top of page

Did white violence serve to facilitate or undermine British rule in India?

By Aiysha Rao [Edited by Krutika Sharma & Carla Norman]


White violence served to facilitate and justify British rule within India by furthering the notion that white members of society were more capable and more civilised. There were pre-existing notions which placed Indian, brown-skinned people, at a disadvantage within their own society. Although it can be argued that white violence invigorated the Indian population, it cannot be denied that it was ultimately a form of further suppression. It allowed the British to put white people in charge of the judiciary and take away power from Indians. White violence also facilitated British rule within India by maintaining a hierarchy and worsening the discrimination faced by Indians on many levels.

It can be argued that white violence potentially undermined British rule in India through the depiction of the British as morally inconsiderate. This was the case for certain white violence towards the end of British colonisation. The 1919 Jallianwala Bagh Massacre was an infamous example of white violence which resulted in the death of many peacefully protesting Indians. The perpetrator, General Dyer, mercilessly shot at protestors and killed over ten thousand protestors yet this violent act was commended in Britain. He was greeted with a large fundraised sum of money and a sword inscribed with 'Saviour of Punjab' upon arriving back in England after being discharged from the Indian Army following the massacre. The massacre, however, saw an awakening within the Indian population and moulded the following revolts. Gandhi described why India witnessed such a drastic shift in attitudes; the people of India wanted "English rule without English men" and had therefore been enticed by the notion of modernisation yet were opposed to the white man's violence.[1] The massacre resulted in a new generation of freedom fighters who turned towards violence themselves and sought to eradicate British rule through their own violence. Nevertheless, the revolts which truly undermined British rule and opposed white violence came after a shift in society's views. Earlier white violence was not met with the same anger and attack; earlier violence facilitated British rule; however, following a shift and the spread of Gandhian ideology, white violence invigorated the population of India to amplify the fight for independence.

It is undeniable that white violence cases were overlooked and disregarded under the legal system and framework, hence facilitating British rule in India. The legal proceedings of violent crimes differed for white people and brown people committing violent acts, and according to Jordanna Bailkin, unequal sentencing for Indians and Europeans was always the norm.[2] Partha Chatterjee highlights that “Indian judicial officers did not have the same right as their British counterparts to try cases in which Europeans were involved”.[3] By removing the right of native magistrates to have a say in the trial of white violence cases, Indians were deliberately deprived of justice, and consequently, white violence could be tried more sparingly. Essentially, "no second or third class magistrate [could] pass on any European British subject any sentence at all; whereas a second-class magistrate [could] sentence natives to imprisonment of up to six months” which heavily disadvantaged the brown members of society.[4] Even when liberal attempts to reform the system took place with the 1883 Ilbert Bill - which would allow Indian magistrates to try Europeans -, it was met with “almost mutinous opposition” from fear that the privilege of European British subjects would be taken away.[5] This sense of insecurity surrounding the liberty and safety of European British subjects highlights the extent to which a white-dominated judicial system facilitated British rule.[6] The bill would have sought to enable equality, justice and correct racial imbalance, however, it would have also forced white people to be accountable for their violent actions, and this would have weakened the power base that the British had established by disregarding said violence. Additionally, the white dominance of the judicial system allowed white violence to be overlooked when there was not blatant evidence of white involvement. “White offenders in India were more likely to be charged with a crime if they undertook a public display of violence” thus, Britons were urged to use “canes or swords when striking indigenes in order to reduce degrading contact”.[7] In doing so, they were able to evade blame and prosecution. It is, therefore, safe to say that accountability for white violence would have been the real undermining factor of British rule within India, whereas the systematic overlooking of it, facilitated the British.

