The Mutiny in 1857 is seen as an important occurrence concerning the relation between Europeans and Indians. After the mutiny the relation between these two groups deteriorated. Racial discrimination gained more influence because many Europeans felt less secure in the colony. The influx of more British soldiers was no reassurance for the safety of members of the European community, especially not for those in the rural areas. They partly covered their insecurity by claiming racial superiority, and partly by treating their labourers and peasants very roughly. "Murder, homicide, riots, arson, dacoity, plunder and kidnapping" were methods that were used by indigo planters to force the Indian peasants to cultivate indigo.

In the post-Mutiny period Europeans had various views on the image of Indians, most of them not really flattering. One of them was the "tractable, mild Hindu" and another one, influenced by the Mutiny, "the cruel, scheming Oriental, who needed and only respected strong government". Besides these two there was the view of missionaries who thought the Indians were lacking a true religion and therefore were in need of one. A fourth view came from anthropologists. They regarded Europeans as superior concerning languages, intellect, character and appearance.

Indian society was commonly divided into two main groups, Europeans and Indians. However, the actual division was not as obvious as it appears to be. The division was not based on colour only but on other characteristics also. Another seemingly obvious distinction between Europeans and Indians was a geographical one; the original place of birth. Besides these two there were also other characteristics attributed to Europeans like civilization, culture, religion, dress and education, many of which could be substituted by each other. These were so-called racial characteristics and they were used to create and maintain a distinct European community. How this actually happened will be described in this chapter, as well as the consequences of it for the Anglo-Indian community.

Beforehand it is important to note discrimination was already practised in Indian society, also before the mutiny in 1857. Its main manifestation was that Europeans were not liable to the civil and criminal courts of the East India Company. As a result Europeans saw themselves as a privileged community and they accordingly acted like that.

Through the behaviour of Europeans the judiciary of the East India Company faced a lot of problems, which they tried to remove in the Charter Act of 1833. This was the first official move towards the principle of legal equality and the abolition of racial discrimination. Theoretically it was also the first step towards Indianization of the British Indian administration; the contents of the Charter Act, however, were hardly practised in society. Members of the European community strongly agitated against the contents of these, and succeeding Acts. The resistance mainly concerned clauses of the Acts which aimed at legal equality and abolition of racial discrimination. Before the Mutiny the ideas of Government reformers and members of the European community often collapsed.

After the Mutiny in 1857 the differences between the various communities in British India became more institutionalised, as a result of the Government's policy. It became more and more the Government's policy to make distinctions between the different communities in the last decades of the 19th century, despite the Queens Proclamation of 1858 in which she said that all subjects would "enjoy the equal and important protection of the law". She also said: "So far as may be our subjects of whatever race or creed be freely admitted to offices in our service the duties of which they may be qualified by their education, ability and integrity duly to discharge". Reality in India, however, became more alienated from these promises, not in the least because of the demands made by (influential) members of the European community. They were able to exert high pressures on the Government.

One example of the influence the European community had on the Indian Government is the Vernacular Press Act. After the Mutiny the vernacular press increased remarkable. It was partly the result of the western education Indians of the elite had received and partly stimulated by racial discrimination, against which it was also strongly agitating. Because of their anti-racial discrimination attitude and their significant role in the Nationalist movement the vernacular press faced a lot of resistance from the European community. The latter regretted the freedom which the press had enjoyed since 1835 so they urged the Government to abolish the free press. They succeeded when "The Vernacular Press Act was passed with 'unusual haste' at the instance of the viceroy" in 1878. This meant the end of freedom of the press.

The Act in it self also indicates the presence of racial discrimination in the second half of the 19th century. Educated Indians were not allowed to voice their opinion on issues concerning their own environment and people. British government was better for the country than its rule by natives, an opinion that is frequently described in the Anglo-Indian press of that era. In many issues of different Anglo-Indian newspapers a common argument is found that British rule is better for the "masses" than Indian rule.

In the second half of the 19th century there were different changes in the Government of England and therefore also in the government of the Empire. Each new Government had its own opinion about governing England and its colonies. Every four years there also was a change in viceroy who also had his own ideas about governing the colony. Therefore it was possible that the Government's policy could change with regard to the various communities. Besides, many Governments in the course of time were not reluctant to change their policy if they regarded it necessary. Their standpoints towards communities could also change during their reigning period. Every community could be regarded as a kind of instrument which the Indian Government could turn into its own favour. This could be done by way of discriminating a community or by way of favouring a community. The Anglo-Indian community was no exception to this way of 'using' and governing the various communities that constituted the Indian population. The history of the community into four periods is a good example of this policy.

