Corso di Civiltà Inlgese

INTRO - The British empire

Concept of Englishness: linked with its imperial past.
Huge empire, at the beginning of 20th century, reached its peak (25% of the land, and 25%
of the world's total population under England).

How did England do it? How did it impact the English?

The UK had colonies in Canada, Africa, India, Australia, New Zealand, and islands in the
Pacific ocean.

Impact on English. It deeply shaped the idea of English nationality, idea of themselves.
not only for those born in the colonies, but also others stayed at home (in terms of food,
space…). In order to understand the sense of the self, the encounter with the other is
essential (contrast).

Map of the empire (1886).

● It was made for the colonial exhibition (a sort of expo of the empire; a parade of
England's conquests). UK: placed at the center of the world geographically, the most
important power in the world. World’s standard at this period: London.

● “Freedom, fraternity, federation” = peaceful coexistence within the empire. It had a

peaceful aim, to bring together all different sorts of people and lands, all united under
the motherland (which was actually far from reality; propaganda).
The English felt to have a moral duty, an aim to civilize and save other people of the world.
The Empire is morally good and useful (= the justification they gave for themselves). Actually
they're after economic power (reason for founding empire).

● Imperial fantasy: animals, fauna, plants,

- India (elephant), Australia (kangaroos)
- Bottom center: woman (embodiment of Britannia) sitting on the top of the
world and Atlas holding the world upon his head.

● Celebratory, but also some secrets about this map: it was designed by Walter grain
(?), leader of socialist movement, so he didn’t receive public credit for this map (it
would suggest a strange idea). So, as revenge, he inserted details in the map
ex. at the top right: red caps (high symbolic meaning). Symbol of freedom, worn by freed
slaves, and then widely used as an anticolonial icon.

Empire has always been controversial:

- wealth, power, economic opportunity
 - slavery, exploitation of people, resources

HISTORY of the Empire

How did Britain manage to conquer a quarter of the world?
Thanks to a combination of factors:

- small island, it needed space to expand, to breathe, cannot expand on continent, it

has only sea around it
- obsessive fear of invasion (it was invaded by France in the Middle Ages); it turned
into aggressiveness, conquer first.
- being lonely, isolated also perks: surrounded by the sea, great seamen, able to go
round the world
- political unity: more or less stable government since 17th century (king, parlament,
constitution), it slightly changes, but the basic structure of the nation remains the
same. If you’re stable in the internal affairs, you can focus on foreign affairs.

Couples of important events.

● Bill of Rights (1689): forces the king to consult the Parliament when he wants to
make decisions (raise army, taxes…) = constitutional monarchy.
● Act of Settlement (1701): exclude catholics from the throne
(= these events brought the political stability)

Other two characteristics.

● Britain has a strong sense of national identity, (based on cohesion inside and
conquer outside); aggressive national ideology.
● Commercial vivacity (industrial revolution starts in the UK, but also before that,
there’s always been a certain liveliness in commerce; being small, need space for
market, for their products)

Steps.
➢ It starts in the 16th century: first over sea settlements (under queen Elizabeth I).
She’s the first to enterprise the idea to finance oversea expeditions (economic
reasons). Then in the 17th century the expansion accelerated and settlements were
established in North America and in the West Indies.
- 1st settlement: North America, Jamestown colony,
- Then: Virginia, also West Indies

➢ Wars: UK succeeds in getting imp parts

Treaty of Utrecht, at the end of the War of Spanish Succession;
UK got:
- Minorca and Gibraltar, which secures UK’s control of commerce in the
Mediterranean
 - monopoly of slave trade from America to Africa (huge business, wealth,
riches)

➢ Seven Years War (1756-1763): very first world war in history.

England vs France, but it’s a war fought also in the colonies (i.e. Canada and India).
After the end of this war: France no longer competitor of England (it gained Canada and
India from France; now it’s the most important colonizer and power).

How does it fonction?

Exchange between motherland and colonies.
- on one hand: the motherland takes raw materials from the colonies
- on the other hand: the colonies conduct all their trade by means of English ships and
they function as markets for manufactured goods, for products of the motherland's
industries (= unequal exchange).

● The British Empire really surged, but there’s a setback: American war of
Independence (1776-1783). It was a shock for England, some of the first
vulnerabilities are exposed; therefore they turned their attention to the East, focusing
on Asia.

● 1st settlements in Australia (“discovered” earlier, but 1st settlement in 1788)

● Acquisition of the Cape of Good Hope: essential, allows them to go to Asia without
paying taxes to anyone

● Early 19th century: factors combined accelerate the process

- industrial revolution, wide market for its products
- Pax britannica: century of relative peace between i Europe and in the world
Napoleonic wars and WWI (huge expansion in economy in Asia and Africa)
● End of the 19th century: largest expansion of the Empire ever.

● Abolitionist campaign of slavery: symbol, man praying “am I not a man and a
brother?” Slavery was abolished by GB in 1834: first country to do it.

● Poor law: people are encouraged to go to the colonies (giving them money), mass
emigration to the colonies. Since not everyone could find a job in the UK, they sent
them colonies, giving them provisions to assist them.

● First Opium War: China became part of the unofficial / informal empire (just
economic interest, some settlements there, but not officially part of empire;
independent country, but still a puppet in hands of England)

● India: became part of the official empire (1858), passed under direct control of the
crown, governed by UK.

● Distinction. White colonies (Canada, Australia, New Zealand: massive emigration of

English people) and all other colonies (treated very differently).
 - 1847-1867: colonies became more or less independent, with their
constitutions (acquired the status of dominions; power on their internal and
external affairs, still recognize the queen, but more independent).

● 1860s-1870s: Discovery of gold and diamonds in South Africa changes things:

economical revolution, immigrants and investment on an unprecedented scale
(scramble for Africa, european powers, fight to obtain many resources).

● Suez Canal (1869): opened, and constitutes a shorter route for Asia. It was
dangerous to travel by land, more than traveling by sea (even though pirates); it
marks an important step.

● 1884: Conference of Berlin. European nations met to split Africa (key factor, creates
problems of borders, arbitrarily decided). Most of Africa (South and East) to Britain.
Britain is at its highest point after all these possessions of Africa; things can just go
down now.

● Anglo-Boer war: English and settlers in South Africa (guerilla, internment camps,
epidemics, killing of women and children). Brutal and shocking methods, reported by
newspaper, telegraph, so public opinion saw what actually happened. The empire
began to be discredited a bit. Public perception changed, not celebratory anymore,
not so popular.

● Compromise: The Commonwealth of Nations is established

Distinction between white colonies and other ones: it regarded only the dominions, the other
colonies stayed colonies. Countries of the Commonwealth have just commercial
relationships with the motherland, they recognize the Queen as the head of the State.

● Until after WWII

The UK emerged as a winner, but is in debt to the US (empire has a cost too high, so it has
to dismiss it at the end); it’s not convenient anymore. The English are very practical people;
the empire costs a lot, it causes more trouble than gain, so they dismiss it, with the pretense
of giving freedom to the colonies.

● 1947: India the first one to become independent (partition of india-Pakistan)

● 1950s-60s: gradual independence of african and west indies colonies

● Also immigration from the former colonies: citizenship extended to all people from the
former empire (come to UK to work, reason of ethnicity spread in the UK)

● 1997: the final colony became independent : Honk Kong, small base actually
belonged to the empire. It marks the end of the empire.

What remains today of the empire?

The Commonwealth, “a voluntary association of 36 independent and equal countries"
(based on: development, democracy and peace). Controversial: still reminds of the empire
(but now many countries can join, even if not related to the empire).
Where? Africa, Caribbean and Americas, Pacific, Asia, Europe

Why India?
➢ It was considered the most important colony (“the jewel of the crown”, Disraeli), it
gave the UK prestige;
➢ a new title was created specifically for queen Victoria “Empress of India” (1876);
➢ Indian economy indispensable, military contribution to the maintenance of the rest of
the empire
➢ 1st to be freed: they owed it for its contribution

Also the most Intense experience

- the climate in India: harmful for the British, it causes physical damages, it corrupts
the skin, makes the skin sallow (it causes disease, lost of appetite, of energy…);
staying in India is like a challenge for the British.
- also risk of moral decay; if you stay in oriental country too long, you will be
corrupted, your moral sense will suffer; to learn this concept (orientalism = a series
of stereotypes that connect the East with despotism, corruption, decadence,
sexuality…; by [Link]).
In European mind: India was a land of riches, but also moral decay, sexuality; if you stay
there too long, you become tainted; it was important not to stay there too long.

In fact India never became a settler colony; they went there as generals, in the army, also
their family went with them, but after finishing their period of working, they returned home.

Economical interest.
16th-17th century: vague idea of what India actually was. It took a very long journey, by
land it was dangerous, seen as a far away, magical land.

First European country to colonize India: the Portuguese. Then also the Dutch, the
French…
1488: Diaz first reached the Cape of Good Hope. Followed by Vasco de Gama (who
actually reached India, Calcutta); first contacts with India, thanks to Portuguese (at first for
trade and then for the spread of christianity through missionaries, by Spain especially; most
info about it, collected by missionaries).

However, still Linguistic and Cultural barriers: diabolical superstition (Hinduism), difficult to
interact with natives, info and contact still vague.

Fashion for Orient at the time.

- The East = general, vague entity.
- The Orient = opulence and unreality, riches but, also of magic and deceit.
(Literary accounts, fashion, forniture, knick-knacks, theater pieces with orientalising
themes…).

Turning point: in 1600, East India Company was established (1st contact of British
with India).

They established a purely commercial enterprise, through this company, gaining the
monopoly of trade in the East (thanks to the Royal Charter, during the reign of Elizabeth I);
from now on, the company will control relations between UK and all countries at the East of
the Cape of Good Hope.

The first treaties.

Things start to change. There was no political interference, but a strong competition (other
European countries, mainly the Portuguese, the Dutch) for territorial control, to secure
economic interest. So they started to conquer territories not to control them, but to secure
their economic interests.

Diplomatic mission (1615): Sir Thomas Roe was sent by the King to visit the Mughal
Emperor and the 1st treaty was signed. Company established some trading posts in India,
first settlements (fortified, where merchants could live, and factories, ports, to carry on the
commerce); ex. Bombay, Madras, Calcutta.

India was seen as the land of wealth, of natural resources for huge economic gain, where
you could go to seek fortune and go home, adventure. No idea of political control yet. Even
chaplates, churches, missionaries practice commerce (of cotton, silk, indigo, dye, tea…),
because it was so fruitful and easy, there was a lot of gain.

Real political expansion: 18th century.

There was no master plan of expansion, but it was a gradual process, not directed by the
British government, but it was an initiative of the East India Company; private enterprise.

How did they gain control of such huge territory?

No major wars, but through a more subtle way; with corruption, bribery, pattern of infiltrating,
slow but relenting, pattern of coercion and treaty.

Situation in INDIA.
Beginning of 18th century: Mughal empire, slowly falling to pieces, not a strong unique
empire anymore, divided into many states, at war with each other, (unstable political
situation). All Europeans, take advantage of the situation (also French, Dutch, Portuguese).
How?
Princes of states at war needed troops and cash (money and army) and the British had both.
Company hired at exorbitant prices the troops to different Indian rulers in exchange for
some power in their states. A treaty, to give influence to the English, a special treatment
(they start to gain more and more power). Gradually the Company annexed land and
infiltrated the princely states.

Not all states fell under influence of British (some of them wanted to remain independent),
but they had to sign unequal treaties: agreed to surrender some of their authorities in
exchange for the Company’s protection (in case of a war happening, they were afraid
they may be attacked; so they signed these treaties with the British; give them taxes for
having protection).

In the 19th century, all India was under the control of the UK.

Actually one war was fought in India, even if not in a traditional way; it was fought with
corruption and bribery, during the Seven Years War: on the continent, in Europe, but also in
the colonies (European conflict, but fought also overseas). 1763: Treaty of Paris, UK
emerged as the dominant European power in India.

Key figure: Robert Clive.

During the 7 years war: there’s a change of Indian rulers in Bengal (in the area of the East;
with Calcutta being the largest city), the richest part of the country.

1756: ruler of the state died and the next nawab decided not to comply with the English and
requested cash gifts (a fee) from the European and wanted them to disarm (the Dutch
accepted, but the English didn’t). A conflict started: the ruler marched against the British,
conquered the English settlement and locked the English soldiers in the Black Hole (all of
them died of hunger, thirst; a shock for the community). When the news reached the rest of
the country: a punishment expedition was sent against the Indian ruler.

The leader of this expedition was Robert Clive (not a soldier, a politician, far from being a
brilliant student; he had been expelled from school, but he was very clever, ambitious; at 18
years old he was sent out to Madras to serve in the company). At this time he was governor
of a small settlement in Madras, and he was the designated leader of the expedition to
Calcutta, to enact the English revenge. Brave strategist. How did he fight?

The nawab in Beghal was not so popular even among his own people, manywanted to
depose him; so Clive made a secret arrangement with Jafar (a general of the indian army,
the nawab’s commander in chief): if Jafar let the nawab army lose, then Clive would make
him the next nawab.

The battle of Plassey takes place: everything was already decided, so they did not really
fight. Jafar led a large portion of the army away from the battlefield, so the nawab's army
was defeated. The English won (basically by bribing the opposition), the nawab fled, but he
was soon caught and executed and Jafar became the new ruler (even though he was
actually just a puppet in the hand of Clive, that was the one who claimed the real power
there). Calcutta boomed,becoming the East India Company’s “Capital”.
This indicates the beginning of British India: officially the English political control in India
started and Clive was remembered throughout history as the hero, the commander that
conquered Bengal.
Moreover Clive was taken through the treasury and he was told he could take everything he
wanted (gained a huge fortune and shared it with the company’s committee, army and navy,
with his friends, who gained new administrative positions; by now corruption is widespread in
the Company).

He resigned from his post and return to Eng with immense fortune, the richest man in the
country. He came home to UK, but not good reputation, he was seen as the embodiment of
everything that was bad and corrupted in the company. He sought his political position and
social prestige; he was not a nobleman, he had poor origins; so he wanted to be admitted
into the aristocracy, into the good society. He even sought all status symbols of
aristocracy: he bought a huge country estate from the Dutch for millions pounds (for “the
season”, part of the year dedicated to social entertainment); also built a town house in
London. He even hired an architect to decorate his house, because he wanted to be seen as
an important man.

The figure of the NABOB.

He became the so-called Nabob (englisation of “nawab”, from the Muslim title for the
governor of a district): applied to the East India Company’s men, who made fortune in India
and then came back rich and with social aspiration. (Fever for the East).

They were a blend between Eastern (India) and West (English) notions of how a ruling body
should look and behave. So he was the perfect example of nabob (it was a figure that made
its appearance in magazines, plays, figures of fun, satire).

What did he do to achieve his social ambitions?

- had a lot of servants, more than nobleman actually had
- started hunting (fox hunt especially)
- collected art (no museums at the time), if you had a private art collection, you were
seen as a very imp person. Collecting art requires money and education and taste,
and a Nabob has money, but not taste whatsoever.

Most aristocrats collect art during The Grand Tour (for young men, a journey to undertake
after school; they studied Latin and Greek and classic art; it was an opportunity for them to
see with their eyes what they had studied). They went especially to France, Italy, Greece,
Turkey…) and it was only for the aristocracy (then, in the 19th century, also for the
middle-class). They used to bring home something from their travels, because it brought
prestige, it was to show off their learning mostly.

Clive was not a nobleman, so he did not go to a Grand Tour. How did he make up for that?
He hired some experts and bought a huge collection overnight, with which he decorated his
house (not for pleasure, but to cultivate his aristocratic persona, to show that he’s a refined
man).
Portrait of him, commissioned to his cousin in 1764: represented as an English nobleman. In
the background representation of Jafar.

He didn’t manage to enter the good society. He was seen as an embodiment of everything
that was to blame in the East India Company (symbol of the public discontent with the
company).

The Trial. He has to undergo a trial. A parliamentary committee was appointed to

investigate the Company’s doings in India. He was accused of abusing of his position in the
company for his personal gain. He famously said that he actually had been moderated. He
succeeded in defending himself, did not go to prison, but the so-called Regulation act
(1773) was introduced: 1st attempt of the Crown to extend the control on the company,
which was nationalized partially.

Clive, after that, traveled to Italy, but suffered from depression, his health deteriorated and he
finally killed himself. No chance to rehabilitate his public image. Bad health, trait of the
nabob; if you stay in India too long health issues (actually it was due to his alcohol, drinking,
huge consumption of meat…).

Image: nabob lying on a carpet as the oriental fashion was (it was thought to be
inappropriate), nabobs always acquired Indian habits and costumes, at the time seen as
offensive, (ex. smoking “narguilé”, opium was often added to it; another trait of the nabob).
They were seen as the embodiment of all flaws of the East.
Image: nabob throwing up money (so rich)

Embodiment of indolence, arrogance, greed: seen with hostility. accused of introducing

oriental corruption in English economical life, in the morality of the West (they were
dangerous, because they had been corrupted by the East).

Quotation by Thomas Macautly. Nabobs, men “sprung from obscurity… they acquired
great wealth… they exhibited it insolently… they spent it extravagantly”: Nabobs are usually
of low origins (if you were noble, it wasn't necessary to undergo all that). Also they had the
pretension of being accepted because they’re rich.

THE PLAY.
The Nabob by Samuel Foote (1772)
Play, protagonist is evidently modeled after Clive. He’s called Sir Matthew Mite (=
parassite), which says a lot about the personality of the nabob. He lends money to an
aristocratic man, Sir John Oldham (names always evocative (fight between old world
aristocracy and new wealth nabob).

PLOT.
1st ACT.
Set at the Oldham’s house. Matthew lent money to him, so now he’s in debt, but he can’t
pay him back, he’s in trouble.

A letter arrives from the nabob: he’ll drop his debt in exchange for the hand of Oldham’s
daughter in marriage (he wants to be part of an aristocratic family), aspires of entering
nobility, part of his social ambition. Oriental intrusion into nobility, contamination from the
East (he's not happy about it, Mite is a vulgar man).

The Nabob wants to go back to India and wants to take his new wife and her sister too, so
she can marry other nabobs. Oldham has no desire to “sell” his daughter to this man; but he
has to choose between debtors' prison or letting his daughter marry this terrible man.

Oldham tells his brother Thomas about his problem (he’s a merchant, second born, so he
dedicated himself to trade), and he says he’ll take care of it, he’ll convince the nabob to find
another solution (Oldham’s wife however despises Thomas because of his low social
condition).

At Mite’s home.
We see just his servants Janus (doorman) and Conserve; they’re not particularly polite
(servants were thought to take on features of their master), so they’re very rude, they treat
Thomas in a very bad way and make him wait at the door, even though they took a tip in the
meantime. A woman, Mrs Match’em (amorous agent) is welcomed with great honors and
admitted into the house, while he’s left outside waiting.

2nd ACT.
We meet the Nabob; he’s having a lesson of gaming (he wants to enter the upper-class, to
learn how to gamble, to gain more, from other noblemen).

Meanwhile Mrs Crocus, a flower seller, enters and he treats her very badly, he gets angry
with her, who was encharged of making a bouquet of flowers for him, but she shows him a
flower that makes seem his complexion yellow (he’s so superficial; but also it’s shown the
prejudice of the time, according to which your skin would become sallow, being too long in
India).
Quotation: “You know my complexion has been tinged by the East, and you bring me a blaze of
yellow, that gives me the jaundice”

Mite discusses with Mrs Match’em marriage prospects; she’s afraid of losing her job, when
he says he wants to get married. She procures him prostitutes (she doesn-t only help him
find a wife); however he tells her not to worry, because even though he’ll get married, he’ll
keep needing her services. He wants a wife to complete his situation, his house, to
“decorate” the other edge of the table (as if she was a fourniture in the house).
Quotation: “only wanted a wife to complete my establishment; just to adorn the end of my table”.

He also wants to start a business in London, a “seraglio” (harem); she tells him it wouldn’t
work in England (they’re not allowed to confine women against their will).
He wants to buy an estate, but the owner, who’s an aristocrat, doesn't want to sell it,
because it was owned for many generations by his family (however the nabob wants it at
whatever price, because he’s been obsessed with it since he was a child).
He offers the owner four times the value of the estate just to get it (ruthless). Obtain things
with the appearance of being legal.

Quotation:“Riches to a man who knows how to employ them, are as useful in England as in any
part of the East. There they gain us those ends in spite and defiance of law, which, under a proper

agent, may here be obtained under the pretence and colour of law.”

3rd ACT.
At the Antiquarian society = satire of “cultural societies”.
A list of British acquisitions is read. Mite offers gifts to society from his travels, but they’re just
knits-gnats, shallow things.

Then he meets an old school-fellow of his and we understand his low origins; he was not a
clever student, he was quite stupid, and acquired his wealth just because of his skills and
corruption; actually sent to the East because he got into some trouble at home. Mite
pretends not to recognise his school-fellow (hypocrisy), he dismisses his origins, and wants
to be a different person.

Final scene.
At Oldham-s house. Mite can’t believe family refuses to make him marry their daughter; he
gets angry and threatens them with his lawyer Mr. Rapine (threatens them with prison).

Sophy, the daughter in question, witnessing the possible ruin of her family, decides to
sacrifice herself and accepts the marriage proposal.

Turning point: Thomas appears and offers to pay the sum due to the nabob, saving the
situation (acting as a deus ex machina = a character in classical plays who always saves
the situation; the final plot twist).

Sophy will marry her cousin who she really loves. So the honest British wealth wins over the
Eastern wealth (it’s better than the nabob’s).

Analysis

Aristocrats were very often in debts with the nabob, because they did not have actual cash,
but more properties.

Explanation of colonization.
1st part, positive: Colonization as an innocent thing, just some commerce, not harm to them.

2nd part, negative: uncivil, they exploit the people and their lands
(civil vs uncivil)

Tartars or Turks: meant in an offensive way, they don’t deserve anything else.

Ironic comment: “just the reverse; it is they have caught the Tartars in us”. Very modern
comment (18th century), also controversial; period when the empire was still celebrated,
British people have the duty to spread civilization in the world; this short comment tells us a
lot.

The arrival of Sir Mite in the Antiquarian society (society that actually existed in
London that collected precious objects from the past in order to preserve them; since
there were no public museums at the time).

Sir Mite wants to be a part, a member of this society, in order to cultivate his aristocratic
persona, to enter upper class circles (he has to show himself as a patron of the art).

How does he do that?

He gives presents to the society. In order to enter the upper class society, he buys estates,
leads the typical English life, wants to marry the daughter of an aristocratic family, he has
many servants, he learns how to gamble, he shows off his learning (he’s actually from low
classes, so he just fakes it). He even traveled to Italy, to make up for the Grand Tour that he
didn’t do, he bought some supposedly valuable objects and he brought them back to the UK,
and now he’s presenting these objects to the society in order to be admitted.

Mite enters, preceded by four Blacks (slaves) and each of them is carrying a gift. Along with
the valuable objects he also brought back slaves from India (danger of oriental intrusion into
society). The first black is carrying a large book, the second one a green chamberpot, the
third one some lava from the mountain Vesuvius, the fourth one a box. Now these gifts are
presented to the members of the society.

1st gift. Illegible manuscript.

It’s illegible, so what’s the value of it? These gifts are meaningless, just for the pleasure of
accumulating (members of society praise him, don’t understand that these are just useless,
invaluable things; satire of cultural society of the time, just for the love of appearances).

English trait = hate for catholics, while protestant are good; saved it from the Pope, giving
himself a lot of importance

2nd gift. Chamber-pot.

However he presents it as a sarcophagus of Marc Anthony’s coachman. Even if it was true,
what’s the point of that? = again the pleasure for accumulating things with no value at all.

3rd gift. Lava from the Vesiuvum.

He wants to spread volcanoes in England (very stupid thing).

He announces he made a discovery.

More than patriotism, even fanaticism (he’s excessively proud of being English; a feature of
the nabob); his pride for his rise.

Then introduces the discovery he made. It resembles / he gives the appearance of a

scientific research (the series of questions and the prospected answers). Then he says what
he found out (answers to the questions). Whittington existed, he was Mayor of London, then
the third question was about the cat, so he explains what a cat is. These are just obvious
things, that even a child knows, but he has to explain it (quite ironic).

- What could Puss’s capture amount?: quale può essere il loro bottino, il loro uso? /
Ci si può arricchire con un gatto? Cosa si può ricavare da un gatto
- No tanner can curry the skin of a mouse: nessun conciatore di pelle può strigliare
la pelle di un topo (anche se il gatto prende i topi, non li puoi vendere per farne
pellicce)
- No family make a meal of meat: nessuna famiglia può ricavarne un pasto di carne
(da un gatto), non si possono mangiare i gatti

Basically, there was a document that says that there was a certain Whittington who held his
fortune to a cat and he wants to research that.

The discovery.
He built a vessel, which was agile and light, so he aptly christened it “Cat”. So “Cat” is the
name of the ship Whittington used to commerce on the coasts; it’s from there that he gained
his fortune (the coasting, failing, coal-carrying cat, not the whiskered cat).

The source of this merchant's wealth is not an animal, but a type of vessel he invented;
something that anyone could imagine. However all members of the society praise him,
applaud him for the extraordinary discovery.

The members of the Society declare Mite to be skilled in arts and arms
= he stayed in India, he fought there, he’s skilled in arms, but now according to the society,
he’s proven to be worthy, to deserve to be praised by the city, he showed off his learning.
These people are compliant with him, with his desire to enter high society. They’re not so
stupid not to understand that these gifts are simply knick-knacks or that Mite’s discovery is
not really a discovery. But they’re compliant with him, because he has a lot of money, so he
could finance, and provide support for the society. It says a lot about the hypocrisy of these
societies.

He manages to enter some circles of the upper class; people always flatter him for his
money, but he doesn’t succeed in entering for good in high society. Mixed ending: happy
ending for Oldham, but nabob bitter ending.
INDIANIZATION.
Political background.
Through that pattern, slowly took control, carried out throughout the whole 18th century. By
the 18th hnfeds, accepted fact Indi under control of Britain (most India conquered), process
going on still.

Now what do they do?

They didn't dismantle the system of government present before. Company officials replaced
Indians administrators. So again they infiltrated (just put thmeselves i charge of things).

System remained quite dispotick, didn't introduce a constitution like in Eng, prided
themselves on being the most advanced country in history (freedoms, contusion); didn’t
export these freedoms to India, even worsen this despotism.

The East India Company behaved as an inheritor of the Mughal Empire. They accepted
what they found and only changed it when practical necessity required.
When Indian conquered the demand grew for administrators, collectors of revenues, etc.
(well-paid jobs; allowed the English administrators to have a lifestyle that they could not
afford in England); more and more Englishmen went to India to work.

Consequence: British administrators saw themselves as a new Indian nobility

Since tey replaced the Indians and their government, they started to seetemseve sas new
rulers and a new kind of nobility.

Governor generals, the highest place in administration, assumed a semi-royal status; a sort
of viceroy. A problem: they were aware that in the eyes of the Indian population they lacked
legitimacy as India’s rulers; they were basically usurpers, they lacked the legitimacy.

How to overcome this issue?

=
They sought to overcome this inadequacy by constructing their bodies according to what
they perceived as ‘Indian notions’ of how a ruling body should look and behave; they
tried to be more indianized; appropriated those signs of wealth and powers that previous
Indian rulers had and displayed them. Live to an extravagant level (thought country of
extravagance, splendor, appearance, in order to be accepted as new rulers have to look
like them; look extravagant, have many servants…). They appropriated what they
thought were the traits of previous Indian nobility. This behavior was supposed to
impress indians.
1st phase of the conquest = characterized by the appropriation of these Indian features
(‘Indianization’ of the British body).

Warren Hastings & the policy of cultural

appropriation.
Things started to intensify in this sense with the arrival of Warren Hastings (the first
governor general of India). After the trial of Robert Clive there was this Indian Regulation
act, which tried to bring the East India Company under some control of the British
government, by sending governor generals to India and the first among them was Hastings.
With him a sort of policy of cultural appropriation started.
Culture could be a means of political control. If you know really well the culture of a country
(its costumes, laws…) you will be able to better control it.

Cultural conquest = functional to commercial exchanges. If you appropriate new land, you
have to appropriate its laws and costumes.

