Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T08:22:19.677Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

District Officers in Decline: The Erosion of British Authority in the Bombay Countryside, 1919 to 1947

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Simon Epstein
Simon Epstein
Affiliation:
University of Newcastle upon Tyne
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The paradox of the authoritarian rule of the Indian Raj at the heart of Britain's liberal empire was one that ran continuously through the history of nineteenth- and twentieth-century imperialism. Both as the unpaid arsenal of Eastern expansion and defence, and as the essential stop-gap to Britain's multilateral pattern of trade, India was the necessary if incongruous adjunct of Liberal England, supporting the doctrines of progress at home on the basis of the autocratic control of its British-born hierophants over the numberless ‘contented masses’ of the Indian countryside. The resulting contrast between the increasingly self-governing white dominions, and the Indian maverick upholding in chains the very fabric of the empire, was also reflected in the political thinking of the motherland itself, by way of the stresses and contradictions which the conditions of the Raj's existence served to create within the liberal framework of the Victorian intellectual world. At the core of the Victorian liberal empire stood the strictly paternalistic government of the Raj in India; at the centre of the ‘benevolent despotism’ that British rule in the subcontinent adopted stood the steel frame of the Indian Civil Service, ‘much more of a government corporation than of a purely civil service’ and the creator as much as the executor of British policy there.

Type
Articles
Information
Modern Asian Studies , Volume 16 , Issue 3 , July 1982 , pp. 493 - 518
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1982

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 e.g. Seal, A., ‘Imperialism and Nationalism in India’, in Gallagher, J., Johnson, G. and Seal, A. (eds), Locality, Province and Nation: Essays on Indian Politics 1870 to 1940 (Cambridge, 1973), p. 7Google Scholar; ‘Note on the results to the British Commonwealth of the Transfer of Political Power in India’, Mansergh, N. and Moon, P. (eds), The Transfer of Power 1942–7 Vol VIII (London, 1979), pp. 50–2.Google Scholar

2 Seeley, J. R., The Expansion of England (London, 1886), pp. 185 and 129–96 passim.Google Scholar

3 For some idea of the impact of the experience of ruling India on the political thought of Victorian England, cf. Roach, J., ‘Liberalism and the Victorian Intelligentsia’, Cambridge Historical Journal, XIII (1957), pp. 58–81, passim.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

4 Montagu-Chelmsford Report (London, 1918), p. 105 and cf. especially pp. 102 and 82.Google Scholar

5 Indian Statutory Commission (London, 1930), Vol I, p. 289Google Scholar; cf. for example the remark of Aberigh-Mackay, G., Twenty-one Days in India (7th edn, London, 1902), p. 81Google Scholar, that ‘to the people of India the Collector is the Imperial Government.’

6 Bonarjee, N. B., Under Two Masters (London, 1970), p. 125.Google Scholar

7 Cf. e.g. Governor of Bombay to Deputy Superintendent of Police, 23.1.32, Mss Eur F150/4(a) (Sykes Correspondence), India Office Library (Hereafter I.O.L.); Wavell to H.M. King George VI, 22.3.46, Mansergh, N. and Moon, P., The Transfer of Power 1942–7 Vol VI (London, 1976), p. 233.Google Scholar

8 Brown, J., ‘Imperial Façade: Some Constraints upon and Contradictions in the British Position in India 1919–35’, Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 5th series 26 (1976), pp. 35–52Google Scholar, has recently outlined some of the problems of decline as they appeared from the standpoint of the provincial and central secretariats over a very similar period; Low, D. A., ‘Introduction: the Climactic Years 1917–47’, Low, D. A. (ed.), Congress and the Raj (London, 1977), pp. 1–45Google Scholar, has re-emphasized the importance of the entire period from the First World War onwards as the time of the de facto transfer of real power across the subcontinent.

