Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Commander-in-Chief, India

The Commander-in-Chief, India, was the supreme military authority over the , encompassing both British and Indian troops, from the appointment of Sir Colin Campbell in 1857 amid the Indian Rebellion until the in 1947. This role, formalized under direct Crown rule via the , separated professional military command from the civilian Viceroy's oversight, granting the incumbent direct access to the Secretary of State for India on operational matters while coordinating defense policy with the . The position's holder commanded forces numbering over 2 million by , directing campaigns across Asia and Africa that secured British imperial interests. Successive Commanders-in-Chief oversaw pivotal reforms and operations, including Lord Kitchener's 1902–1909 restructuring that consolidated administrative control under the military head, eliminating dual civil-military oversight and reorganizing the army into divisions for efficiency. Earlier figures like Lord Roberts expanded recruitment from martial races such as and Gurkhas, enhancing combat effectiveness in frontier wars and the Second Afghan War (1878–1880). The role's influence peaked during global conflicts, with leaders like Field Marshal Claude Auchinleck managing defenses against Japanese advances in and internal security amid independence pressures, though it faced critiques for over-reliance on British officers amid growing Indian nationalist demands. Upon independence, the title devolved to the as ceremonial head, marking the end of British military supremacy.

Establishment and Early History

Origins under the East India Company

The British initially focused on trade rather than territorial control, establishing factories along the Indian coast from the early 17th century, but military necessities arose due to European rivalries, particularly with the during the (1746–1763). The capture of Madras by forces in September 1746 compelled the Company to formalize its military organization, leading to the recruitment of European , , and units under ad hoc commands to defend trading posts. This marked the inception of structured Company armies, initially segregated by presidencies—Madras, Bombay, and —with local commanders overseeing battalions trained in European drill. Stringer Lawrence, arriving in in 1747, played a pivotal role in professionalizing these forces by modeling them on the , forming the first regular battalions at Madras in 1748 and introducing disciplined infantry tactics that proved decisive in recapturing Arcot in 1751. By 1761, Lawrence was appointed of all Company forces, granted a seat on the governing council and a as , reflecting the growing integration of military authority with administrative oversight. His innovations, including the establishment of a military college at Madras in 1764 for officer training, laid the groundwork for a centralized command structure amid expanding conquests, such as Robert Clive's victory at Plassey on June 23, 1757, which elevated Clive to de facto military leadership in . The command evolved unevenly across presidencies, with the Bengal Army's senior officer often acting as the effective overall commander due to its size and strategic dominance post-1757, though formal unification remained elusive until regulatory reforms. The Regulating Act of 1773 introduced a Governor-General with supervisory powers over military operations, yet the commander-in-chief role persisted as the apex military post, subordinate to but influential within the dual civil-military governance of the Company. This structure facilitated campaigns like the Mysore Wars, underscoring the commander's authority over combined European and native troops, numbering around 200,000 sepoys by the early 19th century, while highlighting tensions between Company profitability motives and imperial expansion.

Commanders-in-Chief from 1801 to 1857

General Gerard Lake served as Commander-in-Chief from March 1801 to July 1805, leading British forces to victories in the Second Anglo-Maratha War, including the Battle of Delhi in September 1803 and the Battle of Laswari in November 1803, which broke Maratha resistance in northern India. He re-assumed the role from October 1805 to October 1807 following the death of his successor-designate John Graves Simcoe and the brief tenure of Charles Cornwallis, who died on 5 October 1805 shortly after arriving to resume governorship and command. Lake focused on modernizing the army by improving mobility across infantry, cavalry, and artillery branches. Lieutenant-General Forbes Champagné acted as officiating from December 1807 to January 1811, during a relatively stable period following the Maratha campaigns. General Sir George Nugent held the position from January 1811 to October 1813, overseeing administrative reforms and preparations amid lingering regional tensions. General Francis Rawdon-Hastings, Earl of Moira (later Marquess of Hastings), commanded from October 1813 to January 1823, directing the (1814–1816), which annexed territories like Kumaon and Garhwal, and the Third Anglo-Maratha War (1817–1818), culminating in the defeat of the Maratha Confederacy and Pindari raiders, significantly expanding British influence. General Sir Edward Paget succeeded him from January 1823 to October 1825, initiating the in 1824. Field Marshal Stapleton Cotton, Lord Combermere, served from 1825 to 1830, achieving the capture of the fortress of Bharatpur in January 1826 after a prolonged , restoring a pro-British ruler and demonstrating improved siege tactics. General , , held command from 1830 to 1832, followed briefly by General Sir Edward Barnes from 1832 to 1833. Subsequent commanders included General Sir Henry Fane (1835–1839), who managed operations in Coorg and the North-West Frontier; General Sir Jasper Nicolls (1840–1843); and Field Marshal Hugh Gough (1843–1849), who led victories in the (e.g., Sobraon, 1846) and (e.g., Chillianwala and , 1849), annexing .
Commander-in-ChiefTenureKey Contributions
Gerard Lake1801–1805, 1805–1807Maratha War victories; army modernization
Charles Cornwallis1805Administrative oversight; died in office
George Hewett1807 (brief)Transitional command
Forbes Champagné1807–1811Officiating during consolidation
George Nugent1811–1813Reforms and stability
Francis Rawdon-Hastings1813–1823Nepalese and Maratha wars
Edward Paget1823–1825Burmese War initiation
Stapleton Cotton (Combermere)1825–1830Bharatpur siege
George Ramsay (Dalhousie)1830–1832Frontier management
Edward Barnes1832–1833Interim operations
Henry Fane1835–1839Coorg annexation; frontier defense
Jasper Nicolls1840–1843Administrative focus
Hugh Gough1843–1849Sikh Wars; Punjab conquest
William Gomm1849–1856Post-Sikh stabilization
George Anson1856–1857Early Mutiny response; died May 1857
General Sir William Maynard Gomm commanded from 1849 to 1856, maintaining readiness amid simmering discontent, while General George Anson took over in 1856 but died of on 13 May 1857, just as the Indian Rebellion began. These leaders operated under the , balancing military expansion with policy, often integrating European and forces numbering over 200,000 by mid-century.

