How Far Do the Sources Suggest Lord Curzon Was a Successful Viceroy?

427 Words2 Pages
How far do the sources suggest Lord Curzon was a Successful viceroy? Looking at the sources they do seem to suggest that Lord Curzon, the Viceroy in India between 1898 and 1905, was a good viceroy. Although there is some evidence that disagrees with this and implies Curzon was actually not a widely accepted Viceroy, On the whole the evidence in the sources leans towards the idea that he was successful. As the sources shows Curzon was a better Viceroy than any other under the Raj. Therefore I believe Lord Curzon was indeed a successful viceroy. Of the Sources, source two is intended to convey Lord Curzon’s tenure as Viceroy in the most positive manner .It lists his positive qualities that made him “India’s best ruler under the raj” . However given the nature of the British Empire in countries such as India the main priority is not always the well fair of the country. For instance many believe Britain was draining India of its wealth rather than helping develop the country, Dadabhai Naoroji's created this “drain theory”. Britain had used combination of force as well as divides and conquers to control India Up until this point. So the sources limitations towards showing Lord Curzon’s successes come from the lack of successful viceroys previously. From the British point of view of which the source is written this could hold some more significance as what they wanted from the Viceroy varied from the Indians. The British just wanted to maintain control in India, while Indian perspective would be more focused on the way the country is being looked after. Source three goes quite far to indicate that Lord Curzon was in fact a successful Viceroy by highlighting one big mistake made by him “the partition of Bengal would be Curzon’s nemesis”. We know that the failure of the Bengal partition is what led to Lord Curzon losing his position as the Viceroy due to its significant
Open Document