9 Gallagher, J., ‘Congress in Decline: Bengal, 1930 to 1939’, in Johnson, Gallagher and Seal, (eds), Locality, Province and Nation, p. 269.Google Scholar

10 Lumley to Linlithgow 13.4.38, Mss Eur F125/51 (Linlithgow Correspondence), I.O.L. Wavell a decade later faced precisely the same refusal to accept the terms of the constitutional game in his Interim Government of 1946; Wavell to Pethick-Lawrence 15.10.46 and 30.10.46, Mansergh, and Moon, (eds), Transfer of Power, Vol VIII, pp. 738 and 842–4.Google Scholar

11 Cf. e.g. the comments of Woodruff, P. (P. Mason), The Men who Ruled India: The Guardians (London, 1954), pp. 246–7 and 251Google Scholar; Wylie to Wavell 7.8.46, Mansergh, and Moon, (eds), The Transfer of Power, Vol VIII, pp. 200–2.Google Scholar

12 Government of India, Home Department, to Secretary of State 5.9.42, Mansergh, N. and Lumby, E. W. R. (eds), The Transfer of Power 1942–7 Volume II (London, 1971) p. 905Google Scholar; I have explored the creation and growth of rural nationalism in the presidency (the necessary complement to the argument that follows), in ‘Bombay Peasants and Indian Nationalism: A Study of Economic Change and Political Activity in the Bombay countryside 1919 to 1939’ (Oxford D.Phil, thesis, 1978), passimGoogle Scholar; for a solid and far-reaching survey by British Intelligence of the extent of Congress influence in Bombay by the mid-thirties, cf. ‘Political Situation in Gujarat and Karnatak’, passim, Home Department, Special, Government of Bombay H.S. 800 (97) of 1935, Maharashtra State Archives (Hereafter M.S.A.).

13 Cf. Seal, , ‘Imperialism and Nationalism in India’, esp. pp. 6–15.Google Scholar

14 Woodruff, , The Men who Ruled India, p. 179.Google Scholar

15 Bonarjee, , Under Two Masters, p. 142.Google Scholar

16 Indian Statutory Commission, Vol. I, p. 404.Google Scholar

17 Chaudhry, M. L., The Congress in Power (Lahore, 1947), pp. 7–8 and 95.Google Scholar

18 Cf. e.g. Birkenhead's comments on ‘a Government founded so completely as ours is upon prestige’, Hyde, H. Montgomery, Lord Reading (London, 1967), p. 382Google Scholar, or Wavell's dissection of the roots of the influence of the I.C.S., Mansergh, and Moon, (eds), The Transfer of Power, Vol VIII, p. 456.Google Scholar

19 Montagu-Chelmsford Report, p. 102.Google Scholar

20 Cf. e.g. Gandhi, M., Collected Works Vol. XLIII (Ahmedabad, 1971), p. 128Google Scholar; Maconochie, E., Life in the I.C.S. (London, 1926), p. 33.Google Scholar

21 Bombay Police Abstract of Intelligence 1920, Para 1 491 (21) for the power of the trio, patel, talati, and shroffin the Deccan countryside; Land Revenue Administration Report of the Bombay Presidency, Including Sind, for the year … from 1909–10 to 1916–17 especially for the local influence of the village officials, and the numbers rewarded, prosecuted, suspended or dismissed each year by the district administration.

22 Gwynn, J. T., Indian Politics (London, 1924), p. 7Google Scholar; cf. e.g. Indian Statutory Commission, Vol. XV (Evidence of Chief Secretary to the Government of Bombay), p. 3.Google Scholar

23 Indian Statutory Commission, Vol. I, p. 289.Google Scholar

24 Woodruff, , The Men who Ruled India, p. 218Google Scholar; cf. Maconochie, , Life in the I.C.S., p. 226.Google Scholar

25 Cf. the later comments of the Governor of Assam on ‘the great advantage of the Morley-Minto legislative bodies … [in] providing a mirror in which I could see the work that I and others were doing and gauge its political reactions’, Clow to Linlithgow, 9.5.42, Mansergh, and Lumby, (eds), Transfer of Power, Vol. II, p. 56.Google Scholar

26 Cf. e.g. Danzig, R., ‘The Announcement of August 20, 1917’, Journal of Asian Studies, XXVIII (1968), pp. 19–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

27 Maconochie, , Life in the I.C.S., p. 3.Google Scholar

28 Royal Commission on Agriculture in India (London, 1928), Vol. 2 (1) (Evidence of the Collector of West Khandesh), p. 298Google Scholar; by 1927, all the district local boards had come under non-official Presidents and Vice-Presidents in Bombay; Report on the Administration of the Local Boards, Bombay, 1926–7 (1928), p. 11.Google Scholar

