This Essay Explains Benjamin Disraeli Parliamentary Response to The
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Conservatism and British imperialism in India: finding the local roots of empire in Britain and India by Matthew Stubbings A thesis presented to the University of Waterloo in fulfillment of the thesis requirement for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in History Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, 2015 © Matthew Stubbings 2015 Author’s Declaration I hereby declare that I am the sole author of this thesis. This is a true copy of the thesis, including any required final revisions, as accepted by my examiners. I understand that my thesis may be made electronically available to the public ii Abstract This thesis explores the importance of political conservatism in shaping the ideological and political foundations of British imperialism in India between 1857 and 1914. From the Indian Revolt to the rise of Indian nationalism, it examines how British and Indian conservatives attempted to define a conceptual and institutional framework of empire which politically opposed liberal imperialism to the First World War. It relies upon a biographical analysis to examine how intellectual configurations defined distinct political positions on Indian empire. This study reveals the extent that local conservative inclination and action, through political actors such as Lord Ellenborough, Benjamin Disraeli, Lord Mayo, Lord Lytton, the Kathiawar States, Roper Lethbridge, and M.M. Bhownaggree, shaped public and partisan discourse on empire. It argues that British and Indian conservatives evoked shared principles centered in locality, prescription, and imagination to challenge, mollify, and supplant the universal and centralizing ambitions of liberal imperialists and nationalists with the employment of pre-modern ideas and institutions. It is argued that this response to liberalism conditioned their shared contribution and collaboration towards an imperial framework predicated principally upon respecting and supporting local autonomy and traditional authority in a hierarchical and divided India. This formulated political positions and policy on Indian empire which advocated for the state’s primacy, paternal local authority and property obligation, and veneration for the transcendent qualities of tradition and religion. Moreover, this framework conditioned a challenge to a European civilizational definitions of race and identity, with an incorporative and vertical identity and subjecthood determined by a state’s, group’s, or individual’s national belonging as well as loyalty and obligation to the Crown. iii Acknowledgements iv Table of Contents Author’s Declaration……………………………………………………………………...........ii Abstract………………………………………………………………………………………..iii Acknowledgements……………………………………………………………………………iv Table of Contents………………………………………………………………........................v Thesis Introduction: Finding the Local Roots of Conservative Empire……………………..........1 Section 1: A Tory Response to the Indian Revolt………………………………..........................37 Chapter 1: Ellenborough and Tory Imperialism…………………...........................................39 Chapter 2: Disraeli’s Challenge to Whig Ascendency in India................................................75 Chapter 3: 1858 Government of India Act and the Queen’s Proclamation……………........102 Section Conclusion……………………………………………………………………..........110 Section 2: Forging Conservative Collaborations in the Indian Empire………….......................112 Chapter 4: Mayo the Irish-Indian Viceroy……………………………………………..........114 Chapter 5: Lytton’s “Indian Privy Council”…………………………………………….......142 Chapter 6: The Kathiawar States and Conservative Empire………………………………...179 Section Conclusion…………………………………………………………………….........213 Section 3: A Conservative Challenge to Liberal Imperialism and Nationalism……..................214 Chapter 7: Roper Lethbridge and Imperial Federation with India……………………..........216 Chapter 8: M.M Bhownaggree and Conservatism in Western India…………………..........249 Section Conclusion……………………………………………………………………......... 283 Thesis Conclusion: Conservative Imperialism Defined…………………………………..........284 Bibliography……………………………………………………………………………………292 v Thesis Introduction: Finding the Local Roots of Conservative Empire This thesis explores the importance of political conservatism in shaping the ideological and political foundations of British imperialism in India between 1857 and 1914. From the Indian Revolt to the rise of Indian nationalism, it examines how British and Indian conservatives attempted to define a conceptual and institutional framework of empire which politically opposed liberal imperialism to the First World War. It relies upon a biographical analysis to examine how intellectual configurations defined distinct political positions on British imperialism in India. This study reveals the extent that local conservative inclination and action, through political actors such as Lord Ellenborough, Benjamin Disraeli, Lord Mayo, Lord Lytton, the Kathiawar States, M.M. Bhownaggree, and Roper Lethbridge, shaped public and partisan discourse regarding the objectives of Indian Empire. It argues that British and Indian conservatives evoked shared principles centered in locality, prescription, and imagination to challenge, mollify, and supplant the universal and centralizing ambitions of liberal imperialists and nationalists. This thesis contributes to British imperial historiography on two levels. First, it will show that British and Indian conservatives expanded local and pre-modern political and social concepts to influence the nature and purpose of Indian Empire in the nineteenth century. Second, it demonstrates that British and Indian conservatives collaborated in defining an imperial framework which corresponded with their ideas and institutions. While seeing the “modern period” as starting in the eighteenth century, this study defines “modernity” conceptually as the product of liberal ideology which adhered to the universal applicability of progress, scientific rationalism, and individual autonomy. It is shown that British and Indian conservatives viewed 1 liberalism as an alien and intrusive political and social force, and responded with the employment of pre-modern ideas and institutions predicated on locality, prescription, and imagination. It is argued that British and Indian conservative responses to liberalism conditioned their shared contribution and collaboration towards an imperial framework predicated principally upon respecting and supporting local autonomy and traditional authority. This formulated political positions and policy on Indian Empire that advocated for the state’s primacy, paternal local authority and property obligation, and veneration for the transcendent qualities of tradition and religion. Historiography: Imperializing British and Indian Conservatism A growing scholarship on British conservatism’s philosophical underpinnings illustrates that its principles and policies were enforced by a skeptical view of human nature which proscribed limits to state and individual reasoning. Using the term “conservative” to label adherents of tory and conservative political philosophies, this thesis demonstrates that eighteenth century toryism informed the intellectual development of British conservatism in the nineteenth century. On state primacy, Roger Scruton argues that “the conservative believes in the power of the state as necessary to the state’s authority, and will seek to establish and enforce that power in the face of every influence that opposes it.” He argues that in contrast to a Lockean individualist perspective, conservatives believe that people exist in a ‘non-contractual’ pre-existing social order defined through a natural bond of locality. This contextualizes conservatism’s commitment to property. He explains that conservatives maintain a romantic perspective of property which 2 seeks to fuse capitalism with a feudal obligation of duty.1 Nigel Ashford and Stephen Davies argue that conservatives conceive that an individual’s duties and responsibilities are determined within a particular social context. Just like the individual, the conservative sees political and social institutional legitimacy deriving from their endurance over time in a specific environment.2 Noël O’Sullivan contends that conservatives believe in an unmalleable and unintelligible world, and, therefore, accept the limits that the latter places on an individual’s or state’s reason and will. Moreover, conservatives comprehend that these limits and the variety of individual and group wants make compromise necessary for a functioning society.3 This recognition of human nature’s rational limit informs a conservative’s cautious approach to reform. Greatly influenced by Edmund Burke’s Reflections on the French Revolution (1790), Ted Honderich relates an individual’s self-identity and self-interest to historically familiar political and social institutions. This leads to an aversion to complete change, but acceptance of gradual reform through existing institutions.4 Levente Nagy sees conservatives’ propensity for measured and reflective change from their acknowledgement of the national growth of society through organic interaction, extra-human religious, psychological, and natural influences, and traditional ideas of the good life.5 Arthur Aughey combines concepts of an organic society and limited human reason to propose that conservatives envision societal 1 Roger Scruton, The meaning of conservatism, 2nd edition (London: Macmillan, 1984), 21-31, 115. 2 Nigel Ashford and Stephen Davies ed., A dictionary of conservative and libertarian