Introduction: India, Australia and Empire This thesis studies the ways in which the colonial governments of India and Australia were connected between 1857 and 1901. The thesis examines the ways in which the governments communicated, the functioning of the power relationship between them, and the ways in which they cooperated with and aided one another. Numerous examples of disagreements and tension are discussed. Throughout, I examine the perceptions that underpinned the relationship between the two colonial governments, which were reflected in language, symbolism and culture. By performing an analysis of discourse, a far deeper understanding of the relationship can be achieved than by solely examining events or results. This study is the first to examine the relationship between India and Australia in this way. Considering these questions enables us to test the extent and nature of India‟s power in the British empire and to understand both Australia‟s position within the empire and the relationship between the two colonies. As there was a vast traffic of communication and goods travelling between Britain, India and Australia, I will focus solely on interactions between governments and government departments. There are many examples of familial and financial connections between India and Australia, but they are too numerous to cover in any appropriate amount of detail.1 Analysis of governmental sources from India and the Australian colonies enables examination of the specific power relationship between India and the Australian colonies in a way that has not yet been done. Re-Centring Empire The perspective of this thesis borrows from some recent works on India‟s role in the British empire. Historians have recently reconsidered the structures behind the British empire. 2 Significantly, within this restructuring, some recent studies have attempted to redefine India‟s role in imperial administration. The work of two scholars on this subject in particular informs the perspective of this thesis. These works are Thomas R. Metcalf‟s Imperial Connections: India in the Indian Ocean Arena 1860-1920 and Robert J. Blyth‟s 1 For a recent discussion of the anecdotal links between India and Australia, see P. Holroyd and J. Westrip, Colonial Cousins, A Surprising History of Connections Between India and Australia (Kent Town, South Australia, 2010). 2 For some recent works on the British empire, see P. Levine, The British Empire: Sunrise to Sunset (Harlow, 2007), pp. 61-81 and J. Hart, Empire and Colonies (Cambridge, 2008). 1 Empire of the Raj: India, Eastern Africa and the Middle East, 1858-1947. These scholars both view India as a central or „nodal‟ point of power within the British empire.3 India was a huge colony both geographically and in terms of population. Geopolitically, it was an extremely useful base from which to administer the empire. While Britain was geographically small and isolated, India was vast and centrally located. By controlling India, Britain was able to increase its influence in South-East Asia, Eastern Africa and the Middle East. It did so partly through the use of India‟s people and resources around the empire, and also through the administrative power given to India. The first work to be published on this subject was Metcalf‟s small chapter, titled „The Empire Recentered‟. 4 This work closely foreshadows the perspective of Imperial Connections, and formed the basis for its introduction. The following year, Blyth‟s much larger work was published. Blyth uses the same approach as Metcalf, viewing India as a power centre, but he discusses India‟s influence in different arenas.5 He argues that India‟s role in colonial administration operated along three „key axes‟.6 The first was the supervision of activities in the Persian Gulf. The second, which developed from that connection to the Persian Gulf, was the Gulf of Oman and the affairs of Muscat. This led to the third sphere: India‟s significant interest in East Africa, particularly around Arabia and the Somali coast.7 Blyth focuses on the role of the Foreign Department of the Government of India. Metcalf describes those within this department as bureaucrats managing British India - imagining themselves at the centre of „sub-imperial‟ diplomacy, in control of managing Britain‟s affairs, but working from India.8 Tony Ballantyne has clarified the recentring of the empire by arguing for a different conception of the British empire. He writes that the empire had previously been viewed as a 3 The term „nodal‟ point of power is used by Metcalf. See T. R. Metcalf, Imperial Connections: India in the Indian Ocean Arena, 1860-1920 (Berkeley, 2007); T. R. Metcalf, „The Empire Recentered: India in the Indian Ocean Arena‟, in G. Blue, M. P. Bunton and R. C. Croizier, Colonialism and the Modern World, (London, 2002), pp. 25-39. R. J. Blyth, The Empire of the Raj: India, Eastern Africa and the Middle East, 1858-1947 (New York, 2003). The work of Christopher Bayly is also particularly informative to the perspective of this thesis. See: C. A. Bayly, The Birth of the Modern World, 1870-1914: Global Connections and Comparisons (Malden, 2004); C. A. Bayly, Empire and Information : Intelligence Gathering and Social Communication in India, 1780-1870 (Cambridge, 1996) and C. A. Bayly, Imperial Meridian: The British Empire and the World 1780-1830 (Harlow, 1989). 