Tweet
HAPPY BIRTHDAY, CALCUTTA
The Statesman (India)
August 24, 2006 Thursday
Very few cities in the world were founded on a particular date or by
a particular individual. Cities do not generally have dates of birth
and/or a founder. They grow as a part of natural, historical and
economic process. Of course there are exceptions such as Alexandria,
St Petersburg and our own Murshidabad.
But how was Calcutta born? When Job Charnock landed in Sutanuti
in 1690, the three villages of Sutanuti, Govindapur and Kolikata,
were already there, and their zamindary rights were vested with the
Saborna Roychaudhuri family. Yet he was regarded for long as the
founder of the city. In this context it is pertinent to find out the
myth and the reality about the foundation of Calcutta. The myth has
been perpetuated for long that Calcutta was founded by Job Charnock on
24 August 1690. Undoubtedly, British historians, and recent British
and Indian historical literature were instrumental in promoting and
establishing the idea that it was Charnock who laid the foundation
of the city on that date.
Lack of exactitude
There is an obvious lack of exactitude in the imperial idea that it
is Charnock who, as an act of destiny, founded the city. But this
is what has been taught for ages in schools and colleges. Besides,
for years the West Bengal government, the Calcutta Corporation and
various other institutions observed 24 August as the foundation day of
Calcutta. The city's tercentenary was celebrated with great pomp and
splendour in 1990. But the question of the foundation cropped up anew
when the Saborna Roychaudhuris filed a public interest litigation case
at Calcutta High Court. The Division Bench, comprising the then Chief
Justice A K Mathur and Justice S K Mukherjee constituted a five-member
committee of historians, of which the present contributor was one,
to give their verdict on two points:
1. What is the date of birth of Calcutta: whether it was 24 August
1690 or some other date?
2. Whether Job Charnock (sic) was the founder of Calcutta or not.
The committee examined all available material on the subject and
came to the unanimous conclusion that 24 August 1690 was not the
birth date of Calcutta nor was Job Charnock its founder. The High
Court accepted the findings of the committee and recommended it to
the state government.
In this context it is important to note the basis for refutation
of the prevalent notion about the foundation of Calcutta. First,
Job Charnock did not land in Sutanuti for the first time on 24
August 1690. He came and landed in Sutanuti for the first time on
20 December 1686. After three months he moved to Uluberia where he
stayed for another three months and came back to Sutanuti for the
second time in September 1687. But following a war with the Mughals,
Charnock and his compatriots left Bengal for Fort St George (Madras)
and returned to Sutanuti for the third time on 24 August 1690. If that
was so, then why should 24 August 1690 be regarded as the foundation
date of Calcutta, and not the earlier two dates? In fact, even after
nine months of his stay in Sutanuti, the Directors in London were
informed that they (the English in Sutanuti) were in a wild, unsettled
condition at Chuttanuttee, neither fortified house nor godown, only
tents, huts and boats. Thus when the so-called founder of Calcutta
died in January 1693, Sutanuti was a far cry from the later imperial
city of Calcutta. Moreover, in all the correspondence of Job Charnock
and his compatriots, the dateline was invariably Chuttanuttee, and not
Calcutta or even Kolikata. Later the dateline used was Fort William,
and it was not before the early 1740s that the name Calcutta appeared
in the official correspondence. In other words, neither Charnock nor
his later compatriots were ever aware of the existence of a city called
Calcutta, nor were they connected consciously with its foundation.
There is little doubt that Kolikata existed long before the arrival
of Charnock, at least from the 15th century. The Bengali poet,
Bipradas Pipilai, referred to Kolikata as an important place in
his poem Manasavijaya (1495-96). In Ain-i-Akbari (1595) Abul Fazl
mentioned Kolikata as a mahal in sarkar Satgaon. An Armenian tomb
dated 1632 was found in Kolikata indicating that it was then an
important trade centre. Again, the Dutch traveller Van den Broek,
mentioned Kolikata in his map of 1660. Further, the Bengali poet,
Krishnaram Das referred to the Saborna Roychudhuris as the zamindar
of Kolikata in his Kalikamangal (1676-77). Another poet, Sanatan
Ghosal (1678-80), claimed Kolikata as the place of his birth. The
famous weaver/ merchant families of the Seths and Basaks moved down
to Sutanuti after the decline of Satgaon in the late 16th century.
