Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-m9kch Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-11T00:01:08.526Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Weak Ties in a Tangled Web? Relationships between the Political Residents of the English East India Company and their munshis, 1798–1818

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 July 2019

CALLIE WILKINSON
CALLIE WILKINSON*
Affiliation:
Department of History, University of Warwick Email: callie.wilkinson@warwick.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Although historians have long recognized the important role that Indians played in the English East India Company's operations, the focus has usually been on the mechanics of direct rule in ‘British’ India. Yet, the expertise of Indian cultural intermediaries was arguably even more important, as well as more contested, in the context of the Company's growing political influence over nominally independent Indian kingdoms. This article examines the relationships between the East India Company's political representatives (Residents) and their Indian secretaries (munshis) at Indian royal courts during a period of dramatic imperial expansion, from 1798 to 1818. The article considers how these relationships were conceptualized and debated by British officials, and reflects on the practical consequences of these relationships for the munshis involved. The tensions surrounding the role of the munshi in Residency business exemplify some of the practical dilemmas posed by the developing system of indirect rule in India, where the Resident had to decide how much responsibility to delegate to Indian experts better versed in courtly norms and practices, while at the same time maintaining his own image of authority and control. Although the Resident–munshi relationship was in many respects mutually beneficial, these relationships nevertheless spawned anxieties about transparency and accountability within the Company itself, as well as exciting resentments at court. Both Residents and munshis were required to negotiate between two political and institutional cultures, but it was the munshi who seems to have borne the brunt of the risks associated with this intermediary position.

Type
Research Article
Information
Modern Asian Studies , Volume 53 , Issue 5 , September 2019 , pp. 1574 - 1612
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2019 

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

I would like to thank Renaud Morieux, Jamie Latham, and the members of the world history reading group, along with Norbert Peabody and the anonymous reviewers at Modern Asian Studies, for their thoughtful comments and suggestions on earlier drafts.

References

1 Henry Russell to George Barlow, 20 Nov. 1805, Papers of Maj-Gen William Kirkpatrick, Mss Eur F 228/51, Oriental and India Office Collection, British Library, London (hereafter OIOC), pp. 6–7.

2 Wagoner, Philip B., ‘Precolonial intellectuals and the production of colonial knowledge’, Comparative Studies in Society and History, 45:4 (2003): 783–814CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Edney, Matthew, Mapping an empire: the geographical construction of British India, 1765–1843 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990), p. 25Google Scholar; Raj, Kapil, ‘Mapping knowledge: go-betweens in Calcutta, 1770–1820’, in The brokered world: go-betweens and global intelligence, 1770–1820, (eds) Schaffer, Simon et al. (Sagamore Beach, MA: Science History Publications, 2009), p. 122Google Scholar; Bellenoit, Hayden, ‘Between qanungos and clerks: the cultural and service worlds of Hindustan's pensmen, c. 1750–1850’, Modern Asian Studies (hereafter MAS), 48:4 (2014): 872–910CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Raj, Kapil, ‘Refashioning civilities, engineering trust: William Jones, Indian intermediaries and the production of reliable legal knowledge in late eighteenth-century Bengal’, Studies in History, 17:2 (2001): 175–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 Fisher, Michael H., Indirect rule in India: Residents and the Residency system 1764–1858 (Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1991), p. 316Google Scholar.

4 Significant subsidiary alliances were concluded with Hyderabad in 1798; with the Peshwa of Poona in 1802; with Sindhia in 1817; and with the Rajah of Nagpur in 1818. Delhi was occupied in 1803.

5 Keen, Caroline, Princely India and the British: political development and the operation of empire (London: I. B. Tauris, 2012), p. 5Google Scholar.

6 The importance of these Residencies is reflected by the fact that they were directly supervised by the Governor-General-in-Council.

7 For instance, the Residents attached to Sindhia and the Rajah of Berar were essentially ambassadors with little control over the administration, whereas the Resident at Delhi effectively ruled in the Mughal Emperor's stead and was charged with a range of responsibilities over neighbouring districts which other Residents did not have. For British relations with Rajputana and the Cis-Sutlej States, see Panikkar, K. N., British diplomacy in North India: a study of the Delhi Residency, 1803–1857 (New Delhi: Associated Publishing House, 1968), pp. 42–99Google Scholar.

