Posted Feb 19, 2005

Perspective from a vantage position

I need to continue my answer to Oldfred; I hope this does not distress him.

When one thinks of British colonialism of India, the general picture that one gets is that of White men and women having a nice princely time, with a lot of half-clad Indians, waiting around them in varying poses of servitude. But, does this picture really give you the reality?

For one thing, the number of Englishmen who led a social life in India was very, very negligible. So, the reality of the Indian social scene still remained basically the same old Indian one.

In the present times, we can see a lot of Indians in varying levels of power and sophistication; are they a group that has sprung up new? No, for even during the British colonial times, there were very strong groups of rich and powerful Indians.

They never allowed the lower Indians to come up. Even though the lower Indians did live lives of fantastic gratitude and servitude to them.

Do the new group of Indians who are rich care for the poor Indians? Not at, all.

Then what is the difference? The difference is that during the British colonial times, the lower groups received a-never-before-seen chance to break out of their servitude. How? By going into servitude to the new comers. But then what was the difference?

The difference was that the proximity to the new masters really changed the demeanour of the lower classes. They changed in dressing standards, had exposure to knowledge till then kept away from their purview, they imbibed a new language which more or less, erased the feudal servitude that was written in their traditional languages; they had a new social security never before offered to them.

For example, in some castes, the women couldn’t wear an upper garment; imagine the lingering sensual excitement it must have given to the upper classes. In the same castes, the men folk had to wear a small towel as their lower garment, and a bare chest; it may be assured that this attire seldom would have attracted the sensual attraction of the upper class women, for the men would have had distasteful looks that came from brutal mental suppression.

The freedom that came to these folks when they were given jobs serving the British, in civilised attire; and addressing and communication in a civilised language can never be understood from a British viewpoint. For, when a British man comes to India of those times, he would see a few British persons, having a cosy time, with a lot of Indians under them. Oh, the brutality of the scene, in which the new comers have made the locals the servants!

But there is real uneasiness in the Indian social scene. The traditional upper castes are in a real quandary. As India became more and more under British power, the newcomers tend to see the whole Indians as one group. Which is really far from the truth. Yet, it is a real torment to get the point across that we are not one. Actually we are different from the servant class; that class you identify with the common Indian is not us. We are superior. How to get the message across?

The problem here was that the Indian languages did automatically bring in a crude feudal hierarchy, which severely denigrated the lower classes. Naturally the new ruling class occupied the highest position; this is naturally done by the language, and subsequently by the people. Now where do the local people exist? They have to naturally exist in the lower panels of the language.

But this can be severely discomfiting to the ancient feudal classes, who naturally would want to be on a level of equivalence with the new ruling class.

At the same time, the lower classes also need manipulation. They have changed. At least some of them, have gone to the extent of copying the English social attitudes at least in a superficial manner. Some wear English clothing, many talk good English. The old order is breaking.

There was an enduring mental mood of impotence among the lower class Indians, which came from their lower class mental identity. This mood is catching the upper classes; while the lower classes feel more liberation.

Next comes freedom for demonstration, newspapers, speeches, security from extra judicial persecution that was the prerogative of the old feudal lords; and beyond all this the loudspeaker, which amplified the personalities of diminutive persons to a new dimension. It was really picnic time for India. And then came persons like Gandhi, Nehru, and the rest of the pack of ———. India instantly became a nation of innumerable hallowed personalities.

One of the few themes, many do not know about India is that since 1909 India was actually ruled by Indians. Only the higher levels were held by the British. The local governments were all run Indian ministers who came elected from popularly elected assemblies. This very system was conceived and set-up by the British.

Majority of the senior bureaucrats and police officers were British, but their number was gradually being reduced. There was very little corruption, especially at the British official level.

The so-called Indian Independence really only meant the change of guard at the top level; for there were many persons from the old feudal classes who were really waiting with watering mouths to grab the cake. Most of them were of the superrich, feudal classes, whose ancient history did not include any attitude of liberation for the people; many of them went to England not only to get educated, but also to be on par with the governing class.

When talking about the lower verses upper class difference, it is easy to feel the picture of cruel upper-class verses a nice lower class. Yet, this again is not a correct picture; for in reality most of the lower classes carried crude social behaviours to be displayed among themselves, which were either imposed on them, or self cultivated.

The fact that the British officials were on the top rung of the bureaucracy did really have a very benign effect on the rest of the bureaucracy. The lower ranks strived hard to imitate them, to the extent that efficient and corruption free work attitudes were seen as quality behaviour; the reverse is the truth now; now people revere corrupt officials, for they have plenty of money, and crude personality. The local language communication runs on the potential difference that money and crude attitudes create.

The problem that the British faced during their colonial times was that they had to live in social areas which were demented; and they had to adjust themselves to the crude peculiarities of these maddening social scenarios. Naturally they got grazed by the evilness that existed in these places since times immemorial. Did they acquire the natural arrogance of the conquerors? It is possible; yet, you have no idea of the arrogance even a minor Indian official exhibits to the common Indian.

I speak a hue of history which may not come across, when one studies formal history written by experts.