Anderson, Valerie E.R. (2011) The Eurasian problem in nineteenth century India. PhD Thesis, SOAS (School of Oriental and African Studies)
http://eprints.soas.ac.uk/13525
Copyright © and Moral Rights for this thesis are retained by the author and/or other copyright owners. A copy can be downloaded for personal non‐commercial research or study, without prior permission or charge. This thesis cannot be reproduced or quoted extensively from without first obtaining permission in writing from the copyright holder/s.
The content must not be changed in any way or sold commercially in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders.
When referring to this thesis, full bibliographic details including the author, title, awarding institution and date of the thesis must be given e.g. AUTHOR (year of submission) "Full thesis title", name of the School or Department, PhD Thesis, pagination.
The Eurasian Problem In Nineteenth Century India
Valerie E.R. Anderson
Department of History
School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS)
A thesis submitted to the University of London in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) in History
2011
DECLARATION
I undertake that all material presented for examination is my own work and has not been written for me, in whole or in part, by any other person(s). I also undertake that any quotation or paraphrase from the published or unpublished work of another person has been duly acknowledged in the work that I present for examination.
Valerie E.R. Anderson
The copyright of this thesis rests with the author and no quotation from it or information derived from it may be published without the prior written consent of the author.
ABSTRACT
The Eurasian ‗problem‘ in nineteenth century India was a question of their national identity. People of mixed European and Indian ancestry, were seen by the British as
‗other‘ than European but treated by them as ‗other‘ than Indian. First legal proscriptions and later social mores acted to maintain a barrier between the British and Eurasians but the separation was never complete. The British administration needed Eurasian labour and European men continued to seek Eurasian wives, pulling Eurasians into the sphere of British influence. At the same time, eager to define and preserve the Britishness of its presence in India, the government and European ‗society‘ pushed Eurasians away. Encouraged by the prospect of work to maintain a strong affiliation with British culture moulded through continued interaction and education, Christian and largely Anglophone Eurasians emerged at the end of the century ‗othered‘ again. In the minds of many Indians, the Eurasians, working primarily as government servants, were firmly associated with subjugation and colonial rule.
In colonial India poor or Indianised Eurasians were somewhat of a problem for the British who sought to legitimise their rule with an illusion of European superiority.
In late colonial and independent India Anglo-Indians were sometimes perceived as another kind of problem; an unwelcome hang-over from the British Raj. Thus, both their Indian and their European heritage were problematic. A small population with neither political power nor wealth, Eurasians were stuck in a liminal zone between the coloniser and the colonised. As such they were caught up in and buffeted by colonial hegemony, nationalist demands, and the need to put bread or chapattis on their tables.
This thesis explores the everyday realities of marriage and family, education and employment, and shows how Eurasian agency in choosing their own lifestyles and affiliations, was gradually eroded by the colonial state.
Title page 1
Declaration 2
Abstract 3
Contents 4
Tables and figures 7
Acknowledgements 8
Abbreviations and glossary 9
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 10 - 34
Historical Context 10
Thesis aims 14
Historiography 16
CHAPTER 2: EURASIAN ‘OTHERING’ 35 - 60
Laws, Directives and Usages 35
Discussion of Motives 54
Communal response 57
Problems of interpretation of Motives 59
CHAPTER 3: HIDDEN AGENDAS 61 - 87
Introduction 61
Charles Cornwallis and settlers 63 Richard Wellesley and the Irish Catholics 71 Dundas and Highland Scots 77 Discussion and conclusions 84
CHAPTER 4: POPULATION STATISTICS 88 - 97
Introduction 88
Censuses and other estimates 88
Growth 94
Results 97
CHAPTER 5: EUROPEANS AND MISCEGENATION 98 - 118
Introduction 98
Soldiers and other ranks 102
Civilians and officers 105
European women 106
Eurasian and native women 110
Ecclesiastical returns 112
Comparisons 113
Conclusions 114
Introduction 119
Legal Marriages 124
Legislation, 124
Lack of clergy 128
National status 129
The Church 129
The Established Church 130 The Catholic Church 132 Scottish Understanding 133 Indian Customs and The Lex Loci 135
Islamic rites 136
Hindu rites 138
Other Considerations 141
Slavery? 141
Class & social mores 142 Peer group & social pressure 144 Financial constraints 144 Effects on The Eurasian Community 145
The family 145
Orphanages & children 146 Obstacles to marriage 149
The exceptions 150
Conclusions 151
CHAPTER 7: EMPLOYABILITY 155 – 183
Introduction 155
Eurasian Agency 156
Moulding Useful Citizens 163
Employment In British India 169 Poverty, paupers and vagrants 175
Conclusions 182
CHAPTER 8: WOMEN’S WORK 184 - 202
Introduction 184
Prejudice 184
Marriage 186
Alternatives 188
Seamstress 189
Domestic Service 189
Teachers 190
Nursing, Midwifery & Medicine 193 Independent Agency? 199 Prostitution & Destitution 200
Conclusions 202
CHAPTER 9: EURASIANS AND THE MILITARY 203 - 233
Introduction 203
Armies of Native States 204
The East India Company‘s Armies 208
Musicians 208
Farriers 211
Madras Sergeant Majors 212
Crises 213
Indian Subordinate Medical Department 213
The Irregular Corps. 222
Volunteer Militias 223
Crown Armies 224
Discourses on Military Service 225
Conclusions 232
CHAPTER 10: EURASIANS AND THE RAILWAY 234 - 269
Introduction 234
East Indian Railway Company 236
Methodology 237
European and Eurasian employment 239 conditions
Occupations 247
Railway colonies & communities 256
Numerical strength 257
Howrah 258
Allahabad 259
Jumalpore 261
Summary of findings 265
Discussion 266
CHAPTER 11: CONCLUSIONS 270 - 276
BIBLIOGRAPHY 277 - 299
Table 1: Summary of Proscriptions Seen as Inimical to Eurasian Interests, 1773 - 1813
Table 2: Census of India; Eurasians Enumerated by Province, State & Agency Table 3: Estimating Eurasian population growth – all India
Table 4: British Soldiers in India – Royal and Company Armies
Table 5: (a) Marriage rates and age-general male population & soldiers, (b) Marriage rates for age ranges-general male population & soldiers; (c) Age demographics-general male population & soldiers
Table 6: European Population of India; 1881
Table 7: The Shortfall of European Women in India 1881 Table 8: Occupations of Madras Eurasians in 1898
Table 9: Occupations of Anglo-Indians in British India, 1931 Table 10: Provincial Civil Service
Table 11: Establishment for Female Hospital for Women and Children Table 12: Military Musicians
Table 13: Grades and salaries; Indian Subordinate Medical Department, 1908
Table 14: Number of Men and Monthly Salary (Rs) by Occupation and Race Category Table 15: Clerks
Table 16: Drivers Table 17: Fitters Table 18: Apprentices
FIGURES
Fig. 1: European and Eurasian Employees by Year of Recruitment Fig. 2: Monthly Salary by Race Classification
Fig. 3: Proportion; European to Eurasian Employees
Fig. 4: East Indian Railway‘s Eurasian Communities by Location
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I owe a huge debt of gratitude to Professor Peter Robb whose careful supervision has preserved my sanity and brought this thesis to completion. The South Asia History group at SOAS provided another layer of support and inspiration. The friendly and informal encouragement of Drs Shabnum Tejani and Talat Ahmed is particularly appreciated. The Archivists and Librarians of the National Archives of India, New Delhi, of the Oriental and India Office Collection, British Library, Senate House Library and of SOAS Library offered expert advice both on identifying sources and on negotiating their digital catalogues and other electronic resources.