What did he do?

• Hastings encouraged a systematic study of Indian culture, for practical and political
reasons: law, religion and language were keys to administrative problems.
Until now there was very little information about India, it was all a mystery. The first oriental
studies started. Good outcome but the aim not so noble (to conquer and govern).
• Utilitarian scholarship = to govern in a better way Indian society, it was essential to
learn its religious and legal customs. He himself learned Indian languages, studied a lot.
He started this policy and things intensified even more with William Jones (judge in the
Supreme Court of Bengal). He was passionate about the Orient, also a scholar other than a
judge. He founded the Asiatic society in Calcutta. He himself studied a lot about Indian
culture and can be seen as the starter of this flow of modern oriental studies. He wrote and
published a lot of works about almost every aspect of Indian society (about music, art,
literature, btany, geography).
First English translations of many works of Indian literature. Before that it was impossible to
have access to Indian literature for Eng people.

The Sanskrit Language (1786). He’s also the starter of comparative linguistics and
Indo-European studies. Also the first one to notice similarities between Sanskrit, Greek and
Latin. He noticed they had a common root and suggested that these 3 languages had a
common origin: Proto-Indo-European.

The Sanskrit language is “more perfect than Greek, more copious than the Latin… yet it is
very similar to both, so similar that it cannot be the result of chance”

These Cultural policies of Hastings and Jones were all for practical aims. Through these
cultural policies, the Britons who resided in India underwent a process of Indianization
NB! This process was not stemming from personal desires but devised to achieve political
aims. And it was so strong that it had an impact even at home, in the UK.

Hastings’ trial.
The problem of theCompany was corruption; private enterprise. There had been some
attempts to bring the Company under the control of the government (ex. sending governor
generals). Hastings who should have been the one to put an end to corruption and bribery,
he was actually the one who made them even more widespread than ever.
There seemed to be no way out of it. Also, so far controlling it from the motherland was so
hard.

• Hastings resigned and went back to England. And as soon as he came back he
underwent an impeachment (when a politician in a governing position is formally
charged with a serious crime and judged in front of a special government court).

• Edmund Burke charged him with High Crimes and Misdemeanours (accused of
corruption, bribery).
 • Trial = immense influence on public opinion; it contributed to make India look as a
corruptive place, contributed to the prejudices of orientalism.
• It ended in acquittal. Hastings spent most of his fortune on his defense

Edmund Burke: famous thinker, pamphleteer in the 18th century. Made a lot of famous
parliamentary speeches about some causes of the time (mostly famous for the speech he
made in favor of Marie Antoniette).

Edmund Burke Speech in Opening the Impeachment of Warren Hastings (1788).

Hastings deserved to go to prison because he acted on the premises that the reason of the
State allowed everything (reason also of Machiavelli; end justifies the means). He just
wanted to improve the wealth and the power of the Company (under him it improved,
increased and conquered a lot of other lands), but he achieved that with some despicable
means. Also Hastings acted on the very widespread idea that the people of India were so
accustomed to oriental despotism, that wester ideas of equity and justice do not apply to
them because they’re too used to being ruled by tyrants; even if they introduced a
constitution or more rights, it would be wasted on these people, because they don’t
appreciate it.

The trial ended in acquittal, did not go to prison, he won. He actually spent much of his
fortune defending himself, but he didn’t go to prison and actually bought a huge estate and
remodeled it with classical Indian decorations, as any nabob at the time did. There wasn’t
enough proof to judge him guilty.

Burke's giving a speech; he’s speaking in front of the parliament and he’s trying to convince
them to start a trial against Hastings. He needs to be very emphatic with what happened. He
claims these crimes are not errors that human fragility can allow; we’re all human, we can
make mistakes. In this case, Hastings, in governing India, is basically mean, made things
with purpose and with intention; he was acting for the reason of the state. It can already be
seen, Burke is not only accusing Hastings of crimes, but actually of being a man with a black
heart, evil to his very core.
Hastings acted against advice, supplication, and remonstrance around him. He was advised
differently, people around him warned him what he was doing was illegal, but he didn’t care;
Indian people used to despotism, no equity in any way could be applied.
He’s accused of crimes against those eternal laws of justice (against humanity itself). His
crimes are inexcusable.
He talks about the Indians too. He committed these awful crimes, so the Englishmen need to
punish him also in the name of the Indian people that he oppressed; not only because they
want justice, but also because they have to protect them (paternalistic approach; they
project themselves as the protectors of the Indians). Duty to protect them, not able to protect
themselves (= childlike people; while British benevolent father figure).
The supplications to defend these people come from some men (Indians) far from them,
different in languages, costumes, exc.. they’re separated by every barrier of nature (so
different from the British, but they have the right to defend them anyway); it’s their duty to
protect them, because Providence united them in a great common cause.
In the 19th century, this subject was used as a justification for all reforms made in India.
Moreover Hastings didn't respect liberal principles; he just followed his own sense, not
properly representing the English. They were trying to project the English as a good figure. It
was not occasional, but habitual = he consciously disregarded laws

The British government has kept an attitude of “Live and let live” until now; from now on, they
applied a stronger control, they sent a new governor general, who cut corruption, bringing a
more moral and upright system.

EVERYDAY LIFE of British people in India.

Policy of cultural appropriation is based on the idea that knowledge is power; if you know
something very well, you have a sort of power over it. The English did the same thing to
India (they wanted to indianize themselves, in order to better rule over India).

They see themselves as successors of the Mugal aristocracy, they want to substitute them;
new administrators, rulers (called Anglo-Indians; English people working and living in India;
administrators, officers, soldiers, merchants, etc…); they indianize themselves under many
aspects.

Peculiar method in imposing their authority: they combined extravagant displays of wealth
with their own ideas and notions of ceremony during the Middle Ages in England (they
basically live in a backward world, combining eastern and western ideas of how rulers
should look and behave; a combination of different worlds).

British people went to India thanks to the consistent salary the Company gave them
(because it was a very long voyage, no one wouldn’t want to go there, it wasn't worth it
otherwise. They led a lifestyle they could never afford in the UK. All English who went out to
the colony = middle classes (not rich at home), go to India to make a fortune, improve their
conditions.

The Anglo-Indians became known for their swagger, arrogance; Indian subjects had a
deference, flattery toward them, they have respect for English people.

Also, administrators often found themselves in positions of great responsibility at a young

age (they made their career in a really fast way); if you’re manager or top administrator at a
young age, it inflates your sense of self importance. Anglo-Indians came to be known also as
extravagant, showing off their wealth in many ways.

A series of behaviors that characterized them

● hunting dangerous animals (ex. tiger); to further legitimize their position of power in
India (by hunting dangerous animals, they project themselves as protectors of the
poor, helpless, childlike Indians); it allows them to take on the mantle of royalty (ex. in
the UK even fox hunting was a pastime only of the nobility)

● huge number of servants; the more you have, the more prestige you enjoy. (not
even all noblemen in the UK could afford so many servants); they became a status
symbol.
It was normal, also because each activity was carried out by a different person. (for caste
reasons).
Examples.
 - British people didn’t carry their own umbrella, (“chattah”, cute umbrella to protect
themselves from the sun; there was a specific servant for it = chattah servant).
- Like an old world king, washed and dressed by servants
Image: lounging on an armchair, surrounded by 5 servants; (one is combing his hair, holding
up a mirror, washing his feet, exc…).
- The punka boy = employed to fan the british man in the house, because of the heat
of India.
- Surrounded by different objects (sportsman: racket, ball…).

● This attitude is a product of a dialogue between English and Indian ideas; a process
set in motion to redefine the physical body, the adoption of bodily practices spread
in India).

These practices are a means of better surviving in the Indian climate.

Climate theory = different climates produce different constitutions.
- Europe: strong, manly individuals;
- Hot climate (Oriental, India) = sloth, apathetic, effeminate people
It had an influence on the body and the mind of people; different features according to where
you were born. Used to explain differences between oriental and occidental. It was a very
widespread idea (there was even a medical discourse).

If you were born in temperate weather, and moved to a heat climate, your body would sink in
a disequilibrium (weak, diseases, death). How to survive?

There was a medical debate about it, to preserve their health, and prevent their body from
falling into this state of disequilibrium.

To better adapt to exotical environment = you have to indianize your body, through different
practices (it's not just a matter of cultural appropriation, but also a matter of surviving in the
climate). Indianziaiton is both a product of political aim of appropriating the country, an
ideological aim, but also a more practical aim of surviving.

➢ Food.
Diet followed by the Hindus
- simple diet, made of mainly rice, vegetables;
- meat forbidden: too stimulating in hot weather, it would make them more subject to
diseases; alcohol forbidden too.
Most of Anglo-Indians refused to take up this moderated diet; they were known for their
extravagant consumption of brandy, ales, wines… (not successful in this field)

➢ Bathing.
It became very popular and widespread in medical discourse: daily old baths were strongly
advised. But it was different from the practice at home.

In the UK: bathing was not famous at all, they merely used splashing of water (especially low
and middle classes). Bathing was an aristocratic habit; there was no running water, they had
to carry baskets of water from the kitchen sink to the bedroom, also heating up the water;
you could do it only if you had a lot of servants; not practical nor economic).

- Moreover the notion of being clean was associated with clean clothing, not washing
(just change your clothes, rather than washing).
- In India: bathing was a practice against disease, strengthening the constitution.

Initially it was taken up by English for medical reasons; it was a means to preserve health.
Then, gradually, taking daily baths became a habit; starting adding bathrooms in houses, it
became part of their routine and standards for personal hygiene rose (then couldn’t live
without it). Anglo-Indians were one of the first sections of Britain to take baths, and define
cleaningness as being washed; then they introduced this habit also in the motherland and
made it popular. Bathrooms attached to houses of English people (bungalows), by the
1830s.

➢ Hair.
Similar thing happened with the hair (and hair washing). There was not the habit of washing
hair; combing and powdering was preferred, to absorb the oil of the scalp. It was sufficient,
instead of washing your hair; it was supposed to provoque headache and toothache (water
cold, no hairdryer, you had to stay with your hair wet, and you could catch a headache).

In India:
- powder attracts all sorts of animals, insects, rats…
- the head was seen as the seed of all bodily powers; washing your head would
improve your constitution.

They started to wash the hair, and also to use a particular product to do it (shampoo =
champo, “to massage”), while in the UK, they used just simple soap. Anglo-Indians
introduced this habit at home, which became very widespread in the motherland and in
Europe in general.

It was also related to a political ideology; Hindus regarded personal cleaningness as a sign
of purity (high castes are concerned with being washed and clean in general; only low
castes don’t wash). This would mean having an advantage on personal, political level
(Anglo-Indians project themselves as high caste rulers).

➢ Clothing.
India influenced the English staying there. Men were encouraged by doctors to wear loose
drawers, gowns cut in the native fashion; flowy and lighter than suits. Also the use of
pajamas in Europe started from India (in the UK they usually wore nightgowns, used just for
sleeping); pijamas = could be worn also in a moment of relaxation, you could wear them in
the house as well, not only for sleeping.

Indianization of the English not total, but controlled. India was allowed to shape the
body of the English, but only if it didn't overwhelm their Englishness (it still had to be
recognizable as an English body). Only a partial process, they took up only the practices that
harmonized with the idea of English being the high caste rulers; and only as long as they
didn’t change the English essence of the body (partial and very controlled process).

This process spread also to vices.

Young British men are more subject to oriental vices (drugs, prostitution…). Oriental = seen
as the country of seduction and immorality.
➢ Most famous vice = houkka, very widespread among Anglo-Indians. You could also
personalize your houkka, and employ a personal servant to attend to it, to clean it.
It became a symbol of dissipation = not only tobacco, but also opium. It was not an innocent
vice (as cigars, cigarettes; it acquired a very bad reputation); it was more widespread in the
18th century than in following centuries (symbol of theAnglo-Indians).

➢ The heat was also thought to stimulate sexual drive (which would drain your
constitution, it was bad for your morality and body). India was seen as a place of
sexual temptation, prostitution).
Ex. The nautch: performance in costume. Men would just sit and watch
dancing girls (it was usually followed by prostitution). It acquired a very bad
reputation, but it was very widespread among Anglo-Indians.

➢ They also kept Indian mistresses, and even married Indian girls (from high caste); it
was not seen as a bad thing, but on the contrary, as a part of the process of
integration, of ruling, and appropriation. Most of the administrators were men; British
women in India were very few.

BRITISH WOMEN IN INDIA.

They went to the colony to accompany their father, brother, husband (a man). They had no
official role, they stayed in the house (as in the UK), confined to the domestic sphere. The
matter of indianization was a bit more delicate for them. They were subject to more
restrictions than the men, because they had an important position in English society in terms
of morality = repositories of morality, they couldn’t slip, had to lead an upright lifestyle,
they were the symbol of morality. If you go to India you could lose this aspect, not a symbol
of Western refinement anymore.

Wearing clothes worn by Indian women, they could expose themselves to sexual gaze (not
seen as a proper behavior); they have to act as British refinement and morality.

Doctors encouraged them to wear loose flowing robes; advised them not to wear corsets
and dresses, because it was unhealthy in hot steaming weather. However they didn’t
actually adopt Indian clothing, but ended up wearing these robes, but only in the private
sphere. In public, they stuck to their usual clothes.

They incorporate India in single items, only certain elements, in the form of :
- materials (cool indian muslin = fabric of white cotton, widespread for British women;
light dresses)
- cashmere shawls
These adjustments were just seen as fashion commodities; it was not a matter of survival
(even though doctors said to do things to preserve their health), but they just adopted some
items just for fashion sake. Colony, India started to be incorporated also in the fashion of the
time.

Women seen as depository of morals of the time, not fully Indianized; How much can be
Indianized, to what extent?

“Hindoo” Stuart = major general Charles Stuart.

He was very enthusiastic in this sense; he adopted Indian costumes, including
collected Indian objects, and dressed in full Indian style. He took part in this debate and
encouraged women to adopt the sari, more elegant and better for their health.

He makes fun of western fashion. He sees the sari as sensual (women symbol of morality, if
you project them as sensual, you break this idea, opening them to a sexual idealization). To
cast a sexual gaze on an English woman = equate her to Indian women (they would
basically lower themselves).

He gives reasons for adopting sari instead of western dresses.

Give up the corsets
- because they make women to likely to be struck by lightnings
- because poor indian peasants need wagon wheels
He just gives absurd reasons to do it and in doing this he undermines the English idea of
decorum, in some way. A certain level of assimilation is encouraged (political and medical
reason); it still generates anxiety, tainting the British body and morals. Those living there
undergo a transformation, also for their morality (houkka, mistress, prostitution…).

India: different from other colonies. Usually Imperial conquest, accompanied with
- Immigration (India: just administrators, spent some time in India and then went back
to the motherland).
- Christianity, new system of government
India: remain the same; just a cast of rulers, but for the most part, they don’t have a real
influence on India in terms of culture. They didn’t really influenced the costumes; their liberal
ideas were thought to be unsuited for Indians, only a waste; they were too used to tyrants,
so it was useless to try and spread their ideas (= their justification).

East and India are seen, still after decades, as something that could taint and corrupt you; a
dangerous place to live for too long. If you had a child in India, you could keep him, but
at 6 or 7 years old, you had to send him/her to boarding school back at home in England, so
he/she would be brought up in the UK, and they wouldn't absorb the corruption of India.

Debates on Indian culture (late 18th century)

New wave of info about the colony reached the UK as well. Huge impact on English culture,
fashion for the orient; it enters the culture at home as a fashion commodity, but not only.
Process of museization, obsession of collecting objects and all sorts of things from the East
and putting them in museums (era of museums starts).

Ex. Victorian and Albert Museum: everyday obj, furniture, dresses, ecc… A lot of sections
dedicated to the East. Indian collection originally in East India Company’s museum or
Oriental Repository (eclectic mix of objects from officers of the Company).This process of
collecting info, and cultural appropriation (as consequence, people start to form opinions on
almost anything about India).

Particular subject of interest = Hinduism.

● Different from christianity; in partic, for the higher section, it corresponded with
values of Enlightenment (age of breaking with the past, traditions, the time of French
Revolution). It charmed many people (ex. avoidance of a sole god; tyrant, seen as
the enemy, like the French king; Hinduism was seen as a more democratic religion,
more gods, instead of adoring one god, symbol of spiritual growth);
● also more open to sex, encouraging sexual freedom. Especially at the end of the
18th century = christianity very oppressive toward sex. While Hinduism had even
female goddesses, unthinkable in christianity.

(charming aspects, gained much popularity)

3 main gods (Trimurti).

Brahma: god of creation
Vishnu: god of preservation
Shiva (cobra on his shoulder): god of destruction

● Some aspects were still found unsettling; in particular, in 1793, Thomas Maurice
wrote the “Indian Antiquities”, a 7 volume book; conveyed an old style and hostile
representation of Hindu beliefs (as despotic and backwards), which replaced the
sunny view of Hinduism of W. Jones (very good and positive view). He gave an idea
as hindu as cruel, superstitious, evil priests…

● There were many different ideas about Indian culture. Debate: what role should
English have in the culture of the colony?
- Some thought it as deserving of respect, a peaceful religion with positive
effects on morality
- Others thought it barbarous, backward and that it had to be eradicated
(English try to convert, civilize their subjects, educate the natives).
It was much popularized in novels, plays, magazines, theatrical pieces, poems…

● Hinduism generated anxieties, more than Islam (because it was so different from
idea of monotheistic religion); some saw it as peaceful religion, others barbarous and
superstitions

Practices particularly disturbing for the English

- Thuggee: organizing bands of thieves and killers in the name of Shiva
(murderers, claimed they did it in the name of that god); they thought they
would go to heaven for what they did; rituals for their merits
 - Suttee: widow burning. When a widow threw herself into the funeral pile of
her husband (not everyone did; a costume meant to show devotion to your
husband; it generated a lot of anxiety to the English). Whole community took
part in the show
- Infanticide: children exposed, abandoned, especially females, who were not
valueable children; in some areas

Mariana Starke
Interesting figure; daughter of Richard Starke, governor in India, in Madras, she spent her
childhood in the colony, which provided her with the background for her plays. She and her
family went back to the UK, but then she spent several years in Italy (she was a sort of
celebrity in her lifetime, for her travel guides of Italy). She reinvented this genre, and was
very innovative; she basically created the modern travel guide (instruction for travelers,
architectural descriptions…).

After the Napoleonic wars, a lot of people started to travel through Europe with their family,
on a budget, because a lot of people were not aristocratic. She was the first one to recognize
this change and started publishing practical advice, and not just boring descriptions (about
luggage, passports, food, accomodation, prices, since she wrote them for the general public,
not for aristocats). She also devised the exclamation mark system (forerunner of today’s
stars rating).

She wrote these guides in form of letters, provides a more direct pov, and involves the
reader.

THE PLAY
The Widow of Malabar
Indian woman, Idamora, whose husband recently died; she’s expected to perform Suttee
(funeral pyre), burned alive, she doesn’t know what to do.

1st Act.
Bramihns, priests of the community, hold the whole town into their power. They’re discussing
her fate; one of them strongly hopes she chooses to die, because it's the tradition, the right
thing to do; another one disagrees; especially because the English are besieging the town
and so he starts posing some doubts.

News arrives that she chose to die and in the next scene we see her, talking with a maid
Fatima, who complains about her mistresses’ fate, but Idamora said she has to do it,
because she has no other choice. In fact if she doesn't do it, everyone will avoid her, she
would become an outcast. Life that she’d have would be worse than death, she would
basically starve in the streets. She did not love her husband, he was a mean man, old,
violent, cruel; she's been forced to marry him; she loved another man, an Englishman, but
her parents did not approve and forced her to accept the proposal of an Indian man.
The young Brahmin goes to her to communicate to her that she has to die and to express his
compassion. Contrast the old and young generation (more attached to values vs new
generation starts to pose doubts). However the tradition is too strong, they have to comply.

They talk and he tells her that he was exposed as a child and saved by a stranger; during
the conversation she casually mentions her birthplace and they discover to be brother and
sister (she remembers she had a little brother, but he was exposed and she's never seen
him again; after this discovery, the young man is even more determined to save her).

2nd Act.
Englishman Raymond, general of English forces, that are besieging the town. However
there's a day of truce.

He’s talking on his own about his duties as a soldier; he hates to kill people, to bring misery
to the Indian population. Albert, an English soldier, informs him that Indians are preparing to
offer a human sacrifice (shocked about the Suttee performed; blames the Brahmis,
corrupted cast, and pities the their victims), people Indian are innocent and mislead by
superstition spread by the Brahmis (power over the people who just believe them and
anything they say).

After this consideration, he decided to save the victim. Meanwhile in the town Idamora has a
quarrel with the chief of the town, but her brother brings her good news: a general of
England is about to save her. Raymon is ready to risk his life to save her even though she’s
a stranger (English depicted as generous, heroic…), it's a strong ideological stance.
He wanted to send a message, to convey the image of the British as saviors of the
population oppressed by Bhramis (corrupted caste).

The Brahims find out about his plan, and want to kill him, but he escapes the murder they
sent. He talks to the young Brahim, and finds out that the victim of the sacrifice is his former
lover; they find each other once again.

It's revealed that the truce was a ruse, a fake; actually the Indians are preparing to assault
the English army, and wanted to exploit the truce to get ready to attack. The Indians always
come out as deceiving, scheming all the time. They again try ro kill Raymond, but young
Brahim reveals to him a secret passage from the temple and he manages to escape again.

3rd Act.
At the beginning bad news arrived. The English have fled, and the general chief has been
killed. No hope for Idamora, because the English are gone; it’s the moment of the Suttee
and the funeral procession of her husband advances. The young Brahim steps out, invokes
reason against superstition, but he's condemned to death.

She says she will not do it if he’s condemned to death. So he's set free; she saves his life
and she's about to die. All of a sudden Raymond appears, with his troops and saves her. It
was a false news, done on purpose to catch Indians by surprise; the English conquer the
temple of the city and the Suttee is stopped.
The chief Brahmin begs Raymond to kill him, but Raymond explains that “Christians conquer to save
and humanize mankind”. Idea of Christianity as a positive thing, not requiring human
sacrifice. The chief of Brahims, in order not to convert, kills himself. Idamora’s happy to have
found Raymond again and she and her young brother are enthusiastic about christianity
(they’re going to convert). Ending: Raymond exhorts the young Brahim to put a Christian
cross in the temple.

Analysis.
The play encourages the education of the natives. They’re victims of superstition, spread by
evil, by the high caste that want to have the power; christianity is the best possible religion,
characterized by tolerance, benevolence (ex. Raymond risks his life to save a stranger;
topos, damsel in distress).

Representation of Indians.
- image of Brahims, as villains, evil
- image of population childlike, innocent, naif, ready to believe anything
They’re represented either evil or naive; no other possibility for them. In this context the
English have to act as a benevolent father figure (image very exploited in the 19th century);
they have the duty to educate them in their culture, religion, and save them from evil high
caste.

This play is based on another play, French (similar topic); we do not know if a specific fact
inspired it, but we do know that it was a real problem English were faced with. Also finding a
solution was tricky; they were disturbed by these practices, they didn’t know what to do,
because the population was very attached to this tradition. They tried to stop them, but it
caused revolts by the population). They begin to intervene more and more in this kind of
thing.

End 18th - beginning of the 19th century: mixture of attitudes toward India (not interfere
with Indian costumes, appropriate practices and beliefs vs teach, educate the natives, uproot
their barbarous costumes); not clear which direction to take.

Travel writing.
Within the context of colonialism, travel writing has an important role in spreading
stereotypes about India. It plays a part in constructing images of ”the other”, giving a
public opinion at home about India.

They claim to be a reflection of truth; participate in the production of knowledge of the

colony for readers at home (not a novel, not fiction). They confirmed all ideas of imperialism,
and consolidated colonialism; actually they're never neutral (every text has an aim in the
real world, a reason for writing it. By constructing “the other”, they stabilize the western
construction of the European self (influenced by “the other”; in order to know myself,
compare me with someone else). Double purpose; building “the other” and stabilizing
the self-awareness of Europeans.
Women and Travel Writing.
19th c: this genre was particularly attractive for women. Very flexible, hybrid genre; within
it, they. were able to insert, to scatter among pages comments on other topics that were
otherwise forbidden to them (not allowed to write political essays, to expose themselves on
politics or public matters; ex. talk about landscape, but insert comment on politics).

Often published in forms of letter, journal: women were not really allowed into the public
sphere, so they used these forms of letter or diary to conform to what society expected from
them (both the letter and the diary are genres belonging to the private sphere; it was thought
suited, a safer form for women).

A lot of these texts: prefaces, claiming they’ve written these letters only for private use
(then since her friends insisted, after some time she agreed to publish them); it was a
strategy not seem arrogant (publishing still an issue for women; it meant to actually go
public, to enter the public sphere, while women were supposed to be relegated only to the
private, domestic sphere).

Women travelers in India.

Women’s travel writings: less professional texts than men’s (not involving politics or things
like that). They focused on different topics than men.
● An important topic was the harem (a part of the house reserved for women), no
entry for men; only father, huband, a relative… Other men could not enter this part of
the house. So Englishmen thought it to be a mystery, they did not know what was in
there; while English women knew, because they gained the entrance into this secret
space, being women. So they had an advantage over men in the harem field and
popularized it in the UK, since they were the only ones that had information about it.

● Another feature: the picturesque. Women were denied main fields (politics,
business, hunting…), so they focused on the esthetical appropriation; they focused
on aspects of the country through picturesque, landscape, the description of the
people…

● Difference from men's accounts: emphasis on everyday things, on concrete,

material aspects of life (more engaging to read), because they wanted to convey an
idea of authenticity of the experience; they played an important part in the
construction of the image of the colony. It was the only way to have access to the
colony, to learn information about it.

Maria Graham
She led a pretty exciting life.
When she was 23 y/o, she went with her father to Bombei (5-month-long journey from UK to
India), and during the journey she met and fell in love with an officer. When they landed in
the colony, they got married (it was a very happy marriage). They stayed for a couple of
years in India, but then they started to go on trips all around (went also to Silon = Sri Lanka).
Then they came back to the UK, where she published her 1st book and another travel
account “Letters of India”.

10 years after: she followed her husband to Chile (he was a naval officer), but during the
journey her husband died, so she remained alone; when she landed, everyone offered to
help her, to bring her back. However she took the occasion and stayed there, rented a
cottage and lived there on her own (scandalous thing for a woman at the time), for a
couple of years. She preferred to spend her time with locals than with English people.
Moreover she had a very bad opinion of the Indians, while in Chile she had a better
experience.

She then decided to go back home, but before that she made a stop in Brazil, where she
was introduced to the emperor and his family (Brazil has just become independent from
Portugal, a fresh emperor). They became friends, he asked her to become a tutor for the
young princess). She accepted, but the year after that, she was accused of anglicizing the
young princess, so she was chased away (she wanted to convert the princess, teach her
Western culture).

Back in the UK, she was seen as a celebrity (in fact, in the meantime she had published
another work while she was in Brazil). She also traveled to Italy, but then had an accident,
and became invalid, she could no longer walk, but she kept writing, until she died, in 1842.

Journal of a Residence in India, Maria Graham.

Preface: she's disappointed with the Indian population. Mixture between enthusiasm and
diffidence toward Indian culture.

- remnants (resti) of age of gold = idea of enlightenment, of Rousseau, the “good

savage”, according to which primitive populations are naturally good inside. Savages
inside are good people, simple, benevolent, innocent; however she didn’t find these
good examples of good savage; that’s not the experience she had at all.

She’s talking to the English: in their hands they have the power to do something for them, so
she hopes to direct their attention to do something to improve these natives’ conditions.
Indians: so unable to care for themselves, English must save them from damages they may
impart on themselves.

The HAREM (also called Zenana) = part of the house only for women (only for upper
class houses). privilege of women travelers, men not admitted there.

Accounts by men: fantasy accounts, they tend to eroticize it (it was a place to project their
sexual fantasies; they imagined it full of women waiting for the man of the house to be with
him, etc…).
Women had the privilege to gain entrance there, so their accounts contrasted to the visions
provided by the men. The harem was not a sexual magical place, but a social and domestic
place, inhabited by a family (mother, children, grandma…); and they also described the
relationship of the women inhabiting the harem; how they live there.

