The previous two chapters briefly described Indian society at the turn of the century, and the history of the Anglo-Indian community. The latter also with emphasis on the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century. However, none of the two chapters gives a clear view of how racist ideas circulated within the community. Despite Frank Anthony's statement that "No one who is not close to the Community, who is not aware of its social stratification, the educational and social matrix from which it has emerged can pretend to pontificate about its attitudes whatever unctions he may apply to his shallow, meretricious writing.", I will try to describe visions of Anglo-Indians on the enquiry's subject. I will also try to prove that Frank Anthony was partly right with his statement; it is not only difficult for someone not close to the community, but it must also be difficult for someone who is even part of the community.

To make this clear I will use two different approaches to describe the visions and attitudes of Anglo-Indians. The first approach deals with their vision upon themselves, their selfperception. The other approach is through their vision upon other communities in British India. The latter will be the contents of the next chapter. This division is already glanced at in the introduction of this inquiry. It is based on a division which is often used when people talk of attitudes, identities and other characteristics which are used to describe positions within a society. People make distinctions between the others, 'they', and themselves, 'we'. In the context of this research it is also significant because Anglo-Indians also used these designations when they discussed different matters concerning India and their role within this territory. What is actually described here is a kind of competition between Anglo-Indians and other inhabitants of the colony. Of course there is a big connection between these, artificially, divided visions and attitudes towards themselves and towards the other communities. For this inquiry, however, it is useful because it is a possibility to clarify a very complex issue.

Before the selfperception of Anglo-Indians will be described, with regard to the different aspects of racism, it is important to look at the Anglo-Indian response to the Ilbert Bill. This will be done in the second paragraph. Only two of the Anglo-Indian newspapers which are used for this inquiry were published a few years before the Ilbert Bill. The other newspapers which have been studied were published after the Bill was presented. Therefore they must have been influenced by the Ilbert Bill controversy, which makes it necessary to discuss this matter before the other ones.

The third paragraph of this chapter is about the discord of defining members of the community. Other aspects which will be dealt with in the various paragraphs are colour of skin, religion, economic position, education, employment, colonialism and (dis)unity in the Anglo-Indian community. For this division into paragraphs with different subjects (aspects of racism) the same remark must be made as is done with the division between the selfperception and the vision upon other communities. It is a pure artificial distinction that is made, because all the distinguished aspects of racism are closely connected with each other. Therefore a lot of references will be made between the paragraphs in the chapters 3 and 4. Still the division is made in an attempt to clarify the whole matter.

The response of the European community to the announcement of the Ilbert Bill, which favoured the abolition of racial discrimination and the establishment of legal equality in the judiciary, is already described in the first chapter. The response of the Anglo-Indian community was virtually the same, if not more fanatic. Anglo-Indians anonymously choose side with the Europeans. There were also several Anglo-Indians who spoke at the Public Meeting in the Town Hall of Calcutta to protest against the Bill.

The Eurasian and Anglo-Indian Association started its Annual Report of 1883 with a comment on the event which made 1883 "the most eventful one in the history of the Association." Although the author could only speak for the seven years of the Association's existence unto 1883, it can be said these were prophetic words. The report also stated the board of Directors of the Association was satisfied with their own reply to the Bill, like all their members, they assumed. The Association powerfully promoted the Public Meeting in the Town Hall. To some extent they were also engaged in the organisation of it. This makes clear that the Anglo-Indian reaction was almost identical to that of the majority of the European community in India.

Some Anglo-Indians even ascribed to themselves the settlement of the matter. They were the decisive factor as The Anglo-Indian wrote in its first issue. According to them Lord Ripon had also ascribed an important role to the Anglo-Indians. Although not in the way it actually worked out. He had hoped Anglo-Indians would support his proposal. But "...without actually taking up the position from any selfish premeditation, the Eurasian and domiciled English community drifted in 1883 into a position in which the weight of their decision on any really important public question directly and distinctly affected the balance of public opinion...In giving full rein to a healthy instinct, without any selfish calculation and casting in their lot for all time with Englishmen, beside whom they had fought during the mutinies, they risked much and perhaps sacrificed something that more calculating natures would prefer to retain, but they won the thankful regard of all right minded Englishmen in India." Anglo-Indians remained convinced of their right decision by choosing side with the British. In the beginning of the 20th century they still blamed Lord Ripon for his policy. His policy had created a division within the European, or non-Indian, community as well as distinctions among the Indian population. In the words of The Eurasian "There were then (before 1883-EV) two divisions in India, the European on the one hand including all that was semi-European, and on the other the Native, in which Hindu and Moslem were mixed together in an indiscriminate mass." Throughout the research period of this inquiry Anglo-Indians never regretted their response to the Ilbert Bill. They strongly opposed to the Bill.

Members of the Anglo-Indian community have had various names attributed to them throughout their history. Most of these names were given to them by others than themselves. At the beginning of the 19th century it appears that Anglo-Indians became aware of the negative connotations of their name(s). The awareness was, most probably, stimulated by the growth of the community, which also made the community as a whole more influential. This resulted in the official acceptance of the name East-Indian in 1825. However, after some time this name was not used any more. In practise the name Eurasian was wide-spread, even in official documents. So the community's name was changed in Eurasian, which in its turn was not used consequently either.

In the second half of the 19th century people of mixed descent regarded themselves as one with Anglo-Indians, a term which at that time referred to Europeans living permanently in India. In 1876 the Eurasian and Anglo-Indian Association was established in Calcutta with the purpose of representing the communities after which it was named. However, despite its double name (Eurasian and Anglo-Indian) many Eurasians said the two communities were actually one. In fact, the association mainly consisted of Eurasians. There were many similarities between the Eurasian and Anglo-Indian communities: European descent, same religion, same education, same sort of employment, same language, and a comparable economic position. Therefore a tendency emerged among Eurasians to call themselves Anglo-Indian. Most of the times these persons were well off and 'blessed' with a fair skin. They were also the ones who stated their opinion in public, through meetings and through Anglo-Indian newspapers.

To be able to do this properly 'a weekly newspaper and review' was founded in 1878, The Anglo-Indian Guardian. It was associated with the Eurasian and Anglo-Indian Association but it was published under the responsibility of an independent editor. In the Second Annual Report of the association it is said that the association did not always agree with what was written in the newspaper, but they were glad the medium existed. In the Anglo-Indian Guardian the terms Eurasian and Anglo-Indian are both used to indicate the community of mixed descent. For 'pure' Europeans only the term Anglo-Indian is used. The latter were not always pleased by this tendency among Eurasians to call themselves Anglo-Indians. This is also briefly pointed out in the last paragraph of the first chapter. Both groups constituted the community of Domiciled Europeans with on top of its internal hierarchy Anglo-Indians. So to get on top of this hierarchy Eurasians who had the possibilities for it, presented themselves as Anglo-Indian. The necessary qualifications for this were mainly a good economic position and a fair skin.

Since members of the community of mixed descent began to call themselves Anglo-Indian there again emerged a discussion about which name applied best to the community. It reached its height in the first decade of the 20th century, but it lasted unto the 1930s, even after the term Anglo-Indian was officially recognised. Influential spokesmen like Wallace and Dover still preferred the name Eurasian in the 1930s.

