Fallacies and Realities of the Anglo
Indian stereotype: Verification through ‘our’ primary source, namely Raj Days to Downunder: Voices from Anglo
India to New Zealand, and to some extent CTR chronicles.
-
Presented at Perth, World Anglo
Indian Reunion, 29th Sept. 2010
-
By Dorothy McMenamin, Christchurch,
New Zealand.
n.b.
Due to earthquake 4.9.2010 in my hometown, the original presentation required
clarification of some ideas. These ideas are expanded and made more
explicit here, although this remains a work in progress.
This paper
is a work in progress relating to the lifestyles of Anglo Indians prior to 1947. It examines and evaluates the negative
connotations associated with the stereotypes commonly employed to describe
Anglo Indians in the context of Indian multicultural society. This is in contrast to usual evaluation of the
community in isolation, either by its own members or via the lens of British or
Indian writers because each group inevitably perceives Anglo Indian lifestyles
subjectively through their own values. It
is through understanding Indian traditional societies and their affects on the
British in India that the reasons for the derogatory connotations are unveiled,
and it is through these perspectives that a stereotype can be considered a fallacy
or reality. There are no simple truths about
the rights and wrongs of differing cultures, and the perceptions of fallacy and
reality are subject to varying cultural values and beliefs.
Increasingly
Anglo Indians are recording autobiographical and family life stories, and these
provide valuable detailed insider descriptions of AI lives. These accounts, and
particularly the life stories recorded and edited in my recent publication Raj Days to Downunder are utilized here
to assess the stereotypes.[1] I believe this type of research is valuable
because of the rise in multicultural societies around the world today, and the Anglo
Indian community provides a template relating to integration, or otherwise, of
mestizo groups into cultures that uphold differing values.
Five main Stereotypes to be
considered:
(1) Anglo Indians failed to take advantage of
education to improve their lot because they were lazy, fun loving people.
(2) The Anglo Indian lifestyle,
especially that of the women, was one of lax morality. [This label of
‘laxness’ does not affix to males involved in such laxity!]
(3) Socially Anglo-Indians tended to ‘stick to
themselves’ and not mix.
(4) During British rule Anglo Indians were mainly
employed in the railways, customs and telegraph.
(5) Male ancestors of AIs were European, most frequently
British ex-army men who married ‘local’ women.
The first
two stereotypes will be shown to be fallacious, although the second is not
necessarily fallacious as seen through the eyes of traditional Indian society.
The latter three stereotypes are accurate realities, but what I aim to show is why
these have usually been characterized in a derogatory light.
(1) Anglo-Indians
failed to take advantage of education to improve their lot because they were lazy,
fun loving people.
·
In
Raj Days to Downunder, from the
random sample of 14 Anglo Indians, 9 Domiciled Europeans and one Goan, interviewed
in New Zealand, all 24 had attained, at least, school leaving certificates. Two
men had qualified as engineers, one was an electrician, and two were land-owing
farmers. Six men, including the husbands
of two women, had qualified as doctors whilst their fathers had worked either as
train drivers or in customs or telegraph.
From a sample of nine women, two were teachers, four were nurses and three
were stenographers. This provides evidence
that from a random sample, everyone interviewed had completed high school.
·
Contributors
to CTR chronicles: The majority of these
authors are AI and obviously literate, whether living in India or not. Details not available.
·
As
in all communities, some AIs did not perform well at school. Several researchers point out that this was
due to the fact that AIs were guaranteed good jobs by the British, usually with
accommodation, thus high school education was not an imperative. Many of these individuals ‘slipped through
the gaps’ and are now assisted by charities, including CTR.
·
It
is clearly evident that large numbers of AIs who remained within the
independent sub-continent were highly educated and successful, as obvious at
this Reunion, but no statistics available. (Await AI ‘Count’).
·
AIs
are definitely a ‘fun loving’ group who enjoy dancing and singing, as is also
obvious, but this was not enjoyed to the exclusion of schooling.
·
In
contrast to Europeans in their home countries and majority of ordinary Indians
who maintained their own households, AIs were often perceived as lazy because they
were able to employ servants to undertake most usual household chores. This reputation for laziness was extended to
schooling.
