleries and Sugar Factories Company.[151] In the Telugu-speaking northern districts of the presidency large quantities of tobacco were cultivated to be subsequently rolled into cheroots.[152] Trichinopoly, Madras and Dindigul were the main cheroot-producing areas.[152] Until the discovery of artificial aniline and alizarine dyes, Madras possessed a thriving vegetable dye manufacturing industry.[152] The city also imported large quantities of aluminium for the manufacture of aluminium utensils.[153] In the early 20th century, the government established the Chrome Tanning Factory which manufactured high-quality leather.[154] The first brewery in the Presidency was founded in the Nilgiri Hills in 1826.[154] Coffee was cultivated in the region of Wynad and the kingdoms of Coorg and Mysore[155] while tea was grown on the slopes of the Nilgiri Hills.[156] Coffee plantations were also established in Travancore but a severe blight at the end of the 19th century destroyed coffee cultivation in the kingdom and almost wiped out coffee plantations in neighbouring Wynad.[155] Coffee-curing works were located at Calicut, Mangalore and Coimbatore.[156] In 1947, Madras had 3,761 factories with 276,586 operatives.[144]

The presidency's fishing industry thrived, with Shark's fins,[157] fish maws[157] and fish curing-operations[158] the main sources of income for fishermen. The southern port of Tuticorin was a centre of conch-fishing[159] but Madras, along with Ceylon, was mainly known for its pearl fisheries.[160] Pearl fisheries were harvested by the Paravas and was a lucrative profession.

The total revenue of the Presidency was ₹57 crores in 1946–47 made as follows: Land revenue, ₹8.53 crores; Excise, ₹14.68 crores; Income tax, ₹4.48 crores; Stamp revenue, ₹4.38 crores; forests, ₹1.61 crores; other taxes, ₹8.45 crores; Extraordinary receipts, ₹2.36 crores and revenue fund, Rs.5.02 crores. Total expenditure for 1946–47 was ₹569.9 million.[144] 208,675 k.v.a of electricity was generated at the end of 1948 of which 98% was under government ownership.[144] The total amount of power generated was 467 million units.[144]

The Madras Stock Exchange was established in Madras city in 1920 with a strength of 100 members but gradually faded away and membership had reduced to three by 1923 when it had to be closed down.[161] Nevertheless, the Madras Stock Exchange was successfully revived in September 1937 and was incorporated as the Madras Stock Exchange Association Limited.[162] EID Parry, Binny and Co. and Arbuthnot Bank were the largest private-owned business corporations at the turn of the 20th century.[163] EID Parry manufactured and sold chemical fertilizers and sugar while the Binnys marketed cotton garments and uniforms manufactured at its spinning and weaving facility, the Buckingham and Carnatic Mills in Otteri.[163][164][165] Arbuthnot, owned by the Arbuthnot family, was the largest bank in the Presidency until its crash in 1906.[166] Reduced to penury, disillusioned former Indian investors established the Indian Bank with funds donated by Nattukottai Chetties.[167][168]

Between 1913 and 1914, Madras had 247 companies.[169] In 1947, the city led in the establishment of registered factories but employed only 62% of the total productive capital.[169]

The first Western-style banking institution in India was the Madras Bank which was established on 21 June 1683, with a capital of one hundred thousand pounds sterling.[170] This was followed by the opening of the Carnatic Bank in 1788, the Bank of Madras in 1795 and the Asiatic Bank in 1804. In 1843, all the banks were merged to form the Bank of Madras.[170] The Bank of Madras had branches in all the presidency's major cities and princely states including Coimbatore, Mangalore, Calicut, Alleppy, Cocanada, Guntur, Masulipatnam, Ootacamund, Negapataam, Tuticorin, Bangalore, Cochin and Colombo in Ceylon. In 1921, the Bank of Madras merged with the Bank of Bombay and the Bank of Bengal to form the Imperial Bank of India.[171] In the 19th century, the Arbuthnot Bank was one of the largest privately owned banks in the Presidency.[166] The City Union Bank,[172] the Indian Bank,[172] Canara Bank,[172] Corporation Bank,[172] Nadar Bank,[173] Karur Vysya Bank,[174] Catholic Syrian Bank,[174] Karnataka Bank,[174] Bank of Chettinad,[175] Andhra Bank,[176] Vysya Bank,[176] Vijaya Bank,[174] Indian Overseas Bank[177] and the Bank of Madura were some of the leading banks headquartered in the Presidency.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 37494
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Freda Bedi Cont'd (#3)

Postby admin » Tue Jun 15, 2021 2:30 am

Part 2 of 2

Transport and communication

Image
Map of the Madras and South Mahratta Railway lines

In the early days of the agency, the only means of transportation were bullock-carts known as jhatkas along with palanquins.[178] The roads connecting Madras to Calcutta in the north and the kingdom of Travancore in the south served as lines of communication during wars.[178] From the early 20th century onwards, bullock-carts and horses were gradually replaced by bicycles and motor vehicles, while motor buses were the main means of private road transportation.[179] Presidency Transport and the City Motor Service were pioneers, operating buses manufactured by Simpson and Co. as early as 1910.[179] The first organised bus system in Madras city was operated by Madras Tramways Corporation between 1925 and 1928.[179] The 1939 Motor Vehicles Act imposed restrictions on public-owned bus and motor services. Most of the early bus services were operated by private agencies.

Image
The Nilgiri Mountain Railway, an UNESCO World Heritage Site

Image
The Pamban railway bridge, which connects the Pamban island with the Indian mainland was constructed in 1914

Image
A backwater and canal in Malabar, c. 1913

The first organised initiative for the construction of new roads and maintenance of existing roads in the Presidency was initiated in 1845 with the appointment of a special officer for the maintenance of main roads.[180] The principal roads under the aegis of the officer were the Madras-Bangalore road, Madras-Trichinopoly road, Madras-Calcutta road, Madras-Cuddapah road and the Sumpajee Ghaut road.[180] A Public Works Department was initiated by Lord Dalhousie in 1852 and subsequently in 1855 an East coast canal was constructed for the purpose of easy navigation.[180] Roadways were handled by the Public Works Secretariat which was under the control of the member of the Governor's Executive Council. The principal highways of the Presidency were the Madras-Calcutta road, the Madras-Travancore road and the Madras-Calicut road.[181] By 1946–47, the Madras Presidency had 26,201 miles (42,166 km) of metalled roads and 14,406 miles (23,184 km) of unmetalled roads, and 1,403 miles (2,258 km) of navigable canals.[144]