4 Metcalf, „Empire Recentered‟. 5 Blyth, The Empire of the Raj. 6 Ibid. 7 Ibid., pp. 1-10. 8 This is shown by Blyth. Metcalf concurs with Blyth‟s argument, drawing on the works of H. M. Durand, Foreign Secretary from 1885-94, as an example. Metcalf, Imperial Connections, p. 6. 2 „hub and spoke‟ system in which London was the „hub‟ and various colonies were „spokes‟.9 Ballantyne describes the empire as a complicated web, consisting of „horizontal filaments that run among various colonies in addition to “vertical” connections between the metropole and individual colonies‟. He goes on to say that India was a sub-imperial centre in its own right.10 Metcalf takes this approach and expands upon India‟s role within it. He emphasizes the sub- imperial role of India within this system, writing that „if not quite a “spider” sitting at the heart of the web, India is, I argue, more than just one of the many colonial “knots” that may be said to constitute that web‟.11 Transnational history provides another approach, which has arguably been lacking from Australian history.12 Malcolm Allbrook has produced a study of empire and colonial government through studying the lives of the Prinsep family in India and Australia. His approach to the subject, though he focuses on a family rather than the governments in question, demonstrates the usefulness of viewing Australian history within the wider framework of colonial history.13 Throughout this thesis, the terms „Indian government‟ and „Government of India‟ will be used. Britain‟s method for governing India comprised three levels of government – the imperial government in London, the central government in Calcutta and provincial governments known as Presidencies. The terms „Indian government‟ and „Government of India‟ refer to the central government in Calcutta – which included the Indian Military Department and Foreign Department and had control over India‟s external relations. The India Office and the Secretary of State for India were based in London. The Secretary of State for India was intended to represent India‟s interests in cabinet, but at the same time was a minister of the Crown. It is here that the line between „Indian government‟ and „British government‟ becomes somewhat blurred.14 These issues and their impact on this thesis will be addressed in more detail in Chapter One. 9 T. Ballantyne, „Rereading the Archive and Opening up the Nation State: Colonial Knowledge in South Asia‟, in A. Burton (ed.), After the Imperial Turn: Thinking with and Through the Nation (Durham, 2003), pp. 112-3. 10 Ibid. 11 Metcalf, Imperial Connections, pp. 7-8. 12 For some examples of transnational history involving Australia, see, for example: M. Lake and H. Reynolds, Drawing the Global Colour Line: White Men’s Countries and the Question of Racial Equality (Carlton, 2008) and A. Curthoys and M. Lake (eds.), Connected Worlds: History in Transnational Perspective (Canberra, 2005). 13 Allbrook, M., „“Imperial Family”‟: The Prinseps, Empire and Colonial Government in India and Australia‟ (unpublished PhD thesis, Griffith University, 2008). 14 On Indian governance, see: M. C. C. Seton, The India Office (London, 1925); S. N. Singh, The Secretary of State for India and his Council (Delhi, 1962); C. Jeffries, The Colonial Office (London, 1956) and H. L. Hall, The Colonial Office (London, 1937). On the Presidencies, see Blyth, Empire of the Raj. 3 In Imperial Connections, Metcalf places India not at the periphery of the British empire and the global economic system, but at the centre.15 He describes it as a power centre that emanated people, ideas, goods and institutions or, as Metcalf puts it, „everything that enables an empire to exist‟, to different British colonies. 16 He goes on to illustrate his argument through thematic chapters on all these aspects of India‟s role in the British empire. He focuses on the period of the „new imperialism‟, between 1860 and 1920. In this period, the British empire expanded deeper into South East Asia, the Middle East and Africa. Metcalf focuses on colonies from these regions. He shows the ways in which India was involved in this expansion; as a source of labour, a means of projecting power, a central administrative base and an example of how best to govern „colonial people‟. Like Blyth, he also dedicates a chapter to India‟s role in East Africa. He aims to show how East Africa was „almost an extension of India itself‟.17 According to Metcalf, the change in ruler from the East India Company to the Crown in 1858 began India‟s transformation into the imperial centre of the Indian Ocean.18 He shows that India was heavily involved in projecting military power, spreading people around the world (such as indentured or „coolie‟ labourers) and contributing economically, by providing goods to other British colonies.