When Lord Ripon became viceroy in 1880 he tried to rule the colony on a more liberal basis. One of the things he did, for example, was the abolition of the Vernacular Press Act. He also undertook other measures to attain legal equality in Indian society. The Ilbert Bill of 1883 is the best example of this endeavour. It also shows the power of the European community and its dislike of some aspects of British government.

After the Ilbert Bill was presented on the 2nd February 1883 there almost immediately rose a lot of resistance against it. The reason was that "the Bill intended to remove race disqualification from the Indian judges in the mofussil and reject the idea that an Indian, as such, was incapable of fairly trying a British-born subject." The European community, however, thought it was impossible for Indian judges to try British-born subjects impartial. They were regarded incapable because Indians were unable to understand European life and were therefore incapable of judging possible misbehaviour of Europeans. The reason for this was the Indian judges belonged to an inferior race.

The agitation against the Bill, also called the White Mutiny, mainly came from Europeans in the mofussil and from European businessman. The latter by way of the Bengal Chamber of Commerce which rejected the Bill and by way of individual protest. The Public Meeting in the Townhall of Calcutta, which was organized in order to give a strong and cohesive reply to the Bill, adopted several resolutions. One of them demanded the withdrawal of the Bill and another one resolved to send memorials of protest to the British parliaments.

During and after the Meeting members of the European community discussed the Bill, its defects, the Government's wrong assumptions, its consequences and the necessity of its withdrawal. The majority of the community strongly opposed the Bill, but not all of them with the same intensity. One speaker at the Meeting, Branson, was even boycotted after his speech, because of its offensive tone. After the remarks on his speech Branson regretted being swept away by the enthusiasm of the opposition to the Ilbert Bill, shown at the Meeting.

After merely one year of discussion an amended Bill was passed in January 1884. The European community had succeeded in changing the crucial parts of the Bill in their favour, despite the support the Bill had received in the Indian press. The impact of the controversy, however, was of great significance to the ideas of Indians, and their press. They had lost faith in British government.

One of Ripon's successors, Lord Curzon (1899-1905), also tried to take some measures against the racial discrimination shown by members of the European community. Therefore he also became impopular among Europeans living in India. His popularity among the Indian population was not of any significance either. Nevertheless, he was personally concerned with investigations against racial discrimination, especially investigations concerning military people. Their misbehaviour was mainly due to their living in a close military community, strictly separated from the other communities. Soldiers were not allowed to have social intercourse with Indians which sometimes resulted in mistreating Indians. It was not uncommon for soldiers to badly injure or kill Indians. The usual explanations that were given are 'the gun went off by accident' or they only gave 'a push with the foot'. The latter, however, almost inevitably coincided with a big liver or a big spleen of the unfortunate Indian. This explanation, supported by a medical report of an European doctor, was most of the times sufficient to dismiss the case with a small fine for the soldier.

Another aspect of racial discrimination can be found in the attempt of the Government to control sexual relations between Europeans and Indians. In the beginning of European presence it was dictated by the fear of venereal diseases among the soldiers. It was thought that visits to Indian prostitutes were inevitable for the soldiers because of their 'natural instincts', which were regarded hard to suppress for an average soldier. At the same time it was also impossible for soldiers to live with an European woman, mainly because they lacked the financial possibilities for that. Indian prostitutes, however, had to be supervised because they were a dangerous source of contagious diseases. And these could be harmful for European prestige once the soldiers were contaminated. Therefore the Government worked hard to find a solution to this problem. That this was not a simple task becomes clear when one looks at the different measures that were taken and changed after they were established.

The problem of sexual relations between Europeans and Indians increased when it became more common for European women to travel to the colonies. The arrival of European women in India also meant the appearance of a new group that could be dangerous for the maintenance of superior European status, besides the already present missionaries, poor Europeans and Anglo-Indians. Therefore the presence of European women displayed the practise of racial discrimination in different ways. This intensification of racism was not due to the presence of the women itself; more important was the fact their occurrence coincided with different threats to European dominance, like educated and westernized Indians and the with this connected rise of the Nationalist movement.

One of the outcomes of the arrival of European women in India was that Europeans began to live their life more according to recent European standards. These standards were strongly influenced by Eugenics and other middle-class philosophies. This meant Europeans in India focused on family life and motherhood which mainly took place inside the house, and therefore reduced the influence of other (public) parts of society. This was thought to be necessary, which is indicated by medical and household handbooks from the beginning of the 20th century which warned against the dangers of exposing little children to native servants. As a result Indian influences were excluded from European family life as much as possible. In the rural areas the exclusion of Indian influences was less because the European community was smaller over there, which forced them to also invite members of other communities to their social meetings. In the cities, however, even the poor Domiciled Europeans and Anglo-Indians were excluded from the British clubs, together with Indians.

