![Sample our Social Sciences journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/110822/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Social-Sciences.jpg"})
Abstract
This article aims to investigate connections between British and Indian, and elite and subaltern, by exploring the career of colonial administrator Arthur Crawford. The level of separation between British and Indian as portrayed in post-colonial studies is challenged by Crawford's intimate connections with various Indian groups. A particular manifestation of these connections was the Crawford Scandal of 1889. Dubbed as the ‘most notorious case of corruption in Victorian India’ it involved Crawford receiving pecuniary gifts from Indians involved with the colonial administration, ranging from village accountants to Princely Chiefs. The corruption, it is argued here, was a system of transaction between a high-level British administrator and Indians that was modelled on pre-colonial political idioms. The involvement of intermediate groups such as moneylenders and the lower level of colonial administration in village India demonstrate how the colonial state could connect with deeper levels of the Indian society on the underside of colonial rule, i.e. outside of the official halls of colonial rule. While the Crawford scandal does not deal directly with subaltern groups, it demonstrates points of connection between elite and subaltern. These connections were used in the mobilization of support for and the articulation of an early Indian nationalism, here involving the Poona Sarvajanik Sabha and Bal Gangadhar Tilak with the case.
Acknowledgements
Special thanks are due to Rosalind O'Hanlon for attempting to steer my work in a fruitful direction.
Notes
1. Gilmour, The Ruling Caste, 151.
2. Crawford's publications include Our Troubles in Poona and the Deccan (1897), The Reminiscences of an Indian Police Official (1897), The Unrest in India: ‘Holly and Olive Branches’ (1908), and Legends of the Konkan (1909).
3. Suleri, The Rhetoric of English India, 3.
4. Bayly, The Origins, 10; O'Hanlon, “Recovering the Subject,” 194; O'Hanlon and Washbrook, “After Orientalism,” 143; and Pinch, “Same Difference,” 390.
5. See, Haynes, Rhetoric and Ritual, 11.
6. See, O'Hanlon, “Recovering the Subject,” 195.
7. Guha, “On Some Aspects of the Historiography of Colonial India,” 1–4.
8. Ibid., 3–4.
9. Seal, “Imperialism and Nationalism,” 326, 344. For a slightly earlier, but non-Cambridge expression of preoccupation with elites see Broomfield, “The Regional Elites.”
10. Bayly, “Rallying around the Subaltern,” 115–17; Chakrabarty, “Invitation to Dialogue,” 366.
11. Bayly, “Rallying around the Subaltern,” 116.
12. Guha, “On Some Aspects of the Historiography of Colonial India,” 4.
13. Ibid.
14. Rauchaudhuri, “Nationalism as Animal Politics,” 750.
15. Chakrabarty, “Invitation to a Dialogue,” 375.
16. Guha, “On Some Aspects of the Historiography,” 5; Chakrabarty, “Invitation to a Dialogue,” 3755; and Haynes and Prakash, “Introduction,” 8.
17. Guha, “On Some Aspects of the Historiography of Colonial India,” 6.
18. Cohn, Colonialism, 53.
19. Inden, Imagining India.
20. Dirks, “The Invention of Caste.”
21. Subrahmanyam, “Beyond Incommensurability,” 2–3.
22. Pinch, “Same Difference,” 405.
23. Eaton, “(Re)imag(in)ing Otherness,” 69.
24. Bayly's Empire and Information and Irschick's Dialogue and Information were seminal in inspiring articles addressing this issue including Chene, “Military Ethnology”; Eaton, “(Re)imag(in)ing Otherness”; Pinch, “Same Difference”; Raheja, “Introduction” and “The Ajaib-Gher and the Gun Zam-Zammah”; Subrahmanyam, “Beyond Incommensurability”; Trautmann, “Haullabaloo About Telugu”; Vatuk: “Shurreef, Herklots, Crooke, and Quanoon-E-Islam”; and Washbrook, “Orients and Occidents”.
25. Raheja, “Introduction” and “The Ajaib-Gher and the Gun Zam-Zammah”; Chene, “Military Ethnology”; Trautmann, “Haullabaloo About Telugu”; and Vatuk, “Shurreef, Herklots, Crooke, and Quanoon-E-Islam.”