Different arguments were used by both sides. People with preference for the term Anglo-Indian said the name Eurasian had bad connotations. Mr Madge, president and founder of The Anglo-Indian Association in Calcutta defends the name of his association as follows: "...'Anglo-Indian' is more appropriate than 'Eurasian': first because it does not imply a slur: second because it will attract many Domiciled persons of pure British descent who would have nothing to do with an 'Eurasian' institution." On another occasion the same Mr Madge said that the name Eurasian signified 'bastardy'. An example of other associations that were made with the name Eurasian was that it "got to be so hopelessly mingled as to be indistinguishable from Native Christians". It was so indistinguishable that the name Eurasian was "now plainly meaning a Native Christian in English clothes".

So the most important arguments against the name Eurasian were its negative connotations and the fact that it didn't put enough emphasis on the connection with England. To prevent the possibility of being neglected by the British or being degraded by them as Indians, it was regarded necessary to maintain the link with England, to which most Anglo-Indians referred as 'home'. This link was regarded most obvious when it was also found in the name of the community.

People in favour of the name Eurasian argued the term Anglo-Indian was to narrowly defined. It only referred to people who had an English ancestor in the male line and who's other ancestors were Indian. 'What about someone with for example a French ancestor in the male line, or even more complicated, also with Burmese or Malayan ancestors?', were the kind of questions that were asked by persons who protested against the name Anglo-Indian. They argued that the name Eurasian applied to all communities throughout Asia which were of mixed descent. This should be regarded as a positive aspect because they all had to face the same difficulties in the various areas. So it was better to constitute one 'race', 'the Eurasian race', in order to improve the situation of all people of mixed descent.

Another argument that was stated by 'Eurasians' was that people who were in favour of the name Anglo-Indian were too much focused on their British heritage. This was not regarded a sufficient reason by the opponents of the name Anglo-Indian, because people in the United States and Australia also had the same, English culture, but they didn't call themselves Englishmen either. These arguments are not only found in literature that is written just after the research period of this inquiry, but also in the different Anglo-Indian newspapers written during the period concerning this research.

In 1909 there was a fanatic discussion going on among members of the community in Calcutta about the best suitable name. It was merely a discussion between members of the Anglo-Indian Association and people who were connected with the weekly The Eurasian. The title of this magazine already suggests the opinion of its editor about the matter, as does the name of the Association. In the issue of May 29th, 1909, is written that The Eurasian is unable to publish all the letters that it has received about the subject, but "...We may, however, sum up the various suggestions for a national name. 'Anglo-Indian' is the term apparently favoured by most of the community..."(p. 94)

Still, this didn't restrain the magazine from maintaining its name and writing devoted articles to justify its own name. A good example of this is an article in the issue of August 7th, 1909 from which I will quote some of the last paragraphs: "...Do not claim kith and kin with Englishman; the relationship is very faint and it is not desired by them; why then trust yourself on their notice? It is not your fault for what you are racially: if fault there be, it was at the graves of your progenitors, and there led it be buried. Bestir yourselves now: stand on your pride and claim what you have hitherto been cringing for. Do not be contemptuous of your less favoured brethren in respect of colour, creed and coin; remember your feelings at the treatment you received at the hands of your luckless progenitors' brethren, and observe the golden rule. Remember that your home is India, and all Indians are your compatriots. Call yourselves by whatever term you may fancy, Indians you remain by reason of your nativity...Do not call yourselves Anglo-Indians, for, according to the officially accepted meaning and proprietary rights of that term, you cannot be that favoured creature; nor according to the meaning now sought to given to it can you class yourselves as such. Remain what you incontrovertibly are, - a fusion of the West with the East. Reflected glory should not be hugged, but a new glory created for and by yourselves. Do this and you will fulfil your destiny in India, your motherland, aye, yours by right of birth, and heritage and in its strength you shall yet secure a place among the nations of the earth. Be this your motto and honestly follow it."(p. 209) Besides the urge to maintain the name Eurasian, the article also contains other important arguments and manifestations of a favoured identity for a person of mixed descent. These will be comprehensively discussed in the following paragraphs.

However, one of the above suggested arguments will be briefly dealt with here, because it is important in the discussion about how to call the community. The argument played an important role in calling members of the community Eurasians, because it stated Anglo-Indians had to regard themselves as sons of the soil. This meant they had to lessen their ties with England as 'home', it was just the land of one of their ancestors. So was India, but this was also the country in which they were themselves born and raised. Important in this longing for a minor relationship with England and a closer relationship with India was to get rid of a name which emphasized the ties with England. This argument can be read many times in different issues of The Eurasian, the weekly which name itself can also be regarded as an indication of the attached interest of the community's name.

In this respect it is also worth noting, although it does not directly refer to the main subject of this paragraph, that the quoted article indicates that in Calcutta there were also Anglo-Indians who thought of India as their 'home', even as early as 1909. It appears that this idea was at that time not only present among Anglo-Indians in Madras and the southern part of India, as is stated in all literature. According to the authors, Gidney was the one who introduced this idea among the Anglo-Indians in Calcutta, and therefore also in the other parts of India. As said before, the Anglo-Indian Association in Calcutta was, unwillingly, an example to the other associations in the bigger part of India. So it looks like the opponents of the association, which was later on headed by Gidney, were ahead of this association concerning the idea of India as 'home'. This means the reigning vision about this (Anglo-Indians in the north of India were more racist and pro-British than their companions in the southern part) is not complete.

One way to identify a 'pure' European was the colour of his skin. It was obvious when someone's skin was only a few shades darker than white; somehow there was Indian blood added to this person's family. One ancestor could be enough to bring this 'colour' about. This 'colour' could be enough to be excluded from the influential European community.

The opposite, when someone's skin was fair, did not naturally mean that he was of 'pure' European blood. It was, and is, possible for someone of mixed descent to have a fair skin, like it is possible to have an intense dark skin. Even within one family, brothers and sisters could have a complete different colour of skin. This actually happened many times, mostly with the result the fairer ones began to distinguish themselves from their parents, brothers and sisters. They tried to pass for Europeans.

In 1880 it was decided Anglo-Indians could not get admission to the Bengal Pilot Service any more. The reason for this was men born and educated in India lacked the necessary 'back-bone' which was required for working with the Pilot Service. However, the Eurasian and Anglo-Indian Association succeeded in securing, theoretical, admission to the Service. To stress the value of this 'victory' an article in The Anglo-Indian described the origins and backgrounds of the dispute about admission to the Bengal Pilot Service. It said: "This decision (to exclude Anglo-Indians from the Service - EV) was a rather flimsy way of veiling a fashionable prejudice. European sailors do not generally object to be commanded by educated Eurasian gentlemen, even when these happen to be of a dusky colour, any more than European soldiers object to be led by Eurasian Officers, or healed by Eurasian Doctors possessing the necessary qualifications. But Englishmen of the middle and lower classes coming out to this country have, there is no denying, certain prejudices against colour, which it is of little use to discuss: and when persons of this class get into the Pilot Service, and even into more distinctly gentlemanly services, as many of them often do, and deserve all possible credit for doing, they find it easy and natural to imagine that European soldiers object to serve in any capacity under, or even to owe any personal benefit to, persons in the least degree tainted with the wrong sort of colour. This is the real secret, and often the only secret, of a good deal of so-called Eurasian disqualification."