A second manifestation of increasing racism was the supposed protection European women needed against Indian men. There were special laws to regulate the contact between the two groups. If these were violated Indian men were punished more heavily than European women. Still the latter were in their relation to men of their own race the subordinates in most aspects. European women were accused of jealousy with regard to Indian women in general, and especially with regard to concubinage. According to European men this indicated that European women were more racists than European men; a third explanation for intensifying racism. Women on their turn accused men of a double moral standard; it was allowed for them to have sexual contact with Indian women while it was forbidden for European women to have sexual contact with Indian men.

A fourth outcome of European female presence was the aggravation of internal differences within the European community. A more British lifestyle also meant a more class based division of European society in India. As a result the European community had its own internal hierarchy which made it important for members to distinguish themselves from others. The bottom of the hierarchy consisted mainly of poor Europeans and people of mixed descent, Anglo-Indians.

The poor Europeans were generally seen as a respectable group. Their presence, however, also contained the threat of discrediting European prestige. Most threatening were people with 'dubious' occupations, like barmaids and employees of brothels. Especially when the exploiters of the brothels were accused of having connections with white slave trade from eastern Europe to India. As a contradiction the missionaries, another group of Europeans who lived 'on the margins of social distance', were campaigning against these acts of social impurity.

At the end of the 19th century a new phenomenon emerged in Europe, called imperialism. "Imperialism arose from the commercial, industrial, financial, scientific, political, journalistic, intellectual, religious, and humanitarian impulses of Europe compounded together." Europe itself, however, could hardly be regarded as 'one'. The different nations within this continent were involved in a competitive struggle for territory and political power. It resulted in 'the scramble for Africa' and the establishment of European power in other parts of the world. Political power in different parts of the world was necessary for the European nations to secure their economic development and their already gained welfare.

At the same time the Catholics and the Protestants tried to involve the rest of the world in their religious dispute, by sending their missionaries throughout the world. Scientists also played an important role in the expansion of European influences with their need for data, and the therefore essential scientific expeditions. Besides these motives, which were seen as indispensable for the entire human race, there were also personal motives like hunting wild animals and sightseeing. This was, of course, to a large extent only possible for the wealthier part of the population, and because it had become more comfortable to travel with the new transport technologies. The new technologies increased the amount of Europeans coming to India. This made it possible for members of the European community to live their life more among their countryman. Therefore it also meant less contact with Indians.

Imperialism was inspired by the rivalry between the European nations to establish a worldwide empire. For India this meant the consolidation of British power. To be able to give the other European nations a reply in their search for (British) territory England needed a healthy and strong population. 'Population is power', argued political economists and others who made themselves heard in public discussions on this subject. If England was not able to fill up the empty spaces in their empire there was a big threat the other imperialist nations would do it for them.

The protection of the empire on its exterior borders was closely connected with the protection of, what social scientists call, the 'interior frontiers'. In this context it means the danger that threatens a nation or an empire from within; the quantity and the quality of its population. It was thought that the maintenance of an empire required a population that was physically and mentally able to inhabit and defend its territory. Therefore it was necessary for the British government to control and promote the increase of the population. Not only politicians were concerned with these problems, a large amount of the middle-class also joined in the discussion about the alarming condition and insufficient increase of the population. The discussion led to extreme theories like that of the Eugenics. They "...wanted a selective limitation of population growth, to prevent the 'deterioration of the race' and decline as an imperial nation through the proliferation of those they regarded as 'unfit' (to breed)". In this process the family, and especially the mother, played an important role. For the empire it was important that British children were born healthy and that they were reared in the right way. In both these aspects the mother had an essential role. As said before, these ideas and theories also became common among the British in India with the arrival of European women. It led to the exclusion of Indian manners and lifestyles from European family life in India.

Aspects of imperial morality and values were for example manliness, loyalty and discipline. These were important values taught at school, also by means of sports. Sports, especially teamsports, increased companionship, courage, promptitude and a sense of responsibility, according to the British. Besides the moral virtues which were developed by means of sport, it also had physical importance. It proved the superiority of the British. According to them Indians, and especially the Bengali elite, were physically weak. The stereotype of Bengalis during a greater part of British rule was in one word effete, by which was meant effeminate, unmilitary, frail and cowardly. The emphasis on sports among the British, and the larger European community, only widened the gap between the physical qualities of Europeans and Indians, argued the former.

For the maintenance of the empire it was regarded necessary that the Anglo-Saxon race should increase and improve its breed. British social and political leaders and spokesmen, and to a lesser extent the population in general, began to think of themselves as a distinct, superior race compared with the other European as well as non-European races. For the British in India this meant their countryman at 'home' began to speak in the same manner and began to use the same terms as they already did. This in its turn stimulated the racial discrimination in India because the British in India felt more supported in their approach towards Indians than they were before.

