Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-dfsvx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-27T02:33:14.646Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Urban Government under the Raj A Case Study of Municipal Administration in Nineteenth–Century South India

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

John G. Leonard
John G. Leonard
Affiliation:
University of California, San Diego
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Until very recently, scholars of nineteenth-century India have tended to dismiss the role of urban government and politics as trivial or inconsequential. Most have reached their conclusions by studying the formation of policy in London or Delhi, using the private papers of high officials or reports prepared by the Government of India. A standard authority on British policy of this period states that local self-government ‘proved to be a tree which never took firm root. Local self-government never gained major significance in the political history of modern India.’ Local self-government failed, according to another scholar, because ‘… a rigid system of supervision was created, which ran from the smallest municipality up to the Secretary of State for India.’ In his opinion, this control and shortage of funds can be held responsible for the lack of development in ‘… the scope of public services, which were confined to the bare essentials.’ A dreary picture of petty quarreling in municipal government and stagnation in urban services prevails, alleviated only by the appearance of Lord Curzon as Viceroy in 1899 and his efforts to instill some ‘dynamic influence’ into local government. Although the policy of local self-government satisfied neither official aims nor nationalist aspirations, its importance for local politics and administration is now undergoing a major reassessment.

Type
Articles
Information
Modern Asian Studies , Volume 7 , Issue 2 , March 1973 , pp. 227 - 251
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1973

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.)

References

1 Gopal, S., British Policy in India, 1858–1905 (Cambridge, 1965), p. 147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

2 Tinker, Hugh, The Foundations of Local Self-Government in India, Pakistan, and Burma (New York, 1968), p. 59.Google Scholar

3 Tinker, op. cit., p. 51, passim.Google Scholar

4 For a discussion of industrialization as a cause of urbanization, cf. Breese, Gerald, Urbanization in Newly Developing Countries (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1966), pp. 51–54;Google Scholar and Rosen, George, Democracy and Economic Change in India (Berkeley, 1967), pp. 163–5, 225, passim.Google ScholarBose, Ashish, Urbanization in India: An Inventory of Source Materials (New Delhi, 1970),Google Scholar has a valuable bibliography on urbanization and urban history in India, but the paucity of citations for the nineteenth century indicates the contemporary aspect of most urban studies on India.

5 Geertz, Clifford has described this process, and its implications for social structure, in The Social History of an Indonesian Town (Cambridge, Mass., 1965).Google Scholar

6 ‘Report of the Committee on Local Self-Government in Madras,’, i, 9, as quoted in Tinker, op. cit., p. 38.Google Scholar

7 Gopal, op. cit., p. 93.Google Scholar

8 Pillay, K. K., History of Local Self-Government in the Madras Presidency, 1850–1919 (Bombay, 1953);Google Scholar and Rao, V. Venkat, A Hundred Years of Local Self-Government in the Andhra and Madras States, 1850–1950 (Bombay, 1960).Google Scholar

9 Gopal, op. cit., pp. 144–8.Google Scholar

10 See Bayly, Christopher, ‘The Development of Political Organization in the Allahabad Locality, 1880–1925’ (unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Oxford, 1970);Google ScholarRobinson, Francis, ‘The politics of U.P. Muslims 1906–1922’ (unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Cambridge, 1971);Google Scholar for Southern India the work of David Washbrook and Christopher Baker on urban politics in the Madras Presidency and of Michael Metalits on Maharashtrian towns has been very stimulating.

11 Dobbin, Christine, ‘Competing Elites in Bombay City Politics in the Mid-Nineteenth Century (1825–83)’, in, Edmund, Leach and Mukherjee, S. N. (eds) Elites in South Asia (Cambridge, 1970), pp. 90–4;Google ScholarIrschick, Eugene F., Politics and Social Conflict in South India; the Non-Brahman Movement and Tamil Separatism, 1916–1929 (Berkeley, 1969), p. 181.Google Scholar Kenneth Gillion has written extensively on municipal administration, with scarcely any reference to politics; see Ahmedabad; A Study in Indian Urban History (Berkeley, 1968), pp. 105–52.Google Scholar

12 Williams, Oliver, ‘A Typology for Comparative Local Government’, Midwest Journal of Political Science (May 1961), p. 154.Google Scholar

13 A separate study will deal with the development of political organizations, voting behavior, and social change in Rajamundry from 1880 to 1920.

