Economies, Moralities, and State Formations in British Colonial India

Economies, Moralities, and State Formations in British Colonial India By Nicholas Hoover Wilson A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Sociology in the Graduate Division of the University of California, Berkeley Committee in charge: Professor Ann Swidler, Chair Professor Neil Fligstein Professor James Vernon Professor Dylan Riley Fall 2012 Abstract Economies, Moralities, and State Formations in British Colonial India by Nicholas Hoover Wilson Doctor of Philosophy in Sociology University of California, Berkeley Professor Ann Swidler, Chair How is modern power organized? My dissertation explores this question by probing how state, society, and economy became ethically autonomous spheres for colonial administrators. In other words, I ask how officials shifted justifications for their behavior from referring to their immedi- ate peers to the abstract imperatives of markets, the social, and sovereignty. Corruption scandals were a key cause of this shift. Endemic to the English East India Trading Company's administration in India since its foundation, these scandals generally involved administrative squabbles escalating into appeals to authorities in London. However, while the scandals had a consistent form, the Seven Years War decisively changed their content. The war eroded the insulation protecting the Company's London authorities from Parliament and put a host of new actors who had little knowledge of Indian affairs in a position to influence the Company's behavior. Consequently, when Company officials in India appealed to London, they used the abstract moral language of state, society, and economy to appeal to these new actors for assistance. Moreover, these newly abstract justifications were then used by the succeeding class of senior Company administrators as resources to shape reforms of the Colonial State in India. The analysis in this dissertation is based on archival research at the India Office Records of the British Library in London and at Cambridge University. It analyzes and compares scandals in each of the Company's three major administrative units in India. In Bengal, the ejection of William Bolts and the impeachment of Warren Hastings generated arguments supporting the state's sovereignty. In the 1790s, Charles Cornwallis deployed these arguments to reform administrative conduct and ratify the development of an extremely powerful state apparatus. In Madras, meanwhile, the Nawab of Arcot's debts scandal precipitated the wholesale reformation of that region's administration in the 1790s and 1800s. Whereas Bengal's development ratified the state, in Madras administrative conflict centered on notions of defending Indian society. Accordingly, Madras officials justified their policy decisions by invoking “society” as an autonomous sphere with its own moral logics. Finally, in Bombay in the 1810s, the impeachment and ejection of a senior civil servant for alleged corruption led to debates in which free market princi- ples were invoked as the foundation for administrative action. 1 Acknowledgments This dissertation has been helped by innumerable people, and while I remain responsible for its flaws and defects, it literally would not exist without the care, stimulation, and support I have received from others over the last decade. I have been lucky to work with a tremendously supportive and encouraging dissertation committee at Berkeley. Above all, Ann Swidler, my chair, has stood behind me with support, critical engagement, and faith as I turned from a scruffy prospective graduate student chatting with her about AIDS policy in Africa after colloquium in the Blumer conference room to a scruffy Post- doctoral Associate chatting with her about Malawian gin across Bancroft avenue at Free House. Through it all, she has gently reminded me when I most needed it that kindness is no enemy of insight, and that the most profound ideas can also be expressed most clearly. I owe what virtues there are in this dissertation to her and her ecumenical sociological knowledge. Along with Ann, Neil Fligstein has been a tireless supporter of me and my research. From an office-hours meeting with him during my first year as a graduate student, Neil has seen beyond all my unclear statements, wild tangents, and digressions to recognize the value in studying 18th century imperialism. Moreover, he has continually provided me with material support—in the form of an office and space to grow a lime tree on the roof of the Institute for Research into Labor and Employment—and an intellectual home—in the form of his ongoing workshop series in the Center for Culture, Organizations, and Politics. I have learned an enormous amount about how to look at institutions and the social world from Neil. In addition to Ann and Neil, I’ve also have the privilege of working with Dylan Riley. Perhaps embarrassingly, I have been at Berkeley longer than Dylan has, and he has not only been hired but also tenured over the course of my studies. Yet