The assumed necessity of a strong population to maintain the empire led to racial and superiority thinking among parts of the British population. Another role this superiority thinking had, and which was closely linked with the maintenance of the empire, was a justification towards the British population for sending their people all over the world. This was not only regarded necessary for the development of England and capitalism, but the British assumed they had an important task to fulfil in the uncivilized parts of the world, the White Man's burden. A task which could only be accomplished by a 'superior race'. Therefore it was necessary to be regarded as the only group of people (race) who were able to carry out this 'burden'. However, the Indian elite, which identified itself with, and was educated according to European standards, also thought of themselves as capable for this task. This resulted in a power struggle between the Indian elite and the Europeans in India, a struggle which was fought with so called racial arguments.

The asserted racial superiority of the British led to a growing race consciousness among the Indian elite, who began to feel proud of their own racial origin. This was strongly influenced by the personal experiences of eminent members of the Nationalist movement, which in order to support its goal tried to stimulate the idea of racial Indian superiority. Almost every Indian of eminence had experienced some sort of racial discrimination in the 1870s. The vernacular press published many articles in which the authors agitated against the discrimination practices of the Europeans and in which they claimed Hindu superiority; it were mainly high caste Hindus who claimed superiority. In almost every field in which the British felt superior they undermined it by claiming Hindu superiority.

One example of these expressions is an article in the Native Opinion which states "... that the English are nothing more than the descendants of the monkeys who aided Rama in his conquest of Lanka, and whom he had for a reward of their services, afterwards converted into men." Another example of how British superiority was challenged is a story about a principal of the Sanskrit College, Vidyasagar. He received his colleague of the Hindu College, Mr. Karr, with his feet upon the table after the latter had received him in the same manner a week before. However, Mr Karr lodged a complaint at the secretary of the Council of Education who in reply to his request for an explanation heard from Vidyasagar that he had learned these 'refined manners' from a civilized European.

Racial consciousness not only led to comparatively innocent reactions like the previous two examples. One expression of the supposed British superiority was the accusation to the Bengali Bhadralok they didn't constitute a 'martial' race, and therefore were unable to rule a country. In respond to this Bengali patriots tried to gain a 'martial' status to prove they were independent and able to rule a country. They mainly did this by undertaking terrorist activities and by the establishment of some sort of military/political organisations of which can be said to have led to the rise of the Indian National Army. The opinion of Anglo-Indians upon some violent actions of 'Bengali anarchists' will be described in the fourth chapter. These actions also occurred as part of the process mentioned above.

The idea of effeteness in which even some of the Bengali elite themselves believed, was also challenged by the end of the 19th century. In Calcutta, and throughout Bengal akhras were (re)founded where people were trained in gymnastics, wrestling and other traditional sports. These akhras were often, but not always, connected with nationalist and terrorist groups. Anyhow, by the majority of its users akhras were seen as means to (im)prove the physical abilities of Indians, which they were supposed not to have according to Europeans.

Indians not only began to feel themselves superior towards Europeans but, almost naturally, also towards the Anglo-Indians. Partly because the latter pretended to be, and acted like Europeans and partly because Anglo-Indians were regarded as 'impure' according to the Hindu tradition. This superiority feeling also resulted in the discrimination of Anglo-Indians who by this time had to face discrimination from both sides of their predecessors.

The discrimination by Indians was also stimulated by the fact many Anglo-Indians joined the Volunteer Force, which was later known as the Auxiliary Force. It was a supplement to the British army and was mainly used for internal security purposes. So during riots, strikes and other disturbances the Volunteer Force was used to suppress these actions. For Indians the Volunteer Force became similar with an anti-Indian army which consisted mainly of Anglo-Indians. Still the discrimination by the British harmed the Anglo-Indians psychologically because the Anglo-Indians had always identified themselves with the British throughout their history.

The British introduced racial inequality in India. However, before they were able to influence social life in India there already existed inequality in Indian society. The Hindu caste system, which still exists, was the most visible example of inequality. The caste system is based on the principles of reincarnation and contamination. Behaviour in a former life is the decisive factor in which caste one will return in a next life. The stratification of the different castes is very rigid and is based on the fear of contamination by people of a lower caste. As a result members of different castes live separate lives and only associate with each other when necessary.

In practise the caste system had much in common with the theories of racial thinking which were developed in Europe at the end of the 19th century. The most important of the many differences, however, between the two theories which legalized inequality is the European racial theories were based on genetical heredity and the Hindu caste system was not. Another important difference is the fact racial characteristics were used in political power struggles. The caste system was not used in that way. By some the caste system is regarded as the reason why racial thinking could gain such an influence in British India, also among the Indian elite. However, this is only one view on racism with regard to the Hindu caste-system. There are also scholars who do not agree with this theory.

