Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T02:53:10.226Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An Imperial Dilemma: The Reluctant Indianization of the Indian Political Service

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

W. Murray Hogben
W. Murray Hogben
Affiliation:
Collège Militaire Royal de Saint-Jean, Saint-Jean, Québec
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

One of the most difficult sets of questions for any imperial power or ruling group is if, when, and how to open the ranks of the imperial services to the imperialized. For a considerable period of time there may be logical enough reasons, related to imperial security and distrust of the conquered, for avoiding these questions altogether. However, sooner or later it becomes neccessary to win the collaboration of the losers, and then certain ‘liberalizing’, or just realistic tendencies begin to prevail. These are often inspired more by ‘home’ influences than by ‘out-post’ sentiment which tends to be more suspicious of its recent victims. Nevertheless, somewhere along the line a sometimes embarrassing precedent is made, and the integration or localization of the imperial civil and military services, and even of the executive, is undertaken. Usually the start is at the lowest levels, the clerks and soldiers, but later the upper or officer class also begins to lose its initial imperial or racial solidarity.

Type
Articles
Information
Modern Asian Studies , Volume 15 , Issue 4 , October 1981 , pp. 751 - 769
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1981

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

I must gratefully acknowledge my debt to the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada for their research grant of the summer of 1976 for this topic, and for their previous doctoral thesis grants. Also, I must thank the Staff of the India Office Library for their help, and especially Mr Martin Moir. It is from that Library that the bulk of these British documents come, and hence the Indian research side has necessarily been neglected. However, I will fall back on Robinson and Gallagher's subtitle's realistic emphasis in their Africa and the Victorians: The Official Mind of Imperialism. It was, after all, the British officials who were making the decisions, whatever the pressures, and for better or for worse.The sources used herein are all found in the India Office Library, London, England, unless noted otherwise as CUL—Cambridge University Library, for Papers of Lord Hardinge of Penshurst. Other abbreviations used are GOI—Government of India, FPD—Foreign and Political Department, and LAD—Legislative Assembly Debates. The India Office Library private papers in European languages abbreviation—MSS. Eur.—has been omitted, as for example in note 21—C 152/4.

1 Hogben, W. Murray, ‘The Foreign and Political Department of India, 1876 to 1919; A Study in Imperial Careers and Attitudes’, unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Toronto, 1973;Google Scholar and SirCreagh Coen, Terence, The Indian Political Service: A Study in Indirect Rule (London, 1971), the only published monograph on the topic generally, concentrating on the twentieth century.Google Scholar

2 Memo. D 233, ‘Admission of a Native of India to the Political Dept’, and undated 1918 note by Garrett, H. W., India Office, in L/P/18; for a fuller account of the topic to 1919,Google Scholarcf. Hogben, W. Murray, ‘First Steps in the Indianization of the Indian Political Service’, Wakil, S. Pavez (ed.), South Asia: Perspectives and Dimensions (CASAS, 1977)Google Scholar;and Satakopan, R., ‘The Indian Political Services’, The New Review, Vol. XIII (1941), p. 138.Google Scholar

3 Note by SirCharles, S. Bayley to Shuckburgh, J. E., 22 05 1918, in Memo. D 233,Google Scholaribid.

4 Cited in Coen, Creagh, The Indian Political Service, pp. 42–3.Google Scholar

5 Telegram from Minto, Lord, 4 02 1910, with No. 223, L/P/7/235;Google Scholarcf.Qaiyum's, Abdul History of Services;Google Scholar and Note by SirBarnes, Hugh, 16 02 1910, Wood to McMahon and Colvin, Nos 1690–1, Establishment A, 17 05 1910, Proceedings P/8770;Google Scholar and McMahon, to Butler, No. 402–G, 1 06 1910, and Colvin to Butler, No. 146–C, 4 06 1910, L/P/7/235.Google Scholar

6 Hardinge, Lord to Lord Crewe, 4 11 1912, CUL, Hardinge Papers, Vol. 118;Google ScholarCrew, to Hardinge, , 29 11 1912, and Hardinge to Crewe, 19 12 1912,Google Scholaribid; and LAD, Q. 28, 17 09 1913.

7 Roos-Keppel, to Lord Chelmsford, 20 08 1916, Memo. D 613, L/P/18.Google Scholar

8 Telegram from Chelmsford, , 2 05 1918, with No. 1914/1918, L/P&S/II/135.Google Scholar

9 Montagu, to SirHolderness, T. W., 27 05 1918,Google Scholaribid.

10 Potter, David C., ‘Manpower Shortage and the End of Colonialism: The Case of the Indian Civil Service’, Modern Asian Studies, 7, 1 (1973), pp. 47–73;CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Beaglehole, T. H., ‘From Rulers to Servants: the I.C.S. and the British Demission of Power in India’, Modern Asian Studies, 11, 2 (1977), pp. 237–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

11 Saran, Munshi Iswar and Law Member T. B.Sapru's reply, LAD, 15 03 1921, L/P/13/583.Google Scholar

12 Telegram, Viceroy to India Office, P 1772, 3 04 1921, ibid.

13 Telegram, Secretary of State to Viceroy, Foreign Dept., 7 06 1921; and Secretary, FPD, GOI, to Undersecretary, India Office, ‘Recruitment of Indians for the Political Department of the GOI’, 22 06 1921, ibid.