Most of these accounts: gave the perception of the Indian woman as backward, ignorant,
just leading useless lives, and being poor victims, oppressed by society and by men. This
representation had two aims.

- By contrast, the English women presented themselves as emancipated, free,

independent.

- Ideological function: presence of the English in India was necessary to help them,
to save them (it legitimized English presence in the colony). Indian men were
oppressors, so the English are serving this ideological function.
This view was also supporting social reforms that the English were starting to enact in India.

Also children stayed in the harem (even male), till they reached an age

She talks about a visit she paid to an upper class gentleman; impressions she had.

● Description of men: a number of muslim men, servants, guardians eunuchs (men

whose testicles have been cut off, harmless for women of the harem). They're
perfectly idle, oriental description, lazy, doing nothing all day, squatting on the floor
(not fully civilized), seduti a gambe incrociate.

betel = plant, in the East it’s used to chew it, teeth become red, a sign of uncivilization (also
tobacco, but more a Western habit). Not refined, leading an idle life.

● Women's apartment.
There’s a ladder that’s removed when not used = harem represented as a prison, oppressive
space, women as captives

Cazys (Indian title, for high-caste men) have many wives, she presents all women in the
harem. Indian women are not used to seeing the clothes of western women; Indian and
English women gaze at each other (inspection, mutual curiosity, "gratifying our own").

● Jewelry.
Indian women: excessively overloaded with jewels, exaggeration of women who load
themselves with a lot of jewelry (not idea of refinement; contrast with their English
ornaments, which are simple, in a delicate way); while Indians come out a bit tacky.

● Makeup: unacceptable for respectable upper class women (make up: only actresses
and prostitutes); not come out as refined examples. Simple description, but hides a
lot of hints at the real thought of the author, judgment, hides hidden thoughts. Fatima
could be very beautiful, but excessive in her make-up.
Even though she's the wife of a gentleman, she’s very submissive to her husband’s authority
and also to that of the other older ladies of the house; it's a rigid society, linked to etiquette,
rituals, traditions (all these details, building up to create this idea of oppression).

● Daily life, conditions of women.

Emphasizing the ignorance of these ladies. She's projecting them as children, they can read,
but they're not able to understand what they read. They're not educated, and are kept in this
state by the men of Indian society, enslaved (need for English to come and civilize them); by
contrast the author comes out as a cultivated woman, free, active.

They just do manual work, sleep a lot, eat, cook, quarrel… All women staying there do not
lead a happy life, scheming against each other, quarreling all the time (place described as
deceiving); they engage in petty fights, because they have nothing to do all day. When they
do something, it’s just totally pointless. Moreover, they have servants to do chores in the
house, so they're not even housewives. The author emphasizes this aspect; contrast
between freedom, cultivation of English women and the ignorance, pointlessness of lives of
women in the East, legitimize their presence there, and act as a benevolent father for
children (Indian population).

Character of the natives and Englishmen

She's disappointed with the character of the indians. She refers to the primitive character in
the best way. Fault of the fact that good primitive features erased is of Hindoos (barbarous,
superstitious). They ruined the good traits of the savage.

Indians lie, if it can be useful, it would be folly not to do it; natives are not aware that lying is
wrong (like children); they have no moral awareness that lying is bad and has
consequences; they have to be looked after.

She doesn't spare colonizers as well.

Men staying in the colony: close community, interconnected (few people, very well
connected with each other), when a stranger arrives all the community goes and welcomes
him; they all know each other. This interconnection has its perks, but also cons: they tend to
gossip, say malignant things, in small town life.

Three men for every woman: jobs, positions are available only for men, women came just as
relative to the man in question.

Even in big cities in India, she finds the same society of a small country town in the
motherland, not an exciting society (she's preparing for quite a dull life there).

Women have not a large choice among the men, they just have to turn to what they find. Not
expect to find stimulating company even among the English (Indians are the worst, but also
the English are not so much better). Englishmen think of themselves as very important; they
make a fast career, acquire important positions at a very young age, power goes up to their
head, and become taken up with their own importance (not a stimulating companionship).
Similarity with life of upper class, same pointlessness, uselessness of Indian women (she
adheres to the colonial pov, while we see that she makes criticism toward the English as
well; she criticized them for their attitude which is more or less the same as the Indians).
Neither the English provide an acceptable company.

Show off their wealth, huge extravagant dinners, abondance of food (waste), scarcely
touched, because they already had a tiffin at home = habit of the English, to have a light
breakfast at dawn, then proper meal at 2 o'clock (tiffin), and then eat less at dinner (however,
even if they eat little at dinner, they set up huge displays of food, just to show off).

Servants : for the English to show off their position of importance in the colony

Child marriages: practice quite common, widespread in India.

She's paying a visit to the household of a gentleman, to an Indian family (beginning of 19th
century, still some interaction, then as the century advances relations will grow less and less,
for a number of reasons). Still a hybrid condition; critical but still interacting with them.

The Picturesque
(description of landscape)
aesthetic ideal, famous in the 18th-19th c. Theorized at the end of 18 th by William Gilpin in
1782; he coined this expression (peculiar beauty, that looks good in a painting). It's an ideal
of the time, a picturesque landscape: considered the best possible art (not classical ideal of
beauty, characterized by polished lines, balance, uniformity, symmetry…). It's beautiful and
fascinating, wild, rough, irregular (ex. craggy sort of nature, like hills, mountains, overgrown
bridges, ruins, ancient trees, dilapidated castles), nostalgia for ruins, for anything from the
past, dilapidated, closed to romanticism, melancholy (nature not tainted by men) = cult of
ruins.

The picturesque in Travel Writing

Sensibilities changed, what is perceived as beautiful is different from what was seen
beautiful in the past (it led to romanticism as well). The picturesque is an artistic and
gardening movement, but then it actually had an impact on travel accounts as well (so
widespread, that impact on the way colonizers looked at the landscape in India). Travelers
perception; looked at it through lens of picturesque; looked for the esthetic life in the colony
(India offers many examples of this; it's still a wild land, place, lot of forest, ruins too; Mughal
empire, destroyed, ruins scattered among the forests; offered a paradise for lovers of
picturesque aesthetics).

Important thing; picturesque used as a frame, in order to make ther less threatening. In the
relationship between the self and the other, the last is often seen as different and
threatening; if I put a frame on the other, an aesthetical ideal, it becomes less threatening.

“The picturesque worked to detach the traveller from the scene and to contain the threat posed by
the other by arranging it into an aesthetic frame”
(Women Travellers in Colonial India)
It was employed as a defensive strategy against the alien environment: it makes you
appreciate the landscape and, at the same time, detach from the threat that the landscape
poses to you.

It's an aesthetic pleasure, but detached from the scene (appreciate the beauty of it, but from
a distance, so it's not dangerous anymore; psychological strategy).

It's characteristic of women, because they are excluded from the main business of the
empire, do not deal with politics or other important matters, so they focus on social space,
relationships and description of landscape (scene of rulout).

Two main problems in India

1st problem: wealth and power in the hands of evil priests; fault for the decadence (craft =
cunning), power, richness for themselves

2nd problem: impossibility of rising individually (caste system), even if you have talent, you
cannot reach a higher rank than the one occupied by your ancestors. That's why the English
are needed.

ANGLICIZATION.
2nd phase of British colonization.
First half 19th century (from the 1820s till 1857, when a rebellion took place, turning point of
British history in India; after that, the attitude of English will change).

First half of 19th century,

1. Technological improvement = intro of steamers on the Gange (improve

communication between the settlements; internal communication improved). From
dispersed multiple groups, to an established and closely interconnected community.

2. Discovery of alternative route to India (up until now, circumnavigated Africa, till
Cape of Good Hope and then going to Bobei, Calcutta, etc…); now a new trip,
overland route through Egypt (35-40 days; before it took 5-8 months).
Communication with the motherland improved a lot.

The motherland started to have more and more influence on the colony; not so far away
anymore. Therefore all ideology, moral had a huge influence on the colony too; they're no
more two separated worlds, but connected.

Transference on the colony of English social code (famous in the motherland).

The 19th century: Victorian Age, the age of the middle-class, in power in the UK; start to
influence more and more the government, impose their set of values as a whole (strict age in
terms of morals). As a consequence imposed also on India. Morals and manners of the
middle-class, influence in the managing of the colony; 2 ideologies in particular.

1. Evangelicalism: religious movement, need to convert, living the Gospel in an

active way, importance of reading the Bible on your own; importance of teaching. You
need to go out and preach, teach the Bible to other people, conversion is extremely
important. Strong religious movement, also aggressive; increase of missionary
activities and foundation of missionary societies; go to colonies and convert the
natives.

2. Utilitarianism: compares the moral worth and the practical use of an action.
What is useful is also good, practical ideology. Same level utility and morality (in
theory not a bad thing, but put into action can be dangerous). Important promoters =
Stuart and Betham.

How do these ideologies affect India?

New governor general (1786): Lord Cornwallis, good evangelical man, sent specifically to
cut corruption, bring the colony under a more civilized government, erase the image of the
East India Company as a corrupted society.

He enacted a series of reforms, to remodel India along Western ideas. India becomes a
sort of laboratory for the application of new ideas spread in the motherland. It's seen as a
blank space where to put into action these new ideologies (it's easier to put into practice in
the colony than in the motherland). What was the role of England in the colony? Costumes
should be left untouched or must they be improved? Debate.

Answer to the debate: the English have a mission, Indian society is not good, they need to
civilize it, put it in moral terms, as a duty.

The ban on the East (everything about the East, the Oriental is despised, there's much
contempt about it). It infiltrated all levels of the colony.

Reforms.
Fields for the reforms: education, religion, justice.

EDUCATION.
Indians had to be educated in the language and culture of the colonizers; their education
became an English one (run by missionaries), throughout the country, established by the mid
1820s.

RELIGION.
Reforms, undertaken to eradicate what was seen as disrupting religious practices; to uproot
Suttee and Thuggee (which offended European sensibility).

JUSTICE.
To achieve an efficient and honest form of government.
Good in theory, but taken too far: no tolerance was shown (ex. Indian old habit of
exchanging presents; interpret them as accepting favors; an Englishman accepting a gift, it's
like he's accepting to do him a special favor, a special treatment in future); they blocked all
relationship between English and Indian (considered untrustworthy), as a consequence
being associated with Indians, it meant you were corrupted as well (if you’re friends with an
indian family, you were tainted, and people started gossiping about you (all Englishmen in
India work in administration, it was easy to be accused of corruption).

Maria Graham paid a lot of visits to the Indian families; this changed. British stay with the
British and Indians with Indians = gap, led to an atmosphere of suspicion and distrust (which
will end up in the rebellion of ‘57). Relations get worse and worse over time.

ex. 1833: visit to a high rank man could take place only in presence of a judge (you had to
ask for a written permission of a magistrate), to prevent any suspicion of intrigue.

Thomas Macaulay, member of the Supreme Council in the East India Company
(1834-1838). Reforms in legal and school system (well-known essay: Minute of Education);
idea from a debate = company made available a sum to promote education.

He wrote this essay to persuade council members that Indians should not continue to be
educated, taught in their own language, but they should all have an English education in
English.

Sanskrit and Persian = most prestigious ang of the Orient

Teaching in vernacular is out of the question (languages considered rough). It's better to skip
them and pass to English. Matter of superiority: best choice is to teach English because it’s
superior.

“We have a fund to be employed as Government shall direct for the intellectual
improvement of the people of this country. The simple question is, what is the
most useful way to employ it?”

• Both parties of the Council agreed that teaching in vernacular languages was out of
question: “we have to educate a people who cannot at present be educated by means of
their mother-tongue.”

• Consequently, it was necessary to teach the Indians a foreign language: which language
should be taught?

• Macaulay and one half of the committee maintained that it should be English, while the
other half recommended Arabic and Persian

Text.

“The whole question seems to me to be – which language is the best worth knowing?
I have no knowledge of either Sanskrit or Arabic. But I have done what I could to form a
correct estimate of their value. I have read translations of the most celebrated Arabic and
Sanskrit works. I have conversed, both here and at home, with men distinguished by their
proficiency in the Eastern tongues. [...]
I have never found one among them who could deny that a single shelf of a good European
library was worth the whole native literature of India and Arabia. The intrinsic superiority
of the Western literature is indeed fully admitted by those members of the committee who
support the oriental plan of education.”

He says he doesn’t know anything about oriental culture, but he was informed, read
translations of works in Sanskrit, and had conversations with distinguished men able with the
language of the East.

He's very subtle. He says that even these men admit the intrinsic superiority of the Western
culture (taking readers to his part).

Also their science is superior. Even a child in England knows more science than real
scientists in the East. Culture and science of the UK, more worth knowing, so why teach
them in other languages? It's easier to teach them directly in English, which is the most
useful language: ready access to knowledge.

“[...] all the historical information which has been collected from all the books written in
the Sanskrit language is less valuable than what may be found in the most paltry
abridgments used at preparatory schools in England.”

Eastern culture provides only false knowledge and superstition. Since Western culture is
the best worth knowing, there’s no point in teaching it in Arabic or Sanskrit or other oriental
languages. Only through education in English, hope for a better job, to improve themselves,
better for themselves and the colony to teach English; learning things really good and useful,
only through this they could improve their country. Idea which was biased and talented at the
basis.

It goes against the reason to teach these religions. Sanskrit and other oriental languages,
not justified, not even in terms of religion (they're useless). Maculay, step by step, using an
apparently incontestable reasoning, disrupts the whole Indian culture.

Impossible to educate all Indians in English (country enormous). What should we do? They
create a sort of class of intermediate, english-educated Indians: “A class of persons Indian
in blood and color, but English in tastes, in opinions, in morals and in intellect”.

This class: problematic. Absorbed point of view of colonizers, English in everything, but still
discriminated by the English (racism, becoming worse and worse); climax of racism, at the
end of the 19th century (class of outsiders both from Indian community and the English,
because of their skin, don't admit them in the community); completely cut out.

● Total elimination of indian language and culture = considered a blessing for Indians
by the English (best thing from moral and practical pov).
 ● Economic reasons (westernize India), better market for English products (industrial
revolution in its full bloom, they need new markets to sell their products). Moreover
they truly thought, believed to have this duty (never mentioned economic reasons
behind). More and more aggressive in their reforms.

Presence of the English in India = direct consequence of their racial superiority. This theory
ignored British economic and military power (they conquered India through scheme and
coercion); ideology,”we’re here, because as a race we're superior; it’s natural for us to rule”.

Key point: if the British continue to adopt manners and practices of Indians they would be
ruined, undone (before they had done that to better rule and survive). Now it's thought that
they'll lose their superiority if they continue to indianize. They have to preserve their
englishness at all cost.

Neutral administration of law, no longer an idea to present themselves as heirs of the Mughal
empire, just want to perform a good government, not interested anymore in legitimacy of
ruling (we’re here because we are efficient, we rule because you need us).
(= It's a change that happened over some decades; slow process, about 30 years).

The idea of figure ruling changed (from nabob, hybrid, open to influence of indians to a
closed and essentially british body).

The burra sahib:

- Embodiment of britishness (manliness, energy, morality)
- Instrument of rule for the colony, his role was that (think of it in the context of india)

Discourse of race.
Theorization of differences between races.
Important change.
- In the 18th century: people were different because of cultures, born and raised in
different cultures (and climates).
- 19 th century : differences between people were racially rooted. Because we belong
to different races (you can't change that), ideology grows and grows till the end 19th
c. It gave the English a sense of mission and explained their imperial success. Put
laws in scientific terms; nature is in this way, it's natural that we’re over you. not
need to be accepted as rulers (legitimization happens in their minds, taken for
granted).

The White Man’s Burden”, Rudyard Kipling (1897).

“
It exemplifies this ideology (even though not from the first half of the 19th century).
It was written to celebrate the white race and Queen Victoria’s Diamond Jubilee. He wrote
it to encourage white men to go and civilize the world, (not only the English). Put in moral
terms, to emphasize the sacrifice white men have to make in order to help the “non-white”
races develop civilization.
Impossible to understand now, but at the time really thought, believed, to do something
good; they were indoctrinated to think that.

Image: cartoons from “The White Man’s Burden”. The English carrying people from Africa,
Asia; sweating, effort, a sacrifice to bring them up in a mountain towards civilization. All
obstacles to overcome in order to bring them there (barbarism, corruption, vice, brutality,
cannibalism…)

The White man’s burden

Text.

1 Take up the White Man's burden--

2 Send forth the best ye breed --
3 Go bind your sons to exile
4 To serve (put themselves forward as servants of the colonized) your captives'(sottoposti)
need;
5 To wait (attend to the need) in heavy harness (= difficulties this task implies; sacrifice
himself in a selfless way).
6 On fluttered folk and wild--
7 Your new-caught, sullen peoples,
8 Half-devil and half-child. (scheming,deceiving, lying; childlike s well)

9 Take up the White Man's burden--

10 In patience to abide,
11 To veil the threat of terror (you have to be heroes, courageous)
12 And check the show of pride (not show they’re proud, because it's just their duty);
13 By open speech and simple,
14 An hundred times made plain
15 To seek another's profit,
16 And work another's gain.
(all this for benefit of colonized, not white people)

17 Take up the White Man's burden--

18 The savage wars of peace (to have a world of peace, you need war)
what white people should do--
19 Fill full the mouth of Famine (improve their lives)
20 And bid the sickness cease;
(they’ll bring peace, food, and health)
21 And when your goal is nearest
22 The end for others sought,
23 Watch sloth and heathen Folly
24 Bring all your hopes to nought (nothing).

They're all lazy and foolish, they’ll compromise all our efforts, even though they don’t do it on
purpose (like children); they’re not gonna appreciate gifts bestowed upon them.

25 Take up the White Man's burden--

26 No tawdry rule of kings,
27 But toil of serf and sweeper --
28 The tale of common things. (benefits of imperialism only for the Indians)
29 The ports ye shall not enter,
30 The roads ye shall not tread,
31 Go mark them with your living,
32 And mark them with your dead.
= emphasis on sacrifices they are going to have to make.
= everything they’ll build, for benefit of the colonized, they’ll not use things they create
= ungratefulness of natives, not appreciate what's done for them, because lack the ability to
see what’s done for them

33 Take up the White Man's burden--

34 And reap his old reward:
35 The blame of those ye better, (improve)
36 The hate of those ye guard (protect)--
37 The cry of hosts ye humor
38 (Ah, slowly!) toward the light:--
39 "Why brought he us from bondage,
40 Our loved Egyptian night?"
= opposition between light/darkness; Indians blaming them because they took them away
from the Night, darkness, absence of any knowledge, morality, education.

41 Take up the White Man's burden--

42 Ye dare not stoop to less–
43 Nor call too loud on Freedom
44 To cloke your weariness; (don’t blame freedom, it's not their right to be free; giving up
because you’re too tired).

45 By all ye cry or whisper,

46 By all ye leave or do,
47 The silent, sullen (barbarous, not welcoming them, hostile) peoples
48 Shall weigh your gods and you.
= natives will blame them and judge them for everything they’ll do (what matters is the
judgment of your peers)

49 Take up the White Man's burden--

50 Have done (let’s finish) with childish days--
51 The lightly proferred laurel,
52 The easy, ungrudged praise.
53 (subj) Comes now, to search your manhood
54 Through all the thankless years
55 Cold, edged with dear-bought wisdom,
56 (obj.) The judgment of your peers!
= undertake a difficult task to become a man; they'll earn their respect (of your peers)

3 main themes:
- imperialism for the good of the colonized; for colonizers only sacrifices;
references to difficulty to the success of enterprise. colonize sacrifice for the sake of
colonized
- imperialism: act of heroism, manliness.
- they’ll be ungrateful, trying to sabotage you (children, to appreciate what you do for
their sake, instead they'll blame you and judge you)
Consequences of Anglicisation: everyday life in
colonial India.

The Burra Sahib (title that all Indians use to talk to an Englishman) = Great Sir.
From image of Nabob to idea of Burra Sahib.

Embody basic qualities of the British man; racial superiority; as consequence, he's the living
proof of legitimacy of English colonial presence, and thus the superiority that justifies their
presence as rulers in India.

Body of the ideal Englishman = moral integrity, by some physical aspects

- arrogant manners
- clear strong voice

Indians’ body: demonstrate their supposed inferiority (they meet the behavior of the English
with respect; humble, respectful demeanor).

Black Suit: standard wear during Vicrotian age (both in motherland and in the colony, where
it became the uniform of the sahib). They have to appear as British as possible, start to give
up Indian clothes, start to wear sober, black suits (as middle class at home).

It’s a mirror of the shift in the motherland, from extravagant, colorful clothes to a more
respectable way of dressing, more widespread in the Victorian Age.

● Black as a color acquired significance, symbol of the middle class;

- it was said to represent the decency, self-respect, self restraint, importance
and power of the middle class; respectable person.

- Also black hats were used, and acquired resonance in the colony: symbol of
adhering to utilitarianism (good and neutral administrator of the law, not
extravagant, corrupted, indinized man); you were a serious person just doing
your job.

W. Benntic acquired this way of dressing, then spread it. Figure of Sahib is more and more
formal and standardized; otherwise, seen as indinized (conformism, a feature of
anglo-indian society).

- These clothes were extremely impractical, hot climate, heavy material, so it had an
additional significance: it made no concession to the climate. For this very reason
I’m a strong and manly man (I care about being a good representative of my
country); it acquired resonance in the colony
- exclusion of India, they erected a boundary (closed body from the environment
around you, in a both physical and symbolic way).

There was something in between: white tropical suit, British in terms of style and item, but
Indian in color and fabric (lighter), signifier of the sahib in the colony.
Indian clothes kept only in the privacy at home, pijamas, gowns, more oriental style (only in
the house, when they're on their own), in public never, under no circumstances (aim to stay
as British as possible).

Other features.
● Houkka is given up in favor of cheroot (a more independent way of inhaling
tobacco), no need for a special servant, no paraphernalia, and more associated with
motherland; it only allows tobacco, so they could not be accused of using drugs, like
opium. During the Victorian Age use of drugs was more strongly condemned
(morality was much looser before); it would be considered disreputable, associated
with other indianizing activities (dance, indian mistress…).

● Dismissal of Indian mistress (18th century was seen as something acceptable);

why?

- it meant to create an intimate bond with colonized, a friendly relationship

(which was no longer desirable), social gap between Indian and English
spreading

- you’d have to live to some extent in indian style (some moments of daily life,
live in indian style; impossible now)

- mistress = slave at this time (English pay their family and they’ll keep her in a
different house…); evangelical view, having a slave started to be seen as a
bad thing (before: having slave, sign of prestige, have something exotic)

- growing number of British women in India (Victorian Era, more and more
English women start to come; increased the availability of marriage material;
also men found it difficult to justify why they’d turn to natives for
companionship, if there were so many British women. Also a tightening up of
the moral standard (not to offend sensibility of women by keeping indian
mistress)

- problem of children, mixed-raced (the Eurasians); British man and Indian

woman; illegitimate children, start to be a problem (18th c, integrated,
patronized, supported by the British; some sent them to UK to be educated,
while the majority kept in India and enter army, integrated a bit (seen as
unpresentable, not legitimate heirs).
They're more and more marginalized, forbidden to hold senior positions in the company,
more and more outsiders (illegitimate, already a problem in 18th century class prejudice, but
integrated to some level; in the 19th century racial prejudice complicates things; Victoria
Era, race more important than class).

Both
- illegitimate, offended moral sensibility, feeling of degeneration of British(threat o racial
borders, boundaries); desre of keeping them distant, apart
- also seen as a threat; a class in between (also a threat to British monopoly).
Shock for colonial power; mixed racial classes, they fear their potential for subversion of
British ruling; they thought to be entitled to some power as well (warning toward the threat of
this in-between class; Haiti, 1791 = end up with independence from French Empire
(revolution led by mixed descents);

1850s: Eurasians disappeared from official circles, not admitted into administrative positions
and became the laughing stock of the British at home.

Interest in Indian forms of socializing is wavering. Increasing separation of society between

the English and the colonized.

- The body of the Nabob (18th c): hybrid, open to the surrounding environment
- Sahib: ideal British ruler Victorian era, rigid, sealed off from the surrounding
environment, preserved at all cost (remain as British as possible).

Everyday life
➢ MEMSAHIB, madame + sahib (women living in the colony).
Things stricter for women as well, bad taste wear something indian; items fashionable in
Europe (shorts, fabric life muslin), considered to be in bad taste, tacky if worn in the colony;
they have to look completely British (import clothes from motherland), indian sari, loose
dress, implicitly means = loose morals (encouraged to keep tight, fitting, European dresses,
corsets, unbearable in the heat; no concession to the environment, remain strong; same
reason for black suit)

Accordingly to the utilitarian view, they should have a useful occupation of time = not
enactive, they have no official role, but still keep themselves active, charity, teaching in
schools for Indian children (doing nothing like in the motherland; contribute to the mission
of the British there); if you do nothing all day, you’re compared to Indian women in the
harem.

Moreover, women were seen as the repositories of moral behavior, more exemplar than
before (discipline, posture, manners at the table, cleaningness), even more than men.

➢ FOOD.
From a matter of health (to better survive and adapt) to another means of embodying
Englishness (now adopting Indian food completely abandoned, in order to preserve your
britishness). Signifiers of gentility (being part of high class); show yourself to be British in
everything, even in food (habit of nabob, inappropriate; refined in the way they eat and what
they eat).

Imported goods, at exorbitant prices (cutlery, all English manufactured), what could be got
in India at small prices. Everything is a statement of what they’re doing there.
Food eaten, imported from the motherland (improvement in conservation of food); voyage
very long, now has shorted, also technological improvement (tinned goods). Accorded a
pride place on table (cheese, salmon, jam, fruit), all food that is sought after a lot in the
colony; also shops specialized in exported goods from Eng. They also tried to make English
vegetables grow in the Himalayas (colder), but not succeed.

Determination to preserve signifiers of eating unappealing hot soup in hot weather, but they’ll
do it because it's English food, so it’s good.

Middle class at home; became more English than the British at home (obsessed with idea of
britishness); with food it's impossible to be kept closed completely, so incorporated some
dishes from indian cuisine (ex. curry and rice, kedgeree: dish of hindu fish, eggs and rice,
integrated into breakfast and also in the motherland, were part of breakfast for the
aristocracy; ironic).

➢ MEDICAL DISCOURSE
At the beginning of the century: the English would adapt if they acquired some Indian
practices.

1820s-30s: less optimism in this sense. Process of closure; it’s impossible to adapt, they
just have to try not to degenerate (close against any influence). For the European
constitution it would be pathogenic.

They get weaker and weaker, and women could even become sterilized if they stay there too
long. It's impossible to remain strong, healthy and fertile in the Indian climate. The body is
vulnerable to anything (protect yourself, erect barriers around your body).

Differences between Indian and European was due to the different physiology (in the past,
attributed to differences of climate); pointless to try and change your body, adapt
(unchangeable), let’s try to survive as best as we can.

• Racial theories substituted the climate theory: differences between Indians and
Europeans were now attributed to their possessions of different physiologies, rather than
to the impact of different climates on same physiologies

➢ Separation can also be seen in quarters, In URBAN SPACE

They start to build towns in a separate area from Indian towns (before lived in the same town
as Indians), the farer the better.

They are obsessed with miasma, a concept of the past (refer to infected air, poison,
emanation of putrified animals, vegetables, vegetation, stagnant water…). It was attributed
to diseases at the time.

They try to avoid places near water and to make the air circulate as much as possible. Also
large routes, based on this principle of air circulating (denser than ordinary air; build houses
as up as possible, on hills, elevated area in comparison with Indian towns; infected air
accumulates on the ground, low).
Built in contrast to what was seen as an Indian town (houses well-spaced, laid out wide
avenues, regular in form, special concern with cleaningness; Indian towns had very narrow
streets and were seen as filled with dirt).

Important cause for building these villages (resemble English country villages), remind them
of home, evocative of motherland (alien environment, India seen as threatening, very
different from what they were used to; see something familiar, reassurance, recall
motherland, help you with your fear of being in a different environment).

