british rule in India: 19th century
lord curzon of kedlestone, viceroy 1899-1905:
attempted to give India best government
pushed reforms for commerce, communication, agriculture, education, defence, security, etc - ‘labouring with indefatigable zeal’
convinced he knew best n unwilling to delegate - he believed in his ‘sacred mission’ to rule India as only he could
the pro-Indian aspect of his policies infuriated many many Brits in India
he did not go far enough, however, to meet the Congress’ wishes & resisted including more Indians in gov
convinced both of Britain’s ‘duty’ to India n also aware of the weaknesses of Britain’s Empire
his lofty views far from ‘grubby commercialism’ but still problematic
the partition of Bengal, 1905:
Curzon unilaterally partitions Bengal between Muslim-dominated east and Hindu-dominated west without consultation.
Piers Brendon views it as "administratively convenient but politically provocative" and a successful instance of divide and rule.
Short-term success leads to the creation of the Muslim League in 1906, Tilak’s campaigns, Gokhale’s swadeshi advocacy, nationwide protests, and violence in Bengal.
Partition abandoned in 1911.
the morley-minto reforms of 1908-1909:
John Morley, Gladstonian Liberal, becomes Secretary of State for India in 1906.
Collaborates with Viceroy Lord Minto to implement reforms addressing Congress demands.
Introduces the idea of involving politically active Indians in government via the Indian Councils.
Aims to address the Hindu-Muslim issue by reserving seats for Muslims.
Positive reactions, but "extremists" find reforms inadequate, while some British think they go too far.
india: WWI eve
Growing loyalty to the British.
Increasing demands for more government involvement or 'home rule' in the Empire.
'Communal India' relatively unaffected by the Raj, except for taxes and alleged famine (controversial).
British attitudes: a mix of confidence, insecurity, service, and exploitation.
1911 Delhi Durbar: A statement of British power and permanence, or something else?
lord curzon of kedlestone, viceroy 1899-1905:
attempted to give India best government
pushed reforms for commerce, communication, agriculture, education, defence, security, etc - ‘labouring with indefatigable zeal’
convinced he knew best n unwilling to delegate - he believed in his ‘sacred mission’ to rule India as only he could
the pro-Indian aspect of his policies infuriated many many Brits in India
he did not go far enough, however, to meet the Congress’ wishes & resisted including more Indians in gov
convinced both of Britain’s ‘duty’ to India n also aware of the weaknesses of Britain’s Empire
his lofty views far from ‘grubby commercialism’ but still problematic
the partition of Bengal, 1905:
Curzon unilaterally partitions Bengal between Muslim-dominated east and Hindu-dominated west without consultation.
Piers Brendon views it as "administratively convenient but politically provocative" and a successful instance of divide and rule.
Short-term success leads to the creation of the Muslim League in 1906, Tilak’s campaigns, Gokhale’s swadeshi advocacy, nationwide protests, and violence in Bengal.
Partition abandoned in 1911.
the morley-minto reforms of 1908-1909:
John Morley, Gladstonian Liberal, becomes Secretary of State for India in 1906.
Collaborates with Viceroy Lord Minto to implement reforms addressing Congress demands.
Introduces the idea of involving politically active Indians in government via the Indian Councils.
Aims to address the Hindu-Muslim issue by reserving seats for Muslims.
Positive reactions, but "extremists" find reforms inadequate, while some British think they go too far.
india: WWI eve
Growing loyalty to the British.
Increasing demands for more government involvement or 'home rule' in the Empire.
'Communal India' relatively unaffected by the Raj, except for taxes and alleged famine (controversial).
British attitudes: a mix of confidence, insecurity, service, and exploitation.
1911 Delhi Durbar: A statement of British power and permanence, or something else?