14 ‘Indians in the Indian Foreign Department’, Manchester Guardian, 6 09 1921, ibid.

15 LAD, Q. 171, N. M. Joshi, 15 09 1921; Q. 257, P. S. Sivaswamy Anjer, 19 09 1921; Q. 407, Munshi Iswar Saran, 20 09 1921; Q. 417, same; Q. 531, Nawab Khwaja Habibullah, 20 09 1921; and ‘Statement showing (a) the number of Indians appointed to posts under the Government of India and paid from Central Revenues on salaries of Rs. 500 or above and Rs. 1,000 and upwards during the régime of His Excellency the present Viceroy, (b) the appointments and Departments in which no Indian has yet been appointed on Rs. 1,000 and above and (c), the percentage of Indian element on salaries of Rs. 1,000 or above’, tabled by Hon. Mr. W. M. Hailey, LAD, 30 09 1921, ibid. The table seems contradictory, however, suggesting that respectively three and five appointments had been made below and above the Rs. 1,000 level.

16 LAD, Q. 639ff, Sarfaraz Hussain Khan, K. Ahmed, 8 03 1924, and replies, ibid.

17 Paras 19(i) and 42(a), Report of the Royal Commission on the Superior Civil Service in India, Cmd. 2128, 27 03 1924.Google Scholar

18 Crown Representative Records, R/1/10/28.

19 Letter by Menon, K. P. S. to author, 12 04 1971;Google ScholarMenon, , ‘My Life and Work in the I.C.S.’, in Panjabi, K. L. (ed.), The Civil Servant in India (Bombay, 1965),Google Scholar and Many Worlds (London, 1965), p. 34.Google Scholar

20 SirCaroe, Olaf, ‘Obituary, Major-General Iskander Mirza’, Asian Affairs, Vol. 57 (new series Vol. 1, Pt 1, 02 1970), pp. 61–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

21 Birkenhead, to Irwin, Lord, 12 05 1927, C 152/3.Google Scholar

22 Birkenhead, to Irwin, , 3 02 1928, C 152/4.Google Scholar

23 The Indian National Herald, 14 12 1928, L/P&S/13/583.Google Scholar

24 Reply to 21 04 1930 circular, by Hon. MrA.G.G., J. A. O. Fitzpatrick, Punjab States, with P/5807/1930; and reply, by Lt. Col. G. D.Ogilvie, Res., Kashmir, 5 05 1930,Google Scholaribid.

25 ‘Note on the future of the Political Department; analysis of opinions received from Senior Political Officers’, by C. C. Watson, Pol. Sec., 4 07 1930, ibid; and The Gazette of India, No. 32, Simla, 9 08 1930, L/P/18/1766.

26 LAD, Q, 547, 17 02 1931, Mr B. Das; Q. 548; and Q. 884, 9 03 1931, ShaikhSadiq Hasan; Q. 901, 9 03 1931, Sardar Sant Singh; Q. 902, 9 03 1931, Sardar Sant Singh, L/P&/S13/583.

27 House of Commons Debates, 26 05 1930, Vol. 239; and Parliamentary Notice: Question by Lt. Cmdr. Kenworthy, with PY/218/1931, L/P&S/13/583.Google Scholar

28 Minute or suggested reply by J. P. Gibson, 17 04 1931, with marginal comment by Patrick, in ref. to Pole's written question, answered on 20 04 1931 (House of Commons Debates, Vol. 251), ibid.

29 Conf. Letter, No. F 125-E/33, Political Secretary, GOI, to H.M. Undersecretary of State, 31 08 1933; Telegram, Secretary of State to GOI, 19 10 1933; and GOI, FPD, to Secretary of State, 24 10 1933, ibid.

30 LAD, Q. 322, 2 03 1934, S. G.Jog, and Sir H. A. F. Metcalfe's reply; Q. 120, 12 04 1934, Hon'ble Sardar Shri Jaganath Maharaj Pandit, and Glancy's reply, ibid.

31 LAD, Q. 398, 6 08 1934, Bhai Parma Nand, and Metcalfe's reply, ibid.

32 Council of State, Q. 56, 13 08 1934, Hon'ble Prakash Narain Sapru; and LAD, Q. 814, 22 08 1934, Lala Rameshawar Prasad Bagla,Google Scholaribid. Q. 884, 22 08 1934, S. C. Mitra and S. G. Jog, and Metcalfe's reply; Q. 887, 28 08 1934, Mitra and Jog, and Metcalfe's reply; and Q. 36, 5 02 1935, Sardar Sant Singh; and 5 02 1935, Ahmad Ebrahim Haroon Jaffer, and Metcalf's reply, ibid.