At the start of my research, Major J.B. Harrison’s suggestions of possible thematic approaches, the types of sources that might prove fruitful and his crash course on how to do fieldwork were especially helpful. Whilst in Delhi, I was assisted in so many ways by people who went out of their way to help a stranger. When you are thousands of miles from home, alone with a broken laptop and a contiguous welt of mosquito bites, a little sympathy goes a long way. Whether they were fellow researchers or staff at the Archives, auto drivers and hotel staff, or fellow guests, they made my stay all the more memorable by their kindness.
Somewhere out there is an unnamed, faceless hoard of transcribers and scanners whose efforts to compile massive digital archives have brought to my laptop, now fully restored, unpublished archival material, rare books, photographs and theses from every corner of the Earth, most of it completely free of charge. Two open access digital archives that are particularly fabulous must be mentioned, Google Books and Archive.org, to which so many universities and archives have contributed material. Thanks to them my research has not been constrained by opening hours or distance.
Perhaps my greatest debt is to my family who have been the very embodiment of patience and tolerance. I have spent our nest egg on college fees and books, ignored their needs, disappeared for months of fieldwork, bombarded them with my thoughts and findings and covered every household surface with unstable piles of books and papers. They quickly learned to recognise when I was ‘in the zone,’ made sure I was provided with endless cups of coffee and otherwise let me be. Even distance was no protection as Australia and America are instantly accessible by e-mail and chapter drafts easily attached! Rather than a thank you, they all deserve an apology!
BMJ: British Medical Journal EIC: East India Company
EIR: East India Railway Company EIRD: East India Register and Directory FIBIS: Families in British India website IMS: Indian Medical Service
IOFH: The India Office Family History website IOR: India Office Records
ISMD: Indian Subordinate Medical Department MAS: Modern Asian Studies
NAI: National Archives of India, Delhi NCO: Non-commissioned officer
ODNB: Oxford Dictionary of National Biography PRO: Public Records Office, Kew, UK
RAMC: Royal Army Medical Corps.
TNA: The National Archives, Kew, UK
GLOSSARY
Bibi Indian Mistress Cranny Clerk
Griffin Newly arrived government servant Mestizo Portuguese term for person of mixed race Native ethnic Indian
Statutory native born in India but of European or part European ancestry Topassee soldier of mixed Indian and Portuguese descent
FOOTNOTES
Footnotes are given in full only when first mentioned in this thesis and in the Bibliography.
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
HISTORICAL CONTEXT
That there were people of mixed European and Asian ancestry was not news to the colonial British; even before their arrival in India there was an established Portuguese presence and a considerable number of Indo-Portuguese mestizos.1 The British made use of them, as translators in their dealings with Indian rulers and traders, as topasees supplementing their own soldiery, as crannies to staff the administration, and as Christian wives and mistresses.2 Despite the long history of cooperation between Britain and Portugal, Portuguese in general and Portuguese mestizo in particular, were always considered by the British to be their inferiors; Gilchrist described them as ‗the most contemptible race to be found on earth,‘3 Burton said:
It would be, we believe, difficult to find in Asia an uglier or more degraded looking race than that which we are now describing. The forehead is low and flat, the eyes small, quick, and restless; there is a mixture of sensuality and cunning about the region of the mouth, and a development of the lower part of the face which are truly unprepossessing, not to say revolting […] In personal attractions the fair sex is little superior to the other.4
Nor was Britain unaware that British men were fathering Indo-British children. The British had arrived in 1607 like the Portuguese, without women. They had been the dominant European presence since 1765, and yet the Eurasian of British ancestry as something ‗other‘ than British, something that had to be discouraged and controlled as a separate category of people, had not been a problem for almost 180 years. Very little reference was made to their racial origins before the 1780s.5
1 The Portuguese in India were mostly male and their intermarriage with Indians dated back to the beginning of the sixteenth century. The mestizos were Catholics, and their culture largely European. Subcategories of Portuguese along racial lines were never definitive, but the elite were always European born. To the British all Portuguese were a ‗mongrel‘ race and the terms Indo-Portuguese, mestizo, and Portuguese were often used interchangeably.
Luso-Indian was reserved for those the British thought were Indians masquerading as Portuguese.
2 Some Eurasian Catholic women were known to prefer the stigma of remaining ‗mistresses‘ rather than relinquish control of their children‘s Catholic faith to Protestant husbands.
3 J.B. Gilchrist, The General East India Guide and Vade Mecum … a Digest of the Work of the Late Capt.
Williamson, Kingsbury, Parbury & Allen, London, 1825, p. 186.
4 Richard Burton, Goa, and the Blue Mountains, Richard Bentley, London, 1851, p. 97.
5 Given the many derogatory references made to ‗half-breeds‘ in the American colonies before this date, this is quite surprising. Numerous examples of this can be found, in reference to dealings and relations with the Iroquois
The earliest name for children of Britons born in India was ‗Country-born.‘
According to Anthony, it was applied to those with solely European parentage as well as those of mixed ancestry, without distinction and, he claimed, there was neither stigma nor derogatory sting in the term.6 That conclusion seems unlikely given the early belief in environmental determinism (the enervating and degrading effect of India‘s climate), even though that did not conform to racism in its later incarnations. There would have been no need to distinguish between the ‗home‘ bred and the ‗country-born‘
if that status was without stigma.
