Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c47g7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T08:11:57.260Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Anthropologists and Viceroys: Colonial knowledge and policy making in India, 1871–1911*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 October 2015

C. J. FULLER
C. J. FULLER*
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, London School of Economics and Political Science, United Kingdom Email: c.fuller@lse.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The anthropology of caste was a pivotal part of colonial knowledge in British India in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Denzil Ibbetson and Herbert Risley, then the two leading official anthropologists, both made major contributions to the study of caste, which this article discusses. Ibbetson and Risley assumed high office in the imperial government in 1902 and played important roles in policy making during the partition of Bengal (1903–5) and the Morley-Minto legislative councils reforms (1906–9); Ibbetson was also influential in deciding Punjab land policy in the 1890s. Contemporary policy documents, which this article examines, show that the two men's anthropological knowledge had limited influence on their deliberations. Moreover, caste was irrelevant to their thinking about agrarian policy, the promotion of Muslim interests, and the urban, educated middle class, whose growing nationalism was challenging British rule. No ethnographic information was collected about this class, because the scope of anthropology was restricted to ‘traditional’ rural society. At the turn of the twentieth century, colonial anthropological knowledge, especially about caste, had little value for the imperial government confronting Indian nationalism, and was less critical in constituting the Indian colonial state than it previously had been.

Type
Research Article
Information
Modern Asian Studies , Volume 50 , Issue 1 , January 2016 , pp. 217 - 258
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

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.)

Footnotes

*

For helpful discussions and critical comments on an earlier draft of this article, I am particularly grateful to Johnny Parry, Norbert Peabody, Peter Robb, Nate Roberts, Tom Trautmann, Peter van der Veer, and participants in a seminar at the Max Planck Institute for the Study of Religious and Ethnic Diversity, Göttingen, May 2014.

References

1 Cohn, Bernard S., ‘Notes on the History of the Study of Indian Society and Culture’, in his An Anthropologist Among the Historians and Other Essays (Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1987), p. 154Google Scholar.

2 Cohn, ‘Notes’, p. 165.

3 Cohn, ‘The Census, Social Structure and Objectification in South Asia’, in his An Anthropologist, p. 242.

4 Cohn, Bernard S., ‘Introduction’, in his Colonialism and its Forms of Knowledge: The British in India (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1996), pp. 3–4Google Scholar.

5 Cohn, ‘Introduction’, p. 8.

6 Peabody, Norbert, ‘Cents, Sense, Census: Human Inventories in Late Precolonial and Early Colonial India’, Comparative Studies in Society and History, 43 (4), 2001, p. 841Google ScholarPubMed.

7 Metcalf, Thomas R., Ideologies of the Raj (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), p. 113CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

8 Metcalf, Ideologies, p. 117.

9 Dirks, Nicholas B., Castes of Mind: Colonialism and the Making of Modern India (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2001), p. 43Google Scholar.

10 Dirks, Castes, p. 44.

11 Gottschalk, Peter, Religion, Science, and Empire: Classifying Hinduism and Islam in British India (New York: Oxford University Press, 2013), p. 201Google Scholar, Chapter 5 passim.

12 Report on the Census of British India 1881, by W. C. Plowden (London, 1883), p. 277; H. H. Risley, ‘Primitive Marriage in Bengal’, Asiatic Quarterly Review, 2, July–October 1886, pp. 72–4.

13 Ibbetson, D. C. J., Panjab Castes (Lahore: Superintendent, Government Printing, Punjab, 1916), p. vGoogle Scholar. This book is a reprint of Chapter 6 in Report of the Census of Panjab 1881, Vol. 1, Text, by D. C. J. Ibbetson (Lahore, 1883).

14 Dewey, Clive, ‘The Influence of Sir Henry Maine on Agrarian Policy in India’, in Diamond, Alan (ed.), The Victorian Achievement of Henry Maine (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991)Google Scholar, Chapter 18; see also Feaver, George, From Status to Contract: A Biography of Sir Henry Maine, 1822–1888 (London: Longmans, 1969)Google Scholar, Chapters 8, 12; Mantena, Karuna, Alibis of Empire: Henry Maine and the Ends of Liberal Imperialism (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, Chapters 1–2.

15 Maine, Henry, ‘The Effects of Observation on Modern Indian Thought’ (Rede lecture, 1875), in his Village-Communities in the East and West (London: John Murray, 1890), pp. 203–39Google Scholar.