8 Bayly, C. A., Empire and information: intelligence gathering and social communication in India, 1780–1870 (Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press, 1996), p. 74Google Scholar.

9 Ibid.

10 Richards, J. F., ‘Norms of comportment among imperial Mughal officers’, in Moral conduct and authority: the place of adab in South Asian Islam, (ed.) Metcalf, Barbara Daly (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984), p. 256Google Scholar.

11 Kinra, Rajeev, ‘Master and munshi: a Brahman secretary's guide to Mughal governance’, Indian Economic and Social History Review (hereafter IESHR), 47:4 (2010): 530CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

12 Fisher, Indirect rule in India, p. 321.

13 Ibid., p. 332.

14 Alexander Fraser to his mother, 20 Aug. 1810, Fraser of Reelig Papers, vol. XXXIII, Private Collection, National Register of Archives for Scotland, p. 208.

15 Teltscher, Kate, ‘Writing home and crossing cultures: George Bogle in Bengal and Tibet, 1770–1775’, in A new imperial history: culture, identity, and modernity in Britain and the empire, 1660–1840, (ed.) Wilson, Kathleen (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), p. 282Google Scholar.

16 Emirbayer, Mustafa and Mische, Ann, ‘What is agency?’, American Journal of Sociology, 103 (1998): 975CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

17 Leonard, Karen, Social history of an Indian caste: the Kayasths of Hyderabad (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1978), p. 22Google Scholar.

18 Bayly, C. A., Origins of nationality in South Asia: patriotism and ethical government in the making of modern India (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998), p. 4Google Scholar.

19 Szuppe, Maria, ‘Circulation des lettrés et cercles littéraires: entre Asie Centrale, Iran et Inde du Nord (xve-xviiie siècle)’, Annales, 59 (2004): 997–1018CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

20 Chatterjee, Kumkum, ‘History as self-representation: the recasting of a political tradition in late eighteenth-century eastern India’, MAS, 32:4 (1998): 931Google Scholar.

21 Chatterjee, Kumkum, ‘Scribal elites in Sultanate and Mughal Bengal’, IESHR, 47:4 (2010): 463Google Scholar; Alam, Muzaffar and Subrahmanyam, Sanjay, ‘The making of a munshi’, Comparative Studies of South Asia, Africa, and the Middle East, 24:2 (2003): 71Google Scholar.

22 Alam and Subrahmanyam, ‘The making of a munshi’, p. 65.

23 Tadmor, Naomi, Family and friends in eighteenth-century England: household, kinship, and patronage (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), p. 19CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

24 Fairchilds, Cissie, Domestic enemies: servants & their masters in old regime France (Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press, 1984), p. 139Google Scholar.

25 Henry Russell to Charles Russell, 4 Jun. 1810, Russell Papers, MSS Eng. lett. d. 151, Bodleian Library, Oxford (hereafter Bodl. Oxf.), p. 101.

26 Richard Jenkins to J. Brooke, 21 Jul. 1811, Letter Books of Sir Richard Jenkins, Mss Eur E111, OIOC, p. 149.

27 Alam and Subrahmanyam, ‘The making of a munshi’, p. 65.

28 For the first point, see, for example, Dirks, Nicholas, The hollow crown: ethnohistory of an Indian kingdom (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987), p. 354Google Scholar; for patronage in Indian and British society, respectively, see Leonard, Social history of an Indian caste, p. 22, and Perkin, Harold, The origins of modern English society 1780–1880 (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1969), p. 44Google Scholar.

29 John Munro, ‘Observations on a petition delivered to the government dated 16 September 1813’, Board's Collections, IOR/F/4/445/10674, OIOC, p. 97.

30 This is characteristic of representations of out-groups. See Knights, Mark, ‘Historical stereotypes and histories of stereotypes’, in Psychology and history: interdisciplinary explorations, (eds) Tileagă, Christian and Byford, Jovan (Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press, 2014), p. 246Google Scholar.

31 Blakiston, John, Twelve years military adventure in three quarters of the globe, or, memoirs of an officer who served in the armies of His Majesty and of the East India Company, between the years 1802 and 1814 (London: H. Colburn, 1829), p. 107Google Scholar.

