|
|
In his new book
Dawning of the Raj: The Life and Trials of Warren Hastings (Aurum
Press, 2000, XI + 319), Jeremy Bernstein, a theological
physicist at the Stevens Institute of Technology, offers a
reappraisal of the impeachment by focusing on such issues as to
under what rules was he tried and what evidence was admissible,
etc. Hastings never wrote an autobiography but left 300 volumes,
an incredible paper trail, throwing invaluable light on his
administration and impeachment.
In chapter II,
the author gives a synoptic analysis of the historiographical
perspectives of Hastings. Bernstein admires Sir Alfred Lyall’s
biography of Hastings written at the end of the nineteenth
century for its candid and sober judgment. To Lyall, Hastings
was a great man but he showed an inability to see or admit that
his views may have been wrong or an action blameworthy. In other
words, Hastings suffered from a conviction of infallibility.
Bernstein has
made extensive use of the Diaries of Fanny Burney who provides a
first-class eyewitness account of Hastings’ impeachment.
Burney had a close association with the British royalty and the
bigwigs involved in high politics in the country. She had great
admiration for Burkes’ intellect, but her real sympathy lay
with Hastings who, she thought, was being treated mercilessly by
his traducers. To her it was tragic indeed that Hastings had
fallen from the height of power, and was thrown at the feet of
his enemies who were slandering him with impunity.
Hastings’
impeachment brings to the mind of the author the hearing of J.
Robert Oppenheimer in April 1954 before the Personnel Security
Board of the United States Atomic Energy Commission. An issue
was Oppenheimer’s security clearance. Like Hastings,
Oppenheimer was a man who had excited the deepest passions. Many
people loved him and some hated him. He was a great man. Like
Hastings he was conscious of the value of his service and could
not understand why it was not clear to everyone. Hastings too
had felt the same way. Bernstein thinks that both the trials
were conducted under very unclear rules. In both there was a
text and a subtext, and it was the subtext that never emerged in
the course of the trial. According to the author, the object was
in both cases to destroy their reputation and prevent them from
influencing important decision and holding high positions in
public life.
Sixteen charges
of high crimes and misdemeanours, which formed part of the
Articles of impeachment, were framed against Hastings.
On the first
charge, the Rohilla war, Hastings was exonerated but on the
second charge relating to Chait Singh of Benaras, Hastings was
found guilty. The author thinks that it was Pitt’s volte face
which proved decisive against Hastings. The author thinks that
it was the narrow party interests that actuated Pitt to change
his position. I do not think that is true. It was Pitt’s
friend Wilberforce who convinced him that Hastings was a
culprit. Wilberforce was a God-fearing devout Christian, a
leader of the Evangelical party in the House of Commons.
Seldom did the
British Parliament witness so brilliant an assemblage as in the
case of Hastings’ impeachment. Burkes’ long speeches on the
occasion form valuable guidebooks of maxims on political
thought. Richard Sheridan’s powerful speech on the Begums of
Oudh has become a classic which Winston Churchill regarded a
model for oratory. Sheridan’s oration moved the ladies in the
gallery to tears. After his speech, Sheridan "sunk into
Burkes arms," according to Edward Gibbon who, too, was
present in the House as Member of Parliament. Hastings was no
orator. He was no match for the rough and tumble of
Parliamentary debates. From all counts it appears that he did
not put up a formidable defence and even his own interpretations
were clumsy. It cannot be denied that the written text of his
defence was impressive, but his delivery of it was poor.
For seven
years, 1787-1785, the impeachment dragged on, much to the
chagrin of Hastings. Due to the new composition of Parliament,
there were changes in the structure of the House of Lords—44
new peers had been created, 49 had taken their seats by
inheritance and 87 had died. A new generation had come up who
could not be interested in the protracted political wrangling
that had consumed the time and energy of the ablest men of the
country.
Burke had
become reckless in his use of language. He called Hastings
"the scum, filth and pollution of Indian guilt" which
produced a sickening effect on the audience. Burkes’ only son
Richard died; Burke lost the support of his formidable ally
James Fox in his fight against Hastings. Thus began to grow in
the Lords a general sympathy for Hastings who ended his
concluding statements with the following, "I gave you all
and you had rewarded me with confiscation, disgrace and a life
of impeachment."
By the time Hastings’
administration ended in India, he had sent to England 2,18,000
pounds, which had shrunk to 75,000 pounds. He was in tremendous
financial difficulties and was bailed out by the Company on July
9, 1797. The East India Company recognised his services by
giving him an annual pension of 4,000 pounds. Bernstein, a
renowned physicist, has given a lucid and sensitive account of
Warren Hastings’s impeachment, which is insightful and
immensely readable.
|