Reorganization and Evolution under Direct Crown Rule

Structural Changes Post-1857 Rebellion

The transferred the administration of from the to the British Crown, vesting military authority directly in the Secretary of State for India and, through him, the (styled from 1858). This shift abolished the Company's separate military establishments, merging their European components into a unified force under Crown command and placing the overall under the , who was appointed by the Crown and reported to the . To address vulnerabilities exposed by the , the of 1858–1859 recommended sweeping reforms, including a reduction in native troop strength from approximately 232,000 to 130,000, an increase in European soldiers from 45,000 to over 65,000 by 1863, and the recruitment of "martial races" such as , Gurkhas, and Pathans to diversify and dilute potential disloyalty among sepoys. Artillery units were removed from native control and reserved exclusively for European regiments, while the three (Bengal, Madras, and Bombay) retained separate organizations but operated under centralized oversight by the to prevent localized mutinies. The 's role was integrated into the civil administration as an extraordinary member of the , ensuring military advice influenced policy while subordinating operational command to the Viceroy's political direction; this arrangement, formalized by , marked a departure from the Company's more autonomous military governance. Subsequent measures, such as the , added a dedicated military member to the council, further embedding the Commander-in-Chief within the bureaucratic framework and emphasizing loyalty oaths to over Company affiliations.

Commanders-in-Chief from 1861 to 1947

The position of Commander-in-Chief, India, oversaw the following the transfer of authority from the to the Crown via the , unifying command over the into a single force responsible for , frontier defense, and imperial engagements. Appointees were typically senior British Army generals with Indian service experience, serving five-year terms subject to extension or early relief based on health, policy needs, or operational demands. The succession of Commanders-in-Chief from 1861 to 1947, as documented in military historical records, is as follows:
No.NameRankTenure
1Sir Hugh RoseLieutenant-General1860–1865
2Sir William MansfieldGeneral1865–1870
3Lord Napier of MagdalaGeneral1870–1876
4Sir Frederick HainesGeneral1876–1881
5Sir Donald StewartGeneral1881–1885
6Sir Frederick RobertsLieutenant-General (later Field Marshal)1885–1893
7Sir George WhiteGeneral1893–1895
8Sir William LockhartGeneral1898–1900
9Sir Arthur PalmerGeneral1900–1902
10Viscount Kitchener of KhartoumGeneral (later Field Marshal)1902–1909
11Sir O'Moore CreaghGeneral1909–1914
12Sir Beauchamp DuffGeneral1914–1916
13Sir Charles MonroGeneral (later Field Marshal)1916–1920
14Lord RawlinsonGeneral (later Field Marshal)1920–1925
15Sir Philip ChetwodeGeneral (later Field Marshal)1925–1930
16Sir Robert CasselsGeneral1930–1935
17Sir John SheaLieutenant-General1935 (acting)
18Sir Robert Gordon-FinlaysonLieutenant-General1936–1937 (acting periods)
19Sir Claude AuchinleckGeneral1941–1943 (and 1943–1947)
20Sir Archibald WavellField Marshal1941 (interim)
21Sir Alan CunninghamLieutenant-GeneralVarious acting roles 1940s
Notable among these were Viscount Kitchener, who implemented sweeping reforms including the unification of , , and reserve structures to enhance efficiency against potential Russian threats on the North-West Frontier, increasing the army's strength to over 200,000 regulars by 1909. Lord Roberts focused on mobility and marksmanship training, drawing from Afghan campaign lessons to prepare for rapid frontier responses. Later incumbents like managed expansions, overseeing recruitment of 2.5 million troops and for Burma and Middle East theaters, amid challenges of divided loyalties post-Indian National Army trials. Tenures often involved acting officers during transitions or crises, reflecting the position's operational demands until in 1947.

Role, Powers, and Operational Framework

Core Military Responsibilities

The Commander-in-Chief, , exercised supreme operational command over the , encompassing both British and native troops, as well as auxiliary and local forces under British control. This authority included directing all military deployments, maneuvers, and engagements within and its frontiers, ensuring the readiness of forces for defense against external threats such as incursions or advances, and for imperial expeditions beyond the subcontinent. The position holder was directly accountable for the , , and of troops, including the oversight of , supply chains, and garrison maintenance across the three prior to unification efforts. In practice, these responsibilities extended to maintaining , suppressing rebellions, and coordinating with civil during emergencies, such as the distribution of forces for policing princely states or quelling unrest. The advised the —later —on all , with the latter required to consult the office on operational matters to align armed forces with broader governance objectives. As an extraordinary member of the post-1858, the influenced decisions on military expenditure, , and structural reforms, such as the of into a unified command under figures like in 1902. During global conflicts, such as the World Wars, core duties expanded to include base development for Allied operations, troop mobilization for overseas theaters, and internal stabilization to prevent disruptions from nationalist movements. For instance, in , the role involved preparing India's defenses as a staging ground while managing and security measures on military grounds. These functions underscored the office's dual military and quasi-administrative remit, subordinate only to the Viceroy's civilian oversight, which prioritized imperial strategic imperatives over local autonomy.

Interactions with Government and Civil Administration

The Commander-in-Chief, India, operated under the overarching authority of the , who, following the , assumed direct responsibility for both civil and military administration in , with the serving as the principal military advisor. The attended meetings of the as an extraordinary member, providing input on defense matters while the retained final decision-making power over policy, including military deployments and budgets, to ensure civilian supremacy. This structure reflected London's intent to prevent military dominance, drawing from domestic precedents where civilian ministers controlled armed forces, though adapted to 's expansive responsibilities. Operational interactions involved coordination with civil administrators, such as provincial governors and the , for logistics, recruitment, and , where the 's directives required Viceregal approval to avoid conflicts between efficiency and fiscal oversight by civil departments. A persistent tension arose from the "dual control" system, under which the held operational command of troops, but a separate Member of the Viceroy's Council—typically a or junior officer—managed administrative functions like supply and , leading to inefficiencies in and during campaigns. This arrangement prioritized bureaucratic checks over streamlined command, as evidenced by pre-1905 disputes over and transport, where civil vetoes delayed military preparations. The most prominent clash occurred between Viceroy Lord Curzon and from 1902 to 1905, centered on reforming this dual system. Kitchener, appointed in November 1902, advocated abolishing the Military Member's office to consolidate administrative and operational authority under the , arguing that divided responsibility hampered reforms needed for modern warfare, such as reorganizing supply chains and reducing redundant expenditures estimated at millions of rupees annually. Curzon opposed this, viewing it as an erosion of civilian control essential to prevent military overreach in a colonial context reliant on civil intelligence for . The British government, via St. John Brodrick, supported Kitchener's position in 1904, prompting Curzon's on August 20, 1905, and the subsequent Esher Committee reforms that enhanced the 's executive powers over military administration. Post-1905, interactions evolved toward greater military autonomy in internal matters, with the gaining direct oversight of the Department while still accountable to the for alignment with . By , this facilitated smoother collaboration during expansions, such as the 1930s frontier operations, where civil administrators provided logistical support under military lead, though budgetary disputes persisted amid economic constraints. On the eve of independence in 1947, the retained significant influence as a key advisor in the 's council, underscoring the system's balance of military professionalism with civil oversight forged through historical precedents like the 1857 rebellion's lessons on integrated control.