Though it is a fact that Job Charnock was neither the founder
of Calcutta nor was it born with his arrival on 24 August 1690,
the importance of Charnock in its future development can hardly be
ignored. The growth and development of Calcutta was closely connected
with British trade, both corporate and private. In other words, the
early history of Calcutta is inseparable from the history of British
imperialism in India. And it goes to the credit of Charnock that he
selected the most suitable place as the nucleus of British trade. But
he had no idea nor any intention whatsoever to lay the foundation of
a city in an alien country. Neither did he do anything to turn the
small hamlet of Sutanuti into at least something which could be called
even the nucleus of a city. His main motive was to find out a suitable
and strategic place from where the English trade could be conducted,
even by defying the authority of the Mughals. As he lived in Bengal
for more than three decades, Charnock was well aware of the political
and military situation in the country. Thus in all probability he
chose Sutanuti after careful consideration. He had tried Hughli,
Hijli and Uluberia but found them unsuitable for a fortified centre
of British trade. Sutanuti undoubtedly offered greater advantages. At
all other places he tried, the British were extremely vulnerable to
the sudden attack of the Mughals.
Sea-borne trade
Moreover, there were greater facilities at Sutanuti for sea-borne
trade and also for withdrawal to the sea with safety in case of
reverses. Other advantages were there as well ~ provisions were
plentiful in its hats and bazars, export commodities could be provided
easily as old commercial houses of the Seths and Basaks had moved in
there with the fall of Satgaon. With all his experience in Bengal,
Charnock took all these factors into consideration before he finally
selected Sutanuti as the centre of British trade in Bengal. Thus it
can be asserted that though Charnock was dislodged from his place as
the founder of Calcutta, he cannot be discarded from the history of
the growth and development of Calcutta as an imperial city.
The Statesman (India)
August 24, 2006 Thursday
Very few cities in the world were founded on a particular date or by
a particular individual. Cities do not generally have dates of birth
and/or a founder. They grow as a part of natural, historical and
economic process. Of course there are exceptions such as Alexandria,
St Petersburg and our own Murshidabad.
But how was Calcutta born? When Job Charnock landed in Sutanuti
in 1690, the three villages of Sutanuti, Govindapur and Kolikata,
were already there, and their zamindary rights were vested with the
Saborna Roychaudhuri family. Yet he was regarded for long as the
founder of the city. In this context it is pertinent to find out the
myth and the reality about the foundation of Calcutta. The myth has
been perpetuated for long that Calcutta was founded by Job Charnock on
24 August 1690. Undoubtedly, British historians, and recent British
and Indian historical literature were instrumental in promoting and
establishing the idea that it was Charnock who laid the foundation
of the city on that date.
Lack of exactitude
There is an obvious lack of exactitude in the imperial idea that it
is Charnock who, as an act of destiny, founded the city. But this
is what has been taught for ages in schools and colleges. Besides,
for years the West Bengal government, the Calcutta Corporation and
various other institutions observed 24 August as the foundation day of
Calcutta. The city's tercentenary was celebrated with great pomp and
splendour in 1990. But the question of the foundation cropped up anew
when the Saborna Roychaudhuris filed a public interest litigation case
at Calcutta High Court. The Division Bench, comprising the then Chief
Justice A K Mathur and Justice S K Mukherjee constituted a five-member
committee of historians, of which the present contributor was one,
to give their verdict on two points:
1. What is the date of birth of Calcutta: whether it was 24 August
1690 or some other date?
2. Whether Job Charnock (sic) was the founder of Calcutta or not.
The committee examined all available material on the subject and
came to the unanimous conclusion that 24 August 1690 was not the
birth date of Calcutta nor was Job Charnock its founder. The High
Court accepted the findings of the committee and recommended it to
the state government.
