Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T18:10:42.226Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

COERCION AND CONCILIATION AT THE EDGE OF EMPIRE: STATE-BUILDING AND ITS LIMITS IN WAZIRISTAN, 1849–1914

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 October 2017

MARK CONDOS  and
GAVIN RAND
MARK CONDOS*
Affiliation:
Queen Mary, University of London, and University of Greenwich
GAVIN RAND*
Affiliation:
Queen Mary, University of London, and University of Greenwich
*
School of History, Queen Mary, University of London, Mile End Road, London, e1 4ns[email protected]
Department of History, Politics and Social Sciences, University of Greenwich, Old Royal Naval College, London, se10 9ls[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Since 2001, the geo-strategic priorities of the ‘War on Terror’ have prompted renewed attention to the historically significant region of Waziristan. Ironically, given the apparent failure of British attempts to pacify the region in the century after 1849, Waziristan’s colonial history has been picked over by policy-makers, commentators, and scholars for lessons which might be applied to current projects of state-building and counter-insurgency. Unabashedly instrumentalist, these works have reproduced the reductive stereotypes of the colonial sources and helped to entrench partial understandings of the frontier which obscure the dynamic and contingent nature of imperial state-building. This article offers an alternate frame for writing the history of the colonial frontier by re-examining how British officials attempted to constitute colonial authority through their engagements with one of the region’s most powerful groups: the Mahsud Wazirs. Challenging historiographical emphases on oscillating metropolitan strategies, this article maps crucial and largely overlooked continuities in British attempts to pacify the Mahsuds, providing new insights into state-building at the edge of empire and a more nuanced account of how imperial power was engaged, resisted, and deflected by those it sought to control.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Historical Journal , Volume 61 , Issue 3 , September 2018 , pp. 695 - 718
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

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 See, generally, Richard Temple and R. H. Davies, Report showing the relations of the British government with the tribes of the North-West Frontier of the Punjab from annexation in 1849 to the close of 1855; and continuation of the same to August 1864 (Lahore, 1865), British Library (BL), India Office Records (IOR), V/27/273/1/1; Davies, C. C., The problem of the North-West Frontier 1890–1908, with a survey of policy since 1849 (Cambridge, 1932)Google Scholar; Ahmed, Akbar S., Pukhtun economy and society: traditional structure and economic development in tribal society (London, 1980)Google Scholar; and Beattie, Hugh, Imperial frontier: tribe and state in Waziristan (Richmond, 2002)Google Scholar.

2 Roe, Andrew M., Waging war in Waziristan: the British struggle in the land of bin Laden, 1849–1947 (Lawrence, KS, 2010)Google Scholar; Matthews, M. M., An ever present danger: a concise history of British military operations on the North-West Frontier, 1849–1947 (Fort Leavenworth, KS, 2010)Google Scholar; Williams, Matthew W., The British colonial experience in Waziristan and its applicability to current operations (Fort Leavenworth, KS, 2005)Google Scholar, United States Department of Defence: Defence Technical Information Center, www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a436296.pdf; Ferris, John, ‘Counter-insurgency and empire: the British experience with Afghanistan and the North-West Frontier, 1838–1947’, in Gates, Scott and Roy, Kaushik, eds., War and state-building in Afghanistan: historical and modern perspectives (London, 2015), pp. 79–112Google Scholar.

3 Though we follow the colonial sources in referring to ‘tribe’, we recognize that contemporary understandings of ‘tribe’ owe much to colonial ethnographies, which were invariably shaped by the security concerns of the expanding colonial state. See Tapper, Richard, ‘Introduction’, in idem, ed., The conflict of tribe and state in Iran and Afghanistan (London, 1983), pp. 5–6, 42Google Scholar; Scott, James C., The art of not being governed: an anarchist history of upland Southeast Asia (New Haven, CT, 2009), pp. 31–2Google ScholarPubMed; and Beattie, Hugh, ‘Custom and conflict in Waziristan: some British views’, in Hopkins, Benjamin D. and Marsden, Magnus, eds., Beyond Swat: history, society and economy along the Afghanistan–Pakistan frontier (London, 2012), p. 211Google Scholar.