Besides the Portuguese and British, numerous other Europeans were present in eighteenth and nineteenth century India and contributed to the growing Eurasian population, including French, Americans, Danish, Germans and Dutch. Each had different policies and attitudes with regard to miscegenation and their own Eurasians.
Each contributed to linguistic, religious, social and cultural heterogeneity amongst Eurasians. However, increasing British political hegemony would limit the political sway of other European powers and subject many Eurasians to British influence. Within British India, some opportunities were open to Eurasians provided they were Anglophone, Christian, and appropriately educated.
Beginning in the 1780s the exclusion of Indo-British Eurasians, from both a European British identity and the separate ‗domiciled‘ European category led to the formation of a distinct if never entirely separate community whose members, by an 1870 Parliamentary statute, were labelled ‗Statutory Natives of India.‘7 Thus, Eurasians had become an Indian minority.
Throughout the nineteenth century the British elite progressively distanced itself from the people of India and formed its own ‗society‘ as an exclusive and privileged group which admitted members according to rank, pedigree, race, and behaviour. It was also perceived to be endangered by its very presence in India. Race as a determinate of character, aptitude, and even morality, became a central tenet of nineteenth century British colonial thinking. In the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century, before the concept of race had firmly evolved along lines of colour and genotype (by about mid-century), ‗environmental determinism‘ served to explain the
confederacy in New England over several decades prior to the American Revolution, in Fintan O‘Toole, White Savage; William Johnson and the Invention of America, Faber & Faber, London, 2005.
6 Frank Anthony, Britain’s Betrayal in India: the Story of the Anglo-Indian Community, Allied Publishers, New Delhi, 1962, p. 2-3.
7 Anthony, Britain’s Betrayal, 1962, p. 2-3.
putative vigour of Europeans and indolence of Indians. The ‗enervating‘ Indian climate was seen as a danger to European health, character and reproduction.8 ‗Society‘
attempted to ensure conformity within its own ranks by sumptuary rules, rules of precedence, standards of behaviour in work and leisure, by social pressure, and by sanctions in the work place.9
For others domiciled in India, whose only claim to privilege was to have been born of at least one European parent, the nineteenth century saw the introduction of increasingly draconian guidance and policing, as well as (arguably) rewards for maintaining racial or at least cultural exclusivity. The lower orders had to be prevented from forming a bridge between the native and the European10 if the image of European superiority, the legitimation of colonial rule, was to remain untarnished.11
Reforms to the East India Company, as it morphed from trading concern into sovereign power, allotted power and influence by race. Corruption, greed, ‗nabobery,‘
and even immorality would be minimised if Europeans in India retained their European culture and ties and the malign influence of ‗natives‘ was reduced. Beside legislation, a rigid social code, centred on race, soon became apparent and was not confined to the governing elite. Cohn suggested that ‗by the post-Mutiny period the non-officials were the most virulent spokesmen of European superiority.‘12 Legislative reforms (particularly in the 1830s and 1880s) that allowed Indians some part in running their own country were grudgingly granted, and only to the extent that they would appease
8 Environmentalists believed European settlement of India was impossible because climate could modify racial characteristics. Since environment also encompassed education, it was normal practice for the children of the elite to be schooled in Britain and this, to a point, could compensate for the racial ‗degeneration‘ caused by either environment or mixed parentage. This theory, although premised upon European superiority, at least offered a prospect of redemption; Indians could be turned into ‗Brown Englishmen‘ and Europeans could take steps to minimise ‗Indianisation.‘ See T.B. Macaulay, ‗Minute on Education, February 2 1835,‘ in H. Sharp (ed.), Selections from Educational Records, Part 1 (1781-1839), Superintendent of Government Printing, Calcutta, 1920, reprinted Delhi NAI, 1965, pp. 107-17; Peter Robb, ‗Children, Emotion, Identity and Empire: Views from the Blechyndens‘ Calcutta Diaries (1790–1822),‘ Modern Asian Studies, 2006, vol. 40 (1), pp. 175–201. Though it was largely superseded by Social Darwinism and Galtonism, environmental determinism never completely disappeared from British thinking; India would always be ‗enervating.‘
9 A flavour of this can be found throughout Kipling‘s Plain Tales; matrons and chums were expected to keep a chap in order. Men who mixed with natives came to a bad end, passed over for promotion and ruined by drink.
Rudyard Kipling, Plain Tales from the Hills, 1887, (reprinted Penguin, London, 1987).
10 Typifying this attitude, Valentia warned that half-cast children embodied a link between the English and natives.‘
George Viscount Valentia, Voyages and Travels to India and Ceylon, 1802-6, vol. 1, Rivington, London, 1811, p.
197.
11 Kenneth Ballhatchet, Race, Sex and Class under the Raj, Imperial Attitudes and Policies and their Critics, 1793- 1905, Weidenfield & Nicholson, London, 1980, p. 131; Christopher Hawes, Poor Relations: the Making of a Eurasian Community in British India, 1773-1833, Curzon, Richmond, 1996, p. 61.
12 He also points out that some European officials and missionaries took a more liberal stance on race. Bernard S.
Cohn, ‗The British in Benares: A Nineteenth Century Colonial Society,‘ Comparative Studies in Society and History, vol. 4 (2), 1962, pp. 169-199.
(or buy off) liberal disquiet and Indian dissent.13
In this hardening socio-political context, Eurasians‘ racial ‗hybridity‘ became a problem.14 Early in the nineteenth century a racialised colonial order was established with the significant posts effectively reserved (by law or usage) for Europeans. Later, opportunities were opened up to Indians and the increasing number of Western educated Indians provided tough competition for posts. Nevertheless, where Indians remained excluded and Europeans could not be found, there were opportunities for Eurasians in government employ. However the economic base of the community remained in a constant state of flux and full employment for the community was not guaranteed, whether because opportunities opened up for Indians or because more Europeans were allowed into India. Eurasians did not fit neatly into any European or Indian category because they were simultaneously too European and too Indian.
Whether we talk of half-castes, East Indians, Eurasians, or in modern parlance Anglo-Indians, from the 1780s onwards, they acquired a separate, contested and negotiated identity. Separation, for the British, obviated ties to extended family in Britain;15 for the Eurasian it limited realisation of individual potential; and for Victorian moralists it provided object lessons on the dangers of miscegenation. It was an identity bitterly resented by some, prized by others, and vague enough to be manipulated to suit the ends of British colonial government. However loudly the British, from the start of the nineteenth century, protested that Eurasian ‗half-castes‘ were ‗the most rapidly accumulating evil,‘16 almost a century later they were still ‗to be found in every responsible office under government … conspicuously employed & trusted.‘17 Eurasians therefore remained, paradoxically, an asset of British colonial government.
