This chapter deals with the ideas of Anglo-Indians about the other inhabitants of the British Empire on the Indian subcontinent. Again a division will, and has to be made with regard to the various communities. The main division is that between the European community, the Native Christians and the other Indian communities. The Indians were seen as one common herd, they were all 'Indians', according to the Anglo-Indians. Nevertheless they sometimes made distinctions between Indians. The main partitions they used were between the (Bengali) elite and the 'masses', between Hindus and Mohammedans, or between Christians and non-Christians.

The construction of this chapter is based on the division between Europeans, Native Christians and the remaining Indians. Firstly the European community will be dealt with and secondly the Indian communities. One Indian community, the Native Christians, will be dealt with separately in the end. The images of Anglo-Indians upon these groups, especially with regard to the Indians, evolved from various points of view: with regard to employment, education, physical appearance and so on. Therefore the images will also partly be approached from these points of view.

The British and other Europeans were always seen by Anglo-Indians as their examples in life. They conformed to the European way of life; it was also their way of life. Despite the fact Anglo-Indians regarded themselves as equals to Europeans, they never argued the other way around; Europeans as equals to Anglo-Indians. This can be explained by the fact Anglo-Indians saw the Europeans as their reference group, and not vice versa.

The function of Europeans as a reference group, however, was not absolute. In some respects Anglo-Indians saw Europeans as more or less unfit compared with Anglo-Indians. This was especially the case when the Anglo-Indian positions in Indian society were challenged by European people. In these cases Anglo-Indians mainly referred to the disadvantages of Europeans in Indian society or climate.

Especially with regard to the army Anglo-Indians used these kind of arguments, in order to argue in favour of themselves and at the expense of British soldiers. Anglo-Indian soldiers had physical advantages because they were adjusted to the climate. Another thing in favour of Anglo-Indians was their knowledge of the country and its people. This argument was not only used in the military context but also as an advantage for employment in the Indian Civil Service. The administration would be most effective if its employees had a great knowledge of the country. Something which 'fresh' Europeans lacked, according to the Anglo-Indians. A lack of concern for the country also hampered the work of British officials, who lived only temporarily in India, and therefore had only temporarily interests in the country.

Besides these practical shortages of Europeans in India, Anglo-Indians were also complaining about the behaviour of the former. Although not as often as one would expect in the light of how they have been treated by the Government and the European community. In the 19th century complaints about European behaviour could only occasionally be read in the newspapers. The Anglo-Indian Guardian, for example, wrote about "...the men who now come to India to fill their empty stomachs and purses to spend in their own happy country. The English people are given to boasting, brag, and selfishness, and this is very manifest in their dealings with the peoples of India." Of course Anglo-Indians were complaining about the way they were treated and discriminated by the Europeans and the Indian Government, but in their replies they did not condemn their teasers. They mainly replied by proving their own abilities instead of challenging their offender's abilities and behaviour.

The Eurasian published an article in which the outcome of the title was foretold, 'The disappearance of race distinctions'. In this is stated "race-hatred is due mainly to difference in physical appearance, manners, customs, language, religion and standard of morality." According to the article racism is an inevitable result of 'world history', for which no one is really to blame. Different regions in the world have developed in their own way. Increasing populations and new ways of communication have intensified the contacts between the peoples and the struggle for existence had become more severe. All the separate regions and their inhabitants, however, wanted to retain their own identities. Combined with the differences in political and economic power this was the cause of racial animosity. But the same means of communication which had caused the influence of race distinctions "...will become so rapid and cheap, education so universal and the influences of civilization so constant and overwhelming that the whole world, arriving at a high stage of civilization, will conform to one common standard: there will be the same manners and customs, the same morality and language, one religion and possibly one political unit." In this article the racial discrimination practised by Europeans was not condemned as a deficiency of Europeans. It was argued that racial discrimination was inevitable at that moment in history, but it would also eventually disappear after a while.

Anglo-Indians saw the members of the European community as their specimen, who of course also had defects in their behaviour. But these defects were seen as exceptions, individual failures; every human being could make mistakes. The community or race as a whole, however, remained their guiding light. Anglo-Indians did blame individual Europeans in India, because of their arrogance towards Anglo-Indians, and because of their way of governing; "the new school of civilians whose policy it is to flatter the Baboo and be flattered by him in return." They felt neglected and betrayed by their Government, a 'prejudiced bureaucracy'. At the end of the period under scrutiny here, Anglo-Indians became more critical about European persons. European culture and civilization, however, remained their idea of truth.

