Magnificant, Subbiah, thanks for sharing :)

Hello Subbiah Excellent find.Could you possibly supply me with the original link for this photographic collection... Regards etc.

Some More.......................Photographs

Are rare books exclusively from the colonial period of Indian History?

Not at all....but the colonial period is the most well documented, interesting and also most controversial epoch of Indian history !! It is also, so recent a period....that we can relate to it. But there are hundreds of posts of the earlier periods on this page too.

Thank you for the prompt response, I shall check them out. You will forgive me if I join issue with you about the most 'interesting' period of Indian history bit of your comment. Well documented certainly, from the point of view of their own colonial agenda, controversial I don't know. Are their still people who believe in the imperial or colonial project?! I would give my vote to the Mauryan period for most interesting, I am also writing a book on it ...but I don't suppose you have rare Sanskrit manuscripts?

Hmmm. I want all maharajas from british era.....All States

Dont u have some more photos of Scindias And Holkars...?

Thank you RBS ! I have followed your advice and looked at your page and found a book very much to my interest...a book by Rawlinson chronicling Indian and Greek contacts during the Mauryan period.

Sumedha : It would be great if you could keep us updated about your book. Its amazing that you have chosen the Mauryan period to write....not many have the stamina to do that...given the limited resources available on this period. We wish you well and it would be a creditable achievement once done. All the best. Will also try to post a few more books on the subject in due course.

Please upload some photos of .......scindias,holkars,gaekwad,pawar and bhosle maharajas

"Amid the levelling tendencies of the age and the inevitable monotony of government conducted upon scientific lines, they [the 'Indian' princes] keep alive the traditions and customs, they sustain the virility, and they save from extinction the picturesqueness of ancient and noble races. They have that indefinable quality, endearing them to the people, that arises from their being born of the soil. They provide scope for the activities of the hereditary aristocracy of the country, and employment for native intellect and ambition. Above all, I realise, more perhaps in Rajputana than anywhere else, that they constitute a school of manners, valuable to the Indian, and not less valuable to the European, showing in the person of their cheifs that illustrious lineage has not ceased to implant noble and chivalrous ideas, and maintaining those old-fashioned and punctilious standards of public spirit and private courtesy which have always been instinctive in the Indian aristocracy, and with the loss of which, if ever they be allowed to disppear, Indian society will go to pieces like a dismantled vessel in a storm." ~ Lord Curzon, Jaipur ( 1902 )

Well, Julian, it seems the princes are still very much present and no longer burdened with those ridiculous and paltry knighthoods, while the minor aristocrat who thought it was his prerogative to "allow" one thing or another is long gone, along with his ilk and their "scientific" form of government. Having a tall and pretty wife doesn't make up for everything else, you know!

...I think that one could quite adequately substitute the word 'socialist' for 'scientific' in the passage above, Amrita - a topic, that I'm sure that by now we are all aware, is very close to your heart indeed.... Must you politicise, from the revisionist perspective, absoultely everything??

You are the one flaunting your strange politics here, Julian, and your doing so requires an answer. Are you suggesting that British Rule in India was socialist? We certainly didn't need Britons to give credence to our princely families, let alone have them recognized with those ridiculous knighthoods. I gather Rudi Giuiliani got one too, though more recently.

...I'm afraid that you have misunderstood Lord Curzon's usage of the word 'scientific' in the passage above - he was equating such 'scientific' forms of government, in a thoroughly negative sense, with the prevailing 'levelling tendancy' of the time - that negated the value of heriarchy and tradition.... the remainder of your remarks proceed from this misconception...

Really, Julian! More likely you didn't read what you posted. (By now, I have an idea how you think...) There was no link between science and socialism in what Lord Curzon said- in fact, quite obviously, he meant that he believed British Rule to be based on sound reasoning. Nowadays, of course, we can see that it was nothing of the sort! And then you have a tendency to associate one's disapproval of absolutely anything to do with empire with socialism, as we saw from your arguments re William Dalrymple (who, btw, has a new book out) so that link was entirely in your mind.

Mrs Ghosh-Douglas In fact , at the turn of the 19/20th centuries , India had a government (in terms of its policy and procedure, if not its active participants) that was considerably more 'socialist' than its British equivalent. In some respects India already possessed what would now be called a 'mixed economy'. The government, unlike its British counterpart, was 'regulatory' and undertook a significant amount of direct commercial and industrial activity. For example, the Indian governmnet built and controlled the railways (unlike the railways in Britain that were built almost entirely without government oversight, consultation or finance) - monopolised and controlled the sale of certain products and manufactures, (salt and opium amongst others !)and was by far the largest employer of labour....In 1900, the central and local governments spent £1.2 million on education - only £360,000 of which was recouped through fees and endowments... state intervention in Indian economic activity was considered essential by Calcutta - it was not in London, where the successful 'laissez-faire' attitude of the 19th century still prevailed (though for not much longer!).... Of course, left-wing historians , such as perhaps Mr William Dalrymple (as much as I enjoy his novels) would rarely draw your attention to such information. Etc.etc.