13 The Charter Act of 1833 made the theoretical concession that natives of British India and natural-born subjects of His Majesty could no longer be disabled from holding any place, office or employment under the Company by reason only of his religion, place of birth, descent, colour, or any of them. 3rd & 4th George VI, cap. 83. The Indian Criminal Procedure Act Amendment Bill, 1883 (The Ilbert Bill) proposed dropping the law requiring that British subjects could only be tried by European judges. It was soon modified (1884) so that only the most senior native Judges could try a European and the accused could demand a half European jury.
14 Race and racial hybridity are of course disputed concepts. I use ‗hybridity‘ only in its historical context.
15 Metcalf overstated the case claiming ‗offspring were usually not recognised and the man abandoned the woman when he returned to Europe.‘ Thomas R. Metcalf, ‗Imperial Towns and Cities,‘ in Peter J. Marshall (ed.), The Cambridge Illustrated History of the British Empire, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2001, p. 247.
However, the legal proscriptions described in my next chapter show that maintaining contact would have been very difficult for many.
16 Valentia, Voyages, 1811, vol. 1, p. 197.
17 The Wallace deputation to Parliament had just returned to India and Mr M.T. Carroll was addressing a meeting of the newly re-named ‗Anglo-Indian Association of Western India.‘ The Anglo-Indian Journal, vol. 1 (2), 1897, pp.
7-9.
THIS THESIS
Empires have long since disappeared into the history books but Eurasians have not. In India today, the Anglo-Indian community is anxious to convey both its nativity and loyalty to India but, stigmatised by its past association with imperial oppression and
‗western‘ lifestyle, it is sometimes viewed as an unwelcome residuum of colonialism.
At the same time, the diaspora is successfully integrating across the anglophone world but a plethora of internet forums and genealogical studies suggest widespread concern that their community history is fading from memory. This thesis, therefore, attempts to show how and why Eurasians were involved with the nineteenth century British Raj, and why they could not generally favour their Indian ancestry and culture. I argue that their European-ness was reinforced by the colonial state and that their agency to choose otherwise would have cost them both their identity and their livelihoods.
In the next chapter I re-examine Eurasian ‗othering,‘ concentrating on identifying the Acts, directives and standing orders that first differentiated Eurasians from their colonial British kin. I explore the effects these proscriptions produced, what motives have been identified and what others have said about them. I conclude that this approach shows how but not why Eurasian ‗othering‘ was achieved since it looks at Eurasians in isolation, presuming them to be the main object of concern.
Chapter Three places Eurasian ‗othering‘ in the wider context of British interests home and imperial. In so doing, I test whether Eurasians were the object of proscription or simply bystanders whose small numbers and lack of influence made them either invisible or expendable. I look at three powerful men (Henry Dundas, Richard Wellesley and Charles Cornwallis) to show how passionate interests outside India, influenced their actions and priorities whilst they held powerful Indian offices. I conclude that, whilst Eurasians were ‗othered,‘ as a result of such men‘s actions, their motives must be understood and interpreted in a wider context than hitherto in Eurasian historiography, particularly with respect to evolving British identity.
It is impossible to assess Eurasian roles and status without approximate numbers, and impossible to make quantitative assessments without establishing a baseline and so Chapter Four attempts to ennumerate how many Eurasians there were and how such a diverse category was defined and delineated. Every source yielded different figures, and all had problems in reliably identifying the Eurasian population. However, I have been able to establish upper and lower limits for the size of the Eurasian population and to
highlight the artificiality of the concept of a monolithic Eurasian population.
Chapter Five explores the extent to which Europeans continued to form intimate relationships with Indian and Eurasian women. I show that interracial relationships were unlikely to have disappeared at the rate marriage and concubinage disappeared from documentary evidence. It is a comparative mass demographic study of India and England in one year (1881) based marriage records, census and military data from 1881 India and England. This approach minimises subjectivity, my own and that found in the records of interracial contact in nineteenth century India. It shows that significant numbers of Eurasians, rather than forming a separate endogamous community
‗mimicking‘ European culture, would have been regularly exposed to European culture and social mores by their husbands and fathers.
Chapter Six explores the nature of these intimate relationships, legal and otherwise. Rather than limit marriage to a Victorian middle-class definition, I explore marriage, as it was understood by the institutions of church and state, and how it was lived by different communities and classes, in Britain and in India. I contend that, for the lower class majority of Europeans and Eurasians, the simple division between legal wife and mistress or concubine is inadequate, was a cause of financial hardship, and was a source of prejudice against Eurasians.
The remaining chapters address aspects of Eurasian identity connected with employment. ‗Employability‘ asks what work nineteenth century Eurasians undertook or sought, what they had to do to get that work, what part the British took in moulding
‗useful citizens,‘ and what agency Eurasians had in determining their own identity. I contend that Eurasian‘s cultural agency shrank as the British restricted Eurasian identity to those whose culture, education and religion were considered appropriate to the employment opportunities they were willing to provide.
I consider the role of Eurasian women, once social pressures began to reduce the availability of European sutors and their agency in directing their own lives. There was concern amongst European men for the virtue of European and part-European women meaning they could not be left to the mercy of Indian men. I show there was a high rate of employment amongst Eurasian women, and that, unlike Indian and European women (unless of the lowest classes) Eurasian women continued to work after marriage. I conclude that this was a financial necessity if Eurasian families were to maintain a European lifestyle.
Chapter Nine asks why the question of Eurasian military service was so
contentious in the nineteenth century. I show that, despite the community‘s demilitarisation, they remained anxious and able to serve in some capacities.
Community leaders, the Government of India, the military and Parliament, all engaged in recurring discourses on this subject, ranging from the community‘s biological competence to serve, to its loyalty to Britain, and the community‘s potential for economic and moral improvement through military service. This chapter, therefore, explores the construction and probing of what has been termed the ‗internal frontier‘ of nationality.
The last chapter before my general conclusions asks what Eurasians got out of railway service, a sector of such importance that ‗railwayman‘ became an alternative identity. I explore the diverse occupations and general benefits available to Eurasian railway employees and their families, and life in racially segregated railway colonies that placed Eurasians alongside Europeans rather than amongst Indians. I show that, despite earning less than the Europeans amongst whom they worked and often lived, the community gained security, status, acknowledgement that they were of European stock, and an opportunity to be of service to India. The price paid by their descendents has proven to be either physical or social isolation from an Indian national identity.
