Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T19:41:49.421Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The ‘Great Game’ in the Pamirs and the Hindu-Kush: The British Conquest of Hunza and Nagar

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Robert A. Huttenback
Robert A. Huttenback
Affiliation:
California Institute of TechnologyPasadena, California
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The motivations for imperial advance have, over the years, caused considerable debate among historians. It has been thought by some that a law of the turbulent frontier forced the expansion of empire, for a region of order surrounded by an area of disorder had eventually, for its own protection, to conquer the area of turbulence. Thus, empires would inexorably advance their borders until they reached some great natural barrier or the frontiers of another stable power.

Type
Articles
Information
Modern Asian Studies , Volume 9 , Issue 1 , January 1975 , pp. 1 - 29
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1975

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 Maud, Diver, The Great Amulet (London, 1914), 453.Google Scholar

Quoted in Greenberger, A. J., The British Image of India (London, 1969), p. 95.Google Scholar

2 Ibid., p. 96.

3 Henty, G. A., For Name and Fame or, Through the Afghan Passes (New York, no date), III–IV.Google Scholar

4 National Archives of India, New Delhi [NAI], November 1875, sec. proc. 14, copy of Prince Gortchakov to Russian ambassador in London, Count Schouvalov, 11 May, 1875 (conf.). Original dispatch dated 5 April, 1875. in St. Petersburg.Google Scholar

5 India Office Library, London [IOL], sec. letter 22, 21 June, 1875, encl. 3. Secret and Political Letters referred to in this and subsequent footnotes all emanated from the Governor General in Council and were addressed to the Secretary of State for India.Google Scholar

6 Lord Lytton was viceroy from 1876 to 1880.Google Scholar

7 IOL, Lytton paps., Lytton to Salisbury, 14 March 1876.Google Scholar

8 The India Office was, however, inclined to work through the Maharaja of Kashmir, whom it described as ‘one of our most loyal feudatories’. India Office minute pap. of 29 July 1875, on sec. letter 22, 21 June 1875.Google Scholar

9 IOL, Lytton paps., Lytton to Rawlinson, 5 August 1876.Google Scholar

10 NAI, July 1877, sec. proc. 28, app. V.Google Scholar

11 Ibid., maharaja to viceroy, 26 November 1877.Google Scholar

12 Quoted in Alder, G. J., British India's Northern Frontier, 1865–95 (London, 1963), p. 119.Google Scholar

13 Ibid.

14 IOL, sec. letter 79, 9 September 1878.Google Scholar

15 IOL, sec. letter 148, 8 July 1878, encl., Gilgit, diary, 5–13 April 1878.Google Scholar

16 Ibid., encl., Ghazan Khan to Biddulph, 21 April 1878.

17 Ibid., encl., Biddulph to Ghazan Khan, 24 April 1878.

18 Ibid., encl. 17, Gilgit diary, 21–28 May 1878.

19 IOL, sec. letter 49, 28 February 1879. Some British officials, such as Ney Elias, the joint commissioner in Leh, felt that the British had somehow to establish themselves in Kashgar. ‘How can we watch anything’, he wrote, ‘hidden behind the passes as here [Leh] and at Gilgit.’ Sec. letter 228, 6 November 1879, encl., Henvey to Lyall, 21 September 1879, enclosing demi-off. Elias to Henvey, 13 September 1879.Google Scholar

20 Henvey, , quoted in Alder, Northern Frontier, p. 132.Google Scholar

21 Ibid., p. 135.

22 IOL, sec. letter 103, 15 July 1881.Google Scholar

23 British Museum, Kimberley paps., 43564, Biddulph, to Henvey, 20 December 1880.Google Scholar

24 ‘Having swallowed up half a continent,’ Dufferin wrote Cross, ‘the insatiable chaps (the Russians) have persuaded themselves that it is a real grievance if they are not allowed to confiscate a few hundred square miles of another gentleman's property.…’ IOL, Cross paps., Dufferin, to Cross, 27 May 1887.Google Scholar

25 The Lockhart and Woodthorpe confidential report of their Gilgit mission has disappeared from the India Office Library and is not to be found in Delhi. Fortunately, Alder saw it before it vanished from London, and refers to it in Alder, , Northern Frontier, p. 155.Google Scholar

26 Ibid., pp. 155–7.

27 IOL, sec./front. letter I-c, 18 November 1886, memo. regarding affairs beyond the NW frontier of India, rec. October 1886.Google Scholar

28 IOL, sec.'s letter 432F, 6 March 1888, Peshawar conf. diary, 22 February 1888.Google Scholar

29 IOL, sec./front. letter 56, 10 April 1888. It was again decided that the road between Chaprot and Gilgit should be improved. The Afghan frontier demarcation of 1886 and a program of road building in the Punjab manifested British concern with the northern and northwestern frontiers.Google Scholar