32 Alamgir, Alena K., ‘“The learned Brahmen, who assists me”: changing colonial relationships in eighteenth and nineteenth century India’, Journal of Historical Sociology, 19:4 (2006): 426CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

33 C. W. Malet to G. F. Cherry, Diaries and Papers of Sir Charles Malet, Mss Eur F149/56, OIOC, p. 167.

34 Henry Russell to Charles Russell, 18 Dec. 1810, Russell Papers, MSS. Eng. lett. d. 152, Bodl. Oxf., p. 63.

35 Stoler, Ann Laura, Race and the education of desire: Foucault's history of sexuality and the colonial order of things (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1995), p. 127CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

36 Bayly, Susan, Caste, society and politics in India from the eighteenth century to the modern age (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), p. 66CrossRefGoogle Scholar; see also Richards, J. F., ‘The formulation of imperial authority under Akbar and Jahangir’, in Kingship and authority in South Asia, (ed.) Richards, J. F. (Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1998), p. 311Google Scholar.

37 Fisher, Indirect rule in India, p. 321

38 Malcolm, John, ‘Notes of instruction’, in Letters addressed to a young person in India, calculated to afford instruction for his conduct in general, and more especially in his intercourse with the natives, (ed.) Briggs, John (London: John Murray, 1828), p. 203Google Scholar.

39 Henry Russell to John Adam, 5 Sept. 1816, Notes and intelligence of Mountstuart Elphinstone regarding the Peshwa and Trimbuckjee, Elphinstone Collection, Mss Eur F88/60, OIOC, p. 149.

40 Richardson, R. C., Household servants in early modern England (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2010), p. 175Google Scholar.

41 Williamson, Thomas, The East India Vade-Mecum, or, complete guide to gentlemen intended for the civil, military, or naval service of the Honourable East India Company, 2 vols. (London: Black, Parry, and Kingsbury, 1810), vol. I, p. 194Google Scholar.

42 Mountstuart Elphinstone to John Adam, 3 May 1804, Papers of John Adam, Mss Eur F109/88, OIOC, n.p.

43 Richardson, Household servants, p. 176.

44 Fairchilds, Domestic enemies, pp. 154–155.

45 Mountstuart Elphinstone to Lady Hood, 26 May 1813, Seaforth Papers, GD46/17/42, National Records of Scotland, Edinburgh, n.p.

46 Briggs, Letters, p. 11.

47 Malcolm, ‘Notes of instruction’, in Briggs, Letters, pp. 203, 206–207.

48 See extract political letter from Bengal, 9 May 1810, Board's Collections, IOR/F/4/311/7620, OIOC, pp. 2–4 for example of ‘Syud Ruzzee Khan’, dismissed for corrupt practices; for similar accusations against Elphinstone's agent at Poona see 5 Jan. 1817 and 8 Feb. 1817, Notes and intelligence of Mountstuart Elphinstone regarding the Peshawar and Trimbuckjee, Elphinstone Collection, Mss Eur F88/60, OIOC, n.p.

49 See extract political letter from Bengal, 2 Feb. 1808, Board's Collections, IOR/F/4/248/5584, OIOC, pp. 1–22 for a description of this series of events.

50 Malcolm, ‘Notes of instruction’, in Briggs, Letters, p. 227.

51 Archibald Seton to ‘Syud Ruzzee Khan’, 19 Oct. 1809, OIOC, p. 44.

52 For descriptions of a munshi's role as a translator and interpreter, see Thomas Sydenham to Earl of Minto, 30 Aug.1809, Hyderabad Residency Records, box no. 2, vol. 38, National Archives of India, Delhi (hereafter NAI), p. 12, or Richard Jenkins to Marquess of Hastings, 17 Jul. 1814, in Selections from the Nagpur Residency records, 8 vols., (ed.) Sinha, H. N. (Nagpur: Government Printing, Madhya Pradesh, 1950), vol. III, p. 487Google Scholar.

53 Subramanian, Lakshmi, ‘Banias and the British: the role of indigenous credit in the process of imperial expansion in western India in the second half of the eighteenth century’, MAS, 21:3 (1987): 473–510Google Scholar.

