Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-sjtt6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-08T01:37:38.950Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Siege of Chitral and the “Breach of Faith Controversy” — The Imperial Factor in Late Victorian Party Politics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 January 2014

Robert A. Huttenback
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Throughout the last quarter of the nineteenth century, the British authorities, both in London and Calcutta, were becoming progressively more concerned about the security of India's undefined northern border along which the empires of Britain, Russia and China and the kingdom of Afghanistan met. Although the Russian capture of Francis Younghusband in 1891 and the consequent danger of war had forced the British and Russians to the conference table, Russia, China and Afghanistan were still on a collision course in those reaches of the Pamirs beyond the purview of Anglo-Russian bilateral border talks. Consequently, when the Russians forced the Chinese to withdraw from Ak-Tash and defeated an Afghan force encamped at Somatash, the nightmore vision of Russian armies poised at the gates of India suddenly appeared both real and terrifying.

The Government of India's reaction was prompt. The governor general, Lord Lansdowne, determined to strengthen the garrison at Gilgit, the British station to the north of Kashmir. But the position in Gilgit was viable only if Chitral, to the west, were secure. This mountain satrapy was, in the eyes of Calcutta, the key to the defense of the whole northern border, and while Mehtar Aman-ul-Mulk occupied the throne of the state, British influence was paramount. But in September 1892, this venerable and crafty autocrat died, opening a Pandora's box of succession controversy that had remained largely sealed during the deceased ruler's lengthy hegemony.

The immediate consequences of the mehtar's death gave little indication of what was to follow.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of British Studies , Volume 10 , Issue 1 , November 1970 , pp. 126 - 144
Copyright
Copyright © North American Conference of British Studies 1970

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. Government of India to Secretary of State for India, April 17, 1895; enclosure, Secretary to the Government of India, Foreign Department to Chief Secretary, Punjab, March 14, 1895, Parliamentary Papers, 1895, C. 8764, 30, extract no. 66.

2. Times (London), June 6, 1896Google Scholar.

3. , G. J. and Younghusband, F. E., The Relief of Chitral (London, 1895), p. 185Google Scholar.

4. Younghusband, F. E., The Heart of a Continent (London, 1896), p. 397Google Scholar.

5. Ibid., pp. 396-397.

6. Sec. of State to Govt. of India, August 3, 1894, Parliamentary Papers, 1895, C. 7864, 22, extract no. 34.

7. Telegram, Sec. of State to Viceroy, March 30, 1895, Parliamentary Papers, 1895, C. 7864, 29, extract no. 34.

8. India Office Library, Sec. of State to Viceroy, December 23, 1897, Elgin Papers.

9. IOL, note by Sir C. H. T. Crosthwaite, April 28, 1895, Political and Secret Home Correspondence.

10. IOL, minute by Lt. Gen. H. Brackenbury, April 28, 1895, Pol. and Sec. Dept.

11. IOL, Robertson to Sec. to the Govt. of India, Foreign Department, N.D. Sec./Front. 110, June 4, 1895, enclosure 101.

12. Sec. of State to Viceroy, April 19, 1895, Parliamentary Papers, 1895, C. 7864, 32.

13. IOL, Viceroy to Sec. of State, June 22, 1895, Pol. and Sec. Home Corres.

14. Tel., Viceroy to Sec. of State, April 18, 1895, Parliamentary Papers, 1895, C. 7864, 34.

15. Tel., Sec. of State to Viceroy, April 25, 1895, Parliamentary Papers, 1895, C. 7864, 35.

16. IOL, Sec. of State to Govt. of India, 15, April 26, 1895.

17. Viceroy to Sec. of State, April 25, 1895, Parliamentary Papers, 1895, C. 7864, 35.

18. IOL, Viceroy to Sec. of State, Sec./Front, 89, May 8, 1895.

19. Ibid.

20. IOL, Godley to Elgin, May 3, 1895, Elgin Papers, no. 53.

21. Tel., Viceroy to Sec. of State, May 13, 1895, Elgin Papers, no. 53.

22. Rosebery to Elgin, Waterloo Day, 1895, Elgin Papers, no. 76. Most official Indian opinion was strongly on Elgin's side. Sir Mortimer Durand wrote the viceroy from Teheran, where he was serving as British minister: “I am very sorry Lord Rosebery decided to throw up Chitral and hope the decision may not be carried out now. It has been, and is, a great opportunity of getting a grip upon our natural line of defence, the mountain belt which stretches from the Pamirs to the sea. W e have fixed ourselves firmly at the southern end — Baluchistan. We have also organized a centre of control north of the Hindu-Kush. We have now to deal with the central section of the border, which the Amir has admitted to be within our sphere of influence … It seems to me that, while Russia is weak in Asia and all is quiet, we ought to make sure of everything up to the Afghan Border.” IOL, Durand to Elgin, August 2, 1895, Elgin Papers, no. 48a.

