Such a spectacular painting !!

Hutments interspersed with royal architecture! A true representation by the artist! Excellent panaromic view of a historical moment on a cloudy day.

The Earl of Moira - the first Marquess of Hastings (Governor General of India 1813 -1823) whose procession is pictured above should not be confused with Lord Warren Hastings, the first Governor General in India from 1773 - 1784. Warren Hastings was responsible for 'borrowing heavily' from Raja Chait Singh of Benares and extortion of immense treasures from the Begums of Oudh. He was described by Edmund Burke as "a murderer, tyrant, robber, cheater, swindler, sharper" during his impeachment trial in London. But he was acquitted as "he did all these crimes for the establishment of a solid British Empire in India". However, he was not all that bad since he was responsible for the establishment of the Madrasa Aliyah for Arabic studies, promotion of Sanskrit studies, establishment of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, and for many important reforms in social, economic and political affairs of the people. He also assisted in the establishment of the Calcutta Botanical Gardens - my favorite place to visit in Calcutta.

We used to play cricket near this place! Ah ah!

Mr Ahmed ~“A fortune of no more than £75,000, [roughly £4 million in modern terms] accumulated after thirteen years as Governor-general of Bengal would suggest that Hastings had been remarkably abstemious” – Marshall, PJ ‘Trade and Conquest’ (1993) ch.2 p.1 Burke hunted down Hastings for many reasons, some to do with his conduct in Bengal (or percieved wrong-doing there, that was far from universally accepted) some not - mostly to do with political factors in Britain...

Julian: The great fortune Hastings acquired in India was still peanuts compared to the loot of Robert Clive. Every thing in this world is relative. Actually there was a trio who went after Hastings on his return to England. Sir Philip Francis was the person who encouraged Edmund Burke to impeach Hastings. After all, Hastings had severely wounded Francis in the infamous duel in Calcutta and had to get even. All indications are that Hastings had cheated in the duel; the night before he had quietly sneaked in and examined the ground set for the duel. Francis did'nt have a chance!

In 1781 Chet Singh the ruler of Benares revolted against the British. In the ensuing battle Warren Hastings fled the field in such a haste that it was said: Ghode pe hauda, hathi pe jeen Bhag chala Warren Hastings (The horse’s saddle on the elephant The elephant on the horse Thus ran away Warren Hastings) Bahu Begum was accused of helping Chet Singh and this was the reason behind Warren Hasting’s row with the begums of Awadh. But she was protected by her private army and ultimately a disgraced Warren Hasting’s went back to England to be impeached.

But he was still able to extract huge sums of money from both Raja Chet Singh and the Begums. That is all he wanted. I know a descendant of Warren Hastings, whose character is almost identical.

hahahaha..

Digvijay: Not only that the folk song "Ghorhe pe hauda, hati pe zeen ... Bhag chala Warren Hastings" you have quoted does not rhyme well, it may also be factually incorrect. Although there a few instances where the British civilians had to evacuate (as to Fulta on the Bay of Bengal from Calcutta before Clive's arrival), I do not know of any battle in which the British soldiers did not stand their ground. They fought valiantly and won every battle (sometimes with intrigue as at Plassey), but they never ran from the battlefield. This was not in their blood. So your assertion that "in the ensuing battle Warren Hastings fled the field in such a haste ..." could not be correct. This is a common problem with our Indian historians.

Its true that generally British armies did not 'run away' as it is put. But to say that it was not in their blood is a bit passionate, in my opinion. To take field in a battle, to array before superior forces or to not give a fight are questions of strategy. Its also about resources at your command and the morale of ur forces as also lack of the same with the opposing army. During the 18th century British army was the only army which had all this in adequate quantity all others including Marathas constantly faced resource crunch, lack of Military expertise and leadership. Hiwever one thing can be conceded to the British that it had some good generals with leadership who would not desert its cause even in adverse conditions.

The truth is that the British army was well-disciplined, better organized, had excellent 'band-o-bast' (supplies and material support) and leadership. In contrast, the Indians (Mughals, Rohillas, Marathas, Deccanis, even the Sikhs) could never match the British in the field. The hierarchical structure of these armies was not based on merit, miltary discipline did not exist, and they never planned the battles with supplies and sustenance in mind. Thus they were routed in every battle they fought. They were not lacking in courage but poor training and leadership. This is not a 'passionate' response from me - it is the plain truth. The British knew that when the odds are against them, they have to use other means (including intrigue and deception) to get around. In these battles, which shaped the future of India, usually the only soldiers who did not run away from the battlefield were the French mercenaries. (Sometimes, even they fled as in Scindia's army at Aligarh.) We must learn to accept our defeats and our mistakes; we must analyze the reasons. Recently, we had a passionate discussion in which some of my esteemed friends on this site were insistent that "India is the best democracy in the world" without realizing that it is only a flawed democracy. Perhaps some day it may become a healthy democracy but this is not true today by any means. So, unless we begin to look at ourselves objectively, we can never make progress.