The Anglo-Indian approach towards Europeans was twofold. On the one hand they indisputably saw them as 'the superior race', to whose ranks they also wanted to belong. On the other hand Anglo-Indians argued Europeans acted unjust with regard to the Anglo-Indians. The behaviour shown by European people towards Indians was more approved of by Anglo-Indians. It was obvious in that case; Europeans were 'superior' to Indians by nature. It was not this obvious with regard to themselves, however. Europeans approached the Anglo-Indians in almost the same manner, or sometimes even more denigrating, as they approached the Indians generally. Only in case of the latter Anglo-Indians approved of this behaviour. The newspaper Anglo-Indian wrote the following in this context: "...when we are made to look small before those we have been accustomed to look down upon, it does not seem calculated to promote good feeling between us and our rulers; and when this want of etiquette is repeated from one East-Indian to another with a quiet significance, the time may come when it might yield bitter fruit." Anglo-Indians saw themselves as superior to Indians. Europeans, however remained 'the superior race' in the eyes of Anglo-Indians, despite their individual defects which obstructed the careers and positions of Anglo-Indians in Indian society.

Anglo-Indians had various reasons why they should be employed in the army, in the Indian Civil Service and in the 'lines of communication'. Their own capacities and abilities are already described in the previous chapter. However, they also based their demands on grounds of the shortages and defects of their rivals. In this paragraph one of their rival groups will discussed, the Indians.

In the 19th century Anglo-Indians did not look at Indians as their equals. They felt superior towards them. They were often writing about the inferiority of the 'conquered race' and its subservient character. This superiority thinking was based on various assumptions. It was founded, for example, on a belief in physical superiority and a lack of character. The latter resulted almost inevitably in unreliability of Indians. The inferiority of the Indians was also proved by the fact they had a low standard of living. They lived in huts, were dressed in lumps and they were "...very lavish in their expenditure." Besides, the masses were ignorant; "The truth probably is that the Indian peasant has no brains to think." The Indian elite was said to posses a high degree of intelligence, although of 'low quality'. Nevertheless enough to protect themselves from their countryman's contempt. Compared with Anglo-Indians, however, the Indian elite was on the losing side.

Employment of Indians in the Civil Service and 'lines of communication' was not a wise thing to do for the Government, according to the Anglo-Indians. With regard to employment of Indians in the 'lines of communication' The Anglo-Indian Guardian wrote about the alarming prospect of having to entrust their lives to native stationmasters, native guards, native engine-drivers and native telegraph clerks. The disfunctioning of the postal services was also ascribed to the natives whose geographical knowledge did not "extend beyond their own district and even in its topography they are deplorable wanting."

The majority of the natives employed in the lower executive service, mainly Bengalees, lacked the personal qualifications needed. Therefore "our native friends have made many efforts to secure admission into this service of India, but fortunately for the country, all of them have hitherto failed." Probably because "they are often unable to write two consecutive sentences in correct English" as The Eurasian stated.

These lacking personal qualifications were hard to remove by way of education only. The Bengalees were spoiled by an 'artificial' education which did not prepare them for any administrative profession. Besides, they did not have any experience in public life which could possibly temper the defects of their education. These were inevitable shortcomings and deficiencies of the Indians which placed them in a subordinate position compared to the Anglo-Indians.

The lack of personal qualifications by Indians was due to absence of social morality among the Indian communities. According to Anglo-Indians the social life of Indians was characterised by 'disgraceful social abuses' and 'degrading superstition'; it was penetrated by falsehood, perjury, corruption and bribery. These were the dominant features of Indian social life, seen through the eyes of Anglo-Indians.

In the beginning of the 20th century Anglo-Indians still had similar visions about Indian morality. The Eurasian for example, published an article about different types and gradations of Anglo-Indians. The most 'European' Anglo-Indian was called type A and the most 'Indian' Anglo-Indian was called type D. In between these extremes were the types B and C, who in practice moulded the community to a large extent. Especially the Anglo-Indian of type D, and his offspring, should be prevented from intermarrying with, and remaining under the influence of the Indian parent. Otherwise their descendants "... are spoiled; their finer perceptions are blurred; their intelligence and energy are diverted into unwholesome channels and,..., they become moral and social failures." Because the Anglo-Indian of type A was more 'European' he would be less adaptable to Indian values or failures, but they still had to be cautious also.

Another thing the Anglo-Indians accused Indians of was their dearth to British rule. This was also used as an argument against employment of Indians in the Civil Service, and especially against employment in the army. Besides the matter of loyalty, with regard to the army, Indians were also lacking the physical abilities and energies the Anglo-Indians had. Loyalty of natives had proved to be a farce. This became clear with 'the claims of the Baboo'. The English had educated the Bengalees and in return they claimed equality. As a response an Anglo-Indian wrote a letter to a newspaper in which he said: "They have taught him and told him so much about the equality of man that he has come to forget that he is one of a subject race."