29 Woodruff, , The Men who Ruled India, p. 303.Google Scholar

30 Report of the Indian Central Committee 1928–9 (London, 1929), p. 12.Google Scholar

31 Cf. Woodruff, , The Men who Ruled India, p. 249.Google Scholar

32 Simon Commission quoted in O'Malley, L. S. S., The Indian Civil Service 1601–1930 (London, 1931), p. 152Google Scholar; cf. e.g. Woodruff, , The Men who Ruled India, pp. 246–7Google Scholar for a powerful rendering of the local viewpoint: ‘no-one—reasoned the peasant—gives up power unless he is forced to’.

33 Bonarjee, , Under Two Masters, p. 95.Google Scholar

34 Indian Statutory Commission, Vol. I, p. 273Google Scholar; cf. Beaglehole, T. H., ‘From Rulers to Servants. The I.C.S. and the British Demission of Power in India’, Modem Asian Studies, 11 (1977), p. 240 and passimCrossRefGoogle Scholar, and for an example of the continuing official concern for the problem, Leslie-Wilson, 19.1.25, Mss Eur D. 703/14 (Private Letters from Sir Leslie-Wilson to Lord Birkenhead), I.O.L.

35 Bombay Police Abstract of Intelligence 1919, Para 375 and Para 625 (b).

36 Low, D. A., ‘The Government of India and the First Non-cooperation Movement 1920–22’, Journal of Asian Studies, XXV (1966), pp. 241–259passim.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

37 Secretary to Government of India, Home Department, 24.11.21, Home Department, Political, Government of India, Home Poll File 303— 1921, National Archives of India (Hereafer N.A.I).

38 Woodruff, P.The Men who Ruled India, p. 247.Google Scholar

39 For the comparable argument from a district officer of the time that ‘an irreversible shift of power occurred between 1919 and 1935 … [with] the decline in the influence of the collector's position’, see Venkatachar's, C. S. recently published comments in Hunt, R. and Harrison, J., The District Officer in India 1930–1947 (London, 1980), p. 186.Google Scholar

40 Sykes to Irwin, 1.3.29, Mss Eur F150/1 (Sykes Correspondence), I.O.L.

41 Indian Statutory Commission, Vol. VII, p. 463 (and p. 411)Google Scholar; cf. Royal Commission on Agriculture in India, Vol. XIV, p. 118.Google Scholar

42 Indian Statutory Commission, Vol. I, pp. 363–4Google Scholar (and especially p. 364 for the conclusion that across India ‘the land revenue is rapidly ceasing to be an elastic source of revenue’).

43 Sykes to Irwin, 1.3.29, Mss Eur F150/1 (Sykes Correspondence), I.O.L.

44 Nehru, J., An Autobiography (new edn, London, 1949), p. 121.Google Scholar

45 Irwin to Sykes, 19.2.29, Mss Eur F150/1 (Sykes Correspondence), I.O.L.

46 Cf. e.g. ‘Notes on the Present Provincial Settlement’, 8.4.32, Mss Eur F 150/4(a) (Sykes Correspondence), I.O.L; for the comparable developments on an all-India basis, see e.g. Low, D. A., ‘Introduction: The Climactic Years 1917–1947’, p. 26.Google Scholar

47 Annual Report on Indian and Anglo- Vernacular Papers published in the Bombay Presidency f or the Year 1924, p. 31Google Scholar; cf. Annual Report on Newspapers in the Bombay Presidency for the year 1923, p. 31 for the mounting criticism of the system of fixing the value of the crop.Google Scholar

48 ‘Report on Hirekerur’, November and December 1931, All-India Congress Committee Papers 37 of 1931, Nehru Memorial Museum.

49 Deputy Inspector General of Police, C.I.D. 22.3.35, ‘Political Situation in Gujarat and Karnatak’, Home Department Special, Government of Bombay, H.S. 800(97) of 1935, M.S.A; Fortnightly Report, Bombay, January 1934 (1) and December 1935 (2), Mss Eur F 92/14B (Brabourne Collection), I.O.L.

50 Heston, Alan W., ‘Official Yields per acre in India 1886–1947’, Indian Economic and Social History Review, 10 (1973), p. 327 and passim, and cf. Note 49 above.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

51 ‘Appreciation of the political situation in India ….’, 18.4.32, Home Department, Political, Government of India, Home Poll 36–1 of 1932, N.A.I.