54 Williamson, East India Vade-Mecum, vol. I, p. 172.

55 For North American context, see Merrell, James H., Into the American woods: negotiators on the Pennsylvania frontier (New York: Norton, 1999), p. 32Google Scholar. For African context, see Lawrance, Benjamin N., Osborn, Emily Lynn, and Roberts, Richard L. (eds), Intermediaries, interpreters, and clerks: African employees in the making of colonial Africa (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 2006), p. 11Google Scholar.

56 Raj, ‘Refashioning civilities, engineering trust’, pp. 175–209.

57 Henry Russell to Charles Russell, 10 Jun. 1810, Russell Papers, MSS Eng. lett. D. 151, Bodl. Oxf., p. 119.

58 Rocher, Rosane, ‘Weaving knowledge: Sir William Jones and Indian pundits’, in Objects of enquiry: the life contributions and influences of Sir William Jones (1746–1794), (eds) Cannon, Garland and Brine, Kevin R. (New York: New York University Press, 1995), p. 54Google Scholar.

59 Cohn, Bernard S., Colonialism and its forms of knowledge: the British in India (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1998), p. 21Google Scholar.

60 Briggs, Letters, p. 6.

61 H. T. Colebrooke to Marquess Wellesley, 26 Mar. 1799, in H. N. Sinha (ed.), Nagpur records, vol. I, p. 108.

62 Removal of Lieut. Col. Baillie from Lucknow, Board's Collections, IOR/F/4/510/12267, OIOC, p. 18.

63 Alam, Muzaffar, ‘The culture and politics of Persian in precolonial Hindustan’, in Literary cultures in history: reconstructions from South Asia, (ed.) Pollock, Sheldon (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2003), p. 167Google Scholar.

64 H. T. Colebrooke to Marquess Wellesley, 19 Apr. 1799, Wellesley Papers, Add MS 13589, British Library, London, p. 1.

65 John Collins to Marquess Wellesley, 29 May 1803, Copies of Letters and Dispatches of Col. John Collins, Papers of Maj-Gen William Kirkpatrick, Mss Eur F228/77, OIOC, p. 8.

66 Alam and Subrahmanyam, ‘The making of a munshi’, p. 63; Chatterjee, ‘Scribal elites in Sultanate and Mughal Bengal’, p. 462.

67 Williamson, East India Vade-Mecum, vol. I, pp. 192–193.

68 Mitchell, Colin, ‘Safavid imperial tarassul and the Persian insha tradition’, Studia Iranica, 26:2 (1997): 182CrossRefGoogle Scholar; for the importance of poetry in the insha tradition, see pp. 200–201.

69 Fisher, Indirect rule in India, p. 319.

70 See, for example, William Palmer to Marquess Wellesley, 21 Apr. 1800, Correspondence of William Palmer, Home Miscellaneous, IOR/H/576, OIOC, p. 66.

71 Kooiman, , ‘Meeting at the threshold, at the edge of the carpet or somewhere in between? Questions of ceremonial in princely India’, IESHR, 40:3 (2003): 311–333Google Scholar.

72 Mountstuart Elphinstone to John Adam, 3 May 1804, Papers of John Adam, Mss Eur F109/88, OIOC, n.p.

73 For example, see description of a munshi arranging the first meeting between the new Resident at Nagpur and the Rajah in Mountstuart Elphinstone to Marquess Wellesley, 1 Jan. 1804, in H. N. Sinha (ed.), Nagpur records, vol. 1, p. 17.

74 Richard Jenkins to Marquess of Hastings, 11 Dec. 1814, Correspondence Regarding the Pindaris, Home Miscellaneous, IOR/H/599, OIOC, p. 458.

75 Bourdieu, Pierre, ‘The forms of capital’, in Readings in economic sociology, (ed.) Woolsey, Nicole (Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers, 2002), p. 283Google Scholar.

76 Richard Strachey to John Adam, 29 Apr. 1816, Richard Strachey Papers, Mss Eur D514/3, OIOC, p. 116.

77 Mir Alam to Thomas Sydenham, 8 Jan. 1806, Foreign Secret Department Records, file no. 66–8, NAI, p. 6.

78 Mountstuart Elphinstone to Earl of Minto, 7 Jul. 1812, in English records of Maratha history Poona Residency correspondence, 14 vols., (ed.) Sardesai, G. S. (Bombay: Government Central Press, 1940), vol. XII, p. 183Google Scholar.