In this article it is suggested colour prejudice was mainly present among 'fresh' Europeans from the middle or lower classes. It is an argument that can be found in other issue's of the different newspapers as well. It indicates colour discrimination was mainly felt by Anglo-Indians from these 'fresh' Europeans. Probably also because their position and employment facilities were for a great part threatened by the influx of new Europeans. They were rivals for the jobs the Anglo-Indians claimed for themselves on grounds of different arguments which will be described later on. For 'fresh' Europeans, and Europeans temporarily residing in India, the colour of the skin was probably the most visible difference between members of the Domiciled Community. For the latter, however, the matter had become more complex; they also used other arguments to distinguish themselves from each other and from members of other communities. For them the colour of the skin was not sufficient enough any more.

This did not mean it was not practised any more, on the contrary. Many Anglo-Indians still practised it but many Anglo-Indians also protested against it, like Mr Abbott did in 1913 before a meeting of the Anglo-Indian Empire League. One of the things he said was: "... the detested epithet and prejudice against colour, rankles more deeply in our own hearts than in those who do not claim to be of us. It is common knowledge that among ourselves we despise our darker brethren and cultivate that prejudice which extends and culminates in the white man. Let us pledge ourselves to renounce this practise; when we learn to respect ourselves then only will we be able to demand respect from others." The same weekly which quoted these words published a number of articles which dealt with 'colour bars'. In these the practise of colour prejudice and discrimination was discussed. As one should expect of a magazine closely related to the Anglo-Indian Empire League they did not do this only in the Indian context, but in the context of the entire empire. They made comparisons with countries like South Africa, Australia and New Sealand. Like the colour prejudice in India they also detested these habits overthere. The main argument that was used was one should not judge someone according to the colour of his skin. A mixture of other characteristics and qualifications was regarded more important. A mixture with ingredients like religion, education and loyalty to the Crown.

One argument that was used by Anglo-Indians to be regarded as equals to Europeans was their religious conviction. Anglo-Indians were, and still are, Christians. On grounds of their religion there is no difference with Europeans. 'So why not be respected as such?', is something which can be read many times in the Anglo-Indian periodicals. Anglo-Indians used different arguments to undo themselves of their 'negative' image as having an aversion to manual labour and a distaste for mechanical employment. Other characteristics that were imposed upon them by Europeans were, thriftlessness, drinking habits, enervating home influences, consequent want of discipline, wanting in stability, too selfsatisfied and a decreasing susceptibility to religious influences. As a reply to the latter 'accusation' The Anglo-Indian Review said: "so palpably untrue as to need no refutation."

Anglo-Indians thought of themselves as true Christians. Despite their complaint of being neglected by their churches; the Church of England as well as the Roman Catholic Church. This religious division also stimulated disunity among the community members. According to Roman Catholic Anglo-Indians the difference with Anglo-Indians who belonged to the Church of England was minimal, 'we are all Christians' they argued. Members of the Church of England, on the contrary, often stated there was a difference. They argued that Roman Catholic Anglo-Indians were the descendants of Irish soldiers, while they themselves descended from wealthy and respectable Englishmen.

So the difference in conviction was also used to create a hierarchy within the community, besides the fact that religion was used to distinguish Anglo-Indians from the Indian communities. The first not directly by saying 'I am a member of the Church of England and therefore better', but by claiming other, more respectable, ancestors. Wealthy ancestors gave a person a higher standing than an ordinary soldier, who most of the times was not even of British but of Irish descent. Descendants of wealthy and respectable Englishmen were an exclusive minority, in contrast to the descendants of the large amount of ordinary, Irish soldiers.

At the same time the difference between Roman Catholics and Anglicans was used as an explanation for the insufficient support poor Anglo-Indians received from the Church of England. Members of the Church of England descended from the wealthier Englishmen and were therefore not in need of (financial) support. However, it is said that the Roman Catholic Church made use of this neglect by the Church of England by providing financial relief to poor Anglo-Indians: Roman Catholics as well as Anglicans and Non-Conformists. Still this was not regarded enough by the majority of the community, in view of the fact that they kept complaining about the insufficient support they received, even today. But seemingly it was enough to be converted to the Roman Catholic conviction. This is the most excepted explanation among the Anglo-Indians, for the large amount of Roman Catholics within the community.

Religion was one of the causes of internal rivalries within the community. Despite "the gravest responsibilities of the Eurasian Association - representing, as it does, a community of heterogenous descent and of differing religious views - has been the preservation of religious equality". However, when the Association had to nominate a new leader in 1886 there emerged a protest against the person nominated. It was argued that he, Mr Taylor, opposed to religion, except to his own, Non-Conformist conviction. It illustrates religion also had its share in the origins and maintenance of disunity within the community, the biggest problem for the Anglo-Indian community as it was, and still is, called by eminent Anglo-Indians.

Religious disunity in the Anglo-Indian community was also regarded as one of the reasons why the various associations were not successful. Their internal and external rivalries were ascribed to the dispute among the various convictions. "It is notorious that the reason why Eurasian Associations have failed all over India is that one member distrusted the other because he did not kneel at the same altar. We have seen it in Calcutta where the haughty and well-to-do Anglican condemns the Non-Conformist as an outsider and a bounder, and both unite in decrying the Roman Catholic as an ignorant idolater who is really outside the fold of Christianity."

In another issue of The Eurasian a good example can be found of how Anglo-Indians thought of their sincerity as true Christians. Even during the terrible heat which can plague West Bengal: "It was a week of terrific heat, the worst in April for forty years: and it felt out that it coincided with the commemoration of the betrayal, apprehension, passion and death of Christ. The proud and the vain flitted to Darjeeling and Puri to revel in social gaieties; the poor and the humble had perforce to remain in Calcutta and work even on Good Friday. But in spite of heat and slavery they participated in all the unusual religious observances with a heroism truly edifying. The Roman Catholics especially showed a magnificent spirit of true devotion, and their numerous churches were crowded during the seven days by men and women, who prayed, fasted, and gave alms with a cheerful piety that exalted one's hope in human nature. We have mentioned the matter thus prominently because we are glad to say that the people who observed Holy Week in the spirit of the first Christians were Eurasians. Religion, says Burke, is the basis of Civil Society. In Calcutta religion prevails to the largest extent among the Domiciled, whose future is therefore bright." This quotation is just one of the numerous examples of how Anglo-Indians wrote about their religious conviction. Every opportunity was used to convince themselves, and others, of their true spirit.

Although Anglo-Indians emphasised the importance of and their faith in the, by them regarded superior, Christian belief, they were reluctant to regard Native Christians as their equals. They still remained Indians in the eyes of Anglo-Indians, despite their same religious conviction. Anglo-Indians said 'being a Christian was not enough to become equal to Anglo-Indians'. According to Anglo-Indians Native Christians tried to pass as Anglo-Indians. Why and how Anglo-Indians argued against this attempt by Native Christians will be described in the next chapter, because it deals with the Anglo-Indian vision upon another community.