14 Sastri, K. A. Nilakanta, A History of South India (third edition; Madras, 1966), pp. 185–6.Google Scholar

15 Morris, Henry, A Descriptive and Historical Account of the Godavary District in the Presidency of Madras (London, 1878), p. 28.Google Scholar

16 Journal of F. N. Alexander, dated 11 July 1860, Church Missionary Society Archives. A later description by Schmidt, H. C. may be found in the Foreign Missionary (Philadelphia), Vol. II, No. 2 (February 1881), p. 2.Google Scholar

17 Government of India, Census of India, 1901: Madras (Madras, 1902), XV: 1, pp. 4–8.Google Scholar

18 Ibid.

19 For an all-India analysis see Davis, Kingsley, The Population of India and Pakistan (New York, 1968), p. 28;Google Scholar for the Godavari District see Benson, Charles, A Statistical Atlas of the Madras Presidency (Madras, 1895), pp. 75–7.Google Scholar

20 Every year resolutions on the problem of hut dwellers came before the Rajahmundry Municipal Council. The business and resolutions of the Council were recorded in Minute Books for each year. These volumes exist from the early 1870s to the present and may be found in the municipal record office. On the hut dwellers see Rajahmundry Minute Book [RMB], 12 September 1882, Rajahmundry Municipal Record Office [RMRO].

21 Pillay, op. cit., p. 58.Google Scholar

22 Venkat Rao, op. cit., pp. 9–10.Google Scholar

23 Ibid., pp. 35–6.

24 RMB, 18 July 1882, RMRO.

25 Morris, Morris D., ‘Toward a Re-Interpretation of 19th Century Indian Economic History’, Indian Economic and Social History Review, Vol. V, No. 1 (March 1968), p. 13; Tinker, op. cit., pp. 4, 59–60.Google Scholar

26 This aspect of municipal administration appears in the numerous petitions presented to the Municipal Council and recorded in the Minute Books, 1870–79.

27 Government of Madras [GOM], Financial Department, G.O. 1407, 7 July 1883.

28 For a discussion of Education Department officials' activities in the Council, see the author's ‘Kandukuri Viresalingam, 1848–1919; A Biography of an Indian Social Reformer’ (unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin, 1970), pp. 146–98.Google Scholar

29 GOM, Financial Department, G.O. 2034, 20 October 1881.

30 RMB, 3 February 1883, RMRO.

31 GOM, Financial Department, G.O. 2137, 10 September 1884. The term for the Municipal Council before 1884 was Municipal Commission, but for the sake of simplicity I have used Council throughout.

32 See the discussion of the municipal budget on page 246.

33 This is based on the Minute Books for the years 1871–79.

34 RMB, 24 May 1881, 22 December 1883, RMRO.

35 Venkat Rao, op. cit., p. 51.Google Scholar

36 See footnote 28, loc. cit.

37 See Table 5.

38 RMB, 1879, RMRO.

39 See footnote 28, loc. cit., p. 174.Google Scholar

40 RMB, 1 August 1882, 3 March 1883, RMRO.

41 Pillay, op. cit., p. 68.Google Scholar

42 GOM, Local and Municipal Department [L & M], G.O. 1182 M, 11 August 1890; GOM, L & M, 1488 M, 5 October 1900.

43 The school inspector's political allies were, of course, the college teachers whose private schools he approved and which the municipality funded.

44 GOM, L & M, G.O. 1489 M, 16 September 1891.

45 GOM, L & M, G.O. 1290 M, 20 September 1894.

46 GOM, L & M, G.O. 1471 M, 2 November 1889.

47 Ibid.

48 Madras Civil Lists, 1888–1900.

49 Rajahmundry Municipality Administrative Reports, 1892–93 to 1899–1900, RMRO.

50 GOM, L & M, G.O. 5 M, 7 January 1896.

51 GOM, L & M, G.O. 1290 M, 20 September 1896.

52 GOM, L & M, G.O. 5 M, 7 January 1896.

53 RMB, 12 December 1886, RMRO; GOM, L & M, G.O. 5 M, 7 January 1896.

54 GOM, L & M, G.O. 5 M, 7 January 1896.

55 GOM, L & M, G.O. 2023 M, 8 December 1919.

56 Cf. , Pillay, op. cit., pp. 89–91, 103–5;Google Scholar and Rao, Venkat, op. cit., pp. 56, 336.Google Scholar

57 The municipal administrative reports for every year indicate which streets were paved. The importance of the Telagas as a key voting bloc in Rajahmundry politics is described by Prakasam, T., Na Jivita Yatra (Rajahmundry, 1957), p. 106, passim.Google Scholar

