Catalogue

COVID-19: Updates on library services and operations.

The ruling caste : imperial lives in the Victorian Raj /
David Gilmour.
edition
1st American ed.
imprint
New York : Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2006.
description
xxiii, 381 p., [16] p. of plates : ill., maps ; 24 cm.
ISBN
0374283540 (alk. paper), 9780374283544 (alk. paper)
format(s)
Book
Holdings
More Details
imprint
New York : Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2006.
isbn
0374283540 (alk. paper)
9780374283544 (alk. paper)
catalogue key
6162646
 
Includes bibliographical references (p. 349-359) and index.
A Look Inside
Excerpts
Excerpt from Book
Excerpted from The Ruling Casteby David Gilmour. Copyright 2005 by David Gilmour. Published February 2006 by Farrar, Straus and Giroux, LLC. All rights reserved. Preface During their brief momentous period of collaboration, Joseph Stalin and Joachim von Ribbentrop agreed that it was absurd that so much of the world should be ruled by Great Britain. In particular, the Russian leader told the Nazi Foreign Minister, it was 'ridiculous...that a few hundred Englishmen should dominate India'.1 He was referring to the men of the Indian Civil Service (ICS). The statistic alone seems ridiculous. In 1901, when Queen Victoria died, the 'few hundred' numbered just over a thousand, of whom a fifth were at any time either sick or on leave. Yet they administered directly (in British India) or indirectly (in the princely states) a population of nearly 300 million people spread over the territory of modern India, Pakistan, Burma and Bangladesh. Stalin's grumble contained perhaps a touch of tacit admiration. More explicit praise came from earlier foreign leaders who, like him, had been in search of empires to rule. Bismarck thought Britain's work in India would be 'one of its lasting monuments', while Theodore Roosevelt told the British they had done 'such marvellous things in India' that they might 'gradually, as century succeeds century...transform the Indian population, not in blood, probably not in speech, but in government and culture, and thus leave [their] impress as Rome did hers on Western Europe'. 2 It is not difficult to find foreign eulogies of British civil servants in India, from the French Abbe Dubois, who in 1822 extolled their 'uprightness of character, education and ability', to the Austrian Baron Hubner who in 1886 ascribed the 'miracles' of British administration to 'the devotion, intelligence, the courage, the perseverance, and the skill combined with an integrity proof against all temptation, of a handful of officials and magistrates who govern and administer the Indian Empire'. 3 Similar tributes can also be found in unexpected places in Britain. Lloyd George, the Liberal leader, lauded the Service as 'the steel frame' that held everything together, while John Strachey, the Labour minister, judged it the 'least corruptible...ablest and...most respectable of all the great bureaucracies of the world'. 4 The same words recur again and again, even from Indian nationalists and their newspapers at the end of the nineteenth century: impartial, highminded, conscientious, incorruptible. The ICS may have had its criticseven within its own ranksbut about its elevated standards there was no argument. N.B. Bonarjee, a member of the Service but also an Indian nationalist, praised 'its rectitude, its sense of justice, its tolerance, its sense of public duty', as well as 'its high administrative ability'. 5 After independence in 1947, the new nations of Pakistan and India each displayed pride in its traditions. While in Karachi a Government pamphlet proclaimed that the Pakistan Civil Service was the 'successor' of the ICS, 'the most distinguished Civil Service in the world', in Delhi the Home Minister, Vallabhbhai Patel, used it as a model for the Indian Administrative Service, a body that played a crucial role in the integration and unification of the new state. Even at the beginning of the twentyfirst century retired members of the IAS were recalling the exploits of their British predecessors with almost embarrassing effusi
Excerpt from Book
Excerpted from The Ruling Caste by David Gilmour. Copyright 2005 by David Gilmour. Published February 2006 by Farrar, Straus and Giroux, LLC. All rights reserved. Preface During their brief momentous period of collaboration, Joseph Stalin and Joachim von Ribbentrop agreed that it was absurd that so much of the world should be ruled by Great Britain. In particular, the Russian leader told the Nazi Foreign Minister, it was 'ridiculous...that a few hundred Englishmen should dominate India'.1 He was referring to the men of the Indian Civil Service (ICS). The statistic alone seems ridiculous. In 1901, when Queen Victoria died, the 'few hundred' numbered just over a thousand, of whom a fifth were at any time either sick or on leave. Yet they administered directly (in British India) or indirectly (in the princely states) a population of nearly 300 million people spread over the territory of modern India, Pakistan, Burma and Bangladesh. Stalin's grumble contained perhaps a touch of tacit admiration. More explicit praise came from earlier foreign leaders who, like him, had been in search of empires to rule. Bismarck thought Britain's work in India would be 'one of its lasting monuments', while Theodore Roosevelt told the British they had done 'such marvellous things in India' that they might 'gradually, as century succeeds century...transform the Indian population, not in blood, probably not in speech, but in government and culture, and thus leave [their] impress as Rome did hers on Western Europe'. 