That being a Christian not naturally meant the same as being an Anglo-Indian was not the only reasoning that was made by Anglo-Indians with regard to the relation Christianity and India. On the contrary, some even argued the other way around by saying that India and Christianity were closely related. The weekly The Eurasian, which was in favour of India as 'home' for the Anglo-Indians, even used their Christian conviction to support their idea of 'home'. At the same time they also used it for clarifying an important task of Anglo-Indians. A task as intermediaries between Europeans and Indians. On April 25th 1908, for example, The Eurasian said: "Close upon three hundred millions of Christians worship Christ, who was an Asiatic; all our sacred books are oriental, all our prophets are of the same soil, then were is the boast or vanity of Europe? It never produced a prophet. Let us follow the doctrines and precepts of the greatest, most sublime and supernal preacher Who rules the visible and invisible worlds - Who was born an Asiatic, and you will find that the Eurasian has been created for a certain purpose - to unite the East to the West."(p. 44)

Although every Anglo-Indian claimed to be a true Christian, the community which the individual members moulded did not compose a real unity on this subject. To society they presented themselves as an obvious 'Christian' community, something which they actually were and still are. However, at the same time every individual Anglo-Indian used his Christian conviction as an argument for his own benefit (within the community). This was done either to distinguish himself from, or identify himself with his community members, or as a foundation for various, and sometimes contradictory reasoning. Different sections of the community were able to reason in opposite ways, on grounds of the same argument. A good example of this is the 'home' controversial. The majority used Christianity in favour of England as 'home' and some used it in favour of India as 'home'. So Christianity can be regarded as an important aspect of the average Anglo-Indian identity, but at the same time it is not a decisive factor in an individual Anglo-Indian identity. Other aspects are also, if not equally, important as will be shown in the next paragraph.

Anglo-Indians thought of themselves as important contributors to the creation and maintenance of British India, by means of 'conquest' and protection of the territory, and by means of establishing 'the lines of communication' on the subcontinent. Besides these two functions on which they praised themselves they also favoured administrative jobs in the Civil Services. But, as noted before, they were challenged by Europeans as well as by Indians for the various jobs. As a result Anglo-Indians used different arguments to safeguard their job facilities. These will be described in this paragraph.

In the 1870s the economic position of the Domiciled Community started to deteriorate and therefore became a major topic in the various newspapers. Numerous articles about this 'social evil' were published. The 'social evil' consisted of a growing Anglo-Indian and Domiciled European population, while employment possibilities diminished: the problem of pauperism. Attached to this was the so-called housing problem of the Domiciled Community. This will be discussed later on in this paragraph.

In an article published in 1878, called The Eurasian Menace, the 'social evil' is described as follows. "...What such a community (the Eurasian community - EV) can become, at its worst, may be seen from the conditions of its lowest sections in the backlanes of the largest cities of India. It is probable enough that the worst spots in the character of the most degraded sections of Eurasian society are brought into uncomfortable, or in other words undue relief, by the circumstances which have forced them into an invidious position between Natives and Englishmen in India." At the same time, and on grounds of the deterioration, they were predicting a disaster if the Government did not take measures against this 'social evil', by way of asking "...what the Government of India intends to do to prevent the evil that must some day burst upon it if only one-tenth of all this can be true." Besides, although not the least problem of pauperism, impoverished Anglo-Indians or Domiciled Europeans were harmful for European prestige.

It was regarded the Government's responsibility and duty to take care of the economic welfare of the community. They kept emphasizing this during the greater part of the period which is illustrated in this research. It appears to be characteristic for the Anglo-Indian community. They took it for granted the Government should take care of them, even in the 1920s with the prospect of an independent India. According to The Eurasian the British tried to escape "a responsibility of their own creation", by neglecting the community's argument for Government support.

This assumed right of Government support was mainly based on the fact that the community had come into existence because of European presence in India. It was not limited to the pure biological fact only. Anglo-Indians also argued that they were the victims of their training and environment. They were raised in a European style, based on the English language and connected education, which was supposed to prepare them for employment in the Services. The complete upbringing of the average Anglo-Indian was fixed on serving the government of British India, argued Anglo-Indians. How Anglo-Indians thought about their education will be dealt with in another paragraph. For the moment it is important to note that their argument which referred to the responsibility of their 'creators' was not unfounded.

This reference to their 'creator's responsibility' was used as a common argument for all the proposed solutions which the Government could, and should, offer the community. However, the various solutions for pauperism proposed by Anglo-Indians were founded on other arguments as well, as we will see later on in this paragraph. They were different, but not complementary, solutions for the problem of pauperism. The means by which the Government could solve the problem of pauperism, according to Anglo-Indians were: Anglo-Indian regiments, employment in the Indian Civil Services and the 'lines of communication', colonisation and education.

Before the mentioned subjects will be discussed in separate subparagraphs, two things should be noted. The first remark is there were also Anglo-Indians, although a minority, who thought the other way around. As early as 1878, as well as in the 1920s, they urged the idea the Anglo-Indian community should not completely rely on the Government. One example of this is a letter published in 1879, signed by "An East Indian". Meanwhile it also gives a glimpse of Anglo-Indian visions upon other communities:

"...What I say is this. We want no assistance from Government, let them fill up all their

appointments with their ungrateful Bengalee pets, who are ready enough to abuse their patrons, and if the opportunity occurred, to assist in exterminating them altogether from the land, but for God's sake leave us alone and allow us to earn a livelihood, if we can manage to do so, without let or indrance." In 1879 this emphasis on selfreliance was an unusual statement. The writer belonged to an absolute minority at that time. However, at the end of the period under scrutiny here, the idea had become more widespread among members of the Anglo-Indian community. Despite this growing consciousness regarding their contemporary situation and future, they still wanted to lean on government support, although not completely.

The second remark has to do with the Government. The majority of the Anglo-Indian community argued their unemployment problem was actually a responsibility of the Government. The Government, however, could only offer a limited amount of solutions for the economic problems of the Domiciled Community. They could employ members of the community in the army, in the Civil Services or in 'the lines of communication'. Another possibility was 'poor relief'. At the same time the Government had various arguments for not admitting members of the Domiciled Community to their Services and other mentioned employment possibilities; the 'poor relief' solution was anyhow pushed off as a task of the churches.

Firstly the Government didn't feel responsible to that extent to which the community regarded them responsible. Of course there were slight differences with the appointment of the succeeding viceroys throughout time. Lord Canning and Lord Lytton, for example, are often praised and referred to by Anglo-Indians, to point out there was a glimpse of responsibility among members of the Government. The problem, however, was to raise it to the assumed necessary level. To reach this level Anglo-Indians mainly used historical arguments; they had come into existence because of the presence of Europeans in India, and therefore they were destined to live side by side with the latter.

The second explanation why the Government did not employ as much Anglo-Indians as the latter wanted was a financial one. It concerned the wage-rate of Anglo-Indians. The average wage of an Anglo-Indian was too high to finance; Indians were cheaper and therefore more attractive to be appointed by the Government. Combined with the demands of the Indian National Movement this led to a growing amount of Indians in the Services and the 'lines of communication', the so-called Indianization process. Anglo-Indians, who at a time were part of this process, regarded it as impossible to work for the wage an Indian received. Anglo-Indians with their European way of life had a higher standard of living than Indians who 'could live on a handful of rice'. This was a favourite argument among Anglo-Indians. According to them it was impossible for an Anglo-Indian to live like an Indian. It was not only impossible and inhumane to degrade the lives of Anglo-Indians to the level of Indians but also unwise. It would increase pauperism.

The first 'employment sector' which will be described is that of the military. In the second period, 1785-1857, Anglo-Indians were excluded from the regiments of the East India Company for reasons which are described in the second chapter. Since then it has been a topic of Anglo-Indian spokesmen and community leaders. They all demanded the right to fight for their 'King and Country'. Especially in the last quarter of the 19th century. The Mutiny of 1857 was used as a major argument because Anglo-Indians had shown courage and loyalty towards the British during this uprising. Almost every request or article which is about Anglo-Indians joining the army is based on this historical event. Numerous examples can be given to show the flavour and passion on this subject in the newspapers and literature.