Conclusion (1.a): My research and numerous
autobiographers’ accounts show that during the British period, the majority of
AIs took advantage of the good schools available, thereby providing evidence
that the stereotype is a fallacy. [2]
However, many AIs took the easy route to
guaranteed jobs which did not require higher education and some of these people
‘slipped through the gaps.’ Large
numbers of this less educated group remained in India and scholars have subsequently
surveyed them for anthropological research and analysis, thereby feeding the
fallacious stereotype.[3] These poorer sections of the community have
become more widely known compared to the hard working groups, and due to the
work of charitable organizations for the poor AI groups, their profile has been
further publicized. These visible poor remnants
of a bygone age provide fodder for criticism by anti-colonial scholars, giving rise
to the fallacy AIs did not value nor take advantage of education.
Conclusion (1.b): AIs have been criticized for being
lazy because they employed household servants, but this was normal practice for
the upper and middle classes, both Indians and European in India. Biographical accounts of AIs demonstrate that
due to their good lifestyles they could either afford to employ servants, or servants
were provided as part of their employment conditions. Nevertheless, when these AIs migrated to
their new home countries, they worked hard, performed all their own household
chores and integrated well into their new home societies.
(2)
AI lifestyle, particularly of the women, was
one of lax morality.
·
Blair
Williams and other male contributors to Women
of Anglo India are appalled by stereotypical reputation of lax morality of AI
women. Likewise male contributors to Raj Days, especially Bill Barlow, were
horrified by the stereotype. Both female
and male testimonies support the idea that AI women held fast to what can be
termed almost Victorian virtues. But the
fashionable higher hemlines and fitted clothing worn by western and AI women were
in stark contrast to traditional Indian dress, thereby raising criticism.
·
There
is minimal evidence of lax morality of AI women in comparison with Christian
lifestyles in Britain. As in early
post-Victorian society, young AI women were routinely chaperoned by family
members socially. As in all societies, some
AI women were ‘opportunists’ whilst others worked in ‘siren’ sectors, as in all
communities worldwide.[4]
·
Indian
women, both Hindu and Muslim, dressed very conservatively, often veiled or totally
secluded, and certainly legs were not exposed.
Indian female attire and behaviour were in total opposition to that of female
Europeans and AIs who socialised openly with their menfolk.
·
Indian
males often opposed Indian women adopting female western trends and their odium
became focussed on AI women. Nevertheless, in the urban centres, large numbers
of upper class Indian women attended AI schools and adopted modern western hair
styles and sometimes even clothing fashions.
·
Hindus
and Muslims disapproved of mixed marriages, especially by their own womenfolk. AI women were symbolic of this ‘impurity’ or
‘pollution’ reflected in Indian views asserting lax morality of AI women.
Conclusion (2):
Because AI traditional clothing and lifestyles were quite antithetical
to Indian practices, especially those of AI women, their lifestyles were
considered ‘immoral’ or ‘lax’. But by European
and Anglo Indian standards of morality the Indian view of lax morality is a false. The majority of AI women adhered to a normal moral
Christian lifestyle. There is some
evidence that the British had ambivalent views regarding AI women because the
British saw AIs as unconventional ‘Indians’ who ‘aped’ the British lifestyle;
as opposed to recognizing that AIs were Christians who saw themselves as part
of the British community in India.[5]
(3)
Socially Anglo Indians tended to
‘stick to themselves’. This is a reality within
Indian society which is divided into strictly hierarchical groups.
·
The
derogatory connotation related to this behaviour is partly due to the
resistance of Anglo Indians being classified as ‘native Indians’ during the colonial
era. In fact Indians excluded AIs from
traditional societies. Being Christian, AIs
saw their cultural links more closely aligned with their British ancestors. However outsiders accused AIs of ‘snobbishly’ and
‘pretentiously’ calling themselves British rather than Indian. Being socially
excluded by both Indians and Europeans, AI stuck to their own.
·
Hindus
socialized within their own groups, jati/castes. Muslims stuck to their own communities, both
upper and lower classes. The British
elites emulated Indian culture and by 20th century mixed mainly
amongst themselves. This behaviour pattern
domino-ed so that Anglo Indians had no choice but to socialize within their own
groups also.