2 It is not difficult to find foreign eulogies of British civil servants in India, from the French Abbe Dubois, who in 1822 extolled their 'uprightness of character, education and ability', to the Austrian Baron Hubner who in 1886 ascribed the 'miracles' of British administration to 'the devotion, intelligence, the courage, the perseverance, and the skill combined with an integrity proof against all temptation, of a handful of officials and magistrates who govern and administer the Indian Empire'. 3 Similar tributes can also be found in unexpected places in Britain. Lloyd George, the Liberal leader, lauded the Service as 'the steel frame' that held everything together, while John Strachey, the Labour minister, judged it the 'least corruptible...ablest and...most respectable of all the great bureaucracies of the world'. 4 The same words recur again and again, even from Indian nationalists and their newspapers at the end of the nineteenth century: impartial, highminded, conscientious, incorruptible. The ICS may have had its criticseven within its own ranksbut about its elevated standards there was no argument. N.B. Bonarjee, a member of the Service but also an Indian nationalist, praised 'its rectitude, its sense of justice, its tolerance, its sense of public duty', as well as 'its high administrative ability'. 5 After independence in 1947, the new nations of Pakistan and India each displayed pride in its traditions. While in Karachi a Government pamphlet proclaimed that the Pakistan Civil Service was the 'successor' of the ICS, 'the most distinguished Civil Service in the world', in Delhi the Home Minister, Vallabhbhai Patel, used it as a model for the Indian Administrative Service, a body that played a crucial role in the integration and unification of the new state. Even at the beginning of the twentyfirst century retired members of the IAS were recalling the exploits of their British predecessors with almost embarrassing effusiveness. 6 The h
Excerpt from Book
Excerpted fromThe Ruling Casteby David Gilmour. Copyright 2005 by David Gilmour. Published February 2006 by Farrar, Straus and Giroux, LLC. All rights reserved. Preface During their brief momentous period of collaboration, Joseph Stalin and Joachim von Ribbentrop agreed that it was absurd that so much of the world should be ruled by Great Britain. In particular, the Russian leader told the Nazi Foreign Minister, it was 'ridiculous...that a few hundred Englishmen should dominate India'.1 He was referring to the men of the Indian Civil Service (ICS). The statistic alone seems ridiculous. In 1901, when Queen Victoria died, the 'few hundred' numbered just over a thousand, of whom a fifth were at any time either sick or on leave. Yet they administered directly (in British India) or indirectly (in the princely states) a population of nearly 300 million people spread over the territory of modern India, Pakistan, Burma and Bangladesh. Stalin's grumble contained perhaps a touch of tacit admiration. More explicit praise came from earlier foreign leaders who, like him, had been in search of empires to rule. Bismarck thought Britain's work in India would be 'one of its lasting monuments', while Theodore Roosevelt told the British they had done 'such marvellous things in India' that they might 'gradually, as century succeeds century...transform the Indian population, not in blood, probably not in speech, but in government and culture, and thus leave [their] impress as Rome did hers on Western Europe'. 2 It is not difficult to find foreign eulogies of British civil servants in India, from the French Abbe Dubois, who in 1822 extolled their 'uprightness of character, education and ability', to the Austrian Baron Hubner who in 1886 ascribed the 'miracles' of British administration to 'the devotion, intelligence, the courage, the perseverance, and the skill combined with an integrity proof against all temptation, of a handful of officials and magistrates who govern and administer the Indian Empire'. 3 Similar tributes can also be found in unexpected places in Britain. Lloyd George, the Liberal leader, lauded the Service as 'the steel frame' that held everything together, while John Strachey, the Labour minister, judged it the 'least corruptible...ablest and...most respectable of all the great bureaucracies of the world'. 4 The same words recur again and again, even from Indian nationalists and their newspapers at the end of the nineteenth century: impartial, highminded, conscientious, incorruptible. The ICS may have had its criticseven within its own ranksbut about its elevated standards there was no argument. N.B. Bonarjee, a member of the Service but also an Indian nationalist, praised 'its rectitude, its sense of justice, its tolerance, its sense of public duty', as well as 'its high administrative ability'. 5 After independence in 1947, the new nations of Pakistan and India each displayed pride in its traditions. While in Karachi a Government pamphlet proclaimed that the Pakistan Civil Service was the 'successor' of the ICS, 'the most distinguished Civil Service in the world', in Delhi the Home Minister, Vallabhbhai Patel, used it as a model for the Indian Administrative Service, a body that played a crucial role in the integration and unification of the new state. Even at the beginning of the twentyfirst century retired members of the IAS were recalling the exploits of their British predecessors with almost embarrassing effusiveness. 6 The hig
First Chapter
Excerpted from The Ruling Caste by David Gilmour. Copyright © 2005 by David Gilmour. Published February 2006 by Farrar, Straus and Giroux, LLC. All rights reserved.

