A look at the world of politics, statecraft, diplomacy and books
The Revolt of 1809 is a neglected episode in the history of India and since the Governor Sir George Barlow did not write either his memoirs nor commission an "authorised" biography, he has been represented only by his opponents in their writing. Chief amon whom was the famous Soldier Historian Sir John Malcolm who wrote a book in 1822 excoriating the Governor for the way in which he handled the Revolt. In truth however, Sir John Malcolm was sent by the Governor to negotiate with the rebellious Officers in Masulipattinam but failed miserably yo carry out his brief. Years later he penned his Observations on the Disturbance in the Madras Army in which he shifts the blame on the shoulders of Sir George Barlow. However the events of 1809 were far more complex than a mere clash between a vengeful Governor and a petulant Commander in Chief of the Madras Army, General Hay Macdowall,
There was trouble brewing in the Madras Army for at least a decade before the Revolt following the recoganization of the Company Forces in 1796. We have already alluded to earlier of some of the main grievances: (1) Equality of Pay between Bengal and Madras Armies (2) Continuance of the Tent Contract and (3) disparity in Command postings between Kings'Army and the Company Regiments. In normal circumstances these issues my have been resolved. But a series of miss steps involving the Governor and his Commander in Chief triggered what was essentially a conflict of supremacy between the Civilian Administration and the Military. Sir John Craddock who was the immediate predecessor of General Macdowall had instructed, Col John Munro to investigate the "Tent Contract" and offer suggestions. Acting on the directions of his superior, Col John Munro submitted a Report in which he recommended the abolition of the Tent Contract. The Report was a Confidential one and was marked only to the Commander in Chief. Perhaps the Madras Army too suffered from the same malaise of the Ministry of Defence under the Congress Regime. Interested parties would find the contents of official files before they were seen by the superiors and action taken. Munro wrote in his Report: "the grant of the same allowances in peace and war placed the interests and duties of commanding officers at variance with each other". What he stated so baldly was true and it was widelt known that the superior officers were taking a cut from the contracts handed down to native suppliers, perhaps for a consideration. The direct imputation of dishonesty added fuel to an already enraged Officer Corps. Within days this Repor was leaked. Any surprises here. None at all and a strrm of protest started brewing.
Twenty eight Officers of the Company, excluding the Kings' Officers signed a "collective memorial" demanding Col John Munro be tried before a Court Martial for impugning the "honour of the Officers"
 |
| Sir George Barlow and General Hay Macdowall |
There was trouble brewing in the Madras Army for at least a decade before the Revolt following the recoganization of the Company Forces in 1796. We have already alluded to earlier of some of the main grievances: (1) Equality of Pay between Bengal and Madras Armies (2) Continuance of the Tent Contract and (3) disparity in Command postings between Kings'Army and the Company Regiments. In normal circumstances these issues my have been resolved. But a series of miss steps involving the Governor and his Commander in Chief triggered what was essentially a conflict of supremacy between the Civilian Administration and the Military. Sir John Craddock who was the immediate predecessor of General Macdowall had instructed, Col John Munro to investigate the "Tent Contract" and offer suggestions. Acting on the directions of his superior, Col John Munro submitted a Report in which he recommended the abolition of the Tent Contract. The Report was a Confidential one and was marked only to the Commander in Chief. Perhaps the Madras Army too suffered from the same malaise of the Ministry of Defence under the Congress Regime. Interested parties would find the contents of official files before they were seen by the superiors and action taken. Munro wrote in his Report: "the grant of the same allowances in peace and war placed the interests and duties of commanding officers at variance with each other". What he stated so baldly was true and it was widelt known that the superior officers were taking a cut from the contracts handed down to native suppliers, perhaps for a consideration. The direct imputation of dishonesty added fuel to an already enraged Officer Corps. Within days this Repor was leaked. Any surprises here. None at all and a strrm of protest started brewing.
Twenty eight Officers of the Company, excluding the Kings' Officers signed a "collective memorial" demanding Col John Munro be tried before a Court Martial for impugning the "honour of the Officers"
Continued in Part III
No comments:
Post a Comment