Political warfare in British colonial India

Last updated

Political warfare in British colonial India aided a British minority in maintaining control over large parts of present-day India, Bangladesh, Pakistan and Burma.

Contents

The East India Company obtained a foothold in India in 1695 and from that start expanded the territory it controlled until it was the primary power in the subcontinent. After the Indian Rebellion of 1857 the British Government nationalised the Company creating the British Raj. The Company lost all its administrative powers; its Indian possessions, including its armed forces, were taken over by the Crown pursuant to the provisions of the Government of India Act 1858. A new British government department, the India Council, was created to handle the governance of India, and its head, the Secretary of State for India, was entrusted with formulating Indian policy. The Governor-General of India gained a new title (Viceroy of India), and implemented the policies devised by the India council. As a result of their relatively small presence in the country the British resorted to many methods to retain control of India.

Economic manipulation

Once it had established its factories (trading bases) in India the East India Company started to highlight the benefits of trade with them to the local merchant classes in Surat and Bengal. This helped lure the merchant class away from local rulers to the East India Company as when it persuaded local financiers to abandon the Bengali nawab in 1756. [1]

The East India Company recruited James Steuart in 1772 to help advise on the political aspects of the Indian and Bengali economy. Steuart recommended creating a central bank and making local bankers and moneylenders directors to soak their pooled wealth back into the economy, as well as a more efficient system of taxation to keep that wealth from falling back into their hands. While this policy was not adopted, the Company did establish a more universal currency based on the sicca rupee to restrain the power of the shroff moneylenders. [2] [ full citation needed ]

Later when the Company had increased its power and influence in the subcontinent it started acting as a government. In 1793, Lord Cornwallis abolished the right of local landholders to collect dues on trade which cut back on the feudal powers of the princes, limiting their military strength and turning them into landlords. [3] [ full citation needed ]

Indian Civil Service

After the Indian Rebellion in 1857, the new British administration created a close partnership with certain land-holders and princes to strengthen their grip on power. This was either to create a colonial hierarchy of the various ethnic groups in India, "each arranged into appropriate social classes, whose spiritual and material improvement were entrusted to the paternal direction of gentlemanly rulers" [4] or 'a single hierarchy all its subjects, Indian and British'. [5]

The Army and the Civil Service were the main instruments of British power, staffed by only a small number of European officials. This imperial service became, "a large vested interest of the educated upper middle class. By 1913–14, for example, the Government of India devoted no less than 53 million pounds (65 percent of the total budget of 82 million pounds) to the army and civil administration. Imperial service enabled the mainly southern, professional and public-school culture to reproduce itself abroad and also... create facsimiles among elites in the new colonies established. The Indians in the Civil Service were to be brought up as gentleman and an "Eton in India" was established, thereby perpetuating a political ruling class of Indians owing their position to England. [6] The native Indians in the Civil Service became the bridge by which the British governed their territories in India or as the official Zachary Macaulay said in 1834, we "must do our best to form a class who may be interpreters between us and the millions whom we govern; a class of persons, Indian in blood and colour, but English in taste, opinions, in morals, and in intellect." [7] The Indian civil service (ICS) held nearly every senior, non-military, position in the government and through the creation of a new ruling caste, and propaganda, "invented an ideology of imperial service and amassed a scholarly literature in which India’s history, society, economy and culture were interpreted as a story of chaos from which only the "steel frame" of Civilian [Indian Civil Service] rule had been able to save them." [8]

In 1885 after the founding of the Indian National Congress, native Indians began campaigning against the power of the Indian Civil Service by attacking it with a slogan that stressed the "unBritishness of British rule". In response, the Service rejected the idea of more Indians in its ranks, but instead offered concessions to allow more Indians in local legislative councils; however as the ICS integrated the councils, they carefully included members of different religions and castes to inhibit effectiveness and largely neutralise any check on their power. [8] In addition, membership to the legislative councils was by appointment, rather than election, and the councils were restricted to a consultative role. [9]

Political Manipulation

The East India Company increased its power in India by playing local rulers off against each other and the declining Mughal Empire.

Lord Dalhousie, the Company Governor General between 1848 and 1856 established a principle, the Doctrine of Lapse, that if any princely state or territory under the direct influence (paramountcy) of the British East India Company would automatically be annexed if the ruler was either "manifestly incompetent or died without a direct heir". [10] This allowed the Company to remove rulers it viewed as troublesome.