23. Tel. Viceroy to Sec. of State, June 22, 1895, Parliamentary Papers, 1895, C. 7864, 42.

24. Tel. Sec. of State to Viceroy, August 1, 1895, Parliamentary Papers, 1895, C. 7864. 50.

25. IOL, Tel., Viceroy to Sec. of State, August 3, 1895, Elgin Papers, no. 597.

26. IOL, Sec. of State to Viceroy, August 9, 1895, Elgin Papers, no. 442.

27. IOL, Sec. of State to Viceroy, August 16, 1895, Secret no. 30.

28. IOL, Sec. of State to Viceroy, August 9, 1895, Elgin Papers, no. 28.

29. IOL, Tel., Viceroy to Sec. of State, August 10, 1895, Pol. and Sec. Home Carres.

30. IOL, Viceroy to Sec. of State, August 3, 1895, Pol. and Sec. Home Corres.

31. Tel., Viceroy to Sec. of State, August 18, 1895, Parliamentary Papers, 1896, C. 8037, 1.

32. IOL, Sec. to the Govt. of India, For. Dept. to Sir George Robertson, Sec./Front., August 27, 1895, end. 9, no. 3220F, August 17, 1895.

33. IOL, Robertson to Capt. H. Daly, September 12, 1895, Sec. and Pol. Dept, Chitral and Peshawar Road Series, part VIII, 1623 F. demi-official 4. Enclosed report of durbar held at Chitral for the installation of Mehtar Shuja-ul-Mulk by Capt. Minchin.

34. Extract of tel., Sec. to the Govt. of India, For. Dept., to Lt. Gen. Sir R. C. Low, August 10, 1895, Parliamentary Papers, 1896, C. 8037, 2.

35. Sec. to the Govt. of India, For. Dept., to Low, August 15, 1895, Parliamentary Papers, 1896, C. 8037, 2.

36. Ibid.

37. Sec. of State to Viceroy, August 16, 1895, Parliamentary Papers, 1895, C. 7853, 44.

38. Viceroy to Sec. of State, September 24, 1895, Parliamentary Papers, 1896, C. 8037. 3.

39. IOL, Viceroy to Sec. of State, October 9, 1895, Sec./Front. 199.

40. Hansard, H. C. Deb., August 15, 1895.

41. Hansard, H. C. Deb., September 3, 1895.

42. Hansard, H. L. Deb., August 15, 1895.

43. Ibid.

44. IOL, Sec. of State to Viceroy, August 16, 1895, Hamilton Papers.

45. IOL, Sec. of State to Viceroy, September 15, 1895, Hamilton Papers.

46. Hansard, H. L. Deb., February 17, 1896. The motion failed: Ayes 79, Noes 193.

47. IOL, Viceroy to Sec. of State, October 28, 1897, Hamilton Papers.

48. Reports of the Native Press (Bombay), Jagaditechhu (Bombay), August 25, 1895.

49. Ibid., Pratod, September 16, 1895.

50. IOL, Viceroy to Sec. of State, February 19, 1895, Sec./Front. 35.

51. IOL, Sec. of State to Viceroy, June 26, 1896, Hamilton Papers.

52. IOL, W. Lee-Warner to W. J. Cunningham, March 26, 1896, demi-offic.

53. IOL, Note by H. A. Deane, April 17, 1898, Hamilton Papers.

54. IOL, Viceroy to Sec. of State, November 3, 1897, Hamilton Papers.

55. Nonsense poets and others were however intrigued by the strange names of the Northwest. “Who, or why, or which, or what is the Ahkond of Swat?” asked Edward Lear. (“The Ahkond of Swat”) George Thomas Lanigan mourned the death of the same ruler: “Your great Ahkond Is Dead! That Swats the matter!” (“A Threnody”) And Lanigan also wrote a “Dirge of the Moolla of Kotal”:

Alas, unhappy land, ill-fated spot

Kotal — though where or what

On the earth Kotal is, the bard has forgot;

Further than this indeed he knoweth not —

It borders upon Swat!

56. IOL Sec. of State to Viceroy, December 23, 1897, Elgin Papers. In this same letter, Hamilton had remarked: “This Chitral controversy is the only point upon which during the last eighteen years there has on a frontier question of policy been a party difference of opinion.” The Chitral episode was clearly a party political issue. The solid front presented by the Liberals should not be interpreted to mean they were united in their outlook on imperial matters in general; this was certainly not the case.

57. Hansard, H. C. Deb., February 14, 1898.