Evolution of Command Authority Over Time

The authority of the , India, initially derived from the Company's dual civil-military governance, where the position exercised direct operational control over forces while advising the , but lacked formal integration into executive decision-making until the mid-19th century. Following the , the established Crown rule, subordinating the explicitly to the as the supreme civil authority; the role was formalized as ex-officio membership in the , granting advisory input on military policy but ensuring operational commands aligned with imperial directives rather than independent commercial interests. This shift emphasized civil supremacy, with the responsible for army administration and field operations under Viceregal oversight, reflecting a causal response to the rebellion's exposure of fragmented Company-era controls that had enabled sepoy discontent. A pivotal evolution occurred during Lord Kitchener's tenure as from November 1902 to 1909, when he reorganized the fragmented into a unified structure, abolishing the separate administrative role of the Military Member of the 's Council to consolidate operational, logistical, and recruitment powers under a single military head. This reform, implemented despite resistance from Lord Curzon—who resigned in August 1905 amid the dispute—enhanced the 's internal command efficiency by eliminating dual hierarchies that had diluted battlefield readiness, yet preserved subordination to the for strategic alignment with broader imperial policy. By 1905, the comprised eight infantry and four cavalry divisions, with the directing standardized training and " races" recruitment policies that prioritized empirical combat effectiveness over prior regional biases. The Government of India Acts of 1919 and 1935 further refined this framework without eroding core military autonomy. The 1919 Act reserved defense matters to the amid dyarchy's provincial devolution, reinforcing the 's exclusive purview over army mobilization and frontier defense while integrating advisory roles with expanding Indian legislative input. The 1935 Act maintained the Viceroy's command-in-chief designation for all forces, with the incumbent executing orders, but introduced federal elements that theoretically extended civil oversight to princely states' contingents, though in practice, direct control over the remained unchanged until exigencies temporarily amplified operational latitude under figures like . Throughout, these adjustments balanced military professionalism—evidenced by the Indian Army's expansion to over 2.5 million troops by 1945—against institutional safeguards for civilian primacy, averting the command fractures seen in 1857.

Major Military Engagements and Achievements

Campaigns in Frontier Wars and Expansions

The territorial expansions of British India involved decisive military campaigns directed or overseen by successive Commanders-in-Chief, integrating regions like and into Company and later Crown control. In 1843, British forces under Major-General , commanding the , secured through victories at the on 17 February—where 2,800 British and Indian troops defeated an estimated 20,000-30,000 forces, inflicting over 5,000 casualties—and the on 24 March, prompting the East India Company's annexation of the province on 29 August. These operations, authorized by Governor-General , extended British influence westward to counter perceived threats from Persian and Afghan encroachments. Under Hugh Gough, appointed in August 1843, the (1845-1846) saw British-Indian armies, numbering around 20,000 in key engagements, repel Sikh forces at battles including Mudki (18 December 1845), Ferozeshah (21-22 December 1845), and Sobraon (10 February 1846), resulting in the that ceded territories and established British oversight of the . Gough personally commanded in the Second Anglo-Sikh War (1848-1849), achieving victory at the on 21 February 1849 with 24,000 troops against 30,000-60,000 Sikhs, leading to Punjab's full annexation on 29 March 1849 and the extension of British authority to the North-West Frontier. These campaigns incorporated the Sikh soldiery into the , bolstering frontier defenses. The Second Anglo-Burmese War (1852-1853), prosecuted under Sir William Gomm, involved an expeditionary force of approximately 10,000 British and Indian troops under Major-General Henry Godwin, capturing Rangoon on 5 June 1852 and Pegu, culminating in the annexation of Lower Burma (Pegu) on 20 December 1852 to safeguard eastern trade routes and teak supplies. Post-annexation, frontier wars on the North-West Frontier demanded recurrent interventions to suppress Pashtun tribal raids and assert control along the Afghan border. Following Punjab's integration, the British conducted over 60 punitive expeditions between 1849 and 1947, often mobilizing division-sized forces of 10,000-15,000 troops to enforce buffer zones. Notable under Sir George White (1893-1898) were the of 1895, where Major-General Sir Robert Low's 15,000-strong relief column traversed the Malakand Pass to relieve the besieged garrison, and the (1897-1898), led by Lieutenant-General Sir William Lockhart with 35,000 troops against and tribesmen, destroying strongholds in the region to deter incursions amid the rivalries. These operations, characterized by mobile columns and blockade tactics, maintained imperial security but incurred high logistical costs and casualties from terrain and guerrilla resistance. Later efforts, such as the under air-ground coordination, reflected evolving doctrines but perpetuated the pattern of temporary pacification rather than permanent subjugation.

Contributions to World Wars and Global Conflicts

The of oversaw the rapid expansion and deployment of the during , mobilizing approximately 1.5 million volunteers—the largest all-volunteer force assembled by any nation in the conflict—to support British-led Allied operations across multiple theaters. Under figures such as Sir Beauchamp Duff (1914–1916) and Sir Charles Monro (1916–1920), the office directed the formation of expeditionary forces dispatched to the Western Front in and starting September 1914, where divisions held critical lines against advances, suffering heavy casualties in battles like Neuve Chapelle (February–March 1915) and Loos (September–October 1915). Additional contingents were sent to (modern ) from November 1914, enduring grueling sieges at Kut-al-Amara (1915–1916) under General Sir James Willcocks, and to , , and , where troops comprised a significant portion of the Allied effort against forces. By 1918, combatant strength reached 573,000, with the coordinating recruitment drives that drew primarily from and other martial-race designated regions, enabling sustained reinforcements despite logistical strains from India's internal defenses. In , the position's responsibilities expanded under the direct Crown rule framework, with Commanders-in-Chief such as Archibald Wavell (1941–1943) and (1943–1947) managing the enlistment of over 2.5 million Indian soldiers, who formed the backbone of British forces in Asia and secondary theaters. Auchinleck, in particular, focused on logistical overhaul, training, and supply chains from to sustain the Fourteenth Army's reconquest of from Japanese occupation between 1944 and 1945, providing essential maintenance and reinforcements that enabled advances from and to Rangoon. Indian divisions also contributed to North African campaigns, including (1942), and the Italian front post-1943, with the ensuring equitable division of units and resources amid competing demands from and commands. This , peaking at over 2 million under arms by 1945, underscored the office's role in transforming the into a versatile, expeditionary force capable of operating across global conflicts, though it relied heavily on British officer cadre for high-level direction. Beyond the World Wars, the directed limited detachments to peripheral global engagements, such as the Allied in against Bolshevik forces, where a small contingent supported British logistics in , reflecting the office's adaptability to commitments outside major theaters. These efforts highlighted the strategic value of India's military infrastructure but also exposed dependencies on local recruitment and overseas transport, with total wartime casualties exceeding 100,000 across both world wars, primarily from combat and disease.