After the Indian Rebellion and the transition of rule from the East India Company to the Crown, the British attempted to prevent future disturbances by strengthening indigenous elites in some regions of the colony and allowing them to rule local lands along supposedly traditional lines. [11]

Parallel developments affected the Indian Civil Service after the Company’s system of patronage came to an end with Company rule; there was renewed effort to tie the Indian landholders to the princes and the Raj, endorsing their power and privilege, revitalising the nobility, and then tying it to the Queen by proclaiming her Empress of India. [12] In this way, Britain increased the power of local nobility and made it known to them that their power came from the Queen. "Many of them [princes] owe their very existence to British justice and arms...The situation of these feudatory States, checker boarding all India as they do, is a safeguard. It is like establishing a vast network of friendly fortresses in debatable territory." [13] Also, to appease some of the nobles' concerns in the aftermath of the Indian Rebellion, princes were allowed to adopt heirs rather than have their estates automatically ceded to British control at their death. [14]

Direct and Indirect Rule

Direct rule required replacing of pre-existing political institutions and replacing them with centralised, territory-wide, and bureaucratic legal-administrative institutions that were controlled by colonial officials. [15] Indirect rule was a form of colonial control via collaboration with indigenous intermediaries who controlled regional political institutions. [15]

Colonial India was a mix of the two types of rule. While the Civil Service ran a large portion of the country, "in peripheral regions, chiefs, princes, sultans, and other indigenous leaders controlled "customary" legal-administrative institutions that were organised along patrimonial lines." [15] Leading colonial officials believed indirect rule was more adaptive and culturally sensitive, far superior to direct rule, in that indirect rule allowed for social development through gradual change from within rather than shattering the social fabric, producing opposition from the local populace. [16] Indirect rule was less confrontational and more collaborative, and therefore viewed as a better means for control. [16]

The colonial administration recognised around 600 semi-autonomous princely states, nominally advised by a British resident; the states possessed one quarter of the country’s population. [17] British administrators also employed tax collectors and landlords even in the more "directly" ruled regions of the country and paid for the landlord’s loyalty with large tracts of land and some power to collect taxes for personal use. [17]

When they didn’t need to resort to martial strength, the East India Company, and later the British Foreign Office, Indian Civil Service or military resorted to bribery and tributes to woo local rulers. In the early 1800s they presented the ruler of the Punjab, Ranjit Singh, with five English dray horses, which would have been larger than any horse he had seen before, horses being one of his many loves. [18] When the state of Punjab eventually became aggressive in 1843, the British annexed it, taking Kashmir and putting it under a ruler more amenable to the British. [19] The Punjab was official annexed in 1849. [20]

Proxies

In the areas north of India, it was dangerous for a European to travel. The British military often used Indian trained cartographers and intelligence officers called pundits to scout for them. [21] These pundits often posed as Muslim or Buddhist holy men, with their map making tools disguised as prayer beads and a prayer wheel. [22] Political intelligence was passed to the Foreign Office through these pundits gathering topographical intelligence, and by British officers on the North-West Frontier. [23]

Religion as a tool of power

The Company banned some Hindu practices like sati and thuggee, which they found particularly abhorrent, and began to allow Hindu widows to remarry in 1856. [24] Governor-General Dalhousie had begun to allow Christian converts to inherit ancestral property starting in 1850. [20] Though overall, the East India Company men were not "eager to anglicise India, fearing to offend the educated class on whose support they depended, and arouse religious antagonism." [25] In 1813, though they had been forced to admit Christian missionaries, the Company tried to avoid being seen as a proponent of the missions. [25] A publication during the Indian Mutiny of 1857 states that the East India Company even manifested disfavour towards Christianity to obtain the confidence of Hindus. [26]

Examining religion from a more political aspect, the Company codified Muslim and Hindu law to take the flexibility out of the law’s traditional practice, to strengthen the Company’s indirect rule and support the local pro-British elites. [27] Initially, the East India Company administration favoured the Hindus over the Muslims as government agents because the Hindus were generally less hostile to their presence; the Company removed Muslims from positions of power over its tenure in India. [28] However, by 1893 Hindu power in the Indian National Congress (INC) was growing at rate disquieting to the British, so they reversed their traditional policies and began encouraging Muslims to enter the political apparatus to make the organization less effective. [29]