·
Eligibility,
especially to elite British clubs, frequently specified occupation as
eligibility criteria. Membership by white
collar workers’ was always acceptable, especially managers and government
officials, but not blue collar
workers, i.e. engineers or workers involved in manual labour. Therefore Anglo Indians formed their own
clubs, also based around employment, such as the Railway Institutes.
·
Hindu
and Muslim elites traditionally were endogamous and protected their caste/class
hegemony through arranged marriages and strictly disapproved of mixed
marriages. Thereby Anglo Indians were ostracized.
·
An
interesting earlier precedent of segregation in India: Parsees, who originally were Zoroastrians
fleeing Muslim colonization of Persia/Iran, arrived in Gujarat, West India,
from tenth century onwards. They were
given permission by Hindus to settle under certain conditions, e.g. having to
honour Hindu cultural taboos such as the cow as holy.[6] A thousand years later, although Parsees
identify themselves as Indians since they had lost their own homeland, they still remain a separate community in
India. Since 1947 large numbers of
Parsees have migrated to the West.
·
It
should not be surprising that AIs, DEs, Goans, Indian Christians and other groups
in Anglo India usually only ‘mixed with their own’. But in examining one’s own every day life anywhere:
with whom does one socialize at home, and with how many other people on an
everyday basis?
·
Indian
Christians and Goans often preferred to call themselves AIs simply because AI
received preference for good jobs.[7]
Conclusion (3): The old motto ‘when in Rome, do as
the Romans’ appears to apply to the British in India who emulated upper class
Indian society by mixing only with their own.
Because Indians did not allow their women to socially mix openly, British
and AI women maintained social contact with their own or European communities
who shared Christian values. Due to
strict hierarchical structure of Indian societies, although different groups in
the work force worked together amicably, marriage and social lives were
regulated on strictly demarked lines. The
British and Anglo Indians followed the traditional Indian practice of endogamy,
at the same time upholding British and European class structures, reflected in
their club memberships.
(4)
Anglo Indians were mainly employed in
the railways, customs and telegraph.
(5)
This is a true but often derogatively interpreted by
contemporary society because:
·
In
today’s world, these technologically old services are outdated, so the same
jobs in contemporary society are not associated with higher socio-economic
lifestyles. Therefore an anachronistic
value has been negatively ascribed to people employed in these positions during
Colonial India.
·
The
reality. These jobs were a privileged
preserve that the British rulers entrusted to their loyal ‘homegrown’ AI
community. As minority rulers of a vast
Indian population, the Raj preferred to limit their risk by employing loyal AIs
rather than Indians in more responsible positions.
·
From
their introduction in 1820s right up to mid twentieth century, railways were
the most technologically innovative and revolutionary form of transport. AIs were entrusted with enormous
responsibility of being the engine drivers, as described by the late Ken Blunt (whose
family live in Perth) “in those days train drivers were equivalent to 747 pilots
of 1970s”. Because AI train drivers were
considered blue collar workers involved in manual labour, they were not
eligible to join elite British clubs, although the employment and living
conditions of railway staff were extremely good, especially in comparison with
ordinary Indians.
·
Senior
clerical positions in the railways, i.e. white collar workers, were mainly held
by Domiciled Europeans.[8]
DEs and AIs fraternized together at AIs
clubs, such as the Institute. Whereas Indians
making up the labour force in railways were excluded.
Conclusion (4):
Raj Days lifestories, and all
researchers, confirm that AIs predominantly worked as privileged employees such
as train drivers and administrators with the railways, or in telegraph and
customs departments. As
with Hindu castes and their traditional ties to particular employment, British
and Anglo Indians remained employed in certain jobs. But with changes in technologies and
educational scholarships, the younger generation of AIs took advantage of higher
education to improve their status. (Stereotype 1 above)
(6)
AI ancestors were often ex-army men
who married ‘local’ women.
·
Negative
connotations arose because mixed marriages were strictly disapproved of by
Indian traditional societies. British
attitudes were originally ambivalent towards liaisons between Europeans and Indians,
but increasingly grew to reflect Indian attitudes. However, British ex-army and other personnel
often married ‘local’ Anglo Indian women who were Christians. Due to general disapproval of mixed marriages,
these marriages to ‘local’ women held a derogatory connotation, despite
marriages between European and British males to Anglo Indian women being very common.