Controversies, Criticisms, and Alternative Perspectives

Role in Suppressing Indian Uprisings

The of held primary responsibility for directing the Army's efforts to quell internal revolts and mutinies that threatened colonial authority, often involving rapid deployment of regular troops, loyal native units, and reinforcements to restore order and prevent escalation. These operations typically emphasized overwhelming force, fortified positions, and targeted reprisals against rebel leaders and strongholds, reflecting the position's mandate to maintain military supremacy amid widespread discontent over land revenue, cultural impositions, and sepoy grievances. The most prominent example occurred during the , a widespread mutiny that evolved into coordinated attacks on British garrisons across northern and central India, beginning with the Meerut uprising on May 10, 1857. Sir Colin Campbell, appointed on August 17, 1857, following the deaths of George Anson and interim leadership, reorganized scattered forces and prioritized relieving besieged outposts. His command oversaw the recapture of by September 1857 under John Nicholson's assault, though Campbell himself focused on subsequent operations. Campbell's forces relieved Lucknow on November 17, 1857, breaking the siege by under after intense street fighting that killed over 2,000 troops and an estimated 7,000-10,000 , while evacuating 1,000 civilians and soldiers. In a second phase from March 2-21, 1858, he directed the full recapture of , employing heavy artillery and infantry assaults that razed rebel positions, resulting in approximately 15,000-20,000 rebel casualties and the flight of surviving leaders. These actions, supported by Sikh and contingents loyal to the , systematically dismantled the rebellion's core in the Gangetic plain by mid-1858, though guerrilla resistance persisted until 1859. Suppression tactics under the Commander-in-Chief's authority included summary executions of captured mutineers—over 100 at Cawnpore in December 1857—to deter further desertions, alongside the destruction of villages harboring rebels, which contributed to civilian deaths estimated in the thousands during reprisals. Such measures followed initial rebel atrocities, including of 200 women and children at Cawnpore in June 1857, but drew contemporary criticism for their severity, even as they achieved the rebellion's containment with casualties totaling around 6,000 military personnel. Earlier instances, such as the suppression of localized mutinies like in 1806 under General Sir Henry Bentinck's local command (with oversight from the departing Gerard Lake's reformed army structure), underscored the role's evolution toward integrated rapid-response capabilities.

Debates on Military Discipline, Loyalty, and Colonial Ethics

Following the , military authorities, under the oversight of the , implemented reforms aimed at bolstering troop through selective recruitment from so-called "martial races" such as , Gurkhas, and Pathans, a policy formalized by Frederick Roberts in the 1880s and expanded by after 1902, which prioritized ethnic groups perceived as inherently warlike and less prone to . This approach, while empirically effective in averting widespread mutinies during the First World War—when over 1.3 million troops served loyally under command—sparked debates on whether stemmed from genuine allegiance or coerced incentives like higher pay and land grants, with critics arguing it fostered ethnic divisions to undermine pan-Indian unity. Discipline debates centered on balancing European-style regimentation with Indian cultural practices; pre-1857 laxity in presidency armies, as noted by Commander-in-Chief Henry Fane in 1836 regarding the Madras Army's "alarming signs of faltering discipline," contributed to the rebellion's outbreak, prompting post-revolt codes that emphasized drill, loyalty oaths, and swift punishments like flogging or execution to deter desertion rates, which had peaked at 10-15% in some units during the uprising. Proponents, including British officers, defended these as essential for operational cohesion in a multi-ethnic force comprising over 150,000 native troops by 1900, citing causal links between enforced hierarchy and battlefield efficacy in frontier campaigns; however, Indian nationalists and later historians contended that such measures suppressed natural affinities, with evidence from regimental records showing resentment over caste-based segregation as a tool of control rather than merit. Colonial ethics came under scrutiny for the moral implications of disciplinary reprisals, particularly the use of "blowing from guns"—a method employed against mutineers in 1857-1858 under commanders reporting to the , who held powers until formal unification in 1903—intended as a deterrent but decried as barbaric even by some contemporaries like , who highlighted its psychological terror on civilian populations. Ethical debates persisted into the , as seen in Second World War-era concerns raised by about Indianisation policies eroding loyalty, potentially fueling defections to the (INA), where over 40,000 British Indian prisoners joined Subhas Chandra Bose's force; while British justifications emphasized necessities for empire defense—evidenced by the army's suppression of the 1946 without mass defections—post-independence analyses, often from academia, critique these as systemic , though empirical data on sustained performance under duress supports the view that pragmatically prioritized stability over universalist ethics.

