Impact of World War I (1914-1918)

Involvement:
- The British were met with instant loyalty and support from all sectors of Indian society; Princely States,which immediately put their imperial service troops up to the Viceroy's disposal, Congress and the Muslim League.
- In particular Bal Tilak, an extremist from Congress, declared "our sense of loyalty is inherit and unswerving"
- By 1918 827,000 Indians enlisted
- 64,499 died

The Western Front:
1914 - Troops urgently needed in France as German troops pushed through Belgium and with over 100,00 trained soldiers India were the obvious choice. Fought at the Battle of Ypres.
1915 - 2nd Battle of Ypres and then withdrawn to the Middle East. Arguably because of low morale and the harsh European winters but more probably just out of conveniance as it made sense to concentrate Indian troops in their ideal conditions where supplies could be delivered easily.

Religion:
- Religion only became an issue when Turkey entered the war as Muslims believed they were being forced to fight against a muslim power, putting them in a moral dilemma = mutinities & desertion.

Attitudes:
- Fighting was a well established tradition and they had no whims about fighting for their monarch/emperor.
- Few claimed to be fighting for India finding the Emperor (George V) a most viable justification, seeing it as an honour.

IMPACT ON INTERNAL CONTROL:
- Thousand of Indians left to fight along with thousands of British troops that had been station in India. Furthermore many of those men needed in the Indian Civil Service volunteered and so by 1915 there would have been no way to control any sort of uprising.

IMPACT ON INDIA'S EXPECTATIONS:
- After fighting side by side with British and other white colonial forces Indian self-esteem was high and they believed that this merely highlighted how they were indeed equals and should be given a bigger say in how their country was run, solidifying the argument of Indian politicians = SELF DETERMINATION
- They had shown great loyalty throughout the war and in turn believed they would recieve rewards for their contribution, which proved invaluable.

IMPACT ON ECONOMY:
(Negative) - India had pumped men and money into the war and had contributed a total of around £146 million.
- Even ordinary people were feeling the effects of war with taxation making food grains increase by over 90% and imported goods by 190% - all caused by dsirupted trading patterns.
- Failure of the monsoons in the following two years exacerbated the situation.

(Positive) - Indian manufacturing industries profited greatly in the vacuum created by imported goods such as cotton, iron and steel, sugar, engineering and chemicals. An example of such profit is AHMEDABAD, one cotton mill reported profits trebling.

The Viceroy therefore had to balance the DEMANDS of London for India's resources and the NEEDS of India and as prices in India spiralled upwards there became more and more reports of protest and violence. As stated before, with lack of military support left in India such riots put the Raj's position in great jepoardy. ECONOMY & POLITICS CLOSELY INTERTWINED.

IMPACT ON POLITICS:
(Congress & Muslim League) - 1915 Congress speaking openly about self-rule
- 1916 ML and Congress had buried their differences after the reversal of the Bengal Partition. ML believed that Britain no longer saw them as a worthy minority in need of seperate electoral treatment and so sought refuge in the Hindus.
- 1916 Lucknow Pact whereby agreed that Muslims would have a fixed proportion of seats.

(Montague Chelmsford & Government of India Act 1919) - Britain could not ignore the great sacrifice India had made and knew that the politicians were looking for a reward for their people. They also could not ignore their own beliefs in self-determination and freedom, particularly as that had been their supposed goal in taking a paternalistic ruling over India. However the overthow of authority in nearby Russia created paranoia for the British whom could feel their grip slipping.

- Viceroy advised by 6 civilians 3 HAD to be Indian
- Councils enlarged and given more responsibility
- British retained control of military, foreign and currency affairs
- Franchise & vote extended
- "Reserved Seats" for different religions

= DYARCHY: Government by 2 independent authortities India and Britain.

(Negative Reactions) - MP's divided in the House of Commons some fearing the loss of India and others feeling they hadn't done enough
- ICS felt they had been undermined
- "Reserved Seats" deemed undemocratic
- Indians hoping for Home Rule were dissappointed
- Congress rejectes the reform completely and boycotted elections

(Positive Reactions) - Montagu saw the Act as a step towards swaraj.
- Indians welcomed acts but wanted MORE.

How far would you agree with the view that Lord Curzon made a "collosal failure" of his job as Viceroy?

The phrase "collosal failure" suggests a venture with a deeply negative impact on a huge scale. Viceroy Curzon's actions did indeed affect the masses of the Indian population and whilst much of his rule maintained a negative impact it seems that these overshadowed what was positive in his rule.

Curzon maintained the view that India was the "jewel in Britain's crown" and though being well educated, experienced in Indian culture and sharing a passion for the archaeology it seems he was a product of his time and such and thus saw India as a mere "possession". Such an ideology screams of British colonialism, a fact that the Indian population was weary of and therefore immediately Curzon created tensions between the Indian-British relations, a vast failure in itself. Curzon exacerbated such tension further with his unilateral decision to partition Bengal in 1905.

Bengal had proven to be a problematic area for the Raj, with its vast population and constant unrest making it difficult to rule. With Curzon obsessed with "efficiency" he decided against the better judgement of British officials and without even consulting and Indian authority to partition Bengal into East and West provinces. This action was undoubtedly a "collosal failure" as whilst furthering the deterioration of Anglo-Indian relations he also fabricated religious tensions within Indian people by creating majorities in different provinces, creating a platform for further unrest that is evident throughout the entirity of the Raj's rule. However, whilst the partition of Bengal was undoubtedly a failure of epic proportions and his ideology of British superiority merely worsening the situation, both these factors seem to greatly overshadow some of the productive policies issed within Curzon's role.