Preface

During their brief momentous period of collaboration, Joseph Stalin and Joachim von Ribbentrop agreed that it was absurd that so much of the world should be ruled by Great Britain. In particular, the Russian leader told the Nazi Foreign Minister, it was ‘ridiculous…that a few hundred Englishmen should dominate India’.1 He was referring to the men of the Indian Civil Service (ICS).

The statistic alone seems ridiculous. In 1901, when Queen Victoria died, the ‘few hundred’ numbered just over a thousand, of whom a fifth were at any time either sick or on leave. Yet they administered directly (in British India) or indirectly (in the princely states) a population of nearly 300 million people spread over the territory of modern India, Pakistan, Burma and Bangladesh.

Stalin’s grumble contained perhaps a touch of tacit admiration. More explicit praise came from earlier foreign leaders who, like him, had been in search of empires to rule. Bismarck thought Britain’s work in India would be ‘one of its lasting monuments’, while Theodore Roosevelt told the British they had done ‘such marvellous things in India’ that they might ‘gradually, as century succeeds century…transform the Indian population, not in blood, probably not in speech, but in government and culture, and thus leave [their] impress as Rome did hers on Western Europe’. 2

It is not difficult to find foreign eulogies of British civil servants in India, from the French Abbé Dubois, who in 1822 extolled their ‘uprightness of character, education and ability’, to the Austrian Baron Hübner who in 1886 ascribed the ‘miracles’ of British administration to ‘the devotion, intelligence, the courage, the perseverance, and the skill combined with an integrity proof against all temptation, of a handful of officials and magistrates who govern and administer the Indian Empire’. 3 Similar tributes can also be found in unexpected places in Britain. Lloyd George, the Liberal leader, lauded the Service as ‘the steel frame’ that held everything together, while John Strachey, the Labour minister, judged it the ‘least corruptible…ablest and…most respectable of all the great bureaucracies of the world’. 4

