In the era 1857-1920 there was a wide circulation of racial ideas among various communities in India. A great emphasis was put on so-called 'racial' characteristics. People, individuals as well as communities, were judged and judged others on grounds of these characteristics in order to distinguish a hierarchy in Indian society. Different, diverging features, like civilization, culture, colour of the skin, religion, dress and education were called racial characteristics. These features were used by different communities. In first instance they were used by the European community to limit their ranks and to preserve their privileged positions, but a reply by the Indian elite soon followed. In their rivalry both parties emphasized 'racial purity'.

The 'racial' characteristics were used to safeguard, or to gain better economic positions. The European community used them to maintain their influential positions in the army and the Indian Civil Service. Indians used them to get admittance to these services. The latter was done under the designation of Indianization. This same process hampered the admittance of Anglo-Indians to the lower grades of the Indian Civil Service and the 'traditional' Anglo-Indian services like the railways, post & telegraph, police and customs: the 'lines of communication'. So the 'racial' discrimination practices injured the Anglo-Indians in two ways. Firstly they were denied the 'racial' characteristics of the European community; they were 'racially impure' according to the latter. Secondly their social and economic position in British India came under pressure by way of Indianization, a process strongly influenced by Indian nationalism.

In the following the supporting questions will be discussed before the central question of this inquiry will be answered: What was the influence of reigning racial thinking on the selfperception of Anglo-Indians, and on their vision on other communities in India in the period 1857-1920? Therefore a start will be made with the first supporting question.

From the chapters 3 and 4 it becomes clear that Anglo-Indians dealed with racial characteristics in the same way as the European community and the Indian elite did. Sometimes they were used to deny racial differences and sometimes the differences were emphasized. The former in relation to the European community, the latter in relation to the Indian communities. Anglo-Indians used the same 'racial' characteristics as the others did, also with the same purposes. They tried to present these characteristics in their own favour. In order to be regarded as equals to their 'father's race' they emphasized the similarities and annulled the differences with members of the European community. At the same time they annulled the similarities with their 'mother's race' and emphasized the differences with these ancestors. For this Anglo-Indians used the same arguments and a similar way of reasoning as the European community and the Indian elite. Only the outcome of their arguing differed in some ways.

Anglo-Indians wrote about these in various ways, so each of the perceived 'racial' characteristics was dealt with separately. The most visible 'racial' characteristic was the colour of the skin. This feature was used many times as an argument to discriminate Anglo-Indians. Among themselves they also used it to mark the differences within the community. This was mainly felt, and regretted by the 'coloured' members of the community. In the 19th century they did not really oppose it but they tried to ignore it. In cases when there was no possibility of ignoring the 'colour' discrimination they talked about the injustice of these practices. In the beginning of the 20th century people agitated more against discrimination on grounds of colour. They argued that colour was an insignificant 'racial' difference which said nothing about someone's capacities and qualities. Those were the aspects on ground of which someone should be judged, not the colour of his skin.

Physical abilities were also seen as 'racial' characteristics. Anglo-Indians thought of themselves as physically superior to the Indian population, because of their European ancestors. At the same time, and seemingly as a contradiction, they also ascribed to themselves physical advantages compared to European people in India. It means they challenged their specimen, by stating they were better adjusted to the climate and the living conditions in India. Anglo-Indians didn't claim physical superiority towards Europeans as they did with the Indians, but they claimed to have particular advantages.

Religion was a third 'racial' characteristic. Anglo-Indians used their Christian conviction as an argument to be regarded as equals to members of the European community, the 'European race'. At the same time Christianity was used as an argument to distinguish themselves from the Indians. However, not to distinguish themselves from Native Christians. In that case other characteristics became more important, especially the blood-tie; being a Christian was not sufficient enough to be regarded as equals to people of European heritage. The argument of religion was also used, like the colour of the skin, to create differences within the Anglo-Indian community. Mainly to create a distinction between fortunate and less fortunate Anglo-Indians.