HOUSE.
● Built with concern to avoid miasma, continuous ventilation, circulation of air.
● Bungalows, raised on a platform, open plan layout, not several storeys.
● open layout, most rooms leading out of a central hallway
● just curtains, not doors
● bed in the center of the room, placed up on a platform, high form the floor (vs indian
habit sleeping on the floor).
● around the bed, mosquito net, thought to block passage of miasma (but blocked the
mosquitos, the actual carriers of malaria).
● a lot of snakes, insects, bugs, obsessed with this, protect themselves from this.

Servants.
Principle of separation (of age, class, gender), but bungalows, open layout, in order to
circulate air (miasma), it’s not always possible to maintain this separation.

Middle class house, the most important separation is the one between servants and the
family (stayed out of the way, they used separate back staircases, and they stayed in the
basement, in the kitchen, or in the attic).

In India, not achievable at all, tried to be achieved in other ways

- kitchen situated in another part of the house or in another house;
- the bathroom had two doors, one that opened on the compound and the other on
the bedroom of the master (to clean the bathroom without passing through the
bedroom).

Flawed space, not completely private, intrusive presence of the servants. What disturbs the
British is not only the structure of the house, but also the habits of servants;
- move around the house in a more free way (there's no backstair cases, just one floor;
servants are there all the time, moving silently, with bare feet; it's unnerving for the
British because they could not hear them);
- they fail to observe the rule to never enter the room when occupied unless they are
summoned (they would just enter to clean, to carry out their tasks).

Large number of servants, they're so many, that they're expected to perform even the
smallest tasks and this implies the fact that they have to be in constant attendance (ex.
pick up something that had been dropped by the master). It was themselves expecting to be
there to perform even the most menial tasks.
In the UK = only female servants enter ladies room. Offensive, disturbing in the motherland
that in India = half-naked male servants fanning females of the house, it wouldn’t offend
sensibility, it was normal).

Also fear that an Indian servant could be a spy (fear spread in the UK as well,l; they're from
the lower class, judging us, spying on us; in India relationships are more complicated = race
also involved).

Indian towns separated from English houses: segregation achieved in the public space, but
not in the domestic space (disturbing for the British).

How did they cope with it?

By dehumanizing the servants (adopted in the UK as well, but here taken to another level)

➢ only certain servants called by their proper name, all other called by name of their
position
➢ adjust their perception of their brown skin: perceived as a fur (of animals), half-naked,
but not seen as offending sensibility anymore
➢ language: British preferred to employ servants who not able to speak English
(strange; language acts as a barrier)

How do they communicate? The British learn some native language, but only as a form of
language of command
- they just learn how to give orders;
- imperative form,
- only learn familiar form of address, also to speak to high ranked natives;
- fixed dialogues according to the area where you go to live.
Another means of reinforcing colonial hierarchy, no familiarity of friendly relationships.

Two visions of Indians:

● Brutal vision = , all indians sly, cunning, lazy, you have to make them do things,
make them work by violence, use of physical force; strike them, be brutal; if you don’t
control them all the time and threatening them, they’ll cheat on you, do nothing all
day.

● Paternalistic vision = simple, benevolent, but childlike, they have to act as a father
to encourage them to do things, not be violent (it seems a better behavior, but
paternalistic and patronizing, as children in need of a father figure).

If you strike a servant with your hand = physical contact, not desirable (boundaries
undermined; separation must be kept at all cost).

Hill stations
They start to be popular (British settlements, established on the hills, in the northern part;
areas seen as more adapted to the English, not as hot as the rest of the subcontinent).
Reaction to the need to create a familiar world around themselves, evocative of the
motherland (in the hills, possible to achieve a landscape more similar to motherland; with
vegetables, trees present in the UK).

Simla and Mussoorie were established. At the beginning (1820s-30s), sanatorium for the
army. Doctors start to send ill soldiers to the foot of himalaya, improve their health; so
become settlements. Women and children spent the season in hill stations as well (not
sent home). It might put a stop to the degeneration of British children in the colony (in a
similar climate of motherland, grow up strong as in the UK), schools established there, but
for most part children still sent back to the UK (moral flaws of india would be present there
as well, not saved form moral influence; better than rest of india, but still).

ex. Simla (area where the architecture is made in imitation of the motherland, trees
European). Seen as a haven of britishness (cottages, vegetables, flowers; it also snowed
sometimes). Powerful symbol of separation, concrete sign of total inability for British to
acclimatize.

Medical Clothing
The body is seen as vulnerable to the environment, clothes act as a protection, a barrier
between you and the environment. Body = closed entity to be protected, separated from the
environment (no more hope to adapt to India; seal everything)

Heat makes your body relax too much (according to the medical discourse of the time), if
you catch a sudden cold, you have a shock (you must maintain temperature of the body
constant, avoid sudden colds).

● Use of flannel underwear recommended = seen as a very useful tool against the
variation of climate (flannel, better absorber of sweat rather than cotton or other
fabrics); evaporate gradually, even if you suffer a variation of temperature, it would
cool down slowly.

● Cholera belt (made of flannel, worn rod the stomach), encouraged to wear for
civilians and soldiers as well.
Cholera = deriving from this evaporation of sweat from an overheating stomach (which was
considered the most vulnerable area to the dangers of rapid cooling).

This flannel belt kept the stomach always warm. It will be proved totally useless, but still kept
by soldiers and civilians = become a standard item of anglo-indians (even though medical
discourse doesn't recommend it anymore).

● Sun, greatest threat; head and spine most vulnerable (sola topi= hat, air to
circulating, also a “pugri”, fabric on the back to protect neck from the sun).
Realized in wicker (vimini), covered in cotton fabric; used until 1940s.

● spine pad (protect spine)

● goggles = sort of sunglasses (not so popular like sola topi)
Even after medical discourse said they were useless, they kept using them = sense of
security to British, cling to them as reassurance in a threatening environment (psychological
disturbance, weak in the colony, fragile).

Essential to the uniform of the sahib (be an example, wear all these devices), underline their
Britishness.

Limits of Anglicization: in certain spheres of life, the British in India remained open to their
surroundings:

• in childcare practices
• domestic space
• the relationship with servants

Baba logue
Indian name to refer to British children born in the colony. They had an intimate relationship
with Indian servants. They are breastfed by Indian nurses (dhaye), as a necessity: the heat
of India makes British women too weak to breastfeed their baby. Dhaye is a constant
presence in the household, undermining even more segregation, it generates anxiety (both
on moral and physical level).
- The dhaye is carefully inspected, to make sure she has no diseases; even banned
from all contact with her family until her task was finished; fear of contamination.

- Moral level: character inspected, to make sure she's a moral person. There's this
fear, that though her milk, the baby is contaminated by her flawed morals; her moral
features, transferred to the baby (ex. laziness led her to sedate the baby with opium,
in order not to take care of the child; opium to keep them quiet).
Baby grew up, given over to a nanny (ayah).

Greatest fear, Indian servants teach British children all dogmas of their religion (hinduism,
islam). Since they spend all their time with Indian servants, the main language of many
English children is Parsi or Hindustani. Indians are very tolerant with British children; a
reputation of being raised badly and for this reason they become spoilt and tyrannical.

They tolerated Indians taking care of children, because anyway, at some point they would be
sent back to the UK, at the age of 6/7; in the motherland they would naturally lose all the
flaws they acquired in India (purged from all vices).

Educated in Britain, necessary to keep new generations fully English and untainted, remain
good British men and women; not only beneficial for their health, but also for their morality.
THUGGEE.
1st half of 19th century, principles of civilizing, reforming colony (erase savage Indian
practices). Indians perceived as primitive, violent, most famous example is the hysteria
against Thuggee.

The English started to acquire control of a larger and larger area, noticing a number of
people disappeared, undertook a journey and never came back. Investigate and found a
thuggee department at some point.

Thugs.
They're a sect of robbers and killers (informers captured and interrogated, gain more
information about it). Organized bands of robbers (attack only travelers), and ritual killers:
devoted to goddess Kali, (or Bhowanee, wife of Shiva, goddess of destruction), they kill
victims, to help her to achieve her aim, destroy humanity.

By strangling them (put a handkerchief around their neck and strangling them). Rituals that
they follow, ex. after killing, steal properties as well.

It made a great sensation in the motherland. Lots of details about rituals, spreading in the
motherland (fiction written about it, full of exaggeration, it was a huge sensation at the time).

Systematic campaign against thuggee, its peak 1840s, with William Sleeman as the head
of the Thuggee department. It will be extirpated during the following decades.

Sleeman’s information about thugs, exaggerated and full of inconsistencies. This campaign
against thuggee had an instrumental value (some episodes of killing rituals existed, but the
rest was exaggerated to sustain the campaign to reform India; instrumental to raise fear of
people against these criminals killing; useful. It put the focus on the urge to civilize India.

Predatory lifestyle is true, but exaggerated by the Company, government and literary works
published. Historically speaking, thuggee existed, but not sure it was a religious practice and
how deep was spread.

Philip Meadows Taylor

Born in Liverpool, then sent to India to become a clerk (all his life to the colony), then
became the secretary in the service of the Nizam of Hyderabad.

Learnt language, traditions and people of India (in his novels, the protagonist is always a
native; prominent place to natives).

He married a Eurasian woman (granddaughter of Company's Resident at Hyderabad) and

worked as a journalist for The Times too.
He was appointed to administer the principality of the young raja of Shorapore (turn a poor
area into a prosperous and rich area); managed to raise the area and bring prosperity.

The Company recognized this merit, appointed him commissioner of western district
(beloved by people, governing successfully); from lower class, to a successful ruler of one of
the most important provinces of India, with a population of more than 5 million people.

CONFESSIONS OF A THUG
Narrative frame: interview of an Englishman with a former thug (now captured and works as
an informant for them); accept to be interviewed by this Englishman.

Filtered through the English perspective; imaginary, but the author presents it as a real event
(he actually met this man, who agreed to share his life with him). Some facts were real, but
the story and protagonist were fictional, invented. He wanted his reader to believe it was all
real.

Introduction = inspire fear through 3 main factors, information to readers at home about it

- no general government, no control and security in all subcontinent

- no system of public transport: all journeys (even in 1840s), taken by foot, by
horses, all roads through jungles and forests, unsafe to travel in India at the time
- the political system is corrupt, leaders have private connections with tugs, allow
their acts to pass unpunished, in exchange for payment (bribery); he denounces
corruption of Indian states.

The book was not published to “gratify a morbid taste in anyone for tales of horror and
crime”, but to “contribute to awaken public vigilance in the suppression of Thuggee” and
inspire people to “lend [their] exertions in this good cause of humanity.” (Intro, xx)

Plot.
Protagonist: Ameer Ali, famous thug, now prisoner and informer; accepts and promises to
share his life. Even now, he looks at his past with pride.

Childhood, son of a wealthy man, a journey with his family and a stranger starts to travel with
them (Ismale); he kills his parents and spares him, taking him home to raise him with his wife
as their child (he grows up, beloved by his adopting pants). He doesn't know his father is a
thug, no one knows about their profession (not even their wives). His father is absent for a
long period, then he comes back with riches but his family ignores his profession.

At 18 y/o overhears a conversation of his father, discovers that he's a thug; he wants to
please his father and to be instructed; his father takes him to Dusera festival, celebrates
breaking up of the rains, so people can start traveling again (favorite period for thugs).

Origins and rules of thuggee are explained.

 ● Large gangs of thugs, stay in forests, jungles,
- when they see travelers, approach them in a friendly way, make them think
they’re travelers too, proceed together to protect each other, conquer their
trust,
- then when they arrive to a safe place, in the middle of the jungle or near a
river, preparatory signal, and each thug places behind the chosen victim
- and when the leader gives the signal, each thug strangles with his
handkerchief
- bury victims and proceed.
- Expeditions for some months, when collected enough money come home,
then stay years at home and then restart when they run out of money.

Before starting the expeditions, they consult omens, to see if the will of the goddess is
favorable or not.

After the festival, he is eager to start and become a thug. He participated in his first
expedition, father leader of the gang. They begin the journey, they instruct him how to
strangle; when the time comes, he kills his first man and success, very talented.

He's in his 20s, he goes on with the travels, falls in love with a dancer (Zora), a servant of a
powerful man (a nuwab), he helps her escape from her slavery and takes her back to her
hometown. However she wants to see her mother and sister, but he's afraid they'll want to
keep her for themselves and he’ll lose her. He let her go to her family, but they don’t want to
give her in marriage to him, because he's not rich enough, and laugh at his proposal.

From this moment on, he wants to become as rich as possible (upset, losing his first love).
After a day he meets another woman, Azeema, who's married to a bad man; he rescues her,
takes her away and marries her. Never actually tells her that he’s a thug, as tradition wants.
On the way back home he demonstrates his value, killing a famous warrior, a strong man
who won a lot of battles, he’s able to strangle him (more and more respected by his
associates).

Problem: this man has a slave girl, faithful to him, they spare her intentionally, she
witnesses everything, so they have to kill her, otherwise she’d denounce them. However a
friend of Amir, seeing that she’s so beautiful, wants to spare her and marry her; they offer her
this alternative, but she does not accept. She's shocked, keeps struggling and yelling;
they're afraid that other people will pass and she will denounce them, so they have no choice
but to kill her too.

After that he gives up his life as a thug, and becomes a fakeer. 2 years pass, now he has a
son and a daughter. He runs out of money, undertakes another expedition, now he’s the
leader: he's grown up, has the respect of the community, forms a gang and sets out to
undertake another journey.

Goddess, not like the sacrifice of a woman (his father always recommended him not to kill
women).
He has an affair with a widow Shurfun, an intense love story, but then he repents, wants to
put an end to the relationship; she doesn't want to, and wants him to marry her; she finds out
he’s a thug and blackmails him. So he has no choice but to kill her.

It's his first bad deed, beginning his way down. He gets ills, nightmares, comes back home,
finds out his son has died (bad things start to happen). Rumors spread that they’re thugs, so
they have to move (find another ruler to bribe).

A Raja accepts to shelter them in exchange for a high share of their gains.

3 years pass, he has to go back to the road; they want to fight against the English and join
the rebels, the Pindarees (Cheeto is the chief, but doesn't know he and his mate are thugs).
They fight in the army of Cheeto, bu they start seeing that this army is very violet, move
around the country and sack, destroy villages, rape woen (forbidden for hugs, they have a
code, precise rituals, code of honor). They're shocked by the violence of this army. In
particular, a man who's particularly cruel, and he swears to kill him as soon as he has the
chance; he invites him to drink in his tent at night (in secret) and strangles him.

He feels as a hero of justice, he saw a bad man and made justice (in his perspective, man
of honor, acts as a hero protects people of the village from violence). From now on, every
day, they kill one or two of the soldiers of the army (however one of the friends betrayed
them, so they have to flee).

3 other years pass.

He's growing old, not having an heir (just a daughter); he's obsessed with finding a boy to
adopt like his father did with him. He adopts a boy and kills his parents, but Ganesha
(another thug), fears they might be discovered and kills the boy, so he swears to take
revenge on Ganesha). He finds another child, decides to keep him, child struggles, strikes
Ameer, so, in an act of impatience, of violence, he kills the boy (his second very bad deed).
His soul is more and more flawed, slowly, violence insinuating into his blood, not being able
to stop it.

Another disgrace: during the expedition meets other travelers, one of them tells him the
story of a thug killing parents and keeping the baby.

They say they possess a magic coin, which protects anyone who wears it from evil; he
wants to keep it for himself, to protect his daughter. On the night appointed for the murder, a
hare crosses Ameers’s path (bad sign, omen unfavorable goddess; decides to ignore it), he
goes on, strangles the woman with the magic coin and steals it to bring it home to his
daughter. Later, discovers the woman was his biological sister.

He comes back home, things see to be ok, but in the meantime, the raja signed a treaty, his
territory is now under British control and he betrays them (he knew about their secret);

Now that the English took control of that State, the raja is afraid of the consequences, so he
summons Ameer and his father to his palace and betrays the thugs, accuses them and
pretends not to know that they were thugs, to be shocked. A trial is made and his father is
executed (tied to 4 feet of elephant, crushed under).
Ameer is not condemned to death, but locked in a cage, exposed to public shame; his wife
discovers it (now everyone knows), she dies of shame and his daughter is adopted by
another man. After 3 months of staying in the cage, he's marked on his forehead as a thief
and exiled.

He never actually repents, new expeditions and killings; after 2 months he's about to strangle
some travelers, but they’re discovered in the act and captured. He's put in a cell, another
trial, in another State, sentenced to a life in prison. He's in a cell with another thug, who he
finds out to be a friend of his father, he reveals to Ameer his origins (what he already
suspected: he was adopted after his parents were killed). He also learned that Ganesha
murdered his mother (not alright to kill women for thugs), so he swears revenge against him;
Ganesha wanted to kill him too when he was a baby. He had a little sister at the time, too
young to travel, left home, so she was spared (the woman he killed); he's desperate about it.

After 12 years in prison, he starts losing hope; the old king dies and the new king, as a
tradition, frees all prisoners. He's freed and wants to be a thug against, starts a new
company. Accepted as the leader (for 2 years). He wants to do a last expedition, acquire big
wealth and then retire and start a tranquil life. On the way to Calcutta (biggest city of India,
riches go all there), despite the English setting a reward on him, he ignores that (proof that
he’s feared).

Some of his men betray him to get reward and he's finally captured by the English (other 2
times he was captured by Indian rulers), they won’t let him go, his crimes are at an end. He
admits he’s a thug, sentenced to death by hanging, but then he's spared in exchange for
information (at first he refuses the offer, but then he thinks of the shame of dying by hanging
and also of the revenge against Ganesha). A group of soldiers, forms the former gang,
Ganesha is captured and he sees him executed.

Bored of his life, glad his deeds have been recorded by the English.

Physical description that Eng makes of the thug.

He does not have the appearance of a murder
- gentleman like), fine man, handsome;
- fair complexion (imp fact, not look of a savage, first kin, resembles a western man);
- broad forehead, large expressive eyes, not an aspect of a killer;
- mild elegant face,
- fine manners, graceful, even more than aristocrates, polite, language pure and fluent,
an enjoyable person)

He would have never imagined he was a killer, from his appearance.

The Englishman tells him he has a bad heart; defense of Ameer Ali. He is convinced that
he’s an honorable man (list of all things he’s always done in his life, all things that gave him
honor).

Then he talks about the murders; it was the will of the gods (he's legitimized in what he did).
This was to demonstrate that it was necessary to eradicate these practices, because these
people were convinced of their duty, that they were doing something good. The novel is
instrumental for reformist propaganda.

THE MUTINY (10th May 1857- 8 July 1858)

= original name of the rebellion.
Contemporary historians = 1st indian war of independence, large scale attempt to get rid of
English grip. Mutiny: negative sense in it.

General facts.
The most important rebellion against the British, along with the South American colonies
independence (1783)

It started as an uprising among Indian soldiers in the British army (sepoys); not enough
English soldiers, unbalanced numbers; however this was a mistake.

Section of Indian society which is the most organized; from the army spreading to civilians,
and becoming a true civilian rebellion against the East India Company, spread largely in the
upper Gangetic plain, but generally in the whole subcontinent.

It ends badly for Indians, the English control becomes even stricter, under the direct
government of the British crown (an Indian office was appointed, intensifies control over the
colony).

It led to the dissolution of the East India Company and the beginning of the British Raj (=
reign, government, from 1858 to independence of India).

Causes.
In 1857: 200.000 Indians and 40.000 British in the army
It starts with tension in the army; there are changes in terms of service,
- new law denies to retired sepoys a pension
- promotions based only on seniority (sepoys not reach high rank until too old);
discontent going on
- persistent fear of forced conversion (reformist policy, vague fear that christianity is
about to be imposed sooner or later), some officers of evangelical persuasion,
preach christianity in their spare time.
- most important cause, controversy about new rifles (fucili); army introduces new kind
of rifle (new…) to load it, they have to bite a paper cartridge open (toccare con la
bocca la cartuccia). There's a rumor saying that these cartridges greased with a
blend of pork and beef fat (it disturbs muslims and hindoos), they give substance to
the general discontent
- Another rumor: powdered bones of pigs and cows added to ration flour (problem
for Muslims)
 - British officers, estranged from their soldiers (socializing interrupted, gap, relationship
between them wider and wider, not mutual trust between officers and soldiers)

Clime of tension, in the atmosphere.

Civilian rebellion
● Doctrine of Lapse.
Tradition of Indians: rulers that have not male heirs, could adopt a son, but the British would
not recognize it, and take control of reigns without a legitimate ruler. According to Indians,
British interfere too much, ignoring this tradition.

● Resentment for aggressive policy of reform (education, eradication of Indian

practices)
- eager Westernizing policies and intensive missionary activities
- Dalhousie (Governor-General, 1846-1856), aggressive reforms
- English aimed to totally break down the caste system; ultimate aim, impose
conversion and Western ways. Intensive missionary activities, coming to the
colony to preach (English were perceived as a threat to their traditions and
religions).

● Justice system, unfair to all Indians; harsh and brutal towards them, especially in
case of rape (Indian man rape white woman condemnd to death; but if an
Englishman did the same to indian woman, at worst they would have to pay a fine).

Several months of tension, building up

single episodes, insubordination in the army connected with the rifle issue.

Final spark: Meerut, May 1857.

One of the largest concentrations of British troops in India.
Lieut. Col. Carmicheal-Smyth ordered some of his men to parade and perform fire drills; in
order to do that, they have to buy cartridges and almost every sepoy refused to do it
(sentenced to 10 year imprisonment all of them who refused, with hard labor). Discontent
spread out.

The next day was a Sunday. Some Indians soldiers warned officers of plans to release the
imprisoned sepoys by force, but the English took no action. Then some protests in Meerut
started to rise, but still the British took no action at all.

In the evening most of Britishofficers were preparing to go to church, while many european
soldiers were off duty, and going to canteens. Some Indians started an uprising, went to the
jail, forced their way into it, freed the sepoys imprisoned and also all other Indian prisoners.
Also attack civilians, women and children (about 50 Europeans) and some British soldiers
are killed. Unrest among the population.

The senior Company officers, in particular Major General Hewitt were slow to react, troops
received no order, not knowing what to do, just guarding their headquarters. The next
morning, when they decided to take action, the city was quiet, they only found dead corpses;
not find the rebels, who in the meantime went to Delhi.

May 11th, the rebels reached the city and seized it, proclaimed themselves the true
descendant of the new Mughal empire, and proclaimed a new government there.

Massacres, from that moment on; the spirit of insurrection spread out from Delhi to many
other districts. Behavior of the English precipitated things (they were slow to react, not
expect that, taken by surprise). Moreover, the English in India were fewer than Indians; it
took a long time to take troops from the motherland to the colony. The resistance started
after 2 months, within the fortification, which was under siege.

Siege of Delhi by the English against the Indans started and lasted the whole summer.
Forces of company outnumbered, no hope, rebels received resources and were also
conscious of the territory, they knew how to move around (while English are quite isolated,
no real knowledge of territory, disadvantaged). However they had stronger weapons,
cannons, and eventually they retook Delhi, sacked the city, and many Indians were killed.

Worst phase, summer of 1857.

Cawnpore and Bibighar massacre
Episode that raises outrage among the public at home.

June 1857: sepoys in Cawnpore rebelled too.

British general here, Wheeler, veteran respected soldier, person of great prestige, who has
also cordial relationships with the natives there, he thinks to be safe; however the sepoys
rebel. A figure, Nana Sahib, friend of the governor, who is supposed to help the rebels, but
he remains faithful to the English.

Nana Sahib: adopted son to an Indian ruler (nawab), English took him (he keeps this
resentment for what happened to him, taken away, just because not the biological son of the
ruler); he claims to be a friend of the English, but he’s not really.

Cawnpore was attacked and besieged by the rebels, who thought that Nana Sahib would be
on their side, but he sided with the English, and said he could offer them a safe passage to
Allahabad by boats. The English accepted, agreed a time and a place to escape, however
the situation changed: when they arrived, they saw there were boats, but the dock was
surrounded by soldiers positioned on both banks of the Ganges who started to fire (mass
murder of civilians).

It’s not clear if

- it was the plan of Nana Sahiball along (we don’t know really)
- it’s also possible that this firing, a result of accident or error; someone fired
accidentally, the British responded to the fire, then (sparatoria), out of control.
All Englshmen were killed; women and children were taken as hostages; put in the home of
the magister clerk (Bibighar). In a couple of weeks, many of them died from cholera and
dysentery.
Time started to pass, and English forces were approaching. Nana Sahib, understood he had
not much time until the English came, they did not have the strength to resist a siege, so he
decided all the hostages there had to be killed. Even the rebels, the sepoys refused to carry
out the order. So he asked some Muslim butchers, Hindu paisants, one of Nana Sahib’s
guards, who accepted, entered the Bibighard, and killed all women and children; walls
covered in blood, floor covered in human limbs. The dead and dying, thrown in a well, and
when it’s full, thrown in the Gange.

Reaction of the British, they were frozen; it made quite a sensation even in the motherland;
all anti-imperialists lost all support (this is the proof of the violence of mutineers, Indians).
The British retook Cawnpore and their revenge was brutal: sepoys were forced to lick the
blood that covered the walls and then hanged or blown from cannons without trial.

Being blown from the cannon: traditional mughal punishment for mutiny (the British use it
to their own revenge). Also superstition of Hindoos, used against them: thought they would
not enter heaven if their body was not intact. Punishment that’s instrumental, symbolic
(became famous in Europe as a proof of violence and brutality of indians).

Reprisals of the British, characterized by violence and ferocity outweigh the original excess
(“take no prisoners”; just hanged, bayoneted or blown from cannons), the franzy aspect of
the British vengeance. They see Indians as inferior, primitive, the fact that they rebelled is
seen as an outrage (not like American rebellion; matter of race involved); revenge very cruel.
Even the British press and government didn’t advocate clemency of any kind.

Being shot from cannons:

“The natives do not fear to die, but they fear to die in any way that destroys the identity of the
body. They cannot enter heaven blown limb from limb. Therefore this is the way to touch
their souls with dreadful awe.”

After a couple of months, the Mutiny lost direction and ran out of steam.
Why did his rebellion fail?
- not organized, just spread out, no main leader to coordinate the actions; lacked
overall leadership
- it lacked a sense of purpose: natives simply united in what they hated, destructive
force, no alternative system of government that could work (spontaneous uprising, no
organized center to create an alternative system to the British government, no
ideology behind it).
- army, more and more English forces arriving from the motherland (from the end of
July).

In the meantime: civil war, a lot of natives choose to fight with the British (villages, just
turned between rebels and supporters of the British).

19 September 1857: the take of Delhi (= Turning point).

1858: crushing all remaining resistance.
Lots of sieges of Lucknow (successful to the English); it was taken as a symbol of British
heroism and resistance there.

Impact of the Mutiny on the British.

It was shocking. Until these events, they did not regard natives as a threat for them; at
most they are seen as deceiving and lying, but not dangerous to their personal safety (mal
corruption, at worst, theft, but not physical violence).

The physical impact of colonialism reversed (power of the colonizers upon the body of
the colonized reversed), actual impact on the body of colonizers (main shock for them).

Myth of Rape.
Violence described in terms of religious sacrilege; savagery revenge, justified in light of
violence that happened. At home they support violence of English revenge. Press depicted
Indians as perverts, beasts, thirsty for blood.

Western women, guardians all was best in the West, repositories of morality, so murder and
rape, violation of Br women = ultimate violation of British power (obsession, it’s very
disrupting for them). Actual cases are not so common, lots of falsified reports are simply
accepted as facts. Many eyewitness accounts were published, but then they were
discovered to be false. All women raped, died later on, so just witnesses.

This idea was so strong, so widespread, that it lived a life on its own. Important ideological
function (it was believed that during the mutiny half of English women had been raped).

• Newspapers exaggerated the violence and played on the readers’ feelings:

o pity and empathy for the British
o hatred + desire for revenge towards the Indians
The natives’ (alleged) cruelty was stressed in order to justify the terrible repression.

Image: painting of the time “In memoria”; nenophic hysteria following the mutiny.

2 versions
- 1st version: sepoys (women about to be raped); provoqued a scandal in the British
public (quotaiton).

- 2nd version: scottish soldiers, idea of salvation about to come, preserves myth of
British women inviolable

English women, a part for an Indian servant. One depicted as a christian martyr (looking up,
above, prìying), holding a Bible in her hand; facing her fate with stoicity and heroism.