Transition to Independence and Abolition

Final Years and Handover to Indian Leadership

Field Marshal Sir Claude Auchinleck assumed the role of Commander-in-Chief, India, on 20 June 1943, amid the final stages of preparations, including logistical support for Allied campaigns in . In the postwar period, his tenure emphasized of the expanded —which had peaked at over 2.5 million personnel—and administrative reforms to address ethnic and religious compositions in anticipation of political transfer. These efforts involved reorganizing units to mitigate communal tensions, as the army's diverse regiments reflected India's demographic divisions, setting the stage for logistics. As the Indian Independence Act of 1947 mandated partition into dominions, directed the equitable division of the standing army of approximately 400,000 regular troops, allocating around 260,000—predominantly Hindu and Sikh personnel—to the and 140,000—mainly Muslim troops—to the . This process, executed amid and mass migrations, prioritized operational continuity by preserving regimental integrity where possible while reassigning assets like equipment and bases proportionally. Challenges included mutinies in some units and logistical strains from rapid withdrawals, which strained British oversight. On 15 August 1947, coinciding with , transitioned to of and , a temporary post to supervise the military bifurcation and British troop repatriation until November 1947, when his headquarters closed prematurely due to completed withdrawals. The position of Commander-in-Chief, India, was thereby abolished, with supreme military authority vesting in the respective dominion governments under their governors-general. Handover to leadership proceeded incrementally to maintain stability, with officers retained in key commands; for instance, General Sir Robert Lockhart served as India's inaugural Chief of the Army Staff from , advising on integration and facing immediate tests like the . This transitional arrangement, justified by the nascent states' limited indigenous senior officer cadre, extended until generals assumed full control, reflecting pragmatic continuity over immediate localization amid partition's chaos.

Dissolution of the Position in 1947

Upon the partition of British India into the independent dominions of and on 15 August 1947, the position of Commander-in-Chief, —responsible for the unified —was dissolved in its imperial structure, ending direct British oversight of a single subcontinental force. Sir , who had served as the last pre-independence Commander-in-Chief since 1943, was redesignated for and to oversee the equitable division of military assets, including the partitioning of the approximately 400,000-strong army into separate national contingents. The division allocated roughly 260,000 troops—predominantly and —to and 140,000—mainly —to , alongside the of regiments, , and on religious and regional lines to minimize communal friction amid mass migrations and violence. Auchinleck's role emphasized logistical equity, such as exchanging personnel between units (e.g., transferring Jat and Sikh soldiers from Pakistani-assigned regiments for Muslim counterparts), though challenges like the strained the process. His headquarters in facilitated this handover but faced pressures, with seeking his departure by 30 November 1947 while advocated retention until April 1948. By November 1947, Auchinleck's supreme command apparatus was shuttered, and he departed , signifying the conclusive termination of the colonial-era position and the shift to sovereign armies under governors-general. Initial post-partition commands in and were assumed by British officers—General Sir Robert Lockhart for and General Sir for —to provide continuity amid partition-induced instability, including ethnic clashes and the Indo-Pakistani War over that erupted in October 1947. This transitional arrangement preserved operational expertise but underscored the provisional nature of foreign leadership in the nascent states' militaries.

Legacy and Long-Term Impact

Influence on the Modern

The centralized command structure established under the Commander-in-Chief, , particularly through Lord Kitchener's reforms implemented between 1902 and 1909, unified the previously separate of , Bombay, and Madras into a single organized under General Headquarters, , with divisions structured for both and field operations against external threats. This framework emphasized logistical self-sufficiency, standardized training, and a balance between imperial defense needs and frontier policing, providing the organizational blueprint that the post-independence adopted without fundamental restructuring upon in 1947. The persistence of this model contributed to the military's operational cohesion during the immediate post-colonial period, enabling rapid adaptation to conflicts like the 1947-1948 Indo-Pakistani War, where inherited regimental units formed the core fighting force. Regimental traditions, rank hierarchies, and disciplinary codes shaped by successive Commanders-in-Chief, including the "martial races" recruitment policy favoring certain ethnic groups for combat roles, endured into the , fostering unit and but also embedding social hierarchies that influenced enlistment patterns until partial reforms in the and beyond. The professional ethos of apolitical —initially to the and redirected to the state after —stemmed from the Commander-in-Chief's oversight of officer training at institutions like the Royal Military College, which evolved into the , ensuring a cadre of leaders committed to constitutional subordination rather than political . This causal continuity in command philosophy has been credited with the Army's , as evidenced by its avoidance of coups despite regional volatility, contrasting with militaries in other former colonies where colonial structures dissolved more abruptly. Military doctrine under the prioritized infantry-centric warfare, coordination, and defensive depth suited to India's geography, elements that informed post-1947 strategies such as the 1962 responses and ongoing border deployments. While modernization efforts since independence incorporated indigenous production and joint operations, the foundational emphasis on expeditionary versatility—honed through campaigns under British command—underpins capabilities like divisions and UN contributions, with over 250,000 troops deployed globally by 2023. Recent initiatives, including the 2022-2025 review of over 75 colonial-era practices such as regimental nomenclature and ceremonial protocols, signal incremental but affirm the enduring operational efficacy of the inherited system.

Historical Evaluations and Causal Analyses

The position of Commander-in-Chief, India, has been assessed by historians as a cornerstone of efficacy in the subcontinent, enabling the transformation of disparate forces into a cohesive capable of territorial expansion and defense. Appointed first in 1748 to Major , the role centralized oversight of sepoy recruitment and training on European models, fostering discipline and firepower that yielded victories like Plassey on June 23, 1757, where 3,000 Company troops defeated a force over ten times larger through coordinated artillery and volleys. This organizational innovation causally linked to broader conquests, as fragmented Indian states—lacking unified command or standardized —could not match the 's sustained campaigning ability, with fiscal-military reforms funding professional cadres that outlasted opponents in wars from (1767–1799) to (1845–1849). Causal realism underscores how the C-in-C's authority mitigated pre-1857 presidium rivalries (, Madras, Bombay), allowing integrated operations that exploited technological edges, such as rifled muskets and field guns, against numerically superior but tactically rigid foes; for instance, under Lake during the Second Anglo-Maratha War (1803–1805), rapid maneuvers secured and northern territories, though high casualties at Laswari highlighted risks of aggressive frontal assaults. Post-1857 reforms, including assumption of control on November 1, , elevated the C-in-C to report directly to the , enhancing responsiveness—evident in Hugh Gough's Sikh War triumphs at Sobraon (February 10, 1846) despite the costly Chillianwala (January 13, 1849), where poor reconnaissance amplified losses but did not derail . Empirical data from campaign records affirm these outcomes stemmed from superior unit cohesion and supply chains, rather than mere numerical disparity, countering narratives that downplay organizational in favor of exogenous factors like or alliances. In the twentieth century, evaluations praise reformers like Herbert Kitchener, who as C-in-C from November 1902 restructured the army into 10 divisions with numerical regiments, discarding inefficient silos and boosting for global deployment; this facilitated the mobilization of 1.3 million troops by 1918 in , contributing to Mesopotamian and Western Front efforts despite logistical strains. Causal analyses link such adaptations to imperial longevity, as the position's strategic purview integrated "martial races" recruitment—favoring and Gurkhas for perceived reliability—yielding loyal forces that suppressed internal threats while projecting power abroad, though 1857's mutiny (sparked by cartridge rumors on May 10, ) exposed vulnerabilities in cultural oversight under C-in-C George Anson, whose untimely death necessitated Colin Campbell's effective reconquest of by March 1858. Historiographic shifts, often influenced by post-independence academia, critique expansionist policies as fiscally burdensome—draining £100 million annually by 1900—but overlook how C-in-C-led innovations, like Claude Auchinleck's 1940s expansions to 2.5 million personnel, causally enabled survival against threats in , sustaining the until 1947. Alternative perspectives, including those from nationalist sources, attribute overstretch to C-in-C decisions like frontier "forward policy" under Roberts (1885–1893), which provoked Afghan incursions costing 1,000 lives at Maiwand (July 27, 1880), yet quantitative assessments of battle outcomes—British wins in 80% of major engagements per regimental logs—validate the position's net effectiveness in causal terms: unified command amplified small European officer cadres' leverage over vast native levies, preventing the collapse seen in contemporaneous African or Asian colonial failures. Ultimately, the C-in-C's evolution from operative to linchpin causally underpinned a 200-year in , professionalizing forces that transitioned intact to dominion armies, though modern reevaluations must weigh empirical metrics against ideologically skewed indictments of colonial violence.

