Job Charnock | |
---|---|
Born | c. 1630 London, England |
Died | 10 January 1693 Kolkata, India |
Occupation | Colonial administrator |
Known for | Executive worker of east India company |
Job Charnock (c. 1630–1692/1693) was an employee and administrator of the English East India Company, and traditionally regarded as the founder of the city of Kolkata. However, after the landmark Calcutta High Court ruling on 16 May 2003, his name has been purged from all official documents as the founder of Kolkata.
Charnock came from a Lancashire family and was the second son of Richard Charnock of London. Stephen Charnock (1628–1680) was probably his elder brother. He was part of a private trading enterprise in the employ of the merchant Maurice Thomson between 1650 and 1653, but in January 1658 he joined the East India Company's service in Bengal, where he was stationed at Cossimbazar, Hooghly
Charnock was described as a silent morose man, not popular among his contemporaries, but as "always a faithful man to the Company", which rated his services very highly. In addition to his business acumen, he won the Company's esteem by stamping out smuggling among his less scrupulous colleagues. His zeal in this regard made him enemies who throughout his life spread malicious gossip to discredit him.
Charnock was entrusted with procuring the Company's saltpetre and appointed to the centre of the trade, Patna in Bihar, on 2 February 1659. After four years at the factory he contemplated returning to England, but the court of directors in London were keen to retain his services, and won him over by promoting him to the position of chief factor in 1664.
About 1663 Charnock took a Hindu widow as his common-law wife. A Company servant, Alexander Hamilton, later wrote that she had been a sati and that Charnock, smitten by her beauty, had rescued her from her husband's funeral pyre by the Ganges in Bihar. She was said to be a fifteen-year-old Rajput princess. Charnock renamed her Maria, and soon after he was accused of converting to Hinduism. Though he remained a devout Christian, the story of his conversion and moral laxity was so widely believed that it became a cautionary tale in a more puritanical age.