26. Pinch, “Same Difference”; Subrahmanyam, “Beyond Incommensurability”; Washbrook, “Orients and Occidents”; and Eaton, “(Re)imag(in)ing Otherness.”
27. Pinch, “Same Difference,” 398.
28. Kidambi, The Making of an Indian Metropolis, 19–20, 24.
29. Johnson, Provincial Politics, 113.
30. Ibid., 58.
31. Ballhatchet, Social Policy, 8–12, 29.
32. Ibid., 96.
33. Kumar, Western India, 58.
34. Johnson, Provincial Politics, 60.
35. Ballhatchet, Social Policy, 98.
36. Johnson, Provincial Politics, 60; Seal, The Emergence of Indian Nationalism, 74–75; Cashman, The Myth of the Lokamanya, 20.
37. Johnson, Provincial Politics, 55.
38. Crawford, Legends of the Konkan, 11.
39. “Memorandum by J. A. Baines, Esq”, Correspondence Relating to the Case of Mr. Crawford, 286.
40. See Dossal, Imperial Designs, p. 84ff. for more on Crawford in early Municipal affairs.
41. Albuquerque, Urbs Prima in Indis.
42. Ramanna, Western Medicine, 2.
43. Masselos, Towards Nationalism, 17.
44. Dossal, Imperial Designs, 35, 40.
45. Ibid., 202–7, General Report on the Administration of the Bombay Presidency, 1869–70, 386; Dobbin, Urban Leadership, 132.
46. Various aspects of the Bombay Municipal affair has been explored by Dobbin, Urban Leadership, 131–52; Dossal, Imperial Designs, 84ff.; Kidambi, The Making of an Indian Metropolis, 42–47; Masselos, Towards Nationalism, 132–54; Masselos, The City, 46–73; Ramanna, Western Medicine, 91–104. An eyewitness account is given in Wacha, Rise and Growth.
47. For more on the critique of Crawford unconnected with allegations of corruption see Dossal, Imperial Designs, 213–19.
48. Proceedings of the Council of the Government of Bombay, 1869, viii, 53.
49. Wacha, Rise and Growth, 97.
50. Times of India, February 15, 1871.
51. Proceedings of the Council of the Government of Bombay, 1868, vii, 52–3; Proceedings of the Council of the Government of Bombay, 1869, viii, 27–8.
52. Wacha, Rise and Growth, 207.
53. Ramanna, Western Medicine, 100; General Report on the Administration of the Bombay Presidency, 1871–1872, 232.
54. General Report on the Administration of the Bombay Presidency, 1871–1872, 232.
55. Wacha, Rise and Growth, 123.
56. Ramanna, Western Medicine, 99–100; Times of India, February 15, 1871.
57. Times of India, February 15, 1871; Wacha, Rise and Growth, 123.
58. Bombay Gazette, 1, Public Works Department, No. 1867, 1871, 1899.
59. See Washbrook, “Law State and Agrarian Society,” 658–9 for an indication that corruption might have been more common in the Civil Service than assumed.
60. “Memorandum by J. A. Baines, Esq.,” 286.
61. “Report of Commissioners appointed under Act 37 of 1850”, Correspondence Relating to the Case of Mr. Crawford, 9.
62. Cohn, Colonialism, 10.
63. The zilla and taluka refer to districts and neighbourhoods.
64. Wacha, Rise and Growth of Bombay, 190.
65. Times of India, May 2, 1874.
66. “Memorandum by J. A. Baines, Esq.”, Correspondence Relating to the Case of Mr. Crawford, 295–96; “Memorandum of the Inspector General of Police”, Correspondence Relating to the Case of Mr. Crawford, 259–60.
67. Times of India, July 19, 1888.
68. “Memorandum by J. A. Baines, Esq.”, 295.
69. Stein, Thomas Munro, 290.
70. A good indication of this was his role as the British Representative in the Goa Treaty in 1884 reported in Times of India, October 22, 1884.
71. “Proceedings of a Public Meeting at Poona on 1st September 1889,” P&J, Bombay, 1889, 12.
72. Wolpert, Tilak and Gokhale, 40.
73. “The Late Mr. Arthur Crawford,” 10.
74. See Copland, The British Raj, 197.
75. “Memorandum of the Inspector General of Police.”