The first railway line in South India was laid between Madras and Arcot, which was opened for traffic on 1 July 1856.[182] The line was constructed by the Madras Railway Company formed in 1845.[182] The railway station at Royapuram, the first in South India, was built in 1853 and served as the headquarters of the Madras Railway Company.[182] The Great Southern Indian Railway Company was set up in the United Kingdom in 1853.[182] and had its headquarters at Trichinopoly where it constructed its first railway line between Trichinopoly and Negapatam in 1859.[182] The Madras Railway Company operated standard or broad-gauge railway lines while the Great South Indian Railway Company operated metre-gauge railway lines.[183] In 1874, The Great Southern Indian Railway Company merged with the Carnatic Railway Company (established in 1864) and was renamed the Southern Indian Railway Company.[184] The Southern Indian Railway Company merged with the Pondicherry Railway Company in 1891 while the Madras Railway Company merged with the Southern Mahratta Railway Company in 1908 to form the Madras and South Mahratta Railway Company.[182] A new terminus was built at Egmore for the Madras and South Mahratta Railway Company.[182] In 1927, the South Indian Railway Company shifted its headquarters from Madurai to Chennai Central. The company operated a suburban electric train service for Madras city from May 1931 onwards.[184] In April 1944, the Madras and South Mahratta Railway Company was taken over by the Madras Government. In 1947, there were 4,961 miles (7,984 km) of railway in the Presidency, in addition to 136 miles (219 km) of district board lines.[144] Madras was well-connected with other Indian cities like Bombay and Calcutta and with Ceylon.[185] The 6,776-foot (2,065 m) Pamban railway bridge connecting Mandapam on the Indian mainland with Pamban island was opened for traffic in 1914.[186] The Nilgiri Mountain Railway was inaugurated between Mettupalayam and Ootacamund in 1899.

The Madras Tramways Corporation was promoted in Madras city in 1892 by Hutchinsons and Co. and began operating in 1895, before even London had its own tramway system.[179] It plied six routes in Madras linking distant parts of Madras city and covered a total of 17 miles (27 km).[179]

The chief navigable waterways in the presidency were the canals in the Godavari and the Kistna deltas.[181] The Buckingham canal was cut in 1806 at a cost of 90 lakhs of silver[187] to connect the city of Madras with the delta of the Kistna river at Peddaganjam. Ships of the British India Steam Navigation Company frequently docked at Madras and provided frequent services to Bombay, Calcutta, Colombo and Rangoon.[187]

In 1917, Simpson and Co. arranged for a test flight by the first aeroplane in Madras[188] while a flying club was established at the Mount Golf Club grounds near St Thomas Mount by a pilot named G. Vlasto in October 1929.[189] This site was later used as the Madras aerodrome.[189] One of the early members of the club, Rajah Sir Annamalai Chettiar went on to establish an aerodrome in his native Chettinad.[189] On 15 October 1932, Royal Air Force pilot Nevill Vintcent piloted J. R. D. Tata's plane carrying air-mail from Bombay to Madras via Bellary.[190] This was the beginning of Tata Sons' regular domestic passenger and airmail service from Karachi to Madras. The flight was later re-routed through Hyderabad and became bi-weekly.[190] On 26 November 1935, Tata Sons started an experimental weekly service from Bombay to Trivandrum via Goa and Cannanore. From 28 February 1938, onwards, Tata Sons' Aviation division, now renamed Tata Airlines, began a Karachi to Colombo airmail service via Madras and Trichinopoly.[190] On 2 March 1938, the Bombay-Trivandrum air service was extended to Trichinopoly.[190]

The first organised postal service was established between Madras and Calcutta by Governor Edward Harrison in 1712. After reform and regularisation, a new postal system was started by Sir Archibald Campbell and was introduced on 1 June 1786. The Presidency was divided into three postal divisions: Madras North up to Ganjam, Madras South-West to Anjengo (erstwhile Travancore) and Madras West, up to Vellore. In the same year, a link with Bombay was established then in 1837, the Madras, Bombay and Calcutta mail services were integrated to form the All-India Service. On 1 October 1854, the first stamps were issued by the Imperial Postal Service. The General Post Office (GPO), Madras, was established by Sir Archibald Campbell in 1786. In 1872–73, a bimonthly sea-mail service began between Madras and Rangoon. This was followed by the commencement of a fortnightly sea-mail service between Madras and ports on the eastern coast.

Madras was linked to the rest of the world through telegraphs in 1853 and a civilian telegraph service was introduced on 1 February 1855. Soon afterwards, telegraph lines linked Madras and Ootacamund with other cities in India. A Telegraph department was set up in 1854, with a Deputy Superintendent stationed in Madras city. The Colombo-Talaimannar telegraph line established in 1858, was extended to Madras in 1882, thereby connecting the city with Ceylon.[191] Telephones were introduced in the presidency in 1881 and on 19 November 1881, the first telephone exchange with 17 connections was established at Errabalu Street in Madras.[192] A wireless telegraphy service was established between Madras and Port Blair in 1920 and in 1936, the Indo-Burma radio telephone service was established between Madras and Rangoon.

Education

The first schools offering Western-style education in the presidency were established in Madras[193] during the 18th century. In 1822, a Board of Public Instruction was created based on the recommendations of Sir Thomas Munro, after which schools teaching students in vernacular language was established.[194] A central training school was set up in Madras as per Munro's scheme.[194] However, this system appeared to be a failure and the policy was altered in 1836 in order to promote European literature and science.[194] The Board of Public Instruction was superseded by a Committee for Native Education.[195] In January 1840, during the viceroyalty of Lord Ellenborough, a University Board was established with Alexander J. Arbuthnot as the Joint Director of Public Instruction.[196] The central school was converted to a high school in April 1841 with 67 students and in 1853 became the Presidency College with the addition of a college department.[195][196] On 5 September 1857, the University of Madras was established as an examining body using the University of London as a model with the first examinations held in February 1858.[196] C. W. Thamotharam Pillai and Caroll V. Visvanatha Pillai of Ceylon were the first to graduate from the University.[196] Sir S. Subramaniya Iyer was the first Indian Vice-Chancellor of the University.[196]

Similarly, Andhra University was established by the Andhra University Act of 1925[197] and in 1937, the University of Travancore was established in the princely state of Travancore.[198]

The Government Arts College, established in Kumbakonam in 1867, was one of the first educational institutions outside Madras.[199] The oldest engineering college in the presidency, College of Engineering, Guindy, was established as a Government Survey School in 1794 before being upgraded to an Engineering College in 1861.[200] Initially, only Civil Engineering was taught,[200] with the further disciplines of Mechanical Engineering added in 1894, Electrical Engineering in 1930 and Telecommunication and Highways in 1945.[201] The AC College, with its emphasis on textiles and leather technology, was founded by Alagappa Chettiar in 1944.[202] The Madras Institute of Technology, which introduced courses such as aeronautical and automobile engineering was established in 1949.[202] In 1827, the first medical school in the Presidency was established then followed by the Madras Medical College in 1835.[203] The Government Teacher's College was established at Saidapet in 1856.[204]

Among the private institutions, the Pachaiyappa's College, established in 1842, is the oldest Hindu educational institution in the presidency. The Annamalai University, established by Rajah Sir Annamalai Chettiar in Chidambaram in 1929, was the first university in the presidency to have hostel facilities[205] Christian missionaries were pioneers in promoting education in the region. The Madras Christian College, St. Aloysius College at Mangalore, Loyola College in Madras and the St. Peter's College at Tanjore were some of the educational institutions established by Christian missionaries.