Popular assumptions, painting based on his fantasy. It haunted almost every account of the
rebellion. Public discourse around the mutiny, not so much to say about what it happened,
but to consolidate fixated patterns of belief, already existing ideas (what people wanted to
believe, not what actually happened).
News coverage in the UK about the mutiny.
at home; relatives staying in the colony, all gossip circulating. Desire for info far outstripped
access to info (took 3 months of journey; there was the telegraph, but one of first actions that
mutineers did was to cut lines; also telegraph, no detail). Mail got to the motherland, info in
letters contradicted info coming through telegraph, confusion and contradiction about what
was happening; especially in the first months.

Frustrating for people in the UK to get info; accustomed to access uptodate info, daily news,
widespread newspapers, everyone could read (education compulsory and free), had access
to info. Not getting info they were accustomed to, disrupting, unnerving for them. Also false
accounts: since at home they were hungry for information, many exploited that (it also
explains why there are so many exaggerations). It raised hysteria in the country to a higher
level (they knew something terrible was happening, but did not know exactly what).

Mutiny novels.
Representation in fiction of mutiny surpassed representation of any other.

Subgenre, focused on representation of the mutiny. It had its heyday in the 1880s-90s,
interesting; why? End of the century coincided with a strong imperialist ideology, stronger
than ever; peak of British imperialism, aggressive attitude, period during which empire
expanded a lot as well.

These novels were written to reinforce the colonialist ideology, build consensus at home,
example of Br heroism, India in urgent need of civilization, these events (about the mutiny)
were taken back to be exploited.

Britishness, describe what it meant to be Br; all the novels mutiny represented in a very
standardized way; they fulfill a specific identity function.

1st work of fiction about it, by Charles Dickens, inaugurated this subgenre, “The Perils Of
Certain English Prisoners”; he was personally struck by the mutiny, because his son
fought during it. Also Wilkie Collins “Household Words”.

Homogenous genre, with fixed features, more or less always the same plot (7 moments,
generally)

1. description of indian life before mutiny, with love story (quiet life, peacefully)
2. outbreak of rebellion,
3. flight of eng, refuge in a fortified building, siege (main point, pivotal moment; depict
qualities of Eng, put themselves to the test, sense of sacrifice, heroism,
quintessential of Br qualities)
4. arrival of Br army, victory
5. British revenge
6. back to normal life
 7. newly married couple return to Britain

control - loss of control - regain of control

Happy ending, both on historical and personal sentimental level. Br reconquered the land
and the couple got happily married.

Made up of two subgenres: Historical and Sentimental Novels.

Love stories are fictional, but they have an historical background. Rebellion puts a stop to
the normal flow of events to allow the fulfillment of the love story; it's seen as a test. In the
end, it proves functional to the happy ending and the construction of identity of the couples.
It gives the characters the chance to discover their feelings, to put themselves to the test in a
dramatic situation, play the role of the hero and heroine, it just takes out the best in them.

Occasion for the love story to take a more favorable turn: usually at the beginning there's a
love triangle, heroin attracted to suitors, at the beginning she more attracted to the less good
one, but then thanks to the siege and situation, she finds out who the good man actually is;
she understands who actually has value; prove his courage, gain the love of the heroin.

Binary structure.
British: heroes, most celebrated virtues (moral integrity, sacrifice), vs
Indians: all renegated to role of villains, hasty and superficial way,
- no psychology or individualization
- excluding Indians from the narrative, mirroring the exclusion of Indians from history
(they’re silenced, not speaking, not their perspective, it mirrors exactly what
happened in history).
- at best one or two negative figures (Nana Sahib, appears in many novels as the
main villain, embodies oriental despotism, undeserved, adorned with jewels, physical
repulsiveness, instinct repulsion for him by women; sexual threat for English women
have to stand during the mutiny);
- if not bad, at best they are helpers, (help them escape, cure them, or provide
information).

Overlooked the contribution of indian, make no mention of it; fulfill ideological function.

THEMES.

● The Siege
Everyday life during it, quite idealized, keeps the idea of heroism, determination and
sacrifice; contrast with rebels' lack of organization. Cohesion and spirit of sacrifice contrast
with the image of Indians as totally unorganized.

● Setting
Emblematic places: Delhi, Cawnpore, Luckow (positive siege, ended in a good way, Eng
held out, symbol of resistance), Meerut. Sometimes in imaginary towns.

The settlement of the British depicted in great detail vs outside the fortification, blurred area,
seem not even to exist, described according to categories of the exotic, in a stereotyped
way; it mirrors the extraneousness of the English people to the local context.

Relief of Lucknow
girls all dressed up and freshen up (quite improbable), after the siege.

● Irrationality of the rebels.

Not talk about the causes, reasons, it just happened; Indian again reduced to silence
(irrational, outburst of violence), no political reasons. Irrational quality of rebels emphasized
through motifs:
- prophecy and the chapati

1857: centenary battle of Plassey (exactly a century after official beginning of ruling of Br in
India); prophecy about the end of British occupation after 100 years.

During the weeks before the mutiny, the chapati (a kind of bread) was passed on from village
to village, as a signal to rebels (the English don't understand)

The mysterious circulation of chapati + unrest of natives + climatic change (may hot winds) =
worry the English, fixed elements that announce the rebellion.

- use of metaphors from natural world: outbreak = explosion of destructive

natural forces, break of a diga, flow of a masslike), metaphor of the tiger
bloodthirsty, or wolves

● “Retribution”
In most accounts the revenge is called like this; euphemism for ferocity of revenge of the Br
(Day of Retribution = day of judgment in the Bible; God gave power to Br to punish, who
killed the christians). Appointed by God, sign of will of God, it was in their density to do so.

● Reassurance
Other side of the coin: need to be reassured (rebellion catalyzed the depenst anxieties of Br;
violence shocked everyone; now awareness of the colonial rule in India is precarious).
Before that, the idea that the empire was eternal, untouchable; now the vulnerability of Br is
highlighted, it shattered the illusion that empire shall have no limits.
Seed of doubt insinuated after that, mindset changes; these novels have a role, they have to
try and remove doubts, they act as a symbolic exorcism. Give back certainties that were
necessary to keep up with imperial mission.

Mutiny: term excludes political dimension + concept of betrayal in it (Marx and Engels chose
the expression First Indian War of Independence).
Reorganization.
Huge change in managing the colony; the East India Company was dissolved and India fell
under the direct control of the British government (British Raj begins). The India Office was
created; a Secretary of State specifically for managing the colony. Local law in the hands of
- a Viceroy of India, semi royal status there,
- of the governor generals.

1876: Queen Victoria, Empress of India, jewel of the Crown (most important possession of
the Br empire).

Look for some causes, reasons for the Mutiny:

1. too much interference with Indian religion; more conservative agenda. Anglicizing
reforms stopped, like all campaigns against religious costumes; they recognized
they had gone too far, trying to impose christianity, interfering with use and costumes
of Indians there
2. lack of consultation between Indians and British (jobs open up to Indians, more a
formal thing; they're drawls into government at least at local level); white-collar vs
blue-collar jobs
white-collar jobs for indian
universities in Calcutta, Bombay, and Madras (Indian Universities Act); but it’s more like a
formal thing, than actual change: exams for those jobs taken in London (almost impossible
for Indians to have access to).

THE SIEGE OF KRISHNAPUR, by Farrel

Imitation of Victorian mutiny novels, to satirize them. It follows conventions to make irony
upon it (esp on empazing of heroism of Br).

It's the retelling of siege of Lucknow, set in fictional town Krishnapur; it's part of a trilogy,
“Empire trilogy”.

Plot.
In months preceding the rebellion
George Fleury, with his sister Miriam arrives in India, become friends with society in the city,
especially with the Dunstaples, the local doctor’s family
- Louise Dunstaple: heroine of the novel, obj of love of Fleury.
- Harry Dunstaple: soldier, bored with his life there

Magistrate of the district, Mr. Hopkins (the “Collector”; strong belief in capacities of the
English); example of Victorian belief in progress. Scenes of life there, life flows peacefully.

Fleury and Harry pay a visit to Hari (Indian prince, the local Maharajah’s son) and they
become friends. He’s influenced by British ideas, admires and imitates the English,
obsession for everything English; photography, his own studio. While his father is the
embodiment of Oriental despotism and lust.
Chapati bread appears in soldiers' encampment; the Collector smells troubles and
immediately starts building mud ramparts around the Residency, rushes to Calcutta but no
one believes him (gets the reputation of being slightly mad; history proves him right). As
soon as he comes back to Krishnapur, an uprising starts and the siege begins, taking refuge
into the Residency.

Description of daily life of British under siege (not idealized representation; they try to
survive). On the hills out of the town, crowded Indians watch defeat Eng (spectacle), as if it
was a festival, music and dances, bonfires.

All difficulties of daily life

● disagreement of distribution of food (confiscate all food and equally distribute or let
capitalism and free market continue to exist? But in this way the poor of the town will
starve; he has to make difficult decisions).
● proper way of disposing of the corpses (both of diseases and injuries); at first they
dig graves, but when the bodies become too many, they throw them in a well or let
them rot in the open air, eaten by wild animals (ex, dogs eating dead bodies, too
many there).
= Civilization starts to vanish.

Life in Krishnapur whittles to the barest essential, cherishing ideas about culture, society,
religion, becoming less and less important (the most important thing is surviving).

Hari comes to town to offer help (collector holds him as a hostage), keeps him prisoner in
the Tiger House (imp detail, paces up and down there; fury of the tiger); disappointment by
him. The collector wants to ward off the heavy bombing of the residency. But it did not work,
from now on he does not have admiration for Eng anymore.

In the midst of the siege, love blossoms. Louise wasn’t attracted to Fleury at first, but now
begins to see his value (opportunity to show his value), she starts falling in love with him.

Lucy, a fallen woman = sexual relationship with a man, but not married. She doesn't want to
enter, because ashamed; Fleury and Louise convince her to come inside and Harry falls in
love with her (in normal circumstances it would have never happened, not allowed not even
to talk with a fallen woman).

Season of the rains arrive; sepoys retire for while; problem of fortifications (made of mud),
collector tries to use any piece of furniture to reinforce it, but rain keeps pouring, when they
run out of furniture use any obj available (books, paintings, artistic obj in general; culture not
valuable anymore). Outbreak of cholera, discussion between 2 doctors of the town about it.

Rain stops. Climax of the siege. The rebels have forced the residents of Krishnapur into their
last fortification: the town banquet hall.

With no more weapons nor resources, the British run out of everything, and shoot anything
they can find from cannons to defend themselves.
Food and cartridges are almost over, and the residents know they have only a few weeks left
before starving.
The British forces arrive, save the town, relief of the siege not present like in the Victorian
mutiny novels. They expected to find a garrison full of enthusiastic cheers, but here there's a
different scene (hungry, smelling skeletons; horrible aspect, dresses with wraps).

Happy ending, 2 couples get married (Fleury-Louise and Harry-Lucy).

Time gap.
Many years go by. Fleury and the Collector bump into each other; the Collector changed a
lot, lost all his faith in his Victorian ideals of British civilization. Fleury asked him about his
huge art collection, but he says he sold it long ago (‘Culture is a sham,’ he said simply. ‘It’s a
cosmetic painted on life by rich people to conceal its ugliness.’; p. 373)

Discovered the pointlessness of culture, civilization; and what true human nature is,
disappointed. At the beginning, embodiment of culture, while now he’s disappointed (actually
bleak ending, myth of eng civilization shattered to pieces, just an illusion). About the folly of
colonialism and the illusion of civilization.

It contradicts the basic aim of the mutiny novels in the Victorian era.

POST-MUTINY INDIA and the

GREAT GAME
Mutiny had a deep impact on british thinking about empire and its people; rejection of
progress, blessing bestowed upon the natives; strengthen the rebellion; British misjudged
the natives; their capacity for moral was limited, so there wa s a change in ideas (policy of
Anglicization was stopped; direction more on technology, transport…). Company disrespect
for traditions and religion, no more interferences are encouraged; disillusionment of the good
savage idea, that they could improve.

Political Reforms.
Queen Victoria becomes Empress of India (1876): beginning of the British Raj

Military Reforms.
After rebellion:
- proportion European to Indians 1:2 (increasing number of Europeans in the army)
- reorganized, within the regiment, a variety of castes, religions, ethnicity to prevent
excessive fraternizing, not so close for fear of another uprising.

Administration reforms.
Indian participation in the administration of the colony (more formal than real possibility).
Indian Civil Service is created (administrators of the colony), before the mutiny,
administration jobs were just appointed with interviews and nepotism; after the mutiny exams
were included (held in London). Now India is governed by the State, not Company anymore
(private enterprise). Formally open to India as well, but made pretty impossible for them to
undertake the exam. Well-educated natives got in and collaborated with the government;
they started to be introduced; at the beginning they were quite few, with time more and more
taking English education, going to London and taking exams.

More and more towards independence; India's participation gave its fruits; the idea of
independence real possibility started to appear; at least they have some local power now.

Turning point, 1885: Indian National Progress is founded.

Basic step toward the Independence; association of British educated Indians, come from all
professions (lawyers, doctors, merchants, administrators); they meet once a year to discuss
issues related to their country.

In the 20th century, it also became a political party; how it’ll impact.
It’s the product of victorian ideals about education, which would eventually emancipate India;
creating a body of indian collaborators, contributed with creation of this association; as a
consequence they want to start applying these ideas to their country as well (freedom,
democracy…); Indian become more westernized as well.

However, these Indians start despising their native culture, a basic problem; Gandhi would
be able to reintroduce love and respect for Indian culture and tradition.

Lord Curzon.
George Nathaniel Curzon, Marquess: important figure, most famous imperialist in the
world, Viceroy of India (1899-1905), great traveler, central Asia, fascinated by oriental life
and geography.

He was convinced that Russia would be a threat to Br in central Asia; one of the main
promoters of the so-called Great Game. He encouraged an oriental mode of rule, with the
advantage of western training (period when the army was at its peak).

The Great Game

Strategic conflict between Russia and Britain. Until now global power has been UK, now
Russia, emerging as a superpower, advancing some pretenses over central Asia, the Br
feels threatened about it.

The Great Game started; like chess, based on espionage, strategic, precursor of the Cold
War; no official battles, wars.

The name became famous thanks to the novel Kim, by Kipling.

Control over central Asia: basic issue, in order to have influence on global scale.
The British’s fear that the Russians could go to Afghanistan to prepare to invade India, it
would be a staging post for Russian invasion. They thought that the ultimate goal of Russia
was to attack India.

Aggressive policy toward Afghanistan, impose strict control to prevent Russians from going
there. Afghanistan paid for it (in between the struggle).

Launch First Anglo-Afghan War (1838)

The British attempted to impose a puppet regime in Afghanistan under their control, but it
didn’t not last long, unstainable in the long run; mobs were attacking the British in the streets
of Kabul and the British garrison was forced to abandon the city.

Not success, losses in money terms too. The British curbed their ambitions in Afghanistan
after the humiliating retreat from Kabul.

Russia continues to advance toward Afghanistan, after decades starting the Second
Anglo-Afghan War.
The Russians sent an uninvited diplomatic mission to Kabul, and Britain was concerned
about the Russian staging post in Afghanistan; so they sent a British diplomatic mission as
well. Mission rejected, Afghanistan didn’t want the British, they got upset and in retaliation
they sent a force of 40.000 men to the border.

The war ended with Abdur Rahama Khan on the throne; a puppet regime was established,
he agreed to let the British maintain Afghanistan under their policy while he consolidated his
position on the throne.

However the zar continued his expansion in Asia and the Great Game shifted to China,
Mongolia and Tibet. They cannot afford to invade India, but the British are obsessed with this
idea.

Before WWI, Britain and Russia were afraid of the power that Germany started to gain in the
Middle East; they decided to make an alliance.

Anglo-Russian convention
Effective stand against Germany (it ended the Great Game); however tension did not stop
there.

Convention established that the UK will hold power over Afghanistan, as long as they
guaranteed not to change the regime. It was solved in favor of the British (managed to get
what they wanted).

Rudyard Kipling
Kipling wrote extensively about India, short stories, novels set in the colony, life there;
touched people's imagination about India, love for the colony, celebration of India (debating if
he has a paternalistic or questioning attitude).
Born in Bombay, his father was a teacher at school of art there, and all the family stayed
there. Raised as all English children in the colony, by Indian servants. Until 5 he speaks
better Hindustani than English; at 6 he's sent to the UK to receive a proper English
education, with his sister to a boarding school; those years, the saddest of his life (suffered,
leaving India). At 17, when he completes his studies, goes back to India, finds a job as a
journalist (not able to afford to go to college). Stayed there for some years, publishing his
first collection of poems, and “Plain tales from the hills”, 1st prose collection. Ambitions of
becoming a novelist, moved to London, and made friends with many intellectuals of the time,
he had a full social life. He travel, South Africa, New Zealand.. then goes back to India.

1892: he gets married to Caroline Blestier, sister of an American publishing agent and friend.
The couple settles in Vermont.

In the meantime, he publishes “The Jungle Book”, a series of stories set in India. Back to the
UK and writes the “White Man's Burden”, “Kim” and then he’s awarded the Nobel prize for
literature (1907).

Controversial figure, so famous involved with India and imperialism, still nowadays debates
about him. His son dies in WWI, then he dies as well in 1936.

KIM.
Set after the 2nd Anglo-Afghan war (1880s-90s). He follows the adventures of the
protagonist Kim, young white boy, father Iris, but he’s an orphan and growing up on the
streets as an Indian boy (he's British by birth, but he's Indian in everything else).

Bildungsroman: all about education of central character, growing, from childhood till
maturity (moral and physical sense).

Kim O’Hara: orphaned son of an Irish soldier and a poor white mother, both have died in
poverty. He’s 13 and earns his living begging in the streets and running small errands on the
streets of Lahore. Occasionally he works for a horse trader (who is also a native spy for the
Great Game) and has a happy and free existence.

One day he meets and becomes friends with a Buddhist Lama, from Tibet, and he’s on the
quest for the River of the Arrows, a river which will free him from sin and concerns.

Kim becomes his chela (pupil), and decides to accompany him on his journey (Grand Trunk
Road, between Pakistan and Northern India; the British pride themselves upon it).

By chance, a regimental chaplain identifies Kim by his birth certificate, sees he's not an
indian boy, asks him why he's’ not in school; he’s taken by the government, put into boarding
school at Lucknow (proper English school). The Lama insists that he should comply,
believes that it's in his best interest, so he even offers to pay for his education (very
generous).
Kim’s not happy, stays there for some years, keeps in touch with secret service, and is
trained in espionage during the vacations from school (sent to Simla, trained to become a
spy, by a sahib there). He’s 18, finished school, ready to start playing the Great Game, as a
spy for the English government.

They're offer him a break before starting; he meets the Lama again, they traveled together to
Himalaya and meet Hurree Babu (Indian man English education, class of westernized
natives; pejorative term); he works for UK as well, searching for two Russian spies who are
crossing the mountains and asks for Kim’s help. They meet the Russians, who, however, are
attracted to a picture that the Lama has (necklace, representing the Wheel of Life), they
want to buy the picture, he refuses and they beat him (beating a holy man something quite
terrible); a fight follows and Kim and Hurree make them escape.
Lama is deeply upset and realizes he's’ on a stray and decides to return to the plains; Kim
really sad about it, he's left alone; manages to steal documents to the Russians and delivers
them to Hurree, he’s skilled, first task accomplished.

He finds the river, Lama is about to drown in the river, Hurree Babu saves him from drowning
and in the end they all get together.

Characters.

➢ Kim: interesting character, shifting, change of identity, between white sahib and
indian as he pleases, always code-switching.
Language, clothes, either Indian or Eng boy; a matter of choice; he’s more at home among
the Indians than the Europeans.

INDIAN SIDE
● Early on in the novel he thinks in Hindustani and his English has a marked Indian
accent.
● He dresses in the Indian fashion and has Indian habits
● He prefers to squat on the floor than sitting on chairs (stereotypical of Indians).
● He knows Indians sayings and proverbs, quite ignorant about European culture, does
not know christianity,
● He does not even write in English,
● He suffers a lot in boarding school, has a greater sympathy to the Lama and Indians
in general.

ENGLISH SIDE
● Interestingly, when he feels in difficulty, or threatened he exploits the fact that he’s a
sahib, he’s very smart about it; when he sees he could have advantages in
identifying as an Englishman he exploits it. He’s quite sly in that, in shifting from
Indian to Sahib personality. He also has a quite imposing way, (ex. talking to indian
boy).

● He’s a white kid; racial nature cannot be altered even by his Indian attitude, which is
basically a thick amount of layers that he puts on (ambivalent figure).
The basic point of the novel is the friendship between Kim and the Lama (sincere, true, both
make sacrifices for each other and learn something from each other; peers).
- Lama: father figure for the boy, an example of goodness
- Kin: reminds the Lama a lot of his son.

➢ Hurree Babu.
Most interesting figure in the novel: Indian man with English education, a middle-class
native, taught in Eng and exposed to Eng ideas.

He can be seen as a metaphor for India: he’s a Babu and as such, he’s represented as a
largely comic figure. He's resourceful, a spy, but largely regarded as a comic character.

For instance, Kim speaks quite bad English, but he’s not made a laughing stock; while
Hurree’s Eng is made fun of (he had an education master from Calcutta, he studied
literature, Shakespeare, Wordsworth…); faulty, pronunciation mocked, strong indian accent.

He speaks in English to show off his learning, but also to reassure himself; language of
colonizers associated with reason (in a situation of danger, fear, he resources to Eng, to
keep at bay Indian fears).

Ex. Chapter 10; ritual performed, to keep bad demons away from him; he had just started his
job as a spy; he’s quite scared and starts speaking to himself in Eng, to calm himself.

He’s full of contrast (mix of englishness and indian); his mind, muggle of confusion.

He also internalized British prejudices against Indian characters (he believes he’s a fearful
man, because the British think that about Indians); tries to hide Indian nature as much as
possible.

To infer a racial prejudice; authority that Kim has (by virtue of his ancestry) is denied to
Hurree (not a serious character, even though he’s studied, he’s educated). However Hurree
shows courage and intelligence; his characterization, less stereotypical and more positive
that one can expect. At the end it’s Hurree who saves the Lama from drowning, showing
strong aspects; he draws upon some stereotypes, but not totally.

The Babus.
Hurree is said to be “the monstrous hybridism of East and West” a man who “has lost his
own country and has not acquired any other” the “unfortunate product of English rule in
India”.

Their identity is quite problematic; split between being Indian by birth and English by
education; outsiders in both communities (not belonging to any community in anglo-india).
Indians have nothing in common with them anymore and due to their appearance, they’re
not allowed access to the British world (completely cut out).
Ch. 13: Hurree denounces “a Government which had forced upon him a white man’s
education and neglected to supply him with a white man’s salary” = contradiction intrinsic in
British policy of anglicization.

In this episode, Hurree pretends to hate the English to gain the confidence of the Russian.
Kiplings does not use a serious tone, but he inserts these sentences (we don't know if he
actually means what he says or not).

Provide Babus with proper salary; policy of Anglicization, access to western culture, not
mean immediate equality with rulers; not grant equality with colonizers; paradoxe.

Kipling’s attitude towards imperialism.

Shift imperialist and questioning attitude. We don’t really know where he stands.

● Pro-imperialism: seen as a good thing, British characters, fair minded, efficient

people; positive image of them.

- Active in supporting Eng presence in India and espionage activities against

Russia; all favor the presence of the English in India.

- Stereotypes of natives: Kim says he can “lie like an Oriental” (typical eastern
thing); laziness, fearfulness, all these traits that are stereotypes.

- Kipling also celebrates ethnological and cultural improvement (achievements

of the Br there).

- In the novel, we can’t find anything about negative aspects of imperialism (ex.
costs for Afghan wars not mentioned; they’re just in the background).
Nationalist movements, present at the time, ignored in the novel (idyllic image
of the colony).

- Many soldiers are mentioned in the bok, but they’re not seen as a bad thing.

- Indian mutiny is referred to as a sort of madness, unjustified and brutal deed.

● Questioning of Imperialism

- In the novel he adopts; different povs, perspectives (ex. pov of the Lama), not
predominant but they're there.

- India is seen as an eternal entity, with governments that come and go, while
the country stays (teeming with vitality and diversity; survives all rulers come
there).
 - Kiplings also writes the Poem Recessional: destiny of all empires is
extinction, they’re destined to die (hint that the Br empire will make no
exception to this rule).
= in contrast with The white man’s burden (exaltation of the mission of colonizing).

He puts the empire into perspective; sympathies for the natives. He loves India, it’s crystal
clear by all his works. Not a sure conclusion to that, to his attitude toward the empire.

The turn of the century

Pseudosciences gained popularity, some specific body traits.

Phrenology (very popular): predict mental features, by examining and measuring physical
features (based on your skull, which is divided in different areas, each area serving a
function; which is all true, but it’s supposed to be taken to the next level).
According to the shape of your nose, back of your head, ecc.. you would have different
characters.

Measurement of your height, chest, details of the skin, eye, hair color… = scientists believed
they could read off your moral traits. Used to define and classify all different races, even
more emphasized by these studies and popularity of this sort of science; body mirrors inner
moral man; helps with the idea of racism.

Social Darwinism
Theory of evolution applied to people as well
1859: Origins of the species
In the 19th century, theories became popular, and then degenerated into social theories. As
it happened in nature, the same thing would happen with racism in society.

Some races better fit to survive than others; more evolved than other races. Atmosphere
channeled into celebration of Anglo-Saxon race; origin of eng people is germanic (Anglos
and Saxons invaded england in Middle Ages).
● Body of Anglo-Saxon man = supposed to have certain features (muscular, athletic,
physical toughness, skills at sports, male man).

● Character of Anglo-Saxon man = mirror of his body (energetic, dary, fairplay, justice,
strong moral sense of duty, patriotism, self discipline, selflessness and bravery) =
race of the anglo-saxons, proved by features of skull and face, exc…

● Character, believed to be more important than pure intelligence (courage, loyalty,

honesty, character as a whole, more imp than intelligence); it stayed in the English
culture (idea that was shaped, created at the turn of the century).
 ● Emphasis on team sports, athleticism = sports cultivated the quality of the ideal
anglo-saxon man; stand by rules, discipline, comradeship, respect for adversary.

System of public schools (Oxford and Cambridge) cultivated this ideology of field games as
very important in the shaping of future administrators of the empire. School boys were given
many magazines to form them; same thing for girls.

1908: Boy Scouts founded, to counter the idea of sickly boys of industrial town (huge
industrial city, boys, not strong, muscular as they were supposed to be, if you live in the city
and do nothing all day, you won’t be like that).

All this = racial justification of Br to rule India.

Idea demanded that every single Englihman embody the ideal Anglo-Saxon man (in reality,
few of them could achieve it); idea of manly man = parallel changes of masculinity in the
motherland (shifting towards a hard tough masculinity).

Distrust in aestheticism, effeminacy, accused to be honomsexual; attack on homosexality:

infamous law, Labouchere Amendment, 1885, according to which homosexually is a crime
(condemned to prison, hard labor); law remained active until 1967; product of the ideology of
the time.

Oscar Wilde, prison and hard labor for some years; process, just for being homosexual;
Alan Touring, same fate.

“Prestige”
Idea of rule by prestige (= every British administrator should maintain a performal and
mastery necessary to sustain domination over the empire; haughtiness; this attitude called
prestige).

Life of British in India started to be more and more playing a part; witnesses of people living
there at the time, constantly playing a part. Feeling of constantly acting on a stage; over a
game of cricket, anything, seems to be the enactment of superiority of British men (always
have to impress Indians). Deferential Response by Indians.

Any deviations from this was seen as insolence (pathological fear that Indians could
challenge authority of British); it should be met with a punishment, physical one (whipping
on the back; particularly effective for simple childlike race; short and sharp punishment that
sent message home; seen a reasonable public school punishment).
Lot of British staying in India experienced whipping as school boys; also legitimized as an
extension of paternalistic action. Also quite widespread, inflicted immediately, appeal against
these sentences pointless; without a proper court sentence.