In between the two 'elite' communities there was a wide range of other communities. In his book Race, Sex and Class under the Raj Ballhatchet describes the ambiguity of three groups of people who lived 'on the margins of social distance' between the ruling race and other communities present in India. These ambiguous groups consists of Anglo-Indians, missionaries and Indian princes. The latter were not members of the ruling race but they were born into a ruling class. Combined with their western education this resulted in social contacts with high-class Europeans and a western way of life. Their social intercourse was mainly with Europeans in Europe, where they received a part of their education. Members of the European community were not always fond of these westernized Indian princes. This dislike generally appeared and increased at the end of the 19th century. Indian princes were then often seen as a threat to European prestige and superiority, because they lessened the distance between Europeans and Indians.

However, Indian princes had not always been regarded as a threat to, and by, the European community. The more they became each others competitors the more the Indian princes were disliked by Europeans living in India. The Indian Government looked at the Indian princes from a different angle. They regarded them useful supporters who could help to govern the subcontinent. Both parties gained from this cooperation, the Indian princes because "...as long as they danced to the imperial tune, they enjoyed security without struggle", and the Indian Government because they could control a larger territory with this method of indirect rule. The majority of the European community, however, regarded the increasing importance of the princes as a threat to their own way, and means of life.

In novels written about British India it is suggested that Indians visiting the West behaved different in Europe than in India. Once they were back in their own country they acted like members of the 'subordinate race', according to the British permanently living in India. Besides this, Europeans living in India were not fond of the aristocratic relationship between Indian princes and high-class Europeans. Europeans in India originated mainly from the European middle-class but in India they behaved like high-class Europeans. The situation became even more threatening when the Indian princes also wanted to marry European women.

Missionaries were mainly members of the ruling race with an important task in India. They represented Christianity, one of the eminent symbols of western civilization. At the same time, and as a result of their activities, they established close relationships with Indians. According to some criticizers only with the wealthier part of society, with the consequence of being accused of neglecting poor converts. They were also concentrating too much on spreading the Christian message instead of taking care of the social and psychological welfare of the Christians (Anglo-Indians) in India. Another standpoint of missionaries which also made their position ambiguous was that they stated the legal inequality and racial arrogance shown by most of the Europeans was a big obstacle for their task. Missionaries were seen as members of the ruling race whom most of the Indians disliked because of their behaviour in India. This attitude hampered the missionary activities, something which the missionaries openly regretted.

The third group that constituted a threat to European prestige because of their ambiguous social position was the community which plays a central role in this inquiry, the Anglo-Indian community. Because of their mixed origin they were often confronted with racial discrimination. Various Indian characteristics were attributed to them by the majority of the European community, especially characteristics that were regarded as inferior. Ballhatchet gives an example of an Anglo-Indian who was discriminated because he had some Indian blood. He, J.D. Gillies, was a qualified Assistant Surgeon who worked with the East India Company, after he was recommended to the Company by his examiners at the Royal College of Surgeons on whom he had made a big impression. Within the Company, however, he had to face a lot of rivalry, especially as an Anglo-Indian. So one day Gillies was suspended by the Inspector-General of Hospitals because he had acted 'disgraceful'. Gillies was specialized in women diseases which made his position among the other medical practitioners even more troublesome. A few months of technical investigations and discussion were necessary to prove something which in the end appeared to be "...the insistence of the English elite that their women should be protected from physical contact with Eurasian males." Despite the fact that the female patients of Gillies had absolutely no complaints about the Assistant Surgeon, on the contrary, some even favoured him as their surgeon. Besides the accusations of being unskilful Gillies was also accused of having no 'gentleman' manners. The case was even generalized by statements like "...nor any other East Indian brought up and educated in India should ever be placed in a position to afford medical aid to European ladies and families". Similar examples can be found in The Eurasian and in The Anglo-Indian Guardian. This should also be seen in the context of the assumed protection European women needed. The protection was, as said before, against men with Indian ancestors. An idea which mainly originated in the minds of European men who were plagued by jealousy.

That racism was not based on pure biological arguments only is already mentioned before. Racism actually meant discrimination based on grounds of education, religion, culture, civilization, habits, history and physiological characteristics. A good example of the discrimination towards Anglo-Indians, and to a lesser extent also towards Indians in

general, can be found in an article by Thomas Edwards, who at that time was an influential British official in India. It deals with the problems of Eurasians and poor Europeans in India.