30 IOL, sec./front. letter, 30 June 1888.Google Scholar

31 IOL, sec's. letter 2796F, 31 December 1888, Peshawar conf. diary, 22 December 1888, Chitral and Russia.Google Scholar

32 IOL, for. sec's. letter 2796F, 31 December 1888, Peshawar conf. diary, 22 December 1888.Google Scholar

33 NAI, October 1887, sec. procs. 286–291, memo. on the present position in Central Asia, H.M.D. (Durand), 21 May 1887.Google Scholar

34 Algernon, Durand, The Making of a Frontier (London, 1899), p. 60–1.Google Scholar

35 Ibid.

36 Ibid., p. 2.

37 Ibid., p. 120.

38 IOL, sec./front. letter 15 October 1888, encl. 7, resident to for. sec., 12 September 1888.Google Scholar

39 Ibid.

encl. 13, Walsham, to Tsungli Yamen, 21 June 1888.Google Scholar

40 IOL, sec/front. letter 98, 5 July 1889, encl. memo regarding affairs beyond the NW frontier of India, Kashmir, Chitral, etc.Google Scholar

41 IOL, sec./front. letter 98, 5 July 1889.Google Scholar

42 Ibid.

43 IOL, sec./front. letter 105, 3 December 1889.Google Scholar

44 Durand, , The Making of a Frontier, p. 159.Google Scholar

45 Ibid., p. 163.

46 IOL, sec./front. letter 105, 3 December 1889, encl. 9, for. sec. to resident, 6 September 1889.Google Scholar

47 Ibid., encl., memo. regarding affairs beyond the NW frontier of India, c. September 1889. The Nagar chief was judged most cooperative.

48 IOL, sec./front. letter 174, 3 December 1889, encl. memo. regarding affairs beyond the NW frontier of India, November 1889.Google Scholar

49 George, Seaver, Francis Younghusband (London, 1952), p. 123.Google Scholar

50 Ibid., p. 125.

51 Younghusband, F. E., The Heart of a Continent (London, 1896), p. 272.Google Scholar

52 Ibid., p. 284.

53 Ibid., p. 285–6.

54 IOL, sec./front. letter 4, 7 January 1890, encl., memo. regarding affairs beyond the NW frontier of India, December 1889.Google Scholar

55 Seaver, , Younghusband, p. 132.Google Scholar

56 See fn. 54.

57 IOL, sec./front. letter 43, 28 April 1890.Google Scholar

58 Ibid.

59 Durand, , The Making of a Frontier, p. 226.Google Scholar

60 With the advent of Durand's successor, Dr. Robertson, the situation became more reminiscent of Biddulph's time. Robertson claimed that the Dogra governor ruined his opponents through his power to commandeer forced labor, which he often did when the rice crop was in need of harvesting. Robertson suggested that the agent, at least for a time, be vested with the civil authority. IOL, Elgin paps., 37, Elgin, to Fowler, , 22 10 1894.Google Scholar

61 IOL, sec./front. letter 95, 9 June 1891, encl. memo. regarding affairs beyond the NW frontier of India, May, 1891.Google Scholar

62 Ibid.

63 Durand, , The Making of a Frontier, p. 238–9.Google Scholar

64 Ibid., p. 242.

65 Ibid., p. 243.

66 Durand contended that Hunza had been subject to Kashmir since 1868 and Nagar since 1869. Hunza annually paid Kashmir a tribute of two horses, two hounds and twenty ounces of gold in return for which the mir received a subsidy. The Nagar tribute consisted of twenty-one tolas (about 8 ½ ounces) of gold dust and a basket of apricots. (At least part of the basis of Safdar Ali's claimed subordination to China was the jagir he held in Yarkand.) IOL, sec./front. letter 1-c, 25 October 1891, encl. 5, A. G. Durand to Prideaux, 22 July 1891.Google Scholar

67 Ibid.

68 Ibid.

encl., Safdar, Ali to A. G. Durand, 4 June 1891.Google Scholar

69 Ibid., encl. 6, memo. by A. G. Durand, 4 September 1891.

70 Ibid., encl. 8, memo. by A. G. Durand, 14 September 1891.

71 IOL, sec./front. letter 172, 14 October 1891.Google Scholar

72 The evidence of Hunza duplicity was rather vague. A mission from Hunza was apparently in Kashgar at the same time as Younghusband, whom it ignored. The emissaries supposedly gave presents to Petrovsky, the Russian consul-general, and had a secret meeting with the Russian governor-general at Osh.Google Scholar

73 IOL, sec./front. letter I-c, 25 October 1891.Google Scholar

74 Ibid., encl. 13, resident to acting president of Kashmir state council, 23 September 1891. Durand had great difficulty with the telegraph line from Gilgit to Srinagar, and it was not operating properly even by 1892. The line from India to Kashmir was often out of order for as long as eight months out of the year. Alder, Northern Frontier, p. 231.

