Curzon and the Limits of Viceregal Power: India, 1899-1905. Dhara Anjaria A thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy (PhD), Royal Holloway College, University of London. 1 I declare that the work presented in this thesis is my own and is not the result of plagiarism or collusion. D. D. Anjaria June 2009. 2 A B S T R A C T George Curzon was post-Mutiny India‟s most imperialist, zealous and youngest Viceroy. From 1899-1905, he attempted to single-handedly implement a 12 point reform programme designed to optimise the efficiency of administration, eliciting fierce opposition and support from the divers other constituents of the Government of India. This thesis examines two basic, intersecting themes that defined the course of George Curzon‟s Viceroyalty of India: executive power and the checks upon it. It analyses the degree to which the major constituent components of the Government of India successfully delineated and fenced in the boundaries of Viceregal power by their own, and the extent to which they collaborated with each other to do so, with reference to internal administration. The clashes over polity in the seats of power had roots in the past intimacies of the dramatis personae; impressions gained at Eton were carried over, and influenced relationships in Whitehall. Cross-disciplinary theories of power are used to explain Curzon‟s relations with his provincial governors in Madras and Bombay Presidencies, the United Provinces and Punjab, and the Indian Army, the senior Indian Civil Service, the Viceroy‟s Council, the nascent Indian National Congress and public opinion in India, the British Cabinet, the India Office, the Secretary of State and the Council of India in London. The factors that helped and hindered Curzon in his quest to integrate these disparate elements into an efficient administrative framework run along the lines he wished provide clarity to the ambiguities present in official motives and 3 actions. Underpinning the thesis as a secondary theme are Curzon‟s relations with Lord Ampthill, his longest serving Governor (in Madras) and locum in 1904, which illustrate the evolution of a relationship that started off in expected acrimony, but evolved into a partnership of mutual respect and administrative collaboration. 4 T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S i. Abstract……………………………………………..……………………03 ii. Table of Contents……………….……………..…………………………05 iii. Acknowledgements ……………………….…… ……………………….08 iv. Introduction………………….………………………….…………….….09 Overview of Curzon‟s Viceroyalty- Synopsis of chapters- Methodology- Sources utilised. 1. The Viceroy‟s Aids to Power……………………………………….……………..27 Factors that helped Curzon exercise unfettered power- People – George Hamilton- Lord Ampthill – Mary Leiter- Socio-political factors- Curzon‟s expertise in Asian affairs- His enthusiasm for reform- Hierarchical structure of the Raj- Trend towards Centralisation- Public approbation. 2. The India Office………………………...………………………...………..……...48 Context of the London-Simla relationship- The Constitutional Setting- relationship with Curzon as Viceroy- Attitudes of Arthur Godley- Points of Conflict- The Secretaries of State – 1) Hamilton 2) Brodrick – The India Council- Composition- Attitudes- Conclusion. 3. The Ordering of Subordination in the Presidencies……………………………………………...…………….……..95 Overview- The Simla-Bombay-Madras Status Quo- Centralisation vs. Decentralisation- The Centralisation Debate- Madras: The Governors‟ Haven- Curzon and Havelock- Curzon and Ampthill- Ampthill as Viceroy- Bombay: Insubordination, twice over- Curzon and Sandhurst- Curzon, Northcote and the Bombay Secretariat- Curzon and Lamington- Inter-presidency Rivalry- Conclusion. 4. The Provinces: The ICS and its Head? …………............……………………….140 The ICS‟ assessment of Curzon- Curzon‟s opinions of the ICS- Power Unsheathed: Curzon Vs. Mackworth Young- The Punjab Land Alienation Act- The Creation of the NWFP-Curzon and Sir Antony MacDonnell- The Viceroy‟s Council- Composition- Attitudes- Brodrick‟s attitude to the Viceroy‟s Council-Conclusion. 5. An Officer and A Gentleman? English hiatus, Ampthill & the Kitchener Affair………………………………………………………………………..181 5 The Kitchener Affair- Questions thrown up by its unfolding- Theme 1: Resignation- Kitchener‟s “Resignation” and Ampthill‟s reaction- Curzon‟s Resignation and the Council‟s reaction- Theme 2: Ampthill and the Exigencies of Exercising Probationary Power- Kitchener‟s Reaction to Ampthill‟s Acting Viceroyalty- How Ampthill handled the Crisis- Brodrick, Ampthill and Kitchener- Post-India implications for Ampthill- Conclusion. 