76. Johnson, Provincial Politics, 60.
77. Ibid., 10.
78. “Report of Commissioners,” 17.
79. Ibid.
80. “Memorandum by J. A. Baines,” 289; “Statement of Hanmantrao Raghavendra,” Correspondence Relating to the Case of Mr. Crawford, 231.
81. “Report of Commissioners,” 17.
82. “Statement of Hanmantrao,” 213.
83. Ibid., 214.
84. “Report of Commissioners,” 17.
85. “Statement of Hanmantrao,” 213–43.
86. Ibid., 215.
87. Ibid., 216.
88. Ibid., 217.
89. “Memorandum by J. A. Baines,” 290.
90. “Statement of Hanmantrao,” 218, 220, 236. 237, 241; Copland, The British Raj, 197.
91. “Statement of Hanmantrao,” 224–7.
92. Ibid., 221; “Letter from the Government of India, December 10, 1889, with Enclosures,” 84.
93. Molesworth, A Compendium of Molesworth Marathi and English Dictionary, 102.
94. Ibid., 216.
95. “Report of Commissioners,” 64.
96. “Statement of Hanmantrao,” 226, 229.
97. Ibid., 228.
98. “Memorial Submitted (through the Bombay Government) by Mr. A. Keyser,” Copies of, or Extracts from, Correspondence Relating to Memorials from Members of the Civil Service as to the Mamlatdars Incriminated in the Crawford Case, 7.
99. “Statement of Hanmantrao,” 218.
100. Ali, The Mughal Nobility, 139.
101. Ibid., 144.
102. Ibid.
103. Fischer, A Clash of Cultures, 180.
104. Kumar, Western India, 56; Tennant, Indian Recreations, 383–4.
105. Ali, The Mughal Nobility, 207–8.
106. Frykenberg, Guntur District, 53.
107. Ibid., 35.
108. Bayly, Indian Society, 7778; Stein, Thomas Munro, 178.
109. Haynes, Rhetoric and Ritual, 91.
110. Ibid., 114.
111. Copland, The British Raj, 62–5, 104, 178, 195–7.
112. Frykenberg, Guntur District; Stein, Thomas Munro.
113. A subha denoted a province or region of the Mughal Empire.
114. Quoted in “Memorandum of the Inspector General of Police,” 271.
115. The Times, January 20, 1911.
116. “Proceedings of a Public Meeting at Poona on 1st September 1889,” 6.
117. “Report of Commissioners,” 25.
118. Metcalf and Metcalf, A Concise History of Modern India, 109–10.
119. “Report of Commissioners,” 25.
120. This includes, but is not restricted to, the well-known exchange of nazarana and other gifts for clothing items worn by the Mughal and special privileges, explored by Cohn in ”Representing Authority,” 635–7. Holding durbars in Mughal and successor state contexts included such ritual ceremonies but also everyday administrative work, such as seeing administrators and hearing petitions.
121. Blake, “The Patrimonial-Bureaucratic Empire,” 79–80.
122. Cohn, “Representing Authority,” 637–40.
123. Gordon, The Marathas, 182.
124. Ibid., 22, 38–9, 42–3, 46–7, 61, 69, 76–7.
125. Ibid., 25.
126. “Memorandum by J. A. Baines,” 292.
127. Ibid.
128. A village accountant hired by the state.
129. Rent free land that was given by the state.
130. Translated and quoted in “Memorandum of the Inspector General of Police,” 272.
131. Irschick, Dialogue and History, 88–91.
132. Pinch, “Same Difference,” 400–5.
133. Ibid., 402, 405.
134. Ibid., 7–8.
135. Ibid., 13.
136. “Despatch from the Government of Bombay to Secretary of State, 1 March 1889,” Correspondence Relating to the Case of Mr. Crawford, 4; Further arguments were given in the “Minute by Sir Raymond West, K.C.I.E.,” Correspondence Relating to the Case of Mr. Crawford, 124–55.
137. Ibid.
138. Times of India, July 24, 1889.
139. “Return Giving Copies of, or Extracts from, Correspondence with the Governments of India and Bombay as to the Mamlatdars Incriminated in the Crawford Case” (94 pages).
