The Missing Hastings Paisa?
Dr.Abhishek Chatterjee
The advent of British East India Company and subsequently becoming the overlord of Bengal is a milestone in the history of the Indian subcontinent! Indeed the Battle of Buxar with the British on one side and the combined armies of the Mughal emperor, Nawab of Awadh and Nawab of Bengal resulting in victory of the British became the first step in the British becoming the rulers of the subcontinent. Post the British takeover, the coinage have been studied extensively but there remains some coins which are elusive and not yet attributed. One series are coins with mint name Murshidabad and no ruler name. In this paper I will try my best to attribute them
These coins were
first known and published through late Nicholas
Rhodes in 2013 in JONS#206 bearing ry12 and no AH date. He speculated whether
the issue is of Muhammad shah(Mughal) or Shah Alam II (Bengal presidency) as ry12 could fit both. He also
opined that since coins with mint name Murshidabad
was minted in number of mints like Jahangirnagar,
Patna, Calcutta. The coin could be from any mint. Also
he remarked that the coins are very rare and that he knew of only one in
Calcutta
Most of the coins are in my collection with the help of Mr. Muhammad Tarique Khan from Aurangabad. All coins were found from the Magadh area and districts of Aurangabad, Jehanabad, Arwal, Gaya districts of Bihar. I also thank Dr.Shailen Bhandare for his guidance. The pics of the coins known so far as follows
Coin 1: Fig1.
Fig1: Weight- 11.94 grams. Julus Mubarak legend seen and complete mint Murshidabad seen with ry20 (From Collection)
Coin2: Fig 2
Fig2: Weight- 11.80 grams, Julus Mubarak partially seen with AH date (11)92 and mint name partially seen on top but sanah 12 is seen. This is AH 1192AH/Ry12 (from collection)
Coin 3: Fig3
Fig3: Weight- 11.40 grams. Julus Mubarak on obverse and mint name with sanah 12 seen but with trishul mark on both sides. (from collection)
Coin 4: Fig4
Fig4: Weight- 11.6gms approx.. Julus Mubarak (11)91AH on obverse and mint name on top with sanah 12 seen (From British Museum)
Coin 5: Fig5
Fig5: Weight- 12.12grams. Julus Mubarak (11)94AH on obverse and part of mint on top with sanah 20 seen (personal collection)
Discussion: The 5 coins are from the same series of copper coins and the legend of the coin can be reconstructed from the legends seen on these coins. The coins are rare and only other coins apart from my collection are in the British Museum. The image of that coin is shared by Dr.Shailen Bhandare.
Fig 5: Obverse- Julus Mubarak Reverse- Zarb
Murshidabad sanah 20
The copper coins have scant legends and reads ‘Julus Mubarak sanah’ legend followed by AH date on obverse meaning ‘auspcious year of reign’ and ‘zarb Murshidabad sanah’ followed by the ry on reverse meaning ‘struck in Murshidabad in the year’. Thus there are no name of ruler mentioned in the coin. The only clue to the coin is in the dates on the coins.
So now we have copper coins with mint name of Murshidabad and weird AH/Ry combination. Coins have 2 regnal year on them i.e ry12 and ry20. So who minted these coins???. I have tried to explain the possibilities in the following heads
1) Date – The most confusing part of the coins are the dates on the coins. There are 2 regnal years found on the coin, ry12 and ry20. The subsequent AH dates associated with the ry 12 coins are AH1191 and AH1192 while ry20 is known with AH1194. AH1191/AH1192 firmly puts in in the reign of Shah Alam II as the Mughal emperor and after the battle of Buxar was firmly under the East India Company. ry12 of Shah Alam II corresponds to AH1185/AH1186. But the AH dates are AH1191/AH1192 Hence, it is clear that the dates do not corresponds to regnal year of Shah Alam II. So the Ry starts from AH1179 or AD1765. So what happened in AD 1765? The East india company under the leadership of Robert Clive won the Battle of Buxar on 23rd October AD1764. Thereafter, with the treaty of Allahabad on 12th August AD1765, the Mughal emperor agreed to the diwani rights to the EIC. With this treaty, EIC became the virtual rulers of Bengal with only nominal suzerainty of the Mughal. 12th August AD1765 corresponds to safar AH1179. So calculating from this date, ry12 would be AH1191-AH1192 which is exactly as on the coin. Hence the AH1191 and AH1192 coins are minted with regnal year of the East India Company as the ruler. The ry20 coins are different. The corresponding AH date with ry20 is 1194AH and follows Shah Alam II as ruler. So whoever have minted these coins have initially regarded the EIC as the ruler but then probably in fear of retribution went back to the regnal year of Shah Alam II. This was indeed a bold step considering that as it meant challenging the authority of the Mughal emperor. There is no literary evidence on the effect that the copper coins with Ry of EIC had on the political system but the fact that the AH/Ry was corrected indicate that the council did not take the change too kindly perhaps regarding it too adventurous.