Before the Mutiny the British believed the Indians were loyal to them. With the Mutiny, however, the opposite was proved. At the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century the Indian Government was making the same mistake, according to the Anglo-Indians. They had been lulled into sleep and were living in a 'fool's paradise'. Therefore the Government should not rely on an Indian army, unless it was powerfully conducted by Europeans or Anglo-Indians. The latter had, as said before, proved their loyalty innumerable times.

The absence of loyalty among Indians was proved in various ways. The presence of Bengalee anarchists, for example, revealed at least two manifestations of it. The anarchists were mainly educated at 'English' schools. After they completed their education they turned against their patrons. An example of this is an attempt to assassinate Sir A. Fraser in November 1908. As a comment to the event The Eurasian wrote: "For the natives, more especially the Bengalees, Sir A. Fraser has been a foster father, and the gratitude they display towards him takes the shape of bombs and revolver bullets.

The second manifestation of the dearth of loyalty among Indians, in case of Bengalee anarchists, was found in the actions that were taken against them. If the Government had employed more Anglo-Indians instead of Indians in their police force and army, the anarchists would have been arrested immediately and be hindered to continue their terrorist activities. Murder by anarchists in the Calcutta jail was also seen as a result of non-employment of Anglo-Indians in jails.

The vision of Anglo-Indians on their Indian fellow-men was predominantly negative. They saw them as physically weak, not loyal and morally subordinate. All these failures anticipated that Indians could be regarded as equals to Anglo-Indians, according to the latter. The arguments were used to convince the Government to abandon Indianization. It would embarrass British rule in India and therefore harm "the centre of gravity of British world power."

As promised in chapter 3.5.2 an explanation will be given here for the reserved attitude of Anglo-Indians towards the Native Christians in India. They were not regarded as equals to Anglo-Indians. In fact, the majority of the so-called Anglo-Indian poor were considered Native Christians by the more prosperous Anglo-Indians. According to them only a sprinkling of the crowd living in the slums could be regarded as Anglo-Indian.

With the commencement of the 20th century there started to appear articles and pamphlets about Native Christians. They were the direct object with regard to the still present problem of pauperism. It was argued that the majority of the Anglo-Indians in the slums, also called Kintals, were not real, original Anglo-Indians. According to The Eurasian these 'pseudo' or 'self-manufactured' Anglo-Indians were Native Christians. They were Indians, 'pure and simple', who had been converted to Christianity and who passed as Anglo-Indians. In order to look like Anglo-Indians they dressed in European clothes. But putting on pants, a shirt and a hat did not make one an Anglo-Indian because "...there will always be observed some gaucherie either in the manner in which they are worn or in the hues selected."

The change of religion and dress was attended by a change of name also. It was quite easy for Indians to change name. There was "no copyright in tombstone inscriptions, and the gentlemen who was Mookerjee yesterday sees no reason why he should not become Macpherson today." But a Native Christian could easily be recognised at the moment he started to talk and tried to pronounce his adopted European name. The English of a Native Christian was a 'peculiar' English; it was largely a translation or adaptation of the vernacular. It differed widely from the English the Anglo-Indians spoke. The latter spoke the same English as their European ancestors, they argued. The Indians who tried to pass as Anglo-Indians by converting themselves to Christianity, wearing European clothes, change their names and speaking English, were accused of doing this in order "to obtain alms or employment."

Another, though overlapping explanation for the presence of 'pseudo' Anglo-Indians has been given by H.A. Stark. An explanation he also read before the Social Study Society of Calcutta in 1916. He argued the majority of 'Anglo-Indians' living in the Kintals were the descendants of Indian slaves. Slaves who had been converted by, and working for European and Anglo-Indian families. When slavery was abolished they did the same as the Roman slaves had done centuries before. The liberated slaves adopted the surnames of their former masters. Hence the community of Native Christians increased remarkable. This increase was often confused with an increase of the Anglo-Indian community, according to Stark. The liberated slaves also tried to pass as Anglo-Indians for the same reason as mentioned before. But "they are Indians, pure and simple; and incalculable wrong - social, educational, and material - for generations has been done to the Anglo-Indian population by the mistaken identification of the descendants of slaves with the descendants of those who were the owners of slaves."

Native Christians were seen as intruders of the Anglo-Indian community. They were despised by Anglo-Indians because they lowered the reputation of the community. Poor Indians tried to gain benefits by simply converting themselves to Christianity and adopting the other characteristics of Anglo-Indians. However, an important argument in favour of Anglo-Indians in this case was their European heritage, cultural as well as biological. Native Christians, on the contrary had "no European blood running in their veins."