Amongst the oral histories recorded,
several contributors had detailed family genealogies, which confirmed a
European ancestor was frequently a retired British soldier.[9]
·
The
original bi-cultural AI offspring were fathered by British or European males to
Indian women. By 20th century
there was a large pool of Anglo Indian women, so that ‘local’ women were
usually from AI communities. Occasionally these ‘local’ women may have been
poor or abandoned AI children raised at boarding schools called ‘orphanages’, where
they received a good, free education.
Upon qualifying the young adults were sent to work in urban centres. An example is the children in Kalimpong school who later found jobs and marriage partners in
Calcutta.
·
Occasionally,
British or Anglo Indian men married Indian women but this was ‘frowned on’ by most
groups, unless the marriage gave rise to upward mobility on either or both
parties, being mutually beneficial. It
was even more uncommon for European women to marry Indian men, although this
did occur, as recorded by Younger.[10] But according to the official definition of
an Anglo Indian, offspring of these unions are not AIs.
·
British
male arrivals into India frequently married into the wider AI community, rather
than from the pool of British women, known as ‘the fishing fleet’ that came to India
to find a good ‘catch’. The unsuccessful
women returning to UK were unkindly referred to as ‘returned empties’. This scenario possibly made the British women
look with disdain (arising possibly from envy/sour grapes) at AI women, further
contributing to the stereotype of AI women as ‘immoral’ and ‘seething with sex’
which induced British males to succumb![11]
·
British
men who married ‘local women’, whether AI or Indian, reflected negatively upon
traditional Indian hierarchical patterns because mixed blood or mixed race was
a taboo, reflecting negatively upon AI women.
·
European
males, Flack’s father Alborn from Norway, Hansen’s family with Swedish
connections, Doyle’s father José were obviously European, not British, and these
people identified with the term DE not ‘Anglo’.
·
Goans
strongly identified with the Portuguese colonizers and specifically Goa but seeking
eligibility for good jobs in India, called themselves
AIs.
·
Indian
Christians were sometimes called AIs, but AIs resented this because Indian
Christians lacked Anglo and/or European heritage. Indian Christians were considered part of Indian
communities not the British. It is
historically accepted that lower class Hindus had converted to Islam in huge
numbers when India was ruled by Muslims, esp. the Mughals. Thus, apart
from elite Muslim families, ordinary Indian Muslims were generally considered
to be from lower class/caste Hindu groups.
The same stigma has affixed to Indian converts to Christianity,
therefore Indian Christians were considered a lower ‘class’ than AIs.
Conclusion (5): This stereotype again focuses a derogatory accusation
at women, that is, criticizing male Europeans who consorted with or married
‘local’ women. The criticism implies that
these local women would be from lower classes because otherwise they adhere to
traditional norms and not associate with outsiders. Indian women who contravened traditional taboos
were ostracized by Indians, and any offspring from such liaisons were also
ostracized - in Hindu vocabulary are described by a derogatory term for
outsiders, mlecchas. Since it was socially unacceptable for the
British males to marry Indians, liaisons with any ‘local’ women, not
discriminating between Indian and Anglo Indian, broke societal norms and raised
contempt.
The derogatory
connotations associated with stereotypes (1) laziness of AIs and (4) being
employed on the railways and public services, do not arise from traditional
societal taboos being broken. The derogatory
interpretations are in fact due to incomplete, inaccurate or anachronistic perceptions
and attitudes, and, irrespective of different cultural values, stereotype (1)
is shown to be a fallacy, and (4) a reality.
Whereas the three
remaining stereotypes (2) lax morality of AI women, (3) AIs not mixing socially
with others, and (5) marriages to ‘local’ women, arise from disparities in societal
norms between Indian traditional patterns and European lifestyles. Stereotype 2 is a fallacy in terms of Anglo-Indian
and British society norms, but a reality when viewed and compared with
traditional Indian morality. Stereotypes
(3) and (5) are realities, but the derogatory connotations due to Indian
traditional attitudes and norms. Because
Indian societies imposed cloistered conditions and different social duties and patterns
of behaviour on their women, the vastly different European and Anglo Indian behaviour
of their women was perceived as immoral.
AIs, being as it were the meat in the sandwich, they fell prey to
criticism or sometimes perhaps envy, from both Indians and the British and the
derogatory connotations that arose stemmed from the different cultural
attitudes in each society.
