Jagadananda had Napoleonic entry into politics. He had a Midas-touch. Success, success everywhere, not a defeat to stain. He won back a few mouzas in the northern side of Moynachaurah forcibly occupied by Kashizora Zamindar. Mirza Dedar Ali, the then rent collector-in-charge of Tamluk kingdom occupied the grazing land in the south east of Moyna. Jagadananda reoccupied it. Johnstone had this for Jagadananda : By military expedition for three months Jagadananda earned the obedience of a hundred recalcitrant Talukdars and kanoongus of the sabang pargana.
Samadhi Mandir of Mohanta - Moyna Garh, East Medinipur. Photo: Arindam Bhowmik
Jagadananda had a large army, led a luxurious life of pomp and show. He had earned the respect of the people as a social leader. Edward Baber wrote : `He paid nominal revenue to the Nawab of Murshidabad yet he was deeply respected'. practically during the Mughal period, Tamluk and Moynachaurah were almost autonomous estate. He has earned the respect of the Muslim community for his fortitude and liberality. He has established glaring instance of amity for other religious sects in Hindu-dominated territory. The mighty Bargees, then, were engaged in the act of ravaging almost the whole of Bengal. Everybody was frightened and extremely perturbed. In every household there was to be heard an outcry. They came upon like swarms of locusts. They ransacked everything. No body knows the way of arresting the forward movement of the unvanquishable `Marhatta horsemen'. But Jagadananda was able to stake off the attack of the Bargees. Possibly for this act of valour Nawab Alivardi eyed at him very differently.
Moyna Garh, East Medinipur. Photo: Arindam Bhowmik
When he was at the peak of his power, wealth, fame and respect Jagadananda felt the doom catching up with him. He was caught in the web of a Greek tragedy. He saw before him fleeting away his kingdom, the monument of his strength and courage. He tried to rise and grasp and turn the tide, but in vain. After plassey everything was shattering, the power point having shifted. He could not fit into this new jigsaw puzzle of the power game. Jagadananda developed personal animosity with Resident Edward Baber. They reached the flashpoint of conflict. The English were very much eager to increase their trade as well as to expand their kingdom with the new found control of political power. Jagadananda ignored Midnapur Resident Baber and directly communicated with Calcutta. This hurt Baber. He thought that the Zamindars should be at the beck and call of the English Resident. Jagadananda had a stiff neck. He would not bend before the Resident. Besides, he hurled choicest invectives at the Resident. He did not care for the army commander but communicated directly with the Nawabs Alibardi and later siraj. So clash with the Resident was inevitable.
|
Baber also picked up Jagadananda as his pricipal enemy among the Zamindars of Midnapore . Whenever he met governor Hastings, he talked about Moynachaurah, complained against Jagadananda, tried to show that Jagadananda had a part in sirajudaulla's attack of Calcutta. Baber painted a lurid picture of Jagadananda.Jagadananda was a prodigal. This landed him into debt. The prosperous Moynachaurah turned a pauper. The Government revenue remained unpaid. He was the most unreliable. Those who reposed confidence in him were cheated. He brutally tyrannised over his subjects. He was not only extravagant but also leacher. He was morally degraded. Was Jagadananda as black as Baber had painted? We must not forget that Baber was not a friend but an enemy of Jagadananda. As for his extravagance we should judge him in the perspective of history. In those days the big Zamindars and small rajahs had to put up a grand show to compete with other Zamindars for a place in the
Nabob's court. Extravaganza was |
|
natural to them. It must be kept in view that Moynachaura like Tamluk was almost an autonomous estate. After the plassey they needed time to cope up with the new power axis.
Bengal was in complete disarray under the diarchy and the resulting devastation of the great famine of `76'. can we hold Jagadananda soley responsible for the pauperisation of his estate? It is an outright lie that Jagadananda was cruel and a tyrant. In a letter Edward Baber himself wrote that people prevented them from arresting Jagadananda by spying on the soldiers and reaching advanced news of their coming. Their love for their Zamindar propelled them to save their social leader and not for filthy lucre. what about the calumny that he was a leacher ? In those days rich people were in the habit of keeping paramour. There was nothing secret about it. These women were concubines, not legal wives. They all lived outside the palace and were never allowed to enter the royal palace. Their children begotten by the king did not have the right to use king's family name. The Bahubalindras have peculiar tradition. They were traditionally one-child parents. Edward Baber had no knowledge. So, he thought it to be debauchery.
 |
|
|
On 18 July 1767 a letter without date reached george Vansittart, the then Resident, from the king of Moynachaura. This letter must be treated as a historical document. In this letter the king of Moynachaura told of many excuses for not paying revenue. The English Resident was annoyed by this string of excuses. It is obvious that the king of Moynachaura stated at the end of the letter, `You are my master' in order to appease the English Resident. should this be explained as cowardice on the part of the king of Moynachaurah? Is this a servile attitude? Had Jagadananda accepted servitude at last ? we don't think so. This letter should be analysed in its proper historical perspective. The seal of the Bahubalindras bore persian script. In those days kings wrote letters in persian and the standard
|