The Madras Presidency had the highest literacy rate of all the provinces in British India.[206] In 1901, Madras had a male literacy rate of 11.9 percent and a female literacy rate of 0.9 percent.[207] In 1950, when the Madras Presidency became Madras State, the literacy rate was slightly higher than the national average of 18 percent.[208] In 1901, there were 26,771 public and private institutions with 923,760 scholars of whom 784,621 were male and 139,139 female.[209] By 1947, the number of educational institutions had increased to 37,811 and the number of scholars to 3,989,686.[81] Apart from colleges, in 1947 there were 31,975 public and elementary schools, 720 secondary schools for boys and 4,173 elementary and 181 secondary schools for girls.[81] Most of the early graduates were Brahmins.[35][52] The preponderance of Brahmins in the universities and in the civic administration was one of the main causes for the growth of the Anti-Brahmin movement in the presidency. Madras was also the first province in British India where caste-based communal reservations were introduced.

In 1923, the Madras University Act was passed after its introduction by Education Minister A. P. Patro.[197] Under the bill's provisions, the governing body of Madras University was completely reorganised on democratic lines. The bill asserted that the governing body would henceforth be headed by a Chancellor who would be assisted by a pro-Chancellor, usually the Minister of Education. Apart from the Chancellor and the pro-Chancellor who were elected, there was to be a Vice-Chancellor appointed by the Chancellor.[197]

Culture and society

Hindus, Muslims and Christians generally followed a joint family system.[210][211] The society was largely patriarchal with the eldest male member the leader of the family.[211] Most of the presidency followed a patrilineal system of inheritance.[212] The only exceptions were the district of Malabar and the princely states of Travancore and Cochin which practised the marumakkathayam system.[213]

Women were expected to confine themselves to indoor activities and the maintenance of the household. Muslims and high-caste Hindu women observed purdah.[210] The daughter in the family rarely received an education and usually helped her mother with household chores.[214] Upon marrying, she moved to the house of her in-laws where she was expected to serve her husband and the elder members of his family.[215][216] There have been recorded instances of torture and ill treatment of daughters-in-law.[215][216] A Brahmin widow was expected to shave her head and was subjected to numerous indignities.[217][218]

Rural society comprised villages where people of different communities lived together. Brahmins lived in separate streets called agraharams. Untouchables lived outside village limits in small hamlets called cheris and were strictly forbidden from having houses in the village.[219] They were also forbidden from entering important Hindu temples or approaching high-caste Hindus.[220][221]

Serfdom was practised in almost all castes from Brahmins to non-Brahmins subjecting agricultural labourers to bondage for non-payment of debt.[222] The Law Commission report on slavery in 1841 contains the indicative figures on the number of slaves, computed based on the population of specific castes of Pallar and Paraiyar.[223] There were proposed regulations in 1811 and 1823 to prevent child labour.[224] In 1833, the British Crown and the House of Commons proposed immediate abolition of slavery in India, but East India Company decreed otherwise.[225] All legal recognition to permit the civil status of slavery were withdrawn with the Act V of 1843 and selling of slaves became a criminal offence in 1862 under the new Indian Penal Code.[226] In spite of these regulations, serfdom continued and the slave population formed 12.2% – 20% of the total population in 1930 across various districts of the Presidency.[227]

The Malabar Marriage Act of 1896 recognised sambandham contracts as legal marriages while the marmakkathayam system was abolished by the Marmakkathayam Law of 1933.[228] Numerous measures were taken to improve the lot of Dalit outcasts. The Thirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams Act (1933), included Dalits in the devasthanams administration. The presidency's Temple Entry Authorization Act (1939)[61] and its Temple Entry Proclamation (1936) of Travancore were aimed at elevating the status of Dalit and other low castes to a position equal to that of high-caste Hindus. In 1872, T. Muthuswamy Iyer established the Widow Remarriage Association in Madras and advocated the remarriage of Brahmin widows.[229] The devadasi system was regulated in 1927 and completely abolished on 26 November 1947.[230] The Widow Remarriage movement was spearheaded in the Godavari district by Kandukuri Veeresalingam.[231] Most of the pioneers of social reform were Indian nationalists.[232][233]

Traditional pastimes and forms of recreation in rural areas were cock-fighting, bull-fighting, village fairs and plays.[234] Men in urban areas indulged in social and communistic activities at recreational clubs, music concerts or sabhas, dramas and welfare organisations. Carnatic music and bharatanatyam were especially patronised by the upper and upper-middle class Madras society. Of the sports introduced by the British in the presidency, cricket, tennis, football, and hockey were the most popular. An annual cricket tournament, known as the Madras Presidency Matches, was held between Indians and Europeans during Pongal.[235]

The presidency's first newspaper, the Madras Courier, was started on 12 October 1785, by Richard Johnston, a printer employed by the British East India Company.[236] The first Indian-owned English-language newspaper was The Madras Crescent which was established by freedom-fighter Gazulu Lakshminarasu Chetty in October 1844.[237] Lakshminarasu Chetty is also credited with the foundation of the Madras Presidency Association which was a forerunner of the Indian National Congress. The number of newspapers and periodicals published in the presidency totalled 821 in 1948. The two most popular English-language newspapers were The Hindu established by G. Subramania Iyer in 1878, and The Mail,[192] established as the Madras Times by the Gantz family in 1868.[238]

Regular radio service in the presidency commenced in 1938 when All India Radio established a station in Madras.[239] Cinemas became popular in the 1930s and 1940s with the first film in a South Indian language, R. Nataraja Mudaliar's Tamil film Keechaka Vadham, released in 1916. The first sound films in Tamil and Telugu were made in 1931 while the first Kannada talkie Sati Sulochana was made in 1934 and the first Malayalam talkie Balan in 1938.[240] There were film studios at Coimbatore,[241] Salem,[242] Madras and Karaikudi.[243] Most early films were made in Coimbatore and Salem[241][242] but from the 1940s onwards, Madras began to emerge as the principal centre of film production.[241][243] Until the 1950s, most films in Telugu,[244] Kannada[245] and Malayalam[246] were made in Madras.

Image
A Westernized middle-class urban Tamil Brahmin couple. c.a .1945

Image
Tamil film actor M. K. Thyagaraja Bhagavathar

Image
A Namboodiri Brahman's house, c.a. 1909

Image
Hindu devotees in procession around the temple at Tirupparankunram, c.a. 1909

Image
Telugu bride and groom belonging to the Kapu caste, c.a. 1909

Image
A Mangalorean Catholic gentleman belonging to the Bamonn caste, c. a. 1938

Image
Refreshment stall at a railway station in the Madras Presidency, c. a. 1895

See also

• History of Tamil Nadu
• Administrative divisions of Madras Presidency
• Madras States Agency
• List of colonial Governors and Presidents of Madras
• Advocate-General of Madras
• Sheriff of Madras