References

  1. [1]
    Colin Campbell: A soldier of coolness and precision
    When news of the Indian Mutiny (1857-59) reached England in July 1857, the Prime Minister, Lord Palmerston, offered Campbell the position of Commander-in-Chief ...Missing: period | Show results with:period
  2. [2]
    The Army Of India - Hansard - UK Parliament
    The Commander in Chief of India is also Commander in Chief of Her Majesty's forces in India, but he has nothing whatever to do with the other Commanders in ...
  3. [3]
    In November 1902 Lord Kitchener arrived in India and became ...
    Apr 3, 2025 · Lord Kitchener was appointed Commander-In-Chief of India in 1903. He ... date of his local Major General rank starting January 08, 1948.
  4. [4]
    Frederick Roberts: Bobs | National Army Museum
    In 1885, he succeeded to the post of Commander-in-Chief in India, a position he held until 1893. He was appointed Knight Grand Commander of the Order of the ...Missing: separate | Show results with:separate
  5. [5]
    Commander-in-Chief, India - Papers of Field Marshal Sir Claude ...
    In June 1943 Auchinleck was appointed Commander-in-Chief, India, for a second time, in succession to Wavell, who had been promoted to Viceroy.
  6. [6]
    [PDF] Imperial Influence On The Postcolonial Indian Army, 1945-1973
    542 This official history puts the final decision to invade on. September ... As the commander in chief, the President took on the ceremonial role that had.
  7. [7]
    Origins of the British East India Company Army - Brown Pundits
    Jun 29, 2016 · French captured Madras in 1746 and EIC was forced to organize a military establishment. They raised European infantry, artillery and cavalry and ...
  8. [8]
    Armies of the East India Company | National Army Museum
    Its commander-in-chief was recognised as the senior Company military figure in India. British Army units were sometimes attached to the three armies.
  9. [9]
    Stringer Lawrence | East India Company, Battle of Plassey, Maratha ...
    Sep 26, 2025 · In 1761 he was made commander in chief of all East India Company forces, with a seat on the council and a royal commission as major general.
  10. [10]
    What was the East India Company? | National Trust
    Starting his career as a junior mercantile agent, Robert Clive rose to become Governor of Bengal and Commander-in-Chief of the East India Company's army.
  11. [11]
    Gerard Lake, 1st Viscount Lake - Britannica
    In 1800 Lake was made commander in chief in India, and after arriving in Calcutta (now Kokata) in July 1801, strove to modernize the Indian army. He became ...
  12. [12]
    Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Lake, Gerard
    Lake was appointed commander-in-chief and second member of council in India on 13 Oct. 1800. He took over the command in succession to Sir Alured Clark [q. v.] ...
  13. [13]
    Charles Cornwallis, 1st Marquess and 2nd Earl Cornwallis - Britannica
    Oct 1, 2025 · He was reappointed governor-general of India in 1805 but died shortly after his arrival. ... The American commander in chief, General ...
  14. [14]
    Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Nugent, George
    Dec 30, 2020 · He was commander-in-chief in India in 1811–13. He became a full general on 4 June 1813, and in 1815 was made G.C.B. In 1819 he was made an ...
  15. [15]
    Francis Rawdon-Hastings, 1st marquess of Hastings - Britannica
    Francis Rawdon-Hastings, 1st marquess of Hastings was a British soldier and colonial administrator. As governor-general of Bengal, he conquered the Maratha ...
  16. [16]
    Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Hastings, Francis ...
    ... Moira was invested with the order of the Garter, and on 18 Nov. 1812 was appointed governor-general of Bengal and commander-in-chief of the forces in India.
  17. [17]
    PAGET, Hon. Edward (1775-1849), of Cowes Castle, I.o.W.
    -in-c. India 1822-25. Groom of bedchamber 1816-22; gov. Cowes Castle 1818-26; gov. Ceylon 1820-2; gov ...
  18. [18]
    British Generals of the Napoleonic Wars 1793-1815 Cotton, Stapleton
    Commander-in-Chief India 1825-1830 and captured Fortress of Bhurtpore India 1826. Constable of the Tower 1852-1865. Change name to Stapleton-Cotton 1827.
  19. [19]
    Commanders in Chief of the Indian Army (Pre Independence)
    1. Major General Lord Clive · 2. Brigadier General Sir Robert Baker · 3. Colonel Alexander Chapman · 4. Lieutenant General Sir John Clavering · 5. Lieutenant ...Missing: 1807-1811 | Show results with:1807-1811
  20. [20]
    Government of India Act of 1858 - Britannica
    The military commander in chief sat with that council as an extraordinary member. A sixth ordinary member was assigned to the viceroy's Executive Council after ...
  21. [21]
    Government of India Act 1858, Background, Provisions, Features
    Oct 1, 2025 · Military Reforms: The Act of 1858 brought the Indian Army under the direct control of the British Crown, with the Commander-in-Chief of India ...
  22. [22]
    Changes In The Army After 1857 Revolt - UPSC with Nikhil
    Nov 23, 2022 · After 1858, the Indian army was meticulously reorganised. The transfer of power to the Crown necessitated some changes. The European forces of ...<|separator|>
  23. [23]
    British Indian Army Reorganization (Post-1857) – A Digital Explorer
    Explanation: The Peel Commission (1859) was specifically tasked with reorganizing the Indian Army after the 1857 Revolt to ensure its loyalty and prevent ...
  24. [24]
    1858: 21 & 22 Victoria c.106: Government of India Act
    All Appointments to Cadetships, Naval and Military, and all Admissions to Service not herein otherwise expressly provided for, shall be vested in Her Majesty; ...<|control11|><|separator|>
  25. [25]
    Herbert Kitchener: The taskmaster | National Army Museum
    Kitchener was appointed Commander-in-Chief in India in 1902. He re-organised the Indian Army, merging the three Presidency armies into a unified force with ...
  26. [26]
    Claude Auchinleck: The auk | National Army Museum
    Promoted to general in November 1940, Auchinleck was appointed Commander-in-Chief India. His swift dispatch of soldiers to deal with the uprising in Iraq (1941) ...
  27. [27]
    Frederick Sleigh Roberts, 1st Earl Roberts - Britannica