Subversion

For much of the 18th and 19th centuries, political warfare and subversion were used by the Russians to destabilise British rule in India, as well as by the British to retain a hold on their Indian territories. This political contest, largely using proxies, is called The Great Game. The term was coined by British officer Captain Arthur Conolly in the early 19th century and made famous by Rudyard Kipling’s book Kim. The Game took place from the Caucuses to Tibet and south to India, with the control over the Indian subcontinent and Afghanistan as the ultimate goal. [30]

In the 1857–58 Indian Mutiny of native soldiers serving in the armed forces of the East India Company, many British suspected Russian or Persian agents of having a hand in spreading rumours that sparked the conflict; the core of the rumours were that the British had smeared pig and cow fat on the ammo cartridges used by the sepoys. [31] The fat on the cartridges, which would have to be opened by mouth prior to being loaded into a rifle, would have spiritually desecrated the Muslim or Hindu soldiers. [20]

Related Research Articles

British Empire States and dominions ruled by the United Kingdom

The British Empire was composed of the dominions, colonies, protectorates, mandates, and other territories ruled or administered by the United Kingdom and its predecessor states. It began with the overseas possessions and trading posts established by England between the late 16th and early 18th centuries. At its height it was the largest empire in history and, for over a century, was the foremost global power. By 1913 the British Empire held sway over 412 million people, 23 per cent of the world population at the time, and by 1920 it covered 35,500,000 km2 (13,700,000 sq mi), 24 percent of the Earth's total land area. As a result, its constitutional, legal, linguistic, and cultural legacy is widespread. At the peak of its power, it was described as "the empire on which the sun never sets", as the sun was always shining on at least one of its territories.

History of India Historical aspects of the Indian subcontinent

According to consensus in modern genetics anatomically modern humans first arrived on the Indian subcontinent from Africa between 73,000 and 55,000 years ago. However, the earliest known human remains in South Asia date to 30,000 years ago. Settled life, which involves the transition from foraging to farming and pastoralism, began in South Asia around 7,000 BCE. At the site of Mehrgarh, Balochistan, Pakistan, presence can be documented of the domestication of wheat and barley, rapidly followed by that of goats, sheep, and cattle. By 4,500 BCE, settled life had spread more widely, and began to gradually evolve into the Indus Valley Civilization, an early civilization of the Old world, which was contemporaneous with Ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia. This civilisation flourished between 2,500 BCE and 1900 BCE in what today is Pakistan and north-western India, and was noted for its urban planning, baked brick houses, elaborate drainage, and water supply.

Imperialism Policy or ideology of extending a nations rule over foreign nations

Imperialism is a policy or ideology of extending the rule over peoples and other countries, for extending political and economic access, power and control, often through employing hard power, especially military force, but also soft power. While related to the concepts of colonialism and empire, imperialism is a distinct concept that can apply to other forms of expansion and many forms of government.

Western imperialism in Asia

Western imperialism in Asia refers to the influence of Western Europe and associated states in Asian territories. It originated in the 15th-century search for trade routes to India and Southeast Asia that led directly to the Age of Discovery, and additionally the introduction of early modern warfare into what Europeans first called the East Indies and later the Far East. By the early 16th century, the Age of Sail greatly expanded Western European influence and development of the spice trade under colonialism. European-style colonial empires and imperialism operated in Asia throughout six centuries of colonialism, formally ending with the independence of the Portuguese Empire's last colony East Timor in 2002. The empires introduced Western concepts of nation and the multinational state. This article attempts to outline the consequent development of the Western concept of the nation state.

New Imperialism Colonial expansion in late 19th and early 20th centuries

In historical contexts, New Imperialism characterizes a period of colonial expansion by Western European powers, the United States, Russia, and Japan during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The period featured an unprecedented pursuit of overseas territorial acquisitions. At the time, states focused on building their empires with new technological advances and developments, expanding their territory through conquest, and exploiting the resources of the subjugated countries. During the era of New Imperialism, the Western powers individually conquered almost all of Africa and parts of Asia. The new wave of imperialism reflected ongoing rivalries among the great powers, the economic desire for new resources and markets, and a "civilizing mission" ethos. Many of the colonies established during this era gained independence during the era of decolonization that followed World War II.

