The Martyrdom of Tikendrajit Bir Singh & Thangal General
- Part 6 -

By Lt Col (Retd) M Ranjit Singh *

But remarkably he completed the trial within four working days time. The statement of Yengkhoiba, the Manipuri official who supposedly brought the execution order directly from Thangal General was not recorded in spite of him being available to the court. Thangal General put up a mercy petition on 18th June 1891 to the Viceroy.

The petition was however rejected by the Government of India. On close scrutiny of the statement of Thangal General recorded during the trial and his mercy petition, it will be observed that the contents does not match with the known character of him. If he had given order for execution of the British officers, he would have surely owned up. But in the statement he did not do so. In all probability most of the statements recorded in the trial must have originated from the pen of Maxwell.

The Special Court for trial of Jubraj Tikendrajit commenced on June 1st 1891. The authority for this court also originated from the general directive issued by the Government of India on 14th April 1891. It must however be remembered that the Special Court was in no way a court established on the basis of British law in India, nor were procedures of British law followed.

As per the directive of the Government, the court consists of three members including one Political Officer. The court was presided by Lt Col St John Fancourt Michell, AAG originally from 1st Regiment of Bengal Lancers (now the Skinner's Horse in Indian Army). The other two members were Major Richard Kirly RidgeWay, VC, Commandant 44 Gurkha Rifles (now 3 Mechanised Infantry earlier 1/8 GR ) and AW Davis, DC Naga Hills.

Lt Col Michell was a senior officer of the Army being commissioned on 1st December 1869. Earlier he as a Captain had written an authoritative book on North East India. Being AAG in the Assam District, he was dealing all legal cases of the Army and was conversant with law. His last known address was Danecroft, Stowmarket, Suffolk in UK. He died on11 June 1917.

It is irony that Major Ridgeway one of the members of the Court got his VC while fighting along with Tikendrajit against the Nagas at Khonoma, Naga Hills in 1879. Davis being a DC of a District, he already had the authority to pass capital punishment. The interpreter during the trial was Subedar (Retd) Partho Singh. Subedar Partho served under Maj Maxwell for five years in the Garo Hills Military Police. He was earlier working as drill instructor with Tikendrajit for some time.

Due to some difference of opinion with Tikendrajit he quitted the job and joined the service of Pakasana, the bitter enemy of Tikendrajit. His capability to translate Manipuri into Urdu so as to be understood by the British is very much doubtful.

On 2nd June 1891 the Foreign Secretary in structed General Collet to advise his officers to make records of trial as complete as possible. He further instructed that Records should show larger array of witnesses and fuller judgments. By the time the trial of Tikendrajit commenced, the prosecuting officer had a fair idea on the happenings on 22nd March and subsequent days.

Maxwell produced 14 prosecution witnesses. The aim of the prosecuting officer was to prove that Tikendrajit revolted against the Queen and he also gave the order for execution of five British officers. Till the completion of statement of 10th witnesses, Tikendrajit did not have any defending lawyer for him.

On 2nd June he was allowed to have Babu Janaki Nath Bysack as his defending lawyer. Janaki Nath was not a lawyer. He was a trader in Manipur who happened to know a bit of English and Manipuri. Janaki Nath complained to the court on many occasions on the incorrect translation made by Subedar Partho.

On the conclusion of recording of the statement of 15th witness, the Court further charged Tikendrajit for murder of 5 British officers also. After the arraignment, the court cross examined the accused by asking many questions. Tikendrajit later produced six defence witnesses. Interestingly, the statement made by the witnesses were published verbatim in the next day's edition of The Pioneer, a newspaper then published in Allahabad.

The first charge of waging war should have been rejected out rightly as Manipur was an independent country then. There has never been a recorded treaty between Manipur and Government of India where Manipur had agreed to be under them. The previous history of Manipur makes it clear that Britain never acquired Manipur by conquest, Manipur never paid tribute to Britain, and it was all along governed by its own law with its Government ruling independently of the Government of India, and its Maharaja as sovereign.

When British captured Kanhai for waging war against Manipur in 1866, he was charged under Section 125 of IPC for waging war against any Asiatic Power in alliance or at peace with the Queen and convicted to 7 year's imprisonment. Between 1866 and 1891, there was no fresh treaty signed between the British and Manipur regarding subjugation of Manipur to the British.

Further, all the official correspondences of Manipur with the Government of India till 1891 was dealt through Foreign Department. The following extract of the Minute Sheet prepared by HM Durrand, Foreign Secretary, for the Viceroy on 16th May 1891 will make an interesting reading:
"I don't think I would delay the cases to bring Counsel to Manipur certainly not in any case but that of the ruling family...... The first point raised by the Counsel would almost certainly be the competence of the Court, which would not do much harm, and then the point would be raised whether war by Manipur against us is 'revolt'. This might be troublesome especially as Manipur, I do no know why, has never had an Adoption Sanad. If it had one it would have accepted overtly or tacitly the obligation to be "loyal to the crown".

The second charge of murder also cannot be proved against Tikendrajit. All the sentries and officials present on the night of 24th March near Darbar Hall says that the orders for execution of British officers on both the occasions were given by Thangal General. The first order for execution was counter-manded by Tikendrajit.

On the second occasion he was unaware of the order passed by Thangal General. If the court wanted to confirm this fact, they should have called Thangal General as witness. They did not do so in spite of the availability of Thangal General in their custody. They were probably scared that Thangal General may own up the passing of order for execution of the British officers and in the bargain they would not have been able to hang Tikendrajit.

On 10th June, the court sentenced Tikendrajit to death by hanging. Manmohana Ghose, a famous lawyer from Calcutta fought the case for Tikendrajit. Ghose had received his legal training in London at Lincoln's Inn, and on his return to India became a barrister at the Calcutta High Court. His photograph is still prominently hung inside Victoria Memorial Hall in Kolkata.

To be continued.....