    Sep 26, 2025 · From 1885 to 1893 he was commander in chief in India. As the second British commander in chief (December 1899–November 1900) in the South ...Missing: tenure | Show results with:tenure
  28. [28]
    THE ARMY IN INDIA. (Hansard, 27 June 1890) - API Parliament UK
    ... Indian Army. Changes, of a similar kind have been made in the military ... supreme command. I do not suppose anyone out of India, who has not a ...<|control11|><|separator|>
  29. [29]
    British Troops, India (Welfare And Administration) - Hansard - UK ...
    The Commander-in-Chief, India, is directly responsible for the welfare and administration of British troops serving in India and the Supreme Commander ...
  30. [30]
    India—The Governor General And The Commander In Chief - Hansard
    In all military matters it is, no doubt, his bounden duty to consult the Commander in Chief; and it is necessary to the interests of the public service that ...Missing: core | Show results with:core<|separator|>
  31. [31]
    Postal and Telegraphic Censorship (Hansard, 18 May 1944)
    asked the Secretary of State for India who is responsible for the ... Commander-in-Chief, India. It is exercised on grounds of military security ...
  32. [32]
    Orders Of The Day - Hansard - UK Parliament
    ... responsible for it did not throw armies and air forces about at will. It is ... Commander-in-Chief, India. Under him the land forces are commanded by ...
  33. [33]
    Government of India Act 1858 or Victoria's Proclamation - Rau's IAS
    Commander-in-Chief of Army was made an extraordinary member of the Council. Law member was to be a barrister and the other three were covenanted servants of the ...
  34. [34]
    Issue, Role, and Personality: The Kitchener-Curzon Dispute
    Both Kitchener and Curzon dealt directly with a general problem of civil-military relations: reconciling the principle of civilian control with the demands of ...Missing: controversy | Show results with:controversy
  35. [35]
    The Civil and the Military in India
    Feb 12, 2020 · Following the spat between Viceroy Lord Curzon and Commander-in-Chief General Kitchener, which led to Curzon's resignation in 1905, the ...
  36. [36]
    Issue, Role, and Personality: The Kitchener-Curzon Dispute - jstor
    In 1905 the Viceroy of India, Lord Curzon of Kedleston, was forced to resign as a result of a disagreement with his Commander-in-Chief, Lord.<|separator|>
  37. [37]
    [PDF] Curzon and the Limits of Viceregal Power: India, 1899-1905
    John Brodrick, Relations of Lord Curzon as Viceroy of India with the British Government, 1902- ... relations with the civil administration of India. The ...
  38. [38]
    Civil-Military Relations in India - jstor
    On the eve of independence the commander-in-chief dominated the defence apparatus as executive head of the armed forces and member of the governor-general's ...
  39. [39]
    Curzon, Kitchener and the problem of Indian Army administration ...
    In the first period (1899-1902) we shall consider (I) Curzon's problem with the Indian Army and (II) The problem of Kitchener's appointment to India, The second ...Missing: controversy civil
  40. [40]
    [PDF] CIvIL MILITARY RELATIONSHIP
    Dec 31, 2021 · In 1905, the civil military relationship led to discord between the then Commander-in-Chief, Lord Kitchener and the Viceroy Lord Curzon.
  41. [41]
    The state and the soldier: Coup-proofing of India's civil–military ...
    Jun 18, 2025 · 33 In 1905, the Viceroy of India, Lord Curzon of Kedleston, was forced to resign as a result of a disagreement with his Commander-in-Chief, Lord ...
  42. [42]
    [Solved] There was a major controversy between the Commander-in ...
    Feb 6, 2025 · The dispute arose over the control and authority of the military in India, with Curzon wanting to maintain the Viceroy's supremacy over military ...
  43. [43]
    Indian Military Administration - Hansard - UK Parliament
    Under that system you had a Commander-in-Chief in India who was an officer of the very highest distinction either in the British or Indian service. He was ...Missing: interactions structure
  44. [44]
    British raj | Empire, India, Impact, History, & Facts | Britannica
    Sep 22, 2025 · The immediate result of the Indian Rebellion of 1857 was the abolition of the East India Company's control over India in favor of direct rule by ...
  45. [45]
    Indian Army History - Lord Kitchener's Reforms - GlobalSecurity.org
    Aug 3, 2012 · Lord Kitchener, appointed commander-in-chief of Indian forces in 1902, embarked on a reorganization to create an integrated all-India army.
  46. [46]
    [PDF] Government of India Act, 1935. - Legislation.gov.uk
    The Commander-in-Chief in India. PART II. THE FEDERATION OF INDIA. CHAPTER I ... military and air forces and to the governance of His Majesty's forces ...
  47. [47]
    Sir Charles James Napier | British General & Colonial Governor
    Sir Charles James Napier was a British general, who conquered (1843) Sind (now in Pakistan) and served as its governor (1843–47). Napier, a relative of the ...
  48. [48]
    First Sikh War | National Army Museum
    The North-West Frontier. Between 1849 and 1947, British and Indian soldiers undertook a series of punitive expeditions against the fiercely independent ...
  49. [49]
    Second Sikh War | National Army Museum
    The Punjab and the North-West Frontier were both annexed by the British Empire on 29 March 1849. The British government became the guardian of the young ...
  50. [50]
    Second Burma War | National Army Museum
    This brief conflict in 1852-53 was largely provoked by the East India Company, which was hungry for new territory and Burmese resources like teak and rubber.Missing: Chief | Show results with:Chief
  51. [51]
    [PDF] A Concise History of British Military Operations on the North-West ...
    Official History of Operations on the North-West Frontier of India 1920–. 1935 (Sussex, UK: Published jointly by The Naval & Military Press Ltd. and The.
  52. [52]
    The North-West Frontier | National Army Museum
    The North-West Frontier (now a region of Pakistan) became part of British India in the aftermath of the Second Sikh War (1848-49).
  53. [53]
    Indian Army's Contribution in World War I - SP's Land Forces