In this context it is important to note the basis for refutation
of the prevalent notion about the foundation of Calcutta. First,
Job Charnock did not land in Sutanuti for the first time on 24
August 1690. He came and landed in Sutanuti for the first time on
20 December 1686. After three months he moved to Uluberia where he
stayed for another three months and came back to Sutanuti for the
second time in September 1687. But following a war with the Mughals,
Charnock and his compatriots left Bengal for Fort St George (Madras)
and returned to Sutanuti for the third time on 24 August 1690. If that
was so, then why should 24 August 1690 be regarded as the foundation
date of Calcutta, and not the earlier two dates? In fact, even after
nine months of his stay in Sutanuti, the Directors in London were
informed that they (the English in Sutanuti) were in a wild, unsettled
condition at Chuttanuttee, neither fortified house nor godown, only
tents, huts and boats. Thus when the so-called founder of Calcutta
died in January 1693, Sutanuti was a far cry from the later imperial
city of Calcutta. Moreover, in all the correspondence of Job Charnock
and his compatriots, the dateline was invariably Chuttanuttee, and not
Calcutta or even Kolikata. Later the dateline used was Fort William,
and it was not before the early 1740s that the name Calcutta appeared
in the official correspondence. In other words, neither Charnock nor
his later compatriots were ever aware of the existence of a city called
Calcutta, nor were they connected consciously with its foundation.
There is little doubt that Kolikata existed long before the arrival
of Charnock, at least from the 15th century. The Bengali poet,
Bipradas Pipilai, referred to Kolikata as an important place in
his poem Manasavijaya (1495-96). In Ain-i-Akbari (1595) Abul Fazl
mentioned Kolikata as a mahal in sarkar Satgaon. An Armenian tomb
dated 1632 was found in Kolikata indicating that it was then an
important trade centre. Again, the Dutch traveller Van den Broek,
mentioned Kolikata in his map of 1660. Further, the Bengali poet,
Krishnaram Das referred to the Saborna Roychudhuris as the zamindar
of Kolikata in his Kalikamangal (1676-77). Another poet, Sanatan
Ghosal (1678-80), claimed Kolikata as the place of his birth. The
famous weaver/ merchant families of the Seths and Basaks moved down
to Sutanuti after the decline of Satgaon in the late 16th century.
Though it is a fact that Job Charnock was neither the founder
of Calcutta nor was it born with his arrival on 24 August 1690,
the importance of Charnock in its future development can hardly be
ignored. The growth and development of Calcutta was closely connected
with British trade, both corporate and private. In other words, the
early history of Calcutta is inseparable from the history of British
imperialism in India. And it goes to the credit of Charnock that he
selected the most suitable place as the nucleus of British trade. But
he had no idea nor any intention whatsoever to lay the foundation of
a city in an alien country. Neither did he do anything to turn the
small hamlet of Sutanuti into at least something which could be called
even the nucleus of a city. His main motive was to find out a suitable
and strategic place from where the English trade could be conducted,
even by defying the authority of the Mughals. As he lived in Bengal
for more than three decades, Charnock was well aware of the political
and military situation in the country. Thus in all probability he
chose Sutanuti after careful consideration. He had tried Hughli,
Hijli and Uluberia but found them unsuitable for a fortified centre
of British trade. Sutanuti undoubtedly offered greater advantages. At
all other places he tried, the British were extremely vulnerable to
the sudden attack of the Mughals.
Sea-borne trade
Moreover, there were greater facilities at Sutanuti for sea-borne
trade and also for withdrawal to the sea with safety in case of
reverses. Other advantages were there as well ~ provisions were
plentiful in its hats and bazars, export commodities could be provided
easily as old commercial houses of the Seths and Basaks had moved in
there with the fall of Satgaon. With all his experience in Bengal,
Charnock took all these factors into consideration before he finally
selected Sutanuti as the centre of British trade in Bengal. Thus it
can be asserted that though Charnock was dislodged from his place as
the founder of Calcutta, he cannot be discarded from the history of
the growth and development of Calcutta as an imperial city.