For instance, in the similar case of Raja Pratapchand of Burdwan (1838), Prince Dwarakanath Tagore changed his sympathies to testify against the claimant lest his business interests with the East India Company suffer, the colonial officials being determined to discount the claims. The returned-from-dead case of Rudra Narayan Roy of Midnapur (1835) was decided on considerations of not upsetting the settled order as dictated by colonial rulers, despite the evidence to the contrary. Chatterjee points out how it was virtually the government that was fighting the Bhawal instead of the widow.  

The sanyasi’s advocates were all nationalists opposed by westernized barristers. Basu, the Dhaka judge and Justice Biswas in the Calcutta High Court show in their criticisms the new nationalist awareness of the secretive and selective tendencies of colonial officials. In Biswas’ condemnation of the “bad language and worse manners” of barrister Chaudhuri for scoffing at the lower court judge as “the Dacca Shakespeare”, Chatterjee finds middle class Bengali society’s “delegitimation” of westernized elite. He exposes the wealth of cultural assumptions underlying the English High Court Judge Lodge’s discounting evidence as “simply incredible” and “ridiculous exaggeration” giving no reasons. However, the third judge, Costello, also an Englishman but writing his judgement in England, while being intolerant of criticism of government conceded the mofussil judge’s credibility. Chatterjee wonders if he was experiencing decolonization as he wrote his judgement during the World War when affairs of Dhaka appeared distant and best decided by the local judge. During 1920-30 a shift to decolonization occurred within colonial institutions and that the smooth transfer of power in the judicial system is shown in Bhawal case which is in microcosm the secret story of this transfer.
Taking this further, Chatterjee points out that the Khilafat and Non-cooperation movements coincided with the first appearance of the sanyasi who also became a focus of utopian kingship that protects the “praja” (subjects). As a deposed Raja, he was visualized as a victim of colonial oppression and became the people’s king despite the “praja movement of East Bengal” to abolish zamindari. Most “praja” were Muslims, yet no communal politics erupted. Instead, Islam and Hinduism had a shared idiom of the just ruler. Noting that the decline of zamindari coincided with rapid rise of sectarian strife, Chatterjee posits that kingship’s political legitimacy guaranteed the religious traditional framework and continuance of sectarian tolerance. Hence the local zamindar’s utopian figure bridged the communal divide.

The coincidental appearance of Prabhatkumar Mukhopadhyay’s novel Ratnadeep (1912-14) dealing with the same theme soon after the supposed death of the Bhawal Prince and long before his reappearance remains a mystery. The Tichbourne case (1870) in England—written up when the Bhawal sanyasi trial began (1933-34)—was repeatedly alluded to by the judges. The earliest parallel is the celebrated French case of Martin Guerre (disappeared 1548, reappeared 1556, hanged 1560). Guerre’s wife accepted the impersonator as her husband, and the true Martin turned up minus a leg during the hearing of the appeal—a story made into the hit Hindi film “Hum Dono” (1960s) that Chatterjee is not aware of. Unfortunately, he does not discuss the implications of this case for his subject. Wendy Doniger brilliantly analyses its widespread literary influence Bedtrick (2000). A pattern emerges in these stories: death through feminine conspiracy as wages of a sinful life; botched cremation; expiation as a monk; return as a “rajarshi” (touching a deep chord of utopian desire for the just philosopher-king that is the secret of the popular appeal) to claim inheritance in which the colonial government contests the claim of identity.

Chatterjee is not aware of Swami Rama’s Living with Himalayan Masters which records Bangali Baba’s rescue of the Bhawal prince and sending two disciples to give evidence. This contradicts the case record naming as witnesses two disciples of Harnamdas: Lokdas and Darshandas, unless Bangali Baba’s real name was Harnamdas. The fate of the Bhawal Sanyasi is intriguing. On 31.7.1946 news of his victory in the Privy Council reached. He died two days later of a stroke. Swami Rama’s records Bangali Baba foretelling that though the Bhawal Sanyasi would win his case, he would not live to enjoy the fruits of his victory.

The book should be studied alongside Gautam Bhadra’s Jaal Rajaar Kathaa (Story of the Pretender, 2002) that documents the earlier case of Pratapchand of Burdwan. Bhadra points out that impersonators of royalty were no novel phenomenon but had appeared claiming to be Dara Shukoh and Suja and been executed by Aurangzeb. Raghunath Bhao, the Maratha general killed in Panipat, reappeared in Chait Singh’s court and died in prison. In Europe the most famous instance remains that of the Dauphin, Louis XVI’s son, who disappeared from the Bastille, besides the celebrated Man in the Iron Mask, supposedly Louis XIV’s double. Chatterjee provides an extremely interesting link by quoting Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose’s letter to Emilie Schenkl about the Bhawal case. Netaji himself remains the subject of numerous sightings as a sadhu. Chatterjee notes the prevailing paradox of modern government—the individual is presumed to be an imposter unless it is proved otherwise—making the telling point that the situation has worsened after 9/11.