16 Maine, ‘Effects’, pp. 238–9.

17 Submissions by Risley and Ibbetson, in Papers on the Selection and Training of Candidates for the Indian Civil Service (London: Eyre and Spottiswoode, 1876), pp. 70–8, 143–51; Dewey, Clive, ‘The Education of a Ruling Caste: The Indian Civil Service in the Era of Competitive Examination’, English Historical Review, 88 (347), 1973, pp. 276–9Google Scholar.

18 Metcalf, Ideologies, p. 67.

19 Ibbetson, D. C. J., Report on the Revision of Settlement of the Panipat Tahsil and Karnal Parganah of the Karnal District, 1872–1880 (Allahabad, 1883)Google Scholar. On the Punjab settlement reports, see Dewey, Clive, The Settlement Literature of the Greater Punjab: A Handbook (New Delhi: Manohar, 1991), pp. 21–32Google Scholar.

20 Ibbetson, Census of Panjab 1881, Text; Ibbetson, Panjab Castes.

21 Rose, H. A., A Glossary of the Tribes and Castes of the Punjab and North-West Frontier Province, Vol. 1 (Lahore: Superintendent, Government Printing, Punjab, 1919)Google Scholar, Vols 2 and 3 (Lahore: Civil and Military Gazette, 1911, 1914).

22 Ibbetson, Census of Panjab 1881, Text, p. 100.

23 Ibid., p. 101.

24 Tupper, C. L., Punjab Customary Law (Calcutta: Superintendent, Government Printing, 1881), Vol. 1, esp. pp. 15–47Google Scholar; Vol. 2, pp. 1–98.

25 Tupper, Punjab, Vol. 2, p. 69. See also Gilmartin, David, Empire and Islam: Punjab and the Making of Pakistan (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988), pp. 14–20Google Scholar.

26 Ibbetson, Panjab Castes, p. 22.

27 Ibid., p. 13.

28 Ibid., p. 26.

29 Ibid., pp. 27, 30.

30 Ibid., p. 30.

31 Ibid., p. 33.

32 Ibid., pp. 100–101.

33 Census 1881, Operations and Results in the Presidency of Bombay, including Sind, Vol. 1, Text, by J. A. Baines (Bombay, 1882). Ibbetson's evolutionist theory is discussed by Bayly, Susan, ‘Caste and “Race” in the Colonial Ethnography of India’, in Robb, Peter (ed.), The Concept of Race in South Asia (Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1995), pp. 204–13Google Scholar. Bayly also briefly discusses Ibbetson, alongside Crooke and other advocates of the occupational theory, in her Caste, Society and Politics in India from the Eighteenth Century to the Modern Age (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), pp. 138–43; see also Dirks, Castes, pp. 211–12. Most writers on colonial knowledge largely ignore Ibbetson and never mention Baines.

34 Ibbetson, Panjab Castes, p. 2; cf. Maine, Village-Communities, pp. 56–8; Maine, Henry, Lectures on the Early History of Institutions (London: John Murray, 1875), pp. 232–3Google Scholar, 244–7; Spencer, Herbert, Principles of Sociology, Vol. 2, pt. 5, ‘Political Institutions’ (London: Williams and Norgate, 1882), pp. 464–70Google Scholar (which was published while Ibbetson was writing his report).

35 Ibbetson, Panjab Castes, p. 3.

36 Ibid., p. 5.

37 Ibid., pp. 3–4, 9–10.

38 Ibid., p. 10.

39 Baines, Census of Bombay 1881, Text, pp. 120–23. Baines cited Auguste Comte on ‘differentiation of employments’.

40 Baines, J. A., ‘Occupation and Caste in India, as Shown in the Last Census’, Journal of the Society of Arts, 41Google Scholar, 31 March 1893, p. 466; cf. Census of India, 1891, Vol. 1, India, General Report, by J. A. Baines (London, 1893), pp. 189–90.

41 Nesfield, J. C., Brief View of the Caste System of the North-Western Provinces and Oudh (Allahabad: Government Press, 1885)Google Scholar.

42 Risley, H. H., The Tribes and Castes of Bengal: Anthropometric Data (Calcutta: Bengal Secretariat Press, 1891)Google Scholar; and The Tribes and Castes of Bengal: Ethnographic Glossary (Calcutta: Bengal Secretariat Press, 1892), which includes the proceedings of the conference in Lahore in Vol. 2, Appendix 2.