Another 'racial' characteristic was culture. It was composed of a variety of other features which were also separately used as 'racial' arguments. Here they will all be referred to as culture. Europeans regarded their culture as superior. Anglo-Indians claimed to have the same culture; they dressed like Europeans, their mothertongue was English, they were educated in a European way and their history was indispensably linked with European presence in India. Anglo-Indians had established British power in India and maintained the colony for England; they were absolutely loyal to the British Empire. Therefore they demanded to be regarded as equal partners of the European community, they were indispensable part of European civilization.

In the beginning of the research period Anglo-Indians ascribed to themselves the same position as members of the European community. On ground of their European heritage they demanded the same rights and employment as the latter. They certainly regarded themselves as standing above the Indian population, they were namely one with the European community, they belonged to the 'European race'. They were on the side of the 'rulers'.

In the beginning of the 20th century they were still on the side of the 'rulers' but now they saw themselves as intermediaries. Anglo-Indians ascribed to themselves a position in between the European 'rulers' and the 'ruled' Indians. It had proved to be impossible to keep up the same status as their European specimen. However, they refused to be seen as equals to the Indian population. Hence they choose a position in between the 'rulers' and the 'ruled'. It meant they didn't have to give up their superiority towards the Indians. It also meant they didn't have to give in they were implicit inferior to the European population in India. As said before, they sometimes even challenged the 'ruling race'.

By reducing their own position in the colony they hoped to gain more support from the Indian Government. In the beginning of the 20th century a minority of the Anglo-Indian community began to refer to India as 'home'. This also indicates Anglo-Indians started to ascribe themselves another task in the British empire. The supposed (physical) advantages of the Anglo-Indians compared with 'fresh' Europeans were closely connected with this idea. If India was to be the home of the Anglo-Indians they should be allowed to play their part in it. Probably not the most important part of it, as 'rulers', but as the executers or deputies of the, by the British defined government. Because of the far-reaching British Empire England would not be able to govern India all by itself. The Anglo-Indian community saw themselves as the best deputies for this task.

The discussion about the designation of the community was closely associated with the idea of Anglo-Indians as executers of British rule in India. Advocates of the name 'Anglo-Indian' wanted to put emphasis on the connection with England with this name, also in order to use it as a foundation for their role as executers of British rule in India. At the same time their possible role in the colony as deputies of British rule was used as an argument in favour of the name 'Anglo-Indian'. Opponents of the name 'Anglo-Indian' preferred the name 'Eurasian' and preferred to loosen the ties with England. In the period under scrutiny they were a minority.

The community's requests were based on the idea of the responsibility of the Indian Government. Anglo-Indians regarded the Government responsible for the welfare of the community, hence also for the pauperism among the community members. The Anglo-Indian community was created by the European community, biologically as well as mentally and psychologically. Anglo-Indians had the same 'racial' characteristics as Europeans. Therefore the Indian Government had the same responsibilities towards the Anglo-Indians as they had towards the European population. It meant the Government had to provide 'European' living conditions, education and employment. The latter by means of the Indian Civil service, Anglo-Indian regiments and the 'lines of communication'.

One of the requests the Anglo-Indians asked of the Indian Government, as a measure against pauperism, were conditions to establish colonies (agricultural settlements) in and outside India. These would enable the community to provide their own means of life, independent from the Government. It would also be a significant contribution to the solutions of the housing problem in the largest cities of India. This problem was caused by the fact many Anglo-Indians were not able to live in descent houses and were forced to live in kintals (slums). A disgrace for British rule in India. Besides, the Government would also gain from the Anglo-Indian colonies in India because they could protect the borders of British India from these colonies.

In order to live properly and do their work competent a good education was required for the Anglo-Indian community. Therefore Anglo-Indians demanded the same education as was available in England. Similar education was present in India but it was too expensive for the average Anglo-Indian because it was mainly provided by private enterprises. To prepare Anglo-Indians for a fair competition with Europeans coming 'fresh' from Europe the Indian Government should financially support Anglo-Indian education. Not in the least because the Indian Government was also providing this kind of education to the Indian elites. The latter had opportunities to get educated at English schools which were established and sponsored by the Indian Government. Despite the fact Anglo-Indians were allowed to receive their education at these schools as well, they refused to make use of the facility. Their main arguments were the secular character of the schools and the fact they had to sit side by side with Indians.