The same words recur again and again, even from Indian nationalists and their newspapers at the end of the nineteenth century: impartial, high—minded, conscientious, incorruptible. The ICS may have had its critics—even within its own ranks—but about its elevated standards there was no argument. N.B. Bonarjee, a member of the Service but also an Indian nationalist, praised ‘its rectitude, its sense of justice, its tolerance, its sense of public duty’, as well as ‘its high administrative ability’. 5 After independence in 1947, the new nations of Pakistan and India each displayed pride in its traditions. While in Karachi a Government pamphlet proclaimed that the Pakistan Civil Service was the ‘successor’ of the ICS, ‘the most distinguished Civil Service in the world’, in Delhi the Home Minister, Vallabhbhai Patel, used it as a model for the Indian Administrative Service, a body that played a crucial role in the integration and unification of the new state. Even at the beginning of the twenty—first century retired members of the IAS were recalling the exploits of their British predecessors with almost embarrassing effusiveness. 6

The high reputation of the ICS was never reflected in the literature of the country where most of its members were born. This was no doubt partly because civil servants do not make exciting characters in fiction, even when they do much of their work on horseback. During the existence of the Raj they sometimes appeared in the novels of largely forgotten authors such as Alexander Allardyce, Flora Annie Steel, W. W. Hunter, Edward Thompson and A. E. W. Mason. More recently they have featured in the fiction of three winners of the Booker Prize, although not in any leading role except in J. G. Farrell’s The Siege of Krishnapur, a historical novel about the Indian Mutiny. In Ruth Prawer Jhabvala’s Heat and Dust the civil servant is a hapless figure whose wife has an affair with the local nawab, while in Paul Scott’s The Jewel in the Crown he is an uncomfortable liberal who disavows his predecessors and is limited to a brief appearance in a single volume of the Raj Quartet.

Scott’s work, criticized both by Indian nationalists and by British conservatives, is a brilliant portrait of the Raj in its closing years. Yet it is limited not only in time but also in the range of its British characters, who (apart from some missionaries) are nearly all connected to the Army. Rudyard Kipling painted a fuller and richer picture of the Raj at its zenith, but this too is restricted in scope, mainly because he lived nearly all his time in the Punjab and left India at the age of 23. He also took most of his characters from the military (with a preference for NCOs and Other Ranks), and distributed his civilians in professions as diverse as forestry and engineering. Some of Kipling’s few civil servants are strong men, dedicated paternalists obsessed with duty and the welfare of Indians. But others are pedantic or frivolous or impractical. In his story ‘Tod’s Amendment’ he gave a 6—year—old boy more understanding of agricultural tenancies than the Legal Member of the Viceroy’s Council.

Although Kipling was the principal chronicler of British India, the most enduring effigy of its administrators was carved by E. M. Forster in A Passage to India. The two writers approached the Subcontinent from angles that could hardly have been more different. Kipling was born in India and returned at the age of 16 to earn his living as a journalist in Lahore. Forster had already published most of his novels by the time he sailed for Bombay in search of India and Indian friendships. There was nothing in his background, character or outlook that predisposed him to look favourably on the Raj. Indeed several of his friends in the Bloomsbury Group had abandoned their traditional family links with imperial rule.[*] They even persuaded one of their members, Rex Partridge, the son and nephew of ICS officials, to change his name to the less regal—sounding Ralph. 8

A Passage to India is a subtle and in certain ways sensitive work, a well—crafted drama with an evocative sense of place and some plausible Indian characters. But its author’s loathing of the British in India—a feeling he confessed to in private9—turned it into a tendentious political novel, at any rate for many of his contemporary readers. Kipling was fascinated by other men’s professions and wrote numerous stories about work; so was Scott, who diligently carried out research into how the British had administered India. But Forster was seldom interested in writing about work; he preferred portraying people at their leisure or in their domesticity in Florence and the Home Counties. He did not see civil servants inspecting hospitals or canals but witnessed them relaxing at ‘the Club’, where he judged them philistine and stupid. Then he turned them into caricatures. His District Officer, Turton, is pompous and absurd and wants ‘to flog every native’ in sight as soon as there is a crisis; his memsahibs are even worse, crude stereotypes, compounds of nothing but snobbery and racial prejudice. Their actions are seldom more credible than their characters. Forster makes them react to an obscure incident in a cave as if it had been a minor massacre. They gather at the club and make semi—hysterical suggestions about calling out the Army, ‘clearing the bazaars’ and sending the women and children to the hills. There is almost nothing believable about the scene at the club or about the arrest and trial of Aziz, where Forster’s ignorance of administration and judicial procedure let him down again. Yet these events, described in fiction and depicted in film, form one of the most abiding images of British India.