British rule in India was also facilitated by using the portrayal of white violence in comparison to brown violence, thus solidifying a hierarchical system in which brown people were portrayed as inferior. Throughout colonisation, Indian violence was portrayed as evidence of uncivilised, evil behaviour and betrayal towards the white people that were supporting them. Most notably, the 1857 Sepoy Rebellion resulted in mass violence against white settlers from Indian soldiers following news of gun cartilages being coated in cow and pig fat. The “‘mutiny’ of 1857–8 posed an unprecedented threat to British rule in India” as it was a direct revolt against the uncompassionate and vicious leadership of the white army generals, however, it was portrayed by the British as a betrayal, and therefore the violence was seen to be evil.[8] The violence was famously depicted using paintings such as 'Massacre at Cawnpore' and 'Miss Wheeler defending herself at Cawnpore' which both added to the narrative that brown sepoys were untamed individuals who showed no remorse in even attacking women or children. Stories of British Majors as victims who were "hacked to pieces by his own babas” were circulated to amplify the gravity and harshness of Indian violence against their white father figures.[9] By highlighting the disloyalty of the Indians, the British were able to not only convince the world that India was in need of their governance but also justify their violence in response to this. Once order was restored by the British, they began their process of retribution in which white violence was multiplied yet depicted to be revenge and therefore justified as they were attempting to show the Indians what the consequences of their actions would be. As shown in the painting, 'Suppression of the Indian Revolt by the English', white violence was extreme and fuelled by revenge yet served the purpose of facilitating British rule because they maintained the narrative that this violence was a form of punishment. This furthered the notion that Indians were naturally animalistic hence needing such violence to ensure order, with white Europeans as the only people capable of doing this.

On a smaller, albeit just as significant scale, “European acts of deadly violence were neatly downgraded from murder to assault” even though they were more “frequent and dealdier”.[10] White colonisers would often succeed in overlooking, trivialising and disguising white violence by pinning them on natives. Bailkin cites Sanyal’s example of an 1851 case in what appeared to be “an ‘Indian’ crime was actually instigated by an act of white violence”.[11] A British plantation manager alongside his Indian servants were all charged with kidnapping, yet only the Indian servants were brought to trial. Therefore, records listed this as an example of native violence which consequently distorted the reality of the crime and who was responsible for it. As a result, the British were able to escape blame and punishment for crimes that they had orchestrated, instigated or committed. In Kenya, white violence was also excused as "rough justice" going as far as to claim that it was an extension of the state's power to punish wayward labourers.[12] Throughout British colonies, white violence was a key mechanism in extending what the British saw as discipline and necessary, yet the domestic population grew embarrassed of it. Bailkin makes an excellent suggestion that following the 1869 abolition of public executions, it is “possible to see the decline of murder charges for Britons in India as an extension of these metropolitan trends”.[13] It must be mentioned that this is not indicative of Britons ceasing to commit murder but merely the beginning of the nationwide suppression of white violence reports. As this essay has mentioned, the real reason white violence facilitated British rule was due to the treatment of white violence cases. Bailkin suggests the reason that these acts of violence began to be more regularly overlooked, disguised and justified was due to the changing attitudes of the West. The Britons in India did not want to be seen as manipulative and evil in the eyes of their domestic citizens.

The exploitation of the native population via the caste system is also interlinked with the use of white violence. Chatterjee, Tharoor and Bailkin all highlight the exacerbation of caste discriminatory behaviour following imperialism and white violence. The British “misinterpreted and oversimplified the features they saw in Indian society” and even “laws had to be translated into terms the British could understand and apply”.[14] This was seen with the homicide charges being divided into two categories - culpable homicide amounting to murder and culpable homicide not amounting to murder - which was another way for white violence to be diminished in impact by suggesting that the killer lacked deadly intentions. [15] This was also extended and used in cases of caste violence and in turn enabled perpetrators in caste violence to evade the one to seven-year sentences. Moreover, culpable homicide was not seen as murder if the offender had necessary reasons for carrying out the violence, which once again allowed the charge to be reduced. Not only was this extremely beneficial for Europeans who were given the option of pleading provocation claims, it also facilitated white settlers in pawning off justice to their higher caste comrades who would, in turn, use this loophole to commit personal justices.[16] The translation of laws had the impact of further benefitting British Europeans, but it also had the indirect impact of worsening caste discrimination and this inadvertently facilitated British rule within India. It gave the British more evidence of India being a divided and backward thinking country.