43 Risley, H. H., ‘The Study of Ethnology in India’, Journal of the Anthropological Institute, 20, 1891, pp. 235–63Google Scholar; Risley, Tribes and Castes: Ethnographic, Vol. 1, esp. pp. xix–xli; Census of India, 1901, Vol. 1, India, Report, by H. H. Risley and E. A. Gait (Calcutta, 1903), esp. pp. 489–514, 546–57; Risley, H. H., The People of India (Calcutta: Thacker, Spink and Co., 1915)Google Scholar, esp. Chapters 1, 6. Chapters 1, 2, 4 (part), 5 (part) and 6 of People are the census report's long Chapter 11 (‘Caste, Tribe and Race’) and a passage on ‘animism’ in Chapter 8, which have been rearranged, but not rewritten; the rest of the book, including Chapters 3 and 7, was written after the census. Risley's writing on caste is discussed, with varying degrees of accuracy and acerbity, by almost all scholars of colonial anthropology, including: Crispin Bates, ‘Race, Caste and Tribe in Central India: The Early Origins of Indian Anthropometry’, in Robb (ed.), Concept of Race, pp. 241–9; Bayly, Caste, pp. 127–36; Cohn, ‘Census’, pp. 245–7; Dirks, Castes, pp. 49–52, 183–4, 212–27; Gottschalk, Religion, pp. 210–15, 253–65; Ronald Inden, Imagining India (Oxford: Blackwell, 1990), pp. 58–66; Metcalf, Ideologies, pp. 82–3, 120–2; R. Srivatsan, ‘Native Noses and Nationalist Zoos: Debates in Early Colonial Anthropology of Castes and Tribes’, Economic and Political Weekly, 7 May 2005, pp. 1986–98; Trautmann, Thomas R., Aryans and British India (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997), pp. 198–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

44 Risley, ‘Study of Ethnology’, p. 253; Risley and Gait, Census 1901, India, p. 498; Risley, People, p. 29.

45 Trautmann, Aryans, pp. 190–8.

46 Risley mentions the distinction in Risley and Gait, Census 1901, India, p. 421; Risley, People, p. 154. On criticism of Maine, see Adam Kuper, ‘The Rise and Fall of Maine's Patriarchal Society’, in Diamond (ed.), Victorian Achievement, Chapter 6.

47 Nesfield, Brief View, pp. 3–4.

48 Ibbetson, D. C. J., ‘The Study of Anthropology in India’, Journal of the Anthropological Society of Bombay, 2, 1890, pp. 120–1Google Scholar, 132.

49 Census of India, 1891, Vol. 3, Bengal, Report, by C. J. O'Donnell (Calcutta, 1893), pp. 255–8.

50 Crooke, W., The Tribes and Castes of the North-Western Provinces and Oudh (Calcutta: Superintendent, Government Printing, 1896)Google Scholar, Vol. 1, p. cxxxix.

51 Crooke, W., ‘The Stability of Caste and Tribal Groups in India’, Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 44 (2), 1914, pp. 270–280Google Scholar; ‘Introduction’, in Risley, People, pp. xvi–xxi.

52 Thurston, E. and Rangachari, K., Castes and Tribes of Southern India (Madras: Government Press, 1909)Google Scholar, Vol. 1, pp. xxxvi–lv.

53 Baines, ‘Occupation and Caste’, p. 458; J. A. Baines, Ethnography (Castes and Tribes) (Strassburg: Karl J. Trübner, 1912), p. 2.

54 Census of India, 1911, Vol. 1, India, pt. 1, Report, by E. A. Gait (Calcutta, 1913), p. 381; E. A. Gait, ‘The Indian Census of 1911: Ethnography and Occupations’, Journal of the Society of Arts, 62, 5 June 1914, p. 631.

55 Census of India, 1911, Vol. 15, United Provinces, pt. 1, Report, by E. A. H. Blunt (Allahabad, 1912), pp. 360–1; Vol. 5, Bengal, Bihar and Orissa and Sikhim, pt. 1, Report, by L. S. S. O'Malley (Calcutta, 1913), pp. 517–20. See also Blunt, E. A. H., The Caste System of Northern India (London: Oxford University Press, 1931)Google Scholar; O'Malley, L. S. S., Indian Caste Customs (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1932)Google Scholar.