Probably the most favourite story about the Mutiny in this respect, that of La Martinière School in Lucknow, is not about Anglo-Indian soldiers, not even about grown-up Anglo-Indians. It is about the youth of the community, the community's future. The boys of La Martinière school defended their Residency, and themselves, with extreme courage and endurance. Although the Mutiny had interrupted the education of the boys, they had gained in intelligence, according to the Principal of the school. It is said that the event had accelerated the physical and moral development of the boys. So what could be more convincing to prove the community's loyalty and ability than the actions of the La Martinière boys; a rhetorical question asked many times by Anglo-Indians in their newspapers.

Community members also referred to other important military contributions of the Anglo-Indians, in order to support their request. They praised the courage of their ancestors who played an important role in the history of British India; they were the ones who established British power in India. The lives of distinguished Anglo-Indians, mostly military people, are described in various books like The Fortunes of the Anglo-Indian race, East Indian Worthies, The Call to Arms for Anglo-Indians and The Call of the Blood. The latter is the most striking one. It is, again, about the Mutiny and it describes in detail the assaults of Anglo-Indians by the mutineers. About the readiness of the community to fight during the Mutiny Stark said the following: "When it was recalled that they had been subjected to harsh repression for the greater part of a whole century; that they had been admitted to only the lowest rungs of the mercantile and civil services; that they had been ostracised from the Company's Standing Army; in truth that for decades everything had been done that could have been done to stamp out of them every single British quality inherited from their fathers - when all this was recalled, the soldierly work they had done on the march, behind the entrenchment, in the charge, and on the battle-field, came as a revelation. From the office desk to which for generations they had been relegated, suddenly called to be soldiers of the line, they had rivalled the British soldier from England whether in courage, staying-power, rifle work, enterprise or discipline." So according to the author Anglo-Indians were relieved when they in 1857 again could take up arms to fight for the maintenance of British India. He even threatened the Government 45 years afterwards, when the book was published, by arguing that the British should be glad the Anglo-Indians did not led the mutineers. Then "the issue of the Mutiny might have been very different from that which history records."

In the last chapter of the book Stark writes something which looks like a contradiction to what he is trying to prove with his book; that Anglo-Indians are born soldiers and loyal to England. It has to do with what was to be called "The Eurasian Corps". The raising of such a corps, in 1858, was done to reward the community for their role in the Mutiny. The composition of the Regiment should be entirely Anglo-Indian and it should be stationed in Bengal. However, not enough recruits announced themselves to enlist to the corps. This "has been set down as a black mark against them" and is counted as a "lost opportunity", according to Stark.

Nevertheless Stark is able to give two explanations for this 'failure'. The first reason for the disappointing spirit has to do with the period in which the British wanted to raise the corps. It was immediately after the Mutiny in which many Anglo-Indian families were harmed, from the material point of view as well as physically, by means of injured or lost family members. Obviously not the right time to ask people to risk their lives again. Especially not when there was enough work to be done besides the military occupation, the second explanation. According to Stark there was an unprecedented demand for workman, for the construction and extension of the railways and telegraph lines. Many men favoured to work in these civil jobs, at the expense of The Eurasian Corps.

In the 1880s, twenty-five years after the British attempt to raise an Eurasian Corps, the establishment of so-called Anglo-Indian regiments became a major topic. The longing for employment in the army was stimulated by pauperism and by the loyalty of Anglo-Indians to their 'King and Country'. With the experience of 1858 in mind one could say the latter was subordinate to the former. However, it looked like Anglo-Indians continuously wanted to prove their loyalty. Because they didn't have the opportunity to put it into practise during the 1880s, they tried to prove it by pointing out the failures of Indians who joined the army. They almost continuously threatened with a repetition of the Mutiny if Indians were kept employed in the army, while Anglo-Indians were kept out of it. On grounds of which arguments they blackened Indians will be described in the next chapter.

Anglo-Indians attributed to themselves various advantages why they should be employed in the army. As said before they had shown loyalty in the past. At the same time their past also showed their abilities as soldiers. The book The fortunes of the Anglo-Indian race, by T.C. Clark and published in 1879, gives plain examples of how Anglo-Indians thought about their military capacities. It also gives examples of positive attitudes towards them by British officers. The book is referred to many times in The Anglo-Indian Guardian, with the same purpose as the book itself; to convince themselves and the larger European community of their military abilities. One quotation will do to show the contents of the book regarding the military: "...military authorities see the Eurasians as equals to Englishmen in respect of courage, endurance and discipline, and, as might be expected, to rank higher than the English soldier in the physical qualities which enable him to stand the wear and tear of the Indian climate." So Anglo-Indians regarded themselves physically superior to British soldiers because they were adjusted to the climate. A climate which had improved their physical abilities. The latter they had inherited from their European ancestors, which explains why Indians did not have this physical strength. Indians were also adjusted and shaped by the climate but they lacked the qualities of the European race.

The argument of physical advantages by Anglo-Indians was supported by their achievements in sports. Anglo-Indians were fanatic sportsmen and not without merit. This also proved, or at least indicated, they were physically stronger than Europeans living in India. The Eurasian, for example, spoke of the "athletic efficiency of our race". A favourite sport among Anglo-Indian men was boxing, a sport popular among military men. On Anglo-Indian schools sport also shaped an important part of the education. Other sports favoured by Anglo-Indians were cricket and hockey.

Anglo-Indians not only had physical advantages towards the English soldiers, but their appointment in the army would also solve the problem of the high military charges of the empire, another argument in favour of Anglo-Indian Regiments. It was regarded cheaper to appoint reliable people who were already in India than importing them 'fresh' from England. The Government, however, still thought the risks of putting the military power of the country in the hands of the Domiciled Community too high. They preferred to lean on Indian soldiers who were conducted by British officers.

In the 1910s Anglo-Indians started to use an additional argument which was influenced by developments of that time, imperialism. Therefore it is no surprise the argument can be found many times in the successive newspapers of the Anglo-Indian Empire League, The Anglo-Indian Empire and The Anglo-Indian Review. This imperialistic thinking is also found in the other newspaper of that era, The Eurasian, although to a lesser extent. They argued that for the sake of the Empire it was necessary to appoint Anglo-Indians in the army. The best way to illustrate and show the intensity of the argument is by quoting The Anglo-Indian Empire. "What home and country meant to primitive man, Empire means to Britain's sons abroad, who are fast growing up into nations, with national pride and national longings and it is essential that these younger nations growing up within alien Empires, should be drawn closer to Britain's Imperial breast, less coldness and aloofness drive them to seek among other nations the outlet they vainly have sought in their own...If the rulers give them (Anglo-Indians -EV) no opening, except such as shows up their degradation more plainly they will, if not extraordinary loyal, be driven into the arms of any nation offering them military and naval glory which is denied them among their own kin - The military spirit is strong in the heart of young Anglo-India Empire; they pant for the privileges their fathers and grandfathers had - and shrink with disgust from the portion offered them...Why have trained them? Why have planted in their hearts these Empire longings, if they are to remain helots; if the hand that longs to grasp the sword, or handle the gun are to never grasp anything heavier than the pen? Kill not a young nations pride...National pride is strong in the Anglo-Indian, let it have its legitimate outlet, then, braver hearts and stronger arms Britain need never seek than those of the Anglo-Indian sons."