The short bullet points used in this paper contain several overlapping
ideas that need to be developed into a narrative. But the importance of these points is that
they illustrate the paradoxes evident in attitudes towards and perceptions of Anglo
Indian lifestyles. As such, the Anglo
Indian community provides a paradigm for today’s multicultural and mestizo societies,
from which lessons can be learnt to avoid cross cultural and anachronistic
misunderstandings, so that divergent groups can live together with respect, irrespective
of differing values.
Bibliography
Abel,
Evelyn, The Anglo-Indian Community: Survival in India,
Delhi, Chanakya Publications, 1988
Anthony,
Frank, Britain’s Betrayal in India: The Story of the Anglo-Indian Community, Bombay, Allied
Publishers, 1969
Blackford,
Stan, One Hell of a Life, SA,
Australia, 2000
Caplan,
Lionel, Children of Colonialism:
Anglo-Indians in a Postcolonial World, Oxford and New York, Berg, 2001
Caplan,
Lionel,”Iconographies of Anglo-Indian Women: Gender Constructs and Contrasts in
a Changing Society” in Modern Asian
Studies, Vol 34, No 4, 2000
Gabb,
George, 1600-1947 Anglo-Indian Legacy,
Yorks, UK, 1998
McMenamin,
Dorothy, Raj Days to Downunder: Voices
from Anglo India to New Zealand, Christchurch, NZ, 2010, available through dorothysbookshop@gmail.com
McMenamin,
Dorothy,’Identifying Domiciled Europeans in Coloinal India: Poor Whites or
Privileged Community, in New Zealand
Journal of Asian Studies, Vol 3, no 1, June, 2001
Pennington,
William, Pick up your Parrots and Monkeys…..the
Life of a Boy Soldier in India, London, Cassall, 2003
Younger,
Coralie, Wicked Women of the Raj, New
Delhi, Harper Collins, 2003
Younger,
Coralie, Anglo-Indians: Neglected
Children of the Raj, Delhi, B.R. Publishing Corp, 1987
------------------------------------
Dorothy McMenamin holds an MA in
history and specializes in modern South Asian history and religions. She has
lectured on associated topics at the University of
Canterbury, New Zealand, and is a freelance oral historian. Her research
interests focus on trans-national identities, especially migrants from South
Asia to New Zealand. Projects and publications encompass the cultural identities
of Anglo-Indian societies in British India and New Zealand, as well as migrants
and refugees from the Indian subcontinent into New Zealand.
Dorothy was commissioned by Oxford
University from 2004-2006 to record oral histories regarding the life experiences
of leprosy sufferers in the South Pacific region. In 2009 she completed a Masters thesis which
has been adapted for general publication by McFarland Publishers, due out in
2011. The book is viewable on listings at www.mcfarlandpub.com
Dorothy McMenamin can be contacted at dorothym@inet.net.nz
[1]
Dorothy McMenamin Raj Days to Downunder:
Voices from Anglo India to New Zealand,
[2]
Two amongst many accounts are Stan Blackford One Hell of a Life, SA,
[3]
Some examples are Lionel Caplan, Children
of Colonialism, Anglo-Indians in a postcolonial World,
[4] ‘sirens’ … German academic (searching full citation).
[5]
William Pennington, Pick up your parrots
and monkeys…The life of a boy soldier in India, Cassall, London, 2003, pp.
102-106, and also referred to by Frank Anthony,
[6] Zarine Wadia-Malik and Kersie Khambatta, in Raj Days to Downunder, pp. 298-315.
[7] Richard Rodrigues and Tony Mendonça in Raj Days to Downunder.
[8] Dorothy McMenamin, ‘Identifying Domiciled Europeans in Colonial India: Poor whites or privileged community’ in New Zealand Journal of Asian Studies, Vol. 3, No. 1, June 2001, pp. 106-127.
[9] McMenamin, Raj Days, numerous contributors confirmed this in their family genealogies.
[10]
Coralie Younger, Wicked Women of the Raj,
[11] Lionel Caplan, “Iconographies of Anglo-Indian Women: Gender constructs and Contrasts in a Changing Society” in Modern Asian Studies, Vol. 34, No. 4, 2000, pp. 869 and 873.