52 Sykes to Irwin, 21.5.30, Mss Eur Fi50/2(3) (Sykes Correspondence), I.O.L.

53 Wakefield, E., Past Imperative (London, 1966), p. 26 (Letter of 29 June 1930)Google Scholar; cf. for the growing integration of the politics of the subcontinent and its implications as a whole, India in 1927–8 (1928), p. 44Google Scholar and Seal, , ‘Imperialism and Nationalism in India’, pp. 15–24.Google Scholar

54 District Magistrate, Kaira, 18.12.30, Home Department, Political, Government of India, Home Poll K.W. to 5.36.31, N.A.I.

55 District Magistrate, Kanara, to Secretary, Home Department, Special, Government of Bombay, 5.4.30, Home Department, Special, Government of Bombay H.S. 750(63) of 930–31, M.S.A.

56 Sykes to Willingdon, 15.12.31, Mss Eur F 150/3(b) (Sykes Correspondence), I.O.L.; for a recent overview of policy changes at the centre during civil disobedience, see Low, D. A., ‘“Civil Martial Law”: The Government of India and the Civil Disobedience Movements, 1930–34,’ in Low, (ed.), Congress and the Raj, pp. 165–98.Google Scholar

57 Sykes to Willingdon 11.10.32, Mss Eur F 150/4(b) (Sykes Correspondence) I.O.L.

58 Cf. e.g. Low, , ‘“Civil Martial Law”’, p. 169–73.Google Scholar

59 See, for example, the admission by Vallabhbhai Patel that even Bardoli could no longer be readily raised to its former pitch of activity by the close of 1931, Fortnightly Report, Bombay, December 1931(1), N.A.I.

60 Cf. e.g. Viceroy to Secretary of State, Telegram, 9.7.32, Mss Eur F 150/4(b) (Sykes Correspondence), I.O.L.

61 Desai, M., The Story of my Life (Delhi, 1974), Vol. I, p. 119.Google Scholar

62 Cf. e.g. Irwin to Sykes, 6.3.31, Mss Eur F 150/3(a) (Sykes Correspondence), I.O.L.; Gandhi to Patel, 26.10.31, Gandhi, M., Letters to Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel (Ahmedabad, 1957), p. 11.Google Scholar

63 ‘Note on visit to Ras’, 29.11.33, Home Department, Special, Government of Bombay, H.S. 800 (53) of 1932, M.S.A.

64 On the actual event, cf. Desai, M., The Story of Bardali (Ahmedabad, 1929), pp. 195 and 261–2Google Scholar; on the consequences cf. Emerson note, 20.2.31, and Sykes to Irwin, 11.3.31, Mss Eur F 150/3(a) (Sykes Correspondence), I.O.L.

65 Collector of Surat, 13.7.32, Home Department, Special, Government of Bombay, H.S. 800(74) 7 of 1932–4 and District Magistrate, Kanara, 11.9.34, Ibid., H.S. 800 (85) of 1934, M.S.A.

66 Brabourne to Zetland, 11.8.35, Mss Eur F 97/4 (Brabourne Papers), I.O.L.; cf. Fortnightly Report, Bombay, May 1935(2), Mss Eur F 97/14B, Ibid., I.O.L.

67 Speech at Borsad, 12.3.31, Gandhi, M., Collected Works Vol XLV (Ahmedabad, 1971), p. 286.Google Scholar

68 Confidential diary, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kaira, week ending 19.5.34, Home Department, Special, Government of Bombay, H.S. 800(85) of 1934, M.S. A.

69 Fortnightly report, Bombay, April 1935(2), Mss Eur F 97/14A (Brabourne Papers), I.O.L.

70 Garrett, 11.6.34. Home Department, Special, Government of Bombay, H.S. 800(53) of 1932, M.S.A.

71 Fortnightly Report, Bombay, April 1935(2) and August 1935(2), Mss Eur F 97/4A (Brabourne Papers), I.O.L.

72 Fortnightly Report, Bombay, July 1935(2), Ibid., I.O.L. and Fortnightly Report, Bombay, February 1936(2) and June 1936(2), Mss Eur F 97/14B, Ibid., I.O.L.