These are just quotations of one article. Almost every issue of the 'Empire' newspapers contains an article like this, with the same message formulated in the same devotional language. This shows Anglo-Indians tried to turn developments that were taking place into their own benefit. Imperialism was turned into a pro-Anglo-Indian argument; without allowing Anglo-Indians their legitimate share in the establishment and defence of the British empire the Government was making a big mistake. It would ruin its own empire by neglecting the Anglo-Indian community, according to the latter. Besides this there also was the danger of Indians who were allowed to play some role in the empire. Again, this will be discussed in the next chapter.

Although Anglo-Indians were not allowed to join the army, a section of them were in a position in which they could show their loyalty and military strength. They compulsory joined the Auxiliary Force when they were employed in government jobs. Despite the fact that it was a commitment for them, most of the Anglo-Indians were proud of being a member of the Auxiliary Force. Nevertheless, the Anglo-Indian community was not satisfied with the role of some of their members in the Auxiliary Force. Not because these individuals did wrong while they were in the Auxiliary Force, but because it did not enlarge the employment facilities of the community. Only people who were already employed joined the Auxiliary Force, while the community needed employment for their unemployed. This was the reason why the community was not satisfied with the military possibilities the Government offered by means of the Auxiliary Force. It did not contribute to the enlargement of employment facilities.

To summarize this subparagraph on Anglo-Indian Regiments it can be said Anglo-Indians used various, and sometimes overlapping arguments as a foundation for their demand. The major arguments were their victorious military history, their physical advantages, their wage-rate, their loyalty to their 'King and Country' and the significant role they ascribed to themselves in imperialism, especially in the Indian part of the British Empire.

"The Indian Civil Service of course stands first in the list as at once the most promising and most paying, and alas! also the least attainable for the majority." Anglo-Indians had been employed in the Indian Civil Service from the beginning of its existence. This resulted from their knowledge of the English language and because of other ties with the ruling authorities. Some worked in the Covenanted Civil Service, but the majority of Anglo-Indians employed in the Indian Civil Service earned their living in the Uncovenanted Civil service. As is described in chapter 1.7 Anglo-Indians were challenged in these jobs by 'fresh' European officials, as well as by educated Indians in the last third of the 19th century. The job preservations for Anglo-Indians in the Indian Civil Service, and 'the lines of communication', were gradually weakened.

To retain these diminishing privileges, spokesmen of the community used various arguments. Their major arguments were the 'creator's responsibility' and the western oriented culture of Anglo-Indians. The latter was regarded of great significance because of "...the necessity of preserving a distinctly and decidedly English tone in the administration, in the interest of the governed masses rather than in those of the governing few." The masses, on whom the Anglo-Indians looked down as will be shown in the next chapter, deserved a just government. These 'teaming millions' would be best off if they were governed by a British oriented administration. Anglo-Indians, however, saw admittance of Indians to the Civil Service as a step towards independence. An alarming prospect probably ensued by fear of, and helplessness towards these educated Indians. However, an independent India would be a disaster for its inhabitants. Every attempt to representative self-government had proved to be a complete failure, according to The Anglo-Indian in 1886.

This failure was entirely due to the nature of the natives, argued the people of mixed descent. They were not able to rule the territory as it should be ruled. Government of India "...must depend on force - if only to protect the weak under it from the strong. And so long as force is the foundation of this rule, self-government can only be a benevolent fraud." Indians who were considered to rule India, as a result of their admittance to the Civil Service generalized the Anglo-Indians, were not capable for this task. With regard to the employment of 'natives of India' in the services - the Indianization process - Anglo-Indians replied they were legally also 'natives of India'. However, the reasons for the 'inefficiency of the natives' will be described in the next chapter. The same thing counts for arguments which favoured Anglo-Indians at the expense of British officials. Arguments in favour of Anglo-Indians were also founded on their ideas about these British officials.

The main argument for a fair amount of Anglo-Indians admitted to the Indian Civil Service in these decades was the preservation of an indispensable English tone in the Service. However, this tone should be an honest tone, as the programme adopted by The Jabalpur Conference stated. With regard to the Civil Service Examinations the programme prescribed that there should be no competitive examinations for the Indian Civil Service in India. All that should be required was an English education. Besides, "it has often been suggested, and of late with increasing earnestness and frequency, that the necessary English tone may be maintained in the higher ranks of the official hierarchy, in the first place by a comparatively smaller number of English Officers, and in the second place, by a mixture of imported English officials and Anglo-Indian and Eurasian officials selected in India." So Anglo-Indians admitted the most responsible functions should be fulfilled by British Officers. But this was not regarded a reason for not employing Anglo-Indians in the other, more subordinate, functions. It was much cheaper for the Government to employ people who were already in India, than importing a large amount of officials from Britain. Besides, there was no reason why the former were not able to do the job, they also had learned the necessary, administrative, skills at school.

In the 1880s an independent India was still far from reality. In the 1910s, however, the prospect of a semi-independent India had become much closer, according to the Anglo-Indian community. Anglo-Indians in the second decade of the 20th century began to realise the consequences of an independent India: "...Anglo-Indians stand or fall with British supremacy in India, a fact known to everyone..." Therefore Anglo-Indians, headed by the Anglo-Indian Empire League, ascribed to themselves an important role for the maintenance of 'Anglo-India' as part of the British empire. "In the awakened Anglo-India of today, there is a part for every Anglo-Indian to play - a bold part, a true and loyal Empire spirit part, a part that cannot be delegated to a proxy, not even to one's own brother, how much less to an Anglo-Saxon?...There must be the tap-root underlying the whole federation tree and its activities - the formation of an Anglo-Indian nation."

It was impossible for Britain to govern their vast territory throughout the world, by way of British officials and officers only, argued the Anglo-Indians. For 'Anglo-India' this didn't have to mean significant problems. This territory was in receipt of a community - the Anglo-Indian Race - which had all the necessary qualities for this task, if not even more. Their advantages towards their British fellowmen were their knowledge and concern of the country. They were the ideal mixture between the East and the West, with a destiny to unite the two. One of the passionate speeches about this 'burden' of the Anglo-Indian community is by H.W.B. Moreno, quoted in The Eurasian: "We are the intermediary link that unites East with West. Our mission is to interpret the one unto the other and to dispel all those clouds that seek to darken the way to unification of these two great races. As people of the country we rank as the highest, and our very position carries with it grave responsibilities to lead others up to our standard, as we alone posses the proud privilege of being nearest to all that pertains British civilization in India."

Still the Government of India did not employ as much Anglo-Indians as the latter claimed. Despite the arguments that "...these ostracised Britons have grown in numerical strength by leaps and bounds and what is still more the point - intellectually they stand second to none - with all the administrative acumen of the great gallant race from which they have sprung." On grounds of these and other proves of ability - loyalty, integrity, merit, moral courage, physical bravery, travelled experience - Anglo-Indians kept asking for a fair admittance into the Civil Service, especially the Imperial Service.

