Here, I assume the role of compiler and bring forward to our Blog community an interesting read. An exchange of information, between a Master and a Student which is narrated in Question and Answer fashion.
The exchange is between Shri Cadavasal R Natarajan and Mr Michael Hauss. I sought permission from Shri CRN to publish this article in my blog after the thesis was completed, with the associated request of Micheal, so that visitors to the blog will be benfitted with the contents of this exchange.
Read further....
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My name is
Michael Hauss and i was informed by a colleague that you might be able to assist me in a part of my project for English class.
Each student in my Honors 2 English class is reading a different novel. I chose
"A Passage to India" by E.M . Forrester because I have never read a piece of Indian literature and I thought that it would be different and interesting.
I am required to write a research paper that includes three parts:
1. What I Know,
2. The Search,
3. What I Discovered.
As a part of The Search, I need at least one first-hand source, which is where you might be able to help me. I have chosen to write about
racial discrimination which is a prevalent topic in the novel.
Would you feel comfortable answering any of the following questions about
racial disrimination,
British colonial rule in India, or
even just Indian culture in general?
The questions are :
1. Have you ever been discriminated against because of your ethnicity? If so,
how did it make you feel?
2. Did you lived in India during British rule?
Can you briefly describe the English people's treatment of the Indians or the English people's treatment of you?
Did you enjoy living in India under British colonial rule?
Why or why not?
3. How has being Indian shaped your life today?
a. For example, do you incorporate aspects of Indian culture in your life today?
b. Are you proud of your Indian heritage now when you are living in the United States?
If you can answer any of these questions it would be a great help.
From: C R Natarajan To: Michael HausE M Forrester – A Passage to India Project. Racial discrimination in India during British rule.
Apropos your e-mail of 27th, April I will do what I can to help you . I can only provide you with a window of what I have heard, seen and minimally experienced.
I have tried to be honest in expressing my views, and may be guilty of violence to political correctness. You will be justified in rejecting wholly or partly my views that are not germane to your quest. There may be errors in semantics, punctuation etc. I have not had time to revise my submission. May be you will find answers to your queries not surgically incised. There is no copyright and you may use what is relevant to your paper.
Question. 1. Have you ever been discriminated against because of your ethnicity? If so, how did it make you feel?Answer: I was 18 when India became independent in 1947. I did not experience discrimination under British rule in India which lasted till Aug. 1947. I hail from an affluent and educated family belonging to a mixed social circle of a few well-educated Englishmen who had great understanding of the aspirations of Indians for their freedom.
Discrimination was faced by those who worked under English supervisors e.g. Bureaucrats, but not when one was in an independent profession e.g. doctors or lawyers. My grandfathers were both highly successful lawyers of repute and were acceptable to the rulers as separate but equal and sometimes, as the same but unequal depending on the disposition of the ruling pack! The more understanding and liberal whites of the British Empire certainly had their regrets about not only leaving the princely life they led in India but also the hospitality, philosophy and culture of the society in which they moved and the loyalty of their subordinates. It must be said to their credit they did not conceal the regret or equivocate.
The educated White who understood the ebb and flow of history, realized that they have come full circle: they came to India obtaining concessions as traders and in between, they donned different roles, employees of the local rulers, tax collectors, fiefdom, military advisers, and victors post 1857 mutiny, rulers and then finally in 1947 back as traders and advisers. Some might have harbored a sense of superiority because they were once rulers and resented the equality and familiarity claimed by the educated Indian but such anger and resentment were vented in private drawing room discussions, or in segregated armed forces messes and social clubs.
In fact some of the social clubs were exclusively for the Whites e.g. Wellingdon Club in Mumbai, Gymkhana Clubs in provincial capitals. The
“Whites Only” board in the Breach Candy swimming pool in Mumbai was removed more than a decade after Indian Independence. In cricket matches the Indian players were not allowed in the club premises and “whites only” segregation was the norm. During the war Indians selected as commissioned officers were
designated as Viceroy's Commissioned officers and not as King's Commissioned officers, an invidious distinction without a difference! Hardly any Indian broke the glass ceiling and achieved the highest level in the armed forces hierarchy. The recognition came after independence.
I was in the Management cadre of a British company in India from 1956. Any open discrimination would have resulted in the guilty declared persona non grata by the Govt. of India on a proven incident. There was of course preferential treatment for the expatriates for e.g. the expatriate whites were paid a salary at least twice that of an Indian at the same level, provided rent free, furnished housing, club memberships etc. though some of them did not even have mid-school education while the Indians had to satisfy a higher standard viz. graduates or professionally qualified. Indians proficient at games like Cricket or Tennis and hailing from affluent, socially well placed families were selected. The Brits knew how to soften the barbs by having daily luncheon with the Indian officers and periodical in-house parties!
It did hurt to experience the difference in salary and perquisites, but, compared to Indian owned companies we were paid better and not treated like feudal serfs, a common enough phenomenon in Indian firms. Lack of employment opportunities stifled protest and mobility.