73 Gallagher, J., ‘Congress in Decline: Bengal 1930–39’, in Johnson, Gallagher and Seal, (eds), Locality, Province and Nation, p. 295Google Scholar; cf. Low, D. A. ‘“Civil Martial Law”’, pp. 188–91.Google Scholar

74 Bombay Government letter No. 9522, (Confidential), 9.6.32., ‘Position of the Services under the New Constitution’, L/SG/7/844 I.O.L; cf. the opinion of the Acting Commissioner, Northern Division, that ‘the I.C.S. is to be considered as to a great extent functus officio under the new constitution,’ Memo 23.3.32, Mss Eur F 150/4(a) (Sykes Correspondence), I.O.L.

75 Secretary, Home Department, Special, Government of Bombay, 20.5.35, Home Department, Political, Government of India, Home Poll F3/8/35, N.A.I.

76 Brabourne to Viceroy, 19.2.35, Mss Eur F 97/9 (Brabourne Papers), I.O.L.

77 Brabourne to Viceroy, 6.10.34, Ibid.

78 Secretary, Home Department, Special, Government of Bombay, 20.5.35, Home Department, Political, Government of India, Home Poll F3/8/35, N.A.I.; cf. Shillidy's reports on Gujarat and the Karnatak, 7.5.35 and 9.5.35, Ibid.

79 Secret Report, 5.1.36, Ibid., Home Poll 4.20.36, N.A.I.

80 Brabourne to Linlithgow, 6.7.37, Mss Eur F 97/11 (Brabourne Papers), I.O.L.

81 Brabourne to Linlithgow, 5.8.37, Ibid.

82 Lumley to Linlithgow, 3.1.38, 5.4.38 and 5.6.38, Mss Eur F 125/51 (Linlithgow Correspondence), I.O.L.

83 Kher, reported in Lumley to Linlithgow, 15.3.38, Ibid.

84 Lumley to Linlithgow, 13.4.38 and 10.2.38, and cf. telegram 18.7.38, Ibid.; Gandhi, , Letters to Sardar Vallabhbhai Palei, p. 131 (letter dated 23.4.38)Google Scholar and cf. Ibid., p. 99.

85 Linlithgow Marginal Note, Lumley to Linlithgow, 10.2.38, Mss Eur F 125/51 (Linlithgow Correspondence), I.O.L.

86 Lumley wrote significantly that given the ‘pull between our former pledge … and the smooth working of the new Constitution … the latter is my major responsibility’, Lumley to Linlithgow, 5.6.38, Ibid.

87 Desai, , The Story of my Life, Vol. I, p. 157.Google Scholar

88 Bombay Government Gazette Extraordinary, 12.12.38, Home Department, Special, Government of Bombay H.S. 937(6) of 1937, M.S. A.

89 Lumley to Linlithgow, 16.9.38, Mss Eur F 125/52 (Linlithgow Correspondence), I.O.L.

90 Lumley to Linlithgow, 3.4.38, Ibid.; cf. Desai, The Story of my Life, Vol. I pp. 152–3.Google Scholar

91 Lumley to Linlithgow, 16.9.38 passim, Mss Eur F 125/52 (Linlithgow Correspondence), I.O.L.

92 Lumley to Linlithgow, 13.4.38, Ibid.; Brabourne to Linlithgow, 5.4.37, Mss Eur F 97/11 (Brabourne Papers), I.O.L.

93 Brabourne to Linlithgow, 20.8.37 (and cf. 5.8.37), Ibid.

94 Coupland, R., Indian Politics 1936–42: Report on the Constitutional Problem in India Pt II (Oxford, 1943), p. 103Google Scholar, and cf. p. 104, on the all-India scope of the phenomenon; Lumley to Linlithgow, 13.4.38, passim, for Bombay, Mss Eur F 125/52, Ibid.

95 Woodruff, , The Men who Ruled India, pp. 363 and 365Google Scholar; cf. the additional ‘listed posts’ entirely filled by Indians or Anglo-Indians in the province, Ibid., p. 363.