For employment in the Railways, Post & Telegraph, Customs and Police the same remarks were made as with the Civil Service and the Anglo-Indian regiments. Here they also used the argument of history; Anglo-Indians had build these services as a result of which the Government owed them some loyalty. Besides this they had the right skills, the right attitude and they were loyal to their 'King and Country'. The latter was especially important with regard to the 'lines of communication' because these made it possible to govern a territory as huge as India. In this context the Mutiny is also often referred to.

In the Punjab the 18 year old Anglo-Indian George Brendish became one of the symbols of heroic resistance against mutinous bands. While they were being attacked by the rebellions Brendish cabled his well known message: "All the bungalows are being burnt down by sepoys from Meerut. They came in this morning (to Delhi). Mr. Todd is dead, I think." This message alarmed the other garrisons and military stations which therefore could prepare themselves and take measures against the assaults. This legendary event showed the far reaching effects and importance of reliable and loyal employees in the 'lines of communication'.

Other arguments which favoured Anglo-Indians in the 'lines of communication' were founded on the qualities, or rather a lack of, of their competitors, Indians and to a lesser extent 'fresh' Europeans. As a conclusion to this subparagraph the reasons for employing Anglo-Indians in the Indian Civil Service and 'the lines of communication' will be summed up. The main reason was their English culture which would secure the English tone of the administration. Of course this tone could also be preserved by officials coming from Britain but these were more expensive. In the 1910s it was even impossible to rule India with only British officials because they were also needed in other parts of the British empire. Reasons to employ Anglo-Indians instead of Indians in the British services were their loyalty to their 'King and Country' and the important role they had played in the history of the services.

Another solution for the problem of pauperism, proposed by Anglo-Indians, was partly based on the cooperation or 'duty' of the Indian Government. This solution was colonisation, or the establishment of agricultural settlements for the community. At the same time it was also regarded a solution to another problem, although closely connected with pauperism, namely the housing problem. Therefore the housing problem will be briefly described here, not only with regard to colonisation. This subparagraph is the best opportunity to deal with it.

Colonisation by Anglo-Indians was a solution which partly needed Government support. The only thing the Government of India had to provide was land. India was such a big country that it had enough areas within its boundaries which were not habituated. Therefore the Government would also gain something in return. Habitation of Anglo-Indians in these remote areas would strengthen British Rule. Favoured spots by Anglo-Indians in this respect were the Himalayas. Besides working the land they could also be useful as soldiers protecting British India against intruders.

As early as the 1870s people were already proposing the matter of colonisation and agricultural settlements. At the Jabalpur Conference it was also said the question had to be seriously kept in view in the future. In 1879 The Anglo-Indian Guardian predicted that every large Indian city would one day be overrun with people of mixed descent. However, for entire Indian society it should be best if the community would develop itself into a physical and moral vigourous community. To accomplish this it needed the general and widespread conditions all other communities had. "Every community in the world is recruited, in its large towns, by fresh streams of vigour drawn from fresh accumulations of persons who have been reared in the healthy occupations of rural life. The Eurasian community has no rural life to talk of...", so the Government should provide rural settlements. If the Government was not able, or willing to do this, the growing Anglo-Indian population would become a menace to the Government, as a result of their, in that case, inevitable pauperism. By providing agricultural settlements the growing Anglo-Indian population could be converted into strength of the Empire. The community could play its part in the development and civilization of the British colony, by means of these colonies.

Colonisation by Anglo-Indians was also seen as a method to become more

self-supporting. Some members of the community supposed the Government was not willing to help them which meant the community had to rely on its own strength and enterprise. The way to reach this goal was to renounce from Government employment. This could only be accomplished if people had the right means for it, namely land or money. The latter could also be used to start private businesses, although this suggestion was not as often mentioned as the one for agricultural settlements. Probably because there were not many Anglo-Indians who had any experience as businessman or something alike. Besides, and probably even more important, they had to do this all by themselves, from the start. For the establishment of agricultural settlements the Government of India could help by providing land. The Government providing the necessary starting capital for private businesses was very unlikely, as the Anglo-Indians acknowledged. And the few rich businessman which the community had within its ranks most of the times were not real philanthropists either. So one of the first steps towards selfrelience had to be made through colonisation according to some Anglo-Indians.

That most of the Anglo-Indians did not agree with this reasoning can be proved by the fact the community had to wait for its first colony unto 1933, with the founding of McCluskieganj. Many Anglo-Indians were sceptical about the agricultural settlements because they had been an urban community from their origin. They lacked the knowledge and skills to farm land. Besides, living in the countryside, as sort of peasants, would be too hard for them, like it would be too hard for 'pure' Europeans. It would also be impossible to live a European life in the rural areas if they had to work the land. The differences with their traditional way of life were too big to be ignored.

In the beginning of the 20th century Anglo-Indians were still discussing the matter of colonisation. The difference with the discussion 30 years before was the proposed area of colonisation. The newspapers were proposing emigration to East Africa. Emigration to this region would solve various problems for one part of the community, the poor and homeless. To 'push' these people to East Africa, many 'pull' factors were described and glorified in the newspapers, in order "...to draw his (the poor Anglo-Indian-EV) attention to the possibilities of independent manhood, to bring home to him, the ideals of home, honour and country." These were the things the poor Anglo-Indians were lacking in India, where they were isolated, dismembered and unable to claim their heritage. East Africa offered them means to prove their virility, something which they lacked according to prevailing prejudices in India.

According to The Eurasian poor Anglo-Indians had to choose in order to safeguard their future. Either they had to assimilate the habits and customs of the 'natives' or they had to emigrate. However, "Between the European and Eurasian there is a great gulf and caste prejudices have established a greater gulf between him and the native." The best solution for the homeless and poor Anglo-Indians would be to turn away from both these communities and start all over again, in a place where they would not be hampered by prejudices. East Africa would be the ideal place for it, an opportunity to establish 'Africa-Eurasia', founded on agricultural industries.

The proposal of The Eurasian to emigrate and colonise East Africa was not widely answered. Nevertheless, Anglo-Indians did start a few colonies in India twenty years later, although not successfully. More successful were Anglo-Indians who migrated to other, 'western', parts of the British Empire in the 1930s and 1940s.

The problem of the homeless and poor Anglo-Indians brings us to the housing problem. In 1879 The Anglo-Indian Guardian wrote that instead of emigration "domestic reform is obviously the true remedy for this domestic trouble." With domestic trouble they referred to the absence of suitable house accommodation for the humbler classes of the Domiciled community. Many Anglo-Indians were not able to rent houses which meeted the needs of people who were expected to life in descent houses. They should "...live in any descent quarter, not only removed from the vicinity of native huts, but protected from the moral pollution of the atmosphere of most native colonies."

The evil consequences of the housing problem and living in slums was the prevalent indifference and apathy to religion among these people, together with a growing death-rate in the slums. It also enlarged the problem of pauperism. Proposed measures to solve the housing problem were not too many people in one house, not too many houses on a fixed area of land, a sufficient number of houses, and the houses had to "...be well-built, well-ventilated, well-lighted and well drained." Anglo-Indian spokesman even spoke of the Garden City Movement but they immediately admitted this was not a reasonable solution for the Anglo-Indian slums in Calcutta. Although Calcutta was decaying, there was still hope for the second city in the British Empire because there seemed to appear some civic sense among its citizens, according to The Eurasian.