References

Citations


1. Iyengar 1929, p. 535
2. "They administered our region HERITAGE". The Hindu. 4 June 2007. Archived from the original on 7 April 2014. Retrieved 6 April 2014.
3. Thurston 1913, pp. 138–142.
4. Hunter, 1908, p. 6
5. Wheeler 1996, p. 5
6. Wheeler 1996, p. 6
7. Wheeler 1996, p. 7
8. Wheeler 1996, p. 19
9. Wheeler 1996, p. 26
10. Roy 2012, p. 74
11. Chaudhuri 2006, p. 206
12. Thorpe 2011, p. 94
13. Newell 1919, p. 18
14. Wheeler 1996, p. 281
15. Wheeler 1996, p. 282
16. India Office List 1905, p. 121
17. Sohail, Sara (10 May 2019). "The Etymology of Madras". Madras Courier. Madras Courier.
18. Hunter 1908, p. 251
19. Kulke 2004, p. 245
20. Hunter 1908, p. 252
21. Codrington 1926, Chapter X:Transition to British administration
22. Hunter 1908, p. 254
23. T.Dutt 2015, p. 45.
24. Hunter 1908, p. 255
25. Read 1997, pp. 34–37
26. Dodd 1859, p. 288
27. Kamath 1980, p. 250
28. Kamath 1980, pp. 250–253
29. Hibbert 2000, p. 221
30. Sadasivan 1974, p. 22
31. Sadasivan 1974, p. 40
32. Sadasivan 1974, p. 54
33. Sadasivan 1974, p. 55
34. Muthiah 2004, p. 418
35. Frykenberg, Robert Eric (1968). Elite Formation in Nineteenth Century South India, Proceedings of the First International Conference on Tamil Culture and History. Kuala Lumpur: University of Malaysia Press.
36. S.A. 1969, p. 14
37. Tercentenary Madras Staff 1939, p. 223
38. "Report of the High Court of Madras" (PDF). High Court, Madras. 2007. p. 17. Archived (PDF) from the original on 8 February 2012. Retrieved 17 November 2012.
39. Pramanand 1985
40. Dutt 1999, p. 10
41. S., Muthiah (13 September 2003). "Willing to strike and not reluctant to wound". The Hindu. Chennai, India. Archived from the original on 7 November 2012. Retrieved 17 November 2012.
42. Sadasivan 1974, p. 18
43. Sadasivan 1974, p. 28
44. Mazumdar 1917, p. 58
45. Mazumdar 1917, p. 59
46. Besant 1915, p. 35
47. Besant 1915, p. 36
48. "Congress Sessions". Indian National Congress. Archived from the original on 25 June 2008. Retrieved 17 November2012.
49. "Biography of the founders of the Theosophical Society". Theosophical Society, Adyar. Archived from the original on 3 June 2008. Retrieved 17 November 2012.
50. "BBC Historic Figures – Annie Besant". BBC. Archivedfrom the original on 8 November 2012. Retrieved 17 November 2012.
51. "A clarion call against the Raj". The Hindu. 13 September 2003. Archived from the original on 12 January 2009. Retrieved 17 November 2012.
52. Slater 1918, p. 168
53. Ralhan 2002, p. 179
54. Ralhan 2002, p. 180
55. Ralhan 2002, p. 182
56. Ralhan 2002, p. 190
57. Ralhan 2002, p. 196
58. Ralhan 2002, p. 197
59. Ralhan 2002, p. 199
60. W.B. 2005, pp. 3–8
61. Thurston 1909, p. 116
62. Bhakshi 1991, p. 149
63. Kumar, P. C. Vinoj (10 September 2003). "Anti-Hindi sentiments still alive in TN". Sify News.
64. Ramaswamy, Sumathi (1997). "Language Devotion in Tamil India, 1891–1970, Chapter 4". University of California.
65. Ramaswamy 1997, Chapter 4
66. P. 2001, pp. 42–44
67. W.B. 2005, p. 109
68. "INDIA (FAILURE OF CONSTITUTIONAL MACHINERY) (Hansard, 16 April 1946)". api.parliament.uk. Archived from the original on 9 February 2013. Retrieved 25 December2019.
69. Walch 1976, pp. 157–160
70. "The State Legislature – Origin and Evolution". Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly. Archived from the original on 13 April 2010. Retrieved 17 November 2012.
71. The Illustrated Weekly of India. Published for the proprietors, Bennett, Coleman & Company, Limited, at the Times of India Press. 1975. Archived from the original on 19 September 2017.
72. Kumar 1965, p. 120-121
73. MaClean 1877, p. 327
74. Hunter, Volume 16, p. 256
75. Steinberg 1950, p. 137
76. Thurston 1913, p. 120
77. Thurston 1913, p. 121
78. Mollin 2006, p. 17
79. MaClean 1877, p. 6
80. Hunter 1908, p. 260
81. Steinberg 1950, p. 174
82. Steinberg 1950, p. 141
83. MaClean 1877, p. 337
84. T. 1765, p. 110
85. Thurston 1913, p. 137
86. Pirie 1883, p. 110
87. Smith 1976, p. 42
88. Ralhan 2002, p. 73
89. Thurston 1913, p. 181
90. Thurston 1913, p. 182
91. Sadasivan 1974, p. 17
92. MaClean 1877, p. 21
93. MaClean 1877, p. 22
94. Chisholm 1911, p. 291.
95. MaClean 1877, p. 20
96. Thurston 1913, p. 1
97. Thurston 1913, p. 183
98. MaClean 1877, p. 63
99. MaClean 1877, p. 65
100. Hunter 1908, p. 232
101. Wheeler 1996, p. 198
102. Major MacMunn 1911, p. 4
103. Major MacMunn 1911, p. 7
104. Major MacMunn 1911, p. 20
105. Major MacMunn 1911, p. 21
106. Major MacMunn 1911, p. 14
107. Major MacMunn 1911, p. 15
108. Major MacMunn 1911, p. 57
109. Major MacMunn 1911, p. 123
110. Major MacMunn 1911, p. 126
111. The Sepoy and the Raj: The Indian Army, 1860-1940, Page:16
112. MaClean 1877, p. 82
113. MaClean 1877, p. 85
114. MaClean 1877, p. 83
115. MaClean 1877, p. 86
116. MaClean 1877, p. 88
117. MaClean 1877, p. 89
118. MaClean 1877, p. 90
119. MaClean 1877, p. 91
120. MaClean 1877, p. 92
121. MaClean 1877, p. 93
122. MaClean 1877, p. 94
123. Ahmed 2011 pp. 392–4
124. Rai 2011, p. 91
125. Chisholm 1911, p. 290.
126. Steinberg 1950, p. 154
127. Steinberg 1950, p. 155
128. Thangaraj 2003, p. 287
129. Patnaik 1997, p. 330
130. Thurston 1913, p. 193
131. Hunter 1908, p. 276
132. Thurston 1913, p. 194
133. Thurston 1913, p. 195
134. Thurston 1913, p. 196
135. Thurston 1913, p. 197
136. Thurston 1913, p. 199
137. Thurston 1913, p. 200
138. Hunter 1908, p. 274
139. Hunter 1908, p. 278
140. Gough 2008, p. 130
141. Thurston 1913, p. 203
142. Thurston 1913, p. 205
143. Thurston 1913, p. 206
144. Steinberg 1950, p. 175
145. Hunter 1908, p. 297
146. Hunter 1908, p. 354
147. Thurston 1913, p. 43
148. Thurston 1913, p. 36
149. Hunter 1908, p. 298
150. Thurston 1913, p. 208
151. Thurston 1913, p. 210
152. Thurston 1913, p. 211
153. Thurston 1913, p. 212
154. Thurston 1913, p. 213
155. Thurston 1913, p. 214
156. Thurston 1913, p. 216
157. Thurston 1913, p. 219
158. Thurston 1913, p. 220
159. Thurston 1913, p. 223
160. Thurston 1913, p. 222
161. Muthiah 2004, p. 264
162. "History of Madras Stock Exchange". Madras Stock Exchange Limited. Archived from the original on 2 December 2013. Retrieved 6 November 2008.
163. Muthiah 2004, p. 261
164. Muthiah 2004, p. 262
165. Muthiah 2004, p. 263
166. Muthiah 2004, p. 410
167. Muthiah 2004, p. 338
168. Muthiah 2004, p. 339
169. Sinha 2005, p. 44
170. Kumar 2003, p. 70
171. Kumar 2003, p. 71
172. Muthiah, S. (6 October 2006). "The birth of a bank". The Hindu. Chennai, India. Archived from the original on 9 November 2012. Retrieved 17 November 2012.
173. Tercentenary Madras Staff 1939, p. 261
174. Eur 2002, p. 498
175. W.S. 1973, p. 43
176. B. 1998, p. 37
177. "Building a bank, the MCt. way". The Hindu. Chennai, India. 12 April 2004. Archived from the original on 6 November 2012. Retrieved 17 November 2012.
178. Thurston 1913, p. 185
179. Muthiah 2004, p. 323
180. Mill 1996, p. 134
181. Hunter 1908, p. 303
182. Muthiah 2004, p. 321
183. Hunter 1908, p. 301
184. Muthiah 2004, p. 322
185. Christophers 1927, p. 14
186. Srinivasan, T. A. (8 July 2005). "Swept off its feet, literally". The Hindu: Entertainment Chennai. Archived from the original on 24 October 2008. Retrieved 17 November2012.
187. Hunter 1908, p. 304
188. "Historical Events at a Glance". District Collectorate, Chennai. Archived from the original on 15 April 2012. Retrieved 17 November 2012.
189. Muthiah 2004, p. 127
190. "History 1932–1940". Air India. Archived from the original on 19 November 2008. Retrieved 17 November2012.
191. Wright 1999, p. 207
192. Muthiah 2004, p. 54
193. Hunter 1908, p. 383
194. Hunter 1908, p. 338
195. Hunter 1908, p. 339
196. Jebaraj, Priscilla (5 September 2008). "Ongoing saga of higher learning". The Hindu. Chennai, India. Archived from the original on 9 November 2012. Retrieved 17 November 2012.
197. Ralhan 2002, p. 74
198. "University of Kerala Home page". University of Kerala. Archived from the original on 11 June 2010. Retrieved 17 November 2012.
199. Craik 2007, p. 260
200. Muthiah 2004, p. 239
201. Muthiah 2004, p. 240
202. Muthiah 2004, p. 241
203. Christophers 1927, p. 41
204. Hunter 1908, p. 343
205. "About University". Annamalai University. Archived from the original on 25 November 2012. Retrieved 17 November2012.
206. Seal 1971, p. 103
207. Hunter 1908, p. 345
208. K. Mehrotra 2006, p. 23
209. Hunter 1908, p. 361
210. Finnemore 1917, p. 62
211. Srinivas 1982, p. 69
212. Agarwal 1994, p. 472
213. Böck 2000, p. 177
214. Finnemore 1917, p. 22
215. Finnemore 1917, p. 63
216. Finnemore 1917, p. 64
217. Finnemore 1917, p. 65
218. Finnemore 1917, p. 66
219. Thurston 1909, p. 87
220. Thurston 1909, p. 78
221. Thurston 1909, p. 79
222. British and Foreign Anti-slavery Society 1841, p. 5
223. British and Foreign Anti-slavery Society 1841, p. 4
224. British and Foreign Anti-slavery Society 1841, p. 27
225. Price 1837, p. 154
226. Chatterjee 2006, p. 231
227. Kumar 1965 pp. 52–53
228. P.V. 1981, p. 21
229. Anantha Raman 2005, p. 87
230. S., Muthiah (17 December 2007). "When the devadasi tradition ended". The Hindu. Chennai, India. Archived from the original on 9 November 2012. Retrieved 17 November2012.
231. Roy 2002, p. 213.
232. Desai 2005, p. 224.
233. Deol 2000, p. 26.
234. Finnemore 1917, pp. 35–41
235. Muthiah 2004, p. 173
236. Muthiah 2004, p. 50
237. Muthiah 2004, p. 53
238. Muthiah 2004, p. 51
239. Muthiah 2004, p. 164
240. Guy, Randor (26 November 2004). "A milestone movie". The Hindu. Archived from the original on 18 March 2012. Retrieved 17 November 2012.
241. M., Allirajan (17 November 2003). "Reel-time nostalgia". The Hindu. Chennai, India. Archived from the original on 9 November 2012. Retrieved 17 November2012.
242. Guy, Randor (8 August 2008). "Stickler for discipline". The Hindu. Chennai, India. Archived from the original on 3 November 2012. Retrieved 17 November 2012.
243. S., Muthiah (30 January 2006). "The innovative film-maker". The Hindu. Archived from the original on 18 March 2012. Retrieved 17 November 2012.
244. Thoraval 2000, p. 345
245. Ishizuka 2008, p. 174
246. Kasbekar 2006, p. 233