4 Stewart, R., ‘The irresistible illusion’, London Review of Books, 31 (2009), pp. 3–6Google Scholar.

5 Allen, Charles, Soldier sahibs: the men who made the North-West Frontier (London, 2000)Google Scholar; Tripodi, Christian, Edge of empire: the British political officer and tribal administration on the North-West Frontier, 1877–1947 (Farnham, 2011)Google Scholar, which describes the frontier's inhabitants as ‘unruly’, ‘intractable’, ‘misbehaving’, and in need of ‘taming’. On the persistence of colonial stereotypes in contemporary political discourse, see Condos, Mark, ‘“Fanaticism” and the politics of resistance along the North-West Frontier of British India’, Comparative Studies in Society and History, 58 (2016), pp. 717–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For a useful summary of the problems of much of the extant literature, see Hopkins, Benjamin D. and Marsden, Magnus, Fragments of the Afghan frontier (Oxford, 2011)Google Scholar.

6 Tripodi, Edge of empire, p. 16.

7 Agha, Sameetah, ‘Inventing a frontier: imperial motives and sub-imperialism on British India's Northwest Frontier, 1889–1898’, in Agha, Sameetah and Kolsky, Elizabeth, eds., Fringes of empire: peoples, places, and spaces in colonial India (Oxford, 2009), pp. 94–114Google Scholar; and Akbar S. Ahmed, ‘Tribes and states in Waziristan’, in Tapper, ed., The conflict of tribe and state, pp. 192–211. For a critical appraisal of the underpinning ‘great game narrative’, see Bayly, Martin J., Taming the imperial imagination: colonial knowledge, international relations, and the Anglo-Afghan encounter, 1808–1878 (Cambridge, 2016), esp. pp. 10–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

8 As Christine Noelle has noted, Pashtun ‘identities and political strategies have always been shaped by their interaction with greater powers’: Noelle, Christine, State and tribe in nineteenth-century Afghanistan: the reign of Amir Dost Muhammed Khan (1826–1863) (Richmond, 1999), p. 123Google Scholar.

9 Scott, The art of not being governed, p. xi.

10 See, generally, Malcolm Yapp, ‘Tribes and states in the Khyber, 1838–1842’, in Tapper, ed., The conflict of tribe and state, pp. 151–87; Scott, The art of not being governed; Singha, Radhika, A despotism of law: crime and justice in early colonial India (New Delhi, 1998)Google Scholar; Major, Andrew, ‘State and criminal tribes in colonial Punjab: surveillance, control and reclamation of the “dangerous classes”’, Modern Asian Studies, 33 (1999), pp. 657–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

11 Singha, A despotism of law, pp. 169–70.

12 Guha, Ranajit, A rule of property for Bengal: an essay on the idea of permanent settlement (Paris, 1963)Google Scholar.

13 Nichols, Robert, Settling the frontier: land, law, and society in the Peshawar Valley, 1500–1900 (Oxford, 2001), p. 215Google Scholar; Johnson, Robert, The Afghan way of war: culture and pragmatism: a critical history (London, 2011), p. 35Google Scholar.

14 ‘District memorandum, Derah Ismael Khan, 1852’, in Temple and Davies, Report, p. 171.

15 Nichols, Settling the frontier, p. 216.

16 Davies, The problem of the North-West Frontier, p. 25; Temple and Davies, Report.

17 Davies, The problem of the North-West Frontier, p. 116.

18 Temple and Davies, Report, p. 97.

19 Younghusband, G. J., Indian frontier warfare (London, 1898), p. 7Google Scholar.

20 See Callwell, C. E., Small wars: their principles and practice (1896; London, 1906)Google Scholar; also Frontier warfare 1901 (Simla, 1901); and Churchill, Winston S., The story of the Malakand Field Force: an episode of frontier war (London, 1898)Google Scholar; MacMunn, G. F., The romance of the Indian frontiers (London, 1931)Google Scholar.

