ABSTRACT
E L P H I N S T O N E ' s attempt to bring about a gradual change in the values and institutions of Maharashtra exercised an irresistable appeal over men like Chaplin and Robertson, who were committed to the politics of conservatism. But despite the appeal which they exercised over conservative administrators, the policies advocated by Elphinstone were characterised by a deeprooted contradiction. The crucial question facing Elphinstone hinged upon the necessity of reform in a context where the reformer did not subscribe to the values of the society whose problems he was called upon to resolve. In such circumstances the reformer could not avoid facing problems that could only be resolved through drastic solutions which involved a break with tradition. The alternatives before him were an abject surrender to social iniquity and political tyranny, or the creation of institutions and values which would wholly remould society. Elphinstone, however, refused to accept the existence of such a dilemma. Consequently, he could not provide satisfactory answers to a host of questions because of his refusal, either to accept the institutions which he had inherited from the former rulers, or to implement bold policies of reform. However, there is a limit to which compromise can serve as a grand principle in politics, and the violence of the tide of reform which swept across Maharashtra after Elphinstone's departure stemmed, in equal parts, from his fruitless endeavour to preserve the institutions and values
of the past, and from the refractory quality of the problems which confronted the Government of Bombay in the territories conquered from Baji Rao Peshwa.
