Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T16:48:46.689Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Punjab Government and Communal Politics, 1870–1908

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 March 2011

N. Gerald Barrier
Get access

Extract

One of the most controversial interpretations of recent Indian history is that the British governed the subcontinent through a strategy of divide and rule which led to Hindu-Muslim conflict and ultimately the 1947 partition. Divide et Impera has often been portrayed in vernacular tracts, Congress publications, and scholarly works as a fundamental cause of communal tension.

The similar assumptions, methodology, and sources upon which these assessments rest, however, have resulted in a clouding of key issues and a misreading of the historical record. The studies generally focus upon twentieth-century developments such as Hindu and Muslim political parties or communal riots and then project their findings backward to earlier periods. Because British attempts to play Hindu and Muslim against one another apparently intensified antagonism following the Morley-Minto reforms, it is argued that similar policies prior to 1900 helped create the initial estrangement between the two communities. Communal activities are admittedly easier to examine once Hindus and Muslims began to organize for elections and legislative proceedings, but preoccupation with formal competition and a concomitant simplistic explanation of the origins of communalism have postponed a much-needed investigation of the formative period in the nineteenth-century when British rule and changes within Indian society set the stage for subsequent communal organization.

Type
Articles
Information
The Journal of Asian Studies , Volume 27 , Issue 3 , May 1968 , pp. 523 - 539
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Asian Studies, Inc. 1968

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 The voluminous tract literature includes Duni Chand, Divide and Rule (Lahore, n.d.); Gopal, Nand, Sādā-i-Hind (Lahore, 1909)Google Scholar; Joshi, V. C. (ed.), Lala Lajpat Rai Writings and Speeches (2 vols.; New Delhi, 1966), II, 159–60Google Scholar. The clearest illustration of the Congress position is A History of the Hindu-Muslim Problem in India from the Earliest Contacts up to Its Present Phase with Suggestions for Its Solutions (Allahabad, 1933)Google Scholar. Three recent scholarly studies perpetuating this outlook are Ram Gopal, Indian Muslims (Bombay, 1964)Google Scholar; Smith, Wilfred Cantwell, Modern Islam in India (2d. rev. ed.; Lahore, 1963)Google Scholar; Das, M. N., India under Morley and Minio (London, 1964).Google Scholar

2 Hindu-Muslim Problem, pp. 113–44, 153Google Scholar; Chand, Duni, Divide and Rule, p. 34Google Scholar; Khutba Sadārat (Ambala, 1921), p. 3Google Scholar. The Congress interpretation, as reflected in its above-mentioned study of the 1931 Cawnporc Riots, claimed that there had been a “national synthesis” of Hindus and Muslims before the British split them apart.

3 Evidenced particularly in Das's assessment of communalism and the Bengal partition. Often Das discusses provincial policy and then immediately moves to Indian government policy without noting that often the two administrations were in conflict. Similar in Hindu-Muslim Problem, pp. 151–53.Google Scholar

4 The inner maneuvering discussed in Low, Anthony, “The Government of India and the First NonCooperation Movement, 1920–22,” JAS, XXV (1966), 241–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Also, Broomfield, John H., “Politics and the Bengal Legislative Council, 1912–1926” (unpub. PhD. diss., Aust. Nat. U., 1963)Google Scholar; Reeves, P. D., “The Land-Lord's Response to Political Change in the United Provinces of Agra and Oudh, India, 1921–1937” (unpub. PhD. diss., Aust. Nat. U., 1963).Google Scholar

5 A favorite quote is Ellenborough's suggestion in 1843 that the British should side with one community and forget the other. Smith, , Islam, p. 179Google Scholar; Gopal, , Muslims, p. 46Google Scholar; Hindu-Muslim Problem, pp. 121–22Google Scholar; Sadiq, Ghulam, Muslamān Kī lltimās (Amritsar, 1893), p. 15Google Scholar. Smith also goes into the economic roots of communalism, but he presents little analysis on the pre-1900 period and apparently accepts the version of British policy given in nationalist studies.

6 For example, the detailed treatment of cow protection in British records. At least 50 lengthy files in the National Archives of India (Home Public and Police) discuss regional and pan-regional movements.