Indian independence movement Indian national movement seeking to end British rule (1857-1947)

The Indian independence movement was a series of historic events with the ultimate aim of ending the British rule in India. The movement spanned from 1857 to 1947. The first nationalistic revolutionary movement for Indian independence emerged from Bengal. It later took root in the newly formed Indian National Congress with prominent moderate leaders seeking only their fundamental right to appear for Indian Civil Service examinations in British India, as well as more rights for the people of the soil. The early part of the 20th century saw a more radical approach towards political self-rule proposed by leaders such as the Lal Bal Pal triumvirate, Aurobindo Ghosh and V. O. Chidambaram Pillai.

Divide and rule Strategy in politics and sociology

Divide and rule, or divide and conquer, in politics and sociology is gaining and maintaining power by breaking up larger concentrations of power into pieces that individually have less power than the one implementing the strategy.

Islamic rulers in the Indian subcontinent Era in South Asia characterized by total Muslim rule

Muslim rule in the Indian subcontinent began in the course of a gradual Muslim conquest in the Indian subcontinent, beginning mainly after the conquest of Sindh and Multan led by Muhammad bin Qasim. Following the perfunctory rule by the Ghaznavids in Punjab, Sultan Muhammad of Ghor is generally credited with laying the foundation of Muslim rule in Northern India.

History of Punjab

The History of the Punjab refers to the history of the Punjab region, a geopolitical, cultural, and historical region in South Asia, comprising areas of eastern Pakistan and northern India. Ancient Punjab was the primary geographical extent of the Indus Valley Civilisation, which was notable for advanced technologies and amenities that the people of the region had used. During the Vedic period, Punjab was referred to as Sapta Sindhu, or the Land of Seven Rivers. Punjab was historically a Hindu-Buddhist region during this period, known for its scholarship, technology, and arts. Intermittent wars between various kingdoms were characteristic of the time, except when they temporarily unified under centralised Indian Empires or invading powers.

Princely state Type of vassal state in British India

A princely state, also called a native state, feudatory state or Indian state, was a vassal state under a local or indigenous or regional ruler in a subsidiary alliance with the British Raj. Though the history of the princely states of the subcontinent dates from at least the classical period of Indian history, the predominant usage of the term princely state specifically refers to a semi-sovereign principality on the Indian subcontinent during the British Raj that was not directly governed by the British, but rather by a local ruler, subject to a form of indirect rule on some matters. The imprecise doctrine of paramountcy allowed the government of British India to interfere in the internal affairs of princely states individually or collectively and issue edicts that applied to all of India when it deemed it necessary.

Colonial India Period of Indian history characterized by European colonial rule

Colonial India was the part of the Indian subcontinent that was under the jurisdiction of European colonial powers during the Age of Discovery. European power was exerted both by conquest and trade, especially in spices. The search for the wealth and prosperity of India led to the colonization of the Americas after their discovery by Christopher Columbus in 1492. Only a few years later, near the end of the 15th century, Portuguese sailor Vasco da Gama became the first European to re-establish direct trade links with India since Roman times by being the first to arrive by circumnavigating Africa. Having arrived in Calicut, which by then was one of the major trading ports of the eastern world, he obtained permission to trade in the city from Saamoothiri Rajah. The next to arrive were the Dutch, with their main base in Ceylon. Their expansion into India was halted, after their defeat in the Battle of Colachel by the Kingdom of Travancore, during the Travancore-Dutch War.

Indirect rule

Indirect rule was a system of governance used by the British and others to control parts of their colonial empires, particularly in Africa and Asia, which was done through pre-existing indigenous power structures. Indirect rule was used by various colonial rulers: the French in Algeria and Tunisia, the Dutch in the East Indies, Portuguese in Angola and Mozambique and Belgians in Burundi. These dependencies were often called "protectorates" or "trucial states". By this system, the day-to-day government and administration of areas both small and large were left in the hands of traditional rulers, who gained prestige and the stability and protection afforded by the Pax Britannica, at the cost of losing control of their external affairs, and often of taxation, communications, and other matters, usually with a small number of European "advisors" effectively overseeing the government of large numbers of people spread over extensive areas.

The Indian Civil Service (ICS), for part of the 19th century officially known as the Imperial Civil Service, was the elite higher civil service of the British Empire in British India during British rule in the period between 1858 and 1947.