HISTORIOGRAPHY
Have you heard the joke about the Anglo-Indian national library? They lost the book.18
The Eurasians of India attracted little attention from Victorian and early twentieth century historians; most works contemporary with the British raj fail even to mention them. A corpus of academic literature now exists but little of this filters through into popular understanding. Much of it uses Eurasians to explore conceptual problems such as race, nation, and the nature of colonialism. A few histories by members of the Eurasian community are available and are ubiquitous sources for introductory summaries of Eurasian history in works on the twentieth century community. These sources were shaped by political and ideological issues of their own times and by each author‘s personal understanding of their own situation. They offer interesting insights into how Eurasians themselves viewed their own community, their identity, and the
18 Laura Roychowdhury, The Jadu House: Travels in Anglo-India, Black Swan, London, 2001, pp. 48.
political power-shifts that affected relationship with the larger British and Indian peoples. The three Eurasian authors cited most often are Cedric Dover, Herbert Alick Stark and Frank Anthony. Two authors, Dorris Goodrich and Christopher Hawes, have studied the formation of Eurasian communal identity early in the nineteenth century;
standing outside the Eurasian community they offer a more dispassionate interpretation.
Much else that has been written specifically about the Eurasians of India has explored the Anglo-Indians of twentieth century India and those who now form a diaspora throughout the anglophone world. For obvious reasons, a large liminal and marginal group, subjected to massive socio-political change (the end of empire, the departure of the British and life in independent India), has attracted the attentions of sociologists and anthropologists. Of particular note amongst these are recent works of Lionel Caplan, Alison Blunt and Laura Bear. Each has a multidisciplinary approach that explores the lasting practical and psychological effects of colonial history on post-colonial Anglo- Indian communities. Also relevant are the works of David Arnold on poor Europeans and industrial relations in nineteenth century India, and of Ann Laura Stoler on Eurasians in the colonial Dutch Indies. The work of each of these authors grounds many topics relevant to this thesis.
An Anglo-Indian and biologist, Cedric Dover (1920-1962) wrote on race and colonial oppression. First published in 1929 when Eugenicists were taken seriously in Britain and America, three years after Hitler‘s Mein Kampf, Dover sought to rebut historical prejudice and answer eugenicist arguments against the ‗mixed-races.‘ It is surprising, given his long-term interest in racial discrimination, deriding the opinions of contemporary eugenicists, and championing American Black civil rights, that he identified Eurasians as a ‗race,‘ and believed it was possibly a superior one.
He travelled widely, in Malaya, Britain, and the USA as well as India. Having grown up with the Indian independence movement, met Black American civil rights activists, and read Booker T Washington, he voiced the opinion that Eurasians had more in common with oppressed people of colour, wherever they lived, than they did with Europeans. He believed that Eurasians throughout the world shared a cultural identity but, as a Congress party supporter, he encouraged Eurasians to embrace an Indian national identity too.19
19 Anthony Christie, ‗Obituary for Cedric Dover: 1904-1962,‘ Man, vol. 62, April 1962, p. 55. Dover wrote widely but his most relevant works are Cedric Dover, Chimmerii? Or, Eurasians and Their Future, Modern Art Press, Calcutta, 1929 and Half-Caste, Martin Secker and Warburg Ltd, London, 1937.
With regard to Eurasian exclusion from the British pale, Dover cited a 1786 directive, banning repatriation to Britain of Eurasian orphans, as the beginning.20 He stressed one motive: disguised behind a smokescreen of fear that the Eurasians would follow the mulattos of Haiti and revolt, the real motive of the Company‘s shareholders was employment and wealth for their own relatives. His invective was directed primarily at English capitalists:
What… could be expected from England…in which semi-nude women worked, literally as beasts of burden, in the mines…in which thousands of half-starved children died every year through the most cruel forms of menial labour and the indifference of both parents and state.21
Dover was convinced that the Eurasians had suffered unjustly:
So, the community which had served the Father-land so well degenerated into a community of clerks, railway-men and telegraphists, forced to be content with employment in the subordinate grades of the Company‘s services. Oppression had won. But the thoughtful statesman knows that the final victory rests always with the oppressed.22
There was chronological overlap between Dover and educator and writer Herbert Alick Stark (1864-1938), but Stark was born two generations earlier and so was very much a colonial subject. His East Indian Worthies (published in 1892) was a collection of ‗brief memoirs… [which] originally appeared in the Eurasian & Anglo-Indian Recorder.23 He used the term ‗East Indian‘ because it was the designation which his subjects had chosen for themselves. Perhaps Morris‘ Anglo-Indian Worthies, published two years before and lauding the memory of another kind of Anglo-Indians (famous Britons like Munro, Elphinstone, and Lawrence),24 stimulated him into placing the achievements of his community on record.
Stark took greater cognisance than Dover of his community‘s British ancestry and culture, as would be expected of a colonial government employee.25 In 1909 he produced a school history textbook in which he wrote approvingly on what India had
20 IOR/B/102, Court Minute Book, 14 March 1786; PWD India, Original Papers Relative to the Establishment of a Society in Bengal for the Protection of Orphans, 1784, London, Joseph Cooper, n.d., pp. 29-34.
21 Dover, Chimmerii, 1929, pp. 9-10.
22 Ibid., p. 25.
23 Stark wrote eight books, this was his first. Herbert Alick Stark & Walter Madge, East-Indian Worthies, n.p., Calcutta, 1892.
24 H. Morris, Anglo-Indian Worthies, The Christian Vernacular Education Society, Madras, 1890.
25 Stark was Inspector of European Schools, Bengal.
gained from British rule and encouraged his schoolboy pupils to be grateful to the
‗supreme power, whom providence has sent to be the guardian of the land and the friend of its people.‘26 A shift in Stark‘s attitude became apparent in his later work Hostages to India. His analysis of the Company‘s motives for excluding Eurasians is similar to Dover‘s; retention of patronage with Haiti as no more than a convenient excuse.27 His bleak description of Anglo-Indian history reflects his personal disillusion with the government he had served throughout his life:
To reduce a people to political impotence and social degredation, three measures are all sufficient.
