the chapter on India in the planned second volume of The Commonwealth of Nations. It
set as its task "to enquire how self-government could be introduced and peacefully
extended to India." The group met once a fortnight in London and soon decided on the
dyarchy principle. This principle, as any reader of Curtis's writings knows, was basic in
Curtis's political thought and was the foundation on which he hoped to build a federated
Empire. According to Curtis, the study group asked itself: "Could not provincial
electorates through legislatures and ministers of their own be made clearly responsible for
certain functions of government to begin with, leaving all others in the hands of
executives responsible as at present to the Government of India and the Secretary of
State? Indian electorates, legislatures, and executives would thus be given a field for the
exercise of genuine responsibility. From time to time fresh powers could be transferred
from the old governments as the new elective authorities developed and proved their
capacity for assuming them." From this point of view, Curtis asked Duke to draw up such
"a plan of Devolution" for Bengal. This plan was printed by the group, circulated, and
criticized in typical Milner Group fashion. Then the whole group went to Oxford for
three days and met to discuss it in the old Bursary of Trinity College. It was then
rewritten. "No one was satisfied." It was decided to circulate it for further criticism
among the Round Table Groups throughout the world, but Lord Chelmsford wrote from
New South Wales and asked for a copy. Apparently realizing that he was to be the next
Viceroy of India, the group sent a copy to him and none to the Round Table Groups, "lest
the public get hold of it and embarrass him." It is clear that Chelmsford was committed to
a program of reform along these or similar lines before he went out as Viceroy. This was
revealed in debate in the House of Lords by Lord Crewe on 12 December 1919.
After Chelmsford went to India in March 1916, a new, revised version of the study
group's plan was drawn up and sent to him in May 1916. Another copy was sent to
Canada to catch up with Curtis, who had already left for India by way of Canada,
Australia, and New Zealand. This itinerary was undoubtedly followed by Curtis in order
to consult with members of the Group in various countries, especially with Brand in
Canada. On his arrival in India, Curtis wrote back to Kerr in London:
“The factor which impressed me most in Canada, New Zealand, and Australia was the
rooted aversion these peoples have to any scheme which meant their sharing in the
Government of India.... To these young democratic communities the principle of self-
government is the breath of their nostrils. It is almost a religion. They feel as if there were
something inherently wrong in one people ruling another. It is the same feeling as that
which makes the Americans dislike governing the Philippines and decline to restore order
in Mexico. My first impressions on this subject were strongly confirmed on my recent
visit to these Dominions. I scarcely recall one of the numerous meetings I addressed at
which I was not asked why India was not given self-government and what steps were
being taken in that direction.”
Apparently this experience strengthened Curtis's idea that India must be given
responsible government. He probably felt that by giving India what it and the Dominions
wanted for India, both would be bound in loyalty more closely to Britain. In this same
letter to Kerr, Curtis said, in obvious reference to the Round Table Group:
“Our task then is to bring home to the public in the United Kingdom and the
Dominions how India differs from a country like Great Britain on the one hand and from
Central Africa on the other, and how that difference is now reflected in the character of
its government. We must outline clearly the problems which arise from the contact of
East and West and the disaster which awaits a failure to supply their adequate solution by
realizing and expressing the principle of Government for which we stand. We must then
go on to suggest a treatment of India in the general work of Imperial reconstruction in
harmony with the facts adduced in the foregoing chapters. And all this must be done with
the closest attention to its effects upon educated opinion here. We must do our best to
make Indian Nationalists realize the truth that like South Africa all their hopes and
aspirations are dependent on the maintenance of the British Commonwealth and their
permanent membership therein.”
This letter, written on 13 November 1916, was addressed to Philip Kerr but was
intended for all the members of the Group. Sir Valentine Chirol corrected the draft, and
copies were made available for Meston and Marris. Then Curtis had a thousand copies
printed and sent to Kerr for distribution. In some way, the extremist Indian nationalists
obtained a copy of the letter and published a distorted version of it. They claimed that a
powerful and secret group organized about The Round Table had sent Curtis to India to
spy out the nationalist plans in order to obstruct them. Certain sentences from the letter
were torn from their context to prove this argument. Among these was the reference to
Central Africa, which was presented to the Indian people as a statement that they were as
uncivilized and as incapable of self-government as Central Africans. As a result of the
fears created by this rumor, the Indian National Congress and the Moslem League formed
their one and only formal alliance in the shape of the famous Lucknow Compact of 29
December 1916. The Curtis letter was not the only factor behind the Lucknow agreement,
but it was certainly very influential. Curtis was present at the Congress meeting and was
horrified at the version of his letter which was circulating. Accordingly, he published the
correct version with an extensive commentary, under the title Letters to the People of
India (1917). In this he said categorically that he believed: "(1) That it is the duty of those
who govern the whole British Commonwealth to do anything in their power to enable
Indians to govern themselves as soon as possible. (2) That Indians must also come to
share in the government of the British Commonwealth as a whole." There can be no
doubt that Curtis was sincere in this and that his view reflected, perhaps in an extreme
form, the views of a large and influential group in Great Britain. The failure of this group
to persuade the Indian nationalists that they were sincere is one of the great disasters of
the century, although the fault is not entirely theirs and must be shared by others,
including Gandhi.
In the first few months of 1917, Curtis consulted groups of Indians and individual
British (chiefly of the Milner Group) regarding the form which the new constitution
would take. The first public use of the word "dyarchy" was in an open letter of 6 April
1917, which he wrote to Bhupendra Nath Basu, one of the authors of the Lucknow
Compact, to demonstrate how dyarchy would function in the United Provinces. In writing
this letter, Curtis consulted with Valentine Chirol and Malcolm Hailey. He then wrote an
outline, "The Structure of Indian Government," which was revised by Meston and
printed. This was submitted to many persons for comment. He then organized a meeting
of Indians and British at Lord Sinha's house in Darjeeling and, after considerable
discussion, drew up a twelve-point program, which was signed by sixty-four Europeans
and ninety Indians. This was sent to Chelmsford and to Montagu.