Having said all this, I must record that as long as the Indian worked well and contributed to the scheme of things, he was well rewarded, and his job was secure. Petty prejudices on ground of faith or caste or other factors did not affect career progression. It is attributed to George Bernard Shaw the quote, "If you have a Chinese in Whitehall the British administration would be better" or words to that effect - I am not vouching for the veracity of this quote! His comments were probably directed at local prejudices - ethnicity, region, faith, etc. that influenced policy and decision making by a Brit in the British Government, which a Chinese would not have imbibed. It is the same with a British manager in India, for whom local biases were of no moment.
My association with the British organization terminated in 1963 and my personal relationship with my then bosses still continues on a friendly basis of good vibes and nostalgia!
Question 2. Did you live in India during British rule? Can you briefly describe the English people's treatment of the Indians or the English people's treatment of you? Did you enjoy living in India under British colonial rule? Why or why not?Answer: I lived in India during the sunset years of British rule in India by a weakened Britain, virtually bankrupted by the Second World War economically and manpower decimated by the war.
There were many good aspects of British rule in India. India was one unit and not the fragmented country divided by language, geographical barrier, faith, people led astray by political chicanery, regional interests trumping national needs that it is now. The administration of the country was fair and responses to people's needs in general being swift. There were of course instances of neglect as it happened during the great Calcutta famine, when British rulers did not act till it was almost useless. The British rulers had to display firmness and fairness and so carefully avoided even a semblance of favoritism in most decisions. Members of the Labor and Liberal parties in the British parliament wasted little time and missed no opportunity to pillory the ruling party for any real or perceived injustice to the Indians. The motive in all cases was not altruistic but the political gain that accrued was too good to be missed! Justice was not only done in most cases but appeared to be done also by the judiciary and administration.
There was the case of a British High Court Judge who shot and killed a young boy during anti-British riot, when his car was surrounded. The judge rescued himself from the bench until the trial was over, he was acquitted and then he returned to England.
Earlier there was the trial of
General Dyer, the British officer who ordered shooting and killing of Indians when they assembled for a protest meeting against the British in Jallianwalabagh in the Punjab. There was the impeachment of Warren Hastings in the British Parliament, though
Warren Hastings was not as corrupt or bad as he was made out to be, during his tenure in India as Governor General. Remember that it was he who had
Bhagwad Gita translated into English. He was one of the few who had great respect for Indian spirituality and philosophy, jurisprudence and administration.
It was
Lord Curzon, to whom Indians owe much for saving Taj Mahal from vandalism and for preserving monuments of Indian heritage by starting the
Archaeological department of India. He was an imperialist and did what he believed was in the best interests of his King and his Country but he also understood the duty and obligation imposed on him as Viceroy of India to protect the land, heritage, culture, life, integrity and people of India. Indian Prisoners of War in the hands of the Japanese formed a separate regiment and fought the British. After the war they were tried for treason and desertion but acquitted, defended by a galaxy of Indian lawyers including
Jawaharlal Nehru, whom the British imprisoned for well over two decades. Nehru was the first Prime Minister of free India.
There are many instances like this not only of British rule but also of earlier conquerors like the Mughals, the Slave dynasty who contributed much to India.
THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT RULE BY CONQUERORS MUST BE ACCEPTED. Freedom is the birthright of every human.
C Rajagopalachari, one of India's great intellectuals and
Mahathma Gandhi's friend and companion said after independence, watching India's downward slide into corruption and party bickering said,
"Self Government is no substitute for Good Government". It is governance for common good and not just self government.
Decatur is reported to have said, "My country, may she always be right: but right or wrong, my country” and not as corrupted, "My country right or wrong." That is the sentiment of people like me in the twilight years of life, having lived through the golden era of India when Freedom was won not by violence but by non-violence .
To have lived at the same time as Mahathma Gandhi, to have seen him and heard him speak, to have experienced the power of a frail old man, sparsely dressed, with no armor except his walking stick that was more a prop than a weapon, confuse and defeat the most powerful colonial power in modern history is a feeling that is difficult to describe, but is only humbling. He epitomized the moral and spiritual strength of the country. When the last British Viceroy and Governor General of free India left India, he traveled in an open carriage amidst multitude of Indians, waving and chanting Good bye and Long live.
I do not believe there is a parallel in the history of nations that a people enslaved and ruled for nearly a century, treated the departing rulers as friends.British rule or Indian rule, life has to be lived. Life is bittersweet and is not dependant on who rules the land in which one lives. At the same time, if the government of the country is in the hands of the unprincipled, the rapacious, the religiously bigoted, then life is hell. If at every moment there is an assault on the finer sentiments, a rape of beliefs, an incessant attack on values, then discretion is under threat, and humans are just Pavlova's dogs, conditioned to be morons. Fortunately such an experience I did not face when I lived in India.
Indians owe to
Mahathma Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru and a few others of that era, that institutions for self government have been developed and India has remained a united country notwithstanding the differences in religion, language and ethnicity. Just a cursory examination of the neighboring countries or countries in other continents that emerged out of colonial rule will bring into sharp relief the quality of leadership in India that brought India out of colonial rule and to total independence.