The principal historical portrait is a kinder one. Fifty years ago, a former civil servant, Philip Mason, published (under the pseudonym Philip Woodruff) his two volumes of The Men Who Ruled India, The Founders and The Guardians. They are the work of a wise man and a talented writer who wrote affectionately yet sometimes critically of a Service which had on the whole, he thought, justified its reputation for altruism and benevolent rule. Although regularly and unfairly denounced by post—colonial critics as hagiography, it is the work on the subject best known to non—academic readers.

Two historiograpical developments in the late 1970s changed academic attitudes towards the Service. The most important was the publication in 1978 of Edward Said’s Orientalism, a hugely influential book that spawned legions of disciples, in India and elsewhere, who took it for granted that colonial rule was always evil and colonialist motives were invariably bad. The other was a sudden interest shown by a number of North American historians in demolishing the reputation of the ICS. In 1976 Bradford Spangenberg published a thesis claiming that the Service was obsessed with status and promotion and declaring that, as a result of his ‘scrutiny of the characteristics and motivations of British officials’, he had destroyed the ‘myths’ of its efficiency and ‘self—sacrificial esprit de corps’. Although his ‘scrutiny’ generally and curiously eschewed the examination of civil servants’ private papers, it was welcomed by other historians equally eager to demonstrate the self—interest and lack of altruism in the Service. It soon became normal to read American studies of British India without finding a decent motive ascribed to officials who had spent a good part of their careers digging canals, fighting crime and organizing famine relief. Even the officers of the Indian Medical Service, men working (with a certain success) to combat malaria, plague and cholera, were accused of carrying out research ‘driven by narrowly professional motives’ and of trying ‘to advance their careers at home by contributing to the advance of a universal medical science’. 10 How contributions to the advance of medical science can be regarded as inherently sinful is something of a mystery. Even odder is the implication that trying to advance one’s career is an activity unknown to American historians.

The most significant contributions to the subject since Woodruff are The District Officer by Roland Hunt and John Harrison, which is outside my period, and Clive Dewey’s Anglo—Indian Attitudes, which just touches the end of it. Dewey’s study concentrates on two very different figures in the ICS, Malcolm Darling, a friend of Forster who also befriended Indians, and Frank Lugard Brayne, an Evangelical who attempted to transform his district by enforcing sanitary and agricultural improvements. The author took the two men to represent the Cult of Friendship and the Gospel of Uplift, two contrasting outlooks which, he argued, alternated as the dominant British attitude to India between the governorship of Clive and the viceroyalty of Mountbatten. 11

Paul Scott became so interested in the mechanics of the Raj that he even contemplated writing a non—fictional account of its working routines. He wished that the last British generation in India would stop reminiscing about tigers and elephants and the smell of dung fires, and tell him how their curious administration had functioned. ‘How did it work?’ There was ‘nothing more maddening’, he told a retired civil servant, ‘than the lack of printed evidence of how men like you actually spent their day. From chota bazri to sundown. Minute by minute, hour by hour.’ 12

This book does not pretend to explain how the administration worked. That would require a study not only of Stalin’s ‘few hundred’ but of the hundreds of thousands of Indian subordinates who were employed in the various different services. But it does aim to show what the senior men did, how they worked and how they lived from chota bazri to sundown, from apprenticeship to the Collector’s bungalow and, in some cases, to Simla and Government House. It takes them from background and recruitment through their careers to their retirement; it describes their work and their ambitions, their thoughts and their beliefs, their leisure time and their domestic existences. I have attempted to explain why they went to India, what they did when they got there, and what they thought about it all. While mindful of recent post—colonial scholarship, I have tried to be unprejudiced in assessing their strengths and weaknesses, their successes and failures. If I have been incapable of doing so without irony, I hope at least that I have been fair.