Deprive them of the means of livelihood. Deprive them of education. Deprive them of arms. These three cruel measures had been enacted against the Anglo-Indian race, and thus within the brief period of the ten years lying between 1786 and 1795, by standing orders of the great East India Company, Anglo-Indians, ever true as steel to their British connection, had been reduced to the status of a proscribed and down- trodden race.28
Stark‘s Hostages was first published in 1926, a few years after the Indianisation reforms of the Government of India Act of 1919, with a second edition issued just before the arrival of the Simon Commission. He believed Britain was failing to offer Anglo-Indians the protection due to a loyal community; that Indians ‗repudiate our consanguinity‘ and he dreaded the community‘s future under Indian rule.29 In this context it is hardly surprising that he saw the ‗othering‘ of Anglo-Indians or Eurasians as deliberate and calculated policy. Whilst he saw ‗Anglo-Indian‘ as a communal identity (or even a race) ‗Hostages‘ was suffused with anxiety over the unresolved issue of their national identity.
Frank Anthony (1908 – 1993) was an educationalist and politician who, for many years, represented Anglo-Indians in the Lok Sabha. Writing in the early 1960s his work reflects the upheavals and identity crises posed by India‘s independence and the emigration of half the community. The remaining Anglo-Indians now had to decide whether they were essentially European, in which case many still wanted to leave, or loyal Indians with a history of devotion to public service. An already microscopic
26 Herbert Alick Stark, India under Company and Crown: Being an Account of its Progress and Present Administration, Macmillan & Co, Calcutta, 1909, p. 106. This book was written when Stark was ‗Additional Assistant Director of Public Instruction, Bengal.‘
27 Ibid., pp. 54-5.
28 Herbert Alick Stark, Hostages to India, or the Life Story of the Anglo-Indian Race, 2nd edition, Star Printing Works, Calcutta, 1936, p. 59.
29 Stark, Hostages, 1936, p. 142.
community had shrunk further because so many had already chosen to leave. Those left, many of whom had actively chosen to stay, suffered increased prejudice from other Indians who saw them as foreign imperial lackeys,30 thought they were staying only because they could not afford to leave, or were staying because they could not prove European ancestry. On the ‗othering‘ of Eurasians, Anthony‘s interpretation stressed the part he believed Valentia‘s report of 181131 had played in precipitating the community‘s economic decline:
on the basis of that criminally ignorant report, an order was issued in 1808 discharging Anglo-Indians from all ranks of the British Army. ... Thereafter a dense impregnable wall of social and economic discrimination was drawn around the Anglo-Indians.32
Valentia‘s comments on Eurasians, whilst derogatory, were no more than passing comments similar to those made by others over the previous twenty years and their importance was therefore somewhat overstated.33 He said nothing worse than had already been said by Cornwallis and the young men of Wellesley‘s Fort William College. Anthony described the proscriptions that ‗othered‘ Eurasians as ‗the first betrayal‘ of the community, by the British. He quoted Stark extensively and was every bit as indignant and emotive:
Discrimination and deliberate oppression were, in the next few years, to be the return for their [Eurasians]
vital services … The complex of greed, baseless fear and brazen ingratitude was to be the guiding motive of policy towards the Community in the next few years.34
Anthony worked for his community‘s acceptance as Indians, even persuading the government to accept English as an Indian language, and yet his picture of the community‘s ‗betrayals‘ rests on unfair exclusion from the fold and eventual abandonment by the British. His attitude to the community‘s identity and even
30 The social & cultural problems caused by this perception of Anglo-Indians in post-independence India are explored by Noel P. Gist, ‗Cultural versus Social Marginality: The Anglo-Indian Case,‘ Phylon, vol. 28, (4), 1967, pp. 361- 375, by V.R. Gaikwad, The Anglo-Indians: a Study in the Problems and Progress Involved in Emotional and Cultural Integration, Asia Publishing House, London, 1967 and by Glenn D‘Cruz, ‗My Two Left Feet: The Problem of Anglo-Indian Stereotypes in Post-Independence Indo-English Fiction,‘ The Journal of Commonwealth Literature, vol. 38, 2003, pp105-123.
31 Valentia, Voyages, (4 volumes), 1811.
32 Anthony, Britain’s Betrayal, 1962, p. 22.
33 As early as 1789, Innes Munro had been concerned that Anglo-Indian numbers in England were a threat to racial purity. Innes Munro, A Narrative of the Military Operations on the Coromandel Coast, privately printed, London, 1789, p. 50.
34 Anthony, Britain’s Betrayal, 1962, p. 19.
nationality remained, therefore, somewhat ambivalent.
Dorris Goodrich (1920 - ) was a sociologist with an interest in utilising ‗hybrid‘
peoples to explore the formation of social groups. She set out to establish first when a Eurasian ‗group‘ identity in India came into existence, and then how it came about.35 She, like the authors from within the community, claimed that British policy deliberately and formally discriminated against Eurasians. Goodrich noted that the imposition of Eurasian identity coincided with Britain‘s realisation that it now held an Indian empire. Goodrich hypothesised:
during this period [1784-1833] a transition was made; Eurasians ceased to be regarded, and subsequently ceased to regard themselves, as individuals claiming membership in the European community in India, and came to have an identity as members of a new social group – the Eurasian community.36
Whilst it is true that a Eurasian community did emerge, there is plenty of evidence that many did not cease to regard themselves as members of the European community.37 The weaknesses of this work, as a contribution to Eurasian history, are that it does not attempt to go beyond what Anglo-Indian authors have concluded about why Eurasians had been ‗othered,‘ and it remained an unpublished thesis. Further, concepts such as race, hybridity and even culture have been studied, discussed, and their meanings shifted, since it was written, almost sixty years ago.
Christopher Hawes had spent twenty years in post-independence India, before writing Poor Relations.38 Like Goodrich, he concentrated on the years around the turn of the nineteenth century when the Eurasian community began to be excluded from the British pale. He set out to examine, impartially, Anglo-Indian criticisms of British policy, British actions, and the motives that inspired them. He noted the subjectivity of Eurasian authors (such as those discussed above) whose agenda was to shame Britain and protect community interests. He stressed changes within British society, in Britain‘s role as an emerging imperial power, and on competition for jobs from Western educated
35 Dorris Goodrich, The Making of an Ethnic Group: the Eurasian Community in India, PhD Thesis, University of California, Berkeley, June 1952.
36 Ibid., p. 6-7.
37 Several Indian Census reports confirm that many Eurasians returned themselves (or were returned by others) as Europeans. For examples see W, Chichele Plowden, Report on the Census of British India Taken on the 17th February 1881, Eyre and Spottiswoode, London, 1883, p. 32; Jervoise Athelstane Baines, General Report on the Census of India, 1891, HMSO, London, 1893, p. 177; J.A.B. (ed.), ‗The Census of India, 1911: Christians by Race and Sect,‘ Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, vol. 75 (4), March 1912.