56 Dirks, Castes, pp. 50, 184.

57 Circular no. 1 (p. 242) and Replies by districts (pp. 1–241) in ‘Ethnographical Papers: Social Status of Castes’ (1886–7), Sir Herbert Risley Papers, Mss Eur E101, Private Papers in Asia, Pacific and Africa Collections, British Library (hereafter APAC, BL).

58 Risley and Gait, Census 1901, India, p. 538; Risley, People, p. 111.

59 Census of India, 1901, Vol. 6, Bengal, Report, by E. A. Gait (Calcutta, 1902), pp. 366–73.

60 Census of India, 1901, Vol. 16, North-Western Provinces and Oudh, Report, by R. Burn (Allahabad, 1902), p. 217; Vol. 15, Madras, Report, by W. Francis (Madras, 1902), p. 136; Vol. 13, Central Provinces, Report, by R. V. Russell (Nagpur, 1902), pp. 207–8; Vol. 9, Bombay, Report, by R. E. Enthoven (Bombay, 1902), p. 187; Vol. 18, Baroda, Report, by J. A. Dalal (Bombay, 1902), p. 484; Vol. 26, Travancore, Report, by N. Subrahmanya Aiyar (Trivandrum, 1903), pp. 257–8; Vol. 17, Punjab, Report, by H. A. Rose (Simla, 1902), pp. 337–40, 345–8.

61 Risley and Gait, Census 1901, India, p. 538; Risley, People, p. 112.

62 Risley and Gait, Census 1901, India, pp. 514–7, 543–4; Risley, People, pp. 62–8, 121–4.

63 The Warrant was published annually in The India List and India Office List (London: Harrisons and Co.).

64 Moorhouse, Geoffrey, India Britannica (London: Paladin, 1984), p. 103Google Scholar.

65 Ibbetson, Panjab Castes, p. 3.

66 Gait, Census 1911, India, p. 386.

67 For example, Risley, Tribes and Castes: Ethnographic, Vol. 1, pp. xlii–lxxii; Crooke, Tribes and Castes, Vol. 1, pp. clxi–clxxxii.

68 Tupper, Punjab, p. 17.

69 Ibid., p. 21.

70 Norman G. Barrier, ‘The Formulation and Enactment of the Punjab Alienation of Land Bill’, Indian Economic and Social History Review, 2, 1965, pp. 145–65; Barrier, N. G., The Punjab Alienation of Land Bill of 1900 (Durham, North Carolina: Duke University Program in Comparative Studies on Southern Asia, Monograph 2, 1966)Google Scholar; Dewey, ‘Influence of Maine’. For the wider context, see Robb, Peter, Ancient Rights and Future Comfort: Bihar, the Bengal Tenancy Act of 1885, and British Rule in India (Richmond: Curzon Press, 1997)Google Scholar.

71 Ibbetson's minute of 1889 in Barrier, Punjab Alienation, p. 107 (italics original); see also minute of 1885 in Dewey, ‘Influence of Maine’, pp. 367–8.

72 Ibbetson, Karnal Report, p. 81; Crooke, W., Natives of Northern India (London: Constable, 1907), p. 93Google Scholar.

73 Dewey, ‘Influence of Maine’, pp. 356, 369.

74 Gilmartin, Empire, Chapter 1.

75 Spear, Vincent A. Smith, (ed.) Percival, The Oxford History of India (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1958), p. 762Google Scholar.

76 Gilmour, David, Curzon (London: Papermac, 1995), pp. 154, 216, 225–6, 327Google Scholar.

77 Ibbetson to Curzon, 27 December 1901 (italics original), Lord Curzon papers (hereafter CP), Mss Eur F111/204, Private Papers in APAC, BL.

78 Curzon's note on territorial changes in India, 24 May 1902, in ‘Official Proceedings, Notes and Papers on the Reconstitution of the Provinces of Bengal and Assam’, CP, F111/247a; Gilmour, Curzon, p. 271.

79 Risley's note on Sind/Punjab (5 March 1903), Ibbetson's minute on Berar and Sind/Punjab (23 April 1903), and both men's views on Oriya speakers are discussed in Curzon's minutes on territorial redistribution (19 May and 1 June 1903), and Notes, Public-A, 1903, on territorial changes in India, CP, F111/247a.