Sources

Government publications


• British and Foreign Anti-slavery Society (1841). Slavery and the slave trade in British India: with notices of the existence of these evils in the islands of Ceylon, Malacca, and Penang, drawn from official documents. T. Ward, and to be had at the office of the British and Foreign Anti-Slavery society.
• C. D., MaClean (1877). Standing Information regarding the Official Administration of Madras Presidency. Government of Madras.
• Great Britain India Office (1905). The India List and India Office List. London: Harrison and Sons.
• Hunter, Sir William Wilson (1908). The Imperial Gazetteer of India 1908. Clarendon Press.
• Illustrated Guide to the South Indian Railway (Incorporated in England): Including the Tanjore District Board, Pondicherry, Peralam-Karaikkal, Travancore State, Cochin State, Coimbatore District Board, Tinnevelly-Tiruchendur, and the Nilgiri Railways. Madras: South Indian Railway Company. 1926.
• Madras District Gazetteers
• Raghavaiyangar, Srinivasa (1893). Memorandum of progress of the Madras Presidency during the last forty years of British Administration. Government of Madras. madras presidency.
• Slater, Gilbert (1918). Economic Studies Vol I:Some South Indian villages.
• Tercentenary Madras Staff (1939). Madras Tercentenary Celebration Committee Commemoration Volume. Oxford Press.
• Dr Tara Dutt (2015). Odisha District Gazetteers: Nabarangapur (PDF). Government of Odisha. ISBN 978-81-86772-17-1.
• Thurston, Edgar (1913). Provincial Geographies of India:The Madras Presidency with Mysore, Coorg and Associated States. Cambridge University.
• Thurston, Edgar; K. Rangachari (1909). Castes and Tribes of Southern India Vol. I to VII. Government of Madras. ISBN 0-520-04315-4.
• Wheeler, James Talboys (1862). Hand-book to the cotton cultivation in the Madras presidency. J. Higginbotham and Pharaoh and Co.
• Wheeler, James Talboys (1996). Madras in the Olden Time: Being a History of the Presidency from the First Foundation of Fort St. George to the Occupation of Madras by the French (1639–1748). Asian Educational Services. ISBN 8120605535.