There are problems to-day but thanks to the firm foundation of coequal branches of government the country lumbers along. Fissiparous tendencies are not uncommon in the history of nascent democracies. The legacy of the British in transport and communications, a fairly independent judiciary, a civil service that respects rule of law and precedents, armed forces that do not usurp the civilian rule formed the basics of Indian Self-rule in a parliamentary system under a constitution that has morphed in response to the times and people’s aspirations.
Question 3. How has being Indian shaped your life today? For example, do you incorporate aspects of Indian culture in your life today? Are you proud of your Indian heritage now when you are living in the United States?Answer: The core of Indianness is summarized in the ancient sayings in Sanskrit,
“Vasueiva Kutumbaham” meaning
“The world is one family" and
“Sathyam Ekam, Vipraha Bahuda Vadhanthi” viz
“Truth is one and the wise call it by different names". The first is an understanding that humanity at large is one family. The Truth referred to is not the truth as applied in the courts of law, which is a perception of a happening, an incident that differs radically depending on the "eyes of the beholder".
The Truth in the Rig Veda is the ultimate,
that invisible force that governs our lives, notwithstanding our arrogant belief that we are masters of our lives; We experience that results of our actions or inactions are not what we expected but still we can not accept that we are not masters of our fate! What defines an Indian is not the dress or language or religion. The Indians have by and large, managed to keep alive the tradition of oneness and unity and that is perhaps unequaled in any other land of geographic contiguity peopled by varied ethnic groups and religious beliefs. That is what has made India unique.
It is a common belief that there is an Indian culture, like Indian food, however varied it be. If Culture is considered to be an external manifestation and some sort of common behavior or norm, dance, music, dress or food, as is bandied about by the Indian Diaspora and touted by International "cultural" circles, then there is no Indian culture as such but only regional ones like Gujarati, Bengali, Tamil etc.
but if one looks for a "Culture of India”, then an abstract commonality can be found - that culture is
"the spirituality that unites all humankind and forms the basis Indian ethos, philosophy and living and not the religion that divides mankind". When I see around me the great evangelists preaching that "my God is better than your God" and seeking to clothe people differently, without in any manner changing their mind-set of hatred and bigotry but inculcating and infusing greater and deeper divides, I pay homage to the seers of India and my forefathers for having brought me up in that culture of India that believes in the world being one family, Truth being one, in the acceptance of seeming plurality in unity and in the non-violence of mind as much as the body.
I am very perturbed and saddened by apostasy (of religious conversion without total faith) and equally by the blindness of unreasoned faith. What is ridiculed as blind faith in one religion is glorified as Divine intercession in another. Parthenogenesis may be the answer but then, how can man accept that, despite the common factor of Life, the organisms different from Man are not subject to divine law, as they are lower! In evolution Man is said to have developed discretion, reasoning, understanding nature and life, and purpose. On the other hand sections of humanity are trashed because they have a different faith, or bribed into believing that short term material affluence is the path to eternal bliss; profit trumps probity, means justify end and principles are only temporary expediencies!
One does not have to incorporate any culture in daily life as changing clothes for a state dinner but the culture that is imbibed is a part of existence. It has taken a long journey for me to have taken a peep through a small slit, the light of the philosophy and culture of India. No other culture has displayed the width and breadth of tolerance and acknowledgment of the variety of philosophical thought, freedom of debate - a range that starts at one end of the scale with the
Omar Khayyam "unborn yesterday, dead tomorrow, what boots it if to-day be sweet" pulsating through lines of demarcation of the divine and the human, culminating in the fusion of the abstract with the material and reconciling it with the impermanence of everything, almost Nihilism!
If I had lived in India, I would not have developed as much appreciation of the rich heritage of India, a geographical entity, the diversity in commonness of the people of India and above all the great responses to eternal questions that are yet unanswered by other traditions. The tragedy of human race lies not in its diversity but in its failure to seek and find its roots in the common spirituality, and, instead clothe themselves in divisive religious indoctrinations.
Rig Veda, said to be the oldest scripture of over four thousand years
does not extol the virtue of one God over the other or treats divinity as exclusive but pays homage to Nature. Religion as is known to-day does not appear in the Vedas. I am proud to have been brought up and nurtured in the faith of my forefathers and the seers of India. The tragedy of modern day religious beliefs is the intransigence, bigotry, intolerance, commercialization and politicization. Indian values have survived assaults from within and without and have survived. I am proud, not in the egoistical sense, but in the humility that the culture of India has infused in me. It is time that reason infects intellect, and intellect injects understanding of human values. If I am considered a non-believer it does not hurt me but I will quote
Lord ByronReligion—freedom—vengeance—what you will, A word’s enough to raise mankind to kill. I am proud of my heritage, culture and philosophy and will be so wherever I live, be it USA or Europe or the Arab world. Response of Micheal after he presented the thesis
Dear Mr. Natarajan,
School is finally over and I wanted to let you know what my grade was on my Passage to India project. There were 4 different parts, including an oral presentation and
I got a 92% on all of the parts. That was the second highest grade in my class of 33 students! .I want to thank you again for all of your wise words, quotes and information.
Without your guidance, I am certain that I would not have done so well. Thank you. I greatly enjoyed e-mailing and "talking" with you.
Michael Hauss