Anglo-Indians favoured a Christian education like was available in England, because it was regarded an essential part of a European upbringing. Christian education in India, however, was not as consequently sponsored as the secular Government schools were. It meant Christian schools were too expensive for the majority of the community. The other argument for separate Anglo-Indian schools originated in the idea of Indians as inferior to Anglo-Indians. Close contact with the Indian communities would harm the social and moral well-being of the Anglo-Indian children, something which should be prevented at any expense, according to the Anglo-Indians.

The demand for employment in the Indian Civil Service, the army and the 'lines of communication' was not based on the Government's responsibility only. Anglo-Indians supported their demands also with arguments on grounds of their history and capacities. Anglo-Indians had played a significant role in the establishment of the services and the 'lines of communication'. They had proved to be capable for these jobs and to be cheaper than 'fresh' Europeans. They were in some ways even better fitted for these jobs then 'fresh' Europeans. Besides, history had shown they were loyal to British rule, something which should be strongly doubted with Indians. The latter would also not be able to do the work at these services properly enough. They lacked the capacities and qualifications for that.

Before this question will be answered it is important to note it is difficult to speak of the Anglo-Indian identity. The Anglo-Indian community was not a close community in the sense that its members acted like a unity. People talked a lot about the need for unity in the community in order to uplift the community as a whole. But when the community had to perform as a cohesive unity in order to reach a goal they mostly failed. Almost all fortunate or successful individuals neglected their community. These individuals used the same arguments to deny their Anglo-Indian origin as the community used to distinguish itself from the Indian communities. Characteristics of the Anglo-Indian, and European, community were not only used to put the Anglo-Indians in a position among the other communities. They were also used by individual Anglo-Indians to renounce from their Anglo-Indian community and to pass as 'pure' Europeans. See in this respect also the 'internal' discrimination on grounds of colour and religion.

Many Anglo-Indians who had the opportunity to undo themselves of their Anglo-Indian designation in order to be regarded as Europeans did so. However, the Anglo-Indian identity which was described here is that of the average Anglo-Indian who was not in the circumstances to do so. It was the identity of Anglo-Indians who only had things to lose; the Anglo-Indian who had to fight for his 'European' rights and prestige, in order to distinguish himself from the Indian population. These 'Anglo-Indians' were the ones who constituted the bulk of the community during the period under research.

In some respects the identity of this Anglo-Indian changed and in some respects it didn't. First the characteristics which remained the same will be described and then the changes that have occurred in the Anglo-Indian identity will be dealt with.

The features which remained the same were the distinct characteristics of the Anglo-Indian community; their mothertongue (English), their education, their dress, their religion and their culture. Anglo-Indians kept focusing on their European cultural background. This was due to the fact the upbringing of Anglo-Indians in the 1910s was still focused on the European way of life, like it was in the second half of the 19th century. Anglo-Indians passed their own, European, ideas about life on to their children. Due to Indianization they were not stimulated to change this, because parts of Indian society became more westernized in the course of time. Western education and the English language, for example, became more important, also for Indians. Sections of Indian society anglicized, especially those sections of society with which the Anglo-Indians came in contact. Anglo-Indians contested for their means of living with Indians who became more western in one sense, or more Anglo-Indian in the eyes of the Anglo-Indians. The latter saw this as a prove for their superiority.

The changes which had taken, or were taking place in the Anglo-Indian identity had to do with their attitudes towards India and their position within the British empire. In the beginning of the period under scrutiny Anglo-Indians referred to England as their 'home'. They also saw themselves as one with the European community, as part of the 'European race'. In the course of the research period this gradually weakened. India became 'home' for the Anglo-Indians; this originated in the early beginning of the 20th century and spreaded out afterwards. It coincided with a growing dislike for Europeans coming to India. This dislike was purely against individuals; The 'European race' remained to a large extent the specimen of the 'Anglo-Indian race'.