My approach has been an individual’s on individuals, coming to the institution through its members, not the other way round. That is why some sections deal exclusively with a single official, notably Alfred Lyall, whose life is chronicled from training to retirement. I began doing research on the ICS fifteen years ago, while working on a biography of Lord Curzon, and since then I have come across hundreds of people writing or being written about in private papers. The experience has led me to appreciate the diversity within the structure. Despite my admiration for Dewey’s work, I find that few of the people I have investigated fit comfortably into one or other of his categories: most of them have bits of both Darling and Brayne.

No doubt this view places me in Dewey’s categories of ‘unreconstructed liberal’ or empiricist who denies the importance of ideologies and the Zeitgeist. Of course I am aware that there was a civil service ethos imbibed at Haileybury or Oxford and later reinforced in the provincial capitals of Bombay, Lahore and elsewhere. Similar ideas percolated in the clubs and in the secretariats. But always there was the diversity encouraged by diverse circumstances. The experience of Madras was very different from that of the Punjab; men in obscure districts did not see things in the same way as their colleagues in Calcutta. Ultimately officials in India had to live on their own resources, their lives determined by individual temperaments, environment and experience—and by the eternal problems of human relationships.

Notes



preface
1. Hyde, Stalin, p. 397.
2. Moorhouse, India Britannica, p. 264; Morison (ed.), The Letters of Theodore Roosevelt, Vol. 2, p. 1052.
3. O’Malley, The Indian Civil Service, pp. 49, 173; Hübner, Through the British Empire, Vol. 2, p. 252.
4. Symonds, The British and Their Successors, p. 40; Strachey, The End of Empire, pp. 54, 57.
5. Bonarjee, Under Two Masters, pp. 122—3.
6. Kirk—Greene, Britain’s Imperial Administrators, p. 87; Symonds, The British and Their Successors, p. 25; conversations with author.
7. Caine, Bombay to Bloomsbury, pp. 4—6.
8. Information from Partridge family.
9. Furbank, E. M. Forster, Vol. 2, p. 126.
10. Spangenberg, British Bureaucracy in India, pp. x, 336; Crane and Barrier, British Imperial Policy in India and Sri Lanka, pp. 56, 180—1; Metcalf, Ideologies of the Raj, p. 175.
11. Dewey, Anglo—Indian Attitudes, pp. 12—16.
12. Moore, Paul Scott’s Raj, pp. 136, 198; Spurling, Paul Scott, pp. 362—3.

[*] Virginia Woolf’s uncle, Sir James Fitzjames Stephen, had been on the Viceroy’s Council, and her husband Leonard had been in the Ceylon Civil Service. Lytton Strachey was the son of a General in the Indian Army, the nephew of a Lieutenant-Governor and the godson of a Viceroy. Although his two eldest brothers spent their careers in India, and although he himself wrote a dissertation on Warren Hastings at Cambridge, Strachey rejected any idea of an imperial role for himself and even wrote a family memoir without mentioning the Subcontinent.7