75 IOL, sec./front. letter 212, 16 December 1891, encl. 1, Macartney, G. to for. dept., Govt. of India, 13 September 1891.Google Scholar

76 IOL, home corres., sec. and pol., For. Off. to India Off., minute paper, 21 October 1891.Google Scholar

77 IOL, sec./front. letter 212, 16 December 1891.Google Scholar

78 Ibid., sec./front. letter I-c, 25 October 1891, encl. 9, Safdar Ali to Durand, no date (some time in September).

79 IOL, sec./front. letter 51, 23 March 1892, encl. 3, Durand, to Safdar Ali and Jafr Khan, 29 November 1891.Google Scholar

80 Ibid., encl. 4, Jafr Khan to Durand, 30 November 1891.

81 Ibid., Safdar Ali to Durand, 1 December 1891.

82 Durand, , The Making of a Frontier, p. 252.Google Scholar

83 A number of Orders of Merit, which Durand judged the ‘native army’ equivalent of the Victoria Cross, were awarded the rank and file. The large number of Victoria Crosses won in the Hunza campaign leads to the conclusion that the brief war was arduous and that perhaps the medal became more difficult to earn as time went on.Google Scholar

84 NAI, September 1892, sec. F. procs., 396–472.Google Scholar

85 Safdar, Ali retired to his jagir in Yarkand.Google Scholar

86 Correspondence (though not complete) dealing with the Hunza-Nagar campaign was published in C. 6621 (1892).Google Scholar

87 ‘The Autobiography of Sir Mohamed Nazim Khan, K.C.I.E., Mir of Hunza,’ translated from the Urdu by his grandson (the present mir), Jamal Khan. There is a copy of this unpublished work in the library of the University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar

88 IOL, sec./front. letter 8, 13 January 1892, encl. memo. regarding affairs beyond the NW frontier of India, December 1891. Also C. 6621, no. 17, viceroy to sec. of state, 31 December 1891.Google Scholar

89 IOL, sec./front. letter 51, 23 March 1892, encl. 1, Macartney to for. dept., Govt. of India, 24 October 1891.Google Scholar

90 Ibid., encl. 2, Macartney to for. dept., Govt. of India, 23 November 1891.

91 IOL, sec./front. letter 34, 2 March 1892, memo. regarding affairs beyond the NW frontier of India, February 1892.Google Scholar

92 Ibid.

93 IOL, sec./front. letter 96, 31 May 1892. The India Office Library copy of secret and political memorandum, no. 88 on the reorganization of the Gilgit Agency, prepared by S. C. Bayley, has attached to it a newspaper clipping which claims to be a translation from the official Russian Turkestan Gazette, in which Baron Vrevsky, the governor-general of Russian Turkestan, refused the request of a Hunza delegation for arms, etc. Reuters then reported that the emissaries were well treated and that tentative plans for communication and commercial intercourse between Hunza and Russian Central Asia were concluded.Google Scholar

94 Ibid.

95 IOL, sec./front. letter 96, 31 May 1892.Google Scholar

96 Ibid., encl. 4, Manners-Smith to resident, 4 April 1892.

97 IOL, sec./front. letter 96, 31 May 1892, encl. 14, note by Younghusband, F. E., 20 April 1892.Google Scholar

98 Ibid., encl. 2, 133F, sec. to the for. dept., Govt. of India, to resident, 16 January 1893.

99 Ibid., sec./front. letter 120, 5 July 1892, memo. regarding affairs beyond the NW frontier of India, June 1892.

100 Ibid., encl. 6, Macartney to H. M. Durand, 16 Feburary 1892.

101 Ibid., encl. 2, Taotai of Kashgar to A. G. Durand, c. Feburary 1892.

102 Ibid., encl., Safdar Ali to A. G. Durand, no date.

103 IOL, sec./front. letter 96, 31 May 1892, encl. 17, for. dept., Govt. of India, to resident, 16 May 1892.Google Scholar

104 Ibid., sec./front. letter 120, 5 July 1892, memo. regarding affairs beyond the NW frontier of India, June 1892.

105 IOL, Lansdowne paps., Kimberley, to Landsdowne, 24 November 1892. The extent to which the Russian threat south of the Hindu Kush was real is open to speculation. The writings of individual Russian officers and the frequent polemics in the Russian military press led many British officials to feel the danger was imminent. But the evidence was at best limited, and British statesmen were all too prone to cluck self-approvingly when they read words such as those ascribed to Prince Galitzine when he heard of the successful Hunza campaign of 1892: ‘Vous nous avez fermé la porte au nez.’ Alder, Northern Frontier, p. 307.Google Scholar