Ultimately, white violence was instrumental in facilitating British rule in India on multiple levels. Although in later examples, white violence allowed Indians to unite under the common aim of eradicating British rule, earlier examples aided British rule and therefore enabled many years of colonisation. It blatantly embedded fear within the native population yet, it also allowed the judicial system to be built on institutionalised racism where reform could not take place as it would, in turn, to disadvantage the white Europeans. Nevertheless, the treatment of white violence was what really aided British rule within India. By systematically making excuses - apart from a few examples where justice was duly served - and disguising white violence, the gravity of it was diminished, and consequently, brown violence was depicted to be much more fatal and detrimental. Ranging from larger-scale examples to smaller-scale examples, white violence was always excused as being required to maintain order and teach the Indians. In doing so, the British were able to solidify the notion both internationally and within the minds of even many Indians, that Indians were inferior, animalistic and therefore in dire need of a superior power which came in the form of white Europeans. Such a suggestion has left a post-colonial impact in many prior colonies and is the reason for mass racism outside of historical contexts. The treatment that people of colour face in today's society is a direct result of the treatment that people of colour faced from their white counterparts throughout history. Shashi Tharoor discusses the inevitability of such racial discrimination by citing the treatment of the Irish. If the British could segregate Irish people for not being white enough, they would have without a doubt, been inclined to do far worse to darker-skinned Indians.[17] As a result of this, violence was one of many mechanisms used to solidify British rule and - what the British perceived to be - their rights within India.


 

Footnotes

[1] Mohandas K. Gandhi, Indian Home Rule or Hind Swaraj (South Africa: The International Printing Press, 1910), p. 13. [2] Jordanna Bailkin, “The Boot and the Spleen: When Was Murder Possible in British India?”, Comparative Studies in Society and History, 48/2 (2006), p. 464. [3] Partha Chatterjee, The Nation and its Fragments: Colonial and Postcolonial Histories (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1993), p. 20. [4] “J. F. Stephens Ilbert Bill”, Newspapers.com <https://www.newspapers.com/clip/34750532/j-f-stephens-ilbert-bill/> [accessed 7th September 2020]. [5] Chatterjee, The Nation, p. 21. [6] Chatterjee, The Nation, p. 21. [7] Bailkin, “The Boot and the Spleen”, p. 470. [8] Alison Blunt, "Embodying War: British Women And Domestic Defilement In The Indian ‘Mutiny’, 1857–8", Journal Of Historical Geography, 26/3 (2000), p. 403. [9] John Cave-Browne, The Punjab and Delhi in 1857, Vol. 2: Being a Narrative of the Measures by Which the Punjab Was Saved and Delhi Recovered During the Indian Mutiny, (Edinburgh and London: William Blackwood and Sons, 1861), p. 99. [10] Bailkin, “The Boot and the Spleen”, p. 470. [11] Bailkin, “The Boot and the Spleen”, p. 469. [12] David M. Anderson, “Master and Servant in Colonial Kenya, 1895 - 1939”, Journal of African History, 41/3 (2000), p. 459. [13] Bailkin, “The Boot and the Spleen”, p. 465. [14] Shashi Tharoor, Inglorious Empire: What the British did to India (London: Hurst & Company, 2017), p.103. [15] Bailkin, “The Boot and the Spleen”, p. 475. [16] Bailkin, “The Boot and the Spleen”, p. 475. [17] Tharoor, Inglorious Empire, p. 102.


 

Bibliography

Primary Sources:

Cave- Browne, John. The Punjab and Delhi in 1857, Vol. 2: Being a Narrative of the Measures by Which the Punjab Was Saved and Delhi Recovered During the Indian Mutiny. Edinburgh and London: William Blackwood and Sons, 1861

Gandhi, Mohandas K. Indian Home Rule or Hind Swaraj. South Africa: The International Printing Press, 1910

“J. F. Stephens Ilbert Bill”. Newspapers.com <https://www.newspapers.com/clip/34750532/j-f-stephens-ilbert-bill/> [accessed 7th September 2020]

Secondary Sources:

Anderson, David M. “Master and Servant in Colonial Kenya, 1895 - 1939”. Journal of African History. 41/3, 2000

Bailkin, Jordanna. “The Boot and the Spleen: When Was Murder Possible in British India?”. Comparative Studies in Society and History. 48/2, 2006

Blunt, Alison. "Embodying War: British Women And Domestic Defilement In The Indian ‘Mutiny’, 1857–8". Journal Of Historical Geography. 26/3, 2000

Chatterjee, Partha. The Nation and its Fragments: Colonial and Postcolonial Histories. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1993

Tharoor, Shashi. Inglorious Empire: What the British did to India. London: Hurst & Company, 2017

Comments


bottom of page