Edwards discussed different measures to improve the worsening situation of these people, especially by means of their education. He started his article with a description of the average Anglo-Indian, using phrases like: "No doubt their birth and training tended in some measure to rob their character of some of those higher qualities which characterize the race of their fathers; and to foster in them some of those less desirable attributes which a lifelong contact with the lower class of natives is likely to produce in the descendants even of the most robust races; inordinate conceit, an excessive selfconfidence, not always well grounded, love of finery and display, a disinclination to do for themselves even in the commonest details of every-day life the slightest service that dependants could be got to perform, and an aversion to engage in any pursuit, or take up any calling, which was supposed beneath the dignity of gentlemen, and the descendants of a conquering race to follow."

The article is mainly about the request by members of the community for special, State, education, like was available for Hindus and Mohammedans, at that time (1881). This policy of providing education to, mainly elite, Indians was also part of the Government's policy to sort of institutionalize the differences between the various communities. This was done by the creation of State-aided 'public schools' for the various groups of people. Anglo-Indians in their earlier years, however, always had to rely on their own educational facilities, provided to them by missionaries and private agencies.

So when the Government provided complete educational schemes for the Indian communities, Anglo-Indians also wished to have their own State-aided colleges, from infant school to the full curriculum of an English college. Anglo-Indians were reluctant to receive State-aided education together with members of the Indian communities because they belonged to the European community and should therefore receive the same education as people in England. Edwards, however, did not agree with this because "It appears to us, that, however desirable in some respects the full realization of this complete scheme may be, there are no valid reasons why the sons of Eurasians should not sit side by side with those of Hindoos and Mahomedans in the class-rooms of the Government colleges. By the time the Eurasian lads are ready to enter on the study of the subjects implied in the curriculum of a college, the teachings of the family, the social circle, and their own educational establishments will have already done much to form the character and rendered it highly improbable, that either their faith or their morals will be injuriously affected by such an arrangement."

Edwards' reasoning was based on his belief in 'the survival of the fittest'. Talking about the Anglo-Indian race he said: "If they can acquire and develop habits, capacities, and conditions of life, that will render it possible for them to co-exist with older and purer native races, or that will maintain the ascendancy of the race from whence they sprung, then their future is secure; and it is a future weighted with responsibility and it may be with glory and renown. If not, they will as surely go under in the struggle of life as race after race has already disappeared, or is disappearing, before others with more enduring qualities."

From these quotations it becomes clear that a variety of arguments is used to distinguish Anglo-Indians from 'pure' Europeans, or actually more prosperous Europeans. It was actually a class problem fought on racial grounds. All kinds of less favourable characteristics were attributed to Anglo-Indians in order to prove they constituted an 'inferior race'. A race which had inherited the worst qualities of both races from which it originated. However, the importance of the social surrounding is stressed in the quotations. It says that if Anglo-Indians are raised in the right, European way, it becomes possible to educate them alongside with natives, without the danger of getting affected by the 'inferior' qualities of the natives. So what is actually said is that Anglo-Indians are inferior to Indians, unless they are raised in the right way and behave in the right way. Then the characteristics of their father's race will become visible, which again makes them superior to Indians. The latter, however, does not mean that they were also regarded as equals to 'pure' Europeans.

The racial discrimination against Anglo-Indians is also found in novels about British India. Most of the novels are said to reflect a truthful picture of British life in the colony. In a study by F.M. Mannsaker the author firmly points out the discrimination Anglo-Indians had to face in this era. The article, East and West: Anglo-Indian racial attitudes as reflected in popular fiction, 1890-1914, gives good examples of the injustice done to Anglo-Indians. Although the title suggests it concerns racial feelings shown by people of mixed descent the opposite is true. It is mainly about racial attitudes against Anglo-Indians and other Indians by British subjects living permanently in India, who at that time were called Anglo-Indians. Despite the statement of Gomathi Narayanan that British novelists were only interested in analyzing the problems of Anglo-Indians at the close of British rule in India, Mannsaker gives plain examples of racial discrimination against Anglo-Indians. He quotes obvious instances of racial discrimination against Anglo-Indians as well as against westernised Indians from the novels he studied. He uses these quotations to illustrate his conclusion that the British attitude found in the novels is one of fear of everything that is a mixture of European and Indian culture and therefore is threatening to European prestige.

The British mostly feared the westernized Indian and Anglo-Indian at the turn of the century because they 'imitated' the British, while at the same time the British favoured Indians who were untouched by western culture. These could be patronized and civilized, the reason for British presence and supremacy in India, as Kipling wrote in his famous poem:

Take up the White Man's burden-

Send out the best ye breed-

Go bind your sons to exile,

To serve your captives' need,

To wait in heavy harness,

on fluttered folk and wild-

Your new-caught sullen peoples,

Half devil and half child.