21 For a more detailed discussion of colonial frontier warfare, see Rand, G., ‘“From the Black Mountain to Waziristan”: culture and combat on the North-West Frontier’, in Roy, K. and Rand, G., eds., Culture, conflict and the military in colonial South Asia (London, 2017)Google Scholar.

22 Hopkins, Benjamin D., ‘The Frontier Crimes Regulation and frontier governmentality’, Journal of Asian Studies, 74 (2015), pp. 1–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kolsky, Elizabeth, ‘The colonial rule of law and the legal regime of exception: frontier “fanaticism” and state violence in British India’, American Historical Review, 120 (2015), pp. 1218–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

23 Scott, David, Refashioning futures: criticism after postcoloniality (Princeton, NJ, 1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

24 Paget, W. H. and Mason, A. H., A record of the expeditions against the tribes of the North-West Frontier since the annexation of the Punjab (London, 1884), p. 506Google Scholar.

25 Beattie, Imperial frontier, pp. 29–34.

26 Mason, A. H., Report on the Mahsud Waziri tribe (Simla, 1893)Google Scholar, BL, IOR, L/PS/20/B104, p. 32.

27 Paget and Mason, A record of the expeditions, p. 508.

28 See Wylly, H. C., From the Black Mountain to Waziristan: being an account of the border countries and the more turbulent of the tribes controlled by the North-West Frontier Province, and of our military relations with them in the past (London, 1912), p. 447Google Scholar.

29 Mason, Report on the Mahsud Waziri tribe, p. 36.

30 Chamberlain to the Punjab Government (PG), 7 July 1860, National Archives of India (NAI), Foreign/Political A/Nov. 1862/nos. 99–101, no. 100, p. 16.

31 Ibid., p. 20.

32 Ibid.

33 Taylor to the PG, 6 Dec. 1861, NAI Foreign/Political A/Jan. 1862/nos. 108–10, para. 7.

34 Graham to the commissioner and superintendent of Derajat, 8 Aug. 1865, NAI, Foreign/Political A/Jan. 1866/nos. 87–90, no. 88, para. 12.

35 Extract from the proceedings of the GOI, 18 Dec. 1865, NAI, Foreign/Political A/Jan. 1866/nos. 87–90, no. 89, p. 5.

36 Ibid.; PG to the GOI, 4 Dec. 1865, ibid., no. 87, p. 1; also Note by A. S., Aug. 1896, NAI, Foreign/Frontier A/Sept. 1896/nos. 84–91, p. 1.

37 Political letter by His Majesty's secretary of state for India, 30 Apr. 1866, BL, IOR, L/PS/6/456, p. 1195.

38 PG to the GOI, 10 Nov. 1873, NAI, Foreign/Political A/nos. 356–70, para. 6, p. 2; Beattie, Hugh, ‘Negotiations with the tribes of Waziristan 1849–1914 – the British experience’, Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History, 39 (2011), p. 579CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

39 Memorandum on border policy, Dec. 1866, NAI/Foreign/Secret/Sept. 1872/nos. 60–83, no. 61, p. 10.

40 Translation of a petition from Gholam Nabbi Khan, NAI, Foreign/Political A/May 1877/nos. 180–8, no. 181, p. 1.

41 Macaulay to Munro, 23 Feb. 1877, ibid., no. 184, para. 1, p. 1.

42 Macaulay to Munro, 25 Feb. 1877, ibid., no. 187, para. 4, p. 3.

43 PG to the GOI, 22 Mar. 1877, ibid., no. 180, para. 6, p. 1.

44 PG to the GOI, 2 June 1882, NAI, Foreign/Political A/July 1882/nos. 261–8, no. 261, para. 3, p. 1.

45 PG to the GOI, 3 Jan. 1881, BL, IOR, L/MIL/17/13/107, p. 4.

46 Beattie, Hugh, ‘Hostages on the Indo-Afghan border in the later nineteenth century’, Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History, 43 (2015), pp. 561–2CrossRefGoogle Scholar; also idem, Imperial frontier, p. 130.

47 Bruce, R. I., The forward policy and its results; or thirty-five years’ work amongst the tribes on our North-Western Frontier of India (London, 1900), p. 85Google Scholar.