80 Risley to Chief Secretary, Government of Bengal, 3 December 1903, in ‘Papers Relating to the Reconstitution of the Provinces of Bengal and Assam’, IOR/L/PJ/6/709, File 413, ff. 37–42, India Office Records in APAC, BL.

81 ‘Report on Native Papers in Bengal’, 26 December 1903, p. 1096, IOR/L/R/5/29; 2 January 1904, p. 27, 9 January 1904, p. 40, IOR/L/R/5/30, both India Office Records in APAC, BL.

82 Dispatch from Curzon and Council to Secretary of State, 2 February 1905, with enclosure no. 5, letter from Chief Secretary, Government of Bengal to Risley, 6 April 1904, enclosing the memorials, IOR/L/PJ/6/709, File 413, ff. 106–19.

83 Ibid., ff. 131–3.

84 Ibid., ff. 124–9.

85 Ibid., ff. 135–44.

86 Enclosure no. 16, Memorial from public meeting, Calcutta, IOR/L/PJ/6/709, File 413, ff. 282–7.

87 Sarkar, Sumit, The Swadeshi Movement in Bengal, 1903–1908 (New Delhi: People's Publishing House, 1973), p. 19Google Scholar.

88 Dispatch, 2 February 1905, IOR/L/PJ/6/709, File 413, ff. 76–86.

89 IOR/L/PJ/6/709, File 413, ff. 106–19.

90 Ray, Rajat Kanta, Social Conflict and Political Unrest in Bengal, 1875–1927 (Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1984), p. 152Google Scholar.

91 Enclosure no. 7, letter from Risley to Chief Secretary, Government of Bengal, 13 September 1904, IOR/L/PJ/6/709, File 413, ff. 250–251.

92 Risley's memorandum, 7 April 1904, and Ibbetson's note, 8 April 1904 (italics original), in Notes, Public-A, February 1905, CP, F111/247b.

93 IOR/L/PJ/6/709, File 413, ff. 76–86.

94 Risley, People, pp. 294–8.

95 Dirks, Castes, p. 224; Risley, ‘The Race Basis of Indian Political Movements’, The Contemporary Review, May 1890, pp. 742–59.

96 Risley, People, pp. 279, 292–4.

97 Risley's note, 6 December 1906, quoted in Johnson, Gordon, ‘Partition, Agitation and Congress: Bengal, 1904 to 1908’, Modern Asian Studies, 7 (3), 1973, p. 549CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

98 Risley, People, p. 217; Risley, ‘Race Basis’, p. 745.

99 Enclosure no. 13, Curzon's address at Dacca, 18 February 1904, IOR/L/PJ/6/709, File 413, ff. 265–73.

100 Sarkar, Swadeshi, p. 418; Johnson, ‘Partition’, p. 550.

101 Risley and Gait, Census 1901, India, pp. 543–4; Risley, People, pp. 121–3.

102 H. H. Risley, ‘Note on Muhammadan Claims to Increased Representation’, 25 May 1909, p. 84, in ‘Correspondence of 1909 Regarding Councils Reforms’, pp. 59–87, Fourth Earl of Minto Papers (hereafter MinP), MS 12616, Manuscripts Collections, National Library of Scotland, Edinburgh.

103 Gait, Census 1901, Bengal, pp. 166–70, 174–6, 439.

104 Ibbetson to Curzon, 9 January 1905, CP, F111/210; Risley to Curzon, 25 April, 9 May 1906, CP, F112/13(b); Ibbetson to Dunlop Smith, 3 April 1906, and Risley to Dunlop Smith, 25 April 1906, MinP, MS 12764; Minto to Morley, 25 January 1906, John Morley Papers (hereafter MorP), Mss Eur D573/7, Private Papers in APAC, BL; Minto to Morley, 25 April 1906, D573/8; Minto to Morley, 23 January, 30 January 1907, D573/11; Gilbert, Martin, Servant of India: A Study of Imperial Rule from 1905 to 1910 as Told Through the Correspondence and Diaries of Sir James Dunlop Smith (London: Longmans, 1966), p. 45Google Scholar; Gilmour, Curzon, p. 370.

105 Minto to Morley, 9/10 February 1909, MorP, D573/19.

106 Morley to Minto, 10 August 1908, MorP, D573/3. See also Das, M. N., India Under Morley and Minto: Politics Behind Revolution, Repression and Reforms (London: Allen and Unwin, 1964), pp. 192–7Google Scholar; Wolpert, Stanley A., Morley and India, 1906–1910 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1967), pp. 147–50Google Scholar.

