• Choose a category
• All
• Classic-Fiction

By Root 1084 0

and Conservatives agreed. Britain's great mistake had been “tampering with religion” and “introducing a system foreign to the habits and wishes of the people.” Instead of trying to Christianize India, Conservative statesmen like Disraeli joined with Liberal leaders in proclaiming a new commitment to religious tolerance and noninterference with local customs. (It was then that Queen Victoria issued her famous promise not to “impose [British] convictions” on any of Britain's subjects.) This commitment had the ring of principle, but it also played conveniently into a divide-and-conquer strategy. Nowhere was this clearer than in Britain's post-Mutiny restructuring of the Indian army.31

The Indian army was deliberately reorganized to separate Indians of different regions, backgrounds, and castes into their own companies or regiments. New uniforms were designed to highlight the distinctions among the sepoys’ divergent religious or regional backgrounds. For example, Gurkhas, who tended to identify with the British more than other soldiers, were typically outfitted in Western-tailored rifle-green uniforms, while other sepoys were dressed in loose-fitting pantaloons. In many cases the British actually required their Indian soldiers to don distinctive traditional garb. As numerous historians have pointed out, British officers intentionally fostered a separate Sikh identity, requiring Sikh soldiers to carry their kirpans, or daggers, and to wear their traditional turbans. When Sikh sepoys did not have these accoutrements, the British supplied them; thousands of kirpans were manufactured in Sheffield and shipped overseas. In this way, the British were able not only to honor the diverse customs of their respective regions but also to rigidify and exploit India's internal divisions.

At the same time, British officers took new pains to accommodate native rituals. Hindus were permitted to make sacrifices to the goddess Kali on the eve of battle. Brahmin sepoys were allowed to conduct their lengthy food preparation rites, even at the expense of slowing down a regiment on the march. “Everything should be done to secure the contentment and loyalty of the Native Army by a scrupulous regard for their customs and their religion,” urged Lord Roberts, the commander of the Indian army from 1885-93.

These British accommodations and manipulations were largely effective. “Colonel Sahib has made excellent arrangements and takes great trouble for us Musalmans,” one Muslim soldier wrote during Ramadan. “His arrangements for our food during the fast are very good, and he has put us all together because during the fast it is not easy to live with Sikhs and Dogras. I cannot describe how good his arrangements are.” Similarly, a Sikh soldier expressed his appreciation that, under British protocol, “animals intended for the food of Sikhs [were] slaughtered by a Sikh by a stroke of a sword on the back of the neck, and those intended for Musalmans, by a Musalman in the lawful way, namely by cutting the throat.” A family member of another Sikh sepoy, upon learning that he had been allowed to celebrate the birthday of Guru Sri Nanak, wrote: “Thanks, a thousand thanks, to the Government under whose rule, not only we, but the members of every sect, are able to observe fittingly their holy days. May the Guru ever keep over our heads the shadow of this great King.”32

At the same time, the British made a massive investment in education in India. By 1887, nearly 300,000 Indians were studying English; in 1907 the figure was over 500,000. This Anglo-educated elite, who would later play a central role in India's new nationalist movement, was at least initially deeply committed to the British Empire. Thus Dadabhai Naoroji, the “Grand Old Man” of Indian nationalism, published in 1871 a devastating critique of the Raj, but never argued for independence. On the contrary, he famously defended British rule, arguing that the colonial government was not living up to Britain's own principles of “fair play and justice,” adding, “It is only in British hands that [India's] regeneration