The Railway.
Situation getting quite out of hand in this sense; a lot of tension in common spaces.
Settlements, towns, separated in every area, different neighborhoods; but there were
common spaces (ex. railway). The British prided themselves for bringing technology in India,
but it became a site for tension. Trains, 3 classes, every British was expected to travel only
in 1st class (sign of their superiority), to keep up the performance of prestige; natives
admitted in 1s class, but this created tensions, conflicts, the British did not like the proximity
with natives.

In many cases, thrown out of the carriages, taken by force, just asked to go to 2nd class.
The problem was not money or class, but race; even rich Indians, not welcome in 1st class
with the English. It created problems, resolved with the creation of carriages reserved for
Europeans only; separated carriages for 1st class.

In towns: separate dining rooms in stations (some towns even separate stations; not to make
them meet, separated physically from the colonized).

Legitimization for British ruling.

As the century went on, it became clearer and clearer than British held in India was due to
the force, not by the civilization mission, benevolence. Not promoting reforms; they were
there to grant security; only the British could keep stability in the colony.
India was thought to be deeply divided in different religions, castes, only if administrated by
the British government peace could be kept there (otherwise it would fall into anarchy); much
more practical reason than victorian ideals, saving souls, civilize...

A fossilized world.
As the century progressed, English staying in the colony was seen as more and more
archaic, outdated, old-fashioned (fossilized world). Completely stuck in the 19th century
world; while progress in the rest of the world.

WWI: watershed.
After the war, the aristocratic lifestyle was not revived anymore, life became more simple,
even rich in the UK; while in India they kept their lifestyle as sahibs, with many servants (13
or 14; while the average number in the motherland was from 2 to 5 servants). To
newcomers, life there started to appear really archaic.

Rigid etiquette, they clang to it. For example the aristocratic habit of changing into
evening dress for dinner (in the UK, no one did that anymore); even when they dine on
their own (formal); keep up the facade of being aristocratic, haughty.

Men dining with jackets, even in the jungle = stereotypical idea of western man. Tableware,
silver cutlery, it seemed ridiculous to newcomers (they were like fossils of the Victorian
Era, old world).

The Club.
= place to reinforce your identity.
Even in the smallest settlements, placed to confirm their social and racial identity.
Newcomers were introduced to many anachronistic social patterns (going to the club,
playing cricket, never interacting with Indians; society dominated by conventions).

The Anglo-Indian official

 =
a caricature of a member of the British upper-classes during the Victorian Era.

Memsahibs.
Responsibility for keeping up performance in society was a man’s job, while within the
house, this responsibility was placed on women's shoulders (housewives keep up facade in
the domestic sphere).

Manuals on how to manage their household, strict in the routine prescribed; they were
advised to start the day with an inspection parade (inspect servants rooms too); obsession
with cleaning, which degenerated from the 1930s, with the discovery of the existence of
germs and bacteria. It made problems of Indian servants in the house even more acute; all
these things degenerated in the course of the 20th century. Battle with the invisible, Indian
servants = potential carriers of germs. Feeling of living under siege; anxiety, fear, anger.

Idea of the women hysterical for cleaning, not a good reputation. Acquired this haughty
manners, queens of their house with a lot of servants, having to deal with many people
beneath you, arrogant attitude; reputation with superior distance, hardened manner and
body; not quite pretty either.

Reputation for indulging affairs during hot season; for a long period, spend time in hill
stations (women and children for some months, enjoy cool climate); always having affairs
with soldiers (the adulterous memsahib became a stereotype).

Backwards world.
It was thought that the society in India had a low moral standard, they went back to 18th
century ideals. Actually probably the society there was no more no less than the middle
class society in the UK; but smaller society, gossip circulated more easily.

Example: body servants, disturbing for people in the motherland. After WWI, they were
given up in the UK; while in India, the British kept being washed and dressed by their
servants, not having a good impression at home, because they developed a different
sensibility.

In the 20th century, India failed to keep up with progress in the motherland; no sewage
system, no plumbing system. Technological advances failed to keep up. ex Calcutta, only
few Br men able to connect (but no running water).

They remained petrified in the previous era.

For example: no private space, it remained open to the presence of servants, all this
old-fashioned, archaic, did not develop a sense of body privacy.

Moral and conformist lifestyle, an impact on sexual behavior as well (sexual codes
restrained in Victorian Era); now it’s even stricter. Having an affair with an Indian was seen
as a betrayal of your race, deeper than normal morality (it offended racial morality; beyond
betrayal of marriage); also indicated perversion. Idea that black races were naturally
attracted to white races; justification for charging with rape against Indian men.
Nationalist movements.
They started to take over in this period. Engine of change was the class of westernized
Indians (Babus).

Watershed for nationalism = WWI.

India contributed a lot to the world effort of Eng (huge army form India employed during war);
also money matters, exploited a lot. They fought, wanted to be paid back; they were forced
to take part in the war, they wanted recognition. They thought it to be the first step toward
self government; however Eng, no intention to give it to them.

They had to fight, traveled, went far away; the war exposed them to new ideas; conscious of
their role, aware of their importance; they came back home to India questioning the
assumptions of the empire.

Perception of the empire changed, the war blew to jingoism (extreme patriotism) in the
motherland and in the colony as well. They understood what war actually was; many were
disillusioned in their patriotism, and the empire suffered from it.

Evangelicalism and liberal ideals lost all force; benevolent empire, it was lost sight of, it was
discredited. Idealism about the goodness of the empire was lost. People at home, not
perceive the empire as something to be proud of anymore. After the war Britain was still the
global power, it came out of the war as a winner; and the empire = backbone of the power
of the UK (nothing changed), but the ground for change was being prepared.

Indian National Congress (1885).

In the 20th century: this congress emerged as a political organization, leader of the
independence.
The English, creating the Babu class, created a power that could challenge their rule:
exposing Indians to Br ideas, inevitably they would want to apply those ideas to their country
too; turn language and ideals of the British against them.

Actually the British tried to do something to recognize the contribution of Indians during the
war: Government of India Act (1919).
Introduced the principle of a dual mode of administration involving:
- elected Indian legislators,
- appointed British officials
At least at provincial level, they set in motion some changes; some not-controversial
portfolios handed over to Indians (agriculture, local government, health, education, public
works); while more important ones, more sensitive matters (like finance, taxes, public order,
army) were kept by the English.

Rowlatt Act: series of laws, facilitate clamp-down on subversion. It gave the Viceroy’s
government and the police extraordinary powers to sedate revolts (ex. not necessary trial to
keep rebels in prison).
A Nation-wide strike began by Indians.

Gandhi
Gandhi, member of the congress, a lawyer, leader at the time; proposed a hartal (a
traditional demonstration of disapproval; strike when schools, shops, everything was closed,
to allow people to go to the streets and manifest against something).

Struggle: Congress vs the government.

In many cases, marches became riots; manifestants started attacking shops, policemen, and
degenerated into violence. Even Gandhi was shocked by the depth of Indians’ hate towards
the English that he had released.

Massacre of Amritsar (April 1919).

Most destructive riots: in Amritsar, where Europeans were attacked and killed by Indians in
the streets. The British took the situation under control; British commander Reginald Dyer
arrived and gave instructions to impose martial laws and restore the peace at all costs; he
could do basically whatever he wanted, with the excuse of sedition.

He ordered the army to block the doors, the entrances of the square where a demonstration
was taking place and to fire into the crowd; it was a massacre.

Number of casualties given by the British was falsified (they estimated 379 victims),
according to the Indians, they were more than 1000. Public opinion was shocked, scandal
followed; they didn’t just fire on people, also had Indians flogged; ordered some rebels to
crawl on their bellies on the street where a woman missionary was attacked some days
before.

They put them in a position of shame and gave them cruel punishments; these methods not
appreciated anymore, sensibility started to change. 5 days after the shooting, Gandhi called
off the hartal, the strike; things had gone too far.

Satyagraha
Indians realized it was impossible to win over the British without violence, they would always
win. Gandhi found a third way in “Satyagraha”, trying to oppose English with peaceful
resistance. Huge benefits, it depicted the British as very violent, repressive; it engaged
sympathies.

Gandhi convinced the leader of the congress to start a non-cooperation movement, in

support of swaraj (= independence). He took the congress away from the idea of terrorism,
of a real revolution (like Russia, this kind of revolution, popular at the time); he understood it
was not the solution, it would only lead to massacres. He thought of this option, which
became very popular.

In this way, the Congress was turned from an elite organization to a mass movement.
However the government kept the upper hand to mass arrest, (including Gandhi himself, in
1922; released after two years). There was a mass arrest of the leaders, but the movement
gained more and more popularity.

Salt march (1930) = Gandhi's most famous campaign.

Protest against the taxes the government had put on salt. They did this march for over a
month (400 km); when they arrived at Dandi, they broke the law by making their own salt
(forbidden, they had to buy it from the Eng).

It was well-thought, well-suited to act as a protest (attitude of deferential reference of the

Indians toward the British), with this, they did not comply with this mechanism anymore.

Indian body: from submissive space to a site of resistance, without using violence. They
opposed the rule without having to fight, without creating violence. The British felt frustrated
by this attitude, so they often had to resort to physical violence, to make the Indians obey;
this would undermine their facade of superiority (exposed themselves as brutes); it
undermined even more their legitimation of being there. Their presence there was justified
just by their army, by the force.

The Congress vs. the Muslim League.

The Indian National Congress failed to attract Muslims.
1906: Muslim League was founded, leader M. A. Jinnah

• The Muslim League disputed the claim of the Congress to represent all people of India,
while the Congress disputed the Muslim’s League’s claim to represent all Muslims.
• Clashes between Muslims and Hindus increased in scale and ferocity.
• The idea of a partition after independence began to circulate.
• 1939: WWII broke out = it will accelerate the process already in motion.

Thinking that a Muslim state and Hindu state would be created after gaining independence.

Shooting an Elephant, George Orwell (1936).

Short story.

Orwell was a journalist, but he also worked as a police officer in India for some years
(1922-1927). seed in number of countries' stations; at first model of compliant servant, with
time, he realized the absurdity of British presence in the colony. In 1928 he resigned and
went back to the UK, living among the poor.

This short story describes the experience of an English officer (possibly Orwell himself);
written in 1st; protag with no name. He's called to shoot an aggressive elephant.

Plot.
One of the tame elephants which the locals own, has gone mad and has been wreaking
havoc throughout the bazaar; it has destroyed a hut, killed a cow, and raided osme fruit stalls
for food. The narrator, a sthe British officer of the village, is called to do something about it.
He gets his rifle and go seeing what he can do. When he arrives, the elephant has trampled
a coolie (=native laborer), killing him; so he sets out to search for the elephant. When he
finds it, its madness has passed, and now it looks harmless, calm, eating grass in a field (like
a cow), not dangerous anymore. Moreover, it’s a huge beast, very valuable (used a means
of transportation). He doesn’t want to kill it. Meanwhile, the crowd of local people has
gathered around the scene; the narrator realizes that the crowd expects him to shoot the
animal. Facade of being protectors of the peasants; now they have to lay by it, to be the
strong man and act the part.

Dilemma: follow instinct, reason, or respect his role.

But at that moment I glanced round at the crowd that had followed me. It was an immense
crowd, two thousand at the least and growing every minute. It blocked the road for a long
distance on either side. I looked at the sea of yellow faces above the garish clothes-faces all
happy and excited over this bit of fun, all certain that the elephant was going to be shot.
They were watching me as they would watch a conjurer about to perform a trick. They did
not like me, but with the magical rifle in my hands I was momentarily worth watching. And
suddenly I realized that I should have to shoot the elephant after all. The people
expected it of me and I had got to do it; I could feel their two thousand wills pressing me
forward, irresistibly. And it was at this moment, as I stood there with the rifle in my hands,
that I first grasped (understood) the hollowness, the futility of the white man's
dominion in the East. Here was I, the white man with his gun, standing in front of the
unarmed native crowd--seemingly the leading actor of the piece; but in reality I was only
an absurd puppet pushed to and fro by the will of those yellow faces behind.

He sympathizes with local people, oppressed by English people; he knows they hate him,
they make his job hard. He resents them as well (their relation is ambiguous).

I perceived in this moment that when the white man turns tyrant it is his own freedom
that he destroys. He becomes a sort of hollow, posing dummy, the conventionalized figure
of a sahib. For it is the condition of his rule that he shall spend his life in trying to impress
the "natives," and so in every crisis he has got to do what the "natives" expect of him. He
wears a mask, and his face grows to fit it. I had got to shoot the elephant. I had committed
myself to doing it when I sent for the rifle. A sahib has got to act like a sahib; he has got to
appear resolute, to know his own mind and do definite things. To come all that way, rifle in
hand, with two thousand people marching at my heels, and then to trail feebly away
(andarmene debolmente via), having done nothing--no, that was impossible. The crowd
would laugh at me. And my whole life, every white man's life in the East, was one long
struggle not to be laughed at.
They’re stuck there playing a part; Indian people have no freedom, but neither do sahibs =
they have to conform to conventionalised image as well (not spontaneous, not do what
reason tells them).

His fear = to appear ridiculous in the eyes of the natives.

He shoots the elephant from a distance; it feels like murder; long and painful agony of the
elephant (huge animal, hard to kill). He kills it, and eventually dies. He aknowledges at the
end of the essay that he did it just to not look like a fool in fron of the natives (I often
wondered whether any of the others grasped that I had done it solely to avoid looking a fool).

- On one hand, he sympathizes with the natives

- On the other hand, he has a job to do, position to uphold, if he fails to do his duty,
Indians would despise him

The Burmese people don’t make his job any easier, because they resent his position as an
oppressor and this creates a cycle of escalating mistreats on both sides. Relationships
seem hopeless, ill-treatments. Imperialism is bad for everyone. Indians have no freedom, but
neither do sahibs.

Emerging from this episode = if you're compassionate, you look as if you are weak (people
think they could rebel), colonial power in danger. Being compassionate (not killing the
elephant; being a good man) = being weak (terrible thing; imperialism in danger).

Common image:
- sahib as the strong protector of the
- weak childish feminized Indians

A Passage to India.
Published in 1934, by E.F. Forster. Set in the 1920s, in a fictional city Chandrapore. It gives
a vivid picture of life at the ime; atmosphere, mutual suspicion of the colonizers and the
colonized. It explores the clash between Western and Eastern cultures.
Is a passage to India possible ? Contact between the English and the Indians.

Novel divided in 3 parts; each one corresponds to the 3 seasons of Indian weather
1. Mosque: the cool weather
2. Caves: the hot weather
3. Temples: the rains
Each climate = symbolic meaning.

I. Mosque.
The protagonist Aziz, Indian muslim, widower, raising his two children alone; he’s a doctor, a
Babu, western education, middle-class, respected member of society. His boss is English,
treats him badly, but he's an admirer of English culture.
At the local mosque, he meets an English elderly woman (Mrs. Moore); he’s surprised she
has no prejudices against Indian costumes, takes off her shoes, tradition, sign of respect;
acknowledges the presence of God in the mosque. She has a young friend (Miss Adela),
both quite open minded and curious about anything indian; just arrived from England. there
to visit Mrs. Moore’s son (Ronny), who works in the court of the city, he’s the city magister;
not only to visit, but Adela has to marry him (they're engaged). She's there to see if life in the
colony would suit her.

They want to know and become friends with Indians, Adela, excited, see the “real India” (not
just club, eng neighborhood). Obj of interest for newcomers.

Fielding, headmaster of a local college for India,; he’s the only British resident who
entertains friendly relationships with Indians. He organizes a party, invites them and
introduces them to Indians (also Aziz). They all have a good time, Fielding and Aziz become
friends. Aziz wants to please Eng and promises to take Miss Moore and Adela to see
Malabar Caves. Things run smoothly, but then Ronny, Adela’s fiancé, comes and breaks the
party (not fraternizing with locals, not happy about Adela's open attitude, very rude toward
Aziz).

II. Caves.
Aziz promised to take them there, wants to keep his prime, arranges the trip (at great
expense from himself), worries, everything to be perfect, he wants to make a good
impression. The day of the trip comes, Fielding was supposed to come with them, but he
missed the train; so only Aziz, Adela and Mrs. Moore go to the caves. They explore the
cave; in the 1st one, Ms Moore feels dizzy, has a feeling of claustrophobia, she stops there
(sudden change after the cave, she’ll never be the same again); deep shock, comes out and
stays on her own.

Adela and Aziz continue on alone, with the guide and they start doing small talk; she asks
him if he has more than one wife (stereotypes, sees him in a stereotypical way; he’s upset at
the question). He goes into another cave alone to compose himself, calm down, when he
comes back, he can’t find Adela anymore. The guide says she entered the cave alone and
never saw her again. He searches for her, finds her binoculars broken on the ground and
gets quite worried. At a certain point he looks down the hills, and sees her leaving with an
Englishman without even saying goodbye. He's confused about what happened, but decides
to take Ms Moore with him and go back to Chandrapore.

He’s arrsted as he gets off he train; charged with sexual assault, Adela accused him of
raping her in the caves; punishment for Indians was death by hanging. Weeks before the
trial, release the tensions accumulated between English and Indian people.

Even though there’s an Indian judge, he's afraid of the reaction of colonizers and is ready to
believe Adea’s version of events (even if Aziz is a respectable member of the Indian
community and there’s no evidence against him). There seems to be no hope for Aziz; only
Fielding believes in his innocence and for that, he’s ostracized by the English community.
Also Mrs. Moore is prone to believe in Aziz’s innocence, but she has become apathetic,
irritable, after experience in the cave; it ruined her faith in mankind, she has completely
changed, no reactions anymore, even though she believes in his innocence (she dies on
board of ship that was to take her back to England).

After the caves Adela was in a brain fever, then she becomes confused, she's interrogated
during the process, she has a vision, realizes she had a shock similar to that experienced by
Ms Moore. She believed someting bad happened to her in the caves, and when she came
back, the English led her on to say that she was raped. So during the process she says she
was mistaken and the case is dismissed and he's freed.

All the English are infuriated with her, because she took back her word, it's seen as a
betrayal to the race, they wanted to see Aziz hanged. She’s left isolated from the community,
and even her engagement is broken (Ronny can’t marry a woman ostracized by the
community). The only person still kind to her is Fielding, she stays at his home until a ticket
to go back to England is arranged. She goes back to London.

Aziz is embittered by everything that has happened, and has lost faith in justice and English.
He embitters also toward Fielding, who’s friend of Adela now, because he asks him not to
sue her for infamy (friendship between them is ruined as well). Aziz is convinced Fielding
wants to marry Adela and therefore he wants her to remain rich (his suspicions are
confirmed by the fact Fielding too goes back to England).

III. Temples.
Gap of 2 years.
Aziz lives in a quiet isolated place, where he works as the local prince’s doctor. He keeps his
children away from direct contact with the English, and becomes a nationalist.

Fielding comes back to India, on a tour to see the situation there. He has a wife now, Ms
Moore’s daughter, Stella. Aziz meets Fielding again, and becomes more friendly, since he
didn’t marry Adela. They still respect each other, but they cannot be friends, not until India
will be ruled by Br; there will always be tensions and misunderstandings between them
(political background will always be between them).

- Conclusion: An impossible “Passage to India”

● Individual destiny is closely linked to national history.

Aziz and Fielding could potentially be friends, but the fact that they belong to the colonizer
and the colonized makes their friendship impossible

● Relationship between British and Indians are impossible:

Social and cultural barriers.
British rule of India puts them on two different levels (Fielding belongs to rulers, superior
level), they cannot be peers, they cannot be equals (which is the basis for friendship)
 ● Initial desire that Adela had, to see real India, it's an illusion; disappointed about
everything that happened; she had hoped to plunge into a new exotic country, find
new friends, but then she finds herself in a flat copy of the life she left at home, if
not worse.

What happened in the caves?

Everything is darkness, a terrifying evil there, a “terrifying echo”. Mrs. Moore undergoes a
change, understands a terrible truth: “everything exists, nothing has value. If one had
spoken vileness in that place, or quoted lofty poetry, the comment would have been the
same: ou-boum.”

She realizes we're just passing figures in the universe, which is indifferent to man, everyone
is alone (loneliness and oppression), each man alone in the solitude of his personal cave.

In the caves, one’s soul looks at itself and realizes all the horror. Shock has to do with the
horror of human nature itself and the indifference of the universe.

GORA.
by an Indian author, Rabindranah Tagore, poet, songwriter, composed hymns of India and
Bangladesh. He’s considered India’s greatest poet.

1913: awarded nobel prize for literature, first man from Asia to receive it.
Founded a university near Calcutta called “The Great Sentinel” by Gandhi; he never steered
into politics, not involved in political action, man of literature, not directly into politics; famous
for rejecting the knighthood conferred on him as a sign of protest against the massacre of
1919. He was to be called “Sir” but he refused, a sign of protest.

It deals with nationalism and relations with the British. Indian perspective, but the novel deals
with the British imperial presence in the colony.

Novel itself.
Originally written in Bengali, then translated in English (1st translation: 1924). It was
serialized in a magazine 1907-1910; in installments.

Set in Calcutta, at the end of the 19th century, both with Hindu-British relations, but also
conflicts within Indian society itself, dramatizing internal conflicts at the time.

It deals with division within the Indian community: at the time, at the turn of the 20th century,
society in Bengal was divided in 2 wings: one more westernized and the other more
conservative.

● Brahmo: westernized indians, led by monotheists brahmo sect

● Noe-Hinduism: conservatives, attached to their traditions, against the colonizers;
nationalist, xenophobia, intolerant of anything outside their traditions.
Nationalism in one of the main themes: a political novel.

Plot.

It follows conventions of English novels. Parallel love stories 2 couples of lovers. Gora and
Sucharita / Binoy and Lolita.

Gora: protagonist, fair-skinned young Indian man (Gora =”whitey”). He's an upper class
Hindu, but comes from a Brahmo family; received European education, English school,
university degree, and is fluent in English. Differently from his family, he’s an orthodox Hindu
nationalist: he strictly observes traditions, and practices as a stance against colonizers.
Dressing in traditional costumes, all rules of his caste. It’s all a statement against English
imperial rule. He doesn’t do it because he really believes in Hinduism, but just to go against
the English (his mission, to save India).

Gora’s best friend Binoy; they share the same views and they are collaborators for
nationalist newspapers.

One day, Binoy meets an elderly man, Poresh, and his adoptive daughter, Sucharita. They
are members of the Brahmo sect
Binoy is charmed by Poresh’s family, especially by his 3 daughters, and becomes a regular
visitor of the house. Gora does not approve of his best friend’s new habits. However, he
goes to Poresh’s house to get to know the family.
Gora arrives on the scene dressed as a staunch Hindu, is very aggressive and refuses to eat
the food they offer him for purity reasons, thus offending the family’s sensibility. Sucharita, in
particular, is disturbed by Gora’s extreme Hindu fanaticism; he received a western
education, she asks herself, why does he behave like that; she's disturbed by his aggressive
ways.

At Poresh’s house, Gora has a fight with Haran, a schoolmaster very popular for his
command of English and his western philosophical expertise; he’s also Sucharita’s suitor.
Haran despises Hindu traditions and has a violent discussion with Gora
Gora’s passionate speech about India moves Sucharita; she never heard anyone speak with
such passion about something. Now, she starts to find Haran irritating, dull, and
narrow-minded
Sucharita’s sister, Lalita, is instead extremely irritated with Gora. She likes Binoy, but she
finds his devotion to Gora annoying. She determines to make Binoy “a person in his own
right” (p. 123), and to make him do things against Gora’s wishes.

Poresh’s family is invited to a party by an English administrator, Brownlow; on this occasion

Poresh’s daughters are expected to act an English verse drama, put on a show for the
English people there; family, consider themselves lucky of such occasion, they want to
please the English; Gora is outraged, not find it a privilege.

Binoy feels uneasy, as participating in the show seems to him a betrayal against Gora and
their own political convictions; but he’s in love with Lalita and gives in, and participates in the
show.
During the rehearsal she changes her mind, becomes aware of the situation of her people.
Meanwhile, Sucharita gets engaged with haran to please her family.

Gora sets off on a journey across rural India; he just wants to know his country. After a few
days, he's arrested for helping Indian students against a police attack; condemned to a
month’s imprisonment by Brownlow.

News of Gora’s arrest arrives; the play is supposed to take place in that very evening.
They’re sorry for Gora, but they do not feel they have the right to leave. Binoy is shocked by
the news and can’t stay in the house of the man who arrested his best friend.

Lalita has to choose, even though it’s more difficult for her: either she stays and performs,
going against her love and convictions or she leaves with him, going against social
conventions and her family (it would be a scandal). After a struggle with herself, she follows
Binoy on the steamship, provokes scandal, but now she totally shares his positions. Thanks
to iny and Gora she has become aware of her people’s social and political oppression.

The play takes place anyway; some weeks pass. Gora, still in prison, Sucharita, breaks off
the engagement with Haran; intensified feelings for Gora. Community of the Brahmo,
rejected her for breaking off engagement; only her adoptive father, Poresh, respects her
decision.

He reveals to her that her parents had left her a substantial inheritance, with which he had
bought her a house. Poresh gives Sucharita her inheritance and her house. She is now
independent, but alone.
Lalita and Binoy get married, going against their families and communities. Neither of them
changes their religious convictions: unity in diversity.
“They forgot whether they were Hindu or Brahmo. That they were human spirits, both of
them, was the sole thought that blazed in their hearts” (p.390)
Only Sucharita and Poresh are sympathetic and attend the marriage

Sucharita and Lalita, open a school for girls in her new house; not seen in a good light in
society. Gora comes out of prison, sentence ended; he's not happy about Binoy’s marriage.
He feels his friend betrayed their ideals; he’s very attached to his Hinduism; so he moves
away from him.

He's in love, but he decides to devote his life to nationalist cause; he doesn't want to marry
anyone, let alone a Brahmo girl. Sucharita’s aunt takes advantage of Gora’s decision to
make Sucharita marry a suitor of her choice. She forces Gora to write a letter to Sucharita,
rejecting her and saying that as a Hindu he does not approve of a girl remaining unmarried
for too long. Grief-stricken by Gora’s letter, the girl gives in to her aunt’s insistences. Yet the
letter expresses Gora’s rational convictions, not his true feelings

Gora’s struggle ends only when he makes a discovery. His father tells him the truth about his
origins: Gora was adopted, he is the child of an Irishman killed during the 1857 Rebellion.
“In a single instant, Gora felt his entire life become like an extraordinary dream. The
foundation of his life [...] was utterly destroyed. [...] He had no mother, no father, no country,
no caste, no name, no deity.”
At first Gora feels bewildered and lost, but then a feeling of freedom arouses in him. By
finding out not to be a high-caste Hindu, but an Irish foundling, Gora realizes that love for
India and nationalism is not rigid attachment to strict traditions. He opens up to a more
inclusive, open-minded view
“Today I am free! ….. Today I have become what I earlier strove day and night to become,
but without success. Today I have become an Indian – Bharatvarsha. In me there is no
hostility towards any community, Hindu, Muslim or Christian. Today, I belong to every
community of this Bharatvarsha, I accept everyone’s food as mine.”
He feels finally free to follow his heart. He rushes to Poresh, where he finds Sucharita,
fortunately still unmarried and they get married. He becomes friends with Binoy again, goes
back to his adoptive mother and expresses his gratitude (she always tried to make him give
up Indian stunge costumes, he never really appreciated her).

Problem: not only the presence of colonizers, but full criticism about Indians themselves.
Some episodes, Indians oppress other Indans in the context of imperialism.
They embody totally British ideals, lost love for their country (that’s the problem of India);
they parrot colonizers’ ideals, forget about your country.

Episode of the steamer (ch.10).

Gora goes to the Gange (a sacred place for Hindus), to take his ritual holy bath; the steamer
is crowded with hordes of Indians, many lose their balance and fall into the water; people
miserable, he tries to help as much as possible.

1st class deck, a British man and a Babu, laugh at the poor people below. Gora is not
surprised about it, but is outraged that it’s the Babu the first one to mock them. So Gora
shouts at them they should be ashamed of themselves.

Babu: prejudices about Indians interiorized, lost all identification with their motherland. Not
even gained equality with Eng; lost their country, but not gained another one. Babu comes
out the scene even worse than the Englishman (who eventually apologized), while he didn’t.