Whilst Viceroy he proposed reforms to office and procedural work to make administration within the Raj more efficient and indeed in a better position to actually rule the vast country that India is. In keeping with this motive of efficiency Curzon created a new provincefrom the PUnjab in 1901, the North West Frontier, to enable more wide spread ruling. Arguably such actions may not have been for the benefit of India and more so for the british but he did again put Britain in a more effective position to rule well as opposed to ruling badly and inefficiently, possibly carving out some respect for Britain and its methodical approach rather than contempt.

Indeed Curzon also developed the railway systems in India, enabling around 6,000 miles of track to be laid by 1905. Furthermore with his passion for archaeology he took a personal interest in restoring and maintaing India's culture, a prime example being the Taj Mahal. Such actions show a definite interest in India's progression and in some cases portray much succes rather than a "collosal failure".

The evidence suggests that although there was some success in Curzon's rule in the name of efficiency, these are completely undermined by the "collosal failure" that was the partition of Bengal. By creating sectarian conflict as well as Anglo-Indian conflict his rule may indeed by described as a failre of collosal proportions.

Study sources K, L and M and use your own knowledge. How far do you agree with the view that the Indian Civil Service constituted the "steel framework" for British rule in India?

The term "steel framework" implies both a solid foundation upon which something may be built, and a rigid structure that is unwilling or incapable to succomb to needs of flexibility. The Indian Civil Service may be described as both such connotations and an exploration of sources K, L and M may provide evidence both for and against such an argument.

The Indian Civil Service was indeed a solid "steel framework" in how its structure provided roots across the whole of India and penetrated every sectar of Indian society from Princes to local officials. Such branching from the core of the British Empire, the Queen, and delegation of power to well educated and experienced men throughout numerous councils arguably provided a strong position from which the Raj could rule. Its strength may be shown by how limited numbers of British officials managed to rule a vast country, as portrayed by source M, "The British in India numbered scarcely 200,000". Source M is a modern source, 2001, therefore looking back in hindsight through the perception of a historian, whose quotation of facts and statistics may be presumed reliable. With just 200,000 people ruling a country of millions it seems then highly logical to assume the Indian Civil Service as indeed a highly efficient "steel framework".

However, this strength and efficiency is merely presumed and both sources L and M suggest outwardly that such strength relied upon a mere illusion, "[T]he Kiplingesque notion that the average British district officer was a pretty capable chap" (Source M). Source L is entitiled "The Imperial Imagination" which aptly sums up the crux of the argument, speaking from experience it states "Our life in India, our very work more or less, rests on illusion". This suggests that the illusion of a "steel framework" merely marked the notion that the British had bitten off more than they could chew and although they may mantain a superior ideology of paternalism, "Infallible and invulnerable", their superior air was not enough to contain a vast and indeed unruly country. Source L does however to some extent blame the British's superior air on the reactions of the Indian people to the British. For instance it states "They, the millions, made us believe we had a divine mission" and "They saw the head of the Queen-Empress on the rupee and worshipped it" which questions the sources accuracy greatly as from the beginning of the Raj the Indian people had resented the British. The Indian Mutiny of 1857 for example shocked the British and portrayed how out of touch the rulers were with the ruled and this source merely exaggerates how warped the British perspective was and indeed how ignorant and inflexible the Indian Civil Service had become.

This inflexibility may also refer to the idea that as a "steel framework" the Indian Civil Service was just in fact a rigid and unchanging organisation portraying old fashioned British beliefs that India was merely "The Jewel in Britain's crown". Source K particularly highlights the unadapting nature of the Civil Service, "They think the present the best, and improvement or reform sends a cold shiver down their spine". This source was published in 1962 twenty years on from the end of the Raj, so again in hindsight but seemingly from a personal perspective of the Civil Service that may provide more detailed understanding of its inner workings. The source also sheds light on the fact that it was certain individuals who sparked the development of "Education, Irrigation, Police, Railways" and not the Service as a whole. The Morley-Minto reforms of 1908 are a representation of this as it in the General Elections of 1906 the Liberal Democrats came to power, bringing a wholly different perspective to India than the old-fashioned ideologies of the Conservatives. It took these two individuals, John Morley and Lord Minto, to understand and comprehend that the growing number of western-educated Indians in the Babu caste should be harnessed into a productive step towards self-rule rather than left to grow resentful. With the Indian Councils Act of 1909 Indians were beginning to be incorporated in the system but it seems useful to point out that this had taken 50 years since the beginning of the Raj and still was a pretty pitiful offering. And yet administrators within the Civil Service still remained hesitant, believing this was too much at once.

It seems then that the Indian Civil Service did provide the "steel framework" for British rule in India in every essence of the phrase. Indeed it was a particularly effective structure in penetrating every section of Indian society and allowing a small minority to rule a vast majority with some efficiency. It also however portrayed the rigidity and inflexibility of British rule and ideology as a whole as source K so poignantly highlighted, showing that progress to the supposed goal of swaraj (self rule) was hindered by the British's inability to relinquish their, questionably, tight grip on the shiniest victim of their paternalistic empire. I think the most important idea, raised by sources M and L, however is this idea of illusion and the unbreakable "steel framework" acting as a symbol of British superiority whilst in reality there was no justification beneath such an air.