79 Mountstuart Elphinstone to John Adam, 7 May 1814, in ibid., p. 323.

80 Ibid., p. 322.

81 Barry Close to Marquess Wellesley, 21 Dec. 1801, in G. S. Sardesai (ed), Poona records, vol. VII, p. 6; Thomas Sydenham to Arthur Wellesley, 29 Jan. 1805, in ibid., p. 188.

82 Henry Russell to Charles Russell, 14 Jun. 1810, Russell Papers, MSS Eng. lett. d. 151, Bodl. Oxf., p. 120.

83 Ibid., pp. 119–120.

84 J. A. Kirkpatrick to William Kirkpatrick, 14 Nov. 1800, Papers of Maj-Gen William Kirkpatrick, Mss Eur F228/12, OIOC, p. 259.

85 Archibald Seton to Governor-General-in-Council, 26 Jul. 1811, Board's Collections, IOR/F/4/371/9244, OIOC, p. 12. Other examples of long-serving munshis include Ali Naqi Khan, John Baillie's munshi for 30 years, as described in John Baillie to Governor-General-in-Council, 15 Mar. 1811, Board's Collections, IOR/F/4/372/9249, OIOC, p. 11; Cursetji Sait, who served at Poona for 30 years, and Gholaum Mahomed, who served with Richard Jenkins for eight years, as described in Richard Jenkins to the Governor-General-in-Council, 12 Feb. 1816, Board's Collections, IOR/F/4/1473/5782, OIOC, p. 10.

86 Letters of recommendation were a recognized and highly coded genre. See Bannet, Eve Tavor, Empire of letters: letter manuals and transatlantic correspondence, 1688–1820 (Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press, 2005), pp. 61–62Google Scholar.

87 Richard Strachey to J. W. Sherer, 14 Mar. 1812, Richard Strachey Papers, Mss Eur D514/1, OIOC, p. 85.

88 Cohn, Bernard S., ‘Representing authority in Victorian India’, in The invention of tradition, (eds) Hobsbawm, Eric and Ranger, Terence (Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press, 1983), pp. 168–169Google Scholar.

89 For examples of Residents dispensing khilats to munshis, see memorandum enclosed in G. Moore, Civil Auditor, to Arthur Henry Cole, 24 Nov. 1815, Board's Collections, IOR/F/4/527/12633, OIOC, pp. 8–9; Richard Jenkins to John Adam, 12 Feb. 1816, Board's Collections, IOR/F/4/1473/5782, OIOC, p. 4.

90 Cohen, Ira J., Structuration theory: Anthony Giddens and the constitution of social life (Houndmills, Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1989), p. 210CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

91 Barry Close to Henry Russell, 24 Jun. 1810, Sir Barry Close Papers, Mss Eur D1053, OIOC, n.p.

92 Extract political letter from Bombay, 2 Mar. 1822, Board's Collections, IOR/F/4/762/20696, OIOC, pp. 1–3.

93 Cohen, Structuration theory, p. 151.

94 Cooper, Randolf G. S., The Anglo-Maratha campaigns and the contest for India: the struggle for control of the South Asian military economy (Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press, 2003), p. 311Google Scholar.

95 Fisher, Indirect rule in India, p. 332. For examples of these arrangements, see John Adam to Richard Jenkins, 17 Aug. 1816, Board's Collections, IOR/F/4/1473/57822, OIOC, p. 13; Extract Political Letter from Bombay, 2 Mar. 1822, Board's Collections, IOR/F/4/762/20696, OIOC, pp. 1–3.

96 Mir Ibn Alli to N. B. Edmonstone, 7 Oct. 1810, In-letters 1810 July–Dec, Persian Correspondence, Minto Papers, MS 11583, National Library of Scotland, Edinburgh, pp. 174–175.

97 Bhugwunt Rao to Earl of Minto, 13 Jul. 1810, In-letters 1810 July–Dec, Persian Correspondence, Minto Papers, MS 11583, National Library of Scotland, Edinburgh, pp. 24–25.

