Re: "Indigenous" Kings (& Forces?) of the
Empire Glen Robert-Grant Hodgins Jun 12, 2000 19:41 PDT
As a follow-on to
Christopher Buyers' excellent tour d'horizon of "indigenous" kings
within the Empire, I would like to ask a double-barreled supplementary question
on this same topic, and then make a few comments.
Is it fair to say that
significant factors in determining which kings survived and which ones were
deposed were:
a)
the prior level of cordiality which existed between the Imperial
authorities and the kinglet?
b) the time frame in question?; [ie., were there certain
periods in the history of the Empire when the dominant philosophy of (liberal?)
decision-makers was simply to dispose of these "Oriental Despots";
while at
other times the ruling mindset (of conservative
decision-makers?) was to keep the traditional rulers?].
The only case of an indigenous kinglet of which I'm aware in
any detail ("not surprisingly", I can hear some Hon Members
snickering) is the fate of the (Ceylonese) King of Kandy: after British forces
finally defeated him in 1815, he and his entourage were wisked off to Vellore,
Tamil Nadu, where he basically lived out the rest of his life in relative obscurity
on a government pension.
Although I've certainly never studied this aspect of
Kandyan-British relations in any detail, I've always thought that if the
Kandyan King had not spent the better part of the previous 12 years waging war
against Britain, (including giving
Brit forces a thorough thrashing in 1803), that this King might have been
allowed to carry-on (after submission) very much like other
"indigenous" kinglets around the Empire. In other words, the lead-up to his submission to British
will was far from cordial, and this was, at least in part, a determining factor
in his disposal.
Secondly, my understanding of the "mindset" of
Imperial decision-makers at this time is that it was very much against the idea
of "power sharing" (to use an anachronistic term) with local
traditional leaders. As always I'm certainly open to correction on this, but I
had the impression that by about this time the authorities (which were more
often than not the Court of Directors of the HEIC) were becoming rather
disillusioned with the course of their dealings with local rulers. To put
things in context, by this time the Brits had just completed yet another costly
campaign against the likes of Tipoo Sultan (the "Tiger of Mysore"),
and a little earlier, against
Shivaji and the Marathas. The acquiescence of the Nizam of Hyderabad had
also not come easily, and the increasing frustrations of the Bengal (HEIC)
government in their dealings with both the Nawab of Oudh and, indeed, the
Moghul "Emperor" in Delhi, (both of whom -- as I understand it –
Imperial authorities viewed as paradigm examples of corrupt, decadent
"Oriental Despots", were strained at best.
I guess, in essence, what I'm trying to say is that I had
always considered this period -- ie., the run-up to the Mutiny -- was a phase
in British Imperial history when (liberal-minded?) decision-makers were
generally hostile to the notion of
perpetuating indigenous kinglets, and were much more inclined to gobble them
up, if possible, whenever the opportunity presented itself. After the Mutiny,
however, this mindset completely
changed, and suddenly Imperial authorities went out of their way to
bolster (indeed, legitimise) such local, petty rulers. Moreover, I would suggest
it was this post-Mutiny period (and accompanying mindset) during which many of
the indigenous kinglets of Africa and south east Asia came to a formal
accommodation with Britain.
Submitted for what it's worth, by a man always interested in
hearing other peoples' views.
Cheers,
Glen in (still soggy)
Serendib
Glen R. Hodgins
Political, Economic & Security Affairs Adviser
HM's Canadian High Commission for Sri Lanka
"Oliver
Castle"
Cinnamon Gardens
Colombo 7, Sri Lanka
Office: glen.h-@dfait-maeci.gc.ca
Residence: grhi-@sri.lanka.net
glen-h-@canada.com
Fax: 94-1-687-049
(Sri Lanka)