6. Communalism, Imperialism and the Dialogue of Inequality: Curzon and the Indian Intelligentsia………………………………………………................221 Assessment of Indian clout vis-à-vis Curzon- Outline- Curzon and Western India- Curzon and the Indian Muslims- Their approval of Curzon- Territorial Redistribution in Bengal-Curzon‟s handling of public reaction- Punjab Land Alienation Act- Curzon‟s manipulation of public reaction- Conclusion. 7 Constraints upon Viceregal Power………………………………………….263 Factors that impeded Curzon‟s administration- Curzon‟s Temperament- Curzon‟s excessive championing of Indian affairs- The Conservative Party and Domestic Politics- The India Office- Compliant colleagues- The Communal Equation in India- Mary Leiter-Conclusion. v. Conclusion……………………………………………………………...283 vi. Bibliography………………………………….....……………...………290 6 For the British in India (1615-1947). 7 Acknowledgements I should like to acknowledge my parents, Jahnavi and Dushyant, my supervisor Francis Robinson, without whose tolerance this thesis would have been abandoned long ago, Hasnain and Nazli Naqvi, Daniel Haines, and Subodh and Pariseema Bijwadia. The British in India were the driving force behind this thesis, inspiring not only its completion but also its form. Few authors of any era in history have recorded „every virtue and every grace‟ of the world they created in more lyrical prose than the Victorian colonial administrators did for theirs- hence it‟s dedicated to them. 8 Introduction By all ye cry and whisper, By all ye leave and do, The silent, sullen peoples, Shall weigh your Gods and you. - Rudyard Kipling, The White Man’s Burden. George Curzon1 was Viceroy of India from 1899-1905, a post to which he was appointed because of his brilliance and resigned because of his intransigence and political naiveté. Curzon can be very conveniently slotted into very many interlocking sections of what Mary Fulbrook calls „historical units of analysis.‟2 The Conservative Viceroy with a passion for strong control of his administration, the aristocratic Victorian globe-trotter, the Imperialist (for both his detractors and admirers); partly because of his well –defined ideological and societal placement, Curzon‟s Viceroyalty has attained legendary status as being symbolic of the operation and functioning of the British in India, and also as being expressive of the ideal of the same. Curzon of Kedleston was born in Derbyshire in 1859. 3 A consciously, if sincerely, nurtured interest in parliamentary politics, so suited to a person of his birth 1 George Nathaniel Curzon, Viscount Scarsdale, Baron Ravensdale, Earl and Marquess Curzon of Kedleston (1859-1925), Parliamentary Under-Secretary, India Office 1891-92 and Foreign Office 1895- 98; Viceroy of India 1899-1905; Lord Privy Seal 1915-16; Lord President of the Council and member of War Cabinet 1916-19; Foreign Secretary 1919-24. 2 Mary Fulbrook, Historical Theory (London: Routledge, 2002), 79. 3 The Curzons were of Norman descent and had come over with William the Conqueror. They had held the estate of Kedleston in Derbyshire for 800 years when George was born. While Kedleston Hall was architecturally renowned, the estate was by no means as prosperous as those held by many of Curzon‟s contemporaries. The lack of belonging to the highest echelons of titled Victorian society may have spurred Curzon on to even greater eminence than he might otherwise have tried for. For a relevant 9 in Victorian Britain, coupled with a passion for the imperial ideal and the foreign policy that forged it, sustained and furthered the interest in India which was crystallised when he heard Sir James Fitzjames Stephen address an Etonian audience in 1876. This was exceptional in that contemporary parliamentary front-benchers did not usually become outstanding career colonial administrators, and vice-versa. Curzon‟s Viceroyalty is an illustration of the difficulties of reconciling the two, both in the Viceroy‟s own persona and in the area of administrative co-ordination. His Conservative political career and the Viceregal office did not always sit easily with each other; the clashes between the two form a substantial part of this thesis. As a person, Curzon was devoted to the puritan work ethic. In this he epitomised the Victorian worship of self-discipline.4 His assessment of the Viceregal office was that it was a project „calling for great knowledge of the country, administrative experience, unflagging energy, and almost imperious power.‟5 His preparations for Viceregal office, which took the form of travels (and resulting monographs) around the conglomeration of states and empires that ringed British India, have been too well- chronicled by all his biographers to be reproduced here yet again. He came to the office in 1898, succeeding the Earl of Elgin, and continuing the long tradition of Conservative Etonian Viceroys who had also been the pupils of Balliol master Benjamin Jowett.