Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T18:13:40.887Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

From Rulers to Servants: The I.C.S. and the British Demission of Power in India

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

T. H. Beaglehole
T. H. Beaglehole
Affiliation:
Victoria University of Wellington
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The study of the British demission of power in India has focused on the political story, on the nationalist pressures and the British policies that led inexorably to self-government and to partition. This began, explicitly at least, with the Montagu declaration in 1917. But the idea of gradually developing self-governing institutions seemed in many ways easier to implement in politics than administration. India was proceeding from an authoritarian to a popular government: the transfer of power was not only from British to Indians but also from administrators to politicians. And as Philip Woodruff, writing on the I.C.S., comments, ‘it is hard to serve where you have ruled’. On one level, the Service could be Indianized, and from the early 19205 Indianization proceeded apace. What was more complicated was the role the I.C.S. was expected to play in the changing constitutional and political circumstances from 1920 through to 1947—expected to play, that is, in addition to the sustained execution of the everyday functions of government.

Type
Articles
Information
Modern Asian Studies , Volume 11 , Issue 2 , April 1977 , pp. 237 - 255
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1977

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 An exception to this is the article by David, Potter, ‘Manpower Shortage and the End of Colonialism: The Case of the Indian Civil Service’ in Modern Asian Studies, 7, 1 (1973).Google Scholar

2 Woodruff, Philip, The Men who Ruled India, Vol. 2, The Guardians (London, 1954), p. 244.Google Scholar

3 Montagu-Chelmsford Report, para. 156, p. 128.Google Scholar

4 Simon Commission Report, Vol. 5, p. 1628.Google Scholar

5 Montagu-Chelmsford Report, para. 317, p. 253.Google Scholar

6 L/S & G/6/492 (Coll. 27–1), India Office Library and Records [hereafter cited as I.O.L.].

7 Lee Commission Report.

8 Panjabi, K. L. (ed.), The Civil Servant in India (Bombay, 1965), p. 225.Google Scholar

9 L/S & G/6/467 (Coll. 20–7), I.O.L.

10 L/S & G/6/334 (Coll. 2–2B), I.O.L.

11 The undertaking was given in a statement by Sir A. Muddiman, the Home Secretary, in the Council of State, 2 March 1925. For the announcement and report of the debate see L/S /6/475 (Coll. 20–24), I.O.L.Google Scholar

12 L/S & G/6/364 (Coll. 3–23), I.O.L.

13 L/S & G/6/372 (Coll. 3–32), I.O.L.

14 Note by Seton, , 6 December 1927 on S & G 3815/27 in L/S & G/6/351 (Coll. 3–16A), I.O.L.Google Scholar

15 India, Legilative Debates, Vol. 6, 1936, 31 08 1936, quoted in David Potter, ‘Manpower Shortage’, p. 65.Google Scholar

16 India Office statement, 27 April 1936, L/S & G/6/352, I.O.L.

17 L/S & G/6/364 (Coll. 3–23), I.O.L.

18 Report by H. A. Lane, I.C.S., 22 August 1930, L/S & G/6/372 (Coll. 3–32), I.O.L.

19 Report by M. G. Hallett, I.C.S., L/S & G/6/370 (Coll. 3–30), I.O.L.

20 Ibid.

21 Personal information (the interview referred to was 1927 rather than 1928: the attitude was typical).Google Scholar

22 Coupland to Dumbell (India Office), 5 October 1927, L/S & G/6/369 (Coll. 3–29), I.O.L. Coupland acted very much as an Oxford recruiting agent for the I.C.S. He wrote to the India Office each year commenting on the results of the examination, and saw Oxford's success therein as off-setting significantly that University's gloomy record in the boat race.

23 The importance of the viva marks is shown if they are subtracted from the totals and the candidates re-ranked. Our group then would have consisted of 28 Europeans, 23 Indians and one unclassified.

24 The information on the candidates is taken from their application forms and from the published lists of results, both of which are included in L/S & G/6/370 (Coll. 3–30), I.O.L.

25 Ibid.

26 Ibid.

27 L/S & G/6/390 (Coll. 3–55), I.O.L.

28 Ibid.

29 Viceroy, Home Department, telegram to Secretary of State for India, 12 July 1929, Ibid.

30 Secretary of State, telegram to Viceroy, Home Department, 16 July 1929, ibid. Marshall was unsuccessful in the London examination.

31 Ibid.

32 L/S & G/6/370 (Coll. 3–30), I.O.L.

33 Minute of Hailey's evidence to Advisory Committee on Recruitment, May 1935, L/S & G/6/194, I.O.L.

34 Cornelius, A. R., I.C.S. 15 October 1928. This was fairly typical of the comments of local governments and individuals on probation enclosed with G. of I. letter (Home Department No. 16) of 1929. L/S & G/6/351 (Coll. 3–16A), I.O.L.Google Scholar

35 The volume, Social Service in India (London, 1938), edited by SirEdward, Blunt, I.C.S. (ret.), was prepared as a text-book for the course.Google Scholar

36 KIT (Indian Civil Service): Memorandum B. L/S & G/7/140, I.O.L.

37 S & G 3561/26, I.O.L.

38 Barlow to his parents, 11 October 1931, Barlow Papers, 1/108, Centre of South Asian Studies, University of Cambridge [hereafter cited as C.S.A.S.].

39 Barlow to his parents, 27 April 1930, Barlow Papers, 1/32, C.S.A.S.

40 Hailey to Irwin, 13 May 1930, MSS EUR E220/18A, ff. 56–9, I.O.L.

41 Hume to his parentS, 13 March 1930, MSS EUR D724/3, f. 22, I.O.L.

42 Johnstone, R. H. G., ‘One Man's Life’ [unpublished memoir], C.S.A.S., pp. 173–4.Google Scholar

43 Hailey to Crerar, 24 July 1931, MSS EUR EQ20I2IA, f. 139, I.O.L.

44 Hailey to Reading, 11 May 1931, MSS EUR E220/20, f. 101, I.O.L.

45 Hailey to Sir F. Stewart (India Office), 19 01 1932, MSS EUR E220I2SA, f. 70, I.O.L.

46 R. H. G. Johnstone, ‘One Man's Life’.

47 MSS EUR D724/4, ff. 93–5, I.O.L.

48 Hailey speech to the annual dinner of the U.P. I.C.S., Lucknow, 4 February 1932. MSS EUR E220/48, pp. 152–60, I.O.L.Google Scholar

49 Haig to Hailey, 2 May 1932, MSS EUR E220/23B, ff. 260–62, I.O.L.

50 Linlithgow Papers, MSS EUR F 125/141, I.O.L. See, especially, Linlithgow to Secretary of State (Secret), 17 March 1937; same to same (Secret), 25 November 1937; and in the Haig Papers, Haig to Linlithgow, 12 February 1938, MSS EUR F115/12, I.O.L.

51 Hallett (acting Governor, U.P.) to Brabourne (acting Viceroy), 27 August 1938, MSS EUR F125/101, I.O.L.