Excerpted from The Ruling Caste: Imperial Lives in the Victorian Raj by David Gilmour
All rights reserved by the original copyright owners. Excerpts are provided for display purposes only and may not be reproduced, reprinted or distributed without the written permission of the publisher.
Full Text Reviews
Appeared in Library Journal on 2006-03-01:
British historian and biographer Gilmour (fellow, Royal Soc. of Literature), who has written other works dealing with 19th-century India, here examines British imperial activities during the reign of Queen Victoria in the area that now includes India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Burma. Between 1837 and 1901, the small Indian Civil Service (ICS) administered this region of 300 million people. Gilmour explains how a mere 1000 officers were able to accomplish this task. He gives a brief overview of the period, touching on the various political and social issues related to the area, and talks about how members of the ICS were recruited and trained and what their daily family life was like. The majority of this book, which includes 20 pages of notes and an extensive bibliography, reviews the various sections of the service and addresses how the officers achieved their goals. One chapter, for example, is devoted to the administration of law, while another discusses the role of the district officer. Gilmour very successfully elucidates this period in history. Highly recommended for academic and larger public libraries.-Joel W. Tscherne, formerly with Cleveland P.L. (c) Copyright 2010. Library Journals LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Media Source, Inc. No redistribution permitted.
Appeared in Choice on 2007-04-01:
In 1963, Philip Mason, a former officer of the Indian Civil Service (ICS), the administrative elite of the British Raj, published (under the pseudonym Philip Woodruff) The Men Who Ruled India (1954), the second of his two-volume history of the ICS. Beautifully written and perceptive, it was also inevitably nostalgic and a bit defensive. Nothing has appeared to supplant it as a general account in the ensuing 40 years. Gilmour's book, although he confines himself to the Victorian years, should now take its place as the best introduction, not only to the ICS but to the structure and ethos of the Raj itself. Gilmour (Columbia Univ.), like Mason, admires what the ICS accomplished, but he has the advantage of greater historical perspective, access to a wide range of personal papers, and the numerous scholarly explorations of the Raj published since Mason's time. The result is a nuanced account of how ICS members were recruited and trained, as well as what they did during their Indian careers. Gilmour is far from uncritical but recognizes, as did Mason, that the Raj, that crucial prop of Imperial Britain, was inconceivable without the ICS. ^BSumming Up: Highly recommended. All levels/libraries. R. A. Callahan emeritus, University of Delaware
Appeared in Publishers Weekly on 2005-11-28:
How much do we really know about the lives of the British in imperial India? Gilmour's deftly organized, encyclopedic account of the day-to-day existence of the members of the Indian Civil Service (ICS) upends the view of the British rulers as tyrannical, racist philistines, an image born out of such works as E.M. Forster's A Passage to India and advanced strenuously since postcolonial studies emerged in the 1970s. Gilmour, author of highly regarded biographies of Rudyard Kipling and Lord Curzon, assembles a wealth of light, amusing anecdotes on an astounding range of topics concerning the members of the ICS, including their college days, bad habits, job duties, gripes about the weather and courtship practices. Though lacking in analysis, the sympathetic general portrait gives a good insider's view of how these men fared in an unfamiliar and sometimes dangerous region. A firm understanding of the British mindset and playful characterizations of its idiosyncrasies provide entertainment and insight, but, lacking a central thread or thesis, the book often feels inessential. The flatness of its prose may make reading wearisome, though the breadth and care of the scholarship merit esteem. Maps, b&w photos. (Feb.) (c) Copyright PWxyz, LLC. All rights reserved
Reviews
This item was reviewed in:
Kirkus Reviews,
Publishers Weekly, November 2005
Booklist, February 2006
Wall Street Journal, February 2006
Boston Globe, March 2006
Library Journal, March 2006
Washington Post, March 2006
Boston Globe, April 2006
New York Times Book Review, April 2006
Choice, April 2007
To find out how to look for other reviews, please see our guides to finding book reviews in the Sciences or Social Sciences and Humanities.
Summaries
Long Description