7 Confidential circular by John Lawrence, 22S, Keepwith (KW), Punjab Government General File (PGG), Oct. 9, 1858, 63–63½ (the 1858 circular contains excerpts from the earlier one). Punjab school discussed in the following: Temple, Richard, Men and Events of My Time in India (London, 1882), pp. 47–96Google Scholar; Thorburn, S. S., The Punjab in Peace and War (London, 1904), pp. 165–76Google Scholar; Cust, R. N., Memoirs of Past Years of a Septaugenarian (London, 1899), pp. 25–87Google Scholar. Unless otherwise noted, PG proceedings are from the West Pakistan Record Office, Lahore.

8 Despite the paucity of studies on the Sikh period, British proceedings contain discussions of Sikhpolicy and its consequences. For example, Edwardes minute, Feb. 2, 1849, PGG(KW), Oct. 9, 1858, 63–63½.

9 Edwardes minute, Feb. 2, 1849. Also marginal notes by John Lawrence.

10 Sec. note, undated, PG Confidential (C) File 121. The Punjab tended to be divided into a western, predominately Muslim area and a Sikh-Hindu area to the east In 1881 there were 10,336,150 Muslims (52.4 percent of the total population, 18,850,437), 7,130,528 Hindus (38.2 percent) and 1,121,100 Sikhs (6 percent). Punjab Census, 1881, II, Table III.

11 Report on Indian Army (Parliamentary Branch Collection 142, India Office), pp. 58–60, 184–85Google Scholar. By 1906 there were over 30,000 Sikhs in the army (24 percent of the total) as well as 17,000 Punjabi Muslims (13 percent). Compiled from 7907 Indian Army List (Calcutta, 1907).Google Scholar

12 Generalization based on material concerning the first Punjab commission. Aitchison, Charles, Lord Lawrence (Oxford, 1892), pp. 59–61Google Scholar; Campbell, George, Memoirs of My Indian Career (2 vols.; London, 1893), I, 81–82, 95–96Google Scholar; Cust, , Memoirs, pp. 29–30.Google Scholar

13 Smith, Bosworth, Life of Lord Lawrence (2 vols.; London, 1883), II, 317Google Scholar; Cust, , Memoirs, p. 33Google Scholar. For evangelical and utilitarian influence, Stokes, Eric, The English Utilitarians and India (London, 1959), pp. 245–48, 274–77, 307–09.Google Scholar

14 Joint minute, John and Henry Lawrence, Jan. 2, 1851, loose in PGG bundle, 1872.

15 Proclamation, March 29, 1849, PGC 121.

16 Circular 83, May 5, 1849, PGC 121.

17 PG to Govt. of India (GI), 3A, PGC 121. Also, Aitchison, Lawrence, pp. 49–50.Google Scholar

18 “History of Extra Assistant Commissioners, June 30, 1884” (printed sec. note), PGG, July 1885, 43–44A. For requirements, Circular to secretariat, July 28, 1876, PG Home (H), Oct. 1879, 1A; PG Resolution 3829, Oct. 23, 1879, Punjab Gazette, I, 1879, 605–16.Google Scholar

19 McLeod minute, April 8, 1866, PG Education(C), June 1884, 1–3A.

20 Ambala DC to PG, Aug. 24, 1882, and noting, PGG(KW), Sept. 1882, 4A. The British officers were also concerned over potential loss of prestige when they had to give up the presidentships of the committees.

21 For example, the summary treatment of the Kukas, a revivalist Sikh sect. Pertinent documents in Singh, Nahar, Gooroo Ram Singh and the Kuka Sikhs (Amritsar, 1964)Google Scholar; Papers Relating to the Kuka Sect (Selections from the Records of the Government of the Punjab, Confidential Series AIII; Lahore, 1872).Google Scholar

22 Cooper, F., The Crisis in the Punjab (London, 1858), pp. 22–23Google Scholar; John Lawrence minute, Dec. 19, 1858, PGG(KW), Oct. 9, 1858, 63–63½.

23 The Arya Samaj, Joshi, V. C. (ed.), Lajpat Rai Autobiographical Writings (New Delhi, 1965), pp. 87–88Google Scholar; Tandon, Prakash, Punjabi Century, 1857–1947 (London, 1961), pp. 32–34Google Scholar; Anjumans, Muslim, Din, Mian Shah, “Mohammedan Societies in the Punjab,” The Indian Magazine, 1888, pp. 188–89Google Scholar; Sabhas, Singh, Singh, Ganda (ed.), Bhagat Lakshman Singh Autobiography (Calcutta, 1965), pp. 110–74.Google Scholar

24 Jones, Kenneth, “The Arya Samaj and Communal Tensions in the Punjab, 1877–1897” (unpub. mimeog. paper, 1965)Google Scholar. Although important, a comprehensive analysis of the Arya Samaj's role lies outside the scope of this paper.