Compared to Kim: the idea of the Irish foundling makes it easy to read it as the subversive
reworking of Kipling’s colonial text. According to Tagore India must be reformed from the
inside, not by foreigners who do not know its story and its “soul”. He states the importance of
gaining back one’s Indianness, as a means to contrast the English and their influence.

Power and wealth of India, stored with themselves, no need to parrot the English, degrade
themselves. On the contrary, many Indians embraced everything British and extraneous to
their native culture.

Haran is the quintessential Bengali ‘babu’: his role is that of the ‘ideological villain’: he
always argues with Gora.
Haran’s knowledge of Christian theology amazes Brownlow, whom Haran regards as a
friend, but he is mistaken, for a sahib could never conceive of being friends with an Indian.
Haran wishes to reform his country according to British ideas, which he learned to parrot.
Lot of problems, but the solution starts from within; loving your country, then solving the
problems.

Idea of inclusion and tolerance.

Critique of extreme nationalism, in favor of a more inclusive attitude. Gora’s Irishness marks
the protagonist’s move away from a narrow Hindu patriotism to a more inclusive perspective.
True nationalist: gives up rigid and narrow-minded ideas, transcends all barriers of caste and
religion (India’s always been characterized by diversity; good thing according to the author).
Idea of multiplicity and difference even in unity (marriage stands as a symbol for it).

The novel ends with the celebration of a tolerant humanism, it’s against extremism. Ironically,
it’s in losing everything, every mark of identity, that he becomes free to claim his identity as a
true Indian.

Moreover, the reader knows about his orig from the beginning (= it creates irony about how
he behaves throughout the novel).

Novel destabilizes the notion of identity; mutable multiple nature, not fixed product; one’s
identity, product of a process, not fixed, but changeable, open to influence.

Transformation is possible, but the world they inhabit is fixed. Change in the novel is
possible only for individuals. There is no resolution for the colonial problem, nor for the
religious and social divisions inside the Indian community. No real general resolution, no
recipe; good thing, not to have a solution for everything, the important thing is to have a
starting point.

Gora is not a novel that articulates a problem and then sets about solving it: “the novel’s
immense rhetorical power lies in its cogent articulation of questions, uncertainties and
contradictions, rather than in any attempt to provide facile solutions to prevailing social
problems.”
Gora can be read as a celebration of the unresolved and the incomplete: “a humble – and
also beautiful – recognition of our limited understanding of a vast world.”

Independence and Partition

WWII, turning point (1939: the war starts); it accelerated the dynamics of nationalist
movements.

The war broke out, the Viceroy of India announced the entrance of India in the war without
even consulting provincial governments.

The unity of the empire is questioned; 1st mistake the British made. The Congress of
India was stunned by this automatic declaration of war and protested. All Congressmen
resigned from their posts.

Gandhi would not accept a war fought for democratic reasons, for freedom. The Indians felt
they could not be part of it, when such freedom was denied to them (contradiction).
As the war progressed, he intensified demand for independence.

December 1941: entrance of Japan in WWII, fought in Asia as well. They captured
Singapore in February 1942, advanced though Asia, arrived at the borders of India in April
(in this case the threat actually arrived there); they destroyed the strong facade the
English had built; they fell under the Japanese; this defeat had a tremendous impact on the
Raj; it exposed their fragility.

Indians took advantage of it. “Quit India” campaign launched by Gandhi (in August 1942),
encouraging Indians to leave their jobs, join the movement, to paralyze the country; they
cut the railway, telegraph communication; paralyzed the economy, the transports. Their final
goal was to bring the British to the negotiating table, to make a deal for independence;
however it backfired; as it happened in 1919, the British responded with violence (Gandhi
and hundreds of Congress leaders were arrested and imprisoned). Riots, mobs and protests
in the cities were fired upon.

Order was restored in 6 weeks; India would remain a safe base for Allied forces in Asia for
the rest of the war. However the use of such force caused further damage to the legitimacy
of British position in India, their prestige facade. They claimed to be there to maintain order,
but they acted outside that law they were supposed to enforce (censorship, firing on
manifestants); not respecting the principle of freedom and democracy they were parading.
Fatally damaged their authority in india.

After 1942: it was clear that British ruling of India was merely relying on the army; they
forced their position as rulers.

Gandhi was eventually released from prison (he was in bad health); the British were not
happy to do it, but they did not want him to die in prison, because it would make him a
martyr.

INA (Indian National Army), to overthrow the Raj, supported by the Japanese; it was a part
of a wider plan of anti-European propaganda throughout Asia. Official data is missing, but
the government in India took INA very seriously and they enacted a close surveillance of
Indian units and inspection of troop’s mail. After the surrender of Japan, INA troops were
charged with treason and many were executed.

By the end of the war, the British understood that they could not keep India anymore; they
gave clear instruction that the power would soon be transferred into the Indians’ hands. So
Gandhi called off the protest and many political prisoners were released.

The British empire came out of the war as a winner, regained all colonies lost at the
beginning. Britain survived the conflict without losing territories, because they had been
reliant on the USA to regain their colonies; they would have never defeated the Japanese on
their own. They were a debtor nation (both in economic terms, but also in a more ideological
way; American reconquered colonies in Asia for the British).

They had lost their prestige, also at a more practical level; all war effort had eaten up the
English money, they were almost bankrupt; winners, but moneyless basically (cost money,
maintaining an empire especially at this point; maintain army, permanent stations in India); it
was not convenient anymore.

Causes:
● debt toward the States
● failure in India (the attack of the Japanese exposed their fragility), lost the impression
of being powerful, failing in protecting Australia as well (dominion, felt the British did
not protect them in an appropriate way; only thanks to the Americas they were not
invaded).

● debt towards the colonies (contributed in money and manpower for the war).

The loss of financial independence reduced the government's freedom of choice when it
came to making decisions about the empire’s future.

In the meantime USA and Russia emerged as new superpowers; UK not anymore. The USA
had strong anti-imperialist feelings, democratic ideology; but also practically, the British
empire was an obstacle to the expansion of American industry.

Moreover the British had compromised themselves, when America entered the war (1941);
they signed an agreement (the Atlantic Charter), but could not get out of it. It was an
idealistic statement of anglo-american war objectives, signed by Churchill and Roosevelt.
They pledged themselves to uphold ‘the rights of all peoples to choose the form of
government under which they live.’

It challenged British rule over the colonies. They signed it only because they desperately
needed help and support, but then at the end of the war it was not possible to go back.

By 1945, it was clear that the empire should take a precise direction: the colonies would
slowly be transformed into self-governing dominions. It was taken for granted that the
infant states would grow up within the Commonwealth. However, impatient local politicians
interpreted delays as cold feet on part of the English, procrastination that could provoke the
kind of popular disturbances Britain was so desperate to avoid.

Interestingly, the British empire was dismantled with cordiality, (a cordial withdrawal), they
were brilliant in the way they acted; they understood the situation had changed, before it was
too late (not without problems).

Plan: Britain would no longer have to dispense money to maintain a garrison in India and, if
Britain got the terms it desired, commerce would continue to flourish. However, it was not
clear who would inherit the Raj: Congressmen claimed that they represented all Indians,
but Muslims were increasingly dissatisfied.

The Congress and the Muslim’s League fought; Muslim and Hindu homelands were called
for; violence escalated; especially in Northern India. It appeared to be moving toward a civil
war. The British wanted to quit as quickly as possible, because the situation was impossible
to be kept under control.
March 1947: Lord Mountbatten (from a royal family) arrived in India as a representative for
being last Viceroy, to hand India over. He was called to prepare the plan for independence
and partition of India.

The original idea was that power was to be handed over in June 1948, but in the light of
gradual disintegration of public order the date was anticipated. Mountbatten thought it
was necessary to quit immediately. A plan for partition was agreed.

June 1947: Indian Independence Act was signed. Mounbatte announced the partitioning
of the Raj into two independent, sovereign States: India (Hindu state) and Pakistan (Muslim
state).

15 August 1947: Partition. The border India-Pakistan was determined by a British

Government-commissioned report (the Radcliffe line; named after the British lawyer that was
called to complete the task).

The commission took so long to decide on a final border, that the two nations were granted
independence even before a defined boundary between them was established.
Independence was declared before a well defined division was agreed upon. The British
wanted to rush, to leave the mess there. Moreover Radcliffe had no knowledge of
cartography, he was under such a pressure, he could not do better.

West and East Pakistan (east: Bangladesh nowadays).

Partition displaced millions of people, but they were not ready to deal with it. Violence
occurred on both sides, especially Northern india. No official data, but it was said that half
million people died in the few months of the partition.

Atmosphere of hostility between India and Pakistan; controversial relationship still today. The
partition created many killings, who was to blame?

● Mountbatten was accused of having rushed the process through, things weren’t
done in the proper way. They granted independence before a clear and defined
partition was established; it was up to Indian and Muslim governments to manage it
(but not ready for that).

● Situation was so tense, a massive civil war was arriving; Britain could not do anything
more (due to their limited resources after WWII, which were insufficient to keep the
peace). While Mountbatten may have been too hasty, he had no real options left and
achieved the best one could do under such circumstances. The alternative
seemed to be involvement in a potentially bloody civil war from which it would have
been difficult to get out.

Loss of india.
Conservative elements in England consider the partition of India to be the moment when the
British empire ceased to be a world power, following Curzon’s dictum that “While we hold on
to India, we are a first-rate power. If we lose India, we will decline to a third-rate power.”
The princely states (Indian states not subject to direct British rule), were left to choose
whether to accede to India or Pakistan or to remain outside them Indo-Pakistani War of
1947 and other conflicts
Both India and Pakistan elected to enter the Commonwealth (for economic reasons)
• 1948: Gandhi was assassinated
• 26 January 1950 (Republic Day) : the Republic of India was officially proclaimed
• 1950-1964: Nehru became the first Prime Minister of India

Indian emigration to the UK

Inversion of the process after the decolonization.

UK: Post-war immigration boom

• After WWII, the UK was rebuilding itself after the massive destruction of the war; the UK
was trying to regain its economic power and rebuild its industry. It came out of the war as
a winner, but the economy was deeply in crisis, bombed by Germany, highly in debt with
the US. The problem was that they were in desperate need of workers (severe labor
shortages); need of young men to actually work in the factories, also because many
young men had been killed during the war

(= immigration was one solution)

After 1947: lost India.
In the 1950s/60s: lost all other territories of its empire.
Favor immigration from former colonies (now part of the Commonwealth).
• 1948: British Nationality Act gave all Commonwealth citizens free entry and stay in
Britain (consequences are huge)
• 1950s-1960s: the Act caused an actual boom of migration to the UK from Asia and
the West Indies (an important part of the empire, independent in the 1950s).
• They were coming not only for short-term work, but to settle for good (go and build a new
life in the UK). They came to work in Britain's factories, foundries (= fonderie) and new
public services (i.e. airport).
Even though immigration was continuous, some phases can be recognized
• 1950s: favored immigration especially of manual workers, mainly from Pakistan (had
been devastated by a civil war by then), were recruited to fulfill labor shortage
• 1960s: Workers mainly from Punjab and Pakistan. Many worked in the manufacturing,
textile factories, foundries of the Midlands and in Heathrow Airport (build as main
airport for city of London)
• During the same time, medical staff from India were recruited for the newly formed
National Health Service (building a welfare public system, needing doctors).
• 1972: all Asians were expelled from Uganda by President Idi Amin. Those holding British
passports came to Britain (another factor that boosted immigration)

Migration from Bangladesh

 • After partition between India and Pakistan, Pakistan itself was split. Post-Independence
Pakistan = East Pakistan (present day Pakistan) + West Pakistan (present day
Bangladesh)
• Civil war between East and West Pakistan in 1970-71 = creation of Bangladesh in 1971.
• Early 1970s: large scale migration from Bangladesh; people fled from their home,
escaping from war and seeking for a better life in the UK. Many settled in the East
London boroughs (Brick Lane; it seems like staying in Bangladesh; neighborhood
created by Bangladesh people).
• Bangladeshi men initially found work in the steel and textile mills across England, but
when these industries collapsed (1970s), they turned to small businesses e.g. tailoring
and catering.
• Also found a job in growing indian restaurants, developing in the UK (even nowadays
many takeaways in UK are held by Bangladesh people).

Tackling racial discrimination

Beginning of the1960s, due to this massive immigration: population of almost 1 million
immigrants. First laws against discrimination.

• 1965: Race Relations Act established the illegality of racial discrimination in public
places (1st law in the UK, aimed at dealing with racial discrimination); not yet deal with
private matters.
• Race Relations Act of 1968: extended the illegality of racial discrimination to
workplaces, educational structures (schools), of house concessions and facilities.

Immigration control
Problem: society was getting more and more multicultural; for some people it wasn’t ok.

• The Commonwealth Immigrants Act of 1962 + Immigration Act of 1971 restricted

any larger primary immigration (= immigration of people who do not have relatives in the
UK)

• You couldn't enter if you didn't have a relative there, unless you had a work permit
(typically only for high-skilled workers, such as doctors).
• Family members of already-settled migrants were still allowed.
• Much of the subsequent growth in the British Asian community has come from the births
of second- and third-generation Asian Britons.
Tendency, towards the end of the 60s, tendece inverted; many conservative factions,not
enthusiastic about immigration.

Enoch Powell (1912-1998)

• One of the most infamous people in this period.
• John Enoch Powell was a British politician, Conservative party.
• He graduated in Ancient Greek at Cambridge. He also took a course in Urdu because he
hoped to become Viceroy of India
• 1943: posted to Delhi. However his ambition to become Viceroy crumbled when Indian
 independence was announced
• He became fiercely anti-imperialist, believing that once India had gone, the whole empire
should follow it.
• Britain should change its defense policy, abandoning outdated global military
commitments left over from Britain’s imperial past. Reaction to the end of the empire =
close up in himself; if you lose the colony, we should just close, rely on ourselves and
emphasize British character; Americans not enthusiastic about this ideal, because they
needed (1960s), support from UK in South Asia during Vietnam war.
• 1950: elected Member of Parliament

• 1968: he became famous for his speech Rivers of Blood, held in Birmingham as a
reaction to the Race Relations Act; it warned about alleged dangers of mass
immigration from the Commonwealth; consequences of the unchecked immigration. In
this way the UK would become like the US (1960s: tense racial situation in the States).
“In this country in 15 or 20 years' time the black man will have the whip hand over the white
man.”
“We must be mad, literally mad, as a nation to be permitting the annual inflow of some
50,000 dependants, who are for the most part the material of the future growth of the
immigrant-descended population. It is like watching a nation busily engaged in heaping up its
own funeral pyre.”
• Played on racial fears, and insecurities of people there. For many, the speech was an
excitement to racial hatred.
• The Times: “an evil speech…this is the first time that a serious British politician has
appealed to racial hatred in this direct way since our post-war history.”

• Powell was sacked (he lost his place, position) the day after his speech, and he never
held another senior political post. However after the speech, he became a national
public figure and won huge popular support across Britain (many people shared his
feelings and supported him. As a result: increase in hostility and violence against
immigrants.

The National Front (NF)

• 1967: the National Front was founded: far-right political party. Aim: oppose immigration
and multiculturalist policies in Britain.
• The NF grew during the 1970s. It did particularly well in local elections
• Its electoral base, its voters largely consisted of blue-collar workers (laboratori manuali;
fascia più umile) and the self-employed, who resented immigrant competition (with
cheap workers from abroad) or simply the appearance of immigrants, darker skins.
• It also attracted a few disillusioned Conservatives.

1980s: Conservative policies

• 1979: a disastrous year for the NF. The newly reinvigorated Conservative Party under
Margaret Thatcher (the Iron Lady) won the elections.

The beginning of 18 years of uninterrupted of conservative rule.

 • Thatcher: 1st woman Prime Minister of the UK, and had had a very strong right-wing
stance on immigration, opposition to immigration. Supplanted the national Front.
She discarded the social and cultural ties of the whole empire; put emphasis on British
character and also underlined the danger of having too many immigrants, emphasizing the
fact that they didn't want to integrate.
• 1981: British Nationality Act, defined British citizenship for the first time in law (a sort
of culmination of rhetoric concerning who counted as British).
She created 3 categories of citizenship: only those born in Britain, or the children and
grandchildren of those born in Britain possessed the right to enter Britain (1st class-British).
It puts ties of blood instead of history or social and cultural ties.
It completely reversed, opposed the British Nationality Act (1948).
Commonwealth people argued about their right to belong in terms of britishness

“We are here, because you were there.” (by Ambalavaner Sivanandan, important Sri-Lankan
political writer).

We = immigrants
Here = in the UK
You = English people
There = Asia, colonies

It explains all the problems there. They have a shared past and their story was intertwined
and mingled by then; despite some setbacks, more and more multicultural and integrating
society has developed in the UK over the last decades. Still cases of discrimination, but
many steps forward have been made.
Political situation today in the UK: key posts held by the children of these immigrants from
the Indian subcontinent.

Sadiq Khan (b.1970)

• British politician serving as Mayor of London since 2016, re-elected in 2021.
• He was born in 1970 in South London to a working-class Pakistani family.
• His parents arrived in the UK in 1968; his father worked as a bus driver and his mother
as a seamstress.
• He studied Law at the University of North London

Rishi Sunak (b. 1980)

• Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and Leader of the Conservative Party since
October 2022.
• He was born in Southampton to parents of Punjabi descent who migrated to Britain from
East Africa in the 1960s.

Humza Yousaf (b. 1985)

• Born to Pakistani immigrants in Glasgow.

• Scottish politician serving as First Minister of Scotland and leader of the Scottish
National Party (SNP) since March 2023
The Buddha of Suburbia, by Hanif Kureishi
(1990)

Hanif Kureishi (b. 1954)

• Born in London to a Pakistani father and an English mother (2nd generation
immigrant, born in the UK)
• His father was from a wealthy Madras family, most of whose members moved to
Pakistan after the partition of 1947; while his mother was form a lower class English girl
for the suburbs.
• Attended Bromley Technical High School (where David Bowie had also been a pupil) and
studied at Bromley College of Technology
• King’s College, London, degree in philosophy
• Quite unconventional from the beginning: he started his career in the 1970s as a
pornography writer and as playwright

• 1985: wrote the screenplay for My Beautiful Laundrette, a film about a gay
Pakistani-British boy growing up in 1980s London (in the film you can see the
problem of blue-collar workers resenting immigration; laundrette, humble business,
they just saw competition for cheap labor there). Nominated for the Oscars for best
screenplay at the time.

• 1990: The Buddha of Suburbia = won the Whitebread Award for the best first novel.
• Translated into 20 languages; made into a BBC tv series with a soundtrack by David
Bowie
• 1991: film London Kills Me, written and directly by Kureishi himself
• Kureishi’s family accused him of exploiting them with thinly disguised references in
his work; Kureishi has denied the claims (his works are in many ways
autobiographical).

Plot.
• Set in London in the 1970s
• Sort of Bildungsroman. (not follow actual convention of the genre; quite irreverent and
much unconventional).
• Protagonist: Karim, a mixed-race teenager, with an Indian father and an English mother
(like Kureishi). Karim is eager to escape suburban South London and make new
experiences in the city in the 1970s.
• His father (= Buddha of Suburbia) is a Muslim who works in an office. He has never
abandoned Oriental spirituality and starts performing in neighbors’ houses as a kind of
guru, teaching yoga classes and talking confusedly about the need of following your true
desires and spirituality (sort of oriental philosophy, even though he’s not really prepared).
• His father starts a relationship, an affair with Eva, a neighbor and a determined social
climber (rise socially through culture, she exploits him and the fact that he’s able to
attract many people to his yoga classes and spiritual rituals, exc…).
• Karim is bisexual, and is in love with Eva’s son, Charlie, a teenage wannabe rockstar
• Karim has a best friend/lover, Jamila, the daughter of one of his father’s friends (they
spent their childhood together).
• Jamila’s father (conservative Indian man) wants her to get married to a man of his
choice, very traditional Indian views. She refuses, and her father starts a hunger-strike.
• After many weeks, Jamila gives up and accepts the marriage not to let her father die of
hunger.

• The appointed husband-to-be arrives from India, Changez. Jamila marries him, but she
decides that they will not sleep together and she will keep her freedom (she marries him
just to make her father happy).
• He turns out to be lazy and crippled (has a bad arm), unwilling and unable to work in the
family’s grocery shop.

• Meanwhile, Karim’s father leaves his wife and moves in with Eva.
• Karim follows them, while his younger brother follows their mum to the house of her
sister, aunt Jean, an alcoholic
• Karim’s father convinces Jeans’s husband, Ted, to leave his job, as it does not make him
happy.
• Ted starts working with Eva in renovating houses
• Eva, Karim and his father move to central London, where his father starts performing,
doing guru gigs, with great success (thinks he’ll have more customers)

• Karim leaves school and doesn’t know what to do with his life, just a young boy. However
by chance, he starts a career as a theater actor: a theater director wants him to play
Mowgli in a representation of the Jungle Book (because he looks exotic)
• However, Karim does not look ‘Indian’ enough: he has to be painted in dark brown and
must speak with a fake Indian accent
• The play is a success, but Karim’s father and Jamila are disgusted by Karim’s
compliance with white stereotypes about Indians; offended by his fake accent as well
(while public in genral appreciate it).
• He is noticed by a famous theatre director, Pyke, who enlists him for a new show.
• Karim joins a new company and falls in love with one of his colleagues, Eleanor, who is
upper-middle class, but pretends to be working class because it’s cooler.
• She has a sort of dark past and doesn’t talk about it much. Eleanor’s ex-boyfriend, a
young West Indian actor, killed himself (he was handsome and talented, but being from
the West Indies, he was continuously discriminated and he only got roles as a criminal or
taxi-driver).

• Karim is asked to create a character for the new play. He thinks about Charlie (Eva’s
son), but Pyke, the director, discourages him, saying that they need someone from
Karim’s “own background….Someone black…They’ll give the play a little variety…I bet
they’re fascinating.” (p.170)
• He’s once again forced to stick to his Indian background
 • So, Karim thinks of Jamila’s father (with the arranged marriage business and his hunger
strike). However, a black girl in the actors group scolds him because she is afraid that it
would only confirm white prejudice about ‘black people’ as being irrational,
fanatical, ridiculous.
• So, in the end Karim chooses another figure, Changez, without explicitly saying it
• Meanwhile, Eleanor starts a sexual relationship with Pike, and leaves Karim
• The play is a huge success and the actor company moves to the US for a tour.
• Karim meets Charlie, who in the meantime has become a rockstar. They live together for
a while
• Karim becomes deeply depressed and decides to go back home.
• Back in London, he finds that his mother is happy again with a new fiancé, and that his
father and Eva are getting married
• Jamila has moved to a commune (house shared by a lot of people; practice “free love”)
and has had a daughter with a lover. Changez still lives with her and takes care of the
little girl. He still hopes that one day Jamila will love him
• Karim’s father has now a full time job as a life-coach; very popular in London
• Karim finds a job in a popular soap-opera, and everybody thinks it’s the best job in the
world
• Karim in the end has dinner with his whole family and he reflects: “I thought what a mess
everything had been, but it wouldn’t always be that way.”
Open ending: leaves us with no real closure about anything (sort of bildungsroman), he
grows, experiences a lot of things, but no real conclusion.

Some themes explored in the novel.

Question of cultural identity + growing up

• We follow Karim’s life from when he was 17 to his 20s.
• Karim is born and raised English, has never been to India, he doesn’t know anything
about it, but still he is defined by most people as “Indian.”
• He does not totally belong to any community.
• He looks Indian, but he’s not; he's English, but he’s seen as a sort of half-caste.
• At first, he considers himself English, but with the passing of the time he starts feeling he
has missed something in avoiding his Indian origins.
• At a certain point, Jamila’s father dies because of the consequences of his previous
hunger strike and at his funeral, Karim reflects:
“But I did feel, looking at these strange creatures now – the Indians – that in some ways
these were my people, and that I’d spent my life denying or avoiding that fact. I felt ashamed
and incomplete at the same time, as if half of me were missing, and as if I’d been colluding
with my enemies…” (p.212)
He starts resenting his father for keeping his Indian background from him; he’s never given
up oriental spirituality and habits, he never really shared these things with his children.
Prejudices and racism in 1970s London
• As an actor, Karim gets parts in plays only as an Indian man, only because he looks
‘exotic.
• First production he acts in: The Jungle Book, even though he is only half-Indian and has
never been to India (see Reading)
• First night of The Jungle Book: Karim’s ‘white’ family loves it, but his Indian family (his
father, Jamila, ect.) are outraged

English generic fascination for ‘the Orient’

• Karim’s father came from a wealthy Indian family in Bombay and he was sent to the UK
in the 50s to be educated, but he ran out of money and stayed there; he found a job in
an office; but he is into meditation and yoga;
• Even though he talks confusedly, he becomes a guru (even though he hasn’t any real
philosophy). He starts with small meetings at neighbors' houses, then people start to pay
to attend his classes, at last he becomes a full-time life-coach.
• Karim at the beginning is quite skeptical, but then he’s surprised to see that in London
his business is flourishing and he's inspiring many people in london. He says:
“I’d always imagined that Dad’s guru business would eventually fall off in London, but it was
clear now that he would never lack employment while the city was full of lonely, unhappy,
unconfident people who required guidance, support and pity.”
The fact that his father is ot really an expert in anything in particular, but the fact that he’s
oriental and and everything, he just attracts people (even though his advices is quite
basic most of the time).

IMPERO COLONIALE INGLESE

vs
IMPERO COLONIALE FRANCESE
Processi che portano alla fine dell’impero francese.

Da cosa è composto Impero coloniale francese?

Costruito da XVII e XX secolo; Asia, Africa, Oceania, America.

● Include anche territori d’oltremare (soprattutto isole), grande distanza da

madrepatria; territori che parlano francese, che condividono la lingua francese e si
rifanno alla Francia per questioni politiche, giuridiche, amministrative (un pezzo di
Francia).
 ● Protettorati: paesi protetti da Francia, pur mantenendo certa autonomia

● Territori sotto Mandato: forma di governo controllata da Francia per popolazioni che
non riescono a gestirsi da sole

Distinguere 2 fasi dell’impero francese

I. Primo impero coloniale: VII sec - 1814
II. Secondo impero: 1830 (conquista di Algeri)

La Francia comincia con colonie del Nord America, Caraibi e anche India
- spinta dai successi spagnoli e portoghesi)
- rivalità con impero britannico per supremazia coloniale molto forte (serie di guerre,
che hanno causato la perdita di questi territori; es. guerra dei 7 anni). Ambizioni fra:
ridimensionate.

Dopo età napoleonica: Francia conquista un 2’ impero coloniale, soprattutto per territori
africani e indochina (cui si aggiungono vecchi possedimenti nei caraibi e india). Periodo in
cui l'impero si ingrandisce a dismisura: qui diventa il 2’ impero coloniale più grande dopo
Inghilterra.

Tra due guerre mondiali, impero spazzato via.

Obiettivo primario: missione civilizzatrice (educare e civilizzare colonie, attraverso diffusione

della lingua, cultura, religione). 1884: uno principali esponenti del colonialismo francese,
Jules Ferry, affermava che "le razze superiori hanno un diritto su quelle inferiori, hanno il
dovere di civilizzare" . Colonialismo visto anche pdv fra, fatto normalissimo per l’epoca; a
nessuno sarebbe venuto in mente di ribellarsi a questo modo di pensare.

Nel dettaglio: 2’ guerra mondiale.

1939: Francia ha bisogno di aiuto, supporto militare, soldati reclutati dalle loro colonie, che
dovevano quindi andare in aiuto della madrepatria.

Occupazione di Parigi da parte della Germania (14/06/40). Cambia modo di concepire

madrepatria (1’ volta, colonizzati vedono che Francia non così forte come pensavano; viene
occupata da potenza straniera). non è invincibile; ciò comincia a dare spazio a pretese di
indipendenza che matureranno più avanti.

Impero fra comincia a crollare (altre parti delle sue colonie invase da altre potenze
straniere):
- Giappone invade Indochina;
- Inghilterra in siria, libano, madagascar;
- USA e UK in marocco e algeria;
- Italia e germania in Tunisia.
Francia perde controllo; ma ristabilito da personaggio, Charles de Gaulle, generale: chiama
soldati da tutte parti dell'impero per aiutare Francia (sebbene non avessero nessun diritto in
patria; dovevano rischiare la loro vita ed essere arruolati per difendere impero).

