Think of Lord Curzon, and the first thing that flashes in your mind is the 1905 Bengal Partition. Bengal burnt, and King George V had to personally come to India in 1911 to annul the Partition and transfer the capital to Delhi. However, the Bengal Partition was not the only partition done by Curzon‘s knife.

The first one was hugely successful—the resentment coming from British officers who felt that the feather in their caps was being taken away for the good of India. The second one was hugely unsuccessful—the resentment coming from Hindus and Muslims who felt that their unity was being interfered with for the good of Britain.

Advertisement

The British Empire’s thorn in the flesh was not a bunch of patriots who opened fire at a white man and then smilingly went to the gallows. Managing the turbulent and bloodthirsty Pathan tribes on the North-West frontier was probably a bigger challenge. Not just the British but also the Mughals, Afghans and Sikhs found these mountaineers extremely warlike to subjugate.

There were two schools of thought to deal with the issue: “the forward policy” and “the close border policy”. The forward policy sought to effect the extension of Pax Britannica up to the Durand Line through military presence and campaign. On the other hand, advocates of the close border policy regarded the subjugation of these tribes as desirable, but it was too costly to be carried out. They preferred the money be better spent on the development of districts in remote parts of India.

Curzon, till the time he landed in India for the Viceroy’s job, was all vocal about the forward policy and subjugating the tribes by force. However, once he started examining ground realities, he trashed both the ideas.

He found it prudent to withdraw regular troops in advanced positions in the tribal territory and post them “upon or near to the Indian border”. They were replaced with local tribals trained by British officers. These tribals were to act as militia in defence of their own native valleys and hills. To support these trained tribals were experienced British officers, motivated by an increased pay scale for the difficult posting. In his words, “It is a policy of military concentration as against dispersion and of tribal conciliation in place of exasperation.” Interestingly, these words were coming from the same man who would, in just four years, partition Bengal and leave a blot, which he sowed the seeds of the Hindu-Muslim divide.

Coming back to Punjab, it was a brilliant policy. It ultimately led to the Partition of Punjab and the formation of the North-West Frontier province in February 1901. The turbulent land would be dealt with by people with expert knowledge of the tribes and their sentiments. Punjab lost a minuscule amount of its land, revenue and population. However, the peace it got in return gave it the chance to be one of the most prosperous lands in the country. The only ones to oppose were probably the past and present lieutenant governors of Punjab, as it took away some of their authority.

It was strange for Curzon, with enviable lineage, endless knowledge and scholarly abilities, unimaginable wealth, enormous political clout, and love for history and tradition, to want to leave behind a legacy he would be hated for. He would rather do something that would relegate Queen Victoria and King Edward VII to the footnotes of history books. And he was doing exactly that.

When rumours were doing the rounds of his resignation in the middle of his term, he had said, “I shall regard it as an abnegation of duty to lay it down. Whether the work be worth doing for the sake of the country, it is not for me to say, but I may be permitted to add that to me, at any rate, it appears as the highest and most sacred of trusts.”

All this was pre-1905. So did this man miscalculate the sentiments when he embarked on the Bengal Partition? Did he miss out on the religious or ethnic lines? Was Bengal truly divided on the logic that it was too big a province and an administrative nightmare to govern?

Curzon‘s partition of Bengal was in two parts: Eastern Bengal and Assam, with a population of 31 million, and the rest of Bengal, with a population of 54 million, of whom 18 million were Bengalis and 36 million Biharis and Oriyas. Rather than the Hindus and Muslims, were it the Assamese, Biharis and Oriyas who resented being with the newly educated Bengalis patronised by the British and having to obey the Bengalis’ orders? History still needs time to heal before making a judgement on the decision. However, Jawaharlal Nehru was absolutely vocal about him: “After every other viceroy has been forgotten, Curzon will be remembered because he restored all that was beautiful in India.”

Wonder if Bengal did not protest the Partition and Calcutta was not branded as too troubled a land that could not house the headquarters of the British Empire; what turn would history take?

Sources:

1. Lord Curzon in India – H Caldwell Lipsett

2. Encyclopedia Britannica

The writer is an independent contributor