96 Brabourne to Viceroy 27.6.35, Mss Eur F 97/9 (Brabourne Papers), I.O.L.; for the same phenomenon a little later on an all-India basis, see Linlithgow to Zetland, March 1938, quoted Glendevon, J., The Viceroy at Bay (London, 1971), p. 92.Google Scholar

97 Brabourne to Zetland, 28.10.35, Mss Eur F 97/4a (Brabourne Papers), I.O.L.

98 Lumley to Linlithgow, 14.1.39, Mss Eur F 125/53 (Linlithgow Correspondence), I.O.L.; cf. Lumley to Linlithgow, 30.4.42, Mss Eur F 125/56, Ibid.

99 Lumley to Linlithgow, 14.1.39, Mss Eur F 125/53 Ibid.

100 Lumley to Linlithgow, 16.9.38 and 16.12.38, Mss Eur F 125/52, Ibid.

101 Cf. Lumley to Linlithgow, 1.7.39, Mss Eur F 125/53, Ibid.

102 Haig, , quoted in Glendevon, The Viceroy at Bay, p. 105.Google Scholar

103 Cf. Voigt, J. H. ‘Co-operation or Confrontation? War and Congress Politics, 1939–42’, in Low, (ed.), Congress and the Raj, pp. 349–74 passim, and especially pp. 349–50Google Scholar, on the general boost to the British Raj internally, provided by the conditions and challenge of war.

104 Lumley to Linlithgow, 1.1.40 and 10.9.40, Mss Eur F 125/54 (Linlithgow Correspondence), I.O.L.

105 Bombay—1940–41: A Review of the Administration of the Province (Bombay, 1942), p. XGoogle Scholar (and cf. Bombay—1940–41: A Review of the Administration of the Province (Bombay, 1940), p. XI).Google Scholar

106 Lumley to Linlithgow, 2.10.40, Mss Eur F 125/54 (Linlithgow Correspondence), I.O.L.

107 Lumley to Linlithgow, 10.10.41, Mss Eur F 125/55, Ibid.

108 Lumley to Linlithgow, 10.9.40, Mss Eur F 123/54, Ibid.

109 Lumley to Linlithgow, 16.12.40, Ibid.; cf. inter alia ‘Strength of Congress 1939–41’, Home Department, Political, Government of India, Home Poll 4/7/41, N.A.I.

110 Lumley to Linlithgow, 19.1.40 and cf. 24.12.40, Mss Eur F 125/54 and 56 (Linlithgow Correspondence), I.O.L.

111 There was an increase of some 30 per cent in the constabulary of rural Bombay from 1939 to 1942, Lumley to Linlithgow, Telegram 27.7.42, Mansergh, and Lumby, (eds), The Transfer of Power, Vol. II, p. 467.Google Scholar

112 Lumley to Linlithgow, 30.4.42, Mss Eur F 125/56 (Linlithgow Correspondence), I.O.L.

113 For a prominent member of the Bombay C.I.D. with strong and overt nationalist sympathies, see e.g. Lumley to Linlithgow, 2.10.40, Mss Eur F 125/54, Ibid.

114 Bombay Provincial weekly letter, 17.10.42, Mss Eur F 125/56, Ibid.

115 Bombay Government Report October 1942(1) and December 1942(1), L/P&J/5/163, I.O.L.

116 Lumley to Linlithgow, 15.10.42, Mss Eur F 125/56 (Linlithgow Correspondence), I.O.L.; for police opinion in 1942 on the still far-reaching effects of the Congress Ministry's restoration of the confiscated lands, see Bombay Provincial weekly letter, 17.10.42, Ibid.

117 Lumley to Linlithgow, 8.2.43, Mss Eur F 125/57, ibid. cf. for the general point Low in Low, (ed.), Congress and the Raj, pp. 9 and 368–9.Google Scholar

118 Clow to Linlithgow, 2.10.42, Mansergh, N. and Lumby, E. W. R. (eds), The Transfer of Power 1942–7, Volume III (London, 1971), p. 112Google Scholar (and cf. pp. 111–13, 156–61, passim).

119 Bombay Provincial weekly letter, 17.10.42, Mss Eur F 125/56 (Linlithgow Correspondence), I.O.L.

120 Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kaira, ‘Kaira 1942–3’, Home Department, Special, Government of Bombay, H.S. 1100 (109) E of 1942–3, M.S.A.; ef. D.S.P. Dharwar, 17.10.42, Ibid., H.S. 1110(6) E of 1942, M.S.A.