107 Rothermund, Dietmar, ‘Emancipation or Re-integration: The Politics of Gopal Krishna Gokhale and Herbert Hope Risley’, in Low, D. A. (ed.), Soundings in Modern South Asian History (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1968), p. 148Google Scholar.

108 Quoted in McLane, John R., Indian Nationalism and the Early Congress (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1977), p. 239Google Scholar.

109 Rothermund, ‘Emancipation’, pp. 139–40.

110 ‘Report of the Committee Appointed to Consider Reforms in the Indian Councils’, 12 October 1906, MorP, D573/32, ff. 2–12; see also Das, India, pp. 189–192.

111 Dispatch from Minto and Council to Secretary of State, 21 March 1907, MorP, D573/32, ff. 13–31.

112 Minto to Morley, 28 March 1907, MorP, D573/11.

113 Minto to Morley, 5 March 1907, MorP, D573/11; Minto to Morley, 19 August 1908, D573/17.

114 Minto to Risley, and Risley to Minto, 30 September 1908, MinP, MS 12769.

115 Proposal in Council of India by Lee-Warner, 13 April 1907, MorP, D573/32, ff. 46–8.

116 Morley's reply to dispatch, 17 May 1907, MorP, D573/32, ff. 54–61.

117 Dispatch from Minto and Council to Secretary of State, 1 October 1908, MorP, D573/33, ff. 5–22.

118 Morley's reply to dispatch, 27 November 1908, MorP, D573/33, ff. 44–51.

119 Minto's reply to Morley, 23 December 1908, MorP, D573/33, ff. 86–96; Minto to Morley, 31 December 1908, MorP, D573/18; Rothermund, ‘Emancipation’, pp. 146–7.

120 Das, India, pp. 199–203, 260–9.

121 ‘Note on Muhammadan Claims’, MinP, MS 12616; Appendix 2, ‘Muhammadan Representation’, in confidential note on ‘The New Legislative Councils’, MorP, D573/34, ff. 96–102, D573/35, ff. 101–7.

122 Das, India, p. 53; Wolpert, Morley, pp. 130–1, 147–9.

123 Das, India, pp. 147–82, 228–49; Wolpert, Morley, pp. 185–200.

124 Kulke, Hermann and Rothermund, Dietmar, A History of India (London: Routledge, 2004), pp. 279–80Google Scholar.

125 Dirks, Castes, pp. 226–7.

126 Wolpert, Morley, p. 191.

127 Risley, ‘Race Basis’, pp. 757–9; Risley, People, p. 300.

128 Minto to Morley, 5 June 1907, MorP, D573/12.

129 Das, India, pp. 190–1, 228–31.

130 Dispatch from Minto and Council to Secretary of State, 1 October 1908, MorP, D573/33, ff. 5–22.

131 Gilbert, Servant, p. 189.

132 Nicholas B. Dirks, ‘Foreword’, in Cohn, Colonialism, p. xiii.

133 Chatterjee, Partha, The Nation and its Fragments: Colonial and Postcolonial Histories (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1993), pp. 14–18, 26–7, 173Google Scholar.

134 Ludden, David, ‘Orientalist Empiricism: Transformations of Colonial Knowledge’, in Breckenridge, Carol A. and van der Veer, Peter (eds), Orientalism and the Postcolonial Predicament (Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1994), pp. 250–78Google Scholar.

135 Cooper, Frederick, Colonialism in Question: Theory, Knowledge, History (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2005), p. 17Google Scholar.

136 Dirks, Castes, pp. 177–83; Metcalf, Ideologies, pp. 122–8.

137 Dirks, Castes, pp. 235–44.

138 Kaviraj, Sudipta, ‘On the Construction of Colonial Power: Structure, Discourse, Hegemony’, in his The Imaginary Institution of India: Politics and Ideas (New York: Columbia University Press, 2010), pp. 44–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

139 O'Malley, L. S. S., The Indian Civil Service, 1601–1930 (London: John Murray, 1931), p. 197Google Scholar.

140 Shahid Amin comments on how Crooke and Grierson ignored rural change in his editor's introduction in A Concise Encyclopaedia of North Indian Peasant Life: Being a Compilation from the Writings of William Crooke, J. R. Reid, and G. A. Grierson (New Delhi: Manohar, 2005), pp. 31–9.