I soldati rientrati in patria scoprono che non hanno nessuno di quei benefici che erano stati
loro promessi; non vengono nemmeno pagati.

Qualcuno pensa di ribellarsi; ogni forma di protesta, repressa.

es. Senegal, massacro di Thiaroye, 1944.
Ogni piccola rivolta, accenno di protesta, represso nel sangue; la Francia dipende troppo
dalle sue colonie, non può permettersi di perdere il suo stato di potenza internazionale.

Dopo proclamazione della 4 Repubblica (‘46): riforma, per calmare malcontento. Finte
concessioni; es. impero viene chiamato “Union française” = modellata sul Commonwealth
britannico (includeva tutti dipartimenti d’oltremare, protettorati, stati associati).

Si cerca di promuovere sulla carta una serie di diritti e doveri (no realtà).

2 fasi della perdita dell’impero francese (fondamentali per capire approccio fra alle colonie).

I. Guerra di Indocina
II. Guerra di Algeria

Guerra di Indocina
1858-1883: Francia dominio diretto su Indocina, ma legata ancora alle dinastie locali (come
un protettorato)
Mappa: Cocincina, Cambogia, Annam, Laos, Tonchino

Sono interessi economici che spingono i Francesi alla conquista di questi territori (buona
posizione in Asia e fare concorrenza all'inghilterra). Per primo Napoleone III ha dato impulso
per invadere il Vietnam nel 1857.

Colonia di sfruttamento: non di popolamento. Significa che i Francesi non ci vanno a vivere;
unici Francesi a occupare questi territori sono militari, amministrativi (un territorio da sfruttare
per le proprie risorse).

Dopo l'invasione del Giappone durante 2’ gm: nascono piccoli gruppi locali di rivolta.

Una volta che i Francesi riconquistano il potere su indocina, questi gruppi vogliono di più
(hanno cacciato i Giapponesi, ora vogliono cacciare anche i Francesi).

Comincia ad esserci una serie di rivolte; in particolare dal Comitato di Liberazione Nazionale
(Viet Minh = gruppo di resistenza nato in opposizione ai Giapponesi), poi continua a lottare
anche contro la potenza francese.
Leader comunista: Ho Chi Minh (che ha proclamato l'indipendenza del paese nel 1945, e
aveva dichiarato nullo rapporto con Francia). La Francia non può accettare una cosa del
genere e interviene militarmente, per ristabilire il controllo.

All’inizio viene fatto credere al Vietminh che Francia riconosce una certa autonomia del
Vietnam (stato libero con suo governo, un suo esercito), ma sempre parte dell'unione
francese (accettano indipendenza, ma in realtà controllo è sempre della Francia; =
Protettorato mascherato). Vietminh non accetta.

Vietminh debole, chiede aiuto all’Unione sovietica (anche battaglia ideologica; nasce come
movimento comunista e si appoggia su stati comunisti).

Cominciano a combattere fisicamente contro i Francesi attraverso tecniche di guerriglia

(agguati, imboscate, attentati, Napalm). Le autorità francesi chiedono supporto da altre
colonie (Marocco, Senegal, paesi africani), anche potenza americana (tutto l'interesse a non
cedere nulla all'unione sovietica).

Sì creano due fronti come nella guerra fredda.

Si assiste a scontri di violenza inaudita. I Vietminh conoscono il territorio molto meglio dei
Francesi (non ci vivevano); tendere trappole, sfruttare meglio l'ambiente contro di loro.

Francesi non cedono; guerra protratta per molti anni, voluta dalla resistenza francese a non
concedere nulla. Ciò aumenta il malcontento.

Inizio. I Francesi pensano di portare alla loro causa anche popolazioni attraverso i fedeli
dell'imperatore (Bai Dai, vecchio imperatore che aveva abdicato nel ‘45 quando il movimento
comunista di rivolta si era imposto). I Francesi vogliono portare imperatore dalla loro parte,
così da avere il favore di coloro che gli sono rimasti fedeli e volevano opporsi al movimento
ocmunista.

Per i Francesi, non esiste nessuna guerra, la percezione di ciò che succede in indocina è
molto diversa in madrepatria; per loro non si tratta di pretese di indipendenza, ma di ribelli,
terroristi che devono essere sedati. Parlare di una guerra, significa legittimare la lotta per
l'indipendenza, e questo la Francia non può permetterselo.

In Francia gli unici che vedono problema della guerra sono i comunisti, partito comunista.

Propaganda; chiedere al governo centrale di cessare guerra inutile che ha già causato
moltissimi morti, per aprire negoziazioni di pace; conflitto riconosciuto attraverso
l'informazione, la manifestazione e il sabotaggio.

Battaglia che pone fine alla guerra, già durata molti anni: Battaglia di Dien Bien Phu.
Conflitto che i Francesi perderanno per
- problemi di comunicazione, disorganizzazione
Nuovo comandate Henri de Navarre, non riceve raccomandazioni dei suoi predecessori
(mancanza adi comunicazione fra le alte sfere dell'esercito).

Lui vuole sviluppare questo centro, basi aeree, renderlo una fortificazione, perché aveva
diversi vantaggi (posizione strategica, in un’ampia vallata, circondata da colline). Henri de
Navarre vuole sbarrare la più importante via di comunicazione che i Vietminh avevano con
Laos e Cambogia (altri territori che stanno lottando per l'indipendenza; spezzare legame tra
questi pesi, mettersi tra di loro).

Questo avrebbe disorientato l’avversario e avrebbero minacciato interventi armati dalle varie
zone. In realtà però, questa zona aveva più svantaggi che vantaggi:
- isolata, e rinforzi ci avrebbero messo troppo tempo per arrivare,
- disponevano di pochi uomini (paracadutati 11.000 uomini, di cui solo 6.000 francesi;
altri erano popoli colonizzati)
- rifornimento solo via aria (colline intorno piene di ribelli)

Vietminh si concentrano tutti intorno e i Francesi lignano tra loro, non sanno cosa fare.
Secondo un generale, René Cogny, bisognava spostare soldati nelle colline, cercare di
liberare zona intorno per non essere accerchiati.

Mentre Henri de Navarre, che era al comando, voleva avere tutti gli uomini concentrati lì
nella base; creare una grande fortificazione, bastione. Compromesso: metà dei soldati fuori,
metà dentro; sono troppo pochi quelli che rimangono a difendere questa zona.

Viet Nim sfruttano indecisione francese, attacco a sopresa, massicio, bombardamenti; più
50.000 Vietnimh attaccano i Francesi, i quali non li vedono nenahce arrivare (conoscono
perfettamente il territorio, scavano gallerie soterranee, trincee, riescono a spostrasi in massa
senza che i Francesi li vedano).

Pochi Francesi rimasti, massacrati. Non c’è niente che possano fare.
Campo cade in mano dei guerrieri vietnamiti (7/05/54: issano bandiera del Vietnam e
dichiarano sconfitta la Francia).

Vietnam diviso in due Stati:

- Nord: capitale Hanoi (Viet Minh)
- Sud: capitale Saigon (imperatore)

Nel frattempo anche Laos e Cambogia diventano indipendenti.

La Francia perde tutta Indocina (ripercussioni molto gravi sul resto dell'impero; i Francesi
possono essere sconfitti).

INDIA.
Nel momento in cui l'India divenne indipendente, la Francia è obbligata a restituire i territori
che possedeva (= Enclave, piccoli territori, completamente chiusi tra i confini di uno stato
diverso rispetto a quello a cui politicamente appartiene). Es. Pondichery, Chandernagor,
Yanaon, Mahé, Karikal.
Indipendenza dell'India: impulso a un processo di unificazione di questi territori attraverso
dei referendum. Una città è concessa dalla Francia, Chandernagor, e tutte le altre,
diventano parte dell’India.

Territori già a partire dal 1700 (tanti secoli di colonizzazione francese), lasciato tracce anche
oggi.

Pondichery, tracce della colonizzazione francese:

● Pianta della città (isolati squadrati, strade perpendicolari)
● Ville blanche et ville noire (2 quartieri, francese e indiano)
● Architettura francese (strade, vie, ancora con nome francese)
● Molti abitati che mantennero passaporto francese
● Institut Français
● Alliance française
● école française d'Extrême Orient
● Lycée français de Pondichéry, il più antico liceo al di fuori della Francia (ancora
sistema scolastico basato su quello francese).

Per l’India, molto più dolce processo di decolonizzazione (si tratta anche di territori molto più
piccoli).

Guerra d’Algeria
Persa l’Indocina, Francia perde la faccia di fronte a tutti gli altri territori, in particolare Algeria,
la più antica colonia francese in Africa.

1830: conquista francese dell’Algeria, grazie a Carlo X e Louis Philippe d’Orlean

Algeria ancora sotto controllo ottomano e capi berberi locali.

Dopo II Guerra Mondiale: nuovi movimenti indipendentisti, guidati da Messali Hadj e Ferhat
Abbas. Vogliono indipendenza, organizzarsi autonomamente; si organizzano sempre di più,
Europei visti come nemici e ci sono molte tensioni, a livello di popolazione (1945, colonizzati
hanno paura, formano milizie armate, illegali), serie di proteste pacifiche, manifestazioni.

1945: massacro di Setif e Guelma.

In realtà non nasce come protesta violenta. Nasce come manifestazione che era stata
autorizzata dai Francesi, a patto che non ci fossero slogan politici. Algerini si riversano sulla
piazza con bandiera algerina, mostrano i loro obiettivi, la loro voglia di indipendenza per
prima volta.

Manifestazione si scalda, poliziotti Francesi cercano di prendere la bandiera, toglierla agli

algerini; un ragazzo prende la bandiera, viene ucciso da un colpo d’arma da fuoco; scatena
la rivolta, massacro (scintilla che ha fatto scoppiare bomba). Cominciano degli attacchi nei
confronti dei Francesi; all'inizio assaltano piccoli villaggi di coloni, in un secondo momento
vengono uccisi Francesi che ricoprivano cariche nell’alta amministrazione (far capire che
vogliono che il governo cada). Violenze continue per molti giorni. Repressione su Algerini
ancora più feroce: villaggi rasi al suolo, esecuzioni sommarie, tutti Algerini sospettati di
partecipare a gruppi indipendentisti uccisi senza processo.

A differenza dell'Indocina, è colonia di popolamento (i Francesi andavano lì per viverci da

quando si sono installati in Algeria la prima volta). Fanno parte della popolazione.

Per più di 125 anni: Europei integrati (una minoranza, 15, 2%), per loro era la loro casa.
francesi soprattutto nelle zone delle grandi città (Oran, Algeri, Costantina). Vengono chiamati
dai nativi pied-noirs (calzature diverse rispetto alla popolazione locale), in senso
dispregiativo.

Fino alla "Toussaint Rouge” (1954) = segna inizio guerra d’Algeria.

Toussaint = ognissanti (1/11), partito nazionalista, FLN (Front de liberation national)
cominciano una serie di attacchi anti-francesi contro posti di polizia, presidi militari, mezzi di
comunicazione, magazzini (posti chiave).

Quando arriva l'esercito non si rendono conto che si tratta di indipendentisti, ma pensano
siano attacchi terroristici, banditi (per francesi strano che Algerini vogliano indipendenza
perché la vedono come una succursale della Francia). Molto difficile capire contro cosa
hanno a che fare all'inizio. (es. articoli di giornale, si parla di terrirismo).

Per loro, la Francia deve solo stabilire controllo sui gruppi isolati, sottovalutano molto il
problema. Proprio perché considerano Algeria come casa; il neo primo ministro afferma che
“la Senna attraversa Parigi, come il mediterraneo attraversa la Francia” ("l'Algérie c’est la
France et la France ne reconnaîtra pas chez elle d'autre autorité que la sienne”).

Cominciano a concedere riforme, pensando che in questo modo riusciranno a sedare FLN.

FLN, decidono di non andare a colpire luoghi strategici, ma a colpire nel vivo i Francesi, nei
luoghi dove si riuniscono famiglie dei coloni.

Battaglia di Algeri (1956): portano guerra nel cuore della città, contro i civili.
Uno degli episodi più brutali della guerra. 3 donne incaricate di piazzare 3 bombe in diversi
punti, in zone molto frequentate della città (es. Milk Bar, un locale storico, molto frequentato,
classico luogo di ritrovo, ma anche simbolo, locale americano simbolo degli alleati, di tutta
ritrovata libertà dopo guerra).

Perché le donne?
Dopo attentati algerini controllati, perquisiti per le strade; le donne non potevano essere
toccate (inoltre con tutti veli che portavano era anche facile nascondere una bomba), i
francesi non avevano diritto di toccare una donna musulmana.

Francia risponde e viene imposta legge marizale, dati poteri speciali a esercito, rappresaglie
durissime; si fa ricorso anche a tortura, distrutti negozi di Algerini sopetti di partecipare a
questo partito (FLN).
Notizia che eseicto francese usa tortura comincia a girare; Francia sotto banco degli accusti
all’ONU, messa in discussione presenza in Algeria. Francia è disposta a tutto pur di
conservare l'Algeria (soprattutto dopo la perdita dell'Indocina, non può permettersi di perdere
un territorio così importante).

Dopo rappresaglie, FLN si calma un po’, indebolita (molti capi arrestati, mandati in Tunisia).
Il Partito chiede aiuto agli Stati arabi , comunisti delle naizoni Unite, che possono mettere
pressioni sulla Francia.

Anche moltissimi scrittori si impegnano in questa battaglia (es. Albert Camus; origine
algerina, sentiva grande dissidio interiore; si sentiva Francese tanto quanto algerino;
cercava di mediare; sforzo di mediazione interpretato male sia dagli algerini musulani sia dai
Francesi).

Francia decide di creare come sforzo di pacificazione, le SAS (Sezione Amministrativa

Specializzata), propaganda. Militari mandati nei villaggi rurali, zone più povere; campagna
scolarizzazione, più assistenza medica, scolastica, sociale (per portare popolazioni rurali ad
abbracciare ideologia fra; dare vantaggi, benefici nelle zone più povere per portarli ad
abbracciare causa francese).

Ufficiali di queste sezioni: Kepis Bleus (= cappelli). Reclutare, addestrare lealisti musulmani
per la controguerriglia (musulmani che stavano dalla parte dei francesi, conoscono bene
tecniche di guerriglia e che potranno utilizzarle contro indipendentisti algerini in caso di
attacco).

Territorio presidiato dall'esercito; riduce molto possibilità di attacchi da parte degli

indipendentisti; ma Francia anche paura della Tunisia, del Marocco, che appoggiano FLN.
Perciò si installano una serie di reti elettrificate per presidiare confini (es. linea Morice,
confine con Tunisia, 320 km). L'esercito è ovunque e controlla tutto.

Villaggi non raggiungibili dal controllo francese vengono bombardati, per evitare ogni
possibile infiltrazione o pericolo. Popolazioni che vivono sulle montagne, molto isolate, sono
pericolose, perciò vengono fatte scendere in pianura; devono lasciare il loro territorio e
riadattarsi (ulteriore malcontento, gravi disagi che si trascineranno per più generazioni).
Persone che vengono tolte dal loro ambiente e messe in campi militari, sotto sorveglianza
(sradicati).

Tutto ciò fa parte del tentativo di pacificazione da parte dei Francesi. Poi passeranno a
missioni offensive, attaccano roccaforti occupate da FLN.

La situazione si distende un po’ con l'elezione di Charles de Gaulle (1958). Visto da tutti
francesi come eroe nazionale dell Francia libera, colui che ha combattuto ocntro
occupazione nazista; figura molto positiva per francesi (sua elezione porta subito grnde
speranza). Pensano che potrà porre fine a questa guerra. Durante sua prima visita, fa
dicorso, un appello molto ambiguo “Je vous ai compris!” (ognuno poteva interpretare frasi di
questo discorso come voleva, come se fosse dalla propria parte).
Andando avanti nel suo discorso, dice esplicitamente “viva l'Algeria francese!” = si capisce
che non vuole fare molte concessioni. Però propone molte riforme sociali, politiche,
economiche, per migliorare la situazione degli arabi algerini.

Quando stava scrivendo la bozza della Costituzione della 5’ Repubblica, questa nuova
carta costituzionale conteneva un'importante concessione per Algerini = l’Algeria non
sarebbe più stata parte integrante della Francia, ma territorio associato (la stessa tattica
usata con Indocina).

L'iniziativa minaccia molti indipendentisti; passati molti anni, popolazione stanca, guerra che
si combatte tra civili. Sanno che musulmai sono stanchi, molti sono disposti ad accettare
questa proposta dei francesi piuttosto che continuare la lotta. Perciò gli indipendentisti
cercano di sabotare questi referendum, boicottare le proposte di Charles de Gaulle.

Reagiscono formando il loro governo provvisorio (Repubblica algerina), sede in Tunisia

perché tutti i capi erano stati costretti a scappare dall’Algeria. Governo riconosciuto da Stati
arabi, Tunisia, Marocco, e Unione sovietica, ma Francia no.

Il Referendum per proposta di De Gaulle dà i primi risultati, secondo cui Algerini non
vogliono rinunciare totalmente alla loro incidenza.

Charles de Gaulle, compromesso, negoziare con FLN. Coloni francesi si sentono traditi;
una parte delle alte ferie militari in Algeria, generali francesi; dopo tutte lotte contro
indipendentisti. Decidono di fare colpo di stato, prendere il potere, contro il governo
centrale. Notte tra 21-22 aprile 1961: prendono aeroporto, municipio, governatorato
generale (tutti punti chiave, strategici di Algeri, per controllare città).

Colpo di stato scoperto solo la mattina successiva con comunicato alla radio alle 7 del
mattino; “l’esercito ha preso il controllo dell’Algeria e del Sahara”. Situazione molto tesa, la
Francia non riesce più a gestire.

De Gaulle, comunicato stampa in cui chiede all'esercito di non eseguire gli ordini dei golpisti
(“un potere insurrezionale si è installato in Algeria, in seguito a un pronunciamento militare;
vieto ad ogni francese, soprattutto ad ogni soldato, di eseguire i loro ordini”). De Gaulle
molto amato in Francia, sfere più basse dell'esercito lo ascoltano e colpo di stato fallisce.

Ufficiali arrestati, altri estromessi dal comando, ma si cova ancora rancore. Quelli che non
sono stati accusati, arrestati si riuniscono in gruppi, formando un organizzazione (OAS:
organizzazione armata segreta) = Controterrorismo.

Apertamente contro il governo francese, e negoziazioni, contro FLN; comincia attività

terroristiche sia contro Francesi filo-governativi, sia Arabi, Algerini, musulmani.

Violenze si moltiplicano; nel frattempo de Gaulle continua negoziazioni con FLN; più vanno
avanti, più questi gruppi si sentono minacciati reagiscono in modo molto violento (sono una
sorta di vigilantes, si comportano come nell'esercito, ma in modo illegale).

Agiscono con complicità di una parte dell'esercito francese filogovernativo.

Mettono in atto delle Ratonaddes (termine dispregiativo, = "uccisione" di Arabi algerini).

Campagna propagandistica
“Arrière les traîtres! Nous voulons rester en France!”
“OAS vaincra”,
“face a l’imposture: l’OAS”; soldato che punta arma contro un lupo (FLN) travestito da
pecora che dice "cessez le feu”.
“aux armes citoyens": riprendono anche la marsigliese

Negoziati continuano, de Gaulle riesce a trattare con FLN; si arriva agli Accordi di Evian
(1961-62). Prevedono un cessate il fuoco
● Garantiscono ai coloni protezione legale per periodo di tre anni
● Diritti civili, sociali e culturali, tra cui: rispetto della proprietà, partecipazione alla vita
pubblica

● Alla fine dei 3 anni, dovevano decidere se diventare cittadini algerini o rimanere
cittadini francesi e abbandonare Algeria.

● Gli accordi prevedevano che i francesi potessero continuare a sfruttare risorse

dell'Algeria (es. petrolio).

Indetto un referendum 1/07/62: vanno a votare (6 milioni di Algerini su 6,5).

Voto praticamente unanime; De gaulle proclama indipendenza dell’Algeria il 03/07/1962, ma
viene scelta come data il 05/07/1962 (anniversario della presa di Algeri dai Francesi).

I Francesi hanno perso; cosa succede adesso ai Francesi che da almeno 3 generazioni
vivevano lì?

Marzo ‘62: coloni fra devono abbandonare la loro casa (1.400.000 rifugiati), la maggior parte
di loro sono pieds noirs, comunità ebraica, paura per nuovo gruppo indipendente, harkis
(musulmnai che si erano schierati coi francesi). Si riversano in Francia, perdendo la loro
casa, molti si instaurano in Corsica. Esodo molto doloroso per i Francesi, che sentono di
aver perso il loro posto. Tornano in Francia senza nulla, e devono reintrodursi, ricostruirsi
una casa, una vita sociale.

I francesi che decidono di rimanere fanno una brutta fine: la maggior parte vengono
assassinati dall’FLN (accordi non rispettati).

Nonostante la Francia aperta a ricevere Francesi di ritorno in patria, non viene dato loro
nulla, molti messi in campi lontano da città perché la gente non li vedesse.

Ancora oggi guerra d’Algeria, argomento piuttosto tabù in Francia; guerra in cui Francesi si
sono massacrati, hanno fatto cose orribili, ancora oggi storia non è concorde nel dare una
versione unica. C’è la versione degli algerini musulmani e quella dei francesi (anche il
numero dei morti non è uguale; dipende dalla versione). Immagine della Francia, sconvolta
dalla guerra; perso completamente ogni credibilità; anche dal pdv politico; ha segnato tutta
una generazione (sia algerini sia francesi).

Soltanto nel 2005: ambasciatore francese in Algeria ha riconosciuto la reposnabilliltà

francese nelle tragedie, nei vari attentati, vari episodi brutali di tortura.

Solo nel 2012, il Presidente Hollande dichiara “Per 132 anni l’Algeria è stata sottoposta a un
sistema profondamente ingiusto e brutale. Riconosco qui le sofferenze che la colonizzazione
ha inflitto al popolo algerino. Tra queste sofferenze ci sono i massacri di Sétif, Guelma e
Ceratà” e aggiunge “Sulla guerra in Algeria bisogna dire la verità e non è stata ancora detta”.

Guerra passata, creato traumi, Francia ancora fatica ad ammettere la sua parte di
responsabilità; dato prova di brutalità che ha portato ad eventi molto traumatici; se ne parla
molto poco. Nei video sulla guerra di Indocina si trova molto di più; ce ne sono anche sulla
guerra in Algeria ma danno tutti versioni diverse, ognuno dice la propria.

Una volta persa Algeria: la Francia ha perso tutto l'impero coloniale; tutti gli altri territori
conquisteranno indipendenza con referendum negli anni ‘60.

Rimangono i territori d’oltremare (anche loro cercavano indipendenza), ma per distruggere

ogni velleità di indipendenza, le le elezioni e i referendum vengono truccati, messi candidati
ideali che il governo fra gradisce, calunniati oppositori per eliminare ogni impulso
indipendentista.

Vengono promosse riforme: basi spaziali su alcune isole, si cerca crescita economica, offerti
posti di lavoro… Riforma più grande: Bumidom (Bureau Développement d'Immigration).
Ufficio per sviluppo delle migrazioni; per evitare popolazioni possono volere di più, offrono
alternative allettante nella France métropole (in Francia); create strutture per facilitare
immigraizone in Francia.

Nuova generazione pensa di poter farsi nuova vita, avere possibilità trasferendosi; ma in
realtà si tratta di posti di subalterni; pensano di fare carriera, di cambiare loro vita, ma in
realtà il massimo che possono fare sono lavori molto umili.

Attualmente la Francia mantiene regioni d’oltremare.

Molto diversi tra loro:
- DROM = praticamente parte della Francia (dipartimenti, regioni
d’oltremare);Guadalupa, martinica, Guyana… (elezioni, votano esattamente come i
cittadini francesi); il loro governo, le loro leggi sono quelli francesi.
- COM (comunità d'oltremare) = molto più autonomi, non parte della francia, dell’EU
(Nuova Caledonia, Polinesia…), seppur legati alla Francia a livello di sicurezza, di
amministrazione (hanno leggi proprie, governo proprio)
es. in caso di attacco militare, francia risponde per loro

Molto diverso processo di decolonizzazione della Francia e dell’UK.

● Algeria, così brutale, perchè no guerra tra militari, bensì tra i civili, nessuno si poteva
sentire al sicuro (si entrava nelle case, si faceva terrorismo).
 ● Razzismo: i Francesi consideravano gli Algerini come cittadini francesi, ma di serie
B, inferiori a loro.

● Si sono resi conto dopo che forse non si erano molto bene integrati con i Francesi.
SAS promuovevano scolarizzazione (venivano chiamati professori dalla Francia,
però loro visione centrata totalmente…). L’avevano già fatto prima, ma mai in misura
così massiva. In generale, nelle colonie francesi, non veniva dato spazio alla cultura
locale, anzi chi utilizzava la lingua madre per parlare (arabo, altra lingua, al di fuori
del francese), veniva punito; repressione della cultura di partenza. Scolarizzazione
importata, centrata sull’Europa (si studiava la storia francese, geografia della
Francia…).

● In tutta l'Africa, in realtà, c’erano molti movimenti indipendentisti, e si sono verificati

episodi di violenza. In queste zone (es. Tunisia, Marocco): scontri principalmente tra
indipendentisti ed esercito; non ha toccato popolazione francese direttamente come
invece è successo in Algeria (percezione diversa di ciò che è accaduto).

● Unica colonia di popolamento era l’Algeria.

● Pieds noirs: guardati un po’ dall'alto in basso, razzismo anche nei loro confronti
(sposati anche con algerini).

Punti in comune e differenze con impero inglese.

- Inglesi, mai stabiliti definitivamente lì; mai visto l’India come casa, estensione della
madrepatria;
- ciò implica anche che non vanno a conoscere bene il territorio (fondamentale nelle
situazioni di guerriglia); es. durante il Mutiny, il fatto che gli inglesi non conoscessero
per niente il territorio dove da 100 anni governavano, colpisce molto.
- sia nel caso dell’Indocina e dell’Algeria, sia nel caso del Mutiny, chi si ribellava, gli
indipendentisti erano chiamati ribelli, banditi, ammutinati (parole hanno grande peso,
definizione che diamo di una persona); se lo si chiama ammutinato, gli si toglie quella
dignità politica che in realtà ha; influenzano profondamente la nostra percezione
della realtà (giornali diffusissimi, tutti potevano leggere; nei giornali li vedevano
denominati così, e ciò influenza la percezione che in madrepatria si aveva dei ribelli).

Coloni imponevano di fatto una narrazione; titolo di giornale dà già l'interpretazione di ciò
che succede; ciò porta opinione pubblica in una determinata direzione. Anche discorsi
ambigui di Charles De Gaulle (non si capiva a chi si riferisse, però ognuno col malcontento
che c’era, poteva interpretare quelle parole dalla sua parte), anche questa strategia
comunicativa molto importante utilizzata nelle colonie.

Visione di De Gaulle nell’opinione pubblica in madrepatria.

Lui cercava sempre di mediare, di stare simpatico un po’ a tutte le fazioni, non essere mai
estremo. Cercava di nre l’Algeria all'inizio; vedendo che non riusciva, ha dovuto arrendersi e
cominciare a negoziare (negoziazioni che però portano a un colpo di stato; generali, soldati
dell’esercito, che avevano combattuto finora contro l’FLN, che ritenevano dei terroristi, non
erano d’accordo). Visione di de Gaulle ciata molto nell’estrema destra soprattutto. Si sono
sentiti traditi dal governo.

Possedimenti francesi in India, città bianca e città nera (spaccatura netta)

In Algeria, no distinzione; c’erano zone più frequentate da francesi e altre da arabi, però
erano tutti insieme (es. prendevano mezzi pubblici insieme; India inglese, treni aperti a tutti,
però hanno cominciato a dividere le classi, razza contava più dello stato sociale).

Formalmente avevano tutti gli stessi diritti, mentre nella pratica, i coloni francesi che
vivevano lì avevano molti più privilegi (no segregazione razziale dal pdv formale come
invece è successo in India).