48 Idem, Memorandum on our past and present relations with the Waziri tribe (especially the Mahsud section) and the Bhittanni tribe on the Dera Ismail–Khan border, 1888, BL, IOR, MSS Eur F163/8, p. 26.

49 Waziristan and the lessons of the 60 years (Simla, 1921), BL, IOR, L/MIL/17/13/123, pp. 4–34.

50 See, for example, ‘The Waziri expedition’, Pioneer, 10 June 1881, qtd in BL, IOR, L/MIL/17/13/107, pp. 89–90.

51 Diary entry, 27 Apr. 1881, BL, IOR, L/MIL/17/13/107, p. 59.

52 Kennedy to the PG, 5 Feb. 1881, ibid., p. 10.

53 PG to Kennedy, 13 Apr. 1881, ibid., p. 47.

54 Diary entry, 18 May 1881, ibid., p. 85.

55 For a broader, perhaps overstated, analysis of the imperial military and colonial knowledge, see Hevia, James, The imperial security state: British colonial knowledge and empire-building in South Asia (Cambridge, 2012), pp. 73–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

56 Ahmed, ‘Tribes and states’, p. 198.

57 The British intended that these hostages be used as chalweshtis – a ‘traditional’ tribal militia that could be used to police the Mahsuds themselves. Indicatively, the tribesmen regarded these as prized appointments, not as forms of punishment: Beattie, ‘Hostages on the Indo-Afghan border’, p. 563.

58 NAI, Foreign/Political A/July 1882/nos. 8–40, 99–101; also Wylly, From the Black Mountain, p. 458.

59 ‘Intelligence received from the Mahsud hills’, NAI, Foreign/Political A/Nov. 1881, nos. 161–212, no. 173, para. 2.

60 Temple, Richard, Report showing the relations of the British government with the tribes, independent and dependent, on the North-West Frontier of the Punjab, from annexation in 1849 to the close of 1855 (Calcutta, 1856)Google Scholar, BL, IOR, V/23/3.

61 ‘Were this year's crops to be destroyed’, the Pioneer claimed, ‘starvation must ensue.’ ‘The Waziri expedition’, Pioneer, 10 May 1881, qtd in BL, IOR, L/MIL/17/13/107, p. 31.

62 Ommanney to the PG, 12 Apr. 1882, NAI, Foreign/Political A/June 1882, nos. 261–8, no. 262, para. 4, p. 2.

63 Gazetteer of the Bannu district, 1883–1884 (Calcutta, 1884), BL, IOR, V/27/67/6, p. 99.

64 Bruce, Memorandum, BL, IOR, MSS Eur F163/8, pp. 46–7.

65 Ogilvie to Ommanney, 21 Jan. 1887, NAI, Foreign/Frontier A/June 1887/nos. 23–6, no. 25, para. 5, pp. 3–4.

66 King to Bruce, 11 Mar. 1892, NAI, Foreign/Frontier A/June 1892/nos. 69–74, no. 72, para. 4, pp. 2–3.

67 Mason, A. H. and Cotherill, G. K., Operations against the Mahsud Waziris by a force under the command of Lieutenant-General Sir W. S. A. Lockhart, in 1894–1895 (Simla, 1897)Google Scholar, BL, IOR, L/MIL/17/13/108, pp. 17, 19.

68 Papers regarding British relations with neighbouring tribes on N.W. Frontier of India and military operations, 1897–1898, Command papers: accounts and papers, 1898 (Cd 8713–14), lxiii.3, pp. 30–1; and Howell, Evelyn, Mizh: a monograph on government's relations with the Mahsud tribe (1931; Karachi, 1979), p. 9Google Scholar.

69 Mason and Cotherill, Operations against the Mahsud Waziris, pp. 43–6.

70 ‘Memorandum by Mr. A. J. Grant, political officer’, in ibid., appendix xix.