33 LAD, Q. 146, 12 02 1935, Singh, Ram Narayan, Satyamurti, S., and Ayyangar, M. A., and Metcalfe's reply; and Note by Patrick to Smith, F. W. H., Walton, , Glancy, , and Wakely, , 27 03 1935,Google Scholaribid.

34 LAD, Q. 914, 21 03 1935, Satyamurti, S., and Metcalfe's reply; Q. 1469, 4 04 1935, Satyamurti, S., and reply; Q. 1503, 4 04 1935, Sham Lal, and Q. 1504, Lal, Sham and Chettiar, T. S. A., and replies; and Q. 1505, 4 04 1935, Lal, Sham, Satyamurti, S., Chettiar, T. S. A. and Saksena, Mohan Lal, and reply,Google Scholaribid.

35 Notes by Patrick and Smith, 7 05 1936, in ref. to above question; and House of Commons Debates, Q. 1, for 3 04 1939, Mr H. Day, and reply to Mr Munro, Lord of the Treasury, and Q. 1, for 26 06 1939, ibid.

36 ‘Memorandum’ by Lt. Col. Sir Hassan Suhrwardy, O.B.E., to Sir Findlater Stewart, G.C.B., India Office, 4 04 1940; and Note by Suhrwardy, , attached, 4 04 1940, L/P&S/13/1966.Google Scholar

37 Political Secretary to Crown Representative to Undersecretary of State, 31 10 1939, with PY/187/1940; and Note by Suhrwardy, ‘Joint Political and Services Committee. Indian Political Service Cadre’, 15 04 1940, ibid.

38 Unapproved and approved draft from Secretary of State to Crown Representative, 2 05 1940, with PY/187/1940 (see reference 37 above), ibid; Zetland to Linlithgow, 1 05 1940; and Linlithgow to L. S. Amery, 14 05 1940, F 125/9.

39 Linlithgow to Amery, 24 09 1940, F 125/9; Conf. letter, Political Secretary to Crown Representative to Undersecretary of State, 14 10 1940, L/L&S/13/1766; and Official letter, Amery to Linlithgow, 17 04, F 125/14.Google Scholar

40 Amery to Linlithgow, 27 11 1942; Linlithgow to Amery, 22 12 1942, F 125/11; and Linlithgow to Amery, 10 10 1943, F 125/12.Google Scholar

41 Wavell to Amery, 28 08 1944, L/PO/472.Google Scholar

42 Amery to Wavell, 5 09, 12 09 and 3 10 1944, and Wavell to Amery, 19 10 1944, ibid.

43 Amery to Wavell, 30 11 1944, and enclosures: Amery to Rt. Hon. Richard Law, M.P., 1 11 1944, and reply by Law, 21 11 1944, ibid.

44 Hutchins, Francis G., The Illusion of Permanence: British Imperialism in India (London, 1967).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

45 Secretary to Crown Representative to Undersecretary of State, 7 03 1945, esp. para. 5, with POL/808/1945, in L/P&S/13/1803.

46 ‘Statement Showing Recruitments of the Indian Political Service in the Immediate Post-War Years’, table enclosed with above, reference 45, and Cypher telegram, Secretary of State to Crown Representative, No. 7318, 3 04 1945, ibid.

47 Amery to SirColville, John, Acting Viceroy, 3 05 1945; and Wavell to LordPethick-Lawrence, 5 11 1945, L/PO/473.Google Scholar

48 SirCorfield, Conral L. to Jenkins, Evans (P.S.V.?), Secret letter 30 10 1945, with POL/603/1945; and ‘Press Communiqué: Resumption of Recruitment to the Indian Civil Service, the Indian Political Service and the Indian Police’, undated, and an advertisement mentioning the pamphlet ‘Civil Appointments in India and Burma’, in L/P&S/13/1803.Google Scholar

49 LAD, Q. 1141, 21 03 1946, Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava, Prof. Ranga, N. G., Jaffer, A. E. H., Seth Govind Das and Sir Edward Benthall's replies, V/9/187.Google Scholar

50 Coen, Creagh, The Indian Political Service, p. 4. The 07 1947 Supplement to the Graded List of the Indian Political Service, lists the last incumbents in office and as none are on the Residents' list, all are listed on the time-scale, with or without numbers depending on whether they were holding cadre positions. Total strength was supposed to be about 180, so Indianization had reached barely 10 percent of this figureGoogle Scholar

51 Thornton, A. P., The Habit of Authority, Paternalism in British History (London, 1966).Google Scholar

52 Wilkinson, RupertThe Prefects (Oxford, 1963).Google Scholar

53 For the particular relations between the politicals and the frontier tribesmen, cf.Hogben, W. Murray, ‘British Civil–Military Relations on the North-West Frontier of India’, in Preston, A. W. and Dennis, P. (eds), Swords and Covenants (London, 1976).Google Scholar

54 Mason, Philip (pseud: Woodruff), The Men Who Ruled India (London, 1965), Vol. II, p. 271.Google Scholar

55 Life's Handicap (London, 1926).Google Scholar