98 Enam Allah to Earl of Minto, received 28 Aug. 1808, Board's Collections, IOR/F/4/297/6840, OIOC, p. 6.

99 Fisher, Indirect rule in India, p. 326. For example, William Palmer to Marquess Wellesley, 8 Apr. 1799, in G. S. Sardesai (ed.), Poona records, vol. VI, pp. 388–390; before war with Tipu, William Palmer's munshi passed on information he'd received from a friend in the service of a rival power that the Peshwa and Sindhia were conspiring to attack the Nizam and form an alliance with Tipu Sultan.

100 Richard Jenkins to John Baillie, 21 Jul. 1811, Letter books of Sir Richard Jenkins, Mss Eur E111, OIOC, pp. 148–149.

101 Richard Strachey to C. A. Molony, 4 Jan. 1817, Richard Strachey Papers, Mss Eur D514/3, OIOC, p. 225.

102 Enam Allah Khan to Earl of Minto, received 28 Aug. 1808, Board's Collections, IOR/F/4/297/6840, OIOC, p. 5.

103 Henry Russell to Charles Russell, 31 May 1810, Russell Papers, MSS Eng. lett. D. 151, Bodl. Oxf., p. 93.

104 Ibid.

105 Raman, Bhavani, Document Raj: writings and scribes in early colonial South India (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2012), p. 26CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

106 Harling, Philip, The waning of ‘Old Corruption’: the politics of economical reform in Britain, 1798–1846 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996), p. 22CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

107 Extract political letter from Bengal, 24 Jul. 1811, Board's Collections, IOR/F/4/372/9249, OIOC, p. 2.

108 Removal of Lieut. Col. Baillie from Lucknow, Board's Collections, IOR/F/4/510/12267, OIOC, p. 114.

109 John Adam to John Baillie, 1 Jul. 1815, Board's Collections, IOR/F/4/510/12266, OIOC, p. 40.

110 Richard Strachey to John Adam, 8 Dec. 1815, Richard Strachey Papers, Mss Eur D514/3, OIOC, pp. 18, 19.

111 Petition of Soobba Royer and Sanagara Lingum Pillary, Extract Fort St. George Political Consultations, 14 Oct. 1813, Board's Collections, IOR/F/4/445/10674, OIOC, p. 15.

112 Kavel Nyne to John Malcolm, 23 Jun. 1805, Home Miscellaneous, IOR/H/625, OIOC, p. 155.

113 William Palmer to Marquess Wellesley, 16 May 1800, Home Miscellaneous, IOR/H/576, OIOC, p. 126. Also William Palmer to Marquess Wellesley, 20 Mar. 1801, Correspondence of William Palmer, Home Miscellaneous, IOR/H/576, pp. 631–632.

114 Thomas Sydenham to Barry Close, 17 Jun. 1805, in G. S. Sardesai (ed.), Poona records, vol. X, p. 259.

115 William Palmer to J. A. Kirkpatrick, 18 Jul. 1801, Private Letters from his Brother James Achilles Kirkpatrick, Papers of Maj-Gen William Kirkpatrick, Mss Eur F228/13, OIOC, pp. 106–109.

116 Henry to Charles Russell, 14 Jun. 1810, Russell Papers, MSS Eng. lett. d. 151, Bodl. Oxf., p. 120.

117 Richard Strachey to John Adam, 5 Dec. 1815, Richard Strachey Papers, Mss Eur D514/3, OIOC, p. 19.

118 Tadmor, Family and friends, pp. 20, 24.

119 Malcolm, ‘Notes of instruction’, in Briggs, Letters, p. 218.

120 Emirbayer and Mische, ‘What is agency?’, p. 994.

121 Henry Russell to Charles Russell, 14 Jun. 1810, Russell Papers, MSS Eng. lett. d. 151, Bodl. Oxf., p. 119.

122 Fisher, Indirect Rule in India, p. 331.

123 Weber, Max, ‘Bureaucracy’, in The anthropology of the state: a reader, (eds) Sharma, Aradhana and Gupta, Akhil (Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers, 2006), p. 58Google Scholar.

124 Fisher, Indirect rule in India, p. 328.

125 Burbank, Jane and Cooper, Frederick, Empires in world history: power and the politics of difference (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2010), p. 14Google Scholar.