121 Cf. for Bombay itself, the comments of the Collector of Thana, Mss Eur F 180/27 (I.C.S. Collection) I.O.L; for the situation elsewhere in India, cf. Woodruff, , The Men who Ruled India, p. 311.Google Scholar

122 Lumley to Linlithgow, 24.12.42, Mss Eur F 125/56 (Linlithgow Correspondence), I.O.L.

123 Lumley to Linlithgow, 15.10.42, Ibid., I.O.L.; Linlithgow to Amery 2.9.42 and 9.9.42, Mansergh, and Lumby, (eds), The Transfer of Power, Vol. II, pp. 879 and 928.Google Scholar

124 Maxwell to Laithwaite, 24.10.42, Mansergh, and Lumby, (eds), The Transfer of Power, Vol. III, pp. 156–8Google Scholar, but cf. for a more optimistic appraisal Linlithgow to Amery, 30.3.43, Ibid., pp. 864–6.

125 Linlithgow to Amery, 14.9.43, Mansergh, N. and Lumby, E. W. R. (eds), The Transfer of Power 1942–7 Volume IV (London, 1973), p. 252Google Scholar (and cf. pp. 123 and 351).

126 Colville to Wavell, Report 29, 19.9.44, L/P&J/5/165, I.O.L.

127 Home Department, Special, Government of Bombay, Report October 1944 (2), L/P&J/5/165, I.O.L. For attacks on the food policy, see especially Ibid., November 1944(1) and December 1944(1) and (2), L/P/5/165, I.O.L.

128 Colville to Wavell, Report 35, 4.1.45, L/P/5/165, I.O.L.

129 Colville to Wavell, Report 19, 5.4.44, Ibid.; cf. his later comment that ‘without an agreement [with Congress] it would be useless to attempt to form a Ministry. My experience with the Municipal elections in Gujarat has proved this.’ Colville to Wavell, Report 34, 18.12.44, Ibid.

130 Colville to Wavell, Report 31, 18.10.44, Ibid.; cf. especially Colville to Wavell, Report 29, 18.8.44, Ibid.

131 Governors throughout India were ‘very strongly of the opinion that the Services are now stretched to breaking point’ as early as November 1943, Wavell to Amery 23.11.43, Mansergh, and Lumby, (eds), The Transfer of Power, Vol. IV, p. 493.Google Scholar

132 Governor to Viceroy, Report 43, 21.5.45, L/P&J/5/165, I.O.L.

133 Home Department, Special, Government of Bombay, Report December 1945 (1), L/P&J/5/166, I.O.L.

134 Viceroy to Secretary of State, 27.2.46, Mansergh, and Moon, (eds), The Transfer of Power, Vol. VI, p. 1077.Google Scholar

135 By mid 1946, Wavell considered that ‘the only real protection for the Services is a gentleman's agreement with Congress’, Wavell to Pethick-Lawrence, 12.7.46, Mansergh, and Moon, (eds), The Transfer of Power, Vol. VIII, p. 46.Google Scholar For Bombay, cf. Governor to Viceroy, Report 54, 14.12.45, L/P&J/5/166, I.O.L.

136 Amery to Lascelles, 29.3.45, Mansergh, N. and Moon, P. (eds), The Transfer of Power 1942–7 Volume V (London, 1974), p. 784Google Scholar and cf. Ibid., pp. 131, 230–1, 736 and passim.

137 Amery to Wavell, 19.12.43, Mansergh, and Lumby, (eds), The Transfer of Power, Vol. IV, pp. 553–5Google Scholar, and especially footnote 5 pp. 554–5; the argument that lack of personnel played a central, rather than subsidiary, role in the decline of the I.C.S. (Potter, D. ‘Manpower Shortage and the End of Colonialism: the case of the I.C.S.’, Modern Asian Studies, 7 (1973), pp. 47–73)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, fails to give due weight to the all-important question of the impact of the changing political situation in India upon the Services (despite Potter's interesting evidence upon that very point). Cf. the contemporary remarks of Sir James Grigg, 19.3.45, Mansergh, and Moon, (eds), The Transfer of Power, Vol. V, pp. 781–2Google Scholar, and the recent comments of Low in Low, (ed.), Congress and the Raj, p. 39 footnote 88.Google Scholar

138 Wavell to Amery, 4.6.44, Mansergh, and Lumby, (eds), The Transfer of Power, Vol. IV, p. 100Google Scholar and cf. Ibid., pp. 614, 697 and passim.