Other publications

• A., Vadivelu (1903). The Aristocracy of South India. Vest & Co.
• Aiyangar, Sakkottai Krishnaswami (1921). South India and her Muhammadan Invaders. Oxford University.
• Besant, Annie (1915). How India Wrought for freedom. Adyar, Madras: Theosophical Publishing House.
• Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). "Madras" . Encyclopædia Britannica. 17 (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. pp. 288–291.
• Christophers, S. R. (1927). The Indian Empire Souvenir. Executive Committee of the Congress.
• Codrington, Humphry William (1926). A Short history of Lanka. Macmillan & Co.
• Dodd, George (1859). The history of the Indian revolt and of the expeditions to Persia, China, and Japan, 1856 – 7 – 8: With maps, plans, and wood engrav. [Umschlagt.:] Chambers"s history of the revolt in India. W. U. R. Chambers.
• F. E., Penny; Lady Lawley (1914). Southern India. A. C. Black.
• Finnemore, John (1917). Peeps at many lands: Home Life in India. London: A. & C. Black, Ltd.
• G. F., Major MacMunn; Major A. C. Lovett (1911). The Armies of India. Adam and Charles Black.
• Iyengar, P. T. Srinivasa (1929). History of the Tamils from the Earliest Times to the Present Day.
• Mazumdar, Amvika Charan (1917). Indian National Evolution. Madras: G. A. Natesan & Co.
• Newell, Herbert Andrews (1919). Madras, the Birth Place of British India: An Illustrated Guide with Map. The Madras Times Printing and Publishing.
• Pirie, A. H. (1883). Indian Students Geography. Methodist Episcopal Church Press.
• Playne, Somerset; J. W. Bond; Arnold Wright (1914). Southern India: Its History, People, Commerce, and Industrial Resources.
• Price, Thomas (1837). Slavery in America: With Notices of the Present State of Slavery and the Slave Trade Throughout the World. Oxford University.
• S. H., Steinberg (1950). The Statesman's Yearbook 1950. London: Macmillan and Co.
• Some Madras Leaders. Babu Bhishambher Nath Bhargava. 1922.
• T., Osborne; C. Hitch; A. Millar; John Rivington; S. Crowder; B. Law & Co; T. Longman; C. Ware (1765). The Modern part of a universal history from the Earliest Account of Time, Vol XLIII. London: Oxford University.
• Aggarwal, Bina (1994). A field of one's own: gender and land rights in South Asia. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-42926-9.
• Ahmed, Farooqui Salma; Ahmed Farooqui, Salma (2011). A Comprehensive History of Medieval India: From Twelfth to the Mid-Eighteenth Century. Pearson Education India. ISBN 9788131732021.
• Anantha Raman, Sita; Vasantha Surya; A. Mātavaiyā (2005). A. Madhaviah: A Biography and a Novel. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-567021-3.
• B., Anitha (1998). Quality of Work Life in Commercial Banks. Discovery Publishing House. ISBN 81-7141-431-1.
• Böck, Monika; Rao, Aparna (2000). Culture, creation, and procreation: concepts of kinship in South Asian practice. Berghahn Books. ISBN 1-57181-911-8.
• Chatterjee, Indrani; Eaton, Richard Maxwell (2006). Slavery & South Asian History. Indiana University Press. ISBN 0-253-34810-2.
• Chaudhuri, K.N. (2006). The Trading World of Asia and the English East India Company: 1660–1760. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9780521031592.
• D. Craik, Alex (2007). Mr Hopkins' Men: Cambridge Reform and British Mathematics in the 19th Century. Springer. ISBN 978-1-84628-790-9. SBN 1846287901.
• D., Sadasivan (1974). The Growth of public opinion in the Madras Presidency (1858–1909). University of Madras.
• Deol, Harnik (2000). Religion and nationalism in India: the case of the Punjab. Routledge. ISBN 978-0-415-20108-7.
• Desai, A. R. (2005). Social background of Indian nationalism. Popular Prakashan. ISBN 81-7154-667-6.
• Dutt, Romesh Chunder (1999). Open Letters to Lord Curzon on Famines and Land Assessments in India. Adamant Media Corporation. ISBN 1-4021-5115-2.
• Eur (2002). Regional Surveys of the world: Far East and Australasia 2003. Psychology Press. ISBN 9781857431339.
• Gough, Kathleen (2008). Rural Society in Southeast India. Cambridge University. ISBN 978-0-521-04019-8.
• Hibbert, Christopher (2000). Queen Victoria: A Personal History. Harper Collins. ISBN 0-00-638843-4.
• Ishizuka, Karen L.; Zimmermann, Patricia Rodden (2008). Mining the home movie: excavations in histories and memories. California Press. ISBN 978-0-520-23087-3.
• Kamath, Suryanath U. (2001) [1980]. A concise history of Karnataka : from pre-historic times to the present. Bangalore: Jupiter books. LCCN 80905179. OCLC 7796041.
• Kasbekar, Asha (2006). Pop culture India: media, arts, and lifestyle. ABC-CLIO. ISBN 1-85109-636-1.
• Kothari, Rajni (2004). Caste in Indian Politics. Orient Blackswan. ISBN 81-250-0637-0.
• Kulke, Hermann; Dietmar Rothermund (2004). A History of India. Routledge (UK). ISBN 0-415-32919-1.
• Kumar, Dharma (1965). Land and Caste in South India: Agricultural Labor in the Madras Presidency During the Nineteenth Century. CUP Archive.
• Kumar, Naresh (2003). "Historical Background of Banking System". Motivation And Morale in Banking Administration: A Study Of Four Branches Of United Commercial Bank. Mittal Publications. ISBN 81-7099-897-2.
• M., Thangaraj (2003). Tamil Nadu: An Unfinished Task. SAGE. ISBN 0-7619-9780-6.
• Mehrotra, Santosh K. (2006). The Economics of Elementary Education in India: The Challenge of Public Finance, Private Provision, and Household Costs. SAGE. ISBN 0-7619-3419-7.
• Mill, John Stuart; John M. Robson; Martin Moir; Zawahir Moir (1996). Miscellaneous Writings. Routledge. ISBN 0-415-04878-8.
• Mollin, Sandra (2006). Euro-English: assessing variety status. Gunter Narr Verlag. ISBN 978-3-8233-6250-0. Retrieved 17 November2012.
• O.P., Ralhan (2002). Encyclopaedia of Political Parties. Anmol Publications Private Limited. ISBN 81-7488-865-9.
• P. V., Balakrishnan (1981). Matrilineal system in Malabar. Satyavani Prakashan.
• P., Kandaswamy (2001). The political career of K Kamaraj. New Delhi: Concept Publishing Company. ISBN 81-7022-801-8.
• Paramanand (1985). Mahāmanā Madan Mohan Malaviya: An Historical Biography. Malaviya Adhyayan Sansthan, Banaras Hindu University.
• Patnaik, Nihar Ranjan (1997). Economic History of Orissa. Indus Publishing. ISBN 978-81-7387-075-0. SBN 8173870756.
• Rai, Raghunath (2011). History. FK Publications. ISBN 9788187139690.
• Ramaswamy, Sumathi (1997). Passions of the Tongue: Language Devotion in Tamil India, 1891–1970. University of California. ISBN 9780520918795.
• Read, Anthony (1997). The Proudest Day – India's Long Ride to Independence. London: Jonathan Cape. ISBN 0-393-31898-2.
• Roy, Kalpana (2002). Encyclopaedia of violence against women and dowry death in India. Anmol Publications Private Limited. ISBN 81-261-0343-4.
• Roy, Tirthankar (2012). East India Company the Worlds Most Powerful Company. Penguin Books India. ISBN 9780670085071.
• S. A., Govindarajan (1969). G. Subramania Iyer. Publication Division, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India.
• S. R., Bakshi (1991). C. Rajagopalachari: Role in Freedom Movement. Anmol Publications PVT. LTD. ISBN 81-7041-433-4.
• S., Muthiah (2004). Madras Rediscovered. East West Books (Madras) Pvt Ltd. ISBN 81-88661-24-4.
• Seal, Anil (1971). The Emergence of Indian Nationalism: Competition and Collaboration in the Later Nineteenth Century. CUP Archive. ISBN 0-521-09652-9.
• Sinha, Aseema (2005). The Regional Roots of Developmental Politics in India: A Divided Leviathan. Indiana University Press. ISBN 0-253-21681-8.
• Smith, Bardwell L. (1976). Religion and Social Conflict in South Asia. Brill. ISBN 9789004045101.
• Srinivas, Mysore Narasimhachar (1982). India: social structure. Transaction Publishers. ISBN 9781412826198.
• Thoraval, Yves (2000). Cinemas of India. Macmillan India. ISBN 0-333-93410-5.
• Thorpe, Edgar; Showick Thorpe; Thorpe Edgar (2011). The Pearson CSAT Manual 2011. Dorling Kindersly (India) Pvt. Ltd. ISBN 978-81-317-5830-4.
• von Fürer-Haimendorf, Christoph (1982). Tribes of India – The Struggle for Survival. University of California.
• W. B., Vasantha Kandasamy; F. Smarandache; K. Kandasamy; Florentin Smarandache (2005). Fuzzy and Neutrosophic Analysis of Periyar's Views on Untouchability. Infinite Study. ISBN 9781931233002.
• W. S., Weerasooriya (1973). The Nattukottai Chettiar Merchant Bankers in Ceylon. Tisara Prakasakayo.
• Walch, James (1976). Faction and front: Party systems in South India. Young Asia Publications.
• David, Omissi (1998). The Sepoy and the Raj: The Indian Army, 1860-1940 Studies in Military and Strategic History. Palgrave Macmillan UK, 1998. p. 16. ISBN 0333729765.
• Wright, Arnold (1999). Twentieth Century Impressions of Ceylon: Its History, People, Commerce, Industries, and Resources. Asian Educational Services. ISBN 9788120613355.