History of Bengal

The history of Bengal is intertwined with the history of the broader Indian subcontinent and the surrounding regions of South Asia and Southeast Asia. It includes modern-day Bangladesh and the Indian states of West Bengal and Assam's Karimganj district, located in the eastern part of the Indian subcontinent, at the apex of the Bay of Bengal and dominated by the fertile Ganges delta. The advancement of civilisation in Bengal dates back four millennia. The region was known to the ancient Greeks and Romans as Gangaridai, a powerful kingdom whose elephant forces led the withdrawal of Alexander the Great from Eastern India. The Ganges and the Brahmaputra rivers act as a geographic marker of the region, but also connects the region to the broader Indian subcontinent. Bengal, at times, has played an important role in the history of the Indian subcontinent.

Peter Stuart Hopkirk was a British journalist, author and historian who wrote six books about the British Empire, Russia and Central Asia.

British Raj British colonial rule on the Indian subcontinent (1858–1947)

The British Raj was the rule by the British Crown primarily on the Indian subcontinent from 1858 to 1947. The rule is also called Crown rule in India, or direct rule in India. The region under British control was commonly called India in contemporaneous usage, and included areas directly administered by the United Kingdom, which were collectively called British India, and areas ruled by indigenous rulers, but under British tutelage or paramountcy, called the princely states. The region was sometimes called the Indian Empire, though not officially.

India House

India House was a student residence that existed between 1905 and 1910 at Cromwell Avenue in Highgate, North London. With the patronage of lawyer Shyamji Krishna Varma, it was opened to promote nationalist views among Indian students in Britain. This institute used to grant scholarships to Indian youths for higher studies in England. The building rapidly became a hub for political activism, one of the most prominent for overseas revolutionary Indian nationalism. "India House" came to informally refer to the nationalist organisations that used the building at various times.

History of colonialism aspect of history

The historical phenomenon of colonization is one that stretches around the globe and across time. Ancient and medieval colonialism was practiced by the Phoenicians, the Greeks, and the crusaders, among others. Colonialism in the modern sense began with the "Age of Discovery", led by Portuguese, and then by the Spanish exploration of the Americas, the coasts of Africa, Southwest Asia which is also known as the Middle East, India, and East Asia. The Portuguese and Spanish empires were the first global empires because they were the first to stretch across different continents, covering vast territories around the globe. Between 1580 and 1640, the two empires were both ruled by the Spanish monarchs in personal union. During the late 16th and 17th centuries, England, France and the Dutch Republic also established their own overseas empires, in direct competition with one another.

Historiography of the British Empire Studies and methods used by scholars to develop a history of Britains empire

The historiography of the British Empire refers to the studies, sources, critical methods and interpretations used by scholars to develop a history of Britain's empire. Historians and their ideas are the main focus here; specific lands and historical dates and episodes are covered in the article on the British Empire. Scholars have long studied the Empire, looking at the causes for its formation, its relations to the French and other empires, and the kinds of people who became imperialists or anti-imperialists, together with their mindsets. The history of the breakdown of the Empire has attracted scholars of the histories of the United States, the British Raj, and the African colonies. John Darwin (2013) identifies four imperial goals: colonising, civilising, converting, and commerce.

European colonisation of Southeast Asia

The first phase of European colonisation of Southeast Asia took place throughout the 16th and 17th centuries after the arrival of Dutch, Portuguese, Spanish and later French and British marine spice traders. Fiercely competitive, the Europeans soon sought to eliminate each other by forcibly taking control of the production centers, trade hubs and vital strategic locations, beginning with the Portuguese acqsuisition of Malacca in 1511. Throughout the 17th and 18th centuries conquests focused on ports along the maritime routes, that provided a secure passage of maritime trade. It also allowed foreign rulers to levy taxes and control prices of the highly desired Southeast Asian commodities. By the 19th century, virtually all Southeast Asian lands had been forced into the various spheres of influence of European global players. Siam, which had served as a convenient buffer state, sandwiched between British Burma and French Indochina was the only country to avoid direct foreign rule. However, its kings had to contend with repeated humiliations, accept unequal treaties among massive British and French political interference and territorial losses after the Franco-Siamese War in 1893 and the Anglo-Siamese Treaty of 1909.

