14 July 2025
The Provenance of the Colebrooke Collection (4): Accusations of Corruption
The previous blog post in this series on the provenance of the Colebrooke Collection of Sanskrit manuscripts in the British Library examined the role of Indian ‘pandits’ in gathering the manuscripts. This blog outlines how Colebrooke, along with the pandits Citrapati and Bābūrāma, became entangled in accusations of corruption.
In 1807, Colebrooke was made a member of the supreme council of the Government of Bengal, a position he would hold until the end of 1812. He had established a reputation as both a capable administrator and a respected Sanskrit scholar, and his knowledge of Hindu law in particular had proven to be a great asset for the East India Company. However, at this time the EIC was still struggling to cast off its reputation as a rapacious corporation and present itself instead as a responsible administrator of British territories in India.
South East View of the New Government House of the East India Company in Calcutta, published in 1805 (British Library, P1685).
In the early years of the nineteenth century, a series of scandals led to the removal of several of the Company’s district judges. One of these was William Brodie who, in 1810, was suspended due to findings of corruption while he had been judge and magistrate of Purnia. The charges had centred on an inheritance dispute for which he had been accused of accepting a bribe from one of the parties. The allegations were made by a local landholder, Charles Reed, who had been representing one of the other parties in the dispute. The proceedings had dragged on, but Reed persisted, and after the verdict against Brodie was passed, Reed began making accusations against the higher-ranking members of the judiciary, who he believed had been obstructing his earlier efforts to bring Brodie to trial.
Colebrooke was one of those now in the firing line. When he had ascended to the supreme council, he had also taken on the role of chief judge of the superior court. Although his day-to-day involvement in the courts was limited, his reputation as an authority in Hindu law meant he was often consulted for his opinion. Charles Reed now accused him of misusing his authority, and Colebrooke vigorously defended himself. In the records of the proceedings of the supreme council we find a number of lengthy responses Colebrooke made to these allegations. He also gave up his position as chief judge, in an effort to prevent any future accusations.
The New Court House and Chandpal Ghaut, from a set of views of Calcutta, published in 1788 (British Library, P46).
However, Colebrooke’s efforts to protect himself would have implications for the pandits he had formerly employed. Citrapati, now pandit of the superior court, had earlier been called on to give an opinion on the inheritance dispute mentioned above. However, he was then accused of receiving a bribe from one of the parties. Charles Reed seized on Citrapati’s connections with Colebrooke in order to accuse the latter, and Colebrooke again sought to defend himself. In doing so, however, he left Citrapati exposed. In a supreme council meeting in February 1812, Colebrooke claimed that Citrapati had visited him at his home ‘with much apparent agitation’ to report the charge brought against him. Colebrooke recounted that he replied to Citrapati that ‘whatever explanation or vindication he had to offer… must be stated, not to me, but to the court before which the accusation has been preferred.’ He then ‘immediately dismissed him, and have forbidden his future visits to my house.’
Extract from Colebrooke’s Minute, presented to the Supreme Council at their meeting at Fort William on 10 February 1812 (British Library, IOR P/130/45, 10 February 1812, No. 19).
Citrapati was adamant that he had refused the offer of a bribe. However, he had not spoken of it until this time, and this, Colebrooke claimed, ‘indicates a way of thinking not accordant with the delicate and scrupulous integrity which should be expected from a person holding the office which he does’. Furthermore, he claimed, ‘it will constitute in my opinion a sufficient ground for his removal though he should be proved innocent of the charge.’ (IOR/P/130/45, 10 February 1812, No. 19). The rest of the council concurred, and Citrapati was immediately suspended, pending an investigation.
Bābūrāma also found himself embroiled in the allegations against Citrapati. In a statement made to the court, Citrapati claimed that, after he had refused the proffered bribe, the alleged briber tried to leave the money at Citrapati’s house, promising to collect it the next day. Citrapati refused this also and stated that: "I afterwards heard that having left them [the money] with Bābūrāma, whose house is at some distance from mine, he had departed, and that he had said to Bābūrāma that he would on the morrow send a man to fetch them; but next day no man came to take them away. On the day following, Bābūrāma took the money… and gave it to him" [i.e. back to the alleged briber] (IOR/P/130/45, 18 February 1812, No. 79).