25 C. L. Tupper memorandum on Muslim and Sikh societies, July 19, 1893, PGG(KW), Jan. 1887, 12–123.

26 Thagi Department note on cow-killing agitation, Aug. 9, 1893, GI Public (P), Jan. 1894, 309–414B. An example of the Samaj effort was the campaign in Ferozepur to close all butcher shops. Correspondence and notes, PGG, Nov. 1888, 2–6A.

27 Delhi Com. to PG, 8C, Oct. 30, 1886, and enclosures, PGG(KW), Jan. 1887, 12–12a.

28 Lahore Com. to PG, Oct. 27, 1885; PG to GI, 598, March 26, 1886, PGG, March 1886, 11–26A.

29 In fact the mutiny experience strengthened the official feeling that the educated classes were hostile to Western rule and could not be counted upon as a positive political force. Punjab Government Records: Mutiny Reports (2 vols.; Lahore, 1911), pp. 81–84, 95–96195–96. 252–53.Google Scholar

30 Mackworth Young minute, June 23, 1887, PGE(KW), July 1885, 51–98A.

31 PG to GI, 147S, June 25, 1888, PGE(KW), July 1885, 51–98A.

32 An informative analysis is in a minute by Denzil Ibbetson, appended to Barrier, N. G., The Punjab Alienation of Land Bill of 1900 (Durham, 1966), pp. 107–109.Google Scholar

33 Hindus and Muslims were almost equally represented in lower posts requiring minimal literacy and paying less than Rs. 15, but Brahmins and the commercial class monopolized the middle and upper salary range. Generalizations based on data in PGH, Jan. 1876, 6A; establishment tables, PGH, Nov. 1872, 11A. The following discuss the reasons for Muslim lack of adaptation: Note by Rahim, PGH April 1872, 37A; Ahmad, Bashir, Justice Shah Din (Lahore, 1962), pp. 197–262Google Scholar; Bukhari, Syed Hashim ShahNeshanal Kāngras Se Musalmānon Ko Bachnā Cāhiye (Ferozepur, 1888), pp. 14–16.Google Scholar

34 Correspondence on Employment of Muhammadan Community (Calcutta, 1886), pp. 86–92Google Scholar; Zafur-ul-Islam, and Jensen, Raymond, “Indian Muslims and the Public Services, 1871–1915,” Journal of the Asiatic Society of Pakistan, IV (1964), 85–93.Google Scholar

35 Memorial appended to PGG, May 1877, 11A.

36 PG to GI, 683, Feb. 21, 1873, PGG(KW), May 1877, 11A.

37 Fitzpatrick minute, GI Public (P), Oct. 1894, 102–06A. GI files from National Archives of India, New Delhi.

38 Printed interview with Mahbub Alam, editor of Paisa Akhbar, PGG(KW), February 1889, 14–22A.Google Scholar

39 PG to Anjuman-i-Islamia, Delhi, 2076, May 10, 1877, PGG, May 1877, 11A.

40 Sec. note on Muslim societies, Jan. 8, 1887, PGG(KW), Feb. 1889, 14–22A.

41 Commission discussed in Islam and Jensen, “Indian Muslims,” pp. 85–93; documents on agitation in Journal of the Punjab University Historical Society, XV (January 1963), 1–82.Google Scholar

42 PG to GI, 916, April 19, 1884, PGG(KW), Feb. 1889, 14–22A.

43 Rawalpindi DC to PG, 102, Jan. 8, 1885, PGG(KW), Feb. 1889, 14–22A.

44 Undated memo on “Relationship of District Officials, “PGG(KW), December 1896, 49–141A.Google Scholar

45 Rafiq-i-Hind, January 26, 1886Google Scholar, clipping in PGC 183. The editor, Muharram Ali Chisti, devoted an essay to the issue in Jawāb Mazmūn Kā Risāla Mussammo Kā Muraqqa-i-Tahsib (Lahore, n.d.), pp. 23–28.Google Scholar

46 Aitchison Commission Report (Calcutta, 1887), I, 17–19Google Scholar. Also, Islam, and Jensen, , “Indian Muslims,” pp. 95–112.Google Scholar

47 Tribune, December 15, 1886Google Scholar; Triennial Report of the Central National Mahomedan Association of India (Calcutta, 1886), pp. 4–6Google Scholar; Chisti, , Jawāb, pp. 33–34.Google Scholar

48 For example, Rawalpindi DC to PG, 83S/C, Feb. 1887, PGG(KW), Feb. 1889, 14–22A.

49 Sec. noting on opinion of Delhi officers, PGG(KW), Feb. 1889, 14–22A.

50 Thorburn to PG, undated, PGG(KW), Feb. 1889, 14–22A. For his views, Bannu Settlement Report (Lahore, 1876), p. 50Google Scholar; Punjab in Peace and War, chps. IV–V.