With reference to Mr Julian Craig's remark "For example, the Indian government built and controlled the railways (unlike the railways in Britain that were built almost entirely without government oversight, consultation or finance)", I must say that the railway network in India was (probably) also built and owned by private companies like G.I.P. (Great Indian Peninsula Railway), E.I.R. (East India Railway), N.W.R. (Noth Western Railway), B.B.C.I. (Bombay, Baroda and Central India Railway) etc. It appears that all these were private companies whose shares were held mainly in Britain. It was only after independence that these companies were consolidated into Eastern, Western, Central etc Railways. I must add that these companies left an excellent network of railways in India - and this is one of the greatest contributions of the British colonial period for which we should be thankful.

Mr Asad Ahmed Indeed, sir - you are correct. Indian railways were built and developed by a mixture of agencies, sometimes by private enterprise and sometimes through state control and construction. This 'dual system', inevitably, led to complications and confrontation. In Curzon's time plans were put forward to streamline operations, centrally, and a division to co-ordinate railway activity was created within the Public Works Department for precisely this purpose. As a broad aim, the government wished to replace the confusing patchwork of interests with complete state regulation - the actual working of the various lines being left to private companies. Regards etc.

Many thanks, Julian, for the clarification. I do recall that around 1947, these companies were still operative but the coordination between them was excellent. That must have been due to Lord Curzon's efforts. He must have been quite a Viceroy since the Victoria Memorial in Calcutta is another testimonial to his oustanding organizational ability. Warm regards.

Dear Mr Ahmed, Do you know where one might find a good account of the early history of these railways, and more especially the contractors behind these railways. One of my great grandfather's was a railway and ports contractor in Britain, Gibraltar and Singapore. He had previously worked on the Manchester Ship Canal, and this has led to my research many of these contracts. Although he himself never worked in India many of his former colleagues did, particularly several of his Foremen who for some reason turned up on the Bolan Pass Railway. When I researched some years ago for my great grandfathers training records in the files in the Institute of Civil Engineers in London, many records of Civil Engineers working in India came before me. The CV's of these engineers are full of huge project after project. Often these engineers went out after perhaps a year or less of practical experience in England. Even the largest structures built here were but mere starter projects compared to the structures India would require to be built if the railways were to span its terrain. The sheer scale of their undertakings there are staggering. I think the legacy they left in India is very little understood today in Britain at least. We know the names of almost none of these men. As a Civil Engineering contractor myself with experience in the Middle East I can appreciate in some ways what it must have taken to complete these projects. Many of the projects they undertook would be difficult to build even today with all of our cranes, mobile phones and dump trucks. The physical danger's of climate, accidents and stress and over work must have been nearly as bad as it was for many military officers. There must also be a fascinating Indian dimension to this story because these men must of relied almost entirely on Indian subcontractors and labour gangs to effect the work. We know a lot about the operators of these railways, but almost nothing of their constructors. Nick Balmer

Dear Nick: You are right in that the introduction of Railways in India around 1860, and the associated work of laying down railroad tracks across the great plains, deserts, jungles, rivers, and mountains must have been a gigantic project. Yet I have read nothing about the experiences and adventures of the British planners, surveyors, and engineers and the Indian workmen who did this amazing amount of work. Their stories need to be told as they are largely unknown and, as you say, not fully appreciated. The only thing I heard from a noted historian in Aligarh was that, before the introduction of coal for locomotives, logs of wood were used. That must have meant cutting down many forests around the tracks. There is a real need for such a book. However, if you want to know how the Railways were when the British left India, you only have to travel across British India. In Pakistan, nothing has changed since 1947; the railway tracks are old and rusty, the sleepers are rotting, the train compartments uncomfortable and falling apart, even the signalling system (mechanical 'up-and down' type) is the same as in 1947. This is the result of bad governance. In contrast, Indian Railways have made impressive progress since independence. There has been extensive electrification of railway lines, the signalling system is modern, the coaches are comfortable and mostly air-conditioned, the network has been extended through difficult terrain, the tracks on important routes have been doubled, and all gauges have been standardized to the broad gauge. This is impressive progress. However, the railway stations (like the ones in old Delhi, Kanpur, and Howrah etc are still the same as in 1870, and totally inadequate to handle the increased population. The waiting rooms are crowded and unclean - not like the old times - but those very long, comfortable chairs are still there (though a bit grimy). There is nothing more amusing or entertaining in the world than travelling in the old III class (now called II class) in India. A most interesting and hilarious account of travelling in Indian trains is given in the book "The Great Railway Bazaar" by Paul Theroux. You will be laughing all the way! I urge you to read it if you have not already done so. Regards.

What would also be interesting would be to see how many of the 'old' railway systems are still there (most are), and how some changed over the years. A section of the Kangra Valley Railway was closed in April 1942 and the material of the ‘permanent way’ dismantled and sent to aid the British war effort during the Second World War; this was restored in 1954.

Julian, you doofus, the "Indian Government " you speak of was the British Government of India, so of course it was a controlled economy. You people needed to control everyone in India, which you obviously could not do at home, per how you represent it above. That didn't make the British Government of India socialist by any means- you lot had absolutely zero concern for the majority of the population of the country you sucked dry to make yourselves temporarily rich, with no transportation for grain reserves in case of a drought- you people literally starved millions to death, either on purpose or from from callous negligence. Raaja, thanks for mentioning how much the British considered the railways in India their own property, to be dismantled to serve their passing priorities!!!

You go girl.

Thx v. much, Cassie!