Another, more serious way to improve the conditions of the Anglo-Indian community was education. Better education would enlarge the individual opportunities of Anglo-Indians. Up to the Great Despatch of 1854 Anglo-Indian education was almost entirely provided by private enterprises, missionary as well as non-missionary. With the Despatch the Government of India had drawn up the principles for an educational policy in India. In case of Anglo-Indian schools Government interference was limited to a system of grants-in-aid.

The Government's policy for providing its own 'English' education was based on the principle of strict religious neutrality, in order to attract and enable Indians to come to these schools. Hence missionaries turned to Anglo-Indian (Christian) education which resulted in the foundation of various prominent Anglo-Indian schools, despite the inconsistency of the Government's attitude towards Anglo-Indian schools. "Because some schools received grants and others did not, because of variations in the amount of aid received even by aided institutions and in their own ability to help themselves, there were wide variations in the ability of the individual Anglo-Indian schools to provide educational standards. Curricula, examination goals, textbooks, standards of staffing, and equipment also varied considerably, and the provision of schooling for poorer children was quite inadequate." In the newspapers Anglo-Indians were mainly complaining about the insufficient grants of the Government. Complaints about the other defects can also be found in the periodicals, but to a lesser extent. The main problem for Anglo-Indians was they most of the times could not afford the required education for their children.

Anglo-Indians demanded public education from the Government on grounds of various reasons. More and better, Christian education would make it unnecessary for the Government of India to import more Englishmen. This argument emphasised the gains for the Government as a result of improved education facilities. These gains were also often mentioned in reference with educated Indians. Indians were the main beneficiaries of the Public School system in India, according to the Anglo-Indians. So arguments in favour of more Anglo-Indian education were often founded on the Anglo-Indian vision upon other communities. To look ahead at these ideas a glimpse can be found in the next quotation. "...I am far from wishing to imply anything that will offend, but as long as the religious and the social, domestic, and personal habits of life and modes of thought of the people of this country are so widely different from these which we should wish to see our children adopt, I can neither blame nor wonder at the refusal of all respectable European parents to send their sons to native schools."

However, these 'native schools' were not a coherent group either. An argument which the Anglo-Indians also used to support their demand. Because of the distinctive Hindu affinities of the Public Schools the Government had opened up separate institutions for Mohammedans. So why no separate, State funded, Anglo-Indian schools?, was the question asked by Anglo-Indians? The more the Anglo-Indians had always paid for their education in contrast to the Natives, even while the latter were more affluent. Christian education was regarded an essential thing for the Anglo-Indian community: "It is one thing for a country soaked in Christian traditions to excise religious instruction, as such, from public schools; another and a different thing for a country, reeking in a heathen atmosphere, to attempt the same experiment...The State indifference to their (Anglo-Indians-EV) demands has practically amounted to religious persecution."

In the beginning of the 20th century the community was still urging the Government to provide more education. But now the emphasis was focused on higher education. The implementation of a division into elementary and secondary schools would mean a decline in the career opportunities of Anglo-Indians. Elementary schools educated people to become artisans and 'subordinate workers'. This would mean a disaster because Anglo-Indians would be unable to compete with Natives because of the low wages of the latter. To remain in a position above the 'Natives of India' Anglo-Indians were in need of more higher, and cheaper education.

Besides the need for pure (administrative) skills, education was also inevitable for character building and other indispensable features, like physical development. When the necessary, Christian education would be provided by the Government this would undoubtedly be accomplished. According to E.A. Newton, rector of St. Paul's School in Darjeeling "English and Eurasian boys alike in India have responded nobly to the demands already made upon their industry and obedience. Their brain-power is unquestioned, their capacity for athletic development is superior to that of the average schoolboy in England."

As mentioned in the introduction, primary sources of Anglo-Indian education, like books and examinations, are not used in this inquiry. Hence it is not possible to discuss the favoured and desired subjects of Anglo-Indians at their schools. Nevertheless, the subjects taught at school were to a large extent similar to those taught in England.

The largest problem of the Anglo-Indian community proceeded from its internal rivalries. Of course all the problems mentioned before were also of great significance. The only way to solve these problems, or at least a condition for their solutions, however, was unity within the community. Nevertheless, disunity prevailed. As a result of the Government's attitude towards the community they had to rely on their own strength, in fact, they were thrown back to their own potentials. Various individual Anglo-Indians were able to improve their own position, but to uplift the community as a whole cooperation was prohibited.

Throughout the entire third period in the history of the Anglo-Indian community people were complaining about the lack of unity. There were various reasons for this disunity. A practical explanation given by Anglo-Indians was the fact they lived in small groups scattered over an enormous area. Combined with inefficient means of communication this hampered the actual attempts of cooperation and unification. Other explanations were the apathy of the Anglo-Indians, their lack of selfrespect and a lack of selfconsiousness, which restrained the community to come forward to try the benefits of organisation. Lack of selfrespect and selfconsiousness was said to evolve from the infancy of the community; they had but few traditions to be proud of.

The main reason for disunity, however, was 'fortunate' Anglo-Indians despised their 'less fortunate' community members, according to themselves. 'Fortunate' in this respect did not apply to the financial sense of the word only. An excellent example of this manner is a satiric story in the column 'Word Pictures' in The Eurasian. Its full quotation makes all other descriptions and reviews superfluous. Hence:

"Word Pictures, an overheard conversation between Mr Smith, a smartly dressed young man, fair for a Eurasian and of distinctly superior stamp, and Mr D'Cruz, also well dressed but his body could not be described as slim.

D'Cruz (getting on the car) - Hullo Smith, good morning, after a long time, how are you?

Smith (not appreciating familiarity) - All right, thanks.

D'Cruz: Are you going far? I am going to Chandpaul chat

Smith: No.

D'Cruz: I say have you heard about the new paper we have started?

Smith: No, what paper?

D'Cruz: The Eurasian man. It is bound to succeed, I suppose you'll subscribe.

Smith: No I don't think I can. You see it would not do for me to take the paper, on account

D'Cruz: I am sorry to hear you talk like this man, because I think we should all put our

Smith: What do you mean by "we"? There is a lot of truth in what you say and I

D'Cruz: But I say why are you turning against your own class. We did not make ourselves,

Smith: I say, don't think I am a Eurasian.

D'Cruz: But there is no use being blind to the fact. We should do our best to help each

Smith: You are quite wrong. True she was born in India, but her grandfather's uncle's

D'Cruz: I say this is the first time I have heard all this.

Smith: You see since I got into the Rs. 300 grade I have come across papers among

D'Cruz: But I say that is not right.

Smith: That may be so, but you know if your boss is riding just behind you it is not nice to

D'Cruz: But we have strayed from the question of the paper. I think it will succeed.

Smith: It may, but I don't think so. It will be like this. For a short time everybody will work

Disunity within the community was not only brought about by people who wanted to obscure their Anglo-Indian origin. Even the community's spokesmen and leaders were hardly able to unite the community, it appeared to be a hard job for them. The paradox in respect of unity or disunity within the community was that people who urged the need of unity could not come to an agreement of how to achieve it. They agreed on some solutions or measures against matters that were afflicting the community, but they were most of the times unable to carry them out. The cry for cooperations and political organisations, for example, remained to a large extent wishful thinking.

Therefore it was argued that the community needed a strong and indisputable leader who could pull the fragmentary community into a united community, like the Hindus and Mohammedans. These Indian communities were often referred to as good examples of the expression 'unity is strength'. The indisputable leaders came, although not in the period described here.