139 ‘A Policy for India’, Wavell to Pethick-Lawrence, 8.9.46, Mansergh, and Moon, (eds), The Transfer of Power, Vol. VIII, pp. 455–6Google Scholar, and cf. Ibid. pp. 40, 200–2,442 and 486 for similar viewpoints from provincial governors. On the general importance of his appraisal, cf. Moon, P. (ed), Wavell: The Viceroy' s Journal (London, 1973), Introduction p. XI and p. XIII.Google Scholar

140 Woodruff, , The Men who Ruled India, p. 338.Google Scholar

141 Cf. e.g. Moon, (ed.), Wavell: The Viceroy's Journal, p. 402.Google Scholar

142 T. H. Beaglehole, ‘From Rulers to Servants’, passim: cf. e.g. Brennan, L., ‘From One Raj to Another: Congress Politics in Rohilkhand 1930–50’, in Low, (ed.), Congress and the Raj, especially pp. 480–2 and 489–94.Google Scholar

143 Cf. e.g. Seal, , ‘Imperialism and Nationalism in India’, pp. 21–4Google Scholar; Low, , ‘Introduction: The Climactic years 1917–42’, pp. 14–16.Google Scholar

144 Munshi, minute, 11.8.39, Mss Eur F 125/52 (Linlithgow Correspondence), I.O.L. interestingly enough, police work on the general level had suffered least of all in the Gujarat division of the presidency, where Congress was strongest in 1938–39, and where an accommodation between the nationalists and the police was hence most easily to be reached, Lumley to Linlithgow, Report 43, 1.7.39, Ibid.

145 Colville to Wavell Report 58, (especially paragraphs 7,8,14 and 23), 27.2.46, L/P&J/5/167, I.O.L.

146 Colville to Wavell Report 67, 4.8.46, Ibid.; Wavell to Pethick-Lawrence, 13.8.46 and 17.9.46, Mansergh, and Moon, (eds), The Transfer of Power, Vol. VIII, pp. 229 and 535Google Scholar

147 For Nehru's insistence that the Congress should take care not to ‘discredit any service as a whole, or to break up the morale of a service’, Nehru to Khan, 22.7.46, Ibid., p. 147; cf. Wavell to Pethick-Lawrence, 8.7.46, Ibid., p. 20.

148 Desai, , The Story of my Life, Vol. I, pp. 146–7Google Scholar; cf. Wavell's later comment that ‘the Bombay tradition seems to be that they [Congress Ministers] are given considerable latitude and have run a reasonably efficient show’, Mansergh, and Moon, (eds), The Transfer of Power, Vol. VIII, p. 767Google Scholar; for comparable working relationships elsewhere in India at the close of the thirties, cf. Low, , ‘Introduction: The Climactic Years 1917–47, p. 30Google Scholar; Woodruff, , The Men who Ruled India, pp. 272–80.Google Scholar

149 Pethick-Lawrence, 11.10.46, Mansergh, and Moon, (eds), The Transfer of Power, Vol. VIII, p. 698.Google Scholar Colville indeed considered ‘the general attitude of the Ministry towards officers … to be reasonably fair’ throughout its time—Colville to Wavell, Report 77, 4.2.47, L/P&J/5/168, I.O.L.

150 Colville to Wavell Report 76, 18.1.47, ibid.; by that date, moreover, in the I.C.S. an estimated 70 per cent of European officers, and in the Indian Police some 90 per cent, were reportedly ‘in a mood to go this year’, Ibid., and the quality of their work was definitely being undermined by ‘their personal anxieties and uncertainties,’ Colville to Mountbatten, 2.4.47, L/P&J/5/168, I.O.L.

151 Wavell to Pethick-Lawrence 22.10.46, Mansergh, and Moon, (eds), The Transfer of Power, Vol. VIII, p. 767.Google Scholar

152 Cf. e.g. the comments of Wavell, 8.8.46, Ibid., p. 208, and the sources cited footnote 139 above.