Add thelocalreport.in As A Trusted Source
New Delhi, Oct 19 (IANS) From a remote island, members of the British Parliament gathered in the summer of 1806 to deliberate on the fate of the state of Oudh (Awadh), whose survival and sovereignty were the subject of their heated discussion. These were not the voices of our people or our princes; They were declarations of foreign rulers exercising increasing and unaccountable power over our destiny.
The formal proceedings against the former Governor-General Marquis Wellesley in relation to his conduct at the Oude serve as a powerful historical mirror. Seen through an Indian lens, this parliamentary theater was not just the trial of one man, but a stark exhibition of the dynamics of the imperial system – a process where our rights were debated, our territories bargained for, and our voices conspicuously absent. The charge accusing the Marquis of criminal interference, territorial seizure and incitement to rebellion was, for the people of the Oude, a parliamentary summary of a story of subjugation and loss.
The essence of the charge: from ally to merger
The case against Lord Wellesley, carefully prepared and presented by Mr Paul, shows a pattern of systematic aggression that turned a long-time ally into a plundered vassal state. The charge sheets laid before the House of Commons detailed a policy that “began in injustice and ended in oppression”. From Oude’s perspective, this was a painful reality.
The state, once bound by treaty to the East India Company for security, found that same security becoming the pretext for its destruction. Under the guise of defending against external threats and reforming governance, Lord Wellesley forced the Nawab of Oude (Nawab of Awadh) to disband his own troops and accept a larger, more expensive British army. It then confiscated half of its territory to pay for this new garrison, a move justified in London as a strategic necessity, but experienced as a gross violation of sovereignty in the Aude.
Mr Paul and other critics are highlighting this continuing overreach, the parliamentary record shows. He described how, under the “omnibus” system of conquest, Oude became another casualty in a long series of Indian states – including Karnataka, Surat and Ferukabad – that were swallowed up by an insatiable thirst for dominance. This policy was in direct violation of Parliament’s own resolutions of 1782 and 1793, which explicitly prohibited territorial expansion in India. However, debates over such legal niceties in London provided little solace to a ruler whose authority had been abolished and whose lands were taken away under “obscure pretexts”.
Theater of Deliberation: An Action Without Indian Voices
The debate over the Odd Charge in June and July 1806 presented a surreal scene. Within the Committee of the Whole House, British members of Parliament cross-examined British witnesses—former officials such as Lord Teignmouth and military commanders such as Sir Aldershot Clarke—about Oude’s revenues, military capacity, and political affairs. The whole process was an internal negotiation between the colonists. The people of Oude, the Nawab (Nawab of Awadh) and his ministers had no representation, no voice to challenge the testimony or present their own story of events.
The proceedings were often mired in procedural arguments which, from the Indian perspective, appeared tragically absurd. A long debate arose over whether a witness could be asked for his opinion on the interpretation of a treaty or the justice of a particular action. While members of Parliament carefully debated the rules of evidence, they seemed unaware of the fundamental injustice of a process where the subject of investigation was voiceless. The immense difficulty in obtaining documents, coupled with the persistent complaints of the accuser, Mr. Paul, further underlined the opaqueness of the system. He said some of the papers took nine months to prepare, highlighting a process that was designed less to facilitate justice and more to manage political discomfort in Britain.
The justification of empire: morality redefined by geography.
Lord Wellesley’s defence, led by his relatives Lord Temple and Sir Arthur Wellesley, provided a clear window into the prevailing royal mentality. The most shocking charge within the broader Oude charge was that of “foul, deliberate and cruel murder”. Sir Arthur Wellesley’s explanation on this point was shocking. He pointed out that some local rulers, the zamindars of Aude, had resisted the authority of the Company and refused to pay the newly imposed land tribute. In response, the Governor-General sent the Bengal Army to “reduce those people by force”, resulting in armed conflict, attacks on their forts and bloodshed. He argued that it was not murder but a legitimate “act of public power, carried out in support of the laws of the country”.
From the Indian perspective, this rationale reflects the concept of “geographical ethics”. The “laws of the country” being applied were recently imposed by a foreign power. Resistance to these laws was defined as rebellion, and the killing of those who resisted was defined as a necessary enforcement action, not genocide. Similarly, the widespread subjugation of the Oude was defended as a necessary measure to counter the influence of France – a European rivalry for which the Indian states were made pawns and prizes. This argument demonstrated that, for the British, the sovereignty of an Indian prince and the lives of his subjects were secondary to the strategic imperatives of their global empire.
Unseen costs: a debt written off to Indian revenues
Debates continued to discuss this, but could never fully articulate the true cost of these policies to India. The charge against Wellesley of “excessive, wasteful, unauthorized expenditure” was not an abstract charge. From the establishment of a grand new college to the maintenance of a luxurious bodyguard, this extravagance was financed by the growing Indian debt and the revenues collected from its people.
Parliamentary records show that India’s debt increased from £11 million in 1798 to over £31 million by 1805. This loan was repaid by Indian taxpayers. Complex financial arrangements, such as loans contracted in local currency in Lucknow and Banaras but payable in high-value Calcutta rupees, meant that actual interest rates were far higher than stated, systematically draining money from the provinces. While the British Parliament debated the legality of these expenditures, it was Indian farmers and artisans who bore the ultimate burden of the system that financed imperial expansion with Indian money. The fiscal waste detailed in the budget debates was a direct result of the aggressive policies adopted in states like Aude.
An unresolved verdict: justice delayed, justice denied
The proceedings on the Oud charge ultimately faltered, mired in delays and political maneuvering. Wellesley’s friends pressed for a quick verdict in the sparsely attended House at the end of the session, a move condemned by critics as a hasty and futile attempt to secure an acquittal. Others, like Dr. Lawrence, argued passionately that the question relating to “the guardianship of the fifty million natives of India” required the most serious and thoughtful consideration, and pledged to reject any premature decision at the next session.
Ultimately postponing the decision to the next session, from the Indian perspective, confirms the inherent limitations of this form of accountability. For the people of India, the final vote did not matter much. The true verdict lies in the process itself: a clear demonstration that an Indian state can be destroyed, its property expropriated, and its people killed, while the British Parliament, the final arbiter, is engaged in a long, self-referential debate over procedure, precedent, and the political convenience of its members. Marquis Wellesley’s trial was not a pursuit of justice for Oude; It was a reflection of Britain’s struggle to reconcile its own legal and moral standards with the brutal realities of the empire it was building.
(The author is an expert researcher on Indian history and contemporary geopolitical affairs)
–IANS
score/uk