Lord Curzon was an extremely egotistic and pompous man, who never liked any interference in his works and decisions. Since his arrival to India as its Governor-General, he was being severely critised for his major moves, which had displeased him extremely. The conflict with Lord Kitchener, Commander-in-Chief to the British Indian Army, was a remarkable instance, where both parties stood at loggerheads to prove their point of military superiority.

Within the period of 29th December 1901 to 9th January 1902, Lord Curzon staged the infamous Coronation Durbar in Delhi in celebration of King Edward VII`s ascension to the British throne. Although the Viceroy received considerable criticism for the turmoil and expense of the Durbar, it was looked at as a spectacular success. Events of particular note during the durbar ceremonies of January 1, 1902 included the honouring of over 300 veterans of the Indian Sepoy Mutiny and the embarrassingly enthusiastic support of the Europeans present for the 9th Lancers whom Lord Curzon had previously punished for the murder of an Indian.

In 1902, Lord Curzon appointed an Indian Police Commission with Sir Andrew H.L. Fraser (1848-1919) as its chairman. The Commission examined the police administration of each Indian province. Its report of May 30, 1903 severely criticised the Indian Police system. It called for greater efficiency, better training, elimination of corruption and the increase of pay for all ranks. From the reforms also came the introduction of the Department of Criminal Intelligence under its first Director, Sir Harold A. Stuart (1860-1923).

On 28th November, Lord Kitchener (1850-1916) arrived in Bombay to assume his post as Commander-in-Chief of the Indian Army. In January 1903, Lord Kitchener began the use of a series of unofficial communication channels with General Sir Edward Stedman (1842-1925), Military Secretary to the India Office and Lady Cranborne, later Lady Salisbury, who was a close friend of the Prime Minister, Arthur Balfour.

In February, Lord Kitchener made his first formal proposal to the Viceroy, Lord Curzon, regarding the reduction of powers assigned to the position of the Military Member. Lord Kitchener objected to the organisation of the command structure of the Indian Army which had emanated from the Indian Councils Act of 1861. It allowed the Commander-in-Chief to be appointed as needed to an ex officio position on the Viceroy`s Executive Council, while the officer in charge of the Military Department possessed a permanent Council seat. Lord Curzon rejected Kitchener`s approach and asked him to study the existing system for a year.

In the month of May, the Commander-in-Chief offered Curzon another army reorganisation plan that placed the Military Department directly under his orders. The Viceroy rejected the proposal and Lord Kitchener initiated one of a series of threats to resign. It was obvious that Curzon and Kitchener were treading on perilous grounds and their conflict would slowly intensify.

In April 1904, Lord Kitchener presented the Viceroy with a paper proposing the reduction of powers held by the Military Department. He paid it no heed, but discovered a month later on his arrival on leave in England that Lord Kitchener had also submitted it directly to the Imperial Defence Committee.

In September, Lord Kitchener offered his resignation to the Acting Viceroy, Lord Ampthill (1869-1935) apparently over a disciplinary matter. The matter was reversed by the Government of India. Although it was known that Kitchener`s matter was more directly related to the dispute regarding the powers of the Military Member. Lord Ampthill reluctantly convinced him to withdraw the resignation.

On 12th January 1905, St. John Brodrick (1856-1942), Secretary of State for India, suggested the use of an independent commission to study the proper role of the Military Member. In April, Lord Kitchener had organised in London a press campaign in The Times and the Standard, eliciting support for his desire to reform the Indian Army. In the same month of April, Brodrick abandoned the concept of a commission for that of a committee working in London headed by him and subsequently reporting to himself. Matters were pretty evident now; the Curzon-Kitchener conflict had deepened to a sublime extent with such moves.

On 30th May, the Cabinet approved Brodrick`s report, which called for the elimination of the position of the Military Member. That position`s duties were to be distributed to the Commander-in-Chief and to a new position called the Military Supply Member. The latter was to continue to serve on the Viceroy`s Council, but in a reduced advisory role.

On 12th August 1905, Lord Curzon submitted his resignation over differences with Brodrick on the selection of the new Military Supply Member and the nature of the assigned duties. Curzon`s recommendation of General Sir Edmund Barrow (1852-1934) had been denied subsequently. On 16th August, Balfour wired to Lord Curzon his acceptance of Viceroy`s resignation. On 21st August, Brodrick announced the selection of Lord Minto (1845-1914) as Curzon`s successor.