51 Lyall minute, July 1, 1887, PGG, Feb. 1889, 14–22A.

52 PG to DCs, XI(C), Aug. 2, 1887, PGG(KW), Feb. 1889, 14–22A.

53 Ibid.

54 Lyall minute, July 1, 1887, PGG(KW), Feb. 1889, 14–22A. Also, Fitzpatrick minute, Sept. 23, 1893, and PG to GI, 930S, Sept. 28, 1893, PGE(KW), July 1885, 43–44A.

55 Thorburn minute, undated, attached to circular 443(C), April 10, 1900, loose in PGG bundle, April 1900.

56 Rules in PG Agriculture, Revenue, and Committees, March 1872, 9A. The debate and new legislation contained in the following: GIP, May 1883, 130–45A; June 1883, 134–36A; April 1884, 39–50A. For a general discussion, Gopal, S., The Viceroyalty of Lord Ripon, 1880–1884 (London, 1953), pp. 83–112.Google Scholar

57 Reports on rural elections, PG to GI, 570S, Sept. 29, 1884, GIP, Dec. 1884, 38–54A.

58 For example, report on Gujrat, PG Commission (COM), Sept. 1884, 4–9A.

59 On Amritsar, PGE, July 1884, 108–10A; Delhi, PG Municipal(M), Oct. 1884, 31–36A.

60 Examples in PGCOM, June 1884, 7–18A; July 1884, 39–54A.

61 Based on statistics from 1883 and 1884 PGM files.

62 Correspondence, PGM, Sept. 1885, 18–21A; PGCOM, May 1887, 3–8A.

63 Report of Amritsar Com. undated, appended to PGCOM, Oct, 1896, 73–74A. Opinion of other officers reflected in the following proceedings: GIM, Jan. 1891, 10–19A; Jan. 1893, 1–3A.

64 On Hoshiarpur, PGCOM, May 1887, 3–8A; bribery rules and investigations, PGCOM, Oct. 1894, 73–74A; Feb. 1897, 15–27A

65 Lyall minute, Oct. 1, 1887, PGCOM, Nov. 1887, 3–6A.

66 Ibid.

67 Plans in Delhi and other municipalities had been prepared after the initial elections. Delhi Com. to PG, 2152A, Oct. 8, 1884, and noting, PGM(KW), Oct. 1884, 31–36A.

68 Reports in PGCOM, Aug. 1888, 9–12A.

69 Reports in PGCOM, June 1890, 12–16A; Aug. 1892, 1–23A.

70 Tribune, June 7, 1884, March 15, 1893Google Scholar. Also, Amritsar Com. to PG, 132, April 7, 1888, PGCOM, May 1888, 7–12A.

71 Harkishen Lai minute June 23, 1907, PGH(CKW), 11A, loose in PGP bundle, 1907.

72 Panjabee, November 7, 1904Google Scholar, Nov. 14, 1904. Film copies of the Panjabee (1904–1908)Google Scholar are in the National Archives of India.

73 The Muslim proportion of superior posts (Rs. 75 and over) held by Punjabis rose slowly from 25 percent in 1887 (295 of 1,145) to 31 percent in 1903 (532 of 1,714). Proportions of Europeans and Natives in the Public Services (Calcutta, 1904), pp. 39–41, 128–31.Google Scholar

74 Moon, Penderel, Strangers in India (London, 1944), p. 101.Google Scholar

75 Discussion of Hindus Sabhas and the League in N. G. Barrier, “Punjab Politics and the Disturbances of 1907” (unpub. diss., Duke U., 1966), pp. 278–318. On the Khalsa Diwan, “Recent Developments in Sikh Politics” (conf. CID note, pub. 1911), GIHome-Political, Dec. 1911, 2D.

76 For an assessment of this tactic, Barrier, N. G., “The Arya Samaj and Congress Politics in the Punjab, 1894–1908,” JAS (May 1967), 374–79.Google Scholar