2) Legend- The legend as detailed above does not mentions the ruler. On the earlier copper issue of AH1774 (not illustrated here) the name of Shah Alam was mentioned explicitly but here the ruler is kept ambiguous perhaps intentionally as they corresponded to the AH/Ry combination of EIC
3) Mint- The mint is written as Murshidabad clearly. It is to be considered that in July AD1777, Murshidabad mint was closed by the East India Company. So the coins with the name of Murshidabad were minted in some other location and that the mint name is a pseudonym.
4) Weight- The weight of the coins is 11.7 to 12.5 grams. The weight corresponds to ‘half anna’ of the 1195AH minted subsequently at Pulta by John Princeps. So the coin was likely minted as ‘Half anna’ in denomination.
5) The mint marks of star, trishul, no mark is intriguing but no significance of the various marks are known to me. It could well be the daroga marks but that is pure assumption
Thus it can be seen that the half anna denomination coins produced in AD1777-AD1778 produced initially with the regnal year of the EIC being the governor of Bengal but then probably realising that the risk of such adventure may lead to more complication went back to the regnal year of the Mughal emperor. The most likely candidate for minting these copper coins would be British East India Company under Warren Hastings minted in Calcutta. The claim is backed by the literary source as follows
Here I reproduce the letter from ‘Coins of Bengal Presidency’ by Dr.Paul Stevens for the historical background of this coin. On page no.84 of this book chapter 2 titled ‘Calcutta Mint 1761 to 1790’ he mentions, “In 1778, the Governor General Hastings, considered and proposed the introduction of a copper coinage”. He also mentions a record by Governor General Hastings in letter to the board of Calcutta council and I am reproducing the letter here,
“The payment
of coolies and the other people employed on the publick
works in Cowries subjecting them to imposition and loss they are therefore
discouraged from serving, to the great obstruction of publick
works, and as the chief engineer will have immediate occasion to employ upwards
of 3000 labourers who will require a fixed medium of payment, I think this is
the proper time for making an experiment to obviate these inconveniences.
Cowries being
perishable and the imposition of them attended to an annual loss, this reason
as well as those above mentioned has frequently suggested the necessity of a
copper coinage, and the utility of it has been proved to a demonstration by a
former expedient of issuing copper tickets which was readily accepted by the
coolies and even passed current in bazar and as I am informed seldom returned.
I therefore
desire to recommend to the Boardthat the amount of
ten thousand rupee be immediately struck in copper coins, 1000 rupee of which
to be sent on trial to each provincial council and the remainder issued for the
currency of the Presidency particularly in the payment of publick
coolies
Should this
scheme be found to answer the purposes intended a larger sum may be coined. It
cannot occasion a loss.
I beg leave to produce
to the Board, a blank copper coin equal in weight to one anna which, valued at
the rate of 50 rupees per maund, the present price of copper being 36, will be
equal to sixty fourth part of a rupee or quarter part of anna, & this may
be subdivided if it should be found convenient to issue smaller coin.
This is not
an idea of sudden suggestion. I have long considered and weighed all the
consequences of a general currency of copper & the samples which I now
offer to the Board have been many months in my possession. The sum required for
the proposed experiment is trifling. The amount of ten lacks atleast will be required for universal circulation, if it
takes effect. This will prove a double gain to the Company in its commercial
and political characters.
Ordered that
the minutes be referred to the Mint Master for his opinion on the best manner
of carrying it into execution”
Lastly Dr.Stevens mentions that, “The coins relating to this entry are not known, if any were produced at all’.
The coins with AH1191 corresponding to AD1177 could be the ‘sample coins’ that were already in his possession for months as mentioned in the letter. The coins with date AH1192 could easily be explained with the letter written in AD1778.
The other contender producing these coins could be a local zamindar/landlord/adventurer in the copper rich areas of Bihar as these coins were found in a small area of the Bihar no record of such a production like that of John Princeps is known. So such a claim cannot be backed by any evidence yet. But in my opinion the calligraphy and strike suggest good workmanship in terms of die making and production and seems to be work of official mint adept at producing coins rather than a local mint minting coins in emergency to satisfy the need of the small change. The nawab of Bengal could be another contender minting from an alternate mint but production of coins with the regnal year of the British administration in Bengal is hardly expected from the rivals of the British. Why did the coins stop after the AH1194 issue? It is perhaps because AH1195 saw the coins produced by John Princeps. So the need for the small change was met with those copper coins.
Glossary:
AH 1191 corresponds to the period between 09/02/1777 to 29/01/1778
AH 1192 corresponds to the period between 30/01/1778 to 19/01/1779
Ry 12 of East India Company extends from July AH1777 to June AD 1778 calculating from the treaty of Allahabad being on August 1765. Thus Ry 12 can exist with both AH1191 and AH 1192