THE POWER BEHIND THE THRONE: RELATIONS BETWEEN THE BRITISH AND THE INDIAN STATES 1870-1909 Caroline Keen Submitted for the degree of Ph. D. at the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, October 2003. ProQuest Number: 10731318 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a com plete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. uest ProQuest 10731318 Published by ProQuest LLC(2017). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States C ode Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106- 1346 2 ABSTRACT This thesis explores the manner in which British officials attempted to impose ideas of ‘good government’ upon the Indian states and the effect of such ideas upon the ruling princes of those states. The work studies the crucial period of transition from traditional to modem rule which occurred for the first generation of westernised princes during the latter decades of the nineteenth century. It is intended to test the hypothesis that, although virtually no aspect of palace life was left untouched by the paramount power, having instigated fundamental changes in princely practice during minority rule the British paid insufficient attention to the political development of their adult royal proteges. In many cases traditional royal practice and authority were deemed expendable in the urgency to instigate efficient and accountable methods of administration in states. The five sections following the introduction examine the life cycle of an Indian prince and the role of British officials at each stage of the cycle. The first section examines the position of the British in determining disputed successions to the Indian princely thrones. The second section deals with the first generation of Indian rulers to be exposed to a western education, either under an English tutor attached to a court or at one of the new princely colleges. The third section looks at marriages of Indian rulers and the extent to which royal women were empowered by British indirect rule. The fourth section tackles the administration of princely states and the relative success of political officers in turning Indian princes from traditional rulers into westernised administrators. The final section looks at British efforts to alter court hierarchy and ritual to conform to strict British bureaucratic guidelines and ideas of accountability. In analysing this critical phase of princely development the thesis makes a major contribution to the understanding of the progression of indirect rule under the Raj. TABLE OF CONTENTS ABBREVIATIONS 4 MAP 5 INDIAN PRINCES AND DEWANS 6 PREFACE 8 INTRODUCTION 16 THE PRINCELY LIFE CYCLE I SUCCESSION 44 II EDUCATION 71 HI MARRIAGE AND ROYAL WOMEN 133 IV ADMINISTRATION 181 V HIERARCHY AND RITUAL 240 CONCLUSION 294 GLOSSARY 304 BIBLIOGRAPHY 306 ABBREVIATIONS AGG Agent to the Governor-General Cl Central India FD Foreign Department Gol Government of India IOL India Office Library NWP North West Provinces PCI Political Correspondence with India (IOL) Pol. Political PP Parliamentary Papers (IOL) PSCI Political and Secret Correspondence with 1 R/l and R/2 Crown Representative Records (IOL) Res. Resident SoS Secretary of State (for India) 5 Lawrence James 1997 6 INDIAN PRINCES AND DEWANS Dates refer to reigns or terms in office Baroda Malharrao, Gaekwar 1870-1875 Sayajirao HE, Gaekwar 1875-1939 Madhava Rao, Dewan 1875-1881 Bhopal Shahjehan, Begam 1868-1901 Sultan Jahan, Begam 1901-1926 Bikaner Ganga Singh Rathor, Maharajah 1887-1943 Gwalior Madhav Rao Scindia, Maharaj ah 1886-1925 Hyderabad Mahbub Ali Khan, Nizam 1884-1911 Salar Jung I, Diwan 1853-1883 Salar Jung, II, Diwan 1884-1887 Indore Shivaji Rao Holkar, Maharaj ah 1886-1903 Jind Bhupinder Singh, Rajah 1900-1938 7 Jodhpur Jaswant Singh II, Maharajah 1873-1895 Sardar Singh, Maharajah 1895-1911 Kashmir Ranbir Singh, Maharajah 1857-1885 Sir Pratab Singh Bahadur, Maharajah 1885-1925 Mewar (Udaipur) Fateh Singh, Maharana 1884-1930 Mysore Chamarajendra IX Wadiar, Maharajah 1881-1894 Krishnaraja IV Wadiar, Maharajah 1894-1918 Pudukkottai Ramachandra Tondahnan, Rajah 1839-1886 Martanda Bhairava Tondahnan, Rajah 1886-abdicated 1920 A. Sashiah Sastri, Dewan 1878-1894 Travancore Mulam Tirunal, Maharajah 1885-1924 T. Madhava Rao, Dewan 1860-1872 A. Sashiah Sastri, Dewan 1873-1877 8 PREFACE The years following the Indian Mutiny of 1857 to the beginning of the twentieth century are regarded by modem historians as a period in which the British cooperated with the Indian princes within a deliberate policy to build up the states as part of a network of alliances formed by Britain among influential Indians. Thomas Metcalf, for example, refers to the last decades of the nineteenth century as a ‘golden age’ for the princes1, and Francis Hutchins stresses the continuing support of native rulers during this period.2 In the