Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T07:06:42.790Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

'An English Barrack in the Oriental Seas'? India in the Aftermath of the First World War

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Keith Jeffery
Keith Jeffery
Affiliation:
Ulster Polytechnic
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

During the last ninety years of British rule in India, the ‘Jewel of the Empire’ was, as Lord Salisbury remarked in 1882, easily regarded by many British imperialists as ‘an English barrack in the Oriental Seas from which we may draw any number of troops without paying for them’. In more prosaic terms India was seen as a permanent strategic reserve and the principal means by which British interests were secured throughout Asia, from Suez to Wei-hei-wei. As such, India was a central component in the British imperial system. The empire's matchless prestige, its wealth and apparent power all stemmed in large measure from India. In the second half of the nineteenth century the Raj, the East India trade and the Indian Army demonstrated a combination of power which Britain's imperial rivals might envy but never surpass. The central importance of India is illustrated by the Victorian conception of imperial defence, which was seen to depend on the twin pillars of naval supremacy and the defence of India. The only serious military commitment which British planners admitted before the turn of the century was the possibility of meeting a Russian invasion of India across the North West Frontier. This threat existed mostly in the minds of British generals. Britain and Russia came closest to war on the Frontier at the time of the Penjdeh incident in 1885, but even then the likelihood of a Russian expedition against India was hardly more than remote. Nevertheless, the threat of invasion was the principal rationale for the nature and size of the Army in India and this consideration guided Lord Kitchener's reforms of the Indian Army during his time as Commander-in-Chief from 1902 to 1909.

Type
Articles
Information
Modern Asian Studies , Volume 15 , Issue 3 , July 1981 , pp. 369 - 386
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1981

References

1 SirLucas, Charles (ed.), The Empire at War (5 vols, London, 1921–1926), I, pp. 56–7.Google Scholar

2 Howard, Michael, The Continental Commitment (Harmondsworth, 1974), pp. 19–20.Google Scholar

3 For an account of this, see Howard, ibid., ch. 2.

4 Government of India, The Army in India and its Evolution (Calcutta, 1924), pp. 221–2.Google Scholar

5 ibid., p. 219.

6 11 November 1918: British, 64,023; Indian, 388, 599. War Office, Statistical Abstract of Information Regarding the Army at Home and Abroad, Public Record Office (PRO) W.O. 161/82. Quoted by kind permission of Controller of H.M. Stationery Office.Google Scholar

7 From a population approximately 15% of the Indian total. This figure was doubtless enhanced by the fact that ‘Indian soldiers … were …, to face the matter quite frankly, persuaded with great vigour, in certain places, particularly in the Punjab, to join His Majesty's forces during the war’. Memo. by Montagu, 15 October 1920, PRO CAB. 24/112 C.P. 1987.Google Scholar

8 Lucas, , The Empire at War, I, p. 54.Google Scholar

9 Oxford Dictionary of Quotations (2nd edn, London, 1953), p. 11, n. 9.Google Scholar

10 ‘Copy extract report of the Indian Expenditure Commission’, India Office Records (IOR) L/F/7/783. Quoted by kind permission of Controller of H.M. Stationery Office.Google Scholar

11 Lucas, , The Empire at War, I, pp. 123–4, 255.Google Scholar

12 Lucas, , The Empire at War, V, p. 180.Google Scholar

13 261,067 soldiers (combatants only). ‘Strengths by arms of the expeditionary forces’, 16 December 1918. Milner MS. (Bodleian Library, Oxford) dep. 145.Google Scholar

14 Regular troops, 159, 134; Reservists, 34,767; Non-combatants (Labour Corps etc.) 45,660; Total, 239, 561. 21 November 1919, ‘Memo. on the total contribution in men made and casualties suffered by India during the war’. PRO CAB. 24/70 G.T.6341.Google Scholar

15 Combatants, 757,747; Non-combatants, 404, 042. Ibid.

16 2October 1918, ‘Note on India and the war’ by Gen. Sir Cox, H. V.. Montagu MSS. AS/I/2/65 (Trinity College, Cambridge).Google Scholar

17 c. October 1918, ‘Note on finance’. Montagu MSS. AS/I/2/56.Google Scholar

18 Ibid.

19 c. October 1918, ‘Note on military aspects’. Montagu MSS. AS/I/2/57.Google Scholar

20 Govt of India, India's Contribution to the Great War, p. 107.Google Scholar

21 Mason, Philip, A Matter of Honour: An Account of the Indian Army, its Officers and Men (Harmondsworth, 1976), p. 399.Google Scholar

22 ibid., pp. 432–3; Lucas, The Empire at War, V, pp. 290–6.

23 28 May 1919, Montagu to Chelmsford, Montagu MSS. IOR D.523, vol. 3, pp. 120–1.Google Scholar

24 22 June 1920, ‘Report of the Army in India committee, 1919–1920’, PRO CAB. 24/112C.P. 1980.Google Scholar

25 2 June 1920, War Office to India Office, IOR L/MIL/7/19323.Google Scholar

26 12 February 1919, Chelmsford to Montagu, Montagu MSS. IOR D.523, vol. 8, p. 26.Google Scholar

27 2 December 1918, Viceroy to Secretary of State for India (S. of S.), Chelmsford MSS. IOR E.264, vol. 9, pp. 467–8.Google Scholar

28 17 September 1919, Chamberlain to Curzon, Curzon MSS. IOR F.112/209.Google Scholar

29 17 October 1919, Montagu to Chelmsford, Montagu MSS. IOR D.523, vol. 3, p. 218.Google Scholar

30 31 December 1919, Chelmsford to Montagu, ibid., vol. 9, pp. 413–14.

31 June 1919, ‘Despatch on the operations against the Kuki tribes of Assam and Burma’, PRO W.O.106/58.Google Scholar

32 20 August 1919, Viceroy to S. of S., Chelmsford MSS. IOR E.264, vol. II, pp. 188–9.Google Scholar

33 6 October 1919 and 23 March 1920, ibid., pp. 321–2 and vol. 12, pp. 274–5; 4 September 1920, ibid., vol. 13, pp. 214–15.

34 Sir Haldane, Aylmer, The Insurrection in Mesopotamia, 1920 (Edinburgh and London, 1922), p. 64; 26 August 1920, ‘Military policy in Mesopotamia’, copy of telegram from S. of S. for War to GOCinC Mesopotamia, PRO CAB. 23/111 C.P. 1814.Google Scholar

35 7 July 1920, Viceroy to S. of S., Chelmsford MSS. IOR E.264 vol. 13, p. 24.Google Scholar

36 The dominions were to be approached on 18 September 1920.Google Scholar

37 3 September 1920, ‘Supply of overseas garrisons from the Indian Army’. CAB. 24/111 C.P. 1844.Google Scholar

38 16 September 1920, ibid., C.P. 1871.

39 29 January 1919, S. of S. to Viceroy. Chelmsford MSS. E.264, vol. 10, p. 39.Google Scholar

40 7 April 1920, Viceroy to S. of S., ibid., vol. 12, p. 311.

41 17 December 1920, Viceroy to S. of S., ibid., vol. 13, p. 511.

42 19 February 1921, Viceroy to S. of S., ibid., vol. 14, p. 168.

43 February 1921, Report of committee on Indian charges for forces in east Persia, PRO W.O. 32/5808.Google Scholar

44 Spear, Percival, A History of India, vol. II (Harmondsworth, 1970), pp. 185–8.Google Scholar

45 11 January 1921, Diary of Sir Henry Wilson, Wilson MSS. Quoted by kind permission of the Trustees of the Imperial War Museum.Google Scholar

46 9 January 1921, Lord Rawlinson (CinC India) to Sir Henry Wilson, Wilson MSS. File 13C.Google Scholar

47 25 November 1920, Wilson MSS., Ibid. Rawlinson had landed at Bombay on 21 November.

48 3 December 1920, Rawlinson to Wilson, Wilson MSS., Ibid.

49 18 January 1920, S. of S. to Viceroy, Chelmsford MSS., E.264, vol. 14, p. 50.Google Scholar

50 22 January 1920, Viceroy to S. of S., ibid., p. 33.

51 30 March 1921, Viceroy to S. of S., ibid., pp. 293–4; Legislative Assembly debates, vol. I, no. 15, enclosed in IOR L/MIL/7/10822.Google Scholar

52 6 May 1921, Viceroy (Army dept.) to S. of S., pt II, IOR L/MIL/3/2513, p. 958.Google Scholar

53 30 March 1921, Rawlinson to Lord Derby, Derby MSS. IOR D.605/5.Google Scholar

53 21 September 1920, Rawlinson to Gen. Sir Charles Monro (CinC India 1916–20), Rawlinson MSS. 5201/33/22. Quoted by kind permission of the National Army Museum.Google Scholar

55 Gopal, S., British policy in India 1858–1905 (London, 1965) p. 65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

56 15 October 1920, ‘The state of India’. CAB 24/112 C.P.1987.Google Scholar

57 Moore, R.J., The Crisis of Indian Unity 1917–40 (Oxford, 1974), p. 21.Google Scholar

58 Low, D. A., ‘Government of India and the First Non-co-operation Movement 1920–22’, in Kumar, R. (ed.), Essays in Gandhian politics (Oxford, 1971), pp. 305–16.Google Scholar

59 ibid., pp. 315–18.

60 10 May 1921, Rawlinson to ‘Douglas’ (Haig?), Rawlinson MSS. 5201/33/22.Google Scholar

61 10 July 1921, ‘Indian journal’, ibid., 5201/33/23.

62 12 July 1921, Rawlinson to Wilson, Vilson MSS. File 13E.Google Scholar

63 21 July 1921, Viceroy (Army dept.) to S. of S., pts 1 and 2. IOR L/MIL/3/2513 p. 1512.Google Scholar

64 4 August 1921, Viceroy (Army dept.) to S. of S. IOR L/MIL/3/2513 p. 1631.Google Scholar

65 Sir Griffiths, Percival, To Guard my People: The History of the Indian Police (London & Bombay, 1971), pp. 288–92;Google ScholarMackinnon, A. C. B., ‘The Moplah rebellion 1921–22’, in Army Quarterly, viii (1924), pp. 260–77.Google Scholar

66 23 November 1921, Rawlinson to Wilson, Wilson MSS. File 13F.Google Scholar

67 6 February 1922, Viceroy (Army dept.) to S. of S., IOR L/MIL/3/2514 no. 1121.Google Scholar

68 10 February 1922, diary of H. A. L. Fisher, Fisher MSS. (Bodleian Library, Oxford), Box 8A.Google Scholar

69 14 February 1922, S. of S. to Viceroy, IOR L/MIL/3/2534 M.1348/1922 no. 1.Google Scholar

70 ibid., no. 2.

71 21 July 1921, Rawlinson to Wilson, Wilson MSS. File 13E. A scheme of limited Indianization was introduced in March 1923. See Longer, V., Red Coats to Olive Green (New Delhi, 1974), p. 194; Mason, A Matter of Honour, pp. 453–66.Google Scholar

72 28 July 1922, ‘Indian journal’, Rawlinson MSS. 5201/33/22.Google Scholar

73 3 August 1922, Reading to Peel, Reading MSS. IOR E.238, vol. 5, p. 112.Google Scholar

74 August 1921, ‘Future military expenditure’. PRO CAB. 27/164 G.R.C.(D.D.)8.Google Scholar