    India raised the world's largest volunteer army, 1.5 million in World War I. This war marked an important watershed. For the first time, Indian soldiers were ...
  54. [54]
    Indian Expeditionary Force - 1914-1918 Online
    Jun 26, 2018 · An Indian Expeditionary Force was sent to France and Belgium in September 1914 and held part of the frontline against the German army until ...
  55. [55]
    Indian Army in World War I - Military History - Oxford Bibliographies
    Feb 6, 2012 · In 1918 the number of combatant Indian soldiers rose to 573,000. The mobilization of massive amounts of military manpower between 1914 and 1918 ...
  56. [56]
    [PDF] Contribution of the Indian Armed Forces to the Second World War:
    The bulk of the Allied forces deployed in the region during the course of the war came from the Indian Army. And the Commander-in-Chief of India remained in ...
  57. [57]
    Auchinleck of the Indian Army - Warfare History Network
    His appointment as Commander-in-Chief in India had been generally acclaimed. We had seen how forthcoming he had been in sending troops to Basra and the ardour ...
  58. [58]
    Indian Rebellion of 1857 | History, Causes, Effects, Summary, & Facts
    The Indian army was also extensively reorganized. Another significant result of the rebellion was the beginning of the policy of consultation ...
  59. [59]
    Decisive events of the Indian Mutiny | National Army Museum
    This violent struggle led to the end of the East India Company and the reorganisation of the army. For many Indians, it also marked the beginning of their long ...
  60. [60]
    Colin Campbell, Baron Clyde | Accomplishments, Indian Rebellion ...
    Oct 16, 2025 · Campbell was appointed commander in chief in India on the outbreak of the Rebellion of 1857. He and his troops were responsible, among other ...
  61. [61]
    Indian Mutiny | Research Starters - EBSCO
    British East India Company regulars and British settlers. Principal commanders: British, General Sir Colin Campbell (1792–1863), General Sir Hugh Henry Rose ( ...
  62. [62]
    Siege of Lucknow (1857) | Description, Significance, & Rebellion
    Sir Colin Campbell, the British commander in chief in India, whose troops killed many rebel soldiers and civilians as they successfully extracted those at ...East India Company · Early Activities · Control Of India
  63. [63]
    11 - Army discipline, military cultures, and state-formation in colonial ...
    In 1836, the commander-in-chief in India, Henry Fane, drew attention to what he interpreted as alarming signs of faltering discipline in the Madras army ...Missing: debates | Show results with:debates
  64. [64]
    Morale, Discipline, and Discontent in the Indian Armed Forces
    Indian soldiers were content with British service, motivated by incentives, discipline, and racial pride, despite the lack of a nationalist ideology.
  65. [65]
    First World War: Purchasing Indian Loyalties - jstor
    The British revised recruitment policies, raised regiments based on caste, gave favors, and promised reforms to placate nationalists.
  66. [66]
    The New British Colonial Policy in Post-Revolt India - jstor
    (David 2002: 400). Another important area of military reform was that the power of the commanding officers to punish should be increased. Actually, ...
  67. [67]
    3 - Question of loyalty? The Indian National Army and the Royal ...
    There is no doubt that at the heart large sections of the British Indian Army sympathize with Azad Hind Fauj and its fight for freedom. But the British Indian ...
  68. [68]
    Independence and Partition, 1947 | National Army Museum
    A courageous, resourceful and ruthless military commander, Major-General Robert Clive helped secure India for Britain. But he was also seen as a greedy ...Self-Government · Farewell · Divided Subcontinent
  69. [69]
    Docs – India 1930 - 1947 – Headquarters Army in India
    The Commander-in-Chief was a General's appointment. This was usually a four year posting. It usually alternated between an officer of the British Army and one ...
  70. [70]
    To Issue 'Stand Down' or Not…: Britain and Kashmir, 1947–49
    Aug 29, 2014 · India wanted Auchinleck to go by 30 November 1947 while Pakistan wanted him to stay on until, at least, 1 April 1948. On 16 October 1947 and ...
  71. [71]
    Indianisation of the Indian Army- A historical perspective
    Sep 26, 2022 · It was on January 1, 1903 that Lord Kitchener carried out important changes in the Army's structure in India and the official designation ' ...
  72. [72]
    Military system during British period in India and its impact on post ...
    This paper examines the British Empire's impact on the Indian Army's narrative, ethos, culture, tactics, and strategies from 1945, when the army began to ...
  73. [73]
    [PDF] Evolution of the British Indian Army: An Overview
    Before this, although Indians were employed to guard the factories, they neither had a command system nor were they equipped with proper weapons and uniforms.
  74. [74]
    Imperial Influence On The Postcolonial Indian Army, 1945-1973
    The goal of this paper is to examine the legacy of the British Empire on the narrative, ethos, culture, tactics and strategies employed by the Indian Army after ...
  75. [75]
    Army sheds colonial legacy, proposes to name IMA companies after ...
    Jan 24, 2025 · The Indian military is reportedly seeking to review over 75 legacy laws, practices and procedures that date back to the British times.
  76. [76]
    [PDF] Rethinking the Origins of British India: State Formation and Military ...
    Geography alone does not explain conquest, for the Europeans shared the fertile Gangetic floodplains with other regimes. If natural resources were all that ...<|separator|>
  77. [77]
    The role of the Indian Army at the end of the Eighteenth Century
    Dec 6, 1973 · The British conquered much of India, partly because they could rely upon the native princes to quarrel with one another, partly because they ...
  78. [78]
    The Historiography of the Colonial Indian Army - Kaushik Roy, 1996
    Field Marshal Lord Roberts of Kandahar, Forty One Years in India, From Subaltern to Commander-in-Chief, London, 1898, pp. 84-86, 164-66.Missing: period | Show results with:period