71 Ibid., p. 62.

72 Howell, Mizh, p. 9.

73 Enclosure no. 281 from Bruce, 15 Apr. 1896, NAI, Foreign/Frontier A/Sept. 1896/nos. 84–91.

74 GOI to the PG, 3 Sept. 1896, ibid.

75 Enclosure no. 281 from Bruce, 15 Apr. 1896, ibid.

76 Washbrook, D. A., ‘Law, state and agrarian society in colonial India’, Modern Asian Studies, 15 (1981), pp. 649–721CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

77 Lord Curzon of Kedleston, Frontiers (Oxford, 1907), p. 7Google Scholar.

78 Gilmour, David, Curzon: imperial statesman (London, 2003), pp. 196–8Google Scholar.

79 Joyce, Patrick, The state of freedom: a social history of the British state since 1800 (Cambridge, 2013), pp. 150–2CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

80 GOI to Hamilton, 30 Jan. 1902, Papers relating to Mahsud-Waziri operations (East India: North-West Frontier), Command papers: accounts and papers, 1902 (Cd 1177), lxxi, p. 155.

81 Wylly, From the Black Mountain, p. 470.

82 Merk to Deane, 6 Mar. 1902, BL, IOR, L/MIL/17/13/109, p. 281; also Wylly, From the Black Mountain, p. 472.

83 As with punitive expeditions, the aim of ‘enhanced blockade’ was to ‘demolish all defences, capture prisoners and cattle, and destroy grain and fodder’: Wylly, From the Black Mountain, p. 471.

84 Merk to the PG, 1 July 1901, NAI, Foreign/Frontier A/July 1901/ nos. 10–39, no. 39, pp. 6–7.

85 Deane to the GOI, 27 Mar. 1902, BL, IOR, L/MIL/17/13/109, p. 285.

86 Anderson to the PG, 24 Jan. 1900, Papers relating to Mahsud-Waziri operations, p. 56.

87 Note by P. Pipon, 1 Feb. 1902, ibid., p. 273.

88 Testimony of Nazam Khan, May 1902, NAI, Foreign/Frontier A/July 1901/nos. 10–39, no. 36, p. 17.

89 See NAI, Foreign/Frontier B/Feb. 1901/nos. 193–204.

90 Note by P. Pipon, 1 Feb. 1902, Papers relating to Mahsud-Waziri operations, p. 274; also H. L. Nevill, Campaigns on the North-West Frontier (London, 1912) p. 326.

91 Beattie, ‘Hostages on the Indo-Afghan border’, p. 563.

92 Beattie, ‘Custom and conflict’, pp. 214–16.

93 Warren, A., ‘“Bullocks treading down wasps?”: the British Indian army in Waziristan in the 1930s’, South Asia: Journal of South Asian Studies, 20 (1997), pp. 35–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

94 Howell, Mizh, p. 95.

95 See Ahmed, Pukhtun economy and society; idem, ‘Tribes and states in Waziristan’; Beattie, Imperial frontier.

96 The emphasis on those relatively infrequent moments of direct engagement, including in revisionist accounts, is thus somewhat misleading. See, for example, Burton, Antoinette, The trouble with empire: challenges to modern British imperialism (Oxford, 2015), pp. 24–86Google Scholar.

97 Condos, Mark, ‘Licence to kill: The Murderous Outrages Act and the rule of law in colonial India’, Modern Asian Studies, 50 (2016), pp. 479–517CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hopkins, ‘The Frontier Crimes Regulation’.

98 For comparisons, see Mukerji, C., Impossible engineering: technology and territoriality on the Canal du Midi (Princeton, NJ, 2009)Google Scholar; Dutta, Simanti, Imperial mappings in savage spaces: Baluchistan and British India (New Delhi, 2002)Google Scholar; Haines, Daniel, Building the empire, building the nation: development, legitimacy, and hydro-politics in Sind, 1919–1969 (Oxford, 2013)Google Scholar.

99 As recently as the 1980s, the long-anticipated ‘pacification’ of Waziristan was being mooted by the frontier official-cum-scholar A. S. Ahmed: Ahmed, ‘Tribes and states’, pp. 200–1.

100 Hopkins and Marsden, Fragments of the Afghan frontier, pp. 215–19.