38 Hawes, Poor, 1996.
Indians. Unlike Goodrich, Hawes felt that: ‗… if ever a community could have wished for its own corporate dissolution, and for complete integration with its paternal society, it would have been the educated Eurasians of early nineteenth century India.‘39
Hawes main contribution is that his work brought Eurasian history from a
‗footnote to the historical account of British India,‘ into the orbit of serious objective scrutiny. Frequently cited, ‗Poor Relations‘ is something of a seminal work, after which many authors have written articles, chapters, and even books about the Eurasian community.40 But for his death Hawes would likely have written a book on the nineteenth century community.
David Arnold‘s work on industrialisation and labour relations in nineteenth century India pre-dates Hawes and is an exception to the ‗footnote‘ treatment. He noticed something that many historians before him seemed to have missed. He said:
Current writing about the British in India would lead an otherwise uninformed reader to suppose that its European community consisted almost entirely of civil servants, army officers, planters and businessmen.
That, no doubt, was how the Raj chose to see itself.41
The self-interest of the British elite, who wrote and preserved many of the sources available to us, often stressing their personal ‗contribution‘ to history, is perhaps sufficient explanation of this. It is hard to write about people who did not leave us their own words. Arnold‘s work has sought to address this problem. From the late 1970s onwards, he has explored the problems posed by poor whites, and often Eurasians, for the colonial state and, as Bear notes, he was one of the first historians to appreciate the significance of the discussions and sentiments prompted by the 1858 Commission on Colonization and Settlement. Many of the colonial state‘s assumptions about racial competencies, whether for work or to withstand climate, disease, or degeneration (physical and moral) were explored by this commission and passed into common
‗knowledge‘ by the press coverage it received. The main conclusions were that the British working-classes should be kept out of India because they were not to be trusted
39 Ibid., p. 74.
40 Examples include: Laura Bear, Lines of the Nation, Columbia University Press, 2007; Alison Blunt, Domicile and Diaspora: Anglo-Indian Women and the Spatial Politics of Home, Blackwell, Oxford, 2005; Elizabeth Buettner, Empire Families: Britons and Late Imperial India, OUP, Oxford 2004; Lionel Caplan, Children of Colonialism:
Anglo-Indians in a Postcolonial World, Berg, Oxford, 2001; Michael H Fisher, The Inordinately Strange Life of Dyce Sombre: Victorian Anglo Indian MP and ‘Chancery Lunatic,’ Hurst & Co., London, 2010; Durba Ghosh, Sex And The Family In Colonial India; The Making Of Empire, Cambridge UP, Cambridge, 2006.
41 David Arnold, 'European Orphans and Vagrants in India in the Nineteenth Century', Journal of Imperial &
Commonwealth History, v.7 (2), 1979, pp. 104-127.
and their behaviour would damage perceptions of European superiority. The middle- class, who represented an ideal combination of breeding, morality and capital, would civilise India by example. Europeans would fund and direct India‘s modernisation.
Foremost amongst these projects were the railways which would bring modernity and progress, and enable the European elites to govern from the hills. Arnold notes, ironically, that the railways‘ use of European and Eurasian subordinates provided ‗the only real experience of white colonization‘ in British India. Tightly controlled within railway colonies where their behaviour was educated and policed by the state, these formed a labour aristocracy. 42
Arnold argues that ‗in reacting … strongly against ideas of ‗otherness‘, historians may too readily overlook or unduly diminish the ways in which ideas of difference were mobilized, in ideology and in practice, in the service of an imperial power,‘43 and yet, elsewhere, he tends to lump poor whites and Eurasians together.44 Even when it is comparatively simple to avoid do so, such as for midwives and nurses, which most would agree were almost exclusively domains of Eurasian employment, he uses the blanket-term ‗poor Europeans.‘ He notes, however, that the poor whites jealously guarded their status because it offered some advantages and so for this reason, it is surprising that he rarely differentiates between these two colonial categories. Further, whilst acknowledging the contempt of the European elite for poor whites, he treats all Europeans as a single ‗community,‘ whilst in the same sentence, he notes the factors that separated them. This confusion is also found in the sources. The ambiguity was experienced at the time and is relevant to contemporary definitions of race, as this thesis will show.
Arnold makes an important point about the mismatch, particularly in the second half of the nineteenth century, between the racial kudos of Europeans ‗visible only as a super-race‘ and the commitment of European commerce to principles of laissez faire.
He notes, for example, that Bombay Chamber of Commerce was oblivious to unemployed poor whites and Eurasians because they were surplus to requirements and
42 ibid; see also Arnold, 'Industrial Violence in Colonial India', Comparative Studies in Society and History, v.22 (2), 1980, pp. 234-255; ‗White Colonization and Labour in Nineteenth-Century India,‘ Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History, v.11 (2), 1983, pp. 133-58; Colonizing the Body: State Medicine and Epidemic Disease in Nineteenth-century India, University of California Press, Berkeley, 1993; 'Race, Place and Bodily Difference in Early Nineteenth Century India', Historical Research, v.77 (196), May 2004, pp. 254-273; and Laura Bear, Lines of the Nation, Indian Railway Workers, Bureaucracy and the Intimate Historical Self, Columbia University Press, Chichester, N.Y., 2007, pp. 26-34.
43Arnold, 'Race, Place and Bodily Difference‘
44 Arnold, 'European Orphans.’
therefore outside their remit. He shows very clearly how the state had little choice but to intervene (with vagrancy legislation, schooling, cantonments, workhouses, jails, asylums, and deportation) on a scale that the British government was not prepared to replicate ‗back home.45 That Indians who travelled to Britain were shocked by the sight of poor whites is perhaps testament to the effectiveness of their efforts.