External links

• Coins of the Madras Presidency
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 37494
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Freda Bedi Cont'd (#3)

Postby admin » Tue Jun 15, 2021 3:48 am

Saraswathi Mahal Library
by Wikipedia
Accessed: 6/14/21

4. Rao (1958: 1, 3) considers Shamasastry the discoverer of the Arthasastra: ‘With the discovery of Kautilya’s Artha Sastra by Dr. R. Shama Sastri in 1905, and its publication in 1914, much interest has been aroused in the history of ancient Indian political thought; [p. 1]. . . . The Artha Sastra . . . is a compendium and a commentary on all the sciences of Polity that were existing in the time of Kautilya. It is a guidance to kings. . . . Artha Sastra contains thirty-two paragraphical divisions [Books]. . . . with one hundred and fifty chapters, and the Sastra is an illustration of a scientific approach to problems of politics, satisfying all the requirements and criteria of an exact science’ [p. 3]. But going back to the preface of the standard work and translation by Shamasastry (1967: vi), it is revealed that the manuscript of Kautilya’s Arthasastra was actually discovered by a person described merely as ‘a Pandit of the Tanjore District’ who handed it over ‘to the Mysore Government Oriental Library’ of which Shamasastry was the librarian.

-- Review and Extension of Battacharyya's Modern Accounting Concepts in Kautilya's Arthasastra, by Richard Mattessich


Image
Maharaja Serfoji's Sarasvati Mahal Library
Type: Medieval library
Established: 16th century
Location: Thanjavur [Tanjore], India

Branches N/A
Collection
Items collected: Books and Manuscripts
Size: More than 49,000
Access and use
Circulation: Open to public
Website: tmssmlibrary.com

Saraswathi Mahal Library, also called Thanjavur Maharaja Serfoji's Saraswathi Mahal Library is a library located in Thanjavur (Tanjore), Tamil Nadu, India. It is one of the oldest libraries in Asia[1] established during 16th century by Nayakas of Thanjavur and has on display a rare collection of Palm leaf manuscripts and paper written in Tamil and Sanskrit and a few other languages indigenous to India. The collection comprises well over 49,000 volumes, though only a tiny fraction of these are on display. The library has a complete catalog of holdings, which is being made available online. Some rare holdings can be viewed on site by prior arrangement.[2]

History

The Saraswathi Mahal library was started by Nayak Kings of Tanjavur as a Royal Library for the private intellectual enrichment of Kings and their family of Thanjavur (see Nayaks of Tanjore) who ruled from 1535 CE till 1676 CE.[3] The Maratha rulers who captured Thanjavur in 1675 promoted local culture and further developed the Royal Palace Library until 1855. Most notable among the Maratha Kings was Serfoji II (1798–1832), who was an eminent scholar in many branches of learning and the arts.

Serfoji II

Thuljaji was succeeded by his teenage son Serfoji II in 1787. Soon afterwards, he was deposed by his uncle and regent Amarsingh who seized the throne for himself. With the help of the British, Serfoji II recovered the throne in 1798. A subsequent treaty forced him to hand over the reins of the kingdom to the British East India Company, becoming part of the Tanjore District (Madras Presidency) [Presidency of Fort St. George]. The district collectorate system was installed thereafter to manage the public revenues. Serfoji II was however left in control of the Fort and the surrounding areas. He reigned till 1832. His reign is noted for the literary, scientific and technological accomplishments of the Tanjore country.

-- Thanjavur Maratha kingdom [Tanjore], by Wikipedia


In his early age Sarfoji studied under the influence of the German Reverent Schwartz [Christian Friedrich Schwarz], and learned many languages including English, French, Italian and Latin. He enthusiastically took special interest in the enrichment of the Library, employing many Pandits to collect, buy and copy a vast number of works from all renowned Centres of Sanskrit learning in Northern India and other far-flung areas.

Christian Frederick Schwarz (with spellings including Friedrich and Schwartz or Swartz) (8 October 1726 – 13 February 1798) was a German Lutheran missionary to India. He was known for his linguistic skills, with knowledge of Latin, Greek, Hebrew, Sanskrit, Tamil, Urdu, Persian, Marathi, and Telugu and even used by the British to serve as an emissary of peace and sent to the court of Haider Ali in Mysore. He worked alongside the Indian royal families, tutoring the Raja Serfoji of Tanjore, and was influential in establishing Protestant Christianity in southern India...