With all due respect to you I differ from your opinion of the British armies. there was no hierarchical structure in the armies of the 18th century Indian kingdoms, the rulers had hardly any control over the army which consisted largely of mercenaries known as 'sibandis' in India. They were largely self organized ethnic based groups who were again under the influence of the sahukars or official financiers of 18th century kingdoms and not the rulers directly. The army was a part of the larger socio-political dynamics that was undergoing constant changes following the Mughal decline. On the other hand the British army too did not have its way smoothly. infact not until the beginning of the 19th century i.e., after the defeat of Tipu sultan & conquest of Mysore as also the second Anglo-Maratha war the British officers themselves were not sure of their success in India. Number of factors contributed to their success in India, The structural deficiencies in the native kingdoms especially their lack legitimacy was a major reason. Besides, the bulk of the British army too consisted of the same soldiers like their Indian counterparts. In Bengal & Bombay it was Purabiyas & Buxariyas while Madras presidency had large no. of Telingas, Bedaris, etc. All local-regional soldiers. It is only after the British Company began its imperial policy that large no. of English officers became a part of its army. Till then they too had large no. of semi European officers refereed to as 'topases' in as heads of battalions. Likewise Indian powers too had European regiments consisting of those who came to India to make fortune like different commanders (James Skinner, Monsieur Raymond, etc).

My point here is that the British were not operating in isolation of the rest of the Indian politics. Till the beginning of 19th century they were one amongst many political powers as many modern scholars agree.

With regard to democracy I completely agree that Indian democracy is flawed and much needs to be done to improve it. But for me its not a question of us and they. I don't shy away from admitting our mistakes and there were many with regard to establishment of british rule in India. But superior British armies is an outdated theory in Indian history today..We must look elsewhere for the reasons of Indian kingdoms' defeat.

@ Asad I do not agree with you that British forces never faced defeat in India.The famous battle of Wadgaon is a good example where The British forces were not only defeated but had to negotiate surrender of arms. For your reference kindly see following link.

Nitin: Where is the link? Please put it.

As for India being incomplete democracy , I am in total agreement with Mr.Asad Ahmed.

The only place in India where full freedom of expression is allowed is the RBSI.

Wow ! Thank you for your light-hearted compliment Asad Ahmed. I only wish we can continue to retain RBSI as an interesting platform where scholars, academics, professionals, student and others can all share their varied and dissenting opinions without offending each other or the anxiety of being offended by other ! A true exchange of knowledge ! Some of you have so much to share and there is willing audience here. Thanks to many of you whom I truly consider as the 'treasures of RBSI'.

Rashmi…you seem to have explained your point of view but I must correct you on the matter of ‘Soldiers of Fortune” coming to India to make a fortune. This is something that needs a bit of explaining to someone like you who seems to rely heavily on more literal data. Most of these so called soldiers of fortune in reality came to India serving the EIC but like my ancestor most of them resigned their commissions disgusted at the policies of the EIC & the British govt towards men serving in India. Unemployed they were usually picked up mostly by the Maratha chiefs who were looking to modernize and improve their armies. No doubt this was because they were deeply impressed by the discipline and performance of Indian soldiers under English officers. I am not sure that from the point of view of an English officer serving an Indian ruler, that there was substantial fortune to be made. Fact is scores of them died, some very young, serving and fighting for these rulers and lie buried in cemeteries dotted all across India …James Skinner did not come to India but was born here to Hercules Skinner from his Rajput wife. Monsieur Raymond and his brother came to India to do business and ended joining the French army in South India. My ancestor who left the British and worked for Yashwant Rao Holkar was lucky to escape with his life but many of his compatriots who worked with this mercurial Maratha chief were beheaded when they refused to take arms against the British in the lead up to the Second Anglo-Maratha War. I am unaware of any European regiments serving Indian rulers…if you have some info on this do share.

RBSi...a small request do post if it is available "The Travels of Dean Mahomet"...an excellent work.