140. “Memorandum by J. A. Baines, Esq., C. S the Inspector General of Police,” 252.
141. Times of India, February 4, 1889.
142. “Memorial Submitted (through the Bombay Government) by Mr. W. H. Propert, of the Civil Service,” Copies of, or Extracts from, Correspondence Relating to Memorials from Members of the Civil Service as to the Mamlatdars Incriminated in the Crawford Case, 4; “Mamlatdar Witnesses and the Crawford Case,” Hansard.
143. “House of Commons Question on Protests at Treatment of Mamlatdar Witnesses in the Crawford Case and the Strong Language of Mr Propert, a British Official of 35 years Standing,” J&P; “The Crawford Case: House of Commons Questions on the Mamlutdars Who had Purchased Their Offices by Bribery Being Retained in Office: Decision of the Bombay High Court,” J&P; “The Case of Mr. Arthur Crawford,” Hansard; “Magisterial Appointments in India,” Hansard; “The Crawford Commission,” Hansard; “Corrupt Magistrates in India,” Hansard; “Mamlatdar Witnesses and the Crawford Case,” Hansard.
144. “The Crawford Commission,” Hansard; “The Crawford Case 1880” in Bombay High Court.
145. Report of the administration of the Bombay Presidency, 1889–1890, 182.
146. “Statement of Hanmantrao,” 220.
147. “Memorandum by J. A. Baines, Esq.,” 287.
148. Ibid., 291.
149. “Memorandum of the Inspector General of Police,” 273–4; “Memorandum by J. A. Baines, Esq.,” 288.
150. “Proceedings of a Public Meeting at Poona on 1 September 1889,” 10.
151. “Memorandum of the Inspector General of Police,” 252.
152. Ibid., 270.
153. Quoted in Ibid., 270–1.
154. Report of the Administration of the Bombay Presidency, 1888–1889, 88.
155. “The Crawford Case: Public Meeting in Support of Indemnity of Witnesses,” P&J; “Petition from Pandurang Sidrav Patil Regarding the Indemnity Granted to the Mamlatdars in the Crawford Case,” P&J; “Proceedings of a Public Meeting at Poona on 1 September 1889 Approving Conduct of the Bombay Govt in Their Enquiry into the Crawford Case,” P&J.
156. “Proceedings of a Public Meeting at Poona on 1st September 1889,” 14–15. Report of the administration of the Bombay Presidency, 1889–1890, 182; Times of India, April 18, July 1, July 24, 1889.
157. The Blackburn Standard and Weekly Express, September 7, 1889.
158. “Mamlatdar Witnesses and the Crawford Case,” Hansard.
159. Masselos, Towards Nationalism, 231–2.
160. Wolpert, Tilak and Gokhale, 41–2.
161. Kelkar, Life and Times, 177.
162. E.g. Johnson, Provincial Politics and Masselos, Towards Nationalism.
163. Ibid., 205–6.
164. “Proceedings of a Public Meeting at Poona on 1st September 1889,” 3.
165. Ibid., 16.
166. “Proceedings of a Public Meeting at Poona on 1 September 1889,” 3.
167. Ibid., 18.
168. Johnson, Provincial Politics, 11.
169. Johnson, Provincial Politics, 116.
170. “Proceedings of a Public Meeting at Poona on 1 September 1889,” 6.
171. Masselos, Towards Nationalism, 131, 218–19; Cashman, The Myth of the Lokamanya, 27, 62, 102.
172. Kelkar, Life and Times, 180.
173. Ibid.
174. Wolpert, Tilak and Gokhale, 43.
175. Ibid., 181.
176. Ibid., 176, 181.
177. Masselos, Towards Nationalism, 233.
178. Subrahmanyam, “Beyond Incommensurability.”
179. Pinch, “Same Difference.”
180. Bayly, Indian Society, 78; Haynes, Rhetoric and Ritual, 114.
181. See endnote 24.
182. Pinch, “Same Difference,” 406.
183. Bayly, Empire and Information, 142.
184. Washbrook, “Law State and Agrarian Society,” 658–9 could be interesting in this regard.
185. Dalrymple, White Mughals; Zastoupil, “Intimacy and Colonial Knowledge,” 45.
186. Bayly, Empire and Information, 371.