Arnold also explores beliefs about place, race and class through the prism of Western medicine in India, noting its close association and emphasis on military priorities: keeping soldiers alive and fit. Here is a transition that also will be examined in and illustrated in this thesis. The belief in racially determined difference, this time almost entirely physical, is clear. European doctors sought explanations for why some diseases were many times more likely to kill a European soldier than an officer or an Indian and, through exploring local outbreaks of disease, were influential in defining and identifying the safest areas in which to site garrisons.46
Turning to the railways and industry, Arnold explores ways in which industrial violence by aggrieved employees or alarmed management, heightened racial tensions, since the former were Indians and the latter Europeans and Eurasians. This thesis will argue that his conclusion that ‗racial aggression and retaliation [was] a primary source of industrial conflict‘ is unproven. In fact he argues that industrial violence had a forerunner in protests by rural labourers pre-dating the British raj, and has persisted for more than sixty years in independent India. Race was therefore part of the equation but as an amplifier rather than a root cause.47
Like Arnold‘s work on the European poor, my thesis explores a section of British colonial society, albeit a section whose nationality, race and culture were contested, that occupied a liminal zone between the colonisers and the colonised. It was a section whose existence, nationality, race, and culture were all contested. I attempt to isolate the effects of racial classification from that of class. This is particularly clear in differences in pensions and allowances for soldiers‘ widows and differences in earnings for railway men. Like Arnold, I found this to be difficult because classification could be arbitrary and contingent on context; and yet it has proved to be worthwhile to highlight the difficulties encountered by those trying to live within poorly defined and mobile communal boundaries.
45 Arnold, 'European Orphans.’
46 Arnold, Colonizing; 'Race, Place.’
47 Arnold, 'Industrial Violence.’
For the authors I have discussed so far Eurasians‘ identification with the British and association with the colonial state (through work and education) are important themes. They also have an on-going significance for Eurasians today, especially those who form the Anglo-Indian minority community in contemporary independent India.
Lionel Caplan, for example, in Children of Colonialism, explores the situation of Anglo-Indians in Madras today. He intricately weaves the community‘s colonial history into the fabric of their everyday lives, showing how the legacy of British employment policies, education, stereotyping, and ultimate departure, have left the rump of a community with a culture and identity seen by other Indians as foreign and (as said) further disrupted by the permanent migration of so many abroad. Caplan takes issue with descriptions of Anglo-Indians and other metis groups as marginal to the two parent racial or ethnic groups because it does not allow for local circumstances, internal differences and boundaries within either parent group, and the existence of porous and imprecise ‗racial cum social‘ categories.48 It also presupposes that there are such things as pure cultures distinct from one another. Caplan argues for a ‗cultural continuum‘ that
‗highlights diversity and internal variation.‘ He notes that the situation in India was never simple because the boundaries of identity and culture that the colonial state sought to impose were porous and European, Anglo-Indian and Indian identities refused to stay wholly fixed and distinct. Even within the heart of each group, there was no single, all-embracing identity that could ignore differences in class, caste, religion or gender. Caplan also critiques the use of ‗hybridity‘ solely as a cultural phenomenon whilst ignoring the fact that it also has racial overtones.
We cannot apply contemporary perceptions of race simply as a construct of use to colonisers, either retrospectively to situations where it was a reality in the everyday lives of many, nor to localities and situations where, as in India, some Anglo-Indians believe it still holds sway. Caplan‘s points about the porous and fluid nature of categories of people, whether by race or culture, which some mistakenly see as a postcolonial phenomenon, are unmistakably significant in the study of nineteenth century Eurasians. Caplan highlights the gap between theorists who deconstruct the concept of pure or distinct cultures and others, some of whom apply such thinking in attempts to identify an ‗unmixed, pure ‗Indian‘ identity.‘ Caplan clearly views the
48 Lionel Caplan Children of Colonialism: Anglo-Indians in a Postcolonial World, Berg, Oxford, 2001.
Anglo-Indians as racially mixed and of a creolised culture but also as part of a continuum which should include them, racially and culturally, within an Indian identity.49
I believe my thesis shows that nineteenth century Eurasians were indeed part of a cultural continuum, very evidently so in the first decades of the century, in which they might be included at the margins of either parent group. In my chapters on employment in the early decades, Eurasians amongst the Calcutta government clerks or Ranjit Singh‘s soldiers made clear choices to affiliate with one or other parent group. At the same time, others such as Hyder Hearsey and James Skinner exemplified the imprecision of what Caplan calls ‗racial cum social‘ categories and were comfortable in both parent groups simultaneously. The concept of national identity came to the fore in twentieth and late nineteenth century efforts to find a unifying national identity that was Indian, together with British efforts to discourage any attachment to India in European colonists and settlers. The effect of this on Anglo-Indians who were by custom, practice and probably necessity closely associated with the European or coloniser cultural continuum continues to this day.
Ann Laura Stoler‘s work may stand here as representative of a broad trend in recent historiography. Her Carnal Knowledge and Imperial Power appeared in 2002, though her work on race and colonialism extends back over at least the previous decade.50 Studying Eurasians of the Dutch East Indies in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century she argues that focusing on colonial states‘ attempts to control, define and police family life and racial boundaries can increase our understanding of the limits of any colonial power. Colonial discourses on ‗métissage‘ can ‗work as diagnostics of stress points‘ showing differences and similarities between colonial states. Thus,
49 Other relevant works by Caplan include: 'Creole World, Purist Rhetoric: Anglo-Indian Cultural Debates in Colonial and Contemporary Madras', The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, v.1 (4), 1995, pp. 743-762;
'Gifting and Receiving: Anglo-Indian Charity and its Beneficiaries in Madras', Contributions to Indian Sociology, v.32, 1998, pp. 409-431; 'Iconographies of Anglo-Indian Women: Gender Constructs and Contrasts in a Changing Society', Modern Asian Studies, v.34 (4), 2000, pp. 863-892; and 'Colonial & Post Colonial Hybridities: Eurasians in India', IIAS Newsletter, No.30, 2003, http://iias.nl/iiasn/30 /IIASNL30_16.pdf, (accessed Dec 2007).
50 Ann Laura Stoler, Carnal Knowledge and Imperial Power, University of California Press, USA, 2002. Other relevant works by Stoler include 'Rethinking Colonial Categories; European Communities and the Boundaries of Rule', Comparative Studies in Society and History, v.31 (1), 1989, pp. 134-161; 'Making Empire Respectable:
The Politics of Race and Sexual Morality in 20th-Century Colonial Cultures', American Ethnologist, v.16 (4), 1989, pp. 634-660; 'Sexual Affronts and Racial Frontiers: European Identities and the Cultural Politics of Exclusion in Colonial Southeast Asia,' Comparative Studies in Society and History, v.34 (3), 1992, pp. 514-551;
Race and the Education of Desire: Foucault's History of Sexuality and the Colonial Order of Things, Duke Univ.
Press, USA, 1995; and 'Affective States', in David Nugent and Joan Vincent, A Companion to the Anthropology of Politics, Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, 2004, pp4-20.