A sparkling, provocative history of the English in South Asia during Queen Victoria's reign Between 1837 and 1901, less than 100,000 Britons at any one time managed an empire of 300 million people spread over the vast area that now includes India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Burma. How was this possible, and what were these people like? The British administration in India took pride in its efficiency and broad-mindedness, its devotion to duty and its sense of imperial grandeur, but it has become fashionable to deprecate it for its arrogance and ignorance. In this balanced, witty, and multi-faceted history, David Gilmour goes far to explain the paradoxes of the "Anglo-Indians," showing us what they hoped to achieve and what sort of society they thought they were helping to build. "The Ruling Caste" principally concerns the officers of the legendary India Civil Service--each of whom to perform as magistrate, settlement officer, sanitation inspector, public-health officer, and more for the million or so people in his charge. Gilmour extends his study to every level of the administration and to the officers' women and children, so often ignored in previous works. "" "The Ruling Caste" is the best book yet on the real trials and triumphs of an imperial ruling class; on the dangerous temptations that an empire's power encourages; on relations between governor and governed, between European and Asian. No one interested in politics and social history can afford to miss this book.
Unpaid Annotation
A sparkling, provocative history of the English in South Asia during Queen Victoria's reign Between 1837 and 1901, less than 100,000 Britons at any one time managed an empire of 300 million people spread over the vast area that now includes India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Burma. How was this possible, and what were these people like? The British administration in India took pride in its efficiency and broad-mindedness, its devotion to duty and its sense of imperial grandeur, but it has become fashionable to deprecate it for its arrogance and ignorance. In this balanced, witty, and multi-faceted history, David Gilmour goes far to explain the paradoxes of the "Anglo-Indians," showing us what they hoped to achieve and what sort of society they thought they were helping to build. The Ruling Caste principally concerns the officers of the legendary India Civil Service--each of whom to perform as magistrate, settlement officer, sanitation inspector, public-health officer, and more for the million or so people in his charge. Gilmour extends his study to every level of the administration and to the officers' women and children, so often ignored in previous works. The Ruling Caste is the best book yet on the real trials and triumphs of an imperial ruling class; on the dangerous temptations that an empire's power encourages; on relations between governor and governed, between European and Asian. No one interested in politics and social history can afford to miss this book.
Table of Contents
List of Illustrationsp. xi
Prefacep. xiii
Note on Spelling and Currencyp. xxi
Glossary of Indian and Anglo-Indian Wordsp. xxii
Principal Positions in the Executive Branch of the Indian Government, 1900p. xxiv
Mapsp. xxvi
Introduction: Queen Victoria's Indian Empirep. 1
Maternalism
Expansionism
Anglo-Indians
The Mutiny
The Aftermath
Justifying Imperialism
Old Boysp. 29
Dolphin Families
Exile Backgrounds
The Haileybury Spirit
Competition Wallahsp. 43
The Career Opened to Talent
Indianization
Incentives
Candidates
Choosing a Province
Jowett's Triumph
Contemporary Verdicts
Griffinsp. 69
Voyages
First Impressions
First Postings
First Duties
Lyall among the Rebels
District Officersp. 89
The Pooh-Bahs of India
Protectors
Solomons
Nuisances
Ma-Bap
Campersp. 105
Touring the District
Assessing the Land
Famine and Disease
Jungle Wallah
Magistrates and Judgesp. 123
Crimes and Witnesses
Conviction and Punishment
The 'Judgey' Side
Furore over Ilbert
Black Sheepp. 135
Drunks, Debts and a Lunatic
Incompetents and Malcontents
Hibernian Insubordinate
Physical Justice
The Odd Corruptible
Mr Clarke and Mrs Howard
Frontiersmenp. 159
The Punjab School
All along the Frontier
Baluchi Backwater
Plots and Polo in Manipur
Residents and Agentsp. 176
The Political Departments
Diversity and Disappointment
Duties of a Resident
On Deposing a Ruler
Temple at Hyderabad
Griffin in Central India
Maynard in the Mountains
Mandarinsp. 210
Armchairs and Clockwork
Red Tape
Promotions and Rewards
Migrations to the Hills
Life at the Topp. 229
The Viceroy's 'Cabinet'
Lieutenant-Governors
Proconsular Lyall
Thinkersp. 241
Readers
Scholars
Reactionaries
Reformers
Playersp. 262
Games
Shikar
Hills
Furlough
Husbands and Loversp. 278
In Search of a Wife
Courtships in India
Mistresses
Lyall Infelix
Families and Exilesp. 294
The Shock of Asia
The Memsahibs' Routine
A Sense of Exile
Death in India
Pensionersp. 311
Repatriation
Occupations
Lyall Venerabilis
Going Downhill
Notesp. 329
Bibliographyp. 349
Acknowledgementsp. 361
Indexp. 363
Table of Contents provided by Ingram. All Rights Reserved.

This information is provided by a service that aggregates data from review sources and other sources that are often consulted by libraries, and readers. The University does not edit this information and merely includes it as a convenience for users. It does not warrant that reviews are accurate. As with any review users should approach reviews critically and where deemed necessary should consult multiple review sources. Any concerns or questions about particular reviews should be directed to the reviewer and/or publisher.

  link to old catalogue

Report a problem