So the White Man's burden was threatened by Anglo-Indians and westernized Indians who presented themselves as 'civilized' already; they had comparable education, they spoke English and they generally acted like the British. This could be interpreted as being able to 'civilize' the rest of the population on the subcontinent. A reason for the British to look for imperfections in the appearance of Anglo-Indians and westernized Indians, which resulted in (succeeding) attempts to discriminate and neglect them.

At the end of the 19th century there appeared a new name for Europeans living a great part of their life in India, the Domiciled Europeans. In the first instance a Domiciled European was a person born of European parents who had made India their permanent domicile. In the course of time, however, the status of their descendants became less clear because these could be nominated as 'country-born', which gave them the same standing as Anglo-Indians. Besides this matter of appellation it also became more complicated because of the intermarriage that was taking place between members of the two communities, who in fact already had the same mode of life. Or as Rev. Jas Doyle says in The Eurasian of May 2, 1908: "The distinction between Domiciled European and Eurasians is an artificial one. They intermarry. Their children are educated in the same schools. The fathers toil at the same tasks. They worship at the same altars. They have the same joys and sorrows; the same hopes and aspirations. And when the sands of life are run out, they are laid to rest side by side in the same cemeteries. They are not two peoples, then, but one; with a solidarity of domestic, social, material and political interests."(p. 47) So it was almost inevitable that the two communities became to be regarded as one, which gave them the designation of the Domiciled European and Anglo-Indian Community.

Another cause of the intermingling of Domiciled Europeans and Anglo-Indians was that the government of British India preferred Europeans who were educated in Europe for the higher qualified jobs in their administration. This 'upper branch' is also known as the Covenanted Civil Service. Through this policy Anglo-Indians and Domiciled Europeans had to face similar acts of discrimination, the latter slightly less than the Anglo-Indians. But enough to gave them a common enemy. Because of the restrictions for joining the Covenanted Civil Service most of the Domiciled Europeans and Anglo-Indians were employed in a lower level of the administration, called the Uncovenanted Civil Service. However, in this service they were confronted Indianization. It was officially laid down in 1870 that no law or Act of Parliament could restrain the authorities from employing 'Natives of India' in the Civil Service. In 1879 this was extended by the establishment of a 'native branch' in the administration, the Statutory Civil Service.

The words 'Natives of India' applied to "...any person born and domiciled within the dominions of Her Majesty in India of parents habitually resident in India, and not established there for temporary purposes only, and that it shall be lawful for the Governor-General in Council to define and limit from time to time the qualification of Natives of India this expressed..." The latter was done in 1882 when it was decided that 'Natives of India' only applied to persons of 'pure Asiatic origin'. Till then Anglo-Indians and some Domiciled Europeans could also be regarded as 'Natives of India', which made it possible for them to be employed under this designation. As a result of the changed sense of 'Natives of India' Anglo-Indians were excluded from the Upper Subordinate grades of the Uncovenanted Civil Service, which they had dominated till then, as well as from the Statutory Civil Service.

In 1886 it became even more complicated for Anglo-Indians and Domiciled Europeans. Since then the Civil Service consisted of only two branches. The Covenanted Civil Service was changed into the Imperial Service which only employed a 'corps d'elite' which was recruited "...by open competition in England only under suitable standards and conditions of its own". This should be seen with regard to the assumed 'superiority' and imperialism of European nations, which is described before. It was argued that education in England was of a higher standard than European education in India. The Uncovenanted Civil Service and Statutory Civil Service were brought together in the Provincial Service for which employees were recruited from the various 'races' of India, in order to secure a fair representation of these 'races'. However, as a result of Indianization, which had actually also led to this new differentiation of the Civil Service, most of the Anglo-Indians and Domiciled Europeans were excluded from the Provincial Service.

This meant the employment possibilities of Anglo-Indians and Domiciled Europeans were reduced and threatened from two sides; Europeans 'fresh' from Europe on one hand, and Indians on the other hand. Both acts of discrimination were influenced and defended by 'racist' arguments.

Members of the Domiciled European and Anglo-Indian Community, whom from now on will be called the Domiciled Community in this inquiry, were not regarded 'true' Europeans because they lacked the necessary education and upbringing for this qualification. Even on grounds of their Christian conviction members of the Domiciled Community were excluded from the designation 'true' European. Christianity was regarded not a mere belief in Christ, but it was closely connected with what was called social morality. In an article in The Anglo-Indian the differences between Christianity and Hinduism are discussed. It is a reply to the often asked question in the vernacular press whether Europeans are rightly "...held up as models to the degraded heathen of this country", after Indian authors had proved that members of the European community had not behaved themselves in the correct way. The article is an attempt to prove the superiority of Christianity towards Hinduism. It uses different arguments for this, but the most striking one is that Christianity is an individual acquisition, while Hinduism is not. Hinduism is a hereditary possession and therefore Hindus do not possess the right morality. "There is this difference, also, apparent in the results of the influence of Christianity and Hinduism on living societies, that, whereas Christianity has so far influenced even nominally Christian people that it has created a high ideal standard of morals which excersises a repressing effect on immorality, Hinduism has forged so few social terrors for immorality that, not only are gross immoralities associated with some religious ceremonies, but the standard of social morality for which it is responsible is very low."

