Empire lovers slam new Curzon report
NATIONAL TRUST’S BIOGRAPHY WITH VICEROY’S ‘RACIST POLICIES’ PROMPTS CLASH OF OPINIONS
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 muchloved 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 HinduMuslim 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.”