The way Col. Gardner left the Holkar army itself is an amazing story of gallantry. Riding slowly on his horse in an army column along the bank of a river (Narbada?), he suddenly turned his horse sideways and plunged into a deep ravine along the river where no one could reach. That is how he escaped with his life (and his horse). A remarkable officer he was.

that incidentally was shortly after the Battle of Poona...when he was captured by Amrit Rao and was being taken to Burhanpur. Holkar sent Col. Gardner as emissary to meet up with Lord Lake at Aligarh...this meeting did not go off well and Gardner had to bide his time in Aligarh whilst Lake got over the business of capturing the fort...Whilst all this was happening in Aligarh, Holkar's mind was being poisoned by his aides against Gardner and the delay was only acting as a catalyst. When Gardner arrived back, he was summoned to the durbar tent and when he broke the news of Lake refusing to accept Holkar's demands the chief made a horrible mistake of saying "had you not returned by today I would have raised the khanat's of your family's tents"...that really incensed Gardner more so becaause his wife was Muslim and that would have dishonoured her..the angry Irish officer rushed with his sabre to cut Holkar down...the Maratha was saved by the quick thinking of his guards...meanwhile the Pindari Amir Khan pulled Gardner aside and encouraged him to escape...which he did as Amir provided him a horse...the two men lived to fight another day...Holkar giving Wellington a hard time and Gardner immortalising himself by raising a cavalry regiment that exists in the Indian army to this day.

Frank: Are you a direct descendent of the Colonel? If so, how many generations? Also, why was he buried in Kasganj in Etah? I do recall that Fanny Parkes interviewed him in Kasganj, but why Kasganj. It is quite remote.

Mr Nitin Bhagwat mentions that "the British forces were not only defeated but had to negotiate surrender of arms" at the "famous Battle of Wadgaon" but has not provided the promised link. Could he kindly do so? Thank you. I am interested since there is considerable re-writing of Indian history going on by vested interests with strong political overtones. It is best to leave historical facts and monuments as they are.

Asad ~ you are quite correct to point out the distinction between the Marquess of Hastings and Warren Hastings (above)~ however the latter, if I may be permitted to correct a very slight historical inaccuracy on your part, should not be designated with the title of 'Lord'. Warren Hastings was never raised to the British peerage ~ initially, on his return from India, owing to the ramifications of his impeachment trial (at the end of which he was, of course, aquitted of all the charges that had been levelled against him, although the verdict took seven years to reach and the legal costs reduced him to virtual bankruptcy, quite apart from the damage to his reputation) but ultimately because, once exonerated of his 'crimes' he refused to take an honour on more than one occasion in the early 1800's as a matter of principle. He explained his thinking on the matter in the following manner : "I would better go down to the grave with the plain name of Warren Hastings [than to accept a peerage from] those men who had so grossly wronged me" (ie. the British establishment).

@ Asad, Please read the Article titled "PROCEEDINGS OF THE BOMBAY ARMY IN THEIR MARCH TOWARDS POONAH" in the above mentioned Journal by lt.col.Goddard. I hope you will be satisfied with various reference material I have already mentioned. You can find more material online if you search for "Battle of Wadgaon","treaty of salbai","first anglo-maratha war" ,"Mahadji Scinde" etc. On personal note ,Its my hobby to read history and I don't have any bias neither do I subscribe to any Ideologies so there is no point in finding any ulterior motives behind my intervention in this debate.My only purpose was to rebut your claim that Britishers were invincible and that they never faced defeat in India .I hope I have tried to erase the myth of Invincibility of Britishers with enough proofs and supplementary material.Thank you.

Thank you Nitin for explaining your views and for providing the reference. Still, the reference is not complete (which Journal?). I wish more of us were like you in seeking the truth in history rather than moulding history to our own taste. The main reason I doubt that the British were ever defeated is practical: they could not afford to lose a battle in India. Moreover, they were highly disciplined, brave, and their planning and preparation was meticulous. I find it surprising that the Indian rulers did not learn much from their repeated defeats. Some of them tried to reorganize with help from European mercenaries, but a mecenary is a mercenary - a soldier of fortune. This was the case with the French Generals in Scindia's army (deBoigne, Perron etc at Aligarh) who ran away with their jewels and treasures after the first shot was fired - and begged the British for safe passage to Calcutta and Paris. ...On British boats, of course!

Mr Bhagawat ~ I'm afraid I must agree with Asad ~ I don't think that there is any evidence that substantiates your claim that British soldiers ever 'laid down their arms down' in India (if you are only refering to EIC auxiliary soldiers, your own countrymen, then perhaps you are correct?)I do apologise if that interferes with your particular perception of history - but, well - don't believe everything that you are told... India, in the late 18th century was an important but not major source of concern to the British ~ it was useful as practise ground for the army while they prepared for wars that altered the destination of the planet in Europe...(at that time)

* 'laid their arms down' ~ apologies etc.

@asad, I have already mentioned the book along with a web link and quoted the relevant chapter .I think you should read it and then ask which Journal.If you are interested and having a open mind about it I will search and provide you with more reference material available.

@ Julian If a loss in one battle is to be blamed on auxiliary soldiers (my countrymen) then by the same (flawed) logic all the successes of EIC and British right up to second World War should be credited to millions of my countrymen which were part of British Imperial forces...