Still this did not naturally mean all Christians possessed a better morality than Hindus; "But perhaps the most puzzling developments of social morality are found in the Domiciled Community, in which the higher standards of English morality develop, in conflict with the moral laxity of native society, a hybrid hypocrisy, resulting in spasmodic attempts to break away from degradation, tempered with a chronic and sometimes calculating contentment with deterioration. Even here, however, the power of the higher morality is shown in the shame which haunts men who are conscious of their own hypocrisy, and are at any rate ready to condemn in others the vices which they ignore in themselves." So even in the periodicals which were written for the Domiciled Community, Anglo-Indians were accused of lacking the qualities on grounds of which they themselves tried to be regarded as 'true' Europeans.

But Anglo-Indians were not regarded as 'pure' Indians either by the latter, because one of their ancestors was European, and because Anglo-Indians generally acted and behaved like Europeans. This again indicates the 'flexibility' of a phenomenon as racism. Arguments and indicators which suits someone or a community best are transformed into racial characteristics, in order to include oneself or exclude someone else from a community.

Within the Domiciled European and Anglo-Indian Community, however, there also existed a hierarchy based on 'racial' characteristics. This was not only officially imposed upon them through the employment preferation of Domiciled Europeans in the higher grades of the Uncovenanted Civil Service but also because the Domiciled Europeans felt superior towards the Anglo-Indians. The latter didn't have 'pure' European blood which was enough to regard them as inferior to the Domiciled European. An Anglo-Indian who was aware of this prejudice wrote a letter to the editor of The Anglo-Indian Guardian about this (Domiciled) European approach towards Anglo-Indians. It said: "Sir - A writer on "The Anglo-Indian question" in the last issue of the Calcutta Review, states a fact which merits the attention of the Eurasian community. In noticing some of the characteristics of the East Indian, this writer states that "he has one unpleasant quality which is often prominently obtrusive and which is much noticed and much disliked by all who meet him. He has, as a rule, great conceit. One of the reasons less operative but still operative in producing this conceit, is the fact that he is half-ashamed of himself. If he be a European by birth he will own no kinship with his class. If he be of mixed descent, he instinctively looks up to the man with a skin slightly fairer than his own, and down on the man with a skin a shade or two darker. This half feeling of shame, causes, in his dealings with Englishmen, reserve, which is shown by extreme sensitiveness and becomes finally conceit." There is no doubt a large amount of truth in these remarks, which can only be appreciated by those who are thoroughly acquainted with the peculiar position held by Eurasians in this country. To Englishmen fresh from home, this sensitiveness and conceit may prove agreeable, but it ought to be known that these prominent defects are the outcome of a long standing prejudice against colour, which probably is shared in by none more than the average Englishman himself, after he gains a footing in this country."

This led to efforts to be regarded as a Domiciled European. It sometimes even looked like the world was turned upside down: "Even people who aren't half-castes are suspected of being if they can't prove they've been to what we call 'home'.", are the words of the Anglo-Indian Dorothy in the novel The Alien Sky. Although this statement is made in a novel it was not an uncommon thing within the Domiciled Community to prove you were not an Anglo-Indian; someone with inferior Indian blood. How this actually happened will be described in the chapters 3 and 4.

Racial thinking and racial arguments were not only used by the British to put themselves above the Indians but also to indicate dissimilarities between the different Indian communities. With this they tried to undermine the basis of the Indian National Movement; according to the British an Indian nationality didn't exist. Ann Stoler goes rightly beyond these arguments by stating that "They (racist ideologies, EV) were part of a critical class-based logic, statements not only about indigenous subversives, but directives aimed at dissenting European underlings in the colonies - and part of the apparatus that kept potentially subversive white colonials in line." The latter also meant discrimination of Anglo-Indians, who as a result of this were rejected by their favoured ancestors; their social, political, economic and cultural reference group. In the words of the community's main leader: Britain's betrayal in India.

It is clear that different characteristics - mainly called racial characteristics, which they were not if we look at it in a pure biological way - were used to create distinct communities, also within the Domiciled Community. The 'pure' European community was put on top of the social rank, mainly by itself, and the members used various (racial) arguments to maintain their privileged position.