He learnt Latin and Greek with some amount of Hebrew which he hoped to improve with studies in the town of Custrin. In 1746 he moved to study at Halle where he met Schulz who had worked in the Madras Mission. Schultz was working on Tamil bible and sought help from Schwarz. Having learned Tamil to assist in a translation of the Bible into that language, he was led to form the intention of becoming a missionary to India. He received ordination at Copenhagen on 8 August 1749, and, after spending some time in England to acquire the English language, embarked early in 1750 for India.

He arrived at Tiruchirapalli on 30 July via Tranquebar. Tranquebar was for some time his headquarters, but he paid frequent visits to Thanjavur and Tiruchirapalli, and in 1766 moved to Tiruchirapalli. Here he acted as chaplain to the garrison, who erected a church for his general use.

There was an explosion of the ammunition dump of East India company in 1761. Lots of Native soldiers died in that. So for the orphan children of the soldiers he established Bishop Heber School in Trichinopoly. Again there was another ammunition dump explosion in Trichinopoly in 1763 in which all the British soldiers and their wives perished. Only 14 children of the soldiers survived. So for the orphan children he started a school in the Vestry of St. John's Church. The Church had been built by the British soldiers. Later the army gave some land, about five acres adjoining the army garrison to build a proper school. The school was built by the FREEMASONS who all were British army personnel and civilians who all were also Freemasons.

In 1769, he secured the friendship of the king Raja Tuljaji, who, although he never converted to Christianity, afforded him every countenance in his missionary labours. Shortly before his death he committed to Schwarz the education of his adopted son and successor Sarabhoji (Serfoji). Schwarz taught the prince, Prince Serfoji, and another slightly older pupil Vedanayagam using the gurukulam approach, where the teacher and the pupil live together. Raja Serfoji built a church to show his affection to Schwartz and it is still seen as a symbol of tolerance on the part of that great Mahratta ruler towards different religions.

In 1779, Schwarz undertook, at the request of the British authorities in Madras (present day Chennai), a private embassy to Hyder Ali, the ruler of Mysore. When Hyder invaded the Carnatic, Schwarz was allowed to pass through the enemy's camp without molestation. In 1784 he established an English school in Thanjavur [Tanjore] and this school is now known as St. Peter's Higher Secondary School. After twelve years in Tiruchirapalli he moved to Thanjavur, where he spent the remainder of his life. He died on 13 February 1798 just before Serfoji II ascended the throne. He was laid to rest in St. Peter's Church in Maharnonbuchavadi, Thanjavur. In his tomb there is a tombstone with a short memoir and an elegy in English written by Serfoji II....

The following is the wording of the Memorial commissioned by Raja Serfoji:

To the memory of the Reverend Christian Frederic Swartz. Born at Sonnenburg of Neumark in the Kingdom of Prussia, the 26th of October 1726, and died at Tanjore the 13th of February 1798, in the 72d Year of his age. Devoted from his Early Manhood to the Office of Missionary in the East, the similarity of his situation to that of the first preachers of the gospel, produced in him a peculiar resemblance to the simple sanctity of the apostolic character. His natural vivacity won the affection as his unspotted probity and purity of life alike commanded the reverence of the Christian, Mahomedan and Hindu. For sovereign princes, Hindu, and Mahomeden selected this humble pastor as the medium of political negotiations with the British Government - Maha Raja Serfojee.


-- Christian Friedrich Schwarz, by Wikipedia


During 1918 the Saraswathi Mahal Library was open to public.[4] The Library is located within the campus of Tanjavur palace.[5]

Efforts

Image
Painting outside the Sarasvati Mahal Library.

The library is open to the public; it also supports efforts to publish rare manuscripts from the collection, as well as ensuring all volumes are preserved on microfilm. The Library has installed computers in 1998 for the Computerisation of Library activities. As a first phase, the Library catalogues are being stored in the Computer for easy information retrieval. It is also proposed to digitalise the manuscripts of this Library shortly.[6]

The Collection

The bulk of the manuscripts (39,300) are in Tamil and Sanskrit. Manuscripts number over 4500, comprising titles in literature and medicine. The Library has a collection of 3076 Marathi manuscripts from the South Indian Maharastrian of the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries; this includes the hierarchy of the Saints of Maharashtra belonging to Sri Ramadasi and Dattatreya Mutts. The Marathi manuscripts are mostly on paper but a few were written in Telugu script on palm-leaf. There are 846 Telugu manuscripts in the holdings, mostly on palm leaf. There are 22 Persian and Urdu manuscripts mostly of 19th century also within the collection. The library also holds medical records of Ayurveda scholars, including patient case studies and interviews in the manuscripts classified under the Dhanvantari section.

Apart from these manuscripts there are 1342 bundles of Maratha Raj records available at the Library. The Raj records were written in the Modi script (fast script for Devanagari) of the Marathi language. These records encompass the information of the political, cultural and social administration of the Maratha kings of Thanjavur.[7]

Some of the rare books and manuscripts

Dr. Samuel Johnson's dictionary published in 1784
• The pictorial Bible printed in Amsterdam in the year 1791
• The Madras Almanac printed in 1807
• Lavoisier's Traité Élémentaire de Chimie ("Elements of Chemistry")
• The notes of Bishop Heber on Raja Serfoji II
• The correspondence letters of William Torin of London who purchased a lot of books for Raja Serfoji II and the Saraswathi Mahal Library
• Ancient maps of the world
• Town planning documents of Thanjavur including the underground drainage system, the fresh water supply ducting system

Library museum

Efforts were made to microfilm and catalogue the contents way back in 1965 when Indira Gandhi was Information and Broadcasting Minister, Government of India who sanctioned the fund for the library's development. Since then no efforts were made to scan the documents and computerise the same using present day technology. It is also a designated 'Manuscript Conservation Centre' (MCC) under the National Mission for Manuscripts established in 2003.[8]

References

1. Indian culture. "Thanjavur Mah Serfojis Sarawswathi Mahal Library, Thanjavur". India culture. Retrieved 7 January 2020.
2. See official website of the library, under External links, for details of holdings and access.
3. Pillai, Subramania S (March 2019). TOURISM IN TAMIL NADU: Growth and Development. MJP Publisher. Retrieved 7 January 2020.
4. Tanjavur District, Govt site. "Tanjuvur District". tanjavur.nic.in. Govt. Retrieved 7 January 2020.
5. serfojimemorial hall. "Sarasvathi Mahal Library". Serfoji Memorial Hall. Retrieved 7 January 2020.
6. "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 28 December 2010. Retrieved 23 January 2011.
7. "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 26 February 2011. Retrieved 2 July 2012.
8. Manuscript Conservation Centres Archived 2012-05-06 at the Wayback Machine National Mission for Manuscripts.

External links

• Sarasvati Mahal Library — official website (archived) (in English)
• Catalogue of Sanskrit Manuscripts at Saraswati Mahal Library, Tanjavur
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 37494
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

PreviousNext

Return to Articles & Essays

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests