Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T16:59:38.014Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Resident in Court Ritual, 1764–1858

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Michael H. Fisher
Michael H. Fisher
Affiliation:
Western Washington University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The exchanges that comprised the formal meetings between Indian Rulers and the British Residents attached to their courts both reflected and, in some measure, determined the changing political relationships between the Indian states and the English East India Company. As the Resident and his staff introduced new symbols and meanings into his ritual intercourse with an Indian Ruler, these new elements affected the attitudes and actions taken by the audiences of these exchanges, in both India and Britain. As the military and political power of the Company flowed over or around the regional states of India during the period 1764–1858, the Company's Residents proved able to assert increasing influence over the shape of these rituals in the Indian courts.

Type
Articles
Information
Modern Asian Studies , Volume 24 , Issue 3 , July 1990 , pp. 419 - 458
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1990

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

I gathered source material for this article from the National Archives of India, the Uttar Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh, and Tamil Nadu State Archives, the India Office Library (Commonwealth Relations Office), the British Museum, and numerous other public and private collections over the period 1975–1986. Major funding for this work came from the American Institute for Indian Studies and the Smithsonian Institution, the Social Science Research Council, the Fulbright-Hays Program, the American Philosophical Society, and Western Washington University. I am grateful to these institutions although none are responsible for the statements made here. I am also deeply indebted to Paula Richman of Oberlin College for her careful reading of an early draft and for Bernard Cohn and Richard Fox for their suggestions for improvement of this article.

1 See Chapter 4 of my A Clash of Cultures: Awadh, the British, and the Mughals (Riverdale: The Riverdale Company, 1987; New Delhi: Manohar, 1987).Google Scholar

2 E.g.Jahangir, , Tuzuk-i Jahangiri, trans. Rogers, Alexander, ed. Beveridge, Henry (Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal, 1968).Google Scholar

3 Fox, Richard G., Kin, Clan, Raja, and Rule: State–Hinterland Relations in Preindustrial India (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1971).Google Scholar

4 Munshī Lutfulla, for example, comments unfavourably on the lack of proper seating arrangement of the courtiers at the court of Sindh. Lutfullah, Munshī, Autobiography of Lutfullah, an Indian's Perspective of the West, ed. Eastwick, Edward B. (London: n.p., 1857, reprint ed. S. A. I. Tirmizi, New Delhi: International Writer's Emporium, 1985), pp. 291–3.Google Scholar

5 In this instance, the rebel Governor was Akbar's son Prince Salīm, later Emperor Jahāngīr. Jalaluddin, , ‘Sultan Salim (Jahangir) as Rebel King’, Islamic Culture 47, no. 2 (04 1973), 121–5.Google Scholar

6 Pirzada, Khan BahadurHusain, Muhammad. ‘The Coronation of Muhammadan Sovereigns’, Journal of the Panjab Historical Society 2 (1912), 142.Google Scholar

7 Bruton, William, Newes from the East-Indies (London: J. Okes, 1638), p. 14.Google Scholar

8 Cohn, B. S., ‘The British and the Mughal Court in the Seventeenth Century’, manuscript, July 1977.Google Scholar

9 Satow, Ernest, A Guide to Diplomatic Practice, 4th edn, ed. Bland, Nevile (London: Longmans, Green and Company, 1961), p. 165.Google Scholar

10 Minutes of 29 August 1772, Foreign Secret Consultations 29 [FSC] August 1772.

11 Resolution of Supreme Court 10 July 1775, FSC 10 July 1775.

12 Translation of Affidavit of Ray Radachun 4 July 1775, FSC 10 July 1775.

13 Minutes of 18 November 1814, Bengal Secret Consultations [BSC] 18 November 1814, no. 19.

14 For a discussion of British attitudes toward the sovereignty of Indian Rulers see my article, ‘Extraterritoriality: The Concept and its Application in Princely India’, Indo-British Review, 15, 2 (December 1988): 103–22.Google Scholar

15 Johnson, R., Resident Hyderabad to Secretary to Governor General in the Secret Department 13 November 1784, FSC 14 December 1784, no. 26.Google Scholar

16 ‘Dār al-Inshā’, Persian Manuscripts, Andhra Pradesh State Archives, Hyderabad.

17 For a record of the Delhi Residency establishment under Octerlony see Assistant in Charge Delhi Residency to Secretary to Government 15 December 1821, Foreign Political Consultations [FPC] 19 January 1822.

18 See his Annals and Antiquities of Rajast'han (reprint New Delhi: K. M. N. Publishers, 1971; first published 1829–1832).Google Scholar

19 Minute of Sir C. T. Metcalfe, 14 December 1829, FPC 19 December 1829, no. 22.

20 Lutfullah, , Autobiography, p. 289.Google Scholar

21 E.g., in 1785 the Governor General sent ‘the Native Mohammed Hussen… to depute to Hyderabad’ for negotiations about a deeper British involvement in that court. Minute of Governor General, 7 December 1785, FSC July 12 1785, no. 7a.

22 Lt James Davidson to Department Persian Translation, 16 August 1791, Foreign Miscellaneous Series, vol. 52, Nagpore Residency Papers, 19 April 1792.

23 Political Agent and Superintendent Ajmere to Resident Malwa and Rajputana, 30 September 1824, FPC 29 October 1824, no. 7.

24 Syud Azamuddin Hossain to Agent Governor General Sinde, 23 September 1827 and Agent Governor General Sinde to Secretary to Government of India, 26 September 1837, FPC 20 October 1837, nos 84, 85.

25 Cohn, Bernard S., ‘The Command of Language and the Language of Command’, Subaltern Studies IV ed. Guha, Ranajit (Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1985), pp. 276–329.Google Scholar

26 Lutfullah, , Autobiography, p. 304.Google Scholar

27 E.g. Acting Resident with Daulat Rao Scindia to Governor General, 5 January 1798 FSC 6 February 1798, no. 14. Assistant Resident Hyderabad to Governor General, 5 August 1798, FSC 10 September 1798, no. 30. Resident Poona to Governor General, 10 July 1798, FSC 10 September 1798, no. 40. Copy of letter from Scindia to his Vakeel Bugwunt Row, recd. 29 March 1786, FSC 4 April 1786, no. 2. Resident Hyderabad to Persian Secretary to Government, 2 September 1807, FPC 12 October 1807, no. 27.

28 E.g. Resident Hyderabad to Governor General, 1 June 1809, FPC 29 July 1809, no. 1.

29 E.g. Resident Poona to Governor General, 16 March 1798, FPC 17 April 1798, no. 44. Resident Nagpur to Governor General, 17 October 1799 FSC, 26 June 1800, no. 16.

30 Assistant Resident Delhi to Secretary to Government, 1 September 1829, FPC 18 September 1829, no. 25.

31 The vital role of the Indian subordinates, working behind the scenes, has rarely been discussed. A pathbreaking study in this regard is Frykenberg, Robert Erīc, Guntur District, 1788–1848: A History of Local Influence and Central Authority in South India (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1965).Google Scholar This important study presents us with significant insights into the role of Indian subordinates in an area of British direct rule: Guntur District. My work extends this kind of approach over the entire Residency System for the period 1770–1857. In order to obtain an index of the Indian subordinates in the entire Residency System for this period, I have assembled thousands of isolated references drawn from the daily records of most Residencies. While it will never be possible to compile a complete list of all of these employees of the Residency over the entire period in question, I have assembled at least basic information about 523 of them. As part of the bureaucratization of the Residency system in the first half of the nineteenth century, the volume and consistency of the Residency records increased over time. This meant, among other things, that the sanction of the Governor General's secretariat was requisite for the appointment, promotion, dismissal, and pension of each of the Indian subordinates except for the very lowest paid. From passing reference to such staff members (in the early days of the Residency system) and from the more extensive bureaucratic evidence (especially from the 1830s onward), I have compiled an extensive profile of the members of the Residency establishment. From this, we can discern patterns with respect to the identity, role, and career of hundreds of Indians in the service of the Residency. Since the Resident often had to support his recommendation for personnel actions with detailed evidence about the individual concerned, I can often provide a more comprehensive account of the lives of a number of individuals. This sample reflects disproportionate attention to the more highly placed, and therefore more visible, among the Indian staff: we know far more, for example, about Munshīs (who usually functioned as administrative assistants) than about peons (uniformed messengers). Nevertheless, this compilation represents a high proportion of the Indian subordinate staff in the Residencies of the entire period of this study.

32 My analysis of the patterns of appointment of the different communities of Munshīs suggests no correlation with the community of the local Ruler to whose court Munshīs were posted. Careful examination of hundreds of discussions by British officials for or against the appointment of a particular Munshī likewise revealed no explicit concern with matching, or avoiding the matching, of the Munshīs and the local Ruler's community.

33 For an excellent study of the social milieu that produced many of these Munshīs see C[hristopher] Bayly, A., Rulers, Townsmen and Bazaars: North Indian Society in the Age of British Expansion, 1770–1870 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983).Google Scholar

34 Proceedings vs. Kurm Ahmud, 24 November 1825, FPC 14 April 1826, no. 24.

35 Minute of President and Governor Fort St George, 18 January 1803, Madras Political Consultations, 18 January 1803.

36 Resident Delhi to Secretary to Government, 13 October 1813, FPC 1 June 1816, no. 13. These views are repeated in Minute of Sir C. T. Metcalfe, 14 December 1829, FPC 19 December 1829, no. 22.

37 Assistant Resident Hyderabad to Secretary to Government, 1 October 1798, FPC 19 October 1798, no. 2.

38 Resident with Daulat Rao Scindia to Governor General, 3 August 1800, FSC 16 October 1800, nos 17, 18.

39 Resident Hyderabad to WilliamRumbold, 21 March 1829 and Secretary to Government to Resident Hyderabad, 18 April 1829, FPC 18 April 1829, nos 34, 38. Rumbold was later proven deeply involved in the corrupt practices of William Palmer and Company in which at least some Indians in the Residency establishment lost their investments.

40 Resident Hyderabad to Secretary to Government, 5 September 1816, FPC 28 September 1816, no. 15.

41 Secretary to Government to Resident Malwa and Rajputana, 14 June 1822, FPC 14 June 1822, no. 13.

42 Resident Lucknow to Political Secretary to Government of India with Governor General, 9 April 1842, FPC 12 October 1844, no. 136. See also Resident Hyderabad to Secretary to Government, 28 March 1826, FPC 22 April 1826, no. 28.

43 A report of ‘Natives Employed in Civil Administration’ suggests that the number of Indians in the ‘uncovenanted service’ within the political line more than doubled between 1851 and 1857, from 39 to 82. Although it is not clear which offices are included in this category, it does give some indication of growth in the Indians under this rubric. Parliamentary Papers, 42 (201 VI), 1857–1858 cited in Misra, Banky Bihari, The Indian Middle Classes: Their Growth in Modern Times (London: Oxford University Press, 1961), p. 194.Google Scholar

44 E.g. Khair al-Dīn claims that he obtained Sindhia's approval for a Residency at Poona, ‘'Ibrat Nāma’, fol. 122–9. Khair al-Dīn also puts a different face on his eventual dismissal by the Resident, asserting simply that he became sick and returned to his native place, ibid., fol. 158.

45 Parliamentary Papers, 11 (110C), Lords, 1852 cited in Misra, The Indian Middle Classes, p. 178; Parliamentary Papers, 42 (201 VI), 1857–1858, in Ibid., p. 194.

46 See my current research on the Residency system and Coen, Terence Creagh, The Indian Political Service (London: Chatto and Windus, 1971), pp. 37–8.Google Scholar

47 Bengal Service Annual List 2, 68: 3, India Office Library.

48 Sutherland, John, Sketches of the Relations Subsisting between the British Government in India and the Different Native States (Calcutta: G. H. Huttmann, 1837).Google Scholar

49 J. Sutherland to Secretary to Government of India, 15 February 1835, India Political Proceedings [IPP] 5 March 1835, no. 116.

50 Secretary to Government of India to Resident Gwalior 5 March 1835, IPP 5 March 1835, no. 117.

51 E.g. Governor General to Nabob of Furruckabad 5 September 1786, FSC 5 September 1786, no. 7.

52 Personnel Records 24: 874, India Office Library. The Company administered the area around Delhi in the name of the Mughal Emperor but without his involvement.

53 Charges from the King of Delhi and Responses of Acting Resident Delhi to Chief Secretary to Government, Political Department 1 February 1830, FPC 19 March 1830, no. 6.

54 Acting Resident (Delhi) to Chief Secretary to Government Political Department 1 February 1830, and Chief Secretary to Government to Resident (Delhi) 19 March 1830, FPC 19 March 1830, nos 6, 7.

55 K. N. Panikkar claims that Hawkins was relieved of his duties with respect to the Mughal Emperor but I have found no evidence to suggest this. See his British Diplomacy in North India (New Delhi: Associated Publishing House, 1968), p. 150.Google Scholar

56 Governor General to the Prince 18 March 1785, FSC 22 March 1785 no. 6.

57 See FPC 17 December 1792 nos 8, 13 and 11 January 1793, nos 4, 5 and Fort William to Court of Directors 18 May 1793, in Fort William-India House Correspondence, vol. 17, ed. Taraporewala, Y. J. (New Delhi: National Archives of India, 1955), pp. 534, n. 7, 252.Google Scholar

58 Resident to Secretary to Government, 26 August 1823, Bengal Political Consultations [BPC], 12 September 1823, no. 21.

59 Resident Hyderabad to Chief Secretary to Government 25 May 1829, FPC 12 June 1829, no. 54.

60 Resident (Lucknow) to Secretary to Government in the Political Department 23 August 1833, FPC 13 September 1833 no. 24.

61 Rajah of Pudacottah 27 July 1829, FPC 19 December 1829. A similar plea had to be made in 1841. Principal Collector Madura to Secretary to Government Political Department Fort St George 1 December 1841, FPC 24 January 1842, no. 2.

62 Nawab of Carnatic to Governor Fort St George 1 September 1829, FPC 2 October 1829, no. 3a.

63 Resident Mysore to Secretary to Government of India with the Governor General 12 December 1842, FPC 25 January 1843, no. 118.

64 In fact, the members of the political line of the Company adopted formal diplomatic uniforms early in the nineteenth century to highlight the contrast between themselves and the motley Indian courts.

65 Resident Baroda to Secretary to Government of India 29 November 1856, FPC 12 February 1858, no. 32.

66 Panikkar discussed the treatment accorded the Emperor by the Company, British Diplomacy in North India, pp. 115–59. For a typical tourist's account see MrsMackenzie, Colin, Six Years in India: Delhi: The City of the Great Mogul (London: Richard Bentley, 1857).Google Scholar

67 Edwards, William, Reminiscences of a Bengal Civilian (London: Smith Elder, 1866), p. 12.Google Scholar

68 Governor General to Claud Clerk 12 September 1843, MS EUR D 538, Claud Clerk Collection, IOL. As Panikkar points out, the Company had considered evicting the Emperor as early as 1803, British Diplomacy in North India, p. 14.