light of the evidence provided in this thesis these views need to be re-evaluated. British support of its princely allies was by no means as effective as it might have been. Ian Copland has described the devotion to progress which lay behind the ‘mission civilisatrice’ of many young British political officers as they embarked on their career as trusted advisors to the rulers.3 However these officers were frequently accused of incompetent meddling in states’ administrations by their superiors and given little support in the impossible task of coordinating the different factions participating in state government, and in particular ensuring that Indian rulers played a significant role in their administrations. Such a negative approach by no means produced a ‘golden age’ for the princes. The continuing British efforts throughout the period to ‘support’ its adult princely allies in fact frequently consisted of little more than spasmodic efforts by residents and political agents to act as referees between various parties within a state. 1 Thomas R. Metcalf,The Aftermath of Revolt: India 1857-1870 (Princeton, 1964), p. 323 2 Francis Hutchins, The Illusion o f Permanence: British Imperialism in India (Princeton, 1967). p. 171 3 Ian Copland, The British Raj and the Indian Princes: Paramountcy in Western India, 1857-1930 (Bombay, 1982), p. 130. 9 In every area of Indian royal rule emphasis was placed by the paramount power above all else upon the virtues of accountability and efficiency. No stone was left unturned in the efforts to turn palace life into a model of openness, rules and regulations. The huge emphasis placed by the British upon exposure of young heirs to the throne to a western education was undoubtedly intended to further their espousal of such an exemplary life style. At the same time bureaucracies constructed on the British Indian model were introduced and fostered by the British in the interests of ‘good government’. However in the urgency to introduce visible and sound methods of administration into states there appeared to be too little emphasis on ensuring that an adult ruler in the first generation of westernised princes was given sufficient time and encouragement to abandon age-old ideas of largesse and autocracy to become a model frugal administrator operating above all in the interests of his subjects. There is evidence that, following significant British commitment to areas such as royal education and minority rule, political officers often neglected adult rulers in the maelstrom of state politics and the pursuit of well-regulated government, resulting in the loss of the traditional princely power base. British efforts at reform tended to be focused upon the minutiae of administrative procedure rather than the more challenging task of adapting an Indian prince to late nineteenth century requirements. At the same time royal status and influence were lost through deliberate attempts on the part of the British to sanitise palace practice and to adapt displays of ceremony and largesse to western standards. Princes were often bound by treaty to rule according to British advice, making the post of resident one of considerable responsibility yet, since residents were often divided in the priorities of, on the one hand, the progress of their royal charge and raising the moral tone of the royal household, and, on the other, the demands of 10 setting up an efficient system of government, it was not surprising that many princes resorted to ‘palace favorites and parallel administrations which they could control and which could often outflank the official bureaucracy’.4 As Robin Jeffrey has pointed out, much ‘misrule’ and princely ‘excess’ were the products of the impossible situation in which a prince was placed, and the dichotomy he faced in attempting to reconcile western and oriental cultures.5 For a political officer a similar tension was created by the clash of a western upbringing with an alien Indian culture, and the degree to which he was influenced by the widely held Victorian construction of India as ‘backward and uncivilized’, associating the subcontinent with such depravities as ‘oriental corruption’, ‘female incarceration’ and ‘male effeminacy’. During the period the Political Department patently lacked the backing of the Government of India to enable it to guide an Indian ruler from the cultural onslaught of an English education into his new role as head of a sophisticated bureaucratic machine. As will be considered in the introduction, the Department by repute consisted of men of a somewhat mediocre education and conservative instincts, despite their enthusiasm. However a lack of intellectual calibre cannot be held entirely responsible for the failure of political officers to intervene to ensure that the Indian princes played a significant role in their administrations.