References

  1. ↑ Cain, Peter (2001). British Imperialism: 1688–2000. 2nd ed. Longman. p. 94.
  2. ↑ Kelly, Duncan, ed. (2009). Lineages of Empire: The Historical Roots of British Imperial Thought. Oxford University Press, USA. pp. 144–55. ISBN   978-0-19726-439-3.
  3. ↑ Kelly, Duncan, ed. (2009). Lineages of Empire: The Historical Roots of British Imperial Thought. Oxford University Press, USA. p. 157. ISBN   978-0-19726-439-3.
  4. ↑ Cain, Peter (2001). British Imperialism: 1688–2000. 2nd ed. Longman. p. 285.
  5. ↑ Metcalf, Ideologies of the Raj, P50
  6. ↑ Peter, Cain (2001). British Imperialism: 1688–2000. 2nd ed. Longman. pp. 286–88.
  7. ↑ Stockwell, Sarah (2008). The British Empire: Themes and Perspectives. Wiley-Blackwell. p. 141.
  8. 1 2 Stockwell, Sarah (2008). The British Empire: Themes and Perspectives. Wiley-Blackwell. p. 12.
  9. ↑ Smith, Simon (1998). British Imperialism 1750–1970. Cambridge University Press. p. 56.
  10. ↑ Keay, John. India: A History. Grove Press Books, distributed by Publishers Group West. United States: 2000 ISBN   0-8021-3797-0, p. 433.
  11. ↑ Lange, Matthew (2009). Lineages of Despotism and Development: British Colonialism and State Power. University of Chicago Press. p. 24.
  12. ↑ Cain, Peter (2001). British Imperialism: 1688–2000. 2nd ed. Longman. pp. 287–88.
  13. ↑ Lewis, Martin Deming (1965). The British in India: Imperialism or Trusteeship?. D.C. Heath and Company. p. 73.
  14. ↑ Smith, Simon (1998). British Imperialism 1750–1970. Cambridge University Press. p. 55.
  15. 1 2 3 Lange, Matthew (2009). Lineages of Despotism and Development: British Colonialism and State Power. University of Chicago Press. p. 4.
  16. 1 2 Lange, Matthew (2009). Lineages of Despotism and Development: British Colonialism and State Power. University of Chicago Press. p. 5.
  17. 1 2 Lange, Matthew (2009). Lineages of Despotism and Development: British Colonialism and State Power. University of Chicago Press. p. 177.
  18. ↑ Hopkirk, Peter (1992). The Great Game: The Struggle for Empire in Central Asia . Kodansha International. p. 133.
  19. ↑ Hopkirk, Peter (1992). The Great Game: The Struggle for Empire in Central Asia. Kodansha International. p. 282.
  20. 1 2 3 Smith, Simon (1998). British Imperialism 1750–1970. Cambridge University Press. p. 53.
  21. ↑ Hopkirk, Peter (1992). The Great Game: The Struggle for Empire in Central Asia. Kodansha International. p. 5.
  22. ↑ Hopkirk, Peter (1992). The Great Game: The Struggle for Empire in Central Asia. Kodansha International. p. 330.
  23. ↑ Hopkirk, Peter (1992). The Great Game: The Struggle for Empire in Central Asia. Kodansha International. p. 422.
  24. ↑ Smith, Simon (1998). British Imperialism 1750–1970. Cambridge University Press. p. 51.
  25. 1 2 Stockwell, Sarah (2008). The British Empire: Themes and Perspectives. Wiley-Blackwell. p. 6.
  26. ↑ Embree, Ainslie (1963). 1857 in India Mutiny or War of Independence?. D.C. Heath and Company. p. 25.
  27. ↑ Stockwell, Sarah (2008). The British Empire: Themes and Perspectives. Wiley-Blackwell. p. 138.
  28. ↑ Lewis, Martin Deming (1965). The British in India: Imperialism or Trusteeship?. D.C. Heath and Company. p. 81.
  29. ↑ Lewis, Martin Deming (1965). The British in India: Imperialism or Trusteeship?. D.C Heath and Company. p. 83.
  30. ↑ Hopkirk, Peter (1992). The Great Game: The Struggle for Empire in Central Asia. Kodansha International. pp. 1–2.
  31. ↑ Hopkirk, Peter (1992). The Great Game: The Struggle for Empire in Central Asia. Kodansha International. pp. 289–92.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.