58 Strachey, John, India (London, 1888), p. 275.Google Scholar

59 GOM, Financial Department, G.O. 2034, 20 October 1881.

60 GOM, Financial Department, G.O. 1407, 7 July 1883.

61 GOM, L & M, G.O. 1489 M, 16 September 1891.

62 GOM, L & M, G.O. 1488 M, 5 October 1900.

63 GOM, L & M, G.O. 1182 M, 11 August 1890; GOM, L & M, G.O. 1743 M, 24 October 1895.

64 See Table 5.

65 GOM, L & M, G.O. 1290 M, 20 September 1894.

66 GOM, L & M, G.O. 1755 M, 14 October 1896.

67 Rajahmundry Municipality Administrative Reports, 1877–78 to 1899–1900, RMRO. Expenditure under any one category fluctuated a great deal from year to year. Due to this fluctuation, I have averaged the expenditure for a five-year period, in the various tables, in order to show the trends over two decades.

68 The average number annually vaccinated at the end of the nineteenth century only represented 6 per cent of Rajahmundry's population, and probably fewer still took advantage of it. The three most popular vaccinations were for cholera, small pox, and diarrhea.

69 Government of India, Indian Education Commission, Report of the Madras Provincial Committee (Calcutta, 1884), p. 38, passim.Google Scholar

70 Report of the Committee for Foreign Missions of the General Council of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in North America, 1904 (Philadelphia, 1905), pp. 71–2, 78–9.Google Scholar

71 Rajahmundry Municipality Administrative Reports, 1877–78 to 1899–1900, RMRO.

72 GOM, L & M, G.O. 1339 M, 26 September 1894.

73 GOM, Financial Department, G.O. 2034, 20 October 1881; GOM, Financial Department, G.O. 1120, 6 June 1883; GOM, L & M, G.O. 1339 M, 26 September 1894.

74 Rajahmundry Municipality Administrative Reports, 1877–78 to 1899–1900, RMRO.

75 See Vidich, Arthur and Bensman, Joseph, Small Town in Mass Society (Garden City, New York, 1960), for the importance of road repairs in community politics.Google Scholar

76 Rajahmundry Municipality Administrative Reports, 1881–82, 1885–86, 1891–1892, 1895–96, 1899–1900, RMRO.

77 GOM, Financial Department, G.O. 2034, 20 October 1881; GOM, L & M, 1488 M, 5 October 1900.

78 Rajahmundry Municipality Administrative Reports, 1877–78 to 1899–1900, RMRO.

79 GOM, Financial Department, G.O. 2034, 20 October 1881; GOM, L & M, G.O. 1488 M, 5 October 1900.

80 Venkat Rao, op. cit., p. 247.Google Scholar

81 Increased tax revenue came mainly from the house and property tax, which had risen 150 per cent from 1880 to 1900. Other sources, like endowments or licenses, had declined.

82 GOM, Financial Department, G.O. 975 M, 28 September 1886.

83 GOM, L & M, G.O. 1755 M, 14 October 1896.

84 GOM, Financial Department. G.O. 58, 10 January 1884.

85 GOM, L & M, G.O. 1379 M, 14 August 1908.

86 During my last visit, in January 1971, the main road and adjacent side streets had been dug up in anticipation of installing large drains.

87 The growth of patronage networks and the centralization of political power in Madras during the early twentieth century are described in the studies by David Washbrook and Christopher Baker.

88 Irschick, op. cit., pp. 12–19.Google Scholar For an analysis of nationalist politics using these categories see Krishna, Gopal, ‘The Development of the Indian National Congress as a Mass Organization, 1918–1923,’ Journal of Asian Studies (May 1966), p. 424.Google Scholar The rise of professional men in urban politics is analyzed by Bayly, C. A., ‘Local Control in Indian Towns—the case of Allahabad, 1880–1920,’ Modern Asian Studies (1971), pp. 303–11.Google Scholar

89 Several scholars have studied recently the administrative roles of urban politicians in contemporary India. See especially Rosenthal, Donald B., The Limited Elite (Chicago, 1970);Google Scholar and the papers by Philip Oldenburg on Delhi, Roderick Church on Lucknow, and Rodney Jones on Indore, presented at the American Political Science Association, September 1971.

90 Officials' criticism of these men can be found in GOM, L & M, G.O. 1290 M, 20 September 1894.

91 In 1870, the city of Leeds had purchased its gasworks for £763,225. See Briggs, Asa, Victorian Cities (London, 1964), p. 220.Google Scholar

92 Quoted in Gopal, op. cit., p. 147.Google Scholar