from the moment he asked me what I meant by “governance” in his comparative-historical methods class to the moment recently when he advised me on how to best organize my own version of that course for my new position, Dylan has been a model of analytical rigor, intellectual insight, and empirical precision that I hope to emulate. Last, but hardly least, my committee was complimented and completed by James Vernon. Like Ann, Neil, and Dylan, James’ intellectual and personal influence has been profound. Though I could be counted on to ask bizarre questions, James welcomed me into the community of British historians working at Berkeley, first in his class on the “Making of Modern Britain,” and later through Berkeley’s Center for British Studies. I still remember how nervous I was to ask him to be on my committee, and I remained humbled that he agreed. James’ knowledge of the British empire and his intellectual encouragement loom large over this work. One of Berkeley’s greatest virtues is that its faculty gives its time generously and widely. Thus I have many more faculty to thank, all of whom (sometimes unwittingly) aided and abetted this i project: Vicki Bonnell, Claude Fischer, Marion Fourcade, Heather Haveman, John Lie, Kristin Luker, Dawne Moon, Loic Wacquant, Margaret Weir, and Robb Willer. Outside of Berkeley, I’ve received essential feedback from Julian Go, George Steinmetz, and Phil Stern. Beyond Berkeley’s walls, I have also been privileged to enjoy a second intellectual home at Yale’s sociology department, where Julia Adams has mentored and supported me during a visit- ing studentship and soon as a Postdoctoral Associate. Additionally, I have learned a tremendous amount from the faculty there, including Steven Pincus, Phil Gorski, Emily Erikson, Peter Stam- atov, and Jonathan Wyrtzen. I also had the benefit of getting to know and receiving valuable feedback and intellectual engagement from the wonderfully collegial graduate students and postdocs, among whom Annette Fasang, Andy Junker, Sam Nelson, Matt Norton, and Xiaohong Xu stood out especially. During a critical nine-month archival visit to Britain, I was also welcomed by Pembroke College, Cambridge, and benefited greatly from the welcome and intellectual stimulation of my supervi- sor, Professor Sir Christopher Bayly. I also benefited from conversations with David Washbrook and Jon Wilson. The department of social sciences at Cambridge also provided me with office space and friendship from the wonderful graduate students there, particularly Ireene Daily, Frens Kroeger, and Inga Schowengerdt. Refreshing and stimulating though these trips may have been, I could always rely in Berkeley on my fellow graduate students and postdocs for support, encouragement, and feedback. For con- sistently showing me what an intellectual community could be, I have Nick Adams, Rachel Best, Dariush Bozorgmehri, Jonah Stuart Brundage, Ryan Calder, Chris Chambers-Ju, Siri Colom, Sarah Cowan, Luke Dauter, Cyrus Dioun, Peter Dixon, Dawn Dow, Charlie Eaton, Michel Este- fan, Desmond Fitzgibbon, Trevor Gardner, Joanna Guldi, Grahame Foreman, Eric Gianella, Jacob Habinek, Kimberly Kay Hoang, Naomi Hsu, Penny Ismay, Alex Janus, Jenn Jones, Riyad Koya, Abby Larson, Roi Livne, Sarah Macdonald, Ellis Monk, Ben Moodie, Freeden Oeur, Mar- cel Paret, Tianna Paschel, Alina Polyakova, Jennifer Randles, Erendira Rueda, Caroline Shaw, Stephen Smith, and Manuel Vallee to thank. I have been especially fortunate, though, to have even closer intellectual engagements with students who have become friends in addition to being colleagues. Among these people, Laura Mangels, Sarah Garrett, Kristen Gray, Luke Dauter, Sarah Quinn, Adam Slez, and Josh Pacewicz stand out. What’s more, the spouses and partners of these wonderful folks, including Jesse, Sofie, and Brian, have endured my oddities with good humor. But a troika of close friends have stamped themselves on my life like no others: Barry Eidlin, whose tirelessness in his research and intellectual precision have inspired me; Brian Lande, whose theoretical knowledge, coura- geous research, and compassion have supported me when I needed it; and Damon Mayrl, whose insight, encouragement, and friendship have sustained and educated me over many pitchers. Of course, none of this would have been possible but for the support of my family. My father, Gary, has taught me how to write, and also the similarities between the writer’s and sociologist’s eye. My mother, Modena, instilled her love of science, knowledge, and trying to make the world ii a better place by combining the two as she provided a professional model I am still learning from. My brother, Christopher, has led the way, along most every path I have walked, as only a big brother can. My sister-in-law, Steffie, has demonstrated unstoppable energy, enthusiasm, kindness, and wisdom while somehow juggling family and career. My niece Maddy, too, has shown me (as she enters her climbing phase) that even the most daunting peaks (like the backs of chairs) can be summited.

Load more