The Baroda Crisis: Difference between revisions
added links, reformatted title, corrected spelling errors from original page |
added additional reading |
||
| Line 27: | Line 27: | ||
== References == |
== References == |
||
{{reflist}} |
{{reflist}} |
||
==Additional reading== |
|||
*Mounton, E.C. "British India and the Baroda Crisis 1874-75: A Problem in Princely Stat Relations." 1968, University of Saskatchewan. |
|||
==See also== |
==See also== |
||
Revision as of 14:56, 26 August 2012
 | This article needs to be divided into sections. (May 2012) |
The Baroda Crisis took place between 1872 and 1876 in Baroda, a Gujurati Princely state.
History
The Baroda Crisis began when Colonel Phayre was appointed as the Resident of Baroda. He had an increasingly negative relationship with Mullar Rao, the Gaekwar (Prince) of Baroda. This antagonism culminated in the Baroda Enquiry which found 'serious misgovernment' in the state. However, instead of taking into account the findings of the report, Northbrook, the Viceroy of India
[1] instead only gave the Gaekwar a warning. This allowed the bad relationship between Phayre and the Gaekwar to develop, with Phayre increasingly unwilling to work with Rao.
The situation came to a head in November 1874. Phayre sent the Viceroy a damning report detailing the failings of the governance of the state. On the same day, the Gaekwar sent an urgent request to the Viceroy that Phayre be removed. Northbrook was sympathetic to the Gaekwar and, on the 12th November sent word to Bombay that Phayre should be replaced.
However, this action was taken too late as, on the 9th March, an attempt was made to poison Phayre. This led to the Gaekwar being convicted of high treason.
Rowbotham: postcolonial perspective
Rowbotham [2]puts forward the view that, when looked at from a post colonial perspective, the Baroda Crisis should primarily be viewed as a miscarriage of justice, and can be viewed as a way in which the British in India were able to manipulate the law to meet their own political aims.
Rather than being tried by a jury, the Gaekwar of Baroda was convicted via an enquiry, meaning that the British Raj was ultimately allowed to decide if he should be convicted. Furthermore, the Gaekwar could be found guilty under 'reasonable suspicion, rather than the more stringent requirements of a criminal trial. If the Gaekwar had been tried fairly, there is no doubt that the verdict would have been 'innocent'
Rowbotham argues that this verdict could then be used as a 'warning' to the Princes of other states
Copland: traditional perspective
Traditionally, most notably put forward by Ian Copland[3], the Baroda Crisis can be viewed as a demonstration of the governmental rivalries of British India.
'Official warfare' had long been occurring between the existing presidencies of Bombay and Calcutta, however, the Baroda crisis intensified the existing conflicts.
Aitchinson, the British Foreign Secretary believed that India should be more centralised, which lead to Calcutta increasingly attempting to break into Bombays sphere of influence. This was worsened by a series of reforms which meant that Bombay no longer had the power to appoint the Resident of Baroda. Bombay's poor handling of the Baroda crisis allowed Calcutta a convenient excuse to assume all of Bombay's powers.[4]
Bombay's key failing was its indecision, which ultimately allowed the crisis to develop far more that it otherwise would have done. Phayre had been established as unfit for residency long before the crisis began, but due to the volatile political situation, he was allowed to remain. This is because, if Bombay removed Phayre, it would appear that they could not control their staff, and therefore strengthen Calcutta's case for centralisation.
When Bombay finally took the decision to remove Phayre, it was made far too late.
References
Additional reading
- Mounton, E.C. "British India and the Baroda Crisis 1874-75: A Problem in Princely Stat Relations." 1968, University of Saskatchewan.