But these things caused a slight change in the selfperception of Anglo-Indians. Anglo-Indians began to urge they had their own identity, an Anglo-Indian identity, an identity, however, with great emphasis on their European heritage. The unconditional trust in this heritage, like in the second half of the 19th century, slowly started to fade away in the beginning of the 20th century. These changes were taking place as a result of the 'racial' discrimination practices. Anglo-Indians were not respected as equals by Europeans in India which forced the Anglo-Indians to look for another, own identity, an identity of the 'Anglo-Indian race'. This identity nevertheless remained focused on their European heritage. At the same time their changing position in Indian society forced them to approach society from another angle, a more Indian angle. It resulted in the awakening idea of India as 'home'. With this their ideas about the position of Anglo-Indians in the British empire also started to change. They found a new task to fulfil, a task as executers of British rule in India, closely linked with the task as uniters of the East with the West. A task which could only be accomplished by people of mixed descent. For this task Europeans, and of course Indians, were destined to fail.

The Anglo-Indian images of the British and other Europeans were in general positive, they were the reference group of the Anglo-Indians. Anglo-Indians tried to conform to the European way of life as much as possible. European culture and civilization were their guiding lights. Individual Europeans, however, were more and more criticized in the course of time. Especially when the position of Anglo-Indians became precarious as a result of imported Europeans. They occupied positions Anglo-Indians had ascribed to themselves. The Anglo-Indian reply was based on their belief in their own abilities and advantages. Anglo-Indians were better adjusted to the Indian climate and living conditions. Besides, they were cheaper to employ than imported Europeans. These were the arguments in favour of Anglo-Indians and detrimental to 'fresh' Europeans.

Despite the fact Anglo-Indians were many times discriminated by Europeans they never really turned against them. All the Anglo-Indians did was trying to convince the Indian Government of the advantages of the Anglo-Indians, and trying to repudiate the images Europeans had of the Anglo-Indians. Anglo-Indians wrote about the injustice done to them by their European specimen. They condemned the discrimination practices of the Europeans, but in the end Anglo-Indians remained faithful to their 'father's race'.

The way Anglo-Indians wrote about Indians was quite different. They only wrote about the Indian population in negative terms. Indians were the 'conquered' and subservient 'race'. Indians lacked the qualities members of the European community and the Anglo-Indian community had. Indians did not possess the right social morality and were certainly failing with regard to loyalty to British rule. Therefore they should be suppressed as much as possible, according to the Anglo-Indians. The dislike of Anglo-Indians towards Native Christians was even more intense. Anglo-Indians saw Native Christians as intruders of the Anglo-Indian community. Native Christians were poor Indians who tried to pass as Anglo-Indians in the hope to gain benefits from it. The only thing they achieved with this act was lowering the reputation of the Anglo-Indian community. This was the reason for Anglo-Indians to despise the Native Christians.

With the answer to the sixth supporting question the central question comes in view. It read: What was the influence of reigning racial thinking on the selfperception of Anglo-Indians, and on their vision on other communities in India in the period 1857-1920?

In fact the question has already been answered by way of the supporting questions. The influence of reigning racial thinking on the Anglo-Indian selfperception was to some extent visible. An own 'Anglo-Indian' identity, an identity of the 'Anglo-Indian race', started to emerge instead of the 'European' identity the Anglo-Indians always had ascribed to themselves. They slowly began to realise and accept they were not 'one' with the European community. Their identity nevertheless remained founded on their European heritage although it was not as absolute as it had been in the second half of the 19th century. Indian influences were slowly interweaved in the Anglo-Indian identity. This process began with the idea of India as 'home'. However, these changes only slowly started to appear at the end of the period under scrutiny here. It was influenced by racial categorization in an also on class and gender divided society. It forced the community to look for an own identity. This search was first undertaken by a minority of the community with the beginning of the 20th century.

The Anglo-Indian vision with regard to the majority of other communities in India was also influenced by racial thinking. The Indian communities were seen as inferior to the Anglo-Indian community. Anglo-Indians had the same images of these communities as members of the European community had; they copied the ideas of their specimen in this respect. To a large extent they also copied the 'superior' image the Europeans had of themselves. Despite all the things the 'superior race' had done to the community Anglo-Indians kept referring to the European 'race' as 'superior'.