Reed seized on this detail, asserting that the bribe had been ‘left in deposit with one of Mr Colebrooke’s servants’ and that ‘it will necessarily follow that Mr Colebrooke is guilty of a most heinous offence, equally so as if the money had been deposited for the joint benefit of himself and Citrapati’ (IOR/P/130/45, 10 February 1812, No. 20). Colebrooke sought to defend himself against this association, declaring: "The person mentioned as my servant and with whom the rejected bribe is said to have been afterwards for a short time deposited, is one who was formerly employed by me as a Sanskrit Copyist. He ceased to be employed by me in that capacity six or seven years ago, on his setting up a Sanskrit Press. But I have since continued to him a monthly allowance in consideration of his occasionally attending to sort and arrange my collection of oriental manuscripts. In this relation of service towards me, it was a great dereliction of duty to undertake, for a day, or for an hour, the custody of a deposit yet tainted with the corrupt destination it had borne though rejected."
He went on: "However mortifying it is to find that some at least, if not all these persons, are so undeserving of the favourable opinion I entertained of them, and that several of them happen by a vexatious coincidence to be persons who have been at some period in my service, I trust that my name has been in no shape mixed in their proceedings." (IOR/P/130/45, 10 February 1812, No. 21)
In a context in which the EIC was under close scrutiny from critics in Britain, Colebrooke was keen to protect himself from any suspicion of misconduct. However, this came at the expense of the pandits whose assistance had been vital to his achievements in India.
Several months passed following Citrapati’s suspension, and then in November 1812 his voice once more appears in the proceedings of the Government of Bengal. Citrapati submitted a petition to the Governor General, ending with a plea ‘that your Lordship in Council will deem it proper to clear from the false accusation a poor Pundit (your Petitioner) who is for a period of nine months oppressed under the suspension from his office, and at the same time will be pleased to extend your natural clemency towards him by pronouncing an order for reinstating him to his former situation’ (IOR/P/131/7, 14 November 1812, No. 21).
The ending of Citrapati’s petition to the Governor General of Bengal (IOR/P/131/7, 14 November 1812, No. 21).
Problems with locating the relevant witnesses meant that the enquiries into Citrapati’s case were again delayed. He submitted a further petition in February 1813, but to no avail. A year later, in March 1814, Citrapati died, and the investigation was never concluded. As for Bābūrāma, it is unclear whether Colebrooke continued to employ him as a librarian. But we know that his Sanskrit Press ceased to operate following Colebrooke’s departure from India, in 1814.
This is the fourth in a series of blog posts on the provenance of the Colebrooke collection of Sanskrit manuscripts in the British Library. The first post introduced the Colebrooke family and the East India Company; the second post focused on Colebrooke's manuscripts on Hindu law and the third on Colebrooke and the pandits. The next, and final, blog in this series will consider the legacies of Colebrooke and his pandits.
Works Consulted
Jha, Jagdish Chandra, ‘Some Light on the Early Judicial System of the East India Company’, The Journal of the Bihar Research Society Vol. LIII, Parts I-V (1967), pp. 214-223.
Rocher, Rosanne and Rocher, Ludo, The Making of Western Indology: Henry Thomas Colebrooke and the East India Company (London: Routledge, 2012).
Minute of H. T. Colebrooke, 17 December 1811 (Government of Bengal Proceedings 17 December 1811, No. 1). British Library, IOR/P/148/71.
Minute of H. T. Colebrooke, 6 February 1812 (Government of Bengal Proceedings 10 February 1812, No. 19). British Library, IOR/P/130/45.
Letter from Charles Reed to the Governor General, 7 February 1812 (Government of Bengal Proceedings 10 February 1812, No. 20). British Library, IOR/P/130/45.
Minute of H. T. Colebrooke, 7 February 1812 (Government of Bengal Proceedings 10 February 1812, No. 21). British Library, IOR/P/130/45.
Statement by Citrapati [D], 13 February 1812 (Government of Bengal Proceedings 18 February 1812, No. 79). British Library, IOR/P/130/45.
Petition of Citrapati (Government of Bengal Proceedings 14 November 1812, No. 21). British Library, IOR/P/131/7.
David Woodbridge, Provenance Researcher Sanskrit Collections (REAP pilot project 2023-2025)