Empire lovers slam new Curzon report

By Amit Roy

SUPPORTERS of the British em­pire are furious with the Nation­al Trust for asserting that Lord George Curzon pursued racist policies when he was viceroy of India from 1899 to 1905, and that when he returned home, he took a leading role in opposing votes for women.

Those who believe that the em­pire was mainly a force for good argue that any criticism of Lord Curzon constitutes “monstrous ingratitude” because the family seat – Keddleston Hall in Derbyshire – was donated to the Trust.

It is also pointed out that “two of his other historic properties, Tattershall Castle in Lincolnshire and Bodiam, in East Sussex, were bequeathed to the nation, along with provision for their mainte­nance. He also restored the Eliza­bethan mansion Montacute in Somerset, which the Trust also took over.”

Indians, ironically, are comfort­able with Lord Curzon’s legacy. He cleared up the overgrown jungles around the Taj Mahal in Agra and restored the mausoleum. His wife persuaded him to set up the Ka­ziranga National Park in Assam as a haven for endangered rhinos.

The Government House in Cal­cutta (now Kolkata), which was the capital of British India until 1911, was modelled on Kedleston Hall. Renamed Raj Bhavan after Indian independence, it now serves as the official residence of the governor of West Bengal.

When Queen Victoria died in 1901, Lord Curzon decreed that a memorial be built in Calcutta in her memory. It took 20 years and was paid for by Indians, but today the Victoria Memorial is a much-loved city landmark. The statue of Queen Victoria in front of the building has not been removed.

But Lord Curzon’s good deeds were undone by his decision in 1905 to partition the united prov­ince of Bengal into East Bengal for Muslims and West Bengal for Hin­dus. Pitting the two communities against each other was part of his policy of divide and rule by creat­ing communal disharmony.

The partition of Bengal proved so disastrous that it was reversed in 1911, but the seeds of Hindu-Muslim rivalry had been planted in a province where Bengalis of both religions had previously lived in relative harmony.

In 1947, there were communal riots as East Bengal became East Pakistan, and then Bangladesh in 1971. West Bengal has remained in India. While the Hindus embraced western education, Muslims in East Bengal did not. Many of the communal problems that de­veloped over the decades can be traced back to Lord Curzon.

However, the right-wing lobby that has been set up in opposition to the National Trust wants only the beauty of Kedleston Hall to be promoted – and the dark side of its most important occupant to be glossed over.

So who was George Nathaniel Curzon? The answer given by the Trust is: “George Nathaniel Curzon (1859-1925), commonly known as Lord Curzon, was born on January 11, 1859, at his ancestral home, Kedleston Hall in Derbyshire. The house we see today was commis­sioned by Sir Nathaniel Curzon (1676-1758), Lord Curzon’s ances­tor, in a bid to rival Chatsworth.

“Lord Curzon was always con­scious that the family home was perhaps more distinguished than the family that inhabited it. He set out at an early age to prove him­self a worthy inheritor.”

It quotes a famous ‘Balliol rhyme’ from his Oxford days: My name is George Nathaniel Curzon,/ I am a most superior person./ My cheek is pink, my hair is sleek,/ I dine at Blenheim once a week.

Of his time as viceroy, the Trust says: “In 1899, at the age of 39, Curzon was appointed viceroy of India. The family moved to Cal­cutta and lived at Government House, a palace coincidentally modelled after Kedleston.

“In his inaugural speech, Cur­zon pledged to ‘hold the scales even’ in India. His hard-nosed ap­proach, compelled by a loathing of bureaucracy and ignorance, ruf­fled feathers. Like most of his con­temporaries, British rule in India was to him a ‘civilising mission’: a euphemistic and racist ideology used to justify colonial supremacy.

“The first 16 months of Curzon’s office saw India plunged into a devastating famine which claimed the lives of millions of people. Al­though his response was an im­provement on previous relief ef­forts – he extended famine relief and invested heavily in irrigation – Curzon blamed the famine on drought, condemned ‘indiscrimi­nate alms-giving’ and cut rations.

“Curzon ended his final official speech as viceroy with the state­ment, ‘Let India be my judge’. He is remembered for his administra­tive ‘reforms’ to Indian education, infrastructure and defence – and for his restoration of the Taj Mahal – but equally for his calamitous decision to partition Bengal in 1905. Pitting Muslims against Hin­dus to disempower Bengal, the partition triggered a political crisis so destructive it had to be revoked in 1911.”

Back in Britain, he rose eventu­ally to be foreign secretary: “In 1923, on the grounds of his peer­age, and his character, Curzon was rejected for the job of prime minister in favour of Stanley Bald­win. He died two years later.

“Despite political ambition and a voracious capacity for work, Curzon’s ruthlessness alienated many. His administration in India made him one of the most effi­cient and least popular viceroys in Indian history.

“These imperial ‘triumphs’ were overshadowed by disappointments and missed opportunities later in life, prompting Churchill to write that his ‘morning had been gold­en’, his ‘noontide…bronze’ and ‘evening lead’. Reflecting on the largely ‘dry-eyed’ congregation at Curzon’s funeral, David Lindsey, the Earl of Crawford, wrote that he had never known ‘a man less loved by his colleagues and more hated by his subordinates, never a man so bereft of conscience, of charity or of gratitude’.”

The Trust has taken down its entry on Lord Curzon to make re­visions and possible corrections, but it does say: “We’re telling the story of Lord Curzon’s involvement in the anti-suffrage movement, as part of a wider programme high­lighting the fight for suffrage by many women during the early part of the 20th century and their achievement in finally gaining the vote, at least for some of them, in 1918.

“While many National Trust properties have a close connec­tion with the campaign for wom­en’s suffrage, it’s fascinating also to investigate and reveal the story of the National League for Oppos­ing Woman Suffrage (NLOWS) led by Lord Curzon, which reflected an alternative view of the role of women in society and which was very influential in the national de­bate at that time.”

Lord Curzon’s “ideas about women’s abilities were proved wrong as women rose to the challenge created by World War I and took on the roles and responsibilities of men. Conversely, it is interest­ing to reflect that the suffragists and suffragettes suspended their campaigning during the war, rec­ognising the greater challenge facing Britain.

“It is somewhat ironic discover that Lord Curzon’s second daugh­ter, Lady Cynthia, nicknamed ‘Cimmie’, joined the Labour party and went on the become MP in 1925 for the constituency of Stoke on Trent and to wonder what her father would have made of this.”

Who is or isn’t capable of learn­ing from history has become a matter of heated debate.

One newspaper alleged that the Trust has not been fair to Curzon: “Sour, mean-spirited and wholly lacking in the benevolence which Curzon bestowed on it, the re­marks reduced one of Britain’s great figures from the early 20th century to that of a haughty impe­rialist. Barely an accomplishment was mentioned in its biographical essay without a corresponding reference to failure.

“As well as monstrous ingrati­tude, it reveals a disturbing trend in the thought-processes of a 126-year-old organisation that seems incapable of learning from history, but rather is contemptu­ous of it.”